HISTORICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE STATE OF CHRISTIANITY DURING THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA: BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE COMMENTARIES ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHRISTIANS BEFORE TIIE TIME OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT," BY JOHN LAURENCE VON MOSHEIM, D. D. LATE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTENGEN. VOL. I. VOLUME L TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, BY ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, EsQ. F.S.A. VOLUME II. TRANSLATED, AND BOTH VOLUMES EDITED, BY JAMES MURDOCK, D. D. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE. 1854. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, By JAMrES MIURDOCK, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut District. D. FANSHAW, Printer and Stereotyper, 35 Ann, corner of Nassau-street, ADVERTISEMENT BY THE EDITOR. This first volume of Dr. Mosheim's Historical Commentaries is a reprint of Robert Studley Vidal's translation, published in London, 1813, in two small volumes 8vo. The Editor has aimed to give Vidal'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 Vidal's general Table of Contents,' 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 translated by Vidal, will render it similar in form to the subsequent volume translated by the Editor. J. MURDOCK NEw-HAVEN, May 1st, 1851. PREFACE 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 historical principles, of all the obscure and difficult points in this portion 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, constituting 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 import 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 advances of human knowledge, they have undoubtedly detected some errors of judgment in our author, and have cast some additional 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 exceeds ii EDITOR S PREFACE. ingly 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 1813 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. Vidal's translation is very faithful and true: but it has a fault not uncommon with the English writers; that of a too great fulness 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 Vidal's translation; while, in the second volume, 542 pages of Latin make only 487 pages in our translation; that is, he expands the same amount of Latin into four pages, as we express adequately and fully in about three pages.Vidal 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 lHuidekoper, of Meadville, Pennsylvania, who has most liberally patronised the work. At first it was proposed to translate only that large portion of the original which Vidal had left untouched. But, it being found advisable to issue the work in two volumes, the first embracing the first and second centuries, and the second including the third and fourth, it was deemed advisable to re-translate ,DI TO R S PREF ACE it that minor part of the third century, which Vidal had translated 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 commentaries of Mosheim just as they are; with no enlargement, abridgement, or alteration, He has not gone into a re-examination of the topics discussed, or attempted to improve the original work, by adding to it the results of more recent investigations; 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 improvements 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 require 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 diverging 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 Mosheim's Commentaries are here given to the public, with no modifications except the translation 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 who have ventured to differ from him, on certain obscure and dubious points in the early history of the church. iv, EDITOR'S PREFACE. The copious Tables of Contents which Vidal prefixed to his small volumes, have been combined, abridged, and prefixed to the first volume; and a similar table has been composed for the second volume. The Tables, it is believed, constitute an important 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, throughout both volumes; and a Table of the coincidences of that paging 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 world, although it may fail to repair materially his pecuniary misfortunes, as well as to remunerate adequately the editor and translator. JAMES MURDOCOK New-IHaven, lMay, 1851. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. THE work whihh 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 affairs, 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 P'REVFACE. 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 compass on such topics as had been sufficiently treated of by others, and at the same time, giving a more copious and satisfactory discussion of those matters which a long course of study and atteno tion had rendered more particularly familiar to me, and respecting which I had obtained a precise and accurate knowledge. I mentioned this idea to the person above spoken of, who had submitted 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 was 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 forming a work of itself,) may be productive of the wished-for beneficial effects. If the Supreme Disposer of human affairs prolong my days, and grant me a continuance of my health and faculties, the others will follow in regular succession. Indeed the next, consisting of Commentaries on the affairs of the Christians under the family of Constantine, may be expected within a very short period: 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 rItEPr CcE. Vii contain several things in common with theirs; but notwithstanding 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 century under certain general titles. Each of these modes has its advantages: the latter, however, is attended with this inconvenience, that it frequently separates things the most closely connected; and by thus interrupting the chain of history, renders it difficult for the reader to trace the progress of events from their beginning to their close, or to connect some of the great revolutions and changes with the causes which produced them. My object, therefore, has been to unite, as far as possible, the advantages 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 arrangement, 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 PRE F ACE. authority with the public, and stamped a celebrity of character on their works; but, at the same time it has been my care to follow none of them without consulting, and, as far as I was able, examining with attention and assiduity the original sources themselves 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, subjoined 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 Christian 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 respecting 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 history like the present, of the practical species, or that which PR EFACE. applies itself to the immediate and most important purposes of life; although, in another place, the consideration of them might probably be productive both of pleasure and utility. 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, consistently with the plan of these Commentaries, entirely pass over the first century, since it was my design that they should comprehend 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 abovementioned enlarged Elementary HEistory 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, confining my account of the transactions of the first century within X PREFACE. much narrower limits than I had prescribed to myself in my former 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 are 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 work 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 unknown be brought to light; their due weight be given to any circumstances hitherto passed over without proper attention; any points, hitherto but imperfectly supported 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 feelings to leave these things to be noticed by the intelligent reader in the course of his progress, than for me to anticipate his discernment, by pointing them out in this place. Gottingen, 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 judicious 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 with which he applied them to the elucidation of this department of literature, his merit is alike conspicuous, and can never be too highly appreciated or extolled. Amongst other works of acknowledged ingenuity and erudition, which he published on this interesting and important subject, the one which we now venture to submit to the pub-. lie, 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 Xii TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. course of study to which it is well known that Dr. Mosheim devoted himself, for the purpose of illustrating the history of Christianity, 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 comprehensive 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 translation 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. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xiii 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 understanding of the genuine, unsophisticated principles of the Christian 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 " Elements 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, as 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-respected 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 favouring 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 paper the observations which occurred to me in the perusal of it. I have since Xiv TRANSLATOR' S PREFACE. in some measure, the sphere of its utility through the medium of an English translation, would at least be viewed with indulgence, and might possibly be rewarded with approbation by a liberal. and enlightened Public.-It may, however, farther be observed, that the Book had become exceedingly scarce, insomuch 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, throughout the whole WVork, 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 his 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.-sHe has endeavoured, indeed, to render it as perfect as he was able, but he is not so much the dupe of vain conctit as to imagine that it will be found altogether free from inaccuracies, or unblemished by mistakes. There is a proper confidence, however, which belongs to very frequently consulted it. There can be no doubt of its being a workl of profound and extensive erudition, arnd 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 possessors of that work, as if that work had never been written.-I think 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 Maclaine's of the General History." TRANSLAT OR S P.REFA E. 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 jast limits of that confidence, for him to express a hope that his labours will not be pronounced either discreditable to himself or injurious to the reputation of that illustrious author, to whom it has been throughout his most anxious wish and intention to do justice. ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Nov. l1th, 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 conelusion of the work; when, should the public appear disposed to regard his 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, accompanied 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, perhaps, be thought to savour somewhat of presumption; but he trusts that he shall not incur the imputation of arrogance, by:ldding, that there is one other undertaking, in the way of translation, to whici, 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 Cudworth's Intellectual System of the Universe. Testimonials prefixed to Vidal's Third Vol. printed A. D. 1837. "Whether the Theologian or the general scholar be employed in ascertaining the nature of Christianity, including both doctrine and discipline, it is of xvi TRANSLATOR' S PREFACE. tile greatest moment to investigate the state and condition of the Christian church, previously to its union with the civil power, or its patronage by the emperors of the world. The period, therefore, which the history now before us embraces, ought to be minutely investigated; and we are surprised that the work of Mosheim, entitled De Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum lMIagnum, and which especially details the epoch in question, was not long ago translated. At last this desideratum is supplied, and we congratulate the public on the execution of the task. —To the excellence, indeed, of the performance, 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 acknowledging 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 advantage. That learned person aclinowledges 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 faithfully 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. It Page. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE,... V THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE,.... Xi INTRODUCTION,...... 9-81 CIAPTER 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,......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 religious 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 n. (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 religions affected by clinlate, &c. 23 20. They did not promote virtue and moral piety,. 24 n. (3) Jul. Ccesar 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 n. (1) Warburton's charge, that all were Atheists, &c. disallowed,. 28 24. Two modes of philosophising prevailed,...... 30 n. (2) Meaning of the term Av5r-s,. 31 n. (3) St. Paul's warning against Gnosticism,. 32 25. The Greek philosophic sects.-The Epicureans, 33 n. (1) Brucker's Historia Philosophiae commended, o 34 26 The Academics,... e 34 :Xvli CONTENTS OF VOL. I. Page. 27. The Peripatetics,.... 35 28. The Stoicss... o 36 29. The Platonists..... 37 30. The Eclectics, ~........ 38 n. (1) Philo Judaeus an Eclectic,.. 39 n. (2) Probably also the Theoretics of Justin 3Martyr, 39 31. The Oriental philosophers,.......,. 40 32. They were divided into sects, 41 33. Yet common notions respecting God prevailed among them all,... 42 n. (1) Meaning of the term'Aiv.... 43 34 Their ideas of matter, the world, the soul, &c.. o 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 wohen 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 n. (1) Why the Essenes are not mentioned in the New Testament, 59 n. (3) The sect of Hemerobaptists considered,... 59 10. Agreements and differences among their larger sects,.... 62 11. The Pharisees,......... 63 12. The Sadducees,.... 64 n. (1) Josephus' iccount of them. Their real character, 65 13. Division of the Essenes,.. 68 14. The Practical Essenes,....... 69 a1. (1) Philo and Joseph-us reconciled. A passage in Porphyry,. 70 15. The Theoretical Essenes or Therapeutae. Their feats and dances,. 73 n. (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,... 78 19. The Samaritans,.......... 79 n. (2.) They expected a Messiah,. 79 20. State of the Jews out of Palestine,.......80 Ecclesiastical tlistory of the first century,. 83-258 1. The birth of Christ,........... 83 n. (1) The exact time unknown even to the early Christians,. 84 CONTENTS OF VOL. L Xix Page. 2. The infancy and youth of Christ,.. 84 nb (1) Did he labor as a carpenter?. 84 3. John the. precursor of Christ,... 86 4. The life and miracles of Christ,... 87 5. He partially seceded from the Jewish church,......88 n. (2) The point argued; and the proof from his baptism considered, 89 6. His election of Apostles,. 90 n. (1) Import and use of the word Apostle,. 91 7. His sevelty disciples,.... 94 8. Fame of Christ out of Judea, ~.. 95 n, (2) His correspondence with.bgaers,...... 95 9. The fruits of Christ's ministry,.. 96 10. Christ's death, which was voluntary...... 97 i1. His resurrection and ascension,.... 98 n. (1) Why he appeared only to his disciples,... 99 12. Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles,.. 100 n. (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. Election of the utew Apostle AIatthias,. 102 n. (1) Mode of this election,.... 103 15. Conversien of St. Paul,... 105 16. Labors and martyrdom of the Apostles,... 106 n. (1) Did all suffer martyrdom7?. 106 17. The churches founded by the Apostles,....... 109 nL. (3) Vanity of modern churches in claiming an Apostolic origin,. 110 18. The writings of the Apostles,.... 113 n. (2) Their authority, and the time of their collection, 114 19. The Apostle's Creed,.... 114 20. Causes of the progress of Christianity,. 115 n. (1) False causes assigned,. 116 21. The first Christians generally of low condition,... 117 n. (1) Yet some had opulence, rank, and learning,. 118 es. (2) Superstitiol always hard to be eradicated,. 118 22. Christ respected by the Gentiles,.... 119 n. (1) Pictures of him. Tiberius said to honor him, 119 23. The Jews the first persecutors of Christians,. 9. 120 n. (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 n. (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 m (2) Disputes on this subject; how settled,. O.. 137 X:X CONTENTS OF VOL. I. Page. 34 The persecution under Nero,... o 138 35 Extent of this persecution,. 139 n. (1) Its confinement to Rome, not proved,. 140 36. The persecution under Domitian,... 142 n. (1) Its probable origin political,. 143 n. (2) Conjecture respecting John's being cast into boiling oil,. 144 n. (4) Dornitian examined Christ's relatives.... 144 37, Constitution of the church of Jerusalem,. 145 n. (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 n. (1) They were not mere expounders of Scripture,.. 166 n. (2) Seminaries for educating ministers,.. 167 41. The origin of Bishops,..... 168 n. (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 n. (1) Their origin discussed,. 177 45. The organization of churches. The people,... 179 n. (1) The Clergy and Laity early distinguished,.. 181 n. (2) The Faithful and Catechumens not distinguished for a time, 181 n. (4) Provision for the poor of the church,..182 n. (5) Excommunication a reasonable thing,...183 46. The teachers and ministers,. 184 47. Order of proceeding in tleir assemblies,..... 185 n. (1) Pliny's account of it. Why called prava and immoedica superstitio, 186 n. (2) All persons not allowed to teach at their pleasure,. 194 48. All the primitive churches independent,... 196 n. (1) Churches founded by Apostles respected and revered,. 197 n.(2) No ecclesiastical councils. Churches had different tenets and regulaiions, e. 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,.. 205 53. Polycarp and Barnabas,...207 54. Hermas,....... 208 n. (1) EIe was probably the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, 209 n. (2) The writer a deliberate imposter,. 212 55. Origin of controversies in the church,.214 56. T'he first controversy respected the Law of Moses,. 215 n. (1) The meeting about it at Jerusalem, not a council. F. Paul Sarpi and J. H. Boehmer refuted.. 216 57. Progress of this controversy,.... 218 58. It produced a schism,..... 219 n. (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, Phygellus, Demas, and Diotrephes, not heretics, 222 Case of Diotrephes examined,.223 Case of Hymenaeus stated,.. 226 60.b The Gnostic heretics,. 228 n. (3) Rise of the first Gnostic sects,.229 61, 62. Nature of the Gnostic discipline,..... 230, 231 nt. (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 him,..242 67. The tenets of Simon,. 246 68. Menander,...248 69. The Nicolaitans,.. 249 n. (3) The Nicolaitans of Rev. 2: 6, not, probably, the Nicolaitans of Clement Alex..249 70. Cerinthus,.. 250 n. (2) A full account of him,. 253 Ecclesiastical History of the second century,.. 259-537 1. Extensive propagation of Christianity,..... 259 n. (1) Statements of the early Fathers examined, 259 2. Mission of Pantaenus to India,. 261 n. (1) He went, probably, to the Jews in Arabia Felix, 262 3. O(rigin of the Gallic, German, and Anglican churches,. 264 n. (1; Opinions concerning the Gallic churches examined,. 264 XiXi CONTEi NTS OF VOL.T L Page nb (2) Gaul and Germany had the same Apostles,.' 268 n. (3) Origin of the British church examined, 269 4. The number of Christians in this age,....... 274 z, (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 sn. (2) The Apologies,...... 2S7 7, Disengenuous means sometimes used,.... 288 n, (1) The spurious Sibylline verses,..... 289 n. (3) The Poemander, &c. of Hermes Trismegistus, 290 n. (4) Montanus accused of forging the Sibylline verses,. 290 8. State of the Christians under Trajan. The populace urge persecution, o 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 nmore severe,. 294 an. (2) Trajanl 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 at. (1) Import of this law examined,.. 298 n. (3) Hadrian's respect for Christ,. 298 13. Barchochba an enemy to Christians. Jerusalem destroyed, and Aelia Capitolina 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 n. (1) He was a very cruel persecutor,..303 n. (2) Horrid crimes charged on Christians, 305 n. (3) Infamous proceedings at Lyons,. 305 n. (4) Remarks oil this Emperor and his course,.. 306 16. Sufferings of Christians under M. Aurelius. Martyrdom of Justin, Polycarp and Pothinus,..308 n. (3) The persecution at Lyons,.. 309 17. Miracle of the thundering legion,........ 311 n. (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 n. (3) Fronto. Why the philosophers attacked Christianity, 321 20. The government of the church,.. 322 21. Deference paid to the Apostolic churches,... 323 CONT:ENTS OF VOL. I. XXiii Page. a. (2) Passages of Irenmus and Tertullian on the subject, examined,. 324 22. The churches confederated. Councils established,. 329 n. (1) A passage in Tertullian considered,. 330 23. Effects of this union of churches,.... 334 n. (1) A degree of independence still remained,... 336 n. (2) Priority of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria,. 336 a2. (3) The 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. The Christians began to cultivate philosophy,... 339 n. (1) Justin and others retained the philosophic garb, &c. 340 n. (2) Alexandria the cradle of Christian philosophers. Pantaenus, Athenagoras, and Clemens Alex.. 340 n. (3) CIemens Alex. Origen, Justin, &c. 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 n. (1) Account of the man, b.. 348 n. (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,. 360 32. His tenets respecting Christ,.... 362 n. (1) Christ a great philosopher and Theurgist,. 363 n. (2) He harmonized Christianity and Paganism,. 366 n. (3) Compared Christ with Appollonius Tyanaeus, Pythagoras, &c. 367 33. His forced interpretations of Scripture,. 367 n. (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 n. (1) Some leading doctrines explained Platonically,.... 373 n. (2) Various species of secret discipline, or )vx5Lt, described, 373 n. (3) Secret discipline more comprehensive than mystic Theology,. 380 35. Moral Theology assumed a two-fold character, 380 n. (1) Asceticism advanced much in this century,.. 381 n. (2) Mysticism, its origin and early history,.. 383 fs. (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 n. (2) Introduction of Heathen rites,-writers on the subject, 392 37. The Christian writers of this century,.. 393 n. (1) The works of Irenreus,. 394 n. (2) The works of Justin Martyr,.. 395 n. (3) The works of Clemens Alexandrinus,... 395 n. (4) The works of Theophilus, Tatian, and Athenagoras,. 395 n. (5) The works of Tertullian,. 395 38. Rise of Christian sects. The Judaizers,...... 396 n. (1) Why the Jewish Christians renounced the Mosaic law in the times of Hadrian,. 397 39. The Nazarenes and Ebionites,...... 400 n. (1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes,... 400 n. (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 n. (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 n. (2) Their errors brought reproach on the Christians, 406 42. They cause contentions. Sects of.them,. 407 n. (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 n. (2) His discipline examined,... 41! n. (3) He the first Gnostic who divided mankind into the good and the bad,. 413 45. The theology of Saturninus,. 413 n. (1) All Christians supposed the Pagan gods to be real beings,. 414 n. (2) Consectaries from the doctrine of Saturninus,.. 415 n. (3) Did he require celibacy and self-mortifications from all?. 415 46. The philosophy of Basilides,. 416 n. (1) General account of him and his writings,. 418 n. (2) He discarded an evil god and evil angels, o.. 419 n. (3) Character and sexes of his Aeons,.. 419 n. (4) He held to 365 heavens, and 365 orders of angels,. 4)20 n. (5) His Abraxas critically examined,. 421 n. (6) His ideas of the Creator of the world,... 425 n. (7) He held that man has two souls-a rational and a brutal,. 426 n. (8) He pretended to possess many ancient prophecies,. 427 47. The theology of Basilides,.. 427 n. (1) Believed each country to have its guardian angel,.. 429 n. (2) His idea of Christ, as stated by Iranmus and Clemens Alex.. 430 n. (3) His ideas of the New Testament, and a twofold discipline,. 433 CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XXV Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~Page. 48. The moral doctrine of Easilides,.... 433 n. (1) As a moralist he was strict,... 434 n. (2) Yet some of his followers were dissolute,.. 435 n. (3) His idea of martyrs, and their obligations,.. 435 49. The system of Carpocrates,. 438 n. (2) His ideas of the soul,...... 439 50. His theology,.. 439 n. (1) His idea of Christ. Irenaeus's statement examined, 440 51. The moral discipline of Carpocrates,... 444 n. (1) Reported as very corrupt,... 444 n. (2) The apotheosis of his son Epiphanes,.... 447 n. (3) Claimed to possess traditional revelations,. 448 52. The system of Valentinus,. 449 n. (1) Little known. He is said to have been a disciple of St. Paul,. 449 n. (2) Why he became a heresiarch,. 450 53. The Aeons of Valentinus,. 452 n. (1) Whence he derived his system,... 454 n. (2) How he differed fiom other Gnostics,. 454 n. (3) His system not reconcileable with Christianity,. 456 54, 55. The Valentinian theology,. 458, 460 n. (1) All Gnostics made God imperfect, and of course the Aeons also, 459 n. (1) Achamoth not the creator of matter, but the architect,. 461 56. The Valentinian idea of creation,. 462 n. (2) Men have two bodies and two souls. Bodies will not be raised, 463 57. His ideas of Christ,.......... 465 n. (2) Christ's body different from ours. He truly died,. 467 n. (3) Christ made no expiation. He only made God known,.. 468 n. (4) His system and that of Manes much alike,.. 468 n. (5):Morals of Valentinials. Heaven open to all men,.. 469 58. Minor sects of the Valentinian school.. 471 n. (1) They all denied the Jewish law to be from God,. 472 n. (2) Difference between Ptolomy and Secundus, 472 59. Marcus and Colarbasus,........ 473 n. (1) Extravagances of Marcus discussed,.... 474 60. Bardesanes,. o..... 47 7 n. (1) The man and his tenets imperfectly known, 479 n. (2) He but partially renounced his errors,.... 480 n. (3) Had peculiar notions about the origin of the world, 480 n. (4) His doctrine hitherto misunderstood,. 480 61. Tatian; in part a Valentinian: used water in the Eucharist,... 481 n. (2) His history not given by the ancients,... 483 n. (4) Wine in: i'l repute among the Orientals,. 483 n. (5) The austere Syrians favored Tatian's views,. 483 62. The Ophites or Serpentarians,...483 n. (1) Minor Gnostic sects named by the ancients dubious,. 485 63. Cerdo and Marcion,......... 486 n. (1) Cerdo little known. Sources of knowledge of these men,. 487 n. (2) Miarcion's excommunication, as stated by Epiphanius,. 487 XXVi CONTENTS OF VOL. I. Page. n. (3) His interpretation of new wine in old bottles, 489 64. 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 n. (5) The Gnostics recognized two kinds of moral discipline. Points in which they all agreed enumerated,.. 496 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 n. (5) Turtullian's defensce 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 judgm.ent considered,.. 511 68. Praxeas,...513 n. (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 Artemrnon,....... 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 we enter on the history of the origin and progress of Chlristicanity, a summary viewz should be taken of the age in which tlhe 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 primacry regulations and institutions; nor can we know justly how to appreciate the great extent of those benefits whic]h Christ hath procured for mankind, unless we previously acquaint outrselves with the forlorn and miserable condition of the human race before tle Redeemer's advent. By way of introduction, therefore, to thie followuing work, we shall, in the first place, present thze reader witbh a sketch of the general state of the world at thze time of our Saviour's birth; and then call his attention particularly to the civil and religious economy of the Jewish nation at the same interesting period. STATE OF TIHE WORLD. CHAPTER I. Of the Civil, Religious, and Literary State of the World in general, at the Time of Christ's Birth.[p. 2.] I. State of the Roman Empire. At the time when the SON OF GOD, having taken upon himself our nature, was born in the land of Judea, the greatest part of the habitable earth was subject to the senate and people of Rome, who usually committed the care and administration of those provinces which were removed 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 C(mSAR 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 majesty or authority.(1) (1.) Augustin. Campianus, de Qfflcio 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 consider 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 variety of causes, and particularly by the rapacity and dishonesty of the publicans to whom the collection of the public revenue was entrusted;(2) 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 0 troduction.- Chal. L. itself not merely in the tenacity with whiclh they maintained every part of their conquests, but also in a constant readiness 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 governors were, on the other hand, fleecing the people of the residue of their property by the most shameful and iniquitous pecuniary exactions. (1.) See a discourse by the very ingenious Mr. Walter Moyle, entitled, An Essay uponz the Constitution of the Roman Government, published amongst his posthumous works, vol. i, p. 1-48. Loend. 1726. 8vo. Petri Giannone, Histoire Civile du Royaume de Naples, vol. i, p. 3, 4, et seq. Scip. Maffei, Verona lllustlrala, lib. ii. p. 65. (2.) See Pet. Burmannus, de Vectigalibus Populi Romani, cap. ix. p. 123, et seq. II[. Benefits arising out of the Romani government. It must not, however, be overlooked, that the bringing of so many nations into subjection under one people, or rather under one man, was 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 render the public ways commodious, an easy and ready 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 gradually instructed by their conquerors to form themselves after it. 4thly, Literature and the arts, with the study of humanity and philosophy, 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 TVWorld1. 11 them the more easily to impress mens minds with 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 favorable or auspicious season.(2) (1.) See a learned work of Nicol. Bergier concerning the Roman pub- [p. 4.] lie ways, entitled, HIisloire des grands Chemins de 1' Emrpire Romain, Brussels, 1728, in 4to. Also a treatise by the learned Everard Otto, de Tutela Viarum publicarum, lib. ii. 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 the channels of comnmunication both by sea and land, throughout 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 worild. Those intestine discords, by which the Roman state had long been distracted and ravaged, were terminated in the acquisition of the sovereign power by Augustus; 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 subscribe to the opinion of those writers, who, being led into a mls. take by Orosius, have asserted, that at the time of our Saviour's birth the temple of Janus was shut, (') and every part of the Roman empire wrapt in a profound peace, it must nevertheless unquestionably be admitted, that if the period of which we are speaking, be brought into comparison with 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 Christo nascente reseratum, published at Roterdam, 1706, in 8vo. V. State of other nations. Our knowledge of the state of any of those nations which were situated beyond the confines of the 12 fIntroduction.- Chap. 1. Roman empire, is of necessity very imperfect and obscure, owing to the paucity of their historical monuments and writers. We obtain, however, light sufficient to perceive that the eastern nations 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 warlike 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 chiefly exercised in ministering at the shrine of voluptuous gratification, 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 itaque imperia penes eos fuere populos, qui mitiore cc lo utuntur: in frigolra, seplemtrionemque vergentibus immansueta ingenia sunt, ut ait poela, suaque jimnillima ccclo, Seneca, de Ira, lib. ii. cap. xvi. p. 36. tom. 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 abominable 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 debasement 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 extinct; but, that the number of those who endeavoured by meditation 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 subordclinante 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 hapIpy and prosperous course of life to worship and conciliate. One of these gods was supposed to excel 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 far invade the provinces of the others as to interfere with their particular functions; and hence it was deemed necessary for those who would secure the favor of Heaven, 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 supposition which solme have adopted, that the gods of Greece and Rome were the same with those which were worshipped by the Germans, the Syrians, the Arabians, the Persians, the Egyptians, and others.(') Pride and ignorance, amongst other motives, and possibly something of a similarity, which might be perceptible between their own statues and images, and those which they [p. 6.] found in other countries, induced the Greeks and Romans 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 iii a degree 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 Introdlction.- Chap. I. considered as an offence of the deepest and mnost heinous nature. (1.) Athanasius has particularly noticed this in his Orcatio contra Gentes, tom. i. opp. p. 25. It has also been pointed out by several modern writers, particularly by Le Clere in his Ars Criica, p. ii. sect. i. cap. xiii. 11. p. 280; and in his Bibliotheque Choisie, tomn. vii. p. 84. Also by Dr. VWarburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses, vol. ii. p. 233, et seq. VIII. This diversity of religions did not generate iwars. 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 considerable doubts may be entertained whether even in this case a lifference of religion alone was the cause of strife.(l) Each nation 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.(2) 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 shadow of justice, assume the liberty of forcing other nations to discard their own proper divinities, and receive in their stead the same objects of adoration with themselves. The Romans, we know, were jealous in the extreme of introducing any novelties, or making the least change in the public religion; but the citizens were 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.(3) (1.) That the Egyptians were at times engaged amongst themselves in religious wars, i. e., in wars undertaken on account of their gods and their religion, is clear from many passages in ancient authors, the principal of which State of kthe Worvld. 15 are brought into one view by Pignorius, in his Expositio Mensa Isiacce, p. 41, et seq. But if by a religious war be meant that which is undertaken by a nation or people in defence of their religion, or with a view to make another nation 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 religions 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 godss, were in others considered as noxious, and killed whenever they could be found: and hence arose the quarrels and warfare to which we allude. (2.) See Shaftesbury's Characteristics, passim, vol. ii. p. 166. iii. p. 60. 86, 87. 154, &c. (3.) Vid. Corn. a Bynkershoock, Dissert. de Cultu peregrinzc Religionis apud Romanos, in Opuscul. Lug. Bat. 1719, 4to. No. iv. Matth. AEgyptii. Dissertatio ad Senatus consullzum de Bacchanalibus, tom. vii. Livii Drakenborchiani, p. 197, et seq. Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, vol. i. p. 307, et seq. IX. Various kinuds of deities. The principal deities of most nations, consisted of heroes renowned in antiquity, kings, emperors, founders of cities, and other illustrious persons, whose 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 virtnes 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 tihe sources of the heathen mythology; and it at once accounts for what must otherwise appear a monstrous incongruity, 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 immnortal 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 16 Introduction — Chp. 1. 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 guardianship 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 culture reached to the worshipping of the most noxious and venomous 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 divinities 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 describedl, 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 a-1 ways maintained that their statues, when properly consecrated, were filled with the presence of those divinities whose forms they bore.(') (1.) Arnob. adv. Gentes, lib. 6. p. 254. edit. Heraldi. Augustin. de Civitate Det, lib. 8. c. 23. p. 161. tom. 7. opp. edit. Benedict. Julian. Mlisopogon, 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 other ceremonies. The sacrifices and offerings were different, according to the nature and attributes of the gods to whom they were addressed.(') Brute animals were cornm nonly devoted to this purpose; but in some nations of a savage and ferocious character, the horrible practice of sacrificing hu man victims prevailed. (2) 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 piety, but were sometimes framed expressly for the purpose of obtaining the countenance of heaven to the most abominable and flagitious undertakings. (3) In fact, the greater part of their religious observances 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 polluted 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.(4) (1.) Vid. Jo. Saubertus, de Sacrificiis veterum, Lug. Bat. 1699. 8vo. and republished by Crenius. (2.) See what has been collected on this subject by Columna, in his Con mentary on the Fragments of Ennius, p. 29, et. seq. Also Saubertus, de Sacr.. ficiis veterum, cap. xxi. p. 455. (3.) Vid. Matth. Brouerius a Niedeck, de Adorationibus veterum Poputorum, Traj. 1711, 8vo. Saubertus, de Sacr ficiis, cap. xii. xiii. p. 343, et seq. (4.) The impiety and licentiousness which characterised the festivals of heathen nations, are very fully and ably exposed by Philo Judeeus, in his treatise de Cherubim, p. 155, 156, tom. i. opp. edit. Mangey. XII. Their priests. The care of the temples, together [p. 9.j with the superintendance and direction of all religious ordinances, 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 state. These formed their ordinary duties; but superstition ascribed to them functions of a far more exalted nature. It con 18 bItroduction.- Chap. I. sidered them rather in the light of intimate and familiar friends of the gods, than in that of officiating servants at their altars,; and consequently attributed to them the highest degree of sanctity, influence, and power. With the minds of the people thus 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 spiritual 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 indeed be said to have been common to the people of almost all countries except the 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 perseverance in the practice of a long and severe course of initiatory forms. The votaries were enjoined, under the peril of immediate death, to observe the most profound secrecy as to every thing that passed:() and this sufficiently accounts for the difficulty that we find in obtaining any information respecting the nature of these recluse practices, and for the discordant and contradictory opinions concerning them that are to be met with in the writings of various authors, ancient as well as modern.(3) From what 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 proceecing 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 inquiring into and exposing the origin and absurdity of the popular superstitions and worship.(4) 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 State of the World. 19 pectation opened to them of entering on an improved state of existence hereafter. However 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 Christians, perceiving this, were induced to make their religion conform in many respects to this part of the heathen model, hoping that it might thereby the more readily obtain a favorable reception with those whom it was their object and their hope to convert.(6) (1.) That the Romans practised no sort of mysteries before the time [p. 10.1 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 composita Romam regreditur. Ibi Graccorum more, seu Pompilii Numca, caremonias, leges, Gymnasia, doctoresque curare occepit;-atque initia Cereris, Liberceque, qumv Eleusina dicitur Atheniensium modo, Roma percoleret. Lib. de Ccsarib. 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 IMeursius, in his work de Mysteriis Eleusiniis; and by Clarkson, in his Discours sur les Liturgies, Q 4. p. 36. (3.) Dr. Warburton has discussed the subject of these mysteries with much ingenuity, though not always with equal felicity, in his celebrated work on the Divine Legation of Moses, tom. i. lib. 2. sect. 4. p. 131. s. That great scholar thinks that all the different sorts of mysteries were instituted for the purpose of teaching the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. But this appears 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 believe who has attended to the nature of the mysteries of Bacchus, the celebration of which, according to Livy, was positively forbidden at Rome. 1 have myself formerly written on the subject of the mysteries, by way of note to Cudworth's Intellectual System of the Universe, tom. i. p. 329. tom. ii. p. 1049; and I still retain the same sentiments that I there expressed. (4.) Vid. Cicero Disput. Tutsculan. lib. i. cap. 13. tom. 8. opp. ed. rainoris Verburgiane. Lib. i. de Legibus, cap. 24. p. 3362. Varro apud Augustinurn le Civitate Dei, lib. iv. cap. 31. p. 87. tom. 7. opp. Eusebius Prccparat. Evane 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 whichl every person was freely admitted; the other secret or mysterious, from which 20 Inftroduction. — Chap. I. all the unprofessed were excluded. The initiated were those. who had been baptized; the unprofessed, the catechumens. The mode of preparatory examination also bore a strong resemblance, in many respects, to the course of initiatory torms observed by the heathen nations, in regard to their mysteries. In a word, many forms and ceremonies, to pass over other things of the Christian 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 religion of Rome had been received, together [p. 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 the same time there was in some points a material difference between the two. For not to say any thing of the regulations established by Numa 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.(C) (1.) Vid. Dionysius Halicarn. Antiquit. Romanor. lib. 7. cap. 72. p. 460. tom. i. opp. ed. Hudsoni. (2.) Vid. Petitus Comment. in Leges Atticas, lib. 1. tit. 1. p. 71. s. ed. Batav. Lactanltius Divinar. Institution. lib. 1. cap. 20. XV. The religions of other nations adulterated by the Romanso 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 tile country, and of that of Rome. It appears to have been the object 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 any thing beyond a sort of compromise, by which certain of the Roman deities and rites were associated and intermixed with those peculiarly belonging to the conquered countries. Hence it is that we State of the World. 21 frequently filld 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. Strabo, Geolraph. lib. iv. p. 189, 190, where, after descanting on the barbarous and inhuman religious rites of the Gauls, the Germans, and the Celts, he states that every endeavor was used by the Romans to abolish them. 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 havy- [p. 12,] ing selected for the objects of their adoration a set of ancient heroes and leaders, whose memory, so far from being rendered illustrious 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 dissolution 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 religion of the country, the practice of the rest being confined to particular provinces or districts. The liberty which every city and province enjoyed of adlopting 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 Introduction.- Chcap. I of private systems. In the choice 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 constellations, 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 province 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 obscurity. 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 characterized the popular religion, and which they studiously concealed fviom the curiosity of the public, by wrapping it up in characters the meaning and power of which were only known to themselves. Nothing absolutely certain, it should seem, can be ascertained 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.( ) (1.) See what I have said concerning the religion of the Egyptians in a note to Cudworth's Intell. System. tom. 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. Jablonski in his Pantheon.gyptiorum, seu de diis eorum Comment. 8vo. Franef. 1750. [p. 13.] XVIII. 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, the other of all evil: the former the source of light, mind, and and spiritual intelligence; the latter that of darkness and matteir, with all its grosser incidents. Between these two powerfiul 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 uniforinity 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 MITI-rIRA, and that under him there were two of inferior degree, the one called OnoMASDES, the author of all good, the other ARIMAN, 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 abovementioned, they joined others, of whom scarcely any thing can be known at this day.(1) (1.) Dr. Hyde has written a commentary professedly de veterum Persarum Religione, 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 Cudworth'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 nature 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 systems 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 were multiplied, and securing to the kings and magistrates a due degree of authority and dignity. Within the latter division we would comprehend the religions economy of 24 Introd&uction.- Chap. I. all the people of the north; nations whose every sentiment irmbibed 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 warlike people. Under governments of a mild and moderate character, the gods were represented as just, placable, and merciful: in those of the opposite description, the people were made to believe 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. Nione of these various systems of' religion appear to have contributed in the least towards an amendment of the moral principle, 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, instead of exhibiting in themselves examples of a refined and supereminent virtue, displayed in illustrious actions, stood forth' to public view the avowed authors of the most flagrant and enormous crimes.(') The priests likewise took no sort of interest whatever in the regulation of the public morals, neither directing the people by their precepts; nor invitiing them by exhortation and example, to the pursuit of a wise and honorable course of life; but on the contrary indulged themselves in the most unwarrantable licentiousness, maintaining that the whole of religion 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 advanced 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 little or no acceptance with those who pretended to any thing beyond a common share of knowledge, and especially the Greeks and Romans, but were all regarded in the light of old wives State of the WTTorld. 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.(C) (1.) The most learned of the Greeks and Romans admit this: vid. Plato de Legribuzs, lib. i. p. 776, and de Republica, lib. ii. p. 430, 431, opp. edit. Ficini. Isocrates in Oral. in Encomio Busiridis, p. 452. Seneca de Vita beata, cap. xxvi. p. 639, tom. i. opp. Terentius, Eunuch. act iii. se. 5. v. 35. Martialis, lib. xi. epig. 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? Hnc quoque vitet, " In culpam si qua est ingeniosa suam. [p. 15.] Cum steterit Jovis 2Ede, Jovis succurret in AEde " Qumrn multas Matres fecerit ille Deus.' Proxima adoranti Junonia templa subibit " Pellicibus multis hanc doluisse Deam. "Pallade conspecta, natum de crimine Virgo "' Sustulerit quare, queret Erichtonium. (2.) See what is said on this subject by Barbeyrac in the preface to his French translation of Puffendorf's work de Jure NTaturca et Gentium, last edit. { vi. p. xxii. (3.) Polybius tHistoriar. lib. vi. cap. liv. p. 693, tom. i. ed. Gronov. According to Sallust, in Calalin. cap. li. p. 309, 310, ed. Cortian. Julius Cresar 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: de pcena possumus equidem dicere id, quod res habet: in luctu atque miseriis mortem carumnarum requiem, no7n cruciatum esse; eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere: ultra neque curca neque gazudio locum esse. Which speech of Coesar's, so fai from calling down the censure of that great defender and ornament of the stoic philosophy M. Portius Cato, seems rather to have met with his unqualified approbation: For in cap. lii, ] 13, p. 332, we find him as it were studiously panegyrising it.-Bene et composite, says he, Ccsar paullo ante in hoc ordine de vila et merle disseruit: falsa, credo, exisliimans quce de inferis memorantur; diverso ilinere malos a bonis loca tetra, inculta, fesda, atque formidolosa /habere. Never would these great and leading characters have ventured 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, had a belief of this kind even been generally prevalent amongst the people, such sentiments as the above could never have been uttered in public. XXI. The laves of men professing these religions, most flagitious. Under the influence of such circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that the state of society should have become in the 26 Introduction.- Chap.. highest degree depraved. The lives of men of every class, 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 Roman poets JUVENAL and PERSIUS. In the writings of the former in particular, he will find the most detestable unnatural affections, and other heinous practices, treated of at large, and with the utmost familiarity, as things of ordinary and daily occurrence. 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 gladiators 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 exposing 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 criminal excesses, to the most ample indulgence in which the government offered not the least impediment, and then say, if such were the people distinguished beyond all others by the excellence 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 governed entirely by the impulses and dictates of rude and uncultivated 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 Epistles, p. 2. ed. Baluz. Several things likewise on this subject are brought together from ancient monuments by Cornelius Adam, in his Exercitatio de malis Romanorum ante Pracdicationem Evangelii Moribus, which is the fifth of his Exercitationes exegeticac, Groning. 1712, 4to. XXII. The arguments used by the priests in defence of these re. figions. It was 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 was about to happen. The deception practised 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. hlillosophers. This state of things rendered it necessary for those who embraced opinions more consonant to reason, and whom it became customary to distinguish by the appellation of philosophers, to temporize in a certain degree; and although they might entertain a just contempt for those notions respecting religion by which the vulgar were influenced, they yet founrd 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 human 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 omnipotent, 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 impiety, 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 distinction 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.(Q) 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 considerable 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 Inventione, where he discusses the nature of probabilities; and lays it down, that all matters of common belief (quse in opinione posita sunt) are to be regarded as such. By way of illustration, he adduces the following examples: "In co autem quod in opinione positum est, hujusmodi sunt probabilia: impiis apud inferos pccnas esse preparatas: eos, qui philosoplhia dent operam, non arbitrari deos esse." De Inventione, lib. i. cap. 29. tom. i. opp. p. 171. ed. Verburgiene. 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, according 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 indeed 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 fortunte qui casibus ornnia ponant, Et nullo credant mundum rectore moveri, Natura volvente vices, et lucis, et anni, At que ideo intrepidi quncumrque altaria tangunt." Philo Judseus also complains in the strongest terms of the great prevalence of atheism in his time. Lib. 3. Allegoir. 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 timnes in one undistinguishing censure, and insist State of the World. 29 that even those were at enmity with religion, in whose writings are to be found the most admirable discussions relative to God, and subjects of a divine nature: and it appears to me 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, either 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 far as we can perceive, uninfluenced by any vicious or illiberal principle, should have been so happy as to possess the faculty of reasoning justly and with perspicuity? Can we conceive that those who expressly acknowledged the existence of a God, and sublimely 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 ingenuity and abundance of learning, labored to establish this point, in his celebrated 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 the 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 the 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 philosophers, whereas other nations had their peculiar philosophic sects, differing widely in their tenets from those of Greece: laying aside, I say, this objection, 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 conjectures, coupled with a few examples, and finally by inferences drawn from certain institutes or dogmas of particular philosophers. Now, if accusations are required to be made good only according to these rules; if examples and inferences be deemed sufficient to convict those whose words excite not the least suspicion of any latent crimiaality,-who, I would ask, shall 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 attack against the whole body of Christian divines, as he has availed himself of in regard to the ancient philosophers, and I will undertake to prove that 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 time, by Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphon. p. 4, 5, 6, 7. edit. Jebb.; and by Hermias, in an elegant little work, entitled, Irrisio Philosophiac. If any additional proof were wanting 30 Introduction. — Chp. I. on the subject, enough might easily be collected to form a volume of itself. XXIV. Two modes of' phiosophising prevail. At the time of the 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 philosophy properly belonged to the former; those who were familiar with the Greek language having given to the other the appellation of vwo-~,, or knowledge: to understand the force of which term, it is necessary that we consider the word oak, or of God, as annexed to it;(2) 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 mnankind. The principles of the former, or what was properly called Philosophy, were not confined to Greece, but were embraced by all such of the Romans as aspired to any eminence of wisdom. The followers of the latter were chiefly to be found in Persia, Chaldcea, 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 (3) To this admo State of the World. 81 nition had those 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 froIn 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 Grecian sects. (1) Every one who hals examined this subject thoroughly, must admit that nothing canbe better authenticated than the vast and essential difference that existed between the philosophy of the eastern nations and that of the sages of Greece. It is equally well established, that amongst the different 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 disseminated 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 mistake,], be apparent to every unprejudiced inquirer, that in this 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 philosophy or doctrine" was known to ancient writers. Amongst other proofs which might be adduced, some extracts from Theodotus, one of the Gnostic school, which are subjoined to the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus, are still extant under the following title, which appears to be of very ancient date:'Ex ro-yv E)0G'8,r vI TIC d Y 2 dr vx X X c xIa8lEivic' Ji x tC ~ A * I'rf'pl'. Excerpta ex Scriptis Theodoti et Doe. trina quce Orientalis appellatum. Whether the person who gave this title to the work were himself a Gnostic, or an enemy of the Gnostics, it leaves us in no doubt as to this fact, that the Gnostics mingled none of the principles of the Grecian philosophy with their system of discipline, but fiamed it entirely after the orien. tal model. In acting thus, they neither imposed upon others, nor were they deceived themselves. (2) The word?vc rsi was used by the Greeks to express the knowledge of such things as are not the objects of sense; but are only to be comprehended 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?vfo- ~ seems to have been 32 Introduction. —C Cap. I. not improperly used to signify that species of knowledge which relates to things of an eternal and immutable nature. Vid. Jac. Thomasii Origines Hlistorice Eccles. el Philosophice, Q 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; sinceitwas not conversant with objects of optin. ion and sense, but occupied itself solely in the contenlpllation of tllhingls of an abstract and unchangeable nature. I conceive, however, that we olullt to understand it in a more restricted sense, when we filld it applied to that species of philosophy to which the earliest corrupters of (hristia.llity were inclined, and that in this case it was used emphatically to signify the knowledge of the Deity in particular: for it was the bolast of teachers of that vain system, that through their means mankind might recover that knowledge of the true God, from which nearly the whole world had Iong 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 fiountain from whence alone true religion can spring, may certainly in the strongest and most emphatical sense be styled 7vo-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 del, truth; and a faith in Christ, sgr-s, faith, without any addition. (3) The most learned expositors and commentators on the HIoly Scriptures, as well ancient as modern, are unanimously of opinion that St. Paul, in the passages to which I have referred, meant to reprove thoso 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 philosophy to which they had given the pompous title of avco-S, or knowledge of the Sprenle l)eity. The remarkable passage, indeed, which I have cited from that inspired writer, in which he warns Timothy to avoid "oppositions of science falsely so called,'" (1 Tim. vi. 20,) applies so directly to the vain and foolish system styled Even sA, 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?vSvc. 2dly, That it was not a system cultivated in retirement and privacy, for he speaks of it as a thing openly known, [p. 21.] and familiar to the public. 3dly, That it appeared to him undeserving of such an high and august title; for lie 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 philosophy 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 admonished 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 W6,ld. 33 {admixture with such vain and trifling theories. 5thly, That the professors of this sort of discipline maintained the existence of certain ntv5lria: or oppositions, which, since they are the only circumstances relating to it that are noticed by the apostle, may without doubt be considered as having constituted 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 those 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 principles; and the powers of darkness ever occupied in active hostility against eternal light. Upon the ground of these oppositions they pretended to account 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 distinguishing features. XXVT. The Greek philosophic sects. The Elpicureans. The more illustrious sects of the Grecian school, whose doctrines were also much cultivated by the Romans, 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 acknowledged 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 unjust; but who unfortunately sullied and disgraced what they thus taught conformably to right reason, by connecting with it various notions, 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 unacquainted 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 34 Introduction.- Chap. 1. chief good; and even virtue itself only to be pursued, inasmuch as it might promise to minister at the shrine of pleasure. The votaries of a system like this, (and there were but few amongst the favored children of prosperity, the wealthy, the noble, and the powerful, who were not captivated by its allurements,)(2) naturally studied to pass their lives in one continued round of [p. 22.11 luxurious enjovmlent tile o(liA'- rtr ilrn- - hey imposed_ on themselves arose out of a desire to avoid, at all times, such 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 Hlistoria Philosophiac 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 F in. Bonor. et Malorum, lib. i. cap. vii. p. 2350. tom. viii. opp. lib. ii. cap. xiv. p. 2388. Disput. Tusculan. lib. v. cap. x. p. 2829, tom. viii. opp.; and many other places to the same purport. XXVI. The Academics~ The Academics, although they affected 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, namely, that " nothing can be known or perceived with certainty, and therefore that every thing may be doubted of and questioned." The only distinction which they made was this, that whereas the Sceptics insisted that " nothing should be assented to, but every thing made the subject of dispute;" 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. 35 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 immortal; whether virtue was preferable to vice, or vice to virtue; was 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 Rome, not long before the coming of our Saviour;(2) and so much weight was attached to his example and authority, that it was soon embraced by all who aspired to the chief honours of the state.(3) (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.] 9" Ea, qua vis, explicabo (he is treating of death and the immortality of the soul) ut homunculus unus e multis, probabilia conjectura sequens. Ultra enim quo progrediar, quam ut veri videam similia, non habeo. Certa dicent ii, qui et percipi ea posse dicunt, et se sapientes esse profitentur." TuscuIan. Disput. lib. i. cap. i ix. p. 2570. (2.) Multis etiam sensi mirabile videri, eam nobis potissimum probatam esse philosophiam, quc lucem eriperet et quasi noctem quamdam rebus offun. derel, deserta que discipliner et jampridem relicter patrocinium nec opinatum a nobis esse suscepitum. Cicero de Natura Deor. lib. i. cap. iii. p. 2884. This passage of the Roman orator unfolds, without disguise, the nature of the academical philosophy, of which we see he openly avows himself the patron and restorer. He repeats this in cap. v. p. 2886. (3.) The philosophy of the Academy, inasmuch as it inculcated the uncertainty of every thing, and encouraged a spirit for disputation on all topies, contributed in an eminent degree to sharpen the mental powers, and to strengthen 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 amlbitious 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 philosophers, 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 acknowledged the existence of a God; and the obligations of morality; but, at the same time, their tenets were not of a character to in 306 Introdection.- 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 unconscious of what was passing here below; confined from all eternity to the celestial world7 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.picureans, there was surely nothing that could reasonably excite either love, respect, or fear. We are unable to ascertain, with any precision, what were 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, who denied the snperintendance 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 Intellect. System, tom. i. p. 66. 500. and tom. ii. p. 1171. See also a learned [p. 24.] work of the celebrated Jesuit Michael Mourgues, which he entitled, Plan Theologique du Pylhagorisme, tom. i. let. ii. p. 75, where it is proved that the system of Aristotle excluded the deity from all knowledge of, or interference 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, however, as the effect of necessity; and supposed his will to be subordinate to the immutable decrees of fate: hence it was impossible for him to be considered as the author either of rewards to the virtuous, or of punishment to the wicked. It is well known to the learned world, that this sect denied the immortality of the soul, and thus deprived mankind of the strongest incitement to a wise 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, State of the World. 37 the 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 excellence.(') (1) The reader will find this illustrated by what I have remarked in my notes to Cudworth's Intellectual System, tom. i. p. 517, et seq. XXIX. The Platonists. Of all the philosophers, Plato seems to have made the nearest approach to the principles of true wisdom; and there are certainly grounds for believing that his system was not wholly unproductive of benefit to the human race. He considered the Deity, to whom he gave the supreme governance 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 prospect of a future state of rewards and punishments. But even the system of Plato had its defects. For, not to mention his frequent assunmption of things without any sort of proof, and the obscure and enigmatical way in which he often expresses 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 lini.ts, and that the direction of human affairs was committed to a class of inferior spiritual agents, termed diemons. This notion of ministering dcemons, 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. llis teaching, [p. 25.1 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 InLtroduction.- Chap. I. withdraw every attention from the 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 fiom the charge of Platonism, and entitled, Defense des Peres accuser de Platonisme, 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 little 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 constantly 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 sound and unbiassed reason. Hence a new sect of philosophers sprang up, 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 commonly 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 Judcus alone,) that this sect flourished at Alexandria at the time of our Saviounr'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 Deity, the soul, the world, and the dsemons, as indisputable axioms: on which account they were regarded by many as altogether Platonists. Indeed, this title1 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 Ammonius Saccas, another celebrated patron of the Eclectic philosophy. 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.(2) (1) The writings of Philo Judaeus are, in every respect, marked by the same species of philosophy that characterizes those of Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and other fathers 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 Platonis'; 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 particular sect, bu'- 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 lie 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 so 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? There is certainly nothing in the name that militates against this supposition, since 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.- Cha. I. XXXI. The Oriental Philosophy. The documents that 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 other scattered relics of it, that may be collected here and there. Its author, who is unknown, perceiving that in almost every thing Lp. 27.] which comes under our observation there is a manifest admixture of evil, and that human nature has an obvious leaning to what is criminal and vicious, whilst, at 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 different 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 principle as the root and cause of every evil propensity, and every untoward affection. The unavoidable consequence of this opinion was, that matter should be considered as self-existent, and as having exercised an influence entirely independent of the Deity firom 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 skilfully and aptly arranged in all its parts; how it happens that so many things of a refined and exalted nature 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 was therefore 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 Being as purity and goodness itself, and utterly averse from every State of the World. 41 thing of an opposite character, that he should have employed himself in giving form and arrangement to a vitiated and distempered mass, or have been anywise instrumental in associating 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 unacquainted with its true origin and growth, yet plainly perceived that this species of philosophy was founded on a wish to remove from the Deity every imputation of his being the cause or author of any thing evil. Tertullian says, (de Praescript. advers. Itretiros, cap. vii. p. 119. opp. edit. Venet.) "Emedem materise apud haereticos et philosophos volutantur, iidem retractatus implicantur: unde malum? et quare? et unde homo? et quomodo?" See also Epiphanius, hLeres. xxiv. Basilidianor. sect. vi. p. 72. tom. i. opp.; and beyond all, that fragment of Valentine preserved by Origen, Dialog. contra liiarcionitas, 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 difficulties above noticed, by the assistance of fiction, would of course run into a great diversity of sentiment. Those of the most numerous 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 victory, 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 darkness, 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 1]2 Introduction. — Chap.. superior, had rebelled against the author of his existence, and erected for himself a separate and distinct estate. The opinion entertained by another sect was, 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 sudden 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, somewhat between the two; and many esteemed him to be a compound essence, made up of a certain 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 matter, and the creator or maker of the world. I believe I may venture to say, that every one who sha1 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. Notwithstanding that the various sects of oriental philosophers, who believed 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 which the system in general was founded. In the first place, they were unanimous in maintaining that there had existed from all eternity a divine nature, replete with goodness, intelligence, wisdom, and virtue; a light of the most pure and subtle kind diffused 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 Bv.o,~ in allusion to the vastness of his excellence, which they deemed it beyond the reach of human capacity to comprehend. The space which he inhabits they named Afg, but occasionally the term,';,2y was applied to it. This divine nature, they imagined, having existed for ages in solitude and silence, at length, 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 successively communicated to all, a class of divine beings was in time generated, respecting whom no difference of opinion seems to have existed, except in regard to their number; some conceiving 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. Although 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,o%~S. 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 7r/i 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 aigS and consequently of divine descent, but who, on account of the many degrees that intervened between them and the first parent, were considered comparatively to possess but a very limited portion of wisdom, knowledge, or power. (1) A itv 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 comrn 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:'Ou,ip'sitzi'Alov dxA' avgwrnos, tegoas qr v rrivqrov cls cgc nMi6x- i,vs v c a Mg Js.v ~gTYt, zan vrdccv'5; gvy. Nonego natura sum perennis et immutabilis (it was an error of the translator to render it non ego sum eternitas) sed homo, pars hujus universitatis, quemadmodum hora pars est diei. Oportet me non secus ac horam existere et occidere. Dissert. Epictetearum, lib. ii. { 5. p. 179. edit. Holstenii. There was, therefore, nothing strange or unusual in the application of the term dcyjv~, 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 Manicheus the Persian, who, according to Augustin, applied the denomination of'A^lS-vs (which Augustin renders into Latin by the word scwcula) 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 philosophy 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 some of acknowledged erudition and ingenuity, who conceive that dhov has a similar signification in the writings of the New Testament. St. Paul describes the Ephesians, before they were acquainted with the Gospel of Christ, to have walked xerta ro v adCv xC6oc- ~-ri SrH, rta trOY arp xrwrS & vr~g i Io-ts ar & 5o. In this passage, &UxgCv vs- rsr g,c a.ai por, "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'Aicv as son-gx ~'nrs; and according to this exposition,'Aldvy 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, some 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 -s5 dlavs. JSi 8 Xcai'Tdcvist inroir0v. (I. 2.) Quo in loco, says he, per'AicvacS non absurdum sit intelligere angelos. Codic. Apocryphi Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 710. Of these interpretations, 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. Bey-ond that vast expanse refulgent with everlasting light, which was considered as the immediate habitation 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 eternity, 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, the rudiments of vice, and every species of evil. In this state it was found by a genius or celestial spirit of the higher order, who had been either driven from the abode of the Deity for some offence, or commissioned by him for the purpose, and who reduced it into order, and gave it that arrangement and fashion which the universe now wears. Those who spoke the Greek tongue were accustomed 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 with a ray of celestial light, either secretly stolen, or imparted through the bounty of the Deity. I-Ie likewise comnmunicated to the bodies he had formed, and which would otherwise 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 administration and command over them on a number of genii or spirits of inferior degree, who had been his associates and assistants. XXXV. 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 terrestrial 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 ignorance, and acquiring every sort of evil propensity, from the impulse and contagion of the vitiated mass by which it was enveloped. But the Deity, touched with compassion for the hapless 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 mlight communicate to them thee 46 Introduction. — Chap. L. principles of a true religion, and thus instruct them in the way by which deliverance was to be obtained from their wretched and forlorn state. Demiurgus, however, with his associates, unwilling 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 tormented and slew the messengers of heaven, but endeavoured, through the means of superstition and sensual attractions, to root [p. 32.] 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 stedfast in the worship of the great first Parent, resisting the evil propensities of' the corporeal frame, and every incitement to illicit gratification, were supposed, on the dissolution of their bodies, to be directly borne away pure, erial, and disengaged from every thing gross or material, to the immediate residence of God himself; whilst those who, notwithstanding 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 themselves 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 degraded condition. lihen the grand work of setting free all these minds or souls, or, at least, the greatest part of them, and restoring them to that celestial country from whence they first proceeded, should be accomplished, God, it was. imagined, would dissolve the fabric of this nether world; and having again confined 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 before the founcidation 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 inclinations. Such, for instance, as were naturally State f' tIe W'orld. 4; of a morose, ascetic disposition, maintained that 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.' he body, on the contrary, as the source of every depraved appetite, was, according to them, to be reduced and brought into subjection 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 thing which might contribute either to the convenience or amcenity 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. Hlence it was that the Manichleans, 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 principles to a mode of life that admitted of the free and uncontroled gratification of all our desires. The essence of piety and religion, 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 corporeal, 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 [ip. 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 Idtrodtuction.- Chap. I. dulge himself in scarcely any thing. Stromat. lib. iii. cap. v. p. 529. 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-denial. Slender indeed must be their acquaintance with the writings 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 dissolute lives. For so fir from this being the case, the generality of them acknowledge, that not a few of that numerous class had, by their contilence 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 the 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 thle Platonic philosopher, and Porphyry. See the treatise of the former, contra Gnoslicos, cap. xv. p. 213, 214; and of the latter, de Abstinentia, lib. i. sect. 42, p. 35, edit. Cantab. But not to enlarge more than is necessary on the subject, 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 wisdom; 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 wretched aspect of the whole world at the time of the Son of God's appearance upon earth, must, it is presumed, be sufficiently obvious. 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 man 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 obtained a glimpse of the true path, were yet unable to proceed in State of the Jewish Nation. 49 it but again lost themselves in the mazes of error and uncertainty, and disgraced what little they had acquired of sound wisdom, by an admixture of the most extravagant and absurd opinions. I should also hope, that from this view it will appear of what infinite advantages the Christian religion hath been productive to the world and its inhabitants; I mean not only in a spiritual sense, by opening to us the road that leads to salvation and peace, but also in the many and vast improvements in 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 fiairy or justly attributed. [p. 35.] CHAPTER II. Of the civil and religious State of the Jewish Nation in particular, at the time of Christ's Birth. I. The Jewish nation governed by lHerod the Great. The condition of the Jews, at the time of the Son of God's advent in the flesh7 was not much superior to that of other nations. The reins of their government had been placed in the hands of a Stipendiary of Rome, called Herod, 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 protecting 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 suspicious 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 de4 50 Introduction.- Chap. I. gree, the asperity of the hatred which he had thus drawn on himself, he pretended to adopt the religion of the Jews, and at a vast expence 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 countenanced in direct opposition to the Jewish religion, that the hypocrisy and insincerity of the tyrant'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, Histoire des Juis, tom. i. part i. p. 27, et seq. Norrisii Coenotlaphia Pisana. Noldii Historia Idumcca, published by Havercamp, at the end of his edition of Josephus, tom. ii. p. 333. 396. Cellarii Historia Herodum, which is the eleventh of his Academical Dissertations, part i. p. 207. Prideaux's History of the Jews. 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. Archelaus, the eldest, was appointed governor of Judea. Idumea, 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 Pereea 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, who 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 emperor 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 removal of Archelaus, the greater part of Palestine which had been under his government was reduced by the Romans into the form of a province, and put under the superintendance of a governor, who was subject to the controul of the president of Syria. This State of the Jewish Nation. 51 arrangement, it is probable, at first in et with the ready concurrence of the Jews; who, on the death of Herod, had petitioned Augusttks 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 with 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 publicans, who after the Roman 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 all 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 sensibility 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 defiled, 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 which it is well known that these unfortunate people accelerated their own destruction. The condition of the Jews who were under Philip and Antipas, the other sons of Herod, 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 hig-h priests and sanhedrim. If any remnant of liberty or happiness could have been possessed by a people thus circumstanced, it was effectually cut off by those who held the second place in the civil government under the Romans and the sons of 52 Itntroduction.- Chap. I.I Herod, and who also had the supreme direction in every thing pertaining to religion, namely, the chief priests, and the seventy elders, of whom the sanhedrim or national council was composed. The chief priests, according to what is handed down to us of them by Josephus, were the most abandoned of mortals, who had obtained that elevated rank either through the influence of money, or iniquitous pliability; and who shrank from no species of criminality that might serve to support them in the possession of an authority thus infamously purchased. Since all of them perceived that no reliance could be placed on the permanency of their situation, 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 members: 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 depravity prevailed amongst the ordinary priests, and the inferior ministers of religion. The common people, instigated by the shocking examples tlhus held out to them by those whom thley 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 de Bell. Juclaic. lib. v. cap. xiii. sect. 6. p. 362. edit. Havercamp. V'. The Jewish worship corrupt. Two sorts of religion flourished 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 persuasion with the most virulent and implacable hatred; and mautually [p. 38.] gave vent to their rancorous animosity in the direst curses State of th/e Jewish Nation. 53 and imprecations. The nature of the Jewish religion may be collected 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 the most flagrant kind, that had crept in from various sources. The public worship 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 Romans ever interfere to prevent those observances: in domestic life, likewise, the ordinances of the law were for the most part attended to and respected: but it is manifest, from the evidence brought forward 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 introduced 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 multitude, 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 Ritibus et Institutis Hebrcaorum a Gentium Usu desumptis, nullibi vero a Deo prccceptis aut ordinatis, which is the fourth in the last Cambridge edition of his grand work, de Legibus Ritualibus veterum Ebrcorum, tom. ii. p. 1089. See also Joh. Gothofred. Lakemacheri 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 demons, 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 grounds 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 habitual 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. 39.] 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 Synagoga 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 the synagogues, the schools, and the academies of the Jews, pointed out by Fabricius in his Bibliographia Anti. quaria, and by Wolfius in his Bibliotheca Ilebraica. VII. Wrong opinions entertained by the Jews respecting God and the angels. Rational and correct, however, as the Jews appear to have been in those principles and sentiments which they had derived from their sacred code, they had yet gradually incorporated with them so large an admixture of what was 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, closely allied to the oriental doctrine of its not being absolutely simple, but somewhat 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 predominant, indeed, as scarcely to leave a superior degree of power 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 Df the universe. With State of the Jewish VNation. 55 a view, in some degree, to lessen the fear that was very naturally 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 belief 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 Chaldeans 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 Chaldseans, as may clearly be perceived 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 Jamblichum de Mysteriis Egyptior. a [p.40.] Thom. 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 Antiquitates Judaic. lib. iii. cap. vii. sect. 2. p. 140. VIIT. As also respecting the Messiah, the sum of religions and other matters. The greatest part of the Jewish nation were looking with the most eager desire for the appearance of the deliverer, 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 luxuries with which it would be attended, of his wars with a terrible adversary, to whom they gave the name of Antichrist, 56 Introduction.-Chap. IL. 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 consisting 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 conformed to them might, with a degree of certainty, look forward to the enjoyment of the blessings of Divine favour, both in this life and that which is to come. To the calls of humanity and philanthropy the Jews paid not the least attention, 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 themselves. They were even so wholly destitute of every generous feeling or sentiment towards strangers, as not only to shun, by every means in their power, whatever mig'ht 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 oppressive manner. It was, therefore, not without reason that they were taxed by the Greeks and Romans with cherishing an hatred of the human race.(2) (1) Basnage, in his Histoire de Juifs, tom. v. cap. x. p. 193. treats particularly of the notions which, about the time of our Saviour's coming, were entertained 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 the 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 Essenes, 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 Palestine, 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 John 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 born in Bethlehem. Matth. ii. 4, 5, 6. Not a single individual of them, therefore, 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 expectation 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 affirmative, 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? who all, without exception replied, that a man who could be guilty of such impiety was deserving of death. Matth. xxvi. 63, et seq. The whole council, therefore, we see were of opinion, that for a man to call 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 notions entertained by the people respecting a Messiah had no solid foundation, but ought to be regarded in the light of a fabulous delusion? Could a man be said to have o-ffered 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? Buthow, it has been asked by some of the learned, could it be possible for the Sadducees 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 future state of rewards and punishments? The answer is easy. It was indeed impossible for the Sadducees, con 58 Introduction.- Chap. 11. sistently with the tenets of their sect, to entertain any expectation of the coming of such a Messiah as God had promised, a spiritual deliverer, a redeemer of souls; but nothing could be more natural than for men like [p. 42.] them, who maintained that obedience to the law of God would be rewarded 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 Elsner, (Observation. Sacr. in Nov. Test. tom. ii. p. 274.) to which, if it were necessary, many others might be added. IX. Jewish sects. Among the various untoward circumstances which conspired to undermine the welfare of the Jewish 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 being united in sentiment, were divided into various sects, widely differing in opinion from each other, not only on subjects of smaller moment, but also on those points which constitute 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 Essenes;(1) 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 Romans. In Josephus we also find mention made of another sect, bearing the title of the Philosophers; composed of men of the most ferocious character, and founded by Judas, a Galilean, a strenuous and undaunted asserter of the liberties of the Jewish nation, who maintained that the Hebrews ought to render obedience to none but God alone.(2) In fine, I do not think that the accounts given of the Jewish sects or factions by Epiphanius and IHegesipplus, 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 although the name is not to be found there, yet that the principles and doctrines 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 falncy 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 have 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 taken 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, tom. 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 foundation. Others, influenced by less hostile motives, have suggested as a reason why Christ and his apostles forbore to cast any reprehension on the Essenes, 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 conceive, that without going any farther than to the manners and habits 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 evangelists, 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 Antiquit. 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 book de Hceresibus, 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. IT. propriety be submitted to the consideration of the earned. Possibly it may contribute towards dispelling a portion of that obscurity with which ancient history is enveloped. Amongst the various Jewish sects enumerated by Epiphanius, is that hf the Hemerobaptists, a set of people who, according to him, were accustomed to wash their bodies daily, imagining that without this perpetual 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 Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 143; and Justin Martyr also notices it, Dialog. cum Tryphon p. 245. ed. Jebb. merely with this difference, that rescinding the first part of the word, he terms the sect Baptist. In the Indiculum Hcereseon, a work which is commonly attributed to Jerome, it is likewise reckoned 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 associates. Homil. secund. cap. xxiii. p. 633. tom. i. Par. Apostol. The same thing is also said in the Epitome Gestorum Petri, which is subjoined to the Clemintina, ~ 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 recorded by Epiphanius as fabulous, and undeserving of credit. But what appears 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 dis[p. 44.] ciples of John; but who, fromn 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 Carnnelite, who resided for a long while amongst these people, published an account of them in a particular little work, bearing the following title: Narratio Originis Rituum et Errorum Christianorum S. Johannis; cui adjungitur Discursus per Modum Dialogi, in quo confutantur xxxiii. Errores ejusdem Nationis, Romej, 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 Bibliotheca, Oriental. Clement. Vatican; as also by Thevenot and Tavernier, in the nccounts of their travels; and Kuempher, in his Amcenitates exotic. fascic. ii. cap. xi. p. 435, et seq.; and more recently by Fourmont, in the History of the Academy of Inscriptions, 4cc. at Paris; and others. Bayer also is known to have been engaged in a work expressly on this subject, and which it is probable that lie had nearly, if not quite, completed at the time of his death. The origin and nature of this sect have not been as yet satisfactorily determined. We State of the Worl&. 61 have sufficient proof before us at this day, that it cannot irl any shape be referred to the Christians; for the opinions which those who belong to it entertain respecting' Christ, are evidently such only as have been accidentally imbibed fronm their intercourse with the Chatldean Christialis; and they do not pay him any sort of adoration or worship. By most people they are considered as the descendants of the ancient Salii, 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 Mohammedans, no argument whatever can be drawn fiom it, since it is well known that this is a generic term, applied by the Arabs to all who are of a different religion from thelnselves. For my own part, I should rather consider these Christians of St. John as the descendants of the ancient Hemerobaptists, who appear 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 themselves to be Jews, and assert that their forefathers 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, They 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 distinguished 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. It is the avarice of the priest which prevents the frequent repetition of this cere- [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. Ignatius a Jesu. in particular, is of this opinion. See his work above mentioned, cap. ii. p. 13, et seq. But it i:; plain from the account which, even according to Igna. tils 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 pilace. 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 accoint which they give Gs2 Introduction.- Chap. I.. 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 which 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 either contradictory or adverse to their tenets, and being, through their extreme ignorance, utterly unqualified for examining into or controverting any points of which they might chance to be informed, they probably without hesitation received 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 the hands of the learned. [See another translation of this note, in Murdock's Mosheim's Institutes of Ececl. Hist. B. 1. cent. I. p. 1. ch. 2. ]. p. n. (7,) vol. 1. 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 plurality of gods, and would acknowledge the existence of but one almighty power, whom they regarded as the creator of the universe, and believed to be endowed with the most absolute perfection and goodness. They were equally agreed in the opinion, that God had selected the Hebrews from amongst the other nations 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 armbas-?p. 46.] sador of heaven, and consequently that the law promulgated 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 whatever princlples or duties were therein laid down or inculeated, 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. 63 ginal source or fountain from whence all religion was to be deduced. In addition to the written law, the Pharisees had recourse to another, which had been received merely through oral tradition. This latter both the Sadducees and the Essenes rejected with contempt, as altogether spurious. The interpretation of the law yielded still further ground for acrimonious contention. 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 obvious to every reader, the other abstruse and mystical. The Sadducees, on the contrary, would admit of nothing beyond a simple 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 duties. So much dissention and discord respecting the rule of religion, and the sense in which the divine law ought to be understood, could not fail to produce a great diversity in the forms of religious worship, and naturally tended to generate the most opposite 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: Triunm Scriptorum illustrium de Judcorum Sectis Syntagma. Since that time, Basnage, 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 apparent zeal for the cultivation of piety and brotherly love, and by an affectation of superior sanctity in their opinions, their manners, and even in their dress, the influence which they possessed over the minds of the people was 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 Itroduction. — Ctcp. II. hypocrisy; and that at the bottom they were generally the slaves of every vicious appetite; proud, arrogant and avaricious; consulting only the gratification of their lusts, even at the moment of their professing themselves to be engaged in the service of their Maker.(1) These odious features in the character of the Pharisees [p. 47.] caused them to be rebuked by our Saviour with the utmost severity of reprehension; with more severity, indeed, than he bestowed even on the Saddlucees, who, although they had departed 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 actions 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.(Q) (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 himself 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 concerning the opinions of the Pharisees, with what is recorded of them in the writings of the New Testament. Such inconsistency and contradictions 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 altogether vague and unsettled. XII. Of theSadducees. The Sadducees 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 Vattion. 65 with the 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 the good things of this life, such as honors and wealth; whilst the violators of it would, in like mann er, find their punishment in the temporary sufferings and afflictions of the present day. But persons impressed with this opinion 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 leasure, of ease, and voluptuous gratification: and such is exactly the character which Josephus gives us of the Sadducees.(') 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 propensity to either good or evil; but insisted that he was left at perfect 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 altogether the consequence of his own depravity and misconduct. (1) According to Josephus, the sect of the Sadducees was of small number, and composed entirely of men distinguished for their opulence and prosperity. Antiquit. Judaic. lib. xviii. cap. i. P 4. p. 871. lib. xiii. cap. x. P 6. p. 663. He also represents those belonging to it as entirely devoid of every sentiment 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 uninterrupted course of ease and pleasure; insomuch that it was with difficulty they could be prevailed on to undertake the duties of the magistracy, or any other public function. Antiquit. lib. xviii. cap. i. { 4. p. 871. They were also, it should seem, decidedly hostile to the doctrine of fate and necessity; considering all men to enjoy the most ample freedom of action; i. e. the absolute power of doing either 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 character of the Sadduicees to their proper source; but on this part of the subject he is altogether silent. The deficiency, however, may, I think, be easily supplied; and I will therefore attempt it in a few words. Since the Sadducees believed that the law of Moses was of divine original, they were unavoidably constrained to admit that God promised rewards 66 IRtroduction. -- 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 righteous 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 necessarily consider the 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 sigoht of their Maker. Persons of slender or more moderate means, to say nothing of the afflicted, the indigent, and the naked, could have had no inducement whatever to join themselves to mlen professing such sentiments; and as the number of these has ever far exceeded 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 necessitous, 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 indignation; 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, would be acting in direct opposition to the dict.artes [p. 49.] both of reason and religion. It is probable, therefore, that in the observance of a harsh and unfeeling carriage towards their unfortunate fellow mortals, 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 and voluptuous gratification: for in vain they might say, would God lavish on his fiavourites 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. According 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 the 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 father; but he was State of the Jewvish Nation. 67 neither a Pharisee nor one of the Essenes, and we may therefore conclude him to have been a Sadducee. 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 with the body, and had treated with derision the doctrine maintained by the Pharisees respecting the happiness or misery of a future state; and that the brethren whom he had left behind entertained similar sentiments-sentiments which clearly mark themn as the votaries of that. impious system to which the Sadducees were devoted. This man is representedl as having amassed great wealth. His riches were employed in obtaining for him authority and respect amongst the people: for the eyes of the multitude were studiously drawn towards him, by the splendour and costliness of his apparel; and he fared sumptuously 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 cominisseration. The writings of Moses and the prophets were not indeed rejected by him; 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, were in the hands of these men; but they would not allow that any thing contained in them would warrant a conclusion 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 and opinions which we have just been considering, than the doctrine of the Pharisees, who maintained that there is in mankind a general proneness 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 their Own fault, as in compliance with the all-wise arrangements of Divine Providence, which freel-y dispenses both good and evil to its creatures, according to its will; whilst 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 contended, could in no wise furnish a just criterion whereby to estimate his uprightness or depravity. On every one of these points, the Sadducees differed from them toto ctelo; insisting that mall is endowed with the most perfect freedom of will to do either good o* evil, without being under the least controul whatever from any impediment either 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 dependent on themselves, if they fail to attain it, it must be entirely through their 65 lonttroductiol.- Chakp. 2I. 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 enveloped; since we are ignorant of the manner in which the Saclducees 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 of the Essenes. The Essenes are generally divided by the learned into two classes, the practical, and the theoretical. This arrangement of the sect is founded upon a supposition that the Therapeutte, concerning whom Philo Judlhus 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 pretend 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 occupation, devoted themselves entirely to the exercise of contemplation; and who, to avoid pollution, withdrew themselves from all converse with men of a cliffirent 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 others; 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 upinions and habits, by a difference in regard to which these two classes were distinguished from each other. The monks of Christianity, 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 Josephus of the latter corresponds so exactly with the institutions and habits of the early votaries of monachism, that it is impossible 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 Therapeutte. (1) Josephus de Bello Judaic. lib. ii. cap. viii. sect. 13. p. 165, et seq. State of tI#e Jewish Nation. 69 X:IV. Of the practical.Essenes. The practical Essenes were distributed 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 Sadducees; 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 superintendance of governors, whom they appointed over themselves. The whole of their time was devoted to labour, meditation, and prayer: and they were most diligently 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 deity 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 gratification, fearing lest the immortal spirit might be thereby encumbered and weighed down. It was, moreover, their endeavour, by constant meditation, to withdraw the mind as much as possible from the contagious influence of the corrupt mass by which it was unhappily enveloped. The ceremonies or external forms, enjoined by Moses to be observed in the worship of God, were utterly disregarded 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 temple.(') Upon the whole, I should think it no improbable 70 introcltction. — Chap. IL conjecture, that the doctrine and discipline of the Essenes arose out of an endeavour to make the principles of the Jewish religion accord with some tenets which they had imbibed from that system, which we have above spoken of under the title of the oriental philosophy. (1) Philo, in his book Quod omnis Probus Liber, p. 457. tom. ii. opp. edit. Anglic. denies that the Essenes offered up any sacrifices. Josephus, however, in his Antiquitates 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 offered 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 deserving of credit. The generality of them lean to the authority of Philo, and lwopose, either by an emendation of the words of Josephus, or by giving them a new interpretation, to make him say much the same thing with Philo; on which subject I have already taken occasion to make some remarks, in my notes to Cudworth's Discourse concerning the true notion of the Lord's Supper. I must [p. 52.] confess that I see no-thing which should prevent us from considering both these accounts as supported, to a certain extent, by the real fact. For, since 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 imposrsible that one part of this sect might be wholly averse from sacrifices of any kind, and consider the law fiom 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 dclaed to sacrifice in any other place than the temple; and who consequently refuse to place any faith 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 Porphyry, 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 Ahstinentia a Carnibus Animalium, lib. ii. h 26. p. 70. assigns a distinguished place to the Essenes, State of the JewisA iTcation. 71 amongst those whom he commends for abstaining from the flesh of victims. Kai rroi ]ELU'gc p~Y )1zJ'aol Ala tCX ctSc T ci i gY e &UGy a-rt) i M'x VUY 9M O 3;pgSOE Cyoa-uprna)i, ry dur' v o t' lov d,woY r, xBEk o V'r.mU LV) du ot' g sv u.3v a' ii Ck u' eS4Ci(Aloi 7' quv&~yTTV);Xv, tAMU'Tgs &N'dUlTia v.'x rOS, ICa) L'Zr' duicivY 7ro —iA) Ly i al oivOv AovTis, dv1A;oiY d v rirov'voi v uc-r-rov, ivr o'is r1YsJ ivg "i Gra-v"7Ir-SS 2Y0giTro 3eX-'r7s. Kai rsro c\J'~gwa,1 VS;ictvreS'ragTe S r ira rESO V scTo r, rCeiS X rX X vrlct. erg'roV ~~Y Xg'vov, T9 PIX6Cp0-OI TO''jEvns "o~r-rS,'rogi'I-S ~3-o hasZ dhIxoaS xAMxcor, x'iS IT VmYn-'rTicS r(ov cigc3v vl'r'oi'iT v s wgtV, BxEvrOV, oS B hv iiwa d x'i J'i'r4 V 5 CKv iuXcSEov rTv'. Proinde Judvei qui Syriam incolunt, propter primumn sacrificiorum institutum, co modo etiamnum animalia, ut ait Theophrastus, sacrificant: quo si nos juberent facere, a ritu immolandi deficeremus. Non enim victimas epulantur, sed enls integras per noctem comburentes, multo melle et vino iis superfuso, sacrificium ocyus consumunt, ne qui omnia videt, facinus hoc inttueatur. Hoc autem fiTeiunt, diebus inteljectis jejunantes, et per toturn tempus, tamquam e philosophorum erant genere, de numine colloquuntur: nocte etiam astra contemplantur, ea 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 institutions and discipline of the Essenes. The Jews of whom it speaks were philosophers; 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 performance 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 vwas, 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 reasons on account of which the Jewish pontiff and priesthood would notpermit 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 foreftthers, 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 (i. 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 remained after sacrifice. But this was an abomination in the eyes of the Essenes, who, according to the principles of the oriental philosophy, considered the soul to be held in bondage by the body; and thinkingo it therefore improper to 72 Introduction.- Chap. I. add more than was necessary to the strength of the latter, supported it merely by a small quantity of meagre food, and abstained altogether from the flesh of animals. 2. The Jews devoted only a part of the victim to the fire; but the Essenes burnt the whole of it with as much expedition as possible. 3. The Essenes poured out upon their burnt offerings an abundance of honey and wine; a 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 usage was exactly conformable 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 unwilling 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 saclificinlg. The author, who assigns the above reason for it, appears to have thought that the Essenes did not consider sacrifice as a thing altogether unlawful in itself, but yet regarded it as an usagel 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, wholn, 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 fiamed from the suggestions of the writer'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 Essenes. It appears from Josephus, that the Essenes believed the night to be a more sacred season than the day, and were, therefore, accustomed to perform all those rites and services with which they imagined it behoved them to worship 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 considered 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 Jewish Xation. 73 their divine rites, and confining themselves wholly to secular affairs 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 opportunity offered itself, I could, without any very great pains, demonstrate that this reverence for the night was founded on the principles of the ancient oriental doctrines, or that system which comes more particularly under the denomination of the Egyptian philosophy. Many of the oriental nations appear, from the earliest tihmes, 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 nmore dignified and sacred. Indeed, they carried their veneration for the night so far, as almost to place it on a footing with the Deity himself. See the particulars which have, with much diligence and care, been collected by the eminently 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 Egyptiorumn, lib. i. cap. i. ~ 7, et seq. p. 10, et 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 consummate 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 essentially 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 Therapeutcm, Notwithstanding that the practical Essenes were very much addicted to superstition, society derived no inconsiderable benefit from their labour, and the strictness of their morals. Those of the theoretical class, however, or the Therapeutm of Philo, seem to have set scarcely any bounds whatever to their silly extravagance. Although 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.(l) Renouncing every sort of employment, and all worldly goods, they withdrew themselves into solitary places, and there, distributed about in separate cells, '74 Introdzuction.- Chap. II. passed the remnant of their days without engaging in any kind of bodily labour, and neither offering sacrifices, nor observing any 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 spirit might, in defiance of its corporeal imprisonment, 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 originally sprang. Conformably to the practice of the Jews, the Therapeut e were accustomed to hold a solemn assembly every seventh day. On these occasions, after hearing a sermon from [p. 55.] their prefect, 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 appearance 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 great an extent of folly may men be led, in consequence of their entertaining erroneous principles respecting the Deity and the origin of the human soul! (1) On this subject I agree in opinion with those who consider the Therapeuth 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 institutions, and their manners. For Philo, to whom we are indebted for every information that we have respecting the Therapeutse, and who was himself a Jew, expressly calls them Jews, and the disciples of Moses; and in addition to this, there are to be perceived in their customs and manners several peculiarities 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 Jewislth iation. 75 serup!es and backwardness to be convinced may rather be attributed to prejudire or party attachment, than to any arguments by which the opinion can be opposed. In the first place, several of the dependents on the papal hierarchy, and also some English writers, persist in giving the preference to the ancient opinion of Eusebius, who thought that the Therapeut-w 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 contemplaliva 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 Therapeutee were not Christians; but the monk was not to be driven from his position: perceiving plainly that in yielding to his antagonist on this occasion, he should abandon a point of the utmost importance to himself and his fraternity, in establishing the antiquity of monachism. The contest between these two eminent schola:s 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 contre sur la fameuse Question, si les solitaires appellez Theraapeutes dont a parle Philon le Juif, etoient Chretiens. A book of some size, in answer toIMontfaucon 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 Vita Fabricii, [p. 56.] p. 243, et. seq.; but it was never published. Whilst there shall be monks in 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 Theraputas 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. tom. ii. p. 332.) that the Therapeute 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 satisfaction which he and his brethren derived from their relationship 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 Therepeutne 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, Mfangey, 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 is the favorite one of his church. With the assistance of chronological calculation, he clearly demonstrates that, at the time when Philo wrote his ace( unt of the Therapeutme, Christianity had not found its way into Egypt. Prcefat. itl Opera Philonis, p. 111. See also Opera, tom. ii. p. 471. 76 Introdtcttion.- Chap. I.. In the next place, there are some distinguished literary characters, though comparatively but few, who will not admit that the Therapeutie were either Jews or Christians. The learned Jo.Joo. Joach. Langius published at Hall, in 1721, two dissertations de Therapeutis in.Egypto et Essais, 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 fiom the religion of the Jews. But the difference between this opinion and that of those who conceive the Therapeutce to have been Jews, is not so great as the learned author seems to have imagined: for, according to his own account, the discipline 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 Therapeutac 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 Therapeutae were Jews. On this point it is not necessary at present to enter into a discussion, 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 favor of those who maintain that the Therapeuteic 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 fiom the commonly received opinion is that of Paul. Ernest. Jablonsky, a man eminent for his curious and recondite learning, who, in a treatise written professedly on the subject, has attempted to prove that the Therapeutac were priests of Egypt, who devoted themselves to the observation of the stars, and those other sciences accounted sacred in that country; in fact, that they were the same with those whom Democritus, as cited by Clement, calls Arpedonaptac. The outlines of his undertaking may be seen in his Letters to Matur. Veissiere la Croze, tom. 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 Vhilo's account which represents the Therapeuteic 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 which we are as yet completely ignorant, before we can be brought to consider the Therapeuti as having been the priests or ministers of the Egyptian deities. XVI. 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 whatever 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 Jewish CNation. 77 tious solemnity of carriage, and the most specious external parade 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 unreserved obedience to ordinances which were merely the institutions of men. Matth. xv. 9. xxiii. 13. &c. The Saddclucees considered 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 tenets forbade men to look forward to a future state of rewards and punishments, and placed the whole happiness of man in riches 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 laboured 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 altogether overlooked the duties which men owe to themselves. The Therapeutte 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 wordcl, they seem to have considered themselves as released firom every bond by which human society is held together, and at liberty to act in direct opposition to nearly every principle of moral discipline.(') (1) See what is said by Barbeyrac, in the Preface to his French translation of Puffendorf's Jus Naturs et Gentium, I vii. p. xxv. /XVII. Lives of the people dissolute and perverse. Owing to the 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 nation, for the most part, devoted to a flagitious and dissolute course of life. That such was the miserable state of de- [p. 58.1 gradation into which this highly favoured race had fallen, is incontestibly proved by the history of our Saviour's life, and the 78 iztrodlcti'on.- C2a. J.I discourses which he condescended to address to them: and it was in allusion thereto 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, wandering without a shepherd. Matt. x. 6, xv. 24. XVIII. The oriental philosophy adopted by many of the Jews. T'1) all the sources of error and corruption above pointed out, we have still further to add, that, at the tiime 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 respects, a superiority over the plain and simple system of discipline 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 Chaldeans. 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 deliverer 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 Ithe Jevuish -Arcotion. 79 companied witlih many strange and unwarrantable 3onceits, 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. Q ix. p. 206. XIX. The Samaritans. The Samaritans, who perform- [p. 59.] ed their sacred rites on miount 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 afflictions, the numerous evils produced by factions and intestine tumults. They were not, however, divided into so many religious sects; although the instances of Dositheus, Menandcr, and Simon Magus, plainly prove that there were not wanting amongst them some who were carried away by the lust of novelty, and sullied the religion of their ancestors, by incorporating with it many of the principles of orientalism.(') 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 unquestionably 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 acknowledged its defects, and looked forward with hope to the 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 with 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 SO Introductionl- Chap. - I. writer Ant. Collins, and others, who contend that the more anciel.t 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 which subsisted between the Jews and the Samaritans, that it is utterly incredible that a hope of this kind should have been communicated from either of them to the other. It necessarily follows, therefore, 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 expectation front 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 discover 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 rights: but the Samaritans, as appears fiom 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 distinct 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 they were exposed, had brought them by degrees to turn their backs onil the opinion entertained by their forefathers on this subject, and to cherish the expectation that 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 the Samaritans did not consider the Mosaic law in the light of a permanent establishment, but expected that it would pass away, and its place 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,) she 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 nmultitudes of them had been constrained to emigrate from their State of the Jewish VNation. 31 native country; and at the period of which we are new treating, the descendants of Abraham were to be met with in every part of the known world. In all the provinces of the Roman empire, 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 ventured to establish themselves without the confines of PaleatilnU, were every where successful in obtaining that general sort of encouragement and protection from violence, which was to be derived from various regulations and edicts of the emperors and magistrates in their favour:(1) but the peculiarities of their religion and manners caused them to be held in very general contempt, and not unffrequently exposed them to much vexation and annoyance from the jealousy and indignation of a superstitious populace. 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 different systems of heathen discipline, of which it would be easy to adduce numerous 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 be classed amongst the means made use of by Divine Providence to open a path for the general diffusion of the truths of Christianity. 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 deities, 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 Judaxis ad cultum diviaum per Asia Minoris Urbes secure obeudzclum, 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 everlasting salvation and peace, the Son of' God voluntarily condescended 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 important nativity.(') Several ingenious an.d profound scholars have, at different periods, bestowed an abundance of pains on the subject, in the hope of being able to supply this deficlency 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.(2) 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 invigorating warmth of its beams. 84 Century I.-Section 1, 2. (1) Vid. Clemens Alexandr. Stromat. lib. i. p. 339, 340. Bcausobre Re. marques sur le Nourveau Testament, tom. i. p. 6. If the early Christians had known the precise day of our Saviour's nativity, they woutld without doubt have distinguishedl it by a religious commemoration, in the same way as they were accustomled 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 unacquainted 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 poiut 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. Fabuicii Bibliograph. Antiq. cap. vii. { ix. p. 187. Some additional argulnents aned conjectures may be collected from the more recent publications of several [p. 63.] learned men on this subject; but from amnong-t all these different opinions 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 lor'ned Samuel Farm er Jarvis, D. D. Historiographer, &e. New-York. 1845. 8vo. Editor.] II. Accounts of his in/ahny and youth. The inspired historians of the life and actions of our Saviour have left but little on record respecting his childhood and early youth. Whilst yet an infant, it appears that his parents fled with him into Egypt, in order to shield him from the persecuting violence of Ierod the Great. Mlatt. ii. 13. At twelve years of age we find him in the temple at Jerusalem, disputing with the most learned of the Jewish doctors, 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, exhibiting in himself an exemplary pattern of affectionate filial obedience.(0) 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 curiosity, some artful unprincipled characters amongst the early Christians had the presumption to avail themselves of the ignorance and inquisitiveness of a credulous multitude in this respect, and, under the pretence of illustrating this obscure part of our Saviour's life, to impose on the public a compilation of ri Infalcy of C/Urist. 85 diculous and nonsensical stories, which they entitled Gospels of the infancy of Clhrist.e() (1) Lulke, ii. 51, 52. Several of our best informed scholars do not hesitate to assert with the greatest confidence, that Christ, during his youth, exercised the art of a carpenter, which he had learnt of his parent, and that he assisted Joseph in the different parts of his business. Indeed there are some who consider tlhis 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 Monltacute's Origines Ecclesiasticce, tom. i. p. 305, and 384. For my own part, without pretending to dictate to others, I must confess that the matter does not appelar to me to have been so clearly ascertained as 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. t;C' i;s ksiv io 7 z1 v o vioc Mapirt. Is not this the carpenter, the son of M1lary? The other from a passage in Justin Martyr, in which our Saviour is said to have worked as a carpenter, and made ploughs a.nd yokes. Dialo-. cuem'ryphon. p. 270. I pass over the more recent authorities that are brought forward in support of the fact, as of little moment, since they are all either founded on the above mentioned passage in Justin, or drawn from vulgar report, or the apocryphal gospels. Confining myself, therefore, to the two principal authorities above noticed, I must say that 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 the carpenter, I consider it to refer merely to the occupation of [p. 64.] his parent; and that,:ir/w ought to be understood, in this place, as meaning nothinlg more than d rg rt zrovs ouim, the son of the carpenter. In support of this explanation of the term, I may refer to the authority of St. Matthew himself, cap. xiii. 55. and almost every langualge supplies us with instances which prove that it was a common practice to distinguish a child from others of the same name by giving him a surname derived fiom the trade or occupation of his parent. The English langluage furlishes us with examples of this in the surnames of Baler, 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 particularly amongst the Arabs, to distinguish any learned or illustrious mani 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 ma,n of learning happen to be descended fromn 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 the Tailor. This fact is so well known to those who are conversant in oriental affairs, that I deem it unnecessary to cite any particula~r authority for it. 1 shall not here enter into an inquiry whether the reading of the passage of St. Mark 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 are many ancient 86 Cet'tury i —Section 3. manuscripts which, instead of rtix-a,, have 6o ~r ratr,:nc; a reading which I certainly shall not take upon Ime, like him, absolutely to reject, since, as I before observed, it may be supported on the authority of St.. Matthew himself Vid. Millii Proleggomena in Nov. Test. P 698. p. 66. It should seem also that Origen understood the words of St. Mark in this sense, since he expressly denies that Christ is called rxgrsvc, or a carpenter, in any part of the New Testa.ment. Contra Celsum, lib. vi. p. 662. The learned well know that Justin lMartyr 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 regard to the point before us, might be taken fiom one or other of the apocryphal Gospels of the infancy of Christ, which were in circulation amongst the Chri.stians in his time. (2) Such parts of these Gospels of the Infancy of Christ as had escaped the ravages of time, were collected together, and published by Jo. Albert. Fabrieus, in his Codex Apocryph. Nov. Test. [And still better by J. C. Thilo, Lips. 1832. 8vo. Editor.] III. John the prmecursor of Christ. Chlrist entered on his ministry in the thirtieth year of his age; 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 veneration 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 proper disposition to receive him. This illustrious character proclaimed himself to be the forerunner or herald of the Messiah, commnissionedl to call with a loud voice on the inhabitants of the wilderness to amend and make ready their ways for the Kinag that was approaching;(l) 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, in 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 under the reign of Herod the tetrarch. Having had the courage openly to reprove that tyrant for an incestuous connection with his bro The Lfe of Christ. 87 ther's wife, he 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 progress. By the form of annunciation, 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 Johanne Baptista ejusque Carcere ac Supplicio, which he will find published by Walchius, amongst his Dissertaeiones Academicz, part i. p. 169; part ii. p. 373. IV. The life of Christ. It cannot be necessary 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 enemies could find nothing whereof they might accuse him. In regard, 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 88 Century I.-Section 4, 5. tained in the writings of the Old Testament, but also by a series of the most stupendous miracles. Of his 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 his ministry, and exhibited no unfaithful types or images of those spiritual blessings which he was about to communicate to mankind. Had our Saviour come to enforce with rigour the penalties of the law, he might with propriety have established the authenticity of his mission by terrific prodigies and signs; but he [p. 66.] came as the messenger of divine clemency and pity, and in no way could the truth or the character of his doctrine have been more beautifully or emphatically marked than by the wonders of benevolence and love. AV. Christ seceded from the Jewish church to a certain degreeQ n11 the line of duty which Christ prescribed for the Jews, lie omitted none of those points which were enjoined by the law of Moses; 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 incurring the hatred and ill offices 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 ulcnder 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, would unite the whole human race in one comlnmon bond of fraternal love.(') Neither did he confine himself merely to thus prophesying the rise of a new 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 preaching 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 sececled fom the Jewish Chutrch. 89 separate them from the rest of the Jewish community. John, iii. 22, 26. iv. 2. Although, therefore, it nmust be allowed that Christ and his disciples did not formally renounce their connection 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.(2) (1) Luke xix. John, iv. 21. Matth. x. 32. xvi. 18. John, x. 16. (2) Several learned men, chiefly amongst the civilians, have had their doubts as to this point, of Christ with his followers having seceded friom the Jewish church, and established a new and distinct religious community. But to me the fact appears to admit of no question whatever. Whoever promulgates new principles or precepts —prescribes a new rule of life and conduct — makes use of a certain sacred rite, with a view to distinguish all those [p. 67.] 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 his 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 mv opinion, unquestionably be considered as founding a new religions 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 AMessiah 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 sacrifices and external observances, but that of the heart and mind. Next, all who professed themselves ready to espouse these principles, and conform to these precepts, 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 initiated 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 for the purpose of religious worship, and, amongst other things, particularly apprizing them of the approaching downfall of the Jewish state and religion. The fact is likewise supported by other circumstances, 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. Mity opinion on this subject entirely corresponds with theirs, who consider this ceremony as having been adopted by the Jews long before the time of our Saviour, and used by them in the initiating of strangers who had embraced their religion. To omit other 90 Cjenhturey. -Sectioz a, 6. arguments of no little weight in favour of this opinion, I think it may be sup. ported on thle authority of Scripture itself, and particularly fiom the account given us in John i. of the embassy sent by the supreme council of the Jews to John the BaptiAt, the forerunner of Christ. For the rite itself, of baptizing with water those who confessed their sins and promised an amendment of life, does not seem to have been regarded by the elders of the Jews in the light of a novelty, or as a practice by any means of an unusual kind. The only point on which they require information of John is, from whence he derived his authority to perform this solemn and sacred ceremony. The 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 him 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 b1 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 neither the 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 messengers' 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 Messiah 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 that the religious community thus established by Christ, although confined 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 kEbectiol of the Apostles. 91 to a constant and familiar intercourse with him, might acquire that lively degree of faith and zeal, which should enable theln, in spite of every obstacle and difficulty, to make their way into the different regions of the world, for the purpose of propagating 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 authority, 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 ample kind, and superior to all exception, he made them his constant and intimate companions through life; retaining them always 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;(2) and it should seem that Christ intended thereby to intimate to the Jews that he was the Sovereign Lord, the true King, and great High Priest of all the twelve tribes of Israel. (1) The word apostle, it is well known, signifies 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 he 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 term, and more readily perceive the motives which probably induced our Saviour to apply it to those whom he sent forth, when he is informed that in the age of which we are now treating, this appellation was appropriated to certain public officers of great credit and authority amongst 92 Celrtleety I —Sectiow 6. the Jews, who were the confidential ministers of the high priest, and consulted writ by him on occasions of thie highest moment. They were also occasionally invested with particulLr powers, and dispatched on missions of importance, principallly to such of their countrymen as resided in foreign p:irts. The collection of the yearly tribute to the temple, which all Jews were bound to p:ly, wals ikewise entrusted to their management, as were also several other affairs of no small consequence. For since all Jews, however widely they might bo dispersed throughout the various regions of the world, considered themselves as belonging to one and the same family or commonwealth, of which the hirgh priest residing at Jerusalem was the praefect 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 difficult matters, and any controversies and questions of moment respecting divine subjects, to the decision of the high priest, it was absolutely necessary that this supreme pontiff should always have nelr him a number of persons of fideli y, learning and authority, of whose services he might avail himself, in communicating his mandates and decrees to those Jews who were settled in distant parts, and in arranging and determining the various points referred to him for decision. My recollection indeed does not enable me to produce any express proofs from ancient authors, that, at the period of which we are speaking, the high priest had any such ministers attached to himl under the name of apostles; 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 d7r' dvag7rtv, of men, nor Ji dvpc57rt by man, but of God himself, 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 apostles commissioned by men, namely, apostles sent by the Jewish high priest alnd 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, tom. ix. opp. p. 124. edit. Francof. Usque hodie, says he, a palriarchis [p. 70.] Judclorum aposlolos mitti (constat.) Ad dislinctionem itaque eorum qui mittuntur ab hominibus, et sui qui, sit mis'sus a Christo, tale sumpsit exordium: Paulus aposlolus, non ab hominibus, neque per hominem. These words of St. Jerome, who resided in Palestine, and was every way skilled in Jewish affairs, must, I think, necessarily be allowed to weigh strongly in favour of the above statement respecting the apostles of the high priest. The meaning they convey indisputably is, that in the time of St. Paul, it was the practice of the 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: andl there appears to be no reason whatever which should induce us to question the credibility of what is thus said. But let us leturn to the words of St. Paul, ii fulTectzion of the Alp)osiles. 93 which, as it appears to me, there is something worthy of renmrk, which, if my memory does not fail me, has never hitherto attracted the attention of any commentator. St. Paul says, that he is an apostle, not of men, neither by man. le therefore clearly divides human apostles into two classes, viz. those who were commissioned merely by one man, andlthose who were invested with their powers by several. Now what does this mean? Who are these men, and who tllat single man, who, in St. Paul's time, were accustomed to send amongst thle 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 si,)gle 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 archonies, or Jewish magistrates. 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, concerning whom a curious and elegant little work was published by Wesseling, ad Inscript. Beren. Traject. ad Rhen. 1738, in 8vo. I take the meaning, therefore, of St. Paul to be, that he neither derived his commission from those inferior 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 archonres had under them certain ministers who were termed apostles, much in the same way as the high priest had, is clear fiom Eusebius, who says,'Axros6xss dSi oir'rt xd vy v Ik'os isiv 3ls4'toii ivvc6tv rss rra xu.)ao aoh g6ip a-L. 7a, nga ry a p X v1 7 a v dwtriv inxOiY~OImtEVuS. Apostolos etiam nune Judxi eos appellare solent qui archonturn suorum litteras eircumquaque deportare solent. Comment. in Esaiam, cap. xviii. in Montfauconii Collectione nova Patr. Grvccor. tom. ii. p. 424. But I shall leave this conjecture 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 special 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 fiact 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, aid 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 denomination of apostles. Vid. Jac. Gothofredus ad Codicem Theodosianum, tom. vi. p. 251, 252. edit. Ritterian. Dion. Petavius Anzimadrers. ad Epiphanium ad Hceres. xxx. et de Hierarchia Ecclesiast. lib. i. cap. vi. p. 16. and lib. ii. cap. ii. [p. 71.] x x. p. 45. in Dogmalibus Theologicis, tom. iv. Petr. Wesselingius de Archon/ibus Judcor. 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 I —Sections 6, 7. with those who professed it: a circumstance which must have escaped Gothofred, or he never would have concluded that the Jews were unacquainted 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 this term to those whom he thus delegated, his intention doubtless was to intimate to the Jews that he was invested with all the rights 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 these twelve, whom Christ ordained to 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 Jndmea, 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, however, 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 TDhe fame of Christ. 95 press on the minds of the 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 et Morle Mosis, a Gilb. Gaulmino illustrati; but which Blondell, (de Episcopis et Presbyteris, p. 93.) has 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 entirely 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 wonderful things that he performed will not permit us to doubt but that his fame soon diffused itself throughout a great part of the world. Amongst other things which tend to prove this, it is related 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 undeserving 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 Apocrypho N. Test. tom. i. p. 317. Theoph. Sigifr. Bayer enters much at length into the history of Abgarus, in his Historia Edessena et Osr6iena, lil. 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. Asseman adopts somewhat of a middle course between the two extremes, considering Abgarus'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 ambassador. Biblioth Oriental. Clement. Vatican. tom. i. p. 554. and tom. iii. part. 96 Century I.-Sections 8, 9. ii. p. 8. For this opinion he had the authority of Bellarmin. Bayer also is friendly to it, in his Historia Edessena, p. 109. On tLe 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. Biblioth. italique. tom, xiii. p. 121, et seq. I cannot, however, by any means consent to charge a man so devoid of seperstition, and so well affected to the cause of Christianity as Eusebius was, with an imposition of so gross a nature; and more particularly since I find it impossible to divine any motive or cause which could have incited him to the. commission of such an infamous fiaud. No man does evil unadv:isedly, or without some inducement. Keysler, in the account of his travels, written in German, tom. ii. p. 29. says that amongst other ridicuious monuments of superstition exhibited to the credulous multitude at Rome, is shown the picture which Christ sent to Abgarus on the above-mentioned occasion. But Beausobre 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 ChristSs ministry. A considerable number of the Jews, penetrated with astonishment at the many wonderful proofs which Christ gave of his divine authority and power, became 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 with 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 consistent 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 abortive. Moreover, when he was at Jerusalem, where there was every reason for him to be most apprehensive of danger, his en The death of Christ. 97 mies were withheld from laying hands 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 firiends and companions. X. The death of Christ. Of these his companions, however, one was at length found, named Judas, who, bartering his salvation for money, agreed, for a reward of no great value, to discover the nightly retreat of his divine Master; who was, in consequence thereofg 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, without the least shadow of justice, and merely on testimony of the most vague and contradictory natule, le Awas pronounced guilty of blasphemy, [p. 74.] and worthy of death. Fromn thence he was taken to the tribunal of Pontius Pilate, t~he Rooman governor, and accused of a crime totally different in its nature from that wherewith he had been filrst charged, and of wlticth it had been his particular care to avoid incurring even the least suspicion, namely, attempting to excite sedition and conspiracy against C-esar. Pilate, although he does not appear to have been over scrupulous in the admninistration of justice, yet discountenlanced this accusation, which. he at on ce 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 mercy, 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 persisted to call for it with a tumultuous violence, approaching nearly to a state of insurrection,:he was at length induced, though evidently with considerable 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 imankind, 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 I.-Sections 10, 11. voluntarily submitted to undergo the pain and ignominy of a capital punishment, and calmly breathed out his pure and spotless soul upon the cross; praying, even in his agony, for the forgiveness of those who were the merciless and unrelenting authors of his sufferings.(i) (1) It is manifest, from the history of the death of Christ, that he spake most truly when he said, No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself, John, x. 18. For how easy would it have been for him, even without a miracle, to have avoided fallling into the hands of his enemies. The 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 treacherous intentions of his perfidious disciple Judas, since he expressly alludes to them on more thlan one occasion. On the other hand, it appears that he had several great and powerful friends, on whom he could have depended for support. Would he but have quitted Jerusalem, and returned into Galilee, every scheme that had been formed against him mymt 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 efficient 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 share 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 continued to pass his nights in the usual and accustomed place. All these circumstances 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? XI. 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 senators, had prepared for him[p. 75.] self, where it remained until the third day. Early on the morning of that day, our blessed Saviour, according to his own prediction, again resumed the life which he had voluntarily laid down; and by triumphantly rising from the tomb, demonstrated 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 Chri tis Resurrectio n. 99 frequent converse with his disciples, confirming their 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 cof one risen from the dead would produce no salutary impression on men, whose minds were not only blinded by malice, but corrupted by various popular superstitions respecting manes and spectres.(') At the end of the above-mentioned period, having assem)bled his disciples, and commanded them to go and preach the gospel unto all nations, he blessed them, and rising sublimely from t'che 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 learnedl; inasmuch as the enemies of Christianity have, for ages, urged this circumstance as a reason for calling in question the truth of his return to life. Now to me 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 prophets, neither will they 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 intimation in regard to the point before us; much as if our blessed Saviour had added: " In like manner, there can be no hope whatever that those whom I miay 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 ar:. 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 fiom 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 unfrequently, either of their own accord, or by command of the prince of darkness, again revisit this earth, and show 100 Century I.-Section 11, 12. themselves to the livino under an adrial form. Amongst men who entertained [p; 76.] 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 separated from its earthly abode, it was come back for the purpose of; in some measure, avenging' itself by haunting and terrifying mankind. XII. Effilsion of the Holy Spirit ons the apostles. Those whom Christ had selected as above mentioned to be the witnesses of his life and acts, and the messengers of his gospel to the world, were not, at the time of his ascension, endowed with powers adequate to the discharge of the important functions with which they were invested. Having, therefore, again resumed his station in glory, and sat down at the right hand of the everlasting Fa-ther, he, about the fiftieth day from the time of his death, sent down on them fiomn above, according to his promise, the divine power and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Acts, ii. 1. In consequence of this miraculous effusion, their iminds became 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) Amongst 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 faculty like this, which requires infinite power, could be communicated to men. The miracles which the apostles appeared to work were, as I conceive, wrought by Christ himself, on their invocation; and, therefore, 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 tne 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 walk. and imnmediately 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 volition, 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 with the requisite confidence and powers by this communication of succour from above, the apostles entered on their ministry without delay; endeavouring, first of all, as they had been commanded, to convert the inhabitants of Jerusalem to a faith in Christ, and then directing 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 anothler, 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 ascension of our Saviour, is manifest from their Acts, which were written by St. 102 Century I. —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 commonwealth on a firm and durable basis, and to furnish the churches which 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 immediate 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 guardianship antl administration of the concerns of his religion, the other disciples who were employed in establishing churelhes in Judnea, Samaria, and the neighbouring 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 consulted the apostles, or availed themselves of their instruction or commands, if the latter had departed from Jerusalem at an early period, and distributed themselves about in various parts of the world? The general interests of Christi.anity, 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 determining every thing [p. 78.] relative to the establishing of his religion, should for a certain time remain 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 whole collective body of those who had been admitted to a more partieu 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 tilne of our Saviour's leaving them they departed on that mission to the Gentile nations with which they were charged, is by no means certain. According to the ancient report quoted by Eusebius firom 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. Ilistor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xviii. p. 186. and Clemens Alexandr. ex Prccdicatione Petri Stromat. lib. vi. 3ap. 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 imnagination. XIV. The election of a new apostle. The first concern of the apostles, after our Saviour's ascension into heaven, was to render Election of Matthias. 103 their number complete according its first establishment, by electing a man of superior worth and sanctity to supply the place of Judas, who had perished by a miserable death. Having, therefore, gathered together the small assembly of Christians which had been formed in Jerusalem, two men distinguished for their sanetity and faith in Christ were proposed as candidates on this occasion; the one named Barsabas, the other Matthias. The whole assembly then joined in devout prayer to God, that their choice miglht 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 appointment of Maatthias in the rooml 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 representing Matthias ashaving 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 received 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, lie 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 axi'astv J': but I have not the least doubt that we ought, in this place, to consider the word'A? oc64olt 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: xii IgXv xxigc drcv(,, ta. re7ro-ay a xAgoS Sr Mzr&tytv, v. 26. Now, in this passage all the comnmentators attribute so much force to the word Ixxgo;, which properly signifies a lot, that they unanimously consider the true interpretation of the first branch of the sentence to be, et jecerunt sortes eorum,' and they cast their lots;" and hence conclude that Matthias was chosen by lot. But to me iL appears that this inter 104 Century I.-Section 14. pretation 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 BiAxxAi joined with x^;igo; and therefore, if St. Luke had meant to indicate what these commentators suppose, he would have written xai',2xov xpigov, or cxxgs), and not i'Jxav, which latter word was never, at least as far as I know, applied in this way. It was equally unusual for the Greek writers to add the pronoun &vUIv after ixxgos, when the latter was used by them in the sense of a lot that was thrown. They say simply, with Homer, i':.xov:xaugS, "they cast lots." And certainly, what occasion there could be 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 other 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 xxigo; as having the same signification with J4sr,~ viz. a suffrage, or what in common language is termed a vole; 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 darcv, I should substitute &wrcU5. 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 pastors; 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 ability. 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 majority of votes in his favor 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 then infant [p. 80.] church of Jerusalem gave their suffrages for Matthias, in preference to nis companion Barsabas. The word Ag; o0S, in the latter part of the passage under consideration, does not mean a lot, but the office or function with which Matthias was invested; qr; haxovix;, 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 maci ergs~v xxigos (qif JLtxoviagt r:t-rnj) iri Mcr&tifiv; 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 side, for the consideration of the learned. XV. The conversion of St. Paul. All these apostles were uninformed, illiterate men. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, indeed, their minds had become fllly irradiated with celestial light; but to any other sort of wisdom than that which is from above, they had no pretensions; neither were they at all instructed in any of the different branches of human learning. In the then infancy of the Christian church, however, it was absolutely requisite that, in addition to these, there should be some one appointed who might be able to repress the domineering spirit 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 afterwards changed it for that of Paul, appointed him a thirteenth apostle. Saul, who was 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 eminently skilled in every kind of Jewish learning. IHe was also conversant with the literature and philosophy of the Greeks. Led away by prejudice and warmth of temper, he was 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, devoting himself wholly to it, and with the utmost cheerfulness and fortitude, exposing himself to innumerable hardships and dangers on account thereof, throughout the whole course of his future life. Acts, ix. 1, et seq. In how great a degree every interest of Christianity was promoted by the exertions of this illustrious and admirable character, how many churches he founded throughout the greatest part of the Roman empire, how numerous and how formidable the contentions and perils which he encountered 106 Century I. —Section 15, 16. and overcame, his own epistles which are still extant, and the history of -the Acts of the Apostles written by St. Luke, abundantly testify. XVAI. Of the labours, martyrdom, &c. of the apostles. In the accounts which have been given by various writers, of thte labours, 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 the 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, Eusebius, Gregory Nanzianzene, Paulinus, Jerome, Socrates, and certain of the more ancient writers who are cited with approbation by Eusebius; but as to any thing that is to be met with merely in the writings of uncertain authors, or those of a later age, I should ever feel inclined to receive it with considerable 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 carried forgery and imposition to an extent, of which it would be difficult to convey to thel 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 ineluding those accounts which have been handed down to us of their having, for the most part, undergone violent deaths; although I am well aware, that the fact of their having suffered in this way is commonly considered as established beyond dispute.(') (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 lApostles. 107 call it in question, or oppose it, must run no inconsiderable risk of being accounted hostile to the fame and reputation of those divine chlaracters. In what I am about to say, it is far firom 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 remarkingf, 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 same untimely fate. My doubts are founded, in the first place, on the testimony of Heracleon, a very ancient author of the second century, aValentinian indeed by profession, but most evidently neither an ill-informed nor incautious writer, who, as quoted by Clement of Alexandria, ($Stromat. 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 face 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, although they were never put to the test of making an open profession of their fhitlh in Christ before an earthly tribunal, and sealing it with their blood.'Ou tago 01rarri pi 5m0 WIXOXSMOA 5Y TolIs hai rrilc 9cpVir cUOXo v,'Lt vi i xx ai' Y.'E4: Wv M ouraaos, ~iAl7rzosa, OE)uac, Aui, xail Axxot 7ro,}XI. Non enim [p. 82.] omnes qui salvi facti sunt, eam (Christi) confessionem quae per vocem (apud magistratus) ediderunt, el post earn ex vita excesserunt. Ex quibus est JlIatthccus, Philippus, Thomas, Levis, et multi 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 autllor 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. Epistola ad Victorem, apud Eusebium HIistor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 191. Baronius, indeed, Annal. tom. i. ad ann. 35. P 141. and many others after him, would have us to understand Polycrates 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 Century I.-Section 16 indeed, nearly sufficient 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 martyrs against the Valentinians, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Otigen, reckon no more than three of the apostles as coming within the class of martyrs, namely, Peter, Paul, and James the great. Tertullian says, Quca tamen passos apostolos scimus, manifesta doctrina est: hane intelligo solam acta decurrens. —Quod Petrus cceditur, quod Stephanus opprimitur, quod Jacobus immolatur, quod Paulus distrahitur, ipsorum sanguine scripta sunt. El si fidem commentarii voluerit hereticus, instrumenta imperii loquuntur, ut lapides Jerusalem. Vilas Ccesarum legimus: orientem fidem Romca primus Nero cruentavit. Tune Petrus ab altero oingitur, quum cruci adstringitur. Tune Paulus civitalis Romance consequitur nativitatem, quum illic martyrum renascitur generositate. Haec ubicumque legero, pali disco: nec mea interest, quos sequar martlyrii magistros, sensusne an exitus apostolorum. Scorpiace, cap. xv. p. 633. edit. Rigaltii. If these words of Tertullian 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 Valentinians, 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 continued steadfast in faith and holiness of life would obtain salvation equally with the martyrs. To this opinion Tertullian opposes the example of the apostles, 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 sea.led their 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 tlian ordinary caution contents himself with naming merely three of the apostles 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 no means wanting in penetration or judgment, and was fully awaro that the Valentinians, his opponents, might reply, that only a few of the apostles suffered 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, Nec mea interest quos sequar mar/yrii 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 underv ent Lizves of the Apostles. 109) violent deaths. I do not take upon me to controvert this. It is sufficient for me to lhave proved thtt I have the general sense of the apostles on my side, inasmuch 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 consta.ncy; 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 sense, 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 vwhat they had thus expected and desired." Influenced 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 accounted 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 Constantine. 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. Martyr, in the Greek language, signifies any sort of witness: but the term 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 6gruge5g, 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 consequence 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 nn. certainty, however, in which the history of the apostles is involved, it appears to be placed beyond a doubt that they travelled 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 1.-Section 17. their travels, and shared their labours, established churches dedicated 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 writings of the New Testament. (2) 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 immediate 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.(3) (1) That the 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 Rebus geslis Christianorum sub Apostolis, cap. vii. p. 107; as also by Fabricius, in his Lux Et:anygelii toti Orbi 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 prudent 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 4Apostles. 111 tation and pertinacity, attribute the conversion of their forefathers to the preaching and labours of Crescent, the disciple and companion of St. Paul, of Dionysius of Athens, the Areopagite, of Lazarus, NMary Magdalene, and I know not of how many others. Throughout Italy, there is scarcely a city which does not pretend to have received the first rudiments of Christianity fiom either Paul or Peter; and that its first bishop was appointed by one or other of these. Vid. Giannone Hisloire civile du Royacume de Naples, tomn 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 Delicice Eruditorum, tom. viii. Proaf. p. xxxv, xxxvi. and tom. xi. Proefat. 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 vwhieh 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, venerate 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 overwhelhned and trodden under foot by ignorance and superstition. At present, however, they are regarded in a very different light; and the wisest 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 saur l'Histoire 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 dissertation, in which he undertakes the defence of a passage in Sulpitius Severus 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, MIAedia ctate orta est inter ecclesias super antiquitate origginum suarum contentio, et certa quwcdam em.latio, qutcfecit, ut curm simplicemn veritatem ultro oblatamn facile proferre poterant, ait Damianus, sategerint, ut mendacia cum labore corfingerent. Etenirnm dum reconcinnarunt pleraque primorum episcoporum acta, nunc adstipulante nomrinum simiilitudine, Trophimum puta Arelatensem, et Paulum Narbonensem, qui sub Decio venerant in Galliam., cum Trophimo et Paulo Sergio, Pauli apostoli sectatoribus confuderunt: nunc eadem vel alia de causa Rufatm, e' Macedonia Avento 112 CTentury [ —Section 18. nem, et Lazarurm e Cyqpro Massiliam traduxerunt, nunc alios a secundo vel tertio [p. 86.] ecclesiw: sccculo retocarunt ad prim-um, eosque Petri vel Clementis disctpulo et nobilibus orlos parentibus, quos sxpe nominant, afirmarunlt: nunc eliam alios contstituerunt, de quibius per antiquc ltraditionis testes, qzui ante Caroli lIagni tempus forluerunt, nihil licet quicquam pronuntiare. To the justness of this statement, so far as it goes, I most readily subscribe; but as to what is furthler imnagined by many of the learned, that it was not until ifter the age of Charlemagne that the European churches began to contend with each other respectincr the antiquity of their foundation, and, in direct violation of the truth, to refer their origin to the apostolic age, I conceive that it admits of some doubt. To me it appears that those preposterous attempts to carry back the origins of churches even to the times of the apostles, and to give them a venerable air by trumping up the most idle tales of their extlreme antiquity, 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 possession of the miltds of both the Greeks and the Latins, even so far back as the ige 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 examnple drawn from the history of Gregory of Tours, a writer of the sixtll 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 credulity to which I rather think but few, if any of us, are equal. The narrative occurs in Gregory's book de Gloria Martyrum, cap. xii. p. 735. and is as follows: Tune temporis a Galljis matrona quadam Hierosolymis abierat, pro devotione tanturn, ut Domini et salvatoris nostri prcesentiam mereretur. Audivii antem quod beatus Johannes decollaretur: cursu illic rapido tendit, dalisque muneribus supplicat percussori ut earnm sanguinem deJluenlem colligere permitteret non arcerti: illo autern percutiente, Malrona concham argenteam prceparat, truncaltoque martyris capite, cruoremr devota suscipit: quem diligenter in ampulla po. silurn, patriam detulil et apud Vasatensem urbem, cedificata in ejus honorem ecclesia, in sancto altari collocavit. Now I will talke upon me 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 returne 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 Guienne before Christ'3 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 Apostles. 11i Bmall degree involved in the maintenance of it. Such ridiculous extravagance naturally reminds one of the Arcades, who anciently boasted that their race was older than the moon, XVIII The Wrritings of the Apostles. But the labours [p. 87.] of the apostles, in the cause of their divine Master, were not restricted merely to journeyings, to watchings, to the cheerful endurance of deprivations and sulfferings, to the communication of oral. instruction, or to the use of such other means as promised to be instrumeantal inx lpromoting the edification of those of their own age, The wel-fre of future generations was likewise the object of tlheir solicitude; and they accordingly made it a part of their c3oicern to commit to writing a code of testimony and instruction, of which the whole human race might avail itself in all ages to come: the HIToly Spirit, to w-hose inflnence and guidance their minlds were in every respect subject, doubtless prompting them to the undertakinfg. St. Matthew with his own hand wrote a history of the life and actions of Christ, as did also St. John; anld St, Peter and St. Paul respectivelty dictated similar histories to St. Mark and St. Luke.(') Certain epistles, also, in whicll are comprised the leading principles of Christianity, and -various precepts or rules of life, were addressed by St. Paul, St. Jarres, St. Peter, St. JohIn, and St. Jude, to the churches which they had established in different parts of the world. At no very goreat dtistance of time from the age of the apostles, the Christians, with a view to secure to filture ages a divine and perpetual standard of faith and action, collected these writings together into one v-olume, under thle title of The New Testament, or The Canonf o1' the New Testament. Neither thIe narmes of those who were lchiefly concerned in the making of this collection, nor the exact time of its being u-ndertakeln, can be ascertained with any degree,of certainty; nor is it at all necessary that we should be precisely 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 tire New Testament had been collected together before the death of St. John, or at least not long after that event.(2) (1] That 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 authorities, Papias, apud Eusebium IHislor. Eccles lib. iii. cap. xxxix.; Irenwus, 8 114 Century I-Section 19. adv. Hcereses, lib. iii. cap. i.; Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and others. That St. Luke derived the materials of his history from St. Paul, is also asserted by Ireneus, lib. iii. cap. i.; Tertullian, contra Marcionem, lib. iv. cap. v.; and others. It is, therefore, not without reason that St. Paul and St. Peter are termed by some the original authors of the gospels of St. Luke and St. Mark. (2) The insidious attempt made by Toland, in his Amyntor, 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 different 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 Bibliotheca sacra, seu Diatriba de Librorum Novi Test. Canone, Amnslelod. 1710, 8vo. Jo. [p. 88.] Mill in his Prolegomena ad Nov. Testamenrt. i. p. 23, et seq. and Jo. Frickl;ius de Cura veteris Ecclesixc circa Canonem Nov. Testamenti, 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 testimony of Eusebius (Hislor. 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 fiom 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 the apostles is might be proper to add that formulary of faith, which is comnmonly known by the name of the Apostles' Creed, if any reasolnable grounds 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 bv many even at this day, namely, that it was drawn up by the apostles themselves before they departed from Jerusalem on their mission to the Gentiles.(') But to say nothing of the silence of all the most ancient writers as to this point, and equaily passing 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 asm 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 Gospel. 115 little, extended and dilated, according as new errors from time to time sprang up in the Christian community.(2) No one surely will maintain, that we ought to regard that as a genuine formulary of faith prescribed by the apostles, which can be proved to have been amplified in several respects subsequently to their death. [p. 89.] (1) See what has been with much industry collected on this subject by tVose highly respectable writers: Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his Isagoge ad Theologgians, lib. ii. clp. ii. { ii. p. 441; and Jo. Georg. Walehius, in his Introiductio in. Libros symbolicos, lib. i. cap. ii. p. 87. (2) That such was the fact has been clearly demonstrated by Sir Peter King, in his History of the Apostles' Creed, with Critical Obser~vations ona its Articles, London, 1702, 8vo. This work was translated into Latin by Gothofred Olearius, and first printed at Leipsig, 1704, in 8vo.; a second edition was some time afterwards published a.t Basle. XX. Causes to which the quick propagation of Christianity mnst be ascribed. The system of discipline which the apostles, by the authority and command of their divine Master, employed themselves in propagating throughout the world, was not only repugnant 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 different nations of the earth; and as for the persons thenmselves 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, therefore, to account for the astonishingly rapid propagation of the Christianl religion amongst so many different nations, part of them of a savage and ferocious character, and part entirely devoted 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, accompanied with prayer. Let these things be considered for a 116 Centstry I.-Section 20. mori-llnt as false, and we shall at onlce find how utterly out of our power it is to assign any rational cause that couldl llave prevailecd onl so large a portionl of nalnkind, 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 Christianity, at the hazard of life, fortune, honour, and every thincg else that could be clear to them.(') (1) It is certainly a very ill-advised attempt, and a disgracefnl abise of talents, for any one to pretend to accoaut for that wonderful revolution in the sentinielts and afftirs ot' mankind, which was thus brought about by a mere hanldful of illiterate Jews, from mere natural eauces. There are, however, severll who, espousing the principles of Hobbes and others, persist in contending 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 the lower class of people, to the profession of Christianity, under the expectation of having their wants relieved, and being enabled, through the munificence 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 informn those who maintain this opinion, that the idle and slothftul hlnd no place Iamongst the first Christians; 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 vicious, and the sensual, were, by order of the apostles, to be expelled from the Christian community? Can it be necessary to inform them, lthat every Christian farmily 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 ca:pable of yielding them assistance? 1 Tim. v. 3. 16, &c. Equally superficial and futile is the reasoning of those, who would persuade us that great numbers were induced to embrace Christianity, on accounlt of the infamous lives led by the heathen priests, and the 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 inducemeuts 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 -3n the generality of mankind, that they were readily prevailed on to adopt Th/e first CGhristarss. 117 them as their instructors and guides in the road to salvation. Great indeed, I min ready to allow, i:s the effect 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 had no weight with those whom they converted to a faith in Christ. But all of us who are acquainted with what we are ourselves, and what hbuman nature is, must be well aware that, although purity of morals and ilnocence of life may excite thie respect and veneration of mankind, they will not often produce imitation underl any circumlstances,-and hardly ever, if it be nianifest tllhat 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 unfavourable light, if it require men to renounce the principles and opinions in which they were bred, to abandon their pleasures, and cast off habits to which they have been long attached. And certainly 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 exaumple of the Lord and Master of the apostles himself, whose whole life exhibited 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 fiom 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 caluse many thousands of men to believe in that Jesus, who was c rucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews, as the Saviour of the human race;-indcuce them sedulously to form themselves after the apostolic model;-and fimnally, inspire them with the resolution to die rather than renounce the principles which they had thus embraced, is what I am certain 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 unanimity 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 who were, of course, easily to be wroughlt upon and managed by any oine even ol 118 Century I. —,ectnz 21. very moderate abilities. For, in the first place, lhat they thus so confidently press on our attention is not a correct representation of the fact; 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, rankl, and learning.(') 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 comrnon with their superiors, the warmest attachmuent 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 intelligent and cultivated minds, who are possessed of wealth and authority, and fill the higher stations in life.(') (1) The apostles, in their writings, prescribe rulas for the conduct of the rich as 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 allnd masters of families. St. Paul and St. Peter admonish Cllristi:n women not to study the adorning of themselves with pealls, 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 the purchase of bodily ornaments of grealt price. St. Paul exhorts the Christians to beware of the philosophy of the Greeks, and also of that oriental system which was styled 7yv6a. 1 Tim. vi. 20, Col. ii. 8. Hence it is manifest that amongst the first converts to Christianity there were men of learning and philosophers, who wished to temper and improve, as they thouoght, 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 the 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 Episcopis et Presbyteris; also by Wetstein, in his Preface to Origen's Dialogue contra M7arcionitas, 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. 119 well-informed people than ten of such as are ignorant and stupid. Vicious 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. 92.] pensities in six hundred well-born persons of ingenuous mind, than in twenty servants or people of the common order. In my opinion, therefore, if the fiact would bear out the adversaries of Chrlistianity 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 theirjourneys, admits of little or no doubt. Authors of no mean credit assure us that, before the departure of the apostles fromn Jerusalem, the fame of the wonders wrought by Christ in the land of Jucldea had extended itself throughout a great part of the world, or at least of the Romnan empire, and impressed many with the highest estimation of his character. It is even said that some of the Roman emperors themselves entertained an honourable respect for his name, his doctrinle 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 intention 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 opposed 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 (Hislor. Eccles. lib. vii. cap. xviii. p. 265.) that many amongst the heathens had procured images of our Saviour, and his 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 Irenweus, both statues and pictures of our Saviour, and said that Pilate had caused a likeness to be painted of him. Lib. i. contra Hcereses, cap. xxv. p. 105. edit. Massvet. Concerning the favourable disposition manifested by tile Roman emperors 120 Century I. —Section 22, 23. towards the Christian religion, there is a notable passage cited by Eusebiu, Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 148. from the apology addressed by Melito of Sardis to Marcus Antoninus, on behalf of the Christians; in which he intimates that the ancestors of the emperor had not only tolerated the Christian religion, in common with other systems, but had also treated it with considerable honour and respect.'Hv ac' i g7rg voi 0's o r g s'raJ;&is Qxu 5, s -Ei s;O-v. Quam sectam majores tui una cum ceteris religionibus coluerunt. The same author adds, that Nero and Domitian were the only emperors who had ever suffered them[p. 93.1 selves to be so far influenced by the suggestions of wicked and malevolent advisers, as to conceive an ill opinion of the Christian religion, and falvour the 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 should seem that John of Antioch might have sonme re'ason for stating, as he does, (in Excerpt. Valesian. p. 808, et seq.) that Nero, at his first accession to the purple, was well inclined to the cause of Christ, and fatvoured the Christians. Tertullian (in Apologoetic. c:ap. v. p. 57. ed. I-avercnmp.) speaks of the intention of Tiberius to have assigned our Saviour a 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. Commentare ad Edicla veterum principum Romnazorum de Christianis, p. 22, 23. Alb. Fabric. Lux Erangelii loli Orbi ex'oriens, p. 221. Some of the most learned men, however, of the present daly, consider this as altogether incredible; deeming it imposdible to reconcile such an intentio, 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 argumrents brought forward by those who take this side of the question have been met anld answ ereld by nmen of no less learning and ingenuity on the opposite side, nmny be seen in a curious work of Theod. Hasrus, de Decrelo lTiberii quo Christurm referre eoluit in ~Numerum DeorTm, Erfurt, 1715, in 4to.; as also in a French Letter of J. Christ. Iseleus, which is pregnant with deep erudition, and printed in the Biblioth. Germanique, tom. xxxii. p. 147. and tom. xxxiii. p. 12.:XXIII. Persecution of the Christians commenced by the Jewrs The very great and daily accelerating progress of Christianity, was, however, contemplated with the utmost jealousy and apprehension by the Jewish priests and rulers, who plainly perceived that if the people should be prevailed on to embrace this new religion, the law of Moses would 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 availing themselves of every favourable opportunity to lay TAe Jezws persecute. 121 hold on his apostles and their disciples, they threw them into prison, were they were threatened and scourged, and had every other species of evil heaped on them without reserve: some of them being even made to undergo capital punishment. Of the 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 those who suffered death at Jerusal lcme for the cause of Christ were Stephen, a very devout man, whom the Jews stoned; Acts, vii. 1. St. James, the apostle, the son of Zebedee, whom Herod 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;(') but described more at large by Ilegesippus;(2) in 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) Antiqtil. Judaic. lib. xx. cap. Viii. or, according to Havercamp', [p. 94i.] division, cap. ix. p. 976. (2) Apud. Euseb. Hislor. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. xxiii. The exceptions which are, not without reason, taken by the le:r'ned to this account of Hegesippus are all brought into one view, and augmented with some additional observations or his own, by Joh. Le Clerc, in his Historia Eccles. duorum primrorum sceculorum, p. 414, et. seq. Even Joh. Aug. Orsi himself, in his EcclesiaslicalZ istory, a work of much elegance, written by him in Italian, tolm. i. p. 237, et seq. frankly confesses that it is not possible even for the most credulous person to believe every thing related by Hegesippus; and pronounces the account given by Josephus, 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 tilhe narrative of Hegesippus; but since the occasion presents itself, I will just offer a few remarks, which may perhaps be found to throw sonme light on one passage in it, of which the learned have hitherto professed themselves utterly at a loss to comprehend the meaning. The Jews, anecording to H-egesippus, proposed this question to James tlie Just: is aj $-v'g- ri,']o-? Quodnam est ostium Jesu? What is the gate or door of Jesus?-To which he is represented as answering, that this gate was the Saviour: X' li o, s-rov ~Ivs ~rv TOY vrgr. Eusebius utbi supra. Now it is truly wonderful to behold how erudition has bewildered itself in attempts to discover the meaning of this question. Hen. Valesius, in his notes on Eusebius, p. 39, says, Ostiuin, hoe loco est introductio, seu institutio atque initiatio. Ostium igitur Christi nihil est aliud quam fides in Deum Patrem, et in Filium, et in Spiritum Sanctum. In this explanation it should seem asif the learned author fancied that he hhad given us something very great; whereas, in fact, he 122 Century 1.-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 Valesius to be correct, the Jews must have meant to ask of James, What is faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? But who, let me ask, can possibly attach any such 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 question as the above is to be discovered in the answer of James?-Ostiumn hoe 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 explahnai ion; for within a very few words after, we find him at variance with himself, and giving the passage a very different interpretation: Christi ostium, says he, est remissio peccatorum, qua: fit per Baplismusn. This exposition, we see, is of quite a different nature fiom 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-Quccnam est remissio peccatorum per baptismum? What is remission of sills by baptism? To which he answerls-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 intezligo, [p. 95.] neque enim Grcccum hoc est, nec Hebraismum Wdlumr similem comminisci possum. Respondet enim Jacobus, punc esse Serratorem, quasi &Sv-g significaret munus aut quidpiam simile. Sedforte locus est correptlus. Histor. Eccles. duorum primor. Sacculor. 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 I'Historien Joseph. According to this writer, p. 9. the term &gc5, 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 lh Torah, for &g35, or rather by changing the latter into 30ig. 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. Est tamen s'ay they, una inter cucteras conjectura, scitafelicis ingeniifilia; quam calculosperitorum hominum latteram esse, nulli dubitarmls. The emendation 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 zI'e iews at enmity. 123 be this-Qu.enam est lex Jesu? 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, mllst be translated —Lex Jesu est Servator. The law of Jesus is tile 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 does he give them the desired information? Let us leave this conjecture then, and see it' it m:iy 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 author, 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,nisconceived by him. But it strikes me, that the error is rather to be discovered in the name'Jais, than in the term }uge. The Jews manifestly had it in view to learn from James what he deemed the way or the gate of salvation, or, in other word4, 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 Y.t'2, 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, Ar;s Su&g,ri s a0-Tng is; What is the gate or door of salvation?-translated it,'Tr ig &ga ianso; 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 JamesThe gate or door of s:llvation is our Saviour Jesus Christ:for, in fact, he answe"s in our Saviour's own words, who, in John, x. 7. says of himself,'ELo;IUI [p. 96.];i 3Ugt rcv nrpo6,wv; I am the door of the sheep. Indeed the event of this 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 tile door of salvation. XXIV. Enmity of the foreign Jews excited against the Christians. Moreover, not content with thus accumulating every possible injury on such of the harmless disciples of Christ as were to be found in Palestine, the high priest and rulers of the Jews dispatched legates or missionaries into all the different provinces, for the purpose of animating their distant brethren with similar sentiments of jealousy and hatred towards the Christians, and 124 Centutry L.-Section'24, 25. stirring them up to seek for every occasion of annoying and persecuting this inoffensive flock.(') By what is recorded in tihe 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 instructors and governors, and with one consent made it their endeavour, by various calumnies and infamous machinations, to draw on the Christians the indignation and ill-will of the presidents, the magistrates, and the people 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 represent as more inimical and malicious in their carriage towards,them than even the pagans themselves.(2) (1) Frequent mention is made of this by the early Christian writers. See Justin Martyr Dial. cu.m Tryph. p. 51, 52, 53, 318. edit. Jebb. It is also intinlated 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 followers 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 EDsebius Comment. in Esaiam, cap. xviii. p. 474; in MIontfaucon's Nov. Collect. Patrum Gacecor. tom. ii. (2) See the passages collected by J. A. Fabricius, in his Lux Evangelii toti Orbi exoriens, cap. vi. 3 i. p. 121. See also Epistola Smyrnrensis Ecclesice de Martyrio Polycarpi, x sii, xiii. tom. ii. Pat?. Apostol. p. 199, 200. [p. -97.] XXY. Overthrow of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. 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 delivered up their land, their city, 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 Overlkroqv' of Jeritsalen. 1 25 beenU foretold by our Saviour hiimself is very particularly dlescribecl by the historhian Josephus, who was present at the des'cruction of Jerusaclem, and for the most part atn eye-witness of all its attendant horrors. The cause which, beyond all others, mInay be considered as having more ilmmediately contributed to bring down these heavy calamities on the Jewish nation, was the meal-acilinistration of the Rorman presidents, to whom the government of Palestine had been from time to time committed, and particularly of Gessius Florus, whose oppressive and vexatious 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 Roman sword. In the course of a seven years' war there perished of this ill-fated people, according to Josephus, 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 hundred and ninety. In the fourth year of this memorable contest, the city of Jerusalem was 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 were afterwards pulled down and levelled with the ground. Througllout 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 ou.r 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 considered as the authors of that great and tremendous accumulation of evils which signalized this final desolation of the house of Israel. XXVI. The ten persecutions of the Christians. About two years before the breaking out of this war between the Romans and the 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 C'eiltuery l.- Section 26. his successors, during three centuries; although their severity was not always carried to the same extent: and hence the professors of Christianity had to endure a long series of dire a-t:lictiollns, or, to use a more familiar term, persecutions, to which an end was not put until the time of Constantine 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 Christianity does not appear by any means to warrant this. [p. 98.] If 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 who 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 is wholly built on poptular error, without the least shadow of foundation. The.authors of it are indeed unknown; but thus far is certain, that they did not derive this opinion from what was to be met with on record, but first of a1ll 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 exactly ascertained. Lactantius, in his book de Mortibus Persequutorum, enumnerates only six. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, recounts the sufferinlls 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 imaly, however, in some measure be collected from what he says, that the church hald experienced nine such seasons of adversity. Sulpitilus Severus, in the fifth century, records the like number: but it appenrs that, at the time he wrote, the notion of ten persecutions had beg'un 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, tra1nquillis rebus pace peifrZim2url: neql.ue ulterius persequzuionerm fore credimus, nisi earn, quame sub fine jam sxculi Antichristus exercebit. DEenim sacris vocibus decem plagis mundum fficiendumr pronuntiaturn The Te7n Persecutions. 127 est; i/a quum jam novemfiuerint, quc supzerest ultima eril. Hislor. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. xxxiii. p. 248, 249. ed. Clerici. Now it appeals to me scarcely possible to conceive any thinlg that could more strongly support the position advanced by me in the commencement of this note than this passage does. The Christiansl of the fifth century, we see by it, had, fiom their interpretation of some passages 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 principal calamities; but the persecutions recorded in history, they found, did not amount to that number. In order, therefore, to uphold the authority of the sacred volume, they determined that the completion of the predicted number of persecutions was to be looked for in the coming of Antichrist, at the end of the world. But even in that same age, there appear to have been others of the Christinns 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 endeavoulred, by twisting anld perverting the history of the Christian church previous to the time of Constantine the Great, to make it exhibit all ten of the calamitous periods which they conceived to be thus fore! old in the sacred writings. For this we have the testimony of Augustine, in his work de Civitate Dei, lib. xviii. cap. lii. p. 404, 405, tomn. [p. 99.1] vii. opp. edit. Benedict. where, adverting to this subject, he declares that he cnn by no means assent to the opinion t!lat only ten persecutions of the Christians are foretold in Scripture: Proinde ne illud quidem lemetre plto esse dicendume, sire credendaum, quod nonnullis visum est, vel videlus, (this opinion, therefore, we see, was entertained merely by a few,) non amplius ecclesiam passuram persecutiones usque ad ternmpus Anlichrisli, quam quotjam passa est, id est, decem, ut zndecimac, eademqque noliissima, sit ab Anlichristo. In these words Augustine points to the way in which thle persecutions were computed, by those who maintained that the church had undergone ten previously to the time of Constantine, and which is similar to the modern mode of computation. With regard 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 particular part of Scripture on which this notion of the ten persecutions, antecedent to the time of Constantine, was grounded. Plaras enim Egyptiorum quoziasm decem faerunt, antequam inde exire inciperet populus Dei, putant ad hunc iztellectlum esse referendas, ut novissima Antichristi persecutio similis vixleatur undecimc plagce, qua.lEgyptii, dum hostiliter sequerentur Ilebrmos, in mari rubro, populo Dei per siccum transiente, perierunt. We see here, then, the source friom whence sprung the notion of the ten persecutions antecedent to the reign of Constantine; and also the reason why the opinion of Sulpitius was rejected, and the last persecution under Autichrist 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 typical of the persecutions that the Christians were to undergo at the hands of the pagans; and that Pharaoh bore the representation of Antichrist: and hence they were led to consider it as indisputable that ten persecutions of the Chris I -1Q 8 Ceiturly I. —Section 26. tians must have taken place prior to the reign of Constantine; and that the afflictions to be expected from Antichlist ought not to be reckoned as one of thlose ten calamitous seasons which it was predicted in Scripture should befal the church. It is, however, a circumstance which must, we should presume, in no small deglree excite the reader's astonishment, that these sagacious commentators of Holy Writ should not have perceived that this exposition necessarily implies what it is utterly beyon(d the reach of belief to credit, namllely, that the Egyptians, anld 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 swvallowed up in the Red Sea, were the typical representatives of the innocent and holy Christians, who were persecuted by the Roman emperors. For if the ten plagues, will which God afflicted the Egyptilns, are to be considered as typical of the first ten persecutions of tlhe church of Christ, it necessarily follows that the persons who endured these pla.og-ues muist have been the represenltatives of the euarly Christians l:,and if tile miserable overthrow and destruction of Pharaoh and his host is to be undelrstood 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 adherents of our Lord, who are to endure the persecuting violence of this arch [p. 100.] adversary to the cause of Christ. Indeed, Augustine himself, althougrh he entertalined no doubt but that the words of Scripture had a recondite meaning attached to them, yet considered this interpretation as futile, and built oil no solid foundation. Sed ego, says he, illa re gesta in Egypto, istas perseculiones prophetice significalas esse non arbitror: quanmvis ab eis, qui hoe putant, exquisite ct ingeniose illa singula his singulis comparata videanitur, non prophetlico spiritu sed coejectura menlis hunzan-, qumc aliquando ad rerunm pervenzil, aliquancdo fallilur. But it should seem that Augustine was not acqulaitecl 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 the 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 thIat 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, Christ; 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. 129 mesans of laws and punishments, to extirpate the Christi, ans, and entirely abolish their religion, it is evident that ten Roman emperors would oppress and persecute Christ in the persons of his disciples. But, said they, the successors of Constantine, who at present govern the Roman empire, are Christians: and it is not at all likely that their descendants should renounce the flith: those ten enemies of the Lamb or Christ must, therefore, have lived and nmade 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 maniage 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 fiom Gerhohus de corrupZo Ecclesicc 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. Deinde reliqui leones a Nerone usque ad Diocletianumrn per decem universailes persequutiones ita comederunt ac disperserunt gregem Domini, ut illa bestia decem cornibus terribilis Danieli prcosternsa jam singuli.s trniabus in singulis persecutionibius debachata, et sang-uine sanctorum satiala sit, ultra quam dici possit. There were some, however, as we learn from the following 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 persecution: Et quia ultima persequntione, Diocleliano et Maximiano tyrannizantibus, decem annis vexata est ecclesia, sire in decem universalibus persecutionibus, sire in decem annis ultimce persecutionis intelligas decem cornua crudelis bestix, Romani videlicet imperii, gratanter accipe humiliationem ex tune illius bestix, ita ut fo enum quasi bos comedens et prccsepe Domini sui agnoscens rore coeli tincta sit, baptizalo videlicet Constantino imperatore. XSXVII. Causes of these persecutions. As the Romans allowed to every citizen thGe free exercise of his own reason and judgement 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 inhluman and implacable in their carriage towards the Christians, a set of men of tle most harmless inoffensive character, who never harboured in their minds a wishl or thought inimical to the welfare of the state.(') But it is not very difficult to account for this. The Romans, it is true, extended their toleration to every kind of 9 130 Cewtury i-zSection 27, 28. religion, from whence no danger to the 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 support of thle laws: for there existed between the government and religion of the Romans suchl an intimate connection and dependence on each other, that who.ever attacked or endeavoured to undermnine the latter, could not of necessity appear to them otlherwise than as hostile to tIhe former, and inimical to the dignoity of the state, On this account all such of the Jews as lived intermixed amongst the Romans~ were particularly cautious in whatever thllev said or cli, to avoid every thing' which could be construdcl into a reflection on the religion or gods of the conmlnonwealth. But the conduct of the Cnhristians was directly the reverse of this: for, layilng aside every sort of fear, they strenuously endeavoured to make the Romans renounce their tvain and silly superstitions, and were continually urging the citizens to give up aLnd abolishl those sacred rites, onl the observance of whllich, as wAe above remarked, the welfare and dignity of the comlnonwlealthh 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 Roman government. (1) As every thing which can tend to excite suspicion or doubt in the lmindlds of the ignorant, respecting the divine origin of the Christian religion, is eag'erly caught at by those of the present day who undertake to disprove it, it is notJ to be wondered at that they should endearour to avaLil 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 hioghest degree distil.. guishecl for their humanity, and who were never known in any other instance to molest any mortal whatever on account of his religion, yet pronounced Christianity to be incompatible with the public welfare, and refused it toleration. It will therefore not admit of a doubt, but that there must have been sometrhing' vicious and highly censurable in the conduct and character of the early Christians, which. if not repressed, thrceatenecl eminently to endanger the prosperity and safety of the commonwealth. But as nothing can be more illfounded than these surmises, they serve only to expose the ignorance of those by whom they are sugggected, and to betray their utter want of acquaintance with the ancient Roman history. XX'VITI. Causes of these persecations. It yielded a still further Causes of Persecution. 131 grouncd for offence, that the Christians did not content themselves with entering the lists against the religion of the RonLans only, but also boldly asserte(l the falsehood and insufficiency of every other religious system in tile Arorld; and contended that eternal salvation was to be obtained in no other way than by laying hold on Christ. For the inference which tile Romans drew from this was, that the members of this sect were not only immncasurablv arrolgant and supercilious in their pretensionls, but were also filled with hatred towards all those who diffired from theml in opilion, and vwere consequently to be regarded as persons likely to so-w aimongst the people the most inveterate discord, and to occasion distu-irbances of a very serious nature to the sta-te. For it was of old recognised as a maxim of civil polity, that a sect which not only believes those of every other persuasion to be in the wrong, but also considers every other species of religious cultrlc, except that- which its own tenets prescribe, as impious and o'ffensi-ve 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 undclerstancd Tacitus as intending to reproach the Christians with cherishing a disposition of this sort, when he represents them as odii gener s tlinlmci convictos.' and in like manner, Suetonius, when lie attributes to them macdefic.z an e-stZiiozcen.(') (1) Tacitus, Aalnn7 lib. xv. cap. xxxv. Suctonius in Nricone, cap. xvi. Some very eminent men have inmlgined that these historians did not properly distinguish between Jews andtl Christians, but hastily ascribed to the latter the same hostile odiz? lZ dersll'S om2nes alios, which was not withlout re3sonet attributed to the former. But it should seem to have escapecd those who entertain this opinion, that Tacitus and Sae tonius are, in the passag2es above referred to, evidently speaking of a crime pcculiar to the Christlians,-a crime of so heinlous a nature as to deserve capitall punishment. Whatever there night be in the Jews of the hlmnnai generis odiumr, it is certain that it did nort appear to the Romans in this hig hly criminal light, or of such a danogerous nature as to be termed exitiabilis superstiio, 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 $netoniurs expressly terms tile relioion of the Christians nova superslitio, a modern superstition; by which he clearly distinguishes them from the Jews, whose religion rwas well known to be of no recent origin. XXIX. Causes of thss perseeutionl. Whilst these [p. 103.] 132 C(enzt7ry I. —Sectio't 29), 30. considerations had the effect of stirring up the emperors, the senate, the Ipresidents, 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 governors 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 who 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 respects, of a showy and an attractive nature: hence the Jewish religion appeared to the heathens as differing in no very material degree from those of other nations; and the God of the HIebrews was looked upon by them as the 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 observance 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 laws 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 Uctlumnies against CA}ristians. 133 worshipped, both 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 endcleavour, 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 multitude 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 firankincense 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 priilcipal 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 fiom this one passage in Pliny's epistles, lib. x. epist. 97. p. 458. Satis constat prope jam desolate lempla cccpisse celebrari —i passimque venire victimas, quarum adhuc 7r'rissimus 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 Centusry I-Section 31, 32. were of tile foulest and most disgusting complexion. Amlnongst 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 ill which it would be an unpardonable violation of decency even to name; that they were active in proinoting sedition, and desirous of bringing about revolutions in the state.(1) And with so much art and address were these malignant falsehoods framed and supported, that they obtained credit even with those who filled the hilghest 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 regcarded in the light of a national or general affliction, to the toleration of the Christian. religioni: for whether it were war, or tempest, or pestilence, or any other species of calamity which befel the public, they equally availed themselves of it, and assidcuonsly inculcated on the minds of the people that such was the mnethod in which the gods avenged themselves of the insul:lts offered them by the Christians. Instructed thus from what they deemed infallible authority, that such was the origin and cause of their sufferings, the credulous multitude thought of nothinlg but revenge, and demanded of their magistrates, with the most imperious clamour, the extirpation 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, Pcaganus Obtrecfator, seu de Calumni'is Gentilium in Christianos, Kilon. 1698, in 4to.; as also the treatise of Jo. Jac. HIullric, de Calumnniis Genztilium in Christianos, Tigur. 1744, in 8vo.: the materials for both of which were drawn from the Apologies of the early Christians, and other ancient authorities. (2) See Arnobius adversus Gentes, and also the various other writers of thle first ages, who came forward on behalf of the Christians, and defended them against all these malignant aspersions of their adversaries. [p. 100.] XXXII. lartyrs and confessors. Those belonging to the Christian commonwealth who, during this critical situation * The, original Latin is: Et pudenda sacerdoturn suorzm divinis honoribus affu~ cere.-Editor fc,,rqtyrs and Coifpessors. 135 of its affairs, fell victims to thleir piety, and whose constancy in the cause of' their divine Master even death. itself under a variety of terrific fornms had not been able to s'hake,(') were t;lenceforward denominated mnartyrs: an appellation borrowed from the sacred writings, HIeb. xi. 39. xii. i. and emphatically applied to these illustrious uitnesses of the divinity of the. Christian religion, in consequence of their havinog sealed their testimony wi-th their blood. Those who had never been called upon to give thllis last severe proof of their faith and sincerity, but had nevertheless, at the peril of their lives, and with the hazlard of honour, fortune, and every other wordly consideration, made openL profession of their belief in Christ in the face of the heathen tribunals, were distinguished by the title ol confessors. The authority and respect which holy mnen of either of these descriptions enjoyed amongst their brethren during life, and the veneration in which their mlemory was afterwar-ds held by the CIhristians of thleir own age, were such as almost surpass belief.(') As time advanced, this reverence for the characters of both martyrs and confessors increased; and being seconded by various opinions respecting these victims of persecution, of an inspiriting nature indeed, but whlich 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 ignomlinious death with the -utmNost readiness and fortitude, and to meet this most severe of human punishmlents in all its terrors, without the least reluctance or dismay. By degrees, however, it degenerated into a pernicious hdind of superstition, land 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 punishment 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. Sagittarius 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 comne down to us under the titlte of Acta arltyrlum, 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 Centiury I. —Section 33. (2) Both martyrs and confessors were looked upon as being full of the Holy Spirit, and as acting 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 regarded in the light of a divine command-to disobey which would be the very height of impiety; 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 imagined that they were all atoned for and washed away by their own blood, not by that of Christ. (Vid. Clemens Alexandr. Stromat. lib. iv. p. 596.) Being thus restored to a state of absolute purity and innocence, it was conceived that they 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 higrhest marks of his favour, and possessing influence sufficient to obtain from him whatever they might make the object of their plrayers. Annual festivals 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 religious assemblies 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 length sprung up the notion that their reliques possessed a divine virtue, [p. 106.] efficacious in counteracting or remedying any ills to which either our souls 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 reverence for these champions of the faith 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, was, on the contrary, very considerable, is a fact that stands supported by the weightiest cand most positive evidence. There can, however, at the 1ulaltitude of Martyrs. 137 same time, be no doubt but that many of those whose names are to be found in the immense army of martyrs, which both the Greek and Rornan churches laud and worship, might with very great propriety be struck out of the list. 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 condition 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 descriptions above noticed was thrown 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.(2) (1) Polycarp. Martyrium, I xii. Acta Fructuosi, in Ruinarti Actis MlIartyrum sinceris, p. 219. Cypriani, Epist. v. xiv. p. 10. 23. edit. Benedict. et plur. al. (2) Lucian. in Peregrin. tom. ii. opp. p. 566. edit. Grievii. Cypriani Epist. ii. iv. p. 8, 9. If this statement of the 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 instrumental 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 position with the famous Hen. Dodwell, a man eminent for his learning and extensive 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 embraced 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 Martyrum sincera et selecta. By abating somewhat on either side of the question, we might probably 138 Centouy I. —Sectio 34. [p. 107.] arrive pretty near the truth. Were Dodwell's position to be so far modified, as to assert merely that the number of martyrs was considerably less thau 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 thle most part consti. fute 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 t1he martyrs was certainly much greater than Dodwell could ever be brought to allow. kXXXIV. The Neronsian persecution. Foremost in the rank of those emperors, on whom the church 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 unprincipled and inhuman. The dreadful persecution which took place by order of this tyrant, commenced at Rome about the middle of November, in the year of our Lord 64.(') As a pretext for his cruelty, Nero did not, according to Tacitus,(") 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 lire, and thus kindled a confliagration, by which great part of the city of Rome was destroyed, he, in order to divert the tide of popular indignation from its proper channel, clenounced the ChrIistians 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 comlmand, they were wrapped in pitched garments, and, being fastened to stakes, were lighted up as torches to dispel the darkness of the night; their punishment being thus macle to bear somewhat of an analogy to the crime whereof tlhey were accused. According to some ancient authorities, both St. Peter and St. Paul suffered martyrdom under this first persecution; the former being crucified inverteclly; the latter beheaded: but this has been much questioned by subsequent writers, who find a difficulty in reconciling it with chronology.(3) Of any of the other victims of Nero's cruelty no memorial is left us whatever; none even of Persc'culion of Ji'vcro. 139 their names having escaped the obliterating hand of time: for as to what is told us by the people of AMilan, as well as those of Lucca, Pisa, Aquilcia, Ravenna, and other cities of 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 dreadclfl persecution ceased but with the death of Nero. The emrp:ire, it is well k]nown, was not delivered from the tyranny of this monster until the year 68, vwhen he put an end to his own 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 Viglnoles, in two dissertations de Cactsa et Initio Persequutuionis Neronianc, which are to be found in Massonl's fIisloire critique de 7la Republique des Leltres, tom. viii. p.'74. 117. and tom. ix. p. 172. 156. See also Nicol. Toinard. ad Lactant. de lortibus Persequltounm, p. 398. ed. Du Presnoy. (2) Annaz. lib. xv. cap. xxxviii. [p. 108.] (3) Tillemont. Ilisloire des Empereurs, tom. i. p. 564. Phil. Baatiier, de Successione Romanor. Pont/ircunm, cap. v. p. 6i. (4) Stromat. lib. vii. p. 869. ed. Potter. XXXX-V. Limits of the Neronian persocntqiion. Ancient authors leave us in much doubt as to the extent of this persecution; so that we cannot well say wlhether Nero made it his object to extirpate the Christians from every part of the empire, or whether his severity was limited so as for it to fall merely by way of punishment on those who, from thleir residence at Rome, might be considclered 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 wi:th several very eminent men who propend towards the latter. Those who will be at the pains to compare the arguments that are urged on both sides must at once perceive that there is no possibility of setting the question so completely at rest, as to leave no room. for hesitation or doubt on the subject; since if the famous Spanish inscription, whicll there is every reason to consider as a fi)rgery, be 140 CentuGry I.-Sectioin 35. rejected, there is nothing like positive testimony to be brought forward by either party. The weight of probability, however, as well as of argument, is certainly in favour of the more common opinion of the two.(') (1) According to Lactantius, (Institut. 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 celebrated Roman lawyer, and given to the public in a work of his, de Oficio Proconsulis. If this book were now extant, it would throw considerable light on the general history of the afflictions and calalmities to which the early Christians were exposed, and enable us at once to determine this question respecting the extent of the Neronian persecution. But since this work has been for a long 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 eminently learned and ingenious civilian Franc. Balduin, who, in his Comment. ad Edicta Imperatorum in Christianos, 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 may be 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. torn. ii. p. i. opp. by way of supporting the opinion there given concerning the first introduction and progress of Christianity in that country, denies that the Neronian persecution extended itself to the provinces. Nearer to our own times, this opihn:on has been still more ably and at large defended by Hen. Dodwell, in the eleventh of his Dissertationes Cyprianiccca I 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 certainty 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 I rather think those on the opposite side might with equal propriety give a turn to it in their own ftavour. For it is incrediblle, they might urge, that the tyrant should permit the brethren anld associates of men, who were the reputed,authors of so great a catlamity at Rome, to continue unmolo lested, though living at a distance. The public might very naturally feel apprehensive that the Christians in the different 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 demand, that the emperor should direct his severity generally against the whole body of those who professed a religion so dangerous and pregnant with destruction. The arguments of those who maintain that the Neronian persecution extended throughout the whole of the empire, possess greater force than those which are adduced on the opposite side; yet they are not so determinate, but that there are some exceptions which ma~y very properly be taken to them. Lactantius, (de Morlibus Persequutor, c. 2,) it is urged, says, thalt it was superstition, or a regard for the religion of his ancestors, which prompted Nero ad excidendum ccleste templum prosilire. But to this the advocates for the opposite opinion may well object, that surely, as to this point, more reliance 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's 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 Portugal or Spain, and of which a copy (after Schott and AMetellus) is given by Gruter, in his 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 province from robbers; and, in the next place, ob eandem provincial his qui novam generi humano superstiltionemn inculcabant purgatam. Now if this inscription had come to light through a channel 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 fiom a passage in Suetonius, (in Nerone, cap. xvi.) that nova superstitio, " the new or modern superstition," was the title by which the Romans were accustomed to refer to the Christian religion. But Scaliger and other great 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 this side, which any one who may be inclined to examine them will find in the Preface to Ruinart's Acta Martyrum sincera, J iii. and will only, by way of conclusion, remark that in my opinion there is 142 Centtry I. —Section 36. notling which makes more strongly in f~avour of the general notion respecting [p. 110.] the Neronian persecution, than the disputation of Tertullian withl those who endeavoured to disgouise their own malice towards the Christiane under the cloak of the imperial edicts. For at the time when Tertullian wrote his.j Apologry, that is, towards the end of the second century, and before the emperor Severus had enacted any new laws against the Christians, the Roman magistra'tes were accustomed to reply to any who might come forward on behalf of the Christians, that in this respect nothing was leRft 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. Postremno, says Tertullian, (in Apologet. cap. iv. p. 46. edit. Havercamp.) legum obstruiluur auctoritas adcersus veritaem, ut aut ni]hil dicatzue reitactandzum esse post leges, aut ingratis necessitas obsequii prceferatur verilati. This pretence Tertullian attacks with great eloquence, and exposes its weakness 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 monsters 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 revoked 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 distinguishedl for wisdom and juridical sagacity, to keep, alive and enforce laws wvhich had for their authors the most unprincipled of mortals? Quales eirgo leges iste3, quas adversus nos soli exequuntur (exequi is used by Tertullian in the samne sense as ferre or sancire) imnpii, injusli, turpes, va7ni, dementes: quas T'rajanus ex parte frustratus est, vetando inquiri Christianzos: (the laws of Nero and Domitian must of course- therefore, have directed that the Christians should be prosecuted:) qeas nullts iacdrianus, quanquam curiosinttum ozniurm exploraZor, rnullus Vesijasianus, quanquam Judeorurm debcltor, nutllzls Pilus, nuI,7lts Verul ietpr'essil.-Now if this statement of Tertulliaa be deserving of credit, and there is certainly no reason whatever to suspect its alccuracy, there can be no doubt but that Nero as well as Domitian promulgoatec edicts ag'ainst thle Christianl-s; and if such edicts were promulgoated, not a, question can remmain of their having been carried into effect tihrounhout all the provinces. There are some other things which might ble pointed out, in addition to what I have thus noticed; but, to confess the truth, it appeams to me that nothing of any nmomient would thereby be added to tle evidence already adduced. XXXVI. Domitian's persecution. The persecution of the Christians, which had ceased on the death of Nero, was, towards the end of the first century, revived by the emperor Domitian, who, taking, as it should seem, the cruelty of thle former for his model, ]-'ersection of' Do1,ilian, 14.3 began about the year 94 or 95 to a-fllict the clthurch of Christ afresh. As to the immediate cause of this second persecution, we have no express testimony on record.: but if v-;hat Eusebilus reports be true, (and his statement is, he tells us, groullecd not only on ancient tradition7 but also on the testimony of I-egesippus, an author of great antiquity,) namely, that Domitian' lhff 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 thley were; —I say, if this may be depended on, we are certainly warranted in concluding that it was the apprehenlsion of their being implicated in seditious conspiracies against his governrnent that prompted this tyrant to aim at the extirpation of the Christians.(1) 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 Tert-llian and others report, come forthl safe and uninj ured from the midst of a caulcdron of boiling oil,. into which lis enemies had caused him to be thrown..(') The principal persons who are said to have suffered at this period, were Flavius Clemnens, a consul, and Flavia Domitilla, who -was either his n:iece or his wife. The ~former is stated to lhave been put to deatll, and the latter, to have been commanded. to withdraw into the island Pandataria. They were both of them related to the emnperor.()-It is admitted on all sides that this persecution was not of any long continuance. Ancient writers, however, are not agreed as to the authlority by whlich it was put an end to: some of them representing Domitian himself as havilng retracted the orders he gave for persecuting the Christianbs; whilst others consider the revocation of them as the act of the senate, upon Domitian's cleath.(j) (1) Vid. Euseb. IHistor. Eccles. lib. iii. 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 nrraitive. The fact, therefore, seems to have been, that soime 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 dominion; and that, consequently, both Christians and Jews were to be regTarded with a jealous eye, as persons harbouring views dangerous to the state, and 144 Century I —Section 36. only awaiting their opportunity to break out into open revolt. Insidious whsmpers of this kind would naturally prompt the tyrant to order, as we are told he did, that all the posterity of David should be sought after, and put to death; and that measures should be taken to give an equally effective blow to any designs which might be entertained against him by the Christians. The subject of the particular year in which this persecution commenced is learnedly discussed by Toinard, in his notes to Lactantius de 2Mortibus Persequzatorum, p. 351. edit. Bauldrian. (2) On this subject the reader may consult what I formerly wrote, in answer to the venerable Heumann, in the first volume of my Dissertlationes ad IHist. Ecclesiastic. pertinentes, 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. What if, by way of solvin(g the difficulty, we were to hazard a conjecture that the whole account migiht 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 ~iler'ally? 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 firom 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 which he had been sentenced, commuted for that of banishment, might perhaps say that he had, beyond ll11 lope, 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 might very readily be misconceived, and, instead of being taken in a figurative sense, be understood literally. (3) Euseb. Hislor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. viii. et in Chronic. (4) According to Hegesippus, (apud 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 expectations 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 their 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, ens itutio't. of lIke U7 nrc1. 145 Kforbidding any further persecution of the Christians in Palestine. In like manner Tertullian reports, (Apologet. cap. v. p. 61.) that Doimitian, not being altogether 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 impl;isoned. Lactantius, on the contrary, in his work de 31ortibus Persequutorum, cap. iii. states it to have been subsequently to the death of Domltian that peace was once more restored to the church. Xiphilin also, in the Life of Nerva, says that it was this prince and not Domitian who called back those that had been sent into banishment for their heresy. Orosius and some other writers of inferior authority nmight, but that I deem it unnecessary, be quoted to the same purport. This difference of testimony will cat once be accounted for, if it be permitted us to suppose that Domitian might, some short time before his murder, have published an edict forbidding any further persecution of the Christians; but that his assassination followed too quic on this for the Christians in general to experience any material relaxation of their suffering.s until after his death. XXN XIL Commnstitution and order of the church of Jerusalem. ~Amzidst all this distress andc 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 with such success, that churches dedicated to Christ hrad 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 Jeru.salem, 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 purposes of devotion, in which, agreeably 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 supper.(") It may be considered as not merely probable but certain, that the day of the week on which our Saviour arose fronm the dead, was expressly set apart for the holding of these solemn assemblies.(') 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 10 146 Century I. —Section 37. was utterly impossible for them to assemble with any degree of convenience in one place, it is probable that the members distributed 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.(3) The presidency 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 government 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 better circumstances: indeed to such an extent did this spirit of charity prevail amongst the first Christians, that St. Luke represents them as having had all things in common.,() The management and disposal of these contributions of the brethren, towards the relief of the necessitous, were at first entrusted to certain men selected by the apostles from amongst the I1ebrews 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.(') The power of' enacting laws, of appointing teachers and ministers, and of determining controversies, was lodged in the people at large; nor did the apostles, although invested with divine authority, either resolve on or sanction any thing whatever without 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 different branches of divine worship used in the church of Jerusalem, is given us by St. Luke in Acts, ii. 42. His words are, Slav'i xroo-gtErS5, (1.)'ri J'iJ'tx,rcSov AToc6xCv, (2.),ati rS xotvava, (3.) xai'rl:;sa',E rr ap'rs, (4.) zl'rs zrpo'-xauIs. "And they continued steadfast in. the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Now, with the exception of that only which is termed Xilawvi, i. e. " communion or fellowship," it will, I think, readily be allowed by every one that the account here given refers di 'onstitution of the Chzurch. 147 rectly to the manner in which the brethren at Jerusalem -occupied themselves in their religious assemblies. In regard to what is termed communion [p. 114] or fellowship, it is not impossible indeed but that some may hesitate; but it appears to me, that since we find it thus inserted amongst the acts of the church collectively, propriety demands that we should understand it in a sense that may acc ord with the nature and object of such an assembly. For if the term is to he 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 different branches of the public worship. We may regard St. Luke, therefore, 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 discourse, for the instruction and edification of the people present. Next followed the communion. The word InotvYhi., "communion," is used in Scripture, as is well known, in an especial sense for liberality towards the poor. See Reom. xv. 26.'2 Cor. viii. 4. ix. 13. Heb. xiii. 16. The apostolic exhortation, therefore, 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 wasfounded on the practice of the original church at Jerusalem, will not admit of a doubt. The history of Ananit),s derives no inconsiderable degree of illustration 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 Qpinion, 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 assemblies 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 things happened, the apostles had near them oi v(m&rgpol, certain " young men." Now I take it that these were not merely young men of the ordinary class, but ministeis of the apostles and the church, through whom the apostolic mandates were communicated, and to whom it belonged, when the church assembled, to msake 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 t'1i-s description, I do not see how it can be accounted fo.r that they alone shbould at once rise up, a.nd taking up the dead bodies of Ananias and his wife, c u'-rry them out and bury theml: but if we re2g.ard them as inferior minins ters in the clurch, every difficulty is at once removed, and we see plainly the reason why, without waiting for any directions, they came forward of themselves arid performed this melancholy duty. And that there must have been public ministers of this sort in the primitive church, no one who is apprized of its naturte, and the form of -the religious assemblies of the Christians of that age, caln possibly entertain a doubt. Certain persons must ever have been necessaryl t-; perform such duties, as the keeping of the places of meeting clean and decent, arrangillng the tables and seats, handing and taking away the sacred volumes, providing the members, when celebrating the feasts of love, with every tlhinlg requisite, and clearing the tables at the 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, thsat 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,otvnviam, " communion or fellowship," advanced to the 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 touched with compassion for the brethren who were 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 offering towards their relief. St. Luke, indeed, who was studious of brevity, records no such speech as having been made by Ananias; but that the mnan must have come forward w7ith 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 hin with the telling of a lie, unless he had openly professed that what he offered 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; wherens his reg'ard 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 character' he was not aware of their possessing' the faculty of divination, [Lat. res arcanas divinandi.] It is unnecessary for me to state what befel him, in consequence of his audacious duplicity. The corpse being removed, it is probable 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 assembly, the wife of Ananias came in, for the purpose, as I conceive, of partaking in those general prayers with which it was customary for the public Uonstitution of the Chu/rch. 149 service to be concluded. This woman having had the effrontery to re-assert the flagrant untruth wvhichl her husband had told, was like him, by an instanta. neous visitation, deprived of life. As for the reasons which caused her to absent herself from the ealrly part 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 me to digress too widely from the subject which we have at present more immediately under consideration. In these solemn assemblies of the Christians, the onarviva, 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 whichl bread was broken and distributed: we are not, however, to consider it as exclusively referring to this ordinance. of our Saviour, but as also implying that feast 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 these two things were thus associated together, even in the very earliest infancy of Christianity, is clear from what is said by St. Luke in Acts, ii. 46. For after having there told us that the brethren at Jerusalem continued daily in the breaking of bread at different houses, he immediately adds, that they "did eat their food together with joy and simplicity of heart;" i6v2,vov,rpoTi iV av~xxtdA. xaci dA4oTwt 5gS XapJ'g. See also Acts, xx. 11. where the breaking 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, they 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, which 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 general 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 Cttfv y rcv a-,ra v, the day on which this meeting is stated to have been held, was meant the day next immediately following the Jewish Sabbath, has been demonstrated by several learned writers 150 Century I-Sectzon 37 so clearly as to leave no room for dispute. Now who, I would ask, can entertain a doubt but that the Christians of Troas, in dedicating this day to divine worship, were guided by apostolic authority, and the practice of the church at Jerusalem, which it is well known 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 church at Jerusalem, would have sanctioned the appointment of any other day for the public worship, than 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 propel 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 nccasions have been exposed, in a city teeming with hostility to the disciples of Christ, and in which any meeting together whatever of the Christians was severely 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 conllectect 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 Jerusalem 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, when he says, in Acts, ii. 46. and v. 42. that the Christians at Jerusalem assembled together, car' oV, 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 far 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 acr' omo0v, the meaning of in diversis domibus, "in different houses;" and understanding the apostle in the same sense as if he had expressed himself Constittion of the Church. 151 here as he hts done in Acts, viii. 3. xx. 20. and written xra& rs oi'xs;, which is the samie as v ero7i -qOxhOI. 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 expression taken in this sense; the translator not altogether unaptly rendering the Greek words ant' o7xov by circa domos. Nor did it escape our countryman, the blessed Luther, that this was the way in which they ought to be understood; and he well translates them, " gin unb {)co in ben SCdufcrn." And it appears 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 xora ns oltxS, " 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 believed 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 peaceable citizens, who had never been convicted of apostacy fiom the religion of their ancestors? I conceive, therefore, that the houses, into which Paul thus entered were those in which the Christians were wont to hold their meetings, 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 partition 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 coimmonly 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 incredible. For what house could there possibly have been in Jerusalem capable of containing such an immense number of persons? or, how could such a multitude 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 every thing 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 "oAv irv;hiciefav,," the whole church," which St. Luke states, at verse 22, to have assented to the proposal of St. James, we ought to understand merely a certain 152 Century I.-Section 37. part of it, which had been invested with the power and authority of determining the proposed question. (4) There is an ancient opinion, (it is not, however, older than the fourth century,) 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 than merely the words of St. Luke, who, in Acts, ii. 44. iv. 32. says that the Christians had all things in commion:-words which, however they may at first strike the ear, can certainly never of themselves justify any such conclusion; since an abundance of examples might be brought firom ancient authors to prove that we mlay with the greatest propriety annex to them a very different sense, and consider them as implying a communion merely of the use, not of possession. Indeed, that such is the acceptation in which they ought to be taken, is manifest fronm the address of St. Peter to Ananias, (Acts, v. 4.) without recurring to other authority. The reader who may wish to pursue this subject further will find it more amply discussed in a particular treatise of mine, de vcra Natura Communionis Bonorum in Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, which stands the first in the second volume of my Dissertationes ad Historiamn Ecclesiastic. pertinentes. (5) Respecting these seven men, to whom the care of the poor was conmmitted by the church of Jerusalem, I cannot say that my sent'ilments tltogether 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 alns, 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 afforded 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 represellted 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 a-t Jerusalem, appointed either, as is most likely, by the apostles alone, or otherwise by the suifrages of the people in general, to mlnae distribution of the alms offered by the affluent for the relief of the necessitons: 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, but were apt to lean a little more than was right in favour 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 Jews, Uonstitttionz of the Church. 153 whom St. Luke terms Greeks, being much dissatisfied at this, 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 approved 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 we 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 fiom the Hebrew or Syriac languages. These 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 conmplain of, whilst the alms were at the disposal of the Hebrews; 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; alnd 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 Sync(goga vetere, lib. iii. part ii. cap. v. p. 928. In regard to what is urged in opposition to him by B. Just. lHen. B:;lhmer, Diss. vii. Juris Eccles. antiqui, d 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 different opinion from that which I thus state myself to have formed on this subject, unless he maintain either that there were no persons whose 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 fiaternal 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 Centtury I.-Section 37. strikes me, were most likely divided into seven classes; the members of each of these divisions having 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 officer or superintendent of its own, whose immediate duty it should be to take care that the widows and the poor of the foreigners should come in for an equitable share of the allns and benefactions, and to see that due relief was administered according to the necessities 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 mue on this occasion, and I shall perhaps be told that he represents the whole church of Jerusalem as having been convened by the acpostles, 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 mncrely 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 ur-gently 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 dlawn; 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 ample scope for filling up and perfecting, by means of meditation and conjecture, what they nright thus receive from him under the form of a sketch or merely in outline. Constitution of the Chutrch. 155 Entertaining then these sentiments on the subject, I cannot but feel myself compelled to withhold my assent from many things which, in later times, have been contended for by several persons of no small weight and erudition, respecting these deacons of the church at Jerusalem. For the most part they maintain, that it was not a function of the ordinary kind with which these 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 exclusively appropriate to the church at Jerusalem; and that the deacons, therefore, of whom St. Paul in his epistles makes mention, must have been of a different order fromn 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 monkish 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 appointment 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 community 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 different from the seven men in the church of Jerusalem. But the insufficiency of this reason also may, I think, be made appear wvithout 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 Jeruscalem. An abundance of instances might easily be brought forward, to prove that the titles of offices are frequently retained without the least a.teration, although the duties attached to those offices may, from various causes, have gradually undergone a change. 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 Centlury I. —Section' 37. deacons of after times had other duties assigned them to fultil, yet in none of the churches were they altogether removed from the management and superintendence 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 willingly left them under the superintendence and management of the deacons. Amongst 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 diaconice, (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 Antiquitates lialic n medii.MEii, tom. iii. p. 571, et seq.' Du Cange in Glossar. Latin. med.,Evi 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 which 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 ancient 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 office; 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 thing 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 with which those seven men were invested was of an extraordinary nature, or that it ought to be regarded as having been by any means exclusively appropriate to the situation and circumstances of the church of Jerusalem. 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. Bohmern, 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 chulrch of Jerusalem. This notion he appears to have espoused, with a view to its yielding him assistance in proving that our modern spi gConstitutfio'n of the Ch]urch, 15 ritual teachers possess nothing in common with the presbyters of the primitive church, and that no distinctions were ever introduced by Chrlit and his apostles amongst either the teachers or the people. Dissert. JzrLis Eccles. altiqui, dis. vii. d xx. p. 373, et seq. Long bef'ore this, Bilson, bishop of WXXinchester, lhad eniceavoured to establish a point, which, couldc it be ascertaine c for a f.ct, would stronglly support the opinion of B3ehmer, namely, that uillder tlhe denomination of presbyters, in the books of the New Testament, deacons are also included. See lhis work on the perpetual Government of Ch]rist's Church, cap. x. p. 179,180. London, 1611, in 4to. But amongst all the different passagoes which he cites in order to prove this, there is not a single one that can be said to yield 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, this prelate will not allow to have been either inferior ministers of the church, or clurators of the poor, but contends that they were presbyters. See his History of the Righl ls of Princes in the disposing of Ecclesiastical BenefJices, Pref. p. xiv. et seq. The reader will perceive that in this opinion also there is something nearly allied to that of Boehmer. But it is evident that all these learned writers, as well as others, who reject the ancient notion respecting the seven men appointed by the 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 opinions, which it is their object to establish. Thus Bcehmer, by converting the deacons of old into presbyters, would prove that our modern spiritual teachers bear no resemblance whatever to the presbyters of the primitive church. Bilson, a defender of episcopacy, 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, we see the presbyterians, as they were called, in addition to their teaching presbyters, appoint others whom they term ruling or governing presbyters. But the episcopalians will not admit of any such presbyters as those of the latter kind; and therefore, by way of obviating the force of the panssage 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 ancient 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. 12.3.] 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 presbyterians from another ground, on which they were wont to assail episcopacy. The pres* byterians, it is well known, assert that in the books of the New Testament mention 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 Centulry. —Section 37. unknown. Burnet, by way of rendering their plan of attack on this ground ineffectual, would willingly 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 degree 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 refutation; 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 wondered 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 momnent, 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 several such bishops: a conclusion which, if supported by just premises, would of necessity derogate most materially from the dignity and authority of the episcopall 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 admonishes the sick to call for rrs tgvugss rrir x xso-[aS, "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. Blut 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 consider it a \vaste of time to combat, at greater length, a proposition, in which I cannot perceive even a shadow of probability. If the opinion of Bmhmer be adopted, viz. that the sevenl 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 bishop, as it is given in 1 Tim. iii. 1. But that the functions of the presbyters of the church Co1nstitution of the Churrch. 159 of Jerusalem should have diff"red in so material a point as this from those of the presbyters of any other church, (the church of Ephesus for example, whose presbyters are dire'ted by St. Paul, Acts, xx. 28. to occupy themselves in feeding the church of God, and. warding off from it all noxious errors,) is so incredible and contradictory to every kind of probability, that I cannot believe it possible 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 fromn the silence of St. Lulke. This in. spired writer, it is urged, makes no mention whatever of any election of presbyters in the church of Jerusalem; and therefore we must regard these seven mnen as having been the presbyters of that church. But surely it cannot be 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. tice: and with regard to his silence respecting the election of presbyters in the church 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 vyc6repol or vcavisGm-i, " 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 lpeu',rpoi, "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 before 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 incredible it is that a church so vastly numerous as that of Jerusalem was, and divided 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 manner as in after-times, annexed to their office. Let us now examine what forc.e9 there may be in the second argument adduced by this eminent civilian, and t., which he attributes a considerable degree of weight. It is clearly manifest, says he, from Acts, xi. 29, 30. that the presbyters or elders of the church of Jeo 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 the 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 as 1 0o eJCeod)n tgGury i —Sectiwo 37, no one ever entertained a doubt of this, I shall merely inquire whether what is said in Acts, xi. 29), 30. will justify the inference which this very learned writer would draw frorn it. The Christians of Antioch, we are there told, being geiven to underst'and that many of the brethren belonging to the church of Jerusalem were in want, determined to send relief unto them by the ha. nds of Paul and Barnabas. These contributions are stated to have been sent to the presbyters or elders; and hence this learned author concludes that the presbyters 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 altogether distuint, viz. the custody or care of the charitable fund in the aggregate, and the daily distribution of what might be necessary for the relief of thle diffirent individuals in distress, That the seven men were never entrusted with [p. 125.] the first of these, must be evident to any one who will attentively read the. history of their appointment. It wvas the latter, or the daily distribution of relief to the necessitous, which was committed to their management. rThe Cliristians of' Antioch, therefore, judged rightly in sedcling their contributions, not to the deacons, but to the presbyters or elders. The only inference, then, that can properly be drawn from this passage is, that in consequence of the disturbance which had arisen in the church of Jerusalem, respecting the improper distinction that was made in administering 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 mlore to do with the custody 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 might be designed for the relief of the poor, at the apostles' feet, durinig one or other of the solemn assemblies of the brethren. At that time, therefore, the poor's fund was tat the disposal of the apostles; and certain persons of the Hebrew nation were entrustedby 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; anld declining to have any thing fuirther to do with the pecuniary concerns of the church, directed that the custody of the contributions for the relief of the necessitous should thenceforward be committed to the presbyters. (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 we find them convoking the general body of Christians 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 Moses, (Acts, xv.) the apostles, inasmuch as they were constituted by Christ himself expounders of the divine will, might with the greatest reason have taken the cognizance 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 1 besbyZers. 161 reveral passages in St. Paul's epistles, which kiad to the same inference with thI above. XXXVITI. Presbyters of the prinitive church. When a number of Christians, therefore, were collected together sufficient to fbrm 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, u-nder 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.Q() Of these presbyters it is a comr.monly received opinion, (founded om the words of St. Paul, t Tim. v. 17.) that a part only took upon thlem to instruct the people, and deliver exhortations to them in their solemn assemblies, after -the malnner of the apostles; and that such of them as had not either received from nature, or acquired by mneans 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 presbyter or bishop should possess the faculty of teachlihg. it is scareely possible, or rather impossible, to entertain a doubt, but that this distinction between teaching and rulinglf presbyters was after a short time laid aside, and none subse- [p. 126.] quentljy 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 speciflied by the apostle, there are several things which apply exclusively 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' Ceztury I.-Section 35 (1) That the terms bishops and presbyters are applied promiscuously, as sq, nonymous in the books of the New Testament, is most clearly manifest fioln Acts, xx. 17. 28. Philipp. i. 1. Tit. i. 5. 7. With regard to the term presbytec, the reader will find its force and use well illustrated by Camp. Vitringa, in h1i' work de Spnagog,. velere, lib. iii. part i. cap. i. p. 609; and also by that eminently learned theologist and ornament of his country, Jo. Bened. Carpzovius, ian lil Exercilationes 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 rulilng presbyters does not appear to me to be in every respect so well established a,: to be placed beyond the reach of doubt. In no part whatever, I believe, of the New Testament, is the verb xorsm5 made use of, either absolutely or conjoined with the words i-v Uvgri or iV z$o?,v to express the ordinary labour of teaching and instructing the people. But I observe that St. Paul, in various places, applies this verb, and also the noun xi7Oros, sometimes separately, and at other times connected with certain other words, in an especial sense to that indcl of labour which he and other holy persons encountered in propagating the light of the gospel, and bringing over the Jewvs and heathens to a fiith in Christ. In Rom. xvi. 12. (to pass over what is said in verse 6. of one Mary) the apostle describes Tryphmna and Tryphosa as labouring in the Lord; and Persis, anlother 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 in i Cor. iv. 12. where St. Paul says of himself, am; xo,,ad )'u*, igyct, c(vots Siz7 s tiasi Xs)-, "and we labour, working with our own hands." By labouring, 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 the same epistle, 1 Cor. xv. 10. he declares himself to have laboured more abundantly than all the rest of the apostles, r7-vaoi rg ov udwrtcy a.,vsv ixo0rro-a; 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 who were as yet ignorant of the true religion; but I conceive that the citations which I have already made will be deemed sufficient. We see, therefore, that it might not without some show of reason and authority be contended that by Electiomn of Presbyters. 163 CUV'gg v07rs iv ~ o,ci Ji Xj xt, "the elders who labo.ir in the word and doctrine," are to be understood such of the presbyters as were intent on1 enlargingo tile chu.rch,'and occupied themselves in converting the Jews and heathens friom their errors, and bringing them iinto the fold of their diville Master, —and not those whose exertions were limited to the instructing and admonishing of the nembers 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 was 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 thtan 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:'Eguc1sv Jd 6.agS dJ'0xcl iEVgv TS XiOcr1t(Vs;iv 6;14yV, algO,,i 6rg'.V,v iv xg, cA Va-rySvrgCS 6US, 1" and we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the JLord, and admnonish you." 1 Thess. v. 12. Now nothing, I think, can be more manifest than that the apostle, in this place, alludes to the maintaining 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. xosriOvsars, those who laboured; 2. zgogsE&vYs, those who ruled or presided; and, 3. vu-scv-,~ra., 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 circumstance that r-v "~r.v,'the labour" of the ministers of the church is here clearly spoken of by the apostle as a thing distinct from rvu-&ga, " admonition or exhortaltion:" from whence it may naturally be inferred that the presbyters who are said by him to labour were different from those who instructed the membelrs of the church, when assembled, in the nature of their faith and cluties, or, in other words, " admonished them." The verb zorai6c is here put absolutely; but there can be no doubt but that we ought to understand theX words iv xoy' ri dax x ~s.At,, as in 1 Tim. v. 17, or hv KugtcL, 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 passag'e itself, for determining the force of the word in this place: for probably the generality of people will be disposed to consider the words v KuIg(e as common to all the three members of the sentence, and as having, notwithstanding their immediate connection with rpois'sCagyo,:, a reference likewise to the terms c7rcvtras and vu&a;vrv.ag. 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 necessary; first of all, those who labour among you with a.ll their might [p. 128.] 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. XXXTX. Election of the presbyters, their stipends, &c. That the presbyters of the primitive church of Jerusalem were elected by 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 introduce any deviation from the apostolic model.(') The forml 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 centuries. WVhen 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 amlongst the deacons,) as fit to fill that office. To this recommendation the people were constrained to pay no further respect than it might appear to them to deserve.(') 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 office of an elder. When the voice of the multitude, in the election of anly one to the sacred ministry, was -unanimous, it was considered in the light of a divine call. In compliance 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 support 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, (except in as fiar as it is at present compulsory,) has nothing in it repugnant to the practice of the churcha 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 way 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 estimating 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 discretion 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 candidates for a vascant place, unless there be some one appointed to officiate as superintendent 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 Constantine 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 ei-ther 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 embraced the Christian religion in this its infancy being of mean extraction, and wholly illiterate, it could not otherwise happen but that a great scarcity should be experienced in the churches 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 Cenlury I;-Section 40. to render them fit instruments for making known his 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 pretended 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. 1. This order of prophets ceased in the church, when the reasons vwhich gave birth to it no longer existed. For when the affairs of the church took a prosperous 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 unnecessary 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 prophecies delivered under the old covenant. It was a common thing I grant, fir these prophets to adduce proofs of the truth and divine original of the Christian religion from the inspired writers of the Old Testament. I an ready also to grant that not unfrequently particular passages in the Old Testament, the genuine sense of which had either escaped the Jewish doctors, or been obscured by them, were, through the sagacity of these prophets, illustrated 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 illis, qui Prophetce vocantur in nmoo Federe, whice The PProplhets. 167 is to be found in the second volume of Imy Dissertaliones ad Historiam Ecclesiastic. perlineelzes. We have 0no positive testimony that tLere were prophets in all thle early churches; but it appears extremely probable that such was the case, since St. Paul, in enumerating the ministers of the church appointed by God himself, assigns the second place to the prophets. 1 Cor. xii. 28. Ephles. iv. 11. (2) There can be no doubt but that, from nalmost the very first rise of Christianity, it was the practice for certain of the youth, in whom such 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 saered ministry, and for the presbyters and bishops to supply them with the requisite preparatory instruction, and foirm 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: x'i a;s'arg 7rp' jd1aC oWXi aspIrc( u, Craikrar WapLL $ XriCOIS &&PPJT019, 0h'liiV 6L F _ n irpTE JitL'6t; "1 and the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same cornit 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 irtsot 1v3-pocrc, 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 whomn thinogs of the highest moment miglht 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.] tong 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 trluth 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 sholld 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 presbyters 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'l'imothy, and applied 168 Century I.-Section 41. himself to the properly educating of future teachers and ministers for the church: for it appears by them that he had not been the tutor of Timothy only, but that his instructions to this his favorite disciple had been itmparted ia troxxAcv uaprp'c, "before many witnesses;" Sla having, in t-lis place, unquestionably the force of the preposition G,67rtov. To determine, indeed, whom we ought to understand by the persons thus termed u witnesses," has occasioned no little stir amongst the commentators. According to some we should conneet them with the following word zrppapy, and consider St. Paul as saying, Ja ro:AXv rpr'p ev rsaep&-}, "transmit by many witnesses." 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 thle mind of his adopted son in the faith the chief or leading larticles of the Christian 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 supposing that St. Paul had under him, in a sort of seminary or school wvlich he had instituted for the purpose of properly educating presbytexr. and teachers, several other disciples and pupils besides Timothy; and that the witnesses here spoken of, before whom Timothy had been instructed, weite his fellowstudents, 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, bhut 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 Irenzeus advers. Hrrceses, 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, HIislor. 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 this origin, in my opinion, are to be referred those seminalies 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 instluction and discipline under the bishop himsalf, or some presbyter of his appointment. XLI. The origin of bishops. Whilst the Christian asselmblies or churc hes were but small, two, three, or four presbyters were Origiyn of Bishops. 169 found amply sufficient to labour for the welfare, and regulate the concerns of each: and over a few men like these, inflam ed 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 superintendant. 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 bound 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 the various necessities of the multitude to be regularly and satisfactorily provided for, without some one to preside and exert a controuling 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 kiincd of detriment or injury.(') 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 branclh of his function, "the bishop."'() In what particular church, or at what precise period, this arrangement was -first introduced, remains nowhere on record. It appears to me, however that thpre 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.(3) (1) This statement respecting the origin 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 things in that early age, and also on the jealousies, dissensions, and Various other embarrassing evils, that are incident 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 unusual 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 invested 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 prlesbyters tand deacons, do we find the least notice taken of any churchl having'been subject to the authority or rule of a single man. It appears to me, however, equally certain that the churches did not long continue under the care and management of councils of presbyters, amongst whom there was no distinction of rank; but that in the more considerable ones at least, if not in the others, it came, even during the life-time of the apostles, and with their approbation, 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 himself, 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 termned ", 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 fiom 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, without 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 instance, 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 tlhe care and management of its concerns, it might be possible for its affairs to be conducted with the greatest regularity, and for its procedings not to be disgraced by any thing like confusion 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 entil'ely 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 soldiers 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 person,, 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 lalmExo5 signifies in general a legate, or person accredited either of God or man, and those presidents of the churches were regarded as being, in an especial degree commissioned of God, it, in my opinion, requires no very great depth of research to account for their 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 previously been common to the presbyters at large; so that these presidents might thereby be constantly reminded that they Nwere 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, therefore, that in the appellation a`tkrAtS r ixxMoa-fad, the word -eg is to be supplied; andcl that the title ought to be understood as running thus,'ATexcs r~ Si5.s'EKxmfTaCr, 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 anld 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 appointing 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 higch as those of Jerusalem. All ancient authorities, from the second century downwards, 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. Acla sanclor. Mens. Maii, tom. i. p. 23. Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a I'HIistoire de 1' Egise, 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 suspect that these ancient writers might incautiously be led to form their judgment 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, fromn the writings of the New Testament, that, after the departure of the other apostles on their travels, the chief authority in the church of Jerusalem was possessed 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 divine Master. Acts, xxi. 19, 20. No one reading this can, I should think, entertain 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 having been appointed to the office of bishop. Were we to admit of such kind of reasoning as this,-the government of the church of Jelrusalem 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 government of the church in that city, it rather appears to me, was placed in the hands Origin of Bishopvs. 173 of its presbyters, but so as that notlling of moment could be done witllont the advice and autlhority of James; the same sort of respect'ful deference being paid to hi, will as hald folerly been manifested f-or that of the aIpostles at large. But:although we cleen those ancienlt writ.elrs to lilve committecl an er ror, in pronouncing James to have'been the first bishop of Jerusalem. it may without much difficulty be demonstrated that the cilurch of that city had a bishop sooner than any1 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 tian;l anIld finally laid wa.ste by the emperor HaIdrian,, towards the middle of the stcond 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 tlradiion, but from certain ancient written documents which had come under his own immediate inspection: k' ig v. At that period, accordingi to the same histori:n, the church of Rome had had no more than sevenl bishops, and th:tt of Alexandria only five. He likewise represents (Ilist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xx. p. 141.) the church of Antioch as having, even so late as in the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, been undcler 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 chuiches were successively induced tto follow her example. Eusebius indeed says, that he had not been able to ascertain 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. But this in no respect militates agzainst the above conclusion. If we assign, as surely 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 altogetler. 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 tile 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 prelates mentioned by Eusebius: for it has been resolved by the learned, apparently 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 almost said it cannot, be denied that the episcopal dignity must have originated in and passed to the other churches from that of Jerusalem. 174 Cee tury — Section 42. XLII.'ights 9 &c. of the first bishops. That these bishops were, on their creation, invested with certain peculiar rights, and a degree of power which 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 te state with exact precision the extent to which those rights and that power reached during the first century. It is certain, however, that it would be forming a very erroneous judgment, 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 under one roof. IIe tauglht the people, administered what are termed the sacraments, and supplied the ailing and the indigent with comfort and relief, WVith 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 presbyters with him in council, lie inquired into and determined any disputes or differences that might subsist amongst the muembers of his flock, and also looked round and consulted with them as to any measures which the welfare and prosperity of the church appeared to require. TWhatever arrangements might be deemed eligible, were proposed by him to the people for their adoption, in a general assemlbly. In fine, a primitive bishop could neither determine nor enact anllything of himself, but was bound to conform to and carry into effect whatever migllt be resolved onl by the presbyters and the people.(') Tlhe episcopal digmlity would not be much coveted, I rather thinlk, on suchl 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 anything: -for that they must have been extremely small, cannot but be obvious to every one who shall consider that no church had, in those clays, any other revenue than what arose from the voluntary offerings, or oblations as they were termed, of the people, Rural Bis/hoi, s. 175 by far the greater part of whom were persons of very moderate or slender metans; and that out of these offerings::in addition to the bishop, provision was to be made for the presbyters, the deacons, aud 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 Origi'nes Ecclesiastics, and Beveridge's Codex Canonum primilivcc Ecclesica, XLIII. Rmear bishops and4 dioceeses It was not long, [p. 137.] however, before circumstances becanme so changed, as to produce a considerable extension and enlargement of the limits, within whicll the episcopa1l government and authority had been at first confined. For the bishops who presided in the cities, were accustomedl to send out into t;he neighbouring towns and country adjacent certain of their presbyters, for the purpose of making converts, and estaLblislinn, churches therein; and it being' of course deemed but f~tir acnd proper that the rural or village congregations, which were drawn together in this way, should continue under the guardianship ancd 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, sonme greater, some less, to which the Greekls in after times gave the clenomination of dioceses. Those to whom the instruction arnd management o-f these surrounding country churlches were commnitted by the diocesan were termned chorepiscopi, i.e. e 7 z~~, ~,~',;'oro;, "' rural bishops." Persons of this description are doubtless to be consicdered as having held a middle rank between the bishops and the presbyters: for to place them o07 a level with the former is impossible, since thay wAere subject to the diocesan; but at the same tinme, it is manifest that they were superior in rank to presbyters, 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.(l) (1) The reader will find this subject very copiously treated of in the following (amongst other) works: Morin. de sacris Eccles. Ordinationmibus, part i, exerc. iv. p. 10, et seq.; Blondell. de Episcopis et Presbyteris, l iii, p. 93. 120, et 176'2iCentery Z.T-Section 44, seq; Bevereg. in Pandect. Canonum ad Canon. xiii. Concilii Ancycrani, torn. ii, p. 1'76; Ziegler. de Episcopis, lib. i. cap. xiii. p. 105, et seq.; Pet. de Marta de Concordia Sacerdolii et Imperii, lib. ii. cap. xiii. part xiv. p. 159, et seq.; Boehimer. Adnotat. ad ilunm, p. 62, 63; Thomassin. Disciplina Eccles. zet. et nov. 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 epi:copal 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 "1 rural bishop:," 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. XLIV. Deacons and deaconesses. In addition to these its governors 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.'T'heir office was to distribute the alms to the necessitous; to carry the orders or messages of the elders, wherever necessary; and to perform varionus other duties, some of which related merely to the solemn assermblies 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 dclirections 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 meluch 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 mlust have been fo-und 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.(') Deacons and Decconesses. 177 (1) The origin of the order of deacons is, in my opinion, unquestionably te be referred back to the primitive church of Jerusalenm; but the reader will have perceived, firom 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' dcacons in the assembly of the Christians of that city, prior to such appointment, will not with me admlut 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 capacity. 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 wife to the earth, the more am I convinced that they were in fact none otlher than deacons. The seven men subsequently appointed I conceive to have been public ministers, differing in no respect from those whom, for thie satke of distinction, we will term original deacons, except only that their sphere of duty was limited to that part of the church 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-alges 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 mle 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 circumstances of the church at that time. Whether or not there were any such characters as those of deaconesses known in the church of Jerusalem, is what I have not the lmeans of ascertaining with any degree of certainty. 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 firom the words of St. Paul himself, I Tim. v. 9, 10. As far as my penetration is able to reach, I can perceive nothing that can be considered as at all opposing 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 widows! 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. see. xxxvii. note [51 p. 152 12 178 Century I-Section 44. deaconnesses, it will be. possible to assign no very unsatisfactory reason fifr this. The number of the Greek converts was undoubtedly not so great as thlla of the Hebrew ones: the duties, therefore, which the "widows" of tho;e Greeks or foreigners had to dischalrge mlust have been executed with less labour and inconvenience than fell to the lot of the indigenous lmatrons, in thle pelr. formanee of their functions. Perceiving, then, that the trouble encounteredl by the foreign class of widows was disproportionate to that which necessarily attached itself to the services of the others, and being also perllhaps somewhItit influenced by a partiality towards those of their own nation, tile Hebrew nlinisters, who were entrusted with the distribution of the alms, might probably conceive that there could be no impropriety in th'eir grantingo relief on I mo1re liberal scale to the widows of the indigenous Jews than to those of the lfoeig'n 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 nme, on a reconsideration of the history of the controversy above alluded to between the Jews and the Greels, as given us by St. Lule. In the openinlg; of his narrative, the sacred historian tells us that' there had arisen a mlurlnluring of the Grecians against the Hebrews." Being' palrticularly stiudious of brevity, however, he omits adding some things whiiich yet ale necessCry to be understood by his leaders, in order to their forlming a p'roper juclgment of thle affair. In the first place, then, although no suchll tling' is expre;sed, yet it is evident from the context that we must consider the Greeks as Ihaving 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 preferred. For no one that is in his senses can believe that thle whole body of Hebrews shoulcd have deliberately concurred in a witsh to wrong' the widVows 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 and 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 impossible to account for the speech which is stated to have been made by the apostles to the multitude when assembled. Had no such direct application been made to them to take upon themselves the office, what room could there have been for their so formally declining i-t Taking it, however, for the fact, thllat such request was made, as we are certainly well warranted in doing by the words ot' 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, we may suppose to have ran somewhat in this way: —" Brethren, we are given to understand by the Greels, that their widows have not experienced, in point of charitable assistance Thie Peop)le. 1'79 that degree of justice which they had a right; to expect at the hands of the ministers of the chureh; and they have, in consequence thereof, expressedl. a wish that we ourselves would undertake to see that things of this kind should be properly managed for the future. To this, 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 aldministering relief to the poor, we should ilnevitably 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 Christianl' 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.-Chloose ye from amongst yourselves seven men, on whose faith and integrity ye can rely, to superintend this business, 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 Aznal. Politico-Eccles. ad Ann. xxxv. tom. i. p. 450.; and Bingham's Origines.Ecclesiast. lib. ii. cap. xx. p. 296, et seq. XL'V. Constitution and order of the, primitive churcheso The People. From these particulars we may collect a general idea of what was the form aind constitution of those primitive Christian associations, whlich in the language of Scripture are termed chuzrches. Every church was composed of three constituent parts: Ist, Teachers who were also invested vith the government of the co mmunity, according to the laws; 2dly, Ministers of each sex; and 3dclly, The m-ultitude of people.(') Of these parts, the chief in point of authority was the people: for to them belonged the appointment of the bishop and presbyters, as well as of the inferior ministers; —with them resided the power of enactingo 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 carried into effect, without their knowledge and concurrence. 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 friom 180 Century I.-Section 45. it occasionally impending ill. The contributions thus furnished consisted of all kinds of offerings, or oblations as they were commonly 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 catechumzens.(2) 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 worship. The latter were those converts who, not having gone through the course of preparatory discipline and probation prescribed 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 community 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 sufiered 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.(4) 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 enjoined both by Christ and his apostles, that if repeated admonition and reproof should fail to produce repentance and amendment of life in any who might pollute themselves by a depraved The Peo2le. 181 deneanor, or by flagrantly 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.(Q) (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 adding a few observations, illustrative of such things as may appear to require some elucidation. In thefirst place, then, it may be proper for me to remark, that in enumerating 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 objectionable in these terms, when properly explained; but lest, by my having recourse to them, I should afford occasion to some to doubt of my impartiality. I cannot, 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 nse, —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 manner 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 constitute 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 things. 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 haptism, 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 obtained 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 Century I.-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 regulation being once introduced, it unavoidably gave rise to the distinction between the faith7ful and the catechtnmens, 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 although the things themselves be perspicuously discussed, and satisfactorily establlished 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 hinted 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) R especting the terms "brethren" and "sisters," thus made use of to denote the perfect equality that was understood to exist amongst all the members of the Christian community, there was a book published at Goslar, 1703, in 8vo. by Gothofred Arnold, under the title of' Iistoria Cognalionis spiritualis veleruzm Chrislianorum. Like all the other works, however, of that author, who, although a well-intentioned man, and one by no means destitute of learningl, was yet possessed of but a very moderate share of sagacity or judgment, it exhibits an undigested farrago of' facts and opinions, by which the mind of the reader is embarrassed and distracted, instead of being gratified and enlit) htened. (4) What St. Luke has left us on record in Acts, iv. 34. respecting the primitive 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 incumbent on theln 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 farthehe into things than other people, there are not a few who take exception to this liberality of the primitive Christians 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 indigent 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, worthless, 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 with attention, nothing but the most wilful and inveterate 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 absolutely expelled from the church. All, likewise, that did not conduct themselves as became the di.ciples 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 fild it laid clown in clear and express terms, as the duty of every Christian [p. 143.] ailnily 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 allnother apostolic admonition, particular care is enjoined to be taken that evil-disposed persons might not be furnished, through the bounty of the church, with the mieans 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 granted, should not be suffered to increase beyond measure, or so as to press too hard on the means of those by whom such relief was supplied. It was not, therefore, 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 towards God and mankind; and that he should not either be capable of procuring 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 referred for assistance adequate to his wants. (5) It appears to me that if the voice of reason and common sense be attended to, not a question can for a moment exist as to the justice andl 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 imnperative, that I am altogether filled with astonishment when I reflect on the.number of eminently learned men,-men, too, particularly versed in the principle and nature of laws, divine as well as human, who have not scrupled peremtorily to maintain that the practice of excommunicating evil-doers, or expelling them from the church, has no other support or foundation than the ancient Jewish law, or the mere arbitrary will of the first Christians. But the influence 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 discussion 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. 184 Century 1.-Section 46. XLV I. Teachers and ministers. Both the teachers and the ministers of the church, when their appointment had received the approbation of the people, were consecrated by the presbyters to their office 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 carried 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 persuasion, 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 celebration 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 presiding 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 aind extensive, he had the power of committing to either of the elders the ffulfilment of such of them as that elder might appear to h]im to be particularly well qualified to execute. WVhen 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 fthe elders, he next convened a general meeting of the people, to whose determination 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 eligible 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 Worsh:p. 185 teachers and ministers of the church could have been but small, whilst, at the same time, the trouble and perils which they necessarily 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 derived from his labours, and not by the extent of his revenue, or of any other kind of pecuniary remuneration that might be attached to his office. XLVII. 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 conceded 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 deacons. The lesson being ended, some presbyter, or, after the appointment 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 exhorted 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.(C) Some general prayers (the extemporaneous effusions, as it should seem, of a mind glowing with divine 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 probfessing themselves 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 the acknowledged prophets, to determine whether they spake under the influence of a mere natural impulse, or were prompted in what they delivered by a divine inspiration. To this first solemn act of public worship succeeded a second, which commenced with the offering of certain voluntary gifts, or oblations, which 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 selected so much as might appear to him to be necessary for the [p. 145.] celebration of the Lord's supper, and consecrated it to that purpose in a set form of words; the people 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 observed 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. I-Iow truly admirable the simplicity by which the rites of our holy religion was characterized in these its infant days!(3) (1) Next to the writings of the New Testament, the most ancient authority that we have respecting the forms and method observed by the Christians 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 proprntor 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 returned back to the worship of the Roman deities. The generality of people would, ill 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 testimony did not appear altogether conclusive. Informed, as he was, of the various reports that were in constant circulation amongst the priests and populace, 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 repudiators 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. Lu-'Utic v ors/i2p. 187 fu for a virtuous man and good citizen to join,) he seems to have been tlpprthensive of being made the dupe of disseinblers, 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 deaconesses 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 magnis, says he, necessarium credidi, (it is apparent, therefore, that he entertained some suspicion as to the accuracy of the testimony of those renunciattors of Christianity whom he had before examined,) ex dcluabus ancillis, quea ministrwc dicebantur, quid esset veri e per tormenta qucrere. Sed nihil aliud inveni quzam superstitionem poravam et immodlicarn. Fronm these words of the proconsul, we may collect that he succeeded in obtaining from these women some additional testimony; but it is, at the same time, clear that he had been able to extort fiom 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 pravyc et irmmodica, 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 fiom 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 differed in its principles and nature fioll 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 formner must, of course, be understood as indicating a want of such consonancy. By terming Clhristianity then prava sulperstitio, nothing more appears to have been meant than that it was a religion of an opposite character to the approved and established Ronman mode of worship. The Romans, -or instance, were accustomned to offer up victims to their gods, and to dedieate to them temples, altars, statues, and images. Their invocations 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 (prava) 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 extravagance,-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 dictates of philosophy. Immodicus was, we are certain, a term used by the Romans 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, namlely, the rule prescribed by reason or phi 188 Cenhter y I.-Section 47. losophy, and that laid down by the Roman laws: and it appears to me, therefore, that by denominating the Christian discipline immodica, it was unquestionably 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 Christianity 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 words, 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 terms 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 particulars, respecting the forms of divine worship observed by the first Christians, which Pliny states himself to have obtained from the many witnesses which 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, fiom the Gesnerian edition of his works, the most correct of any that have as yet been given to the public. Adfirmabant autem, hanc foisse summam vel culpac suCE vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire: carmenque Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem: se que sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere sed nefurta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne filem fallerent, ne depositurn appellati abnegarent: quibis peractis, morena sibi discedendifuisse, rursusque [p. 147.] coeundi ad capiendum cibumn, promiscuum tamen et innocuum. " 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 purposes of any wicked design, but never to conmmit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when 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 immediately, 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 Mforshlp. 189 that in many respects it is wholly de.ficient. Not a word, fol instance, is said of the exhortation or sermon usually delivered by one of' hle 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 thle oblations which it was customary for the communicants to offer. In m;nlking his report to Trajan, Pliny probably saw no necessity for setting down all that lie had learnt fi'om the witnesses, but deemed it sufficient to lay before the emperor merely such particulars as would give him an insight into the nature of the Christian discipline, and satisfy him that those who had embraced it were far from being of a character either so detestable or dangerous as that which Was attributed to them by vulgar report. For Pliny's epistle, from beginning to end, is unquestionably 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, anid to incline the emperor to treat with lenity and compassion a set of men, who, although they had espoused a different religion from that of the Romans, yet appeared 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, accommodates itself 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, as 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. Boohmer 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 Stato Chistianorum Die, (which stands first in that series of tracts, in which he undertakes to illustrate the sacred rites, &ec. 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 distinct meetings; the one before sun-rise, for the worship of God, and further ~90 Century I.-Sections 47. anee of piety; the other in the course of the day, most probably about the thina 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 enjoined with regard to public worship at one and the same meeting. It is by no means difficult, however, to assign a very sufficient reason for this deviation of the Bithynian Christians from the general practice. Exposed, as they were on all.6sides, to the treachery of malignant foes, it would have been impossible for them 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 seasonable 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 lie was the author. These prayers Pliny states them to have recited secaln 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 inen 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 allernatim; implying, as they would have it, that in the assemblies of whlich we are speaking, the Christians divided themselves into two choirs, and that the praises of Christ were alternately 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 their presbyters, or their bishop, first to recite the form of prayer, and then for the people to repeat it after him, and add the word" amen" at the conclusion. Were the term to be considered as having tlhi reference, we should unquestionably find less difficulty in maling it accord with what we know of the fornis 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 decision. For it appears to me to be altogether uncertain whether 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 certainly 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 thart 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 Pu6lic I-orsl2. 19! amined, there must at once be an end to all doubt; as to the fact of those Christians having worshipped our blessed Saviour as the Supreme Deity.-W-Vith regard to the word carnmen, it admlits of some question whether we ought to understand by it that these prayers of the Christians were composed according to the rules of mietre, and consequently sung; or whlether the termn is to be considered as implying in this place, what we frequently find it applied to elsewhlere, merely a set form of words in prose. Some of the highest authorities, including the celebrated Gesner, lean in favour of the latter construction; and influenced chiefly by the weight of such judclment, I was led to give preferencee to tihis opinion in my tHistor. Christian. Instilutiones majores, sie. 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 IHymnophlntus, is to be found in the fifth voluame of the Miscellanea Lipsiens. nov. of the learned lMnckenius. After having compared together the different argumenlts brought forward lon either side, I must confess it now appears tome scarcely possible to say which way tle scale preponderates. Those eninent scholars, to whose opinion I'ormerly subscribed, bring forward, in support of their construction of tile word, the authority of a glreat number of ancient Latin writers, and beyond all, thlat of Pliniy himself; in whose writings they observe, the word carnmen i-; several times put for prayers in prose. The verb dicere, too, they bid tus renlark, which Pliny in this place joins with carmen, will not admit of the supllosition that compositions in verse were here alluded to; for that hald real verl-es been meant, they would have been stated (cani) to be sung, not (dici) said. But of these arguments, neither the one or the otlher call be deemed conclusive. For as to the first, it can by no means be allowed [p. 149.] to follow, tilat because the word carmen is frequently put by Pliny and others for a COlllmpositiOln ill prose, it may not have a different 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 regyard to the algulment deduced from the word dicere. a variety of passages mlight be quoted, which would show that this verb was occasionally put for can/tare, and,associated with carmen in its strict sense. In the Carmen sceculare of Horace, for instance, ver. 6, 7, 8, we find, " Quo Sybillini monuere versus Virgines lectas, puerosque castos, Diis, quibus septern placuere colles, Dicere carmen." Indisputably alluding to the singing of a hymn, or composition in verse. Virgil too, when speaking of the hymn which the husbandmen were accus. tomed to sing to Ceres, before putting the sickle to the corn, Georg. lib. i. ver. 348, et seq. says,,_ - -" Neque ante Falcem naturis quisquam supponat aristis, Quam Cereri, torta redimnitus tenmpora quercu, Det motus incompositos, et carmina dicat." 1952 Century I —Section 47. And again, when describing a part of the inhabitants of the Elysian Fields as occupied in song and dance, ]neid. lib. vi. ver. 644. "Pars pedibus 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 his argument principally upon the word carmen,-reminding us that it strictly and properly signifies a song, and contending that the strict and proper signification of a word is not to be departed from, unles tl;hrough evident necessity. Now all this is certainly xcry well observed. But the advocates for the former opinion may reply, that this le-rned writer himself is one of the first to break through the rule which he thus prescribes to others, of adlering to the strict and proper signification ot words, by insisting that we ought to understand Pliny as using dicere in the sense of cantacre: for that this is literally rejecting the plain and commonly accepted Inelaning of the formler verb, and annexing to it a remote and unusual sig'nification, vwithout 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 tfist. lib. iii. cap. 33.) rendering the words carmen dicere into Greek by the verb st4v67v. 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 beyond 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 connected 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 obstrinagebant, evc. "bound themselves by an oath not to commit theft, robbery, or any other crime forbidden 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 endeavourmed, 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, saccramento se obstringere, "to bind themselves by an oath," that is, to swear, [p. 150.] that they would lead a chaste life, &c. it is altogether a misrepresentation 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 themselves 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 has Public Worwship. 193 not indeed escaped the observation of some men of erudition, and they have endeavoured to obviate it by suggesting ttat 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 Roma;n 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 t.o mention other things by which it might be shown to be utterly destitute of -foundation, its fallacy is rendered sufficiently apparent by Pliny himself, who expressly states thlat s-,acrlament of which he speakls, to have been compreh.ended in the first part of the Christian worship; whereas the celebration of what were termned sacraimenets 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 conciuding part of their public worship, 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 Almigchty, whenTiever they assembled together, that they would strive to lead a lif'e 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 mlan'ner, and stated them sacramento se obstringere. It yields a fiurther nrgumeint against our believing that the Christians were accustomed in their assemblies to take an oath to the above effect, that not the least vestige whatever of any such periodical repetition of the articles of their profession is to be nmet 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 cappear 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. Fi inally, 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, robbery, 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 respected duties of a higher and more important nature:-that we were, for instance, to cherish the most unbounded reverence for God and his will; that our love should be extended universally to all mankind; tha.t we should ever be ready to do good, even to our enemies; and should earnestly strive to subdue, and as it were extinguish, within ourselves, every sort of unlawful appetite. There can be little or no 13 194 CentEury I.-Sectimo 47 doubt that the Christians whom Pliny examined pointed out these things to him, but that he 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 account given by the Christians on this occasion was to the following purport:That aftel offering up their prayers to Christ, it was 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 falith and conduct; abstaining, as far as in them lay, from the commission of evil of any lind; and that it was us-ual for all of ther to promise, silently within themselves, that they would do so. If alny refused to conform themselves to the word, agreeably to this admonition, acnd preferred continuing in the practice of iniquity, they were excluded from all communication with the assembly. And this is the sense which Tertullill, who perceived how widely Pliny's account, if taken literally, would differ in this respect from the practice of the first Christians, anne.xes to the passage in question. Allegat, says he, alluding to this letter of Pliny's, nihil aliud se de sac rzs eorum compernisse, quamn cctus ante lucanos ad canendum Christo ut deo, et a confcederandam disciplinamn, homicidium, adulterium, firaudem, pe:fidiam, et cacera scelera prohibentes. (Apologetic. cap. ii.) The reader will perceive that this exactly corresponds wvith what I have above remarked. Nothing is here aliaL of the talking of any oath; nothing *of any reiteration of the baptismal vows'- on the contrary, the crimes which Pliny states the Christians to have abjurede, are here represented as being merely prohibited, meaning doubtless forbidden 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: Rursusqte coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuzmm tamen el 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 thlis expression, therefore, it shoulcd seem, that Pliny meant to do away that suspicion of-' induloging 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 Public Worship. 195 tians was, in this first age, at liberty to assume the office of a teacher in their solemn assemblies, and might there openly deliver his sentiments on divine subjects, for the benefit of the fiaternity at large. A very unwarrantable use, however, has been madcle of this opinion by sone of the present clay, who aim at bringing about a new order of things in the Christian commonwealth, and would itfin 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 firct I could, in the present instance, have no temptation whatever to disgouise the truth; since, having never filled the office of a public teacher in the church, my interest is not at all involved in the question: and besides I well know, that should such or suchl 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 inan of acuteness and penetration, but by any one of common sense and understandi.ng,. 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 ordinary class, might use his endeavours to propagate the Christian Religion, [p. 152.] and exert himself to the best of his abilities in malting known the blessings of celestial truth to those who lay chained in darlkness and superstition. But does this, let me ask, at all support the idea that the office of teaching in the public assembliies of the Christians might be assunmed by any of the brethren ad libiturn? 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 wlho asserted 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 astonishing 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 whatv we Iknow 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 preaching 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 confined merely to those who had given satisfactory proof of their being divinely commissioned to instruct the church. (3) The reader willfind these particulars more fully discussed and illustrated 196 Century I. —Section 48. in Bingham's Orilines Ecclesiasticce, Cave's Primitive Christianity, Goti Arnold's work de Vi'a el il-bribus _primorum Chlristianorum, and the writings of various oher lauthors. 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 olher things, 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 indisputable and such as are merely probable. XLVIII. AU the primitive clhurches indepeendent. Although all the chlurches 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 welfaire of each other by a reciprocal interchange of good offices; yet with regard to government and internal economy, every individual church considered 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 magnitude or consequence: on the contrary, several things occur therein, 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 equality with the rest.(1) 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 themselves that sort of association, which afterwards came to subsist amnongst 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 questions or controversies that might arise respecting divine matters.(2) 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 Cihurches Icldelpeoennt. 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.(3) (1) It appears indeed from the Acts of the Apostles, that the dignity and authority of the church of Jelusalem was forawhile very great. In cap. xv. we find the Christians of Antioch referring their disputes concerning the necessity of observing the law of Mtoses, 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-eminenlcy,) as from the circumstance of its being under the immediate care and government of our Lord's apostles, who were expressly constituted by Christ hirlself supreme directors and judges of all matters connected with religion. Properly spe.aking, it was not to the church of Jerusalem, but to the aposiles 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 tilan to any other for advice. For in the church of Jerusalem there must have becn 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 effusion, 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 of 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 corntroversie3 thlat might arise respecting religion. Of this custom abundant testimony is to be collected fiom 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 wvas 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 endeavouring to shelter himself under apostolic authority, no more effectual way of 198 Centutry I. —Section 48. repressing his presumption could present itself than that of referring to the testimony of the churches which the apostles themselves had founded. See, for instance, Tertullian de Prccscript. advers. Ichreticos. It is a most egregious mistake, 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 judicial power having 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 testimony 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 resolved by a college of divines in an university. Certain I am 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 were 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 according 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 and 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 effect. 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 Saviour'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 profession. 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 mignht 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 firom these epistles:-for it appears by them that there was a considerable diversity in the tenets and regulations of these seven Churches ]ihdpeldent. 199 churches. The Nicolaitans, for instance, whoever they miOght then be, were wholly excluded from the church of Ephesus, Rev. ii. 6.; whereas in [p. 155.] that of Pergamos they had free toleration, Rev. ii. 15. The members of the church of Thyatira sufflered 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 assemblies over which they presided, in what way are we to account for the existence 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 Nicolaitlms 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 altog'ether. (3) It is very common for that assembly of the church of Jerusalem, of which we -read in Acts, xv. to be termed the 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 understand 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 occasion 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 term 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 ag'e they were not by any means frequent. In faeCt, it was a common practice in all the churches, at this period, for the members 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 oines clown to our own time put together. A council, properly speaking, means an assembly of several associated churches, or a congregation of delegates representino' a nurnber 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 conducingf t tthe general good. Now, that such an assembly as this was even once held in the first century, is what I am sure no one, let him take what pains he may, will ever be able to find in the history of thn.t age. As the cause of Christianity, however, advanced, and its concerns became more extensive, so that the churches conmposing 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. XLIX. But few persons of erudition amongst the primitive Christianis. The apostolic fathers. In the age of which we are now treating, it was not deemed so essentially requisite in a teacher that he should be distinguished for profound or extensive knowledge, 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 possessed of a certain degree of facility in impartinag instruetion to the ignorant. Had the apostles indeed thought otherwise, and directed that none but men of letters andc erudition should have been elected to the office of presbyters, it would not have been possible for the churches to have complied with such a man[p. 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 aind corruption, it is uniformly evident that, in unfolding the sacred truths of Christianity to the world, the assistance of genius, of art, or of human mneans of any other kind, was but little, if it all, courted. For if the mind of a reader is not to be charmed or wroughlt 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 improvement 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 oftheir immediate associates, and their works have. in consequence, been most commoinly edited together. On this account, it may be the better way perhaps for is 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 century, as that was the age in which they wrote and died.(') Fer Learned aMen.- Clemen t. 201 (1) Whatever writings could in any way be ascribed to the apostolic fathers, whether good, bad, or indifferent, wmere all of themi collected together by Jo. BcEpt. Cotelerius, a French divine, and published by him in two volumes, illustrated with lonig and learned notes. This work was afterwards twice re-printedi at Amsterdam, with variolus additions by Jo. Le Clere. The better part of these fathers has also been given to the public, but without comment, by Tho. Ittigius, in his BiblioZheca Pairurm Aposlolico-rutm. They have been translated into English by Wake, archbishop of Canterbury; into German, by Gothofred Arnold; and the better part of them into French, by Abr. IRuchat. L. The genuine xwritins o!' Clement of Rome. At the head of these writers stands that Clement who, from his having been bishop of Rome, is usually, by way of distinction styled the Roman; 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 namse. The common accounts that we have of his life, the incidents by which it wNas chequered, and the manner of his death, are for the most part undleserving of credit, at least they are by no means well au-thenticated.(1) 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 generally, and I think not withount reason, considered as indisputably genuine in the main; althllough a very ill applied industry appears to have been subsequently exercised upon it by some one or other, probably, however, without any evil design, in the way of interpolation.)(2 The authenticity of the latter one has [p. 157.] beeoon recarded, 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 irreconcileable with what we know of the genius and character of Clement.(') (1) Vid. Jo. Ernest Grabe Spicileg. Patrum Sec. i. p. 264; Tillemont Memoires pour servir a l'Hlistoire de l'Eglise, tom. ii. part i. p. 269; Phil. Rondinin. lib. ii. de S. Clemenzle Papa eit Martyre, ejusque Basilica in Urbe Romna, 1706, 4to. Some time back, when a Sepulchre, bearing the namne 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 obscurity; and. that several things, which have been hastily considered as re 202 Century I. —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 Ca]ogera, in his Opzusc. Scientific. tom. xxxiii. p. 300. 350, et seq. (2) This interpolation was first detected by HIieron. Bignonius, who communicated what he had thus remarked in a letter to Grotius. See Cotelerii Partes Apostolici, tom. i. p. 133, 134. The discovery was further prosecuted, not however without caution, by Ed. Bernhllard, 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 anly sort of corruption whatever. But the labours of this eminent scholar, so far from establishing his point, m.Ly 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,sonme of them are manifestly taken firom Clement of Alexandria. For my own part, I should think that it might be very possible for an attentive and skiltiul pearson 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 published, is given by Jo. Albert. Fabricius, in his Biblioth. Gr-ac. 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 Heln. Wotton, and enriched with various notes and dissertations of his own, and of several other learned men. [p. 158. LI. Suppositios writings of Clement. In addition to these epistles, there have been attributed to Clement the following works: 1. Eight books of Ajpostolical 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 Clement.(l) 2. A set of Apostolical Canons, or Ecclesiastical Laws, The Clemenzinza. 203 eighty-five in number, which the person who framed them wished to be considered as having been enacted by the apostles, arind transmitted by them to Clement. It should seem to be not It all unlikely 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.(2) With respect to its form, however the work is commonly looked upon as belonging to a more recent age. 3. The Recognzitions of Clement, in ten books. This is a narrative entirely fictitious, but at the same time of an agreeable interesting nature, and of considerable use in bringing us acquainted with the tenets of the Gnostics, and enabling us rightly to comprehend the state of Christian affairs in the age to which it refers. 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 adversary. For some time these Recognitions were known to the public merely through the medium of a Latin translation by Rufinns: we may consider the Greek text as having been first published 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 winding up and conclusion of the narrative: in fact it should seem that one and the same book was anciently edited twice, or perhaps oftener, under a somewhat different form.(') (1) The various opinions entertained by the learned, respecting the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, have been collected into one view by Tho. Ittigius, in a dissertation de Palribus Apostolicis, prefixed to his Bibliolheca Patrum Apostolicorum; as also by Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his IsagSog. in The. 204 Cenbtury I.-Section 52. ologiam, part ii. cap. v. p. 742, et seq. There are likewise two learned disscer' [p. 159.] tations on the same subject, annexed by Jo. Phil. ]Baratiere, to his work de Successione Romanor. Episcoporum primiorum, p. 229, and 260; thle 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 regatrd 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 annotations on these canons, as in a separate work on this subject, published by him (Lound. 1678, in 4to.) under the title of Codex Canonum Ecclesica: primi. ticc vinczicatls et iliusiralus. (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 discipline of Simon M31agnus and others of the Gnostics, tllan all the other early writers put togetlher) I have spoken more at large in my dissertation de lurbalta per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia, Q XXXIV. See my Synlagnzma 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 claim to our attention. LII. Ignatinas and his Epistles. Next 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 comlmand of tle emperor Trajan, was delivered over as a prey to wild beasts in the theatre at Rome.(') There are extant 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 insistipg on it that they are genuine.(2) The most prevailing opinion appears 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 Polycarp, to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Philadelphians, and to the Trallians, as they stand in the edition of them published in the seventeenth century, from a manuscript in the MlAedicean library at Florence are unquestionably genuine; St. Ig-nalis. 205 though there are not wantingr those who, on account of its dissimrilitude of style, consider the authenticity of the Epistle to Polycarp as less to be depended on than that of the other six. As for the rest of these Epistles, of which no mnention whatever is made by any of the early Christian writers, they are commonly rej ceted 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: on1 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.(Q) (1) For a copious account of Ignatius we refer the reader to Tillemont's i/1Iemoires poer servir a l'Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. ii. p. ii. p. 42. 80. Several others also have employed their pens on this subject, as may be seen [p. 160.] in the Biblioth. Gr'cc. of Fabricius, lib. v. cap. i. p. 38, where likewise the different 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 terimed, and those amongst us who are for doing away every thing of which the teachers of the church might avail themselves, in order to maintain a distinction 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 themselves. For my own part, I cannot perceive that it would be of any great consequence to either party to obtain the victory in this case; since it by no means appears to me that the cause 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 lendered particularly 2- 0e6 Centlry I.-Section 52. mantifest by (amongst others) Bishop Pearson in his Vindiciw Ignalianc, a work of great excellence, and replete with profound learning. As to the quantity hlowever 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 ill 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 opinions now generally prevalent in the Christian church than the other, in which some passages and expressions occur which cannot well be defended or reconciled 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 renlark, 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 applied 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. Ordinalt. 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 Athianasius 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'stionably 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 entertained 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 Clere has attacked this opinion with no little force, in an express dissertation annexed to the last edition of the Patles Apostolici, 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 lmy opinion, therefore be urged with some show of reason, that the shorter epistles published by Vossius are merely an abridg Pol-/ca2pT. PBa'nabas. 207 ment 6f the longer ones, made by some unknown person, who was frobably 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 shtall never, under the present circumstances, let us endlcavour what we may, be able to exonerate. these letters frlom all suspicion of corruption and interpolation. Upon the whole, it appears to me, that this great controversy respecting the Epistles of Ignatius, althoug'h it has occupied the attention and talents of so many eminent men, remnains as yet undecided, nor do I think that it can ever be satisfactorily determined, unless further light should be acquired by a discovemy of some more ancient copies, or of sonicme more explicit, early authorities than those we are already in possession of on the subject. The letters themselves. come from what pen they mnay, 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. Folyearp and Barnabas. The Epistle 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 collection 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 Scripture 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 divinely instructed.(2) (1) A list of authors who have written particularly respecting Poly- [p. 162.] carp, is given by Jo. Alb. Fabricius in his Bibliotheca Grcaca, 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 l.lemr,ires pour servir a ZP'istoire de l'Eglise, tom. ii. p. iit p. 287, et seq. The year and month of this father's death have been made the subject of particular discussion by (amongst others) Barsa Ceiatury I —Section 53, 54. tier, in his work de Successionze Ronzanorum Pontificune, and the Abbe Lonoe(rue, in a d(issertation de Anno Macedonum, which is to be found in J. D. Winchller's Sylloge Anecdotorzmn p. 18. 25. But since the groundcs enild arguments relied oi in this discussion, are chiefly drawn fiom the Greek Epistle of the church ot Smyrna respecting the delath of Polyearp, 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 Epis:;tle, and comnpare it with what is given us from it *by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. iv. cap. xv. cannot fail to perceive that it has been corrupted and interpolated by some weak and superstitious person, who, in his endeavours, to multiply miracles, descends even to triflin~g, and occasionally falls iato the absurdity of disagoreeingr with himself. (2) With regard to Barnabas and his Epistle, the reacdr may consult, amongst other works, Fabricii Biblioth. Gr-cc. lib. iv. cap. v. ~ xiv. p. 173, and lil. v. cap. i. d iv. p. 3. Thom. Ittigii Select. Iislor. Eccles. Capi'. sine. i c. i. O xiv. p. 20.-Basnage, in his Histoire des Juifs, tom. iii. capl. 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 regtard to which it would have been easy for him to have obtained more accurate inlormation. 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 character, being actuated by a wish to forward, to the utmost of his ability, anmongst his brethren, the cause of that most holy religion to which lie had himself become ta 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, iattributed it at once to that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul. LIV. Herrnas. The list of apostolical fathers closes with I-ermas, a writer of the second century, who, according to early authorities, was brother to Pius, bishop of Rome.(') His book, which is now known to the world merely through the medium of a Latin translation, was originally written in Greek, and is. entitled " The Shze2phercl," 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 any Hiermaso 209 human understanding or talents, but that whatever it contained had been derived either from God himself or from. the abovementioned angelic 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 disordered fanatic, or else, as is more likely, a man who, by way of more readily drawing the attention of his brethren to certain maxisms and precepts which he deemed just and salutary, conceived himself to be warranted in pretending to have derived them from conversations with God and the angels.(') (I) 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 Herrmas, the author of " The Shephllerd, " the writer to whoim we here allude, have strained every nerve to persuade us that he was a different person from that Hermas whom ancient authors speak of as having been brother to Pins, bishop of Rome. What they maintain is, that the author of " The Shepherd, " was either that Hermas spoken of by St. Paul in Ron. 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 Shepherd" 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. Ilistor. 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 Pins, understood him to be one and the same with that Hermas who was the author of "The Shepherd." To me it appears impossible 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 Tertullian, were yet certainly written by some very ancient author" Jamque loco noneo cathedranz suscepit 1Hyginus, Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui germine frater 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 tradila 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 tradita verba, or " words transmitted from above," give Hermas a claim to the title of Angelic Pastor? If it did, the title is cera 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 ithere 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 communieating to the author what is there recorded; and what Tertullian meant to intimate in my opinion, undoubtedly was, that the Hermas of whom he spalke 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 this 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 wordfrater at the close of the preceding line, and to exchange the particle quia in the third line for the pronoun cui:.-.. -- — " ——'L Hermas cui germine frater, 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. "Pius," says Tertullian, 1" 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 Hernas who was the brother of Pius, is, I conceive, not by any means necessary. For there was fortunately brought to light, some few years since, a work of unquestionable authority, the production of an author cotemporary with Hermas, and containing a passage which places it beyond all dispute that the book which we have extant under the title of " the:Shepherd " was written in the second century, by the brother of Pinus, bishop of IHermas. 211 Rome. It is a fragment (the exordium being wanting) of a small work concerning the canon of the holy Scriptures, and was published by L. Ant. Muratori, in his Antiquilates. PIal. Mied. _A/vi, tom. iii. diss. xliii. p. 853, et seq. The author of it is unknown. Muratori 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 certait~, from the evidence of the book itself, that the author, whoever he might be, coin. piled it in the second century, and during the time when Herlnas was alive. In this very valuable fragment we meet with the following testimony respecting Hermas, the author of "the Shepherd: " " Pastorema veto nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romne [p. 165.] Ecclesicn 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 Hermas.'To this passage succeeds another no less worthy of remark, since it brings us acquainted 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 Scriptures: El ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas completum numero, neque inter apostolos in Jinem 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 chtirch, or deserving of being classed with the writings of either the prophets or the apostles." —The just discrimination exhibited in this passage refleets 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 unquestionably desirous of having a place assigned him amongst the sacred writers: but the teachers of the Latin, and especially the Ronman churches, notwithstanding 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 himself, notwithstanding also that they knew the author was brother to Pius the Roman pontiff, as we should now call him, yet would they not suffer themselves to be imposed upon, but candidly and boldly affirmed, 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 pioum 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 fiom 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. —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 in 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 Liber poontiJicalis 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 Pins, but which is no where to be found in the work that has reached us under that title. See Jo. Alb. Fabricii Codex Apocryphus Novi. Testam. tom. 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 Quartadecimans, might expunge from "the Shepherd" the passage above alluded to respecting the time of keeping 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 and 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 Roman 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 ignorant. The teachers of the Roman church themselves appear to me to have considered Hermas as having written his work upon this principle, and not to have altogether disapproved of it. For as we have seenl above, they pernitted 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 pretended to have conversed, in the light of divine communications: but their acquiescing 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 HTermas. 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 comimanding their attention. Had they believed Hermas 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 his work to Christians in private, as useful and likely to confirm their piety. That Hermas 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 second 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, is there made to inquire, Si jam libellum dedisset senioribus? —" If he had yet given his book to the elders 2" meaning the presbyters of the Roman church. His reply is in the negative, adhuc non. Hearing this, the church thus continues: Benefecisti: habeo enim quacdam verba edicere tibi. Cum autem consummavero omnia zveba, aperle scientur 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 libellos, et mi/tes unum Clementi, et unum Grapise. Mittet autem Clemens in exteras civitates: illi enim permissum est. Grapte autem commonebit viduas et orphanos. Tu au/em leges in hac civitale cum senioribus qui praasunt ecclesice. The Clement here spoken of must without doubt have been a man of the highest authority, since the power is attributed to him of sending round, and recommending 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 preeminence 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 neighbouring cities, with a view to extend and strengthen the interests of the Christian community, the duties appertaining to his office in the church of Rome being, during his absence, committed to the 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 Italy, by whom he was looked up to as a father, and give diree. 214 Century 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 had been written at an earlier period, and during the life-time of Clement. This circumstance must of itself surely be enough to convince every one that the mall acted on the principle of deception, and had it in view to take advantage of the simplicity of his Christian countrymen. In the Romar, church, to which he himself belonged, a copy of the book was 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 sufficient. 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 officiated as a deaconess, for the purpose of being read to the widows and orphans. As we have touched on the subject, it may not be amiss just to remark 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 ordering of the feeble women and children. Upon the whole, it is manifest that I-ermas 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 Hermas is a fictitious work, of much the same kind with what are termed the Clementina and the Recognitions 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 unknown 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. t., of people altogether differing 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 difficulty, Dissensions. 21;5 prevail on themselves to endure with any becoming degree of moderation the superstition and imbecility of the Jews. Associated with these were also others of a middle class, who had either unconditionally embraced the maxims of the oriental philosophy 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 under certain modifications deduced from the principles of the Jewish religion. And from any of these no other conditions had been exacted previously to their being received into the Christian 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 innocent and holy life for the future, agreeably to his commands. Nothing 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 occasionally arisen some disputes and controversies, was a circumstance 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 lIoses. The first controversy by which the peace of the church appears to have been disturbed, was that which was kindled 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 consequently 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 L.-Section 56. selves, the Christians of Antioch deputed Paul and Barnabas to consult with the apostles on the subject. The latter, having submitted the matter to the consideration of the church of Jerusalem, 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 accompanied, 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 farther, and maintain that the divine right of councils is to be proved from this assembly.' 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 respecting religion were to be submitted to the cognizance and decision of councils." 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 length 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 he think fit; since it was anciently usual for any lawful assembly to be termed a ceuncil; and it can be shown by many 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 him that he had hit upon a circumstance vwhich would bear him out in maintaining, that the assembly at Jerusalem might still, in the strict sense of the term, be styled a council; and 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 first Council," he therefore thought might very justly be continued to this meeting. But surely it is scarcely possible 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 destitute of force: but instead of this being the case, it is evident that they pretended 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 offering 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 contended warmly for its authority in this very assembly. But, by the speeches of Peter and James, an end was put to all dissensions, and a mode of determination 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. Anuiqui, diss. iii. Ixxi. p. 218, and elsewhere, who would consider the decision of this assembly in the light of an award, as the lawyers term it, conceiving the church of Antioch per modum compromissi caussam controversam decisioni apostolorum elt matricis ecclesix submisisse. It should seem not improbable that the original author of this opinion might be father Paul Sarpi himself, as we meet with it in his IIistory 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 people; but their doing so was a matter of discretion, not of necessity: for had they chosen it, they might, firom 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 which the people discovered to run into parties, and pointing out in what way the affair 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 adopted, 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, respecting religion, by divine appointment; and it was, therefore, not left to the option of the Christians of Antioch, whether they would refer the determination of their dispute to them or not. In a case like theirs, they were enjoined 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.'EJ&~, [p. 171.] r~ as rrv2,usrt AXE i7ov. "; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and td us." In which passage the words rc* ab&uo & vwdstr, "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 resident, and whom the same spirit animates." A similar mode of expression is made use of by St. Peter, in that terrible denunciation wherewith he overwhelms Ananias, for having attempted to practise deceit on the apostles: Acts, v. 3, 4. WVhy hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? (that is, to us in whom the Holy Spirit is resident. Thou hast not lied unto (mere) men, but unto God (who dwelleth in us). The words ai itjv, " and to us," which Collow, 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 considered 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 bearing in mind the decree which he had thus received from the mouths 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 with every possible energy the attempts of the Jewish converts to impose on the necks of their Gentile brethren the yoke of the Mosaic covenant, but also labonring 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 objects, he was ever most violently, and not unfr3quently successfully, 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 cf our Lord himself. On the other hand, it was not without considerable difficulty that the Gentile converts could be brought to endure 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 description there are some particularly adverted to, and others incidentally noticed, by St. Paul in his Epistles, I purposely pass them over in silence, as possessing no claim to our attention. [p. 172.] LVIII. Schism generated by this controversy respecting the Mosaic law. Invincible nearly as the attachment of the Jewish converts to the law of ceremonies appeared for a long while to be, the destruction of their national city and temple by the Romans 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 Romans to rebuild both their temple and the city, a belief continued 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 I.-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 prevailed 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 under the bondage of their ancient system of discipline, and in consequence thereof withdrew themselves from the assemblies and society of the rest. Those who thus inflexibly persisted in encumbering the profession of Christianity with the observances of the Mosaic ritual, had the denomination of Na9czarenes and Ebion'ites given to them by the other Christians, or otherwise assumed these titles of their own choice by way of distinction.(2) (1) Eusebius has left it on record, (Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxxv. p. 106.) that, on the overthrow of Jerusalem and burning of the temple, a vast number of the Jews (vugiwv D tfrgrro~tS) were induced to embrace Christianity. Hence it is manifest how greatly the calamities to which they were exposed, contributed towards lessening the attachment of the Jewish people to the law of their forefathers. (2) Of this schism or secession we shall treat more particularly when we come to the reign of Hadrian, in our history of the second century. The Ebionites 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 in 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 Ehionites, 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 certainly had not by any means forfeited their claim to the title of brethren, although they had given proofs of weakness and a want of further light. Heretics, 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 Jwsltification. 221 tiins respecting the necessity for observing the Mosaic law of ceremonies, although of infinitely greater moment, was [p. 178.] 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 whereas the doctrine taught by the apostles was, that our every hope of obtaining pardon and salvation ought to centre in Christ and his merits, these Jewish teachers, on the contrary, made it their business to extol the efficacy 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, inasmuch 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 lepugnant to the voice and authority of the moral law itself, St. Paul opposed the most unremitting and particular resistance.(l) (1) It is clear, from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, that there were, besides 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 dispute were familiar, omits the mention of several important particulars, doubtless well known to the Romans, but in regard to which 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 together and arranged by the following authors: Herm. Witsius, IMiscell. Sacr. tom. ii. exere. 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. 111, et seq. In these works there are indeed not a few things advanced which are founded merely in conjecture, and might, 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 supporters 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 LI Y-L ~VL ~L~~L \0 222 Century.L-Section 60. very commonly joining the following persons, of whose apostacy or errors St. P'aul and St. John make mention in their epistles, namely, Ilyzencetus, Ai]excander, Philetus, fermogenes, Phygellus, Deinas, and Diolrephes. 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 adulteration.(j) But it appears to me, that if what the sacred writers have left us on record respecting these men be maturely weigh[p. 174] ed, the inclination of opinion must be that, with the exception of Alexancler, H1ymenceus, 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.(Q) (1) See Vitringa and Buddeus loc. supr. indicat. also Tho. Ittigius de HAresiarchis /hvi Apostolici 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 deserted by all who had accompanied him from proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was the chief city, to Rome. Of those he, for some particular reasons no doubt, though we are unacquainted with them, points out HIermogenes 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 with him, is certainly to evince both a levity of mind and also a forgetfulness of Chris. tinn 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 Avas also one DemIas, 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 reprobating the conduct of this man, both ancient writers and modern ones seem to have set no bounds whatever to their indignation: thlose 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 Christianiity. But for niy own part, I see nothing in the words of St. Paul which can warrant 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 New Testament. 223 steadfast in the faith of Christ. Nor does the reason which the apostle assigns for this man's having forsalren him, by any means imply a defection from Christ. For in Scripture those are said to love the world who prefer the enjoyment 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 miscondluct wherewith St. Paul is to be understood as reproaching Demas, amounted to no more than this, that he had consulted his ease and convenience rather than his duty, and preferred retiring to a life of safety and quietness at Thessalonica, to continuing any longer a partaker of the ignomily, dangers, and toils, which the companions and friends of St. Paul had continually 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 attributed 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, so 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 dishonourable, and unworthy 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 twofold 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 circurnstances 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 nations. Upon their return, they brought with them some strangers or foreigners whom they had initiated in the principles of Christianity, and also a. letter from St. John, commending the faith and zeal which they displayed in the cause of Christ, and desiring that they and their companions might be hospitably 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, through the public liberality, with every thing which might tend to encourage. and forward them in undertaking a fresh mission amnongst the Gentiles. But Diotrephes, it seems, spurned at the recommendation of St. John, and not only forbad these good and useful men from being maintained out of the public fund, or at the expense of the church, but also went to the length of excommunicating 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 the Bishop 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 qual'ity or condition of the persons whom he excommunicated. Diotrephes they suppose to have been originally a Gentile, and those whom he refused to receive Jews: and hence they cone clude that the contempt entertained by the former for the latter had gained so coInplete an ascendlency over his mind that he could not forego the opportunity of manifesting it, even at the expense of violating the most sacred law of charity. This conjecture may, perhaps, at first sight, be thought to carry with it somewhat of a specious air; but if put to the test, there will be found in it nothing that 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 unsupported 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 tecing 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 brethren, and withhold from theum even the common fruits of charity; it is plain, fiom 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,-dVxO5, or brethren, and tmvos, foreigners or stran[p 176.] gels. 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 "strangers," 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 avori, or strangers. What we set out, therefore, with observing, seems scarcely to admit of any question, namely, that certain members 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 district, 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 J)iotrephes, I think the cause of all his ill-will towards them is plainly pointed at by St. John himself. To every one perusing his Epistle it must be obvious, that the apostle introduces at ver. 7. somewhat of an apology to Gaius, to whom he writes for the journey which these good men undertook in the cause Diot"epiies. 225 of Christ, First, ne snys, that tlheir 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 wvith the necessaries of life by the people amonDg whom they sojourned, they yet preferred maintaining themselves by the labour of their hands, and refused every sort of recompence, gratuity, 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 cLause, and we may therefore, I think, f-irly infer, that what is thus said by the apcstle was meant as an answer to the pretext by which Diotrephes pretended to justify his very harsh andc 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 heathen neighbours, anid occupies himself in showing, that if' the end of their going olrth, 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 thllt the trutll of the matter was this, that these good men had grievously ofilendlcld Diotrephes, by having taken upon them this -mission to the Heathen withlout his consent or knowledge, and gone fortll rather in compliance with the dictates of their own consciences thaln under any direction or authority from him. On their return, therefore, it was in vain that they looked up to this haluhlty character for countenance or support: not even the recommendatory 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 tile 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 licence, annd to enter on their travels under his sanction. Ignatius, in almost all his epistles, inculcates this ma.Ixin —MsrJ&s X~gi ~arlo- rm i 7rpag-o-rgT rcav dsl;x6VsrIl, is'ir)lv..iX;Awo-iav. Sine episcopo zenofacial eolum aliquid quc: ad acclesiam spectant: vid. Epist. ad Smy7naccos, { viii. ad Traillanes, ad Philadelph. ad Polycarpum; and it would be easy to produce innumerable passages from writers 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 1having assailed any of the re. ceived principles of the Christian religion, but of having discovered an unwarrantable degree of asperity and rigour in the maintenance of his own [p. 177.] importance and dignity. For lie, in the first place, manifested a latent pride of heart, in withholding fr om a set of pious and innocent men, who, in point of fact, wvere entitled to every sort of encouragement, the good offices and hospitality of the church, merely because they had not paid the proper attention to his authority and rights: and in the next place, he betrayed a still more inexcusable spirit 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 offence which St. 15 226 Cen-tury L.-Sectow 60. John 3ensures in these words: — o wrgwrwc5v dwciov gxa'VriJXC.te ~6. "He who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them receiveth us not." The apostle does not, as is commonly imagined, reprehend him for aspiring to the presidency 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 chllurch: 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 mindcl-a mind carried away by the lust of power, namely, that he had dared to assume to hlimself an authority superior even to that of an apostle. The plain sense of the words is this-" But their Diotrephes, who affects to be greater than any of the apostles, sets at nought my intreaties and authority." If the men, then, of whom I have been speaking, be taken fr'om the class of the heretics of the first century, there will remain merely Hymenaus, Philetus, and Alexander. Hymenaus, the first of these, is in I 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 fcar 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 nce very great reason to doubt whether the Hymenmus 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 thlat 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 associated with Hymenawus in the former passage, is not the same person with whonl his name is joined in the latter one. Secondly, it makes still more strongly in favour of my opinion, that the Hymeneus mentioned in the first Epistle, was, together with his associate, delivered over by St. Paul to the evil one, to be to.. mented until he should desist from blaspheming Christianity, 1 Tim. i. 20. a circumrstance, surely, by no means easy to be reconciled with what is recorded of the Hymeeneus spoken of in the second, Epistle, who is not represented as being under any kind of restraint, but as goingl about perverting as many of the Christians 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, thlere appears to have been as much difference between the one and the other I-Hymentus, as there is between an open enemy of Christianity and an artifnl insidious corrupter of it. The words of St. Paul place it beyond all doubt that the Hymennus first spoken of by him was, [p. 178.] in every respect, a detestable character. -is exhortation to Timothy is, that he should unite zrismv faiIh, i. e. a belief of the religion of Christ,, with ag-1i oVYvs,1;o.t9, 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 Hymennaus and Alexar der, both Gnostic Heretics. 22'7 of whoml had discarded riev dot`-v ouviWSno-lv, a good conscience, i. e. had plunged into an evil course of life, and turned their backs on the divine law: this corruption of their molals being once wrought, their progress in iniquity became accelerated, and these wretlched men, at leng th, made perfect shipwreck, as it were, of faith, arriving by degrees at such a pitch of callous depravity, as not only to think ill of Christianity, but also publicly to blaspheme its doctrines. To " mlake shipwreck concerning t'faith," is, I think, manifestly to be understood as the same with apostatizing from the Christian faith or religion. These two men, therefore, having given themselves up to a life of wickedness and impiety, were at length led on to renounce Christianity altogether. But the Hymenaeus 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 inclining, in this respect, rather to the principles of those philosophers who maintained 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 lihe meant to promise was a new life to the souls of men, not to 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 Hymeneeus, 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 the apostle pretty plainly intimates, there was a tendency in his error to injure the cause of piety, and countenance an indulgence of our appetites. On these accounts St. Paul is led to speak of him with some degree of moderation, whereas his reproof of the other Hymenzeus 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 the Alexander of whom St. Paul makes mention in his first Epistle to Timothy, my opinion is precisely the same with that which! have above expressed respecting the Hymenawus there spoken of in conjunction with him, namely, that he was a different man from the one referred to under the same name by the apostle, in his second Epistle, and from whom he st:ates himself to have received great injury at Rome. 2 Tim. iv. 14. And it appears 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'AhtavSJ0gov o Xif aUr, "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 particularly from him whom the apostle had, in his former Epistle, 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 (,Cenztury I.-Section 60. LS. Gnostic heretics. But by none of its adversaries or corrupters was Christianity, from almost its first rise, more seriously injured; by none was the church more grievously lacerated, and rendered less attractive to the people, than by those who were for lmaking the reiigion of Christ accommodate itself to the principles 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 commfunicate to mankind, at present held in bondage by the Architect of the World, a correct knowledge (Y>og) of tthe true and ever-living God, were commonly styled Gnostics. U'l]:is calamity was foreseen by St. Paul, and is predicted by him in 1 Tim. iv. 1.(') We find him also, in various parts of his Epistles, exhorting the followers of Christ to maintain the discipline 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. 3, 4.; Tit. iii. 9.; Col. ii. 8. But an insane curiosity, and that itch for penetrating into abstruce or hidden 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 dlemeanour, and rigid abstinence from even the lawful gratifications of sense, commul-nicated a1i imposing gloss, were by numbers received witli 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 discipline, although they might carry with them a specious show of somewhat like recondite wisdom.(') Intoxicated with a fondness 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 lnumerous, and were for several ages productive of very serious inconveniences and evils to the Christian commionwealth.(') Gnostic fleretics. 229 (1 )Although some difference of opinion may subsist with regard to this prediction of St. Paul, I amt yet persuaded that 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 ctall loudly on the Christian churches to beware of it; in fact more numerous, perhlaps, than the generality of commentators appear to have irnagined. I cannot say that I agree in every thing with Hammond, who, in his Annotations on the New Testament, translated into Latin by Le Clele, and also in his'book de Episcopatus Juribus Dissert. prim. de Antichristo, 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 observations of his firom 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 imlplicit 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 integrity of the church was destroyed. l&romat. 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 century, and tainted with the Gnostic opinions. Conflicting 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 dissensions, arising out of the attempt to blend the principles of Gnosticism with Christianity, had been generated in the churches previously to the second century and the reign of the emperor Hadrian, and that some of those who were devoted to those principles, having drawn to them a number of partisans, had proceeded to the length of holding separate asemblies 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 I.-Section 61. considered as amounting merely to this, that in the reigns (f 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 maintained 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 nunfber 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 lHegesippus, it may perhaps admit of a question, whether it is to be considered a's 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 acknowledlged 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 the way in which these people contrived 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 poisonous-that the body was held in subjection by a being entirely distinct fiom 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 knowledge 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 earnest expectation for the arrival of an extraordinary and eminently powerful NMessenger 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 Gnostic System. 231 same time communicating to them 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 happiness. An expectation of this kind even continues to be cherished by their descendants of the present day. Some of these philosophers then, being struck with astonishment at the magnitude and splendour of the miracles wrought by Christ and his apostles, and perceiving that it was the object of our Lord's mninistry both to abrogate the Jewish law, a law which they conceived 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 plactd 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 imen, 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 consequence of their connection with material bodies. ELXII. Nature of the Gslostic 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 interpret them according to their obvious and commonly accepted sense. To have done so would have been acting in direct opposition to certain leading maxims, which were considered by persons 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 instance, 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 232 Centuery I.-Section 62. in maintaining that the Creator of this world was a being of a nature 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. Respecting Christ and his functions in particular, it was requisite 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 existed from all eternity in a state of absolute quiescence, but that at length, after ages spent in silence and repose, he begat of himself certain natures or beings after his own lileness, of whom Christ was one: to the maintenance of the latter they were constrained 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 recorded 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 assert, that it was not with a view to expiate the sins of mankind, or to appease the wrath of an offended Deity, that he relinquished 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 themselves their native liberty and happiness. Finally, to pass over Gnostic System. 233 some other points which might 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 manners 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 gratification, 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 deduce 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 acquainted with none other besides 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 have likewise subscribed, so many indeed, 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 taklen 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 loto, and the great dissimilarity that exists between them becomes at once conspicuous. That long series of wons, 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 Timcats, 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 quiescent. 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 regarded as an ill -formed mass, the destruction of which is an object of desire and me 234 Century I.-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 manhind 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 prejudice, and be at the pains of perusing the little book written by Plotinus the Platonist, in opposition to the Gnostics. Porphyry moreover, the disciple of Plotinus, says, in the Life of his Master, cap. xvi. p. 118. expressly, that the Gnostics 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 oflspring of the ancient philosophy of the East, or that of the Persians and Chaldwans: but this discipline, if we except the conclusions of some of its dogmas, corresponds:so exactly in all respects with that of the Gnostics, that it is scarcely possible for any two systems to appear more familiar to each other: that they 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 considerable ingenuity and eloquence, as the advocates and defenders of the Gnostics. 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 commanding, 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 attempting to wash a blackamoor white, and thrown away their time and talents on behalf 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 professed by this sect was of a nature diametrically opposite to that which is propounded 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 ancient 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 Reasolniiq. 235 is acquainted with the situation of things in those early times, will easily be induced 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, separated 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 maxims of the Gnostics were in reality sound and correct, but that these philosophers, 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 influence 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 phraseology, 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 perspicuity and simplicity of HIoly Writ most strongly, although tacitly, condemns, could so far charm as to makle 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 suggestions of a disordered imagination, as altogether to set common sense and reason at defiance. LXIII. Arguments urged by the Gnostics iln defence of their system. That the principles and opinions which we have been considering, as well as others of their tenets and maxims, were repugnant not only to the doctrine openly delivered by Christ himself, but also to the tenor of those writings which are considered by 236 Cezntuy I.-Sectioit 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 question. They, however, took care not to be unprepared with arguments, whereby 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 understood only by persons of refined intellect. The former they represented 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 professed themselves to be indebted to certain disciples of the apostles 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 Abraham, 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.(') 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 Matthias.(') Others, again, maintained, that the ordinary copies of the Nlew Testament were corrupted, and in proof of this produced what they pretended to be correct ones, and in which, either through their own artifice, or want of care in the transcribers, 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 eaven by persons of strictly Gnostic Pacrties. 997 orthodox sentiments;) and, nupon this principle, were [p. 186.] continually labouring in the most silly and puerile way, by the squeezing and torturing of words, to wring firom them that assistance and support, which, without resorting to such means, they could in no wise be made to yield. (1) Vid. Irenmeus adv. Hareses. lib. i. cap. xxv. Q v. p. 104. & lib. iii. cap. v. p. 179. ex-division. Renat. MaEsuet., Clemens Alex. Srtomat. lib. vii. cap. xvii. p. 898. 900. (2) Vid. Porphyr. in Vit. Plotilni, 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 f1:cres. xxvi. 0 viii. p. 59. 84. Her'es. xxxix. P v. p. 286, &c. Constiluitiones Apostolicca, lib. vi. cap. xvi, p. 348. et seq. tom. i. Par. Apostolic. and various other authorities. (3) Jo. Alb. Fabricius will be fo)und to illustrate this the beat of any one, in his Cod. Pseudepigraph. JNov. Test. The reader may also consult Beausobre Hiistoire du Manichie, to.l, i. p. 344, et seq. LXIV. The Gnostic Factions. Great was, indeed, the detriment which the interests of Christianity experienced from this presumptuous sect, which arrogated to itself a correct and perfect 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 directors of which were as much at variance among themselves as with the Christians, whose tenets they stigmatized as highly dcerogatory to the character of the Deity: inasmuch as they attributed 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 examination, for the purpose of ascertaining their due force, and reconciling 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 way truly 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 the precise nature of this last mentioned being, and also the degree of his GFThUS Ce toIry I.-Sectioi 634. inferiority to th.e Father of our Lord, considerable controversy prevailed. Again, all of them were agreed in considering matter 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 pernicious nature or quality from all eternity, or whether it had accidentally 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 bondage in which they were held by the body, was what all of them professedl to believe: by some, however, his character was estimated higher than by others; and with regard to the body which he assumed, it was asserted by some to have been merely a visionary 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 foundation whatever in tlhe 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 secjts.(') In the next place, a considerable portion of the Gnostics had, previously to their embracing Christianity, assigned no limits whatever to their philosophical speculations; 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 attachecd, 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 ast;ronomical knowledge, by the cultivation of which different nations of the East, and particularly the Egyptians, had much corrupted their minds; whilst by others this stcudy of the heavenly bodies was either altogether neglected, or attended to only to be treated with contempt. Finally, in addition to the above Simon lMfgu s. 089 mentioned sources of disagreement, it may be remarked, that the attempt to blend philosophy, under aly certain or particular form, with religion, no matter whether 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 Hyde, a marn eminently skilled in oriental matters and opinions, expresses himself as follows in his Histo1ri Religionis veterum Persaurn, cap. i. p. 26. " CGum ilacque in e hac religione (i. e. the religion of the magi, which assigtned to matter a peculiar governor or ruler, and denied that tihis world had been created by the Supremre Deity, the author of all good) juerint sectce pluresqancm 70, (cuti eliam suznt in Christianitate) non est expectandumr, ut omnia, qu6c de eorlum religioneforle dicla fuerint, pertineant ad mcagos orthodoxos, sed aliqual eiam ad hereticos.-I gagorum secta orllhodoxa ea est, qua: de dutobus principiis credit unumfuisse ceternum, alterum ero creatum. Iceirelici autem fiere tam a1ii qui in processu hpvus operis enumerantur, quam magi dualistcc, staluentes, hcec duo principia futisse cterna, et alii in alliis irebus minus orthodoxe sentientes." With regard to the position here laid down, that that particular sect of the maqgi which believed that the Prince or Governor of Darkness and Matter derived his existence firom 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. LXV. son.on R'la mas. 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 iSnonz Mllcilyts, whom [p. 188.] they assert to have been one and the same with him whose depravity and perfidy was so severely reprobated by St. Peter at Samaria: Acts, viii. 9, 10.(') Being in possession of no testimony or other means whereby to controvert their authority with regard to the identity of Simon Muagus, 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; although there are not wanting several very eminently learned men who cannot prevail on themselves to concede even thus much.(2) But as to the remainder of what they thus sta-te respecting this Simon, I must confess that it seems to me to be entitled 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 that he cannot witll the least propriety,be included. in the class of heretics or corrupters of the 240 Century. —-Section 65. Christian religion, but is to be reckoned amongst the most hostile of its adversaries, inasmuch as he hesitated not to revile and calumniate the character of our blessed Saviour, and mlade 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 once more to regain their native liberty and light.(3) From this one circumstance alone, supposing that we were to lav 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 consicerec as the disciples of Simon, and his being accounted the parent or inventor of the Gnostic philosophy. The principles and maxims of this species of plilosophy 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 between Simnon's tenets and those of the Gnostics, and being, notwithstanding their proficiency in Greek literature, but mere novices in Oriental learning, and consequently not aware of any one's having plhilosophized after this manner previously to him, were induLced to believe that the whole tribe of Gnostics had I)roceeded 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 endeavoured to bring about a change in the religion of his countrymen the Samaritans, and became the founder of a sect which continued to exist in Egypt even clown to the sixth century, is unquestionably certain. Vid. Origren, lib. vi. contra Cels. p. 282. Eulogius apud Photium Biblioth Cod. ccxxx. p. 883. et seq. But the fact is, that instead of being included in the class of heretics, he ought rather to have a place assigned him amongst lunatics and madmen, or amongst those who, fiom a deranged state of intellect have been induced to obtrude themselves on the attention of the world as persons especially commissioned of God. For from the memorials that are extant respecting him, althougoh they are neither very numerous nor explicit, it is clearly to be perceived 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, ffacgus. 94! Samaritans as the Messiah. Vid. Origen, adv. Celsum, lib. i. p. 44. lib. [p. 189.] vi. p. 282. Comm. in Johannem, tom. ii. opp. p. 219. Eulogius apud Photium Biblioth. p. 883. The impious scheme which he had formed having been conmmunicated to the Samaritan high priest, orders waere issued for his apprehension with a view to punishmlent. By a precipitate flight, lhowever, he escaped being taken; and seeking refuge in a remote cave, either voluntarily starved himself to death, or perished for want of being supplied with the necessaries of life. Vid. Epiphanius HJcres. xiii. p. 30. tom. i. opp. ChIonicon Samaritanuzn apud A br. Echellensem Adnota/. ad liebed-Jesu Callalog. Libor. Chaldaicor p. p. 162. (2) Camp. Vitringa in the first place, and after him the venerable Chmist. Aug. Heumann, and Isaac Beausobre, contend that there were two Simons Magi, and that the ancient fathers, through mistake, attributed the errors and ftaults of a certain Gnostic philosopher of the name of Simon, to that Simon of whomn mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles as havinlg imposed on the credulity of the Salmaritans. Considerable difficulty however presents itself in the way 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 commionly received opinion. Isaac Beausobre has indeed in his DisserlaEtio de Adamilis, p. 2. subjoined to L'Enfint's History of the Hussite War, ~ 1. p. 350. et seq. come forward with no less than eight different arguments in proof of their having been more than one Simon Mnagus; 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 publishecd by me solme time since on behalf of the opposite side of the question, or e'uuno Simon0 Hi ago. (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 enenmy of the Christian religion in all its branches. Origen (lib. v. advers. Celsim, p. 272.) expressly excludes the Sinonians 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 Simon principles and opinions which can leave no doubt on our mines 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 consequence 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 Christianis seczzcda, p. 70.) as well as others, experienced no sort of disturbance or molestation at a time when 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 Cent,,ury I.-Sction 66. 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, adopted by the learned Jo. Augustin. Orsi, in the Ecclesiasticai EHis[p. 190.] tory written by him in Italian under the particular patronage of the pope, tom. i. p. 348. (4) The most positive testimony as to this is supplied by I'enzeus himself, whom we cannot suspect of having misrepresented the fact, since he is otherwise loud in his condemnation of the Gnostics, on the very ground of their being the followers of Simon. None of the Gnostic sects, he observes, (lib. i. adv. I1cereses, cap. xxvii. d 4. p. 106.) were willing nomen mag-istri sui (Simonis) confiteri, but on the contrary, all of them were accustomed Christi Jeszt nomen tanquam irritamentum proferre. Their repudiation of Simon, he adds, was altogether 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 apply himself to the study of the various arts which were cultivated by those who termed themselves magi, and the scourges of evil daemons. Upon returning into his own country, he contented 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 himselr a convert to Christianity, cherishing, as it should seem, a hope that by so doing he should ultimately, either through obsequiousness 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 chastisement 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 Sion02 imaoyzc s. 243 Supreme Deity, the one being in its nature masculine, the 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 tormentors 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 acknowledgment 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 degree of suspicion attaches itself to whatever else is reported of him.(') In what place, and under what circumstances, his mortal 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 Rome in the reign of the emperor Nero, and received thereby such wounds as shortly afterwards occasioned his death, it is a tale to which no credit is at present given, except by such as are 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.(2') (1) Those who may be desirous of possessing themselves of every thing that has been handed down to us respecting Simon, may consult the 2d vol. of Tillemont, and those other authors who are recommended by Sagittarius in his Introductio ad Bistoriamn Ecclesiasticam. We should wish the reader to understand this reference as equally applicable to the vario us other sects of which notice may be taken in the course of this work, as we shall studiously make it our endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, adding to its bulk by any unnecessary repetition 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 2W44 Century. —Sectio n 66. quity should experience any diminution: others again, who imagine that the greater credit- is due to a thing in proportion as it is more wonlerfu l and out of the common course: and finally, others whom superstition so blinds as to render them aliogether 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 his 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 selected to affright and mislead mainkind. 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? Moreover, the most respectable of the early Christian writers, and beyond all Eusoe bins, the parent, as we may call him, of ecclesiastical history, say not a syllable 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 fabulous 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 Chrysostom, it seems to be placed beyond a doubt, that some poor wretch who had plre 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 Nerone, cap. xii. p. 23. Now it is certainly not at all unlikely that the name of this uinfortunate rival of Icarus might be Simon, and that the Christians, upon hearing 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 determined 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 minutim 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 in the Tiberine island at Rome, about the year 1574, of a marble base or pedestal inscribed to Semo Sancus, the ancient Deus Fidius, has induced many of the History of Siigmom, Hygus. 245 learned to think that the above-mentioned fathers, in consequence of their possessing merely a superficial knowledge of the Roman superstitions and ancient popular deities, were led into a mistake, and that what they conceived to be a monument raised in honour of Simon, was in fact a statue dedicated to this ancient 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 inscription, put Simoni for Sermoni. Several instances of such commutations of the letters E and I are given from different authors by the learned Jo. Casp. Hagenbuchius in his Epistoklc Epigraphicce, p. p70. vid. Anton. van Dale's Dissertation de statua Simonis, annexed to his work de Oraculis, p. 579. Salom. Deylingius Observat. Sacr. Lib. 1. Observ. xxxvi. p. 140. Beausobre Histoire de ianiche, 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 Tertullian 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 Justin, Prccfat. ad Justinum, p. iii. c. vi. p. lxxxv. Jos. August. Orsi in his Ecclesiaslical History, written in Italian, tom. ii. p. 119. as also what is contended for respecting this statue by a learned writer in the Museum Icalveticum, 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 Semo 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 Romans could for a moment have so far discarded every sense of propriety, as to assign to a Jew or Samaritan of infamous 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 Irenmus, 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 this woman caused them to be occasionally styled Helenians. LXVII. Tenets of Simon. The principles on which the discipline of Simon was founded, appear to have 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 begotten 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 existed eternally, and being possessed of a generative faculty, to have become the parentand 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.non, 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 consequently corrupt. Man, therefore, according to him, was compounded of two parts, the one celestial, the other terrene; the one divine, the other depraved. The human race he represented 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 miserable servitude into which such a number of ethereal spirits were thus unhappily plunged, was in the highest degree solicitous 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 desirous of attaining to this blissful state, was to cast off all obedience 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 MTenets of Simon 3acgus.'247 aitation 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 parent. The laws to which the nations of the earth paid obedience, 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 illumnination from the fountain of all wisdom. rWhen the projected deliverance of the [p. 19-.] 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, experience 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 inheritance of himself and his concubine. For he pretended that the greatest and most powerful aon, 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 threefold 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 subordinate agents or associates of this author of all evil.(') (1) In the accounts givrell us by ancient writers of the religion and discipline of Simon, the student finds himself occasionally embarrassed by a want of coherence and perspicuity. By no one has the subject been handled with greater clearness and precision than by the uncertain author of The Reognitions of Clement and The Clementina, who under the form of a disputation between St. 248 Centu'ry I.-Section 67, 68. Peter and Simon, throws considerable lilght on several things but very imperfectly 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 misrepresentation 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 heretics 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 credit, however, can be given to this, after comparing together the accounts which Irenexus, Justin, Tertullian, and a few others, have handed down to us respecting this man. For from whtat 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 meon 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 within the description of a heretic, nor that of a Simonian. The opinion of the early writers above alluded to, respecting him, wa in all probability, grounded on their perceiving that his tenets and doctrine respecting the Deity, the nature of matter, the origin of this world, and the souls and bodies of its inha[p. 195.] bitants, were nearly similar to those which were entertained 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 Ireneus, lib. i. cap. xxiii. p. 100. Epiphanius Hlcres. xxii. p. 61. Justin Mart. Apolog. ii. p. 69. Theodoret, Hceretf Fabular. lib. i. cap. ii. p. 193. tom. iv. opp. Tertullian de Anirna, 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 directed their attention to the elucidation of the early Christian History. Affenancler, the Vicolvitians. 249 LXIX. The Nicolaitans. Since Simon and selnandcr cannot properly be said to come 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 Nicolaitans, provided that the Nicolaitans who are rebuked by our blessed Lord in Rev. 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.(j) The generality of ancient writers consider lNicolaus, one of the seven men elected by the church of Jerusalem, as having been either directly or indirectly the author of this sect.It should seem, however, as if their opinion as to this was founded rather on uncertain report and conjecture than on any testimony that can be relied on.(2) Our blessed Saviour states the Nicolaitans 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 respecting the existence of two principles, the one of light, the other of darkness, the origin of the visible world, the ministry of mons, and the like. Over every thing relating to this sect there hangs a degree of obscurity which we believe it will ever be found beyond thie power of human inlgenuity to dispel.(3) (1) The opinions of such of the learned as either deny that such a sect as that of the Nicolaitans 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 particular investigation by me in a dissertation, which is to be found at [p. 196.] p. 395. of vol. i. of my Syntagmca Dissertationuen ad Hisloriam Ecclcs. pertinent. (2) Cassianus, Collation. xviii. cap. xvi. p. 529. edit. Francf. 1722. fol. says, Nam licet hunzc Nicolaum quiccm asserant non illlon fitisse qui ad opus ministerii ab Apostolis est electus, nihilo tamen minus eum de illo discipulorunmftisse numnero ne gatre non possuont. (3) Irenous adv. IHres lib. iii. cap. xi. p. 188. Tertullian de Prcescript. Hceret. cap. xlvii. p. 128. Clemens Alex. Stromat. lib. iii. cap. iv. p. 524. Augustin de Ha,?res. cap. v. p. 60. To these I omit adding Epiphanius, because he confesses that what he says of the Nicolaitans belongs equally to all the different sects of the Gnostics. Upon a comparison of the grounds on which our blessed Saviour's rebuke of the Nicolaitans is founded, with the errors which are attri. 250 Century I.-Section 69, 70. butedl to them by the writers of after-times, I must confess that I cannot help entertaining 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 dibpleased 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 would 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 apprehended from the offensive improprieties and vices in which the Nicolaitans indulged, in direct opposition to the apostolic precepts. And is it to be believed, that our blessed Saviour, when 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 second century amongst the numerous leaders of the different Gnostic sects which awere at that time springing up in almost every direction, tlhere might be one of the name of Nicolaus, who might give to his followers the denomination of Nicolailans, 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 peremptoriness 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. Cerinthuso In the same age with St. John and the Nicolaitans, 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 imaginable, 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 NXicolaitams, Ceriitt/us. 251 philosophy he adopted those which respect the pleroma, the eons, 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 tenets as were intimately connected with these. As he could not however, with consistency, admit into his system any thing absolutely repugnant to the Jewish religion, it became necessary for him in part to qualify what he thus adopted, and he accordingly 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 resurrection of men's bodies. The character likewise of the founder of this world, whom he considered as the legislator and governor of the Jewish people, was much softened down by him. The depravity, 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, Cerinthus maintained, that the supreme Deity, being displeased with 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, resolved 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 understanding. Upon him therefore it was ordered, that one of the ever-blessed eeons, whose name was Christ, should descend in the shape of a dove at the time of his baptism by John. Jesus then having the eon Christ thus united with him, commenced, ac %252 @Centtry I.-SecCton 70. cording to Cerinthus, a vigorous attack on the power and dominion of the founder of this world and his associates, endeavouring to convince the Jews that the one only supreme God was alone deser-ving of their worship, and confirming the truth of his doctrine and precepts by various miracles and signs. The result, however, of these his labours il the cause of the Deity was unfavourable: for the Jewish elders, at the instigation of that Being whose empire was thus seriously invaded, and whose 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 punishment nothing was supposed to have been involved beyond the bare corporeal frame of the man Jesus, the Nazarene: for immediately on the seizure of his person by the Jews, the divine principle, or Christ, by which it had been animated, took its dclepar[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. Accordinog to hilm 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 Gentile 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 ]aw 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-enljoyments 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 having founded a new city on the site of the ancient Jerusalem, e-erinthus. 253 would reign there in triumphant splendor for the space of a thousand years.)(2 (1) See Sam. Basnage Annal. Politico-Ecclesiast. tom. ii. p. 6. Petr. Faydit Ecclaitrcissemens sur I'Histoire Ecclesiastique des cleux premicres Siecles, cap. v. p. 64. Fred. Adolph. Lampius, Comm. in Evangel. Johannis Prolegom. lib. ii. chap. iii. xvii. p. 182. all of whom are of opinion that Cerinthus lived about the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius. The arguments on which their opinion is grounded have been replied to by Jo. Franc. Budcldeus 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 Carpocrates in the catalogue of heretics, which latter, without dispute, lived and taught in the second century; a circumstance which doubtless would carry with it considerable weight, did it appear that the early Christian writers had paid due attention to the regular oldert of time in their enumeration of heretics: but instetad of this, we know the fact to be that the names of heretics are set down by Trenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and others, at random, without any regard being had to the times in which they lived. It is asserted by Ireneeus, Jerome, and others, that St. John wrote his gospel, and particularly the commencement of it, with an express view to the confutation of the erroneous tenets of Cerinthus respecting Christ. See Tillemont's Memoires, tom. 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 S opo 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 ancient author could I obtain that full degree of information respecting the Ccrinthian 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 possessed 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 opinions I perceive, it is true, the marks of a mind not sufficiently purified, and disposed not unfrequently, to deviate from the path of sound reason: but nothing whatever bespeaking a propensity to vicious or libidinous indulgences: nothing indicating a love for or pursuit of illicit pleasures: there are even some things in them which make in his faxvour, and prove him to have been destitute neither of sense nor of spirit. I-low, let me ask, could it be possible that the kingdom which it was asserted Christ would hereafter establish at Jerusalem, 254 Ce('tzury I.-Section 70. should have been held forth in promise as a sink of irnmao: ality, vice, and concdnpiscence, by one who entertained the highest reverence for the wisdom, justice, and virtue of Jesus of Nazareth, and maintained that it was his superior sanctity and knowledge which induced the Deity to select his corporeal firame as a fit terrestrial residence for his offspring Christ, the chief of the cdlestial mons? IHow could this have been done by one who was constantly propounding Jesus as a model of virtue and wisdom to mankind? By one again who inculcated 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 immediate offspring of the Supreme Deity, united to the person of Jesus, the most intelligent 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 desires without restraint? Or in other words, that the greatest and best of potentates, the immediate offspring of the Deity, would become the instrument of promoting 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 permitted 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 however, in assigning this accusation to its proper source. Not a doubt can exist but that it originated with Caius, the presbyter and Dionysius Alexandrinus, two writers of the third century, as appears from Eusebius NIistor. 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 thousand years, was carrying on with considerable warmth, and the object of these writers evidently was to repress this doctrine. TWith 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 allowable enough: but not content with this, they, by way of still more effectually preventing the Christians from every imitation of Cerinthus, deemed it expedient to augment the popular antipathy against him, and to persuade the multitude that lie wa,; 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 minei rests merely on supposition, and is grounded on no positive evidence, 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. Cerinthts. 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 feature of a kingdoma 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. Having relieved Cerinthus from the weight of this reproach, I will now advert to sonme particulars connected with the history of his system of disciplire, in reoard to which it were to be desired that further light could be obtained. (I.) It may be recollected that I have said Cerinthus differed 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 lie 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 matter 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 likewise 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 arrogance; 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 ncons, 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 moreover 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 had 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, 2a6 Century L —Section 70. had depalrted 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 insirht into the opinions of Cerinthus as to these points, we are constrained to leave the subject as we found it, enveloped in obscurity. (li1.) One of the accusations brought against Cerinthus by ancient writers, 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 Basinage and Faydit deny him to have been of the Jewish religion, as well as those who, with Massuet (Diss. in I}enccnum, i. art. vi. p. lxv.) 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' is having wished -to impose on the necks of the Christians an observance of the whole law, is equally rermote 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 world, 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 lnations, it must of necessity have been a part of his scheme, that all those rites which 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 Philaster, the latter in his book de IccResibus, cap. xxxvi. p. 78. the former, Hgcres. xxviii. 0 2. p. iii. expressly say, that it was a part only of the law of Moses which appeared -to Cerinthus worthy 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 dar AtQguc 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 mulst 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 lie 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 i. 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 Cerinzths. 257 law, should yet deem it fit to retain the Jewish 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 Cerinthus, I think I can perceive the reasons which induced him to promote rather than repress the expectation of an empire of this kind. The holy, wise, and innocent man Jesus, in whose corporeal frame Christ had taken up his residence during his abode here on earth, had, according to the Cerinthian 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 lhe had done so, instead of supporting him against them, at once took his departure and left this unhappy mortal, unbefriended and deinceless, to sink under the torments and the fury of his enraged enenemies. Now a desertion of this kind could not fail to carry with it an air of much injustice and ingratitude. For what can be conceived more unprincipled than in a time of the greatest peril to desert a good and eminent character, through 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 sufebrings 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 recompense, 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 which 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. siur les NTazareens, which is to be found in the supplement to his Historia HIussitica, p. 144, has sttempted, from some words of the emperor Julian, apud Cyrillurn, 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 Cerinthus 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 Gentury I.-Section 70. his denying that the Word coalesced in one person with Jesus, and contending that thle latter was thirty years of age when Christ descended on him, as also that upon the seizure of Jesus by th a Jews, Christ withdrew from his person, and returned to the place fiom whence he had come. His opinion of Christ in this respect bears somewhat of a resemblance to that which is commonly attributed to Nestorius, dividing Christ Jesus into two distinct persons. Htis tenets, however, were by frll 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 tfimn of Nestorius. EIND or TIIE FIRST CENTURT, THE ECCLESIAST'ICAL HISTORY OF THIE S FCOND CENTURY. I. Propagation of the Christian religion. The Christian religion, which in the course of the former age had made its way throughout 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, circumstances, or immediate authors, of this further diffusion of the blessings of the gospel, or particularly to disting'uish the provinces 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 satisfled 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 malke them correspond very nearly with the confines of the then known habitable world.(l) (1) Some very striking passages respecting the amplitude and extent of the Christian community, are to be met with in the works of those most excellent writers of the second century, Justin Martyr, Irenmeus, and Tertullian, writers, ~f whom it is not too much to say, that they are, in general, most deserving of unlimited credit.; J'e v says Justin, (Dialog. cum Tryphonte, p. 341. edit. Jebbian.) t ioac hi rei igvos dv gci7rrwM, hSvr~ Rxggv iV, ~enr'ExkvtlvwY,'1Wi aLZr ACd t or1v OVoiuV olr h1g LO GUOVyS a} C ae& citcv, )I aivX b Xvv g vVvrV)'' eV omv >aS xrvivoroTi')cy Oix6yrr.v,, iv 01 {uZ 6's v-Sr ovopvrov'T c*3Vv'-tvrGS'ars) 260 Century II.-Section 1. etXcil a aS vxsrgn-h rc ri rri rid am-lrli CsY OnxrV &iroV sIr. IvNezunumn quidem est genus morialium, sire barbarorum, sive Grcccorurm, seu etiam aliorumz omnium, quocumque appellentur nomine, vel in plausiris degenlium, vel domo carenlium, vel in tentoriis viventiumn, el pecoribus vilam tolerantium, inter quos per nomen cruciJixi Jesu supplicationes, et gratiaruml actiones patri et fabricalori umniumnon fiant. —Subsequently, at p. 351. he again expresses himself much to the 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. Irenmius, disputing with the Valentinians, (lib. i. adv. ioeres. cap. x. p. 48. edit. lMassuet.) opposes to them the entire Christian church, which he represents as ex!ended thrlongut t11he whole wvorld, even to the uttlermost bounds of the earth. From this immense multitude of Christians in the general, he then selects certain partlicular churches widely separated from eaclh other in point of situation, and sets them in opposition to his adversaries. Ira( al I Y r(g5VeLzc la iCpuptgvtl ixAx.firt a-mWS 7mn7su'xoLwY " aAAoS 7?rag tia lX ctaIV, isa ~V i ralSe'It!spkeg, sIrg Sv KeA4roi, xai ra aagS dyvascAa, Isa iV'AitZ'rrTcW, srre ~V AXu'ir, st~,gaI r a ~ra tj ZO{'.Y >9gietEYal. AC?^eqle EY aul ilt Germaniis silcc sunt Ecclesicc aliter celedunt, aut zalier tradunt, nec quce in Hiiberiis, aut Cel/is, neque luc qacc in oriente, neque hac quce in yg]yp1to, neque 71cc quce in Libya, neque hce quce in medio munadi conslilutce. In support of the doctrine then for whllich he is contending, we see Irenaieus here calls to witness churches from all the three grand divisions of the world which were at that time Iknown. From Europe, the Germanic, the Iberian or Spanish and the Celtic or Gaulish. I-e himiself 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 Irenmus would have us to understand him as havintg 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,ao~-co, or world, might be put by Irenenus, as it is by others of the ancient wvriters, 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 offered to the world by Gabriel Liron, a learned monk, of the order of the Benedictines, (`Singularite s I-Iisloriques et Litteraires, tom. iv. p. 197.) who supposes, that by the centre of the world was meant Asia Minor, Greece, Thrace, Illyrieum, Pannronia, Italy and the Isles; in short all those parts which were surrounded by the countries which ha had before enumerated. Tertullian gives a more copious list than Irenaus, of the nations that had embraced Christianity, Propagatio)n of C7risticnity. 261 although perliaps less to be depended on. In quem enim alium, says he, (in lib. adv. Jdclcos, c. vii. p. 212. edit. Rigalt.) universce gentes crediderunt, nisi in Christum qui jam venil? Cui einimn et, (there seems to be some deficiency or corruption of the text in this place,) aliac genies crediderunt: Parthi, Medi, Elamitlc, et qui inhabitant iMesoipotamiam, Armeniam, Phrygiam, Cappadociam, el incolentes Pontumn, et Asiam, el Pamlhygianz: immoranles. gypltum, et regionem Africce quce est trans Cyrenzem inhabitantes? Romafni et incolcZ; tunc et in HierZsalem Jndaci et cretereC gentes: utjamn Getulorum varieltaes, el iMauro- [p. 205.] rulm multi /iZes: Hisjpaniar'U? omnes termini, et Galliarum diversce nationes, et Brilannorzum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdtilt, el Sarmalrum, et Dacorum, el Germanorum., el Scytharumn, et abdilarum multarutmgenrtium et provincia.rum el insularum nultairum nobis ionotareun, et qzuac enumerare minus possumus: in quibus omnibvzs locis Christi nomnen, qui jam venil, regnal. Considering this passage as perfectly explicit, and every way worthy of credit, various of the learned have not hesitated on the faith of it, to pronounce that the Christian religion 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 without a strong apprehension that I might plunge myself into difficulties not easily to be surmounted. In fact, it appears to me, that Tertullian puts on here a little of the rhetorician, as he does in many other parts of his writings, and relates some things wbhich 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 taklen from the Acts of the Apostles, and that, with the exception of the Armenian s, it exhibits a catalogue of precisely the same nations as are enumerated by the Jews who had heard the Apostles speak in foreign tongues, Acts, ii. 8. 9. From what the Jews are there recorded to have said, Tertullian 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 observable, that what Tertullian 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 Tertullian, 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 an1d unknown islands and provinces had embraced Christianity, most plainly evinces that he suffered himself to be carried away by the warmth of imagination, and did not sufficiently attend to what he was committing to paper. For how could it be possible that Tertullian should have been brought acquainted with what was done in unexplored 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. II. m.ission of rPantmnus to Itndia. The name of one of those, 262 Centurty II.-Sectlio 2. however, vwho devoted themselves to the propagation of the gospel amongst the nations of the east, has been transmitted to posterityy, vz. that of Pantmenus, a man of eminent abilities, and one by whom the cause of Christianity was, in various ways, conilderably benefited. Having applied himself with diligence to the cultivation of letters and philosophy, and presided for a while with dlistilnouished credit over the Christian school at Alexandria, he at length, either on the suggestion of his own mind, or by the Ip. 206.] command of Demetrius, his bishop, engaged in a mission 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 manry nations comprehended by the ancients, under the general title of Indiaiis, it was that Pantmenus thus went, has been the subject of dispute. My own opinion is that this mission originated in an application made to the bishop of Alexandcria by certain Jews who were settled in Arabia Felix, and who had been originally converted to Christianity by Bartholomew, requesting that a teacher mighlt be sent them for the purpose of renovating and keeping alive amongst them the true religion, which, for want of such assistance, had gone nmuch to decay, and was visibly every clay still further on the decline. If this conjecture of mine be well founded, it m1Ut of necessity follow, that those are in an error who conceive that India obtained her first knowledge of the Gospel through Pan'tmenus.() (1) For whatever we know of the sacred leg'ation of Pantl nus to the Indians, we are indebted to Eusebius and Jerome; between whom, however, there is some little difference of ntarration respecting it. By the former, in his IHist, Eccles. lib. v. cap. x. p. 175. Pantmnnlus is represented as having, on the suggestion 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 CaelZ. Script0or. Ecclesiast. cap. xxxvi. p. 107. ed. Fabric. et Epislol. lxxxiii. p. 656. tom. iv. opp. part ii. ed. Benedict. reports that certain delegates had been dispatched by the Indians to Alexandria, requesting of Demetrius, the bishop of that city, that a Christian instructor might be sent them; and that Demnetrius, acceding to their wishes, directed Pantunus, the prefect of the Alexandrian school to accompany those men on their return. If then we give credit to Eusebius, we must understand Pantaenus 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 nations of the east, including even the Indians: if on the contrary we take Jerome Hissiot of Pantcnzus. 263 for our guide, it sh nld seem that he was sent by his bishop on a special mission to the Indians, and to none besides. Possibly it may not be very difficult to bring about a reconciliation between these two accounts. Pantoenus had, probably at the instig'ation of his own mind, gone forth with a view to the conversion of some of the more neighbouring nations, and, perhaps, 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 Pantwinus 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 lnown, and also occasionally 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 imparnted by Paintmnus. Most of them imagine that the scene of his labours must have been the country of India Magna which is watered by thie Indus, and which we now term Eastern India: an opinion that seems to be countenanc ed by Jerome, who says that Pantwenus was sent to the Brachmans. Mfissus est, says ihe in his 83d Epistle, in indiamn utChrislum apud Brachmanas el illius genlis philosophos prcedicarel. For BrachLnans 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 term 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 Pantmnus 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. PoliticoEcclesiast. tom. ii. p. 207. Hen. Valesius, Adnotat. ad Socralis Hislor. Eccles. p. 13. For my own part, I can fall in with neither of these opinions; for my belief is that those Indians, who requested to have a teacher sent them by Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, were neither pagans nor strangers to Christianity, 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 Hyemen; and who had previously been brought to a knowledge of Christ and his word. My reason for thinking thus is, that Jerome says, Pantrunus 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 6" preached amongst them the coming of Jesus Christ." Calalog. Scriptor. Ecclesiast. c. xxxvi. p. 107. It is apparent therefore that the people to whom Pantmnus went, were not strangers to Christianity, as also that they were skilled in the Hebrew langunge, and were consequently of Jewish extraction. For since Bartholemew left with them one of the gospels written in Hebrew, it un 264 Century I.-Section 3. avoidably follows, that they must have been acquainted with the Hebrew tcngue, HIad 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 these 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 labonrs. 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 inparted 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 Vita Bartholomcci. Am. iste. ist Ecclesiast. tom. 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 G-aul, was not blessed with the ligiht of the gospel until this century, when a knowledge of the religion of Christ was first communicated to their rude forefathers by Pothinus, who, together with Irenteus, and certain other devout men, had travelled into Gaul froml 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 Romans, and was also transferred to the opposite 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(2); 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 Lucius, an ancient king of that island, as having in this century procured some Christian teachers to be sent him from Rome by the pontiff Eleutherus.(Q) (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. —(.) That to which we have above given the precedence, has been defended with great lability 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 aro CUAristianity izn Gau. 2l5 the arguments of this illustrious writer, that his opinion has been embraced by almost every one in France who makes pretension either to superior wisdom, ingenuity, or learning. Vid. Histoire Litteraire dce lai France, tom. i. p. 223, et seq. This opinion moreover is supported by the authority of no less than three most respectable ancient historians; of whom the first is Sulpitius Severus, who, in speaking of the persecution which the Christians of Lyons and Vienne suffered, under the emperor Marcus Antoninus, (IIistor. Sacr?. lib. ii. cap. 32, p. 246.) adds, ac tum prinum inter Gallias martyria visa, ferius trans alpes Dei religione suscepta. The next is the author of The Acts of Saturninus, bishop of Thoulouse, who suffered martyrdom in the 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 MIartyrum 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. ARuinart,) 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. —(I.) By those, however, who thinki it of greater importance to uphold ancient notions and nmagnify the consequence of France, than to ascertain the truth, an origin by far more august is assigned to the Gallic church, andcl the apostles Peter and Paul themselves are pronounced 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 tile Areopagite, an immediate disciple of his, of whom mention is made in the Acts 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 renowned prelates of the different Gallic churches, such as Paul of Narbonne, Martial of Limoges, and Saturnine of Thoulouse, had, before their cominig into France, enjoyed the benefit of the apostles' society and instruction. See the epistle of the eminent Peter de Marsca, de Evagcelii 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 fcet is, that in support of a great part of them nothing better can be avouched than the 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 tup such of 266f; Cent~ury I —Section 3. the above-mentioned facts as are unsupported by authority, will yet nAt hear of surrendering that grand citadel of ecclesiastical pre-eminence, the apostolic origin of the Gallic church. The arguments of Launois, Sirmond, and Tillemont, they 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 Areopagite, one of St. Paul's disciples, but a very different man who flourished in the third centuly. 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 waly into Spain tarried for some time in Gaul; secondly, that Luke and Crescens 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 lnhas displayed greater diligence and ability in support of this last way of thinlking than Gabriel Liron, a Benedictine monk of great erudition, in his Dissertation sur l'Etablisseement de la Religion Chrelienne dans les Gaules; which nearly finishes the fourth volume of a work published by him, under the title of Singotularilts Hiistoriques et Litteraires. Paris, 1740, 8vo. It has also been defended by Dion. Sammarthanus in the preface to his GaZlia 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 arle indebted for a great part of their riches. In support of the third there appear to be nmany 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 uncertain, that St. Paul ma'de 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 Hleres. 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 dar k as to whether he means Trans-alpine or Cis-alpine Gaul. Dionysius Petavius indeed (Animadvers. acd Epiphanium, p. 90.) suspects, and not without reason, that Cis-alpine Gaul Awas 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 rFxt v, as most copies have it, we ovght to read with Epiphanius, r1ctxAsv. But even supposing that we were to Christianity in Gaudl. 267 yield to them in this, for our doing of which, however, nothing like a suflicient 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 allowing 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 companions and disciples. To the opinion first above noticed, viz. that the Gauls were not acquainted with the name of Christ prior to the arrival of Potlinus and his companions from the east, although it has very illustrious patrons on its side, there yet seems wanting some further support. The celebrated passage 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 Christianity had never reached the Gauls until the arrival of Pothinus, Irenmeus, tand 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, andcl that under the reign of Deeius, 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 folrce when opposed to the idle notions formerly entertained by the French respecting 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.] Chlristians in Gaul prior to the time of Decius was comparatively trifling; but all this is not showing that those are in error who contend that the way of salvation 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 consequence, and no farcther 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 2$33 (reizCentury I —Sectinz 3. litd e success. In thle second century Pothinus, with certain companions, arrivibig out of Asia, experienced a more propitious reception, and succeeded in establishlling a small church at Lyons. This little assembly of Christians, however, instead of increasing, went, in the course of time, from various Causes, mucli 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 staid 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 I'Hisloire de l'Eglise, tom. iv. p. 983 (2.) Both Iresntus and Tertullian, as we have above seen, d 1. note [1] make express mention of the German churches. From neither of these writers, however, 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 Germany 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 me.ntioned by Irenamus and Tertullian must have been situated in Cis-rhenane Germany, which was subject to the Roman government. Jo. Ernest. Grabe takes exception to this opinion, in his annotations on the passage in Irennus under consideration; but as it appears to me on very light gronnds. For what he sug? gests is, that as Iren-mus does not speak of Germany but of the Germanies, i}.a IS rpi.mviaSE, 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 erudition ought surely to have recollected that Irenmus might without any impropriety speak thus of Cis-rhenane Germany, which, as is n-ell known, had been divided by the Romans into the first and second, or Superior and Inferior Germtmy. Until, therefore, the opinion of the eminent men above alluded to, shall be opposed by argumnents of greater force than this, its credit will remain unllshaken. Other arguments indeed have been brought forward by Jo. Nichol. ab. [p. 212.] Hontheim, in his Historia Trevirensis Diplomaticc, tom. i. Dissert. de rna Episcopa/us Treviremlsis, p. 10, et seq., where he lays it down that the passage in Tertullian ought to be understood as relating to that part of Eastern Germany which borders on Sarmlatia and Dacia; and the passage in Ilenmus as relating to the whole of Germanv. But these arguments, unless I an,ltogether deceived, carry no greater weiglht with them than that of Grabe does, and serve only to demonstrate the author's fertile and happy talent at conjecture. nMarcus Hansitzius is spoken of by him withi approbation, as mainintining the same opinion in his Germcania 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 que-stion is as to the antiquity and origin of the Germaln 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. 269 nelves. Amongst other things there is an old tradition, that three of St. Peter's companions, namely, Eucharius, Valerius, and lMaternus, 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 phices and continued in the superintendence and government of them until their deaths. Vid. Christoph. Brower. Annales Trevirenses, lib. ii. p. 143, et seq. Antwlerpienso ad d. xxix. Januarii, p. 918. But in refutation of this, those great and impartial writers, Calmnet in his Dissertation sur les Eveques de Treves, tom.. i fHistoire de Lorraine, part iii. iv. Bolland in his Acta Sanclorum Januarii, tom. ii. p. 922, et seq. Tillemont in his lMemoires pour serv;ir a I'Hisloire de lEglise, tom. iv. p. 1082; and finally, Hontheim in his Disserlatio de iEra Episclpatus Trevirensis, tom. i st. ist. revirens. have fully shown, by arguments as conclusive as the nature 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 persons 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, partakers of the same blessing. Gabriel Liron has, with much labour and ingenuity, endeavoured to prove the apostolical antiquity of the German churches, in his Singuzlarit&s Historiques et Litteraires, tom. iv. p. 193, seq. But the arguments and suggestions of this learned vwriter, although they may induce us to refuse joining 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 Irenous, 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 presidency over which they retained during their lives, and on their deaths transferred 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 warlie and uncultivated people, nor could any Christian churches have been estatblished by themrn in that country upon any thing' like a solid or permanent foundation. (3) Previously to the reformation, Joseph of Arimathea, the Jewish senator, by whom in conjunction with Nicodemus 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 that 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 Centtbry I]-Section 3. dation of the church of Glastonbury. Vid. Rapin de Thoyras, Histoire d'Angleterre, tom. i. p. 84.-At present the better informed of the British do not hesitate to give 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 Theodoret 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 inhabitants 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 friom Spain. And this conjecture or opinion they conceive to be supported by (amongst other ancient authors) Clement of Rome, who says that St. Paul travelled, l r r, iga ris Ju'ufin, "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 who professed the Christian faith. The church that was thus first established 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 fact 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 Ecclesie Britannicce, cap. i. p. 7. F. Godawin in his work [p. 214.] de Conversione Britannim, cap. i. p. 7. Edwcard Stillingfleet in his Antiquities of the British church, chap. i. and illianz 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. see. ii. p. 603, 604, tom. i. opp. Racpin 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 Ce7rissanityi in Britain. 2t1 to the question of, whether or not either of the apostles themselvcs, or any one commissioned by them, ever took a journey into Britain with a view to the conversion 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 affirmative 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 Arimaihea's being sent fi'rom Gaul into Britain by Philip, seems to have somewhat in it of truth, although corrupted and deformed through the ignorance, or arrogance, or perhaps knavery of the monks. In flcet, it should seem more than probable, as 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, convertecl into apostolic missionaries. The truth of the matter I suspect to be, that the monks had collected fiom 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 the Gospel there; and either from their 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 interred, 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 Valelrius, 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 induced to lend a helping hand to some Joseph, who had in the second century orossed over to their ancestors from Gaul, and to lift himn 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 degree 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. 215.1 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 this respect, the account of the matter, as it has reached us, carries with it some not very ob 272 Century i. —Section 3 scure makis of truth. That these monks, for instance, should not have pitched upon one of the 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 manner; but that on the contrary, they should allow him to have crossed over to them from Gaul, which is, in fact, 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 class of those who invent what 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 Roman, 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, already fully embraced 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 resident 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 cenmtury, 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 sixth 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 veneratio-n for the majesty, or to speak more properly, the authority of the bishop of Rome. But from the testimony of Bede, and various ancient documents that are to be found in Wilkin's Councils of Great Britairn and Ire. Chrsiianity 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, without 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 the rule to which they conformed was derived from St. John. See Bedes Historiee. 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 w-as 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 things together, and to consider them with a due degree of attention, lay, I rather think, not feel altogether indisposed to adopt the opinion which I myself have been led to entertain 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. suffering 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 there. 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 characters that thus passed over froIn Gaul into Britain, was Joseph, and that of his superior, by tNhose command or instigation the journey was undertaken, Philip; and hence arose the tale of Joseph (f Arimathea having been sent from Gaul into Britain by the apostle Philip. At the time when this happened, Eleutherus 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 ratler 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 tlhis island were crowned with the conversion of a multitude of 18 274 Century IL.-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 might 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 Roman 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 magnitude or respectability.(2) That both are equally in an error, is manifest from the persecutions that were carried on with such fary against the Christians in this century. IHad their number been any thing equal to what many would have us believe, common 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 persons, they would, instead of being combated with so much eagerness 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 cultivate and cherish it; but that nothing beyond a few small and inconsiderable assemblies of them was to be found in those districts 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: HIesterni sumus, et Number of the Christians. 275 vestra omnia implevizmus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senaltum, forum. Sola vobis relinquimus templa. Apologet. cap. xxxvii. p. 311. edit. Havercampi. To me, however, it appears that the African orator, who seems to have been naturally inclined to exaggeration, in this instance most evidently rhetoricates in a very high degree. Were the passage to be stript of its insidious and fallacious colouring, I conzeive 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 characters and views assiduously cooperate in undervaluing and diminishing the churches of the second century. Those inveterate enemies of the Christian religion, whom we. style Deist-s, 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 the 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 servile 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 opposite 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 unexceptionable 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 the Roman empire. To say nothing of the evidence of facts, there is the 27f3 Century IL-Section 4. notable testimony of an author of the greatest weight, nalmely, Ptin,, the pro-preetor 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 fallen into disuse. Epistol. lib. x. ep. xcvii. p. 821, edit. Longol. Multi, says he, omnis teratis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus eliam, vocantunr in periculum et vocabuntur. 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 falsehood. Neqzue civitates tantum, he continues, sed vicos etiam alque agros superstitionis 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 number of their worshippers was exceeded by that of the Christians. This is manifest from what he states of the temples having been deserted, the sa:cred solemnities for a time intermitted, and the sacrifices offered to the gods reduced to a mere nothing. Certe satis constat, prope jam desolata tempia ccepisse celebreai, et [p. 219.] sacra solemnia diit intermissa repeti, passimque venire victimas, quarum adhuc rarissimus emptor inuenziebatur. 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 inhabitants had manifested a disposition to abandon the religion of their ancestors. Those who conceive that the Roman empire contained within it but few Christians 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 admii 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 character, 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 desert' d, the sacred rites intermitted, and the sacrifices neglected. For Trajan could have drawn no other conclusion from this than that Christianity was on the deline. In every other respect too, we find the orator quite laid aside, and things represented in plain and simple terms, without the least artificial colouing. The testimony of Pliny is confirmed by Lucian, to whom it is impossille to impute anything like a similarity of design. Lucian, in an account which he has transmitted to posterity of the life and nefarious practices of Alexander, represents this infamous impostor as complaining: "A$s-mv ir.r&o -t Causes of Success. 277 fnd 3yoai-uvc3v'ro,rOvrov, ii brai drzrov 5 c; h x a'lore RNao;C L-oIi) plenam esse Pontum Aiheis et Chrislianis, qui audeant pessima de se maladicta spargere. In Pseudomant, I 25, p. 232, tom. ii. opp. edit. Gesneri. This Alexander appears to have dreaded the perspicacity of the Christians, by whom he was surrounded, 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 instituted, "E as gri5Ge Ahg, " xgiTlirVi, X'E7rxIouggog,) )j')n Xuar6oaonSg CrlY g'ilvy, togro: 1. c. { 38, p. 244. These words the illustrious translator of Lucian renders, si quis Atheus, aut Christianus, aut Epicureus venerit, orgiorum speculator,fugito. To me, however, it appears that we should better meet the sense of the original by rendering them, si quis Atheus, sire Christianus sit, sive Epicureus, venerit,fuagito. The title of Atheists being, as it strikes me, here used by this impostor generically to denote those to whom he afterwards specifically takes exception under the two denominations of Christians and Epicureans. 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 with 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 insianificant, 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 i proper estimate of miracles and prodigies, and whom all the craft and cunning of those who 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; nc' is it open to the same exceptions that are taken to the testimony of Pliny. Alexander cannot be charged with indulging in declamation by way of moving the passions; his complaint is dictated 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 astonishing progress thus made by Christianity, and the uninterrupted series of victories which 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 office of teachers, or had else been regu 278 century 11.- 4ecvon 5. larly appointed thereto by the bishops, as to the irresistible operation 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 excruciating nature, even to the very death, inspired great multitudes 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 magnanimity of soul and such a thorough contempt for every thing temporal, whether it were good or evil.(') Finally, they represent 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 dsemons 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 power to accomplish.(2) 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 sufficient 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 Gospel were embraced by some even of those who were distinguished 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 elegance and ingenuity, Nec quicquam proficit exquisitior qucque crudelitas vestra, iliecebra est magis sectce. Plures eficimur, quoties metimur a vobis: Semen est sanquis Christianorum. It is remarked also by Justin Martyr (in Dialog. cum. Causes of S1uccess. 279 Tryphone, p. 322. edit. Jebbiana,)'o0-&rg atv ~olYroiVVa ev,'ra,CcC, o FAdOxv SAABo 7rmtoyivs AzSiro Ka iai eO-lns cl& PrbitGu 4aov o rog'Tlooi )iyvovrat. Quanto magis ejusmodi qucadam in nos expediuntlur lorments, tanlo acii plures fideles et verce religionis ciltores per nomen Jesut fiuni. This he illustrates by a simile by no means inelegant:'Onro7ov, iav dxrbnxov rgc iru ~ra xapr7roopio'avqra,Yg, igs, ro dVafx1 Mrio' eir/povs uiJovs cdzi'u.lax J.i xzJ tpqTo~povs dvcttJ'oo~ qI'v durovv rpo'rov xit at' 1iiX/ civ vart. Quemadmodum enim si quis vilis excida/ftructijfi canles parles, ut palmites quidem? alios floridos et fzugiferos proferat, facit: ita in nobis quoque accidit. Plan/tat/ namque a Deo et Christo Servatore vi/is est qjus p1ropuls. (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 fathers, 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 far separated from each other, that their report is not grounded upon mere hearsay, 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 possessed 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 themselves 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 desirous of learning the history of this celebrated book, and of the very acrimonious 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 moment. The state of the case appears to be this. The very learned author of 280 Century II.-Secton 5. the Inquiry, most fully admits that the apostolic age aboul.ded in miracles and extraordinary gifts, but denies that anything of this nature was witnessed by the world subsequently to the decease of our Lord's apostles, and hence infers, that the accounts which 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 recent times by the saints of the Romish church: and it-is consequently impossible for us effectually 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 miracles which are recorded to have been wrought in the second and third centuries. Only let it be granted that a power of altering the laws of nature was resident in Christ and his apostles, and the point is placed beyond the reach of cavil. 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 imnpeach 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 ordinary 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 tile 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 author of bad faith, and attribute to him the worst intentions. The certainty and truth of what I have here stated is sufficiently proved by tile 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 occasionally betrayed a very great proneness to superstition and credulity. Whatever 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. As Causes of Success. 281 if it were certain that none but men of nice discrimination were capable of distinguishing 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 this elminent scholar contented himself with asserting that several of those things, which are reported to have happened in the first ages, contrary to the established 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 totally 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 insidious 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 opinion. 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 aclinowledges 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 power. 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 perpetual power: in short, if I rightly comprehend the meaning of the learned author, he wished to explain himself as having never intended to assert any thing morethan 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 learned 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 Christiapity, 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 triumphos. VI. Human causes which contributed to forward the propagation of Christianity. But we should do wrong to understand what is 282 Century II.-Section 6. thus recorded respecting the wonderful means by which the Deity himself contributed towards the propagation of the Gospel, 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 exertions of the bishops and other pious characters in getting the writings of the apostles, which had been collected into one volume, 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 Christianity derived also no inconsiderable benefit from the different Apologies, in Greek as well as Latin, by which those learned and eloquent writers, Jztstiz Miartyr, Athenagoras, Quadratus, Aristides, Miiltiadces, 2'Teratultia, Ttian, and others, throughout the whole of this century, repelled the slanders and reproaches of its froward and impetuous adversaries, and demonstrated the extreme turpitude and folly of the popular superstitiols.(2) It would be an act of injustice moreover, were we to omit mentioning, with due praise, the exertions of certain philosophers and men of erudition, who had embraced Christianity in various provinces of the Roman 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 certain, if not iii the first, the books of the New Testament had been translated into different popular languages. See Basnage Histoire de l'Eglise, liv. ix. cap. i. p. 450. tom. 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 r ot 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 of their powers, and the task was occasionally undertaken by those who were by no means competent to its execution. —Qui scripturas ex Hebrcea lingua in Grcecam verterunt, says Augustine (de Doctrin. Christian. lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 19 tom. iii.) numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuiqu( primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguac habere videbatur, ausus est intepretari. In this passage ii is manifest, although there are some who either cannot or will not perceive it. that by Codex Gr-ccus 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 Christians 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 interpre/ationibus, Itala ceteris prcferatur: nam est verborum tenacior, cum perspicuitate sententice. 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 tile Latin church, prior to its adoption of the more recent translation from the 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 displayed, 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 Cervtury IL.-Section 6. would be happily detected and removed, and the true reading of a vaxiety of controverted passages be established beyond dispute. The very learned Benedictine 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 them, 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 Rheims, in 1743, under the title of Bibliorum sacrorum Lctainca versiones antiquca, seu vetus Italica et celerc, quotquot in codicibus MSS. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, quac cum vulgata Latina et cum texltu Grco comparentur.-The most recent of those who have labored in this field is Jos. Blanchini, presbyter of the Oratorian Convent of St. Philip, whose tEvangeliarium quadruplex Latinae [p. 226.] versionis antiquac, seu veteris Italicac, ex codicibus manuscriptis aureis, argenteis, puipureis, aliisque plusquamn millenariac antiquitatis, 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 subject, 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 advantage.-" 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 scriptures; 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 introduced 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 extant 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 exemnplaria 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 themselves, 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 dissimilar. For not to enter into an examination of any others, the versions published by Blanchini differ so very widely from each other in a great many places, that it would be an utter violation of every sort of probability whatever, 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 differ are, 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 apostles 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 assumption; 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 recollection, 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 unfiequently built, even when they may seem to be placed beyond the reach of controversy; I say, what is so astonishing as to be almost incredi)le is, that these illustrious scholars should with the utmost confidence maintain, that that particular translation which Augustine terms the Italic, and to which he assigns the preference over every other Latin one, was that very identical version of the sacred code which thety 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 authori y of a certain I know-not-what Italic translation, which such a number of learned men, not only of the Romish communion, but also of other denominations of Christians, are so ready at communicating to us From the words of Augustine, try what we may, it is impossible to collect any thing 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 tihe Italic. From whence, however, Century ILH-Section 6. it acquired this appellation, is not to be ascertained, either from Augustine or ele;ewhere. Possibly it might have been thus named from its having been brought from Italy into Africa; possibly fi'om its having been the one made use of in certain 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, ol -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 Ravenna 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 (Romane) the Roman one. Augustine always entertained the greatest reverence for the Roman church, in which he considered Apostolicc Cathedrc 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 otherversion. A sort of recommendation for which there could certainly have been no room, had this version been already adopted in the public [p. 228.] 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 noszra, or uligaris, 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 certaiIn 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 solitry one of Augustine, is to be met witlh 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 undertaking 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 CaUuses of Success. 287 by the Muses upon HIelicon. 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 substituting the woxd illa for Ilala, and the pronoun quac, in place of the particle nam. To the propriety of this emendation, David Casley, to whom it had been communicated by Bentley, expresses his unqualified approbation in his Catalogue 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 illa (or illa Latina) prceferatur quce 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.he did. From the nature of their undertaking, therefore, it could only be expected of the early apologists for Christianity, that they should exonerate those who had embraced it from the reproaches cast upon them by their adversaries, and by pointing out the absurdity of the religions publicly countenanced, make it appear that there was the 288 Century I. —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 oceasionally resorted to in the propa. gation of Christianity. With the greatest grief however, we find ourselves compelled to acknowledge, that the upright and laudable exertions thus made by the wise and pious part of the Christian community, were not the 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 circumstances, admit of excuse, and were utterly unworthy of that sacred cause which they were unquestionably intended to support. Perceiving, for instance, in what vast repute the poetical effusions of those ancient prophetesses, termed Sybils, were held by the Greeks and Romans, some Christian, or rather, perhaps, an association of Christians, in the reign of Antoninus Pinus, composed eight books of,Sybilline 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 progress 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 scandal on the Christian cause, since the fraud was too palpable to escape the searching penetration of those who gloried in displaying their hostility to the Christian name.(Q) 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 convince.(3) 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 Artfices Employed. 289 by no ill intention, but this is all that can be said in their [p. 230j] favour, for their conduct in this respect was certainly most ill advised and unwarrantable. Although the greater part of those who were concerned in these forgeries on the public, undoubtedly belonged to some heretical sect or other, and particularly to that class which arrogated to itself the pompous denoimination of GnostiCS )(4) I yet cannot take upon me to acquit even the most strictly orthodox from all participation in this species of criminality: for it appears from evidence superior to all exception, that a pernicious maxim, which was current in the schools not only of the oEgyptians, the Platonists, and the Pytlhagoreans, but also of the Jews, was very early recognized by the Christians, and soon found amongst theim numerous patrons, namely, that those who made it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than censure.(6) (1) The Sybilline verses are treated of very much at large by Jo. Albert. Fabricius, in the first vol. of his Bibliotheca Gr1cca, where the reader will also find a particular account given of those writings, which were sent out into the world under the forged name of Hermes Trismegistus. The last editor of the Sybilline Oracles, was Servatius Gallmus, under whose superintendence and care they were reprinted at Amsterdam, 1689, in 4to. corrected fiom ancient manuscripts, and illustrated with the comments of various authors. To this edition the reader will find added the 3Magian oracles, attributed to Zoroaster and others, collected together by Jo. Opsopaus, amongst which are not a fewv 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 worshippers to believe the fruth of the Christian religion, has been proved to demonstration, by (amongst others) David Blondell, in a French work, published at Charenton, 1649, in 4to. under the following title Des Sybilles celebrhs tanl par 1'Antiquite 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, republished, under a different title, namely, Traitr de la Creance des Peres touchant l'Etat des Ames apres cette vie, et de l'Origine de la Priere pour les Alorts, et du Purgatoire, a l'Occasion de l'Ecrit atlribuE aux Sybilles. Charenton, 1651, 4to. The fact, no doubt was, that finding purchasers were not to be attracted by the former title, the bookseller deemed it expedient to have recourse to another. (2) From what is said by Origen, contra Celsum, lib. v. p. 272. edit. Spencer. as well as by Lactantius, Institut. Divinar. lib. iv. cap. xv. and by Constantine the Great, in c. 19. of his Oratio ad Sanctos, which is annexed to Eusebius, it ap19 290 Century II.-Section 8. pears that the enemies of the Christians were accustomed indignantly to upbraid them with this fiaud. (3) That the writings at present extant under the name of Hermes, must have been the work of some Christian author, was first pointed out bay Isaac Casaubon in his Exerc. I. in Baronium, d xviii. p. 54. This has since been confirmed by various writers, Vid. Herm. Conringius, de Hermetica zEgyptiorum 3Medicina, [p. 231.] cap. iv. p. 46. Beausobre, Ilistoire de ManicWee, tom. ii. p. 201. Cudworth, Intellect. System, tom. i. p. 373, 374. edit. AMosheim. Warburton, Divinz' 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 wrlitings 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 Dissertation de Tempore quo nata est Hicresis 3iontani, which is to be found in Winckler's SyZloge Anecdotorum, p. 255. et. seq. That the writings of Hermes and a great part of the forged Gospels, together with various worliks of a similar 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 turbata per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia, P 41, et. seq. VIII. State of tihe Christians under the reign of TrajanZo But whilst the circumstances above enumerated conspired most happily to forward the cause of Christianity, the priests and proefects of the different religions that were publicly tolerated in the Roman empire, most strenuously exerted themselves to arrest 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 seconded 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 declamation and cavil; in short, throughout the whole of this century the Christians had to contend with arn 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 government 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 doubt, 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, mnust undoubtedly have been acquainted with them. The fact unquestionably was, that the laws of Nero had been repealed 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 priesteraft, thought proper to institute a persecution of them, continued still to be consigned over to punishment. It was this which gave occasion to Eusebius to state that under the reign of Traja-n, per singulacs tvrbes popular? i nmot passim persequutio in Christianos excitabatur.(2) 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 instigation, no doubt, of the priests.(3) (1) Arnobius adv. Genies, lib. i. p. 16. edit. Heranld. Aruspices has fabulas, (the ccniumnies against tlhe Christians) cojectores, arioli, vates, et nunqulam non yani conciznaverefaatici; qui, ne sunc artes intereant, ac ne stipes exiguas consultoribus excutiant jam raris, si quando vos vedle r-em venire in invidiam compererunt, negligunturr dii clamitant, atque in templis jam rariltas summa est. In regard to this passage the reader may consult what is said by H-Ieraldus. (2) Eusebius, Hist. 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 xcviitll 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 lanquam Chrisliani deferebanlur 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 ccpisse celebrari, et sacrca solemnia diu intermissa?repeti, passimrque venire victimas quarum adhztc rarissimnzs emplor inveniebatur. In this passage the proconsul most plainly intifmates the cause of 292 Century IL.-Section 9. this persecution to have been, that the temples in Bithynia were nearly abandoun 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 the superintendence of the sacred rites; for to these alone could it be of any material moment that the temples should be fiequented and victims be brought to the altars. There can be no doubt then, but that these men had represented to Pliny, into what great jeopardy the rites of heathenism were brought, and it it is not at all unlikely that by way of giving additional force to their representations, 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 apprehended, 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 themselves firom 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 lie is to be considered as delivering, not so munch his own sentiments, as those which he had collected from the mouths of the priests. [p. 233.] IX. Trrajans 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 having been most clearly ascertained by Pliny, that with the exception of their dissent from the public religion, there was nothing in the principles or conduct of the followers of Christ deserving of animnadversion, 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 opinion 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 after, 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 ful of discovering too mumcl lenity towards them, lest he should thereby exasperate the priesthood and the populace.(-) (1) It was generally believed for many centuries, that the emperor Trajan was the author of the third persecution of the Christians, and we find this very disturbance which they experienced in Bithynia under the government of Pliny, particularly adverted to in an infinite number of books, as the commencement of such perseeution. But it is scarcely possible for any thing to be farther removed filom 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 ApoZoget. 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, andl 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 vietims, to compel the magistrates to call in question the Christians. It also supplied 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 before 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 Tertullian, been observed by several, the emperor disa.grees with himself. For whilst, by forbidding them to be searlched 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 Christianity, 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 lie 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 after, with a view to avenge the insult offered by them 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 which they refused to renounce: neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset qued falerentur, 294 Century II. —ection 10. pervicaciam certe et infiexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. The opinion thus expressed by Pliny, although unjust, and obviously unworthy of a man of his intelligence, 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 Trajan, seem not to be aware that friom 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 appointed to the government of Bithynia. X. Effects produced by this law of Trajan. This decree of Trajan being registered amongst the public ordinances of the IRoman 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 Snimeon, the son of Cleopms 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 prsefect of Syria, and persisting for several days, although put to the torture, in an absolute refusal to repudiate Christianity, was, contrary to the inclination of his judge, condemned to suffer death [p. 235.] upon the cross.(') In conformity to this same law likewise, Ignactius, 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 Rome 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 flowed with a more fervid zeal, on account of its lenity, inas Effects of Trajaz's Law. 295 much as for want of inquiry being made byr the magistrate, or of some one being found to step forward as an accuser, they were often times precluded from finishing 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 t;hem voluntarily to hand over their names as Christians to the Judges.(") This unseasonable eagerness to obtain the honours of martyrdom, however, having in the course of time become perniciously prevalent, it was at length deemed expedient to repress it by a law. (1) Vid. Eusebius Histor. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xxxii. p. 103, et seq. (2) The Acts of the /cfartyrdom, of Ignatius have been fiequently published, and are to be found amongst the Patres Apostolici. 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 scrupuilously 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 tribunal 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 deities; and lastly, finding him altogether inflexible in his determination not to re. nounce Christianity, he adjudged him to suffer death. We also learn from these Acts that the emperor deenmed it inexpedient to let this holy man suffer at Antioch, lest the fortitudcle which he displayed might operate to increase the veneration for his character, and also have the effect 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. Rig'alt.) as having occurred under the reign of Hadrian. Arricas Antoninzts in Asia cum persequmeretur instanter, (i. e. according to the law of Trajan he caused all such as were accused before him and convicted, to be executed,) owanes illus civitatis Chrisliani ante tribunalia ejus se manlfacta 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 themselves,) cum ille, paucis duci jussis, reliquis ail: P- Antxo i &a9Et dmr oe-vtiosuv, XHMYVS X BpoZS~ ixereI. 0 miseri, si mori vultis, nec lacus vobis desunt nec prccipilia. 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 IT.-Section 11. Although the law of which we have been speaking was not in any respect repealed or altered by the emperor HIadrian, 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 upon 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 clamour for the 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 offered, 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 was attached; whilst on the other hand it was a thing of no ordinary danger amongst the Romans to turn a deaf ear to them, or treat them with disrespect. In consequence of these tumultuary 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 indiscriminately imputed to the Christians in general, the public prejudice was in no small degree increased against the whole body of them.(2) (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. Hacdrian's Law Favoutra6le. 297 ~Moreover, it was an established privilege of the Roman people, gronncled either on ancient right or custom, of the exercise of which illntmeilable instances are to be found in the Roman history, that whenlever the eonlmontalhy werev 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 demnands thus made must be complied width. Properly this privilege belonged to the Roman people alone, whose uirfted will possessed all the force of a law, inasmruch as the supreme maje:sty of the empire was supposed to be resident therein; but by little and little the same lthing 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 certain individuals belonging to that sect, the presidents had no alternative but to comply with their demand, and sacrifice at least several innocent victims to their fury. (2) Eusebius Hislor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. vii. p. 120, et. seq. XII. Hadrian's new law in favour of the Christians. [p. 237.] This highly 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 misg'uided tumultuous rabble. Nor was the representation of this discerning and judicious man disregarded by his master: for an edict was soon after directed by Hadrian to Afinutgis F.ldcanus, the successor of Serenus, and to the other governors of provinces, forbidding them to pay attention to any such public denunciations; and signifying it to be his pleasure, that for the future no Christians should be put to death, except such as had been legitimately 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, Qua&drats and Ardiscldes, and of which we of the present day have unnfortunately to regret the loss, might have contributed not a little to the softening of the imperial mind.(2) This lenity of Hadrian towards the Christians was looked upon by some as indicative of a disposition to favour the Christian religion, and therefore, when he subsequently 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 II.-Section 12. amongst the Deities of Rome, and meant to consecrnlte these edifices to his service.(3) (1) This imperial rescript is given by Justin Martyr, in his first Apology pro Christianis, h 68, 69, p. 84, opp. edit. Benedict. and copied from thence by Eusebius, ITislto. EccZes. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 123.-That it was sent not only to Minutius, but also to the other presidents of provinces, is manifest firom a remarkabl, passage of Melito cited by Eusebius,.HListor. Eccics. 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 refused to renounce the religion which they professed should be punished ca pitally, the law of Hadrian forbids any Christian to be put to death except lihe were convicted, according to the legal and established mode, of having transgressed 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 professing 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 be 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. Si quis elgo accusal et ostendat quidcyiam 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 IHistor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. iii. with whom compare Jerome Epist. ad Magnum Oratorer, p. 656, tom. iv. opp. edit. Benedict. and in Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles. (3) Our authority for this is Lampridius in Vita Alexandri Severi, cap. xliii. who after remarking that Alexander wished to have assigned Christ a place amongst the Roman deities, continues, quod et Halrianus cogitasse fertur, qui templa in omnibus civitatibus, sine simulacris, jusserat fieri. QuXc ille ad hoc yarasse dicebatur: sed prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulentes sacra repererant, ormnes Christianos 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, Barchochba, 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; had it not been for the opinion previously entertained 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 huminanity 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 manifcst, 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 Awords are sacra Romana diligentissime curavit; peregrina contempsit. It may be added, 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. Barehochba aln 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, namned BScechocfhbat or, "the son of the star," whom his infatuated countrymen regarded as the long-promised Messiah who was to restore the fallen fortunes of the house of Israel. Impatient of the injuries and contemptuous treatment which they were continually experiencing at the hands of the lRomans, the Jews had once already, during the reign of Trajan, had recourse to arms for redress. The experiment entirely failed; but their wretchedness and calamities continuing still to increase, these hapless people, at the instigation, and underthe conduct of the above-mentioned daring character, a man thoroughly conversant in blood and rapine, were, in the year 132, induced to hazard a [p. 239.] repetition of it.(l) During the continuance of the war which he had thus excited, BacrchocThba 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 maintained 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 depopulated, the dreadful scene was closed by Hadrian's ordering Jerusalem, which had begun to revive again fTom its ashes, to be 300 Century I. —Section 13, 14. finally overthrown and laid waste, and causing a new city, call ed after himself El lia Cctpitolinca, to be erected on a part of its site('); at the same time debarring 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.(j) (1) Vid. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 6. Buxtorfius, Lexico Talmudico, voce nnn 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. Apolog. ii. pro Christianis, p. 72, edit. Paris. Hieron. Catalog. 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 Observationes Sacrce. (4) See amongst others, Justin Martyr, Dialog. curn Tryphone, p. 49. 278. edit. Jebbian. Sulpitius Severus, Histor. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. xxxi. p. 245, edit. Cleric. Hieronymus, Comment. 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 expired with him. For scarcely had Antoninuzs 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 equitable 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 Iffartyr 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, however, produced by this apology, was but trifling. At length an immediate application having been made to the emperor by several 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 HIa[p. 240.] drian, and not put any Christian to death unless it shoullld appear that he had committed some crime against the statc,(C) But even this was not found sufficient to prevent those Claristias utnder 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 afflictions 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 convicted of some sort of crime, they should be discharged with impunity, and that the punishment to which, in case of conviction, they would have been subjected, should, upon their acquittal, be inflicted on their accusers.(2) (1) This appears not only from the emperor's edict ad commune Asi(c, 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, the Thessalonians, the Athenians, and in fact to the Greek provinces in general, forbidding them to have recourse to any tumultuary proceedings against the Christians. (2) An imperial edict to this effect is extant in Eusebius (BHislor. 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 Pins, 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 MaIarcus, there are two things which in my opinion most clearly prove that Eusebius was not wrong in ascribing it to Antoninus Pius. In the first place, Eusebius copied it fiom 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. Adveersa, says Capitolinus, (in his Life of Antonine, cap. ix. p. 268. tom. i. Scriptor. Hist. August.) ejus temporibus hcc provenerunt: Fames de qua diximus, circi ruina, Terrwe Motus, quo Rhodiorum ct Ashim oppida conciderunt: qucE ornnia mirifice inslauravit. But it is clear that those of the learned who attribute this edict to the emperor Mar 3082 Centurty II.-Section 15. cus, do so merely with a view to extenuate the afflictions which the Christians suffered under Antoninus Pius, and to make it appear as if, after the slight persecution to which they were exposed at the commencement of Antoninus' reign, 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.] 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 ire straint on the officious forwardness of evil-disposed persons, yet the interests of Christianity would have been benefited in a much higher degree, had he repealed 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, suffered 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 anod the accused to be put to death; the former under the edict of Antoninus Pius, the latter under that of Trajan, which 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 Ilistory, lib. v. cap. 21. p. 189. Apollonzius, a man respectable for his gravity and learning, was, under the reign of Cornmodus, 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 haad publicly rendered an account of the religion that he professed, and openly acknowledged 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 dismissed with impunity, unless they would 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 recourse 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. XV. state of the Christians under Marcus Aurelius. The security and tranquillity enjoyed by the Christians under this edict of Antonine lasted no longer than until the year clxi, when the govermnent of the empire passed into the hands of Ha~rcus Auq'ekizts Alztonilnus, who from his great attachment to the Stoic systemr 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 /YCr7istiacs under Marcus Aurelizs. 303 was vigorously resumed; and as many of the persons thus accused 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 MJsrtyr 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 far from exciting in the mind of the emperor anything like lenity or compassion towards those on whose behalf it was drawn up, that after its appearance the calamities of the Christians were increased throughout the whole of the Roman empire. Nor did it appear sufficient to the emperor 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. 242.] to become their accusers.(') It appears, indeed, as well from other authorities, as particularly from the tract written by Atlenagoras in defence of the Christians, that Marcus did not absolutely 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;(2) 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, without either being regularly convicted of, or confessing themselves to have committed, any sort of crime, declared to have incurred the penalty of death.(3) From whence this ill-will of the emperor towards the Christians proceeded, is not to be ascertained from any memorials that have reached our times. It may, with great probability, however, be conjectured, that from the representation of the philosophers, 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.(4) (1) Mfelilo in his Apology, qpud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 304 Cea itury I.-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 fironm 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 Meelito adds, that the new imperial edict, CeviYv i' artCa, was so extremely inhuman, that the issuing of it even against barbarous enemies would not have been justifiable: Z ~o Jc6 xar& BapC6pwV rrp7rEl roxukefcv. - Melito, indeed, professes himself 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 afforded 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; anllrd 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 Domilian, assign the third place to that imperial philosopher, whose wisdom has not ceased to command admiration, even in the present day, the most sapient M1?arcus 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 enemies. For the emperors that had intervened between Domitian and him, instead of exciting, had uniformly studied to repress and discountenance any persecution of the Christians. A fact with which the emperor is in no very obscure terms upbraidled 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 TMarcus, he says, the most shameless characters, and those who were covetous of other men's property, (,fryv idxo-rpeiv ipaci,)) 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 we'alth 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 C6hristians under Marcus Aurelius. 305 delinquents had been brought to justice. Such a law might not, indeed, fail to produce its designed effect on the minds of those who coveted other men's goods, but such a law was very justly characterised by Melito, when he pronounced 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 Christians under the reign of Marcus, endeavoured with the utmost earnestness to fix on them three different species of crimes. 1st. The most unqualified impiety or atheism. 2dly. The celebrating of Thyestean bnnquets, that is, feasting on the flesh of murdered infants. 3dly. CEdipodean 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 sufficient to accuse the Christians of defection from the religion of their antcestors, and manifesting a contempt for the gods of the country, as it was under the reign of Trajan, there could have been no necessity 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 Christian to be put to dcathl unless convicted of some sort of crime, there was no other course left open to the malice and improbity of the enemies of Christianity but to devise certain heinous offences, 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 have 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 former 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 magistrates were completely tied up in regard to them. By way, therefore, of obtaining 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, attributed 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 unfortunate 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, Hislor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 2. There can be no doubt but 20 306 Century II.-Section 15. that, in the other provinces, a nearly similar course was followed; so as to preserve 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, s prince in no respect ill inclined, gave himself up to philosophical meditation, and troubled himself 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 indifference as to state affairs, 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 refuse of mankind; and upon no better evidence than that of the vilest of mortals, would condemn men as guilty, whose constancy in protesting their innocence 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 emperor MIarcus 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 forming 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 different aspect. That he was a good man, although in no small degree a superstitious 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 philosopher and man of genius, than it had ever been under that of any of the preceding emperors, who were strangers to philosophy. To the opinion of such of the learned as attribute the ill-will of Marcus Aurelius towards the Christi'ans 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 likely is it, that his immoderate lenity, which was but little removed from utter carelessness and sloth, and which originated in that stoical evenness and serenity 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 UC/rzstians under fMarcus lAurelius. 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 uprightness with which the presidents and magistrates might discharge the important duties appertaining to their various offices. 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, which it was on every account highly proper to repress; and in this opinion I am confirmed by a remarkable passage in the eleventh book of his work, De Rebus ad se pertinenlibus, d iii. wherein he professes himself to entertain but an unfavorable opinion of the fortitude and contempt of death exhibited by the Christians. Marcus himself had never seen any of the Christians encounter death; and therefore, for whatever he may have reported of their behaviour under such trying circumstances, he must unquestionably have been indebted to the magistrates, and those philosophers by whom he was surrounded, and who, of course, did not falil 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 ostentatious parade, but in a grave, considerate manner, so as to make a serious impression 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 constancy of the Christians under similar circumstances. For the former he expresses a respect; of the latter he evidently speaks with contempt. Under the influence, and with the never-failing support of reason, the philosopher is represented 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 Christians, they most certainly practised 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 I. —Section 16. they displayed on quitting this earthly state, were influenced by a much sounder judgmer t than that by which the stoic sect were governed. But it cannot excite our wonder that the emperor, after his mind had received the above impression, should deem it expedient to extirpate the Christians. Dangerous, truly, 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 proceed 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 those who make their exit on the stage, indulge in declamation, and endeavour 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 the Christian; for he, regardless of what propriety would suggest, appears to take the deaths exhibited in tragedies for his model; and when the fatal moment 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 customary for the Christians, in the concluding act of their lives, to offer up thanksgivings 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 thiings of a like kind; which could not fail 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 was 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. XVI. Afflictions of the Christians under the reign of Mlarcus. 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 Marcus Aurelius, whom posterity has been taught to regard as the best and wisest emperor that Rome 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 iMartyr, of whom we have already spoken, lfelito, bishop of Sardis, Athenagoras, a philosopher of Athens, Miltiadcle, ThPeophilus of Antioch, LTatian the Assyrian, and others CUhristians under l3farcus Aurelius. 309 whom it is unnecessary to enumerate, made it their business, in various literary productions, as well to rendler 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 some that have reached our days, but others have perished through the ravages of time.(') Amongst the many who, under the reign of Marcus, were put to death for their adherence to the religion of Christ, the most distinguished were those very celebrated characters: Justin, the philosopher, who suffered at Rome; and Polycacrp, 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.(2) To none, however, has posterity assigned a higher place in its estimation than to the Christians 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 Pothynus, the bishop 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 Mfelito 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 be found in Ruinart's Actca Martyrum sincere et selecta, and in some other works. Concerning the year and month of Polycarp's death, the rea.der may consult a very copius and learned dissertation of the Abb6 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 I.-Section 16. observed, although pre-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 Christians, 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 offences, namely, those identical crimes which, during the reign of Marcus, had been very customarily imputed to the Christians. Having in this way established somewhat of a colourable ground whereon to act, the magistrates proceeded 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 confined, however, being considerable, and one of them, a man of some consequence, named Attalus, having declared himself a Roman citizen, the president of the province seems to have felt that he had been too precipitate, and would not venture to proceed farther in the business without ascertaining the emperor's pleasure. 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." Under 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 east 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 pertinacity, (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 unfortunate 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 uncertainty as to which constituted the prevailing motive with Marcus in directing the punishment of the Christians, their religion or their crimes.-With regard to the time of this persecution, the reader will find it proved in a dissertation of mine, de Elale Apologice Alhenggorwc, (Syntam. Dissert. ad fHistor. Eccles. pertin. 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, bhut in 177. Compare Colonia, Histoire litteraire de la ville de Lyon, tom. ii. Siee. ii. p. 34. and Baralier, de Successione Romanor, Ponti. 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 multitude of Christians who suffered 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, however, that some short 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 nations; 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 enermy, 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 moment in attacking their enemies, whom this alteration in the aspect 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 faith towards 312 CenturyF II.-Section 17. him, and decreed that 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 without remark, that in this narrative there are some things manifestly false; and that, with regard to the critical fall of rain accompanied 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 through their prayers to have obtained from heaven a copious fall of rain, by which the emperor Marcus and his army were extricated from a most perilous situation, at a moment when every expectation and hope of relief had entirely vanished, a controversy 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 interference of the Deity himself, who for the moment made a change in the established order of nature for the purpose of producing an amelioration in the condition 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 arguments 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 Wilsius, on the same subject, annexed to his zEgyptiaca. Of these writers the former impugns the truth of the miracle, 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 Syntagma Dissertationum ad disciplinas sanctiores pertinentlium. 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 position. 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 affair, 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. Mosheim has here fallen into an error. Mr. MIoyle's correspondent on this occasion was not.he lord chancellor King, but the Reverend Richard KiSg, of Topshami in Devonshire. The Thzundering Legion. 313 a statement of such things as -are, or at least ought to be, granted to either party as indisputable; my next step shall be to point out what is evidently false: tand, having divested the matter of these particulars, I will in the last; place take into consideration what remains of it, and which must of necessity comprise all that 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 war with the Quadi and Marcomnnti, involved in a situation beyond all comparison perilous. Marcus was better fitted to shine as a philosopher than an emperor. Intimately acquainted as he was with the maxims and discipline of the stoics, he yet appears to have been a mere novice in the military art, and through his imprudence to have given the enenly 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 fall 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 sudden 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 sigynal deliverance to either Jupiter or Mercury. That such was 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 Themistius, but still more particularly by the column erected by Marcus himself at Rome, which remains in existence at this day, and on which Jupiler Pluvius is represented as reinvigorating 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 expressly 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 Christians in general were not such decided enemies to warfare of every kind as altogether to condemn a military life. For it can be shown that they considered such wars lawful as were necessarily entered into for the safety or defence of the empire, and had no objection to any of the brethren serving in such patriotic 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 whenever any soldiers were led to embrace Christianity, no such thing as an abandonment 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 themselves. 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 when the Roman army was reduced to such 314 Century II. —Section 17. an extremity, for want of water, as to have nothing short of utter destruction before their eyes, these Christian soldiers, conformably to the dictates of the religion which they professed, addressed themselves to God in prayers for relief. The same men would doubtless attribute the unexpected fall of rain, accompanied with thunder and lightning, and the consequent discomfiture of their enemies, to the special interference of the Almighty on their behalf; would offer up their tha.nks 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 lRomans had been saved through the prayers of the brethren. Having then thus dismissed what may be considered as certain, I next proceed to point out such particulars as cannot appear credible to any person conversant in history, and which the industry of some very eminent scholars of modern times has stripped of even that semblance of truth which they might formerly wear.-In the first place then, it is false, although apparently supported by the authority of Apollinaris as quoted by Eusebius, that there was a sepae 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 Christianity was not, under the reign of Marcus, so far countellanced, as for it to appear credible that even a separate cohort, and much less a legion of Christians should have been tolerated in the Roman armies. Since this leading circumstance then appears to have no foundation whatever in truth, it must of necessity be false, that when every hope had vanished, this legion presented themselves 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, accompani;ed with thunder and lightning took place; and finally false, that the emperor attributed.he glory of having extricated his army, to this legion, and that by way of maIli[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 fromn this miracle. The probability is, that some Christian but little acquainted with the Roman military establishment, 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 column at Rome, which was erected with the knowledge and consent of this emperor, 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 cre The T2hundering Legion. 3t5 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 denounced. 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 affairs, who lived most likely in the seventh century. Mention, however, having been made of these letters of Marcus by Terlullian, 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 through the ravages of time. The words of Tertullian are, at nos e contrario edimus protectorem si liters l1iarci Aurelii gravissimi imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam, sitim Christianorum forte nzilitum precationibus impetrato imbri 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 emperor'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 avow that the fall of rain was obtained through the supplications 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 altogether 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 enervate and render nugatory the testimony which Tertullian is supposed, in the above cited passage, to afford iin support of these letters. The first is, that from what Tertullianhas 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 Asice, 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 pcenam dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damna tion et quidem tetriore. Now the meaning of these words I take to be,,irst, 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 prohibit their being punished; secondly, that he, however, contrived in effect to render these penalties, as it were, merely nominal; or in other words, that he 316 Ceatulry IL —Section 17. wisely ordered matters so as that the judges should find it no very easy matter to bring' the Christians within 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 Tertullian 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 punishment 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 disencunlbered 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 nothing 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 droughts of summer to be succeeded [p. 253.] by copious falls of rain, accompanied with thunder and lightning in a degree truly terrific. Nor can it appear at all wonderful that some of the Under Commodits and Severus. 317 enemy should have been struck dead by the lightning, or that, in consequence thereof, their whole army should betake themselves to flight; 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. XVIII. 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 Christians 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 Ajollonius, a dignified and eminent character, who, together with his accuser, 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 capital punishment on all such Christians as might be accused before 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 elocluent defence of the Christians, the Apologeticon 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 IH —Section 18. (2) Tertullinn (in libro ad Scapulum, c. iv. p. 87, edit. Rigalt.) says, Ipse Severus paler Antonini Christian0orum memor fuil. Nam et Proculum Christianuain, qui Torpacion cognominabatur, Euhodics procuratorem, qui eum per oleum aliquando curaverat, requisivit, et in palatio suo habuit usque ad mortem ejus: quem et Antoninus optime noverat, lacle Christiano educatus. Sed et clarissimnasfaccminas et clarissimos viros, Severus sciens hujus sectla esse, non modo non laZsit, rerum etiam testimonio exornavit, et populo furenti in nos palam restlitit. 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 discovered 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 WrvS prevailed on to take part against them. The common people, at the instigaction, 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 vulgaus inquis. Ut vulgus, tamen Rogmani, nee ulli magis depostulatores Christianorum, quam vulgus. Plane coeteri ordines pro auctorilale religuiosi ex fide, nihil hoslicum de ipso senatu, de equite, de castris, de palatiis 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 iniquitate scevitic non modo ceecum hoc vulgus exultat et insultat, sed et quidam vestrum quibus favor vuigi de iniquitate captatur, gloriantur, quasi non totum quod in nos poteslis, 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 unrepealed 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 exposure of the truth, we have fully refuted all those calumnies and charges that are urged against us,) postremo legum obstruitur aucloritas adversus earn (i. e. the truth) ut aut nihil dicattur retractandulm esse post leges (i. e. that it would be ilconsistent with Roman consttncy to revoke, or deviate from, what has once been established by law,) aut ingratis necessitas obsequii prwferatur verilati, (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 letter of the law,) de legibus prius cxcurram vobiscum ut cum tutoribus legum. Now, men who could in this way ma1ke 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 faivourable to the Christians than otheriwise; at least there was not one of them ThZe Philosophers Inimical. 319 tD which a judge, if he had been so minded, might not have given a favourable interpretation. But it was necessary for these 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. Quotidie, says Tertullian, cap. vii, p. 80, obsidemur, quotidie prodimur: in ipsis plurimum catibus el cong-regcationibus nostris op- [p. 255.] primimur. So far, therefore, fiom strictly adhering to what was dictated by the laws, these most unjust judges, in the severities which they exercised towards 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 et stipitibus imponitis Christianos. Ungulis ercaditis latera Christianorum. Cervices ponimus. Ad beslias impellimur. Ignibus urimur. In metalla damnamur. In insulas releogamur. And in cap. xxx. p. 279, 280, we find nearly a similar enumeration. 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 digr up their dead bodies from the grave for the purpose of tearing them to pieces. Cap. xxxvii. p. 308. Quolies etiam prcteritis vobis (the presidents) suo jure nos inimicunm vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis, ipsis Bacchanalium feriis: nec mortuis parcunt Christiantis, quin illos de?equie sepulturce, de asylo quolam n morlis jam alios,jam nec tolos, avellant, dissecent, disirahant. 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 tlhe flame thus prevailing in the breasts of the priests and the populace, 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 vlrtue, 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 CelsuEs, yrho, towards the close of this century, attacked the Christians in a declamation teeming with invective and reproach, which, at a subsequent pe 320 Centutry I.-Section 19. Piod, was met by a very masterly refutation from the pen of Ori0 gen.(') At Rome likewise, nearly about the same time, the Christians 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 directed against Justin Martyr, who had exposed to the world the secret vices anld 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.(C) 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) Origen, who, in the third century, was induced, by the advice of Ambrosius, 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 having 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 Epicurus. and belonged to what we term 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, however, 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 this malevolent adversary chiefly grounds his attack, were not recognized by those of the orthodox faith 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 Inaimcal. 321 (2) Vid. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles, lib. iv. cp. xvi. as also the Second Apology pro Christianis, of Justin himself, in which he predicts that the philosophers, 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 JMinucius Felix which relate to this calumniator of the Christians; from one of which we learn his country, from the other his name and mode of life. In cap. x. Octavius, p. 99, where he treats of the Thyestean banquets, which the Christians were accused of celebrating, he thus expresses himself: Et cdceconvivio notum est. Passim omnes loquunt'ur. Id etiam? cirtensis?Iostri testatur oracio. 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 Ocltavius, cap. xxxi. p. 322. Sic de isto (the banquet) et tuus Fronto, non ut affirmaBr testimoniumn 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 M"Iarcus 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 assu.med to themselves the title of philosophers. But when, in the second century, certain phlilosophers of eminence became converts to the Christian scheme, such'as Justin, Athenagoras, Pantsonus, and others, without, however, renouncing either the name, garb, or mode of living of philosophers, or giving 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 accommodated itself to the form of that religion which they had espoused; and when, lastly, these same illustrious converts to Christianity made a point of exposing 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 jeopardy. They therefore united with the priesthood and the populace in clamouring for the extermination of the Christians, and whilst they endeavoured, by the propagation 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 the priesthood, that these philosophers were induced to take the field against the Christians. This war of the philosophers against Christianity had its com21 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 the 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 philosophers 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 philosophers became awakened, and a fear was excited in their breasts lest they should be despoiled of their renown, and reduced, as it were, to begglary, 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 derision with which philosophy, considered by him as the chief good, was treated by the Christians, 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 insults 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 larger churches, and such as were established in cities or towns of any note, there presided a teacher who bore the title of Bishop, and whose appointment to this office rested entirely with the people. The bishop was assisted by a council of preesblters 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 experiencing 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 religion and divine 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 Autthority of Apostolic Churches. 323 exertions of the bishop had been established in the neighbouring districts and villages, 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 congregations resided in the people; and consequently no alteration of importance, nor in fact any thing of more than ordinary moment, could be brought about or carried into effect without having recourse to a general assembly, by the suffrages and authority of which alone could the opinions and counsels of the bishop and the presbyters be rendered obligatory, and acquire the force of laws. XXI. Authorit~y 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, according 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.(1) An ancient 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 respecting 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 positions, to the voice of the apostolic churches.() WVe may, therefore, 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 Rome, those of Africa to that of Alexandria, 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 under 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 II. —Section 21. of Easter, by no means proves, as we shall presently show, that he arrogated t6 himself the power of making laws. (2) If the reader will turn to Irenueus advers. Hazres. lib. iii. cap. iii. p. 17fi. [p. 259.] ed. Massuet. and Ter'tullian de Prescript. advers. MHreticos, cap. xxxvi p. 245. ed. Rigalt. he will find two very notable passages, in which these illustrious writers, in their dispute with the Gnostics, make their appeal to the apostolic churches. Between these passages there is such an accordance and similitude, that I can scarcely doubt but that Tertullian, at the time of his writing, had Irenweus, (whom he had certainly read, as appears from his book, contra Valentinianos, cap. v.) before his eyes, and intentionally imitated him. The Gnoslics, finding themselves hardly pressed by the authority of the sacred writings, 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 couldc adcluce nothing whatever in support of this ridiculous assertion; and their opponents might therefore have contented themselves with calling upon them, as they certainly with the greatest propriety might have done, to prove what they thus alleged.'Tcrlullian and Irenacus, however, adopted a different mode of depriving them of this subterfuge, and exposing to the world its utter fllsity, namely, that of appealing to the apostolic churches. Their train of argument is this:-If it were true that the apostles had orally tralnsmitted a docrine different froml 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 wvhieh 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 friom their founders, there is not a single one that gives the least countenance to the fables and idle dreams of the Gnostics. We maintain, therefore, tllhat 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 fiom 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, Irencrus 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 are justified in doing so by the example of the primitive Christian teachers. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian most obviously agree in this, that they place all the 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 2cclesias aposlolicas, apud quas ipsc adhuc cathedrce apostolorum suis locis president. - - C Proxima est tibi Achaia; habes Corinthum. Si non longe abes a.Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicences. Si poles in Asiam tendere, [p. 260.] habes Ephesum. Si autem Italice adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctorilas prxcsto 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 Roman church is indeed considered by him as having been more fortunate, inasmuch as it had been blessed with the presence of Peter, Paul, and John, who poured out their blood in the cause of Christ: Ista quam felix ecclesia! cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt; ubi Petrus passioni dominicx adxcquatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronaturt; ubi apostolus Jo. hannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur. But so far from giving countenance to the idea of a greater power with regard to determining controversies respecting religion, being possessed by the church of Rome than by that of Ephesus or any other apostolical church, he in effect gives it a direct negative. Irenus, 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 authority of all the apostolic churches in determining the controversy that had arisen between the orthoclox Christians and the Gnostics, was precisely equal. Traditionem, says he, apostolorum in tobo mundo manifeslatam, in omni ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre. — Elenim si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, quce seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime Ira. derent ea, quibus etiam ipsas ecclesias commitlebant. Most assuredly Irenmus would not have written thus, he would not have spoken generally of all the 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 the 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 ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximre et antiquissimce ecclesice traditionem indicantes, confundimus omnes. Tertullian and Irenaeus agree also in th;i f+lat they pass 326 Century II.-Section 21. over, without the slightest notice, that church, which it is natural to regard as 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. Irenaeus 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 wonder 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, ~Elia Capitolina, and which assumed to itself the title of the church of Jerusalem, was altogether a distinct assembly from the ancient and original congregation. In these respects, then, we see that Ireneus and Tertullian are in perfect harmony with each other; but in what further relates to the church of Rome, we shall find them considerably at variance. Irenaus 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 Irenveus, speaks only of tho 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. Irenceus 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 beneficence 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, namnely, that of exalting herself to a superiority over the other Christian churches. But Tertullian was an African, and it is well known that the African 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 Irenhus, as must be manifest 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 Irenheus on the Roman church, which Ren. Massuetus pronounces to be a grievous stumbling block to all who have quit. Authority of.Apostolic Churches. 327 ted the church of Rome and shaken off the yoke of the Catholic faith; which the fiiends of the papacy consider as the very citadel of that 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 remarlks of others on the subject, 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, appears to me to be the ttruth.-After stating that in his opposition to the Gi:ostics, 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; Irenmus thus proceeds: ad hanc enim ecclesiam, (the church of Rome,) propter potiorem riincipalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quc est [p. 262.] ab apostolis tradilto. These, then, are the words which have given rise to such subtile and laborious disquisitions. But, let them be twisted in any manner whatever, 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 appear to have been hastily formed, let it only be considered in a general way.. 1. That the sense in which the words of Ireneus are to be understood, is altogether 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 meanino 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 ecclesiarm Romanam? In vain will it be for us to pretend to ascertain the sense of this passage, until the original Greek of Irenmus be recovered. II. That Irenaeus is speaking of the 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 transmitted 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, fiom:L passage in Irenmeus, pretend to ascertain what are at present the rights and power of the Roman pontiff. III. That this is the testimony of a private ildi 328 Century IL.-Sectiom 21. vidual, of one that was nothing more than the bishop of a small, insignificant church, that had 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 prejudice. But who is there, possessed of but merely common sense and information, that would recognise in the dicta or precepts of any private individual, and more especially in those of an individual who had betrayed 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 so disposed, we can meet Irenwus with an authority not at all inferior to himself, either in point of judgment or of talents, namely Tertullian, 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 maintain, upon the authority of Irenteus, we shall assume to ourselves the liberty of denying, upon the authority of Tertullian. Having, then, premised thus much in a general way, let us now direct our attention more particularly to the words of Irenmeus. Necesse est, he tells us, [p. 263.] omnem ecclesiam convenire ad ecclesiam Romanam; and for this he assigns two reasons; the first, propter potiorem principalitalem; the second, quid semraer in ea conservatace est aposlolorum 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 conrvenire ad ecclesiam Romanam, it should seem most likely that we ought to understand accedere ad Romanam eccZesiam, or coalsulere ecclesiam Romanam, and that what Ireneus 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 apostles themselves. But if such be this father's 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 pouwer even of the most subtile disputant, to make it appear that Ireneus 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 iraditio 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 quta iraditio apostolorum con. servata est, et semper conrservabitur. As to the first reason given by Irenamus, namely, propter poliorem principalitatem, it is altogether involved in obscurity and doubt. For principalilas is such an ambiguous word, and admits of being Confederation of UC/urches. 329 used in such a variety of senses, that, owilng to the neolitence of lreilal.s, or his Latin translator, in not more particularly indicating what he meant by it,,. degree of darkness, not easy to be dispelled, is thrown over the whole of this sentence. The conjecture that strikes me as the most plalusible in reglard to it, is, that by the word principalitas, Irenmus mihllt mean those four honourable distinctions appertaining to the church of Rome, which he had just before enlumerated, namely, magnitude, antiquity, celebrity, uand apostolical origin. Maximce, says he, et antiquissimcc, et omnibus cognitcc, a gloriosissimnis duobus ap stolis, Petro et Paulo,fundatc et constitute ecclesix. In these, probably, consisted that potlior principalitas which Irenneus 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 extending 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 government 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 insignificant 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.] though, therefore, 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 tenets, 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 originate with, had, at least, received the sanction of the people 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 republics, a convention, in which the common interests and welfare of the whole were taken into consideration and provided for. Of the immediate authors of this arrangement we are uninformed, 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 II.-Section 22. it did not extend itself beyond the confines of Asia. In process of time, however, the very great advantages attending on a federation of this sort becoming apparent, other provinces were induced 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 conventions or assemblies, in which the delegates from various associated 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 Je/uniis, cap. xiii, p. 711. opp. edit. Rigalt. Tertullian is advocating the cause of the MAontanists, 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 fhsts prescribed by the Montanists, 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 respondelis hacc [p. 265.] ex arbitri', agenda, non ex imperio. In this age, therefore, the nature and character of the true religion continued to be well understood by the generality 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 humanme licebit voluntali quam divina: polestati? Ego me seculo, tnon Deo liberum memini; sic meum est ultro oficium facere Domino, sicut indicere illius 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 asserted, 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 Churiches. 331 power of enjoining fasts, as also, in cases of great emergency, of imposing extraordinary contributions on the people. Bene autem quod el episcopi universae plebi mandare jejulia assolenlt: non dico de industria slipium conferendarum, ut vestrce captura: est: sed interdum et ex aliqua sollicitudinis ecclesiasticce 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 primitive 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 occasion, 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 sufficient. In the first place, he might enjoin fasts; for since everything relating to the service of God was placed immediately under the care and direction of the bishop, and fasts 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. menl;. 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 consequence of an admonition from the bishop. These contributions he divides into ordinary and extraordinary. The words, ut veslrac capturce est, relate to those of the ordinary kind. Captura has here the meaning of reditus, (incomrne, 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 defiayment of which the 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. Dispensatur, says he, nazfragiis, et si qui in metallis, et si qui in insulis, vel in custodiis duntaxat ex causa Dei sectal alumni confessionis suac fitunt. 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 Nwith 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 ordinary contributions required of them by the bishop; for I know that no one as to 332 Century II.-Section 22. this acts friom 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 prtcterea per Greccias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qua et altiora qucaque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reprcesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebraIur. 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 Greocias, 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 having 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 discussion and arrangement of points of a higher and weightier nature, or such as were of general interest and importance. (Sthly,) 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 always in the names of the churches of [p. 267.] which they were respectively the delegates. Reprasentatio, says Tertullian, totius nominis Christiani celebralur. Now toturnm nomen Christianumn evidently, in this place, means, tota ecclesia, the whole church bearing the name of Christ. The bishops, therefore, were considered as representing, collectively, the 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 function 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. CUonfederation of Chu0rches, 333 num fide auspicante congregari undique ad Chrislum? Vide quamr bonum et quam jocunldum habitare fratres in unum. 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 prayer and fasting: Conventus autem illi stationibus prius et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum dolentibus et i/ta demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt. It appears, therefore, that ecclesiastical councils had their origin amongst the Greeks ill the second century, and that their utility becoming. manifest, they were gradually adopted by the church at large.-The information thus afforded by Tertullian, with respect to the origin of councils, is supported by the general history of Christian affairs; 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 them 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, tHistor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxiii. p. 190, 191, where mention is made of councils held about the end of the second century 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 council of the Italian bishops was convened at Rome by the Roman pontiff Victor. Vid. Pet. Coustant. Epist. Romanor. Pontificum, tom. i. in Victore, { 4. p. 94. and others. In proof of this, they quote the following words of Eusebius: Px)'rW)v i~ri' P6Srn J a' o iAot'o S ta'Nsn grgg irg sects, pa'rticularly the Platonic and the Aristoteiall, were agreed as to everything of 1moment, is distinctly unfolded by that illustrious disciple of the Ammonilan school, Hierocles: (Lib. de Fcato apud Phot. Biblioth. cod. ccxiv. and cod. cecli. 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. XXOIX. 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 dcmons, and the like. Agreeably, for instance, to what we well know to have been the doctrine maintained by the Phitosophy of Amnmonius. 355 Egyptian philosophers of old, he contended that every thing was a constituent part of one great whole:(Q) 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 eqcual in point of nature, but of very different degrees; that they were all, without exception, the offspring of the divine essence, and had, therefore, formerly all partaken 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: (2) 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 ascend in spirit to the parent of' all things, and to strive by every means in his power to hold communion with him. From minds of. the higher order, or, as they were termed, dclemons, the Deity had, he asserted, given to the different nations of the earth superintendents and guardians, and to the different departments of nature governors and directors. Certain of these, distinguished beyond the rest for their virtue and power, he considered as presidingc over the sun, the moon, the planets, and the other stars; whilst of the remainder, to whoam was entrusted the care of inferior and terrene things, many were actuated by vicious propensities; 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.(3) In the last place he exerted every possible ingenuity and address in giving to the dogmas of the remaining 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 II.-Section 29. ever he met with arny thing in either of these that could by no means be brought to harmonise therewith, he rejected it as totally unfounded in reason.(") (1) That the whole system of the Ammonian philosophy was built on that discipline which was professed by the Egyptian priests, and which they made it their boast to have derived fiom Hermes, is to be proved, as well from a variety of other things, as in particular from this, that the very same dogma on which 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. that all things are firom God, all things are in God, anzd all things are one; God and the universe constitute one whole, nor can they be separated except in imagination. Those who are conversant in the antiquities of Egrypt, 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 HIermes Trismegistus, and which, from its being generally thought to have been translated into Latin by Apuleius, is commonly printed amongst the worlks 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 Cudworth 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 whole 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 irom all eternity to have emanated from God? Only let us attend to the prayer of Plotinus, the most famous 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. M;XXOv o 7eXeri,7rv - - Trov - rt ie'I ia' m VoW Gt at, a-rbag rgpu~atL -rv y 9V Tv4 $eV a dv6.yetv 7rgoT 76 tv TXe3 AravrLi Siov. Qtunr vero morti appropinquarel ----- adhuc te, inquit, expec'o, atque equide jam jam n nitor, quod in nobis divinum est ad divinun ipsum quod viget in utniverso redigereo (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; soxmeL pi.v dtcrXuvoFtvco ar7t Ev o'oriarmt ee, pudore quodam fflici videbaltr, 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 froin the wisdom of the Egyptians; in not a few things, however, the congruity between them is absolute 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 Timceus, although he maintained that the matter of this world is eternal, yet drew a dis Philosophy of Amrnmonzzs. 357 tinction between it and God, and conceived that it was with the assent and by the 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 Ammonius have exerted their abilities to the utmost, and have turned and twisted the Timcus 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 Timwaus 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 subtilty 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 observance, but suffered them to live agreeably to the laws of nature 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 communion 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 Orph'ic;(') 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 the mind from the senses and call it off from visible objects, to strive by means of contemplation to subdue the 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.(2) These obligations, 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 cday.(3) 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 consecrating 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 dcmons, 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 Modern Platonic school, but only by those of the higher order, who aspired to a sort of superiority over the rest. In fact, an acquaintance with it was considered rather as ornamental than useful, and as by no means necessary in attaining to the chief good.(') [p. 290.] (1) Plato in lib. vi. de Legibus, p. 626. ed. Ficin. in treating of mankind during the primeval ages, observes anmongst other things, Sa~gxcv J idT lX vro. V'0X Ooo v 0 it iv, x), S 9 rS rov Lsyo v Rw(,Ce aiati maiveiv. dsXa'OgPo't TIv/n6 X90itUpV0OiOl O'L4YlVOVTO;1iV qOY Tc TOT~, dvUXwOv ICuY 9XCpvYOL 7Lvl'rWv, 4i6CCvY JS rsVaV-rCOv rtvrPwr dcrxC:vYot. Carnibus vero abstinebant. Nam vesci carzibus el Deorzum aras polluere sangunine impium videbatur. Pa r0 phica quadtcm vita tunc vigebat. Iznanimatis quippe omnibus vescebantur et ab animatis omnibus abstinebant. Philosophy, of Armmonius. 359 (2) More in the way of illustration, as to what we have here stated, is to be gathered from Porphyry alone, in his work r..a diroXis, or concerning abstinence from flesh, than from all the rest of the Ammonian sect of his timle put together. For, although he abounds in subtilty, he yet surpasses, in point of perspicuity, every other of the Modern Platonists, and treats not only df abstinence, but likewise of those other duties which he considered as attaching' themselves to the character of a wise man. Vid. lib. i. d xxvii. et seq. 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 Pythagor"as, Simplicius, Jamblicus, and others, are replete with Christian phrases and expressions; and their conclusion has been, that these things were pilfered out of the sacred Nwritings, and thus applied by the followers of Ammonius, from an anxious desire to recommend their discipline by rendering it apparently consistent with the doctrines of Christianity. With regard to this, the reader may consult a dissertation of mine, de Stludio Ethnicorum Chrisiianos imilandi, 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 considerable 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 fiom 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, olr from a downright error in judgment, he encouraged the opinion that there was no difference whatever, at least none of any monment, between the system of discipline which he himself sought to establish as the 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 communicated 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 indeed could be more easy than for the Egyptians, who believed that the universe was filled with good and evil daemons, to fall into the error of imagining that there was an art, by means of which the good will of these dremons might be obtained. The nature of this science is sufficiently explained by Augustine de Civitate Dei, lib. x. cap. ix. p. 187. tom. vii. opp. T'heurgiam, says lie, Porphyrius ulilem esse dicit mundandE parti animae, non. quidem intellectuali, qua rerum intelligibilium percipitur veritas nullas habentium similitudines corpo'rum, [p. 291.] sed spiritali, qua corporalium rerum capiutntur imagines. Hanc enim dicil per quasdam consecrationes Theurgicas, quas teletas vocant, idoneam Jieri atque aplam 360 Century II. -Section 31. susceptioni spiriluum et angcelorum et ad videndos Deos. The rational soul de. rived no benefit whatever from this science, and it was, therefore, very possible for any one to be happy 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 tamen, continues Augustine, Theurgicis tdletis fatetur intellectuali animan nihil purgationis accedere, quod earn faciat idoneam ad videndurm Deum suum, perspicienda ea quce vere sunt (viz. ra o'Yra). —-- Denique animam rationalem -- in sujperna posse dicit evadere, etiamsi quod ius spiritale est, nulla Theurgica arte fuerit purgatum: porro autem a Theurgo spiritalem purgari hactenus, ut non ex hoc ad immortalitatem, acternitatemque perveniat. 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 duration. Each, during its continuance 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 himself; 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 impurities, this kind of soul becomes capable of perceiving dremons and angels, and of maintaining a familiar intercourse with them. Nor is this at all to be wondered at; for the denmons, 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, notwithstanding 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 dmmons. For it possesses not the faculty of perceiving sensible things, and is therefore incapable of discerning such natures as are joined to bodies, although those bodies may be of a subtile 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 Anzmonius. 361 ferent popular religions. In order that the different popular religions by which a plurality of Gods was recognized, might not appear repugnant to his doctrine, Ammonius endeavoured to reduce the whole history of the heathen deities, as it had been handed down by the poets and inculcated by the priests, to somewhat 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 priesthood commonly honoured with the name of gods, he would not allow to be actually gods, but merely the ministers of God, or dsemons, 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 administration and guidance of human affairs and actions.(2) To these agents of Divine Providence he thought it reasonable that a certain sort of honour and worship should be paid: just as amongst men a certain degree of attention and respect is shown to the legates 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 allied 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 prayers of this kind were to be regulated by reason and wisdom, since the good things that were placed at the disposal of these dsemons were those which concerned merely the welfare 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 the heathen gods into a sort of philosophy. As a specimen, we refer the reader to Porphyrius de Antro Nympharum apud Homer. de Styge, and others of his smaller pieces. (2) Paulus Orosius, Historiar. lib. vi. cap. i. p. 364, 365. Quidamr dum in mnultis Deum credunt, minulos Deos indiscreto timore finxerunt. Sed hinc jam Vel maximne, cum zauctoritate veritatis (that is, the Christian religion) operante, tumrn ipsa eliam ratione discutiente, discessum est. Quippe cum et philosophi eorum [p. 293.] --- dum intento mentis studio quacrunt, scrutaantrque omnia, unum Deum auctorem omnium repererunt, ad quem unum omnia referrentur; unde etiam nune pagani, quos jam declarata veritas (i. e. the Christian religion) de contlmacia magis, quam de ignorantia, convincit, cum a nobis discutiuntur, non se plures Deos sequi, sed sub uno Deo magno plures ministros venerari falentur. XXXII. The tenets of Ammonius respecting Christ. With a view to render Christianity apparently consistent with his new philosophy 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 dramons: 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 &emons 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 perversions, 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 ingenuity to render by any means subservient to his purpose, he pronounced 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 interpolations, were those which respected the divinity of Christ, the salvation obtained through hin for the human race, the abandoning the worship of a plurality of gods, and adoring the one only Su Amnnonius' Itoea of Christ. 363 preme Being. None of these points, he contendedl, had ever been inculcated by Christ himself, nor had he forbidden the paying of an honorary worship to all dcemons indiscriminately, but only to such as were of an evil nature. When in the following age 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 daemons, the philosophers of the Ammonian school maintained that several of the more eminent of the Pagan worshippers, such as Apollonius Tyanaus, Pythagoras, Euclid, Apuleius, and others, had immortalized their names by miracles equally great and splendid with those which had been wrought by Christ.(') (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 of 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 injuries to the Christians, 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, should either think or speak otherwise than honourably of this same Christ. 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 renounced by a man who, in departing from the true and right faith, 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 exuberant imagination. The reader will probably not be displeased at my adducing some passages from ancient authors in support of what I have thus advanced. Aug'usline enters much into dispute with those philosophers of his time who professed a respect and veneration for Christ, but maintained that the Christians lhad not adhered to the principles of their master. Lib i. de Consensu Evangelisitarum, tom. iii. P. II. opp. cap. vi. 0 xi. p. 5. Hoc dcicunt, says he, illi'el maxime Pagani, qui Dominum ipsum Jesum Christun cu/pare aunt blasphemare non audent, eique Iribuunt excellentissiman sapientiam, sed tamen tanquam homini: discipulos vero eus, dicunt, magisro suo suo anius tribuisse quam erat, nt exum Filiu/,z Dei dicerent, et Verbum Dei per quodfacta sunt omnia, et ipsum ac Deum patrein 364 Century II. —Section 32. unum esse: ac si qua similia sunt in apostolicis literis, quibus eum cum Patre unum Deum colendum esse didicimus: honorandum enim tamquam sapientissimum v)irum putant; colendum aulem tumquam Deum negant. Some little while after, d 14. cap. viii. p. 6. he gives us to understand what opinion they entertained respecting Christ's miracles, namnely, 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. lia vero isli desipiunt, ut illis libris, quos eum (Christ) scripsisse existimanz, dicant contineri eas artes, quibus eum putant illa fecisse miracula quorum fama ubique percrebuit: quod existimando se ipsos produnt quid diligant 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 particularly by that illustrious star of the Ammonian school, Porphyry. Cap. xv. p. 8. [p. 295.] Quid? Quod isti vani Christi laudatores et Christiance religionis obliqui obtrectatores propterea non audent blasphemare Chrisurm, quia quidam philosophi eorum, sicut in libris suis Porphyrius Siculus prodidit, consuluerunt deos suos quid de Christo responderrent, illi autem oraculis suis Christum laudare compulsi sunt. - Ac per hoc isti, ne contra dcleorum suorum responsa conentur, continent blasphemias 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 Civiltae Dei, cap. xxiii. p. 428. et seq. tom. vii. opp. from Porphyry's work de Philosophia ex Oraculis. Amongst other things he remarks, Dicit etiam bona philosophus iste dc Chrislo.- Denique tanquam mirabile aliquid atque incredibile prolaturus, prccter opinionem, inquit, profecto quibusdam videatur esse quod dicturi sumus; Christum enim dii piissimum pronuntiaverunt et immorlalem factum, et cumr bona prcadicacione ejus meminerunt: Christianos vero pollutos inquit, et contaminatos et errore i2nplicalos esse dicunt, et mullis 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 Demonsiratio Evangel. lib. iii. cap. viii. p. 134. Another oracle, bearing in like manner honourable testimony to the character of Christ, namely, one delivered by the 1Milesian Apollo, is to be met with in Lactantius Institut. 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 nonz intelligat aut ab hlomine callido eoque Christianis inimicissimo hlec oracula futisse conficta, aut consilio simili ab impuris dccmonibus ista fuisse responsa; ut scilicel quoniam laudant Chrisium propterea veraciter credantur vituperare Christianos; atque ita, si possint, intercludant viam saluiis ceternce, in qua fit quisque Christianzus. To this opinion of Auoustine, that these oracles were the inventions of the enemies of the Christilns, I very readily subscribe. The philosophers, the adversaxies of the Christians, as Aucgustine expressly states in the foimer-cited passage, consulted the heathen deities respecting the character of Ammoniuts' Idea of Christ. 365 Christ; and the priests of those deities, without doubt, returned an answer conformably 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 different 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 offensive, 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.] nate 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 side. 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 entertained by these philosophers respecting Christ and the Christians. They denied that it had been Christ's intention to abrogate the worship of the heathen deities. Verunzamen, says he, de Consens. EvangelisZar. lib. i. cap. xvi. p. 8. isti ita disputant, quod hcec eversio templorum, et damnatio sacrificiorum, et confractio simulacrorum non per doctrinam Christi fiat, sed per discipulorum ejus, quos aliud quam ab illo didicerunt, docuisse contendunt; ita volentes Christianam fidem, Christum honorantes 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. Ila enim volunt et ip sum credi, nescio quid aliud scripsisse, quod diligunt, nihilque sensisse contra deos sueos, sed eos potius magico rilu coluisse; et disciypulos ejus non solum de illofuisse mentilos, dicendo ilium Deum, per quem facta sunt omnia, cum aliud nihil quam homo fuerit, quamvis excellentissimxc sapientice; rerum etiam de diis eorum non hoc docuisse quod ab illo didicissent. They were ready, however, to admit that Christ had abolished the worship of certain dnmons of the inferior order, and had enjoined men to address themselves to the deities of heaven alone, and more particularly to the Supreme Governor 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. l iv. p. 430. tom. vii. opp. Sunt (the reader will recollect that it is Porphyry who is speaking) spiritus terreni minimi loco quodam malorum dcemo7nurm potestati subjecti. Ab his tapientes Hebrceorum quorum unus isle eliam Jesus fuit; ab his ergo Hebrcci dccmonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus vetabant religiosos et ipsis vacarc prohibebant: venerari autemr magis ccelestes deos, amplius autem venerari Deum patrerm. 3 6 C(eltLury L —Section 32. lc acl/em el dii p?' ccipiun, et in superioribtus ostendimus, quemadmodum animumr advterlere ad D,3~,nm monem, et illnum colere ubique imperant. Verum indocti et inmpci nalurc (i. e. the Christians) quibus vere fattum non concessit a diis dona obutinere, neque habere Jovis immorlalis notionem, non audientes et deos (i. e. those orancles which he had antecedently adduced) et divinos viros, (Ammonius, whom, it appears from the testimony of Hierocles apud Phot. Biblioth. p. 283. they were accustomed to style %oJtJa7ro0, Plotinus, whom, in like manner, they termed 2edos, and others who had been taught by these,) deos quidem omnes ro [p. 297.] cusaverunt, prohibilos autem dcemones, et hos non odisse sed revererq Deum autem simulantes colere, ea sola per quxc Deus adoratur, non aft-at. 11Narm Deus quidem utpole omnium paler nullius indiget (i. e. he delights not in sacrifices and victims), sed nobis est bene cum eum perjuslitiiam et castitatem alias que virlutes adoramus, ipsam vitam precem ad ipsum facienles per imitationem el inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisilio enim purgat, (by inquisitio he here means contemplation, meditation, and the abstraction of the mind from the senses; a mind to which this kind of discipline had become familiar, was considered by the Modern Platonists as in the highest degree purified and cleansed,) imittio dei. ficat afectionem ad ipsum operando. He (Porphyry) had said a little before, Anima (of Christ) aZiis animabus fataltier dedil errore implicari. Proplerea ergo diis exosi i- pse vero (Christ) pius et in ccelum sicut pii concessit. Itaque hunc quidem non blasphemabis, misereberis anuem hominvum dementiam, ex eo in eis facile prcecepsque periculum7. What we hear from Porphyry, that illustrious enemy of the Christians, we may consider ourselves as hearing from Ammonius 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 their object, in a certain degree, to reconcile the maxims of the Egyptian and ancient Platonic philosophy 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 demoens and spirits, their tenets respecting the nature of God and the human soul, and the opinions they avowed respecting the world and its origin. Most assuredly nothing can be more apparent 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 discipline 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, according 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 (wvn principles so as to make them coincide with the maxims of Christianity. Hence it came to pass that the greaterpart of these Platonists, upon comparing the Christian religion with the system of Ammonius, were led to imagine that nothing could be more easy thain a transition from the one to the other, and, to the great detriment Bibl'ical 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 passage as to this occurs in Augustine's book, de Vera Religione, cap. iv. d vii. p. 559. tom. i. opp. Ilaque si hanc viiam illi viri nobiscum rurtsus agere potuissent, viderent profecto, cujus auctoritate facilius consuleretur hominibus, et paucis mulat tis verbis et sententiis Christiani fierent, sicut plerique recenZiorum nostrorumque temporum Platonicifecerunt. See also his epistle to Dioscorus, ep. lxviii. [p. 298.] xxi. & xxxiii. p. 255. 260. tom. 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 Tyanecus, Pythagoras, and other philosophers who were renowned for their miracles; and that Philostratus wrote the life 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 Iamblicus and Porphy1 ry's life of Pythagoras. Those who undertook the idle and absurd task of mnaking 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 deprive 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. Thie only thing s, therefore, for which they contended in this way, were these two: FTirst, 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 mIen, 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 daemons, (i. e. the heathen deities,) or tihe ancient popular religions, since the most religious of the heathen worshippers had distinguished themselves by miracles, even as he. These very Lives, therefore, of the ancient philosophers, and the comparisons therein drawn between them and Christ, most plainly prove that the sect of Ammonians or that of the Modern Platonists held the character of Christ in very great honour, although they vilified and would willingly have altogether extirpated the Christians. XXXIII. Forced interpretation of the Scrliptures. Whel olnce this passion for philosophising had taken possession of the minds of the Egyptian teachers and certain others, and had been gradually 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 discipline. This very important and deeply to be regretted cha-nge 368 Century IL —Section 33. 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 immoderate 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,(1) no sooner did this passion for philosophising take possession of their minds, than they began with wonderful 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 attention 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 Pantmenus 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, PAilo, whose writings they assiduously studied, and whose empty wisdom they were unhappily led to admire and to imitate.(2) (1) In the writings of fathers, even of this century, express notice is occasionally taken of those four senses of Scripture to which tilhe Christian expositors 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 l/artyr, (Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 333. edit. Jebbian.) who, after making some remarks as to the sense attached to the words of the sacred volume, adds, Sat tag Ev ragaCoXi Xtaov rroXXaX KaXtv dirihJlta ro-, Xgeotv xai tv rgoaoXota'Iat@C xai'IogaiX. Nam per parabolam, (that to which Justin here applies the term Parable, is, by subsequent Christian writers, denominated Allegory, or the allegorical sense,) illum (i. e. Isaiah) persaepe Christum vocare lapidem ostendi, et tropologice Jacobum 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 examples 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. BJblicat intierpreaftion, 369 vrnal different senses, from the Jews, no one, at present; app,ears in the least t dc ubt. It LS, moreover, to be remarked, that, although Justin, Iremenas, and the other fathers of this century, whose writings have come down to our times, are continually obtruding on us mystical and allegorical interpretations of thle 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 words 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 alnost wholly effaced, bhad their origin in Egypt, and were thence communtoicated to the other churches. This province also gave birth to tle dis- [p. 300.] commendable practice of glossing over philosophical opinions with the words of Scripture, or rather of straining scriptural phrases and expressions in support of such maxims a.s might appear to be dictated by reason. The first Christians who nmade this art their study were Panfcenus and Clement, successively przfects of the catechetical school of Alexandria; men of unquestionable worth and piety, but immoderately devoted to what they deemed the true philosophy. lt appears from St. Jerome, Caial. Scriptor. Eccl. cap. xxxvi. that many commentatries on the Holy Scriptures by Parztcenus were formerly extant; but they have all long since fallen victims to the ravages of time. The manner, however, in which he expounded the sacred writings, may be collected fromt the works that are extant of his disciple and successor, Clement of Alexanldria, One of his rules of interpretation, in particular, is preserved by Clement in his s'clogae ex Scriptureis Prophetsarum, subjoined to his works, l vi. p. 1002. edit. Potterian. Pantxnrs, it there appears, laid it down as a maxim, that the prop hets, in what they uttered, spake for the most part indefinitely, using the present tense, at one and the same time, both for the future and prmterite. Taking this rule of his preceptor for his guide, in expounding the words of David, Psal. xviii. 6. Et in sole posuit tabernacuhlun sur'., Clement, first of all, assumes that they are to be understood as relating to Christ, land then goes on to expound the prlolterite posuit as referring both to the past time and the future; and, proceeding upon this plaln, the words 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 Pantenus 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 exposition of the Holy Scriptures, so as to admit of their being.a rcommodated, ad libi. tu2nm to the occurrences of past as well as future times, Let us assume merely what Pantaanus 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 I L-Section 33. may not be wonderfully dilated, acld absolutely loaded, as it were, with a va. riety of senses or irterpretations.- Clement, the disciple of Pan'tenus, was the author of a work of considerable lengtll, to which he gave the title of Hypoty. poses, and in which he is said to have given anl exposition of nearly all the sacredL 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 Writings 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 Stromala, lib. i. cap. xxviii. p. 426. we find it asserted, that the Mosaic laws have a fout-fold sense; r- rgaX,4s Jd`; S.,v t.,Xr-.'tov r, vIlu vriv Aix~IYv. He, however, enumerates only three of those senses: the mystlical, the moral, and the prophetical. Every law, according to him, in the first place, represents some sigz, that is, the words of the law are images of other things, and, in addition to thleir proper sense, have an improper or secondary one also attached to them. Secondly. every law comprises a precept for the right ordering of life. Thirdly, every law, like a prophecy, predicts somethilg future. As Clement enumerates only three senses in which the law [p. 301.] is to be understood, althoulgh lie speaks of four, Hervetus, his trans. lator into Latin, conjectures that in the word * g —tcLs there is a corruption, and that, instead of it, we ought to read BgutXs. 3But 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 require pointing out, and particularizes merely the three less evident ones. For the investigating these recondite senses of the Mosaic law with effect, lie deems philosophy, or the dcilectie art, an highly necessary auxiliary. Atirhix Svosr' 7rgroOLrtov dVUrT, )v d.oxu&btiV'rng.$3'ia cbcJsr'fxa.&At'a go.G. Est autem valde dialectice ad legrem accedendum consequeninam, (i. e. the recondite and abstruse senses of the law,) divincc doctrincc venanlibus. 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. Clenmenct also agrees with Philo Judeus in the opinion that the Greek philosophers derived (all their principles from Moses. Vid. Siromat. lib. ii. cap. v. p. 439. Whatever, therefore, appears to him just and consonant to reason in the maximns 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 estatblish, 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, ancld Hagar, as given by Moses. Clement's manner of doing it is this: (Sromatl. 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 wisdo4m. Abraham lived with Sarall, for a long lime, in a state of connubial sterility. Biblical Intearpretat'on. 371 The inferencie from this, accordi ng to Clement, is, that a Christian, as long as he confines himself to the study of divine wisdom and religion alone, will never bring forth ainy great or excellent firuits. Abraham, then, with the consent of' Sarall, takes to him Hagar; which proves, according to Clement, that a Christian ought to embrace the wisdom of this world or philosophy, and that Sar-ah or divine wisdom wvill not witlhhold her consent. Lastly, Abraham, after itinaar had borne him Ismael, resumed his intercourse with Sarah, and of her begat Isaa.: of this the import is, that a Christian, after having once thoroughly groundecd himself in human learning and. philosophy, wvill, if he then devotes himself to the cultulre of divine wisdom, be capable of propagating the race of trlue Christians, and of rendering essential service to the church.-Plato and his disciples maintained that 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 contelnd, thlt 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 intellecltual world, or that which is imperceptible to the senses, he finds alluded to in the first words of Gezeesis: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth; but the earth was (dai-grog) 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 risible or corporeal world, ~Stromat. lib. v. p. 702. et seq. [p. 302.] This absurd art of perverting and straining the Holy Scriptures did not, however, originate with the profects of the cateehetical 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 lie 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, therefore, Origenv who ought to be telrmed the parent of allegories amongst the Christians, but Philo. Indeed this has been aiready very justly remarked by Photius,who observes, (in Biblioth. cod. cv. p. 278.)'Et C oilp a dI 7rtim i dX o g'o nciS rim1 agap is EI rv t5 htNsri, XaoOS Elsxs aX}i'v dtzrvimc.t. Et veto ab hoc arbilror omezem allegoricum Sacrcc Script'urc ser?nonem in ecclesiam pr'omanasse. This indeed is not altogether true, sineo many of the Jews, and in particular the Phanrisees and Essenes, had indulged much in allegories before the time of Philo; but of this there can be no doubt, that the prnefects 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, fr'om Philo, and that by theml it was gradually propagated amongst the Christians at large. It is also equally ceirtain that by the writings and example of Philo, the fondness for allegories was vast-:y augmented and confirmled througlhout the whole Christian wvorld: a.nd it moreover appears, that it was he who first inspired the Christianas witlh tehat degree of temerity which led them, not unfriequently, to violate thle flithl ofhlistory, and wilfully to close their eyes against the obvious and propel soakse of terms and words. The exanples of this most presumptuous bolcldnos thlat. occur in the writings of Philo are indeed but rare: particular instvuc. o~f ~t, hct. wever, fF72 Czentuwy HI —Section 34. are not, wanting; as may easily be shown from Origen:and others who took him for their guide, and who, manifestly, considered a great part both of the Old and New Testament as not exhibiting a representation of tlings that really occuro red, but merely the images of moral actions. If the reader will give himself the trouble to refer to Philo de Allegoriis 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 Lo demand it. XXXIV. The practice arises of expounding Christian tenets upon philosophical principles. The secret discipline. With this evil was connected another that proved equally detrimental to the interests 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 promulgated without reserve, and endeavours used to get them adopted by tle church, as appears from the disputes that took place with Praxeas, Theodotus, Hermogenes, and Artemon. But by far the greater part, pursuing the example of the Egyptian teachers, appear to have wished, that the principles of Christianity should be unfolded and explained t o 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 understanding; 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 Philosop hical Christianity. 273 cani,Q() and which Clement of Alexandria styles Y, 71, or know. ledge, but which differs from what is called ifystical Theology, only in name.(3) (1) Whatever, for instance, is to be met with in Scriptlure respecting God the Father, the Soil, and the Holy Spirit, was so expounded by these Christians as to render it consistent with the doctrine of three hypostases or I atures in God, as maintained by Plato, Parmenides, and others. Clement. Stromat. lib. v. p. 710. Again, what is said by the sacred writers respecting the future destruction and burning of the world, was so explained by them as to make it accord with what was tlaught by Plato and the Stoics respecting the purification and renovation of the world by fire. Vid. Clement 8romal. lib. v. p. 647. 211. et seq. The restoration or resurrection of the dead wvns so interpreted as to accommodate it to the tenets of the Grecian sages. The different passages inl holy writ that relate to the illuminating, purifying, and regeneralting of thle mind were, withl grent ingenuity, made to correspond with what was taught by most of the Egyptian and Platonic philosophers of the ancient as well as modern school resp)ecting the philosophical death, or the separation of the rational soul from the sensitive one, and also from tlie influellce of the body. In fact there are but few points of Christian theology, which the teachers who were inflamed withi this eager desire to produce an union between Christianity and philosophy, left untouched. (2) That the more learned of the Christians, subsequently to the secot!d century, cultivated, in secret, an obstruse discipline of a different nature from that which they tnught publicly, is well known to every one. Concerning the arguanent, however, or matter of this secret or mysterious discipline, its origin, and the causes whiil gave rise to it, there are infinite disputes. But these contentions, as is commonly the case amongst mortals, instead of elucidlting, 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 tile 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 miglht be inl parIt removed if due attenltion were paid to a circumsta nce e whichl seems to have been hitherto commonly overlooked, namely, that amonhgst the ancient Christians there existed not merely one, but severni speeies of secet discipline, Which were inlldeed of some affinity to each other, but between wllich it is necessary in regard to this question to draw a line of disinction, 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 Cllristianl religion and worshippers of false gods: but even this wvas of more than one kind. F'or first, there was a sort of clis-ipline of this natureU that respected -all. who were adverse to the Christian faith generaillv and without distinction. There were certain points of belief, for instance, at tilis time curirent among'st the Cihristi.ans respecting the destruction thlat hinmg over tile city of Rome, and the empire, as well as the wars and finall discomlfilura 374 Century I. —Section 34. of,Antichrist, the near approach of the end of the world, the millenium. amnd 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 Christimans. Great care was therefore taken to conceal everything of this nature from all except comparatively a fe-w, of whose fidelity and secrecy there could be no apprehension. Wherefore, when Montanus and his followers, in this very century, publicly prophesied the downfall of the city and empire of Rome, it proved highly displeasing to the Christians, and they at once withdrew themselves friom every sort of connection with a man who could be guilty of such imprudence. tIoc solurn, says Tertullian, (in his Vindicica Montzlai which are lost, but of w-hich this passage is preserved apud Prccdestinat. a Janc. Sirmond. edit. lib. i. Hieres. xxvi. p. 30.) hoc solum discrepamnus (the Montanists from other Christians) quod secundas nuptias non recipimus et prophetiam IfMontani de ffuturo judicio non recusamus. Now, as to the future general judgment, all Christians believed. in it, and there could, therefore, have been no occasion for Montanus to prophesy anyvtling at all about it. Byfciturum judicium in the above passage, therefore, we must understand the judgment which this man had inadvertently prophesied as awaiting the Roman empire in particulatr;,nd aga inst 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 weioht, should be still further excited against them. Another species of secret discipline had relation to those whom the Christians were desirous of rescuing fiom the dominion of superstitionl, and initiating in thle principles of Christianity. With these they foullnd it necessary to proceed somewhat cautiously, lest, by a premature com. munication of the truth, their minds mig'ht receive impressions unfhvourable to the Chrlis.i: n religion. They, therefore, observed at the first a total silence with regald to the doctrine contained in the Scripture respecting the pelson, merits, and functions of Christ; as well as those other mysteries, to the right compre. hendinlg 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 nature of mnan, 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 n:tture. Respectin(r the practice of the early Christians in regard to this, the reader will find a notable pass'zge in the Apostolical Constitutions, lib. iii. cap. v. Pazrtzm Apostolic. tom. i. p. 280, 281. In either of these species of secret discipline there should seem to have been nothing at which anlly 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 catechurnens, or those who had not as yet been received into the cllhurch, and, in part, to the regular members of the church. This discipline, so far as it regarded the catechumens, is sufficiently lnown. The catechumens were not admitted either to the common pr iyers, or to a sight of the celebration of the sacred rites orldainedl 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 htd been regularly adopted as memlbers of the church by baptism; and, consistently with this, the sacred preachers made it a rule to abstain fiom entering into any discussions immediately relating either to Biptism or the Lord's Supper, in presence of the catechumens. But this kind of discipline had certainly in it somewhat of an alien east, 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 lopular atddresses to omit all such things as were not, without difficulty, to be comprellended by persons of low and simple minds. Instructions to this effcct are to be found in Origen contra Celsum, lib. iii. p. 143. edit. Spenlcer. as well as in other Christiain writers. Undoubtedly nothing can be more commendable and wise than to avoid troubling weak and simnple minds with things, to the right comprelhension of which an ordinary degree of intelligence i. by no means equal. —In addition to all these different species of secret discipline, which had rel'tion to particular classes of imen, and were regulated by certain modes annd times, thlere remains still yet another to be mentioned, of a nature altogether ditlerent, being controlled neither by time nor place, arnd having respect to no class of men in particularl, but, wvith a few exceptions, equally regardiing all. as well Christi:ans as those who were strangers to the, Christian faith. This, without question, consisted of divers manxims and opinions which wvere cherished by the Christian teachers in private amongst themselves, and never communicated to the peOlle at large, or even to their own immediate disciples indiscriminately, but only in secret to such cf these latter as had given satifhactor'y proots of their trustworthiiness and taciturnity. Clement of Alexandria is the first writer that notices this sort of discipline; before him no menltion whatever is made of it by any author. There can, therefore, be but little doubt but that it originated clamongst the Christians of Egypt, and was by theim communicated to the other churches. Clement represents this secret discipline, to which he gives the title of 2vres, as having been instituted by Christ himhself. From a passage in his H-ypo(lyposes, a work long sFice lost, which is cited by Eusebius in Eccl. Hislor. lib. ii. cap i. p. 38. it appears that he considered this -v,;; 6-, or gift of knowledge, as hllaving been conferred by our Iocl, after his resurrection, on James the Just, John, and Peter, by whom it iviwas communicated to the other apostles; and that by these this treasure was comDmitted to the seventy disciples, of whom Barnabas was one. A similar passage to this occurs in his Stromata, 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 natllre, the one calculated for the world at large, tile other designed only for the wise and prudenlt; the former consisting of what was taught publicly to the people by Christ himself, anrd is to be found in the Scrip. 376 Cecntiry i..-SectioTb o4. tures, thel latter, of certain manxins aind precepts tha t were communica:ted merely by word of moutll, to a few only of tlhe apos;les.'Ov 7o0o7s r.S1aoX.iiXU.Y t ya roXXc3v 1X',X on e g 3j5 gonlistv ) rtiasaro, QtVS JoL5 ii icSEaaw L1, RurL rurw.v X45 dvra. No;n revelavil ( Chris/us) mullis ea qztce non eranI multorum. sed paucis quibu.ls sciebat convenire, qui et ea poessent accipere el ex eis informari. S'romat. lib. i. cap. i. p. 323. Clement ma-kes it a matter of boast that the secret discipline thus instituted by Christ was familiar to those who had been his masters and preceptors, wvhom h-ie very lavisily extols, and seems to exult not a little ill 1having, under tIleir tuition, enjoyed the cadvantage of being instructed in it Idimself. Ap:'rt of it, indeed, h1e says, had, thrloulgh lelngth of time, escaped his memory, but ti:at tlhe rest of it remained still fresh in his mind. He proinises, moreover, that he would advert to some of the chief or leading' points of this venerable knowledge in his Slromata, 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 thle hand of a child. Ta Izgv ix(ePv ragarltr'omv.a s:lys lie, p. 324.:?,A7,wv C 7rl a74!vws, C oE 9vtisvo; a tLv, a nga?E;uIaP u\afiiev,. N-o)Tanlla qU2i dem consullo prctecrmillo, scienter deleclumfaciens, timens scribere, quae eliamn catv dicere. In another place, viz. p. 327. he says,:rpw,ards r5 gUzoriTyv 6Tvrc.vos rTl,s,YVcWrbw) s/XovraL o'r:g!tara Libri mei Siromalton volunt arliJiciose celare serinca cogniiionis.'I'o any one who might be at a loss to account for his deeliningo to make publicly known, and in a great measure altogether conceenling, 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 purrged and- delivered firom the dominion of thepassions, tlhat there would, moreover, be a danllger in it, lest occasion might: be given to contentious persons for cavilling and insult. "Or, 0?a^s K ixdv~,oga, 7/V a7r%/VTiQrV he ciXvlS3i.1S r Va /vrw X'JvoTiaC Xjyoz; sogCxi"r$u rrh d Smidsg;hy r /. d tV 7.' SI vtxA. XuT "I e sLiv ) T/A, rt/rc SCl iV/ aT.a itat i/P/arTt diroEZifruiTv eJ'a:v,xj;Sucio. Quia nmain'utln ese pericZculum vere arcanam elrcec philosophice r-atinmnem iis propaalar?, qui profuse quidem ac?qelulanler, sed non jlure, vo/un. con. tra omnes dicere, omn7ias antem nomina elt erba /turpi/e ac icndecore ejaculanlur. See also lib. ii. p. 432. et seq. ManI y other passages of this kind are to be met with in Clernent, by any one who \ill be at tIle trouble of (diligently exploring his S7romalc.-~What those n maxins acnd principles were whicll Clem7ent conceived himself to be plrecluded from cornmunicating to the world at large, cannot longo remain a secret to any diligent and attentive reader of his works, Thllre cannot be the smallest question but that they were philosophical explications of the Christian tenets respecting the Trinity, the soul, the world, the filtulle resurrction of the body, Christ, the life to come, and other things of a lilke abstruse nature, which had ill themi somewhat that admitted of being expounded 1upon philosophical principles. They:also, no doubt, consisted of cer[p. 307.] train mystical and,allegorical interprletations of the (ivine ornacles, calcula-ted to support those phlilosophical expositions of the Christian principles and tenets. Folr since, as we have above seen, he expressly intimatteu s tlhat he would, in his Sliromal, unfold a p'lIt of that secret wisdomn which wats 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' himnself universally intelligible; alid since we fildl him, in the course of the above-menticeid work, continually givinii to thle more excellent and important truth.s contailled in the sacred volume, sueh tin interpretation as tends to open a wide field for conjecture, and also comparing, not opernly, but in a concise and half obscure way, the Christian tenets with the lmaxims of tile philosophers, I am w11ilillig to resign every pretension to penetration, if it be tiot cleartly to be perceived of what nature that sublime knowledge respecting divine matters. must have been, of which hle makes such a mystery. Nor was there any o'her species of' secret knowledge besides this possessed by his prliteipal disciple, Ori-gen, who, although he was.1anxious to make the Christian religion conforln itself, in almost every respect, to the rule of his philosophy, had yet thIe wicdonl tlo propound his opinions with prudence and caution, and to avoid a full 1ndl explicit discovery of them. Wlhat Clement says respecting the divine origrin of this discipline is, unquestionably, a mere fiction, devised eitlier by hlim or some other admirer of philosophy, Nwith a. view to sileilce the importunate remonstrances of those fiiends to Clllristian simplicity wvho, miindful of St.. Paul's injunction, were continually protesting against any attempt to blend phil.)sophy with the religion of the gospel. To Clement such sanctified deceptions and pious invenltions appeared not aIt all unwarrantable; indeed, there can be no doubt, but that they were countenanced by all such of the Christian teachers as were of the Egyptian or TIodern Platonic school. Why Jtames, and John, and Peter, should have been, in particular, fixed upon as the apostles whom Christ selected as the most worthy of having this recondite wisdom commnunicated to them by word of mouth, is very easily to be perceived. For these were the three disciples whom our Blessed Saviour took qpart with him up inlo the mountain when he was about to be transsigured, Matt. xvii. 1. Luke, ix. 28. To'represent them, therefore, as having in a particular manner been fwv;oured 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 fiom Philo; and the secret discipline, or the practice of cautiously concealing their philosophical explicaltions of the Scriptures and the principles of Chriistianity, from the Egyptians as well as fromn Philo. The thinng, in fact, is not altogcether dissembled by Clement, who firequently compares his secret discipline 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 peruse the writings ot Philo with attention; sincDe he in many places equally extols the secret discipline, and, for the most part, speaks of it in the same terms, and defends it by the same reasons anld arguments as Clement. Nor is the recondite discipline of Philo of a different nature forom Clement's; on the contrary it corresponds with it in every respect. Vid. Philo, in lib. de Cherlubim, p. 144, 145. [p. 308.] de $ac.rificiis, p. 139. lib. de Planltatione NcA, p. 231. et passim. Being, in lib. iii. Alleerr6. Legztm, 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.-Setion 34. tion of those who were initiated in the secret discipline,'Avas.~.ervave.; ra ('rap oi (xssac, wrapa~a As' ra.S isgwrcorar. Iiaque quo-lquot eslis initiali, expansis auribus accipile mysteria sac ralissima. After tlis preanmble lie presents the reader with a philosophical explication of these words of Salrah, which cannot be said to be altogether an obscure one, but, at the same thime, it is by no means clear or perspicuous: in short, you may plainly perceive that what he aims at is, not to make hlimself understood generally, but only by such as had been initiated in the secret discipline or philosophical religion. In this he is imit.ated exactly by Clement. In his book lib. de Cherlubim, p. 146, 147. edit. Anglic. p. 115. edl. Paris, Philo undertakes to explain, firom the Mosaic history, the manner in whiclh virtue is genera. ted, and how, of itself, it generates other virtues. For first of all he thus gravely repulses the profalne:'Axoa tupga6ro'av; Jt'oi,'Jatovc ra15 Sautroij ii xota7,rqr'lTcogav. Suterstitiosi vel discedant vel obturent aures suas. Te\Srdc70ig dva;Ga6osi'opsv 3nS'a- r a TrLv;rxv dfug rv ioS.g(orricovCduO Tra: divina enim mysleria tradcimus his, qui talibus sacris cligne initiati sunt.'Exs~vug'C tdc isgopavrro0(.'ov zari' X4Mt/uoto dVYtrWc xax cl,'rivwo Rf..tlv JsaL OW;1r v yXttn -;c yXgT6,t,, xat ~ra&gfat5 at;iv. Illos autem haudquaquam ad hcc sacra admitlimus, qui tleenent morbo insanabili, fastu verborum et nominum filco, et mo6rum pecstigiis. Numerous passages similar to these are to be found in Clement. 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, however, is not to be comprehended except by the initiated in the mysteries of the Philonian philosophy; aud to all such a very earnest and puarticular injunction is addrlessed by PlMilo 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. "Havilng then, 0 ye initia'ted! through thle channel of purified organs, iacquired a knowledge of these things, let them sink deep into your minds as holy mysteries, not to be revealed to the profane. Bury thlem within 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 valualble portion of true wealth, namely, a knowledge of' God and of v7irtue, and of the offspring that is generated of them both. Whenever ye channce to meet with any one else of the initialed, beseech him with the most earnest intreaties not to conceal fiom you any mystery that he may have more recently discovered, and leave hfim not until you shIall have obtained fi'oin him. the most intimate insight into it." In his book; de Sacrfiiciis Abelis el Caini, p. 173. tom. i. opp., lhe, Nwith astoniishing subtilty, deduces fromn Gen. xviii. 6, where Sarah is s:lid halve "madcle ready quickly three measures 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 likewise, by way of conclusion, makes a point of remarking that neither this nor any other mystery ought to be generally made known: A;deJovi rgoXZg.ts gxXaxA,ra Stea tucigLa, Ta.lcViuo.g;Jv;n'd'uri Kc~L iXau&-%Ca Ev d-roFpi rC auXAdrr'. Anima di, ina vmysteria nemini?oloqluatun facile; sed seCrrans ea recovdila reliceat el in secre!o seret. No detrimet, I, I a persuadedca ennslue firor my decli)ning to Kooral Theology. 379 notice at large the remnarks on this and similar pa.ssages that have been publishled by Thomas Mangey, the late editor of Philo, since they afford [p. 309.] bu-tt 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 malkes the principle of the existence of three powers in the Deity, concerninng which there has been amongst men of the first eminence such a diversity of opinion and conjecture, a part of the secret discipline. Hence it is that we never find him eithler openly propounding or attempting any explication of it, but, on the contrary, always speaking of it in su(ch 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 dcifieient metihod in some places from what he does in others. In regard to this, see what I have said inl my notes on Cudworth's Intellectual System, tom. i. p. 640, as well as what has been most learnedly remlarked both in respect to this and other passages of Philo, by that eminent scholar and most successfnil emulator of illustrious predecessors, Jo. Bened. Carpzovius, in his Exercilaliones in Epist. ad Heblrwos ex Philone Prolegom. p. cxxxv. et seq. In my opinlion, therefore, it must ever prove a mlere waste of time and pains to attempt any explication of the trinity of Philo, or to ascertain in particular his notions respectilng the nature of what he terms the Logos, or Word. The wvary Jew is particularly cautious of committing himself with re.gard to thlese things, and evidently wishes to excite rather than to gratify a thllirst for a more intimate insight into them. I spelak 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 hlis workcs; indeed, such is the discordasnce of these passages, that they appear even totally repunnant to each other. In tlis way it was but befitting for a man to proceed when treating of the secret or mysterious discipline.'AJrcat says he, in his book de SacriJiciis Abelis eZ Caini, tonm. i. p. 189, where, with a very cautious alned delicate hand, lie touches on some of its leading points, *'AJ.rat Jb rS sat'roa'TOrs JO ~v dzrcri"t g9 X'09o, it, dxoa"tgs Vg*C'uripwv r-tpXlr'T-Ta3'a XPt' VCVrwcLJv c(0ua [tI cnS.v'rS. t Celebraczu et alia, quce tamen ad mysleria, (i. e. the secret discipline) p)ertinel senltentia, deponendea penes aures seniernum, obh turalis juzioruzm auribus. On thle present occ:lsion I cannot but feel that it would be wrong in me to dettin the reader with what else might be ad(luced fiom Philo on this subject: a word or two more, therefore, and I have done. Philo, iwithout doubt, imitated the Egyptianlls; Clement, as unquestionably, followed the exaImple of Philo; and Origen trod clearly in the footsteps of both. The more recent Christian teachers, for the most part, formed tlhemnselves upon the nmodel of this latter father. The secret discipline of Philo consisted in the application of philosophlic principles to relioion and the sacred writings; nor was tllhat of Clemeznt ever thought to differ friom it, except by those who ha-.d not sufficiently informed themselves on the subject. The reader will understand me in. whlat I ha,-e said above as not mealning to attr ibute the absolute invention of thlis discipline to Philo: for we know thnlt long before hlis time it had been the practice of several Jews to expound and illustrate Moses from tlme writinga of Plato and other Greek philosophers: but of this, I thlink, there can be no Century II.-Section 35. doubt, that ClemlenLt and the other E gyptian teachers by whom this discipline was first introduced into the Cilr-iqtian church, were indebted'or their acquaintance wi!h it entirely to Philo. Woiderfl'ul, indeed, is it to contemplate the influelce and authority which this Alexanldtrian Jew had at one lime lcquiried [p. 310.] amongst the Chrlistians. We may even go thle lengtll of' sayilng that, without Philo, the writings of those wl-honm we term " the Fatlhers" would, in many respects, be frequently altocgether ulnintelligible. (3) The secret disciplinze was ot' a more comprehensive nature than the lluystical theolooy, inasmuch as it embiraced the whole of the philoeophic:dl theology that sprung up in Egypt in the second century, and gradually found its way from tlhence to other nations. Whlat we find ternled mystical theolcgy appears to have comprised the best and noblest parl of this secret discipline; I mean that which respects life and moraLls, the pul'iyingc of the soul, -nd exalltino it above every object of sense. For it is Nwell 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 muan, which the Chrlistians had borrowed from the Egyptian and Modern Platonic philosophy, and were accustomed, from this century downwards, to communicate merely to a select number of auditors. XXXV. Iloral theology assumes a two-fold character. As the love of philosophy originated amongst the Christians, a two-folct interpretation of those principles by which the intellect is instructed in the way of salvation, the one public, and accoimmodated to vulgar minds, the other secret, and intelligible only to capacities of the higher order; s6:4ikewise did it occasion a twofold form to be assumed by that wisdom which, in a more particular manner, respects life and morals; the one suited to the multitude, who incline to society and suffer themselves to be involved 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 business, noise, and bustle of the -world. It is true, indeed, that even at an early period, when the Christians were as yet strangers to pbilosophy, there were to be found amongst them persolns who, by abstaining filom 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 inordinate desires and affections, and thus to consecrate themselves entirely to G-od:(') 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 iV'foral 2Tleology, 881 specting the Deity, the human soul, and the 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, andl 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 fromn every sort of bodily influence, so that they might, even in this life, be united to and enjoy the most intimate communion with the Supreme 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 l'fystics, a denomination of men that first made their appearance amongst the philosophising Christians of Egypt, in the course of this century, and gradually spread themn selves throughout the Christian church.(") Hither, also, may we refer the origin of Mfonlcs, fiermzits, and Cewnobites, whose rules and institutions are uniformly grounded upon the principle of delivering the immortal spirit from the oppression under which it groans in being connected with the body, of purifying 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.(') (1) That amongst the early Christians there were some who professed a more strict and severe course of life than others, and not only debarred theme selves of lawful gratifications and indulgences, but also broke down the strength and vi(gour 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 "Ascetics," from the verb dosX-;v, which means to train or prepare one's self for a combat. See, amongst many other authorities, Deyling, xee c. de Ascelis Veterum, subjoined to the third book of his Observationes Sacra,; and Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. 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 me that those Ascetics who deo clined marriage and preferred a life of celibacy, without, however, rejecting allny 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 Mlatt. xix. 12. respecting those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom 82 ClieJnttry IL —Sectioln 35, of heaven's sake, as well as what St. Paul says in 1 Corinth. vii. 7. 25. et seq. 38. respecting the preference due 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 smnall number of persons who deemed it expedient to avoid marriage. Let us hear the celebrated Christialn philosopher of this century, Athenagoras, in A2polog. pro C'hristianis, cap. xxviii. p. 129. ed. Oxon. "Euvgos cd'dv roXXas rov rat,C;v xt' a sagc;t Xat?uvvia a; tierd,;i,.g'agovra l d a,s c, w it t Trg /gaov oUvvt~ g','ti 1,re5 a&. Inrenias autem mullos ex nosiris in utroque sexu, qui in ccelibatu consenescant, quod ita Deo se conyunctiores futuros sperent. And to the same purport Tertullian, de Cultu Peminar. lib. ii. p. 179. cap. ix. ed. Rigalt. Non eninl et multi ita faciunt, et se spadonatui obsignant propter regnurmn Dei tam fortem et ulique permissam volupltatem sponte ponentes? Those Ascetics, who either abstained firom flesh and wine, or else mortified their bodies by fiequent 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, unquestionably, 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 commendation bestowed by the writers of this century; but they are always placed beneath those who were emphatically termled 9 xg aritc "the continent," in opposition to the "incontinent;" that is, they are always placed after those who had renounced marriage. Quid enim, says Tertullian, (de Velanzdis Virginibus, cap. iii. p. 194.) si et inconlinentes dicant se a conlinentibus scazdalizari (i. e. supposing those who are married should complain of being scandalized by those who have professed celibacy) continentia revocanda est? 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 having expressly recommended celibacy, but that with regard to an abstinence from flesh and wine, flstings 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. Tertullian in one part of his treatise de CuZtu 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, lie goes on thus: —Numquid non aliqui ipsam Dei creatturam sibi 1interdicunt, abstinentes vino et animalibus esculentis, quoru.tm jtrctlus nulli periculo aul sollicitudini acdjacent, sed humilitatem animcc succ in victus quo-. qule casligatione 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 apparent 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 anges were accustomed to distinguish themselves from other Christians by their dress, and that in par. irioral Theology. 383 ticular, by way of pointing themselves out as philosophers, they adopted the mantle or cloak, appears to me to require the support of stronger and more positive 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 consiL dered as appropriate to them, is what I cannot, by any means, bring ,lov, Ta a rtO'aX. This subject is pursued by him at much length, and he cites in support of his doctrin.a even Moses himself, with whom lhe maintains that Heraclitus is in perfect unison. Lastly, he asserts that the soul, during its continuance in the body, lies, as it were, buried in a sepulchre, and partakes in no degree of life, until after its separation from -a~ —— I-~~- r-~-~I- ~- - 0 0~ 3aS 6 Century 1L.-Sectiozn 35. vitiated and inert matter. T1xZfgs s i i' v 6 cxair i -zrw o C,'Jvri ote{aU~t' i J d doi,.'Yt'u' ri5 4uxj1s goptxv 4J r!x,M'v "yfiav xuglax;1v ro 7o9- r7eS'ux7rogoCO-ess hau:9sC'o/zVs o% 7 regXarov d'ro.,car;15, avomya 7o IN1o griy)o/V'r8gs Jsa r8 Isrra, iva N h&in Ai,8gs pe:os5v rq'tv sa-ti q-isv di&'a4toy aegv,raZ ric T >'T, rags?,T s srg r 5a'rXa ar~S gEX-,s)aSealgs ~rg~:?C ~. ia.a. In sanctum Dominicam religiosissimi temporis finem conjicimus sed ca,gnum jam tumrn a decimo die sumimus quoniam in Iota litter- Jesu nomen agnoscimus, ne quid omnino diligentiam nostram effugiat, quod ad ecclesiasticam saluttais paschem celebrationem pertinere videatzr. Now, we will not spend our tine in endeavoring to dispel the obscurity in which this passage also of Epiphanius 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 maltter they, no less than the Asiatics, persuaded themselves that they followed the example o Jesus Christ; but in what way they could possibly have made this appear is not very easy to comprehend. Fourthly, that by this fiast, which they celebrated in the night preceding the day devoted to the comimemoration of our Lord's resurrection, they closed their pasebal 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. This feast, therefore, constituted no part of the commemoration of the resurrection, but was the grand concluding act of the preceding pasechal season. The night being elapsed, these Christians commenced witl the dawning day their celebration of the anniversary of Christ's triumph over death 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 circumstance corresponding precisely with the practice of the Asiatics. For this Epiphanius gives us a far-fetched reason derived firom the letter I, which is the first in the name of Jesus. The force 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 Epiplhanius, reasoned after this manner; the name of Jesus begins with the letter I; but the letter I denotes the numnber 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 Cabbalist 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 Controversy. 533 of the custom, but rather suspect Epiphanius to have followed, in this instance, merely the suggestions of his own fancy. The lamb thus separated fiomn 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 tho 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, plaidly to be perceived in what respects the Asiatic Christians or Quarta-decimans dflgered from the rest. Their disagreement was not, as the learned father Darniel 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;'ragarsq t-eagu, says Epiphanius, Hares. L. i. ]iii. p. 421. egyv q'Iyv teforas'uaLtJs'Xr7v. Et nos quartam illam decimam diem (which is held sacred by the Quarta-decimans) religiose servamus. Neither did the time for celebrating 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 death with the pasehal 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 disciples and followers of Christ, to eat their paschal lamb at the same time when the Jewes, 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 thefourleenth 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 the first day of the week that Christ actually arose from the dead, no other day than this ought to be appropriated to the commemoration of that stupendous and unparalleled event. LXXII. Termination of' the Pascal Controversy. In the course of this century attempts were not unfiequently made to put an end to this dissension, which was found. by sad experience to yield repeated occasion for unchristian-like wranglings and the most intricate and accrimonious disputes.(') Under the reign of Antoninus Pius, ini particular, about the middle of this century, a serious discussion of the affair took place at Rome between Anicetus, the bishop of that city, and Polycarp, the celebrated bishop 534 Century II.-Sttion 72. of Smyrna.(') 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. John. Impatient, therefore, of their pertinacity, it was towards the close of this century determined by Wzfctor, 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 greatest part of the Christian community. In this resolution he was supported by the voice of several councils that were called together 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 pascal observances.(') Finding, however, that they were not in this way to be moved, but that they boldly addressed letters to the Roman church by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in justification of their ancient practice, Victor 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.(4) 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 opinion friom the Asiatics, written letters to the bishop of Rome and the other prelates, pointing out, in the most forcible terms, the injustice of depriving 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 remove from themselves every suspicion of an attempt to corrupt the Catholic religion. A sort of comprolmise, therefore, took place with regard to those ritual differences, each party retaining its own peculiar opinions and usages, until the holding of the council of Nice, in the fourth century, when the custom of the Asiatics was altogether abolished. Termination of this Controversy. 535 (1) The reader may consult as to this Epiphanius in Hares. Audia- [p. 446.] forum, lxx. 3 ix. p. 821. (2) See Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. Jib. iv. cap. xiv. p. 127, and lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 193. In hact, it is to this author that we are indebted for nearly the whole of what is here related. (3) Polycrates, in his Epistle to the Roman church, apud Euseb. Hist. Ec. cles. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 192, says, i Irruo'cg t roii roTS:araSrXa'o-x6,U2voas. Nihil moveor iis quc nobis adformidinem irtentantur. These words plainly prove that Victor did not pursue a moderate and amicable course with his Asiatic brethren, but had recourse to threats, and wished to have impressed their minds with fear. (4) Eusebius, Hissor. Ecc7es. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 192, snys, BixrKg dago6e rS Aoias srnsxo aNpa crais ougaegs cxxAniaS r7u sragoitxia dsrorsetvtei' hc icsgGohts-ai,r.g XoiV:cf ivjwSrmCw rt(irat, xal ShATvrrlmii,s JtLa.-gap5ulrcv dXotvvwvfirsT85 isv irLvPrag rTg gx-s'a dvaxnjlrvtrrv. Of these words Valesius gives us the following translation: Victor omnis A six vicinarumque Provinciarum Ecclesias, lamquamn contraria recta: Fidei sentientes, a Comnmunione abscindere conaltur, datisque litteris universos qui illic erant fratres proscribit, et ab unitate ecclesica prorsus alienos esse pronuntiat. From the word rgartcl, which Eusebius makes use of, this learned writer thought himself justified in concluding that Victor did not in reality exclude the Asiatics from all communion with the fGaithful, but merely wished, or attempted so to exclude them, and that this his at. tempt was frustrated by the interference of Irenxuts. This interpretation is approved of' by many of the fiiends to the papacy, who seem to imagine that the temerity of Victor is thereby somewhat extenuated. Others would contend that at least this much must be granted them, that the words of Eusebius are ambiguous, and that we are consequently left in a state of obscurity, as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatics, or merely wished and endeavoured to have them excommunicated. By the greater part, however, not only of Protestant, but Roman Catholic writers, it has long been considered, that what is subsequently said by Eusebius of Victor's having5 by letters, excluded the Asiatics from his communion, relieves his preceding words from every sort of obscurity, and matkes 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 Victor 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 his example. What, therefore, he could accomplish without the concurrence of tho 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 36 CeRntury II.-Section 72. translation, support has been afforded to a common error in regatrd to what was done by Victor on this occasion, to which I shall presently advert. The [p. 447.] Greek words, dvaaxsg6zrrTotv dxoivrrvgz are rendered into Latin by Valesius thus, ab unitate ecclesice pjrorsus alienos esse pronuntiat. Blt this by no means corresponds with the Greek original, in which nothing whatever is said of alienation, ab unitalte ecclesic. The translation ought to have ran, a communione suxc alienos pronuntiabat. The words of this eminent schlolar, however, are strictly in unison with the common opinion of both Roman Catholics and Protestants, who are all unanimous in considering Viclor 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 exercisedl 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 domineering spirit of the bishop of Rome, the first example of anti-christian excomlll munication. But.these worthy men laboured under an error, and formed their judgment of a matter of antiquity fiom 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 disapprove. 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 Irenxcus nor the rest of the bishops would have dared to oppose his Nwill, but must have bowed with submission to whatever he might have thought proper to determine. Every bishop, however, possessed the power of excluding all such as he might consider to be the advocates of glievous errors, or as the corrupters of religion, friom all communion with himself and the church over which he presided, or, in other words, he might declare them unworthy of being considered any longer as brethren. This power, indeed, is possessed by tle 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 mainner, renounce all connection with these Asiatics. But in this he was deceived: dXX' 8 x-5i- 7,.,ro7gS otoxnrt ror- ra' o'Eo-xmTro, says Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib.v. cap. xxiv. p. 192, Verum non omnibus hcec placebant Episcopis. The rest of the bishops declined following the example of the Roman prelate in a line of conduct 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 will of the Roman bishop. The conduct of Victor, therefore, on this occasion, although distinguished by temerity aned ia. Terminnation of this Controversy. 537 prudence, does yet not wear so dark an aspect as is commonly imagined, neither could it have been attended with consequences of such extensive importance as those would have us believe who hold it up as the first abuse of excommunication. The fact is, that they who treat the matter in this way are guilty of an abuse with regard to the term excommunication. Victor did not (according to the sense in which the term is at present understood) excommunicate the Asiaties, but merely declared that he, and the members of the church over which he presided, must cease to consider them in the light of brethren until they should consent to renounce their objectionable practices. END OF THE FIRST VOLUME, Not of pages of Text,.. 529 No. of pages of Prefaces, Contents, &c., 32 No. of pages in Volume,.. 561