a b that he has any where quoted him. Several things are ascribed to him. Penitential Canons, supposed to have been drawn up by him in the fourth year of the persecution under Dioclesian, in the year of Christ 306, for the sake of such as had some way lapsed under the severities they had endured, or through fear of suffering. However Peter is now generally reckoned an author. A work entitled De Divinitate, quoted in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. d A Discourse of Easter, which is not allowed by all to be his. Peter is several times mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. It appears to me worth the while to transcribe all his passages; though some notice has been already taken of them at the beginning of the articles of Theonas and Pierius. Theonas, having borne the episcopal office nineteen years, was succeeded by Peter, who obtained great honour during his episcopate, which he held twelve years. He governed the church three years before the persecution. The rest of his time he passed in a more strict and mortified course of life, but still without neglecting the common good of the churches; for which reason, in the ninth year of the persecution, he was beheaded, and obtained the crown • of martyrdom.' In another place, giving an account of those presidents of the churches, who had demonstrated the sincerity of their faith by laying down their lives in the late persecution, he says: But of those, who in Alexandria, and throughout Egypt and Thebais, gloriously finished their course, none more fit to be first mentioned than Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a' most "excellent teacher of the Christian doctrine: and, among his presbyters, Faustus, Dius, and Ammonius, were perfect martyrs of Christ; as were also Phileas, Hesychius, Pachymius and ❝ Theodorus, bishops of divers churches in Egypt.' Once more: About the same time also Peter, who with so much reputation presided over the church at Alexandria, an ornament to the episcopal character, both for the holiness of his life and his laborious application in studying and explaining the sacred scriptures, without any crime of any kind laid to his charge, beyond all expectation, on a sudden, for no other reason but the will of Maximin, was taken up and beheaded.' m Our bishop is several times mentioned and called martyr by St. Athanasius. I shall take notice of two places. In one of them he observes: Peter" was bishop here before the persecution, and in the persecution was also a martyr.' In the other he intimates, that Peter suffered at the end of the persecution, or even after it was over, as his manner of writing may be thought to imply. Which too seems to be agreeable to what Eusebius said just now of Peter's having been arrested and beheaded on a sudden, and beyond all expectation. The words of Athanasius are these: But when the persecution had ceased, and the blessed bishop Peter had 'suffered martyrdom, Antony removed, and returned to his monastery.' Sozomen says that Peter fled in the time of the persecution: I suppose he must mean some retirement, which was free from blame. Sozomen himself does not pass any censure upon it: and Eusebius has represented Peter's episcopate as so illustrious, and every way worthy of commendation, that it is not easy to admit the suspicion of any improper conduct. However, that expression of Sozomen, and what Eusebius says of Peter's strict course of life, though without at all neglecting the care of the churches, may lead us to think that, for a large part of the persecution, he lived in some private place unknown to the instruments of the persecution; where however Christian people had access to him, and received his advices and instructions. a Vid. Labbei Concil. T. i. p. 955–968. Scripsit quarto persecutionis Diocletianeæ anno, Christi 306, eorum causâ, qui in prædictâ persecutione lapsi essent, librum de Pœnitentia; ex quo supersunt hodie canones 15, variis pœnitentium casibus accommodati. Cav. H. L. in Petro. Alium item librum de Divinitate. Cav. ib. Vid. Labb. Concit. Tom. iv. p. 286. C. D. E. d Scripsit etiam tractatum de Paschate. Testantur id, quæ habemus hodie, hujus operis fragmenta. Cav. ib. p. 100. e Vid. Cav. ut supra, Basnag. Ann. 306, n. xiii. f. f Eus. H. E. 1. vii. c. 32, p. 289, 290. g - εν τοις μάλιςα και αυτός διαπρέψας ἐφ' ὅλοις δυο και Sexa EviaUTOIS. ib. p. 289. D. 2 The Meletians. A. D. 806. Theodoret styles Peter a most excellent person, and a victorious combatant, who in the time of wicked tyrants obtained the crown of martyrdom. Again he calls him divine Peter. I do not intend to make any long extracts out of Peter's book of Canons, or Canonical Epistle, the only piece of his that remains, if indeed it be his. I would however observe, that he resolves all his cases by the authority of the holy scriptures: and that here are cited the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; the Acts of the apostles, very largely; several epistles of Paul, particularly that to the Hebrews, as the apostle's, intending Paul, and the first epistle of John. In the fragment of his book De Divinitate are cited the beginning of John's gospel, several epistles of Paul, and the first of Peter. d II. In the time of Peter arose the Meletian controversy, or schism, as it is usually called; which, as Tillemont observes, subsisted for the space of an hundred and fifty years, not being extinct in the time of Theodoret and Socrates. с I do not reckon myself obliged to give a particular history of that affair; but I beg liberty to say, that I cannot easily assent to Athanasius's account of the rise and occasion of it, which is to this purpose: Peter in a full synod of bishops deposed Meletius, an Egyptian bishop; who 'was convicted of several crimes, and particularly of having sacrificed. Meletius neither appealed to another synod, nor took any pains to vindicate himself, but presently made a schism. And to this day his followers, instead of Christians, are called Meletians. From that time Meletius 'took great liberties in calumniating Peter, and then Achillas.' 1 h There are several considerations tending to weaken the credit of this account: 1. Athanasius is a prejudiced person. After the council of Nice, if not before, the Meletians joined interests with the Arians; and certainly they were always enemies to the bishop of Alexandria. 2. Athanasius writes with passion. Meletius, he says, was convicted of many crimes; but he does not name them: he only mentions sacrificing. Nor is it likely that the Meletians quitted the name of Christians. They were often called Meletians by others, and sometimes possibly by themselves: but to say that instead of Christians they were called Meletians is invidious. How unreasonable is this in Athanasius, when Meletius and his followers at first, and for a good while, if not all along, agreed with him in every point of doctrine! Epiphanius, to whom others assent, expressly says that Meletius made a schism, but attempted not any innovation in the faith. Nor does Athanasius differ from them. 3. If Meletius had been convicted of apostasy, or of sacrificing to idols in time of persecution, the sentence passed upon him and his adherents in the council of Nice would have been different. What it was may be seen in several " ancient writers of ecclesiastical history. 4. Meletius always complained of injustice. 5. And more over he had a numerous party on his side, no less than eight-and-twenty bishops, and many good men: which could not have been, if he had been known to have fallen so greatly in the time of the persecution. 6. There are other accounts, and Athanasius is almost singular. Socrates indeed speaks to the like purpose, because he transcribes Athanasius: but, according to Epiphanius, Meletius was a confessor: and the controversy between the bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais and the bishop of Alexandria was owing to their different sentiments concerning the manner of receiving such as had lapsed in the persecution, Peter being more mild and merciful t n μετα Πέτρον εκείνον τον νικηφόρον αγωνισήν, ός επί των δυσσείων εκείνων τυράννων το μαρτύριο σεφανον ανεδήσατο. Thdrt. l. i. c. 2, p. 7. b το θείοτατο Πετρο, κ. λ. Id. l. i. c. 9, in. с ειμη, ὡς λέγει απόςολος, επιλιποι δ' αν ήμας διηγε με ένας ὁ χρόνος. [Hebr. xi. 32]Can. ix. app. Labb. T. i. p. 962. ó Ap. Labb. Conc. T. iv. p. 468. C. D. E. St. Pierre d'Alexandrie. art. S. Mem. Ec. T. v. P. iii. P. 111. * Ούτος Μελίτιον, απο της Αιγυπτο λεγόμενον επίσκοπον, επι πολλαις ελεγχθεντα παρανομίαις, και θυσία, εν κοινῇ συνοδῳ TWY ETIONOTWY xafeiλey, x. λ. Athan. ap. contr. Arian. n. 97, T. i. p. 177. * Και αντι Χρισιανων, Μελιτιανοι μέχρι νυν οι της εκειν8 μετ Ράδος ονομάζονται. ibid. Vid. Socrat. H. E. 1. i. c. 6, p. 14, Sozom. 1. ii. c. 21. a. Epiph. H. 68, n. i. Vid. ib. reliqua. * Αλλά ταύτα μεν τη εκκλησία φρονών... Theodoret. Η. F. VOL. II. P l. iv. c. 7. p. 239. Αλλ' εκεινος μεν εδεν των της ευσεβειας δογε ματων εκαινοτόμησεν. appears, Id. ib. P. 240. ! This in that Athanasius calls the Arians heretics, the Meletians schismatics only, and thus distinguisheth their several crimes. Αλλ' οἱ μεν προ πεντηκοντα και πεντε ετων σχισματικοι γεγονασιν· οἱ δε προ τριακοντα και έξ ετων απεδειχ noav aigeTixos. x. A. Ep. ad Episc. Æg. et Lib. n. 22, T. i. p. 293. m Vid. Socrat. 1. i. c. 9. Sozom. 1. i. c. 24. Thdrt. H. F. 1. iv. c. 7. ηδικησθαι μεν ελεγεν ἑαυτον, κ. λ. Socrat. l. i. c. 6, p. 14, C. Conf. Thdrt. 1. i. c. 9, in. • Vid. Epiph. H. 68, n. 2, 3, et 5. P Vid. Athan. ap. contr. Arian. n. 71, p. 187. 9 Socr. ubi supr. p. 14, B. Vid, not. ". T Epiph. ib. n. 1, 2. • Ο δε άγιώτατος Πέτρος ευσπλαγχνος ων, κ. λ. Epiph. ib. n. 3, in. than Meletius. Sozomen makes the fault of Meletius to have been this; that, when Peter had fled, Meletius usurped a power of ordaining where he had no right: nor is there any thing laid to his charge by the council of Nice, as the ground and reason of their sentence, but the rashness and presumption of his ordinations, and the obstinacy and contumacy of him and his adherents in maintaining them. Theodoret indeed does in one place say, following Athanasius, it is likely that Meletius was convicted of some crimes; but he does not seem to know what they were, nor to have any good assurance of the facts. And, in another place, speaking of Meletius, all he lays to his charge is ambition, or love of dominion, in ordaining bishops and other clergy out of his own province, where he had no jurisdiction. d Upon the whole I think there is not sufficient ground to admit the truth of what Athanasius. says of Meletius sacrificing. It is more likely that it is a story forged by some angry people with a view to discredit the Meletian cause: which story Athanasius too readily received. f Samuel Basnage, of Flottemanville, in his Exercitations published in 1692, disputes the truth of that account: but in his annals, published in 1706, he writes as if he had quite forgot what he had once said; which needs not, however, to be reckoned very strange in an author who writes a good deal. In composing the argument here offered, I have had no regard to that in Basnage's Exercitations, which I did not observe till afterwards. These thoughts arose in my mind in reading Athanasius, and comparing him with other ancient writers. It is disputed among learned men when this schism began. Baronius placeth it in 306; Basnage in his Annals, before cited, contends for the same date: Pagi is altogether for 301, or 302: Tillemont carefully examines the merits of each opinion without determining the point. It seems to me that all the accounts and testimonies above cited, which speak of this contro, versy, as arising in the time of Peter, and after the beginning of the persecution, should lead us to pitch upon the year 306, or thereabout: when Peter, as is supposed, put out his Canons, and, as is likely, began to live more retired than he had done; then, probably, Meletius began to ordain bishops, and other clergy, where he should not. 1 m The only thing that leads to the year 300, or 301, or 302, is a passage of Athanasius in a piece supposed to have been written in 256; where he says that the Meletians had been schismatics above five-and-fifty years. Upon which I would observe, that possibly the numbers in Athanasius have been altered; or he might write in haste, and mistake through forgetfulness: or, finally, it is not impossible that, for some reason or other affecting his mind at that time, he might chuse to ascribe a very early date to that schism. I add, that in the same place Athanasius says, It was six-and-thirty years since the Arians were declared heretics, and cast out of the church by the judgment of an oecumenical council.' Which might induce us to think that piece must have been written in the year 361 or 362, that is, six-and-thirty years after the council of Nice, when the Arians were condemned; if there were not some cogent reasons shewing that epistle to have been written in 356: and, notwithstanding what the Benedictine Πετρο-φεύγοντος δια τον διωγμόν, τας διαφέρεσας αὐτῷ χειροτονίας ὑφήρπασε. Sozom. l. i. c. 24. • Έλειπετο δε το κατα την προπέτειαν Μέλιτις, και των υπ' AUTO XEIPOTOVηDEVTWv. ap. Socr. 1. i. c. 9, p. 28.00αυτό χειροτονηθεντων. λογιζο μένη το προπέτες και έτοιμον εις χειροτονίαν Μελιτίε, και των Ta auтa goverTwv. Sozom. ubi supra. Vid. et Thdrt. 1. i. cap. 9. c. 9, in. -επι τισι παρανομίαις διελεγχθείς, κ. λ. Thdrt, l. i. d Μελετίος τις επισκοπος κατα της Αλεξανδρε τε μεγάλε σασίασας ηγεμονίας,πολλαις πόλεσι και επισκοπες εχειροτόνησε, και πρεσβύτερος, και 8 καινης αιρεσεως προςατεύων, αλλά ταύτα μεν τη εκκλησία φρόνων, το δε της φιλαρχίας εισδεξα LEVOS wabos. Id. H. Fab. 1. iv. c. 7. e Hoc affirmat Athanasius-tantique testis auctoritas apud me plurimum valet. -Verumtamen nonnullas de Meletii idololatriâ dubitandi causas suggerunt Theodoretus, Epiphanius, Nicæna Synodus.- -Hæc sunt quæ de Meletianâ idololatriâ suspensum detinent. -Basn. Exercit. p. 307, 308. Ultraj. 1692. ! Vera prædicâsse Socratem, testis est omni exceptione major Athanasius. At falso contaminari Epiphanii narratio- h Basn. Ann. 306, n. 15.. P. iii. P. 3 I Vid. Athanas. Opp. Ed. Bened. T. i. p. 177, not. ©. et p. 269. m 8 γαρ ολιγος εσιν ο χρόνος· αλλ' οι μεν προ πεντήκοντα και πέντε ετων σχισματικοι γεγονασιν· οἱ δε προ τριακοντα και εξ ετων απεδείχθησαν αἱρετικοι, και της εκκλησίας απεβλήθησαν. εκ κρίσεως πάσης της οικεμενικής συνοδο. Εp. ad. Episc. Αg. et Lib. n. 22, p. 293. n See note ". • Verum hunc locum par est ita distinguere, ut verbum, aredeixnoar, sunt declarati, ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum referantur, qui nimirum in Synodo Alexandrinâ Arium hæreticum primus declaravit; cætera autem quæ sequuntur, Nicænæ attribuantur Synodo. Ubi supr. p. 269, n. 4. editors say, it is more reasonable to carry on the number, thirty-six, through the whole sentence, than to confine it to the first part of it, declared heretics,' and to understand thereby some declaration, different from that of the council there spoken of. I do not therefore see any good reason why this passage of Athanasius should oblige us to think the Meletian controversy arose before the year 306. AN ANSWER TO MR. JACKSON'S REMARKS UPON THE FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK. SEE THE BELIEF OF A FUTURE STATE PROVED TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLE OF I. The time of Sabellianism. II. The name of the presbyter of Rome, rival of Cornelius: whether Novatus or Novatianus. I. MR. JACKSON is not a little displeased at my placing the rise of Sabellianism so late as only two or three years before A. D. 257, when Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to pope Xystus upon that subject: though I am not therein singular, but only maintain the general opinion of learned men about it, as I shewed Vol. I. p. 616. To authors there mentioned I shall add one or two more: Hæresis Sabelliana erupit circa A. C. 257. J. A. Fabr. Annot. ad Philast. cap. liv. de Sabellio. Sabellius, Eusebio teste lib. 7. Histor. cap. vi. errores Ptolemaide in urbe Pentapoleos circiter annum 257, spargere cœpit. Benedictin. not. ad Ambros. Tom. ii. p. 445. Scribit Eusebius libr. Ecc. Hist. 7. Sabellii hæresim sub tempora Decii-audire coepisse, cum Romanæ sedi præesset Stephanus, aut Sixtus: hoc est, circa annum Christi cclvii, &c. Petav. Dogm. Theol. Tom. ii. i. c. 6, sect. iii. I do not think myself obliged to say a great deal more here in vindication of that date: I can' rely upon my argument from Dionysius, exhibited p. 58, 59: and I persuade myself that they, who will read it and carefully attend to it, will not think that Mr. Jackson has weakened it by what he has said, but has left it still in full force. 6 Mr. Jackson says, p. 121, that Dionysius, in his letter to Xystus, gives no account of the rise of Sabellianism, but only of its being greatly spread.' But my argument does not depend upon that, but rather upon Dionysius's not having sooner sent an account of that affair to his correspondents at Rome; which he would have done if the controversy had been on foot a good while before: nevertheless, it happens that there are expressions in that letter of Dionysius which imply that it was then but newly moved, advanced, or agitated. Пeps yap TE VUV XIVYOENTOS Περι γαρ τὸ νῦν κινηθέντος εν τη πτολεμαίδι της πενταπόλεως δογματος. Ap. Euseb. Η. Ε. 1. vii. c. 6. Besides, what avails it for Mr. Jackson to insist so much upon it, that Dionysius gives Xystus an account of the increase, not of the rise of Sabellianism, when the increase supposes the rise? And it is the spreading of a doctrine that induces men to take notice of it, and send accounts of it to their friends. If Sabellianism had not spread in the country near him, Dionysius would not have thought it needful to make any mention of it in a letter to one at a distance: this therefore' was what he was naturally led to speak of in his letter to Xystus. Farther, Mr. Jackson says, p. 122, 123, Sabellius himself was undoubtedly noted many years "before; and, upon the death of his master Noetus, about A. D. 220, spread his doctrine in 'several parts of Asia: p. 24, Sabellius was the most noted the most famous disciple of Noetus.' These things are said with a good deal of positiveness: but upon what grounds? where is the evidence? Tillemont Mem. Ec. T. iv. Les Sabelliens, observes: Philaster and Augustine say that • Sabellius was a disciple of Noetus, which is not impossible, though the Greeks say nothing of it.' Philaster's words are: Sabellius post illum [Noetum] de Libya discipulus ejus similitudinem sui doctoris itidem secutus est et errorem. Augustine's words are; Sabelliani ab illo Noeto, quem supra memoravimus, defluxisse dicuntur. Nam et discipulum ejus quidam perhibent fuisse Sabellium: so that he speaks doubtfully about it. Many might call Sabellius a disciple of Noetus, as he came not very long after him, and because of the resemblance of their opinions: but if it was a thing well known that Sabellius was a scholar of Noetus, why should the Greeks omit to mention it? And if they write nothing about it, how should the Latins know it? The silence of Greek authors is of much more importance than the sayings and reports of a few Latin writers. Had not Epiphanius and Theodoret, who write of heresies, and particularly of Noetianism and Sabellianism, an opportunity to say where Sabellius learned his doctrine if they knew it? Theodoret, H. F. 1, iii. c. 3, mentions some predecessors of Noetus, and says that Callistus upheld his opinion after him: Ταυλης μελα τον Νοηΐον υπερήσπισε καλλιςος. But says nothing here or elsewhere, that I remember, of Sabellius being a disciple of Noetus. Epiphanius, H. 62, n. 1, says that • Sabellius's doctrine was the same with that of the Noetians, excepting only a few things. Why does he not add that Sabellius learned his doctrine from Noetus, if he knew that also to be true. Mr. Jackson says, p. 121, There is no evidence that Sabellianism had its rise in Ptolemais ⚫ in Egypt.' Where then had it its rise? It is generally concluded by learned men, from Eusebius's account of Dionysius's letter to Xystus, that it had its rise in Ptolemais. Sabellius himself is continually spoken of by the ancients, who give an account of him and his doctrine as a Libyan or African: so Philaster before cited: and so Theodoret, H. F. 1. ii. c. 9. Σαβέλλιος δε ο Λίβυς ο πενταπολίτης. If Sabellianism had its rise in Asia Minor, at Ephesus, or Smyrna, or thereabout, why have we no account of any writers of that country opposing it? Athanasius says that in the time of Dionysius, some of the bishops of Pentapolis held the doctrine of Sabellius, which occasioned his looking into the matter. Εν πενταπόλει της ανω Λιβυης τηνικαυτα τινες των επισκόπων εφρόνησαν Tu Zabeλλ18. De Sent. Dionys. n. 5, p. 246. And Theodoret, in his article of Sabellius, takes particular notice that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against him. If this principle had been first taught by Sabellius in some other parts before it was known in Egypt, why does not Dionysius. himself; why did not Eusebius, nor Athanasius, nor Epiphanius, nor Theodoret, give any hint of it? Mr. Jackson, p. 125, still insists upon the authority of two ancient chronologers, Isidore Hispalensis, and Ado Viennensis, who in their chronicles agree to place Sabellius about A. D.. 220. And indeed he had need to call them ancient.' Nevertheless Mr. Jackson does not deny the truth of what I said, p. 59, that they are Latin authors; and that they wrote, one of them in Spain in the seventh, the other in Gaul, in the ninth century:' that is, the earliest of them several hundred years after the supposed time of Sabellius. The authority of such chroniclers undoubtedly is very great. I likewise argued from several considerations, to which the reader is referred, that they confounded Noetus and Sabellius. But Mr. Jackson's strongest argument seems to be, that his author could not write his excellent' book on the Trinity, p. 126, his incomparable and invaluable' book, p. 132, after his schism; which yet he must have done if Sabellianism had not its rise till after 251. Nec, quantum cogito, verisimile est, illum condidisse tam egregium librum,- -postquam in schisma detestandum se demersisset. Præf. p, 118. But the force of this argument depends upon a degree of uncharitableness in a man's mind, for which I can see no ground: a heretic, or schismatic, we may suppose, cannot write a good book in favour of his errors, or wrong conduct: but if he hold any truths in common with other men, I do not see why he may not be able to write well in defence of them: and I readily assent to Nicephorus in what he says of Eusebius, the famous bishop of Cæsarea; that he left many writings useful for the church, though he often favours. Arianism. Και άλλα διαφορα συγγράμματα καταλελοιπε, πολλήν όνησιν τη εκκλησια εισφεροντα πλην τοι8τος ων εν πολλοις φαινεται τα αρεις πρεσβεύων. Nic. H. E. l. vi. c. 37, p. 446, c. I have here added thus much concerning the time of Sabellius, to please Mr. Jackson; though I am of opinion that what I said formerly was sufficient. II. I must take some notice of what Mr. Jackson says concerning the name of Novatus, otherwise called Novatianus. I offered five arguments; the first of which was, that this presbyter of Rome is generally called Novatus by the Greek writers.' This argument I did not much labour, because I supposed it to be allowed by learned moderns, that the Greek authors do generally so write his |