THE CRITICAL REVIEW. For the Month of July, 1765. ARTICLE I. An Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Antient and Modern, from the Birth of Chrift, to the Beginning of the prefent Century: in which the Rife, Progrels, and Variations of Church Power are confidered in their Connection with the State of Learning and Philofophy, and the Political Hiftory of Europe during that Period. By the late learned John Lawrence Mofheim, D. D. and Chancellor of the University of Gottingen. Tranflated from the Original, and accompanied with Notes and Chronological Tables, by Archibald Maclaine, M. A. Minifter of the English Church at the . Hague. To the whole is added an accurate Index. Two Vols. 410. Pr. 2. 21. bound. Millar. [Continued.] ΤΗ HE enemies of chriftianity have, with an air of triumph, mentioned the opinion of Grotius, that an ecclefiaftical history can contain little more than the bickerings of the clergy. The learning, the candour, but above all, the benevolence of Dr. Mosheim, author of the hiftory before us, refute that affertion. He has undeniably proved, that ecclefiaftical, is as harmless as any other, hiftory, and perhaps even lefs fhocking to the feelings of a philofophical humane reader. The butcheries of war and the treacheries of ftate compofe the bulk of civil and military hiftories; but though it is toot true that religious, or rather unintelligible, altercation forms great part of ecclefiaftical hiftory, yet Dr. Mofheim, by the admirable method he has purfued, directs us gradually to the fountain heads of thofe controverfies; and by making proper allowances for the prepoffeffions and imbecillities to which human nature is fubject, ecclefiaftical history, in his hands, becomes equally entertaining as it is inftructive. . In our laft Review, we brought down our author's account VOL. XX. July, 1765. B of of the chriftian church to a moft interefting period, and we fhall now ftate, in his own words, the hiftory of learning and philofophy at the great æra when the profeffion of chriftianity received the civil fanction. I. Philology, eloquence, poetry, and hiftory, were the branchesof fcience particularly cultivated, at this time, by thofe, among the Greeks and Latins, who were defirous to make a figure in the learned world. But tho' several perfons of both nations acquired a certain degree of reputation by their literary purfuits, yet they came all far fhort of the fummit of fame. The beft poets of this period, fuch as Aufonius, appear infipid, harfh, and inelegant, when compared with the fublime bards of the Auguftan age. The rhetoricians, departing now from the noble fimplicity and majefty of the ancients, inftructed the youth in the fallacious art of pompous declamation; and the greatest part of the historical writers were more fet upon embellishing their narrations with vain and tawdry ornaments, than upon rendering them interefting by their order, perfpicuity, and truth. II. Almost all the philofophers of this age were of that fect, which we have already diftinguifhed by the title of Modern Platonics. It is not therefore furprizing, that we find the principles of platonifm in all the writings of the chriftians. The number, however, of these philofophers was not fo confiderable in the weft as in the eastern countries. Jamblichus of Chalcis explained, in Syria, the philofophy of Plato, or rather propagated his own particular opinions under that refpectable. name. He was an obfcure and credulous man, and his turn of mind was highly fuperftitious and chimerical, as his writingsabundantly testify*. His fucceffors were defius, Maximus, and others, whofe follies and puerilities are expofed, at length, by Eunapius. Hypatia, a female philofopher of diftinguished merit and learning, Ifidorus, Olympiodorus, Synefius, afterwards a Semi-chriftian, with others of inferior reputation, were the principal perfons concerned in propagating this new modification of platonism. III. As the emperor Julian was paffionately attached to this fect (which his writings abundantly prove) he employed every * Dr. Mofheim fpeaks here of only one Jamblichus, thoughthere were three perfons who bore that name. It is not easy to determine which of them was the author of those works that have reached our times under the name of Jamblichus; but: whoever it was, he does not certainly deserve fo mean a character as our learned hiftorian here gives him.? me method to increase its authority and luftre, and, for that purpose, engaged in its caufe feveral men of learning and genius, who vied with each other in exalting its merit and excellence*. But after his death, a dreadful ftorm of perfecution arose, under the reign of Valentinian, against the Platonists, many of whom being accufed of magical practices, and other heinous crimes, were capitally convicted. During thefe commotions, Maximus, the mafter and favourite of Julian, by whofe perfuafions this emperor had been engaged to renounce christianity, and to apply himself to the ftudy of magic, was put to death with feveral others +. It is probable indeed, that the friendship and intimacy that had fubfifted between the apoftate emperor and thefe pretended fages were greater crimes in the eye of Valentinian, than either their philofophical fyftem or their magic arts. And hence it happened, that fuch of the fect, as lived at a distance from the court, were not involved in the dangers or calamities of this perfecution. For this purLibraries were were nobly re 6 IV. From the time of Conftantine the Great, the Chriftians applied themselves with more zeal and diligence to the study of philofophy and of the liberal arts, than they had formerly done. The emperors encouraged this tafte for the fciences, and left no means unemployed to excite and maintain a spirit of literary emulation among the profeffors of chriftianity. pose, schools were established in many cities. alfo erected, and men of learning and genius compenfed by the honours and advantages that were attached to the culture of the fciences and arts . All this was indefpenfably neceffary to the fuccefsful execution of the scheme. that was laid down for abrogating, by degrees, the worship of the gods. For the ancient religion was maintained, and its credit fupported by the erudition and talents, which diftinguished in so many places the fages of paganism. And there *See the learned baron Ezekiel Spanheim's Preface to the Works of Julian; and that alfo which he has prefixed to his French translation of Julian's Cafars, p. 111. and his annotations to the latter, p. 234; fee alfo Bletterie, Vie de l'Empereur Julien, lib. i. p. 26. † Ammian. Marcellin. Hiftoriarum, lib. xxix. cap. i. p. 556. edit. Valefii. Bletterie, Vie de Julien, p. 30-155. 159. and Vie de Jovien, tom. i. 194. See Godofred. ad Codicis Theodof. titulos de professoribus et artibus liberalibus. Franc. Balduinus in Conftantino M. p. 122. Herm. Conringii Differt. de ftudiis Roma et Conftantinop, at the end of his Antiquitates Academica? B 2 was was just reason to apprehend that the truth might fuffer, if the Christian youth, for want of proper mafters and inftructors of their own religion, fhould have recourse, for their education, to the schools of the pagan philofophers and rhetoricians. V. From what has been here faid concerning the state of learning among the Chriftians, we would not have any conclude, that an acquaintance with the fciences was become univerfal in the church of Chrift. For, as yet, there was no law enacted, which excluded the ignorant and illiterate from ecclefiaftical preferments and offices, and it is certain, that the greatest part, both of the bishops and prefbyters, were men entirely deftitute of all learning and education. Befides, that favage and illiterate party, who looked upon all forts of erudition, particularly that of a philofophical kind, as pernicious and even deftructive to true piety and religion, increased both in number and authority. The afcetics, monks, and hermits augmented the ftrength of this barbarous faction; and not only the women, but also all who took folemn looks, fordid garments, and a love of folitude, for real piety (and in this number we comprehend the generality of mankind) were vehemently prepoffeffed in their favour.' Dr. Mofheim is of opinion that Conftantine the Great made no effential alterations in the form of government which took place in the Chriftian church before his time, but that he corrected it in fome particulars, and extended it. We dare not say that Henry VIII. of England had the example of Conftantine in his eye when he laid thofe foundations of the English reformation which were fo nobly compleated by Edward VI. and queen Elizabeth; but according to Dr. Mosheim's account, thofe princes proceeded upon the very plan that Constantine adopted. He permitted the church to remain a body politic, diftinct from that of the ftate, but under his SUPREMACY; fo that he retained the right of modelling and governing it in fuch a manner as that it should be moft conducive to the public good. The philofophy of history (a very proper term if not abused) requires a paufe here, to bewail the ignorance of those ages which obliterated the great principles of Conftantine's ecclefiaftical government as exhibited by Dr. Mofheim, and which never were recovered till the establishment of the English reformation. Our author is, at the fame time, of opinion that Conftantine did not interfere in the internal government of the church, which he left to its bishops, prefbyters, and other teachers. He feems, however, to think, that at the period when this alteration in favour of chriftianity took place, the people ufed to chufe freely their bifhops and teachers. As it is neither our province nor inclination to enter into religious difputes, we must beg leave to refer our readers to the authorities which the doctor brings in support of the above opinion. Our author is of opinion that the divifions in the church occafioned by the elections of bishops, the diverfity of religious opinions, and the like caufes, gradually changed and diminished the rights and privileges of the feveral ecclefiaftical orders, and that the weaker party in all thofe contests fled for protection and fuccour to the fupreme power, and thereby furnished the emperors with a favourable opportunity of setting limits to the power of the bishops, of infringing the liberties. of the people, and of modifying, in various ways, the ancient cuftoms according to their pleasure. This is a ftriking outline; and it gives fresh matter of reflection upon the alliance between church and state, or rather the analogy which civil, bears to ecclefiaftical, hiftory. Where an intermediate order preffes too hard upon one that is fubordinate, the latter naturally starts out and applies for relief to the paramount power. By the oppreffions of the intermediate order, defpotifm was established in France, Spain, Denmark, and Italy; the people always fondly thinking that they would find relief in their exchange of masters. Dr. Mofheim is of opinion that the bishops abufed their power by excluding the people from all part in the administration of ecclefiaftical affairs, and that they afterwards divested even the prefbyters of their ancient privileges; fo that in fact, before the close of the fourth century, many of the privileges which had formerly belonged. to the prefbyter's and people, were ufurped by the bishops; and many of the rights which had been formerly' vefted in the univerfal church, were transferred to the emperors. We must again repeat that we do not pretend to give any opinion of our own upon this head, but refer the reader to the authorities brought by the doctor, which cannot admit of being either quoted or abridged within the compass of a Review. Great names have appeared on both fides, and perhaps in some cases a fpirit of altercation has, in the controverfy, conquered that of chriftianity. The doctor, with great fhew of reafon, thinks that in the times fucceeding thofe of Conftantine, many tranfactions happened with regard to the internal conftitution of the church, which were inconfiftent with the plan laid down by that emperor, and that his fucceffors frequently determined matters purely ecclefiaftical; while on the other hand, bishops and councils decided upon matters that related merely to the external form and government of the church. The doctor, in the courfe of his work, rationally accounts for all thofe paradoxes which have their B 3 folu |