BR 165 .M83213 1852 v.l
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz ,
16947-1755.
Historical commentaries on
the state of Christianity
HISTORICAL COMMENTARIES
STATE OF CHRISTIANITy
DURING THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
THE CIIKISTIAN" ERA:
BEING
A TRANSLATION OF
'THE COMMENTARIES ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHRISTIANS BEFORE THE
TIME OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT,"
BY JOHN LAURENCE VON IklOSHEIM, D. D.
LATE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTENGEN.
3ii tiun ITnlumfi
VOL. L
VOLUME I. TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN,
BY
ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Esq. F. S. A.
VOLUME IL TRANSLATED, AND BOTH VOLUMES EDITED,
BY
JAMES MURDOCK, D. D.
NEW-YORK :
PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE.
1852.
Intcreil according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one,
By James Murdock,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut District.
D. F"ansiiaw. Printer and Stereotyper,
35 Ann, corner of Naesau-etreeL
ADVERTISEMENT BY THE EDITOR.
This first volume of Dr. Moslieim's Historical Commentaries
is a reprint of Robert Studley Yidal's translation, published in
London, 1813, in two small volumes 8vo. The Editor has aimed
to give Yidal's translation unaltered, except by the correction of
typographical errors. But he has taken the liberty to arrange
the notes, as in the original Latin, in solid masses, subjoined to
the several sections. He has likewise altered the running titles
or headings of the pages, and the location of the contents of
each section ; and has abridged Yidal's general Table of Con-
tents, prefixed to the volume. He has, moreover, inserted, in
the outer edges of the pages, the bracheted paging of the
original, to enable the reader to find readily in this translation,
the pages cited or referred to by the many writers who refer to
the original Latin work. These alterations in the volume trans-
lated by Yidal, will render it similar in form to the subsequent
volume translated by the Editor.
J. MURDOCK
New-Haven, May 1st, 1851.
niEFACE
BY THE EDITOR OF THE FIRST VOLUME AND TRANSLATOR
OF THE SECOND.
These very profound and learned Commentaries on the early
history of the Church, were composed not long before the
author's death, and, of course, contain his most matured thoughts
and opinions on the important and interesting topics discussed.
In this work he aims not only to give a good general History of
the period over which the work extends, but also to embrace
a thorough and candid Discussion, conducted on sound histori-
cal principles, of all the obscure and difficult points in this por-
tion of ecclesiastical history. The general History he includes
in his text, which is broke into short sections or paragraphs : the
Discussion follows, in the form of notes or commentaries, con-
stituting much the larger part of the work, and that in which
he cites or refers to all the material testimonies of the ancients,
and fully discusses their imj}ort and value, according to his
maturest judgment.
Subsequent writers, especially within the last fifty years,
while going over the same ground, have subjected Mosheim's
opinions and reasonings to fresh examination ; and, being aided
by the discovery of some new authorities, and by the general ad-
vances of human knowledge, they have undoubtedly detected
some errors of judgment in our author, and have cast some ad-
ditional light on the obscure and difficult subjects he examines.
But still these learned commentaries continue to be regarded as
a standard work, by all Protestant ecclesiastical writers, and
they are often quoted as being of high authority, and as models
of profound and courteous historical discussion.
The original Latin work was printed in 1753, in a vol. of 988
pages, small 4to ; and, having been long out of print, it is exceed-
EDITORS PREFACE.
iiigly difficult to be obtained. This induced a very competent
English layman, Robert Studley Vidal, Esq. F. S. A. several
years ago, to undertake an English translation of the work.
From the year 1818 to the year 1837, he published three small
volumes, embracing about three-fifths of the whole work, and
bringing the history some distance into the third century. He is
not known to have proceeded any further in translating, and
nothing has been published by him during the last 14 years.
Yidal's translation is very faithful and true : but it has a fault
not uncommon with the English writers ; that of a too great ful-
ness of expression, or the needless multiplication of words. Of
the extent to which this fault prevails, the reader may form some
judgment, by comparing the two volumes here presented to the
public. In the first volume 447 pages of the Latin original
make 536 pages in Yidal's translation ; while, in the second vo-
lume, 542 pages of Latin make only 487 pages in our transla-
tion ; that is, he expands the same amount of Latin into four
pages, as we express adequately and fully in about three pages. —
Yidal also erred, as we think, in changing the form or arrange-
ment of the book ; for he stretched the text along the tops of all
the pages, and threw the commentary into notes at the bottom,
which not only embarrassed the reading of the text, but often
rendered it difficult to trace the connexion between the text and
the notes. This error is avoided in both the volumes of this
edition.
The translation of this second volume was undertaken nearly
three years ago, by advice of several learned gentlemen, and at
the particular request of Professor Frederic Huidekoper, of Mead-
ville, Pennsylvania, who has most liberally patronised the work.
At first it was proposed to translate only that large portion of
the original which Yidal had left untouched. But, it being
found advisable to issue the work in two volumes, the first em-
bracing the first and second centuries, and the second including
the third and fourth, it was deemed advisable to re-translate
EDITO R S PRE FACE. HI
that minor part of tlic third century, which Vidal had transhited
in his verbose manner, so that each volume might preserve,
throughout; a uniformity of style, or bear the impress of a single
translator.
The editor of the first, and translator of the second of these
volumes, has no higher aim in bringing the work before the
public, than to present to the English reader the learned com-
mentaries of Mosheim just as they are; with no enlargement,
abridgement, or alteration. He has not gone into a re-exami-
nation of the topics discussed, or attempted to improve the
original work, by adding to it the results of more recent investi-
gations ; nor has he criticised the arguments of his author, in
any learned additional notes. He is content to be a mere editor
and translator.
Some gentlemen advised the introduction of such improve-
ments and criticisms as would make the work reflect the light
thrown on several of the subjects by the writers who have written
since the publication of the original work. But this would re-
quire about as much labor as to compose a new book ; and it
would either not preserve the work of Mosheim entire, or would
greatly swell its bulk, and make it an undigested mass of diverg-
ing opinions and views. — Others recommended the insertion of
an English translation of all the Greek and Latin quotations
occurring in the work. But this would add much to its bulk,
would enhance the price, and would make it less acceptable to
the well educated readers. — For these reasons, the course adopted
by Vidal has been followed, and Moshcim's Commentaries are
here given to the public, witli no modifications except the trans-
lation of the Latin original into English. And, perhaps, it may
be the most satisfactory to many readers, to have the high
authority of Mosheim standing alone, that they may examine and
compare him for themselves, with those wlio have ventured to
differ from him, on certain obscure and dubious points in the
early history of the church.
17
The copioias Tiiblcs of Contents whicli Vidal prefixed to his
s-rnall vQ^iiiic^, liave been combined, abridged, and prefixed to
the first volnme; and a similar table has been composed for the
second volume. The Tables, it is believed, constitute an impor-
tant addition to the original work. — And, as the Commentaries
will be found to be most frequently referred to by the paging
of the original Latin work, that paging has been inserted in
brackets, at the outer ends of the lines of the translation, through-
out both volumes ; and a Table of the coincidences of that pag-
ing with ours, has been subjoined to the second volume. — The
General Index to the whole work has been retained, translated
into English, and annexed to the same volume. But the Index
of authors quoted, and that of Passages of Scripture illustrated,
have been omitted.
For the publication of the work in so elegant a style, and at
so moderate a price, the reading community are indebted to
Sherman Converse, Esq., who will be remembered as the very
enterprising publisher, a few years ago, of extensive and learned
works ; and who, while laboring under severe bodily infirmities,
has ventured upon an enterprise which promises lasting benefit
to the learned Avorld, although it may fail to repair materially
his pecuniary misfortunes, as well as to remunerate adequately
the editor and translator.
jAilES MXJRDOCK.
Neic-Haven, May, 1651.
THE
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
The work wliioh I here offer to the public, owes its origin
rather to a fortuitous concurrence of circumstances, than to any
regular premeditated design. My Institutes of Christian History
having met with such a rapid sale, that every copy was disposed
of within four years ; the worthy person at whose expense they
were printed, urged me to publish an enlarged and improved
edition of them. In compliance with his wishes, I sat down to a
revision of the work ; and having compared its contents with the
original ancient authorities, together with what else was to be
met with on the subject in the writings of the learned, and also
with such notes and observations as a daily course of reading
and reflection had enabled me to make, I perceived, or rather
my attention was again caught by what for many years before I
had perceived to be the case, that in the history of Christian af-
fairs, some things had been almost entirely omitted, others not
properly represented, and not a few, either from negligence, a
partial view of the subject, or the placing of too great a reliance
on the industry of others, altogether misconceived.
Whatever remarks of this kind presented themselves, were
carefully minuted down, with a view to render the proposed
fourth edition of my book both more complete and of greater
utility than the preceding ones. Proceeding constantly in this
way, my collection of notes at length acquired no inconsiderable
degree of bulk ; and the more frequently I considered them, the
Vi PREFACE.
more disposed I felt, (for we naturally conceive a regard for what
has cost us some pains,) to believe them not wholly unworthy of
being preserved. In the course of time, a thought suggested itself
to me of writing a set of Commentaries on Christian affairs, upon a
different scale ; reducing my observations within a narrower com-
pass on such topics as had been sufficiently treated of by others,
and at the same time, giving a more copious and satisfactory dis-
cussion of those matters which a long course of study and atten-
tion had rendered more particularly familiar to me, and respect-
ing which I had obtained a precise and accurate knowledge. I
mentioned this idea to the person above spoken of, who had sub-
mitted to me the proposal of publishing an enlarged edition of
my former small work, and it met with his approbation : but, as
the undertaking was of some magnitude, we agreed that the work
should be published in separate parts ; taking care, however, that
each division might be so far complete in itself as not to have the
appearance of being disjointed, or awkwardly torn off from the
rest. The work w^as accordingly taken up by me without delay ;
and I have now to express my hope, that what is here offered to
the public as the first part, (but which may be considered as form-
ing a work of itself,) may be productive of the wdshed-for bene-
ficial effects. If the Supreme Disposer of human affairs prolong
my days, and grant me a continuance of my health and faculties,
the others wdll follow in regular succession. Indeed the next,
consisting of Commentaries on the affairs of tJie Christians under the
family of Constantine^ may be expected within a very short pe-
riod : the materials have been long since collected and arranged,
and only wait for the printer.
Since the subject of the following work has been treated of
by many before me, it is impossible but that my book should
PREFACE. Vii
contain several tilings in common with tlicirs ; but notwithstand-
ing this, it will be found, both in respect of the matter, as well
as of the manner of handling it, to differ considerably from other
works of a similar kind. With regard to the form or order of
narration, I have endeavoured to steer a middle course, having
neither arranged my materials after the plan of annals, nor yet
according to that which I followed in my smaller history, and
which many prefer, of distributing the transactions of each cen-
tury under certain general titles. Each of these modes has its ad-
vantages: the latter, however, is attended with this inconveni-
ence, that it frequently separates things the most closely connect-
ed; and by thus interrupting the chain of history, renders it dif-
ficult for the reader to trace the progress of events from their
beginning to their close, or to connect some of the great revolu-
tions and changes with the causes which produced them. My
object, therefore, has been to unite, as far as possible, the advan-
tages of both these methods, by managing my subject so as that,
whilst every proper attention was paid to the order of time, a
due regard should likewise be had to the connecting of events
with their causes, and the keeping distinct things which had no
relation to each other. I trust that both the memory and the
judgment of the reader may be assisted by this mode of arrange-
ment, and that it will be found instrumental in developing the
more remote causes of those changes which have occasionally
taken place in the Christian commonwealth.
For the matter which forms the basis of this work, I have
principally depended on such original monuments of antiquity as
have escaped the ravages of time. I have not, indeed, neglected
to avail myself of whatever assistance could be drawn from those
writers of a more recent date, whose merits have given them an
Viii PREFACE.
authority with the public, and stamped a celebrity of character
on their works ; but, at the same time it has been my care to fol-
low none of them without consulting, and, as far as I was able,
• examining with attention and assiduity the original sources them-
selves from whence the authors derived, or appeared to have
derived, their information. That the reader may the more readily
judge of my caution and fidelity in this respect, I have, in every
case where doubts might arise on a point of any moment, sub-
joined the testimony of these ancient writers in their own words.
I have not occupied myself in discussing the merits of the
different opinions, explanations, and conjectures that are to be
met with in the writings of the learned, unless through necessity,
or where the antiquity and weight of the opinions themselves,
or the abilities and high reputation of the authors by whom they
were maintained, appeared to demand it. In treating of Chris-
tian affairs, it has been my study rather to recount what, upon
the faith of ancient writers, I consider as the simple fact, than to
entangle myself with any particular opinions that may have been
entertained on the subject.
I have intentionally avoided entering into any discussion re-
specting matters of a minute and trifling kind ; such, for instance,
as the birth-place of Simon, Valentine, and others, the particular
year in which any sect sprung up, the exact situation of places,
obsolete and obscure words and phrases, and the like. For, not
to say any thing of the uncertainty with which things of this
sort must, in a great measure, remain enveloped, in spite of every
endeavour that might be used to extricate them, it would neither
be consistent with propriety, nor attended with the promise of
any sort of benefit, to occupy the attention with them in a his-
tory like the present, of the practical species, or that which
PREFACE. IX
applies itself to the immediate and most important purposes of
life ; althoiigli, in another place, the consideration of them might
probably be productive both of pleasure and utilit}^ Besides^
there are many works already extant, in which those who have
a taste for disquisitions of this kind may meet with the most
ample gratification.
In the following Commentaries the history of the first
century will be found less copious than that of the succeeding
ones : indeed, in some instances the reader will meet with
scarcely anything more than a mere summary notice of the facts.
To account for this it need only be known that an enlarged
edition of my Institutes of the Ecclesiastical History of the First Age
is already before the public, in which, whoever shall be desirous
of obtaining further information on any topic which is but
slightly noticed in the present work, may find it treated of
expressly and more at large. I could not by any means, con-
sistently with the plan of these Commentaries, entirely pass over
the first century, since it was my design that they should com-
prehend an universal history of ecclesiastical affairs, from the
commencement of the Christian era to the time of Constantine
the Great, written upon a different scale from that of my former
work, and disposed after a new method : but, on the other hand,
common justice appeared to demand that I should not wholly
disregard the interests of those who had purchased my above-
mentioned enlarged Elementary History of the First Age ; nor
could I in any shape reconcile it with the principles of fairness
and honesty, to send out into the world a mere transcript or
repetition of what was already before it, under a different title.
I therefore determined to follow a middle line of conduct, con-
fining my account of the transactions of the first century within
PREFACE.
mucli narrower limits than I had prescribed to myself in my for-
mer work, but, at the same time, availing myself of the present
opportunity to make several corrections in the history of that
period, and also to enrich it with some additional matter. In
fact, the two works will be found to assist and reflect mutual
light on each other. The enlarged edition of my Institutes will
supply the reader with a more ample and minute investigation
of such particulars, relating to the history of the first century, as
arc but briefly touched on in the following work ; whilst, on the
other hand, by a reference to these Commentaries, light will be
obtained on such matters as are not treated of with sufficient
perspicuity in the Institutes, some partial omissions in that Avork
will be supplied, and the means be furnished for correcting some
inaccuracies which found their way into it through inadvertence,
or want of better information. If, in the following work, any
particulars hitherto unknow^n be brought to light; their due
weight be given to any circumstances hitherto passed over with-
out proper attention ; any points, hitherto but imperfectly sup-
ported by proofs, or not explained with sufficient perspicuity, be
substantiated and rendered easy of apprehension, (and unless I
have been led to form too favourable an estimate of my reading,
my memory, and my judgment, the book will be found to have
some pretensions of this sort,) it will better accord with my feel-
ings to leave these things to be noticed by the intelligent reader
in the course of his progress, than for me to anticipate his dis-
cernment, by pointing them out in this place.
Gdltingen, Sep. 6, A. D. 1753.
THE
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE,
The name of Dr. Mosheim ranks so deservedly high in the
republic of Letters, that no additional recommendation, it is
presumed, can be wanting to ensure the attention of the
learned to any work that may come forth under its sanction.
As a writer of Ecclesiastical History, this profound and judi-
cious scholar may be said to stand without a competitor. The
subject was congenial to his mind, and, whether we consider
the talents he possessed, or the peculiar judgment and felicity
A\4th which he applied them to the elucidation of this depart-
ment of literature, his merit is alike conspicuous, and can
never be too highly appreciated or extolled.
Amongst other works of acknowledged ingenuity and eru-
dition, which he published on this interesting and important
subject, the one which we now venture to submit to the pub-
lic, for the first time, in an English translation, appears to
have engaged a very considerable portion of his attention
and pains.
That vast fund of curious and important matter, which, in
the shape of Notes, will be found to constitute its chief bulk,
could not possibly have been within the reach of any common
degree of exertion : on the contrary, we offer it ; with no small
confidence, to the intelligent reader, as an illustrious memorial
of those laborious and extensive researches, and that severe
MI TRANSLATOR S PREFACE.
course of study to ^vliicli it is well known that Dr. Moslieim
devoted himself, for tlie purpose of illustrating the history of
Christ ianity, and bringing it more within the grasp of ordinary
diligence and apprehension.
The masterly and highly valuable disquisitions which are
to be met with in these Notes, respecting many abstruse and
intricate points connected with the rise and first establishment
of Christianity, appear to have been founded on a most com-
prehensive and deliberate re-examination of the Ecclesiastical
History of the first ages, originally undertaken by the learned
author with a view to an enlarged edition of his Elements of
Christian History, a work of high and established reputation,
and of which the English reader long since received a trans-
lation from the pen of the late learned Dr. Archibald Maclaine.*
But, as the nature and design of that work could not well be
brought to admit of any thing like a detailed examination, or
satisfactory discussion, of several topics on which the curiosity
of an intelligent and inquisitive reader might very naturally
be excited, the illustrious author appears to have conceived
that it would be yielding no unacceptable service to the literary
world for him to write a set of Commentaries on a plan which,
touching but lightly on subjects that had been previously well
illustrated, should have an express reference to the investigation
of such interesting particulars as had not been satisfactorily
discussed either in his own Institutes or in the works of any
other writer.
* And more faithfully translated, and much enlarged with notes, by James
Murdock, D. D. and entitled : " Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and
Modern," in four books. The second edition is now published by Stanford and
Swords, New-York. — Ed.
TRANSLATORS PREFACE. xiil
Of these projected Commentaries, it is to be lamented that
Dr. Mosheim lived only to publish a portion ; but it will, we
presume, be productive of no small degree of satisfaction to the
reader, to be apprised that the work is complete as far as it
goes, and embraces the entire history of somewhat more than
the first three centuries ; a period, perhaps, beyond all others,
replete with matter of the highest import to the right under-
standing of the genuine, unsophisticated principles of the Chris-
tian Religion.
Of the motives by which the translator was induced to
undertake the rendering of this "Work into English, it can be
necessary to say but little. It will probably be though sufficient
for him to remark, that the original Work, having been long
held in the highest estimation by those the best qualified to
judge of its merits,* it was imagined that an attempt to extend,
* Amongst the more recent testimonies in favour of this Work, the Public
will, we are persuaded, attach no inconsiderable degree of weight to that of the
Rev. Henry Kett, B. D. senior Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford ; who includes
these Commentaries in the List of Books recommended at the end of his " Ele-
ments of General Knowledge," (vol. ii. p. 31.) and adds, " It is much to be
regretted, that this excellent Work has never been translated into English, aa
it would so well fill up the defective account of the three first centuries in the
Ecclesiastical History." .
In addition to the very respectable testimony of the Rev. Henry Kett, the
translator feels considerable gratification in being permitted to lay before the
reader the following extract from a letter addressed to him by his much-re-
spected friend, Charles Butler, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn, with the depth and extent
of whose researches in Ecclesiastical and Civil History, the learned world has
not now to be brought acquainted.
" I am rejoiced at your intention of fiivouring us with a publication of your
translation of Mosheim's Commentaries. The original work is quite familiar to
me. Some years ago I read the whole of it attentively, and committed to pa-
per the observations which occurred to me in the perusal of it. I have since
xiv translator's preface.
m some measure, tlie sphere of its utility through the medium
of an English translation, would at least be viewed with indul-
gence, and might possibly be rewarded with approbation by a
liberal and enlightened Publie. — It may, however, farther be
observed, that the Book had become exceedingly scarce, inso-
much that, although it was not unfrequently sought after with
the most eager assiduity, a copy was rarely to be procured, even
for any price.
In what manner the undertaking has been executed, it will
be for others to determine; and he will, therefore, as to this
point, content himself with merely stating that he has, through-
out the whole Work, endeavoured to exhibit the sense of his
original with the most scrupulous fidelity, but at the same time
without so closely pursuing that object as to sink the spirit of
bis Author in a tame and servile translation.
In submitting this translation to the judgment of the public,
it would be unbecoming for him not to feel a considerable degree
of diffidence, if not of apprehension. — He has endeavoured, in-
deed, to render it as perfect as he was able, but he is not so
much the dupe of vain conceit as to imagine that it will be
found altogether free from inaccuracies, or nnblemished by mis-
takes. There is a proper confidence, however, which belongs to
vory frequently consulted it. There can be no doubt of its being a work of
profound and extensive erudition, and that it contains much learning, both in
respect to fact and deduction, which is no where else to be met with. It also
abounds with historical and literary anecdote. In every sense, it is a distinct
work from the Ecclesiastical History ; so that it may be deemed as necessary
to the possessory of that work, as if that work had never been written. — I tliink
your style very clear, and well suited to the work ; and have no doubt but that
your translation of the Commentaries will be quite as popular as Maclainc's of
tlie Geneftl History."
PREFACE. XV
every one who, in making an attempt like the present, is not
conscious of having undertaken that to which he ought to have
known himself to be unequal ; and the translator trusts, that it
will not be thought exceeding the yasi limits of that confidence,
for him to express a hope that his labours will not be pro-
nounced cither discreditable to himself or injurious to the repu-
tation of that illustrious author, to whom it has been throughout
his most anxious wish and intention to do justice.
Robert Studley Yidal.
Nov. 17th, 1812.
N. B. The translator had it at one time in contemplation to have subjoined,
as he went on, a few remarks of his own on certain points that either appeared
to solicit further investigation, or on which additional light has been thrown
since the time when Dr. Mosheim wrote ; but on further consideration (and
more particularly on account of the very great extent to which the page is
already occupied with annotation,) he has been induced to abandon that design,
and to reserve what observations he may have to offer of his own until the con-
clusion of the work; when, should the public appear disposed to regard hia
labours with an indulgent eye, and other circumstances not wear a discouraging
aspect, it is his intention to bring them forward in a supplemental volume, ac-
companied with a Life of Mosheim, a Catalogue of his numerous Publications,
and a Translation of some of his most approved Dissertations and smaller
pieces. To pledge himself to any thing beyond this at present, might, per-
haps, be thought to savour somewhat of presumption ; but he trusts that he
shall not incur the imputation of arrogance, by adding, that there is one other
undertaking, in the way of translation, to which he has occasionally ventured
to direct his attention, and which, should it ever be in his power to accomplish,
will put the English reader in possession of a work that, in the original Latin,
has long been considered as an inestimable appendage to one of the noblest
productions of the human mind : he alludes to Dr. Mosheim's Notes on Cud-
worth's Intellectual System of the Universe.
Testimonials prefixed to VidaVs Third Vol. 'printed A. D. 1837.
" Whether the Theologian or the general scholar be employed in ascer-
taining the nature of Christianity, including both doctrine and discipline, it is of
Xvi TRANSLATOFw's PREFACE.
the greatest moment to investigate the state and condition of tlie Christian
church, previously to its union witli the civil power, or its patronage by the
emperors of the world. The period, therefore, which the liistory now before
us embraces, ought to be minutely investigated ; and we are surprised that the
work of jMosheim, entitled De Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Mag-
num, and which especially details the epoch in question, was not long ago
translated. At last this desideratum is supplied, and we congratulate the pub-
lic on the execution of the task. To the excellence, indeed, of the perfor-
mance, which has been the object of Mr. Vidal's labours, testimonies without
end, and such as are of the greatest weight, might be adduced ; for scarcely
has any writer of eminence had occasion to refer to it who does not pronounce
its encomium : a matter of no wonder, when we bear in mind the importance
of the subject, the judgment and discrimination which the author displays in
treating it, the vast information which the work imparts, and the luminous and
fair manner in which it is given. No person who makes pretensions to
liberal and enlarged knowledge can dispense with the diligent study of it."
" We cannot take our leave of this masterly performance without acknow-
ledging the obligations under which we conceive Mr. Vidal has laid the public
by giving it in an agreeable English dress." — Monthly Review.
*' From the value that we attach to these Commentaries, we feel greatly in-
debted to Mr. Vidal for the pains which he has taken to render them accessible
to the English student. Compared with Dr. Maclaine he will appear to great ad-
vantage. That learned person acknowledges he took 'considerable liberties with
his author, and often added a few sentences.' Mr. Vidal seems to have indulged
in no such liberties. He has ftiithfuUy preserved the sense and character of the
original, without any sacrifice of the genius or idiom of the English tongue."—
Eclectic Review.
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
Page.
The Author's Preface, v
The Translator's Preface, xi
Introduction, 9-81
Chapter I. — Civil, religious and literary state of the world, when Christ came, 9-49
§1. State of the Roman empire, 9
2. Defects in the Roman empire, i , 9
3. Benefits afforded by the Roman empire, . . .... 10
4. Peace reigned almost throughout the world, . .... 11
5. State of other nations, 11
6. All were given to superstition and polytheism, 11
7. Yet they had different deities or gods, 13
8. But this produced no religious wars, 14
n. (1) The Egyptian reli'^rious wars considered, 14
9. Their various kinds of deities, 15
10. Their temples, and the statues of their deities, 16
11. Their sacrifices and other rites, 16
12. Their priests, 17
13. The Pagan mysteries, 18
71. (3) Warburton's ideas corrected, 19
14. Religion of the Greeks and Romans, , 20
15. Religions of other nations connected with the Romans, .... 20
16. Religions of the Indians, Egyptians, Persians, and Celts, ... 21
17. Religion of the Egyptians, 21
18. Religion of the Persians, 22
19. All these religious affected by climate, &c. ...... 23
20. They did not promote virtue and moral piety, ..... 24
n. (3) Jul. C(Bsar and M. P. Cato denied a future state, ... 25
21. Flagitious lives of the professors of these religions, .... 25
22. Arguments of the priests in support of these religions, .... 27
23. The philosophers, 27
72.(1) Warburton's charge, that all were Atheists, &,c. disallowed, . 28
24. Two modes of philosophising prevailed, ...... 30
72. (2) Meaning of the term >-vw3-«f, 31
7?. (3) St. Paul's warning against Gnosticism, 32
25. The Greek pliilosophic sects. — The Epicureans, 33
n. (1) Brucker's Ilistoria Philosophiae commended, ... 34
26 The Academics, 34
Xviii CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
§ Page.
27. The Peripatetics, , .... 35
28. The Stoics, . . 36
29. The Plutonists , . . 37
30. The Eclectics • 38
71. (1) r/tilo Judaeus an Echct'ic, 39
n. (2) Probably also tlie Theoretics of Justin Martyr, ... 39
31. The Oriental philosophers, 40
32. They were divided into sects, 41
33. Yet common notions respecting God prevailed among them all, ... 42
7j. (1) Meaning of the term 'A/d)V, 43
34. Their ideas of matter, the world, the soul, «tc. 44
35. Their ideas of man 45
36. Their moral discipline, 46
37. The use of this chapter, 48
Chapter II. — Civil and religious state of the Jews when Christ came, . * 49-81
1. The Jewish nation under Herod the Great, 49
2. The sons and successors of Herod, 50
3. State of the Jews under the Roman government, 50
4. Their High Priests and Sanhedrim, 51
5. The Jewish worship corrupt, ... 52
6. The religion of the Jews, 53
7. Their errors respecting God and angels, 54
8. Their errors respecting the Messiah, the substance of religion, &c. . 55
n. (1) They all expected a Messiah, 56
9. The Jewish sects, . . . . • 58
«. (1) Why the Essenes are not mentioned in the New Testament, . 59
72. (3) The sect of Hemcrobaptists considered, .... 59
10. Agreements and difFerences among their larger sects, 62
11. The Pharisees 63
12. The Sadducees, 64
71. (1) Jo^epAus' account of them. Their real character, . . 65
13. Division of the Essenes, 68
14. The Practical Essenes, 69
7?. (1) PAt7o and Joscj:)Aws reconciled. A passage in PorpAyry, . 70
15. The Theoretical Essenes or Therapeutae. Their feats and dances, . 73
72. (1) Various opinions respecting them examined, .... 74
16. The moral doctrines of these sects, ...*... 76
17. Lives of the people dissolute and perverse, 77
18. Oriental philosophy embraced by many Jews, 73
19. The Samaritans, 79
72. (2.) They expected a Messiah, 79
20. State of the Jews out of Palestine, 80
Ecclesiastical History of the first century, 83-258
1. The birth of Christ, 83
72. (1) The exact time unknown even to the early Christians, . 84
CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XIX
$ Page.
2. The infancy and youth of Christ, 84
77.(1) Did he labor as a carpenter? 84
3. John the precursor of Christ, .86
4. The hfe and miracles of Christ, , . 87
5. He partially seceded from the Jewisii church, 88
71. (2) The point argued ; and the proof from his baptism (iousidercd, 81)
6. His electiou of Apostles, .... 90
n. (1) Import and use of the word Apostle, 91
7. His seventy disciples, 94
8. Fame of Christ out of Judea, .... ... 95
77, (2) His correspondence with Ahgarus, 95
9. The fruits of Christ's ministry, 9G
10. Christ's death, which was voluntary, 97
11. His resurrection and ascension, 98
77. (1) Why he appeared only to his disciples, 99
1^. Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, ...... 100
77. (1) The power of miracles not one of the spiritual gifts, . . 100
13. The Apostles first preached to Jews and Samaritans, and then to Gentiles, 101
n. (1) Why they continued so long at Jerusalem, .... 101
14. Electiou of the new Apostle Matthias, 102
77. (1) Mode of this electiou 103
15. Conversion of St. Paul, 105
16. Labors and martyrdom of the Apostles, . lOG
77. (1) Did all suffer martyrdom? 106
17. The churches founded by the Apostles, 109
77. (3) Vanity of modern churches in claiming an Apostolic origin, . 1 10
18. The writings of the Apostles, 113
77. (2) Their authority, and the time of their collection, . . . 114
19. The Apostle's Creed, 114
20. Causes of the progress of Christianity, 115
77. (1) False causes assigned, . 116
21. The first Christians generally of low condition, 117
77. (1) Yet some had opulence, rank, and learning, . . . .118
77.(2) Superstition always hard to be eradicated, . . . . 118
22. Christ respected by the Gentiles, . 119
77. (1) Pictures of him. Tiberius said to honor him, . . 119
23. The Jews the first persecutors of Christians, 120
77. (2) Hegesippus' account of the martyrdom of James, . . 121
24. The foreign Jews hostile to Christians, 123
25. Overthrow of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, 124
26. The ten persecutions of the Christians . . 125
77. (1) The number of persecutions not easily defined, . . 126
27-30. Causes of the persecutions, 129
31. Calumnies on the Christians, 133
32. The martyrs and confessors, 134
33. The number of the martyrs, 136
n. (2) Disputes on this subject ; how settled, 137
XX CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
Page.
34 The persecution under Nero, . . • 138
35 Extent of this persecution, 139
w. (1) Its confinement to Rome, not proved, 140
36. The persecution under Domitian, ........ 142
n. (1) Its probable origin political, 143
71. (2) Conjecture respecting John's being cast into boiling oil, . .144
w. (4) Domitian examined Christ's relatives, 144
37. Constitution of the church of Jerusalem, 145
71.(1) Its worship as described — Acts, 2 : 42. Ananias and Sapphira, 146
n. (2) They probably assembled on Sundays, 149
n. (3) Probably divided into several congregations, . . . 150
n. (4) Their community of goods, 152
n. (5) The VII Deacons, a learned dissertation, .... 152
n. (6) The Apostles acted only with consent of the brethren, . .160
38. The Presbyters of the primitive church, . . . . . . 161
n. (1) Terms Bishop and Presbyter denote the same, . . • 162
n. (2) Distinction of teaching and ruling elders doubtful, . . 162
39. Election of Presbyters, and their stipends, . . . . . . .164
n. (2) Some countenance for the right of presentation, . . . 165
40. The Prophets, 165
«. (1) They were not mere expounders of Scripture, . . . 166
n. (2) Seminaries for educating ministers, . . . . . .167
41. The origin of Bishops, 168
71. (1) It was very early, 169
n. (2) They were first styled Angels, 171
n. (3) The church of Jerusalem, probably, first had bishops, . . 171
42. Rights and duties of the first Bishops, . 174
43. Rural Bishops, and diocesan, ... 175
44. Deacons and Deaconesses, • . . . .... 176
71. (1) Their origin discussed, . . . . . . . .177
45. The organization of churches. The people, . . . . . . 179
n. (1) The Clergy and Laity early distinguished, . . . .181
71. (2) The Faithful and Catechumens not distinguished for a time, 181
n. (4) Provision for the poor of the church, 182
71. (5) Excommunication a reasonable thing, . . . . 183
46. The teachers and ministers, 184
47. Order of proceeding in their assemblies, 185
7Z. (1) Pliny's account of it. Why called /)roufl and m7?iocZ/ca superstitio, 186
71. (2) All persons not allowed to teach at their pleasure, . . .194
48. All the primitive churches independent, . . . . . . 196
71. (1) Churches founded by Apostles respected and revered, . .197
71.(2) No ecclesiastical councils. Churches had different tenets and
regula lions, 198
n. (3) The meeting at Jerusalem (Acts, 15) not a council, . . 199
49. They had few men of learning. The Apostolic Fathers, . . . 200
50. The genuine writings of Clemens Romanus, '. 201
51. Spurious works attributed to him, 202
52. Ignatius, and his Epistles, 204
CONTENTS OF VOL. I. Xxi
$ Page,
n. (3) Controversy respecting these Epistles, 2U5
53. Polycarp and Burnabas, 207
54. Hermas, 208
n. (1) lie was probably the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, . 209
n. (2) The writer a dehberato imposter, 212
55. Origin of controversies in the church, ..•..,. 214
56. The first controversy respected the Law of Moses, 215
n. (1) The meeting about it at Jerusalem, not a council. F.Paul
Sarpi and J. PL Boehmer refuted, 216
57. Progress of this controversy 218
58. It produced a schism, . .219
11. (2) Secession of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, .... 220
59. Controversy respecting the way of salvation, ...... 220
n. (1) Other minor controversies, noticed in Paul's Epistles, . . 221
60.a Heretics mentioned by the Apostles, 221
n. (2) Hermogenes, Phygellusj Demas, and Diotrephes, not heretics, 222
Case of Diotrephes examined, ...... 223
Case of Hymenaeus stated, 226
60.6 The Gnostic heretics, 228
72. (3) Rise of the first Gnostic sects, 229
61, 62. Nature of the Gnostic discipline, 230, 231
n. (1) Gnosticism not founded on Platonism, 233
n. (2) Fruitless attempts of some to defend Gnosticism, . . . 234
63. The arguments used by Gnostics, 235
64. The Gnostic factions, . . . . . . . . .237
65. Simon Magus, . 239
n. (1) Dositheus was a delirious man, 240
n. (2) Were there two Simons ? 241
n. (3) Simon not a corrupter, but an opposer of Christianity, . . 241
n. (4) The Gnostics did not respect him, ..... 242
66. The History of Simon, 242
n. (2) His death, and the statue of iiim, 242
67. The tenets of Simon, 246
68. Mcnander, 248
69. The Nicolaitans, 249
n. (3) The Nicolaitans of Rev. 2 : 6, not, probably, the Nicolaitans of
Clement Alex 249
70. Cerinthus, . . 250
72. (2) A full account of him, 253
Ecclesiastical History of the second century, ..... 259-537
1. Extensive propagation of Christianity, 259
72. (1) Statements of the early Fathers examined, . . 259
2. Mission of Pantaenus to India, .261
72. (1) He went, probably, to the Jews in Arabia Felix, . . . 262
3. Origin of the Gallic, German, and Anglican churches, . . 264
71. (ly Opinions concerning the G;;llic churches examined, • . 264
XXii CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
4 Page
n. (2) Gaul and Germany had the same Apostles, .... 268
n. (3) Origin of the British church examined, .... 269
4. Tlie number of Christians in tliis age, 274
7J. (2) Discussion of the subject, 275
5. Causes of the rapid progress of Christianity, 277
n. (2) Miracles still continued. Middleton, 279
6. Human means of the progress, ... 281
n. (1) Translation of the New Testament. The versio Itala, . 282
n. (2) The Apologies 287
7. Disengenuous means sometimes used, 288
n. (I) The spurious Sibylhne verses, 289
n. (3) The Foemander, &,c. of Hermes Trismegistus, . . . 290
77. (4) IMontanus accused of forging the Sibylline verses, . . . 290
8. State of the Christians under Trajan. The populace urge persecution, . 290
n. (3) The persecution in Bithynia under Pliny, . . .291
9. Trajan's law relating to Christians, 292
n. (1) Trajan's feelings and aims, 293
10. The effects of Trajan's law. Martyrdom of Simeon and Ignatius. Some
Christians sought martyrdom, and wished the law more severe, . 294
71. (2) Trajan scrupulously adhered to his law, ... 295
n. (3) The judges discouraged the zeal for martyrdom, . . . 295
11. State of the Christians under Hadrian. Clamor at the games for blood, . 295
n. (1) The magistrates yield to the popular clamor, .... 296
12. Hadrian's new law favoring Christians, .... . . 297
n. (1) Import of this law examined, ...... 298
71. (3) Hadrian's respect for Christ, 298
13. Barchochba an enemy to Christians. Jerusalem destroyed, and Aelia Ca-
pitolina built on its site, 299
14. State of the Christians under Antoninus Pius, 300
n. (2) His edict to the Commons of Asia, 301
15. State of the Christians under Marcus Aurelius, 302
71.(1) He was a very cruel persecutor, 303
n. (2) Horrid crimes charged on Christians, 305
71. (3) Infamous proceedings at Lyons, 305
n. (4) Remarks on this Emperor and his course, .... 306
16. Sufferings of Christians under M. Aurelius. Martyrdom of Justin, Poly carp
and Pothinus, 308
n. (3) The persecution at Lyons, 309
17. Miracle of the thundering legion, .311
71.(1) Discussion respecting this miracle, 312
18. State of Christians under Commodus and Severus, 317
n. (3) Inhuman cruelties inflicted on them, 318
19. The philosophers hostile to Christianity. Celsus, Crescens, and Fronto, . 319
n. (1) Celsus was a modern Platonist, 320
71.(3) Fronto. Why the philosophers attacked Christianity, . . 321
20. The government of the church 322
21. Deference paid to the Apostohc churches, 323"^
CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XXUl
5 Page.
n. (2) Passages of Irenmus and Tertullian on the subject, examined, . 324
22. The churches coalederatcd. Councils established, 329
w. (1) A passao^e in Tertullian considered, ..... 330
23. Effects of tliis union of churches, ........ 334
n. (1) A degree of independence still remained, .... 336
n. (2) Priority of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, .... 336
n. (3) Tho power of these bishops limited. The hierarchy of slow growth, 337
24. A parallel drawn between the Christian and the Jewish priesthood, . . 337
n. (2) This gave rise to tithes and first fruits, . . . 338
25. Tiie Christians began to cultivate philosophy, 339
7?. (1) Justin and others retained the philosophic garb, &c. . . 340
71. (2) Alexandria the cradle of Christian philosophers. Pantaenus,
Athenagoras, and Clemens Alex. ..... 340
n. (3) Clemens Alex. Origen, Justin, &lc. were of the eclectic school, 343
26. Contentions respecting the use of philosophy in religion, . . . 343
n. (1) Disquisition on the subject, 344
27. The school of Ammonius Saccas, ........ 348
71. (1) Account of the man, 348
71. (2) Heraclas, his pupil, 351
28 The philosophy of Ammonius was an attempt to bring all sects of philosophy
and all religions into harmonious union, .... 351
n. (1) The Emperor Julian's opinion of this system, . . . 352
n. (2) It borrows much from the Oriental speculations, . . . 353
n. (3) Yet claims to be Platonic, 354
29. The theoretical or speculative philosophy of Ammonius, .... 354
n. (1) It is founded entirely on the Egpytian discipline, . . . 356
n. (3) The Egyptian discipline is kindred with that of Plato, . . 356
n. (4) Difference of the Ammonian from the Eclectic scheme, . 357
30. His moral philosophy. Bodily mortifications a leading feature, . . 357
n. (3) Frequent use of Christian terms and phrases, and why, . 359
n. (4) Theurgy, what and whence, 359
31. His views of the prevailing religions. The Pagan mythology allegoric, . 3G0
32. His tenets respecting Christ, 362
71. (1) Christ a great philosopher and Theuigist, .... 363
71. (2) He harmonized Christianity and Paganism, . . . .366
71. (3) Compared Christ with Appollonius Tyanaeus, Pythagoras, &,c. 367
33. His forced interpretations of Scripture, 367
71. (1) Four senses of Scripture — literal, allegorical, tropological, and
anagogical, ........ 368
n. (2) Egypt the birth-place of most of these fancies, . . . 369
34. Christianity began to be modified by philosophy, 372
71. (1) Some leading doctrines explained Platonically,. . . . 373
71. (2) Various species of secret discipline, or >va5Tif, described, . 373
n. (3) Secret discipline more comprehensive thuu mystic Theology, . 380
35. Moral Theology assumed a two-fold character, ..... 380
71. (1) Asceticism advanced much in this century, . . . 381
71. (2) Mysticism, its origin and early history, .... 383
fj- (3) Monks, their origin and classification, 388
XXIV CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
§ Page.
36. Form of public worship changed, 390
n. (1) Pagan terms and forms introduced, 391
71. (2) Introduction of Heathen rites, — writers on the subject, . 392
37. The Christian writers of this century, 393
7?. (1) The works of Irenoeus, 394
71. (2) The works of Justin Martyr, 395
71. (3) The works of Clemens Alexandrinus, 395
n. (4) The works of Theophilus, Tatian, and Athenagoras, . . 395
n. (5) The works of TertuUian, 395
38. Rise of Christian sects. The Judaizers, ." 396
, w. (1) Why the Jewish Christians renounced the Mosaic law in the
times of Hadrian, 397
39. The Nazarenes and Ebionites, 400
7?. (1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes, 400
7J. (2) The tenets and character of the Nazarenes, . . . 401
n. (3) Their views of Christ, ........ 402
n. (4) Their opinion of the Mosaic law, 403
40. The Ebionites, 403
n. (1) Origin and import of the name, 404
77. (2) Their sentiments and practice, 404
41. The sects generated by the Oriental philosophy, ... . 405
n. (1) The Gnostic sects became known under Hadrian, . . . 406
71. (2) Their errors brought reproach on the Christians, . . . 406
42. They cause contentions. Sects of them, ..... 407
77. (1) The sects among them less numerous than represented, . 408
43. The Elcesaites, 408
44. The philosophy of Saturninus, ........ 409
n. (1) Saturninus not a disciple of Menander, 411
77. (2) His discipline examined, . . . . . . . 411
71. (3) He the first Gnostic who divided mankind into the good and the
bad, 413
45. The theology of Saturninus, 413
71. (1) All Christians supposed the Pagan gods to be real beings, . 414
71. (2) Consectaries from the doctrine of Saturninus, . . . 415
77.(3) Did he require celibacy and self-mortifications from all ? . . 415
46. The philosophy of Basilides, 416
77. (1) General account of him and his writings, . . . .418
77. (2) He discarded an evil god and evil angels, .... 419
77. (3) Character and sexes of his Aeons, 419
77. (4) He held to 3G5 heavens, and 365 orders of angels, . . 420
n. (5) His Abraxas critically examined, 421
77. (6) His ideas of the Creator of the world, .... 425
n. (7) He held that man has tico souls — a rational and a brutal, . 426
77. (8) He pretended to possess many ancient prophecies, . . 427
47. The theology of Basilides, 427
77. (1; Believed each country to have its guardian angel, . . 429
77. (2) His idea of Christ, as stated by Iranajus and Clemens Alex. . 430
n. (3) His ideas of the New Testament, and a twofold discipline, . 433
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
XXV
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54,
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
The moral doctrine of Basilides, . . ,
n. {]) As u moralist he was strict,
n. (2) Yet some of his followers were dissolute,
n. (3) His idea of martyrs, and their obligations.
The system of Carpocrates, ....
n. (2) His ideas of the soul, ....
His theology,
n. (1) His idea of Christ. IrenoBUs's startement examined,
The moral discipline of Carpocrates,
n. (1) Reported as very corrupt,
n. (2) The apotheosis of his son Epiphanes,
71. (3) Claimed to possess traditional revelations,
The system of Valentinus,
n. (1) Little known. He is said to have been a disciple of St. Paul
n. (2) Why he became a heresiarch,
The Aeons of Valentinus,
17.(1) Whence he derived his system,
n. (2) How he differed from other Gnostics,
n. (3) His system not reconcileable with Christianity;
55. The Valentinian theology, .....
n. (1) All Gnostics made God imperfect, and of course the Aeons
n. (1) Achamoth not the creator of matter, but the architect
The Valentinian idea of creation, ......
n. (2) Men have two bodies and two souls. Bodies will not be raised
His ideas of Christ, .........
72. (2) Christ's body different from ours. He truly died, .
71. (3) Christ made no expiation. He only made God known,
n. (4) His system and that of Manes much alike, .
n. (5) Morals of Valentinians. Heaven open to all men,
Minor sects of the Valentinian school
n. (1) They all denied the Jewish law to be from God,
71. (2) Difference between Ptolomy and Secundus,
Marcus and Colarbasus, .......
/2. (1) Extravagances of Marcus discussed,
Bardesanes,
n. (1) The man and his tenets imperfectly known,
n. (2) He but partially renounced his errors,
n. (3) Had peculiar notions about the origin of the world,
71. (4) His doctrine hitherto misunderstood,
Tatian ; in part a Valentinian: used water in the Eucharist, .
71. (2) His history not given by the ancients,
71. (4) Wine in ill repute among the Orientals,
7?. (5) The austere Syrians favored Tatian's views.
The Ophites or Serpentarians,
71. (1) Minor Gnostic sects named by the ancients dubious,
Cerdo and Marcion,
n. (1) Cerdo little known. Sources of knowledge of these men
71. (2) Marcion's excommunication, as stated by Epiphanius,
458
so,
Page.
433
434
435
435
438
439
439
440
444
444
447
448
449
449
450
452
454
454
456
,460
459
461
462
463
465
467
463
468
469
471
472
472
473
474
477
479
480
480
480
481
483
483
483
483
485
486
487
487
XXvi CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
f Pagfi.
n. (3) His interprctatiou of new wine in old bottles, .... 4s9
C4. The system of Marcion .489
n. (1) It probably much resembled that of Manes, . . . .490
n. (2) The Creator was neither the good nor the evil god, . - 491
n. (3) An attempt to elucidate his system, 492
65. Marcion's ideas of Christ, 492
n. (2) Jesus was not the Messiah foretold, 494
n. (3) Christ's sufferings only apparent, 495
n. (4) Singular idea of Christ's descent into hell, .... 495
TJ. (5) The Gnostics recognized two kinds of moral discipline. Points
in which they all agreed enumerated, .... 49G
66. The heresy of Montanus, . . . . ' 497
n (1) History of Montanus and his sect, .... 498
n. (2) Probably he did not claim to be the Holy Spirit, . • • 500
n. (3) Victor of Rome, for a time, regarded him as a prophet, 500
n. (4) His sect existed in the fifth century. Edicts against them, . 500
71. (5) Turtullian's defence of them is a defence of himself, . . 501
67. The errors of Montanus, 501
n. (1) He was in general orthodox ; but he claimed to be the Paraclete
sent forth to teach a purer morality, .... 502
n. (2) His improvements in morals chiefly external, . . . 505
n. (3) The churches excluded him, as one guided by the devil, . . 508
n. (4) His prophecy of a future judgment considered, . . . 511
68. Praxeas 513
«. (1) Tertullian, his enemy, our only source of knowledge of him, 513
n. (2) Held but one person in God. His idea of God, . . .514
69. Theodotus and Artemon, 518
n. (1) Their opinions of Christ dubious, 519
70. Hermogenes, 520
n. (2) Held matter to be eternal, yet subject to God's power, . 521
n. (3) Believed the soul to be material, 522
n. (4) Was sound respecting Christ. Three persons of this name, . 522
71. Controversy on the Paschal festival, 523
n. (1) The nature and causes of this controversy, . . . 524
72. Termination of this controversy, 533
n. (4) Excommunication of the Asiatics by Victor, of Rome, . 535
INTRODUCTION
It appears to me desirable, {and the opinion is not, I think,
built upon slight grounds^) that before ive enter on the history of the
origin and progress of Christianity, a summary view should be talcen
of the age in which the Gospel Dispensation had its commencement.
For in no other way than by a reference to the manners and
opinions of those times, can we obtain any insight into the reasons
and causes of many things which happened to the early Christians,
or form a proper judgment of several of their primary regulations
and institutions; nor can we hnow justly how to appreciate the
great extent of those benefits which Christ hath procured for man-
hind, unless we previously acquaint ourselves ivith the forlorn and
miserable condition of the human race before the Redeemer''s advent.
By way of introduction, therefore, to the following worlc, we shall,
in the first place, present the reader ivilh a sketch of the general
state of the world at the time of our Saviour^ s birth ; arid then call
his attention particularly to the civil and religious economy of tJie
Jewish nation at the same interesting period.
STATE OF THE WORLD.
CHAPTER I.
Of the Civil, Religious, and Literary State of the World in general^
at the Time of Christ's Birth. [jp, 2.]
I. State of the Roman Empire. At the time wlieil tlie SON OP
God, liaving taken upon liimself our nature, was born in tlie
land of Judca, tlie greatest part of the habitable earth was sub-
ject to the senate and people of Rome, who usually committed
the care and administration of those provinces which were re-
moved to any considerable distance from the imperial city, to
temporary governors or presidents sent from Rome ; or if in
any of them the ancient form of government was permitted to
be retained, gave it such a modification, and clothed it with so
many restrictions, as effectually secured to the Roman state a
supreme and controling dominion. Although the appearance,
or rather the shadow of freedom and dignity yet remained with
the senate and people of Rome, the reality had long been lost to
them ; all power having centred in the one Cesar Augustus,
who was graced with the titles of Emperor, High Priest, Censor,
Tribune of the People, and Proconsul, and invested with every
office of the state that carried with it any thing either of ma-
jesty or authority. (')
(1.) Augustin. Campianus, c?e Officio et Potestate Magistratuum Romanorum^
et Jurisdictione, lib. i. cap. i. ^ 2, p. 3. Edit. Genev. 1725, in 4to.
II. Defects of the Roman Government. Were we to form [p. 3.]
our judgment of the Roman government from the principles
of its constitution, or the nature of its laws, we must con-
sider it as mild and moderate.(') But whatever promise of
happiness the equitable spirit of the original system might hold
out to the people, it was constantly checked and counteracted
by a variet}^ of causes, and particularly by the rapacity and
dishonesty of the publicans to whom the collection of the
public revenue was entrusted jQ the unbounded avarice of the
governors of provinces to increase their private wealth ; and
the insatiable cupidity of the people at large, which displayed
10 Introduction. — Chap. I.
itself not merely in the tenacity with which they maintained
every })art of their conquests, but also in a constant readi-
ness to seize all opportunities of extending the bounds of the
empire. Whilst, on the one hand, this incessant thirst after
dominion gave rise to continual wars, and rendered it necessary
constantly to burthen the inhabitants of the provinces with the
maintenance of a formidable military force, a thing in itself
doubtless sufficiently grievous, the greedy publicans and govern-
ors were, on the other hand, fleecing the people of the residue
of their property by the most shameful and iniquitous pecu-
niary exactions.
(1.) See a discourse hy the very ingenious Mr. Walter Moyle, entitled, An
Essay vpon the Constitution of the Roman Government, published amongst his
posthumous works, vol. i, p. 1-48. Lond. 1726. 8vo. Petri Giannone, His-
toire Cicile da Royaume de Naples, vol. i, p. 3, 4, et seq. Scip. Maffei, Verona
Illustrata, lib. ii. p. 65.
(2.) See Pet. Burmannus,c?e Vectigalihus Populi Romani, cap. ix. p. 123,et scq.
III. Benefits arising out of the Roman government. It must not,
however, be overlooked, that the bringing of so many nations
into subjection under one people, or rather under one man, w^as
productive of many and great advantages. For, 1st, by means
of this, the people of various regions, alike strangers to each
other's language, manners, and laws, were associated together in
the bond of amity, and invited to reciprocal intercourse. 2dly,
By Roman munificence, which shrank from no expense to ren-
der the public ways commodious, an easy and readj^ access was
given to parts the most distant and remote.(') 3dly, Men that
had hitherto known no other rules of action, no other modes of
life, than those of savage and uncultivated nature, had now the
model of a polished nation set before their eyes, and were gra-
dually instructed by their conquerors to form themselves after
it. 4thly, Literature and the arts, w^ith the study of humanity
and ])hilosophy, became generally diffused, and the cultivation
of them extended even to countries that previously had formed
no other scale by which to estimate the dignity of man, than
that of corporeal vigor, or muscular strength.
Since all these things materially contributed to facilitate the
propagation of the gospel by our Saviour's apostles, and enabled
State of the World. H
tlicm the more easily to impress mens minds witli the doctrines of
the true religion, we cannot but readily accord in opinion with those
who maintain, that the Son of God could not have revealed
himself to mankind at a more favora,ble or auspicious season.(')
(1.) See a learned work of Niool. Bergier concerning the Roman pub- [p. 4.]
lie ways, entitled, Histoire dcs grands Chemins de V Empire Rcwiain, Brussels,
1728, in 4to. Also a treatise by the learned Everard Otto, de Tulela Viarum
publicarum, Vih. u. p. 314, Many other highly respectable authors have also
either professedly, or incidentally, treated of this subject, and pointed out the
great care and industry of the Romans to render tlie cliannels of communica-
tion both by sea and land, througliout every part of the empire, safe, easy, and
expeditious.
(2.) Amongst the early fathers of Christianity we may refer to Origen, who
particularly notices this circumstance in the second book of his reply to Celsus,
p. 79, edit. Cantab. In after-times we find it adverted to by several of those
who have entered the lists against the adversaries of revealed religion.
IV. Peace prevails nearly throughout the Avorld. Those intestine
discords, by which the Eoman state had long been distracted and
ravaged, were terminated in the acquisition of the sovereign
power by Augnstus ; and the wars with foreign states continued
no longer to be undertaken with the accustomed precipitancy, or
prosecuted with that degree of ardor by which they had been
formerly characterised. Although, therefore, we cannot sub-
scribe to the opinion of those writers^ who, being led into a mis-
take by Orosius, have asserted, that at the time of our Saviour's
birth the temple of Janus was shut, Q) and every part of the Eo-
man empire wrapt in a profound peace, it must nevertheless tiu-
questionably be admitted, that if the period of which we are
speaking, be brought into comparison Avith antecedent times, it
may justly be termed the age of peace and tranquillity. Indeed,
had not such been the state of things, it would have been almost
impossible, (as St. Paul pretty plainly intimates, 1 Tim. ii. 2,)
for our Saviour's apostles to have executed, with effect, the im-
portant commission to mankind with which they were entrusted.
(1.) Masson has given us a very masterly examination of the ancient opinion
respecting the temple of Janus, in his Templum Jani Chrislo nascente reseratum,
published at Roterdam, 1706, in 8vo.
Y. State of other nations. Our knowledge of the state of any
of those nations which were situated beyond the confines of the
12 Introduction. — Chap. I.
Koman empire, is of necessity very imperfect and obscure, owing
to the paucity of their historical monuments and writers. We
obtain, however, hght suflicient to perceive that the eastern na-
tions were distinguished by a low and servile spirit, prone to
slavery and every other species of abject humiliation, whilst
those towards the north prided themselves in cherishing a war-
like and savage disposition, that scorned even the restraint of a
fixed habitation, and placed its chief gratification in the liberty
of roaming at large through scenes of devastation, blood, and
slaughter. A soft and feeble constitution both of body and mind,
with powers barely adequate to the cultivation of the arts of
peace, and chielly exercised in ministering at the shrine of vo-
luptuous gratiiication, may be considered as the characteristic
[p. 5,] trait of the former ; a robust and vigorous corporeal
frame, animated with a glowing spirit, that looked with contempt
on life, and every thing by which its cares are soothed, and the
calamities to which it is obnoxious alleviated, that of the latter.( ^ )
(1.) Fere ilaque imperia penes eos fuere papules, qui mitiore ccclo utuntur : in
frigora, seplemtrionemque vergentibus immansueta ingenia sunt, ut ait pocta^
suaque Jimillima ca^lo, Seneca, de Ira, lib. ii. cap. xvi. p. 36. torn. i. opp. edit.
Gronov.
VI. All devoted to superstition and polytheism. The minds of
the people inhabiting these various countries were fettered and
held in melancholy bondage by superstitions of the most abom-
inable and degrading nature. At the command of their priests,
who were invested with an authority bordering on despotism,
these deluded beings shrank from no species of mental debase-
ment whatever, but were ready to plunge headlong into every
extravagance of the most absurd and monstrous credulity. In
saying this, we would not be understood to mean that the sense
of a supreme deity, from whom all things had their origin, and
whose decrees regulate the universe, had become entirely ex-
tinct ; but, that the number of those who endeavoured by medi-
tation and prayer to elevate their minds to a just conception of
his nature and attributes, and to worship him in spirit and
in truth, was comparatively insignificant, and of no account.
Throughout every nation, a general belief prevailed, that all
things were subordinante to an association of powerful spirits,
State of the World. 13
who were called Gods, and whom it was incumbent on every
one who wished for a happy and prosperous course of life to
worship and conciliate. One of these gods was supposed to ex-
cel the rest in dignity, and to possess a supereminent authority,
by which the tasks or offices of the inferior ones were allotted,
and the whole of the assembly, in a certain degree, directed and
governed. His rule, however, was not conceived to be by any
means arbitrary ; neither was it imagined that he could so fiir
invade the provinces of the others as to interfere with their par-
ticular functions ; and hence it was deemed necessary for those
who would secure the favor of Ilcaven, religiously to cultivate
the patronage of every separate deity, and assiduously to pay
that homage to each of them which was respectively their due.
VII. The same deities, however, not worshipped by all. Every
nation, however, worshipped not the same gods, but each had its
peculiar deities, differing from those of other countries, not only
in their names, but in their nature, their attributes, their actions,
and many other respects; and it is an highly erroneous supposi-
tion which some have adopted, that the gods of Greece and Kome
were the same with those which were Avorshipped by the Ger-
mans, the Syrians, the Arabians, the Persians, the Egyptians, and
others.( * ) Pride and ignorance, amongst other motives, and pos-
sibly something of a similarity, which might be perceptible be-
tween their own statues and images, and those which they [p. 6.]
found in other countries, induced the Greeks and Eomans to
pretend that the gods which they acknowledged were equally
reverenced in every other part of the world. In support of this
identity, they accustomed themselves to apply the names of their
own divinities to those of foreign states ; and the opinion of its
existence having found abettors in every succeeding age, even
down to our own times, the press has swarmed with an host of
idle disquisitions on the subject, by which the history of ancient
religions, instead of being elucidated, has been involved in a
degi'ee of uncertainty, confusion, and obscurity, that is scarcely
to be described. It might probably be the case with most
nations, that the gods of other countries were held in a sort of
secondary reverence, and perhaps in some instances privately
worshipped ; but of this fact we are certain, that to neglect or
disparage the the established worship of the state, was always
14 Introduction. — Chap. I.
considered as an offence of the deepest and most heinous
nature.
(1.) Athanasius lias particularly noticed this in his Oratio contra Gentes, torn,
i. opp. p. 25. It has also been pointed out by several modern writers, particu-
larly by Le Clcrc in his Ars Crilica, p. ii. sect. i. cap. xiii. § 11. p. 280 ; and in
his BibUothequc Choisie, torn. vii. p. 84. Also by Dr. VVarburton, in his Divine
Legation of Moses, vol. ii. p. 233, et seq.
VIII. This diversity of religions did not generate wars. This
diversity of gods, and of religious worship, was never known to
generate animosity, or kindle the flames of war between nations,
except in the one solitary instance of the Egyptians : and con-
siderable doubts may be entertained whether even in this case a
difference of religion alone was the cause of strife.(^) Each na-
tion readily conceded to others the right of forming their own
opinions, and judging for themselves, in matters of religious
concern ; and left them, both in the choice of their deities, and
their mode of worshipping them, to be guided by whatever
principles they might think proper to adopt. Although this
may appear at first sight to many as a very extraordinary and
unaccountable circumstance, yet, when it is examined there will
be found nothing in it that should excite either our wonder or
surprise.(^)
Those who were accustomed to regard this world in the light
of a large commonwealth, divided into several districts, over
each of which a certain order of deities presided, and who
never extended their views or hopes beyond the enjoyments of
this life, certainly could not, with any shadovf of justice, assume
the liberty of forcing other nations to discard their own proper
divinities, and receive in their stead the same objects of adora-
tion with themselves. The Eomans, we know, were jealous in
the extreme of introducing any novelties, or making the least
change in the public religion; but the citizens Avere never
denied the privilege of individually conforming to any foreign
mode of worship, or manifesting, by the most solemn acts of
devotion, their veneration for the gods of other countries.( ^ )
(1.) That the Egyptians were at times engaged amongst themselves in reli-
gious wars, i. e., in wars undertaken on account of their gods and their reli-
gion, is clear from many passages in ancient authors, the principal of which
State of the World, 15
are brought into one view by Pignoriiis, in hia Exposifio Menscc Isiaccc, p. 41,
ct scq. But if by ii religious war be meant tluit which is undertaken by a na-
tion or people in defence of their religion, or with a view to make another na-
tion or people renounce the religion of their ancestors and adopt theirs, in
such case I do not see that those wars of the Egyptians can with any [p. 7]
propriety be termed religious ones. The Egyptians engaged in wars with
their neighbors, not with a view to make them change their religion, but for
the purpose of revenging the injuries that had been done to certain animals
which they themselves held sacred. The fact was, that animals, which in .some
of the provinces of Egypt were reverenced as gods, were in others considered
as noxious, and killed whenever they could be found : and hence arose the
quarrels and warfiire to which we allude.
(2.) See Shaftesbury's Characteristics, passim, vol. ii. p. 166. iii. p. 60.
86, 87. 154, &LC.
(3.) Vid. Corn, a Bynkershoock, Dissert. d£ Cultii feregrincc Religionis apud
Romanos, in Opuscul. Lug. Bat. 1719, 4to. No. iv. Matth. ^Egyptii. Disseriatio
ad Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, tom. vii. Livii Drakenborchiani, p. 197,
et seq. Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, vol. i. p. 307, et seq.
IX. Various kinds of deities. The principal deities of most na-
tions, consisted of lieroes renowned in antiquity, kings, emperors,
founders of cities, and otlier illustrious persons, wliose eminent
exploits, and the benefits they had conferred on mankind, were
treasured up and embalmed in the minds of posterity, by whose
gratitude they were crowned with immortal honours, and raised
to the rank of gods. An apotheosis had also been bestowed on
several of the softer sex, whose virtues or superior talents had
improved and thrown a lustre on the age in which they lived.
This may easily be perceived by any one who will take the pains
to explore the sources of the heathen mythology ; and it at once
accounts for what must otherwise appear a monstrous incon-
gruity, namely, that of their attributing to those celestial beings
the same evil propensities, errors, and vices, that we have daily
to deplore as the characteristic frailties of human nature. In
no other respects were the gods of the Gentiles supposed to be
distinguished beyond mankind, than by the enjoyment of power,
and an immortal existence. To the worship of divinities of this
description was joined, in many countries, that of some of the
noblest and most excellent parts of the visible world ; luminaries
of heaven in particular, the sun, the moon, and the stars, in
whom, since the effects of their influence were constantly to be
10 Introduction — Chap. I.
perceived, a mind or an intelligence was supposed to reside.
The superstitious practices of some regions were carried to an
almost endless extreme : mountains, rivers, trees, the earth, the
sea, the winds, even the diseases of the body, the virtues and
the vices, (or rather certain tutelary genii, to whom the guar-
dianship and care of all these things were conceived to belong,)
were made the objects of adoration, and had divine honours
regularly paid to them. In Egypt this excess of religious cul-
ture reached to the worshipping of the most noxious and veno-
mous animals.( * )
(1.) See the learned work of Gerard Jo. Vossius, De Idololatria, lib. i, ii, iii.
[p. 8.] X. Temples and statues of these deities. Buildings of the
most superb and magnificent kind, under the names of temples,
fanes, &;c. were raised and dedicated by the people of almost
every country to their gods, with the expectation that the di-
vinities would condescend to make those sumptuous edifices the
places of their immediate residence. They were not all open to
the public, but some of them confined to the exercise of private
and retired devotion. Internally, those of either description
were ornamented with images of the gods, and furnished with
altars, and the requisite apparatus for sacrifice.
The statues were supposed to be animated by the deities whom
they represented ; for though the worshippers of gods like those
above described, must, in a great measure, have turned their
backs on every dictate of reason, they were yet by no means
willing to appear so wholly destitute of common sense as to pay
their adoration to a mere idol of metal, wood, or stone ; but al-
ways maintained that their statues, when properly consecrated,
were filled with the presence of those divinities whose forms
they bore.(')
(1.) Arnob. adv. Gentcs, lib. 6. p. 254. edit. Ileraldi. Aiigustin. de Civitate Deij
lib. 8. c. 23. p. 161- torn. 7. opp. edit. Benedict. Julian. Misopogon, p. 361. opp.
edit. Spanheim.
XI. Sacrifices and other rites. The religious homage paid to
these deities consisted chiefly in the frequent performance of
various rites, such as the offering up of victims and sacrifices,
State of the World. 17
with prayers and otlicr ceremonies. The sacrifices and offerings
were difFerent, according to the nature and attributes of the
gods to whom they were addressed.(') Brute animals were com-
monly devoted to this purpose ; but in some nations of a savage
and ferocious character, the horrible practice of sacrificing hu •
man victims prevailed. (') Of the prayers of pagan worshippers,
whether we regard the matter or the mode of expression, it is
impossible to speak favorably : they were not only destitute in
general of every thing allied to the spirit of genuine piet}^, but
were sometimes framed expressly for the purpose of obtaining
the countenance of heaven to the most abominable and flagitious
undertakings. (') In fact, the greater part of their religious ob-
servances were of an absurd and ridiculous nature, and in many
instances strongly tinctured with the most disgraceful barbarism
and obscenity. Their festivals and other solemn days were pol-
luted by a licentious indulgence in every species of libidinous
excess ; and on these occasions they were not prohibited even
from making the sacred mansions of their gods the scenes of
vile and beastly gratification.(*)
(1.) Vid. Jo. Saubertus, de Sacrificiis veterum, Lug. Bat. 1699. 8vo. and re-
published by Crenius.
(2.) See what has been collected on this subject by Columna, in his Com
mentary on the Fragments of Ennius, p. 29, et. seq. Also Saubertus, de Sacri-
Jiciis veterum, cap. xxi. p. 455.
(3.) Vid. Matth. Brouerius a Niedeck, de Adorationibus vetcrum PopiUorum^
Traj. 1711, 8vo. Saubertus, de Sacrificiis, cap. xii. xiii. p. 343, ct scq.
(4.) The impiety and licentiousness which characterised the festivals of hea-
then nations, are very fully and ably exposed by Philo Judtcus, in his treatise
de Cherubim, p. 155, 15G, torn. i. opp. edit. Mangcy.
XII. Their priests. The care of the temples, together [p. 9.]
with the superintendance and direction of all religious ordi-
nances, was committed to a class of men bearing the titles of
priests, or flamins. Within the peculiar province of these minis-
ters it came to see that the ancient and accustomed honors were
paid to the deities publicly acknowledged, and that a due regard
was manifested in every other respect for the religion of the
Btatc. These formed their ordinary duties ; but superstition
ascribed to them functions of a far more exalted nature. It con
;|^ Introduction. — Chap. I.
eidered tliein rather in tlic liglit of intimate and familiar friends
of tlic gods, than in that of officiating servants at their altars ;
and consequently attributed to them the highest degree of sanc-
tity, influence, and power. With the minds of the people thug
prejudiced in their favor, it could be no very difficult thing for
an artful and designing set of men, possessed of a' competent
share of knowledge, to establish and support a system of spi-
ritual dominion of the most absolute and tyrannical kind.
XIII. Mysteries. In addition to the public service of the gods,
at which every one was permitted to be present, the Egyptians,
Persians, Grecians, Indians, and some other nations, had recourse
to a species of dark and recondite worship, under the name of
mysteries. The practice of certain secret religious rites may in-
deed be said to have been common to the people of almost all
countries except tlie Romans, who adopted no such usage until
the time of Adrian.(') None were admitted to behold or partake
in the celebration of these mysteries but those who had approved
themselves worthy of such distinction, by their fidelity and per-
severance in the practice of a long and severe course of initia-
tory forms. The votaries were enjoined, under the peril of im-
mediate death, to observe the most profound secrecy as to every
thing that passed :('') and this sufficiently accounts for the diffi-
culty that we find in obtaining any information respecting the
nature of these recluse practices, and for the discordant and con-
tradictory opinions concerning them that are to be met with in
the writings of various authors, ancient as well as modern.(^)
From w^hat little can be collected on the subject, it should seem
that these mysteries were not all of the same nature. In the
celebration of some of them, it is pretty plain that many things
were done in the highest degree repugnant to virtue, modesty,
and every finer feeling. In others, perhaps, the course of pro-
ceeding might be of a very different complexion ; and it is very
probable that in those of a more refined cast, some advances
were made in bringing back religion to the test of reason, by in-
quiring into and exposing the origin and absurdity of the popu-
lar superstitions and worship.(') There might, therefore, be some
foundation for the promise usually held forth to those who were
about to be initiated, that they would be put in possession of
the means of rendering this life happy, and also have the ex-
Stdt^ of the World 19
pectation opened to them of entering on an improved state of
existence liereafter. Ilowcver this might be, it is certain that
the highest veneration was entertained by the people of every
country for what were termed the mysteries ; and the Chris-
tians^ perceiving this, were induced to make their religion con-
form in many respects to this part of the heathen model, hop-
ing that it might thereby the more readily obtain a favorable
reception with those whom it was their object and their hope
to convert.(7
(1.) That the Romans practised -no sort of mysteries before the time [p. 10.]
of our Saviour, is clear from the testimony of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, and
others. Aurelius Victor is my authority for considering these secret rites, and
particularly the Eleusinian mysteries, to have been introduced at Rome by the
emperor Hadrian, whose curiosity was unbounded. Pace ad orientem compos'Ua
Romam regrediLur- Ibi Grcccorum more, seu PompUii Numcc, ccjcremonias, leges.
Gymnasia, doctoresque curare occaepit ; — alque inilia Cercris, Liberccque, qua:
Eleusina diciiur Atkeniensium modo, Roma percolcret. Lib. de Cccsarih. cap.
xiv. p. 349. edit. Arntzenii, I am aware that the credit of Aurelius Victor has
been called in question by several very learned men, but I must confess I know
not on what grounds.
(2.) See what has been collected on this subject by Meursius, in his work de
Mysteriis Eleusiniis ; and by Clarkson, in his Discours sur les Liturgies, \ 4.
p. 36.
(3.) Dr. Warburton has discussed the s\ibject of these mysteries with
much ingenuity, though not always with equal felicity, in his celebrated work
on the Divine Legation of Moses, torn. i. lib. 2. sect. 4. p. 131. s. That great
Bcholar thinks that aU the different sorts of mysteries were instituted for the
purpose of teaching the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. But this ap-
pears to me to be carrying the matter too far. I grant that in some of them,
the principles of a rational religion might be inculcated, and the absurdity of
the public superstitions exposed ; but that this was the case with all, no one
can befieve who has attended to the nature of the mysteries of Bacchus, the
celebration of which, according to Livy, was positively forbidden at Rome. I
have myself formerly written on the subject of the mysteries, by way of notD
to Cudworth's Intellectual System of the Universe, tom. i. p. 329. tom. ii. pi,
1049 ; and I still retain the same sentiments that I there expressed.
(4.) Vid. Cicero DispuL Tusculan. lib. i. cap. 13. tom. 8. opp. cd. minoria
Verburgianae. Lib. i. de Legikus, cap. 24. p. 3362. Varro apud Augustinum
de Civitale Dei, lib. iv. cap. 31. p. 87. torn. 7. opp. Eusebius Prccparat. Evan-
gelica, lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 61. s.
(5.) They adopted, for instance, in common with the pagan nations, the
plan of dividing their sacred offices into two classes : the one public, to which
every person was freely admitted ; the other secret or mysterious, from which
20 Introduction. — Chap. I.
all the unprofcsscd were excluded. The initiated were those who had been .
baptized ; the unprofcssed, the catechumens. The mode of preparatory ex-
amination also bore a strong resemblance, in many respects, to the course of
initiatory forms observed by the heathen nations, in regard to their mysteries.
In a word, many forms and ceremonies, to pass over other things of the Chris-
tian worship, were evidently copied from these secret rites of paganism ; and
we have only to lament that what was thus done with unquestionably the best
intentions, should in some respects have been attended with an evil result.
XIV. The religion of the Greeks and Romans. At the time of
Christ's birth the rehgion of Eome had been received, together
Q). 11.] with its government and laws, by a great part of the
world. The principal tenets of that religion were built on the
superstition of Greece ;(') but, at thie same time there was in some
points a material difference between the two. For not to say
any thing of the regulations established by ISTuma and others,
relating to the government and support of the state, the people
had, in the course of time, adopted much of the old Etruscan
mythology, and a place amongst their gods had also been given
by them to some of the Egyptian deities.(')
(1.) Vid. Dionysius Halicarn. AniiquU. Romanor. lib. 7. cap. 72. p. 460.
tom. i. opp. ed. Hudsoni.
(2.) Vid. Petitus Comment, in Leges Atticas,\\h. 1. tit. 1. p. 71. s. cd. Batav.
Lactantius Divinar. Institution, lib. 1. cap. 20.
XV. The religions of other nations adulterated by the Romans*
But since the conquered nations did not so implicitly conform to
the Roman religion as utterly to discard that of their ancestors,
a species of mixed religious culture by degrees sprung up in the
provinces, partaking in its nature both of the religion of the
country, and of that of Rome. It appears to have been the ob-
ject of the Roman government, at one time, completely to abolish
the religious systems of those nations whose sacred rites were of
a ferocious and cruel character, or in any shape repugnant to
humanity ;(') and to introduce their own religion in their stead.
The attachment however of those barbarians to the superstitions
of their forefathers, entirely defeated the accomplishment of (
those views, and rendered it impossible to effect anything be- .
yond a sort of compromise, by which certain of the Roman dei-
ties and rites were associated and intermixed with those pecu-
liarly belonging to the conquered countries. Hence it is that we
State of the World. 21
frequently find a deity distinguished by two appellations ; the
one being its original title, the other that which it had acquired
by this kind of denization : and to the same cause we must refer
much of that affinity which is often to be perceived between the
Roman forms of worship, and those of the nations which they
subdued.
(1.) Vid. Strnbo. Geograph. lib. iv. p. 189, 190, where, after descanting on
the bvirbarous and inhuman religious rites of the Gauls, the Germans, and the
Celts, he states that every endeavor was used by the Romans to abolish thera.
XVI. The religions of the Indians, Egyptians, Persians, and Celts.
Amongst the most remarkable of the religions which prevailed
at that time, may be reckoned those which were cultivated by
the Indians, the Persians, the Egyptians, and the Celts. Of these
the Indians and Celts are chiefly distinguished, by hav- [p. 12,]
ing selected for the objects of their adoration a set of ancient he-
roes and leaders, whose memory, so far from being rendered il-
lustrious by their virtues, had come down to posterity disgraced
and loaded with vice and infamy. Both these nations (or rather
classes of men) believed that the souls of men survived the dis-
solution of their bodies : the former conceiving that all of them
without distinction migrated into new terrestrial habitations;
whilst the latter on the contrary, considering immortal life as
the meed bestowed by heaven on valor alone, supposed that the
bodies of the brave, after being purified by fire, again became
the receptacles of their souls, and that the heroes thus renewed,
were received into the council and society of the gods. The
most despotic authority was committed to their priests by the
people of either country : their functions were not limited to the
administration of divine matters, but extended to the enacting
of laws, and the various other departments of civil government.
XVII. The religion of the Egyptians. In treating of the religion
of the Egyptians, it is necessary to make a distinction ; since
only a part of it can properly be considered as the general reli-
gion of the country, the practice of the rest being confined to
particular provinces or districts. The liberty which every city
and province enjoyed of adopting what gods it pleased, and of
worshipping them under any forms which the inhabitants might
think proper to institute, of course gave rise to a great variety
22 Introduclion, — Chap. I.
of private systems. In the clioice of their public or national
gods, no sort of delicacy was manifested, the chief class of them
being indiscriminately composed of mortals renowned in history
for their virtues, and those distinguished alone by the enormity
of their crimes : such as Osiris, Serapis, Typhon, Isis and oth-
ers. With the worship of these, was joined that of the constel-
lations, the sun, the moon, the dog-star, animals of almost every
kind, certain sorts of plants, and I know not of what else.
Whether the religion of the state, or that peculiar to any pro-
vince or city be considered, it will be found equally remote in
its principles from every thing liberal, dignified, or rational;
some parts were ridiculous in the extreme, and the whole in no
small degree contaminated by a despicable baseness and obscu-
rity. Indeed the religion of the Egyptians was so remarkably
distinguished by absurd and disgraceful traits, that it was made
the subject of derision even by those whose own tenets and
practice were by no means formed on the suggestions of a sound
wisdom.(') The priests had a sacred code peculiarly their own,
founded on very different principles from those which charac-
terized the popular religion, and which they studiously concealed
from the curiosity of the public, by wrapping it up in characters
the meaning and power of which were only known to them-
selves. Nothing absolutely certain, it should seem, can be as-
certained respecting it ; but if we may give credit to what is said
by some ancient authors on the subject, it bore a pretty close
analogy to that system which attributes the production of every
part of the universe to a certain energy or power contained and
operating within itself ; putting nature, in fact, in the place of the
Deity.C)
(1.) See what I have said concerning the religion of the Egyptians in a
note to Cudworth's Intcll St/stem. torn. i. p. 415.
(2.) The more occult and abstruse parts of the Egyptian religion have been
investigated with much sagacity and erudition by the learned Paul. Ern. Ja-
hlonski in his Pantheon Mgyptiorum, seu de diis eorum Comment. 8vo. Francf
1750.
[p. 13.] XYIII. The religion of the Persians. The Persians
owed their religious institutes chiefly to Zoroaster. The leading
principle of their religion was, that all things were derived from
State of the World. 23
twc common governing causes ; the one the author of all good,
tho other of all evil : the former the source of liglit, mind, and
and spiritual intelligence; the latter that of darkness and mat-
ter, with all its grosser incidents. Between these two powerful
agents they supposed a constant war to be carried on. Those
however who taught upon this system did not explain it all in
the same way, or draw from it the same conclusions ; hence uni-
formity was destroyed, and many different sects generated. The
opinion of the better instructed seems to have been, that there
was one Supreme Deity, to whom they gave the name of MiTii-
EA, and that under him there Avere two of inferior degree, the
one called Oromasdes, the author of all good, the other Ari-
MAN, the cause of all evil. The common people who equally
believed in the existence of a Supreme Being, under the title of
MiTHRA, appear to have considered him as all one with the
sun ; and it is probable, that with the two inferior deities above-
mentioned, they joined others, of whom scarcely any thing can
be known at this day.(')
(1.) Dr. Hyde has written a commentary professedly de veterum Persarum
Religiojie, 4to. Oxon. 1700; but his work must be read with some caution.
Some remarks on the same subject are to be met with in my notes to Cud-
worth's Intellectual System, tom. i. p. 327 and 249, s.
XIX. These religions suited to the climate, &c. of the countries
■where they prevailed. Whoever will attentively examine the na-
ture of the ancient religions, must, I think, readily perceive that
nearly all of them were framed by the priests upon principles
suited to the climate, the extent, and the civil constitution of
the states for which they were respectively designed. Hence, by
way of distinction, they may be divided into two classes, the
civil, and the military. Under the former may be placed the sys-
tems of almost all the eastern nations, the Persians, Indians,
Egyptians and others, whose religious institutes were manifestly
subservient to the public weal, by promoting the safety and
tranquillity of the people, encouraging those arts by which the
necessaries of life Avere multiplied, and securing to the kings and
magistrates a due degree of authority and dignity. Within the
latter division we would comprehend the religious economy of
24 Introduction, — Chap. I.
all the people of the north ; nations Avhose every sentiment ha*
bibed from their priests, respecting the gods, and the propel
mode of sacred worship, tended to inspire them with fortitude
[p. 14.] of mind, a contempt of death, a ferocity of disposition,
and every other quality calculated to form a valorous and war-
like people. Under governments of a mild and moderate cha-
racter, the gods were represented as just, placable, and merciful :
in those of the opposite description, the people were made to be-
lieve that the deities delighted in severity, were harsh, wrathful,
quickly to be irritated, and with difficulty brought over to the
side of mercy.
XX. Virtue and sanctity of morals not promoted by these religions.
None of these various systems of religion appear to have con-
tributed in the least towards an amendment of the moral princi-
ple, a reformation of manners, or to the exciting a love, or even
a respect, for virtue of any sort. The gods and goddesses, who
were held up as objects of adoration to the common people, in-
stead of exhibiting in themselves examples of a refined and super-
eminent virtue, displayed in illustrious actions, stood forth to
public view the avowed authors of the most flagrant and enor-
mous crimes.(') The priests likewise took no sort of interest
whatever in the regulation of the public morals, neither direct-
ing the people by their precepts, nor inviting them by exhorta-
tion and example, to the pursuit of a Avise and honorable course
of life ; but on the contrary indulged themselves in the most un-
warrantable licentiousness, maintaining that the w^hole of reli-
gion was comprised in the rites and ceremonies instituted by
their ancestors, and that every sort of sensual gratification was
liberally allowed by the gods to those who regularly ministered
to them in this way.(^) The doctrine of the immortality of the
soul and of a future state of rewards and punishments, had also
been but very partially diffused, and even what had been ad-
vanced on the subject was, for the most part, of a very vague
and unsatisfactory nature, and in some respects calculated rather
to corrupt the mind than to produce any good effects. Hence,
at the coming of our Saviour, any notions of this kind found lit-
tle or no acceptance with those who pretended to any thing be-
yond a common share of knowledge, and especially the Greeks
and Romans, but were aU regarded in the light of old wives
State of the World. 25
fables, fit only for the amusement of women and children. No
particular points of belief respecting the immortality of the soul
being established by the public religion, every one was at liberty
to avow what opinions he might please on the subject.Q
(1.) The most learned of the Greeks and Romans admit this : vid. Plato
de Legibus, lib. i. p. 776, and de Republican lib. ii. p. 430, 431, opp. edit. Ficini.
Isocratcs in Oral, in Encomia Busiridis, p. 452. Seneca ds Vila bcata, cap.
xxvi. p. 639, torn. i. opp. Tercntius, Eunuch, act iii. sc. 5. v. 35. Martiulis,
lib. xi. cpig. 44. From this circumstance, Ovid takes occasion elegantly to
caution those females who had a regard for their honor, to avoid the temples
of the deities. Trist. lib. ii. v. 287, and seq.
" Quis locus est templis augustior? Hecc quoque vitel,
" In culpam si qua est ingeniosa suam. [p. J5.J
" Cum steterit Jovis JEde, Jovis succurret in iEde
" Quim multas Matrcs fecerit ille Deus.
" Proxima adoranti Junonia ternpla subibit
** Pellicibus multis banc doluisse Deam.
•• Pullade conspecta, natum de crimine Virgo
•* Sustulerit quare, quaeret Erichtoniuni.
(2.) See what is said on this subject by Barbeyrac in the preface to his
French translation of Puffendorf's work de Jure Naturcc et Gentium^ last
edit. } vi. p. xxii.
(3.) Polybius Historiar. lib. vi. cap. liv. p. 693, torn. i. ed. Gronov. Ac-
cording to Sallust, in Catalin. cap. Ii. p. 309, 310, ed. Cortian. Julius Caesar
when delivering himself publicly in the Roman senate, made no scruple of
denying that man had any thing to fear or hope for after death: dc pccna
possumus equidem dicere id, quod res habet : in luctu atquc miseriis mnrlcm
arumnarum requiem, nan cruciaium esse ; earn cuncla mortalium mala dissol-
vere: ultra neque curcc neque gaudio locum esse . Which speech of Ca3sar'8,
BO far from calling down the censure of that great defender and ornament
of the stoic philosopliy M. Fortius Cato, seems rather to have met with his
unqualified approbation: For in cap. Iii, J 13, p. 332, we find liim as it were
studiously panegyrising it. — Bene et composite, says he, Cccsar paullo ante in
hoc ordine de vita et morte disseruit : falsa, credo, existimans qim de inferis
memorantur ; diver so ilinere malos a bonis loca tetra, inculta, fada, aique for-
midolosa habere. Never would these great and leading characters have ven-
tured to speak after this manner in the senate, had it been a part of the
public religion to believe in the immortality of the soul : nay, hac' a belief
of this kind even been generally prevalent amongst the people, such senti-
ments as the above could never have been uttered in public.
XXI. The lives of men professing these religions, most flagitions.
Under the influence of such circumstances, it is not to be won-
dered at that the state of society should have become in the
26 Introduction. — Chap. I.
highest degree depraved. The lives of men of every c.lass, from
the highest to the lowest, were consumed in the practice of the
most abominable and flagitious vices : even crimes, the horrible
turpitude of which was such that it would be defiling the ear of
decency but to name them, were openly perpetrated with the
greatest impunity. If evidence be required of this, the reader
may at once satisfy himself of the truth of what is here said, by
referring to LuciAN amongst the Greek authors, and to the Ko-
man poets Juvenal and Persius. In the writings of the former
in particular, he will find the most detestable unnatural affec-
tions, and other heinous practices, treated of at large, and with
the utmost fiimiliarity, as things of ordinary and daily occur-
rence. Should any one conceive that these or other writers
might give the rein too freely to their imagination, and suffer
themselves to be carried into extremes by their genius for satire
and sharp rebuke, let him turn his attention to those cruel and
inhuman exhibitions which are well known to have yielded the
highest gratification to the inhabitants of Greece and Italy,
(people, who in point of refinement, possessed a superiority over
all other nations of the world,) the savage conflicts of the gladi-
ators in the circus : let him cast his eye on that dissoluteness
of manners by which the walks of private life were polluted ;
the horrible prostitution of boys, to which the laws opposed no
restraint ; the liberty of divorce which belonged to the wife
[p. 16.] equally with the husband ; the shameful practice of ex-
posing infants, and procuring abortions ; the little regard that
was shown to the lives of slaves ; the multiplicity of stews and
brothels, many of which were consecrated even to the gods
themselves. Let him reflect on these, and various other crimi-
nal excesses, to the most ample indulgence in which the govern-
ment offered not the least impediment, and then say, if such,
were the people distinguished beyond all others by the excel-
lence of their laws and the superiority of their attainments in
literature and the arts, what must have been the state of those
nations who possessed none of these advantages, but were gov-
erned entirely by the impulses and dictates of rude and unculti-
vated nature.(')
(1.) A very copious and animated description of the extreme profligacy
of manners that characterized the heathen worshippers, is given by Cyprian
State of the World. 27
in the first of his Epistkf;, p. 2. ed. Baluz. Several things likewise on this
subjoct are brought tog-o.thcr from ancient monuments by Cornelius Adam, in
his Exercitatio de 7nalis Romanorum ante Prccdicalionem Emngclii Moribus,
which is the fifth of his Exercilationes exegeticcc, Groning. 1712, 4to.
XXII. The arguments used by the priests in defence of these re-
ligions. It Avas impossible that the vanity, the madness, the
deformity of systems like these, should escape the observation
of any who had not renounced both reason and common sense.
But to all objections that might be raised, the artful priests
were ever furnished with a reply from two sources : first, the
miracles and prodigies which they asserted were daily wrought
in the temples, and before the statues of the gods and heroes ;
and, secondly, the oracles, or spirit of divination, by which they
pretended that the gods, either by signs, or in words and verses,
made known what Avas about to happen. The deception prac-
tised in either case was made the subject of ridicule by many,
who saw through the fraud and knavery of the priests ; but a
regard for their own safety constrained them to observe no little
degree of caution in the exercise of this sort of pleasantry. For
in all these matters an appearance was constantly maintained,
sufficiently specious and imposing to seize on vulgar minds;
and the multitude was ever ready, at the call of the priests, to
assert the majesty of their gods, and to punish with the utmost
severity those who might be charged with having done any
thing inimical to the interests of the public religion.
XXIII. Philosophers. This state of things rendered it neces-
sary for those who embraced opinions more consonant to reason,
and whom it became customary to distinguish by the appella-
tion of philosophers, to temporize in a certain degree ; and al-
though they might entertain a just contempt for those notions
respecting religion by vrhich the vulgar were influenced, they
yet found it expedient to pay the accustomed honours to the
gods of the country, and so far to qualify and soften down their
doctrines as to render them not obviously repugnant to the
ancient established religion. Amongst this class of men there
were not wanting some, indeed, who ventured with much point
and ingenuity to contend against the popular superstitions and
absurd notions respecting the gods ; and who, in many respects,
28 Introduction. — Chap. I.
defined the rules of liuman conduct on principles equally conso-
[p. 17.] nant to nature and reason ; apparently considering every
part of this universe as subject to the governance of an omnipo-
tent, all-bountiful, and pre-excellent deity; and there seems,
therefore, to be no foundation for the opinion which some have
entertained, that all these philosophers were the favourers of im-
pietv, or in fact atheists, denying altogether the existence of a
God.(') It must, however, be acknowledged, that the principles
laid down by many of them went wholly to extinguish every
sense of God and of religion, and completely to do away all dis-
tinction between good and evil ; and that in the tenets even of
those who espoused the cause of God and of morality, many
things were contained to which no good or rational men could
yield his approbation or assent.(') If the very best of these
philosophic systems, therefore, had been substituted in the place
of the ancient popular religions, it may well be " questioned
whether it would eventually have been attended with any con-
siderable advantage to mankind.
(1.) There is a remarkable passage in Cicero, which goes near to prove that,
in his time, philosophers of every sect were accounted the adversaries of the
gods and of religion. It occurs in that part of his treatise de InveniionCt
where he discusses the nature of probabilities ; and lays it down, that all mat-
ters of common belief (quae in opinione posita sunt) are to be regarded as
such. By way of illustration, he adduces the following examples: "In eo
autem quod in opinione positum est, hujusmodi sunt probabilia: impiis apud
inferos pcenas esse praeparatas : cos, qui philosophicc dent operam, non arhilrari
deos esse.^^ De Inventione, lib. i. cap. 29. tom. i. opp. p. 171. ed. Verburgienae.
In the time of Cicero, therefore, it was the general opinion that those who
were called philosophers denied the existence of the gods ; and hence, ac-
cording to his judgment, it was not less probable that they did so, than that
there were punishments in reserve for the wicked hereafter. It is established in-
deed beyond doubt, by many passages in ancient authors, that the number of
impious and wicked men was very great in that age, and especially amongst
those of the philosophic sects. Juvenal notices this depravity, Sat. 13. v. 86,87.
" Sunt in fortunoe qui casibus omnia ponant,
Et nullo credant mundum rectore mover!,
Natura volvente vices, et hicis, et anni,
At que ideo intrepidi quajcumque altaria tangunt."
Philo Judaeus also complains in the strongest terms of the great prevalence
of atheism in his time. Lib. 3. Allegor. Legis, p. 93. tom. i. opp. I do not,
however, think that we ought to give implicit credit to those who involve all
the philosophers of those times in one undistinguishing censure, and insist
State of the World. 29
that even those were at enmity with religion, in wliosc writings are to be found
the most admirable discussions relative to God, and subjects of a divine na-
ture : and it appears to mc that many very learned men of modern times have
strained matters too far, in attempting to prove that it was the object of all
the ancient sects, cither avowedly or in secret, to undermine the fundamental
principles of all religion. Can it for a moment be believed that none of [p. 18.]
those great and excellent men, whose minds were, as lar as we can perceive, un-
influenced by any vicious or illiberal principle, should have been so happy as
to possess the faculty of reasoning justly and with perspicuity? Can we con-
ceive that those who expressly acknowledged the existence of a God, and sub-
limely descanted on the nature of his attributes, were all deceivers and liars,
believing one thing, and writing and professing another? Not to notice what
has been urged on the subject by authors of more ancient date, that excellent
and eminently sagacious writer. Dr. Warburton, has, with a vast deal of inge-
nuity and abundance of learning, labored to establish this point, in his cele-
brated work on the Divine Legation of Moses, vol. i. p. 332. s. and p. 419. s.
He would fain persuade us, that all the philosophers disbelieved and denied
the immortality of the soul in private, whatever might be the sentiments they
publicly avowed and taught respecting it ; and that in reality they gave tho
place of the Deity to a principle, which they termed the Nature of Things ;
considering the minds of men to be particles separated from the soul of tho
universe, and that upon the dissolution of their bodies these particles again
sought and were re-united to the source from whence they proceeded. But
without objecting that we have no authority for this but the Grecian philoso-
phers, whereas other nations had their peculiar philosophic sects, differing
widely in their tenets from those of Greece : laying aside, I say, this objec-
tion, we cannot help remarking that this illustrious author has by no means
substantiated his accusation by those plain and irrefragable proofs which the
importance of the case should seem to demand, but supports it merely by con-
jectures, coupled with a few examples, and finally by inferences drawn from
certain institutes or dogmas of particular philosoplicrs. Now, if accusations
are required to be made good only according to these rules ; if examples and
inferences be deemed sufTicient to convict those whose words excite not
the least suspicion of any latent criminality, — who, I would ask, sliall be
accounted innocent? With that mediocrity of talent, and those inferior
powers to which alone I can pretend, in comparison with such a man as
Warburton, let me only have permission to adopt the same mode of at-
tack against the whole body of Christian divines, as he has availed him-
self of in regard to the ancient philosophers, and I will undertake to jn'ove
tliat none of them were sincere in what they publicly professed, but that
all were devoted to the purpose of slyly instilling into men's minds tho
poison of impiety.
(2.) By way of specimen, we refer the reader to what is said respecting
the absurd tenets of the philosophers of their lime, by Justin Martyr, Dial
cum Tryphon. p. 4, 6, G, 7. edit. Jebb. ; and by Ilermias, in an elegant little
work, entitled, Irrisio Philosophicc. If any additional proof were wanting
30 Introduction. — Chap. I.
on the subject, enough might easily be collected to form a volume of
itself.
XXIV. Two modes of philosophising prevail. At tlie time of
tlic Son of God's appearance upon earth, there were two species
of philosophy that generally prevailed throughout the civilized
world: the one, that of Greece; the other what is usually
termed the Oriental. There are many, indeed, who make no
distinction between these two kinds of philosophy ; but it ap-
[p. 19.] pears to me that, in blending them together, they confound
things of a very opposite nature, and betray no trifling want of
information respecting matters of antiquity.(') The term philo-
sophy .properly belonged to the former ; those who were familiar
with the Greek language having given to the other the appella-
tion of yiao-i^, or knowledge : to understand the force of which
term, it is necessary that Ave consider the word 0^« , or of God, as
annexed to it;Q since the leading tenet of those who professed
this species of philosophy was, that by means of their institutes,
that knowledge of the Supreme Deity and great First Cause of
all things, which it had been the ill fate of mortals to lose, might
again be discovered and restored to mankind. The principles of
the former, or what was properly called Philosophy, were not
confined to Greece, but were embraced by all such of the Ro-
mans as aspired to any eminence of wisdom. The followers of
the latter were chiefly to be found in Persia, Chaldoea, Syria,
Egypt, and the other oriental regions. Many of the Jews had
likewise adopted it. Both these sorts of philosophy were split
into various sects, but with this distinction, that those which
sprang from the oriental system all proceeded on one and the
same principle, and of course had many tenets in common,
though they might differ as to some particular inferences and
opinions ; whilst those to which the philosophy of Greece gave
rise were divided in opinion even as to the elements or first
principles of wisdom, and were consequently widely separated
from each other in the whole course of their discipline. St.
Paul adverts to each of these systems, (to that of Greece, Col. ii.
8. ; to the oriental, 1 Tim. i. 4. iv. 7. vi. 20.) and strenuously
exhorts the Christians to beware of blending the doctrines of
either with the religion of their divine master (') To this admo-
State of the World. 31
nition had tliose to whom it was directed paid due attention, they
would in an eminent degree have consulted the interest of the
cause they had espoused. But to the great injury of divine
truth, it unfortunately happened that vain and presumptuous
men could not be satisfied with that wisdom which leads to
eternal life, as it came pure from above; but must needs set
about reconciling it, first of all to the principles of the oriental
philosophy, and afterwards to many of the dogmas of the Gre-
cian sects.
(1) Every one who has examined this subject thoroughly, must admit
that nothing can be better authenticated tlian the vast and essential dillcr-
ence that existed between the philosophy of the eastern nations and that of
the sages of Greece. It is equally well established, that amongst the dif-
ferent doctrines professed by the various oriental sects, that of the ancient
Chaldeans and Persians, which regarded matter as the source of all evil,
and supposed it to be under the influence and controul of a spiritual
agent peculiar to itself, held the chief place, being the most widely dissem-
inated of any, and that on which ingenuity had particularly exercised itself
in giving it a variety of modification. It must also, unless I am very
much mistaken, be apparent to every unprejudiced inquirer, that in thia
most ancient philosophy originated all those modes of discipline adopted
by the professors of the Gnostic system, and which, though they were in
many respects different from each other, had yet, as it should seem,
amongst other points of similarity, one common origin and end. It can
also be shown, if it should be thought necessary, that the name or [p. 20.]
title of " oriental pliilosophy or doctrine " was known to ancient writers.
Amongst other proofs which might be adduced, some extracts from -Theo-
dotus, one of the Gnostic school, which are subjoined to the Works of
Clemens Alexandrinus, are still extant under the following title, which ap-
pears to be of very ancient date: 'E* twv QaS'i^u kui tmc avetTcx/xiifc
xetxufxhit: S' t S' etir k t K i a c trriTOfXAt. Excevptu ex Scriptis Thcodotl et Doc-
irina qiuc Orientalis appellatui.
Whether the person who gave this title to the work were himself a
Gnostic, or an enemy of thQ Gnostics, it leaves us in no doubt as to this
fact, that the Gnostics mingled none of the principles of the Grecian philo-
Bophy with their system of discipline, but framed it entirely after the orien-
tal model. In acting thus, they neither imposed upon others, nor were
they deceived themselves.
(2) The word yvdo-u was used by the Greeks to express the knowledge
of such things as are not the objects of sense ; but are only to be compre-
bended by the mind or understanding ; and since those things which are
perceptible to the mind alone are not liable to alteration or change, but
continue fixed, and are perennial, the appellation yvCi7n seems to have been
32 Introduction. — Chap. I.
not improperly used to sinrnify that species of knowledge which relates to
things of an eternal and immutable nature. Vid. Jac. Thomasii Origines
Jlistoricc Eccles. el Philosnpliiic, { 25. seq. p. 21. seq. The term appears to have
had a similar meaning, when applied to that kind of philosophy which I
denominate the oriental ; since it was not conversant with objects of opin-
ion and sense, but occupied itself solely in the contemplation of Ihiiign of
an abstract and unchangeable nature. I conceive, however, that we ought
to understand il in a more restricted sense, when we find it applied to
that species of philosophy to which the earliest corrupters of ('liristianity
were inclined, and that in this case it was used emphatically to signify tiie
knowledge of the Deity in particular: for it was the i)oast ()f teachers of
that vain system, that through their means mankind might recover lliat
knowledge of the true God, from which nearly the whole world had longf
been estranged. The knowledge of the Deity, indeed, since it is infinitely
above all other knowledge that can be acquired by man, and is the foun-
tain from whence alone true religion can spring, may certainly in the
strongest and most emphatical sense be styled ;vw!r/r or knowledge. It is
in this way that the sacred writers, when speaking of that truth which is
our guide to salvation, style it simply *\«'3-«/*, truth ; atid a faith in Christ,
srtr/r, faith, without any addition.
(3) The most learned expositors and commentators on the Holy Scrip-
tures, as well ancient as modern, are unaniniously of oi)inion that St.
Paul, in the passages to which I have referred, nujant to reprove those
who, in the then infancy of Christianity, had the presumption to attempt
encumbering the beautifully plain and simple doctrines of Jesus Christ
"with expositions founded on that species of i)liil(>sophy to which they had
given the pompous title of yi/uxrirt or knowledge of the Supreme Deity.
The remarkable passage, indeed, which I have cited from that inspired
writer, in which he warns. Timothy to avoid " ojipositions of science falsely
80 called,'' (1 Tim. vi. 20,) applies so directly to the vain and foolish system
etylcd yi/ioir r, that even the arguments of those who would willingly give it a
different interpretation, instead of invalidating, have rather added strength and
confirmation to this construction of it. It is clear from the words of St. Paul,
1st, That there was a particular species of philosophic discipline prevalent
amongst the Greeks of his time, to which his friend, would understand him
to allude by the appellation yviLa-ir. 2dly, That it was not a system culti-
vated in retirement and privacy, for he speaks of it as a thing openly known,
[p. 21.] and familiar to the public. 3dly, That it jippeared to him undeserv-
ing of such an high and august title; for he says; that it is " falsely " (by
which we must understand him to mean improperly and without reason) " so
called." 4thly, That those who were addicted to this phiIosoj)hy had been
endeavouring to blend its doctrines with those of the Christian religion: for
if no one had attempted this, with what propriety could he have admonish-
ed Timothy to beware of this sect, and to keep that deposit of divine truth,
which had been committed to his trust, pure and uncontaminated by any
State of the World. 33
admixture with such vain and trilling theories. 5thly, That tlie professors
of this sort of discipline maintained tlie existence of certain avT;3-tri;; or op-
positions, which, since they are the only circumstances relating to it that
are noticed by the apostle, may without doubt be considered as having con-
stituted the essential and fundamental principles of the system. What we are
to understand by these oppositions may readily be perceived : for it was an
established tenet with the followers of this doctrine, that light and darkness,
God and matter, the body and the soul, the Supreme Deity, and tlioso
powers by whom they supposed the universe to be governed, were con
stantly at variance and opposed to each other; even man himself, according
to them, was a compound, made up of two adverse and conflicting princi-
ples ; and the powers of darkness ever occupied in active hostility against
eternal light. Upon the ground of these oppositions they pretended to ac-
count for all events and changes whatever, whether natural, moral, or political ;
and in fact for every occurrence, good or evil. It is, therefore, with no less
propriety than elegance, that St. Paul intimates his disapprobation of the
whole system, by a strongly marked reprehension of these its distinguish-
ing features.
XXY. The Greek philosophic sects. The Epicureans. The more
illustrious sects of the Grecian school, whose doctrines were also
much cultivated by the Eomans, may be divided into two
classes: the one comprising those whose tenets struck at the
root of all religion ; pretending, indeed, by specious eulogium,
to support and recommend the cause of virtue, but in reality
nourishing the interests of vice, and giving color to almost every
species of criminality ; the other being composed of such as ac-
knowledged the existence of a deity, whom it was the duty of
men to worship and obey, and who inculcated an essential and
eternal distinction between good and evil, just and imjust ; but
who unfortunately sullied and disgraced what they thus taught
conformably to right reason, by connecting with it various no-
tions, either absurd and trifling in their nature, or taken up
hastily, and with an unwarrantable presumption. (') Under the
first of these classes may be ranked the disciples of Epicurus
and those of the Academy. The Epicureans maintained that the
universe arose out of a fortuitous concurrence of atoms ; that
the gods (whose existence they dared not absolutely to deny)
were indifferent as to human affairs, or rather entirely unac-
quainted with them ; that our souls are born and die ; that all
things depend on, and are determined by accident ; that in every
thing, voluptuous gratification was to be sought after as the
3
84 Introduction, — Chap. I.
chief good ; and even virtue itself only to be pursued, inasmuch
as it miglit promise to minister at the shrine of pleasure. The
votaries of a system like this, (and there were but few amongst
the flivorcd cliildrcn of prosperity, the wealthy, the noble, and
the powerful, who were not captivated by its allurements,)(')
naturally studied to pass their lives in one continued round of
[}). '12. j luxurious enjoyment : the only restraint they imposed on
themselves arose out of a desire to avoid, at all times, sucn an
excessive or immoderate devotion to pleasure as might generate
disease, or tend in any other shape to narrow the capacity for
future indulgence.
(1.) The reader will find what we have here briefly stated, respecting the
different sects of philosophers, treated of at large in a very masterly manner
by the learned Brucker, in his Historia Philosophicc Critica ; a work that
will immortalize the erudition of its author, and which no one ought to be
without, who is willing to acquire an accurate knowledge of the success that
attended the labors of those illustrious characters of all ages and nations,
who devoted their talents to the discovery and elucidation of truth.
(2.) The number of those who embraced the Epicurean system was every
where so immensely great, in the age to which we allude, that whole armies
might have been formed of them. This is sufficiently plain from Cicero
alone, who, in various parts of his works complains of the vast increase of
the Epicurean sect. Vid. de Fin. Bonor. et Malar um, lib. i. cap. vii. p. 2350.
torn. viii. opp. lib. ii. cap. xiv. p. 2388. DispuL Tusculan. lib. v. cap. x. p.
2829, torn. viii. opp. ; and many other places to the same purport.
XXYI. The Academics. The Academics, although they af-
fected to be influenced by better and wiser principles than those
of the Sceptics, yet entertained maxims of an equally lax and
pernicious tendency with them. In fact, they subscribed to the
fundamental dogma on which the whole system of sceptic disci
pline was built, namel}^, that " nothing can be known or per-
ceived with certainty, and therefore that every thing may be
doubted of and questioned." The only distinction which the}'-
made was this, that whereas the Sceptics insisted that " nothing
should be assented to, but every thing made the subject of dis-
pute;" the Academics, on the contrary, contended that "we
ought to acquiesce in all things which bear the appearance of
truth, or which may be considered in the light of probabilities."
But since the Academics were ever undetermined as to what
constituted that sort of probability to which they would have a
State of the World, J5
wise man assent, their doctrine contributed, no less than that of
the 'Sceptics, to render every thing vague and unsettled.(') To
make it, as they did, a matter of doubt and uncertainty, whether
the gods existed or not ; whether the soul was perishable or im-
mortal ; whether virtue was preferable to vice, or vice to vir-
tue ; Avas certainly nothing less than to undermine the chief
and firmest supports of religion and morality. The philosophy
^'of the Academy was at one time so much neglected as to be
' nearly lost. Cicero revived it, at Kome, not long before the com-
ing of our Saviour ;Q and so much weight was attached to hia
example and authority, that it was soon embraced by all who
aspired to the chief honours of the state. (')
(1.) The manner of the Academics cannot be better illustrated than in
the words of Cicero, who may be considered as the leader of the sect. [p. 23.]
*' Ea, quae vis, explicabo (he is treating of death and the immortality of the
soul) ut homunculus unus c multis, prohahilia co-njeclura sequens. Ultra
enim quo progrcdiar, qiiam ut veri videam similia, non habeo. Certa dicent
ii, qui et percipi ea posse dicunt, et se sapientes esse profitentur." TusctU'
Ian. DhpuL lib. i. cap. ix. p. 2570.
(2.) Multis etiara sensi mirabile videri, earn, nobis potissiraum probatam
esse philosophiam, qiuc lucem eriperet et quasi noctem quamdam rebus qffun-
deret, desertccque disciplimc et jampridem relictcc patrocinium nee opinatum a
nobis esse susceptum. Cicero de Natura Deor. lib. i. cap. iii, p. 2884. Thia
passage of the Roman orator unfolds, without disguise, the nature of the
academical philosophy, of which we see he openly avows himself the pa-
tron and restorer. He repeats this in cap, v. p. 2886.
(3.) The philosophy of the Academy, inasmuch as it inculcated the un-
certainty of every thing, and encouraged a spirit for disputation on all to-
pics, contributed in an eminent degree to sharpen the mental powers, and to
Btrengthen and improve those faculties which give advantage in debate. It
cannot, therefore, appear surprising to any one, that at Rome, where every
man's power may be said to have been commensurate with his eloquence,
the example of Cicero should have stimulated all those who were ambi-
tious of glory and honor, to the cultivation of that philosophy from which
he professed himself to have derived so much advantage.
XXVII. The Peripatetics. Within the other class of philoso-
phers, that is, of those who manifested a respect for religion, the
most distinguished sects were the Peripatetics founded by Aris-
totle, the Stoics, and the Platonists. The Peripatetics acknow-
ledged the existence of a God ; and the obligations of morality ;
but, at the same time, their tenets were not of a character to in-
'36 Introduction. — Chap. I.
spire a reverence for the one, or a love of the other. The
Aristotelian doctrine gave to the deity an influence not much
beyond that of the moving principle in a piece of mechanism :
considering him, indeed, to be of an highly refined and exalted
nature, happy in the contemplation of himself, but entirely un-
conscious of what Avas passing here below; confined from all
eternity to the celestial world, and instigating the operations of
nature rather from necessity than volition or choice. In a god
of this description, differing but little from the deity of the
Epicureans, there was surely nothing that could reasonably ex-
cite either love, respect, or fear. We are unable to ascertain,
with any precision, what Avere the sentiments of the Peripatetic
philosophers respecting the immortality of the soul.(')Could the
interests of religion or morality, we would ask, be in any shape
effectually promoted by teachers like these, Avho denied the su-
perintendance of a divine Providence, and insinuated, in no
very obscure terms, a disbelief of the soul's future existence ?
(1) See what I have said on this subject, in some notes to Cudworth's
Intdlect. System, torn. i. p. 66. 500. and torn. ii. p. 1171. See also a learned
[p. 24.] work of the celebrated Jesuit Michael Mourgues, which he entitled,
Plan Theologique du •Pytliagorismc, torn. i. let. ii. p. 75, where it is proved that
the system of Aristotle excluded the deity from all knowledge of, or inter-
ference with, human affairs.
XXVIII. The Stoics. The Deity had somewhat more of
majesty and influence assigned to him by the Stoics. They did
not limit his functions merely to the regulating of the clouds,
and the numbering of the stars ; but conceived him to animate
every part of the universe with his presence, in the nature of a
subtle, active, penetrating fire. They regarded his connection
with matter, hoAvever, as the effect of necessity ; and supposed
his Avill to be subordinate to the immutable decrees of fate :
hence it Avas impossible for him to be considered as the author
either of rcAvards to the virtuous, or of punishment to the
wicked. It is Avell knoAvn to the learned Avorld, that this sect
denied the immortality of the soul, and thus deprived mankind
of the strongest incitement to a Avise and virtuous course of life.
Upon the whole, the moral discipline of the Stoics, although it
might in some respects be founded on unexceptionable principles,
Siate of the World. 37
tlie result of sound reasoning, may yet be compared to a body
of a fair and imposing external appearance, but which, on a
closer examination, is found destitute of those essential parts
which alone can give it either energy or cxcellencc.(')
(1) The reader will find this illustrated by what I have remarked in my
notes to Cud worth's Intellectual System, tom. i. p. 517, et seq.
i
XXIX. The Piatonists. Of all the philosophers, Plato seems
to have made the nearest approach to the principles of true wis-
dom ; and there are certainly gxounds for believing that his sys-
tem was not wholly unproductive of benefit to the human race.
He considered the Deity, to whom he gave the supreme govern-
ance of the universe, as a being of the highest wisdom and
power, and totally unconnected with any material substance.
The souls of men he conceived to proceed from this pre-eminent
source ; and, as partaking of its nature, to be incapable of
death. He also gave the strongest encouragement to virtue, and
equally discountenanced vice, by holding out to mortals the
prosj^ect of a future state of rewards and punishments. But
even the system of Plato had its defects. For, not to mention
his frequent assumption of things without any sort of j)roof,
and the obscure and enigmatical way in which he often express-
es himself, he ascribes to that power, whom he extols as the
fashioner and maker of the universe, few or none" of the grander
attributes, such as infinity, immensity, ubiquity, omnipotence,
omniscience ; but supposes him to be confined within certain
limits, and that the direction of human affliirs was committed to
a class of inferior spiritual agents, termed daemons. This notion
of ministering daemons, and also those'points of doctrine which
relate to the origin and condition of the human soul, greatly
disfigure the morality of Plato ; since they manifestly tend to
generate superstition, and to confirm men in the practice of
worshipping a number of inferior deities. His teaching, [p. 25.]
moreover, that the soul, during its continuance in the body,
might be considered, as it were, in a state of imprisonment, and
that we ought to endeavour, by means of contemplation, to set
it free, and restore it to an alliance with the Divine nature, had
an ill effect, inasmuch as it prompted men of weak minds to
3S Introduction. — Chap. I.
witlidraw every attention from tlie body and the concerns of
life, and to indulge in the dreams and fancies of a disordered
imagination. (')
(1) The reader will find the objectionable points of the Platonic philosophy
discussed in an eloquent and copious manner by Fra. Baltus, an ingenious
Jesuit, in a work undertaken by him with a view to exonerate the early fathers
from the charge of Platonism, and entitled, Defense des Peres accusez de Pla-
ionisme, Paris, 1711, 4to. His reprehension, however, is occasionally carried
to an excess ; and he is not always sufficiently attentive to the force and spirit
of the Platonic opinions.
XXX. The Eclectics. Since the httle of good that presented
itself in the tenets of any of these various sects was sullied and
deformed by an abundant alloy of what was pernicious and
absurd ; and as it was found that no sort of harmony prevailed
amongst philosophers of any description, even though they
might profess one and the same system, but that they were con-
stantly at variance either with themselves or with others ; it
occurred to some, who perhaps were more than ordinarily
anxious in their pursuit after truth, that the most ready way of
attaining their object would be to adopt neither of these systems
in the whole, but to select from each of them such of its parts as
were the most consonant with sonnd and unbiassed reason.
Hence a new sect of philosophers sprang np, who, from the
manner in which their system was formed, acquired the name of
Eclectics. We are certain that it first appeared in Egypt, and
particularly in Alexandria, but the name of its founder is lost
in obscurity ; for though one Potamon of Alexandria is com-
monly represented as such by ancient writers, it is by no means
clear that this opinion of theirs is correct. However, we have
sufficient authority for stating, (indeed it might be proved even
from Philo Judaeus alone,) that this sect flourished at Alexan-
dria at the time of our Saviour's birth.(') Those who originated
this species of philosophy took their leading principles from the
system of Plato ; considering almost every thing which he had
advanced respecting the Deit}^, the soul, the world, and the
daemons, as indisputable axioms: on which account they were
regarded by many as altogether Platonists. Indeed, this title,
so far from being disclaimed, was rather affected by some of
State of the World. 39
them, and particularly by those who joined themselves to Am-
monias Saccas, another celebrated patron of the Eclectic philo-
sophy. With the doctrines of Plato, however, they very freely
intermixed the most approved maxims of the Pythagoreans, the
Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the oriental philosophers ; [p. 26.]
merely taking care to admit none that were in opposition to the
tenets of their favourite guide and instructor. (^)
(1) The writings of Philo Judaeus are, in every respect, marked by the
Bame species of philosophy tliat characterizes those of Clemens Alexandrinus,
Origen, and other ftUhers of the Christian church, who were confessedly
Eclectics. He chiefly follows Plato, and on this account he is regarded by
many in the light of a mere Platonist ; but it would be difficult to make this
opinion accord with the encomiums which we find him at times bestowing on
the Stoics, the Pythagoreans, and other philosophers, and whose maxims and
mode of expression he adopts without reserve. We should rather, therefore,
consider him as belonging to those who professed themselves to be of no par-
ticular sect, but who made it their study to select and appropriate to themselves
the most rational parts of every system. Mangey, the learned English editor
of Philo's works, did not overlook this, though he suffered so many things else
to escape him, but remarks in the preface, p. viii. that his author ought to be
classed with the Eclectics.
(2) Justin Martyr mentions, {Dial, cum Tryphon. sect. 2. p. 103. opp. edit.
Benedict,) amongst other philosophic sects of his time, that of the Theoretics,
which he considers as holding a middle place between the Peripatetics and the
Pythagoreans. Langus, the translator of Justin, imagines that he applied this
denomination either to the Academics or the Sceptics, who assigned no bounds
to their doubts and inquiries. This suggestion appears to me to carry some
weight with it : but Prudentius Maranus, a Benedictine monk, who some time
back published an edition of Justin, maintains a very different opinion, and
asserts that by the term Theoretic was meant that species of philosophy which
disregards action, and devotes itself entirely to contemplation. I do not think,
however, that we can altogether rely on the judgment of this industrious good
old man, whose accuracy of conception is not every where alike conspicuous.
Justin speaks of the Theoretics as one of the sects that flourished at the time
he wrote ; but none of those sects, except the Academics, can be said to have
^0 far embraced the contemplative system as to neglect laying down any rules
for the conduct of active life. But is it not possible that the sect which Justin
terms the Theoretics might be one and the same with that of the Eclectics 1
There is certainly nothing in the name that militates against this supposition,
Bince the term Theoretics might naturally enough be used to characterize a
class of philosophers who were continually prying, with the most vigilant cu-
riosity, into the maxims and opinions of other sects, and adopted none into
their own system but such as had undergone a severe and penetrating scrutiny
40 Introduction. — Chap. I.
XXXT. The Oriental Philosophy. The documents tliat have
hitherto come to light relating to the oriental philosophy are so
few, that our knowledge of it is of necessity very limited.
Some insight, however, into its nature and principles may be
obtained from what has been handed down to us respecting the
tenets of several of the first Christian sects, and from a few otlier
scattered relics of it, that may be collected here and there. Its
author, who is unknown, perceiving that in almost every thing
[p. 27.] which comes under our observation there is a manifest
admixture of evil, and that human nature has an obvious lean-
ing to what is criminal and vicious, whilst, «,t the same time,
reason forbids us to regard the Deity in any other light than as
the pure and unsullied fountain of good alone, was induced to
seek for the origin of this calamitous state of things in a diffe-
rent source.(') But as he could discover nothing besides God, to
which this evil influence could be attributed, unless it were the
matter of which the world, and the bodies of men, and all
other living creatures are formed, he was led to regard this prin-
ciple as the root and cause of every evil propensity, and every
untoward affection. The unavoidable consequence of this opi-
nion was, that matter should be considered as self-existent, and
as having exercised an influence entirely independent of the
Deity from all eternity. But this proposition imposed on its
abettors a task of no little difficulty, namely, that of explaining
by what agency or means this originally rude undigested mass of
matter came to be so skilfulty and aptly arranged in all its parts ;
how it happens that so many things of a refined and exalted na-
ture are connected with it ; and particularly, to account for the
wonderful union of ethereal spirits with supine and vitiated fleshly
bodies. It was found impossible to solve these points by any
arguments drawn from nature or reason ; recourse Avas there-
fore had to the suggestions of a lively invention, and a fabulous
sort of theory was propounded respecting the formation of the«
world, and that remarkable admixture of good and evil in every
thing belonging to it, which so continually obtrudes itself on
our notice. The Deity could not, consistently with their views
of him, be considered as the author of either ; since it must
have appeared incredible to those who regarded the Supreme Be-
ing as purity and goodness itself, and utterly averse from every
a
State of the World. 41
tiling of an opposite character, that he should have employed
himself in giving form and arrangement to a vitiated and dis-
tempered mass, or have been anywise instrumental in associat-
ing good with evil.
(1.) The ancient fathers of the Christian church, although they could form
but a very imperfect judgment of the Gnostic system, since they were unac-
quainted with its true origin and growth, yet plainly perceived that this species
of philosophy was founded on a wish to remove from tlie Deity every iniputa-
. tion of his being the cause or author of any tiling evil. Tertullian says, {de
Prccscript. advers. IlccreliroSj cap. vii. p. 119. opp. edit. Venet.) "Efcdem ma-
teria3 apud ha^reticos et philosophos volutantur, iidem rctractatus implicantur:
undo malum ? et quare ? ct undo homo ? et quomodo ?" See also Epiphanius,
hasres. xxiv. Basilidianor. sect. vi. p. 72. tom. i. opp. ; and beyond all, that frag-
ment of Valentine preserved by Origen, Dialog, contra Marcionitas^ sect. iv.
p. 85. ed. Wettsten. in which he points out with much perspicuity the various
steps by which he arrived at that form of religion of which his conscience
approved. [p. 28.]
XXXII. The oriental philosophers divided into sects. As
none more readily disagree among themselves, than those who
pretend to resolve the most abstruse and intricate points by the
strength of the human intellect alone, it will easily be conceived
that those who endeavoured to extricate themselves from the diffi-
culties above noticed, by the assistance of fiction, would of course
run into a great diversity of sentiment. Those of the most nu-
merous class seem to have believed in the existence of a being,
whom they considered as the prince or power of darkness, upon
whom the Prince of light (that is, the Deity himself) made war ;
and having obtained the victor}^, made matter the receptacle of
the spoil and forces which he had taken from his opponent. Tales
like this, of the wars carried on between a good and an evil
power, were commonly adopted by all of this sect ; but they were
far from being unanimous as to the nature of that prince of dark-
iiess, or matter, who was thus set in opposition to the Deity. By
some, he was considered as of an equal nature with the Author
of all good, and of necessity to have existed from all eternity ;
by others, he was thought to have been generated of matter,
which they supposed to be endowed with both animation and
fertility ; whilst others regarded him as the son of Eternal Light,
the offspring of the Deity, who, unable to endure the control of a
42 Introduction. — Chap. I.
superior, had rebelled against tlic author of his existence, and
erected for himself a separate and distinct estate. The opinion
entertained by another sect Avas, that matter was not subject to
the dominion of a prince or ruler peculiar to itself, but that it
was fashioned and brought into order, and man created, by one
of those eternal spirits whom God begat of himself, and who acted
not from design, but was stimulated to the undertaking by a sud-
den accidental impulse. This opinion also, when it came to be
discussed and enlarged upon, gave rise to much dissension. Some
contended that this architect or fabricator of the world acted with
the consent and approbation of the Deity; others denied this.
Some supposed that, in the commencement of this undertaking,
he was uninfluenced by any vicious principle ; but that having
accomplished his purpose, he gave himself over to iniquity, and,
at the instigation of pride, withdrew men from the knowledge of
the Supreme Deity. Others conceived him to have a natural and
necessary inclination to what was evil ; others imagined that he
might be of a middle nature, somcAvhat between the two ; and
many esteemed him to be a compound essence, made up of a cer-
tain proportion of good and evil. The sentiments of a third sect
appear to have been formed on an union of those of the two
former. According to these, the world, and all things belonging
to it, were under the regulation and guidance of three powers,
namely, the Supreme Deity, the prince of darkness and of mat-
ter, and the creator or maker of the world. I believe I may ven-
ture to say, that every one who shall attentively examine the
opinions and maxims entertained by some of the Christian sects
[p. 29.] of the first century, will readily give his assent to the
accuracy of this statement. Of the first class we may account
Simon Magus, Manes, and others ; the principal leaders of the
Gnostics may be ranked under the second ; and Marcion, with
perhaps some others, may be considered as belonging to the third.
XXXIII. Certain tenets, however, common to them all respecting
the Deity, N'otwithstanding that the various sects of oriental phi-
losophers, who beheved matter to be the cause of all evil, were
so much divided in opinion as to the particular mode or form
under which it ought to be considered as such ; there were yet
some maxims, or points of doctrine, to which they all subscribed
without reserve, and which may be regarded as the principles on
State of the World. 43
wliicli tlie system in general was founded. In the first place, tlicy
were unanimous in maintaining that there had existed from all
eternity a divine nature, replete with goodness, intelligence, wis-
dom, and virtue ; a light of the most pure and subtle kind diftused
throughout all space, of whom it was impossible for the mind of
man to form an adequate conception. Those who were conversant
with the Greek language gave to this pre-eminent Being the title
of Bt/5o{, in allusion to the vastness of his excellence, which
they deemed it beyond the reach of human capacity to compre-
hend. The space which he inhabits they named %>,Y,^ufA.ot,, but
occasionally the term itim was applied to it. This divine nature,
they imagined, having existed for ages in solitude and silence, at
leng-th, by the operation of his omnipotent will, begat of himself
two minds or intelligences of a most excellent and exalted kind,
one of either sex. By these, others of a similar nature were
produced ; and the faculty of propagating their kind being suc-
cessively communicated to all, a class of divine beings Avas in
time generated, respecting whom no difference of opinion seems
to have existed, "except in regard to their number ; some conceiv-
ing it to be more, others less. The nearer any of this celestial
family stood in affinity to the one grand parent of all, the closer
were they supposed to resemble him in nature and perfection ; the
farther off they were removed, the less were they accounted to
partake of his goodness, wisdom, or any other attribute. Al-
though every one of them had a beginning, yet they were all
conceived to be immortal, and not liable to any change ; on which
account they were termed a-iunz, that is, immortal beings placed
beyond the reach of temporal vicissitudes or injuries. (') It was
not, however, imagined that the vast extent of space called
T:xii^uiA.ct was occupied solely by these spirits of the first order :
it was likewise supposed to contain a great number of inferior
beings, the offspring of the a-tunti^ and consequently of divine
descent, but who, on account of the many degTees that inter-
vened between them and the first parent, were considered com-
paratively to possess but a very limited portion of wisdom, know-
ledge, or power.
(1) Aiwv properly signifies indefinite or eternal duration, as opposed to [p. 30.]
that which is finite or temporal. It was, however, metonymically used for such
natures as are in themselves unchangeable and immortal. That it was com-
44* Introduction. — Chap. I.
monly applied in this sense even by the Greek philosophers, at the time of
Christ's birth, is plain from Arrian, who uses it to describe a nature the reverse
of ours, superior to frailty, and obnoxious to no vicissitude : 'o« >ip i/jui
'A/wV dKK' h^^uTTogi fJii^oi twv Trdvrav ws wg* «^£gsts-, ivzhctt fxt Siliig rh wgiv,
Kxt TTct^iK^ih ws wgrtv. Nonego natura sum perennis et immutabilis (it was
an error of the translator to render it non ego sum eternitas) sed homo, pars
hujus universitatisj quemadmodum hora pars est diei. Oportet me non secus
ac horam existere et occidere. Dissert. Epictetearu7n, lib. ii. ^ 5. p. 179. edit.
Ilolstenii. There was, therefore, nothing strange or unusual in the application
of the term d/wv£s> by the Gnostics, to beings of a celestial nature, liable to
neither accident nor change. Indeed the term is used even by the ancient
fathers of the purer class to denote the angels in general, good as well as
bad. The example of Manichseus the Persian, who, according to Augustin,
applied the denomination of 'A/wvsr (which Augustin renders into Latin by the
word scccida) to celestial natures of the higher order, seems to prove that the
term was adopted in much the same sense by the followers of the oriental phi-
losophy in general, as well by those who were not conversant with the Greek
language as those who were. Amongst the commentators on Holy Writ are
Bome of acknowledged erudition and ingenuity, who conceive that u<wv has a
similar signification in the writings of the New Testament. St. Paul describes
the Ephesians, before they were acquainted with the Gospel of Chiist, to have
walked xstTa rov diCivx tS nog-fAu riru, Kxra tov ap^iVTat.<r>ig i^us-ictg tS ai^cg. In
this passage, Ǥx**' "^^^ i^ns-Ug tS aipogy "the prince of those powerful
natures which belong to, or have their dwelling in the air," appears to be
one and the same with him who is first spoken of as the 'A/cby tS kos-iuu
T«T*fi and according to this exposition, 'A/wv must here unquestionably
mean an immutable nature, a spirit or an angel of the highest class. Vid.
Beausobre's Histoire du Manichee, tom. i. p. 574, 575 ; as also his Remarques
sur le Nouveau Testament, tom. ii. p. 7, 8. Jerome and, as it should seem,
Bome others approved of this interpretation. Jo. Alb. Fabricius thinks that the
same sense may be given to the term in that passage of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, where God is said by his Son to have made tSs diwvoif S'l « xsci tut
diuia-g iro)>i<riv. (I. 2.) Quo in loco, says he, per 'Atdvag non absurdum sit
intelllgere angelos. Codic. Apocryphi Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 710. Of these in-
terpretations, the first has certainly the appearance of being a just one ; of the
latter I cannot say quite so much.
XXXIV, Opinions of the oriental philosophers respecting matter,
the world, the soul, &c. Beyond that vast expanse refulgent with
everlasting light, which was considered as the immediate habi-
tation of the Deity, and those natures which had been generated
[p. 31.] from him, these philosophers placed the seat of matter,
where, according to them, it had lain from all eternit}^, a rude,
undigested, opaque mass, agitated by turbulent irregular motions
State of the World. 45
of its own provoking, and nurturing, as in a seed-bed, tlie ru-
diments of vice, and every species of evil. In tliis state it was
found by a genius or celestial spirit of the higher order, who had
been eitlier driven from the abode of the Deity for some oftbnce,
or commissioned by him for the purpose, and wlio reduced it into
order, and gave it that arrangement and fashion which the uni-
verse now wears. Those who spoke the Greek tongue were ac-
customed to refer to this creator of the world by the name of
Demiurgus. Matter received its inhabitants, both men and other
animals, from the same hand that had given to it disposition and
symmetry. Its native darkness was also illuminated by this
creative spirit Avith a ray of celestial light, either secretly stolen,
or imparted through the bounty of the Deity. lie likewise com-
municated to the bodies he had formed, and which would other-
wise have remained destitute of reason, and uninstructed except
in what relates to mere animal life, particles of the divine essence,
or souls of a kindred nature to the Deity. When all things were
thus completed, Demiurgus revolting against the great First
Cause of every thing, the all-wise and omnipotent God, assumed
to himself the exclusive government of this new state, which he
apportioned out into provinces or districts ; bestowing the admi-
nistration and command over them on a number of genii or spirits
of inferior degree, Avho had been his associates and assistants.
XXX Y. Their tenets respecting man. Man, therefore, whilst
he continued here below, was supposed to be compounded of two
principles, acting in direct opposition to each other: 1st, a ter-
restrial and corrupt or vitiated body ; 2d, a soul partaking of the
nature of the Deity, and derived from the region of purity and
light. The soul or etherial part being, through its connection
with the body, confined as it were within a prison of matter, was
constantly exposed to the danger of becoming involved in igno-
rance, and acquiring every sort of evil propensity, from tlie im-
pulse and contagion of the^ vitiated mass by which it was en-
veloped. But the Deity, touched with compassion for the hap-
less state of those captive minds, was ever anxious that the means
of escaping from this darkness and bondage into liberty and light
should be extended to them, and had accordingly, at various
times, sent amongst them teachers endowed with wisdom, and
filled with celestial light, who might communicate to them the
46 Litrodudion. — Chap. I.
principles of a true religion, and thus instruct tliem in the Avay
by which dehverance was to be obtained from their wretched and
forlorn state. Demiurgus, however, with his associates, unwil-
lino- to resign any part of that dominion, of whose sweets they
were now become sensible, or to relinquish the divine honors
which they had usurped, set every engine at work to obstruct
and counteract these designs of the Deity; and not only tor-
mented and slew the messengers of heaven, but endeavoured,
throuo-h the means of superstition and sensual attractions, to root
[p. 82.] out and extinguish every spark of celestial truth. The
minds that listened to the calls of the Deity, and who, having
renounced obedience to the usurped authorities of this world,
continued stcdfast in the worship of the great first Parent, re-
sisting the evil propensities of the corporeal frame, and every
incitement to illicit gratification, were supposed, on the disso-
lution of their bodies, to be directly borne away pure, serial,
and disengaged from every thing gross or material, to the imme-
diate residence of God himself; whilst those who, notwithstand-
ing the admonitions they received, had persisted in paying
divine honors to him who was merely the fabricator of the world,
and his associates, worshipping them as gods, and suffering them-
selves to be enslaved by the lusts and vicious impulses to which
they were exposed from their alliance with matter, were denied
the hope of exaltation after death, and could only expect to
migrate into new bodies suited to their base, sluggish, and de-
graded condition. "When the grand work of setting free all these
minds or souls, or, at least, the greatest part of them, and re-
storing them to that celestial country from w^hence they first pro-
ceeded, should be accomplished, God, it was imagined, would
dissolve the fabric of this nether world ; and having again con-
fined matter, with all its contagious influence, within its original
limits, would, throughout all ages to come, live and reign in
consummate glory, surrounded by kindred spirits, as he did be-
fore the foundation of the world.
XXXVI. Moral discipline of the oriental philosophers. The
moral discipline deduced from this system of philosophy, by
those who embraced it, was by no means of an uniform cast, but
differed widely in its complexion, according to their various
tempers and inchnations. Such, for instance, as were naturally
State of the World. 47
of a morose, ascetic disposition, maintained tliat the great object
of human concern should be to invigorate the energies of the
mind, and to quicken and refine its perceptions, by abstracting
it as much as possible from every thing gross or sensual. 1 he
body, on the contrary, as the source of every depraved appetite,
was, according to them, to be reduced and brouglit into subjec-
tion by hunger, thirst, and every other species of mortification ;
and neither to be supported by flesh or wine, nor indulged in
any of those gratifications to which it is naturally prone ; in fact,
a constant self-denial was to be rigorously observed in every thino-
which might contribute either to the convenience or amoenity of
this life; so that the material frame being thus by every means
weakened and brought low, the celestial spirit might the more
readily escape from its contagious influence, and regain its native
liberty. Hence it was that the Manichaeans, the Marcionites,
the Encratites, and others, passed their lives in one continued
course of austerity and mortification. On the other hand, those
who were constitutionally inclined to voluptuousness and vicious
indulgence, found the means of accommodating the same prin-
ciples to a mode of life that admitted of the free and uncontroled
gratification of all our desires. The essence of piety and reli-
gion, they said, consisted in a knowledge of the supreme Deity,
and the maintaining a mental intercourse and association with
him. "Whoever had become an adept in these attainments, and
had, from the habitual exercise of contemplation, acquired the
power of keeping the mind abstracted from every thing corpo-
real, was no longer to be considered as affected by, or answerable
for, the impulses and actions of the body ; and consequently
could be under no necessity to control its inclinations, or resist
its propensities. This accounts for the dissolute and infamous
lives led by the Carpocratians, and others, who assumed the
liberty of doing whatever they might list ; and maintained [p. 33.]
that the practice of virtue was not enjoined by the Deity, but
imposed on mankind by that power whom they regarded as the
prince of this world, the maker of the universe.(')
(1.) Clemens Alexandrinus clearly perceived this discordance of sentiment
amongst the oriental sects, and accordingly divides the heretics of his time into
two classes ; viz. such as deemed every thing lawful for those who maintained
a communion with God, and such as believed that man could innocently in-
48 Introduction. — Chap. I.
dulge himself in scarcely any thing. Stromat. lib. iii. cap. v. p. 629. The
former placed no restraint whatever on their inclinations; the latter made it a
point to reduce and afflict their bodies by every species of mortification and
self-deniiil. Slender indeed must be their acquaintance with the writini^s of
antiquity, who would contend that all the followers of the Gnostic absurdities
are indiscriminately represented by the Christian fathers of the first century as
men of reprobate and dissohitc lives. For so far from this being the case, the
generality of them acknowledge, that not a few of that numerous class had, by
their continence and austerity of demeanor, acquired a reputation for sanctity,
and gained to themselves the love and veneration of the multitude. That the
greater part, however, of those who affected tlie title of Gnostics, boldly set
all virtue at defiance, and polluted themselves by every species of criminal
excess, is manifest not only from the testimony of Christian writers, but also
from the accounts given of them by those adversaries of Christianity, Plotinus
the Platonic philosopher, and Porphyry. See the treatise of the former, contra
Gnoslicos, cap. xv. p. 213,214; and of the latter, de Absiiiientia, Vih. i. sect.
42, p. 35, edit. Cantab. But not to enlarge more than is necessary on the sub-
ject, there are some striking passages in the writings of the apostles which
evidently point to the two opposite systems of morals that were thus drawn
from one and the same source. St. Paul (Col. ii. 18, et seq.) mentions,
amongst the first corruptors of the Christian religion, those who neglected all
care of the body, displaying in themselves a great show of sanctity and wis-
dom; whilst St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 1, et seq.) and St. Jude;(in Epist.) notice, as
belonging to the same class, men who were so impious and depraved as to
maintain that the followers of Christ might freely give the rein to their passions,
and with impunity obey the dictates of every corrupt inclination.
XXXVII. Use of this chapter. The inferences to be drawn
from the statement which has thus been given, of the Avretched
aspect of the whole world at the time of the Son of God's ap-
pearance upon earth, must, it is presumed, be sufficiently obvi-
ous. To every one who shall peruse it with a mind disposed to
be informed, I conceive it will be manifest, that such was the
hopeless and forlorn condition into which the human race had
fallen at that period, that its recovery could only be effected by
a divine instructor and guide, who might overthrow the strong
and widely extended dominion of superstition and impiety, and
call back unhappy, lost, and wandering miin to the paths of
wisdom and virtue. But little or no assistance was to be expected
from the efforts of man himself against these adversaries ; since
[p. 34.] we see that even those mortals who were endowed with
a superior degree of intellectual power, and who occasionally ob-
tained a glimpse of the true path, were yet unable to proceed in
State of the Jcivish Nation. 40
it, but again lost tlicmselvcs in the mazes of error and uncer-
tainty, and disgraced what Uttlc they had accpiired of sound
wisdom, by an admixture of the most extravagant and absurd
0]iinions. I sliould also liope, tliat from this view it will appear
of what infinite advantages the Christian religion hath been pro-
ductive to the world and its inhabitants ; I mean not only in a
spiritual sense, by opening to us the road that leads to salva-
tion and peace, but also in the many and vast improvements ia
government and civilization to which its influence gave rise.
Take away the influence which the Christian religion has on
the lives of men, and you at once extinguish the cause to which
alone those unspeakable advantages which we enjoy over the
nations of old can be fairly or justly attributed. [p. 35.]
CHAPTER II.
Of the civil and religious Slate of the Jewish Nation in particular^
at the time of Christ's Birth.
I. The Jewish nation governed by Herod the Great. The con-
dition of the Jews, at the time of the Son of God's advent in the
flesh, was not much superior to that of other nations. The reins
of their government had been placed in the hands of a Stipen-
diary of Kome, called Ilerod, and surnamed the Great, (a title,
by the bye, to which he could have no pretensions, except from
the magnitude of his vices,) who, instead of cherishing and pro-
tecting the people committed to his charge, appears to have made
them sensible of his authority merely by oppression and violence.
Nature, indeed, had not denied him the talents requisite for a
lofty and brilliant course of public life ; but such was his suspi-
cious temper, so incredibly ferocious his cruelty, his devotion to
luxury, pomp, and magnificence so madly extravagant, and so
much beyond his means: in short, so extensive and enormous
was the catalogue of his vices that he was become an object
of utter detestation to the afflicted people over whom he reigned,
and whose subsistance he had exhausted by the most vexatious
and immoderate exactions. With a view to soften, in some de-
4
50 Introduction. — Chap. II.
gree, tlic asperity of the hatred which he had tlius drawn on
himself, he pretended to adopt the rehgion of the Jews, and at
a vast expencc restored their temple, which, through age, had
gone much to decay : but the effect of all this was destroyed by
his still conforming to the manners and habits of those who
worshipped a plurality of gods ; and so many things were coun-
tenanced in direct opposition to the Jewish religion, that the
hypocrisy and insincerity of the tj-rant's professions were too
conspicuous to admit of a doubt.(')
(1) For an ample illustration of these matters, we refer the reader to the
Jewish historian Josephus ; and in addition to that author, he may consult
Basnage, Hisloire des Juis, torn. i. parti, p. 27, et seq. Norrisii Coenotaphia
Pisana. Noldii HisLoria Idiuncca, published by Havercamp, at the end of his
edition of Josephus, torn. ii. p. 333. 396. Cellarii Historia Herodum, which is
the eleventh of his Academical Disseriafiom, part i. p. 207. Prideaux's His-
tory of the Jeu'S. In a word, there has scarcely perhaps been any thing written
on the subject of Jewish affairs, from whence he may not derive information.
[p. 36.] II. Sons and successors of Herod. On the death of this
nefarious despot, the government of Palestine was divided by
the emperor Augustus amongst his three surviving sons. Ar-
chelaus, the eldest, was appointed governor of Judea, Idu-
mea, and Samaria, under the title of ethnarch, though, by his
conduct he made it appear that the title of monarch would
have better suited him. Antipas had Galilee and Pera^a for his
share; whilst Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, with some of
the neighbouring territory, were assigned to Philip. The two
latter, from their having a fourth part of the province allotted to
each, were styled tetrarchs. Archelaus, Avho inherited all the
vices of his parent, with but few or none of his better qualities,
completely exhausted the patience of the Jews ; and by a series
of the most injurious and oppressive acts, drove them, in the
tenth year of his reign, to lay their complaints before the em-
peror Augustus, who, having inquired into the matter, deposed
the ethnarch, and banished him to Vienne, in Gaul.
III. state of the Jews under the Roman Government, After the re-
TT-Oval of Archelaus, the gTcatcr part of Palestine which had been
utderhis government was reduced by the Romans into the form
of a ])rovince, and put under the superintendance of a governor,
who was subject to the controul of the president of Syria. This
Slate of the Jewish Nation. 51
arrangement^ it is probable, at first met witli the read}^ concurrence
of the Jews ; who, on the death of Ilerod, had petitioned Augus-
tus that the distinct regal form of government might no longer be
continued to them, but their country be received under his own
immediate protection, and treated as a part of the empire. The
change, however, instead of producing an alleviation of misery to
this unhappy people, brought Avith it an intolerable increase of
their calamities. To say nothing of the avarice and injustice of the
governors, to which there was neither end nor limit, it proved a
most disgusting and insufferable grievance to most of them, who
considered their nation as God's peculiar people, that they should
be obliged to pay tribute to a heathen, and an enemy of the true
God, like Caesar, and live in subjection to the worshipers of false
deities. The extortion, likewise, of the pubUcans, wIjo after the
1-Joman manner were entrusted with the collection" of the revenue,
and for whose continual and flagrant abuses of authority it was
seldom possible to obtain any sort of redress, became a subject of
infinite dissatisfaction and complaint. In addition to all this, the
constant presence of their governors, surrounded as they were by
an host of foreign attendants of ^11 descriptions, and protected by
a Roman military guard, quartered with their eagles, and various
other ensigns of superstition, in the heart of the holy city, kept
the sensibilit}^ of the Jews continually on the rack, and excited in
their minds a degree of indignation bordering on fury ; since they
considered their religion to be thereby disgraced and insulted, their
holy places defded, and in fact themselves, with every thing they
held sacred, polluted and brought into contempt. To these [p. 37.]
causes are to be attributed the frequent tumults, factions, seditions,
and murders, by wdiich it is well known that these unfortunate
people accelerated their own destruction.
The condition of the Jews wdio were under Philip and Anti-
pas, the other sons of Ilerod, was somewhat better; the severe
punishment of Archelaus having taught his brothers to beware of
irritating the feelings of their subjects by any similarly excessive
stretch or abuse of authority.
IV. Their high priests and sanhedrim. If any remnant of liberty
or happiness could have been possessed by a people thus circum-
stanced, it "was effectually cut off by those who held the second
place in the civil government under the Romans and the sons of
52 Introduction. — Chap. II.
Herod, and wlio also had the supreme direction in every thing per-
taining to religion, namely, the chief priests, and the seventy el-
ders, of whom the sanhedrim or national council ^vas composed.
The chief priests, according to what is handed down to us of them
by Josephus, were the most abandoned of mortals, who had ob-
tained that elevated rank either through the influence of money,
or iniquitous pliabiUty ; and who shrank from no species of crimi-
nality that might serve to support them in the possession of an au-
thority thus infamously purchased. Since all of them perceived
that no reliance could be placed on the permanency of their situa-
tion, it became an object of their first concern to accumulate, either
by fraud or force, such a quantity of wealth as might either enable
them to gain the rulers of the state over to their interest, and drive
away all competitors, or else yield them, when deprived of their
dignity, the means of living at their ease in private. The national
council, or sanhedrim, being composed of men who differed in
opinion respecting some of the most important points of religion,
nothing like a general harmony was to be found amongst its mem-
bers : on the contrary, having espoused the principles of various
sects, they suffered themselves to.be led away by all the prejudice
and animosity of party ; and were commonly more intent on the
indulgence of private grudge, than studious of advancing the
cause of religion, or promoting .the public welfare. A similar de-
pravity prevailed amongst the ordinary priests, and the inferior
ministers of religion. The common people, instigated by the
shocking examples thus held out to them by those whom they
were taught to consider as their guides, rushed headlong into every
species of vicious excess ; and giving themselves up to sedition
and rapine, appeared alike to defy the vengeance both of God and
man.(')
(1.) See Josephus Ae Bell Judaic, lib. v. cap. xiii. sect. 6. p. 362. edit.
Havercamp.
V. The Jewish worship corrupt. Two sorts of religion flou-
rished at that time in Palestine ; the Jewish and the Samaritan ;
and what added not a little to the calamities of the Hebrew nation,
the followers of each of these regarded those of the other persua-
sion with the most virulent and implacable hatred ; and mutually
[p. 38.] gave vent to their rancorous animosity in the direst curses
State of the Jewish Nation. 53
and imprecations. The nature of the Jewish religion may be col-
lected from the books of the Old Testament ; but at the time of
our Saviour's appearance it had lost much of its original beauty
and excellence, and was contaminated by errors of tlie most
flagrant kind, that had crept in from various sources. The pub-
lic Avorship of God was indeed still continued in the temple at
Jerusalem, with all the ceremonies which Moses had prescribed ;
and a vast concourse of people never failed to assemble at
the stated seasons for celebrating those solemn festivals which,
he had appointed ; nor did the Eomans ever interfere to pre-
vent those observances: in domestic life, likewise, the ordi-
nances of the law were for • the most part attended to and
respected: but it is manifest, from the evidence brought for-
ward by various learned writers, that even in the service of
the temple itself, numerous ceremonies and observances, drawn
from the religious worship of heathen nations, had been intro-
duced and blended with those of divine institution ; and that,
in addition to superstitions like these of a public nature, many
erroneous principles, probably either brought from Babylon
and Chaldea by the ancestors of the people at their return
from captivity, or adopted by the thoughtless niultitude, in
conformity to the example of their neighbours the Greeks,
the Syrians, and the Egyptians, were cherished and acted upon
in private. (')
(1) See Spencer's Treatise de Rilibus et InstUutis Hehrccnrum a Gentium
Usu desumptis, nidlibi vera a Deo prccceptis aid ordinalis, which is the fourth
in the last Cambridge edition of his grand work, de Legihus Ritvalibus vele-
rum Ebricoriim, torn. ii. p. 1089. See also Joh. Gothofred. Liikeinacheri Ob-
servationes Philolog. lib. i. observ. ii. p. 17, where it is proved that the Jews
adopted several of the rites of Bacchus from the Greeks. An account of the
various private superstitions which the Jews had derived from foreign nations,
and of which the number was not small, may be found in most authors who
have treated of the Jewish rites and manners.
VI. The religion of the Jews. The opinions and sentiments of
the Jews respecting the Supreme Deity and the divine nature,
the celestial genii or ministering spirits of God, the evil angels
or dcemons, the souls of men, the nature of our duties, and other
subjects of a like kind, appear to have been far less extravagant,
and formed on more rational gi'ounds than those of any other
54 Introduction. — Chap. II.
nation or people. Indeed, it was scarcely possible that they
should altogether lose sight of that truth, in the knowledge of
which their fathers had been instructed through an immediately
divine communication : since it was commonly rendered habi-
tual to them, even at a tender age, to be diligent in hearing,
reading, and studying the writings of Moses and the prophets.
In every place where any considerable number of Jews resided,
a sacred edifice to which, deriving its name from the Greek, they
gave the appellation of synagogue, was erected, in which it was
[p. 89.] customary for the people regularly to assemble for the
purposes of worshipping God in prayer, and hearing the law
publicly read and expounded. • In most of the larger towns
there were also schools under the management of well-informed
masters, in which youth were taught the principles of religion,
and also instructed in the liberal arts.(')
(1) See Campeg. Vitringa de Si/nagoga vetere, lib. iii. cap. v. p. 667. and lib. i.
cap. V. p. 133, cap. vii. p. 156. Besides whom the reader may consult those
other authors who have written concerning tlie synagogues, the schools, and
the academies of the Jews, pointed out by Fabricius in his BibliograpUia AntU
quoTia, and by Wolfius in his Biblioiheca Hehraka.
yil. Wrong opinions entertained by the Jews respecting God and
the angels. Eational and correct, however, as the Jcays appear to
have been in those principles and sentiments which they had
derived from their sacred code, they had yet gradually incorpo-
rated with them so large an admixture of what Avas false and
absurd, as nearly to deprive the truth of all its force and energy.
The common opinion entertained by them respecting the nature
of God was, unless I am much deceived, closety allied to the
oriental doctrine of its not being absolutely simple, but some-
what resembling that of our light. To the prince of darkness,
with his associates and agents, they attributed an influence over
the world and mankind of the most extensive nature ; so pre-
dominant, indeed, as scarcely to leave a superior degree of pow-
er even with the Deity himself. Of various terrific conceits
founded upon this notion, one of the chief was, that all the
evils and calamities which befal the human race, were to be
considered as originating with this prince of darkness and his
ministering spirits, who had their dwelling in the air, and
"were scattered throughout every part of the universe. With
State of the Jeiuish Nation. 55
a view, in some degree, to lessen the fear that was very na-
turally produced by this idea, they were willing to persuade
themselves that an art had been divinely communicated to
mankind, of frightening and driving away these evil spirits,
by the use of various sorts of herbs, by repeating certain
verses, or by pronouncing the names of God and of divers
holy men ; or, in other words, they were led to entertain a be-
lief in the existence of what is termed magic. All these
opinions, and others of a kindred nature, were, as it should
seem, borrowed by the Jews from the doctrine of the Chal-
da?ans and Persians, amongst whom their ancestors had for a
long while sojourned in captivity. Their notions, also, and
manner of reasoning respecting the good genii, or ministers
of divine providence, were nearly of the same complexion with
those of the Babylonians and Chaldosans, as may clearly be per-
ceived by any one who will compare the highly absurd and
irrational doctrines maintained by the modern descendants of the
Magi, usually styled Guebres, as also by the Arabs, and other
oriental nations, concerning the names, functions, state, and
classes of angels, with the sentiments anciently entertained by
the Jews on these subjects.(')
(1) See Observationes ad Jamhlichum de Myslcrns JEgypiior. a [p.40.1
Thorn. Gale, p. 206 ; also what is said on this subject by Sale, in the preface
to his English translation of the Koran. Even Josephus himself hints in no
very obscure manner, though with some caution, that the intercourse with the
Babylonians had proved highly detrimental to the ancient religion of the Jews.
See his Antiquilales Judaic, lib. iii. cap. vii. sect. 2. p. 140.
YIII. As also respecting the Messiah, the sum of religion, and
other matters. The greatest part of the Jewish nation were look-
ing with the most eager desire for the appearance of the de-
liverer, promised by God to their fathers; but their hopes
were not directed to such an one as the Scriptures described:
they expected not a saviour of souls, but a strenuous warlike
leader, whose talents and prowess might recover for them their
civil liberty.(*) Concerning the reign of this prince here on
earth, which it was imagined would last for the term of a
thousand years, as also of the profusion of pleasures and luxu-
ries with which it would be attended, of his wars with a ter-
rible adversary, to whom they gave the name of Antichrist,
56 Introduction. — Chap. 11.
and finally of his victories and their consequences, many
wonderful tales were related ; some of which were afterwards
adopted by the Christians. With the exception of merely a
few of the better instructed, the whole nation may be said to
have considered the sum and substance of religion as consist-
ing entirely in an observance of the ceremonies prescribed by
Moses, to which they attached so high a portion of merit, as
to believe that every one who constantly and strictly con-
formed to them might, with a degree of certainty, look for-
ward to the enjoyment of the blessings of Divine favour, both
in this life and that which is to come. To the calls of hu-
manity and philanthropy the Jews paid not the least atten-
tion, except in regard to those who were allied to them by
nature and blood, or were at least so far connected with them
as to belong to the same religious community with them-
selves. They were even so wholly destitute of every gene-
rous feeling or sentiment towards strangers, as not only to
shun, by every means in their power, whatever might lead to
any thing like an intimacy, or reciprocal interchange of good
offices with them, but also to imagine themselves at liberty to
treat them on all occasions in the most injurious and o|)pres-
sive manner. It was, therefore, not without reason that they
were taxed by the Greeks and Komans with cherishing an
hatred of the human race.(')
(1) Basnage, in his Histoire de Juifs, torn. v. cap. x. p. 193. treats particu-
larly cf the notions which, about the time of our Saviour's coming, were enter-
tained by the Jews respecting the Messiah. Some very learned men of our
own time have considered it as a matter of doubt, whether the Jews in general
looked for a Messiah, or whether the expectation was not cherished by merely
a part of them : and there are those who maintain, that the Pharisees alone are
represented in tlie writings of the New Testament as looking for a prince or
deliverer ; and would hence conclude, that the Sadducees entertained no such
hope. But not to say any worse of this opinion, it appears to me to savour
highly of temerity. I cannot, indeed, pretend to determine what might be the
sentiments of the Essencs, who differed in so many respects from the regular
[p. 41.] Jews, that they can only be considered as half Jews; but I think it is
manifest beyond all doubt, that all the rest of the Hebrews who dwelt in Pa-
lestine, and the neighbouring regions, fully expected the coming of a Messiah.
Numberless passages might be cited, which place it out of all controversy that
this consolatory hope was generally cherished in the minds of the people at
State of the Jewish Nation. 57
large, (see particularly J»lin x. 24, et seq. xii. 34. Matth. xxi. 9.) ; and that not
only the Pharisees, but also the Sadducees entertained a similar expectation
must, I think, readily be admitted by every one, if it be considered that the
sanhedrim, or general council of the nation, together with all the doctors and
interpreters of the law, and also the whole of the priesthood, evidently looked
for the coming of the Christ. The national council, as appears from the
authority of Scripture itself, was composed of Sadducees as well as Pharisees ;
and the various orders of priests were made up indiscriminately of those of
either sect. If, therefore, it can be ascertained that the whole of the sanhedrim,
together with all the priests and doctors, both wished for and expected a
Messiah, nothing further can be requisite to prove that the sentiments of the
Sadducees were similar to those of the Pharisees on this point. And that
such was actually the case, admits not of the least ground for dispute. Herod
the Great, alarmed by the coming of the Magi, or wise men from the East,
commanded the priests and interpreters of the sacred volume to assemble, and
inquired of them concerning the country in which the Messiah would be born.
This general assembly of all the learned of the nation, amongst whom were
undoubtedly many of the Sadducees, with one accord replied, that, according
to the prediction of the holy prophets, the deliverer of the people would be
bori> in Bethlehem. Matth. ii. 4, 5, 6. Not a single individual of them, there-
fore, appears to have entertained the least doubt of the coming of a Messiah.
When John began to execute the divine commission with which he was
charged, of baptizing with water, the council at Jerusalem sent messengers
to inquire of him whether he were the Messiah or Christ. John i. 20. 25.
It is evident, therefore, that this council must have been unanimous in the ex-
pectation of a Messiah. Caiaphas the high priest, the president of the Jewish
council, required of our Saviour, under the most solemn adjuration, to say
whether or not he were the Messiah : and when Jesus answered in the affirma-
tive, that pontiff at once accused him of direct blasphemy, and demanded of
the members of the council what punishment ought to be inflicted on him 1
who all, without exception replied, that a man who could be guilty of such im-
piety was deserving of death. Matth. xxvi. 63, et seq. The whole council,
therefore, we see were of opinion, that for a man to caVl himself the Son of
God, or the Messiah, was an insult to the Divine Majesty, and merited nothing
short of capital punishment. But with what propriety, and on what grounds
could such a judgment have been with one voice pronounced by this assembly,
which comprehended many of the Sadducees, if it was their belief that the no-
tions entertained by the people respecting a Messiah had no solid foundation,
but ought to be regarded in the light of a fjibulous delusion ? Could a man be
said to have offered a serious affront to God, by merely endeavouring to give to
a popular whim or idle conceit of the vulgar a turn in his own favour? But how,
it has been asked by some of the learned, could it be possible for the Saddu-
cees to feel any sort of interest in the coming of a Messiah, when, as is well
known, they never extended their views of happiness beyond the present life,
and absolutely denied the doctrine of a futnre state of rewards and punish-
ments ? The answer is easy. • It was indeed impossible for the Sadducees, con-
58 Introduction. — Chaj). IT.
sistcntly witli the tenets of their sect, to entertam any expectation of the
coming of such a Messiah as God had promised, a spiritual deliverer, a re-
deemer of souls; but nothing could be more natural than for men like
[p. 42.] them, who maintained tliat obedience to the law of God would be re-
warded in no other way than by an abundance of this world's goods, health of
body, riches, and the like, to look with eagerness after such a Messiah as was
the object of the ardent hope of the Jewish nation at that period, namely, an
illustrious prince, a hero, or vanquisher of the Romans, and a restorer of their
lost liberties.
(2) See the authorities collected by Eisner, (Observation. Sacr. in Nov. Test.
torn. ii. p. 274.) to which, if it were necessary, many others might be added.
IX. Jewish sects. Among the various untoward circum-
stances wliicli conspired to undermine the welfare of the Jew-
ish nation, one of the chief was that, those who possessed a
superior degree of learning, and who arrogantly pretended to
the most perfect knowledge of divine matters, so far from be-
ing united in sentiment, were divided into various sects,
widely differing in opinion from each other, not only on sub-
jects of smaller moment, but also on those points which con-
stitute the very essence of religion itself. Of the Pharisees
and the Sadducees, which were the two most distinguished of
these sects both in number and respectability, mention is
made in the writings of the New Testament. Josephus, Philo,
and others speak of a third sect, under the title of the Es-
senes ;(' ) and it appears from more than one authority, that
several others of less note contributed still farther to distract
the public mind. St. Matthew, in his history, notices the
Herodians ; a class of men who, it seems highly probable, had
espoused the cause of the descendants of Herod the Great,
and contended that they had been unjustly deprived of the
greater part of Palestine by the Eomans. In Josephus we
also find mention made of another sect, bearing the title of
the Philosophers ; composed of men of the most ferocious cha-
racter, and founded by Judas, a Galilean, a strenuous and un-
daunted assertcr of the liberties of the Jewish nation, Avho main-
tained that the Hebrews ought to render obedience to none but
God alone.(") In fine, I do not think that the accounts given of
the Jewish sects or factions by Epiphanius and Hegesippus, as
preserved in Eusebius, should be considered as altogether
groundless and undeserving of credit. (')
State of the Jewish Nation. 59
(1) It is certain that no express mention is made of the Essenes in the
writings of the New Testament : several learned persons, however, have
imagined, that altliough the name is not to be found there, yet that the prinel-
pies and doetrines of this sect are glanced at in various passages. Some, for
iustance, point to Col. ii. 18, et seq.; others to Matth. vi. 16.; whilst others
again liuicy that a similar allusion is to be perceived in several other places.
It cannot be necessary to enter into a serious refutation of these opinions, since
they liave no other support than that of mere random conjecture. From this
silence of the sacred writings respecting the Essenes, (or, as some perhaps
would prefer to have them called, Essees,) the adversaries of religion have
t^ikcn occasion to insinuate that Christ himself belonged to this sect, and was
desirous of propagating its discipline and doctrines in the cities, in opposition to
the wishes of the Pharisees and Sadducees. See Prideaux's Histoire des Juifs^
torn. iv. p. 116. But tne opinion is manifestly childish and absurd in itself;
and nothing more is required than a comparison of the discipline of the Essenes
with that of the Christians, to prove it at once utterly false and void of founda-
tion. Others, influenced by less hostile motives, have suggested as a reason
why Christ and his apostles forbore to cast any reprehension on the Es-
senes, that notwithstanding all their proneness to superstition, they [p. 43.]
might probably appear to be actuated by a rectitude of intention, and a sincere
desire to worship God aright. Finally, there are some who imagine that the
Essenes without hesitation embraced the truth propounded to them by Christ,
and became his disciples ; and consequently exempted themselves from the
censure to which they would otherwise have been exposed. But it appears to
me, that no one who will be at the pains attentively to examine the principles
and tenets of the Essenes, and to compare them with the history of Christian
affairs, can well accede to either of these opinions. At the same time, I con-
ceive, that without going any farther than to the manners and liabits of this
sect, we may be furnished with a most plain and satisfactory reason why no
mention is made of it either by the evangelists or any other of the apostles.
Those four historians of the life and actions-of Christ, whom we term evange-
lists, confined their narration to such things alone as were said and done by
him in the Jewish cities and towns, and particularly at Jerusalem. In like
manner, the epistles written by the apostles were addressed only to Christians
who dwelt in cities. But the Essenes, it is well known, avoided all intercourse
whatever with cities, and spent their lives in wilds and desert places. It would
therefore have been altogether digressive, and out of place, had any notice been
taken, in either of the books of the New Testament, of any disputes which
either Christ or his disciples might have had with a sect of this description.
(2) Josephus Antiquil. Judaic, lib. xviii. cap. ii.
(3) In support of the opinion which I thus profess myself to entertain, that
what Epiphanius has recorded concerning the Jewish sects, in the Preface to his
hook de Hccresibus, is probably not wholly fictitious, or unworthy of credit, I
will here bring forward a conjecture, which I have never turned in my mind
without feeling strongly persuaded of its probability, and that it might with
60 Introduction. — Chap. II,
propriety be submitted to the consideration of the learned. Possibly it may
contribute towards dispelling a portion of thAt obscurity with which ancient
history is enveloped. Amongst the various Jewish sects enumerated by Epi-
phanius, is that hf the Hemerobaptists, a set of people who, according to him,
were accustomed to wash their bodies daily, imagining that without this per-
petual ablution, it would be impossible for any one to obtain salvation. Now
mention is made of this same sect by Hegesippns, a very ancient writer, apud
Euscb. Histor. Ecdes. lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 143; and Justin Martyr also notices
it, Dialog, cum Tri/phon p. 245. ed. Jebb. merely with this difierence, that re-
scinding the first part of the word, he terms the sect Baptist. In the Indiculum
Hicreseon, a work which is commonly attributed to Jerome, it is likewise reck-
oned as one of the Jewish sects. The author of those tracts, which bear the
name of Clementina^ says that one John was the founder of this sect, and that
he had under him a company of twelve apostles, besides thirty other select as-
sociates. Hoinil. secund. cap. xxiii. p. 633. torn. i. Pair. Apostol. The same
thing is also said in the Epitome Gestorum Petri^ which is subjoined to the
Clemintina, fj xxvi. p. 763. If any reliance whatever, therefore, is to be placed
in ancient history, the fact seems to be incontrovertibly established by evidence
that admits of no suspicion either on the graund of deceit or ignorance, that
such a sect as that of the Hemerobaptists did in reality exist amongst the
Jews ; and we should consequently do wrong in considering every thing re-
corded by Epiphanius as fabulous, and undeserving of credit. But what ap-
pears to me to be by no means an improbable conjecture is, that some of the
descendants of these Hemerobaptists have survived even to this day. The
learned well know that there exists in Persia and India a very numerous and
widely extended class of men, who call themselves Mendai Ijahi or the dia-
[p. 44.] ciples of John ; but who, from their appearing to have received a
tincture of Christianity, although but in a very slight and imperfect degree,
are most commonly styled by Europeans, " the Christians of St. John." The
Orientals give them the name of Sabbi or Sabiin. Ignatius a Jesu, a Carme-
lite, who resided for a long while,amongst these people, published an account
of them in a particular little work, bearing the following title : Narratio Ori-
ginis Rituum et Error um Christianorum S. Johannis; cui adjungilur Dis-
cursus per Modum Dialogi, in quo confatantur xxxiii. Errores ejusdem Nationis^
Romte, 1652, in 8vo. The book is not to be despised, since it contains many
things well worthy of attention ; but it is deficient in method, and is evidently
the production of an untutored genius. Besides what is to be met with in
this author, copious accounts have been given of these people by Herbelot, in
his Bibliotheca Orientalis voce Sabi, p. 726. ; and Asseman, in the Bibliolheca,
Oriental. Clement. Vatican ; as also by Thevenot and Tavernier, in the ac-
counts of their travels; and Kajmplur, in his Amcenitates exotic, fascic. ii. cap.
xi. p. 435, et seq. ; and more recently by Fourmont, in the History of the Aca-
demy of Inscriptions, <^c. at.Paris; and others. Bayer also is known to have
been engaged in a work expressl}^ on this subject, and which it is probable
that he had nearly, if not quite, completed at the time of his death. The ori-
gin and nature of this sect have not been as yet satisfjictorily determined. Wo
State of the World, 61
have sufficient proof before ua at this day, that it cannot in any shape be re-
ferred to the Cin-iatians ; for the opinions which those who bclonir to it enter-
tain respecting Christ, are evidently such only ns have been accidentally im-
bibed from their intercourse with the Chaldean Ciu-istinns ; and they do not
pay him any sort of adoration or worship. By most people they are consi-
dered as the descendants of the ancient Sabii, of whom frequent mention is
made in the Mohammedan law, and in Maimonides. But their manners and
tenets by no means accord with those which are ascribed to the Sabii : and in
regard to the appellation of Sabii, which is given to them by the Mohamme-
dans, no argument whatever can be drawn from it, since it is well known that
this is a generic term, applied by the Arabs to all who are of a different reli-
gion from themselves. For my own part, I should rather consider these Chris-
tians of St. John as the descendants of the ancient Ilemerobaptists, who ap-
pear to have flourished in Judea about the time of our Saviour's birth ; and I
ground my opinion on the following reasons: 1st, These people profess them-
selves to be Jews, and assert that their foretathers dwelt in Palestine, on the
banks of the river Jordan ; from whence, according to them, they were driven
by the Mohammedans. This is of itself, I think, sufficient to overturn the
opinion of those who would confound them with the Sabii. 2dly, Tiiey rest
their hopes of the remission of sins, and of salvation, on the frequent ablution
of the body; an error by which the Hemerobaptists were principally distin-
guished from other Jews. At this day, indeed, the disciples of John, as they
wish to be called, are washed in the river, according to solemn form by the
priests, only once in the year ; whereas the Hemerobaptists practised a daily
ablution of the body ; but it is strongly impressed on the minds of all of them>
that the oftener this ceremony is performed by any one, the more refined and
holy he becomes; and they would, therefore, rejoice if it were possible for
them to undergo the like ablution every month, or even every day. ft is the
avarice of the priest which prevents the frequent repetition of this core- [p. 45.]
mony : money being the only motive by which they can be stimulated to the
exercise of the duties of their function. 3dly, The name of the founder of
this sect, as that of the Hemerobaptists, was John ; from whom they pretend
to have received a certain book, which is regarded as sacred, and preserved
with the greatest care. It is a common opinion that this John was the same
with him who was the forerunner of Christ, and who is styled in Scripture the
Baptist ; and hence many have been led to conclude, that the people who are
styled Sabii are the descendants of John the Baptist's disciples. Ignat'ua a
Jesu. in particular, is of this opinion. See his work above mentioned, cap. ii.
p. 13, et seq. But it h plain from the account which, even according to Igna-
tius himself, these people give of the founder of their sect, that he must have
been a person altogether different from the Baptist: for they will not admit
that the John, whose memory they hold in such reverence, suffered capital pun-
ishment under Herod ; but maintain that he died according to the course of
nature at a city of Persia, named Sciuster, and was buried near that place.
They also relate of him, that he was married, and had four sons. It cannot
indeed be denied but that, in some few particulars, the account which they give
C2 Introduction. — Cho}!. II.
of this their John corresponds with what is recorded in Holy Writ of John the
Baptist ; but it appears to me beyond all doubt, that these things, as well as
the few facts of whidi they are in possession respecting Christ, were adopted
from the Christians, with whom they sojourned for a while, after their flight
from the oppression of the Mohammedans. Perceiving nothing in these things
cither contradictory or adverse to their tenets, and being, through their extreme
ignorance, utterly unquahTied for examining into or controverting any points of
which they might chance to be informed, they probably without hesitation re-
ceived and propagated them as a part of their own system. Of the degree of
merit that may belong to this conjecture of mine, which I scruple not to say
appears to me to have every probability on its side, the public will be better
able to judge, when it shall be put in possession of those books which the
Christians of St. John hold sacred, and particularly of that one which this sect
consider to have been written by their venerated founder. Copies of these
books were, a few years since, deposited in the King of France's library ; and
it may therefore reasonably be expected that, ere long, they will find their way
into tiie hands of the learned. [See another translation of this note, in Mur-
doch-s Mosheim's Institutes of Eecl. Hist. B. I. cent. I. p. 1. ch. 2. \. p. n. (7,)
vol. I. p. 34-36. Editor.]
X. Of the larger sects, their points of concord and disagreement.
The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essnes, the three most
distinguished and powerful of the Jewish sects, were ^cordially
united in sentiment as to all those fundamental points which
constitute the basis and chief support of the Jewish religion. All
of them, for instance, rejected with detestation the idea of a plu-
rality of gods, and would acknowledge the existence of but one
almighty power, whom they regarded as the creator of the uni-
verse, and believed to be endowed with the most absolute per-
fection and goodness. They were equally agreed in the opinion,
that God had selected the Hebrews from amongst the other na-
tions of the earth as his peculiar people, and had bound them to
himself by an unchangeable and everlasting covenant. With
the same unanimity they maintained that Moses was the ambas-
[p. 46.] sador of heaven, and consequently that the law promul-
gated by him was of divine original. It was also their general
belief, that in the books of the Old Testament were to be found
the means of obtaining salvation and happiness ; and that what-
ever principles or duties were therein laid down or inculcated,
were to be received with reverence and implicitly conformed to.
But an almost irreconcileable difference of opinion, and the most
vehement disputes, prevailed amongst them respecting the ori-
State of the Jewish Nation. 6»3
ginal source or fountain from wliencc all religion was to be de-
duced. In addition to tlie Avritten law, the Pharisees had re-
course to another, which had been received merely through oral
tradition. This latter both the Sadducees and the Essenes re-
jected Avitli contempt, as altogether spurious. The interpreta-
tion of the law yielded still further ground for acrimonious con-
tention. The Pharisees maintained that the law, as committed
to writing by Moses, and likewise every other part of the sacred
volume, had a two-fold sense or meaning; the one plain and ob-
vious to every reader, the other abstruse and mystical. The Sad-
ducees, on the contrary, would admit of nothing beyond a sim-
ple interpretation of the words, according to their strict literal
sense. The Essenes, or at least the greater part of them, differing
from both of these, considered the words of the law to possess
no force or power whatever in themselves, but merely to exhibit
the shadows or images of celestial objects, of virtues, and of du-
ties. So much dissention and discord respecting the rule of reli-
gion, and the sense in which the divine law ought to be under-
stood, could not fliil to produce a great diversity in the forms of
religious worshij:), and naturally tended to generate the most op-
j)osite and conflicting sentiments on subjects of a divine nature.(')
(1) A collection of what had been written concerning these Jewish sects,
by Jos. Scaliger, Drusius, and Serarius, three distinguished authors, who, as it
appears, differed in opinion as to many things connected with the subject, was
published by Trigland in 2 vols. 4to. 1702, under the following title: Trium
Scripiorum illnslrium de Judccorum Sectis Sijntagmcr. Since that time, Basnagc,
Prideaux, and numberless other writers, have used their endeavors still farther
to elucidate the subject; but the attempt has not, in every case, been attended
with equal success.
XI. Of the Pharisees. In point of numbers, riches, and power,
the Pharisees far surpassed every other Jewish sect; and since
they constantly exhibited a great display of religion, in an ap-
parent zeal for the cultivation of piety and brotherly love, and
by an affectation of superior sanctity in their opinions, their man-
ners, and even in their dress, the influence Avliich they possessed
over the minds of the people Avas unbounded ; insomuch that
they may almost be said to have given what direction they pleased
to public affairs. It is unquestionable, however, that the religion
of the Pharisees was, for the most part, founded in consummate
64 Introduction. — Chap. II.
hypocrisy ; and tliat at the bottom tliey were generally the slaves
of every vicious appetite; proud, arrogant and avaricious; consult-
ing only the gratification of their lusts, even at the moment of their
professing themselves to be engaged in the service of their Ma-
ker.(') These odious features in the character of the Pharisees
[p. 47.] caused them to be rebuked by our Saviour with the ut-
most severity of reprehension ; with more severity, indeed, than
he bestowed even on the Sadducees, who, although they had de-
parted widely from the genuine principles of religion, yet did not
impose on mankind by a pretended sanctity, or devote themselves
with insatiable greediness to the acquisition of honors and riches.
The Pharisees considered the soul to be immortal. They also
believed in the resurrection of the body, and in a future state of
rewards and punishments. They admitted the free agency of
man to a certain extent ; but beyond this, they supposed his ac-
tions to be controlled by the decrees of fate. These points of
doctrine, however, seem not to have been understood or explained
by all of this sect in the same way ; neither does it appear that
any great pains were taken to define and ascertain them with
precision and accuracy, or to support them by reasoning and
argument, f)
(1) Josephus, although himself a Pharisee, yet authorizes this statement.
See what he says in his Antiquitates Judaic, lib. xvii. cap. iii. ; and also in some
other places.
(2) Even Josephus, who must have been intimately acquainted with the
tenets of the Pharisees, is very inconsistent with liimself in the account which
he gives of them, as may easily be perceived by any one who will compare
together the different passages relating to them in his works. It would also
prove a task of some difficulty to reconcile every thing which he says con-
cerning the opinions of tlie Pharisees, with what is recorded of them in the
writings of the New Testament. Such inconsistency and contnidictions can
scarcely be accounted for, otherwise than by concluding that a difference of
sentiment prevailed amongst the Pharisees on various points ; and that their
opinions, so far from being fixed and determinate, were in many respects alto-
gether vague and unsettled.
XII. Of the Sadducees. The Sadducecs fell greatly short of
the Pharisees in number as well as influence. This is easily to
be accounted for, from the manners and principles of the sect.
Their leading tenet was, that all our hopes and fears terminate
with the present life ; the soul being involved in one common fate
State of the Jewish Nation. 65
with tlie body and liable, like it, to perish and be dissipated.
Upon this principle, it was very natural for them to maintain,
that obedience to the law would be rewarded by God with length
of days, and an accession of tlie good things of this life, such as
honors and wealth; whilst the violators of it would, in like man-
ner, find their punishment in the temporary sufferings and afflic-
tions of the present day. But persons impressed with this opi-
nion could not possibly consider any as the favorites of Heaven
but the fortunate and the happy ; for the poor and the miserable
they could entertain no sentiments of compassion : their hopes
and their desires must all have centred in a life of leasurc, of ease,
and voluptuous gratification : and such is exactly the character
which Josephus gives us of the Sadducecs.(') With a [p. 48.]
view in some degree, to justify this system, and cast as it were a
veil over its deformity, they denied that man had any natural pro-
pensity to either good or evil ; but insisted that he was left at per-
fect liberty to choose between the two. A man's happiness and
prosperity, therefore, they asserted, depended entirely on himself;
and hence if he were poor and miserable, he was not deserving
of any commiseration or pity, since his adverse lot was alto-
gether the consequence of his own depravity and misconduct.
(1) According to Josephus, the sect of the Sadducecs was of small num-
ber, and composed entirely of men distinguished for their opulence and pros-
perit3\ Antiquit. Judaic, lib. xviii, cap. i. ^ 4. p. 871. lib. xiii. cap. x. ^ 6. p.
G()3. He also represents those belonging to it as entirely devoid of every sen-
timent of benevolence and charity towards others; whereas the Pharisees, on
the contrary, were ever ready to relieve the wants of the poor and the wretched.
De Bell. Judaic, lib. ii. cap. viii. § 14. p. 166. It likewise appears from his
account of them, that they were studious of passing their lives in one uninter-
rupted course of ease and pleasure ; insomuch that it was with dilliculty they
could be prevailed on to undertake the duties of the magistracy, or any other
public function. Antiquit. lib. xviii. cap. i. ^ 4. p. b71. They were also, it
should seem, decidedly hostile to the doctrine of fate and necessity ; consider-
ing all men to enjoy the most ample freedom of action ; i. c. the absolute
power of doing cither good or evil, according to their choice. It would have
yielded some gratification to the reader, possibly, had Josephus traced these
distinguishing traits in the cliaracter of the Sadducecs to their proper source;
but on this part of the subject he is altogether silent. The deficiency, how-
ever, may, I think, be easily supplied ; and I will tlierefore attempt it in a few
words. Since the Sadducecs believed that the law of Moses was of divine
original, they were unavoidably constrained to admit that God promised rewards
66 Introduction. — Chap. II.
to the obedient, and threatened evil-doers with punishment. But as it made a
part of their creed, that death puis a final period to the existence of the soul as
well as the body, it became with them a necessary point of belief, that the
remuneration bestowed by God on the rig-hteous would consist of the good
things and enjoyments of the present life; and that its temporal evils, such as
poverty, disease, ignominy, and the like, would constitute the punishment of
the wicked. Now, it strikes me that every thing which Josephus has handed
down to us respecting the Sadducees may readily be accounted for from this
one principle: for under the influence of such an opinion, they would neces-
sarily consider tlie man who abounded in wealth, and other means of worldly
enjoyment, as upright and acceptable to God; whilst the miserable, the poor,
the destitute, and the diseased, must in like manner have been regarded by
them in the light of sinners, hateful in the sight of their Maker. Persons of
Blender or more moderate means, to say nothing of the afflicted, the indigent,
and the naked, could have had no inducement wiiatever to join themselves to
men professing such sentiments ; and as the number of these has ever far ex-
ceeded that of the rich and the happy, it was impossible for this sect to extend
itself so as to become any way numerous. To the same source may likewise
be referred that want of humanity, which they discovered towards the neces-
sitous, and those who had to struggle with the ills of adverse fortune : for since
it was their belief, that every thing in this life went well with the righteous,
and that adversity was the lot only of the wicked, they were naturally led to
conclude that the poor and the wretched must, by their crimes and offences,
have displeased God, and drawn on themselves the effects of his just indigna-
tion ; and that to relieve the wants of those who were at enmity with Heaven,
or to attempt, by any means, to mitigate or soften down chastisements inflicted by
the hand of the Almighty, Avould be acting in direct opposition to the dictates
[p. 49.] both of reason and religion. It is probable, therefore, that in the obser-
vance of a harsh and unfeeling carriage towards their unfortunate fellow mor-
tals, they imagined themselves to be actuated by motives of piety and a love
towards God. Again, nothing could be more natural for men who conceived
that the soul would not survive the body, and that all those who should be
found deserving of the favor of Heaven would receive their reward in this world,
than to devote themselves to a life of ease nnd voluptuous gratification : for in
vain they might say, would God lavish on his favourites riches and health, or
any of the various other means of enjoyment, if he did not intend them to be
used for the purpose of rendering the path of life smooth and delightful. Ac-
cording to their view of things, the pleasures and gratifications placed by the
bounty of Divine Providence within our reach, ought rather to be considered
in tlie light of rewards which God bestows on the just, by way of remuneration
for the difficulties which they may encounter in the study of His law. Unless
I am altogether mistaken, our blessed Saviour, in that history of the rich man
(whether true or feigned, matters not) which is recorded in St. Luke's Gospel,
cap. xvi. V. 19. hath given us a just picture of the manners and way of living of
the Sadducees. Dives was a Jew, for he calls Abraham his ftither ; but he was
State of the Jewish Nation. C7
Reither a Pharisee nor one of the Esscnes, and we may therefore conclude him
to have been a Sadducce. Indeed, our Saviour's narrative leaves us in no doubt
as to this point ; for the request of Dives to Abraham is, that he would send
Lazarus to his brethren, for the purpose of converting them to a belief in the soul's
immortality, and in the certainty of a future state of rewards and punishments.
It is plain, therefore, that during his life-time he had imagined that the soul would
perish wiili the body, and had trwitod with derision the doctrine fnaintainedby
tlie Pharisees respecting the happiness or misery of a future state ; and that
the brethren whom he had left behind entertained similar sentiments — senti-
ments which clearly mark them as the votaries of that impious system to whicli
the Sadducees were devoted. This man is represented as having amassed
great wealth. His riches were employed in obtaining for hira authority and
respect amongst tlie people : for the eyes of the multitude were studiously
dra\\n towards him, by the splendour and costliness of his apparel ; and he
fared sumi)tuously and joyously with his companions every day, Lazarus, a
poor wretch, the prey of misery and disease, was suffered to lie languishing at
his gate, neglected and scorned, as a being hateful in the sight of Heaven, and
undeserving of any commisseration. The writings of Moses and the prophets
were not indeed rejected by hira ; on the contrary, it should seem that he held
them in respect, " They have Moses and the prophets," says Abraham. The
Holy Scriptures, therefore, it appears, wxre in the hands of these men ; but
they would not allow that any thing contained in them would warrant a con-
clusion that the souls of men would survive the dissolution of their bodies, and
be either punished or rewarded in a future state for the deeds done in the
flesh. The authority, therefore, of Christ himself may be adduced in support
of the greater part of what Josephus has handed down to us repecting the
Sadducees. It was impossible for any thing to be more directly repugnant to
the manners aiid opinions which we have just been considering, than the doc-
trine of the Pharisees, who maintained that there is in mankind a general prone-
ness or inclination to what is evil and vicious, and that consequently great
allowances ought to be made for the weakness and corruption of our nature ;
that many are involved in misery, not so much through tiieir own fault, as in
compliance with the ail-wise arrangements of Divine Providence, which freely
dispenses both good and evil to its creatures, according to its will ; Avhilst the
afflictions and sufferings of others are evidently to be attributed to imprudence,
to ignorance, to accident, or perhaps to the injustice and tyranny of [p. 50,]
wicked men, A man's fortune or circumstances in life, therefore, they con-
tended, could in no wise furnish a just criterion whereby to estimate his up-
rightness or depravity. On every one of these points, the Sadducees differed
from them ioto ccelo; insisting tliat man is endowed witli tlie most perfect free-
dom of will to do either good or evil, without being under the least controul
whatever from any impediment cither external or internal ; and that he is not
driven by necessity, or inclined by natural propensity, to either the one side or
the other. The happiness of mortals, therefore, being thus made wholly depen-
dent on themselves, if they fail to attain it, it must be entirely through their
6S Introduction. — Chap. II.
own fault. At this distance of time, it is impossible to enter more at large into
the subject, or to relieve it altogether from the obscurity with which it is enve-
loped ; since we are ignorant of the manner in which the Sadducees might
explain and recommend their system, and are equally unacquainted with their
mode of reasoning, in answer to the arguments of their opponents.
XIII. Division f>f the Essenes. The Essenes are generally di-
vided by tlio learned into two classes, the y)raciica\ and the ihcO'
retical. This arrangement of the sect is founded upon a suppo-
sition that the Therapeutoe, concerning ^yhom Philo Judieus has
left us a distinct little treatise, belonged to it. To this opinion
I cannot implicitly subscribe, since it has no other support on its
side than mere probability ; but, at the same time, I do not pre-
tend to say that it may not be a just one. Those whom they
call practical Essenes were such as engaged in agriculture, or
practised medicine, or any of the other .arts, and did not estrange
themselves from the society of mankind. The term theoretical
they apply to those who, renouncing every sort of bodily occu-
pation, devoted themselves entirely to the exercise of contem-
plation ; and who, to avoid pollution, withdrew themselves from
all converse with men of a difierent persuasion. The practical
Essenes were still further divided, according to Josephus, into
two branches : the one being characterized by a life of celibacy,
dedicated to the instruction and education of the children of oth-
ers ; whilst the other thought it proper to marry, not with a view
to sensual gratification, but for the purpose of propagating the
human species.(') It is possible that these might not be the only
opinions and habits, by a difference in regard to which these two
classes were distinguished from each other. The monks of Chris-
tianity, a description of men that first appeared in Egypt, seem
to have taken for their model the manners and scheme of life
of the practical Essenes : indeed the account given us by Jose-
phus of the latter corresponds so exactly with the institutions
and habits of the early votaries of monachism, that it is impos-
sible for any two things more nearly to resemble each other.
Those solitary characters, who came to be distinguished by the
appellation of hermits, appear to have copied after the theoreti-
[p. 51.] cal Essenes or Therapeutos.
(1) Josephus de Bella Judaic, lib. ii. cap. viii. sect. 13. p. 165, et seq.
State of the Jewish Nation, 69
'XIY. Of the practical Essenes. The practical Esscncs were dis-
tributed in the cities, and throughout the countries of Syria,
Palestine, and Egypt. Their bond of association embraced not
merely a community of tenets, and a similarity of manners, and
particular observances, like that of the Pharisees or the Saddu-
cees; but extended also to a general participation of houses,
victuals, and every sort of goods. Their demeanor was sober
and chaste ; and their mode of life was, in every other respect,
made subject to the strictest regulations, and put under the su-
perintendance of governors, whom they appointed over them-
selves. The whole of their time was devoted to labour, medita-
tion, and prayer : and they were most dihgently attentive to the
calls of justice and humanity, and every moral duty. Like all
other Jews, they believed in the unity of God : but from some
of their institutes, it appears that they entertained a reverence
for the sun ; considering, probably, that grand luminary as a de-
ity of an inferior order, or perhaps regarding him as the visible
image of the Supreme Being. The souls of men they imagined to
have fallen, by a disastrous fate, from the regions of purity and
light into the bodies which they occupy; during their stay in.
which, they considered them to be confined as it were within the
walls of a loathsome dungeon. For this reason, therefore, they
would not believe in the resurrection of the body ; although it
was their opinion that the soul would be rewarded or punished
in a life to come, according to its deserts. They also allowed
themselves but little bodily nourishment or gratilication, fearing
lest the immortal spirit might be thereby encumbered and weighed
down. It was, moreover, their endeavour, by constant medita-
tion, to withdraw the mind as much as possible from the conta-
gious influence of the corrupt mass by which it was unhappily
enveloped. The ceremonies or external forms, enjoined by Mo-
ses to be observed in the worship of God, were utterly disre-
garded by many of the Essenes ; it being their opinion that the
words of the law were to be understood in a mysterious recondite
sense, and not according to their literal meaning. Others of them,
indeed, conformed so far as to offer sacrifices ; but they did this at
home, since they were totally averse from the rites which it was
necessary for those to observe who made their offerings in the
temDle.(*) Upon the whole, I should think it no improbable
70 Introduction. — Chap. II.
conjecture, that the doctrine and discipline of the Essenes arose
out of an endeavour to make the principles of the Jewish reli-
gion accord with some tenets which they had imbibed from that
s^-stem, which we have above spoken of under the title of the
oriental philosophy.
(1) Philo, ill his book Qiiod omnis Probus Liber, p. 457. torn. ii. opp. edit.
Anglic, denies that the Essenes offered up any sacrifices. Josephus, however,
in his Antiquilates Judaic, lib. xviii. cap. i. \ v. p. 871, says, that they did not
indeed sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem ; and for this plain reason, that the
Jews would not permit them do so, on account of their refusing to observe the
customary national ceremonies; but that, separately, among themselves, they
oftered up victims to the Supreme Being with more than ordinary solemnity.
The learned are divided in opinion as to which of these accounts is most deserv-
ing of credit. The generality of them lean to the authority of Philo, and pj-opose,
cither by an emendation of the words of Josephus, or by giving them a new inter-
pretation, to make him say much the same thing with Philo; on which sub-
ject I have already taken occasion to make some remarks, in my notes to Cud-
worth's Discourse concerning the true notion of the Lord's Supper. I must
[p. 52.] confess that I see nothing which should prevent us from considering
both these accounts as supported, to a certain extent, by the real fact. For,
tince it appears that the Essenes were so much divided in opinion respecting
the marriage state, as that some of them utterly disapproved of entering into
it, whilst others freely took to themselves wives; I think it by no means impos-
sible that one part of this sect might be wholly averse from sacrifices of any
kind, and consider the law from beginning to end merely in the light of an
allegory ; whilst the remaining part, thinking that the words of the law ought in
some sort to be understood according to their literal sense, might comply
with them so far as to offer sacrifices to God, although, in their manner of
doing so, they might probably have a regard to some of the principles which
they had imbibed from a different source. There are, however, some highly
respectable literary characters, to whom it appears altogether incredible
that any Jews, who believed in the divine original of the ^Mosaic law, should
have dared to sacrifice in any other place than the temple ; and who conse-
quent! v refuse to place any fiith in what Josephus says of the Essenes having
done so. But I rather think that I am furnished with the means of making
these opponents of the Jewish historian alter their opinion, and of rendering them
willing again to restore to him whatever they may have detracted from his credit
and authority. The fact is, that I have met with a remarkable passage in Por-
phyrv, the Platonic philosopher, which has never, as far as I can discover, been
noticed by any one who has treated of the Essenes, or undertaken to illustrate
Josephus; but which clearly vindicates the account of that historian from all
suspicion of error, and tends in great measure to remove the obscurity which
hangs over his narrative. Porphyry, in his treatise de Abstinentia a Carnibus
Animalium, lib. ii. § 26. p. 70. assigns a distinguished place to the Essenes,
State of the Jewish Nation, 71
amongst those whom he commends for abstaining from the flesh of victims.
Krtt Toi "Xv^oo'i f^'ti 'iuJ'j.Coi J'la r»v V^ «§;t*'^ ^vtriAVy tri ka] vuv <^»irh o •S^s^'p^aco? (^aoo-
^I/TSVTK, tl TCf dwTOV TgOTOy YfJiaC KtKiUOtiV ^CllV, dTTOr^Ul^iy aV TMf TT^d^fCtr i yu^
'iSiUfAtVOt TCOV TU^-tVTtUVy OKOX-AUT Svrii S'i rAUTOt. VUX.TOf, Kat} X4t' dUTwV TTOXV jUiXl }tUt
olvov KuCovrtgy d*»Ki(rx.ev tjiv B-ua-i^v S-ottov, ha. t« cTt/vJ ,«>) o tt ctvoTT«f ^fyo/ro 3-«5t-
T«f. Kiti TWTO (Tgwcr/, yfliiViVTiS T^i dva JUCTQV TBTSt YifA£^'J.i, Ku'l HATUL TTUiVTA TSTOV
TOY ^^ovoVy art fiiKoa-cpot to ycv^g "ovT£f, Tn^] tS 3"«t« fAtv dxxiixo/j KAkyo-iy tiTj sTg vf/«-
TCJTCOV dr^wy TroiSVTSLl T«V ■3-fa'§l:ty, BXtTOyTCj Wf dwTU JCai J'taTwV lU^OJV ^■i'jX.KUTSVTii.
Proinde Juda3i qui Syriam incolunt, propter primum sacrificiorum institutum,
80 modo etiamnum animalia, ut ait Theophrastus, sacrificant : quo si nos juberent
fiicere, a ritu immolandi deficeremus. Non enim victimas epulantur, sed eaa
integras per noctem comburentes, multo melle et vino iis superfuso, sacrificium
ocyus consumunt, nc qui omnia videt, facinus hoc intueatur. Hoc autem faci-
unt, diebus interjectis jojunantes, et per totum tempus, tamquam e philosopho-
rum erant genere, de numine colloquuntur : nocte etiam astra contemplantur,
ca intuiti et precibus deum invocantes. It is true, that this passage does not
refer to the Essenes by name ; and it may therefore, at first sight, appear as if
Porphyry and Theophrastus, whom he quotes, were speaking of the Jews at
large. But the nature of the account itself thus given of them places it beyond
a question, that it was meant merely of some Jewish sect, and indeed of none
other than the sect of the Essenes: for not a single particular of what is thus
related can be reconciled with the customary practice and usages of the Jews
in common ; whereas the account corresponds, in every respect, with the insti-
tutions and discipline of the Essenes. The Jews of whom it speaks were phi-
losophers ; they sacrificed in the night ; they did not feast on the things offered ;
they occupied themselves in contemplating the stars ; they revered the [p. 53.]
sun ; they poured out honey and wine on their sacrifices ; they consumed the
whole of what was offered with fire; and prepared themselves for the per-
formance of their sacred rights by an abstinence from food. Now nothing
could be more foreign than all these things were from the religious observances
of the Jews as a nation ; whilst, at the same time, they precisely accord with
the principles and practices of the Essenes. The fact therefore undoubtedly
was, as Josephus represents it, that the Essenes did not bring their sacrifices
to the temple, but offered them up at home. It is also easy to perceive the rea-
sons on account of which the Jewish pontiff and priesthood would not permit them
to sacrifice in the temple. The gifts, indeed, which they were accustomed to send
to the temple, according to Josephus, were not rejected, neither were its doors
closed against them personally ; but since they would not, in their sacrifices,
follow the institutes and usages of their forefathers, but introduced rites of a
novel and profane nature, permission to perform them in the temple was an
indulgence which it was utterly impossible to grant. 1. It is well known that
all Jews (z. e. who were such in reality, and according to the strict sense of the
term) were accustomed to feast solemnly on such part of the victims as re-
mained after sacrifice. But this was an abomination in the eyes of the Esse-
nes, who, according to the principles of the oriental philosophy, considered the
soul to be held in bondage by the body ; and thinking it therefore improper to
72 Introduction, — Chap, II.
add more than was necessary to the strength of the latter, supported it merely
by a small quantity of meagre food, and abstained altogether fiom the flesh of
anim:ils. 2. The Jews devoted only a part of the victim to the fire ; but the
Esscnes burnt the whole of it with as much expedition as possible. 3. Tho
Essenes poured out upon their burnt ofleringsan abundance of honey and wine;
ft practice entirely unknown to the Jews. The honey and wine were no doubt
meant as visible signs of certain thoughts or reflections, by which they deemed
it proper that the minds of those who were assisting at the sacrifice should be
occupied. 4. The Jews offered up their sacrifices in the day-time ; but the
Essenes during the night. Porphyry gives us to understand that they fixed on
the night time for performing these rights, " lest this ungracious act should
meet the eyes of him who sees every thing." This ur^age was exactly conform-
able to a superstitious notion of the Essenes, of which Josephus has taken
notice. He who sees all things, and to whose eyes the Essenes were unwil-
ling that their sacrifices should be exposed, was unquestionably the sun, whom
they worshipped as the deity. But neither Porphyry nor Theophrastus has hit
upon the true reason why this preference was given to the night time for sacri-
ficing. The author, who assigns the above reason for it, appears to have
thought that the Essenes did not consider sacrifice as a thing altogether unlaw-
ful in itself, but yet regarded it as an usage by no means pleasing or acceptable
to God ; and that their offerings in this way were made rather in compliance
with the custom of their country, than in obedience to what they deemed to be
his will. It being their opinion, therefore, that the offering of sacrifice was an
act not grateful in the sight of Heaven, they always performed their sacred
rites before the rising of the sun, whom, in some way or other, they considered
as holding the place of the Deity ; being naturally desirous to avoid doing that
which they imagined was not pleasing to the God who sees every thing, so
immediately in his presence as it must be during the day-time. But this reason
was probably framed from the suggestions of the waiter's own imagination, or
else drawn from the principles of the more recent Platonic philosophy, since it
could have no foundation whatever in a knowledge of the tenets of the Esse-
nes. It appears from Josephus, that the Essenes believed the night to be a
more sacred season than the day, and w^re, therefore, accustomed to perform
all those rites and services with which they imagined it behoved them to wor-
ship the Deity, before the appearance of the dawn. Throughout the day they
conceived themselves at liberty to discourse of the business and concerns of
this life ; but during the night they permitted themselves to converse only on
subjects of a sacred and divine nature. The chief part of the night was spent
in contemplation ; but before the approach of dawn they recited their prayers
and hymns. The day they devoted to labor. The circumstance, therefore, of
their sacrificing in the night time, instead of warranting the conclusion which
[p. 54.] Porphyry would draw from it, serves rather to prove that they consi-
dered the offering up of victims as an usage of the most sacred nature, and as
constituting a necessary part of divine worship. The rule which the Essenes
thus prescribed to themselves, of reserving the night for the performance of
State of the Jeivish Nation. 73
their divine rites, and confining tliemsclvcs wholly to secular aflairs during the
day, appears to have excited some astonishment amongst several of the learned,
who consider it as in no wise supported by reason. But if a proper oj)por-
tunity offered itself, I could, without any very great pains, dcnionstrate that
this reverence for the night was founded on the principles of the ancient ori-
ental doctrines, or that system which comes more particularly under the deno-
mination of the Egyptian philosophy. Many of the oriental nations appear,
from the earliest times, to have considered the night not only as having a claim
to our preference beyond the day on the score of antiquity, but also as being
more dignified and sacred. Indeed, they carried their veneration for the night
80 far, as almost to place it on a footing with the Deity himself. See the par-
ticulars which have, with much diligence and care, been collected by the emi-
nently learned Paul Ernest Jablonsky, on the subject of the night, and of the
veneration in which it was held by the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, in
his Pantheon JEgypiiorum, lib. i. cap. i. 5 7, et seq. p. 10, ct seq. It seems indeed
extremely probable that the Essenes might consider the night as having some
resemblance to that vast unbounded space in which, previously to the existence
of the world, of the sun, and of time, the Deity, accompanied only by such
natures as were generated of himself, had from all eternity reigned in consum-
mate bliss and glory. 5. It was the custom of the Essenes to continue their
sacrifices for several successive nights. The whole season during which these
observances lasted, was deemed particularly sacred. They renounced, for the
time, their usual occupations, and employed each intervening day in subduing
the body by fasting, so that it might not impede the vigor and operations of
the mind. The nights were passed in contemplating the stars, which, without
doubt, they believed to be animated and filled with a divine spirit. Differing,
therefore, so essenti:illy as the Essenes did in all these particulars from the
Jewish discipline and law, it can afford matter for surprise to no one that the
priests should not have permitted them to offer their sacrifices in the temple at
Jerusalem.
XV. Of the theoretical Essenes, or Therapeutre, Notwithstand-
ing that the practical Essenes ^Ycre very much addicted to super-
stition, society derived no inconsiderable benefit from their la-
bour, and the strictness of their morals. Those of the theoreti-
cal class, however, or the Therapeutae of Philo, seem to have set
scarcely any bou;ids whatever to their silly extravagance. Al-
though they professed themselves to be Jews, and were desirous
to be considered as the disciples of Moses, they were yet, if we
except the name, and some few trifling observances, entirely
strangers to the Mosaic discipline.(') Renouncing every sort of
employment, and all worldly goods, they withdrew themselves
into solitary places, and there, distributed about in separate cells,
74 Introduction. — Chap, II,
passed the remnant of tlieir days without engaging in any kind
of bodily labour, and neither offering sacrifices, nor observing
an}' other external form of religious worship. In this state of
seclusion from the world and its concerns, they made it a point
to reduce and keep the body low, by allowing it nothing beyond
the most slender subsistance, and, as far as possible, to draw away
and disengage the soul from it by perpetual contemplation ; so
that the immortal ^)\Y\i might, in defiance of its corporeal im-
prisonment, be kept constantly aspiring after its native liberty
and light, and be prepared, immediately on the dissolution of the
body, to re-ascend to those celestial regions from whence it ori-
ginally sprang. Conformably to the practice of the Jews, the
Therapeutas were accustomed to hold a solemn assembly every
seventh day. On these occasions, after hearing a sermon from
[p. 55.] their prasfect, and offering up their prayers, it was usual
for them to feast together, — if men can in any wise be said to
have feasted, whose repast consisted merely of salt and bread and
water. This sort of refection was followed by a sacred dance,
which was continued throughout the whole night until the ap-
pearance of the dawn. At first, the men and the women danced
in two separate parties ; but at length, their minds, according to
their own account, kindling with a sort of divine ecstacy, the
two companies joined in one, mutually striving, by various shouts
and songs of the most vehement kind, accompanied with the
most extravagant motions and gesticulations of the body, to
manifest the fervid glow of that divine love with which they
were inflamed. To so gTcat an extent of folly may men be led,
in consequence of their entertaining erroneous principles respect-
ing the Deity and the origin of the human soul !
(1) On this subject I agree in opinion with those who consider the Thera-
peutce of Philo to have been Jews both by birth and by name, although they
materially differed from the bulk of that people in their sentiments, their insti-
tutions, and their manners. For Philo, to whom we are indebted for every
information that we have respecting the Therapeuta?, and who was himself a
Jew, expressly calls them Jews, and tlie disciples of Moses ; and in addition to
this, there are to be perceived in their customs and manners several peculiari-
ties which savour strongly of the Jewish discipline : and this opinion, from the
strength of the arguments by which it may be supported, is, I am convinced,
daily gaining ground. There are, however, even at this day, not a few amongst
the learned who will not yield their assent to it ; but I rather suspect that their
State of the Jewish Nation. 75
scruples and backwardness to be convinced may ratlier be attributed to preju-
dice or party attachment, than to any arfruments by which the opinion can bo
opposed. In the tirst place, several of the dependents on the papal hierarchy,
and also some En<rlish writers, persist in giving the preference to the ancient
opinion of Eusebius, who thought that the Thenipeutae must have been Christians;
and would fain avail themselves of this as a proof that the monastic mode of
life was originated in Egypt amongst the first institutions of Christianity.
Bernard de Montfaucon, a most learned brother of the Benedictine order, having
in the notes to his French translation of Philo's treatise, de Vila contemplativa
published at Paris, 1709, in 8vo. undertaken to support this opinion, it involved
him in a controversy with Jo. Bouhier, at that time president of the parliament of
Dijon. The latter, a man equalled but by few in point of ingenuity and literary
attainments, endeavoured, with great strength of argument, to prove that the
Therapeutse were not Christians ; but the monk was not to be driven from his
position : perceiving plainly that in yielding to his antagonist on this occa^^ion,
he should abandon a point of the utmost importance to himself and his fra-
ternity, in establishing the antiquity of raonachism. The contest between these
two eminent scholars was carried on amicably ; and the correspondence which
took place on the occasion was collected into an octavo volume, and published
at Paris, in 1712, with this title, Lettres pour et contresurla fajncuse Question,
si les solitaires appellez Therapeutes dont a parte Philon leJuif, etoient Chretiens. A
book of some size, in answer toMontfaucon on this subject, was likewise written
by Gisbert Cuper, and of which mention is made in his Letters, published by
Bayer p. 63, 64. 70. 239. 241. 250. See also Reimari Vila Fabricii, [p. 56.]
p. 243, et. seq. ; but it was never published. Whilst there shall be monks iu
the world, there will not be wanting men, who, in spite of the most forcible
arguments to the contrary, will persist in assigning to the Theraputce a place
amongst the earliest Christians ; as is plain from the recent example which we
have had in Mich, le Quien, a brother of the Dominican order, who, although
a man of considerable ingenuity and learning, has not hesitated to maintain
(Orient. Christian, torn. ii. p. 332.) that the Thcrapeutae were of his fraternity
The attempt is awkwardly made, and ill supported ; but it is evident that the
good man was willing to subject himself to every sort of contempt, rather than
renounce the satisftiction which he and his brethren derived from their rela-
tionship to these ancient Ascetics. So much the more praise, however, is due
to Joseph August. Orsi, a copious and elegant writer, belonging to the same
order of monks, but who has had the courage, even in the city of Rome itself,
to contend that the Therepeuta3 have no claim whatever to be considered as
Christians. See the Ecclesiastical History written by him in Italian, vol. i.
p. 77. Amongst the English, IMangey, the editor of Philo, has prevailed on
himself, (though confessedly with reluctance, and under the apprehension of
exciting ill will,) to espouse the opposite side of the question to that which ia
the favorite one of his church. With the assistance of chronological calcula-
tion, he clearly demonstrates that, at the time when IMiilo wrote his account of
the Therapeuta), Christianity had not found its \\ay into Egypt. Prccfat. in
Opera Philonis, p. 111. See also Opera, tom. ii. p. 471.
76 Introduction. — Chap. II,
In the no.vt place, there are some distinguished literary characters, though
comparatively but few, who will not admit that the Thcrapeutae were either
Jews or Christians. Tiie learned Jo. Joach. Langius published at Hall, in 1721,
two dissertations de Thcrapeutis in JEgyplo et Essccis, in which he endeavours
to make it appear that these Ascetics were a Gentile philosophic sect, who had
interwoven with their system of discipline some few particulars drawn from the
relif^ion of the Jews. I5at the difference between this opinion and that of those
who conceive the Thcrapeutae to have been Jews, is not so great as the learned
author seems to have imagined: for, according to his own account, the disci-
pline of this sect appears to have been taken in part from the Jewish religion,
and partly from some species of philosophy ; and exactly, in this light is the
system of the Therapeuta? regarded by all those who contend that they were
Jews. These dissertations, therefore, have nothing in them of novelty, unless
it be the author's refusal to assent to the general opinion, that the Therapcutse
were Jews. On this point it is not necessary at present to enter into a discus-
sion, although it might be very easily shown that the opinion of this learned
writer is destitute of every kind of support; whilst many circumstances offer
themselves in ftivor of those who maintain that the Therapeutre were Jews, and
that, not merely so far as regarded certain institutions and tenets, but really and
strictly such by birth and descent. Still further removed from the commonly
received opinion is that of Paul. Ernest. Jablonsky, a man eminent for his
curious and recondite learning, who, in a treatise wiitten professedly on the
subject, has attempted to prove that the Therapeutae were priests of Egypt,
who devoted themselves to the observation of the stars, and those other sci-
ences accounted sacred in that country ; in fact, that they were the same with
those whom Democritus, as cited by Clement, calls Arpedonapicc. The outlines
of his undertaking may be seen in his Letters to Matur. Veissiere la Croze, torn.
i. p. 178, et seq. ; and I trust it will not be long ere the work itself is given to
the public. As far as I am capable of forming a judgment of the matter,
[p. 57.] the learned author will have to encounter many obstacles of no small
consequence, and particularly, amongst other things, that part of Thilo's account
which represents the Therapcutse as not confined merely to Egypt, but as
having established themselves in various other countries. In truth, he will have a
vast deal to teach us, of wiiich we are as yet completely ignorant, before wc
can be brought to consider the Therapeutas as having been the priests or minis-
ters of the Egyptian deities.
XYI. The moral doctrine of these sects. Neither of these sects,
into which the Jewish people were divided, can be considered
as having the least contributed towards promoting the interests
of virtue and genuine piety. The Pharisees, as was frequently
objected to them by our blessed Saviour, paid no regard wliat-
ever to inward purity or sanctity of mind, but studied merely to
attract the eyes of the multitude towards them, by an ostenta-
State of the Jeivish Nation. 77
tious solemnity of carriage, and the most specious external pa-
rade of piety and brotherly love. They were also continually
straining and perverting the most grand and important precepts
of the divine law ; whilst, at the same time, they enforced an -un-
reserved obedience to ordinances which were merely the institu-
tions of men. Matth. xv. 9. xxiii. 13. kc. The Sadducees con-
sidered all those as righteous who strictly conformed themselves
to the observances prescribed by Moses, and did no injury to the
Jewish nation, from whom they had received none. Since their te-
nets forbade men to look forward to a future state of rewards
and punishments, and placed the whole happiness of man in riclies
and sensual gratification, they naturally tended to generate and
encourage an inordinate cupidity of wealth, a brutal insensibility
to the calls of compassion, and a variety of other vices equally
pernicious and degrading to the human mind. The Essenes la-
boured under the influence of a vain and depressing superstition ;
so that, whilst they were scrupulously attentive to the demands
of justice and equity in regard to others, they appear to have al-
together overlooked the duties which men owe to themselves.
The Therapeutoo were a race who resigned themselves wholly to
the dictates of the most egregious fanaticism and folly. They
would engage in no sort of business or employment on their own
account, neither would they be instrumental in forwarding the
interests of others. In a word, they seem to have considered
themselves as released from every bond by which human soci-
ety is held together^ and at liberty to act in direct opposition to
nearly every principle of moral discipline. (')
(1) Sec what is said by Barbeyrac, in the Preface to his French translation
of Puffendorf 's Jus Naturcc et Gentium, \ vii. p. xxv.
XVII. Lives of the people dissolute and perverse. Owing to tho
various causes which we have thus enumerated, the great mass
of the Jewish people were, at the time of Christ's birth, sunk in
the most profound ignorance as to divine matters ; and the na-
tion, for the most part, devoted to a flagitious and dissolute
course of life. That such was the miserable state of de- [p. 58.]
gradation into which this highly flxvoured race had fallen, is in-
contestibly proved by the history of our Saviour's life, and the
78 Introduction. — Chap. II.
discourses wliicli lie condescended to address to them : and it was
in allusion tliereto that he compares the teachers of the people to
blind guides, who professed to instruct others in a way with
which they were totally unacquainted themselves ; Matt. xv. 14.
John, ix. 39 ; and the multitude to a flock of lost sheep, wander-
ing without a shepherd. Matt. x. 6, xv. 24.
XVIII. The oriental philosophy adopted by many of the Jews. To
all the sources of error and corruption above pointed out, we
have still further to add, that, at the time of Christ's appearance,
many of the Jews had imbibed the principles of the oriental
philosophy respecting the origin of the world, and were much
addicted to the study of a recondite sort of learning derived from
thence, to which they gave the name of cabbala^ and which they
considered as of great authority ; attributing to it, in many re-
spects, a superiority over the plain and simple system of disci-
pline prescribed by Moses. Abundant proof of this might be
adduced from the writings of the New Testament, as well as from
the early history of Christianity.(') But to pass over other facts
which might be noticed, it is certain that the founders of several
of the Gnostic sects, all of whom, we know, were studious to
make the Christian religion accommodate itself to the principles
of the ancient oriental philosophy, had been originally Jews, and
exhibited in their tenets a strange mixture of the doctrines of
Moses, Christ, and Zoroaster. This is of itself sufficient to prove
that many of the Jews were, in no small degree, attached to the
opinions of the ancient Persians and Chaldoeans. Such of them
as had adopted these irrational principles would not admit that
the world was created by God, but substituted, in the place of
the Deity, a celestial genius endowed with vast powers ; from
whom, also, they maintained that Moses had his commission, and
the Jewish law its origin. To the coming of the Messiah, or de-
liverer promised by God to their fathers, they looked forward
with hope ; expecting that he would put an end to the dominion
of the being whom they thus regarded as the maker and ruler
of the world. Their notions, therefore, so far as they related to
the abolition of the ceremonial law by the coming of Christ,
were certainly more correct than those of the Jews in common.
But their hopes in this respect redounded but little to their credit,
since they were founded on a most grievous error, and were ac-
State of the Jewish Nation. 79
companicd witli many strange and unwarrantable conceits, not
less repugnant to right reason than to the Jewish religion.
(1) See what has been collected on this subject by Jo. Christ. Wolfius, in
his Biblioth. Ebraic. vol. ii. lib. vii. cap. i. \ ix. p. 206.
XIX. The Samaritans. The Samaritans, who perform- [p. 59.]
ed their sacred rites on mount Garizim, were involved in the same
calamities which befel the Jewish people, and were no less forward
than the Jews in adding, to their other afllictions, the numerous
evils produced by factions and intestine tumults. They Avere not,
however, divided into so many religious sects ; although the in-
stances of Dositheus, Menander, and Simon Magus, plainly prove
that there were not wantinnj anion c^st them some who were car-
ried away by the lust of novelt}^, and sullied the religion of their
ancestors, by incorporating with it many of the principles of ori-
entalism.C) Many things have been handed down to us by the
Jews respecting the public religion of these people, on which,
however, we cannot place much reliance, since they were un-
questionably dictated by a spirit of invidious malignity. But
since Christ himself attributes to the Samaritans a great degree
of ignorance respecting God, and things of a divine nature, John,
iv. 22, it is not to be doubted that in their tenets the truth was
much debased by superstition, and the light in no small danger
of being overpowered by obscurity ; and that their religion was
much more contaminated by error than that of the Jews. In
this one thing only can they be said to have shown themselves
superior to the Jews, that they did not attempt to gloss over or
conceal the many imperfections of their religion, but frankly ac-
knowledged its defects, and looked forward with hope to tlie time
when the Messiah (whose advent they expected in common with
the Jewish nation) would communicate to them that larger measure
of spiritual instruction, of which they stood so much in need.(^)
(1) The principal authors who have treated of the Samaritans are pointed out
by Jo. Gottlob. Carpzovius, in his Critic. Sacr. Vet. Test, part ii. cap. iv. p. 585.
(2) John, iv. 25. That the sentiments of the woman who conversed at the
well whh Christ were the same with those of the Samaritans in general will
not admit of a doubt: for from whence could a common person like her have
obtained the information she discovers on several points relating to the Messiah,
unless from popular traditions current amongst those of her own nation. These
sentiments then furnish us with a strong argument in answer to* the English
80 Introduction. — Chap. II.
writer Ant. Collins, and others, who contend that the more ancient Hebrews
entertained no expectation of a Messiah ; but that this hope first sprung up
amongst the Jews some short time before the coming of our Saviour. So deep
and inveterate was the enmity wliich subsisted between the Jews and the Sama-
ritans, that it is utterly incredible that a hope of this kind should have been
communicated from either of tliem to the other. It necessarily follows, there-
fore, that as both of them were, at the time of our Saviour's birth, looking for
the appearance of a Messiah from above, they must have derived the expecta-
tion from one common source, doubtless the books of Moses and the discipline
of their ancestors ; and consequently that this hope was entertained long before
the Babylonish captivity, and the rise of the Samaritans. I mention only the
books of Moses, because it is well known that the Samaritans did not consider
any of the other writings of the Old Testament as sacred, or of divine original ;
and it is, therefore, not at all likely that any information which they might possess,
[p. 60.] respecting the Messiah that was to come, should have been drawn from
any other source. In the discourse of the Samaritan woman, we likewise dis-
cover what were the sentiments of the ancient Hebrews respecting the Messiah.
The expectation of the Jews, at the time of our Saviour's coming, was, as we
have seen, directed towards a warlike leader, a hero, an emperor, who should
recover for the oppressed posterity of Abraham their liberty and riglits : but the
Samaritans, as appears from the conversation of this woman, looked forward to
the Messiah in the light of a spiritual teacher and guide, who should instruct
them in a more perfect and acceptable way of serving God than that which they
then followed. Now the Samaritans had always kept themselves entirely dis-
tinct from the Jews, and would never consent to adopt any point of doctrine or
discipline from them; and the consequence was, that the ancient opinion
respecting the Messiah had been retained in much greater purity by the former
than by the Jews, whose arrogance and impatience, under the calamities to which
Ihey were exposed, had brought them by degrees to turn their backs on the opi-
nion entertained by their forefathers on this subject, and to cherish the expec-
tation tliat in the Messiah promised to them by God they should have to hail
an earthly prince and deliverer. Lastly, I think it particularly deserving of
attention, that it is clear from what is said by this woman, that tlie Samaritans
did not consider the Mosaic law in the light of a permanent establishment, but
expected that it would pass away, and its phice be supplied by a more perfect
system of discipline, on the coming of the Messiah. For when she hears our
Saviour predict the downfall of the Samaritan, as well as the Jewish religion,
instead of taking fire at his words, and taxing him, after the Jewish manner,
with blasphemy against God and against Moses, (Acts, vi. 13, 14, 15,) sho
answers with mildness and composure, that she knew the Messiah would come,
and was not unapprized that the religion of her ancestors would then undergo
a change.
XX. state of the Jews not resident in Palestine. So exceedingly
great was the fecundity of the Jewish people, that occasionally
inultitudca of them had been constrained to cmiejrate from their
State of the Jewish Nation. ^1
native country ; and at the period of which we arc now treating,
the descendants of Abraham were to be met with in every part
of the known world. In all the provinces of the Roman em-
pire, in particular, they were to be found in great numbers, either
serving in the army, or engaged in the pursuits of commerce, or
practising some lucrative art. Those of the Jews who thus ven-
tured to establish themselves without the confines of Palestine,
were every where successful in obtaining that general sort of en-
couragement and protection from violence, which was to be de-
rived from various regulations and edicts of the emperors and
magistrates in their favour :(') but the peculiarities of their reli-
gion and manners caused them to be held in very general contempt,
and not unfrequently exposed them to much vexation and an-
noyance from the jealousy and indignation of a superstitious po-
pulace. Many of them, in consequence of their long residence
and intercourse amongst foreign nations, fell into the error of
endeavouring to make their religion accommodate itself to the
principles and institutions of some of the difierent systems of
heathen discipline, of which it would be easy to adduce numer-
ous instances : but, on the other hand, it is clear that the Jews
brought many of those with whom they sojourned to [p. 61.]
perceive the superiority of the Mosaic religion over the Gentile
superstitions, and were highly instrumental in causing them to
forsake the worship of a plurality of gods. Upon the whole,
the circumstance of the Jews having found their way into almost
every region of the habitable globe, may, I think, justly bo
classed amongst the means made use of by Divine Providence to
open a path for the general diffusion of the truths of Christian-
ity. For it is not to be doubted that the knowledge which the
Gentiles thus acquired from the Jews, respecting the only true
God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, although it
might be but partial, and of limited extent, inclined many of
them the more readily to lend their attention to the arguments
and exhortations which were subsequently used by our Saviour's
apostles, for the purpose of exploding the worship of false dei-
ties, and recalling men to those principles of religion which have
their foundation in reason and in nature.
(1) Vid. Jac. Gronovii Decreta Romana et Asiatica pro Jud<zis ad cultum
divinum per Asico Minoris Urbes secure obcundum, Lugd. Bat. 1712, in 8vo.
6
THE
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF THE
FIRST CENTURY.
I. The birth of Christ. With a view to effect the recovery of
the human race from such a deplorable state of wretchedness and
disorder, and to instruct mankind in the path that leads to ever-
lasting salvation and peace, the Son of God voluntarily conde-
scended to take upon himself our nature, and to be born of a
virgin, a descendant of the royal house of David, in Bethlehem,
a city of Palestine. This event, we know, took place under the
reign of the emperor Augustus ; but as to the identical day, or
month, or even year of its occurrence, it is impossible to speak
with any degree of precision, since all the historians of the life
of our blessed Saviour, with whose writings we are acquainted,
are entirely silent as to these particulars : and indeed it should
seem that the earliest Christians were not much better informed
on the subject than ourselves, since they appear to have been
much divided in opinion as to the exact time of this most im-
portant nativity.(') Several ingenious and profound scholars
have, at different periods, bestowed an abundance of pains on
the subject, in the hope of being able to supply this deliciency
in the more ancient writers; but none of them have as yet
made any discovery that can be said to put the matter out of all
doubt.(^) But surely it is of little or no consequence that we
are uninformed of the particular year and day that ushered in
this glorious light to the world : it is sufficient for us to be as-
sured that the Sun of Righteousness hath arisen on our benighted
race, that its refulgence hath dispelled the darkness with which
the human mind was enveloped, and that nothing intervenes to
prevent us from availing ourselves of the splendour and invigo-
rating warmth of its beams.
84 Century I. — Section 1, 2.
(1) Vid. Clemens Alexandr. Stromal, lib. i. p. 339, 340. BeausoLre Re-
marques sur le Nov.xcau Testament, torn. i. p. 6. If the early Christians had
known the precise day of our Saviour's nativity, they would without doubt have
distinguished it by a religious commemoration, in the same way as they were
accustomed to celebrate the day of his resurrection. But it is well known that
the day which is now held sacred as the anniversary of our Saviour's birth, was
fixed on in much more recent times than those in which we find the Christians
celebrating the descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles, and the resurrection
of Christ from the dead. This circumstance may, I think, be considered as a
proof that the friends and companions of our Lord themselves were unac-
quainted with the day of his birth, or, at least, that they left no memorial
behind them concerning it, and that the first Christians, finding the point
involved in much obscurity and doubt, would not take upon them to determine
any thing about it.
(2) The reader who wishes to obtain a view of most of the opinions that
have been entertained respecting the year of Christ's nativity, may consult Jo.
Alb. Fabricii Bibl'wgraph. Anliq. cap, vii. \ ix. p. 187. Some additional arguments
and conjectures may be collected from the more recent publications of several
[p. 63.] learned men on this subject; but from amongst all these different opi-
nions it is not possible to select one that can be altogether relied on as free
from error. [The most elaborate work on this subject is the Chronological
Introduction to the History of the Church, by the l.iarned Samuel Farmer
Jar rfs, t)- D- Historiographer, «&LC. New-York. 1845. 8vo. Editor.]
II. Accounts of his inlancy and youth. The inspired historians
of the life and actions of our Savioiir have left but little on record
respecting his childhood and early youth. AVhilst yet an infant,
it appears that his parents fled with him into Egypt, in order to
shield him from the persecuting violence of Herod the Great.
Matt. ii. 13. At twelve years of age we find him in the temple
at Jerusalem, disputing with the most learned of the Jewish doc-
tors, who were filled with astonishment at his understanding and
knowledge. The remaining part of his life, until he entered on
his ministry, he appears to have spent with his parents, exhib-
iting in himself an exemplary pattern of affectionate filial obe-
dience.(') Farther than this, it should seem the divine wisdom
did not think it necessary that we should be informed. But these
few particulars not being found sufficient to satisfy human curi-
osity, some artfal unprincipled characters amongst the early
Christians had the presumption to avail themselves of the igno-
rance and inquisitiveness of a credulous multitude in this re-
spect, and, under the pretence of illustrating this obscure part of
our Saviour's life, to impose on the public a compilation of ri-
Infancy of Christ 85
diculoiis and nonsensical stories, which they entitled Gospels of
the infancy of Christ. (")
(1) Luke, ii. 51, 52. Several of our best informed scholars do not hesi-
tate to assert with the greatest confidence, that Christ, during his youth, exer-
cised the art of a carpenter, whicii lie had learnt of his parent, and that he
assisted Joseph in the different parts of Ins business. ' Indeed there are some
who consider this circumstance as a very honourable feature in our Saviour's
character, and who consequently have not been very sparing in their censure
on those who do not believe the fact, or at least have ventured to express some
doubts on the subject. See Mojitacutc's Origines Eccleslasticcc, tom. i. p. 305,
and 384. For my own part, without pretending to dictate to others, I must
confess that the matter does not appear to me to have been so clearly ascer-
tained iia to be placed beyond all doubt. Those who take the affirmative side
of the question rely principally on two arguments : the first drawn from the
words of the Jews, Mark, vi. 3. ix «'^«J ^s'»' o 1 ckI a>v i vio: Mxpixc. Is not
this the carpenter^ the son of Mary ? The other from a passage in Justin Mar-
tyr, in which our Saviour is said to have worked as a carpenter, and made
ploughs and yokes. Dialog, cum Tryphon. p. 270. I pass over the more re-
cent authorities that arc brought forward in support of the fact, as of little
moment, since they are all either founded on the above mentioned passage ia
Justin, or drawn from vulgar report, or tJie apocryphal gospels. Confining
myself, therefore, to the two principal authorities above noticed, I must say
tliat I do not perceive how any argument of much weight is to be drawn from
either of them. For as to the remark of the Jews, in which our Saviour is
termed tlic carpenter, I consider it to refer merely to the occupation of [p. 64.]
his ])arent ; and that TUrav ought to be understood, in this place, as meaning
nothing moix3 than o rs rinTon'^viicy the son of the carpenter. In support of this
explanation of the term, 1 may refer to the authority of St. Matthew himself,
cap. xiii. 55, and almost every language supplies us witli instances which
prove that it was a common practice to distinguish a child from others of the
Bame name by giving him a surname derived from the trade or occupation of
his parent. The English language furnishes us wit?i examples of this in the
surnames of Baker, Tailor, Carpenter, Smith, &.c. and what is still more to
the point, it is at this day the custom in some of the oriental nations, and par-
ticiihirly amongst the Arabs, to distinguish any learned or illustrious man that
may chance to be born of parents who follow any particular trade or art, by
giving him the name of such trade or art as a surname, although he may never
have followed it himself. Thus, if a man of learning happen to be descended
from a dyer or a tailor, they call him the Dyer's son, or the Tailor's son, or
frequently, omitting the word son, simply the Dyer, or tlie Tailor. This fact
is so well known to those who are conversant in orienUil affairs, that I deem
it unnecessary to cite any particular authority for it. 1 shall not here enter
into an inquiry whether the reading of the passage of St. jMark above alluded
to, as it stands In our copies, be correct or not. The matter unquestionably
admits of some doubt: for it is clear from Mill, that there arc many ancient
86 Century L — Section 3.
manuscripts which, instead of TiKToiy have o t«- t£«tcvcc ; a reading which I
certainly ^iiull not take upon me, like him, absolutely to reject, since, as I be-
fore observed, it may be supported on the authority of St. Matthew himself
Vid. Millii Prolegomena in Nov. Test. ^ 698. p. 66. It should seem also that
Ori"-en understood the words of St. Mark in this sense, since he expressly de-
nies that Christ is called tUTcyuy or a carpenter, in any part of the New Tes-
tament. Contra Cclsum, lib. ,vi. p. 662. The learned well know that Justin
Martyr is not to be considered in every respect as an oracle, but that much of
what he relates is wholly undeserving of credit. Possibly what he says, in
rc'^ard to the point before us, might be taken from one or other of the apocry-
phal Gospels of the infancy of Christ, which were in circulation amongst the
Cliristians in his time.
(2) Such parts of these Gospels of the Infancy of Christ as had escaped
tlic ravages of time, were collected together, and published by Jo. Albert. Fa-
bricus, in his Codex Apocryph. Nov. Test. [And still better by J. C. Thilo,
Lips. 1832. Svo. Editor.]
III. John the praecursor of Christ. Christ entered Oil liis ministry
in the thirtieth year of his ago ; and, in order that his doctrine
might obtain a more ready acceptance with the Jews, a man
named John, the son of a Jewish priest, a person whose gravity
of deportment and whole tenor of life was such as to excite ven-
eration and respect, was commanded by God to announce to the
people the immediate coming of the promised Messiah, and to
endeavour to awaken in their senseless groveling minds a pro-
per disposition to receive him. This illustrious character pro-
claimed himself to be the forerunner or herald of the Messiah,
commissioned to call with a loud voice on the inhabitants of the
wilderness to amend and make ready their ways iL)r the King
that was approaching ;(') and having his mind inflamed with a
holy zeal, he executed his mission with ardour and fidelity, re-
[p. 65.] buking the vices of the nation sharply and without reserve.
The form of initiation which he adopted, m regard to all those
who promised an amendment of heart and life, was to immerge
them in the river, according to the ancient Jewish practice.
Matth. iii. 2. Joh. i. 22. Jesus himself, before he entered on
his ministry, condescended to comply with this rite, and was
solemnly baptized by John in the river Jordan, lest (according
to his own words) he should appear to have disregarded any part
of the divine law. John finished his earthly course unrler the
reign of Herod the tetrarch. Having had the courage openly to
reprove that tyrant for an incestuous connection with his bro-
The Life of Christ. 87
therms wife, lie was in consequence thereof cast into prison, and
after some little while beheaded.(')
(1) If we recur to the manners of the eastern nations, John's comparison
of himself to a forerunner, or herald, will be found to possess a peculiar force
and beauty. In those countries it has ever been customary, even down to our
own times, for monarchs, when they are about to undertake a journey, to send
before them, into those regions through which they mean to travel, certain of
their servants, who, with a loud voice, admonish the inhabitants to amend the
roads, and remove every obstacle that might obstruct or impede the royal pro-
gress. By the form of annunciition, therefore, which John made use of, an
ardent wish was manifested to exalt the character of the Messiah, by likening
his approach to that of the mightiest of monarchs; whilst, at the same time, so
far from magnifying the importance of his own services, they are, with the
greatest humility, placed on a level with those which were usually executed by
inferior servants.
(2) The reader who may wish for more copious information on this subject,
is referred to two dissertations of Cellarius de Jolianne Baptista ejusque Careers
ac SuppHcio, which he will find published by Walchius, amongst his DisseriO'
tiones AcademiccCy part i. p. 169; partii. p. 373.
ly. The life of Christ. It cannot bc ncccssary that we should,
in this place, enter into a minute detail of the life and actions of
Jesus Christ. The writings of the four evangelists are in the
hands of every one ; and no one who has read them can need to
be informed, that for upwards of three years, in the midst of
numberless perils and insidious machinations, and in defiance of
the most insulting and injurious treatment, he continued with
an inflexible constancy to point out to the Jewish people, by a
mode of instruction peculiarly adapted to the manners and way
of thinking of themselves, and the other nations of the east, the
true and only means by which everlasting salvation was to be
obtained. It must be equally unnecessary to remark, that he
discovered no sort of desire whatever for either riches or worldly
honours, but that his life was spent in poverty, and distinguished
by such sanctity and innocence, that even his most virulent ene-
mies could find nothing whereof they might accuse him. In re-
gard, likewise, to the divinity of his mission, and the truth of
the doctrines which he taught, every one must be apprised that
he placed both the one and the other beyond all doubt, not only
by referring to various prophecies and oracular passages con-
^ Century L— Section 4, 5.
tained in the writings of the Old Testament, but also by a se^
lies of tlic most stupendous miracles. Of liis miracles it may
be observed, that, from beginning to end, they were uniformly
of a salutary and beneficent character, i. e. they were, in every
respect, strictly consentaneous to the spirit and tendency of hi3
ministry, and exhibited no unfaithful types or images of those
spiritual blessings which he was about to communicate to man-
kind. Had our Saviour come to enforce with rigour the penal-
ties of the law, he might with propriety have established the au-
thenticity of his mission by terrific prodigies and signs ; but he
IjD. (dQ.] came as the messenger of divine clemency and pity, and
in no Avay could the truth or the character of his doctrine have
been more beautifully or emphatically marked than by the won-
ders of benevolence and love.
V. Christ seceded from the Jewish church to a certain degree. In
the line of duty which Christ prescribed for the Jews, he omit-
;ted none of those points which were enjoined by the law of Mo-
ses ; and it is observable, that he joined with the inhabitants of
Palestine in their acts of public worship, and in all other rites
of divine origin. This should seem to have been done, partly
for the purpose of bearing testimony to the divine authority of
the Jewish law and religion, and partly with a view to avoid in-
curring the hatred and ill ofi&ces of the priests and lawyers by
any unnecessary provocation. He made no scruple, however,
openly to predict the downfall, not only of the Jewish state, but
also of the Mosaic worship and religion, and to declare, in the
plainest and most express terms, that under his auspices a new
religious community would be established, founded upon more
perfect principles of worship, and which, extending itself to the
farthermost parts of the earth, Avould unite the wdiole human
race in one common bond of fraternal love.(^) Neither did he
confine himself merely to thus prophesying the rise of a ncAV
and most comprehensive religion, but proceeded at once with his
own hands to lay the foundation of it, by causing his disciples
to baptize with water all those who, either through the preach-
ing of himself or his apostles, had been brought to confess that
he was the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind commissioned
from above ; thereby initiating them under a new covenant, the
terms and obligations of which were such as could not fail to
Christ sececlcd from the Jewish Church. 89
separate tliem from the rest of the Jewish community. John,
iii. 22, 26. iv. 2. Although, therefore, it must be allowed that
Christ and his disciples did not formally renounce their connec-
tion with the Jewish church, or absolutely withdraw themselves
from it ; yet it is clear that, in a certain degree, he established
a new sect therein, and that in reality he separated both himself
and his followers from the rest of the Jews.C)
(1) Luke xix. John, iv. 21. Matth. x. 32. xvi. 18. John, x. 16.
(2) Several learned men, chiefly amongst the civilians, have liad their
doubts as to this point, of Christ with his followers having seceded from the
Jewish church, and established a new and distinct religious community. But
to me the fact appears to admit of no question whatever. Whoever promul-
gates new principles or precepts — prescribes a new rule of life and conduct —
makes use of a certain sacred rite, Avith a view to distinguish all those [p. 67.1
who are willing to conform to those precepts, and who approve of such rule
of life, from the rest of the community, and to mark their reception into this
sect — holds separate solemn assemblies with these liis associates — and, lastly,
exhorts them on every occasion to be constant in their adherence to that rule
of faith and action which they had thus embraced ; such person must, in my
opinion, unquestionably be considered as founding a new religious community,
and causing his followers, in a certain degree, to forsake that to which they
formerly belonged. Now our Saviour did all these things. For, in the first
place, he announced himself to all whom he undertook to instruct, as the Mes-
siah promised by God to the ancestors of the Jews; and taught them, that
their hopes of eternal salvation ought to be built on his merits alone. Then,
those who believed in him were enjoined to love each other as brethren, and
informed that the worship required of them by God was not that of sacrinccs
and external observances, but that of the heart and mind. Next, all who pro-
fessed themselves ready to espouse these principles, and conform to these pre-
cepts, were made to undergo a solemn form of lustration at the hands of his
disciples, (John, iv. 2, 3,) and by this regenerating ceremony became invested as
it were with the rights of citizenship. And lastly, those who had been thus ini-
tiated he associated with himself in the closest ties of intimacy, and caused
them publicly to declare the faith and hope which they had in him ; convening
them frequently together I'or the purpose of religious v/orship, and, amongst
other things, particularly apprizing them of the approaching downfall of the
Jewish state and religion. The fact is likewise supported by other circum-
stances, but I do not deem it necessary to bring them forward at present. I
will, however, take this opportunity of saying a few words respecting the rite
of baptism, by which our Saviour ordained that his followers should be received
into the kingdom of heaven, or the new covenant. My oj)inion on this subject
entirely corresponds with theirs, who consider this ceremony as having been
adopted by the .Tews long before the time of our Saviour, and used by them in
the initiating of strangers who had embraced their religion. To omit other
00 Centimj I. — Section 5, 6.
arguments of no little weight in fovour of this opinion, I think it may be sup-
ported on the autiiority of Scripture itself, and particularly from the account
given us in John i. of the embassy sent by the supreme council of the Jews to
Joim the Bapli.-t, the forerunner of Christ. For the rite itself, of baptizing
with water those who confessed their sins and promised an amendment of life,
docs not seem to have been regarded by the elders of the Jews in the liglit of
a novelty, or as a practice by any means of an unusual kind. The only point
on which Ihey require information of John is, from whence he derived his autho-
rity to perform this solemn and sacred ceremony. 'J'he thing itself occasioned
them no surprise, since daily use had rendered it familiar to them: what
attracted their attention was, that a private individual should take upon him to
perform it in a way contrary to the established usage of the nation. But
unless I am much deceived, an inference of still greater moment may be drawn
from this message sent by the Jewish council to John, and which will supply
us with the reason why our Saviour adopted this ancient Jewish practice of
baptizing proselytes with water: for, as it strikes me, the concluding question
put by the messengers evidently implies an expectation in the Jews of that age,
that the Messiah for whom they looked would baptize men with water. After
John had told them that he was neither the Christ nor Messiah, nor Elias, nor
any of the ancient prophets, they finally interrogate hira thus : " If thou be not
that Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet, why baptizest thou then?" John,
[p. 68.] i. 25. Now if these words be attentively considered, I think it must
be allowed that they will unquestionably admit of the following construction:
*' We, as well as those who sent us, understand that when the Messiah shall
come, he will baptize and purify the Jewish race with water; we also expect
that Elias, who is to precede him, will use the same ceremony for our initiation :
but by what authority is it that you, who acknowledge that you are neitiicr tho
Messiah nor Elias, assume to yourself the right of doing that which can only
properly belong to them to perform — we do not mean the baptizing of strangers,
but the descendants of Abraham ?" If this be the fair construction of the mes-
sengers' words (and I rather think that but few, if any, will deny it to be so,)
we have no farther to look for the reason that in all probability induced our
Saviour and his forerunner John to baptize their disciples. An opinion, it
appears, prevailed amongst the Jews, that Elias, whose coming was to precede
that of the Messiah, and also the IMessiah himself, would initiate their disciples
by a sacred ablution ; and it was therefore necessary, in order to avoid giving
the Jews any pretext for doubt respecting either Christ's authority or functions,
that both John and himself should accommodate themselves to this popular
persuasion. Of the origin of the opinion itself I know nothing.
VI. Election of the apostles. Since it was intended tliat the
religious community thus established by Christ, although con-
fined at first within very narrow limits, should by degrees extend
itself to the farthermost parts of the earth, it was requisite that
he should select certain persons, who, from their being admitted
Election of the Apostles, 01
to a constant and fixmiliar intercourse with liim, might acquire
that lively degree of faith and zeal, which should enable them,
in spite of every obstacle and difficulty, to make their way into
the diifercnt regions of the world, for the purpose of propaga-
ting the religion of their divine Master, and bearing testimony
to the exemplary purity of his life, and the stupendous deeds
and miracles by which he established the truth of his doctrine.
From amongst the great multitude of Jews, therefore, that had
joined themselves to him, he chose twelve whom he deemed the
most faithful and best fitted for the task ; appointing them, in a
more especial manner, his ambassadors to the human race, and
distinguishing them from the rest of his disciples by the title of
apostles.(') The persons thus selected were of mean extraction,
poor, illiterate, and utterly unprovided with any of those arts
or gifts which are calculated to win the countenance and favour
of the world, and to impose on the unwary and credulous part
of mankind : and it is intimated in Scripture, (1 Cor. i. 20, 21,
et seq.) that such were intentionally chosen, lest the efficacy and
fruits of their mission should be attributed to eloquence, to au-
thority, or to any other human and natural cause, and not to
the divine power of God. In order, likewise, that the testimony
with which they were to be charged might be of the most am-
ple kind, and superior to all exception, he made them his con-
stant and intimate companions through life ; retaining them al-
ways about his person, except on one occasion when he sent
them, for a short space, on a mission to the Jews. Matth. x. 5,
6, 7. Their number being fixed at twelve, has a mani- [p. 69.]
fest relation to the Jewish tribes ;(') and it should seem that
Christ intended thereby to intimate to the Jews that he Avas the
Sovereign Lord, the true King, and great High Priest of all the
twelve tribes of Israel.
(1) Tlie word r.poslle, it ig well known, significa a legate, an ambassador,
a person entrusted with a particular mission. The. propriety, therefore, with
which this appellation was bestowed by Christ on those friends whom ho
thought proper to select for the propagation of his religion throughout the world,
is manifest from this its common acceptation. But the reader will, perhaps, dis-
cover a peculiar force in this terra, and more readily perceive the motives wliich
prob'.ibly induced our Saviour to apply it to those whom he sent forth, when
he is informed thnt in the age of which we are no'.v treating, this appellation
was appropriated to certain public officers of great credit and authority amongst
92 Century L— -Section 6.
the Jews, who were the confidential ministers of the high priest, and consulted
with by him on occasions of the highest moment. They were also occasion-
ally invested with particular powers, and dispatched on missions of importance,
principally to such of their countrymen as resided in foreign parts. The col-
lection of the yearly tribute to the temple, which all Jews were bound to pay,
was likewise entrusted to their management, as were also several other aflaira
of no small consequence. For since all Jews, however widely they might be
dispersed throughout the various regions of the world, considered themselves
as belonging to one and the same family or commonwealth, of which the high
priest residing at Jerusalem was the prefect and head ; and as the members of
every inferior synagogue, however distant or remote, looked up to Jerusalem as
the mother and chief seat of their religion, and referred all abstruse or diffi-
cult matters, and any controversies and questions of moment respecting divine
subjects, to the decision of the high priest, it was absolutely necessary that this
Bupreme pontiff should always have near him a number of persons of fidelity,
learning and authority, of whose services he might avail himself, in commu-
nicating his mandates and decrees to those Jews who w^ere settled in dis-
tant parts, and in arranging and determining the various points referred to him
for deci.sion. My recollection indeed does not enable me to produce any ex-
press proofs from ancient authors, that, at the period of which we are speaking,
the high priest had any such ministers attached to him under the name of apos-
tles ; but I think that I can adduce such presumptive evidence of the fact, as
will scarcely leave room for any question on the subject. In the first place,
it appears to me that St. Paul himself evidently intimates such to have been
the case, in the opening of his epistle to the Gallatians, when he terms himself
an apostle, not d^' dy-3-gaiTa)i', of men, nor <r» av-S-^oTw by man, but of God him-
self, and his Son Jesus Christ. Gallatians i. 1. For what necessity could
there be that this inspired writer should thus accurately define the nature of
his commission, and so particularly mark the distinction between himself and
an apostle invested with mere human authority, if the Jews, to whom that
epistle is principally addressed, had been strangers to that other kind of apos-
tles commissioned by men, namely, apostles sent by the Jewish high priest and
magistrates to the different cities of the Roman empire ? This interpretation
was, long since, given to the words of the apostle by St. Jerome, Comm. ad
Galatas, torn. ix. opp. p. 124. edit. Francof. Usque hodie, says he, a palriarchis
[p. 70.] Judceorum aposlolos mitti (constat.) Ad dislinciioncm itaque eorum qui
mittuntur ah hominibus, et sui qui, sit missus a Chrisio, tale sumpsit exordium:
Paulus apostolus, non ah hojninibus, neque per homiyiem. These w^ords of St.
Jerome, who resided in Palestine, and was every way skilled in Jewish affairs,
must, I think, necessarily be allowed to WTigh strongly in favour of the above
statement respecting the apostles of the high priest. The meaning they con-
vey indisputably is, that in the time of St. Paul, it was the practice of tho
Jewish high priest to send forth apostles, after the same manner as the Jewish
patriarchs were accustomed to do at the time he (St. Jerome) wrote : and there
appears to be no reason whatever which should induce us to question the cre-
dibility of what is thus said. But let us return to tlie words of St. Paul, in
Election of the Apostles. 93
which, as it appears to mc, there is something worthy of remark, which, if my
memory does not fail me, has never hitherto attracted the attention of any com-
mentator. St. Paul says, that he is an apostle, not of men, neither by man.
He therefore clearly divides human apostles into two classes, viz. those who wero
commissioned merely by one man, and those who were invested with their
powers by several. Now what docs this mean ? Who are these men, and who
that single man, who, in St. Paul's time, were accustomed to send amongst the
Jews certain persons, whom it was usual to distinguish by the appellation of
apostles ? I trust that I shall be able in great measure to clear this up. The
single man to whom St. Paul alludes could, I conceive, have been none other
than the great high priest of the Jews ; and the several men who had also their
apostles were, as it strikes me, unquestionably the arclwntes, or Jewish magis-
trates. The learned well know that justice was administered to the Jews who
dwelt in the different provinces of the Roman empire, by certain magistrates or
vicegerents of the high priest, who were termed after the Greek archonles, con-
cerning whom a curious and elegant little work was published by VVesseling,
ad Inscript. Beren. Traject. ad Rhen. 1738, in 8vo. I take tiie meaning, there-
fore, of St. Paul to be, that he neither derived his commission from those infe-
rior magistrates, to whom the Jews who dwelt without the limits of Palestine
were subject, nor was he delegated by the chief of their religion, the high priest
himself. That these archontcs had under them certain ministers who wero
termed apostles, much in the same way as the high priest had, is clear from
Eusebius, who says, 'AjreycXifs Si iltren Kdi vvY id-OS «s/v ItiSsLiiti ivcjud^ttf
Tin Ti lyx-vuKid y^dfAfAATA TTa^o. ruv A f ^0 vl a y dwTwv irrtKcui^ijUcvyz . Apos-
tolos etiam nunc Judaei eos appellare solent qui arclxontum suorum litteras
circumquaque deportare solent. CGmment. in Esaiam, cap. xviii. in Montfau-
conii Colleclione nova Pair. Grcccor. tom. ii. p. 424. But I shall leave this con-
jecture to the consideration of those who may be qualified to judge of it. My
present object extends no farther than to show that, in the time of our blessed
Saviour, those persons who were delegated by the high priest for any spe-
cial purpose, or charged with the execution of his commands, were distinguished
by the appellation of apostles. It affords an argument of no small consequence
in support of the fivet as thus stated, that it has been clearly proved by several
learned men, and particularly by Gothofred, Petavius, Wesseling, and from
various passages in the Codex Theodosianus, and other ancient authors, that,
after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish patriarchs, who may be said
to have, in a certain degree, supplied the place of the high priests, had attached
to them certain ministers of great trust and authority under the denomina-
tion of apostles. Vid. Jac. Gothofredus ad Codicem Theodosianum, tom. vi. p.
251, 252. edit. Ritterian. Dion. Petavius Animadxers. ad Epiphamnm ad Ilcvres.
XXX. et de Hierarchia Ecclesiast. lib. i. cap. vi. p. 16. and lib. li. cap. ii. [p. 71.]
5 X. p. 45. in Dogmalibus Theologicis, tom. iv. Petr. Wesselingius do Archonlibus
Jud<£or. p. 91. That these patriarchs should have borrowed the term from
the Christians, admits not of a moment's belief; since they regarded every
thing pertaining to Christianity with the most inveterate hatred, and revolted
with the utmost abhorrence from any thing like a shadow of connection
94 Century L— Sections 6, 7.
with those who professed it : a circumstance which must have escaped
GothotVed, or he never would have concluded that the Jews were unac-
quiiintcd with the term apostle until after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The appellation, therefore, was unquestionably Jewish ; and it appears to
me equally indisputable, that the Jewish people were well acquainted with
its use and import in the time of our Saviour. These considerations, I think,
can leave but little doubt on the mind of any one as to the motives which
induced our blessed Lord to denominate, as we are expressly told by St.
Luke, vi. 13, that he did, those of his ministers whom he selected for
the purpose of making- known his precepts to all the nations of the earth,
apostles. By the application of tiiis term to those whom he thus delegated,
his intention doubtless was to intimate to the Jews that he was invested
with all the rigiits of the supreme head of their religion, and that they ought to
look up to him as to the true high priest of the Hebrew nation. It does
not appear how many persons of this description the high priest had under
him, at the period of which we are speaking ; but I conceive it to be ex-
tremely probable that their number corresponded with that of the Jewish
tribes. Supposing this to have been the case, it accounts for our Saviour's
fixing the number of his apostles at twelve.
(2) To be convinced of this, I think we need only recur to our Saviour's
own words, Matth. xix. 28. Luke, xxii. 30. which plainly intimate that the
number of his apostles had an express reference to the number of the Jewish
tribes.
VII. And of the seventy disciples. In addition to tliese twelve,
whom Christ ordained fo be the messengers and teachers of
his word to the world at large, he selected from his disciples
seventy others, whom he sent before him into the different
parts of Judosa, whither he meant to come, for the purpose
of preparing and disposing the minds of the Jewish people ;
so that his own preaching might be the more readily listened
to, and attended with the greater effect. Luke, x. 1, &c. Of
these seventy mention is only once made by any of the
evangelists, and no reliance can be placed on the account which
some more recent writers have pretended to give of their
names, their journies, and their labours.(') We are not, how-
ever, by any means authorized from hence to conclude that they
were only once employed by Christ, or that their powers were
withdrawn from them after they had fulfilled the object of this
their first mission. Their number corresponded with that of the
senators who composed the sanhedrim, or chief council of the
Jews ; and I therefore consider it as highly probable that Christ,
[p. 72.] in the selection of this number, also might intend to im-
The fame of Christ. 95
press on the minds of tlic Jewish people, by an ostensible sign,
that the former authority of the high priest and chief council
was now abolished, and all power as to divine matters become
vested in himself alone.
(1) Some notices or memoirs respecting the seventy disciples, compiled by
some of the later Greek writers, were published by Fabricius, at p. 474. of
' his Libri de Vita ct Morte Mosis^ a Gilb. Guulmino illuslrati ; but which Blon-
dell, (de Episcopis et Presbyteris, p. 93.) lias shown to be utterly undeserving of
credit.
VIII. The fame of Christ extends beyond Judea. The personal
ministry and instruction of our blessed Saviour was confined eu'
tirely to the Jews; nor did he suffer his disciples, during his
continuance on earth, to go to any of the neighbouring nations.
Matth. X. 5, 6. xv. 24. The magnitude, however, of the won-
derful things that he performed will not permit us to doubt but
that his fame soon diffused itself throughout a great part of the
Avorld. Amongst other things which tend to prove this, it is re-
lated by writers of no small credit, that Abgarus, the king of
Edessa in Syria, being afflicted with a severe disease, besought
by letter the assistance of Christ ; and that our Saviour not only
returned an answer to the king, but also sent him his picture.(^)
What are considered by some as genuine copies of the letters
that passed on this occasion, are still extant. In regard to the
fact itself, I see no reason for rejecting it as altogether undeserv-
ing of belief; but as to what is said of the picture, I think we
may consider it as unquestionably the invention of the Greek
writers of a later age : and it appears to me, that the letters carry
with them no very obscure marks of forgery and imposition.(')
(1) Eusebius Histor. Eccles. lib. i. cap. xiii. p. 31. And Jo. Alb. Fabricius
Codice Apocrypha N. Test. torn. i. p. 317. Theoph. Sigifr. Bayer enters much
at lengfth into the history of Abgarus, in his Historia Edessena et OsrOena^
lib. iii. p. 104, et seq. and p. 358.
(2) The arguments by which the authenticity of this history, and of the
letters, which form no inconsiderable part of it, is maintained or denied, are
brought together into one view, and contrasted with much judgment by
Basnage, in his Histoire des Juifs, tom. i. cap, xviii. p. 500. Asscman adopts
somewhat of a middle course between the two extremes, considering Abga.
rus's letter as genuine, but supposing that reputed to be Christ's to have been
merely a note or minute of our Saviour's words made by Abgarus's ambas-
Bador. Biblioth Oriental Clement. Vatican, tom. i. p. 554. and tom. iii. part.
96 Centimj I. — Sections 8, 9.
ii. p. 8. For this opinion he had the aiitliority of Bcllarmin. Bayer also is
friendly to it, in his Ilisloria Edesscna, p. 109. On the other hand, the learned
[p. 73.] and pious Bouguet would fain persuade us, that both the letters and
the history itself were the invention of Eusebius. Bibliolli. llalique. iom, xiii.
p. 121, ct seq. I cannot, however, by any means consent to charge a man
so devoid of sepcrstition, and so well afTocted to the cause of Christianity as
Eusebius was, with an imposition of so gross a nature ; and more particularly
since 1 find it impossible to divine any motive or cause which could have incited
him to the commission of such an inftimous fraud. No man does evil unad-
visedly, or without some inducement. Keysler, in the account of his travels,
written in German, tom. ii. p. 29. says that amongst other ridiculous monuments
of superstition exliibited to the credulous multitude at Rome, is shown the pic-
ture which Christ sent to Abgarus on the above-mentioned occasion. But Beau-
Bobre has demonstrated this part of the story to be void of all semblance of
truth, in his Dissertation des Images de Main divine^ which is to be found in
the Biblioth. Germanique, tom. xviii. p. 10, et seq.
IX. Fruits of Christ's ministry. A considerable number of the
Jews, penetrated witli astonisliment at tlie many wonderful
proofs which Christ gave of his divine authority and power, be-
came his disciples ; being convinced that he could be none other
than the holy one of God, the true Messiah, whose coming was
predicted of old by the prophets : and it is clear that many more
would have joined themselves to him, had not the priests and
lawyers, whose crimes and deceit he exposed without reserve,
and rebuked with the utmost severity, exerted all their influence,
and made use of various arts and devices to prejudice the minds
of a timid and fickle people against him. But it was not long
that these enemies of Jesus rested content with giving vent to
their animosity merely in this shape. For, finding that it would
be impossible for them to retain their credit and authority Avith
the world, and the numerous advantages attendant thereon, in
any other way than by the destruction of Christ, they began to
lay snares for his life. Our blessed Saviour, perceiving himself
to be thus beset, had recourse to the dictates of prudence, and
by avoiding, both in his words and actions, as far as was consist-
ent with the nature of his function, every thing which might
tend still further to inflame the malice of these perfidious men,
he for some time succeeded in rendering all their schemes abor-
tive. Moreover, when he was at Jerusalem, where there was
every reason for him to be most apprehensive of danger, his en-
Ilic death of Christ. ^ 97
mies were witlilicld from laying liands on him during the day
by a fear of the people, who were well inclined towards him ;
and the place where he passed his nights was not known to any,
except his intimate friends and companions.
X. The death of Christ. Of these his companions, however,
one was at length found, named Judas, who, bartering his salva-
tion for money, agreed, for a reward of no great value, to dis-
cover the nightly retreat of his divine Master ; who was, in con-
sequence thereof, seized on by a band of soldiers, and hurried
away as a criminal to answer charges which involved his life.
Betrayed thus infamously into the hands of his enemies, our
blessed Saviour was first led before the high priest and chief
council of the Jews, by whom, witliout the least shadow of jus-
tice, and merely on testimony of the most vague and contradic-
tory nature, he was pronounced guilty of blasphemy, [p. 74.]
and worthy of death. From thence he was taken to the tribu-
nal of Pontius Pilate, the Koman governor, and accused of a
crime totally different in its nature from that wherewith he had
been first charged, and of which it had been his particular care
to avoid incurring even the least suspicion, namely, attempting
to excite sedition and conspiracy against Caesar. Pilate, although
he does not appear to have been over scrupulous in the administra-
tion of justice, yet discountenanced this accusation, which he at
once perceived to be founded in falsehood ; and strenuously exerted
himself to save a man, for whom, on account of his wisdom and
sanctity, it should seem that he felt no little respect. Finding,
however, after repeated efforts on the side of merc}^, that the
multitude, who were stirred up by the chief priests, would not
be satisfied with any thing short of the blood of Christ, but per-
sisted to call for it with a tumultuous violence, approaching
nearly to a state of insurrection, he was at length induced,
though evidently with corftiderable reluctance, to comply with
their demands, and passed on the meek and blameless object of
their fury a sentence of death. As our blessed Saviour had
taken upon himself our nature with a view to expiate the sins
of mankind, and was conscious that the divine councils and
decrees had been satisfied by him, and that every purpose for
which he took up his abode with man was fulfilled, he used no
endeavours to screen himself from this injurious treatment, but
7
98 Century L — Sections 10, 11.
voluntarily submitted to undergo tlie pain and ignominy of a
capital punishment, and calmly breathed out his pure and spot-
less soul upon the cross ; praying, even in his agony, for the for-
giveness of those who were the merciless and unrelenting authors
of his suiferings.(')
(1) It is manifest, from the history of the death of Christ, that he spalvc
most truly when he said, No man taketh ray life from me, but 1 lay it
down of myself, John, x. 18. For how easy would it have been for him,
even without a miracle, to have avoided falling into the hands of his ene-
mies ? Tiie insidious designs of the Jewish pontiff and chief priests were
well known to him ; and it is plain that he was no stranger to the trea-
cherous intentions of his perfidious disciple Judas, since he expressly alludes
to them on more than one occasion. On the other hand, it appears that
he had several great and powerful friends, on whom he could have de-
pended for support. Would he but have quitted Jerusalem, and returned
into Galilee, every scheme that had been formed against him mi(5st have fallen
to the ground. Indeed, even this was not requisite : for his safety would have
been completely secured, had he merely changed the place of his nightly resort,
and, lest Judas should have discovered it, dismissed that wicked and deceitful
man from his society. Besides these obvious means, there were others to
which he might have had recourse, and which would have proved equally effi-
cient in defeating and bringing to nought the evil councils and designs of the
Jewish priests and elders. But it should seem that he disdained, or at least
voluntarily neglected to avail himself of any of those precautions, which a
very moderate sliare of human prudence would have suggested to any man
under similar circumstances. He remained in Jerusalem ; he permitted Judas
to continue about his person, in the character of an intimate friend; he con-
tinued to pass his nights in the usual and accustomed place. All these cir-
cumstances being considered, who is there but must readily perceive that
Christ voluntarily subjected himself to the punishment of death, and offered up
his life to God as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind ?
XL His resurrection and ascension into Heaven. The body of
Christ, being taken down from the cross, was laid in a sepulchre
which Joseph, one of the Jewish senfitors, had prepared for him-
[p. 75.] self, where it remained until the third day. Early on
the morning of that day, our blessed Sa^dour, according to his
own prediction, again resumed the life which he had voluntarily
laid down ; and by triumphantly rising from the tomb, demon-
strated that the divine justice was satisfied, and the path which
leads to immortality and life once more rendered easy of access
to the human race. During the succeeding forty days, he held
ChrisCs Eesurredlon, 99
frequent converse with liis disciples, confirming tlieir faith, and
instructing them in the nature of those important functions and
duties which he designed them to fulfil. It is observable that,
after his return to life, he showed himself to none of his enemies.
Amongst other reasons which he might have for this reserve, it
is probable that he foresaw that even the appearance of one
risen from the dead would produce no salutary impression on
men, whose minds were not only blinded by malice, but cor-
rupted by various popular superstitions respecting manes and
spectres. (') At the end of the above-mentioned period, having
assembled his disciples, and commanded them to go and preach
the gospel unto all nations, he blessed them, and rising sublimely
from the earth, was in their presence received up into heaven.
(1) The motives which withheld our Saviour from showing- himself to any
except his disciples, after his resurrection from the dead, have been sought
after with more than ordinary diligence by the learned ; inasmuch as the ene-
mies of Christianity have, for ages, urged this circumstance as a reason for
calling in question the truth of his return to life. Now to mc it appears that
the reasons which influenced Christ on this occasion are readily to be collected
from the answer which he puts into the mouth of Abraham, in reply to Dives,
who had requested that Lazarus might be sent to his brethren from the dead :
** If they hear not Moses and the proi)hets, neither will tiiey be persuaded
though one rose from the dead." Luke, xvi. 30. For, unless I am altogether
deceived, we ought to consider this answer as conveying a prophetical intima-
tion in regard to the point before us ; much as if our blessed Saviour iiad
added : " In like manner, there can be no hope whatever that those whom I
may have in vain endeavoured to convert by all the force of divine eloquence,
and by exhibiting to them so many stupendous proofs of infinite power, during
my life, should be brought to believe in me even- by my rising from the dead.
I shall not, therefore, show myself to my enemies after my resurrection ; since
I am certain that my doing so would be productive of no good effect," At
least, I think it must readily be granted me, that the reason which Abraham
gives why no good was to be expected from the mission of Lazarus, applies
most aptly and forcibly to the subject before us. Many arguments of consi-
derable weight might be urged in support of the proposition, which I conceive
is thus to be deduced from the answer of Abraham ; but I will content myself
with bringing forward one only. The Jews had accused our Saviour, during
his life, of holding converse with the prince of the devils, and making use of
magic. In addition to this, the minds both of the Jews and the Romans
were, at that time, possessed with an idea that the manes or souls of the dead
might be called up from the grave by magical incantation ; and that, without
this, the spirits of the departed did not unfrequcntly, either of their own accord,
or by command of the prince of darkness, again revisit this earth, and show
100 Century L—Sectlon 11, 12.
themselves to the li\'ing under an aerial form. Amongst men who entertained
[p. 7G.] notions like these, the appearance of our Saviour after his resurrection
could have wrought no good effect. Had Christ, after his return to life,
appeared 'openly in the temple, or in other places of public resort, such as the
palace of the Roman governor, and the Jewish senate, it is more than probable
that his enemies would not only themselves have regarded the circumstance. in
an unfavourable light, but also persuadsd the multitude, either that the unhappy
spirit of Christ had been again raised up by some or other of his disciples who
were versed in the arts of magic, or that, being itself filled with indignation,
and unable to rest, on account of the violent means by which it had been sepa-
rated from its earthly abode, it was come back for the purpose of, in some
measure, avenging itself by haunting and terrifying mankind.
XII. Effusion of the Holy Spirit on the apostles. Those wliom
Christ had selected as above mentioned to be the witnesses of his
life and aets, and the messengers of his gospel to the world, were
not, at the time of his aseension, endowed with powers adequate
to the discharge of the important functions with which they
were invested. Having, therefore, again resumed his station in
glorj, and sat down at the right hand of the everlasting Father,
he, about the fiftieth day from the time of his death, sent down
on them from above, according to his promise, the divine power
and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Acts, ii. 1. In consequence of
this miraculous effusion, their minds be.came irradiated with
celestial light, their faith acquired strength, their knowledge of
the will of their divine Master was rendered more perfect, and
they were inspired with a zeal and fortitude which armed them
against every difficulty that it was necessary to encounter in his
service, and enabled them, in the execution of his commands, to
triumph even over death itself. One of the most astonishing of
the endowments thus bestowed by our Saviour on his apostles,
was an instantaneous acquaintance with languages of which they
were previously ignorant, so as to qualify them to instruct the
different nations of the earth in their own proper tongues.(')
(1) Amftngst the various gifts of the Holy Spirit communicated to the
apostles, I do not include the faculty of altering the established laws of nature,
or in other words, the working of miracles: for I must confess, I cannot at all
comprehend how a foculty like this, which requires infinite power, could bo
communicated to men. The miracles which the apostles appeared to work
were, as I conceive, wrought by Christ himself, on their invocation ; and, there-
fore, when he promised them the power of effecting what men and angels could
not accomplish, I imagine nothing more was implied than that he would be
First Preaching of the Apostles, 101
always present to their prayers, and ready to effect, through tnc infinite power
which he possessed, whatever might in any case appear to be expedient or
necessary. Peter commanded the lame man to rise up and walic, and imme-
diately he arose and walked. Acts, iv. 6. But I cannot by any means believe
that, on this occasion, an energy or power residing in Peter was transferred
into the bodily frame of this poor wretch, so as to produce the restoration of
his nerves or muscular action ; or that the apostle could, by a mere act of voli-
tion, accomplish this wonderful cure. No ; it is not to Peter, but to our blessed
Saviour himself, on whose name Peter called, that this miraculous [p. 77.]
restoration of the cripple ought, in my opinion, to be ascribed. In confirmation
of this, see the words of Jesus himself, John, xiv. 12, 13.
XIII. The gospel preached first to the Jews and Samaritans, and
then to the rest of the world. Inspired witli the requisite confi-
dence and powers by this communication of succour from above,
the apostles entered on their ministry without delay; endea-
vouring, first of all, as they had been commanded, to convert
the inhabitants of Jerusalem to a faith in Christ, and then direct-
ing their efforts to the propagation of his gospel amongst the
remainder of the Jewish nation. Luke, xxiv. 47. Acts, i. 8.
xiii. 46.) Nor were these their first exertions chilled by any
thing like a want of success : for within a very short period, the
flock of Christ, which, at the time of his departure, could not be
considered otherwise than as small and weak, was augmented
and strengthened by the accession of many thousands of Jews.
It appears that by one sermon alone of Peter's, three thousand,
and that by another, five thousand were added to the Christian
community in this its infancy. Acts, ii. 41. iv. 4. A preference
having been thus given to the Jews, the apostles, in compliance
with the express commands of our Saviour, next extended the
blessings of their ministry to the Samaritans. Acts. i. 8. viii.
14. At length, having continued for many years at Jerusalem,(*)
and given a due degree of stability and strength to the several
Christian fraternities or churches which had been formed in
Palestine, they proceeded to communicate the glorious light of
the gospel to the different Gentile nations of the earth ; and in
the various regions through which they travelled were successful
in establishing the church of Christ to an extent and with a
rapidity that are, in every respect, truly astonishing.
(1) That the apostles continued at Jerusalem for many years after the ascen-
fiion of our Saviour, is manifest from their Acts, which were written by St,
102 Century L— Section 13, 14.
Luke ; nor can it be doubted that their stay there was in consequence of the
divine command. The reasons on which this divine mandate was founded are,
I think, readily to be perceived. In order to establish the Christian common-
wealth on a firm and durable basis, and to furnish the churches whicli were
about to be planted in the different nations of the earth with a model after
which they might form themselves, it was requisite that the first Christian
assemblies should be constituted and instructed with great care, under the imme-
diate eye of the apostles themselves. An affair of such magnitude, it will be
allowed, must necessarily have required a considerable time for its accomplish-
ment. But to this reason was added another of still greater consequence and
weight, which imperiously demanded the presence of the apostles at Jerusalem.
For being invested, as they were by Christ himself, with the entire guardian-
ship and administration of the concerns of his religion, the other disciples who
were employed in establishing churches in Judaea, Samaria, and the neighbour-
ing territories, were of course subject to their direction, and consequently felt
it their duty, in all affairs of difficulty and doubt, to recur to them for advice and
instruction. But how could these inferior messengers of divine truth have con-
sulted the apostles, or availed themselves of their instruction or commands, if
the latter had departed from Jerusalem at an early period, and distributed them-
selves about in various parts of the world 1 The general interests of Chris-
tianity, therefore, required that those whom our blessed Saviour had appointed
the judges, or, as. we ought perhaps rather to say, the arbiters of divine matters,
and to whom he had given the power of regulating and determming every thing
[p. 78.] relative to the establishing of his religion, should for a certain time re-
main together in one place, that so an easy access to them might be had by
those who were likely to stand in need of their advice or assistance ; and their
orders and decrees possess an additional weight and authority, from its being
known that they comprised the sentiments, not merely of one or two, but of
the Mhole collective body of those who had been admitted to a more particu
lar intimacy with Christ, and were the best instructed in his will. How long
the apostles thus continued at Jerusalem, and in what particular year from the
tune of our Saviour's leaving them they departed on that mission to the Gen-
tile nations with which they were charged, is by no means certain. According
to the ancient report quoted by Eusebius from Apollonius, a writer of the
second century, our Saviour ordered his apostles to remain at Jerusalem for
twelve years after his parting from them. Euseb. Ilisior. Eccles. lib. v. cap.
xviii. p. 186. and Clemens Alexandr. ex Prccdicalione Petri Stromal, lib. vi.
cap. v. p. 762. Considering the great antiquity of this account, it may perhaps
be not altogether undeserving of credit ; but, at the same time, we cannot help
regarding it with some suspicion, since it is certain that, even in the earliest
ages of Christianity, it was no uncommon thing for men to fill up the chasms
of genuine history with fictitious conceits, the mere suggestions of their own
imagination.
XIV. The election of a new apostle. The llrst concern of the
apostles, alter our Saviour's ascension into heaven, was to render
Election of Matthias. 103
tlieir number complete according its first cstablisliment, by elect-
ing a man of superior worth and sanctity to sup})ly the place of
Judas, who had perished by a miserable death. Having, there-
fore, gathered together the small assembly of Christians which had
been formed in Jerusalem, two men distinguished for their sanc-
tity and faith in Christ were proposed as candidates on this occa-
sion ; the one named Barsabas, the other Matthias. The whole
assembly then joined in devout prayer to God, that their choice
might not, through human frailty, fall on that man of the two
which was least acceptable in his sight ; after which, proceeding
to the election, they either by lot, or rather, as I suspect, by the
suffrages of such Christians as were present, chose Matthias to
fill the office of a twelfth apostle.(')
(1) Acts, i. 15, et seq. Many things highly worthy of observation present
themselves to notice, in the account which St. Luke gives us of the appoint-
ment of Matthias in the room of Judas. Passing over, however, other things
which might be pointed out, I will, in this place, merely make a few remarks
on the mode and form of the election. All the commentators agree in represent-
ing Matthias as having been chosen an apostle by lot, agreeably to the ancient
Jewish practice. On a more attentive consideration, however, of the words of
the sacred historian, I rather think it would be found that this commonly re-
ceived interpretation of them is what they by no means authorize. St. Luke
commences his account by stating, that Peter, in a suitable speech, pointed out
to the people who were assembled the necessity of electing a new apostle.
After this, at verse 23, he adds, that two men equal to the station were set
forth in the midst, in order that one of them might be chosen to [p. 79.]
undertake the office. As to the persons by whom these men were produced
and recommended, he is quite silent. His words are simply »*< ej»3-«K i^uo :
but I have not the least doubt that we ought, in this place, to consider the
word 'ATflfo'xo/ as meant to be understood. For who can possibly believe that
the Christians of the ordinary rank, who were in so many respects inferior to
the apostles, should have assumed to themselves the right of selecting two of
their own order, and recommending them as fit for the apostleship ? I there,
fore consider it as certain, that the apostles made the selection of these two
persons from amongst the general body of Christians at that time resident in
Jerusalem, and directed the assembly at large to choose one of them for an
apostle. The narrative concludes with an account of the manner in which this
mandate was complied with; describing it as follows: >c«i Uukav xyM^m (iuTo^r,
nut iria-iv 0 K^Jtgoj W) m-xtB-iav, v. 26. Now, in this passage all the commenta-
tors attribute so much force to the word xx>^§of, which properly signifies a lot,
that they unanimously consider the true interpretation of the first branch of the
sentence to be, el jecerunt sortes eorum, " and they cast their lots ;" and hence
conclude that Matthias was chosen by lot. But to me it appears that this inter-
104 Century L— Section 14.
pretjition is entirely repugnant to the Greek idiom : for whenever the casting
of lots is spoken of by the Greek writers, we constantly find the verb Ba\x«»
joined with icxi-gif j and therefore, if St. Luke had meant to indicate what these
commentators .-appose, he v/ould have written ««/ «,5ix&v xxn'gov, or KXiigvj, and
not i<fax:tv, wiiie-li hitler word was never, at least as far as I know, applied in
tliis w;iy. It was equally unusual for the Greek writers to add the pronoun
oyTwv after K/.iigcf, when the latter was used by them in the sense of a lot that
w;is thrown. They say simply, with Homer, Ku.kov )cX)i§i/s, " they cast lots."
And c.-rtainly, what occasion there could bo for St. Luke to add this pronoun
in the passage under consideration, if he was speaking of casting lots, I am
quite at a loss to conceive. All the commentators refer it, and, consistently with
their interpretation of the passage, could only refer it to the candidates for the
apostleship, Matthias and Barsabas. But in what sense could those lots be
said to be theirs, which, if the above opinion be just, were thrown in that
assembly? Correctly speaking, can the lots, by which an election is to be
determined, be termed the lots of the candidates or persons to be elected'.'
Considering the weight of these and otiier objections, which oppose themselves
to the commonly received interpretation of the above passage, I cannot help
thinking that in these words of St. Luke we ought to understand the term xxiigec
as having the same signification with ■{i'P'^iy viz. a suffrage, or what in com-
mon language is termed a vote ; and that what he meant to say was simply,
this, " and those who were present gave their votes." In this case, it will be
perceived that for dur6jv I should substitute aurCJv. Considering this to have
been the mode which was adopted for the appointment of a new apostle, it
would, in a very striking degree, correspond with the form which was observed
by the most ancient Christian churches, in electing their teachers and pas-
tors ; and which, in my opinion, there is every reason to think was founded on
the manner of proceeding to which the apostles had recourse on this occasion.
When a presbyter or a bishop was to be elected, those who presided over the
church proposed certain candidates for the office, of approved worth and abi-
lity. Of these the assembly at large pointed out by their suffrages, and not by
lot, him whom they deemed the most deserving; and whoever had the majo-
rity of votes in his fiivor was considered as elected through divine preference.
Such was the form observed by the primitive churches, and I conceive such to
have been the form to which the apostles had recourse on the above-mentioned
occasion ; and that the greater number of those who constituted the tiien infant
[p. 80.] church of Jerusalem gave their suffrages for Matthias, in preference to
tiis companion Barsabas. The word xxiigof, in the latter part of the passage
under consideration, does not mean a lot, but the office or function with which
Matthias was invested ; tjij hAKovixi, which must be understood as annexed to
it in order to render the sense complete, being omitted for the sake of brevity.
To perceive at once the force of the term in this place, we need only imagine
St. Luke to have studied conciseness less, and written Jt^ti tjrsirjv o xxiigoj (tm^
/<*xcv(«j Tiyrxj) Wt Mstrd-rstv i the Sense of which in English is, " and the office
of that ministry (i. e. the apostleship) fell on Matthias." In what I have thus
said, I do not pretend to anything like infallibility, but merely propose a
Conversion of St. Paul. 105
conjecture, which appears to me to have no small degree of probability on its
Bide, for the consideration of the learned.
XV. The conversion of St. Paul. All tlicsc apostles were unin-
formed, illiterate men. Tlirougli the gift of the IIolj Spirit,
indeed, their minds had become fully irradiated with celestial
light ; but to any other sort of wisdom than that which is from
above, they had no pretensions; neither Avere they at all in-
structed in any of the different branches of human learning. In
the then infancy of the Christian church, however, it was abso-
lutely requisite that, in addition to these, there should be some
one appointed who might be able to repress the domineering spi-
rit of the Jewish doctors, by encountering them with their own
weapons ; and also be qualified, if occasion should require, to
• enter the field of disputation with the advocates and supporters
of the various systems of pagan philosophy. Our blessed Saviour,
therefore, revealing himself from heaven in a very wonderful
manner to a young man of the name of Saul, but who after-
wards changed it for that of Paul, appointed him a thirteenth
apostle. Saul, who Avas a Jew, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, and
belonging to the sect of the Pharisees, had been endowed by
nature with great and excellent mental powers, and was emi-
nently skilled in every kind of Jewish learning. He was also
conversant with the literature and philosophy of the Greeks.
Led away by prejudice and warmth of temper, he Avas at first
the bitter persecuting enemy of Christ and his flock ; but as he
journeyed on a certain time towards Damascus, with power from
the high priest to seize on any Christians whom he might find
there, and bring them bound to Jerusalem, he was on a sudden
struck to the earth, and so affected by the voice and power of
our Saviour, that he became at once a convert to his cause, de-
voting himself Avholly to it, and Avith the utmost cheerfulness and
fortitude, exposing himself to innumerable hardships and dangers
on account thereof, throughout the Avhole course of his future life.
Acts, ix. 1, et seq. In hoAV great a degree every interest of Chris-
tianity was promoted by the exertions of this illustrious and
admirable character, hoAV many churches he founded through-
out the greatest part of the Eoman empire, how numerous and
how formidable the contentions and perils Avhich he encountered
106 Century I. — Section 15, 16.
and overcame, liis own epistles whicli are still extant, and the
history of the Acts of the Apostles written by St. Luke, abun-
dantly testify.
XVI. Of the labours, martyrdom, &c, of the apostles. In the
accounts which have been given by various writers, of the la-
bours, the travels, the miracles, and the deaths of the apostles,
there is little that can be altogether depended on, except what is
recorded in the books of tlie New Testament, and a few other
[p. 81.] monuments of great antiquity. In this case, as in most
others of doubt and uncertainty, a difference of opinion prevails
as to what ought to be received, and what rejected. For my own
part, I think that we cannot well withhold our credit from such
particulars as stand supported by the clear and positive testimony
of Origen, Busebius, Gregory Nanzianzene, Paulinus, Jerome,
Socrates, and certain of the more ancient waiters who are cited
with approbation by Eusebius ; but as to any thing that is to be
met Avith merely in the writings of uncertain authors, or those
of a later age, I should ever feel inclined to receive it with con-
siderable hesitation and distrust, unless it should happen to be
corroborated by documents that admit of no dispute. For when
once certain of the Christian writers had been unfortunately
tempted to .have recourse to fiction, it was not long before the
weakness of some and the arrogant presumption of others car-
ried forgery and imposition to an extent, of which it would be
difficult to convey to the reader any adequate idea. Amongst
various other things that I consider as having been too readily
received upon trust respecting the apostles, I cannot help in-
cluding those accounts which have been handed down to us of
their having, for the most part, undergone violent deaths; al-
though I am well aware, that the fact of their having suffered
in this way is commonly considered as established beyond dis-
pute.(^)
(1) That every one of our Saviour's apostles, except St. John, (who ended
his days in the natural way at Ephesus,) underwent capital punishment by
command of the civil magistrate, is a report that appears to have been regularly
transmitted down from very early ages, and is supported by the testimony of
many different writers. The opinion that such was the fact has, moreover,
taken such deep root even in the minds of many who would not willingly be
thought either credulous or uninformed, that whoever may venture either to
Labours of the Apostles. 107
call it ill question, or oppose it, must run no inconsiderable risk of being ac-
counted hostile to the fame and reputation of those divine characters. In what
I am about to say, it is tar from my wish to cast any reflection on those who
may have espoused this opinion ; but I must, at the same time, claim for myself
the liberty of remarking-, that the evidence on which they rest their proof of the
fact, that the major part of the apostles underwent violent deaths, is by no
means so conclusive as they seem to imagine. That Peter, and Paul, and James
suffered in this way, is what, on the faith of so many ancient authorities, I am
very ready to admit; but there are several considerations which combine to
prevent me from believing that their colleagues perished by the snme untimely
fate. My doubts are founded, in the first place, on the testimony of Heracleon,
a very ancient author of the second century, a Valentinian indeed by profession,
but most evidently neither an ill-informed nor incautious writer, who, as quoted
by Clement of Alexandria, (Siromat. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 595.) expressly denies
that Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and some others, were put to death, in
consequence of their having- made open profession of their faith in Christ in the
fiice of the civil power. Heracleon is arguing- against an opinion which was
entertained by certain of the Christians of that age, that the souls of martyrs
alone were received up into heaven after death ; and contends, that those who
had never been called upon to lay down their lives for the cause of Christ, but
had merely continued steadfast in faith and holiness of life, would equally, on
the dissolution of the body, be admitted to the mansions of the blessed. This
opinion he supports by the examples of the above-mentioned apostles, whom,
with many others, he concludes to have been exalted to a seat in heaven, al-
though they were never put to the test of making an open profession of their
faith in Christ before an earthly tribunal, and sealing it with their blood.
'0« yi» TrdvTti oi (rat^o/ntvot u),ui\i-yn^AV thv J'ta thc (peeving ufJioKoyixVy H.u.t i^itK^-ot..
'E| civ MrtT^-iTof, ^iKiTTTros, Qonfjid^y Astyic, nu) aKxoi TTokKo). Non enim [p. 82.]
omnes qui salvi facti sunt, earn (Christi) confessionem qucc per vocem (apud ma-
gistratus) edideruni, et post earn ex vita excesserunt. Ex quibus est Matthccus,
Philippus, Thomas, Levis, et mulli alii. Clement of Alexandria, who makes a
quotation from Heracleon, of which this passage forms a part, although he takes
occasion in some respects to condemn and reject what he thus brings forward,
yet never once intimates the least objection to the above cited words of that au-
thor respecting the apostles : a circumstance which plainly indicates that he did
not consider them as open to any exception. To this twofold testimony may be
added others of no less authority. The apostle Philip is clearly excepted out
of the class of martyrs by Polycrates, who states him to have died and been
buried at Hierapolis. Epislola ad Viciorem, apud Eusebinm Histor. Eccles.
lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 191. Baronius, indeed, A7inaL torn. i. ad ann. 35. ^^ 141. and
many others after him, would have us to understand Polyerates as speaking
of that Philip who was one of the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem,
and not of Philip the apostle. But the advocates of this notion stand confuted
by Polycrates himself, who says expressly that the Philip of whom he makes
mention was one of the twelve apostles. But there is an argument of still
greater force and weight to be brought forward on this subject, — an argument,
108 Cen tiny L— Section IQ
indeed, nearly sufTuient of itself to establish the point for which I contend ;
and that is, that all the writers of the first three centuries, including those
most strenuous advocates for the honour and dignity of the mnrtyrs against
the Valentinians, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, reckon no
more than three of the apostles as corning within the class of martyrs, namely,
Peter, Paul, and James the great. Tertullian says, Qucc (amen passos aposlolos
sci7nus, manifesta doclrina est : hanc intelligo solam acta decurrens. — Quod Petrus
c<£dilur, quod Stcphanits opprimitur, quod Jacobus hnmolatur, quod Paulas dis-
trahitur, ipsorum sanguine scripta sunt. El si fidem commentarii voluerit hcc-
reiicus, insirumenta imperii loquuntur, ut lapides Jerusalem. Vitas Cccsarum
legimus : orientem /idem Romce primus Nero cruentavii. Tunc Petrus ah altera
cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur. Tunc Paulus civitatis Romance consequitur
Tmlivitatem, quum illic martijrum rcnascitur generositate. Haec uhicumque legero,
pati disco : nee mea interest, quos sequar martyrii magistros, sensusne an exitus
apostolorum. Scorpiace, c.tp. xv. p. 633. edit. Rigaltii. If these words of Ter-
tullian be attentively considered, they will be found to militate strongly against
the opinion of those who have been led to believe that all the apostles, except
St. John, suffered violent deaths. Tertullian is contending with the Valentini-
ans, who, as we hinted above, denied that there was any necessity of laying
down one's life for Christ, and maintained that those of his servants who con-
tinued steadfast in faith and holiness of life would obtain salvation equally
with the martyrvS. To this opinion Tertullian opposes the example of the apos-
tles, who were known to have exposed themselves to sufferings of various
kinds in the cause of Christ, and not to have refused encountering even death
[p. 83.] itself for his sake. Now if, at that time, even the slightest rumour had
prevailed amongst the Christians, that all the apostles of our Lord had sealed
tlieir testimony with their blood, this author, who appears to have been never
backward in availing himself of vulgar report, would most assuredly have
brought it forward on this occasion. On the contrary, however, he with more
than ordinary caution contents himself with naming merely three of the apos-
tles as martyrs, viz., Peter, Paul, and James. It is, therefore, fairly to be
presumed that he knew of no more ; and if he knew of no more, we may rest
assured that the Christians of that age were apprized of none besides ; for
if any one had been able to add to the above list, it must have been Tertullian,
who was thoroughly conversant with every part of Christian history, true as
well as feigned. Tertullian, indeed, does not attempt to conceal his ignorance
of any other of the apostles that could be deemed martyrs. He was a man by
uo means wanting in penetration or judgment, and was fully aware that the
Valentinians, his opponents, might reply, that only a few of the apostles suf-
fered martyrdom, — so few, indeed, that even he himself had not been able to
swell the list beyond three. With a view, therefore, to preclude them from
parrying the force of his argument in this way, he adds, JSec mea interest quos
sequar martyrii magistros, sensusne an exitus apostolorum : words which, it must
I think, be allowed, make strongly in favour of the point for which I contend.
For the meaning intended to be conveyed by them is obviously this : " It can
be of no avail for you to object, that a few only of the apostles underwent
Lives of the Apostles. 100
violent deaths. I do not take upon me to controvert this. It is sufTicient for
me to have proved that I have the general sense of the apostles on my side,
ina.-?much as they were both ready and willing to have died for the cause of
Christ. But few of them, indeed, were called to so severe a trial of their con-
stancy ; but there can be no doubt that it was the meaning and desire of them
all to glorify their divine Master by their death. The general xense, then, of
these illustrious characters I take as my guide ; and, after their example, I
desire to die for the sake of Christ, although I am aware that the deaths of the
major part of them were different from what they had thus expected and desired."
Inlluenced by these and other considerations, I am induced to think that the
accounts which have been handed down to us, respecting the martyrdom of our
Saviour's apostles, were invented subsequently to the age of Constantine the
Great. That such accounts should have been invented, may readily be ac-
counted for on two grounds. First, the incredible veneration in which the
martyrs were held; — a veneration which had been carried to a great height
even in the earlier ages of Christianity, but which increased beyond all measure
upon the restoration of tranquillity to the Christian commonwealth by Con-
stantine. For when the martyrs came to be worshipped almost like gods, and
to have all those honours paid to them which it was customary for the Greeks
and Romans to offer to their demigods and heroes, it might of course be thought
necessary to include the apostles within this class, lest they should appear to
want that which was considered as the most distinguishing and infallible mark
of sanctity and glory. Secondly, the ambiguity attached to the word martyr
might occasion ignorant men to invent accounts of their tragical deaths. Mcrr-
i7jr, in the Greek language, signifies any sort of witness: but the terra was
applied by the Christians in a more eminent sense to that kind of witness,
who placed it beyond all doubt that Christ was the centre of all his hopes, by
sealing his testimony with his blood. The apostles are denominated /«a§Tv§«f,
witnesses, in the former sense, by Christ himself. Acts, i. 8. And the term
has evidently no higher import annexed to it, when applied, as it afterwards
is, by the apostles to themselves, by way of elucidating the nature of their
functions. Acts, ii. 32, &c. It might, however, very easily happen [p 84.]
that unlearned persons, not aware of this distinction, might conceive that the
word martyr, which they found thus applied to the apostles in the writings
of the New Testament, was to be understood in the latter sense ; and in con-
sequence thereof, hastily adopt the opinion that they ought to be placed in the
same class with those whom it was usual for the Christians to style, in a more
eminent sense, martyrs.
XVII. Churches founded by the Apostles. Amidst all the im-
certainty, however, in Avhich the history of the apostles is in-
volved, it appears to be placed beyond a doubt that they travel-
led throughout the greatest part of the then known and civilized
world, and within a short time, either by themselves, or with the
assistance of certain of their disciples who accompanied them in
110 Century L— Section 17.
tlicir travels, and shared tlieir labours, established churches dedi-
cated to Christ in almost all the provinces.(') But even here we are
precluded from giving scarcely any thing beyond this general
statement of the fact: the great obscurity which hangs over
nearly every part of the early history of Christianity not only
preventing us from marking with precision the extent of the
apostles' progress, but also rendering it impossible for us, with
any degree of confidence, to name any particular churches as
founded by them, except such as are mentioned in the Avritings
of the New Testament. (*) Throughout the world there is scarcely,
not to say a nation or people, but even a city of any magnitude
or consequence, in which the religion of Christ may be said to
flourish, that does not ascribe the first planting of its church to
one or other of the apostles themselves, or to some of their im-
mediate and most intimate disciples. But no reliance whatever
can be placed on traditions of this sort : since it has been pretty
clearly ascertained, that the same spirit of vain glory which
prompted ancient nations to pronounce themselves the offspring
of the soil, or the descendants of the gods, found its way into the
churches of Christ, and induced many of them to suppress the
truth, and claim for themselves a more illustrious origin than in
reality belonged to them.(')
(1) That tlie apostles should have made their way to parts of the earth which
at that time were not civilized, nor even known, is what I should think could
scarcely be believed by any one. The weight is vast which those take on their
shoulders, who would fain persuade us that the various accounts which carry
the apostles to America, as well as to Sweden, Denmark, and Lapland, and
even make them penetrate into the interior of Africa, are conformable to truth.
(2) A list of those churches founded by the apostles, of which mention is
made in different parts of the New Testament, is given by Hartmann in his
work de Rehus geslis Christianorum sub Apostolis, cap. vii. p. 107 ; as also by
Fabricius, in his Lux Evangelii toll Orhi exoriens, cap. v. p. 83, et seq.
(3) Amongst the European nations, there is not one that does not pride
itself on being able to attribute the first foundation of its church either to one
of the apostles, or of the seventy disciples, or to some holy personage bearing
an apostolic commission. The Spaniards boast of having had the light of the
gospel communicated to them by two of the apostles in person, viz. St. Paul
and St. James the Great, as well as by many of the seventy disciples, and of
[p. 85.] those who were the companions of the apostles ; and it would be far
from j)rudent for any one who wishes to cultivate the good will of these people,
to attempt to undeceive them in this respect. The French, with equal osten-
Writings of the Apostles. HI
lation and pertinacity, attribute the conversion of their forefiithers to the
preaching and labours of Crescent, the disciple and companion of St. Paul,
of Dionysius of Athens, the Areopagite, of Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and I
know not of how many others. Throughout Italy, there is scarcely a city
M'hich does not pretend to have received the first rudiments of Christianity
from either Paul or Peter; and that its first bishop was appointed by one or
other of these. Vid. Giannone llisloire civile du Royaume de Naples, tom i.
p. 74, 75. And it would be hardly possible, indeed I may say it would be
altogether impossible, for any one to escape the imputation of heresy, who
should venture in any way to indicate his disbelief of this. Vid. Jo. Lami
Delici(c Eruditorum, tom. viii. Praef. p. xxxv, xxxvi. and tom. xi. Prafat. The
Germans affirm that Maternus, Valerian, and many others were sent to them by
the apostles ; and that the persons thus commissioned by St. Peter and his
colleagues, established some considerable churches in their country. The
inhabitants of Britain consider St. Paul, Simeon Zelotes, Aristobulus, and
particularly Joseph of Arimathea, as the founders of their church. That the
former of these actually extended his travels to that island, and first preached
the gospel there, is a fact which has been strongly contended for by many, who
chiefly rely on the authority of a passage in the first epistle of Clement of
Rome to the Corinthians. The Russians, with the Poles and Prussians, vene-
rate St. Andrew as the parent of their respective churches. All these things,
and many others which I shall pass over, were considered as indisputable
during those benighted ages, when every species of sound learning, divine as
well as human, was overwhelmed* and trodden under foot by ignorance and
superstition. At present, however, they are regarded in a very different light ;
and the \\'isest and best informed scholars give them up for the most part as
fictions, invented subsequently to the age of Charlemagne, by illiterate and
designing men, who expected that by thus propagating a notion of the great
antiquity of their several churches, they should open to themselves a source of
profit as well as honour. Vid. Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, tom. i. p. xxvi.
Le Beuf, Dissertations sur VHistoire de France, tom. i, p. 192, 193. 198; and
others. In one particular, perhaps, as we shall presently take occasion to point
out, this opinion may not be strictly correct ; but in every other respect it
meets with the unreserved assent of all of the present day, who prefer truth
to the authority of antiquity ; and is expressed with much neatness and force
of illustration, by that eminently learned French writer, Jo. Launois, in a dis-
sertation, in which he undertakes the defence of a passage in Sulpitius Sevcrus
respecting the first martyrs of Gaul, and which is to be found in the second
volume of his works, part i. p. 184. His words are. Media (date orta est inter
ecclesias super antiquitate originum suarum contentio et certa qiucdam emulation
quce fecit, ut cum simplicem veritatem ultro oblatam facile proferre poterant, ait
Damianus, sategerint, ut mendacia cum labore confingerent. Etenim dum re-
concinnarunt pleraque j^rimorum episcoporum acta, nunc adsiipulante nominum
$imilitudine, Trophimum puta Arelatensem, et Pauhan Narbonensem, qui sub
Decio venerant in Galliam, cum Trophimo et Paulo Sergio, Pauli apostoli secta-
toribus confuderunt: nunc eadem velalia de causa Rvfum, e Macedonia Axemo^
112 Century I.—Sedioii 18.
neniy et Lazarum e Cypro Massiliam traduxei'unf., nunc alios a secundo vel lertio
[p. 86.] ecclesuc sccculo rcwcarunt ad primum^ eosque Petri vel dementis disci-
pulo ct nobilibus orlos parentibus, quos sccpe nominanl, ajlrmarunt : nunc eliam
alios consliluerunt, de quibus per antiquce traditionis testes, qui ante Caroli Magni
tempus Jlorucrunl, nihil licet (piicquam prnnunliare.
To the justness of this statcniont, so far as it goes, I most readily sub-
scribe; but as to what is further imagined by many of the learned, that it was
not until aficr the age of Charlemagne that the European churches began to
contend with each oilier respecting the antiquity of their foundation, and, in
direct violation of the truth, to refer tht-ir origm to the apostolic age, I conceiv*
that it admits of soma doubt. To mc it appears tiiat those preposterous at-
tempts to carry back the origins of churclies even to the times of the apostles,
and to give them a venerable air by trumping up the most idle tales of their
extreme antiquify, are of much older date than the age of Charles the Great :
indeed, I have not a doubt but that this silly sort of emulation had taken pos-
Bcssion of the minds of both the Greeks and the Latins, even so far back as
the age of Constantine. That this opinion of mine may not have the appear-
ance of being adopted hastily, or on insufficient grounds, I will support it by
an example drawn from the history of Gregory of Tours, a writer of the sixth
century; — an example which must certainly be allowed to stand in no danger
of suffering by a comparison with the most wonderful of any of these wondrous
tales ; indeed, of so marvellous a complexion, as to call for a stretch of cre-
dulity to wliich I rather think but i'e.w, if any of us, are equal. The narrative
occurs in Gregory's book de Gloria Martytum, cap. xii. p. 735. and is as fol-
lows : Tunc temporis a Galliis matrona qaxdam Hierosolymis abierat, pro deva-
tione tantum, ut Domini et sahatoris noslri prccsentiam mereretur. Audivit
autem quod beatus Johannes decollaretur : cursu illic rapido tendit, datiscpie mu-.
neribus supplicat percussori ut earn sang-uinem dejluentem colligere pcrmitleret
non arceri : illo autem peraitiente, Matrona concham argenleam prctparat, trun-
catoqiie martyris capiie, cruorem devota suscipit : quern diligenter in ampulla po^
silum, patriam detulit et apud Vasatensem urbe?n, (tdificata in ejus honorem eccle-
si'a, in sancto altari collocacit. Now I will take upon mc to assert, that such a
foolish, such a mad conceit as this, in which the people of Bazadois gloried
long before the age of Charlemagne, never entered into the brain of any monk
subsequently to that period. For these people, we see, were willing to have it
believed that their church existed prior to the death of our Saviour; having,
according to the above statement, been founded not long after the death of
John the baptist, by a certain devout woman on her return from Palestine,
whither she had been induced to go by the fame of Christ's miracles. But even
this was not enough : they must carry the matter still farther, and pretend that
this pious woman actually built the church at Bazas in Guicnne before Christ'.^
death, dedicated the altar therein with Christian rites, and placed on that altar
the blood of St. John. To such an high and incredible antiquity none other
of the Christian churches ever made pretension, except that of Jerusalem, which
was instituted by Christ himself. The people of Bazadois, however, to my
certain knowledge, even yet cherish this error, considering their honour as in no
Writings of the ApostUs. 113
Bmall degree involved in the maintenance of it. Such ridiculous extravagance
naturally reminds one of the Arcades, who anciently boasted that their race waa
older than the moon.
XVIII. The Writings of the Apostles. But the labours [p. 87.]
of the apostles, in the cause of their divine Master, were not re-
stricted merely to journey ings, to watchings,to the cheerful en-
durance of deprivations and sufferings, to the communication of
oral instruction, or to the use of such other means as promised to
be instrumental in promoting the edification of those of their own
age. The welfare of future generations was likewise the object
of their solicitude ; and they accordingly made it a part of their
concern to commit to writing a code of testimony and instruc-
tion, of which the whole human race might avail itself in all
ages to come : the Holy Spirit, to whose influence and guidance
their minds were in every respect subject, doubtless prompting
them to the undertaking. St. Matthew with his own hand wrote
a history of the life and actions of Christ, as did also St. John ;
and St. Peter and St. Paul respectively dictated similar histories
to St. Mark and St. Luke.(') Certain epistles, also, in which are
comprised the leading principles of Christianity, and various
precepts or rules of life, were addressed by St. Paul, St. James,
St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, to the churches which they had
established in different parts of the world. At no very great
distance of time from the age of the apostles, the Christians, with
a view to secure to future ages a divine and perpetual standard
of faith and action, collected these writings together into one
volume, under the title of The New Testament, or The Canon
of the New Testament. Neither the names of those who were
chiefly concerned in the making of this collection, nor the exact
time of its being undertaken, can be ascertained with any degree
of certainty ; nor is it at all necessary that we should be pre-
cisely informed as to either of these particulars : it is sufficient
for us to know that it may be proved by many strong arguments,
that the principal parts of the New Testament had been collected
together before the death of St. John, or at least not long after
that event.(')
(1) Tiiat St. Mark wrote his history of Christ from the dictation of St.
Peter, is a fact that stands supported by those great and highly respectable au-
thorities, Papias, apud Eusebiura Jlislor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxxix.; Irenzeus,
8
114 Century L— Section 10.
adv. Hccreses, lib. iii. cap. i. ; Clemens Aicxandrinus, TertullIaTi, and others. That
St. Luke derived the materials of iiis history from St. Paul, is also asserted by
Irenceus, lib. iii. e:ip. i. ; Tertullian, co?i^ra Marciotiem, lib. iv. cap. v.; and others.
It is, therefore, not without reason that St. Paul and St, Peter are termed by
Bome the original authors of the gospels of St, Luke and St. Mark.
(*J) The insidious attempt made by Toland, in his Amynior^ to undermine
the divine origin and authority of the canon of the New Testament, gave rise to
very warm disputes amongst the learned ; and many diflerent opinions were, in
consequence thereof, brought forward respecting the authors of that collection,
and the time when it was made. For which, see Jo. Ens in his Biblioihcca
sacra, sen Dialriha de Librorum Novi Test. Canone, Amslelod. 1710, 8vo. Jo.
[p. 88.] Mill in his Prolegomena ad Nov. Testament. J i. p. 23, et seq. and Jo.
Frickius de Cura veteris Ecdesicc circa Canonem Nov. Testamenii, a small work
of considerable erudition published at Ulm. To me it appears, that after all
that has been brought forward on the subject, the matter remains in great
measure undecided. The most general opinion seems to be, that the books of
the New Testament were originally collected together by St. John : an opinion
for which the tesliraony of Eusebius {Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxiv.) is very
confidently quoted as an indisputable authority. But it is to be observed, that
allowing even the highest degree of weight to the authority of Eusebius,
nothing farther can be collected from his words, than that St. John approved
of the gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and added his own to
them by way of supplement. Concerning any of the other books of the New
Testament, Eusebius is entirely silent.
XIX. The Apostles' Creed. To these writings of tlie apostles it
might be proper to add that formulary of faith, which is com-
monly known by the name of the Apostles' Creed, if any reason-
able gTounds appeared to warrant that notion respecting its
origin, which obtained pretty generally in the Christian world
subsequently to the fourth century, and which is entertained by
many even at this day, namely, that it was drawn up by the
apostles themselves before they departed from Jerusalem on
Uieir mission to the Gentiles.(') But to say nothing of the silence
of all the most ancient writers as to this point, and equally pass-
ing over the fact that this formulary was not uniformly adopted
by the Christian churches, which would most undoubtedly have
been the case, had they known it to have been dictated by such
high authority ; omitting, moreover, to lay any stress on the
circumstance of its having never been received or accounted as
a part of the apostolic writings ; it is alone a sufficient refutation
of this opinion, that we know for certain that this creed was at
first extremely short ; and that it was afterwards, by little and
Success of the GospcL H5
little, extended and dilated, according as new errors from time
to time sprang up in the Christian community.C^) No one surely
will maintain, that wc ought to regard that as a genuine formu-
lary of fiiith prescribed by the apostles, which can be proved to
have been amplified in several respects subsequently to their
death, [p. 89.]
(1) Sec what has been with much industry coUectcd on this subject by those
liighly r<3spectable writers : Jo. Franc. Buddcus, in his Isagoge ad Tkeologiami
lib. ii. cap. ii. § ii. p. 44J ; and Je. Georg. Walchius, in his Introductio in Libras
symholicos, lib. i. ca^. ii. p. 87.
(2) That such was the fact has been clearly demonstrated by Sir Peter King,
in his Hi^lorij of the Apostles' Greedy w'dli Critical Observations on its Articles^
London, 1702, 8vo, This work was translated into Latin by Gothofred Olea-
rius, and tirst printed at Lcipsig, 1704, in 8vo. ; a second edition was some time
afterwards publialicd at Basle.
XX, Causes to which the quick propagation of Christianity must
be Ascribed. The system of discipline which the apostles, by the
authority and command of their divine Master, employed them-
selves in propagating throughout the world, was not only repug-
nant to the natural disposition and inclinations of mankind, but
also set itself in direct opposition to the manners, the laws, and
the opinions of all the diJQferent nations of the earth ; and as for
the persons themselves who were selected to be the propounders
of it, they were altogether rude and unskilled in any of those
arts by which the human mind is to be rendered docile, and
brought to yield assent and obedience. It is impossible, there-
fore, to account for the astonishingly rapid propagation of the
Christian religion amongst so many different nations, part of
them of a savage and ferocious character, and part entirely de-
voted to licentiousness and sloth, otherwise than by receiving
with implicit credit the accounts which are given us, by profane
as well as sacred writers, of the miraculous gifts by which the
apostles were distinguished^ namely, that they possessed a faculty
of persuasion more than human, that they predicted future
events, laid open the secrets of men's hearts, held the operations
of nature in control, enacted wonders beyond the reach of any
human power, and lastly, were capable of transmitting these
supernatural endowments to any on whom they thought proper
to confer them, simply by the imposition of their hands on them,
aocompanied with prayer. Let these things be considered for a
116 Century I.— Section 20.
momr-nt as false, and wc shall at once find liow utterly out of our
power it is to assign an}^ rational cause that could have prevailed
ou so large a portion of mankind, within so short a period, to
turn their backs on the allurements of pleasure, to forsake the
religion of their ancestors, and voluntarily to embrace Christian-
it}^, at the hazard of life, fortune, honour, and every thing else
that could be dear to them.(')
(1) It is cert:iinly a very ill-advised attempt, and a disgraceful abuse of
talents, for any one to pretend to account for that wonderful revolution in tlie
Bcniimcnts and aff.iirs of mankind, which was thus brought about by a mere
handful of illiterate Jews, from mere natural caui^es. There are, however,
icveral who, espousing the principles of Hobbcs and others, persist in contend-
ing that the uncommon degree of benevolence and charity towards the poor
and the miserable, by which the early Christians were distinguished, operated
as a lure in bringing over great multitudes of the necessitous, and others of tho
lower class of people, to the profession of Christianity, under the expectation
of having their wants relieved, and being enabled, through the muniticcncc of
others, to pass the remainder of their days in inactivity and ease. But surely
this is a very unwarrantable sporting with reason. For if such were the motives
by which the poor and the indigent were influenced, yet by what incentive — by
what inducement could those be stimulated to become Christians, out of whose
abundance the necessities of the poor and the indigent were supplied ? But
can it be necessary to inform those who maintain this opinion, that the idle and
slothful had no place amongst the first Christi:ms ; and that St. Paul commands,
**that if any would not work, neither should he eat?" 2 Thess, iii. 6, 7,8, 9, 10.
Can it be necessary to inform them, that the lazy, the vicioui;, and the sensual,
were, by order of tho apostles, to be expelled from the Christian community]
Can it be necessary to inform them, that every Christian family was charged
with the maintenance of such of its own members as were in need ; and that
[p. 90.] those alone were relieved at the public expense, who had no relatives
capable of yielding them assistance? 1 Tim. v. 3. IG, &c. Equally superficial
and futile is the reasoning of those, who would persuade us that great numbers
were induced to embrace Christianity, on account of the infamous lives led by
the heathen priests, and tlie many extravagant absurdities by which the various
systems of paganism were characterized. Motives of this sort might indeed so
far influence men of sound sense and principle, as to cause them to renounce
the religion of their ancestors : but in no shape whatever could they operate
as inducements for them to embrace a new system, which called upon them to
restrain and mortify their natural propensities : and the profession of which
exposed their lives, their reputation, and every thing else that could be deemed
valuable by them, to the most imminent danger. Others there are who imagine
that the virtues by which the apostles and the earliest converts to Christianity
were so eminently distinguished, such as their continence, their contempt of
this world's goods, their fortitude, their patience, and the like, had that effect
on the generality of mankind, that they were readily prevailed on to adopt
The first Christians. 117
them as their instructors and guides in the road to salvation. Great indeed, I
am ready to allow, is the eni'ct which eminent probity and virtue have on the
minds of men: nor would I be thought to insinuate that the exemplary lives
of the apostles liad no weight with those whom they converted to a faith in
Christ. But all of us who are acquainted with wliat we are ourselves, and
what human nature is, must be well aware that, although purity of morals and
innocence of life may excite the respect and veneration of mankind, they will
not often produce imitation under any circumstances,— and hardly ever, if it be
manifest that such imitation would be attended with ignominy and danger.
We need not be told that virtue itself, and that even of the most exalted kind,
is commonly regarded in an unfiivourable light, if it require men to renounce
the principles and opinions in which they were bred, to abandon their plea-
Kuros, and cast ofT habits to which they have been long attached. And cer-
tainly nothing less than this is taught us by the examples of the apostles, who
from the purity of their morals, are said to have overcome the world. Indeed,
were further proof wanting, the matter is placed beyond all doubt by the
example of the Lord and Master of the apostles himself, whose whole life ex-
hibited one uninterrupted course of sanctity and innocence. That the pure
and inoffensive lives led by the apostles might so far operate in favour of their
cause, as to secure them in some degree from personal violence or injury, is
what I can very readily bring myself to believe : but that the strictness of their
morals and demeanor, and their contempt of this world's goods, should alone
have been sufficient to cause many thousands of men to believe in that Jesus,
who was crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews, as the Saviour
of the human race; — induce them sedulously to form themselves after the
apostolic model ; — and finally, inspire them with the resolution to die rather
than renounce the principles which they had thus embraced, is what I am cer-
tain no one possessed merely of ordinary powers will ever prevail on me to
admit. And to pass over many other things, let me only by way of conclusion
ask, to what source or to what causes are we to ascribe that astonishing virtue
and sanctity in the apostles, by which it is pretended to account for the una-
nimity and eagerness displayed by such vast multitudes, in laying hold on
Christ as the only anchor of salvation ]
XXI. The early Christians for the most part of low condition.
Our opinion in regard to this point is not at all shaken by the
arguments of those, who, after the example of Celsus, Julian,
Porphyry, and other ancient adversaries of Christianity, call
upon us to recollect that the first Christian assemblies [p. 91.]
or churches formed by the apostles consisted of men of low
degree, of servants, labourers, artificers, and women ; in short,
that they were wholly composed of uninformed illiterate persons,
possessed of neither wealth nor dignity, and wlio were, of course,
easily to be wrought upon and managed by any one even of
118 Centimj L— Section "^l.
very moderate abilities. For, in the first place, what they thus
so coiiiidently press on our attention is not a correct repre-
sentation of the liict ; since we are expressly taught in Scripture,
that amongst those who were converted by the apostles to a
faith in Christ were many persons of wealth, rank, and learn-
ing.(') And, in the next place, it is well known to every one
who has had the least experience in human affairs, that men,
even of the lowest class, not only inherit from nature, in com-
mon with their superiors, the warmest attachment to life, and
whatever may contribute to their own well-being, but are also
in a far greater degree bigoted to, and consequently much more
jealous over, the customs, opinions, and religious principles
handed down to them from their ancestors, than those of intelli-
gent and cultivated minds, who are possessed of wealth and
authority, and fill the higher stations in life,(^)
(1) The apostles, in their writmgs, prescribe rules for the conduct of the
rich a -5 well as the poor, for masters as well as for servants ; a convincing proof,
surely, that amongst the members of the churches planted by them were to be
found persons of opulence and masters of families. St. Paul and St. Peter
admonish Christian women not to study the adorning of themselves with
pearls, with gold and silver, or with costly array. 1 Tim. ii. 9. 1 Peter, iii. 3.
It is therefore plain, that amongst the early Christians, there must have been
women possessed of wealth adequate to tlie purchase of bodily ornaments of
gre:it price. St. Paul exhorts the Christians to beware of the philosophy of tho
Greeks, and also of that oriental system whicli was styled >vakr/.'. i Tim. vi. 20.
Col. ii. 8. Hence it is manifest that amongst the first converts to Christianity
there were men of learning and pliilosophers, who wished to temper and
improve, as they thought, the doctrine of our blessed Saviour, by incorporating
with it the precepts of their own wisdom. For if the wise and the learned had
unanimously rejected the Christian religion, what occasion could there have
been for this caution ? St. Paul's remark, that amongst the members of the
church of Corinth were not to be found many of the noble or the mighty,
(1 Cor. i. 26.) unquestionably carries with it tlie plainest intimation that persons
of rank or power were not wholly wanting in that assembly. Indeed, lists of
the names of various illustrious persons who embraced Christianity, in this its
weak and infantine state, are given by Blondell, at page 235 of his work de
Episcnpis et Presbyteris ; also by Wetstein, in his Preface to Origen's Dialogue
contra Marcionitas, p. 13.
(2) Ignorance and fear generate and nourish superstition. By how much
the more any one's mind is weak and unenlightened, by so much the stronger
hold will superstitious influence be found to have on it. With a much better
prospect of success, therefore, if superstition stand in your way, may you
undertake to convince ten men than one woman, or a hundred sensible and
The Gentiles admired Christ, 110
woll-informed people than ten of sucli as are ignorant and stupid. Viciou3
inclination never predominates more strongly than in servants or persons of the
lower class: and with far greater ease may you extinguish evil pro- [p. 9J.]
pensities in six hundred well-born persons of higenuous mind, than in twenty
servants or people of the common order. In my opinion, therefore, if the fact
would bear out the adversaries of Christianity in what they thus so confidently
urge, that the churches founded by the apostles were made up of men of no
account, of low and illiterate characters, servants, women, and the like, it would
rather tend to augment than diminish the reputation and glory of those divine
teachers.
XXII. Christ held in great estimation by the Gentiles. That the
apostles, in accomplishing the objects of their mission, derived no
inconsiderable assistance from the great fame of their divine
Master, which soon spread itself far and wide, and thus preceded
them in their journeys, admits of little or no doubt. Authors of no
mean credit assure us that, before the dcj)arture of the apostles
from Jerusalem, the fame of the wonders wrought by Christ in
the land of Judea had extended itself throughout a great part
of the world, or at least of the Koman empire, and impressed
many with the highest estimation of his character* It is even
said that some of the Roman emperors thernselves entertained
an honourable respect for his name, his doctrine, and his acts.
Indeed, if Tertullian and some others may be credited, Tiberius,
who was in other respects a most execrable tyrant, conceived
such an esteem for the character of our Lord, that it was his in-
tei^tion to have assigned him a place amongst the deities publicly
worshipped by the Roman people ; but that the design fell to the
ground, in consequence of its being opj^osed by the senate.
There have not, indeed, been wanting amongst the learned some
who consider this as altogether a fabrication ; but, on the other
hand, men, by no means inferior to these in point of erudition,
have brought forward several arguments in its support, which,
as it appears to us, are not easily to be answered.(')
(1) Eusebius relates {Histor. Eccles. lib. vii. cap, xviii. p. 265.) that many
amongst the heathens had procured images of our Saviour, and iiis apostles, and
which were preserved by them in their houses with great care and reverential
regard : a striking proof that the Gentiles had been early brought acquainted
with the character of Christ, and held it in great respect. The Carpocratians, a
celebrated Gnostic sect of the second century, exhibited, according to Irenacus,
both statues and pictures of our Saviour, and said that Pilate had caused a like-
ness to be painted of him. Lib. i. conlra Hccreses, cap. xxv. p. 105. edit. Massvet.
Concerning the favourable disposition manifested by the Roman emperora
120 Century L— Section 22, 23.
towards tliG ChrLsdan religion, there is a notiblc passage cited by Eusebiua,
Histor. Ecdcs. lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 148. from the apology addressed by Melito
of SarJis to Marcus Antoninus, on behalf of the Ciiristians ; in which lie intimates
that the ancestors of the emperor had not only tolerated the Christian religion, in
common with other system^, but had also treated it wiih considerable honour
and respect. "^Hv k^\ U Tr^iyzvoi <rS 7r^6i Tils aWatti ^^ntrmiuis sT«,«»^yv. QuaiU
sectam majore- tui una cum coeteris religionibus colucrunt. The same author lidds,
that Nero and Domilian v/ere the only emperors who had ever suffered them-
[p. 93.1 selves to be so far influenced by the suggestions of wicked and malevo-
lent advisers, as to conceive an ill opinion of the Christian religion, and f ivourthe
cause of its adversaries. If Melito be correct in what he thus says, that it was the
counsel of evil disposed persons which caused Nero to prosecute the Christians,
it i-hould seem that John of Antioch might have some reason for stating, as he
doe.«, (in Excerpt. Valesian. p. SOS, ct seq.) that Nero, at his first accession to
the puiple, was well inclined to the cause of Christ, and favoured the Chris-
tians. TertuUian {in Apologetic, cap. v. p. 57. ed. Havercamp.) speaks of the
intention of Tiberius to have assigned our Savioura place amongst the deities of
Rome, as of a thing publicly and commonly known. The circumstance is
repeated after him by Eusebius, Orosius, and others; all of them appearing to
rely chiefly on the authority of Tertullian. Vid. Franc. Baldvin. Commentar,
ad Edicta veterum principum Romanorum de Ckristianis, p. 22, 23. Alb. Fabric.
Lux Ecangelii toll Orhi exoriens, p. 221. Some of the most learned men, how-
ever, of the prescHt day, consider this as altogether incredible ; deeming it
irapos^ble to reconcile such an intention., either with the disposition of Tiberius,
or with the state of the Roman empire at that period. In what way, and to
what extent the arguments brought forward by those who take this side of the
question have been met and answered by men of no less learning and ingenuity
on the opposite side, may be seen in a curious w^ork of Theod. Hasaeus, de
Decreto Tiberii quo Christum referre voluit in Numerum Deorum, Erfurt, l'/l5,
in 4to. ; as also in a French Letter of J. Christ. Iseleus, which is pregnant with
deep erudition, and printed in the Bibliolh. Germanique, tom. xxxii. p. 147. and
torn, xxxiii. p. 12.
XXIII. Persecution of the Christians commenced hy the Jcavs,
The very great and daily accelerating progress of Christianity,
was, however, contempla-ted with the utmost jealousy and ap-
prehension by the Jewish priests and rulers, who plainly per-
ceived that if the people should be prevailed on to embrace this
new religion, the law of Moses Avould no longer retain its dignity,
and there would consequently at once be an end of their authority,
and of the many emoluments and advantages of which they
contrived to make it the source. They, therefore, opposed the
doctrine of Christ with all imaginable violence and rancour;
and avaihng themselves of every favourable opportunity to lay
The Jews persecute. 121
hold on Ills apostles and their disciples, tlicy threw them into
prison, were they Averc threatened and seourged, and had every
other spceies of evil heaped on them without reserve : some of
* them being even made to undergo capital punishment. Of tho
malevolence and injustice which the first teachers of Christianity
thus experienced at the hands of the Jews, abundant testimony
is left us on record by St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles.
The most eminent amongst tliose who suiTcred death at Jerusa-
lem for the cause of Christ were Stephen, a yqvj devout man,
whom the Jews stoned ; Acts, vii. 1. St. James, the apostle, tlio
son of Zebedee, whom Ilerod Agrippa put to the sword;
Acts, xii. 1, 2. and St. James the Just, the bishop of the church at
Jerusalem, who was slain in a cruel manner, as is shortly noticed
by Josephus;Q but described more at large by IlegesippusjC) ia
whose account, however, there are many things to which no one,
who is in the smallest degree conversant with either Christian or
Jewish antiquities, can by any means give credit.
(1) Antiquit. Judaic.Yih. xx. cap. viii. or, according to Havercamp'^j [p. 94.]
division, cap. ix. p. 976.
(2) Apud. Eiiseb. Histor. Eccks. lib. ii. cap. xxiii. The exceptions which
are, not without reason, taken by the learned to this account of Hegesippus are
all brought into one view, and augmented with some additional observations oi
his own, by Joh. Le Clerc, in his Historia Eccles. duorum primorum sxculorum^
p. 414, et. seq. Even Joh. Aug. Orsi himself, in his Ecclesiaslical History, a
work of much elegance, written by him in Italian, torn. i. p. 237, et seq.
frankly confesses that it is not possible even for the most credulous person to
believe every thing related by Ilegeslppus ; and pronounces the account given
by Joscphus, who represents James as having been stoned to death, as much
more deserving of credit. For my own part, I must decline entering into a
discussion of the numerous difficulties which give an air of improbability to the
narrative of Hegesippus ; but since the occasion presents itself, I will just offer
a few remarks, which may perhaps be found to throw some light on one passage
in it, of w^hich the learned have hitherto professed themselves utterly at a loss
to comprehend the meaning. The Jews, according to Hegesippus, proposed
this question to James the Just : tk m ^u^x t.7 'J^stk ? Quodnam est ostium Jesu 1
What is the gate or door of Jesus? — To which he is represented as answering,-
tliat this gate was the Saviour: ka) *>>«>», tStcv livui tov ZiaTiig*. Eusebiuswti
supra. Now it is truly wonderful to behold how erudition has bewildered itself in
attempts to discover the meaning of this question. lien. Valcsius, in his notes
on Eusebius, p. 39, says. Ostium, hoc loco est introductio, sou institutio atquo
initiatio. Ostium igitur Christi nihil est aliud quam fides in Dcum Patrem, et in
Filium, et in Spiritum Sanctum. In this explanation it should seem as if the learn-
ed author fancied that he had given us something very great; whereas, in fact, he
122 Century L— Section 23.
has given us nothing; for his interpretation neither accords with the question
of the Jews, nor with the answer of James. Admitting this notion of Valesiua
to be correct, the Jews must have meant to ask of James, What is faith in the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 1 But who, let me ask, can possibly attach any
Bucli sense to the words they are stated to have made use of — Quodnam est
ostium Jesu ? What is the Gate of Jesus ? And what relation to such a ques-
tion as the above is to be discovered in the answer of James 1 — Ostium hoc est
Servator. The Saviour is the gate. Is the Saviour then a faith in the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit? Indeed it is plain that Valesius himself was by no
means satisfied with this explanation ; for within a very few Avords after, we find
him at variance with himself, and giving the passage a very different interpre-
tation: Chrisii ostium, ssxy she, est remissio peccatorum, qucc Jit per Baptismum.
This exposition, we see, is of quite a different nature from the one cited above,
but yet, not at all more rational or intelligible. The Jews, according to this
interpretation, must be understood to have asked of James — Qucc nam est re-
missio peccatorum per hapiismum ? What is remission of sins by baptism 1
To which he answers — Remissio peccatorum est Servator. Remission of sins is
the Saviour. But I again repeat what I said above. This eminent scholar no
doubt meant to throw light on this very obscure passage, and probably pleased
himself with the notion that he had done so ; but, in fact, he has done nothing
of the kind : indeed it may be said, that he has thrown additional obscurity
over a place already of itself sufficiently dark. In my opinion, Jo. Le Clerc
pursued a much wiser course, by ingenuously confessing his inability to
explain this passage as it stands, and intimating a suspicion that it must have
been some how or other corrupted. Quod quid sibi velit, says he, non intelligo,
[p. 95.] neque enim Grcccum hoc est, nee Hebraismum ullum similem comminisci
fossum. Respondet enim Jacobus, punc esse Servatorem, quasi 3-:/§« significaret
munus aut quidpiam simile. Sed forte locus est corruptus. Histor. Eccles. duorum
primor. Scccu/or. p. 416. Le Clerc perceived that this passage in Hegesippus
required correction, but he would not undertake the amendment himself This,
however, has been, not long since, attempted by a learned French author, who,
in 1747, published at Paris, in 4to. a prospectus d'une nouvelle Traduction de
VHistorien Joseph. According to this writer, p. 9. the term 3-J§*, which has been
all along considered as Greek, and rendered into Latin by the word ostium or
porta, ought in fact to be considered as an Hebraism ; and the way in which
he proposes to correct the passage in question is by substituting .'Ti'ijt) Torahy
for-3-i^'§4, or rather by changing the latter into 3-og*. This conjecture is noticed
by the learned editors of the Nova Eruditorum Acta at Leipsig, in their number
for March 1750, p. 142; and they appear to consider it as a peculiarily happy
one. Esttamen&iiy they, una inter cocter as conjectura, scitafelicis ingenii filia ;
quam calculos periiorum hominum laturam esse, nulli dubitamus. The emenda-
tion thus offered is, I must own, entitled to every sort of praise on the score
of ingenuity ; but, at the same time, I cannot go the length of saying that I
deem it altogether unobjectionable, and free from doubt ; since it appears to
me in no shape to accord with the answer of James. Were we to adopt the
ingenious correction proposed by this author, the question of the Jews would
The Jews at enmity. 123
be this — Quccnam est lex Jeau? What is the law of Jesus? But what sort of
reply to this is conveyed by the answer of James, which, according to the same
emendation, must be transhited — Lex Jesu est Servator. The law of Jesua is
the Saviour. What sense or meaning would there be in this ? or, in what way
can it be regarded as an answer to the question proposed? Is James trifling
with the Jews, or docs he give them the desired information ? Let us leave
this conjecture tiien, and see if it may not be possible to suggest an emenda-
tion more consentanous to the object which the Jews evidently had in view.
Now I entirely agree in opinion with the above-mentioned learned French
autlior, that, in rendering the Hebrew words made use of by the Jews in
the questioning of James, into Greek, a mistake was made by the translator,
whoever he might be, whether Hegesippus or another, and that the object of
their inquiry was entirely misconceived by him. But it strikes me, that the
error is rather to be discovered in the name '!»?•», than in the term S-ygx. The
Jews manifestly had it in view to learn from James what he deemed the way
or the gate of salvation, or, in other words, the true means of obtaining
eternal life. I have, therefore, not the least doubt but that, speaking in their
vernacular tongue, they made use of the term n3>V-!"'> Jeschuah, salvation ;
and that their question to James consequently was — What is in your opinion
the gate of salvation ? By what means may we arrive at eternal life ? But the
Greek translator, either through inattention, or for want of sufficient skill in
the Hebrew language, mistaking this term for the proper name of our Saviour
Jesus, instead of rendering the question, as he ought to have done, rig « Q-jJg*
THf o-aiTn^iaLs \ What is the gate or door of salvation? — translated it, ris « ^vgx
1^9-B i What is the gate of Jesus ? To the question, when corrected in this way,
nothing can be conceived more pertinent or opposite than the reply of James —
The gate or door of salvation is our Saviour Jesus Christ : for, in fact, he answers
in our Saviour's own words, who, in John, x. 7. says of himself, 'Eyu u/ui [p. 96.]
M ^u^A Twv TTfio^dTav y I am thc door of the sheep. Indeed the event of tliis
examination tends so strongly to corroborate this conjecture of mine, that I
rather think it will be considered as having every probability on its side.
" On hearing this," (i. e. the answer of James,) continues Hegesippus, " some of
them were prevailed on to believe in Jesus as the true Christ." Now if the
answer of James had that effect on the Jews, as to persuade them to believe
that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah, — it follows of necessity that he must
have declared Jesus to be the author, or, in figurative language, the gate or
the door of salvation.
XXIV. Enmity of the foreign Jews excited against the Christians.
Moreover, not content witli thus accumulating every possible
injury on sucli of the harmless disciples of Christ as ^verc to be
found in Palestine, the high priest and rulers of the Jews dis-
patched legates or missionaries into all the different provinces,
for the purpose of animating their distant brethren witli similar
sentiments of jealousy and hatred towards the Christians, and
124 Century L— Section 24, 25.
Stirring tliem up to sock lor every occasion of annoying and per-
secuting this inoffensive flock.(') By what is recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, and other ancient authorities, it appears
that the Jews, throughout every part of the world, discovered
the utmost readiness in obeying this call of their spiritual in-
structors and governors, and with one consent made it their en-
deavour, by various calumnies and infamous machinations, to
draw on the Christians the indignation and ill-will of the presi-
dents, the magistrates, and the jDCople at large. The chief of all
the accusations wherewith the followers of Christ were loaded
by the malice of these their inveterate foes, was that of their
being enemies to the state, and conspirators against the imperial
majesty : in proof whereof, it was alleged that they regarded one
Jesus, a malefactor, who had been put to death by Pilate on very
sufficient grounds, as a monarch sent down to mankind from
above. To this conduct are to be attributed the many complaints
that we meet with in the writings of the early Christians,
respecting the hatred and cruelty of the Jews, whom they repre-
sent as more inimical and malicious in their carriage towards
them than even the pagans themselves.(^)
(1) Frequent mention is made of this by the early Christian writers. See
Justin Martyr Dial, cum Tnjph. p. 51, 52, 53, 318, edit. Jebb. It is also inti-
mated at p. 109, that the Jews forbad their people even from speaking to the
Christians; and at p. 138. 207, that in their schools and synagogues, the follow-
ers of Christ were loaded by these infuriate persecutors with the direst curses
and imprecations : a circumstance of which we find mention also made by St.
Jerome and others. See also Eusebius Comment, in Esaiam, cap. xviii. p. 474 ;
in Montfaucon's Nov. Collect. Patrum Grcccor. tom. ii.
(2) See the passages collected by J. A. Fabrieius, in his Lux Evangelii
toll Orhi exoriens, cap. vi. 5 i- P- 121. See also Epistola Smyrnensis Ecclesicc
de Marlyrio Polycarpi, ^ xii, xiii. tom. ii. Patr. Apostol. p. 199, 200.
[p. 97.] XXV. Overthrow of Jerusalem and the Jewish natiou.
An effectual check, however, was given to the insatiable rancour
with which the Jews thus persecuted the Christians, about the
seventieth year from our Lord's birth, when Divine Justice deliver-
ed up their land, their cit}^, and their temple, to be laid waste and
overthrown, and even their name as a nation to be utterly blotted
out, by the Romans under Vespasian and his son Titus. This
tremendous scene of carnage, ruin, and devastation, which had
Ovcrthroiu of Jerusalem. 125
been foretold by our Saviour liimself, is very particularly de-
scribed by tlie historian Joseplius, wlio was present at the
destruction of Jerusalem, and for the most part an eye-witness of
all its attendant horrors. The cause which, beyond all others,
may be considered as having more immediately contributed to
bring down these heavy calamities on the Jewish nation, was the
mal-administration of the Roman presidents, to whom the
'government of Palestine had been from time to time committed,
and particularly of Gessius Florus, whose oppressive and vexa-
tious conduct was every way calculated to exhaust the patience
of this wretched and unfortunate people. Irritated and goaded
by insults and severities, to which they saw no prospect of an
end, they endeavoured to regain their former liberty ; but their
efforts, instead of promoting the object they had in view, served
only to accelerate their final ruin, by rendering them at one and
the same time a prey to intestine faction and the Eoman sword. lu
the course of a seven years' war there perished of this ill-fated
people, according to Joseplius, either by fire, the sword, famine,
pestilence, or different kinds of punishments, no less a number
than one million three hundred and thirty-seven thousand four hun-
dred and ninety. In the fourth year of this memorable contest,
the city of JerusalemgWas taken, after a six months' siege, and the
temple, contrary to the wish of the emperor Titus, consumed by fire.
The buildings that escaped the ravages of the flames v/ere after-
wards pulled down and levelled with the ground. Throughout
the whole history of the human race, we meet with but few, if
any, instances of slaughter and devastation at all to be compared
with this. In contemplating it, amongst various other things
which present themselves to our notice as well deserving of
the most serious attention, it is particularly worthy of remark
that the Jews themselves, rather than the Romans, must be con-
sidered as the authors of that great and tremendous accumulation
of evils which signalized this final desolation of the house of Israel.
XXyi. The ten persecutions of the Christians. About two years
before the breaking out of this war between the Romans and tho
Jews, the Christians who dwelt at Rome were made subject to
Very unjust laws, and otherwise experienced the most severe and
iniquitous treatment at the hands of the emperor Nero, His
example was, in this respect, pretty uniformly copied after by
126 Century L— Section 20.
his successors, during three centuries; although their severity
was not always carried to the same extent : and hence the pro-
fessors of Christianity had to endure a long series of dire afflic-
tions, or, to Use a more familiar term, persecutions, to which an
end was not put until the time of Constantino the Great. We
have been for ages in the habit of considering the number of
these persecutions as decidedly fixed at ten ; but the early history
of Cliristianity does not appear by any means to warrant this.
[p. 98.] K it be meant to speak merely of such persecutions as
were particularly severe, and of general extent throughout the
empire, they certainly did not amount to ten ; if, on the contrary,
the lesser ones, or such as may be termed provincial, are designed
to be included, it is equally clear that they exceeded that number.
The persons Avho first fixed the number at ten, certainly found
nothing on record to authorize their doing so ; but were, as it
should seem, led away by a wish to make history in this respect,
accommodate itself to certain passages of Scripture, in which
they imagined it to be foretold that just so many persecutions
would befal the Christians. (')
(1) The notion of the Christians suffering exactly ten persecutions under
the different heathen emperors, is without doubt extremely ancient, and may
be traced back as far as to the fifth century. But notwithstanding this, I will
venture to incur the responsibility of assuring all lovers of truth, that it la
wholly built on popular error, without the least shadow ot foundation. The
authors of it are indeed unknown ; but thus for is certain, that they did not
derive this opinion from what was to be met with on record, but first of all
imbibed it from a mistaken interpretation of Scripture, and then obtruded it
on the world as a point of history. We have good authority for stating that,
in the fourth century, the number of Christian persecutions had not been ex-
actly ascertained. Lactantius, in his book de Mortibus Perseqiiutorum, enu-
merates only six. Eusebius, in liis Ecclesiastical History, recounts the suffer-
ings which the Christians had at various periods undergone ; but he does not
take upon him to fix the times of persecution at any determinate number. It
may, however, in some measure be collected from what he says, that the
church had experienced nine such seasons of adversity. Sulpitius Severus, in
the fifth century, records the like number : but it appears that, at tlie time he
wrote, the notion of ten persecutions had begun to be entertained ; for, after
enumerating nine that were passed, he gives the Christians to understand that
the tenth, which would be the final one, was not to be expected until the end
of the world. Exinde, says he, tranquillis rebus pace peifruimur : neque ulterius
persequutionem fore credimus, nisi earn, quam suh fine jam sccculi Antichrisius
exercebit. Etenim sacris vocibus decern plagis mundum ojiciendum pronurUiatum
The Ten Persecutions. 127
est; ita qmim Jam novemfucrbii, qua: supcrest ultima erit. Histor. Sacr. lib. ii.
cap. xxxiii. p. 248, 249. ed. Clerici. Now it appears to mc scarcely possible to
conceive any thing tliat conld more strongly snpport the position advanced by
me in the commencement of this note than this passage does. The Christiana
of the fifth century, we see by it, had, from their interpretation of some pas-
sages of Scripture, (what those passages were Sulpitius does not mention,)
been led to entertain a belief that the Christian commonwealth was destined
to endure ten prhicipal calamities ; but tiie persecutions recorded in history,
they found, did not amount to tliat number. In order, therefore, to uphold
the authority of the sacred volume, tlicy determined that the completion of the
predicted number of persecutions was to be looked for in the coming of Anti-
christ, at the end of the world. But even in that same age, there appear to
have been others of the Christians who, although they were equally confident
in the persuasion that ten persecutions were predicted in Scripture, yet did not
think that the afflictions to be expected from Antichrist were to be included
in that number; and therefore endeavoured, by twisting and perverting the
history of the Christian church previous to the time of Constantino the Great,
to make it exhibit all ten of the calamitous periods which they conceived to be
thus foretold in the sacred writings. For this we have the testimony of Au-
gustine, in his work de Civilaie Dei, lib. xviii. cap. Hi. p. 404, 405, torn. [p. 99.]
vii. opp. edit. Benedict, where, adverting to this subject, he declares that he
can by no means assent to the opinion that only ten persecutions of the Chris-
tians arc foretold in Scripture : Proinde ne illud quidem temere puio esse diceii-
dum, sive credendum, quod nonnullis visum est, vel videtur, (this opinion, there-
fore, we see, was entertained merely by a few,) non amplius ecclesiam passuram
persecutiones usque ad tempus Antichrisii, quam quotjam passa est, id est, decenij
ut undecima, eademque novissima, sit ah AntichrisLo. In these words Augustine
points to the way in which the persecutions were computed, by those who
maintained that the church had undergone ten previously to the time of Con-
stantine, and which is similar to the modern mode of computation. With re-
gard to its being correct or erroneous he delivers no opinion, but leaves the •
question entirely at rest. We are next put by him in possession of the par-
ticular part of Scripture on which this notion of the ten persecutions, ante-
cedent to the time of Constantino, was grounded. Plagas enim Egyptiorum
quoniam decern fuerunt, antequam inde exire inciperet popidus Dei, putant ad
hunc intellectum esse referendas, ut novissima Antichristi persecutio similis vide-
atur undecima: plagcc, qua JEgypiii, dum hostililer sequerenlur IIebra:os, in mart
rubro, populo Dei per siccum transiente, perierunt. We see here, then, the
source from whence sprung the notion of the ten persecutions antecedent to
the reign of Constantino ; and also the reason why the opinion of Sulpitius
was rejected, and the last persecution under Antichrist excluded from that
number. Some silly trifling Scriptural commentators of the day had taken
it into their heads, that the ten plagues of Egypt were to be regarded as typi-
cal of the persecutions thattlie Christians were to undergo at the hands of the
pagans; and that Pharaoh bore the representation of Anticln-ist: and hence
they were led to consider it as indisputable that ten persecutions of the Chris-
128 Centimj I.—Scction 26.
tians must have tikcn place prior to the reign of Constantine ; and that the
afflictions to be expected from Antichrist ought not to be reckoned as one of
those ten cahimitous seasons which it was predicted in Scripture should befal
the church. It is, however, a circumstance which must, we should presume,
in no small degree excite the reader's astonishment, that these sagacious com-
mentators of Holy Writ should not have perceived that this exposition neces-
sarily implies what it is utterly beyond the reach of belief to credit, namely,
that the Egyptians, and all those on whom the Almighty sent down the ten
dreadful scourges mentioned in Scripture, and particularly Pharaoh, with his
servants and soldiers, who were swallowed up in the Red Sea, were the typi-
cal representatives of the innocent and holy Christians, who were persecuted
by the Roman emperors. For if the ten plagues, with which God afllictcd
the Egypti:ins, are to be. considered as typical of the lirst ten persecutions of
the church of Christ, it necessarily follows that the persons who endured
these plagues must have been the representatives of the early Christians : and
if the miserable overthrow and destruction of Pharaoh and his host is to be
understood as prefigurative of the direful visitation which good men are taught
to expect from Antichrist and his followers, we are equally constrained to
regard the Egyptian king and his army as representatives of the faithful ad-
herents of our Lord, who are to endure the persecuting violence of this arch
[p. 100.] adversary to the cause of Christ. Indeed, Augustine himself, although
he entertained no doubt but that the words of Scripture had a recondite
meaning attached to them, yet considered this interpretation as futile, and
built on no solid foundation. 8cd ego, says he, ilia re gesta in Egypto, istas
pei'secutiones prophetice signijicalas esse non arbitror : quamvis ah eis, qui hoc
jmtant, exquisite et ingeniose ilia singula his singulis comparata xideanLur, non
prophelico spiritu sed conjecLura mentis humanx, qucc aliquando ad verum per-
venil, aliquando falUlur. But it should seem that Augustine was not ac-
quainted with all the arguments by which the advocates for the opinion, that
the Christians had undergone ten persecutions, endeavoured to establish this
point, so repugnant to all history. A principal argument of theirs, (and one
which, to confess the truth, has something specious in it,) was drawn from tho
Apocalypse. St. John sees a harlot sitting on a terrible beast, which had
seven heads and ten horns. Rev. xvii. 1-10. There is no question but that
this woman represents Rome; and St. John expressly tells us, that the ten
horns of the beast signify ten kings. Rev. xvii. 12. The same inspired writer
adds, that these ten horns of the beast, or ten kings, should make war with
the Lamb, that is, CIn-ist; but that he should overcome them. v. 14. This is
the prophecy which induced the ancient Christians to maintain that ten of the
Roman emperors, prior to Constantine, were at open enmity with the church ;
and to attempt to force on us, in direct opposition to all historic evidence, the
notion that the number of persecutions had been exactly ten. Their way of
reasoning was this : — Since by the woman whom John saw is to be understood
Rome, and by the ten horns ten kings, there can be no doubt but that these
ten kings must be ten Roman emperors ; and since the wars of these ten kings
with the Lamb, that is, Christ, unquestionably signify their endeavours, by
Causes of Persecution. ll>9
means of laws and punishments, to extirpate the Christi:.n3, and entirely
abolish their religion, it is evident that ten Roman emperors would oppress
and persecute Ciirist in the persons of his disciples. But, suid they, the suc-
cessors of Constantine, who at present govern the Roman empire, are Chris-
tians : and it is not at all likely that their descendants should renounce the
fivith : tliosc ten enemies of the Lamb or Christ must, therefore, have lived and
made war on him before the reign of Constantine. Not permitting themselves
to doubt of the accuracy of this mode of reasoning, it became at once their
object so to manage the history of the church, previous to the reign of that
emperor, as to make it exhibit the ten regal enemies of our Lord making war
upon him, by ten persecutions of his faithful adherents. No one would ever
have taken up the notion of the ten persecutions, had it not been for the ten
plagues of Egypt recorded by Moses, and the ten horns of the beast mentioned
by St. John. There are none who have assumed greater freedom in perverting
ancient history than those who, without the requisite talents and information,
have taken upon them to expound the sacred Oracles. In confirmation of
what I have thus advanced, I will quote merely one passage from Gcrhohus
de corrupio Eccles'uc Statu, a. work published by Steph. Baluzius, in the fifth
volume of his Miscellanea, p. 77. It is not indeed older than the [p. 101.]
twelfth century, but it nevertheless puts us in possession of what was the
opinion of prior ages. Delude reliqui hones a Nerone usque ad Dioclctianum
per decern unhersales persequutiones ita comederunt ac disperserunt gregem
Domini, ut ilia bestia decern cornibus terribilis Danieli prccostensa jam singulis
cornibus in singulis persecutionibus debachata, et sanguine sanctorum saliala sit,
ultra quam did possit. There were some, however, as we learn from the fol-
lowing words of Gerhohus, who were of opinion that by the ten horns of the
beast, we ought rather to understand the ten years of the Diocletian perse-
cution: Et quia ultima persequutione, Diocletiano et Maximiano tyrannizanlibus,
decern annis xexata est ecclesia, sivc in decern universal.ibus persecutionibus, siie in
decern annis uUimcc persecutionis intelligas decern cornua crudelis bestix, Romani
videlicet imperii, gratanter accipe humiliationem ex tunc illius bestkc, ita ut fo^
enum quasi bos comedens et prccsepe Domini sui agnoscens rore cccli tincta sit^
baptizato videlicet Constantino imperatore.
XXVII. Causes of these persecutions. As the Romans allowed
to every citizen the free exercise of his own reason and judge-
ment in regard to matters of a divine nature, and never molested
the Jews on account of their religion, it has afforded grounds for
surprise to many that they should have discovered a temper so
inhuman and implacable in their carriage towards the Christians,
a set of men of the most harmless inoffensive character, who never
harboured in their minds a wish or thought inimical to the wel-
fare of the statc.(') But it is not very difficult to account for this.
The Romans, it is true, extended their toleration to every kind of
9
130 Century L— Section 27, 28.
religion, from -whence no danger to tlie public safety was to be
apprehended ; but, at the same time, they would not endure that
any one should deride or attempt to explode the religion of the
state, or that which had the suj^port of the laAVs: for there
existed between the government and religion of the Eomans such
an intimate connection and dependence on each other, that who-
ever attacked or endeavoured to undermine the latter, could not
of necessity appear to them otherwise than as hostile to the
former, and inimical to the dignity of the state. On this account
all such of the Jews as lived intermixed amongst the Eomans,
were particularly cautious in whatever they said or did, to avoid
every thing which could be construed into a reflection on the
religion or gods of the commonwealth. But the conduct of
the Christians was directly the reverse of this: for, laying-
aside every sort of fear, they strenuously endeavoured to make
the Eomans renounce their vain and silly superstitions, and
were continually urging the citizens to give up and abolish
those sacred rites, on the observance of which, as we above
remarked, the welfare and dignity of the commonwealth were
thought so much to depend. Under these circumstances, it
could not well otherwise happen but that-the Christians, although
they intended no ill whatever to the state, yet should come to be
looked upon and treated as enemies of the Eoman government.
(1) As every tiling which can tend to excite suspicion or doubt in the minda
of the ignorant, respecting the divine origin of the Christian religion, is eagerly
caught at by those of the present day who undertake to disprove it, it is not
to be wondered at that they should endeavour to avail themselves of the anti-
[p. 102.] pathy of the Romans to Christianity, in order to throw a shade over
its excellence, and discredit its authority. The wisest people, say they, that
ever existed upon the face of the earth, — a people in the highest degree distin-
guished for their humanity, and who were never known in any other instance
to molest any mortal whatever on account of his religion, yet pronounced
Chi-istianity to be incompatible witli the public welfare, and refused it tole-
ration. It will therefore not admit of a doubt, but that there must have been
something vicious and highly censurable in the conduct and character of the
early Christians, which, if not repressed, threatened eminently to endanger the
prosperity and safety of the commonwealth. But as nothing can be more ill-
founded than these surmises, they serve only to expose the ignorance of those
by whom they are suggested, and to betray their utter w^ant of acquaintance
with the ancient Roman history.
XXVIII. Causes of these persecutions. It yielded a still further
Causes of Persecution, 131
ground for offence, tliat the Christians did not content themselves
with entering the lists against the religion of the Romans only,
but also boldly asserted the flxlsehood and insufficiency of every
other religious system in the world ; and contended that eternal
salvation was to be obtained in no other Avay than by laying
hold on Christ. For the inference which the Romans drew from
this was, that the members of this sect were not only immea-
surably arrogant and supercilious in their pretensions, but were
also filled with hatred towards all those who differed from them
in opinion, and were consequently to be regarded as persons
likely to sow amongst the people the most inveterate discord, ^
and to occasion disturbances of a very serious nature to the state.
For it was of old recognised as a maxim of civil poiit}^, that a
sect which not only believes those of every other persuasion to
be in the wrong, but also considers every other species of reli-
gious culture, except that which its own tenets prescribe, as im-
pious and offensive in the sight of heaven, is ever prone to excite
public commotions, and give annoyance to those who do not
belong to it. And I have no doubt but that we ought to under-
stand Tacitus as intending to reproach the Christians with che-
rishing a disposition of this sort, when he represents them as
odii generis humani convictos : and in like manner, Suetonius, when,
he attributes to them mdleficam superstitionem.O
(1) Tacitus, Aiinal lib. xv. cap. xxxv. Suetonius in Ncrone,cap. xvi. Some
very eminent men have imagined tliat these historians did not properly distin-
guish between Jews and Christians, but hastily ascribed to the latter tlie same
hostile odium adiersus omnes alios, which was not without reason attributed to
the former. But it should seem to have escaped those who entertain this opi-
nion, that Tacitus and Suetonius are, In the passages above referred to, evi-
dently speaking of a crime peculiar to the Christians, — a crime of so heinous
a nature as to deserve capital punishment. Whatever there might be in the
Jews of the humani generis odium, it is certain that it did not appear to the
Romans in this highly criminal light, or -of such a dangerous nature as to be
termed exitiabilis supersiiiio, which is the expression made use of by Tacitus
in regard to the Christians, since they were freely permitted to take up their
abode, and openly to exercise their religion in any part of the empire. It may
also be noticed, that Suetonius expressly terms the religion of the Christians
nova superstilioi a modern superstition ; by which he clearly distinguishes them
from the Jews, whose religion was well known to be of no recent origin.
XXIX. Causes of these persecutions. "Whilst these [p. 103.1
132 Century I— Section 29, 30.
considerations had the effect of stirring up the emperors, the sen-
ate, the presidents, and the magistrates, to endeavour, as far as in
them lay, to arrest the progress of Christianity, by means of the
most rigorous laws and punishments ; there were others which
operated no less powerfully on the people, and particularly on the
pagan priesthood, so as to cause them to require of their gover-
nors and magistrates, with an importunity approaching even to
violence, that the Christians, wherever they could be found,
should be put to death : and it not unfrequently happened that,
by their clamours and threats, they extorted a compliance with
their demands, even from those Avho would never otherwise have
been prevailed on to imbrue their hands in the blood of the just.
The Jews were possessed of a splendid temple ; the ceremonies
attending their religious rites were grand and magnificent ; they
offered up sacrifices, and had a supreme pontiff, with a numerous
priesthood ; and their mode of worship was, in several other re-
spects, of a showy and an attractive nature : hence the JcAvish
religion appeared to the heathens as differing in no very material
degTce from those of other nations ; and the God of the Hebrews
was looked upon by them as tlie provincial deity, who had the
immediate and especial care and governance of that particular
people. But the Christian mode of worship was accompanied
with none of those appendages which constituted the apparent
affinity between the Jewish religion and those of other nations :
ignorant men, therefore, like the pagan multitude, who imagined
that the worship acceptable to the gods consisted in the obser-
vance of ceremonies and festivals, and the offering up of victims,
at once concluded that the Christians paid no sort of homage to
Heaven, and consequently believed neither in a Supreme Being,
nor a Providence. When the minds of the people at large had
received an impression of this sort, it could scarcely happen but
that the most virulent rage for persecution should ensue : for it
was inculcated no less strongly by the Roman laAVs than by those
of other states, that men who disbelieved the existence of the
gods, ought to be regarded as pests of the human race, the tole-
ration of whom might endanger the state, and be productive of
the highest detriment to the best interests of society.
XXX. Causes of these persecutions. But this was not all. At-
tached to the service of that host of deities which the Romans
Calumnies against Christians. 133
wors1 lipped, botli in public and private, there was an immense
number of priests, augurs, soothsayers, and ministers of inferior
order, who not only derived from it the means of living at their
ease, with every luxury at command, but were also, from the
sacred nature of the functions with which they were invested,
sure to stand high in the estimation of the people, and to possess
no inconsiderable degree of influence over them. When all these
perceived that it was highly probable, or rather felt it to be
morally certain, that if once the Christian religion should become
predominant with the public, there would immediately be an
end to all the emoluments, honours, and advantages, which they
then enjoyed ; a regard for their own interests naturally prompted
them to endeavour, by every means in their power, to lessen
the credit of the Christians, and to render them obnoxious to
the people and the magistrates. Associated with these in their
efforts to put down Christianity, there was an innumerable mul-
titude of persons of various other descriptions, to whom the
public superstitions were a source of no small profit; such as
merchants who supplied the worshippers with frankincense and
victims, and other requisites for sacrifice, architects, [p. 104.]
vintners, gold and silver smiths, carpenters, statuaries, sculptors,
players on the flute, harpers, and others ; to all of whom the hea-
then polytheism, with its numerous temples, and long train of
priests, and ministers, and ceremonies, and festivals, was a piiii-
cipal source of affluence and prosperity.^)
(1) Acts, xix. 24. An idea of the vast detriment which the interests of these
priests and merchants experienced from the rapid spread of Christianity, may
be collected from this one passage in Pliny's epistles, lih. x. epist. 97. p. 458.
Salis constat propejajn desolata templa ccopissc celebrari ^passimque venire vie-
timas, quarum adhuc rarissi7niis emptor inveniebatur.
XXXI. Calumnies propagated respecting the Christians. From
the enmity of the Jews, and of persons like these, proceeded those
horrible calumnies, with which it is well known that the character
of the first Christians was very generally aspersed, and which
occasioned them to be considered by the magistrates and the
people at large as entirely undeserving either of benevolence or
pity. Nor is it at all to be wondered at that the slanders to which
we allude should, until they were refuted, have been productive
of this effect ; for the crimes thus falsely imputed to the Christians
134 Century I,— Section 31, 32.
were of tlie foulest and most disgusting complexion. Amongst
other heinous offences whereof they were accused, it was asserted
that even their solemn religious assemblies were polluted by the
commission of the most detestable of crimes : that in the place of
the Deity they worshipped an ass ; that they paid divine honours
to their priests,* in a way in which it would be an unpardonable
violation of decency even to name ; that they were active in pro-
moting sedition, and desirous of bringing about revolutions in the
state.(') And with so much art and address Avere these malig-
nant falsehoods framed and supported,- that they obtained credit
even with those who filled the highest stations in the government.
But what contributed as much as anything to inflame the passions
of the lower orders, and stir them up to acts of revenge, was
the malicious artifice of their priests, in attributing every thing
which could be regarded in the light of a national or general
affliction, to the toleration of the Christian religion : for whether
it were war, or tempest, or pestilence, or any other species of
calamity which befel the public, they equally availed them-
selves of it, and assiduously inculcated on the minds of the
people that such was the method in which the gods avenged
themselves of the insults offered them by the Christians. In-
structed thus from what they deemed infallible authority, that
such was the origin and cause of their sufferings, the credulous
multitude thought of nothing but revenge, and demanded of
their magistrates, with the most imperious clamour, the extirpa-
tion of a sect so utterly hateful and pernicious.(^)
(1) The reader who wishes to pursue this topic further, may consult a work,
written by Christ. Kortholt, expressly on the subject of these calumnies, and
entituled, Paganus Obtrectalor, seu de Calumniis Gentilium in Christianos^
Kilon. 1698, in 4to. ; as also the treatise of Jo. Jac. Huldric, de Calumniis
Gentilium in Christianos, Tigur. 1744, in 8vo. : the materials for both of which
were drawn from the Apologies of the early Christians, and other ancient au-
thorities.
(2) See Arnobius adversus Gentes, and also the various other WTiters of the
first ages, who came forward on behalf of the Christians, and defended them
against all these malignant aspersions of their adversaries.
[p. 105.] XXXII. Martyrs and confessors. Those belonging to
the Christian commonwealth who, during this critical situation
* The original Latin is: Et pudenda saccrdotum suorum divinis honorihus affi-
cere. — Editor.
Martiirs and Confessors. 135
of its aifdirs, fell victims to tlicir piety, and whose constancy
in the cause of their divine Master even death itself under a
variety of terrific forms had not been able to shake, (') were
thenceforward denominated martyrs: an appellation borrowed
from the sacred writings, lleb. xi. 39. xii. i. and emphatically
applied to these illustrious witnesses of the divinity of the
Christian religion, in consequence of their having sealed their
testimony with their blood. Those who had never been called
upon to give this last severe proof of their faith and sincerity,
but had nevertheless, at the peril of their lives, and with the
hazard of honour, fortune, and every other wordly conside-
ration, made open profession of their belief in Christ in the face
of the heathen tribunals, were distinguished by the title ot
confessors. The authority and respect Avhich holy men of either
of these descriptions enjoyed amongst their brethren during
life, and the veneration in which their memory was afterwards
held by the Christians of their own age, were such as almost
surpass belief (^) As time advanced, this reverence for tlie
characters of both martyrs and confessors increased ; and being
seconded by various opinions respecting these victims ' of perse-
cution, of an inspiriting nature indeed, but which appear to have
been by far too hastily adopted, it had the effect of stimulating
others to make equal sacrifices in the cause of Christ, and for
his sake to encounter the hazard of a cruel and ignominious
death with the utmost readiness and fortitude, and to meet
this most severe of human punishments in all its terrors, without
the least reluctance or dismay. By degrees, however, it de-
generated into a pernicious kind of superstition, and becoming
a source of corruptions in the true religion, was eventually
productive of no small detriment to the interests of Christianity.
(1) Respecting the various kinds of punislimcnt and suffering which the
martyrs were made to undergo, the reader may consult a most elegantly printed
little work of Ant. Gallonius, the last edition of which is that of Antwerp,
1668, 12mo. A work on the same subject was also published by Casp. Sagitta-
rius at Jena, in 1673, in 4to. But in both of these works there is much that
cannot be relied upon ; for as to those accounts which have come down to us
under the title of Acta Martyrum, or " the Acts of the Martyrs," their authority
is certainly for the most part of a very questionable nature : indeed, speaking
generally, it might be coming nearer to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that
they are entitled to no sort of credit whatever.
136 Century I. — Section 33.
(2) Both martyrs and confessors were looked upon as being full of the
Holv Spirit, and as actiiig under an immediate divine inspiration. Whatever
they said, therefore, was considered as proceeding from the oracles of God ;
whatever, during their imprisonment, they required or wished to have done,
was refarded in liie light of a divine command — to disobey which would bo
the very height of impiely; and whatever they did was accounted as nothing
less than the act of God himself, with whose Spirit they were conceived to be
filled. Whatever might have been the sins and offences of the martyrs, it was
imao-incd that they were all atoned for and washed away by their own blood,
not hy that of Christ. (Vid, Clemens Alexandr. Siromat. lib. iv. p. 596.) Be-
ino- thus restored to a state of absolute purity and innocence, it was conceived
that tiiey were taken directly up into heaven, and admitted to a share in the
divine councils and administration ; that they sat as judges with God, enjoying
the hi«Tiiest marks of his favour, and possessing influence sufiicient to obtain
from him wliatever they might make the object of their prayers. Annual fes-
tivals were appointed in commemoration of their deaths, their characters were
made the theme of public eulogies, monuments were charged with transmitting
of their names and acts to posterity, and various other distinguished honours
were paid to their memories. Those who had acquired the title of confessors
were maintained at the public expense, and were on every occasion treated
with the utmost reverence. The interests and concerns of the different reli-
gious as-emblies to which they belonged were, for the most part, consigned to
their care and management; — insomuch, indeed, that they might almost be
termed the very souls of their respective churches. Whenever the office of
bishop or presbyter became vacant, they were called to it as a matter of right,
in preference to every one else, although there might be others superior to
them in point of talents and abilities. Out of the exceedingly high opinion
that was entertained of the sanctity and exalted character of the martyrs, at
leno-th sprung up the notion that their reliques possessed a divine virtue,
[p. 106.] efficacious in counteracting or remedying any ills to which either our
Bouls or bodies may be exposed. From the same source arose the practice of
imploring their assistance and intercession in cases of doubt or adversity, as
also that of erecting statues to their memory, and paying to these images
divine worship ; in fine, to such an height of vicious excess was this veneration
for the martyrs carried, that the Christians came at last to manifest their reve-
rence for these champions of the fiuth by honours nearly similar to those
which the heathens of old were accustomed to pay to their demi-gods and
heroes.
XXXIII. Multitude of martyrs. That the number of those
who suffered death in the cause of Christ, during the different
persecutions to which the church was exposed for upwards of
three centuries, so far from being small, \^as, on the contrary,
very considerable, is a fact that stands supported by the weigh-
tiest and most positive evidence. There can, however, at the
Multitude of Martyrs. 137
same time, be no doubt but that many of tliose whose names
are to be found in the immense army of martyrs, which both
the Greek and Roman churches laud and worship, might with
very great propriety be struck out of the hst. To be at once
convinced of this, we need only be apprised that the governors
and magistrates did not direct their severity promiscuously
against the great body of Christians at large, but selected as
objects of capital punishment merely such of them as filled the
office of bishop or presbyter, or held some other station of
rank and consequence in the church, or who had displayed a
more than ordinary zeal for the propagation of the Christian
faith, or were distinguished for their wealth and dignity. (') As
for those of a lower order in the church, or of an inferior condi-
tion in life, although they might be occasionally imprisoned and
called to an account, they were, for the most part, considered by
the civil power as beneath notice, and might, without any danger
to themselves, be present at the last sad scene of their brethren's
sufferings. Whenever, therefore, a Christian of either of the des-
criptions above noticed was throv/n into prison, the deacons and
Christians of common rank found nothing to prevent them from
visiting him, and otherwise ministering, as far as in them lay, to
his assistance and comfort, or finally from accompanying him,
after his condemnation, to the place of punishment.(^)
(1) Polycarp. Alarlyrium, J xii. Acta Frucluosi, in Ruinarti Aclis Marlyrum
sinceris, p. 219. Cypriani, Epist. v. xiv. p. 10. 23. edit. Benedict, et plur. al.
(2) Lucian. in Peregrin, torn, ii, opp. p. 566. edit. Graevii. Cypriani Epist. ii.
iv. p. 8, 9. If this statement of tlie fact be allowed to have its due weight, it
must, I think, operate considerably towards placing the celebrated controversy
respecting the number of martyrs in a proper light, and thus be highly instru-
mental in bringing it to a conclusion. That but few, comparatively speaking,
suffered death for the cause of Christ, was, as is well known, a favourite posi-
tion w^ith the famous Hen. Dodwell, a man eminent for his learning and exten-
sive reading, but, as it should seem, headstrong, and apt to run into extremes.
The arguments by which he endeavoured to establish it are to be found in the
eleventh of his Dissertationes Cyprianicx. This opinion has also been era.
braced by many other celebrated literary characters, though not on the same
grounds. On the other hand, there are several authors who have entered the
lists on the opposite side, strenuously and at much length maintaining that the
number of the martyrs was very great. Of these, Theod. Ruinart may be
considered as taking the lead, in his Preface to the Acta Marlyrum sincera e\
selecia. By abating somewhat on either side of the question, we might probably
138 Century I. — Section 34.
[p. 107.] arrive pretty near the truth. Were Dodwell's position to be so far mo-
dified, as to assert merely that the number of martyrs was considerably less than
is commonly supposed, it must command the ready assent of every one who,
in making up his mind on the subject, has not suffered his judgment to be
misled by popular traditions and idle stories, such as for the most part consti-
tute what are termed the Acts of the Martyrs, but formed his opinion from the
evidence contained in monuments of indisputable credit. On the other hand,
it should seem that the adversaries of Dodwell might be very well able to
substantiate their argument, could they be prevailed on to reduce it simply to
this, that the number of the martyrs was certainly much greater than Dodwell
could ever be brought to allow.
XXXIY. The Neroiiian persecntion. Foremost in tlie rank of
those emperors, on wliom the clinrcli looks back with horror as
her persecutors, stands Nero, a prince whose conduct towards the
Christians admits of no palliation, but was to the last degree un-
principled and inhuman. The dreadful persecution which took
place by order of this tyrant, commenced at Eome about the
middle of November, in the year of our Lord 64. (^) As a pre-
text for his cruelty, Nero did not, according to Tacitus, C^) bring
forward any accusation against the Christians on account of their
religion, but imputed to them the commission of a most heinous
crime against the public. For having himself, by way of sport,
caused some houses to be set on fire, and thus kindled a con-
flagration, by which great part of the city of Eome was destroyed,
he, in order to divert the tide of popular indignation from its
proper channel, denounced the Christians as the authors of this
public calamity, and displayed the utmost eagerness in directing
against them all the vengeance of the state ; putting them to
death without mercy, and even making a jest of their torments.
Amongst other horrible cruelties exercised on them by his com-
mand, they were wrapped in pitched garments, and, being
fastened to stakes, were lighted up as torches to dispel the dark-
ness of the night; their punishment being thus made to bear
somewhat of an analogy to the crime whereof they were accused.
According to some ancient authorities, both St. Peter and St.
Paul suffered martyrdom under this first persecution ; the former
being crucified invertedly ; the latter beheaded : but this has been
much questioned by subsequent writers, who find a difficulty in
reconciling it with chronology.(') Of any of the other victims
of Nero's cruelty no memorial is left us whatever ; none even of
Persecution of Nero. 139
their names having escaped the obliterating liand of time : for as to
what is told "US by the people of Milan, as well as those of Lucca,
Pisa, Aquileia, Kavenna, and othercitiesof Italy and Spain, about
their patron saints having been put to death under the Neronian
persecution, it can obtain but little credit with any one of the
least intelligence, since it stands altogether unsupported by any
evidence of weight or authority. Clement of Alexandria says,
that St. Peter's wife was slain before her husband ;(') but even
this is by no means certain. This dreadful persecution ceased
but with the death of Nero. The empire, it is well known, was
not delivered from the tyranny of this monster until the year 68,
when he put an end to his ow^n life : it appears, therefore, that
the Christians must, in this first instance, have been exposed to
every species of insult and outrage, under sanction of the imperial
authority, for a period of no less than four years.
(1) This has been clearly proved by Al. de Viguoles, in two dissertations
de Causa et Initio Persequutionis Neroniancc, which are to be found in Masson's
Histoire critique de la Republique des Lettres, torn. viii. p. 74. 117. and torn. ix.
p. 172. 186. See also Nicol. Toinard. ad Laciant. de Martibus Persequutorum,
p. 398. ed. Du Fresnoy.
(2) Annal. lib. xv. cap. xxxviii. [p. 108.]
(3) Tillemont. Histoire des Empereurs, torn. i. p. 564. Phil. Baratier, de
Successione Romanor, Pontificum, cap. v. p. 60.
(4) Stromat. lib. vii. p. 869. ed. Potter.
XXX Y. Limits of the Neronian persecution. Ancient authors
leave us in much doubt as to the extent of this persecution ; so
that we cannot well say whether Nero made it his object to extir-
pate the Christians from every part of the empire, or whether his
severity was limited so as for it to fall merely by way of punish-
ment on those who, from their residence at Kome, might be con-
sidered as immediately implicated in the crime of setting fire to
the city. Hence it has arisen that although the learned in
general favour the former opinion, yet we meet with several very
eminent men who propend towards the latter. Those who Avill
be at the pains to compare the arguments that are urged on both
sides must at once perceive that there is no possibility of settino-
the question so completely at rest, as to leave no room for hesita-
tion or doubt on the subject ; since if the famous Spanish inscrip-
tion, which there is every reason to consider as a forgery, be
140 Century I. — Section 35.
rejected, there is nothing like positive testimony to be brought
forward by cither party. The weight of probabiUty, however,
as well as of argument, is certainly in favour of the more common
opinion of the two.(')
(1) According to Lactantius, (Instilut. Divinar. lib. v. cap. xi. p. 578. ed.
Walch.) a collection of all the edicts, published by the different emperors
against the Christians, was formerly got together by one Domitius, a cele-
brated Roman lawyer, and given to the public in a work of his, de OJficio PrO"
consulis. If this book were now extant, it would throw considerable light on
the general history of the afflictions and calamities to which the early Chris-
tians were exposed, and enable us at once to determine this question respect-
ing the extt-nt of the Neronian persecution. But since this work has been for
along time lost beyond the hope of recovery, we have no where now to seek
for illustration as to many points, except in conjecture. The first writer that
I know of, who took upon him to controvert the commonly received opinion
respecting the persecution of the Christians by Nero, was that most emi-
nently learned and ingenious civilian Franc. Balduin, who. in his Comment, ad
Edicla Irnperalorum in ChristianoSy p. 27, 28. edit. Gundling. maintains that
no laws were enacted against the Christians before the time of Trajan ; which,
if it could be by any means ascertained for a fact, must at once place it beyond
all doubt that Nero's severity was directed merely against the Christians of
Rome. Next to him maybe reckoned Jo. Launois, who, in the dissertation
which he published in defence of a passage in Sulpitius Severus, respecting the
first martyrs of Gaul, ^ i. p. 139, 140. tom. ii. p. i. opp. by way of supporting
the opinion there given concerning the first introduction and progress of Chris-
tianity in that country, denies that the Neronian persecution extended itself
to the provinces. Nearer to our own times, this opinion has been still more
ably and at large defended by Hen. Dodwell, in the eleventh of his DissertO'
tiones Cyprianiccc _ \ xiii. p. 59. ; and many others, who have since exerted
themselves in purging ecclesiastical history of its fables and absurdities, have
followed pretty nearly in the same path. Of all the arguments which the
writers on this side of the question bring forward, the principal and most
cogent one is that which they deduce from the cause which, it is acknowledged
[p. 109.] on all hands, gave rise to this persecution. Nero, say they, did not
deliver over the Christians to punishment on account of their religion, but in
consequence of the crime which he falsely imputed to them of setting fire to
the city. But it could never be objected to those of the Christians who lived
in distant provinces, and had no connection with Rome, that they had any
share in an offence like this; and therefore it is most reasonable to conclude
that the vengeance of the public was in no shape directed against them. As
to any other reasons that have been adduced in support of this opinion, I feel
no hesitation in saying that they are such as have but little weight or cer-
tainty in them, and are very easily to be refuted. And even in regard to that
argument which I have just noticed as being the principal one that is brought
forward on this side of the question, so far is it from appearing to me at all
Persecution of Nero. 141
conclusive, that 1 rather think those on the opposite side might with equal
propriety give a turn to it in iheir own favour. For it is incredible, they might
urge, that the tyrant should permit the brethren and associates of men, who
were the reputed authors of so great a eiilaniity at Rome, to continue unmo-
lested, though living at a distance. Tlie public might very naturally foci ap-
prehensive that the Christians in the ditVcrent provinces were actuated by simi-
lar views, and meditated the same attempts as were imputed to those at Rome;
and it was, therefore, no more than what the common safety appeared to de-
mand, that the emperor should direct his severity generally against the whole
body of those who professed a religion so dangerous and pregnant with des-
truction. The arguments of those who maintain that tiie Neroninn perse-
cution extended throughout the whole of the empire, possess greater force
than those whicii are adduced on the opposite side ; yt t they are not so deter-
minate, but that there are some exceptions whr^h may very properly be taken
to them. Lactantius, (de Mortibus Persequutor, c. 2,) it is urged, says, that it
was superstition, or a regard for the religion of his ancestors, which prompted
Nero ad excidendum cxleste templum pros'Uire. But to this the advocates for
the opposite opinion may well object, that surely, as to this point, more reli-
ance is to be placed on the testimony of Tacitus, who was a more ancient
writer than Lactantius, and doubtless by far better acquainted with Roman
affairs than he could possibly be. And indeed this superiority in the testimony
of Tacitus over that of Lactantius was long since contended for by Alphons.
de Vignoles, in an admirable dissertation, which is to be found in Masson'a
Histoire critique de la Republique des Lettres, tom. ix. p, 172. An inscription
is next brought forward, which it is pretended was found somewhere in Por-
tugal or Spain, and of which a copy (after Schott and Metellus) is given by
Gruter, in iiis Inscription. Romanar. Corpus^ tom. 1. p. ccxxxviii. n. 9. Its
purport is to extol Nero, in the first place, on account of his freeing the pro-
vince from robbers ; and, in the next place, ob eandem provinciam Ids qui novam
generi humano superstilionem inr.ulcabanl purgalam. Now if this inscription
had come to light through a cliannel that admitted of no suspicion, it must at
once be received as a proof that Nero's persecution of the Christians extended
itself to the provinces : for it is clear from a passage in Suetonius, (in Neronc,
cap. xvi.) that nova superslilio, " the new or modern superstition," was the title
by which the Romans were accustomed t^ refer to tiie Christian religion. But
Scaliger and other gi-eat men after him have entertained considerable doubts
as to the authenticity and authority of this monument, and, in my opinion, not
without ample reason : for I may, without danger of contradiction from any,
even of the most learned and intelligent of the Spanish writers themselves,
state it for a fact that no Spaniard or Portuguese ever had the least glimpse
of it. But had any thing like a genuine inscription of this nature ever been
discovered, there can be no doubt that it would have been preserved with the
utmost care, as a thing of the highest value and importance. I pass over the
various other arguments on tliis side, which any one who may be inclined to
examine them will find in the Preface to Ruinart's Acta Martyrmn sincera^
\ iii. and will only, by way of conclusion, remark that in my opinion there ia
142 Century L— Section 36.
nothing which makes more strongly in favour of the general notion respecting
[p. 110.] the Neronian persecution, than the disputation of TertuUian with
those who endeavoured to disguise their own malice towards the Christians
under the cloak of the imperial edicts. For at the time when TertuUian wrote
his Apology,, that is, towards the end of the second century, and before the
emperor Severus had enacted any new laws against the Christians, the Roman
magistrates were accustomed to reply to any who might come forward on be-
half of the Christians, that in this respect nothing was left to their discretion ;
for that however desirous they might feel to spare these unfortunate people,
it was impossible for them to do so, since the laws were peremptory to the
contrary. Postremo, says TertuUian, (in Apologet. cap. iv. p. 46. edit. Haver-
camp.) legum obstruitur auctoritas adiersus lerilatem, ut aut nihil dicatur re-
p-aclandum esse post leges, aut ingratis necessitas obsequii prccferatur veritali.
This pretence TertuUian attacks with great eloquence, and exposes its weak-
ness and fallacy by various arguments, of which the following is not one of
the least forcible. — Those laws to which ye refer, as not permitting you to
suffer the Christians to exist, were enacted by princes whose cruelty, impiety
and mad fury, ye cannot but regard with detestation, namely, by those mon-
sters of the human race, the emperors Nero and Domitian. Their successors
in the government of the empire have all been too deeply impressed with the
sentiments of justice .and benevolence, to follow their example. Trajan re-
voked these laws in part, and others have suffered them to fall altogether into
neglect. Doth it become you then, I would ask, you to whom we are taught
to look up as to men distinguished for wisdom and juridical sagacity, to keep,
alive and enforce laws which had for their authors the most unprincipled of
mortals? Quales ergo leges isicCy quas adversus nos soli exequuntur (exequi is
used by TertuUian in the same sense as ferre or sancire) impii, injusti, turpes,
vani, dementes : quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est, vetando inquiri Christi-
anos : (the laws of Nero and Domitian must of course, therefore, have directed
that the Christians should be prosecuted:) quas nullus Hadrianus, quanquam
curiositatum omnium explorator, nullus Vespasianus, quanquam Judccorum de-
hellator, nullus Pius, nullus Verus impressit. — Now if this statement of Ter-
tuUian be deserving of credit, and there is certainly no reason whatever to
suspect its accuracy, there can be no doubt but that Nero as well as Domitian
promulgated edicts against the Christians ; and if such edicts were promul-
gated, not a question can remain of their having been carried into effect
throughout all the provinces. There are some other things which might bo
pointed out, in addition to what I have thus noticed; but, to confess the truth,
it appears to me that nothing of any moment would thereby be added to the
evidence already adduced.
XXXVI. Domitian's persecution. The persecution of tlie Chris-
tians, which had ceased on the death of ISTero, was, towards the
end of the. first century, revived by the emperor Domitian, who,
taking, as it should seem, the cruelty of the former for his model,
Persecution of Domitian. 143
began about tlie year 9-i or 95 to afflict tlie cliurcli of Christ
afresli. As to the immediate cause of this second persecution,
we have no express testimony on record : but if what Eusebius
reports be true, (and his statement is, he tells us, grounded not
only on ancient tradition, but also on the testimony of Hege-
sippus, an author of great antiquity,) namely, that Domitian had
ordered every descendant of the House of David to be [p. 111.]
put to death ; and that in consequence of this, the relations of
Christ, who dwelt in Palestine, were called forward, in order that
he might know who they were ; — I say, if this may be depended
on, we are certainly warranted in concluding that it was the appre-
hension of their being implicated in seditious conspiracies against
his government that prompted this tyrant to aim at the extirpa-
tion of the Christians. (^) It was during this season of calamity
to the church that St. John the apostle was banished to the island
of Patmos, after having, as TertuUian and others report, come
forth safe and uninjured from the midst of a cauldron of boiling
oil, into which his enemies had caused him to be thrown.(^) The
principal persons who are said to have suffered at this period,
were Flavins Clemens, a consul, and Flavia Domitilla, who was
either his niece or his wife. The former is stated to have been
put to death, and the latter, to have been commanded to with-
draw into the island Pandataria. They were both of them re-
lated to the emperor.(') — It is admitted on all sides that this per-
secution was not of any long continuance. Ancient writers, how-
ever, are not agreed as to the authority by which it was put an
end to : some of them representing Domitian himself as having
retracted the orders he gave for persecuting the Christians ; whilst
others consider the revocation of them as the act of the senate,
upon Domitian's death.Q
(1) Vid. Euseb. Hislor. Eccles. lib. ili. cap. xix. xx. p. 89. In the account
there given, I see nothing whatever that can be deemed difficult of belief. From
beginning to end, it has all the appearance of a simple unvarnished narrative.
The fact, therefore, seems to have been, that some one, an enemy alike both to
the Jews and the Christians, had suggested to the emperor that the Jews looked
daily for a king to arise from amongst the posterity of David, who should give
law to the whole earth ; that the Christians, in like manner, expected that
Christ would soon return, and establish for himself a grand and extensive do-
minion ; and that, consequently, both Christians and Jews were to be regarded
with a jealous eye, as persons harbouring views dangerous to the state, and
144 Century L— Section 3G.
only awaiting their opportunity to break out into open revolt. Insidious whi8«
pers of this kind would naturally prompt the tyrant to order, as wc are told he
did, that all the posterity of David should be sought after, and put to deatli ;
and that measures should be taken to give an equally efTective blow to any de-
signs which might be entertained against him by the Christians. The subject
of the particular year in which this persecution commenced is learnedly dis-
cussed by Toinard, in his notes to Lactantius de Mortibus Pcrsequulorum, p.
351. edit. Bauldrian.
(2) On this subject the reader may consult what I formerly wrote, in answer
to tlie venerable Heumann, in the first volume of my Dissertationes ad Hist.
Ecclesiaslic. feriinentes, p. 497-546. I must confess that the account given by
Tertullian, and after him by Jerome and others, of St. John's being thrown
into a vessel of boiling oil, by command of Domitian, and of his miraculous
deliverance therefrom, appears to me to admit of some doubt. Wiiat if, by \vay
of solving the difficulty, we were to hazard a conjecture that the whole account
might be nothing more than a figure made use of by some one or other, in
order to convey a strong idea of the imminent peril to which St. John had been
exposed, and that Tertullian, instead of taking what was said in a metaphorical
sense, understood it literally ? To use figures or metaphors of this kind, when
speaking of any one's life or fortune as having been exposed to considerable
danger or hazard, is a practice to which all the people of the east are peculiarly
prone : and we ourselves very commonly say of a man who has been saved
from imminent peril of his life, that he was plucked from the fire or the flames.
In this way some one, in allusion to the very narrow and unexpected escape
[p. 112.] which St. John had experienced, in having the punishment of death,
to whicli he had been sentenced, commuted for that of banishment, might per-
haps say that he had, beyond 'A\ hope, got safe out of the burning oil. By a
person strongly disposed, as Tertullian certainly was, to catch at and magnify
every thing which had the appearance of a miracle, an expression of this sort
miglit very readily be misconceived, and, instead of being taken in a figurative
sense, be understood literally.
(3) Euseb. Hislor. Ecc.les. lib. iii. cap. viii. et in Chronic.
(4) According to Hegesippus, {apiid Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xx.)
Domitian, on hearing that there were living in Palestine certain nephews of
that Judas who was called the brother of Christ, descendants of the royal house
of David, commanded them to be brought to Rome, and closely examined them
as to their descent, the extent of their property, and the nature of their expec-
tations in regard to the future reign of Christ. These good and pious men, he
says, without hesitation, acknowledged to the emperor that they had sprung
from the stock of David ; but, at the same time, made it appear to him that tiieir
condition in life was humble, and that they were destitute of every thing like
wealth ; and, finally, they told him that the future kingdom of Christ was not
expected to be of this world, but of heaven, and that it would not commence
until the end of all things here below. Domitian, it is stated, having satisfied
himself as to these points, and considering the men as objects unworthy to
excite apprehension, dismissed them to their homes, and published an edict,
Constitution of the Church. 145
forbidding any further persecution of the Christians in Palestine. In like man-
ner Tertulluin reports, (Apologd. cap. v. p. 61.) that Doniitian, not being alto-
gether deaf to the calls of humanity, at length relented of the violence into
which he had suffered himself to be betrayed, and liberated all those whom he
had either sent into banishment or imprisoned. Laetantius, on t!ic contrary, in
his work de Morlihus PerscqiLutorum,v.A}^. iii. states it to have been subsequciitly
to the death of Domltian that peace was once more restored to tlie church.
Xipliilin also, in the Life if Nerva, says that it was tliis prince and not Domi-
tian who called back tli>jse that had been sent into bani-hment for their heresy.
Orosius and some other writers of inferior authority might, but tliat I deem it
unnecessary, be quoted lo the same purport. This difference of testimony will
at once be accounted for, if it be permitted us to suppose that Domitinn might,
some short time before his murder, have published an edict forbidding any
further persecution of the Christians; but that his assassination followed too
quick on this for the Christi ins in general to experience any material relaxation
of their sutYerings until after his death.
XXXVII. Constitution and order of the church of Jerusalem.
Amidst all tliis distress and calamity, however, the Christian
community had to exult in the most rapid extension of its limits;
the labours of the apostles and of their companions and disciples
being crowned ^Yith such success, that churches dedicated to Christ
had by this time been established in nearly all the provinces of
the empire. Since all these churches were constituted and formed
after the model of that which was first planted at Jerusalem, a
review^ of the constitution and regulations of this one church alone
will enable us to form a tolerably accurate conception of the form
and discipline of all these primitive Christian assemblies. — The
Christians at Jerusalem, then, although they did not [p. 113.]
secede from the public worship of the Jews, were yet accustomed
to hold additional solemn assemblies of their own, for the pur-
poses of devotion, in which, agrceabty to apostolic institution,
they joined in offering up general prayers, and in commemorating
the death and passion of our Lord by partaking of the holy sup-
pcr.(*) It may be considered as not merely probable but certain,
that the day of the week on which our Saviour arose from the
dead, was expressly set apart for the holding of these solemn as-
scmblics.(') As to the place of these meetings, it should seem
that at the first they were held in such of the private houses of
the Christians, as had room adequate to the accommodation of any
thing like a considerable number of persons. When the church,
however, came to consist of many thousands of people, so that it
10
14G Century I. — Section 87.
was utterly impossible for tlicm to assemble witli any degree of
convenience in one place, it is probable that the members distri-
buted themselves into classes, or, as we should say in modern
language, parishes, to each of which was assigned a separate place
of meeting, for the purposes of divine worship.^ The presi-
dency or chief superintendence of the whole church rested with
the apostles themselves. Next, under these, were certain men of
approved faith and authority, who were distinguished by the
Jewish appellation of presbyters or elders. They were no doubt
appointed to their office by the apostles, with the consent of the
people, and gave their counsel, voice, and assistance in the govern-
ment of the church at large, or certain parts of it. A considerable
portion of the members of this primitive church having to
struggle with poverty and distress, their necessities were liberally
supplied by the bounty of such of their brethren as were in bet-
ter circumstances : indeed to such an extent did this spirit of
charity prevail amongst the first Christians, that St. Luke repre-
sents them as having had all things in common.(') The manage-
ment and disposal of these contributions of the brethren, toAvards
the relief of the necessitous, were at first entrusted to certain men.
selected by the apostles from amongst the Ilebrcws or indigenous
Jews ; but, it being complained of that these persons were guilty
of partiality in the distribution of the alms, the church, by the
direction of the apostles, appointed seven others from amongst
the Greeks or foreigners, for the purpose of taking care that this
branch of the church might for the future experience no similar
kind of injury. Q The power of enacting laAVS, of appointing
teacliers and ministers, and of determining controversies, was
lodged in the people at large ; nor did the apostles, although in-
vested v/ith divine authority, either resolve on or sanction any
thing whatever vf ithout the knowlege and concurrence of the
general body of Christians, of which the church was composed. (®)
(1) Unless I am altogether deceived, a distinct enumeration of all the diffe-
rent branches of divine worship used in the church of Jerusalem, is given us by
St. Luke in Acts, ii. 42. His words are, l<r*.y Si rr^zTitA^'ri^SYTiS, (1.) tS J'iS'il;)^^
Tcov ATrccihaVy (2.) x-xi tvi koivuvU, (3.) ku.) tm kXiitii tS af>ru, (4.) kai tSis
rrp-.c-iux^'i " And thcy continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine, and
fellowshii), and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Now, with the exception
of that only which is termed xoivaviu., i. e. " communion or fellowship," it will,
I think, readily be allowed by every one that the account here given refers di-
Constitufion of the Church, 147
rectly to the manner in which tiie brethren at Jerusalem occupied themselves
in their religious assemblies. In rcgiwd to what is termed communion [p. 114]
or fellowship, it is not impossible indeed but that some may hesitate ; but it
<'ippears to me, that since we find it thus inserted amongst the acts of the church
collectively, propiiety demands that we should understand it in a sense that
may accord with the nature and object of such an assembly. For if the term
is to be considered as referring merely to the exercise of a daily private duty, 1
can see no reason whatever for its being thus introduced to our notice, amongst
the dil!erent branches of the public worship. We may regard St. Luke, there-
fore, I conceive, as presenting us, in the above-cited passage, with a sketch of
the manner in which the Christians at Jerusalem employed themselves, when
they met together for the purpose of joining in the worship of God. In the
first place, one or other of the apostles delivered a sermon or doctrinal dis-
course, for the instruction and edification of the people present. Next followed
the communion. The word kcivohvi^, "communion," is used in Scripture, as is
weli known, in an especial sense for liberality towards the poor. See Rom.
XV. 26. 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13. Heb. xiii. 16. The apostolic exhortation, tiicre-
fore, being finished, the brethren who were present, it seems, came forward
with gifts or offerings, which they consecrated to God for the relief of the poor
and such as were in need. This custom of bringing with them to their solemn
assemblies gifts or offerings for the use of the community in general, but more
especially the poor, and publicly presenting them previously to the celebration
of the Lord's supper, is of the highest antiquity amongst the Christians, and
one which uniformly prevailed in all the churches ; and that this usage was
founded on the practice of the original church at Jerusalem, will not admit of
a doubt. The history of Ananias derives no inconsiderable degree of illustra-
tion from hence ; whilst, on the other hand, the account which we have of that
unfortunate man serves to throw light on the nature of the rite itself. The
whole relation, as it is given by St, Luke in Acts, v. 1, et seq. tends, in my
opinion, plainly to show that Ananias made a tender of his offering to the
apostles publicly in the face of the whole assembled church. From what is
said in verse 2, we may certainly infer, that when this transaction took place,
the whole of the apostles were gathered together. But that the apostles were
accustomed thus to meet together in one place, except it were in general as-
semblies of the church, is what, from its utter improbability, I am persuaded
that no one will take upon him to assert. It should seem that a considerable
number of other persons were likewise present; for, in verse 5, St. Luke says
that great fear came on all who had heard what Peter said. Indeed, from
verse 11, it may be collected that the affair took place in the presence of the
whole, or at least a great part of the church. It appears that when these tilings
happened, the apostles had near them d vscJtj/is/, certain " young men." Now
I take it that these were not merely young men of the ordinary class, but
ministers of the apostles and the church, through whom the apostolic mandates
were communicated, and to whom it belonged, when the church assembled, to
make the necessary arrangements, and provide the members of it with every
requisite accommodation. For unless we understand these young men to have
148 Century I.— Section 37.
been of tM-i description, I do not see how it cm be accounted for that Ihey
alone should iit once rise up, and taking up the dead bodies of Ananias and hia
wife, carry them out and bury them : but if wc regard them :is inferior minis-
ters in the church, every difliculty is at once removed, and we see plainly tho
reason why, without wailing for any directions, they came forward of tiicm-
8clve-4 aiid performed this mehmcholy duty. And that there must iiave been
public ministers of this sort in the primilive church, no one who is apprized of
its nature, and the form of the religious assemblies of the Christians of that
aore, can possibly entertain a doubt. Certain persons must ever liave been
necessarv- 1^ perform such duties, as the keeping of the places of meeting clean
and decent, arranging the tables and seats, handing and taking away the sacred
volumes, providing the members, when celebrating the feasts of love, with every
tijing requisiic, and clearing the tables at tiie end of these solemn repasts, with a
[p. 115.] variety of other things that might be enumerated. These particulars, I
think it must be allowed, tend manifestly to show that the attempt of Ananias
to impose on the apostles was made in one of the solemn religious assemblies
of the Christians at Jerusalem. It should seem, therefore, that the multitude
being gathered together for the purposes of divine worship, and a sermon or
instructive discourse having been addressed to them by St. Peter, or some
other of the apostles, this wretched man, whose soul appears to have been at
once the prey of avarice and ambition, coming forward with the rest, in order
to give proof of his n-jivcevU^ " communion or fellowship," advanced to tho
apostles, and laid at their feet a part of the money for which he had sold a
portion of land, accompanying this donative with a declaration that, being
touclied with compassion for the brethren who v/ere in need, he had disposed
of his patrimony to a purchaser, and now begged thus to tender the whole of
what it sold for as an ofl'ering towards their relief. St. Lul^e, indeed, who was
studious of brevity, records no such speecii as having been made by Ananias;
but that the man must have come forward with a declaration somewhat to the
above purport, is manifest from the terms in which St. Peter's reproof to him
is couched. For with what propriety could the apostle have upbraided him
wich the telling of a lie, unless he had openly professed that what he ofTered
was the full price for which the land had been sold ? Greedy of reputation and
honour, Ananias would fain have passed himself on the apostles and the church
as a man overflowing with love and charity towards the brethren ; whereas
his regard for them had nothing at all extraordinary in it. But although he
could have entertained no doubt of the sacred nature of the apostle's characten
he was not aware of their possessing the faculty of divination, [Lat. res at'
cjnas divinaiidi] It is unnecessary for me to state what bcfel him, in conse-
fiucnce of his audacious duplicity. The corpse being removed, it is probablo
that one or other of the apostles took occasion, from what had happened, to
address the congregation present in the way of admonition. The feast of love
and celebration of the Lord's supper doubtless followed. About three hours
having elapsed, and the time being nearly arrived for the dismissing of the as-
Bembly, the wife of Ananias came in, for the purpose, as I conceive, of par-
taking in those general prayers with which it was customary for the public
Constitution of the Church. 149
eervice to be concluded. This woman having had the cffi-ontcry to rc-assert
the fl;igrant untruth which her husband h;id told, was like him, by an instanta-
neous visit:Uion, deprived of life. As for the reasons which caused hei- to
absent herself from the c;irly p:irt of the public service, although I am persuaded
that it might be possible for me to assign such as would appear by no means
unlikely ones, I shall not enter into them in this place, as my doing so would
occasion mc to digress too widely from the subject which wc have at present
more immediately under consideration. In these solemn assemblies of the
Christians, the KnvavU^ or charitable contribution towards the relief of the
necessitous, was followed, according to St. Luke, by the " breaking of bread."
The expression "to break bread," when it occurs in the Acts of the Apostles,
is for the most part to be understood as signifying the celebration of the Lord's
supper, in which bread was broken and distributed : we are not, however, to
consider it as exclusively referring to this ordinance of our Saviour, but aa
also implying that fea.st of love, of which it was the customary practice of the
Christians, even from the very first, always at the same time to partake. That
thc::c two things were thus associated together, even in the very earliest inf incy
of Christianity, is clear from what is snid by St. Luke in Acts, ii. 4G. For after
having there told us that the brethren at Jerusalem continued daily in the
breaking of bread at diflerent houses, he immediately adds, that they " did eat
their food together with joy and simplicity of heart;" f^iTiKauCxvov rp-.p^s ey
iyAxxiaTit KcLi dpixoTiiTi Tvif KAfS"uti. Sec also Acts, XX. H. where the break-
ing of bread, or the celebration of the Lord's supper, is again clearly associated
with a feast or repast of the Christians. It appears, therefore, that when, in
compliance with our Saviour's injunction, the Christians would break bread
together, tliey also partook of a repast in the nature of a supper, [p. 116.]
Their meals of this sort were distinguished by an holy mirth, arising out of
the love of Christ and of the brethren; but this hilarity had no connection
whatever with anything like sensuality or intemperance. And this is what I
understand St. Luke to mean by that simplicity of heart, with which he states
the Christians to have eaten their food. For what are we to understand by a
heart in a state of simplicity, but a heart altogether devoid of every sensual
and depraved appetite? The service terminated with some general prayers,
W'hich appear to have been distinctly recited by one or other of the apostles or
presbyters, and repeated by the whole congregation after him.
(2) It may, I think, unquestionably be taken for a fact, that the first day of
the week, i. e. the day on which our blessed Saviour triumphantly burst the
bonds of death, and arose from the grave, was expressly appointed by the apostles
themselves, during their continuance at Jerusalem, for the holding of these gen-
eral solemn assemblies of the Christians for the purposes of public worship. In
Acts, XX. 7. we see the Christians of Troas assembling together on the first
day after the Jewish Sabbath, in order to celebrate the Lord's supper and the
feast of love, and St. Paul adressing them, when thus met, in a discourse of no
inconsiderable length. For that by fj^i-j.v twv o-h^/Htuy, the day on which this
meeting is stated to have been held, was meant the day next immediately fol-
lowing the Jewish Sabbath, has been demonstrated by several learned writers
150 Century L — Section 37
BO clenrly as to leave no room for dispute. Now who, I would ask, can eiiter-
tain a doubt but that the Cliristians of Troas, in dedicating this day to divino
worship, were guided by apostolic authority, and the practice of the church at
Jerusalem, which it is well iarown that all the other Christian assemblies took
for their model ? or, who can believe that the apostle Paul, intimately acquainted
as he must have been with the discipline of the cliurch at Jerusalem, would have
sanctioned ti)e appointment of any other day for the public worship, tlian the
one on which he knew that the rest of the apostles were accustomed to hold
their solemn religious assemblies in that city?
(3) If I may give myself credit for any discernment at all, I am sure I
plainly discern this, that the vast multitude of persons converted by the apostles
to Christianity at Jerusalem must have been distributed into several companies
or classes, and that each company or class had its own proper presbyters and
ministers, as also its separate place of meeting for the purposes of religious
worship. For let any one, who may find a difficulty in believing this, figure to
himself a church composed of eight or ten thousand persons, and then reflect
whether such a multitude of people could possibly have assembled together in
one place, with any degree of convenience or advantage to themselves ; — to say
nothing of the very imminent danger to which they would necessarily on such
occasions have been exposed, in a city teeming with hostility to the disciples of
Chiist. and in which any meeting together whatever of the Christians was se-
verely denounced. Could it have been possible, let him ask himself, for them
to have joined in the celebration of the Lord's supper, and the feast of love con-
nected with it, with any sort of order or convenience ? The more he shall reflect
on this, the more apparent must, in my opinion, the impossibility of the thing
become to him. Now if it be granted that the church at Jerucalem must of
necessity have been classed or divided into several minor assemblies, it follows
of course that over each of these assemblies there must have presided certain
persons in the character of presbyters, in order to regulate the concerns of the
meeting, and see that all things were conducted with propriety and prudence.
For a flock without shepherds is sure to wander out of the way, and take the
very road which leads to the ruin of its own interests and welfare. These
things then being admitted, it appears to me that, divesting the subject of such
particulars as may evidently be referred either to the wisdom or the cupidity of
much more recent times, the origin of what we term parishes may, with every
[p. 117.] sort of probability, be deduced from the arrangement and distribution
of the primitive and parent church at Jerusalem. I do not know whether I
may go so far as to say that I have the authority of St. Luke expressly on my
side, Vvhen he says, in Acts, ii. 46. and v. 42. that the Christians at Jerusalem
assembled together, x-^t' c7xgv, to break bread. The commentators in general
conceive these words to indicate, that the Christians did not hold their meetings
always in the same place, but sometimes in this house, sometimes in that, with
a view to avoid, as fiir as possible, disturbance by the Jews. But for my own
part, I cannot see any thing whatever that should prevent us from giving to the
expression KAT'oJjtcv, the meaning of in diversis domihus, "in different houses;"
and understanding the apostle in the same sense as if he had expressed himself
Const'/ tuCion of the Church. 151
here as he has done in Acts, viii. 3. xx. 20. and written »*Ti rus efjcKj, which
is the same as h rc7c 'oikoh. Indeed this Latter sense is by far more suitable to
the words than the former one, since it is certain that the singular number is
most frequently put for the plural. In the ancient Vulgate, we find the ex-
pres-ion taken in this sense; the translator not altogether unaptly rendering
the Greek words k^t' oIkov by ciixa domos. Nor did it escape our countryman,
the blessed Luther, that this was the way in which they ought to be under-
stood; and he well translates them, ".pin unt» \)a in ten Xoaufcrn." And it ap-
pears to me, that St. Luke is to be considered as speaking in allusion to these
houses in which the brethren at Jerusalem were accustomed to assemble, when
he states St. Paul, before his conversion, to have entered ica.ra ris o'Um^ "into
the houses," and dragged away the Christians captive from thence. Acts, viii. 3.
For I can by no means persuade myself, that Paul and his attendants burst into
private houses of the citizens of Jerusalem, and dragged away from thence any
men and women whom he might suspect of being Christians. Is it to be be-
lieved that in Jerusalem, a city at that time under the dominion of the Romans,
any man would have been permitted to violate at pleasure the rights of peace-
able citizens, who had never been convicted of apostacy from the religion of
their ancestors? t conceive, therefore, that the houses, into which Paul thus
entered were those in which the Christians were wont to hold their meetinfs,
during the night season, for the purposes of divine worship; and that taking
the opportunity, with the assistance of the servants of the high priest, to break
in upon the brethren at the time of their being thus assembled, he laid hold of
as many of them as were not able to make their escape, and put them in bonds,
as offenders taken in the very act itself.
The sentiments which I have thus been led to entertain respecting the par-
tition or distribution of the church at Jerusalem, occasion me to regard what
St. Luke says, in Acts, xv. of the assembly, or, to use a more familiar term, the
council of that church, convened in order to decide on the controversy that had
arisen at Antioch, in a light somewhat different from that in which it is com-
monly viewed. If merely the words of the divine historian are to be taken into
the account, we must indeed unavoidably conclude, as every commentator whom
I had the opportunity hitherto of consulting has done, namely, that the whole
multitude of Christians who dwelt at Jerusalem, met together and discussed the
question proposed by the deputies of the church at Antioch. But if we bring
this conclusion to the test of reason, the thing appears at once to be utterly in-
credible. For what house could there possibly have been in Jerusalem capable
of containing such an immense number of persons? or, how could such a mul-
titude have assembled together in one place, in a city swarming with enemies
and informers, but under the greatest degree of dread, and at the utmost peril
of their lives and everything they might possess? I can, therefore, scarcely
permit myself to doubt that this assembly or council consisted merely of the
apostles and presbyters, and a certain number of select persons, to [p. 118.]
whom the church had delegated its power and authority; and that by "ohnv ritt
«»itx>.o-i«v, " the whole church," which St. Luke states, at verse 22, to have as-
sented to the proposal of St. James, we ought to understand merely a certain
152 Century I. — Section 37.
part of it, which iiad been invested with the power and authority of determining
the propo>ed question,
(4) Tiiere is an ancient opinion, (it is not, however, older than the fourth
ceniurv,) that the same community of goods existed amongst the members of
the church at Jerusalem, as did of old amongst the Essenes, and does at
present amongst the monks. But the notion is utterly destitute of any thing
like a solid foundation, and has no other support tlian merely the words of
St. Luke, who, in Acts, ii. 44. iv. 32. says that the Christians had all things in
common: — words which, however they mny at first strike the ear, can cer-
tainly never of themselves justify any such conclusion; since an abundance
of examples might be brought from ancient authors to prove that we may
v/ith the greatest propriety annex to them a very different sense, and consider
them as implying a communion merely of the wse, not of possession. Indeed,
that such is the acceptation in which they ought to be taken, is manifest from
the address of St. Peter to Ananias, (Acts, v. 4.) without recurring to other
authori:y. Tiie reader who may wish to pursue this subject furtlier will find
it more amply discussed in a particular treatise of mine, de vera Natura Com-
munionis Bonorum in Ecclesia HierosolymiLana, which stands the first in the
second volume of my Dissertaliones ad Hisioriam Ecclesiastic, perdnenles.
(5) Respecting these seven men, to wliom the care of the poor was com-
mitted by the church of Jerusalem, I cannot say that my sentiments altogether
correspond with those which it should seem are entertained by the generality
of people. From the very first rise of the church at Jerusalem, there were
without question certain persons whose office it was to take care of the poor :
it is not possible that the church could have been without them. Had the
apostles taken upon themselves the management and distribution of the alma,
there can be no doubt but that they would have dispensed them religiously,
and without the least partiality ; nor would there have been any grounds af-
forded for those complaints of the foreign Jews against the natives, which gave
rise to the appointment of the seven men. For who can possibly suppose
that the apostles could have been either so inattentive or so regardless of their
duty, as to give to the widows of Jews a preference to those of Greeks'? In
Acts, vi. 1. the Greeks or foreign Jews are not represented as murmuring
against the Apostles, on account of the improper distribution of the alms,
but against the Hebrews or native Jews generally. It appears, therefore,
(and it is a circumstance particularly necessary to be attended to,) that before,
those seven men were elected, there were certain persons at Jerusalem, ap-
pointed either, as is most likely, by the apostles alone, or otherwise by the
suffrages of the people in general, to make distribution of the alms offered by
the affluent for the relief of the necessitous : in short, there were deacons in
point of fact, before there were any such by name. These ministers, however,
having been selected from amongst the indigenous Jews, who in number far
exceeded the foreign ones, it was found that they were not strictly impartial,
bht were npt to lean a little more than was right in fiivour of their fellow
citizens, and those of their own country, and discovered a greater readiness
in relieving the widows of native Jews than the others. The foreign JewB,
Constitution of the Church. 153
whom St. Luke terms Greeks, being much dissatisfied at tliis, and murmuring
greatly against the Hebrews on account thereof, the apostles convoked the
members of the church, and commanded them to nominate seven men of ap-
proved faith and integrity, to whom the management of the concerns of the
poor might without apprehension be committed. The people com- [p. 119.]
plied with these directions, and chose by their suffrages the appointed number
of men; six of them being Jews by birth, and one a proselyte, of the name of
Nicolaus. They then brought them to the apostles, who consecrated them by
prayer and the laying on them their hands. These seven deacons, as wo
commonly call them, were all of them chosen from amongst the foreign Jews.
This I think is sufficiently evident, from the circumstance of their names being
all of them Greek ones : for the Jews of Palestine were not accustomed to
adopt names for their children from the Greek, but from the Hebrew or
Syriac languages. 1'hese circumstances considered, I cannot by any means
bring myself to believe that these seven men were entrusted with the care of
the whole of the poor at Jerusalem. For can any one suppose that the
Hebrews would have consented that the relief of their own widows and poor
should be thus committed to the discretion of the Jews of the foreign class?
The native Jews would, in this case, have been liable to experience the same
injustice from the foreign brethren, as the latter had to complain of, whilst
the alms were at the disposal of the Hebrew^s; and instead, therefore, of at
once striking at the root of the evil which they proposed to cure, the apostles
would, by such an arrangement, have merely applied to it a very uncertain
kind of remedy. Besides, the indigenous Jews made no complaints against
those who had hitherto managed the concerns of the poor; and consequently
there could be no necessity for their dismissal from office. It appears to me,
therefore, clear beyond a doubt that those seven men were not invested with
the care of the poor in general, but were appointed merely as curators of the
widows and poor of the foreigners or Greeks ; and that the others continued
under the guardianship of those who, prior to the appointment of the seven,
were entrusted with the superintendence and discretionary relief of the whole.
Camp. Vitringa saw the matter evidently in this light, as is plain from his
work de Synagoga velere, lib, iii. part ii. cap. v. p. 928. In regard to what is
urged in opposition to him by B. Just. Hen. B;.hmer, Diss. vii. Juris Eccles.
aniiqui, \ xxii. p. 378. it is of very little weight indeed. In fine, I do not see
how it is possible for any one to be of a dilFcrent opinion from that which I
thus state myself to have formed on this subject, unless he maintain cither
that there were no persons w-hose office it was to take care of the poor in the
church at Jerusalem, prior to the appointment of these seven men, — or that,
upon the election of the latter, the primitive curators or guardians of the poor
were dismissed as persons unworthy of being any longer continued in the
trust. But of these two positions, the one is utterly destitute of every sort
of probability, and the other implies a disregard of the dictates of equity and
fraternal love. As to the reason which caused the number of these men to
be fixed at seven, I conceive that it is to be found in the state of the church at
Jerusalem, at the time of their appointment. The Christians in that city, it
154 Century L— Section 37.
strikes mc, were most likely divided into seven classes ; the members of each
of these divisions luiving a separate place of assembly. It was therefore
deemed expedient, I take it, that seven curators should be appointed, in order
that every division might be furnished with an oflicer or superintendent of its
own, whose immediate duty it should be to take care that the widows and the
poor of the foreigners siiould come in for an equitable share of the alms and
benefactions, and to see that due relief was administered according to the ne-
cessities of the different individuals. It appears to me impossible for any one
to assign any more probable reason for the adoption of this number, unless
perhaps he should pretend to find some sacred or mystical qualities in it ;
but the futility of any conjecture of this sort would be manifest on the
slightest scrutiny. I cannot, therefore, help considering it as a mark of great
superstitious weakness in some of the ancient churches, that they should have
given their sanction to such a notion as that there should, in no case, be more
or less than seven deacons appointed, lest the apostolic rule in this respect,
[p. 120] (a rule which cannot be shown to exist any where but in fancy,)
should be broken through or infringed : and I think that those had much more
reason on their side who confined themselves to no particular number, but
appointed as many deacons as the state and condition of the church appeared
to require. But it is not impossible that the authority of St. Luke may be
brought forward against me on this occasion, and I shall perhaps be told that
he represents the whole church of Jerusalem as having been convened by the
apostles, and the whole church as joining in the election of the seven men,
(Acts, vi. 2. 5.) ; and that from hence it should seem reasonable to conclude
that the tutelary powers with which these men were invested related not
merely to a particular branch of the people, but to the multitude at large : for
if the Greeks were alone to be benefited by their labours, the Greeks alone
would have been the proper persons to make the appointment. But I cannot
say that I perceive much force in this objection. — For not to notice that in
many parts of Scripture the whole of a thing is mentioned, when only a part
thereof is meant to be understood, it is evident that equity, no less than the
critical situation of the church in those times, most urgently demanded that
the Hebrews should not be excluded from being present at, and taking a part
in, the whole of this transaction. For the Hebrews contributed in no less a
degree than the Greeks towards the support of the fund, from whence the
relief for the poor was drawn ; and a separation pregnant with the greatest
danger at that period might well have been apprehended, had the Greeks been
ordered to treat of their concerns separately, and a set of public ministers
been appointed, without the Hebrews being called to take a share in their
election. That St. Luke does not absolutely give us this statement of the
matter is a circumstance of no consequence whatever ; since we know that
the sacred penman contented himself with shortly touching on the leading
points of the early history of the church, and left to his readers a very amplo
scope for filling up and perfecting, by means of meditation and conjecture,
what they might thus receive from him under the form of a sketch or merely
in outline.
Constitution of the Church. 155
Entertaining then these sentiments on the subject, I cannot but feel my-
self compelled to withhold my assent from many things which, in later times,
have been contended for by several persons of no small wciglit and erudition,
respecting these deacons of the church at Jerusnlem. For the most part tliey
maintniii, that it was not a function of tlic ordinary kind with which those
seven men were invested, but one of an extraordinary nature ; that their
office was not one which was common to the church in general, but exclu-
sively appropriate to the church at Jerusalem ; and tliat the deacons, there-
fore, of whom St. Paul in his epistles makes mention, must have been of a
different order from those of Jerusalem. In support of this opinion they
adduce the following reasons: 1st, It is urged that the appointment of the
seven men at Jerusalem was rendered necessary by the communion of goods
which prevailed in the church of that city ; but that this kind of communion
being unknown in the other Christian churches, there could be no occasion for
their appointing any officers of a similar kind. But this reason, inasmuch as
it is founded entirely on the ancient erroneous notion respecting the nature
of the communion of goods in the church at Jerusalem, which may now, I
think, be considered as wholly exploded, falls at once of itself to the ground.
There was unquestionably the same community of goods in all the other early
churches as in that of Jerusalem ; and I have no hesitation in saying that
whoever may have entertained the notion, that the individual possession or
ownership of things was given up and renounced by the members of the
church of that city, has suffered himself to be grossly imposed upon by monk-
ish artifice. It is moreover most clearly manifest from St. Luke's account of
the affair, that it was not a communion of goods which occasioned the ap-
pointment of these seven men, but the desire of preventing for the future any
partiality in the administration of relief to the necessitous. Had no [p. 121.]
such tendency to partiality found its way into the church at Jerusalem, a com-
munity of goods, even supposing it to have been adopted there, might have
been very well regulated and administered without the superintendence of
any such officers as these seven men. 2dly, They say that the deacons of
whom St. Paul makes mention in his epistles, and still more particularly those
who in after ages discharged the functions of deacons in the church, had not
the care of the poor committed to them, but were occupied in duties of another
nature : and that, therefore, they must have been of an order altogether dif-
ferent from the seven men in the church of Jerusalem. But the insufficiency
of this reason also may, I think, be made appear without much difficulty. For
if it were true, as these learned persons assert it to be, that neither the deacons
alluded to by St. Paul, nor those of after ages, were entrusted with the care
of the poor, it still would not amount to a proof that these deacons did not
derive their origin from the appointment of the seven men in the church of
Jerusalem. An abundance of instances might easily be brought forward, to
prove that the titles of offices are frequently retained without the least alte-
ration, although the duties attached to those offices may, from various causes,
have gradually undergone a cliange. But in my opinion the fact was not such
in reality, as it is thus assumed to have been : for although it is true that the
156 Century L— Section 37.
deacons of after times had other duties assigned them to fulfil, yet in none
of the churches were they altogether removed from the management and su-
perintendence of the relief of the poor. As the riches of the church increased,
the bishops contrived by degrees to draw into their own hands the more
honourable and lucrative part of the charge ; but as to such branches of it
as had any thing of trouble or inconvenience connected with them, they wil-
lingly left them under the superintendence and management of the deacons.
Araono-st the Latins, the churches from whence the poor, the strangers, the
widows, the old people, and the orphans, had the alms dealt out to them,
and adjoining to which were houses or apartments in which the poor were
maintained, were always of old denominated diaconicc, (indeed the term is not
even yet become obsolete,) and the persons who had the care of such churches
and houses were always taken from the order of deacons. Vid. Lud. Anton.
Muratori Aniiquitates Italiccc medii JEvi, torn. iii. p. 571, et seq. Du Cangc
in Glossar. Latin, med. Mvi voc. Diaconia, Diaconites, Diaconus. At Rome,
even down to our own times, we see the cardinal deacons, as they are called,
have the care of churches of this kind, from the revenues of wiiich the poor
are furnished with subsistence, and to which there are attached certain houses
for refection, and what are termed Hospitals. Add to this, that all the an-
cient churches were unanimous in referring back the origin of their deacons
to the church of Jerusalem ; and on this account the greater part of them, as
is well known, would never consent that the number of them should be more
than seven. But why should I multiply words? There must have been, as
I have already shown, certain persons who acted as curators or guardians of
the poor at Jerusalem, prior to the appointment of those seven men to that
otRce ; nor could any church in that early age, when it was most religiously
provided that no brother or sister should want, in fact be without such. The
thino- speaks for itself; and with such an obstacle in his way, I conceive that
scarcely any one will find it an easy matter to persuade himself that the
function wilh which those seven men were invested was of an extraordinary
nature, or that it ought to be regarded as having been by any means exclu-
sively appropriate to the situation and circumstances of the church of Jeru-
salem. In saying this, however, I would be understood as disposed most
readily to admit, that this office was not of divine origin, or instituted by our
[p. 122.] Saviour himself: for St. Paul, in enumerating the offices that were
of divine institution in the Christian church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. Ephes. iv. 11.
makes no mention whatever of deacons, although in other places he points
out what manner of persons it was fitting that they should be : a circumstance
that I could wish to press on the attention of those who contend that Christ
himself instituted the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons ; and that,
therefore, such churches as have no deacons are to be regarded as defective
in their constitution.
Just. Hen. Bohmer, an eminent and deservedly illustrious lawyer of our
own times, has started a conjecture that the seven men above alluded to were
presbyters of the church of Jerusalem. Tins notion he appears to have espous-
ed, with a view to its yielding him assistance in proving that our modern spi-
Constitution of the Church. 157
ritual teachers possess nothing in common with the preshyters of the primitive
church, and that no distinctions were ever introduced by Christ and liis npostles
amonost eitiier the tcaclicrs or the people. Dissert. Juris Eccles. arUiqid, diss,
vii. ^ XX. p. 373, et seq. Long before this, Bilson, bishop of Winchester, had
endeavoured to establish a point, which, could it be asccrtMiiied for a fact, would
strongly support the opinion of Bcchmer, namely, that under the denomin:ition
of presbyters, in the books of the New Testament, deacons arc also included.
Sec his work on the perpetual Government ofChrist''s Church, cap. x. p. 179,180.
London, 1611, in 4to. But amongst all the ditfcront passages which he cites
in order to prove this, there is not a single one that can be said to yic;ld him
even a moderate degree of support. Dr. Gilbert Burnet, another English bishop,
and one who has obtained for himself a most distinguished rank amongst the
writers of our own age, appears disposed to place the seven men in question on
a level nearly with the apostles themselves. The deacons of whom St. Paul
makes mention, and for whom his instructions were designed, tliis prelate will
not allow to have been either inferior ministers of the church, or curators of
the poor, but contends that they were presbyters. See his History of the Rights
of Princes in the disposi7ig of Ecclesiastical Benefices, Pref. p. xiv. et seq. The
reader will perceive that in this opinion also there is something nearly allied to
that of Bcehmer. But it is evident that all these learned writers, as well aa
others, who reject the ancient notion respecting the seven men appointed by tho
church of Jerusalem, and endeavour to impose on us a new one of their own
in its stead, do so merely with a view to the support of other opi:uons, which it
is their object to establish. Thus Boehmer, by converling the deacons of old
into presbyters, would prove that our modern spiritual tea.chers bear no resem-
blance whatever to the presbyters of the priniitive church. Bilson, a defender
of epi-copacy, found himself opposed by what St. Paul says in 1 Tim. v. 17.;
and from which passage it has been usual to infer that it did not belong to all
the presbyters of the primitive church to teach, but that some were appointed
to see to its well ordering and government ; and in conformity to this, wc seo
the presbyterians, as they were called, in addition to their teaching presbyters,
appoint others whom they term ruling or governing presbyters. But the epis-
copalians will not admit of any such presbyters as those of the latter kind ; and
therefore, by way of obviating the force of the passage above referred to, Bilson
maintains, though without the least foundation, that by the term presbyters we
ought in this place to understand St, Paul as meaning not only presbyters but
deacons, and that those presbyters amongst the anient Christians who did not
preach, were none other but deacons. With a view to give some degree of
colour and authority to this hasty and ill-founded opinion, he contends [p. 123.J
that the term presbyter was commonly applied of old both to presbyters or
teachers and to deacons. The object of Burnet was to drive the presbyteri ins
from another ground, on which they were wont to atisail epi.'-copacy. The pres-
byterians, it is well known, assert that in the books of the Nev/ Testament men-
tion is made of no more than two classes of the sacred order ; viz. those of
presbyters and deacons ; and hence they maintain, that in the apostolic church
the degree of bishops, according to the modern sense of the term, was altogether
158 Century L— Section 37.
unknown. Burnet, by way of rendering their plan of attack on this ground in-
efioctual, would wilHngly persuade us that by the term presbyters, in the writings
of the New Testament, are meant bishops in the modern sense of the word ;
and that the persons whom we therein find styled deacons, were of the same
degi-ee as those to whom in after-times the title of presbyters was given. From
these examples it is plain that to such an extent may the spirit of party, and a
desire to vindicate a favorite hypothesis prevail, that even the wisest men shall
not be proof against their deception, but become the advocates of opinions
that have no authority or probability whatever to support them. What Bilson
has advanced, I regard as utterly unworthy of any thing like a serious refuta-
tion ; for I will take upon me to affirm that, unless it be by the assistance of
perversion and wrong interpretation, there is not a single passage in the New
Testament to be produced in his favour. Burnet, which is much to be won-
dered at in a man of his penetration and sagacity, did not perceive that the
opinion which he wished to inculcate, with a view to support episcopacy, was
in fact calculated to make directly against it. For let us suppose for a mo-
ment, that in those passages, where the term presbyter occurs, we ought to
understand it in the sense of bishop according to modern acceptation, and that
where deacons are spoken of, we should consider presbyters as meant, and the
conclusion unavoidably must be, that the first churches had each of them seve-
ral such bishops : a conclusion which, if supported by just premises, would of
necessity derogate most materially from the dignity and authority of the epis-
copal character. In Acts, xx. 17. we find St. Paul calling to him the presbyters
or elders of the church of Ephesus. According to bishop Burnet, then, the
church of Ephesus had not merely one, but several bishops. St. James ad-
monishes the sick to call for Ttff frgej,/3uT£gaf TJ1? U»x«(rraf, " the presbyters or
elders of the church." Trusting to the same authority, therefore, we must
conclude that each individual church had a number of bishops belonging to it.
St. Paul directs Titus, whom he had left in Crete, to ordain presbyters or elders
in every city. Tit. i. 5. Conformably then to the exposition of the above
mentioned learned prelate, we must understand this as meaning that a variety
of bishops were to be appointed in every city. But will any bishop, let me
ask, endure to hear of this ? I intentionally pass over some other arguments
which would prove this notion to be altogether groundless, since I should con-
sider it a waste of time to combat, at greater length, a proposition, in which I
cannot perceive even a shadow of probability. If the opinion of Boehmer be
adopted, viz. that the seven men appointed by the church of Jerusalem were
presbyters, it must necessarily be admitted that the presbyters ordained by the
apostles themselves, or by their direction, in the various other churches, were
altogether of a different order from those of Jerusalem : for it is clear beyond
a question, from what is said in St. Paul's epistles concerning presbyters, that
those there spoken of had nothing to do with the relief of the poor, or the
distribution of the alms, but were solely occupied in instructing the brethren
and governing the church. To refer but to one passage out of many, for they
are all in substance the same, consult the picture of a presbyter or bisiiop, as it
is given in 1 Tim. iii, 1. But that the functions of the presbyters of the church
Constitution of the Church. 159
of Jerusalem should have difiorcd in so materi.il a point as this from those of
the presbyters of any other churcli, (the churcli of Epiiesus for example, whoso
presbyters are directed by St, Paul, Acts, xx. 28. to occupy themselves in feed-
ing the church of God, and warding off from it all noxious errors,) is so incre-
dible and contradictory to every kind of probability, that I cannot believe it
postvible for any one possessed of even a common degree of erudition [p. 124.]
to be so far imposed on as to receive it for the fact. Indeed, when I consider
the arguments by which this illustrious jurist has endeavoured to establish his
opinion, I cannot help suspecting that they could never have wrought in a mind
of such intelligence as his, that conviction which he would willingly have had
them produce in the minds of other people. The arguments to which I allude
are two. The first of them is drawn from the silence of St. Luke. This in-
Bpired writer, it is urged, makes no mention whatever of any election of pres-
byters in the church of Jerusalem ; and therefore we must regard these seven
men as having been the presbyters of that church. But surely it cannot ba
possible that any one should be so ignorant as not to know, that there are seve-
ral things of no small moment passed over by St. Luke without the least no.
lice : and with regard to his silence respecting the election of presbyters in tho
ehurch of Jerusalem, I account for it by supposing that their first appointment
was coeval with the establishment of the church itself. And in this place, 1
must beg once more to direct the reader's attention towards those v»o3Tfp5/ or
yiaviTKot, "young men," who carried forth the dead body of Ananias, Acts, vi.
6. 10. and whom I have above shown to have been public ministers of the church.
For unless I am much deceived, the title thus given to them is of itself a proof
that there were others at that time belonging to the church who were termed
trf^to-^ureoGiy « elders ; " and if I am right in this, it is manifested that, besides
the apostles, there were presbyters in the church of Jerusalem some time be-
fore the appointment of the seven men took place. And that such must have
been the fact will appear still more certain, if we consider how utterly incre-
dible it is that a church so vastly numerous as that of Jerusalem was, and divid-
ed as it must have been of necessity into various minor assemblies, to each
of which a separate place of meeting was assigned, could by any means have
dispensed with the want of a set of men of this description. As for those that
are termed " the young men," I have little or no doubt but that they were the
deacons, to whom the care of the poor was committed by the apostles before
the election of the seven men ; other duties, however, being then, in like man-
ner as in after-tirnes, annexed to their office. Let us now examine what force
there may be in the second argument adduced by this eminent civilian, and to
which he attributes a considerable degree of weight. It is clearly manifest,
Bays he, from Acts, xi. 29, 30. that the presbyters or elders of the church of Je-
rusalem had the management of the concerns of the poor ; and therefore these
presbyters could have been none others than those seven men, to whom tho
care of the poor was committed. On this argument he expatiates at great length,
for the purpose principally of showing that, in addition to their other duties, it
also belonged to the presbyters of the church, in the second, third, and fourth
centuries, to take care that the necessities of the poor were relieved. But aa
IGO Century L— Section 37.
no one ever entertained a doubt of this, I shall merely inquire whether what is
said in Acts, xi. 'J9, 30. will justify the inference which this very learned
writer would draw IVoni it. The Chiistians of Antioch, we are there told, being;
given to ur.dcri»tand that many of the brethren belonging to the church of Je-
rusalem were in want, determined to send relief unto tliem by the hands of
Paul and B:irnaba<. These contributions are -stated to have been sent to the
presbyters or elders; and hence this learned author concludes that the pre;?by-
ters were those seven men who had been elected curators or guardians of the
poor. But in this conclusion of his there are confounded together two things
alto fether distinct, viz. the custody or care of the charitable fund in the aggre-
gate, and the daily distribution of what might be necessary fur the relief of the
dilferent individuals in distress. That the seven men were never entrusted with
[p. 125.] the lir.st of thesf^ must be eviJent to any one who will attentively read
the history of their appointment. It was the latter, or the daily distribution of
relief to the necessitous, which was committed to their management. The
Christians of Antioch, therefore, judged rigiitly in sending their contributions,
not to the deacons, but to the presbyters or elders. The only inference, then,
that can properly be drawn from this passage i-, that in consequence of the dis-
turbance which had arisen in the church of Jerusalem, respecling the improper
dis'-iiction that was made in administLMing relief to the poor, the apostles, by
way of preventing, for the future, even a shadow of suspicion from lighting on
themselves, came to the resolution of having nothing more to do wiih the cus-
tody of the poor's fund, but transferred the keeping thereof to the presbyters or
elders. Before these dissensions took place, it was the practice to lay whatever
mifht be designed for the relief of the poor, at the apostles' feet, during one or
other of the solemn assemblies of the brethren. At that time, therefore, the
poor's fund was at the disposal of the apostles ; and certain persons of the He-
brew nation were entrusted by them with the distribution of relief to those who
were in want, according to their necessities. The integrity of these inferior
ministers, however, having been called in question, the apostles recommended
that the foreigners should elect certain curators or guardians for the poor of
their own class ; and declining to have any thing further to do with the pecu-
niarv concerns of the church, directed that the custody of the contributions for
the relief of the necessitous should thenceforward be committed to the pres-
byters.
(6) There can be no doubt but that the apostles might have filled up a
vacancy in their own number, without any reference to the multitude : yet wo
find them convoking the general body of Chrii^tians to take a share in this
matter. When the seven men were to be appointed, the whole affair was, we
see, submitted by the apostles to the judgment of the church at large. When
a question arose at Antioch respecting the authority of the law of Mose&,
(Act>, XV.) the apostles, inasmuch as they were constituted by Christ him-
self expounders of the divine will, might with the greatest reason have
taken the con-nizancc and determination thereof to themselves ; yet we find
them here again convoking and taking counsel with the whole church. I
conceive it to be unnecessary, or otherwise it would be easy to point out
Presbyters. ICl
several passag^es in St. Paul's epistles, which lead to the same inference with
tlie above.
XXXYIII. Presbyters of the primitive church. When a num-
ber of Christians, therefore, were collected together sufficient to
form a church, certain men of gravity and approved faith were
without delay appointed, either by the apostles themselves, or
their companions, with the assent of the multitude, to preside
over it, under the title of presbyters or bishops. By the
former of these titles was implied the prudence of old age, rather
than age itself, in those who bore it ; the latter had an allusion
to the nature of the function wherewith they were charged.(') Of
these presbyters it is a commonly received opinion, (founded on
the words of St. Paul, 1 Tim. v. 17.) that a part only took upon
them to instruct the people, and deliver exhortations to them in
their solemn assemblies, after the manner of the apostles ; and
that such of them as had not either received from nature, or
acquired by means of art, the qualifications requisite for this,
applied themselves to promote the prosperity and general interests
of the church in some other way.(^) But since St. Paul requires in
express terms that a jDresby ter or bishop should possess the faculty
of teaching, it is scarcely possible, or rather impossible, to entertain
a doubt, but that this distinction between teaching and ruling pres-
byters was after a short time laid aside, and none subse- [p. 126.]
quently elected to that office but such as were qualified to admonish
and instruct the brethren. The number of these elders was not the
same in every place, but accommodated to the circumstances and
extent of the church. The endowments which it was requisite
that a presbyter should possess, and the virtues which ought to
adorn his character, are particularly pointed out by St. Paul in
1 Tim. iii. 1. and Tit. i. 5. ; and it cannot be questioned that his
injunctions on this subject were strictly adhered to, in those early
golden days of the church, when every thing belonging to it was
characterized by an ingenuous and beautiful simplicity. It must,
however, I conceive, be so obvious to every one as scarcely to
need pointing out, that in the requisite qualifications thus speci-
fied by the apostle, there are several things which apply exclu-
sively to those times, when Christianity had scarcely established
a footing for itself in the world, and the state of manners was far
different from what it is at the present day.
11
162 Centimj I.— Section 38
(1) That the terms bishops and preshjters are applied promiscuously, as sy-
nonymous in the books of the New Testament, is most clearly manifest from
Acts, XX. 17. 28. Philipp. i. 1. Tit. i. 5. 7. With regard to the term preshytei ,
the reader will find its force and use well illustrated by Camp. Vitringa, in his
work de Synagog. retere, lib. iii. part i. cap. i. p. 609 ; and also by that eminently
learned theologist and ornament of his country, Jo. Bened. Carpzovius, in hia
ExercitaUones in Epist. ad Hebr. ex Philon. p. 499.
(2) Acceding, as I readily do, to the commonly received interpretation of
St. Paul's words, 1 Tim. v. 17. and feeling not at all inclined to controvert the
opinion of those who, chiefly on the strength of this passage, maintain that in
the infancy of Christianity it was not the province of every presbyter to teach ;
I yet must own, that without some further support than what is afforded to it
by these words of the apostle, the distinction between teaching and ruling
presbyters does not appear to me to be in every respect so well established as
to be placed beyond the reach of doubt. In no part whatever, I believe, of the
New Testament, is the verb KOTridao made use of, either absolutely or conjoined
with the words Iv xugrw or h hoyay to express the ordinary labour of teaching
and instructing the people. But I observe that St. Paul, in various places, ap-
plies this verb, and also the noun x-on-ogy sometimes separately, and at other
times connected with certain other words, in an especial sense to that kind of
labour which he and other holy persons encountered in propagating the light
of the gospel, and bringing over the Jews and heathens to a faith in Christ.
In Rom. xvi. 12. (to pass over what is said in verse 6. of one Mary) the
apostle describes Tryphsena and Tryphosa as labouring in the Lord ; and Persis,
another woman, as having laboured much in the Lord, or, which is the same
thing, for the sake of, or in the cause of the Lord. Now what interpretation
can be given to this, unless it be that these women had assiduously employed
themselves in adding to the Lord's flock, and in initiating persons of their own
sex in the principles of Christianity ? The word appears to me to have the
same sense iii 1 Cor. iv. 12. where St. Paul says of himself, **/ jtoT/w^wev,
sg^a(^(j^«vo/ T«ij iVjiVf ;^«gff-}, "and we labour, working with our own hands."
By kibouring, I here understand him to have meant labouring in the Lord, or
for Christ; and the sense of the passage appears to me to be, — " although we
labour for Christ, and devote our life to the spreading the light of his gospel
[p. 127.] amongst mankind, we yet derive therefrom no worldly gain, but
procure whatever may be necessary to our subsistence by the diligence of our
hands." And when in tho same epistle, 1 Cor. xv. 10. he declares himself to
have laboured more abundantly than all the rest of the apostles, 7ngia-<roTigov
duiojf Trdvrav inoTrUa-tt ^ his meaning unquestionably is, that he had made
'more converts to Christianity than they. It would be easy to adduce other
passages, in which by labouring, whether it occur absolutely or in connection
with some explanatory addition, is evidently meant not the ordinary instruction
of the Christians, but the propagating of the gospel amongst those v^'ho were
as yet ignorant of the true religion ; but I conceive that the citations which
I have already made will be deemed suflicient. We see, therefore, that it
might not without some show of reason and authority be contended that by
Election of Presbyters. 163
T^«ir^j/T£g«f KOTTtuvTAs iv xoyu> x.it S'iS'A<rK±\{tty " tlie elders who labour in the
word and doctrine," are to be understood such of the presbyters as were intent
on enlarging the church, and occupied themselves in converting the Jews and
heathens from their errors, and bringing them into the fold of their divine
Master, — and not those whose exertions were limited to the instructing and
admonisliing of the members of the church, when assembled for the purpose
of divine worship. No one can doubt but that amongst the elders to whom
the care of the churches M-as committed, there must have been many whose
holy zeal carried them beyond the limits of that particular assembly over which
they presided, and urged them to use every endeavour for the propagation of
the gospel amongst their benighted neighbours ; and nothing could be more
natural than for such to be pointed out as more especially deserving of an
higher reward, and worthy to be held in greater esteem than the rest. This
interpretation appears to me to receive no inconsiderable confirmation, when I
compare the passage in question with another of a similar nature in St. Paul's
epistle to the Thessalonians : 'EgaTw^sv cTi vfxdi dS'txpu iiS'cva.i tSs KOTnwvrui
iv vfxivy KAt 7r^o'isu.f/.£vys vfxdv iv xygieo, xst) vu^-irSvrsis vfAas, " and we beseech
you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the
1.0 rd, and admonish you." 1 Thess. v. 12. Now nothing, I think, can be more
manifest than that the apostle, in this place, alludes to the maintaininrr and
honouring of the presbyters or elders. I have not the least idea of any one's
denying it. Apparently he distinguishes them into three classes, viz. 1.
xnTTibivTixg, those who laboured ; 2. ^goif^^cvKf, those who ruled or presided *
and, 3. Vti^-iTSvrxcy those who taught or admonished. But it is not so much to
this point that I would wish to direct the reader's attention, as to the circum-
stance that tIv KiTTov, « the labour" of the ministers of the church is here
clearly spoken of by the apostle as a thing distinct from vn^i<rUy « admonition
or exhortation :" from whence it may naturally be inferred that tlie presbyters
who are said by him to labour were different from those who instructed the
members of the church, when assembled, in the nature of their faith and du-
ties, or, in other words, *' admonished them." The verb KOTridm is here put
absolutely ; but there can be no doubt but that we ought to understand the
words iv Koya> kai hS'cKrKAKUj as in 1 Tim. v. 17, or h avgiay as in Rom. xvi.
12. as annexed to it. Indeed, it does not appear to be altogether necessary
that we should call in any further aid than is afforded by the passage itself, for
determining the force of the word in this place : for probably the generality
of people will be disposed to consider the words ev K£/§r» as common to all the
three members of the sentence, and as having, notwithstanding their immediate
connection with Trpoisctfxcwsi a reference likewise to the terms KOTn^vras and
vad-irSvTcts. In my opinion, therefore, the apostle, in the passage before us, is
to be understood as addressing the Thessalonians thus : " I earnestly entreat
you to take care that your presbyters be liberally supplied with every neces-
sary; first of all, those who labour among you with all their might [p. 128.1
to propagate the faith of Christ, and augment his flock ;— and, in the next
place, those who govern the church, and admonish and instruct you by their
voice and example."
164 Century I. — Section 39.
XXXIX. Election of the presbyters, their stipends, &c. That
the presbyters of the primitive church of Jerusalem were elected
bj the suffrages of the people connot, I think, well be doubted
of by any one who shall have duly considered the prudence and
moderation discovered by the apostles, in filling up the vacancy
in their own number, and in appointing curators or guardians
for the poor. This power of appointing their elders, continued
to be exercised by the members of the church at large, as long
as primitive manners were retained entire, and those who ruled
over the churches did not conceive themselves at liberty to intro-
duce any deviation from the apostolic model.(') The form of
proceeding in this matter was unquestionably the same in the
first age as we find it to have been in the second and third cen-
turies. When at any time the state of the church required that
a new presbyter should be appointed, the collective body of elders
recommended to the assembly of the people one or more persons,
(in general selected from amongst the deacons,) as fit to fill that
ofiB.ce. To this recommendation the people were constrained to
pay no further respect than it might appear to them to deserve.f^)
Indeed it is placed beyond a doubt, that the multitude, so far
from always adopting the candidates proposed by the presbyters,
were accustomed not unfrequently to assert the right of judging
wholly for themselves, and to require that this or that particular
person, whom they held in higher esteem than the rest, should be
advanced to the ofl&ce of an elder. When the voice of the multi-
tude, in the election of any one to the sacred ministry, was unani-
mous, it was considered in the light of a divine call. In compli-
ance with the express commands of our Lord himself and his
apostles, these teachers and ministers of the church were, from
the first, maintained and supplied with every necessary by the
people for whose edification they laboured ; 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14.
1 Tim. V. 17. Gal. vi. 6. 1 Thess. v. 12, 13 ; a certain portion
of the voluntary offerings, or oblations as they were termed, being
allotted to their use. It will easily be conceived that whilst the
churches were but small, and composed chiefly of persons of the
lower or middling classes, the provision thus made for the sup-
port of the presbyters and deacons could not be very considerable.
(1) What St. Paul says, Tit. i. 5. of his having left Titus in Crete, for the
purpose of ordaining presbyters in the churches there, militates in no respect
The Prophets. 165
against the above statement. In executing the commission with which he was
entrusted, Titus might, and doubtless did, consult the wishes of the people,
and not appoint any to the office of presbyter but such as he found were
approved of by them.
(2) It is plain from hence, that what we term the right of presentation, (ex-
cept in as far as it is at present compulsory,) has nothing in it repugnant to
the practice of the church in the earliest times. Our Saviour's [p. 129.]
apostles, we see, exercised a right of this kind, when it became necessary to
fill up the vacancy in their own number, occasioned by the fall of Judas ; and
in after-ages, until the right of patronage, as it is called, found its w\ay into the
church, a similar right of presentation was uniformly recognized as belonging
to the bishops and collective bodies of presbyters. Nor will any one, it is
presumed, take exception to this, who shall reflect that, the generality of the
individuals constituting the church of Christ are of necessity incapable of esti-
mating the extent of a man's endowments, or of judging how far one may excel
another in the qualifications requisite for teaching, and are apt rather to follow
the bent of their own wayward humours and prejudices than to listen to the
voice of reason and prudence ; and how expedient and requisite, therefore, it is,
that when a bishop or presbyter is about to be elected, certain persons of dis-
cretion and experience should be commissioned to point out to the multitude one
or more fit objects for their choice. I pass over the extreme difficulty which is
for the most part experienced, even in small assemblies, in conducting an election
with any degree of harmony or order, where there are a number of rival candi-
dates for a vacant place, unless there be some one appointed to ofiieiate as su-
perintendent or moderator. For the multitude, if left entirely to itself on such
an occasion, is sure to have its proceedings distracted by a conflict of discordant
interests and opinions. It must be observed, however, that prior to the age of
Constantino the Great, notwithstanding this right of presentation, the most
perfect freedom of choice still resided with the people ; the multitude being at
liberty to reject the persons thus recommended to them, without assigning any
reason for their so doing, and either to fix on others for themselves, or else
demand that fresh candidates should be proposed to them by the bishop or
presbyters. In this respect the right of presentation, as it is now exercised,
differs very materially from that which was recognised in the primitive church.
XL. The prophets. By far the greater part of those who em-
braced the Christian religion in this its infancy being of mean
extraction, and wholly illiterate, it con Id not otherwise happen
but that a great scarcity should be experienced in the cliurchcs of
persons possessing the qualifications requisite for initiating the
ignorant, and communicating instruction to them with a due
degree of readiness and skill. It pleased God, therefore, to raise
up in every direction certain individuals, and by irradiating
their minds with a more than ordinary measure of his holy Spirit,
166 Century I. — Section 40.
to render them fit instruments for making known liis words to
the people, and imparting instructions to them, in their public
assemblies, on matters relating to religion. These are they who,
in the writings of the New Testament, are styled prophets.(')
Whoever professed himself to be under the influence of a divine
inspiration, and claimed attention as an extraordinary interpreter
of the will of God, had permission granted him to speak in public:
for, without hearing him, it was impossible for any one to say
whether his pretensions to inspiration were or were not well
founded. When once he had spoken, however, all uncertainty
with regard to his commission was at an end; for there were in
the churches persons instructed of God, who could discern by
infallible signs between a true prophet and one who falsely pre-
tended to that character. The apostles also had left on record
certain marks, by which one specially commisioned from above
might clearly be distinguished from an impostor. 1 Cor. xii.
[p. 130.] 2, 3. xiv. 29. 1 John, iv. t. This order of prophets
ceased in the church, when the reasons which gave birth to it no
longer existed. • For when the affairs of the church took a pros-
perous turn, and regular schools or seminaries were instituted, in
which those who were designed for the sacred ministry received
an education suitable to the office, it consequently became un-
necessary that God should any longer continue to instruct the
people by the mouths of these extraordinary ministers or
prophets. (')
(1) It appears to me that the function of these prophets, as they are styled,
is too much narrowed by those who would have us believe that they were
merely interpreters of the sacred writings, and more especially of the pro-
phecies delivered under the old covenant. It was a common thing I grant,
for these prophets to adduce proofs of the truth and divine original of the
Christian religion from the inspired writers of the Old Testament. I am
ready also to grant that not unfrequently particular passages in the Old Tes-
tament, the genuine sense of w^hich had either escaped the Jewish doctors, or
been obscured by them, were, through the sagacity of these prophets, illus-
trated and placed in a proper point of view. But notwithstanding this, I am
persuaded that whoever shall with calmness and deliberation examine and
compare with each other the different passages in the New Testament, in
which mention is made of these prophets, cannot fail to perceive that they
did not confine themselves merely to the interpretation of the Scriptures.
On this subject I have already given my sentiments to the public at some
length, in a particular tract de ilUs, qui Prophetcc vocantur in novo Fcsdere, which
The Prophets. 167
is to be found in the second volume of my Dissertaliones ad Historiam Ec-
clesiastic, pertinenies. We have no positive testimony that there were projiiets
in all the early churches ; but it appears extremely probable that such was
the case, since St. Paul, in enumerating the ministers of tlie church appointed
by God himself, assigns the second place to the prophets. 1 Cor. xii. 28.
Ephes.iv. 11.
(2) There can be no doubt but that, from almost the very first rise of
Christianity, it was the practice for certain of the youth, in whom sucIj a
strength of genius and capacity manifested itself as to afford a hope of their
becoming profitable servants in the cause of religion, to be set apart for the
sacred ministry, and for the presbyters and bishops to supply them with the
requisite preparatory instruction, and form them by their precepts and advice
for that solemn office. On this subject St. Paul, in the latter of his epistles
to Timothy, ii. 2. expresses himself in the following terms: kaI 5 mmrcti vct^'
t/nS S'ta TTiXXwv ^stpT^pav, TcturoL 'oraLpd^'y TrUoli dvd-^wTo/j, ci'Ti'vej Ikavoi ctovtai kai
trepys J'lS-d^ctfy "and the things that thou hast heard of me among many wit-
nesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach
others also." The apostle here, we see, directs Timothy, in the first place to
select from amongst the members of the church a certain number of men, who
might appear to him to possess the talents requisite for conveying instruction
to others, and who were persons of- tried and approved faith. For it will not
admit of a doubt that by the ^ndi avd-puToty "faithful men," here alluded to,
we ought to understand not merely believers, or those holding the faith, but
persons of approved and established faith, to whom things of the highest
moment might be entrusted without danger or apprehension. Secondly, to
the persons thus selected he was to communicate and expound that discipline,
in which he himself had been instructed by St. Paul before many witnesses.
Now it is evident that St. Paul could not by this mean that they were to be
taught the mere elements or rudiments of the Christian religion; for with
these every one professing Christianity was of course brought acquainted ;
and doubtless, therefore, those whom the apostle in this place directs Timothy
to instruct, must have known and been thoroughly versed in them [p. 131.]
long before. The discipline, then, which Timothy had received from St. Paul,
and which he was thus to become the instrument of communicating to others,
was without question that more full and perfect knowledge of divine truth as
revealed in the gospel of Christ, which it was fitting that every one who was
advanced to the office of a master or teacher amongst the brethren should
possess, together with a due degree of instruction as to the most skilful and
ready method of imparting to the multitude a proper rule of faith, and correct
principles of moral action. But what is this, I would ask, but to direct
Timothy to institute a school or seminary for the education of future pres-
byters and teachers for the church, and to cause a certain number of persons
of talents and virtue to be trained up therein, under a course of discipline
similar to that which he himself had received at the hands of St. Paul ? It
may moreover, be inferred from these words, that the apostle had personally
discharged the same office which he thus imposes on Timothy, and applied
168 Century I.— Section 41.
himself to the properly educating of future teachers and ministers for the
church : for it appears by tliein that he had not been the tutor of Timothy
only, but that his instructions to this his favorite disciple had been imparted
J'la TTcwwv fxi-pTupaiv, "before many witnesses;" (T/u having, in this place, un-
questionably the force of the preposition tvciinov. To determine, indeed, whom
we ought to undi'rstand by the persons thus termed " witnesses," has occasioned
no little stir amongst the commentators. According to some we should con-
nect tiiem with the following word 7rA|>a^■v, and consider St. Paul as saying,
J'la iroWuJv ^dLfTxjfm vupad-ifi " transmit by many witucsscs." Others would have
us understand by these witnesses, the presbyters who ordained Timothy to
the sacred ministry by the laying on of hands, 1 Tim. iv. 14.; and conceive
that, immediately previous to such ordination, St. Paul had, in the presence
and hearing of these presbyters, recapitulated and again inculcated on the
mind of his adopted son in the faith the chief or leading articles of the Chris-
tian religion : whilst others, again, imagine that the persons here alluded to,
were witnesses of the life, actions, and miracles of our Lord. But of these
and some other conjectures on the subject, which it is needless to enumerate,
there is not one but what is encumbered with considerable difficulties. A
much more natural way of resolving the point, as it appears to me, is by sup-
posing that St. Paul had under him, in a sort of seminary or school which he
had instituted for the purpose of properly educating presbyters and teachers,
several other disciples and pupils besides Timothy; and that the witnesses
here spoken of, before whom Timothy had been instructed, were his fellow-
students, persons destined like him for the ministry, and partakers together
with him of the benefits that were to be derived from the apostle's tuition. It
is highly credible, I may say indeed it is more than credible, that not St. Paul
alone, but also all the other apostles of our Lord applied themselves to the
properly instructing of certain select persons, so as to render them fit to be
entrusted with the care and government of the churches; and, consequently,
that the first Christian teachers were brought up and formed in schools or
seminaries immediately under their eye. Besides other references which
might be given, it appears from Irenaeus adiers. Hccreses^ lib. ii. cap. xxii. p.
148. ed. Massuet. that St. John employed himself at Ephesus, where he spent
the latter part of his life, in qualifying youth for the sacred ministry. And
the same author, as quoted by Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xx. p, 188.
represents Polycarp, the celebrated bishop of Smyrna, as having laboured in
[y. 132.] the same way. That the example of these illustrious characters was
in this respect followed by the bishops in general, will scarcely admit of a
doubt. To tills origin, in my opinion, are to be referred those seminaries
termed " episcopal schools," which we find attached to the principal churches,
and in which youth designed for the ministry went through a proper course
of preparatory instruction and discipline under the bishop himself, or some
presbyter of his appointment.
XLI. The origin of bishops. Whilst the Christian assemblies or
churches were but small, two, three, or four presbyters were
Origin of Bishops. 169
found amply sufficient to labour for the welfire, and regulate tlie
concerns of each : and over a few men like these, inflamed as they
were with the sincerest piety towards God, and receiving but
very moderate stipends, it was not required that any one should
be appointed to preside in the capacity of a ruler or superin-
tendant. But as the congregations of Christians became every
day larger and larger, a proportionate gradual increase in the
number of the presbyters and ministers of necessity took place ;
and as the rights and power of all were the same, it was soon
found impossible, under the circumstances of that age, when
every church was left to the care of itself, for any thing like a
general harmony to be maintained amongst them, or for tho
various necessities of the multitude to be regularly and satisfac-
torily provided for, without some one to preside and exert a con-
trouling influence. Such being the case, the churches adopted
the practice of selecting, and placing at the head of the council of
presbyters, some one man of eminent wisdom and prudence, whose
peculiar duty it should be to allot to his colleagues their several
tasks, and by his advice, and every other mode of assistance, to
prevent as far as in him lay the interests of the assembly, over
which he was thus appointed to preside, from experiencing any
kind of detriment or injury. Q The person thus advanced to the
presidency, was at first distinguished by the title of " the angel"
of his church ; but in after- times it became customary to style him,
in allusion to those duties which constituted the chief branch of
his function, "the bishop.^'C^) In what particular church, or at
what precise period, this arrangement was first introduced, remains
nowhere on record. It appears to me, however that there are
the strongest reasons for believing that the church of Jerusalem,
which in point of numbers exceeded every other, took the lead in
this respect ; and that her example was gradually copied after by
the rest in succession, according as their increase in size, or
their situation in other respects, might suggest the propriety of
their doing so.Q
(1) This statement respecfing the orig-in of the order of bishops must, I
am persuaded, obtain the assent of every one who knows what human nature
is, and shall reflect on the situation of thin(,rs in that early age, and also on
the jealousies, dissensions, and various other embarrassing evils, that are inci-
dent to collective bodies of individuals who are all on a footing of equality.
That the first churches had no bishops, may, I think, very clearly be proved
170 Century I. — Section 41.
from the writings of the New Testament. — I do not mean from the circum-
stance to which so much weight is by many attributed, viz. that it is not un-
usual to find therein the term bishop applied to presbyters in general: for
those who take the opposite side of the question will say in reply, that persons
im csted with the prelacy were at first distinguished by another name ; but
that, after some time, the term bishop ceased to be applied to presbyters of
the common order, and was appropriated exclusively to the chief or presiding
presbyters. But the evidence which, as I have stated above, I deem conclusive
[p. 133,] as to this point is this, — that neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor
in St. Paul's epistles, although in both express mention is frequently made of
presbyters and deacons, do we find the least notice taken of any church having
been subject to the authority or rule of a single man. It appears to me, how-
ever, equally certain that the churches did not long continue under the care
and management of councils of presbyters, amongst whom there was no dis-
tinction of rank ; but that in tlie more considerable ones at least, if not in the
others, it came, even during the life-time of the apostles, and with their appro-
bation, to be the practice for some one man more eminent than the rest, to be
invested with the presidency or chief direction. And in support of this opinion
we are supplied with an argument of such strength in those " angels," to whom
St. John addressed the epistles, which, by the command of our Saviour him-
self, he sent to the seven churches of Asia, Rev. ii, iii. as the presbyterians, as
they are termed, let them labour and strive what they may' will never be able
to overcome. It must be evident to every one, even on a cursory perusal of
the- epistles to which we refer, that those who are therein termed " angels "
were persons possessing such a degree of authority in their respective
churches, as enabled them to mark with merited disgrace whatever might
appear to be deserving of reprehension, and also to give due countenance and
encouragement to every thing that was virtuous and commendable. But even
supposing that we were to wave the advantage that is to be derived from this
argument in establishing the antiquity of the episcopal character, it appears
to me that the bare consideration alone of the state of the church in its
infancy, must be sufficient to convince any rational unprejudiced person, that
the order of bishops could not have originated at a period considerably more
recent than that which gave birth to Christianity itself For it is impossible
for any one who is acquainted with what human nature is, and knows how
things were circumstanced in the first ages, to believe that a proper harmony
could be maintained amongst the presbyters, or that the assemblies of the
church could be convened and regulated, or any factions or disturbances that
might arise amongst the people be repressed and composed, or that many
other things which might be enumerated could be accomplished with any
degree of promptitude, regularity, and ease, Avithout some one being appointed
to act in the capacity of moderator or president. If I figure to myself an
assembly composed of merely a moderate number of people, — say, for in-
stance, a hundred, — and suppose such assembly to be placed under the care
of one or two excellent persons, possessing hearts filled with love towards
God and man, and entirely devoid of ambition and cupidity of wealth, I can
Origin of Bishops, 171
very well conceive that, owing to the paucity and sincere piety of the assembly
itself, as well as of those entrusted with the care and management of its
concerns, it might be possible for its affairs to bo conducted with the greatest
reguhirity, and for its procedings not to be disgraced by any thing like con-
fusion or party spirit. But when I enlarge upon this idea, and present to
my mind's eye a multitude consisting of perhaps four or five hundred persons,
(a multitude, too, not receiving laws from a superior, but legislating entirely
for itself, and classed or distributed under perhaps ten different presbyters or
teachers all on a footing of the most perfect equality,) the case becomes en-
tirely altered, and I should deem it no less essential for such a multitude to
have some individual leader or guide assigned to it, than for a legion of sol-
diers to have its proper commander or tribune.
(2) The title of " angel" is applied by our Lord himself to the presidents
of the seven churches of Asia, Rev. ii. iii. ; and hence it may fairly be inferred
that persons of that description were usually styled so in the first century :
for it is not to be imagined that our Saviour addressed those chiefs of their
churches by a new and unaccustomed title. As to what has been urged by
several learned persons, respecting the peculiar significance and force of this
appellation, it appears to me for the most part as rather speculative and curious
than well founded and important. For since the term ayytKos signifies in gene-
ral a legate, or person accredited either of God or man, and those presidents of
the churches werfe regarded as being, in an especial degree commissioned of
God, it, in my opinion, requires no very great depth of research to account for
tlieir being styled angels, at a time when, in conformity to the practice of the
apostles themselves, it was customary for the title of bishop to be applied to
presbyters in general, and consequently some other appellation was [p. 134.]
found necessary, in order to distinguish the chief presbyters from those of the
ordinary rank. A more just or appropriate title than this could scarcely have
been fixed on. As the term, however, could not be deemed altogether free
from ambiguity, and might perhaps be found to give occasion for some aspiring
individuals to over-rate their own consequence, and fancy themselves nearly on
a level with those who are in the strict sense of the word styled angels, (for
even the merest trifles are sufficient to supply men with arguments for vanity
and pride,) it was probably thought better to exchange this title for one more
definitive and humble, and to substitute for it that very one which had pre-
viously been common to the presbyters at large ; so that these presidents might
thereby be constantly reminded that they were merely placed at the head of a
family of brethren, and that their function differed not in its nature from that
wherewith all the elders were at the first invested. It appears to me, there-
fore, that in the appellation ayyixo; tm? (Kx-XHcrias, the word ^-ty is to be supplied ;
and that the title ought to be understood as running thus, 'Ayytxti t« d-«« TJ15
'Exjtx«<rtaf, i. e. a person especially commissioned of God, or one who occupies
the station of a divine legate in the church.
(3) As the early churches are well known to have taken all their institutions
and regulations from the model exhibited to them by the church of Jerusalem,
it appears to me that scarcely a doubt can be entertained of their having been
172 Century I. — Section 41.
also indebted to this last-mentioned venerable assembly for the example of ap-
pointing- some one man to preside over the presbyters and general interests of
each individual church, and that the first instance of any one's being invested
with the episcopal office occured in that city. This much at least is certain*
that no church whatever can be proved to have had a bishop prior to that of
Jerusalem ; and that none of the ancient accounts and notices of bishops,
which are to be met with in Eusebius and other authors, do ascend so high as
those of Jerusalem. All ancient authorities, from the second century down-
wards, concur in representing James the Younger, the brother of our Lord after
the flesh, as the first bishop of the church of Jerusalem, having been so created
by the apostles themselves. Vid. Acta sanctor. Mens. 3Iaii, tom. i. p. 23. Tille-
mont, Memoires pour servir a PHistoire de V EgUse^ tom. i. p. 1008, et seq. Now
if this were as truly as it is uniformly reported, it would at once determine the
point which we have under consideration, since it must close the door against
all doubt as to the quarter in which episcopacy originated. But I rather sus-
pect that these ancient writers might incautiously be led to form their judg-
ment of the state of things in the first century from the maxims and practice of
their own times, and finding that, after the departure of the other apostles on
their respective missions, the chief regulation and superintendence of the church
at Jerusalem rested with James, they without further reason concluded that he
must have been appointed the bishop of that church. It appears indeed, from
the writings of the New Testament, that, after the departure of the other apos-
tles on their travels, the chief authority in the church of Jerusalem was pos-
sessed by James. For St. Paul, when he came to that city for the last time,
immediately repaired to this apostle ; and James appears to have thereupon
convened an assembly of the presbyters at his house, where Paul laid before
them an account of the extent and success of his labors in the cause of his di-
vine Master. Acts, xxi. 19, 20. No one reading this can, I should think, en-
tertain a doubt of James's having been, at that time, invested with the chief
superintendence and government of the church of Jerusalem ; and that not
only the assemblies of the presbyters, but also those general ones of the whole
church, in which, as is clear from verse 22, was lodged the supreme power as
to all matters of a sacred nature, were convened by his appointment. But it
is to be observed that this authority was no more than must have devolved on
James of course, in his apostolic character, in consequence of all the other
[p. 135.] apostles having quitted Jerusalem ; and that therefore this testimony
of St. Luke is by no means to be considered as conclusive evidence of his hav-
ing been appointed to the office of bishop. Were we to admit of such kind
of reasoning as this, — the government of the church of Jerusalem was vested
in James, therefore he was its bishop, — I do not see on what grounds we could
refuse our assent, should it be asserted that all the twelve apostles were bishops
of that church, for it was at one time equally under their government. But not
to enlarge unnecessarily. — The function of an apostle differed widely from that
of a bishop ; and I therefore do not think that James, who was an apostle, was
ever appointed to or discharged the episcopal office at Jerusalem. The govern-
ment of the church in that city, it rather appears to me, was placed in the hands
Origin of Bishops. 173
of its presbyters, but so as that nothing of moment could be done without the
advice and authority of James ; the same sort of respectful deference being
paid to his will as had formerly been manifested for that of the apostles at
large. But although we deem those ancient writers to have committed an er-
ror, in pronouncing James to have been the first bishop of Jerusalem, it may
without much difficulty be demonstrated that the church of that city had a
bishop sooner than any of the rest, and consequently that the episcopal dignity
must have taken its rise there. The church of Jerusalem, at the time of that
city's being taken and finally laid waste by the emperor Hadrian, towards Ihc
middle of the second century, (about the year of our Lord 137 or 138,) had had
fourteen bishops, without our reckoning James as one of them. A list of their
names is given us by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. v. p. 117.) who derived
his information in this respect, not from any vague report or tradition, but from
certain ancient written documents which had come under his own immediate
inspection : «| i-yy^dpav. At that period, according to the same historian, the
church of Rome had had no more than seven bishops, and that of Alexandria
only five. He likewise represents (Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xx. p. 141.) the
church of Antioch as having, even so late as in the reign of the emperor Mar-
cus Antoninus, been under the government of merely its sixth bishop. The
number, then, of bishops who had filled the see of Jerusalem having, in the time
of Hadrian, reached to more than double that of the prelates of any other of
the more considerable churches, it appears to me that we are amply justified in
concluding that the church of that city placed itself under a bishop long before
either of the rest, and that the other churches were successively induced to
follow her example. Eusebius indeed says, that he had not been able to as-
certain exactly how many years each of these bishops had held the see ; but
that, according to common report, they all presided but for a short time. Bui
this in no respect militates against the above conclusion. If we assign, as su-
rely we may at the least, to each of these bishops three years, we shall find it
give us somewhat above forty years as the term of their government altogether.
Should we, however, be of opinion that the church of Jerusalem (which, from
its amplitude, and the great number of its presbyters must have felt in a very
eminent and pressing degree the necessity of having a chief ruler or president)
was, as is most probable, induced, immediately on the martyrdom of James the
Just, to place itself under the superintendence and care of a bishop, we may, in
such case, allow a much longer period to the government of the fourteen pre-
lates mentioned by Eusebius : for it has been resolved by the learned, appa-
rently on very sufficient grounds, that James was put to death in the year of
our Lord 62, which was more than seventy years prior to the final overthrow
of Jerusalem by Hadrian. But in whatever way our calculations as [p. 136.]
to this point may be made, it will be equally placed beyond dispute that the
church of Jerusalem had over it a bishop long enough before the close of the
first century after Christ ; and this being established, it will scarcely, I had al-
most said it cannot, be denied that the episcopal dignity must have originated
in and passed to the other churches from that of Jerusalem.
174 Century T.—Section 42.
XLII. Rij?hts , iSrc. of the first bishops. That these bishops •were,
on tlieir creation, invested with certain peculiar rights, and a
degree of power Avhich placed them much above the presbyters,
will not be disputed by any unprejudiced or impartial person : but
we are not possessed of sufficient information on the subject, to
enable us to state with exact precision the extent to which those
rights and that power reached during the first century. It is cer-
tain, however, that it would be forming a very erroneous judg-
ment, were we to estimate the power, the revenue, the privileges,
and rights of the first bishops, from the rank, affluence, and
authority attached to the episcopal character in the present day.
A primitive bishop was, as it should seem, none other than the
chief or principal minister of an individual church, which, at the
period of which we are speaking, was seldom so numerous but
that it could be assembled tinder one roof. He taught the people,
administered what are termed the sacraments, and supplied the
ailing and the indigent with comfort and relief With regard to
the performance of such duties as it was impossible for him to
fulfil or attend to in person, he availed himself of the assistance
of the presbyters. Associating, likewise, these joresbyters with
him in council, he inquired into and determined any disputes or
differences that might subsist amongst the members of his flock,
and also looked round and consulted with them as to any measures
which the welfare and prosperity of the church apjDeared to re-
quire. Whatever arrangements might be deemed eligible, were
proposed by him to the people for their adoption, in a general
assembly. In fine, a primitive bishop could neither determine
nor enact anything of himself, but was bound to conform to and
carry into effect whatever might be resolved on by the joresby ters
and the people.(') Tlie episcopal dignity would not be much
coveted, I rather think, on such terms, by many of those, who,
under the present state of things, interest themselves very warmly
on behalf of bishops and their authority. Of the emoluments
attached to this office, which, it may be observed, was one of no
small labour and peril, I deem it unnecessary for me to say ally-
thing : for that they must have been extremely small, cannot but
be obvious to every one who shall coHjSider that no church had,
in those days, any other revenue than what arose from the volun-
tary offerings, or oblations as they were termed, of the people,
Rural Bishops. 175
bj far tlie greater part of whom were persons of very moderate
or slender means ; and that out of these offerings, in addition to
the bishop, provision was to be made for the presbyters, the
deacons, and the indigent brethren.
(1) All that we have thus stated is clearly to be proved from documents
of the first ages. Of this the reader may satisfy himself, by consulting, amongst
other works, Bingham's Origines Ecclesiasticcc, and Beveridge's Codex Cano
num priiiiilivcc Ecclesi<c. i
XLIII. Rural bishops and dioceses. It was not long, [p. 187.]
however, before circumstances became so changed, as to produce
a considerable extension and enlargement of the limits, within,
which the episcopal government and authority had been at first
confined. For the bishops who presided in the cities, were ac-
customed to send out into the neighbouring towns and country ad-
jacent certain of their presbyters, for the purpose of making con-
verts, and establishing churches therein ; and it being of course
deemed but fair and proper that the rural or village congregations,
which were drawn together in this way, should continue undgr
the guardianship and authority of the prelate by whose counsel
and exertion they had been first brought to a knowledge of
Christ and his word, the episcopal sees gradually expanded into
ecclesiastical provinces of varied extent, some greater, some less,
to which the Greeks in after times gave the denomination oif
dioceses. Those to whom the instruction and management of
these surrounding country churches were committed by the
diocesan were termed chorepiscopi, i. e. t^? ^a^x^ UiTx-oTrct^
" rural bishops." Persons of this description are doubtless to be
considered as having held a middle rank between the bishops
and the presbyters : for to place them on a level with the former
is impossible, since thay were subject to the diocesan; but at the
same time, it is manifest that they were superior in rank to pres-
byters, inasmuch as they were not accustomed to look up to the
bishop for orders or direction, but were invested with constant
authority to teach, and in other respects to exercise the episcopal
functions,(^)
(1) The reader will find this subject very copiously treated of in the fol-
lowing (amongst other) works : Morin. de sacris Eccles. Ordinationihm, part i,
exerc. iv. p. 10, et seq. ; Blondell. de Episcoph et Fresbyleris, ^ iii, p. 93. 120, et
176 Century I. — Section 44.
seq ; Bevereg. in Pandect. Canonum ad Canon, xiii. Concilii An^yrani, torn. ii.
p. 176; Zieglcr. de Episcopis, lib. i. cap. xiii. p. 105, et seq, ; Pet. de Marea de
Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. ii. cap. xiii. part xiv. p. 159, et seq. ;
Boeiimcr. Adnotat. ad ilium, p. 62, 63 ; Thomassin. Disciplina Eccles. vet. et mv.
part i. lib. ii. cap. i. p. 215 : the learned authors of which are divided in opinion
as to whether the " chorepiscopi" belonged to the episcopal order, or to that
of presbyters. But it appears to me, that whoever shall attentively consider
what has been handed down to us respecting these "rural bishops," must
readily perceive that they cannot with propriety be ranked under either of
those orders. In fact, I conceive that the question would never have been
agitated amongst men of erudition, had it not been for a preconceived notion,
too hastily taken up by them, that all the ministers of the primitive church
were to be classed under one or other of the three orders of bishops, presby-
ters, or deacons.
XLIY. Deacons and deaconesses. In addition to these its go-
vernors and teachers, the church had ever belonging to it, even
from its very first rise, a class of ministers, composed of persons of
[p. 138.] either sex, and who were termed deacons and deaconesses.
Their office was to distribute the alms to the necessitous ; to carry
the orders or messages of the elders, wherever necessary ; and to
perform various other duties, some of which related merely to
the solemn assemblies that were held at stated intervals, whilst
others were of a general nature. That the greatest caution and
prudence were, in the first ages, deemed proper to be observed in
the choice of these ministers, appears plainly from St. Paul's di-
rections on the subject. 1 Tim. iii. 8. et. seq. From what is
afterwards said by the apostle, at verse 13. of the same chapter,
learned men have been led to conclude, and apparently with
much reason, that those who had given unequivocal proof of their
faith and probity in the capacity of deacons, were, after a while,
elected into the order of presbyters. The deaconesses were widows
of irreproachable character and mature age. In the oriental
countries, where, as is well known, men are not permitted to have
access to the women, the assistance of females like these must
have been found of essential importance : for, through their
ministry, the principles of the Christian religion could be diffused
amongst the softer sex, and various things be accomplished in
relation to the Christian sisterhood, which, in a region teeming
with suspicion and jealousy, could in no wise have been consigned
to or undertaken by "men.C)
Deacons and Deaconesses. 177
(1) The origin of the order of deacons is, in my opinion, unquestionably
to be referred back to the primitive church of Jerusalem ; but the reader will
have perceived, from what I have above remarked on the subject, that I do not
agree with the majority of writers in considering it as having taken its rise in
the appointment of the seven Greeks spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles *
For that there must have been ministers who discharged the functions of dea-
cons in the assembly of the Christians of that city, prior to such appointment,
will not with me admit of a doubt : since, not again to bring forward other
reasons, it is evident that the business of the church could by no means have
been properly conducted, without the assistance of persons acting in that ca-
pacity. The more attention, likewise, that I bestow on those " young men,"
who appear to have been in waiting on the apostles, and committed the bodies
of Ananias and his ^^ife to the earth, the more am I convinced that they were
in ftict none other than deacons. The seven men subsequently appointed I
conceive to have been public ministers, differing in no respect from those
whom, for the sake of distinction, we will term original deacons, except only
that their sphere of duty was limited to that part of the cluirch which was
composed of foreigners. Now if this opinion be correct, as it really appears
to me to be, there is at once an end of the notion entertained by some, that the
deacons of after-ages differed from those of the primitive times ; for that it
was the office of the original or primitive ones to take care of the poor, but that
those of after-times had duties of a very different nature assigned to them by
the bishops. To me it seems clear that no such alteration took place in the
functions of the deacons, but that, from the first, it was their duty to render
themselves serviceable in all things which might be required of them by the
situation and cucumstances of the church at that time. Whether or not there
were any such characters as those of deaconesses known in the church of Je-
rusalem, is what I have not the means of ascertaining with any degree of cer-
tainty. I think, however, it may very well admit of a conjecture, that those
widows who were neglected by the Hebrew deacons, (Acts, vi. 1.) might be
women acting in the capacity of deaconesses amongst the Greeks. That the
handmaids of the churches were in that age termed " widows," in an absolute
sense, is manifest beyond a doubt, and may in particular be proved from tlie
words of St. Paul himself, 1 Tim. v. 9, 10. As far as my penetration is able
to reach, I can perceive nothing that can be considered as at all op'posing itself
to this conjecture; but, on the contrary, several things present them- [p. 139.]
selves to notice tending rather to support it. Of the arguments which may be
adduced in its favour, I think it is not one of trifling force that the Hebrews,
against whom the complaint is made, are not accused of having neglected any
of the foreign poor besides the widows. Most assuredly the Greek Jews who
dwelt at Jerusalem must have had other persons amongst them who required
relief as well as their widovv^s ! Then how came it to pass that their widows
alone should have had cause given them by the Hebrew deacons to murmur
and complain of neglect? Now if by the term widows we here understand
* Vid. supr. sec. xxxvii. note [5] p. 152.
12
178 Century L — Section 44.
deaconnesses, it will be possible to assign no very unsatisfactory reason for
this. The number of the Greek converts was undoubtedly not so great as that
of the Hebrew ones: the duties, therefore, which the "widows" of those
Greeks or foreigners liad to discharge must have been executed with less labour
and inconvenience than fell to the lot of the indigenous matrons, in the per-
formance of their functions. Perceiving, then, that the trouble encountered by
the foreign class of widows was disproportionate to that which necessarily at-
tached itself to the services of the others, and being also perhaps somewhat
influenced by a partiality towards those of their own nation, the Hebrew mi-
nisters, who were entrusted with the distribution of the alms, might probably
conceive that there could be no impropriety in their granting relief on a more
liberal scale to the widows of the indigenous Jews than to those of the foreign
class. But leaving it to others to determine on the validity of this conjecture,
I pass on to the notice of a few things which have suggested themselves to
me, on a reconsideration of the history of the controversy above alluded to
between the Jews and the Greeks, as given us by St. Luke. In the openmg
of his narrative, the sacred historian tells us that " there had arisen a jnurmur-
ing of the Grecians against the Hebrews." Being particularly studious of
brevity, however, he omits adding some things which yet are necessary to be
understood by his readers, in order to their forming a proper judgment of the
affair. In the first place, then, although no such thing is expressed, yet it is
evident from the context that we must consider the Greeks as having come to
the apostles, and complained to them of the ill conduct of the Hebrews. It
could not, however, surely have been against all the Christian converts of the
Hebrew race, at that time dwelling in Jerusalem, that complaint was then pre-
ferred. For no one that is in his senses can believe that the whole body of
Hebrews should have deliberately concurred in a wish to wrong the widows
of the foreigners, or have agreed together that less relief should be afforded to
them than to the others. The complaint there can be no doubt related merely
to those indigenous Jews, to whom the relief aBd" care of the poor had been
committed by the apostles. We must also conclude that the Greeks, who
were the bearers of this accusation, preferred at the same time, on behalf of
their church, a request that the apostles would take upon themselves the future
distribution of the alms, and the administration of whatever else might relate
to the poor. . For unless we conceive this to have been the case, it is impos-
sible to account for the speech which is stated to have been made by the apos-
tles to the multitude when assembled. Had no such direct application been
made to them to take upon themselves the ofUce, what room could there have
been for their so formally declining it ? Taking it, however, for the fact, that
such request was made, as we are certainly well warranted in doing by the
words of the apostles themselves, what follows will be found to correspond in
a very striking degree with every thing precedent, and the whole affair is at
once rendered clear and intelligible. The address delivered by the apostles, on
this occasion, to the general assembly of the church, w^e may suppose to have
ran somewhat in this way : — " Brethren, we are given to understand by the
Greeks, that their widows have not experienced, in point of charitable assistance
Tlie People. 179
that degree of justice which they had a right to expect at the hands of the mi-
nisters of the chiircli ; and they have, in consequence thereof, expressed a wish
that we ourselves would undertake to see that things of this kind should be
properly managed for the future. To tliis, however, we cannot by any means
consent : for were we to comply with the request thus made to us, and take
upon ourselves the business of administering relief to the poor, we should in-
evitably be obliged to neglect the most important part of our function, which
consists in unfolding the truths of divine revelation, and extending the bounds
of the Christian community, or at least should not be able to devote [p. 140.]
ourselves to it with that degree of attention and assiduity which the will of God
requires. The remedy, therefore, which we will, with your consent, apply to
the evil complained of, shall be this. — Choose ye from amongst yourselves
seven men, on whose faith and integrity ye can rely, to superintend this busi-
ness, and recommend them to us. From those whom ye may thus point out,
as persons worthy to be entrusted with the guardianship and care of the poor,
you will not find us in any wise disposed to withhold our confidence." For
further information with regard to the deacons and deaconesses of the primitive
church, the reader is referred to what has been written by Caspar Ziegler on
the subject ; as also to Basnage's Annal. Politico-Eccles. ad Ann. xxxv. torn. i.
p. 450. ; and Bingham's Origines Ecdesiast. lib. ii. cap. xx. p. 296, et seq.
XLY. Constitution and order of the primitive churches. The
People. From these particulars we may collect a general idea of
wliat was the form and constitution of those ]3rimitive Christian
associations, which in the language of Scripture are termed
churches. Every church was composed of three constituent parts :
1st, Teachers who were also invested with the government of the
community, according to the laws ; 2dly, Ministers of each sex ;
and 3dly, The multitude of people.(') Of these parts, the chief
in 2)oint of authority was the people : for to them belonged the
appointment of the bishop and presbyters, as well as of the in-
ferior ministers ; — -with them resided the power of enacting laws,
as also of adopting or rejecting whatever might be proposed in
the general assemblies, and of expelling and again receiving into
communion any depraved or unworthy members. In short,
nothing whatever of any moment could be determined on, or car-
ried into effect, Avithout their knowledge and concuiTcnce. All
these rights came to be recognised as appertaining to, and residing
in the people, in consequence of its being entirely by them that
the necessary means were supplied for maintaining the teachers
and ministers, relieving the wants of the indigent, promoting the
general interests and welfare of the community, and averting from
180 Century I. — Section 45.
it occasionally impending ill. The contributions tlius furnislied
consisted of all kinds of offerings, or ohlaiions as they were com-
monly termed, which every one according to his ability, and of
his own free will, without any sort of demand or admonition,
brought with him to the assembly, and threw into the common
stock. After some little while, it was judged expedient to divide
the multitude into two orders or classes, viz. that of the faithful^
and that of the catechumens. {^) Of these, the former were such
as had been solemnly admitted members of the church by the
sacrament of baptism, and publicly pledged themselves to God
and the brethren that they would strictly conform themselves
to the laws of the community, and who, in consequence thereof,
possessed the right of voting in the public assemblies, and of
being present at, and taking a share in, every part of divine wor-
ship. The latter were those converts who, not having gone
through the course of preparatory discipline and probation pres-
cribed by the rules of the church, remained as yet unbaptized,
and whose title to the rights of Christian fellowship was conse-
[p. 141.] quently deemed incomplete. These were not permitted
to be present at the solemn assemblies of the church, or to join
in the public worship ; neither were they suffered to participate
of the Lord's supper. All the members of the Christian com-
munity considered themselves as being on a footing of the most
perfect quality. Amongst a variety of other proofs which they
gave of this, it was particularly manifested by their reciprocally
making use of the terms "brethren^" and " sisters," in accosting
each other.(^) On the ground of this sort of spiritual relationship,
the utmost care was taken that none should be suffered to languish
in poverty or distress ; since, whilst the means of assistance were
not wanting, it would have been contrary to the laws of fraternal
love to have permitted any brother or sister to remain without
the necessaries of life.(*) That even in this early age, there was
in the church a mixture of the bad with the good, is what no one
can doubt : — it is impossible, however, that any one belonging
to the Christian community could have openly persisted in a
wicked, flagitious course of conduct ; since it was particularly en-
joined both by Christ and his apostles, that if repeated admon-
ition and reproof should fail to produce repentance and amend-
ment of life in any who might pollute themselves by a depraved
The People. 181
demeanor, or by flagi\antly violating the laws of morality and
religion, they should be excommunicated, or in other words, be
expelled from every kind of intercourse and association with the
faithfuL(^)
(1) Of all that I here state, the greater part is, with a very moderate degree
of trouble, to be proved from Scripture itself. Indeed the authenticity of it
has been already so proved. I shall, therefore, content myself with merely ad-
ding a few observations, illustrative of such things as may appear to require
some elucidation.
In i\iQ first place, then, it may be proper for me to remark, that in enume-
rating the constituent parts of a church, I have intentionally avoided making
use of the terms clergy and laity :— not that I can perceive any thing objection-
able in these terras, when properly explained ; but lest, by my having recourse
to them, I should afford occasion to some to doubt of my impartiality. I can-
not, however, avoid taking this opportunity of professing myself to be utterly
unapprised of any good that has resulted from the violent and long continued
disputes which have been carried on, respecting the antiquity and origin of these
appellations. For my own part, I agree in opinion with those who conceive
them to have come very early into use, — in fact, to have been nearly coeval
with the first rise of Christianity ; but, at the same time, of any thing that is to
be gained by establishing this opinion, I am altogether ignorant. In like man-
ner am I an entire stranger to any advantage that is to be expected from the
carrying of their point, by those who undertake to prove that these terms were
not known in the church prior to the third century. Facts and ordinances con-^
stitute the proper objects of our attention when inquiring into the state of the
primitive church, not particular appellations or terms, which, whether they be
of ancient or of modern origin, can in no shape alter the nature of thino-s. In
order to acquire a proper knowledge of the latter, we must pursue a course
of study far different from that of words.
(2) At the first, there was no distinction recognised in the church between
the faithful and the candidates for baptism, or catechumens; nor do I think that
any vestige of such a division of the people is to be found throughout the
whole of the New Testament, — any, at least, that can be deemed clear and
indisputable. Whoever, through the powerful operation of divine truth, had
been brought to profess a belief in Christ as the Saviour of the human race,
although they might in other respects be uninformed, and various errors might
still remain to be rooted out of their minds, were yet baptized, and admitted
into the fellowship of Christ's kingdom. The growth and increase of the
church would have been beyond measure retarded, had no one in those early
times been received into the Christian community but such as had gone through
a long course of probation, and had acquired an accurate knowledge of the
religion they were about to embrace. When Christianity, however, had ob-
tained for itself somewhat of a more stable footing, so that in many [p. 142.]
places very large congregations of its professors were established, it was
deemed expedient that none should be received into the church but such as
182 Centimj L— Section 45.
had made themselves thoroughly acquainted with the Christian discipline, and
had given convincing proofs of their possessing a sincere and upright mind.
This rec'ulation being once introduced, it unavoidably gave rise to the distinc-
tion between the faithful and the catechumens, or between those who were fully
and such as were merely partially admitted into the Christian fellowship.
Many have written on the subject of the catechumens, and particularly Tob.
Pfanner, in whose book, however, I have to regret the same deficiency that
occurs in almost every other work on Christian antiquities, namely, that al-
though the things themselves be perspicuously discussed, and satisfactorily
established by a reference to ancient authorities, yet the causes to which the
laws and institutions of the primitive church owed their rise are either wholly
passed over, or but slightly hmted at. This defect, however, is not of so
serious a nature but that it may, without much difficulty, be supplied by any
one of common learning and capacity.
(3) Respecting the terms " brethren " and " sisters," thus made use of to
denote the perfect equality that was understood to exist amongst all the mem-
bers of the Christian community, there was a book published at Goslar, 1703,
in 8vo. by Gothofred Arnold, under the title of Hisioria Cognationis spiritualis
xeterum Christianorum. Like all the other works, how^ever, of that author,
who, although a well-intentioned man, and one by no means destitute of learn-
ing, was yet possessed of but a very moderate share of sagacity or judgment,
it exhibits an undigested fiirrago of facts and opinions, by which the mind of
the reader is embarrassed and distracted, instead of being gratified and en-
lightened.
(4) What St. Luke has left us on record in Acts, iv. 34. respecting the pri-
mitive church at Jerusalem, namely, that none of its members lacked or were
in want, may, in the strictest sense, be applied to all the other early churches.
Since the Christians considered themselves to be all on an equal footing, and all
united in one common bond of fraternal love, they of course deemed it incum-
bent on them to take care that none of their number should be destitute of the
necessaries of life ; but that, if any were in want of these, their necessities
should be supplied out of the abundance of the others. Amongst those of the
present day, however, who pique themselves on the faculty of seeing farther in-
to things than other people, there are not a few who take exception to this libe-
rality of the primitive Cln-istians towards their poor, on the score of imprudence,
alleging that it tended to the encouragement of idleness and sloth. They
are also fond of adding, that the compassion and regard thus shown for the in-
digent and necessitous, must be considered as the cause which, beyond all
others, contributed to the rapid propagation of the Christian religion : for that,
under the expectation of being supported in ease and comfort by the liberality
of others, without any care or pains of their own, vast crowds of idle, worth-
less, lazy people were led to embrace with eagerness the Christian fellowship.
But that any thing like this should be urged by men, who would fain be thought
no strangers to the apostles' writings, is truly amazing. Had those writings
ever been perused by them \\'ith attention, nothing but the most wilful and in-
veterate blindness could have prevented them from perceiving that the liberality
The People. 183
of the Christians towards their poor was regulated by the most discreet provi-
sions, so as to render it nearly impossible that the munificence of the church
could be either abused or misapplied. In the first place, it is expressly enjoined
by St. Paul, that none should be included in the number of the poor who
would not endeavour, as far as they were able, to support themselves by honest
labour. Indeed, they were not only to be refused relief, but were to be abso-
lutely expelled from the church. All, likewise, that did not conduct themselves
as became the disciples of Christ, were to be withdrawn from, and to be denied
the benefits of Christian charity. 2 Thess. iii. 6-12. In the next place, we find
it laid down in clear and express terms, as the duty of every Christian [p. 143.]
family to provide, as far as they were able, for those of their own kindred, and
not suffer them to become a burden to the church. 1 Tim. v. 3. 16. By an-
other apostolic admonition, particular care is enjoined to be taken that evil-dis-
posed persons might not be furnished, through the bounty of the church, with
the means for vicious gratification. And lastly, in addition to all this, it is still
further directed that the number of those to whom public relief was gi-anted,
should not be suflfered to increase beyond measure, or so as to press too hard
on the means of those by whom such relief w.^s supplied. It was not, there-
fore, every one who might happen to be destitute, or in need, that was regarded
by the primitive church in the light of a pauper, meriting charitable assistance.
To entitle a man to public relief amongst the first Christians, it was necessary
that he should appear to be duly impressed with a proper sense of his duty to-
wards God and mankind ; and that he should not either be capable of procurino*
a subsistence for himself by any exertions of his own, or have any relatives or
connections to whom he might with any degree of justice or propriety be re-
ferred for assistance adequate to his wants.
(5) It appears to me that if the voice of reason and common sense be at-
tended to, not a question can for a moment exist as to the justice and propriety
of expelling from any community all such of its members as may forfeit the
pledge publicly given by them on their being admitted into such community,
and contemptuously persist in an open violation of its laws. The dictates of
reason, indeed, as to this point, are, in my opinion, so unequivocally clear and
imperative, that I am altogether filled with astonishment when I reflect on the
number of eminently learned men, — men, too, particularly versed in the prin-
ciple and nature of laws, divine as well as human, who have not scrupled pe-
remtorily to maintain that the practice of excommunicating evil-doers, or ex-
pelling them from the church, has no other support or foundation than the an-
cient Jewish law, or the mere arbitrary will of the first Christians. But the in-
fluence which opinions, that we have been once led to entertain and approve of,
have on our future judgment is incredible. Whatever may appear to oppose
itself to them is not for a moment to be listened to, however well it may be
supported by either argument or evidence. To enter into any serious discus-
sion of the matter, however, in this place would be useless, since there is not
the least ground to hope for a revival of this pious and salutary custom in times
like the present.
1S4 Century I. — Section 46.
XLYI. Teachers and ministers. Both the teacliers and the minis-
ters of the church, when their appointment had received the ap-
probation of the people, were consecrated by the presbyters to their
ofSLce by prayer and the imposition of hands ; — a practice which the
Christians adopted from the Jews, probably on account of its very
high antiquity, and the great appearance of piety which it carri-
ed with it. The duties of the presbyters consisted in instructing
and exhorting the multitude, both publicly and in private. It
belonged to them also to endeavour, by argument and persua-
sion, to convince and bring over the adversaries and enemies of
the faith. Tit. i. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 24. The converts were baptized
by them. They also presided at the feasts of love, and celebra-
tion of the Lord's supper. In short, they were invested with the
superintendance and management of everything which might be
essentially connected with the welfare and prosperity, either of
the church in its collective capacity, or of its several members
individually. When it came to be the practice for a chief or pre-
siding presbyter to be appointed, under the title of " bishop," the
province of teaching, and also the direction and management of
every thing of a sacred nature, was transferred to him. As it
was not, however, to be expected that one man could be equal
to the personal discharge of duties so various and extensive, he
had the power of committing to either of the elders the fulfilment
of such of them as that elder might appear to him to be particu-
larly well qualified to execute. When anything of more than or-
[p. 144.] dinary moment occurred, the bishop called together the
presbyters, and consulted with them as to what was necessary or
proper to be done. Having thus taken council with the elders, he
next convened a general meeting of the people, to whose determina-
tion every thing of importance was always finally referred, and
submitted to them, for their approval or rejection, the measures
which appeared to him and the presbyters as either requisite or eli-
gible to be pursued. Acts, xxi. 18. 22. The bishop was commonly
chosen from amongst the presbyters, and the presbyters for the most
part, taken from the class of deacons. The people, however, were
not bound to abide by this rule ; and it was occasionally departed
from, when the probity, the faith, and the general merits of any
individual amongst the multitude pointed him out as a person
deserving of preference. That the income or stipend of the several
Public Worship. 185
teacliers and ministers of tlic cliurcli could have been but small,
whilst, at the same time, the trouble and perils which they ne-
cessarily had to encounter in the discharge of their functions were
manifold and great, is so apparent as not to admit of a doubt.
But in those primitive times of which we are now treating, a
Christian pastor's station in the scale of dignity and honour was,
for the most part, estimated by the magnitude of the benefits de-
rived from his labours, and not by the extent of his revenue, or
of any other kind of pecuniary remuneration, that might be at-
tached to his office.
XLYII. Order of proceeding, when assembled. The particular
form or manner of proceeding in those solemn assemblies, which
were held at stated intervals for the purpose of divine worship,
does not appear at the first to have been every where precisely
similar.(^) It was frequently required that much should be con-
ceded to place, to time, and to various other circumstances.
From what is left us on record, however, in the books of the New
Testament, and some other very ancient documents, it appears
that the course observed in most of the churches was as follows.
After certain introductory prayers, (with the offering up of
which there can be no doubt but that the service commenced,) a
select portion of Scripture was read by one or other of the dea-
cons. The lesson being ended, some presbyter, or, after the ap-
pointment of bishops, the bishop, addressed himself to the
people in a grave and pious discourse ; not, as it should seem,
composed according to the rules of art, but recommending itself
to attention and respect through the unaffected piety and fervent
zeal of the preacher. In this discourse, the multitude were ex-
horted to frame their lives agreeably to the word which they had
heard read, and to embrace every occasion of proving themselves
worthy disciples of that Divine Master, whose followers they pro-
fessed themselves to be.(") Some general prayers (the extempo-
raneous effusions, as it should seem, of a mind glowing with di-
vine love) were then offered up aloud by the officiating minister,
and repeated after him by the people. If there were any present
who declared themselves to be commissioned of God to make
known his will to the people, I mean persons professing them-
selves to be prophets, they were now at liberty to address the
congregation. After having heard what they had to say, it was
186 Century I. — Section 47,
referred to tlie acknowledged proplicts, to determine wliether
tliej spake under tlie influence of a mere natural impulse, or
were prompted in wliat tliey delivered by a divine inspiration.
To tliis first solemn act of public worship succeeded a second,
wliicli commenced witli tlie offering of certain voluntary gifts,
or oblations, wliich all those who were possessed of sufficient
ability, were accustomed to bring with them, and present to the
elders. From what was thus offered, the presiding minister se-
lected so much as might appear to him to be necessary for the '
Q3. 145.] celebration of the Lord's supper, and consecrated it to
that purpose in a set form of words ; the peojDle expressing their
approval of his prayers, by pronouncing aloud the word " amen"
at the conclusion of them. After partaking of the Lord's supper,
the assembly sat down to a sober and sacred repast, denominated
the feast of love. In this, however, the same order was not ob-
served in all the churches. At the breaking up of the assembly
the brethren and sisters exchanged with each other what, from
its being meant as a token of mutual good will, was termed the
kiss of peace. How truly admirable the simplicity by which the
rites of our holy religion was characterized in these its infant
dayslO
(1) Next to the writings of the New Testament, the most ancient au-
thority that we have respecting the forms and metliocl observed by the Chris-
tians of the first century, in their assemblies for the purpose of divine worship,
is Pliny the Younger, a Roman of considerable eminence, who held the office
of propraetor of Bithynia under the emperor Trajan. The particulars relating
to this subject, which are contained in that well-known letter of his to his
imperial master, (the xcviith of the xth book,) on which so much attention
has been bestowed in the way of illustration by the learned, were collected,
as he himself expressly intimates, from the mouths of a number of persons
who, intimidated by the fear of death, had renounced Christianity, and return-
ed back to the worship of the Roman deities. The generality of people would,
in all probability, have given implicit credit to so many persons, when thus
found to agree in one and the same account: but to the mind of Pliny, a man,
as it should seem, beyond measure cautious and circumspect, this united tes-
timony did not appear altogether conclusive. Informed, as he was, of the
various reports that were in constant circulation amongst the priests and popu-
lace, respecting the infamous clandestine practices and vile repasts of the
Christians, and finding no correspondence whatever between those reports
and the testimony of the above-mentioned rcpudiators of Christianity, (for
they were all of them unanimous in asserting that, in the assemblies of the
Christians, nothing was ever done in which it might be deemed at all disgrace-
Puhlic Worshijo. 187
fu for a virtuous man and good citizen to join,) lie seems to have been ap-
prthensive of being made tlie dupe of dissemblers, and to have entertained
some doubt as to whether he ought to give the preference in point of credit to
general report, or to the evidence of these particular witnesses. With a view,
therefore, to arrive at greater certainty as to this point, he subjected two dea-
conesses of the Christians who fell into his hands, and who appear to have
been of the rank of servants, to the torture, expecting thereby to obtain a full
disclosure of the truth. Of the information that was extorted from them he
speaks merely in general terms. Quo magis, says he, necessarium credidij (it
is apparent, therefore, that he entertained some suspicion as to the accuracy
of the testimony of those renunciators of Christianity whom he had before
examined,) ex duabus ancillis, qucD ministrce dicehanlur, quid essci xeri el per
tormenla qucerere. Sed nihil aliud inveni qnam superstitioiiem pravam et im-
modicam. From these words of the proconsul, we may collect that he suc-
ceeded in obtaining from these women some additional testimony ; but it is,
at the same time, clear that he had been able to extort from them nothing
whatever that tended, in any respect, to contradict or invalidate the account
given by those whom he had before examined. The expression superstitio
praxa et inunodlca, although it conveys somewhat of a degrading and injurious
imputation, and was evidently intended by Pliny so to do, has yet nothing in
it which can be said in any wise to sully or derogate from the pure and sacred
character of Christianity. The term "superstition " is applied by him [p. 146.]
to it, in consequence of its being a religion which dilTored in its principles and
nature froiu that of the Romans, and which discountenancing the worship of
their ancient deities, would substitute for it that of Jesus Christ. The epithet
pravus was, we know, used to denote in any thing the opposite quality to
rectus: — the latter, therefore, implying a consonancy with that which is fit,
proper, and agreeable to rule ; the former must, of course, be understood as
indicating a want of such consonancy. By terming Christianity then praia sit-
perstitio, nothing more appears to have been meant than that it was a religion
of an opposite character to the approved and established Roman mode of wor-
ship. The Romans, for instance, were accustomed to offer up victims to their
gods, and to dedicate to them temples, altars, statues, and images. Their in-
vocations and prayers to them were also accompanied with a long and varied
train of ceremonies. But the Christian mode of worship was, on the contrary,
in every respect characterised by the utmost plainness and simplicity. To
Pliny, therefore, the latter, inasmuch as it opposed itself to what had received
the sanction of long established and general usage, had the appearance of being
(prara) founded in perversion and error. He likewise applies to it the epithet
immodica, meaning thereby, as it should seem, that it was a religion of ex-
travagance,— a religion not limited either by the bounds which the wisdom of
antiquity had prescribed, or by those which were to be deduced from the dic-
tates of philosophy. Immodicus was, we are certain, a terra used by the Ro-
mans to characterise any thing by which a person was led into extravagance,
or carried away beyond the bounds or rule assigned by reason, or the laws of
the state. Now Pliny could have known no other bounds or rule for religion
than the two above mentioned, namely, the rule prescribed by reason or plii-
188 Century I. — Section 47.
losophy, and that laid down by the Roman laws : and it appears to me, there-
fore, that by denominating the Christian discipline immodica, it was unques-
tionably the intention of this illustrious writer to intimate that it imposed
greater and more difficult duties on mankind than were prescribed either by
philosophy or by the ancient religion of the Roman people. With regard to
the love of mankind, for instance, the principles recognized by the Roman
people at large, and even by the most excellent of their philosophers, were
that we ought to love and cherish our friends, and that no wrong or injury
should be done to any one except our enemies : the latter, however, might,
according to them, be without impropriety hated, and in every possible way
vexed and persecuted. But the divine author of Christianity enjoins that our
love of each other should be limited by no such bounds, but extend itself even
to our enemies and greatest foes. By a Roman, then, the principles of Chris-
tianity might, in this respect, very naturally be considered as {immodica) ex-
ceeding the bounds of propriety. I have been induced thus to bestow some
little pains in the illustration of these w^ords, from my observing that the
various learned commentators on Pliny have passed them over with but a
slight notice. On the whole, it appears to me, that at the moment when this
illustrious writer intended nothing less than to pay any sort of compliment to
Christianity, he in fact pronounced its eulogium ; and that, by the very terras
which he applied to it in the way of reproof, he in reality establishes its claim
to the character of superior wisdom and excellence.
Let us now turn our attention towards, and briefly examine those particu-
lars, respecting the forms of divine w^orship observed by the first Christians,
which Pliny states himself to have obtained from the many witnesses w'hich he
had examined, of whom some had renounced Christianity, others not. Great
as is the number of commentators, who have gone before us in this path, we
may yet, I rather think, be able to pick up something in the way of gleaning.
In the first place, I will lay before the reader the words of Pliny himself, from
the Gesnerian edition of his works, the most correct of any that have as yet
been given to the public. Adfirmahant autem, hanc fuisse summam vel ciilpcB
siue vel erroris, quod essent solili stato die ante lucem convenire : carmenque ChrisLo^
quasi deo, dicere secum invicem : se que sacramenio non in scelus aliquod obsiringere
sed nefurta, ne latrocinia, ne adulleria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne deposi-
turn appellati abnegarent : quibis peractis, morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque
[p. 147.] coeundiad capiendum cibum, promiscitum tamen et imiocuum. " They
affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a certain
stated day before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to
Christ, as to some god, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the pur-
poses of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery,
never to falsify their \vord, nor deny a trust w'hen they should be called upon
to deliver it up : after which, it was their custom to separate, and then re-
assemble to eat in common a harmless meal." (Melmoth.) Now it must im-
mediately, I think, be remarked by every one who shall peruse this passage
with attention, that the sketch which it exhibits of the forms observed by the
Christians in their solemn assemblies is throughout but an imperfect one, and
Public Worship. 189
that in many respects it ia wholly deficient. Not a word, for instance, is said of
the exhortation or sermon usually delivered by one of the presbyters or the
bishop, or of the reading a portion of the Scriptures ; nor is there any notice
taken of the celebration of the Lord's supper, or of tlic oblations which it was
customary for the communicants to oiler. In making his report to Trajan,
Pliny probably saw no necessity for setting down all that he had learnt from
the witnesses, but deemed it sutRcient to lay before the emperor merely such
particulars as would give him an insight into the nature of the Christian disci-
pline, and satisfy him that those who had embraced it were fai* from being of a
character either so detestable or dangerous as that which was attributed to
tliem by vulgar report. For Pliny's epistle, from beginning to end, is unques-
tionably to be regarded in the light of an apology for the Christians ; the object
of it evidently being to refute those calumnies under which they laboured, and to
incline the emperor to treat with lenity and compassion a set of men, who, al-
though they had espoused a different religion from that of the Romans, yet ap-
peared to him to cherish no principles either of a vicious or dangerous tendency.
In addition to this, it must necessarily be observed, (and it will presently be
rendered more strikingly manifest,) that the information thus communicated by
Pliny to the emperor is conveyed rather in terms and phrases of his own, than
in those which it is at all likely that the Christians whom he had examined
made use of; and that, in a certain degree, his description of the Christian
sacred rites obviously, and as it were by way of illustration, accommodatea it-
self to the Roman way of thinking on the subject. This, I have no doubt, was
the result of design ; his object in it being, as I conceive, to render the matter
more intelligible and easy of apprehension than it would otherwise have been
to Trajan, who was an utter stranger to the maxims and institutions of the
Christians, and wholly unaquainted with their affairs. Had Pliny, in his account
of the Christian principles and customs, made use of Christian terms and
phrases, the emperor would in all probability have found no small difficulty in
ascertaining the meaning of many of them, and might possibly have understood
some parts of the letter in a sense very different from that which it was the
object and intention of the writer to convey. But to come to particulars.^
The account commences by stating in general terms, that the solemn assemblies
of the Christians were held on a certain fixed day. This fixed day, aa may be
proved from the epistle itself (and in another place I have so proved it,) was the
same with that which we at present consider as sacred, namely, the first day of
the week, the day on which our blessed Saviour arose from the dead. B. Just.
Hen, Boehmer would indeed have us to understand this day to have been the
same with the Jewish Sabbath ; but notwithstanding all that he has urged in his
dissertation de Slato Chistianorum Die, (which stands first in that series of
tracts, in which he undertakes to illustrate the sacred rites, &c. of the Christians
from Pliny,) I rather think that he has not succeeded in making any converts
to his opinion amongst those who have read what Pliny says with attention, and
taken the pains to make themselves acquainted with ancient manners. On this
stated day, the Christians of Bithynia, it appears were accustomed to hold two
distmct meetings ; the one before sun-rise, for the worship of God, and further-
190 Century I. — Section 47.
ance ^f piety ; the other in the course of the day, most probably about the time
of noon, for the purpose of partaking together of a common meal or repast.
With the Christians of other countries it was not the custom thus to divide
their sacred offices ; but they went through the whole of whatever might be en-
joined with regard to public worship at one and the same meeting. It is by no
means ditiicult, however, to assign a very sufficient reason for this deviation
of the Bithynian Christians from the general practice. Exposed, as they were
on all sides, to the treachery of malignant foes, it would have been impossible
for tliem to have met and gone through their forms of public worship during the
day. There assembly for this purpose, therefore, was held before sun-rise. To
have joined in a meal, however, at this early hour would not have been season-
able or convenient ; and the feast of love was, threfore, deferred until that time
[p. 148.] of the day, which in those regions was customarily allotted to bodily
refection. The public worship, for the performance of which the first of these
meetings was held, commenced with the offering up of prayers, in which they
gave praise to Christ, and extolled the blessings to mankind of which he was
the author. These prayers Pliny states them to have recited secum invicem.
Now by the former of these words, I conceive him to have meant, that the
prayers thus offered up were general ones, in which every person present joined,
With regard to the term invicem^ learned men have imagined that we ought to
understand it as indicating the manner in which these prayers were recited ; and
that it has, in this place, a similar import with aliernatim ; implying, as they
would have it, that in the assemblies of which we are speaking, the Christians
divided themselves into two choirs, and that the praises of Christ were alter-
nately celebrated by each. For my own part, I should not by any means wish
to be understood as pronouncing this opinion to be erroneous ; but, at the same
time, I cannot help observing that it appears to me not at all improbable that
Pliny might have recourse to the term invicem, by way of briefly expressing
what the Christians had told him, of its being usual for one of then* presbyters,
of their bishop, first to recite the form of prayer, and then for the people to re-
peat it after him, and add the word " amen" at the conclusion. Were the term
to be considered as having this reference, we should unquestionably find less
difficulty in making it accord with what we know of the forms and usages of
the early ages. As to the force or precise meaning of the words quasi deo, I
must confess that I really do not feel myself at all competent to speak with de-
cision. For it appears to me to be altogether uncertain wiiether Pliny, in this
place, makes use of words of his own, or adopts those of the Christians whom
he had examined. If the expression is to be considered as Pliny's own, it cer-
tainly cannot be adduced as a proof that those Christians entertained a similar
opinion with ourselves as to the divinity of Christ ; for deus, as is well observed
by that excellent scholar and sagacious commentator, Jo. Matth. Gesner, in his
remarks on this passage, was a term in the use of which the Romans allowed
themselves considerable latitude ; and so far from considering it as exclusively
appropriate to the divine nature, were in the habit of not unfrequently applying
it to spiritual beings of a very inferior order. On the other hand, could it be
ascertained that quasi deo were the words of the Christians whom Pliny ex-
Public Worship, 191
amined, there must at once be an end to all doubt as to the fiict of those Chris-
tians having worshipped our blessed Saviour as the Supreme Deity. — With
regard to the word carmen, it admits of some question whether we ought to
understand by it that these prayers of the Clu'istians were composed according
to the rules of metre, and consequently sung; or whether the term is to be con-
sidered as implymg in this place, what we frequently find it applied to else-
where, merely a set form of words in prose. Some of the highest authorities,
including the celebrated Gesner, lean in ftivour of the latter construction ; and
influenced chiefly by the weight of such judgment, I was led to give preference
to this opmion in my Hisior. Christian. Instilutiones majores, sa3C. i. The
former construction of the word has, however, found an able advocate in a
learned writer, whose masterly discussion of the subject, under the assumed
title of Hynmophilus, is to be found in the fifth volume of the Miscellanea Lip-
siens. nov. of the learned Menckenius. After having compared together the
different arguments brouglit forward on either side, I must confess it now appears
tome scarcely possible to say which w\ay the scale preponderates. Those eminent
scholars, to whose opinion 1 formerly subscribed, bring forward, in support of
their construction of the word, the authority of a great number of ancient Latin
writers, and beyond all, that of Pliny himself, in whose writings they observe,
the word carmen is several times put for prayers in prose. The verb dicerey
too, they bid us remark, which Pliny in this place joins with carmen, will not
admit of the supposition that compositions in verse were liere alluded to; for
that had real verses been meant, they would have been stated {cani) to be sung,
not {did) said. But of these arguments, neither the one or the other can be
deemed conclusive. For as to the first, it can by no means be allowed [p. 149.]
to follow, that because the word carmen is frequently put by Pliny and others
for a composition in prose, it may not have a difl(erent signification in the
passage in question; and particularly if it be considered that in the one case it
is used in an extraordinary sense, but in the other merely in an ordinary one.
And with regard to the argument deduced from the word dicere, a variety of
passages might be quoted, which would show that this verb was occasionally
put for caniare, and associated with carmen in its strict sense. In the Carmen
sccculare of Horace, for instance, ver. 6, 7, 8, we find,
" Quo Sybillini monuere versus
Virgines lectas, puerGsqtce castas,
Diis, quihus septem placuere colics, •
Dicero carmen."
Indisputably alluding to the singing of a hymn, or composition in verse.
Virgil too, when speaking of the hymn which the liusbandmen were accus-
tomed to sing to Ceres, before putting the sickle to the corn, Georg. lib. i. ver.
348, et seq. says,
'^ Ncque ante
Falcem maturis quisquam supponat aristis,
Quam Ccreri, torta redimitus tempora quercu,
Det motus incompositos, et carmiua dicat."
192 Century L— Section 47.
And again, when describing a part of the inhabitants of the Elysian Fields as
occupied in song and dance, JEneid. lib. vi. ver. 644.
'* Pars pcdibus plaudunt choreas, et carmina dicunt."
The very learned writer, to whom I have above alluded as taking with others
the opposite side of the question, rests iiis argument principally upon the word
carmen, — reminding us that it strictly and properly signifies a song, and con-
tending that the strict and proper signification of a word is not to be departed
from, unless through evident necessity. Now all this is certainly very well
observed. But the advocates for the former opinion may reply, that this
learned writer himself is one of the first to break through the rule which he
thus prescribes to others, of adhering to the strict and proper signification ot
words, by insisting that we ought to understand Pliny as using dicere in the
sense of cantare : for that this is literally rejecting the plain and commonly
accepted meaning of tlie former verb, and annexing to it a remote and unusual
signification, without any apparent necessity for so doing. In support of this
construction, indeed, he adduces the authority of Eusebius and Tertullian : the
latter (in Apologetic, cap. ii.) making use of the term canere, as expressive of
Pliny's meaning ; and the former (in his Ecclesiastical Hist. lib. iii. cap. 33.)
rendering the words carmen dicere into Greek by the verb IfxyCiv. Now this
is certainly a circumstance not unworthy of remark ; but, at the same time, it
cannot be considered as altogether so conclusive as to place the matter be-
yond doubt : for were the question to be agitated, it is very possible that much
difference of opinion might be found to prevail with regard to the merits of
Tertullian and Eusebius as translators of Pliny. As to any thing else con-
nected with this point, I purposely pass it over.
These prayers, then, whether in verse or in prose, having been offered up,
the Christians, according to Pliny, sacramento se ohstringehant, cf-c. " bound
themselves by an oath not to commit theft, robbery, or any other crime for-
bidden by law. But in this instance, it is plainly to be perceived that we have
not the words of the Christians themselves given to us. The terms here used
must be considered as belonging entirely to Pliny, who endeavoured, by
clothing the information he had taken down from the mouths of the Christians
in a Roman dress, to render it easier of comprehension to the emperor, and
thus the more readily to satisfy him of the innocent and harmless character of
the religion which these people professed. With regard to what he here first
says, of its having been the practice of the Christians in their assemblies,
sacramento se obsiringere, "to bind themselves by an oath," that is, ^o si^'ear,
[p. 150.] that they would lead a chaste life, &c. it is altogether a misrepresen-
tation of the fact . and I know not how to account for it, that learned men,
who do not appear to have been ignorant of the utter dislike which the early
Christians had to oaths of any sort, should for a moment have brought them-
selves to believe that such was the case. For is it at all credible that men so
exceedingly reserved and scrupulous in swearing, be the occasion what it
might, should have regularly bound themselves by an oath, whenever they
assembled together for the purposes of divine worship ? This difficulty haa
PuhUc Wofship. 193
r
not indeed escaped the observation of some men of erudition, and they have
endeavoured to obviate it by suggesting that when the Christians, in the
course of their examination, made mention of their sacraments, Pliny might
not be aware of their meaning, but conceive that the term was used by them
in its literal Roman sense ; whereas what they alluded to were certain rises of
their own, to which they had given the denomination of sacraments, namely,
baptism and the supper of the Lord. The conjecture is certainly ingenious,
but beyond this we can allow it to possess no merit whatever. For not to
mention other things by which it might be shown to be utterly destitute of
foundation, its fallacy is rendered sufliciently apparent by Pliny himself, who
expressly states that sacrament of which he speaks, to have been compre-
hended in the first part of the Christian worship ; whereas the celebration of
what were termed sacraments by the Christians, did not belong to that portion
of their divine service. The Lord's supper, in particular, is known to have
always formed a branch of that latter or concluding part of their public wor-
ship, to which we shall presently advert. To me it appears most likely, that
the Christians simply represented themselves as making a solemn promise to
the Almighty, whenever they assembled together, that they would strive to
lead a life of purity and innocence ; and that Pliny, perceiving little or no
difference between a promise of this sort and an oath, by way of making a
stronger impression on Trajan's mind, preferred expressing himself after the
Roman manner, and stated them sacramento se obstringere. It yields a further
argument against our believing that the Christians were accustomed in their
assemblies to take an oath to the above effect, that not the least vestige what-
ever of any such periodical repetition of the articles of their profession is to
be met with in any of the monuments of antiquity ; nor was it at all necessary.
The practice was, for those who embraced Christianity, once, namely, at the
time of their initiation, to pledge themselves solemnly to God that they would
lead a life conformable to the religion they had espoused. After having done
this, they do not appear to have been continually called upon for a repetition
of their engagement, but were merely admonished publicly by the presbyters
to beware of departing from, or forfeiting the solemn promise thus made.
Finally, what Pliny thus reports to the emperor concerning the Christians, viz,
that they solemnly pledged themselves to abstain from the commission of any
acts that were forbidden as criminal by the Roman laws, such as theft, rob-
bery, adultery, violation of compacts, refusal to restore any thing given merely
in pledge, and the like, can never be considered as having constituted any very
striking feature in that most pure and holy system of moral discipline, which
the professors of Christianity made it their object to cherish and inculcate.
Restrictions of this sort might doubtless occupy a subordinate place in the
Christian code ; but its injunctions mainly resj^ectcd duties of a higher and
more important nature : — that we were, for instance, to cherish the most un-
bounded reverence for God and his will ; that our love should be extencled
universally to all mankind ; that we should ever be ready to do good, even to
our enemies ; and should earnestly strive to, subdue, and as it wer& extinguish,
within ourselves, every sort of unlawful appetite. There caftb.e little or no.
13
I
194 Century I.— Section 47.
doubt that the Christians whom Pliny examined pointed out these things to
him, but that ho deemed it unnecessary to notice them ; conceiving that every
purpose he had in view would be sufficiently answered, by his representing to
Trajan that no incongruity subsisted between the Christian discipline and the
Roman laws, but that whatever was interdicted as criminal by the one was as
strictly prohibited by the other. To me it appears most likely, that the ac-
count given by the Christians on this occasion was to the following purport : —
That after offering up their prayers to Christ, it w\as customary for one or
[p. 151.] other of their ministers to read a portion of those Scriptures which
they held sacred. That a solemn oration or sermon was then delivered by a
presbyter, or the bishop, in which those present were exhorted to make what
they had heard, the rule of their faith and conduct ; abstaining, as far as in
them lay, from the commission of evil of any kind ; and that it was usual for
all of them to promise, silently within themselves, that they would do so. If
any refused to conform themselves to the word, agreeably to this admonition,
and preferred continuing in the practice of iniquity, they were excluded from
all communication with the assembly. And this is the sense which Tertullian,
who perceived how widely Pliny's account, if taken literally, would differ in
this respect from the practice of the first Christians, annexes to the passage in
question. Allegat, says he, alluding to this letter of Pliny's, nihil aliud se de
sacns eorum co7nperisse, quam ccetus ante lucanos ad canendum Christo ut deo,
et ad confoederandam disciplinam, homicidium, aduUerium, fraudem, perfidiam, et
C(tiera scelera proliibentes. {Apologetic, cap. ii.) The reader will perceive that
this exactly corresponds with what I have above remarked. Nothing is here
saia of the taking of any oath ; nothing of any reiteration of the baptismal
vow • on the contrary, the crimes which Pliny states the Christians to have ab-
jured, are here represented as being merely prohibited, meaning doubtless for-
bidden by the mouth of the preacher.
At their second meeting, it was the practice of the Christians to celebrate
the feast of love, and the Lord's supper; of which two rites Pliny speaks in the
following terms : Rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cihum, 2)romiscuum tamen et
innoxium. Promiscuus cibus, it appears to me, is here put to denote food of
the opposite quality to that which is exquisite and delicate. By this expression,
therefore, it should seem, that Pliny meant to do away that suspicion of indulg-
ing in luxury and voluptuous excess, which the enemies of the Christians had
excited against them; and to satisfy the emperor that in their repasts they made
use of nothing costly or delicate, but merely the plain and ordinary articles of
food. The epithet innoxius was unquestionably intended by him to operate in
direct refutation of a calumny respecting the Christians, which had been very
generally propagated throughout the confines of the Roman empire, and had
served to kindle amongst the lower orders of the people a wonderful degree of
animosity towards them, namely, that of their occasionally joining in a sort of
Thyestean banquet, — a charge of which we find frequent notice taken in the
different apologies of the early Christians.
(2) There are several, not to speak merely of men of ordinary learning, but
also of the better informed, who maintain that any individual amongst the Chris-
Puhlic Worship. I95
tians was, in this first age, at liberty to as:,ume tf.e office of a teacher in their
solemn assemblies, and might there openly deliver his sentiments on divine sub-
jects, for the benefit of the fraternity at large. A very unwarrantable use, how-
ever, h;is been made of this opinion by some of the present day, who aim at
bringing about a new order of things in the Christian commonwealth, and
would fain abrogate all rule ; and jumbling every thing together, do away all
sort of distinction between teachers and learners. For my own part, could I
perceive, that such an opinion was in any respect well founded, I would at once,
without the least hesitation, acknowledge it. In fact I could, in the present
instance, have no temptation whatever to disguise the truth; since, having never
filled the ofllco of a public teacher in the church, my interest is not at all in-
volved in the question: and besides I well know, that should such or such ap-
pear to have been the customary or established practice of the first ages, it by
no means follows that it ought not to have been deviated from in succeeding
generations. But I most solemnly declare, that amongst the various arguments
and proofs which are adduced in support of the above opinion, even by those
of the learned who have espoused it, I have not been able to find any thing
whatever that can, in my opinion, be considered as satisfactory, — I will not
say by a man of acuteness and penetration, but by any one of common sense
and understanding. So far as this, indeed, undoubtedly appears clear, that any
one, whether he were a presbyter, or a bishop, or merely a person of the ordi-
nary class, might use his endeavours to propagate the Christian Religion, [p. 152.]
and exert himself to the best of his abilities in making known the blessings of
celestial truth to those who lay chained in darkness and superstition. But does
this, let me ask, at all support the idea that the office of teaching in the public
assemblies of the Christians might be assumed by any of the brethren ad libi-
tum f It is also unquestionable that the primitive Christians, in conformity to
the direction of the apostles, were accustomed to admonish, exhort, and reprove
each other. But there can be no doubt that this was done privately, and not
openly in the face of the whole congregation, when assembled for the purposes
of public worship. Finally, no one denies that the prophets, or those who as-
serted themselves to be under the influence of divine inspiration, had liberty to
speak in the solemn assemblies of the church. But it appears to me truly aston-
ishing that any one should bring forward this as an argument in favour of the
opinion, that the office of teaching in public might of right be assumed by any
of the brethren indiscriminately. If I am capable of forming any judgement
at all on the subject, I am sure that what we know of these prophets, so far
from yielding any argument in favour of such an opinion, makes directly the
contrary way. It appears to me in fact altogether incontrovertible, that the
prophets only had liberty to preach, and consequently that the liberty of preach-
ing could not have belonged of common right to all the brethren; and that so
far from its having been the practice for every one to address the brethren in
their public assemblies, who might feel inclined so to do, this privilege was con-
fined merely to those who had given satisfactory proof of their being divinely
commissioned to instruct the church.
(3) The reader will find these particulars more fully discussed and illustrated
196 Century I. — Section 48.
in Bingham's Origines Ecdeaiasticcc, Cave's Primitive Christianitij, Goth. Ar-
nold's work de Vila el Moribiis primorum Christianorum, and the writings of
various other authors. It may not, however, be improper to apprise him that
considerable caution ought to be observed in reading books of this sort; since,
to pass over other tilings, the authors of them have not been on all occasions
sufficiently particular in the choice of their authorities, neither have they made
a proper distinction with regard to times, or between such things as are certain
and indisputabl'3 and such as are merely probable.
XLYIII. All the primitive churches independent. AltllOllgTl all
tlie cliurclies were, in this first age of Christianity, united together
in one common bond of faith and love, and were in every respect
ready to promote the interests and welfare of each other by a
reciprocal interchange of good of&ces ; yet with regard to go-
vernment and internal economy, every individual church con-
sidered itself as an independent community, none of them ever
looking in these respects beyond the circle of its own members
for assistance, or recognizing any sort of external influence or
authority. Neither in the New Testament, nor in any ancient
document whatever, do we find any thing recorded, from whence
it might be inferred that any of the minor churches were at all
dependent on, or looked up for direction to, those of greater mag-
nitude or consequence : on the contrary, several things occur there-
in, which put it out of all doubt that every one of them enjoyed the
same rights, and was considered as being on a footing of the most
perfect equahty with the rest.(') Indeed it cannot, — I will not
say be proved, but even be made to appear probable, from any
testimony divine or human, that in this age it was the practice
for several churches to enter into, and maintain amongst them-
selves that sort of association, which afterwards came to subsist
amongst the churches of almost every province: — I allude to
[p. 153.] their assembling by their bishops, at stated periods, for
the purpose of enacting general laws, and determining any ques-
tions or controversies that might arise respecting divine mat-
ters.(') It is not until the second century that any traces of that
sort of association, from whence councils took their origin, are to
be perceived: when we find them occurring here and there,
some of them tolerably clear and distinct, others again but
slight and faint : which seems plainly to prove that the practice
arose subsequently to the times of the apostles, and that all that
Churches Independent, 197
is urged concerning the councils of the first century, and the divine
authority of councils, is sustained merely by the most uncertain
kind of support, namely, the practice and opinion of more recent
times.(')
(1) It appears indeed from the Acts of the Apostles, that the dignity and
authority of the church of Jerusalem was forawhile very great. In cap. xv.
we find the Christians of Antioch referring their disputes concerning the neces-
sity of observing the law of Moses, to the judgment of this church ; and it seems
extremely probable that other churches might act in a similar way. St. Paul
too, although acting under an immediately divine commission, yet made it a
point to commend himself and his doctrine to the favour and approval of the
apostles and the church of Jerusalem. Gal. i. 18. ii. 7, 8, 9. But the authority
thus recognised in this particular church, did not arise so much out of any thing
like a superiority over the other churches, (for it never laid claim to any such
pre-eminency,) as from the circumstance of its being under the immediate care
and government of our Lord's apostles, who were expressly constituted by
Christ himself supreme directors and judges of all matters coimected with re-
ligion. Properly speaking, it was not to the church of Jerusalem, but to the
apostles who presided over it, that the other churches had recourse for direction.
To confess the truth, however, it is not improbable that in dubious matters,
even in the absence of the apostles, application might oftener be made to this
church than to any other for advice. For in the church of Jerusalem there must
have been a far greater number of inspired persons than was to be met with in
any of the other churches ; since the Holy Spirit, at the time of its miraculous
efiusion, recorded in Acts, ii. did not descend merely on the apostles, but was
poured out generally on all the disciples of Christ in that city. The churches
of Asia, I have not the least doubt, recognized a similar authority in that of
Ephesus, during the time that St. John presided over it. Indeed it appears to
me not at all unlikely, that the honour of being occasionally looked up to by
neighbouring churches for an example, both as to faith and practice, might be
a distinction enjoyed by all such of the churches, as had had the good fortune
to be under the immediate tuition and care of any ot the apostles. Should any
one require it, I will concede even more than this ; for I am sure it is my wish
most readily to grant whatever can reasonably be expected of me. I will admit
then, that it was for some time customary for all the apostolical churches, that
is, those which had been founded and instructed by the apostles themselves, to
be consulted respecting any new opinions that might be suggested, or any con-
troversies that might arise respecting religion. Of this custom abundant testi-
mony is to be collected from the writers of the second century. The spiritual
instructors of that age appear to have thought, and in my opinion not without
reason, as things were then situated, that with regard to matters of faith and
doctrine, it was not likely that any should be better informed than those [p. 154.]
who had been under the immediate tuition of the apostles themselves. In the
case too, of any one's taking upon him to disseminate new opinions, and cnd(;a-
vouring to shelter himself under apostolic authority, no more effectual way of
198 Century I.— Section 48.
repressing his presumption could present itself than that of referring to the tea-
tiraony of the churches which the apostles themselves had founded. See, for
instance, Tcrtullian de Pnc script, advers. Hccreiicos. It is a most egregious mis-
take, however, for any one to imagine that we have in this any thing like a
proof of an inequality having subsisted amongst the early churches, or of a ju-
dicial power liaving been possessed by such of them as were apostolical. For
to pass over other things which might be urged, it was not to the churches, but
to the apostles, the founders of those churches, whose counsel and discipline
were supposed still to prevail in those assemblies, that this judicial power was
attributed; and by degrees, as the decisions and authority of councils came to
have more weight and influence, this ancient practice of recurring to the testi-
mony of the apostolical churches fell into disuse. In fact, the thing was as
much a matter of choice then, as at present it is with any one whether or not
he will refer any doubts, with which he may be perplexed, to be resolve-d by a
college of divines in an university. Certain lam that no proof whatever can be
brought to show that this sort of reference to the apostolical churches was at
all compulsory, or that their determinations w^ere considered of such authority
as for it to be deemed impious in any one to decline complying with them. A
great reverence was undoubtedly, during the first ages, entertained for such of
the churches as had been long under the immediate instruction of any of the
apostles; but if any one thing be certain, I am persuaded this is, — that these
churches never possessed the power of governing or controuling the rest accord-
ing to their will.
(2) In St. Paul's epistles there are several passages, which plainly prove
that the first churches were held together by no bond, save only that of faith
aad mutual love : and that each was governed and regulated by its own laws
and institutions. Those seven epistles addressed to the Asiatic churches, with
which the Revelations open, exhibit likewise indisputable testimony to the
same eftect. In the first place, nothing whatever is to be found in these epistles
to warrant even a conjecture that these seven churches were united together
by any sort of consociation, or that they were accustomed to assemble one with
the other in the way of council : on the contrary, the circumstance of our Sa-
viour's not directing what he had to say to them collectively, but, whether it
be in the way of commendation, of reprehension, or of admonition, addressing
himself to each one separately, tends unquestionably to prove that they had
nothing in common, save that of their being of one and the same religious pro-
fession. Had it been usual for the bishops of these churches to assemble and
consult together at stated periods, or when any thing new or extraordinary
might occur, as was the practice in the second century, it is not at all probable
that the circumstance would have been passed over by our Saviour without the
smallest notice; but that on the contrary, he would have recommended to the
pastors thus associated the cultivation of prudence and harmony, and would
have attributed to them chiefly whatever presented itself either as exceptionable
or praise-worthy in the state of these churches. Again, another argument of still
greater cogency is to be drawn from these epistles : — for it appears by them that
there was a considerable diversity in the tenets and regulations of these seven
Churches Indfpendent. 109
churches. The Nicolaitans, for instance, whoever they miglit then be, were
wholly exckidcd from the clmroli of Ephesus, Rev. ii. G. ; whereas in [p. 155.]
that of Pergamos they liad free toleration, Rev. ii. 15. The members of the
church of Thyatira suffered those to continue of their number who ate with the
worshippers of false deities in their temples, and were addicted to fornication ;
things which were for the most part held in utter abomination by the rest.
Now if the heads of churches, thus situated in one and the same province, had
been accustomed occasionally to meet for the purpose of consulting together,
and deliberating on the best means of promoting the common welfare of the
assembhes over which they presided, in what way are we to account for the ex-
istence of this diversity of sentiments and moral discipline amongst them ?
Had it at that time been the practice to hold councils, the case of the Nicolaitans
would without doubt have been discussed therein; and either their tenets
would have been sanctioned by the general voice, or the sect would have
been excluded from the churches altogether.
(3) It is very common for that assembly of the church of Jerusalem, of
which we read in Acts, xv. to be termed \}\(i first council; and if people choose
still to persist in giving it this denomination, I shall certainly not trouble myself
so far as to fall out with them about it. I would wish them, however, to un-
derstand that this is applying the word council, in a way altogether inconsistent
with its true import. The congregation that is stated to have met on this oc-
casion was nothing more than an assembly of the members of one individual
church, consisting of the apostles, the elders, and the people. Now if the terra
council could properly be applied to such an assembly as this, it would follow as
a necessary consequence that more councils were held in the first century than in
any subsequent one ; whereas even the warmest advocates for their early origin
are ready to admit, that in this age they were not by any means frequent. In
fact, it was a common practice in all the churches, at this period, for the mem-
bers to hold meetings after the manner of that above alluded to as having been
convened at Jerusalem, for the purpose of consulting together, and deliberating
on matters relating to religion and divine worship : and therefore, if such a
meeting is to be termed a council, it may even be said that there were more
councils held in the first century than in all the subsequent ones down to our
own time put together. A council, properly speaking, means an assembly of
several associated churches, or a congregation of delegates representing a num-
ber of churches so united, in which the common welfare of the whole is made
the subject-matter of consultation ; and such things are resolved on and enacted
as may appear to the members constituting such an assembly, or to the major
part of them, eligible, and fraught with a promise of conducing to the general
good. Now, that such an assembly as this was even once held in the first cen-
tury, is what I am sure no one, let him take what pains he may, will ever be
able to find in the history of that age. As the cause of Christianity, however,
advanced, and its concerns became more extensive, so that the churches com-
posing an ecclesiastical province, assumed, as it were, the form of a republic
made up of various minor districts, it became necessary, in order to preserve
tranquillity and a mutual good understanding amongst them, that several parti-
200 Century I. — Section 49.
culars should be occasionally discussed in a general meeting, composed of
legates or deputies from each.
XLTX. But few persons of erudition amongst the primitive
Christians. The apostolic fathers. In the age of wllicll we are now
treating, it was not deemed so essentially requisite in a teacher
that he should be distinguished for profound or extensive know-
ledge, either human or divine, as that he should be a man of
virtue and probity, and, in addition to a due measure of gravity,
be j)ossessed of a certain degree of facility in imparting instruc-
tion to the ignorant. Had the apostles indeed thought otherwise,
and directed that none but men of letters and erudition should
have been elected to the ofiice of presbyters, it would not have
been possible for the churches to have complied with such a man-
Qd. 156.] date ; since, at that time, the number of the wise and
learned who had embraced the faith of Christ was but small, and
as it were of no account. The Christian writers of the first century
consequently were not many ; and from the labours of the few
whose works have reached us, whether we consult such as have
been handed down whole and entire, or such as carry with them
the marks of interpolation and corruption, it is uniformly evident
that, in unfolding the sacred truths of Christianity to the w^orld,
the assistance of genius, of art, or of human means of any other
kind, was but little, if it all, courted. For if the mind of a reader
is not to be charmed or wrought upon by sanctity of sentiment,
simplicity of diction, or the effusions of a genuine unaffected piety,
it will be in vain for him to seek for either gratification or im-
provement in the perusal of the writings to which we allude. All
these authors, although by no means on a level in point of dignity
and judgment, are yet usually classed together under the general
title of " the Apostolic Fathers ;" alluding as it should seem, to
their having conversed with the apostles themselves, or with
some of their immediate associates, and their works have, in con-
sequence, been most commonly edited together. On this account, it
may be the better way perhaps for us to collect here into one view
whatever we may judge necessary to be known respecting them,
than to postpone any part of it to a subsequent period ; although
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas, rather belong to the second cen-
tury, as that was the age in which they wrote and died.(')
Few Learned Men. — Clement. 201
(1) Whatever writings could in any way be ascribed to the apostolic
fathers, whether good, bad, or indifferent, were all of them collected together
by Jo. Bapt. Cotelerius, a French divine, and published by him in two vol-
umes, illustrated with long and learned notes. This work was afterwards
twice re-printed at Amsterdam, with various additions by Jo. Le Clcrc. The
better part of these fathers has also been given to the public, but without com-
ment, by Tho. Ittigius, iu his Biblioiheca Palrum ApostoUcorum. They have
been translated into English by Wake, archbishop of Canterbury ; into Ger-
man, by Gothofred Arnold ; and the better part of them into French, by Abr.
Ruchat.
L. The genuine writings of Clement of Rome. At the head of
these writers stands that Clement who, from his having been
bishop of Kome, is usually, by way of distinction styled the
Eoman ; a man of unquestionably the highest authority, since we
find other authors, with a view to obtain for their opinions and
writings a favourable reception with the public, prefixing to them
his name. The common accounts that we have of his life, the
incidents by which it was chequered, and the manner of his death,
are for the most part undeserving of credit, at least they are by
no means well authenticated. (') There are extant two epistles of
his in Greek addressed to the church of Corinth, at a time when
it was distracted by intestine faction. Of these the first is gene-
rally, and I think not without reason, considered as indisputably
genuine in the main ; although a very ill applied industry appears
to have been subsequently exercised upon it by some one or
other, probably, hoAvever, without any evil design, in the way of
interpolation.(') The authenticity of the latter one has [p. 157.]
been regarded, even from a very remote period, as somewhat
questionable, though it is not easy to say on what grounds, since
there seems to be nothing whatever in it that is manifestly irre-
concileable with what we know of the genius and character of
Clement.C)
(1) Vid. Jo. Ernest Grabe Spicilcg. Patrum Sccc. i. p. 264 ; Tillemont
Memoires pour servir a Vllhtoire de VEglise, torn. ii. part i. p. 269; Piiil. Ron-
dinin. lib. ii. de S. Clemenle Papa et Martyre, ejusqiie Basilica in Urbe Roma,
1706, 4to. Some time back, when a Sepulchre, bearing the name of Clement,
was unexpectedly laid open at Rome, a good deal of discussion took place
amongst the learned of Italy respecting Clemens Romanus. With regard to
these investigations, however, the wisest and best-informed writers do not
scruple to avow that the history of this venerable man is involved in great ob-
scurity ; and that several things, which have been hastily considered as re-
202 Century L— Section 50, 51.
lating to him, belong properly to Flavius Clemens the consul, who was put to
death by Domitian. See the Dissertations of the Jesuit Zacharias, and of
Vitry, which were published by Angelus Calogera, in his Opusc. Scientific,
torn, xxxiii. p. 300. 350, et seq.
(2) This interpolation was first detected by Hieron. Bignonius, who com-
municated what he had thus remarked in a letter to Grotius. See Cotelerii
Patres Apostolici, tom. i. p. 133, 134. The discovery was further prosecuted,
not however without caution, by Ed. Bernhard, in some annotations of his on
Clement, which were published by Le Clerc, in the last edition of his Patres
Apostolici. The learned Hen. Wotton, it is true, in his notes on this epistle,
leaves no means untried to do away this imputation, and to persuade us that
the letter in question has been handed down pure and unvitiated by any sort
of corruption whatever. But the labours of this eminent scholar, so far from
establishing his point, may be said to have been completely thrown away;
since it is as clear as the light itself, that there are several passages in this
epistle altogether irrelevant to the writer's purpose, and which hold no sort of
connection or correspondence with what precedes or follows them: indeed
some of them are manifestly taken from Clement of Alexandria. For my own
part, I should think that it might be very possible for an attentive and skilful
person to remove from this venerable author's robe, (if I may be allowed to
apply the term robe to an epistle that has no pretensions to either learning or
eloquence,) these patches with which it is at present disfigured ; and it appears
to me to be a kind of task which it might prove well worth the while for any
judicious scholar to undertake.
(3) A list of the different editions of these epistles that have been pub-
lished, is given by Jo. Albert. Fabricius, in his Biblioih. Grcec. lib. iv. cap. v. p.
175, et seq. It does not, however, include the most accurate one of all, viz.
that printed at Cambridge in 1718, in 8vo. by Hen. Wotton, and enriched with
various notes and dissertations of his own, and of several other learned men.
[p. 158.] LI. Suppositious writings of Clement. In addition tO
these epistles, there have been attributed to Clement the follow-
ing works : 1. Eight books of Apostolical Constitutions^ a work of
undoubted antiquity, but, at the same time, of uncertain date ; the
production of an author beyond all measure, austere, and who, as
it should seem, entertained a thorough contempt for intellectual
culture of any kind. The most probable origin that we can assign
to this work is, that some ascetic writer having drawn up a form
of church government and discipline, upon what he conceived to
be apostolic maxims, he, in order to gain for it more attention and
respect, attributed it at once to the apostles themselves, pretending
it to have been received direct from them by their disciple Cle-
ment.Q 2. A set of Apostolical Canons, or Ecclesiastical Laws,
The Clementino,. 203
eight j-five in number, which the person who framed them wished
to be considered as having been enacted by the apostles, and trans-
mitted by them to Clement. It should seem to be not at all un-
likely that these Canons and the above-mentioned Constitutions
might originate with one and the same author. Be that as it
may, the matter of this work is unquestionably ancient ; since
the manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those
which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third
centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental
regions.(') With respect to its form, however the work is
commonly looked upon as belonging to a more recent age.
8. The Recognitions of Clement, in ten books. This is a narra-
tive entirely fictitious, but at the same time of an agreeable inte-
resting nature, and of considerable use in bringing us acquaint-
ed with the tenets of the Gnostics, and enabling us rightly to com-
prehend the state of Christian affairs in the age to which it re-
fers. The work professes to be an account of the travels of St.
Peter, and his disputes with Simon Magus, the leader of the
Gnostics, written by Clement ; in reality however it appears to
have come from the pen of an Alexandrian Jew, who had but
partially embraced Christianity, and still cherished errors of the
grossest kind. Considerable hostility is nevertheless manifested
by him towards the tenets of the Gnostics, and in some respects
he proves himself to be neither a weak nor an unskilful adver-
sary. For some time these Eecognitions were known to the
public merely through the medium of a Latin translation by Ru-
finus : we may consider the Greek text as having been first pub-
lished by Cotelerius in his Patres Apostolici. For although the
Clementina, as printed by Cotelerius, differ in many respects
from the Recognitions, yet in both the argument of each respective
book is the same, in both the same order of narration is observed,
and a similar correspondence between them prevails in the wind-
ing up and conclusion of the narrative : in fact it should seem
that one and the same book was anciently edited twice, or per-
haps oftener, under a somewhat different form.(^)
(1) The various opinions entertained by the learned, respecting the Apos-
tolical Constitutions and Canons, have been collected into one view by Tho.
Ittigius, in a dissertatLon de Patrihus Apostolicis, prefixed to his Blbliotheca
Pairum Aposlolicorum ; as also by Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his Isagog. in The-
204 Centunj I.—Section 52.
ohgiam, part ii. cap. v. p. 742, et seq. There are likewise two learned disser-
[p. 159.] tations on the same subject, annexed by Jo. Phil. Baratiere, to hia
work de Successione Romajior. Episcoporum primorum, p. 229, and 260 ; the
object of one of which is to prove that these Constitutions are not, as many
pretend, interpolated ; whilst that of the other is to make it appear that they
were compiled about the beginning of the second century. As to the first of
these points, the generality of people will, I rather think, feel disposed to agree
with him ; but with regard to the latter, I conceive that his arguments will
not be deemed conclusive by many.
(2) This has been proved, I think, beyond all controversy by that most
able investigator of Christian antiquities. Bishop Beveridge, as well in his an-
notations on these canons, as in a separate work on this subject, published by
him (Lond. 1678, in 4to.) under the title of Codex Canonum Ecclesicc primu
iivcc vindicaius et illustratus.
(3) Concerning this work (which those who may be induced to consult it,
will find to throw considerable light on several ancient matters and opinions,
and to yield more assistance towards comprehending the mysteries in the dis-
cipline of Simon Magnus and others of the Gnostics, than all the other early
writers put together) I have spoken more at large in my dissertation de tur-
bata per receniiores Platonicos Ecclcsia, ^ XXXIV. See my Syntagma Dissert,
ad Hist. Eccl. pertin. vol. i. I do not however consider myself as having,
either here or even there, pointed out every ground on which it has a claun to
our attention.
LII. Ignatius and his Epistles. Kext after Clement in point of
time comes Ignatius, to whom St. Peter himself is said to have
committed the care and superintendance of the church of Antioch,
and who, by command of the emperor Trajan, was delivered over
as a prey to wild beasts in the theatre at Eome.(') There are ex-
tant several Epistles with the name of Ignatius prefixed to them ;
but a question having been made as to their authenticity, a deal
of learned and elaborate discussion has taken place on the subject
amongst men of erudition, and the point has been contested by
them with considerable vehemence ; some asserting them to be
spurious, others insisting on it that they are genuine. Q The
most prevailing opinion ajDpears to be that the seven which are
reputed to have been written by him in the course of his journey
to Rome, namely those respectively addressed to the Smyrneans,
to Poly carp, to the Ephcsians, to the Magnesians, to the Phila-
delphians, and to the Trallians, as they stand in the edition of
them published in the seventeenth century, from a manuscript
in the Medicean library at Florence are unquestionably genuine ;
St. Ignatius. 205
tliougli tlierc arc not wanting those who, on account of its dissimi-
litude of style, consider the authenticity of the Epistle to Poly carp
as less to be depended on than that of the other six. As for the
rest of these Epistles, of which no mention whatever is made by
any of the early Christian writers, they are commonly rejected as
altogether spurious. The distinction thus generally recognized in
favour of the above-mentioned particular letters is grounded on
reasons of no little force and weight, but at the same time they
are not of such a conclusive nature as to silence all objection : on
the contrary, a regard for truth requires it to be acknowledged,
that so considerable a degree of obscurity hangs over the question
respecting the authenticity of not only a part, but the whole of
the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, as to render it altogether a case
of much intricacy and doubt. (')
(1) For a copious account of Ignatius we refer the reader to Tillemont's
■Memoires pour servir a VHistoire de VEglise, torn. ii. p. ii. p. 42. 80. Several
others also have employed their pens on this subject, as may be seen [p. 160.]
in the Biblioih. Grccc. of Fabricius, lib. v. cap. i. p. 38, where likewise the dif-
ferent editions of the Epistles of Ignatius are enumerated, and a view is taken
of the disputes amongst the learned to which they have given rise.
(2) But few probably would ever have interested themselves much in this
question concerning the genuineness of the Epistles of Ignatius, had they not
been found to favour the cause of those who contend for the divine origin and
great antiquity of episcopal government. But the Presbyterians as they are
termed, and those amongst us who are for doing aw\ay every tiling of which
the teachers of the church might avail themselves, in order to maintain a dis-
tinction between themselves and the people, perceiving this, have attacked
these letters with all the warmth of party spirit, and occasionally suffered
themselves to be betrayed into so much violence on the subject, as rather to
lessen their own credit than that of the Epistles in the eyes of a judicious
reader. The Episcopalians have also, not unfrequently, run into the same
fault ; and in their eagerness to prove a want of penetration and judgment in
their adversaries, have shown a deficiency of candour and liberality in them-
selves. For my own part, I cannot perceive that it would be of any great con-
sequence to either party to obtain the victory in this case ; since it by no means
appears to me that the tause of episcopacy is so far dependent on these
Epistles for support, as that it must stand or fall accordingly as they may be
adjudged to be either genuine or spurious. But the conduct of even our
greatest scholars may, in some instances, be said to resemble that of advocates
in courts of law, who frequently contend with more asperity and earnestness
for minor or collateral points, than for the principal matter in dispute.
(3) That the six or seven letters above pointed out have in them some-
what of a genuine cast is, I think, unquestionable, and rendered particularly
206 Century L— Section 52.
manifest by (amongst others) Bishop Pearson in his Vindicicc IgnatiaiuE, a
work of great excellence, and replete with profound learning. As to the
quantity however of what may thus be considered as authentic, I must confess
myself unable to determine. There are extant, as is well known, two editions
of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius ; the one an ancient one, and the more
comprehensive of the two; the other, that which was published in the 17th
century, first of all by Isaac Vossius, and afterwards by Sir Thomas Smith,
from the Medicean manuscript, and in which are not to be found several things
that are contained in the former. Of these editions the latter has, in general,
the preference given to it by those of the present day who wish to uphold the
authority of Ignatius, inasmuch as it accords better with the tenets and opin-
ions now generally prevalent in the Christian church than the other, in which
some passages and expressions occur which cannot well be defended or recon-
ciled with what are commonly deemed orthodox sentiments respecting God and
the Saviour of mankind. This is not however considered as by any means a
satisfactory reason for rejecting the other edition by some, who with truth re-
mark, that prior to the existence of controversies in the church, its members
appear to have allowed themselves considerable latitude both in thinking and
speaking, and that consequently the rules of expression to which we of the
present day find it necessary to confine ourselves, must not be too strictly ap-
plied as a standard whereby to judge of anything that may occur in the writings
of the early Christians. There are therefore not wanting those who consider the
more ancient and fuller edition as the best ; amongst whom we may mention
Jo. Morin (de sacr. Ordinat. p. iii. exerc. iii. cap. iii.) and W. Whiston : the
latter of whom, in a work printed at London, 1710, in 8vo. endeavours to prove
that Athanasius contrived to get every thing which seemed to militate against
the Nicene dogma concerning the existence of three persons in one God, to be
expunged from the Epistles of Ignatius, lest the tenets of himself and his asso-
ciates might appear not to be in unison with the sentiments of so respectable a
writer. As for what Whiston would thus insinuate respecting Athanasius, it is
unqu'istionably to be regarded as nothing more than one of those dreams of
[p. 161.] fancy by which men are sometimes led astray, when they pay more
attention to the suggestions of their own imagination than to the dictates of
right reason ; but it must at the same time be acknowledged that the opinion en-
tertained by him, in common with other learned men, that a preference ought to be
given to the more ancient and fuller edition of the Ignatian Epistles, although it
may be questioned and opposed, can yet by no means be wholly set aside, or
proved to have no foundation in truth. Le Clerc has attacked this opinion with no
little force, in an express dissertation annexed to the last edition of the Patres
Aposiolici, tom. ii. p. 501, et seq. ; as has also Wotton in the preface to his
edition of the Epistles of Clement, p. clxxxv. et seq. ; but should any one be
inclined to enter the lists in defence of the opposite side of the question, he
will not have far to seek for a reply. To me it appears not at all impossible
that the longer epistles should have been curtailed or epitomized by some one
or other ; and it might, in my opinion, therefore be urged with some show of
reason, that the shorter epistles published by Vossius are merely an abridg-
Polycarih Barnabas. 207
ment of the longer ones, made by some unknown person, who was probably
apprehensive lest any loose and incautious expressions of Ignatius might prove
of detriment to the orthodox belief respecting the divine Trinity. But to
whichsoever edition we may give the preference, we sliall never, under the
present circumstances, let us endeavour what we may, be able to exonerate
these letters from all suspicion of corruption and interpolation. Upon the
whole, it appears to me, that this great controversy respecting the Epistles of
Ignatius, although it has occupied the attention and talents of so many emi-
nent men, remains as yet undecided, nor do I think that it can ever be satis-
ftictorily determined, unless further light should be acquired by a discoveiy of
some more ancient copies, or of some more explicit early authorities than those
we are already in possession of on the subject. The letters themselves, come
from what pen they may, are indisputably of very ancient date ; and that they
are not altogether a forgery is in the highest degree credible : but to ascertain
with precision the exact extent to which they may be considered as genuine,
appears to me to be beyond the reach of all human penetration.
LIII. Polycarp and Barnabas. The Epistlc to the Philippians
which is attributed to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had been
one of St. John's disciples, and who, about the middle of the se-
cond century, suffered martyrdom at a very advanced age, has
merely a questionable claim to credit ; in consequence of which
it is regarded by some as spurious, though others consider it to
be genuine.(') The Epistle that has come down to us with the
name of Barnabas affixed to it, and which consists of two parts,
the one comprising proofs of the divinity of the Christian religion
derived from the books of the Old Testament, the other, a col-
lection of moral precepts, is unquestionably a composition of great
antiquity, but we are left in uncertainty as to its author. For as
to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by that
Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the
futility -of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the
letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations of Scrip-
ture which it contains, having in them so little of either truth,
dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they could ever
have proceeded from the pen of a man divinelj^ instructed.(')
(1) A list of authors who have written particularly respecting Poly- [p. 162.]
carp, is given by Jo. Alb. Fabricius in his Bibliolheca Grccca, lib. v. cap. i. p. 47 et
seq. The most distinguished of these is Tillemont, whose diligence has never
been surpassed by either of the others. See his Memoires four servir a VHisioire
de rEglise, tom. ii. p. ii. p. 287, et seq. The year and month of this father's death
have been made the subject of particular discussion by (amongst others) Bara-
208 Centimj L— Section 53, 54.
tier, in his work de Successione Romanoruin Pontificuni, and the Abb6 Longenie,
in a dissertation de Anno Macedunum^ which is to be found in J. D. Winekler's
Sylloge Anecdotorum p. 18. 25. But since the grounds and arguments relied on
in this discussion, are chiefly drawn from the Greek Epistle of the church of
Smyrna respecting the death of Polycarp, first published by Bishop Usher, it
appears to me that very great doubt and uncertainty must continue still to hang
over the point. For whoever will attentively consider that Epistle, and com-
pare it with what is given us from it by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History,,
lib. iv. cap. xv. cannot isA to perceive that it has been corrupted and interpo-
lated by some weak and superstitious person, who, in his endeavours, to mul-
tiply miracles, descends even to trifling, and occasionally falls into the absurdity
of disagreeing with himself.
(2) With regard to Barnabas and his Epistle, the reader may consult,
amongst other works, Fabricii Bihlioth. Grccc. lib. iv. cap. v. { xiv. p. 173, and
lib. V. cap. i. ^ iv. p. 3. Thom. Ittigii Select. Hislor. Eccles. Capit. saec. i. c. i.
\ xiv. p. 20. — Basnage, in his Histoire des Juifs^ tom. iii. cap. xxvi. p. 558, has
pointed out and corrected some of the more flagrant errors of this writer, but
not all. For he has adopted many, and that too in things with regard to which
it would have been easy for him to have obtained more accurate information.
With respect to the real origin of this letter, I do not, for my own part, see any
just grounds for believing it to have been written by some artful man, who, the
more readily to gain readers and proselytes, introduced it to the world as an
Epistle of Barnabas the companion of St. Paul. In fact I can perceive nothing
whatever that should lead one even to suspect a thing of the kind : and the
opinion therefore to which I incline is, that some Jew of the name of Barnabas, a
man, as it should seem, not wanting in piety, but of a weak and superstitious cha-
racter, being actuated by a wish to forward, to the utmost of his ability, amongst
his brethren, the cause of that most holy religion to which he had himself become
a convert, drew up and sent out into the world this Epistle ; but that the early
Christians, led away by a name for which they entertained the highest reverence,
attributed it at once to that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of
St. Paul.
LIY. Hermas. The list of apostolical fathers closes with Her-
nias, a Avriter of the second century, who, according to early
authorities, was brother to Pius, bishop of Eorae.(') His book,
which is now known to the world merely through the medium of
a Latin translation, was originally written in. Greek, and is en-
titled " The Shepherd,'''' the principal character introduced in it
being that of an angel who had assumed the form and garb of a
shepherd, and who, under this disguise becomes the instrument
of conveying to Hermas instruction and admonition from above,
[p. 163.] The object of this author evidently was, to impress the
world with the belief that his book was not the offspring of anv
Ilermas. 209
human understanding or talents, but that whatever it contained
had been derived either from God himself or from the above-
mentioned angehc shepherd. But there is such an admixture of
folly and superstition with piety, such a ridiculous association of
the most egregious nonsense with things momentous and useful,
not only in the celestial visions which constitute the substance of
his first book, but also in the precepts and parables which are
put into the mouth of the angel in the two others, as to render it
a matter of astonishment that men of learning should ever have
thought of giving Hermas a place amongst the inspired writers.
To me it appears clear that he must have been either a wild dis-
ordered fanatic, or else, as is more likely, a man who, by way of
more readily drawing the attention of his brethren to certain
maxims and precepts which he deemed just and salutary, con-
ceived himself to be warranted in pretending to have derived
them from conversations with God and the angels. (')
(1) Amongst the learned there have not been wanting- some, [among the
Britans and the adherents to the Roman Pontif,] who, from a wish, to exalt the
character and authority of Hermas, the author of " The Shepherd, " the writer to
whom we here allude, have strafned every nerve to persuade us that he was a
different person from that Hermas whom ancient authors speak of as having
been brother to Pius, bishop of Rome. What they maintain is, that the author
of " The Shepherd," was either that Hermas spoken of by St. Paul in Rom. xvi
14. ; or if this should not appear to be probable, still that he was a very ancient
writer , who lived in the time of Clement of Rome, and before the destruction
of Jerusalem ; a position which must at once fall to the ground, were it to be
admitted that " The Siiepherd " was written by the brother of Pius, bishop of
Rome, since the Romish see was filled by no one of that name until the second
century. No one has displayed greater learning in defence of this point, or
entered into it more fully, than Just. Fontaninus : vid. Histor. Literar. Aquiliens.
lib. ii. cap. i. p. 63, et seq. But notwithstanding all that has been urged by him
and others, it is most clearly manifest that the early writers who make mention
of Hermas, the brother of Pius, understood him to be one and the same with
that Hermas who was the author of "The Shepherd." To me it appears im-
possible for any one to doubt this who will attentively consider the following
passage in the verses against Marcion, to be found amongst Tertullian's works,
lib. iii. cap. ix. p. 366, edit. Venet. ; and which, if wrongly attributed to Ter-
tullian, were yet certainly written by some very ancient author —
" Jamque loco nono caihedrain suscepit Jlyginus, ,
Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui g ermine f rater
Angelicus Pastor, quia tradita verba loquutus."
Now the opinion of learned men with regard to this passage has been, that
14
210 Century I.—Section 54.
Hermas is here styled an angelic pastor, that is a teacher rivalling the angels,
and possessed of angelic excellence. But that this is a mistake is evident from
the context, — quia tradita verba loquutus. For supposing the above opinion to
be just, we have here the reason assigned for the writer's applying to Hermas
the title of Angelic Pastor : but who, let me ask, can possibly see in these words
even the shadow of a reason to justify the appellation'? Could the circumstance
[p. 164.] of his having spoken tracUta verba, or "words transmitted from above,"
give Hermas a claim to the title of Angelic Pastor ? If it did, the title is cer-
tainly not due to him alone, but belongs also to every sound Christian preacher;
for all such men teach and speak words which came from God himself, and were
commanded by him to be put in writing. The more natural conclusion then is>
that it is not to Hermas that the magnificient title of Angelic Pastor has relation
in this passage, but to some other person ; nor does there appear to me to be
the least difficulty whatever in immediately pointing that other person out. Not
a question, as it strikes me, can exist but that the appellation refers to the work
called "The Shepherd," which was written by Hermas, and in the second and
third book of which an angelic pastor or shepherd is introduced as communi-
cating to the author what is there recorded ; and what Tertullian meant to in-
timate in my opinion, undoubtedly was, that the Hermas of whom he spake was
the same with him to whom an angel, under the form and garb of a shepherd,
had communicated and explained certain mandates from above. If the common
reading indeed of this passage be retained, I am ready to allow that the sense
which I would thus annex to it may appear to be not altogether obvious or
plain : but it will not admit of a doubt that thi^ reading is corrupt. Even those
who may be against me as to the above interpretation of the passage, must yet
allow this to be the fact: for as the words stand at present, it is impossible to
annex to them any sense whatever. The correction, I should propose, would
be, to transfer the comma which follows the word pastor, back to the word /r«/er
at the close of the preceding line, and to exchange the particle quia in the third
line for the pronoun cui:
Hermas cui g;erminc fratcr,
Angelicus Pastor cui tradita verba loquutus."
Corrected in this way the passage at once loses its obscurity, and becomes
in every respect clear and intelligible. "Piiis," says Tertullian, "has a natural
brother called Hermas : I mean the person of that name who enjoyed the rare
felicity of receiving from the mouth of an angelic pastor, or angel who assumed
the form and guise of a shepherd, words transmitted from the Deity himself."
That I should point to a variety of passages in the writings of other ancient
authors, which explicitly corroborate the testimony of Tertullian in this respect,
by attributing " The Shepherd " to that Hermas who was the brother of Pius, is,
I conceive, not by any means necessary. For there w^as fortunately brought to
light, some few years since, a work of unquestionable authority, the production
^f an author cotemporary with Hermas, and containing a passage which places
it beyond all dispute that the book which w^e have extant under the title of "the
Shepherd" was written in the second century, by the brother of Pius, bishop of
Her mas. 211
Rome, It is a fragment (the exordium being wanting) of a small work con-
cerning tlie canon of the holy Scriptures, and was published by L. Ant. Mura-
tori, in his Antiquiiales. Ital. Med. JEvi., torn. iii. diss, xliii. p. 853, et seq. The
author of it is unknown. ^lurutori attributes it to Caius, a presbyter of the
church of Rome, who lived in the latter part of the second century ; but'the
point is by no means placed beyond doubt. Of this however we are certain,
from the evidence of the book itself, that the author, whoever he might be, com-
piled it in the second century, and during the time when Ilermas was alive. In
this very valuable fragment we meet with the following testimony respecting
Hermas, the author of " the Shepherd: " " Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus
liostvh in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urhis Romcc [p. 165.]
EccksiiC Pio episcopo fratre ejus. — Nothing surely can be more explicit than
this ; and there is consequently no room left for further dispute amongst the
learned respecting either the age, the kindred, or the condition of Ilermas. To
this passage succeeds another no less worthy of remark, since it brings us ac-
quainted with the degree of estimation in which Hermas was held as a writer
by the Latin church. The construction of the paragraph is indeed not the most
elegant imaginable, but it nevertheless leaves us in no doubt as to the fact
that the writings of Hermas were not included within the canon of sacred Scrip-
tures : Et idea legi eum quidem oportet, se fuhlicare vero in ecclesia populo, neque
inter proplietas completum numero, neque inter apostolos injinem temporum potest.
"The Shepherd," says this writer, "may properly enough be perused by pious
persons in private, but it is not a work fit to be read publicly in assemblies of
the church, or deserving of being classed with the writings of either the pro-
phets or the apostles." — The just discrimination exhibited in this passage re-
flects no little honour, on the Latin churches, inasmuch as it proves them to have
been more discreet and cautious in their judgment than the Greeks were, who
for the most part regarded Hermas as an author not inferior to the prophets and
apostles. Hermas himself, as I shall presently take occasion to show, was un-
questionably desirous of having a place assigned him amongst the sacred writers:
but the teachers of the Latin, and especially the Roman churches, notwithstand-
ing they were told .that his book contained the discourses of an angel and the
church, and that the precepts therein delivered were the very words of God him-
self, notwithstanding also that they knew the author was brother to Pius the
Roman pontifl", as we should now call him, yet would they not suffer themselves
to be imposed upon, but candidly and boldly afiirmed, that neither the visions
of Hermas nor the discourses of his angelic instructor, were entitled to any
credit. Out of respect, as I conceive, to the brother of a man of considerable
authority, and a Roman bishop, they did not go the length of prohibiting the
use of the book altogether, but permitted it to be perused with a view to pious
edification in private ; they however would not consent to its being read in
public to the people. It must indeed be acknowledged that the Latin, and es-
pecially the Roman Christians, manifested from the first a greater degree of
circumspection and prudence in drawing the line between such writings as were
really and truly the fruit of divine inspiration and such as falsely pretended to
that character, than those of Greece and the oriental regions, whose precipitancy
212 Century I. — Section 55.
was such, that, had their judgment been made the criterion, the canon of the
New Testament would have come down to us by far more bulky iu size than
it is at present, and disgraced by writings which are now by common consent
regarded as apocryphal. Whilst we are on the subject, I will add a word or
two respecting the reason which some of the learned assign as chiefly inducing
them to consider the author of the work now extant under the title of "the
Shepherd " and Hermas, who was brother to Pius, as having been two different
persons. In the Liher pontificalis and some other ancient writings, there is a
passage cited respecting the celebration of Easter, from a book called " the
Shepherd, " written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, but which is no where to
be found in the work that has reached us under that title. See Jo. Alb. Fa-
bricii Codex Apocrypkus Novi. Testam. torn. iii. p. 761. Hence they infer that
the Shepherd written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, was a different book from
the Shepherd that we are in possession of. But this way of reasoning, although
it might be fair enough if the work were extant in the original Greek, and we
certain that it had come down to us entire, will yet by no means hold good
[p. 166.] under the existing circumstances, since the work is known to us merely
through a Latin translation, and it is far from being impossible that this translation,
should be incomplete. To me it appears not at all unlikely that those of the
Greek and oriental Christians, who were styled Quarladecimans, might expunge
from " the Shepherd" the passage above alluded to respecting the time of keep-
ing Easter, inasmuch as it militated against the opinion which they themselves
entertained on the subject.
(2) Several things, which I cannot well enter into in this place, conspire to
impress me with the opinion that Hermas could never have been so far the dupe
of an over-heated imagination, as to fancy that he saw a^ heard things which
in reality had no existence, but that he knowingly and wilfully was guilty of a
cheat, and invented those divine conversations and visions which he asserts
himself to have enjoyed, with a view to obtain a more ready reception for certain
precepts and admonitions which he conceived would prove salutary to the Ro-
man church. At the time when he wrote, it was an established maxim with
many of the Christians, that it was pardonable in an advocate for religion to
avail himself of fraud and deception, if it were likely that they might conduce
towards the attainment of any considerable good. Of the host of silly books
and stories to which this erroneous notion gave rise from the second to the
fifteenth century, no one who is acquainted with Christian History can be igno-
rant. The teachers of the Roman church themselves appear to me to have con-
sidered Hermas as having written his work upon this principle, and not to have
altogether disapproved of it. For as we have seen above, they permitted his book
to be circulated and perused, with a view to pious edification in private, but
would not allow it to be read publicly in the assemblies of the church. From
their refusal of the latter it may fairly be inferred, that they did not regard the
visions of Hermas, or the precepts and advice of the angel with whom he pre-
tended to have conversed, in the light of divine communications : but their ac-
quiescing in the former, very plainly shows, that the kind of fiction to which this
author had recourse, appeared to them to be such as was warrantable, and that
Hernias. 213
they did not think it unjustifiable to practice imposition on the multitude in the
way of instruction, or to invent pious stories for the sake of more readily com-
manding their attention. Had tiiey believed Hernias to have written under the
influence of divine inspiration, they would not have dared to deny his work a
place amongst the sacred writings, and pronounce it unfit to be read in public:
but on the other hand, had they felt indignant at the cheat practised by him, or
disapproved of the guile to which he had recourse, they unquestionably would
never have recommended the perusal of liis work to Christians in private, as
useful and likely to confirm their piety. That Hermaa himself, however, was
desirous of having a place assigned him amongst the inspired writers, and to
have his work read in the public assemblies of the Christians as the writings of
the prophets and apostles were, is plain from what occurs at the end of the se-
cond vision in his first book, (edit. Fabrician. p. 791.) The church, which he
represents as having appeared to him under the form of an aged matron, ia
there made to inquire, 8i jam lihellum dedisset seniorihus ?— " If he had yet
given his book to the elders ?" meaning the presbyters of the Roman church.
His reply is in the negative, adhuc non. Hearing this, the church thus continues :
Berwfecisti: habeo enim qua: dam verba edicere iibi. Cum autem consummavero
omnia verba, aperie scieniur ab electis. Admirably well observed indeed ! The
meaning of these words as is unquestionably proved by what subsequently
occurs, is nothing less than this : " After I shall have finished what I have in
charge to communicate to thee from above, the book must be sent to all the
Christian churches, and be read publicly therein, that no one may be ignorant
of the divine will." We shall add what follows, as it most clearly evinces
not only the deceit of the man, but also that he had the arrogance [p. 167.]
to aspire at being associated with the sacred writers. Scribes ergo duos libeU
los, et mittes unum Clementi, et unum GrapLcc. Mittet autem Clemens in exLeras
civitates: illi enim pcrmissum est. Grapte autem cojnmonebit viduas et orphanos.
Tu autem leges in hac civitate cum senioribus qui prccsu7it eccksia;. The Cle-
ment here spoken of must without doubt have been a man of the highest au-
thority, since the power is attributed to him of sending round, and recom-
mending to the foreign churches, such writings as might appear to be the fruit
of inspiration ; and he could consequently be none other than that Clement
whom, by way of distinction, we usually style "the Roman:" for such pre-
eminence and authority was never possessed by any one else of that name
amongst the early Christians. The commentators on Hermas therefore are,
in my opinion, right in considering him as the person here meant. Clement it
is pretended was, at the time when Hermas wrote, absent from the Roman
church over which he presided. For it was well known, that although that
church was the principal and more immediate object of his care, yet that he
frequently made excursions to the neigiibouring cities, with a view to extend
and strengthen the interests of the Christian community, the duties appertain-
ing to his office in the church of Rome being, during his absence, committed
to tlie elders. The book then was to be sent to him at some no very distant
city where he was staying, and he was to circulate it amongst all the other
churches of Itiily, by whom he was looked up to as a father, and give dircc-
Sl4 Ccntimj I. — Section 55.
tions for its being- read in their public assemblies. The object of this author
therefore, who in fact wrote long after the death of Clement, namely under
the pontificate of Pius, about the middle of the second century, evidently was
to render the inspiration of his work less questionable, by making it appear
as if it liad been written at an earlier period, and during the life-time of Cle-
ment. This circumstance must of itself surely be enough to convince every
one that the man acted on the principle of deception, and had it in view to
take advantage of the simplicity of his Christian countrymen. In the Roman
church, to which he himself belonged, a copy of the book w^as to be handed to
the elders, to whom the regulation of all sacred matters was committed during
the absence of Clement, in order that they might direct it to be read publicly
to the people in their solemn assemblies. But even this was not deemed suf-
ficient. Recollecting that the widows oppressed with age and infirmities, and
the children as yet unbaptized, would not be present at those assemblies, he
took care to provide for another copy being sent to Grapta, a woman who of-
ficiated as a deaconess, for the purpose of being read to the widows and or-
phans. As we have touched on the subject, it may not be amiss just to re-
mark by the way, that some little light appears to be thrown by this passage
on the duties appertaining to the office of the deaconesses, inasmuch as it
seems plainly to show that they were entrusted with the instruction and or-
dering of the feeble women and children. Upon the whole, it is manifest that
Hernias wished to make the Christians of Rome believe that his book had
been considered as of the number of inspired writings, and been read in public
during the time of their highly venerated and holy pastor Clement, and that
consequently they themselves might, without hesitation, bestow upon it a
similar honour. But to be brief. The Pastor of Hennas is a fictitious work,
of much the same kind with what are termed the Clementina and the Recog-
nitions of Clement. In its plan however it is somewhat inferior to these, as
instead of mortal characters conversing, we have the Deity himself, and his
ministers or angels introduced on the scene.
[p. 168.] LV. Origin of dissensions and errors in the Primitive
Church. That disputes and dissensions should not have been
altogether unknoAvn in the first Christian churches, or that
errors of no small moment should have been engendered by-
some of them, can occasion no very great surprise to any one
who shall reflect on the nature of their constitution, and the
situation of things in the age of which we are treating. For the
Christian fraternity was at that period composed in part of Jews
and partly of Gentile worshippers, i. «., of people altogether dif-
fering from each other both in their opinions and manners ; and
of whom the former could by no means be induced to renounce
their attachment to the law of Moses whilst Jerusalem was in
existence, nor could the latter, without the greatest difiiculty,
Dissensions. 215
prevail on themselves to endure with, any becoming degree of
moderation the sujDerstition and imbecility of the Jews. Asso-
ciated with these were also others of a middle class, who had
either unconditionally embraced the maxims of the oriental phi-
losophy respecting the nature of matter, the origin of this world,
the conjunction of ethereal spirits with terrestrial bodies, and
their expected future deliverance, or had else espoused them un-
der certain modifications deduced from the principles of the Jew-
ish religion. And from any of these no other conditions had
been exacted previously to their being received into the Chris-
tian community by baptism, than that they should solemnly
profess a belief in Christ as the Lord and Saviour of the human
race, and declare themselves to be desirous of leading an inno-
cent and holy life for the future, agreeably to his commands.
Kothing like a regular course of preparatory institution had been
gone through, no formal examination as to principles or opinions
had taken place, no pains had been used even to root out from
the minds of the converts any erroneous notions which they
might have conceived or imbibed. In fact, a naked faith was all
that in this infancy of the Christian church was required of any
who were desirous of being admitted within its pale. A fuller
and more perfect insight into its doctrines was left to be acquired
in the course of time. That amongst men of this description
then, allied closely indeed in point of moral worth and sanctity
of demeanor, but at the same time differing widely from each
other as to various matters of opinion, there should have occa-
sionally arisen some disputes and controversies, was a circum-
stance so much within the ordinary course of things, as surely to
yield no ground whatever for surprise.
LVI. The first controversy, respecting the necessity of observing the
law of Moses. The first controversy by which the peace of the
church appears to have been disturbed, was that which was kin-
dled in the church of Antioch by certain Jews, who, conceiving
that the ceremonial law promulgated by Moses was designed to
be of perpetual duration, and that the observance of it was con-
sequently necessary to salvation, contended that its ordinances
ought to be complied with even by those of the Gentiles who
had been converted to Christianity : Acts, xv. 1. et seq. Being
unable to come to any agreement as to this point amongst them-
216 Century I. — Section 56.
selves, tlie Christians of Antioch deputed Paul and Barnabas to
consult with the apostles on the subject. The latter, having sub-
mitted the matter to the consideration of the church of Jerusa-
lem, the controversy was at length, with the general consent,
put an end to by them in the following way, namely, that such
of the Christian converts as were of the Jewish nation should be
at liberty to conform themselves to the Mosaic ritual, but that
those of every other description should not be considered as
[p. 169.] under any obligation whatever to comply with the
ceremonies of the Jewish law. Lest the minds of the Jewish
converts, however, should be too far alienated from the Gentile
brethren, it was required of the latter to abstain from those things
which were regarded as polluting and abominable by the Jews,
namely, from partaking of those feasts which it was usual for
pagan worshippers to prepare from the victims offered to their
false gods, and from joining in the obscene libidinous indulgences
with which the celebration of these feasts was in general accompa-
nied, as likewise from blood and the flesh of animals strangled.(')
(1) It is common for us to term the assembly in which this controversy was
settled, the first Christian council, and to consider it as the original or prototype
of all the councils of after ages. Nay there are many who will go even ftirther,
and maintain that the divine right of councils is to be proved from this assem-
bly. " The apostles, " say they, "by calling together the church of Jerusalem
on this occasion, had it in view to point out to posterity, that controversies re-
specting religion w^ere to be submitted to the cognizance and decision of coun-
cils." But the truth of the matter is, that we have learnt to think and speak
thus from the friends to the papacy, who, after searching the Scriptures in vain
for something that might establish the divine authority of councils, were at
leno-th constrained to lay hold on this convocation of the church of Jerusalem
by the apostles, as on a sheet anchor or last hope. For my own part, I see no
particular objection to any one's giving the denomination of a council to this
assembly if ho think fit; since it was anciently usual for any lawful assembly
to be termed a council; and it can be shown by nufny examples, that a meeting
of merely the teachers of a single individual church was frequently so styled.
Vid. J. Gothofred ad- Codicem Theodosianum^ tom. vi. p. 28. ed. Ritterian. But
as to those meetings of the heads of the church which have been, from time to
time, held subsequently to the second century, and which are properly termed
councils, the assembly at Jerusalem, to which we allude, bears no resemblance
whatever to them, and it is consequently idle for any one to think of deducing
the origin of such conventions from that source. This want of resemblance is
admitted by the acute and ingenious father Paul Sarpi, himself a Romanist, in
his History of the Council of Trent, see lib. ii. p. 240. of the French translation
Observations of Mosaic Law. 217
of it by Courayer; but it at the same time appeared to liim that he had hit upon
a circumstance which would bear him out in maintaining, that the assembly at
Jerusalem might still, in the strict sense of the term, be styled a council ; anj
this was, that not only the apostles, the elders, and the brethren of Jerusalem,
but also Paul and Barnabas, the deputies from the church of Antioch, are stated
to have spoken therein. The title of "the iirst Council," he therefore thought
might very justly be continued to this meeting. But surely it is scarcely pos-
sible for any reasoning to be weaker than this. Did it indeed appear that the
deputies, from Antioch had voted, or sat as judges in this assembly, in the same
way as the elders of Jerusalem did, the argument might not be altogether de-
stitute of force : but instead of this being the case, it is evident that they pre-
tended to nothing beyond the character of deputies, and left the determination
of the point wholly to the apostles and the other members of the church of
Jerusalem. Speak they undoubtedly did, and it was necessary that [p. 170.]
they should speak; but it was not in the way of otfering any opinion of their
own as to the matter in question that they did so. In addition to this it is to
be remarked, that the point in dispute was not resolved in this assembly by the
number of votes, as was the custom in councils, but was determined solely by
the judgment of the apostles. Had the suffrages been taken, it was possible that
of the two opinions the wrong one might have prevailed : for a greater part of
the Christians of Jerusalem were strongly attached to the Mosaic law, and con-
tended warmly for its authority in this very assemt)ly. But, by the speeches of
Peter and James, an end was put to all dissensions, and a mode of determina-
tion suggested to which the multitude deemed it incumbent on them to make
no opposition. We have not therefore, here any thing in the least resembling a
council : for the decision, it is plain, was not that of the church of Jerusalem,
but of the apostles, by the interposition of whose opinion an end was at once
put to the doubts and disputes of the church. Viewing the matter in this
light, I find myself unable altogether to fall in with the opinion expressed on
the subject by Just. Hen. Bcehmer, in his Dissert. Juris Eccles. ArUiqui, diss,
iii. 5 Ixxi. p. 218, and elsewhere, who would consider the decision of this as-
sembly in the light of an award, as the lawyers term it, conceiving the church
of Antioch per modum comproniissi caussam controversam decisioni aposiolorum
et matricis ecclesicc submisisse. It should seem not improbable that the origi-
nal author of this opinion might be father Paul Sarpi himself, as we meet
with it in his History of the Council of Trent, lib. ii. p. 240, though expressed
there but shortly, and with some reserve. But to me it appears that, in the
first place, there is no foundation for what he sets out with assuming, namely,
that the Christians of Antioch referred the determination of their controversy,
not to the apostles only, but also to the whole church of Jerusalem. For it is
most clearly manifest, from the statement of St. Luke, Acts, xv. 2, that the
persons referred to as judges on this occasion were solely the apostles and the
elders, the latter of whom were well known to be of the number of those who
enjoyed divine illumination m common with the apostles, and not the whole
congregation of Christians resident at Jerusalem. The apostles and presbyters,
it is true, when they were about to investigate and determine the question by
218 Century I. — Section 57.
which the church of Antioch was divided, convoked an assembly of the peo-
ple ; but their doing- so was a matter of discretion, not of necessity : for had
they chosen it, they might, from the power that was given them of God, have
proceeded of themselves to decide the point in dispute, in the absence of the
people, and without in the least consulting them : of the exercise of which
power by them we have a striking instance afforded us, in their checking the
disposition \\hich the people discovered to run into parties, and pointing out
in wliat way the affiiir should be determined. In the next place, and which is
to me an objection of still greater force, the apostles must, if this opinion be
a(iopted, be considered merely in the light of referees or arbitrators, elected at
the will of the contending parties, for the purpose of settling their dispute :
whereas they had been constituted judges of all controversies like this, respect-
ing religion, by divine appointment; and it was, therefore, not left to the
option of the Christians of Antioch, whether they would refer the determi-
nation of their dispute to them or not. In a case like theirs, they were en-
joined by nothing less than divine authority to have recourse to the tribunal of
the apostles. Lastly, the very words themselves in which the decree, in this
case, is conceived, forbid us to view it in the light of an award or judgment of
arbitrators indifferently appointed by the parties. For it is not in terms of
their own that the apostles make this decree, but what they ordain is expressly
stated to be so done by the command and authority of the Holy Spirit. 'EcTsIj
[p. 171.] Tw ayici 7r)/iv(ji.tt.Ti Kiti v1|m7v. " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to
ws." In which passage the words rd ayia TrvivfActTit '■'-to the Holy Ghost^'' must
be referred to the apostles, through whom the Holy Spirit, by whom they
were influenced, spake, commanded, and adjudged. The meaning is — "It
seemed good to the apostles, in whom the power of the Holy Spirit is resi-
dent, and whom the same spirit animates." A similar mode of expression is
made use of by St. Peter, in that terrible denunciation wherewith he over-
whelms Ananias, for having attempted to practise deceit on the apostles:
Acts, V. 3, 4. Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost 7 (that is,
to us in whom the Holy Spirit is resident. Thou hast not lied unto (mere) men,
hut unto God (who dwelleth in us). The words xa/ «^7v, " and to us,^^ which
follow, do not refer to the apostles, but to the elders and brethren of the
church of Jerusalem, who are joined with the apostles in the beginning of the
letter. For the denomination of " the Holy Ghost was not of course con-
sidered as embracing these, since they enjoyed merely an ordinary illumination
of the blessed Spirit. The above remarks are submitted to the consideration
of the reader, in consequence of my observing that the force of these words
has hitherto escaped the attention of commentators.
LVII. Controversy respecting the law of Moses. Constantly bear-
ing in mind the decree which he had thus received from the
months of the apostles themselves at Jerusalem, we find St. Paul
not only making it his endeavour, both in the churches of which
he was the immediate founder, and likewise in those to which he
Schism of Judaizers. 219
addressed epistles, to repress witli every possible energy the at-
tempts of the Jewish converts to impose on the necks of their
Gentile brethren the yoke of the Mosaic covenant, but also
labouring by degrees to extinguish in the minds of the Jews
themselves that blind and immoderate partiality which they
entertained for this law of their forefathers. From his epistles,
however, it appears that, in his attempts to accomplish these ob-
jects, he was ever most violently, and not unfrequently success-
fully, opposed by the Jews ; the mistaken zeal and intemperate
warmth of some of whom led them into such extremes, that they
hesitated not at making use of every means to excite a general
feeling of ill-will towards St. Paul, and to detract from the high
character of this great apostle of the Gentiles, who could justly
boast of having, in the most marked and emphatical manner,
been called to the ministration of the word by the voice of our
Lord himself. On the other hand, it was not without consider-
able difficulty that the Gentile converts could be brought to en-
dure with patience that the Jews should thus obstinately persist
in refusing to recede from the customs and institutions of their
forefathers, and that they themselves should yield obedience to
the decree of Jerusalem, which forbad them to partake of meats
offered to idols, or to be present at the feasts of heathen worship-
pers. As for any disputes of inferior moment, of which descrip-
tion there are some particularly adverted to, and others inciden-
tally noticed, by St. Paul in his Epistles, I purposely pass them
over in silence, as possessing no claim to our attention.
[p. 172.] LYIII. Schism generated by this controversy respecting
the Mosaic law. Invincible nearly as the attachment of the Jew-
ish converts to the law of ceremonies appeared for a long while
to be, the destruction of their national city and temple by
the Eomans caused it sensibly to fall into the wane amongst
such of them as had taken up their abode without the confines
of Palestine.(') By the immediate inhabitants of that region,
however, who appear to have been buoyed up with the hope that
it would not be long before they should obtain permission of the
Eomans to rebuild both their temple and the city, a belief con-
tinued still to be retained that the authority of the law of Moses
was ever to be regarded by the descendants of Abraham as alto-
220 Century L—Section 58, 59.
gether sacred and inviolable. To the delusive expectations of
these latter, an end was not put until Jerusalem had experienced
its second and final overthrow, under the reign of the emperor
Hadrian ; when, every hope respecting the restoration of their
city having vanished, a part of the Jewish brethren were pre-
vailed on to renounce the institutions of Moses, and to embrace
the freedom that was held out to them in the Gospel of Christ ;
others of them, however, gave the preference to continuing un-
der the bondage of their ancient system of discipline, and in con-
sequence thereof withdrew themselves from the assemblies and
society of the rest. Those who thus inflexibly persisted in en-
cumbering the profession of Christianity with the observances
of the Mosaic ritual, had the denomination of Nazarenes and
Ehionites given to them by the other Christians, or otherwise as-
sumed these titles of their own choice by way of distinction.(^)
(1) Eusebius has left it on record, (Histor. Eccles. lib. ill. cap, xxxv. p.
106.) that, on the overthrow of Jerusalem and burmng of the 'temple, a vast
number of the Jews {/uu^iuv U ;r<g/To^iij) were induced to embrace Christi-
anity. Hence it is manifest how greatly the calamities to which they were
exposed, contributed towards lessening the attachment of the Jewish peoplo
to the law of their forefathers.
(2) Of this schism or secession we shall treat more particularly when wo
come to the reign of Hadrian, in our history of the second century. The Ebi-
onites and Nazarenes have, I well know, always hitherto been classed with the
sects of the first age, but to me this appears irreconcilable with reason. For
it can be indisputably proved, that those of the Christians who persisted ia
adhering to the observance of the law of Moses, did not separate themselves
from the rest of the brethren, until Jerusalem, which had just begun to rise
again from its ashes, was secondly, and finally, laid waste by the Romans, in
the time of the emperor Hadrian ; and that it was upon their so separating
themselves, and not before, that they came to be distinguished by the titles of
Ebionites, and Nazarenes, and were numbered amongst the corrupters of
Christianity. Previously to their acting thus, they were regarded by no one
in any other light than as true Christians. During the first century, they cer-
tainly had not by any means forfeited their claim to the title of brethren, al-
though they had given proofs of weakness and a want of further light. Here-
tics, it is true, they became, but this was at a subsequent period, when they
refused any longer to hold fellowship with those who had discernment enough
to perceive, that Christ had relieved the necks of even the Jews themselves
from the yoke and burden of the law.
LIX. Controversy respecting the means of obtaining justification
and salvation. Nearly allied to these disagreements and conten-
Means of Justijication. 221
tions, respecting tlic necessity for observing tlic Mosaic law of
ceremonies, altliougii of infinitely greater moment, was Qd. 173.]
a dispute stirred up by the Jewish doctors at Rome, and in others
of the Christian churches, concerning the means whereby we are
to arrive at justification and salvation. For Avhereas the doc-
trine taught by the apostles was, that our every hope of obtain-
ing pardon and salvation ought to centre in Christ and his merits,
these Jewish teachers, on the contrary, made it their business to
extol the efiicacy and saving power of works agreeable to the
law, and to inculcate on men's minds, that such as had led a life
of righteousness and holiness, might justly expect to receive
eternal happiness from God as their due. To this doctrine, inas-
much as it went materially to lessen the dignity and importance
of our blessed Saviour's character, and was founded on a false
estimate of the strength of human nature, as well as repugnant
to the voice and authority of the moral law itself, St. Paul op-
posed the most unremitting and particular resistance.(')
(1) It is clear, from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, tliat there were, be-
sides this, other controversies in agitation at that period : but as the apostle,
aware that he was addressing himself to persons to whom the subjects in dis-
pute were familiar, omits the mention of several important particulars, doubt-
less v^ell known to the Romans, but in regard to wliich we of the present day-
are, as it were, wholly in the dark, it is scarcely possible for any one, at this
distance of time, to form any thing like a clear and precise notion of what
these questions involved. The reader will find every thing that can, with any
degree of certainty or apparent probability, be said on the subject, collected to-
gether and arranged by the following authors : Herm. Witsius, Miscell. Sacr.
torn. ii. exerc. xx, xxi, xxii. p. 665, et seq. ; Camp. Vitringa, Observation. Sacr,
lib. iv. cap. ix, x, xi. p. 952 ; Jo. Franc. Buddeus, Lib. de Ecclesia Apostolic.
cap. iii. p. Ill, et seq. In these works there are indeed not a few things ad-
vanced which are founded merely in conjecture, and miglit, without taking any
very great pains, be proved futile, and wholly destitute of substantial support ;
but, since we have it not in our power to substitute any thing more certain in
their stead, it may be as well, perhaps, to leave them untouched, as to displace
them for the purpose of bringing forward merely a fresh set of conjectures.
LX. Heretics commemorated by the apostles. With these sup-
porters of the law of Moses, these mistaken advocates for the
strength of human nature, by whose contentious spirit the church
of Christ was prevented from enjoying a perfect tranquillity even
in this its golden age, we find ancient as well as modern writers
222 Century I.— Section 60.
very commonly joining the following persons, of whose apostacy
or errors St. Paul and St. John make mention in their epistles,
namely, IlymenaiuSj Alexander^ Philetus^ Hermogenes^ Phygellus,
Donas, and Diotrephes. For they conceive all these to have been
the founders of sects, or at least to have been the authors of
various pernicious errors, through the introduction of which into
some of the churches, Christianity experienced a partial adulte -
ration. (') But it appears to me, that if what the sacred writers
have left us on record respecting these men be maturely weigh-
[p. 17-1:] ed, the inclination of opinion must be that, with the ex-
ception of Alexander, Hymenceus, and Philetus, it is rather of a
dereliction of Christian duty and charity that they are accused,
than of perverting Divine truth, or entertaining any heretical
opinions. (')
(1) See Vitringa and Buddeus he. supr. indicat. also Tho. Ittigius de Hcc-
resiarchis JEvi Aposiolici et Apostolico proximi, sect. i. cap. viii. p. 84, et seq.
(2) In 2 Tim. i. 15. we find St. Paul complaining that he had been de-
serted by all who had accompanied him from proconsular Asia, of which Eplie-
sus was the chief city, to Rome. Of those he, for some particular reasons no
doubt, though we are unacquainted with them, points out Hermogenes and
Phygellus by name. The probability is, that these men, upon finding St. Paul
cast into prison, considered his fate as pretty well decided, and despairing ever
to see him regain his liberty, and continue the travels he had meditated, they
left Rome, and returned into their own country. That their conduct in this
respect was highly blameable, is what every one must admit : for to desert a
brother, and, much more, one of God's apostles, whose life is in jeopardy, and
to whose protection and comfort one might contribute by continuing witli him,
is certainly to evince both a levity of mind and also a forgetfulness of Chris-
tian obligation : but the inconstancy of these men has surely nothing in it that
can authorise us to conclude, that, in returning home, they had it at all in view
to become opponents of the principles which had been taught them by St. Paul,
or meditated the introduction of any innovations into the Christian church. Of
the number of these inconstant brethren there was also one Demas, whom St.
Paul, in cap. iv. v. 10. of the same epistle, represents as having left him, and
gone to Thessalonica, being captivated with the love of this world. In repro-
bating the conduct of this man, both ancient writers and modern ones seem to
have set no bounds whatever to their indignation : those who except him out
of the class of heretics, do it merely for the purpose of attaching to him a
worse denomination, namely, that of an absolute apostate from Christianity.
But for my own part, I see nothing in the words of St. Paul which can war-
rant us in drawing a conclusion so severe against him. The apostle does not
accuse Demas of having forsaken Christ, but of having deserted him, Paul :
which latter it was certainly very possible for him to do, and yet to remain
Heretics named in the j^etv Testament. 223
steadfast in the foitli of Christ. Nor does the reason which the apostle assigns
for this man's having forsaken him, by any means imply a defection from
Christ. For in Scripture those are said to love the world who prefer the en-
joyment of the luxuries, the comforts, and the security of this life to the duties
which Christianity enjoins us to fulfil. It appears to me, therefore, that the
misconduct wherewith St. Paul is to be understood as reproaching Demas,
amounted to no more than this, that he had consulted his ease and conveni-
ence rather than his duty, and preferred retiring to a life of safety and quiet-
ness at Thessalonica, to continuing any longer a })artaker of the ignominy,
dangers, and toils, which the companions and friends of St. Paul had continu-
ally to encounter at Rome : that the man had very much misconducted himself
is unquestionable, but there are certainly no just grounds for believing him to
have incurred that high degree of criminality which we so generally find at-
tributed to him. Crescens and Tilus, who are mentioned by St. Paul in the
same verse with Demas, are stated to have gone into Galatia and Dalmatia, bo
that they had in like manner quitted their captive master : but their departure
from him was for the best of purposes, namely, to propagate the religion of
Christ in those provinces ; and they went with his consent, and appro- [p. 175]
bation : whereas the object of Demas in quitting Rome was altogether dis-
honourable, and unw^orthy of a disciple of Christ, for he withdrew from thence
that he might shelter himself from danger, and spend his days in tranquillity
and ease. — Diotrephes is censured by St. John, in his third epistle, on a two-
fold account. First, that he had arrogated to himself a pre-eminence in the
church to which he belonged, and which had probably been committed to his
superintendence : and secondly, that he had conducted himself in a harsh and
unfeeling manner towards certain of the brethren, who had deserved well of
Christianity, and consequently had a claim to far different treatment at his
hands. The circumstances of the case appear to have been these. Certain
members of the church to which Diotrephes belonged had gone forth for the
purpose of propagating the Christian religion amongst the neighbouring na-
tions. Upon their return, they brought with them some strangers or foreign-
ers whom they had initiated in the principles of Christianity, and also a letter
from St. John, commending the f lith and zeal which they displayed in the
cause of Christ, and desiring that they and their companions might be hospi-
tably lodged and entertained during their stay, as was the custom amongst the
early Christians, and that on their again going forth they might be supplied,
tlirough the public liberality, with every thing which might tend to encourage
and forward them in undertaking a fresh mission amongst tlie Gentiles. But
Diotrephes, it seems, spurned at the recommendation of St. John, and not only
forbad these good and useful men from being m:iintained out of the public
fund, or at the expense of the church, but also went to the length of excom-
municating those who had been induced to yield them some occasional private
assistance.
It will scarcely then, I had almost said it cannot, be denied me to infer from
the above that Diotrephes must have been tlie Bisiiop of this church. For how
could it have been possible for a private individual to have excommunicated any
224 Century I. -Section 60.
of the brethren with whom he might be at enmity? or by what means could such
an one have brought it about, that a letter from one of Christ's apostles should
be treated with neglect and contempt? Some particular reason or other there
unquestionably was, that induced this haughty character to conduct himself in
the manner above stated; and it must, no doubt, have been such a reason as had
all the appearance of being a just and an honourable one. Learned men have
imagined that this reason is to be discovered in the quality or condition of the
persons whom he excommunicated. Diotrephes they suppose to have been origi-
nally a Gentile, and those whom he refused to receive Jews: and hence they con-
clude that the contempt entertained by the former for the latter had gained so
complete an ascendency over his mind that he could not forego the opportunity
of manifesting it, even at the expense of violating the most sacred law of chari-
ty. This conjecture may, perhaps, at first sight, be thought to carry with it some-
what of a specious air; but if put to the test, there will be found in it nothing
tliat can possibly have any weight with a considerate person at all conversant in
Christian history. For, not to rest on the circumstance of its being unsupport-
ed by any sort of authority, except what is supplied by the name Diotrephes,
which is certainly a Greek one, but of itself can surely never be considered as
yielding an argument of the least cogency or force; and equally passing over the
fact of their being no sort of memorial extant which can warrant us in believing
that the Gentile Christians ever permitted themselves to be so far carried away
by their hatred and contempt of the Jews, as to refuse to consider them as breth-
ren, and withhold from them even the common fruits of charity ; it is plain, from
the fifth verse of St. John's Epistle, that those whom Diotrephes treated with
such harshness were members of that church over which, it should seem, that he
presided. The apostle, indeed, speaks of the Christians to whom he alludes as
consisting of two classes, — dhx^issi or brethren, and f ev»f, foreigners or stran-
[p 176.] gers. But, since he is treating of Christians sojourning in one and the
same church, and makes use of the term "brethren" in opposition to that of
"strangers," there can be no doubt but that by the former he meant those who
had been regularly admitted into fellowship with the church, and by the latter
such as had not been so admitted. There are some, I am well aware, who think
St. John is to be understood as meaning by "brethren," Jews — and by "stran-
gers," Greeks ; but it cannot be shown either that the term "brethren " was ever
used by the apostle in this restricted sense, or that it was customary for the
Greek converts to be styled l^vo/, or strangers. What we set out, therefore, with
observing, seems scarcely to admit of any question, namely, that certain mem-
bers of the church which was under the care of Diotrephes had gone forth with
a view of propagating Christianity amongst the people of the neighbouring dis-
trict, and on their return brought with them some of their disciples, and also an
epistle addressed by St. John to the church to which they belonged. And now,
to give my own opinion as to the reason of their being so ungraciously received
by Diotrephes, I think the cause of all his ill-will towards them is plainly point-
ed at by St. John himself. To every one perusing his Epistle it must be obvi-
ous, that the apostle introduces at ver. 7. somewhat of an apology to Gains, to
whom he writes for the journey which these good men undertook in the cause
Diotrephes. 225
of Christ. First, he says, that their motive was good, that they went forth with
the best mind and intention, being desirous only of contributing to the honor of
God. Then he adduces it as further commendable in them, that, although they
might reasonably have expected to be furnished with the necessaries of life by
the people among whom they sojournt'd, they yet preferred maintjyning them-
selves by the labour of their hands, and refused every sort of rccompence, gra-
tuity, or reward. Now it is clear, that what these men had done, could require
no such defence or justification in the eyes of Gains, for it appears that he had
already befriended their cause, and we may therefore, I think, foirly infer, that
what is thus said by the apostle was meant as an answer to the pretext by which
Diotrephes pretended to justify his very harsh and unchristian-like conduct. St.
John, it is observable, seems tacitly to admit that there was something irregular
in the journey undertaken by these men, for the purpose of converting their hea-
then neighbours, and occupies himself in showing, that if the end of their going
forth, and the manner in which they conducted themselves were attended to,
this irregularity of theirs must appear to be but of small moment. To be brief
then, it strikes me that the truth of the matter was this, that these good men
had grievously offended Diotrephes, by having taken upon them this mission to
the Heathen without his consent or knowledge, and gone forth rather in com-
pliance with the dictates of their own consciences than under any direction or
authority from him. On their return, therefore, it was in vain tliat they looked
up to this haughty character for countenance or support: not even the recom-
mendatory letter which they had procured from St. John, could have the effect
of appeasing his wrath, or dissuade him from giving full vent to his indignation.
Now, in early times, it undoubtedly was the custom for such of the members of
any church as might be desirous of imitating the example of the apostles, and
propagating the Gospel amongst the Heathen, to apply to the bishop for his li-
cence, and to enter on their travels under his sanction. Ignatius, in almost all
his epistles, inculcates this maxim — MtKi'us X^'i'S tS tTrta-KOTTH rt Tr^aa-a-iro) rdv
dvxxovTar lis t«v iKKKna-iav. Sine episcopo nemo facial eorum aliquid qucc adaccle-
siam spectani : vid. Epist. ad S7nyrnccos, ^ viii. ad Trallianos, ad Philadelph. ad
Polycarpum; and it would be easy to produce innumerable passages from wri-
ters before the reign of Constantine, all tending to show, that in the first ages of
Christianity it was unlawful for any thing appertaining to religion to be either
done or undertaken without the knowledge and consent of the bishop. The
crime of Diotrephes, therefore, was not that of having assailed any of the re-
ceived principles of the Christian religion, but of having discovered an unwar-
rantable degree of asperity and rigour in the maintenance of his own [p. 177.]
importance and dignity. For he, in the first place, manifested a latent pride of
heart, in withholding from a set of pious and innocent men, who, in point of fact,
were entitled to every sort of encouragement, the good oflfices and hospitality
of the church, merely because they had not paid the proper attention to his au-
thority and rights: and in the next place, he betrayed a still more inexcusable spi-
rit of arrogance, in spurning at the authority and recommendation of one of
Christ's apostles, to whose judgment and authority it became all bishops and
churches to pay the utmost deference. This evidently is the oflfence which St.
15
226 Century I.-^Section 60.
John censures in these words: — o ^/xcTr^aTtywv durwv «« iTra^eXi'^^ ««af. "He
who lovcth to have the pre-eminence among them reeeiveth us not." The apos-
tle does not, as is commonly imagined, reprehend him for aspiring to the presi-
dency of the church to which he belonged: for, as I before observed, he must, at
the time of his offending, have been at the head of that church: but what he
means to censure (as the words themselves indicate beyond all controversy) is
that which he considers, as a mark of an inordinately ambitious mind — a mind
carried away by the lust of power, namely, that he had dared to assume to iiim-
self an authority superior even to that of an apostle. The plain sense of the
words is this — "Cut their Diotrephes, who affects to be greater than any of the
apostles, sets at nought my intreaties and authority."
If the men, tlien, of whom I have been speaking, be taken from the class of
the heretics of the first century, there will remain merely Hymenseus, Philetus,
and Alexander. H3'menaeus, the first of these, is in 1 Tim. i. 20. associated by
St. Paul with Alexander: in 2 Tim. ii. 17. however, we find the apostle speaking
of him in conjunction with Philetus. That one and the same man is referred to
in both these places has never, as far as I know, been yet called in question by
any one. But upon attentively considering and comparing together the two above
cited passages, I must confess that there appears to me very great reason to doubt
whether the Hymenseus mentioned in the first Epistle to Timothy be the same
with, or a different man from him, who is spoken of in the last Epistle. Indeed I
think that I might almost, with some confidence, take upon me to assert that
they were two distinct characters, having nothing in common but the name. In
the first place, it is worthy of remark, although it certainly does not go the length
of wholly deciding the point, that the companion in error, whom we find associat-
ed with Hymeneeus in the former passage, is not the same person with whom
his name is joined in the latter one. Secondly, it makes still more strongly in
favour of my opinion, that the Hymenajus mentioned in the first Epistle, was,
together with his associate, delivered over by St. Paul to the evil one, to be tor-
mented until he should desist from blaspheming Christianity, 1 Tim. i. 20. a cir-
cumstance, surely, by no means easy to be reconciled with what is recorded of
the Hymenaeus spoken of in the second Epistle, \vIio is not represented as being
under any kind of restraint, but as going about perverting as many of the Chris-
tians as he could, and disseminating his errors with no small degree of success.
How, let me ask, could it have been possible for a man to do this, whom the
apostle had subjected to the power of the Prince of Darkness, for the purpose of
bridling his blasphemous tongue? Finally, there appears to have been as much
difference between the one and the other Hymenaeus, as there is between an open
enemy of Christianity and an artful insidious corrupter of it. The words of St.
Paul phice it beyond all doubt that the Ilymcnaius first spoken of by him was,
[p. 178.] in every respect, a detestable character. His exhortation to Timothy
is, that he should unite ttisiv failh, i. e. a belief of the religion of Christ, with
a^aid-ii a-vvui^yijih a good conscience. Holiness of life, or piety, is what is meant;
the fruit of which is a good conscience, or a mind conscious to itself of no evil,
and therefore peaceful and happy. The importance and necessity of attending
to this admonition he exemplifies by the case of Ilymenajus and Alexar dei,both
Gnostic Heretics, 227
of whom had discarded t>iv d> atS-nv <ry vt/Jxr/v, a good conscience^ i. e. had plunged
into an evil course of life, and turned their backs on the divine law : this corrup-
tion of their morals being once wrought, their progress in iniquity became ac-
celerated, and these wretched men, at lengtii, made perfect shipwreck, as it were,
of faith, arriving by degrees at such a pitcii of callous depravity, as not only to
think ill of Cin-istianity, but also publicly to blaspheme its doctrines. To " make
siiipwreck concerning faith," is, I think, manifestly to be understood as the same
with apostatizing from the Christian faith or religion. These two men, there-
fore, having given themselves up to a life of wickedness and impiety, were at
length led on to renounce Christianity altogether. But the Hymenaius spoken
of in the latter epistle, although he was involved in very great culpability, was
yet not such a monster as this. He had not apostatized from Christianity, but
merely given a corrupt interpretation to a part of its doctrines, namely, that
which respects the future resurrection of the body. The probibility is, that in-
clining, in this respect, rather to the principles of those philosophers who main-
tained that the body is, as it were, the prison of the rational soul, and matter the
source of all evil, than to the doctrine taught by the apostles, he asserted that
what Christ had delivered respecting the resurrection of the body, was not to be
understood in a literal sense, but that what he meant to promise was a new life
to the souls of men, not lo their bodies. The apostle does not attribute to this
man and his associate many errors. His course of life does not appear to have
been flagitious, nor, like the other Hymenaeus, had he, from a habit of sinning,
taken occasion to deprave religion. Moreover, we do not find it imputed to him
that he had been instrumental in causing others to lead a life of wickedness and
impiety; although, as tiie apostle pretty plainly intimates, there was a tendency
in his error to injure the cause of piety, and countenance an indulgence of our ap-
petites. On these accounts St. Paul is led to speak of him with some degree of
moderation, whereas his reproof of the other Hymenasus is couched in terms of
the greatest severity and vehemence. In fact, he appears rather to lament his fall
than to chide it. With regard to tiie Alexander of whom St. Paul makes men-
tion in his first Epistle to Timothy, my opinion is precisely the same with that
which I have above expressed respecting the Hymenceus there spoken of in con-
junction with him, namely, that he was a diflferent man from the one referred to
under the same name by the apostle, in his second Epistle, and from whom he
states himself to have received great injury at Rome. 2 Tim. iv. 14. And it ap-
pears to me that St. Paul had it in view to mark the distinction between them,
when he added to the name of the latter the denomination of the craft which he
exercised, calling him 'A^t'lav/gos o ^AKKtu^i "Alexander the coppersmith." The
meaning of this addition, it strikes me, was to distinguish the man of whom he
spake from others of the same name who were known to Timothy, and particu-
larly from him whom the apostle had, in his former Ej)istle, accused of perfidy
to the cause of Christ. The Alexander first spoken of, it is also to be remarked,
had, in order to prevent Christianity from suffering further from his blasphemy,
been delivered over by St. Paul into the power of the evil one; and [p. 179.]
how then, it may be asked, could he have insulted St. Paul at Rome, and thrown
impediments in the way of his doctrine?
228 Century L — Section 60.
LX. Gnostic heretics. But bj none of its adversaries or cor-
rupters was Christianity, from almost its first rise, more seriously
injured; by none was the churcli more grievously lacerated, and
rendered less attractive to the people, than by those who were
for making the religion of Christ accommodate itself to the prin-
ciples of the oriental philosophy respecting the Deity, the origin
of the world, the nature of matter, and the human soul. We
allude to those who, from their pretending that they were able
to communicate to mankind, at present held in bondage by
the Architect of the World, a correct knowledge {yma-ii) of
the true and ever-living God, were commonly styled Gnostics.
This calamity was foreseen by St. Paul, and is predicted by him
in 1 Tim. iv. l.(') We find him also, in various parts of his
Epistles, exhorting the followers of Christ to maintain the dis-
cipline of their blessed Master whole and uncontaminated by
any of the fables or inventions of the philosophers of this sect.
1 Tim. vi. 20. ; 1 Tim. i. 8, 4. ; Tit. iii. 9. ; Col. ii. 8. But an in-
sane curiosity, and that itch for penetrating into abstruce or hid-
den things, by which the human mind is so liable to be tormented,
caused many to turn their backs on the advice and admonition
of the apostle and his associates, and no sooner did some of the
Gnostics gain a footing in the recently established Christian
churches, than the principles that they maintained respecting
the first origin of all things, and the causes for which Christ
came into this world, and to which their great austerity of de-
meanour, and rigid abstinence from even the lawful gratifications
of sense, communicated an imposing gloss, were by numbers re-
ceived with open ears, and suffered to take entire possession of
their minds. To no purpose was it that the apostles and their
disciples pointed out the emptiness of all these things, and how
very incongruous they were with the genuine Christian disci-
pline, although they might carry with them a specious show of
somewhat like recondite wisdom.(') Intoxicated with a fond-
ness for these opinions, not a few of the Christians were induced
to secede from all association with the advocates for the sound
doctrine, and to form themselves into various sects, which, as
time advanced, became daily more extensive and numerous, and
were for several ages productive of very serious inconveniences
and evils to the Christian commonwealth.(')
Gnostic Heretics. 229
(1 )Althoiigh some difTerence of opinion may subsist with regard to tliis pre-
diction of St. Paul, I am yet persuaded tliat every one who has made himself
acquainted with what the Gnostic discipline was, will readily admit that that
system is more particularly pointed at in the passage referred to in the text,
notwithstanding that no necessity may appear to exist for considering [p. 180.]
it as exclusively applicable thereto. Numerous are the passages in the other
Epistles of the New Testament, as well as in those written by St. Paul, which
strike at this system, and call loudly on the Christian churches to beware of
it; in fact more numerous, perhaps, than the generality of commentators ap-
pear to have imagined. I cannot say that I agree in every thing with Ham-
mond, who, in his Annotations on the New Testainent, translated into Latin by
Le Clerc, and also in his book de Episcopaius Juribus Dissert, prim, de Anti-
chrislo, cap. iii. p. 11, et seq. takes upon him to apply several passages in the
New Testament to the Gnostics, on no other ground, as it should seem, than
that of a very slight accordance in terms. There are, however, many obser-
vations of his from which it would be inconsistent with candour to withold
our assent.
(2) The emptiness and folly of this system of discipline, is most aptly
pourtrayed and exposed by St. Paul in 1 Tim. i. 4. ; Tit. iii. 9. ; 2 Tim. ii. 16.
(3) Learned men are not agreed as to the time when the first sects of the
Gnostics were founded. Many of them place implicit faith in the authority of
Clement of Alexandria, who says it was after the death of the apostles, in the
reign of the emperor Hadrian, that these sects were established, and the in-
tegrity of the church was destroyed. Stromat. lib. vii. cap. xvii. p. 898, 899.
With this testimony they conceive also that of Hegesippus to coincide, who,
in a passage preserved by Eusebius, {Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxxii. p. 104,
and lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 142.) reports the church to have remained a pure virgin
until the time of Trajan, but that after the death of the apostles the leaders of
divers sects began openly to make their appearance. Others, however, are of
opinion that some congregations were formed by certain of the Gnostic tribe,
in opposition to the churches of apostolic foundation, even so early as the first
century, and during the lifetime of the apostles themselves. And this opinion
seems to be favoured by what St. John says, 1 John, ii. 18, et seq. of many
Antichrists having gone forth from the church, as well as by what has reached
us respecting Cerinthus, and the Nicolaitans, who were heretics of the first cen-
tury, and tainted with the Gnostic opinions. Conllicting as these sentiments
are, it appears to me not at all impossible to reconcile them, without requiring
a sacrifice of the point of honour to be made by either party. That dissen-
sions, arising out of the attempt to blend the principles of Gnosticism with
Christianity, had been generated in the churches previously to the second cen-
tury and the reign of the emperor Hadrian, and that some of those wiio were
devoted to those principles, having drawn to them a number of partisans, had
proceeded to the length of holding separate ascmblies with their disciples is
most manifest, not only from the apostolic epistles, but also from other an-
cient monuments. Nor is this at all opposed by the words of Clement or
Hegesippus. For it should seem that what these writers say may, in fact, be
230 Century L— Section 61.
considered as amounting merely to this, that in the reigns cf Trajan and Had-
rian, the patrons of heresy came forward with greater boldness than before,
and laying aside the caution and reserve with which they had hitherto main-
tained their doctrines, made open profession of their dissent from the rest of
the Christians, endeavouring likewise, by every means in their power, both to
augment the num'ber of their partisans and also to place their different sects or
fraternities on a firm and stable basis : though, with regard to what is said by
Hegesippu^ it may perhaps admit of a question, whether it is to be considered
as relating merely to the church of Jerusalem, as some of the learned imagine,
or, as others conceive, to the church at large. In short, the fact appears' to
have been, that during the first century the sects formed by those who were
for interpreting the doctrines of Christianity according to the principles of the
ancient philosophy of the Magi, were neither large, nor held in much account,
their internal organization being at that time but very imperfect; but, that
[p. 181.] about the commencement of the second century, they burst through
the obscurity by which they had been enveloped, and assumed for themselves
a regular determinate form, under certain acknowledged leaders, and subject
to a system of laws and regulations peculiarly their own. .
LXI. Nature of the Gnostic discipline. It is, however, by no
means difficult to point out tlie way in wliich these people con-
trived to make the religion of Christ appear to be altogether
in unison with their favorite system of discipline. All the
philosophers of the East, whose tenets, as we have seen, were,
that the Deity had nothing at all to do with matter, the nature
and qualities of which they considered to be malignant and poi-
sonous— that the body was held in subjection by a being entirely
distinct from him to whom the dominion over the rational soul
belonged — that the world and all terrestrial bodies were not the
work of the Supreme Being, the author of all good, but were
formed out of matter by a nature either evil in its origin, or that
had fallen into a state of depravity- — ^and, lastly, that the know-
ledge of the true Deity had become extinct, and that the whole
race of mankind, instead of worshipping the Father of Light
and Life, and source of every thing good, universally paid their
homage to the Founder and Prince of this nether world, or to his
substitutes and agents : I say all these looked forward with ear-
nest expectation for the arrival of an extraordinary and eminent-
ly powerful Messenger of the Most High, who, they imagined,
would deliver the captive souls of men from the bondage of the
flesh, and rescue them from the dominion of those Genii by whom
they supposed the world and all matter to be governed, at the
si
Gnostic System. 231
same lime communicating to tliem a correct knowledge of their
everlasting Parent, so as to enable them, upon the dissolution of
the body, once more to regain their long lost liberty and happi-
ness. An expectation of this kind even continues to be che-
rished by their descendants of the present day. Some of these
philosophers then, being struck with astonishment at the magni-
tude and splendour of the miracles wrought by Christ and iiis
apostles, and perceiving that it was the object of our Lord's min-
istry both to abrogate the Jewish law, a law which they con-
ceived to have been promulgated by the Architect or Founder
of the World himself, or by the chief of his agents, and also to
overthrow those gods of the nations whom they regarded as
Genii placed over mankind by the same evil spirit ; hearing
him, morever, invite the whole world to join in the worship of
the one omnipotent and only true God, and profess that he came
down from Heaven for the purpose of redeeming the souls of
men, and restoring them to liberty, were induced to believe that
he was that very messenger for whom they looked, the person
ordained by the everlasting Father to destroy the dominion of
the founder of this world as well as of the Genii who presided
over it, to separate light from darkness, and to deliver the souls
of men from that bondage to which they were subjected in con-
sequence of their connection with material bodies.
LXII. Nature of the Gnostic discipline. The principles [p. 182.]
and nature of this system of discipline, however, were such as to
render it impossible for its votaries to yield their assent to many
things which were delivered by Christ and his apostles, or to in-
terpret them according to their obvious and commonly accepted
sense. To have done so would have been acting in direct oppo-
sition to certain leading maxims, which were considered by per-
sons of their persuasion as indisputable truths. (') To various
articles, therefore, propounded in the Christian code as essential
points of belief, they utterly refused their assent : such, for in-
stance, as that which attributes the creation of the world to the
Supreme Being, and those respecting the divine origin of the
Mosaic law, the authority of the Old Testament, the character
of human nature, and the like : for it would have amounted to
nothing short of an absolute surrender of the leading maxims of
the system to which they were devoted, had they not persisted
282 Century L— Section G2.
in maintaining that the Creator of this world was a being of a na-
ture vastly inferior to the Supreme Deity, the Father of our Lord,
and that the law of Moses was not dictated by the Almighty, but
by this same inferior being, by whom also the bodies of men were
formed and united to souls of ethereal mould, and under whose
influence the various penmen of the Old Testament composed
whatever they have left us on record. In addition to the articles
of Christian belief, which they felt themselves constrained thus
peremptorily to reject, there were others which they found it
necessary to explain after their own manner, in order to render
them compatible with the principles of the oriental discipline.
Kespccting Christ and his functions in particular, it was requi-
site for them, in support of their tenets, to maintain that he was
to be considered as inferior to the Supreme Being, and as never
having in reality assumed a material body. Their adoption of
the former of these positions was an inevitable consequence of
their believing, as they universally did, that the Deity had ex-
isted from all eternity in a state of absolute quiescence, but that
at length, after ages spent in silence and repose, he begat of him-
self certain natures or beings after his own likeness, of whom
Christ was one : to the maintenance of the latter they were con-
strained by that leading maxim of the oriental system, that all
matter was intrinsically evil and corrupt. Consistently with
these sentiments, they moreover found themselves called upon to
deny that Christ, in reality, either underwent what he is reported
to have suffered, or died, and returned again to life, as is record-
ed of him. In their exposition of this doctrine, however, they
did not all of them follow precisely the same plan. Again, in
regard to the purposes for which Christ came into the world, the
principles of their system rendered it necessary for them to as-
sert, that it was not with a view to expiate the sins of mankind,
or to appease the wrath of an offended Deity, that he relinquish-
ed for a while his abode in the Heavens, but merely in order to
communicate to the human race the long lost knowledge of the
Supreme Being ; and that, having put an end to the usurped
dominion of the arrogant founder of this world, he might point
out to the souls of men (those spirits of ethereal origin unhappily
confined in earthly prisons) the means of recovering for them-
selves their native liberty and happiness. Finally, to pass over
Gnostic System. 233
some other points wliicli miglit be noticed, these votaries of
orientalism were compelled, in support of their favourite maxim
respecting the malignant nature of matter, to discoun- [p. 183.]
tenance every idea of a future resurrection of men's bodies from
the dead, and to maintain that what is said in Scripture on the
subject is altogether figurative and metonymical. In their man-
ners and habits the Gnostics were for the most part melancholy
and austere. Indeed, allowing the principles and notions which
they cherished respecting matter and the origin of our earthly
forms to be just and correct, it cannot but follow, that to obey
the instincts of nature, or to indulge in any sort of bodily grati-
fication, must be contrary to reason, and even criminal. Strange,
however, as it may appear to those who are not aware of the
discordant conclusions which different men will sometimes de-
duce from the same premises, it is most certain that some of this
sect conceived themselves to be warranted by these self-same
principles in plunging, with the most barefaced effrontery, into
every species of libidinous and vicious excess.('')
(1) The early Christian fathers, who were acquamted with none other be-
sides the Grecian system of philosophy, perceiving that some of the dogmas of
the Gnostics coincided with the principles of the Platonists, were induced to
conclude that the discipline of the former had been altogether generated by a
conjunction of the platonic philosophy with Christianity: to this opinion great
numbers of the learned of modern days liave likewise subscribed, so many in-
deed, that they are scarcely to be enumerated. After having, however, examined
the subject with every possible degree of impartiality and attention, I am most
thoroughly convinced that the founders of the Gnostic schools cannot, with the
least propriety, be reckoned amongst the followers of Plato. With regard to
certain particulars taken separately, I am very ready to admit that there is no great
want of resemblance between the Platonic philosophy and the doctrine of the
Gnostics; but only let the two systems be compared together, as they ought to
be, in toto, and the great dissimilarity that exists between thcni becomes at once
conspicuous. That long series of cco?ii', for instance, of either sex, through which
the Gnostics uniformally deduce the connexion of the Deity with matter, is a
thing altogether unknown to the system of Plato: whilst, on the other hand, the
Platonic doctrine respecting the nature of the Deity and the origin of this world,
as exhibited by the Athenian sage in his Timcciis, is in no respect whatever to
be reconciled with the tenets of the Gnostics, The Deity is represented by Plato
as eternally active and energetic, by the Gnostics as altogether passive and qui-
escent. According to the former, this world is eternal, and a work of beauty not
at all unworthy of the Almighty hand that framed it: by the latter, it is regard-
ed as an ill-formed mass, the destruction of which is an object of desire and me-
234 Century L— Section 62.
ditation with the Deity. In the opinion of the Platonists, this world and its in-
habitants are governed either immediately by the Deity himself, or through the
ministration of daemons commissioned by him : but according to the Gnostic
scheme, an absolute and entire dominion over the human race, and the globe we
inhabit, is exercised by the founder of the material world, a being of unbounded
pride and ambition, who makes use of every means in his power to prevent man-
kind from attaining to any knowledge of the true God. In addition to what are
here enumerated, many other points of difference between the two systems will
readily be perceived by any one who will divest his mind of all bias or preju-
dice, and be at the pains of perusing the little book written by Plotinus the Pla-
tonist, in opposition to the Gnostics. Porphyry moreover, the disciple of Ploti-
nus, says, in the Life of his Master, cap. xvi. p. 118. expressly, that the Gnos-
tics considered Plato as a minute philosopher, who had never ascended in mind
and thought to the first principles of all things. But not to multiply (p, 184.)
words : it is allowed by all that the discipline of Manes was the genuine offspring
of the ancient philosophy of the East, or that of the Persians and Chaldoeans:
but this discipline, if we except the conclusions of some of its dogmas, corres-
ponds so exactly in all respects with that of the Gnostics, that it is scarcely pos-
sible for any two systems to appear more familiar to each other : that ihey were
both, therefore, drawn from one and the same source, surely, cannot admit of a
doubt.
(2) Amongst the learned, and more particularly amongst those of our own
times, there have not been wanting several who have stood forward, with con-
siderable ingenuity and eloquence, as the advocates and defenders of the Gnos-
tics. The professed object of some of these has been merely to extenuate, as
far as possible, the errors of this sect, and in the way of explanation to offer every
kind of apology for them of which the nature of the case will admit. Others of
them, however, have endeavoured to clear those corrupters of Christianity from
every sort of reproach, insisting on it that the ancient authors, from whom we
derive our knowledge of their principles and tenets, are to be regarded either as
malignant and invidious accusers, or else as ill-informed and incompetent judges.
But, notwithstanding all the respect that may be due to authority so command-
ing, we cannot help saying, that to us these eminent writers appear to have, in
this instance, laboured to as little purpose as they would have done in attempt-
ing to wash a blackamoor white, and thrown away their time and talents on be-
half of a cause which is altogether desperate, and admits of no defence. If there
be any truth at all in history, not a doubt can exist but that the religion profess-
ed by this sect was of a nature diametrically opposite to that which is propound-
ed to mankind in the writings of the New Testament. If taken up separately
indeed, and exhibited apart by themselves, it may be very possible for ingenuity
to give to certain particulars of the Gnostic system an air of soundness and
truth : but only let the parts thus selected be referred to their proper stations in
the general scheme, and the fallacy will at once become apparent. That the an-
cient Christian writers were actuated by malice in framing their reports of the
Gnostics, and incurred the guilt of slandering a worthy set of men, for the pur-
pose of securing to themselves an absolute sway, is what no good person, who
Gnostic Reasoning. 235
is acquainted with the situation of things in those early times, will easily be in-
duced to believe, and what, I am sure, this one consideration alone is enough to
prevent any one in his senses from crediting, namely, that a variety of writers,
sep;irated widely from each other in point of time, place, manners, studies, and
attachments, have handed down to us precisely one and the same account of the
Gnostic principles and opinions. By every unprejudiced and impartial person,
this concurrence of testimony will, I am persuaded, be allowed so completely to
do away all suspicion of slander and misrepresentation, as to render any further
evidence to this effect altogether superfluous. Were it at all necessary, other
circumstances, not less cogent and conclusive, might easily be brought forward.
With regard to those who would have us believe that the principles and max-
ims of the Gnostics were in reality sound and correct, but that these philoso-
phers, having made use of new and unaccustomed terms and phrases in pro-
pounding their opinions to the world, their meaning was hastily misconceived by
their adversaries, I must confess that I do not see how this suggestion of theirs
much helps the matter. Were we to admit this representation of the case to be
just, the only effect it could have on our minds, would be to make us no longer
regard the Gnostics in the light of persons led away by error, and too great a
fondness for certain opinions of their own, but as men acting under the influ-
ence of folly and impiety. For, unquestionably, men who could prevail on
themselves to cloak up and disguise sentiments, which they knew to be sound
and just, in pompous obscurities, and a high sounding theatrical kind of phraseo-
log)% must either have had it in view to impose on the world, and in this silly
way to acquire for themselves the reputation of superior wisdom, or otherwise
have been complete drivellers, and entirely deprived of their wits. And as for
those whom this sort of senseless and bombastic language, which the perspicui-
ty and simplicity of Holy Writ most strongly, although tacitly, condemns, could
so far charm as to make them anxious to convert their brethren to a sense of its
excellence and beauty, and who, rather than renounce this silly and obscure kind
of jargon, would stir up dissensions in the church, and split it into sects, they
cannot be regarded in any other light than that of wicked and presumptuous
men, the enemies of love, peace and harmony, or, in a word, than as the pests
and canker-worms of the Christian community. But, even granting that [p. 185.]
the meaning of these men might in some respects be misunderstood, it is yet very
easily to be proved that the ancient Christian writers are, for the most part,
strictly correct in their representation of the Gnostic principles and opinions,
and that the members of this sect gave themselves so entirely up to the sugges-
tions of a disordered imagination, as altogether to set common sense and reason
at defiance.
LXIII. Arguments urged by the Gnostics in defence of their system.
That the principles and opinions which we have been consider-
ing, as well as others of their tenets and maxims, were repug-
nant not only to the doctrine openly delivered by Christ himself,
but also to the tenor of those writings which are considered by
236 Centurij I.—Sectlon 63, 64.
the whole body of Christians as the rule and standard of their
religion, is what the generality of the Gnostics did not attempt
to deny. In truth, the fact was too glaring to admit of a ques-
tion. They, however, took care not to be unprepared with ar-
guments, Avhereby to defend and support the system of discipline
to which they were devoted. By the leaders of some of their
sects it was contended, that the religion propounded by Christ
was of two sorts ; the one of easy comprehension, and suited to
the capacity of the vulgar ; the other sublime, and to be under-
stood only by persons of refined intellect. The former they re-
presented as being contained in the books of the New Testament,
the latter as having been unfolded by Christ to his apostles alone,
in private . For their own knowledge of the latter they pro-
fessed themselves to be indebted to certain disciples of the apos-
tles Peter, Paul, and Matthias. (') Others pretended that their
leading tenets and maxims were drawn from the oracles and
visions of Zoroaster and other divinely instructed sages of the
East, as likewise from certain secret writings of Abrahanj, Seth,
Noah, and other holy men of the Jewish nation, who flourished
long before the time of Christ ; a pretence which, in the age of
which we are speaking, was certainly not wholly destitute of
colour, since there were various fictitious writings in the hands
of many at that time, which a set of villainous and artful men
had palmed on the world as the productions of those great and
sacred characters, f') Some took upon them to exclude from the
sacred code all such writings of the New Testament as appeared
to militate with any degree of force 'against their principles, and
to substitute in their places other gospels and epistles of their
own forging, but which they pretended to have been written by
certain of our Lord's apostles, such as Peter, Thomas, and Mat-
thias. (^) Others, again, maintained, that the ordinary copies of
the New Testament were corrupted, and in proof of this pro-
duced what they pretended to be correct ones, and in which,
either through their own artifice, or want of care in the transcrib-
ers, a difference of reading presented itself in those passages
which were adverse to the Gnostic tenets. Lastly, there were
many of them who insisted on it, that, in the words of Scripture
there was enveloped a recondite meaning ; (an opinion, indeed,
at that time commonly entertained even by persons of strictly
Gnostic Parties. 9?7
orthodox sentiments ;) and, upon this principle, were [p. 186.]
continually labouring in the most silly and puerile way, by the
squeezing and torturing of words, to wring from them that as-
sistance and support, which, without resorting to such means,
they could in no wise be made to yield.
(1) Vid. Irenseus adv. Ilccreses. lib. i. cap. xxv. J v. p. 104. & lib. iii. cap. v.
p. 179. ex-division. Reiiat. Massuet., Clcmcna Alex. Stromal, lib. vii. cap. xvii.
p. 898. 900.
(2) Vid. Porphyr. i« ViL Plotini, cap. xvi. p. 118. edit. Fabric. Clemens
Alex. Stromat. lib. i. cap. xv. p. 357. lib. vi. cap. vi. p. 767. Eusebius Histor.
Eccles. lib. iv. cap. vii. p. 120. Epiphanius Ilccres. xxvi. § viii. p. 59. 84. Hccres.
xxxix. 5 V. p. 286, &.C. Constitutiones Aposioliccc, lib. vi. cap. xvi, p. 348. et seq.
torn. i. Pair. Apostolic, and various otber authorities.
(3) Jo. Alb. Fabricius will be found to illustrate this the best of any one, in
his Cod. Pseudepigrapli, Nov. Test. The reader may also consult Beausobre
Histoire du ManicJiee, torn. i. p. 344, et seq.
LXIY. The Gnostic Factions. Great was, indeed, the detri-
ment which the interests of Christianity experienced from this
presumptuous sect, which arrogated to itself a correct and per-
fect knowledge of the Deity : but in a much heavier degree would
the malign influence of its doctrines have been felt, had they
been urged with a due measure of uniformity and consistence.
Fortunately, however, it happened, that from its very first rise,
this faction was split into various parties, the leaders and direc-
tors of which were as much at variance among themselves as
with the Christians, whose tenets they stigmatized as highly de-
rogatory to the character of the Deity, inasmuch as they attri-
buted to him the creation of the world. For, although all of
them took for their ground-work the same principles, yet when
they came to enter into particulars, and proceeded to bring the
different points of their doctrine to the test of a closer examina-
tion, for the purpose of ascertaining their due force, and recon-
ciling them with each other, as well as of adapting them to the
principles of the Christian religion, the difference of opinion that
sprung up amongst these pretenders to superior knowledge was
trul}^ astonishing. All of them, for instance, were unanimous in
regarding the Supreme Deity as a being altogether different from
the creator and governor of this world : but as to tlic precise
nature of this last mentioned being, and also the degree of his
2S8 Century I. — Section 64.
inferiority to tlie Father of our Lord, considerable controversy
prevailed. Again, all of them v»^ere agreed in considering mat-
ter as intrinsically evil and corrupt, and as the womb and nurse
of all those vicious desires and propensities wherewith mankind
are continually tormented ; but whether such had been its per-
nicious nature or quality from all eternity, or whether it had ac-
cidentally become thus depraved ; whether it was animate or
inanimate, and whether it were possessed of a generative faculty,
and could of itself produce living beings or not, was made the
subject of very violent contention. That Christ was the Son of
the Supreme Deity, and was sent into the world for the purpose
[p. 187.] of liberating the souls of men from the wretched bond-
age in which they were held by the body, was what all of them
professed to believe : by some, however, his character was esti-
mated higher than by others ; and with regard to the body which
he assumed, it was asserted by some to have been merely a vi-
sionary form ; whilst others maintained it to have been a frame
of an ethereal and celestial nature. A similar disagreement of
opinion prevailed amongst them respecting a variety of other
things. Nor have we far to seek for the cause which gave rise
to these manifold dissensions. For, in the first place, the oriental
philosophy, to which the Gnostics were addicted, having no foun-
dation whatever in the principles of sound reason, but being
grounded merely on various refined conceits, the offspring of
human ingenuity, had for a long while been split into a great
number of parties and sects.(') In the next place, a considerable
portion of the Gnostics had, previously to their embracing Chris-
tianity, assigned no limits whatever to their philosophical specu-
lations ; whereas others of them, who were of Jewish extraction,
had, in a certain degree, restricted and modified the system of
discipline to which they were attached, by incorporating with it
various particulars of the law and institutions of Moses. By
some again, the principles of Gnosticism had been united with
certain maxims derived from a rude and superstitious kind of
astronomical knowledge, by the cultivation of which different
nations of the East, and particularly the Egyptians, had much
corrupted their minds ; whilst by others this study of the heaven-
ly bodies was either altogether neglected, or attended to only to
be treated with contempt. Finally, in addition to the above-
• Simon Magus. 289
mentioned sources of disagreement, it may be remarked, that the
attempt to blend philosophy, under any certain or particular
form, with religion, no matter whetlier true or false, has never
failed very quickly to produce much difference of opinion
amongst those who have made it, and to supply them with a
variety of grounds for disunion, contention, and dispute.
(1) The learned Thomas H3'de, a man eminently skilled in oriental matters
and opinions, expresses himself as follows in his Histuria Religionis velerum
Persarum, cap. i. p. 26. " Cum itaque in liac rdigione (i. e. the religion of the
magi, which assigned to matter a peculiar governor or ruler, and denied that this
world had been created by the Supreme Deity, the author of all ^ood) fuerint
secicc pluresqiiam 70, (uti etiam sunt in Clirislianitate) non est expectandum, ut
omnia, qucc de eorum religione forte diclafuerint, pertineant ad magos orthodoxos,
sed aliqua etiam ad luBreticos. — Magorum secta ortliodoxa ea est, qucc de duobus
principiis credit unum fuisse ccterniim, altcrum xero creatum. Ilcrretici autcm fucre
iam alii qui in processu liujus operis enumerantur, quam magi dualista:, statuentes^
hccc duo principia fuisse ccterna, et alii in aliis rebus minus orthodoxe sentientes"
With regard to the position here laid down, that that particular sect of the magi
which believed that the Prince or Governor of Darkness and flatter derived his ex-
istence from the Supreme Deity, was the predominent and principal one, it should
seem to be not altogether established beyond the reach of doubt, but in every,
other part of his statement respecting the dissensions of these philosophers, this
illustrious scholar is indisputably most correct.
LXY. Simon Magus. At the head of the heretics of this age,
and particularly of the Gnostics, we find the ancient fathers of
the church unanimous in placing a Simon Uagiis, whom [p. 188.]
they assert to have been one and the same with him whose de-
pravity and perfidy was so severely reprobated by St. Peter at
Samaria : Acts, viii. 9, lO.(') Being in possession of no testimony
or other means whereby to controvert their authority with re-
gard to the identity of Simon Magus, and that Simon who was
accounted the parent or chief leader of the Gnostics, it appears
to me that we have no alternative but to acquiesce in it ; al-
though there are not wanting several very eminently learned
men who cannot prevail on themselves to concede even thus
much.(") But as to the remainder of what they thus state re-
specting tliis Simon, I must confess that it seems to me to be en-
titled to no sort of credit whatever. For from everything which
even they themselves have handed down to us concerning the
man, it is manifest beyond dispute tliat he cannot with the least
propriety,be included in the class of heretics or corrupters of the
240 Century L — Section 65.
Christian religion, but is to be reckoned amongst tlie most hostile
of its adversaries, inasmuch as he hesitated not to revile and
calumniate the character of our blessed Saviour, and made use
of every means within his power to impede the progress of
Christianity : pretending at the same time that he himself, and
a female associate of his, of the name of Helen, were persons
really commissioned from above for the purpose of enabling the
souls of men onee more to regain their native liberty and liglit.('')
From this one circumstance alone, supposing that we were
to lay out of the case various other corroborative proofs, it is
plainly to be perceived that there must have been some mistake
with regard to the Gnostic Christians being considered as the dis-
ciples of Simon, and his being accounted the parent or inventor
of the Gnostic philosophy. The principles and maxims of this
species of philosophy had become familiar to the people of the
East long before the time of Simon's applying himself to the
study and culture of it in Egypt ; and as to his having been the
chief leader of the Gnostics, it is certain that not one of their
sect held him in the least reverence.(*) The probability is, that
the early fathers, perceiving the similarity that subsisted be-
tween Simon's tenets and those of the Gnostics, and being, not-
withstanding their proficiency in Greek literature, but mere
novices in Oriental learning, and consequently not aware of any
one's having philosophized after this manner previously to him,
were induced to believe that the whole tribe of Gnostics had
proceeded from his school.
(1) It ought not perhaps to be passed over unnoticed, that not a few writers,
ancient as well as modern, have assigned the chief place amongst the heretics
of the first century to Dositheus, or as he is termed by the Chaldeans, Dosthai.
That a man of this name existed about the time of our Saviour, and that he en-
deavoured to bring about a change in the religion of his countrymen the Sa-
maritans, and became the founder of a sect which continued to exist in Egypt
even down to the sixth century, is unquestionably certain. Vid. Origen, lib. vi.
contra Cels. p. 282. Eulogius apud Photium Bihlioth Cod. ccxxx. p. 883.
et seq. But the fact is, that instead of being included in the class of here-
tics, he ought rather to have a place assigned him amongst lunatics and mad-
men, or amongst those who, from a deranged state of intellect have been
induced to obtrude themselves on the attention of the world as persons especi-
ally commissioned of God. For from the memorials that are extant respecting
him, although they are neither very numerous nor explicit, it is clearly to be per-
ceived that the man had been induced, not, as it should seem, so much through
arrogance as from downright folly and inanity, to attempt passing himself on the
Simon Magus. 241
Samaritans as the Messiah. Vid. Origcn, adv. Celsum, lib. i. p. 41. lib. [p. 189.]
vi. p. 282. Comm. in Johaiinem, torn. ii. opp. p. 219. Eulogius apud Photium
Bibliolh. p. 883. The impious scheme which he had formed having been com-
municated to the Samaritan high priest, orders were issued for liis apprehension
with a view to punishment. By a precipitate flight, however, he escaped being
taken; and seeking refuge in a remote cave, either voluntarily starved himself
to death, or perished for wpnt of being supplied with the necessaries of life. Vid.
Epiphanius Hccres. xiii. p. 30. tom. i. opp. Chronicon Samaritanum apud Abr.
Echellensem Adnotat. ad Hehed-Jesu Catalog. Libror. Chaldaicor. p. 162.
(2) Camp. Vitringa in the first place, and after him the venerable Christ.
Aug. Heumann, and Isaac Beausobre, contend that there were two Simons Magi,
and that the ancient fixthers, through mistake, attributed the errors and faults of
a certain Gnostic philosopher of the name of Simon, to that Simon of whom
mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles as having imposed on the credulity
of the Samaritans. Considerable difficulty however presents itself in the w.iy of
our assenting to this conjecture, since there is no testimony or argument of any
force to be brought in support of it, nor is there any thing that opposes itself to
probability in the commonly received opinion. Isaac Beausobre has indeed in
his Dissertation de Adajnilis, p. 2. subjoined to L'Enfant's History of the Hus-
site War, 5 1- p. 350. et seq. come forward with no less than eight different ar-
guments in proof of their having been more than one Simon Magus; but of the
force of either or all of these arguments I will leave those to judge who will be
at the pains of perusing with attention a dissertation published by me some
time since on behalf of the opposite side of the question, or de una Simone
Mago.
(3) Unanimous as the Christian writers of the first three centuries, who make
mention of Simon Magus, are in placing him at the head of the heretics of the
first age, it is yet manifest, from every thing which they relate of him, that he
could not have belonged to that class, but was an open and determined enemy
of the Christian religion in all its branches. Origen (lib. v. advers. Cclsuin, p.
272.) expressly excludes the Simonians from the number of the Christian sects,
and states that Jesus was not the object of their veneration, but Simon. And
with this accords the testimony of all the rest; some of them indeed not making
use of terms equally clear and explicit, but at the same time attributing to Si-
mon principles and opinions which can leave no doubt on our minas as to the
fact, inasmuch as they could never have been entertained by any man who had
not set Christ far beneath him, and arrogated to himself all the dignity and con-
eequence attached to the character of a divine legate ; and hence it came to pass
that the Simonians, as is recorded by Origen and Justin Martyr (Apolog. pro
Chrisiianis secunda, p. 70.) as well as others, experienced no sort of disturbance
or molestation at a time v.'hen the Christians were constantly exposed to perils
of the most formidable kind : for it was publicly known to every one, that so far
from being the followers of Christ, they were the enemies of his doctrine.
About twenty years since when, if I mistake not, I first suggested this opinion,
there were some to whom it appeared almost as sacrilege to call in question the
many high and sacred authorities by whom Simon was pronounced to be the
16
242 Century L— Section (SQ.
parent of heresy, and to bring into dispute a matter which had received the sanc-
tion of so many ages. The opinion however has, on the strength of its own
evidence, in the course of time obtained for itself many patrons, and was not
long since, adoi)ted by the learned Jo. Augustin. Orsi,in the Ecclesiastical His^
[p. 190.] tonj written by him in Italian under the particular patronage of the
pope, torn. i. p. 348.
(4) The most positive testimony as to this is supplied by Irenaeus himself,
whom we cannot suspect of having misrepresented the fact, since he is other-
wise loud in his condemnation of the Gnostics, on the very ground of their be-
ing the followers of Simon. None of the Gnostic sects, he observes, (lib. i. adv.
Hccreses, cap. xxvii. ^ 4. p. 106.) were wiWmg nomen magistri siii (Simonls) cot?-
Jileri, but on the contrary, all of them were accustomed Christi Jesu nomen tan-
quam irriiamenLum profeire. Their repudiation of Simon, he adds, was altoge-
ther an artifice, by which they hoped to impose the more readily on the simple
and the ignorant, and to free their character from every sort of stain. But in this
he certainly does them wrong.
LXVI The history of Simon. The history of Simon is briefly
this. He was by birth a Samaritan, but having gone down into
Egypt, he was induced to continue there for some time, and ajD-
ply himself to the study of the various arts which were culti-
vated by those who termed themselves magi^ and the scourges
of evil dosmons. Upon returning into his OAvn country, he con-
tented himself for awhile with practising on the credulity of the
multitude by means of the powers of deception which he had
thus acquired. But having been a witness of the real miracles
wrought by Philip the deacon, at Samaria, in confirmation of the
truth of the doctrine which he preached, he professed himseli
a convert to Christianity, cherishing, as it should seem, a hope
that by so doing he should ultimately, either through obsequi-
ousness or bribery, find a way to obtain for himself the faculty
of working similar wonders, and hence have divine honours paid
him by the people. An impious attempt which he made to
realize these expectations having met with its merited chastise-
ment from St. Peter in that severe and memorable reproof which
stands recorded in Acts, viii. 9, 10. he betook himself again to
his former evil courses, and associating with him a woman of the
name of Helen, spent the remainder of his days in wandering
about through various provinces, endeavouring, wherever he
came, by means of the different tricks and artifices of which
he had made himself master, to impose on weak and ignorant
minds, and make them believe that the two chief faculties of the
History of Simon Magus. 243
Supreme Deity, tlie one being in its nature masculine, tlie other
feminine, were actually resident in the bodies of himself and his
female companion, having been sent down from above for the
purpose of controuling the power of those enemies and tormen-
tors of the human race, the creator of this nether world and his
subordinate agents ; and of stirring up the minds of men, in spite
of their unhappy alliance with vile matter, to the acknowledg-
ment and worship of the only true God. This certainly is all
that can with truth, or with any great semblance of truth, be
said of this extraordinary character ; at least a considerable de-
gree of suspicion attaches itself to whatever else is reported of
him.(') In what place, and under what circumstances, his mor-
tal career terminated is altogether uncertain : for as to what
several ancient authors report of his having, in consequence of
the prayers of St. Peter, fallen headlong from a vast height in
an attempt to fly which he made at Eome in the reign of the em-
peror Nero, and received thereby such wounds as shortly after-
wards occasioned his death, it is a tale to which no credit is at
present given, except by such as arc the dupes of superstition, or
ready to swallow down every thing that has the support of anti-
quity on its side. Nor is any belief now placed by the [p. 191.]
generality of people, in what Justin Martyr says of the Romans
having honored Simon with an apotheosis, and erected a statue
to his memory ; although it appears to be pretty certain, that the
sect which he founded continued to exist in the third, and even
down to the fourth century, and persisted to the last in paying
a sort of honorary worship both to him and his concubine, f^)
(1) Those who may be desirous of possessing themseh'es of every thing that
has been handed down to us respecting Simon, may consult the 2d vol. of Tille-
mont, and those other authors who are recommended by Sagittarius in his Iti-
iroduclio ad Historiam Ecdesiaslicam. We should wish the reader to understand
this reference as equally applicable to the various other sects of which notice may-
be taken in the course of this work, as we shall studiously make it our endea-
vour to avoid, as far as possible, adding to its bulk by any unnecessary repeti-
tion of references to books or authorities.
(2) The much agitated questions respecting the manner of Simon's death,
and the statue said to have been erected to his memory at Rome, are in some
measure grown obsolete, but cannot by any means as yet be said to have been
set completely at rest; inasmuch as there are still to be found many who, on
such occasions, are always vastly alarmed lest the authority and credit of anti-
244 Century I. — Section QQ.
quity sliould experience any diminution: others again, who imagine that the
greater credit is due to a thing in proportion as it is more wonderful and out of
the common course: and tinally, others whom superstition so blinds as to ren-
der them altogetlier incapable of discerning the truth. (I.) With regard to what
is related by Arnobius, a writer of the third century, and after him by various
ancient authors, of Simon's flying in the air by the assistance of the evil spirit,
and of liis being precipitated to the ground, in consequence of the prayers of
St. Peter, it is in the highest degree incredible and absurd. Simon was a slight-
of-hand man, a mere juggler, not such a character as the Prince of Darkness
would have selecte(J to affright and mislead mankind. Besides, who is there so
ignorant as not to know how little faith is to be placed in what ancient authors
relate of magicians, and prodigies wrought by the assistance of the devil ? More-
over, the most respectable of the early Cln'istian writers, and beyond all Euse-
bius, the parent, as we may call him, of ecclesiastical history, say not a syl-
lable respecting this event, which, if it had in reality occurred, must surely
have been deemed worthy of being perpetuated throughout all ages : it is plain
therefore, that they either were entirely unacquainted with it, or else accounted
it nothing better than a mere idle story .of the vulgar. In whichever way their
silence be interpreted, it is equally conclusive against the things ever having
happened. It appears to me however extremely probable, that the tale might
not be altogether of fiibulous invention, but originate in a mistake, and be
founded on an event which actually did occur at Rome during the reign of the
emperor Nero. From the testimony of Suetonius, Juvenal, and Dio Chrysos-
tom, it seems to be placed beyond a doubt, that some poor wretch who had pre-
tended to possess the art of flying, and been presumptuous enough to solicit an
opportunity of exhibiting a specimen of his ability in the theatre of Rome, did
actually commit himself to the air, and being immediately precipitated to the
ground, was literally dashed to pieces; the emperor himself, in whose presence
the feat was essayed, being sprinkled with some of his blood. Sueton. in Ne-
rone, cap. xii. p. 23. Now it is certainly not at all unlikely that the name of this
unfortunate rival of Icarus might be Simon, and that the Christians, upon hear-
ing that a magician (for so the common people at that time, termed every one
who practised any unusual or extraordinary arts) of this name had come to
such a disastrous end, might at once conclude that it was that very Simon the
[p. 192.] magician whose depravity and wickedness had long been in every
one's month; and since they were accustomed to attribute every thing by which
either the community or the church was materially benefited, to the effect of
prayer, might be led to think that God had wrought destruction on this deter-
mined enemy of the true religion at the instance of St. Peter, who was perhaps
at that time sojourning at Rome. Piety having at once given rise to the idea, it
is easily to be conceived that ingenuity would not be long in supplying all the
little minutiae of circumstances. (II.) With regard to the statue which Justin
Martyr, and after him Tertullian and others, report to have been erected by the
Romans to the memory of Simon Magus, a discovery which was made hi the
Tiberine island at Rome, about the year 1574, of a marble base or pedestal in-
scribed to Semo Sancus, the ancient Deus Fidius, has induced many of the
History of Simon Magus. 245
learned to think that the above-mentioned fathers, in consequence of their pos-
sessing merely a superticial knowledi^c of the Roman superstitions and ancient
popuhu- deities, were led into a mistake, and that wiiat they conceived to be a
monument raised in honour of Simon, was in fact a statue dedicated to this an-
cient deity of a somewhat similar name: an error into which they might the
more easily fall, if, as was by no means unusual, the sculptor had in the inscrip-
tion, put Simoni for Semoni. Several instances of such commutations of the let-
ters E and I are given from different authors by the learned Jo. Casp. Ilagen-
buchins in his Epislolcc Epigrapkiccc, p. 70. vid. Anton, van Dale's Dissertation
de stalua Simonis^ annexed to his work de Oracidis, p. 579. Salom. Deylingius
Observat. Sacr. Lib. 1. Observ. xxxvi. p. 140. Beausobre Ilistoire de Manichcej
tom. i. p. 203. 395. Longerue in Sylloge Anecdotorum Ven. Jo. Diet. Winckleri,
p. 211. as well as innumerable other authorities. So strongly supported indeed
is this conjecture by different circumstances, that apparently it would be doing
it no more than justice were we to give it a higher denomination. Yet such an
amazing weight and influence have the names of Justin and TcrtuUian with
some men, men too, by no means deficient either in point of sagacity or liberal
information, that they will rather, on the faith and authority of these fathers,
give credit to that which carries with it every stamp and indication of error, than
adopt the judgment of some of our greatest literary characters, who not only
show it to be in the highest degree probable that these fathers laboured under a
misconception or mistake, but also point out a way in which every unprejudiced
person must allow it to be very possible that such a misconception or mistake
might have originated. See in addition to Tillemont Memor. tom. ii. p. i. p. 340.
Styan Thirlby ad Justin. Martyr, p. 40. Prudent. Maranus the late editor of Jus-
tin, Prcofat. ad Justinum, p. iii. c. vi. p. Ixxxv. Jos. August. Orsi in his Ecclesi-
asiical History, written in Italian, tom. ii. p. 119. as also what is contended for
respecting this statue by a learned writer in the Museum Halveticum, tom. ii. p.
617. The chief of all the arguments that have been brought forward in favour
of this statue is, that it is not to be believed that men like Justin Martyr and
Tertullian, to whom the Roman language and religion were familiar, could have
been so far deceived as to mistake the deity Senio Sancus for Simon Magus.
But, for my own part, when I recollect how many other errors these fathers have
inadvertently admitted into their works, I must confess that I see no difficulty
at all in giving them full credit for such a blunder as this : whilst on the other
hand, every thing whatever seems to oppose itself to my believing that the Ro-
mans could for a moment have so far discarded every sense of propriety, as to
assign to a Jew or Samaritan of infomous reputation, to a man in fact no better
than a juggler or a mountebank, a place amongst their gods, and to honour
his memory with a statue. Concerning Helen, the associate of this [p. 193.]
despicable mortal, I shall enter into no discussion or inquiry. The labours of
the learned with regard to her history, have hitherto only tended to involve nearly
the whole of it in difficulties and obscurity. Of the fact of her having existed,
however, there can be no doubt, unless all that has come down to us respecting
Simon be untrue; for Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Augustin, all agree in stating that
her image was preserved, and had a sort of worship paid to it by the Simonians,
246 Century I. — Section 67.
and according to Origen, contr. Cels. lib. v. p. 272. the respect which they thus
manifested for the memory of tliis woman caused them to be occasionally styled
Helenians.
LXYII. Tenets of Simon. The principles on wliicli tlie dis-
cipline of Simon was founded, appear to liave been much the
same with those which were recognized by all the different sects
of the Gnostics. The Supreme Deity, for instance, to whom he
attributed every possible degree of excellence, had, according to
his tenets, existed from all eternity, and at a certain period be-
gotten of himself a number of seons, or natures after his own
likeness. Again, matter, which he regarded as being radically
corrupt, was represented by him as having in like manner ex-
isted eternally, and being possessed of a generative faculty, to
have become the parent and the author of all evil, as well as of
various other viciously disposed natures. The creation of this
world he considered as having been brought about by a female
jeon, with the assistance of certain powerful genii, without the
concurrence or sanction of the Supreme Deity. By this creator
of the world, he maintained, who was herself of a divine nature
and origin, were generated an incredible number of living souls,
whom she united with bodies composed of matter, and conse-
quently corrupt. Man, therefore, according to him, was com-
pounded of two parts, the one celestial, the other terrene ; tho
one divine, the other depraved. The human race he repre-
sented as held in bondage by the founders or creators of this
world, and as living in utter ignorance of the Supreme Deity,
who contemplating with sorrow the disastrous situation and mi-
serable servitude into which such a number of ^ethereal spirits
were thus unhappily plunged, was in the highest degree soli-
citous that they should be stimulated to pursue that path which,
upon their release from the body, would conduct them to his
immediate residence, the seat of everlasting joy and happiness,
to which this pretended philosopher, in common with the rest
of the Gnostics, gave the appellation of pleroma. The course
pointed out by him to be observed by the souls who were de-
sirous of attaining to this blissful state, was to cast off all obe-
dience to the founders of this world, by whom he professed
himself to mean those beings who were commonly worshipped
as deities by the multitude, and to endeavour by means of me-
Tenets of Simon Magus. 247
ditatlon and mental exertion, to elevate themselves, and approach
as nearly as possible to the supreme source of all good. Souls
not inflamed with such a wish, were, upon the dissolution of
their present earthly prisons, to pass into new bodies until they
should arrive at a knowledge of their great and everlasting pa-
rent. The laws to which the nations of the earth paid obe-
dience, not excepting even the peculiar code of the Jews, were,
he maintained, all fabricated by the founders of this world for
the purpose of perpetuating the bondage of captive souls, and
that they might therefore be disregarded with impunity by all
such minds as had acquired illumination from the fountain of
all wisdom. When the projected deliverance of the [p. 19-i.]
souls of all mankind from the captivity of matter had been
finally accomplished, and they had again joined their first great
parent in the regions above, the whole fabric of this nether
world and all its dependencies, which he pronounced to be a
rude and imperfect work, would, according to his tenets, ex-
perience an overwhelming and utter destruction at the hands
of the Deity. The discipline of Simon, however, differed most
essentially from that of the Gnostic Christians in its principal
feature, since, instead of joining with them in paying homage
to the Saviour of mankind, his aim evidently was to wrest from
Christ the glory of man's recovery, and make it the inheri-
tance of himself and his concubine. For he pretended that the
greatest and most powerful a3on, of the masculine sex, was
actually resident within himself, and that the mother of all
souls had in like manner taken up her abode in the corporeal
frame of his companion Helen ; and asserted that he was in an
especial manner- commissioned by the Most High for the three-
fold purpose of communicating to captive souls the knowledge
requisite for their deliverance, of overthrowing the dominion
of the founder of this world, and of delivering Helen from the
subjection in which she had long been held by the subordi-
nate agents or associates of this author of all evil-C)
(1) In the accounts given us by ancient writers of the religion and discipline
of Simon, the student finds himself occasionally cniharrassed by a want of co-
herence and perspicuity. By no one has the subject been handled with greater
clearness and precision than by the uncertain autiior of The Reogyikioiis of Cle-
ment and The Clementina, who under the form of a disputation between St.
248 Century I.—Scction 67, 68.
Peter and Simon, throws considerable light on several things but very imper-
fectly and confusedly treated of by other writers. Nor do I see any just reason
that should prevent us from yielding him every sort of credit as an expounder
of the tenets of Simon, since he lived in an age when the sect of the Simonians
was still in existence, and has certainly recorded nothing that is in any material
degree repugnant to the accounts given by other authors. As for intentional
misre])resentation or falsehood, it is difficult to conceive any inducement that he
could have had to be guilty of it.
LXVIII. Menander. The second station in the class of here-
tics derived from the Gnostics, is in general assigned by ancient
writers to Menander, another Samaritan, whom they represent
as having been initiated in the school of Simon. But little cre-
dit, however, can be given to this, after comparing together the
accounts which Irenasus, Justin, TertuUian, and a few others,
have handed down to us respecting this man. For from what
they say, it is plain that his object was to supplant both Christ
and Simon, and to pass himself on the world as the Saviour of
mankind, or an aeon sent down from above for the purpose of
effecting the salvation and deliverance of the souls of the human
race, by communicating to them a knowledge of the true God ; a
circumstance which places it beyond all doubt, that he came
neither Avithin the description of a heretic, nor that of a Simo-
nian. The opinion of the early writers above alluded to, respect-
ing him, was in all probability, grounded on their perceiving that
his tenets and doctrine respecting the Deity, the nature of mat-
ter, the origin of this world, and the souls and bodies of its inha-
[p. 195.] bitants, were nearly similar to those which were enter-
tained and taught by Simon and the Gnostic Christians. From
what has reached us respecting Menander, I should conceive his
character to have been rather that of a weak enthusiast than of
an artful impostor. The sect which he founded existed but for
a short period, and appears to have been always confined within"
very narrow limits.(')
(1) On this subject the reader may consult Tren^eus, lib. i. cap. xxiii. p. 100.
Epiphanius Hccres. xxii. p. 61. Justin Mart, Apolog. ii. p. 69. Theodoret, Hccrei.
Fahular. lib. i. cap. ii. p. 193. tom. iv. opp. TertuUian de Anima, cap. 1, p. 187.
de Resurrect, cap. v. p. 205. Recourse may also be had to Ittigius, Tillemont,
Nat. Alexander, S. Basnage, in Annal. and other recent authors who have di-
rected their attention to the elucidation of the early Christian History.
Menandcr, the Hkolaitans. 249
LXIX. The Nicoiaitans. Siiicc Simon and Mcnancler cannot
properly be said to conic within the descriptions of heretics, it
follows of course that at the head of those Christians who were
tainted with the Gnostic heresies we must place the Nicoiaitans,
provided that the Nicoiaitans who are rebuked by our blessed
Lord in Kev. ii. 6. 14, 15, be the same with those who under that
denomination are reckoned by the writers of the second century
amongst the sects of the Gnostics.(') The generality of ancient
writers consider Nicolaus, one of the seven men elected by th^
church of Jerusalem, as having been either directly or indirectly
the author of this sect.It should seem, however, as if their opi-
nion as to this was founded rather on uncertain report and conjec-
ture than on any testimony that can be relied on.(') Our blessed
Saviour states the Nicoiaitans to have incurred his displeasure in
consequence of the laxity of their morals, and their continuing
to partake of meats offered to idols, and to indulge in fornication,
contrary to the Apostle's injunction. Acts, xv. 29, but he does
not charge them with entertaining any heretical principles or
opinions. By the writers of the subsequent ages, however, they
are represented as having adopted the Gnostic maxims respect-
ing the existence of two principles, the one of light, the other
of darkness, the origin of the visible world, the ministry of
seons, and the like. Over every thing relating to this sect there
hangs a degree of obscurity whicli we believe it will ever be found
beyond the power of human ingenuity to dispel. (^)
(1) The opinions of such of the learned as either deny that such a sect aa
that of the Nicoiaitans ever existed, or maintain that it took its name, not from
any particular person who might be the founder of it, but from the accordance
of its principles with the impiety of Balaam, have been made the subject of par-
ticular investigation by me in a dissertation, which is to be found at [p. 196.]
p. 395. of vol. i. of my Srjntagma Dissertationimi ad Hisloriam Ecclcs. pertinent.
(2) Cassianus, Collation, xviii. cap. xvi. p. 529. edit. Francf. 1722. fol, says,
Nam licet hunc Nicolaum quidam asserant mm ilium fuisse qui ad opus ministerii
ah Apostolis est electus,nihiloiamen minus eum de illo discipulorum fuisse numero
negare non possunt.
(3) Irenseus adv. Ilxres lib. iii. cap. xi. p. 188. Tertullian de Prccscript.
Hccret. cap. xlvii. p. 128. Clemens Alex. {Stromal, lib. iii. cap. iv. p. 524. Augus-
tin de litres, cap. v. p. 60. To these I omit adduig Epiphanius, because he con-
fesses that what he says of the Nicoiaitans boh^ngs equally to all the different
sects of the Gnostics. Upon a comparison of the grounds on whicli our blessed
Saviour's rebuke of the Nicoiaitans is founded, with the errors which are attri-
250 Century L— Section GO, 70.
buU'i to them by the writers of after-times, I must confess that I camiot help
entertainino- very considerable doubts whether the Nicolaitans mentioned in the
Revelations were the same with the Nicolaitans of Clement and others, or a
different sect. Had the Nicolaitans with whom our Saviour was so much dis-
pleased been devoted to the Gnostic discipline and opinions, they would not, in
my humble judgment, have been reproved by him merely on account of their
reprehensible course of life, but their erroneous principles would likewise have
been made the subject of animadversion, and his followers w^ould have been
cautioned against imbibing any of their extravagant and pernicious tenets. For
surely these principles were pregnant with no less, or rather a greater degree of
danger, to the minds of the simple and artless Christians, than was to be appre-
hended from the offensive improprieties and vices in which the Nicolaitans in-
dulged, in direct opposition to the apostolic precepts. And is it to be believed,
that our blessed Saviour, w^lfen enjoining his followers to avoid associating with
the Nicolaitans, on account of their incontinence, would not have touched on, or
in the slightest degree alluded to the origin or fount from whence this laxity of
morals had proceeded? The probability, as it appears to me, is, that in the se-
cond century amongst the numerous leaders of the different Gnostic sects which
were at that time springing up in almost every direction, there might be one of
the name of Nicolaus, who might give to his followers the denomination of
Nicolaitans, and that the title, thus acquired by this sect, having reached the ears
of the early Christian fathers, who as we well know, were very apt occasionally
to fall into mistakes as to matters of this kind, they were hastily led to consider
these sectaries as being one and the same with the Nicolaitans mentioned by
St. John in the Epistles to the seven Asiatic churches : and since they knew of
no man of the name of Nicolaus who had attained to any degree of reputation
or consequence in the Christian community, except him who is mentioned in
Scripture as having been elected one of the seven ministers of the church of
Jerusalem, they at once concluded that this sect must have owed its origin to
him. My desire is to be understood as throwing out these suggestions rather in
the way of conjecture, than as pretending to speak with any degree of peremp-
toriness as to this point. I will not however scruple to say, that I think I have
at least a strong probability in my favour.
LXX. Cerinthus. In the same age with. St. Jolin and the Ni-
colaitans, flourished, as is commonly thought, the Jew Cerinthus,
though there are not wanting some who consider him as having
lived in the second century, and long posterior to the time of
[p. 197.] John.(^) Having devoted himself for some time to the
study of letters and philosophy at Alexandria in Egypt, he at
length engaged in one of the most difficult undertakings imagin-
aMe, namely, that of harmonizing the principles of the Gnostic
discipline and those of Christianity, with the peculiar maxims
and opinions of the Jews. From the principles of the Gnostic
Nicolaitans, Cerinthus. ' 251
philosopliy lie adopted those which respect the pleroma, the
seons, the origin of this world, and the great length of time
through which the human race had remained in utter ignorance
of the supreme Deity, together with all such maxims and te-
nets as were ii;Ltimately connected with these. As he could not
however, with consistency, admit into his system any thing ab-
solutely repugnant to the Jewish religion, it became necessary
for him in part to qualify what he thus adopted, and he accor-
dingly relinquished the position that matter was intrinsecally evil
and corrupt, inasmuch as it set itself in opposition to the belief
entertained by the generality of the Jews respecting the future re-
surrection of men's bodies. The character likewise of the found-
er of this world, whom he considered as the legislator and governor
of the Jewish people, was much softened down by him. The de-
pravity, pride, and cruelty attributed to this Being by the Gnostics
were all thrown into the shade, and he was represented as one of
the most powerful genii, although unfortunately estranged from
the true God. In the creation of this world he was not supposed
to have acted without the knowledge and permission of the Deity,
or to have been influenced by any improper motive. By way of
reconciling this strange jumble of opinions with Christianity, Ce-
rinthus maintained, that the supreme Deity, being displeased
w*ith the uncontrouled dominion usurped by the founder of this
world and his subordinate agents over the human race, which
had by degrees degenerated into the most irrational tyranny, re-
solved at length to put an end to it, and with this view to send
down amongst mankind a celestial legate, or messenger, who
should remove from their minds that cloud of superstition and
ignorance with which they were oppressed, and by communicating
to them a knowledge of their first great Parent, instruct them
in the way of regaining their native liberty and happiness.
Amongst the sons of men no corporeal receptacle was deemed
by the Almighty wisdom to offer so fit an abode for an heavenly
guest of this kind as the body of Jesus, the legitimate child of Joseph
and Mary, a person eminently gifted with talents and under-
standing. Upon him therefore it was ordered, that one of the
ever-blessed osons, whose name was Christ, should descend in the
shape of a dove at the time of his baptism by John. Jesus then
having the aeon Christ thus united with him, commenced, ac-
252 Centunj I. — Section 70.
cording to Ccriiitlms, a vigorous attack on tlie power and do-
minion of the founder of this world and his associates, endeavour-
ing to convince the Jews that the one only supreme God was
alone deserving of their worship, and confirming the truth of his
doctrine and precepts by various miracles and signs. The result,
however, of these his labours in the cause of the Deity was un-
favourable: for the Jewish elders, at the instigation of that Being
whose empire was thus seriously invaded, and Avhose energies
were of course exerted to the utmost for the preservation of his
usurped authority, laid violent hands on Jesus and put him to
death on the cross. In the ignominy and horrors of this punish-
ment nothing was supposed to have been involved beyond the
bare corporeal frame of the man Jesus, the Nazarene : for imme-
diately on the seizure of his person by the Jews, the divine prin-
ciple, or Christ, by which it had been animated, took its depar-
[p. 198.] ture from the earth and returned to the blissful regions of
the pleroma, from whence it had originally proceeded. The way
chalked out by Cerinthus for obtaining salvation partook in like
manner of the Gnostic, Jewish, and Christian schemes. Accord-
ing to him it was incumbent on all who were desirous of arriving
at future happiness to relinquish every sort of homage which they
might have been accustomed to pay to the founder of this world
(who previously to the time of Christ had been the leader of the
Jewish people) and his associates, or to any of the various Gen-
tile deities, and to make the Supreme Deity, and father of Christ,
together with Christ himself, the only objects of their reverential
worship. Such parts of the law of Moses as Jesus by his example
had sanctioned, he pronounced fit to be still observed, the rest to
be disregarded. Finally, he declared it to be necessary that in
all their actions they should strictly conform themselves to the
law of Christ. To those who should continue stedfast in their
obedience to these precepts he held out the promise of a future
resurrection from the dead — enjoyments of the most exquisite
nature during Christ's reign here upon earth — and subsequently,
a life of immortality and endless joy in the blissful regions above.
For, adhering to the Jewish way of thinking in this respect,
Cerinthus held, that upon the resurrection of our bodies
Christ would be again united with the man Jesus, and hav-
ing founded a new city on the site of the ancient Jerusalem,
Cerinthus. 253
would reign there in triumphant splendor for the space of a
thousand years.Q
(1) Sec Sam. Basnagc Annah Pofuico-Ecclesiast. torn. ii. p. 6. Petr. Faydit
Ecclaircissemens siir Cllisloirc Ecclesiasiiqiie des deux fremiares Siecles, cap. v.
p. 64. Fred. Adolph. Lampius, Comm. in Evangel. Johamiis Prolegom. lib. ii.
chap. iii. Jxvii. p. 182. all of whom are of opinion that Cerinthus lived about
the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius. The arguments on which their opi-
nion is grounded have been replied to by Jo. Franc. Buddeus in his work de
Eccles. Apostolic, cap. v. p. 412. The principal argument relied on by those of
the learned who dissent from the common opinion is, that the early fathers, for
the most part, place Cerinthus after Carpocratcs in the catalogue of heretics,
which latter, without dispute, lived and taught in the second century; a circum-
stance which doubtless would carry with it considerable weight, did it appear
that the early Christian writers had paid due attention to the regular order of
time in their enumeration of heretics : but instead of this, we know the fact
to be that the names of heretics are set down by Irenajus, Tcrtullian, Clement,
and others, at random, without any regard being had to the times in which
they lived.
It is asserted by Irenaeus, Jerome, and others, that St. John wrote his gos-
pel, and particularly the commencement of it, with an express view to the con-
futation of the erroneous tenets of Cerinthus respecting Christ. See Tillemont's
Memoires, torn. i. p. iii. p. 936. This is denied by some more recent writers, but
on grounds not altogether satisfactory. See a small work of Geo. L. Oeder, de
Scopo Evangelii Johannis, published at Leipsig in 1732, in 8vo.
(2) In the view which I have here given of the Cerinthian discipline, I am
borne out by the express testimony of ancient writers. My account, [p. 199.]
however, amounts to nothing more than an imperfect sketch. For from no an-
cient author could I obtain that full degree of information respecting the Cerin-
thian system of religion which alone could enable me to exhibit a complete and
satisfactory view of it; a thing which it would gratify me highly to have done,
since in point of reason and ingenuity the author of it appears to have possess-
ed a superiority over the rest of the Gnostics. It cannot indeed be denied, that
by the generality of those writers who speak of him he is represented as devoid
of understanding, libidinous, depraved, a man who held out, as an allurement to
his followers, the promise of a free indulgence in obscene gratifications during
the future reign of Christ upon earth. But really, as far as I am capable of
forming a judgment on the matter, the blemishes and defects of his character
appear to have been very unreasonably magnified by his accusers. In his opi-
nions I perceive, it is true, the marks of a mind not sufficiently purified, and dis-
posed not unfrequently, to deviate from the path of sound reason: but notiiing
whatever bespeaking a propensity to vicious or libidinous indulgences: no-
thing indicating a love for or pursuit of illicit pleasures: there are even some
things in them which make in his favour, and prove him to have been destitute
neither of sense nor of spirit. How, let me ask, could it be possible that the
kingdom which it was asserted Christ would hereafter establish at Jerusalem,
254 Century I. — Section 70.
should have been held forth in promise as a sink of immorality, vice, and con-
cupiscence, by one who entertained the highest reverence for the wisdom, jus-
tice, and \ irtue of Jesus of Nazareth, and maintained that it was his superior
sanctity and knowledge which induced the Deity to select his corporeal frame
as a fit terrestrial residence for his offspring Christ, the chief of the celestial
seons? How could this have been done by one who was constantly propound-
ing Jesus as a model of virtue and wisdom to mankind? By one again who in-
culcated the necessity of strictly observing that part of the law of Moses to
which Jesus himself had conformed? Is it to be believed, that Cerinthus could
have excited or countenanced in his followers an expectation that in the looked
for kingdom of 1000 years, during which, according to him, Christ, the immedi-
ate offspring of the Supreme Deity, united to the person of Jesus, the most in-
telligent and sacred of human beings, was to reign here on earth, every moral tie
would be dissolved, and mankind be left at liberty to gratify their inordinate de-
sires without restraint? Or in other words, that the greatest and best of poten-
tates, the immediate offspring of the Deity, would become the instrument of pro-
moting amongst a set of subjects newly recalled to life, the perpetration of all
those crimes and flagitious enormities of which he had in times past expressed
his utter detestation ? To my mind this appears so remote from all probability,
that I know not how to account for so many learned men's having insisted on
it that Cerinthus held forth to his followers the prospect of their being permit-
ted to riot without restraint in one continued scene of the grossest sensuality
during the expected future reign of Christ here upon earth. I am at no loss how-
ever, in assigning this accusation to its proper source. Not a doubt can exist
but that it originated with Caius, the presbyter and Diony>ius Alexandrinus, two
waiters of the third century, as appears from Eusebius Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap.
xxviii. p. 100. To prior ages it was utterly unknown. But at the time when the
above-mentioned authors wrote, the dispute with the Chiliasts, or those who
maintained that Christ would hereafter reign upon earth for the space of a thou-
sand years, w^as carrying on with considerable warmth, and the object of these
wiiters evidently was to repress this doctrine. With a view therefore the more
readily to accomplish their end, they made it appear that the original author or
parent of Chiliasm amongst the Christians was Cerinthus, a pernicious character,
and one who had long since been condemned. And this, perhaps, might be al-
lowable enough : but not content with this, they, by way of still more effectually
preventing the Christians from every imitation of Cerinthus, deemed it expedi-
ent to augment the popular antipathy against him, and to persuade the multi-
tude that he was a distinguished patron of vice and iniquity; and that it was
[p. 200.] impossible for any one who was not inimical to the cause of piety and
virtue, to approve of or countenance his doctrine respecting the future reign of
Christ upon earth. Should it be objected to me, as it probably may, that this
case of mine rests merely on supposition, and is grounded on no positive evi-
dence, I confess it. But when it is considered that prior to these adversaries of
Chiliasm, no one had ever attributed to Cerinthus so gross an error; when it is
remembered that this very error with which he is charged is by no means to be
reconciled with the other parts of his doctrine; in fine, when we reflect how ut-
Cerinthus. 255
terly incredible it is that any man, not altogether bereft of his senses, should
make an unrestricted license to riot in obscenity and filth the characteristic fea-
ture of a kingdom over which Jesus Christ was triumphantly to reign ; I rather
think that but few things will appear to have a greater weight of probability on
their side than the conjecture which I have thus hazarded.
Ha\ing relieved Cerinthus from the weight of this reproach, I will now
advert to some particulars connected with tiic history of his system of dis-
cipline, in regard to which it \vere to be desired that further light could be
obtained. (I.) It may be recollected that I have said Cerinthus diflered in
opinion from the rest of the Gnostics respecting the nature of matter. Now
for this I cannot vouch any ancient authorities, but it struck me as very fairly
deducible from certain of his tenets. For since he believed Jesus to have been
a real man, born according to that law by which all other mortals are produced
and yet considered Christ, who was of a divine nature, as having been united
in the most intimate connection with him; and since it was likewise a part of
his creed that men's bodies would hereafter be restored to life from the dead, it
surely must be impossible that he could have regarded matter as the fountain
and seat of all evil. In this respect I should have supposed him to have been
of the same opinion with those philosophers of the East who considered mat-
ter as having been originally produced by the Deity, and who consequently
could not regard it as absolutely and intrinsecally corrupt. What it was that
Cerinthus looked upon as the cause of evil is not mentioned by any ancient
author, nor is it to be collected from any maxims or tenets of his that have been
handed down to us on record. (II.) A considerable degree of* obscurity like-
wise hangs over the opinion entertained by him respecting the founder of this
world. His notions of this Being appear to have been that he was of an order
vastly inferior to the Supreme Deity, but altogether devoid of malice and arro-
gance ; and that although he had lost all knowledge of God, the governor of
all things, yet that his work was undertaken and completed with the knowledge,
consent, and assistance of the Most High. Since it was not his wish to
abrogate the whole of the Jewish law, although he considered it as having been
framed by the founder of this world, but meant that a part of it should remain
in force, it is plain that he must have attributed to this Being a portion of
diving wisdom and illumination. It strikes me, therefore, that Cerinthus must
have conceived that the Supreme Deity, by means of one of those celestial
natures whom the Gnostics term aeons, excited the Being who afterwards
became the founder of the world, and who at that time perhaps presided over
one or other of the heavenly orbs, to undertake the reducing into order and
form the rude and undigested mass of matter which had through infinite ages
been emanating from the bosom of Omnipotence, as also to replenish it with
inhabitants, and give to those inhabitants a set of laws. That the Deity more-
over was not at first displeased with the dominion which this Being and his
associates in labour assumed over the human race ; but that in process of time,
upon observing that the founder of the world, who iiad reserved to himself the
government of the Jewish people, and in a much greater degree those of his
associates to whom the other nations of the earth had been rendered subject,
256 Century I. — Section 70.
had departed widely from the principles of sound wisdom, he determined by
the mission of Jesus Christ to put an end to their tyranny. As no means
present themselves for our obtaining a further insight into the opinions of
Cerinthus as to these points, we are constrained- to leave the subject as we
found it, enveloped in obscurity. (III.) One of the accusations brought against
Cerinthus by ancient w^riters, is that of his having entertained too great a
partiality for the law of Moses: an accusation which I must confess I think to
[p. 201.] be by no means an ill-founded one. For it would be easy to point out
several parts of his discipline which prove, to demonstration, that an attachment
to the Jewish rites and opinions had gained a strong and predominating
influence over his mind. And they are therefore in an error, who, with Bas-
uage and Faydit deny him to have been of the Jewish religion, as well as those
who, with Massuet {Diss, in Irenccnum, i. art. vi. p. Ixv.) assert that what is said
by ancient authors of his having had it in view to reconcile the Jewish religion with
Christianity is not deserving of credit. What is commonly reported, however,
of liis having washed to impose on the necks of the Christians an observance of
tlie whole law, is equally remote from the truth. The nature of his system of
discipline did not admit of this ; for in many respects it went to show that the
author of the law of Moses, i. e. the founder of this woTld, had erred : and since
it was inculcated by Cerinthus that no sort of homage should for the future be
paid to this Being, but that the Supreme Author of every thing and the Father
of Christ should alone be worshipped by the Jews as well as all other nations,
it must of necessity have been a part of his scheme, that all those rites w^hich
were so peculiarly appropriate to the God of the Jews as not to admit of their
being transferred into the service of another and a superior Deity, should be
abolished. Moreover, both Epiphanius and Philastcr, the latter in his book de
Hccresibus, cap. xxxvi. p. 78. the former, Hccres. xxviii. 5 2. p. iii. expressly
say, that it was a part only of the law of Moses which appeared to Cerinthus
^^•orthy of being retained, and to which he thought the Christians might with
propriety conform. It is observable, however, that Dionysius Petavius, the
Latin translator of Epiphanius, has skipped over the words dro /ue^uc in the
original, and it seems not at all unlikely that this negligence of his may have
given occasion to many to think that Cerinthus wished to encumber Chris-
tianity with an observance of the whole of the law of Moses. And here,
should any one be desirous of knowing what part of the old law it was that
Cerinthus thought to be of perpetual obligation, and what part he considered
as having been abrogated by Christ, our reply must be, that it is a question
involved in great obscurity, and consequently, one not easily to be resolved.
The most probable conjecture appears to be, that he took the example of
Christ for a standard or rule, deeming it proper that all those things to which
Christ, during his union with the man Jesus, had conformed, should be observed
and complied with by those who profess themselves to be his followers. An
opinion which indeed Epiphanius seems greatly to countenance, when in Z. c.
§ V. p. 113, he says, that the Cerinthians, after the example of Christ, supported
the authority of the law of Moses. (TV.) At the first sight it seems somewhat
wonderful that a man who conceived it proper to reject a part of the Mosaic
Cerinthiis. 257
law, should yet deem it fit to retain the Jcwisli persuasion respecting the future
millenary reign of the Messiah here upon earth, an idle notion which had its rise
long after the promulgation of the law. But upon a more attentive review of
the discipline of Ccrinthus, I think I can perceive the reasons which induced him
to promote rather than repress the expectation of an empire of this kind. Tiio
holy, wise, and innocent man Jesus, in whose corporeal frame Christ had taken
up his residence during his abode here on eartii, had, according to the Cerin-
thian scheme, experienced great injury at the hands of this his celestial guest.
For when the Jews, in consequence of his having attacked their lawgiver and
Deity, proceeded to lay violent hands on Jesus, Christ, by whose instigation and
command he had done so, instead of supporting him against them, at once took
his departure and left this unhappy mortal, unbefricnded and defenceless, to
sink under the torments and the fury of his enraged enemies. Now a desertion
of this kind could not fiiil to carry with it an air of much injustice and ingrati-
tude. For what can be conceived more unprincipled than in a time of the
greatest peril to desert a good and eminent character, througli whom [p. 202.]
one may have taught and acted, and leave him to be tormented and put to
death by his enemies ? By way therefore of relieving the character of the
Deity and his son Christ from this blemish, Cerinthus deemed it expedient to
promote amongst his followers a belief that Christ would one day or other
even here upon earth, make ample recompense to his former mortal associate,
both in honours and rewards, for all the injuries and sufTerings to which he
had been subjected on his account. For that at a fixed time he would again
descend from above, and renewing the union which had formerly subsisted
between him and Jesus, make him his partner in a triumphant reign of one
thousand years' duration. Contrasted with this magnificent and lasting recom-
pense, the calamities endured by Jesus on account of Christ become light and
insignificant. (V.) It is sufficiently clear that the Cerinthian sect flourished
chiefly in that part of Asia which was anciently termed Proconsular Asia, or
Lydia, and of w^hich the principal city was Ephesus, where St. John spent the
latter part of his days. But as to the extent of this sect, or the time when it
became extinct, we have no certain information. Its existence should seem not
to have been protracted beyond the second century. Isaac Beausobre, indeed,
in his Dissert, sur les Nazareens, which is to be found in the supplement to his
Historia Hussitica, p. 144, has sttempted, from some words of the emperor
Julian, apud Cyrillum, lib. vi. contra Julian, p. 333, to prove that the Cerinthians
were not extinct even in the fourth century. But the fact is, that he did not
sufficiently attend to what is said by Julian. What the emperor remarks is
this, that there were cerlain of the Christians who thought that "the Word " of
which St. John speaks, was distinct from Jesus Christ. These Christians
Beausobre conceives to have been Cerinthians, but he is mistaken. For Ccrin-
thus did not differ from the rest of the Christians in making a distinction
between " the Word," or the divine nature, and the man Jesus Christ. All
Christians do this; at least all who assent to the decrees of the Council of
Nice. St. John himself clearly does so when he says that the Word was made
flesh. John, i. 14. What distinguished Cerinthus from other Christians was
17 .
258 Century I. — Section 70.
his denying that the Word coalesced in one person with Jesus, and contending
that the hitter was tliirty years of age when Christ descended on him, as also
that upon the seizure of Jesus by th i Jews, Christ withdrew from his person,
and returned to the plnce from whence he had come. His opinion of Christ in
this respect bears somewhat of a resemblance to that which is commonly attri-
buted to Nestorius, dividing Christ Jesus into two distinct persons. His tenets,
however, were by for worse than what the Nestorian maxims countenance, and
we therefore cannot agree with Faydit, Lampius, and other learned men, who
consider Cerinthus as having, in point of fact, been a Nestorian before the time
of Nestorius.
END OF THE FIRST CENTUEY.
THE
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF THE
SECOND CENTURY.
I. Propagation of the Christian religion. TllC Christian religion,
wliicli in the course of the former age had made its way through-
out a considerable portion of the world, and pervaded nearly the
whole of the Roman empire, was, in the century on which we
are now about to enter, by the zeal and incredible exertions of
its teachers, still more widely diffused, and propagated even
amongst those nations, which on account of their ferocity and
the loathsomeness of their manners were justly regarded with
horror by the rest. Being destitute of any documents on the
subject that can properly be relied on, it is impossible for us,
with any degree of exactness, to specify either the time, cir-
cumstances, or immediate authors, of this farther diffusion of the
blessings of the gospel, or particularly to distinguish the pro-
vinces which had hitherto remained uncheered by, and now first
received the light of celestial truth from those to which it had
been communicated in the former century. We must rest satis-
fied therefore with being able to ascertain, in a general way,
from the unexceptionable testimony of writers of these and the
following times, that the limits of the church of Christ were, in
this age, extended most widely ; in so much, indeed, as to make
them correspond very nearly with the confines of the then known
habitable world. (^)
(1) Some very striking passages respecting the amplitude and extent of tlie
Christian community, are to be met with in the works of those most excellent
writers of the second century, Justin Martyr, Irenoeus, and Tertullian, writers,
of whom it is not too much to say, that they are, in general, most deserv-
ing of unlimited credit. S <r« h says Justin, (Dialog, cum Tryphone, p. 341.
edit. Jebhian.) ya^ ohan Ut to ytvoi dvd-^oJ-rwv, Xiti /S^gCu^av, 'iiTt 'Exw-va-y, iiTt
aTTKais wT/vm ovo/nitri TrpSa-i.yopi'jo/ucveeVy » aui^'^CiceVy » daUuv K:ikBy.ivctr, n if
e-K»ydii xTJuroTeopaf ouhTuv, tv o7f ftji S^ta tS ovofjixros rj vstyga-d-fyToj 'Iwff-J,
260 Century Il.—Scctioyi 1.
tv^tt) Kai tu^i^t^]±t Tw TTiT^i jc3ti 7roi»r\i Tuv o*Ka)V yivovrctt. Ne unum quidem
est genus morlalimn, she barbai-orum, sive Grcccorum, seu etiam aliorum om-
nium, quocumque appelleniur nomine, vel in plausii'is degentium, vel dome caren-
tium, vel in tentoriis vixentium, et pecoribus vitam toleraniiian, inter quos per no-
mencrucifixi Jesu supplicationes, et gratiarum actiones patri et fabricatori omnium^
non fiant. Subsequently, at p. 351. he again expresses himself much to tlie
same purport, though in fewer words. Now admitting, what indeed is too obvi-
[p. 204.] ous to be denied, that there is in this somewhat of exaggeration, since
long after the age of Justin there were many nations of the earth which had
not been brought to a knowledge of Christ, still there could have been no room
for this very exaggeration, had not the Christian religion been at that time most
extensively diffused throughout the world. Irenseus, disputing with the Valen-
tiiiians, (hb. i, adv. Hccres. cap. x. p. 48. edit. Massuet.) opposes to them the entire
Christian church, which he represents as extended throughout the ichole world, even
to the uttermost bounds of the earth. From this immense multitude of Christians
in the general, he then selects certain particular churches widely separated from
each other in point of situation, and sets them in opposition to his adversaries.
K*i HTi ai h Ti^/mctviuts IS'pv/ixc.vett iKKKntridit a\Ka)g TriTTisivKAVtVy » aXKcei Tra^xS^iJ^o-
OLCtVy in iv Tdis 'lo«/!t:t/f, vT« iv KJA.Tc7ff, »Tg xaTa Taj dvaroXas, »T6 iV 'At-
yvTTTO), Sn iv Ai^uii) Sri at kato. fxi<ra th x.6(r/ut.y iJ'^vfxevai. Ac neque hcc qucC
171 Germaniis silcc sunt Ecclesicc aliter credunt, aut aliter tradunt, nee qucc in
Hiberiis, aut Celtis, neque h<E qucc in oriente, neque hce qua: in JEgypto, neque hcc
qucc in Libya, neque hcc qucc in medio mundi constitutcB. In support of the doctrine
then for which he is contending, we see Irenaeus here calls to witness churches
from all the three grand divisions of the world which were at that time known.
From Europe, the Germanic, the Iberian or Spanish and the Celtic or Gaulish.
He himself lived amongst the Celts, and was a near neighbour to the Germans
and Iberians ; and must consequently have been most intimately acquainted with
the situation of Christian affairs in those parts. From Asia he adduces the
churches of the East, by which I conceive him to mean those which had been
planted at the eastern extremity of Asia. Finally, from Africa he calls to his
support, the churches of Egypt and Libya. To what churches he alludes when
he speaks of those "situated in the centre of the world," it is not very easy to
say. The commentators on Irenajus would have us to understand him as hav-
ing in view the churches of Palestine, since it appears that anciently Palestine
was, by some, considered as situated in the centre of the world. How far this
may be just I am unable to say. Possibly the word xoV^oj, or world, might be
put by Irenseus, as it is by others of the ancient writers, for the Roman empire.
Annexing this sense to the word, the centre of the world would be Italy, which
was as it were the heart of the Roman empire. Another interpretation has been
olTered to the world by Gabriel Liron, a learned monk, of the order of the Be-
nedictines, {Singulariles Historiques et Litteraires, torn. iv. p. 197.) who sup-
poses that by the centre of the world was meant Asia Minor, Greece, Thrace,
Illyricum, Pannonia, Italy and the Isles; in short all those parts which were sur-
rounded by the countries which he had before enumerated. Tertullian gives a
more copious list than Irenaeus, of the nations that had embraced Christianity,
Propagation of Christianity. 2G1
although perhnps less to be depended on. In quern enim alium, says he, (hi lib.
adv. Judccos, c. vii. p. 212. edit. Rigiilt.) universal genles creJiilcrunl, jiisi in
Christum qui jam venil 1 Qui enim el, (there seems to be some deficiency or
corruption of the text in this place,) alia- gentes crediderunt : Parthi, Medi, Ela-
mitcD, et qui inhabitant Mesopolamiam^ Armeniam, Phrygiam, Cappadociam, et
inculentes Pontum^ et Asiam, et Pamphyliam : immoranles JEgyptum, et regionem
African quoi est trans Cyrenem inhahitantes ? Romani et incolce ; tunc et in Hieru-
salem Judcci et ca^tercc gentes: utjam Getulorum varietates, et Maura- [p. 205.]
rum multi Jlnes : Hispaniarum omnes termini, et Galliarum dixerscc nationes, et
Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vera subdita, et Sarmatarum, et Da-
corum, et Germanorum, et Scytharum, et abditarum multarum gentium et provincia-
rum et insularum multarum nobis ignotarum, et qiuc enumerare minus pas sumus :
in quibus omnibus locis Christi nomen, qui jam venit, regnat. Considering this
passage as perfectly explicit, and every way worthy of credit, various of the
learned have not hesitated on the fliith of it, to pronounce that the Christian re-
ligion had, at this time obtained for itself a footing in all the different nations
here enumerated. For my own part were I to follow them in this, it would not
be witliout a strong apprehension that I might plunge myself into difficulties
not easily to be surmounted. In fact, it appears to me, that TertuUian puts on
here a little of the rhetorician, as he does in many other parts of his writings,
and relates some things which it would strangely puzzle me, or any one else to
demonstrate. In the first place, it is to be remarked, that the middle part of the
above passage is taken from the Acts of the Apostles, and that, with the excep-
tion of the Armenians, it exhibits a catalogue of precisely the same nations as
are enumerated by the Jews who had heard the Apostles speak in foreign
tongues, Acta, ii. 8. 9. From what the Jews are there recorded to have said,
TertuUian seems to have conceived what carries on its very face the marks of
absurdity, namely, that all the nations of whom those devout Jews there make
mention, were at once induced to embrace the Christian faith. It is next ob-
servable, that what TertuUian here says of Christianity having in his time been
professed by divers nations of the Gauls is directly contrary to the fact. In the
time of TertuUian, the church of Gaul had attained to no degree of strength or
size, but was quite in its infancy, and confined perhaps within the limits of one
individual nation, as the inhabitants of the country themselves acknowledge.
What he adds about Christ's being acknowledged in those parts of Britain to
which the Roman arms had not penetrated, is still wider removed from the truth.
Finally, his asserting that many unexplored nations and unknown islands and
provinces had embraced Christianity, most plainly evinces that he suffered him-
self to be carried away by the warmth of imagination, and did not sufilciontly
attend to what he was committing to paper. For how could it be possible that
TertuUian should have been brought acquainted with what was done in unex-
plored regions and unknown islands and provinces ? In fact, instead of feeling
his way by means of certain and approved testimony, he appears, in this instance,
to have become the dupe of vague and indistinct rumour.
n. Mission of Pantaenus to India. The name of one of those,
262 Century Il.—Section 2.
however, who devoted themselves to the propagation of the gos-
pel amongst the nations of the east, has been transmitted to pos-
terity, viz. that of Pantoenus, a man of eminent abilities, and one
by Avhom the cause of Christianity was, in various ways, con-
siderably benefited. Having applied himself with diligence to
the cultivation of letters and philosophy, and presided for a while
with distinguished credit over the Christian school at Alexandria,
he at length, either on the suggestion of his own mind, or by the
[jD. 206.] command of Demetrius, his bishop, engaged in a mis-
sion to the Indians, who had about this time manifested a wish
for Christian instruction, and communicated to them that saving
knowledge of which they stood, in need. To which of the
many nations comprehended by the ancients, under the general
title of Indians, it was that Pantosnus thus went, has been the
subject of dispute. My own opinion is that this mission or-
iginated in an application made to the bishop of Alexandria by
certain Jews" who were settled in Arabia Felix, and who had
been originally converted to Christianity by Bartholomew, re-
questing that a teacher might be sent them for the purpose of
renovating and keeping alive amongst them the true religion,
which, for want of such assistance, had gone much to decay, and
was visibly every day still further on the decline. If this con-
jecture of mine be well founded, it must of necessity follow, that
those are in an error who conceive that India obtained her first
knowledge of the Gospel through Pantoenus.(^)
(1) For whatever we know of the sacred legation of Pantsenus to the In-
dians, we are indebted to Eusebius and Jerome; between whom, however, there
is some little difference of narration respecting it. By the former, in his Hist.
Eccles. lib. v. cap. x. p. 175. Pantrenus is represented as having, on the sugges-
tion of his own mind, undertaken a journey amongst the people of the east for
the purpose of converting them to Christianity, and to have extended his travels
even as far as the Indians. The latter, in his Caial. Scriptor. Ecclesiast. cap.
xxxvi. p. 107. ed. Fabric, et Epistot Ixxxiii. p. 656. tom. iv. opp. part ii. ed. Be-
nedict, reports that certain delegates had been dispatched by the Indians to Alex-
andria, requesting of Demetrius, the bishopof that city, that a Christian instruc-
tor might be sent them; and that Demetrius, acceding to their vvishes, directed
Panteenus, the prefect of the Alexandrian school to accompany those men on their
return. If then we give credit to Eusebius, we must understand Panta^nus as
having voluntarily, and purely out of love towards God, undertaken the labour
of disseminating a knowledge of the gospel amongst divers of the barbarous na-
tions of the east, including even the Indians : if on the contrary we take Jerome
Mission of Pantcenus. 203
for our guide, it sh( juld seenr that he was sent by his bi>(liop on a special mis-
KJon to the Indiana, and to none besides. Possibly it may not be very difficult
to bring about a reconciliation between these two accounts. Pantrenus had,
prob.ibly at the instigation of his own mind, gone forth with a view to the con-
version of some of the more neighbouring nations, and, perh.ips, met with some
success. Whilst he was thus employed, the Indian delegates, in all likelihood,
arrived at Alexandria, requesting that a Christian instructor might be sent to
their countrymen; and Demetrius having received the most ample testimony of
his knowledge, faith, and zeal, pitched upon this same Pantcenus as the most
proper person to accompany them on their return. But since it is well known
that the Greek and Latin writers gave the title of Indians to many of the more
remote eastern nations, of whom little or nothing was known, and also occa-
Bionally made use of the term to denote the Persians, Parthians, Medes, Ethio-
pians, Libyans, Arabians, and others, as is not unusual with us at this day, the
learned have made it a question what Indians those were to whom a knowledge
of the gospel was imparted by Pantjcnus. Most of them imagine that the scene
of his labours must have been the country of India Magna which is watered by
the Indus, and which we now term Eastern India : an opinion that seems to be
countenanced by Jerome, who says that Pantaenus was sent to the Brachraans.
Missus est, says he in his 83d Epistle, in Indiam utChristum apud Brachmanas
et illius gentis philosophos prccdicaret. For Brachmans or Bramins is [p. 207.]
the title by which the wise men of India Magna are distinguished to this day ;
but by the ancients the terra Brachmanus was applied in a manner equally vague
and ambiguous with that of Indians, and it appears to be not at all unlikely that
Jerome might, in this instance, have no authority but his own fancy for what he
said. Those illustrious scholars, Hen. Valesius, L. Holstenius, and others, have
therefore rather thought that it was to the Abyssinians or Ethiopians that Pan-
tsenus went, since the appellation of Indians, (a title which they are still fond
of retaining) was given also to these people by the ancients : and in addition to
this, they are as it were, next door neighbours to the Egyptians, and keep up a
constant commercial intercourse with them. See Basnage — Annal Polilico-
Ecclesiast . torn. ii. p. 207. Hen. Valesius, Adnotat. ad Socratis Histor. Eccles. p.
13. For my own part, I can fall in with neither of these opinions; for my be-
lief is that those Indians, who requested to have a teacher sent them by Deme-
trius, the bishop of Alexandria, were neither pagans nor strangers to Christiani-
ty, but Jews, who had settled in that part of Arabia, called by the Greeks and
Romans Arabia Felix, and by the people of the east Ilyemen; and who had
previously been brought to a knowledge of Christ and his word.. My reason for
thinking thus is, that Jerome says, Pantaenus found amongst them the Gospel
of St. Matthew in Hebrew, and brought it back to Alexandria with him, and
that they had received this book from Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles,
who had " preached amongst them the coming of Jesus Christ." Catalog. Scrip-
tor. Ecdesiast. c. xxxvi. p. 107. It is apparent therefore that the people to whom
Pantasnus went, were not strangers to Christianity, as also that they were skill-
ed in the Hebrew language, and were consequently of Jewish extraction. For
since Bartholemew left with them one of the gospels written in Hebrew, it un-
264 Century II. — Section 3.
avoidably follows, that they must have been acquainted with the Hebrew tongue.
Had they been ignorant of the Hebrew, what end could it have answered to
make them a present of a book in that language? It only remains then for me
to show that the^e same Jews were inhabitants of Arabia Felix. And in this I
feel no sort of difficulty whatever, in as much as it can clearly be ascertained
that this part of India was the scene of Bartholomew's labours. For let any one
only be at the pains of comparing together the testimony of ancient authors,
respecting that India to which a knowledge of Christ and his word was first im-
parted by Bartholomew, and not the shadow of a doubt can remain with him, as
to its having been Arabia Felix, which we well know was one of the countries
included under the title of India by the ancients. See Tillemont, in Vila Bar-
tholomcci. Mem. Hist. Ecclesiast. torn. i. p. 1160, 1161.
III. Origin of the Gallic, German, and English churches. Turning
to the European provinces, we find it acknowledged by the best
informed French writers, that their country, which anciently
bore the name of Trans-alpine Gaul, was not blessed with the
light of the gospel until this century, when a knowledge of the
religion of Christ was first communicated to their rude fore-
fathers by Pothinus, who, together with Irenaeus, and certain
other devout men, had travelled into Gaul from Asia. There
are not wanting some, however, who would carry up the origin
of the Gallic church to the apostles themselves, or their imme-
[p. 208.] diate disciples.(') From Gaul it seems probable that
Christianity passed into Cis-rhenane Germany, at that time under
the dominion of the Eomans, and was also transferred to the op-
posite shores of Britain, although it is insisted on by not a few
of the Germans, that their church owes its foundation to certain
of the immediate companions and disciples of St. Peter and the
other apostles(^); and the inhabitants of Britain would rather
have us, with respect to the introduction of Christianity into
their country, receive the account of Bede, who represents Lu-
cius, an ancient king of that island, as having in this century
procured some Christian teachers to be sent him from Eome by
the pontiff Eleutherus.(')
(1) The most eminent of the French writers have at different times engaged
in disputes of considerable warmth, respecting the antiquity and origin of the
Gallic church. There appear to be three different opinions on the subject,
each of which has found its advocates.— (I.) That to which we have above
given the precedence, has been defended with great ability and learning by the very
celebrated Jo. Launois, in various tracts which are to be found in the first part
of the second volume of the joint edition of his works. So cogent indeed are
Christianity in Gaul. 205
tlie arguments of this illustrious writer, tliat his opinion has been embraced by
almost every one in France who makes pretension either to superior wisdom,
ingenuity, or learning. Vid. Histoire Littcraire de la France, torn. i. p. 223, et
Beq. This opinion moreover is supported by the authority of no loss than
three most respectable ancient historians ; of whom the first is Sulpitius Seve-
ru8, who, in speaking of the persecution which the Christians of Lyons and
Vienne sulTered, under the emperor Marcus Antoninus, (Hislor. Sacr. lib. ii.
cap. 32, p. 246.) adds, ac turn primum inter Gallias martyria visa, ferius trans
alpes Dei religione suscepta. The next is the author of The Acts of Saturni-
niis, bishop of Thoulouse, who suffered martyrdom in tlie third century, under
the reign of the emperor Decius, a work that is generally supposed to have
been written in the beginning of the fourth century. According to this writer,
the churches that had been founded in France were but few and small even in
the third century. Vid. Theod. Ruinart. Acta Martyrum Sincera et Selecta, p.
130. The third is Gregory of Tours, the parent of French history, who relates,
{Histor. Francor. lib. i. cap. xxviii. p. 23, et de Gloria Confessorum, cap. xxx.
p. 399, ed. Ruinart,) that under the reign of Decius there were seven men sent
from Rome into France for the purpose of preaching the gospel. These seven
then, it is observable, are the very ones which popular tradition pronounces to
have been the companions of the apostles Paul and Peter, and amongst them is
that Dionysius, the first bishop of Paris, whom the French formerly maintained
to have been Dionysius the Areopagite. — (II.) By those, however, who think
it of greater importance to uphold ancient notions and magnify the consequence
of France, than to ascertain the truth, an origin by far more august is assigned
to the Gallic church, and the apostles Peter and Paul themselves are pro-
nounced to have been its founders. According to them, the last mentioned of
these apostles traversed a considerable part of Gaul in his way into Spain ; and
Luke and Crescens were afterwards dispatched by him on a mission [p. 209.]
to the Gauls ; and the church of Paris owed its foundation to Dionysius the
Areopagite, an immediate disciple of his, of whom mention is made in the Acta
of the Apostles. St. Peter likewise, they say, sent his disciple Trophimus into
Gaul, and St. Philip laboured in the conversion of a part of it himself And,
as if all this were not enough, they will have it, that some of the most re-
nowned prelates of the different Gallic churches, such as Paul of Niirbonne,
Martial of Limoges, and Saturnine of Thoulouse, liad, before their coming into
France, enjoyed the benefit of the apostles' society and instruction. See the
epistle of the eminent Peter de Marca, de Ecangelii in Gallia Initiis, which
Valesius has prefixed to his edition of Eusebius. It must be confessed, indeed,
that the number of those who persist in maintaining the authenticity of all these
particulars, is at present considerably reduced ; for the fact is, that in support
of a great part of them nothing better can be avouched than tlie testimony of
obscure characters altogether unworthy of credit, or perhaps conjecture, or
some vague tradition; in short, nothing but evidences of the most uncertain
and unsatisfactory nature. — (III.) There are, however, to be found in France,
men by no means deficient in learning, who will defend the above way of think-
ing with some limitation, and who, although they are ready to give up such of
266 Century II. — Section 3.
the above-mentioned facts as arc unsupported by authority, will yet n^t hear
of surrendering that grand citadel of ecclesiastical pre-eminence, the apostolic
origin of the Gallic church. The arguments of Launois, Sirmond, and Tille-
mont, tlu'v will allow, place it beyond all dispute, that the celebrated Dionysius,
the first bishop of Paris, concerning whose body such violent disputes have
taken place between the Benedictine monks of St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, and
the French monks of St. Dionysius, was not the person whom the French, from
the ninth century, have believed him to have been, viz. Dionysius the Areopa-
gite, one of St. Paul's disciples, but a very different man who flourished in the
third century. They are also willing to admit that the vulgar tradition about
the coming of Philip and other holy men into Gaul, is altogether undeserving
of credit ; and finally, that the greater part of the churches in that country
which pretend to an apostolical foundation, were not in reality founded until
long after the apostolic times. But the three following points they can on no
account be brought to relinquish ; first that the great apostle of the Gentiles in his
way into Spain tarried for some time in Gaul ; secondly, that Luke and Cres-
cens were dispatched by him on a mission to the Gauls ; and lastly, that so
early as the second century, there had been founded in Gaul many other
Christian churches besides those of Lyons and Vienne. No one that I know
of has displayed greater diligence and ability in support of this last way of
thinking than Gabriel Liron, a Benedictine monk of great erudition, in his Dis-
sertation sur T Etahlissement de la Religion Chretienne dans les Gaules ; which
nearly finishes the fourth volume of a work published by him, under the title
of Singulariles Historiques et Litteraires. Paris, 1740, 8vo. It has also been
defended by Dion. Sammarthanus in the preface to his Gallia Christiana. For
my own part I must say, that neither of these ways of thinking appears to me
to be in all respects well founded or unexceptionable. On the second it cannot
be necessary to make any remark, since it is supported by scarcely any one of
the present day, except such as are interested in upholding the credit of a
[p. 210.] parcel of old stories, to which the churches are indebted for a great
part of their riches. In support of the third there appear to be many things
yet unestablished that may with the strictest justice be called for. Admitting
it, for instance, to be certain, what in point of fact we know to be most un-
certain, that St. Paul made a journey into Spain, it yet by no means follows
of necessity that he must have gone through Gaul in his way thither; for it is
very possible that he might have made the journey by sea. For Luke's ever
having been in Gaul we have no authority but that of Epiphanius, (in Hccres.
lib. i. § xi. p. 433.) a writer, to say no worse of him, of very indifferent credit,
and by no means determinate in his way of speaking. For the word Gaul is
here put by him absolutely, and we are consequently left utterly in the dark as to
whether he means Trans-alpine or Cis-alpine Gaul. Dionysius Petavius indeed
(Animadvers. ad Epiphaniurn, p. 90.) suspects, and not without reason, that
Cis-alpine Gaul was the country meant. In proof of the mission of Crescens,
the words of St. Paul, 2 Tim. iv. 10, are cited, in which the learned advocates
for this legation contend, that instead of TuxaLrUv, as most copies have it, we
ought to read with Epiphanius, TnKxUy. But even supposing that we were to
Christianitij in Gaul. 2G7
yield to them in this, for our doing of which, however, nothing like a sufficient
reason could readily be assigned, still here again the question would arise, as
to whether it was Trans-alpine or Cis-alpine Gaul that was meant. Possibly it
may be true, although it cannot be absolutely proved to be so, that in the
second century there were in Gaul several churches besides those which we
know to have been at that time established at Lyons and Vienne. But allow-
ing this to be ever so certain, still it is not conclusive as to the main point in
dispute, namely, whether or not the light of the gospel was first communicated
to the people of Trans-alpine Gaul by the apostles themselves, and their com-
panions and disciples. To the opinion first above noticed, r.i?.. that the Gaula
were not acquainted with the name of Christ prior to the arrival of Pothinus
and his companions from the east, although it has very illustrious patrons on
its side, there yet seems wanting some further support. The celebrated pas-
sage which we have cited from Sulpitius Severus, and concerning which such
great disputes have taken place amongst the learned, can certainly authorize no
further inference than this, that the Christian religion was communicated at a
later period to the Gauls than to the countries of Asia and the rest of Europe.
So that it amounts not to any thing like a proof that the glad tidings of Chris-
tianity had never reached the Gauls until the arrival of Pothinus, Irenajus, and
their companions, in the second century. From the acts of Saturninus it is
clear that the religion of Christ made but a slow progress in Gaul, and that
under the reign of Decius, in the third century, there were only a few small
churches scattered about here and there throughout the country, the major part
of the inhabitants not having renounced idolatry even at that period. But this
surely throws no obstacle whatever in the way of any one's believing that
some of the apostles or their disciples had journeyed into Gaul, and that a part
of that country had embraced Christianity prior to the second century. The
passage referred to in Gregory of Tours, most assuredly possesses considerable
force when opposed to the idle notions formerly entertained by the French re-
specting Dionysius the Areopagite, Trophimus, Martial, and others, as also in
demonstrating the futility of the pretensions which many of the Gallic churches
make to an apostolic foundation. They also prove that the number of [p. 211.]
Christians in Gaul prior to the time of Decius was comparatively trifling ; but
iill this is not showing that those are in error who contend that the way of sal-
vation was first made known to the Gauls by one of the apostles themselves,
or by men who had enjoyed the benefit of the apostles' converse and instruction.
Upon the whole, when I take into consideration the unbounded zeal displayed
by our Lord's apostles in the propagation of his religion, I must own I find no
little difficulty in persuading myself that a province of such extent and conse-
quence, and no farther distant from Italy, could have been altogether neglected
by them, and never invited to listen to the terms of salvation propounded by
their divine master. Were I to be called upon then for a summary statement
of my opinion on the subject, I should say, peradventure Luke, peradventure
Crescens, peradventure one even of the apostles themselves, might have taken
a journey into Gaul with a view to the conversion of the natives. These
primary efforts, by whomsoever made, were certainly attended with but very
268 Century II. — Section 3.
little success. In the second century Pothinus, with certain companions, arriv-
ing out of Asia, experienced a more propitious reception, and succeeded in
establishing a small church at Lyons. This little assembly of Christians, how-
ever, instead of increasing, went, in the course of time, from various causes,
much to decay, and the seven men who, according to Gregory of Tours, were
sent from Rome into Gaul, under the reign of the emperor Decius, may be said
to have found the Gallic church in a state little better than that of absolute
ruin, and to have given to it, as it were, a second foundation. With this
opinion the indefatigable Tillemont nearly coincides in his Memoires pour servir
a VHisioire de VEglise, torn. iv. p. 983.
(2.) Both Irenaeus and Tertullian, as we have above seen, \ 1. note [1] make
express mention of the German churches. From neither of these writers, how-
ever, is the least information to be obtained as to whether these churches were
founded in this or the preceding century, or any thing collected that might
lead us to form a judgment of their number and size. Even the part of Ger-
many in which they were situated is not indicated. This silence has afforded to
the German antiquaries a very ample field for dispute. The most learned and
sagacious of them imagine, that the greater or Trans-rhenane Germany, which
was very little known to the Romans, did not receive the light of the gospel in
this century nor for many ages afterwards ; and therefore that the churches men-
tioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian must have been situated in Cis-rhenane Ger-
many, which was subject to the Roman government. Jo. Ernest. Grabe takes
exception to this opinion, in his annotations on the passage in Irenaeus under
consideration ; but as it appears to me on very light gronnds. For what he sug-
gests is, that as Irenaeus does not speak of Germany but of the Germanics, h
Tetis TtffAAviatsy it is to be supposed that in his time there had been Christian
churches established throughout the whole of Germany. But a man of his eru-
dition ought surely to have recollected that Irenaeus might without any impro-
priety speak thus of Cis-rhenane Germany, which, as is well known, had been
divided by the Romans into the first and second, or Superior and Inferior Ger-
many. Until, therefore, the opinion of the eminent men above alluded to, shall
be opposed by arguments of greater force than this, its credit will remain un-
shaken. Other arguments indeed have been brought forward by Jo. Nichol. ab.
[p. 212.] Hontheim, in his Hisioria Trevirensis Diplomatica, tom. i. Dissert, de
JEra Episcopatus Trevirensis^ p. 10, et seq., where he lays it down that the pas-
sage in Tertullian ought to be understood as relating to that part of Eastern
Germany which borders on Sarmatia and Dacia ; and the passage in Irenaeus as
relating to the whole of Germany. But these arguments, unless I am altogether
deceived, carry no greater weight with them than that of Grabe does, and serve
only to demonstrate the author's fertile and happy talent at conjecture. Marcus
Hansitzius is spoken of by him with approbation, as maintaining the same opi-
nion in his Germania Sacra ; but in this I think his memory must have deceived
him, for I can find nothing of the kind said by Hansitzius in the place referred to.
A greater question is as to the antiquity and origin of the German churches.
The principal churches of Germany, like those of other nations, would fain carry
up their foundation to the times of the apostles, and even to the apostles them-
Christianity in Germany and Britain. 209
Belvea. Amongst other things there is an old tradition, that tlirce of St. Peter's
companions, namek, Eucharius, Valerius, and Maternus, were sent by him
into Belgic Gaul, and so far seconded by divine favour that they succeeded
In establishing churches at Cologne, Treves, Tongres, Leige, and other places
and continued in the superintendence and government of them until their deaths.
Vid. Christoph. Brower. Annales Trevirenses, lib. ii. p. 143, et seq. Anlwcrpicns.
ad d. xxix. Januarii, p. 918. But in refutation of this, those great and impartial
writers, Calmet in his Dissertation sur les Eveqiies de Treves, torn. i. Ilistoire de
Lorraine, part iii. iv. Bolland in his Acta Sanctorum Januarii, torn. ii. p. 922, et
eeq. Tillemont in his Memoires pour servir a VHistoire de VEglise, torn. iv. p.
1082; and finally, Hontheim in his Disserlatio de JEra Episcopatus Trevirensisj
torn. i. Hist. Trevirens. have fully shown, by arguments as conclusive as the na-
ture of the question will admit of, that the above-mentioned sacred characters,
with their associates, belong properly to the third, or rather to the beginning of
the fourth century, and that the dignity of apostolic legates was gratuitously
conferred upon them either through ignorance or vanity during the middle ages.
To confess the truth, it appears to me extremely probable that the same per-
sons by whom a knowledge of Christ and his gospel was in the second century
communicated to the Gauls, extended the scene of their labours so far as to
make the inhabitants of that part of Germany which is contiguous to Gaul, par-
takers of the same blessing. Gabriel Liron has, with much labour and ingenui-
ty, endeavoured to prove the apostolical antiquity of the German churches, in
his Singularitcs Historiques et Litteraires, torn. iv. p. 193, seq. But the arguments
and suggestions of this learned writer, although they may induce us to refuse
ioining with those who go the length of positively asserting, that no apostle or
apostolic legate ever set foot in Germany, and that there were no Christians in
that country prior to the time of Pothinus and Irena^us, yet by no means render
it clear that such success attended the labours of any apostolic missionaries in
Germany as for them to collect together and establish certain churches, the pre-
sidency over which they retained during their lives, and on their deaths transfer-
red over to others. If any of the first promulgators of Christianity [p. 213.]
ever travelled into Germany, which, in the absence of all positive testimony on
the subject, I will take upon me neither to affirm nor deny; it is certain that they
accomplished nothing of any great moment amongst this warlike and uncultivat-
ed people, nor could any Christian churches have been established by them in
that country upon any thing like a solid or permanent foundation.
(3) Previously to the reformation, Joseph of Arimathca, the Jewish senator, by
whom in conjunction with Nieodemus our blessed Saviour's obsequies were per-
formed, was commonly considered as having been the parent of the British
church. The tale propagated by the monks, in support of which, however, they
could advance no sort of authority whatever, was that this illustrious character
and twelve other persons were dispatched by St. Philip, who had taken upon
himself the instruction of the Franks, into Britain, for the purpose of diffusing a
knowledge of Christianity amongst the inhabitants of that island also, and tiiat
their mission was not unattended with success; for that within a short period
they were so fortunate as to make a great number of converts, and to lay the foun-
270 Century II. — Section 3.
dation of the church of Glastonbury. Vid. Rapin de Thoyras, Histoire d'Angle-
terre, torn. i. p. 84. — At present the better informed of the British do not hesi-
tate to "ive up this narrative of the origin of their church as altogether a fiction;
but they do not fail, at the same time, to supply its place by an account equally,
nay even more august and magnificent, lest they should appear to come behind
the other European churches in point of antiquity and consequence. What they
assert is, that the Britons are expressly enumerated both by Eusebius and Theo-
doret amongst those of the Gentiles, whom these writers state to have enjoyed
the benefit of receiving the faith from the mouths of the apostles themselves,
and that therefore some one or other of the apostles must have travelled into
Britain and resided there for some time. But since it is not a little difficult to
fix on either of the apostles that were the companions of our blessed Lord, who
could with the least show of probability be named as the one that took this
journey into Britain, they have recourse to St. Paul, maintaining that the inha-
bitants of this island acquired their first knowledge of the gospel through the
preaching of this great apostle of the Gentiles, who had sailed into Britain from
Spain. And this conjecture or opinion they conceive to be supported by
(amongst other ancient authors) Clement of Rome, who says that St. Paul tra-
velled, It/ TO ri^fxa tm? cTt/Vtaj, "to the very confines of the west." To this they
add, that amongst so many thousands of the Romans as passed into Britain, both
during the time of Claudius and afterwards, there must no doubt have been
many w'ho professed the Christian faith. The church that was thus first estab-
lished in Britain, however, they allow to have been but small, and after a little
while to have wholly fallen to ruin, or at least gone in great measure to decay.
They therefore consider the British church as having received, what may be
termed, its principal and permanent foundation, in the second century, under the
reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, and in the time of the Roman pontiff
Eleutherus. Their opinion as to this is grounded on what is recorded by Bede
in his Ecclesiastical History, and by others after him, as a fiict not in the least
to be doubted of, namely, that certain persons were, at that period, dispatched
to Rome by Lucius, the king of Britain, requesting that some Christian teachers
might be sent him ; that in consequence of this application several such teachers
were sent, and that by the zeal and unremitted exertions of these missionaries,
the whole island was gradually converted to the Christian faith. The reader
will find these different points discussed with much ingenuity, and supported
with great ability and learning, by those eminent native writers: J. Usher in his
Antiquitates Ecclesiae Britannicee, cap. i. p. 7. F. Godwin in his w^ork [p. 214.]
de Conversione Britannise, cap. i. p. 7. Edward Stillingjleet in his Antiquities of
the British church, chap. i. and William Burton in his Animadvers. in Epist.
Clement. Rom. ad Corinthios: Patrum Apostolic, tom. ii. p. 470: with whom we
find not a few foreigners agreeing in opinion. Vid. F. Spanheim. Hist. Eccles.
Maj. ssec. ii. p. 603, 604, tom. i. opp. Rapin de Thoyras, Histoire d'Angleterre,
tom. i. p. 86 et seq. With the reader's leave I will now give my own opinion on
this subject, propounding in the way of conjecture such suggestions as appear to
me to have probability on their side, but adopting nothing which is not supported
by the decisive testimony either of facts or of words In the first place then, as
Christianity in Britain. 271
•
to the question of, whether or not either of the apostles themselves?, or any one
commissioned by them, ever took a journey into Britain with a view to the con-
version of the natives; I believe it must be passed over as not to be determined,
although I must confess, that probability seems to lean rather in favor of those
who take the afiirmative side, than of those who oppose it. St. Paul's voyage
into Britain is most intimately connected with his journey into Spain ; but
with what doubts and almost insurmountable difficulties the fact of this
apostle's ever having been in Spain is encumbered, is well known to every one
at all conversant in these matters. The story of Joseph of Arimalhea's being
sent from Gaul into Britain by Philip, seems to have somewhat in it of truth,
although corrupted and deformed through the ignorance, or arrogance, or per-
haps knavery of the monks. In fact, it should seem more than probable, aa to
this, that what took place in Gaul and Germany happened likewise in Britain,
namely, that certain devout characters, of an age by far more recent than that of
the apostles, were, through one or other of the above mentioned causes, con-
verted into apostolic missionaries. The truth of the matter I suspect to be,
that tlie monks had collected from remote tradition and ancient documents, that
some man of the name of Joseph had passed over from Gaul into Britain, and
applied himself with success to the propagation of tlie Gospel there ; and
either from theii; ignorance of any other eminent Christian character of the
name of Joseph, besides him of whom mention is made in the history of Christ,
or from a determination to exalt the dignity of the British church, even at the
expense of truth, took upon them to assert that this Joseph was none other
than that illustrious Jewish senator by whom the body of our Lord was in-
terred, and that he was sent from Gaul into Britain by the apostle Philip. In
like manner, as the French converted Dionysius, a bishop of Paris, who
flourished in the third century, into Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Germans
metamorphosed Maternus, Eucharius, and Valerius, who lived in the third and
fourth centuries, into primitive teachers and disciples of St. Peter, so I doubt
not the British monks also, out of zeal for the honour of their church, were in-
duced to lend a helping hand to some Joseph, who had in the second century
crossed over to their ancestors from Gaul, and to lift him up one century
higher. Being in the present day unfurnished with any positive evidence on
the subject, we can only offer this in the way of surmise. A considerable de- .
gree of obscurity hangs over the history of those persons who, in the second
century, accompanied Pothinus out of Asia into Gaul ; possibly amongst those
devout characters there might be likewise a Philip, who persuaded Joseph to
undertake the journey into Britain ; and whom the same monks, by way of
giving a due consistency to the different parts of their tale, might raise to the
dignity of an apostle. In the present day, as we before observed, [p. 215.]
these things can only be guessed at ; but our surmises are not mere random
ones. For, not to rest upon the circumstance that the clergy of almost all the
different nations of Europe have fallen into a similar error, or been guilty of the
same kind of deceit, and that it would therefore be very extraordinary if those
of Britain alone should not have blundered or transgressed in tliis respect, the
account of the matter, as it has reached us, carries with it some not very ob-
272 Century II. — Section 3.
scure marks of truth. That tlicse monks, for instance, should not have pitched
upon one of tlie apostles, but have contented themselves with one of our
Lord's friends; that of such friends Joseph should have been the one fixed on;
that this their Joseph should not have travelled into Britain by the express
command of Christ himself, or have been conveyed thither in some miraculous
marmer; but that on the contrary, they should allow him to have crossed over
to them from Gaul, which is, in fjict, admitting that Christianity had obtained
for itself a footing amongst the Gauls, prior to its introduction into Britain ; all
these circumstances, in my opinion, seem plainly to indicate that they come not
properly within the cla^s of those who invent wliat is absolutely false, but were
men who perverted the authentic traditions of their ancestors, so as to render
them subservient to certain purposes of their own. My opinion is much the
same with regard to Lucius^ whom the more respectable of the British writers
strenuously maintain to have been, not the original founder, but as it were, the
second parent and amplifier of their church. That a Lucius of this description
did actually exist, I have not the least doubt, but I do not believe him to have
been either a Briton or a king of the Britons. The very name, which is Ro-
man, speaks him to have been some man of eminence amongst the Romans,
who were at that time masters of the island. This man probably being well
disposed towards the Christian religion, or having, perhaps, {Jready fully em-
braced it himself, beheld with grief the superstitions of the Britons, and with
a view to its abolition, called in some Christian teachers from abroad. These
his laudable intentions, we may well suppose to have been seconded by Divine
Providence. I cannot, however, persuade myself to believe that he had resort
to Rome for those teachers, and that they were sent over to him by Eleutherus,
although this is the account which Bede gives us of the matter. Lucius had
no need to send to such a distance for men qualified to instruct the Britons in
the principles of Christianity, since, in the time of Eleutherus, there were resi-
dent in the neighbouring country of Gaul, particularly at Lyons and Vienne,
Christians sufficiently skilled to assume the office of teachers, and burning with
an holy zeal to embark in the further propagation of their faith. That Lucius
should have sent to Rome for teachers, was, I suspect, altogether an invention
of the monks of the seventh century, who, perceiving that the Britons were
but little disposed to receive the laws and institutions of the Roman see, used
every endeavour to persuade them that the British church owed its foundation
to the Roman pontiffs, and that it was by the assistance of Eleutherus that
Lucius, the first Christian king of Britain, brought about the conversion of his
people. The information, however, which we are in possession of respecting
those of the ancient Britons who had embraced Christianity prior to the arrival
of Augustine, who was sent into Britain by Gregory the Great, in the si,xth
century, will not permit us to believe this. Had their ancestors been instructed
in the principles of Christianity by teachers from Rome, most unquestionably
they would have adopted the Roman mode of worship, and have entertained a
veneration for the majesty, or to speak more properly, the authority of the
bishop of Rome. But from the testimony of Bede, and various ancient docu-
ments that are to be found in Wilkin's Councils of Great Britain and Ire-
Chrisiianity in Britain. 273
land, torn. i. p. 36, it is plain that they knew of no such character as the bishop
of Rome, and could not, Avithout great difficulty, be brought to yield [p. 216.]
obedience to his mandates. In their time of celebrating Easter too, to pass
over others of their observances, it appears that they were guided, not by the
Roman, but the Asiatic rule ; and what is particularly deserving of notice, they,
like the Asiatics in the second century, maintained that tiie rule ^to which they
conformed was derived from St. Jolin. See Bede's Historia;. Eccles. Gentis
Anglorum, lib. iii. c. xxv. p. 173, edit. Chifletian. By no sort of circumstantial
evidence whatever, could it, in my opinion, be more clearly proved than by the
above, that it was not from any missionaries of Eleutherus, but from certain
devout persons who had originally come from the east, namely, from Asia, that
the ancient Britons received their instructions in the Christian discipline.
Whoever will be at the pains to connect all these tilings together, and to
consider them with a due degree of attention, may, I rather think, not feel alto-
gether indisposed to adopt the opinion which I myself have been led to enter-
tain respecting the origin of the British church. It is this : if any Christian
church was ever formed in Britain, either by one of the apostles themselves, or
any of their disciples, which I certainly will not take upon me to deny, it
could not have been a large one, and must have very soon gone to decay.
Christianity, however, again recovered for itself a footing in Britain, under the
reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, in the second century, when Eleutherus
was bishop of Rome, and the Christians of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul were
sutfering under a most dreadful persecution from the slaves of idolatry. There
happened at that time to be resident in Britain, a certain wealthy and powerful
Roman of the name of Lucius, who had been led to entertain a respect for
Christianity, and was desirous of having its principles disseminated, both
amongst the native inhabitants of Britain and the Romans who were resident
tJiere. Hearing that certain devout men, who had come from Asia into Gaul,
had met with considerable success in the propagation of the Gospel in this latter
country, and supported with wonderful fortitude the varied train of evils to
which they were exposed, he, by his authority, procured some of them to
come over into Britain, and make known the true way of salvation also there.
In all probability the name of the leader, or principal one of the sacred charac-
ters that thus passed over from Gaul into Britain, was Joseph, and that of his
superior, by whose command or instigation the journey was undertaken, Philip;
and hence arose the tale of Joseph of Arimathea having been sent from Gaul
into Britain by the apostle Philip. At the time when this happened, Elenlherus
was bishop of Rome, and occasion was hence taken by the Romish monks, who
found their interests not a little concerned in making the Britons regard the
Romish church in the light of a spiritual mother, to pretend that the teachers
above alluded to had been sent over from Rome by the pontiff Eleutherus.
Should any one, however, feel inclined rather to believe that some of the
teachers from Asia, to whom the Gauls stood so much indebted for instruction,
were induced either voluntarily, or from motives of personal safety, during the
persecution that raged at Lyons, to cross over into Britain, and that their
labours in this island were crowned with the conversion of a. siuUitude of
18
274 Century 11. — Section 4.
people, the first and principal of whom was an eminent person of the name of
Lucius, I shall not object to his adopting this opinion in preference to the one
above suggested.
[p. 217.] IV. Number of the Christians in this age. It is scarcely,
indeed we miglit say, it is not at all possible to ascertain, with
any thing like precision, the proportion which the number of the
Christians in this age, and more especially within the confines of
the Eoman empire, bore to that of those who still persisted in
adhering to the heathen superstitions. Most of those by whom
the subject has been adverted to in modern times have erred by
running into one or other of the extremes. The number of the
Christians at this period is as unquestionably over -rated by those
who, not making due allowance for the tumid eloquence of some
of the ancient fathers, represent it as having exceeded, or at least
equalled that of the heathen worshippers, (') as it is underrated
by those who contend that in this age there were nowhere to be
met with, no not even in the largest and most populous cities,
any Christian assemblies of importance, either in point of magni-
tude or respectability, f) That both are equally in an error, is
manifest from the persecutions that were carried on with such
fury against the Christians in this century. Had their number
been any thing equal to what many would have us believe, com-
mon prudence would have withheld the emperors, magistrates,
and priests, from irritating them either by proscriptions, or pu-
nishments, or rigorous severities of any kind. But on the other
hand, had they been merely a trifling set of obscure, ignoble per-
sons, they would, instead of being combated with so much eager-
ness and pertinacity, have been spurned at and treated with
derision. Upon the whole, the conclusion that seems least liable
to exception is, that the number of the Christians was in this age
very considerable in such of the provinces as had been early
brought to a knowledge of the truth, and continued still to cul-
tivate and cherish it ; but that nothing beyond a few small and
inconsiderable assemblies of them was to be found in those dis-
tricts where the light of the Gospel had been but recently made
known, or if communicated at an early period, had been suffered
to languish and fall into neglect.
(1) Tertullian is by many considered as speaking literally no more than the
truth, when he urges the Romans in the following words : Hesterni sumus^ et
Number of the Christians. 275
vestra omnia implevimiis, iirbes, insidas, castella, municipia, conciliabula^ castra
ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, sejiatuiti, forum. Sola vobis relinquimus iempla.
Apologet. cap. xxxvii. p. 311. edit, liavercainpi. To me, however, it appears
that the African orator, who seems to have been naturally inclined to exagge-
ration, in this instance most evidently rhetoricates in a very high degree.
Were the passage to be stript of its insidious and fallacious colouring, I con-
ceive it would be found to mean simply this : the Christians are very numerous
throughout the whole Roman empire, indeed it is scarcely possible to name
any department in which some of them are not to be found.
(2) The world has of late seen many writers of the most opposite charac-
ters and views assiduously cooperate in undervaluing and diminishing the
churches of the second century. Those inveterate enemies of the Christian re-
ligion, whom we style Deists, do this by way of meeting the argument which
its defenders draw from the wonderful and inconceivably rapid propagation of
the Gospel ; an argument which, they conceive, must completely fall [p. 218.]
to tlie ground, could the world be brought to believe, that during the two first
centuries the converts to Christianity were but few, and those chiefly of a ser-
vile and low condition. The adversaries of episcopacy, whom we commonly
term Presbyterians, take the same side with equal zeal, under the hope of
proving that the charge committed to a bishop of the second century must
have been comprised within a very narrow compass, and consequently that the
prelates of the present day, whose superintendence, for the most part, extends
over large tracts of country, are altogether a different order of men from the
primitive bishops. The pastor of a congregation of about two hundred, or at
the most of six hundred persons of little or no account, (and a bishop of the
second century, according to them, was nothing more) may rather be likened,
say they, to a country parish priest than to a bishop of modern days. The
same thing is likewise eagerly contended for by such of our own writers as
have entered the lists with the advocates for the church of Rome. The object
which these propose to themselves in so doing is, to render it evident that the
vast multitude of martyrs and confessors with which the Roman calendar is
crowded, must be, for the most part, fictitious ; and that the bones, which are
daily brought to light from the Roman catacombs, are rather to be considered
as the remains of slaves and people of the lowest order, than as reliques of
Christian martyrs. In this way do we frequently find persons of the most op-
posite views concur in yielding to each other a mutual support. Wise and
honest men, who take care always to temper their zeal in the cause of religion
by a proper respect for truth, will readily allow that we have sufficient grounds
to warrant us in making no very inconsiderable deduction from that immense
host of Christians which many conceive to have existed in the second century ;
but, on the other hand, they find themselves precluded by the most unex-
ceptionable testimony of words as well as facts, (and this too deduced, not
from the writings of the Christians themselves, but of men who were hostile to
the Christian name,) from joining in opinion with those who maintain that, in
this age, the Christian churches were but few and inconsiderable throughout
tlie Roman empire. To say nothing of the evidence of facts, there is the
276 Century Il.—Section 4.
notable testimony of an author of the greatest weight, namely, Pliny, the
pro-proitor of Bithynia, who, in a report made by him to the emperor soon after
the commencement of this century, states the province over which he presided
to be so filled with Christians, that the worship of the heathen deities had
nearly fiillen into disuse. Epistol. lib. x. ep. xcvii. p. 821, edit. Longol-
Mulli, says he, omnis cciatis, omnis ordinis, utriusqne sexus eiiam, vocantur in
periculum et vocahuntur. In this passage I would particularly recommend the
words omnis ordinis, to the attention of those who would willingly have us
believe that the primitive churches were made up of rude and illiterate persons,
slaves, old women of the lowest order, in fact, of the very dregs of the people,
and that amongst the Christian converts there were none to be found of any
account or dignity. Either their position must be wrong, or Pliny must have
here stated an absolute fiilsehood. Neque civitates tantum, he continues, sed
vicos eiiam aique agros super siiiionis istius contagio pervagata est. The whole
of the province, therefore, swarmed with Christians, not merely a particular part
of it. Lastly, it is plainly to be perceived from his account, that the credit of
the Heathen deities had at one time been in great jeopardy, and that the num-
ber of their worshippers was exceeded by that of the Christians. This is mani-
fest from what he states of the temples having been deserted, the sacred solem-
nities for a time intermitted, and the sacrifices offered to the gods reduced to a
mere nothing. Cerle satis constat, propejam desolata templa cxpisse celebrari, et
[p. 219.] sacra solemnia diu intermissa repeti, passimque venire victimas, quarum
adhuc rarissimus emptor inveniebatur. We are reduced to the necessity then, of
either believing that the report made by this circumspect and prudent writer
to his imperial master was founded in fiction, or else, admitting that in the
Pontic province, even so early as his time, the Heathen worshippers were far
outnumbered by the Christians ; at least, that the greatest part of its inhabi-
tants had manifested a disposition to abandon the religion of their ancestors.
Those who conceive that the Roman empire contained within it but few Chris-
tians at this period, think to do away the force of this testimony by saying, that
in this letter to Trajan, Pliny assumes more the character of an advocate than
that of an historian, and that therefore what he says is not to be understood
altogether in a literal sense. Now, to this I will in candour accede, so far as to
admit that Pliny was desirous of inspiring the emperor with sentiments of lenity
and pity towards a set of people whom he knew to be of an harmless charac-
ter, and under the influence of no evil principle, and that with this view he was
led in some measure to amplify the number of the Christians; but hither surely
can not be referred what he says of the temples having been before nearly de-
serted, the sacred rites intermitted, and the sacrifices neglected. For Trajan
could have drawn no other conclusion from this than that Christianity was on
the decline. In every other respect too, we find the orator quite laid aside, and
things represented in plain and simple terms, without the least artificial
colouring. The testimony of Pliny is confirmed by Lucian, to whom it is im-
possible to impute anything like a ^milarity of design. Lucian, in an account
which he has transmitted to posterity of the life and nefarious practices of Alex-
ander, represents this infamous impostor as complaining : "A^tcer ifAvnrx^a-^Ai
Causes of Success. 277
ntu ^^la-TiityCiv tov tovtov, it wtgi durou ToXfxda-i to )cdx.t(rru ^Kna-pr^fxluy plenam
esse Ponlum Atheis et Christianis, qui audeant pessima de se maladicla spargere.
In Pseudomiint, \ 25, p. 232, torn. ii. opp. edit. Gcsneri. This Alexander ap-
pears to have dreaded, the perspicacity of the Christians, by whom he was sur-
rounded, in no less a degree than that of the Epicureans, a set of men by no
means of an insignificant or frivolous character, but on the contrary, intelligent
and shrewd. By a particular injunction, therefore, he prohibited both the one
and the other from being admitted to the secret mysterious rites which he in-
stituted, "E/ T/f "A^ioSi » ^^la-TtsLvoiy < 'Er/xsygsioj, mn KATdcrxovos twi' o^yiceVy
fujynoe : 1. c. ^ 38, p. 244. These words the illustrious translator of Lucian
renders, si quis AtheuSy aut ChrisiiamiSy aut Epicureus venerit, orgiorum specu-
lator, fugito. To me, however, it appears that w^e should better meet the sense
of the original by rendering them, si quis Athens, sive Christiayius sit, sive
Epicureus, venerit, fugito. The title of Atheists being, as it strikes me, here
used by this impostor generically to denote those to whom he afterwards speci-
fically takes exception under the two denominations of Christians and Epicu-
reans. That the Christians as well as the Epicureans were termed Atheists
by their adversaries is well known to every one. It redounds, however, not a
little to the credit of the Christians of Pontus, that we find Alexander thus classing
them wath the Epicureans, a set of men on whom it was not easy to impose, either
with respect to their eyes or their ears. In the present day we have many who
would willingly persuade us that the primitive Christians were of such an in-
significant, stupid character, as not to be capable of distinguishing miracles and
prodigies from the tricks of impostors, or from some of the regular, [p. 220.]
though rare operations of nature. To this Alexander, however, this cunning
deceiver, who had found means to impose upon so many who were deficient
neither in perception nor understanding, they appeared to be persons of a very
different cast ; men, in fact, endowed with a considerable share of caution and
prudence, who were well capable of forming a proper estimate of miracles and
prodigies, and whom all the craft and cunning of those w^ho made it their study
by tricks and deception to impose on the vulgar, could not easily delude. The
fear thus manifested by Alexander of the Christians, must certainly be allowed
to possess considerable weight in proving how very numerous they were in
the provinces of the Roman empire ; nor is it open to the same exceptions that
are taken to the testimony of Pliny. Alexander cannot be charged with in-
dulging in declamation by way of moving the passions ; his complaint is dic-
tated merely by a concern for himself and his credit with the world.
V. Causes to which the rapid propagation of Christianity is to be
attributed. The astonisliing progress thus made by Christianity,
and the uninterrupted series of victories wliich it obtained over
the ancient superstitions, are attributed by the writers of those
days, not so much to the zeal and diligence of those who, either
in conformity to what they considered as a divine call, of their
own accord assumed the oj3ice of teachers, or had else been regu-
278 Century Il.—Sectlon 5.
larlj appointed tliereto by the bishops, as to the irresistible ope-
ration of the Deity acting through them. For, according to these
authors, so energetic and powerful was the operation of divine
truth, that most frequently, upon its being simply propounded,
without entering into either proofs or arguments, its effects on
the hearers' minds was such, that persons of every age, sex, and
condition, became at once enamoured of its excellence, and
eagerly rushed forward to embrace it. The astonishing fortitude
and constancy likewise, they report, with which many of the
Christians sustained themselves under torments of the most ex-
cruciating nature, even to the very death, inspired great multi-
tudes of those who were spectators of their sufferings with an
invincible determination to enrol themselves under the banners
of a religion capable of inspiring its followers with such magna-
nimity of soul and such a thorough contempt for every thing
temporal, whether it were good or evil.(') Finally, they repre-
sent the Deity as having bestowed on not a few of his ministers
and chosen servants, such a measure of his all-powerful Spirit,
that they could expel daemons from the bodies of those that were
possessed, cure diseases with a word, recall the dead to life, and
do a variety of other things far beyond the reach of human pow-
er to accomplish.(^) Most certain it is that the generality of those
who in this century devoted themselves to the propagation and
defence of Christianity, were not possessed either of sufl&cient
knowledge, eloquence, or authority, to be capable of effecting
any thing great or remarkable without preternatural assistance.
For although, as the age advanced, the study of philosophy and
letters gained ground amongst the Christians in general, and
[p. 221.] more particularly in Egypt, and the truths of the G-os-
pel were embraced by some even of those who were distin-
guished by the title of philosophers, yet there was every where
a considerable scarcity of learned and eloquent men ; and by far
the greater part of the bishops and elders of the churches took
to themselves credit rather than shame, for their utter ignorance
of all human arts and discipline.
(1) Tertullian^ at nearly the end of his Apology, observes, with much ele-
gance and ingenuity. Nee quicquam proficit exquisitior qiucque crudelitas vestra^
illecehra est magis sectcc. Plures ejjicimur, quoties metimur a vobis : Semen est
sanquis Chrislian&rum. It is remarked also by Justin Martyr (in Dialog, cum.
Causes of Success. 279
Tryphone, p. 322. edit. Jcbbiana3,) 'Oa-oo-mg uv toiavta tTv* yivurnty rcaovra
/uaWov aWci TX«/oV£f 7n<rTo] Ka't Qtoa-ij^ili cTju tow cyofXATOs tov "in<roZ yiyYovrac,
Quantomagis ejusmodi quccdam innos expediuntur lormcnia, tanto alii pluresfide-
les ei vercc religionis cuUores per nomen Jesu fiunl. This he illustrates by a si-
mile by no means inelegant: 'OtoTov, euv dy-Trixov t/? «jct£(U« to Kip7rcf>c(i>ia-avTa
/«£§»> its TO dva/iKAtrTiia-ctt iripous xXdcToLif x-u) tv^'aKtli Jtrti xeL^Tropipous dYctj^iS^axr]- tov
dwTov TpoTov xa/ «p' YifAcov yiviTxi. Qucmadmodum enim si quis vilis excidat fructifi-
cantes partes^ ut palmiles quidem alios Jioridos et frugiferos proferat, facil : ita in
nobis qiLoque accidit. Plant&la namque a Deo et Chrislo Servatore viiis est (jus
fropidus.
(2) That this was the case, and that those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are
commonly termed miraculous, were liberally imparted by Heaven to numbers
of the Christians, not only in this but likewise in the succeeding age, and more
especially to those of them who devoted themselves to the propagation of the
Gospel amongst the Heathen, has, on the faith of the concurrent testimony of
the ancient fiithers, been hitherto universally credited throughout the Christian
world. Nor does it appear to me that, in our belief as to this, we can with the
least propriety be said to have embraced any thing contrary to sound reason.
Only let it be considered that the writers on whose testimony we rely, were all
of them men of gravity and worth, who could feel no inclination to deceive, that
they were in part philosophers, that in point of residence and country they were
fiir separated from each other, that their report is not grounded upon mere hear-
say, but upon what they state themselves to have witnessed with their own eyes,
that they call upon God himself in the most solemn manner to attest its truth,
(vid. Origen, contra Celsum, lib. i. p. 35. edit. Spenceri ;) and lastly, that they
do not pretend to have themselves possessed the power of working miracles, but
merely attribute it to others; and let me ask what reason can there possibly be
assigned, that should induce us to withhold from them our implicit confidence?
Some years since, however, the opposite side of the question was boldly taken
up by an English author, who on other occasions had shown himself to be pos-
sessed of an excellent genius and no ordinary degree of learning; I mean Dr.
Conyers Middleton, who, in a volume of some size, which he sent out under the
title of" A free Inquiry into the miraculous Powers, &c." London, 1749, 4to. has,
without ceremony, upbraided the whole Christian world with suffering them-
selves to be grossly imposed upon in this respect, and taken upon him to assert,
that every thing which has been handed down to us by so many of the fathers,
respecting the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and the miracles of the first ages,
is devoid of foundation, and utterly unworthy of credit. Those who may be de-
sirous of learning the history of this celebrated book, and of the very acrimoni-
ous controversy to which it gave rise in Great Britain, may consult the English,
French, and German literary journals, as also the confutation of the work itself,
which was lately published in Germany. In this place I shall attempt [p. 222.]
nothing more than by a few observations to contribute somewhat towards the
illustration of this matter, which has not yet ceased to agitate the learned world,
and must certainly be considered, on many accounts, as of the very highest mo-
ment. The state of ihe case appears to be this. The very learned autlior of
280 Century II. — Section 5.
the Inquiry, most fully admits that the apostolic age abounded in miracles and
extraordinary gifts, but denies that anything of this nature was witnessed by
the world subsequently to the decease of our LordVapostles, and hence infers,
that the accounts wliich have reached us of the miracles wrought in the second
and third centuries, are to be regarded either as the inventions of knaves, or the
dreams of fools. It appears to him, moreover, that an urgent necessity exists for
our coming to this conclusion, inasmuch as the principles and arguments on
which the miracles of the first ages rest for support, will serve equally well to
uphold the credit of the wonders pretended to have been wrought in more re-
cent times by the saints of the Romish church : and it is consequently impossi-
ble for us eifectually to assail the latter, until we can so far break through our
prejudices as to give up our defence of a belief in the former. Now in all this
there may perhaps be nothing to which exception can justly be taken, or that
should seem to be unworthy of a man of sound sense and a Christian. For the
divine origin of the Christian religion depends not at all for support on the mira-
cles which are recorded to have been wrought in the second and third centu-
ries. Only let it be granted that a power of altering the laws of nature was resi-
dent in Christ and his apostles, and the point is placed beyond the reach of ca-
vil. But to any one who shall peruse Dr. Middleton's book with attention, it
cannot fail to be apparent that, although his attack is ostensibly directed solely
against the miracles of more recent times, yet his object was collaterally to im-
peach the credit of those wrought by our Lord and his apostles, and insidiously
to undermine our belief of every thing to the accomplishment of which the or-
dinary powers of nature could not have been equal. For the arguments and
mode of reasoning which he opposes to the miracles of the second and third
centuries, are of such a nature as to admit of their being most readily brought
to bear with equal effect on those of the first century, so that if the former fall
before them, every hope must vanish of our being any longer able to support
the latter. Upon perceiving, as they readily did, that such was the scheme of
this ingenious but artful writer, it could not otherwise happen but that the very
learned and venerable body whose province it is to watch over the interests of
religion in England, should at once take the alarm, and not only make use of
every effort to render the plan abortive, but also without reserve accuse its au-
thor of bad faith, and attribute to him the worst intentions. The certainty and
truth of what I have here stated is sufficiently proved by the learned Doctor's
very mode of argumentation, which is of such a nature that if it were to prevail
[it] would greatly endanger the authority of those miracles on which the truth
of the Christian religion principally rests for support. The scheme which the
Doctor labors by great length of argument and an abundant display of erudition
to establish, is briefly this. All the Christian writers of the first three centuries
whose works have come down to us, were men possessed of no judgment or dis-
cretion, neither were they always sufficiently cautious and circumspect, but oc-
casionally betrayed a very great proneness to superstition and credulity. What-
ever therefore they may have transmitted to us respecting the miracles wrought
in their days, including even those of which they state themselves to have been
eye-witnesses, is to be considered in the light of mere nonsense and fable. Aa
Causes of Success. 281
if it were certain that none but men of nice discrimination were capable of dis-
tinguishing between a true miracle and a pretended one, and that those must of
necessity have always been imposed upon, who on some occasions appear to
have yielded their credit on too easy terms. We could have endured it, had thia
eminent scholar contented himself with asserting that several of those things,
which are reported to have happened in the first ages, contrary to the establish-
ed order of nature, might very well be doubted of: but to attempt, by [p. 223.]
a general argument like the above, open as it is to infinite exceptions, and to-
tally destitute of any evident or necessary connection, to overthrow the united
testimony of so many authors of unquestionable piety, and who, it is plain, were
in many things sufficiently cautious and circumspect, indicates in my opinion, a
mind replete with temerity, and disposed to strew the paths of religion with in-
sidious difficulties and snares. Happily this illustrious writer himself appears
some short time before his death, which happened in the year 1750, to have been
fully convinced by the arguments of his opponents, of the weakness of his opi-
nion. For in his last reply, a posthumous work that came out in 1751, under
the title of a " Vindication of the free Inquiry into the miraculous Powers which
are supposed to have subsisted in the Christian church," &.c. I say in this his
last literary effort, although he expresses himself in language more contentious
and virulent than the occasion could possibly demand, he yet plainly acknow-
ledges himself to be vanquished, and yields up the palm to his adversaries. For
he therein disclaims ever having meant to contend that no miracles whatever
were wrought in the primitive Christian church subsequently to the death of the
apostles, and professes himself ready to admit, that when occasion required, God
was ever ready to support the Christian cause by marks of his omnipotent pow-
er. All that he ever intended to maintain, he says, was this, that a constant and
perpetual power of working miracles was never resident in the church posterior
to the age of the apostles, and that therefore no credit could be due to those of
the early defenders of Christianity who had arrogated to themselves such a per-
petual power: in short, if I rightly comprehend the meaning of the learned au-
thor, he wished to explain himself as having never intended to assert any thing
more than that amongst the teachers of the second and third centuries, there were
none that possessed the power of working miracles at pleasure. But this is
altogether changing the state, as they term it, of the controversy. Had the learn-
ed Doctor, when he entered on his undertaking, had nothing more in view than
the establishment of this point, he might have spared himself all the pains that
he took, in the first place, to write, and afterwards to defend his book. For I
do not know that it ever entered into the mind of any one professing Christia-
nity, to assert, that in the second, third, or fourth centuries there were to be
found amongst the Christians, men to whom the Almighty had conceded the
power of working miracles at all times and in all places, and of such a nature
and as often as they might think proper. Bella geri placuit nullos habitura tri.
umphos.
YI, Human causes which contributed to forward the propagation
of Christianity. But we should do wrong to understand what is
282 Centimj II. — Section 6.
thus recorded respecting the wonderful means by which the
Deity himself contributed towards the propagation of the Gos-
pel, in such a way as to conceive that the cause of Christianity
was not at all indebted for its success to human counsels, labour
or studies. For without doubt the progress of divine truth was,
in no little degree, forwarded by the very wise and laudable ex-
ertions of the bishops and other pious characters in getting the
writings of the apostles, which had been collected into one vo-
lume, translated into the most popular languages, and distributed
amongst the multitude : indeed, the bare reading of these works
[p. 224.] is stated to have so affected many, as to cause them
instantly to embrace the Christian faith. (') The cause of Chris-
tianity derived also no inconsiderable benefit from the different
Apologies, in Greek as well as Latin, by which those learned
and eloquent writers, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Quadratus, Aris-
tides, Miltiades, Tertullian, Tatiaii^ and others, throughout the whole
of this century, repelled the slanders and reproaches of its fro-
ward and impetuous adversaries, and demonstrated the extreme
turpitude and folly of the popular superstitions.(') It would be
an act of injustice moreover, were we to omit mentioning, with
due praise, the exertions of certain philosophers and men of eru-
dition, who had embraced Christianity in various provinces of
the Koman empire, and who, from their great authority with the
people, and the facility of intercourse which they enjoyed with
the more cunning and wily enemies of religion, became highly
instrumental in causing many to turn from the paths of error
into the way of truth.
(1) Whether any one or more of the ancient translations of the sacred
volume that have reached our days, can justly be ranked amongst the literary
productions of this early period, admits of considerable doubt. It appears,
however, from very respectable authorities, that in the second century for cer-
tain, if not in the first, the books of the New Testament had been translated
into different popular languages. See Basnage Histoire de VEglise, liv. ix. cap.
1. p. 450. torn. i. How anxiously desirous, moreover, the Christians of this
age were to inform the minds of the multitude, and to lead them to Christ, by
furnishing them with translations of those writings in which the scheme of
salvation through Him is laid open, and with what industry this object was
pursued by men of every description, cannot be better understood than from
the great number of Latin translators of the sacred volume, which, according
to Augustine, stepped forward even in the very infancy as it were of Christianity.
For as the Latin language had been rendered familiar to a great part of the
Causes of Success, 283
world, and was not entirely unknown even to what were termed the barbarous
nations, the Christians conceived that by their translating the books of the New
Testament into this tongue, the way of truth would at once be laid open to an
innumerable portion of mankind. Eager therefore to accomplish so desirable
an end, they were in some instances led to form too favorable an estimate ot
their powers, and the task was occasionally undertaken by those who were by
no means competent to its execution, — Qui scripluras ex Hehrica lingua in
GrcEcam verterunt, says Augustine {de Doctrin, Christian, lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 19
torn, iii.) nnmerari possunl, Laiini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ul enim cuiqut
primis jidei temporibiis in manus venii codex Graecus et aliquaniulum facuUalis
sibi utriusque lingiuc habere videbatur, ausus est inierpretari. Tn this passage ii
is manifest, although there are some who either cannot or will not perceive it.
that by Codex Grccciis is not meant any kind of book written in the Greek
language, but the Codex Bibliorum, or those writings which the Christians held
sacred. For Augustine is not speaking of translations from the Greek [p. 225.]
in general, but of versions of the Holy Scriptures. Without doubt the account
he here gives is to be considered as somewhat hyperbolical : for who can bring
himself readily to believe that in the infancy of Christianity the multitude of
Latin translators of the sacred volume was so great as not to admit of being
numbered? I conceive him therefore to have meant merely, that a considerable
number of the early Cliristians had taken upon them the office of translating
the Holy Scriptures into the Latin tongue, which was at that time one of the
most popular languages. A sufficient testimony surely even this of their piety
and holy zeal. — Of these various Latin translations, Augustine pronounces a
decided preference to be due to one which he names the Italic. In ipsis autem
interprelationibus, Ilala ceteris prccferatur : nam est verborum tenacior, cum per-
spicuitate sententicc. 1. c. cap. xv. p. 21. Certainly it is no small credit to a
translator to confine himself closely to the words, and yet at the same time to
convey with perspicuity the sense of his original. But respecting this version
which Augustine names the Italic, a good deal of discussion has taken place
amongst the learned conversant in biblical literature, and particularly in the
Romish church. For they entertain no doubt, but that the version to which
Augustine alludes, was the same with that which was universally received by
the Latin church, prior to its adoption of the more recent translation from tlie
Hebrew by Jerome. Wherefore they suppose it to have been made in the
time of the apostles, indeed possibly by one even of the apostles themselves,
and having been approved of by Christ's vicar and the successor of St. Peter,
they deem it to be, in point of dignity and credit, if not superior, at least on
an equal footing with the Greek text that we have of the two Testaments. To
this persuasion is to be attributed the very great and very learned industry
which some of the first scholars both in France and Italy have before now dis-
played, and still continue to display, in endeavours to bring to light and restore
the reliques of this venerable version ; and indeed, if by any possibility it could
be done, to recover the whole of it. For could this treasure be come at, they
expect that many corruptions and other blemishes with which they will have it
that the Greek and Hebrew copies of the Scriptures are at present deformed,
284 Century 11.^ Section 6.
would be happily detected and removed, and the true reading of a variety of
controverted passages be established beyond dispute. The very learned Bene-
dictine brethren of the convent of St. Maure, whose erudition reflects so much
honour on France, have long been distinguished for their exertions in this way.
One of tliem, John Martianay, who had before acquired no small reputation by
an edition of Jerome's works and other literary undertakings, sent out at Paris
in 1695, in octavo, what he considered as the genuine old Italic version of the
Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle of St. James. A very laborious work
in three large volumes folio was next published by Pet. Sabatier at Rhcims, in
1743, under the title of Bibliorum sacrorum Lalincc versiones antiqucc,seu vetus
Italica et ceiercc, quotquot in codicihus MSS. et aniiquorum libris reperiri
poluenint, qiuc cum vulgata Laiina et cum textu Grccco comparentur. — The most
recent of those who have labored in this field is Jos. Blanchi7ii, presbyter of
the Oratorian Convent of St. Philip, whose Evangeliarium quadruplex Laiimc
[p. 226.] versionis antiquce, seu veteris Ilalicm, ex codicibus manuscriptis aureis,
argenteis, purpureis, aliisque plusquam millenariac antiquitalis, came out in the
year 1749, at Rome, in four splendid folio volumes of the largest size. It
cannot be necessary that I should direct the reader's attention to any minor, or
less distinguished writers, who may have either treated expressly of this sub-
ject, or casually touched on any particular point of it. Great, however, as have
been the pains and erudition bestowed on this matter, they must, unless I am
altogether deceived, be considered as having proved entirely fruitless and una-
vailing as to the object to which they were particularly directed ; although, in
a general point of view, the labour that has been used in investigating the
Latin copies of the Scriptures may not have been entirely unproductive of ad-
vantage.— " In the first place it is assumed as a fact, by those illustrious scholars
who are at present engaged in endeavours to recover the ancient Italic version,
that before the time of Jerome, the whole of the church, to which the Latin
language was common, made use of one and the same translation of the scrip-
tures ; which having been adopted first at Rome, and been approved of by the
bishop of that city, had been communicated from thence to all the Latin
churches, and under the sanction of the bishop of Rome been universally in-
troduced into the public worship. I say this is assumed by these eminent
writers, but I have not yet observed that any thing like a proof of it has ever
been adduced by any one. On the contrary, I conceive it can be shown by the
most irrefragable arguments, deduced not only from the writings that are ex-
tant of the ancient Fathers of the Latin church, not only from Jerome, who in
the preface to his Latin version of the Four Evangelists says expressly, that
the Latin translations of the sacred volume differed wonderfully from each
other, and that there were tot fere exemplaria quot codices, not only from the
most unexceptionable testimony, that the church of Milan and other churches
within the confines of Italy itself made use of versions of their own which
were different from the rest, but also from those very learned writers them-
selves, who have devoted so much time and attention to the recovery of the
ancient Italic version, that the Latin churches did not all of them, either before
the time of Jerome or after, make use of one and the same translation of the
Causes of Success. 285
Scriptures, but that the versions in use amongst them were various and dissi-
milar. For not to enter into an examination of any others, the versions pub-
lished by Blanchini ditier so very widely from each other in a great many
places, that it would be an utter violation of every sort of probability what-
ever, to consider them as the work of one and the same translator. In
vain does Blanchini contend that this want of harmony in his copies is to be
attributed to the carelessness of transcribers; for the points in which they difter
arc, for the most part, of that nature and importance, that no want of care on
the part of the transcribers will account for their disagreement, but it must be
attributed to a diversity in the originals from whence they copied. In the next
place, these same learned characters assume, that this Italic version, which they
consider as having been common to all the Latin churches, was a work of the
first century, and that it was undertaken and perfected either by one of the apos-
tles themselves, or at least by some companion and disciple of the apostles. But
it is to be observed in the first place, that this is a perfectly gratuitous assump-
tion ; for what evidence have they to adduce that will give any thing even like a
colour to it? And secondly, what appears entirely to have escaped their recol-
lection, it was not until after the close of the first century that the books of the
New Testament were collected into one volume; and consequently it [p. 227.]
is impossible that any translation of these at least could have been previously
undertaken. But what nearly surpasses all belief, and most clearly evinces on
what a slippery and weak foundation the opinions of some of the most learned
men are not unfrequently built, even when they may seem to be placed beyond
the reach of controversy; I say, vvhat is so astonishing as to be almost incredi-
ble is, that these illustrious scholars should with the utmost confidence main-
tain, that that particular translation which Augustine terms the Italic, and to
which he assigns the preference over every other Latin one, was that very iden-
tical version of the sacred code which they pretend to have been composed in
the first century, during the life-time of the apostles, and to have been received
and made use of by all the Latin churches after the example of that of Rome.
From whence, I pray, do these learned characters derive their information as to
this? Do they rely entirely on that passage of Augustine, which we have cited
above? For most certainly neither in Augustine, nor in any other ancient
writer, is there to be found any passage besides this, in which mention is made
of the Italic version. But surely in these words of Augustine there is nothing
which can afford, even to the most penetrating and sagacious mind, grounds for
any thing like a conclusion of this sort. From whence, therefore, have they their
information as to this ? From what prime source has all that intelligence been
drawn respecting the antiquity, the excellence, the dignity, the authority of a
certain I knovv-not-what Italic translation, which such a number of learned men,
not only of the Romish communion, but also of other denominations of Chris-
tians, are so ready at communicating to us? From the words of Augustine, try
what we may, it is impossible to collect anything more than this: (1.) That the
people of Africa, amongst whom he resided when he wrote, in addition to other
Latin translations of the sacred volume, were possessed of one, which by way of
distinguishing it from the rest, they termed the Italic. From whence, however,
286 Century II. — Section 6.
it acquired this appellation, is not to be ascertained, either from Augustine or
elsewhere. Possibly it might have been thus named from its having been brought
from Italy into Africa; possibly from its having been the one made use of in cer-
tain of the Italian churches; with equal probability may we conjecture that it
took this denomination from the country of the person by whom it was made,
or from the structure, perhaps, and polish of its style. Every supposition that we
may make as to this, must of necessity be obscure and uncertain. There can be
no doubt, however, but that those who imagine that it was termed the Italic from
the circumstance of its having been in common use throughout all the churches
of Italy, conjecture ill ; for it is known for certain, that the churches of Raven-
na and Milan, and others of the more celebrated churches of Italy had, each of
them, a peculiar and proper version of its own. (II.) From Augustine's manner
of expressing himself, it is to be inferred that the translation which he terms the
Italic was, in all probability, a different one from that which was used by the
Roman church in the public service. For as the Roman was the principal church
of the West, had this been the translation that was publicly made use of in it,
Augustine would, without doubt, from motives of respect, have termed it {Ro-
mano) the Roman one. Augustine always entertained the greatest reverence
for the Roman church, in which he considered Apostoliccc Cathedrcc principatum
viguisse, epist. xciii. tom. ii. opp. p. 69. (III.) It appears from the passage under
consideration, that what is there termed by way of distinction the Italic version,
was not the one made use of publicly in the African churches; for Augustine
passes an encomium on it, and wishes that a preference should be given to it
over every other version. A sort of recommendation for which there could cer-
tainly have been no room, had this version been already adopted in the public
[p. 1228.] worship. Indeed the very epithet Italic, which he applies to it, is an
argument that it had not been so adopted: for had this translation been the
one commonly used in the African churches, instead of giving it the title of
Itala, propriety would have required him rather to term it either nostra, or vul-
garis, or publica. Italic applied to anything out of Italy, necessarily implies
it to be foreign. (IV.) It is clear that in the opinion of Augustine, which
might be either right or wrong, (for he was certainly not possessed of sufficient
skill in the learned languages to determine on the merits of a translation of the
Scriptures,) this same version, whatever it may have been, was preferable to
every other translation. Now, in all this, there is certainly nothing which
affords the least support to what we have been so much accustomed to have
told us respecting an ancient version, termed the Italic, which was common to
all the Latin churches: on the contrary, it is easy to perceive therein certain
things which altogether set aside and confute what we find contended for in
so many books on the subject. Since then not a single passage, except this
solitary one of Augustine, is to be met with in any ancient author from whence
the least information can be gained on the subject, it appears to me that the
labour of those who so zealously devote themselves to the recovery of this
ancient Italic version, must ever of necessity prove fruitless, and that the under-
taking in which they thus engage bears a very near resemblance to that of the
man who endeavoured to make a collection of the verses that had been sung
Causes of Success. 287
bv the Muses upon Helicon. What we have above remarked, was in part
noticed by that ingenious and penetrating scholar, Richard Bentley, who hath
borne away the palm of criticism from all his contemporaries in Great Britain ;
and he was, in consequence, led to suspect that the passage in Augustine, on
which alone the existence of the ancient Italic version depends for support, had
been corrupted. The way in which he proposed to correct it was, by substi-
tuting the word ilia for Itala, and the pronoun qucc, in place of the particle
nam. To the propriety of this emendation, David Casley, to whom it had been
communicated by Bentley, expresses his um|ualified approbation in his Cata-
logue of the Manuscripts in the King's library^ London, 1734, fol. except that
after the word illa^ he would add, Latina. The Italic version, he, like Bentley,
consigns to its proper place amongst the dreams of the learned. According to
these then the passage in question ought to run thus : in ipsis interpretationibus
ilia (or ilia Latina) prccferatur qucc est verborum tenacior. But I must own
that this alteration appears to me to have something too arbitrary and violent
in it, unsupported, as it is, by the reading of any known copy of Augustine in
existence. Besides it is not called for by any necessity. For even granting
that the passage, as it stands in our copies, is correct, which I have no doubt
it is, and granting also that in the time of Augustine the Christians of Africa,
in addition to other Latin translations of the holy Scriptures, were possessed
of one which they distinguished by the title of the Italian, or Italic version,
every thing that is commonly contended for respecting this translation will
still remain destitute of all support, and the labour that is consumed in
endeavours to recover it may consequently be considered as entirely thrown
away.
(2) It is by no means uncommon to hear the different writers of the ancient
Apologies for the Christians charged uniformly with this fault, that they have
exposed indeed in an admirable manner the folly of the various religions at
that time prevalent in the world, and rendered strikingly manifest the falsity of
those calumnies with which the Christians were oppressed, but have bestowed
little or no pains in demonstrating the truth and divinity of the Christian
religion. To the generality of people it appears that more attention [p. 229.]
should have been paid to the latter object than to the former, inasmuch as it
required merely a demonstration of the divine origin of Christianity to over-
whelm all other religions, and sink them into contempt. But it would not be
very difficult to adduce many things in reply to the accusation. For the
present we shall content ourselves with observing, that the authors of the
early Apologies for Christianity, did not assume to themselves the office of
teachers or masters, but came forward merely in the character of defenders.
Now all that can be required of a defender to the full discharge of his duty is,
to repel the calumnies wherewith the person accused is charged, and to show
that he had just cause for acting in the way be did. From the nature of then
undertaking, therefore, it could only be expected of the early apologists for
Christianity, that they should exonerate those w^ho had embraced it from the
reproaches cast upon them by their adversaries, and by pointing out the absur-
dity of the religions publicly countenanced, make it appear that there was the
288 Century 11. — Section 7.
greatest cause for their deserting them. The business of demonstrating the
truth of that new religion, which they had adopted upon their repudiation of
Paganism, was, without impropriety, left by them to its masters and teachers.
VII. Disingenuous artifices occasionally resorted to in the propa-
gation of Christianity. With the greatest grief, however, we find
ourselves compelled to acknowledge, that the upright and laud-
able exertions thus made by the wise and pious part of the Chris-
tian community, were not irhe only human means, which in this
century were employed in promoting the propagation of the
Christian faith. For by some of the weaker brethren, in their
anxiety to assist God with all their might, such dishonest artifices
were occasionally resorted to, as could not, under any circum-
stances, admit of excuse, and were utterly unworthy of that sacred
cause which they were unquestionably intended to support. Per-
ceiving, for instance, in what vast repute the poetical efi'usions of
those ancient prophetesses, termed Sybils, were held by the
Greeks and Romans, some Christian, or rather, perhaps, an asso-
ciation of Christians, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, composed
eight books of Syhilline Verses^ made up of prophecies respecting
Christ and his kingdom, with a view to persuade the ignorant
and unsuspecting, that even so far back as the time of Noah, a
Sybil had foretold the coming of Christ, and the rise and pro-
gress of his church. (') This artifice succeeded with not a few,
nay some even of the principal Christian teachers themselves
were imposed upon by it ; but it eventually brought great scan-
dal on the Christian cause, since the fraud was too palpable to
escape the searching penetration of those who gloried in display-
ing their hostility to the Christian name.f ) By others, who were
aware that nothing could be held more sacred than the name
and authority of Hermes Trismegistus were by the Egyptians, a
work bearing the title of Poemander, and other books, replete
with Christian principles and maxims, were sent forth into the
world, with the name of this most ancient and highly venerated
philosopher prefixed to them, so that deceit might, if possible,
effect the conversion of those whom reason had failed to con-
vince.(^) Many other deceptions of this sort, to which custom
has very improperly given the denomination of Pious frauds,
are known to have been practised in this and the succeeding
century. The authors of them were, in all probability, actuated
Artifices Employed. 289
by no ill intention, but this is all that can be said in their [p. 230.] '
favour, for their conduct in this respect was certainly most ill ad-
vised and unwarrantable. Although the greater part of those who
were concerned in these forgeries on the public, undoubtedly be-
longed to some heretical sect or other, and particularly to that
class which arrogated to itself the pompous denomination of
Gnostics, (*) I yet cannot take upon me to acquit even the most
strictly orthodox from all participation in this species of crimi-
nality : for it appears from evidence superior to all exception,
that a pernicious maxim, which was current in the schools not
only of the Egyptians, the Platonists, and the Pj^thagoreans, but
also of the Jews, was very early recognized by the Christians,
and soon found amongst them numerous patrons, namely, that
those who made it their business to deceive with a view of pro-
moting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commenda-
tion than censure. Q
(1) The Sybilline verses are treated of very much at large by Jo. Albert.
Fabricius, in the first vol. of his Bihliotheca Grccca, where the reader will also
find a particular account given of those wrhings, which were sent out into the
world under the forged name of Hermes Trismeglstus. The last editor of the
Sybilline Oracles, was Servatius Galla3us, under whose superintendence and
^are they were reprinted at Amsterdam, 1689, in 4to. corrected from ancient
manuscripts, and illustrated with the comments of various authors. To this
edition the reader will find added the Magian oracles, attributed to Zoroaster
and others, collected together by Jo. Opsopceus, amongst which are not a few
things of like Christian origin. That the Sybilline verses were forged by
some Christian, with a view of prevailing the more easily on the heathen wor-
shippers to believe the truth of the Christian religion, has been proved to de-
monstration, by (amongst others) David Blondell, in a French work, published
at Charenton, 1649, in 4to. under the following title Des Syhilles celebrcs tant
par VAnliquilc payenne, que par les saincts Peres. Indeed we may venture to
say, that with the exception of a few who are blinded by a love of antiquity,
or whose mental faculties are debilitated by superstition, there is not a single
man of erudition, in the present day, who entertains a different opinion. It
may be observed, by the way, that Blondell's book was, after two years, re-
published, under a different title, namely, Traile de la Creance des Peres toucliant
VEtat des Ames apres cetie vie, et de VOrigine de la Priere pour les Moris, et du
Purgaloire, a V Occasion de VEcrit ailrihue aux Syhilles. Charenton, 1651, 4to.
The fact, no doubt was, that finding purchasers were not to be attracted ])y the
former title, the bookseller deemed it expedient to have recourse to another.
(2) From what is said by Origen, contra Celswn, lib. v. p. 272. edit. Spencer.
as well as by Lactantius, Institul. Divinar. lib. iv. cap. xv. and by Constantine Ihc
Great, in c. 19. of his Oratio ad Sanctos, which is annexed to Eusebius, it ap-
19
290 Century II. — Section 8.
' pears that the enemies of the Christians were accustomed indignantly to up-
braid them with tliis fraud.
(3) That tile writings at present extant under the name of Hermes, must
have been tlie work of some Christian author, was first pointed out bj Isaac Ca-
saubon in his Exerc. I. in Baronium, ^ xviii. p. 54. This has since been confirmed
by various writers, Vid. Herm. Conringius, de Hermetica JEgyptiorum Medicina^
[p. 231.] cap. iv. p. 46. Beausobre, Histoire de Manichee, tom. ii. p. 201. Cud-
worth, Iriiellect. System, tom. i. p. 373, 374. edit. Mosheim. Warburton, Divine
Legation of Moses, vol. i. p. 442. It may be observed, however, that certain of
the learned dissent, in some degree, from this opinion, conceiving that the writ-
ings of Hermes originated with the Platonists : they suspect them, however, to
have been interpolated and corrupted by the Christians.
(4) Blondell in lib. ii. de Sybillis, cap. vii. p. 161. from the praises that are
continually lavished in the Sybilline verses on the country of Phrygia, is led to
conclude that the author of them was by birth a Phrygian ; and since Monta-
nus, a Christian heretic of the second century, is known to have been a native
of that region, suspects that the composition of them might be a work of his.
The Abbe de Longerue expresses his approbation of this conjecture in his Dis-
sertation de Teiwpore quo nata est Hccresis Montani, which is to be found in
Winckler's Sylloge Anecdotorum, p. 255. et. seq. That the writings of Hermes
and a great part of the forged Gospels, together with various works of a simi-
lar nature, the disgraceful productions of this century, are to be attributed to
the perfidious machinations of the Gnostics, is clear beyond a question.
(5) See what I have collected in regard to this, in my Dissertation de tur-
bata per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia, J 41, et. seq.
VIII. state of the Christians under the reign of Trajan. But
whilst the circumstances above enumerated conspired most
happily to forward tlie cause of Christianity, the priests and
prefects of the different religions that were publicly tolerated in
the Eoman empire, most strenuously exerted themselves to ar-
rest its progress, not only by means of the foulest accusations,
calumnies, and lies, but by frequently exciting the superstitious
multitude to acts of wanton and outrageous violence. (') These
efforts of the heathen priesthood the emperors zealously second-
ed by various proscriptive edicts and laws, the magistrates and
presidents of provinces by subjecting the faithful followers of
Christ to punishments and tortures of the most excruciating
kind, and finally several philosophers and orators by declama-
tion and cavil ; in short, throughout the whole of this century
the Christians had to contend with an almost infinite series of
injuries and evils, and even under the very best and most mild
of the emperors that Rome ever knew, were in various districts
State Under Trajan.. 291
and provinces exposed to calamities of the most afflictive and
grievous nature. At the time of Trajan's accession to the go-
vernment of the empire there were neither laws nor edicts of any-
kind in existence against the Christians. That this was the case
is clear beyond a doabt, as well from other things that might be
mentioned, as from the well known epistle of Pliny to Trajan, in
which he signifies to the emperor that he was altogether at a loss
how to proceed with people of this description. Had any laws
against the Christians been at that time in force, a man so well
versed in the customs and jurisprudence of the Romans as Pliny-
was, must undoubtedly have been acquainted with them. The
fact unquestionably was, that the laws of Nero had been re-
pealed by the senate, and those of Domitian by his successor
Nerva. So difficult, however, is it to abrogate what has [p. 232.]
once acquired the force of custom, that the Christians, as often as
either the priests or the populace, stirred up by superstition and
priestcraft, thought proper to institute a persecution of them, con-
tinued still to be consigned over to punishment. It was this which
gave occasion to Eusebius to state that under the reign of Tra-
jan, per singulas urhes populari motu passim perseqiiutio in Chris-
tianos excitabatur.i^) Such a persecution took place not long after
the commencement of this century in Bithynia, at the time when
Pliny the Younger was president of that province, at the instiga-
tion, no doubt, of the priests.Q
(1) Arnobius adv. Genies, lib. i. p. 16. edit. Herald. Aruspices has fahulaSy
(the calumnies against the Christians) conjectores, arioli, vates, el nunquam non
vani concinnavere fanatici ; qui, ne succ artes iniereant, ac ne stipes exiguas consul.
toribus excutiantjam raris, si quando vos velle rem venire in invidiam compererunt,
negliguntur dii clamitant, atque in templis jam rariias summa est. In regard to
this passage the reader may consult what is said by Ileraldus.
(2) Eusebius, HisL Eccles. lib. iii. cap. 32. p. 103.
(3) We allude to the persecution treated of by Pliny in that very celebrated
epistle of his to the emperor, the xcvii^'' of the 10th book. From this epistle it
is manifest that Pliny himself had no wish to interfere with the Christians, but
was reluctantly compelled by spies and informers to call them before him and
punish them. Interim, says he, in iis, qui ad me tanquam Chrisiiani deferebantur
hunc sum sequutus modum. That these informers against the Christians were
the heathen priests, is I think, clearly to be inferred from the following words :
Certe satis constat prope jam desolata templa ccopisse celebrari, et sacra solemnia
diu intermissa repeti, passimque venire victimas quorum adhuc rarissimus emptor
inveniebaiur. In this passage the proconsul most plainly intimates the cause of
292 Centurij II. — Section 9.
this persecution to liavc been, that the temples in Bithynia were nearly abandon-
ed, the sacred solemnities intermitted, and scarcely any victims ever presented for
sacrifice. But all these things could affect none but the priests and those who
had tlie superintendence of the sacred rites ; for to these alone could it be of any
material moment that the temples should be frequented and victims be brought
to the altars. There can be no doubt then, but that the^^jnen had represented
to Pliny, into what great jeopardy the rites of heatlu ' V.";_.c brought, and it
it is not at all unlikely that by way of giving additional force to their represen-
tations, they had stirred up the populace to clamor for the punishment of the
Christians. In compliance with these applications, Pliny commanded those
persons who, as he says, had been pointed out to him by an informer, to be ap-
prehended, and found amongst them two Christian deaconesses; the presbyters,
together with the bishop, having most probably either taken to flight on the
breaking out of the persecution, or otherwise found means to shelter them-
selves from its effects. When I, moreover, compare the words of Pliny with the
passage cited above from Arnobius, not a doubt remains with me but that he is
to be considered as delivering, not so much his own sentiments, as those which
he had collected from the mouths of the priests.
[p. 233.] IX. Trajan's law respecting the Christians. The attack,
however, thus made on the Christians in Bithynia, eventually
occasioned a restraint to be put on that immoderate fury with
which it had become customary to persecute them. For it hav-
ing been most clearly ascertained by Pliny, that with the excep-
tion of their dissent from the public religion, there was nothing
in the principles or conduct of the followers of Christ deserving
of animadversion, and it being at the same time perceived by
him that their enemies in their proceedings against them had no
regard whatever either to equity or clemency, he requested of
the emperor Trajan, that the mode of coercing the Christians
might be regulated by some certain law, intimating his own opi-
nion to be, that on account of their great number and evident
innocence, they should be treated rather with moderation than
severity. In answer to this it was ordered by the emperor, that
the Christians for the future should not be officiously sought af-
ter, but that if any of them should be brought before the Roman
tribunals in a regular way and convicted, they should, unless
they would renounce Christianity, and again embrace the public
religion, be consigned over to punishment. From the first part
of this regulation we may naturally infer, that the emperor did
not regard the Christians with an unfavourable eye, whilst, from
the latter part, it is as obviously to be collected that he was fear-
Trajan's Law. 293
fill of discovering too mucli lenity towards tlicm, lest- lie should
thereby exasperate the priesthood and the populacc.(')
(1) It was generally believed for many centuries, that the emperor Trajan
was the author of the third persecution of tlie Ciiristians, and we find this very
disturbance which thev i.xperienced in Bithynia under the government of Pliny,
particularly adv« A^ an infinite number of books, as the commencement
of sucli persecution. , iJut it is scarcely possible for any thing to be fiirtiier re-
moved from the truth than these two notions are. Trajan, so far from having
given orders to persecute the Christians, exerted his authority to restrain the
persecution of them, which broke out under his reign in Bithynia and other
places. Without doubt he was considerably in the wrong in giving directions
that persons convicted of having embraced Christianity, and refusing to return
to the religion of their ancestors, should be consigned over to capital punish-
ment ; a thing for which he is sharply and eloquently rebuked by Tertullian
(in Apologet. cap. ii.) ; but most unquestionably it was of the highest advantage
to the Christians that he forbad any search or inquiry to be made after them.
For under this arrangement the Christians might hold their secret assemblies
in security, and by merely observing the dictates of common prudence, might
effectually defeat all the malice of their enemies. Nor could the priests any
longer take occasion, from the emptiness of the temples, and the rarity of vic-
tims, to compel the magistrates to call in question the Christians. It also sup-
plied the magistrates with the power of silencing and putting down any popular
clamour or seditions. But this illustrious act of beneficence, for which the
Christians were indebted to Trajan, lost not a little of its effect, as I have be-
fore observed, by the mandate which was annexed to it for punishing such as
might be convicted of being Christians, and refuse to recant ; in which, as has,
after TertulHan, been observed by several, the emperor disagrees with himself.
For whilst, by forbidding them to be searched for or enquired after, he avows to
the world that there was nothing in them pregnant with danger to the state,
or in anywise deserving of punishment, he, in the next breath, by [p. 234,]
ordering the execution of such as, when convicted of having embraced Christiani-
ty, might persist in professing it, pronounces them to be guilty of a crime that
could scarcely be punished with too great severity. This inconsistency of
Trajan with himself, may be best accounted for by supposing him to have been
fearful that he might irritate the priests and the multitude, and perhaps excite
popular commotions, if he should grant an absolute impunity to men labouring
under so great ill will ; his conduct in this respect was certainly not influenced
by superstition, for had he been actuated by this principle, he would not have
forbidden, but on the contrary have commanded the Christians to be sought af-
ter, with a view to avenge the insult offered by tliem to the gods. With regard,
however, to the punishment ordered to be inflicted on obstinate Christians,
another reason may be assigned. Pliny had written to him that the obstinacy
of the Christians was, in his judgment, of itself, a crime deserving of death,
although there appeared to be nothing improper in the religion whicli they re-
fused to renounce: neque enim diibilabam, quaUcumque essel quod falerentur^
294 Century IL—Section 10.
pervicaciam certe el injlexihikm ohstinationem dehere punirl The opinion thus
expressed by Pliny, although unjust, and obviously unworthy of a man of his
inteilio-ence, the emperor thought proper to adopt, and the Christians were in
consequence consigned over to punishment, not as men who had insulted the
gods, and were inimical to the public religion, but as citizens who refused to
pay obedience to the mandates of their sovereign. Whether the former or the
latter of these reasons may be preferred, certain it is, that neither in Pliny's
epistle nor in the decree of the emperor is there any enmity manifested towards
the Christian religion, or any traces of superstition to be discovered. Those who
consider the disturbance thus experienced by the Christians on the borders of
the Euxine as the commencement of a general persecution of them under Tra-
jan, seem not to be aware that from this very epistle of Pliny, as well as from
other arguments, it can be made appear that the Christians had in the time of
Trajan been put to trouble in various places before ever Pliny had been ap-
pointed to the government of Bithynia.
X. Effects produced by this law of Trajan. This decree of Tra-
jan being registered amongst the public ordinances of the Eoman
empire, was the cause of many Christians' being thenceforward
put to death, even under the most mild and equitable emperors.
For as often as any one was to be found who would run the
risk of becoming an accuser, and the person accused did not
deny the crime imputed to him ; nothing further was left to the
magistrate than to endeavour, by threats and torture, to subdue
the constancy of the person thus convicted ; which if he failed to
effect, the pertinacious and obstinate delinquent was, according
to this law of Trajan, to be delivered over to the executioner.
Under this regulation Simeon, the son of Cleopas and bishop of
Jerusalem, an old man of one hundred and twenty years of age,
being about the year cxvi, accused by the Jews before the prae-
fect of Syria, and persisting for several days, although put to the
torture, in an absolute refusal to repudiate Christianity, was, con-
trary to the inclination of his judge, condemned to suffer death
[p. 235.] upon the cross.(') In conformity to this same law like-
wise, Ignatius^ the renowned bishop of Antioch, who had been
accused by the priests, and was not to be moved by the threats
of even the emperor himself, was in the course of the same year
brought to Kome by an imperial order, and delivered over as a
prey to wild beasts.(^) But what will no doubt appear to the
reader particularly astonishing is, that this sufficiently harsh and
inhuman law excited the discontent of such of the Christians as
glowed with a more fervid zeal, on account of its lenity, inas-
Effects of Trajan's Law. 295
much as for want of inquiry being made b;/ tlie magistrate, or
of some one being found to step forward as an accuser, tliey
were often times precluded from iinisliing their earthly course by
a glorious and triumphant sacrifice of their lives in the cause of
Christ. Hence it became by no means unusual for numbers of
them voluntarily to hand over their names as Christians to the
Judges. Q This unseasonable eagerness to obtain the honours of
martyrdom, however, having in the course of time become perni-
ciously prevalent, it was at length deemed expedient to repress
it by a law.
(1) Vid, Eusebius Hisior. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxxii. p. 103, et seq.
(2) The Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius have been frequently published,
and are to be found amongst the Patres ApostoUci. Of the antiquity of the
work there can be no doubt ; it should seem, however, to have been corrupted
in several places. From these Acts it appears that Trajan adhered most scru-
pulously to the provisions of his own law. In the first place he did not lay
hands on Ignatius until the latter was regularly brought before the public tri-
bunal by an accuser ; in the next place, when the accused confessed himself
guilty of the charge, he endeavoured by various arts of persuasion to prevail on
him to execrate the name of Christ, and join in the worship of the Roman dei-
ties ; and lastly, finding him altogether inflexible in his determination not to re-
nounce Christianity, he adjudged him to sujSer death. We also learn from these
Acts that the emperor deemed it inexpedient to let this holy man suffer at An-
tioch, lest the fortitude which he displayed might operate to increase the vene-
ration for his character, and also have the eflfect of augmenting the number of
the Christians.
(3) A very remarkable instance of this kind of proceeding is mentioned by
Tertullian (in Lib. ad Scapulam, cap. v. p. 88. opp. edit. Rigalt.) as having oc-
curred under the reign of Hadrian. Arrias Antoninus in Asia cum persequer-
etur instanier, (t. e. according to the law of Trajan he caused all such as were
accused before him and convicted, to be executed,) omnes illus civiiatis Christiani
ante iribunalia ejus se manufacta obtulerunt, (that is to say, being discontented
at no one's coming forward against them as an accuser, and perceiving that the
proconsul was determined strictly to abide by the emperor's injunction, and not
to make any inquiry after them, they resolved to become accusers of them-
selves,) cum ilk, paucis duci jussis, reliquis ait : n S'uKc'i w 3-£A«t« dTo3-yii<r-
jLiiVi xg«/uyif H Bpo^m iX'^'Ti. O miserij si mori vuUis, nee lacus vobis desurU
nee prcccipitia. The proconsul no doubt felt particularly delicate as to
punishing the Christians who had thus become accusers of themselves, since it
was a case that had not been provided for by the emperor : having therefore by
way of terror made an example of a few, he dismissed the rest with marks of
indignation and contempt.
XI state of the Christians under the reign of Hadrian, [p. 236.]
296 Century II. — Section 11.
Although the law of which we have been speaking was not in
any respect repealed or altered by the emperor Hadrian, who
succeeded Trajan in the year of our Lord 117, nor had the
Christians to complain of any infringement of it by the presidents
or inferior magistrates ; yet by the heathen priesthood means
were at length discovered for enervating its force, and rendering
its protection of the objects of their hatred inefficient. Finding
that but few individuals could be prevailed on to take iipon
themselves the unthankful and perilous office of an accuser, they
made it their business, on every favourable occasion to excite the
lower orders of the people to join in one general disorderly cla-
mour for tlie punishment of the Christians at large, or of certain
individuals amongst them, whom they were taught to consider
as particularly obnoxious. Amongst other opportunities that of-
fered, they were accustomed particularly to avail themselves of
those seasons when the multitude were drawn together by the
exhibition of any public games or other spectacles. To general
and public accusations of this sort no degree of hazard whatever
vras attached ; whilst on the other hand it was a thing of no or-
dinary danger amongst the Komans to turn a deaf ear to them,
or treat them with disrespect. In consequence of these tumultu-
ary denunciations, therefore, a considerable number of Christians,
at different times, met their fate, whom the magistracy would
otherwise most willingly have permitted to remain unmolested.(^)
Indeed, under the reign of Hadrian it was so much the more
easy for the heathen priesthood to get the multitude to unite in
one general clamour for the destruction of the Christians, since,
as Eusebius expressly relates, the Gnostic sects, which seem to
have been made up in part of evil designing persons, and in part
of madmen and fools, were at that time continually obtruding
themselves on the attention of the world ; and the crimes and
infamous practices of which these were guilty, being indiscri-
minately imputed to the Christians in general, the public preju-
dice was in no small degree increased against the whole body of
them.C)
(1) Nothing could be more artful than this contrivance of the priests to
enervate and elude the law of Trajan respecting the mode of accusing- the
Christians. For the presidents did not dare to regard with an inattentive ear
the demands of the united commonalty, lest they might give occasion to sedition.
HadriaiCs Laio Favourable. 297
Moreover, it was an established privilege of the Roman people, grounded either
on ancient right or custom, of the exercise of which innumerable instances are
to be found in the Roman history, that whenever the commonalty were
assembled at the exhibition of public games and spectacles, whether it were in
the city or the provinces, they might demand what they pleased of the emperor
or the presidents, and their demands thus made must be complied with. Pro-
perly this privilege belonged to the Roman people alone, whose united will
possessed all the force of a la\v, inasmuch as the supreme majesty of the empire
was supposed to be resident therein; but by little and little the same thing
came to be assumed as a right by the inhabitants of most of the larger cities.
When the multitude, therefore, collected together at the public games, united in
one general clamour for the punishment of the Christians at large, or of cer-
tain individuals belonging to that sect, the presidents had no alternative hut to
comply with their demand, and sacrifice at le^st several innocent victims to
their fury.
(2) Eusebius Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. vii. p. 120, et. seq.
XII. Hadrian's new law in favour of the Christians, [p. 237.]
This liiglily iniquitous and impious artifice of the priesthood be
ing seen through by Serenus Granianus, the proconsul of Asia, he
addressed a letter to the emperor on the subject, pointing out
what an unjust and inhuman thing it was, to be every now and
then shedding the blood of men convicted of no crime, merely
with a view to silence the clamours of a misguided tumultuous
rabble. Nor was the representation of this discerning and judi-
cious man disregarded by his master : for an edict was soon after
directed by Hadrian to Minutius Fundanus^ the successor of Se-
renus, and to the other governors of provinces, forbidding them
to pay attention to any such public denunciations ; and signify-
ing it to be his pleasure, that for the future no Christians should
be put to death, except such as had been legitimatel}' accused
and convicted of some sort of crime.(') Possibly also the two
masterly apologies for the Christians, that were drawn up and
presented to the emperor by those pious and learned characters,
Quadratus and Ari'stides, and of which we of the present day have
unfortunately to regret the loss, might have contributed not a
little to the softening of the imperial mind.(*) This lenity of
Hadrian towards the Christians was looked upon by some as in-
dicative of a disposition to favour the Christian religion, and
therefore, when he subsequentl}^ caused temples without images
to be erected in all the cities, a suspicion arose in the minds of
many that he had it in contemplation to assign to Christ a place
298 Century Il.—Section 12.
amongst the Deities of Kome, and meant to consecrate these edi-
fices to his service.Q
(1) This imperial rescript is given by Justin Martyr, in his first Apology
fro Christianis, ^ 68, 69, p. 84, opp. edit. Benedict, and copied from thence by
Eusebius, Hislor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 123. — That it was sent not only to
Minutius, but also to the other presidents of provinces, is manifest from a remarka-
ble passage of Melito cited by Eusebius, Hislor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap, xxvi. p. 184,
as also from an edict of Antoninus, ad commune Asice^ of which we shall
presently have to say more. Regarding this law of Hadrian in a general way,
it appears in point of justice and clemency by far to surpass the edict of Trajan.
For whereas it was directed by the latter that such Christians as obstinately re-
fused to renounce the religion which they professed should be punished capi-
tally, the law of Hadrian forbids any Christian to be put to death except he
were convicted, according to the legal and established mode, of having trans-
gressed the Roman laws. This seems to admit of being adduced as a proof,
and indeed has been so brought forward by many, that Hadrian tolerated the
Christian religion, and forbade any one to be persecuted on account of profess-
ing it. But I cannot help suspecting that this is giving the emperor credit for
more lenity than it was ever his intention to display, since I observe, that even
after the promulgation of this rescript, the Christians were continually put to
death without having any other crime objected to them than that of their
religion. Trajan had enacted, that for any one inflexibly to persevere in the
[p. 238.] profession of Christianity should be a crime punishable with death,
and Hadrian does not appear to have directed that this kind of perseverance
should be considered in a less criminal light. I therefore do not conceive that
this law of Hadrian, in its import, differed very materially from that of Trajan,
but that the punishment of death continued still to ba inflicted under the imperial
sanction on all such Christians as were convicted of professing a contempt for
the gods, and persisted in refusing to alter their opinion. 8i quis eigo accusal
ct ostendat quidpiam contra leges ab iis factum, tu pro gravitate delicti statue.
The form of expression is at least ambiguous, and left to the presidents the
most ample power of punishing the Christians, since the worship of the gods
was a thing enjoined by the laws.
(2) These apologies are treated of by Eusebius Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap.
iii. with whom compare Jerome Epist. ad Magnum Oratorem, p. 656, torn. iv.
opp. edit. Benedict, and in Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles.
(3) Our authority for this is Lampridius in Vita Alexandra Severi, cap. xliii.
who after remarking that Alexander wished to have assigned Christ a place
amongst the Roman deities, continues, quod et Hadrianus cogitasse fertur, qui
templa in omnibus civiiaiibus, sine simulacris, jusserat fieri. Quce ille ad hoc
parasse dicebatur : sed prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulentes sacra repererant, omnes
Chnstianos futuros si id optato evenisset. The historian in this place evidently
gives us the conjecture of the multitude, which, from his own words, appears
to have been grounded solely on the circumstance of Hadrian's having erected
a number of temples, in none of which were placed any statues of the gods,
JBarckochba, a Jew. 299
and which, resting on no better foundation, must have been extremely vague
and uncertain. The suspicion excited by the erection of these temples could
never have suggested itself, liad it not been for the opinion previously enter-
tained of the emperor's leaning towards Christianity. But from whence this
opinion took its rise I am unable to say, unless it was from the equity and hu-
manity displayed by him in his edict respecting the Christians. Probably the
priests and their adherents, upon finding themselves cut off from all hopes of
suppressing the Christians, might disseminate a rumour that the emperor himself
was by no means ill disposed towards this new religion. But how vain and
futile these conjectures were, is rendered manifest, as well by the whole tenor
of his life, which was replete with instances of the grossest superstition, as by
the positive testimony of Spartian (in Vita Hadrian, cap. xxii.) whose words
are sacra Romana diligentissime curavit; pcregrina contempsiL It may be add-
ed, that with regard to the temples erected by Hadrian without any statues of
the gods, very able men have long since declared it to be their opinion, that the
emperor intended to have had them dedicated to himself.
XIII. Barchochba an enemy of the Christians. The Christians,
however, had under the reign of Hadrian to encounter a still
more fierce and cruel enemy in a leader of the Jews, named
Barchochba, or, "the son of the star," whom his infatuated coun-
trymen regarded as the long-promised Messiah who was to re-
store the fallen fortunes of the house of Israel. Impatient of the
injuries and contemptuous treatment which they were continu-
ally experiencing at the hands of the Eomans, the Jews had once
already, during the reign of Trajan, had recourse to arms for re-
dress. The experiment entirely failed ; but their wretchedness
and calamities continuing still to increase, these hapless people,
at the instigation, and under the conduct of the above-mentioned
daring character, a man thoroughly conversant in blood and
rapine, were, in the year 182, induced to hazard a [p. 239.]
repetition of it.(') During the continuance of the war which he
had thus excited, Barchochba subjected to the most cruel tortures
as many of the Christians as he could get within his power, and
put all such of them to death without mercy as refused, in spite
of the various tortures thus inflicted on them, to abjure Chris-
tianity.Q The event of this contest, which was for a while main-
tained on both sides with incredible valour, was most disastrous
to the Jews. An innumerable host of this ill-fated people having
fallen by the sword, and Palestine being almost wholly depopu-
lated, the dreadful scene was closed by Hadrian's ordering Jeru-
salem, which had begun to revive again from its ashes, to be
300 Century IL— Section 13, 14.
finally overthrown and laid waste, and causing a new city, call
ed after himself jElia Capitoliim, to be erected on a part of its
sitef") ; at the same time debarrmg the Jews from every access
to such new city, as well as to any of their former sacred places
in its neighbourhood, under the severest penalties.(*)
(1) Vid. Eusebius, Hisior. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 6. Buxtorfius, Lexico Tdlmu-
dico, voce ^^5 where the reader will find every thing that is to be met with in
the Jewish writings respecting this man collected into one view.
(2) Justin Mart. Apolng. ii. pro Christianis, p. 72, edit. Paris. Hieron. Ca-
talog. Script. Eccles. in Agrippa Castore.
(3) A particular history of this new city has been given to the world by
the learned Deyling. It is annexed to the fifth volume of his father's Ohser-
vaiiones Sacrcc.
(4) See amongst others, Justin Martyr, Dialog, cum Tryphone^ p. 49. 278.
edit. Jebbian. Sulpitius Severus, Histor. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. xxxi. p. 245, edit.
Cleric. Hieronymus, Coinment. in Sophoniam, c. 2.
XIV. state of the Christians under Antoninus Pius, Upon the
death of Hadrian, so immediately did the aspect of affairs change,
that it seemed as if his rescript respecting the Christians had ex-
pired with him. For scarcely had Antoninus Pius assumed the
government of the empire, when the Christians found themselves
assailed in various places by numerous accusers, who being
obliged by the above-mentioned edict of Hadrian to allege some
sort of crime against them, and probably finding the more equit-
able of the presidents disinclined to consider the bare profession
of Christianity in that light, had recourse to the expedient of
charging them with impiety or atheism. This new attack was
met by Justin Martyr with an apology presented to the emperor,
in which he ably repels various other calumnies with which the
Christians were assailed, as well as completely vindicates them
against this last atrocious charge of impiety. The effect, how-
ever, produced by this apology, was but trifling. At length an
immediate application having been made to the emperor by seve-
ral of the magistrates, for the purpose of ascertaining the extent
to which the populace, who were thus continually calling for the
blood of the Christians, were to be gratified in their demands, he
commanded them to take for their direction the law of Ha-
[p. 240.] drian, and not put any Christian to death unless it
should appear that he had committed some crime against the
state.C) But even this was not found sufiicient to prevent those
Christians under Antoninus Pius. 301
ebullitions of popular fury which the priesthood continually
made it their business to promote. For in consequence, of some
earthquakes which shortly after occurred in Asia, and which
the priests, with their accustomed malevolence, ascribed to the
displeasure of the gods at the toleration of the Christians, the
multitude burst through every restraint, and heaped on these
fancied authors of their calamities every species of outrage and
injury. A representation of the grievous afllictions to which they
were thus exposed having been submitted to the emperor by the
Christians, he addressed a severe edict to the whole region of
Asia, commanding, that unless the Christians should be convict-
ed of some sort of crime, they should be discharged with impu-
nity, and that the punishment to which, in case of conviction,
they would have been subjected, should, upon their acquittal, be
inflicted on their accusers.(^)
(1) This appears not only from the emperor's edict ad commune Asicc, but
also from the words of Melito, apud Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p.
148, who reminds the emperor Marcus Aurelius that his father addressed letters
to the Larisseans, tlie Thessalonians, the Athenians, and in fact to the Greek
provinces in general, forbidding- them to have recourse to any tumultuary pro-
ceedings against the Cin'istians.
(2) An imperial edict to this effect is extant in Eusebius (Histor. Eccles.
lib. iv. cap. xiii. p. 126.) who says, that he took it from Melito's Apology for
the Christians, addressed to the emperor Marcus. By certain of the learned,
however, this edict has been thought not to belong to Antoninus Pius, but to
his successor, Marcus Aurelius ; but the reasons on which this opinion is
grounded, are, unless I am altogether deceived, of no weight whatever. For to
pass over the testimony of Eusebius, as well as certain particulars in the edict
itself, which are not in the least applicable to Marcus, there are two things
which in my opinion most clearly prove that Eusebius was not wrong in ascrib-
ing it to Antoninus Pius. In the first place, Eusebius copied it from an apology
addressed by Melito to the emperor Marcus. But who can believe, if Marcus
Aurelius had published such an edict respecting the punishment of the accusers
of the Christians, that Melito would have deemed it necessary to write a work
expressly for the purpose of exciting in him a compassion for the Christians?
In the next place, those earthquakes of which the edict makes mention, and
which gave occasion to the people of Asia to commence their attack on the
Christians, occurred in the time of Antoninus Pius. Adicrsa, says Capitolinus,
(in his Life of Antonine, cap. ix. p. 268. tom. i. Scriptor. IJist. August.) ejus
temporibus hccc provenerunl : Fames de qua diximus, circi ruina, Terra) Motus,
qiio Rhodiorum ct Asia) oppida conciderunt : qucc omnia mirifice instaiiravit. But
it is clear that those of the learned who attribute this edict to the emperor Mar-
302 Century 11. — Section 15.
cus, do so merely with a view to extenuate the afflictions which the Christians
Rufferod under Antoninus Pius, and to malie it appear as if, after the slight per-
secution to which they were exposed at the commencement of Antoninus'
rcio-n, the Christians had enjoyed, as it were, a perfect calm to the very end of
his government. In doing this, however, they have paid a greater regard to
[p. 241.1 their own private opinion than to the faith of history. Notwithstand-
ing, moreover, that the issuing of this edict by Antonine was unquestionably
productive of considerable advantage to the Christian cause, and imposed a re-
straint on the officious forwardness of evil-disposed persons, yet the interests
of Cliristianity would have been benefited in a much higher degree, had he re-
pealed that law of Trajan, which awarded the punishment of death to all such
Christians as should be convicted of having abandoned, and refuse to return to
the religion of their ancestors. The law of Trajan was, however, suflfered to
remain in full force, and yet at the same time this edict of Antonine, of a nature
altogether repugnant to it, was introduced into the forum. Iniquitous and
cruel judges might, therefore, if they thought proper, cause both the accuser
and the accused to be put to death ; the former under the edict of Antoninus
Pius, the latter under that of Trajan, wiiich none of the emperors had thought
it proper to repeal. Of a case of this kind a very notable example is recorded
by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. v. cap. 21. p. 189. ApoUonius, a
man respectable for his gravity and learning, was, under the reign of Commo-
dus, accused of being a Christian. The judges forthwith condemned his accuser
to have his legs broken and to be put to death : for by the edict of Antonine it
was ordained, that capital punishment should be inflicted on all accusers of this
sort. But by these same judges was Apollonius himself also, after that he had
publicly rendered an account of the religion that he professed, and openly ac-
knowledged himself to be a Christian, adjudged to suffer death. For by an
ancient law, says Eusebius, it was enacted, that if any Christians should be once
regularly brought before the public tribunal, they should on no account be dis-
missed with impunity, unless they w^ould repudiate their religion. Now what
other ancient law could this be that was so directly repugnant to the edict of
Antonine, than the rescript of Trajan to Pliny ? By thus artfully having re-
course to ancient laws that had not been expressly repealed, did the iniquity
and injustice of the Roman magistrates frequently find means to deprive the
Christians of every benefit to which they were entitled under enactments of a
more recent date.
XY. state of the Christians under Marcus Aurelins. Tlie secu-
rity and tranquillity enjoyed by tlie Christians under this edict
of Antonine lasted no longer than until the year clxi, when the
government of the empire passed into the hands of Marcus Au-
relius Antoninus^ who from his great attachment to the Stoic sys-
tem of discipline, acquired the surname of " The Philosopher."
At the very commencement of this emperor's reign, the ancient
practice of preferring public accusations against the Christians
Christians under Marcus Aurelius. 303
was vigorously resumed ; and as many of the persons thus ac-
cused as acknowledged themselves to be followers of the religion
of Christ, and refused to change their tenets, were delivered
over to the executioner. Upon this occasion it was that Justin
Martyr addressed to the emperor his second apology for the
Christians, a composition much resembling his former one, both
as to style and argument ; but which was so flir from exciting in
the mind of the emperor anything like lenity or compassion to-
wards those on whose behalf it was drawn up, that after its ap-
pearance the calamities of the Christians were increased through-
out the whole of the Eoman empire. Nor did it appear sufficient
to the emjDeror to free the enemies of Christianity from those
restraints which his father had imposed on them : but by the
publication of various edicts inimical to the Christians, he held
out, as it were, an invitation or incitement to the people [p. 24:2.]
to become their accusers. (') It appears, indeed, as well from
other authorities, as particularly from the tract written by Athen*
agoras in defence of the Christians, that Marcus did not abso-
lutely repeal the edict of his father which forbade the Christians
to be put to death, unless they should be convicted of some sort
of capital offence ;Q but, through the iniquity of the judges, the
greatest facility was afforded to accusers in establishing any false
charges which they might bring forward against the Christians ;
and the accused, in defiance of the laws of the empire, were, with-
out either being regularly convicted of, or confessing themselves
to have committed, any sort of crime, declared to have incurred
the penalty of death. (')
From whence this ill-will of the emperor towards the Chris-
tians proceeded, is not to be ascertained from any memorials that
have reached our times. It may, with great probability, how-
ever, be conjectured, that from the representation of the philoso-
phers, to whose guidance he appears entirely to have surrendered
himself, he was led to regard the Christians as a set of absurd,
irrational, obstinate and conceited men ; and therefore, upon the
principles of that harsh and rigid system of moral discipline to
which he was devoted, conceived it expedient rather to destroy
than to tolerate them.(^)
(1) Meliio in his Apology, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib, iv. cap. xxvi. p.
304 Century 11. — Section 15.
147. makes express mention of certain new edicts promulgated against the
Christians in Asia, in consequence of which they were exposed to open attacks
from the vilest of men, both by day and by night : and that these edicts must
have been of the most harsh and severe kind is unquestionable, since Melito
adds, that the new imperial edict, Kstivov S'tara.yf/.ai was so extremely inhuman,
that the issuing of it even against barbarous enemies would not have been jus-
tifiable : 0 f^» ^i ><-^Ta BapCdpav TrpeTrit TOKif^imv. Mclito, indeed, professes him-
self to be ignorant whether or not this edict was issued by the emperor. But
this could surely be nothing more than a prudent dissimulation in him. For
who would ever have been so bold as to forge imperial edicts ? Who amongst
the judges could have been found sufficiently daring to give to these fictitious
edicts the force of real ones ? And, with no better sanction than could be af-
forded by such fraudulent mandates to deprive Roman citizens of their lives
and worldly possessions? The crime was of that magnitude that it could
scarcely have suggested itself to the mind even of the most hardened wretch ;
and to its execution so many difficulties would have been opposed, that no one
but a madman could have promised himself the least success in attempting it.
In enumerating, therefore, the real and actual persecutors of the Christians, we
must, after recording the names of the emperors Nero and Domitiariy assign the
third place to that imperial philosopher, whose wisdom has not ceased to com-
mand admiration, even in the present day, the most sapient Marcus Aurelius;
inasmuch as he was the author of such laws against the Christians as a just
and good man would never have enacted, even against a set of barbarous ene-
mies. For the emperors that had intervened between Domitian and him, in-
stead of exciting, had uniformly studied to repress and discountenance any
persecution of the Christians. A foct with which the emperor is in no very
obscure terms upbraided by Melito, although the state of the times in which
he wrote obliged this apologist to speak with some reserve. It were to be
wished that this edict of the emperor Marcus had reached our days, since
[p. 243.] without doubt, we should have been able to gather from it the
grounds of that hatred which he had conceived against the Christians. But
to the primitive professors of Christianity it appeared more expedient to sink
the remembrance of the laws by which the progress of their religion was
opposed, than to perpetuate it. A hint, however, is supplied by one passage
in Melito, which may enable us, with some degree of probability, to guess at
the nature of this infamous edict. By this law of the emperor Marcus, ho
says, the most shameless characters, and those who were covetous of other
men's property, (joiv dhKorpiov sp^fst/,) were invited to turn informers against
the Christians, and to hunt after them both by day and by night. Now the
conclusion to which these words inevitably lead is, that in this edict there was
a prospect held out to avaricious and money-loving men, of increasing their
own wealth by the spoliation of others. This then being established, it seems
to be highly credible, indeed almost certain, that the emperor held out pecuniary
recompense as an allurement to people to become accusers of the Christians,
and directed that the goods and other property of those who might be convicted
of any crime, should be adjudged to the persons through whose exertions the
Christians under Marcus AureUus. 305
delinquents had been bronjlit to justice. Such Ji law miglit not, indeed, fail to
produce its desig-ncd eftect on tlie minds of those who cove'ted other men's
goods, but such a 4aw was very justly characterised by Blelito, when he pro-
nounced it altogether unworthy of a good and wise emperor. It was not in
this way that Nero, it was not in this way that Domitian attacked the Christians.
(2) It is clear from various documents, and from this tract of Athenagoras
in particular, that the enemies and accusers of the Cliristians under the reign
of Marcus, endeavoured with tlie utmost earnestness to fix on them three dif-
ferent species of crimes. 1st. The most unqualified impiety or atheism, 2dly.
The celebrating of Thyestean banquets, that is, feasting on the flesh of murdered
infants. 3dly. Q^dipodean or incestuous sexual intercourse. Hence I think it
is manifest, that it was not the will of the emperor to have the Christians put
to death merely on account of their religion, but that he confirmed the law of
Antoninus. For if it had been suflicient to accuse the Christians of defection
from the religion of their ancestors, and manifesting a contempt for the gods of
the country, as it was under the reign of Trajan, there could have been no ne-
cessity for charging them with calumnies like the above. But as the laws of
the empire were particularly strict in regard to accusers, and forbade any Chris-
tian to be put to death unless convicted of some sort of crime, there was no
other course left open to the malice and improbity of the enemies of Christi-
anity but to devise certain heinous oflfences, and endeavour by every possible
means to fix them on its professors.
(3) The history of the persecution at Lyons, which took place, as I liave
elsewhere shown, under the reign of this emperor, in the year clxxvii., affords a
very sufficient illustration of what is here stated. This persecution had its
origin in a popular tumult or contention that took place between the Christians
and the heathen worshippers. During its continuance a great many of the for-
mer were cast into prison ; but owing to no one's coming forward as an accuser,
and proving them to have committed some sort of crime, the hands of the ma-
gistrates were completely tied up in regard to them. By way, therefore, of ob-
taining an ostensibly legal sanction for the gratification of their malice, the
soldiers and other enemies of the Christians prevailed, by means of threats, on
certain of the servants of those whom they had apprehended, to become accusers
of their masters. But what these wretches charged their masters with was not
sacrilege, or a contempt for the public religion, but actual crimes, and those
identical crimes too, which, under the reign of Marcus, were, by slander, attri-
buted to the Christians, namely, the celebrating of Thyestean banquets, [p. 244.]
and an incestuous sexual intercourse. To this testimony of servants against
their lords, the judges gave credit, or rather pretended to give credit ; and, in
defiance of the order of proceeding prescribed by the law, put the Christians to
the rack ; endeavouring, by torments of various kinds, to extort from them a
confession of what they were thus charged with. In vain was it that these un-
fortunate people persisted, with the utmost constancy, to the last, in asserting
themselves innocent ; their fate had been predetermined on ; they were pro-
nounced guilty, and were in consequence consigned over to various kinds of
death. Vid. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 2. There can be ^«.^ djoubt but
20
306 Century 11. — Section 15.
that, in the other provinces, a nearly similar course was followed ; so as to pre-
serve somewhat of an imposing air of justice, and make it appear as if the
Christians were condemned, not for their religion, but on account of their
crimes. And here we cannot but direct the reader's attention to the peculiar
infelicity of the times of Marcus Aurelius, than whom a juster or more sapient
emperor is supposed never to have existed ! The monarch, a prince in no re-
spect ill inclined, gave himself up to philosophical meditation, and troubled him-
self but little as to the way in which the concerns of his empire might be
managed. In the mean time, the magistrates taking advantage of this his in-
difTjrence as to state affiiirs, made every thing conform itself to their will and
pleasure, and scrupled not most grossly to violate those laws for which they
professed themselves to entertain the highest veneration. They made no search
or inquiry indeed, after the Christians, since that would have been contrary to
the edict of Trajan ; they furthermore manifested their respect for the laws oi
the empire by not inflicting punishment on any Christian, unless accused as
such ; and not only accused of being a Christian, but also proved by witnesses
to have committed some heinous offence. But then, to suit their own purposes,
they would, as we have seen, admit the testimony of slaves, and the veriest re-
fuse of mankind ; and upon no better evidence than that of the vilest of mor-
tals, would condemn men as guilty, whose constancy in protesting their inno-
cence even torments of the most excruciating nature were found unable to
subdue.
(4) It has for a long time been with me a matter of doubt whether the em-
peror Marcus Aurelius was so great a character as he has been esteemed for
ages, and still continues to be considered by almost every one capable of form-
ing an opinion on the subject. If our estimate of him be indeed drawn solely
from those of his writings which remain, it seems to be scarcely possible that
his worth should be overrated; but if his actions be taken into the account,
and brought to the test of reason, we shall find the matter wears a very diffie-
rent aspect. That he was a good man, although in no small degree a supersti-
tious one, is what I do not in the least doubt; but that he at all merited the
title of a good emperor and prince, is to me a matter of question. But for the
present I will pass over this, and content myself with briefly inquiring whether
the condition of the Christians was not worse under the reign of this philoso-
pher and man of genius, than it had ever been under that of any of the prece-
ding emperors, who were strangers to philosophy. To the opinion of such of the
learned as attribute the ill-will of Marcus Aurelius towards the Christians to
superstition, I feel it impossible for me to subscribe. Had superstition given
rise to his severity, he would, without doubt, have considered their religion
alone as a sufficient reason for commanding them to be punished ; but that such
was not his opinion is certain, as we have above pointed out. By far more like-
ly is it, that his immoderate lenity, which was but little removed from utter
carelessness and sloth, and which originated in that stoical evenness and sereni-
ty of mind which they denominate apathy, occasioned him to shrink from the
trouble of curbing the licentiousness of evil-disposed men, and also made him
look with a tranquil indifference on actions highly criminal and oppressive. To
Christians under Marcus Aurelius. 307
which it may be added, that a man devoted to contemplation, and employing a
considerable portion of his time in philosophical speculations, probably cared
but little as to what was done in the empire, or as to the fidelity and upright-
ness with wliich the presidents and magistrates might discharge the important
duties appertaining to their various ofhces. The conjecture, however, which, in
my opinion, comes nearest to the truth, is, that the philosophers by [p. 245.]
whom he was beset, and who held the Christians in detestation, instilled into
his mind a wrong idea of the Christian tenets ; and having to deal with a man
of a credulous and easy disposition, found means to persuade him that in the
worshippers of Christ an irrational, turbulent, and pernicious sect had arisen, a
sect in fact, whicli it was on every account highly proper to repress ; and in
this opinion I am contirmcd by a remarkable passage in the eleventh book of
his work, De Rebus ad se pertlnenUbus, ^ iii. wherein he professes himself to en-
tertain but an unfavorable opinion of the fortitude and contempt of death exhi-
bited by the Christians. Marcus himself had never seen any of the Chrii^tians
encounter death ; and therefore, for whatever he may have reported of their be-
haviour under such trying circumstances, he must unquestionably have been in-
debted to the magistrates, and those philosophers by whom he was surrounded,
and who, of course, did not fail to represent them in that light in which it was
their wish for him to regard them. The words of Marcus are : *' To what an
admirable state must that soul have arrived which is prepared for whatever
may await her — to quit her earthly abode, to be extinguished, to be dispersed,
or to remain ! By prepared I mean, that her readiness should proceed from the
exercise of a calm, deliberate judgment, and not be the result of mere obstinacy,
like that of the Christians ; and that it should be manifested, not with osten-
tatious parade, but in a grave, considerate manner, so as to make a serious im-
pression on the minds of other people." In this passage, the fortitude displayed
by the stoics in the act of death, is compared by the emperor with the con-
stancy of the Christians under similar circumstances. For the former he ex-
presses a respect ; of the latter he evidently speaks with contempt. Under the
influence, and with the never-fiiiling support of reason, the philosopher is re-
presented as encountering death with a deliberate steadfastness of soul, or, in
other words, as meeting death with tranquillity, because he knows that death
can never be productive of evil to him ; whilst the Christian, on the contrary,
if we listen to the emperor Marcus, dies altogether irrationally, without any
other confidence or consolation than what is supplied by a certain stubbornness
and pertinacity of mind, for which no pretext is to be found either in common
sense or reason. From hence it is manifest, that those who possessed the ear
of the emperor had persuaded him that the Christians were a set of irrational*
rude, illiterate, ignorant men, an opinion which led him naturally to conclude,
that the alacrity with which they encountered death could only be the fruit of
obstinacy and perverseness. Whoever they might be that instilled into the
mind of the emperor such an idea of the CliFistians, they most certainly prac-
tised on him a very base imposition ; since the Christians were possessed of
weightier, and by far better reasons for meeting death without dismay, than ever
the whole race of stoics had been able to supply, and in the fortitude which
308 Century II. — Section IG.
tliey displayed on quitting this earthly state, were influenced by a much sounder
judgmert than that by which the stoic sect were governed. But it cannot ex-
cite our wonder that the emperor, after his mind had received the above im-
pression, siiould deem it expedient to extirpate the Christians. Dangerous,
trulv, must have been a sect which encouraged its votaries to encounter every
sort of torment unappalled, and meet even death itself with disdain, upon no
better a principle than that of a sullen, blind, irrational obstinacy. But to pro-
ceed with the emperor's contrasted portraits. The philosopher, we are told,
encounters death with firmness and composure, unaccompanied by any tragical
display : that is, unless I entirely mistake the emperor's meaning, he does not,
like tiiose who make their exit on the stage, indulge in declamation, and en-
deavour to gain over the minds of the spectators by an affected bombastic kind
of eloquence, but preserves a magnanimous silence, and meets his fate with a
[p. 246.] quiet and unshaken dignity. Not such, says Marcus, is the conduct
of tiie Christian ; for he, regardless of what propriety would suggest, appears
to take the deaths exhibited in tragedies for his model ; and when the fatal mo-
ment arrives, expatiates at length on his hilarity, his hope, his confidence, and
his contempt of death. The emperor, no doubt, had heard that it was cus-
tomary for the Christians, in the concluding act of their lives, to offer up thanks-
givings to Almighty God, to commend their souls into his keeping by fervent
prayer, to exhort the spectators to renounce superstition, to glorify Christ in
hymns, and to do many other things of a like kind ; which could not ftiil to ap-
pear displeasing in the eyes of a stoic, whose leading maxims were, that it was
incumbent on a wise man to maintain at all times an uniformity' of aspect and
demeanor ; that every disturbance of the mind w\as reprehensible ; and finally,
that under every change of circumstances, by whatever brought about, the most
perfect equability or evenness of temper was invariably to be preserved. Under
the influence of sentiments like these, it was natural for the emperor to consider
the Christians as meeting death, not in a philosophical way, but rather in the
style of tragic characters. Hence, also, may we account for his being moved
but little by their afflictions. Indeed, according to the principles of the sect to
which he belonged, he ought not to have known what it was to be moved at all.
XYI. Afflictions of the Christians under the reign ofMarcns.
Under no emperor, therefore, subsequently to Nero, were the
Christians exposed to weightier or more numerous afflictions
than they suffered during the reign of the illustrious Mar-
cus Aurelius, whom posterity has been taught to regard as
the best and wisest emperor that Eome ever saw. Nor were
there ever more apologies sent forth into the world on behalf of
the Christians than were in his time offered to the public ; for in
addition to Justin Martyr^ of whom we have already spoken,
MelitOj bishop of Sardis, Athenagoras, a philosopher of Athens,
Miltiades^ Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian the Assyrian, and others
Christians inider Marcus Aureliua. 309
"wliom it is unnecessary to enumerate, made it their business, in
various literary productions, as well to render the innocence and
piety of the Christians unquestionable, as to demonstrate the
sanctity of the religion which they professed, and to expose the
madness and absurdity of those other religious systems to which
the world in general was so fondly attached. Of these works
there are sonie that have reached our days, but others have pe-
rished through the ravages of time.(') Amongst the many who,
under the reign of Marcus, were put to death for their adherence
to the re ligion of Christ, the most distinguished were those very
celebrated characters : Justin^ the philosopher, who suffered at
Eome ; and Polycarp^ who met his fate at Smyrna. Both of these
sealed their attachment to the cause of their blessed Master with
their blood, in the year clxix.(^) To none, however, has pos-
terity assigned a higher place in its estimation than to the Chris-
tians of Lyons and Vienne^ who, in the year clxxvii, were in great
numbers made to encounter death under various excruciating
and terrific forms, in consequence of their having been falsely
charged, by certain of their inferior servants or slaves, with the
commission of crimes almost too shocking even to be named.
The most eminent of these Gallic martyrs was Pothyniis, the bi-
shop and parent of the church of Lyons ; a venerable character
of the age of ninety and upwards, who, not long before, had,
with certain others, travelled from the . east into Gaul, [p. 247.]
and with great care and industry established there that Christian
church or assembly which was doomed, in a particular manner,
to experience the devastating fury of this very remarkable and
tremendous persecution.(')
(1) The apologies of Miltiades and Meliio are those of which we have to
regret the loss ; the rest are still extant.
(2) The acts of the Martyrdom of Justin Martyr and Polycarp are to he
found in Ruinart's Ada Martyrum sincera et selecla, and in some other works.
Concerning the year and month of Polycarp's death, the reader may consult a
very copius and learned dissertation of the Abbe Longerue in Winckler's Sylloge
Anecdotorum, p. 18. 25.
(3) Respecting this persecution of the Lyonese, without question the most
celebrated, and in all probability the most bloody and cruel that took place in
any part of the Roman empire during the reign of Marcus, there is extant in
Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 2. an excellent espistle from the church of
Lyons to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, which I should conceive it im-
possible for any one to read without emotion. The thing, as we have above
310 Century 11. — Section 16.
observed, although prc-determined on, was yet carried into effect under a
specious show of legal formality, lest the laws of the empire should appear
to have been in any respect infringed. The circumstances of the affair were
briefly these: A popular tumult having been excited respecting the Chris-
tians, and many of them having, with a view to quiet the public mind, been
thrown into prison, certain of their servants were prevailed upon by threats to
come forward and accuse their masters of having committed very heinous of-
fences, namely, those identical crimes which, during the reign of Marcus, had
been very customarily imputed to the Christians. Having in this way estab-
lished somewhat of a colourable ground whereon to act, the magistrates pro-
ceeded to inflict tortures of various kinds on the imprisoned Christians ; and
even went so far as to put many of them to death. The number of persons con-
fined, however, being considerable, and one of them, a man of some consequence,
named Attains, having declared himself a Roman citizen, the president of the
province seems to have felt that he had been too precipitate, and would not ven-
ture to proceed farther in the business without ascertaining the emperor's plea-
sure. The matter having been submitted by him to the emperor, Marcus wrote
back word, that "all such as professed themselves Christians should be put to
death, but that those who denied being so, should be dismissed uninjured." Un-
der the authority of this answer, therefore, capital punishment was inflicted on
all who refused to renounce Christianity ; such of them as were Roman citizens
being beheaded, and the rest cast for a prey to wild beasts. This rescript of the
emperor to the president of Lyons seems to place his inveterate enmity towards
the Christians in the clearest light imaginable; since, if respect be had solely to
his words, as above cited from Eusebius, he gives exactly the same commands
as Trajan did, and allows the Christians to be put to death on account of their
religion alone, without anything criminal being alleged against them. But it
must be confessed, that there is a difficulty in coming to any certain conclusion
with regard to the sense of this rescript, since the letter of the president to the
emperor is not now extant. What the president wrote, in all probability, was,
that the Christians stood convicted by the testimony of a sufficient number of
credible witnesses of having committed many very great crimes in their secret
assemblies, but that this charge was denied by the accused with the utmost per-
tinacity, (at least in this way it was certainly necessary for him to write, if his
object was to excuse the cruelty he had exercised upon so many of these unfor-
tunate people) and that it had therefore become requisite for him to apply to
[p. 248.] the emperor for direction as to whether the witnesses or the Christians
themselves were to be belived. Supposing then the president to have written
to the emperor in these or any similar terms, the imperial answer will admit of
this construction : With regard to the truth of an accusation which has been
substantiated according to the rules of law, we see no reason for entertaining
any doubt. From such, therefore, of the persons implicated, as will not consent
to abjure Christianity, we deem it proper to withhold our pardon; but should
there be any who are inclined to return to the religion of their forefathers, it is
our will that they should be set at liberty. At least the absence of the president's
letter, so necessary to a right understanding of the emperor's answer, leaves us
The Thundering Legion. 311
altogether in a state of uncertninty as to which constituted the prevailinn- mo-
tive with Marcus in directing the punishment of the Christians, their religion or
their crinies. — With regard to tlie time of this persecution, the reader will find it
proved in a dissertation of mine, de JEtate Apologicc Alhcnagorcc, {Syniagjn.
Dissert, ad Histor. Eccles. j^ertin. vol. i. p. 315.) by irrefragable arguments, that
it did not take place, as has been conjectured by certain of the learned, in the
year 167, but in 177. Compare Colo7iia, Ilistoire litleraire de la ville de Lyon^
tom. ii. Saec. ii. p. 34. and Baratier, de Successione Romanor, Pontiff, p. 207. 217.
That the church of Lyons, however, had been but recently established when this
grievous affliction befel it, its own epistle, as preserved by Eusebius, most clearly
demonstrates, for the Asiatic brethren are therein (p. 156.) told, that in the multi-
tude of Christians who suifered on that occasion were comprehended those, by
whose labour and industry chiefly the church there had been first established.
XVII. The miracle of the Thundering Legion. It is said, llOW-
ever, that some sliort time before his death, namely, in the year
clxxiv, the sentiments of Marcus underwent a considerable change
with respect to the Christians, and that in consequence of his
having been very essentially benefited by them on a particular
occasion, in the course of a war in which he was engaged with
the Marcomanni and the Quadi, two of the bravest German na-
tions ; he was induced entirely to relieve them from every sort of
penalty and hazard to which they had been previously exposed.
The story is, that being so effectually surrounded on all sides by
the enemy, during a season of severe and long continued drought,
as not to be able to gain access to any place from whence water
might be obtained, the Roman emperor and his forces were in the
most imminent danger of perishing from heat and thirst. "When
things, however, were arrived at the last extremity, a band of
Christians, who were at that time serving in Marcus's army,
having earnestly cried to heaven for assistance, the Almighty
was pleased at once to manifest a regard for their prayers, by
causing the clouds on a sudden to pour down rain in abundance,
accompanied with thunder and lightning. Reanimated by the
very critical relief thus afforded them, the Romans lost not a mo-
ment in attacking their enemies, whom this alteration in the as-
pect of the heavens had filled with conternation and dismay, and
succeeded in obtaining over them a most signal and important
victory. This wonderful event made a very deep impression on
the mind of the emperor, and so entirely changed his sentiments
with regard to the Christians, that he publicly proclaimed to
the world his conviction of their virtue and good fixith towards
312 Century Il.—Seciioti 17.
him, and decreed tliat the heaviest punishments should await all
their enemies and accusers. Such is the account given of the
matter by the early Christian writers. But it must not pass with-
out remark, that in this narrative there are some things mani-
festly false ; and that, with regard to the critical fall of rain ac-
companied with thunder and lightning, to which the Roman army
[p. 249.] was indebted for its preservation, it possesses not the
characteristic features of a true and unquestionable miracle ; but
may, without any difficulty, be accounted for upon natural
grounds, and without in the least interfering with the established
laws of divine providence. (')
(1) Concerning the thundering legion, who are reported througli their pray-
ers to have obtained from heaven a copious foil of rain, by which the emperor
Marcus and his army were extricated from a most perilous situation, at a mo-
ment when every expectation and hope of relief had entirely vanished, a con-
troversy of no little length was some time back carried on amongst the learned ;
some contending that the event ought to be ascribed to the immediate inter-
ference of the Deity himself, who for the moment made a change in the estab-
lished order of nature for the purpose of producing an amelioration in the con-
dition of the Christians, who were living in a most wretched state of oppression
under Marcus ; whilst others maintained that in what actually happened there
is nothing to be discovered which manifests anything like a deviation from the
ordinary and established laws by which the universe is governed. The argu-
ments on either side are to be collected from a dissertation of Daniel Laroque^
de Legione Fulminatrice, subjoined to the Adversaria Sacra of Matthew Laroque,
his father, and a discourse by Herman Witsius, on the same subject, annexed
to his JEgyptiaca. Of these writers the former impugns the truth of the mira-
cle, the latter strains every nerve to defend it. At a subsequent period some
letters passed on the subject between Sir Peter King, lord chancellor of Great
Britain,* and Mr. Walter Moyle an English gentleman of distinguished sagacity
and erudition, a Latin translation of which, accompanied with some remarks of
my own, will be found at the end of my Synlagma Dissertationum ad disciplinas
sanctiores pertinentium. King sides with those who maintain that Marcus and his
army were saved by a miracle ; Moyle takes the field in support of the contrary po-
sition. As for any other authors who may have written on the subject, they do
nothing more than either merely repeat, or else endeavour, in one way or other,
to strengthen and confirm the arguments which had been previously adduced
by their above-mentioned predecessors. For my own part, I can perceive no
call for my entering much at large into this alTair, and I shall therefore content
myself with stating my opinion on it in a few words. And that I may do this with
the greater regularity and precision, I will, in the first place, confine myself to
* Dr. Moslieim has here fallen into an error. Mr. Moyle's correspondent on this occasion was not
ie lord chancellor King, but the Reverend Richard Kivg, of Topshain in Devonshire.
The Thundering Legion. 313
a statement of such thiiifjs as arc, or at least oup^ht to be, granted to citlier party
as indisputable ; my n(.'xt step shall be to point out what is evidently false : and,
having divested the matter of these particulars, I will in the last phice take into
consideration what remains of it, and which must of necessity comprise all tiiat
can fairly and properly be made the subject of dispute.
In the first place then, it is certain that Marcus and his army were at.one
particular time in the course of his w\ar with the Quadi and Marcomanni, in-
volved in a situation beyond all comparison perilous. Marcus was better fitted to
shine as a philosopher than an emperor. Intimately acquainted as he was wuth
the maxims and discipline of the stoics, he yet appears to have been a mere no-
vice in the military art, and through his imprudence to liave given the enemy
such advantages over him as nearly to involve both himself and his army in utter
destruction. It is also certain that he was unexpectedly extricated from this most
critical situation by means of a copious tall of rain, accompanied with thunder
and lightning, and obtained the victory. It is moreover unquestionable, that not
only the Christians, but also the emperor and the Romans, considered this sud-
den fall of rain, to which the army owed its preservation, as a preternatural event;
with this difference, however, that the former viewed it in the light of a miracle
wrought by the God whom they worshipped, in answer to their prayers, whilst
the latter conceived themselves to be indebted for this signal deliverance to either
Jupiter or Mercury. That such w^as the light in which this event was [p. 250.]
regarded by the Romans, is placed beyond all doubt by the united testimony of
Dion Cassius, Capitolinus^ Claudian, and ThemisLiiis, but still more particularly
by the column erected by Marcus himself at Rome, w^hich remains in existence at
this day, and on which Jupiter Pluvius is represented as re'invigorating the
parched and exhausted Romans by means of a plentiful rain. — That there were
a number of Christians at that time serving in the imperial army, appears to
be not quite so certain as the foregoing; and there are not wanting those
who expres^y deny this to have been the case, on the ground that the ancient
Christians are known, for the most part, to have disliked the military profession,
and held wars in abhorrence. But although this may be very true in a certain
degree, it is yet to be proved from various cotemporary authorities, that in this
century not a few of the Christians did actually carry arms, and that the Chris-
tians in general were not such decided enemies to warfare of every kind as al-
together to condemn a military life. For it can be shown that they considered
such wars lawful as w^ere necessarily entered into for the safety or defence of
the empire, and had no objection to any of the brethren serving in such patrio-
tic wars ; and no one can deny but that of this description was the war carried
on by Marcus against the Quadi and Marcomanni. It appears also that when-
ever any soldiers were led to embrace Christianity, no such thing as an aban-
donment of the profession of arms was imposed on them, but they were per-
mitted to pursue that course of life to which they had previously devoted them-
selves. There seems, therefore, to be nothing that should oppose itself to our
considering this also as certain, that amongst the soldiers of Marcus there were
many Christians. — But if this admit of no doubt, it is impossible not to grant
it as likewise unquestionable, that w^hen the Roman army was reduced to such
314 Century 11. — Section 17.
an extremity, for want of water, as to have nothing short of utter destruction be-
fore their eyes, these Christian soldiers, conformably to the dictates of the re-
lio-ion which they professed, addressed themselves to God in prayers for relief.
The same men would doubtless attribute the unexpected fall of rain, accompa-
nied with thunder and lightning, and the consequent discomfiture of their ene-
mies, to the special interference of the Almighty on their behalf; would offer
up their thanks to him as the author of their deliverance, and in their report of
the thing to their absent brethren, would state that in consequence of their
prayers to Christ, the Roman army had been extricated from a situation beyond
all comparison adverse and perilous. Attending duly to this, it must be easy
for any one to perceive, not only how the rumor of this miracle arose, but also
how it came to be a matter of firm belief with the Christians that the Romans
had been saved through the prayers of the brethren.
Having then thus dismissed what may be considered as certain, I next pro-
ceed to point out such particulars as cannot appear credible to any person con-
versant in history, and which the industry of some very eminent scholars of mo-
dern times has stripped of even that semblance of truth which they might
formerly wear. — In the first place then, it is false, although apparently support-
ed by the authority of Apollinaris as quoted by Eusebius, that there was a sepa-
rate and entire legion of Christians in the Roman army. For, to pass over many
other things which go completely to refute this idea, it is certain that Christi-
anity was not, under the reign of Marcus, so far countenanced, as for it to ap-
pear credible that even a separate cohort, and much less a legion of Christiana
should have been tolerated in the Roman armies. Since this leading circum-
stance then appears to have no foundation whatever in truth, it must of neces-
sity be false, that when every hope had vanished, this legion presented them-
selves in front of the army and implored the divine assistance ; it must be false,
that before ever their prayers were finished, the fall of rain, accompanied with
thunder and lightning took place ; and finally false, that the emper^jr attributed
vhe glory of having extricated his army, to this legion, and that by way of mani-
[p. 251.] festing his sense of their estimable deserts, he conferred on them the
title of The Thundering Legion. — The thundering legion, it has been clearly
proved by Scaliger and Henry Valesius, as well as by other learned men since
their time, was in existence anterior to the reign of Marcus, and could conse-
quently never have derived its distinguishing name from this miracle. The proba-
bility is, that some Christian but little acquainted with the Roman military estab-
lishment, having heard that amongst the legions there was one distinguished by
the name of the Thundering Legion, was induced hastily to conclude that this
title had been given to it in consequence of the thunder with which God had on
this occasion answered its prayers, and passed off what was merely a gratuitous
assumption of his own, on others for the fact. — Moreover, that Marcus did not
consider himself as indebted for his deliverance to the favour in which the
Christians stood with heaven, is rendered indisputable by the Antoninian co-
lumn at Rome, which was erected with the knowledge and consent of this em-
peror, and on which the preservation of the Roman army is ascribed to Jupiter.
Lastly, these things being rejected as false, it becomes impossible for us to ere-
The Thundering Legion, 315
dit what is told us of letters having- been issued publicly by Marcus in which
the piety of the Christians is extolled, and their enemies and accusers are de-
nounced. The epistle of Marcus to this effect, which is at this day extant, and
generally to be found added to the first apology of Justin Martyr, bears on the
very face of it, as is confessed even by those who in other respects support the
miracle of the Thundering Legion, the most manifest marks of fraud, and seems
to have been the work of some man altogether unacquainted with Roman af-
fairs, who lived most likely in the seventh century. Mention, however, having
been made of these letters of Marcus by Tertullian, in Apologet. cap. v. it has
been concluded by many that such documents were actually in existence in his
time, but that they afterwards perished througli the ravages of time. The words
of Tertullian are, at nos e conirario edimus protectorem si liicrcc Marci Aurelii
gravissimi imperaioris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam silim Christianorum
forte militum precalionibus impetrato imhri discussam contestatur. But there are
many things which tend to weaken and invalidate Tertullian's testimony in this
instance. I pass over the word forte in the above passage, which has been laid
hold of by learned men as a proof, either that Tertullian was not satisfied of the
truth of this miracle, or else that he had never seen those letters of the empe-
ror's ; for to say nothing of what is contended for respecting the use of this
particle by Tertullian, I see plainly that neither of the above points can be
proved from it. The word manifestly relates, not to Tertullian, but to the
emperor and his epistle, and the sense of the passage is this : that Marcus did
not explicitly own or ayow that the fall of rain was obtained through the sup-
plications of his Christian soldiers, but expressed himself with some reserve,
and only signified that possibly this great benefit might have been derived from
their prayers. I also pass over the circumstance that Tertullian in another
place, {Libro ad Scapulam, cap. iv. p. 87. ed. Rigalt.) where he similarly makes
mention of this rain, obtained through the prayers of the Christians, is alto-
gether silent as to the epistle of Marcus. But there are two things for which
we have not to seek very far, which, I think, must be allowed entirely to ener-
vate and render nugatory the testimony which Tertullian is supposed, in the '
above cited passage, to aflford in support of these letters. The first is, that
from what Tertullian has handed down to us respecting the purport of this imperial
epistle, it is, unless I am most egregiously deceived, very plainly to [p. 252.]
be seen that the paper which he had before him at the time of his penning that
passage, was a document to which we have before had occasion to direct the
reader's attention, namely, the edict ad commune Asicc, issued by Antoninus
Pius, whom, we well know, it has been by no means an uncommon thing for
writers to confound with his successor Marcus Aurelius. For in proceeding
with his statement Tertullian observes, sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus
jianam dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta eliam accusaloribus damna-
tione et quidem teiriore. Now the meaning of these words I take to be, first,
that Marcus did not exempt the Christians from every sort of penalty to which
they had been previously liable, that is, he did not absolutely interdict or pro-
hibit their being punished ; secondly, that he, however, contrived in eflfect to
render these penalties, as it were, merely nominal ; or in other words, tiut ho
316 Century II. — Section 17.
wisely ordered matters so as that the judges should find it no very easy matter
to bring the Christians witliin the lash of the law ; and thirdly, that he suspended
over accusers who should fail in their proof, a similar punishment to that which
would have awaited the accused on conviction. It will be sufficient for me
then I conceive, to remark, that in these three respects the statement of Ter-
tullian most aptly agrees with the edict of Antoninus Pius ad commune Asicc.
For by that edict the emperor did not exempt the Christians from every kind
of penalty ; but he ordained that no Christian should be subjected to punish-
ment unless convicted of some sort of crime, and by this provision most
certainly restricted, within very narrow limits, the power of punishing the
Christians at all; and, finally, he directed that such accusers of the Christians
as might fail of making good their charge against them, should be punished for
their temerity. It appears to me, therefore, manifest, that Tertullian fell into
the mistake of imputing to the son the edict of the father, whose name was
similar; and that, having understood that Marcus and his army had experienced
an unhoped for deliverance from a most perilous situation, through the prayers
of the Christians, he was led to conclude, that gratitude for so signal a benefit
had actuated him to the promulgation of this edict. — The second thing which
renders the testimony of Tertullian, as to the epistle of Marcus, a mere nullity,
is the persecution of the Christians at Lyons and Vienne, of which we have
above taken notice. This persecution took place in the year clxxvii, in the
third, or if you had rather, in the fourth year after the victory obtained over the
Marcomanni and the Quadi. But who, let me ask, can believe that the emperor,
after having, in the year clxxiv, in a public epistle, passed the highest encomium
on the Christians, and declared that the heaviest of punishments should await
their accusers, should all at once, in the year clxxvii, so entirely change his
mind as to give them up for a sacrifice to the malice of their enemies, and enact,
that all such of them as would not return to the religion of their ancestors,
should undergo capital punishment ?
Having disencumbered the question, then, of these particulars, the only
thing that remains to be determined is, whether that fall of rain to which the
Roman army owed its preservation in the Marcomannic war, is to be accounted
as one of those extraordinary interpositions of divine providence which we term
miracles ? For if it can be ascertained that it belongs to the class of miracles,
there can be no doubt but that it ought to be attributed to the prayers of the
Christians who were at that time serving in the army of Marcus. Now, the
question, when thus simplified, appears to me extremely easy of solution. By
the unreserved assent of the learned it is now established as a maxim, that no-
thing can properly be considered as belonging to the class of miracles, for the
occurrence of which any natural cause can be assigned. But in this fall of rain,
although it might not have been expected or even hoped for, there was nothing
which it exceeded the ordinary powers of nature to accomplish, nothing which
of necessity required the peculiar interposition of Omnipotence. For nothing
can be more common, than for the long drougiits of summer to be succeeded
[p. 253.] by copious ftills of rain, accompanied with thunder and lightning in a
degree truly terrific. Nor can it appear at all wonderful that some of the
Under Commodus and Severus. 317
enemy sliould have been struck dead by the lightning, or that, in consequence
thereof, their whole army should betake themselves to ilight;for it was the
opinion of all the German nations that every thunderbolt was commissioned of
the Deity itself; and, under the influence of this persuasion, it was customary for
the effects of lightning to be regarded by these. people as particularly ominous.
XYIII. state of the Christians under Commodus and Severus.
During the reign of Commodus^ the son and immediate successor
of Marcus, no very heavy or general persecution of the Chris-
tians appears to have taken place ; at least nothing of this kind
is recorded by any historian. There are not wanting, however,
individual instances of Christians that were put to death during
this period, the most remarkable of which is that of Apollonius^
a dignified and eminent character, who, together with his accu-
ser, underwent capital punishment at Rome.(^) The fact was, that
none of the laws which had been enacted by different emperors
respecting the Christians, of which some indeed were lenient, but
others most severe, having been repealed, the judges could at
any time, when it might suit their humour, by straining matters
a little, contrive, with an apparent show of justice, to inflict ca-
pital punishment on all such Christians as might be accused be-
fore them. Of this evil the full weight was never so sensibly
experienced by the Christians as under the reign of Septimius
Severus^ the successor of Commodus. For although this emperor,
upon his first assuming the government, manifested a disposition
to favour the Christians, to one of whom he stood indebted for
a very signal benefit ;(^) yet under cover, as it should seem, of
the turbulence of the times which succeeded, the magistrates and
enemies of Christianity took occasion to rekindle the flames of
persecution, and to carry their oppression and cruelty to the
greatest extent. By the concurrence of abundant authorities, it
is rendered indisputable, that in some provinces, towards the
close of this century, the Christians were exposed to such a
dreadful series of calamities and sufferings as it had scarcely ever
fallen to their lot to encounter before. It was the distressing
view presented by these accumulated miseries of the brethren,
which gave birth to that very ingenious and eloquent defence of
the Christians, the A2:)ologeticon of Tertullian.(^)
(1) Vid. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxi. p. 189. Apollonius was
put to death under the law of Trajan ; his accuser as before noticed, under that
of Antoninus Pius.
318 Century IL — Section 18.
(2) Tertullian (in libro ad Scapulum, c. iv. p. 87, edit. Rigalt.) says, Ipse
Severus pater Antonini Christianorum memor fuit. Nam et Frocuhnn Chris-
tianum, qui Torpacion cognominabaiur, Euhodicc procuratorem, qui eum per
oleum aliquando curaverat, requisivii, et in palatio sua habuit usque ad mortem
ejus : quem et Antoninus optime noverat, lacte Christiano educatus. Sed et
clarissimas f(C77wias et clarissimos viros, Severus sciens liujus sectce esse, non mo-
do non Iccsit, venim etiam iestimonio exornavit, et populo furenti in nos palam res-
iitit. The same writer also, in his Apologet. cap. v. p. 62, edit. Havereamp.
[p. 254.] clearly excepts Severus out of the number of emperors that had dis-
covered an enmity to the Christians.
(3) From the work of Tertullian it is clearly to be perceived how impiously
and cruelly the Christians of that period were dealt with, before ever Severus
was prevailed on to take part against them. The common people, at the insti-
gation, no doubt, of the heathen priests, called aloud for the blood of the
Christians ; the other orders did not trouble themselves about them. Apologet.
cap. XXXV. p. 300. Sed vulgus inquis. Ut vulgus, tamen Romani, nee ulli ma-
gis depostulaiores Christianorum, quam vulgus. Plane cccieri ordines pro aucto-
ritate religiosi ex fide, nihil hosticum de ipso senatu, de equite, de casiris, de pdla-
tiis ipsis spirat. But it should seem that some of the presidents by no means
thought the Christians deserving of punishment, but exercised their cruelty on
them merely with a view of obtaining popular favour ; for in c. xlix. p. 425,
Tertullian presses this home upon them in the following terms : De qua iniqui-
tate scEvitiiC non modo ccccum hoc vulgus exultat et insultat, sed et quidam vestrum
quibus favor vuJgi de iniquitate captatur, gloriantur, quasi non totum quod in nos
potestis, nostrum sit arbitrium. The greatest part of the magistrates, however,
did not scruple to acknowledge the falsehood of the calumnies wherewith the
Christians were assailed, and were ready to admit the injury that was done
them ; but complained that, without a breach of various laws that stood unre-
pealed and in full force, it was impossible for them to turn a deaf ear to their
accusers. This excuse is met by Tertullian with much address, and combated
at considerable length in chapters iv, v, and vi. His exordium is as follows :
Sed quoniam, cum ad omnia occurrit Veritas nostra, (But when, by a simple ex-
posure of the truth, we have fully refuted all those calumnies and charges that
are urged against us,) postremo legum obstruitur auctoritas adversus earn (i. e,
the truth) ut aut nihil dicatur retractandum esse post leges (L e. that it would be
iuconsistent with Roman constancy to revoke, or deviate from, what has once
been established by law,) aut ingratis necessitas obsequii prafej-atur veritaii, (i. e.
a judge, although it may be disagreeable to him, and he may perceive that the
cause of truth will suffer, should yet, in his decisions, adhere strictly to the let-
ter of the law,) de legibus prius cxcurram vobiscum ut cum iutoribus legum. Now,
men who could in this way make the laws a cloak for their own injustice and
cruelty, must certainly have been very worthless characters. If we except the
law of Trajan, which permitted the Christians to be called in question merely
on account of their religion, and directed them to be punished in case they
would not renounce it, the remaining imperial laws and rescripts were rather
favourable to the Christians than otherwise ; at least there was not one of them
I
The Philosophers Inimical. 319
\b which a judge, if he had been so minded, might not have given a favourable
interpretation. But it was necessary for tiicse malevolent characters, these
tools of the priesthood, and candidates for popular fame, to disguise their real
motives under some pretext or other, and to make it appear as if they were
borne out by somewhat of reason in their decisions. Such was, however, the
spirit of ferocious violence with which this persecution was carried on, that
even the restraint imposed by the law of Trajan with respect to making any
search after the Christians, was disregarded ; for they were broken in upon and
apprehended in their sacred assemblies, without any accusation having been
laid against them. Quolidie, says Tertullian, cap. vii, p. 80, obsidemur, quoiidie
prodi?nur : in ipsis plurimum ccctibus et congregalionibus noslris op- [p. 255.]
primimur. So far, therefore, from strictly adhering to what was dictated by
the laws, these most unjust judges, in the severities which they exercised to-
wards the Christians, did not scruple to fly directly in the teeth of the most
positive injunctions. The punishments inflicted on the Christians were as
cruel as the enmity borne them by their enemies was savage. The following
notices of them occur in Tertullian, cap, xii. p. 125, et seq. Crucibus el stipiti-
bus imponiiis Christianas. Ungulis eradilis latera Christianorum. Cervices
ponimus. Ad hesLias impellimur. Ignibus urimiir. In metalla damnamur. In
insulas relegamur. And in cap. xxx. p. 279, 280, we find nearly a similar enu-
meration. It appears also, that the common people would not unfrequently
expend their fury on the Christians without the intervention of the magistrates,
and run even into such extremes of malice as to dig up their dead bodies from
the grave for the purpose of tearing them to pieces. Cap. xxxvii. p. 308.
Quoties eiiam prccieritis vobis (the presidents) suo jure nos inimicum vulgus in-
vadit lapidibus et incendiis, ipsis Bacclianalium feriis : nee moriuis parcunt Chris-
tianis, quin illos de requie sepuUurcc, de asylo quodam mortis jam alios, jam nee
totoSy avellant, dissecent, distrahant. Now, all these things, it is observable, were
done previously to the manifestation of any ill will towards the Christians on
the part of the emperor, and whilst the laws that had been anciently enacted
against them remained comparatively quiescent, and, as it were, superseded by
others of rather a compassionate tendency. What, then, may we suppose to
have taken place when Severus avowed himself the enemy of Christianity, and
not only revived, in all their rigour, the ancient laws respecting it, but added
to them new ones of still greater severity ?
XIX. Philosophers inimical to the Christian cause. To tlie
flame thus prevailing in the breasts of the piiests and the popu-
lace, not a little fuel was added by the writings of some of those
who affected to possess a more than ordinary share of wisdom
and virtue, and were distinguished by the titles of Philosophers
and Orators. Of these, one of the most celebrated was a disciple
of the modern Platonic school, named Cehus, who, towards the
close of this century, attacked the Christians in a declamation
teeming with invective and reproach, which, at a subsequent pe-
320 Century Il.—Section 19.
nod, was met by a very masterly refutation from the pen of Ori-
gcn.{') At Eome likewise, nearly about tbe same time, tlie Chris-
tians were assailed by one Crescens^ a cynic philosopher, who,
according to the prevailing custom of the age, arraigned them of
the grossest impiety. His attack was in a particular manner di-
rected against Justin Martyr, who had exposed to the world the
secret vices and deceptive arts of those who styled themselves
philosophers ; nor was it for a moment relinquished until this
very celebrated Christian father had -undergone the punishment
of death.(^) As cotemporary with these, it should seem that we
may reckon Fronto^ the rhetorician of Cirta in Africa, who made
it his endeavour, in a studied discourse that he sent abroad into
the world, to establish against the Christians that vile calumny
so frequent in the mouths of the mob, of their countenancing an
incestuous intercourse of the sexes. (^) Many more persons of this
description, in all probability, laboured to defame the Christians ;
but neither their works nor their names have come down to our
times.
(1) Origeji, who, in the third century, was induced, by the advice of Ara-
brosius, to give to the world his well known confutation of the calumnies and
[p. 256.] falsehoods of Celsus, conceived his adversary to be an Epicurean, for
which, however, he seems to have had no other reason than that of there hav-
ing been an Epicurean of some celebrity of the name of Celsus. But if the
opinions of Celsus were what even Origen himself states them to have been,
there can be no doubt but that he was utterly averse to the doctrines of Epicu-
rus, and belonged to what we terra the modern Platonic or Alexandrian school.
The reader who wishes to see this question examined in detail, may consult
my Preface to the German translation of Origen. Before the appearance, how-
ever, of any remarks of mine on the subject, it had been very learnedly shown
by that eminent scholar, Pet. Wesseling, {Probabilia, cap. xxiii. p. 187, et seq.),
that Celsus could by no means be considered as belonging to the class of the
Epicureans. — We cannot close this note without observing, that abundant proof
is to be collected from the weak and injurious declamation of Celsus, of the
very great detriment which the cause of Christianity sustained in consequence
of the corruptions introduced by the Gnostics, who, subsequently to the time
of Hadrian, had attained to some degree of consequence and fame ; for the
exceptionable particulars on which tliis malevolent adversary chiefly grounds
his attack, were not recognized by those of the orthodox fnith as belonging to
the Christian scheme, but were merely fancied improvements that had been
tacked to it by the Gnostics. Celsus, as appears from his own showing, had
been chiefly conversant with men of this latter description, and fell into the
error of attributing to the Christians in general, maxims which were recognized
only by this particular sect.
The Philosophers Inimical. 321
(2) Vid. Euscbius, llhtor. Ecclcs. lib. iv. cap. xvi. as also the Second Apo-
logy pro Chrislianis, of Justin liiinself, in which he predicts that the philoso-
phers, and particularly Crescens, whose ignorance and corrupt morals he had
made it his business to expose to the world, would endeavour by every possible
means to bring about his destruction.
(3) There are two passages in Minucius Felix which relate to this calum-
niator of the Christians; from one of which we learn his country, from the other
his name and mode of life. In cap. x. Octavins, p. 99, where he treats of the
Thyestean banquets, which the Christians were accused of celebrating, he thus
expresses himself: Et de convivio notum est. Passim omnes loquinUur. Id
eiiam cirtensis nostri teslatur oratio. Then follows a description of these feasts,
which, without doubt, was taken from the discourse of Fronto, which he had
just been praising. To this passage he thus replies in the words of his Qcla^
vius, cap. xxxi. p. 322. Sic de isto (the banquet) et tiius Fronto, non ul ajmna-
tor testimonium fecit, sed convicium ut orator aspersit. By learned men it has
been suspected, and certainly not without great appearance of reason, that this
Fronto was one and the same with Cornelius Fronto, the rhetorician, who taught
the emperor Marcus eloquence. As long as the Christian church could number
within its pale none but men who were unskilled in letters and philosophy, it
was regarded with a silent disdain by those amongst the Greeks and Romans
who assumed to themselves the title of philosophers. But when, in the second
century, certain philosophers of eminence became converts to the Christian
scheme, such as Justin, Athenagoras, Pantsenus, and others, without, however,
renouncing either the name, garb, or mode of living of philosophers, or givino-
up the instruction of youth ; when, moreover, these Christianized philosophers
made it their business to demonstrate in the schools the vanity of the Greek
philosophy, and propounded therein a new species of philosophic dis- [p. 257.]
cipline, which intimately embraced the principles of Christianity, and accommo-
dated itself to the form of that religion which they had espoused ; and when,
lastly, these same illustrious converts to Christianity made a point of exposino-
to the world the secret vices, the contentious squabbles, and the actual knavery
of the pagan philosophic sects, the heathen philosophers perceived at once the
peril of their situation, and that their credit with the world, as well as every
thing else that could be dear to them, was brought into the greatest jeopard}'.
They therefore united with the priesthood and the populace in clamouring for
the extermination of the Christians, and whilst they endeavoured, by the pro-
pagation of false accusations and calumnies, not only orally, but in their writ-
ings, to draw down destruction on the Christians at large, were particularly as-
siduous in directing the public vengeance against their apostate brethren who
had gone over to the new religion. It was not, therefore, so much with a view
to uphold what they considered to be the cause of truth, as to support their
own tottering reputation, authority, and glory, and to secure to themselves the
common necessaries of life, such as food and raiment, motives, in fact, of much
the same kind with those which had previously excited the hostility of tho
priesthood, that these philosophers were induced to take the field against the
Christians. This w^ar of the philosophers against Christianity had its com,*
21
322 Century II.— Section 20.
mencement under the reign of the emperor Marcus, who was himself a philoso-
pher, and made it his study to encourage and gratify philosophers : neither had
any of the Greek and Roman philosophers, previously to this period, embraced
Christianity, nor had tiie Christians applied themselves to the cultivation of
philosophy ; indeed it was a thing which they were expressly enjoined by St.
Paul to avoid. From what we have here observed, it is easily to be perceived,
by any one who will exert his reason, whether there be not an apparently good
foundation for the conjecture which we have above hazarded, that the philoso-
phers were in fact the authors of the sufferings to which the Christians were
exposed in the time of the emperor Marcus. At this period the jealousy of the
pliilosophers became awakened, and a fear was excited in their breasts lest they
should be despoiled of their renown, and reduced, as it were, to beggary, in con-
sequence of the disclosures made by those of their brethren who had turned
Christians. Being, therefore, able to carry every point with the emperor, and
Marcus himself no doubt feeling hurt and indignant at the contempt and de-
rision with which philosophy, considered by him as the chief good, was treated
by the Cliristians, they found no difficulty in prevailing on him to put these
people without the pale of his justice, and to permit them, in return for the in-
sults they had offered to the honour and dignity of philosophy, to be assailed
with every species of cruelty, and even deprived of their lives.
XX. Government of the church. Amidst these vicissitudeS of
fortune, the Christians applied themselves every where with an
ardent and holy zeal to add to the strength and stability of their
cause, and at the same time to improve it as much as possible
by means of salutary laws and regulations. Over each of the
larerer churches, and such as were established in cities or towns
of any note, there presided a teacher who bore the title oi Bishop^
and whose appointment to this office rested entirely with the
people. The bishop was assisted by a council of presbyters or
elders^ who, in like manner, depended for their appointment on
popular suffrage, and, availing himself of the aid thus furnished
him, it was, in an especial degree, his duty to be ever vigilant
and active in preventing the interests of religion from experienc-
ing any detriment. To the bishop likewise it belonged to allot
to each of the presbyters his proper functions and department ;
and to see that, in every thing appertaining to rehgion and di-
vine worship, a due respect was had to the laws and regulations
which the people had enacted or otherwise sanctioned with their
approbation. The deacons and deaconesses filled subordinate sta-
[p. 258.] tions in the church, and had various duties assigned to
them, according as circumstances might require. The daughter
churches, or lesser Christian assemblies, that through the care and
I
Authority of Apostolic Churches. 323
exertions of the bishop had been established in the neighbouring
districts and vilhiges, were governed by presbyters sent from
the mother church, who, in consequence of their representing
the person, and exercising, with a few exceptions, all the rights
and functions of the bishop by whom they were commissioned,
came to be distinguished by the title of Chorepiscopi^ or rural
bishops. — The supreme power in these equal assemblies or con-
gregations resided in the people ; and consequentl}^ no alteration
of importance, nor in fact any thing of more than ordinary mo-
ment, could be brought about or carried into effect without
having recourse to a general assembly, by the suffrages and au-
thority of which alone could the opinions and counsels of the
bishop and the presbyters be rendered obligatory, and acquire
the force of laws.
XXI. Authority of the apostolic churches. The most perfect
equality prevailed amongst all the churches in point of rights
and power, each of them prescribing to itself at any time, accord-
ing to its own will and judgment, such laws and regulations as its
circumstances appeared to demand : nor does this age supply us
with a single instance of any church assuming to itself anything
like a right of dominion or command over the others. (') An an-
cient custom, however, obtained of attributing to those churches
which had been founded by the apostles themselves, a superior
degree of honour, and a more exalted dignity ; on which account
it was, for the most part, usual, when any dispute arose respect-
ing principles or tenets, for the opinion of these churches to be
asked ; as also, for those who entered into a discussion of any
matters connected with religion, to refer, in support of their po-
sitions, to the voice of the apostolic chiirches.i^) We may, there-
fore, hence very readily perceive the reason which, in cases of
doubt and controversy, caused the Christians of the west to have
recourse to the church of Rorae^ those of Africa to that of Alex-
andria, and those of Asia to that of Antioch, for their opinion,
and which also occasioned these opinions to be not unfrequently
regarded in the light of laws, namely, that these churches had
been planted, reared up and regulated either by the hand or un-
der the immediate superintendence and care of some one or more
of the apostles themselves.
(1) What was done by Victor during the controversy respecting the time
324 Century IL— Section 21.
of Easter, by no means proves, as we ^liall presently show, tliat he arrot^atcd to
himself tiie power of making laws.
(2) If the reader will turn to Ircnrcus advers. Hccres. lib. iii. cap. iii. p. 175.
[p. 259.1 ed. Massuet. and Tertullian de PrccscripL advers. Ilccreticos, cap. xxxvi.
p. 245. ed. Rigalt. he will find two very notable passages, in which these illus-
trious writers, in their dispute with the Gnostics, make their appeal to the apos-
tolic churches. Between these passages there is such an accordance and simili-
tude, that I can scarcely doubt but that Tertullian^ at the timo of his writing,
had Irenajus, (whom he had certainly read, as appears from his book, contra
Valent'mianos, cap. v.) before his eyes, and intentionally imitated him. The
Gnoslics, finding themselves hardly pressed by the authority of the sacred writ-
ings, endeavoured to maintain their ground by asserting that the true and
genuine doctrine of Jesus Christ was not to be learnt from the writings of the
apostles, for that it had never been committed to writing, but that the apostles
had transmitted it merely by word of mouth. Their having recourse to such a
miserable shift indicated plainly enough that their cause was wholly desperate :
in fact, they could adduce nothing whatever in support of this ridiculous asser-
tion ; and their opponents might therefore have contented themselves with call-
ing upon them, as they certainly with the greatest propriety might have done,
to prove what they thus alleged. Tertullian and Irenccus, however, adopted a
dilferent mode of depriving them of this subterfuge, and exposing to the world
its utter falsity, namely, that of appealing to the apostolic churches. Their
train of argument is this : — If it were true that the apostles had orally trans-
mitted a docrine different from that which they committed to writing, there can
be no doubt but that such doctrine would have been communicated to those
churches which they themselves founded, ordained, and instructed. But it is
notoriously the fact, that of all the churches which owe their foundation and
institution to the apostles, and in which we know that it has been an object of
main concern with their bishops, most religiously to preserve and adhere to that
form of discipline which they received from their founders, there is not a single
one that gives the least countenance to the fables and idle dreams of the Gnos-
tics. We maintain, therefore, that these latter are altogether unworthy of belief
when they assert, that their tenets are of an apostolic origin, being derived from
the apostles through oral communication. To this reasoning the Gnostics could
reply in no other way than by saying, that the churches established by the
apostles had gradually departed from the maxims and tenets of their founders^
and that their primitive bishops had been forcibly supplanted by others who
knew nothing of the genuine apostolic discipline. Foreseeing then, that such,
if any, must be their answer, Ireruzus takes care to show that in the Roman
church, which, for the sake of brevity, he takes as a fair example of the whole,
the series of bishops had been continued down without interruption from the
time of the apostles, and the regular succession of them been never disturbed
or sullied by the intervention of any stranger or person whose principles were
in any respect different from those of the apostles. From this one observation we
gain considerable light as to this mode of arguing, and need no other proof of
the very great error into which those of the present day fall, who take their
Authority of Apostolic Churches. 325
stand behind tradition and apostolical succession, and contend that they aro
justified in doinn^ so by the example of the primitive Christian teachers. Both
Irena3us and Tertullian most obviously agree in this, that they place all tho
apostolic churches on a precisely equal footing', and allow to each of them the
same weight and authority in determining this controversy with the Gnostics.
Tertullian is particularly explicit as to this. His words are ; — Percurre ccdesias
apostolicas, apud quas ipscc adhuc cathedra:, apostolorum suis locis prccsident.
Proxima est tibi Achaia ; hahes Corinthian. Si nan longe abes a Macedonia^
habes Philippos, habcs Thcssalonicciices. Si poles in Asiam tendere, [p 2G0.]
habes Ephesum. Si autcm Ilalicc adjaces^ habcs Romatn, unde nobis quoque
auctorilas prccsio est. Tertullian, it is manifest, makes no distinction between
these apostolic churches; the same authority, and the same dignity is attributed
by him to all of them : the church of Rome was, in his estimation, possessed
of no greater consequence, nor had it any more power to determine the dispute
with the Gnostics, than that of Ephesus, Thessalonica, or Corinth. The Ro-
man church is indeed considered by him as having been more fortunate, inas-
much as it had been blessed with the presence of Peter, Paul, and John, who
poured out their blood in the cause of Christ: Isla quam felix ecclesia! cui
totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine sua profuderunl ; ubi Pelrus passioni
dominiccc adccquatur ; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronalur ; ubi apostolus Jo-
hannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam
reJegatur. But so far from giving countenance to the idea of a greater
power with regard to determining controversies respecting religion, being pos-
sessed by the church of Rome than by that of Ephesus or any other apostolical
church, he in effect gives it a direct negative. Irenccus, indeed, extols the
church of Rome, not only on account of its good fortune, but also for other
reasons of which we shall presently take more notice; but notwithstanding this,
he plainly agrees with Tertullian as to the above point, that the power and au-
thority of all the apostolic churches in determining the controversy that had arisen
between the orthodox Christians and the Gnostics, was precisely equal. Tra-
dilionem, says he, apostolorum in ioto mundo manifestatam, in omni ecclesia adest
respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre. Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent
apostoli, qmc seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfecios doccbant, his vel maxime tra-
derent ea, quibus etiam ipsas ecclesias commiUehant. Most assuredly Irenaeua
would not have written thus, he would not have spoken generally of all tho
churches that had been founded by the apostles, but have confined his reference
to that of Rome alone, if either he or, any other person at that time had believed
that the right and power of determining controversies respecting religion was
possessed by t-lie Roman church. It is true, indeed, that he afterwards makes
no mention of the other churches, but contents himself with opposing to the
Gnostics the sentiments of the church of Rome alone ; but it is plain, that this
is not done by him from a persuasion, that to this one church alone belonged
the decision of Christian controversies, but, as he openly avows, for the sake of
brevity ; sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium ccclesiarum
enumerare successiones, maxlmcc et antiquissimcc ecclesicc tradilionem indicanles,
confundimus omnes. Tertullian and Irenseus agree also in this, that they pass
326 Century IL^Section 21.
over, without the slightest notice, that church, which it is natural to regard a3
the head and mother of all churches, and of which Christ himself was the
parent and founder: I mean the church of Jerusalem. Tertullian, although he
specifically enumerates the more celebrated of the apostolic churches, yet says
not a word of that of Jerusalem. Irenaus may be considered as tacitly treating
it with contempt, when he gives to the church of Rome a preference over all
the others. But in this they are by no means singular, for I do not know that
the church of Jerusalem, although in point of foundation superior to all the rest,
is ever appealed to, or even cited, as an authority, by any of the ancient fa-
[p. 261.] thers. This circumstance, however, can occasion no very great won-
der to any one who is apprised, that the original and true church of Jerusalem,
consisting of Jews and the descendants of Jews, who had actually seen and
heard our blessed Lord himself, seceded from the remaining church under the
reign of Hadrian ; and that the church which assembled in Hadrian's new city,
^lia Capitolina, and which assumed to itself the title of the church of Jerusa-
lem, was altogether a distinct assembly from the ancient and original congre-
gation. In these respects, then, we see that Irenaeus and Tertullian are in per-
fect harmony with each other ; but in what further relates to the church of
Rome, we shall find them considerably at variance. Irenccus extols it on many
accounts, and attributes to it a certain superiority or preeminence; but Tertullian^
although he had read, and in other respects follows Irenaeus, speaks only of the
felicity or good fortune of the Roman church ; of its superiority in any other
respect he appears to know nothing. The reason of this difference may, I think,
be assigned without much difficulty. Irenccus had been at Rome, and he was,
without doubt, indebted for many kindnesses to the Roman bishop, Eleutherus;
added to which, he was the bishop of a poor little church which had suffered
considerably in the then recent persecution under Marcus, and stood very much
in need of the counsel and assistance that were to be afforded by the great and
opulent church of Rome, and its bishop. To speak in plain terms, he was no
stranger to the advantages that were to be derived from the wealth and benefi-
cence of the church of Rome, and he therefore made no scruple of flattering her
pretensions as to a point on the accomplishment of which he knew that she was
bent, namely, that of exalting herself to a superiority over the other Christian
churches. But Tertullian was an African, and it is well known that the Afri-
can church was, long after the times of which we are treating, impatient of the
Roman domination, and a most strenuous asserter of the primitive Christian
liberty. Therefore, although he was indebted for a considerable part of what
is urged in argument by him against the Gnostics to Irenaeus, as must be mani-
fest to any one upon collation, he yet adopts none of the compliments that are
paid by this latter writer to the Roman church; nor does he assign to it any
preeminence over the other churches, except in that superior degree of felicity
which it derived from the glorious death of the apostles Peter and Paul, and the
miraculous preservation of the apostle John.
But let us now see, since we have thus entered into the subject, in what
consists that celebrated eulogium of Irenaeus on the Roman church, which Ren.
Massuetus pronounces to be a grievous stumbling block to all who have quit-
Autliority of Apostolic Churches. 327
ted the church of Rome luid sliakon off the yoke of the Catholic fiiith ; which
the friends of the papacy consider us the very citadel of Ihat preeminence
which the church of Rome arrogates to itself over every other church ; and in
explaining and commenting on which, so many great and excellent men have
bestowed no little portion of labour. With the remarks of others on the sub-
ject, whether well or ill-founded, I shall not concern myself, but merely state,
in as few words as possible, what, upon an impartial view of the matter, ap-
pears to me to be the truth. — After stating that in his opposition to the Gnos-
tics, he should not adduce individually the authority and discipline of all the
apostolical churches, but, for the sake of brevity, content himself with referring
to the church of Rome, as exhibiting a fair example of the whole ; Irenaeua
thus proceeds : ad hanc enim ecclesiam, (the church of Rome,) propter potiorem
principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique
Jideles, in qua semper ah his, qui sunt undique, conseriata est ea, qucc est [p. 262.]
ab apostoUs tradilio. These, then, are the w^ords which have given rise to such sub-
tile and laborious disquisitions. But, let them be twisted in any manner what-
ever, I have not the least hesitation in declaring it to be my decided opinion, that
if the right which the church of Rome at this day asserts, of dictating to the
other Christian churches, be founded chiefly on this passage, it stands but on a
very weak and tottering foundation indeed. But, lest my judgment should ap-
pear to have been hastily formed, let it only be considered in a general way.
I. That the sense in which the words of Irenacus are to be understood, is alto-
gether obscure, and that, through either ignorance or want of skill in the Latin
translator, it is impossible to comprehend, with any degree of precision, the
meaning intended to be conveyed by certain terms, on the right understanding
of which the intelligibility of the whole passage very materially depends. What,
for instance, I would ask, are we to understand by potior principalitas ? What
meaning, again, are we to annex to the expression, convenire ad ecclesiam Ro-
manam 7 In vain will it be for us to pretend to ascertain the sense of this
passage, until the original Greek of Irenccus be recovered. II. That Irenaeus
is speaking of tbe church of Rome in the second century, a period at which it
might, no doubt, with justice be asserted that all its bishops and teachers had
continued steadfast in the observance of that discipline, which had been trans-
mitted to them by the apostles Peter and Paul. To apply, therefore, what he
then says, to the church of Rome in its present state, is to do much the same
thing as if, in proof of the rights and power that belong to the emperors of
Germany, who also bear the title of Roman emperors, we were to adduce the
rights and powers that were exercised by the first emperors of the Augustan
race, Octavius Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. Without doubt, we
should account it a very ingenious piece of pleasantry, in any man, to quote
what Suetonius or Tacitus may have said respecting the authority of Augustus
or Tiberius, by way of shewing what is due from the German princes to their
present emperor. By the same arguments, then, as a jurist would make use of
in refuting such a man, may an effectual answer be given to those who, from a
passage in Irenaeus, pretend to ascertain what are at present the rights and
power of the Roman pontiff. III. That this is the testimony of a private indi-
328 Century IL— -Section 21.
vidual, of one that was no! lung more than the bishop of a small, insignificant
clinrch, that h:ul been but a few years before established in Gaul, of a man,
moreover, who, in his writings, has given not a few proofs of a judgment far
from sound or correct, as well as of a mind evidently labouring under the
shackles of prejudiee. But who is there, possessed of but merely common
sense and infi)rmation, that would recognise in the dicta or precepts of any pri-
vate individual, and more especially in those of an individual who had betniyed
no small deficiency of judgment, and been convicted of having fallen into more
than one palpable error, a standard whereby to ascertain and demonstrate the
public rights of states or churches ? Should there, however, be found a man
60 disposed, we can meet Ircnoeus with an authority not at all inferior to him-
self, either in point of judgment or of talents, namely TertuUian, who denies
that the church of Rome possessed any preeminence over the rest of the
churches, except it were in point of felicity or good fortune. What, therefore,
the supporters of the church of Rome take upon them in this instance, to main-
tain, upon the authority of Irenaeus, we shall assume to ourselves the liberty
of denying, upon the authority of TertuUian.
Having, then, premised thus much in a general way, let us now direct our
attention more particularly to the words of Irenaeus. Necesse est, he tells us,
[p. 263.] omnem ecclesiam cojivenire ad ecclesiam Romanam; and for this he as-
signs two reasons; the ^rst, propter poliorem principalitalc7n ; the second, quia
semper in ea conservata est apostolorum traditio. Now it unluckily happens, that
the terms in which this precept is conveyed, are such as to leave its meaning
somewhat dubious. By the words convenire ad ecclesiam Romanam, it should
seem most likely that we ought to understand accedere ad Romanam ecclesiam,
or consulere ecclesiam Romanam, and that what Irenaeus meant to say was this:
— that it behoved all Christians, in matters of doubt, connected with religion,
to resort for advice and direction to the church of Rome, (i. e. the church of
Rome in its then state,) inasmuch as it was the most ancient and the largest of
all the churches of the west, and owed its foundation to the hands of the apos-
tles themselves. But if such be this fathers meaning, and the reasons which he
subjoins scarcely allow us to doubt of its being so, there is certainly nothing in
it that can afford the church of Rome much support in the present day. It is
not within the power even of the most subtile disputant, to make it appear that
Irena3us meant that his words should be applied to the church of Rome in all
subsequent ages and times. On the contrary, we have, in the latter reason
which he assigns for his precept, a convincing proof that he spoke in relation
only to the more ancient and early church of Rome, as it existed in his own
time. The reason that he assigns why the other churches should have recourse
to that of Rome, is, quia in ea traditio apostolorum conservata est. Now nothing
can be more plain than that he here speaks merely of time past. Had he meant
that the church of Rome was to be consulted and made the arbitress in all ages
to come, he unquestionably would have written, in qua traditio apostolorurn con-
servata est, et semper conservahitur. As to the first reason given by IrenaBus,
namely, propter potiorem principalitatem, it is altogether involved in obscurity
and doubt. For principalitas is such an ambiguous word, and admits of being
Confederation of Churches. 320
used in such a variety of senses, that, owing to the negligence of Irenwus, or
his Latin traiishitor, in not more particuhirly indicating what he meant by it, a
degree of darkness, not easy to l)e dispelled, is thrown over the whole of this
sentence. The conjecture that strikes me as the most plausible in regard to it,
is, that by the word principalUaSy Irenacus might mean those four honourable
distinctions appertaining to the church of Rome, which he had just before enu-
merated, namely, magnitude, antiquity, celebrity, and apostolical origin. Max-
imcc, says he, et antiquissimcc, et omnibus cognitcc, a gloriosisslmis duobus ap <s-
tolis, Peiro el Paulo, fundaUc et ^onstitulcc ecclesicc. In these, probably, consist-
ed that poi lor principalitas which Ircnaeus attributes to the church of Rome;
he never dreamt of ascertaining what would be its claims to preeminence in
every future age. At least this explication of his words possesses a force and
simplicity that I believe we shall in vain look for in any other. But it is time
for me to put an end to this note, though materials are not wanting for extend-
ing it to a much greater length. I will, therefore, only add, that I cannot help
viewing it as a thing particularly unbecoming in men of learning and talents, to
pretend to say that the public rights of the universal church and the form of go-
vernment prescribed for it by Christ, are to be elicited from the obscure and
uncertain words of a private individual, the bishop of merely a poor little insig-
nificant church, a good and pious man unquestionably, but one, at the same
time, whose mental qualifications and endowments were certainly nothing more
than of the middling order.
XXII. Civil unity introduced amongst the Christians. Al- [p. 264.]
tliougli, tliereforc, all the churches had, at the commencement of
this century, various laws and institutions in common, which had
been received from the apostles themselves, and were particularly
careful in maintaining with each other a certain community of te-
nets, morals and charity ; yet each individual church which had a
bishop and presbyters of its own, assumed to itself the form and
rights of a little distinct republic or commonwealth ; and with
regard to its internal concerns, was wholly regulated by a code of
laws, that, if they did not orighiate with, had, at least, received the
sanction of the peoj^le constituting such church. This primitive
liberty and independence, however, was by degrees relinquished,
and it became the practice for all the minor churches within a
province to form themselves into one large association, and to
hold at stated seasons, much after the manner of confederate re-
publics, a convention, in which the common interests and wel-
fare of the whole were taken into consideration and provided for.
Of the immediate authors of this arrangement we are uninform-
ed, but it is certain that it had its origin in Greece ; and there are
many things which combine to prove, that during this century
330 Century IL^Section 22.
it did not extend itself beyond the confines of Asia. In process
of time, however, the very great advantages attending on a fede-
ration of this sort becoming apparent, other provinces were in-
duced to follow the example of Greece, and by degrees this form
of government became general throughout the whole church ; so
that the Christian community may be said, thenceforward, to
have resembled one large commonwealth, made up, like those of
Holland and Switzerland, of many minor republics. These con-
ventions or assemblies, in which the delegates from various asso-
ciated churches consulted on what was requisite to be done for
the common welfare of the whole, were termed synods by the
Greeks, and by the Latins councils. To the laws enacted by these
deputies under the powers with which they were invested by
their respective churches, the Greeks gave the name of canons or
general rules, and by this title it also became usual for them to
be distinguished by the Latins. (^)
(1) The reader will find what I have here stated very forcibly illustrated
and confirmed by Tertullian, in a very notable passage that occurs in his book,
de Jejuniis, cap, xiii, p. 711. opp. edit. Rigalt. Tertullian is advocating the cause
of the Montanists, whose tenets he had espoused, and to whom the orthodox
Christians attributed it as a fault, that they had taken upon them to institute
certain fasts or seasons of abstinence. The reason assigned by the regular
Christians for objecting to the rules respecting fasts prescribed by the Monta-
nists, was deduced from the nature of divine worship. God, said they, ought
to be honoured and worshipped by the Christians of their own free will, not
from compulsion, or by the command of another. Denique respondeiis hccc
[p. 265.] ex arbitri-n agenda, non ex imperio. In this age, therefore, the nature
and character of the true religion continued to be well understood by the gene-
rality of Christians, inasmuch as they denied it to be subject to the control of
any human laws. To this argument Tertullian replies, in the first place, that
the Montanists, in observing certain fasts, did not conform themselves to the
ordinances of men, but to God, or the Paraclete, i. e. the Holy Spirit, who had
enjoined those fasts by the mouths of his servants. Plus humance licebit volun-
tail quam divince potesiati ? Ego me seculo, non Deo liberum memini ; sic meum
est ullro ojjicium facere Domino^ sicut indicere illiiis est He agrees, therefore,
with the rest of the Christians, that religion is not to be controlled by human
laws, and strenuously advocates the cause of liberty : but at the same time he
insists on it that obedience is to be paid to the commands of God, as delivered
by certain of his servants. To this the Antimontanist Christians readily yielded
their assent. The only thing, therefore, that remained in dispute between them
and Tertullian was, whether Montanus and his followers were really, as they as-
serted, inspired by the Holy Spirit, or not? With regard to this he replies, in
the second place, that amongst the Antimontanist Christians the bishops had the
Confederation of Churches. 331
power of enjoining fasts, as also, in cases of great emergency, of imposing ex-
traordinary contributions on tiie people. Bene autem quod el episcopi universcc
plebi mandare jejunia assolent : nan dico de industria slipium conferendarum, ut
veslrcD capturce est: sed inlerdum et ex aliqua soUicUudmis ecclesiasticcc causa.
These words are of the very first importance and authority in enabling us to
ascertain the extent to which the power possessed by the bishops of the primi-
tive church reached. Had it been possible for the bishops of this period, of their
own accord, i. e. without the assent of the people, to do more than what is here
stated, Tertullian would, most assuredly, not have failed to notice it on this oc-
casion, when his attention was particularly directed to the rights and power
which might lawfully be exercised by men over the flock of Christ. It appears,
therefore, that with regard to two things, the bishop's sole mandate alone was
sutficient. In the Jirsi place, he might enjoin fosts; for since everything relating
to the service of God was placed immediately under the care and direction of
the bishop, and fiists were considered as constituting a part of such service, it
was but just that the times for observing them should be left to his appoint-
ment. The bishop, it seems, could also, in any case of emergency that called
for pecuniary aid, and such cases were by no means uncommon, require of the
people to make such an additional contribution, according to their means, as
might enable him to meet such exigency. Concerning the bishop's power as to
this, Tertullian speaks in his usual unpolished, obscure, and laconic manner;
and it may, therefore, not be amiss to offer the reader some explanation of what
he says on this head. It is manifest then, that under the title of stipes he refers
to those contributions which the Christians were accustomed to make, in conse-
quence of an admonition from the bishop. These contributions he divides into
ordinary and extraordinary. The words, ut vestrcc capturce est, relate to those
of the ordinary kind. Captura has here the meaning o^reditus, (income, ability,
gains.) The custom was, for every Christian ordinarily to contribute towards
the common stock in a certain degree, proportionate to his means or ability. In
addition to these ordinary offerings, we find a distinct mention made of certain
extraordinary ones, which were called for in cases of emergency. Extraordinary
expenses were not unfrequently incurred by churches in the entertainment of
strangers, in relieving the sick, and those of the brethren who were languishing
in captivity, and in various other ways, to the defrayment of which tlie free and
voluntary oblations, as they were termed, of the Christians, were occasionally
found unequal. The exigencies here spoken of, are in part particularized [p. 266.]
by Tertullian himself in Apologet. cap. xxxix. p. 325. Dispensa/ur, says he,
vaiifragiis, et si qui in metallis, et si qui in iiisulis, vel in custodiis dunlaxat ex
causa Dei sectcc alumni confessionis suae fi ant. Whenever a case of this nature
occurred, the bishop addressed his flock, requiring every one to contribute, not
only according to his means, but in a degree proportionate to the magnitude
and pressure of the occasion, so that the necessity of the church might be fully
answered; and to this mandate it was customary for all to pay obedience with
the utmost alacrity. The meaning, therefore, of Tertullian's words is this: "I
will not speak of the very great readiness of the Christians in making the ordi-
nary contributions required of them by the bishop; for I know that no one as to
332 Century IL— Section 22.
this acts from compulsion, but each person gives according to what his ability
or circumstances permit. But, not unfrequently, unlooked-for accidents and
emergencies occur, which demand pecuniary relief to a certain extent, and
require that the ratio of contribution should be determined by the bishop:
nor does any Christian, in such cases, ever hesitate in paying obedience to his
commands."
In the third place, Tertullian replies, that it was customary in Greece for
councils of the churches to be convened, and that therein laws were enacted
and duties imposed, to which, notwithstanding that they were purely of human
origin, no exception was ever taken. Aguntur prccterea per Grcccias ilia cerlis
in loots concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qucc. et alliora quccque in commune trac-
tantur, et ipsa reprcesentalio ioiius nominis Chrisiiani magna xeneraLione celehror-
fur. From these words it appears, (1st,) That at the close of the second century
the practice of convening councils had not been adopted either in Africa, the
country where Tertullian lived, or in the Latin Church, or in the East, or in
Egypt, but solely in Greece, or as Tertullian expresses it, per Grcecias, i. c. the
nations both in Europe and Asia that bore the name of Greeks. (2ndly,) That
these councils were in his time regarded as of mere human origin, not as hav-
ing been instituted either by Christ himself or his apostles. For what he had
in view was to prove that good and pious men might enjoin fasts, and prescribe
other salutary regulations to the church of Christ. Since, therefore, in support
of his argument, he adduces the acts of these councils, it is plain that he must
have considered them as assemblies which owed their origin to mere human
authority, and their acts, not in the light of oracles or dictates of the Holy
Spirit, as they came to be regarded in after times, but as mere human laws and
regulations. (3dly,) That even in Tertullian's time, certain places or cities had
been fixed on for the assembling of these Greek councils, and that no power
existed of convening them elsewhere. (4thly,) That these councils did not busy
themselves about things of inferior moment, each individual church being left
to determine on such matters for itself, but employed themselves in the discus-
sion and arrangement of points of a higher and weightier nature, or such as
were of general interest and importance. (5thly,) That the bishops, who were
present at these councils, were merely the representatives of their respective
churches; that is, that they neither assented to, nor originated anything therein
in their private individual capacity, but alw.ays in the names of the churches of
[p. 267.] which they were respectively the delegates. Reprcesentalio, says Ter-
tullian, totius nominis Christiani celehratur. Now iotum nomen Christianum evi-
dently, in this place, means, tola ecclesia, the whole church bearing the name of
Christ. The bishops, therefore, were considered as representing, collectively,
tlie entire associated Christian flock, and, individually, the different churches
over which they respectively presided; and hence arose the veneration in which
these councils were held. The opinion, that the bishops, assembled in council,
officiated in the place of Christ himself, and that the very nature of their func-
tion constituted them both legislators and judges of the Christian community,
had not at this time even suggested itself. Tertullian esteemed these councils
worthy of the highest commendation, for he thus proceeds: Et hoc quam dig*
Confederation of Churches. 333
num fide auspicante congregari iindique ad Christum ? Vide quam honum et
quaiii jocundiun habitare fratrcs in iinum. He moreover adds, what is well
worthy of remark, that the bishops were accustomed, before they commenced
their deliberations, to petition for divine aid and assistance by priiyer and fast-
ing : Conventus auiem illi s/ationibus prius et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum
dolcntibus et ila demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt. It appears, therefore,
that ecclesiastical councils had their origin amongst the Greeks in the second
century, and that their utility becoming manifest, they were gradually adopted
by the church at large. — The information thus ailorded by Tertullian, with re-
spect to the origin of councils, is supported by the general history of Christian
afliiirs; for no notice whatever occurs of any ecclesiastical councils held prior to
the second century; and with regard to those holden in the course of that age,
the few memorials of thera that have reached us, very plainly indicate them to
have been for the most part held in Greece. Towards the close of this century,
the practice of holding councils of this kind passed from Greece into Palestine
and Syria, as appears from Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. qi\\). xxili. p. 190,
191, where mention is made of councils held about the end of the second cen-
tury by the bishops of Palestine and the province of Osdroena, respecting the
controversies then in agitation concerning the proper time for celebrating Easter.
By certain of the learned it is also contended, that on the same occasion a coun-
cil of the Italian bishops was convened at Rome by the Roman pontiff Victor.
Vid. Pet. Constant. Epist. Romanor. Pontificum, tom. i. in Victore, \ 4, p. 94.
and others. In proof of this, they quote the following words of Eusebius: *ai
Toil' 87ri Pw,««j <fe ojuoicDi aXXn Trt^) ts a.ur5 ^xthmatoj, 'E7ri(Tx.o7rov Bi'jtTog* S'y.KirAy
which are thus rendered by Valesius : alia item eo^at epistola sijnodi Romance^ cut
Vicioris episcopi nomen prccfixum est. But not to rest upon the circumstance,
that no mention is made of any Roman synod in the Greek original, the name
Victor, bishop of Rome, being the only one prefixed to this epistle, puts it out
of all question that it was not the letter of any synod, but merely of Victor him-
self; for synodital epistles were uniformly subscribed by all the bishops pre-
sent. The only construction, therefore, of which these words of Eusebius .seem
properly to admit, is this: that Victor having, as was then the customary practice,
consulted with the Roman presbyters, addressed, with their consent, this letter,
in his own name, to the church over which he presided; which thing of [p. 2G8.]
itself furnishes us with an argument, that the practice of many churches assem-
bling together in council, had not at that time passed from Greece into Italy. And
perhaps it may not be amiss to notice it, by the bye, that Valesius has fallen into
Bome other mistakes with regard to the account given by Eusebius of the con-
troversy re^ipecting Easter, in consequence of his estimating the state of the
church in the second century from its condition in after ages.
But I have not yet pointed out all that is deserving of notice with regard to
this passage of Tertullian. Amongst other things, it is particularly worthy of
remark, that he speaks therein of councils as having had their origin in Greece.
Indeed, in no province could it have been more natural for this practice of hold-
ing councils to have arisen, than in Greece. Under a monarchical government,
Buch as that of emperors and kings, the idea of holding councils would pro-
334 Century Il.—Section 23.
bably never have entered into the minds of the Christians; hut in such a pro-
vince as Greece was, the notion might readily enough suggest itself. The
Greeks were, as we all know, divided into many minor states and republics.
Araon"-st these petty governments an intimate association for general purposes
subsisted ; and for many ages, prior to the coming of Christ, it had been usual
for them to hold very frequent councils, and to assemble, by their delegates or
representatives, at certain places, in order to deliberate and resolve on what
might best promote their common interests. The most celebrated of these as-
semblies was their general national council, or that of the Amphictyons, which
was held at Delphi, at stated seasons of the year, in spring and autumn, and to
which were referred all controversies of any considerable weight or moment,
that might have arisen between any of the confederated states. Vid. Ubbonis
Emmii Grcccia veins, torn. iii. p. 340, et seq. Nouveau Dictionaire Hist. Grit.
par Chaufepied, tom. i, voce AmpUctyones. These councils were not altogether
discontinued, even after Greece had been reduced into a province by the Ro-
mans. The great council of the Amphictyons, in particular, continued, with the
consent of the emperors, to hold its meetings, even down to the time w^hen Ter-
tullian wrote, as may be seen in Pausanias. In a province so much accustomed
to councils, it is no wonder that the Christians should hit upon the thought,
that it might redound to the welfare of the church, if, after the example of the
Greek states, and particularly of the Amphictyons, assemblies or councils of as-
sociated Christians were to meet at certain stated seasons, and deliberate re-
specting their common interests. Light is hence thrown on canon xxx^'' of those
bearing the title " Apostolical," and which are commonly attributed to Clement
of Rome, as well as on the fifth of the Nicene ones, by both of which the bi-
shops are enjoined to assemble in council twice in the year, namely, in the
spring and fall. These were the identical times at which, as w^e have above
stated, it was usual, even so low down as the second century, for the Amphic-
tyons to hold their meetings ; and hence I think it is evident, that it was the pe-
culiar constitution and habits of their country w^hich led the Greek Christians
to think of establishing ecclesiastical councils ; and that, in constituting assem-
blies of this kind, they merely availed themselves, in the cause of religion, of a
measure that had long been considered as productive of very essential advan-
tages in the state. With regard to the different points thus touched upon, I
can perceive a very wide field for discussion lying open before me ; but on the
present occasion I am compelled to be studious of brevity.
[p. 269.] XXIII. Effects produced by the introduction of this civil
unity. The associations^ however, thus introduced amongst the
churches, and the councils to which they gave rise, although not
unattended with certain benefits and advantages, were, neverthe-
less, productive of so great an alteration in the general state of
the church, as nearly to effect the entire subversion of its ancient
constitution. For, in the first place, the primitive rights of the
people, in consequence of this new arrangement of things, expe-
Christian and Jewish Priesthood. 335
perienced a considerable diminution, inasniucli as, thencefor-
ward, none but affairs of comparatively very trilling consequence
were ever made the subject of popular deliberation and adjust-
ment ; the councils of the associated churches assuming to them-
selves the right of discussing and regulating every thing of mo-
ment or importance, as well as of determining all questions to
which any sort of weight was attached. Whence arose two sorts
of ecclesiastical law, the one public or general, and thencefor-
ward termed " Canonical," from the canons ; the other private or
peculiar, consisting merely of such regulations as each indivi-
dual church deemed it expedient, after the ancient manner, to
enact for itself — In the next place, the dignity and authority of
the bishops were very materially augmented and enlarged. In
the infancy, indeed, of councils, the bishops did not scruple to
acknowledge that they appeared there merely as the ministers or
legates of their respective churches, and that they were, in fact,
nothing more than representatives acting from instructions : but
it was not long before this humble Iqjiguage began, by little and
little, to be exchanged for a loftier tone ; and they at length took
upon them to assert that they were the legitimate successors of
the apostles themselves, and might consequently, of their own
proper authority, dictate laws to the Cliristian flock. To what
an extent the inconveniences and evils arising out of these pre-
posterous pretensions reached in after times, is too well known
to require any particular notice in this place. — Another effect
which these councils had, was to break in upon and gradually
destroy that absolute and perfect equality which had reigned
amongst the bishops in the primitive times. For, as it was ne-
cessary that some certain place should be fixed on for the seat
of council, and that the right of convening the assembly, and pre-
siding therein as moderator, as well as of collecting the suffrages
and preserving the records of its acts, should be vested in some
one or other of its members, it, for the most part, became cus-
tomary to give a preference in these respects to the chief city of
the province and its bishop, and hence, in process of time, spru'ng
up the dignity and authority of " metropolitans," a title confer-
red by way of distinction on the bishops of principal cities.
These associations of churches, situated within one and the same
province, soon gave rise to the practice of many different pro-
336 . Centurij Il.—Section 23.
vinccs associating together ; and lience a still greater disparity,
by degrees, introduced itself amongst the bishops. In fine, this
custom of holding councils becoming at length universally preva-
lent, the major part of the church(') assumed the form of a large
civil commonwealth, made up of numerous inferior republics ;
to the preservation of which order of things, it being found ex-
pedient that a chief or superintending prelate should be apjDoint-
ed for each of the three grand divisions of the earth; and that,
in addition to this, a supreme power should be lodged in the
[p. 270.] hands of some one individual bishop ; it was tacitly as-
sented toQ that a certain degree of ecclesiastical preeminence
should be recognised as belonging to the bishops of Antioch,
Eome, and Alexandria, the principal cities in Asia, Europe, and
Africa, and that the bishop of Rome, the noblest and most opu-
lent city in the world, should moreover take the precedence
amongst these principal bishops, or, as they were afterwards
styled, patriarchs^ and also assume the primacy of the whole
Christian church throughoijt the world. (^)
(1) I purposely express m3'Self after this manner, since it can be made ap-
pear, from unquestionable authority, that in every part of the then known world
there were certain churches, and those too of considerable magnitude and con-
sequence, (for instance, the African church, properly so called, in Africa; the
Chaldaic and Persic in Asia, and that of Britain in Europe, to pass over others
that might be mentioned,) wliich, although they adopted the practice of holding
councils, and did not keep themselves entirely aloof from all association, yet
declined to make a part of that grand Christian confederation which was gra-
dually entered into by the rest; and were, for a longtime, inflexibly tenacious
of their own just liberty and independence. The churches which thus tacitly
declined joining the general association, and maintained no other community
with those principal prelates who were styled patriarchs, than that of religion
and charity, of themselves furnish us with an effectual argument in refutation
of those who ascribe the origin of this association to our blessed Lord himself,
and make it to have sprung from some law of his. For had it been the com-
mand of our Saviour that his church should take the form of a large common-
wealth, most assuredly no Christian assembly would have laid claim to inde-
pendence, and refused to acknowledge the authority of those who were appoint-
ed to preside over the general interests of the whole body.
(2) The council of Nice, the principal one of those that are termed CEcu-
menical, by its sixth canon, which treats of the pre-eminence of the bishops of
Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, places it out of all question that the dignity
and authority of these prelates rested, not on divine right, nor on anything in
the nature of an apostolic mandate, but solely and entirely on ancient usage or
Christian and Jewish Priesthood. , 337
tacit consent. Its commencement in Latin is, Antiqua consuetudo servetur, in
Greek, tu ag;^^** tS-x jcgotTUTo. Vid. Lud. Ell. du Pin. de Antiqua Ecclesicc
Disciplina, p. 19, 20.
(3) The extent of the authority and power possessed in the primitive agea
by these bishops, who were thus invested with the presidency of the larger ec-
clesiastical confederations, may, without much difliculty, be estimated when it
is considered that they were raised, by tacit consent, above their brethren
merely upon the principle of supplying some external link or bond whereby the
minor associations, or churches, which were all independent of each other,
might be held together. What the different metropolitans were in respect of
their provinces, that was a patriarch in respect of a larger portion of the world.
That great thing, therefore, which we term the Hierarchy, and which has, most
unhappily, been the cause of so many disputes and wars amongst Christians,
if it be examined into with impartiality, and traced back to the first ages of the
church, will be found to have taken its rise from very small and inconsiderable
beginnings ; in f^ict, to have originally sprung from nothing more than the plan
adopted by the Greek churches of moulding their ecclesiastical establishment
after the model of their national civil government and councils, and that [p. 271.]
it was only by degrees that it attained to that degree of consequence and stjv-
bility which has enabled it, in subsequent ages, to bid defiance to all the efforts
of power and art to overthrow it.
XXIY. Comparison of the Christian with the Jewish priesthood*
By wliatever advantages tliis new form of ecclesiastical govern-
ment might be attended, tliey were confined exclusively to pas-
tors of the higher order, i. e. the bishops who sat in these coun-
cils as the representatives of their respective churches : but much
about the same time there arose and quickly gained ground in
the Christian world, an opinion respecting the nature of the func-
tions wherewith the ministers of the church were invested, which
tended, in no small degree, to augment the dignity and rights of
the whole sacred body. Whilst the least probability remained
that Jerusalem might, at one time or other, again rear its head
from the dust, the Christian teachers and elders assumed to them-
selves no titles or distinctions, at least none but the most modest
and humble ones ;(') but when the fate of that once glorious city
had been finally sealed by Hadrian, and not the most distant
hope could any longer be entertained by the Jews of seeing
their ancient government re-established, these same pastors and
ministers, for the most part, conceived a wish to have it believed
by their flocks that they themselves had succeeded to the rights
of the Jewish priesthood. The bishops^ therefore made it their
22
338 Century 11. — Section 24.
business tllenccfo^^Yard to inculcate tlie notion tliat they were
invested with a character resembhng that of the great high priest
of the Jews, and were consequently possessed of all those rights
which had been recognized as belonging to the Jewish pontiff.
The functions of the ordinary Jewish priests were, in like man-
ner, stated to have devolved, though under a more perfect form,
on the presbyters of the Christian church : and, finally, the dea-
cons were placed on a parallel with the Levites or inferior minis-
ters of the temple. AYhether the comparison thus instituted be-
tween functions altogether opposite in their nature, had its origin
in art and design, or was rather the offspring of ignorance and
imprudence, is a thing not now to be ascertained ; of this, how-
ever, there can be no doubt, that having once been approved of
and admitted to be just, it not only gave rise to a variety of er-
rors, and introduced a greater distinction between teachers and
learners than seems consonant to the spirit of the Christian dis-
cipline, but also very materially added to the rights and emolu-
ments of the ministers and dispensers of Christ's word.(')
(1) Ignatius, in the commencement of his epistles, styles himself ^-sapcgov,
deiferum, a title assumed by him, as it should seem, in common with other
bishops of his time, and importing a man commissioned to make known to the
world the wiU and commands of the Deity.
(2) This comparison of the Jewish with the Christian sacred order, amongst
other things, unquestionably gave rise to the claim of tytlies and first fruits,
which is certainly of higher antiquity than the time of Constantine the Great.
And it seems not at all unlikely that a desire of augmenting their income, which
was but slender and uncertain, might have first suggested to certain of the
bishops this plan of investmg the ministers of the gospel with the rights of
the Jewish priesthood. That the oflering of the first fruits had already, in the
age of which we are treating, come to be regarded as a matter of divine
[p. 272.] right, is placed, as it were, beyond all doubt by Irenajus, who in his
work contra Hccreses, lib. iv. cap. xxxii. § 5. p. 249. represents it as having been
inculcated by Christ himself in the celebration of the last supper. Chrisius suis
discijmlis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indi-
genii, sed uL ipsi nee infructuosi nee ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est,
accepit el gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est meurn corpus, ^-c. And in cap. xxxiv. p.
250. we are told by him, ojferre igitur oportet Deo primitias ejus crcaturcc, sicut
et Moses ait, non apparebis vacuus, ^c. From which passages it is manifest that
the Christian teachers had already conceived the plan of bettering their condi-
tion, by calling in the authority of the Mosaic law. That tithes had not, at this
time, been established, at least in the Latin church, is, I think, equally to be
proved from Irenaius, who, in cap. xxxiv. p. 250. says, Et propter hoc illi quidem
Study of Philosophy, 339
(the Jewish priests) decimas snorum hahehanL consecratas : qni aufem perceperunt
libertatem (i. e. the Christians) omnia qua: sunt ipsorum ad dominicos decernunl
usus, hilariler el llbere danles. It is certain, however, that in the Greek and
oriental cliurchcs they began to be adopted sooner than in the Latin ones, and
were rendered, I am led to think, even so early as this century, inasmuch as
mention is made of them by the Greek writers of the third century, and also in
the apostolical constitutions, as of a thing well known and established.
XXV. A taste for philosophy introduced amongst the Christians.
The external change thus wrought in tlie constitution of the
church would have been, however, far less detrimental to the
interests of Christianity, had it not been accompanied by others
of an internal nature, which struck at the very vitals of religion,
and tended, in no small degree, to affect the credit of those sa-
cred writings on which the entire system of Christian discipline
relies for support. Of these the most considerable and impor-
tant are to be attributed to a taste for the cultivation of philo-
sophy and human learning, which, during the preceding century,
if not altogether treated with neglect and contempt by the Chris-
tians, had at least been wisely kept under, and by no means per-
mitted to blend itself with religion ; but in the age of which we
are now treating, burst forth on a sudden into a flame, and
spread itself with the utmost rapidity throughout a considerable
part of the church. This may be accounted for, in some measure,
from its having been the practice of the many Greek philoso-
phers, who, in the course of this century, were induced to em-
brace Christianity, not only to retain their pristine denomination,
garb, and mode of living, but also to persist in recommending
the study of philosophy, and initiating youth therein. In proof
of this, we may, from amidst numerous other examples, adduce
in particular that of Justin^ the celebrated philosopher and mar-
tyr.(^) The immediate nursery and very cradle, as it were, of
Christian philosophy, must, however, be placed in the cele-
brated seminary which long flourished at Alexandria under the
denomination of the Catechetical School. For the persons who
presided therein, in the course of the age of which we are treat-
ing, namely, Panta^nus, Athenagoras, and Clement of [p. 273.]
Alexandria, not only engaged with ardour in the cultivation of
philosophy themselves, but also exerted their influence in per-
suading those whom they were educating for the office of teach-
ers in the church, to follow their example in this respect, and
340 Century Il.—Sectlon 25.
make it their practice to associate philosophical principles with
those of religion.(') It is to be observed, however, that what
was termed by these philosophy, was not the discipline of any
particular sect, but a selection of such principles and maxims
from all the different philosophic systems, as appeared to be most
consentaneous to right reason, and admitted of being so tempered
and modified as to reconcile them, in a certain degree, with Chris-
tian notions and tenets.(')
(1) That Justin Martyr continued to wear the philosopher's mantle subse-
quently to his embracing Christianity, is evident from the exordium to his dia-
logue with Trypho, since Trypho is there made to say that he conceived him to
be a philosopher from his garb. Origen, in a letter preserved by Eusebius,
Histor. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. xix. states that Heraclas, who was afterwards bishop
of Alexandria, was accustomed, previously to his studying philosophy, to appear
cloathed after the common fashion, jco/vm ta-d-irt; but that, upon his placing him-
self under the tuition of Ammonius, he assumed the philosopher's mantle and
continued ever after to wear it; even notwithstanding his being received into
the order of presbyters. 'ArroJ'vo-diUivos «*/ p/xoo-opov dvuxa^djv a-x^/^a f^^xv '^"
S'iu^o TǤ4/. Vid. Origen. 0pp. tom. i. p. 2. edit. Benedict. Jerome in his Caial.
Script. Eccles. cap. xx. p. 86. edit. Fabric, speaking of the Christian philosopher
Aristides, says, Aristides Atheniensis, philosophus eloquentissimus et sub pristino
liabitu discipulus Christi. There can surely be no necessity for my adducing
more instances than these. A splendid encomium on philosophy, from the pen
of Justin Martyr, occurs at p. 6, 6. of his dialogue cum Tryphone, where he pro-
nounces it to be "the chief good," lulyirav jtT«^*, "a thing most acceptable in
the sight of God, and the only sure guide to a state of perfect felicity." A moro
ancient encomiast of philosophy is not, I believe, to be pointed out amongst the
Christian writers. He defines philosophy, p. 12, to be «^/s-i'i(W)» t» ovto? nat rS
«\jf3-wj iTriyvuTis. "the science of being," (that is, of those things which are real
and immutable,) " and the knowledge of truth." The end or object of philoso-
phy he pronounces to be ivS'niy.oviaiy "felicity."
(2) Pantccnus was, without doubt, the first of the Egyptian Christians that
engaged in the study of philosophy : for Origen, in that epistle of his preserved
by Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. xix. p. 221. wherein he replies to those
who had imputed a love of letters and philosophy to him as a fault, defends him-
self under the cover of only two examples, the one ancient, the other of recent
date : the former is that of Pantasnus, the latter of Heraclas, whom he repre-
sents as having been one of his fellow-students in the school of Ammonius.
Had any one amongst the Christians of Egypt engaged in the cultivation of
philosophy before Pantaenus, there can be no doubt but that Origen, whom no-
thing whatever that had taken place in antecedent times amongst the Egyptian
Christians appears to have escaped, would, by way of more readily vindicating
[p. 274.] himself, have brought forward ealier instances of an attachment to
philosophy than even that of Pantsenus. — That I should say anything of Aihe"
Study of Philosophy. 341
nagoras appears to me altogether unnecessary, as tliere is extant, in nddition
to the apology written by him in defenee of the Christians, a tract of ids con-
cerning the resurrection of the dead, which is replete with evidence of the great
extent to which he engaged in the cultivation of philosophy. Clement, the third
president of the school of Alexandria in succession from Pantoenus, and whom,
by way of distinction, we usually style the Alexandrian^ has left behind him, in
various things which he published, abundant proof of his partiality for philosophy,
such a partiality, indeed, as appears to have exceeded all ordinary limits. Jos. Aug.
Orsi, in the Ecclesiastical History written by him in Italian, tom. ii. p. 406. con-
siders this Clement as the first of the Christians writers that espoused the cause
of philosophy. But he is deceived ; Justin Martyr, as we have already seen, had
previously stood forth as its advocate and eulogist, and undoubtedly Pantajnua
in his day had done the same. There can be no question, however, but that
Clement is to be ranked amongst the first and principal Christian defenders and
teachers of philosophic science, indeed that he may even be placed at the head
of those who devoted themselves to the cultivation of philosophy with an ardour
that knew no bounds, and were so blind and misguided as to engage in the
hopeless attempt of producing an accommodation between the principles of
philosopliic pcience and those of the Christian religion. He, himself expressly
tells us in his Slromata, lib. i. cap. i. p. 326. opp. that he would not hand down
Christian truth pure and unmixed, but dvct/jLtuty/uevxvTols tptKoa-opUi ^oyfxita-ty
fx5h\ovJ'iiy>iiKttKvfA/ucviiyKsL]i7nKtK^v/uif;iey>iVy "associated with, or rather veiled
by and shrouded under the precepts of philosophy." For, according to him, the
rudiments or seeds of celestial wisdom communicated by Christ to the world,
lay hid in the philosophy of the Greeks, after the same manner as the esculent
part of a nut lies concealed within a shell. And on this ground we find him
in the same book, cap. iv. p. 331. entertaining a belief that Solomon, in Prov.
ii. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, meant to inculcate the study of philosophy, and attributing to
the cultivation of philosophy a certain efficacy in rendering men just and up-
right, roti Ctto ^txo(rc(pi'j') S'iS'tK^ttai/ntvoti lioi^ii± Q-na-div^i^tTAi. He had before said,
at p. 319, that the souls of men were fed or nourished Kara txv tAx>)/;x«v ^/xia-o-
9Uv, " by the philosophy of the Greeks," and added the above-noticed compari-
son of this species of philosophy with a nut, to which he frequently has recourse,
by way of expressing his opinion of the nature and value of human wisdom. For
he appears to have been firmly persuaded that the essence of the Greek philoso-
phy was sound, wholesome, and salutary, in fact, that it was perfectly consonant
to the spirit of Christian wisdom, but that it was compassed about and veiled from
immediate observation by a cloud of superstition and idle fictions, just in the same
way as the kernel of a nut is concealed by the shell, and that we should, therefore,
make it our business industriously to penetrate this exterior covering, so as to dis-
cover the true relationship between human and divine wisdom. Stromat. lib. vii. p.
832. cap. ii. The origin of the Greek philosophy he, without scruple, attributes to
the Deity himself, whom, however, in the communication of it to the world, he
conceives to have availed himself of the instrumentality of inferior agents, ei/TSf
Is-iv 0 S'lS'ui Kai To/c *Exx>)cr/ tjiv ^/AocrcaTiy S'la twk vTroS'iiTce^mv dyyixuv. Hie (the
Deity) est, qui dat GrcLcis philosophiam per inferiores angclos. To the Christian
842 Century II. — Section 25.
religion he assigns a superiority over pliilosophy, inasmuch as the Lord reserv-
ed the promulgation of it for himself: caa,' « /U8g<j Kt;gi» m S'o^a tcjv m^ivoytai^, at
[p. 275.] opinio credenlium (the religion professed by the Christians) pars est
Domini (was communicated by the Lord hiuiself.) In explaining and illustrat-
in<T his opinion on this head, he is lead to intimate his perfect conviction as to
a point on which we find him pretty plainly expressing his sentiments in other
places, and in which Justin Martyr coincides with him ; namely, that before
Christ's advent philosophy was the way to eternal life, and that, therefore, no
doubt can be entertained of the Grecian sages having obtained salvation. In
his Stromal, lib. i. cap. vii. p. 337. lib. vi. cap. viii. p. 773. he says, that philosophy
was divinely communicated to the Greeks as a special testament or covenant,
and that it in fact constitutes the basis of that doctrine which the world has
since received from Christ: TJiv S'i (piKoo-cpixv xai /uaxxov 'Exxyto-iv ciov (T/aS-iiJtxv
ouiiAV avrols ^i^oa-d-Aiy Cro^^d-^ov so-cly tm? *jitu X^itov ptKoa-opiaS. In saying this,
however, he means it to be understood that the prince of darkness, whom he
terms the inveterate cultivator of tares, had plentifully disseminated his noxious
weeds in the philosophy of Greece as well as in that of the barbarous nations.
In the same book vi. Stromal, cap. xvii. p. 822. et seq. he urges many things in
favour of the dignity and excellence of philosophy, amongst which the following
passage is particularly worthy of remark : 'E/kot^j Zv "ia^ctiais f^tv vo/xos, "Ekkvc-i St
fixoa-optx f^i^Pi TMs Trae^a^iag, ivriud-tv Si m KkY\(rtc « }ta3-oA/x» 'us m^ty^nv Sl}tdt.i<i(rvvni
XAov Kara t«v U 'arig-iat S'lS'cKniAkiai : merito ergo Judccis quidem lex, Grcccis
auicm data est philosophia usque ad advenlum (of Christ :) ex eo autem tempore
universalis est vocatio ad peculiarem populum justitice per earn qua:, est ex fide
doctrinam (the Christian religion.) The sense, then, entertained by Clement of
philosophy, is very clearly to be perceived. Previously to the coming of Christ,
philosophy had, according to his opinion, been the same thing to the Greeks
that the law of Moses was to the Hebrews, Both of them were originally
derived from God, who, however, in the communication of them to mortals,
availed himself of the ministration of angels. Both of them pointed out the
road to salvation ; the former to the Greeks, the latter to the Jews. Neither
the one nor the other system of discipline could pretend to absolute perfection,
nor did either of them preserve itself free from the adulteration of human opi-
nions. In process of time, therefore, it pleased the Deity to impart to the whole
human race a more perfect wisdom, through Jesus Christ. Neither the law of
the Jews, nor the philosophy of the Greeks, however, is to be considered as
thereby abolished, but as in part perfected, and in part disencumbered of va-
rious faulty particulars, the offspring of mere human refinement and conceit.
To any one entertaining an opinion like this, it must of necessity appear that
the leading principles of Christianity are so to be understood and interpreted as
to make them accord with the maxims and precepts of the best and wisest of the
Grecian sages. — It will readily then, I think, be granted by every one who shall
duly consider the constancy with which the prefects of the school of Alexandria,
from the time of Pantajnus, persisted in recommending and inculcating the
study of philosophy, that to this school and its masters is chiefly to be ascribed
that love of philosophic speculation to which the primitive Christians were evi-
JJtiUty of Philosophy Disputed. 343
dently str.infrers, but wliicli towards the close of tliis century began to diffuse
itself gradually throughout the whole church, and insensibly to supplant thtit
holy simplicity which characterized Christianity during tlie first age. For further
information respecting this celebrated school at Alexandria, which, whether it
was productive of most benefit or detriment to the Christian cause, would, I be-
lieve, be found hard to determine, the reader may consult the Aniiqui- [p. 276.]
tales Academical of Herm. Conringius, p. 29. ; a particular dissertation on the sub-
ject, by Andr. Schmidius, prefixed by Andr. Ilyperius to this book de Catechesi;
a work written in Italian, by Aulisius, Delle Scuole Sacrc, lib. ii. cap. i. ii. p. 5-17.
and cap. xxi. p. 92; The History of Catechisms, in German, by Langemackius,
P. I. p. 86. 122. et seq. as well as other works.
(3) Clement of Alexandria, who certainly holds the first place amongst the
patrons of philosophy, supplies us with this definition of it; {Stromal, lib. i. cap.
vii. p. 338. edit. Potterian.) ^tKoa-o^Uv Si i thv Iraiicyiv Xiyo), iSt t«v nxaTajv/XMV, n
Twv 'ET;xtfgsisv T£, Kal 'A§/s-ot«X<x«v, u.KK' otTU. iig^Tat Trap iKUTH TioV aipca-iuv tuto))'
K'JiKCis, (i'lKaica-vvny fAira iua-iCSi «/r/S"»)(W«f ix.S'iSucrx.ovra tSto a-'tjUTTav to ikXiktikov
TTOTi B-ilsi. tiTToif/.'av. Philosophiam autem dico non Sloicam, nee PJatonicam, aut
Epicuream el Aristotelicam, sed qucecumque ah his sectis recte dicta sunt, qua:
docent justitiam cum pia scientia, hoc iotum selectum dico philosophiam: cetera
autem quai ex humanis ratiocinationibus pra.secla adulteraverunt, ea nunquam
divina dixerim. Now all this, without question, appears to be well and wisely
said, and perfectly accords with what is laid down respecting the nature of phi-
losophy by Justin Martyr, in his Dial, cum Trtjphone, p. 6. et seq. But the truth
is, that every one who will be at the pains to turn over the writings of Clement
himself, as well as those of his very celebrated disciple Origen, and of Justin,
must very readily perceive that many things were regarded by them as perfect-
ly consentaneous to right reason and the spirit of Christianity which are, in fact,
not to be reconciled with either. Notwithstanding all the desire which these
good men evince to persuade us that they entertained a partiality for no parti-
cular sect, t'ley were certainly attached to the Eclectics, a sect that flourished
formerly in Egypt, and considered everything as indisputable which had received
the sanction of that sect. Of this not a doubt can remain with any one who
will take the trouble to compare Clement and Origen with Philo Juda^us, one
equally a disciple of the Eclectic school. This sect of the Eclectics, of which
a particular account is given by Ja. Brucker in his Historia Philosophiam crilica,
although it culled something from every sect, was yet wont to give the prefe-
rence or chief authority in everything relating to the Deity, the human race, and
this nether world, to Plato, than whom, it was supposed, none had retained
more of the original and genuine philosophy of human nature.
XXVI. Contentions amongst the Christians with rcsjard to philo-
sophy. The rise, however, of this taste for philosophical specula-
tion, and the ascendancy which they perceived it gradually ac-
quiring in the minds of so many of their teachers, became a source
of the most poignant regret to all such as continued steadfastly
344 Century I L— Section 26.
attached to that ancient and simple species of piety which had
been delivered down by the Apostles and their disciples ; inas-
much as they saw reason to fear that the cause of celestial truth
[p. 277.] might be thereby materially injured, as in reality proved
to be the case, and that divine wisdom would not long retain
cither its proper value or dignity in the estimation of mankind.
In consequence of this the Christian church became divided into
two parties, which opposed each other with the utmost warmth ;
the one regarding every species of human learning, and more
particularly philosophy, with detestation and contempt, and en-
joining the brethren to maintain the faith in all its genuine sim-
plicity; the other contending for the utility and excellence of
philosophic disquisition, and encouraging the teachers of the
church to occupy themselves in demonstrating the accordance of
religion with the principles of right reason.(') The issue of this
dispute, which lasted for a considerable while, at length was,
that victory declared itself in favour of the patrons of philosophy,
and that those teachers came to be most respected who, in unfold-
ing the doctrines of religion, called in the aid of philosophical
principles and precepts.
(1) Respecting the contention between the adversaries and friends of phi-
losophy, abundant testimonies are to be adduced, both of this and the succeed-
ing century. Amongst those of the age now under review, there is extant in
Eusebius, Hislor. Eccles. lib, v. cap. xxviii. p. 197. a remarkable passage of an
unknown author, who had written a book in opposition to the errors of Arte-
mon, and who inveighs severely against the Artemonites for neglecting the
study of the Holy Scriptures, and devoting themselves to the cultivation of
philosophy and the Aristotelian logic, endeavouring to find support for their
errors respecting Christ in the arts and discipline of unbelievers, arlibus ac
discipUnis infideliam^ (so Valesius translates the words nws tmv diriToiv rUvais)^
and finally studying to obscure and deprave the simple religion of the New
Testament, by encumbering it with the subtle refinements of vain and impious
men, rH rwv d5-iwv 'za-avu^yia (that is, as we may gather from what he before says,
the rules and precepts of the Aristotelian logic). In this passage there are two
things that present themselves as chiefly deserving of remark. The first is,
that the men who are therein reprehended, were accustomed to scrutinize sucli
passages of scripture as were urged against them, by the very nicest logical
test: a practice which this writer hesitates not to pronounce impious and
intolerable. Kuv alroh n^oniv)! tU firdv y^apvii B-itKVis, c^ird^ya-i iron^ov
rvvn/n/uevov n J'li^ivyfAcpov J'vvarai rotii<rai a-^y\fAa crvWoyiTfAS. Quod si quis
aliquem divmt scriplunc locum eis ohjecerk, examinant, ulrum connexum an dis-
iuncLum syllogismi genus ex eo confici possit. The other thing that particularly
Uiility of Pliilosojilnj Disputed. 345
offers itself to observation in tlie passage we allude to is, that the class of men
whose opinions and practices it combats were much devoted to the s'udy of
geometry, and apjilied to Cln-istian theology that mode of teaching and demon-
strating which is peculiar to geometrici;ms: xaraXi'TroiTss /« raj hyiai t3 3-8? ^^u-
pas, ytu)f^6T^lav i.iriTiiS'tvya-iv, wj av ix, rSf ^iij SvTti x.ai ex. r>'f ").«£ XaX^vrej. Itciiclis
atque ahjeciis sacris Dei scripiuj'is, geometrico student, quippe qui terrestres sint
ei loquaniur terrena. — 'F.i/xXliiTxf y^v Tragi titiv dvruv ^iXottovwc yiuiy-trfiiTai.
Euclidis igitur ge.ometria apud nonnullos eorum studiose excolitur. There i?,
therefore, nothing done at present for which a precedent is not to be found in
former times. When wo find the culture of philosophy, of logic, and geometry,
placed by this man amongst the crimes of heretics, it is jjretly j)lain in [p. 278.]
wliat degree of repute these studies were held by the generality of Cin-islians
in those days.
Many very distinct vestiges of this dispute respecting the value of philosophy
and its use in theology, are to be met with in the writings of Clement of Alex-
andria, who, moreover, sometimes takes occasion to censure with sufficient
acrimony those who portended great detriment to the cause of Ciu-istianity from
the introduction of philosophy into the church, and called upon all the sincere
professors of Christianity to revert to the ancient simplicity of the apostles. To
those who read him, it will be obvious that the things which are agitated with
so much eagerness in the present day, engrossed equally the attention of for-
mer ages, and that the contention between faith and reason, by which the world
has been disturbed so greatly of late, is by no means a matter of recent origin.
In the very outset of the work, to which he gives the title of Slrojnata, we find
him undertaking the defence of philosophy. The opponents of philosophy he,
in lib. i. cap. i. p. 326, divides into two classes : the first consisting of the more
moderate ones, or those who contended merely that philosophy was of no use.
" I am no stranger," says he, " to vvhat is urged by some, whose ignorance leads
them to see danger in every thing, namely, that our attention ought to be ex-
clusively directed to things of the first necessity, and on which we may build
our faith, and not be sufiered to occupy itself in foreign and fruitless studies,
such as busy and detain the mind without conducting it to any certain end."
The other class was composed of those who were more vehement in their oppo-
sition to philosophy, contending that it was not merely useless but pernicious,
and the invention of the parent of evil. "Others, however," he proceeds,
" carry their hostility so far as to rank philosophy with the greatest of evils,
and consider it as invented for the ruin of mankind by some malignant adver-
sary," irgdi Tivoi iv^iTi TovH^s, that is, as he himself explains the expression
in another place, " the devil." — To the former of these he artfully replies, cap.
ii. p. 327 : (I.) If the inutility of philosophy were even as certain as you pre-
tend, still it is a thing botii useful and necessary that its vanity and emptiness
should be demonstrated, and as this cannot be done without a knowledge of its
principles, we have, even here, an argument that the study of philosophy is not
without its use ; ei nai ll^^n^oi cm (fn\o(ro'pia, ci tu^^tiros « r«f d^^Mrias fitCaioxrisy
ti;;t5«roc. That I have assigned to these words their true sense is, I think,
placed out of all doubt by what follows. Proceeding with his reply he observes
346 Century 11. — Section 26.
(11.) Tliat even if pliilosophy, when regarded apart by itself, was of no use
whatever, and contributed notliing towards aiding the Christian in the attain-
ment of his grand object, yet still an acquaintance with it must be highly orna-
mental to the character of a Christian teacher, and by giving him a certain dig-
nity and authority in the eyes of his auditors, must enable him, with the greater
ease, to make an impression on the minds of those who were hostile to the
cause of religion. — With the other class, who considered philosophy as per-
nicious, and nothing better than an invention of the devil himself, lie disputes
at much length, and, as we are bound to confess, neither unskilfully nor idly.
We shall merely give the substance of a few of his arguments. (I.) In the
first place, then, he contends that philosophy is not calculated to draw men
away from faith or piety, as its adversaries affirmed, but w%is rather to be looked
upon as the safeguard of religion, inasmuch as it supplied men with a fuller de-
monstration of faith, a-vyyvfj.va(Tiav riva ri^eoK: dnohiKrix.h- (II.) That from
a collation or comparison together of such of the principles of philosophy
[p. 279.] and Christianity as were inconsistent with or opposed to each other,
the truth was rendered more apparent, and our stock of knowledge consequent-
ly much improved; than which nothing could be more desirable or important.
(III.) That our conviction of mind must necessarily be strengthened and con-
firmed by our acquiring that more accurate knowledge of religion which was to
be obtained through the assistance of philosophy ; ^iCaiov ^aju^avovTuv Tru^iua
rvs dX»-3-«j xaraXvi4«wj. And here, by the bye, I must observe, that I
cannot help wishing for a new translation of Clement by some one well skilled
in the Greek language. The old one by Hervetus fiiils, in many places, to give
us the sense of the original, and in others expresses it in a very obscure man.
ner. (IV.) That a knowledge of philosophy was requisite in order to* repel
and put to silence the enemies of the Christian faith, cap. iii. p. 325, since it
was the practice of some of these to make sport of the truth, and represent it aa
replete with barbarism ; to i^a^Ca^ov iv iraiS'iia riri/uivoi : whilst others were
accustomed to attack the Christians with various little teazing subtilties and
jests, which, although founded in fallacy, were yet conceived with too much art
to be exposed and refuted without some degree of skill. That we ought to
provide ourselves, therefore, with philosophy, as a kind of defensive armour for
repelling the weapons of sophistr3^ Cap. v. p. 331. — From these arguments we
may pretty well collect the motives by which the Christian teachers of the
second century were led to cultivate philosophy. There was one inducement,
however, of which Clement takes no notice, but which I cannot help consider-
ing as having been a very principal one. The Christian teachers were well
aware of what essential benefit it would be in promoting their cause, not only
with the multitude, but also amongst men of the higher orders, could the phi-
losophers, whose authority and estimation with the world was unbounded, b©
brought to embrace Christianity. With a view, therefore, of accomplishing tiiis
desirable object, they not only adopted the study of philosophy themselves, but
became loud in their recommendation of it to others, declaring that the differ-
ence between Christianity and philosophy was but trifling, and consisted merely
in the former being of a nature somewhat more perfect than the latter. And it
Utility of Pliilosoi^hy Disptited. 347
is most certain that this kind of conduct was so fiir productive of the desired
effect, as to cause not a few of the philosophers to enrol themselves under the
Christian banner. Those wiio have perused the various works written by such
of the ancient philosophers as had been induced to embrace Christianity, cannot
have failed to remark, that the Christian discipline \\-as regarded by all of them
in no other liglit than as a certain mode of philosophising.
But to return to Clement, in other places, Slromat. lib. i. cap. xvii., xviii. p.
366, we find him adverting to a third opinion entertained by many Christiana
respecting philosophy, and which holds, as it were, a middle station between
the two already noticed. This opinion was, that philosophy had been surrep-
titiously brought down from heaven, and communicated to mankind by those
angels whom, according to the ancients, a love of pleasure had induced to rebel
against God, and take to themselves wives from amongst the daughters of men.
'Evtoi (Tg S'uvdfxtis Ttvas CvrodCuKoias c/unrvfvTai tjiv iraTav fiXoo-ofiav viTii\)\^a(r tv.
NonnuUi autem (whom he distinguishes from those who maintain that the devil
himself was the author of philosophy) universa?n philosophiam quaadam futesta'
les e coelo delapsas inspirasse cxistimant. To this opinion many of that age sub-
scribed ; amongst whom we find that Ilermias, who was the author of a tract
that has reached our days under the title of Irrisio Philosophic^^ and is com-
monly annexed to Tatian. In the exordium of his little work this writer says',
J'oxsi yag fxoi rnv d^X^^ {(f)i\o<ro1>iav) ti\>i(pivai dird rMj tuv ^Ayye'Xcjv dnoTaTiat.
Videtur mihi (philosophia) ab angelorum defectione principium repe.'iisse. In proof
of this he adduces the strifes and contentions of philosophers. Indeed [p. 280.]
Clement himself appears not entirely to dissent from tiiis opinion. Vid. Siromat.
lib. V. p. 650. Those who thought thus respecting the origin of philosophy,
could not, of course, altogether reject and condemn it, but amongst them there
were not wanting some, however, who deemed it sinful for men to avail them-
selves of what had reached them thus surreptitiously, and through so polluted a
channel. To these Clement replies, that it was indeed a very heinous crime in
the fallen angels to be guilty of this theft, but that, notwithstanding the cir-
cumstance of its having been stolen, the excellence and value of the thing i;self
had been neither sullied nor diminished. Various other arguments, by which
Clement defends the cause of philosophy, and combats those of the Christians
who would fain have arrested its progress, are to be met with in his Stromaia.
Great pains are particularly taken by him in refuting such as maintained that
philosophy was invented by the evil one, for the purpose of deceiving the human
race and leading them astray from the truth ; from whence we may infer, that
this opinion was more generally received, and had taken deeper root than the
rest in the minds of the multitude. To what I have above noticed I shall
merely add what he urges in reply to those, who were accustomed to cast in the
teeth of the advocates of philosophy the words of St. Paul in Col. ii. 8, ad-
monishing the Christians to beware of being spoiled through philosophy. In
the opinion of Clement, Siromai. lib. vi. cap. viii. p. 771, 799. St. Paul is to be
considered as addressing himself in this place to the more perfect Christians, or,
as he terms them, those " who had attained the very heights of Gnostic intelli-
gence, 'tov Si TJ yyojriitS fj-iraXauQavovTa u^-^Jj" iind that what lie meant
348 Century IL— Section 27.
was to caution such Christians against reverting to the philosophy of the
Grcelvs, inasmuch as this species of philosophy was merely a ivind of elemen-
tary learning, ro«;t^"^'* cTtcTas-xaXra, comprehending nothing more than the first
rudiments of wisdom, a want of which could well be dispensed with in Chris-
tians, who had arrived at the highest degree of divine information. But all this
is evidently strained, and in direct opposition to the obvious and natural sense
conveyed by the words of St. Paul.
XXYII. The school of AmmoniusSaccas. That particular scheme
or mode of philosophising, which was adopted at the first by the
pricfects of the school of Alexandria, and a few others, did not
indeed maintain its ground for any great length of time, but was
by degrees considerably departed from : the spirit of philosophis-
ing, however, so far from experiencing any decline or abatement,
continued to increase and diffuse itself more and more, particu-
larly towards the close of this century, when a new sect sprung
up at Alexandria under the title of "The Modern Platonists."
The founder of this sect was Ammonius Saccas, a man of a sub-
tile penetrating genius, but prone to deviate, in many things, from
right reason, and too much inclined to indulge in ridiculous flights
of imagination.(^) In addition to a multitude of others who flocked
to this man for instruction, his lectures were constantly attended
by a great number of Christians, who were inflamed with an
eager desire after knowledge, and of whom two, namely, Origen
and Heraclas, became afterwards very distinguished characters,
the former succeeding to the presidency of the school, the latter
to that of the church of Alexandria. (^) By the Christian disciples
of Ammonius, and more particularly b}'' Origen, v/ho in the suc-
[p. 281.] ceeding century attained to a degree of eminence scarce-
ly credible, the doctrines which they had derived from their mas-
ter were sedulously instilled into the minds of the youth with
whose education they were entrusted, and by the efforts of these
again, who were subsequently, for the most part, called to the
ministry, the love of philosophy became pretty generally diffused
throughout a considerable portion of the church.
(1) Particular celebrity attaches itself, both in sacred and literary history,
to the name of Ammonius Saccas, a philosopher of the Alexandrian school,
from whom proceeded those philosophical fanatics, the " Modern Platonists,^*
who, from the third century to the sixth, lorded it with despotic sway over
every other sect throughout nearly the whole of the Roman empire. That the
life and actions of a man capable of effecting so great a change in the aspect
School of Aynmonius Saccas. 349
of Christianity as well as philosophy, should bo, for the most part, so com-
pletely involved in obscurity as to defy elucidation, is certainly much to be re-
gretted ; since, could we obtain a more accurate knowledge as to these, it
would, no doubt, enable us, with much greater readiness, to account for many
opinions and customs that sprung up amongst the Christians subsequently to
his time. Whatever could be obtained on the subject from ancient authors,
hath been diligently collected together and illustrated, with his usual ability, by
J. Brucker, Histor. Crilic. Philosoph. tom. ii. p. 205, et scq. who has also en-
tered at much length into the history of the sect of which Ammonius was tho
founder. The reader may also consult Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Bibliolh. Gncc. lib.
iv. cap. xxvi. p. 159. — Respecting the religion of Ammonius, in particular, there
is considerable doubt. Porphyry, who had had the opportunity of hearing
Plotinus, one of the principal disciples of Ammonius, says, (apud Euseb. Jlis-
tor. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. xix. p. 220.) that he was born of Christian parents, but
that, on arriving at man's estate, he went over to Paganism.- Euschius, how-
ever, contradicts Porpliyry, and asserts that Ammonias continued stedf;vst in
the Christian laith to the end of his life. This discordance in the testimony of
Eusebius and Porphyry, as to the religion in which Ammonius ended his days,
has occasioned much difference of opinion among men of erudition, some giv-
ing credit to the former, others to the latter. Those who hold with Porphyry
have certainly arguments of considerable weight on their side, and feeling sen-
sibly their force, I was some time since induced to express my conviction of
the apostacy of Ammonius from Christianity. To pass over other things, who,
let me ask, can easily persuade himself that the sect of the modern Platonists,
than whom scarcely any set of men ever occasioned greater evils and calamities
to the Christians, could possibly have been founded by a man who was actu-
ally himself a Christian ? The testimony of Eusebius, as to this matter, is not
of the slightest weight ; for it is evident that he was misled by the name, and
confounded the philosopher Ammonius with a Christian writer whose name
was similar. The Ammonius to whom Eusebius alludes had, he tells us, writ-
ten a variety of things : Ammonius the philosopher, we know for certain, never
published any thing. — On a full review, however, of the merits of this contro-
versy, I feel inclined to believe that Ammonius, although, for the most part, an
apostate in heart, and thoroughly averse from the princi[)les entertained by the
Christians in general, yet never openly seceded from the church, but [p. 282.]
disguised the real nature and tendency of his discipline. Learned men will see
whether there be any weight in the reasons by which I have been led to this
conjecture. (I.) When Ammonius first opened a school at Alexandria, and for
a long time afterwards, he was undoubtedly, in the true sense of the word, a
Christian. For many years Origen, Ileraclas, and various others of the Chris-
tian youth, who had been captivated by a love of philosophy, sat uniler his
tuition. But the teachers of the Alexandrian church would surely never iiavo
permitted these young men to select for their master a perfidious renegade.
Apostates of this description were regarded in the light of impious pests ; and
the most positive injunctions w-cre given for no one to hold converse with
them. This one observation alone is sufficient to detract much from the autho-
350 Century Il.—Section 27.
rity of Porphj^ry's testimony respecting the defection of Ammonius ; for, ac-
cording to that, Ammonius, as soon as he was of an age to think for himself,
and to comprehend the first rudiments of philosophy, renounced the profession
of Christianity ; which is notoriously false. (II.) There was no necessity for
Ammonius to secede from the Christian church. So fiir from entertaining any
thing like an enmity to Christ, he held him in veneration as a person of a di-
vine character and a teacher of celestial wisdom. What he took exception to,
was the interpretation given by Cln*istians to the maxims and precepts of the
gospel. It was, therefore, very possible for him to continue amongst the Chris-
tians, and to join with them in paying every homage to Christ, but at the same
time to assume the liberty of privately expounding the religion of the gospel ac*
cording to the sense in which he had been led to view it himself. But it may,
perhaps, be objected to me, that Ammonius, although he entertained a venera-
tion for Christ, yet held it proper to worship the heathen deities, a thing alto-
gether incompatible with Christian principles, and that, in the performance of
this worship, therefore, he must necessarily have separated himself from the
church : but this difficulty is, I think, easy to be gotten rid of by any one ac-
quainted with what the Ammonian discipline actually was. What Ammonius
enjoined was, not that these gods should be worshipped, but that they should
not be treated with contempt; not that the worship of them was necessary, but
that it was justifiable, decent, allowable. By the multitude, whose ruling pas-
sion is an eager appetite for bodily and sensual gratification, it was but fitting,
according to the principles of the Ammonian sect, that these gods should have
every sort of homage paid them, inasmuch as they were constituted by the su-
preme deity the guardians and dispensers of all those good things which minis-
ter to the delight of the senses ; but no necessity whatever could exist for their
being either invoked or worshipped by a wise man and a philosopher, whose
object was the purifying of his soul, and keeping it, by means of meditation, as
far as possible removed from every influence of the body. The gratifications
of sense not entering into the views of the latter, he might of course, they held,
omit cultivating the favour of those from whom such gratifications are to be
sought, and should confine his adoration to the parent of souls alone, the Su-
preme Being. (III.) The disciples of Ammonius, as Porphyry declares in Vita
Plotini. c. iii. agreed amongst themselves, in conformity, no doubt, to an in-
junction of their preceptor, that they would not make commonly known the
more abstruse and recondite doctrines of their master, from which resolution,
however, they afterwards thought proper to recede. Ammonius himself also
ever declined committing his opinions to writing, and would communicate them
only by word of mouth, lest it might occasion him disturbance. But in none
of his principles or maxims tliat have been divulged by his disciples, is there
any, even the minutest thing that could possibly excite against him any ill-
will, or bring him into any sort of danger amongst the heathen worshippers.
[p. 283.] It appears, therefore, most likely that his motive for concealing the
leading principles of his doctrine, was a fear of the light in which they would
have been regarded by the Christians, amongst whom he had been born and
passed the greater part of his life ; for had they once been able to discover the
Philosophy of Ammonius. 351
true nature and tendency of his doctrine, not a doubt can exist but that his ex-
communication would iiave followed as a matter of course. (IV.) The circum-
stance of its being positively denied by Eusebius, and, after him, by Jerome,
Calal. Scriptor. Ecclcs. cap. Iv. tiiat Ammonius ever deserted Christianity, al-
though in regard to this they may not be strictly correct, is yet an argument
that iiis apostacy was a thing utterly unknown to these most experienced Chris-
tian writers, and not only to them but to the whole Christian world. But how,
let me ask, could the public defection of so great a man and philosopher, if it
had ever occurred, have failed to make a noise in the world, or altogether have
escaped recollection ?
(2) Origen, in an epistle preserved by Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. vi. cnp.
xix. p. 221. says that Heraclas, at the time of his becoming acquainted with
him, had been nearly five years under the instruction of a certain professor of
philosophy. The name of this instructor he does not mention : but since he
himself was taught philosophy by Ammonius, there can be no doubt but that
it was to this professor he alluded. The probability is, that even at that time,
the credit of Ammonius was much on the decline in Egypt, and that on that
account Origen studiously avoided naming him, lest the discovery of who had
been his master, might supply his adversaries with the means of exciting a still
greater degree of animosity towards him.
XXVIII. The philosophy of Ammonius. TllC flivourite object
with Ammonius, as appears from the disputations and writings of
his disciples, was that of not only bringing about a reconciliation
between all the different philosophical sects, Greeks as well as bar-
barians, (') but also of producing a harmony of all religions, even
of Christianity and heathenism, and prevailing on all the wise and
good men of every nation to lay aside their contentions and quar-
rels, and unite together as one large family, the children of one
common mother. With a view to the accomplishment of this end, '
therefore he maintained, that divine wisdom had been first brought
to light and nurtured amongst the people of the east by Hermes
Trismegistus, Zoroaster, and other great and sacred characters ;(")
that it was warmly espoused and cherished by Pythagoras and
Plato amongst the Greeks ;(') from whom, although the other Gre-
cian sages might appear to have dissented, yet that, with nothing
more than the exercise of an ordinary degi'ee of judgment and
attention, it was very possible to make this discordance entirely
vanish, and show that the only points on Avhich these eminent
characters disagreed were but of trifling moment, and that it wa^
chiefly in their manner of expressing their sentiments that they
varied.(*) The religion of the multitude, he also contended, went
hand in hand with philosophy, and with her had shared the
352 Century II.— Section 28.
[p. 284.] fate of being by degrees corrupted and obscured with
mere human conceits, superstition, and lies: that it ought there-
fore to be brought back to its original purity, by purging it of
this dross, and expounding it upon philosophical principles : and
that the whole, which Christ had in view by coming into the world,
^as — to reinstate and restore to its primitive integrity, the wisdom
of the ancients, — to reduce within bounds the universally prevail-
ing dominion of superstiton, — and in part to correct, and in part
to exterminate, the various errors that had found their way into
the different popular religions. This great design of bringing
about an union of all sects and religions, the offspring of a mind
certainly not destitute of genius, but distracted by fanaticism,
and scarcely at all under the dominion of reason, required, in or-
der to its execution, not only that the most strained and unprin-
cipled interjDretations should be given to ancient sentiments, max-
ims, documents, and narratives, but also that the assistance of
frauds and fallacies should be called in : hence we find the works
which the disciples of Ammonius left behind them abounding in
things of this kind; so much so indeed, that it is impossible for
them ever to be viewed in any other liglic than as deplorable
monuments of wisdom run mad.
(1) The sentiments of the sect, as to this, are clearly expressed by the em-
peror Julian, than whom it could never boast of a more illustrious member,
Oratione VI. contra Cynicos, opp. p. 184. Edit. Spanhemian. Minfus »»< Ji/wTi/ Hv
fc\o^ofiav tis voWa ^iai^ciTO)y f^n^i lis xoWii Tif^viro. fxaXkov (Tt y.h TToWag Ik, fxtac
roiiirui. 'P-O-TTi^ >ag aXiWS-s/st y.ii, aTatTg Kai ipiXoTofia. Quoclvca pMlosophiam nohis
plures in partes nemo dixidat : vel poiius plures ex una non facial. Ut enim Veritas
una est ; itd et philosophia. But, observes the emperor, it may be objected, in the
first place, that there are a multitude of different sects. These sects, however, he
replies, are merely different modes of coming at the truth, and ought to be
considered in no other light than as different routes by which men may travel
towards the same place. For as those who design to go to Athens, are by no
means restricted to one particular road, but are at liberty to adopt different
courses by sea as well as by land ; so they who are in quest of the truth may
pursue different modes of arriving at it. Blit it may be objected, secondly,
he remarks, that, of those w^ho have adopted these different modes, many have
wandered out of the way and lost themselves. His answer is, that this is very
true ; but let any one only be at the pains of ascertaining the courses chalked
out by the respective parents or founders of these sects, and he will find them
all consistent and tending to the same end, TT^aTtys-avTac Si h tmskos-)) tuv di^cnciv
cK^TTttro X.UI 7ravr:L iv^i<rii o-ufA^aivA. Uniuf^ cujusque sectcc principe.s aspiciat ille, et
quam sint omnia conssntanea cognoscet. This was the very principle adopted by
Philosophj of Ammonius, 353
Ammonius, whose wish it was to bring all the good and wise of all nations
under one and the same rule and discipline. The followers of Aristotle and of
Plato, said he, may indeed dilFer and fall out, as may also the pholosophers of
Greece and the barbarous nations ; but let any one go bacii to the first origin
of the different sects, and he will find them all consentaneous.
(2) It is plain, from the writings of Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicms, Damascius.,
and others of the Ammonian school, whose works have come down [p. 285.]
to our times in sutlicient number, that this sect referred the origin of all wis-
dom to the east, and were ever fond of citing as authorities tiie writings of
Hermes, the oracles of Zoroaster, the verses of Orpheus, and I know not what
other relics of the ancient pliilosophcrs of Egypt and the east. Nor do I think
it by any means an improbable conjecture of some of the learned, that the
writings of Hermes now extant, as well as the magic oracles, which are for the
most part attributed to Zoroaster, were in fact the productions of the more re-
cent Platonic school. Of the very great partiality entertained by this sect for
the ancient philosophy of the Assyrians and Egyptians, whicli they contended
was in every respect consentaneous to their own system of discipline, tiiere is,
amongst others, a notable testimony extant in the well-known work of Jambli-
cus de Mysteriis JEgyptiorum; the author of which in lib. i. cap. i. ii. unequivo-
cally intimates that Pythagoras and Plato sought their philosophy from Egypt;
and, to use his very words, antiquas Merciirii columnas lectitanles philosophiam
inde consiituisse. The same author, as is observed by Gale in his annotations,
p. 184. although he makes Hermes the parent of all wisdom, yet, in no very ob-
scure terms, admits that, even before his time, the Chaldeans had been in the
habit of philosophising. That Ammonius liimself not only instilled into the
minds of his followers a veneration for this barbarous philosophy, as it was
termed, but also placed the fountain of all wisdom in Upper Asia, in Chaldca,
Persia, and India, is plain from what has been handed down to us by Porphyry
in his Life of that eminent disciple of the Ammonian school, Plotinus, cap. iii.
p. 96, 97. edit. Fabrician, vol. iv. Bibliolh Grccc. For he states him to have at-
tained to such a degree of proficiency, under Ammonius, that he even came to
the determination of further prosecuting his studies amongst the magi of Per-
sia and India, and intended to have gone thither with the army of the emperor
Gordion; Iwe^ax riH 'AfAy.a>vi(f> mtga.fjt.cvov'VdLy Toa-avrnv 'i^tv Iv fiKca-cipU tcT^a-oLiT^aiy
fe)S x.at THj Tragi roli He^Tan eTnrnS'iVo/nivn;, iril^av \aCiiv irvv(rai kui roli irof IveTo/j
Karo^^-a/ucviii. Sudulus audixit (for eleven years) Ammonium, iantumque in phi-
losophia profecit, ut pliilosophicc insuper in qua Perscc se exercehant facere periculum
affectaveril, atque etiam sapieniiam precpiue apud Indus prohatam prosequi consii-
tuerit. Plotinus could certainly never have imbibed this anxious desire to ac-
quaint himself with the maxims and tenets of the Persians and Indians, had he
not heard his master extol them and declare that philosophy had been commu-
nicated to Egypt from the east. Hence too it was, that when those degenerate
Christians, who are distinguished by the title of Gnostics, brought forward what
they termed the oracles and writings of Zoroaster, Zostrian, and others of the
eastern magi, with a view of proving that their own principles were strictly in uni-
son with the ancient philosophy of the east, Plotinus, Porphyry, and others of the
23
354 Century Il.—Section 29.
Ammonian school, immcdhitcly made it their business to destroy the credibility
of these writings, by showing that they were not the productions of those illus.
trious characters to whom they were ascribed, as the reader will find related at
length by Porphyry in his Life of Ploi'mus. cap. xvi. p. 118, 119. For, unques-
tionably, these latter would never have troubled themselves to do this, had they
[p. 286.] not earnestly wished to have it generally believed that their own doc-
trine was the same with that wisdom which Zoroaster and otiier philosophers
of the east had drawn from above, and communicated to mankind.
(3) Ammonius was evidently desirous of being thought a Platonist, and the
title of Platonists was the denomination assumed by the whole body of his dis-
ciples, as the reader may find proved from the testimony of ancient writers, by
Bruckcr in his History of Philosophy^ and by myself, in my dissertation de Ec-
clesia per recenliores Platonicos lurhata. It may, indeed, at first appear some-
what strange that men who imagined Plato to have learnt his philosophy from
the Egyptians, and the Egyptians themselves to have been indebted for their
discipline to the people of the east, should have chosen to denominate them-
selves after the Grecian philosopher. Why not term themselves the disciples
of Hermes, or Zoroaster, whom they reverenced as the very parents of philo-
sophy ? Our wonder, however, must cease when it is considered that Ammo-
nius was of Grecian origin, that his auditors were Greeks, and that it was,
moreover, the object of his disciples to acquire credit and obtain for themselves
a reputation amongst the Greeks. From the Egyptians they, of course, had
nothing to expect, inasmuch as these were always accustomed to look for in-
structions to the priests and wise men of their own nation, not to Greeks : but
the Greeks, attached beyond measure to every thing of their own, held, as is
well known, the philosophy of what they termed barbarous nations, in the most
sovereign contempt. It being a primary object, then, with Ammonius and his
dis.iples to conciliate the favour of the Greeks, tiicy were under the necessity
of selecting for a patron some one or other of those whom the Greeks regarded
as philosophers ; and amongst these they could find none whom they could
adopt as such with greater propriety and convenience than Plato.
(4) Tiie scheme thus entertained by Ammonius, of doing away all dissen-
sions amongst philosophers, and making it appear that all the ancient sects, par-
ticularly the Platonic and the Aristotelian, were agreed as to everything of mo-
ment, is distinctly unfolded by that illustrious disciple of the Ammonian school,
Ilierocles : (Lib. de Faio apud Phot. Dihlloth. cod. ccxiv. and cod. cccli. p. 283.
and 730.) and whatever writings we have extant of any of his followers, con-
cur in placing this matter out of all controversy.
XXIX. The theoretical or speculative philosophy of Ammonius.
But to descend more into particulars. Ammonius in the first
place adopted the ancient and generally received principles of the
Egyptians respecting the Deity, the world, the soul, providence,
the power of daemons, and the like. Agreeably, for instance, to
what we well know to have been the doctrine maintained by the
Philosophy of Ammonius. 355
Egyptian philosopliers of old, lie contended that every tiling was
a constituent part of one great wliole:(') that the Deity could be
severed from this universe only in imagination, or, which is the
same thing, that this world had flowed from all eternity from the
Deity : which is, in fact, assigning to the world an existence of
equal duration with that of the Deity, although of a different
kind; that all minds were equal in point of nature, but of very
different degrees; that they were all, without exception, the off-
spring of the divine essence, and had, therefore, formerly all par-
taken of a state of bliss in the regions above : that most minds of
the inferior order, being stimulated by a desire to enjoy [p. 287.]
those pleasures which were to be derived to the senses from an
alliance with matter, had descended into terrestrial bodies :(^) that
every man, therefore, in addition to a sensitive and mutable soul
derived from the soul of the universe, possesses, inclosed within
his mortal frame, a mind unchangeable and nearly related to the
Deity himself; and that hence it is the duty of a wise man to as-
cend in spirit to the parent of all things, and to strive by every
means in his power to hold communion Avith him. From minds
of the higher order, or, as they were termed, da3mons, ^le Deity
had, he asserted, given to the different nations of the earth super-
intendents and guardians, and to the different departments of na-
ture governors and directors. Certain of these, distinguished
beyond the rest for their virtue and power, he considered as pre-
siding over the sun, the moon, the planets, and the other stars ;
whilst of the remainder, to whom was entrusted the care of infe-
rior and terrene things, many were actuated by vicious propen-
sities ; and some were so completely destitute of every virtuous
and dignified principle, as even to rejoice over others' ills, and
burn, as it were, with the lust of doing harm. His next care was
to incorporate these principles with the Platonic discipline, a task
of but little labour, inasmuch as, with the exception of but a few
things, the tenets of Ammonius and those of the Athenian sage,
were not distinguished from each other by any very material
shades of difference. (^) In the last place he exerted every possi-
ble ingenuity and address in giving to the dogmas of the remain-
ing sects, nay even to the fables of the ancient poets, and the
history of the heathen deities, that kind of interpretation which
made them appear in perfect unison with his system ; and when-
356
Century 11. — Section 29.
ever lie met witli any thing in cither of these that could by no
means be brought to harmonise therewith, he rejected it as total-
ly unfounded in reason.(*)
(1) That the whole system of the Amraonian philosophy was built on that
discipline which was professed by the Egyptian priests, and w-hich they made
it their boast to have derived from Hermes^ is to be proved, as well from a
variety of other things, as in particular from this, that the very same dogma on
wJiich all the wisdom of the Egyptians rested for support, constituted also the
leading principle of the Ammonian school, from whence all its other maxims
and tenets took their rise, viz. thai all things are from God, all things are in
God, and all things are one ; God and the universe constitute one whole, nor can
they he separated except in imagination. Those who are conversant in the anti-
quities of Egypt, well know that this dogma comprehends the whole of the
secret wisdom of that nation. The reader will find this treated of at much
length by the author of that discourse de Natura Deorum, which is attributed
to Hermes Trismegistus, and which, from its being generally thought to have
been translated into Latin by Apuleius, is commonly printed amongst the
works of this latter author. He will find also the other principles which we
have here enumerated, there adverted to. See moreover Euseb. Preparat.
[p. 288.] Evangel, lib. iii. cap. ix. as also what is remarked by Cudw^orth in his
Intellectual System, tom. i. p. 404. et seq. And that this same leading principle
was most warmly espoused by Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius, Jamblicus, and
the w^hole herd of the Modern Platonists, is beyond a doubt ; for what other
than this do they say, when they assert the world to be coupled with God, and
from all eternity to have emanated from God? Only let us attend to the
prayer of Plotinus, the most fiamous of the disciples of Ammonius, offered up
when he was dying, as recorded by his scholar Porphyry, in the history of his
life, cap. ii. p. 94. MeWojv Si re'Xitirav tnrujv oti ffi 'in iri^ifxivo} Kai $i^craf
vtJiSo-^ai Tov ev «(m7v ^iov dvdynv rgo? to iv rw izavrl ^^^ov. Qinim vcro
morii appropinquaret adhuc te, inquii, expecto, atque equidem jam an-
nitor, quod in nobis divinum est ad divinun ipsum quod xiget in universo redigere.
(2) Hence we may account for what Porphyry says of Plotinus' appearing
to be, as it were, ashamed of the connection of his soul with the body ; Id^nti
fxiv dia-^uvo/uivio ort iv <rco/naTi tin, pudorc quodam affici videbatur, quod anima
ejus in corpore esset. Vit. Plotin. cap. i. p. 91. where observe what Fabricius has
remarked on this passage.
(3) The discipline of Plato differs in many respects from the wisdom of the
Egyptians ; in not a few things, how^ever, the congruity between them is abso-
lute and perfect. To incorporate the one with the other, therefore, could not
be a work of much labour. Respecting that dogma which we have seen to be,
as it were, the chief and corner-stone of the Egyptian and Ammonian philosophy,
namely, that of the Deity and this universe constituting one great whole, there
is no sort of accordance whatever between the system of Plato and that of the
Egyptians. For Plato, as is proved beyond all controversy by his TinueuSy
although he maintained that the matter of this world is eternal, yet drew a dis-
Philosophy of Ammomus. 357
tinction between it and God, and conceived that if was with the assent and by
tlie will of the Deity that it had at some period been digested and reduced into
form. In the hope, therefore, of being able to do away this discrepance between
the Egyptian and Platonic systems of discipline, the followers of Ammonias
have exerted their abilities to the utmost, and have turned and twisted the
Timimis of Plato in every possible way, with a view to conceal its repugnance
to their own tenets respecting the eternity of the world. But with all their
pains they have done nothing, except it be to prove that with them the ancient
dogmas of the Egyptians possessed more weight, and were held in greater
esteem than the authority of Plato. As a fair specimen of the whole, we refer
the reader to the commentary of Proclus on the Timccus of Plato.
(4) This attempt to unite the principles of every other sect and religion
with those of the Egyptians, is the grand feature that distinguishes this new
philosophy from the Eclectic system, which flourished at Alexandria prior to
the time of Ammonius. The Eclectics sought out and adopted from every sect
all such things as appeared to them to make any near approach to the truth,
and rejected what they considered as having little or no foundation in reason ;
but Ammonius, conceiving that not only the philosophers of Greece, but also
all those of the different barbarous nations, were perfectly in unison with each
other, with regard to every essential point, made it his business so to temper and
expound the tenets of all these various sects, as to make it appear that they had
all of them originated from one and the same source, and all tended to one and
the same end.
XXX. The moral philosophy of Ammonius. With this [p. 289.]
system of theoretical or speculative philosophy, which its author,
a man of powerful talents, defended with no little portion of sub-
tilty and address, was conjoined a course of moral discipline in
the highest degree rigid and austere. On such people indeed, as
were necessarily involved in the cares and concerns of this life,
Ammonius did not impose precepts of much difficulty in the ob-
servance, but suffered them to live agreeably to the laws of na-
ture and those of their country ; but every one who laid claim to
the character of a wise man, was strictly enjoined by him to assert
the liberty of his divine and immortal part, by extricating it, as
it were, from all connection with the body ; the consequence of
which would be, that it would, even in this life, enjoy a commu-
nion with the Deity ; and when death should disencumber it of
every gross and corporeal tie, escape free and unpolluted into the
arms of the first great parent of all things. With this view, he
willed all such to lead a life resembling that to which Plato gives
the denomination of Orphic ;{') to abstain from wine, flesh, and
every kind of food which might tend to invigorate or refresh the
358 Century II. — Section 30.
body ; to decline marriage, to court solitude, to abstract tbe mind
from the senses and call it off from visible objects, to strive by
means of contemplation to subdue tlie impulses and powers of
the sensitive soul ; in fine, to shrink from no exertion that might
tend to free the immortal spirit from all corporeal influence, and
restore it to a participation of the divine nature.Q These obli-
gations, to which, according to the Ammonian scheme, every
wise man was subject, its author, as was natural for one that had
been born and educated and constantly lived amongst Christains,
was accustomed to expound and recommend in a language and
phraseology evidently borrowed from the Christian discipline, a
practice of which many very striking instances also occur in such
of the writings of his followers as are extant among us at this
day.(^) In addition to this rigid system of discipline, the offspring
of the peculiar tenets entertained by him respecting God and the
human soul, Ammonius propounded to his followers an art fraught
with less important benefits, and suited only to capacities of a
refined and an exalted nature, which he termed Theurgia^ and
for which there can be no doubt but that he was indebted to
the Egyptian priests. This art embraced the faculty of so con-
secrating and purifying, by certain secret rites, that part of the
mind or soul which receives the images of corporeal things, as to
render it capable of perceiving daemons, and also of holding an
intercourse with spirits or angels, and of performing, with their
assistance, things admirable in themselves, and utterly beyond
the powers of human nature alone to accomplish. This species
of magic was not cultivated by all the philosophers of the Mo-
dern Platonic school, but only by those of the higher order, who
aspired to a sort of superiority over the rest. In fact, an ac-
quaintance with it was considered rather as ornamental than
useful, and as by no means necessary in attaining to the chief
good.O
[p. 290.] (1) Plato in lib. vi. de Legihus, p. 626. ed. Ficin. in treating of
mankind during the primseval ages, observes, amongst other things, 2ag«w»
J'"d7r6(';;^:.vTo. 'flf «;:^^ ocT/jv ox \(r^iiiV) v cT* T«j Ttiy S-ewK (iufAui ai/uATt fAtaivtty. d\Kh
'OgpiKOt TivU \iy6fxivoi 0101 iyiyvovTo vfxuiV tc/c tots, d^i/;^^^ fAv cX^(J.tvoi TraVTCivy
e/u^-j^o}!/ ^i ryvavTiov Travrwv ai:t)(ifA.ivoi. Camibus VETO ahstmebant. Nam vesci
carnibns ei Deorum aras polluere sanguine impium xidehatur. lla Orphica qua-
deem viia tunc vigehaL Inanlmaiis quippe omnibus vescebantur el ab animatis
omnibus abslinebani.
Philoso^jhj of Ammonius. 359
(2) More in the way of illu^tnition, as to what we have here stated, is to bo
gathered from Porphyry alone, in his work n-j^l d7ro;^Mf, or conccrninir absti-
nence from flesh, than from all the rest of the Ammonian sect of his time piii
together. For, although he abounds in subtilty, lie yet surpasses, in point of per-
spicuity, every other of the Modern Platonists, and treats not only of abstinence,
but likewise of those other duties which he considered as attaching themselves to
the character of a wise man. Vid. lib. i. \ xxvii. et scq. p. 22-34.
(3) It has been observed long since, by men of learning, that the writings
of the Modern Platonists, such as Hierocles on the golden verses of Pythagoras,
Simplicius, Jamblieus, and others, are replete with Christian phrases and ex-
pressions ; and their conclusion has been, that these things were pilfered out of
the sacred writings, and thus applied by the followers of Ammonius, from an
anxious desire to recommend their discipline by rendering it apparently con-
sistent with the doctrines of Christianity. With regard to this, the reader may
consult a dissertation of mine, de Studio Eihikorum Christianas imitandi, which
is to be found amongst my other dissertations relating to ecclesiastical history.
But there is certainly no occasion for our imputing to those men anything like
a wicked or fraudulent intention. For who, let me ask, can feel any considera-
ble degree of surprise at finding a system of philosophy which originated with
a man like Ammonius, apparently a Christian, unfolded with a certain colouring
of Christianity, and explained in terms of common use amongst Christians ?
The sacred writings of the Christians must have been familiar to Ammonius,
even from his tender years, and his ears must have been well accustomed to
their peculiar forms of speech. Besides, it is certain, that either with an artful
view, or from a downright error in judgment, he encouraged the opinion that
there was no difference whatever, at least none of any moment, between the
system of discipline which he himself sought to establish as tlie true one, and
that which had been propounded by Christ. Wherefore he made no scruple,
when discoursing on the necessity of purifying the soul, and bringing it back to
God, or in defining the nature of true virtue, to make use of Christian terms
and phrases, and whatever things of this kind came from his mouth were, no
doubt, treasured up with a sort of reverence by his disciples, and soon commu-
nicated throughout the whole sect.
(4) The ridiculous and empty species of science so celebrated amongst the
Modern Platonists under the name of Theurgia, bore a very near resemblance
to that kind of magic which was termed good or lawful, in opposition to the
black or illicit magic, and was, indisputably, of Egyptian origin. Nothing in-
deed could be more easy than for the Egyptians, who believed that the universe
was filled with good and evil dcemons, to fall into the error of imagining that
there was an art, by means of which the good will of these daemons might bo
obtained. The nature of this science is sufliciently explained by Augustine de
Cuitate Dei, lib. x. cap. ix. p. 187. tom. vii. opp. Theurgiam, says he, Porphy-
rins utilem esse dicit muiidandcc parti animcc, non quidem intellectuali, qua rerum
intelUgibilium percipitur Veritas nullas hahentium simililudines corporiim, [p. 291.]
sed spiritali, qua corporalium rerum capiunlur imagines. Hanc enim dicit per
quasdam consecrationes Theurgicas, quas teletas vacant, idoneamjicri atque aptam
360 Century II. — Section 31.
susceptioni smrituum et angelorum et ad videndos Deos. The rational soul de-
rived no benefit whatever from this science, and it v^as, therefore, very possible
for any one to be liappy and blessed without understanding anything of it;
hence we may perceive the reason of its not being cultivated by the whole body
of the Platonists. Ex quibus iamen, continues Augustine, Thenrgicis ieletis
fatetur intellectuali anima: nihil purgationis accedere, quod earn faciat idoneam ad
videndum Deum suum, perspicienda ea quae vere sunt (viz. ra iivra).
Denique animam raiionalem in supema posse dicit evadere, etiamsi quod ejus
spiritale est, nulla Theurgica arte fuerit purgaium : porro autem a TJieurgo
spiritalem purgari hacienus, ut non ex hoc ad immortalitaiem, ccternilaiemque
perveniai. These few sentences certainly offer a long and extensive field for
comment in the way of illustration; at present, however, I shall study to be
brief. According to the Modern Platonists man is possessed of a two-fold soul ;
the one rational and generated of the Deity, the other sensitive and capable of
being impressed with the images of mundane things, and derived from the soul
of the corporeal world. The former of a nature imperishable and immortal, the
latter extinguishable and of merely finite durotion. Each, during its continu-
ance in the body, is inert, aud devoid of light, but may, to a certain degree, be
illuminated, quickened and refined. The means by which the rational soul may
be gradually purified and illuminated, are contemplation, the practice of virtue,
constant exercitation, abstinence, and extenuation of the body. When properly
purified, it is capable, without the assistance of eyes, of seeing the Deity him-
self, and all those things which have a true and real existence, and becomes
united with God by the closest and most indissoluble of ties. The sensitive
soul is purified by means of certain natural remedies well known to those who
are proficients in the science termed Theurgia; for being generated of matter,
by matter alone can it be effected, even as corrupt bodies are to be amended by
contrivance and art, with the assistance of such powers as are contained in herbs,
precious stones, and various other things. Being thus cleansed of its impuri-
ties, this kind of soul becomes capable of perceiving daemons and angels, and
of maintaining a familiar intercourse with them. Nor is this at all to be won-
dered at; for the daemons, according to the Ammonian scheme, are clothed with
bodies of a slender and refined texture, which are invisible to mankind whilst
the senses remain in a dull, corrupt state, but become apparent and visible
when once those things are removed, by which the faculties are clogged and
rendered inert. For the same reason the celestial and rational soul, notwith-
standing that it may have been purified from all contagion of the body and the
senses, and entirely cleansed from everything vicious and corrupt, can never
arrive at any knowledge of, or intercourse with daemons. For it possesses not
the faculty of perceiving sensible things, and is therefore incapable of discern-
ing such natures as are joined to bodies, although those bodies may be of a sub-
tile and refined order, but erecting itself above everything corporeal, it arrives
by inexplicable means at a knowledge and intimate connection with its first
great parent.
[p. 292.] XXXI. The sentiments of Ammonius respecting the dif-
Philosophy of Ammonius. 3G1
ferent popular religions. In order tliat tlie different popular reli-
gions by wliieli a plurality of Gods was recognized, might not
appear repugnant to his doctrine, Ammonius endeavoured to re-
duce the whole history of the heathen deities, as it had been
handed down by the poets and inculcated by the priests, to some-
what of a rational system, and contended that it was altogether
an allegorical exhibition of either natural or moral precepts and
maxims.(') Conformably to the Christian faith, he maintained
that there was one God, from whom all things had proceeded.
The host of beings whom the multitude and the heathen priest-
hood commonly honoured with the name of gods, he would not
allow to be actually gods, but merely the ministers of God, or
daamons, to whom the supreme governor of the universe had
committed the superintendence and guardianship of nations, or
the direction of certain parts of nature, or finally the adminis-
tration and guidance of human affairs and actions.(') To these
agents of Divine Providence he thought it reasonable that a cer-
tain sort of honour and worship should be paid : just as amongst
men a certain degree of attention and respect is shown to the le-
gates of kings and inferior magistrates ; but he by no means
deemed it necessary that they should be addressed with the same
ceremonies that were used in worshipping the Deity, much less
that they should be conciliated or appeased with sacrifices and
the blood of animals. According to him, none but natures that
were inimical to the human race, and that delighted in sensuality,
could find any gratification in the death and blood of animals.
The offerings in which such natures as resembled and were al-
lied to the Supreme Deity took pleasure, were frankincense,
hymns, herbs, and things altogether innoxious. It was no other
than fitting, he conceived, that prayers should be addressed to
these agents of the Deity, inasmuch as to them was committed
the dispensation of God's benefits and blessings ; but that pray-
ers of this kind were to be regulated by reason and wisdom, since
the good things that were placed at the disposal of these da3mons
were those which concerned merely the welfixre of the body, not
such as might benefit the celestial and immortal spirit. It became,
therefore, a wise man, he held, whose main object ought to be to
improve the excellence and felicity of his mind, for the most
part to pass by these inferior deities, and prefer his petitions at
once to the Supreme Being.
362 Century II. — Section 32.
(1) The whole Ammonian school was devoted to allegory, and converted
the history of tiie heathen gods into a sort of philosophy. As a specimen, we
refer the reader to Porphyrins de Anlro Nympharum apiid Homer, de Slyge, and
others of his smaller pieces.
(2) Panlus Orosius, Ilisioriar. lib. vi. cap. i. p. 364, 365. Quidam dum in
mullis Deum credunt, mulLos Deos indiscreto timore finxerunt. Sed hinc jam vel
maxime, cum auctoritate veritatis (that is, the Christian religion) operante, turn
ipsa eiiam ratione discuiienie, discessum est. Quippe cum et philosophi eorum
[p. 293.] dum intento mentis studio quccrunt, scruianturque omnia^
unum Deum auctorcm omnium repererunt, ad quem unum omnia referrentur;
wide eiiam nunc pagani, quos jam declarata Veritas (i. e. the Christian religion)
de contumacia magis, quam de ignorantia, convincit, cum a nobis discuiiuniury
von se plures Deos sequi, sed sub uno Deo magno plures ministros xenerari
fatentur.
XXXII. The tenets of Ammonius respecting Christ. With a view
to render Christianity apparently consistent with his new philoso-
phy and the ancient religion, Ammonius admitted that Christ was
a great and wise character, full of the counsel and power of the
Deity, an admirable Theurgist^ and a friend to the daemons : that
the discipline which he had instituted was of a most holy nature,
and had been confirmed by miracles and preternatural signs : but
he denied that Christ had ever taught anything repugnant to the
principles which he himself sought to establish, or that he had
endeavoured to abolish the ancient popular religious rites, and
the worship of the doBmons that had been appointed by the Deity
to preside over nations and the different departments of nature. (')
And that he might the more readily procure for this part of his
system an acceptance with the world, he endeavoured, as far as
possible, by means of strained interpretations, or rather perver-
sions, to enlist on his side the tenets of the Christians respecting
the Deity, the human soul, the world, the trinity of persons in
the Godhead, good and bad angels, and the like, as well as their
different maxims and precepts relating to piety and morals.('*)
Such points of the Christian doctrine as it surpassed his inge-
nuity to render by any means subservient to his purpose, he pro-
nounced to be unauthorised additions that had been made to the
system of Christ, by ignorant and injudicious disciples. The
principal articles to which he thus took exception as interpola-
tions, were those which respected the divinity of Christ, the sal-
vation obtained through him for the human race, the abandoning
the worship of a plurality of gods, and adoring the one only Su-
Ammonius^ Idea of Christ. 363
preme Being. ISTonc of these points, he contended, had ever been
inculcated by Christ himself, nor had he forbidden the paying
of an honorary worship to all daamons indiscriminately, but only
to such as were of an evil nature. When in the folloAving ago
this matter was brought into dispute, and the miracles of our
Blessed Saviour were urged by the Christians, in proof both of
his divinity and also of his having meant to explode the worship
of da3mons, the philosophers of the Ammonian school maintain-
ed that several of the more eminent of the Pagan worshippers,
such as Apollonius Tyanosus, Pythagoras, Euclid, Apulcius,
and others, had immortalized their names by miracles equally
great and splendid with those which had been wrought by
Christ.C)
(1) The reader will understand me as not meaning to deny that amongst [p. 294.]
those who adopted the Ammonian discipline, there were some that were alike
inimical to Christ and to the Christians. We have an illustrious instance ot
this in the emperor Julian, and other examples might easily be adduced from
amongst the Platonists of that age. For the hatred which these persons bore
to Christ and his followers, particular reasons might be assigned, which those
who are versed in matters of antiquity will be at no loss in discovering: but
that Ammonius himself considered Christ as entitled to the highest honour, and
that his true followers, although they were the authors of most grievous inju-
ries to the Chrivstians, yet manifest a respect and esteem for the character of
Christ himself, is placed beyond a doubt by a variety of testimonies. Propriety
could not allow that a man who made it his object to bring about an union of
all sects and religions, and maintained that Christ had come for the express
purpose of reinstating the true and most ancient philosophy and religion of the
human race, siiould either think or speak otherwise than honourably of this
same (/hrist. Neither is it at all probable that the veneration for Christ, which
he had imbibed, as it were, with his mother's milk, could easily have been re-
nounced by a man who, in departing from the true and right faitli, appears to
have been influenced, not so much by a depraved and vicious disposition, as by
too great a partiality for the Egyptian philosophy and the ardour of an exube-
rant imagination. The reader will probably not be displeased at my adducing
some passages from ancient authors in support of what I have thus advanced.
Augustine enters much into dispute with those philosophers of his time who
professed a respect and veneration for Christ, but maintained that tiic Christians
had not adhered to the principles of their master. Lib i. de Consensu Eiange-
listarum, torn. iii. P. II. opp. cap. vi. § xi. p. 5. Ilocdicunt, says he, illi vel maxime
Pagani, qui Dominum ipsum Jesiim Christum culparc aut blasphemare mm au^
dent, eique tribuunt excellen'.issiman sapientiam, sed tamen tanquam homim: disci-
pulos vero ejus, dicunt, magist.ro suo amplius trihuisse quam erat, ul eiim Tilim.i
Dei dicerent, et Verhum Dei per quod facta sunt omnia, et ipsum ac Dcum patre-in
364 Century Il.Section 32.
unum esse : ac si qua similia sunt in apostolicis Uteris, quibus eum cum Patre
unum Deum colemlum esse didicimus : honorandum enim tamquam sapientissimum
virum puiani ; colemlum autem tumquam Deum negant. Some little while after,
6 14. cap. viii. p. 6. he gives us to understand what opinion they entertained re-
specting Christ's miracles, namely, that he was a Theurgist or magician of the
first rank, and that he left behind him two books, comprising the principles of the
Theurgic or magic art. Ila vero isii desipiunt, ut illis libris, quos eum (Christ)
scripsisse exisiimant, dicant contineri eas aries, quibus eum putant illafecisse mira-
cula quorum fama ubique percrebuit : quod existimando se ipsos produnt quid dill'
gant et quid affectant. Augustine adds that possibly books of this kind might
have been written by some one under the name of Christ. Amidst much other
matter it is expressly intimated by Augustine, that this reverence for Christ had
been handed down to the philosophers of his time by the Platonists, and parti-
cularly by that illustrious star of the Ammonian school. Porphyry. Cap. xv. p. 8.
[p. 295.] Quid? Quod isti vani Chrisii laudatores et Chrisliancc religionis obliqui
obtrectatores propterea non audent blasphemare Christum, quia quidam philosophi
eorum, sicut in libris suis Poi'phyrius Siculus prodidit, consuluerunt deos suos quid
de Christo responderenl, illi autem oraculis suis Christum laudare compulsi sunt.
Ac per hoc isti, ne contra deorum suorum responsa conentur, continent bias*
phemias a Christo, et eas in discipulos ejus effundunt. Concerning those oracles
by which the heathen deities are said to have extolled the character of our
Blessed Saviour, Augustine treats more at large in lib. xix. de Civitate Dei, cap.
xxiii. p. 428. et seq. tom. vii. opp. from Porphyry's work de Philosophia ex Ora-
culis. Amongst other things he remarks, Dicit etiam bona philosophus iste dc
Christo. Denique tanquam mirabile aliquid atque incredibile prolaturuSy
prccter opinionem, inquit, profecto quibusdam videatur esse quod dicturi sumus ;
Christum enim dii piissimum pronuntiaverunt et immorlalem factum, et cum bona
prcedicatione ejus meminerunt : Cliristianos vero pollutos inquit, et contaminatos et
err ore implicatos esse dicunt, et muUis talibus adversus eos blasphemiis utuntur.
The oracle itself, of which the sense is thus given by Porphyry, I purposely
omit. A Latin translation of it is to be found in Augustine, but it is not a clear
one. Eusebius gives it in Greek from the above-cited work of Porphyry in his
Demonsiralio Evangel, lib. iii. cap. viii. p. 1 34. Another oracle, bearing in like man-
ner honourable testimony to the character of Christ, namely, one delivered by the
Milesian Apollo, Ls to be met with in Lactantius Insiitut. Divinar. lib. iv. cap.
xiii. p. 446. Augustine conceives that these oracles were either the inventions
of the enemies of Christianity, or that they were delivered by daemons for the
purpose of seducing the Christians from the true religion. Quis ita stultus est
ut non intelligat aut ah homine callido eoque Chrislianis inimicissimo hctc oracula
fuisse conjicla, aut consiUo simili ah impuris dccmonibus istafuisse responsa; ut
scilicet quoniam laudant Christurn propterea veraciter credantur xiluperare Chris-
tianos ; atque ita, si possini, iniercludant viam salutis ccterncc, in qua jit quisque
Chrislianus. To this opinion of Augustine, that these oracles were the inven-
tions of the enemies of the Christians, I very readily subscribe. The philoso-
phers, the adversaries of the Christians, as Augustine expressly states in the
former-cited passage, consulted the heathen deities respecting the character of
Ammonius' Idea of Christ. 365
Christ ; and the priests of tliosc deities, without doubt, returned an answer con-
formably tc what they knew to be the opinion of the persons thus consulting
them. But it strikes me, that these philosophers were influenced by a ditlerent
motive in procuring these oracles from that which suggested itself to Augustine.
In fact, they had learnt from Ammonius, the founder of their sect, that Christ
was a character of the first eminence, and worthy of the highest praise ; and
this opinion they scrupled not openly to profess. To the numerous enemies of
the Christian religion, however, their conduct in this respect was highly oflen-
sive, and particularly to the heathen priesthood, who were apprehensive that the
praises thus bestowed on Christ might injure the cause of Paganism, and would
rather have had Christ blended with the Christians in one indiscrimi- [p. 296.]
na±e censure and malediction. The Platonic philosophers, therefore, with a
view to remove from themselves every sort of odium on this account, and to
prove that the opinion which they maintained respecting Christ was one that
might be justified, made inquiry of the gods as to what was to be thought of
Christ's character: and having obtained an answer, such as they desired, no
further room was left for cavil, inasmuch, as by producing the oracles, they could
at any time prove to demonstration that the opinion of the gods was on their
Bide. And who should pretend to call men in question for maintaining opinions
that had received the sanction of the gods ?
Let us now see what other sentiments Augustine states to have been enter-
tained by these philosophers respecting Christ and the Christians. They de-
nied that it had been Christ's intention to abrogate the worship of the heathen
deities. Verunlamen, says he, de Consens. Evangelislar. lib. i. cap. xvi. p. 8. isti
iia disputant, quod hccc eversio iemplorum, et damnatio sacrijiciormn, et con/radio
simulacrorum non per doctrinam Christifiat, sed per discipulorum ejus, quos aliud
quam ah illo didicerunt, docuisse contendunt ; ita volentes Christianam fidem^
Christum honoranies laudantesque, convellere. On the contrary, they maintained
that Christ himself paid an honorary worship to these deities, and that it was by
their, or in other words, the daemons' assistance he wrought his miracles, 1. c.
cap. xxxvi. p. 18. Ita enim voliint et ipsum credi, nescio quid aliud scripsisse,
quod diligunt, nihilque sensisse contra deos suos, sed eos potius magico ritu colu-
isse ; et discipulos ejus non solum de illofuisse mentitos, dicendo ilium Deum, per
quern facta sunt omnia, cum aliud nihil quam homofuerit, quamvis excellentissimcc
sapientice ; verum etiam de diis eorum non hoc docuisse quod ah illo didicissent.
They were ready, however, to admit that Christ had abolished the worship of
certain daemons of the inferior order, and had enjoined men to address them-
selves to the deities of heaven alone, and more particularly to the Supremo
Govei-nor of all things. That such was their opinion, Augustine proves by a
notable passage from Porphyry, of which he gives us the following translation
into Latin, in his work de Civitate Dei, lib. xix. cap. xxiii. \ iv. p. 430. torn. vii.
opp. Sunt (the reader will recollect that it is Porphyry who is speaking)
spiritus terreni minimi loco quodam malorum dwmonum potestati suhjecti. Ah his
sapientes Hehrccorum quorum unus isle etiam Jesus fuit ; ah his ergo Hehrcci dcc-
monihus pessimis et minorihus spiritihus vetahant religiosos et ipsis vacare prohihe^
banl : venerari autem magis ccelestes deos, amplius autem venerari Deum patrem.
366 Century II. — Section 32.
Hoc aniem et dii prcccipiunt, el. in superior ibus ostejidimiis, quemadmodum animum
cdiertere ad Dcum monent, et ilium colere uhiqiie impcrant. Verum indocti et
impicc naturcc (i. e. the Christians) quibus xere falum non concessit a diis dona
obtinere, neque habere Jovis immortalis notionem, non audienies et deos (i. e. those
oracles whieli he had antecedently adduced) et divinos viros, (Ammonius, whom,
it appears from the testimony of Hieroclcs apud Phot. Biblioth. p. 283. they
were accustomed to style ^ioS'tS'ax.TOi, Plotinus' whom, in like manner, they
termed d-doi, and others who had been taught by these,) deos quidem omnes re-
[p. 297.1 cusaurunt, prohibiLos aniem dcjcmones, et hos non odisse sed reiereri,
Deum aiilem simulantes colere, ea sola per qua:. Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam
Deus quidem utpoie omnium pialer nullius indiget (i. e. he delights not in sacri-
fices and victims), sed nobis est bene cum eum per justiiiam et castitatem aliasque
virtutes adoramus, ipsam vitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitaiionem et in-
quisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, (by inquisitio he here means con-
templation, meditation, and the abstraction of the mind from the senses ; a mind
to which this hind of discipline had become familiar, was considered by the
Modern Platonists as in the highest degree purified and cleansed,) imilatio dei-
ficat affeciionem ad ipsum operando. He (Porphyry) had said a little before,
Anima (of Christ) aliis animabus fataliter dedit errore implicari. Propterea ergo
diis exosi ipse vero (Christ) pius et in ccelum sicut pii concessit. Itaque
hunc quidem non blasphemabis, misereberis autem hominum dementiam, ex eo in
eis facile prcccepsque pcriculum. What we hear from Porphyry, that illustrious
enemy of the Christians, we may consider ourselves as hearing from Ammo-
nius himself, and his principal disciple, Plotinus. For, as it is certain that what
Plotinus taught, he had derived from Ammonius, so may we be sure, that for
whatever is to be gathered from Porphyry, he himself was indebted to Plotinus.
(2) That the Modern or Ammonian Platonists made it theh- object, in a cer-
tain degree, to reconcile the maxims of the Egyptian and ancient Platonic phi-
losophy with those of Christianity, must be plain to any one who shall consider
the way in which Plotinus expresses his opinion respecting the existence of
three principles or chief hypostases in one God ; the manner in which all the
philosophers of this sect speak concerning da3mons and spirits, their tenets re-
specting the nature of God and the human soul, and the opinions tliey avowed
respecting the world and its origin. Most assuredly nothing can be more ap-
parent than that all these things are so treated of and explained by them, as to
make it appear that little or no difference existed between their system of dis-
cipline and Christianity. They borrow from the Christians distinctions, words,
phrases, and whatever else they can, and accommodate them all to their own
way of thinking. Indeed so dexterous were they at this, that we find them, ac-
cording as it might best suit their purpose, at one time corrupting and debasing
the Christian tenets in order to make them accord with their own opinions,
whilst at another they, on the contrary, correct and amend their ( wn principles
80 as to make thera coincide with the maxims of Christianity. Hence it came
to pass that the greater part of these Platonists, upon comparing the Christian
religion with the system of Ammonius, were led to imagine that nothing could be
more easy than a transition from the one to the other, and, to the great detriment
Biblical Interpretation. 367
of the Christian cause, were induced to embrace Christianity without feeling it
necessary to abandon scarcely any of their former principles. A memorable pas-
sage as to this occurs in Augustine's book, dc Vera RcUgione, cap. iv. ^ vii. p.
559. torn. i. opp. llaquc si hauc xilam illi liri nobiscum rursus agere poiuissent^
viderenl profedo, ciijiis auctoritale faciUus consulercLur hominibus, et paucis mulO'
lis verbis ct scntentiis Chrisliani Jierent, sicut plcrique rcccnliurum nostrorumque
temporum Platonici feccrunt. See also his epistle to Dioscorus,ep. Ixviii. [p. 298.]
\ xxi. &L xxxiii. p. 255. 260. torn. ii. opp.
(3) It appears clearly to have been the general practice of the Platonists of
the third and fourth centuries, to compare our Blessed Saviour with Apollonius
Tyanaius, Pythagoras, and other philosophers who were renowned for their
miracles; and that Philostratus wrote the lite of Apollonius, Porphyry and
lamblicus that of Pythagoras, and other authors, most likely, those of other
wise men, expressly with a view to show that amongst the worshippers of the
heathen deities, there had been men distinguished for acts of a similar nature
with those by which Christ had rendered himself illustrious. That such was
their object, the reader will find fully proved by Gothofred Olearius, in his notes
on Philostratus, and by L. Kuster in his annotations on lamblicus and Porphy-
ry's life of Pythagoras. Those who undertook the idle and absurd task of mak-
ing this comparison, found it necessary to detract much from the honour that
is due to the Saviour of the world, but they did not make it their aim to de-
prive his character of every sort of dignity and glory. Their object was merely to
bring him down to a level with those whom they deemed to have been the wisest
and best of mortals, and who bore an affinity to the immortal gods. The only
things, therefore, for which they contended in this way, were these two : First,
that the miracles of Christ do not afford any absolute or positive proof of his
divinity, as the Christians maintained ; inasmuch as it could be shown, that men,
having no pretensions to the rank of deities, had performed things of a similarly
wonderful nature; Secondly, that Christ could never have meant altogether to
overturn and abolish the worship of demons, (i. e. the heathen deities,) or the
ancient popular religions, since the most religious of the heathen worshippers
had distinguished themselves by miracles, even as he. These very Lives, there-
fore, of the ancient philosophers, and the comparisons therein drawn between
them and Christ, most plainly prove that the sect of Amtnonians or that of the
Modern Platonists held the character of Christ in very great honour, although
they vilified and would willingly have altogether extirpated tiic Christians.
XXXIII. Forced interpretation of the Scriptures. When once
this passion for philosophising had taken possession of the minds
of the Egyptian teachers and certain others, and had been gra-
dually diffused by them in various directions throughout the
church, the holy and beautiful simplicity of early times very
quickly disappeared, and was followed by a most remarkable and
disastrous alteration in nearly the whole system of Christian dis-
cipline. This very important and deeply to be regretted change
368 Ccnturij II. — Section 3a.
had its commencement in the century now under review, but it
will be in the succeeding one that we shall have to mark its chief
progress. One of the earliest evils that flowed from this immo-
derate attachment to philosophy, was the violence to which it
gave rise in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. For,
whereas, the Christians had, from a very early period, imbibed
the notion that under the words, laws, and facts, recorded in the
sacred volume, there is a latent sense concealed, an opinion
which they appear to have derived from the Jews,(^) no sooner
did this passion for philosophising take possession of their minds,
than they began with Avonderful subtilty to press the Scriptures
[p. 299.] into their service, in support of all such principles and
maxims as appeared to them consonant to reason ; and at the
same time most wretchedly to pervert and twist every part of
those divine oracles which opposed itself to their philosophical
tenets or notions. The greatest proficients in this pernicious
practice were those Egyptian teachers who first directed the at-
tention of the Christians towards philosophy, namely, Pantcenus
and Clement. Their expositions of the Scriptures have not
reached our days, but it appears from such of the writings of
Clement as are at present extant, that he and Pantsenus are not
to be considered as having struck out an absolutely original path
in this respect, for that in reality they were merely followers of
the celebrated Alexandrian Jew, Philo^ whose writings they as-
siduously studied, and whose empty wisdom they were unhap-
pily led to admire and to imitate. (^)
(1) In tlie writings of fathers, even of this century, express notice is occa-
sionally taken of those four senses of Scripture to which the Christian exposi-
tors were for so many ages accustomed to direct the attention of their readers,
namely, the literal^ the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical. The
first three of these are noticed by Justin Martyr, {Dial, cum Tryplwne, p. 333.
edit. Jebbian.) who, after making some remarks as to the sense attached to the
words of the sacred volume, adds, kuj yae^ iv ira^aQoX^ Vi^ov noWa^S KaXliv dn-e-
J'si^a Tov Xgirdv x.al iv T^oiro\oyia 'loxwC nai "icr^anX. Nam per parobolam, (that to
which Justin here applies the term Parable, is,.by subsequent Christian writers,
denominated Allegory, or the allegorical sense,) ilium (i. e. Isaiah) persccpe
Christum vocare lapidem ostendi, ei tropologice Jacohum et Israelem. Of the
anagogical sense, as they term it, whereby the scriptural accounts of things
appertaining to this life are applied to spiritual and heavenly matters, many ex-
amples are to be met with likewise in Justin, and also in Clement. That the
early Christians derived this practice of annexing to the words of Scripture se-
Biblical Interpretation. 369
veral different senses, from the Jews, no one, at present, appears in tlie least
to dcubt. It is, moreover, to be remarked, that, although Justin, Irena;us, and
the other fatiiers of this century, whose writings have come down to our times,
are continually obtruding on us mystical and allegorical interpretations of the
Scriptures, yet not one of them who dwelt without the confines of Egypt ever
attempts, by means of ingenuity, to elicit from the sacred writings any of the
dogmas or maxims of philosophy. By all of them the W(»rds of Scripture are
made to refer to Christ and to heavenly things alone, although in a manner not
altogether the most happy or judicious. This appears to me not a little extraor-
dinary, and particularly in Justin Martyr, who certainly considered philosophy
as of divine origin.
(2) Nearly all those corruptions, by which, in the second and subsequent
centuries, Christianity was disfigured, and its pristine simplicity and innocence
almost wholly effaced, had their origin in Egypt, and were thence communi-
cated to the other churches. This province also gave birth to the dis- [p. 300.]
commendable practice of glossing over philosophical opinions with the words
of Scripture, or rather of straining scriptural phrases and expressions in sup-
port of such maxims as might appear to be dictated by reason. The first Chris-
tians who made this art their study were Pantccnus and Cleinent, successively
prefects of the catechetical school of Alexandria; men of unquestionable worth
and piety, but immoderately devoted to what they deemed the true philosophy.
It appears from St. Jerome, Catal. Scriptor. Eccl. cap. xxxvi. that many com-
mentaries on the Holy Scriptures by Pantccnus were formerly extant ; but they
have all long since fallen victims to the ravages of time. The manner, how-
ever, in which he expounded the sacred writings, may be collected from the
works that are extant of his disciple and successor, Clement of Alexandria.
One of his rules of interpretation, in particular, is preserved by Clement in his
Eclogcc ex Scripturis Prophetarum, subjoined to his works, { Ivi. p. 1002. edit.
Potterian. Pantaenus, it there appears, laid it dowm as a maxim, that the pro-
phets, in what they uttered, spake for the most part indefinitely, using the pre-
sent tense, at one and the same time, both for the future and praeterite. Tak-
ing this rule of his preceptor for his guide, in expounding the words of David,
Psal. xviii. 6. Et in sole posuit tabernaculum suum, Clement, first of all, assumes
that they are to be understood as relating to Christ, and then goes on to ex-
pound the praeterite posuit as referring both to the past time and the future ;
and, proceeding upon this plan, the w^ords of David are found to admit, not
merely of one, but several very extraordinary interpretations. Indeed it cannot
fail to strike every one, that this rule of Pantaenus is every way calculated to
admit of various different senses being applied to almost every word of the sa-
cred volume : and there cannot be a doubt but that it was invented expressly
with a view of introducing the utmost latitude of interpretation in the exposi-
tion of the Holy Scriptures, so as to admit of their being accommodated, ad libi-
tum, to the occurrences of past as well as future times. Let us assume merely
what Pantaenus assumed, namely, that the words of Scripture relating to ac-
tions or occurrences, do not refer to one particular time, but to several different
periods; and it will be difficult to point out any part of the sacred volume that
24
370 Century II.— Section 33.
may not be wonderfully dilated, and absolutely loaded, as it were, with a va-
riety of senses or interpretations. — Clement^ the disciple of Panta3nus, was the
author of a work of considerable length, to which he gave the title of llypottj'
poses, and in which he is said to have given an exposition of nearly all the sa-
cred writers, one after another. He likewise wrote a commentary on what arc
termed the Canonical Epistles. These works are lost ; but in such of his writ-
ings as remain, we meet with sufficiently numerous examples of the manner in
which he was accustomed to expound the Scriptures. To give an instance or
two, by way of illustration. In his Slromata, lib. i. cap. xxviii. p. 426. we find
it asserted, that the Mosaic laws have a four-fold sense ; Targa;:^^? cTg vfA^v «X«7r-
Tcov t5 vojuu t«v 0tiXii<riv. He, however, enumerates only three of those senses :
the mystical, the moral, and the prophetical. Every law, according to him, in the
first place, represents some sign, that is, the words of the law are images of
other things, and, in addition to their proper sense, have an improper or se-
condary one also attached to them. Secondly, every law comprises a precept
for the right ordering of life. Thirdly, every law, like a prophecij, predicts
something future. As Clement enumerates only three senses in which the law
[p. 301.] is to be understood, although he speaks of four, Hervetus, his trans-
lator into Latin, conjectures that in the word T«Tg«;^c5f there is a corruption,
and that, instead of it, we ought to read t^ix^s- But the learned writer has, in
this respect, fallen into an error. Clement, in his enumeration, passes over the
natural sense attached to the words of the law, as a thing too obvious to re-
quire pointing out, and particularizes merely the three less evident ones. For
the investigating these recondite senses of the Mosaic law with eflect, he deems
philosophy, or the dialectic art, an highly necessary auxiliary. AinKiKTiKcoT^ov
cTj Tr^oa-iTBov duriij riiv ditoXu^-iAV Ti\s 3"eias (PiJ^ctcrKAXias 3"»ga)^£Vo/ff. Est autem valde
dialectice ad legem accedendum consequentiam, (i. e. the recondite and abstruse
senses of the law,) dirincc doctrincc xenanlibus. The tendency of these maxims, and
how greatly they lean in favour of specious and philosophical explications of the
law, must be manifest to every one. Clement also agrees with Philo Judreus in
the opinion that the Greek philosophers derived all their principles from Moses.
Vid. Stromal, lib. ii. cap. v. p. 439. Whatever, therefore, appears to him just
and consonant to reason in the maxims or tenets of the philosophers, he
is sure to discover laid down somewhere or other in the books of the Old
Testament; and this leads him, not unfrequently, to strain and distort in a
most extraordinary manner, the words of Moses and the other sacred writers,
in order to make them, apparently, speak one and the same language with
Plato and the rest of the philosophers of Greece. — One point which he, in par-
ticular, seeks to establish, is, that a Christian ought to cultivate philosophy and
the liberal arts before he devotes himself wholly to the study of divine wisdom.
The reader will, in all probability, feel his curiosity somewhat awakened on
learning that this is to be proved from the history of Abraham, Sarah, and Ha-
gar, as given by Moses. Clement's manner of doing it is this: {SlroniaL lib. i.
p. 333.) Abraham he asserts to be the image of a perfect Christian ; Sarah, the
image of Christian wisdom ; and Hagar the image of philosophy or human wis-
dom. Abraham lived with Sarah, for a long time, in a state of connubial sterility.
BihUcal Interp-etation. 371
The inference from this, according to Clement, is, that a Christian, as long
as he confines himself to tiie study of divine wisdom and religion alone, will
never bring fortli any great or excellent fruits. Abraham, t'len, with the con-
sent of Sarah, takes to him Ilagar ; which proves, according to Clement, that a
Christian ouglit to embrace the wisdom of this world or philosophy, and that
Sarah or divine wisdom will not witiihold her consent. Lastly, Abraham, after
Hagar had borne him Ismael, resumed his intercourse with Sarah, and of her
begat Isaac : of this the import is, that a Christian, after having once thorough-
ly grounded himself in human learning and philosophy, will, if he then devotes
himself to the culture of divine wisdom, be capable of propagating the race of
true Christians, and of rendering essential service to the church. — riato and his
disciples maintained thafr the world was two-fold ; the one intellectual, or only
to be perceived mentally and by reason, the other visible, or an object of the
senses. This maxim met with the approbation of Clement : hence he is led to
contend, that Plato derived this idea of a two-fold world from Moses, and that
it is to be supported on the authority of holy writ. The intellectual world, or
that v.'hich is imperceptible to the senses, he finds alluded to in the first words
of Genesis : "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ; but the
earth was (do^^To?) invisible." And in the following words: "And God said,
let there be light," &c. he, with equal facility, discovers, that a reference was
intended to the visible or corporeal world, Stroinat. lib. v. p. 702. et seq. [p. 302.]
This absurd art of perverting and straining the Holy Scriptures did not»
however, originate with the prefects of the catechetical school of Alexandria,
but was derived by them from the celebrated Alexandrian Jew, Philo. Clement's
devotion to this writer is unbounded; him he is continually extolling, him he
imitates, and from him he transcribes a variety of passages without even the
changing of a word. Nor did Origen in the succeeding century, or those who
followed him, act otherwise. It is not, tliereforc, Origen who ouglit to be termed
the parent of allegories amongst the Christians, but Philo. Indeed this has been
already very justly remarked by Photius,who observes, (in Biblioth. cod. cv. p.
278.) 'E^ i olfAAi x.al TTa; 0 dWiiyo^iKOi T^i; y^agtvis iv rif ex.x,KH(r)d[. \o-yos t^^th
d^X^v hcr^ui)va.i. Et vero ab hoc arbitror omnem allegoricum Sacrcc Scriptures
sermonem in ecclesiam promanasse. This indeed is not altogether true, since
many of the Jews, and in particular the Pharisees and Esscnes, had indulged
much in allegories before the time of Philo ; but of this there can be no doubt,
that the pra3fects of the Alexandrian school caught the idea of interpreting
Scripture upon philosophical principles, or of eliciting philosophical maxims from
the sacred writers by means of allegory, from Philo, and that by them it was
gradually propagated amongst the Christians at large. It is also equally certain
that by the writings and example of Philo, the fondness for allegories was vast-
ly augmented and confirmed throughout the whole Christian world : and it
moreover appears, that it was he who first inspired the Christians with that de-
gree of temerity which led them, not unfrequently, to violate the faith of history,
and wilfully to close their eyes against the obvious and propei sense of terms
and words. The examples of this most presumptuous boldness that occur in
the writings of Philo are indeed but rare: particular instances of it, however,
372 Century II. — Section 34.
are not wanting ; as may easily be shown from Origen and others who took him
for their o-uide, and who, manifestly, considered a great part both of the Old and
New Testament as not exhibiting a representation of things that really occur-
red, but merely the images of moral actions. If the reader will give himself the
trouble to refer to Philo de AUegoriis Legis, lib. iii. p. 134. he will find in the
turn that is there given to the history of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, an instance
which may serve to convince him that this celebrated Jew made no scruple of
perverting, and even absolutely reversing the truth of sacred history whenever
occasion might appear to demand it.
XXXIV. The practice arises of expounding Christian tenets upon
philosophical principles. The secret discipline. With tllis evil waS
connected anotlier that proved equally detrimental to the inter-
ests of Christianity. For, not content with thus perverting and
straining the Holy Scriptures, in support of such philosophical
tenets as they deemed just and reasonable, the Christians of the
Ammonian school, with a view to illustrate, still more clearly,
the perfect accordance of human with divine wisdom, and in this
way the more readily to draw over philosophers to their side,
proceeded to the further length of giving to the most plain and
obvious maxims and precepts of the Gospel, such an exposition
as might render them apparently consistent with the philosophical
[p. 303.] notions and opinions which they had so unfortunately
been led to espouse. (') In their manner of doing this, however,
a greater degree of caution and prudence was observed by some
than by others. By not a few the expositions of the Christian
mysteries, which their ingenuity had thus suggested, were pro-
mulgated without reserve, and endeavours used to get them
adopted by the church, as appears from the disputes that took
place with Praxeas, Theodotus, Hermogenes, and Artemon. But
b}; far the greater part, pursuing the example of the Egyptian
teachers, appear to have wished, that the princij^les of Chris-
tianity should be unfolded and explained to the people at large,
with every possible degree of plainness and simplicity, and that
the more abstruse and philosophic interpretation of them should
never reach the ears of the multitude, but be made known only
to certain select persons of tried faith and a cultivated under-
standing ; and not even to these through the medium of writing,
but merely by word of mouth. Hence arose that more secret
and sublime theology of the ancient Christians, to which we have
of late been accustomed to refer, under the title of Disciplina Ar-
Philosophical Christianity. 373
cam,{^) and wliicli Clement of Alexandria styles yvcoTi?^ or Jcnow-
ledge, but wliicli differs from what is called Mystical Theohyy, o\{\.j
in name.Q
(1) Whatever, for instance, is to be met with in Scripture respecting God
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was so expounded by these Christians
as to render it consistent with the doctrine of three hypostases or natures in
God, as maintained by Phito, Parmenides, and others. Clement. Slromat. lib. v.
p. 710. Again, what is said by the sacred writers- respecting the future destruc-
tion and burning of the world, was so explained by them as to make it accord
with what was taught by Plato and the Stoics respecting the purification and
renovation of the world by fire. Vid. Clement Stromal, lib. v. p. 647. 211. et
seq. The restoration or resurrection of the dead was so interpreted as to ac-
commodate it to the tenets of the Grecian sages. The different passages in holy
writ that relate to the illuminating, purifying, and regenerating of the mind
were, with great ingenuity, made to correspond with what was tanglit by most
of the Egyptian and Platonic philosophers of the ancient as well as modern
school respecting the philosophical death, or the separation of the rational soul
from the sensitive one, and also from the influence of the body. In fact there
are but few points of Christian theology, which the teachers who were inflamed
with this eager desire to produce an union between Christianity and philosophy,
left untouched.
(2) That the more learned of the Christians, subsequently to the second
century, cultivated, in secret, an obstruse discipline of a different nature from
that which they taught publicly, is well known to every one. Concerning the
argument, however, or matter of this secret or mysterious discipline, its origin,
and the causes which gave rise to it, there are infinite disputes. But these con-
tentions, as is commonly the case amongst mortals, instead of elucidating, have
rather tended to throw additional obscurity over a thing, of itself sufficiently
intricate, and that seems, as it were, to have set illustration at defiance, [p. 304.]
This has more particularly been the case since the advocates for the Papacy
have endeavored to avail themselves of this secret discipline of the ancient
Christians in support of their cause. To me it appears, that this obscurity might
be in part removed if due attention were paid to a circumstance which seems to
have been hitherto commonly overlooked, namely, that amOngst the ancient
Christians there existed not merely one, but several species of secret discipline,
which were indeed of some affinity to each other, but between which it is neces-
sary in regard to this question to draw a line of distinction, in order to prevent
our confounding together things in themselves really different. — In the first
place, there was a sort of secret or mysterious discipline that related to those
who were enemies to the Christian religion and worshippers of false gods : but
even this was of more than one kind. For first, there was a sort of discipline
of this nature that respected all who were adverse to the Christian faith gene-
rally and without distinction. There were certain points of belief, for instance,
at this time current amongst the Christians respecting the destruction that hung
over the city of Rome and the empire, as well as the wars and final discomfiture
374 Century II.— Section 34.
of Antichrist, the near approach of the end of the world, the millenium, and
other matters, peradventure connected with these. Now if things of this kind
had been promulgated without reserve amongst the multidude, there can be no
doubt but that a very considerable degree of enmity and ill-will would have
been excited in the minds of the Roman people towards the Christians. Great
care was therefore taken to conceal everything of this nature from all except
comparatively a few, of whose fidelity and secrecy there could be no apprehen-
sion. Wherefore, when Montaniis and his followers, in this very century, publicly
prophesied the downfall of the city and empire of Rome, it proved highly dis-
pleasing to the Christians, and they at once withdrew themselves from every
sort of connection with a man who could be guilty of such imprudence. Hoc
solum, says Tertullian, (in his Vmdicicc Montani which are lost, but of which
this passage is preserved apud Prccdestinat. a Jac. Sirmond. edit. lib. i. Hseres.
xxvi. p. 30.) hoc solum discrepamus (the Montanists from other Christians) quod
secundas nuptias Tion recipimus et prophetiam Montani de futuro judicio non re-
cusamus. Now, as to the future general judgment, all Christians believed in it,
and there could, therefore, have been no occasion for Montanus to prophesy
anything at all about it. By fuiurum judiciu7n in the above passage, therefore,
we must understand the judgment which this man had inadvertently prophesied
as awaiting the Roman empire in particular; and against this prophecy the
Christians deemed it prudent to protest, lest the enmity of the Roman emperors
and people, of which they had already sufficiently felt the weight, should be
still further excited against them. Another species of secret discipline had rela-
tion to those whom the Christians were desirous of rescuing from the dominion
of superstition, and initiating in the principles of Christianity. With these they
found it necessary to proceed somewhat cautiously, lest, by a premature com-
munication of the truth, their minds might receive impressions unfavourable to
the Christian religion. They, therefore, observed at the first a total silence with
regard to the doctrine contained in the Scripture respecting the person, merits,
and functions of Christ; as well as those other mysteries, to the right compre-
hending of which the human mind is of itself unequal, and confined themselves
wholly to such things as right reason points out concerning the Deity, the na-
ture of man, and his duties. When these had been sufficiently inculcated and
suitably received, and not before, they proceeded to points of a higher and more
abstruse nature. 'Respecting the practice of the early Christians in regard to
this, the reader will find a notable passage in the Apostolical Constitutions^ lib.
iii. cap. V. Patrum Apostolic, torn. i. p. 280, 281. In either of these species of
secret discipline there should seem to have been nothing at which any one of
[p. 305.] an impartial and well informed mind can take any serious offence.
Entirely distinct from these there existed another species of secret discipline,
which regarded Christians alone, and had respect, in part, to the catechumens,
or those who had not as yet been received into the church, and, in part, to the
regular members of the church. This discipline, so far as it regarded the catechu-
mens, is sufficiently known. The catechumens were not admitted either to the
common prayers, or to a sight of the celebration of the sacred rites ordained by
Christ, or to what were termed the feasts of love; nor were they at all instructed
Philosophical Christianity. 375
as to the nature of these parts of divine worship, or any of the injunctions or
regulations appertaining to them, until they had been regularly adopted as
members of the church by baptism ; and, consistently with this, the sacred
preachers made it a rule to abstain from entering into any discussions imme-
diately relating either to Baptism or the Lord's Supper, in presence of the cate-
chumens. But this kind of discipline had certainly in it somewhat of an alien
cast, and betrayed an imitation of foreign manners an-d customs but little
laudable. — Of a much more praiseworthy nature was the practice of consulting
the furtherance and advantage of weak and illiterate Christians, by directing
the teachers to accommodate their discourses to the capacities of their hearers,
and in popular addresses to omit all such things as were not, without difficulty,
to be comprehended by persons of low and simple minds. Instructions to this
effect are to be found in Origen contra Celsum, lib. iii. p. 143. edit. Spencer, as
well as in other Christian writers. Undoubtedly nothing can be more com-
mendable and wise than to avoid troubling weak and simple minds with things,
to the right comprehension of which an ordinary degree of intelligence is by
no means equal. — In addition to all these different species of secret discipline,
which had relation to particular classes of men, and were regulated by certain
modes and times, there remains still yet another to be mentioned, of a nature
altogether different, being controlled neither by time nor place, and having re-
spect to no class of men in particular, but, with a few exceptions, equally re-
garding all, as well Christians as those who were strangers to the Christian
faith. This, without question, consisted of divers maxims and opinions which
were cherished by the Christian teachers in private amongst themselves, and
never communicated to the people at large, or even to their own immediate
disciples indiscriminately, but only in secret to such of these latter as had given
satisfactory proofs of their trustworthiness and taciturnity. Clement of Alex-
andria is the first writer that notices this sort of discipline ; before him no
mention whatever is made of it by any author. There can, therefore, be but
little doubt but that it originated amongst the Christians of Egypt, and was by
them communicated to the other churches. Clement represents this secret dis-
cipline, to which he gives the title of yvd^a-is, as having been instituted by
Christ himself. From a passage in his Hi/poiyposes, a work long since lost,
which is cited by Eusebius in Eccl Histor. lib. ii. cap i. p. 38. it appears that
he considered this yvdJirii^ or gift of knowledge, as having been conferred by
our Lord, after his resurrection, on James the Just, John, and Peter, by whom
it was communicated to the other apostles ; and that by these this treasure
was committed to the seventy disciples, of whom Barnabas was one. A similar
passage to this occurs in his Stromala, lib. i. p. 322. in which, however, to the
three apostles enumerated by Eusebius, he adds a fourth, namely, Paul, whom
he also conceives to have been instructed in this secret discipline by [p. 306.]
Christ himself. Nor does he discover the least hesitation in asserting, with the
Gnostics, that the discipline communicated by our Blessed Saviour to mankind,
was of a two-fold nature, the one calculated for the world at large, the other
designed only for the wise and prudent; the former consisting of what was
taught publicly to the people by Christ himself, and is to be found in the Scrip-
376 Century Il.Section 34.
turcs, the latter, of certain maxims and precepts that were communicated merely
by word of moutli, to a few only of the apostles. 'Oy ttoXXoTs dizntaXv-^zv a fxi,
iroXXwj/ i\v, ■ Kiyoii it oU r^oo-^KHv iiTtVaro, To7g oio/j n eicJ'e^aa-^aii nai ruirw^iivai Tgoff
durd. Non revelavil (Chi'isius) muUis ea qucc' non erant muUoriim, sed paucis
quibua sciebal convenire, qui ei ea possenl accipere et ex eis informari. Stromal, lib.
i. cap. i. p. 323. Clement makes it a matter of boast that the secret discipline
thus instituted by Christ was familiar to those who had been his masters and
preceptors, whom he very lavishly extols, and seems to exult not a little in hav-
ing, under their tuition, enjoyed the advantage of being instructed in it himself.
Apart of it, indeed, he says, had, through length of time, escaped his memory, but
that the rest of it remained still fresh in his mind. He promises, moreover, that
he would advert to some of the chief or leading points of this venerable know-
ledge in his Sl7-omata, but represents himself as bound not openly to make
known or explain the whole of it, lest, according to the proverb, he should put
a sword in the hand of a child. Ta /uh exwi/ TTagaiTiy.TTofA.aiy says he, p. 324. fxXe-
yuiv iTn<r»yoi>(os, (poQQfAivog yga(piLv, a xai \eyiiv izu'Xa^d/uiv. Noiinulla qUU
(lem consuUo prcclermilto, scienter delect urn faciens, iimens scribere., qucc etiam cavi
dicere. In another place, viz. p. 327. he says, ^rffcouanli K^vTmlv evrexvcos tu rJfj
yvdj<Ti(oi faXovrai (r-^rsguaTa Libri mei Slromatum volant artijiciose celare
semina cognitionis. To any one who might be at a loss to account for
his declining to make publicly known, and in a great measure altogether con-
cealing, a species of knowledge, confessedly of the highest importance and
value, he replies, (cap. iii. p. 328) that it was not to be comprehended, except
by minds that had been thoroughly purged and delivered from the dominion of
the passions, that there would, moreover, be a danger in it, lest occasion might
be given to contentious persons for cavilling and insult. 'On yiyai o x.ivJ'vvost
ToV diTOCi'fi^TOV tjg dXxd'wj r^s oVTug ^iXicroipiag Xoyov i^og^Ti\(7aT3-at roli djiitJ'ug -rdvra
fAiV dvTiheyiiv e^-iKya-iv "rnt iv tT/wji, Trdvra (Ts ovouara xdi pYif/.aTa drocfiiiTTUfriv
iJayiog x.otriui(x}s. Quia maguum est fericulum vere arcanam vercc philosophies
rationem iis propalare, qui profuse quidem ac petulanter, sed non jure, volunt con-
ira omnes dicere, omnia autem nomina et verba turpiter ac indecore cjaculantur.
See also lib. ii. p. 432. et seq. Many other passages of this kind are to be met
with in Clement, by any one who will be at the trouble of diligently exploring
his Stromata. — What those maxims and principles were which Cleraent con-
ceived himself to be precluded from communicating to the world at large, can-
not long remain a secret to any diligent and attentive reader of his works.
There cannot be the smallest question but that they were philosophical expli-
cations of the Christian tenets respecting the Trinity, the soul, the world, the
future resurrection of the body, Christ, the life to come, and other things of a
like abstruse nature, which had in them somewhat that admitted of being ex-
pounded upon philosophical principles. They also, no doubt, consisted of cer-
[p. 307.] tain mystical and allegorical interpretations of the divine oracles, cal-
culated to support those philosophical expositions of the Christian principlea
and tenets. For since, as we have above seen, he expressly intimates that he
would, in his Stromata, unfold a part of that secret wisdom which was designed
only for the few, but that in doing this he would not so far throw off all re-
Philosophical Christianity. 377
serve, as to render himself universally intelligible ; and since we find him, in
the course of tiie above-nientined work, continually giving to the more excellent
and important truths contained in the sacred volume, such an interpretation as
tends to open a wide field for conjecture, and also comparing, not openly, but
in a concise and half obscure way, the Christian tenets with the maxims of the
philosophers, I am willing to resign every pretension to penetration, if it be not
clearly to be perceived of what nature that sublime knowledge respecting divine
matters must have been, of which he makes such a mystery. Nor was there
any other species of secret knowledge besides this possessed by his principal
disciple, Origen, who, although he was anxious to make the Christian religion
conform itself, in almost every respect, to the rule of his philosophy, had yet
the wisdom to propound his opinions with prudence and caution, and to avoid a
full and explicit discovery of them.
What Clement says respecting the divine origin of this discipline is, un-
questionably, a mere fiction, devised either by him or some other admirer of
philosophy, with a view to silence the importunate remonstrances of those
friends to Christian simplicity who, mindful of St. Paul's injunction, were con-
tinually protesting against any attempt to blend philosophy with the religion of
the gospel. To Clement such sanctified deceptions and pious inventions ap-
peared not at all unwarrantable ; indeed, there can be no doubt, but that tliey
were countenanced by all such of the Christian teachers as were of the Egyp-
tian or Modern Platonic school. Why James, and John, and Peter, should liave
been, in particular, fixed upon as the apostles whom Christ selected as the most
worthy of having this recondite wisdom conununicated to them by word of
mouth, is very easily to be perceived. For these were the three disciples whom
our Blessed Saviour took apart with him up into the mountain when he was
about to be transfigured, Matt. xvii. 1. Luke, ix. 28. To represent them, there-
fore, as having in a particular manner been favoured with an insight into all
mysteries, appeared to be but consistent and proper. — In reality there can be
no doubt but that Clement, and most probably also his masters, whose authority
he frequently adduces, learnt the mode of blending philosophy with religion
from Philo; and the secret discipline, or the practice of cautiously concealing
their philosophical explications of the Scriptures and the principles of Christi-
anity, from the Egyptians as well as from Philo. The thing, in fact, is not
altogether dissembled by Clement, who frequently compares his secret dis-
cipline with the heathen mysteries and the interior and recondite wisdom of the
philosophers, and defends it by a reference to both of these. But the matter
must be clear, beyond a question, to any one who shall pdruse the writings ot
Philo with attention; since he in many places equally extols the secret disci-
pline, and, for the most part, speaks of it in the same terms, and defends it by
the same reasons and arguments as Clement. Nor is the recondite discipline
of Philo of a different nature from Clement's; on the contrary it corresponds
with it in every respect. Vid. Philo, in lib. de Cherubim, p. 144, 145. [p. 308.]
de Sacrijiciis, p. 139. lib. de Planiatione No'e, p. 231. et passim. Being, in lib.
iii. Allegor. Legum, p. 131. about to give an explication of the words of Sarah,
in Genesis, xxi. 6. " God hath made me to laugh," he thus bespeaks the atten-
378 Century II.—SeHion 34.
tion of those who were initiated in the secret discipline, 'AvaTrrrdo-avTtf ri
wTa, oi (AUiai, TTapaS'e^ao-d-i rtxnas tsgwrdra?. Itaque quotquot estis inUiati, ex-
pansis auribns acciinle mysieria sacratissima. After this preamble he presents
the reader with a philosophical explication of these words of Sarah, which can-
not be said to be altoii^ether an obscure one, but, at the same time, it is by no
means clear or perspicuous: in short, you may plainly perceive that what he
aims at is, not to make himself understood generally, but only by such as had
been initiated in the secret discipline or philosophical religion. In this he is
imitated exactly by Clement In his book lib. de Cheruh'nn,^. 146, 147. edit. Anglic.
p. 115. ed. Paris, Philo undertakes to explain, from the Mosaic history, the manner
in which virtue is generated, and how, of itself, it generates other virtues. For
first of all he thus gravely repulses the profane: 'Axouf "arnp^a^aTcoa-av
J^iicTiJ^diuovig Tus" iaurwv « fAirao-TiiToia-av. Superstitiosi vel discedant vel obturent
aures suas. TsXsrdf ^a§ dvaS'i^a(n)oy.iy ^riiai rag TiXtrwV d^im rdv h^oirarcov fAva-rae
divina enim mysieria tradimus his, qui talihus sacris digne initiati sunt.
^Emivys cTg «« liPof)avT)iiTofjt.tV Karitr^ii/uevots dvidro) Kaicdy Tvpoi pWf.dTcoJ' xdt
ovofAuToiv y'Xi<r^g6T>i'Ti, kui Ti^^^iiaic td-uv. lUos autem haudquaquam ad hccc sacra
admittimus, qui tenentur morho insanabili, fastu verhorum et nominum fuco, et
moru7n prcesiigiis. Numerous passages similar to these are to be found in Cle-
ment. The explication and demonstration drawn from Moses, to which this
pompous exordium is a prelude, is, indeed, upon the whole, not unintelligible ;
its entire force and signification, how'ever, is not to be comprehended except by
the initiated in the mysteries of the Philonian philosophy; and to all such a very
earnest and particular injunction is addressed by Philo at the conclusion of his
Institutes, requiring them on no account to make the vulgar partakers of their
knowledge. It will be enough for me to give merely a translation of his words.
*' Having then, O ye initiated ! through the channel of purified organs, acquired
a know^ledge of these things, let them sink deep into your minds as holy myvS-
teries, not to be revealed to the profane. Bury them wdthin your bosoms, and
preserve them as a treasure ; a treasure consisting, not of corruptible things,
such as silver and gold, but of the fairest and most valuable portion of true
wealth, namely, a knowledge of God and of virtue, and of the offspring that is
generated of them both. Whenever ye chance to meet with any one else of
the initiated, beseech him w ith the most earnest intreaties not to conceal from
you any mystery that he may have more recently discovered, and leave him not
until you shall have obtained from him the most intimate insight into it." In
his book, de Sacrijiciis Abelis et Caini, p. 173. torn. i. opp., he, with astonishing
subtilty, deduces from Gen. xviii. 6, where Sarah is said have " made ready
quickly three measure-s of fine meal, and baked cakes thereof upon the hearth,"
a support for the principle which he frequently takes occasion to inculcate of
the existence of three powers in the Deity ; and having done so, he here like-
wise, by way of conclusion, makes a point of remarking that neither this nor
any other mystery ought to be generally made known : fAnJ'iv] iTgoxii^<^s UXakti
Td b-ila (Jt-v^YiPia, TafJUiuofxivn S^'aUTO. Kai i^ty.vd'SiTa iv OTropfi x'tcj (fivXarm, Anima
divina mysteria nemini proloquatur facile ; sed servans ea recondita reliceat et in
secreto servet. No detriment, I am persuaded, can ensue from my declining to
Moral Theology. 379
notice at large the remarks on this and similar passages that have been pub-
lished by Thomas Mangey, the late editor of Philo, since they afibrd [p. 309.]
but little assistance to a reader who is desirous of penetrating into the causes
and reason of things. — It may, however, be worthy of notice in this place, that
Philo makes the principle of the existence of three powers in the Deity, con-
cerning which there has been amongst men of the first eminence such a diver-
sity of opinion and conjecture, a part of the secret discipline. Hence it is that
we never find him either openly propounding or attempting any explication of
it, but, on the contrary, always speaking of it in such ambiguous terms as serve
only to involve it in obscurity. Nor does he at all times observe one and the
same mode in treating of it, but pursues a very different method in some places
from what he does in others. In regard to this, see what I have said in my
notes on Cudworth's Intellectual System, torn. i. p. 640, as well as what has
been most learnedly remarked both in respect to this and other passages of
Philo, by that eminent scholar and most successful emulator of illustrious pre-
decessors, J6. Bened. Carpzovius, in his ExercUatwnes in Ejnst. ad Ilehrccos ex
Philone Prolegom. p. cxxxv. et seq. In my opinion, therefore, it must ever
prove a mere waste of time and pains to attempt any explication of the trinity
of Philo, or to ascertain in particular his notions respecting the nature of what
he terms the Logos or Word. The wary Jew is particularly cautious of com-
mitting himself with regard to these things, and evidently wishes to excite ra-
ther than to gratify a thirst for a more intimate insight into them. I speak from
experience ; no interpretation that can be devised or thought of is readily to be
reconciled with all the different passages respecting these mysteries, that occur
in his works; indeed, such is the discordance of these passages, that they ap-
pear even totally repugnant to each other. In this way it was but befitting for
a man to proceed when treating of the secret or mysterious discipline. 'AJ'trnt,
says he, in his book de Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, tom. i. p. 189, where, with a
very cautious and delicate hand, he touches on some of its leading points,
"AcTerat cTg ris x-ul toiStos wf iv d7rcpp«T0/f Xoyog, 6v aKodls -^iTCvripcxtv irxpuKXTiTsa-^-ai
;^p}) vta>T£i>o}v wTtt £n-j^gu|stvT«tj. Cclehratur et alia, qucc tamen ad mysteria^
{i. e. the secret discipline) pertinet senteniia, deponenda penes aures seniorum, oh-
turatls juniorum aurihus. On the present occasion I cannot but feel that it
would be wrong in me to detain the reader with what else might be adduced
from Philo on this subject: a word or two more, therefore, and I have done.
Philo, without doubt, imitated the Egyptians; Clement, as unquestionably, fol-
lowed the example of Philo ; and Origen trod clearly in the footsteps of both.
The more recent Christian teachers, for the most })art, formed themselves upon
the model of this latter father. The secret discipline of Philo consisted in the
application of philosophic principles to religion and the sacred writings ; nor
was that of Clement ever thought to differ from it, except by those who had not
sufficiently informed themselves on the subject. The reader will understand
me in what I have said above as not meaning to attribute the absolute invention
of this discipline to Philo: for we know that long before his time it had been
the practice of several Jews to expound and illustrate IMoses from the writings
of Plato and other Greek philosophers : but of this, I think, there can be no
380 Century IL— Section 35.
doubt, that Clement and the other Egyptian teachers by whom this discipline
was first introduced into the Christian church, were indebted for their acquaint-
ance with it entirely to Philo. Wonderful, indeed, is it to contemplate the in-
fluence and authority which this Alexandrian Jew had at one time acquired
[p. 310.] amongst the Christians. We may even go the length of saying that,
without Philo, the writings of those whom we term " the Fathers" would, in
many respects, be frequently altogether unintelligible.
(3) The secret discipline was of a more comprehensive nature than the mys-
tical theology, inasmuch as it embraced the whole of the philosophical theology
that sprung up in Egypt in the second century, and gradually found its way
from thence to other nations. What we find termed mystical theology appears
to have comprised the best and noblest part of this secret discipline ; I mean
that which respects life and morals, the purifying of the soul, and exalting it
above every object of sense. For it is well known, that the true and genuine
Mystics adopted, as the very basis and ground-work of their discipline, those
principles respecting the Deity, the world, the soul, and the nature of man,
which the Christians had borrowed from the Egyptian and Modern Platonic
philosophy, and were accustomed, from this century downwards, to communi-
cate merely to a select number of auditors.
XXXV. Moral theology assumes a two-fold character. As the
love of pliilosopliy originated amongst the Christians, a two-fold
interpretation of those principles by which the intellect is in-
structed in the way of salvation, the one public, and accommo-
dated to vulgar minds, the other secret, and intelligible only to
capacities of the higher order ; so likewise did it occasion a two-
fold form to be assumed by that wisdom which, in a more parti-
cular manner, respects life and morals ; the one suited to the
multitude, who incline to society and suffer themselves to be in-
volved in the cares and concerns of this life ; the other calculated
for such as, aspiring after a higher degree of sanctity and a more
intimate communion with the Deity, turn their backs on the bu-
siness, noise, and bustle of the world. It is true, indeed, that
even at an early period, when the Christians were as yet stran-
gers to philosophy, there Avere to be found amongst them per-
sons who, by abstaining from those things which gratify the
senses, such as marriage, flesh, wine, and the more solid kinds
of food, and by neglecting every culture or attention to the
body, sought to disengage and purify their minds from all inor-
dinate desires and affections, and thus to consecrate themselves
entirely to God :(') but upon the introduction of the Egyptian
and Platonic philosophy, this simple mode of life was reduced
into the form of an art, and interwoven with such maxims re-
Moral Theology. 381
specting the Deity, tlic liuman soul, and tlie nature of man, as
were thought most consonant to reason. All such Christians, for
instance, as aspired to a degree of sanctity beyond the vulgar,
were enjoined, by means of contemplation, sobriety, continence,
mortifications of the body, solitude, and the like, to separate, as
far as possible, that soul which was the offspring of the eternal
reason of the Deity, from the sensitive soul, as well as from every
sort of bodily influence, so that they might, even in this life, be
united to and enjoy the most intimate communion with the Su-
preme Parent of souls ; and upon the dissolution of the body,
their minds being thoroughly disencumbered of every [p. 311.]
sordid and debasing tie, might regain, without impediment, their
proper stations in the regions above. To this source is to be
ascribed the rise of the Mystics^ a denomination of men that first
made their appearance amongst the philosophising Christians of
Egypt, in the course of this century, and gradually spread them-
selves throughout the Christian church.(^) Hither, also, may we
refer the origin of Monies, Hermits, and Ccenohites, whose rules and
institutions are uniformly grounded upon the principle of deli-
vering the immortal spirit from the oppression under which it
groans in being connected with the body, of purif3'ing it from
the corruptions of sense, and of rendering it fit to be admitted
into the presence of the Deity in the realms of everlasting light
and life.O
(1) That amongst the early Christians there were some \vho professed a
more strict and severe course of life than others, and not only debarred them-
selves of lawful gratifications and indulgences, but also broke down the strength
and vigour of their animal frame by frequent fastings and other rigorous prac-
tices, is placed out of all doubt by numerous testimonies. It is also well known
that these persons were commonly termed "Asce/ics," from the verb d<rK~itr^
which means to train or prepare one's self for a combat. See, amongst many other
authorities, Dcyling, Exerc de Ascetis Veterum, subjoined to the third book of his
Observationes Sacra:; and Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, \o\..
iii. p. 3. et seq. What gave rise to this sort of people, and at what time they
first made their appearance, is not equally clear. To me it appears that those
Ascetics (for they were not at all of one and the same description, neither did
they all observe the same rules) I say, it strikes mc that those Ascetics who de-
clined marringe and preferred a life of celibacy, without, however, rejecting any
other of the comforts and conveniences of life, must have been the most ancient
of any; and that persons of this description were to be found even in the very
infancy of Christianity. For we know that what is said by Christ himself in
Matt. xix. 12. respecting those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
382 Century 11. — Section 35.
of heaven's sake, as well as what St. Paul says in 1 Corinth, vii. 7. 25. et seq.
33. respecting the preference clue to celibacy, was by most so understood from
the first as to cause it generally to be believed that unmarried persons were
happier, more perfect, and more acceptable to God than others. Hence there
was always to be found amongst the Christians no small number of persons
who deemed it expedient to avoid marriage. Let us hear the celebrated Chris-
tian philosopher of this century, Aihenagoras, in Apolog. pro Christianis, cap.
Xxviii. p. 129. ed, Oxon. "Eu^oig S''dv roWis tcHv Trap Yjulv Kat avJ'^Xi kcli
yvvai)ia; Kst-Tdyn^da-novTa? dyduust eX'sricTt <t5 /ucaWov <rvvi<ri(r^cti tco ^iw.
Jnvenias auiem multos ex nostris in utroque sexu, qui in ccdihatu consenes-
cant, quod ita Deo se conjunctiores fuiuros sperent. And to the same purport
Tertullian, de Cultu Feminar. lib. ii. p. 179. cap. ix. ed. Rigalt. Non enim et
mulli ita faciunt, et se spadonatui obsignant propter regnum Dei tarn fortem et
uiique permissam voluptatem sjponte ponenies ? Those Ascetics, who either ab-
stained from flesh and wine, or else mortified their bodies by frequent fastings,
or devoted themselves to a course of severe and laborious discipline, by way of
counteracting all vicious propensities and perturbations of the mind, are, un-
questionably, of more recent origin, and cannot, I think, be placed higher than
[p. 312.] the age of which we are now treating. On these, also, we find com-
mendation bestowed by the writers of this century ; but they are always placed
beneath those who were emphatically termed lyngaTiis "the continent^'' in op-
position to the " incontinent ;" that is, they are always placed after those who
had renounced marriage. Quid enim, says Tertullian, (de velandis Virginibus,
cap. iii.p. 194.) si et inconiinentes dicant se a contineniibus scandalizari (i.e. suppos-
ing those who are married should complain of being scandalized by those who
have professed celibacy) continentia revocanda est 7 Add to which what is to be
found in DuFresne's Glossary, tom. ii. p. 1020. sub voc. Continentes. Without
doubt we may conclude that Christ himself and St. Paul were considered as hav-
ing expressly recommended celibac^% but that with regard to an abstinence from
flesh and wine, fastings and the like, they had left behind them no particular in-
junctions: that the latter, therefore, although perhaps in themselves both proper
and laudable, were nevertheless regarded as of merely human institution, whilst
the former appeared to possess the character of a divine recommendation. Ter-
tullian in one part of his treatise de Cultu Fccminarum, lib. ii. cap. ix. p. 179.
makes mention of both these species of Ascetics, but in such a way as plainly
to show that in point of dignity and sanctity, he gave a decided preference to
the continent, or those whom he terms " Voluntary Eunuchs." For after having
spoken of these latter, he goes on thus : — Numquid non aliqui ipsam Dei creatU'
ram sibi interdicunt, abstinentes vino et animalibus esculentis, quorum fruclus
nulli periculo ant sollicitudini adjacent, sed liumilitatem animce succ in victus quo-
que castigatione Deo immolant ? To any one who will duly weigh the force of
these words, and compare them with what goes before, it cannot fail to be ap-
parent that Tertullian was far from placing the Abstinent on a level with the
Continent, or those who renounced marriage. — The opinion, pretty generally
entertained by the learned, that these Ascetics of the early ages were.accustomed
to distinguish themselves from other Christians by their dress, and that in par-
Moral Theology. 383
ticular, by way of pointing themselves ont as philosoplicrs, they adopted the
mantle or cloak, appears to me to require the support oi* stronger and more posi-
tive testimony than any one has hitherto been able to adduce in its favour. I
am ready to allow, indeed, that such of them as made pretensions to a greater
degree of strictness either in point of continence or abstinence, might affect to
make this known by the quality or colour of their garb: But that the Ascetics
of the early ages, as a body of men, distinguished themselves by any peculiar
dress, or that the philosopher's cloak or mantle, in particular, was ever consi-
dered as appropriate to them^ is what I cannot, by any means, bring myself to
believe. The testimonies that arc usually brought forward in supi)ort of the
above opinion are either of more recent date than the fn-st three centuries, or
else relate merely to those philosophers, who, notwithstanding their conversion
to Christianity, retained this pristine garb, that is, the mantle or cloak : of which
practice the reader will recollect me to have noticed some examples a few pages
back. And I really must enter my protest against any such unwarrantable de-
duction as this, — that because those who were philosophers before they embraced
the Christian fliith, remained so still notwithstanding their conversion to Chris-
tianity, and continued as before to invest themselves with a cloak or mantle by
way of distinction, it is incumbent on us to believe that all the Christian Ascetics
assumed this cloak or philosophical dress likewise. If, however, some [p. 313.]
certain individuals of the Ascetics, by way of manifesting to the world the kind
of life to which they had devoted themselves, did actually assume the philoso-
phic cloak, which I beg to be understood as by no means intending to deny,
there cannot be a doubt but that they did so purely out of imitation of the heathen
sages, and by way of pointing out to the Greeks and Romans, that amongst the
Christians also were to be found philosophers.
(2) It was not until long after the light of Christianity had risen on the
world, that the terms " mystical theology" and " Mystics " were ever heard of.
The things themselves, however, to which these names came afterwards to be
applied, are by for more ancient than the Christian church. Long antecedent to
the coming of Christ, there were to be found, not only amongst the Egyptians,
but also amongst the Jews, who copied after the Egyptians, (as is placed out
of all question by the Essenes and Therapeut(C,) as well as in other nations,
certain persons who made it their study, by means of fasting, labour, contem-
plation, and other afflictive exercises, to deliver their rational souls, which they
considered as the offspring of the Deity unhappily confined within corporeal
prisons, from the bonds of the flesh and the senses, and to restore them to an
uninterrupted communion with their God and parent. This discipline arose out
of that ancient jih-Uosophy of the Egyptians, which considered all things as hav-
ing proceeded from God, and regarded the rational souls of the human race as
more noble particles of the divine nature. When the IModern Platonic school
made that philosophy, in a certain degree, its own, its disciples were also incit-
ed to the adoption of this system of bodily morlilication. Neither, as has long
since been remarked, is there any other tendency in what is laid down by Plato
himself respecting the origin of minds, and of their fall into earthly bodies.
Fhiloj whom we have already so often cited, will here again furnish us with
384 Centurij IL— Section 35,
considerable light. The tenets of this very celebrated Jew, (whose opinions
were for a while held in much more esteem than they deserved by the Chris-
tians,) respecting the soul, were, in fact, a compound or medley of the Egyp-
tian, Platonic, and Mosaic principles. In the first place, he lays it down, that in
man there are two souls ; the one rational and generated of the Word, the other
sensitive : de AUegor. Legis, lib. i. p. 51, 54, 57. torn. i. opp. The former or ra-
tional mind he regards as a portion of the Deity, that is, according to the Egyp-
tians, a part of the most refined and supreme aether, and that conformably to
the Mosaic account, this had been imparted to man by the breath of God; in
which it is to be remarked that he differs from Plato. Vid, AUegor. LegiSy
lib. iii. p. 119. The latter or sensitive soul he considers as impelled and ani-
mated by the divine mind, AUegor. Legis. lib. i. p. 51 and 54. The rational
soul, according to him, is the seat of abstract notions ; whilst the sensitive soul
is occupied solely by the images of things that are objects of the senses : de
Mundi Opificio, p. 41. et seq. torn. i. ed. Anglic. I pass over a variety of things
which, for the most part, border too nearly on excessive refinement, and are not
laid down with sufficient perspicuity. Proceeding on principles like these, he
inculcates a doctrine altogether similar to that taught by the Mystics; namely,
that the celestial and rational soul should erect itself above every object of the
senses, — that it should seek, by means of contemplation, to separate itself from
the body, — that, mindful of its divine origin, it should be constantly aspiring
to communion with its parent, and that it should endeavour, by every possible
means, to undermine and weaken the power and influence of the body and the
senses. To a soul once exalted above empty and corporeal things, he holds
forth a promise of divine illumination and pleasure incredible. — It may not be
[p. 314.] amiss, perhaps, to confirm what I have thus stated by a specimen or
two, in order that the votaries of mysticism may be brought acquainted with
the sources from whence those principles, in which they so much delight, are
drawn. Let us then hear with what pomp and poetical colouring Philo de-
scribes the ascent of the soul to God, de Mund. Opificio, p. 16. tom. i. opp.
^yv« TTarav r«v a<V3-»T«v iia-iav viri^KV-l^as evTav^st. c<fi>iraL Tvij voxTiif Koi <Lv iiJ'iV
EVTdv^si d/(73-«Twv, iv iKtivn rlx Tra^aS'tiyfAara kcli tus l^iag ^iaa-d/uivoCi vTTi^Cdwovret,
xaAXj;, uib-n vwpaXtw Karaa-^i^s);, u<r7ri^ ot ico^v^avrioivTiS) £v3-tf3-7a, Ire^y yt^iird-tic
IfAiey xd( rod-y^i\Tmos. Anima emergens supra omnem sensibilem esseniiam demum
inteUigihilis desiderio corripilur, (we have here, obviously, what is termed by
the IMystics, the ^^ purgation,^'' next follows their " iUuminaiion,^') iUic conspicaia
exeinplaria, ideasque rerum quas hie vidit sensibilium, eximias iUas pulchritudineSy
(a coincidence with the Platonic philosophy is here observable,) ehrietate quo-
dam sohria capta, tamquam Corybantes lympJiaiur alio plena amore longe
meliore. This high measure of felicity is crowned by a conjunction with
the Parent Deity of all things: S<^' » ^^§05 t^v U^av d^i^a. 7ra§a7r6^pS-?ts rwv
j-oJirwi/ £7r' dvTov Uvai S-okIi tov fxeyav ^aa-i\ea. Thixof^evn cT' Utlvy 3-ei» (^cerds
aKgaroi Kat afxiyus dvyai x'^lfAd(,}8 r^OTrov U^th'ra.ty ws Ta/j fJiat^fJ^a^vydn Td
T«j cT/avoiaj SjufAa a-Korohvlav. A quo ad summum fastigium adducta
rerum intelligiUliumy ad ipsum magnum regem videtur tendere ; turn
vero in xidendi cupidam purissimus ac merissimus divincc lucis Radius more
Moral Theology. 385
torrentis ejfunditur, ita ui ad cum splendorem caliget mentis oculus. Surely the
reader will believe that he has been listening to the Coryphaeus of the Mystics,
Dionysus, or to some Hennj Suso, or to some other similar character. In his
Allegor. Legis. lib. i. p. 59, 60. he divides souls into two classes, " the Confess-
tn_g-" (t^ ouoXoy y fxcv us), and "the Labouring^^ (i^yA^c/nays). The "confessing
souls" are those which, being freed from all contagion of the body, as well as
divested of all cogitation and emotion, and exalted above every object of the
senses, have given themselves up entirely to God, and maintain themselves in
the most perfect state of quietism. "Oruv ya^ kCii o v5i iaurS nat lauTdv
dViVCyX-H 0«W - - - - THVlKaVTA OUOXCyiCtV TyiV TTPOi TdV SvTO, TTCIii'TSt.l, NoW,
in what author, I would ask, shall we find language better agreeing with the
pompous declamation of the Mystics, or more aptly coinciding with their dis-
cipline ? Quu7n mens extra semetipsam excesserit, Deoque seipsum ohtulerit
— tunc confessionem edit erga eum qui solus vere est. But let us proceed : —
iwff (Te duTov vTrori^nTUt tuj dtriov t/voj, (AaK^av dpe^nKi t5 Tru^^^a^liv 3-£w nai
oy-oKoyiiv dwd. Quamdiu vero anima se causam rei cujuspiam exislimat (that
is, so long as the soul itself thinks, or reflects, or exercises a will of its own)
multum ahest quin conjilcatur, cedatque Deo. But even all this is not sutTicient :
for he will not allow even that cessation of the soul from every kind of action
or exertion, which he enjoins, and which is the object or end of the mystic life,
to be the work of the soul, but will have it to be the operation of the Deity.
The rational soul, he maintains, to be a portion of the Deity, and that it is
therefore by the innate, or rather implanted power of God in her, that she is
enabled to cast off the bonds of the flesh and the sensitive soul, and to com-
pose herself to a state of the most perfect quietism. Ku/ ^ag duro tSto [p. 315.]
TO i^ofAoKoy'iiT^sit VQ>iT£c,v, 6Tt i^ycv trc y^) TMs -^y;^!??, d\\a <tS (pxivcvTOi dvrn
GtS To Bvx<iii^^v. Nam et ipsa confessio debet intelligi non anima: opus, sed Dei
qui earn hanc gratitudinem docet. The " labouring souls " of Philo are those
w^hieh endeavour, by a constant exercise of thought, reflection, and judgment,
to arrive at virtue ; and strive to counteract all vicious propensities and pertur-
bations, by means of reading, meditation, and prayer : and concerning these he
subsequently discourses much at large. — Let us now endeavour briefly to
ascertain from his Allegor. Legis. lib. i. p. 64, 65. what his doctrine was re-
specting the body. The very perfection of true wisdom he pronounces to con-
sist in alienating one's self from the body and its concupiscence. Under the de-
nomination of the body, however, he immediately gives us to Understand that
he means to include the senses, also, of the body, na}^, even the very voice itself;
so that he should seem to enjoin a man desirous of attaining to a state of vir-
tue, not only to mortify the vsenses, but also to forego the use of his tongue
and voice. I^^S'ov yH^ a-cifi^s t^yov tSt' iglv, d\\oT^iS<rd-ai tt^os to o-d/utt, zAi ruf
ini^uuiai dufS uf i''d7raKnv<ri)i jtajciaj, t) fxovov i'it rwf t'^nv tuv vhv, dXXu Jcati
TMv aUrd-ua-tv, Kat rdv \iyov, kxi to (Tuu-x. This subject is pursued by him
at much length, and he cites in support of his doctrine even Moses himself,
with whom he maintains that Heraclitus is in perfect unison. Lastly^ he
asserts that, the soul, during its continuance in the body, lies, as it we: ^,. buried
in a sepulchre, and partakes in no degree of life, until after its sep'.^'ution fron^
25
3S6 Century II. — Section 35.
vitiated and inert matter, ^vx^i ^f «" 'tv o-ifAan rw «rw^itT/ ivmofACtvui,»r
Kjxf? T« o-wvcTtTtf <r»ifxxT6c. Anima corpori insepuUa est tamquam monumento :
quod si mnriui facrimiLS, (the soul being delivered from the body,) ium demum
anima vivil vitam propriam, et a coUigato sibi corpore, quod malum et mortuum
est, libcratam. In short, it would be easy for any one, who might be so inclined,
to collect from the writings of Philo an entire body of mystical theology, cor-
responding even to minuteness, with the system of Dionysius and the other
Mystics of more recent times. I cannot, therefore, help feeling somewhat sur-
prised that Arnold Poiret and others should, in their catalogue of mystic writers,
have omitted to insert the name of this Jew, than whom, certainly, there is not
a more ancient mystical author extant amongst us, and from whom, it should
seem, that the philosophising Christians drew the greatest part of their mystic
discipline.
The principles and maxims, then, of which we have been speaking, having,
in the course of this century, insinuated themselves into the minds of the Egyp-
tian Christians, and their teachers and instructors beginning also to acquire a
strong relish for the writings of Philo, there sprung up suddenly a two-fold
species of piety and virtue, the one popular and public, the other mysterious
and secret ; as also a two-fold order of Christians, the one consisting of
" Operants,''^ or those who engaged in the labours and business of life ; the other
of " Quiescenis,''^ or those who endeavoured, by means of frequent meditation,
corporeal mortifications, silence, solitude, debilitating of the senses, and the
like, to deliver the soul from the prison of the body, and unite it to the parent
or fountain of all minds. Of each of these species of discipline, very obvious
traces are to be discovered in the writings of Clemejit of Alexandria and Justin
[p. 316.] Martyr, which have as yet, however, been adverted to but by a few,
and by some even of these been wrongly interpreted. By Christ. Tliomasius^
for instance, an author who, on other occasions, has proved himself to be a man
of erudition, as well as by some others, an accusation was, not many years
back, preferred against Justin Martyr and other Christian teachers of this and
the succeeding century, on the ground of their having been guilty of a most
base and ridiculous sophism in maintaining that Christ, or the Word, was in all
the Grecian philosophers, and more especially in Socrates, and that through
this Christ, or Interior Word, these men had attained unto everlasting salvation.
Vid. Ohservat. Halens. Latin, torn. ii. observ. VII. \ xxx. p. 108. et seq. It is
certain, however, that these persons have rather betrayed their own ignorance
of ancient matters, than convicted either Justin or his associates of any thing
like misrepresentation. The reasoning of Justin, according to Platonic principles,
which he and other Christians of those times had been led to espouse, was per-
fectly correct, nor did he, as has been insinuated, by a kind of amphibology,
impose either on himself or others, but cherished precisely the same opinion
respecting an indwelling Christ, and an Interior Word, as is entertained by
the Mystics of modern tim.es. According to these Christian disciples of Plato
and Philo Judaens, Christ is the same in God that reason is in man. Believing,
tnerefore, as they did, that all minds or souls originally were parts of, and sprung
Moral Theology. 387
from the Logos^ or Divine Reason, an opinion which they I)ad derived partly
from the Egyptian^, and in part from IMato, it could not but follow that they
should consider Christ as dwelling in the minds of all men, and as operating
and acting" in all who followed the dictates of right reason. With regard to the
consequences attendant on this, I have not, at present, room to enter into any
discussion of them.
In dismissing this subject, however, I cannot help directing the reader's at-
tention, in a particular manner, to the wonderful influence which country and
climate have on men's morals, modes of lite, and opinions. The notion of all
minds having sprung from God, and that they were to be brought back to a state
of the most perfect quiescence in the bosom of this their first great parent by
means of contemplation, and corporeal mortifications, originated in regions
where men's bodies are oppressed and exsiccated by the solar heat, and was
communicated from thence to other nations. In those countries, the immode-
rately fervid state of the atmosphere renders men averse to labour or action of
any kind; and causes them to place their supreme felicity in rest, in contempla-
tion, in a cessation from every kind of action of mind as well as of body. As it
was impossible for them then to regard the Deity in any other light than as su-
perlatively happy, they were naturally led to believe that God himself acted in
no way whatever, but committed the government of tlie universe to daemons or
genii, and preserved himself in a state of perfect quiescence, ease, and contem-
plation. Hence proceeded those tenets of the orientals, — of God being like a
light of the most pure and serene nature, — of the world and its inhabitants be-
ing committed to the care and guardianship of daemons, — of the absolute inac-
tion and quietism of the Supreme Being, — of the tranquil procession of all
things from the Deity, without any decree or exertion on his part, and the like.
So prone are mortals, in forming their notions of the Deity, to have too much
respect for what passes within their own bosoms, and to make the contracted
scale of their own senses a standard whereby to estimate the feelings and feli-
city of Omnipotence. Again, believing, as the people of those countries did, that
the minds of men, like all other things, had emanated from God, and were par-
takers of the divine nature, it was but consentaneous that they should [p. 317.]
place the felicity of these also, and the very height of religion, in contemplation
and stillness, and should both point out the way of attaining to that tranquillity,
and also pronounce those to be the happiest, and most like to God, who secluded
themselves from the society of men, and, turning their backs on the concerns of
this world, passed their days in a state of most sacred inaction and holy ease.
These opinions, when they came to be blended with Christianity, gave rise to
a multitude of solitary and gloomy characters, who were at first chiefly confined
to Egypt, but whose example, inasmuch as it carried with it a great appearance
of sanctity, was quickly followed by great numbers in other nations. By the
inhabitants of regions where the cold strings the nerves, and invigorates men's
bodies so as to give them a propensity to action and labour, a very different no-
tion of the Deity had been formed, and consequently their conceptions of men-
tal happiness by no means corresponded with those entertained in more genial
climates. Instead of a God delighting only in quiet and repose, we here find a
888 Century II. — Section 35.
Deity all business nnd activity. Mystical iheology, therefore, the offspring of a
burnino- eliinute and a slothful race of mortals, found, upon its introduction into
Europe from the East, an abundance of admirers and eulogists, but no very great
number of disciples who exemplified its precepts in their lives. In point both of
morals and institutions there was always a very material difference between our
monks and mystics and those of Egypt, India, Syria, and Arabia. Men born
under skies like ours, are strangers to that apathy and inertness which consti-
tute, as it were, the very soul of the mystic discipline. Indeed of this wonder-
ful influence of climate we are furnished with an illustration even in the pro-
vinces of Europe alone. For, confining ourselves merely to this quarter of the
globe, we shall find that, in districts exposed to the rays of a fervid sun, the vo-
taries and friends of Mysticism are numerous, whilst in countries of a moderate
or frigid temperature there are to be met with but very few, if any.
(3) That there was a difference between the monks and the Ascetics of the
first ages, has of late been very generally insisted on, and, in my opinion, on very
sufficient grounds. According to my view of the subject, there was certainly
not only a difterence, but a very great difference, between them. I am bound
to confess, however, that it appears to me no less certain that the monks were
derived from the Ascetics. As long as the Ascetic regimen consisted merely in
continence, and an abstinence from sensual gratifications and indulgences, and
was unfettered by any of the precepts of the Egyptian philosophy, there was
nothing to prevent men professing it from continuing in society, and residing in
the midst of their kindred and their families: but when that regimen assumed
a diflxM-ent aspect, when it came to be reduced into a system, and connected with
the philosophical doctrines respecting the nature of the soul, and of bodies; when
the Ascetics adopted the belief, that every endeavour was to be used to set free
the divine spark that lay imprisoned within the body, — to subdue the influence
of the senses, — to sepnrate the mind from sense, and restore it to its first origi-
nal.-^to blot from it all sensual images, and repress in it every tendency to per-
turbation ; when they came to regard Quietism as constituting the supreme
good, — when their doctrines, I say, had once assumed this character, it was but
natural for them to renounce the society of men, and devote themselves to a
life of seclusion and solitude. For they surely could have found nothing more
difficult than, amidst the noise of w^orldly occupations and the frequent interrup-
tions of friends and acquaintance, to regulate their lives according to these prin-
ciples, i.e. to purify the mind, to repress the senses, and to maintain a tranquillity
unruffled by any sort of cogitation or emotion whatever. These principles, which
[p. 318.] the Ascetics in Egypt first imbibed from the mouths and writings of
their teachers towards the close of this century, were by far more widely dif-
fused in the succeeding one, owing to a love for the Egyptian, or, if the reader
would rather, the Alexandrian and Ammonian philosophy becoming every day
more general amongst the African and Asiatic Christians. About this period,
therefore, we find the Ascetics beginning to withdraw themselves from cities
and the society of men, and retiring into solitudes and deserts, and hence they
acquired the title of " monks,^' i. e. solitary persons. Vid. Cassian, Collation.
xviii. cap. v. p. 517. opp. The reader will not, however, understand me as
Moral Theohgij. 389
mcnningr to den}' that there liad been, even at an earlier period, some few who,
by way of arriving at a lii<rher degree of sanctity, iiad renounced every inter-
course with men, and spent their lives in retirement and seclusion from the
world : for there are many circumstances which tend to induce in us a belief
that such was actually the case. But of this there can be no doubt, that until
the Christians began to entertain a partiality for that pernicious species of
philosophy to which wo have so often adverted, it was by no means deemed
necessary to forego all intercourse with the world, to attain to even the very
highest degrees of sanctity, and that by far the greater })art of the Ascetics
never did segregate themselves from the families to which they belonged.
When at length the Ascetics, by way of more readily delivering the imprisoned
soul from the bondage of the body and the senses, and rendering it capable of
perceiving and holding communion with the Deit}^ were led to separate them-
selves from all commerce with the world, they by degrees adopted the plan of
forming themselves into societies or colleges, and having agreed on a rule of
life correspondent with their tenets, each society chose for itself a governor, di-
rector, or superintendant, to whom the rest of the collective body might look up
for example, advice, and encouragement. Hence the origin of monasteries and
abbeys. — But there were some to whom even this kind of social intercourse,
limited as it was, appeared incompatible with the grand design of liberating and
composing the immortal mind. To them there appeared to be danger lest a
community of labours and prayers, nay, even the very seeing and holding con-
verse with the brotherhood might awaken the mind to various cogitations and
emotions, and thus prevent it from arriving at a state of quiet and repose. They,
therefore, withdrew into deserts and caverns, and there devoted themselves to a
life of severity and mortification, a life, in fact, estranged from every kind of
human solace and convenience, and hence they come to be termed " Anchorites'''^
or " Hermits'' — I will confirm what I have thus said respecting the causes wiiich
occasioned the Ascetics to withdraw from the world and become monks, by the
testimony of Cassian, as to the end or purpose of the monastic life, which
must, in the present instance, be allowed to possess the greatest weight, inas-
much as it conveys the sentiments of some of the immediate successors of
these first Christian monks. For it is well known that Cassian dre\v what he
records respecting monastic affairs and institutions from the monks of Egypt,
with whom he was particularly conversant. Thus then in Collation ix. ch. ii.
p. 360. he introduces the illustrious Egyptian Abbot, Isaac, as expressing him-
self: Omnis monachi finis, cordisque perfect io adjugem atque indisruptam orali.
onis persevcrantiam tendit, et quantum humancc fragilitati concrditur, ad immO'
hilem tranquillitatem ment'is ac perpetuam nititur puritatnn. Ob quam possiden-
dam, omnem tarn lahorem corporis, quam contritionem spiritus indifesse [p. 319.]
quccrimus etjugiter exercemus, et est inter alterutrum reciproca qiurdnm insepara-
bilisque conjunci'io. And in chap. iii. Ah omni discursu atque evagatione lubrica
animus iuMbendus, ut ita paulalim ad contemplationsm Dei ac spiritualis intuitus
incipial sublimari. In Collation i. which is entitled de Monachi inlentione, we
find this subject treated of at much length by another Egyptian abbot of the
name of Moses, who, in chap. iv. p. 219. states, amongst other things, that, pirn's
S90 Century IL — Section 36.
prnfessionis monachorum est regnum Dei, sed destinatio eorum est illam cordis
purificatwnem qucc ad visionem Dei ducat. This he, in chap. viii. p. 221. illus-
trates by the example of Martha and Mary, affirming that a monk ought a con-
templalione ascendere ad ilLud quod dicitur unum, id est, Dei solius intuiium, ut
etiam sanctorum actus et ministeria mirijica supergressus, solius Dei jam put-
chritudine scientiaque pascatur. — Monks, or Mystics, were, therefore, the offspring
of that secret moral discipline of the Christians which was built upon the
Egyptian philosophical tenets respecting the Deity, the world, the soul, and the
nature of man ; and may be placed much on a level with the Essenes and
Thcrapeutaj of the Jews. Some faint vestiges of this are discoverable, even at
the present hour, in the minds and institutions of the monks of Syria, Egypt,
and Greece ; of which, did I not feel myself called upon to bring this note to a
speedy conclusion, I could readily adduce very abundant proof. The European
monks of our times, on the contrary, appear to have altogether lost every idea
of the causes that gave birth to the mode of life which they profess, and
scarcely retain any semblance, or even shadow of primitive manners or regu-
lations. In this, however, there is notliing that should occasion any great sur-
prise. Mystical theology and its offspring, the monastic life, are the fruit of an
ardent sun and a parching climate, and, consequently, not at all calculated to
arrive at any degree of maturity in our part of the world. It has uniformly
happened, therefore, to all the various orders of monks that have at different
times been established under skies so temperate as ours, that, within a short
period, they experience no very trifling abatement of their primitive fervor, and
suffer the precepts and institutions of their founders to become, as it were, a
mere dead letter.
XXXVI. Alteration in the form of Divine worship, Religion hav-
ing thus, in both its branches, the specuLative as well as the
practical, assumed a two-fold character, the one public or com-
mon, the other private or mysterious, it was not long before a
distinction of a similar kind took place also in the Christian
discipline, and form of Divine worship. For observing that in
Egypt, as well as in other countries, the heathen worshippers, in
addition to their public religious ceremonies, to which every one
Was admitted without distinction, had certain secret and most
sacred rites, to which they gave the name of ^^ mysteries ^^ and a-t
the celebration of which none, except persons of the most ap-
proved faith and discretion, were permitted to be present, the
Alexandrian Christians first, and after them others, were beguiled
into a notion that they could not do better than make the Chris-
tian discipline accommodate itself to this model. The multitude
professing Christianity were therefore divided by them into the
[p. 320.J "profane,'''' or those who were not as yet admitted to tho
Mode of Worship, 391
mysteries, and the ''initiated,'^ or faithful and perfect. To the
former belonged the " catechumens," or those that had indeed en-
rolled themselves under the Christian banner, but had never been
regularly received into the fellowship of Christ's flock by the sa-
crament of baptism ; as also those who, for some transgression or
offence had been expelled from communion with the Faitliilil.
The latter, who were properly termed 'Uhe church,'" consisted of
all such as had been regularly admitted into the Christian com-
munity by baptism, and had never forfeited their privileges, as
well as of those who, having by some misconduct incurred the"
penalty of excommunication, had, upon their repentance, been
again received into the bosom of the church. It became, more-
over, customary, even in this century, more especially in Egypt
and the neighbouring provinces, for persons desirous of being
admitted into either of these classes, to be previously exercised
and examined, we may even say tormented, for a great length of
time, with a variety of ceremonies, for the most part nearly allied
to those that were observed in preparing people for a sight of the
heathen mysteries. Upon the same principle, a two-fold form
was given to Divine worship, the one general and open to the
people at large, the other special and concealed from all, except the
faithful or initiated. To the latter belonged the common prayers,
baptism, the agapm or love-feasts, and the Lord's Supper ; and as
none were permitted to be present at these "m7/stenes," as they
were termed, save those whose admission into the fellowship of
the church was perfect and complete, so likewise was it expected
that, as a matter of duty, the most sacred silence should be ob-
served in regard to everj^thing connected with the celebration of
them, and nothing whatever relating thereto be committed to the
ears of the profane. From this constitution of things it came to
pass, not only that many terms and phrases made use of in the
heathen mysteries were transferred and applied to different parts
of the Christian worship, particularly to the sacraments of bap-
tism and the Lord's Supper, (') but that, in not a few instances, the
sacred rites of the church were contaminated by the introduction
of various 23agan forms and ceremonies.(^)
(1) Instances in abundance, of terms and phrases applied after this manner,
are to be found in Clement of Alexandria alone, who seems, as it were, to pride
himself in placing the rites of Christianity on a parallel with the heathen mys-
392 Century IL— Section 3G.
teries, and in applying to the former certain terms and modes of expression de-
duced from the hitter. Possibly we may not do wrong in referring to this
source the application of the term " Symbolum^^ to those professions of faith
which were made use of to distinguish the Christians from the rest of the
world. The signs or watch-words communicated to those who were admissi-
ble to the mysteries, in proof of their fraternization, and that they migiit be
readily distingui.^hed from impostors, were, it is well known, termed "<S?/w6o/a."
The oriental Christians, also, of this age, were accustomed to compare baptism
with that lustration with which it was the practice to consecrate, in a certain
[p. 321.] degree, those who were about to be initiated in the mysteries; and the
^])rotession of faith, delivered at the font, with the watch-word, or sign, com-
municated to the candidates for admission to the secret rights of heathenism :
on which account it was usual for this profession of faith to be solemnly de-
livered in the very act of baptism to every one admitted into the church. In-
deed, in its operation the profession of faith, to which we allude, was by no
means dissimilar to the sign of mystical initiation amongst the heathen. For
as, by means of the latter, those who had been admitted to a participation of
the mysteries, were to be distinguished from the profane, so likewise, did that
sum of the Christian religion, which newly baptized persons received at the
font, serve as a mark whereby to know the true faithful, not only from heathen
worshippers, but also from the catechumens. To any one allowing to this a
due measure of attention, I think it will not appear improbable, that the term
'-'■ SymhoV was one of those things that were adopted by the Christians from the
discipline of the heathen mysteries. Nothing, certainly, is more common than
for two things having several points of resemblance, to come in the course of
time to be distinguished by one and the same title.
(2) A subject highly favourable, as it should seem, to the display of literary
talent, and, certainly, every way worthy of the attention of a scholar well
versed in matters of antiq[uity, has long offered itself to the public in the rites
derived by the Christians, from the discipline of the mysteries. As yet, how-
ever, it has never been regularly taken up by any one. Until this be done, evi-
dence sufficiently manifest and positive, as to the fact of the adoption of heath-
en forms and ceremonies by the Christians, is to be collected from the follow-
ing authors as well as others ; viz. Is. Casaubon. Exerc. XVI. in Annal. Baron.
p. 388. la, Tollius, Insignih. Itineris Ilalici ; Not. p. 151, 163. Anton, van Dale,
Di^s. in Antiquii. et Marmora, diss, I. p. 1. 2. Pet. King, HiM. Aposl. Creed, cap.
i. ^ xvi. p. 8. 15. 23. Ez. Spanhcim, Remarques sur les Empereurs de Julien, p.
133. 134. 138. 434. et seq. Edm. Merill, Observal. lib. iii.cap. iii. David Clarkson,
Discours sur les Liturgies, p. 36. 42, 43. — Should any one inquire what causes
could possibly have led the Christian teachers to adopt the rights of paganism,
I answer, that in all probability, their only motive was an anxious desire to en-
large the bounds of the church. The rites, themselves, certainly possessed no
very particular recommendation in point of grandeur or dignity ; but a hope
might very naturally be entertained, that the heathen worshippers, upon finding
somewhat of an accordance to subsist between the religion in which they had
been bred up, and Christianity, as to externals, might the more readily be pre-
Christian Writers. 393
vailed on to dismiss their prejudices and embrace the latter. The end proposed
in tiiis case was, in itself, certainly of the most pure and upright nature, and
may, therefore, justly be entitled to our praise ; but it must, at the same time,
be acknowledged, that the means made use of for attaining it were not ecpuilly
unexceptionable and praiseworthy.
XXXYII. Christian writers. As by far a greater number of
learned and philosophical characters were converted to Christi-
anity in the course of this century than during the preceding
one, it is not to be wondered at, that this period should also have
had to boast of many more authors who consecrated their talents
to the servi-ce of the true religion and the edification of the
brethren. Numerous, however, as the Christian writers of this
age were, but few can be named whose works have escaped the
ravages of time. Of those who wrote in Greek there are [p. 322.]
three of distinguished eminence, namely, Irenccus, Justin Martyr,
and Clement of Alexandria ; men whom, allowing for the times
in which they lived, we certainly cannot otherwise regard than as
learned, eloquent, and gifted with no contemptible degi'ce of ge-
nius and talent. The first of these having passed from Asia Mi-
nor into Gaul, was primarily made a presbyter, and afterwards
bishop, of a small church which had in this century been founded
at Lyons. Of his writings in support of the Christian faith, which
were not a few, none besides his five hooks against heresies have
come down to our time ; and indeed these (with the exception of
the first) have reached us merely through the medium of a wretch-
edly barbarous and obscure Latin translation. (') The second, who
was finally led to embrace Christianity after having tried almost
every philosophical sect, published, amongst many other works,
two A])ologies for the Christians^ addressed to the emperors Anto-
ninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, which are not undeservedly
held in very high estimation.(') Both of these suffered martyr-
dom in the cause of Christ ; the latter at Eome under the reign of
the emperor Marcus, the former at Lyons during the persecution
of Severus. — The. third, a presbyter of the church of Alexandria,
and pr^efect of the Christian school e^ablished in that city, was
a man of various reading, and particularly well versed in the li-
terature of ancient Greece. Of the numerous works in behalf of
Christianity that are ascribed to him, we possess merely his Stro-
mata. Pedagogue^ and Exhortation to the Greeks. Unfortunately his
394 Century 11. — Sectioji 37.
attaclimcnt to philosophy was such as to lead him into many and
very great errors.f) To these three are to be added Theophilus^
bishop of Antioch, whose three books to Autolycus^ in defence of the
verity and dignity of the Christian religion, are still extant.
Tatian, an Assyrian philosopher and orator, of whose numerous
writings we possess no other than an Oration addressed to the Gen-
tiles of his time, but which will not be found undeserving of pe-
rusal, even in the present day; and finally Athenagoras, a philo-
sopher of no mean rank, and prsefect of the Christian school of
Alexandria, whose Apology for the Christians, and Treatise concern-
ing the Resurrection, have both of them happily escaped the ra-
vages of time.(*)
Of the Christian Latin writers of this century none of an}''
name or value have reached our days except Tertullian, who was
originally a lawyer, but afterwards became a presbyter of the
church of Carthage. Much of ingenuity and acumen undoubt-
edl}^ discovers itself in the various treatises of this author now
extant, which are written partly in defence of the Christian reli-
gion against its enemies and corrupters; and partly with a view to
the reformation of men's morals, and the lighting up within their
bosoms a spirit of genuine godliness and piety ; but they are all
of them composed in a style, not only tumid and bombastic, but
[p. 823.] beyond all measure obscure. The opinions, moreover,
which they exhibit, are harsh, oftentimes uncertain, and not less
foreign from reason than from the sacred writings. In fine, thej
plainly indicate him to have been a man of a credulous turn of
mind, much addicted to severity, and possessed of more subtilty
than solid learning. (')
(1) Two very splendid editions of the books of Irenoeus adversus HaereseSy
were given to the world soon after the commencement of the eighteenth cen-
tury. The one by the learned lo. Ernest. Grabe, Oxon. 1702, fol. the other by
Ren. MassueU a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur. Lutet. Paris.
1710. fol. To the last are prefixed very ample dissertations by the editor, in
which a variety of things relating to Irenaeus and the sects whose principles he
combats are brought under eiamination and illustrated. By both of these,
however, a wide field has been left open to any future editor of Iranaeus.
Many are the passages that still require the hand of a sagacious emendator, and
many are the passages that still invite the attention of an erudite and able ex-
positor. Each of the above-named editors hath fallen into numerous errors
even with regard to the very distinction of words.
Christian Writers. 395
(2) An edition of the works of Justin, tlic philosopher and martyr, (we pur-
posely omit noticiiii'' any editions of particular tracts of his, such as his two
Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho) was published at London in the year
1722. fol. by Styan Thirllnj, an ingenious writer, but who has omitted every
thing that has been improperly attributed to Justin. This edition has never
been held in much estimation. A more ample one was published at Paris,
1742, fol. by Prudentius Maramis, a Benedictine monk, who has included every-
thing that goes under the name of Justin, and enriched the whole with copious
notes, and some long dissertations of his own. To Justin, moreover, are added
the following minor Greek writers of this century, viz. Tatian, AthenagoraSy
Theophilus, of Antioch, and Hermias, the author of a little book holding up the
Greek philosophers to ridicule, and to which he gave the title of Irrisio. The
diligence of Prudentius in collecting various readings and passages of ancient
writers, entitles him certainly to commendation ; but he is by no means happy
in his judgment of the opinions of Justin and others of the fathers, or in his
proposed corrections of the errors of transcribers.
(3) A very excellent and beautiful edition of Clemens Alexandrinus was
publisiied by Archbishop Poiler, Oxon. 1715, fol. The world, however, has
been taught to look for a better and more ample one, to the French Bene-
dictines.
Potter, a man of very great ability, and particularly well skilled in Greek
literature, has certainly, in an eminent degree, deserved well of Clement. For
he has discovered a peculiar felicity in the restoration of a great number of
passages, and aptly illustrated many others by quotations from ancient authors.
Owing, however, to a weakness of sight, and the pressure of matters of the
first moment, it was not permitted to this illustrious character to do all that,
under different circumstances, he might have accomplished. The Latin transla-
tion, therefore, still remains incorrect, and in many parts we have still to lament
a want of light and perspicuity. Very great ditficulty is oftentimes to be en-
countered in developing Clement's meaning, it being frequently involved in
much obscurity, and founded upon maxims or principles, at present, but little
known: neither is it by any means an easy matter, on many occasions, to per-
ceive the order and concatenation of his thoughts.
(4) An edition of Theophilus, separately corrected and illustrated was [p. 324.]
published by lo. Christ. Wolf, Hamb. 1724, 8vo. The remains of this Christian
writer were again given to the world, with additional annotations and various
readings, by Prudentius Maranus, at the end of his edition of Justin 3Iartyr.
Talian was published separately by William Worth, Oxon. 1700. 8vo. ; and
Athcnagoras by Edw. Dec/icrir, Oxon. 1706, 8vo. ; both enriched with various
annotations of learned men. Nothing, certainly, can be more beautiful than
these two editions, in point of external form, but of their internal merit we are
constrained to speak with some reserve; for whether regard be had to the
words themselves, or to the sense intended to be conveyed by them, there was
certainly abundant room afforded for bringing forward these authors to much
greater advantage.
(5) Of all the editions of Tertullian's works, that of Nic, Rigaltius, Paris,
396 Century IL— Section 38.
1611, fol. may be doomed the best. The one published by Ph. Priorius, Paris,
16G3, fol. is indeed more enriched with annotations of the learned, but not bet-
ter or more correct. The two editions which have subsequently issued from
the Venetian press, are, in point of beauty and elegance, for behind tho^e of
Paris: nor is tlicir fidelity always to be relied on. An edition of this very ob-
scure writer, at once comprehensive, accurate, and sufficiently illustrated, has
long been a desideratum with the students of ecclesiastical antiquities. Such
an one has,'at different times, been promised to the world, by men of very emi-
nent abilities, and amongst the rest, by the Benedictine fraternity, but, unless I
am altogether deceived, the learned will never be gratified with such an edition
of Tertullian as they wou'ld wish to possess. For not to notice the obsolete and
unusual terms which he, on some occasions, seems studiously to go out of the
way for, and equally passing over a variety of phrases connected with jurispru-
dence, and of which it is scarcely to be hoped that any one should give us any
satisfactory explanation at the present day, his thoughts are, in innumerable in
stances, expressed in a way so concise, so obscure, and so ambiguous, that we
are left in a state of utter uncertainty as to what it is that he means.
XXXVIII. Rise and propagation of Christian sects. Judaizing
Christians, Amidst this mixture of prosperous and untoward cir-
cumstances, and these endeavours, on the part of certain teachers,
to render letters and philosophy instrumental in giving additional
stability and recommendation to the cause of Christianity, the
church most unhappily became divided into various factions and
sects, which had for their authors and leaders a set of men who
wished rather to take their own wisdom for a standard than to
be guided by the words of Christ and his apostles. The first
dissension of this nature that took place occurred amongst the
Christians of Palestine under the reign of the emperor Hadrian.
For when Jerusalem, which had begun in some measure to revive
from its ashes, was finally razed to the foundation by this empe-
ror, and the whole Jewish nation were rendered subject to laws
of the most rigorous cast, the greatest part of the Christians in-
habiting Palestine renounced the law of Moses, to which they
[p. 325.] had before paid obedience, and placed themselves under,
the guidance of a leader named Marcus, who was not a Jew, but
a stranger, and whom they appear to have selected for the express
purpose of manifesting that they meant to have nothing in com-
mon with the Jews. Filled with indignation at this proceeding
of their brethren, the rest of the Jewish converts, who still re-
tained an immoderate attachment to the law of Moses, withdrew
into that part of Palestine which is. distinguished by the name of
Judaizing Christians. 397
Percea, and there established a peculiar church of their own, in
which the ceremonial law was retained in all its ancient dignity.
This church, Avhich could, unquestionably, have been but a small
one, never attained to any degree of celebrity, but, after having
mamtained its ground in Palestine for some centuries, began, not
long after the age of Constantine the Great, to go back, and gra-
dually dwindled away into nothing.(')
(1) A very notable passage relating to this matter, occurs in Sulpitius Se-
verusy Hislor. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. xxxi. p. 245. Et quia Chrisliani (i. e. those liv-
ing in Palestine) ex Judccis jpotissimum putabantur (namque turn Hierosolymcc
non nisi ex circumcisione habehat ecclcsia sacerdolem) mililum cohorlem cusiodias
in perpeluum agilare jussit, qiuc Judxos omnes Hierosolijmic aditu arceret. Quod
quidem Christiancc fidei projicicbal : quia turn pccnc omnes Christum Deinn sub
legis ohservatione crcdebant. Nimirum id Do7nino ordinanlc, disposilujn, ut Icgis
servilus a Hbcrtale fidei atquc eccksicc tolleretur. Ita turn primum Marcus ex
gentibus apud Hierosolymam episcopus fuit. Although this passage of Sulpitius
is neither so lucid nor so regular as might be wished, it yet clearly points out
the origin of that church, which held, that by becoming Christians men did not
exonerate tliemselves from the necessity of observing the law of Moses. For
it appears from it ; (1.) That the Christians of Jewish extraction, residing within
the confines of Palestine, as long as any hope remained that Jerusalem might
recover from its first overthrow, were accustomed to unite an observance of the
IMosaic ritual witii the worship of Christ. (II.) That the greatest part of these
Christians were, under the reign of Hadrian, when every hope of seeing Jeru-
salem revive was extinguished, induced to repudiate the law of Moses, and
chose one Marcus, a stranger, for their bishop. This, unquestionably, they
did under an apprehension that if they appointed a bishop of Hebrew origin
he might be induced, from an innate attachment to the law of his forefathers'
to attempt the gradual restoration of those ceremonies which tiiey had come to
the determination of for ever renouncing. (III.) That the reason winch induced
these Christians to renounce the law of Moses was the severity of the emperor
Hadrian, who had surrounded with a military guard the space on which the
city of Jerusalem formerly stood, and prohibited the whole race of Jews from
having any access thereto. With regard to this point, indeed, Sulpitius is less
perspicuous and luculent than could be wished, and is altogether on the reserve
as to many things on which it would have been more judicious in him to have
spoken out. Upon the whole, however, we can pretty well ascert;un what his
meaning is, and without much difficulty supply those particulars in respect of
which he is deficient. — The Christians residing in Palestine, so long as they
continued to observe the law of Moses, were looked upon by the Romans as
Jews; and certainly not altogether without reason. When Hadrian, [p. 326.]
therefore, had prohibited the Jews from all access to the spot whereon Jerusa-
lem had formerly stood, these Christians found themselves erjually inti-rdicted
from any approach thereto. But it seems that these latter felt particularly un-
S98 Century II. — Section 38.
easy under this restraint, and were most anxiously desirous to free themselves
from it. They therefore renounced altogether the ceremonies of the Mosaic
law, and lest the Romans might doubt of their sincerity, they committed the
government of iheir church to one who was not a Jew but a stranger. Having
thus openly divorced themselves from every connection with the Jewish law,
they were permitted by the Romans to have free access to that district from
whence the Jews were altogether excluded. All these things, it must be ad-
mitted, may, with a moderate degree of attention, be collected from Suljjiiius,
notwithstanding the very great degree of negligence with which he writes.
But we shall now proceed to make some inquiry as to a point on which this
author is altogetlier silent ; namely, as to what cause could possibly have ex-
cited ill these Christians so very strong a desire to have access to the site of
Jerusalem, that sooner than not obtain this object of their wishes, they were led
to abandon their paternal law and rites, and subject themselves to a man who
was not a Jew ? Is it to be believed that superstition could have stimulated
them to all this? Could they have been prompted by a wish to feed and re-
fresh their minds with a view of those places in which our Blessed Saviour had
passed his life, and risen again from the dead ? Could they have been actuated
by the belief, which was at one time so very general amongst the Christians,
and which continues to be entertained by not a few even in the present day,
that it constitutes not the meanest part of religion and piety to visit sacred
places? But it is absolutely incredible that men possessing such a strength of
mind as to repudiate the religious ceremonies of their ancestors, which had
been adhered to for ages with the utmost scrupulosity, and to commit the su-
perintendence of their sacred rights and religion to a foreigner, should, at the
same time, have been so weak and superstitious as to be incapable of enduring
the thought of being excluded from those places which Christ, whilst here be-
low, had honoured by his presence. If such were their character, it might well
be said, that in their breasts superstition had been opposed to superstition, and
that the greater, contrary to all probability, had fallen before the lesser one.
There must, unquestionably, therefore, have been some other reason which in-
duced these Christians to consider the liberty of having free access to the site
of Jerusalem, as of greater moment than an adherence to their paternal cere-
monies and institutions, and not to hesitate at purchasing this privilege by an
utter renunciation of the Mosaic law. Nor do I conceive that much labour or
difficulty will be encountered in ascertaining what this reason was. At no very
great distance from the spot whereon Jerusalem formerly stood, the emperor
Hadrian had constructed a new city bearing the name of jElia CapitoUna, and
which had been endowed by him with very considerable privileges. Into this
new colony the Christians, who had fled for refuge to the insignificant little
town of Pella, and its neighbourhood, and were daily experiencing great depri-
vations and inconvenience, felt an anxious desire to be admitted. But the em-
peror had peremptorily excluded all the Jewish nation from this, his newly-built
city ; and as the Christians who adhered to the law of JMoses, were apparently
not distinguishable from Jews, this prohibition was, of course, considered as
extending likewise to them. Feeling it, then, of the first importance to their
Judaizing Christians. 399
well-being, to procure for themselves the liberty of removing', .vitli their effects,
into the city of iElia, and of being cadmitted to the rights of citizenship there,
a considerable number of these Christians came to the resolution of [p. 327.]
formally renouncing all obedience to the law of Moses. The immediate author
of this measure was, in all likelihood, that very Marcus whom they appointed
as their bishop: a man whose name evidently speaks him to have been a Ro-
man, and who, doubtless, was not unknown to those of his nation that had the
chief command in Palestine, and might possibly have been related to some olii-
cer of eminence there. Perceiving, therefore, one of their own nation placed
at the head of the Christians, the Roman pra'fects dismissed at once all appre-
hension of their exciting disturbance in the newly-established colony, and from
this time ceased to regard them as Jews. In consequence of this favourable al-
teration in the sentiments of the Romans towards them, the Christians iound
themselves no longer debarred from the liberty of settling in the newly-founded
city, but were, without scruple, admitted to a participation of its privileges,
which were of the most valuable and important nature. — In what we have thus
suggested, there is nothing whatever difficult of belief, and it must certainly be
allowed to receive a sanction of no little weight, from what we find expressly
recorded by Epiphanius, de Ponder ibus el Mensuris, ^ xv. p. 171. that the
Christians, upon their renouncing the law of Moses, were suflered to remove
from Pella to Jerusalem. By Jerusalem, we must understand the emperor Ha-
drian's new city, which, posterior to the time of Constantino the Great, insen-
sibly lost the name of JEVm Capitolina, and acquired that of Jerusalem. Vid.
Henr. Valesius, Adnol. ad Eusebium, p. 61. But even if no memorial of this
were extant, no room whatever could be afforded for controversy. For it is in-
disputably certain that, from the time of Hadrian, there existed a Christian
church of celebrity at JEVia, and that the prelates, who were commonly termed
bishops of Jerusalem, were, in point of fact, bishops of ^Elia. I must beg the
reader, however, not to understand me as meaning that the Christians of Pales-
tine, in renouncing the law of Moses, were influenced solely by a wish to ob-
tain the liberty of removing into the city of vElia. Without doubt, that Mar-
cus, at whose instance they were prevailed on to renounce the law of Moses,
made it appear to them, by irrefragable arguments, that the authority and dig-
nity of the Mosaic ritual had been abolished by the coming of the Messiah.
By men, however, who had been accustomed, even from their tenderest years,
to regard the law of Moses with the highest degree of veneration, his arguments
would have been received with less effect had they not been seconded by a
prospect of being admitted to a share in the privileges of ^lia, and of thus ob-
taining a deliverance from the oppressions, and numerous other evils to wliich
the Jews were at this period subjected ; or if the second and complete subver-
sion of Jerusalem by Hadrian, had not extinguished every iiope of seeing the
temple rebuilt, and the Jewish nation reinstated in the privilege of worshi])ping
God on that spot, after its accustomed manner.
SulpUius does not add that this remarkable defection from the observances
of their forefiithers, was not general amongst the Christians of Judoea, but that
a part of them still remained invincibly attached to the Mosaic law, and with-
400 Century II. — Section 39.
drew from every intercourse with those of their brethren who had renounced
It. Indeed, there was no occasion for his noticii g this, inasmuch as the thing
was notorious. Nothing, in fact, can be better attested, than that there existed
in Palestine two Christian churches, by the one of \vhich, an observance of the
Mosaic law was retained, and by the other disregarded. This division amongst
[p. 328.1 the Christians of Jewish origen, did not take place before the time of
Hadrian, for it can be ascertained, that previously to his reign, the Christians
of Palestine were unanimous in an adherence to the ceremonious observances
of their forefathers. There can be no doubt, therefore, but that this separation
orio-inated, in tlie major part of them, having been prevailed on by Marcus to
renounce the Mosaic ritual, by way of getting rid of the numerous inconve-
niences to which they were exposed, and procuring for themselves a reception,
as citizens, into the newly-founded colony of MWa Capitolina.
XXXIX. The Xazarenes and Ebionites. Insignificant, llOWever,
as these Judaizing Christians, comparatively, were in point of
numbers, unanimity was not to be met with amongst them ; for
they were divided into two sects differing widely from each other
in their tenets respecting Christ, and the necessity of obedience
to the law, and possibly as to various other matters of opinion.
Of these the one, namely, that of the Nazarenes, is not considered
by ancient Christian writers as coming within the class of here-
tics ; but the other, that of the Ehiomies, is uniformly reckoned in
the catalogue of those sects whose principles strike at the very
fundamentals of the Christian faith. Neither of them adopted
those accounts of our Blessed Savour's life which were held sacred
by other Christians, but each had a peculiar gospel of its own,
differing in severel respects from that which we regard as gen-
uine.(^) By the N'azarenes,{^) our Blessed Saviour was considered,
not only as having been generated of a virgin, but also as par-
taking, in a certain degree, of the divine nature.(') The rites in-
stituted by Moses, they regarded as still necessary to be observed
by all Christians of the Hebrew race, but they did not exact a
conformity to the Jewish law from such as were of a different ori-
gin : neither did they consider the additions that had been made
to the Mosaic ritual at different times, by certain masters and
doctors of the law, as deserving of any sort of respect, but treated
them as things that ought to be either abolished or at least suffered
to sink into oblivion. (*)
(1) That the gospel of the Nazarenes was not the same with that of the
Ebionites, is most clearly manifest from the few notices respecting each of
Nazarenes and Ebionites. 401
them, that are to be met with in ancient writers. Vid. Jo. Albert. Fabricius,
Cod. Apocrijph. Nor. Test. torn. i. p. 355. ct scq. In the gospel of the Ebionites,
for instance, to pass over other things, the first two chapters of St. Matthew
were omitted, whereas, it appears from St. Jerome, that these chapters formed
a part of the gospel of the Nazarenes. The reader will find this subject more
particularly adverted to in my Viiulicia Antupicc Christianorum Disciplincc contra
Tolandi Nazarenutn, sect. i. cap. v. p. 112. Setting aside the actual difference
of their tenets, this one fact is sufficient to prove that the Ebionites and Naza-
renes were two separate and distinct sects.
(2) Epiphanius is tlie first who ranks the Nazarenes in the class of heretics.
By more ancient writers, the Ebionites are co^isidered as of that description, but
not the Nazarenes, The reason of tliis, I suspect, to have been, that the Chris-
tians, previously to the time of Constantino the Great, although tliey miglit re-
gard the Nazarenes as brethren, laboring under a degree of error, yet [p. 329.]
never considered them as corrupters of the Christian faith: nor will this appear
extraordinary to those who are in the least conversant with Christian antiqui-
ties. For the tenets of the Nazarenes respecting Christ, were, by far, more just
and correct tlian those of the Ebionites, and, although they would have deemed
it inexcusable in themselves, to neglect the ceremonial observances of the law
of Moses, they yet, by no means, exacted an obedience to the Jewish ritual
from those who were not of the Hebrew race. But Jews of this description,
who were contented with observing the law themselves, and sought not to im-
pose it on others, were, in the second and third centuries, looked upon as gen-
uine Christians, and deemed not unworthy of the name of brethren. This is
clearly intimated by Justin Martyr, Dial, cum Tryph. p. 136. edit Jcbbian. For
being interrogated by Trypho, in his disputation with him, whether those Jews
who, notwithstanding that they had embraced the Christian faith, continued
steadfast in their observance of the law of Moses, could obtain salvation ? he
thus replies: Xf^co oti o-cj^-^o-intt To<»TOf, i«y |UJi twj ahXys d'/B'^wTut
tKTraVTds Vii5'Hv dyavi^Hreu Tawa dvru fvXaya-tiv, Kiywv i aat^Y.a-iffBai
awTHj, iuv (UJ1 TaoTa ^uKd^uxriv. Ego quidcm sahatum talem iri aio^
qui alios homines in sententiam suam adducere annisus non fuerit, non
servatum eos iri affirmans nisi eadem, (the law,) secum scrvaxerint. Many
more things of this kind are to be found in Justin's dialogue ; but at the
same time, he does not dissemble that there were some who were less liberal
in their determination of this point. — But, possibly, it may be objected by some
that the Nazarenes were anciently included under the name of Ebionites : nor
is this objection altogether destitute of colour. For it is certain, that the wri-
ters of the second and third centuries occasionally made use of the term Ebion-
ites, in a much more comprehensive sense than we find it bearing in works of a
more recent date. In fact, it should seem that, at that early period, the deno-
mination of Ebionites was applied indiscriminately to all such Jews, aa notwith-
standing their conversion to Christianity, continued to observe the law of Mo-
ses. Vid. Origen contra Celsum, lib. iii. opp. tom. ii. p. 385. Hence it comes
to pass, that we find the Ebionites of those times distributed iirto two classes,
the orthodox, and the heretical ; into, those who believed our Bles^c'd Savipm
2(1
402 Centunj II. — Section 39.
to have been born of a virgin, and those who denied this. Vid. Origen contra
Cels. lib. V. torn. ii. opp. p. 625. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xvii. p.
99. Thcodoret, Fubul. Jlccretic, ^ ii. cap. i. p. 219. et. seq. But when I take
into consideration what is said by Irenseiis, and others, on the subject of the
Ebionites, I cannot help giving the preference to the opinion which I have first
above stated respecting them.
The term Nazarene, moreover, with these men, had precisely the same import
as that of Christian has with us. For being Jews, and speaking only the He-
brew language, they found a difficulty in naturalizing the word ChrisiianuSj
which is of Greek origin, and therefore substituted Nazarccus, a term bearing
equal relation to our Saviour Christ, in i^s room. St. Matthew in his Gospel,
chap. ii. 23. states it as a prediction of the prophets of the Old Testament, that
the Messiah should be called a Nazarene. Under the sanction of this authority
then, these Judaizing Christians thought themselves warranted in assuming the
title of Nazarenes, just in the same way as the Greek converts had taken the
denomination of Christians from the Redeemer's title of Xgtroj. Either
term alike indicates the disciples or followers of that Messiah, who had been
[p. 330.] promised of old to the Jewish nation. Hence we may collect the sense
in wliich we ought to understand what Epiphanius has recorded respecting the
Nazarenes. Ilccres. xxix. § vi. urs Xg/5-/*VtfS lnvrtis iTrovOfAaa-av, dWa Na^a-
gaifff. Nolunt Chrisliani vocari, sed Nazarcci. Being Jews, they felt a repug-
nance to adopt a Greek denomination, but selected a Hebrew term of similar
import and significance, and one that appeared to them of an equally honoura-
ble nature, since it was no uncommon thing for our Lord to be styled a Naza-
rene ; and instances had occurred even of his having applied this appellation to
himself. In this, certainly, there was nothing whatever that could reasonably
be imputed to them as a fault.
(3) What the precise opinion entertained by the Nazarenes, respecting
Christ, was, is not altogether clear. Many of our most eminent scholars, such
as Grotius, Vosslus, Spencer, and Huet, conceive them to have been altogether
exempt from error in their notions on this subject, and that their belief was in
no respect dilFerent from ours as to the union of two natures in Christ, the one
human, the other divine. By no one has this orthodoxy of the Nazarenes been
vindicated with greater learning and ability than by Mich. Lequien, in his Adnot.
ad Damascen. tom. i. p. 82, 83. as well as in a particular dissertation de Naza-
renis et eorum Fide, which is the seventh of those that he has annexed to his
edition of Damascene's works. Nothing whatever has been suffered to escape
his diligence that could possibly aid in demonstrating that the Nazarenes' beliet
respecting Christ was equally correct wiih our own. But none of all the proofs
which he adduces from ancient authors can be said so far to establish the foct
as to leave no room for doubt. Manifest, indeed, it is, that the Nazarenes re-
garded our Blessed Lord as of a higher and more exalted nature than a mere
man ; and that they looked upon him as having been begotten of a virgin by
the omnipotent will of the Deity, and admitted him to be, in a certain sense,
the Son of God, endowed with divine power. But whether they believed him
to have had an existence prior to Mary, and that God and man were united in
The Ebionites. 403
his person, admits of very considerable doubt. In fact, the sense of all the
passa«,a'9 that have been brouii^ht forward by men of erudition, witli a view to
establish this, is v< ry uncertain and equivocal. On tiie contrary, there arc some
passages in ancient authors which appear to furnish sutUcicnt proof of the Na-
zarenes having denied the divinity of Christ. See, for example, Origen's dis-
course, de DiLohus Ccccis, tom. i. opp. p. 427. edit. Huct.
(4) That the Nazarenes were averse to the rites and institutions which had
been added to the Mosaic precepts by the Pharisees and interpreters of the
law; and that they considered nothing as obligatory except the genuine com-
mands of the great Hebrew legislator, is abundantly manifest from the testi-
mony of St. Jerome, who had not only read their books, but lived on terras of
familaritv with them. Vid. Com. in Esaiam, tom. ii. opp. p. 34. and 106. But
whether they considered the law of Moses as of general obligation, or as bind-
ing on the Jews exclusively, remains as yet a question with the learned. For
my own part, I feel not the least hesitation in declaring my assent to the
opinion, that the Nazarenes believed the Mosaic law to be obligatory on no
other Christians than those who were descendants of the stock of Abraham.
And a principal reason with me for acceding to this opinion is, that St. Jerome,
who was intimately acquainted with their principles and tenets, represents them
as having entertained the highest veneration for St. Paul, and as having
assigned him a distinguished place amongst those whom they regarded as
teachers of celestial truth. Hieron, Co7n. in Esaiam^ tom. ii. p. 35. For how
could it be possible that the great apostle of the Gentiles, who laboured with
such zeal in proving that the law of Moses ought not to retain its ancient force
and authority, should have been commended and held in high esti- [p. 331.]
mation by men who considered obedience to that law as indispensable in every
one who would arrive at salvation? Not a doubt can exist but that the Ebio-
nites, who would willingly have imposed an observance of the Mosiac law on
the Christians in general, execrated St. Paul as an impious irapugner of that
law. This argument is of greater strength and weight than to be shaken by
certain dicla of St. Augustine or others, that by a forced interpretation may be
made to militate against it.
XL. The Ebionites. The Ehionites^ wlio derived tlicir name ei-
ther from some man, or from some particular fact or opinion, (')
were a sect of a mucli worse description tlian that of tlie Naza-
renes. For in the first place, although they held our Savour
Jesus Christ in great veneration as a divine legate or prophet,
they would not admit that any miraculous circumstances attended
his birth, but maintained that he Avas the natural son of Joseph
and Mary, begotten according to that law by which all other mor-
tals are produced. In the next place tliey not only observed the
Mosaic law of ceremonies in all particulars themselves, but also
iBsisted on its being requisite for every one who would obtain
404 Centurxj Il.^Section 40.
favour with God, to do tlie like. St. Paul, therefore, who had so
strenuously exerted himself in demonstrating that no necessity
existed for conforming to the Mosaic ritual, it may easily be be-
lieved, found but little favour with them. ' Lastly, they refused to
give up even the superstitious appendages which had been added
to the institutions of Moses by the Pharisees and doctors of the
law.C)
(1) Tertullian , and, after him, many other ancient Christian writers derive
the appellation oi '^ Ebionites''^ from some man. Vid. Jo. Albert. Fahricius^
Adnot. ad. Philaslrum de Heres. p. 81. et seq. Neither is there any difficulty
in believing that some Jew of the name of Ehion might have been the author
of those tenets by which the Ebionites were distinguished from other Chris-
tians of the Hebrew race. But, inasmuch as Origen, Philocal. cap. i. p. 17.
who is followed by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxvii. p. 99. states this
sect to have acquired the title of " Ebionites^'* or ^^paupers,^^ from the low and
abject sentiments which they entertained respecting Christ; and the same Oru
gen, in another place, contra Celsum, lib. ii. p. 56. accounts for the name from
their attachment to the indigent and insufficient law of Moses; and lastly, since
the Ebionites themselves, as is observed by Epiphanius, Hccres. xxx. ^ xvii. p.
141. considered the name to have had an allusion to the poverty and needinesa
of their ancestors, certain of the learned have conceived that more credit is due
to these opinions than to the former one, although they at the same time be-
tray an utter ignorance as to which of these latter is most to be relied on.
Were it to be left to me to determine this point, I should at once give the
preference to the opinion of the Ebionites themselves; for nothing can be more
certain than that by far the greatest number of those Christians of Jerusalem,
from vv^hom the Ebionites were descended, were involved in a state of indi-
gence ; nor is it at all unlikely, that this their poverty might have been cast in
[p. 332.] their teeth by the rest of their brethren, and finally have given rise to
a taunting, ignominious appellation. Origen and Eusebius, as may be gathered
even from the inconsistency of the former, in his explication of this name, con-
vey no information that can be depended on, as to the origin of the terra
Ebionites, hut merely give us their own interpretation of the word, or point out
how aptly it appears to reconcile itself with the tenets of the sect. But as this
question respecting the origin of the term Ebionites is, in fact, of no very great
importance, I prefer leaving it undetermined, to engaging in any controversy
on the subject.
(2) In the statement which I here submit to the reader respecting the
Ebionites, T am borne out, in several particulars expressly, and as to others in
no very obscure terms, by IrencBus and the best Christian writers of the early
ages. With regard to the last circumstance noticed, namely, that of their hav-
ing retained, in addition to the rites prescribed by Moses, the superstitious ob-
servances and practices introduced by the Pharisees, in opposition to the Naza-
renes, by whom these innovations were utterly lopped off and discarded, it
Gnostic Sects. 405
may, indeed, appear to a cursory examiner of the authors above alluded to, to
admit of some doubt. An attentive consideration, however, of the following
words of Irenccus will, I think, place the matter out of all dispute. Et circuvu
ciduntur ac perseverant in his co7isuetudinibus, qucn sunt secundum legem el Jw-
daico cliaraclcre vilcc. Lib. i. adv. Hccrcs. cap. xxvi. p. 105. et scq. Ireiiajus
hero obviously makes a distinction between an observance of the precepts of
the law and the Jewish mode or character of life, and represents the Ebioiiites
as conforming no less to the one than the other. But as to this Jewish charac-
ter, or mode of life, distinct from the precepts of the law of Moses, what else
can it mean than that rule of life and morals which had been imposed on the
necks of the Jewish multitude by their masters and doctors, as a sort of secon-
dary law ■? — What Trenaius adds of their having worshipped the city of Jerusa-
lem as the immediate residence of the Deity, I consider as indisputably folse
and injurious. For it was never held lawful for the Jews to worship, even in
the slightest degree, anything except the one true and living God. What gave
occasion to this calumny was their custom of turning always towards the site
of Jerusalem when they offered up their prayers. Prior to the war of Hadrian
there can be no doubt but that the Jews were accustomed to resort, for the
purpose of prayer, to the spot whereon the temple had formerly stood, in order
that they might conform themselves, as fiir as possible, to the custom of their
forefiithers, and the ancient religious discipline of their nation. But even this
miserable consolation was wrested from them by Hadrian, who, by a severe
edict, forbade any Jew to approach Jerusalem, and surrounded the whole area
of the temple and the holy city with a military guard. Nothing more was left
then to this afflicted people, so fondly attached to the practices of their ances-
tors, than, when engaged in prayer, to turn their faces towards the spot where
once had stood their city and their temple.
Epiphanius, Hccres. xxx. in treating of the Ebionites, attributes to them
many other errors than those above enumerated, amongst which are to be
found several, not only of a silly, but of the very grossest nature. He, how-
ever, takes care to apprise his readers, § iii. P* 127. and ^ xiv. p. 141. tliat his
remarks respect the Sampsccans and the Elcesaites as well as the Ebionitcs,
and that the primitive Ebionites were entire strangers to any such heretical
opinions. It would be wrong, therefore, to blend those doctrines with the
tenets of the Ebionites.
XLI. Sects generated of the oriental philosophy. From [p. 333.]
the insignificant and obscure sects wliicli we have tlms enume-
rated, unsupported as they were by any considerable degree ei-
ther of talents or authority, the Christian church experienced com-
paratively but little detriment. By far the greater part of the
ill-will and malignity which it had to encounter from without,
as well as of the discord and dissensions by which it was inter-
nally distracted and disturbed, is undoubtedly to be attributed
to those who were for expounding the religion of Christ upon
406 Century II. — Section 41.
the principles of the oriental ])liiloso]^liy. During the first century
these men can scarcely be said to have emerged from obscurity :
they lived unnoticed, and the converts that they made were but
few ; but under the reign of Hadrian, the apostles, and the prin-
cipal of their disciples being dead, they began to take courage,
and by degrees succeeded in forming numerous congregations of
their followers in various of the provinces ; and indeed did not
rest satisfied with merely instituting these associations, but left no
means unessayed that might contribute either to their reputation,
their stability, or their increase.(') Under the banners of these
new sects great numbers of Christians, who had previously enter-
tained none but sound opinions, were tempted to enrol them-
selves, being seduced, in part by a fanatical kind of eloquence
that characterised many of theirleaders, in part by the very great
show of piety exhibited by others, and in part by the prospect
of being countenanced in living more at their ease and sinning
without controul. A no less disastrous evil attending the rise of
the Gnostics was, that both the Jews and the heathens, consider-
ing the disgraceful maxims and tenets of these sectaries as the gen-
uine principles of Christianity, were led to regard the religion of
the Gospel with increasing hatred and contempt : so that the Chris-
tian teachers were thenceforward necessarily compelled to employ
a considerable portion of the time allotted to the establishment
and jDropagation of the faith, in repressing the progress of Gnos-
ticism, and in exposing, through the medium of writings and dis-
putations, the insane pretensions and principles maintained by its
abettors. (')
(1) Several of the more early Christian writers have left it on record, that
under the reign of Hadrian, when the Apostles were all dead, the Gnostic sects,
that had previously languished in obscurity, began to emerge from their con-
cealment ; and that by the exertions which they used in gaining proselytes, and
establishing congregations of their followers, the cause of genuine Christianity
was most sadly disturbed and impeded. Vid. Clemens Alex. lib. vii. Stromat.
cap. xvii. p. 898. ct seq. Cyprian. Epist Ixxv. p. 144. ed. Baluzian. Hege-
sippus apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. xxxii. p. 104. and lib. iv. cap. xxii. p.
142. although as to the sense of this latter passage the learned are not exactly
agreed. The admission of this testimony is unavoidable, inasmuch as we meet
with nothing in other writers at all repugnant to it, and the origin of none of
the Gnostic sects, except that of the Corinthians, can be traced higher than to
the age of Hadrian.
(2) The Greeks and Romans^ who were strangers to the genuine principles
Gnostic Sects. 407
of Christianity, erroneously conceived that the maxims and tenets of the Gnos-
tics were those of the Christians at hirge. Many of these maxims and tenets,
however, were not only foolish and ridiculous, but fundamentally vile and dis-
graceful, and hence it came to pass, that the Christians were looked [p. 331.]
upon either as persons devoid of reason, and worthy only to be held in derision,
or else as a set of unprincipled wretches that could not be treated with too
much severity. The testimony of many of the ancient fathers might be cited
as to this, but I shall content myself with adducing only one passage out of
Iremcus, advers. ILtres. lib. i. cap. xxiv. ad dctraclionem divini ecclesi<c nominhy
quemadmodum et genles^ a Satana prccmissi sujit, (he is speaking of the Carpo-
cratians, a Gnostic sect of infomous memory,) vti secundum alium modum,qu(C
sunt illorum audientes homines, et putanles omnes nos tales esse, avcrlant aures
suas a prccconio veritatis, aut, et videntcs, qucc sunt illorum, omnes nos hlasphement,
in nullo eis communicantes, neque in doctrina. neque in m(Yrihus,ncque in quotidiana
conversatione. Sed vilam quidem luxuriosam, senicnliam impiam (habentes) ad
velamen malilicc ipsorum nomine (Christ ianoi-uni) ahutmUur. The case was much
the same with the Jews, who had settled amongst the Greeks and Romans with-
out the confines of Palestine. For many of these who were at first far from
being equally prejudiced against Christianity with the rest of their brethren,
upon hearing the Gnostics maintain that the God of the Hebrews and of the
Old Testament w^as a different being from the True and Supreme God, — that
nothing like divine authority or dignity could properly be attributed either to
Moses or his law, — that the God of the Jews was indeed an angel endowed
with vast power, but devoid of clemency and wisdom, and a slave to the lust
of dominion, — that the resurrection of the dead was undeserving of belief, —
that matter was intrinsically corrupt, and, consequently, all bodies inherently
vicious and depraved, I say, upon hearing the Gnostics avow not only these
but various other principles and maxims diametrically opposite to the religion s
tenets of the Jews ; and hastily running away with the idea that such was the
way in which Christ had instructed his disciples to think and believe, they were
led to regard the Christian religion with every possible degree of hatred and
disgust.
XLII. Gnostic sects. This business of arresting tlie progress
of Gnosticism amongst the multitude, became every day a con-
cern of still wider extent, and attended with increasing difficul-
ties, in consequence of the numerous dissensions, disputes, and
seperations that were continually taking place amongst the vota-
ries of the oriental philosophy. For notwithstanding all of those
who looked upon the Creator of the world as a different being
from the Deity, may be considered as having commenced their
career upon nearly one and the same set of principles, yet they
had proceeded but a little way when, as many of them as prefer-
red following their own judgment rather than any other man's,
408 Century IL — Section 43.
Struck off into different paths, and not only gave to tlie pliiloso-
phy wliicli they had espoused a diversity of modification in itself,
but also introduced variations in the manner of reconciling and
connecting it with the Christian religion. Hence were generated
[p. 3o5.] disagreements, disputations, and controversies, which
soon gave rise to factions, parties, and sects that were continually
at strife with each other. It is by no means easy to determine as
to the number of these sects. There seems, indeed, to be but
little hazard in our considering them as having been less nume-
rous than they are represented by ancient authors ; but at the same
time it is certain, that the greatest discord prevailed amongst the
Gnostics, and that the sects generated by this discord were not a
few.(') Owing to the inconsistency and obscurity of ancient au-
thors, we find ourselves equally in the dark as to the precise time
when either of these sects individually was formed, or the circum-
stances that attended its rise: but since it is certain that all of
them, which attained to any degree of consequence or celebrity,
were in a flourishing state so early as the middle of this century,
it is not to be doubted but that the principal of them must have
been instituted not long subsequent to its commencement.
(1) It seems not at all improbable that the ancient Christian teachers, in
consequence of their not observing a due degree of caution in distinguishing
between the Gnostic sects might multiply them without reason. Each sect,
most likely, was at the first known by a variety of names; one perhaps derived
from the place where it originated, another from its founder, and another again
from some particular tenet or leading principle : and it is certainly very possible
that from their either not sufficiently attending to this circumstance, or perhaps
being entirely unacquainted with it, those who made it their business to oppose
these sects might fall into the error of representing them as much more nume-
rous than they actually were. It should seem, also, that certain of these sects
were known by different names in different parts of the world ; by one, for in-
stance, in Syria, by another in Egypt, and by a third, possibly, to some of the
other provinces: a portion of this or that particular sect, moreover, it is pro-
bable might acquire a peculiar denomination from some eminent teacher to
whom they might have attached themselves. Men, by far more sagacious than
the ancient Christian pastors were, have been frequently imposed upon in mat-
ters of this kind, and been led to believe in the existence of a much greater
number of sects than ever had any being. Even modern ecclesiastical history
supplies us with a remarkable instance in illustration of this in the case of the
Anabaptists.
XLIII. The Eicesaites. In bringing some of the principal
Elcesaites. Saturninus, 409
of tliese sects under review, Ave find our attention first called
towards the Elcesaites, whose founder, according to Ej)iphanius,
was a Jew named Elxai^ who, under the reign of Trajan^ so suc-
cessfully ingratiated himself with a Jewish sect, named the Ossens,
as to make converts of them all, and prevail on them, in a body
to adopt his errors. This man, although a Jew, and of course a
worshipper of the one only true God, yet contrived to blend much
of the superstitions of the east with the religion of his forefathers ;
and, amongst other things, protested altogether against the use
of sacrifices ; contending that the offering up of victims to the Dei-
ty was a practice to which the patriarchs of old were utter stran-
gers. This circumstance, considering that in other respects lie
manifested a reverence for Moses, and adhered strictly to the Jew-
ish ritual, seems to indicate his having belonged to the [p. 336.]
sect of the Essenes, who pretended that the law of Moses ought
not to be taken literally, but that there was a recondite system of
morality concealed beneath its precepts. It is, however, not by
any mean certain, as even Epiphauius himself allows, that the El-
cesaites were a Christian sect. Elxai, it is true, in a book which
Epiphanius had seen, speaks in a general way of Christ, and be-
stows on him very high encomiums ; but nothing whatever is add-
ed from whence it can be ascertained whether or not he meant,
under that title, to speak of Jesus of Nazareth. This certainly is
not characteristic of a Christian ; and I, therefore, for my own
part, entertain not the least doubt but that the Elcesaites were a
Jewish sect, and some branch of the Essenes.(')
(1) Epiphanius, Hccres. xix. ^ iii. p. 41. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. c.
xxxviii. p. 234. Theodoret. Fabul. Hccret. lib. ii. c. vii. p. 221. et seq.
XLIY. The philosophy of Saturninus. If the Elcesaites then be
considered as not coming properly within the description of a
Christian sect, we are certainly bound, in marshalling the leaders
of the different Gnostic flictions, to assign the first place to Satur-
ninus of Antioch, whom the early Christian writers represent as
having been a disciple of the Samaritan Menander: a circumstance
which, though it cannot well be believed, must yet be allowed to
possess no inconsiderable weight as an argument in favour of the
antiquity of this sect.(*) This man, previously to his becoming
a Christian, belonged to that class of philosophers who believed
410 Century II. — Section 44.
that, in addition to the Deity, of whom they pretended that no
one had any knowledge, there had existed from all eternity a
material principle intrinsically evil and corrupt, over which pre
sided a certain governor or jDrince. This world, and the first pa-
rents of the human race, he supposed to have been created by
seven angels, without the knowledge of the Supreme Deity.
These seven spirits, there can be no doubt, were the same with
those powerful genii begotten of God, Avhom the people of the east
conceived to reside in and rule over the seven planets or movea
ble stars ; for that such were the founders of this nether world,
was an opinion entertained by various others of the Gnostics
The fabric of the world, when completed, did not appear displeas
ing in the sight of the Almighty, wherefore he breathed into man,
who as yet was endowed with nothing beyond mere animal life
a rational soul ; and having divided the newly-created world into
seven districts, he permitted the seven angels by whom it had
been fashioned, to assume the dominion thereof, reserving, how-
ever, to himself a supreme and irresistable command over the
whole. One of these angels, Saturninus held to be the ruler of
[p. 337.] the Hebrew nation, the being that brought them up out
of the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses, and afterwards gave
them a law, and whom the Jews, therefore, not laiowing anything
of the Supreme Deity, ignorantly paid their adoration to as God.
To Satan^ or the ruler who presided over matter, this creation of
the world and the human race was in the highest degree displeas-
ing; wherefore, being stimulated by hatred and emulation, he
contrived to introduce upon earth, in opposition to the human
beings on whom the Deity had bestowed a rational and virtuously
disposed soul, another race of men, created by himself out of mat-
ter, and endowed with a malignant and irrational soul like his
cnvn.(') Hence was generated that astonishing difference which
is found to exist between the inhabitants of the earth ; of whom
some are of a sound and virtuously disposed mind, others of a
radically vicious character, inclining to every thing that is evil.
The former derived their body from the founders of this world,
their soul from the Supreme Deity; the latter derived both body
and soul from Satan, the governor of matter.(') That all these
things were devised by way of accounting for the existence of
natural as well as moral evil, must be obvious to every one.
Saturninus. 411
(1) If Sahirninus had been a disciple of ^^enander, propriety would have
required that his sect should have been referred to the first century: and
amongst the learned there have not been wanting several, as Le Clerc and
others, who, upon this single ground alone, have been actually induced to refer
it to that age. But in tliis instance too hasty and implicit a reliance has cer-
tainly been placed on those ancient writers who represent Saturnius as having
been educated under Menandor. For first, the discipline of INIenander differs
most materially from that which Saturnius professed ; and in the next place,
Menander, as I have above shown, cannot, with the least propriety, be considered
as coming within the description of a Christian heretic. Much rather, there-
fore, may we credit the testhnony of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. cap. vii. and
Theodoret. Fahular. Hxretic. lib. i. cap. ii. p. 193. by both of whom Saturni-
nus is expressly represented as having flourished under the reign of the Em-
peror Hadrian.
(2) The principal ancient writers that have treated of the discipline of Sa-
turninus are Irenajus, adv. Hccres. lib. i. cap. xxiv. Tertullian, de Prccscript. cunira
Hccret. cap. xlvi. Theodoret. Fahular. Hccret. lib. i. c. ii. Eusebius, Hlslor. Eccles.
lib. iv. cap. vii. Epiphanius, Hccres. xxiii. p. 62. and Augustine, in lib. de Hccresib.
e. iii.: but by none of these has the subject been handled otherwise than in a
confused, concise, and obscure manner. The consequence of this has been,
that whenever modern writers have attempted to extract an account of the
philoe^ophy and religion of this Syrian from any of the authors above-men-
tioned, they have been sure to fall into errors, and conjure up for themselves
difficulties where none in reality exist. Those errors and difficulties I have
made it a part of my business to correct and overcome, as far as the obscurity
of ancient authors, and their irregular mode of narration would permit: and I
will here lay before the reader a statement of those particulars in which I have
found reason to differ from the commonly received opinion.
(I.) That Saturninus assigned to the corrupt material principle, which he
considered as having been coeternal with the Deity, a peculiar prince or go-
vernor, is no where expressly stated by any of the ancient authors ; from what
they have left us on record, however, respecting his Satan, we may, I think, fairly
collect as much. Saturninus taught, as must clearly be perceived by [p. 338.]
any one who shall attentively consider what is said of him by Irenaeus, that
Satan, upon discovering the human beings that had been formed by the creators
of the world, and endowed with a rational soul by the Supreme Deity, went to
work and created, out of matter, a man of a corrupt and opposite character.
This Satan, Irenseus terms the " Angel inimical to the creators of the world,"
but more particularly " to fhe God of the Hebrews." But, certainly, his very
work bespeaks him to have been something greater and more powerful than
an angel. The creators of the world were angels, but they possessed not the
power of imparting to the human beings whom they had formed a rational soul.
The men of their creation breathed and crawled about upon the face of the
earth like worms, and had it not been for the commisseration of the Supreme
Being, they never would have possessed that spark of life, a rational soul. But
the power of Satan was such, that he could bestow on the man whom he ere-
412 Century II. — Section 44.
ated an actual soul, a soul, perverse it is true, and naturally inclined to what is
evil, but indisputably intellectual or rational. The ancient writers indeed do
not expressly state this, but it is an inference which admits of no controversy.
For wicked men, who are descended from that original man whom Satan cre-
ated, are unquestionably endowed with a soul as much as good men, although
it be a soul that naturally inclines them to evil. But this soul they certainly
cannot have received from God, the fountain of nothing but what is good, and
they therefore must have been indebted for it to Satan, their fiither. The Satan
of Saturninus then, although an evil being, must have been equal in power to
the Supreme Deity, and alike capable of animating bodies with a rational soul.
From these premises it follows, that we must believe Saturninus to have
attributed to his Satan an independent existence coeval with that of the Deity,
and likewise the command or controul of matter from all eternity. It is, more-
over, to be supposed, that the soul with which Satan inspired the man that he
had formed, was taken by him from the soul of matter. Wherefore, it should
seem most likely, that Saturninus agreed with some others of the Gnostics in
believing matter to be animated.
(II.) That the Diety was not displeased with the world that had been cre-
ated by the seven angels, is another circumstance as to which ancient authors
are silent, but which may fairly be inferred from his having imparted to the men
formed by these same angels a rational mind or soul. Having rendered the
inhabitants of the world capable of living well and happily therein, it is im-
possible that the world itself should have appeared displeasing in his sight.
Although, therefore, the world had been created without the knowledge of the
Deity, yet, when it was perfected, he beheld it with approbation, and deemed it
worthy of having its existence continued for a certain time.
(III.) That Saturninus considered the Deity as having placed this world
under the government of those who had framed it, reserving to himself, how-
ever, the supreme dominion, and likewise the worship of mankind, is clear from
what he taught respecting the defection of the founders of the world from
God. If there had been no previous obligation or subjection, there could have
been no desertion of duty or rebellion. Those of the learned are deceived,
therefore, who represent Saturninus as having maintained that the founders of
[p. 339.] the world were originally evil beings ; an error into which many have
ftillen with regard to the discipline of various others of the Gnostic sects. The
spiritual beings noticed by Saturninus are of three descriptions ; the Supreme
Deity, the angels who created the world, and Satan, the prince or Governor of
matter. The Supreme Deity he considered as essentially good, the Chief
Good ; the prince of matter, as essentially evil ; the creators of the world, the
rulers or governors of the seven moveable stars, as neither essentially good
like the Deity, nor evil like Satan, but holding, as it were, a middle kind of
character, that is, being endowed with free will, they were at liberty to follow
either good or evil.
(IV.) That Satan, or the prince of matter, was enraged with the founders
of the world, and privily counteracted the designs of them and the Supreme
Deity, by creating a depraved and malignant race of men, we find noticed by
Theology of Saturninus. 413
ancient writers ; but as to the cause of liis indignation and hatred, they are
wholly silent, leaving this, like almost every other part of the discipline of Sa-
turninus, but very imperfectly described. It will be no very difficult matter,
however, to supply the deficiency in this instance from conjecture. Those
seven angels, in their formation of the world, and replenishing it with inhabi-
tants, had invaded the province of Satan, and drawn away matter from his do-
minion. Filled with indignation, as it was natural for him to be, at this, he,
out of opposition, introduced upon earth a race of men of his own forming, by
whom those who had been created by the angels might be continually vexed
and tormented.
(3) Irenffius states expressly in lib. i. cap. xxiv. that Salurninus was the first
of the Gnostics that divided mankind into two classes, the one naturally good,
the other evil. The fact was, that he despaired of being able to account for
all the evil in the world from matter alone, and therefore had recourse to the
expedient of supposing all whose propensities appeared to be radically vicious,
to have been inspired with a wicked soul, and that the prince of matter had
created this race of men and breathed into them a soul similar to his own — a
Boul naturally inclined to every thing evil and depraved — in order to prevent hia
being altogether excluded from any dominion over the world. But with regard
to the tenets of Saturninus, respecting the formation of the first men, Irena^us,
like other ancient authors, speaks very indistinctly. He says, in a general way,
duo genera hominum plasmata ah angelis dicit. Learned men have been hence
led to conclude, that Saturninus conceived the founders of the world to have
created bad as well as good men, and that, therefore, they must have been of an
evil nature themselves. But to an attentive reader it must be obvious that ho
did not conceive wicked men to have derived their origin from the same parents
as had produced the good, but that they were the children of Satan.
XLY. The Saturninian system of theology. Upon llis conversion
to Christianity, Saturninus made it his endeavour to produce, as
far as possible, a congruity between the religion that he had thus
espoused and his former philosophical opinions. The way he took
was to pretend that the founders and governors of the world had,
after a certain jDcriod, rebelled against the Supreme Deity.(') That
in consequence of this, Christy the Son of God, had descended
from above and taken upon him a body, not indeed a true or real
body composed of depraved matter, but merely the shadow or
resemblance of one. That the cause or purpose for which [p. 840.]
Christ came into the world, was, that he might overthrow, not
only the dominion of the founders of the world, but also that of
Satan, or the prince of matter, and his satellites: he was, more-
over, to destroy those ministers of Satan, the men of his creation;
and finally to liberate and bring back to God the good men, in
414 Century II. — Section 45.
wliom existed a divine soul.(') The moral discipline prescribed
by Saturninus to his followers was rigid and austere. Eegarding
matter as inherently corrupt, and the body, therefore, as the seat
of all vices, he enjoined an abstinence from wine, flesh, and every
aliment that might tend to recruit or invigorate the corporeal
frame; so that the body, being extenuated and brought low, the
mind might, with the greater readiness and alacrity, perceive and
worship the Supreme Deity. He was also averse to marriage,
inasmuch as its object was the propagation of bodies.(^) In what
way, or by what authorities Saturninus supported his tenets and
doctrine, we are altogether uninformed. It appears however that
the code of the Old Testament, which we knoAv to have been held
in reverence by the Gnostics, was rejected by him, on the ground
of its having been compiled in part by the creators of the world,
and in part by the prince of matter, or Satan.
(1) Respecting this sedition of the founders of the world, which Saturninus
represented as the cause of Christ's advent, Irenaus thus expresses himself:
Et propter Jioc quod cUssohere voluerint patrem ejus (of Christ) omnes p)rincipes
(of the world), advenisse Clirisium ad destruciionem Judccorum Dei^ c^c. At the
first sight, certainly, this may appear particularly obscure ; but it will not long
embarrass any one who is acquainted with the discipline of the Gnostics. The
creators of the world, being elated with pride, conceived a wish to be them-
selves considered as gods by the human race, and, in consequence of this, be-
came desirous of extinguishing all Jmowledge and worship of the Most High
amongst men. By Patrem Chrisii dissolvere, therefore, henseus means arro-
gating to themselves that which was due to God alone, and extinguishing in
men's minds all knowledge of the Supreme Father: The orthodox Christians
and the Gnostics were in perfect agreement as to this, that the worship of a
plurality of gods, which, at the time of Christ's appearance, prevailed nearly
throughout the world, had been introduced by a set of proud, spiritual beings,
unjustly covetous of divine honours ; and that the gods, therefore, whom the
nations worshipped, had a real existence, and were, in fact, evil daemons. But
there was this difference between the Gnostics and other Christians, that the
former reckoned the God of the Jews as one of those apostate spirits who were
desirous of withdrawing men from the w^orship of the true and Supreme God ;
and conceived that the creators of the world, whom they distinguished from the
Supreme Deity, were the principal authors of this grievous iniquity; whereas
the latter believed that certain evil angels, who had themselves previously re-
belled against the true God and only Creator of the world, and every thing in
it, and who, in consequence of such their rebellion, were suffering under a
[p. 341.] severe, but well-merited punishment, had instigated men to withhold
their worship from the true and Supreme God, and bestow it on natures hate-
ful in his siffht.
Theology of Saturninus. 416
(2) Tliis view of the Saturniiiian discipline, it must be acknowledrred, is
mutilated and defective in almost all its parts; but the fault must rest with the
ancient writers, who liave not left us the means of rendering it more perfect.
A few things, however, may be added, as obviously deducible from the tenets
above noticed. — As Saturninus would not admit that Christ took upon him a
real tody, he must, of necessity, have denied his having been seized and ill-
treated by the Jews, his having suffered on the cross, and also his resurrection
from the dead. His belief must therefore have been, either that some other
person underwent capital punishment in Christ's stead, or that it was merely
some semblance or shadow of Christ that ai)pe:ired on the cross. — The object
of Christ's advent, according to Saturninus, was, that he might restore to man-
kind the knowledge of the Supreme Deity, which they had unfortunately lost.
It is evident, therefore, that he had no idea of an expiation of sins through
Christ, but conceived, according to the leading principle of Gnosticism, that
yvcoa-ii, as it was termed, or a knowledge of the Supreme Father of the uni-
verse, and a thorough contempt for the false gods that were worshipped by the
world at large, were alone sufficient to the obtaining of salvation. — None of the
human race, however, he contended, could attain to a knowledge of the Deity,
but those on wihom the Supreme Being had conferred a divine soul. The far
greater part of mankind, therefore, having, according to him, been endowed by
Satan with an iniquitous mind, were, of course, incapable of deriving any bene-
fit from Christ. — Those who received Christ were the good ; and the minds of
these being illuminated with a knowledge of the true God, reverted, on. the dis-
solution of the body, to the celestial Father, the body itself returning to matter
from whence it had been first taken. Those who rejected Christ were the
wicked ; and these Saturninus considered as destined to perish altogether; the
body itself being resolved into matter, and the evil soul which animated the
body returning to the soul of matter from whence it was originally taken.
None of the Gnostics, it may be remarked, seem to have been aware of any
other end for which Christ came into the world, than that he might overthrow
idolatry, and revive amongst the human race a knowledge of the true God.
(3) Irenteus does not say that all the followers of Saturninus abstained
from animal food, but merely that many of them did so, and that not a few
weak persons Avere vastly captivated by this sort of self-denial. It appears,
then, that Saturninus either left his disciples at liberty to abstain from animal
food or not, according to their pleasure, or that he did not prescribe a course of
discipline equally harsh and severe to all. Of the two, the latter strikes me as
the most probable. His followers, I should conceive, were arranged much in
the way that was afterwards adopted by ^Manes and others, i. e. divided into
disciples of the first and second class. The latter, not aspiring to any very
superior degree of sanctity and virtue, although they never exceeded the
bounds of sobriety and moderation, yet made use of the same kinds of bodily
aliment as other men ; but the former, being anxious to dispel those clouds
with which the mind was subject to be enveloped from its connection with the
body, and to arrive at a clearer knowledge of the Deity, allowed themselves no
sort of bodily sustenance, except of the most slender kind. — After tiiis manner,
416 Century 11. — Section 46.
also, ought we, I think, to understand what is said by ancient writers of the
Saturniiiians having been proliibited from marrying. For, although Irenaeus
[p. 342.1 states these men to have looked upon marriage and generation as of
Satanic origin, from wlicnce it necessarily follows that they must have regarded
all sexual intercourse as absolutely unlawful, it is with difficulty I can bring
mvself to believe that Saturninus allowed none of his disciples to marry. All
leaders of sects make it their principal object to collect together as many fol-
lowers as possible. But sects, whose leading principle it is to subdue, and even
stifle altogether, the instincts of nature, can never become numerous or extensive,
but after existing for a while in a low, dwindled state, are sure to fall to decay.
With a view to prevent this, otherwise inevitable consequence, the founders of
those sects, whose moral discipline was particularly rigid and austere, were ac-
cnstomed, for the most part, to exact an implicit conformity to their rules,
merely from such as were meant to stand forth as an example to others; the
rest were left much at liberty to consult their own natural inclinations. The
Saturninian sect appears never to have extended itself beyond the confines of
Syria; it should also seem to have been but of short duration.
XL VI. The philosophy of Basiiides. Nearly about tlie same
lime that Syria, and more particularly its chief city, Antioch,
■was infested and disturbed by the wild theories of Saturninus, an
Alexandrian philosopher of a similar genius, named Basiiides,
was endeavouring to introduce amongst his countrymen and the
inhabitants of the various provinces of Egypt another form of
religion, differing widely from the principles entertained by the
Christians at large.(') His system took for its basis certain points
which, in common with Saturninus and the rest of those who
were addicted to the oriental philosophy, he assumed as indispu-
table ; namely, that there had eternally existed a Deity of the very
highest excellence ; of a nature, in fact, beyond all human con-
ception : that matter had also an eternal existence ; that it was ani-
mated, and intrinsically corrupt; and from these premises it ne-
cessarily followed that the frame or machine of this world could
not have been the work of the Deity, inasmuch as he was totally
estranged from every thing evil.(") The nature of the Deity,
however, together with the origin of this world, and of the human
race, was explained by him after a more diffuse and subtile man
ner than by Saturninus, in consequence of his calling in the as-
sistance of the Egyptian philosophy. His doctrine was, that the
Deity had, long before the foundation of the world, begotten of
himself seven natures of the most exalted kind ; or, as the Gnos-
tics termed them, jEons, who, together with the Deity, from whom
Basilides. 417
ttey proceeded, constitute a perfect and supremely blessed Ogdo-
ad.i^) Of these yEons two of tlie feminine sex, if any conclusion
is to be drawn from their names, viz. Sophia and Dynamis, or Wis-
dom and Power, generated of themselves certain princes or angels
of the first order. These latter having founded for themselves an
habitation or heaven wherein to dwell, begat certain other angels
of an order somewhat inferior to their own; who, in like manner,
having constructed an heaven for themselves, became the parents
of a third order of angels. These fabrications of heavens Q). 3^1:3.]
and generations of angels, were by degrees multiplied to such an
extent that they at length came to correspond with the number
of the days in the year, no less than three hundred and sixty-five
heavens, and as many difierent classes of angels, having been
successively called into existence.(') All these heavens were sup-
posed to be under the dominion of a Supreme Lord, to whom Ba-
silides gave the name of "Abraxas;^'' a title that should seem to
have comprehended under it little more of mystery than this,
that the Grreek letters of Avhich it is composed, if taken as numer-
als, will be found to express the number of the Basilidian heavens,
viz. 365.(^) The last, or three hundred and sixty-fifth of these
heavens, being situated immediately on the confines of eternal
matter, the prince of those angels whose dwelling this nether hea-
ven was, conceived the idea of digesting the confused mass that
thus lay near him, and of forming it into a world, and replenish-
ing it with inhabitants. This design he, with the assistance of
the minor angels that were resident with him, at length carried
into effect: but whether with or without the knowledge of tlie
Supreme Deity is uncertain. Of this, however, we are left in no
doubt, that Basilides did not conceive the form of this world and
of mankind to have been first devised by these angels themselves,
but that they worked after a model with which they had been
supplied by Sophia, or Wisdom, one of the yEons.i^) The first of
the human race, in addition to a body composed of matter, were
possessed of a sensitive and concupiscent soul derived from the
soul of the world. To this, through the benevolence of the Deity,
was subsequently added an intelligent and rational soul, whose
powers, however, were much impeded and diminished by that
brutal soul which had been derived from matter.(') The angels
who framed this world apportioned the government of it and its
27
418 Century II. — Section 46.
inhabitants amongst themselves in sncli a way as that each nation
or peoj^le might have its peculiar president or ruler. The chief
of these angels was represented as having made choice of the
Jewish nation for himself, and given it a law by the mouth of his
servant JSIoses.
A rule of life and action was also prescribed to the various
other nations of the earth by the angels to whose guardianship
and government they had been respectively assigned. Finally,
with a view to the preservation of the rational souls, or those that
were of a kindred to the Divine Nature, the Supreme Deity had,
according to Basilides, at various times sent to the different na-
tions of the world legates and prophets from himself, who, by
their exhortations and instruction, might prevent those souls from
sinking altogether into a state of brutal insensibility.^) The souls
that were attentive and paid obedience to the calls of these divine
missionaries, were, upon the dissolution of the material body,
received up into the regions of felicity ; but those which rejected
the proffered benevolence were constrained to migrate into other
bodies, either of men or brute animals, and there to take up their
residence until they should become qualified for reascending to
their pristine blissful abodes.(^)
[p. 344.] (1) Basilides and his sect are treated of by all those ancient anthers
that have written on heresies, and whom we have above referred to when speak
ing of Saturninus. But since most of them merely copy, and not unfrequently
incorrectly, from Iremcus, we shall direct our attention principally to liim. It
may not be amiss, however, occasionally to turn to those authors who, in treat-
ing of other matters, have here and there incidentally adverted to Basilides or
his tenets, the principal of whom is Clement of Alexandria, who had read the
books written by Basilides and his son Isidore, and in his Siromala cites many
passages from them in the very words of the authors tlicmselves. For Basili-
des himself wrote four and twenty books of commentaries on the gospel ; and
his son left beliind him exhortations, moral precepts, and a variety of other
things. None of these works, it is to be regretted, are at this day extant. We
have also to lament the loss of a copious confutation of the above-mentioned
work of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, a very celebrated and erudite Christian
writer of this century. From the passages cited out of the books of Basilides
by Clement, it is easily to be perceived that the man was neither destitute of
gravity, nor of an appearance of great piety towards God : For he writes in a
very decorous and religious style. His manner of diction, however, is obscure
and out of the common track, so that there is occasionally a ditiicuhy in getting
at his meaning. Nor is his adversary. Clement, in many instances, at all more
Basilides. 41 9
intelligible. Indeed, he not nnfrcqiiently is so unfortunate as to involve the
maxims wiiich he assails in still t^^reater obscurity, and seems to enter the li^ts
against tilings wiiich lie does not suflieiently understand. — Turning to more
modern writers, in addition to wliat is to be met with in the ordinary ecclesias-
tical historians, and the Dissertaliones in Iremcum of Ren. Massuetus, it will be
found that great care and industry have been exerted in digesting and illus-
trating the tenets of Basilides by Isaac Beausobre, in his History of (he Mani-
chees, vol. ii. p. 8. et seq. Basilides is ranked by this writer amongst tiie pre-
cursors of Manes ; and not improperly so, in my opinion, if by the title of
"precursor" we are to understand one who builds his discipline on the same
foundation, and consequently lias many tenets in common. Beausobre, how-
ever, in other respects unquestionably a man of the first eminence, may well
be complained of in this, that altliough he cannot deny Basilides to have enter-
tained errors of the most flagrant nature, he yet consumes much time in excul-
pating him, and setting him oft' to advantage. The labour, however, is, in not
a few instances, altogellier thrown away. — Basilides flourished nearly at the
same period with Satiirninus, that is, under the reign of Hadrian, and died, ac-
cording to the Chronicle of St. Jerome, at Alexandria, about the time that Bar-
choeheba, the pretended Messiah of the Jews, was endeavouring to bring about
a revolution in Palestine. The ancient Christian writers who, without a sha-
dow of reason, feign to themselves a regular succession of heretics, similar to
that of the Grecian philosophers, represent Basilides also, as having been a dis-
ciple of Menander the Samaritan ; but what we have remarked above respecting
Menander, must, we conceive, be sufficient to prove this altogether unfounded.
(2) From what is handed down to us by ancient writers respecting the te-
nets of Basilides, there is nothing to be collected that can authorize us in
concluding that, like the rest of the Gnostics, he considered matter as being
under the dominion of a ruler or prince peculiar to itself, or that he believed
in the existence of angels naturally inclined to evil. For everything [p. 345.]
that has occurred respecting the world and the human race he apparently refers
to t-hree causes alone, namely, (1.) The Supreme Deity, of wiiom it is impossi-
ble to form any adequate conception; (II.) Depraved matter; and (III.) The
creators of this world.
(3) Irenccus mentions six JEons only, as having been recognized by Basili-
des, viz. the Deity himself, or the Father, Nus, Logos, Phronesis, Sophia,
and Dynamis. But Clement of Alexandria, Stromal, lib. iv, p. G37. adds two
more, Justitia and Pax, and expressly states that Basilides held the divine family
to be composed of eight individuals. — In regard to this subject two questions
suggest themselves. First whether these JEons are to be considered as per-
sons truly and really distinct from each other? or whether they ought not
rather to be regarded as merely virtues or attributes of tiie Supreme Being, and
that it was in thought or imagination alone that Basilides separated them
from the Deity, and gave them the form of persons ? The latter ojnnion is es-
poused by Ren. Massuctus, Dissert, in Irenccum, I. p. 38. and Isaac Beausobre,
Hist, de Manich.ee, tom. ii. p. 6, 7. as well as by some others. And without
doubt it appears to be, in a certain degree, favored by the names which Basili-
420 Century 11. — Section 46.
des gives to the ^Eons, inasmuch as they are those by which certain of the
virtues or attributes of intelligence and will are denoted. There is a circum-
stance however, which I am free to own, draws me over entirely to the other
of these opinions, and that is, that the JEon next in point of rank to the Father,
namely, Nus, cannot possibly be regarded in any other light than as a distinct
person. For this Nus is represented as the son of the Supreme Father, and as
descending to this world for the purpose of liberating captive minds. Such
then as he is, who holds the chief station in this divine family, must unques-
tionably all those who follow him be ; nor can any reason whatever be assigned
for our thinking otherwise of them, except it be what we have above noticed res-
pecting their names; from whence, however, no conclusion on the subject can
properly be drawn, since it is certain that many of the Gnostics whose ^ons
it is impossible for us to regard in any other light than as real persons, distinct
from each other, and from the Supreme Deity, gave to such of their ^ons
names of a similar nature and description with those above enumerated. — The
second question is, whether the Mons of Basilides, like those of Valentine and
others of the Gnostics, were of dilferent sexes, and whether they were conceived
to have intermarried with each other? Referring to their names we find some
of them masculine, others feminine: but there are not so many masculine as
feminine names in his catalogue ; neither does Irenseus or Clement, or any other
ancient author represent Basilides as teaching any thing respecting the marriages
of his ^ons ; w^hich certainly seems to indicate his having entertained notions
less gross, as to this point, than some others of the Gnostics. But from acceding
to this opinion we find ourselves recalled by Clement, who, after giving us the
tenets of Basilides respecting the origin of the world in his own words, sub-
joins this, moreover, as one of his principles; "Oo-a Ik a-v^vyidt.s Tre^oie^-xiTaiy
TrKyi^c^/uaraiTiv "00-31^1 dird hosy etKivig. Qu(ccumque ex conjugatione procedunt,
pleromata sunt : qucccumque autem ah uno, imagines sunt. Stromal, lib. iv. p.
603. In this passage j?Zero77z<2 must be understood to have the same meaning with
JElon. This is evident from the words of Basilides himself, as quoted by Clement
just before, where we find him expressly making use of the term diwv. For as
by a figure of rhetoric, those natures which inhabit eternity are denominated
[p. 346.] JEons, so also those who dwell with the Deity in the Pleroma, or
place of his peculiar residence are termed Pleromata. Basilides, therefore must
be understood as saying that an JEon could be generated in no other way than
as the human race are, namely. In. t^u^uyias, from an intercourse of the sexes.
But if this was his doctrine, it is clear that his discipline could not have mate-
rially differed from that of the rest of the Gnostics; and that the account given
of it by ancient writers is far from being perfect or complete.
(4) That such was the doctrine of Basilides, has, I believe, hitherto been
universally credited on the faith of Irenteus, who explicitly enough tells us that
it was so, adv. Hccres. lib. i. cap. xxiv. Nor do I myself entertain the least
doubt of the thing, inasmuch as I know that other notions very nearly resem-
bling these ridiculous fancies were cherished by the Egyptians, amongst whom
Basilides was born and educated. Beausobre, however, in his Histoire de Mani-
chee, tom. ii. p. 9. will have it to be impossible that Basilides could have been
Basilides. 421
so utterly absurd and irrational as seriously to maintain the existence of three
hundred and sixty-five heavens, and an equal number of angelic orders. But
in justification of his incredulity he can allege no other reasons than these:
— The opinion is in itself childish and absurd : — it could therefore never have
entered into the mind of Basilides. Basilides was an astronomer: — but it is
incredible that any astronomer should have believed in such a multitude of hea-
vens:— tlie thing, therefore, could not have been believed by Basilides. Now
that reasons such as these should, for a moment, have had any weight with a
man of quick capacity, is to me a matter of astonishment; for nothing surely
can be more devoid of force ; and if they be once admitted, the greatest part
of what ancient writers have handed down to us respecting the Gnostics must,
of necessity, be rejected as unworthy of belief. Great indeed might have been
the force of these arguments had Basilides been a wise man and a skilful as-
tronomer: but so far from this having been the case, it is admitted, even by
those who wish the best to him, that he was a man of weak judgment, and
fettered, in no trifling degree, by the trammels of superstition. But to what
purpose should we multiply words'? If his dogmas respecting the number of
the heavens stood unsupported by any circumstance else, it would be placed
beyond the reach of controversy by the name of '■^Abraxas''' alone, which he gives
to the Supreme Lord of those heavens, and which contains within itself pre-
cisely the number 365.
(5) That the name '-'Abraxas'''' or " Abrasax^'' for it is spelt in both ways,
was considered by Baslides as a sacred word, and was applied by him to a cer-
tain nature of the most exalted order, admits not of the least doubt. But what
this nature was, as also w^hat was the origin and meaning of this appellation, is
a matter of much obscurity, and one that has consequently given rise to a great
variety of conjectures and disputations amongst the learned. Irenccus, from
whom all the rest appear to have borrowed what information they convey re-
specting this controverted word, touches on it but very briefly, lib. i. c. xxiv. )
7. Esse auierri) says he, 'principem illorum (of the 365 heavens) — 'ACgti^Ac, et 'prop-
ter hoc ccclxv. numeros habere in se. From these words two things are to be
collected. First, that the Supreme Lord of the heavens had this title applied to
him by Basilides : and Secondly, that his reason for so applying it was, that if
the letters of which it is composed be taken as numerals, or in an arithmetical
sense, they exhibit the number 365, and therefore, in a certain degree, express
the function and dignity of the Supreme Lord of all the heavens. It is not,
however, stated by Irenaeus, and I would wish the reader particularly to attend
to this, nor by any other ancient Greek or Latin author, that this [p. 347,]
name was invented or first thought on by Basilides. The second point which
we gather from Irenaeus, inasmuch as it receives the strongest confirmation
from the very word itself, which, in reality, if the letters composing it, betaken
as numerals, will be found to express the number 365, appears to be admitted
with scarcely any exception by the learned of the present day; and although
there are not wanting eminent men who think that this word was looked upon
as possessing some other power besides its numeral force, and who have en-
deavoured by a reference to the ancient Egyptian and Greek languages, or in
422 Century II. — Section 40.
some other way to a'^certain what it was, they have never yet been able to bring
forwiird anvt!iiiio- bearing the least semblance of truth or respectability, in sup-
port of their opinions. See Bern, de Montfaueon. Palccograph. Grccc. lib. ii.
cap. viii. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs^ torn. iii. p. 700. Paul, Ernest. Jablonsky,
de Nuininis Abraxas Significatione, which last the reader will find in the Mis-
cellan. Aov. Lipsiens. torn. viii. § xi. p. 88. et seq. Let us then content
ourselves vvith that which is apparent, and not waste our time in searching
after things that, in all probability, we shall never discover. — With regard to
the p(»int first above alluded to as deducible from the words of Irenaeus, we find
it giving rise to great diversity of opinion amongst men of the most eminent
abilities, by whom a very learned warfare has been carried on as to who that
prince or Supreme Lord of the heavens was, to whom Basilides gave the name
of Abraxas. Those ancient writers who lived nearest to the time of Irenseus
assert that by the term Abraxas was meant the Supreme Deity; and to this the
greater part of more modern authors, without hesitation, assent. But the wri-
ters of ancient times, as well as those of modern days, who give this interpre-
tation to the words of Irenajus, manifestly run into the error of expounding
the di-cipline of Basilides upon orthodox principles. With Christians of the
true faith, the creator and ruler of the heavens is one and the same with the
Supreme Deity ; but the opinion of Basilides was of a very different complex-
ion. According to him, the three hundred and sixty-five heavens were neither
framed by the Supreme Deity, nor were they at all subject to his dominion or
controul. His belief was, that the angels were the fabricators of the heavens,
and that the government of these celestial abodes rested with those who had
thus framed them. Besides, there is another thing which deprives this ancient
opinion of all weight or authority. Basilides maintained that the Supreme
Deity had no name, and would never countenance his being spoken of under
any other title than that of 'Hhe Father^ We have the express testimony of
Ireneeus as to this, who states that the Supreme Deity was styled by Basilides,
innatus et innominatus Pater. He must, therefore, have been inconsistent with
himself had he, after this, given to the Deity any specific title. Another opinion
was started in the last age by John Chifiiet who, in his Comment, ad Gemmas
Basilidianas, p. 58. contends that by the title Abraxas was signified the sun,
who completes his annual circuit in three hundred and sixty-five days. This
opinion has been adopted by several of our later writers of the first reputa-
tion, and amongst others, by the very learned Isaac Beausobre, who, in his
Histury of the Manichees, tom. ii. p. 51. has, with great ability and learning,
brought forward various new arguments and reasons in its support. But in ad-
[p. 348.] dition to not a few other things, in which these arguments are defective
it is particularly deserving of remark that they assume it for a fact, but fail al-
together in proving, that Basilides regarded the sun as the prince or supreme
lord of all the heavens. For my own part, after having considered everything
that has been handed down to us respecting the tenets of Basilides, with the
greatest possible attention, I can find nothing whatever that should afford the
least grounds for our even suspecting, that he might conceive the sun to be the
residence of that great angel whose empire he supposed to extend over all the
Basilides. 423
heavens. Beauaohre, in all probiibility, perceiving this, endeavours indeed to
make the discipline of Basilides wear a very different aspect from that wliicli it
exfiibits as described by Irenajus and others, and contends tiiat the idle conceit
of a continued series of 365 heavens belongs to Irenseus and not to Basilides.
But, as I have remarked above, he does this without any evidence or authority ;
and, after all, g-ains little or nothing by it in support of his hypothesis respect-
ing the title Abraxas. For it may still continue to be requii-ed that the fact of
Basilides having attributed to the sun the government or dominion of the skies,
and of his having in consequence thereof considered this grand luminary, or
some all-powerful genius residing therein, as deserving of the most distin-
guished, not to say divine honours, should be proved to us, not by Abraxean or
Basilidian gems, that is, not by senigmatical sculptures of which we have as yet
received no explanation thnt can be depended on, but by passages from ancient
authors. That eminent scholar, Paul. Ernest. Jabhmskij, however, has thought
fit, upon the whole, to espouse this opinion, though not without exercising his
genius upon it, and endeavouring to make it accommodate itself, in some mea-
sure, to the religion of the gospel, lest it should seem too extravagant for a
Christian man to entertain. See his very learned dissertation de Significaiione
Nominis Abraxas, printed in the Miscellanea Lipsiens. Nov. vol. vii. He con-
ceives that Abraxas meant the sun, and thinks that although this is not expressly
stated by the ancient Christian fathers, yet that they occasionally gave obscure
intimations of it. ^ ix. Basilides, according to him, transferred this title to
Christ, who in the sacred writings is compared to the sun, and, Malach. iv. 2. is
termed the Sun of Righteousness. Abraxas, therefore, was the name of Cin'ist
himself, and Basilides, in thus applying it, meant to instruct his followers that
the long and anxiously expected Sun of Righteousness had appeared, and that
grateful and acceptable year of the Lord, spoken of by Isaiah the. prophet,
Ixi. 2. was begun, it would give me pleasure could I perceive that these things
were as clear and w^ell-founded as they are ingenious and pious. But the fact
is, that there are many things assumed by this illustrious writer as established,
which appear to me to be by no means placed beyond the reach of controversy.
He assumes, for instance, that Basilides ascribed a divine authority to the books
of the Old. Testament; which certainly was not the case, if any faith whatever
is to be placed in ancient writers : — that the name Abraxas was first invented
by Basilides : but no such thing is to be met with anywhere on record ; — that
those gems on which the name of Abraxas is to be found, and which are com-
monly termed Basilidian gems, were all of them of tiie manufacture of Basi-
lides ; a thing that appears to me altogether incredible ; — that from these gems
something certain and definitive may be collected; but winch unquestionably ad-
mits of very considerable doubt. — In short, not only these, but a variety of other
things are assumed by him, to which no one the least conversant in matters of
antiquity can easily be brought to yield his assent ; indeed, ingenuously to con-
fess the truth, his whole hypothesis appears to me to carry with it an air of
darkness and ambiguity, and to be by no means easy of comprehension.
For my own part, laying aside all conceits and conjectures, however [p. .349.]
much they may be distinguished by erudition or acumen, I think that as to this
424 Century II. — Section 46.
point Irenaius alone is deserving of attention, and tliat it may be clearly enough
collected from him who this Abraxas was that makes such a conspicuous figure
in the Basilidian discipline. According to Irenaeus this title was given by Basi-
lides to the prince or supreme governor of all the heavens. Undoubtedly then
this Abraxas could have been none other than the first and greatest of the
ann-els that were generated of Sophia and Dynamis ; he who, together with his
associates, founded that first of the heavens which, in point of formation, took
precedence of all the rest. His rule or government naturally extended itself
over all the heavens that were subsequently formed, for he was the fother of
the angels that framed them, and, of course, had much the same kind of reve-
rence paid him by these his progeny as was manifested for the Deity, by the
iEons resident with him in the pleroma. He was, therefore, deservedly styled
Princeps Calorum, the prince or supreme lord of the heavens : and the disci-
pline of Basilides recognizes no other prince of the heavens besides him. The
name Abraxas, which comprises the number 365, was peculiarly applicable to
him, inasmuch as it was he alone that orignated the whole 365 heavens ; of
which none would have existed had he not framed the first and highest of them,
and likewise begotten that inferior order of angels by whom the second heaven
was made.
A great abundance of ancient gems, bearing, in addition to divers other
figures of Egyptian invention, the name or title of Abraxas, is at this day ex-
tant, and more of them continue to be every now and then discovered in vari-
ous parts of Egypt. In addition to what is to be met with in other authors
who have incidentally adverted to the subject, the reader will find a considerable
number of specimens of these gems exhibited by J. Macarius in a treatise of
his expressly dedicated to their illustration, and which was enlarged and pub-
lished by J. Chifflei, Antwerp, 1657, 4to. under the following title. Abraxas^
seu de Gemmis Basilidianis Disquisitio, as well as by Bern, de Monffaucon
Palccngraph. Grccc. lib. ii. cap. viii. — Relying upon what is stated by Irenaeus
and other ancient authors, that the title Abraxas was held sacred by the Basili-
dian sect, the learned have been almost unanimous in considering all these gems
as of the manufiicture of Basilides and his followers, and that they were distribut-
ed to his disciples in the place of amulets to guard them against poisons, witchcraft,
and such-like ills : and hence among students of antiquity it has been usual to
distinguish them by the title of Basilidian gems. Beausobre, however, in his
Histoire de Manichee,\o]. ii. p. 51. has with much strength of genius entespd
the lists against this prevailing opinion, contending, that from the words and
figures engraven on these gems, it is clear that, instead of being ascribed to
persons possessing the least tincture of Christianity, they ought rather to be
considered as the productions of men utterly unacquainted with the true reli-
gion, and the slaves of a most base and degrading superstition. With not a few
the force of his arguments has prevailed : but amongst thcsa we are not at li-
berty to reckon the eminently learned Jablonsky, who, in his dissertation al-
ready noticed, labours hard to overthrow Beausobre's reasoning, and to uphold
the common opinion respecting the Christian, and more particularly the Basili-
dian origin of these gems. The fact is, that unless these gems be regarded as
Basilides. 425
of Christian orgin, Jnblonsky'a interpretation of the word Abraxas must incvi
tably fall to the o^roiiiul. Accord iiii,^ to my view of the subject it seems impos-
sible to deny Beausobre this much, that no inconsiderable portion of these
gems are of a nature that will not admit of our believing' them to [p. 350.]
have come from the hands of any Christian workman, although, unquestion-
ably, some of them exhibit certain marks or signs that may be considered as
having somewhat of a distant reference to the Christian religion. For by far
the greater portion of them carry on their face the insignia of the Egyptiim
religion, and arc evidently the offspring of a superstition too gross to enslave
the mind even of an half Christian. In my opinion, therefore, Basilides did not
first devise or invent the title of Abraxas, but borrowed it, as he did a variety
of other things, from the discipline of the Egyptian priests: nor is there, as I
have already above observed, any ancient writer whatever that attributes the
invention of this title to Basilides. Now let us only for a moment suppose,
that Abraxas was a title by which the Egyptians were accustomed, long before
the rise of Christianity, to designate the ruler or chief of those demons or an-
gels whom they believed to preside over the heavens and the stars, and we shall
have no further to seek, either as to the nature or design of these genjs, or the
reason of their being inscribed with this name. It was an ancient opinion of
the Egyptians that the dccmons who rule over the heavens and the stars, possess
also no little degree of influence over human affiiirs,and that amongst them there
are some who delight in the evils of the human race, and make it their study,
either of themselves, or through the instrumentality of agents, to afHict mankind
with diseases or other grievous ills. With a view then to defend themselves
against these enemies and torturers, and to secure both body and mind from
the calamities which evil spirits of this kind might meditate against them, these
deluded people were accustomed to inscribe on gems the name of that daemon
whom they supposed to have the supreme command over all the heavens and
their rulers, together with some additional letters or figures which they sup-
posed to possess great virtues, and to hang these gems as amulets about their
necks. Their notion was, (indeed the superstition is not even yet obliterated
amongst the vulgar of the east,) that the evil demons, upon beholding the ter-
rific name of their supreme lord and ruler, accompanied with the above-mentioned
mysterious w^ords and figures, would find themselves incapable of working any
harm to the person wearing this defence, and would consequently take to flight.
Basilides, who was an Egyptian, transplanted this opinion, and the practice con-
sequent upon it, into his system, with this difference only, that rejecting such
figures or words as were profane, and would have been a scandal and disgrace
to the religion he had adopted, he, in their room, annexed to the title of Abraxas
certain others more suitable to the Christian character.
(6) Basilides did not, like the other Gnostics, consider the architect of this
world to be evil in his nature ; but appears rather to have thought very highly
of him, terming him, according to Clement, "the prophet and image of the True
God ;" to whom Sophia or Wisdom, that is one of the jEons, communicated
the model of the world and of the human race. Stromal, lib. iv. p. G03. Nearly
all the Gnostics, indeed, were agreed in this, that the founder or founders of
426 Century 11. — Section 46.
this world did not tlienisolvcs devise the fashion thereof, or of mankind, hut in
the formation of both, had before their eyes that model of the world and of the
human race which exists with God in the pleroma. In truth, it wiis impossible
for Basiliclfs, consisteutly with his tenets, to think otherwise than well of the
Creator of the world, in;ismueh as he deduced the origin of such creator through
two uEons from the Deity himself, and consequently must have admitted of his
bearin"- somewhat of an afKnity or relationship to the divine nature. This crea-
tor of the world was not, however, considered by him as good after the same
manner that God is good ; namely, as being altogether incapable of meditating,
[p. 351.] or even conceiving any thing evil ; but rather as possessing a middle
kind of nature, and endowed with a freedom of will that might be turned either
to a good or a bad account. From the Supreme Being nothing evil could pro-
ceed, from matter nothing good. But the angels who formed the world out
of matter, or who were supposed to administer and govern it, had an equal
power of inclining themselves either way, to good or to evil. This was the
opinion of all the Gnostics, who believed that the creator of the world, or as
they termed him, Demiurgus. was not originally of an evil nature ; a circum-
stance that at once accounts for our finding Demiurgus extolled and spoken of
in the most exalted terms by persons who in the next breath represent him as
the author and cause of much mischief and calamity. The fact was, that they
regarded him as a being of an excellent nature, but at the same time as one that
had made an ill use of his liberty,
(7) Almost all the Gnostic sects considered man as possessed of two souls ;
the one brutal, and endowed merely with a perceptive libidinous faculty ; the
other rational, and gifted with wisdom and intelligence : the latter divine in its
origin, the former earthly and derived from the soul of matter. Nor were
different sentiments on the subject entertained by Basilides, of whom Clement
expressly says, Avq ya^ J^h 4'^;^"'^ vTroTi^irat Kut iros tv i^fxHv. Is ergo duas quoque
in nobis ponit animas. Stromal, lib. ii. p. 448. His son Isidore also wrote a
particular treatise «gi Trgoo-pyaj 4^/C"^' ^^ Anima adnata, that is concerning the
soul which coalesces, or, as it were, unites itself in one with the rational soul, the •
concupiscent soul that is continually leading astray the intelligent soul with
which it is associated in the body. From this work of Isidore's Clement quotes
several passages. — To the question, however, of how it came to pass that a
portion of the divine nature, a soul of reason and intelligence, should be con-
demned to a residence in this loathsome vitiated body 1 the Gnostics do not
return an uniform answer. Of what might be the opinion of Basilides as to
this, the learned profess themselves to be altogether ignorant. But to me it
appears that all uncertainty on the subject is removed by Clement, who had
read the books of Basilides, and who, after giving a long quotation from him,
adds as follows; 'AXXi t-c3 Bas-tXatTis « v-sro^ic-ig Tsr^oatAaoTricra^av (pticri r>)V -^v^h iv
iTEga ^t» T«v KoX^a-iv v'oroucvii bruiv^a. Scd Basilidis hypothesis dicit, animam,
qui. prius peccaverat in alia vita, hicpati supplicium. Stromat. lib. iv. p. 600. At
the first I entertained some doubt as to whether these words referred to the
souls of all mankind, or to those of martyrs alone. For the passage preceding
them relates to martyrs only. But the words of Clement that immediately
Theology of BasiUdes. 427
follow, entirely remove this doubt, and render it evident that we ought to under-
stand the passage as referring to the souls of the whole human race. The souls
of men he divides into two classes ; (I.) " The elect," or those of martyrs ;
(II.) " The common," or those of the ordinary description. The former he repre-
sents as receiving an honorary punishment in martyrdom, the latter as under-
going the punishment due to their offences. It is evident, therefore,! think, after
what manner Basilides accounted for the association of divine souls with gross
material bodies. The greater part of these souls had been guilty of some
grievous transgression in the regions above, and had consequently rendered
themselves obnoxious to punishment. When tiie founder of this world, there-
fore, had created the human race endowed with nothing more than merely a
sensitive soul, the Deity caused those other souls to take up their [p. 352.]
abode, for a season, in men's bodies, by way of expiating their offence, and
rendering themselves worthy of being restored to their former estate. And in
this the Deity acted conformably to his goodness. For since these souls had,
by their transgression, incurred an exclusion from the celestial regions, and
rendered it impossible that they should ever be again received there witliout
having made expiation, a way was pointed out to them, in the maintenance of
a continual conflict with matter and the temptations of the sensitive soul, by
which they might wipe away the remembrance of their offence, and once more
cleanse themselves from every impurity and stain.
(8) The Basilidians pretended to be in the possession of the oracular com-
munications of certain of these legates and prophets that had been sent by the
Deity to the human race before Christ's advent. The prophecies of Cham, for
instance, which are mentioned by Clement, Stromal, lib. vi. p. 642. the discourses
of Barcahha and Barcophus, noticed by Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. c. vii.
p. 120. and other writings of a like description. All of these were forgeries, no
doubt, but yet I think they must have been of some antiquity.
(9) Origen is my authority for stating Basilides to have believed in the mi-
gration of disobedient souls on the dissolution of the corporeal frame, into new
bodies, either of men or brute animals. See his Comm. in Mallh. torn, xxviii. p.
136, as also in Rom. v. p. 530, edit. Huetian. The principle also strictly accords
with his other tenets respecting the human soul.
XLYII. The Basilidian system of theology. When Basilides,
overpowered by the divine lustre of Christianity, had been in-
duced to enrol himself amongst the number of its votaries, he
made it his study to bend and interpret its princij)les in such a
way as that they might appear rather to support than to militate
against these his philosophical tenets. The cause of Christ's ad-
vent he maintained to be the defection of the founders and go-
vernors of this world from the Supreme Deity, the contentions and
wars amongst themselves, in which they were continually engaged,
and the consequent utter depravity and miserable situation of the
428 Century II. — Section 47.
wliolc human race. Those eminently powerful genii, he asserted,
who both created and govern the world, being endowed with the
most perfect freedom of will, as to the choice of either good or
evil, inclined by degrees to the latter, and endeavoured to root
out and obliterate all knowledge of the true God, with a view to
get themselves regarded and worshipped by mankind as gods in
his stead. They then engaged in wars amongst themselves, each
one striving to extend the sphere of his own power. (') The presi-
dent or ruler of the Jewish nation, in particular, the chief angel
of the whole, aimed at nothing short of universal sovereignty,
his efforts being directed to the entire subjugation of his asso-
ciates, and the various regions of the earth over which they res-
pectively resided. The consequences produced by this perturbed
state of things were, that the true religion sunk into oblivion,
men resigned themselves wholly to the dominion of depraved
aj)petites and lusts, and every part of the earth groaned under an
[p. 853.] accumulation of calamities, crimes, and wretchedness.
Touched with compassion on beholding souls of a divine origin
involved in so much misery and distress, the Supreme Deity di-
rected his Son, that is Nus, the first of the seven jEons begotten
of himself, to descend on earth for the purpose of putting an end
to the dominion of these presiding angels, particularly that of
their superlatively proud and arrogant chief whom the Jewish
nation had learnt to venerate as a God. Having accomplished
this, he was to revive amongst men the long lost knowledge of
his father, and teach them to subdue the force of those turbulent
and irregular appetites which war against the soul. Taking upon
himself, therefore, the form and semblance of a man, but without
assuming a real body, the son made his appearance amongst the
Jews, and entered on the duties of the function that had thus
been assigned him by his father, confirming the truth of his doc-
trine by miracles of the most stupendous nature. Enraged at
this invasion of his dominion, the god of the Jews caused Christ
to be apprehended and condemned to suffer death ; but the latter,
not being cloathed with a real body of his own, adopted that of
Simon the Cyrenian, who had been compelled to bear his cross,
and transferred his form to Simon ; so that instead of Christ it
was Simon the Cyrenian whom the Jews crucified.^ The souls
that paid obedience to the precepts and injunctions thus commu-
Theology of Bas Hides. 429
nicated to tlicm from above, might expect, upon tlic dissolution
of the body, to regain their original scats in the blissful mansions
above ; but those who neglected availing themselves of the prof-
fered instruction, were destined to migrate into other bodies, ei-
ther of men or brute animals, until their impurities should bo
wholly purged away. As for the bod?/, a mass of corrupt and
vitiated matter, no hope was to be entertained of its being ever
restored to life again. Of the books of the Okl Testament, which
he conceived to have been composed, in part, by command of
the prince of the Jewish nation, and in part at the instance of
the other angels, Basilides could not, of course, have made any
great account. AVhat the books of the New Testament might be,
of which he approved, is not at present known.
He wrote a long explanatory comment indeed on the gospel,
but whether the gospel, which he thus took upon him to expound,
was one of those which we recognize as genuine, or a different
one, is not altogether certain.(^)
(1) To us of the present day, all this may appear very silly and ridiculous;
but it was not viewed in this light by the oriental nations and the Egyptians,
from whom Basilides borrowed a considerable part of his system. An opinion
had, from very remote antiquity, prevailed amongst the nations of the east, and
was adopted by the Jews, that this world was governed by angels, and tiiat each
nation or people had its presiding or ruling angel. Whatever, therefore, might
happen to any particular region, either of a fortunate or a disastrous nature,
was attributed not so much to the earthly sovereign or prince of that region as
to its angelic guardian and governor: the former, in every thing wiiich he might
do, whether good or evil, being considered as acting under the immediate in-
citement or instigation of the latter. Hence, when kings and nations went to
war with each other, the angels presiding over tiiose nations were [p. 354.]
conceived to be the authors of such wars. For these celestial rulers were sup-
posed to burn with a desire of extending the limits of their dominion and ac-
quiring an increase of power, and, with that view, to infuse into the minds of
kings and nations a disposition to make war on other states. It is easy, then,
to perceive in what sense we ought to understand what is taught by so many
of the Gnostics respecting the angels occasioning disturbance in mundane affairs,
stirring up wars amongst mankind, and bringing down a variety of afflictions
and calamities on the human race.
(•2) In exhibiting a view of the tenets of Basilides respecting Christ, I have
followed the example of every other writer of ecclesiastical history that I have
seen, and taken for my guide Irenccus. I must, however, confess that it is ex-
ceedingly difficult, I had almost said impossible, to reconcile Irenaius's account
with what Clement of Alexandria says respecting the Basilidian institutes, and
430 Century 11. — Section 47.
the quotations which he gives us from the writings of Biisilidcs himeelf This waa
first noticed, I believe, by Ren. Ma.ssuetus, Dissert, in Irenccinn,^. 61. But this
author prefers the autliority of Irenreus to that of Clement, and endeavours to
give such an interpretation to the words of the former as would do away the
above-noticed want of harmony between the two. In this, however, lie is un-
questionably wrong, since it is evident that in every thing respecting Basiiides,
Clement, who had actually perused the writings of the man himself, and who,
being an Egyptian, had had the opportunity of witnessing on the spot the rites
and observances of the Basilidian sect, which had its origin in Egypt, must be
much more deserving of attention than Irenasus, who resided in Gaul, and must
necessarily have obtained what information he might possess on the subject
merely at second hand. Beausobre, with more propriety, in his Hist de Mani-
cliee, vol. ii. p. 24, et. seq. deemed it best to turn his back entirely on Irena3us,
and in eliciting the sentiments of Basiiides respecting Christ, to depend wholly
on what is to be met with on the subject in Clement. — Clement, it may first be
observed, adduces (Slromat. lib. iv. p. GOO.) a passage from the writings of
Basiiides, in which he denies that Christ was without spot or stain, and intimates
in no very obscure terms, that by his sufferings and death he merely made
ajtonement to divine justice for his own proper sins. Basiiides was one who
detracted much from the sanctity and pre-eminence of the martyrs, who were
extolled and venerated beyond measure by the Christians of his time, contend-
ing that the sufferings and evils which they endured, were inflicted on them by
the just judgment of God, on account of sins which they had committed either
in the course of their lives here below, or else, before their coming into this
world, in the regions above. To this error the orthodox Christians opposed the
example of our Saviour, who, although he was in the highest degree holy and
immaculate, was yet exposed to inexpressible sufferings, and underwent even
death itself By way, then, of getting rid of the force of this argument, Basiii-
des had the temerity to assert that Christ, inasmuch as he was a man, could not
have been immaculate or a stranger to every thing sinful. "E/ ^h toi a-pcJ'^OTi^ov
exl^iasroio rov Xoyov , £?cj> av3"gaTov, Ovtiv" av ovo/Uid(niSy ulv^^cdttcv iivcti J'lKU.iop n toy
d-iov. Kci3-3f§os T-ig vS'itsy cj5-^£g XiTTi TL;y iTTopuTTu. Quodsi vevo me vehementius
urgeas, dicam, quemcunque Iwminem nominaveris, esse hominem, justum autum
Deum. NuUus enim est mundus, ut ille dicit, a sorde. Basiiides, we may observe,
expresses himself with some caution, and with a view to avoid exciting ill-will,
forbears making any direct mention of Christ by name. But Clemen!, who was
in possession of his writings, says that he is treating dvriKpi/: 'un^) tS ku^iu —
[p. 355.] — "openly of our Lord," and after some further remarks, adds, that
such a man was deserving of the title of " atheist," inasmuch as he deified the
devil, {^iU^cuv /uh Tdv S'uQoKov) and had the audacity to term our Lord a man
obnoxious to sin, (avS-^fiDtriv auugryiruov). In making this accusation, however,
Clement suffered himself to be carried into extremes, and has, in consequence,
given to the tenets of Basiiides a much darker colouring than belongs to them.
Basiiides never thought of deifying the devil, or any thing like it. He main-
tained, indeed, that the founder or creator of this world was of divine origin ;
but this being was not, according to his tenets, the same with the devil, as Cle-
Theology of JBasilidcs. 431
ment rashly persuaded himself, but a nature of the most exalted kind, although
one that had somewhat deviated from the right path. — But if Basilides held that
Christ himself, inasmuch as he was a man, could not be immaculate, how can
that be true which Irenccus reports of his having maintained that Christ assumed
merely the semblance or shadow of a body, and that Simon, the Cyrenian, was
crucified by the Roman soldiers in his stead? To offend God by sinning, and
to undergo the penalty of sin, a being must necessarily be clothed with a real
body. The argument deduced from this passage of liasilidcs is seconded by
what Clement says (Stromal, lib. i. p. 408.) of the Basllidians having been ac-
customed annually to commemorate the baptism of Christ with great devotion
on the fifteenth day of the month termed by the Egyptians Tubi, which answers
to the ninth or tenth of our January. No being could have undergone lustration
or ablution by water but one invested with a real body. If Basilides therefore
believed Christ to have been actually baptized by John in the waters of Jordan,
it follows, of necessity, that his opinion must have been misrepresented by those
wiio tell us that he maintained Christ to have taken on himself merely the sem-
blance of a body. On these grounds it should seem that the commonly received
opinion as to the tenets of Basilides, in regard to the point under consideration,
must be given up. — Basilides, like others of the Gnostics, made a distinction be-
tween Jesus and Christ. Jesus he accounted to have been a mortal, born accord-
ing to the ordinary course of nature, a man of great sanctity, but yet not free
altogether from sin. Christ he regarded as one of the JEons, that is, the chief
of those immutable natures that had been begotten of God himself. Piety hav-
ing led the upright man Jesus to submit himself to the baptism of John, Christ
by the divine command, descended into him from the regions above. When this
same Jesus was seized on by the Jews and condemned to undergo capital pun-
ishment, Christ departed out of him, and returned again into heaven, leaving
Jesus at the mercy of his enemies, who put him to death by crucifixion. In all
probability Irenccus might transfer to Basilides a dogma peculiar to some other
Gnostic sect, or attribute to the whole Basilidian sect and its founder, an erro-
neous supposition entertained by merely a few of its members; or finally, be
misled by authorities that were not to be depended on. — Although I am persuaded
that the case must be nearly as I have here stated it, I yet cannot help acknow-
ledging that I was a long time held in doubt as to whether the two passages
above cited from Clement were of sufllcient weight to overthrow the authority
of Irenseus, supported as it is by the consent of all ancient writers. For, to
any one who shall attentively consider the words of Ba.silides as quoted by
Clement, it may very naturally occur that possibly Clement might be [p. 3.56.]
mistaken in his application of this passage to our Blessed Lord, inasmuch aa
Christ's name is not mentioned therein. That a day, indeed, should have been
annually kept sacred by the Basilidians in commemoration of the baptism of
Christ, has nothing in it absolutely irreconcilable with the account given by
Ircnacus For since some of the Gnostics maintaiiied that Christ, in appearance,
was nailed to the cross, died, and rose again from the dead, it is very possible
Basilides might have believed that the spectators were imposed on by a similar
illusion in regard to his baptism. — But my doubts were all removed, and I at
432 Century II.— Section 47.
once gave Iremcus entirely up, upon my meeting a third passage in Clement, su-
perior to the two above noticed, and of a nature that renders it utterly incapable
of being reconciled with the tenets of Basiiides, as stated by Irenaeus. For in his
Stroma'a, lib. i. p. 408. Clement has expressly left it on record that the Basili-
dians had disputes among themselves as to the particular day on which Christ
died. All, indeed, were agreed that his death took place in the sixteenth year
of the reign of the emperor Tiberius ; but as to the particular day, some con-
tended that it was on the 25th of the Egyptian month Phamenoth, others that
it was on the 19th of the month Pharmuth, and others again that it was on the
25th of this latter month. Clement adds that there were some among the Basil-
idians who believed Christ to have been born on the 24th or 25th of the month
Pharmuth. But how, let me ask, could there have been any disputes as to the
particular day of our Blessed Saviour's birth or death amongst people who de-
nied that Christ had ever been born or died at all ? How could such people
have maintained that Simon, the Cyrenian, underwent the punishment ordained
by the Jews for our Lord ? If what Irenseus states respecting the tenets of the
Basilidians be correct, their disputes would have been as to the particular day of
Simon's death ; respecting the day of the death of Christ no dispute could pos-
sibly have taken place amongst men who believed him never to have died at all.
But in what way soever this ought to be understood, the doctrine which Ire-
nccus states to have been taught in the Basilidian school is clear beyond a ques-
tion ; namely, " that it behoves men not to confess him who was actually crucified,
but him who came in the form of man, and was supposed to have been cruci-
fied. ... If any one confess him that was actually crucified, he is yet a servant,
and in bondage to those (angels) by whom the bodies of men were created;
but whosoever shall deny him is freed from their dominion:" — Basiiides made
a distinction between the man Jesus and the jEon, the Son of the Supreme God,
the Christ that descended into Jesus at the time of his baptism by John. When
the Jews laid hold on Jesus, Christ withdrew himself from him, and left the
man alone to encounter their fury. It was the man Jesus alone, therefore, di-
vested entirely of the divinity, whom the Romans caused to expire on the cross.
Wherefore, according to Basiiides, it was wrong to place one's trust in him who
was actually crucified, who was merely for a time the earthly tabernacle or
abode of the Son of God, and who, when suspended on the cross, had nothing
whatever of the divine nature remaining in him; but right reason required that
salvation and happiness should be sought for in none other than that Christ, by
whose power alone the man Jesus had accomplished the various miracles that
he wrought. A full and complete knowledge of the tenets of Basiiides respect-
ing the Saviour of the human race, is what we have not the means of obtaining;
but what his opinion was of the cause for which Christ came into the world is
[p. 357.] sufficiently aj)parent. Christ, he maintained, did not como for the pur-
pose of expiating by his sufferings and death the transgressions of the human
race, and making satisfiiction to the divine justice in man's stead : for he imme-
diately took his departure out of Jesus, w^hen the latter was about to undergo
the punishment of death : and as to what Jesus underwent, he, as we have al-
ready seen, was deemed to have made atonement thereby merely for his own
Moral Doctrine of Basilides. 433
proper offences, not the sins of others; for, being a polluted mortal himself, it
was impossible that he could become a propitiatory sacrilice for otiier transgres-
sors. The only reason, therefore, according to Basilides, for which Christ camo
into the world, and for a time joined himself to the man Jesus was, that ho
might overthrow the dominion of the founders of this world, and particularly
tliat of the God of the Jews, and by restoring to mankind the long-lost know-
ledge of the Supreme Deity, prevail on them to forsake the worship of those be-
ings who falsely styled themselves gods; that he might moreover excite in men's
minds such a determined opposition to those lusts which are generated of the
body and the sensitive soul, as would eventually free them from all impurity,
and thus qualify them, upon the dissolution of the corporeal frame, for re-aa-
cending to the blissful regions above, from whence they originally sprang.
(3) Origen expressly says that Basilides had a proper gospel of his own.
Com. in Luc. p. 210. edit. Huetian. But as this is not imputed to him by Cle-
ment, or any other ancient writer, I consider it as false. That the gospel, how-
ever, which he made use of, was in some respects dilfercnt from ours, is what
I can easily bring myself to believe. 8t. Jerome (Proem. Comm. ad Titian)
states, that of St. Paul's Epistles, those addressed to Timothrj and Titus were
rejected by Basilides ; nor is there any difficulty in crediting this. The first of
the Epistles to the Corinthians I collect to have been approved of by him from
the passage cited by Clement. Stromal, lib. iii. p. 509. But what I think more
particularly deserving of remark as to this point is, that Basilides did not pre-
tend that his tenets could be substantiated solely from those sacred writings
which are in the hands of the Christians at large, but intimated that he had been
beholden for them in part to other sources. A part, he said, lie had learnt from
the mouth of Glaucias, whom he described as having been the interpreter
(«§w»v£a) of St. Peter, meaning, as I suppose, one who was master of the senti-
ments or opinions communicated privately by St. Peter to certain select dis-
ciples, whilst another part had been derived immediately from St. Matthias,
Vid. Clemens Alexandr. Stromal, lib. vii. p. 898. 900.— His doctrine, therefore,
like that of most others of the Gnostics, was, that the discipHne propounded by
Christ was of a two-fold nature ; the one simple, popular, public, and to be col-
lected from the writings of the New Testament ; the other sublime and secret,
received from our Saviour's lips by his apostles, and transmitted by them, not
in writing, but merely by word of mouth, to certain disciples of known and ap-
proved fidelity.
XLYIII. The moral doctrine of Basilides. The moral discipline
prescribed by Basilides, altliougli founded, in some degree, in
superstition, and supported rather by vain and empty subtleties
than any true or solid principles, yet held out no encouragement
to the irregular appetites and vices of mankind. The soul, he
maintained, was possessed of a sufficient power or energy to over-
come every incitement to evil, internal as well as external; .and
consequently that no man could become wicked ezeept through
VOL. L 28
434 Century IL-Section 48.
[p. 358.] his own fault. God, he asserted, would forgive no other
offences but those which had been unknowingly and unwillingly
committed, and considered even a propension or leaning towards
any sin, in one and the same light with the actual commission of
such sin. All this is so obviously repugnant to a licentious course
of life and action, that it is impossible for us to place any faith
in the accounts of those ancient authors who represent Basilides
as having countenanced the utmost laxity of manners amongst
his followers.(') The unfavourable suspicions that were enter-
tained by many respecting the nature of his moral discipline,
appear to have been excited in part by the infamous lives led by
some of his disciples,(*) and in part by the objectionable opinions
which he maintained in regard to the lawfulness of concealing
one's religion, of denying Christ in times of peril, of partaking
of the flesh of victims offered to idols, of disparaging the estima-
tion and authority of the martyrs, and peradventure as to va-
rious other points.Q The Basilidian sect flourished for a consi-
derable time, and had not become altogether extinct even so late
as the fourth century.
(1) Irenaeus, St. Jerome, Epiphanius, and other ancient writers, represent
Basilides as having granted to his followers the most perfect liberty of doing
whatever they might list. They, in ftict, state him to have recognised no dis-
tinction whatever between good and bad actions. But to this accusation we
are prevented from giving credit by the passages cited from the writings of Ba-
silides himself, as well as from those of his son Isidore, by Clement of Alex-
andria, in which the points of moral doctrine above adverted to, as well as
others of a similar nature, are propounded in direct and express terras. Points
like these could never have been maintained by one who gave the rein to every
natural appetite, and indulged his followers in the practice of all kinds of ini-
quity. See Clemens Alexandr. Stromal, lib. iv. p. 600. where we have the
words of Basilides himself expressly declaring that " he who would commit
adultery is an adulterer, although opportunity may have failed him ; he who
would not scruple to commit murder a murderer, although his hands may
never have been imbrued in human blood;'' whicli corresponds exactly with the
doctrine delivered by Christ. See also lib. iv. p. 634. where he asserts that
God will pardon no sins without punishment, " except such as may have been
committed involuntarily or through ignorance," which, indeed, is pronounced
too harsh and severe, even by Clement himself. Finally, in lib. ii. p. 488. we
have the words of his son Isidore, severely rebuking those who, with a view of
palliating their sins, say, " I found myself irresistibly compelled to do so and
80 ; — in what I have done I have not acted willingly, I was seduced into it."
Men, he adds, by the assistance of the rational part, (that is the immortal soul of
Moral Doctrine of BasiUdes. 4^
divine origin,) have it in their power, and ought to subdue the inferior creature
(tliat is, the brutal sensitive soul).
(2) Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Stromata, lib. iii. p. 510. describes the
Basilidians, who were resident at Alexandria in his time, as being very
debauched and dissolute in their manners. Some of tlicm appeared to think
that, having attained to the utmost summit of virtuous perfection, no further
restraint on their appetites was necessary ; others considered themselves as
elected to salvation, and deemed it impossible for them, by any sort of trans-
gression, to fall from that state of felicity. But Clemen^ as became an honest
man and a lover of truth, adds, that these reprobate Basilidians gave a very
wrong interpretation to the precepts of their masters, and opposes to [p. 359.]
them the very words of BasiUdes. O/ rrgoTrarogsj, says he, rdv S'oyy.a'raiv i Taiyr*
dvrots 'orgaTTuv <ruy;j(^a>^s<riv. Inventores she patres dogmatum qiicc probant, nan
potestatem illis fcccruni talia perpelrandi. Clement, therefore, although inimical
to the Basilidian sect, yet found himself compelled in justice to acknowledge
that neither in the writings of Basilides, nor in those of his son Isidore, was
there anything whatever that should countenance men in a sinful course of life,
and that the dissolute conduct of the disciples could, in no shape, be charged
on the doctrine or precepts of the master.
(3) Nothing whatever excited a greater dislike to Basilides amongst the
orthodox Christians than the sentiments entertiiined by him respecting the
marlijrs. By the unanimous voice of the Christian church, the martyrs were
exalted to the right hand of the Majesty on high, and pronounced worthy of
having almost divine honours paid to them ; but, according to Basilides^ their
merits were, by no means, of a transcendant nature; neither ought any greater
reverence to be paid to their memory than to that of other pious persons. — The
ancient writers, indeed, who treat of the doctrine of Basilides, are not strictly
in union with each other, neither do they all attribute to it the same degree of
turpitude ; but in this they are all agreed, that it was every way calculated to
enfeeble and corrupt the minds of Christians, and seduce them from that fidelity
and allegi.ance which they owed to their Divine Master. Nor can any one doubt
of this, who shall attentively consider even those extracts alone from the writ-
ings of Basilides, which are to be met with in Clement of Alexandria. The
opinion entertained by him respecting the martyrs was connected, as must
readily be perceived by any one who will compare together what is said by
ancient writers respecting the morals and conduct of the Basilidians, with ano'
iher and still more grievous error, namely, that it was lawful for Christians, not
only to conceal and disguise their religion, but also, in case of life or fortune
being brought into danger, even to deny and abjure the very name of Christ.
The Basilidian doctrine, as to this point, is given us in the following terms by
Irenaius, (adv. Hccres. lib. i. cap. xxiv. p. 102.) with whom other ancient authors
agree: Sicut Filium (that is Christ, who for a certain time joined himself to
the man Jesus) incognilum omnibus esse, sic el ipsos a ncmine oportere cognosci.
Quapropier el parali sunt ad wgalionem (Christi) qui tales sunt, immo ma-
gis ne pati quidem propter nomen (Christi) possunt, cum sinl omnibus similes
(that is, because they live just in the same way as the heathen worshippers, and
436 Century II. — Section 48.
conform themselves in every respect to the manners of the people amongst
whom they happen to reside). That men of a selfish turn of mind should
readily have embraced this error, in those perilous times when the Christians
were daily made to undergo punishments of the most horrible nature, and fre-
quently had to meet death under all its terrific forms, cannot in the least be
wondered at; and we are certain that it found acceptance with many, particu-
larly the Gnostics. Nor were the Basilidians unsupplied w^ith somewhat of a
specious and imposing argument, w^hereby to colour and extenuate this per-
fidious kind of conduct. For since they denied that Christ, the son of the
Supreme Deity, ever actually coalesced in one and the same person with
the man Jesus, and maintained that it was the man Jesus alone (Christ
having quitted him) who suffered upon the cross, they might, without
falsehood, affirm that they did not worship as the Deity, or the oflTspring of
the Deity, him whom the Romans, at the instigation of the Jews, put to
death, neither did they rely on him for salvation. Nay, they might have gone
the length of adding, that they considered Jesus who was crucified as a sinner,
[p. 360.] who had merited the grievous punishment that he underwent; for
that such was their opinion is manifest from the words of Basilides, which
we have quoted above. And that they were accustomed, in defence of their
conduct, to have recourse to some such quibbling as this, is plainly to be col-
lected from Irenseus, who represents them as maintaining that "men ought not
to confess him who was actually crucified," (i e. the man Jesus, out of whom
Christ had departed previously to his being affixed to the cross,) " but him who
came in the form of man, and was supposed to have been crucified." Men pro-
fessing sentiments like these might well remain safe and secure in the very
midst of the enemies of Christianity, who had no idea, as appears from Pliny,
that any Christian would revile Christ crucified. The distinction thus made
between Christ and Jesus was a thing of which they entertained not the least
conception. — The Basilidians, then, were particularly anxious, by every means
in their power, to avoid being confounded with those Christians who were de-
nounced by the Roman laws. This led them to do as well as submit to several
things from which all true Christians would have recoiled with horror. One of
these undoubtedly was that of being present at the pagan sacrifices, and par-
taking of the meats offered to false gods. Ancient writers cast this in their
teeth with all imaginable rancour, but are entirely silent as to the motive; which
may, however, readily be conceived from what we have noticed above. All true
Christians made it a point, conformably to the injunction of St. Paul, never to
be present at any of the sacrifices or religious feasts of the heathens, and con-
sidered it as an abomination to touch meats that had been oflfered to the pagan
deities, circumstances which rendered their detection at all times extremely easy.
The Basilidians, therefore, who made security their study, had recourse to an
opposite line of conduct, and neither scrupled to mingle with the heathen wor-
shippers in their sacrifices, nor to feast with them afterwards in their temples on
the remnants of the victims. If life or safety required it, they were also ready
boldly to avow that they had nothing to do with Christ, meaning, in this case,
the man that was actually crucified, not the true Christ, whom they supposed to
Moral Doctrine of Basilides. 437
have descended from above, and, after sojourning here on earth for a while, to
have again returned to his Father's abode. By means of this their perfidious
dissimulation they succeeded, according to ancient authors, in escaping the per-
Becutions which befel the other Christians; and we, consequently, find no mar-
tyrs of the Basilidian sect. The Basilidians, in flict, were not in the least ambi-
tious of martyrdom. This being cast in their teeth by the other Christians, who
were accustomed to place no little part of their felicity and glory in the number
of their martyrs, and to consider an eagerness after martyrdom as a character-
istic feature of the true church, Basilides and his son retorted by assailing the
credit of the martyrs, and maintaining that those Christians acted very unad-
visedly who either professed a wish to pour out their own blood in the cause of
Christ, or contended that a greater degree of sanctity and honour ought to be
ascribed to the martyrs than to other Christians. By way of supporting him-
self in this opinion, he assumed it for a fact, as appears from his own words, aa
cited by Clement, Stromat. lib. iv. p. 600. that the evils which men suffer in thia
life are nothing more than the punishment of offences committed by the soul
either during its residence in the body, or in a previous state of exis- [p. 361.]
tence. God being all just, he said, it was impossible that he should suffer an in-
nocent and unoffending person to undergo pain and affliction ; and we were,
therefore, of necessity compelled to believe that men must, by their transgres-
sions, have merited whatever calamities we may see befall them. This then
being assumed, his conclusion was, that, so far from attaching any peculiar de-
gree of sanctity to the character of those Christians who were punished and put
to death by the Romans on account of their religion, we should rather consider
them as belonging to the class of those who, either in this life or in a previoua
state of existence, had grievously offended the Deity by their trangressions. In
defence of this opinion he went, as we have above seen, the length of asserting
that even Jesus of Nazareth himself, in whose body Christ the Son of the Deity
for a while took up his abode, in being crucified underwent merely the punish-
ment due to his own proper offences. The horror excited, even by the bare
mention of this doctrine, in the minds of those Christians whose discipline was
founded on the sacred writings, occasioned the author of it to be viewed by them
in the most unfavourable light. By Basilides himself, however, the principle
was not considered as unjustifiable or injurious to the Deity, inasmuch as, ac-
cording to his foolish way of thinking, a distinction existed between Christ the
Son of God and the man Jesus, Christ having been a compound of two persona,
the one human, the other divine. That sentiments like these, differing so widely
from what were commonly entertained, and apparently calculated to do away
every kind of piety towards God, should have caused the Christians in general
to think unfavourably of the whole moral discipline of Basilides, cannot in the
least be wondered at, although it was certainly in great part far from being of
that dissolute and unseemly character which was commonly attributed to it
Considerable grounds for suspicion were likewise afforded by the depraved
and perverse lives led by many of the Basilidians, who, by an abuse of the
precepts of their master, endeavored to justify themselves in all manner of
iniquity.
438 Century IL— Section 49.
XLIX. The system of Carpocrates. Whatever might be the er-
rors and depravity of Saturninus and Basilides, Alexandria pro-
duced nearlj^ about the same time, in the person of Carpocrates^
a character by far worse than either of these two, nay, a very
monster of a man, if faith is to be placed in those accounts of
his tenets and doctrine which are given us by ancient as well as
more recent authors. To confess the truth, however, the more
ancient writers have not only left us a very lame and unintelli-
gible account of the Carpocratian system of discipline, but appear
to have failed in arriving at any thing like a perfect comprehen-
sion of it themselves ; nay, in some respects to have actually mis-
represented it ; whilst, at the same time, in regard to other parti-
culars, they themselves seem to have been much misunderstood by
more recent authors. (') The xMlosopliy of Carpocrates respecting
the Deity, the world, and the nature of man, differed but little
from the sentiments entertained on these subjects by the rest of
those whom we commonly term Gnostics. He believed, for in-
stance, that there existed a Deity supreme over every thing, and,
in point of nature, infinitely beyond the reach of all human con-
prehension ; — that of this Deity had been generated certain J^ons
or immortal and immutable natures; — that matter was eternal,
and that it was the fountain or source of every thing eyil and per-
nicious. He further held that the luorld had been founded by
angels who, in point of nature, were far inferior to the Supreme
[p. 362.] Being; — that the rational souls of men had been sent
down from the regions above into terrene bodies, as into a sort of
prison ;(') — that the founders of this world, after extinguishing
amongst mankind every knowledge of the true and Supreme
Deity, had arrogated to themselves the title and honours of gods,
and endeavoured by every means to prevent the souls imprisoned
in bodies of matter from understanding that there was any na-
ture of a more excellent or perfect kind; — that considerable as-
sistance was afforded to them in this matter by a certain angel,
malignant in his very nature ; that is, the devil; whose study it is
to draw over mankind from the true God to the prince of this
world ; — ^that the souls who are so unfortunate as to be thus seduced
by this evil angel, upon their being released by death from one
body, are constrained to migrate into another, whilst such as suc-
cessfully resist his wiles, and those of the founders of this world,
Theology of Carpocrates. 43 ^
ascend, on the dissolution of the body, to God the parent of all
souls. All this has nothing in it at all incredible, and sufficient-
ly accords with those principles on which the whole Gnostic phi-
losophy was built.
(1) For the religion of Carpocrates our leading aulhority is Irenccus, who,
in c. XXV. of his first book advers. Ilccres. enters into the nature of it at much
length, but in a manner by no means cither comprehensive, distinct, or perspicu-
ous. Respecting his moral discipline some few particulars are given us by
Clement of Alexandria, Slromai. hb. iii. p. 611. et seq. that appear to be deserv-
ing of credit, inasmucii as they were extracted from a book written by Epi-
phanes the son of Carpocrates, de Justilia Dei. What other particulars we find
recorded by Epiphanius, Tertullian, Theodoret, and other hocresiologists, are
partly transcribed from Irena3us, and in part collected from vulgar report ; nei-
ther do they altogether accord with each other. It is utterly out of the power
of any one, therefore, to exhibit anything like a correct and complete view of
the Carpocratian system of religion in all its parts. Many things are wiioUy
omitted by Irenoeus, which it is impossible for us to supply, even in the way of
conjecture, and on others he barely touches in a transient manner, without
troubling himself to give us either comment or explanation.
(2) What the sentiments of Carpocrates were respecting the soul is very
obscure and uncertain. Of this, indeed, we are pretty well assured, that he con-
sidered the souls of men as of divine origin, and as having been sent down from
above into these earthly bodies as into a prison ; but as to what kind of nature
he might attribute to them, or to what cause he might ascribe their being thus
consigned to terrene bodies, we have no ground sufficient to warrant even a
conjecture. There is, however, a passage cited by Clement of Alexandria
(Stromal, lib. iii. p. 513.) from the book written by Epiphanes the son of Car-
pocrates, de Justitia Dei, from whence it appears that the latter conceived the
souls of men to have had their appetites and instincts implanted in them by the
Deity himself, not only those of an harmless or an indifferent nature, but such
likewise as are unlawful and prohibited. Hence it is apparent, not only that
his opinion respecting the original nature of the soul was a very extraordinary
one, and vastly different from that entertained by the rest of the Gnostics,
but also that he did not, like others of the Gnostics, conceive man to have been
endowed with two souls, the one merely sensitive, concupiscent, and [p. 363.]
deduced from matter, the other rational, and free from every disorderly appetite.
L. The Carpocratian theology. Ancient authors, howcvcr, leave
us entirely in the dark as to the mode in which Carpocrates
endeavoured to make the Christian religion accommodate itself
to these principles. The doctrine he taught is commonly report-
ed to have been that Jesus was begotten of Joseph and Mary,
according to the ordinary law of nature ; and that he was superior
440 Century 11. — Section 50.
to the rest of mortals in no other respect than that of having a
more excellent soul residing within him, and being endowed by
the Deity with certain qualities and virtues by means whereof
he was enabled to overcome the power of the founders of this
world. But there is not wanting abundant cause for suspicion
that, as to this, his tenets have been misrepresented ; and that, in
point of fact, he, like other Gnostics, made a distinction between
the man Jesus and Christ, considering the latter as one of the
jEons, and son of the Supreme Deity.(') With regard to the
cause, however, for which Christ was sent down by his Father to
mankind, it is impossible, if his other tenets be duly considered,
that Carpocrates could have believed it to have been any other
than that he might abolish the worship of a plurality of gods : or
to speak after the manner of the Gnostics, put an end to the do-
minion of the founders of this world ; and after having excited in
the souls that had long been languishing under the dominion of
superstition, a wish to know and worship the Supreme Deity,
might point out to them the way in which this knowledge of the
True God would enable them to triumph over the wiles of the
devil, as well as the power of the founders of this world, and
qualify them for re-ascending, on the dissolution of the body, to
their original stations in the realms of light.
(1) All the writers of ecclesiastical history agree in declaring that by none
of the Gnostics was the character of our Blessed Saviour held in so little respect
as by Carpocrates. Christ, if we may give credit to their statement, was con-
sidered by Carpocrates as having been a mere man, begotten of Joseph and Mary
according to that law by which all other mortals are produced ; but a mind of
greater strength and dignity than usual having accidentally fallen to his lot, the
Deity was pleased, in addition, to confer on him divers virtues to which other
men were strangers, and commission him to enlighten the human race, and with-
draw them from the worship of the founders of this world. That such were his
sentiments they are led to believe from the following words of Irenseus: Jesum
autem (dicit Carpocrates) e Josepho natum, et cum similis reliquis hominibus fu-
erit, distasse a reliquis secundum id, quod anima ejusjirma et munda cum essety
commemorata fuerit qucc visa essent sibi in ea circumlaiione, qu<cfuisset ingenito
Deo, According to this, Carpocrates believed that the soul of Jesus, previously
to its connection with the body, existed just in the same way as all other
[p. 364.] souls, with the Deity in the regions above, but that, on its being sent
to occupy a body here below, it did not, like other souls, lose all remembrance
of what it had known and understood in its former state, but, having once ob-
tained a clear perception of the truth, took care never again to lose sight of it,
Theology of Carj>ocrates. 441
and consequently maintained for itself a superiority over other minds. This
doctrine manifestly savours of Platonism, and the discipline of the Oriental phi-
losophers. For Plato, as is well known, held that a knowledge of the truth is
implanted in the soul by nature, but that, upon its junction with the botly, this
knowledge is obscured, and an entire furgetfulness of every thing past takes
place. Under the intluence of this opinion, he maintained, that to inquire and
gain knowledge is nothing more than to renew or recover the memory of things
that had been before known but forgotten. When such a soul, as Carpocrates
conceived Christ's to have been, became united to the material body begotten of
Joseph, it could not otherwise happen but that a man of an extraordinary and
preeminent nature should be thereby constituted. — Of the association of any
third or divine nature with the body and soul of Jesus no mention occurs in
these words of Irenaius; wherefore very learned men have been led to conclude
that Carpocrates believed Jesus to have been a man composed of a mortal body
and an immortal soul, and nothing more. This opinion appears to be corro-
borated by several things which are subsequently recorded by Irenajus. , h\ the
first place, we find it stated by him that certain of the Carpocratians were so ar-
rogant as to assert that they themselves were equal to Jesus, {ut se Jesu dicant
similes,) others so mad as absolutely to maintain that they were superior to him,
(fortiores eo esse,) inasmuch as they had received souls of the same degree and
order as Christ's. But could it be possible, let me ask, for any thing })eculiarly
great or divine to be attributed to Christ by persons who were so sottishly vain
as to imagine that they themselves were equal or even superior to him? — It is,
in the next place, stated by Irenajus that the Carpocratians had painted likenesses
of Christ, as well as other representations of him, which they crowned, and held
up to veneration in company with those of the philosophers Pythagoras, Plato,
and Aristotle. When interrogated as to the way in which they had obtained
these likenesses, they replied, that a portraiture of Christ had been painted by
the command of Pilate. These things certainly seem to prove tiiat Christ was
considered by the Carpocratians merely in the light of a philosoj)her, and was
placed by them on a level with Plato, Pythagoras, and the rest. But upon pur-
suing the thread of Irenajus's discourse, it appears to me that both ancient and
modern writers have neglected to bestow a due degree of attention on his words,
and in consequence thereof have failed in arriving at a just conclusion respecting
the opinion which Carpocrates entertained of Christ ; for which, however, some
excuse is certainly to be found in the brevity and obscurity of the writer's style.
What I would remark is, that immediately after the words cited at the com-
mencement of this note, Irenaeus goes on thus: Etpropfcr hoc ah eo (the Supremo
Deity) missam esse ei (the soul of Jesus) xirtulem uti mundi Fahricalorcs ejfu-
gere posset, et per omnes transgressa et in omnibus liherata adscenderet ad eum.
Now allowing their due weight to these words, I cannot help feeling strongly
inclined to believe that Carpocrates thought no less respectfully of Christ than
Basilidcs and other Gnostics, and hold that one of the divine ^ons, (for the
Gnostics term these virtues, in Greek J'uvuf^us,) descended into the man [p. 365.]
Jesus, who, on account of the superior excellence of his soul, was, beyond all
other mortals, deserving of such honour, at the commencement of his ministry^
442 Century II. — Section 50.
and continued with him daring his progress; but that upon his being seized and
condemned to sutler death, this Mon departed out of him, and reiiscended to the
ret^ions above. This, at the least, is evident, that Carpocrates recognized in
Jesus iliree distinct parts: 1. a body begotten in the course of nature; 2. a soul
sent down from the immediate residence of the Deity for the purpose of being
associated with this body; and, 3. a virtue divinely communicated to this soul on
account of its superior excellence; which virtue, in all probability, ouglit to be
accounted as one and the same with that Christ whom the leaders of the various
Gnostic fiictions pretended to distinguish from the man Jesus. With regard,
therefore, to what is reported by Irena3us as to some of this sect having ac-
counted themselves equal to Jesus, and the whole of them having placed him no
hio-her than on a level with the philosophers, it must be considered as not refer-
ring to the virtue which for a time resided in Jesus, or to Christ the Son of the
Deity, but merely to the man Jesus taken in the abstract. — This explication of
the tenets of the Carpocratians respecting Christ, derives no little confirmation
from what Irenseus says of their having taught that souls were saved " through
faith^ i. e. in Christ, " and Charity.''' For if the sentiments entertained by Carpo-
crates respecting Christ were what they are commonly represented to have been,
it is impossible to annex any sense or meaning to these words. How could
faith in a mere man be held up as the means of bringing any one to salvation ]
Certain of this sect, we are told, made it a matter of boast that they were pos-
sessed of souls in no respect inferior to the soul of Jesus; nay, some even went
so far as to assert that they were endowed with souls superior to that of Jesus.
Both, therefore, must have felt persuaded that they possessed within themselves
the same power of successfully combating the founders of this world as Jesus
Christ did. But if a faith in Jesus Christ, supposing them to have considered
him merely as an eminent man, could, in their opinion, have led to salvation,
surely they must have believed that a faith in those men, who were equal or
even superior to Jesus Christ, would be attended with equally beneficial conse-
quences. But this would have been contradicting themselves, inasmuch as it
would have been admitting that a faith in Christ was not absolutely necessary
to salvation. But if Carpocrates made a f?is/inc^ion between Christ and the man
Jesus, as I think he did, we may readily perceive in what sense he might say
♦' that salvation was obtained through faith in Christ." In such case there can
be no doubt but that his meaning must have been that a faith in that Virtue, or
iEon, the Son of the Supreme Deity, who animated and governed the man
Jesus in the execution of his divine commission here on earth, would ob-
tain from the Father celestial happiness for all such souls as might be pos-
sessed of it. — What we have thus suggested will receive also considerable
illustration and support from the following words of Irenseus, if properly
attended to : Jesu autem dicunt (i. e. the Carpocratians) animam in Judccorum
consuetudine nutritam contempsisse eos (the founders of this world) et propter
hoc virtutes accepisse, per quas evacuavit quxc fuerunt in pccnis passiones, qucB
inerant hominibus. Commentators, as is not unusual with them, have passed
these words of Irenjeus over without remark, although they certainly call for
attention and explanation far beyond many others on which an abundance of
Theology of Carpocrates. 443
pains has been bestowed. For any illustration of this passage, therefore, we
are driven to depend wholly on ourselves. It may be remarked, then, [p. 366.]
(I.) that Irena3us here represents C:>rpocrates as having taught " that the soul of
Jesus eontemmed the fabricators of this world," or those angels who made this
world, and hold dominion over it: which is much the same thing as if he had
said, that Jesus did not worship those gods whom the nations of the earth held
in reverence, but confined his adoration to the only True and Supreme Deity.
(II.) It is added as the reason why the soul of Jesus entertained a contempt for
the founders of this world, — quod Juckcorum consueludine nutrita esset : that is,
the Jews held the gods of the nations in contempt, aiid worshipped only one
Deity, therefore Jesus, who was born and educated amongst the Jews, was led
to do the like. I shall not stay to remark that what is thus stated corresponds
but ill with the account which Irenaus just before gives us of the Carpocratian
tenets respecting the virtue and fortitude naturally belonging to the soul of
Jesus, or that it rellccts but little honour on the character of Jesus: but I can-
not pass over this, that if the doctrine of Carpocratcs be rightly conveyed in
these words, he must have excluded the God of the Jews from the number of
the angels who framed this world, and regarded him as the Supreme Deity;
which, if it were true, would separate him widely indeed from all others of the
Gnostics. For, if the soul of Jesus, in worshipping one God alone, and treating
with contempt the founders of this world, imitated the example of tiie Jewish
people, it follows, of necessity, that the Jews could not have worshipped the
founders of the world, but must have confined themselves to the service of the
one Supreme God. But it is impossible to believe that Carpocrates could have
thought thus honourably of the Jews and their religion. For, not to notice
other things, we have in Clement of Alexandria a very striking passage cited
from Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, in which he derides tlie Jewish law,
and openly contends that the best part of it is nonsensical and childish. S/ro-
mat. lib. iii. p. 514. Either Irenajus, therefore, must have been guilty of an
error, or the Latin translator must have much misrepresented his meaning. (III.)
Irenseus points out the reward which, according to the Carpocratians, the Deity
conferred on the soul of Jesus on account of the contempt thus shown by hira
for the founders of the world; viz. Viriuies per quas exacuavit qucc fuerunt in
pcEnis passiones qucc inerant hominibus. The last three words are unintcllif^ble,
and may, therefore, be considered as having been somehow or other corrupted^
but the meaning intended to be conveyed by the others is clear enough: namely,
that the Deity communicated to the soul of Jesus certain virtues or jmwers by
means whereof it might evacuate^ that is, triumph over, the pains and atllictiuns to
which his body was exposed. Carpocrates, therefore, believed that Jesus in reality
underwent torments and death, but that in consequence of the virtue divinely
communicated to him he was insensible of their severity and power. As to the
particular way in which he conceived this to have been brought about, whether, for
instance, he imagined Jesus to have been deprived by the Deity of all sensation,
or whether he conceived the Deity to have inspired Jesus with a fortitude and
elevation of mind superior to every evil that could be inflicted on him, we are
not competent to speak. We should evidently do wrong, however, were we to
444 Century IL— Section 51.
confound these virtues by which Jesus was enabled to triumph over the pains
of the cross with that one great virtue, which resided in him during the tmie
that he lived at liberty and wrought his miracles amongst the Jews. The latter
he was understood to have possessed previously to his being seized on and cru-
cified with the former he was not supposed to have been endowed until in the
very act of contending with torments and death. These things considered, we
may conclude Carpocrates to have taught that that great virtue, which had ita
residence in Jesus during the time of his teaching and working miracles amongst
[p. 367.] the Jews, departed out of him when he was about to suffer: but that
the Deity did not leave him comfortless, but supplied him with such other suc-
cours from above as eifectualiy prevented his soul from sinking under the weight
of those manifold and grevious injuries and sufferings to which his corporeal
frame was exposed.
LI. The moral discipline of Carpocrates. All ancient writers
concur in representing the moral discipline of Carpocrates as in
tlie highest degree vile and pernicious, and the lives led by his
followers as having consequently been gross, libidinous, and
filthy in the extreme. Nor can we altogether withhold our credit
from this: for it is certain that he countenanced a community of
women, and inculcated several other things which had a mani-
fest tendency to encourage men in various wicked and flagitious
practices. There are not wanting, however, circumstances which
incline us to believe that the inferences deduced from his tenets
have not been in every instance correct, and that the turpitude of
certain of his maxims was tempered and corrected by doctrine of
a very different character and tendency contained in others. (')
Nor can I easily bring myself to believe what is handed down to
us respecting a place amongst the gods having been assigned to
his son Epiphanes by the inhabitants of the city of Sama, in the
island of Cephalonia.C) Like the rest of the Gnostics, he assert-
ed that his tenets and doctrine were founded on the secret dis-
cipline communicated by Christ to a few only of his followers.
Hence it is clear that he could have attached but little weight or
authority to the sacred writings. He did not, however, reject
them entirely, but seems in particular to have approved of the
gospel according to St. Matthew.^)
(1) Nothing can possibly be conceived more infamous and gross than the
moral doctrine of Carpocrates was, if any faith is to be placed in the accounts
given us of it by all ancient writers. According to them he maintained: (I.)
That there is nothing naturally evil in itself, but that all distinction between
Moral Doctrines of Carpocrates. 445
good and bad actions exists merely in human opinion and laws; and conse-
quently, that every one, in a moral point of view, is periVctly at liberty to do as
he may like. (II.) That women, and every thing else belonging to this world,
ought to be common, tor that it was the will of God that all men should pos-
sess an equal right in every thing. (III.) That the road to everlasting felicity
lay open to those souls alone who devoted themselves to the perpetration of
every vile and flagitious action which it was possible for the heart of man to
conceive. I pass over certain things less heinous and disgusting, inasmuch as
every thing that can be deemed impious and detestable is certainly compre-
hended in the above. Conformably to those principles, it is said to have been
customary for the Carpocratinns, in their nocturnal assemblies, to extinguish
the light and engage in a promiscuous libidinous intercourse. Clem. Alex.
Slromat. lib. iii. p. 614. Of the above, that which I have noticed in the tliird
place, I conceive to be a mere calumny, which had its origin probably in some
tenet or other not sufficiently understood. For can any one possibly believe that
a man who regarded the Deity as just, good, and beneficent; who conceived
men's souls to be the offspring of this Deity; and who entertained a reverence
for Christ; can any one, I say, for a moment persuade himself that a man of
this description (and that Carpocrates was such an one is evident from the pas-
sages cited by Clement of Alexandria out of the writings of his son Epiphanes)
should have maintained that none but souls contaminated by every species of
iniquity, and as it were glutted with sensual indulgence, would ever find their
way back to the Deity, the fountain of all good? Equally void of any [p. 368.]
solid foundation do I consider what is told us respecting the nocturnal orgies of
his disciples. For this opinion I shall presently assign certain reasons that I
rather think the reader w^ill consider as carrying with them some weight. — As
to i\\Q first and second of the tenets above noticed, they are avowed without re-
serve by Epiphanes, the son and most strenuous defender of Carpocrates and
his opinions, from whose book de Justitia Dei, Clement of Alexandria (Stromal.
lib. iii. p. 512. et seq.) gives us some long quotations, in which it is endeavoured,
by various arguments, to prove that many things are by human laws pronounced
to be evil, which, in point of fact, have nothing whatever of evil or iniquity be-
longing to them. The Deity, it is boldly aflTirmed by tiiis writer, designed every
good thing which he bestowed on mortals, to bo used and enjoyed by them in
common. Mankind, by their laws, however, have destroyed this communion of
use, and introduced a separate property in things. Human laws, therefore, he
maintains, are repugnant to the divine will. These maxims are evidently incul-
cated by him with a reference to matrimony, and what are termed men's goods:
for he says expressly, that women, according to the divine law, ought to bo
common, and that the same principle applies to fruits, corn, and animals; and
that it is merely of human ordination that those who assert their right to the
enjoyment of these things, in common are termed adulterers and thieves. This
passage is followed by another even worse. For he pronounces the law "Thou
shalt not covet," to be absolutely ridiculous, inasmuch as the desires and appe-
tites of the soul were implanted in it by the Deity; and still more ridiculou.s,
he says, is the addition of the Jewish legislator, "Thou shalt not covet thy
446 Century JL— Section 51.
neighbour's goods ;" for it was impossible that the Deity, who implanted desires
in tlie soul, could have commanded that these desires should be subdued and
extinguished. But the most ridiculous thing of all he pronounces to be that
injunction of the same legislator, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife;"
for there can be no doubt but that the Deity designed all women to be com-
mon. These things certainly admit of no palliation whatever ; and it should,
therefore, seem to be established beyond a question by the words of Carpocra-
tes himself, or at least those of his son, that nothing whatever was considered
bv him as unlawful, but that theft, fornication, adultery, &c. although prohi-
bited by human laws, were, in his opinion, consentaneous to the divine will.
Which opinion is even still more impious than that which is attributed to him
by the early Christian writers: viz. "That all actions are in their nature indif-
ferent, and that it is by human laws alone that certain of them are pronounced
to be evil." For whoever maintains that the lusts and appetites by which man-
kind are disturbed, were implanted in their minds by the Deity himself, and that
the actions to which men are prompted by such lusts and appetites, are consen-
taneous to the divine will, must of necessity hold that theft, fornication, robbery,
adultery, &c. are to be regarded as good works. Hence, then, we may perceive
that it was not, altogether, without grounds or reason that some were led to
assert, that Carpocrates believed heaven to be accessible to such souls only as
had in this life devoted themselves to the perpetration of every species of crime
and iniquity. My belief, however, is that the man did not propound the above
principles to his disciples at large, but only to certain select and confidential
ones. A teacher, who, like Carpocrates, maintained that our blessed Saviour's
doctrine was of a two-fold description, the one popular, the other secret, would
naturally have recourse to a similar method of instruction, and address himself
to the multitude after a different manner from that which he adopted with re-
gard to his friends and intimates. The atrocity and impiety of his opinions and
doctrine, however, are in no degree extenuated by this.
Notwithstanding all these things, however, I cannot help confessing myself
strongly inclined to believe, that the wickedness and depravity of Carpocrates
[p. 369.] could never have been so preposterously absurd and loathsome as is
commonly imagined, but that, to the tenets above noticed, which are undoubt-
edly of the most vile and abominable nature, there must have been subjoined
others calculated, in a certain degree, to correct their turpitude and counteract
tlieir poison. Every one acquainted with human affairs must well know that if
certain parts of various systems of discipline were to be separated from the rest,
and considered by themselves, they would assume, not only an absurd, but an
altocrether impious and execrable character; but let them only be restored to
their proper situation, and again connected with those things from which they
were disjoined, and most of their deformity will at once disappear. Ancient
writers bring us acquainted with but a very small portion of the Carpocratian
philosophy and religion, and even this is exhibited by them in a very loose and
disorderly manner. Could we obtain a view of the entire body, with all its va-
rious joints and sinews, it is very possible that the things which now produce
affri'Tht, and fill us with a certain degree of horror, might, I will not say put on
Moral Doctrines of Carpocrates, 447
an unexceptionable and attractive appearance, for that certainly is not within
the reach of possibility, but assume somewhat of a less hideous and di><gusting
aspect. In truth, it exceeds my powers of compreliension to understand how
a man who, to pass over other things, believed the Deity to be, in every sense,
perfection itself, who referred the seeds of all iniquity to matter, who considered
immortal souls during their residence in the body to be confined, as it were,
within a prison, who maintained that the Deity was anxious for the deliverance
and salvation of these souls, and that Christ had pointed out to them the way of
extricating themselves from the darkness of matter ; how such a man, I say,
could look upon virtue as merely an empty sound, and believe that every one
was at liberty to follow the dictates of his lusts and appetites. Still more in-
comprehensible does this become to me when I perceive, what is apparent, even
from the passages cited out of the writings of his son, that the man thus held
up to us as such a monster of iniquity, was in full possession of his reason.
Then, we have the testimony of Irenaeus expressly stating Carpocrates to have
taught that men were to be saved through faith and charity, cT/i TrtVias nai dyd-xns
a-cj^io-^Ai. Now a man who entertains this opinion, let him expound it in what
manner he may, must certainly condemn any injuries done to others, and require
that his followers should cultivate some sort of acquaintance with both justice and
virtue, which is in direct opposition to the dogma generally attributed to Car-
pocrates, "that no actions are naturally evil in themselves, and that the distinc-
tion between good and bad actions exists merely in human laws and opinions."
For if future felicity is to be acquired by the exercise of love and good offices
towards others, it necessarily follows that there must be some divine law in
existence commanding us .to abstain from every thing that may injure our fel-
low creatures, and to do those things that may contribute to their welfare.
Lastly, it strikes me as particularly deserving of remark, that the same Irena3U3
who exhibits the Carpocratians in such an unfavourable point of view as to
other things, stands forward as their patron and defender against those who re-
proached them with the commission of crimes and offences of the deepest dye ;
and says that he could by no means give credit to the rumours that were pre-
valent of their iniquities; lai il (Ay 7rga<r<riTH.t Trstp ahroli Ttt aS-e* Jtat tJtS-siTjU*, Kai
d-xn^-rifj-i;*., tyce ux, av TriTi^a-aiifAt. Et si quidemfiani luce apud eos qucc sunt irrc-
ligiosa, et injusta, et vetiia, ego nequaquam credam. Surely this may be accounted
testimony of no small weight, coming as it does from one who was in other
respects their most hostile adversary. Possibly the doetriije of Carpocrates
might be this, — that the distinction between good and bad actions had no exist-
ence but in human laws, but at the same time that in the present corrupt and
perverse state of things such laws were proper and necessary.
(2) Clement of Alexandria, {Siromat. lib. iii. p. 511.) relates that [p. 370.]
Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates of Alexandria, by a Cephalonian woman, a
young man of vast attainments and promise, but who died at the age of seven-
teen, had a place assigned him amongst the gods by the inhabitants of the city
of Sama, in the island of Cephalonia, and that divine honours were annually
paid to him in that city, where were to be seen a magnificent tem])le, altar, &lc.
erected to his memory. The same account, somewhat amplified, is to be met
448 Century II. — Section 51.
with m Epiphanius, Hccres. xxxii. p. 210. and 211. — But it should seem that
this narrative is altogether of one and the same cast, and equally undeserving
of credit with that of Justin Martyr, respecting the apotheosis of Simon Magus,
and the statue erected to his memory by the Romans. For who can believe
that the people of Sama, who were polythcists, and addicted to the superstitions
of the Greeks, could have acted such a strangely inconsistent part, as to assign
a place amongst their gods, and annually pay divine honours to a young man
who was a Christian, or at least a worshipper of Christ, and who held in de-
testation the gods of the Gentiles, whom, in common with his father, he believed
to be a set of proud, malignant angels, the authors of this world, and the pre-
sent calamitous state of things in it ? Then again, why confer these honours
on Epjplianes, any more than on his father ? — or his mother, who was a Cepha-
lonian, a woman of the country ? In fiict, I suspect that, as in the case of Si-
m^^n, ao likewise in this of Epiphanes, an affinity between words and names
has, owing to a want of caution in the first Christians, given rise to a most
egregious error. Those who are conversant with the Greek language, well
know that the word ^ETrtpttvim was a term very frequently made use of in the
Grecian rites ; and that it was common for the Greek writers to denominate the
appearance of any particular deity tTripdvuA. The festivals instituted in com-
memoration of such divine manifestations or appearances were also termed
iT;pu»«. It strikes me, therefore, as highly probable, that it might have been
customary for the people of Sama to refer to some festival or other of this kind
under the title of eTmfidvuay and that certain Christians of Egypt, accidentally
sojourning in that city, but entirely unacquainted with the customs, religion,
and names of the Greeks, being caught by the sound of the word, and recol-
lecting that Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates of Alexandria, had a Cephalo-
nian woman for his mother, hastily ran away with the idea, that this 'ETrtipavia
was a festival instituted by the people of Sama, in honour of that Epiphanes.
On their return to Alexandria, it was natural for them to recount what they had
thus witnessed, and, as they thought, well understood: and hence, I take it,
arose the fable of the apotheosis of Epiphanes, and the expensive honours that
were annually paid to his memory by the people of Sama.
(3) Irenaeus tells us that the Carpocratians, in their writing, (a-uyy^d/u/u.aa-ty,)
stated that their tenets and doctrine were communicated by Jesus in a secret,
mysterious manner, to his apostles, with an injunction that they should make
these things known only to certain select and confidential persons. Most of
the Gnostics were accustomed to shelter themselves behind a tale of this sort,
by way of getting rid of anything that might be urged against them out of the
books of the New Testament. The apostolic writings, they asserted, contained
merely the ordinary religion of Christ, or that which was suited to the capa-
cities of the multitude, a thing totally different to the sublime and recondite
Christian discipline. Eventually, however, the very means which they thus
took to forward their own cause, and depreciate the authority of the Sacred
[p. 371.] Writings, were productive of consequences directly the reverse. For,
by admitting, as they did, that the books of the New Testament were the writings
of Christ's apostles, and at the same time denying that their own tenets wero
Valentinus. 449
derived from this source, they, in fact, supplied their adversaries with two very
powerful arguments in support of the genuine Christian faith. Since Carpo-
crates, then, pretended to have derived his system of discii)line from the secret
communications of Christ to his apostles, we may natnrally conclude that he
held the books of the New Testament very cheap, and considorcd them as cal-
culated merely for the multitude. As Ircnncus, however, states him in support
of his opinion respecting the transmigration of souls, to have adduced tiie words
of St. Matthew, chap. v. ver. 25, 26. there seems to be reason fur believing that
he approved of the writings of that evangelist.
LII. The system of Valentine. In fccundit}^ of gcniiis, however,
extent of travels, reputation, number of disciples, and various
other respects, the heretics wliom we have just been commemo-
rating were left at an infinite distance behind by Valentine, who,
like them, was born in Egypt, but having at the commencement
of this century originated a new system of discipline, and met
with no little success in the propagation of it amongst his coun-
tr3^men, was induced to transfer his abode to Kome.(') In this
city and its neighbourhood he prevailed on such a number of
Christians to embrace his corrupt opinions, that the church be-
came alarmed, and, after having been twice excommunicated
w^ithout effect, he was at length absolutely and finally expelled
from her bosom as a desperate and incorrigible heretic. Forsak-
ing Italy, therefore, he withdrew to the island of Ci/j^rus, where,
la3'ing aside all dissimulation, he became the parent of a sect,
which in point of form and external observances differed in no
material degree from other Christian assemblies; but in opinions
and tenets retained scarcely any resemblance to them whatever.
From this spot the sect soon widely diffused itself throughout
Asia, Africa, and Europe. Valentine, it should seem probable,
ended his days in Cyprus, somewhat about the middle of this
century. It is reported that the idea of instituting a new sect
first suggested itself to him in consequence of his having been
disappointed in the attainment of the bishopric of I know not what
city, and that his conduct ouglit rather to be ascribed to ami )i lion
than to error: but the history of his fortunes seems to give a
complete contradiction to this.(')
(1) Of all the Gnostic sects, not one, with the exception of the ^fanichecs,
has more engaged the attention of ancient writers, in describing its tenets and
discipline, than that of the Valentini;iiis. Not to notiee the more recent writers
of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, such as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augus-
voL. I. 29
450 Century IL— Section 52.
tine, and others, who have either regularly or incidentally been led to treat of
this sect and its tenets, we find, on recurring to the writers of the second cen-
tury, the ajra of its origination, Ireneeus devoting the first seven chapters of his
work, Adversus Hccreses, to a comprehensive review of its discipline ; Tertullian
I" p. 372.] not only attacking its principles in a particular treatise, but also in-
veio-hino- warmly against them in his book de Prccscript. adv. Hctret. as well as
in various other parts of his writings; and Clement of Alexandria very fre-
quently adverting to them in his Slromata, for the purpose of exposing their
fallacy, and bringing them into discredit. Notwithstanding this, however, it
would be easy to point out many things in the Valentinian system of discipline,
which are but partially intelligible, and in regard to which we cannot but wish
for further information. The most natural conclusion is, that as to some par-
ticulars, the knowledge which these writers themselves had acquired was but
very imperfect, although as to others our ignorance, no doubt, may arise from
their not having expressed themselves with a sufficient degree of perspicuity
and precision. — There can be no doubt but that the Valentinian sect was of
more recent origin than those of which we have already given an account, for it
is pretty plainly to be collected from the testimony of ancient authors, that it
had no regular existence until after Valentine had quitted Italy, and taken up
his residence in the island of Cyprus ; which unquestionably did not take place
until about the middle of this century. Previously to this, Valentine, although
he differed in opinion materially from other Ciiristians, and met with no little
success in the propagation of his errors, yet maintained communion with the
church, and was willing to pass for one of its members. That form of religion,
however, which he considered as the true and genuine one, must have suggested
itself to him at a much earlier period, inasmuch as he had taught it in Egypt
and at Rome, many years prior to his excommunication and expulsion from the
church. According to Clement of Alexandria, Stromal, lib. vii. p. 898. he was
supposed to have been a pupil of Theodas, the disciple of St. Paul. If this be
true, he must have lived in the first century, and attained to a great age. The
interpretation given to the words of Clement as to this, by almost every writer
who has adverted to them, is, that Valentine made it a matter of boast that his
discipline was founded on principles privately imparted by St. Paul. Nor does
it appear to me at all unlikely, that this might be what Clement intended to
convey. For it was the custom of the Gnostics, who could not but admit that
their opinions were at variance with the sacred writings, to shelter themselves
behind certain secret communications from Christ and his apostles. I think it
but rio-ht, however, to observe, that we have no express stiitement in Clement
to the above effect. All that he says is simply this, tiiat there were persons
wlio represented Valentine as having been a disciple of Theodas. As to the
authors of this rumour he is silent.
(2) Tertullian, in his discourse contra Valentinum, cap. iv. informs us that
Valentine aspired to a bishopric, a station for which his genius and eloquence
appeared eminently to qualify him, but that the preference was given to a mar-
tyr, or more rightly a confessor; and that, filled with indignation at this, he be-
came an opponent of the genuine religion, and set about establishing a new
Valentinus. 451
sect. Now as to the first part of this statement, namely, that Valentine was dis-
appointed in the hope of being promoted to a bishopric, there is nothing in it at
all difficult of belief ; but the latter part of it must undoubtedly be false, if what
Tertullian himself and other ancient writers report respecting the fortunes of
this man be true. For Tertullian, in his book de Prccscriptione Hccreticorumy
cap. XXX. p. 242. expressly represents him as for a long time practising dissimu-
lation, and studiously glossing over his erroneous doctrines, not only during his
residence in Egypt, but also afterwards at Rome ; which plainly proves that
nothing could be farther from his intention than that of establishing an hereti-
cal sect. The same writer says that, led away by too great a desire after
knowledge, and an unbounded curiosity, he by degrees forsook the [p. 373.]
high road of truth, and laboured in disseminating his erroneous principles
amongst the Christians at Rome. On this account he was twice subjected to a
temporary excommunication, and as often received again into the bosom of the
church, but it being found that no faith whatever was to be placed in his pro-
mises, for that he constantly recurred to his old habits, and the propagation of
his heretical opinions, he was at length excluded, without hope of return, from
every sort of association or intercourse with the faithful. From all this, it is
manifest that he felt an unwillingness to be divorced from the church, and con-
sequently could have entertained no thoughts of estiiblishing a separate sect.
For surely a man who, on two occasions, exerted himself to the utmost to ob-
tain re-admission into the church, after having been excommunicated, and with a
view thereto twice entered into an engagement to amend his opinions and con-
duct, could have felt no disposition whatever to become the parent of a sect, but
must have been anxious to retain his connexion with the faithful. When at
length, however, his utter expulsion from the church was irrevocably sealed by
a public decree, we find him withdrawing to the island of Cyprus, and there
laying the foundation of a particular sect. It was not, therefore, the disappoint-
ment of his hopes with regard to a bishopric, but the severity of the Roman
church, that made Valentine a sectary, and led him to secede with his disciples
from the regular Christian Fold. I rather suspect, then, that Tertullian must
have blended together two things entirely unconnected with each other, and
confounded the cause of Valentine's journey to Rome with the cause of his se-
paration from the church. The true history of the matter, in all probability, is
this : Valentine had been led to cherish the expectation of succeeding to the
bishopric of some church in his native country, Egypt. It was an ancient and
established rule, however, amongst the Christians, that whenever any persons
coming within the description of confessors were to be met witli amongst the
members of a church, they should on a vacancy be promoted to the bishopric of
such church in preference to all other, yea, even more learned candidates. A
confessor, then, probably presented himself in tho church to the presidency over
which Valentine had aspired, and the hopes and expectations of the latter conse-
quently terminated in grievous disappointment. Filled with vexation and di*.
gust at his want of success, he bade adieu to his native country, and travelled to
Rome. During his abode in the capital of Italy, so far was ho from meditating
the formation of a sect, or any thing detrimental to the church, that ho rather
452 Centunj II. — Section 53.
studied, by means of his eloquence and reputation for learning, to open a way
for himself to its offices and honours. Finding himself, however, here again de-
ceived in his expectations, and the Roman church having, in consequence of hia
pertinacity in error, expelled him from her bosom without hope of return, he
withdrew into the island of Cyprus, and there became the parent and patron of
the sect which goes under his name.
LIII. The Vaientinian ^ons. The leading principles of tlie Va-
Icntinian system of discipline corresponded witli those of the various
other Gnostic sects ;(') nor did its founder attempt to disguise this,
but was well contented that himself and his followers should be
styled Gnostics. Being endowed by nature, however, with a genius
most surprisingly prolific, he boldly ventured forth beyond the li-
mits within which the rest of this tribe had deemed it expedient to
confine themselves, and dilating on such topics as had been pre-
viously noticed by them merely in a general way, distributed them
into parts, and, with the assistance of an inexhaustible imagina-
tion, endeavoured to fill up the intervals in such a way as effec-
tually to meet the numerous difficulties with which he knew they
were beset-^^) First, in the Pleroma, or that immense space re-
[p. 874.] fulgent with unclouded light, which the Gnostics con-
sidered as the immediate habitation of the Deity, he placed thirty
jEons, or natures of the highest dignity, of whom the one half
were males, the other females. These, again, he divided into three
orders of different degrees of excellence and power : an Ogdoadj
a Decad, and a Duodecad. The Ogdoad, which possessed in many
respects a superiority over the rest, and contained within it the
causes and reasons of all things, he represented as made up of
two Tetrads. The first of these Tetrads he stated to consist of
the Deity himself, whom he termed Bythus and Propator, and his
spouse, Ennoia (Thought), ^vho was also occasionally styled Sige
{Silence), together with their immediate offspring. Nits {Mind),
and Aleiheia {Truth). The second, which was somewhat inferior
in point of dignity to the first, he represented as being composed
of Logos (the Word), and Zoe {Life), Anthropos {Man), and Ecclesia
(the Church). Of these latter four, he conceived the first two to
have been generated of Nus and Aletheia, and in process of time
to have become the parents of the second pair. The Decad, which
followed next in succession to the Ogdoad, he considered as
owing its existence, in the first instance, to Logos and Zoe,
^ofis of Valentinus. 45S
From tliese sprung B>/thius and Ilixis^ who, in their turn, begat
Ageratos and llenosis^ from the union of whom again were pro-
duced Autophyes and Iledone^ of whom were generated Acinetas
and Syncrascs^ whose ofl'spring, Monogencs and Ilacaria, termi-
nated the Decad. For in these yEons the generative power waa
supposed gradually to diminish until it became quite extinct.
From Anthropos and Ecclesia^ the other branch of the second
Tetrad, sprung that order or class of the celestial fiimily to which
the title of Duodecad was given, in consequence of its being com-
posed of twelve jEons^ the one half males, tlie other females. The
first two of these were Paracletos and Pistis^ of whose oifspring,
Patricos and Elpis^ were generated Metncos and Agape. By the
union of these latter again were produced Ainos and Syncsis, of
whom were begotten EcclesioMicos and Macariotes^ Avith whose off-
spring, TheUtos and Sophia^ who proved unfruitful, the Duodecad
terminates. — To these thirty JEons were added four others of a
singular and extraordinary nature, to whom no female associates
were assigned. Of these, the first, who was styled Horus, being
placed by his parents, Bythus and Sige^ at the extreme limits of
the Pleroma, kept a continual guard over its boundaries, and re-
strained the inferior ceons, lest possibly, being stimulated by an
ambitious curiosity, they might be tempted to overleap their
proper barrier, and be swallowed up in that immense ocean by
which the Pleroma was supposed to be surrounded. Next after
Horus came Ghristos {Christ), and Pneuma agion (the Holy Spirit)^
two unassociated ceons, whom Bythus, the fiither of all, through
the channel of Monogenes, called into existence for the purpose of
instructing and confining within the line of duty sucli other
ceons as might be found wavering, or in any degree disposed to
deviate therefrom. The last of this numerous spiritual family
was Jesus, a most noble ccon, produced by the united act [p. 375.]
of all the other ceo7is, endowed by them with every gift and
faculty of the most exalted kind, and constantly encompassed
with a mighty host of angels as a guard. — In this long and tire-
some fable, it is scarcely possible to believe that there can be
anything contained at all savouring cither of wit, A\4sdom, or
ingenuity: and all the pains which have hitherto been be-
stowed in endeavouring to reconcile these intricate reveries
of a disordered brain with leason and truth, can only be
454 Century II. — Section 53.
regarded in tlic light of so mucli labour entirely thrown
away.O
(1) From what source the Valentinian religion and philosophy were derived,
has been made the theme of much ingenious disputation by the learned of mo-
dern days, since the time that* Jo. Franc. Buddeiis, in his dissertation de Hccresi
ValoUudana, annexed to his Introductio ad Historiam Philospohicc llehrccorum^
pronounced both the one and the other to have originated in the Cabbala, or
philosophy of the Hebrews. Ancient authors, for the most part, conceived the
Valentinian system to have been a child of the Platonic school ; but if we ab-
stract from it a few things, which certainly bear an affinity to some of the Pla-
tonic tenets, the remainder will be found to differ so essentially from the philo-
sophy of the ancient academy, that without violence no sort of reconciliation can
be produced between them. Much less are those to be attended to, who repre-
sent Valentine as having endeavoured to imitate and improve upon the theogO'
flies and cosmogonies of Hesiod and other ancient Grecian, Phojnician, and Egyp-
tian poets. That there is a vast difference between those ancient theogonies and
the Valentinian philosophy respecting the Deity and this world, must readily be
perceived by any one who v^'ill be at the pains of comparing them together. —
With regard to its having been derived from the Cabbala, it must certainly be
admitted that, in the system of Valentine, there are some things bearing no very
distant resemblance to the maxims delivered down by the ancient Jewish mas-
ters ; but, at the same time, there are in it other things in abundance of a dia-
metrically opposite character. Besides, it is my belief that, for the rudiments
of that discipline which the doctors of the Cabbala profess, the Jews were in-
debted to the Oriental philosophers. Those who coincide with the English pre-
late, G. Hooper, in referring the Valentinian fictions to an Egyptian origin, find
themselves equally embarrassed with the rest when they come to enter into par-
ticulars.— In my opinion, the class to which Valentine ought to be referred is not
80 involved in obscurity but that it may be pointed out witliout any very great
difficulty. By all the ancient writers he is reckoned amongst the Gnostics; and
his system possesses all those features by which the Gnostic discipline is pecu-
liarly characterized, such as a Pleroma, Bythus, Mons, Sophia, Demiurgus, and
the like. Without doubt, then, the first elements of the system which he origi-
nated were drawn from the Oriental philosophy. To these he added not a few
conceits of his own, and after a new mode digested, expounded, amplified, and
brought into connection various things which had been treated of by others
merely in a confused, obscure, brief, and desultory manner. This could not
have proved any difficult task to one whom all writers concur in representing as
a man of the most fertile imagination and unbounded fancy. In what respects,
however, Valentine was beholden altogether to the Gnostic discipline, or for what
particulars he was indebted principally to his own invention, the Gnostic tenets
furnishing him merely with a general outline, it is impossible for any one at this
day to determine with anything like precision.
(2) The difference between Valentine and the various other leaders of Gnos-
[p. 376.] tic sects, will be found to consist chiefly in what I am now about to
yEons of Valentinus. 455
point out. Most of the latter appear to have been in the habit of philosophiz-
ing long previous to their embracing Christianity. Their endeavours, thereroro,
were directed to make tlie Christian religion accommodate itself to the phik)so-
phic system of which they a])proved. With Valentine, on the contrary, a profes-
sion of the Christian faith seems to have preceded the study of philosophy ; the
consequence of which was, that in his system philosophy was n»ade wholly sub-
servient to Christianity, and certain parts of the former, which appeared not easily
to admit of a reconciliation with the principles of the latter, were altogether
thrown into the shade. The greater part of the words which he makes use of in
unfolding his opinions, are taken from the books of the New Testament. This
circumstance, according to my judgment, plainly declares that these books, to-
gether with the Christian religion, must have been received and approved of by
hira before he set about constituting a regular discipline of his own. Certainly,
many of his .Eo7is would not have had Christian naynes given to them, but
others of a very different character, had Valentine, previously to his embracing
Christianity, been in the habit of philosophizing in the same way as the rest of
the Gnostics did respecting the Deity and the origin of all things. Another ar-
gument as to this point is, I think, to be drawn from the reasons (in themselves
truly ridiculous, most assuredly, and proving to demonstration the man's extra-
vagance and folly, but nevertheless deduced from the books of the New Testa-
ment) which he adduces in support of various parts of his discipline. Being
questioned, for instance, as to how he came to know that there were exactly
thirty iEons, neither more nor less, he answers, that he drew his conclusion as
to this from the thirty years of Christ's life which were suffered to elapse previ-
ously to his entering on his ministry. Irenaus contra Hccres. lib. i. c. 1. } 3.
p. 7. In the adoption of this number he, with great, but very childish subtlety,
attempts still further to justify himself from our blessed Saviour's parable re-
specting the labourers sent by the householder into the vineyard. Matthew xx.
First, he contends that by the hours at which the labourers were hired we ouf^ht
to understand JEons; and then reckoning up those hours, he, with the utmost
confidence, asserts that nothing whatever can be clearer than that the number of
the iEons must be thirty ; for if one^ and three, and six, and nine, and eleven bo
added together, they will be found to yield a total oUhirty. What can be more
obvious? His duodecad he defends on the ground that Christ, when he was
twelve years of age, disputed with the Jewish doctors in the temple, and that
twelve was the number of our Lord's apostles. Irenacus, 1. i. c, 3. p. 14. Many
arguments of a similar description might, with a very moderate degree of labour,
be collected from Irenaeus and other writers. — Now all these things, unless I am
much mistaken, obviously indicate a man desirous of adjusting and determining
various philosophical precepts which he had accidentally picked up, by the test
of scripture, r\oi one labouring to make the principles of Christianity conform to
certain rules and maxims of philosophy in which he had been previously
grounded. I am induced therefore to believe that Valentine, after embracing tho
Christian faith, in all its genuine simplicity, accidentally fell in with some man or
other addicted to the Gnostic philosophy, and that, being captivated with its
nonsensical theories, he conceived the resolution of comparing them with tho
456 Century II. — Section 53.
sacred wrilings, expecting that, with the assistance of scripture, he might be able
to expound tlicm in away more accurate and consentaneous to religion than had
hitherto been pursued by the Gnostics. The result of this undertiiking was,
[p. 377.] that he became the author of a new kind of philosophical religion, dif-
fering not so much in words and terms as in the disposition and connection of
the tilings themselves from others that had preceded it. The terms Pleroma
and JEons, for instance, were obviously derived from his instructor in the Gnos^
tic way of philosophizing; but in expounding the nature of the former, and de-
termining the number of the latter, he, after consulting the sacred writings,
struck out into a path entirely his own.
(3) Amongst men distinguished for their learning there have not been want-
ing some who, possessing the rational faculty in an eminent degree themselves,
are unwilling to believe that Valentine could have been wholly destitute of it,
and have therefore endeavoured to hit upon some means or other for interpret-
ing his principles and tenets in such a way as might at least give them the ap-
pearance of being partly founded in truth. The strange and unaccustomed kind
of language, they say, to which he had recourse, threw such a veil of obscurity
over his tenets and doctrines as the ancient fathers found themselves utterly un-
able to penetrate ; but only let this veil be removed by a skillful and sagacious
hand, and the things themselves, rather than the representation of those things,
be brought under review, and there will appear to be much less disagreement
between the Valentinian tenets and opinions and those of the Christians in ge-
neral, than has been commonly imagined. Vid. Camp. Vitring. Observat. Sacr.
1. i. c. 2. p. 138. et seq. Souverain, Platonisme devoile, cap. viii. p. 68. Isaac de
Beausobre, Histoire de Manicliee, v. i. p. 548. 551. 582. 588. et seq. Ja. Basnage,
Histoire des Juifs, tom. iii. p. 729. and amongst the first, Pet. Faydit, Eclaircis-
semens sur V Histoire Eccles. des deux premieres Siecles, p. 12. et Alteration du
Dogme Theologique par la Philosophie d'Aristote, p. 186, 365. et seq. where he
intimates himself to have in contemplation An Apology for Valentine. — The
reader will understand me as by no means wishing to discommend such at-
tempts, which seem to speak highly in favour of the sagacity, equity, and pru-
dence of their authors; neither does the circumstance of their having been made,
occasion in me any great surprise. For it cannot be denied but that here and
there certain sparks of the truth appear to gleam forth from amidst the Valen-
tinian dross ; and we are certain that the early Christian fathers, in numberless
instances, were not sufficiently on their guard against mistaking and misrepre-
senting the tenets which they undertook to combat. It seems to me, however,
that I am fully warranted in going the length of saying this much, that if Va-
lentine himself could arise out of his grave, he would reject the good offices of
these his Ingenious and erudite defenders. For we have his own confession,
that the discipline which he taught was altogether at variance with the religion
professed by the greater part of the Christians of his day. He also denied that
his principles and tenets were to be supported from the holy Scriptures as they
were then read, and as they are read by us at present, and boasted that they
were in great measure founded on the secret communications of Christ and his
apostles, and certain writings of St. Matthias. From all these things, then, it is
uEons of Valentinus. 457
manifest that it must he actin<T in diroct opposition to what wouki be his \vi;she3,
were he alive, for any one to maintain that the only dilferenee between his tenets
and those of his opponents consists nu'rely in words, and the manner in wliich
they have been handed down to us. Besides, amongst those advocates for Valen-
tine, there is not to be found one who will pretend to deny that in his system of
discipline, not a few things present themselves which are altogether inexplica-
ble, and some so utterly stupid and absurd as to alTord no ground whatever for
excuse. A circumstance which, unless I am much mistaken, is of itself suflicient
to prove what a waste of time and pains it is for persons to employ themselves
in endeavouring to purge such a system of its dross, and give it a new com-
plexion. For we find it confessed, that the enigmatical parts present an insur-
mountable obstacle to our arriving at any certain conclusion with regard to
such parts as are more intelligible; and, surely, the absurdities with which it
abounds, inasmuch as they leave us in no doubt as to the man's extra- [p. 378.]
vagance and folly, must be allowed to place it beyond a question, that Valentino
could not have been such a character as to merit that any wise man should be-
come either his defender or apologist. How, I would ask, can that be sound or
wholesome, which is interwoven and incorporated with what is erroneous and
absurd? — or that be consentaneous to reason, which depends on principles and
opinions that set all reason at defiance? By way of illustration, let us take, for
example, the iUirly JEons of the Valentinian system, and the mode in which they
are connected with each other. Those of the learned who have undertaken to
advocate the cause of Valentine, suggest, with more or less confidence, that by
these JEons we ought not to understand real persons existing separately from
the Deity; for that all this heresiarch had in view, was to distinguish between
certain notions and ideas^hy assigning to them particular names, and clotliing them
with the form and character of persons. This celestial /a//? ^7^/ of Alom, begot-
ten of the Deity himself, is, they say, to be regarded in somewhat of a metaphy-
sical light, as exhibiting the succession, series, and connection of the nV/U(?s and
actions of the Supreme Being. For nothing can be more common than for
those who would wish to speak perspicuously of things altogether abstracted
from sense to have recourse to Vi personification of their ide:is. But this opinion,
although it may for a moment carry with it a specious and imposing air, will, on
examination, be found to have nothing cither of weight or probability attadied
to it. For as Valentine was confessedly a Gnostic, and the J-hns of all the
other Gnostics were conceived to be, not merely feigned or imaginary, but real
persons, it is most natural to conclude that the Valentinian ^Eons were regarded
as beings of a like description. Again, if we proceed to apply this exposition
to the Valentinian discipline, it may indeed be possible for us, though not with-
out difficulty, to make it in some degree accord with iliQ first four pair of^ons;
but let us attempt to move one step farther on, and we are iunncdiately encoun-
tered by resistance, all the ^Eons thenceforward, by the actions and aflections
which are attributed to them, tacitly declaring it to be utterly impossible that
they could ever have been intended to represent notions or ideas of the Divine
virtues and actions. (1.) These ^ons, as we shall prcj^ently see, were suj)posed
to have been filled with envy at the glory with which Nus, the most exalted of
458 Century II. — Section 54.
them, was invested ; a circumstance, as it strikes me, incontestably proving
that both he and tliey could have been considered in no other light than
as real persons. For in vviiat way a divine virtue or action could be filled
Avith envy, or sicken at another's exaltation, is certainly not within the
reach of any ordinary degree of comprehension. (2.) All these iEons were
ambitious of mentally comprehending the magnitude of their first parent, the
Supreme Deity. (3.) An attempt to gratify this inordinate ambition brought
the last of them, who was inferior to the rest in point of virtue, into the
greatest peril. (4.) Christ and the Holy Spirit were generated of the Deity
for the purpose of repressing, in the other iEons, this most dangerous wish
of attaining to a knowledge of the Divine Nature, and preventing them from
yielding to its impulses. (5.) Edified and invigorated by these instructors, the
iEons, who had previously occupied themselves wholly in contemplating the
majesty of the first great Parent, directed their attention to a different object,
and by an union of their energies produced Jesus, with a host of angels for his
guard, a nature constituted, as one may say, of the very marrow of all the iEons.
(6.) This generation of Jesus, exhausted, as it were, those powers with which
they previously superabounded ; for they are represented as afterwards keeping
a due restraint on themselves, and not indulging in their former inordinate de-
sire of attaining to a comprehension of the Deity. (7.) On the borders of the
Pleroma was placed Horus, a most powerful ^Eon, whose province it was to
take care lest any of his brethren, under the influence of some sudden impulse,
[p. 379.] might be tempted to overleap the boundaries of their celestial abode.
Now all these things are obviously of such a nature as to preclude every pos-
sibility of their being attributed to any other than beings endowed with intellect
and will, and existing by themselves'reaily and truly, distinct, not only from the
Deity, but from each other. Valentine must, therefore, either have been out of
his senses, and not have known what he meant himself, or he must have be-
lieved his iEons to have been real persons, the offspring of the Deity, and have
regarded the Pleroma, as he termed it, in the light of a kingdom divided into as
many provinces as there were pairs of ^ons, each having two rulers peculiar to
itself, the one a male, the other a female. I can perceive it, however, to be very
possible that the notion may suggest itself to some, and in fact I believe it has
BO suggested itself, that these jEons were similar to the Ideas which Plato ia
said to have feigned to himself, and which many of his disciples certainly did
feign to themselves, namely, natures really existing in the Deity as living excTn-
plars or images of mundane things. Without doubt, Valentine, if respect be
had to the names of merely some of his ^Eons, may appear to have had some-
what of this kind in contemplation ; but, when examined throughout, the names
of others will be found altogether irreconcilable with this supposition. Nor
does it strike me that his cause would derive any considerable degree of sup-
port from this interpretation, even supposing it to be in every respect well found-
ed ; for what are those Platonic Ideas but persons ?
LIY. The vaientinian theology. These JEJons, althougli of di-
vine origin, were yet supposed to be liable to the same passions
Theology of Valentinus, 459
and perturbations of mind as distract the human race.(') All of
them, for instance, are represented as being filled with envy at
the distinguished felicity enjoyed by Nus, the chief son of the
Deity, who alone was adequate to the full comprehension of his
father's greatness, and all of them described as animated with the
most ardent desire of attaining to a similar degree of knowledge,
not one of them believing it be3^ond the reach of his capacity to
arrive at a just conception of the transcendent majesty and ex-
cellence of the first great Parent. Inflamed beyond measure with
this desire of fully comprehending the nature of the Supreme
Deity, Sophia, or Wisdom, the youngest, and consequently the
weakest of the jEons, became at length so agitated and perturbed,
that, had she not been prevented by Ilorus, the guardian of the
celestial boundaries, she would have overleaped the limits of the
Pleroma, and plunged headlong into the vast ocean of matter
that lay beyond it.f) This violent commotion, however, was
productive of an effect which it was utterly out of the power of
Horus to prevent, namely, that Sophia was delivered of a daugh-
ter styled Achamoth, who, being expelled from the Pleroma^ was
immersed in the rude and chaotic mass of unformed matter
which lay without it. With a view to prevent the other branches
of his family from incurring any similar risk, Bythus, or the Su-
preme Being, by means of Nus, produced two new ^ons, Christ
and the Holy Spirit; of whom the former had it in command to
instruct the celestial family that the immense greatness of the
Deity could be comprehended only by Nus^ or the First Begotten ;
whilst the latter was to exhort and persuade the ^ons [p. 380.]
to subdue, as far as possible, every irregular commotion of mind,
and to make it their object to celebrate and worship their first
great Parent with a tranquil spirit. Calmed and enlightened by
the admonitions of these instructors and guides, the yEons unani-
mously resolved to give a difierent direction to their energies,
and, uniting together their powers, produced, with the approba-
tion, and in honour of the Supreme Father, the being styled Je-
sus^ the most illustrious Star of the Pleroma.
(1) This imperfection in the JEons, or Divine Natures, will exeite but little
surprise if it be considered that the Dcily iiimself was rei^ardcd by all descrip-
tions of the Gnostics, and particularly by the Valentinians, in a very dilTi-rent
light from that in which he was viewed by every other denomination of (Jhris-
460 Century II. — Section 55.
tians, and that they did not allow even this first great Author of all things to
be possessed of any thing beyond a limited degree of intelligence and power.
Most assuredly the knowledge of the Deity could not, according to them, have
been very extensive, since he was incapable of foreseeing what would be the
fate of the ^ons generated of himself, and took no means to provide for their
safety and tranquillity until his eyes were opened by the vastly perilous attempt
of the vEon Sophia. That they believed him to possess merely a circumscribed
poicer, is equally evident from his being represented as unable to prevent the
occurrence of many things contrary to his will without the limits of the Pleromay
or to obstruct the institution of a new order of things to the origination of
which lie could not but have been inimical. The parturition of Sophia, we are
told, was unquestionably highly displeasing to the Deity. The consequencea
of that parturition, then, such as the formation of matter, the birth of DemiurguSy
the f^ibrication of the world, and the like, could never have been acceptable in
his sight. Whatever things were done, therefore, without the limits of the
Pleroma, appear to have been accomplished without his approbation, and may,
consequently, be adduced as so many proofs of his infirmity or want of power.
The Deity of the Gnostics was also destitute of various other qualities, which
right reason as well as the sacred writings point out as belonging to the Su-
preme Being. If such, then, were the ideas entertained by the Valentiniana
and the whole tribe of the Gnostics respecting the first great Parent of all things,
who can feel in any degree surprised that his offspring should have been re-
garded by those pretenders to superior wisdom as agitated by blind and unruly
affections, and pining away under the influence of envy and inordinate curiosity 1
(2) In the Greek of Irenaeus it is tis t«v oX«i' ia-iavj which is rendered by
the old Latin translator in universam substantiam. But it is evident that this is
the same as tviv tS oXh ia-iav, universitatis rerum materiam. Without side the
Pleroma was situated, according to Valentine, the immense mass of matter. He
did not, however, as we shall presently see, conceive it to be possessed of either
motion, form, or a generative power.
LY. The Vaientinian theology. Scarcely were the internal peace
and tranquillity of the celestial commonwealth thus re-established,
when commotions of the most violent kind began to take place
without its limits ; commotions which eventually occasioned the
formation of this world, and the generation of the human race.
Achamoth^ the daughter of the ^on Sophia^ upon being expelled
from the Pleroma, lay at the first in a very miserable state, being
utterly destitute of either form, figure, or light. Touched with
her calamitous situation, Christy who, as we have seen, was in-
vested with the function of a governor and instructor of the
J^ons, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit^ imparted to her some-
what of form, intelligence, and rationality. Aroused and stimu-
lated by the assistance thus given her, Achamoth made a nearer
Theology of Valenfmus. 461
advance to tlie Pleroma, and endeavoured to obtain for herself a
larger portion of light. In her attempts at this, however, she
found herself sedulously opposed by Ilorus, the ever-watch-
ful guardian of the borders of the Pleroma ; a circum- [p. 381.]
stance which threw her into the most violent perturbations, and
overwhelmed her, as it were, with apprehension and anxiety.
At one time, giving way to despondency, she would be dissolved
in tears ; at another, recollecting the light of which she had ob-
tained a glimpse, her countenance would be illuminated with
smiles. These different aifections had a very wonderful influence
on the barren and shapeless mass of matter with which she was
surrounded, and eventually gave birth to the various elements
of the universe. From the irresistible desire with which she was
inflamed of obtaining farther light, arose " The Soul of the World,^^
" The Soul of Demiurgus,''^ and the like ; from her anxiety and
sorrow, all other things. All liquid matter had its origin in her
tears, all lucid matter in her smiles, all the elements of the world
in her sorrows and despondency.(') All the component parts of
the world were therefore now supplied ; but there was still
wanting an architect who might reduce them into order, and knit
them together in one grand whole. Addressing herself in sup-
plication, therefore, to Christ, Achamoth obtained the favour of
having Jesus^ or the Saviour, sent to her, surrounded with his
host of angels. With this assistance she produced three sub-
stances, the material^ the animal^ and the sjyiritual ; on one of
which, namely, the animal, she bestowed the gift of Form^ a boon
rejected by the other two ; and hence sprung Demiurgus^ the
Founder and Governor of all things.^
(1) Valentine should seem from this to have regarded Achamothy or, as she
was at other times styled, Eniliymesis^ as the parent of mailer^ which, in point
of fact, was nothing more or less than referring the origin of matter to the Deity
himself. For Achamoth, the parent of matter, was the daughter of Sophia ; and
this latter was derived of the Deity, being the last of tlie iEons. Valentine,
therefore, did not assert tlie existence of two eternal principles, the Deity
and Matter; but conceived all matter to have been, in point of fact, derived from
the Deity, although with the intervention of divers generations. Such is the
exposition that has been given of the tenets of Valentine on this head by several
very eminent scholars; and it must be confessed that in doing so they appear to
have some support from the testimony of ancient writers. I cannot, however,
Bay that this, by any means, accords with the judgment whicli I myself have
462 Century 11. — Section 56.
been led to form on the subject. The doctrine of Valentine, it is my belief,
was, that matler had existed without the limits of the Pleroma for an infinite
period prior to Achamoth's birth, but in a confused and unformed state, entirely
destitute of motion, and every other quality. For, as we have already observed
just above from Irena3us, and could, if it were necessary, confirm, by the testi-
mony of Tertullian and other ancient writers, Valentine placed without the limits
of the Pleroma T«v o\«v, or ts l\u vriav,substaniiam universam or universi, "the
universal substance,'" or " the substance of the universe." Now by this name no
one, surely, will pretend to say that he could have meant empty space, for the
very name itself entirely precludes such a supposition ; and if he did not mean
space, it appears to me impossible that he could have meant any thing else but
matter. Whatever, therefore, is related by ancient authors respecting the off-
spring born of Achamoth without the limits of Pleroma, ought to be understood
as indicating merely those mutations or changes which her perturbations pro-
[p. 382. J duced in matter which had previously lain in a state of absolute quies-
cence, and destitute of every quality. Her tears did not generate the liquid
matter, but merely occasioned a part of matter, which had previously existed in
a solid state, to deliquesce and separate itself from the rest. Her smiles did not
produce the pellucid matter, but merely caused a portion of matter, which had
pjeviously been opaque and absolutely impervious, to become luminous and
transparent. Her sorrow did not call into existence air, water, fire, and earth,
but merely caused such commotions in a part of matter, that all these elements
were produced from it. In short, Entlnjmesis, or Achamoth, might be looked
upon, with regard to a few things, as the author of certain modifications, and
she might likewise be considered as having communicated divers qualities to
matter in general ; but she certainly, in my opinion, could never have been re-
garded by Valentine as the parent of matter itself.
(2) This fiible is recounted at much greater length by Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and other ancient writers. To me, however, it appeared unnecessary to lay be-
fore the reader any thing more than a sketch of its leading features ; or, if I
may so speak, I deemed it sufficient to exhibit a general view of the different
acts, without entering into the minutioe of each scene in detail.
LVI. The Valeiitinian tenets respecting the creation. Demmrgus
being thus generated of animal matter, undertook, without delay,
the formation of the corporeal universe, a work in which he was
privately assisted in part by Jesus, or the Saviour, and in part by
his mother Achamoth. The course he pursued was, in the first
place, to separate the animal matter from the material. Of the
former, or the animal portion, he then formed certain celestial
bodies, particularly seven heavens^ by which, it is easy to perceive,
were meant seven planets or wandering stars, which constituted
places of residence for, and were governed by an equal number
of the most powerful spirits or angels. (') The supreme heaven
Valentiims' Idea of Creation. 463
Demiurgus reserved to himself, and assigned to his mother that
space which separates the Pleroma from the world. The material
portion, in consequence of its having originated from a three-fold
source, namely, the apprehension, the sorrow, and the anxiety
of Achamoth, was of a three-fold nature, and, under the plastio
hand of Demiurgus^ gave birth to three distinct genera of things.
From that which was the fruit of Acliamoth's apprehension or /ear,
were produced the various descriptions of animals ; from the off-
spring of her sorrow the evil angels, of whom the principal one,
that is, the devil, had his habitation in the air below Demiurgus ;
and from that which had flowed from her anxiety, the elements
of the world, all of which had been tempered with fire. Man
was compounded by Demiurgus of both substances, the material
and the animal, and enveloped by him with an external, sensible
hody^ as with a tunic or mantle. To these two constituent parts
of man, a portion of the spiritual or celestial substance was add-
ed by Achamoth^ the mother of Demiurguf^, but entirely without
the knowledge of her son. The outward corporeal frame of each
individual man, therefore, was said, by ancient authors, to com-
prise, as it were, three men : 1st, The material man, who was in-
capable of salvation; 2dly, The animal man, who might be either
saved or lost; and, 3dly, The spiritual man, who could never
perish, having been generated of the celestial or divine sub-
stance. Q
(1) We may here discover evident traces of the nonsensical dreams [p. 383.]
of the Egyptians respecting seven animated planets, or moveable stars, pos-
sessing the governance and direction of the corporeal universe. The idea was
adopted by most of the Gnostics, especially by such as had received their edu-
cation in Egypt.
(2) The particulars here stated are not, it must be confessed, handed down
to us by ancient writers in a manner so determinate, full, and perspicuous as
might be wished. By no one, however, who will be at the pains of comparing
with each other all the different branches of the Valentinian system of disci-
pline, can any difficulty be experienced in comprehending what it was that these
authors in reality meant to convey. Man, according to Valentine, was com-
posed of a twofold body, the one internal, the other external ; as likewise of a
twofold soul. The internal body consisted of fluid matter; the external one,
which he speaks of as a tunic enveloping the one within, was framed of matter
that had remained dense and concrete. The latter was perceptible by the senses,
the former not. This iivrfold body Irena;us and other ancient writers denomi-
nate the material man ; but whether in the Valentinian sense, or merely accord-
ing to their own understanding of the matter, I am unable to determine. Dia-
464 Century II. — Section 56.
solution inevitiibly iiwaited this material man, or, more properly ppeaking, this
corporeal iVamo of the man, after which it would be again absorbed in tlie grand
mass of matter from whence it had been originally taken. For the Valentinians,
like all the other Gnostic sects, were constrained by the nature of their princi-
ples to deny every possibility of a future resurrection of the body. Of the twO"
fuld soul possessed by man, according to the Valentinian theory, the one was
taken by Demiurgus from the animal substance or matter, that is, as is sufficiently
evident, from the more subtile and ethereal species of matter, or that of which
the soul of the loorld was constituted and likewise the heavens framed. This
eoul is that which contains within it the vital principle, as also the faculties of
seme and perception, and was by ancient writers termed the animal man. The
ultimate fate of this soul might be either perdition or salvation. This is to be
understood thus : if the sensitive soul should forsake the worship of Demiurgus
and his associates, and, turning itself to the Supreme Deity, should resist every
unlawful appetite, and submit its faculties to the direction of the rational soul,
which is the same thing as placing itself under the dominion of right reason, it
would in time coalesce, to a certain degree, with the rational or celestial soul,
and in this way obtain for itself immortality. Should this same soul, however,
pursue an opposite course, and, spurning at the dominion of the rational soul,
prefer continuing under the government of the senses, it would, on the dissolu-
tion of the body, return to the soul of the world, or that more subtile species of
matter from whence it was originally taken. The other soul, or that which was
conferred upon man by Achamoth, and which ancient writers denominate the
spiritual man, is the rational mind, which, from its very nature is immortal, hav-
ing been taken from the divine substance of which the iEons consist. That
this soul should perish must be impossible, since it would be the very height of
absurdity to suppose any part of the divine essence obnoxious to decay ; where-
fore, at some time or other, either sooner or later, it must of necessity ascend to
the regions above, not indeed to the Pleroma itself, where none but natures of
the highest and most perfect order reside, but to that vast region of space in-
habited by its mother Achamoth. — In these his tenets respecting man, Valentine
differed widely from the rest of the Gnostics, provided the sentiments of these
latter have not been curtailed or abridged by ancient authors, but been handed
down to us whole and entire. — As to the reason that induced Achamoth to add
[p. 384.] to the sensitive soul another of a better and more noble description, viz.
a rational one, it appears to me very easily to be discovered. Achamoth was
naturally inclined to favour the sensitive soul, inasmuch as it was her own off-
spring, and consequently felt desirous, if by any means the thing could be
brought about, to accomplish its salvation. Hence she was induced to give it,
for an associate or companion, a particle of the divine essence, or a celestial soul,
hoping, that by means of this alliance, the sensitive soul might be corrected, and,
in addition thereto, be imbued with a knowledge of the Supreme Deity. In
support and confirmation of this part of his discipline, there can be no doubt
but that Valentine availed himself of all those passages that are to be met \\ith
in St. Paul's epistles respecting appetite opposing itself to reason, and the con.
tentions between thejlesh and the spirit.
Valentimis* Idea of Christ. 465
LVII. The Yalentinian tenets respecting Christ. The Founder
of the world, having perfected the work which lie had under-
taken, became at length so puil'ed up with arrogance and pride
as to imagine that he himself was the only true God, and in con-
sequence thereof, to arrogate to himself, by the mouths of divers
prophets which he dispatched to the Jewish people, the honours
due to the Supreme Deity. Ilis example, as to this, being fol-
lowed by his associates, the presidents or rulers of the celestial
orbs, as well as by the minor angels, who were invested with do-
minion over the different parts of the universe, every knowledge
of the real and only Supreme God was gradually obliterated from
the minds of the human race, the generality of mortals resigning
themselves wholly to the empire of their lusts, and turning a
deaf ear to all the suggestions of reason. (') With a view to the
extrication of mankind from this deplorable state, Clirist, who
was compounded both of the animal and the spiritual substance,
and was furnished, moreover, with a sensitive body, (composed,
however, of ethereal matter,) descended from the regions above
to this nether world, passing through the body of Mary^ without
contamination, as water does through a conduit. Upon the bap-
tism of this celestial guest by John, in the waters of Jordan, Jesus^
an ^on of the highest order, descended on him in the form of a
dove.Q The divine man, thus constituted, immediately com-
menced, by means of discourses, miracles, and denunciations, a
most vigorous attack on the tyranny of the founder of this "w orld
and his associates, whilst, at the same time, he re-instated man-
kind in the knowledge of the Supreme Deity, and instructed
them as to the mode of bringing into subjection that soul which
is the seat of sensual appetite and all our irregular desires. En-
raged at these proceedings, the Founder of the 11 or/cZ caused Christ
to be apprehended and crucified. Previously, however, to his
undergoing this punishment, not only the Divine JesiLS^ the Son
of the Deity, but also the rational soul with which he had been
animated, took their departure out of him and llrd awav. It
was his sensitive soul alone, therefore, that in conjunction with his
sethereal body was affixed to the cross. Those mortals, who in
obedience to the precepts of Christ, should renounce the worship
of all false gods, the God of the Jews not excepted, and confining
their adoration to the Supreme Father alone, should mako [p,o3o.]
30
466 Century IL— Section 57.
tlie sensitive and concupiscent soul submit itself to tlie castigation
and emendatory discipline of right reason, would obtain salvation
for their souls of both descriptions, which, on the dissolution of
the body, would be transferred to the regions of unbounded space
adjoining the Pleroma^ and there be made partakers of everlast-
ing joy and felicity. The sensitive souls of those, on the contrary,
who should pursue an opposite course, and spurning at the con-
troul of the rational soul, should persevere in upholding the cause
of superstition, had no prospect whatever held out to them, but
that of everlasting penlition.i^) When all those parts of the Di-
vine nature, constituting what were termed celestial souls, should
be delivered from the bondage of matter, and cleansed from all
impurity, Achamoth would, it was asserted, pass into the Pleroma^
and there be united with Jesus as with a husband ; whilst Deiai-
urgus would proceed to take up his abode in those regions of
space contiguous to the Pleroma, which had previously been the
habitation of his mother. The spiritual or celestial souls, at the
same time taking leave of the sensitive souls, their former compa-
nions, would, in like manner, ascend into the Pleroma^ and for the
future be associated with the angels : whilst the sensitive souls, or
those of inferior order, would continue to experience the high-
est degree of felicity in the region without the Pleroma, under
the dominion of Pemiurgiis. Finally, the Jii^e that had been ori-
ginally distributed throughout every part of the universe, would
burst forth from its concealment, and involving the whole ma-
chine of the world in flame, produce its utter destruction.(^) That
Valentine should have encouraged, or even countenanced in his
followers any thing like moral depravity, or a sinful and flagitious
course of life, is altogether impossible; since his injunctions were
that the inferior soul of man should always be made to yield
obedience to the one that was superior, or, in other words, to right
reason. We, at the same time, however, feel no difficulty what-
ever in so far giving credit to Irenpeus, and other ancient writers,
as to believe that certain of his disciples and followers might
have led a very disgraceful course of life, and endeavoured, by
a perversion of the precepts of their master, to supply themselves
with an excuse for plunging into vice and ever}^ species of ini-
quity.(')
(1) These particulars are but very obscurely handed down by Irenseus and
Valentinus^ Idea of Christ. 467
others. By calling in, liowever, the assistance of the various Gnostic Kystems,
and collating the diticreiit parts of the Valentinian scheme with each other, we
have been enabled, as we trust, to throw some little additional light on the sub-
ject, and to place it in such a point of view as may bring the reader acquaint-
ed with the true nature and internal economy of Valcntinianism in all its
branches.
(2) As to the opmion entertained by Valentine respecting Chrht, or the
Saviour, we are left, by Iho early Christian writers, as much in the dark as we
are with regard to the Valentinian tenets respecting man. Tiie Saviour, tiiey
say, was represented by Valentine as consisting oi four parts: a spiritual part,
an animal part, a corporeal part, and, finally, a celestial part, or the real Saviour,
which, assuming the form of a dove, descended upon Christ at his baptism.
Now to this partition, which, by the bye, I believe not to have originated with
Valentine, but to have be^Mi purely the invention of Irrmctts, it may perhaps be
scarcely worth the while to take any formal exception ; but it is certainly far
from being v>'ell conceived, and adapts itself but awkwardly to the subject. The
Valentinian Saviour, like the Saviour recognized by all other Christians, was
constituted of an union of the Son of God with maji, but he ditfered materially
from the Saviour of other Christians in this, that he consisted of two persons, of
whom the divine one continued with that which was human merely fur a few years,
in order that the important legation to mankind might be fulfilled, and [p. 386.]
took his departure when the latter was about to undergo capital punishment.
The human person, or man, should seem to have been looked upon as in a great
measure resembling other men ; for we find a two-fold soul ascribed to it, the
one divine or rational, which is termed by ancient writers the spiritual part tf
Christ, the other sensitive, precipient, the seat of appetites and aversions, and
which is styled by authors of antiquity the animal 'part of Christ. With this
two-fold soul they likewise conjoined a body. In the nature of its body, however,
this human person differed very considerably from other mortals. Fur, in the
first place, this its body was not twofold as the bodies of other men were held
to be, the one internal and fluid, the other external and dense or solid, but
merely a single, uncompounded corporeal frame. Again, this body was not
composed of terrene matter, but of that w hich was subtile and ethereal, although
visible or perceptible by the senses. For had Christ been clothed with a cor-
poreal frame resembling ours, it would, according to the Valentinian scheme,
have been possible that, yielding to the contagious influence of the body, he
might have inclined to the sensitive or concupiscent soul, and stirred it up to
contend for dominion with the divine or rational soul. In that human person, or
man, with whom Jesus the Son of God, one of the most exalted of the ^^ons, con-
sented to unite himself, it was but fitting that nothing sliould be cont.iined which
might oppose itself to right reason, but that every motion, every propensity and
desire should be subject entirely to the dictates of the celestial mind. Where-
fore he was not furnished with a terrene body, but adorned with one of pure
(ethereal or celestial mould. Hence, also, in the last place, this human person
was of necessity held by the Valentinians to have ac(|uired nuthing whatever
from the Virgin Mary, but to have passed through her womb as water through
468 Century IL — Section 57.
a conduit. For hnd he adopted any, even the minutest particle from the body
of Mary, it might, like leaven, have corrupted the whole mass, and generated in
the sensitive soul, a propensity inimical to right reason ; matter being considered
by the Gnostics as the source or foundation of all our vices and depraved incli-
nations. As to the notions entertained by the Valentinians, respecting the -Son
of God ; who, for a while, united himself to this very extraordinary and admira-
ble liuman person, it is not necessary that I should say much: suffice it to ob-
serve, that although they regarded him as a Being of a very high and excellent
nature, their ideas of him fell far short of those which Christians in general en-
tertain of the Son of God. They consider him, it is true, as an Mon of the
most exalted rank, begotten of the essence of the Deity, but neither in nature,
degree, or power, is he placed by them on an equal footing with the father. —
From the particulars which I have thus enumerated, it must, I think, be strikingly
apparent, how widely the Valentinian tenets, respecting the person of Christ,
differ from ours. Upon the seizure and condemnation of Christ by the Jews,
the Valentinians held, that not only the son of the Deity, or that Mon which
had resided within him, took his departure, but also one of the souls by which
he had been animated, namely, the rational or celestial one. It was the sensitive
Boul alone, they believed, that in conjunction with the {ethereal body was affixed
tQ the cross. From this, however, it is apparent that the Valentinians must
have conceived Christ to have actually suffered and died.
(3) Great as was the difference of opinion between the Valentinians and
other Christians with regard to the person of Christ, it was equalled by their dis-
crepance in sentiment respecting his function, and the cause for which he died.
For Valentine did not believe that the sins of mankind had been expiated by the
[p. 387.] sufferings and death of Christ; neither did he believe that the Son of
God, or even the rational soul of the man Christ, had been at all affected by such
sufferings and death. According to him, the only purpose for which the glori-
ous jEon, termed Jesus, came into the world was, that he might offer terms of
salvation to those souls in which is seated the faculty of sense and volition.
The terms were, that they should forsake the worship of all folse gods, the God
of the Jews, or founder of the world, not excepted, and, devoting themselves to
the Supreme and only true God, render, according to the example of Christ, all
their propensities and desires subject to the controul of the rational or celestial
mind. All that the Valentinians, therefore, ascribe to Christ, was his having
communicated a knowledge of the true God to our benighted race, and taught,
by his precepts and example, that our desires were to be placed under the domi-
nion of reason.
(4) The Valentinian fahle, in its termination, corresponds exactly with that
of the Manichccans. A perfect agreement between them is also discoverable in
not a few other particulars. This one circumstance alone is sufficient to place
it beyond all controversy that the Gnostic discipline was, in a great measure,
derived from the tenets of the Oriental philosophers respeeting the origin of
evil. By not only Valentine, however, but others of the Gnostics, there was
blended with those Oriental maxims no small portion of the idle conceits and
physical opinions of the Egyptians. The general tendency of the Oriental, tho
Valentbius' Idea of Christ. 469
Gnostic, and the Manichrean schemes is to inculcate, that this world was framed
out of rude and vitiated matter, without the knowledge or consent of the Su-
preme Deity, and that, either throujj^Ii accident or design, no inconsiderable por-
tion of the divine or celestial substatice was incorporated therewith. That the
Deity is constantly endeavouring, by the assistance of right reason, gradually to
detach this portion of himself, or of the divine substance, and more particularly
such part of it as is imprisoned within the bodies of the human race, from de-
praved matter, and once more to restore it to its origin in the realms of light.
During the time necessarily required for the accomplishment of this object, ho
patiently tolerates the existence of this universe, or machine of the world, and
may even be said, in a certain degree, to employ his power in upolding it. For
such is the nature of its construction, that it nourishes within its bosom the
seeds of its own destruction, i. e. an active and vigorous combustible principle
diffused throughout its whole frame, and which, unless it were kept in subjec-
tion by the Deity, would soon put an end to the world and everything belong-
ing to it. When all the souls of men, however, and every particle of the divine
essence, shall have obtained a deliverance from matter, the Deity will no longer
prevent this slumbering ^re from bursting forth, but suffer it to issue from its
caverns and recesses, and involve the whole corporeal universe in flames and
destruction. This doctrine may have been exhibited by different sects under a
variety of forms, some more subtile, others more homely and gross, some again
more simple, others more refined and ingenious ; but the sum and substance of
the matter itself will be found to be in all the same.
(5) Much has been handed down to us by Irenasus, lib. i. c. vi, and much by
other ancient authors, respecting the wickedness and crimes of the Valrnlinians;
whom they represent as having maintained that everything was lawful for them,
inasmuch as they had attained to the highest degree of divine knowledge, and as
having freely indulged in the violation of every law, divine as well as human.
By no ancient writer, however, is Valentine himself charged with anything of
this kind, nor do we any where find a depravity of morals attributed to the sect
at large. The accusation of Irenajus extends merely to certain of the Valen-
tinians. Hence, I think it is evident that Valentine could not have counte-
nanced his disciples in a vicious course of life ; but that certain of his followers,
by giving a different interpretation to the precepts of their master from what he
ever intended, endeavoured to make them a cloak for their iniquities, [p. 388.]
This might very easily occur. As it was the opinion of many of the Christians,
that let a man only be possessed of faith and he might sin as much as he liked,
so is it highly credible that certain of the Valentinians might maintain that,
when once a person had abstracted the soul from the body, and attained to that
intimate knowledge of the true God which they styled >vw<rK, he could in no
sliape whatever be affected by the actions of the body. Into this grievous error
they were, indeed, the more likely to fall, from their disbelief of the future re-
surrection of men's bodies. The Valentinian discipline itself, so far from coun-
tenancing men in a sinful wicked course of life, expressly inculcated that the
way to eternal happiness lay open only to those soul:* who, after the example
of Christ, should render all their propensities and desires subject to the celes-
470 Centiwy IL— Section 57.
tial and imperishable soul, or, in other words, to right reason. Irenajus, and
others who have written after him, I know very well, relate that Valentine re-
cognized three descriptions or classes of men: o-u>f/.xriKoit or the corporeal;
4y;t/xo;, or the animal; and TrvivfAdiri^tdi, or the spiritual. The corj)oreal men,
are the heathen or the worshippers of fjilse gods; the spiriiual men, the Valen-
tinians or Gnostics ; and the animal men, all other Christians. Of these, tho
first must of necessity perish ; the second, by an equal necessity, must be
saved ; the last are capable of being either saved or involved in perdition. That
tlie spiritual men should busy themselves at all as to good works, is perfectly
unnecessary, since it is impossible that they should perish. The animal men
are under the necessity of f.ultivating piety. The corporeal men, inasmuch as
they are entirely destitute of hope, may consider themselves as absolved from
every law. Now, if such had been the doctrine taught by Valentine, it would
certainly have been holding out an invitation to the greater part of the human
race to indulge in every species of iniquity, and granting to his followers, in par-
ticular, the license of doing whatever they might list. But the tenets which we
thus find ascribed to Valentine, by Irenseus and other ancient writers, are mani-
festly repugnant to various parts of the Valentinian discipline; and it is, more-
over, certain that Valentine considered all men to be by nature equal; all en-
dowed with a two-fold soul, and the gate of salvation as irrevocably closed
against none. I, therefore, entertain not the least doubt but that these ancient
authors understood his sentiments but very imperfectly, or else were, on some
account or other, induced designedly to misrepresent them. That mankind
were distributed by Valentine into tliree classes, the animal, the spiritual, and the
corporeal, is what I by no means pretend to question ; but he certainly never
did think, nor was it possible he should think, that the corporeal class were des-
titute of souls, and of necessity doomed to perdition. What he meant to say
was doubtless this, that amongst men of the corporeal class, or the worshippers
offiilse gods, the body commonly usurps the dominion, and stifles every energy
and power of the soul. As long, then, as they should continue in that state,
nothing was to be hoped for by them upon the dissolution of the body; for if
they died under such circumstances, the sensitive soul would perish, and the ra-
tional one, being incapable of death, would be transferred into another corporeal
frame. After a similar manner ought we to understand what he says of men
of the animal class ; for his doctrine was, not that these were destitute of a ra-
tional soul, but that the sensitive and concupiscent soul had in them obtained
the mastery, so as to prevent the celestial soul from executing its office. They
were, therefore, according to him, nearer to salvation than those of the corpo-
[p. 389.] real class, who referred every thing to the body, and totally neglected
the soul. The class to which he gave the title of spiritual consisted of tliose in
whom that particle of the divine essence, the celestial mind, the seat of reason
and of wisdom, enjoys the preeminence, and holds in subjection not only the
body, but also that other soul by which the body is acted upon and influenced.
These must of necessity be saved, inasmuch as they resemble Christ, and con-
duct themselves agreeably to his example. — I have been obliged to speak the
less distinctly respecting the difference in the two-fold soul, with which Valentino
The Valentinian Sects. 471
consirl3red man as having been endowed, in consequence of ancient authora
having omitted to mark this dillerence with suOicient precision. Tiiis much,
however, is clearly to be perceived, that one was considered as being by nature
immorLal; the other as not being immortal by nature, but capable of becomiiig
so upon yielding due obedience to the superior soul. It is also apparent that
the former was looked upon as formed of the diiine substance, or that whereof
the Deity himself consists; the latter as constituted of the more noble part of
matter, or such as was made use of in the framing of the heavens. We are not,
however, able to speak with equal confidence as to the nature or extent of the
virtues or powers which each was supposed to possess. Valentine, it is true,
represents the superior soul as the immediate seat or residence of rationality and
wisdom ; but, at the same time, he places a certain sort of reason also in tiie in-
ferior soul. For he enjoins this latter to attend to the dictates and direction of
the superior soul, a thing that, without reason and intelligence, it must havo
been utterly incapable of doing. It had also the power of either obeying or re-
sisting the superior soul, and must consequently, in addition to reason, have
been endowed with liberty or freedom of will, a thing not possessed by the supe-
rior soul. These, as well as various other particulars of the Valentinian disci-
pline, admit not in the present day of an explication altogether satisfactory, inas-
much as ancient writers are silent as to many things of essential importance to
a right understanding of the subject, whilst they, at the same time, pervert other
things, and not unfrequently give us, as the genuine tenets of Valentine, what
are merely inferences or deductions drawn by tiiemselves. Finally, in their ac-
count of this man's doctrines and opinions, everything like method or order is
beyond all measure disregarded; and various things, which ought to have been
associated together and brought into one view, are disunited and kept far apart.
LVIII. Inferior sects that owed their origin to the Valentinian
school. From the Valentinian school are said to have issued not
a few founders of other sects, who, retaining the fundamental prin-
ciples of their master's discipline, endeavoured, either by certain
partial emendations or by a new exposition and arrangement, to
improve upon the original plan, and communicate to it a more
specious and imposing air. It should seem, however, not at all
unlikely that the same thing which occurred in the case of Simon
Magics again took place with regard to Valentine; namely, that
every one who professed sentiments bearing the least aflinity or
resemblance to his opinions was at once, without farther evi-
dence, accounted to be of the number of his disciples. Amongst
those who are thus reported to have derived the first rudiments
of their discipline from Valentine, we may first mention Ptolemy,
the founder of the sect of the Ptolemaites, a man of ingenuity and
eloq^uence, who differed widely from the general body of the Va-
472 Century II. — Section 58.
lentinians in liis tenets respecting the ^ons, as well as in regard
to some other points. His ^ons are not only differently named
and arranged from those of his reputed preceptor, but he appears
likewise to have considered them merely in the light of divine
attributes or virtues.(') Far different were the sentiments of Se-
cundus, who is commemorated by Irenoeus as a very distinguished
[p. 390.] disciple of the Valentinian school. According to him,
the jEons were real substances or persons, and, what is particularly
deserving of remark, he placed at the head of them two principles,
lijht and darkness, a circumstance which plainly proves him to
have borrowed more from the Oriental philosophy than his mas-
ter had done, and also indicates in him somewhat of an inclina-
tion to the discipline of the Manichees.i^') A third disciple of the
Valentinian school, not at all inferior to these in point of fame,
indeed, rather their superior, was Heracleon, an author whom we
find Clement of Alexandria and Origen repeatedly citing, for the
purpose of exposing and confuting his errors. Whether Heracleon
dissented in reality from Valentine, or merely in words and
phrases, and if there was really a difference between them, in
what such difference consisted, and what were the peculiar opi-
nions or tenets of the former, are points which, in the present
day, it will be found far from easy to determine. (')
(1) Respecting Ptolemy^ in addition to Irenreus, Tertullian, {Lib. contr.
Valent. c. iv. p. 290.) Augustine, and others, I would recommend the reader par-
ticularly to consult Epiphanius, Hccres. XXXIIL p. 216. 222. who gives us a let-
ter of his to a woman named Flora, which was afterwards published more cor-
rectly by J. Ernest. Grabe, in his Spicilegium Patrum et Hccreticorum, torn. ii. p.
69. In this letter he communicates without reserve his sentiments respecting
the law of Moses, declaring it, in his opinion, not to have been derived from the
Supreme Deity ; but to have been framed in part by the Jewish doctors, in part
by Moses, and in part by Demiurgus, or the founder of this world. This opinion
respecting the origin of the law of Moses, it has not been unusual for learned
men to consider as peculiar to Ptolemy ; but as to this, they are unquestionably
in an error. That the Jewish law did not owe its origin to the Supreme Being,
was an article of common belief throughout the whole Gnostic school, although
the leaders of the different sects into which it branched might differ somewhat
in the mode of expressing their sentiments on the subject. Even Valenline him-
self did not think otherwise.
(2) Vid. Irenaeus, lib. i. cap. xi. Epiphanius, Hccres. xxxi. Augustine, de
Hccres. cap. xii. It is certain that much difference of opinion subsisted between
Ptolemy and Secundus as to the nature of the Mons, the one considering them
Marcus and Colarhasus. 473
as merely modes or virtues of the Divine nature, the other as real suLstam-es or
persons; and eacli contendini!: tiiat his own sentiments on the subjirt corres-
ponded with tliose wliich had been entertained by their master. Respi't-tiii^^ the
nature and true grounds of this dispute, one miyht readily engage in much
learned disquisition; but, as there is no neeessity for it, I shall eontent myself
merely with observing, that from this controversy VaknL'me appears to have been
a man of some genius, certainly ; but, at the same time, one of a weak indecisive
mind, who, indeed, propounded many new opinions, but left the greater i)art of
them so ill defined as to ailord matter for continual disputes amongst his dis-
ciples.
(3) Vid. J. Ernest. Grabe, Spicileg. Palrum ct ILcreiicor. tom. ii. p. 82. et seq.
LIX. Marcus and Coiarbasus. Amongst tlie (lisciplcs of Valen-
tine, we find ancient aiitliors agree also in reckoning (thougli on
what authority is uncertain) one 3 faints, the founder of tlie sect
of the Marcosians, and a Colarhasus, who was some how or otlier
connected with this Marcus, either as an associate, a pupil, Q). 391.]
or a preceptor. Of Colarhasus not much is handed down to us by
either Irenaeus or any other writer. What little they do say of
him almost entirely respects his tenets concerning the yEons,
whom, it appears, he distributed, named, and associated in a very
different way from Valentine. To enter further, therefore, into
the history of this man's opinions, would be only a waste of words.
Concerning Marcus, however, many things are left us on record,
particularly by Irena^us. Of these some may easily be reconciled
with the principles of the Valentinian discipline, but others are
entirely new, and at the same time exceedingly obscure, so much
so, indeed, as scarcely to admit of explication. — Amongst other
notable attainments and exploits, he is said to have discovered
very profound mysteries in the Greek letters, to have studied
magic, worked miracles by the assistance of demons, debauclied
women, instilled into his followers the vilest of i)rinciples, and
compiled a code of the most puerile and absurd institutions. In
the heavy catalogue of accusations thus brought against him,
some particulars were no doubt well founded, others wholly ficti-
tious, and some deduced from a misapprehension or a wrong in-
terpretation of his opinions. To draw the proper line of distinc-
tion between the one and the otlicr of these might not, perhaps,
be altogether beyond the power of a person intimately conversant
with the Grnostic discipline; but it would be a work replete with
labour and fatigue. Contemplating the history of this man with
474 Century II. — Section 59.
ever}" possible degree of candour, and even rejecting as spurious
every part of what are stated to have been the Marcosian tenets,
except such things as could not possibly have been feigned, it will,
Devertheless, be found impossible to form a more lenient judg-
ment o^ Marcus than this : That he was a man of the Jewish per-
suasion, in all probability neither wicked nor impious, but, at the
same time, one who exercised his mental powers only to make
himself ridiculous, and wdio, having his brain bewildered with
Oriental, Egyptian, and Jewish extravagancies, converted the
universal religion, which he pretended to profess, into a system of
the most egregious nonsense and deformity.(')
(1) Respecting the tenets of Marcus, and the sect of the Marcosians,
founded by him, which, extending itself through various regions, particularly
Gaul, imposed on many of the more plain and simple of the Christians, Irenseus
treats much at large, (Ado. Hccres. lib. i. cap. xiv. et seq.) although in a very
immethodical, unconnected manner. The subject has also been taken up after
him by others. Of these tenets we need only direct our attention to such as it
was utterly impossible that either Irena3us or any other author should have
feigned, to be convinced that the man must have been disordered in his brain,
indeed, entirely out of his wits. The evidence of this is, in fact, so glaringly
obvious, that we can only wonder it should over have entered into the heads
of learned men to exercise their genius in endeavouring to reclaim and purify
so incorrigible and hopeless a subject. By way of specimen, we will present
the reader with the Marcosian tenets respecting the force and power of the
Greek letters, as they are given us by Irenseus, nearly in the very words of Mar-
cus himself Tctur' uv (the reader will understand that these are the words of
one of the Supreme JEons, whom Marcus represents as having been sent to
him in the form of a woman) TatSr' Zv to. ttu^' vfuv tincTi Tia-a-^^x ^-/Ja^^otTet
dTToppoiai. v7rdp')(jciv yivcea-Ki tCjv Tglwv J^vvd/maiv e/jtov/xuf, twv 9rt^ti')(^a<ruiv Toy
d\ov rajv avoi ^oi^iiiov tov a^l^fA-OV to. fXiV ysLg dipuVA ygdufxsirct zvvia VOfAttrov
tlvu.1 t3 ttat^o^ Kai tSj aXwS-giaj, J'la to apdvovs dvTovi livxi, TUTiiiv dp'^nrys
Kal dvlK\a\^TSi' ra iTg iixiipoeva onrojy Svra t3 Xoyu x.ai tm? ^a>YiSy J^id to fusTa
OLTTTiP virdpynv ToJv Te dpdjvojv )cal Twv ^uvucvtcdV etal dvaS'C^iT^ai twv fxiV
vz-icd-lY Tiiv aTTOpooixv, Tcjv (T'^TTEg dt/TJtv rifV dvapo^uv' Tu /« (pci)Vy\ivra ndi abra
£TTa ovTa TtJ avB-pMTTV K.al tyu iKKKntriaSy eiTtt ^la Toy dv^-^M-rru ficcvit 7r^0(K^-5rA
tfxoppac-i TO. S\a. 0 ytp »X^^ "^"^ <f>oeVYii /mo^piiV dvrai Tn^itTctniTiY . Has igitur^
qucc apud nos sunt, viginti quatuor liitercc, emanationes esse intcllige trium xirtu-
turn imaginales, earum qua: continent universmn, qucc sunt sursum elemeniorum
[p. 392.] numerum. Mutas enim litteras novem puta esse palris et verilatis, quo-
niam sine voce sint, id est, inenarrabilcs et ineloquibiles. Semivocales autem cum
sint octo, Logi esse et Zocs, quoniam quasi media: sint inter mutas et vacates, et
recipere eorum quidem qua: supersint emanationem, eorum vera qu<£, suhsint eZe-
vationem. Vocales autem et ipsas septem esse, anihropi et ecclesia:, quoniam per
antUropum vox progrediens formavil omnia. Sonus enim vocis formam eis cir-
Marcus and Colarbasus. 475
cumdedit. Irena3us, lib. i. cap. xiv. { 5. p. 70. Communications, similarly sub-
tile, and even .still more ridiculous and obscure, respecting the force and pro-
perties of the Greek letters, and their accordance with divine matters, both pre-
cede and follow the above. That it should ever have entered into the mind of
Irenaeus, or any other person, to have invented things like these, and ascribed
them to Marcus, by way of bringing him into discredit, is not to be believed.
They are, in fact, taken from his writings, and given in his own words. Now,
can any one, let me ask, who is himself in possession of his senses, for a mo*
ment regard these sublime mysteries as the oflsiJring of a sound and rational
mind ?— But I will add another specimen, which must, I think, place it beyond
all question, that Marcus and his followers altogether turned their backs on
every principle of true wisdom, and were devoted to the .'^illy conceits and ex-
travagancies of the Egyptians. In Irena3us are to be found certain prayers, which
the Mareosians dictated to dying people, to be recited when, in their journey to
the celestial regions, they came to pass through the provinces of Demiurgus and
his associates. Iren. lib. i. cnp. xxi. J 3. p. 97. In these prayers also, there is
no room to suspect any thing like fraud or misapprehension. If the sense or
meaning of them be attended to, they will be found to have a near resemblance
to those of a similar kind in use with the Ophites, which are preserved by Ori-
gen in his work contra Celsum, although they certainly differ from them some-
what in words. They are, moreover, of such a description as to preclude every
idea of their having been invented by any adversary of the Marcosian sect. It
was the opinion, then, of the Mareosians, as well as of the Ophites and others
of the Gnostics, and derived by them, as I conceive, from the Egyptians, that
the souls of the good and virtuous, upon taking leave of the body, and proceed-
ing to the mansions above, had to pass through the celestial orbs, and the planets
or wandering stars, which were under the dominion of Demiurgus and other
most powerful Genii, who were completely adverse to this passage of souls
through their domains, and particularly anxious to arrest their progress. The
efforts of these invidious tyrants, however, might, it was believed, by means of
certain words and phrases, be so far rendered abortive as to prevent their im-
peding souls in their ascent to the Deity ; and it was of course considered as
expedient that dying persons should provide themselves with prayers and for-
mulae of this description : rarsj sTg raj Trjgi Tov A«/x;xg7 di- ducivTavTUi, (we give
the words of Irenaeus) cr^ccTg* nt^ct^d-hAi, ttai KATHyviovui d-jrC>y tmc p«'^»»c, *a«
Toijs yevtis T>)5 fxnTfoz' duTov (Te TTCfiu^ywui its ra iV/* 'fi-\.avTa tCv S^ia-juou dwrSt
THTcn T«v ■{yx^''' 11'-^^ aulem eos qui circa Demiurgum sunt audienJes, valde con-
turhari, et reprehendere suam radicem, et genus matris : ipsos autem (the souls
which had taken their leave of the body), ahire in sua,projicientes iu>dos ipsorum^
id est, animam, meaning the sensitive soul itself, or what of the sensitive soul
these celestial souls might have brought with them from the body. For any
one to attempt to explain away the utter inanity and absurdity of things like
these, appears to me a most miserable abuse both of learning and tilents. — I
would not, however, be understood as denying that some things with [p. 393.]
which the Marcosian sect is reproached by Ircnajus and others, might either bo
misunderstood by ignorant people unacquainted with the force of the words
47G Century II. — Section 59.
and terms made use of, or unfairly represented by heedless and malevolent spec-
ta.tors, to whom every thing appeared vile and flagitious that w^as unusual with
the Christians ; amongst which I reckon what is reported respecting the sorcery
and delusive tricks, or if the reader had rather, the religious fallacies of Marcus,
which appear to me unworthy of the least credit, inasmuch as it is to be sup-
ported by no kind of argument, and may be invalidated on several grounds.
Whatever Irenaeus has transmitted to us respecting things of this sort, appears
to have been collected from the testimony of certain women, who might have
easily been imposed upon, and under the hope of obtaining for themselves a
more ready re-admission into the congregation of the faithful, whom for a while
they had deserted, might possibly have been induced to embellish their narra-
tion in a way not exactly corresponding with the truth. It is said, for example,
that in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, Marcus was accustomed, either by
means of magic or some sort of juggling, to tinge the wine in the chalice with
a red or purple colour. rcoTv.^ia oivu> Kiz^sLfAeva (says Irenaeus, lib. i. cap. xiii. p.
60.) TT^iO-Trom/Jievoiy £y;^'/§/;s7v, xai tni ttXeov inTciycjv tov Xo^ov t>)j £7ri;tX«crsa)f,
Troptp'jptA K*) eevd'pi dvupxlvurd-ai Trout' wf cTojce/v tov and tCjv vTTi^ tu oKtt
ydptv TO ai(J(.a to tat/T«j ju^siv tv rc5 iKiivw iroT»^ici> S'la T)is cTrixXviirgac dvru.
Pro calice vino misto^ Jin gens se gralias agere, et multum jproducens verba invo-
cationis purpureus et rubicundus calix ut appareat facii, iia ut videaiur gratia ah
iis qui sunt supra omnia (i. e. the ^ons) sanguinem suum in illius calicem per
ejus invocationem stillare. Now, with regard to this, learned men have denied,
and, as I think, rightly, that for the accomplishment of a thing of this so'rt, any
recourse to magic could be necessary. They suspect, nevertheless, that Marcus
must, in some way or other, have deluded the eyes of the beholders. But, for
my own part, I have not the least doubt but that, in this case, a very innocent
practice, and one that originated from a good design, has been exposed to un-
merited reproach through the mistake of some spectator who was unacquainted
with the Marcosian discipline. The custom with this sect, no doubt, w^as, that the
chalice should be filled first with white wine, probably by way of representing,
by a sort of figure, the purity and sanctity of Christ's blood. In the act of con-
secration, however, it was the usage for the priest to mingle a portion of red
wine w^ith the white, so as to make the contents of the chalice in some sort
resemble blood, and thereby excite in the minds of those present, a more
lively recollection of the Redeemer's sacrifice. Possibly it might happen, that
this mingling of the red wine with the white by the priest, might escape the
observation of certain persons who chanced to be occasional witnesses of the
public worship of the Marcosians, and that upon perceiving red wine distributed
in the cup, without being aware that any other than white wine had been
poured into it, they were led to conclude that this change must have been
wrought by the assistance of some evil spirit, and to represent the matter in this
light to others. Who is there that can be ignorant of the multitude of errors
to which mistakes of this kind gave rise ? My opinion is precisely the same with
regard to the other miracle w^hich is subsequently related by Irenaeus. — On
the table, around which it was customary for the Marcosians to assemble,
when celebrating the Lord's supper, was placed a cup of much larger size than
Bardesanes. 4T7
the chjriice out of which the communicanta drank. Into this larger cup it was
the usage for the priest to pour what little portion of the wine might be left
by the communicants in the chalice, or smaller cup; and the consequence, we
are told, was, that these lew drops became on a sudden so amplified, as to fili
such larger vessel, even to overflowing, with liquor of an ensanguined colour.
Irenffius recounts this as one of the prodiiries, or, if the reader had rather, one of
the frauds of Marcus; for I must own that his words admit of being taken [p. 394.]
in either sense: »«' TOiaUTd nva inruv, kui i^on^yta-u^ Tuv raXainoi^ov d-au/uaroTToids
dvfpdviii tS /uiyaXy rrXwgaiS-EVros ex, t3 (aik^v irornpiy wfri kui C:TiPtK^tla-^ai i^ (iwrJ.
Dein cum talia quccdam dixit, el infelicem illam (inulierem) ad insaniam aikgit, turn
mirahilia facere videtur, majore calice minore ita ut (poculum) redundarel impleto.
But it is easily to be collected, even from the words of Irenccus himself, by any
one who shall duly attend to them, although it must be acknowledged tiiat his
manner of e.vpressing himself in this passage is very confused and obscure, that
no trick or deception was actually practised in this case, and that the idea of tlie
thing's having been accomplished by any fraudulent or preternatural operation,
in all probability originated with certain ignorant or heedless and prejudiced
spectators. With the Marcosians it was not the custom for several to partake
in succession of one cup, as is the practise with other Christians, but a separate
portion of wine was given to each person by the priest. When any one did not
drink the whole of what was thus handed to him, the remainder was poured into
a larger cup that stood on the table; and the chalice was replenished with a
fresh quantity of wine for the person next in rotation. Whatever was left in
the smaller cup being thus constantly emptied into the larger one, the latter, of
course, in time, became full ; nor can I bring myself to believe that this sect
could have been so stupid and silly as to regard a thing of such necessary occur-
rence in the light of a miracle. What I suspect is, that certain occasional spec-
tators of the Marcosian rites, observing the wine to increase in the larger cup,
which had been placed on the table empty, without perceiving the actual cause
by which such increase was produced, were hastily induced to imagine that it
was either accomplished by the assistance of some evil demon, or otherwise
brought about by some subtle kind of fraud.
LX. Bardesanes. Ancient writers are also agreed in reckon-
ing, as the disciples of Valentine, (in addition to others, whom we
deem it unnecessary to notice, inasmuch as they are scarcely
known even by name at this day,) those two very celebrated
characters, Bardesanes and Tatian^ from both of whom the cause
of Christianity derived no inconsiderable degree of benefit, al-
though each of them became the parent of a new sect, and patron-
ized several very important errors. In this, however, it is mani-
fest that the authors to whom we allude must have laboured under
a mistake, since the doctrine of Bardesanes, as well as that of
Tatian, is very considerably removed from the Valentiniaii prin-
478 Century Il.—Section 60.
ciples and discipline. Each liad a manifest leaning to the Orien-
tal opinions which were cherished by the Gnostics respecting the
origin" of all things, and more particularly evil; but by neither
was the plan of the Gnostics adhered to in endeavouring to pro-
duce an accommodation between those tenets and the principles
of Christianity. Bardesanes^ who was born of Christian, parents at
Edessa, in Mesopotamia, and appears to have been a man of very
considerable talents and erudition, had, by his writings, acquired
for himself no little degree of reputation under the reigns of the
emperors Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Verus ; but, having un-
luckily been induced to espouse the Oriental (or, as ancient wri-
ters term them, Valentinian) notions respecting the existence of
two principles, he devoted himself for a while to the jiropagation
of an erroneous doctrine ; and, being possessed of great subtilty
[p. 395.] and address, succeeded in gaining over numerous con-
verts, from whence sprung the sect of the Bardesanists that flou-
rished in Syria and the neighbouring regions.(') After some time,
indeed, he again embraced the orthodox faith, and became the
determined opponent of certain of those errors of which he had
formerly been the distinguished patron and defender ; but the
poison which he had imbibed was never thoroughly eradicated
from his mind,(') nor was he ever capable of healing the cruel
wound which his conduct had given to the interests of Chris-
tianity. His doctrine was, that all things had originated from
two principles : the one good, ^. e. the Deity ; the other evil, viz. the
Rrince and Governor of matter, which he held to be eternal and
intrinsically corrupt. The formation of the world, and the crea-
tion of mankind, he ascribed to the supreme and superlatively
excellent Deity ; but a world of an infinitely better constitution
than the one which we at present inhabit, and mankind of a nature
vastly superior to that of the human race at this day.f ) The
primitive world, according to Bardesanes, was entirely free from
every species of evil ; and man^ as he came from the hands of his
Maker, was compounded of a celestial mind joined to an aerial or
highly subtilized body. When the Prince or Governor of mat-
ter, however, had succeeded in seducing the innocent soul into
sin; the Deity permitted him to go the further length of envelop-
ing man with a dense and cumbrous body, composed of depraved
matter ; and, by way of punishing the human race for their de-
Bardt\
470
fection, allowed this aiitlior of all evil to mar the iUir fuc-e c.f tho
world, and despoil it of the greatest part of its beauty.(') llnico
the perpetual contention between reason and a])petito, by which
mankind are tormented in the present day; for the gross and
corrupt material body with which man became thus invested is
ever impelling the soul to acts of inicpiity and sin. For the j>ur-
pose of putting an end to this calamitous state of things, Jesus,
according to this heresiarch, descended irom the mansions abovo
and assumed a corporeal frame ; a frame, however, not at all re-
sembling the bodies with which the human race arc cnvcloi)cd,
but of a celestial and ethereal nature. It was, therefore, in ap
pearance merely that this heavenly guest was brought Ibrth, or
that he ate, suffered, and underwent death ; for that in reality he
neither was born, nor did he dicC") The doctrine which he re-
presented Jesus as having taught, was that the souls of men should
yield in nothing to the influence of the body, but be constantly
striving to release themselves from the chains of vitiated matter.
On the dissolution of the material bod}^, the souls who had availed
themselves of the instruction thus aiibrded them, would, he held,
ascend, invested with their original bodies of ethereal mould, into
the presence of the Supreme Deity ; whilst the terrene and exter-
nal body itself, which had, in flict, been the prison of the soul,
and the origin or fountain of all its transgressions, wouhl, he sup-
posed, again be absorbed in the vast material mass from whence
it had been taken, without the least hope of rcvivisccncc or a
future resurrection.
(1) Of Bardesanes we find frequent mention made by ancient writers. Ilia
history is particularly entered into by (amongst others) Eusebiun, Hisior. Ecclet.
lib. iv. c. 30. p. 151. Epiphanius, Ilccrcs. hi. p. 476. Theodoret, lit relic. Fjbular,
lib. i. cap. 22. p. 208. Augustine dc Hicresibiis, i.'a\h xx.w. See also the Chroni.
con Edessenum a\md Jos. Simon. Assemann. Bibl'wth. Oriental Vatican. [p.39C.J
tom. i. p. 389. et. seq. Various extracts from liis \vritiii«,'.H arc also to ho met
with in Eusebius de PnzparaL Eiauirdica, Pnrjiliyry dc Abstincntin, and tho
works of other ancient authors, wliicli k-ave us in ti<» dcubl as to IiIh jjcniun and
abilities. The nature of his discij line is by no one more dearly explained than
by Origen, Dialog, contra Marcionilas, sect. iii. p. 70. et. seq. edit, NW-t^tcn.
From all these different sources, however, it is imposhibie for any one to obt.iin
any thing like a full and complete history of the life of Bardesanejs or a iiorfoct
and satisfactory conception of his philosophy and relij,non. By more modern
writers, therefore, who have undertaken to illustrate the history of thin herojiU
arch and his tenets (the most disiingui.-,hed of whonj, in addition to TiUcmonl,
480 Century II.— Section CO.
a very laborious and accurate writer, certainly, but one by no means deserving
of the very hi^^h degree of reputation which he enjoys, and Assemann^io w^om
I have just above referred, are Fred. Sirunzius in his Historia Bardesanis et
Bardesani star inn, published at Wittenburg in 4to. and Isaac Beausobre in his
Histoire de Manichee, vol. ii. p. 128.), we find several things left involved in ob-
scurity, and much of uncertain conjecture intermixed with real history. — Re-
specting the origin of the lapse of Bardesanes, a different account is given by
Eusehius from what we meet with in Epiphanius. By the former, Bardesanes
is represented as having been addicted to the Valentinian tenets previously to
his embracing the orthodox faith, whereas the latter states him to have first of
all clierished the true faith, and then to have been seduced into error by the Va-
lentinians. If, as is most probable, Bardesanes was born of Christian parents,
the account given by Epiphanius is certainly the one best entitled to credit, and
I have, therefore, without scruple, adopted it.
(2) This is expressly stated by Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 30. and
might, if it were necessary, be confirmed by the testimony of other writers.
Bardesanes in fact discarded whatever was so obviously repugnant to the
principles of Christianity as not to admit of any thing like a reconciliation there-
with, such, for instance, as the Valentinian tenets respecting an evil principle,
the eternity of matter, the body of Christ, the return of our mortal frames to
matter without any hope of a future resurrection to life, and the like ; but as to
the notion of sin having owed its origin to matter, and various other opinions
which he had before been led to espouse, he retained them to the last, and
availed himself of their assistance in expounding a part of the Christian re-
ligion.
(3) This notion respecting the origin of the world and of mankind most de-
cisively separates Bardesanes from Valentine and every other Gnostic leader,
by all of whom the world was considered as having been framed, in opposi-
tion to the will of the Deity, by a being to whom they gave the title of Demi-
urgus.
(4) It may not be amiss to apprize the reader that I cannot pretend to vouch
the authority of ancient writers for every thing that I have here stated. In none
of these authors, for instance, is there to be found any thing respecting a pri-
miiive world created by God, and a posterior world corrupted through the
machinations of the Prince or Governor of matter; but they all speak as if Bar-
desanes had imagined the universe, as it is at present constituted, to have been
the work of the Supreme Deity, and consequently that the world, as we now
behold it, differs in no respect from the world as it existed prior to the lapse or
transgression of souls. Again, they appear to intimate it as his belief, that men,
in consequence of their disobedience, were, by way of punishment, invested by
the Deity himself with depraved and vitiated material bodies. — But I will ven-
ture to assert, that unless we would make Bardesanes inconsistent with himself,
[p. 397.] it is impossible to attribute to him sentiments like the above. For
how could any man, who considered the Deity as exempt from every species of
evil, and, at the same time, regarded matter, not only as intrinsically corrupt,
but also as subject to the dominion of an evil ruler, how, let me ask, could any.
Tatlan. ^oj
man, viewing things in tliis ligl,t, have bdiovod that the ..ll-ffoo<l D.hy would
either have invaded the vile and contaminated proviiu-e of hi. adyrr^iry at.d
enemy, or moved a finger in giving arrangonuMit ,.r di.trihotion to viiiaird ,„nt.
ter, or, lastly, have placed .souls, generated of himself, in a region ho thorou-^hly
devoted to iniquity ? By no kind of sophistry couhl nets like these have Len
reconciled with a nature decidedly hostile to every thing evil. BanlesanoH,
therefore, must either have recognized a primitive world, the workmanship of
the Deity, in contradistinction to a latter one that had been corruptrd hy the aullior
of all evil, or he must have believed in the existence of a paradise beyond tho
confines of this world, and conceived the universe which we inhabit, to have
been framed by the Prince or Governor of matter in humble imitation of such
paradise. In the second place, how could it be possibh. for a man, who was
obviously anxious to exempt the Deity from every imi)uUition of evil, t<. have
believed that this all-perfect Being was induced, in consequence of the full of
the human race, to clothe them with a vitiated body, composed of matter that
was under the dominion of his adversary, and teeming with every corrupt and
depraved appetite? Can that Being be deemed in an absolute Hcnse good, who
is the author or cause of sinful or evil conduct in others? I have no dtuibt,
therefore, but that, in expounding the doctrine of B.irdesanes re^^pecting Iho
conjunction of the body with the soul, there must have been something (jt other
omitted by Origen and the rest of the ancient writers. According to the opinion
which I have been led to form on the subject, Bardesanes must have held cither
that the Deity, in consequence of man's having sinned, and thus rendered him-
self subject to the dominion of the malicious ruler of matter, would not inter-
fere to prevent the latter from encumbering the human race with bodies formed
of clay ; or else that mankind had, in an unguarded moment, through the m.ichi-
nations of the Author of all evil, been so far beguiled, or rather besotted, as to
fall in love with the bodies which he presented to them, and assum»- them of
their own accord.
(5) The opinion thus entertai.ned by Bardesanes respecting the celestuvl or
ethereal nature of Christ's body, must, unless I am much mistaken, have been
the only reason that induced ancient writers to class him witJi tlie Valenliniana,
with whom he held scarcely any thing else in common.
LXI. Tatian. Tatian^ wlio was a native of A.ssyria, and a
man of considerable learning and talents, having, according U^ liis
own account, C) from a perusal of the sacred writing.^ l)oen led to
entertain a favourable opinion of Christianity, betook liimsi-lf to
Kome, and there assiduously laboured in cultivating a more inti-
mate acquaintance with its nature and principles under the tuition
of the celebrated Justin Martyr. The latter having been called
upon to lay down his life in the cause of his Divine master, Tatian
at first opened a school in the city of llome, but at length was in-
duced to return to his native country, where, cvtlicr oa the insti-
31
482 Century II. — Section CI.
gation of his own mind, (for he was ncaturally of an austere dis-
position,) or, by the persuasion of others, he was led to embrace
the tenets of those who, in expounding the principles of Chris-
tianity, called in the assistance of the Orie/i^a? philosophic notions
respecting the Deity, matter, the world, and the human soul.
The exact form of the religion which he invented, or otherwise
[p. 398.] adopted, is not to be collected from any ancient writer.(^)
Of this much, indeed, we are certain, that it must have pos-
sessed somewhat of the Valentinian cast, since, besides ascribing
great honour to the yEons, we find that it recognized a distinction
between the founder of the world and the Supreme Deity, and
disclaimed the notion of Christ's having assumed a real body.(')
There can, therefore, be no difficulty in accounting for the cir-
cumstance of Tatian's having been regarded by many as a dis-
ciple of the Valentinian school. It is, however, equally certain,
that as well in other things as in the precepts which relate to
morality, the disagreement that existed between the system of
Tatian and that of Valentine was far from, being either trifling or
inconsiderable. Matter^ for instance, being considered by the for-
mer as intrinsically evil, and the bodies of men consequently as
not having been framed by the Deity, but as so many prisons of
celestial souls, he willed his followers to abstain from propagating
their species, and likewise from everything that might conduce
either to the strengthening or recreation of their coporeal fabric ;
in other words, he commanded his disciples to avoid wedlock, to
forego the use of animal food as well as of wine, and, leading a
solitary life, to content themselves Avitli a very moderate quantity
of the most slight and meagre sustenance. To such an excess, in-
deed, were his regulations with regard to abstinence carried, that
even in the celebration of the Lord's supper, he enjoined the use
of water instead of wine.(') This severe and melancholy system
of discipline procured for his followers, of whom Tatian had soon
to boast of great numbers in Syria, the people of which country
naturally lean to an austerity of manners, and subsequently in
other regions, the denominations of Encratites, or "the Continent;"
Hydroparastates, or "Water Drinkers;" Apotactites, or "Eenun-
tiants" of this world's goods, and the like ; although it was by no
means unusual for them to be termed, in reference to the author
of their sect, Tatianites^ or Tatianists. A species of piety that wears
The Ophites. 483
an austere and rigid aspect being sure to make a considerable im-
pression on the minds of people in general, it is not to be won-
dered at tliat this sect should have maintained its ground in vari-
ous countries so low down as the fourth century, or, indeed, even
later. (')
(1) Til liis oration "to tlie Greeks," which has escaped the fate of his other
wriliiigs, ;>nd remains extant at this day. Although not entirely free from errors,
it is a discourse replete with various erudition, and written in a style by no
means deficient in polish. It is commonly to be found annexed to the works
of Justin Martyr, and was in 1700 published separately at Oxford, in 8vo.,
accompanied with various annotations, by an English student of the name of
Worth.
(2) Besides Irenreus, Epiphanius, and others, who have written expressly
on the subject of the early Christian sects and heresies, there are many, who, in
treating on other topics, have incidentally been led to make mention of Tatian:
from none, however, can he be said to have received that measure of attention
to which a man of his eminence was certainly entitled.
(3) Vid. Clemens Alexand. Slromat. lib. iii. p. 460, am^ Excerpt, ex Philosoph.
Orient, p. 806, Epiphanius, Hccres. xlvi. cap. i. p. 391. Origen in Lib. de Ora-
tione cap. xiii. p. 77. Edit. Oxon. Hieron. Comm. in Galat. vi. p. 200. &c.
(4) A dislike to wine should seem to have prevailed amongst the pliiloso-
phers of the East from a very remote period, and more particularly [p. 399.]
amongst such of them as believed in a two-fold origin of tilings, by whom we
find it commonly termed the blood of the Devil, or evil principle. See what
has been collected on the subject by Paul Ernest Jablonsky, in his Pantheon
^gypiiorum, part i. p. 131. In prohibiting the use of wine, therefore, to his
followers, Mahommed does not appear to have originated any new or ditficult
law, but merely revived and sanctioned with his authority an ancient regulation
of the Arabs, the Persians, the Syrians, and other oriental nations. We may>
hence, too, easily account for that detestation of wine by w^hich almost all the
Gnostics of Asiatic origin, and, at a subsequent period, the Manichajans were
characterized.
(5) Vid, Jos. Simon. Asseraanni, Bihlioth. Oriental. Clement. Vatican, torn.
i p. 93. Assemann, who was himself a Syrian, and well acquainted with the
temper and habits of his countrymen, very justly remarks, that the naturally rigid
and austere disposition of the Syrians tended greatly to favour the extension of
this sect.
LXII. The Ophites. That I should enter into a history of the
smaller and more obscure of the Gnostic sects, of which a nume-
rous catalogue might easily be collected from ancient writers, will
not, I take it for granted, be thought necessary ; for, besides that
nothing of any moment respecting them is to be met with on
record, it should seem that ancient authors fell into the error of
48.4 Century IL— Section 02.
consideJring, as separate and distinct sects, wliat were merely
members or branches of other sects ; to say nothing of the occa-
sion that was alforded for the mistaken multiplication of sects, by
the practice that appears to have prevailed of frequently giving
to an individual sect a great variety of denominations.(') I can-
not, however, omit taking notice of the Ophites, a sorry, infatuated
set of men, on whose tenets Irenccus and other ancient writers
have bestowed a much greater degree of attention than on tliose
of many Other sects. With regard to the first rise of this sect,
there are various considerations which will not permit us to doubt
of its having had its origin amongst the Jcavs, or of its having ex-
isted long prior to the age of Christ. Struck with the magnitude
and splendour of our blessed Saviour's miracles, a part of the.
Ophites were induced to acknowledge his divine authority, re-
serving to themselves, nevertheless, the liberty of making the re-
ligion which he promulgated conform itself to certain principles
which they had previously adopted from the Egyptian and Orien-
tal philosophy. The remainder of the sect, however, continued
to cherish their ancient superstitions, and execrated the name of
Christ in common with other Jews. Hence arose two descrip-
tions of the OjyJiiteSj the one Jewish, the other Christian. The
tenets of the latter embraced most of those vain fancies which
were cherished by the other Gnostics of Egyptian origin, respect-
ing the JEons ; the eternity of matter ; the creation of the world
without the approbation or knowledge of the supreme Deity ; the
imprisonment, as it were, of souls within the body ; the directors
or rulers of the seven planets, or wandering stars ; the tyranny ex-
ercised by Demiurgus, whom they termed Jaldaboth, and his asso-
ciates, over celestial minds ; the j)rogress of souls ascending to the
[p. 400.] Deity through the seven celestial orbs, and the means
which Sophia, or Achamoth, had in contemplation for delivering
them from the power of Demiurgus : they also held that Christ
had descended from above, and joined himself to the most just and
holy man, Jesus, for the purpose of overthrowing the dominion
of the architect of this world ; but that, upon the seizure of Jesus
by the Jews, Christ withdrew himself, and returned to his station
in the celestial regions. The difference, therefore, between these
Ophites and the other Gnostics of Egyptian origin, as to things
of any material moment, was but small They had, however, one
The Ophites. 485
tenet peculiar to tlicmselvcs, and to wliicli tlicy owed tlic appel-
lation of Opiates^ namely, that the serpent by whom our first pa-
rents were beguiled was not an enemy, but a friend to the human
race ; and that it was either Christ himself, or tSojjhia, who, under
the disguise of a serpent's form, wished to overthrow the councils
of the architect of this world, or Jaldahotli, and to accomplish the
salvation of mankind. Under the influence of this strange per-
suasion, they are said to have nourished a number of living se?--
pents, and paid them a sort of honorary worshijD.Q
(1) It would be very possible for any one who might feel so disposed, to
collect from tlie works of ancient writers, a sufficiently extensive catalogue of
Gnostic sects, that are represented as not coming within the description of any
of those to which we have above adverted. Mention in particular is mnde of
the followers of Cassian. the Docetes, the Severians, the Apostolics, the Adamites^
who are said to have aimed at reviving the manners by which mankind were
characterized in a state of primitive innocence; the Cainites, who are reported
to have held in reverence Cain, Corah, Dathan, the inhabitants of Sodom, and
Judas Iscariot ; the Abelites^ who are represented as having allowed marriage,
but at the same time discountenanced the procreation of children; the Setliia/is,
who regarded Seth as the Christ; the Floriniaiis, a sect that owed its origin to
Florinus and Blastus, two Valentinians, who had their residence at Rome, and
various others of different denominations. Of any thing that remains on record,
however, respecting these sects, it would be but a waste of time to take notice,
inasmuch as their history is in part very obscure, in part devoid of every thing
like certainty, and in part utterly unworthy of being related. Besides, it is in-
credible that the Gnostic tribe could ever have been split into such a multitude
of sects and factions, although it is not to be denied but that its tenets were
well calculated to give rise to a great diversity of opinions. It is my belief,
therefore, that the variety of names by which it was not uncommon for an indi-
vidual sect to be distinguished, one, perhaps, having a reference to some distin-
guishing tenet, another to its founder, another to some particular place or the
like, occasionally led people into the error of imagining that there existed so
many separate and distinct sects. The error, for instance, that is ascribed to the
Docetes, respecting the body of Christ, was not properly the error of one sect,
but was common to a great portion of the Gnostic tribe, and I, therefore, have
no doubt, but that those who were termed Docetes by some, had a different de-
nomination given to them by others: whence it happened that what was merely
one individual sect, was regarded by uninformed people as two. The sect of
the Ophites, or Serpentinians, was founded by one Euphrates; in all probability,
therefore, although they were styled by some Ophiici^, yet others gave them the
title of Euphratices, and those who were ignorant of this might con- [p. 401.]
eider the latter as a distinct sect from the former. By Epiphanius and others,
the Gnostics are represented as an individual sect, distinct from the Valentini-
ans, the Carpocratians, the Basilidians, and the rest: and yet it is notorious at
486 Century IL— Section (So.
this day, thnt nil these latter arrogated to themselves the title of Gnostics, as a
badge of superior wisdom. I intentionally pass over some other things that
might be noticed as opposed to our believing the heretical sects to have been so
numerous as ancient authors represent.
(2) For a more particular discusssion of the history and tenets of this sect,
as far as they are at present to be collected from ancient writers, the reader is
referred to a German work of mine, written expressly on the subject, and printed
at Helmstadt, 1746, in quarto.
LXIII. Cerdo and Marcion. Nearly about tlie same time that
tlie Koman churcli was infested by the depraved opinions of Va-
lentine, its tranquillity was further disturbed by the dissemina-
tion within its bosom of another system of heretical discipline that
owed its origin to one Cerdo, a native of Syria ; a system which, if
we can depend on ancient authors for having given it to us entire,
was certainly shorter, more simple, and, consequently, easier to
be understood than that of Yalentine, but built upon the same
principles, and teeming with similar depravities. (') With Cerdo
was associated Marcion, the son of a bishop of Pontus, a man of
genius and learning, as well as of distinguished gravity and mo-
deration, who had, at an earlier period, Avhen he resided in Asia,
manifested his dissent from the established tenets of the church,
and thereby, as it should seem, rendered himself an object of pub-
lic censure. 0 On his arrival at Rome, Marcion appears, for a
while, to have disguised his real sentiments with regard, to re-
ligion, under the hope of being able to obtain for himself some
situation of dignity in the church ; but having, in an unguarded
moment, been led to disclose so much of the nature of his tenets
as effectually to cut himself off from every expectation of this
kind, (for he was so imprudent as, in familiar conversation with
some of the Roman presbyters, to speak contemptuously of the
books of the Old Testament, and the God of the Hebrews,) he at
once threw off the mask, and, openly associating himself with
Cerdo, devoted the remainder of his days to the establishment of a
new sect in Italy, and various other provinces through which he
travelled. (^) So eminently s.uccessful was he in the accomplish-
ment of this object, that he left behind him a most numerous
tribe of followers in almost every region of the earth, who, in
spite of every effort that was made to subdue them, continued to
maintain their ground down to the fifth, nay, even to the sixth
century. (*) Of his disciples, Lucan or Lucian, Severus^ Blastes, and
Car do and Marcion. 487
Others, but more particularly Ajjclks, are said, in some respects to
have corrected the errors of their master, in others to have ag-
gravated them, and to have become the authors of various new
sects ; but the accounts give nof them by dilfcrent writers, possess
but little consistency, and seem not at all calculated to stand the
test of severe examination.
(1) Respecting this Cerdo, whom almost all ancient writers concur [p. 402.]
in representing as the preceptor of Marcion, but who, with greater propriety
perhaps, might have been termed by them Marcion's friend and associate, but
very little is to be met with on record. We know, indeed, that he was by birth
a Syrian, and that he lived and taught at Rome about the middle of this cen-
tury; but as to every thing else respecting him, we are left altogether in tho
dark, or in a state of the greatest uncertainty. With regard to the life and for-
tunes of il/arcion, not much more tliat can be relied upon, has been handed down
to posterity. By most of the ancient writers, however, the tenets of both have
been either professedly or incidentally brought under review. In addition to
what is to be met with on the subject in Irenccus, (who takes continual occasion
for displaying his decided hostility to the principles of Marcion,) Epiplianius^
Theodoret, and otlier heresiologists, we find most of the early fathers whose
works have reached our times, adverting to various of the Marcionite tenets, for
the purpose of expressing their detestation of them. Were we to be called upon
for a reference to those writers from whom most information is to be obtained
with regard to the discipline of Marcion, we should assign the first place to Ter-
tuU'ian, whose five books against this heresiarch we deem worthy of perusal,
although written in a very tumid and embarassed style, to say nothing of the
poem against Marcion, extending likewise to five books, which is commonly at-
tributed to TertuUian, and annexed to his w^orks, although by many thought
unworthy of his pen, and ascribed to some other author; and in the next place
we should direct the reader to tiiat dialogue against INIarcion which is commonly,
although, as some suppose, falsely attributed to Origen, and was published se-
parately in Greek and Latin, by J. Rudolph Wetstein, Basil, 1674, 4to. From
neither of these, however, must the reader expect to obtain a regular and com-
plete view of the system of Marcion in all its parts: what they give us is merely
a sketch of its leading features, or rather an exhibition of such parts as are dis-
tinguished for their deformity, without any kind of order or connection. Of more
modern writers, Isaac Beausobre has bestowed groat pains in developing the
true principles and nature of the Marcionite discipline, in his Ilistoire de Mani-
chee, tom. ii. p. 69, et seq. although in a way that occasionally savours too much
of his propensity to hunt after excuses and apologies for heretics. Of Tillemont,
Massuet, and others, I say nothing: all these run into the opposite extreme, be-
ing too ready to give credit to every thing which ancient writers have left on
record respecting Marcion and his preceptor.
(2) Epiphanius, (Hccres. xlii.) rehites that Marcion was at first distinguished
for tlie severity of his morals, and led a solitary life, but that becoming the vie-
488 Century II. — Section G3.
tim of illicit passion, he seduced a young woman, and was in consequence
thereof excommunicated by liis father the bishop; that finding it impossible to
obtain the forgiveness of his parent upon any terms, he fled to Rome, and en-
deavoured, by the most urgent solicitations, to prevail on the presbyters, by
whom the Roman church was at that time governed, Hyginus being dead, to
receive him into the communion of the faithful ; but that these presbyters con-
stantly declined complying with his request, on the ground that it was not per-
mitted them to do so without the consent of the bishop by whom he had been
excommunicated, (and in this particular, certainly, the statement is perfectly in
unison with what we know to have been the ancient discipline ; for in primitive
times it was an invariable rule, that no one who had been expelled from com-
munion with the faithful, should be again received into the bosom of the church*
without the knowledge and consent of the bishop by whom he had been excom-
[p. 403.] municated.) and that Maraon, therefore, inflamed with indignation, asso-
ciated himself with Cerdo, who was at that time busied in disseminating his
erroneous doctrines at Rome. With the exception of Beausobre, implicit credit
has been given to this by almost every writer subsequent to Epiphanius; and
the statement, considered merely in itself, has certainly nothing at all incredible
in it. There are certain circumstances, however, which, when they come to be
taken into the account, will not permit us to regard the matter as placed alto-
gether beyond tiie reach of controversy. In the first place, all the ancient wri-
ters who treat of the history and opinions of Marcion, appear to have been quite
uninformed as to what is thus reUited by Epiphanius, except the uncertain au-
thor of the Appendix to TertuUian's book de Praescriptionibus advers. Hccreticos;
and the authority of Epiphanius is certainly, as every one knows, not of such
weight as that his testimony singly should be allowed to overbalance the silence
of every other ancient waiter. And in the next place it is worthy of remark, as
has been observed by several of the learned, that Marcion during his residence
in Asia, before ever he had visited Rome, appears to have given disturbance to
the church by his tenets; (Vid. Dion. Petavius Not. ad. Epiphan. Heres. xxii.
Jos. Sim. Asseman, Bihlioih. Oriental. Clement. Vatican, torn. i. p. 389. Jo. Pear-
son, Vindic. Ignatian. p. ii. cap. viii. p. 372. Anton Pagi Criiica in Baronium^
tom. i. ad ann. 144. sect. 3.) which renders it extremely probable that the true
reason of his being excommunicated by his father was, not his illicit amours, but
his heretical doctrines. And in my opinion it would be no very unhappy con-
jecture were it to be suggested that the meaning of Epiphanius had been mis-
apprehended, a literal interpretation having inadvertently been given to what this
author had never intended to have been received in any other than a figurative
sense, and that by the virgin whom Marcion is represented as having seduced,
we ought to understand merely the Church, whose purity he had sullied by the
dissemination of unsound opinions. The ancient fothers were, it is well known,
very frequently wont to compare the church to a virgin, and to treat the insti-
tution of a new sect as a violation of maiden purity. It is also by no means
impossible, that the transgression of which it appears from Tertullian (de PrcB-
script, cap. xxx.) and others, that Apelles, the disciple of Marcion was guilty,
might mistakenly have been imputed to his master.
Marcioji's System. 4S9
(3) According to Epiphanius, Marcion inquired of tlic Roman presbyters in
what sense we ought to underst;ind what is said by our blessed Savi<jur in Luke
V. 36. of not putting new wine into old bottles, or sewing annewpieec upon a
old garment. The presbytcM-s appear to have explained the meaning of Christ's
words, as well as tiiey were able,- but I am bound to confess, in a way t!iat does
them but little credit, either on the score of learning or penetration. Dissali-lied
with their answer, Marcion is represented asj having avowed his belief, that by
those words it was Christ's intention to intimate, that the books of the Old
Testament were superseded by his authority, and that those of the New Testa-
ment v^ere. not to be considered as having any connection with them.
(4) Tertullian in his Prccscript. adv. Hccret. cap. xxx. p. 242. says, that iMaV'
cion was twice excommunicated from the Roman church, and that it was in-
tended to have yielded to his intreaties, and received him back again even the
third time, provided he would undeceive those whom he had corrupted with hia
errors, and bring them back with him into the bosom of the church, but that
death overtook him before he could accomplish this, and that he consequently
died excommunicate. Irenccus has recorded much the same thing of Cerdo ;
and learned men have therefore been led to conclude, that Tertullian has in this
instance fallen into an error, and imputed that to Marcion which properly be-
longed to Cerdo. Vid. Tillemont Memoires pour servir a V Hisloire de [p. 404.]
rEnglise, torn, ii, p. ii. p. 514. et seq. The thing is certainly not of such mo-
ment as to countenance us in devoting any time to its investigation.
LXIV. The system of Marcion. Aiiciciit writers vary consider-
ably ill their exposition of tlie discipline of Marcion. Their dis-
agreement, ho^Yever, is not so great as to prevent us from ascer-
taining, in a general way, what were his sentiments respecting the
origin of all things, and the nature of Jesus Christ, whom he con-
sidered as having come into the w^orld for the purpose of saving
souls. In the first place, he, after the example of the Oriental
philosophers, figured to himself two primary principles, from
whence all things had proceeded : the one devoid of every thing
evil, the other destitute of every kind of good ; the former, the
Prince of Light ; the latter, the lord or governor of matt'^r and
darkness. Of these two deities, the best and most powerful not
only begat of himself a number of immortal and immutable na-
tures of different orders and degi'ces, but also laid the foundations
of the superior or celestial world in which the stars hold their
course. The Creator of this nether world and its inhabitants, 'he
represented as holding a middle station between those two primary
beings, considering him as an angel of divine origin, endowed
with the most extensive powers, who had formed this visible uni-
verse and the human race out of corrupt and shapeless matter,
400 Century II. — Section 64.
against tlic consent of its prince or ruler, mingling, liowever,
therewitli a considerable portion of celestial or setliereal matter,
and uniting with the vitiated and mortal body a soul divine in its
origin, and endowed with rationality.(^) This founder of the
world was, according to Marcion, that Being whom the Jews wor-
shipped as the Supreme Deity ; the same that commissioned
Moses, and gave to the Hebrew nation, through him, a law ; a law
not indeed positively evil, but imperfect, and suited to men who
were ignorant of the Supreme Deity, and paid greater obedience
to their own sensual appetites and inclinations than to the dic-
tates of right reason. Between this parent of the material world,
and the two above-mentioned eternal principles of all things, the
chief point of difference appears to have been, that the former
was looked upon as being neither positively good, nor yet as ab-
solutely evil, but of a nature partaking of both, or, as Marcion
expressed it, he wasyw5^.(^) For, by means of punishments and
calamities, which the good Deity was from his nature incapable
of inflicting, this middle Being took vengeance on all those who
neglected his laws, whilst, on the other hand, he, with blessings
and rewards, which it was not in the nature of the evil Deity to
[p. 405.] confer, remunerated those who acted uprightly, and led
a life aoreeable to his commandments. Between him and the
Lord or Governor of matter there was perpetual war ; for, since
in the creation of the world and the replenishing of it with in-
habitants, he had invaded the province of this Prince of dark-
ness, the latter, out of revenge, set himself to work with every
possible degree of care and diligence, to seduce mankind from
their allegiance to their maker, and bring them into subjection to
himself. Those souls who suffered themselves to be led astray
by the counsels of this deceiver, and paid obedience to his man-
dates, would, according to Marcion, on the dissolution of the
body, be sent by the God of the Jews, the founder and legislator
of the world, into a place of wo, where they would suffer inex-
pressible torments ; whilst those who. in spite of every artifice,
remained steady in their allegiance to their Creator, would, after
death, be transferred into the regions of unbounded felicity and
Joy.O
(1) None of the ancient writers furnish us with a complete view of the sys-
tem of Marcion. Its external form may in some sort be collected from them|
Marcioi's Si/ stem. 491
but as to its interior arrangement we arc left wliolly in the dark. Upon com-
paring together early authorities, we, in spite of their great disagreement with
each other, are pretty well able to ascertain what were its leading features, but
as to any of its minor parts, or the way in which the whole might be knit to-
getiicr, we have nothing to guide us beyond conjecture. Conjecture, however,
m:iy in this case be exercised with greater confidence tiian in some others, since
the religion of Marcion bears a very strong resemblance to the discipline of the
Matiichecs, with regard to which we possess much fuller information. Marcion^
no doubt, was provided with a long story respecting the origin of this visible
world, of a similar nature to that with which Manes furnished his followers ; but
ancient writers give us merely a summary of it, and content themselves with
stating him to have maintained, that the world was framed of evil matter, by an
angel of the first order, whom, by way of distinction, ho denominated the Deity,
or god of the world. As the Marcionites, however, did not pretend to deny but
that there were many things good in this visible world, which could not have
been derived from the kingdom of the evil principle, and since they moreover
admitted that mankind were possessed of a divine soul, a soul bearing an affinity
to the supreme Deity, we are of necessity constrained to regard them as believ-
ing, like the Manicheans,that a portion of celestial matter had been mingled with
that which was naturally evil, and the bodies of men endowed with heavenly
souls derived from the habitation of the supreme Being. This much I have
thought fit to add by way of supplement to what is to be met with in ancient
authors. At present I see no occasion for farther remark.
(2) There can be no doubt but that the many ancient, as well as modern
writers, who represent Marcion as having taught that the founder of the world
was by nature evil, have been guilty of an error. Origen, TertuUian, and
numerous other authorities, might be cited in proof of his having considered
the architect of this universe, as a being entirely distinct from both the good and
the evil deity. The Supreme God, the Lord and governor of light, he regarded
as in the strictest sense good, so as to be absolutely incapable of harbouring
an evil thought or intention; nay, so infinitely benevolent as not to be able to
punish, even his enemies. The prince, or ruler of darkness and matter, he
believed to be positively evil, an utter stranger to every sort of good, and des-
titute of the power of blessing, even his friends. The founder of the worlds he
esteemed as neither good nor evil, but as being what he termed just, [p. 406.]
that is, being invested with the power of either blessing or chastising, he con-
signed his enemies over to punishment, and remunerated his friends. Origen
Dial contra Marcionit. p. 48. edit. Wetsten. v iv fxia-n dpx^ CxH-xoycrt rd
dyaB-u) aviTiv J'iS'cja-ii, v7n\x.oari S^i rw 7rcv«'gm ^Ki-^iv SiSatTi. Mcillum princi-
pium (1. e. the founder of the world, whom he considered as holding a middle
station between the good and the evil deity) quielem prccbet illis qui ohediunt
bono, pcenas autem injiigit illis qui parent mala principio. To which may be
added what is said by Clement of Alexandria, Stromal, lib. iii. p. 42.'3. — Oi dri
Ma§;itw»/oj pj/V/v kuk-^v U J'lx.aiu ytYo/ucvHv S^nui6^yn. Marcionis sectatorcs
dicunt naturam rerumfactam esse a conditore seu Demiurgo qui Justus est. More
as io this will be found in Beausobre's Uistoire dc Manichcc, vol. ii. p. 89, et seq.
493 Centimj 11. — Section 65.
(3) I have above expressed myself nearly in the words of the ancient
writers. I will now endeavour, in the way of explanation, to supply what, not
only they, but more recent authors have omitted. The Creator of the tvorld
was, according to Marcion, the same with the God and legishitor of the Jews.
They, therefore, who obeyed him, were Jews either by birth or conversion, and
observed the law of Moses. His adversaries were the Gentiles, who, rejecting
the God of the Jews, paid their adoration to a multitude of ftilse deities. For
the gods, whom the heathens worshipped, Marcion, like most of the ancient
Christian teachers, regarded as wicked angels, or ministers of the evil principle,
the lord or governor of darkness. Whoever then paid divine honours to these,
he of course regarded as the subjects of the evil principle, the ruler of matter.
In short, the sum of what Marcion wished to inculcate, appears to have been
this, that the Jews exclusively would be saved, inasmuch as they continued
stedfast in their obedience to the founder of the world, but that perdition would
be the lot of all the heathen nations, in consequence of their yielding themselves
servants to the evil deity.
LXY. The tenets of Marcion respecting Christ. With a view to
put an end to this war of the evil principle with the founder of
the world, and, at 'the same time, to recall the souls that lay im-
prisoned within material bodies back to their true origin, the su-
preme and all-benevolent Deity, according to this heresiarch, sent
down to the Jews a most excellent nature, nearly resembling
himself, namely, his son Jesus Christ, investing him with no sort
of body or material clothing, but merely with such a semblance or
likeness of a body as might render him visible to human eyes.(*)
The son^ mth a view to obtain for himself a more ready attention
from the people to whom he was thus commissioned, pretended
that he was the Christ, of whom their ancient prophets had sung,
and demonstrated the truth of his legation by a variety of mira-
culous acts.(') With respect to the nature of Christ's functions,
Marcion held that he, in the first place, had it in command to
revive amongst mankind the knowledge and worship of the
supreme and only true God, and to overthrow, not only the
kingdom of the Prince of Darkness, which had its foundation in,
[p. 407.] and was upheld by superstition, but also the government
and dominion of the founder of this world, or the God of the
Jews ; and, in the next place, he was to supply the souls endowed
with reason with instruction as to the means whereby they might
cleanse themselves from the contagion of the body and of matter,
and render themselves worthy of attaining to everlasting felicity
Marcion's Idea of Christ. 493
in the realms of light. — Such being the objects of his mission, he
was at once assailed with the united strength of the Prince of
Darkness and i\\Q founder of this world. The latter, in particu-
lar, perceiving that no respect whatever was paid by Jesus to his
law, and that his subjects were incited to sedition, procured him
to be apprehended by his servants, and condemned to undergo
the punishment of death; not being in the least aware that the
person with whom he had to deal was the son of the supreme
Deity. Ilis expectations, however, were completely disappointed;
for, as Jesus was not invested with a real body, it was impossible
that he could be subjected to punishment, or die. Christ, how-
ever, permitted his imaginary body to be apparently punished,
and deprived of life, by way of impressing on the minds of mor-
tals, that the vile and corrupt body wherewith they are clothed,
ought to be deemed unworthy of the least consideration by a wise
and religious man.(') — Having executed his commission, here on
earth, the Son of God, according to Marcion, descended into the
infernal regions, and set at liberty all those souls whom the foun-
der of the world had there condemned to the flames, in conse-
quence of their having manifested a contempt for his law.(') — ■
The rule of life prescribed by Marcion to his followers, is acknow-
ledged, even by his adversaries, to have been severe in the ex-
treme. Impressed with the belief that the soul was constantly in
the greatest danger of being enervated and corrupted, through the
influence of the material body b}^ which it was enveloped, he par-
ticularly inculcated the necessity of bringing the latter into sub-
jection, and recommended to his followers to avoid marriage.
He also willed them to spurn the delights of sense, and content
themselves with diet of a meagre, attenuating nature, such as
bread, water, herbs, pulse, and fish.(')
(1) Ancient writers are for from being either consistent or perspicuous, in
their exposition of the tenets of Marcion respecting the Son of God. Such par-
ticuhlrs relating to this subject as arc expressly handed down to us by the ma-
jority of those fathers, who, in point of weight and anti(}uity, are best entitled
to credit, or whicii may fairly be deduced from their writings, in the way of in-
ference, the reader will find given above. From these it is perfectly clear, that
Marcion would not stWow that the Saviour of the world was clothed with a real
body, or took upon him our nature ; but whether he believed him to have been
invested with merely the shadow or resemblance of a body, or with a body com-
posed of refined ethereal mailer, appears to admit of some doubt. Each of these
494 Century II. — Sectloji G5.
opinions lias its abettors. — Another point tliat may be said to admit of being
contested, with little advantage in point of argument on citlier side, is, wnether
Marcion believed the Son of God to have made his appearance amongst the
Jews on a sudden, under the form or likeness of a perfect man, or conceived
him to have been apparently horn of a virgin, in like manner as he believed him
in appearance, and according to the opinion of mankind, to have died ?
(2) Marcion was ready to admit, that the ancient Jewish prophets, whose
writings are comprised in the code of the Old Testament, had held forth the
[p. 408.] promise of a Messiah, or deliverer to the Ilebrev/ nation : nor did he
pretend to doubt, as is manifest from a passage of Tertullian, which we shall
presently bring forward, but that this Messiah would, at some time or other,
actually make his appearance, and in a certain degree restore the fallen fortunes
of the house of Israel. But he positively denied, that our blessed Saviour was
Buch Messiah : and, indeed, according to his tenets, it was impossible for him
to act otherwise. For since it was his belief, that the God whom the Jews
worshipped, was merely the founder of this world, and not the supreme or su-
perlatively excellent Deity, it could not but follow, that he should have regarded
the ancient Jewish -prophets as the legates merely of this creator of the uni-
verse, and not of the Supreme Being; and likewise have conceived, that the
Messiah, whose advent they predicted, w'ould not be one and the same with the
Son of the Most High, whom he believed to have made his appearance in Jesus,
with a view to the salvation of men's souls. For it was not to be imagined,
that the Lord of everlasting light, or the Supreme Deity, would commission
the servants of the architect of this world, a being so vastly inferior to himself,
to announce the advent of his son. It, however, militated in no trifling degree
against this opinion, that the Son of God actually professed himself to be that
Christ or Messiah, whose coming had been predicted by the prophets of the
Old Testament. For, notwithstanding that Marcion had a proper gospel of his
own, differing considerably from ours, and maintained that such particulars in
the history of Christ as were in opposition to his tenets, ought to be rejected as
spurious interpolations, he had not the hardihood to call in question such a glaring
fact, as that of our blessed Saviour's having, throughout the whole course of his
ministry amongst the Jews, maintained that he was that Messiah whom their
prophets had taught them to expect. By way of removing tliis obstacle, there-
fore, Marcion asserted that our Saviour had, in this instance, practised a de-
ception on the Jews, and falsely personated their promised ]\tessiah, by way of
obtaining from them a more favourable reception and hearing. Constiiuit Mar-
cion, says Tertullian, (conir. Marc. lib. iii. cap. xv.) alium esse Christum qui
Tiberianis iemporibus a Deo quondam ignoto (i. e. the good firinciple) revelatus
sit in salutem ominuni Gentium, alium qui a Deo creatore (i. e. the God of the
Jews, whom he termed Just) in restitutionem Judaici status sit destinatus quan-
doque veniuriis. - - - sed quomodo inqiiit (Marcion) irreperet (Jesus, or the Son
of God) in Judccorum jidem, nisi per solemne apud eos' et familiare nomen
(namely that of Christ). Now, one who could believe that the Son of God
himself had recourse to fraud and lying, for the purpose of insinuating himself
with the Jews, must necessarily have conceived that every species of fallacy
3farcion''s Idea of Christ. 495
was allowable whicli might contribute towards advancing the truth, and I am
therefore induced to think, that ancient writers are deserving of credit in what
they state as to Marcion's having vitiated, mutilated, and in divers respects
altered, the books of the New Testament.
(3) What I here state respecting the motive for Christ's undergoing a
feigned death, is merely a conjecture of my own. Marcion indisputably denied
that Christ in reality either suflered or died ; but, at the same time, he affirmed
that his imaginary or apparent deatii was attended witli salutary consequences
to the human race. For we find Megelhus, a iMarcionite, represented by Origen,
Dial, contr. Marcion. sect. ii. p. 53. as thus speaking : o J^njuiy^ydi l(}'uv rdt
dysi^-oy XvovTd. d'JT3 rdv voMov cTe^SsAfutrsy dura, fxn iiS'Coi, in o [p. 409.]
3-ayitTOf tS dyti-^s croiT^gi* dvd-^6rav fytviro. Conditor (i. e. the Founder of
the world, or God of the Jews) iibi animadvertii honam ilium (t. e. Jesus, tho
Son of the good Deity) legem suam (viz. the law of Moses) violare, struxit ei
insidias, nescius honi Juijiis (i. e. Jesus) mortem homimim salutem esse. Now, to
me it appears quite impossible to divine any other kind of salutary conse-
quences that could be derived by the human race from the feigned death of
Jesus, than what I have above pointed out. Jesus Christ, by apparently giving
himself over to' death, meant to impress on mankind that neither the body, nor
the dissolution of the body, deserves a moment's concern, and that, for the
sake of the soul, even violent hands might be laid on the body, inasmuch as it
was a mere machine, composed of depraved matter, the very faeces, as it were,
of the malignant Deity. Hence all the Marcionitcs, as we find recorded by the
whole body of ancient fathers, so ftir from fearing, or seeking to avoid death,
were anxious to encounter it ; nor were they ever surpassed by any other sect,
cither in the number or the courage of their martyrs.
(4) Marcion held that Jesus, after having executed the commission with
which he was charged to mankind, descended to the infernal regions, and
brought up with him from thence the souls of all the sinners of whom mention
is made in the books of the Old Testament, such as Cain, the Sodomites, Corah,
Dathan, and Abiram, whilst he left behind him the souls of all the just, such a3
Abel, Noah, and Abraham. See Irenajus, lib. i. cap. 29., Epiphanius, and others.
Many, it is true, would have this to be a mere story invented by his enemies;
but they labour under an error. From the very nature of Marcion's discipline,
it was impossible that he should have believed otherwise. According to him,
the sinners recorded in the writings of the Old Testament, had not incurred the
displeasure of the Supreme Deity, but offended merely the Founder of this
world, or the God of the Jews. Christ, therefore, having come into the world
for the express purpose of putting an end to the dominion of this latter being,
it was but just that he should set at liberty those who were sufiering punish-
ment for their disobedience to his laws. On the other hand, it was his opinioa
that the saints of the Old Testament had never made it their study to please
the Supreme Deity, but merely the architect of this world ; wherefore there
could be no reason whatever for Christ's having anything to do with them.
Besides, these latter were not in a state of sufTering or unhappiness, but were
receiving the reward of their obedience to the Parent of the world and his
commandments.
496 Century II. — Section 65.
(5) That Marcion prescribed to his followers a rigid and austere cour?e of
life, and that it was the practice of his disciples therefore to reject every kind of
worldly gratification, and pass their lives in a state of continence, penury, and
bodily afiliction, so as to render the arrival of their last hour an object of desire
rather than of fear, is admitted by all the ancient Christian writers. — I think it
right, however, in this place, to repeat an observation that I have already made
above, namely, that the accounts which are handed down to us by ancient au-
thors, of the rigid and severe system of moral discipline by which certain of the
Gnostic and other sects were characterized, are not to be understood as apply-
ing indiscriminately to all the individuals of which such sects were composed,
but in an especial manner to the priests and such select disciples as might be
ambitious of attaining to a more than ordinary degree of sanctity. For the
founders of these sects were naturally anxious for their increase and propaga-
tion ; and being fully aware that the rigid course of moral discipline which they
prescribed must, if generally adopted, tend in great measure to defeiit this
object, took care so to temper their injunctions as that the multitude should be at
[p. 4 10.] liberty to live after the manner of other people, the more rigid precepts
having a reference merely to the public instructors and such as were more than
ordinarily studious of securing ther own salvation.
To conclude : It cannot fail to be readily perceived by every one who shall
investigate, with attention, the account here given of the sects that are usually
classed under the general title of Gnostics, that the chief point of difference be-
tween them rested in this, that some of them recognized the ancient oriental
dogma respecting the existence of two principles in its full extent, whilst others
abridged it somewhat, and supplied the place of what they thus cut off with
visionary fancies drawn from other quarters. In the following respects they ap-
pear to have been all of one mind, namely, — that in u Idition to the Deity, mat-
ter, the root and cause of every thing evil and depraved, had existed from all
eternity; — that this corrupt matter had not been reduced into order by the Su-
preme and all-benevolent Deity, but by a nature of a far inferior rank; — that
the founder of the world, therefore, and the Deity, were beings between whom
no sort of relationship whatever existed; — that the bodies of mankind owed
their formation to the founder of the world, but that their souls were the off-
spring of the Deity ; — that the former, therefore, would return to matter without
the least hope of revivification, whilst the latter, provided they threw off the yoke
of the founder of this world, would ascend to the Deity, or at least to that re-
gion which lies immediately contiguous to the habitation of the Deity. Those,
moreover, who were natives of ^yria and Asia assigned to matter a peculiar
prince or governor whom they believed to have been self-existent, or to have
sprung from matter itself; in other words, they believed in the existence of an
evil principle as well as a good one. This prince of matter, however, they con-
sidered as a distinct being from the founder of the world. To those of the
Gnostics who had been bred up in Egypt, such as Basil ides, Valentine, and
others, this prince or governor of matter was entirely unknown ; but they in
their turn, encumbered the oriental doctrine with various whimsical conceits, of
Egyptian origin, respecting the heavens, the stars, the descent and ascent cf
Heresy of Mbntanus. 497
souls, the princes or rulers of the wandering stars, the eternal forma of all things
existing in tlie Pleroma, as well as several other matters to which the Asiatics
Beem not altogether to have yielded their assent.
LXVI. The heresy of Montnnns. TllC VCirioUS COm motions
which thus arose out of the endeavour to bring about an accom-
modation between the Oriental pliilosophy and the Cliristian re-
ligion, although in themselves sufliciently afflictive, may be said
to have prevailed rather without the confines of the church, and
to have interfered but little with its internal state. By far more
baneful and pernicious in their consequences, to the welfare of the
Christian cause, were those disagreements and dissensions which,
not long after, sprung up within the very bosom of the church
itself, and amongst Christians who, in respect to the sum and
substance of religion, were entirely agreed. Of this species of dis-
sensions, the first entitled to notice is that which Montanus, under
the reign of Marcus Aurelius, about the middle of this century,
originated at Pepuza^ an obscure, insignificant little village in
Phrygia.(') This heresiarch, a man of low origin, and, as it
should seem, not naturally inclined to evil, but of a [p. 411.]
melancholic disposition and infirm judgment, in consequence of
some m.orbid affection of the mind, became so disordered in his
imagination as to conceive that the Holy Spirit, the Paradde, or
Comforter, by whom Jie apostles of our blessed Saviour had been
animated, had, by divine appointment, descended upon him for
the purpose of foretelling things of the greatest moment that
were about to happen, and promulgating a better and more per-
fect discipline of life and morals than that which had been built
upon the apostolic mandates.(') Teeming, therefore, with this
fancied inspiration, and bursting through every kind of rational
restraint, he poured forth a multitude oi prophecies, in which the
Roman territory and government were threatened with calamities
of the most grievous nature ; and a severer rule of life and action
was prescribed to mortals in the very words, as it was pretended,
of the Deity himself. — At the first, he so fiir succeeded as to pre-
vail on many to believe that he was in reality the character which
he wished to pass for, and to win over to his party, amongst
several others of no mean rank, two opulent women named Pris^
cilia and Maximilh, who, with others of his disciples, pretending,
like their master, to the gift of prophecy, diff^uscd hi^ opinions
VOL. I. 32
498 Century II. — Section 6C.
within a short time throughout Asia, Africa, and some portion of
Europe.(') AYhen people's minds, however, began in some degree
to recover from the effect of this first impression, and these re-
cently-divulged prophecies came to be scrutinized with proper
calmness and attention, the imposture became apparent, and the
bishops of Asia, after discussing the subject in certain of their
councils, adopted the resolution of expelling Montanus, together
with his friends and associates, from every sort of connection
with the faithful. The example thus set by the Asiatic prelates
was gradually followed by the other Christian bishops, so that the
excommunication of the Montanists became at length universal.
Cut off, therefore, from all intercourse with the general body of
Christians, these heretics formed themselves into a peculiar
church, the chief president over which had his residence at Pe-
puza, in Phrygia. This sect continued to flourish down to the
fifth century, when it experienced some annoyance from imperial
edicts ;(*) and the list of its members Avas ennobled by not a few
names, distinguished both for learning and genius, amongst which
none claims a higher rank in point of celebrity than that of Ter-
tullian, a man of great eminence, certainly, but beyond all mea-
sure rigid and austere, who, in several books written by him ex-
pressly on the subject, advocates, with considerable firmness and
spirit, the cause of the sect under whose banners he had been in-
duced to enlist.(^)
(1) Respecting the tenets of Montanus and his followers, we are supplied
with sufficient information, as well by the extracts, from certain books no longer
in existence, which are given us by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. v.
c. 16. et seq. as from what is left on record by other historians of ancient sects,
and more particularly TcrtulUnn, who has devoted a series of books to the de-
fence of the Montanists and their tenets. My opinion, however, is, that in as
far as it relates to this sect, the testimony of this latter writer is not to be re-
ceived without caution ; for to pass over the fact, that we are quite in a state of
uncertainty as to \\\\\q\\ of his books were written prior to his becoming a
[p. 412.] Montanist,and which after, I am altogether deceived if he does not fre-
quently, as is the general practice of advocates, give a certain sort of colouring
to the doctrines of his master, and exhibit rather what he wished Montanus to
have maintained, than what Montanus actually did maintain. — Abundantly sup-
plied, however, as we are with information as to the tenets and opinions of
Montanus, there is a certain degree of confusion and obscurity which rests over
the history of this hercsiareh and his followers, nor can it, in the absence of all
Ilercstj of Moatanus. 499
authentic memorials, Lc re;uiily reduced into any kind of order. Learned men
have disputed, and seem likely, to the end of time, to maintain disputes as to
the exact period of the rise of this faction in Phrygia. Above I have followed
the conjecture that appears to b'3 supported, and not without reason, by the
m;ijor part of those who have turned their attention to the subject. It is, how-
ever, far from being approved of by all, Jo. Pliil. Baratier (in his book de
Successiune Romanor. Pontificiun, p. 135 et seq.) contends at much length, that
we ought to refer the rise of this sect to the year cxxvi. The Abbe de Lon-
gcrue, (whose dissertation de Tempore quo Montani Hccresis nala est, is to be
found in Winkler's Sylloge Anccdotorum, p. 254,) endeavours to prove that it
sprang up under the reign of Antonius Pius about the year exl. J. Le Clerc,
(in his Historia Ecclesiaslica duor. prim. S(Cculor. p. 67G,) places its origin un-
der the year clvii. Tlie calculations of other writers have produced different
results; but between these the discordance has not been less, so that in spite
of every endeavour to reconcile them, recourse must necessarily be had to con-
jecture at last. — Amongst more recent writers I have not met witli one who
has not either condemned or vindicated Montanus to excess. Those who repre-
sent him as an execrable mortal ; a compound of deception, vice, and every
species of iniquity ; a wretch imbued with the vilest notions re? pecting religion,
a very bond-servant to the devil, and terminate their invective by stating him
and Maxirnilla to have been guilty of self-murder, may certainly urge the au-
thority of ancient writers on their side ; but then they are such writers as are
little to be depended upon, and this account of Montanus may therefore well be
considered as in no slight degree overcharged. — On the other hand, those who
hold him up as a pattern of sanctity and virtue, a man divinely inspired, and en-
during persecution for righteousness sake; one who, with the exception of a few
trifling errors, the aberrations of an ingenuous mind, had nothing whatever to be
desired in him ; who, in short, would have us believe that the ancient Christians,
by whom Montanus was excommunicated, were, as to every thing essential, of
the same way of thijiking with himself, and, in the severities which they exer-
cised towards him, were influenced entirely by prejudice and passion, most as-
suredly carry their vindication of him to an extent which the truth will not justify.
— That Montanus was not actuated by a wicked mind, but was an ignorant
simple man, but little acquainted with the genuine principles of religion and
piety, and that a certain degree of mental imbecility, conjoined with a melan-
cholic disposition, at length drove him out of his senses, is what I feel no diffi-
culty in believing; but that he was a martyr to his sanctity, and attempted
nothing amiss, or that he was not out of his wits, are points to which I am cer-
tain it will never be in my power to yield my assent. Great ingenuity and no
less eloquence have been lately displayed in an attempt to dispel the obscurity
that envelopes the tenets of Montanus by Theophilus Wernsdorf, a man distin-
guished for his learning, and eminently skilled in matters of anli(juity, whose
CnmmcntaLio de Monlanislis Suculi II. vulgo crcditis ILtrrlicis^ published at
Dantzic, 1751, 4to, reached me while I was engaged on this note. lie is the
advocate of Montanus, and maintains that tlie ancient Christinns could have had
but little if any cause for condemning him. The diflerence of opinion between
500 Century I L— Section 6G.
us is not so r^reat as to prevent me from acknowledging that this learned writer
has handsomely executed the tusk which he undertook.
[p. 413 ] (2) Tlie ancient writers, whom the greater part of the more recent
ones implicit!}- follow, represent Montanus as having so cgregiously violated
common sense as to maintain that he was actually the Paraclete, or Holy Ghost
itself. But I strongly suspect that, in this instance, the words of these authors
do not put us exactly in possession of their real sentiments, which, no doubt
were correct. None of them, unless I am altogether deceived, could have meant
to say that Montanus conceived himself to be the very person of the Paraclete.,
or that his body was animated by the Holy Spirit in the place of a soul; for to
have believed this he must have been inconsistent with himself, and tlie most
silly of mortals. These writers, then, could only have meant that Montanus en-
deavoured to persuade the people that the Paraclete spake through kirn, and that
the prophecies which he uttered were not of his own conception, but dictated
by the Paraclete ; and in this they were perfectly correct, for such was certainly
his doctrine. The ambiguity and indistinctness with which both ancient and
modern writers have expressed themselves on this subject is to be ascribed
solely to the obscurity of TertnlliaVj who very frequently terms Montanus The
Paraclete, and whose words and manner of expression these authors were led
to make their own. — What I have said of the man's labouring under some mor-
bid affection of the mind stands in need, I think, of no justification ; for since the
innocence and austerity of his life absolves him from every suspicion of evil de-
sign, and the enormities that we find occasionally reported of him are unde-
serving of any sort of credit; since, moreover, the notion entertained by certain
of the early Christian writers, that both his body and soul had been taken pos-
session of by the devil, carries with it not the smallest semblance of truth, indeed
is altogether contradicted by the very prophecies which he uttered, there remains,
' as it strikes me, no other conclusion to which we can arrive than this, that he
was a man disordered both in body and mind; unless, perhaps, some should bo
willing rather to suspect him of having practised a pious fraud.
(3) In addition to others distinguished for their virtue and sanctity it ap-
pears that even the bishop of Rome, whom most writers suppose to have been
Victor, was for a while induced to regard Montanus in the light of a prophet
divinely inspired, and that it was Praxeas W'ho awakened him from this delusion.
Vid. Tillemont Memoires pour servir a V Histoire de V Eglise, torn. ii. p. iii.
p. 124. et scq.
(4) That the sect of the Montanists had not become extinct even so low
down as the fifth century, is evident from the imperial edicts relating to it that
are extant in the Codex Theodosianus, tom. vi. We there find the Montanists
denounced by a law of Honorius, under the year 398. p. 168. as also by another
severe edict of the same emperor, promulgated A. D. 407. (p. 177.) where they
are termed Phrijgians and Priscillianists, from Priscilla, one of the female con-
verts to Montanism, and associated with the Manichees. Under the following
year 408. (p. 182.) we find the Priscllliayiists again denounced by a fresh edict;
and two years after, viz. A. D. 410. (p. 186.) under the titles of Mon'anists and
Priscillianisis, they are still further proscribed by the emperor Theodosius the
Errors of Montanus. 501
Younger. In the year 415, (p. 200.) another rigid law was enacted against tlie
MorUanists; and finall\', in the year 423 (p. 202.) we find them made the objects
of a penal enactment nnder the titles of Phnjglnns and PepuzUes, which latter
appellation they acquired from the little town of Phrygia, from whence the sect
had originally sprung. Tiie frequent repetition of laws like these, proves ])l;iinly
that numerous branches of this sect were in existence even so late as Ihcfijth
century.
(5) In embracing Montanism, TerLullian appears to have been less actuated
by a cool and discriminating judgment than by self-love, or a wish to promote
the growth of certain opinions to which he was immoderately attached, [p. 414.]
Most of the principles of moral discipline propounded by Montanus, so far from
being either new or unheard of amongst the Christians, had been actually adopt-
ed by several of them before his time. Of this number was TerLullian, a man
of a morose and saturnine disposition, to whom the moral discipline of the Chris-
tians in general had long appeared by far too indulgent and relaxed. Upon
finding, therefore, that Montanus was an advocate for the principles which he
considered as true and just, he at once, without ever seeing or hearing the man,
pronounced that he must have been inspired of the Holy Ghost. The object of
this good father's patronage was, in fact, not so much Montanus as himself and
his own opinions.
LXYII. The errors of Montanus. With regard to the leading
and generally-received notions of the Christians on the subject of
religion. Montanus attempted no innovations of any moment ;(')
nor were his moral precepts altogether new and unheard of, or of
such a nature as to appear intolerable in the eyes of the Chris-
tians. For in the age in which he flourished there were not
wanting, even amongst the more orthodox Christians, certain
who publicly avowed their approbation of most of those points
which constituted the leadin'g features of the discipline which he
inculcated: such as, that fasts ought to be multiplied and pro-
tracted ; that second marriages were unbecoming in persons pro-
fessing the religion of Christ ; that the church ought not to ex-
tend its pardon to persons guilty of the more grievous sins ; that
all decoration of the body ought to be disregarded ; that for
women to array themselves in costly attire was repugnant to the
injunctions of the apostles Paul and Peter; that the study of let-
ters and philosophy tended rather to injure than promote the
cause of religion and piety ; that virgins ought to wear veils, lest
they might awaken impure desires in persons beholding them ;
that it was not allowable for Christians in times of persecution to
betray anything like timidity, or to adopt a prudential line of
502 Century Il.-^Sectlon 67.
conduct ; and, consequently, that it Avas incompatible witli genu-
ine Cliiistian fortitude for persons, at such seasons, to endeavour
to save themselves by flight, to redeem their lives by money, or
to hold their meetings for the purposes of worship by stealth or in
a private manner. Keither was any sort of stigma considered as
attaching itself to those who defended such opinions, nor does it
appear that they were on that account deemed the less worthy of
being continued in communion with the faithful; indeed, by
many they were even highly commended, and by others were
looked upon with an increased degree of respect and venera-
tion.(') — Notwithstanding, however, that the shades of difference
between the doctrine of Montanus and that of other Christians as
to most points vf ere but trifling, very sufiicient caiise existed for
expelling him from all communion with the faithful. For those
things which had been merely propounded by others in a spirit
of meekness, and without any detriment to Christian harmony and
liberty, were arrogantly brought forward by him as oracles dic-
tated by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the universal church ;
whence it necessarily followed, that he must have regarded all
those who refused to place implicit confidence in him and his fe-
[p. 415.] male associates as contemners of the Holy Spirit, and
considered himself and his followers as constituting the only true
church. This one circumstance of itself, without doubt, virtually
separated him from the church, and amply justified the Catholic
Christians in refusing any longer to hold communion with him
and his associates. (^) In the proj)hicies, moreover, which were ut-
tered by this heresiarch and his female companions, there was a
tone which might well induce the Christians at large to avoid
maintaining any sort of intercourse with him ; for, since he an-
nounced the most disastrous fortunes as awaiting the human race,
there was certainly reason to apprehend that the Christians, if
they continued in association with him, might come to be regarded
as enemies to the commonwealth. (*)
(1) Neither Montanus nor his female disciples in their prophecies made any
scruple of touching upon the principal dogmas of Christianity ; nay, they oc-
casionally avowed them, and entered the lists as their defenders against those
who would have corrupted them. Teriidlian, in his book de Resurrectione, cap.
Ixiii. p. 429. represents Montanus and his male and female disciples, whom he
designates by the titles of Serii et Ancillcc Dei, as having stood forth in defence
Errors of Montanus. 503
of the doctrine of the Resurrection agninst the Gnostics, and also as havinnr^
j)cr novam propheliam dc Paracldo imindantem, removed many of the difTicuUies
with which, not only this article of faitli, but others were encumbered. Cujus
(prophelicc,) he continues, si hauser is f antes, nullam poteris sitire doctrinam, nuU
lus te ardor exuret quccsLionum, Resurrcclioncm quoque carnis usquequaquc po-
tando refrigerahis. In the same book, cap. xi. p. 38G, he adduces a fragment of
one of the prophecies of Priscilla, in which she particularly reprehends those
wiio opposed the doctrine of a future resurrection of the body. Nemo tarn car-
naliier vivit quam qui negaiit carnis resurrcclioncm. . . . De quibus luciilenter ct
Paracletus per prophelidcm Priscam : Carncs sunt et carncm odcrunt. Dis})uting
against Praxeas, Tertullian asserts that t!ic Paraclete recognized three persons
in the Godhead, and that he himself had been much assisted by the prophecies
of the Paraclete, in attaining to a right comprehension of this dogma. Protidity
says he, (in Lib. contra Praxeam, cap. xiii.) Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum
etiam Paracletus (i. e. Montanus) docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fans Jluvium, et
fax radium. And after some intermediate observations, he thus proceeds: Nos
qui et tempora et caussas Scripturarum per Dei gratiam inspicimus, maxime
Paracleti (the Holy Spirit speaking, as he believed, tin-ough Montanus) non
hominum discipuli, duos quidem dejlnimus, Patrem et Filium, ct jam tres cum
Spiritu Sancto . . . duos tamen Dominos et duos Deos numquam ex ore nostra
proferimus. It is plain, therefore, that Montanus must have discussed some of
the most weighty points of religion, and resolved them in a manner sufficiently
subtile and refined. In handling these topics, however, he appears to have stu-
diously avoided bringing forward any thing materially differing from the gene-
rally received opinions. St. Jerome, indeed, Epist. xxxvii. ad Marcellam, tom.
iv. 0pp. p. 64. edit. Benedict, accuses the Montanists of Sabellianism, [p. 416.]
illi Sabellii dogma sectantes, Trinitatem in unius Persona:, angustias cogunt. But
how little faith is to be placed in this accusation, must be apparent from the
words of Tertullian, above cited, in which he most expressly declares the Para-
clete, as he terms Montanus, to have recognized three persons in the Godhead.
If I may take credit to myself for any penetration, the charge thus brought for-
ward by St. Jerome was a most invidious and unwarranted consectary deduced
from the circumstance of Montanus having arrogated to himself the person of
the Paraclete, and asserted that the Deity himself spake through him. For from
this, his adversaries, as appears from Epiphanius, Hccres. xlviii. } ii. p. 412. tom.
i. 0pp. were led to conclude that he wished to pass himself for the Deity ; and
a person w^ho had been so mad as to have entertained such a wish, might cer-
tainly have appeared to his enemies, as desirous of abolishing all distinction of
persons in the Godhead, and compressing the Deity in unius persona: angustias,
namely, his own. — In thus exonerating Montanus from the imputation of having
violated the leading principles of Christianity, the reader must not understand
me, however, as meaning to insinuate that his errors were but of a light or tri-
vial nature. For on the contrary, it is certain that he entertained very injurious,
and not only injurious, but highly dangerous sentiments, respecting the moral
discipline propounded by Christ and his apostles; a circumstance of itself suf-
ficient to warrant his being excluded from the number of the orthodox Chris-
504 Century IL— Section 67.
tians, and clashed among heretics. — He tauglit, for instance, that the moral law
was left by the Son of God and his apostles, in an imperfect or rude and imma-
ture state, and tliat he himself was commissioned by the Holy Gliost to till up
and bring to perfection what Christ had thus left jejune and incomplete. 'J'his
dogma, Tertallian, the most distinguished of all the followers of Montanus, he-
sitates not to propound in the most undisguised terms, in various parts of his
writings, although, as to other things, he occasionally has recourse to subter-
fuge, nnd endeavours, in some degree, to qualify the opinions of his master. Let
us hear how he speaks in his book de Velamlis Virginibus, cap. i. p. 192. which
may be taken as a fair specimen of the whole. JuslUia, (i. c. the moral law,)
jrrimo fail in rudinimiis, natura Deum meluens, dehinc per legem ei prophelas
promovU in infantiam, dehinc per evangeliilm ejferbuiL in juvenlutem, nunc per
Paracletam (Montanus) componilur in maiariLalem. Hie erit solus a Chrislo, (i. e.
after Christ) magisler el dicendus et vei'endus. Can any thing possibly be more
evident? Montanus conceived that there was as much difference between the
moral discipline enjoined by Moses and the prophets in the words of God, and
that which was propounded by Christ, as there is between an infant and a young
man, and that between the moral law of Christ and t!iat prescribed by the Holy
Ghost through himself, there existed as great nn inequality, as there is between
a youth and a man arrived at maturity. — In another place, de Monogamia, cap.
.\iv. p. 686. Tertullian expresses himself after the following manner: Rcgnavit
durilia cordis usque ad Christum., regnaveril et infirmitas camiis usque ad Parade-
turn. It was his opinion, therefore, that Christ made an allowance for the infirmity
of our flesh, and only contended against hardness of heart; but that Montanus,
[p. 417,] by the command of the Deity, assailed also the infirmity of the llesh.
Now this was certainly an essential error, and involved within it other errors of
a like noxious nature, and equally subversive of the true principles of religion.
The importance of this error is not diminished, but rather increased, by the con-
sideration tliat the additions made by Montanus to the moral discipline enjoined
by our blessed Saviour, consisted merely of certain precepts of light moment
relating to fasts, second marriages, the veiling of virgins, and other particulars,
respecting external demeanour. For since Tertullian would willingly have us
believe that, by the promulgation of these precepts, Montanus, or the Holy
Spirit through him, had brought the moral law to maturity, or, in other terms,
given the finishing hand to that which was before imperfect, it is plain that he
must have considered external actions, modes, and institutions, and those too of
rather a minute and trifling nature, as constituting the most material part of re-
ligion and piety ; an opinion equally intolerable and pernicious with the former.
Jesus Christ and his apostles have left it in command, that we should love the
Lord our God beyond every thing, and our fellow mortals as ourselves. Now
these injunctions, according to Montanus, were indeed very good, but at the
Rame time merely juvenile ones, and calculated only for Mie Christian world
during its minority; whereas the additions made to them by Montanus himself
respecting fast-days, virgins wearing veils, the avoiding second marriages, and
the like, carried the moral law to an infinitely higher degree of dignity and per-
fection, and rendered it suitable to the Christian commonwealth when advanced
Errors of Montanus. 505
to the fige of manhood ami perfection. The sum and substiince of the moral
law, therefore, it necessarily followed, was to be looked upon as contained in
these minute and insignificant rc<^uhitions. The latter of these errors wns not,
as far as can be ascertained at the present day, ever opi-nly attributed to Mon-
tanus by his adversaries, but he was properly cliarj^ed by them wit!i the former,
as with one of the most grievous n:iture. Nor h:»ve I the least doubt but that
it was this error ciiielly that occasioned him to be regarded in the light of an
impostor, and produced the excommunication both of him and his foUowers. —
An ancient writer, whose catalogue of Heresies is annexed to TertuUian's book
de Prccscript. IJcci'eticoritm, represents (in cap. Hi. p. 251.) the Montanists as
hoKliiig ParacleLum plura in Monlano dixisse, quam Chrislum in Ecangdio pro-
iuUssc, nc.c tantiun plura, seJ eliam mcliora atque inajora. And in this he cer-
tainly does them no injury whatever. For TcrtidUan, whose testimony neces-
sarily carrier with it peculiar weight, as coming from one who must have been
intimately acqu:dnted with the opinions of his sect, intimates this very thing in
the words which we have above cited. The discipline of Christ is represented
as bearing merely a juvenile character; that of Montanus one of masculine
vigour and maturity. Who, then, can entertain a doubt but that the latter must
have been deemed to have propounded greater and better things tiian the for-
mer ? Those who are intrusted with tiie education of youth, over wiiom reason
in gi^neral possesses but little influence, take care to accommodate their precepts
to the infirmity of their charge; but greater and better things are brought for-
ward by those to whcm is committed the institution of persons arrived at man's
estate, and whose unruly appetites have been brought into some sort of subjec-
tion.— St. Jerome (Epist. xxxvii. tom. iv. 0pp. p. 64.) attributes to Montanus the
same error, but exaggerates and amplifies it beyond all measure. Deum voluisse
in Vtttri Testamento per yioysen el prophclas sahare mundum, sed quia non poluit
explore, corpus sumpsisse de virg'ine, el in Chrislo, sub specie Jilii prxdicanlem mor-
tem ohiisse pi'o nobis. El quia per duos gradus mundum sahare nequi- [p. 418.]
vsrit, ad exlrcmum per Spirilum Sanclum in Montanum, Priscam et MaximiU
lam, descendisse : el pleniludinem quam Paulus non habuerit . . . hahuisse Mon-
tanum. In tliis, certainly, there is somewhat of truth, but it is coupled with
one or two things that have no foundation whatever in fact. No grounds, for
instance, exist for charging Montanus with entertaining the Sabellian dogma of
one person in the Deity acting under the different characters of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit ; a thing altogether foreign from his mind ; and the doctrine he in-
culcated respecting a change and gradual improvement in moral discipline is
invidiously transferred to the catholic religion, and the mode of obtaining ever-
lasting salvation. — The conclusion to which, I think, equity would direct us, is,
that Montanus and his associates were not aware of all the evils with which the
great and dangerous error into which they fell was pregnant, and I am, there-
fore, unwiUing to have him charged with all its consequences. Tlie error, how-
ever, was in itself of the most grievous nature, and the accusers of Montanus
appear to have well understood its enormity, a circumsUuice that must be
allowed fully to justify their severity.
(2) Montanus asserted that it was the des^n of tlie Holy Spirit or Paraclete,
506 Century II.— Section 67.
throiifrh liis means, to render perfect the system of moral discipline which Christ
liad left incomplete. Tiie improvements, however, which he suggrested as neces-
sary to be made in the Ciiristian code, had not any direct or immediate relation
to the umendment of the interior man, or the furtherance of real and substantial
piety, but primarily had respect merely to the reclaiming of Christians to a
greater degree of strictness and gravity in their external demeanour. The most
material of his precepts I have enumerated above ; of which, however, it may not
be improper to remark there are three, namely, those respecting the neglect of
dress, the impropriety of female ornaments, and a contempt for letters and philo-
sophy, which are not expressly attributed to Montanus by ancient writers, but
which, inasmuch as they are warmly contended for by Tertullian, the most dis-
tinguished of his followers, might, I thought, with every degree of probability,
be reckoned amongst the number of his institutes. The rest are indisputably
his. — In the first place, then, he wished to introduce amongst Christians a greater
frequency of fasting than had been customary. Other Christians, for instance,
had contented themselves with celebratirg only one solemn fast in the year,
namely, the Antepasclial one; but Montanus enjoined his followers to observe
two additional weeks, with the exception of the Saturdays and Sundays, as sea-
sons of abstinence, that is, not absolutely to decline at such times taking any
sustenance at all, but to content themselves with food of an arid, meagre nature,
and to drink nothing therewith but water. The manner in which these addi-
tional yearly fasts, each of which consisted of five days, were observed, occa-
sioned them to be termed Xerophagicc. Montanus was also an advocate for
the multiplication of private fasts ; he did not, however, fix these at any particu-
lar number, but left every one at liberty to consult his own inclination, content-
ing himself with merely inculcating, in a general way, that frequent fasting was
of wonderful efficacy in appeasing the Deity, as well as in healing the mind, and
fortifying it against those evils to which Christians must of necessity be ex-
posed. A more rigid celebration of those fasts, which they observed in common
with other Christians, was likewise enjoined by this heresiarch to his followers.
For whereas the Christians in general were accustomed, during the grand yearly
antepaschal fast, to take some sort of refreshment after sunset, Montanus or-
dained that those of his sect should pursue a different mode, and not only at this
season, but also during any private ftists which they might think fit to impose
[p. 419.] on themselves, retire to rest supperless. The weekly fasts that were
observed by the Christians of those times, viz. the fourth and sixth days, or, as
we term them, Wednesdays and Fridays, were commonly considered as termi-
nating at the ninth hour, or, according to modern computation, at three o'clock
in the afternoon ; but Montanus would not allow of their being brought to such
an early conclusion, and insisted on it that they should be prolonged until the
evening. — Of second marriages, which were considered by this heresiarch as un-
lawful, I say nothing. That St. Paul had given his sanction to them he did not
pretend to deny, but contended that the Paraclete had, through him, revoked the
license that had been granted by the apostle. — Against Christians guilty of any
of the more grievous sins, such as adultery, murder, and idolatry, equal severity
was not exercised by all the churches. By most of them pardon was usually
Errors of Mo n tan us. 507
granted for the first ofFence to adulterers, but murderers and idolaters were
always irrevocably excomnuinieated. Monianus, however, asserted it to be the
command of the Holy Spirit, that persons polluted by either of the three enor-
mous sins above-mentioned, should be expelled from the ehurch absolutely,
without any hope of return. Of the hope of obtaininf,^ for^dveness from God ho
did not pretend to deprive those people, but he insisted on it that the ehurch
ought, on no account, to be reconciled to them, lest, in so doing, its clemency
might encourage a disposition to sin. — In most churches it was customary for
the widows and wives to go veiled; not so the virgins. Montanus enjoined that
these latter also should wear veils. — In times of persecution it had been not un-
usual for Christians either to redeem their lives of the heathen magistrates with
money, or, if they deemed this not justifiable, to consult their safety by flight.
Against resorting to either of those expedients Montanus protested in the
strongest terms, and exhorted the followers of Christ not to be put to flight by
the threats of their enemies, but to meet them manfully, and with disdain.
Montanus, however, is not to be considered as the first author of these vari-
ous precepts, but rather as having enforced what had been originally propounded
by others. For as the early Christians differed in opinion as to niaiiy other
things, so likewise were they far from being agreed as to the external services
that were to be rendered to the Deity; and in the second century there existed,
if it may be permitted us so to speak, two moral systems, whereof the more mode-
rate and lenient one permitted Christians to follow the ordinary course of life in
as far as it was not repugnant to^ or militated against the divine commands; but
the more rigid and severe one sought not only to separate the followers of
Christ from the rest of mankind in tiieir manners, their garments, their discourse,
and the whole regimen of their lives, but also to impose on them many more
burthens, and to involve them in greater difficulties and dangers than were at-
tached to the commands either of our blessed Lord or his apostles. With the
exception of a very few things, the latter of these systems may be said to have
worn almost the same aspect with that which was inculcated by Montanus and
his associates. — The Christians, therefore, it appears, took no exceptions to the
precepts of Montanus, nor could they, with the least propriety, have done so ;
for they not only tolerated principles similar to his in others, but even highly
commended them. But this they could by no means bring themselves to bear
with, that an individual should take upon him to pronounce those things to bo
of the^rs^ necessity, which were by others deemed merely good and useful ; and
to obtrude on the brethren his own opinions as new commands of the Holy
Spirit supplementary to the system of morals ju-omulgated by Clirist ; [p. 420.]
whence it inevitably followed, that all who would not adopt them should be re-
garded as contemners of the Holy Spirit. All the regulations which Montanus
was desirous of introducing amongst the Chrstians, are manifestly in themselves
of a light and trifling kind; but, in his opinion, they were excellent and of tho
last importance; in fact, every way worthy of being propounded to the human
race as coming directly from the Holy Spirit himself The less, however, the
dignity attached to commands which any one may be willing to have us receive
as dictated by the Holy Ghost, the greater the crime of him who would rmpose
608 Century II. — Section 67.
on the brethren such minute and trifling observances. Teriidlian, indeed, in
Bonie places, seems to express himself as if JMontanus did not consider his pre-
cepts as possessed of any virtue or efficacy in the attainment of salvation, and
regarded the comniunications made by the Holy Spirit to mankind, through
him, in the light rather of admonition and advice than of laws and commands;
but he does this only in places where he is seeking to throw all the blame of
dissension and discord on his adversaries, or endeavouring to gain patrons and
friends for himself and hia associates. In others, where he assumes the charac-
ter of the disputant, and undertakes the defence of Montanus, he, in no very ob-
scure terms intimates, that those who refused to comply with the injunctions of
his preceptor, or rather of the Paraclete, speaking through his preceptor, deprived
themselves of very material assistance in obtaining everlasting salvation. And
that the genuine sentiments of Montanus are given us in these last-mentioned
passages, is placed beyond a doubt by numerous testimonies. By way of
showing that I do not state this without some sort of foundation, I will adduce
one passage, in which he evidently holds out that, by means of fasts, expiation
might be made for that sin of our first parents which hath contaminated all their
posterity; than which it is scarcely possible to devise anything more foreign to
the principles and spirit of Christianit3\ Porro, says he, (in Lib. de Jejuniis,
cap. iii. p. 705. edit. Rigalt.) cum et ipse jejunhnn mandet . . quis jam duhitahit
omnium erga victum maceralionum hanc fuisse ratiunem, qua rursus interdicto
cibo et observato pracepto, primordiale Jam delictum expiareiur, ut homo per earn-
dem materiam causa:. Deo satisfaciat, per quam offenderat, id est per cibi interdic-
tionem, alque ita saluiem ccmulo modo re-accenderet inedia, sicut extinxerat sagiiia,
pro unico illicito plura licita contemnens. In f;ict, Tertullian is not sufficiently
consistent with himself, but, as is not uncommon with persons possessing a
genius above controul, inclines at this time one way, and at that time another^
according to circumstances.
(3) The opinion of the age in which he lived would not allow of its being
imputed to Montanus as a crime, that he assumed the character of a prophet.
A persuasion continued to prevail amongst the Christians of those times, that
the spirit of prophecy had not become altogether extinct, and there were then in
existence divers persons who were recognized by the Christians under the
character of divine legates. What produced the separation between Montanus
and the Catholic Christians was, that these latter felt assured within themselves,
by certain arguments and reasons, that he was not commissioned of God, but of
[p. 421.] the Devil. This opinion of theirs was grounded chiefly on the three
following considerations : 1. That his prophetic effusions were delivered in an
ecstasy, that is, as I conceive, he professed himself to utter these commands of
the Most High, under the influence of an irresistible impulse, without being in
the least degree conscious himself of what it was he said. 2. That he intro-
duced the Deity himself as speaking. 3. That he promulgated, as coming im-
mediately from God, laws that were partly new, and nowhere to be met with in
the sacred writings, and, in part, contradictory to the institutions of Christ and
his apostles. Of these arguments, the two former ones might, unless I am
much mistaken, be confuted and completely gotten rid of, but the last is of the
Errors of Montanus. 501)
greatest weight, and can by no means be overthrown, nltliougli Terlullian,\\\i)\
a zeal tliat may well excite our pity, labours strongly in diminishing its torce.
Novitatem igitiir, says he, (in Lib. de Jejuniis, cap. i. p. 701.) ohjeclant de cnjiis
inlicito prccscribanl : aut hccresim judicmidam, si humana prccsumplio est, aut
pseudo-prophet ia7n pronunliandam, si spiritualis imliclio esl. - - - Cerle in Emn-
gelio illos dies jejuniis dctcrminalos puiaiU, in quibus ablatas est sponsuSy el has
esse jam solos legitimos jrj uniorum Christianorum, abulitis Icgalibus el prophelicis
vetustalibus. - - - DiJj'ereiUer jijunandum ex arbilrio, non ex imperio nova dis-
cipline:, pro iemporibiis et caussis uniuscuj usque. - - Sic et Aposlolos observassc,
<f-c. To which add what is said by him in liis book de Monogamia, cap. i. p.
673. where he clearly intimates it to be a point in dispute between the Catlio-
lics and Montanists ; An capiat Paraclelum aliquid tale docuisse, quod aut novum
deputari possit adversus CalhoUcam traditiotiem, aut onerosum advcrsus leicm
sarcinam Domini. No one, surely, let him boast wliat lie may of being com-
missioned of God to promulg;ite a more iioly and perfect system of moral dis-
cipline than was prescribed by our blessed Saviour and his apostles, unless he
at the same time bring forward something that may assist our faith, or contri-
bute towards the farther purification of our minds, can have the least pretensions
to be ranked amongst the number of divinely-inspired teachers or proi)hets. By
the adversaries of Montanus, indeed, somewhat more has been built upon this
argument than can, in point of fairness, be deduced from it, for it certainly by
no means warranted the conclusion that Montanus was inspired of the Devil.
The argument itself, however, is in no degree affected by this error, but was
possessed of the same force in that age as it has at present. Montanus, on the
other hand, most strenuously contended, that the Deity himself, or the Para-
clete, spake througli him, and was loud in his reproach of all those who refused
him their support. The only true church, he asserted, consisted of himself and
his followers; the rest were, without exception, condemned by him as spurious.
An ancient writer, cited by Eusebius (Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xvi. p. 181),
says, THV (Te K^b-oky nii Trxcrav tj)v Ctto t6v u^avov cKKkHTiav CkAa^iifxtif
S'li'djx.cvnc tS annv^aS'KrfA.ivH Trvtu/uaTOi, Srt fx»rt rifxiiY /Uiirt ira^oS'oi in awmf
TO •^tvJoTT^cipHTiAov ikoLfACavi TTvlv^a. Universam vera, qiuc per orbem terrarum
sparsa est, ecclesiam, idem ille arrogantissimus spiritus maledictis appelere eos
docebat, eo quod nee honorem nee aditum ullum ad ipsam pseudo-propheticus spiri-
tus aperiret. And beyond all doubt, this statement is entitled to the highest
credit; for unless Montanus would have been inconsistent with himself, it was
necessary for him boldly to assert that all such cliurches as opposed him [p. 422.]
were at enmity with the Holy Spirit, and alienated from God. Themison, in
like manner, who ranks not as the last of his adherents, is charged by Apollo-
nius, apud Euseb. \. c. cap. xviii. p. 185. with having, in the Catholic epistle that
he wrote, spoken blasphemously of our Lord and his apostles, {xiz. by as.serting
that the moral discipline which they had inculcated Was imperfect,) and also of
the holy church : BXa5-p«;M»<ra( sTs ii<r Tov k-j^iov Kal rii ^ATTorokui Kai riif
iyiav Unkna-iav. Jlencc Montanus (as is also intimated by Apollonius, apud
Euseb. 1. c. cnp, xviii. p. 184. and confirmed by the testimony of other authors),
was led to give Pepuza and Tymium, the two little towns of Plirygia, where he
510 Century II. — Section 67.
and his associates rc-idcd, the title of Jerusalem, i. e. the only true church, vvith
a view to <j-.ither together tliere men from all parts. Terlullian is not at all
more mild or lenient than these, although, as I have above noticed, he occasion-
ally seems d.'.sirous of paving the way towards an accommodation; for he takes
every opportunity of loading all such Christians as differed from Montanus
with contumely, and constantly applies to them the title Psychici, i. e. men des-
titute of tlie Holy Spirit ; whilst he terms those who sided with that heresiarch,
Spiri'.uales, and the only Holy. Penes nos autem, (says he, in lib. de Monoga-
viittf cap. i. p. 673.) quos spirilales merito dici facit agniiio spiritalium charisma'
turn, continentia tarn religiosa est. - - - Sed Psychicis non recipienlibus spiritum
ea qucc sunt spirilus non placent. What need I add that (in his book de PudU
cilia, cap. xxi. p. 744.) he, without the least circumlocution, denies any church
in opposition to Montanus to be the true one ? Quid nunc et ad ecclesiam et
quidem tuam Psychice ? Ecclesia proprie et principaliler ipse est spirilus^
in quo est Trinilas unius Divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus ; where
we may observe, by the bye, the grounds on which Montanus and his followers
came to be charged with Sabellianism. For Tertullian speaks as if he believed
all the tjiree persons of the divine nature to be only that one which animated
Montanus. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta condonabit, sed ecclesia spiritus (i. e.
of Montanus), psr spiriialein hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum. — From
what we have thus adduced it is manifest, that instead of the Catholic Christians
expelling Montanus from the church, the separation rather originated with him,
and that he withdrew himself from a church that he could not consider as the
true spouse of Christ. And, indeed, the Montanists themselves confessed that
the origin of the division was not to be imputed to the Catholic Christians, but
that they themselves first seceded, refusing any longer to hold communion with
what Tertullian terms Psychica et carnalis ecclesia. Epiphanius Hccres. xlviii.
cap. xii. p. 413. xeyva-t S'la ^apio-fxaTa dpisdvai TMf tx.KK>i(r(as. Jactant sc ob crelestia
dona (i. e. the Prophecies of Montanus which the Catholic Christians rejected)
ah ecclesia discessisse. And the same author twice recognises this as a true re-
presentation of the case in the introduction to his history of this sect, remarking,
in cap. i. p. 402, 403, that the Montanists separated themselves (a7r£ff-;^/cr*v <ri
fawTis)? from the church ; and a little while after that e^i^na-ap in twk ayioiVy
[p. 423.] they withdrew themselves from the fold of the saints. — All sort of
communion being renounced, and war publicly declared by Montanus against
the church, the bishops of Asia retaliated by disclaiming, in solemn convocation,
all further connection with a man, whose hostility to the church was, by his
own declaration, thus placed beyond a question. And to what other conclu-
sion, I pray, could this affair have led ? Between a man who, professing him-
self to be a legate of the Most High, declares war against all such as may ven-
ture to call in question his commission, and those who not only call in question
such his commission, but also think themselves justified in regarding that man
as a false prophet, and one of the agents of the devil, what sort of communion,
either of offices or religion, can, for a moment, possibly be maintained ? — I have
entered the more fully into this subject for the purpose of showing what a
wrong estimate, respecting the schism of Montanus, has been formed by such of
Errors of Montamis. 511
the learned as attribute the whole blame of discord and division, on this occasion,
to the Catholic Christians. That the conduct of these latter was in no degree
reprehensible, is what I do not take upon me to assert; but this much, cer-
t^iinly, is apparent, that MoiUanus originated tlie quarrel, and that the Catholic
Christians had abundant cause for condemning a man who had not only im-
bibed the most pernicious opinions, but had also been the author of a schism
or separation in the church.
(4) At the time when Montanus prophesied, namely, under the reign of the
emperor Marcus Aurelius the philosopher, the affairs of the Christians were
everywhere, as we have above shown, involved in the utmost peril. It beeame,
therefore, a matter of the very first importance to them to be strictly on their
guard, lest, in anything which they might say, teach, or do, they might lay
themselves open to misrepresentation, or furnish the Romans with any pretext
for accusation or complaint. But that imprudent, or rather insane man, Mc7i-
tanus, predicted, without reserve, a variety of things in the hignest degree ob-
noxious to the Romans ; such, for instance, as the overthrow of their city and
empire ; the destruetion that awaited the world ; wars, plagues, and calamities
of divers kinds, that might speedily be expected, as well as the tremendous ad-
vent of Antichrist ; concerning which things, whoever dared to utter any pro-
phecies, were always considered by the Romans as enemies to the state, and
consequently made to undergo capital punishment. TertuUian, in his apology
for Montanus, a work that unfortunately has perished, reduces the whole
matter in dispute between his master and other Christians under tivo general
heads, namely, " second marriages^'* and " the future yu^^7nen^" His words are
preserved in the ancient work edited by J. Sirmond, Paris, 1645, 8vo. that goes
under the title of Prccdesiinatus, lib. i. cap. xxv. p. 30. Hoc solum discrepamus,
quod secundas nuptias non recipimus, et prophetiam Montani defufurojudicio non
recusamus. It is to be observed that TertuUian here makes light of the con-
troversy between Montanus and the church, as was customary with him when-
ever he conceived that it might tend to promote his purpose ; but on this we
shall not stay at present to make any remark. All that we would wish to im-
press on the reader's attention is, that it is clear from these words that 3/o/i/a-
nus had, amongst other things, predicted somewhat respecting a future judg-
ment, and that this prophecy of his was held most saertni, and had more than
ordinary weight attached to it by his followers ; but that it was marked with
the most decided disapprobation by the Catholic Christians. It would be idle
in any one to pretend to refer this prediction to the \ii?,i general judgment of the
world and the human race ; for as to this there was the most perfect accordance
between I\Iontanus and all other Christians. Indeed, it was impossible that
the Christians should make it a matter of accusation against Montanus, that he
predicted the near approach of the last judgment; for it was at that time a j)oint
of common belief with the whole church, that the final consummation [p. 424.]
of all things was at hand. We are bound to conclude, therefore, that Montanus
predicted the approach of some particular judgment, (i. e. some calamities and
evils not for remote) of which the Christians knew that they could not join with
him in prophesying, without involving themselves in the utmost peril. But what
512 Century IL— Section G7.
else could this be than the judgment that awaited the Roman empire ? The
temerity of this man, unless I am altogether deceived, was such, that he an-
nounced the most signal punishments as about to fall on the Romans, the ene-
mies of the Christian fiiith, and predicted, at no very distant period, the final
overthrow of tlie whole empire. — That other Cln-istians, as to this, entertained a
belief similar to his, namely, that our blessed Saviour would speedily avenge
tlie blood of his slaughtered servants on tlie Romans, and overturn their govern-
ment, is what I very well know. But of ti)i3 their belief they made a secret,
referring it to the Disciplina Arcani., or that kind of knowledge which it was
deemed expedient to cherish in silence, and entrusted only to a few of approved
stability and faith, inasmuch as they were well assured, that any disclosure or
promulgation of it could not be made without exposing their fortunes to the
utmost jeopardy and hazard. And in this place I will content myself with re-
ferring merely to those prophecies respecting the dreadful calamities which
awaited the Roman empire, that are set down as received from the mouths of
the Christians by the author of Philopalris (a work commonly ascribed to Lu-
cian:) vid. Luciani Opera, torn. iii. p. 613. et seq. edit. Reizian. Hence we are
furnished with an easy interpretation of the words of an ancient writer, cited
by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles, lib. v. cap. xvi. p. 180, and of which the learned have
hitherto confessed themselves utterly unable to elicit the meaning. He says
that iTlbn'fl;ms foretold things that were to come, Trag a to Kara Ta^aS'oa-iv kui jtarA
i'laS'c^x^v o-vco^h TMf «}c*x«crta?, 4-3-of, prcctcr viorem alque instiiutum Ecclesicc a
majoribus tradiinm ei contin.ua deinceps successionc propagatum ; which is as much
as to say, that it was the ancient and invariable usage of the church, cautiously to
abstain from divulging or making public mention of any tenets or prophecies that
might tend to excite animosity against the Christians, or bring them into danger;
Buch, for instance, as those which respected the coming of Antichrist, the overthrow
of the Roman empire, or any other impending evils or calamities. But Montanus
broke through this custom, and proclaimed to the world what had never before
been communicated to any, except confidential ears. And in this most hazard-
ous line of conduct, the females who had espoused the cause of Montanus
should seem to have been by no means backward in following the example of
their master; for Maximilla predicted ToXifAns nai duaTaTa^tai, ^^wars and tu-
mults,^' as awaiting the Roman empire, (Euseb. 1. c. p. 182,) and that, after her
death, no more prophetesses would arise, but people might look for a-wTcXua t3
duovoi, '■'the consummation of all things.'^ These prophecies, supposing that
nothing else offensive or objectionable had been brought forward by Montanus
and his associates, must surely of themselves have justified all such Christians
as had the welfare of the church at heart, in excluding these bold and incautious
men from their society. The sect of the Montanists, as they themselves boast,
and the ancient fathers do not pretend to deny, abounded in maritjrs. It should
seem, however, not at all improbable, that most of these might have fallen mar-
tyrs to their own imprudence and temerity rather than in the cause of Christ, and
been put to death by the Roman magistrates as conspirators against the com-
monwealth.
Praxeas. 513
LXVIII. Praxeas. Amongst the adversaries of [p. 425.]
Montanus, none held a more distinguished place than Praxeas^ a
man of no mean reputation in the chureh, inasmuch as he had, on
an occasion that involved his life in the utmost peril, manfully
avowed his faith in Christ before a heathen tribunal, and on the
same account undergone an imprisonment of no inconsiderable
duration.(') Ilaving at a subsequent period, however, been led
to engage zealously in the task of combating the erroneous doc-
trines of others, he unfortunately fell into an error himself respect-
ing tile Divine Nature and the Saviour of the human, race, not at
all less grievous than those with which he had undertaken to con-
tend ; for, by means of various arguments supported by passages
drawn from the holy scriptures, he endeavoured to do away all
distinciion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and
maintained that it was not some one divine Person, but the Father^
the sole Creator of all things, that united himself with human
nature in the person of Christ. Hence his followers came to be
termed Monarcldans and Pairipassia?is.{') Being detected in this
error, and publicly accused thereof at Kome, he put on the appear-
ance of concession, and in a recantation, which he wrote and pub-
lished, professed his entire acquiescence in the catholic sentiments
respecting the Divine N'ature. Upon passing over afterwards into
Africa, however, he again stood forth the avowed patron of the
doctrine which he had abjured at Rome, and sought and obtained
many adherents from amongst the people. It does not, however,
appear that he became the parent of a particular sect.
(1) For whatever can with any degree of certainty be offered in tiie way of
history respecting Praxeas, we are of necessity indebted wholly to the treatise
written in confutation of his doctrine by TertuUian, a work by no means deficient
cither in learning- or address, but obscure in the extreme, and vehement beyond
all measure; a work, in fact, written by a man who was an enemy not only to
the Praxean doctrine, but also to the author of that doctrine, inasmuch as he had
been the chief instrument in prevailing on the bishop of Rome, who had at lirst
lent a favourable ear to Montanus and his prophecies, and whom learned men
conceive to have been Victor, to change sides and go over to his adversaries.
This offence against his master kindled such wrath in the bosom of TertulUan^
that he sets no bounds whatever to his reprehension, and occasionally breaks
out into an abusive strain artogether unbecoming the Christian character. — In
contemplating the nature of Praxeas's error, \ have been led to .suspect, and, I
think, not without reason, that such error might have had its origin in his hosti-
lity to Montanus. Montanus, as appears from Tertullian, had, in his oracles,
VOL. I. 33
514 Century IL— Section 68.
treated of the dogma of the existence of three persons in the divine nature, and
studiously inculcated a true and real distinction between the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. Vid. Tertullian contra Praxeam^ c. xiii. p. 644. Nos, saya
he, maxime Paracleli^ non hominum discipuli, duos quidem dafinimus, Patrem et
Filium, etjam Ires cum Spirito Sancto, secundum rationem cecononiia, qiuc faclt
numerum. And in the same book, cap. ii. p. 635. Tertullian avows himself, by
means of the Paraclete, (/. e. Montanus,) whom he terms deductor omnis verita-
[p. 426.] lis, to have been better instructed in the dogma respecting God the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that is, he had received from the mouth
of the Paraclete a fuller and clearer knowledge of that dogma. Pj-axeas, then,
the decided opponent of Montanus as to most other things, being in all.proba-
bility determined to have nothing whatever in common with such a man, and
expecting, perhaps, that it might place liis adversary in a still more invidious
light, came, as I suspect, to the resolution of resisting him on this ground also,
and, in opposition to the dogma of Montanus, recognizing a Trinity of Persons
in the Godhead, sent forth his own dogma asserting the absolute indimduality of
the Deity. An infinity of examples might be adduced of men whom the very
love of truth itself has plunged into error.
(2) TertuUian's book against Praxeas is unquestionably of a very sufficient
length, but, at the same time, it is not so explicit as to bring us thoroughly ac-
quainted with the opinions of the man whom it is its object to confute. Of
this, indeed, it leaves us in no doubt, that Praxeas denied a distinction of per-
sons in the Divine Nature, we mean, any real distinction between the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and contended for what is termed by Tertullian
the Monarchy of God. In fact, it should seem that he considered those who
recognized any real distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spi-
rit, as maintaining the existence of tliree Gods. After what manner, however,
Praxeas expounded those passages of Scripture which relate to the Son and the
Holy Spirit, and contrived to make them accord with his tenets, is for from being
equally perspicuous. From certain passages in TertuUian's work, it should
seem to have been the opinion of this heresiarch that, by the terms Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, three modes of existence, as well as agency of the Divine Na-
ture, were indicated, and that the Deity, when existing and operating in Christy
after a new and unaccustomed manner, assumed the title of Son, but that, when
residing and acting in holy and pious persons, it was his will to be denominated
the Holy Spirit. Post tempus, says Tertullian, when speaking the sentiments of
his adversary, cap. ii. p. 634. pater natus et pater passus ; ipse Dens, Dominus
omnipoiens, Jesus Christus prccdicalur. And shortly after, cap. iii. p. 635. Uni-
cum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum, eumdemque et Patrem et
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum dicat Numerum et disposilionem Trinitatis
diiisionem prccsumunt Trinitatis. . . . Ilaque duos et ires jam jactitant a nobis
pncdicari, se vero nnius Dei cultores prccsumunt, quxisi non et unitas irrationali-
ter collecta, hccresim. faciat, et Trinitas rationaliter expensa xeritatem constituat.
Monarchiam (inquiunt) tenemus, cap. v. p. 637.— But to pass on to more explicit
proofs, in chap. x. p. 680. Tertullian thus expresses the sentiments of the Mo-
narchians : Neque Pater idem et Filius ut sirU ambo unus et utrumque alter, quod
Pmxeas. 515
vanissimi isti Monarchioni volunf. Ipse se, inqniunt, Fil'mm sihifcif. Indeed,
that there was notliiiijr repujriiant or :ibsurd in this opinion, they pretended to
demonstrate by the example of a vir«,nn's brin^Mn«r fortli without havintr known
man. Ergo, iriquiiait, dljjicile nonfuiL Deo, ipsum se el Pairum ct Filium faccre^
adversus traditam formam rebus humanis. Nam et steritem parere contra naturam
difficile Deo nonfuil, sicul nee virginem. Now these things, unless I am alto-
gether deceived, can be understood after no other manner than this: [p. 427.]
The Deity, who is, in the strictest sense of the word, One, put on in some sort
a diftcrent form, and assumed a ditfcrLMit mode of existing and acting, when,
joining himself to Christ, he took the name of a Son, and, under that character,
conveyed instruction to the human race. Deus fecit se sibi Filium; for, being
possessed of infinite power, he can easily vary his essence at pleasure. The
very passages of the New Testament, moreover, by which Praxcas endeavoured
to uphold his dogmas, seem to demonstrate that it ought to be expounded in
the way that I have pointed out. Sed, says Tcrtullian, cap. xx. p. 651, argu-
mentationibus eorum adliuc retundendis opera prccbenda est Nam sicut in
veteribus nihil aliud tenent quam, ego Deus, et alius prccter me non est, ita in Evan-
gelio responsionem Domini ad Philippum tuentur ; ego et Paler unum sumus ; ety
qui me viderit, videl et Patrem; et ego in Patre et Paler in me. His tribus capi-
tulis tolum inslrumentum utriusque testamenti volunt cedere; which words, who-
ever shall adduce, by way of doing away all distinction between the Father and
the Son, must necessarily hold that there is no difference whatever between the
Father and the Son, except the mode or form of existing and acting.
But this interpretation of the Praxean dogma is opposed by certain other pas-
sages in Tcrtullian, wherein he expressly intimates it to have been the opinion
of his adversary, that the title of Son, as given to Christ, ought not to be con-
sidered as the name of the Deity residing in Christ, but of his human nature;
that the Deity himself, who is termed the Father, united to himself the Man
Christ; and that this same Man was denominated the Son of God, in conse-
quence of his having been begotten by the Deity of the Virgin Mary ; a way of
thinking not at all to be reconciled with his having taught, that what was di-
vine in Christ was a certain form or mode of the Divine Nature to which the
Deity gave the title of Son, by way of distinguishing it from that other form or
mode which is termed the Father. Let us hear Tcrtullian himself, cap. xxvii. p.
659, undique obducti distinctione Patris et Filii (that is, borne down and over-
whelmed by the words of the sacred volume, in which express distinction is
made between the Father and the Son) quam, manente conjunctione, disponimus
ut solis et radii, el fontis et Jluvii, per individuum tamen numerum duorum et
trium; aliter eam ad suam nihilominus sentetitiam inttrpretari conanlur ut ccque
in una persona utrumque distinguant, Patrem et Filium, dicentes Filium carncm
esse, id est, Hominem, id est, Jesum ; Patrem aiUem Spiritum, (meaning the soul,
if I mistake not,) id est, Deum, id est, Christum. Et qui unum eumdemque con-
tendunt Patrem et Filium, jam incipinnt dividere illos potius quam unare. Si
enim alius est Jesus, alius Christus, alius eril Filius, alius Pater, quia Filius Je-
sus, et Pater Christus. Talem Monarchiam apud ValenLinum forlassis didicerunt,
duosfacere Jesum et Christum. Agreeably to this opinion, Praxeas maintained
516 Century II. — Section 68.
Patrem passmn case in Christo, or, as he preferred expresrsing it, compassum esse
cum Filio, or, with the Man Jesus. Tcrtullian, cap. xxix. p. 662. observes,
[p. 428.] Ergo nee compassus est Paler FUio ; sic enim direclam blasphemiam in
Patrem verili, dimlnui earn lioc modo sperant, conced^ntes jam Patrem et FUliim
duos esse ; si Filius quidem patilur, Pater vero compatitur. Stulli et in hoc. Quid
est enim cnmpati quam cum alio pati ? . . . Times dicere passibilem quern dicis
compassibllem. — From which passage, by-the-bye, it is apparent how the fol-
lowers of Praxeas came to be termed Patripassians, as also, that, by this appel-
lation, no sort of injury was done them, as certain of the learned have supposed.
Tliose who deny that the title of Patripassians could with propriety be assigned
to them, do so under the impression that these people believed the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit to be three forms or modes of the divine nature, which, it is
plain, must be at the least very uncertain, from what we have above remarked.
In addition, then, to those remarks, if this title be taken into the account,! think
not a doubt can well be entertained, but that the latter of the two expositions
above given of the Praxean dogma must be the right one. — We may, therefore,
consider Praxeas as having maintained, I. That the Deity is, in the strictest
sense, an individual Being, altogether uncompounded and indivisible. II. That
this Being is, in holy writ, termed the Father. III. That this same individual
Being formsd for himself a son in the Man Jesus. IV. That he coalesced, in one
Person, with such Man, his Son. V. That when this Man, his Son, suffered, he,
the Father, suffered with him. VI. That whenever our Saviour, therefore, is
termed the Son of God, this title must be considered as applying merely to his
human nature, — What the opinion of Praxeas was respecting the Holy Spirit^ is
no where expressly pointed out by Tertullian. It may readily, however, be con-
ceived, from the nature of his discipline, that he must have regarded it as a sort
of ray or virtue of tlie Father, i. e. the Deity. Whether Tertullian, moreover,
who, as we have seen, gives two different expositions of the Praxean dogma, did
not at the first sufficiently comprehend its nature and force, and was too preci-
pitate in applying to the Divine Nature the saying of the Monarchians, Deus ipse
se sibi Filium fecit ; or whether the Monarchians, upon finding themselves
driven, as it were, into a corner by the multitude of passages in holy writ, in
which a clear distinction is made between the Father and the Son, forsook their
former opinion, and had recourse to that other which acquired for them the de-
nomination of Patripassians, must of necessity be left undetermined.
But now another question suggests itself. Since it is certaiii that Praxeas
did not consider the eternal Son of God, or any mode of the Divine Nature under
the name of a Son, to have been resident in the Man Christ, but believed the
whole Father, or the Deit}^ to have taken up his abode in tlie Son of God, that
is, in the Man formed by God, in tvhat ivay are we to understand what he says
of the association of the Father with the Man Jesus ? Did he, by the title of the
Father, mean to be understood as designating the very Person of the P^ather or
Deity, or merely a certain power or efficiency, as some term it, of God the Father?
Almost every one leans to iho, former opinion, and, I think, not without reason,
if any faith is to be placed in Tertullian, who is the only author from whom any
information, as to this dogma of Praxeas, is to be derived in the present day;
i
Praxeas. 517
for, in a variety of passage:?, this writer represents lii-^ adversary r.s liavin^ main-
tained tliat tlie Father was born, and sulfered on t!ic cross; nay, he ad- [p. 429.]
duces the Monarchians themselves as in a certain degree acUowledging this, in-
asmuch as they pronounced the Father to have sull'ered together with the Son;
an idea which, it" I am possessed of the least penetration, the followers of
Praxeas could never have entertained, had they imagined tliat it was merely a
certain 'power or virtue of the Father that was present in the Son. For how
could a certain divine 'power or etficiency, communicated to the Son for a time,
have suffered and been crucified with him? — l\lich. Le Qiiicji, however, the
learned editor of Damascene's work?-, would rather have us believe Praxeam
censuissc Domimim Jesum sola Dcilalis ejjlcienlia imhulum fuisse, non aidejn esse
personam Palris, qiuc in Dciiate ct liumanilate substitisset ul Pater proprie passus
et criicijixus diceretur. Adnot. ad Damascen. Lib. de Hicrcsibus, torn. i. p. 90.
In support of this interpretation, however, tiie learned writer adduces nothing
but that one passage of Tcrtullian, cap. xxvii. p. 659, just above cited, in which
he represents the Monarchians as maintaining Patrcm esse spiritum Jesu, id est^
Deum. But how, from this passage, anything like that whii'h he takes to be the
true exposition of the Praxean dogma is to be supported, I must confess myself
utterly at a loss to comprehend. The learned Pet. Wesseling, therefore, found
but little difficulty in overthrowing this new interpretation of the Monarchian
tenets, and upholding the ancient one by numerous citations from TertuUian.
See his Prohabilia, cap. xxvi. p. 223, et seq. Franeq. 1731, 8vo. — My own senti-
ments, as to this matter, are already given. If TertuUian is deserving of atten-
tion, the dogma of the Monarchians admits of no other interpretation tlian what
has commonly been given to it, and which the reader will find specified above.
I would be far, however, from dissembling, that it may be a matter of some
doubt how far TertuUian, whose treatise against Praxeas was obviously the pro-
duction of a mind hostile, perturbed, and boiling with indignation, is to be relied
upon for having given us an ingenuous, ample, and faithful exposition of the
opinions of his adversary, — By accident, I met with a notable passage in Justin
JIartyr, Dial cum Tnjphone, p. 371, 372, edit. Jebbian. in which he observes, that
amongst the Christians of his time there were some who maintained, that the word
of God, or the Son, was merely a certain jmcer or virtue of the Father, and which
could in no wise be separated from the Father; as the light of the sun upon the earth
is not to be disunited from that which shines in the heavens ; that such divine
virtue had manifested itself in many different ways, and hence had acquired a
variety of names, being sometimes termed an Angel, sometimes a Glory, at
other times a man, and, at others the Word ; that God emitted this virtue at hia
will, and again at his will recalled it : yivoiTna T/vac ^ds-xwv tmk ifuvauiy t»;»
va^a t5 TraTPui rdv oKcuv ipai>ii<rav uyyiKov KaXilj-^-ai iv rti Tr^dg dv^-^co-rrn{
TT^o-Ao). Scio esse qui dicant virtutem a Patre rerum ominum provenienletti, An-
gelum vocari cum adhojnines progreditur : ^i^av «r« t^uj'n h ipavrarU ^^iitrai.
Gloriam vero, cum in visione quadam exhibclur. avJ'^a /« nort xuj av^-potnf
KAKtlv^dLt cTTiiS'it iv fjt.og<t)aii Toiavraii p-jLiviri.!. Viruni autrm cl homiuem no-
minari quando in for mis ejusmodi (namely, in the form of a nrin, or a human
being) COnspiciiur. x-at Xiyif KaXSTtv^ CTrtlS'i xut ruj t9 TjrgiS jfAiKti; pc^u
518 Ccnturij IL—Section G9.
[p. 430.] ToTc av9-§wT3;c. Verhum appellari earn, quod pairis sermones ad homines
perferai. dx<^V'^ov t3 rar^di rduTxv t«v S'Cvafj.iv vTa^-^ii^i-, ov^rsg Tgoiror rd r5
«xr» pwf tn-i >-/if i/vat a;;^cj§/r3v oVroj r« «>ji ti" rw s^ai/w. Virtutem autem
illam a patre nullo modo disjiingi posse, quemamodum soils lux in ierris a sole qui
in ncelo est se^^regari nequit. 'O 7raT«g, orav B»X«rai, S'vvafAiy dvrs Tr^cTrtS'ar
roiit. Kui OTav B«X»rat, TrdXtJ/ di'ajtXXa etj Uutov. PaZer CUm rwZ/, efficit Ut h(CC
ejus virlus prosiliat, el cum vull, camdem ad seipsum relrahil. Now, those wlio
taught a doctrine like this, must necessarily have denied all real distinction of
persons in the divine nature, and believed the divine nature of Christ to have
been merely a virtue or ray sent fofth for a while from the eternal light of the
Father. To this description of Christians it is not impossible that Praxeas
might belong, and that having, with a view in some measure to disguise his
tenets, expounded them differently at different times, Tertnllian was prevented
from attaining to anything like an exact or precise knowledge of them.
LXIX. Theodotus and Artemon. Just about tlie same period,
or some short time before, the Catholic doctrine respecting Christ
and the existence of three persons in the divine nature was as-
sailed after a different manner by one Theodotus, who had passed
over to Rome from Constantinople, and practised the art of a tan-
ner, but was, notwithstanding, a man of no mean proficiency
in letters.Q This heresiarch denied altogether the divinity of
Christ, refusing to acknowledge in him an}^ other kind of personal
excellence than that of his corporeal frame having been divinely
begotten.(') The same doctrine is said to have been maintained at
Eome, either some short time before, or else within a little while
after Theodotus, by one Artemas or Artemon, from whom the Ar-
temonites took their denomination.(') Towards the close of the
century Theodotus was condemned by the Roman bishop Victor ;
and it should seem not unlikely that Artemon and his disciples
were excommunicated by the same prelate. — The notices that
have reached us respecting these sects, both of which should seem
to have quickly disappeared, are but scanty. The circumstance
of all others most deserving of attention in respect to them is,
that the Theodotians and Artemonites are said to have set a great
value on philosophy and geometry, indeed more than well comport-
ed with a proper respect for religion and the sacred writings. (*)
In truth, the principal fruit derived from the introduction of a
taste for the Grecian philosophy amongst the Christians was, that
by the application of its precepts to the mysteries of religion birth
was given to a variety of opinions and disputes respecting the
manner in which these latter ou^jht to be understood.
Tlicodotus and Artemon. 519
(1) Respecting Theodotus and Artemon, there is a long quotation given by
Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Ilislury, lib. v. cap. xxviii, from an ancient writer
whose name is not mentioned. But neither from this, nor from Epi])iianius, nor
Theodoret, nor any other of the ancient haeresiologists, can we obtain a [p. 431.]
full and satisfactory account of these men and their opinions.
(2) Theodotus, as is related much at large by Epiphanius, JJccres. liv. cap. i.
ii. iii. p. 464, et seq. and in a shorter way by Tertuliian, Augustine, and Phihis-
ter, being called in question at Constantinople on account of liis religion, abjured
his tai;h in Christ, and when he was sliarpiy reproached with this by the Chris-
tians of Rome, to which city he had fled for refuge, he, by the excuse which he
offered, plunged still deeper into sin. For lie denied himself to have comiiu'.ted
any offence at all against God, inasmuch as Christ, whom he iiad denied, was
nothing more than a mere man. That this account should have been invented,
there is no reason whatever for believing. We are not, however, furnished by
it with anything like a perspicuous or satisfactory view of this heresiarch's sen-
timents respecting Christ ; nor are the ancient writers agreed in their exposilion
of his tenets on this subject. Epiphanius states him to have maintained, that
Jesus was begotten according to the same law by which all other mortals are
produced, namely, of the seed of man. But the ancient autlior of the Catalogue
of Heretics, annexed to TertuUian's prescriptions, and with whom Theodoret
agrees, says, that Theodotus did indeed regard Christ as a mere man, but, then,
as a man that had been begotten of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. And to this tes-
timony learned men are disposed to give more credit than to Epiphanius, a wri-
ter of no great weight, and far from being correct in his account of heretical
opinions. But if the inference be just, to which learned men have been led by
the ancient author of the Little Labyrinth, a work written in opposition to the
Theodotians and Artemonites, and from which a citation is given by Eusebius,
Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 28, namely, that the doctrine of Artemon was the same
with that of Theodotus, the correctness of even this last statement will admit of
being called in question. For not to notice that there are not wanting those
who conceive the opinions of Artemon to have corresponded with those of Paul
of Samosata or Arius, we are told by Gennadius, of INIarscilles, de Dogmat.
Ecclesiast. cap. iii. p. 4. edit. Elmenhorst. that Artemon held, Christum divini-
tatis initium nascendo accepisse. He did not, therefore, deny Christ to be God
and man, but conceived him to have been styled God in consequence of God's
having associated himself with the man Christ from the very commencement of
his existence; which opinion more nearly corresponds with that which, as we
have above shown, was entertained by Praxeas, than with that whicii is com-
monly attributed to Theodotus. Artemon's opinion, we mean, was, that a cer-
tain divine power, not a person, united itself to the man Christ, who was born of
a virgin, and that, in consequence of this association of the divinity with the hu-
man nature of Christ, he who was a man was, in the sacred writings, also termed
God, and might be styled God. But, to confess tjie truth, it appears to me to be
much less certain than is commonly imagined, that Theodotus and Artemon en-
tertained one and the same opinion respecting Christ. Theodoret clearly makes
a distinction between the Theodotians and the Artemonites; and although the
520 Century II.— Section 70.
author of the lAitle Labyrinth, as quoted by Eusebius, associates them together
in liis work, and directs his arguments against them jointly, it is yet far from
[p. 432.] being clear that there were no points of dissension between them. This
much, cert.iiniy, they had in common, that they denied all real distinction of per-
sona in the Godhead, and consequently would not admit that a divine person had
united himself with Christ. Wherefore, they might well be encountered in one
and the same work, and with one and the same set of arguments. But a com-
munity of sentiments, as to these particulars, by no means rendered it impossi-
bb' tiiat they should differ in their opinions respecting Chri-t.
(3) Whether it was Thcodotus or Artemon that first disturbed the church by
tlie propagation of an erroneous doctrine, is one of those subjects on which the
learned are divided, with scarcely any preponderance of argument on either side.
The reader, if he please, may pass over a question so uncertain and minute ;
but should any one wish to know and weigh the arguments that are adduced on
cither side, he may have recourse to Wesseling, who, in his Prohahilia, cap. xxi.
p. 172-180, having diligently pondered the whole of them, coincides with those
who cons'der Theodoius as having preceded Artemon.
(-1) With regard to this, there is given us by Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v.
cap. xxviii. p. 197, et seq. a passage from an ancient writer, which is well de-
serving of attention, although the reprehension it conveys may be thought, per-
haps, somewhat too severe.
LXX. Hermogenes. A station in point of time somewhat prior
to these last-mentioned corrupters of the Catholic doctrine respect-
ing the divine nature and the Saviour of the human race, appears
to belong to Hermogenes, a painter by profession, but at the same
time a man of subtile genius, and a 'pliiloso])}ier, whom we find
denounced by Tertullian as a heretic of the first class, although
he seems never to have become the parent of any particular
sect, but to have passed the whole of his days in undisturbed
communion with the church.(') Hermogenes was a corrupter of
the catholic doctrine respecting the origin of the world. For
since he considered matter as the source or fountain of all evil,
he felt it incumbent on him to deny that the Deity had created
matter out of nothing. — This involved him in the necessity of
maintaining, that the matter of which God formed the world was
eternal^ although subject to his power.(^) Under the denomination
of the world, he included not only corporeal substances but mind
and s^nrit^ which he considered as having been in like manner
produced by the Deity from vicious and eternal matter.(^) As to
any other points of Christian belief, he appears to have attempt-
ed no innovation whatever.(*)
Jlermogenes. 521
(1) Amongst the works of TtrhUlian that arc extant, there is a vehement
philippic of iiis iigainst Ilormogcnes, possessing some degree of merit, it is true.
in point of ingennity and eloqnenee, bnt written in a style at once diliicult and
obscure. In tins worii, TertuUian encounters merely the /6'nc/s of Ilermogenus
respecting mailer and the origin of the icorld. The opinion of the latter con-
cerning the nature of the soul, had been attacked by him in another book, now
lost, whicli he notices in his Treatise de Anima, cap. i. as intituled de Ccnsu
AniriKR. In this contention with Hermogenes, TerluUian is remarkably abu-
sive, although he does not pretend to deny that his adversary was a [p. 433.]
man of genius, eloquence, and sound understanding as to tiie leading [)ri'iciple.s
and tenets of the Christian religion; which will ai)pear the more surpri-ing to
those who are aware that the Christians, in the age of which we are treating,
were accustomed to deal more mildly with those who considered mailer as hav-
ing existed with the Deity from all eternity, and the workl as having been com-
pounded thereof. But it was not so much his errors as his morals, which were
quite in opposition to the discipline of Montanus, that rendered Hermogenea
hateful in the eyes of TertuUian, who, as every one knows, was an ardent Mori-
lanist. For he had often times been married, a thing held impious by Monta-
nus, and. in the exercise of his profession, had disregarded the rigid rules laid
down by this preceptor. Prcclerea, says Tcrtullian, cap. i. p. 2G5, pingil illi-
cile, nuhit assidue; legem Dei inlibidinem dcfcndil, in arlcm conlemnit. . . . lolus
adulter el prccdicalionis el carnis. Siquidem et nubenlium conlagio foelel.
(2) Hermogenes was not led to deny that matter had been created out of
nothing by the all-powerful will of the Deity, in consequence of a belief that
the thing was altogether impossible, but from his taking it for granted that mat-
ter was the sole fountain of every thing vicious and evil. — For he is brought for-
ward by TerluUian, at the commencement of his book, as arguing after the fol-
lowing manner: If God made matter, he made it either of himself, or out of
nothing. Either of these suppositions is absurd. If God made matter of him-
self, he could not have been a simple, indivisible, immutable being.— If he cre-
ated it out of nothing, he could not have been good, or superlatively excellent.
For matter is intrinsically vicious and corrupt. Proinde, (we give Tertullian's
very words,) ex nikilo non poluisse enmfacere, (i. e. matter,) sic conlcndit, bomim
et oplimum dejiniens dominum, qui bona atque optima tani vclilfacerc quam sit.
Hisconclusion, therefore, was, that no allenialive was left us but to believe, that
matter was coeval with the Deily, having existed together with him from all
eternity. From this mode of reasoning, it is manifest that Hermogenes con-
sidered the production of matter as, to use the language of philosophers, physi-
cally possible, but as every way unworthy of the Deity, and therefore morally
impossible, and that this his opinion was founded on the persuasion, that matter
was the seat and origin of every thing evil. — Since the error, then, of Hermo-
genes, respecting the fabrication of the world from eternal matter, proceeded
entirely from this opinion respecting the origin of evil, TerluUian ought to have
made the cause or origin of evil tlie chief ground of his contention with him,
and to have shown that evil was derived, not from matter, but from other
sources. Thisbeinn- once proved, the erroneous notion of Hermogenes respect-
522 Century IL— -Section 70.
ing- the creation of the world must of necessity have fallen to the ground. But
omitting every thing of this sort, Tertullian at once commences a furious attack
on the dogma of his adversary respecting the eternity of matter; that is, he
passes over in silence the root and principle of the error, and contents himself
with attacking merely a consectary deducible from it. — To this observation, we
may add another no less necessary to the right understanding of the doctrine of
Hermogenes. Although he considered matter us coeval with the Deity, he
nevertheless maintained that the Deity had from all eternity ruled over it, and
held it in subjection, a circumstance which renders his opinion much more
[p. 434.] tolerable than that of certain others, who either assigned to matter,
which they believed to be eternal, a peculiar ruler distinct from the Deity, or
else contended that, before the foundation of the world, the Deity and matter
had no connection whatever. — That the opinion of Hermogenes was really such
as I here state it to have been, is placed out of all dispute by one of the argu-
ments which he brings forward in proof of the eternity of matter. The argu-
ment I allude to is this : God hath been Lord from all eternity ; therefore, from
all eternity there must have existed matter subject to his dominion. But let us
hear the exposition which Tertullian himself gives us of this argument, cap. iii.
p. 866 : Adjicit et aliud. Deum semper Deum etiam Dominum fuisse, numquam
non Deum. Nullo porro modo potuisse ilium semper Dominum haberi, sicut et
semper Deum, si nonfuisset aliquid retro semper, cujus semper Dominus habere-
iur : fuisse ilaque materiam semper Deo Domino.
(3) It is certain, from what is said by Tertullian in his book de Anima, cap.
i. and other testimonies, that Hermogenes did not attribute a more noble origin
to men's souls than to their bodies. No doubt, he might conceive that matter
of a more subtile kind was used by the Deity in the formation of souls, but still
he did not deny them to have been composed of matter. And to me the reason
easily suggests itself, why Hermogenes should have thought thus. Perceiving
that souls were subject to depraved propensities and appetites, and, at the same
time, being fully persuaded that every thing evil and vicious was generated of
matter, and had its residence in matter, he could not but conclude that the souls
of men, no less than their bodies, were framed or composed of matter. Whether
he entertained the same opinion respecting the good angels, is not to be known
at this day. But that he conceived the evil angels, together with their
leader or chief, to have been formed out of matter, and that they would, at a
future day, again be resolved into matter, is recorded by Theodoret, Pabular.
Hccret. lib. 1. cap. xix. p. 207. torn. iv. opp. In what way he contrived to re-
concile these principles with the tenets of the Christians at large, respecting the
immortality of the soul, the angels, and other things, it might possibly be in our
power to ascertain, were we in possession of the book written against him by
Tertu.'lian, de Censu Animce.
(4) Tertullian, although he was most intimately acquainted with the tenets
of Hermogenes, and regarded him with an implacable hatred, yet never once
accuses him of entertaining any other errors than those above noticed respect-
ing matter, the creation of the world, and the nature of souls. What is of still
greater importance, this vehement writer acknowledges, in express terms, that
Controversy ahout Easter. 523
the dogma of his adversary respecting Christ, the corner-stone of all religion,
was sound and orthodox. Christum, says he, cap. i. p. 265, Dominum mm aiium,
videiur aliter cognosccre (that is, he appears to entertain a belief respecting Christ
similar to that of other Christians) alium tamen facit, quern aliter cognoscit; (i. e.
what he professes respecting Christ, however, in words, he enervates and ren-
ders of no avail by his opinions,) immo totum quod est Deus aufert, nolens ilium
ex nihilo universa fecisse. A Christianis enim conversus ad philosophos, ....
sumpsit a stoicis materiam cum Domino ponere, qucc ipsa sejnper fuerit, neque
imta, neque facta, nee initium habens omnino, necjinem, ex qua Dominus omnia
postea feccrit. These charges, in fact, although most invidiously [p. 435.]
brought forward, instead of criminating the person against whom they are ad-
duced, serve clearly to demonstrate his innocence. And I, therefore, cannot
agree with those of the learned who suppose that Hermogenes, whom Clement
of Alexandria, in his Ecloga: Propheticcc, \ Ivi. p. 1002, reports to have taught
that Christ deposited his body in the sun, was one and the same with the pain-
ter of whom we have been treating, who contended for the eternity of matter,
although, in support of this their opinion, they mny urge the authority of Theo-
doret. That Hermogenes also, against whom Thcophilus of Antioch, and Ori-
gen, are stated by Theodoret to have written, I take to have been a different
man from him to whom our attention has been directed. Possibly amongst
the Valentinians, or some others of the Gnostics, there might have been a man
of this name that attained to some degree of celebrity, in consequence of his
broaching certain new opinions.
LXXI. Controversy respecting the Pascal observances. In addi-
tion to these numerous and great disputes, involving the very
essentials of religion, there arose towards the close of this cen-
tury, between the Christians of Asia Minor and those of other
parts, particularly such as were of the Eoman church, a violent
contention respecting a matter that related merely to the form of
religion or divine worship ; a thing, in itself, truly of light mo-
ment, but in the opinion of the disputants, of very great impor-
tance. The affair was this. The Asiatic Christians were accus-
tomed to celebrate their passover, that is the Pascal feast which
it was, at this time, usual with the Christians to observe in com-
memoration of the institution of the Lord's Supper and tlie sub-
sequent death of the Redeemer, on the fourteenth day of the first
Jewish month; that is to say, at the same time when the Jeics ate
their Pascal lamb ; occasioning thereby an interruption in the fast
of the great week. This custom they stated themselves to have
derived from the apostles Philip and John^ as well as from many
other characters of the very first eminence. But the rest of the
Christians^ as well in Asia as in Europe and Africa, deemed it
524 Century II. — Section 71.
irreligious to terminate the fast of tlie great week before tlie day
devoted to the commemoration of our Saviour's return to life,
and therefore deferred the celebration of their passover, or pascal
feast, until the night immediately preceding the anniversary of
Christ's resurrection from the dead. And for their acting thus,
the Roman Christians^ in particular, alleged the authority of the
apostles Paul and Peter. — This difference gave birth to another
of still greater moment. For as the Asiatic Christians always
commemorated our Lord's return to life on the third day after
their partaking of the Pascal supper, it was a circumstance liable
to occur, and the which, no doubt, frequently did occur, that they
kept the anniversary of Christ's resurrection^ which afterwards
acquired, and continues still to retain the denomination of Pascha
or Easter^ on a different day from the first day of the week, or
[p. 436.] that which is commonly termed Sunday ; whereas the
other Christians, as well those of the East as of the West, made
it a rule to hold their annual celebration of our blessed Saviour's
triumph over the grave on no other day than that on which it
actually occurred, namely, on 1\\q first day of the week.(^)
(1) Ancient writers, at the head of whom we may place Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxiii. are very negligent and obscure in the accounts they
give us of the nature and causes of this great controversy respecting the time
of keeping Easter, which had nearly been productive of a most deplorable
schism. Hence the whole class of more recent authors, who have treated of
the subject, and none more than those who, in estimating the force and meaning
of ancient terms, have permitted themselves to be led away by modern notions,
and are not over-burthened with information, as to the manners and customs of
early times, have, in their explanation of it, fallen into various errors, and been
by no means happy in unfolding the true grounds of the dispute. — The common
opinion is, that the Asiatic Christians were reprehended by the rest for cele-
brating the anniversary of our Lord's resurrection at the same time that the
Jews were accustomed to eat their passover. But this is altogether a mistake^
and a. thing with which they are never once reproached by any ancient authors.
And, indeed, to be convinced how little foundation there could be for such an
idea, we need only ask ourselves what, — I will not say reason, but semblance or
shadow of a reason, could possibly have induced these Christians to comme-
morate the resurrection of our Lord at the time of his having beeii put to death ?
Most certain it is, that Christ's return to life did not take place on the fourteenth
day, when the Jews, agreeably to the injunctions of their law, are accustomed
to celebrate their passover, but two days afterwards, at the least, that is to say,
on tile sixteenth, or perhaps even so late as the seventeenth day. Nor were the
Asiatic Christians ignorant of this ; nor did they pretend to deny it. What, then,
Controversy about Easter. 525
could possibly have impelled them to be guilty of such an cn^cgious incon-
gruity, as to determiue tliat the grand annual celebration oi' Christ's resurrection
should be observed on iUc four lee nth day of the month, a day on which they
were well apprised that such resurrection did not take place? There are extant,
moreover, in ah epistle written by Polijcrates, the bishop of Ephesus, in defence
of the Asiatic custom, and which is in part preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles.
lib. V. cap. xxiv. I say, there are extant in this epistle certain passages, from
whicli it is clear that no dispute whatever existed as to the time of celebrating
the anniversary of the resurrection. Polycrales says, that he and the rest of the
Asiatic bishops, in keeping the passover on the fourteenth day of the montii,
conformed themselves to the Gospel, the common rule of faith and religion to
Christians; irH^inrAV t«v i\fxi^±v T«f rsra-a^iTKatJiKaTu; tS itut^a xara tS
^Evayyi\ioVi /u>tS'iv 'ar^tgsxCiiVovTec, dWa Kara ror x.aviva th'c tr<V««C dx.oXi/d'SrTit.
SercariuU (those holy men) diem Paschcc quarta decima lunajuxia emngeliumy
nihil omnino varianies, sed regulani fidei consLanier sequenies. In the sequel Polij'
crates .again appeals to the Holy Scriptures, and, relying on their authority,
concludes his disputation in the words of the apostles. Acts, v. 29. [p. 437.]
*' We ought to obey God rather than men." The Asiatics, therefore, we see,
contended that they conformed to the example of Christ, as propounded in the
Gospel. Nor did their aclvei-saries pretend to deny that the Gospel, and the ex-
ample of Christ, as held forth in the Gospel, were in favour of the Asiatic rule.
What they contended for was, that in things of this sort, there was no necessity
for closely and literally adhering to the rule of the Gospel, or the example of
Christ, as exhibited in the Gospel. If, said they, (as appears from the Ecclesi-
aslical History of Socrates Scholasticus, lib. v. cap. xxii.) the days and months,
when Christ did any particular thing are not, in the least, to be deviated from by
those who would imitate his example, it is necessary that none of those circum-
stances should be omitted, with which his celebration of the passover was ac-
companied ; " it ought, therefore, to be eaten in an upper chamber," &.c. Now,
what are we to gather from all this ? Do we find it stated in the Gospel, that
Christ arose from the dead on the fourteenth day of the month, or that this
was the day set apart for the commemoration of that event ? Did Christ, when
he partook of the paschal supper with his disciples, celebrate the festival of his
resurrection ? Nothing of this kind, as every one well knows, is to bo met with
in our Lord's history. It is plain, then, that what the Asiatics contended for
must have been this, that the day on which they were accustomed to hold their
paschal feast, was the same with that on which it appears from the Gospel that
Christ, whose example it is incumbent on all Christians to follow, celebrated
the passover with his disciples. The dispute, therefore, between them and the
rest of the Christians, had no relation to the day of Christ's resurrection from
the dead, but respected the holding of a paschal supper, similar to that which
was celebrated by Christ with his disciples a short time previous to his cruci-
fixion.— This common error, respecting the feast of Christ's resurrection having
been celebrated by the Asiatic Christians on the same day that the Jews ate
their passover, arose out of a mistaken interpretation of the word Pascha.
Since the time of the Council of Nice this term has, for the most part, been
'^2Q Centunj IL—Section 71.
considered as indicating that day on which our blessed Saviour arose from the
dead, and on which it is usual for ua to commemorate this his triumph over
death and the grave. But by the more early Christians, previous to the Council
of Nice, another meaning was annexed to it, it being made use of by them to
designate the day on which Christ celebrated the passover, and was offered up on
the cross, the true paschal lamb, for the sins of the human race. Of its bearing
tms signification, numerous examples might be adduced, but 1 will content my-
self with merely giving two, by way of convincing those who are but moderately
informed on the subject of Christian antiquities, that I am not without authority
for wliat I thus state. The first I shall take from TertuJUan, the most cele-
brated Latin writer of this century, who, in his book, de Oratione, cap. xiv. p.
155. 0pp. expresses himself in the following terms: Sic el die Paschcc, quo
communis et quasi puhlica jejunii Religio est^ merito deponimus osculum, nihil
curanles de occidlando quod cum omnibus faciamus. Now, who does not per-
ceive that by the word Pascha, we here ought to understand the day on which
the Christians were accustomed to commemorate our blessed Saviour's death ?
For, on this day it was the universal practice, throughout the whole Christian
church, to fast ; whereas, on the anniversary of Christ's resurrection, every kind
[p. 438.] of fasting was inhibited. In another place, viz. in his book de Jejuniis^
cap. xiv. p. 712. Tertullian terms the whole week, which the Christians commonly
styled the great, or the holy week. Pascha. Quamquam vos etiam sabbatum si
quando continuatis, numquam nisi in Pascha, (that is, on the Sabbath of that
week in which the paschal feast is celebrated in commemoration of Christ's
death and sw^enwg^) jejunandum putatis. By other writers, also, we find the
word pascha used in this latter sense. To the example of this very ancient
Latin author, I subjoin that of a Greek writer of much more recent date, namely,
the author of the Chronicon Paschale, edited amongst the Byzantine historians,
by Rader, and Du Cange ; whence, it appears, that even long subsequent to
the Council of Nice, the ancient notion attached to the term Pascha had not
become entirely extinct. This author, at p. 8. of the Parisian edition of his
work, by Du Cange, most clearly applies the term Pascha to a different day
from that whereon the anniversary of Christ's resurrection is kept, and which
we term Pascha, or Easter, and indicates by this word the day dedicated to the
annual commemoration of our blessed Saviour's death. In memory of Christ,
the true paschal lamb, says he, Kut (x.aTdv cviavrdv « rS ^tS tKKKna-ia t«v aj iar
T8 irdtr^a so^TJiv t-rriTiXil, dirXavuig th^So-oc. tm? /cT' tS TT^airy /unvos T«s (riKivus.
Quotannis ecclesia Dei sanctum paschatis festum celebrat, rede observata xiv. pri-
mi 7nensis LuncC. Kat «/ fJ.h iv^i^m u-jth tv vfAe^A x,v^lAx.y\ t«v ayiav
Tiis ix. vixpuv dvaraTicci Xp/r« t'h QtS vfjLwv iofTYiv Hyit. Hac vera (the fourteenth
day of the month) inventa, sequenti Dominica sanctum Christi Dei nostri ex
mortuis resurrectioni festum peragit. Many more passages of a similar kind
might be cited from this chronicle, but I pass them over as unnecessary. I will
add, however, a notable passage from the epistle written by the Emperor Con-
stantine the Great, to the bishops who could not attend the Council of Nice, and
which is preserved by Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. ix. p. 627. The extract
will be found to apply more immediately to the subject before us, and places it
ControvcrRj about Easter. 527
out of a)l dispute, that the controversy l)ot\vecn the Asiatic and other Cliris-
tians, respecting the paschal season, had no reference whatever to the day of
Christ's resurrection, but to that of iiis sufVeriiigs and death, nigi T>ij says the
Emperor, aytrnTaiy^t t3 TTdT^ct. vjuie^'Xi yivcucv^i ^XTwVta's ttTo^f *&/VM yviJiuif
XstXws ex,^lVy £7rl (Miuj M^egtlj irdvrai rtfj airavTa^S IntTtkuv. De Sanclissimo Die
Paschcc qiLum lis exorta esset (this was one and the same controversy witli tiiat
of which we are now treating, for after having hiin dormant, it was renewed at
the time of the Council of Nice, and was linally set at rest by a decree of that
assembly) oplimum facta commimi scntentia (of the Nicene fathers) visum est,
uno eodemquc tempore hunc omnes ubique gentium cdcbrare. In what sense it
was meant that the term Pascha should be understood in this passage, is shortly
after rendered manifest by tiie emperor himself, in the following words:
e^iii yu^ tS tKiivuiv td-iis d-xoCKit^-cvro^ d\ii^-ii i^x rd^n, >iv iii xa/gw t«5 tS ttol^Is
ijUi^'jLs TTi^l tS TTd^ovToe: ipuxd^xfAiv, x.xl cnl T«f /LAiWovras diuivas T«y T»c
tir«T»§»i<7-«a)f T:tt/T>)f o-y^wTrxvi^ac-zv iyyivi(TB-xi. Fas cuim est rcjecta illorum (the
Jews) consueludine, veriore instituto, quod circa diem passionis hactenus tenuimuSy
ejusdcm ohservationis iisum ad futura scccula propagari. By Pascha, therefore,
the subject of their disputation, it is plain, was meant, xV^^a t3 7ro3-»f, the day
of our Lord's passio?i. Not being aware of this ancient signification of the word
Pascha, more recent writers, when they read of the Asiatic Christians [p. 439.]
having been involved in a controversy with those of Rome respecting the pas-
chal feast, were hastily led to persuade themselves that the Asiatic Christians
celebrated the anniversary of Christ's resurrection on the same day on which f he
Jews ate their Passover ; understanding the word PascJia according to its more
recent sense, and never adverting to the possibility of its having, in earlier times,
borne a different one. — The merit of first discovering this, however, does not
properly belong to me. The person who, first of any, as far as my information
reaches, discovered that the common notion in regard to this celebrated contro-
versy respecting the paschal season was erroneous, was that illustrious member
of the order of Jesuits so distinguished for his writings, the father Gabriel Da-
niel. See his Dissertation de la Discipline des quartodecimans pour la Celebration
de la paque, in the third volume of his Recueil de dicers ouvrages Philosophiques^
Theologiques, et Historiques. — Paris, 1724, in 4to. p. 473-50C. The same thing,
if I well remember, is also noticed by Pet. Faydit, in his notes to a sermon
preached on the feast of St. Polycarp.* This error was, moreover, subse-
quently adverted to in a Programma propounded in the University of Cottin-
gen on Easter-day, by that very profound and ingenious scholar Christ oph. Aug.
Neumann, who seems not in the least to have been aware of its having been pre-
viously detected by other people. Whiston, too, in the Memoirs of his Life and
Writings, Lond. 1749, 8vo. torn. ii. p. GUI, complains that no one appeared to be
acquainted with the true grounds and cause of this Paschal controversy, and ac-
knowledges that he himself was for a long time involved in similar ignorance;
but adds, that in his three Tracts, London, 1742, 8vo. he had unfolded the true
* In a subsequent publication, Dr. Mosheim took an opportunity of otntine that \\\^ moniory had
in this instance proved unfaithful, and tiiat, on a re -perusal of Faydit's bof.k, he found himself under
the necessity of retracting the compliment which lie hud iicre |)aid to that wiiitr's pcnctratiou.
528 Century IL—Sectio7i 71.
nature of it from original nuthoritiea. Of these several works, I regret to say
that I have neither just at tliis moment within my reach, except that of Daniel,
who, altiiough he certainly discovers much information and judgment as to se-
veral particuhirs, yet, in regard to many others, has not, as it appears to nje, at-
tained exactly to a true state of the question. I will, therefore, myself make
trial how far it may be possible to place the nature of this very obscure contro-
versy in a just and perspicuous point of view.
(I.) The early Christians retaining, as they did, not a few of the Jewish rites
and ceremonies, were accustomed, after the manner of the Jews, to partake on
a certain day of a Paschal sapper, and eat together a Paschal lamb. This has
been demonstrated from various authorities by lien. Dod'Mell, in his work on the
Use of Frankincense in the Church. At present, I shall not occupy myself in
regularly repeating such demonstration, inasmuch as the truth of the thing will
be rendered apparent by various circumstances, to which it will be necessary for
me to advert in the course of this discussion. This custom maintained its ground
both in the eastern and the western church for many ages. Amongst the Ori-
ental Christians, the Armenians, the Copts, and others, it prevails even at this
day. By the Christians of the West it has been gradually relinquished; some
obvious traces of it, however, are still to be discerned even in Christian Europe.
The principal difference, in fiict, is, that amongst the European Christians the
celebration of this sacred repast, which used formerly to take place in the
churches, or other places of public assembly, is now confined within the walls of
private houses. — This repast the early Christians were accustomed to distinguish
[p. 440.] by the Jewish denomination of Pascha, and, certainly, not without
some show of reason; for,in point of external form, it corresponded very nearly
with the Pascha, or passover of the Jews. The* repast itself was undoubtedly of
Jewish origin, and might, therefore, well continue to be distinguished by the
ancient Jewish appellation. In the causes or reasons for celebrating this re-
past, the Christians and Jews were widely separated from each other.
(II.) The causes or reasons by which the Christians were actuated in the
celebration of this paschal feast are not beyond the reach of discovery. In the
first place, they held themselves bound to follow the example of our blessed Sa-
viour, who, previously to his laying down his life for the salvation of the human
race, celebrated the passover with his disciples, and had thereby, as they
thought, given his sanction to this Jewish rite, and, in a manner, commended
the observance of it to his disciples; secondly, it appeared to them that the re-
membrance of the holy supper, which our blessed Saviour instituted after his
celebration of the passover, might be best preserved in this way. Nor can there
be any doubt but that they closed this their paschal feast with the celebration
of the Lord's supper; lastly, believing, as they did, on the authority of St. Paul,
1 Cor. V. 7, that the Paschal lamb of the Jews was a type or figure of Christ's
being offered up for the sins of mankind, it appeared to them that there could be
no better way of commemorating the Redeemer's sacrifice, and bringing it, as it
were, immediately before their eyes, than by celebrating that figurative repre-
Bentation of it which God himself had prescribed. This idea, moreover, of
Christ's death having been prefigured in the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, and
Controversy about Easter, 529
the fruits of his death by the Paschal feast, being deeply rooted in the minds of
the early Christians, occasioned them, as we have above shown by examples, to
term the day devoted to the commemoration of our Saviour's death the Pas-
chal day.
(III.) The Christians of Asia Minor were accustomed to celebrate this sa-
cred feast, commemorative of the institution of the Lord's supper, and the death
of Jesus Christ, at the same time when the Jews ate their Paschal lamb, namely,
on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month. For, as is clear from
the words of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, which we just above cited from Eu-
sebius, they considered the example of Christ as possessing the force of a laxo ;
and, as is equally manifest, they did not conceive our Saviour to have antici-
pated the passover, as is believed by many at this day, and particularly by tho
Greeks, but that the Paschal lamb was eaten by iiim and his disciples pre-
cisely on the same day on which the Jews, conformably to the directions of the
Mosaic ritual, were ever accustomed to eat theirs. Let us hear, as to this, Epi-
phanius, who, although he is very obscure in his explication of the opinion of
tho Quarta-decimans, as those were termed who celebrated their Paschal feast
at the same time with the Jews, yet intimates perspicuously enough, that the
matter in dispute between them and the other Christians respected the time of
eating the Paschal lamb. In Ha:res. L. Quarla-decim. \ ii. p. 420, he expressei
himself after the following manner: tt^wtov yu^ iv rH Tie-aa^i^ncaiS^iKaTif Td
vda-^A ayaa-iy ^^eiav i^u(ri ro rrfiiCarov \a*ih oto JotuTHj, kui th^hi duro tais
Ttyaa^sa-x.u.iJ'iKd'Dii. - - Ijlv ^'i ^foi itrTrt^av rv^-yi to 7ra.a-yjt. « dyTx Tftro-age^-xat-
/«xdT« tTTjpwa- A (/(;■« 45 liATihlt i\/j.c^as ev t« y)i9ei^. Primum enim si (QuartO'
decimani) Pascha die xiv. celebrant, necesse est ut Agnumjam die decimo [p. 44L]
adducant, atque ad diem decimum quartum (vivum) custodiant. Quod si ad Ves-
peram Pascha fuerit immolalum quod xiv. die illucescente geriiur, sex diesjpjunio
tribuendi sunt. In these words of Epiphanius there are some things which defy
explanation, and Petavius himself, by the Latin translation which he has given
us of them, and which is in part erroneous, and in part imperfect, has tacitly ac-
knowledged that he was unable to comprehend altogether what it was that Epi-
phanius meant to convey. — I will, however, endeavour to separate what is clear
and apparent from what must of necessity remain involved in obscurity. — First,
then, it is manifest that the dispute with the Quarta-decimans was respecting the
Paschal feast and the Paschal lamb, not the day for commemorating the resur-
rection of our blessed Saviour from the dead. For in this passnge the word
Pascha, in the first instance, evidently means the Paschal feast, and, in the se-
cond, the Paschal lamb. Secondly, it is clear that the Quarta-decimans, like the
Jews, ate their Paschal lamb on the fourleentk day of the month. Thirdly, it L<»
apparent that they took home this lamb, in order to its undergoing the requisite
preparation, so early as the tenth day. Fourthly, it is obvious that they kept this
lamb alive until iha fourteenth day. Fifthly, it is plain that they .s/efr thi.^ lamb,
with certain ceremonies, no doubt, on the evening of the fourteenth day.
Whence it follows. Sixthly, that they solemnly /eas/erf on this lamb on the night
following this evening. We shall presently see that the adversaries of the
VOL. I. 34
530 Centurij II. — Section 71.
Quarta-docimans did not disagree with them respecting this swp'per itself, but aa
to the time of celebrating it.
(IV.) By tliis Paschal /t'asu', which tlie Asiatic Christians were accustomed to
celebrate at the same time with the Jews, an interruption took place in that
Btrict and solemn /tes/ which the other Christians made it a rule inviolably to ob-
flcrve tin-oughout the whole of the great or holy wczk. Immediately after the
celebration of this feast, however, it was the practice of the Quarta-decimans to
resume their fasting, and continue it until the day appropriated to the comme-
moration of onr Saviour's reluni to life. The reader will find this recorded by
Epiplianius in Ilccres. Ixx. Audianorum, \ xi. p. 823. The Audians, in their ce-
lebration of the Paschal feast, were accustomed to follow the example of the
Asiatic Christians or Quarta-decimans, and justified their practice by alleging
that, in the Apostolical ConsliUUions, (a work ditft-rent from the one that has
reached our days under that title, and at present considered as irrecoverably
lost,) the Apostles had expressly enjoined that, in celebrating their Paschal rites,
the Christians were to observe the same time with the Jews. Epiplianius labours
hard to deprive them of this argument; and, amongst other things with which
he encounters them, adduces the following passage from the same Constitutions:
Xtyuo-l 01 d'JTOi ' ATToroKoiy ort orav Uiivot ii/u^CiVTaty v/ull! v»sty6VT«j t/Tfg avrdif
yrivd-iiTi) ot; cv rn yijuc^a. tmj b§T«f rov p^g^roy irav^as-av. Kal irav durdi rtv^wcrt
Tu a^v/ua e^iovTti cv 7ru^t<rtVy vy.1ii ivu-^^iia-^i. 7/(/c?n AjDos/oZi (in the Constitu-
tions w^hich ye quote as favouring your practice) prcecipiunt, Dum epidantur
tin (the Jews), vosjejunantes pro illis lugete, quoniam Festo illo die Christum in
Crucem sustulerunt. Cumque illi lugenies azymis et lactucis agrestihus vescentuTy
vos epulamini. The Christians are here enjoined by the Apostles to celebrate
[p. 442.] the passover with the Jews, and thereupon they are told to feast and
rejoice at the time when the Jews were sorrowfully eating their unleavened
bread and bitter herbs, and, on the contrary, to mourn and ftist on the day that
the Jews rejoiced on account of their having put Christ to death. Peiavius, the
erudite translator of Epiphanius, avows himself unabfe to comprehend the mean-
ing of the Apostles in this. But, from what we have observed above, there is
as much light thrown upon this apostolical injunction as is necessary. The
Christians who agreed with the Jews as to the time of celebrating the Passover,
held W'ith joy and gladness their Paschal feast, in commemoration of the insti-
tution of the Lord's supper, on the same night that the Jews fed on bitter herbs
and unleavened bread; but on the following day, when the Jews gave them-
selves up to rejoicing, these Christians returned again to fosting, humiliation,
and tears, inasmuch as it was on that day that their Lord and Master Christ had
been put to death on the cross.
(V.) On the third day following the fourteenth of the month, the Asiatic Chris-
tians always celebrated the anniversary of Christ's resurrection from the dead.
For since, as we are informed by Polycrates, they made it a point to follow as
exactly as possible the example of Christ, and the rule of the Gospel ; and it
appeared, from the testimony of the evangelists, that Christ arose from the dead
on the third day after the Jewish passover, consistency required that they should
fix on this day for the annual commemoration of that glorious event. This
Controversy about Easter. 53l
practice, however, gave rise to another difference between them and other Chris-
tians. For it was the custom with the latter never to keep tiie feast of tlie re-
surrection on any other than the fin^l day of the week, or, as we term it, Sun-
day; whereas the former, we mean the Asiatic Christians, very frequently cele-
brated Christ's triumph over death and the nfrave on one or other of the ordi-
nary week days. Fov, as the fourlecnth day of the month did not always fall on
one and the same day of the week, and they always commemorated our blessed
Saviour's return to life on the third day after the fourteenth, it of course hap-
pened that such commemoration took place with them in one year on a Monday,
in the next, perhaps on a Tuesday, and in a third on a Wednesday, and so on.
When the fourteenth day of the month, for instance, fell on a Tuesday, these
A>iatic Christians kept the feast of the resurrection on the Thursday following;
or, supposing it to fall on a Wednesday, their feast took place on the Friday af-
ter. Hence the Roman prelate Victor, and those \\\\o took part with him, decreed,
a)f av f^ii cTt iv aXXii ttoti TMf xy^iaxHf i\"i^g* to riij ex. vntpoiv uvaidnu/g tnriXotro
t5 Kvoin juv^ii^iov. Kai ot^j'j h raCryi juovyi rwi/ iiark to TlcKT^a vug-tidv pvKXaT-
T3/ut^a Tui i-a-iKOTiii. Ne videlicet ullo alio quam Dominica Die mysterium resur-
rectionis Domini unquam celebretur ; utque eo dunlaxat die Jejuniorum Paschm
terminum observemus. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cnp. xxiii. p. 190. It is
plain, therefore, that the Asiatic Christians must frequently have celebrated The
mystery of the Resurrection of Christ on a different day from Sundny ; for, had
they, in the celebration of this mystery, conformed to the practice of other Chris-
tians, there would have been no necessity for this regulation. In these words
of Eusebius, however, it Ts observable that a clear distinction is made between
the day of the mystery of Christ's resurrection and what is termed [p. 443.]
Pascha, that is, the season devoted to the commemoration of his death and pa?^
sion. In the observance of Pascha, that is, the commemoration of Christ's suf-
ferings and death, the Asiatic Christians, as to time, agreed precisely with the
rest: the only thing in which they ditfered was, that whereas the latter /(/.sVeii
without intermission throughout the whole of the season, the Asiatics indulged
themselves with a temporary relaxation on the fourteenth day. The mystery of
Christ's resurrection, however, was not always celebrated by them on the Sun-
day, as was the uniform practice of all other Christians, but occnsionnlly on
other days of the week, agreeably to what we have above remarked. This dif-
ference was certainly of greater moment, and, to confess the trutli, one less
easily to be endured than the other. For to celebrate the festival of Christ's re-
surrection on a different day of the week from that whereon he actually arose,
must have appeared repugnant not only to the faith of history, but to ancient
custom and Christian decency.
(VI.) The Christians dwelling without the confines of Asia, deemed it irre-
ligious to terminate the Paschal /as^ before the festival of the resurrection ; and,
as altogether unbecoming and disgraceful in Christians, to hold out any osten-
sible connection between tlieir paschal lamb, so widely difToring in its purpose
and design from that of the Jews, and the Jewish passover. 'J'hcy, therefore,
deferred their Paschal feast until the night preceding the festival of our Saviour's
resurrection, and connected the commemoration of the institution of the Lord's
532 Century II. — Section 71.
supper with that of Christ's triumph over death and the grave. Let us hear as
to this Epiphanius, in Hd;res. 1. Quartadecimanorum, \ iii. p. 421, « 05, «a 0*5
»jtKX«crja - - - x£;;^5«Ta£ « ^ovov Ti7(7as^iTKaiS'i)ia'nny dWa Kai tm iQi'ofxdi't - -
ha Kara ra Cwo t5 ku^iu yivofAiva Kara to TT^coroTJTrovy iia ava-racrii rt itai iuu-x^ia.
Ecclesia sancta Dei non solum decimam quarlam diem sed etiam hebdomada
obsermt ul ad eorum exemplar qwx sunt a Domino gesta Resurrectio epulcc-
que celebrentur. And after some intervening remarks, he continues, *£§0;wsv St
i,Tt\ TJiiK ayiav x-v^taicriV to tcXos t'as cry^wTrogw^saj- \auCavofxiV S't to it^oCutov and
J'tKoLTHSi SvofJLa t3 1>itS tniyvovrts ^la to Iwra, iva (/.» Xa3"» «j«aj fXi^Sh Tajy
xaTU Tilt d\y\d'itiiv TTaTav tSc ^anTtKYis tavths t3 iraa-^a tJij t>t.KKh<r tail tens
jr^A-yuATiUf. In sanctum Dominicam religiosissimi iemporis jinem conjicimus :
sed agnum jam turn a decimo die sumimus quoniam in Iota littera Jesu nomen
agnoscimus, ne quid omnino diligentiam nostram ejfugiat, quod ad ecclesiaslicam
salutaris paschcc celebralionejn pcrtinere videatur. Now, we will not spend our
time in endeavoring to dispel the obscurity in which this passage also of Epi-
phanius is involved, but direct our attention merely to such things as stand in
no need of elucidation. In the first place, then, it is to be remarked, that the
adversaries of the Asiatic Christians celebrated a paschal feast just as these
Christians themselves did. Secondly, that they conjoined this feast with the fes-
tival of our Lord's resurrection. Thirdly, that as to this matter they, no less
than the Asiatics, persuaded themselves that they followed the example of
Jesus Christ; but in what way they could possibly have made this appear is not
very easy to comprehend. Fourthly, that by this feast, which they celebrated
in the night preceding the day devoted to the commemoration of our Lord's
resurrection, they closed their paschal season, or that most holy period of time
which was annually set apart for the solemn commemoration of Christ's suffer-
[p, 444.] ings and death. Th'if, feast, therefore, constituted no part of the comme-
moration of the resurrection, but was the grand concluding act of the preceding
paschal season. The night being elapsed, these Christians commenced w^ith
the dawning day their celebration of the anniversary of Christ's triumph over
deatli and the grave. Fifthly, it appears that the paschal lamb, of which they
partook on the night preceding the feast of the resurrection, was selected and
put under a course of preparation on the tenth day of the month ; a circum-
stance corresponding precisely with the practice of the Asiatics. For this Epi-
phanius gives us a far-fetched reason derived from the letter I, which is the first
in the name of Jesus. The Torcc of this reason, however, may be comprehended
without difficulty. The letter Iota was made use of by the Greeks to denote
the number ten. These Christians then, if any faith is to be placed in the
statement given by Epiphanius, reasoned after this manner; the name of Jesus
begins with the letter I ; but the letter I denotes the number ten ; that lamb,
therefore, which is the shadow or emblem of Jesus, who was sacrificed for our
sins, ought to be selected from the flock, and brought to the house of the high
priest on the tenth day. This mode of reasoning was certainly by no means
foreign to the genius or disposition of the early Christians, who, like the Cab-
balist Jews, conceived great mysteries to be involved in certain numbers. I
must confess, however, that I do not believe this to have been the true origin
Termination of this Controvcrsij. 533
of the custom, but ratlw^r suspect Epiplianius 1o liuve followed, in this instance,
merely the suggestions of his own fancy. The lamb thus separated from the
flock on the tenth day, and in a certain degree consecrated, was not immediately
slain, but seems to have been kept alive until the evening next preceding the
feast of the resurrection. Sixthly, it appears that these adversaries of the
Asiatic Christians gave to the whole of the season which they devoted to the
commemoration of Christ's sufferings and death, and more particularly to that
feast with which they concluded it, the denomination of Pascha. This is
manifest from the last words of Epiphanius,
( VII.) These things, then, being duly weighed and ascertained, it is, I think,
plainly to be perceived in what respects the Asiatic Christians or Quarta-deci-
mans differed from the rest. Their disagreement was not, as the learned father
Daniel imagined, respecting the proper season or day for commemorating
Christ's death: for it was no less the practice of the Christians in general than
of the Asiatics to consider as peculiarly solemn and sacred, that day on which
Christ made atonement by his death for the sins of the human race : and even
as to the very day itself, no difference of opinion whatever existed between them
and the Asiatics; Ta§ar»§«,ujS-a, says Epiphanius, Hccres. L. i. { iii. p. 421.
fxiv r»v TfTs- a^iTKai^maTiiv. El 710S quartam illam d€ci7na7n dicm (whk'h h held
sacred by the Quarta-decimans) religiose seriamus. Neither did the time for cele-
brating the feast of our Lord's resurrection constitute the principal or leading
point in dispute between them, but the time for holding the paschal supper. The
dispute, in fact, embraced the three following questions : First, whether it was
proper to begin the day devoted to the commemoration of Christ's sufferings and
dejitli with the paschal supper, and thereby break in upon the sacred and solemn
fast of the day ? The Christians of Asia Minor asserted the propriety of this usage,
the other Christians denied it. Secondly, whether it was becoming, in the disci-
ples and followers of Christ, to eat their paschal lamb at the same time when the
J(27/7S, his most inveterate and rancorous enemies, ate theirs ? The Asiatic Christians
contended that it was; the other Christians that it was not. Thirdly, [p. 445.]
whether it was proper to celebrate the feast of our blessed Saviour's resurrection
always on the third day after the fourteenth day of the month on which he was
put to death ? The Asiatic Christians maintained that it was ; the others, that
it was not; these latter insisting that as it was on ihc first day of the week that
Christ actually arose from the dead, no other day than this ought to be appro-
priated to the commemoration of that stupendous and unparalleled event.
LXXII. Termination of the Pascal Controversy. In tlic COUrse
of this century attempts were not unfrequently made to put
an end to this dissension, which was found by sad experience
to yield repeated occasion for unchristian-hkc wranglings and the
most intricate and accrimonious disputes.(') Under the reign pf
Antoninus Pius^ in particuLar, about the middle of this century, a
serious discussion of the allair took place at Eome between Ani-
cetusj the bishop of that city, and Polycarp^ the celebrated bishop
534 Century Il.—Sittion 72.
of Smyrna.f') But by no arguments whatever could the Chris-
tians of Asia be prevailed on to abandon their practice, which
they considered as having been handed down to them by the
apostle St. Jolin. Impatient, therefore, of their pertinacity, it
was towards the close of this century determined by Victor,
bishop of Rome, that these Asiatics should be dealt with after a
more peremptory manner, and be compelled by certain laws and
decrees to conform themselves to the rule observed by the great-
est part of the Christian community. In this resolution he was
supported by the voice of several councils that were called togeth-
er in various provinces on the subject; and under the cover of
their sanction, he addressed to the Asiatic bishops an imperious
epistle, admonishing them no longer to persist in differing from
other Christians as to their 23ascal observances.(^) Finding, how-
ever, that they were not in this way to be moved, but that they
boldly addressed letters to the Eoman church by Polycrates^
bishop of Ephesus, in justification of their ancient practice, Vic-
tor proceeded to the further length of excluding them from his
communion, or, in other words, he pronounced them altogether
unworthy of being any longer considered by him and his church
in the light of brethren. Q This imprudent step might have
been productive of the most serious detriment to the interests of
Christianity, had not Irenceus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, interfered,
and, although differing himself in ojDinion from the Asiatics,
written letters to the bishop of Rome and the other prelates,
pointing out, in the most forcible terms, the injustice of depriv-
ing of their rights, and pronouncing unworthy of the name of
Christians, brethren, whose sentiments, with regard to religion
itself, were strictly correct, and against whom no other matter
of offence could be alleged than a diversity as to certain external
rites and observances. The Asiatics also, in a long epistle which
they circulated throughout the Christian world, took care to re-
move from themselves every suspicion of an attempt to corrupt
the Catholic religion. A sort of compromise^ therefore, took place
with regard to those ritual differences, each party retaining its
own peculiar opinions and usages, until the holding of the coun-
cil of Nice, in the fourth century, when the custom of the Asi-
atics was altogether abolished.
Ten)i'cnatio7i of this Controversy, 535
(1) The reader mny consult as to this Epiplianiun in ILcres. Audla- [p. 446.]
norumy Ixx. 5 ix. p. 821.
(2) See EnsebiiiM, His/or. Erclrs. lib. iv. cap. xiv. p. 127, and lib. v. cap. xxiv.
p. 193. In fact, it is to this author that wo are indebted for nearly the wliole of
what is here rehited.
(3) Pulycra!es, in his Epistle to the Roman church, apiid Euseb. Hist. Ec
Cles. lib. V. cap. xxiv. p. 192, says, « Trru^ofA^t tirl roli xara7rX«TO-o^6VS/j. A'i7u7
moveor iis qua; nobis ad forinidinem intciUanlur. The-e words plainly prove that
Victor did not pursue u moderate and amicable course with his Asiatic brethren,
but had recourse to threats, and wished to have impressed their minds with fear.
(4) Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 192, s:jys, BiAra-g d^^octi tas
Aa-tai nua-Hi aixa Tais o</5ga<f UKMi<riats rai ra^ouia; d-roTifJi.iuv wf tTi^Uo'^H-rat
T«j X5/K«c ii/6<riaiii TTU^dTai, Koi suhtrfjn yt S'la y^a/JtfJtdrcov duoivcovKrus upS'hv
vdvra; Ths UiiTf dvatcn^CTTuv dhhpis. Of these words Valesius gives us the
following translation : Viclor omnis Asicc vicinarumque Proiinciarum EcclesiaSy
tamquam contraria rectcc Fidei ssniientes, a Communione abscindere canal ur, da-
tisquc lilleris iiniiersos qui illic erant fratres proscribit, el ab un'Uale ecclesicc
prorsus alicnos esse jrrommtial. From the word 7rtt^ara.i, Mhich Eusebius
makes use of, this learned writer thought himself justified in concludino- that
Viclor did not in reality exclude the Asiatics from all communion with the faith-
ful, but merely unshed, or attempted so to exclude them, and that this his at-
tempt was frustrated by the interference of Irenccus. This interpretation is ap-
proved of by many of the friends to the papacy, who seem to imagine that the
temerity of Viclor is thereby somewhat extenuated. Olhers would contend that
at least this much must be granted them, that the words of Eusebius are am-
biguous, and that we are consequently left in a state of obscurity, as to whether
Victor aclualhj excommunicated the Asiatics, or merely wished and endeavoured
to have them excommunicated. By the greater part, however, not onlv of Pro-
testant, but Roman Catholic writers, it h:is long been considered, that what is
subsequently said by Eusebius of Victor's having, by letters, excluded the Asi-
atics from his communion, relieves his preceding words from every sort of ob-
scurity, and makes it apparent, that the Roman prelate did not content himself
with merely willing the thing, but actually carried his threats into execution.
But to me it appears, that even these, although their ideas on the subject are
more correct than those of Valesius and his followers, have not exactly caught
the meaning of Eusebius. The historian, unless I am altogether deceived, is
speaking of two designs which Viclor had in view, the one of which was merely
conceived, the other carried into effect. Victor both wished and endeavoured to
bring about the expulsion of the Asiatics from all communion with the Catholic
church, as corrupters of the true religion; but in this he failed of success: for
the other bishops would neither conform themselves to his will, nor imitate hia
example. What, therefore, he could accomplish without the concurrence of the
other bishops, that he did; that is to say, he by letter expelled the Asiatics from
all communion with the church of Rome, over which he presided. The latter
words of Eusebius are badly rendered by Valesius, and through this faulty
536 Century II. — Section 72.
translation, support has been afforded to a common error in regard to what
was done by Victor on this occasion, to which I shall presently advert. The
[p. 447.] Greek words, dvanH^vTTojv dK.o/va)v«T*j are rendered into Latin by
Valesius thus, ab unilale ecclesicc prorsus alienos esse pronuniiat. But this
by no means corresponds with the Greek original, in which nothing whatever
is said of alienation, ab unilate ecclesicc. The translation ought to have ran,
a communione succ alienos pronuntiabat. The words of this eminent schohir,
however, are strictly in unison with the common opinion of both Roman
Catholics and Protestants, who are all unanimous in considering Victor as hav-
ing, by his letters, deprived the Asiatic brethren of every sort of communion
with the whole Christian church ; in fact, as having on this occasion asserted
the same powers with regard to excommunication, as were exercised by his
successors posterior to the age of Charlemagne. The Protestants, in particular,
call upon us to mark in this case the first specimen of the arrogant and domi-
neering spirit of the bishop of Rome, the first example of anti-christian excom-
munication. But these worthy men laboured under an error, and formed their
judgment of a matter of antiquity from the practice of more recent times. In
the age in which Victor lived, the power of the bishop of Rome had not attained
to such an height as to enable him to cut off from communion with the church
at large all those of whose opinions or practices he might see reason to disap-
prove. The very history of the Paschal controversy now before us, places this
out of all dispute. For, had the bishop of Rome possessed the right and power
of cutting off whom he pleased from all communion with the church at large,
neither Irenccus nor the rest of the bishops would have dared to oppose his \\ill,
but must have bowed with submission to whatever he might have thought pro-
per to determine. Every bishop, however, possessed the power of excluding all
such as he might consider to be the advocates of grievous errors, or as the cor-
rupters of religion, from all communion with himself and the church over which
he presided, or, in other words, he might declare them unworthy of being consi-
dered any longer as brethren. This power, indeed, is possessed by the teachers
of the church even at this day. Victor, then, exercised this common right with
which every bishop was invested, and by letters made known to the other
churches that he had excluded the Christians of Asia Minor, on account of their
pertinacity in defending their ancient practice, from all communion with himself
and the church of Rome, expecting, in all probability, that the other bishops
might be induced to follow his example, and, in like manner, renounce all con-
nection with these Asiatics. But in this he was deceived: aXX' » rraa-i yt
Toli zTnan'oTTciz tal/t' »\iTKi'ro, says Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap.
xxiv. p. 192, Verum non omnibus hicc placebant Episcopis. The rest of the
bishops declined following the example of the Roman prelate in a line of con-
duct so very dangerous and imprudent. There can be no doubt, however, but
that they would have followed his example, indeed, whether willing or not, they
must have followed it, if in this age the doors of the church might have been
closed against men by the mere icill of the Roman bishop. The conduct of
Victor, therefore, on this occasion, although distinguished by temerity and im-
Termination of this Controversy. 537
prudence, does yet not wear so dark an aspect as is commonly imagined, neiliier
could it have been attended with consequences of such extensive importance as
those would have us believe who iiold it up as the first abuse of excommunica-
tion. The fact is, that they who treat the matter in this way are guilty of an
abuse with regard to the term excommimicaLion. Victor did not (according to
the sense in which the term is at present understood) e.xcommuaicaie the Asia-
tics, but merely declared that he, and the members of the church over wliii-h he
presided, must cease to consider them in the light of brethren until t'.iey s.'iould
consent to renounce their objectionable practices.
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
No. of p.iges of Text, .... 529
No. of pages of Prefaces, Content?, &c., 32
No. of pages in Volume, ... 561
— V-
DATE DUE
imH ^ *J "If
^^'
^^^^
f^
GAYLORD
PRINTED IN U.S.*
, i :•(
1 1012 00015 9345
r, !'!{
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11