THE

MERCERSBURG REVIEW.

JANUARY, 1852.

VOL. IV.----NO. I.

EARLY CHRISTIANITY.

Third Article."

To make our discussion properly complete, it is still necessary to bring into view, more particularly than has yet been done, the practical bearings and issues of the whole subject.

1I. Ancient Christianity, and the Doctrines of the Oxford Tracts for the Times, By the Author of "Spiritual Despotism." Fourth Edition. London, 1844. 2 vols. 8vo.

2. Die Anfänge der Christlichen Ki che und ihre Verfassung. Ein geschichtlicher Versuch von RICHARD ROTHE, Professor der Theol. &c. Erster Band. Wittemberg, 1837.

3. The rinciple of Protestantism as related to the Fresent State of the Church. By PHILIP SCHAFF, Ph. D. Chambersburg, 1845.

4. What is Church History? A Vindication of the idea of Historical Development. By PHILIP SCHAFF. Philadelphia, 1846.

5. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN. American Edition, 1846.

6. Vorlesungen über Katholicismus und Protestantismus. Von HEINRICH W. J. THIERSCH, Doctor der Philosophie und Theologie, ordentl. Prof. d. Theol. an der Universität Marburg, Erlangen, 1848,

VOL. IV.NO. I.

1.

It is rather a sorry commentary on the reigning knowledge of ecclesiastical history among us, that the statements made in our first article with regard to the Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries, should have given rise in certain quarters to so much scandal and offence. We have been represented as betraying the cause of Protestantism, and making huge strides towards Romanism, by the mere fact of venturing such statements themselves; as though they were of either novel or questionable character, or must necessarily and at once imply a full approval of the points which as a matter of simple history they are found to grant and allow. Our positions here are not theological, but purely historical. They relate to a question of outward fact, to be settled in such form by proper testimony. How the fact may suit this or that theory of divinity, is another question altogether; and nothing can well be more childish and absurd, than to think of making this second inquiry the rule and measure of the other. Is our theology then to regulate and decide the meaning of history? Must this last have no voice whatever, save as it can be forced to speak in agreement with the first? Shall facts be concealed or denied, because they fall not in with a given scheme of belief? Ridiculous pretension. It breathes the very spirit, that is ordinarily attributed to the inquisition. We have heard of the case of Galileo; forced to do penance, as the story goes, for teaching that the earth moves round the sun, while the honor of the reigning theology was supposed to equire rather, that the sun should be taken to move round the earth. The case before us is precisely of the same tyrannical complexion. Nay it is in some respects worse; for the facts of the Copernican system are by no means so near to us, and so capable of full verification in their own order, as the facts of history with which we are here concerned. The first may always be questioned with some show at least of reason; whereas to question these last is like pretending to call white black or black white.

We refer to what we have said of the religious system of the days of Ambrose and Augustine. "You tell us," exclaims some evangelical inquisitor, doing his best to look calm and mild as well as more than commonly pious," that Christianity as it stood in the fourth century, and in the first part of the fifth, was something very different from modern Protestantism, and that it bore in truth a very near resemblance in all material points to the later religion of the Roman church."-That, Sir, is what we have said; and such precisely is our opinion." You go so far as to add, that were the fathers who then lived to return to

the world in our time, they would find themselves more at home in the Papal than in the Protestant communion."-We have not the least doubt of it, Sir, supposing them to return as they were when they died; their first movement would be towards Romanism, and the most we could hope would be that, after some time taken to understand the present state of things, they might be prepared perhaps to pass forward to Protestantism, as after all better and higher ground.-"You hold that these fathers, whom the whole Protestant world is accustomed to venerate and laud as the glory of the ancient church, knew nothing of the view which makes the bible and private judgment the principle of Christianity and the only source and rule of faith, acknowledged the central dignity of the bishop of Rome, believed in baptismal regeneration, the mystery of the real presence, purgatory and prayers for the dead, venerated relics, had full faith in the continuation of miracles, and glorified celibacy, voluntary poverty, and the monastic life, as at once honorable to religion and eminently suited to promote the spiritual welfare of men." -Certainly, Sir, we do hold all this, and are prepared to furnish any amount of proof for it that may be reasonably required."Then you endorse the worst abominations of the Roman system."-Softly, Sir Inquisitor, not quite so fast; that is not the question in any way under consideration. The matter here to be settled is not what we or you may think of these points. The simple inquiry is, Are the positions true? Whatever may be thought of them theologically, are they historically true? They are merely historical positions. They affirm certain facts of history as facts, and in no other way. If the positions in this view are wrong, if it can be shown that the facts were not as they affirm, let us have proof of it, proper historical proof, and we shall consider it a privilege to acknowledge and retract our mistake. But are you prepared, Inquisitorial Sir, for this reasonable task? Alas, no. You have never read a page of one of these early fathers; and you have never given any serious attention to the history of the church in this period as it may be ⚫ studied from other sources; for if you had done so, it would not be possible for you to assume the ridiculous attitude in which you now stand. You have never studied the subject; know nothing about it; and yet here you are, in spite of all such ignorance, pretending to dispose of it in the most dogmatical and wholesale style, without the least regard whatever to actual facts. The Romanizing spirit of the fourth and fifth centuries is too clear, to admit of any sort of question or doubt. You simply expose your own want of everything like true scholarship, on

the field of church history, by imagining that there is any room for controversy in the case of so plain a fact.

Any respectable church historian may be appealed to as a witness in regard to this point. Gieseler, Neander, Mosheim, though not with the same spirit exactly, agree here in the same general representation, so far as the main fact is concerned. Quotations are unnecessary. It is agreed all round, that the prelatical and pontifical system was in full force in this period, that the sacraments were regarded as supernatural mysteries, that purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the worship of saints, were part and parcel of the reigning faith, that celibacy and monasticism were held in the highest honor, that an unbounded veneration for relics everywhere prevailed, and that miracles were received on all sides as events by no means uncommon or incredible in the church. Who indeed can be ignorant of this, who has only read Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fail of the Roman Empire? We may put what construction we please on the facts. We may explain them as we please. But it is perfectly idle to dispute them, or to pretend to set them aside. We might just as well quarrel with the constitution of nature. The fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were not Puritan nor Protestant. They stood in the bosom of the Catholic system, the very same order of thought that completed itself afterwards in the Roman or Papal church. And their position there was not by accident merely or in a simply external way. It belonged to the very substance of their faith. Their christianity was constructed throughout from this standpoint alone. The strong supposition then of Dr. Newman is not a whit too strong for the actual character of the case. If Ambrose or Athanasius should now revisit the earth, with their old habit of mind, neither of them would be able to feel himself at home in any of our Protestant churches. They would fall in much more readily, for a time at least, with the doctrine and worship of the Catholics. And so on the other hand, neither of them would find the least toleration in any Protestant sect. Anglicans, Low Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, United Brethren, Quakers, and so on to the end of the chapter, would exclude them alike from their communion, or take them in at best as novices and babes requiring to be taught again the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. Let any one appear in New England, at the present time, in the spirit precisely and power of Athanasius, or Chrysostom, or Ambrose, or Augustine, and it is perfectly certain that he would find no countenance or favor in any quarter. Orthodoxy and Unitarianis.n would join

hands in trying to put him down, as a pestilent fellow bent only on corrupting the faith of the churches. No evangelical sect would think of extending to him the right hand of fellowship. His name would be cast out as evil, he would be regarded as a Papist and an enemy of all true religion, in every direction. Such men as Jovinian and Vigilantius would find far more favor. These were the true Protestants, as Neander styles them, of the fourth century. But for this very reason they appeared wholly out of place in its bosom. The whole tone and temper of the time was against them. They were fairly overwhelmed as rationalistic heretics.'

We may charge all this, if we choose, to the ignorance and superstition of the age. We may be sorry or angry, as best suits our humor, that the facts of history should come before us in such disagreeable form. It is easy enough also to renounce the authority of the whole Christianity of this period, and to throw ourselves at once back upon the authority of the Bible. The fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were not infallible; why should we then trouble ourselves with their fancies and ways, when we have the sure word of revelation itself to make us acquainted with all necessary truth? Such ground certainly we liave a right to take, if we see proper. Only, in doing so, let us see and know clearly what we are about. Let us not pretend in this way to set aside the fact itself, from the force of which we thus try to make our escape. This is all we are concerned with at present; and this is something entirely independent of any construction that may be put upon it, or of any theological use to which it may be turned, in one direction or in another.

The most eminent of these worthy opposers of the reigning supersti tions was Jovinian, an Italian monk, who, towards the conclusion of this century, taught first at Rome, and afterwards at Milan, that all those who kept the vows they made to Christ at their baptism, and lived according to those rules of piety and virtue laid down in the gospel, had an equal title to the rewards of futurity; and that, consequently, those who passed their days in unsociable celibacy, and severe mortifications and fastings, were in no respect more acceptable in the eye of God, than those who lived virtuously in the bonds of marriage, and nourished their bodies with moderation and temperance. These judicious opinions, which many began to adopt, were first condemned by the church of Rome, and afterwards by Ambrose, in a council held at Milan in the year 390. The emperor Honorius seconded the authoritative proceedings of the bishops by the violence of the secular arm, answered the judicious reasonings of Jovinian by the terror of coercive and penal laws, and banished this pretended heretic to the island Boa. Jovinian published his opinions in a book, against which Jerome, in the following century, wrote a most bitter and abusive treatise, which is still extant,"-Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. Cent. IV, Part II. Chapt. III.