Ecclesiastical History

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.,

§ 1. The most important preliminaries to this study may be conveniently reduced to six heads or topics—1. Definitions. 2. Relations. 3. Uses. 4. Sources. 5. History. 6. Method.

§ 2. The first of these includes the answer to two questions—{a) What is ecclesiastical history ?— (5) How far does it extend?

§ 3. In all such cases it is best to begin with the etymology of terms, when this can be determined without recondite research or fanciful conjecture.

§ 4. The English word history is derived, through the Latin historia, from the Greek iaropia, which, according to its etymology and primary usage, denotes information, knowledge gained by inquiry, with particular reference to matters of fact, and by a further limitation, to events or actual occurrences.

§ 5. This last is the invariable usage of our own word, perhaps with the single exception of the technical phrase "Natural History," in which the term retains its original and wider meaning.

§ 6. Some modern writers make a distinction between Objective and Subjective History, the first denoting the events themselves, the second their recital or exhibition, either viva voce or in writing.

§ 7. When we say that prophecy is verified in history, we use the word in its objective sense; but when we say that the prophecies of Daniel are elucidated by the history of Greece, it is subjective.

§ 8. It is only with subjective history that we are concerned as a science, or a subject of instruction, which may be defined the science of events, or the methodical and rational investigation of what has actually taken place; the methodical or systematic form distinguishing history, properly so called from chronicles or annals, which are mere collections of historical material.

§ 9. History, as thus defined, is necessarily unbounded, and can never be exhausted, since something may be added still to the most copious historical account, even of a day or hour.

§ 10. It follows that all history must be eclectic, in the sense of presupposing or involving a selection from the great mass of accessible materials.

§ 11. The vast field of history may be reduced, without detracting from its value, by the twofold process of (a) Elimination and (J) Division.

§ 12. Elimination, as here used, is the exclusion of some clement, belonging to the subject in its widest definition, but not essential to its practical utility or purpose.

§ 13. We may thus eliminate from history, as a subject of investigation, all that does not relate to the human subject, such as natural history and angelic history, as well as all that relates merely to the individual, and constitutes Biography, so far as this can be distinguished from History, of which it is, in fact, a species.

§ 14. Division differs from Elimination in excluding no entire element of history, but merely one or more of its parts, by an arbitrary or conventional arrangement.

§ 15. Such division may be merely mechanical, as in the case of Ancient and Modern History, which differ not at all in kind, but only in chronology; or rational, as in the case of National History; or that of particular professions, sciences, or doctrines.

§ 16. Among the innumerable possible divisions of General or Uersal History, one of the most obvious and important is the old distinction between Civil and Religious History, the first relating to men's temporal interests and mutual relations, the second to their spiritual interests and relations to their God, which cannot bo entirely divorced, but may predominate in different degrees, so as to give character and name to these two kinds of history.

§ 17. Under the genus of Religious History, the most extensive and important species is the History of the Church, which is indeed almost the same thing, since all the topics of Religious History may be included in Church History, except perhaps the history of personal religion and a few particulars of still less moment.

§ 18. The meaning of the phrase "Church History," or rather its extent of application, will depend upon that of the term "Church," which although absolutely used to mean the Christian Church, as such, admits of a much wider application.

§ 19. The word church has been derived by some from a Celtic root (cyrch or cylch) meaning centre and then rallying-point or rendezvous; but much more probably by most writers from a Greek phrase (oiicLa or iicKXTjala icvpiaicrj) meaning the Lord's House or Congregation.

§ 20. We are concerned with it, however, only as a modern version of a Greek word (iick\aj<r(a) derived from a verb (e/t/caXew) meaning to evoke or call out, but suggesting also the idea of convoking or calling together as an organized body.

§ 21. The Greek noun is applied in the classics to the political or legislative bodies of the Grecian states, particularly Athens; in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, to the congregation of Israel, considered as the chosen people; and in the New Testament, to the same body as reorganized on a Christian basis at the day of Pentecost.

§ 22. The widest application of the phrase "Church History" depends upon the question, how long there has been a body in existence corresponding to the essential definition of eV/eX.7j0"&», i. e. one called out from the mass of men, and called together in a separate society, by divine authority, and for a religious purpose.

§ 23. It is evident from Scripture that such a society existed long before the day of Pentecost, before the Advent of our Lord, before the Babylonish Captivity, the reign of David, the Conquest of Canaan, the Mosaic Legislation, the calling of Abraham, the Uersal Deluge.

§ 24. Its existence may be traced back to the Protevangelium, or first promise of a Saviour (Gen. 3, 15), with the accompanying prophecy of mutual hostility for ages between two great parties, " the seed of the serpent," represented by Satan, and "the seed of the woman," represented by Christ.

§ 25. The fulfilment of this prophecy gives colour or complexion to all history, in which the opposition or antithesis of Church and World can be distinctly traced from age to age, beginning with the contrast between Cain and Abel, followed by that between the posterity of Cain and Seth, until confounded by the impious amalgamation of the " sons of God" and "daughters of men," which led to the general corruption of mankind and their destruction by a deluge; then reappearing in the family of Noah and the line of Shem, made still more marked by the calling of Abraham, to be the father of a separate race, and permanently fixed by the Mosaic legislation, ceremonially distinguishing the chosen people, even externally, from every other, till the Advent of Messiah and the change of dispensations.

§ 26. Since then a church or chosen people has existed in all ages, the idea of church history must be equally extensive, reaching from the Fall of Man, or his ensuing restoration, to the present moment, and this last is a variable fluctuating point, it is continually growing in extent, as every day adds something to the field and the materials of history.

§ 27. The extent of the subject being still unmanageably great, it may be conveniently divided, not by a mechanical and arbitrary process, but on principles arising from its very nature.

§ 28. The primary division is into two great parts, which may be designated Biblical and Ecclesiastical History, the latter comprehending all that is not recorded in the "Word of God.

§ 29. The difference between these two parts is not merely circumstantial, but essential, being thai between inspired and uninspired history; a readymade authoritative record, and one to be constructed from diversified materials by human skill and labour; the one requiring mere interpretation, while the other calls for a dissimilar and far more complicated process. The application of the same mode of treatment to materials so unlike, has always been the cause or the effect of sceptical misgivings, if not of avowed unbelief in the divine authority of Scripture.

§ 30. As an additional facility in study and investigation, Biblical History may be subdivided into that of the Old and that of the New Testament, although the difference is here a circumstantial one, implying no diversity of inspiration or authority, but only one of date, language, and specific form, requiring some diversity of method for the illustration and interpretation of these two great subdivisions of the Sacred History.

§ 31. The three divisions of Church History thus arising (Old Testament, New Testament, and Ecclesiastical), are exceedingly unequal in their chronological dimensions, the first comprising about forty centuries, the third eighteen, the second less than one, but claiming full equality of time and attention, on the ground of its absolute importance, springing from the dignity of its subject, the Life of Christ and the Acts of his Apostles, and on that of its relative importance, as the winding up of the Old Testament History, and the foundation of Ecclesiastical History, without which both would be incomprehensible and worthless.

§ 32. According to these definitions and distinctions, Ecclesiastical History is the third great division of Church History in the widest sense, beginning at the close of the New Testament Canon, or rather of the history which it contains, and reaching to the present time, or stretching indefinitely into the future.

§ 33. The relation of Ecclesiastical History, as thus defined, to Biblical or Sacred History, is not coincident with that between the history of the New and of the Old Dispensation, since a part of both these is contained in the New Testament, the Gospels belonging to the one, and the Acts of the Apostles to the other; so that the limit of the two economics or dispensations does not fall between the Old and New Testament, but between the two historical divisions of the New.

§ 34. This brings us to the second introductory question (see above, § 1), namely, what relations does Ecclesiastical History sustain to other sciences or fields of knowledge?

§ 35. Besides its relation to Biblical History, •which has just been defined, it has points of contact with a multitude of subjects, some of which are so near akin to it, and practically so inseparable from it, that they may be classed together as its cognate or auxiliary sciences. The nearest and most necessary of these helps, to which the name just mentioned has been commonly applied, are three in number: 1, Geography; 2, Chronology; and 3, Archseology.

§ 36. Historical Geography relates to the localities of history, and ascertains the places where events occurred; and is therefore a subordinate auxiliary science, since the interest of the places depends upon that of the events, and not vice versa.

§ 37. The same thing is true of Chronology, the science of dates, as these derive their value from the events, of which they fix the time, and not the events from them.

§ 38. The principal uses of Historical Chronology, so called to distinguish it from that which is merely arithmetical or astronomical, are to solve apparent contradictions, and to determine the mutual relation of events, especially as causes and effects, or antecedents and consequents.

§ 39. That the absolute chronology, i. e. the precise day or even year, of an event, however interesting it may be and worthy of attention when it can be ascertained, is not essential to historical truth or to its beneficial uses, may be seen from the familiar fact, that men not unfrequently forget the exact dates of their own biography, without losing their distinct impression of its principal events in their mutual relations and their true succession; or, to borrow Bossuet's illustration, from the slight effect of the acknowledged error in the Christian era on the history of the last eighteen hundred years.

§ 40. Archceology (from apxaios, ancient), the science of antiquity (hence called by the Latin name Antiquitates), in its widest sense embraces ancient history, as in the Jewish Archaeology of Josephus; but in its technical restricted sense, relates to usages or permanent conditions, as distinguished from events, which always involve change, so that nothing immutable can have a history, and the best times to live in are the worst to write about.

§41. This distinction, being artificial and conventional, cannot be rigidly insisted on, since archaeology and history are partially inclusive of each other, and are always interchanging their materials, events becoming usages by repetition, and permanent conditions being liable to change, and thus continually passing from the field of archaeology to that of history.

§ 42. But even if they could be kept apart, their total separation would be undesirable, since they are necessary to illustrate and complete each other; and accordingly the best historians are disposed to reunite them, by admitting much into their histories which formally belongs to archaeology, as in Macaulay's famous chapter on the change of manners and the mode of life in England, which is one of the most brilliant and instructive portions of his history.

§ 43. Ecclesiastical Antiquities or Archaeology is limited by arbitrary modern usage to the government and worship of the Church in the first six centuries; but recent writers give it more extension, among whom may be mentioned a learned and laborious American scholar (Dr. Lyman Coleman).

§ 44. The moderns, and especially the Germans, are accustomed to distinguish many other auxiliary studies, such as that of Statistics, exhibiting the actual condition of the world, or any of its parts, as to population, industry, wealth, trade, &c, at a given time, in which it differs both from History and Archaeology; Diplomatics, or the art of decyphering and verifying documents; Historical Philology, distinguishing the dialects of different localities and periods; and many others, which it is not necessary to enumerate, as such distinctions, if pursued too far, tend to defeat their own design by comprehending every thing, especially in this case, where the principal subject, that of History, has really so many points of contact with the other provinces of human knowledge. (Vide supra, §35.)

§ 45. In answer to the third preliminary question .—"What are the uses of Church History? For what reason or what purpose, is it to be studied ?— the utility of history in general may be argued from the space which it occupies in Scripture, and from the position assigned to it in the literature of the wisest and most cultivated nations, as well as in every scheme of liberal study, which together may be represented as the testimony or the judgment of the civilized world throughout a course of ages.

§ 46. The maxim that "history is philosophy teaching by examples" has sometimes been abused, by making it the basis of specific prophecies or prognostications, which are usually falsified by the event; but this abuse does not destroy the lawful use of general experience, as a source of correct judgments in relation to the future; just as long practice may be an invaluable guide to the physician, though it does not enable him to predict with certainty the issue even of a single case.

§ 47. Of history in general, and of ecclesiastical history in particular, it may be said, that they illustrate, in an eminent degree, the laws of the divine administration; evince the truth of prophecy by showing its fulfilment; and in due subordination to the study of God's word and of our own hearts, furnish the best school of human nature, although commonly postponed to that of frivolous society and superficial worldly wisdom.

§ 48. In addition to these benefits of all authentic history, that of the church contributes to the demonstration of the truth of Christianity, by contrasting it with every form of error, by recording its triumphs over enemies and obstacles which seemed invincible, and by showing its invariable moral influence where it prevails; all this in spite of human errors and corruptions, not only in the world, but in the church itself.

§ 49. Among the salutary moral influences which have been ascribed to the judicious study of this subject, may be named the elevation and enlargement of the views beyond the petty bounds of personal, sectarian, or local interests; the consequent discouragement of bigotry, and moderation of mere controversial zeal, without impairing men's attachment to the truth itself; and lastly, the suppression of crude innovations, both in theory and practice, by showing that the same, if not in form in substance, have been canvassed and exploded centuries ago. 33ut independently of all utilitarian considerations, authentic history, as well ecclesiastical as general, demands attention on account of its intrinsic value, as a portion of that truth, which is the natural and necessary aliment of mind, and which would be entitled to regard on this ground, if it had no other practical effect whatever.

§ 50. The fourth preliminary question {vide supra, § 1), is, From what sources, or of what materials, is Ecclesiastical - History to be constructed?

§ 51. It may be answered, in the general, first, that according to the very definition above given (§ 29), all the authorities are uninspired; and, secondly, that they are incalculably numerous and endlessly diversified.

§ 52. In order to a more particular and positive solution of this question, the materials and sources of Ecclesiastical History have been divided into two great classes: 1st, Monumental; and, 2d, Documentary.

§ 53. To the first class belong all historical materials or authorities not contained in books, including monuments, not only in the narrow sense of tombs or sepulchres, but in the wide sense of relics or memorials of antiquity, particularly buildings, statues, paintings, medals, coins, inscriptions.

§ 54. Authorities of this class, when extant and accessible, have this advantage, that they are originals; whereas, the oldest books now extant are mere copies of copies.

§ 55. The utility of monumental sources or authorities may be exemplified by the arch of Titus, still standing at Home, with the original carvings, representing the triumph of the conqueror of Jerusalem, from which arc derived our common drawings of the sacred vessels and utensils of the temple, as carried in procession upon that occasion; and also in a less degree by the inscriptions upon ancient Christian tombstones, which are built into the wall of a gallery of the Vatican museum, and by which some light is cast on early customs and conditions of society.

§ 56. In Ecclesiastical History, however, Monumental sources and authorities are neither so abundant nor so valuable as the Documentary, or those contained in books or other writings, whether manuscript or printed.

§ 57. These may again be subdivided into, 1st, Private or Personal; and, 2d, Public or Official.

§ 58. By Public Documents, in this connection, are meant all official acts of public bodies or authorities, having direct or indirect ecclesiastical in- fluenee or jurisdiction.

§ 59. The first place among these is due to the acts of councils, ecumenical or national, who claimed to represent the Church, and in her name decided questions both of discipline and doctrine.

§ 60. Some idea of the vast extent of these materials may be gathered from the fact that besides a collection of these Acts of Councils in four folio volumes, and another in twelve, there is one in eighteen, Odc (the best, that of Mansi) in thirtyone, and one in thirty-seven folios; not to mention smaller works, containing only national or local councils, such as "Wilkin's Concilia Magnse Britannise et Hibernise (4 vols. fob).

§ 61. Another class of these material, inferior in authority, but of great historical value, are the Acts of the Popes, or of the Papal See—the Eegesta— the Corpus Juris Canonici—the Briefs—the Bulls— and the Decretals.

§ 62. To give some idea, as before, of the extent of these materials, it may be stated that, although the Regesta, prior to the close of the twelfth century, are lost, those belonging to the next four centuries are said to be preserved in the Yatican library at Rome, in two thousand folio manuscript volumes, which have never been accessible to Protestants, except in a solitary case, and then to a very limited extent.

§ 63. A third class of public documentary materials are those contained in the archives or records of civil governments in Europe, some of which go back to the old Roman times, and all of which contain ecclesiastical matter, in consequence of the intimate connection between church and state since Constantine.

§ 6i. Still more direct in their bearing on Church History are the collections of Symbolical Books, including Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, and other books of elementary instruction in the doctrines of religion, "which of course afford important aid in tracing theological mutations.

§ 65. Similar light is thrown upon the history of worship, and indirectly upon that of practical religion, by the ancient liturgies, which, far from being uniform and homogeneous, are both numerous and various in a high degree.

§ 66. Of less intrinsic value, but of great historical importance in relation to particular periods, are the rules and statutes of religious bodies, such as the Eegulas, or Constitutions of Monastic orders, which exerted a great influence upon society, and often give the key to circumstances otherwise inexplicable.

§ 67. This is not proposed as an exhaustive catalogue of public documentary materials, but rather as a sample of the most abundant sources, which may serve to convey an imperfect but definite idea of the multitude of such materials, .which exist, and may be used in the construction of Church History.

§ 68. Private Documents include all other writings which can throw light on the history of the Church, and which, in reference to their authority and value as historical materials, may be thrown into three classes.

§ 69. Highest in this respect are contemporary books and papers, whether formally historical, didactic, controversial, practical, devotional, or epistolary, which last are regarded by the best moder n writers as peculiarly important, especially when brought to light long after date, and evidently written without any view to publication; so that the very compositions which are most emphatically personal and private often throw most light on public history, by revealing the true sentiments and secret motives of the leading actors, and are therefore gathered up, deciphered, and edited by learned men, with all the critical exactness that was once applied only to the classics or the Scriptures. A remarkable example is DeWette's edition of Luther's letters, with the various readings of the different manuscripts, a work which throws a vivid light on Luther's character and history, as well as on that of the Reformation. A similar effect, though in a less degree, has been produced upon our own revolutionary history, by extracts from inedited or newly-published private correspondence, exhibited in Irving's Life of "Washington.

§ 70. Next to these in value, as historical authorities, are works of later date, but made of contemporaneous materials, especially when these are no longer in existence or directly accessible, in which case such works are the only succedaneum, imperfect though it be, for what has thus been lost.

§ 71. The third or residuary class includes all elaborations of historical material, not comprehended under either of the others, that is to say, a large proportion of the historical literature extant.

§ 72. This class, though the lowest in historical authority,—which must not be confounded with literary merit, since the finest modern composition may have less weight as a witness than the most uncouth and ungrammatieal contemporary fragment,—ha8 the widest influence upon the general mass of readers, who neither will nor can resort to the original authorities, except by proxy, but for that very reason have the deepest interest in knowing that thenproxies are reliable and speak the truth.

§ 73. We are thus brought to the fifth introductory question (vide supra, % 1), namely, "Who have made use of these materials and brought them into history, and what has been the fruit of their labours?

§ 74. The answer to this question comprises the History, Literature, or Bibliography of Ecclesiastical History.

§ 75. It might have been expected that the early Christian Church would pay great attention to its own history, and bring it to a state of high perfection, as so much attention had been paid to history, both by the classical and sacred writers (§ 45), and the highest models furnished of historiography, as well in Hebrew as in Greek and Latin.

§ 76. But this antecedent probability was so far from being verified by the event, that the first three centuries are almost an entire blank in this respect, few histories having been composed, and of those few none preserved entire.

§ 77. The oldest writer of church history, of whom we have any knowledge, was Hegesippus, a converted Jew of Asia Minor, who, about the middle of the second century, by travelling and otherwise, collected the traditions of the Apostolic Age, now extant only in the shape of fragments and quotations, in the works of later writers.

§ 78. The same may be said of the Chronographia of Julius Africanus, written about a hundred years later.

§ 79. There is no proof that either of these works was a regular historical composition; but, whatever may have been their form or character, they do not seem to have been so much in demand as to secure their preservation, though their disappearance may bo owing to causes wholly independent either of their literary merit or the public taste.

§ 80. This remarkable neglect of Ecclesiastical History, in the very period when it might have been expected most to flourish, has been imputed to the constant persecutions of the age; but this is not a satisfactory solution, as they did not hinder other kinds of intellectual exertion; and as some of the interesting historical documents of that age which have been preserved owe both their existence and their subject to these very sufferings; such as the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, recorded by the church at Smyrna, and that of the persecution in the south of Gaul, by the churches of Lyons and Vienne (§ 498).

§ 81. A better explanation, although still not wholly satisfactory, is, that historical studies were excluded by the general attention to didactic and polemic studies, and especially to philosophical speculation, which, when pushed to an extreme, has always led to the neglect of history.

§ 82. A circumstance which may, at first sight, seem to favour the opinion that persecution was the cause of this neglect is, that the first change for the better took place under Constantine, by whom the church was freed from persecution; but this, if it be more than mere fortuitous coincidence, cannot outweigh the facts just mentioned, as to other forms of intellectual activity.

§ 83. The oldest "Ecclesiastical History," now extant, is the work of Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine, in the early part of the fourth century | the confidential friend and spiritual guide of Constantine; a man of good mind and considerable learning; of so mild a temper, even towards the erring, as to be suspected of agreement with them; familiarly conversant with all the great events and persons of the day, and deriving great advantages as a historian from his free access to the archives of the empire, as well as to the library founded at Cesarea by his friend Pamphilus, from whom he is sometimes called Eusebius Pamphili.

§ 84. Besides his Preparatio Evangel, which is not so much historical as doctrinal, he wrote a Chronicle and an Ecclesiastical History, to which his account of the martyrs of Palestine, and his panegyrical biography of Constantine, may be regarded as appendices. These works, and especially the Ecclesiastical History, are disfigured by a style at once inflated and jejune, and by a method sometimes wholly arbitrary or fortuitous, and sometimes simply chronological, without any attempt at a digested systematic form. Their chief merits are the personal testimony of a witness so competent and credible to the events of his own time, and the preservation of older documents, fragments and quotations, in a manner which detracts from the literary merit of the composition, but enhances its value as a storehouse of materials.

§ 85. The example of Eusebius was not without effect upon his contemporaries, and especially his followers in the next generation, some of whom wrote history chiefly for polemic purposes; as Epiphanius, to whom we are indebted for most of our knowledge of the ancient heresies; and Philostorgius, whose lost work was intended to maintain the Arian cause. Another lost historian of the fourth century is Sidetes, of Pamphylia, described as a copious, but confused and immethodical, writer.

§ 86. The next century produced several continuators of Eusebius, whose history ends with the year 321; among the rest, two lawyers of Byzantium, Socrates and Sozomen, and an eminent bishop, theologian, and interpreter, Theodoret; all of whom cover nearly the same ground, being a little more than a hundred years.

§ 87. In the beginning of the sixth century, Theodoras, of Constantinople, wrote a continuation of Eusebius, which is lost, and an abridgment, which is extant, but of little value. The last Greek continuator of Eusebius, or of his continuators, is Evagrius of Antioch, about the end of the sixth century, who brought down the history until near that time.

§ 88. Hie Latin church-historians of the 6ame age were little more than translators and abridgers of the Greeks. The Historia Sacra of the Gallic Presbyter, Sulpicius Severus, called the Christian Sallust, from his comparatively classic style, and the similar work of the Spaniard, Orosius, are uersal histories, but contain much religious or ecclesiastical matter. Euffin or Rufinus, an Italian translated and continued Eusebius. Casiodorus, an Ostrogoth in Italy, by compilation and abridgment, formed a manual, which, with that just mentioned, remained in use as a text-book through the Middle Ages.

§ 89. During the Middle Ages there are no professed church-historians in Greek before Nicephorus Callisti in the thirteenth century; but much ecclesiastical matter is contained in the Byzantine historians (from the end of the fifth to that of the fifteenth century), as the Greek church was not only united with the state, but much involved in politics and court intrigues.

§ 90. The subjugation of the Western Koman Empire (near the end of the fifth century) by the northern barbarians, was followed immediately by great intellectual depression, and remotely by extreme devotion to scholastic studies, which were equally unfriendly to historical and classical pursuits; so that the medieval histories became mere chronicles or annals, among which two of the most celebrated are those of William of Tyre and Matthew Paris, one relating chiefly to the east, the other to the west of Europe.

§ 91. As exceptions to the general dearth of history in the Middle Ages may be mentioned some who wrote the history of their own national churches; such as Gregory of Tours in France, Beda Venerabilis in England, Paulus DeaconuB in Italy, and Adam of Bremen in the north of Europe.

§ 92. But besides the literary degradation of church-history in this period, it was morally debased by the increase of superstition, and especially that form of it called Hagiolatry, which led to a rivalry between the tutelary saints of different churches, provinces, and nations, to maintain which their biographies not only usurped the place of more important history, but were first embellished, and then forged, which did not prevent their being sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority, as legenda, or lessons to be read in public or private worship, whence our words "legend," "legendary," have become almost synonymous with "fable," "fabulous."

§ 93. The general state of historical knowledge reached its lowest ebb in the age before the Reformation, and was intentionally kept there by the rulers of the church, whose policy it was to represent the existing rites and doctrines as identical with those of the apostolic age; an illusion which would instantly have been dispelled by any clear view of the intervening history.

§ 94. The Revival of Letters, which preceded and prepared the way for the Reformation, or Revival of Religion, gave the first shock to the prevailing ignorance, and by the sceptical criticism of such men as Laurentius "Valla, excited a spirit of inquiry into early history as well as doctrine.

§ 95. This spirit of historical inquiry is related to the Reformation, both as a cause and an effect, having led the way to the correction of abuses, and the restoration of a purer faith and practice, which, in their turn, gave a stronger impulse to this class of studies.

§ 96. All the polemic writings of the great Reformers are so far historical as they demonstrate the corruptions of the Church of Home to be innovations, and contrast them with the simplicity and purity of ancient times; but Luther and Calvin wrote no formal histories, as their associates and successors, Beza and Melancthon did; a circumstance which seems to show, that the importance of Ecclesiastical History as a means of refuting error, and establishing the truth, was more and more appreciated, as the work of Reformation advanced.

§ 97. The first complete Ecclesiastical History was the product of the Lutheran Reformation, although projected after Luther's death, by one of his most zealous disciples, Matthias Flacius called Illyricus, because a native of the ancient Illyricum, a man of strong mind and great learning, and a strenuous opposer of tlie Church of Home, but coarse in taste and violent in temper.

§ 98. To Elacius is due the bold and new conception of a history of the Church upon the largest scale, designed to expose the Romish errors in detail, and trace the progress of corruption from age to age.

§ 99. He had the sagacity to see, that such a work could be successful only in proportion to its fulness and exactness, and to the weight of the authorities on which it rested; as well as that it was "beyond the strength of any one man, and could only be accomplished by associated labour.

§ 100. He therefore devised a well-concerted scheme of organization, consisting of five managers or directors (gubematores), and under them ten labourers (operarii), seven of whom were to collect materials, two to digest them, and the tenth to write them out.

§ 101. The first part or number of this great work appeared at Basel, from the press of Oporinus, in the year 1559, and the last in January, 1574, under the title of " Ilistoria Ecclesiastica, &c," but as Flacius and his chief associates were then resident in Magdeburg, and as the centuries were issued seriatim, it has ever since been known by the name of the " Magdeburg Centuries," and its authors as the " Magdeburg Centuriators."

§ 102. This publication acted as a blaze of light upon the darkness of the age, in which the rays which had already been omitted in particular discussions were concentrated and reduced to a complete and regular historical arrangement.

§ 103. At the same time, it raised ecclesiastical history to a position, which it has ever since retained, especially in Germany, and although it repressed for a time the spirit of original investigation, in a field which seemed to be already exhausted, it eventually gave a new and mighty impulse to such studies, in both divisions of the great Protestant body, exciting Lutherans to continue the good work begun among themselves, and stirring up the Calvinists to emulation.

§ 104. Its effect upon the Church of Koine was still more remarkable, as it led, after various attempts to counteract its influence in other ways, to the preparation of a work of the same kind, designed expressly to refute it, and to establish, by historical evidence, the very system which the Centuries were meant to overthrow.

§ 105. The person chosen for this service was a young Dominican of great ability and learning, Cesar Baronius, who was afterwards rewarded for his labours by the dignity of a Cardinal.

§ 106. The "Annals" of Baronius made its first appearance in the year 1588, and was continued by the same hand till the year 1607, the author having access to additional materials contained in the archives of the Papal See, and other repositories inaccessible to Protestants, (vide svpra, § 62); but while this seemed to give him some exclusive advantages, it also tended to excite suspicion in his own church as well as among Protestants, as to the fidelity with which he had made use of these materials, so carefully withheld from public view.

§ 107. The "Annals," although now extremely rare, have been several times reprinted, with and without Renaud's continuation, bringing them down to the latter part of the sixteenth century.

§ 108. These two great works, themselves the fruit of theological discussion in the age of the Reformation, may be represented as the parents of a vast and varied literature, belonging to the province of Ecclesiastical History.

§ 109. Although the Annals of Baronius were intended to maintain the strictest form of Romish doctrine, the later historiography of that church was chiefly in the hands of its more liberal theologians; such as Fra Paolo (Sarpi), the classical and almost Protestant historian of the Council of Trent, to whom Pallavicino bears the same relation as Baronius to the Magdeburg Centuriators.

§ 110. To the same class may be referred a brilliant constellation of historians belonging to the Gallican or Romish church of France, among whom may be named Morinus, Petavius, Tillemont, R. Simon, Fleury, and Natalis Alexander, whose history was composed in such a 6pirit as to be put upon the Index of forbidden books at Rome.

§ 111. The most elegant and eloquent of these Gallican historians was the famous Bossuet, the most admired preacher and accomplished champion of his church in that age, whose Discourse on Uersal History is not only a French classic of the first rank, but a noble view of the whole field from the highest Christian ground, though not without an eye to the exaltation of his own creed and communion.

§ 112. The Reformed or Calvinistic churches of the seventeenth century furnished many zealous and successful rivals of the great historians of the previous age; but it has been noted as a curious fact, that their researches tended rather to special than to general church history, though Hottinger in Switzerland produced a good work of that kind, while Spanheim and the Basnages in Holland, Daille, Blondel, and Salmasius in France, excelled in cultivating smaller fields.

§ 113. In the same century, the Church of England produced many eminent historical writers, chiefly on special or restricted subjects, among whom may be named as representatives, Archbishop Usher; Bishops Pearson, Beveridge, and Burnet; Doctors Dodwell, Cave, Bull, and Bingham, who is still one of the highest authorities in the department of Ecclesiastical Antiquities, or Christian Archaeology {vide supra, § 43).

§ 114. The tone of church history continued to be controversial or polemic, more especially in Germany, until Calixtus, in the seventeenth century, attempted to introduce a more pacific and dispassionate mode of treating the subject, with a view to the promotion of his favourite scheme of reuniting all Christian churches, on the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of the first six centuries; but the unpopularity of this scheme gave him little influence on contemporary historiography.

§ 115. More success, in this direction, attended the efforts of Spener, the first founder of the Pietists, to moderate polemic rancour, and to make experimental piety the essence of church history, as well as of Christianity itself; while the orthodox Lutherans of the same date, like the Calvinistic writers of an earlier day, spent their strength chiefly upon special subjects, such as the History of the Reformation, as composed by Seckendorf and others.

§ 116. This new mode of writing history was pushed to an extreme by Godfrey Arnold, in the early part of the last century, who allowed his feelings as a Pietist, and therefore an opponent of the Orthodox Lutherans, to govern him so far, that'he espoused the cause of heretics in general, and, without embracing their opinions, undertook to show that they were often, if not always, morally in the right, and the Church, as a body, in the wrong. This work, although it gave rise to a long and angry controversy, was deprived of permanent and popular effect by its paradoxical character and by its harsh and unattractive style.

§ 117. Though Arnold, strictly speaking, had no follower, his very excesses, when contrasted with those of previous writers in the opposite direction, contributed still further to divest Ecclesiastical History of its predominant polemic tone, and to promote a more impartial and dispassionate treatment of the subject; as appears from the tone of the most eminent historians in the first half of the eighteenth century, as well among the Lutherans (such as Buddeus, Fabricius, and "Weismann) as among the Calvinists (such as Jablonsld,Yenema, J. A. Turretin, Lenfant, Beausobre and Le Clerc, or Clericus); and the same thing is measurably true of Romish writers also (such as Orsi and Mansi).

§ 118. The danger now was that the controversial spirit would give place to one of cold indifference as to matters in dispute, even where the writer really adhered to orthodox opinions; and this fear is thought by some to have been realized in the case of the next distinguished writer, who exerted a commanding influence both on contemporaneous and on subsequent historiography, John Laurence Mosheim, who died in 1755, after holding a conspicuous position during many years, at Helmstadt and Gottingen.

§ 119. Besides a multitude of books and tracts on various subjects, chiefly belonging to Church History, he published two, which have never lost their place among the highest secondary or derivative authorities (see § 71); his "Commentaries on the State of Christianity before the time of Constantine," and his "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern ;" both which have been translated into English, and the last of which, though now comparatively little used in Germany, has long been a favourite text-book, botb in England and America.

§ 120. The works of Mosbeim are distinguished, in addition to the absence of all warmth and passion, by a thorough knowledge of the subject, rare acuteness and sagacity in critical conjecture and historical combination; great completeness and exactness as to the essential facts of history; extreme formality and clearness of arrangement, and especially by classical elegance of Latin style, which last attraction is of course wanting, both in the free or rather loose translation of Maclaine, and in the accurate but awkward one of Murdock, who has added to the value of the original, considered as a storehouse of facts, but not to its beauty as a composition by his numerous and often overloaded notes.

§ 121. The influence of Mosheim's better taste and temper may be traced in the German writers who succeeded him, among whom may be named as representatives, Baumgarten, Cramer, PfafF, and the two "Walchs, father and son, several of whom, as well as others not here mentioned, have independent merits of their own.

§ 122. The next important change in historical writing and investigation was occasioned by the rise of German rationalism or neology, of which the reputed father is John Solomon Semler, professor at Halle, who, although educated in the strictest forms of Pietism, and never wholly emancipated from its influence, did more perhaps than any other person to shake the foundations of men's faith in the divine authority of Scripture, by calling everything in question, and suggesting doubts as to the authenticity of almost every book in the Bible, a sceptical criticism which has been earned to still greater length by later writers, in reference both to Scripture and Church History, to which it was applied by Semler himself, not in regular historical compositions, but in various confused, ill-written works, and, still more, through the intermediate agency of pupils and disciples.

§ 123. The sceptical tendency thus introduced into the study of Church History had very different effects on different classes; in frivolous and shallow minds engendering contempt for the whole subject, and producing works of a satirical and scoffing tone, such as those of Spittler and Hcnke; while in minds of greater depth and earnestness, even when destitute of strong faith in the truth of Christianity, it led to a laborious reconstruction of Church History by working up the original materials afresh, and giving them a new shape, either in general works (such as the gigantic one of Schrockh), or special treatises (like those of Planek and Staudlin).

§ 124. To the latter class belongs an extensive literature of recent date, beginning near the close of the last century, and flourishing especially during the first quarter of the present, being one of the good, incidental fruits of the new impulse given to historical research by the sceptical or rationalistic movement, which produced a strong taste and demand for monographs, or thorough and minute investigations of some single doctrine, period, or personage, derived directly from original authorities, and published as a separate and independent work.

§ 125. Besides the interest imparted to many distinct topics of Church History by this detailed and thorough mode of treating them, these monographs were gradually storing up materials for new works of a general and comprehensive character, to fill the chasms or supply the place of those which had appeared before these new researches and accumulations were begun; the very same persons sometimes taking part in both the processes, that is, distinguishing themselves as writers both of monographs and general church histories.

§ 126. The most signal instance of this twofold labour and success is that afforded by Neander, of Jewish birth, but Christian education, a child in spirit and in secular affairs, but in intellect a man, and in learning a giant, for many years an eminent professor at Berlin, where he died in 1850, and now acknowledged to have no superior as a general writer on Church History, but first distinguished, in his early manhood, as the author of invaluable monographs or special treatises on Julian the Apostate, on Tertullian, on Chrysostom, and on Bernard, each of which, besides a full biography, including a large portion of contemporary history, contains a critical analysis of many ancient and important works.

§ 127. At the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the time seemed to be come for the reduction of these new or freshly gathered stores to a complete and systematic whole in general church histories; a crisis indicated by the almost simultaneous commencement of two great works which are still unfinished, but unanimously reckoned, by all competent authorities, to be the two great master-pieces of the age in this department, one by Neander, which appeared in 1825, and the other in the preceding year, by Gieseler, who was already known as a learned and sagacious critic, one of liis ablest compositions being a review of Neander's Tertullian, in which he developed his own theory of Gnosticism.

§ 128. The authors of these two works are as much alike in some points as they are unlike in others, the resemblance lying in their education and • extent of reading, their official positions and professional employments, their integrity and truthfulness, and their use, for the most part, of the same materials, both being thoroughly and equally familiar with the oldest authorities, and the freshest forms into which the raw material had been newly wrought; the difference lying in the calm impartiality of Gieseler as contrasted with the honest and enlightened zeal of Neander; and in the moderate and unimpassioned rationalism of the one, compared with the warm but meagre Christianity of the other.

§ 129. The books themselves are as unlike as their authors, both in plan and execution; Giescler's consisting of an exquisite selection from the very words of the original authorities, arranged as notes and strung together by a slender thread of narrative; Neander's of the very same materials, but digested in his own mind, and wrought up into a flowing homogeneous narrative, exhibiting the express of his character in almost every page and sentence; the one as perfectly objective as the other is subjective in its whole design and structure; the one enabling every reader to construct the history for himself, the other exhibiting it ready-made, but by the hand of a master.

§. 130. The difference just mentioned may account for the fact that Gieseler, although uersally applauded, and implicitly relied upon for facts and for materials, has founded no distinct school, and propagated no peculiar mode of -writing history; "whereas ISfeander has had many professed followers, who hold his principles, adopt his plans, and sometimes even imitate his style and manner.

§ 131. Among the most faithful and yet most independent followers of Neander may be mentioned Guericke, who carries out his master's plan in a more compendious form, but with an almost bigoted attachment to the peculiar doctrines of Luther, and in a style so crabbed and involved as to forbid translation or convenient use in elementary instruction, although it has been eminently useful as a vehicle, not only of the best historical knowledge, but of sincere piety and sound religious principles in all essential points.

§ 132. Another representative of this school is Jacobi, less orthodox and pious than Guericke, but nearer to Neander in sentiment and spirit, and superior to both in clearness and simplicity of style and method, which, together with the fact that his work was suggested and commended to the public by Neander, as the best compendious view of his own system, although far from being a mere abridgment, makes it matter of regret that it has Dot yet gone beyond a single part or volume, extending not quite to the close of the sixth century.

§ 133. As other offshoots of Neander's stock, though very different, in some points, both from him and from each other, may be named Schaff of Mercerburg and Lange of Zurich; but as neither of these writers has yet brought his work below the Apostolic age, they can scarcely be considered as belonging to our present subject.

§ 134. Still more unlike Neander, both in sentiment and method, although evidently nurtured in his school, is Hase of Jena, a man of genius and of cultivated taste, and an original and brilliant writer, but unduly partial to the mere aesthetic and artistical relations of his subject, not so much a believer as an admirer of the Gospel (rather than a believer), and so often obscure from epigrammatic or laconic brevity, and from rather presupposing than detailing facts, that he is scarcely more translatable or fit for elementary instruction than Guericke himself, though otherwise no two writers can be more dissimilar and even opposite.

§ 135. One of the latest and best German writers is John Henry Kurtz, now Professor at Dorpat, but for many years a Gymnasial teacher, which has given him a practical acquaintance with the wants of students, while his thorough knowledge of the Biblical History, on which he is the author of some admirable works, gives him a great advantage over some justly celebrated church historians. His facility and zeal as a maker of books have tempted him to vary their form and multiply their number to excess; but all of them are sound, clear, wholesome in tendency, and admirably suited both to academical and general use.

§ 136. One of the most singular effects of modern German changes in this science is the frequent adoption of the form and method common among Protestants, by Roman Catholic historians, including liberality of tone and abstinence from all polemic violence, but really by that means tending to insinuate their own views more effectually into the minds of unsuspicious readers; while in Italy, and even in France, works of this class still retain the bigoted exclusive form, by which they have always been distinguished from the writings of Reformed theologians. Of the former, Alzog's "Uersal History of the Christian Church " may be taken as a sample; of the latter, S. L'Homond's "History of the Church," as re-written by the Abbe Postel, for the use of schools and families in France.

§ 137. In the British isles, Ecclesiastical History has been chiefly cultivated in the Church of England and the great Uersities of Oxford and Cambridge, or by men instructed there, of late years more or less controlled by German influence, but never without much independent use of the original authorities, and almost always with the rare advantage of general culture, classical scholarship, and a native English style.

§ 138. Near the end of the last century, Joseph Milner, an Anglican clergyman of the evangelical or low-church party, and a man of greater piety and learning than sound judgment, wrote the history of the church until the Reformation, with the avowed purpose of making practical religion.or experimental Christianity the great subject of his work, and passing over all that does not bear upon it, a plan injudicious in itself, and very imperfect in its execution, doing credit to the author's own religious character and sentiments, and generally edifying to 'the' readers of congenial spirit, but, as might have been expected, partial and onesided, and exceedingly imperfect as a full view of the whole subject.

§ 139. Milman, now the Dean of St. Paul's, London, previously well known as a poet, an historian of the Jews, and an editor of Gibbon, has also written a " History of Christianity to the abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire," since continued in his "History of Latin Christianity," extending to Nicolas V., a work distinguished by originality and erudition, an elegant though not an easy style, and free to a great extent from that apparent sympathy with German scepticism or latitudinarianism, with which some of his earlier works had been reproached, but not entitled to the praise of having carried Church History beyond the point where Gieseler and Neander left it.

§ 140. Equally scholarlike and elegant, and still more Christian in their tone, but at the same time still more Anglican in sentiment and prepossession, although free from any thing offensive in pretension or assumption, are the " History of the Christian Church to the Pontificate of Gregory the. Great," by J. C. Robertson, a beneficed clergyman in England, and the "History of the Christian Church during the first three centuries," by J. J. Blunt, late Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, the latter a posthumous collection of the Author's Academical Lectures; the former intended for the use of general readers, as well as of students in theology

§ 141. One of the latest and best English works of this class is the " History of the Christian Church during the Middle Age, and during the Reformation," by the Rev. Charles Hardwick, formerly of Cambridge, then of Harrow, now of King's College, London, the two volumes forming part of a Series of Theological Manuals, for the use of candidates for orders in the Church of England, prepared by several different writers, and now issuing at Cambridge. The two in question show an intimate acquaintance with the modern German literature, as well as the original authorities, soundness on all essential doctrines, avowed attachment to the polity and worship of the author's church, but scrupulous courtesy and candor towards others, with a clearness of method, elegance of style, and beauty of typography not often found in combination.

§ 142. None of these modern English writers on Church History, betray the slightest tendency or tenderness towards Romish error, such as may be traced in the "Ecclesiastical History" of Palmer, one of the Oxford Theologians, republished in America by Bp. "Whittingham, of Maryland, and adapted to parochial instruction. This work, which is a small and slight one, without any pretension to original or independent value, is the only general Church History with which I am acquainted, representing or proceeding from the Puseyite or Romish party in the Church of Engand.

§ 143. The sixth and last introductory topic is that of method, involving two questions, what method has been pursued by the best writers, and what method shall we adopt ourselves; the answer to the second depending in some measure on the answer to the first, as we may profit by the failures as well as the successes of our predecessors, without any annoyance on our part, since by standing on the shoulders of a giant, even a pigmy may see further.

§ 144. By method is hero meant such a distribution or arrangement of a subject as is neither accidental, i. e. determined by causes independent of the writer's will and judgment; nor arbitrary, i. e. determined by his will alone; but rational, i. e. determined by an act of judgment, and for which a reason can be given.

§ 145. Method is essential to all science, even in the widest sense, because it enters into the very definition or idea of science, as rational or systematic knowledge; but is especially important in those sciences which do not rest on demonstration, mathematical or moral, and which do not therefore dictate their own method, as geometry and logic do.

§ 146. The choice of a good method is especially important in historical studies, because there are so many ways in which the same facts may be stated, without any variation from substantial truth, as appears, not only from the usages of historical composition, but also from the usages of common life, no two men commonly adopting the same form or order in relating the most trivial incident.

§ 147. But while this makes the choice of a good method indispensable in all history, there is nothing in the nature of Ecclesiastical History in particular, requiring a method wholly peculiar to itself, by assuming which necessity, historians of the church have not only hindered the progress of their readers, but gratuitously planted a great gulf between this part of history and every other.

§ 148. The rudest and crudest form of historical composition is the anecdotic; in which the materials are arranged at random, or as they come to the historian's knowledge, or occur to his mind in the act of writing.

§ 149. The first step towards a rational method . is the chronological arrangement of events in the order of their occurrence, which distinguishes chronicles or annals, both from anecdotes on one hand, and from history properly so called upon the other.

§ 150. But this step, though essential, is not sufficient of itself, since it does not bring together things which belong together, or have an affinity arising from their very nature; and yet this is the very end of method.

§ 151. The next step towards a rational method is the topical arrangement, or the combination of things mutually similar or akin, whether contemporaneous and successive or not.

§ 152. But neither is this sufficient of itself , without regard to chronological order, because this order is essential to history, and if neglected, the materials, however well arranged as topics, become wholly confused, or lose their historical character and bearing.

§ 153. These two methods therefore—and there seems to be no other not reducible to these—are both essential, not apart but together, and must be combined in order to produce a history; and as this combination may exist in different proportions and be exhibited in various shapes, it still remains a question how it may be best effected.

§ 154. In answering this question, great use may be made of previous experience, or the history of the efforts which have been made to solve this problem. (See § 143.)

§ 155. In tracing this history, however, we need not go very far back, since the use of method, properly so called in Ecclesiastical History, is a matter of comparatively recent date.

§ 156. The ancient writers of Ecclesiastical History seldom rise above the simple chronological arrangement, and are often wholly arbitrary or fortuitous in their arrangement, as may be seen from the example of Eusebius and his followers.

§ 157. The first genuine attempt at the solution of this problem was made by the Magdeburg Centuriators, who exhibit for the first time, a combined chronological and topical arrangement on the largest scale. (See §§ 97-101.)

§ 158. The chronical arrangement of this great work is by centuries, for which the singular reason is assigned, that there is really a cycle or complete revolution of events in every hundred years; a theory never, perhaps, generally current, or long since exploded.

§ 159. The topical arrangement under each century consists of fifteen heads or rubrics, with a prefatory summary or general view, making sixteen in all—viz.: 1. General view. 2. Extent of the church. 3. Its external condition. 4. Doctrines. 5. Heresies. 6. Kites. 7. Polity. 8. Schisms. 9. Councils. 10. Bishops and Doctors. 11. Heretics. 12. Martyrs. 13. Miracles. 14. Jews. 15. Other religions. 16. Political changes affecting the condition of the church.

§ 160. The fourth category, that of doctrine, is subdivided into more than fifty heads, the mere titles of which fill eleven folio columns, and constitute the framework of a body of divinity, as full

and methodical as that of Tertullian.

§ 161. The extent and minuteness of this topic shows or confirms, what is certain otherwise, that the immediate purpose of this great work was polemical or controversial; to promote which, great minuteness of specification was required, in order to assail the Church of Rome at as many salient points as possible.

§ 162. It appears from the preface or prospectus of the work, prefixed to the first Century, that the method was not framed by induction from a detailed survey of the materials, but constructed a priori, as a framework, in or under which the materials, when collected, were to be digested.

§ 163. It appears from the same preface, and from an inspection of the work itself, that this provisional arrangement was originally framed with reference to the early centuries, though afterwards extended, for the sake of uniformity, to all the others, without any change whatever, so that under each, down to the thirteenth, we find the rubric of miracles long after they had ceased, and that of martyrs when there were no persecutions, except so far as the historians were tempted to admit factitious or imaginary miracles and martyrs, for - the very sake of filling up their pigeon-holes or niches.

§ 1G4. The three facts stated in the last three paragraphs suffice to show that the arrangement of the Centuries, though admirably suited to a temporary purpose, was neither suited nor intended to be made perpetual, but is expressly represented by its authors as a first draught in an untried field, admitting and requiring subsequent amendment.

§ 165. And yet this cumbersome and complicated system has given character to subsequent historiography, especially in Germany, the later changes being not of principle, but form, and all contributing together to give this part of history a character peculiar to itself, and to divorce it from all others.

§ 106. The real merit of the plan of the Centuriators is its adaptation to its immediate purpose, and its convenience, even now, as a book: of reference in polemic theology, arising from the fulness and minuteness of its subdivisions, aided by a very complete index to each Century.

§ 167. But however useful when referred to as a dictionary, it was made almost useless as a book to be continuously read, by the very circumstances just referred to, and by the dispersion of facts belonging to the same subject under different anddistaut heads; e. g. the history of an important heresy might be divided between No. 4 (doctrine), No. 5 (heresies), No. 8 (schisms), No. 9 (councils), No. 10 (bishops and doctors), No. 11 (heretics), and No. 15 (civil or political events, which would include the action of the government in all its changes).

§ 168. The influence of this great work on method was naturally less in other churches, and we find accordingly some Komish writers adopting a much simpler plan, such as the biographical arrangement of Tillemont, who groups all incidents, as far as possible, around certain names or persons; an arrangement highly useful in imparting life and individual interest to dry details, and, therefore, often revived since, among the rest, by Rudelbach and Bohringer of late years, but defective as a form of general history, because some topics cannot be reduced to it without an artificial violence, sufficient to condemn it as an aid to the understanding or the memory.

§ 169. But besides these foreign variations, changes became necessary in the mode of treating Ecclesiastical History, even in Germany, and in the Lutheran church, required by the gradual decline of the old controversial spirit, or rather by the new forms in which it revealed itself, as well as by a gradual change, if not improvement, in the public taste.

§ 170. This change of method was almost insensible, and spread through many generations, but may be said to have attained its first development and elimination in the Institutiones of Mosheim. (See §§ 118-120).

§ 171. This change, however, though apparently so great, is not so much a change of principle as of detail aud outward form, consisting in the simplification of what was complex, and the embellishment of what was rugged and -uncouth, without departing from the essential features of the older methods.

§ 172. He retains the centurial arrangement, not as founded in the nature of things (see § 158), but as commonly preferred and uersally familiar, and improves it by distributing the centuries in four groups, which may be regarded as the form of the modern periodologies.

§ 173. In his topical method he retains the rubrical arrangement, but reduces the number of divisions, and adopts a more symmetrical adjustment, throwing the whole under the two heads of External and Internal History, dividing the former into Prosperous and Adverse changes; the first including all additions to the area of Christianity, and friendlyrelations to the state and to society; the latter all contractions of the field by conquest, persecution, or apostasy; while under the internal head he groups, 1st, the history of learning, education, and philosophy; 2d, Church government and teachers; 3d, theology, didactic, biblical, polemic, moral; 4th, rites and ceremonies; 5th, heresies and schisms.

§ 174. That this is really the old Magdeburg method, in a somewhat improved shape, is evident not only from its very form, but from its practical effects, as we still have heresies and heretics, doctrine and doctors, theologians and theology, divided from each other in a very artificial inconvenient manner, so that the author is compelled in some parts of his work to abandon his own method as unmanageable, even by himself.

§ 175. It was not to be expected that the new impulse given to historical inquiry by the sceptical criticism (§§ 122-124), would leave the method of ecclesiastical historiography unchanged; and accordingly we find new methods multiplying very fast within the last half century.

§ 176. But what is truly strange is that the Germans, even in the act of making all things new, should have retained the rubrical arrangement, at least in its essential principle, and made a thorough change only in the chronological arrangement of the subject.

§ 177. This change consists in discarding the centurial arrangement altogether, as a framework of the history, and substituting periods of unequal length, determined by important points or epochs, without any reference to the centuries at all.

§ 178. The only change in the topical arrangement is a formal one, consisting in a further improvement upon Mosheim's plan in point of clearness and simplicity, and the reduction of the heads to the smallest possible number that can be reconciled with the rubrical principle at all, which principle is still retained and rigorously carried out.

§ 179. These modern methods vary from each other in detail, but the essential type is that afforded by Neander, who reduces all the topics to four heads or classes: 1. The enlargement and contraction of the area of Christendom, including its relations to the state and to society. 2. Its organization, government, and discipline. 3. Its doctrines, controversies, heresies, and theologians. 4. Christian life, including worship, with its rites and forms, and practical religion as exemplified in the lives of its professors. The most important topic added by some modern church historians is that of Art as auxiliary to religion, including Poetry, Music, Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture, so far as they have been enlisted in the sendee of the church.

§ 180. This latest form of ecclesiastical historiography appears to be regarded as the ultimatum of improvement, not only by the Germans who invented it, but by their imitators and disciples elsewhere, who sometimes apologize for using a less scientific and more popular arrangement, like that employed in secular or general history; as if this resemblance were a necessary evil, and not the greatest possible advantage, and the strongest recommendation of the method which exhibits it. (Quote as an example the last paragraph of Eobertson's preface.)

§ 181. It may, therefore, seem presumptuous, without any such apology, to question the perfection of this modern and fashionable system, so far as it is really a new one, by objecting, not (only) to its details, but to its principle, and more especially to its beginning at the wrong end in its process of improvement, retaining the rubrical arrangement notwithstanding its acknowledged inconveniences, and making a thorough alteration only in the chronical arrangement, which "was far less objectionable and defective.

§ 182. The objection made by this school to the old centurial arrangement is that it is arbitrary and mechanical; a singular contrast to the doctrine of the Magdeburg Centuriators, who supposed it to be founded in the nature of the subject and the providential laws which govern the succession of events (§ 158), a doctrine which however was abandoned (if it ever had been current) by, or before, Mosheim. (§172.)

§ 183. The fact alleged may be admitted, but with two qualifications, which materially influence its force as an objection; first, that as all chronological divisions are expedients to assist the memory, not arising necessarily from something in the nature of the subject, but the fruit of "art and man's device ;" however rational and well-contrived, their being contrived at all subjects them to the charge of being arbitrary, and to some degree mechanical or formal.

§ 184. The second qualifying circumstance is really included in the first, but may be separately stated, namely, that the same charge lies against the very methods of division and arrangement which it is proposed to substitute for the centurial; since every periodology that has ever been proposed is, after all, an artificial framework, which requires some effort of the understanding to insert it in its proper place, and still more effort of the memory to keep it there.

§ 185. Sometimes this vague charge is made more specific, by alleging that the centurial arrangement absurdly presupposes all the various series of events, and sequences of causes and effects, to be simultaneuosly wound up at the end of every hundred years; wbereas the threads are of unequal length, and while one falls short of the century another overruns into the next.

§ 186. But besides the false reproach thus cast upon the old arrangement, which (except in the case of the Magdeburg Centuriators) purports to be only an approximation and a practical convenience (§§ 172-182), this plausible objection quietly ignores the fact, that the very same thing may be said with equal truth, though not true to the same extent, of every periodical arrangement that can be imagined; for, however nearly such divisions may approach to trie ideal standard, it will not be seriously alleged that any of them has succeeded in making all the threads of history coincident in their commencement and their termination, so that nothing overruns the mark or falls short of it.

§ 187. That this is peculiarly the case with the centuries, as being more numerous and uniform, is true; but this difference of degree may be outweighed by peculiar advantages of other kinds; such as perfect uniformity of length, requiring no repeated effort of the understanding or the memory to retain or to recall them; and their uersal use, not only making them still more familiar, but maintaining the connection between this and other kinds of history, which all peculiar methods tend to weaken and destroy.

§ 188. Another qualifying circumstance in favour of the old arrangement is, that even those who are most zealous for the Periods, and against the Centuries, are after all obliged to make the latter the substratum of their own plans, not only by referring particular events to such and such a century, but by ascribing to whole centuries, as such, a definite distinctive character; so that instead of superseding the old method by a new and better one, they often spoil both by confounding and entangling them together.

§ 189. All this would be true if the modern German school had succeeded in uniting upon some one scheme or system of great periods to supersede the centuries; but how much more when the results are so endlessly diversified, that there seems ground to fear that the process of invention will defeat itself, by making all points salient and every notable event an epoch.

§ 190. JSTor is it merely the diversity and number of the modern periodical arrangements that detracts from their utility, but also their exclusive character, when made the framework of a general church history; in consequence of which, he who follows Gieseler's method cannot make use of JSTeander's, even in the way of reference, without trouble and confusion, 6ince the same event which stands at the beginning of a period in one, may stand at the conclusion of a different period, in another; to say nothing of the general dislocation and distortion which result from the comparison or simultaneous use of methods so unlike and so exclusive of each other.

§ 191. While these objections may be made to the entire change introduced into the chronical arrangement of Church History by the modern German school, there are others, of a very different nature, to the partial change effected in the topical or rubrical arrangement, over and above the general objection which has been already stated (§ 181), that it is a partial change and not a total one.

§ 192. The essence of the rubrical arrangement, common to the earliest and latest German churchhistorians, is the practice of pursuing every topic, whether there be few or many, through the whole of every period, whether long or short, and then beginning with the next until the schedule is completed, the divisions and the titles being absolutely uniform in every case.

§ 193. To this essential feature of the system invented by the Magdeburg Centuriators, and adhered to even by their harshest critics, notwithstanding endless variations in detail, and vast improvements in simplicity and symmetry of form, there are various objections, which may however be reduced to three, drawn from History, Analogy, and Experience.

§ 194. The historical objection to the rubrical arrangement, as above described (§ 192), is that it originated with the Magdeburg Centuriators, and •was generated in the violent polemic fermentations of that age, a genesis which raises a presumption adverse to its permanent utility, since every age must have its own mode of assailing error and defending truth, even when the truth and error are unchanged, and since the world has long ceased to regard Church History as a mere offensive weapon or defensive armour in religious warfare.

§ 195. If this objection be well founded, the mere formal changes which have been made in the rubrical arrangement, however valuable in themselves or in relation to some other standard, do not remove the ground of the objection, since an increase of simplicity and symmetry detracts from the original efficiency of this contrivance, which arose in a large measure from the very features which are thus removed, without relieving its defects and inconveniences, considered as a means to other ends.

§ 196. But as the origin of this plan could afford no good reason for condemning and rejecting it, if in itself good, an additional objection may be drawn from the analogy of history and historiography in general, to wit, that the method now in question is peculiar to Church History (except so far as its example affected the practice of the secular historians), having never been found necessary or expedient by historians of any other class or period, ancient or modern, sacred or profane; a circumstance not only very strong, as a presumptive proof, at least, that it is equally unnecessary elsewhere, but a key to the otherwise inexplicable difference of form and method, between this one kind of history and every other. (§ 147.)

§ 197. Even this peculiarity of form, however, would be quite as insufficient as its mere historical extraction, to condemn the method, if it were not open to the practical objection, that instead of exciting greater interest in this important study, it has seemed to make it less attractive, and instead of aiding the memory, which some have made a reason for adopting it, has tantalized and weakened it, by endless repetition of the same monotonous and lifeless forms under which the actual variety of history is lost or hidden, like soldiers in a uniform, or mummers in a masquerade.

§ 198. One fact may be considered certain, however it may be explained, to wit, that no such method, or at least no such extensive and detailed application of it, would be tolerated in any field of history where a less artificial arrangement has become familiar; as, for instance, in the history of" the American and French Revolutions, or, what is nearly the same thing, the lives of Washington and Bonaparte, in writing which, although the materials are so abundant and the phases or aspects of the subject so diversified, the thought of dividing the whole matter into periods, and then going through or over each in several successive journeys, first collecting all the military facts, then the political, and then the personal or private, has happily never occurred to any of the eminent historians, by whom these two great themes have been successively handled, from Marshall to Irving, and from Scott to Thiers.

§ 199. On the strength of these considerations, drawn from history, analogy, and practical effects, it may not be unlawful, after all, to attempt another movement in advance, by improving, if possible, on both parts of the method now in vogue, to wit, its Chronological and Topical arrangement; especially as this change is proposed, at least in the first instance, only as a limited experiment, confined, both in its good and bad effects, to the classes of a single institution, and indeed to the instructions of a single teacher.

§ 200. With respect to the Topical part of the system, the proposed change is to set aside the rubrical arrangement altogether, as a framework running through the history and determining its whole form, and to substitute a natural arrangement of the topics, by combining a general chronological order with a due regard to the mutual relative importance of the topics themselves; so that what is prominent at one time may be wholly in the background at another, instead of giving all an equal prominence at all times, by applying the same scheme or formula to all alike.

§ 201. This natural method, so called to distinguish it from every artificial or conventional arrangement, far from being new, is recommended by the practice and example of the best historians in every language and in every age; affording a presumptive, if not a conclusive, proof both of its theoretical consistency and of its practical efficiency and usefulness, and at the same time a convenient means of keeping this and other parts of uersal history in mutual connection and agreement with each other.

§ 202. With respect to the Chronical division and arrangement, the change proposed is neither to add one more to the exclusive schemes already extant, nor to retain any one of them exclusively of all the rest, but simply to avail ourselves of all of them, so far as they can be combined, both as intrinsically valuable aids in historical study, and as a means of making all the most important systems of Church History alike and simultaneously available.

§ 203. In order to accomplish this design, the chronological arrangement must be, as far as possible, separated from topical details; so that instead of two conflicting methods crossing each other, and dividing the whole subject upon different and often inconsistent principles, there may be still two methods, and the same two, but distinctly and successively presented, not promiscuously mingled, both in the foundation and the superstructure of the history, considered as a building, but the one (the chronological division) underlying the other (the topical division), as a basis underlies the superstructure; or, to use another architectural analogy, the one affording, as a framework, both the space and the form into which the other, as material, is to be arranged and built.

§ 204. This idea can be realized, if realized at all, only by taking two successive views or surveys of the whole field; one more general, the other more particular; one conducted on a chronical, the other on a topical arrangement; or in other words, by making the chronological division of the subject introductory, and prior to the topical details, which may then be treated in the form and order which experience may indicate as most convenient, without any subdivision or restriction, except such as may be suggested by the nature, or the subject, or the taste and inclination of the writer.

§ 205. The two modes of division and arrangement being thus retained, but sundered, we obtain not only an exemption from the irksome and injurious necessity of breaking oft in the examination of a topic because some imaginary line is reached, and must not be overleaped till every other topic has been brought up to the same mark, but also the opportunity of placing side by side as many chronological arrangements as we please, not only to compare them once for all, but to retain them and employ them, both as aids in the study of the subject, and as keys to the respective systems which they represent, and of which they are constituent elements or component parts.

§ 206. The difference between the method here proposed, and that which it is meant to supersede, may be illustrated by the actual division of a literal field or tract of land by a system of walls aud ditches, which of course excludes every other system of the same kind, since the combination of the two, and still more of many, would cut up the supposed field into irregular and useless parts; whereas any number of such systems may be drawn on paper, or even marked upon the surface of the ground, without interference or collision, and perhaps with great facilities of mutual comparison and combination.

§ 207. It is proposed then to divide the course of history before us into two unequal parts, the first and lesser part consisting of a general survey of the whole field, and of the various ways in which it has been or may be divided and subdivided, distributed and arranged, for the purpose of a more detailed examination; the second and larger part containing this detailed examination itself, in the natural order of its topics, unrestricted by the previous chronological divisions, but with all the advantage of assuming and referring to them, as a means of fixing dates, and of comparing the positions occupied by any given topic or event in different schemes or systems of Church Histoiy.

§ 208. The first of these surveys, although the least thorough and extensive, derives great relative importance from the use which we propose to make of it, as the foundation or the framework of the other, the completeness and success of which must therefore be dependent, in a great degree, upon the clearness and precision of this introductory and general view.

§ 209. The confusion and complexity which must arise from an attempt to look at various periodologies at once, may be avoided by surveying them successively and seriatim, just as the face of any country may be studied, with the aid of skeleton or outline maps, by confining the attention first to one physical feature, such as mountains, with the natural divisions which they form or mark out, then proceeding to another, such as streams and water-courses; then superadding the political distinctions and designations; or as one previously familiar with all these, may use a railway map of the same region without difficulty or confusion.

§ 210. But in order to pursue this gradual process with advantage, it is important to begin right, i. e. not with what is complex and obscure, which would defeat the end at once, but with that which is comparatively simple, i. e. exhibiting the smallest number of dividing lines and consequent divisions, so that from these we may proceed almost insensibly to those of a more minute and complex character.

§ 211. Another most desirable condition, if attainable, in such a primary division of the subject, is that it be not only simple in itself, but familiar from extensive use and general application.

§ 212. If these two qualities could only be had separately and apart, it might be hard to choose between a simple method little known, and one more complex but extensively familiar.

§ 213. By a happy coincidence, however, both conditions may be said to meet in one mode of arranging and distributing Church History, to wit, the division into three great periods, the Ancient, Middle, and Moder n Ages.

§ 214. The simplicity of this mode speaks for itself, while its previous and general familiarity appears in the first instance, from its use in common parlance and in general usage, which have few expressions more familiar than that of "Middle Ages," implying both the others; and then from its adoption by all modern church historians, either tacitly and indirectly, as by Mosheim, Gieseler, and Neander, or avowedly and formally, as by Guerickc, Hase, [Niedner], Kurtz, and Schaff.

§ 215. The. reality and usefulness of these divisions are entirely independent of precision in their boundaries; as the latter may be variable and doubtful, while the former are self-evident and palpable; just as a surveyor, before running a line or measuring a foot, may obtain, from an elevated point in the tract to be surveyed, a perfectly distinct impression of its principal features,—water, woodland, meadow, tillage,—not only in themselves, but in their relative position and general comparative extent; or as the student of ancient geography may learn as much as can be known, or need be known, as to the relative position of the tribes of Israel, and the states of Greece, without any bounding lines at all, which can only be assigned by guess; as the modern geographer or politician readily distinguishes between the northern, eastern, middle, southern, western States of the American Union, though the lines of demarcation may be variously drawn; as no man doubts the real difference between childhood, youth, maturity, and old age; or between morning, evening, twilight, night; or between the seasons of the year; although he cannot positively draw the line or fix the point where any one of these divisions ceases and the next begins.

§ 216. The conclusion to be drawn from these analogies is, that even if we were without any definite boundaries whatever between these three great divisions of the field of history, the divisions themselves might be distinctly marked and usefully employed, the difference lying not in the edges, but the central map, or rather in the whole extent, as the prismatic colours of the rainbow may be perfectly distinguishable, although they appear to fade into each other by a vanishing and almost imperceptible transition.

§ 217. Hie case however is not really so bad as we have here assumed, there being a tolerably well defined limit, especially between the Middle Ages and the Modern, which are uersally agreed to be divided by the Reformation, excepting only some extreme ultramontane Papists, such as Postel (§ 136), who makes the Reformation a mere subdivision in one of his great periods, extending from the fall of the Greek Empire to the close of the Council of Trent. (§ 317.)

§ 218. There is less unanimity in reference to the boundary between the First and Middle Ages, because the transition there is not effected by a great revolution (religious, intellectual, and social), which is always definite in date, because sudden in its outbreak, however long its causes may have been in operation; but by a plurality of changes which reached their height, or attained maturity at different, although not at distant, points of time, just as different fruits ripen in succession, and yet all belong to the same season; so that by making one or another of these changes prominent, we gain a somewhat different line of demarcation.

§ 219. Although, for reasons which have just been stated (§§ 215, 216), it is not absolutely necessary to decide between these various boundaries, it may be well to gain a general knowledge of them, by beginning with extremes, i. e. with the earliest and latest limits of the Ancient period, which have been proposed, and then proceeding to the intermediate lines, or those which have been drawn between them.

§ 220. The earliest limits which have been assigned to the Ancient Period or First Age of Church History are, the beginning of the fourth century (Thiele), when persecution ceased, and the church became united with the state; and the close of the same century, when the empire was finally divided into two, and about to be flooded with, barbarians (Koeppen), both which make the First Age too short in proportion to the others for any practical purpose. Nearly coincident with this is Milman's ancient period, to the abolition of paganism in the empire.

§ 221. The latest limit -which has been assigned to the same period is the close of the tenth century, the period of the greatest darkness and the most extreme depression; but this is open to an opposite objection.

§ 222. Midway between these two extremes is the close of the seventh century, after the sixth oecumenical council, which 6eems to have been independently selected as the boundary by several historians of very different schools, such as Alzog (§ 136), Kurtz (§ 135), and Palmer (§ 142), who assigns as a reason, that the equilibrium was now disturbed, the heresies being no longer counterbalanced by the " holy oecumenical councils," nor the losses of the church at home by gains abroad.

§ 223. On either side of this mean line two others have been drawn, which arc still more extensively adopted ; first, the end of the sixth century, regarded by many of the older writers as the close of the ancient period and of the series of Church Fathers, and substantially adopted by Neander and his school, because the hierarchy was there complete in the person of the first pope, Gregory the Great. (Guericke, Jacobi, Schaff, Robertson, Hawkins.)

§ 224. Hase, and Kurtz in his earlier works, draw the line at the close of the eighth century, when the centre of gravity was transferred from the Roman to the German side, as represented by Charlemagne and his successors. (Mosheim, "Waddington, Lindner, Friek.)

§ 225. Amidst these variations as to precise boundaries, it still remains true that the three great periods are distinct and distinguishable; and while the choice seems to lie between the last two lines, it may be well to retain both, as distinct but compatible divisions, and to look rather at the great characteristic feature, than at the precise bounds of the periods in question.

§ 226. As an aid to the memory, more useful than agreeable to good taste, the three great Periods or Ages may be designated by single words as the periods of Formation, Deformation, and Reformation, or perhaps in better English, as the Forming, Deforming, and Reforming periods, a nomenclature not merely arbitrary, but founded on the mutual relations of the periods, since Reformation implies previous Corruption, and Corruption original formation.

§ 227. But as every period Las more than one face or aspect, and cannot therefore be exhaustively described in one word, the tliree ages may be more precisely though less pointedly distinguished as (I.) the period of Formation and Discipline (not ecclesiastical, but providential); (II.) the period of Consolidation and Corruption (or Petrifaction and Putrefaction), the cessation of activity, however brilliant in appearance (like the reign of Solomon compared with that of David), often coinciding with incipient corruption; (III.) the period of Reformation and Division, the same principle which wrought the one, tending, when pushed to an extreme, to work the other.

§ 228. It would be easy to multiply descriptions of the three great periods or ages, founded upon partial views, and more especially on single aspects of their relative condition, some of which are ingenious and just in theory, though not always practically useful or available.

§ 229. Such is Schaff's description of the first age as that in which the subjective and objective, or the individual and aggregate, constituents of all church history, were held in equilibrio, or kept in due proportion to each other, not so much by a deliberate and conscious effort, as by providential causes; and when these ceased to operate, one of the elements became predominant, and brought to view a new phase of the history.

§ 230. Thus in the Middle Ages, the objective was predominant, the right of private judgment and the sense of personal responsibility being merged in the authority and absolving power of the Church (which is the fatal spell of popery, entirely independent of her ceremonies and external form); while in the third, or present period, the scales are reversed, and the subjective is preponderant, the right of private judgment and the sense of personal responsibility having (among Protestants) almost entirely superseded the authority of the Church.

§ 231. From these vicissitudes already realized, the author ingeniously prognosticates a fourth age, yet to come, in which the equilibrium shall be restored and afterwards maintained, not, as in the first age, by accident or special divine interposition, but by conscious co-operation of the Church itself, enlightened by its previous experience.

§ 232. Entirely different in form and principle, but equally ingenious and one-sided, is the ethnological distinction last proposed by Kurtz, and resting on the theory of three successive forms of civilization, through which the Church is to pass, the Oriental (or Jewish), the Classical or (Greco-Roman), and the Modern (or Germanic in the wide sense of the term including Anglo-Saxon); the first form corresponding to the Old Testament history and the beginning of the Apostolical; the second reaching to the close of the eighth century; and the third belonging to the Modern Ages, the Middle Ages being the transition from the Greco-Roman to the Germanic form of civilization, under which there • are included intellectual culture and social condi

tion.

§ 233. As no one of these partial and one-sided views of the difference between the three great periods is sufficient of itself to represent them to the mind, it may be well to combine the truth involved in them with what we know besides as to the character of these three ages, in a general description.

§ 234. The first great feature of the Ancient Period is the rapid simultaneous extension of the Church, and propagation of the gospel, in various directions, but with an impetus decreasing as we draw near to the Middle Ages.

§ 235. Another is the long-continued state of persecution, followed by relief, patronage, establish

ment or union with the state, and finally enslavement by it and subjection to it.

§ 236. A third characteristic is the gradual expansion and development of church-organization, with an accompanying effort after outward unity, which seems at the close of the first age to be attained, by the consummation of the monarchical development in the primacy of Rome, or the commencement of the papal power, under Gregory the Great.

§ 237. A fourth feature of the Ancient Church is its conflict with error, first in the open and avowed hostility of Judaism and Heathenism, and then in the more covert and insidious enmity of heresies, arising from the mixture of various forms of error with Christianity itself, leading, before the end of this first age, to the discussion and settlement of all the most essential doctrines on their present basis.

§ 238. The last characteristic of the First Age, is the absence of a fixed law or type of Christian experience, there being ample proof that personal religion did exist and flourish, but with a freedom and variety of inner life peculiar to the times, including many eccentricities and aberrations, not without some tokens of incipient corruption.

§ 239. The first great negative distinction of the Middle Age is this, that it originated nothing good, but only evil, .while both good and bad things of an older date were still continued, although seldom without some exaggeration or corruption.

§ 240. The unity which seemed to be secured by the erection of the papal see, begins immediately to be dissolved by means of the Great Schism between East and "West.

§ 241. The theological or doctrinal distinction of the Middle Age, is the vast expenditure of thought and labor on the mere elaboration of results already gained in new and strange forms, more especially the mystic and scholastic, and the tendency to give these forms a stereotype or petrified rigidity, which, far from lessening or conciliating heresy and error, made them more numerous and desperate than ever.

§ 242. The worst peculiarity of this age is the vast increase of superstition in its various forms, with its invariable accompaniment, moral depravation, both of theory and practice.

§ 243. Its only redeeming or consolatory feature is the under-current of determined opposition to these evils, the reformatory tendency or movement, running through the Middle Ages, never entirely wanting, although varying in strength and clearness, sometimes appearing even in the dominant authorities, at others only among those who were regarded as opponents and directors, if not formally condemned as heretics and schismatics.

§ 244. The first great feature of the Third or Modern Age is the reaction against these great evils, the secession of a large part of the Latin Church, and the assertion of the right of private judgment, with a more or less complete return to apostolical simplicity and purity, all which is summed up in the word Reformation.

§ 245. Another feature not to be neglected, is the influence exerted by this great reaction on the residuary church itself for good and evil, for good in the correction of some errors and abuses, for evil in the aggravation and perpetuation of others.

§ 246. The theology of this age, as distinguished from that of the two others, is learned and critical, with tendencies to scepticism, more or less determined.

§ 247. In addition to the old division of the Greek and Latin Church, and the new division of the latter introduced by the Reformation, this period is characterized by further subdivisions, such as that of the Protestant body into Lutheran and Calvinistic; and of these parts into others, by secession, disruption, or excision.

§ 248. Besides this tendency to subdivision, springing from the use or abuse of the right of private judgment, within the pale of Christianity itself, the third age is distinguished by a rank growth of heresies, both old and new, and by a singular variety of anti-Christian errors, or new forms of infidelity, disowning the authority of Scripture, and abandoning the Christian name.

§ 249. An intermediate division between that of the Centuries and that of the Three Ages, may be obtained by grouping the former, so as at the same time to divide the latter, not by arbitrary lines, but by discriminating things that really differ

§ 250. Thus the Early Age, or Ancient History, may be equally divided, supposing it to consist of six centuries (§ 223), by a line drawn at the close of the third century; the first half differing from the second as a period of persecution from one of establishment; as a period of rapid from one of slower propagation; as a period during which the church was working off heretical admixtures, from one in which it was positively settling the great doctrines of religion.

§ 251. The seventh and eighth centuries maybe regarded as a kind of debatable or neutral ground, like a lane, or narrow strip of litigated land between two farms, which may be added to either without materially affecting any thing but its extent.

§ 252. The divisions of the Middle Ages are not so obvious, but a definite basis for them is afforded by the extreme depression of the Church in the 10th century, and by the premonitions of the Reformation in the 14th and 15th.

§ 253. Upon this basis, the Middle Ages may be divided into three unequal parts; the first including centuries VII.—X. (or, according to Hase and Kurtz IX.—.X) during which there was a gradual decline from the position of the ancient Church to its lowest condition in the 10th century; the second including centuries XI.—XIII., during which there was a rise, but in a different direction, a new kind of activity and life, and during which the great peculiar movements of the Age, the Papacy, Scholasticism, Monachism, reached their height and full development; the third including centuries XIV.—XV., during which these same great interests declined, and the reformatory tendency grew proportionally strong and visible. Though the Last or Modern Age comprises only three and a half centuries, each of which has a character or aspect of its own, it may still be divided into two larger portions, each of which has a distinctive character; the first consisting of the 16th and 17th, and characterized by the Reformation and its positive effects, both on the Protestant and TTnreformed churches; the other consisting of the 18th and 19th, and characterized by the more negative effects of the same causes. (See below, §§ 273, 274.)

§ 254. Besides all these divisions, it is well to have some characteristic features of each century associated with it in the memory, the points selected being few in number, and, as far as possible, peculiar to the periods with which they are connected.

§ 255. As a mnemonic aid, some use may be made of the Latin nomenclature commonly ascribed to Cave (§ 113), and more or less modified by later writers, viz., 1. Seculum Apostolicum. 2. Gnosticum. 3. Novatianum (v. Cypriarmm). 4. Ariamim. 5. Nestorianum (Pelagiarum, v. Augustinianum). 6. Entychianum. 7. Monothleticum (v. Muhammedanicum). 8. Iconoclasticum. 9. Photianum (v. Obscurum). 10. Obscurum (v. Tenebrioscum). 11. Hildebrandicum. 12. "Waldense. 13. Scholasticum. 11. "Wiclifianum. 15. Synodale. 16. Reformatum.

§ 256. In characterizing the first century more particularly, due regard must be bad to its unique position, as the period of transition* from an old to a new world, from tbe Jewish to the Christian Church, and from Biblical to Ecclesiastical History, only the smaller part of it belonging strictly to the latter, while the whole may be divided into three nearly equal parts, or into the ministries* of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, of Peter and Paul, and of the Apostle John; with the additional associated names of Nero and Domitian as persecutors, and of Simon Magus and Cerinthus as Heresiarchs.

§ 257. The second century presents the opening of the great twofold conflict of the Church, intellectual and physical, with persecution and brute force

on one hand, on the other with Judaism and Heathenism as open enemies, and with heresies arising from their fusion or amalgamation with Christian doctrine; both which conflicts may be associated with the names of Trajan and the Antonines as persecutors; Marcus Aurelius and Celsus as heathen opponents of the truth; Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin, as martyrs; the latter also representing the Christian Apologists or champions of the truth against its heathen enemies, and the Christian Philosophers, or Platonizing theologians, whose excesses partly caused the Gnostic heresies, of which the great opponent was Tertullian, though himself involved in the very different error of the Montanists.

§ 258. The third century is marked by its disciplinary schisms, represented by Novatian; its Catholicism, represented by Cyprian; its Greek or Alexandrian theology and learning represented by Origen, who was also the most eminent opponent of the Monenchian heresies, to which may be added Manicheeism, as a doctrinal feature of the age.

§ 259. The fourth century is marked by the end of persecution under Constantine; the end of paganism under Theodosius; the division of the empire between his sons; the first and second general councils, occasioned by the Arian and Semiarian heresies, of which the chief opponents were Athanasius and the three Cappadocian doctors (Basil and the Gregories), who also favoured and contributed to propagate the new system of ascetic and monastic life.

§ 260. As prominent features of the fifth century may be named the Pelagian, Nestorian, and Eutychian heresies; the third and fourth oecumenical councils, at which they were condemned; Chrysostom, the greatest preacher, Augustin, the greatest theologian; and Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the age; the downfall of the western Roman empire; and the conversion of the Franks to Christianity.

§ 261. In the sixth century the series of controversies and of councils is continued by the Monophysite error and the fifth oecumenical council; while additional landmarks are afforded by the legislation and the conquests of Justinian, and by the full development of the hierarchy, in the foundation of the papal power under Gregory the First (or Great).

§ 262. The series of ancient doctrinal controversies closes with that of the Monothelites, and the

series of ancient councils with the Sixth, and the Quinisextum; but a more important feature of the age is the rise and progress of Mahometanism.

§ 263. This new religion made still further progress in the eight century by the Moorish conquest of Spain, but was repelled from France by Charles Martel, whose son, Charlemagne, revived the Western Empire, and laid the foundation of the temporal power of the Pope by his donations; while the Germans were brought within the pale of the Church chiefly by the labours of Boniface, thence called their Apostle.

§ 264. In the ninth century, the new pretensions of the Papal See were fortified by forged decretals, under the auspices of Nicolas I., who, also, interfered in the eastern strife detween Photius and Ignatius, and thus contributed to the great schism; while the western church was agitated by the predestinarian controversy begun by Godescalcus, and the broaching of the doctrine of transubstantiation by Paschasius Eadbert; the reformatory tendency being represented by Claudius of Turin.

§ 265. The 10th century is the lowest depression of the Church at large, and of the papacy in particular, which was a mere slave of political parties; so that we have to look for great names to the world, such as Otho the Great in Germany, and Hugh Capet, the founder of a new dynasty in France; a degradation only partially redeemed by the monastic organization of Clngny, and the nominal conversion of the Scandinavian and Sclavonian races.

§ 266. The 11th century opens with a general panic in relation to the end of the world, followed by a general reaction; and with a partial restoration of the papacy by Gabert or Sylvester II.; followed by some signs of intellectual life in the Berengarian controversy; which is connected, in its turn, with the rise of Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory YIL, the founder of the papal theocracy, who carried it out in theory, and in practice as far as he was suffered by the violent resistance of the German Emperors, particularly Henry I"V\

§ 267. The 12th century is marked, on one hand, by its chivalry, crusades, and military orders; on the other, by the conflict between mysticism and rationalism, represented by Bernard and Abelard; the first development of scholastic theology, represented by the " Sentences" of Peter Lombard; and a new reformatory movement, represented by Peter Waldo, the reputed founder qf the Waldenses; while the new pretensions of the Papacy were manfully sustained by Alexander III.

§ 268. In the 13th century, all the great medieval interests were carried to their height; the Papal Power by Innocent III.; the Scholastic Theology by Thomas Aquinas; the Monastic Organization by St. Francis and St. Dominic; with the last of whom, or his immediate successors, we may associate the Inquisition.

§ 269. In the 14th century begins the decline of the scholastic theology, with a corresponding rise of mysticism; the end of the Papal Theocracy with Boniface VIII., followed by the Babylonish Captivity and Papal schism; the rise of a vernacular literature in Italy, connected with the great names of Dante and Petrarch; and a powerful attempt at reformation made by Wiclif and the Lollards.

§ 270. In the 15th century, the same work is continued or renewed in Bohemia by John Huss and Jerome of Prague; in France, by the Reforming School of Paris; and in the church at large, by the great Reforming Councils, but without immediate success, although the great end was, more or less, promoted by certain secular events, such as the end of the Greek Empire, the Revival of Letters, the Invention of Printing, and the Discovery of America.

§ 271. The great feature of the 16th century is the Reformation, in its two main branches, German and Swiss, together with its introduction into various countries; whether temporary, as in Spain and Italy; or partial, as in France, Hungary, and Southern Germany; or permanent, as in Northern Germany, Holland, England, Scotland; or exclusive, as in Sweden and Denmark; while in the Unreformed Church, the great features are the Organization of the Jesuits and the Council of Trent.

§ 272. The 17th century is marked by the consolidation of the Protestant churches both in creed and discipline; the religious war of Thirty Years, which ended in the establishment of Protestant rights at the Peace of "Westphalia; the Great Rebellion, Commonwealth, and English Revolution, and the introduction of the church into America by colonization.

§ 273. The 18th century may be characterized as a period of revival, revolution, and reaction, the prominent traits of which are Pietism, Moravianism, Methodism, English Deism, French

Philosophy, and German Rationalism; the great Revolutions of America and France.

§ 274. The 6ame features may be traced, through the first half of the 19th century, in the rise and fall of Napoleon; the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire by the Greek Revolution, and of the Spanish Empire by that of Mexico and South America; the second and third French revolutions, and the one now going on in China; the disruption of the Scotch and several American churches; the rise of Unitarianism, Uersalism, Irvingism, Puseyism, Socialism, Communism, Mormonism, Spiritualism; while the great redeeming feature of the age is the frequent and extensive revival of religion, and the great benevolent movement in the Protestant churches for the circulation of the Scriptures, and diffusion of religious knowledge, reformation of morals, and eventual conversion of the world, by missionary enterprises, comprehending in their scope Pagans, Mahometans, Jews, and those living under the corrupted forms of Christianity.

§ 275. The centurial and other chronological arrangements, which proceed upon the principle of uniform conventional divisions, have been superseded, in the modem schools of ecclesiastical historiography, by periodologies, or schemes made up of periods, defined, without regard to length or uniformity, by epochs, i. e. turning points or critical junctures, "where the current of events, or tide of history, reaches the high-water mark, and the reflux or ebb begins.

§ 276. If the tide or current, to pursue this figure, were a single one, or if the many currents reached their height at once, it would be easy to adopt one general and comprehensive periodology; but as the high tide of one stream or coast is not necessarily or always that of every other, so the crises of history may be variously chosen, and the exercise of this choice by the modern writers, has led to a great diversity of periodologies, or actual arrangements founded on this principle.

§ 277. The exclusive use of any one of these not only makes the others unavailable, but deprives us of the positive advantages attending their comparative or joint use, which are chiefly two; first, increased facility in reading or referring to the words in which they are embodied; and secondly, the aid which they afford in choosing epochs for ourselves, by showing what events have been pointed out as such by eminent historians.

§ 278. In selecting from a multitude of periodologies, devised in modern times, especially in Germany, our choice may be guided by several distinct considerations, such as the celebrity or eminence of the inventor, the extensive use of the arrangement by others, and its intrinsic convenience or utility.

§ 279. When thus selected, they may be arranged for actual comparison, to most advantage, in the order of their dates, as this enables us to trace the gradual process by which they grew out of and improved upon each other.

§ 280. It will be sufficient for our present purpose to confine our view, at least in the first instance, to the periodologies of Gieseler, Neander, Guericke (Jacobi), Hase, Kurtz, and Schaff, as fairly representing the improved modern methods, and affording us the use of what is really most valuable in them all.

§ 281. Among these, Gieseler is entitled to precedence, not only as one of the most eminent, but also as the oldest; for although he speaks of the periodological method as already generally introduced, and of its actual results as already very various, it is easy to perceive from his own arrange

ment, that the previous attempts were comparatively rude and unsuccessful.

§ 282. In order to illustrate and exemplify the process by which all periodologies are framed, it may be well to give a more particular description of the one proposed by Gieseler, than will be necessary in the case of any other, as the principle and modus operandi are substantially the same in all.

§ 283. As a preliminary fact of some importance, it may here be stated, that the modern periodologies vary from each other as to the terminus a quo or starting point of Ecclesiastical History; some going back to the Apostolic Age, or to the Life of Christ, and even beyond his birth; while others begin at the close of the New Testament history, e. g. Neander, who has treated the Evangelical and Apostolical History in independent works. On this account, the terminus a quern will be considered as a variable line or point, and only stated where it is essential to the completeness or the symmetry of the arrangement.

§ 284. The periodology of Gieseler is determined by the choice of three great turning points or junctures, which he designates as primary epochs :—I. The sole reign of Oonstantine, without a rival or a colleague, from the year 324. II. The outbreak of the Iconoclastic or Image Controversy in the year 726. III. The Reformation, from Luther's first public acts as a Reformer, in the year 1517.

§ 285. Before and between these primary epochs, Gieseler assumes others, of less prominence, but still distinctly marked, in his opinion, as salient points and critical junctures. These are eight in number, equally distributed among the intervals already marked out by the others.

§ 286. Anterior to the first great epoch, the sole reign of Constantino, the minor or intermediate points are the accession of the Emperor Adrian (A. D. 117), and that of Septimius Severus (193). Between the first and second (the Iconoclastic controversy), he assumes, as secondary epochs, the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the Monothelite controversy, with the contemporaneous rise of the Mahometan religion (622). Between the second and third (the Reformation), his subsidiary epochs are the Pontificate of Nicolas I., and the Pseudodecretals forged with his conance (858), and the transfer of the Papal See from Rome to Avignon (1035). Between his third grand epoch and his own time, he assumes, as intermediate points, the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and the fall of JSTapoleon (1814).

§ 287. By the major and minor epochs thus assumed, the whole field, is divided into four great periods, and each of these subdivided into three others, making twelve in al]

§ 288. Gieseler's first great period extends from the beginning of the subject to the sole reign of Constantine (324); his second to the outbreak of the Image controversy (726); bis third to the Reformation (1517); his fourth to the date of his last volume (1848).

§ 289. The first subdivision of his first great period ends with Adrian (117); the second with Septimius Severus (193); the third with Constantine (324).

§ 290. The first subdivision of his second great period ends with the Council of Chalcedon (451); the second with Mahomet (622); the third with the Iconoclasts (726).

§ 291. The first subdivision of his third great period ends with Nicolas I. (858); the second with the transfer of the Papal See to Avignon (1305); the third with the Reformation (1517).

§ 292. The first subdivision of his fourth great period ends with the peace of "Westphalia (1648); the second with the fall of Napoleon (1814); the third with his own times (1848).

§ 293. These subdivisions may be also arranged in a continued series, with some advantage to the eye and memory. 1. To Adrian (117). 2. To Septimius Severus (193). 3. To Constantine (324). 4. To the Council of Chalcedon (451). 5. To Mahomet (622). 6. To the Iconoclasts (726). 7. To Nicolas I. (858). 8. To the transfer of the Papal See (1305). 9. To the Reformation (1517). 10. To the Peace of Westphalia (1648). 11. To the fall of Napoleon (1814). 12. To our own times (1848).

§ 294. This periodology bears upon its face sufficient indications of its being an early, although not a first, attempt at such arrangements; so that it has met with little currency among later writers, either as a whole, or with respect to some of its particular distinctions and divisions.

§ 295. Specific faults, which have been charged upon it, are the excessive number of its subdivisions, and the arbitrary character of some of his distinctions; for example, the selection of the Image Controversy as one of his great epochs, although less important in its general historical relations than some others which might have been selected; and the same objection has been made to several of his subdivisions, for example, to the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth. (§ 293.)

§ 296. Few if any of these criticisms can be made upon Meander's Periodology, which greatly excels Gieseler's in simplicity and symmetry, as well as in the choice of the particular divisions; whether this superiority arises from his having designedly improved upon his predecessor, or, which is made more probable by the remarkable diversity between them, from an independent exercise of taste and judgment.

§ 297. Instead of Gieseler's four great periods and twelve subdivisions, Neander assumes six great periods, without any (chronological) subdivisions. His first period reaches to the end of the Diocletian Persecution, on the accession of Constantine the Great (A. D. 312); the second to the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590); the third to the death of Charlemagne (814); the fourth to Hildebrand or Gregory VII. (1073); the fifth to Boniface TILL (1294); the sixth to Luther or the Reformation (1517).

§ 298. Guericke, one of Neander's most faithful followers (§ 131), adopts his periods, completes them by adding, as a seventh, from the Reformation to the date of his own last edition (1846), and groups the seven in three Ages, the first instance known to me of this arrangement. (§§ 213, 214).

§ 299. Guericke's division into Ages is unequal and irregular, assigning two of Neander's periods to the first Age, four to the second, and making the third co-extensive with the seventh period, added by himself.

§ 300. The same division into Ages is adopted by Neander's other follower and condenser, Jacobi, and the same subdivision of the first or Early Age, beyond which his published work has not yet gone. (§ 132.)

§ 301. The next periodology, in point of time, is that of Hase, originally published a year after Guericke's, agreeing with it in the general distribution, but exhibiting a great improvement on it in simplicity and symmetry, as might have been expected from the tastes and habits of the author, who appears to care at least as much for manner as for matter, for the form as for the substance, of Church History. (§ 133.)

§ 302. Hase, like Guericke, divides the whole into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Church History, but takes as the dividing line between the first and second, not the end of the sixth century, or the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590), but the institution of the German or new Western Empire by the coronation of Charlemagne (800). (See § 224.)

§ 303. Each of his ages or great periods is divided into two by a single intermediate epoch; the first by Constantino (312); the second by Innocent III. (1216); the third by the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

§ 301. This periodology of Ilase is adopted, with a slight modification, by another popular historian, Kurtz (§ 135), who, in his earlier and smaller works, down to the last edition (1856), divides into the same three Ages, bnt as a line of subdivision in the second, for the death of Innocent III. (1216), substitutes the accession of Boniface VIII. (1294), an epoch belonging to the same century, but marking another stage in the progress of the papacy, and probably adopted for the sake of a closer assimilation to Neander's method. (§ 297.)

§ 305. In Kurtz's larger work, which is not yet finished, he adopts a different arrangement, founded on the theory of three civilizations (§ 232), according to which the work, so far as it has yet been published, and so far as it relates to Ecclesiastical History in the strict sense (§ 32), is divided into two great Phases, so called, and not Periods or Ages, because not entirely successive but to some extent collateral or parallel, and therefore properly described as Phases, or partly contemporary aspects of the same objective matter.

§ 306. The first Phase, according to this scheme, is the developement of Christianity under the ancient classic form of civilization, from the end of the Apostolic Age to the downfall of the Eastern or Greek Empire (1453). The second Phase is its developement under the medieval or Germanic form of civilization, from the fourth to the fifteeth century inclusive.

§ 307. Each of these Phases is chronologically subdivided by two minor or intermediate lines; the first by the end of the Diocletian persecution (312), and by that of the series of ancient councils (692); the second by the close of the ninth and twelfth centuries respectively.

§ 308. The most finished of these modern periodologi.es, because combining the advantages and shunning the defects of those which preceded it, is that of Schaff, in which the general arrangement is the same with that of Kurtz and Hase, and the subdivision no less symmetrical in form, while in fulness of detail it is neither so minute as Gieseler nor so meagre as Hase.

§ 309. Schaff divides the whole into three Ages: I. The Primitive or Grseco-Latin Church, from Pen. tecost to Gregory the Great (590). II. The Medieval Church, or Romano-Germanic Catholicism, from Gregory the Great to Luther (1517). HI. The Modern or Evangelical Protestant Church, in conflict with the Church of Rome, from Luther to our own time (1853).

§ 310. Each of these Ages he divides into three periods; the first into the period of the Apostolical church until the death of John (100); that of the Persecuted Church to Constantine (311); and that of the Established Church of the Grseco-Roman Empire, to Gregory the Great (590).

§ 311. The second he divides into the Rise of the Middle Age, or the planting of the church among the Germanic races, till the appearance of Hildebrand (1049); the Height of the Middle Age (Papacy, Monachism, Scholasticism, Mysticism), to Boniface VIII. (1303); and the decline of the Middle Age, and preparation for approaching changes, until Luther (1517).

§ 312. The third he divides into the period of the Reformation, or Productive Protestantism and Reacting Romanism (century XVI.); that of Orthodox-confessional and scholastic Protestantism, in conflict with ultramontane Jesuitism and semiProtestant Jansenism (to the middle of century XVILT.); and that of negative subjective Protestantism—Rationalism and Sectarianism—with premonitions of a new or fourth age (to the middle of the 19th century).

§ 313. These smaller periods, like those of Gieseler (§ 293), may be also arranged in a continued series: 1. To the death of John (100). 2. To Constantino (311). 3. To Gregory the Great (590). 4. To Hildebrand (1049). 5. To Boniface VIII. (1294). 6. To Luther (1517). 7. To the end of the 16th century. 8. To the middle of the 18th. 9. To the middle of the 19th.

§ 314. "With these select periodologies, when thoroughly mastered and familiar, it may be improving to compare some others, in a more rapid, and less thorough manner, for the purpose of observing both their general agreement, and the points, whether great or small, in which they differ.

§ 315. Engelhardt assumes five great epochs, I. The conversion of Constantine, and consequent establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire. XI. The rise of Mahometanism, and consequent contraction of the Church, particularly in the East. III. The reaction of the West against this hostile power in the Crusades, and the elevation of the hierarchy to a monarchy. TV. The Reformation, as the beginning of a new ago and a thorough change throughout the Church. "V. The securing of the civil rights of Protestants, in the Peace of Westphalia as a condition of their free developement.

§ 316. With these epochs he defines six periods: 1. From Christ to Constantine (625). 2. From Constantine to Mahomet (600). 3. From Mahomet to Gregory VII. (1073). 4. From Gregory to Luther (1517). 5. From the Reformation to the Peace of "Westphalia (1648). 6. From the Peace of Westphalia to his own time (1830).

§ 317. The simplest periodology is that of Thiele, who assumes the three divisions which are

common to almost all arrangements: I. From Christ to Constantine. II. From Constantine to Luther. III. From Luther to his own time (1840).

§ 318. Lobegott Lange has five periods, corresponding to as many stages in the progress of the hierarchy. The first extends to the Council of Nice (325); the second to the developement of the Romish monocratical hierarchy, under Gregory the Great (590); the third to its completion under Gregory the Seventh (in the last third of the eleventh century); the fourth to its decline and fall in many states of Europe at the Reformation (in the first third of the sixteenth century); the fifth from the Reformation to his own time (1846).

§ 319. Two of these periods are subdivided: the first into (1) the period of Primitive Christianity (Urchristenthum) until the developement of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and (2) the interval between that and the developement of the Aristocratical Hierarchy; the fourth into the (1) Decline and (2) Fall of the Romish Monocratic Hierarchy.

§ 320. Niedner, one of the most profound and accurate modern German Church Historians, but, at the same time, one of the most obscure and intricate, adopts the division into three great periods or Ages, but terminates the first in the middle of the eighth century, and the second at the end of the 15th; subdividing the three ages very unequally, the first, besides the Apostolical and earlier history, into (1) the conflict with Graeco-Roman heathenism (second and third centuries), (2) with oriental heathenism (fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries); (3) with Islam and Heathendom in the East and West (seventh and eighth centuries); the Second or Middle Age into the Foundation of the Medieval Church (from the middle of the eighth to the middle of the 11th century), its completion (from the middle of the 11th to the end of the 13th), and its decline (during the llth and 15th); the Hiird or Modern Age into (1) the Reformation, or the conflict of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (during the 16th century); (2) the Ecclesiastical and Doctrinal developement of both (to the middle of the 18th century); (3) the scientific and sceptical developement of Protestantism (to the middle of the 19th century).

§ 321. Lindner, a younger writer of great merit, assumes three Ages, the first being that of the developement of Christianity in the Grajco-Roman form (during the first eight centuries); the second the strife of the Graeco-Roman and Germanic civilization (during the next seven centuries); the third the triumph of Germanic culture in the Keformation (during the last three centuries).

§ 322. He divides each age into two smaller periods, and characterizes each of these, first "politically," then "dogmatically ;" his first period, extending to 311, being that of the church under heathen persecution, and employed in excluding the Judaic and heathen element from its theology; the second, extending to 814, that of its establishment and ultimate subjection to the state.

§ 323. In the Middle Ages, his first period, extending to 1294, is that of the subjection of the state to the church, and of the civil to the canon law, and also that of the scholastic reproduction of theology, together with the first signs of reaction and reformatory movement; his second period, extending to 1517, is that of the emancipation of the state from the thraldom of the hierarchy, and the developement of nationalities, and also that of conflict between the Roman and Germanic mind in doctrinal discussion, with still clearer marks of a reforming tendency.

§ 324. In the third Age, Lindner's first division, extending to 1648, is the period of Protestant triumph over Popish oppression, but subjection to the Protestant state, and of purified doctrine in conflict -with. Roman stiffness and enthusiastic laxity; his second period is that of pietistical reaction against church and state, and effort after free organization, together with the conflict of the true doctrine with the extreme forms of pietism and rationalism.

§ 325. Fricke retains the usual distinction of three Ages, but terminates the first at Charlemagne's original accession to the throne (768), and describes it as comprising the rise of Christianity till the settlement of the great doctrines and of the constitution in the form of papal monarchy; the second as the period or age of doctrinal stagnation and of papal usurpation, with opposition and reaction, both in church and state; the third as the age of advancing freedom and political security, popish reaction and revival, Protestant orthodox rigidity, and general effort after peace and union not yet realized.

§ 326. The German Roman Catholic Church historian Abzog (§ 136) also adopts the favourite division into three Ages and six periods, the first age being that of the Church in the Grseco-Roman Empire, and comprising the first seven centuries; the second that of the Church in the Germanic and Slavonic races, from the fourth to the 15th cen

tury, inclusive; the third from the ""Western Schism," as he calls the Reformation, to the present time. The first age he divides, as usual, by Constantine (313); the second he divides by the accession of Gregory VII. (1073), and subdivides by the death of Charlemagne (814), and Boniface VIII. (1303); the third age he divides by the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

§ 327. Very different from this, and evidently calculated for the meridian of France not Germany, is the periodology of the ultramontane French historian Postel (§ 136), who assumes eleven periods, 1. From Christ to Constantino (313). 2. To the fall of the Western Empire (476). 3. To Mahomet (622.) 4. To the death of Charlemagne (814). 5. To the first crusade (1095). 6. To the death of St. Louis (1270). 7. To the fall of the Eastern Empire (1453). 8. To the close of the Council of Trent (1563), including the Reformation (§ 217). 9. To the death of Louis XIV. (1715). 10. To the elevation of Pius VII. (1800). 11. To the elevation of Pius IX. (1846).

§ 328. Of the recent English writers on Church History (§ 141), Hardwick treats only of the Middle Ages and the Reformation; Blunt of the first three centuries; Bobertson of the first six, which he divides like ISTeander, whose periods are also adopted by Waddington. (§ 140.)

§ 329. Somewhat different is the periodology of Palmer (§ 142), though he likewise assumes five great periods without subdivision: I. That of the Pure and Persecuted Church (to 320). II. That of Heresies and Holy CEcumenical Councils (to 680). HI. That of Ignorance, "Worldliness, and Superstition, with pious reaction and extensive conversions (to 1054). IV. That of Schism between the East and West, and of the height and decline of the Papal usurpation (to 1517). "V. That of Reformation and Resistance, Schism and Infidelity (to 1839).

§ 330. The periodology of JMilman (§ 139), is confused by extreme minuteness and by complication with a topical arrangement, so that it is not easily compared with those already mentioned, but deserves attention, not only on account of his general celebrity, but as a key to his two important works upon Church History.

§ 331. Milman's first work (§ 139) extends from the birth of Christ to the abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire, and is divided into books and chapters, partly on a chronical and partly on a topical method. His second work, the History of Latin Christianity, extends to the Pontificate of Nicolas V. and is divided by the author into fourteen Periods, as he calls them, although some of them are not strictly Periods but Topics.

§ 332. The first of these "Periods" extends to the Pontificate of Damasus and his two successors (366-401); the second to Leo the Great (461); the third to the death of Gregory the Great (604); the fourth to the coronation of Charlemagne (800); the fifth to the end of his dynasty (996); the sixth includes the series of German Pontiffs (1061); the seventh that of Italian Pontiffs, beginning with Gregory VII. (1073); the eighth the strife about investiture (during the 12th century); the ninth the height of the Papacy, to the formation of the Canon Law, under Gregory IX. (1238); the tenth the conflict of the Popes and Emperors (to the death of Innocent IY. 1254); the eleventh the triumph of the Papacy until broken under Boniface VIII. (who died 1303); the twelfth the Babylonian Captivity till 1370; the thirteenth the Papal schism, the reforming councils, and attempts at union with the Greeks; the fourteenth medieval art and revival of letters. A concluding topic is the advance of reformation and the rivalry of Latin and Teutonic Christianity.

§ 333. From the definition previously given (§ 275) of the periodological arrangement, it will be seen that it makes use of epochs only to define its periods, as the surveyor plants his stakes for the purpose of his measurements or observations, and .when these are finished, removes or leaves them, which he would not if the stakes had an intrinsic value, or were useful for another purpose.

§ 334. Now the epochs used in framing periodologies are also valuable in themselves, or independently of this use, as salient and turning points in history, to know which is a wide step towards the knowledge of the history itself, but to select which the beginner is incompetent, unless assisted by the judgment of the best historians, as expressed in the selection of particular epochs as the basis or the framework of their periodologies.

§ 335. In order to apply them to this use, it will be found a salutary exercise to separate them from the periodologies of which they form a part, especially when this is done, not by mere transcription or dictation, but by the personal exertions of the individual student, to encourage which the following suggestions are presented, drawn from personal experience.

§ 330. Let all the epochs be collected from as many distinct periodologies as may be thought desirable, for instance from the twenty which have been described in the preceding paragraphs (§§ 284 -332) or from the six selected specimens first stated, and placed in a continued series, without reference to their position in the several periodological arrangements.

§ 337. Then let this aggregate or gross amount be reduced by eliminating all that does not properly fall under the description of an epoch, as for instance when a century, or half a century, its first third, or its last third, are employed as periodological distinctions, these being not real epochs, but expedients borrowed from the old centurial method.

§ 338. Let the list thus shortened be reduced still further by consolidating dates which really represent one epoch—such as the six dates in the reign of Constantine, his accession (311), his decrees of toleration (312, 313), the beginning of his sole reign (323, 324), and the first (Ecumenical Council (325); or the two dates in the life of Gregory the Great, his accession (590) and his death (604); or the corresponding points in the history of Boniface YIII. (1294 and 1303); or the three in that of Charlemagne, his original accession (768), his coronation as Emperor (800), and his death (814); or the two in that of Gregory VII., his original appearance (1049), and his election to the Papacy (1073); or the two dates assigned to the beginning of the Reformation (the beginning of the century and the year 1517).

§ 339. The epochs thus reduced in number, may be then distributed by centuries, not as a permanent arrangement, but for the purpose of observing the difference between the centuries, as to the frequency or paucity of critical or turning points, some having none in the preceding periodologies (viz. the 1st, 3d, and 12th), some only one (viz. the 6th, 10th, and 17th), some two (viz. the 2d, 9th, 15th, 16th, and 18th), some three (viz. the 8th and 14th), some four (viz. the 5th, 7th, and 19th), some five (viz. the 11th and 13th), and one seven (viz. the 4th, if every date be separately counted), but if all that really belong together be consolidated, only two. These differences, although to some extent fortuitous, must have some basis in the true relations of the several centimes to one another.

§ 340. Another method of comparison is to observe how many of the given periodologies agree in recognizing any epoch, which may be regarded as an indication of the extent to which it is acknowledged by historians as a turning point or critiaal juncture.

§ 341. By the application of this process to the periodologies which have been described, it will be found that the Reformation has a place in twelve, the reign of Constantine in ten, that of Charlemagne in nine, the pontificate of Boniface VIII. in eight, that of Gregory VII. in seven, that of Gregory the Great in six, and the Peace of Westphalia in an equal number.

§ 342. Next to the epochs which arc thus found in from half a dozen to a dozen modern periodologies, and may therefore be regarded as the most extensively acknowledged, we may place a second class, containing such as have a place in three periodologies, as the third French Revolution, or in two, as the appearance of Mahomet in the seventh century, the close of the series of great councils near the end of the same, and the fall of the Greek Empire in the middle of the fifteenth.

§ 343. To these two classes may be added a residuary class of indefinite extent, containing all those epochs which are found in only one periodology, and which are therefore recommended only by the voice of individual historians, but which may nevertheless be real junctures in the history, and therefore valuable aids in understanding and retaining it.

§ 344. From the periodologies described above, omitting some dates which seem to be ill-chosen and unsuited to the end proposed, especially in Milman's list (§ 332), we may obtain the following residuary catalogue, arranged in chronological order. The reign of Adrian (117), Septimius Severus (193), Pontificate of Damasus (366), Council of Chalcedon (451), Leo the Great (461), Fall of the "Western Empire (476), Iconoclasm (726), Nicolas I. (858), End of Carlovingian Dynasty (996), Breach between East and West (1054), First Crusade (1095), Death of Innocent III. (1216), Gregory IX. and the Canon Law (1238), Death of St. Louis (1270), Babylonish Captivity (1305), Papal Schism (1375), End of Tridentine Council (1563), Death of Louis XIY. (1715), Accession of Pius VII. (1800), Fall of Napoleon (1814), Second French Revolution (1830), Accession of Pius IX. (1846).

§ 345. The best mode of using the epochs thus arranged and classed, is first to master those of the first order, as most generally recognized; and then, when these are perfectly familiar, to pursue the same course with the second, after which the resid

nary class can be gradually added, and at the same time indefinitely enlarged.

§ 346. Another useful method of the same land is to frame successively lists or tables, each containing nineteen dates, or one for every century, the choice of which, if made by the student himself, involves an exercise of mind which must be useful in proportion to the difficulties that attend it.

§ 347. The following may be taken as a specimen of such a table, not to be permanently rested in, but often and indefinitely varied. Century I. the fall of Jerusalem (70), II. Martyrdom of Justin (163), III. Decian Persecution (250), IV. Council of Nice (325), Y. Fall of Western Empire (476), YI. Gregory the Great (590), YII. Mahomet (622), YIII. Iconoclasm (726), IX. Death of Charlemagne (814), X. Accession of Otho the Great (936), XI. Gregory YII. (1073), XII. Alexander III. (1159), XIII. Boniface YIII. (1294), XIY. Wiclif (1360), XY. Fall of Eastern Empire (1453), XYI. Luther (1517), XYII. Peace of Westphalia (1648), XYIH. "Wesley (1732), XIX. Fall of Napoleon (1814).

§ 348. When the points in such a list are really salient, they will indicate, in some degree, the great changes as they follow one another; as for instance

in the table just presented, although not framed with any such design, we find martyrdom (century II.) and persecution (III.) followed by the first (Ecumenical Council (IV.); the degradation of the Church in the ninth and 10th centuries suggested by the choice of emperors to represent them; the subsequent rise of the papacy by the choice of three popes to represent as many centuries (XI. XII. XIII.), its decline and the growth of the reformatory tendency, by the position here assigned to Wiclif (XIV.), &c, &c.

§ 349. Such tables may be constructed either on the principle of varying the epochs, i. e. choosing sometimes one kind of event and then another; or on that of sameness, making all the points in any given table similar to one another, e. g. making out a series of great councils or assemblies, beginning with the Council at Jerusalem in the first century, and ending with the First Free Church Assembly in the nineteenth; or, finally, avoiding both extremes, as in the specimen first given.

§ 350. The materials for such lists may be drawn, in the first instance, from the periodologies already given; then from the topical details to be given hereafter; thirdly, from books of history, whether thoroughly studied or skimmed over for this very purpose; and lastly from the chronological tables, found in most such books or elsewhere, which last, however, unless used with moderation, will deprive the student of the benefit arising from his own exertions.

§ 351. Having taken our first or chronological survey of the whole field, we may now proceed, in execution of our plan (§ 207), to the second or topical survey of the same ground, beginning, as before, with the definition of terms, suggested by their etymology.

§ 352. From the Greek Two? meaning place, comes (1) the adjective topical, used in medicine as the equivalent of local, from the Latin locus, and (2) the noun topic, applied by the ancient writers in a peculiar technical sense to certain parts of rhetoric and logic, as in the topics of Aristotle and Cicero, and in theology to the usual divisions (loci communes) of the system of doctrine (whence our popular usage of commonplace for that which is familiar, trite, or hackneyed), but in history and other sciences to their subdivisions or constituent parts.

§ 353. The name is not properly applied to insulated facts, as such considered, which are rather anecdotes, in the technical sense of the term, as denoting, primarily, inedited, unpublished facts, and then detached or separate historical materials; the accessory idea of something humorous or entertaining being altogether popular and adventitious.

§ 354. The same fact or event which, in itself considered, is an anecdote, as just denned, may be a topic when regarded as holding a specific place in history considered as a systematic whole.

§ 355. But although the meaning of the word has been determined, a question still presents itself, in reference to the thing which it denotes. "What constitutes a topic? and how are the topics of Church History in particular to be determined?

§ 356. Kot every individual fact—nor even every great event—can be regarded as constituting a distinct historical topic; because such fact or event may be inseparable from others, or at least from its own minor and accompanying circumstances; just as in a landscape, a particular object, as a tree or house, may be so situated with respect to others, that it cannot be surveyed apart, or constitute a separate object of vision. This is sometimes true of a whole series of successive events or a whole congeries of contemporary facts, which must be viewed together, in order to constitute a definite historical topic.

§ 357. We may now complete the definition of a topic, so far as it is necessary for our purpose, as a fact, or a series or a group of facts, forming one definite object of historical investigation, and occupying a definite place in history, considered as a systematic whole.

§ 358. The essential element in this complex idea, that of distinct objectivity, may vary in the case of different persons, some being able or accustomed to take in more at a single view than others; so that no selection or arrangement of topics is to be regarded as alone admissible exclusively of every other.

§ 359. Even in one and the same topical arrangement, it is best not to aim at an exact uniformity, either in quantity or quality, but to let it be controlled by circumstances, the topic being sometimes one event, such as the death of Julius Caesar, and at other times a series or system of events, such as the Reformation or the French Revolution.

§ 360. This liberty of choice, and flexibility of method, far from being a defect or disadvantage, as compared with mathematical rigour and exactness, is one of the great charms of historical study, and its loss one of the worst effects of all exclusive methods.

§ 361. There are two methods of selecting and arranging historical topics, which may be distinguished as the Analytic and Synthetic, in the strict etymological sense and application of those terms.

§ 362. The synthetic method begins with the minute details, and groups them, first in smaller, then in larger combinations, so as finally to form great masses; while the analytic method takes these masses, and divides and subdivides, eliminates and simplifies, until it reaches the constituent elements with which the synthesis began.

§ 363. "While both these processes are useful in their proper place, and may be both employed alternately, though not together, the last is better suited to our purpose, since by descending from generals to particulars, a basis is secured for the future study of details; whereas minute attention to the latter could extend to but a few, even of these, without imparting any general views whatever.

§ 364. For the study of a lifetime, or for original investigations, similar to those of Gieseler or Neander, the synthetic method may be best, but not for a brief academical course, wholly preparatory in its purpose.

§ 365. Another distinction which may possibly be useful is, that between tn o ways of viewing the particular topics when determined or selected; either, on the one hand, as mere subdivisions of an organic whole, without individual vitality or separate existence, like the counties in a State, or the departments in France; or, on the other hand, as so many organic wholes, forming a greater whole by federal combination, like the Swiss cantons or the States of our Union.

§ 366. Though both these views involve some truth, and may be turned to good account, the first is better suited to the exact sciences than to history, which consists in the aggregation of innumerable facts, not necessarily dependent on each other, and yet all related, and susceptible of rational as well as arbitrary combination.

§ 367. Instead, therefore, of assuming certain periods, and then cutting these into strips or slices by a uniform or rubrical division, we may let each topic reach as far as it will, or as we find convenient, using chronological divisions, not to cut them up, but simply to mark the surface, like the shadow on a dial.

§ 368. Ecclesiastical History, thus viewed, is a

congeries of minor histories, each of which is, in a certain sense, complete within itself, but in another sense, incomplete without the rest.

§ 369. The number, size, and form of these minor histories is not determined by the nature of the subject, or by any other extrinsic necessity, but is variable and discretionary, so that no exclusive method is either practicable or desirable.

§ 370. So great is this variety and liberty of combination, that the same event may enter into more than one of these particular histories, or may be treated both as a separate topic and as a component of one more extensive.

§ 371. It would be easy to divide the whole field of Ecclesiastical History into a few great topics or minor histories, running through its entire chronological dimensions; such as the history of Missions or of Church Extension, that of Church Organization, that of Doctrine, &c. But this would be only a slight modification of the rubrical method, on a larger scale, and therefore more unmanageable than when divided into centuries or periods.

§ 372. The same objection does not lie against some other similar divisions, such as the biographical division into lives, or personal histories, or that into the history of Councils, Controversies, Churches; all which have their own advantages, but none of which can possibly be made to comprehend all the materials or topics of Church History.

§ 373. The best method therefore is, instead of any uniform and rigid rule of distribution and arrangement, to select the topics for ourselves, taking sometimes one event and sometimes many, as the subject of investigation, and dividing and combining them to suit our own convenience, and the end which we have immediately in view.

§ 374. Hie general arrangement must of course be chronological; because all history, from its very nature, is so; because this order throws the most light on the mutual relation of events; and because it gives the most aid to the student's memory.

§ 375. In selecting the topics of Ecclesiastical History, it is best to begin with some connecting link between it and Biblical History—some event whose causes reach back and their effects forward, so as to touch both great divisions of the subject.

§ 376. Such an event is the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, only six or seven years after the close of the New Testament history, and yet many years before the probable date of the Apocalypse.

§ 377. But besides its date, it is also recommended by the connection of its causes and effects with the history of the Church.

§ 378. The proximate causes of this great catastrophe were the growing fanaticism and insubordination of the zealots, on one hand, and the cowardly but cruel domination of the Roman procurators on the other; both which causes seem to have grown worse and worse after the death of Christ, as if in execution of a special divine judgment.

§ 379. Our principal authority in reference to this great event is Flavius Josephus, a Jew of sacerdotal lineage, and a commander in the Jewish war, but afterwards highly favoured by the Romans, and therefore accused by his own people of apostasy, and regarded by many Christians also as unworthy of belief, while others go to the opposite extreme of preferring his testimony to that of the Scriptures; the truth, as usual in such cases, lying between the two.

§ 380. The providential instruments of this destruction were the Roman armies, first under Vespasian, and when he was recalled to Rome by the death of Yitellius, under his son Titus, the delicise humani generis, who used to say "Perdidi diem " when he had performed no act of beneficence; a character probably exaggerated by the heathen .writers, and measured by the heathen standard, but the comparative excellence of which is proved by his conduct in this siege, when Jews and Gentiles . seemed to have changed places, the impious desperation of the former being strangely contrasted with the moderation and humanity of Titus.

§ 381. The details of this event may be found in Josephus, Prideaux, Milman, Kurtz, and others; we are concerned only with its religious and ecclesiastical effects.

§ 382. Its effects upon the Jews has reference to their government, their religion, and their persecutions.

§ 383. The political effect was to destroy the Hebrew state or commonwealth, virtually at once, finally and formally, under Adrian, when an insurrection, under a false Messiah, called Barlochba, led to the demolition of the city, the erection of another under the name of Capitolina, and the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine, since which time they have had no existence as a nation or a body politic.

§ 384. As the Hebrew Church was a theocracy,

in -which church and state were not onlj united but identified, the Jewish religion, as distinguished from the Christian, fell with the state, having no local sanctuary, and the ceremonial service being almost entirely abandoned; Providence thus stamping Jewish unbelief as not only wicked but absurd, by making the continuance of the temporary system practically impossible.

§ 385. It was not an exchange of ceremonial for spiritual worship, since this existed before, and the Jews themselves admit the continued obligation of the former, and expect its restoration under the Messiah.

§ 3S6. A third effect upon the Jews was the cessation of their persecutions, the spirit of which however was perpetuated in their schools and controversies, with a rancour which has been abundantly repaid by Christians.

§ 387. The primary effect of the destruction of Jerusalem on the Christian Church was to put an end to the Judaic controversy, by rendering the observance of the Jewish law impossible.

§ 388. Some Jewish Christians still adhered to it, with more or less tenacity, and thus gave rise to

Jewish-Christian sects, the first of which we have any information.

§ 389. These were distinguished from the body of Christians by their observance of the law, and from the Jews by owning the Hessiahship of Jesus.

§ 390. They differed among themselves as to the necessity of the law, the person of Christ, and the authority of Paul.

§ 391. Some denied the absolute necessity of the law; some affirmed it only of Jewish converts; while others made it absolute and uersal.

§ 392. Some regarded Christ as a mere man, others as something more, preternaturally born, and endowed with extraordinary gifts; others as a divine person.

§ 393. Some rejected Paul as an apostate, others owned him as an apostle.

§ 394. Our information as to these Jewish Christians is derrived from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome; but it is very fragmentary and obscure.

§ 395. It is common to assume two sects, differing in the intensity of their Judaic prejudices, the JSasareans and Ebionites.

§ 396. The Nasareans or N"azarenes, a name originally given to all followers of Christ (Acts 24, 6), were the less Jewish class, who held the lowest views as to the law, and the highest as to Christ and Paul.

§ 397. The name of Ebionite is derived by Tertullian from a man named Ebion, a very common ancient practice when the real derivation was unknown; but by Origen more correctly from the Hebrew }i->hx poor; whether assumed by themselves as being "poor in spirit," or the Lord's Poor (like the Pauperes of the Middle Ages); or given in contempt by others, as belonging- to the lower orders, or perhaps with reference to the poverty of the Mother Church, which some ascribe to the community of goods.

§ 398. The Ebionites were the more Jewish class, who held the lowest views of Christ and Paul, and insisted on the observance of the law as necessaiy to sal vation.

§ 399. "When they arose is not positively known, perhaps immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem—they were still in existence in the second century—perhaps much longer, and perhaps were merged in other sects (e. g. the Elcesaites).

§ 400. The gospel of the Kasareans and Ebion

ites is mentioned by the Fathers, but -whether as a creed or as a book is uncertain. Some identify it with the Gospel of the Hebrews, and others with the original of Matthew; which leads us to another topic.

§ 401. Second connecting link—Definition of Ecclesiastical History (§§ 32, 33).—Terminus a quo —close of history in Canon. Hence the question— When was the Canon closed? Details belong to Introduction—or to New Testament History—but outlines to beginning of Ecclesiastical History.

§ 402. Objective close of Canon—when last book written—reign of Domitian—near the end of the first century.—Subjective close of the Canon— when the question was finally determined in and by the Church.

§ 403. Eusebian classification—A. Homologumena—4 Gospels—Acts—13 Epistles of Paul—1 of Peter—1 of John. B. Antilegomena—(a) Hebrews (but only as to authors). (5) Apocalypse—first owned—then disowned by rationalists and antichiliasts—then re-owned, (c) James (considered by some antipauline)—2d Peter—2d and 3d John—. Jude—all short, and little quotable matter. C. Notha—wholly apocryphal and spurious.

§ 404. Doubts gradually cleared up—Church became unanimous—not by authority of councils —these as yet only local—and mere witnesses—not judges—special Council of Laodicea (A. D. 360)— and Council of Hippo (393)—our present Canon, established by the 3d Council at Carthage (397).

§ 405. Not a mere passive acquiescence—or random choice—modern German fallacy—criticism unknown to the ancient Church—one of its most important functions—to separate the Canon from the mass of competitors—the vo^a of Eusebius (§ 403).

§ 406. These of early origin—even Luke alludes to previous unauthorized attempts to write the Life of Christ—though not necessarily false—yet such would naturally spring up with the true. But

§ 407. Apocryphal literature nourished chiefly in the second century—much of it now lost—but enough left to show its character and origin—which was chiefly heretical—a rank growth from the soil of error—sp. Jewish-Christian sects and gnostics— Epiphanius speaks of " thousands" of gnostic apocrypha—Irenseus (more j udicious, moderate, and ancient) of an "inenarrabilis multitudo apocryphorum et perperum Scripturarum," among the Valentinians alone.

§ 408. Some not heretical—only pious frauds— vaticinia post eventum—or intended to fill chasms in Canonical, books—now impossible—bnt then facilitated by unsettled Canon.

§ 409. Some claimed a place in Old Testament —some in New Testament Canon—Apocryphal » Gospels—Acts—Epistles—Apocalypses—Principal collective editors—Fabricius—Thilo—Tischend orf.

§ 410. Classification of Apocrypbal Gospels—I. Those claiming to be complete histories of Christ, e. g. Gospel of the Hebrews—Peter—the Egyptians —Marcion—All probably heretical corruptions of the 4 canonical gospels. All now lost.

§ 411. IT. Supplementary Gospels—(1.) Of the infancy of Christ, e. g. (a) Protevangelium Jacobi Minoris—early history of Virgin—birth of Christ— comparatively simple and without exaggeration— Greek like that of the New Testament—Date very early—read at the festivals of Mary in the Eastern Church.

§ 412. (2.) Evangelium Eativitatis Marise—same general character—Latin preface by two bishops represents Matthew as the author—and Jerome as the translator. Collection of very old aprocryphal traditions. .-

§ 413. 3. Gospel of Joachim and Anna—parentage and birth of Virgin—infancy of Christ—flight to Egypt—infant miracles—Latin—purports to be by James. This also a collection of still older legends.

§ 414. 4. Gospel of Joseph the carpenter—Arabic translated from the Coptic—Life and death of Joseph—Moralizing—probably not older than the fourth century.

§ 415. 5. Gospel of Christ's infancy—Arabic translation from Syriac—full of absurd miracles. 6. Gospel of Thomas—Life of Christ from fifth to twelfth year—still more extravagant and silly.

§ 416. I. Supplementary accounts of his Passion, e. g. (1.) Gospel of Eicodemus—written in Greek— formal record of trial before Pilate—and resurrection of two sons of Simeon—dated in reign of Theodosius—first part purports to be derived from Hebrew work of Nicodemus—second part from older apocrypha—First mentioned in 13th century.

§ 417. (2.) Acts of Pilate—{a) such a book mentioned by Justin Martyr—Tertullian—Eusebius— Epiphanius—Pilate's report concerning Christ to Tiberius; with Tiberius's proposition to the Senate and letter to his mother—(b) Under Maximin—a

heathen forgery—same title—blashpemous calumnies of Christ—read in schools by order of emperor—(c) A third book—same title—still extant— much later—Latin report of Pilate to Tiberius— with account of Pilate's punishment—also Epistle of Lentulus to Senate—with minute description of Christ's person—first mentioned in the Middle Ages.

§ 418. II. Apocryphal acts—mostly of gnostic origin—numerous in third and fourth centuries— 13 in Teschendorf s collection—chiefly of the third century—some re-written with modification of gnosticism—all worthless—latest and largest—Historia Certaminis Apostolorum—purports to be written in Hebrew by Abdias, disciple of the Apostles and first Bishop of Babylon—Greek by Eutropius—and Latin by Julius Africanus—really not older than ninth century—found in the 16th century—rejected by Paul IV.—Baronius, Bellarmin, and Tillemont.

§ 419. III. Apocryphal Epistles—(a) Christ and Abgarus—King of Edessa—preserved in archives— seen there by Eusebius—request to be healed— promise to send disciple—(h) Paid to the Laodiceans (Col. 4, 16),—only in Latin—a mere cento of scriptural phrases—(c) Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5, 9), with their answer, both extant in Armenian—(cZ) Paul to Seneca—old tradition of correspondence (Augustine and Jerome)—13 short letters extant—(e) letter of Ignatius to Virgin Mary—asking information about Christ—and her answer referring him to John—first mentioned by Bernard in 12th century—(f) letters of the Virgin to the people of Messina, Florence, &c.

§420. IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses. (1.) Of Peter (Clem. Alex.) signs of judgment—(2.) Ascension of Paul (2 Cor. 12,) Aug. "fabulis plena stultissima prsesumtione." Epiphanius says Cainite (3.) Thomas—(4.) Stephen—(5.) another of John—all wretched copies of canonical Apocalypse.

§ 421. V. Apocryphal prophecies. (1.) Old Testament, (a) Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs— Imitation of Gen. 49—Mysteries of the other world—Prophecies of Christ—rejection of Jews— fine style—mentioned by Origen—(b) Apocalypse of Moses—only two quotations in Syncellus—rejects circumcision—(c) Ascension of Isaiah—Imitations of Paul's conversation with Angel—Messianic Prophecies—Quoted by Origen, Epiphanius—Jerome— Greek lost—Latin version extant at Venice—Ethiopic at Oxford.

§ 422. (2.) Heathen prophecies—(a) Sibylline books—Etymology of name (2to? [Doric for Jto?] Bovkrj)—Varro quoted by Lactantius—Ten Sibyls —Chief at Cuma—Tarquin—3 books—burnt in Capitol—under Marius and Sylla (B. C. 183)—replaced by collection—burnt again under Nero (A. D. 64)—Sibylline books now extant—Homeric verse —by daughter-in-law of Noah—evidently by Christians—-prophecies of Christ and Antichrist—Rome —Church—end of world—eruption of Vesuvius (A. D. 79)—sign of judgment—Nero's reappearance —Something later—gradual collection—second and third centuries—cited by Apologists—hence called Sibyllists—Celsus charged with forging—Disappeared with Paganism in fourth century—reappeared in 16th—only eight known till Mai discovered xi.-xiv.—best edition Alexandre's (1842)—(b) Hystaspes (Gushtasp) old Persian King—Christian prophecies—quoted by Justin Martyr and Clem. Alex.—(c) Hermes Trismegistus—Egyptian sage.

§ 423. IV. Disciplinary Pseudepigrapha—intended to give apostolical authority to ecclesiastical usages of third and fourth centuries—(1.) Apostolical polity or discipline—in Greek, third century— Acts of Apostolical Council—All exhort and legislate—Cephas besides Peter—also Martha and Mary Tt-Part as old as beginning of second century?

§ 4:24. (2.) Apostolical Constitutions—eight books —duties of laity and clergy—worship—widows and deaconesses—treatment of poor—martyrs—festivals—-heresies—Mosaic law—liturgy—charismata —ordinations—tythes—six books form one whole— called "Apostolic doctrine " in old versions—and in book itself—not ultra hierarchical—seventh and eighth each complete in itself—internal evidence of Syrian origin—last of third century—or beginning of fourth—Earlier than Council of Nice—quoted by Eusebius and Athanasius as " Doctrine of Apostles "—Cited as authority by Epiphanius—rejected by Concilium Quinisextum (692) as corrupted—but received in Eastern Church—unknown in "West till 16th century—rejected by Baronius and Daille— now generally given up.

§ 425. (3.) Apostolical Canons—Appendix to Constitutions (§ 424), but also in separate formGreek—Syriac—Ethiopic —Arabic—Longer form 85 canons—shorter 50—peremptory tone—apostolical authority—not doctrinal but disciplinary—made known in "West by Dionysius Exiguus (end of fifth century)—rejected as apocryphal by Pope Hormisdas—gradually current—recognized by Pseudo Isidore in East—imposed by Concilium Quinisextum.

§ 426. All this illustrates history of canon— shows critical process—New Testament homogeneous—and superior—not only to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha—but to

§ 427. Apostolical Fathers—third connecting link—earliest uninspired Christian writers—contemporaries and disciples of Apostles; Mark and Luke excluded as inspired.

§ 428. Simplicity and piety—without inspiration—divine or human—Hence genuineness of extant writings questioned—because early disposition to claim apostolical origin for later usages and doctrines (§ 423)—no canon to prevent such frauds— not affecting rule of faith.

§ 429. But on the other hand—modern disposition to exaggerate critical misgivings—Too much expected from Apostolical Fathers—whereas great gulf—immense descent from Apostles to Apostolical Fathers.

§ 430. Guericke says this surprising only to Papists, who think successors no less inspired than Apostles, or to Rationalists, who think Apostles no more inspired than successors.

§ 431. Providential purpose of this inequality— to draw a broad line between the canon and all other writings. If Origen, Athanasius, or Augustin had immediately succeeded the Apostles—they might have rivalled them—but this prevented by a pause—during which the life of the Church was rather practical than intellectual.

§ 432. Collective edition of Cotelerius—recent one of Hefele. Translation by Archbishop Wake; number usually reckoned seven—three disciples of Paul—three of John—and one anonymous—Paul as Apostle of Gentiles—John as last survivor.

§ 433. I. School of Paul—all supposed to be named in his epistles.—1. Clemens Romanus (Phil. 4, 3)—early bishop—and martyr (Pufinus)—(a) Epistle to Corinthians—in Greek—exhortation to union and humility—read in churches—then lost sight of —1628—Codex Alexandrinus—with LXX. and New Testament—presented by Cyril Lucaris to Charles I.—(b) Same manuscript, fragment of second epistle to Corinthians—but no epistle—and probably not by Clement.—(c) Pseudepigrapha—(d) Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, (§§ 424, 425).—(e) Clementina and Recognitions.—(/") Some pseudodecretals.

§ 434. (2.) Barnabas—named in Galatians and Acts—one epistle extant—known to Clement of Alexandria—lost since ninth century—found in 17th —first four and a half chapters only in old Latin version—allegorizes Old Testament—later than Fall of Jerusalem—depreciates ceremonial law—but pious —and some excellent ideas—reckoned apocryphal by Eusebius and Jerome (i. e. not inspired or canonical)—spurious by Neander—genuine by Gieseler.

§435. (3.) Hermas (Kom. 16, 14) "the Shepherd " complete only in old Latin version—Angel as Shepherd instructs Hermas—three books: I. Four visions (church as woman); + II. Twelve mandates (of Angel to Hermas); + III. Ten similitudes—Abstruse and mystical—but read in churches—Origen and IrenaBUS call it inspired—Muratori Fragment (Caius ?) ascribes to another Hermas—brother of Pius, bishop of Rome (c. A. D. 150).

§ 436. II. School of John—belonging to his later ministry—age not mentioned in the Scriptures.—(1.) Ignatius—bishop of Antioch—martyred under Trajan (§ 490)—15 epistles extant, 8 acknowledged to be spurious (5 Greek + 3 Latin)—7 in Greek— written on way to Rome—1 to Poly carp—5 to churches in Asia Minor and 1 to church in Rome— warning against heresies and discord—exhortations to rally round the bishops as representatives of Christ—Hence appealed to in episcopal controversy —One question as to long and short recension. whether long interpolated—or short curtailed. Third recension—discovered by Tatham (1838), edited by Cureton—glorified by Bunsen—refuted by Baur—only three epistles—in Syriac—less prelatical—but also less trinitarian—meagre garbling of the seven—Anglicans hold to long form—Germans to short—Inconclusive as to prelacy—(a) because bishop may mean presbyter—{b) if diocesan, a new invention.

§ 437. (2.) Polycarp—disciple of John—bishop of Smyrna—martyr under Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 168, § 494).—Epistles to churches under persecution —only one preserved—to the Philippians—Greek only in fragments—entire only in old Latin version —many citations from New Testament—important witness as to Canon.

§ 438. (3.) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia—disciple of John (Irenseus)—Martyr under Marcus Aurelius (?)—collector of Christ's AOFIA —credulous and injudicious (o-yuyepo? vow, Eus.) but great influence—promoted Chiliasm—Only meagre fragments—preserved by Irenasus and Eusebius.

§ 439. III. Anonymous—Epistle to Diognetus— Description or Defence of Christianity—addressed to a heathen—Long ascribed to Justin Martyr—but very unlike—older—professed disciple of Apostles— more elegant—laxer as to Judaism—heathen gods nullities, not demons—First disproved by Tillemont —reaffirmed by Otto—(Excellent Patristic exercise —Hefele's edition (§ 432)—Biblical Repertory, Jan. 1853.

§ 440. Early propagation of Christianity—another connecting link with apostolical times—absolute and relative historical importance. New Testament, chiefly Peter and Paul.

§ 441. Remarkable dearth of information—almost a blank—perhaps to be explained by rapid and simultaneous movement—if slower and successive, might be traced more easily.

§ 442. Edessa—Christian king—Abgarus (170)— Arabia—India—Bartholomew ?—Thomas ?—Pautsenus—Origen—Gaul from Asia Minor—Britain from the same ?—or from Rome ?—Eleutherus and Lucius —Claims of various nations mostly fabulous.

§ 443. Mode of propagation—as at first—by establishing radiating centres—Rome the last in the New Testament—then Alexandria and Carthage.

§ 444. Twofold conflict of the Church in the first centuries (§ 257)—Intellectual and physical—Intellectual conflict—(1) with avowed enemies—(2) with disguised enemies—A. Judaism (§ 391).

§ 445. B. Heathenism—(a) its origin—segregation of the chosen people—the rest left to walk in their own ways—(5) its tendencies to atheism and pantheism—to superstition—to materialism—to natnre-worship—to despotism.

§ 446. Twofold preparation for Christianity, (1) among the Jews—salvation for men—(2) among the gentiles—men for salvation; (a) negative—convince of need—and worthlessness of human contrivances— (b) positive—with actual cultivation—preparation of language—as the garb of truth—Greek—most perfect language—and when Christ came—the most prevalent—and therefore proper vehicle of oecumenical revelation.

§ 447. State of heathenism at the advent— effete—sense of want never greater—means of satisfying it never less.

§ 448. Barbarous religions, i. e. neither Greek nor Roman—comparativly little known—Eastern theosophi es—Buddhism—Parsism—western Druidism—spiritual tyranny—power destroyed in first century. Other barbarous religions, military or savage.

§ 449. Greek and Roman Heathenism—originally not the same—the Roman sterner and purer —but assimilated after fall of Carthage and Corinth —increase of wealth and luxury—influence of Greek teachers—question as to Greek art—whether corrupting or redeeming (Tholuck and Jacobs).

§ 450. Sense of spiritual want unsatisfied— mania for new religions—fostered by new conquests —rites and mysteries imported from Egypt and the East —Dea Syra —Mithras—Syncretism—highest ranks—even Emperors—Heliogabalus—Alexander Severus. (§§ 500, 501).

§ 451. Relation of Philosophy to Mythology— (1) Antagonistic—condemned and ridiculed it—(2) Compromise—defended and explained it—symbolical interpretation—(3) Amalgamation—philosophy np longer speculation—but religion—especially after rise of Christianity.

§ 452. The greatest schools of Greek Philosophy extinct or metamorphosed, e. g. those of Plato and Aristotle still survived, and prevalent at Advent—those of (1) Epicurus—happiness the highest good—no Providence—the gods indifferent to man's conduct and condition— and (2) Zeno (Stoics) pain no evil—fate—indifferentism—apathy—No. 1 suited the Greeks—No. 2 the Romans. (See Acts 17, 18.)

§ 453. Heathen view of Christianity—at first contemptuous—as barbarous fanaticism—or offshoot of Judaism—then jealous—when it spread and became powerful—as new form of philosophy—all that was good in it known before—only in new form—But this led necessarily to

§ 454. Reform of Heathenism—(like that of Popery after the Reformation)—by reviving old systems—sp. that of Pythagoras—but no longer esoteric—popular—Goetes—Magoi—chief representative

§ 455. Apollonius of Tyana—lived through the first century—perhaps an enthusiast more than an impostor—oldest authorities speak of him as a Goes —but the next age exalted him as an antichrist— religious teacher and thaumaturge—sp. his biographer, Philostratus—but effect transient.

§ 456. Revival of old Mysteries—Eleusinian— Dionysian—Oriental—Egyptian—purer theology? —or mere freemasonry ?—Still a failure—could not replace Christianity.

§ 457. Last effort—the Eclectic Philosophy—its principle—take what is good in all systems—not only of philosophy—but of religion—thus sure to be better than any one—(a common fallacy—excels each only in detail—but has no unity or substantive existence; illustrate by eclectic building or machine)—Christianity itself placed, under contribution—but not its essentials—then would have been Christian, and chiefly in heretical corrupted form.

§ 458. Basis of course not Christian—but Heathen Philosophy most like it—Platonism—hence JVeoplatonism—supported by whole strength of Heathenism—in decline of classic age—Forerunners—Plutarch (+120)—profound—serious—sometimes almost Christian—favourite ancient with unlearned readers now—Apuleius (c. 170)—Maximus Tyrius (c. 190.)

§ 459. Proper founder of system—Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (c. 243)—said to have been born and bred a Christian—seduced into heathenism by study of philosophy. Principal disciples and successors: Plotinus—also an Egyptian (c. 270) —Porphyry of Tyre (+ 304)—Jamblichus of Chalcis (+ 333)—witnessed fall of Heathenism.

§ 460. End of third century—uersal among educated heathen—superseded other systems—necessary part of education—studied by many Christians—led to some corruptions.

§ 461. Outline of system—two sets of gods—different spheres—mundane and extramundane—demons, good and bad—icoo-fios Potjto? or rational uerse—material uerse made by demiurge—oliroXXot might be satisfied with local and ancestral gods —oi cnrovBaioi should seek to know and be united with 6 vovs or To ev—by ascesis—contemplation— and theurgy.

§ 462. Effect on Christianity—led many to it— others satisfied without it—some led to oppose it— early tone of heathen writers towards Christianity —Tacitus—S uetonius—Pliny—Marcus Aurelius— offended by enthusiasm. Of less note: Fronto— Crescens—Galen.

§ 463. Lucian—satirist of mythology—cynicism —and Christianity—promoted undesignedly by bearing witness to Christian fortitude and Philadelphia.—His history of Peregrinus Proteus—aimed more at cynicism than at Christianity—founded in fact—(Peregrinus Proteus mentioned by A. Gellius—Tatian—Athenagoras—Tertullian)—but embellished fiction—with traits from Christian history —e. g. martyrdom of Polycarp.

§ 464. First formal attack on Christianity—by Celsus—probably Epicurean, with Platonic mark— AAHQH2 AOrOX—only known from Origen's refutation—some wit—but shallow— ignorant — malignant—makes Christ an ordinary Goes.

§ 465. Porphyry (§ 459)—nobler and ablerfifteen books (KATA CHRISTINIAN/2N LOGOI) —only a few fragments in Eusebius—sceptical criticism—allegorical interpretation—contradictions —Moses and Christ—Peter and Paul—anachronisms—Daniel. Forerunner of rationalism—also wrote in defence of Heathenism (" Philosophy from the Oracles ")—large fragments in Eusebius.

§ 466. Hierocles—governor of Bithynia under Diocletian—both persecutor and polemic writer— (AOrOIQIAAAH&ElZIIPOXXPrtTIANOrS) —best part borrowed from predecessors—eked out with calumnious fables about Christ and Christians —prefers Apollonius of Tyana.

§ 467. These attacks called forth the best Christian writers of the age—sp. under Antonines—in Apologies—or regular defences of Christianity— some public or official—some popular or private.

Of both, these some are lost—and some still extant.

§ 468. Oldest apologists no longer extant— (1) Quadratus—disciple of Apostles (Irensens)— Bishop of Athens (Eusebius)—reputed prophet— had seen men healed or raised to life by Christ —presented Apology to Adrian—lost since the seventh century—last mentioned by Photius—(2) Ariston of Pella—" Jason and Papiscus "—argument from prophecy—sneered at by Celsus—defended by Origen.

§ 469. (3) Melito of Sardis—witness to Canon —presented apology to Marcus Aurelius—praised by Eusebius and Jerome—original lost—Syriac version found and published with an English translation in 1855, by Cureton. (4) Claudius Apottinaris—bishop of Hierapolis—praised by Eusebius and Jerome—now lost. (5) Miltiades—-a rhetorician—presented apology to Marcus Aurelius— praised by Eusebius and Jerome—now lost.

§ 470. LT. Apologists still extant: (1) Justin Martyr—born at Shechem in Samaria—heathen parentage and education—studied philosophy— tried all schools—but unsatisfied—at last instructed by an aged Christian—retained his philosopher's mantle—but travelled as a sort of missionary— hated by the heathen—put to death at Rome (163-167)—at the instance of Crescens the Cynic (§ 462.)

§ 471. Two Apologies of Justin—first and longest to Antoninus Pius—second to Marcus Aurelius—a third against the Jews (Dialogue with Trypho)—Against the heathen IIEPI MONAPXIAX)—refuted from their own philosophers. Some books of doubtful origin—two Exhortations to the Greeks. Book against heresies now lost—many pseudopigrapha—e. g. Epistle to Diognetus (§ 439).

§ 472. Tatian—disciple of Justin—author of first harmony (Diatessaron)—A OTOXIIPO 2 HELLENAS—treats Greek heathenism with indiscriminate contempt. Afterwards became a Gnostic.

§ 473. (3.) Athenagoras—personal history unknown—Presbeia (intercession) peri Christianun— clear and logical—negative and positive defence—another work defends the resurrection against heathen objections.—(4) Theophilus ofAntioch—three books to Antolycus—a learned heathen friend—among the best apologies—shows great knowledge of Greek literature. Born a heathen—converted by reading the Scriptures—author of other exegetical and controversial works—now lost. (5) Hermias—history unknown—AIAZTPMOZ TI2N EEfl &IA020$flN—satirical attack on heathenism—variously described as "geistvoll" (Kurtz) and "geistlos" (Jacobi). [Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix ?j

§ 474 General character of these Apologies— repel calumnies—atheism, rnisanthrophy—Thyesean feasts—incest—show the true character of Christianity—and expose the absurdity and wickedness of heathenism—thus they dispelled many errors and prejudices—and diffused much light— both as to Heathenism and Christianity.

§ 475. But good end frequently promoted by bad means—e. g. (a) appeal to false authorities— Sibylline books—Hystaspes—Hermes Trismegistus —(b) identifying Christianity with the old Greek philosophy—(c) erroneous views of the relation between Judaism and Christianity—depreciation of the Ceremonial law—even as a temporary institution—(d) deficient views of spiritual Christianity— too superficial and external.

§ 476. Other side of great twofold conflict (§ 444). Persecution—coextensive with first three centuries.—Providential purpose or final cause— 1. To sift the Church and exclude hypocritical professors. 2. To harden and fortify it by endurance. Peculiarly necessary in the first age, as the forming period of the Church.

§ 477. Primary source of Persecution—the Jews —begins in New Testament—Persecution of Christ by the Pharisees—as the dominant party—which he especially denounced—and of the Apostles by the Sadducees—because they preached the resurrection.

§ 478. The first martyr, Stephen—the second, James, the son of Zebedee—both led to the diffusion of the gospel—Persecution by Saul and of Paul (active and passive)—Jewish hatred embittered by the death of Christ—-the Zealots.

§ 479. First check to Jewish persecution—the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (§ 387). Renewed under Bar . Cochba (or Bar Coziba)— aided by Rabbi Akiba—insurrection—three years war—Christians persecuted by both parties—put down by Julius Severus — Palestine wasted — Jerusalem razed—Boman colony—^Elia Capitolina —temple of Yenus—Jews banished for ages (Tert. and Jerome)—Circumcision and Sabbath forbidden —end of Jewish persecution.

§ 480. Secondary source of Persecution—Heathenism—necessary hostility to exclusive religion— law of Ten Tables—only one religio licita—i. e. in Rome and Italy—tolerated religion of foreign conquests.

§ 481. Less tolerant to Judaism—because exclusive—still less to Christianity—because more aggressive and successful—and without prestige of nationality and antiquity—(compare Turkish and Prussian toleration).

§ 482. Popular prejudice against the Chrstians —(a) as Atheists—because no images or temples— (b) as licentious—on account of secret and nocturnal meetings—Lord's Supper a Thyestean feast!— (c) as unpatriotic—because declined civil and military service—not as unlawful per se—but as leading to idolatry—(d) as misanthropical—because abstained from public amusements—and thought more of the future than the present.

§ 483. Promoted by mutual abuse of church and sects—and influence of Priests—and other interested parties—fomenting popular illusions—as to public calamities—anger of gods for desecration —Tertullian: "Deus non pluit, due ad Christianos!"—" Si Tiberis asceDdit in msenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva—si coelum stetit—si terra movet—si fames, si lues, statini, Christianos ad leonem!"

§ 484. Common to government and people— fear of political ascendancy—chiliastic dreams—fall of empire—or real doctrine of Messiah's kingdom —submissive citizens but dangerous.

§ 485. Guericke's classification of Persecutions

(1) governmental—(2) popular—(3) individual— Kurtz's: (1) Chronological division to Trajan—

(2) to Marcus Aurelius—(3) to Philip the Arabian —(4) under Decius—(5) under Diocletian.

§ 486. Persecutions of first century—Early Emperors—Tiberius—afraid to persecute—wicked but superstitious—conscience-stricken—traditional proposition to deify Christ (Tertullian) — Claudius expelled Jews (Acts xviii.)—and Christians with them ?—(Quote Suetonius.)—As yet not distinguished from the Jews.

§ 487. First real persecution—under Nero—conflagration—wanton cruelty—false accusation—related by Tacitus and Suetonius—(" per flagitia invisos" .... "exitiabilis superstitio odio humani generis convicti.")—General or local—for• mer asserted first by Orosius (§ 88). Spanish inscription to Nero.—First decree against Christian

ity? (Tertullian says, other Neronie laws repealed). Perhaps meant to be general—but not executed.

§ 488. Successors of Nero spared the church— until Domitian—political jealousy—Flavius Clemens—Flavia Domitilla banished to Pontia—John to Patmos—boiling oil (Tertullian)—date of Apocalypse—two of Christ's kinsmen—heirs of David (Hegesippus ap. Eusebius) — Temporary respite under Nerva.

§ 489. New era in history of Persecution—reign of Trajan—not from personal hostility—but policy —revived laws against secret societies—(Blunt says Nero's edict against Christianity). Correspondence with Pliny—no general rule—no inquisition —no anonymous charges—but if obstinate, to die * —(genuineness of correspondence denied by Gibbon and Semler—still disputed—but commonly received).—First regular law of persecution (Blunt says Nero's)—but no heathen bigotry or fanatical zeal ("pessimi exempli nec nostri seculi.")—Old Roman spirit—indifferent till conflict with civil authority—then inflexibly severe.

§ 490. Extent of Persecution—certainly to Palestine and Syria—Symeon, son of Clopas—nephew of Joseph (Hegesippus)—Bishop of Jerusalem—arraigned—as Christian and Davidite—scourged— crucified (A. D. 107).—Antioch—Ignatius—audience of Emperor—sent in chains to Home— (wrote seven epistles on the way. § 436)—exposed in Coliseum to wild beasts—(A. D. 107-116.)

§ 491. Hadrian—zealous heathen—but forbade extra-judicial persecution—-and tumultuary accusation—tradition of fourth century—built first churches—knew little of Christianity—cared less— profaned Jerusalem—report from Serenius Granianus, Proconsul of Asia Minor—instructions to his successor, Minucius Fundanus.

§ 492. Antoninus Pius—mild and benevolent— tried to quell persecution [Melito]—but people excited by calamities—rescript ad commune Asice—. preserved by Eusebius—but now thought spurious.

§ 493. Thus far political—not personal hostility —till Marcus Aurelius—most pious of heathen— yet hated Christianity—stoical contempt of its enthusiasm and condescension (§ 462)—irrational and obstinate fanaticism—resolved to suppress it—not merely passive but active—espionage and torture —Extant edict—genuine (Neander) ?—or spurious (Gieseler)?—Law of Marcus Aurelius in Pandects —punishing "religious superstition" with deportation.

§ 4.94. Persecution general but not uniform—at Pome—Justin (165-168)—instigated by Crescens (§§ 462, 470.)—Worst in Asia Minor and Gaulcontemporary accounts (§ 80)—Smyrna—Polycarp

aet. 86 (§ 442)—disciple of John—Lyons and Yienne—Pothinus aet. 90—Ponticus aet. 15—slave Blandina—ashes in Rhone.

§ 495. Old tradition of Legio Fulminea (or Fulminatrix)—A. D. 174.—War with Quadi and Marcomanni—drought—storm—prayers of Christians— end of persecution (Claudius Apollinaris and Tertullian)—but anachronism—and heathen version— Jupiter Pluvius—Egyptian sorcerer.

§ 496. Successors of Marcus personally indifferent—but persecuting laws unrepealed—at mercy of local governors—Commodus—Marcia—local persecutions—Asia Minor—Arrius Pontinus Proconsul (Tertullian)—Did the Emperor himself turn?

§ 497. Septimius Severus—healed by Proculus, a Christian slave—anointed (James 5,14)—hence favoured Christianity at first (Tertullian)—but afterwards turned—cause unknown—Montanistic extravagance and prophecies of Christ's personal reign? Edict forbidding gentiles, Judseos, or Christianos fieri (A. D. 203).

§ 498. Persecution raged in Egypt and Northwest Africa—Alexandria—Leonidas—father of Origen beheaded—Potamiena and her mother Marcella —Saturnus (" know me at the judgment")—Perpetua of Carthage—slave Felicitas—contemporary record—with extracts from Jail Journal.

§ 499. Caracalla—misanthropic indifference— but persecution still continued—new practice of purchasing exemption—disapproved by earnest Christians. (Tertullian de Fuga in Persecutione.)

§ 500. Syncretistic mania (§ 450). Heliogabalus priest of sun—wished to unite all religions in one ritual and temple—hence tolerated all—Christianity included—(compare James II.)

§ 501. Alexander Severus (222)—more rational eclecticism—(anecdote—any religion better than a tavern)—appreciated spiritual worship—bust of Christ in his Lararium—with those of Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius—recognized church at Home as legal corporation—influenced by his mother, Julia Mammsea—and she by Origen— (Orosius says she was a Christian—Eusebius says, pious, if ever a woman was)—golden rule on wall of palace—hence reputed Jew or Christian— nicknamed Archienus and Archisynagogus.

§ 502. Maximin the Thracian (235)—murdered and succeeded Alexander—hated Christians for his sake—persecuted chief men—as his own opponents —earthquakes excited popular rage—reign too short to do much harm.

§ 503. Gordian (244)—left the Christians unmolested—Philip the Arabian—so tolerant—afterwards said to be a Christian—and called first Christian emperor by Jerome—and to have been disciplined by a bishop. (Eusebius as a tradition—Jerome as a fact.) He and Queen (Severa) also friends of Origen (§ 501.)—Origen against Celsus (§ 464) says persecution at an end—but to be renewed.

§ 504. Pauses between persecutions—intervals of rest and growth—increase of strength and numbers—heightened expectations of ascendency—increased opposition—and prepared for new attack.

§ 505. Decian persecution—the most methodical—extensive—inquisitorial—and cruel—hitherto the martyrs were few and easily numbered—(Origen.) Now fell chiefly on bishops and clergy—but all required to sacrifice—flight allowed but not re

turn—confiscation of goods—many fled to desert— first anchorites—Paul of Thebes.

§ 506. Church weakened by repose—increase of apostates—Lapsi—classification. The 3 classes of the lapsed were: (1.) Sacrificati. (2.) Thurificati. (3.) Libellatici—certificates of sacrifice registered as heathen—condemned by zealous Christians —(" nefandus idololatriae libellus "—Cyprian cf. § 499)—Proportionate zeal and steadfastness of confessors—Legend of Seven Sleepers—Gregory -of Tours—awoke under Theodosius II. (447) and saw the cross everywhere.

§ 507. Death of Decius (251) seemed to lay storm—but people roused by plague and famine— Gallus urged to persecute—would if could—but hindered by political commotions—and soon died.

§ 508. Valerian (253)—at first favourable—but when Christianity spread in higher ranks—listened to his favourite Macrian—banished ministers—forbade meetings—next year began to slay ministers and chief laymen—so that Christians thought Rev. 13, 5 fulfilled.—(Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusebius).

§ 509. Martyrs at Rome: Bishop Sixtus—and four deacons—one of them St. Laiorence—broiled alive. At Carthage: Cyprian—Christian courtiers now degraded—Acta—and life by Pontius—next year Persian war—death and captivity of Valerian —narrow escape of Church.

§ 510. Gallienus spared Christians—perhaps from indolence—but not merely negative—important positive measure—beginning of end—two decrees preserved by Eusebius—Christianity recognized as religio lieita (259).

§ 511. Aurelian—zealous heathen—but just and politic—long spared Christianity—restrained by decree of Gallienus—and occupied with military enterprises—at last digested plan of persecution— but execution prevented by military conspiracy— and death.

§ 512. Another interval—long pause in storm of persecution—seemed to be abandoned—Christianity allowed to spread for many years—but only preparation for the last and worst.

§ 513. Diocletian—(284)—zealous heathen—but good-natured—and cautious—afraid of Christians —respected act of Gallienus—wife and daughter Christians—but favourite scheme to restore empire —and with it the old religion—new organization —two Augusti and two Cesars.

§ 514. Maximian—Augustus of the West—persecutor before—Legend of the Theban legion—much embellished—simplest account—seventy Christian soldiers refused to march against their brethren and were massacred with their commander Mauritius— at St. Maurice.

§ 515. Galerius—son-in-law of Diocletian—and Cesar—bigoted and fanatical heathen—leader of that party—unwearied in conjunction with Maximian—A. D. 298, purged army of Christians.

§ 516. A. D. 303. Meeting of Emperors at Nicomedia—consulted gods and men—Christian church there pulled down—next day—decree—closing churches—burning books—new class of apostates—Traditores (i. e. librorum sacrorum)—subterfuge—substituted other books—Christians excluded from office—Christian slaves from hope of freedom —edict pulled down—palace fired—charged on Christians.

§ 517. Four more edicts—prisons soon filled— height of persecution 304—sacrifice or die—almost whole empire—wonders of heroism and cowardice —but fewer lapsed than under Decius—new torments—beasts revolted (Eusebius). Sanguine hopes —monuments to commemorate extirpation of Christianity.

§ 518. Diocletian and ITaximian abdicated (305) —Galerius and Constantius Chlorus succeeded— Constantius Chlorus had spared the Christians as much as possible—in Spain—Gaul—and Britain— Maximin continued persecution in the East—exclude from cities—forbade church-building—circulated forged Acts of Pilate—caused to be read in schools—sprinkled food in market with sacrificial wine.

§ 519. Galerius on death-bed—conscience-stricken —or hope of restoration by Christian God—first edict (311)—still extant—had tried to restore Christians, who had left parentum suorum sectam—but in vain—" quamplurimi perseverant "—" indulgentiam credidimusporrigendam"—better be Christians than nothing—" ut denuo sint Christian! et conventicula sua componant"—provided nothing " contra disciplinam "—and pray to their God for us and the republic—that they may lead quiet lives.

§ 520. Constantine—son of Constantius Chlorus —same dispositions—proclaimed by army in Britain—opposed by Haxentius in Italy and Africa— ignoble bigot—turned against Christians because favoured by Constantine. On march against Maxentius—Constantine saw cross in sky—various versions—certainly put cross in hand of statue—and adopted labarum (doubtful etymology). Conquers Maxentius—Licinius in Illyricum—312 edict tolerating all religions misunderstood—313 edict of Milan—allowing free profession of Christianity —Maximin submits—and dies soon—Licinius quarrels with Constantine and heads heathen party—war of life and death—Constantine conquers—end of persecution (323-4).

§ 521. Ten Persecutions—old reckoning—founded on Plagues of Egypt ?—or Rev. 17, 12-14 ?—or mere coincidence—Two accounts—Sulpicius Severus—Historia Sacra (2, 33)—ten plagues predicted —nine past—that of Antichrist to come. Augustine (Civ. Dei. 18, 52)—" nonnullis visum est vel videtur "—no more persecution until Antichrist— but he thinks only ingenious conjecture—without inspired authority.

§ 522. 1. Nero. 2. Domitian. 3. Trajan. ( M. Aurelius A ) t S. Severus A )

1 Adrian S j (Mamilius S f

( Maximin A )

1 Severus S J 7- ^ecius. 8. Yalerian. t Aurelian A ] 9- { Diocletian S f 10- ^^cletian A.

§ 523. Question as to severity of persecutions— and number of martyrs—modern disposition to extenuate—Dodwell—Semler—Hase—partly reaction from old exaggerations (e. g. St. Ursula and eleven thousand virgins—martyred on pilgrimage under Maximin (§ 502)—said to be mistake of tombstone —XIM(artyres) for XI (mille) partly from eonfounding earlier and later periods—few martyrs before Origen (§ 509.)

§ 524. Some from wrong motives—shame—vanity—sympathy—fear—fanaticism—insanity. Still "noble army of martyrs "—old Greek and Roman heroism matched by Christian martyrs.

§ 525. Good effects of persecution—providential purpose answered (§ 476), but not perfectly—hypocrites and cowards after all.

§ 526. Positive bad effects—false notion of necessity and merit—false standard of duty—undue attention to mere suffering—with some the whole of religion (like temperance—antislavery—antipopery— millenarianism—charity— now)—false position of martyrs and confessors—led to early controversy—and first schisms.

I