ft 
 
Sfom t^e £,i6rarg of 
 
 (|profe06or ^amuef (glifPet 
 
 in Q^temorg of 
 
 3ubge ^amuef (Qliffer QBrecfttnrib^e 
 
 (JJteeenfe^ 6g 
 
 ^amuef (BttfPer (jSrecftinnb^e feong 
 
 fo f^e &i6rftrt of 
 
 ^tinceton J^eofogicctf ^emindrj? 
 
 BR 165 .M8313 1813 v. 2 
 Mosheim, Johann Lorenz, 
 
 16947-1755. 
 Commentaries on the affairs 
 
 of the Christians before 
 
COMMENTARIES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 AFFAIRS OF THE CFIRISTIANS 
 
 BEFORE THE TIME OF 
 
 CONSTANTINE THE GREAT ; 
 
 OR, 
 
 AN ENLARGED VIEW OF 
 
 THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE 
 
 FIRST THREE CENTURIES. 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 COPIOUS ILLUSTRATIFE NOTES JND REFERENCES. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM TffE LATIN OF 
 
 JOHN LAURENCE MOSHEIM, D.D. 
 
 LATE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGKN. 
 
 By ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Esq. F.S.A. 
 
 nA'NTA AOKIMA'ZETE* TO^ KAAO'N KATE'XETE. 
 
 II faut done avoiier que quelques que puiffent toe les suites de I'examen, 
 on dolt s'y exposer ; et puis qu'il faut n^ceffairement que nous jugions, 
 que Ton doit acquerir les lumleres n^ceflaires pourjuger solidement. 
 
 Le Clerc. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DA VIES, IN THE STRAND. 
 
 18.3. 
 
Strahan and Preflon, 
 t'rinters-Street, London. 
 
%* In addition to the very refpe£table teftimony 
 of the Reverend Henry Kett (fee Preface to the former 
 volume, p. viii.), the tranflator feels confiderable gra- 
 tification in being permitted to lay before the Reader 
 the following extra£l: from a letter addrcfTed to him 
 by his much-rcfpe£led friend, Charles Butler, Efq. 
 of Lincoln's Inn, with the depth and extent of whofe 
 refearches in Ecclefiaftical ;.^nd Civil Hiftory, the 
 learned world has not now to be brought acquainted. 
 
 " I am rejoiced at your intention of favouring us 
 with a publication of your tranflation of Molheim's 
 Commentaries. The original work is quite familiar 
 to me. Some years ago I read the whole of it atten- 
 tively, and committed to paper the obfervations which 
 occurred to me in the perufal of it. I have fince very 
 frequently confulted it. There can be no doubt of its 
 being a work of profound and extenfivc erudition, and 
 that it contains much learning both in refped to fad 
 and dedudion which is no where elfe to be met with. 
 It alfo abounds with hiftorical and literary anecdote 
 In every fenfe it is a diftind work from the Eccle- 
 fiaftical Hiftory j fo that it may be deemed as neceflary 
 to the pofleffbrs of that work, as if that work had 
 never been written. — I think your ftyle very clear, 
 and well fuited to the work ; and have no doubt but 
 that your tranflation of the Commentaries will be quite 
 as popular as Maclaine's of the General Hiftory." 
 
 " I hope you will accompany it with fome diflerta- 
 
 tions of your own, for which the work affords you an 
 
 excellent opportunity : and, in regard to this I would 
 
 beg leave to call your attention more particularly to 
 
 A 2 four 
 
( iv ) 
 
 four fubjetfls, none of which have been much noticed 
 by the writers of this country. The firft is an ac- 
 count of the Manicheifm of the middle ages, which 
 may be done by a continuation of Moflieim's note on 
 the original Manichees. Mofheim's own account of 
 thofe of the middle age in his general Ecciefiaftical 
 Hiftory, and Bifnage's account of them in his Hiflory 
 of the Reformed Churches, contain much curious mat- 
 ter, but are imperfe£lly executed. I think this is ad- 
 mitted by Dr. Machine the tranflator of Mofheim. 
 
 ** The coTiverfion of the northern nations is alfo an 
 interelting fubje£l, and I aj)prehend you will find cu- 
 rious materials for it in Moflieim's account of the con- 
 verfion of the Tartars: but I fpeak of that work 
 from the author's general chara£l:er, for I have never 
 feen it. 
 
 " The third diflertation I fuggeft to you is a Hiftory 
 of the Apoftles' Creed. Mofheim's notice of it is too 
 fliort. 
 
 ♦« The laft diflertation I take the liberty to hint to 
 you is a geographical account of the ecciefiaftical di- 
 vifion of the Chriftian world at the time of the final 
 divifion of the Roman Empire, accompanied with a 
 map. You will find ample materials for this in 
 Bingham, and Ezekiel Spanheim. 
 
 " I only beg leave to add, that I can fcarcely con- 
 ceive a more curious work than a full hiftorical account 
 of the different confeflions of faith by which the 
 Chriftian churches profefs themfelves to be regulated. 
 This would be a fine addition to your work, but would 
 exceed the limits of a diflertation." 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 THE SECOND VOLUME. 
 
 THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF 
 THE SECOND CENTURY. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 I. Extenfive propagation of the .Chrlftian re- 
 ligion - - _ J, 2 
 
 — Certain piflages in the early Fathers re- 
 
 lating to this fubjed, to be underftood 
 with fome qualification. Note [a] - 2 — 5 
 11. Miflion of Pantsenus tolndia - - 3 6 
 
 — The people to whom he was fent probably 
 
 Jews who had fettled in Arabia Felix. 
 Note L^] - - - 6—8 
 
 III. Origin of the Gallic, German, andEnglifh 
 
 churches - - > _ >i j^ 
 
 — The three different opinions that have pre- 
 
 vailed refpeding the origin of the Gal- 
 lic church examined. Note [r] - 8 — 13 
 
 — The German and Gallic churches probably 
 
 owed their foundation to the fame per- 
 fons. Note [^] _ _ _ j^ — i^ 
 
 — Statement and examination of various opi- 
 
 nions refpeding the origin of the Britifh 
 church. What upon the whole appears 
 to be the moft rational hypothefis in 
 regard thereto. Note [^] - - j6 — 22 
 . A 3 Num- 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 IV. Number of Chriftians in this age - 17 — 27 
 
 — Reafons which have induced writers of the 
 
 moft oppofite chara(Eiers and views to 
 concur in undervaluing the churches of 
 this century. It is clear even from the 
 teftimony of heathen writers that the 
 Chriftians muft at this period have been 
 very numerous. Note [^] - - 23 — 26 
 V. Caufes to which the rapid propagation of 
 
 Chriftianity is to be attributed - 27 — 32 
 
 — The belief that miraculous powers were 
 
 pofleflcd by ereat numbers of the Chrif- 
 tians in this and the fucceeding age not 
 at all contrary to found reafon. Dr. 
 Middle ton's Free Inquiry into the Mira- 
 culous Poiversj &c. an infidioas publi- 
 cation. The high ground taken by this 
 author however to a certain extent aban- 
 doned by him previous to his death. 
 Note[/] - _ - - - 28—32 
 
 VI. Human caufes which contributed to for- 
 ward the propagation of Chriftianity 23 — ^41 
 
 — Various tranflations of the New Tefta- 
 
 ment into the Latin and other lan- 
 guages made even at this early period. 
 Not certain that any of them have 
 reached our days. Latin tranflations 
 particularly numerous. More than or- 
 dinary excellence attributed by Auguf- 
 tine to one termed the Italic. Great 
 endeavours ufed by the learned of 
 France and Italy to recover this verfion. 
 Their labours unattended with fuccefs. 
 Miftaken ideas entertained by them on 
 thefubjea. Note [/&] . . ;^. 
 
 — Why the early apologifts for Chriftianity 
 
 did not concern themfeives with de- 
 monftrating its divine origin. Note [/J 40, 41 
 VII. Difingenuous artifices occafionally reforted 
 
 to in the propagation of Chriftianity 41 — 4f 
 
 — The Sybillinf verfes, a fpurious compo- 
 
 fition. Note [rw] - - - /\2 
 
 I The 
 
CONTENTS. Vn 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 VII. The Poemander and other writings falfely 
 attributed to Hermes Trifmegiftus. 
 Note [o] - - - - 43 
 
 — Montanus fufpe£led to have been the au- 
 
 thor of the Sybilline verfes. Note[^] 44 
 VIII. State of the Chriftians under the reign of 
 
 Trajan - - - - - 45, 46 
 
 — Populace continually incited to perfecute 
 
 them - - - _ _ ;^. 
 
 — The perfecution in Bithynia under Pliny 
 
 the Younger obvioufly originated with 
 the heathen priefts. Note [t] 46, 47 
 
 IX. Trajan's law refpe£ling the Chriftians 47, 48 
 
 — Trajan not unfavourably difpofed towards 
 
 the Chriftians, but afraid of incurring 
 the ill-will of the priefthood and the po- 
 pulace. Note[K] - - 48 — 50 
 X. EfFe£ls produced by the law of Trajan 49 — 52 
 
 — Martyrdom of Simeon and Ignatius - 50, 51 
 
 — The Chriftians diflatisfied with Trajan's 
 
 law on account of its lenity - - il>. 
 
 — Their eagernefs after martyrdom reprefled 
 
 by a law - - - - - 5* 
 
 — Trajan moft fcrupuloufly obfervant of the 
 
 provifions of his own law. Note [w] 51 
 XI. State of the Chriftians under the reign of 
 
 Hadrian - - ^ - _ ^2 — 54 
 
 — The multitude taught to clamour for the 
 
 perfecution of the Chriftians at the 
 public games and other fpectacles 53 
 
 — The magiftrates dared not difregard this 
 
 kind of call. Note [jy] - - ilf. 
 
 XII. Hadrian's new law in favour of the Chrif- 
 
 tians - - - _ - j;4 — 56 
 
 — Although on a curfory view this law may 
 
 have the appearance of being more le- 
 nient, it probably did not difFer mate- 
 rially from the law of Trajan. Note [a] 55 
 
 — The fufpicion that Hadrian meant to 
 
 affign Chrift a place amongft the Roman 
 deities unfounded. Note [r] 56, ^J 
 
 XIII. Barchocba an enemy to the Chriftians 57, 58 
 
 A 4 Jeru- 
 
Vm CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XIII. Jerufalem finally overthrown, and the 
 
 city of ^lia Capitolina ercded by Ha- 
 drian on its ruins - - 57, 58 
 
 XIV. State of the Chriftians under Antoninus 
 
 Pius _ - - _ ^8 — 60 
 
 The edict ad commune AJia belongs to 
 
 this emperor, not to his fucceflbr. 
 Note [?■] - - - - 60, 61 
 
 XV. State of the Chriftians under Marcus Au- 
 
 relius _ . _ _ 61—67 
 
 This philofophic emperor a more malig- 
 
 nant perfecutor of the Chriftians than 
 even Nero or Domitian. Note [/&] 62—64 
 
 The enenraes of the Chriftians encou- 
 
 raged to charge them with crimes of 
 the moft horrible nature. Note [/] ib. 
 
 Infamous condu6l of the magiftrates 
 
 exemplified from what took place dur- 
 ing the perfecution at Lyons. Note 
 ['«] - - - - - 65, 66 
 
 The condition of the Chriftians worfe 
 
 under the reign of Marcus Aurelius 
 than under that of any of his prede- 
 ceflbrs. His ill-will towaids them not 
 attnbu table to fuperftition, but to the 
 infinuations of the Stoic philofophers. 
 The contraft drawn by him between 
 the behaviour of a Stoic philofopher 
 and that of a Chriftian in the article 
 of death. Note [«] - - 677—0 
 
 XVI. AffliQions of the Chriftians under the 
 
 reign of Marcus _ - _ 68 — 71 
 
 Martyrdom of J uftin, Polycarp, and Po- 
 
 thinus - - - - - ib. 
 
 Circumitances attending the perfecution 
 
 at Lyons. The tenor of the prefi- 
 dent's letter being unknown, an am- 
 biguity is thereby thrown over the 
 emperor's refcript. Note [7] 71—73 
 
 XVII. The miracle of the thundering legion 72 — 75 
 
 Con- 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 SECT. PACE 
 
 XVII. Controverfy amongft the learned, and 
 particularly between King and Moyle 
 on this fubjecfl. An attempt made 
 to place this matter in its proper 
 point of view. Note [r] - 75 — 82 
 XVIII. State of the Chriftians under Corn- 
 modus and Severus - 76 — 83 
 
 They are expofed to a dreadful feries 
 
 of calamities and fufFerings. In- 
 famous conduct of the magiftrates 
 towards fliem. They are broken 
 in upon even in their facred affem- 
 blies. The puniihments inflicled 
 on them to the laft degree favage 
 and inhuman. Their dead bodies 
 dug up and torn to pieces by the 
 mnltitude. Note [k] - 83—85 
 
 XIX. Philofophers inimical to the Chrif- 
 
 tian caufe - - - 84 — 88 
 
 — ' — Celfas not an Epicurean philofopher 
 but one of the Modern Platonic 
 fchool. His ideas of Chriftianicy 
 derived from the Gnollics. The 
 fancied improvements of thefe latter 
 proved highly detrimental to the 
 Chriftian caule. Note f -y] - 86 
 
 — — Crefcens the Cynic philofopher, and 
 
 Fronto the rhetorician - - 87 
 
 Confiderations which probably in- 
 duced the philofophers to promote 
 the perfecution of the Chriftians. 
 Note [a-] - - 88, 89 
 XX. Government of the Church 89, 90 
 
 XXL Authority of the Apoftolic Churchesgo — 97 
 
 Two remarkable paflages in Irenseus 
 
 and Tcrtullian, in which thefe 
 writers make their appeal to the 
 Apoftolic Churches, confidered. All 
 the Apoftolic Churches are placed by 
 them on a precifely equal footing. 
 Their filence with regard to the 
 
 church 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XXI. church of Jerufalem accounted for. 
 Reafons for the difference that is ob- 
 fervable between thefe authors in 
 fpeaking of the church of Rome. 
 The famous eulogium of Irenseus on 
 the Roman church examined in de- 
 tail. Note[z] - - 91 — 99 
 XXII. Civil unity introduced amongft the 
 
 Chriftians - - 98 — 100 
 
 Synods or Councils had their origin in 
 
 Greece _ _ _ i^. 
 
 Religion confidered by the early Chrif- 
 
 tians as fuperior to the controul of 
 human laws. Confiderable light 
 thrown by a paflage in Tertullian, de 
 Jejuniis, on the extent to which the 
 power of the primitive Bilhops 
 reached. Various particulars to be col- 
 lefted from this author refpetling the 
 origin, 8cc of councils. Note [«]ioo — '107 
 XXIII. EfFedls produced by the iutrodutlion of 
 
 this civil unity - - loi — no 
 
 A certain degree of independence re- 
 
 tained by various churches. Note [^3 
 
 108, 109 
 
 Pre-eminence of the Bifhops of Rome, 
 
 Antioch, and Alexandria - ib. 
 
 The authority and power of thefe pre- 
 lates not unlimited. The rife of the 
 Hierarchy gradual. Note [a^] - iia 
 XXIV. Comparifon of the Chriftian with the 
 
 Jewlfh Priefthood - no — 112 
 
 — — Gives rife to the claim of tythes and 
 
 firft-fruits. The Greek and Oriental 
 
 churches took the lead in urging this 
 
 claim. Note [/J - - tL 
 
 XXV. A tafte for philofophy introduced 
 
 amongft the Chridians 113 — 118 
 
 Jullin and other philofophers, upon 
 
 their embracing Chriftianity did not 
 abandon their priftine garb and mode 
 
 of 
 
CONTENTS. 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XXV. of life. Note [^] - 113, 114 
 
 The ftudy of phiiofophy encouraged by 
 
 Pantsenus, Athenagoras, and Cle- 
 ment, fucceflive!/ praefe6ls of the 
 catechetical fchool at Alexandria. 
 Clement a moft zealous defender 
 of the Grefk phiiofophy. The Origin 
 of that difpofition to philofonhic fpe- 
 culation which began to prevail in 
 the church towards the ciofe of this 
 century may doubtlefs be referred to 
 the fchool of Alexandria. Note [^3 
 
 114 — 118 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Juftin 
 
 Martyr, Sec. although they difclaimed 
 a partiality for any particular phi'ofo- 
 phic fed,>, were yet obvioufly devoted 
 to the tenets of the Ecle£lics, Not 
 [z] - - - I r 8, 119 
 
 XXVI. Contentions among the Chriftians with 
 
 regard to phiiofophy - up — 123 
 
 The culture of phiiofophy, logic, and 
 
 geometry decried by many as hereti- 
 cal. Difputes refpe6i:ing faith and 
 reafon prevailed even at this early pe- 
 riod. The arguments by which the 
 caufe of phiiofophy is defended by 
 Clement in his Stromata. The early 
 Chriftian teachers, by way of gaining 
 over the philofophers to their fide en- 
 couraged the belief that the difference 
 between Chriftianity and Phiiofophy 
 was but trifling. Note [i-] 120 — 125 
 
 XXVII. The fchool of Ammonius Saccas 124 — 130 
 The life and ad^rons of Ammonius in- 
 volved in great obfcurity. The dif- 
 ferent accounts given of him by Por- 
 phyry and Eufebms. Argum nts 
 proving that although an apoftate in 
 heart he yet never openly feceded from 
 
 the church. Note lO ^26 — 129 
 
 He- 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XXVII. Heraclas, unqueftlonably, oneof the pu- 
 pils of Ammonius. Note [m] - 129 
 XXVIII. The philofophy of Ammonius 130 — 134 
 
 — — — « His favourite object was to bring about 
 a reconciliation between all the dif- 
 ferent philofophic fe6ls, and to har- 
 monize all religions - - ib. 
 
 The fentiments of the Emperor Julian 
 
 with regard to this. Note [«] - 130 
 
 The Ammonian fefl referred the origin 
 
 of all wifdom to the Eaft. The writings 
 of Hermes and the Magic Oracles at- 
 tributed to Zoroaftcr, probably forged 
 by the Modern Platonifts. Plotinus 
 wifhed to have completed his ftudies 
 in Perfia and India. Falfe pretenfions 
 of the Gnoftics dete6ted and expofed 
 by the followers of Ammonius. Note 
 
 M - - _ - ,\3T> 132 
 
 Ammonius and hi-^ difciples ambitious 
 
 of being termed Platonifts. Reafons 
 that made them defirous of acquiring 
 forthemfelves this title. Note [i)] 132, 133 
 
 XXIX. The theoretical or fpeculative philofophy 
 
 of Ammonius. - 135 — 138 
 
 The philofophic fyllem of Ammonius 
 
 built entirely on the Egyptian difci- 
 pline. Note[r] - ih. 
 
 The difcipline of Plato, although it dif- 
 fers from that of the Egyptians in 
 many refpe£Vs, yet perfetiiy agrees 
 with it in others. Note [/] - 137 
 
 DifFere.ice between the Ammonian and 
 
 Ecledic fyftems. Note [«] - 138 
 
 XXX. The Moral Philofophy of Ammonius 
 
 138— 141 
 
 Abftinence and mortification of the 
 
 body its leading features - -139 
 
 The frequent occurrence of Chriftian 
 
 terms and phrafes in the writings of 
 
 the 
 
CONTENTS. xiii 
 
 SECT. 
 
 XXX. the Modern Phtonifts accounfed for. 
 
 ^Note [.v] .. - . ,^^ 
 
 That fpccies of fcienc^- termed by the 
 
 Modern PlatoniRs Theiirgia indifputa- 
 bly of Egyptian oricrin. Auguftin's 
 ^ explanation of it. Note [j] i4i_i^^ 
 XXXI. The fentiments of Ammonius refpedting 
 
 the diffi-rent popular rehgions. 142— i4r 
 
 The hiftory of the Heathen Deities 
 
 confidered by him as altogether alle- 
 gorical - - - .142 
 XXXII. The tenets of Ammonius refpe£^ing 
 
 Chrift - . . i45_,^2 
 — — Notwithftanding certain individual in- 
 ftances that may be cited to tlie con- 
 trary, the charader of Chrift was 
 held in great efteem by Ammonius 
 ahd his followers. Our Saviour con- 
 fidered by them as a Theurgift or 
 magician of the firft rank. His 
 charaaer extolled by the Pagan 
 oracles. According to the PJato- 
 nifts, he did not abolifh, but merely 
 reformed the worfhip, of the 
 Heathen deities. Note [^J i45__i ^q 
 Great addrefs manifefted by the mo- 
 dern PJatonifts in reconcHing the 
 Egyptian and Platonic philofophy 
 witli the religion of Chrift. Note 
 W - - - - 150, 151 
 
 Cuftomary for them to compare our 
 
 blefled Saviour with Apollonius Ty- 
 anseus, Pythagoras, and other emi- 
 YYVTTT X. "^"1 Pl^ilo^ophers. Note [^] 15^ 
 
 AAAlll. Forced mterpretations of the Scrip- 
 
 tures - - . . 153— I cr 
 
 Four fenfes of Scripture noticed by the 
 
 Fathers of this century, viz. the 
 hteral, the allegorical, the tropolo- 
 gical, and the anagogical. Note 
 
 W - - - ■ 153. -J* 
 
 Mod 
 
Xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT, PAGE 
 
 XXXIII. Moft of the early corruptions of Chrif- 
 
 tianity had their origin in Egypt. 
 This country alfo gave birth to the 
 pra£lice of ftraining paiTages of 
 Scripture in fupport of philofophical 
 maxims. Specimens of the man- 
 ner in which Pant?enus and Clement 
 of Alexandria were accuflomed to 
 expound the Scriptures. The alle- 
 gorical interpretation of Scripture a 
 favourite pradlice with Philojudseus, 
 as alfo with the Phari fees and EiTcnes 
 before his time. Note [/] 155—159 
 
 XXXIV. The pra£lice arifes of expounding 
 
 Chriltian tenets upon phi'ofophi- 
 cal principles. The fecret difci- 
 pline _ _ . I r6 — 161 
 
 ■ Endeavours ufed to reconcile what is 
 
 lain down in Scripture as to certain 
 leading points of Chriftian belief, 
 with the do£trine of Plato, Parme- 
 nides, and other eminent philofo- 
 phers. Note [^] - 159, 160 
 
 There exifted amongft the ancient 
 
 Chriftians not merely one but divers 
 fpecies of fecret difcipline. Thefe 
 different kinds of fecret difcipline 
 enumerated and defcribed. Note 
 [/?>] - _ _ - 160 — 171 
 
 The fecret difcipline of a more com- 
 
 prehenfive nature than the myftical 
 theology. This latter appears to 
 have comprifed merely the bed and 
 nobleft part of the fecret difcipline. 
 Note [/J - ... 161 
 
 XXXV. Moral Theology aflumes a two-fold 
 
 charadler _ _ _ 162 — 181 
 
 The firft rife of the Afcetics not clear- ' 
 
 ly to be afcertained. The earlieft 
 were probably thofe who merely re- 
 nounced marriage. None of the 
 
 reft 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xy 
 
 XXXV. reft can be placed higher than this 
 century. It is by no means certain 
 that the Afcetics were accuftomed 
 to diftingulfh themfelves from other 
 Chriftians by their drefs. Note 
 
 W - - - - 171— 174 
 
 Myftics and Myfticifmhad their origin 
 
 long prior to the Chriftian aera. 
 The myftic difcipline arofe out of 
 the ancient philofophy of the Egyp- 
 tians, and was countenanced by the 
 doctrine of Plato. The fentiments 
 of Philo Judaeus in perfe£l harmony 
 with thofe of the Myftics of more 
 recent times. The Chriftians be- 
 come divided into «* Operants" and 
 *' Quiefcents." The influence which 
 country and climate have on men's 
 morals and opinions. Myfticifm 
 the offspring of a burning climate. 
 Note [/J - - - 174—181 
 
 - Difference between Monks and the 
 
 early Afcetics. Origin of monafte- 
 ries and abbeys, anchorites or her- 
 mits, &c. The temperate climate 
 of Europe unfriendly to Monachifm. 
 Note [;«] ... 181 — 184 
 
 XXXVI. Alteration in the form of divine wor- 
 
 Ihip - - . - 181—187 
 
 ■ ■ ' Various terms or phrafes made ufe of 
 in the Heathen myftcries transferred 
 and applied to different parts of the 
 Chriftian worfhip. Clement of 
 Alexandria particularly fond of plac- 
 ing the rites of Chriftianity on a 
 parallel v/ith the Heathen myfteries. 
 The application of the term " Sym- 
 bolum" to the Chriftian profeffion 
 of faith, accounted for in this way. 
 Note [«] - - - 186, 187 
 
 ■ The adoption of Heathen rites, &c. by 
 
 the 
 
XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XXXVI. the Chriftlnns offers a wide field for 
 the difplay of literary taient. Lift of 
 authors by whom the fubje£t has 
 been incidentally noticed. Caufes 
 that proljably influenced the Chrif- 
 tians in their adoption of th>-fc rites. 
 Note [o] - - - 187, 188 
 
 XXXVII Chriftian writers of this century 188 — 192 
 ' — — Principrd editions of the works of 
 
 Irenscus. Note [/>] - - 1H9 
 
 Principal editions of the works of 
 
 Jullin Martyr. Note Ty] - iirid. 
 
 Principal editions of the works of 
 
 Clement of Alexandria. Note [r] 1 po 
 
 Principal editions of the works of 
 
 Theophilus, Tatian, and Athenago- 
 ras. Note [j-] - - - 191 
 
 — — — Principal editions of the works of 
 
 Tertullian. Note [/] - - 192 
 
 XXXVIII. Rife and propagation of Chriftian 
 
 fefts. Judaizing Chriftians 192, 193 
 
 • Reafons which probably induced the 
 
 greater part of the Chriftians of 
 Jewiflr origin under the reign of 
 Hadrian to renounce altogether the 
 ceremonies of the Mofaic law, and 
 elecl one Marcus for their bifhop. 
 Note [«^] - - - 193 — 198 
 
 XXXIX. The Nazarenes and Ebionites. 194 — 202 
 The Gofpel of the Nazarenes not the 
 
 fame with that of the Ebionites. 
 Note [-yj - - - - 198 
 
 — — — By the early writers, the Nazarenes 
 are not fpoken of as heretics. Whe- 
 ther the Nazarenes were anciently 
 included under the denomination of 
 Ebionites ? The term " Nazarene" 
 of a fimilar import with Chriftian. 
 Note [-a/] - - - i9p, 200 
 
 What opinion the Nazarenes enter- 
 tained 
 
CONTENTS. XVU 
 
 SECT. ^ PAGE 
 
 XXXIX. talned refpefting Chrift, not altoge- 
 ther clear. Note fx^ - - 201 
 
 The Nazarenes confidered no part of 
 
 the Jewifti law as obligatory, except 
 the genuine Mofaic precepts. Their 
 great veneration for St. Paul (hews 
 them not to have confidered the 
 Mofaic law as of general or perpe- 
 tual obligation. Note [j] - 2oi 
 XL. The Ebionites - - 202 — 204 
 
 ' Origin of the term " Ebionites" uncer- 
 tain. Probable that it had an allu- 
 fion to the poverty or indigence of 
 thofe by whom the fe£l was founded. 
 Note [s] - - - 202, 203 
 
 ■ The Ebionites obferved not only the 
 
 Mofaic preceptSj but alfo the ordi- 
 nances engrafted thereon by the 
 Pharifees and Doftors of the Law. 
 The fenfe in which we ought to 
 underftand what is faid by Irenseus 
 of their having worfhipped the city 
 of Jerufalem. Note [a] - 204 
 
 XLL Sedls generated of the Oriental philo- 
 
 fophy - - . 205 — 207 
 
 The Gnoftic fe£ls did not emerge from 
 
 obfcurity until the reign of Hadrian. 
 Note [^] - - - - 206 
 
 The caufe of Chriftianity fuftained no 
 
 little injury from its being believed 
 by the Greeks and Romans that the 
 maxims and tenets of the Gnoftics 
 were thofe of the Chriftians at large. 
 Note [r] - - - - do-j 
 
 XLIL Of the Gnoftic feds - 208, 209 
 
 ■ The Gnoftic fefls in all probability 
 
 lefs numerous than they are repre- 
 fented to have been by the ancient 
 Chriftian writers. Note [</] - ibid. 
 XLIIL The Elcefaites - - - 210 
 
 VOL. II. a XLIV. The 
 
xyKi contents. 
 
 SECT. *AG2 
 
 XLIV. The philofophy of Saturninus 2it — 216 
 
 — Saturninus was not a difciple of Me- 
 
 nander. Note [/] - - 211 
 
 The accounts given by ancient writers 
 
 of the difcipline of Saturninus con- 
 fufed and obfcure. An attempt to 
 correct and overcome the errors and 
 difficulties to which thefe imperfe£l 
 accounts have given rife. Note 
 [g2^ - ' - - 213—215 
 
 Saturninus the firft of the Gnoftics 
 
 that divided mankind into two 
 clafles ; the one good, the other 
 evil. Note [/6] - - 215,216 
 
 XLV. The Saturninian fyftem of Theo- 
 logy - - - - 216 — 220 
 
 The orthodox Chriftians agreed with 
 
 the Gnoftics in affigning to the 
 Heathen deities a real exiftence } 
 but differed from them with re- 
 gard to the fpiritual agents by whom 
 mankind were feduced from their 
 allegiance to the Supreme Deity. 
 Note [/] - - - 216, 217 
 
 Various confedlarles with regard to 
 
 the do£lrine of Saturninus deduci- 
 ble from what is handed down to 
 us refpefting his tenets. Note 
 Ik-] - - - - 217, 218 
 *— — Improbable that Saturninus fhould 
 have interdicted marriage and pre- 
 fcribed an equal degree of abfti- 
 nence and mortification to all his 
 difciples. Note [/] - - 219 
 XL VI. The philofophy of Bafilides 220 — 235 
 '■ ' Of the writings and charaftcr of 
 
 Bafilides ; the time when he flou- 
 riftied ; and the authors from whom 
 information refpefting him is to be 
 colle£led. He was not a difciple of 
 Menander. Note [»'] - «2o, 221 
 XLVI. He 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XLVI. He did not confider matter as hav- 
 ing a ruler peculiar to itfelf; nor 
 did he believe in the exiftence of 
 angels naturally inclined to evil. 
 Note [«] . - - - 232 
 
 His -^ons cannot properly be re- 
 garded in any other light than as 
 real and diftinft perfons. With 
 refpedt to their fexes and intermar- 
 riages, he feems to have entertained 
 fentiments equally grofs with others 
 of the Gnoftics. Note [o] 222 — 224 
 ■ However abfurd it may appear, there 
 can be no doubt but that Bafilides 
 believed in the exiftence of 365 
 heavens and an equal number of 
 angelic orders. Note [/] - 224, 225 
 
 Of the name " Abraxas" or " Abrafax." 
 
 Not ftated by any ancient writer 
 that this name was firft invented by 
 Bafilides. Its meaning involved in 
 great obfcurity. The letters com- 
 pofing it exprefs the number 365. 
 It appears to have been applied by 
 Bafilides to the Supreme Lord of all 
 the heavens. Chifflet, Beaufobre, 
 and Jablonflcy, wrong in imagining 
 that it meant the fun. Abraxas 
 could have been none other than the 
 firft and greateft of the angels fup- 
 pofed to have been generated of 
 Sophia and Dynamis. Both this 
 name and what are commonly term- 
 ed Bafilidian gems were probably of 
 Egyptian origin. Note [^] - 225 — 232 
 
 In what refpefts Bafilides and certain 
 
 of the Gnoftics differed in opinion 
 from the reft with regard to the 
 founder of this world. Note [r] ibid. 
 
 — Bafilides believed man to be poflefled 
 
 of two fouls : the one brutal, the 
 other rational. The manner in 
 
 a 2 XLVI. which 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XLVI. which he accounted for the aflbcla- 
 tion of divine or rational fouls with 
 grofs material bodies. Note [j-] 
 
 233, 234 
 
 The Bafilidians pretended to be in pof- 
 
 feflion of the prophecies of Cham, 
 and the difcourfes of Barcabba and 
 Barcophus, and other fimilar writ- 
 ings. Note [0 235 
 
 XLVII. The Bafilidianfyftem of theology 235—243 
 
 ■ That this world is governed by angels* 
 
 and that each nation or kingdom 
 hath its prefiding or ruling angel, 
 a very ancient opinion amongft the 
 people of the Eaft. Note [i;] 236 
 
 ■ Want of harmony between Irenseus 
 
 and Clement of Alexandria with 
 regard to the tenets of Bafilides 
 refpeding Chrift. Clement the beft 
 deferving of credit. Note [w] 
 
 238—243 
 - ■ ' Bafilides had not a peculiar Gofpel of 
 his own. What parts of the New 
 Teftament were approved of by 
 him, and what he reje£led. He 
 confidered Chrift as having pro- 
 pounded a two-fold difcipline. Note 
 [^] - - - - 243, 244 
 
 XLVIII. The moral dodlrine of Bafilides 244 — 247 
 '- That Bafilides (hould have recognifed 
 
 no diftin£l.ion between good and 
 bad a6lions, but countenanced his 
 followers in every fpecies of licen- 
 tioufnefs, entirely undeferving of 
 credit. His words on the contrary 
 as quoted by Clement of Alexan- 
 dria argue a great ftriftnefs in point 
 of morals. Note [^] - - 245 
 
 — The diflblute conduft of certain of 
 
 the Bafilidians not imputable to the 
 dodrine or precepts of their mafter. 
 Note [2] - - - 245, 246 
 
 XLVIII. The 
 
CONTENTS, XXI 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 XL V III. The dlflblute coiidua of certain of the 
 Bafilidians not imputable to the doc- 
 trine or precepts of their mafter. 
 Note [z] - - - 34Sj 246 
 
 The opinion of BafiHdesrefpe£ling the 
 
 martyrs, excited confiderable animo- 
 fity towards him amongft the ortho- 
 dox Chriftians. A particular in- 
 veftigation of the Bafilidian doc- 
 trine with regard to concealing one's 
 religion, and even denying Chrift in 
 times of perfecution, partaking of 
 meats offered to idols, avoiding 
 martyrdom, &c. Note [«] 246 — 250 
 XLIX. The fyftem of Carpocrates - 248 — 252 
 
 "What the fentiments of Carpocrates 
 
 were refpe6ting the foul, very ob- 
 fcure and uncertain. There is rea- 
 fon to think that in fome refpe£ls 
 they were very extraordinary and far 
 different from thofe entertained by 
 the Gnoftics. Note [<r] - 251, 252 
 L. The Carpocratian theology 253 — 259 
 
 The notion that Carpocrates thought 
 
 lefs refpeftfully of Chrift than any 
 others of the Gnoftics erroneous. 
 The Carpocratian fentiments with 
 regard to Chrift as ftated by Irenaeus 
 examined in detail. Note [^] 253 — 258 
 LI. The moral difcipline of Carpocrates 
 
 259 — 265 
 
 There is a difficulty in believing that 
 
 the moral dodlrine of Carpocrates 
 could have been fo infamoufly grofs 
 and vile as it is reprefented by an- 
 cient writers. Poflibly we may be 
 ftrangers to certain particulars by 
 which its apparent enormity might 
 be greatly qualified. Note [e-] 259 — i62i 
 -— — The apotheofis of Epiphanes the fon 
 of Carpocrates, by the people of 
 
 a 3 LI. Sama, 
 
XXll CONTENTS. 
 
 SFKT. PAGE 
 
 LI. Sama, in all probability z mere 
 
 fable. Note [/] - 263 — 265 
 
 Carpocrates maintained that his doc- 
 
 trine was built on the fecret com- 
 munications of Chrift to his dif- • 
 ciples. He of courfe entertained 
 no very high refpeft for the 
 writings of the New Teftiunent. 
 Note [g] - - - 265, 266 
 LII. The fyftem of Valentine - 266—268 
 
 Notwithftanding the very great atten- 
 
 tion beftowed on it by ancient 
 writers, the Valentinian fyftem is but 
 partially intelligible. Valentine is 
 faid to have been the pupil of The- 
 odas, one of St. Paul's difciples. 
 Note [/6] - - - 266, 2^7 
 
 • ■ It was not the difappointment of his 
 hopes with regard to a bifliopric, 
 but the feverity of the Roman 
 church that made Valentine a 
 feftary. Note [i] - 268 — 270 
 
 LIII. The Valentinian ^ons - 269 — 276 
 
 ■ Great difference of opinion has pre- 
 
 vailed amongft the learned with re- 
 gard to the fource from whence the 
 Valentinian religion and philofophy 
 were derived. Valentine was un- 
 queftionably indebted for the firft 
 elements of his fyftem to the Oriental 
 philofophy. Note [/^] - 270, 271 
 
 ■ ■- In what refpe£ls Valentine differed 
 
 from the various other leaders of 
 Gnoftic feds. With him the ftudy 
 of Chriftianity preceded that of phi- 
 lofophy: with them the cafe had been 
 exa£lly the reverfe. Some curious 
 fpecimens of the mode in which he 
 fupported certain parts of his fyftem 
 by a reference to the New Tefla- 
 ment. Note [/] - 272, 273 
 
 LIII. Endeavours 
 
CONTENTS. XXin 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 LIII. Endeavours of the learned to hit upon 
 fome Interpretation of the Valen- 
 tinian principles and tenets, that 
 might reconcile them with reafon 
 and Chriftianity. The attempt al- 
 together an hopclefs one. The Va- 
 lentinian JEons, like thofe of the 
 other Gnoftic fedls, can be con- 
 fidered in no other light than as 
 real and diftindt perfons. Note [»;] 
 
 276 — 279 
 
 ^^* ] The Valentinian Theology 277—285 
 
 The Deity was confidered by all def- 
 
 criptions of the Gnoftics and par- 
 ticularly by the Valentinians, as 
 poflefTed of merely a limited degree 
 of intelligence and power. They 
 alfo believed him to be deftitute of 
 various qualities which right reafon 
 and the Scriptures point out as be- 
 longing to the Supreme Being. That 
 the ^ons therefore (hould not have 
 been deemed perfect can of courfe 
 excite no furprife. Note [«] - 280 
 
 Achamoth not regarded by Valentine 
 
 as the parent of matter, but merely 
 as the author of certain modifica- 
 tions thereof. Note [pj - 283, 284 
 LVI. The Valentinian tenets refpefting the 
 
 Creation _ _ _ 285, 2&6 
 
 Man, according to Valentine, com- 
 
 pounded of a two-fold body and 
 alfo of a two-fold foul. The 
 Valentinians, like other Gnoftics, 
 denied the pofliblllty of a future 
 refurreflion of the body. The 
 rational foul they held to be of 
 neceflity immortal. The fate of 
 the fenfitive foul depended on clr- 
 cumftances. Note [/] - 286 — 288 
 a 4 LVII. The 
 
XXIV CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. J>AGK 
 
 LVII. The Valentinian tenets refpe£ting 
 
 Chrift _ _ _ 287 — 294 
 
 The body aflumed by Chrift according 
 to the Valentinians was different 
 from that of an ordinary man. 
 Chrift, although confidered by them 
 as a fpiritual being of the moft 
 exalted kind, yet not placed on an 
 equal footing with the Father. They 
 muft have believed him to have 
 aftually fuffered, and died. Note 
 [«]---- 289 — 291 
 
 Valentine did not believe in Chrift's 
 
 having expiated the (ins of man- 
 kind by his death ; but aflerted that 
 the only purpofe of his advent was 
 to communicate to our benighted 
 race a knowledge of the true God. 
 Note [-y] - - . 292 
 
 ■ '■ '■ ■ The Valentinian fyftem agrees per- 
 feftly in not a few particulars with 
 that of the Manichees. A fum- 
 mary or general view of the doc- 
 trine inculcated by the Oriental, the 
 Gnoftic, and the Manichaean 
 fchemes. Note [w] - 293, 294 
 " The ftatements of ancient authors with 
 
 regard to the wickednefs and crimes 
 of the Valentinians, not applicable 
 to the fe£l in general. Valentine 
 confidered all men to be by nature 
 equal ; and the gate of falvation as 
 irrevocably clofed againft none. His 
 diftribution of men into three clafles 
 explained. Note [x] - 294 — 297 
 
 LVIII. Inferior feds that owed their origin 
 
 to the Valentinian fchool - 295 — 299 
 
 The belief, that the Supreme Being was 
 
 not the author of the Jewifli Law, 
 confined to no one fed of the 
 Gnoftics in particular, but indifcri- 
 
 LVIII. minately 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. _ PAGE 
 
 LVIII. minately recognized by them all. 
 
 Note [jv] - - - - 298 
 
 — Difference of opinion between Ptolemy 
 
 and Secundus with regard to the 
 nature of the iEons. Note [2] 99 
 
 LIX. Marcus and Colarbafus - 300, 301 
 
 '" •• The tenets of Marcus prove him to have 
 been a man entirely out of his wits. 
 A fpecimen of his idle conceits re- 
 fpe6ling the force and properties of 
 the Greek letters. Prayers didated by 
 the Marcofians to dying people, near- 
 ly fimilar to thofe of the Ophites. 
 That Marcus fhould have practifed 
 forcery, or had recourfe to any de- 
 lufive tricks, is undeferving of the 
 fmallefl credit. What is recorded 
 of his changing the colour of tlie 
 facramental wine, as alfo, of his 
 filling the larger chalice from a 
 fmaller one, may readily be ac- 
 counted for without fuppofing him 
 to have ufed any deception. Note 
 C^] - - - - 301 — 306 
 LX. Bardefanes _ _ _ ^02 — 311 
 
 Notwithftanding the frequency with 
 
 which the fubjedl is adverted to by 
 ancient writers, the hiftory of the 
 life and tenets of Bardefanes has 
 come down to us involved in great 
 uncertainty and doubt. Note [^] 307 
 
 Although he eventually renounced cer- 
 
 tain of his errors, he yet never tho- 
 roughly repudiated his heretical opi- 
 nions. Note [^] - - 308 
 
 His opinion refpeding the origin of the 
 
 world and of mankind was different 
 from that of Valentine and every 
 other Gnoftic leader. Note [^] Hid. 
 " ' Certain particulars with regard to which 
 
 the do6lrine of Bardefanes appears 
 
 3 LX. to 
 
XXvi CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. rAGE 
 
 LX. to have been hitherto mifunder- 
 
 ftood. Note [/] - 309 — 310 
 
 LXI. Tatian - - - - 311 — 314 
 
 His fyftem poflefled fomewhat of the 
 
 Valentinian charadler, but its ex- 
 a(El nature is not to be collefted 
 from any author - - - 312 
 
 . His hiftory undefervedly flighted by 
 
 ancient writers. Note [/J - ibid. 
 
 The aufterity of his moral difclpline 
 
 reached to the extent of enjoining 
 the fubftitution of water for wine in 
 the adminiftration of the Eucharift 313 
 
 A diflike to wine prevalent amongft the, 
 
 philofophers of the Eaft from a very 
 remote period. In prohibiting the 
 ufe of it, Mohammed merely en- 
 forced the obfervance of an ancient 
 regulation. Note [/] - - ii>id. 
 
 ■ ■ The naturally auftere difpofition of the 
 Syrians rendered them particularly 
 friendly to the fyftem of Tatian. 
 Note [w] - - - - 314 
 LXII. The Ophites or Serpentinians 314 — 317 
 
 Queftionable how far various minor 
 
 Gnoftic fe£ls that are fpoken of by 
 ancient writers, fuch as the CalTia- 
 nitcs, the Docetes, the Sevcrians, 
 the Apoftolics, the Adamites, the 
 Cainites, the Abelites, the Sethians, 
 and the Florinians, had any real or 
 diftindt exiftcnce. Note [«] 315,316 
 LXIII. Cerdo and Marcion - 318 — 322 
 All the accounts to be met with in an- 
 cient writers refpedling thefeHserefi- 
 archs very defedlive. The principal 
 fources from whence information as 
 to them is to be derived. Note 
 [/.] - - - - 3i8,3iJ> 
 •■■ What is faid by Epiphanius, of Mar- 
 cion's having been excommunicated 
 
 LXIII. for 
 
CONTENTS. XXVll 
 
 SECT. PACE 
 
 LXIII. for the feduftlon of a virgin, ought 
 in all probability to be underftood 
 figuratively. Note [^] - 319 — 321 
 
 Marcion's expofition of our Saviour's 
 
 words refpe£ling the not putting of 
 new wine into old bottles. Note 
 [r] il>id. 
 
 LXIV". The fyftem of Marcion - 322-326 
 
 — Nothing beyond its leading features can 
 
 now be afcertained. It appears to 
 have borne a ftrong refemblance to 
 the difcipline of the Manichees. 
 Note [^ - - - 323, 334 
 
 The founder of this univerfe was con- 
 
 fidered byMarcion as a being entirely 
 diftinft from both the good and the 
 evil deity. This Being he charac- 
 terized by the epithet y«/?. Note 
 [//] - - - _. 324.325 
 
 An attempt to fupply certain particu- 
 lars in the fyftem of Marcion, not 
 noticed by ancient writers. Note 
 
 M 326 
 
 LXV. The tenets of Marcion refpefting 
 
 Chrift - - . 326 — 331 
 
 Marcion admitted that the advent of a 
 
 Meffiah was predidled by the pro- 
 phets of the Old Teftament, and 
 that fuch Meffiah would one day or 
 other make his appearance 5 but de- 
 nied that our blefled Saviour was the 
 Mefliah alluded to, and aflerted that, 
 in proclaiming himfelf as fuch, Chrift 
 had pradifed a deception. Note 
 [x] - - - - 327—329 
 
 He denied that Chrift either fufFer- 
 
 ed or died any otherwife than 
 in appearance ; but affirmed, that 
 fuch his apparent death was bene- 
 ficial to the human race. The Mar- 
 cionites fet no value on life, and 
 
 LXV. were 
 
XXVllI CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT, PAG4 
 
 LXV. were dlftlnguiftied for the number 
 and courage of their martyrs. Note 
 
 Q] - - - • -.33° 
 
 The very fingular tenets of Marcion 
 
 with regard to Chrifl's defcent into 
 helL Note [z] - 33o> 33^ 
 Two courfes of moral difcipHne re- 
 cognized by the generality of the 
 Gnoftic fedls. A fummary view 
 of the chief points in regard to 
 which ihefe fefts were either agreed 
 or at variance. Note [<i] 331 — 333 
 
 LXVI. The hcrefy of Montanus 332 — 339 
 
 Tertullian's teflimony with regard to 
 
 Montanus mult be received with 
 fome caution. The hiftory of the 
 Montanifts involved in much con- 
 fufion and obfcurity. The learned 
 much divided in opinion as to the 
 time of the origination of this fedl. 
 An attempt to place the character of 
 Montanus in its proper point of 
 view. Note [^] - 333—335 
 
 .. — Although Montanus appears to have 
 been difordered in his mind, it is 
 fcarcely credible that he could have 
 been fo infatuated as to pretend that 
 the Holy Ghoft was refident in his 
 perfon, or that his body was aftually 
 animated by the Holy Spirit in the 
 place of a foul. Note [r] - 336 
 
 — -— The bilhop of Rome (Vidor), until 
 undeceived by Praxeas, regarded 
 Montanus in the light of a genuine 
 prophet. Note [^] - - 337 
 
 The feft of the Montanifts had not 
 
 become extindt even fo low down as 
 the 5th century. A lift of imperial 
 edids relating to them. Note [^] 338 
 
 In his vindication of Montancis, Ter- 
 
 tuUian may rather be confidered 
 
 LXVI. as 
 
CONTENTS. XXIX 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 LXVI. as the advocate of bimfelf and his 
 
 own opinions. Note [_/"] - 339 
 
 LXVII. The errors of Montanus 339 — 352 
 
 The opinions of Montanus appear to 
 
 have been perfectly orthodox with 
 regard to the leading principles of 
 Chriftianity. His errors however 
 were far from being of a light or 
 trivial nature. He aflerted that 
 Chrift and his apoftles had left the 
 moral law Incomplete, and that he 
 himfelf was commiflioned of God 
 to bring it to perfe^ion. There 
 are no grounds for charging him 
 with Sabellianifm. Note [^] 339 — 344 
 ■■ ■ The improvements in moral difcipline 
 
 fuggefted by him, related merely 
 to a greater ftridlnefs in point of 
 external demeanor. An inveftiga- 
 tion of thefe improvements in detail. 
 All of them were manifeftly of a 
 light and trifling nature. The 
 Chrlftlans did not take exception fo 
 much to his precepts in themfelves 
 as to the importance which he at- 
 tached to them. Note [-6] 344 — 348 
 <■.. It was not hisaffumingthe charafter of 
 
 a prophet that caufed the feparation 
 between Montanus and the Catho- 
 lic Chrlftlans, but their believing 
 him to be infplred of the devil. 
 Their reafons for thinking thus of 
 him. Montanus aflerted that he 
 and his followers conftituted the 
 only true church, and that every 
 other was at enmity with God and 
 the Holy Spirit. Note [/] 349 — 352 
 . — The prophecy of Montanus refpedtlng 
 the future judgment, which the Ca- 
 tholic Chriftians appear to have 
 been particularly anxious to mark 
 
 LXVII. with 
 
XXX CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE. 
 
 LXVII. with their difapprobation, could not 
 have related to the lafl general 
 judgment, but muft have pointed at 
 the overthrow of the Roman Em- 
 pire. Note [^] - 352—355 
 LXVIII. Praxeas - . - 353 — 362 
 -— — — For the hiftory of Praxeas, we are of 
 neceffity conftrained to rely wholly 
 on Tertullian, his moft inveterate 
 enemy. It is not improbable that 
 the error of Praxeas might have ori- 
 ginated in his hoftility to Montanus. 
 Note [/] . - , - 3SS>3S^ 
 ■ I. Praxeas denied the exiftence of any 
 real diftin£tion of perfons in the 
 Godhead. A particular inveftiga- 
 tion of his tenets with regard to the 
 divine nature. Note [»;] 357 — 362 
 LXIX. Theodotus and Artemon 362 — 365 
 . Ancient writers are far from being 
 agreed in their expofition of the 
 tenets of Theodotus refpefting 
 Chrift. It is by no means placed 
 beyond a doubt, that Theodotus and 
 Artemon entertained one and the 
 fame opinion on this fubje6l. Note 
 
 W - - - 363* 364 
 
 LXX. Hermogenes - - 365 — 369 
 
 The doftrine of Hermogenes refped- 
 
 Ing the eternity of matter not pro- 
 perly encountered by Tertullian. 
 Although the former confidered 
 matter as coeval with the Deity ; 
 he neverthelefs maintained that the 
 Deity had from all eternity ruled 
 over it. Note [j] - 367, 368 
 
 ■ *■■ ■ ■ The opinion of Hermogenes that the 
 fouls of men as well as their bodies 
 were compofed of matter, accounted 
 for on the ground of his believing 
 matter to be the fource of every evil 
 defire. Note ftl - 368, 369 
 
 LXX, It 
 
CONTENTS. XKxi 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 LXX. It is acknowledged even by Tertulllan, 
 that the tenets of Hermogenes re- 
 fpe<f^lng Chrift, were found and or- 
 thodox. This herefiarch appears to 
 have been a different perfon from 
 the Hermogenes mentioned by Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria in his Ecloga 
 Pfopheticay as alfo from that Her- 
 mogenes againft whom Theophilus 
 of Antioch and Origen wrote. Note 
 
 [«] 3^9 
 
 LXXI. -» Controverfy refpe6ling the Pafchal 
 LXXII. / obfervances - - 370 — 388 
 
 The caufes and nature of this contro- 
 
 verfy have been very generally mif- 
 underftood. The main point in dif- 
 pute was the propriety of the Chrif- 
 tians partaking of a Pafchal fupper 
 on the fourteenth day of the firft 
 Jewifti month in commemoration of 
 Chrift's eating the Paflbver with 
 his difciples. Previoufly to the 
 council of Nice the term Pafcha had 
 a different meaning from what it has 
 borne fince. An attempt to place 
 the nature of this controverfy in a 
 juft and perfpicuous point of view. 
 Note [i>.] - - - 371—384 
 
 ■ • ' ' Correftion of an error in Valefius's 
 
 tranflation of the words of Eufebius 
 refpe£ting Victor's excommunica- 
 tion of the Afiatic Chriftians. The 
 bifhop of Rome did not at that 
 time poffefs the power of cutting off 
 whom he pleafed from all commu- 
 nion with the church at large. Vic- 
 tor's excommunication of the Chrif- 
 tians of Afia Minor extended merely 
 to the exclufion of them from all 
 
 LXXII. commu- 
 
XXXli CONTENTS. 
 
 SEC/. PAGE 
 
 LXXII. communion witli himfelf and the 
 church of Rome. His example was 
 not followed by the other bifhops. 
 Note [z.] - - - 3B5— 388 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 15, in margin, for Germany, read German. 
 
 ■^— 28, line 25, after y/vsra;, add i ya^ <pwnv^'.i<ra, i'^a rs S» 
 afjt.Tti'Koi Ktt.1 aurri^oi x?'^^ * ^"^^ """"^ '5*' 
 
 ■ 49, — 31, dele be. 
 
 61, — 37, for Chrijiian, read Chrijlians. 
 
 66, — 38, hr the, reSid they. 
 
 67, — 33. for feverity, read ferenity . 
 
 165, — 9, for fet, read/ed. 
 
 — — 166, in margin, for ajjlime, re&d ajfumes. 
 
 167, Hid. for more, read moral. 
 
 171, line 32, ioi celebacy, re&d celilacy. 
 
 172, — 19, iox countenancing, tes-dccncnterading, 
 • 173, — 22, for fuch of, them, red.dfuch of them. 
 
 - 178, — 35, for Egytians, read Egyptians. 
 
 183, — 22, for aUfe, read a life. 
 
 a 89, — 13, for herefes, read hcercfes. 
 
 225, — 10, (ot in the mind, vezd into the mind. 
 
 ■ 307, — 22, for Jfetfen, read JVetJlen. 
 
 • 359, line antepenult, for /3Xairip>!,a(r;)ai, resid (iXetff^tjfiy.ff'ai- 
 Paffim, for intririfically, read intrinfecally . 
 
 THE 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 
 
 SECOND CENTURY. 
 
 I. 'T^HE Chrlftian religion, which in the 
 JL courfe of the former age had made its 
 way throughout a confiderable 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, flill more 
 widely diffufed, and propagated even amongfl 
 thofe nations, which on account of their ferocity 
 and the loathfomenefs of their manners were 
 juflly regarded with horror by the reft. Being 
 deftitute of any documents on the fubjeft that 
 can properly be relied on, it is impoflible for 
 us, with any degree of exadnefs, to fpecify, either 
 the time, circumftances, or immediate authors, 
 of this further diffufion of the bleffings of the 
 gofpel, or particularly to diftinguifh the pro- 
 vinces which had hitherto remained uncheered 
 by, and now firft received, the light of celeftial 
 truth, from thofe to which it had been com- 
 municated in the former century. We muft 
 reft fatisfied therefore with being able to afcer- 
 tain, in a general way, from the unexceptionable 
 teftimony of writers of thefe and the following 
 VOL. II. B times. 
 
2 The Eccleftajiical Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, times, that the limits of the church of Chrift 
 ._^|_^. were, in this age, extended mod widely ; in fo 
 Propaga- much indeed, as to make them correfpond very 
 cr-ft-^*''^ nearly with the confines of the then known 
 religion." habitable world \_a]. 
 
 II. The 
 
 [«] Some very ftriking paflages refpefting the ampli- 
 tude and extent of the Chriftian community, are to be 
 met with in the works of thofe moil excellent writers of 
 the fecond century, Juftin Martyr, Irenseus, and Ter- 
 tullian, writers, of whom it is not too much to fay, that 
 they are, in general, moft deferving of unlimited credit. 
 « Ti 'iv fays Juftin, [Dialog, cum Tryphone, p. 341. edit. 
 Jebbian.) ^a^ oXa>; \i\ 10 ylyo^ civ^^ujirm, s'trs jSa^^agwv, Ens 
 EX^>5vwv5"eite a'TrXSc wTtvTyv ovojuctTi •jr^oa-a.'yo^ivofji.ivuiVf v ajixaysfejoiv, 
 V ocoiK'jjv kocXhix'zVwv, ri ev (TKrivait; xTDvoTpoIiwv tixavxwv, ev oi"? fj.n djo. t« 
 
 voiriTT) ruv o\u)v ylvovTSii. N^e unum quidem ejl genus morta^ 
 Hum, five barbarorum. Jive Grscoruin, feu et'iam aliorum om- 
 nium, quocumque appelleiitur nomine, vel in plaujlris degentium, 
 vel dome carentivm, vel in tentoriis viventium, et pecoribus 
 ^itam to/erantium, inter quos per nomen cruc'tjixt Jefu fuppU- 
 cationes, et gratiariim actiones patri et fabricatori omnium non 
 
 fiant. Subfequently, at p. 351. he again expreffes him- 
 
 felf mucli to the fame purport, though in fewer words. 
 Now admitting, what indeed is too obvious to be denied, 
 that there is in this fomewhat of exaggeration, fmce long 
 after the age of Juftin, there were many nations of the 
 earth, which had not been brought to a knowledge of 
 Chrift, fl:ill there could have been no room for this very 
 exaggeration, had not the Chriftian religion been at that 
 time moft extenfively dift'ufed throughout the world. 
 Irenosus, difputing with the Valentinians, (lib. i. adv, 
 Heeref. cap. x. p. 48. edit. Maffuet.) oppofes to them 
 the entire Chriftian church, which he reprefents as extended 
 throughout the whole world, even to the uttermoft bounds 
 of the earth. From this immenfe multitude of Chriftians 
 in the general, he then felefts certain particular churches 
 widely feparated from each other in point of fituation, and 
 fets them in oppofition to his adverfaries. Kat axs a'i ev 
 r£^/xavtjij,- tJpii|xE'v36» l;c)cXr)o-iat aXXw? TrETt-'Euxao-jv, « aXXwj 
 7r«fad»do«a-iv, sts h m*j 'l^Eptaj?, «te ev KtXToti, «te xara raj 
 ftKaroXa;, aTE ev 'AjyuVrw, hti ev AiCtJr), uri a* xaro. /xstra ry x.6crfjLU 
 l^^vfjLimi, Ac neque ha qug in Germaniisfittefunt Ecctejia aliter 
 
 credunt, 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 II. The name of one of thofe, however, who 
 devoted themfelves to the propagation of the gof- 
 
 credunt, aut aliter tradunt, nee qua in Hiberiisy aut Celtts, 
 
 neque ha qua in oriente, neque ha qua in JEgypto, neque ha 
 
 qua in Libya, neque ha qua in medio mundi conjlituta. In 
 
 fupport of the doftrine then for which he is contending, 
 
 we fee Irenaeiis here calls to witnefs churches from all the 
 
 three grand divifions of the world which were at that 
 
 time known. From Europe, the Germanic, the Iberian or 
 
 Spanifh, and the Celtic or Gaulifh. He himfelf lived 
 
 amongft the Celts, and was a near neighbour to the 
 
 Germans and Iberians ; and muft confequently have been 
 
 mod intimately acquainted with the fituation of Chriftian 
 
 affairs in thofe parts. From Afia he adduces the churches 
 
 of the Eaft, by which I conceive him to mean thofe which 
 
 had been planted at the eaftern extremity of Afia. 
 
 Finally, from Africa he calls to his fupport, the churches 
 
 of Egypt and Libya. To what churches he alludes when 
 
 he fpeaks of thofe " fituated in the centre of the world," 
 
 it is not very eafy to fay. The commentators on Irenaeus 
 
 would have us to underftand him as having in view the 
 
 churches of Paleftine, fince it appears that anciently 
 
 Paleftine was, by fome, confidered as fituated in the centre 
 
 of the world. How far this may be juft I am unable to 
 
 fay. PoiEbly the world xoa-/xo5, or world, might be put by 
 
 Irenaeus, as it is by others of the ancient writers, for the 
 
 Roman empire. Annexing this fenfe 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 Benediftines, {Singularites Hijlo- 
 
 riques et Litteraires, tom. iv. p. 197.) who fuppofes that by 
 
 the centre of the world was meant Afia Minor, Greece, 
 
 Thrace, Illyricum, Pannonia, Italy and the Ifles; in (hort 
 
 all thofe parts which were furrounded by the countries 
 
 which he had before enumerated. Tertullian gives a more 
 
 copious lift than Irenaeus, of the nations that had embraced 
 
 Chriflianity, although perhaps less to be depended on. 
 
 In quern enim alium, fays he, (in lib. adv. Judaos, c. vii. 
 
 p. 212. edit. Rigalt.) univerfa gentes crediderunt, niji in 
 
 Chrijlum qui jam venit ? Cut enim et, ( there feems to be 
 
 fome deficiency or corruption of the text in this place,) 
 
 alia gentes crediderunt : Parthi, Medi, Elamita, et qui inha- 
 
 B 2 bitQnt 
 
4 The Ecclefiafiical Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, pelamongft the nations of the eaft, has been tranf- 
 ^^- initted to pofterity, viz. that of Pantsenus, a man 
 
 of 
 
 Miffion of 
 Pantienus 
 to India. 
 
 I'ltant Mefopotannam, Armen'iam, Phryg'tam., Cappadoclam, et 
 incolentes Pontinu, et Afiam, et. Pamphyliam : immorantes 
 JEgypliim, et reg'ionem Afnca que eji trans Cyrenem inha- 
 bitantes ?" Romatii et incolte ; tunc et in H'terufalem Judai et 
 catera gentes : ut jam Getulorum varietates, et Maurcrum 
 mult't fines : H'lfpaniarum omnes termini, et Galliarnm diverfa 
 nationes, et .Britanrtorum inactcjfa Romnnis Joca, Chnjlo vera 
 fubdita, et Sarmataruin, et Dacorum, et Gennanorum , et Scytha- 
 rum, et abditnruiu niultaruin gentium et previnciarum et infula' 
 rum muUarum nobis ignotarum, et qua enumerare minus pqffu' 
 7nus : in qvilus omnibus locis Chrijti nomen, qui jam venit, reg- 
 nat. Confidering this paflage as perfectly explicit, and every 
 way worthy of credit, various of the learned have not 
 hefitated on the faith of it, to pronounce that the Chriftian 
 rehgion had, at this time obtained for itfelf 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 
 ilrong apprehenfion that I might plunge myfelf into diffi- 
 culties not eafily to be furmounted. In fa6t, it appears 
 to me, that TertuUian puts on here a little of the rhetorician, 
 as he does in many other parts of his writings, and relates 
 fome things which it fhould flrangely puzzle me, or any 
 one elfe to demonftrate. In the firft place, it is to be re- 
 marked, that the middle part of the above paflage is taken 
 from the Ads of the Apoftles, and that, with the excep- 
 tion of the Armenians, it exhibits a catalogue of precifcly 
 the fame nations as are enumerated by the Jews who had 
 heard the Apoilles fpeak in foreign tongues, A£ts, ii. 8, 9, 
 From what the Jews are there recorded to have faid, 
 TertuUian feems to have conceived what carries on its very 
 face the marks of abfurdity, namely, that all the nations of 
 v,'hom thofe devout Jews there make mention, were at once 
 induced to embrace the Chriftian faith. It is next ob- 
 fervable, that what TertuUian here fays of Chriftianity 
 having in his time been profefled by divers nations of the 
 Gauls, is diredlly contrary to the faft. In the time of 
 TertuUian, the church of Gaul had attained to no degree of 
 ftrength or fize, but was quite in its infancy, and confined 
 within the limits of one individual nation, as the inhabitants 
 of the country themfelves acknowledge. What he adds 
 about Chrift being acknowledged in thofe parts of Britain 
 
 to 
 
of the Second Century. 5 
 
 of eminent abilities, and one by whom the caufe cent. 
 of ChrifUanity was, in various ways, confiderably ^^' 
 benefited. Having applied himfelf with dili- Miffionof 
 gence to the cultivation of letters and philofophy, Pa'>t^n"s 
 and prefided for a while with diftinguilhed credit 
 over the Chrillian fchool at Alexandria, he at 
 length, either on the fuggeftion of his own mind, 
 or by the command of Demetrius his bifhop, 
 engaged in a million to the Indians, who had 
 about this time manifefted a wifh for Chriflian 
 inftrudion, and communicated to them that 
 faving knowledge, of which they flood in need. 
 To which of the many nations comprehended 
 by the ancients, under the general title of 
 Indians, it was that Pantaenus thus went, has 
 been made the fubje6t of difpute. My own 
 opinion is, that this miflion originated in an 
 application made to the bifhop of Alexandria 
 by certain Jews who were fettled in Arabia 
 Felix, and who had been originally converted to 
 Chriflianity by Bartholomew, requefling that 
 a teacher might be fent them for the purpofe of 
 renovating and keeping alive amongfl them 
 the true religion, which for want of fuch 
 alTiflance had gone much to decay, and was 
 vifibly every day ftill further on the decline. 
 
 to which the Roman arms had not penetrated, is flill wider 
 removed from the truth. Finally, his aflerting that many 
 unexplored nations and unknown iflands and provinces had 
 embraced Chriilianity, moft plainly evinces that he fuffered 
 himfelf to be carried away by the warmth of imagination, 
 and did not fufiiciently attend to what he was committing 
 to paper. For how could it be pofllble that Tertullian 
 fhould have been brought acquainted with what was done 
 in unexplored regions and unknown iflands and provinces ? 
 In fa6t, inftead of feeling his way by means of certain and 
 approved tellimony, he appears, in this inftance, to have 
 become the dupe of vague and indiftin6t rumour. 
 
 B 3 If 
 
The Eccleftqftical Hijiory 
 
 If this conjedure of mine be well founded, it 
 muft of neceffity follow, that thofe are in an 
 error who conceive that India obtained her 
 firft knowledge of the Gofpel through Pan- 
 tasnus \b']. 
 
 III. Turning 
 
 \_b'\ For whatever we know of the facred legation of 
 Pantasiius to the Indians, we are indebted to Eufebius and 
 Jerome ; between whom, however, there is fome httle 
 difference of narration refpefting it. By the former, in his 
 Hiji. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. x. p. 175. Pantaenus is reprefented 
 as having, on the fuggeftion of his own mind, undertaken a 
 journey amongft the people of theeaft, for the purpofe of 
 converting them to Chriftianity, and to have extended his 
 travels even as far as the Indians. The latter, in his 
 Catal. Scriptor. Ecclefiajl. cap. xxxvi. p. 107. ed. Fabric. 
 & Epijlol. Ixxxiii. p. 6^6. tom. iv. opp. part ii. ed. 
 Benedict, reports that certain delegates had been difpatched 
 by the Indians to Alexandria, requefting of Demetrius the 
 bifhop of that city, that a Chriftian inftruftor might be 
 fent them ; and that Demetrius acceding to their wiflies, 
 direfted Pant^nus the prefedl of the Alexandrian fchool 
 to accompany thofe men on their return. If then we 
 give credit to Eufebius, we muft underftand Pantaenus as 
 having voluntarily, and purely out of love towards God, 
 undertaken the labour of difleminating a knowledge of the 
 gofpel amongft divers of the barbarous nations of the eaft, 
 including even the Indians : if on the contrary we take 
 Jerome for our guide, it fhould feem that he was fent by 
 his bifhop on a fpecial million to the Indians, and to none 
 befides. Poffibly it may not be very difficult to bring 
 about a reconciliation between thefe two accounts. Pan- 
 taenus had, probably at the inftigation of his own mind, 
 gone forth with a view to the converfion of fome of the 
 more neighbouring nations, and, perhaps met with fome 
 fuccefs. Whilft he was thus employed, the Indian 
 delegates, in all likelihood, arrived at Alexandria, re- 
 queuing that a Chriftian inftruftor might be fent to 
 their countrymen ; and Demetrius having received the 
 moft ample teftimony of his knowledge, faith, and zeal, 
 pitched upon this fame Pantsnus as the moft proper 
 perfon to accompany them on their return. But fince 
 it is well known that the Greek and Latin writers gave 
 the title of Indians to many of the more remote eaftern 
 
 nations. 
 
of the Second Century. 7 
 
 III. Turning to the European provinces, we c E n t. 
 find it acknowledged by the befl informed "• 
 
 French Or-Jn7f~' 
 
 the Gallic, 
 
 nations, of whom little or nothing was known, and alfo and Enfflifti 
 occafionally made ufe of tlie term to denote the Periians, churclies. 
 Parthians, Medes, Ethiopians, Libyans, Arabians, and 
 others, as is not unnfual with us at this day, the learned 
 have made it a queftion what Indians thofe were to whom 
 a knowledge of the gofpel was imparted by Pantaenus. 
 Moft of them imagine that the fcene of his labours muft 
 have been the country of India Magna which is watered by 
 the Indus, and which we now term Eattern India : an 
 opinion that feems to be countenanced by Jerome, who 
 fays that Pantaenus was fent to the Brachmans. Mijfus eft 
 fays he, in his 83d Epillle in Indiam ut Chrijlum apud 
 Brachmanas et illius gent'is phtlofophos pradicaret. For 
 Brachmana or Bramins is the title by which the wife men 
 of India Magna are diftinguilhed to this day ; but by the 
 ancients the term Brachmanus was appHed in a manner 
 equally vague and ambiguous with that of Indians, and 
 it appears to be not at all unHkely that Jerome might, in 
 this inftance, have no authority but his own fancy for what 
 he faid. Thofe illuftrious fcholars, Hen. Valefius, L. Holfte- 
 nius, and others, have therefore rather thought that it was 
 to the Abyflinians or Ethiopians that Pantaenus went, fince 
 the appellation of Indians, (a title which they are ftill 
 fond of retaining) was given alfo to thefe people by the 
 ancients : and in addition to this, they are as it were, next 
 door neighbours to the Egyptians, and keep up a conftant 
 commercial mtercourfe with them. See Bafnage — ^nnal. 
 Politico-Ecclefta/i. tom.W. p. 207. Hen. Valefius, yf(/no/<z/. 
 ad Socratis Hiftor. Ecclef. p. 13. For my own part, I 
 can fall in with neither of thefe opinions ; for my belief is 
 that thofe Indians, who requeiled to have a teacher fent 
 them by Demetrius the bifhop of Alexandria, were neither 
 pagans nor ftrangers to Chriftianity, but Jews, who had 
 fettled in that part of Arabia, called by the Greeks and 
 Romans Arabia Fehx, and by the people of the eaft Hye- 
 men ; and who had previoufly been brought to a knowledge 
 of Chrift and his word. My reafon for thinking thus is, that 
 Jerome fays, Pantaenus found amongft them the Gofpel of 
 St. Matthew in Hebrew, and brought it back to Alexan- 
 dria with him, and that they had received this book from Bar- 
 tholomew one of the twelve apoftles, who had " preached 
 B 4 amongft. 
 
churches 
 
 The Eccleftqftical Hijlory 
 
 French writers, that their country, which anci- 
 ently bore the name of Tranfalpine Gaul, was 
 not blefled with the light of the gofpel until this 
 century, when a knowledge of the religion ol 
 andEngiifh Chrift was firft communicated to their rude fore- 
 fathers by Pothinus, who, together with Irenseus, 
 and certain other devout men, had travelled into 
 Gaul from Afia. There are not wanting fome, 
 however, who would carry up the origin of the 
 Gallic church to the apoltles themfelves or their 
 immediate difciples \_c]. From Gaul it feems 
 
 proba- 
 
 aniongft them the coming of Jefus Chrift." Catalog. Scr'iptor. 
 Ecchftaji. c. xxxvi. p. 107. It is apparent therefore that 
 the people to whom Pantsenus went, were not ftrangers to 
 Chriftianity, as alfo that they were flcilled in the Hebrew 
 language, and were confequently of Jewifli extradlion. 
 For fmce Bartholomew left with them one of the gofpels 
 written in Hebrew, it unavoidably follows, that they muft 
 have been acquainted with the Hebrew tongue. Had 
 they been ignorant of the Hebrew, what end could it have 
 anfwered to make them a prefent of a book in that lan- 
 guage ? It only remains then for me to (hew that thefe 
 fame Jews were inhabitants of Arabia Felix. And in this 
 I feel no fort of difficulty whatever, in as much as it can 
 clearly be afcertained that this part of India was the fcene 
 of Bartholomew's labours. For let any one only be at 
 the pains of comparing together the teiiimony of ancient 
 authors, refpeftiiig that India, to which a knowledge of 
 Chrift and his word was lirft imparted by Bartholomew, and 
 not the fhadow 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 Bartholomai. Mem. Hijf. 
 Ecclefiajl. tom. i. p. 11 60, 1161. 
 
 [c] The moft eminent of the French writers have at 
 difi'erent times engaged in difputes of confiderable warmth, 
 refpefting the antiquity and origin of the Gallic church. 
 Theie appears to be three different opinions on the fubjeft, 
 each of which '.as found its advocates. (I.) That to wliich 
 we have above give.i the precedence, has been defended 
 with great ability and learning by the very celebrated 
 
 Jo. 
 
and EngliJh 
 hutches. 
 
 of the Second Century. 9 
 
 probable that Chriftianity pafled into Cif-rhenane cent, 
 Germany, at that time under the dominion of , "• , 
 
 the Origin of 
 the Gallic, 
 Jo. Launois, in various trads which are to be found in the ^Tpv." 
 firft part of the fecond volume of the joint edition of his 
 vi^orks. So cogent indeed are the arguments of this illuf- 
 trious writer, that his opinion has been embraced by almofl 
 every one in France who makes pretenfion either to fupe- 
 rior wifdom, ingenuity, or learning. Via. H'ljtoire Litteraire 
 de la France^ torn. i. p. 223, & feq. This opinion more- 
 over is fupported by the authority of no lefs than three mofl 
 refpeftable ancient hiitorians ; of whom the firlt is Sulpitius 
 Severus, who in fpeaking of the perfecution which the 
 Chriftians of Lyons and Vienne fuffered, under the emperor 
 Marcus Antoninus, {HiJIor. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. 32. p. 246.) 
 adds, ac turn primum inter Gall'ias martyria vtfa, fer'ius tranf- 
 alpes Dei religione fufcepta. The next is the author of 
 The Ads of Saturninus, bifhop of Tholoufe, who fuffered 
 martyrdom in the third century, under the reign of the 
 emperor Decius, a work that is generally fuppofed to have 
 been written in the beginning of the fourth century. — Ac- 
 cording to this writer, the churches that had been founded 
 in France were but few and fmall even in the third century. 
 Vid. Theod. Ruinart. Ada Martyrum Sincera et SeleSa., 
 p. 130. The third is Gregory of Tours, the parent of 
 French hiftory, who relates, {Hi/ior. Francor. lib. i. 
 cap. xxviii. p. 23, & de Gloria Confejforum, cap.xxx. p. 399. 
 ed. Ruinart), that under the reign of Decius there were 
 feven men fent from Rome into France for the purpofe ot 
 preaching the gofpel. Thefe feven then, it is obfervable, 
 are the very ones which popular tradition pronounces to 
 have been the companions of the apoftles Paul and Peter, 
 and amongft them is that Dionyfius the first bifhop of 
 Paris, whom the French formerly maintained to have been 
 Dionyfius the Areopagite. (II.) By thofe however who 
 think it of greater importance to uphold ancient notions and 
 magnify the confequence of France, than to afcertain the 
 truth, an origin by far more auguft is afligned to the Gallic 
 church, and the apoftles Peter and Paul themfelves are pro- 
 nounced to have been its founders. According to them, 
 the laft mentioned of thefe apoftles traverfed a confiderable 
 part of Gaul in his way into Spain ; and Luke and Crefcens 
 were afterwards difpatched by him on a miflion to the Gauls; 
 and the church of Paris owed its foundation to Dionyfius 
 the Areopagite, an immediate difciple of his, of whom men- 
 
lO 
 
 The Ecclefmjiical Uijhry 
 
 the Romans, and was alfo transferred to the op- 
 pofite fhores of Britain, although it is infilled on 
 
 by 
 
 tion is made in the Adls of the Apoftles. St. Peter like- 
 wife, they fay, fent his difciple Trophimus into Gaul, and 
 St. Philip laboured in the converfion of a part of it himfelf. 
 And, as if all this were not enough, they will have it, that 
 fome of the moft renowned prelates of the different Gallic 
 churches, fuch as Paul of Narbonne, Martial of Limoges, 
 and Saturnine of Tliouloufe, had, before their coming into 
 France, enjoyed the benefit of the apoftles' fociety and in- 
 ftrudtion. See the epiftle of the eminent Peter de Marc, 
 de EvangeUi in Gallia Initiis, which Valefius has prefixed 
 to his edition of Eufebius. It muft be confefTed indeed, 
 that the number of thofe who perfift in maintaining the au- 
 thenticity of all thefe particulars, is at present confiderably 
 reduced ; for the faft is, that in fupport of a great part of 
 them nothing better can be avouched than the teftimony of 
 obfcure charadlers altogether unworthy of credit, or per- 
 haps conjpftiire, or fome vague tradition ; in fhort, nothing 
 but evidences of the moft uncertain and unfatisfaftory na- 
 ture. (I no There are however to be found in France, men 
 by no means deficient in learning, who will defend the 
 above way of thinking with fome limitation, and who, al- 
 though they are ready to give up fuch of the abovementioned 
 facts as are unfupported by authority, will yet not hear of 
 furrendering that grand citadel of ecclefiaftical pre-eminence, 
 the apoftohc origin of the Gallic church. The arguments 
 of Launois, Sirmond, and Tillemont, they will allow, place 
 it beyond all difpute, that the celebrated Dionyfius, the 
 firft biftiop of Paris, concerning whofe body fuch violent 
 dilputes have taken place between the BenedicStine monks of 
 St. Emmeran at Ratifbon, and the French monks of St, 
 Dionyfius, was not the perfon whom the French, from the 
 ninth century, have believed him to have been, •viz, Diony- 
 fius the Areopagite, one of St. Paul's difciples, but a very 
 different man who flourifhed in the third century. They 
 are alfo willing to admit that the vulgar tradition about the 
 coming of Phihp and other holy men into Gaul, is altoge- 
 ther undeferving of credit ; and finally, that the greater part 
 of the churches in that country which pretend to an apofto- 
 lical foundation, were not in reality founded until long after 
 the apoftolic times. But the three following points they 
 can on no account be brought to relinquifh ; firft, that the 
 great apoftle of the Gentiles in his way into Spain tarried 
 
 for 
 
of the Second Century, 1 1 
 
 by not a few of the Germans, that their church cent. 
 owes its foundation to certain of the immediate . "; . 
 
 com- Origin of 
 the Gallic, 
 for fome time in Gaul ; fecondly, that Luke and Crefcens ^ j' £*"'i-ft, 
 were difpatched by him on a miflion to the Gauls ; and churches.' 
 laftly, that fo early as the fecond century, there had been 
 founded in Gaul many other Chriftian churches befides thofe 
 of Lyons and Vienne. No one, that I know of, has dif- 
 played greater diligence and ability in fupport of this laft: 
 way of thinking than Gabriel Liron a Benediftine monk of 
 great erudition, in f:is DifTertation fur P Etahlijfement de la 
 Religion Chret'ienne dans les Gaules ; which nearly fills the 
 fourth volume of a work publifhed by him, under the title 
 of S'tn^ularites Hijioriques i^ Littcraires. Paris, 1740, 8vo. 
 It has alfo been defended by Dion. Sammarthanus in the 
 preface to his Gallia Chrijliana. For my own part I muft- 
 fay, thit neither of i.hefe ways of thinking appears to me 
 to be in all refpefts well-founded or unexceptionable- On 
 the fecond, it cannot be necelTary to make any remark, 
 fince It is fupported by fcarcely any one of the prefent day, 
 except fuch as are interefted in upholding the credit of a 
 parcel of old (lories, to which the churches are indebted for 
 a great part of their riches. In fnpport of the third, there 
 appears to be many things yet un-ettablifhed, that may with 
 the ftricteft juftice be called for. Admitting it for inftance 
 to be certain, what in point of faft we know to be moft un- 
 certain, that St. Paul made a journey into Spain, it yet by 
 no means follows oi neceffity that he muft have gone throu'^h 
 Gaul in his way tiiither ; for it is very poffible that he 
 might have made the journey by fea. For Luke's ever 
 having been in Gaul we have no authority but that of Epi- 
 phanius, (xn HareJ. lib. i. § xi. P'433-), a writer, to fay 
 HO worfe of him, of very indifferent credit, and by no means 
 determinate in his way of fpeaking. For the word Gaul is 
 here put by him abfolutely, and we are confequently left 
 utterly in the dark as to whether he means Tranfalpine 
 or Cifalpine Gaul. Dionyfius Petavius indeed {Animadverf. 
 ad Epiphanium, p.90. ) fufpefts, and not without reafon, 
 that Cifalpine Gaul was the country meant. In proof of 
 the miflion of Crefcens, the words of St. Paul, 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
 are cited, in which the learned advocates for this legation 
 contend, that inftead of TaAKTiV-v, as moft copies have it, 
 we ought to read with Epiphaniusj T(x.>.X[m. But even 
 fuppofing that we were to yield to them in this, for our do- 
 ing of which however nothing like a fufficient reafon could 
 
 readily 
 
1 2 The Ecclefiajitcal Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, companions and difciples of St. Peter and the 
 "• other 
 
 Origin of 
 the Gallic, 
 German, 
 and Englifli 
 churches. 
 
 readily be affigned, ftill here again the queftion would arife, 
 as to whether it was Tranfalpine or Cifalpine Gaul that was 
 meant. Poflibly it may be true, although it cannot be ab- 
 folutely proved to be fo, that in the fecond century there 
 were in Gaul, feveral churches befides thofe which we know 
 to have been at that time eftabhflied at Lyons and Vienne. 
 But allowing this to be ever fo certain, ttill it is not con- 
 clufive as to the main point in difpute, namely, whether or 
 not the light of the gofpei was firft communicated to the 
 people of Tranfalpine Gaul by the apoftles themfelves and 
 their companions and difciples. To the opinion firft above 
 noticed, wz. that the Gauls were not acquainted with the 
 name of Chrift prior to the arrival of Pothinus and his com- 
 panions from the eaft, although it has very illuftrious patrons 
 on its fide, there yet seems wanting fome further fupport. 
 The celebrated paffage which we have cited from Sulpitius 
 Severus, and concerning which fuch great difputes have 
 taken place amongft the learned, can certainly authorize no 
 further inference than this, that the Chriftian religion was 
 communicated at a later period to the Gauls than to the 
 countries of Afia and the reft of Europe. So that it 
 amounts not to any thing like a proof that the glad tidings 
 of Chriftianity had never reached the Gauls until the arrival 
 of Pothinus, Irenasus, and their companions, in the fecond 
 century. From the afts of Saturninus it is clear, that the 
 religion of Chrift made but a flow progrefs in Gaul, and 
 that under the feign of Decius, in the third century, there 
 were only a few fmall churches ftattered about here and 
 there throughout the country, the major part of the inha- 
 bitants net having renounced idolatry even at that period. 
 But this furely throws no obftacle whatever in the way of 
 any one's believing that fome of the apoftles or their difci- 
 ples had journied into Gaul, and that a part of that country 
 had embraced Chriftianity prior to the fecond century. 
 The paffages referred to in Gregory of Tours, moft affur- 
 edly poflefs conliderable force when oppofed to the idle no- 
 tions formerly entertained by the French refpefting Diony- 
 fius the Arcopagite, Trophimus, Martial, and others, as 
 alfo in demonftrating the futility of the pretenfions which 
 many of the Gallic churches make to an apoftolic founda- 
 tion. — They alfo prove that the number of Chriftians in 
 Gaul prior to the time of Decius was comparatively trifling; 
 but all this is not fhewing that thofe are in error who con- 
 
 tend 
 
of the Second Century. i ^ 
 
 other apoftles {d ) ; and the inhabitants of Bri- 
 tain would rather have us, with refped to the in- 
 
 troduaion ^,^^<^ 
 
 the Gallic, 
 tend that the way of falvation was firft made ,known to the ^^' p^" v^ 
 Gauls by one of the apoftles themfelves, or by men who had ^" ,'i"^ ' 
 enjoyed the benefit of the apoftles' converfe and inftruction. 
 Upon the whole, when I take into confideration the un- 
 bounded zeal difplayed by our Lord's apoftles in the propa- 
 gation of his religion, I muft own I find no little difficulty 
 in perfuading myfelf that a province of fiich extent and con- 
 fequence, and no farther diftant from Italy, could have been 
 altogether neglected by them, and never invited to liften to 
 the terms of falvation propounded by their divine matter. — 
 , Were I to be called upon then fcr a fuminary ftatement of 
 my opinion on the fnbjetl I ftiould fay, peradventure Luke, 
 peradventure Crefcens, peradventure one even of the apoftles 
 themfelves, might have taken a journey into Gaul with a 
 view to the converlion of the natives. Thefe primary ef- 
 forts, by whomfoeverm.ide, were certainly attended with but 
 very little fuccefs. \.\\ the fecond century Pothinus, with 
 certain comparions, arriving out of Afia, experienced a more 
 prop'tious reception, and fucceeded in eftabliftiing a fmall 
 church at Lyons. This little aflembly of Chriftians how- 
 ever, inftead of increafing, went, in the courfe of time from 
 various caufes, much to decay, and the feven men, who ac- 
 cording to Gregory of Tours, were fent from Rome into 
 Gaul, under the reign of the emperor Decius, may be faid to 
 have found the Gallic church in a ftate little better than that 
 of abfolucc ruin, and to have given to it as it were a fecond 
 foundation. With this opinion the indefatigable Tillemont 
 nearl)'- coincides, in his Memolres pour fei'vir a V H'ljlo'ire de 
 VEgUfe, tom.iv. p. 983. 
 
 \_d~\ Both Irenjeus and TertuUian, as we have above 
 feen, ^ i. note [^r] make exprefs mention of the German 
 churches. From neither of thefe writers, however, is the 
 le^ information to be obtained as to whether thefe churches 
 were founded in this or the preceding century, or any thing 
 colle£led that might lead us to form a judgment of their 
 number and fize. Even the part of Germany in which they 
 were fituated is not indicated. This filence has afforded 
 to the German antiquaries a very ample field for difpute. 
 The moft learned and fagacious of them imagine, that the 
 greater or Tranf-rhenane Germany, which was very little 
 known to the Romans, did not receive the light of the 
 gofpel in this century nor for many ages afterwards ; and 
 
 therefore 
 
1 4 T^^JS Ecckfiajiical Hijiory 
 
 troduftion of Chriftianity into their country, re- 
 ceive the account of Bede, who reprefents Lu- 
 cius, 
 
 therefore that the churches mentioned by Irenasus and 
 TertulHan muft have been litiiated in Cif-rhenane Germany, 
 which was fubjeft to the Roman government. Jo. Erneft. 
 Grabe takes exception to this opinion, in his annotations 
 on the paflage in Irenssus imder confideration ;,but as it ap- 
 pears to me on very hght grounds. — For what he fuggefts 
 is, that as Irenaeus does not (peak of Germany but of the 
 Germanies, ev Ta»? rfp,u.aviaK, it is to be fuppofed that in his 
 time there had been Chriftian churches eftabhfhed through- 
 out the whole of Germany. But a man of his erudition 
 ought furely to have recollefted that Irenasus might with- 
 out any impropiiety fpeak thus of Cif-rhenane Germany, 
 which, as is well known, had been divided by the Romans 
 into the firft and fecond, or Superior and Inferior Germany. 
 Until therefore the opinion of the eminent men above al- 
 luded to, fhall be oppofed by arguments of greater force 
 than this, its credit will remain unfliaken. Other argu- 
 ments indeed have been brought forward by Jo. Nichol. ab 
 Hontheim, in his Hijlor'ia Tre'virenfis Diplomatica, tom. i. 
 Differt. de JEra Epifcopatus Trcvirerifis, p. lo, & fcq., 
 where he lays it down that the pafTage in Tertullian ought 
 to be underftood as relating to that part of Eaftern Ger- 
 many which borders on Sarmatia and Dacia ; and the paf- 
 fage in Irenseus as relating to the whole of Germany. But 
 thefe arguments, unlefs I am altogether deceived, carry no 
 greater weight with them than that of Grabe does, and ferve 
 only to demonftrate the author's fertile and happy talent at 
 conje6lure. Marctfs Hanhtzius is fpoken of by him with 
 approbation, as maintaining the fame opinion in his Gerwania 
 Sacra ; but in this I think his memory muft have deceived 
 him, for I can find nothing of the kind faid by Hanfitzius 
 in the place referred to. A greater queftion is as to the 
 antiquity and origin of the German churches. The princi- 
 pal churches of Germany, like thofe of other nations, would 
 fain carry up their foundation to the time.^i of the apoftlej, 
 and even to the apollles themfelves. Amonglt other things 
 there is an old tradition, that three of St. Peter's com* 
 panions, namely, Eucharius, Valerius, and Maternus, were 
 fent by him into Bclgic Gaul, and fo far feconded by divine 
 favour that they fucceeded in ertablifhing churches at Co- 
 logne, Treves, Tongres, Leige, and other places, and con- 
 tinued in the fuperintendaace and government of them until 
 
 their 
 
of the Second Century, 
 
 cius, an ancient king of that ifland, as having in c 
 this century procured feme Chriftian teachers to 
 
 Origin of 
 their deaths. Vid. Chriftoph, Brower. Annales TrevirenfeSi the Gallic, 
 lib. ii. p. 143, & feq. A3a SatiHar. Antnuerp'tenf. ad d. xxix. Geimany, 
 Januarii, p. 918. But in refutation of this, thofe great awl t^ngl'fl» 
 and impartial writers, Calmet in his Dijerfation fur les *=''^''^"^' 
 Eveques de Treves 1 torn. i. Hijlo'ire de Lorrainey-^z.rt\\\.\v, 
 BoUand in his ABa SajiSlorum^ Januarii, torn ii. p. 922, 
 & feq. Tillemont in his Memo'ires pour fervir a I H'tjlo'ire 
 de PEghfe, tom.iv, p. 1082 ; and fWially, Hontheim in his 
 D'ljfertat'io de JEra Epifcepatus TrevirenfiSt torn. i. Hijl. 
 Trev'irenf. have fully Aiewn, by arguments as conclufive as 
 the nature of the queftion will admit of, that the above- 
 mentioned facred charadlers, with their afTociates, belong 
 properly to the third, or rather to the beginning of the 
 fourth century, and that the dignity of apoftolic legates was 
 gratuitoufly conferred upon them either through ignorance 
 or vanity during the middle ages. To confefs the truth, it 
 appears to me extremely probable that the fame perfons by 
 whom a knowledge of Chrift and his gofpel was in the fecond 
 century communicated to the Gauls, extended the fcene of 
 their labours fo far as to make the inhabitants of that part 
 of Germany which is contiguous to Gaul, partakers of the 
 fame blefling. Gabriel Liron has, with much labour and 
 ingenuity, endeavoured to prove the apoftolical antiquity of 
 the German churches, in his Singularites Hijlorlques Eff Lit- 
 teratres, torn. iv. p. 193, & feq. But the arguments and 
 fuggeftions of this learned writer, although they may in- 
 duce us to refufe joining with thofe who go the length of 
 pofitively aflerting, that no apoftle or apoftolic legate ever 
 fet foot in Germany, and that there were no Chriilians in 
 that country prior to the time of Pothinus and Irengeus,yet 
 by no means render it clear that fuch fuccefs attended the 
 labours of any apoftolic mifiionaries in Germany as for them 
 to colleft together and eftablifh certain churches, the pre- 
 fidency over which they retained during their lives, and on 
 their deaths transferred over to others. If any of the firft 
 promulgators of Chriftianity ever travelled into Germany, 
 which in the abfence of all pofitive teftimony on the fubjedl 
 I will take upon me neither to affirm nor deny ; it is certain 
 that they accompli ftied nothing of any great moment amongft 
 this warlike and uncultivated people, nor could any Chriftian 
 churches have been eftabliftied by them in that country upon 
 -any thing like a folid or permanent foundation. 
 
 11 be 
 
1 6 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. be fent him from Rome by the pontiff" Eieu- 
 therus [_e'}. 
 
 IV. It 
 
 [^3 Previoufly to the reformation, Jofeph of Ariraathea, 
 the JeAifli fenator, by whom in conjundlion with Nicodemus 
 our bleffetl Saviour's obfequies were performed, was com- 
 monly confidered as having been the parent of the Britifh 
 church. The tale propagated by the monks, in fupport of 
 which however they could advance no fort of authority- 
 whatever, was that this illuftrious character and twelve other 
 perfons were difpatched by St. Philip, who had taken upon 
 himfelf the inftruAion of the Franks, into Britain, for the 
 purpofe of diffufiiig a knowledge of Chriftianity amongft 
 the inhabitants of that ifland alfo, and that their mifiion was 
 not unattended with fuccefs ; for that within a fhot t period 
 they were fo fortunate as to make a great number of con- 
 verts, and to lay the foundation of the church of Glafton- 
 bury. Vid. Rapin de Thoyras, Hijloire d^ Angleterre, tom. i. 
 p. 84. At prefent the better informed of the Britifli do not 
 hefitate to give up this narrative of the oiigin of their church 
 as altogether a fiftion ; but they do not fail, at the fame time, 
 to fupply its place by an account equally, nay even more au- 
 guft and magnificent, left they fhould appear to come be- 
 hind the other European churches in point of antiquity and 
 confequence. What they aflert is, that the Britons are ex- 
 prefsly enumerated both by Eufebius and Tlieodoret amoagft 
 thofe of the Gentiles, whom thefe writers ftate to have en- 
 joyed the benefit of receiving the faith from the mouths of 
 the apoftles themfelves, and that therefore fome one or other 
 of the apoftles muft have travelled into Britaia and refided 
 there for fome time. But fince it is not a little difficult to 
 fix on either of the apoftles that were the companions of 
 our bleffed Lord, who could with the leaft ftiow of proba- 
 bility be named as the one that took this journey into Bri- 
 tain, they have recourfe to St. Paul, maintaining that the 
 inhabitants of this ifland acquired their firft knowledge of 
 the gofpel through the preaching of this great apoftle of 
 the Gentiles, who had failed into Britain from Spain. And 
 this conjeAure or opinion they conceive to be fupported 
 by (amongft other ancient authors) Clement of Rome, who 
 fays that St. Paul travelled, Wi to t'mi.01. n^ Vafu.?, " to the 
 very confines of the weft." To this they add, that amongft 
 fo many thoufands of the Romans as pafTcd into Britain, 
 both during the time of Claudius and afterwards, there muft 
 no doubt have been many who profefTed the Chriftian faith. 
 
 The 
 
of the Second Century. 1 7 
 
 IV. It is fcarcely, indeed we might fay, it is ^ ^^^ '^* 
 not at all pofiible to afcertain, with any thing like l* '■ y— -.J 
 
 preciflOn, Number of 
 ^ ' the Chrifti- 
 
 ans In Uiis 
 The church that was thus firlt cftabliflied in Britain, age. 
 however, they allow to have been but fmall, and after a 
 little while to have wholly fallen to ruin, or at leaft gone 
 in great meafure to decay. They therefore confider the 
 British church as having received, what may be termed, 
 its principal and permanent foundation, in the fecond cen- 
 tury, 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 Ecclefiaftical Hiitory and by others after him, 
 as a faft not in the leaft to be doubted of, namely, that 
 certain perfons were, at that period, difpatched to Rome by 
 Lucius the king of Britain, requefting that fome Chriftian 
 teachers might be fent him ; that in confequence of this 
 application feveral fuch teachers were fent, and that by 
 the zeal and unremitted exertions of thefe miflionaries, 
 the whole ifland was gradually converted to the Chriftian 
 faith. The reader will find thefe different points difcufTed 
 with much ingenuity, and fupported with great ability and 
 learning, by thofe eminent native writers : J. Ufher in 
 \\\% yititiquitates Ecclejia Bfitannica, cdiip.'i. p. 7. F.Godwin 
 in his work de Converftone Britannia., cap. i. p. 7. Edward 
 iStillingfleet in his Antiquities of the Britijh Church., cap. i. 
 and William Burton in his Animadverf. in Epijl. Clement. 
 Rom. ad Corinthios. Patrum Apojlolic. torn. ii. p. 470, : 
 With whom we find not a few foreigners agreeing in 
 opinion. Vid. F. Spanheim, Hijl. Ecclef. Maj. faec. ii. 
 p. 603, 604. tom. i. opp. Rapin de Thoyras, Hijloire 
 d* Angleterret tom. i. p. 86, & feq. With the reader's leave 
 I will now give my own opinion on this fubject, propounding 
 in the way of conje6ture fuch fuggeftions as appear to me 
 to have probability on their fide, but adopting nothing 
 which is not fupported by the decifive teftimony either of 
 fa£ls or of words. In the firft place then, as to the queilion 
 of, whether or not either of the apoftles themfelves, or any 
 one commiffioned by them, ever took a journey into Britain 
 with a view to the converfion of the natives ; I believe it 
 muft be pafTed over as not to be determined, although I 
 muft confefs, that probability feems to lean rather in favour 
 of thofe who take the affirmative fide, than of thofe who 
 oppofe it. St. Paul's voyage into Britain is moft inti- 
 mately connefted with his journey into Spain ; but with 
 vot. n, c vrbat 
 
1 8 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 precifion, the proportion which the number of 
 the Chriftians in this age, and more efpecially 
 
 within 
 
 what doubts and almoft infurmountable difficulties, the faft 
 of this apoflle ever having been in Spain is encumbered, is 
 well known to every one at all converfant in thefe matters. 
 The ftory of Jofeph of Arimathea being fent from Gaul 
 into Britain by Philip, feems to have fomewhat in it of 
 truth, although corrupted and deformed through the ig- 
 norance, or arrogance, or, perhaps, the knavery of the 
 monks. In faft, it fhould feem more than probable as to 
 this, that what took place in Gaul and Germany, happened 
 likewife in Britain, namely, that certain devout charafters, 
 of an age by far more recent than that of the apoftles, were, 
 through one or other of the above-mentioned caufes con- 
 verted into apoftolic milTionaries. The truth of the matter 
 I fufpedl to be, that the monks had colle-^ed from remote 
 tradition and ancient documents, that fome man of the 
 name of Jofeph had pafled over from Gaul into Britain, 
 and applied himfelf with fuccefs to the propagation of the 
 Gofpel there ; and either from their ignorance of any other 
 eminent chriftian charafter of the name of Jofeph, befides 
 him of whom mention is made in the hiftory of Chrifl:, or 
 from a determination to exalt the dignity of the Britifh 
 church even at the expence of truth, took upon them to 
 afl'ert, that this Jofeph was none other than that illuf- 
 trious Jewifli fenator, by whom the body of our Lord 
 was interred, and that he was fent from Gaul into Britain 
 by the apoftle PhiHp. In like manner as the French con- 
 verted Dionyfius, a bifhop of Paris, who flourifhed in the 
 third century, into Dionyfius the Areopagite, and the Ger- 
 mans metamorphofed Maternus, Eucharius, and Valerius, 
 who lived in the third and fourth centuries, into primitive 
 teachers and difciples of St. Peter, so I doubt not the 
 Britilh monks alfo, out of zeal for the honour of their 
 church, were induced to lend a helping hand to fome 
 Jofeph, who had in the fecond century crofTed over to 
 their anceflors from Gaul, and to lift him up one century 
 higher. Being in the prefent day unfurnifhed with any 
 pofitive evidence on the fubjedl, we can only offer this in 
 the way of furmife. A confiderable degree of obfcurity 
 hangs over the hiftory of thofe perfons, who, in the fecond 
 century accompanied Pothinus out of Afia into Gaul; 
 polDibly amongil thofe devout charafters there might be 
 likewiie a Philip, who perfuaded Jofeph to undertake the 
 1 2 journey 
 
of the Second Century. 1 9 
 
 within the confines of the Roman empire, bore cent. 
 to that of thofe who ftill perfifted in adhering "' 
 
 journey into Britain ; and whom the fame monks, by way 
 of giving a due confillency to the different parts of their 
 tale, might raife to the dignity of an apollle. In the 
 prefent day, as we before obferved, thefe things can only 
 be gueffed at ; but our furmifes are not mere random ones. 
 For not to reft upon the circumftances that the clergy of 
 almoft all the different nations of Europe have fallen into 
 a fimilar error, or been guilty of the fame kind of deceit, 
 and that it would therefore be very extraordinary if thofe 
 of Britain alone, fhould not have blundered, or tranf- 
 grefTed in this refpeft"; the account of the matter, as it 
 has reached us, carries with it fome not very obfcure marks 
 of truth. That thefe monks, for inftance, fhould not 
 have pitched upon one of the apoftles ; but have contented 
 themfelves with one of our Lord's friends ; that of fuch 
 friends, Jofeph fhould have been the one fixed on ; that 
 this their Jofeph fhould not have travelled iiitoBritain, by the 
 exprefs command of Chrift himfelf, or have been conveyed 
 thither in fome miraculous manner; but that on the con- 
 trary, they fhould allow him to have croffed over to them 
 from Gaul, which is, in faft, admitting that Chriftianity 
 had obtained for itfelf a footing amongll the Gauls, prior 
 to its introdu£lion into Britain ; all thefe circumflances, 
 in my opinion, feem plainly to indicate that they come not 
 properly within the clafs of thofe who invent what is 
 abfolutely falfe, but were men who perverted the authentic 
 traditions of their anceflors, fo as to render them fubfer- 
 vient to certain purpofes of their own. My opinion is 
 much the fame with regard to Lucius, whom the more 
 refpeftable of the Britifh writers ftrenoufly maintain to 
 have been, not the original founder, but as it were, the 
 fecond parent and amplifier of their church. That a 
 Lucius of this defcription did adlually exifl, I have not the 
 leafl doubt ; but I do not believe him to liave been either 
 a Briton or a king of the Britons. The very name, which 
 is Roman, fpeaks him to have been fome man of eminence 
 amongft the Romans, who were at that time matters of the 
 ifland. This man probably, being well-difpofed toward the 
 Chriftian rehgion, or having, perhaps, already fully em- 
 braced it himfelf, beheld with grief the fuperflition of the 
 Britons, and with a view to its abolition called in fome 
 Chriftian teachers from abroad. Thefe his laudable inten- 
 c 2 tions. 
 
20 The Ecdefiqftical Hi/iory 
 
 to the heathen fuperftitions. Mod of thofe, by 
 whom the fubjed has been adverted to in modern 
 
 times, 
 
 tions, we may well fuppofe to have been feconded by 
 Divine Providence. I cannot, however, perfuade myfelf 
 to believe that he had refort to Rome for thofe teachers, 
 and that they were fent over to him by Eleutherus, al- 
 though this is the account which Bede gives us of the 
 matter. Lucius had no need to fend to fuch a diftance 
 .for men qualified to inftruft the Britons in the principles 
 of Chriftianity, fince in the time of Eleutherus, there 
 were refident in the neighbouring country of Gaul, par- 
 ticularly at Lyons and Vienne, Chriftians fufiiciently 
 flfilled to affurae the office of teachers, and burning with 
 an holy zeal to embark in the further propagation of their 
 faith. That Lucius fhouldhave fent to Rome for teachers, 
 was, I fufpeft, altogether an invention of the monks of the 
 feventh century, who perceiving that the Britons were but 
 little difpofed to receive the laws andinftitutionsofthe Roman 
 fee, ufed every endeavour ro perfuade them that the Britifli 
 church owed its foundation to the Roman pontiffs, and 
 that it was by the affiftance of Eleutherus that Lucius, 
 the firft Chriftian king of Britain, brought about the con- 
 verfion of his people. The information, however, which 
 we are in poffeflion of refpe£ting thofe of the ancient Britons, 
 who had embraced Chriftianity prior to the arrival of 
 Auguftin, who was fent into Britain by Gregory the Great 
 in the fixth century, will not permit us to believe this. 
 Had their anceftors been inftriafted in the principles of 
 Chriftianity by teachers from Rome, moft unqueftionably 
 they would have adopted the Roman mode of worfhip, 
 and have entertained a veneration for the majefty, or 
 to fpeak more properly, the authority of the biftiop of 
 Rome. But from the teftimony of Bede, and various ancient 
 documents that are to be found in Wilkin s'j Councils of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, tom. i. p. 36., it is plain that 
 they knew of no fuch character as the biftiop of Rome ; 
 and could not, without great difficulty, be brought to yield 
 obedience to his mandates. In their time of celebrating 
 Eafter too, to pafs over others of their obfervances, it 
 ' appears that they were guided, not by the Roman, but 
 the Afiatic rule ; and what is particularly deferving of 
 notice, they, like the Afiatics in the fecond century main- 
 tained, that the rule to which they conformed was derived 
 from St. John. See Bede'j Hljlorta Ecelef. Gentts yinglorum. 
 
 lib. iii. 
 
of the Second Century, 2 i 
 
 times, have erred by running into one or other c e n t. 
 of the extremes. The number of the Chriftians , "' 
 
 lib. iii. c. XXV. p. 173. edit. Chifletian. By no fort of cir- 
 cumftantial evidence whatever, could it, in my opinion, 
 be more clearly proved than by the above, that it was not 
 from any miflionaries of Eleutherus, but from certain devout 
 perfons, who had originally come from the eaft, namely 
 from A.fia, that the ancient Britons received their inftruc- 
 tions in the Chriftian difcipline. Whoever will be at the 
 pains to connect all thefe things together, and to confider 
 them with a due degree of attention, may, I rather think,, 
 not feel altogether indifpofed to adopt the opinion which 
 I myfelf have been led to entertain refpefting the origin of 
 of the Britifli church. It is this : — if any Chriftian church 
 was ever formed in Britain, either by one of the apoftle-s 
 themfelves, or any of their difciples, which I certainly 
 will not take upon me to deny, it could not have been a 
 large one, and muft have very foon gone to decay. Chrifti- 
 anity, however, again recovered for itfelf a footing in Britain, 
 under the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus in the 
 fecond century, when Eleutherus was bifhop of Rome, and 
 the Chriftians of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul were fuffering 
 under a moft dreadful perfecution from the flaves of idolatry. 
 There happened at that time to be refident in Britain, a 
 certain wealthy and powerful Roman of the name of Lucius, 
 who had been led to entertain a refpeft for Chriftianity,. 
 and was defirous of having its principles diffeminated, both 
 amongft the native inhabitants of Britain and the Romans 
 who were refident there. Hearing that certain devout 
 men, who had come from Afia into Gaul, had met with 
 confiderable fuccefs in the propagation of the Gofpel in 
 this latter country, and fupported with wonderful fortitude 
 the varied train of evils to which they were expofed ; he, 
 by his authority, procured fome of them to come over 
 into Britain, and make known the tr]ie way of falvation 
 alfo there. In all probability the name of the leader, or 
 principal one of the facred charafters that thus paffed over 
 from Gaul into Britain was Jofeph, and that of his fupe- 
 rior, by whofe command or inftigation the journey was 
 undertaken, Philip ; and hence arofe the tale of Jofeph of 
 Arimathea been fent from Gaul into Britain, by the 
 apoftle PhiHp. At the time when this happened Eleu- 
 therus was bifhop of Rome, and occafion was hence taken. 
 c 3 by 
 
12 The EcclefiajUcal Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, at this period is as unqueftionably over-rated by 
 "■ thole, who, not making due allowance for the 
 tumid eloquence of fome of the ancient fathers, 
 reprefent it, as having exceeded, or at lead 
 equalled that of the heathen worfhippers \_f~]y 
 as it is under-rated by thofe who contend that 
 in this age, there were no where to be met 
 with, no not even in the largeft and moft 
 populous cities, any Chriflian aflemblies of 
 importance, either in point of magnitude or 
 
 by the Romifh monks, who found their interefts not a 
 little concerned in making the Britons regard the Romifh 
 church in the light of a fpiritual mother, to pretend that 
 the teachers above aUuded to had been lent over from 
 Rome by the pontiff Eleutherus. Should any one however, 
 feel inchned rather to believe that fome of the teachers 
 from Alia to whom the Gauls flood fo much indebted for 
 inftruftion, were induced, either voluntarily, or from motives 
 of perfonal fafety during the perfecution that raged at 
 Lyons to crofs over into Britain, and that their labours 
 in this ifland were crowned with the converfion of a 
 multitude of people, the firft; and principal of whom was 
 an eminent perfon of the name of Lucius, I fhall not objeA 
 to his adopting this opinion in preference to the one above 
 fuggefted. 
 
 [/] Tertullian is by many confidered as fpeaking lite- 
 rally no more than the truth, when he urges the Romans 
 in the following words : Hejlerni fumus, et vejlra omnia 
 implevinius , urbes, infulas, cajhlla, municipiay conc'tliabulay 
 cajlra ipfa,tribuSi decurias, palatium,fenatum, forum. Sola 
 vobis relinquimus templa. Apologet. cap. xxxvii. p. 311. 
 edit. Havercamp. To me, however, it appears that the 
 African orator, who feems to have been naturally inclined 
 to exaggeration, in this inilance, moft evidently rhetoricates 
 in a very high degree. Were the paffage to be ftript of 
 its infidious and fallacious colouring, I conceive it would 
 be found to mean fimply this: — the Chriftians are very- 
 numerous throughout the whole of the Roman empire, 
 indeed it is icarcely poffible to name any department in 
 which fome of them are not to be found. 
 
 refpeda- 
 
of the Second Century. 23 
 
 rerpe£l:abllity [^]. That both are equally In an c E n t. 
 error, is manifefl from the perfecutions that were .^]l,^ 
 
 carried Number of 
 the Chri-fti- 
 ans in this 
 [<?] The world has of late seen many writers or the moft age. 
 oppofite charadlers and views afliduoufly co-operate in un- 
 dervaluing and diminilhing the churches of the fecond cen- 
 tury. Thofe inveterate enemies of the Chriftian religion, 
 whom we ftyle Deifts, do this by way of meeting the argu- 
 ment which its defenders draw from the wonderful and in- 
 conceivably rapid propagation of the gofpel ; an argument 
 which, they conceive, muft completely fall to the ground 
 could the world be once brought to believe, that during the 
 firft two centuries, the converts to Chriftianity were but 
 few, and thofe, chiefly, of a fervile or low condition. The 
 adverfaries of epifc©pacy, whom we commonly term Pref- 
 byterians, take the fame fide, with equal zeal, under the 
 hope of proving that the charge committed to a bifhop 
 of the fecond century muft have been comprifed within a 
 very narrow compafs, and confequently that the prelates of 
 the prefent day, whofe fuperintendance, for the moft part, 
 extends over large trafts of country, are altogether a dif- 
 ferent order of men from the primitive bifhops. The 
 paftor of a congregation of about two hundred, or at the 
 moft of fix hundred perfons of little or no account (and a 
 bifhop of the fecond century, according to them, was no- 
 thing more,) may rather be likened, fay they, to a country 
 parifh prieft than to a bifhop of modern days. The fame 
 thing is likewife eagerly contended for by fuch of our 
 own writers as have entered the lifts with the advocates 
 for the church of Rome. The objeft which thefe propofe 
 to themfelves in fo doing is to render it evident that the 
 vaft multitude of martyrs and confeflbrs with which the 
 Roman calendar is crowded, muft be, for the moft part, 
 fictitious ; and that the bones, which are daily brought to 
 light from the Roman catacombs, are rather to be con- 
 fidered as the remains of flaves and people of the loweft 
 order, than as reliques of chriftian martyrs. In this way 
 do we frequently find perfons of the moft oppofite views 
 concur in yielding to each other a mutual fupport. Wife 
 and honeft men, who take care always to temper their 
 aeal in the caufe of religion by a proper refpeft for truth, 
 will readily allow that we have fufficient grounds to war- 
 rant us in making no very inconfiderable deduftion from 
 that immenfe hoft of Chriftians which many conceive to 
 have exifted in the fecond century' ; but on the other 
 c 4 hand, 
 
24 T^he Ecclefiajikal Hijlory 
 
 CENT, caifried on with fuch fury againfl the Chriftlans- 
 
 II. 
 
 Number of 
 the Chrifti- 
 aris ill this 
 a-e. 
 
 in this century. Had their number been any 
 
 thing 
 
 hand, tlu?y find themfelves precluded by the moft unex- 
 ceptionable teftimony of words as well as fad^s (and this 
 too deduced, not from the writings of the Chriftian* 
 themfelves, but of men who were hoflile to the chriftian 
 name,) from joining in opinion with thofe who maintain 
 that in this age the chriftian churches were but few and in- 
 confiderable throughout the Roman empire. To fay no- 
 thing of the evidence of fafts, there is the notable tefti- 
 mony of an author of the greateft weight, namely, Pliny 
 the proprsetor of Bithynia, who, in a report made by him 
 to the emperor foon after the commencement of this 
 century, ftates the province over which he prefided to be 
 fo filled with Chriftians, that the worftiip of the heathen 
 deities had nearly fallen into difufe. Epifiol. lib.x.ep. 
 xcvii. p. 821. edit. Longol. Multi, fays he, omnis atatisy 
 omnis ordinls, utriufqite fexus etiam, vocantur in periculum et 
 vocaluntur. In this paffage I would particularly recom- 
 mend the words omnis ordinis to the attention of thofe 
 who would willingly have us believe that the primitive 
 churches were made up of rude and illiterate perfons, flaves, 
 old women of the loweft order, in fa6l of the very dregs 
 of the people, and that amongft the chriftian converts 
 there were none to be found of any account or dignity. 
 Either their pofition rnuft be wrong, or Pliny muft haife 
 here ftated an abfolute falfehood. Neque ci'vitates fantum, 
 he continues, /ed vicos etiam atque agros fuperjlitionis ijfius 
 eontagio pervagata ejl. — The whole of the province therefore 
 fwarmed with Chriftians, not merely a particular part of it. 
 L.aft!y, 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 worfhippers 
 was exceeded by that of the Chriftians. This is manifeft 
 from what he ftates of the temples having been deferted, 
 the facred folemnities for a long time intermitted, and the 
 facrifices offered to the gods reduced to a mere nothing. 
 Certe fatis conftat, pr ope jam dejolata templa ccEpiJfe eelebrariy 
 et Jacra folemnia diu intermijfa repeti, pajfimque innire viBi' 
 mos, quorum adhuc rarijjimus emptor inveniebatur. We are 
 reduced to the neceffity then of either believing that the 
 report made by this circumfpeft and prudent writer to his 
 imperial matter was founded in fiAion, or elfe, admitting 
 that in the Pontic province, even fo early as his time, the 
 
 Heathen 
 
of the Second Century, 1^ 
 
 thing equal to what many would have us believe, cent. 
 
 common prudence would have with-held the em- 
 
 II. 
 
 Heathen worfhippers were far outnumbered by the Chrif- 
 tians ; at leaft, that the greateft part of its inhabitants had 
 manifefted a difpofition to abandon the religion of their 
 anceftors. Thofe who conceive that the Roman empire 
 contained within it but few Chriftians at this period, think 
 to do away the force of this teftimony by faying, that in 
 this letter to Trajan, Pliny affumes more the chara6ter of 
 an advocate than that of an hiftorian, and that therefore 
 what he fays is not to be underitood altogether in a literal 
 fenfe. Now to this I will in candour accede fo far as to 
 admit that Pliny was defirous of infpiring the emperor with 
 fentiments of lenity and pity towards a ^t of people whom 
 he knew to be of an harmlefs charafter, and under the in- 
 fluence of no evil principle, and that with this view he was 
 led in fome meafure to amplify the number of the Chrif- 
 tians ; but hither furely cannot be referred what he fays of 
 the temples having been before nearly deferted, the facred 
 rites intermitted, and the facnfices negleded. For Trajart 
 could have drawn no other conclufion from this than that 
 Chriftianity was on the decline. In every other refpeft too, 
 we find the orator quite laid afide, and things reprefented 
 in plain and fimple terms without the leaft artificial colour- 
 ing. The teftimony of Pliny is confirmed by Lucian, to 
 whom it is impoffible to impute any thing like a fimilarity 
 of defign. Lucian, in an account which he has tranfmitted 
 to pofterity of the life and nefarious practices of Alexander, 
 reprefents this infamous impoftor as complaining "ASewk 
 '^■T£:rX*io-SjJ» xosl j^j<?»a>wv Toy TT&vtov, ol wfji v-vth roXf^iicrt 
 rx KxKiicc ^Xocv^ri^uy : plenam ejfe Ponium Atheis et Chr'if- 
 tianis, qui audeant pejftma defe malediSlafpargere. In Pfeu- 
 domant. § 25. p. 232. torn. ii. opp. edit. Gefner, This 
 Alexander appears to have dreaded the perfpicacity of thtf 
 Chriftians, by whom he was furrounded, in no lefs a degree 
 than that of the Epicureans, a fet of men by no means of 
 an inlignificant or frivolous charafter, but on the contrary 
 intelligent and fhrewd. By a particular injunftion therefore, 
 he prohibited both the one and the other from being ad- 
 mitted to the fecret myfterious rites which he inftituted. 
 E* T15 ASeoj, >j ;\;§is*«yof, « 'ETriiCtf^sjo?, "xt* v.oL'vi.a^o'Zo- run 
 of-yj'ijy, (pwyiTu. 1. c. § 38. p. 244. Thefe words the il- 
 luftrious tranflator of Lucian renders, f quis Atheusy cut 
 Chr'tjlianusy aut Epicureus venerit, orgiormn /peculator, fu^ito. 
 
 To 
 
 perOrS, Number of 
 the Chrifti- 
 ans in this 
 age. 
 
The Eccleftajlical Hi/lory 
 
 perors, magiftrates^ and priefis, from irritating 
 them either by profcriptions, or punifhments, or 
 rigorous feverities of any kind. But on the 
 other hand, had they been merely a trifling fet 
 of obfcure ignoble perfons, they would, inftead 
 of being combated with fo much eagernefs and 
 pertinacity, have been fpurned at and treated 
 with derifion. Upon the whole, the conclufion 
 
 " To me, howerer, it appears that we fhould better meet the 
 fenfe of the original by rendering them ft quis Athens, five 
 Chr'tjlianusfit, Jive Ep'tcureusy venerit, fug'ito. The title of 
 Atheifts being, as it ftrikes me, here ufed by this impoftor 
 generically to denote thofe to whom he afterwards fpecifi- 
 cally takes exception under the two denominations of 
 Chriftians and Epicureans. That the Chriftians as well as 
 the Epicureans, were termed Atheifts by their adverfaries 
 is well known to every one. It redounds however, not a 
 little to the credit of the Chriftians of Pontus that we find 
 Alexander thus claffing them with the Epicureans, a fet of 
 men on whom it was not eafy to impofe either with refpe6t 
 to their eyes or their ears. In the prefent day we have 
 many who would willingly perfuade us that the primitive 
 Chriftians were of fuch an infignificant and ftupid a cha- 
 rafter as not to be capable of diftinguiftiing miracles and 
 prodigies from the tricks of impoftors, or from fome of 
 the regular though rare operations of nature. To this 
 Alexander, however, this cunning deceiver, who had found 
 means to impofe on fo many who were deficient neither in 
 perception nor underftanding, they appeared to be per- 
 fons of a very different caft ; men, in fa6t, endowed with 
 a confiderable fhare of caution and prudence, who were 
 well capable of forming a proper eftimate of miracles and 
 prodigies, and whom all the craft and cunning of thofe 
 who made it their ftudy by tricks and deception to im- 
 pofe on the vulgar, could not eafily delude. The fear 
 
 * thus manifefted by Alexander of the Chriftians, muft cer- 
 tainly be allowed to poflefs confiderable weight in prov- 
 ing how very numerous they were in the provinces of 
 the Roman empire ; nor is it open to the fame excep- 
 tions that are taken to the teftimony of Phny. Alexander 
 cannot be charged with indulging in declamation by way 
 of moving the paffions ; his complaint is didated merely 
 by a concern for himfelf and his credit with the world. 
 
 that 
 
of the Second Century. 27 
 
 that feems lead liable to exception is, that the c e n t.^ 
 number of the Chriftians was in this age very " : _^ 
 confiderable in fuch of the provinces as had been Number o£ 
 early brought to a knowledge of the truth, and ^^^ 9^''f!-^' 
 continued ftill to cultivate and cherish it ; but that age.'" 
 nothing beyond a few fmall and inconfiderable 
 affemblies of them was to be found in thofe dif- 
 tricts where the light of the gofpel had been but 
 recently made known, or if communicated at an 
 early period, had been fuffered to languifh and 
 fall into neglect. 
 
 V. The aflonifhing progrefs thus made by Caufesto 
 Chriftianity, and the uninterrupted feries of vie- '^^^^ ^^^^ 
 tories which it obtained over the ancient fuperfti- nation of 
 tions, are attributed by the writers of thofe days, ^ to'be"''' 
 not fo much to the zeal and diligence of thofe attributed. 
 who, either in conformity to what they confidered 
 as a divine call, of their own accord alfumed the 
 office of teachers, or had elfe been regularly ap- 
 pointed thereto by the bilhops, as to the irre- 
 fiftible operation of the Deity acting through 
 them. For, according to thefe authors, fo ener- 
 getic and powerful was the operation of divine 
 truth, that moft frequently, upon its being fimply 
 propounded, without entering into either proofs 
 or arguments, its effefts on the hearers' minds 
 were fuch, that perfons of every age, fex, and 
 condition, became at once enamoured of its ex- 
 cellence, and eagerly rulhed forward to embrace it. 
 The aflonifhing fortitude and conflancy likewife, % 
 
 they report, with which many of the Chriftians 
 fuftained themfelves, under torments of the moft 
 excruciating nature, even to the very death, in- 
 fpired great multitudes of thofe who were Spec- 
 tators of their fufferings with an invincible deter- 
 mination to enrol themfelves under the banners 
 of a religion capable of infpiring its followers with 
 
 fuch 
 
28 
 
 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, fuch magnanimity of foul and fuch a thorough 
 "■ contempt for every thing temporal, whether it 
 were good or evil \_h~\. Finally, they reprefent 
 the Deity as having beflowed on not a few of 
 his minifters and chofen fervants, fuch a mea- 
 fure of his all-powerful Spirit, that they could 
 expel daemons from the bodies of thofe that were 
 poiTefTed, cure difeafes with a word, recal the 
 dead to life, and do a variety of other things far 
 beyond the reach of human power to accom- 
 plifh [ i ]. Mofl certain it is that the generality 
 
 of 
 
 [;&] Tertullian, at nearly the end of his Apology, ob- 
 ferves, with much elegance and ingenuity, Nee quicquam 
 tamen prqficit exquifttior quteque crudelitas vejlra., illecehra eft 
 mag'is feBx. Plures ejftc'imur., quot'ies metimur a vohis : Semen 
 ejl fanguis Chr'iftianorum. It is remarked alfo by Juftin 
 Martyr (in Dialog, cum Tryphonct p. 322. edit. Jebbian.) 
 
 "Offu/K'Ei «v roixvTa rUcc ysvuraj, too-Sto [jlkXMv ccWoi ttXejovej 
 irno) KCil ^taa-i^oiTc Sia. rS wofj.xro; t5 IncrS ylyvovTcci Quanta 
 mag'ts ejufmodi quadam in nos expediuntur tormentat tanto 
 alii plures Jideks Iff vera religionis cultores per nomen Jefu 
 
 jiunt. This he illuftrates by a fimile by no means inelegant : 
 
 TO a,vx^>.ixc'l)<Tcci ETf'faj x.Xa.Sii; Ka.1 Iv^k\u<; xal xa^TToifojsj 
 a,voc.^\^(nai ' tov avrov rpcVov xal s^' n'/xaJv yimxi. Quemadmodum 
 enimjl quis vitis excidat fru8ijicantes partes ut palmites quidem 
 alios Jloridos l^ frugiferos prefer at, facit : Ita in nobis quoque 
 accidit. Plant at a nam que a Deo et Chrifio fervatore vitis 
 ejl ejus populus. 
 
 [i] That this was the cafe, and that thofe gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit which are commonly termed miraculous, were li- 
 berally imparted by Heaven to numbers of the Chriftians, not 
 only in this but likewife in the fucceeding age, and more 
 efpecially to thofe of them who devoted themfelves to the 
 propagation of the gofpel amongft the Heathen, has, on the 
 faith of the concurrent teftimony of the ancient fathers, 
 been hitherto univerfally credited throughout the Chriftian 
 world. Nor does it appear to me, that in our belief as to 
 this we can with the leaft propriety be faid to have em- 
 braced any thing contrary to found reafon. Only let it bs 
 confidered that the writers on whofe teftimony we rely, were 
 all of them men of gravity and worth, who could feel no 
 
 inclination 
 
of the Second Century* 29 
 
 of thofe who in this century devoted themfelves cent. 
 to the propagation and defence of Chriflianity, , ,_ 1^ . 
 
 were Caufe»to 
 
 which the 
 
 inclination to deceive, that they were in part philofophers, gaiion of 
 that in point of refidence and country they were far fepa- Chriftianity 
 rated from each other, that their report is not grounded " to be 
 upon mere hearfay, but upon what they ftate themfelves to attiibutej- 
 have witnefled with their own eyes, that they call upon 
 God himfelf in the moft folemn manner to atteft. its truth, 
 (Vid. Origen contra Celfum, lib. i. p. 35. edit. Spencer ;) 
 and lailly, that they do not pretend to have themfelves pof- 
 fefled the power of working miracles, but merely attribute 
 it to others ; and let me aflc what reafon can there poffibly 
 be afligned, that fhould induce us to withhold from them 
 our implicit credit ? Some years fince, however, the oppo- 
 fite fide of the queftion was boldly taken up by an Englifh 
 author, who on other occafions had fhewn himfelf to be 
 poflefTed of an excellent genius and no ordinary degree of 
 learning ; I mean Dr. Conyers Middleton, who, in a volume 
 of fome fize, which he fent out under the title of " A free 
 Inquiry into the miraculous Poivers, &c." London, I749> has, 
 without ceremony, upbraided the whole Chriflian world with " 
 fuffering themfelves to be grofsly impofed upon in this re- 
 fpeft, and taken upon him to aflert, that every thing which 
 has been handed down to us by fo many of the fathers re- 
 fpedling the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and the miracles 
 of the firft ages, is devoid of foundation, and utterly un- 
 worthy of credit. Thofe who may be defirous of learning 
 the hiftory of this celebrated book, and of the very acri- 
 monious controverfy to which it gave rife in Great Britain, 
 may confult the Englifh, French, and German literary 
 journals, as alfo the confutation of the work itfelf, which 
 was lately publilhed in Germany. In this place I fhall at- 
 tempt nothing more than by a few obfervations to contri- 
 bute fomewhat towards the illuftration of this matter, which 
 has not even yet ceafed to agitate the learned world, and 
 muft certainly be confidered, on many accounts, as of the 
 very higheft moment. The ftate of the cafe appears to be 
 this. The very learned author of the Inquiry moft fully 
 admits that the apoftolic age abounded in miracles and extra- 
 ordinary gifts, but denies that any thing of this nature was 
 witnefled by the world fubfequently to the deceafe of our 
 Lord's apoftles, and hence infers, that the accounts which 
 have reached us of the miracles wrought in the fecond and 
 third Centuries, are to be regarded either as the inventions 
 
 of 
 
The Ecclefiqftkal Hijlory 
 
 were not pofTefled either of fufficient knowledge, 
 eloquence, or authority, to be capable of effect- 
 ing 
 
 of knaves, or the breams of fools. It appears to him, more- 
 over, that an urgent neceffity exifts for our coming to tHis 
 conckifion, inafmuch as the principles and arguments on 
 which the miracles of the firft ages reft for fupport, will 
 ferve equally well to uphold the credit of the wonders pre- 
 tended to have been wrought in more recent times by the 
 faints of the Romifli church : and it is confequently impof- 
 fible for us effedlually to affail the latter until we can fo far 
 break through our prejudices as to give up our defence of 
 a belief ir. the former. Now in all this there may perhaps be 
 nothing to which exception can juftly be taken, or that 
 fhould feem to be unworthy of a man of found fenfe and a 
 Chriftian. — For the divine origin of the Chriftian religion de- 
 pends not at all for fupport on the miracles which are re- 
 corded to have beenwrought in the fecond and third centuries. 
 Only let it be granted that a power of altering the laws of na- 
 ture was refident in Chrift and his apoftles, and the point is 
 placed beyond the reach of cavil. But to any one who (hall 
 perufe Dr. Middleton's book with attention, it cannot fail 
 to be apparent that, although his attack is ofteniibly diredled 
 folely againft the miracles of more recent times, yet his ob- 
 jeft was collaterally to impeach the credit of thofe wrought 
 by our Lord and his apoftles, and infidioufly to undermine 
 our belief of every thing tD the accomplifhment of which 
 the ordinary powers of nature could not have been equal. 
 For the arguments and mode of reafoning which he oppofes 
 to the miracles of the fecond and third centuries, are of fuch 
 a nature as to admit of their being moft readily brought to 
 bear with equal effedl on thofe of the firft century, fo that 
 if the former fall before them, every hope muft vanifti of 
 our being any longer able to fupport the latter. Upon 
 perceiving, as they leadily did, that fuch was the fcheme 
 of this ingenious but artful writer, it could not otherwife 
 happen but that the very learned and venerable body whofe 
 province it is to watch over the interefts of religion in Eng- 
 land, (hould at once take the alarm, and not only make ufe 
 of eveiy effort to render the plan abortive, but alfo without 
 referve accufe its author of bad faith, and attribute to him 
 the worft intentions. The certainty and truth of what I 
 have here ftated is fufiiciently proved by the learned Doftor's 
 very mode of argumentation, which is of fuch a nature that 
 a it were to prevail would greatly endanger the authority 
 
 of 
 
of the Second Century, 
 
 ing any thing great or remarkable without pre- 
 ternatural alTiftance. For although as the age 
 
 ad- 
 
 of thofe miracles on which the truth of the Chriftian religion 
 principally refts for fupport. The fcheme which the Doftor cl^riftianity 
 labours by great length of argument and an abundant difplay is to be 
 of erudition to eftabUfh is briefly this. — All the Chriftian attributed, 
 writers of the firft three centuries whofe works have come 
 down to us, were men poffefled of no judgment or difcrimina- 
 tion, neither were they always fufficiently cautious and cir- 
 cumfpe(5t, but occafionally betrayed a very great pronenefs to 
 fuperftition and credulity. Whatever therefore they may have 
 tranCmitted to us refpeAing the miracles wrought in their 
 days, including even thofe of which they ftate themfelves to 
 have been eye-witnefles, is to be confidered in the light of 
 mere nonfenfe and fable. As if it were certain that none but 
 men of nice difcrimination were capable of diftinguifhing be- 
 tween a true miracle and a pretended one, and that thofe mufl 
 of neceffity have always been impofed upon who on fome oc- 
 cafions appear to have yielded their credit on too eafy terms. 
 We could have endured it had this eminent fcholar contented 
 himfelf with aflerting that feveral of thofe things which are 
 reported to have happened in the firft ages, contrary to the 
 eftabliflied order of nature, might very well be doubted of ; 
 but to attempt, by a general argument like the above, open 
 as it is to infinite exceptions, and totally deftitute of any 
 evident or necefTary connection, to overthrow the united 
 teftimonies of fo many authors of unqueftionable piety, and 
 who, it is plain, were in many things fufficiently cautious 
 and circumfpeft, indicates, in my opinion, a mind replete 
 with temerity, and difpofed to ftrew the paths of religion 
 with infidious difficulties and fnares. Happily this illuftri- 
 ous writer himfelf appears fome (hort time before his death, 
 which happened in the year 1750, to have been fully con- 
 vinced, by the arguments of his opponents, of the weaknefs 
 of his opinion. For in his lail reply, a pofthumous work 
 that came out in 1751, under the title of a " Vindication of 
 the free Inquiry into the miraculous Powers which are fup- 
 pofed to have fubfifted in the Chriftian Church," &c. I fay 
 in this his laft literary effort, although he expreffes himfelf 
 in language more contentious and virulent than the occafion 
 could poffibly demand, he yet plainly acknowledges himfelf 
 to be vanquifhed, and yields up the palm to his adverfaries. 
 Forhe therein difclaims ever having meant to contend that no 
 
 miracle* 
 
32 The Ecclefiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, advanced, the fludy of philofophy and letters 
 gained ground amongfl the Chriflians in general, 
 and more particularly in Egypt, and the truths 
 of the Gofpel were embraced by fome even of 
 thofe who were diftinguifhed by the title of phi- 
 lofophers, yet there was every where a confi- 
 derable fcarcity of learned and eloquent men ; 
 and by far the greater part of the bilhops and 
 elders of the churches, took to themfelves credit 
 rather than fhame, for their utter ignorance of all 
 human arts and difcipline. 
 
 Cavrfes to 
 which the 
 vapid propa- 
 gation of 
 Chvlftianlty 
 is to be 
 altrib\ited. 
 
 miracles whatever were wrought in the primitive Chriftian 
 church fubfequently to the death of the apoftles, and pro- 
 feffes himfelf ready to admit, that when occafion required, 
 God was ever ready to fupport the Chriftian caufe by marks 
 of his omnipotent power. All that he ever intended to main- 
 tain, he fays, was this, that a conftant and perpetual power 
 of working miracles was never refident in the church pof- 
 terior to the age of the apoftles, and that therefore no credit 
 could be due to thofe of the early defenders of Chriftianity 
 who had arrogated to themfelves fuch a perpetual power : 
 ' in fliort, if I rightly comprehend the meaning of the learned 
 author, he wifhed to explain himfelf as having never in- 
 tended to aflert any thing more than that amongft the 
 teachers of the fccond and third centuries there were none 
 that pofleffed the power of working miracles at pleafure. 
 But this is altogether changing the ftate, as they term it, 
 of the controvcrfy. Had the learned Doftor, when he en- 
 tered on his undertaking, had nothing more in view than the 
 eftablifhment of this point, he might have fpared himfelf 
 all the pains that he took, in the firft place, to write, and 
 afterwards to defend his book. For I do not know that 
 it ever entered into the mind of any one profefling Chrifti- 
 anity, to aflert, that in the fecond, third, or fourth centu- 
 ries there were to be found amongft the Chriftians men to 
 whom the Almighty had conceded the power of working 
 miracles at all times and in all places, and of fuch a nature 
 and as often as they might think proper. Bella ger't placuit 
 nullos hahitura triumph os. 
 
 VI. But 
 
of the Second Century. ^T 
 
 VI. But we fhould do wrong to underftand what cent. 
 is thus recorded refpedting the wonderful means " • 
 by which the Deity himfelf contributed towards Human 
 the propagation of the Gofpel, in fuch a way as <^=i"f«' ^^^'^^i^ 
 to conceive that the caufe of Chriflianity was not toforward 
 at all indebted for its fuccefs to human counfels, ihe propa- 
 labour, or fludies. For without doubt the pro- aSanity. 
 grefs of divine truth was, in no little degree, 
 forwarded by the very wife and laudable exer- 
 tions of the biihops and other pious charafters 
 in getting the writings of the apoftles, which had 
 been collected into one volume, tranilated into 
 the mofl popular languages, and diftributed 
 amongft the multitude : indeed, the bare reading 
 of. thefe works is ilated to have fo affected many, 
 as to caufe them inftantly to embrace the Chrif- 
 tian faith \_k'}. The caufe of Chriflianity derived 
 
 alfo 
 
 \_k~\ Whether any one or more of the ancient tranflations 
 of the facred volume that have reached our days, can juftly be 
 ranked amongft the literary produftions of this early period, 
 admits of confiderable doubt. It appears, however, from 
 very refpettable authorities, that in the fecond century for 
 certain, if not in the firft, the books of the New Teftament 
 had been tranflated into different popular languages. See 
 Bafnage Hifioire de PEgUfe, liv. ix. cap. i. p. 450. tom. i. 
 How anxioufly defirous, moreover, the Chriftians of this 
 age were to inform the minds of the multitude, and to lead 
 them to Chrift, by furnifhing them with tranflations of 
 thofe writings in which the fcheme of falvation through 
 Him is laid open, and with what induftry this objed was 
 purfued by men of every defcription, cannot be better under- 
 ilood than from the great number of Latin tranflators of the 
 facred volume, which, according to Auguftine, ftepped for- 
 ward even in the very infancy as it were of Chriftianity. For 
 as the Latin language had been rendered familiar to a great 
 part of the world, and was not entirely unknown even to 
 what were termed the barbarous nations, t^je Chriftians 
 conceived that by their tranflating the books of the New 
 Teftament into this tongue, the way of truth would at 
 once be laid open to an innumerable portion of mankind. 
 
 yoL. II, D Eagt^r 
 
The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 alfo no inconfiderable benefit from the different 
 Apologies, in Greek as well as Latin, by which 
 
 thofe 
 
 Eager therefore to accomplifh fo defirable an end, they 
 were in fotne inftances led to form too favourable an cfti- 
 mate of their powers, and the taflc was occafionally under- 
 taken by thofe who were by no means competent to its 
 execution. — Qui fcripturas ex Hehraa lingua in Gracam ver- 
 terunt, fays Augiiftine [de DoBrin. Chrijlian. lib. ii. cap. xi. 
 p. 19. torn, iii.) num:rari pojfunt, Latini autem interpretes 
 nullo modo. Ut enirn cuiqtie primis jidti temporibus in tnanus 
 venit codex Graciis '3' aliquantuhitn facultatis Jibi utriufque 
 lingua habere videbatur, attfus ejl inter pretari. In this paf- 
 fage it is manifeit, although there are fome who either 
 cannot or will not perceive it, that by Codex Gracus is not 
 meant any kind of book written in the Greek language, 
 but the Codex Bibliorum., or thofe writings which the 
 Chriftians held facred. For Auguftine is not fpeaking of 
 tranflations from the Greek in general, but of verfions of 
 the Holy Scriptures. Without doubt the account he here 
 gives is to be confidered as fomewhat hyperbolical : for who 
 can bring himfelf readily to believe that in the infancy of 
 Chriftianity the multitude of Latin trandators of the facred 
 volume was fo great as not to admit of being numbered ? 
 I conceive him therefore to have meant merely that a con- 
 fiderable number of the early Chriftians had taken upon them 
 the office of tranflating the Holy Scriptures into the Latin 
 tongue, which was at that time one of the moft popular 
 languages. A fufficient teftimony furely even this of their 
 piety and holy zeal. Of thefe various Latin tranflations 
 Auguftine pronounces a decided preference to be due to 
 one which he names the Italic. In ipjis autem interpretationi- 
 bus, Itala ceteris praferatur : nam ejl verborum tenacior, 
 cum perfpicuitate fententia. 1. c. cap. xv. p. 21. Certainly it 
 is no fmall credit to a tranflator to confine himfelf clofely to 
 the words, and yet at the fame time to convey with perfpi- 
 cuity the fenfe of his original. But refpefting this verfion 
 which Auguftine names the Italic, a good deal of difcuffion 
 has taken place amongft the learned converfant in biblical 
 literature, and particularly in the Romi(h church. For they 
 entertain no doub^, but that the verfion to which Auguf- 
 tine alludes, was' the fame with that which was univerfally 
 received by the Latin church prior to its adoption of the 
 more recent tranflation from the Hebrew by Jerome. 
 Wherefore they fuppofe it to have been made in the time 
 
 of 
 
of the Second Century. 35 
 
 thofe learned and eloquent writers Juftin Martyr, cent. 
 Athenagoras, Ouadratus, Arlftldes, Miltiades, . "l _. 
 
 Tertullian, Human 
 
 eaufes which 
 
 of the apoftles, indeed poflibly by one even of the apoftles ^o forward 
 themfelves, and having been approved of by Chrift's vicar the propa- 
 and the fucceffor of St. Peter, they deem it to be, in point s^tion of 
 of dignity and credit, if not fuperior, at lead on an equal Chriftianity. 
 footing v!\X.\\ the Greek text that we have of the two Tef- 
 taments. To this perfuafion is to be attributed the very 
 great and very learned induftry which fome of the firft fcho- 
 lars both in France and Italy have before now difplayed, 
 and ftill continue to difplay, in endeavours to bring to hght 
 and reftore the rehques of this venerable verfion ; and in- 
 deed, if by any poflibiHty it could be done, to recover the 
 whole of it. ,For could this treafure be come at, they.ex- 
 peft that many corruptions and other blemiflies with which 
 they will have it that the Greek and Hebrew copies of the 
 Scriptures are at prefent deformed, would be happily de- 
 tected and removed, and the true reading of a variety of 
 controverted paflages be eftabliflied beyond difpute. The 
 very learned Benediftine brethren of the convent of St. 
 Maure, whofe erudition reflefts fo much honour on France, 
 have long been diftinguifhed for their exertions in this way. 
 One of them, John Martianay, who had before acquired 
 no fmall reputation by an edition of Jerome's works and 
 other literary undertakings, fent out at Paris in 1695, ^" 
 oftavo, what he confidered as the genuine old Italic verfion 
 of the Gofpel of St. Matthew and the Epiftle of St. James. 
 A very laborious work in three large volumes folio was next 
 publifhed by Pet. Sabatier at Rheims, in 1743, under the 
 title of Bibliorum facrorum Latina i>erJiones antique, feu vetui 
 Italica iff cetera, quotquot in codicibus MSS. et antiquorum 
 Ubris reperiri pottierunt, qua cum 'vulgata Latina Is' cum 
 textu Greco comparentur. — The moft recent of thofe who 
 have laboured in this field is Jof. Blanchini, prefbyter of 
 the Oratorian Convent of St. Pliilip, whofe E'vangeliarium 
 quadruplex Latina verftonis antiqua, feu ceteris Italica, ex co- 
 dicibus manufcriptis aureis, argenteis, purpureis, aliifque pluf- 
 quam millenaria antiquitatis, came out in the year 1749> 
 at Rome, in four fplendid folio volumes of the largeft fize. 
 It cannot be neceflary that I fliould direft the reader's at- 
 tention to any minor, or lefs diftinguiflied writers, who may 
 have either treated exprefsly of this fubjeft, or cafually 
 touched on any particular part of it. Great however as 
 liave been the pains and erudition bellowed on this matter, 
 B 2, they 
 
The Ecclefuijiical Hijiory 
 
 TertuUian, Tatian, and others, throughout the 
 whole of this century, repelled the llanders 
 
 and 
 
 they muft, unlefs I am altogether deceived, be conlidered 
 as having proved entirely fruitlefs and unavailing as to the 
 objeft to which they were particularly diredled ; although, 
 in a general point of view, the labour that has been ufed 
 in inveiligating the Latin copies of the Scriptures may not 
 have been entirely unproduftive of advantage. In the firft 
 place it is affumed as a faft, by thofe illuftrious fcholars who 
 are at preferit engaged in endeavours to recover the ancient 
 Italic vei-fion, that before the time of Jerome, the whole of 
 the church, to which the Latin language was common, 
 made ufe of one and the fame tranflation of the Scriptures ; 
 which having been adopted tirft at Rome, and been approved 
 of by the bifliop of that city, had been communicated from 
 thence to all the Latin churches, and under the fanftion of 
 the bifhop of Rome been univerfally introduced into the 
 public worfhip. I fay this is affumed by thefe eminent 
 writers, but I have not yet obferved that any thing like a 
 proof of it has ever been adduced by any one. On the con- 
 trary, I conceive it can be fhewn by the mofl 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 verfion 
 of the Four Evangelifts fays exprefsly, that the Latin 
 tranflations of the facred volume differed wonderfully from 
 each other, and that there were tot fere exemplaria quot 
 codices, not only from the mofl unexceptionable teftimony, 
 that the church of Milan and other churches within the 
 confines of Italy itfelf made ufe of verfions of their own 
 which were different from the refl, but alfo from thofe 
 very learned writers themfelves, who have devoted fo much 
 time and attention to the recovery of the ancient Italic ver- 
 fion, that the Latin churches did not all of them, either 
 before the time of Jerome or after, make ufe of one and the 
 fame tranflation of the Scriptures, but that the verfions in 
 ufe amongft them were various and diflimilar. For not to 
 enter into an examination of any others, the verfions pub- 
 lifhed by Blanchini differ fo very widely from each other in 
 a great many places, that it would be an utter violation of 
 every fort uf probability whatever, to confider them as the 
 work of one and the fame tranflator. In vain does Blan- 
 chini contend that this want of harmony in his copies is to 
 be attributed to the carelefsncfs of tranfcribers ; for the 
 12 points 
 
of the Second Century. 27 
 
 and reproaches of its froward and impetuous cent. 
 
 adver- ^ }^' . 
 
 Human 
 points in which they differ are, for the mod part, of that cauiVs whkh 
 nature and importance, that no want of care on the part of contnl)u<ed 
 the tranfcribers will account for their difagreemcnt, but it ^'' **^'^*''*''' 
 mufl be attributed to a diverfity in the originals from laij^^^of" 
 whence they copied. In the next place, thefe fame learned Chnfiianltv. 
 chara6lers alFume, that this Italic verfion, which they con- 
 fider as having been common to all the Latin churches, was 
 a work of the iirft century, and that it was undertaken and 
 perfeded either by one of the apoiiles themfelves, or at 
 leaft by fome companion and difciple of the apoftles. But 
 it is to be obferved in the firft place, that this is a perfectly 
 gratuitous afTiimption ; for what evidence have they to ad- 
 duce that will give any thing even like a colour to it ? And 
 fecondly, what appears entirely to have efcaped their re- 
 coUedion, it was not until after the clofe of the Iirft cen- 
 tury that the books of the New Teftament were coUedled 
 into one volume ; and confequently it is impofiible that any 
 tranflation of thefe at leaft could have been previoufly under- 
 taken. But ^rhat nearly furpafles all belief, and molt 
 clearly evinces on what a flippery and weak foundation the 
 opinions of foine of the moil learned men are not unfre- 
 quently built, even when they may feem to be placed 
 beyond the reach of controvcrfy ; I fay, what is fo aftonifli- 
 ing as to be almoil incredible is, that thefe illullrious fcho- 
 lars fliould with the utmoll confidence maintain, that that 
 particular tranflation which Auguftine terms the Italic, 
 and to which he afligns the preference over every other 
 Latin one, was that very identical verlion of the facred 
 code which they pretend to have been compofed in the firft 
 century, during the life-time of the apoftles, and to have 
 been received and made ufe of by all the Latin churches 
 after the example of that of Rome. From whence, I pray, 
 do thefe learned charafters derive their information as to 
 this ? Do they rely entirely on that pafTage of Auguftine 
 which we have cited above ? For moft certainly neither in 
 Auguftine, nor in any other ancient v/riter, is there to be 
 found any pafTage befides this, in which mention is made of 
 the Italic verfion. But furely in thefe words of Auguftine 
 there is nothing which can aflford, even to the moft pene- 
 trating and fagacious mind, grounds for any thing like a 
 conclufion of this fort. From whence therefore have they 
 their information as to this ? From what prime fource h? 
 
 1^ 3 
 
 all 
 
3 8 The Ecclefiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, adverfaries, and demonflrated the extreme 
 II. ^ • 
 
 . _ __j turpi- 
 
 Hunwii 
 
 caufcs which all that intelligence been drawn refpefting the antiquity, 
 contnbured ^^^ excellence, the dignity, the authority of a certain 
 
 to lonvaifi x l j t i • n ■ i • i r ' i i r 
 
 the nrona- Know-not-wliat Italic trainlation, which inch a number or 
 fiation of learned men, not only of the Romifh communion, but alfo of 
 Chriftlaiiity. Other denominations of Chriftians, are fo ready at commu- 
 nicating to us ? From the words of Auguftine, try what we 
 may, it is impoffiblc to colled any thing more than this : 
 (1.) That the people of Africa, amonuft whom he refided 
 when he wrote, in addition to other Latin tranflations of 
 the facred volume, were poffefTed of one, which by way of 
 diftinguifliing it from the reft, they termed the Italic. From 
 whence however it acquired this appellation is not to be 
 afcertained either from Auguftine or elfewhere. Poffibly it 
 might have been thus named from its having been brought 
 from Italy into Africa; poffibly from its having been the 
 one made ufe of in certain of the Italian churches ; with 
 equal probability may we conjefture that it took this deno- 
 mination from the country of the perfon by whom it was 
 made, or from the ftrufture perhaps and polifti of its ftyle. 
 Every fuppofition that we may make as to this, muft of ne- 
 cefiity be obfcure and uncertain. There can be no di«ubt 
 however but that thofe who imagine that it was termed the 
 Italic from the circumftance of its having been in common 
 life throughout all the churches of Italy, conje6ture ill ; for 
 it is known for certain, that the churches ot Ravenna and Mi- 
 lan, and others of the more celebrated churches of Italy had, 
 each of them, a peculiar and proper verfion of its own, 
 (II.) From Auguftine's manner of expreffing himfelf, it 
 is to be inferred that the tranflation which he terms the 
 Italic was, in all probability, a different one from that 
 which was ufed by the Roman church in the public fervice. 
 For as the Roman was the principal church of the Weft, 
 had this been the tranflation that was publicly made ufe of 
 in it, Auguftine would, without doubt, from motives of 
 refpeft, have termed it {Romana) the Roman one. Auguf- 
 tine always entertained the greateft reverence for the Roman 
 church, in which he confidered Jpnjlolica Cathedra princi- 
 patum ■vigullJe, epift. xciii. torn. ii. opp. p. 69. (HI.) It 
 appears from the paffage under confideration, that what is 
 there termed by way of diftinftion the Italic verfion, was 
 jiot the one made ufe of publicly in the lAfrican churches; 
 for Auguftine paffes an encomium on it, and wifhes that a 
 
 pre- 
 
of the Second Century. 39 
 
 turpitude and folly of the popular fuperfti- cent. 
 
 tions. ^'• 
 
 preference (hould be given to it over every other verfion. 
 A fort of recommendation for which there could certainly 
 have been no. room, liad this verlion been already adopted theproca^ 
 in the public woi (hip. Indeed the very epithet Italic^ gation ot 
 which he applies to it, is an argument that it had not Chriftianity. 
 been fo adopted : for had this tranflation been the one 
 commorily ufed in the African churches, inftead of giving 
 it the title of Itala, propriety would have required him 
 rather to term it either nojira, or vulgaris, or publ'ica. 
 Italic applied to any thing out of Italy, neceflarily implies 
 it to be foreign. (IV.) It is clear that in the opinion of 
 Auguftine, which might be either right or wrong, (for 
 he was certainly not poffefTed of fufficient flcill in the 
 learned languages to determine on the merits of a tranf- 
 lation of the Scriptures), this fame verfion, whatever it may 
 have been, was preferable to every other tranflation. 
 Now, in all this, there is certainly nothing which affords 
 the leaft fupport to what we have been fo much accuftomed 
 to have told us refpetting an ancient verfion, termed the Ita- 
 lic, which was common to all the Latin churches : on the 
 contrary, it is eafy to perceive therein certain things which 
 altogether fet afide and confute what we find contended for 
 in fo many books on the fubjedl. Since then not a fingle 
 paffage, except this folitary one of Auguftine, is to be met 
 with in any ancient author from whence the leaft informa- 
 tion can be gained on the fubjeft, it appears to me that 
 the labour of thofe who fo zealoufly devote themfelves to 
 the recovery of this ancient Italic verfion, muft ever of 
 neceflity prove fruitlefs, and that the undertaking in which 
 they thus engage bears a very near refemblance to that of 
 the man who endeavoured to make a colledlion of the 
 verfes that had been fung by the Mufes upon Helicon. 
 What we have above remarked, was in part noticed by 
 that ingenious and penetrating fcholar Richard Bentley, 
 who hath bc«-ne away the palm of criticifm from all his 
 contemporaries in Great Britain ; and he was, in confe- 
 quence, led to fufpeft that the paffage in Auguftine, on 
 which alone the exiftence of the ancient Italic verfion 
 depends for fupport, had been corrupted. The way in 
 which he propofed to correft it was, by fubftituting 
 the word ilia for Itala^ and the pronoun qua, in place 
 of the particle nam. To the propriety of this emendation 
 David Cafley, to whom it had been communicated by 
 D 4 Bentlej» 
 
The Eccleftajlical Hijiory 
 
 tions [/]. It would be an ad of injuftice more- 
 over, were we to omit mentioning, with due 
 
 praife. 
 
 Bentley, exprefles his unqualified approbation in his 
 Catalogue of the Maniifcrlpts in the King's library, London, 
 1734, fol. except that after the word ilia, he would add, 
 Lalina. The Italic verfion, he, Hke Bentley, configns to 
 its pioper place amongfl the dreams of the learned. 
 According to thefe then the paffage in queftion ought to 
 run thus ; in ipfis interpretationihus ilia (or ilia Latino) 
 preeferatur qua eft verborum tenacior. But I muft own that 
 this alteration appears to me to have fomething too 
 arbitrary and violent in it, unfupported, as it is, by the 
 reading of any known copy of Auguttine in exiftence. 
 Befides it is not called ior by any neceffity. For even 
 grantinjxthat the palfage as it ftands in our copies, is corredl, 
 which, I have no doubt it is, and granting alfo that, in 
 the time of Auguftine the Chriftians of Africa, in addi- 
 tion to other Latin tranflations of the holy Scriptures 
 were poflefled of one which they diftinguifiied by the 
 title of the Italian, or Italic verfon, every thing that is 
 commonly contended for refpefting this tranflation will 
 llill remain deftitute of all fupport, and the labour that 
 is confumed in endeavours to recover it may confequently 
 be confidered as entirely thrown away. 
 
 [/] It is by no means uncommon to hear the different 
 writers of the ancient Apologies for the Chriftians charged 
 uniformly with this fault, that they have expofed indeed 
 in an admirable manner the folly of the various religions 
 at that time prevalent in the world, and rendered ftrikingly 
 manifeft the falfity of thofe calumnies with which the 
 Chriftians were oppreffcd, but have beftowed little or no 
 pains in demonftrating the truth and divinity of the 
 Chriftian religion. To the generality of people it appears 
 that more attention fhould have been paid to the latter 
 objeft than to the former, inafmuch as it required merely a 
 demonftration of the divine origin of Chriftianity to over- 
 whelm all other religions, and fink them into contempt. 
 But it would not be very difficult to adduce many things 
 in reply to this accufation. For the prefent we fhall 
 content ourfelves with obP^rving, that the authors of the 
 early Apologies for Chriftianity, did not afFume to them- 
 felves the office of teachers or mafters, but came forward 
 merely in the charafter of defenders. Now all that can be 
 
 required 
 
of the Second Century. 4 , 
 
 pfaife, the exertions of certain philofophers and c e n t. 
 men of erudition, who had embraced Chrifti- "• 
 anity in various provinces of the Roman em- ' ' ' 
 pire, and who, from their great authority with 
 the people, and the facility of intercourfe which 
 they enjoyed with the more cunning and wily 
 enemies of religion, became highly inftrumental 
 m caufmg many to turn from the paths of error 
 into the way of truth. 
 
 VII. With the greateft grief, however, we Didugenu- 
 find ourfelves compelled to acknowledge, that ousanifirea 
 the upright and laudable exertions thus made reTonedlo" 
 by the wife and pious part of the Chriflian ''3^^*:^""} 
 community, were not the only human means, ChSnky. 
 which in this century, were employed in pro- 
 moting the propagation of the Chriflian faith. 
 For by fome of the weaker brethren, in their 
 anxiety to affift God with all their might, fuch 
 dilhoneft artifices were occafionally reforted to, as 
 could not, under any circumflances, admit of 
 excufe, and were utterly unworthy of that facred 
 caufe, which they were unqueftionably intended 
 to fupport. Perceiving, for inftance, in what 
 vaft repute the poetical effufions of thofe ancient 
 
 required of a defender tb the full difcharge of his duty 
 is, to repel the calumnies wherewith the perfon accufed is 
 charged, and to fliew that he had juft caufe for ading in 
 the way he did. From the nature of their undertaking 
 therefore it could only be expeded of the early apologifts 
 forCbnftianity, that they <hould exonerate thofe who had 
 embraced it from the reproaches caft upon them by their 
 adyerfaries, and by pointing out the abfurdity of the 
 religions publ-'cly countenanced, make it appear that there 
 was the greatei} caufe for their deferting them. The 
 bufinefs of demonftrating the truth of that new religion, 
 which they had adopted upon their repudiation of Paganifm, 
 was, without impropriety, left by them to its matters and 
 teachers. 
 
 prophe- 
 
42 The Ecclefiaji'ical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, prophetefles, termed Sybils, were held by ttie 
 !'• Greeks and Romans, fome Chriflian, or rather, 
 DifiJigenu- perhaps, an aflbciation of Chriftians, in the 
 OU8 artifices rcign of Antoninus Pius, compofed eight books 
 ^forted'o^ of Sybilline Verfes, made up of prophefies re- 
 in the pro- fpefting Chrift and his kingdom, with a view to 
 Ckifti^ni°y. perfuade the ignorant and unfufpecting, that 
 even fo far back as the time of Noah, a Sybil 
 had foretold the coming of Chrift, and the 
 rife and progrefs of his church [7)1]. This 
 
 artifice 
 
 [m] The Sybilline verfes are treated of very much at 
 large, by Jo. Albert. Fabricius in the firft vol. of his 
 Bihltotheca Greca, w^here the reader will alfo find a parti- 
 cular account given of thofe viritings, which were fent 
 out into the world under the forged name of Hermes 
 Trifmegiftus. The laft editor of the Sybilline Oracles, 
 was Servatius Gallaeus, under whofe fuperintendance and 
 care they were reprinted at Amfterdam 1689, in 4to., 
 correfted from ancient manufcripts, and illuflrated with the 
 comments of various authors. To this edition the reader 
 will find added the Magian oracles, attributed to Zoroafter 
 and others, colledled together by Jo. Opfopseus, amongft 
 which are not a few things of like Chriftian origin. That 
 the Sybilline verfes were forged by fome Chriftian, with a 
 view of prevaihng the more eafily on the heathen worfhip- 
 pers to believe in the truth of the Chriftian religion, has 
 been proved to demonftration, by (amongft others) David 
 Blondell, in a French work, publifhed at Charenton 1649, 
 in 4to., under the following title, Des Sybilles celebres 
 tant par I Antiquite payenne, que par les faints Peres. 
 Indeed we may venture to fay, that with the exception of 
 a few, who are blinded by a love of antiquity, or whofe 
 mental falculties are debilitated by fuperlUtion, there is 
 not a fingle man of erudition, in the prefent day, who 
 entertains a different opinion. It may be obferved, by the 
 way, that Blondell's book was, after two years, repub- 
 lifhed, under a different title, namely, Tra'ite cle la Creance 
 des Peres touchant VEtat des Ames apres cette vie, et de 
 I'Origine de la Pr'iere pour les Morts, et du Purgatoire, a 
 FOccaJion de I'Ecrit attribue aux Sybilles. Charenton 1651, 
 4to. The fad, no doubt was, that finding purchafers were 
 
 not 
 
of the Second Century. 43 
 
 artifice succeeded with not a few, nay fome even ^-^ ^ ^ t- 
 
 of the principal Chriftian teachers themfelves i ^, » 
 
 were impofed upon by it ; but it eventually Difingenu- 
 brought great fcandal on the Chriftian caufe, Zl^l'^^Mj 
 fince the fraud was too palpable to efcape the refoned to 
 fearching penetration of thofe who gloried in '^^^^\ll^'oi 
 difplaying their hoftility to the Chriftian ciluriftianity. 
 namefw]' ^7 others, who were aware that 
 nothing could be held more facred than the 
 name and authority of Hermes Trifmegiftus were 
 by the Egyptians, a work bearing the title 
 of Poemander, and other books, replete with 
 .Chriftian principles and maxims, were sent forth 
 into the world, with the name of this moft 
 ancient and highly venerated philofopher prefixed 
 to them, fo that deceit might, if poffible, effed 
 the converfion of thofe whom reafon had failed 
 to convince [oj. Many other deceptions of this 
 
 fort, 
 
 not to be attracted by the former title, the bookfeller 
 deemed it expedient to have recourfe to another. 
 
 [h] From what is faid by Origeii, contra Celfum^ 
 lib. V. p. 272. edit. Spencer, as well as by Laftantius^ 
 Injlitut. Divinar. hb. iv. cap. xv. and by Conftantine the 
 Great, in c.19. of his Oratio ad San8os, which is annexed 
 to Eufebius, it appears that the enemies of the Chriftians. 
 were accuftomed indignantly to upbraid them with this 
 fraud. 
 
 [-3] That the writings at prefent extant imder the name of 
 Hermes, mull have been the work of fome Chriftian author, 
 was firft pointed out by Ifaac Cafaubon ia his Exerc. I. 
 in Baronium, § xviii. p. 54. This has fince been con- 
 lirmed by various writers, Vid. Herm. Conringius, de 
 Hermetica M yptiorum Medicina, cap. iv. p. 46. Beaufobre, 
 Hijh'ire de Mamchce, \.ovn.\\. p. 20I. Cudworth, Intelha. 
 Syjem, torn. i. p. 373, 374. edit. Moflieim. Warburton, 
 Divine Legation of Mofes, vol. i. p. 442. It may be ob- 
 ferved, however, that certain of the learned diffent, in fome 
 degree, from this opinion, conceiving that the writings of 
 Hermes originated with the Platonifts : they fufpeft them 
 
 however 
 
44 ^^^ Eccleftqftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, fort, to which cuftom has very improperly given 
 ^^__J[J;____j the denomination of pious frauds, are known to 
 Difingenu- have been pradifed in this and the fucceeding 
 ous artifices century. The authors of them were, in all 
 reforterto''' probability, adtuated by no ill intention, but 
 in^he pro- (hig is all that Can be faid in their favour, for 
 SiSnity. their condud in this refpeft was certainly moft; 
 ill advifed and unwarrantable. Although the 
 greater part of thofe who were concerned in 
 thefe forgeries on the public, undoubtedly be- 
 longed to fome heretical fed or other, and par- 
 ticularly to that clafs which arrogated to itfelf 
 the pompous denomination of Gnoflics [^ ], 
 I yet cannot take upon me to acquit even the 
 moft flridly orthodox from all participation in 
 this fpecies of criminality : for it appears from 
 evidence fuperior to all exception, that a per- 
 nicious maxim, which was current in the fchools 
 not only of the Egyptians, the Platonifls, and 
 the Pythagoreans, but alfo of the Jews, was very 
 early recognized by the Chriftians, and foon 
 
 however to have been interpolated and corrupted by the 
 Chriftians. 
 
 [/>] Blondell in lib. ii. de SyhtUisi cap, vii. p. i6i. 
 from the praifes that are continually lavifiied in the Sybil- 
 line verfes on the country of Phrygia is led to conclude 
 that the author of them was by birth a Phrygian ; and 
 fince Montanus, a Chri'.lian heretic of the fecond century 
 is known to have been a native of that region, fufpefts 
 that the compofition of them might be a work of his. 
 The Abbe de Longerue exprefles his approbation of this 
 conjefture in his Diflertation de Tempore quo nata ejl 
 Harcfis Montani, which is to be found in Winckler'j Sylloge 
 Anecdotorum, p. 255. & feq. That the writings of Hermes 
 and a great part of the forged Gofpcls, together with 
 various works of a fimilar nature, the difgraceful produc- 
 tions of this century, are to be attributed to the perfi- 
 dious machinations of the Gnoftics, is clear beyond a 
 queftion. 
 
 found 
 
of the Second Century. 45 
 
 found amongft them numerous patrons, namely, cent. 
 that thofe who made it their bufmefs to deceive "• 
 with a view of promoting the caufe of truth, 
 were deferving rather of commendation than 
 cenfure [^q^. 
 
 VIII. But whilft the circumftances above enu- State of the 
 merated confpired moil happily to forward the |;),^j'^'*r* 
 caufe of Chriftianity, the priefts and prasfects of reign of 
 the different religions that were publicly tole- ^'^J*"* 
 rated in the Roman empire, moil ilrenuouily 
 exerted themfelves to arreil its progrefs, not 
 only by means of the fouleil accufations, ca- 
 lumnies, and lies, but by frequently exciting 
 the fuperilitious multitude to afts of wanton 
 and outrageous violence [r]. Thefe efforts of 
 the heathen prieilhood the emperors zealoufly 
 feconded by various profcriptive edi6ls and laws, 
 the magiilrates and prefidents of provinces by 
 fubjeding the faithful followers of Chriil to 
 puniihments and tortures of the mod excru- 
 ciating kind, and finally feveral philofophers 
 and orators by declamation and cavil ; in fhort, 
 throughout the whole of this century the Chrif- 
 tians had to contend with an almofl infinite 
 feries of injuries and evils, and even under the 
 very beil and moil mild of the emperors that 
 Rome ever knew, were in various diflrids and 
 
 [^j See what I have colIe<Sted in regard to this, in 
 my Differtation de turbata per recsntiores Platonicos Ec^ 
 shfiat $ 41, & feq. 
 
 [r] Arnobius adv. Gentes, lib. i. p. i6. edit. Herald. 
 Arufp'ices hasfabulasi (the calumnies againft the Chriftians) 
 sonjeSorest arioli, vates, et nunquam non van't concinnavere 
 fanatici ; qui, ne fuiz artes intereant, ac ne Jlipes ex'tguas 
 confultorlbus excutiant jam raristfi quatido vos velle rem ve- 
 nlre in invidiam comperentnt, negUgtintur dii clamitant, atque 
 in tempUs jam raritas fumma ejt. In regard to this paffage 
 the reader may confuk what is faid by Heraldus. 
 
 provinces 
 
46 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijlory 
 
 CENT, provinces expofed to calamities of the mofl af- 
 fliftive and grievous nature. At the time of 
 Trajan's acceflion to the government of the em- 
 pire there were neither laws nor edicts of any 
 kind in exiftence againft the Chriflians. That 
 this was the cafe is clear beyond a doubt, as 
 well from other things that might be men- 
 tioned, as from the well known epiftle of Pliny 
 to Trajan, in which he fignifies to the emperor, 
 that he was altogether at a lofs how to proceed 
 with people of this defcription. Had any laws 
 againft the Chriftians been at that time in force, 
 a man fo well verfed in the cuftoms and ju- 
 rifprudence of the Romans as PHny was, muft 
 undoubtedly have been acquainted with them. 
 The faft unqueftionably was, that the laws of 
 Nero had been repealed by the fenate, and 
 thofe of Domitian by his fucceffor Nerva. So 
 difficult however is it to abrogate what has once 
 acquired the force of cuftom, that the Chrif- 
 tians as often as either the priefts or the popu- 
 lace, ftirred up by fuperftition and prieftcraft, 
 thought proper to inftitute a perfecution of 
 them, continued ftill to be configned over to 
 puniftiment. It was this which gave occasion 
 to Eufebius to ftate that under the reign of 
 Trajan, per fmgulas iirhes populari 7notii paffim 
 perfequutio in Chrijiianos excitabatiir \j~\. Such 
 a perfecution took place not long after the 
 commencement of this century in Bithynia, at 
 the time when Pliny the Younger was prefident 
 ■of that province at the inftigation, no doubt, 
 of the priefts \f\. 
 
 IX. The 
 
 fj] Eufebius, H'ljl. Ecckf. lib. iii. cap. 32. p. 103. 
 [/] We allude to the perfecution treated of by Pliny 
 in that very celebrated epiftle of his to the emperor, the 
 
of the Second Century, 47 
 
 IX. The attack, however, thus made on the c E n t. 
 Chriftians in Bithynia, eventually occafioned a "• 
 reflraint to be put on that immoderate fury with ji^Th* 
 which it had become cuftomary to perfecute them, refpeaii.- 
 For it having been moft clearly afcertained by %l^'''^' 
 Pliny, that with the exception of their diffent 
 from the public religion, there was nothing in 
 the principles or conduct of the followers of 
 
 xcvii"' of the loth book. From this epiftle it is manifeft 
 that Pliny himfelf had no wifli to interfere with the Chrif- 
 tians, but was reluftantly compelled by fpies and informers 
 to call them before him and punifh them. Interim, fays he, 
 in Us, gut ad me tanqxiam Chrtjljani deferebantur hunc fum 
 fequutus modum. 'I'hat thefe informers againft the Chrif- 
 tians were the heathen priefts is, I think, clearly to be 
 inferred from the following words : Certefatis conjlat prope 
 jam defolata templa cap'ijfe celebrar't, et facra fokmnia d'lu in- 
 term'tjfa repeti, pq/Jimque venire viaimas quorum adhuc ra- 
 riftmus emptor inveniehaiur. In this paffage the proconful 
 moil plainly intimates the caufe of this perfecution to have 
 been, that the temples in Bithynia were nearly abandoned, 
 the facred folemnities intermitted, and fcarcely any viaims 
 ever prefented for fr.crifice. But all thefe things could 
 affeft none but the priefts and thofe who had the fuperin- 
 tendance of the facred rites ; for to thefe alone could it be 
 of any material moment that the temples fhould be fre- 
 quented and viftims be brought to the rJl-rs. There can 
 be no doubt then, but that thefe men had reprefented to 
 Pliny, into what great jeopardy the rites of heathenifm were 
 brought, and it is not at all unlikely that by way of giv- 
 ing additional force to their reprefentations they hud ftirred 
 up the populace to clamour for the punifhment of the Chrif- 
 tians. In compliance with thefe applications, Phny com- 
 manded thefe perfons who, as he fays, had been pointed 
 out to him by an informer to be apprehended, and found 
 amongft them two Chriftian deaconeffes ; the prelbyters, 
 together with the bifhop, having moft probably either taken 
 to flight on the breaking out of the perfecution, or other- 
 wife found means to flielter themfelves from its efFeds. 
 When I, moreover, compare the words of Pliny, with 
 the palTage cited above from Arnobius, not a doubt re- 
 mains with me but that he is to be confidered as deliver- 
 ing, not fo much his own fentiments, as thofe which he 
 had collected from the mouths of the prieftf. 
 
 J I ' Chrift 
 
48 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT. Chrifl deferving of animadverrion, and it being 
 . "•_ , at the fame time perceived by him, that their 
 Trajan's law cnemies in their proceedings againfl them had 
 refpeaing j^q regard whatever either to equity or clemency, 
 tians. he requefted of the emperor Trajan, that the 
 
 mode of coercing the Chriflians might be regu- 
 lated by fome certain law, intimating his own 
 opinion to be, that on account of their great 
 number and evident innocence they Ihould be 
 treated rather with moderation than feverity. In 
 anfwer to this it was ordered by the emperor, 
 that the Chriflians for the future fhould not be 
 officioufly fought after, but that if any of them 
 lliould be brought before the Roman tribunals 
 in a regular way and convlfted, they fhould, un- 
 lefs they would renounce Chriflianity and again 
 embrace the public religion, be configned over to 
 punifhment. From the firfl part of this regula- 
 tion we may naturally infer, that the emperor did 
 not regard the Chriflians with an unfavourable 
 eye, whilft, from the latter part, it is as obvioufly 
 to be colleded that he was fearful of difcovering 
 too much lenity towards them, left he Ihould 
 thereby exafperate the prieflhood and the popu- 
 lace [ti], 
 
 X. This 
 
 [«3 It was generally believed for many centuries that 
 the emperor Trajan was the author of the third perfecution 
 of the Chriftians, and we find this very difturbance which 
 they experienced in Bithynia under the government of 
 Pliny, particularly adverted to in an infinite number of 
 books, as the commencement of fuch perfecution. But it 
 is fcarcely polfible for any thing to be farther removed from 
 the truth than thefe two notions are. Trajan, fo far from hav- 
 ing given orders to perfecute the Chriftians, exerted his au- 
 thority to rcftrain the perfecution of them, which broke 
 out under his reign in Bithynia and other places. Without 
 doubt he was confiderably in the wrong in giving diredlions 
 that perfons convided of having embraced Chriftianity and 
 
 refufing 
 
of the Second Century. 49 
 
 X. This decree of Trajan being registered cent. 
 amongft the public ordinances of the Roman .__ L^. 
 
 empire, Efieas 
 
 jtroduced 
 
 refufinsr to return to the religion of their anceftors fhould of Trajan, 
 be configned over to capital punifliment ; a thing for which 
 he isfliarply and eloquently rebuked by Tertullian {in yfpo- 
 loget. cap. ii.) ; but mo ft unqueftionably it was of the higheft 
 advantage to the Chriftians that he forbad any fearch or 
 inquiry to be made after them. For under this arrangement 
 the Chriftians might hold their fecret afiemblies in fecurity, 
 and by merely obferving the diftates of common prudence, 
 might effeftually defeat all the malice of their enemies. Nor 
 could the priefts any longer take occafion, from the empti- 
 nefs of the temples, and the rarity of viftims, to compel the 
 magiftrates to call in queftion the Chriftians. It alfo fup- 
 plied the magiftrates with the power of filencing and putting 
 down any popular clamour or feditions. But this illuftrious 
 aft of beneficence, for which the Chriftians were indebted to 
 Trajan, loft not a little of its effeft, as I have before ob- 
 ferved, by the mandate which was annexed to it for punifti- 
 ing fuch as might be convifted of being Chriftians, and re- 
 fufe to recant ; in which, as has, after Tertullian, been 
 obferved by feveral, the emperor difagrees with himfelf. 
 For whilft by forbidding them to be fearched for or enquired 
 after, he avows to the world that there was nothing in them 
 pregnant with danger to the ftate, or in anywife deferving 
 of puniftiment, he, in the next breath, by ordering the exe- 
 cution of fuch as when convifted of having embraced Chrif- 
 tianity might perfift in profeffing it, pronounces them to be 
 guilty of a crime that could fcafcely be puniihed with too 
 great feverity. This inconliftency of Trajan with himfelf, 
 may be be beft accounted for by fuppofing him to have 
 been fearful that he might irritate the priefts and the mul- 
 titude, and perhaps excite popular commotions, if he fliould 
 grant an abfolute impunity to men labouring under fo great 
 ill will ; his conduft in this refpeft was certainly not in- 
 fluenced by fuperftition, for had he been aftuated by this 
 principle he would not have forbidden, but on the contrary 
 have commanded the Chriftians to be fought after, with a 
 view to avenge the infult offered by them to the gods. 
 With regard however to the punifhment ordered to be in- 
 flifted on obftinate Chriftians, another reafon may be afligned. 
 Phny had written to him that the obftinacy of theCIiriftians 
 was, in his judgment, of itfelf, a crime deferving of death, 
 although there appeared to be nothing improper in the re- 
 VOL. II. E ligioH 
 
The Ecclefiajiical Hljlory 
 
 empire, was the caufe of many Chriftians being 
 thenceforward put to death, even under the 
 moft mild and equitable emperors. For as often 
 as any one was to be found who would run the 
 rifque of becoming an accufer, and the perfon 
 accufed did not deny the crime imputed to him ; 
 nothing further was left to the magiflrate than 
 to endeavour, by threats and torture, to fubdue 
 the con f lane y of the perfon thus convicted ; 
 which if he failed to efted, the pertinacious and 
 obflinate delinquent w^as, according to this law 
 of Trajan, to be delivered over to the execu- 
 tioner. Under this regulation Simeon the fon of 
 Cleopas and bifnop of Jerufalem, an old man of 
 one hundred and twenty years of age, being 
 about the year cxvi, accufed by the Jews before 
 the prsefed of Syria, and perfifting for feveral 
 days, although put to the torture, in an absolute 
 refufal to repudiate Chriftianity, was, contrary 
 
 ligion which they refufed to renounce : neque eni?n dubitabam, 
 qualeciimque ejfet quod faterentur, pervlcaciam certe Iff inflexi' 
 bilem ohjiinationem deberc punire. The opinion, thus ex- 
 prefTed by Pliny, although unjiift, and obvioufly unworthy 
 of a man of his inteUigence, the emperor thought proper to 
 adopt, and the Chriftian,s were in confequence configned 
 over to punifhment, not as men who had infulted the gods, 
 and were inimical to the public religion, but as citizens 
 who refuled to pay obedience to the maridates of their fove- 
 reign. Whether the former or the latter of thefe reafons 
 may be preferred, certain it is, that neither in Pliny's 
 epillle nor in the decree of the emperor is there any enmity 
 manifefted towards the Chiiftian religion, or any traces of 
 fuperftition to be difcovered. Thofe who confider the dif- 
 turbance thus experienced by the Chriftians on the borders 
 of the Euxine as the commencement of a general perfecu- 
 tion of them vmder Trajan, feem not to be aware that from 
 this very epiftle of Pliny, as well as from other arguments, 
 it can be made appear that the Chriftians had in the time of 
 Trajan been put to trouble in various places before ever 
 Pliny had been appointed to the government of Bithynia. 
 
of the Second Century. ^ i 
 
 to the inclination of his judge, condemned to c e n t. 
 fuffer death upon the crofs \y\. In conformity _"_ . 
 to this fame law hkewife, Ignatius the renowned Effe^s 
 bifhop of Antioch, who had been accufed by the P'od"«d 
 priefts, and was not to be moved by the threats ofTrajan!" 
 of even the emperor himfelf, was in the courfe 
 of the fame year brought to Rome by an im- 
 perial order, and delivered over as a prey to 
 wild beads [w]. But what will no doubt ap- 
 pear to the reader particularly aftonifliing is, 
 that this fufficiently harfh and inhuman law ex- 
 cited the difcontent of fuch of the Chriflians as 
 glowed with a mofe fervid zeal, on account of 
 its lenity, inafmuch as for want of inquiry being 
 made by the magiflrate, or of fome one being 
 found to ftep forward as an accufer, they were 
 often times precluded from finifhing their earthly 
 courfe by a glorious and triumphant facrifice of 
 their lives in the caufe of Chrift. Hence it be- 
 
 \_v~\ Vid. Eufehius Hijlor. Ecdef. lib. iii. cap. xxxii. 
 p. 103. & feq. 
 
 [w] The A3s of the Martyrdom of Ignatius have been 
 frequently publifhed, and are to be found amongll the Patres 
 Apollolicu Of the antiquity of the work there can be no 
 doubt ; it fliould feem however to have been corrupted in fe- 
 veral places. From thefeAfts it appears, that Trajan adhered 
 moft fcrupuloufly to the provifions of his own law. In the 
 firft place he did not lay hands on Ignatius until the latter 
 was regularly brought before the public tribunal by an ' 
 accufer ; in the next place, when the accufed confefled 
 himfelf guilty of the charge, he endeavoured by various arts 
 of perfuafion to prevail on him to execrate the name of 
 Chrift, and join in the worfliip of the Roman deities ; and 
 laftly, finding him altogether inflexible in his determination 
 not to renounce Chriftianity, he adjudged him to fuffer 
 death. We alfo learn from thefe Ads that the emperor 
 deemed it inexpedient to let this holy man fuffer at Antioch, 
 left the fortitude which he difplayed might operate to in- 
 creafe the veneration for his charafter, and alfo have the 
 effeA of augmenting the number of the Chriftians. 
 
 E 2 came 
 
52 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 came by no means unufual for numbers of them 
 voluntarily to hand over their names as Chrif- 
 tians to the Judges [a:]. This unfeafonable 
 eagernefs to obtain the honours of martyrdom, 
 however, having in the courfe of time become 
 pernicioufly prevalent, it was at length deemed 
 expedient to reprefs it by a law. 
 chrfft^anf ^ XL Although the law of which we have been 
 under the fpeakiug was not in any refpeft repealed or altered 
 Sidrian ^^ ^^^ cnipcror Hadrian, who fucceeded Trajan 
 in the year of our Lord cxvii, nor had the 
 Chriflians to complain of any infringement of it 
 by the prefidents or inferior magiflrates, yet by 
 the heathen prieflhood means were at length 
 difcovered for enervating its force, and rendering 
 its protection of the objects of their hatred in- 
 efficient. Finding that but few individuals could 
 be prevailed on to take upon themfelves the 
 unthankful and perilous office of an accufer, they 
 
 [x] A very remarkable inilance of this kind of proceed- 
 ing is mentioned by Tertullian (in Lib. ad Scapulam, cap. v. 
 p. 88. opp. edit. Rigalt.) as having occurred under the reign 
 of Hadrian, ^rr'tas Antoninus in Afta cum perfequeretur ;n- 
 Jlanter, (i. e. according to the law of Trajan he caufed all 
 fuch as were accufed before him and convifted, to be exe- 
 cuted) omnes tllius civitatis Chri/liam ante tribunalia ejus fe 
 manufacta obtulerunt, (that is to fay, being difcontented at 
 no one's coming forward againil them as an accufer, and 
 perceiving that the proconful was determined ftriftly to 
 abide by the emperor's injunction, and not to make any in- 
 quiry after them, they refolved to become accufers of them- 
 felves,) cum ille, paucis duct jujfis, reliquis ait : O JejAo) sj 
 te'Aete a^rsSvwHEiv, x^njuis? ri' Bpo'p^s? e';)^"-* miferi, Ji mori* 
 vultisy nee lacus vobis defunt nee prjecipitia. The procon- 
 ful no doubt felt particularly delicate as to punifliing the 
 Chriftians who had thus become accufers of themfelves, 
 fince it was a cafe that had not been provided for by the 
 emperor : having therefore by way of terror made an ex- 
 ample of a few, he difmifled the reft with marks of indig- 
 oation and contempt. 
 
 made 
 
of the Second Century. 53 
 
 made it their bufinefs, on every favourable oc- 
 cafion, to excite the lower orders of the people 
 to join in one general diforderly clamour for State of the 
 the punifhment of the Chriftians at large, or ^^jilJ'JJ 
 of certain individuals amongfl them, whom they reign of 
 were taught to confider as particularly obnoxious. ^*'^'''^"- 
 Amongfl other opportunities that offered, they 
 were accuflomed particularly to avail themfelves 
 of thofe feafons when the multitude were drawn 
 together by the exhibition of any public games 
 or other fpedlacles. To general and public ac- 
 cufations of this fort no degree of hazard what- 
 ever was attached ; whilfl on the other hand it 
 was a thing of no ordinary danger amongfl the 
 Romans to turn a deaf ear to them, or treat 
 them with difrefped. In confequence of thefe 
 tumultuary denunciations therefore, a confider- 
 able number of Chriflians, at different times, met 
 their fate, whom the magiflracy would otherwife 
 mofl willingly have permitted to remain unmo- 
 lefled \^y\. Indeed, under the reign of Hadrian 
 
 it 
 
 [j] Nothing could be more artful than this contrivance 
 of the priefts to enervate and elude the law of Trajan re- 
 fpefting the mode of accufing the Chriftians. For the 
 prefidents did not dare to regard with an inattentive ear the 
 demands of the united commonalty, left they might give 
 occafion to fedition. Moreover, it was an eftablifhed privi- 
 lege of the Roman people, grounded either on ancient 
 right or cuftom, of the exercife of which innumerable in- 
 ftances are to be found in the Roman hiftory, that when- 
 ever the commonalty were aflembled at the exhibition of 
 public games and fpeftacles, whether it were in the city or 
 the provinces, they might demand what they pleafed of 
 the emperor or the prelidents, and their demands thus made 
 muft be complied with. Properly this privilege belonged 
 to the Roman people alone, whofe united will pofTefTed nil 
 the force of a law, inafmuch as the fupreme majeity of the 
 empire was fuppofed to be refident therein ; but by little 
 and little the fame thing came to be affumed as a right by 
 E 3 the 
 
Hadr 
 new law in 
 
 Chrillians. 
 
 54^ The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. it was fo much the more eafy for the heathen 
 ,_^"l^, prieflhood to get the multitude to unite in one 
 general clamour for the deflruction of the Chrif- 
 tians, fmce, as Eufebius exprefsly relates, the 
 Gnoftic feds, which feem to have been made up 
 in part of evil defigning perfons, and in part of 
 madmen and fools, were at that time continually 
 obtruding themfelves on the attention of the 
 world ; and the crimes and infamous pradices 
 of which thefe were guilty, being indifcrimi- 
 nately imputed to the Chriftians in general, the 
 public prejudice was in no fmall degree in- 
 creafed againfl the whole body of them. [z]. 
 XII. This highly iniquitous and impious arti- 
 frvoiir of the fice of the prieflhood being feen through by Se- 
 renus Granianus the proconful of Afia, he ad- 
 dreffed a letter to the emperor on the fubjeft, 
 pointing out what an unjufl and inhuman thing 
 it was, to be every now and then ihedding the 
 blood of men convided of no crime, merely 
 with a view to filence the clamours of a mif- 
 guided tumultuous rabble. Nor was the repre- 
 fentation of this difcerning and judicious man 
 difregarded by his mailer : for an edi6l was 
 foon after directed by Hadrian to Minutius Fun- 
 danus, the fucceflbr of Serenus, and to the other 
 governors of provinces, forbidding them to pay 
 attention to any fuch public denunciations, and 
 fignifying it to be his pleafure, that for the fu- 
 
 the inhabitants of mofl of the larger cities. When the 
 multitude therefore collefted together at the public games 
 united in one general clamour for the punifhment of the 
 Chriftians at large, or of certain individuals belonging to 
 that feft, the prefidents had no alternative but to comply 
 with ;.heir demand, and facrifice at leaft feveral innocent 
 •viftims to their fury. 
 
 [zj Euleaius Hijlor. Ecclef. lib, iv. cap. vii. p. 120. & feq. 
 
 ture 
 
of the Second Century. 55 
 
 ture no Chriftians fhould be put to death ex- cent. 
 
 cept fuch as had been legitimately accufed and [^j ^ 
 
 convided of fonie fort of crime [^]. PolTibly Had 
 
 iian s 
 new law in 
 favour of the 
 
 [a] This imperial refcript is given by Juftin Martyr, in Chnftiaas. 
 his tirit Apology pro Chrijlianis, § 68, 69. p. 84. opp. edit. 
 Benedidl. and copied from thence by Eufebius, Hijhr. 
 Ecclef. hb. iv. cap. ix. p. 123. — That it was feat not only 
 to Minutius, but alfo to the other prefidents of provinces, 
 is manifeft from a remarkable palTage of Melito cited by 
 Eufebius, Hi/lor. Ecclef. lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 1S4. as alfo 
 from an edi6l of Antoninus, ad commune Afids, of which we 
 fhall prefently have to fay more. Regarding this law of 
 Hadrian in a general way, it appears in point of jufticeand 
 clemency by far to furpafs the edidl of Trajan. For 
 whereas it was direded by the latter that fuch Chriftians as 
 obftinately refufed to renounce the religion they profefled 
 fhould be punifhed capitally, the law of Hadrian forbids 
 any Chriftian to be put to death except he were convifted 
 according to the legal and eftablidied mode, of having 
 tranfgrefTed the Roman laws. This feems to admit of 
 being adduced as a proof, and indeed has been fo brought 
 forward by many, that Hadrian tolerated the Chriftian 
 religion, and forbad any one to be perfecuted on account 
 of profefliiig it. But I cannot help fufpedling that this is 
 giving the emperor credit for more lenity than it was ever 
 his intention to difplay, fmce I obferve, that even after the 
 promulgation of this refcript, the Chriftians were con- 
 tinually put to death without having any other crime ob- 
 jefted to them than that of their religion. Trajan had 
 enafted, that for any one inflexibly to perfevere in the pro- 
 feflion of Chriftianity fhould be a crime punifhable with 
 death, and Hadrian does not appear to have direciled that 
 this kind of perfeverance fhould be confidered in a lefs cri- 
 minal light. I therefore do not conceive that this law of 
 Hadrian, in its import, differed very materially from that 
 of Trajan, but that the punifhment of death continued ftill 
 to be iufli-^ed under the imperial fanftion on all fuch Chrif- 
 tians as were convicted of profeffing a contempt for the 
 gods, and perfifted in refufuig to alter their opinion. Si 
 quis ergo accufat et ojlendat quidpiam contra leges al i'ls 
 faaum, tu pro gravitate deliffi Jlatue. The form of ex- 
 prelTion is at leaft ambiguous, and left to the prefidents the 
 moft ample power of punifhing the Chriftians, fince the 
 worfhip of the gods was a thing enjoined by the laws. 
 
 E 4 alfo 
 
56 The Ecckfiajikal Hi/hry 
 
 CENT, alfo the two maflerly apologies for the Chriftians, 
 ,^^| '_^_, that were drawn up and prefented to the em- 
 HaHria.i's peror by thofe pious and learned charafters, 
 new law in Quadratus and Ariftides, and of which we of 
 
 favour of the 1 r 1 1 r i 1 
 
 chrL^jans. the prelcut day have unfortunately to regret the 
 lofs, might have contributed not a little to the 
 foftening of the imperial mind \_b']. This le- 
 nity of Hadrian towards the Chriftians was 
 looked upon by fome as indicative of a difpo- 
 fition to favour the Chriftian religion, and there- 
 fore when he fubfequently caufed temples without 
 images to be ereded in all the cities, a fufpi- 
 cion arofe in the minds of many that he had it 
 in contemplation to affign to Chrift a place 
 amongft the deities of Rome, and meant to con- 
 fecrate thefe edifices to his fervice \_c']. 
 
 XIII. The 
 
 [3] Thefe apologies are treated of by Eufebius Hi/lor. 
 Ecclef. lib. iv. cap. iii. with whom compare Jerome Epl/h 
 ad magnum Oratorem, p. 6^6. torn. iv. opp. edit. Benedi6t. 
 and in Catalog. Scriptor. Ecclef. 
 
 \_c~\ Our authority for this is Lampridius In Vita Alex- 
 andr'i Severiy cap. xliii., who after remarking that Alex- 
 ander wifhed to have affigned Chrift a place amongft the 
 Roman deities, continues, quodet Hadrianus cogitajfe fertur., 
 qui templain omnibus civttatibus, Jinejimulacris,jujferatjler'i. 
 Qua tile ad hoc parajfe dlcehatur : fed proh'ib'itus efl ab iisy 
 qui confulentes facra repererant^ omnes Chrijlianos futuros ft 
 id optato eveniffet. The hiftorian in this place evidently 
 gives us the conjecture of the multitude, which, from his 
 own words, appears to have been grounded folely on the 
 circumftance of Hadrian's having erected a number of 
 temples, in none of which were placed any ftatues of the 
 gods, and which, refting on no better foundation, muft 
 have been extremely vague and uncertain. The fufpicion 
 excited by the erection of thefe temples could never have 
 fuggefted itself, had it not been for the opinion previoufly 
 entertained of the emperor's leaning towards Chriftianity. 
 But from whence this opinion took its rife I am unable to 
 fay, uiilefs it was from the equity and humanity difplayed 
 by him in his edift refpecling the Chriftians. Probably 
 the priefts and their adherents, upon finding themfelves cut 
 
 off 
 
of the Second Century. 57 
 
 XIII. The Chriftians, however, had under the c e n t. 
 reign of Hadrian to encounter a itill more fierce l^_^ 
 
 and cruel enemy in a leader of the Jews named BarchocKba 
 Barchochba, or, " the fon of the flar", whom ^J^f"/"'^ 
 his infatuated countrymen regarded as the long ciuHtians. 
 promifed MefTiah who was to relfore the fallen 
 fortunes of the houfe of Ifrael. Impatient of the 
 injuries and contemptuous treatment which they 
 were continually experiencing at the hands of the 
 Romans, the Jews had once already, during the 
 reign of Trajan, had recourfe to arms for redrefs. 
 The experiment entirely failed ; but their 
 wretchednefs and calamities continuing (till to 
 increafe, thefe haplefs people, at the inlligation, 
 and under the conduct of the abovementioned 
 daring character, a man thoroughly converfant 
 in blood and rapine, were, in the year cxxxii, 
 induced to hazard a repetition of it [^]. During 
 the continuance of the war which he had thus 
 excited, Barchocba fubje6led to the moft cruel 
 tortures as many of the Chriftians as he could 
 get within his power, and put all fuch of them 
 
 ofF from all hopes of fuppreffing the Chriftians, might dif- 
 feminate a rumour that the emperor himfelf was by no 
 means ill difpofed towards this new religion. But how 
 vain and futile thefe conjectures were is rendered manifeft, 
 as well by the whole tenor of his hfe, which was replete 
 with inftances of the groffeft fuperftition, as by the pofitive 
 teftimony of Spartian {i,i Vita Hadrian, cap. xxii.) whofe 
 words 2^.XQ facra Romana d'll'igentijfime curav'it ; peregr'ina con- 
 tempfit. It may be added, that with regard to the temples 
 erefted by Hadrian without any ftatues of the gods, very 
 able men have long fince declared it to be their opinion, 
 that the emperor intended to have had them dedicated to 
 himfelf. 
 
 [^] Vid. Eufebius, Hijlor. EccleJ. hb. iv. cap. 6. Bux- 
 torfius, LexicoTahnucTico, voce ^3^ where the reader will 
 find every thing that is to be met with in the Jewifh writ- 
 ings refpedling this man coUedted into one view. 
 
 to 
 
58 
 
 CENT. 
 
 State of the 
 
 Chriilians 
 
 nnder 
 
 Antoninus 
 
 Pius. 
 
 The Ecclefiajilcal Hijiory 
 
 to death without mercy as refufed, in fpite of 
 the various torments thus inflifted on them, to 
 abjure Chriflianity {e~]. The event of this con- 
 teft, which was for a while maintained on both 
 fides with incredible valour, was mofl difaftrous 
 to the Jews. An innumerable hoft of this ill- 
 fated people having fallen by the fword, and 
 Paleiline being almofl wholly depopulated, the 
 dreadful fcene was clofed by Hadrian's ordering 
 Jerufalem, which had juft begun to revive again 
 from its afhes, to be finally overthrown and laid 
 wafte, and caufmg a new city, called after him- 
 felf iElia Capitolina, to be erefted on a part of 
 its fcite [/] ; at the fame time debarring the 
 Jews from every accefs to fuch new city, as 
 well as to any of their former facred places 
 in its neighbourhood, under the feverefl: pe- 
 nalties r^]. 
 
 XIV. Upon the death of liadrian, fo imme- 
 diately did the afped of affairs change, that it 
 feemed as if his refcript refpeding the Chriftians 
 had expired with him. For fcarcely had Anto- 
 ninus Pius aflumed the government of the em- 
 pire, when the Chriftians found themfelves af- 
 failed in various places by numerous accufers, 
 who being obliged by the abovementioned edidt 
 of Hadrian to alledge fome fort of crime againft 
 them, and probably finding the more equitable 
 of the prefidents, difmclined to confider the bare 
 
 \_e~\ Juftin Mart. Apolog. ii. pro Chrijlian'is , p. 72. edit. 
 Parif. Hieron. Catalog. Script. Ecclef. in Agrippa Cajiore. 
 
 [/] A particular hiftory of this new city has been given 
 to the world by che learned Deyling. It is annexed to the 
 fifth volume of his father's Obftr vat tones Sacra. 
 
 \_g'\ See amongft others, Jiiftin Martyr, Dialog, cum 
 Tryphone, p. 49. 278. edit. Jebbian. Sulpitius Severus, 
 Jiijior. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. xxxi. p. 245. edit. Cleric. Hiero- 
 nymus, Comment, in Sophoniam, c. 2. 
 
 profeffion 
 
of the Second Century, ^^ 
 
 profeffion of Chrifllanity iii that light, had re- cent. 
 courfe to the expedient of charging them with ['• 
 impiety or atheifm. This new attack was met by sitToTthT 
 Juilin Martyr with an apology prefented to the chriftians 
 emperor, in which he ably repels various other Ammiinus 
 calumnies with which the Chriftians were af- ^'i"*- 
 failed, as well as completely vindicates them 
 againft this laft attrocious charge of impiety. 
 The efFedl however produced by this apology 
 was but trifling. At length an immediate ap- 
 plication having been made to the emperor by 
 feveral of the magiftrates, for the purpofe of 
 afcertaining the extent to which the populace, 
 who were thus continually calling for the blood 
 of the Chriftians, were to be gratified in their 
 demands, he commanded them to take for their 
 direction the law of Hadrian, and not put any 
 Chriftian to death unlefs it fliould appear that 
 he had committed fome crime againft the ftate T/-']. 
 But even this was not found fufBcient to pre- 
 vent thofe ebullitions of popular fury which the 
 priefthood continually made it their bufinefs to 
 promote. For in confequence of fome earth- 
 quakes which fhortly after occurred in Afia, 
 and which the priefls, with their accuftomed 
 malevolence, afcribed to the difpleafure of the 
 gods at the toleration of the Chriftians, the mul- 
 titude burft through every reftraint, and heaped 
 on thefe fancied authors of their calamities every 
 
 [/»] This appears not only froni the emperor's editl ad 
 commune Jfia, but alfo from the words of Melito, apud 
 Eufeb. Hijtor. Ecclef. lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 148. who re- 
 minds the emperor Marcus Aurehus that his father ad- 
 drefled letters to the Lariffeans, the Theflalonians, the 
 Athenians, and in fad to the Greek provinces in general, 
 forbidding them to have recourfe to any tumultuary pro- 
 ceedings againft the Chriftians. 
 
 fpecies 
 
6o The Ecclefiajlical Hijlory 
 
 fpecies of outrage and Injury. A reprefentation 
 of the grievous afflidions to which they were thus 
 exposed having been fubmitted to the emperor 
 by the Chriflians, he addreffed a fevere edidt to 
 the whole region of Afia, commanding, that 
 unlefs the Chriflians fliould be convifted of fome 
 fort of crime they fhould be difcharged with 
 impunity, and that the punifliment to which, in 
 cafe of conviction, they would have been fub- 
 jedled, Ihould, upon their acquittal, be inflided 
 on their accufers [/]. 
 
 XV. The 
 
 [i] An imperial edift to this efFeftis extant in Eufebius 
 {Hijlsr. Ecclef. lib. iv. cap. xiii. p. 126.) who fays, that he 
 took it from Mclito's Apology for the Chriftians, addreffed 
 to the emperor Marcus. By certain of the learned, how- 
 ever, this edidl has been thought not to belong to Anto- 
 ninus Pius, but to his fucceffor Marcus Aurelius ; but the 
 reafons on which this opinion are grounded are, unlefs I am 
 altogether deceived, of no weight whatever. For to pafs 
 over the teftimony of Eufebius, as well as certain particu- 
 lars in the edidl itfelf, which are not in the lead applicable 
 to Marcus, there are two things which in my opinion moll 
 clearly prove that Eufebius was not wrong in afcribing it 
 to Antoninus Pius. In the iiril place Eufebius copied it 
 from an apology addreffed by Mehto to the emperor 
 Marcus. But who can believe, if Marcus Aurelius had pub- 
 lifhed fuch an edidl refpefting the punifhment of the ac- 
 cufers of the Chriftians, that Melito would have deemed 
 it neceffary to write a work exprefsly for the purpofe of 
 exciting in him a compaffion for the Chriftians.' In the 
 next place, thofe earthquakes of which the edifl makes 
 mention, and which gave occafion to the people of Afia to 
 commence their attack on the Chriftians. occurred in the 
 time of Antoninus Pius. Adverfa, fays Capitolinus, (in his 
 Life of Antonine, cap. ix. p. 268. torn. i. Scrlptor. H'tft. 
 ylugujl.) ejus temporibus hac provenerunt : Fames de qua 
 diximus, clrc't ruuia, Terrse Motus, quo Rhodiorum et 
 Aliae oppida conciderunt : qua omr.'m m'lnjice inflaurav'tt. 
 But it is clear that thofe of the learned who attribute this 
 edi6t to the emperor Marcus, do fo merely with a view to 
 extenuate the affliftions which the Chriftians fuffered under 
 Antoninus Pius, and to make it appear as if, after the flight 
 
 perfe- 
 
of the Second Century. 6i 
 
 XV. The fecurity and tranquillity enjoyed by c E n t. 
 the Chriftians under this edicl of Antonine . "•. . 
 
 lafted State of the 
 Chviftians 
 
 perfecution to which they were expofed at the commence- ^ ^'^^^ 
 ment of Antoninus's reign, the Chriftians had enjoyed, as Aurelius. 
 it were, a perfect calm to the very end of his government. 
 In doing this, however, they have paid a greater regard to 
 their own private opinion, than to the faith of hiftory, Not- 
 withflanding, moreover, that the ifTuing of this edift by 
 Antonine was unqueftionably prodiiftive of confiderable ad- 
 vantage to the Chriftian caufe, and impofed a reftraint on 
 the officious forwardnefs of evil-difpofed perfons, yet the 
 interefts of Chriftianity would have been benefited in a much 
 higher degree had he repealed that law of Trajan, which 
 awarded the punifhment of death to all fuch Chriilians as 
 Ihould be convifled of having abandoned and refufe to re- 
 turn to the religion of their anceftors. The law of Trajan 
 was however fuffered to remain in full force, and yet at 
 the fame time this edift of Antonine, of a nature altogether 
 repugnant to it, was introduced into the forum. Iniqui- 
 tous and cruel judges might therefore, if they thought pro- 
 per, caufe both the accufer and the accufed to be put to 
 death ; the former under the edifl of Antoninus Pius, the 
 latter under that of Trajan, which none of the emperors 
 had thought it proper to repeal. Of a cafe of this kind a 
 very notable example is recorded by Eufebius in his Eccle- 
 fiajlical HiJIory, lib. v. cap. 2i. p. 189. ApoUonius, a man 
 refpeftable for his gravity and learning, was, under the 
 reign of Commodus accufed of being a Chriftian. The 
 judges forthwith condemned his accufer to have his legs 
 broken and to be put to death : for by the edift of Anto- 
 nine it was ordained, that capital punifhment fliould be in- 
 flifted on all accufers of this fort. But by thefe fame 
 judges was ApoUonius himfelf alfo, after that he had pub- 
 licly rendered an account of the religion that he profeffed, 
 and openly acknowledged him.felf to be a Chriftian, adjudged 
 to fufFer death. For by an ancient law, fays Eufebius, it 
 was enadled, that if any Chriftian fhould be once regularly 
 brought before the public tribunal, they fhould on no ac- 
 count be difmiffed with impunity, unlefs they would repu- 
 diate their religion. Now what other ancient law could 
 this be that was fo direftly repugnant to the edift of Anto- 
 nine than the refcript of Trajan to Pliny ? By thus artfully 
 having recourfe to ancient laws that had not been exprefsly 
 jepealed, did the iniquity and injuftice of the Roman ma- 
 12 giftrates 
 
d The Ec cleft ajl teal Hijiory 
 
 lafted no longer than until the year clxi, when 
 the government of the empire paffed into the 
 hands of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who from 
 his great attachment to the Stoic fyftem of dif- 
 cipline acquired the furname of " The Philo- 
 fopher.'* At the very commencement of this 
 emperor's reign the ancient practice of pre- 
 ferring public accufations againft the Chriftians 
 was vigoroufly refumed ; and as many of the 
 perfons thus accufed as acknowledged them- 
 felves to be followers of the religion of Chrift, 
 and refufed to change their tenets, were deli- 
 vered over to the executioner. Upon this oc- 
 cafion it was that Juftin Martyr addrefled to the 
 emperor his fecond apology for the Chriftians, 
 a compofition much refembling his former one, 
 both as to ftyle and argument ; but which was 
 fo far from exciting in the mind of the emperor 
 any thing like lenity or compaffion towards thofe 
 on whofe behalf it was drawn up, that after its 
 appearance the calamities of the Chriftians were 
 increafed throughout the whole of the Roman 
 empire. Nor did it appear fufficient to the em- 
 peror to free the enemies of Chriftianity from 
 thofe reftraints which his father had impofed on 
 them : but by the publication of various edicts 
 inimical to the Chriftians he held out, as it 
 were, an invitation or incitement to the people 
 to become their accufers [_k~\. It appears, indeed. 
 
 giftrates frequently find means to deprive the Chriftians of 
 every benefit to which they were entitled under enaftments 
 of a more recent date. 
 
 [/f] Melito in his Apology apud Eufeb. Hijl. Ecclef. 
 lib. iv. cap, xxvi. p. 147. makes ex prefs mention of certain 
 new edifts promulgated againft the Chriftians in Afia, in 
 confequence of which they were expofed to open attacks 
 from the vileft of men, both by day and by night : and 
 
 that 
 
of the Second Century. 6t^ 
 
 as well from other authorities, as particularly from cent. 
 the trad written by Athenagoras in defence of ^^• 
 
 the 
 
 that thefe edifts muft have been of the moft. harfh and fe- 
 vere kind is unqueitionable, lince McHto adds, that the 
 new imperial edift, kkivov '^M-ry.yiJ.v., was fo extremely inhu- 
 man, that the ifFuing of it even againit barbarous enemies 
 would not have been juftiliable : 6 ^n ^' zura. Bxfhdpcuv x^-th 
 TToAEjuiwy. Melito, indeed, profefles himfelf to be ignorant 
 whether or not this editl: was iffued by the emperor. But 
 this could furely be nothing more than a prudent diflimula- 
 tion in him. For who would ever have been fo bold as to 
 forge imperial edidls ? Who amonglt the judges couid have 
 been found fufficiently daring to give to tht-fe fidtitious 
 edidts the force of real ones ? And, with no better fandtion 
 than could be afforded by fuch fraudulent mandates to de- 
 prive Roman citizens of their lives and worldly pofTiiTions ? 
 The crime was of that magnitude that it could fcarcely l.ave 
 fuggefted itfelf to the mind even of the moft hardened 
 wretch; and to its execution fo many difficulties would have 
 been oppofed, that no one but a madman could have pro- 
 mifed himfelf the leaft fuccefs in attempting it. In enu- 
 merating therefore the real and adtual persecutors of the 
 Chriftians we muft, after recording the names of the em- 
 perors Nero and Domitian, affign the third place to that 
 imperial philofopher, whofe wiidom has not ceafed to com- 
 mand admiration, even in the prefent day, the moft fapient 
 Marcus Aurelius ; inafmuch as he was the author of fuch 
 laws againft the Chriftians as a juft and good man would 
 never have enadled, even againft a fet of barbarous ene- 
 mies. For the emperors that had intervened between 
 Domitian and him, inftead of exciting, had uniformly ftudied 
 to reprefs and difcountenance any perfecution of the Chrif- 
 tians. A faft with which the emperor is in no very ob- 
 fcure terms upbraided by Melito, although the ftatt of the 
 times in which he wrote obliged this apologift to fpeak 
 with fome referve. It were to be wiftied that this edidl of 
 the emperor Marcus had reached our days, fincc without 
 doubt we fhould have been able to gather from it the 
 grounds of that hatred which he had conceived aga nft the 
 Chriftians. But to the primitive pvofeffors of Ciiriftianity 
 it appeared more expedient to fink the remembrance of the 
 laws by which the progrefs of their religion was oppofed, 
 than to perpetuate it. A hint, however, is fupplied by 
 ©ne paflage in Melito, which may enable us, with fome de- 
 1 1 ' gree 
 
64 The Ecclefiqftkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, the Chriftians, that Marcus did not abfokitcly 
 
 ._^ 1^ repeal the edi6l of his father which forbad the 
 
 State of ti.c Chriftians to be put to death unlefs they fhould 
 
 Chriftians 
 under 
 
 be convided of fome fort of capital offence [/] 
 iviamis but 
 
 Aurelius. 
 
 gree of probability, to guefs at the nature of this infamous 
 edift. By this law of the emperor Marcus, he fays, the 
 moft (hamelefs charaders, and thofe who were covetous of 
 other men's property (riv aAXorp/a'v j'paca)), were invited to 
 turn informers againfh the Chriftians, and to hunt after 
 them both by day and by night. Now the conclufion to 
 which thefe words inevitably lead is, that in this edift there 
 was a profpeft held out to avaricious and money-loving 
 men of incrcafing their own wealth by the fpoliation of 
 others. This then being eftablifhed, it feems to be highly 
 credible, indeed almoft certain, that the emperor held out 
 pecuniary recompence as an allurement to people to become 
 accufers of the Chriftians, and direfted that the goods and 
 other property of thofe who might be convicted of any 
 crime, fliould be adjudged to the perfons through whofe 
 exertions the delinquents had been brought to juftice. 
 Such a law might not indeed fail to produce its defigned 
 effedl on the minds of thofe who coveted other men's goods, 
 but fuch a law was very juftly charafterifed by Melito, 
 when he pronounced it altogether unworthy of a good and 
 wife emperor. It was not in this way that Nero, it was 
 not in this way that Doinitian attacked the Chriftians. 
 
 [/] It is clear from various documents, and from this 
 trad of Athenagoras in particular, that the enemies and 
 accufers of the Chriftians under the reign of Marcus, en- 
 deavoured with the utmoft earneftnefs to fix on them three 
 different fpecies of crimes, ift. The moft unqualified im- 
 piety or atheifm. 2dly. The celebrating of Thyeftean ban- 
 quets, that is, feafting on the flefh of murdered infants. 
 3dly. CEdipodean or inceftuous fexual intercourfe. Hence 
 I think it is manifeft, that it was not the will of the em- 
 peror to have the Chriftians put to death merely on account 
 of their religion, but that he confirmed the law of Anto- 
 ninus. For if it had been fuflicient to accufe the Chriftians 
 of defedlion from the religion of their anceftors, and mani- 
 fefting a contempt for the gods of the country, as it was 
 under the reign of Trajan, there could have been no necef- 
 fity for charging them with calumnies like the above. But 
 a^ the laws of the empire were particularly ftri£l in regard 
 
 to 
 
vf the Second Century. 65 
 
 but, through the iniquity of the judges, the cent. 
 greateft facility was aftbrded to accufers in efta- " • 
 blifhing any lalfe charges which they might state of the 
 bring forward againfl the Chriftians ; and the Chriiiians 
 accufed, in defiance of the laws of the empire, Marcus 
 were, without either being regularly convitted Aurciius. 
 of, or confefling themfelves to have committed, 
 any fort of crime, declared to have incurred the 
 penalty of death [;;/]. 
 
 From 
 
 to accufers, and forbad any Chriftian to be put to death 
 unlefs ronvifted of fome fort of crime, there was no other 
 courfe left open to the malice and improbity of the enemies 
 of Chrittianity but to devife certain heinous offences, and 
 endeavour by every poflible means to fix them on its pro- 
 feflbrs. 
 
 [ot] The hiftory of the perfecution at Lyons, which 
 took place, as I have elfewhere fhewn, under the reign of 
 this emperor, in the year clxxvii. affords a very fuf&cient 
 illuftration of what is here ftated. This perfecution had 
 its origin in a popular tumult or contention that took place 
 between the Chriftians and the heathen worfhippers. During 
 its continuance a great many of the former were call into 
 prifon ; but owing to no one's coming forward as an ac- 
 cufer, and proving them to have committed fome fort 
 of crime, the hands of the magiftrates were completely tied 
 up in regard to them. By way, therefore, of obtaining an 
 oftenfibly legal fanftion for the gratification of their 
 mahce, the foldiers and other enemies of the Chrifliians 
 prevailed, by means of threats, on certain of the fervants 
 of thofe whom they had apprehended, to become accufers 
 of their mailers. But what thefe wretches charged their 
 mafters with was not facrilege, or a contempt for the pub- 
 lic religion, but aftual crimes, and thofe identical crimes 
 too, which, under the reign of Marcus, were, by flanJer, 
 attributed to the Chriftians, namely the celebrating of 
 Thyeftean banquets, and an inceftuous fexual intercourfe. 
 To this teftimony of fervants againft their lords the judges 
 gave credit, or rather pretended to give credit ; and, in 
 defiance of the order of proceeding prcfcribed by the law, 
 put the Chriftians to the rack ; endeavouring, by torments 
 of various kinds, to extort from them a confeflion of what 
 they were thus charged with. In vain was it that thefe 
 VOL. II. F unfortunate 
 
66 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT. From whence this ill-will of the emperor 
 ._ ]}' , towards the Chrlflians proceeded, is not to be 
 litateofthe afcertained from any memorials that have reached 
 fhriftians q^^. tinics. It may, with great probability, how- 
 Mai^cus ever, be conjectured, that from the reprefentation 
 Avireiius. ^f {^e philofophcrs, to whofe guidance he ap- 
 pears entirely to have furrendered himfelf, he 
 was led to regard the Chrillians as a fet of 
 abfurd, irrational, obflinatc and conceited men ; 
 
 unfortunate people perfifted, with the utmoft conftancy, to 
 the laft, in alTerting themfelves innocent ; their fate had been 
 predeternnined on ; they were pronounced guilty, and were 
 in confequence configned over to various kinds of death. 
 Vid. Eufebius, H'lfor. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. 2. There can 
 be no doubt but that, in the other provinces, a nearly 
 fimilar courfe was followed ; fo as to preferve fomewhat 
 of an impofing air of juftice, and make it appear as if the 
 Chriftians were condemned, not for their religion, but on 
 account of their crimes. And here we cannot but direft 
 the reader's attention to the peculiar infelicity of the times 
 of Marcus Aurelius, than whom a jufter or more fapient 
 emperor is fuppofed never to have exifted ! The monarch, 
 a prince in no refpeft ill inclined, gave himfelf up to plii- 
 lofophical meditation, and troubled himfelf but little as to 
 the way in which the concerns of his empire might be 
 managed. In the mean time, the magiftrates taking ad- 
 vantage of this his indifference as to Itate affairs, made 
 every thing conform itfelf to their will and pleafure, and 
 fcrupled not moft grofsly to violate thofe laws for which 
 they profefled themfelves to entertain the higheft veneration. 
 They made no fearch or inquiry indeed, after the Chriftians, 
 fmce that would have been contrary to the edift of Trajan ; 
 they furthermore manifefled their refped for the laws of 
 the empire by not iuflifting punifliment on any Chriftian, 
 unlcfs accufed as fuch ; and not only accufed of being a 
 Chriftian, but alfo proved by witneffes to have committed 
 fome heinous offence. But then, to fuit their own purpofes, 
 the would, as we have feen, admit the teftimony of flaves, 
 and the verieft rcfufe of mankind ; and upon no better evi- 
 dence than that of the vileft of mortals, would condemn 
 men as guilty, whofe conftancy in protefting their innocence 
 even torments of the moft excruciating nature were found 
 unable to fubdue. 
 
 1 2 and 
 
of the Second Century. 6y 
 
 and therefore, upon the principles of that harfh cent. 
 and rigid fyftem of moral difcipline to which he , "' ^ 
 was devoted, conceived it expedient rather to State of the 
 deftroy than to tolerate them [«]• under'*"' 
 
 XVI. Under Marcus 
 Aurelius. 
 
 [«] It has for a long time been with me a matter of 
 doubt whether the emperor Marcus Aurelius was fo great 
 a charafter as he has been efteemed for ages, and ftill con- 
 tinues to be confidered by almofl; every one capable of 
 forming an opinion on the fubjett. If our eftimate of him 
 be^'jndeed drawn folely from thofe of his writings which 
 remain, it feems to be fcarcely poflible that his worth 
 fliould be over-rated ; but if his actions be taken into the 
 account, and brought to the tcft of reafon, we Hiall find 
 the matter wear a very different afpeft. That he was a 
 good man, although in no fmall degree a fuperftitious one, 
 is what I do not in the leaft doubt ; but that he at all 
 merited the title of a good emperor and prince, is to me , 
 a matter of fome queftion. But for the prefent I will 
 pafs over this, and content myfelf with briefly inquiring 
 whether the condition of the Chriftians was not worfe 
 under the reign of this philofopher and man of genius, 
 than it had ever been under that of any of the preceding 
 emperors who were ftrangers to philofophy. To the opinion 
 of fuch of the learned as attribute the ill-will of Marcus 
 Aurelius towards the Chriftians to fuperftition, I feel it 
 impoflible for me to fubfcribe. Had fuperftition given rife 
 to his feverity, he would, without doubt, have confidered 
 thfeir religion alone as a fufficient reafon for commanding 
 them to be puniftied ; but that fuch 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 carelcfTnefs and floth, and which 
 originated in that ftoical evenuefs and feverity of mind 
 which they denominate apathy, occafioned him to {brink 
 from the trouble of curbing the licentioufnefs of evil dif- 
 pofed men, and alfo made him look with a tranquil indiffer- 
 ence on aftions highly criminal and oppreffive. To which 
 it may be added, that a man devoted to contemplation, and 
 employing a confiderable portion of his time in philofo- 
 phical fpeculations, probably cared but little as to what 
 was done in the empire, or as to the fidelity and upright- 
 nefs with which the prefidents and magiftrates might dif- 
 charge the important duties appertaining to their various 
 F 2 offices. 
 
68 
 
 The Eccleftajikal Hijiory 
 
 XVI. Under no emperor, therefore, fubfequently 
 to Nero, were the Chriftians expofed to weightier, 
 
 or 
 
 offices. The conje£lure, however, which, in my opinion, 
 comes neareft to the truth, is, that the philofophers by 
 whom he was befet, and who held the Chrillians in detefta- 
 tion, inftilled into his mind a wrong idea of the Chriftian 
 tenets ; and having to deal with a man of a credulous and 
 eafy difpofition, found means to perfuade him, that in the 
 worfhippers of Chrilt, an irrational, turbulent, and per- 
 nicious feft had arifen, a fed in faft, which it was on every 
 account highly proper to reprefs ; and in this opinion I 
 am confirmed by a remarkable pafiage in the eleventh book 
 of his woik, De Rthus ad Je pertinentibus, § iii. wherein he 
 profefTes himfelf to entertain but an unfavourable opinion 
 of the fortitude and contempt of death exhibited by the 
 Chridians. Marcus himfelf had never feen any of the 
 Chriftians encounter death ; and therefore, for whatever he 
 may have reported of their behaviour under fuch trying 
 circumftances, he mull unqueftionably have been indebted 
 •to the magiftrates, and thofe philofophers by whom he 
 was furrounded, and who, of courfe, did not fail to re- 
 prefent them in that light in which it was their wi(h for 
 him to regard them. The words of Marcus are: " To 
 what an admirable ftate muft that foul have arrived which 
 is prepared for whatever may await her — to quit her 
 earthly abode, to be extinguiflied, to be difperfed, or to 
 remain! By prepared I mean, that her readinefs fhould 
 proceed from the exercife of a calm, deliberate judgment, 
 and not be the refult of mere obftinacy, like that of the 
 Chriftians ; and that it fhould be manifefted, not with 
 oftentatious parade, but in a grave, confiderate manner, fo 
 as to make a ferious impreflion on the minds of other 
 people." In this paftage, the fortitude difplayed by the 
 ftoics in the aft of death, is compared by the emperor with 
 the conftancy of the Chriftians under fimilar circumftances. 
 For the former he expreffes a refpeft ; of the latter he 
 evidently fpeaks with contempt. Under the influence, and 
 wiih the never-failing fupport of reafon, the philofopher 
 is reprefented as encountering death with a deliberate 
 fteadfaftncfs of foul, or, in other words, as meeting death 
 with tranquillity, becaufe he knows that death can never 
 be productive of evil to him ; whilft the Chriftian, on the 
 contrary, if we liften to the emperor Marcus, dies alto- 
 gether irrationally, without any other confidence or con- 
 
 folation 
 
of the Second Century, 6^ 
 
 or more numerous afRidions than they fufFered cent. 
 during the reign of the illuftrious Marcus \_ , ^\- y 
 
 Aurelius, Affliaion.-. 
 
 or the 
 Chriftiaiis 
 folation than what is fuppHed by a certain ftubbornnefs under the 
 and pertinacity of mind, for which no pretext is to be reign of 
 found either in common fcnfe or reafon. From hence it Marcus. 
 is manifeft, that thofe who poflefied the ear of the emperor 
 had perfuaded him that the Chriftians were a fet of ir- 
 rational, 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 obflinacy 
 and perverfenefs. Whoever they might be that inftilled into 
 the mind of the emperor fuch an idea of the Chriftians, 
 they moft certainly praftifed on him a very bafe impofition ; 
 fince the Chriftians were poflefled of weightier, and by 
 far better reafons for meeting death without difmay, than 
 ever the whole race of ftoics had been able to fupply, and 
 in the fortitude which they difplayed on quitting this 
 earthly ftate, were inflrenced by a much founder judgment 
 than that by which the ftoic feft were governed. But it 
 cannot excite our wonder that the emperor, after his 
 mind had received the abo-e impreffion, fhould deem it 
 expedient to extirpate the Chriftians. Dangerous, truly, 
 muft have been a itSi which encouraged its votaries to en- 
 counter every fort of torment unappalled, and meet even 
 death itfelf with difdain, upon no better a principle than 
 that of a fullen, blind, irrational obftinacy. But to proceed 
 with the emperor's contrafted portraits. The philofopher, 
 we are told, encounters death with firmnefs and compofure, 
 unaccompanied by any tragical difplay : that is, unlefs I 
 entirely miftake the emperor's meaning, he does not, Hke 
 thofe who make their exit on the ftage, indulge in declama- 
 tion, and endeavour to gain over the minds of the fpe6tators 
 by an aff"efted bombaftic kind of eloquence, but preferves 
 a magnanimous filence, and meets his fate with a quiet and 
 unftiaken dignity. Not fuch, fays Marcus, is the conduct 
 of the Chrittian ; for he, regardlefs of what propriety 
 would fuggeft, appears to take the deaths exhibited in 
 tragedies for his model; and when the fatal moment ar- 
 rives, expatiates at length on his hilarity, his hope, his 
 confidence, and his contempt of death. The emperor, no 
 doubt, had heard that it was cuftomary for the Chriftians, 
 in the concluding aft of their lives, to offer up thankf- 
 givings to Almighty God, to commend their fouls into hi& 
 keeping by fervent prayer, to exhort the fpeftators to 
 F 3 renouTJoe 
 
Marcus, 
 
 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 Aurelius, whom pofterity have been taught to 
 regard as the beft and wifeft emperor that Rome 
 ever faw. Nor were there ever more apologies 
 fent forth into the world on behalf of the 
 Chriftians than were In his time offered to the 
 public ; for in addition to Juftin Martyr, of 
 whom we have already fpoken, Mehto, bifhop of 
 Sardis, Athenagoras, a philofopher of Athens, 
 Miltiades, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian the 
 Alfyrian, and others whom it is unneceflary to 
 enumerate, made it their bufmefs, in various 
 literary produftions, as well to render the in- 
 nocence and piety of the Chriftians unqueftion- 
 able, as to demonftrate the fanftity of the religion 
 which they profelled, and to expofe the madnefs 
 and abfurdity of thofe other religious fyftems 
 to which the world in general was fo fondly at- 
 tached. Of thefe works there are fome that have 
 reached our days, but others have perifhed 
 through the ravages of time[o]. Amongft 
 
 renounce fuperftition, to glorify Chrift in- hymns, and to 
 do many other things of a like kind ; which could not fail 
 to appear difpleafmg in the eyes of a ftoic, whofe leading 
 maxims were, that it was incumbent on a wife man to 
 maintain at all times an uniformity of afpe6l and demeanor ; 
 that every difturbance of the mind was reprehenfible ; and 
 finally, that under every change of circumltances, by what- 
 ever brought about, the moft perfeft equability or evennefs 
 of temper was invariably to be preferved. Under the 
 influence of fentiments like thefe, it was natural for the 
 emperor to confider the Chriftians as meeting death, not 
 in a philofophical way, but rather in the ftyle of tragic 
 charaders. Hence alfo, may we account for his being 
 moved but Httic by their aifliftions. Indeed, according 
 to the principles of the feft to which he belonged, he 
 ought not to have known what it was to be moved at 
 all. 
 
 [o] The apologies of Miltiades and Melito are thofe 
 of which we have to regret the |Dfs j the reft are ftill 
 
 the 
 
of the Second Century. 7 1 
 
 the many who, under the reign of Marcus, were cent. 
 put to death for their adherence to the religion ,__Vl_^ 
 of Chrift, the mod diftinguiflied were thofe very AffliaioQ* 
 celebrated characters, Juilin the philofopher, f.^^l. 
 who fufFered at Rome, and Polycarp, who met uniVthe 
 his fate at Symrna. Both of thefe fealed their ^^f^^^ - 
 attachment to the caufe of their blefled Matter 
 with their blood, in the year clxix \_p~\. To 
 none, however, hath pofterity affigned a higher 
 place in its eftimation than to the Chrillians of 
 Lyons and Vienne, who, in the year clxxvii, 
 were, in great numbers, made to encounter 
 death under various excruciating and terrific 
 forms, in confequence of their having been falfely 
 charged by certain of their inferior fervants or 
 flaves, with the commiffion of crimes almofl: too 
 fhocking even to be named. The mod eminent 
 of thefe Gallic martyrs, was Pothinus the bifliop 
 and parent of the church of Lyons, a venerable 
 charafter of the age of ninety and upwards, 
 who, not long before, had, with certain others, 
 travelled from the eaft into Gaul, and with 
 great care and induflry eflabliflied there that 
 Chriftian church or alTembly, which was doomed, 
 in a particular manner, to experience the de- 
 vaftating fury of this very remarkable and tre- 
 mendous perfecution [^.^ 
 
 XVIL It 
 
 [^] The afts of the Martyrdom of Juftin Martyr and 
 Polycarp are to be found in Ruinart'j A8a Martyrum 
 fmcera et feleBa, and in fon:ie other works. Concerning 
 the year and month of Polycarp's death, the reader may 
 confult a very copious and learned diflertation of the Abbe 
 Longerue in Winckler'j- Sylloge Anecdotoriim, p. 18. li^. 
 
 \_q~\ Refpeftin^ this perfecution of the Lyonefe, without 
 
 queftion the moft celebrated, and in all probabihty the 
 
 mod bloody and cruel that took place in any part of the 
 
 Roman empire during the reign of Marcus, there is extant 
 
 F 4 in 
 
72 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 XVII. It is faid, however, that fome fhort 
 time before his death, namely, in the year clxxiv, 
 
 The miracle the 
 
 of the 
 
 Thundering . 
 
 Legion. in Eufebius, H'ljlor. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. 2. an excellent 
 
 epiille from the church of Lyons to the brethren in Afia 
 and Phrygia, which I fliould conceive it impoflible for any 
 one to read without emotion. The thing, as we have 
 above obferved,. although pre-dettr-nined on, was yet 
 carried into effecEl under a fpecious fhew of legal formality, 
 left the laws of the empire fhould appear to have been 
 in any refpeft infringed. The circumilances of the affair 
 were briefly thefe : A popular tumult having been excited 
 refpefting the Chriftians, and many of them having, with 
 a view to quiet the public mind, been thrown into prifon, 
 certain of their fervants were prevailed upon by threats to 
 come forward and accufe their mafters of having committed 
 very heinous offences, namely, thofe identical crimes which, 
 during the reign of Marcus, had been very ciiftomarily 
 imputed to the Chriftians. Having in this way eftablifhed 
 fomewhat of a colourable ground whereon to aft, the 
 magiftrates proceeded to infiift tortures of various kinds 
 on the imprifoned Chrillians ; and even went fo far as to 
 put many of them to death. The uumber of perfons con- 
 fined, however, being coufiderable, and one of them, a man 
 of fome confequence, named Attains, having declared him- 
 felf a Roman citizen, the prefident of the province feems 
 to have felt that he had been too precipitate, and would 
 not venture to proceed farther in the bufinefs without 
 afcertaining the emperor's pleafure. The matter having 
 been fubmitted by him to the emperor, Mircus wrote 
 back word, that " all fuch as profefTed themfelves Chriftians 
 fhould be put to death, but that thofe who denied being 
 fo, fhould be difmiffed uninjured." Under the authority 
 of thi'S anfwer, therefore, capital punifhment was inflifted 
 on all who refufed to renounce Chriftianity ; fuch of them 
 as were Roman citizens being beheaded, and the reft caft 
 for a prey to wild beafts. This refcript of the emperor to 
 the prefident of Lyons feems to place his inveterate en- 
 mity towards the Chriftians in the cleareft light imaginable ; 
 fince, if rcfpeft be had folely to his words, as above-cited 
 from Eufebius, he gives exactly the fame commands as 
 Trajan did, and allows the Chriftians to be put to death 
 on account of their religion alone, without any thing cri- 
 minal being alleged againft them. But, it muft be confeffed, 
 that there is a difficulty in coming to any certain conclufioa 
 
 with 
 
of the Second Century, y^ 
 
 the fentiments of Marcus underwent a confider- cent. 
 able change with refped to the Chriftians, and , _ "l _. 
 that in confequence of his having been very The miracle 
 effentially benefited bv them on a particular "i^^"^ . 
 
 J ' * J hundenng 
 
 Legion. 
 with regard to the fenfe of this refcript, fiiice the letter of 
 the prefident to the emperor is not now extant. What the 
 prefident wrote, in all probability, was, that the Chriftians 
 flood convifted by the teftimony of a fiifllcient number of 
 credible witnefles of having committed many very great 
 crimes in their fecret affemblies, but that this charge was 
 denied by the accufed with the utmoft pertinacity, (at leaft 
 in this way it was certainly neceffary for him to write, if 
 his objed was to excufe the cruelty he had exercifcd upon 
 fo many of thefe unfortunate people) and that it had there- 
 fore become requifite for him to apply to the emperor for 
 direftion as to whether the witnefTes or the Chriftians them- 
 felves were to be believed. Suppofing then the prefident 
 to have written to the emperor in thefe or any fimilar terms, 
 the imperial anfwer will admit of this conftruftion ; — With 
 regard to the truth of an accufation which has been fub- 
 ftantiated according to the rules of law, we fee no reafon 
 for entertaining any doubt. From fuch therefore of the 
 perfons implicated as will not confent to abjure Chrifti- 
 anity we deem it proper to withhold our pardon ; but 
 fhould there be any who are inclined to return to the reh- 
 gion of their forefathers, it is our will that they ftiould be 
 fet at liberty. At leaft the abfence of the prefident's letter, 
 fo neceffary to a right underftanding of the emperor's anfwer, 
 leaves us altogether in a ftate of uncertainty as to which 
 conftituted the prevailing motive with Marcus in direfting 
 the puniftiment of the Chriftians, their religion or their 
 crimes. With regard to the time of tiiis periecution, the 
 reader will find it proved in a differtation of mine de JEtate 
 Apologia Atheiiagor<z, fSyntagm, Dijfert. ad Hi/ior, Ecckf, 
 pertin. vol. i, p. 315.) by irrefragable ar^amients, that it 
 did not take place as has been conjeftured by certain of the 
 learned in the year 167, but in 177. Compare Colonia H'ls- 
 toire Utteraire de hi ville de Lyon, torn. ii. Saec. ii. p. 34. and 
 Barat'ier de Succejfione Romanor. Pontiff, p. 207. 217. That 
 the church of Lyons, however, had been but recently 
 eftabliftied when this grievous affliction befel it, its own 
 epiftle, as preferved by Eufebius, moft clearly demonftrates, 
 for the Afiatic brethren are therein (p. 156.) told that in 
 the multitude of Chriftians who fuffered on that occafion 
 were comprehended thofe by whofe labour and induftry 
 chiefly the church there had been firft eftablifhed. 
 
 occafion. 
 
74 T^k^ Eccleftajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, occafion, in the courfe of a war in which 
 .. -I - _.. he was engaged with the Marcomanni and the 
 The miracle Quadi, two of the bravcft German nations, 
 Thu^ideriug ^^ ^^^ induced entirely to relieve them from 
 Legion. every fort of penalty and hazard to which 
 they had been previoufly expofed. The ftory 
 is, that being fo effedlually furrounded on all 
 fides by the enemy, during a feafon of fevere 
 and long continued drought, as not to be able 
 to gain accefs to any place from whence water 
 might be obtained, the Roman emperor and 
 his forces were in the moft imminent dan- 
 ger of perilhing from heat and thirst. "When 
 things however were arrived at the lad ex- 
 tremity, a band of Chriftians, who were at 
 that time ferving in Marcus's army, having 
 earneftly cried to heaven for afliftance, the Al- 
 mighty was pleafed at once to manifefl a re- 
 gard for their prayers, by caufmg the clouds 
 on a fudden to pour down rain in abundance, 
 accompanied with thunder and lightning. Re- 
 animated by the very critical rehef thus af- 
 forded them, the Romans loft not a moment 
 in attacking their enemies, whom this alter- 
 ation in the afpeft of the heavens had filled with 
 confternation and difmay, and fucceeded in 
 obtaining over them a moft fignal and im- 
 portant vidory. This wonderful event made 
 a very deep impreffion on the mind of the 
 emperor, and fo entirely changed his fentiments 
 with regard to the Chriftians, that he pub- 
 licly proclaimed to the world his conviction 
 of their virtue and good faith towards him, 
 and decreed that the heavieft punilhments ftiould 
 await all their enemies and accufers. Such is 
 the account given of the matter by the early 
 Chriftian writers. But it muft not pafs with- 
 out remark that in this narrative there are 
 
 fomc 
 
of the Second Century. 75 
 
 fome things manifeftly falfe ; and that with re- c e N t. 
 gard to the critical fall of rain accompanied . _ ^'__ _f 
 with thunder and lightning, to which the Ro- Tiie miracle 
 man army was indebted for its prefervation, it Ti,y^nj„i„ 
 poffefles not the charadleriftic features of a Legion. 
 true and unqueflionable miracle ; but may, with- 
 out any difficulty, be accounted for upon na- 
 tural grounds, and without in the leaft inter- 
 fering with the eftablilhed laws of divine 
 providence [r]. 
 
 XVIII. During 
 
 [r] Concerning the thundering legion, who are reported 
 through their prayers to have obtained from heaven a co- 
 pious fall of rain, by which the emperor Marcus and his 
 army were extricated from a moft peri'ous fituation, at a 
 moment when every expeftation and hope of relief had en- 
 tirely vanifhed, a controverfy of no little length was fome 
 time back carried on amongft the learned ; fome contend- 
 ing that the event ought to be afcribed to the immediate 
 interference of the Deity himfelf, who for the nioment 
 made a change in the eftabliflied order of nature for the 
 purpofe of producing an amelioration in ^he condition of 
 the Chriftians who were living in a moft wretched ftate of 
 oppreflion under Marcus ; whilft others maintained that in 
 what actually happened there is nothing to be difcovered 
 which nanifefts any thing like a deviation from the ordinary 
 and eftabhfhed laws by which the univerfe is governed. The 
 arguments on either fide are to be collefted from a difler- 
 tation of Daniel Laroque dc Legione Fulminatrice fubjoined 
 to the Adverfaria Sacra of Mat. hew Laroque his father, 
 and a difcourfe by Herman Witfius on the fame fubjeft, 
 annexed to his JEgypiiaca. Of thefe writers the former im- 
 pugns the truth of the miracle, the latter ftrains every 
 nerve to defend it. At a fubfequent period fome letters 
 paffed on the fubjeft between Sir Peter King, lord chan- 
 cellor of Great Britain,* and Mr. Walter Moyle an Enghfh 
 gentleman of diftinguifhed fagacity and erudition, a Latin 
 tranflation of which, accompanied with fome remarks of my 
 own, will be found at the end of my Syntagma Dijfertationum 
 
 * Dr. IMofheiin has here fallen into an error. Mr. Moyle's correfpon- 
 dent on this occafion was not the lord chancellor King, but the Reverend 
 Richard King of Topfhara la Devon fliirc. 
 
 ad- 
 
76 The Ecclefiajhkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT. XVIII. During the reign of Commodus, the 
 . _ '■ . fon and immediate fucceflbr of Marcus, no 
 
 State of the Very 
 
 Chriftians 
 
 under Com- 1 ,. r • 1 • • • tr- r 3 • 1 1 r 
 
 modus and ad difctphnas J anStores pertinent lum. King, fides with thole 
 Severus. who maintain that Marcus and his army were faved by a 
 miracle ; Moyle takes the field in fupport of the contrary 
 pofition. As for any other authors who may have written on 
 the fiibjeft, they do nothing more than either merely repeat, 
 or elfe endeavour, in one way or other, to ftrengthen and 
 confirm the arguments which had been previoufly adduced 
 by their above mentioned predecefTors. For my own part, I 
 can perceive no call for my entering much at large into this 
 affair, and I fhall therefore content myfelf with ftating my 
 opinion on it in a few words. And that I may do this with 
 the greater regularity and precifion, I will, in the firft place, 
 confine myfelf to a ftatement of fuch things as are, or at 
 leaft ought to be, granted to either party as indifputable ; 
 my next ftep fhall be to point out what is evidently falfe : 
 and, having divefted the matter of thefe particulars, I will 
 in the lafl place take into confideration what remains of it, 
 and which mufl of necefTity comprife all that can fairly and 
 properly be made the fubjeft of difpute. In the firft place 
 then, it is certain that- Marcus and his army were at one 
 particular time in the courfe of his war with the Quadi 
 and Marcomanni involved in a fituation bej'^ond all com- 
 parifon perilous. Marcus was better fitted to fhine as a phi- 
 lofopher than an emperor. Intimately acquainted as he was 
 with the maxims and difcipline of the ftoics, he yet appears 
 to have been a mere novice in the military art, and through 
 his imprudence to have given the enemy fuch advantages 
 over him as nearly to involve both himfelf and his army in 
 utter deftruftion. It is alfo certain that he was unexpeft- 
 edly extricated from this moft critical fituation by means of 
 a copious fall of rain, accompanied with thunder and light- 
 riing, and obtained the viftory. It is moreover unquef- 
 tionable, that not only the Chriftians, but alfo the emperor 
 and the Romans, confidered this fudden fall of rain to 
 which the army owed its prefervation as a praeternatural 
 event ; with this difference however, that the foroier viewed 
 it in the light of a miracle wrought by the God whom they 
 worfhippcd, in anfwer to their prayers, whilft the latter 
 couceived thcmfelvcs to be indebted for this fignal delive- 
 rance to either Jupiter or Mercury. That fuch was the 
 light in which this event was regarded by the Romans 
 is placed beyond all doubt by the united teftimony of 
 Dion Caffius, Capitolinus, Claudian, and Themiftius, but 
 
 ftiU 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 very heavy or general perfecution of the Chrif- 
 tians appears to have taken place; at leaft 
 
 nothing 
 
 ftill more particularly by the column erefted by Marcus 
 himfelf at Rome which remains in exiftence at this day, 
 and on which Jupiter (Pluvius) is reprefented as re- 
 invigorating the parched and exhaufted Romans by 
 means of a plentiful rain. That there were a number of 
 Chriftians at that time ferving in the imperial army ap- 
 pears to be not quite fo certain as the foregoing ; and 
 there are not wanting thofe who exprefsly deny this to 
 have been the cafe, on the ground that the ancient Chrif- 
 tians are known, for the moft part, to have dilliked the mi- 
 litary profeflion, and held wars in abhorrence. But al- 
 though 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 Chriftians did aftually 
 carry arms, and that the Chriftians m general were not 
 fuch decided enemies to warfare of every kind as alto- 
 gether to condemn a military life. For it can be fhewn 
 •that they confidered fuch wars lawful as were neceflarily 
 entered into for the fafety or defence of the empire, and 
 had no objeftion to any of the brethren ferving in fuch 
 patriotic wars ; and no one can deny but that of this 
 defcription was the war carried on by Marcus againft 
 the Quadi and Marcomanni, It appears alfo that when- 
 ever any foldiers were led to embrace Chriftianity, no 
 fuch thing as an abandonment of the profeflion of arms 
 was impofed on them, but they were permitted to pur- 
 fue that courfe of Hfe to which they had previoufly de- 
 voted themfelves. There feems therefore to be nothing 
 that fhould oppofe itfelf to our confidering this alfo as 
 certain, that amongft the foldiers of Marcus there were 
 many Chriftians. But if this admit of no doubt, it is 
 impoflible not to grant it as likewife unqueftionable, that 
 when the Roman army was reduced to fuch r.n extre- 
 mity for want of water as to have nothing fhort of ut- 
 ter deftrudion before their eyes, thefe Chriftian foldiers, 
 conformably to tlie dictates of the religion which they 
 profefled, addreflcd themfelves to God in prayers for re- 
 lief. The fame men would do'ubtlefs attribute the unex- 
 pefted fall of rain, accompanied with thunder and hght- 
 ning, and the confequent difcomfiture of their enemies, 
 to the fpecial interference of the Almighty on their be- 
 II half; 
 
The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 nothing of this kind is recorded by any hif- 
 torian. There are not wanting, however, in- 
 dividual 
 
 half; would offer up their thanks to him as the author 
 of their deliverance, and in their report of the thing to 
 their abfent brethren, would ftate, that in conlequence of 
 their prayers to Chrift, the Roman army had been 
 extricated from a fituation beyond all comparifon ad- 
 verfe and perilous. Attending duly to this, it muft be 
 eafy for any one to perceive, not only how the rumour 
 of this miracle arofe, but alfo how it came to be a mat- 
 ter of firm belief with the Chriftians that the Romans 
 had been faved through the prayers of the brethren. 
 Having then thus difmifled what may be confidered as 
 certain, I next proceed to point out fuch particulars as 
 cannot appear credible to any perfon converfant in hif- 
 tory, and which the induftry of fome very eminent fcho- 
 lars of modern times has ftripped of even that femblance 
 of truth which they might formerly wear. In the firft 
 place then, it is falfe, although apparently fupported by 
 the authority of ApoUinaris as quoted by Eufebius, 
 that there was a feparate and entire legion of Chriflians 
 in the Roman army. For, to pafs over many other things 
 which go completely to refute this idea, it is certain that 
 Chriftianity was not, under the reign of Marcus, fo far 
 countenanced, as for it to appear credible that even a fepa- 
 rate cohort, and much lefs a legion of Chriftians fhould 
 have been tolerated in the Roman armies. Since this lead- 
 ing circumftance then appears to have no foundation what- 
 ever in truth, it muft of neceffity be falfe, that when 
 every hope had vanilhed this legion prefented themfelves 
 in front of the army, and implored the divine affiftance ; 
 it muft be falfe, that before ever their prayers were fi- 
 niflied, the fall of rain, accompanied with thunder and 
 lightning, took place ; and finally falfe that the emperor 
 attributed the glory of having extricated his army, to 
 this legion, and that by way of manifefting his fenfe 
 of their ineftimable deferts, he conferred on them the 
 title of The Thundering Legion. The thundering legion, 
 it has been clearly proved by Scaliger and Henry Va- 
 lefius, as well as by other learned men fince their time, 
 was in exiftence anterior to the reign of Marcus, and 
 could confequently never have derived its diftinguifhing 
 name from this miracle. The probability is, that fome 
 Chriftian but little acquainted with the Roman military 
 
 efta. 
 
of the Second Century. 79 
 
 dividual injflances of Chriflians that were put ^ ^ ^ t, 
 to death during this period, the moft remak- « -^1 [j 
 
 able ^***6 of ^"^^ 
 
 Chriflians 
 . . under Com- 
 
 eftablifhment, having heard that amongft the legions modus and 
 there was one diftinguifhed by the name of the Thun- Sererus. 
 dering Legion, was induced haftily to concKide that this 
 title had been given to it in confequence of the thunder 
 with which God had on this occafion anfwered its prayers, 
 and pafTed off what was merely a gratuitous affumption 
 of his own, on others for the faft. Moreover, that Mar- 
 cus did not confider himielt as indebted for his delive- 
 rance to the favour in which the Ch'riftians ftood with 
 heaven, is rendered indifputable by the /'■ ntoninian column 
 at Rome which was eredled with the knowledge and con- 
 fent of this emperor, and on which the prefervation of the 
 Roman army is afcribed to Jupiter. Laftly, thefe things 
 being rejefted as falfe, it becomes impoffible for us to cre- 
 dit what is told us of letters having been ifTued publicly by 
 Marcus in which the piety of the Chriftians is extolled, and 
 their enemies and accufers are denounced. The epiftle of 
 Marcus to this eflFeft, which is at this day extant and gene- 
 rally to be found added to the firft apology of Juftin Mar- 
 tyr, bears on the very face of it, as is confefled even by 
 thofe who in other refpeds fupport the miracle of the 
 Thundering Legion, the moft manifeft marks of fraud, and 
 feems to have been the work of fonie man altogether unac- 
 quainted with Roman affairs, who lived moft likely in the 
 feventh century. Mention however having been made of thefe 
 letters of Marcus by Tertullian in Apologet. cap. v. it has 
 been concluded by many that fuch documents were adually 
 in exiftence in his time, but that they afterwards periftied 
 through the ravages of time. The words of TertuUian are 
 at nos e conirario edimus proteBorem ft liter a Marcl Jurelii 
 gravijfimi imperatoris requirantur, quibtis illam Germanicam 
 Jit'tm Chrtftianorum forte militum precationibus Impetrato imbrl 
 dijcujfam ccnteftatur. But there are many things which 
 tend to weaken and invalidate Tertullian's teftimony in 
 this.inftance. I pafs over the word forte in the above paf- 
 fage, which has been laid hold of by learned men as a proof, 
 either thnt TertuUian was not fatisfied of the truth of this 
 miracle, or elfe that he had never feen thofe letters of the 
 emperor's ; for to fay nothing of what is contended for 
 refpeaing the ufe of this particle by Tertullian, I fee 
 plainly that neither of the above points can be proved from 
 ft. The word manifeftly relates, not to Tertullian, but to 
 
 the 
 
8o 
 
 The Ecdefiajiical Hijlory 
 
 able of which is that of ApoUonius a digni- 
 fied and eminent charader, who, together 
 
 with 
 
 the emperor and his epiftle, and the fenfe of the pafTage is 
 this; that Marcus did not explicitly own or avow that the 
 fall of rain was obtained through the fupplications of his 
 Chriftian foldiers, but exprefled himfelf with fome referve, 
 and only fignified \.\\-a.\. pojfthly this great benefit might have 
 been derived from their prayers. I alfo pafs over the cir- 
 cumftance that Tertullian in another place {Libro ad Sea- 
 pulam, cap. iv. p. 87. ed. Rigalt.) where he fimilarly 
 makes mention of this rain, obtained through the prayers 
 of the Chriftians, is altogether filent as to the epiiUe of 
 Marcus. But there are two things, for which we have not 
 to feek very far, which, I think, muft be allowed entirely to 
 enervate and render nugatory the teftimony which Ter- 
 tullian is fuppofed, in the above cited paffage, to afford in 
 fupportof thefe letters. The firft is, that from what Ter- 
 tullian has handed down to us refpetSting the pujport of 
 this imperial epiftle, it is, unlefs I am moft egregioufly de- 
 ceived, very plainly to be feen that the paper which he had 
 before him at the time of his penning that paffage, was a 
 document to which we have before had occafion to direft 
 the reader's attention, namely, the editl ad commune Afisy 
 iffued by Antoninus Pius, whom, we well know, it has been 
 by no means an uncommon thing for writers to confound 
 with his fucceffor Marcus Aurelius. For in proceeding 
 with his ftatement Tertullian obferves,^^w/ non palam ab 
 ejusmodi hominibus pmnam dimovlt, ha alio modo palam dif- 
 perfit,adje8a et'iam accufatoribus damnatione et quidem tetriore. 
 Now the meaning of thefe words I take to be, firft, that 
 Marcus did not exempt the Chriftians from every fort of 
 penalty to which they had been previoufly liable, that is, 
 he did not abfolutely interdiil or prohibit their being pu- 
 ni(hed: fecondly, that he, however, contrived in effedto ren- 
 der thefe penalties, as it were, merely nominal ; or in other 
 words, that he wifely ordered matters fo as that the judges 
 (hould find it no very eafy matter to bring the Chriftians 
 within the lafh of the law : and thirdly, that he fufpended 
 over accufers who ftiould fail in their proof a fimilar punifh- 
 ment to that which would have awaited the accufed on con- 
 Tiftion. It will be fufficient for me then, I conceive, to 
 remark, that in thefe three refpefts the ftatement of Ter- 
 tullian moft aptly agrees with the edid of Antoninus Pius 
 ad commune /ijidc. For by that edift the emperor did not 
 
 exempt 
 
of the Second Century. 8 1 
 
 with his accufer, underwent capital punifhment cent. 
 at Rome [j]. The fad was, that none of the ,_„i^l..^^ 
 
 laws State of tlie 
 Chriflians 
 
 [j] Vid. Eiifebius, Hijlor. Ecclef. lib. v, cap. xxi. jnodus arwl 
 p. 189. ApoUoiiius was put to death under the law of Severus. 
 Trajan ; his accufer, as before noticed, under that of An- 
 toninus Pius. 
 
 exempt the Chriftians from every kind of penalty ; but he 
 ordained that no Chriftian (hould be fubjefted to punifii* 
 ment unlefs convidled of fome fort of crime, and by this 
 provifion moil certainly reftri(3-ed, within very narrow 
 limits, the power of punifliing the Chrillians at all : and, 
 finally, he direfted that fuch accufers of the Chriftians as 
 might fail of making good their charge againft them, fhould 
 be punidied for their temerity. It appears to me, therefore, 
 manifeft, that Tertullian fell into the miltake of imputing 
 to the fon the cdidl of the father, whofe name was fimilar ; 
 and that, having underftood that Marcus and his army had 
 experienced an unhoped for deliverance from a moll perilous 
 Htuation, through the prayers of the Chriftians, he was led 
 to conclude, that gratitude for fo fignal a benefit had ac- 
 tuated him to the promulgation of this edi6l. The fecond 
 thing which renders the teftimony of Tertullian, as to the 
 epiftle of Marcus, a mere nullity, is the perfecution of the 
 Chriftians at Lyons and Vienne, of which we have above 
 taken notice. This perfecution took place in the year 
 clxxvii, in the third, or if you had rather, in the fourth 
 year after the viftory obtained over the Marcomanni and 
 the Quadi. But who, let me aflc, can believe that the 
 emperor, after having, in the year clxxiv, in a public 
 epiftle, paifed the higheft encomium on the Chriftians, and 
 declared that the heavieft of puniftiments ftiould await 
 their accufers, ftiould all at once, in the year clxxvii, fo 
 entirely change his mind as to give them up for a facrifice 
 to the malice of their enemies, and enaft, that all fuch of 
 them as would not return to the religion of their anceftors 
 ftiould undergo captital puniftiment ? Having difencumbered 
 the queftion, then, of thefe particulars, the only thing that 
 remains to be determined is, whether that fall of rain to 
 which the Roman army owed its prefervation in the Mar- 
 comannic war, is to be accounted as one of thofe extraor- 
 dinary interpofitions of divine providence which we term 
 VQL> II. C miracles? 
 
Chriltians 
 unJer Com 
 nio(ius and 
 Severus. 
 
 82 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 c EN T. laws which had been enaded by different em- 
 
 , ^1___; perors refpefting the Chriftians, of which fome 
 
 State of the indeed were lenient, but others moft fevere, 
 having been repealed, the judges could at any 
 time, when it might fuit their humour, by 
 {training matters a little, contrive, with an 
 apparent fhew of juflice, to inflid capital punifli- 
 ment on all fuch Chriftians as might be accufed 
 before them. Of this evil the full weight was 
 never fo fenfibly experienced by the Chriftians 
 as under the reign of Septimius Severus, the 
 fucceflbr of Commodus. For although this 
 emperor, upon his firft afluming the govern- 
 ment, manifefted a difpofition to favour the 
 Chriftians, to one of whom he ftood indebted 
 
 miracles ? For if it can be afcertained that it belongs to 
 the clafs of miracles, there can be no doubt but that it ought 
 to be attributed to the prayers of the Chriftians who were 
 at that time ferving in the army of Marcus. Now, the 
 queftion, when thus fimplified, appears to me extremely 
 eafy of folution. By the unreferved afTent of the learned 
 it is now ellabhfhed as a maxim, that nothing can properly 
 be confidered as belonging to the clafs of miracles, for 
 the occurrence of which any natural caufe can be affigned. 
 But in this fall of rain, although it might not have been 
 expefted or even hoped for, there was nothing which it ex- 
 ceeded the ordinary powers of nature to accomplifti, nothing 
 which of neceffity required the peculiar interpofition of 
 Omnipotence. For nothing can be more common than 
 for the long droughts of fummer to be fucceeded by co- 
 pious falls of rain, accompanied with thunder and lightning 
 in a degree truly terrific. Nor can it appear at all won- 
 derful that fome of the enemy fliould have been ftruck 
 dead by the lightning, or that i n confequence thereof their 
 whole army ftiould betake themfelves to flight ; for it was 
 the opinion of all the German nations that every thunder 
 bolt was commifiioned of the Deity himfelf ; and, under 
 the influence of this perfuafion, it was cuftomary for the 
 efFefts of lightning to be regarded by thefe people as 
 particularly ominous. 
 
 for 
 
of the Second Century. ^^^ 
 
 for a very figiial benefit [/] ; yet under cover, cent. 
 as it fhould feem, of the turbulence of the times J^^ , 
 which fucceeded, the magiflrates and enemies statcofthe 
 of Chriftianity took occafion to rekindle the cimftians 
 flames of perfecution, and to carry their op- ||"Xsani 
 preffion and cruelty to the greateft extent. By Severus. 
 the concurrence of abundant authorities, it is 
 rendered indifputable, that in fome provinces, 
 towards the clofe of this century, the Chriftians 
 were expofed to fuch a dreadful feries of cala- 
 mities and fufferings as it had fcarcely ever fallen 
 to their lot to encounter before. It was the 
 diftrefTmg view prefented by thefe accumulated 
 miferies of the brethren, which gave birth to 
 that very ingenious and eloquent defence of the 
 Chriftians, the Apologeticon of Tertullian \_u~\. 
 
 XIX. To 
 
 [/] Tertullian (in libro ad Scapulam., c. iv. p. 87. edit. 
 Rigalt) fays, Ipfe Seiierus pater Antonini Chrijlianorum 
 memor fuit. Nam et Proculum Chr'ijlianiim, qui Turpacion 
 cognominabatur, Euhodia procurator em, qui eum per oleum 
 aliquando curwverat, requifivit, et in palatio Juo habuit ufque 
 ad mortem ejus : quern et Antoninus optime noverat, la£le 
 Chrijliano educatus. Sed et clariffimas faminas et clarijfimoi 
 viros, Severus fciens hujus fed£ ejfe^non inodonon laftt, verum 
 etiam tejlimonio exornavit, et populo furentiin no s pal am rejlitit. 
 The fame writer alfo, in his Apologet. cap. v. p. 62. edit. 
 Havercamp. clearly excepts Severus out of the number of 
 emperors that had difcovered an enmity to the Chriftians. 
 
 [w] From this work of Tertullian it is clearly to be 
 perceived how impioufly and cruelly the Chriftians of that 
 period were dealt with before ever Severus was prevailed 
 on to take part againft them. The common people, at the 
 inftigation, no doubt, of the heathen priefts, called aloud 
 for the blood of the Chriftians ; the other orders did not 
 trouble themfelves about them. Apologet. cap. xxxv. 
 p. 300. Sed vulgus inqtiis. Ut vulgus, tamen Romani, nee 
 ulli magis depojlulatores Chrijlianorum, qunm vulgus. Plane 
 cateri ordines pro auBoritate reltgioji exjide, nihil hojlicum de 
 ipfo fenatu, de equite, de cajlris, de palatiis ipfisfpirat. But 
 it fhould feem that forae of the prefidents by no means 
 G 2 thought 
 
The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 XIX. To the flame thus prevailing in the 
 breads of the priefls and the populace, not a 
 
 little 
 
 thought the Chriftians deferving of punifhment, but 
 cxercifed their cruehy on them merely with a view of 
 obtaining popular favour; for in c. xlix. p. 425, Tertul- 
 han preftes this home upon them in the following terms : 
 De qua iniquitate favitia nott modo cacum hoc vulgus exultat 
 et infultat, fed et quidam vejlrum qu'ibus favor vulg't de ini- 
 quitate captatu?-, gloriantury quafi non totum quod in nos 
 potejlis, nojlrum fit arbitrtum. The greateft part of the 
 magiftrates, however, did not fcruple to acknowledge the 
 falfehood of the calumnies wherewith the Chriftians were 
 affailed, and were ready to admit the injury that was done 
 them ; but complained that, without a breach of various 
 laws that ftood unrepealed and in full force, it was im- 
 poflible for them to turn a deaf ear to their accufers. 
 This exciife is met by TertuUian with much addrefs, and 
 combated at confiderable length in chapters iv, v, & vi. Hi» 
 exordium is as follows : Sed quoniam, cum ad omnia occurrit 
 Veritas nojlra (But when, by a fimple expofure of the 
 truth, we have fully refuted all thofe calumnies and charge* 
 that are urged againft us), pofiremo legum obflruitur audori- 
 tas ad'verfus earn {i. e. the truth) ut aut nihil dicatur re- 
 traBandum effe poji leges [i. e. that it would be inconfiftent 
 with Roman conftancy to revoke, or deviate from, what 
 has once been eftabhflied by law), aut ingratis necejfitas 
 ffbfequii prefer atur 'veritati, {i. e. a judge, although it may 
 be difagreeable to him, and he may perceive that the caufe 
 of truth will fuffer, fhould yet, in his decifions, adhere ftriftly 
 to the letter of the law) de legibus prius excurram vobifcum 
 ut cum tutoribus legum. Now, men who could in this way 
 make the laws a cloak for their own injuftice and cruelty, 
 muft certainly have been very worthlefs charafters. If we 
 except the law of Trajan, which permitted the Chriftians to 
 be called in queftion merely on account of their religion, 
 and directed them to be punifhed in cafe they would not 
 renounce it, the remaining imperial laws and refcripts were 
 rather favourable to the Chriftians than otherwife ; at leaft 
 there was not one of them to which a judge, if he had been 
 fo minded, might not have given a favourable interpreta- 
 tion. But it was neceflary for thefe malevolent charaAers, 
 thefe tools of the priefthood, and candidates for popular 
 fame, to difguife their real motives under fome pretext or 
 other, and to make it appear as if they wer« borne out by 
 
 fomevrhat 
 
of the Second Century. ^^ 
 
 little fuel was added by the writings of fome of c E n t, 
 thofe who affefted to poflefs a more than ordi- ,__^'_ _f 
 nary fhare of wifdom and virtue, and were Pb;iof<.ph,er. 
 diflinguifhed by the titles of Philofophers and 
 
 fomewhat of reafon in their decifions. Suck was, however, 
 the fpirit of ferocious violence with which this perfecution 
 was carried on, that even the reftraint impofed by the law 
 of Trajan with refpeft to making any fearch after the 
 Chriftians, was difregarded ; for they were broken in upon 
 and apprehended in their facred affeniblies, without any 
 accufation having been laid againft them. Quotidle, fays 
 Tertulhan, cap. vii. p. 80. obfidemnr, quotidic prodimur : in 
 ipjis plurimum catihus et congregatlotiibus noftr'is opprimlmur. 
 So far, therefore, from ftriftly adhering to what was dic- 
 tated by the laws, thefe moft unjuft judges, in the feverities 
 which they exercifed towards the Chriilians, did not fcruple 
 to fly direftly in the teeth of the moft pofitive injun6lions. 
 The punifhments inflifted on the Chriftians were as cruel as 
 the enmity borne them by their enemies was favage. The 
 following notices of them occur in Tertulhan, cap. xii. 
 p. 125', et feq. Cruc'ibus et Jlipitilus imponitis Chrijlianos. 
 Ungulis eradit'is latera Chr'ijl'ianorum. Cervices ponimus. Ad 
 hejl'tas impelUmur. Ign'ibus urimur. In tnetalla damnamur. In 
 infulas rehgamur. And in cap. xxx. p. 279, 280, we find 
 nearly a fimilar enumeration. It appears alfo, that the 
 common people would not unfrequently expend their fury 
 on the Chriftians without the intervention of the magi- 
 ftrates, and run even into fuch extremes of malice as to 
 dig up their dead bodies from the grave for the purpofe 
 of tearing them to pieces. Cap. xxxvii. p. 308. Quoties etiam 
 prttteritis niobis (the prefidents) fuo jure nos inimicum vulgus 
 invadit lapidibus et incendits, ipjts Bacchanalium fer'tis : nee 
 mortuis parcunt Chrijiianis, quin illos de requie fepulturey 
 de afylo quodam mortis jam alios , jam nee totos, avellantf dif- 
 fecentt dijlrahant. Now, all thefe things, it is obfervable, 
 were done previoufly to the manifeftation of any ill will 
 towards the Chriftians on the part of the emperor, and 
 whilft the laws that had been anciently enafted againft them 
 remained comparatively quiefcent, and, as it were fuper- 
 feded by others of rather a compaflionate tendency. What, 
 then, may we fuppofe to have taken place when Severus 
 avowed himfelf the enemy of Chriftianity, and not only 
 revived, in all their rigour, the ancient laws refpefting it, 
 but added to them new ones of ftill greater feverity ? 
 
 G 3 Orators. 
 
 inimical to 
 the Chri^^ 
 tia/i caafe 
 
86 ■ The Ecclefiajlical Hijlory 
 
 CENT. Orators. Of thefe, one of the mofl celebrated 
 
 i^- was a difciple of the modern Platonic fchool, 
 
 Phiiofophers named Celfus, who, towards the clofe of this 
 
 iiumkai to century, attacked the Chriflians in a declamation 
 
 JiTn^caufe. teeming with invective and reproach, which, at 
 
 a fubfequent period, was met by a very maf- 
 
 terly refutation from the pen of Origen[i;]|. 
 
 At Rome likewife, nearly about the fame time, 
 
 the Chriftians were affailed by one Crefcens, 
 
 [t'3 Origen, who, in the third century, was induced, by 
 the advice of Ambrofius, to give to the world his well 
 known confutation of the calumnies and falfehoods of 
 Celfus, conceived his adverfary to have been an epicurean, 
 for which, however, he feems to have had no other reafon 
 than that of there having been an epicurean of fome cele- 
 brity of the name of Celfus. But if the opinions of Celfus 
 were what even Origen himfelf ftates them to have been, 
 there can be no doubt but that he was utterly averfe to 
 the dodlrines of Epicurus, and belonged to what we term 
 the modern Platonic or Alexandrian fchool. The reader, 
 who wifties to fee this queftion examined in detail, may 
 t confult my Preface to the German tranflation of Origen. 
 Before the appearance, however, of any remarks of mine 
 on the fubjetl, it had been very learnedly fliewn by that 
 eminent fcholar Pet. Weffeling [ProhabUia, cap. xxiii. 
 p. 187. et feq.), that Celfus could by no means be con- 
 fidered as belonging to the clafs of the epicureans. We 
 cannot clofe this note without obferving, that abundant 
 proof is to be collected from the weak and injurious de- 
 clamation of Celfus of the very great detriment which the 
 caufe of Chriftianity fuftained in confequence of the cor- 
 ruptions introduced by the Gnoftics, who, fubfequently 
 to the time of Hadrian, had attained to fome degree of 
 confequence and fame ; for the exceptionable particulars 
 on which this malevolent adverfary chiefly grounds his at- 
 tack, were not recognized by thofe of the orthodox faith 
 as belonging to the Chriftian fcheme, but were merely 
 fancied improvements that had been tacked to it by the 
 Gnottics. Celfus, as appears from his own fliewyig, had 
 been chiefly converfant with men of this latter defcription, 
 and fell into. .the error of attributing to the Chriftians in 
 general, maxims which were recognized only by this par- 
 ticular fedt. 
 
 a cynic 
 
of the Second Century. 87 
 
 a cynic phllofopher, who, according to the pre- c e n t. 
 vailing cuftom of the age, arraigned them of "• 
 the grofTeft impiety. His attack was in a par- phUofophers 
 ticular manner directed againfl Juftin Martyr, inimical to 
 who had expofed to the world the fecret vices tVaa c Jiv 
 and deceptive arts of thofe who ftyled them- 
 felves philofophers ; nor was it for a moment 
 relinquifhed until this very celebrated Chriftian 
 father had undergone the punifhment of 
 death {jai]. As cotemporary with thefe, it 
 {hould feem that we may reckon Fronto, the 
 rhetorician of Cirta in Africa, who made it 
 his endeavour, in a fludied difcourfe that he ^ 
 fent abroad into the world, to eftablifh againfl 
 the Chriflians that vile calumny, fo frequent in 
 the mouths of the mob, of their countenancing 
 an incefluous intercourfe of the fexes [;v]. Many 
 
 [w] Vid. Eufebius, Hijlor. Ecckf. lib. iv. cap. xvi. as 
 alfo the Second Apology pro ChrijVtanis, of Juftin himfelf, 
 in which he predifts that the philofophers, and particularly 
 Crefcens, whofe ignorance and corrupt morals he had made 
 it his bufinefs to expofe to the world, would endeavour by 
 every poflible means to bring about his deftruftion. 
 
 [x] There are two paflages in Minucius Felix which 
 relate to this calumniator of the Chriftians ; from one of 
 which we learn his country, from the other his name and 
 mode of life. In cap. x. Odavius, p. 99, where he treats of 
 the Thyeftean banquets, which the Chriftians were accufed 
 of celebrating, he thus exprefles himfelf : Et de convivio 
 fiotum ejl. Peijfim omnes loquuntur. Id etiam cirtenfn nojlr't 
 tejiatur orntio. Then follows a defcription of thefe feafts, 
 which, without doubt, was taken from the difcourfe of 
 Fronto, which he had juft been praifing. To this paffage 
 he thus replies in the words of his O&avius, cap. xxxi. 
 p. 322. Sic de Ifto (the banquet) et tuus Fronto, non ut 
 affirmator ttjl'tmonium fecit, fed convicium ut orator afperfit. 
 By learned men it has been fufpedled, and certainly not 
 without great appearance of reafon, that this Fronto was 
 one and the fame with Cornelius Fronto the rhetorician, 
 who taught the emperor Marcus eloquence. As long as 
 G 4 the 
 
88 The Eccleftq/iical Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, moreperfons of this defcriptiorij in all probability, 
 "• laboured to defame the Chriftians ; but neither 
 
 their 
 
 the Chriftian church could number within its pale none 
 but men who were uiiflcilled in letters and philofophy, it 
 was regarded with a filent difdain by thofe amongfl the 
 Greeks and Romans who affumed to themfelves the title 
 of philofophers. But when, in the fecond century, certain 
 philofophers of eminence became converts to the Chriftian 
 fcheme, fuch as Juftin, Athenagoras, Pantaenus, and others, 
 without, however, renouncing either the name, garb, or mode 
 of living of philofophers, or giving up the inftruAion of 
 youth ; when, moreover, thefe Chriftianized philofophers 
 made it their bulinefs to demonftrate in the fchools the vanity 
 of the Greek philofophy, and propounded therein a new 
 fpecies of philofophic difcipline, which intimately embraced 
 the principles of Chriftianity, and accommodated itfelf to 
 the form of that rehgion which they had efpoufed ; and 
 when, laftly, thefe fame illuftrious converts to Chriftianity 
 made a point of expofing to the world the fecret vices, the 
 contentious fquabbles, and the aftual knavery of the pagan 
 philofophic fefts, the heathen philofophers perceived at 
 once the peril of their fituation, and that their credit with 
 the world, as well as every thing elfe that could be dear 
 to them, was brought into the greateft jeopardy. They 
 therefore united with the priefthood and the populace in 
 clamouring for the extermination of the Chriftians, and 
 whilft they endeavoured, by the propagation of falfe ac- 
 cufations and calumnies, not only orally, but in their 
 writings, to draw down deftruftion on the Chriftians at 
 large, were particularly afliduous in direfting the public 
 vengeance againft their apoftate brethren who had gone 
 over to the new religion. It was not, therefore, fo' much 
 with a view to uphold what they confidered to be the caufe 
 of truth, as to fupport their own tottering reputation, 
 authority, and glory, and to fecure to themfelves the com- 
 mon neceflaries of life, fuch as food and raiment, motives 
 in faft of much the fame kind with thofe which had pre- 
 vioufly excited the hoftility of the priefthood, that thefe 
 philofophers were induced to take the field againft the 
 Chriftians. This war of the philofophers againft Chrif- 
 tianity had its commencement under the reign of the 
 emperor Marcus, who was himfelf a philofopher, and made 
 it his ftudy to encourage and gratify philofophers : neither 
 had any of the Greek and Roman philofophers, previoufly 
 
 to 
 
of the Second Century. 89 
 
 their works nor their names have come down to c e n t. 
 our times. . _ 1 , 
 
 XX. Amidft thefe viciffitudes of fortune, the GovemmeBT 
 
 of the 
 cliurch. 
 
 Chriflians applied themfelves every where with °^^^^ 
 an ardent and holy zeal to add to the ftrength 
 and {lability of their caufe, and at the fame 
 time to improve it as much as poffible by 
 means of falutary laws and regulations. Over 
 each of the larger churches, and fuch as were 
 eftablifhed in cities or towns of any note, there 
 prefided a teacher who bore the title of Biihop, 
 and whofe appointment to this office refted en- 
 tirely with the people. The biihop was affifted 
 by a council of prefbyters or elders, who, in 
 like manner, depended for their appointment on 
 popular fuffrage, and, availing himfelf of the 
 aid thus furnifhed him, it was, in an efpecial 
 
 to this period, embraced Chriftianity, nor had the Chrif- 
 tians appHed themfelves to the cultivation of philofophy ; 
 indeed it was a thing which they were exprefsly enjoined by 
 St. Paul to avoid. From what we have here obferved, it is 
 eafily to be perceived, by any one who will exert his reafon, 
 whether there be not an apparently good foundation for 
 the conjeftiire which we have above hazarded, that the 
 philofophers were in fafk the authors of the fufFerings to 
 which the Chriflians were expofed in the time of the em- 
 peror Marcus. At this period the jealoufy of the phi- 
 lofophers became awakened, and a fear was excited in their 
 breads left they fliould be defpoiled of their renown, and 
 reduced, as it were, to beggary, in confequence of the dif- 
 clofures made by thofe of their brethren who had turned 
 Chriftians. Being therefore able to carry every point with 
 the emperor, and Marcus himfelf no doubt feeling hurt 
 and indignant at the contempt and derifion with which 
 philofophy, confidered by him as the chief good, was 
 treated by the Chriftians, they found no difficulty in 
 prevaiHng on him to put thefe people without the pale of 
 his juftice, and to permit them, in return for the infults 
 they had offered to the honour and dignity of philofophy, 
 to be aflailed with every fpecics of cruelty, arvd even 
 deprived of their lives. 
 
 degree. 
 
90 The Ecclefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, degree, his duty to be ever vigilant and active 
 ,_ 2l'_ _> '^^ preventing the interefls of rehgion from ex- 
 Government pericncing any detriment. To the bifhop like- 
 ofthe ^ifg if belonged to allot to each of the pref- 
 by ters his proper fundions and department ; 
 and to fee that, in every thing appertaining to 
 religion and divine worfhip, a due refped was 
 had to the laws and regulations which the peo- 
 ple had enacled or otherwife fanftioned with 
 their approbation. The deacons and deaconeffes 
 filled fubordinate ftations in the church, and 
 had various duties affigned to them according 
 as circumflances might require. 
 
 The daughter churches, or leiTer Chriflian 
 affemblies, that through the care and exertions 
 of the bifhop had been eftablifhed in the neigh- 
 bouring diflrifts and villages, were governed 
 by prefbyters fent from the mother church, 
 who, in confequence of their reprefenting the 
 perfon, and exercifmg, with a few exceptions, 
 all the rights and functions of the bifhop by 
 whom they were commilTioned, came to be 
 diflinguifhed by the title of Chorepifcopi, or ru- 
 ral bifhops. The fupreme power in thefe equal 
 affemblies or congregations refided in the peo- 
 ple ; and confequently no alteration of impor- 
 tance, nor, in fa6l, any thing of more than 
 ordinary moment, could be brought about or 
 carried into effe£t without having recourfe to 
 a general affembly, by the fulfrages and au- 
 thority of which alone could the opinions and 
 counfels of the bifhop and the prefbyters be 
 rendered obligatory, and acquire the force of 
 laws. 
 Authority of XXI. The mofl perfect equality prevailed 
 dmrchl"'"'' amongfl all the churches in point of rights 
 and power, each of them prefcribing to it- 
 
 felf 
 
of the Second Century. 91 
 
 felf at any time according to its own will cent. 
 and judgment fuch laws and regulations as ._ ": _, 
 its circumflances appeared to demand : nor does Authority of 
 this age fupply us with a fmgle inftance of ** apodoFic 
 any church altuming to itfelf any thing like 
 a right of dominion or command over the 
 others [;/]. An ancient cuflom, however, ob- 
 tained of attributing to thofe churches which 
 had been founded by the apoftles themfelves 
 a fuperior degree of honour and a more ex- 
 alted dignity ; on which account it was, for 
 the mofl part, ufual, when any difpute arofe 
 refpedling principles or tenets, for the opinion 
 of thefe churches to be afked ; as alfo, for 
 thofe who entered into a difcuflion of any 
 matters connected with religion, to refer, in 
 fupport of their pofitions, to the voice of the 
 apoftolic churches f^j' ^^ ^nay, therefore, 
 hence very readily perceive the reafon which, 
 
 in 
 
 {.yl What was done by Viftor during the controverfy re- 
 fpe6ting the time of Eafter by no means proves, as we fhall 
 prefently flaew, that he arrogated to himfelf the power of 
 making laws. 
 
 [s3 If ^^^ reader will turn to Irenasus adverf, Haref. lib. 
 iii. cap. iii. p- 175. ed. MafTuet.^nd TertuUian de Pra- 
 fcript. adverf. Htzreticosy cap. xxxvi. p. 245. ed.-Rigalt. 
 he will find two very notable paflages, in which thefe illuf- 
 trious writers, in their difpute with the Gnoftics, make their 
 appeal to the apoftolic churches. Between thefe paflages 
 there is fuch an accordance and fimilitude, that I can fcarce- 
 ly doubt but that TertuUian, at the time of his writing, 
 had Irenasus, (whom he had certainly read, as appears from 
 his book, contra Fakntinianos, cap. v.) before his eyes, and 
 intentionally imitated him. The Gnoftics finding themfelve;? 
 hardly prefled by the authority of the facred writings, en- 
 deavoured to maintain their ground by afferting that the 
 true and genuine doftrine of Jefus Chrift was not to be 
 learnt from the writings of the apoftles, for that it had 
 never been committed to writing, but that the apoftles 
 
 kad 
 
churche 
 
 92 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 in cafes of doubt and controverfy, caufed the 
 Chriftians of the weft to have recourfe to the 
 
 Authority of churcH 
 
 the apoftolic 
 
 had tranfmitted it merely by word of mouth. Their having 
 riecourfe to fuch a miferable fhift indicated plainly enough 
 that their caufe was wholly defperate : in faft, they ^ould 
 adduce nothing whatever, in fupport of this ridiculoiis ai- 
 fertion ; and their opponents might therefore have con- 
 tented themfelves with calling upon them, as they certainly, 
 with the greateft propriety might have done, to prove 
 what they thus alleged. TertuUian and Irenaeus, howevt'r, 
 adopted a different mode of depriving them of this fubter- 
 fuge, and expofing to the world its utter falfity, namely, 
 that of appeahng to the apoftolic churches. Their train of 
 argument is this : — If it were true that the apoftles had 
 orally tranfmitted a doftrine different from that which they 
 committed to writing, there can be no doubt but that fuch 
 doftrine would have been communicated to thofe churches 
 which they themfelves founded, ordained, and inftruAed. 
 But it is notorioufly the faft, that of all the churches 
 which owe their foundation and inftitution to the apoftles, 
 and in which we know that it has been an objeft of main 
 concern with their bifhops moft religioufly to preferve and 
 adhere to that form of difcipline which they received from 
 their founders, there is not a fingle one that gives the 
 leaft countenance to the fables and idle dreams of the Gnof- 
 tics. We maintain, therefore, that thefe latter are altoge- 
 ther unworthy of behef when they affert, that their tenets 
 are of an apoftolic origin, being derived from the apoftles 
 through oral communication. To this reafoning the Gnof- 
 tics could reply in no other way than by faying, that the 
 churches eftablifhed by the apoftles had gradually departed 
 from the maxims and tenets of their founders, and that their 
 primitive bifhops had been forcibly fupplanted by others 
 who knew nothing of the genuine apoftolical difcipline. 
 Forefeeing then, that fuch, if any, muft be their anfwer, 
 Irenaeus takes care to fhew that in the Roman church, 
 which, for the fake of brevity, he takes as a fair example 
 ®f the whole, the feries of bifhops had been continued down 
 without interruption from the time of the apoftles, and the 
 regular fuccelfion of them been never difturbed or fuUied 
 by the intervention of any ftranger or perfon whofe prin- 
 ciples were in any refpeft different from thofe of the apof- 
 ties. From this one obfervation we gain confiderable light 
 as to this mode of arguing, and need no other proof 
 
 of 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 church of Rome, thofe of Africa to that of 
 Alexandria, and thofe of Afia to that of An- 
 
 tioch, 
 
 of the very great error into which thofe of the prefent 
 day fall who take their ftand behind tradition and apoftoH- 
 cal fucceflion, and contend that they are juftified in doing 
 fo by the example of the primitive Chriftian teachers. 
 Both Irenaeus and Tertullian moft obvioufly agree in this, 
 that they place all the apoltolic churches on a precifely 
 equal footing, and allow to each of them the fame weight 
 and authority in determining this controverfy with the 
 Gnoftics. TertuUian is particularly explicit as to this. His 
 words are ; — Percurre ecclejias apoJtolicas,apud quas ipfte ad- 
 hue cathedra apojhlorum fuu loc'is praftdent . - - - Proxima ejl 
 tibi Achaia ; habes Carinthum. Si non longe abes a Macedonia, 
 habes Philippos, habes Thejfalonicences . Sipotes in Afiam ten- 
 dere, habes Ephefum. Si auiem Italia adjaces, habes Remam, 
 unde nobis quoque aiiaoritas prajio eji. Tertullian, it is mani- 
 feft, makes no diftinftion between thefe apoftolic churches : 
 the fame authority, and the fame dignity is attributed by 
 him to all of them : the church of Rome was, in his eftima. 
 tion, poffefTed of no greater confequence, nor had it any 
 more power to determine the difpute with the Gnoftics, than 
 that of Ephefus, Theffalonica, or Corinth. The Roman 
 church is indeed confidered by him as having been more 
 fortunate, inafmuch as it had been blefled with the prefence 
 of Peter, Paul, and John, who poured out their blood ia 
 the caufe of Chrift : IJla quam felix ecclefia ! cui toiam doc- 
 trinam apojloli cum f anguine fuo projuderunt ; ubi Petrus paf- 
 Jioni dominica adaquatur ; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur ; 
 ubi apoflolus Johannes pojleaquam in oleum igneum demerfus 
 nihil pajfus ejly in infulam relegatur. But fo far from giving 
 countenance to the idea of a greater power with regard to 
 determining controverfies refpeding religion being pofTefled 
 by the church of Rome than by that of Ephefus or any 
 other apoftolical church, he in effect give* it a direft nega- 
 tive. Irenaeus, indeed, extols the church of Rome, not only 
 on account of its good fortune, but alfo for other reafons of 
 which we (hall prefently take more notice; but notwith- 
 ftanding this, he plainly agrees with Tertullian as to the 
 above point, that the power and authority of all the apof- 
 tolic churches in determining the controverfy that had 
 arifen between the orthodox Chriftians and the Gnoftics, 
 was precifely equal. Traditionem, fays he, apojlolorum in 
 toto mundo manifejlatam, in omni ecclefia adejl refpieere omni' 
 
 hui qui vtra velint videre Etenim ft reeendita myjieria 
 
 fci/fent 
 
94 ^-^^ Ecclejiq/iical Hi/iory 
 
 c E N T. tioch for their opinion, and which alfo occa- 
 . "i , fioned thefe opinions to be, not unfrequently. 
 
 Authority of TC- 
 
 , the apoftolic 
 
 churches. 
 
 fciffent apojloli, qunefeotjim et latenter ah reliquis perfeBos doce- 
 bant, his vel maxime trnderent ea, qtubus etiam ipfas ecclejias 
 committebant. Moft affuredly Ireiiaeus would not have 
 written thus, he v/oulcl not have fpoken generally of all 
 the churches that had been founded by the apoftles, but 
 have confined his reference to that of Rome alone, if 
 either he or any other pcrfon at that time had believed 
 that the right and power of determining controverfies re- 
 fpefting religion was pofTefled by the Roman church. It is 
 true, indeed, that he afterwards makes no mention of the other 
 churches, but contents himfelf with oppofing to the Gnof- 
 tics the fentiments of the church of Rome alone ; but it 
 is plain, that this is not done by him from a perfuafion, 
 that to this one church alone belonged the decifion of 
 Chriftian controverfies, but, as he openly avows, for the 
 fake of brevity ; fed quon'iam 'valde longum ejl'tn hoc tali 'uolu- 
 mine omnium ecdeficirum enumerare fuccejjioncs, maxima et an- 
 tiquijfimiz eccleftt?. tradiiionem indicantes, confutidimus omnes. 
 TertuUian and Irenasus agree alfo in this, that they pafs 
 over, without the flighteft notice, that church, which it 
 is natural to regard as the head and mother of all churches, 
 and of which Chrift himfelf was the parent and founder, 
 I mean the church of Jerufalem. TertuUian, although he 
 fpecifically enumerates the more celebrated of the apoftoHc 
 churches, yet fays not a word of that of Jerufalem. Irenasug 
 may be confidered as tacitly treating it with contempt, when 
 hegives to the church of Rome apreference over all thejothers. 
 But in this they are by no means fingular, for I do not know 
 that the church of Jerufalem, although in point of foundation* 
 fuperior to all the reft, is ever appealed to, or even cited, as an 
 authority, by any of the ancient fathers. This circumllance 
 however, can occafion no very great wonder to any one 
 who is apprifed, that the original and true church of Jeru- 
 falem, confifting of Jews and the defcendants of Jews who 
 had afhually fecn and heard our bleffed Lord himlelf, 
 feceded from the remaining church under the reign oiF 
 Hadrian ; and that the church which aflembled in Hadrian's 
 new city, JEMa Capitolina, and which affumcd to itfelf the 
 title of the Church of Jerufalem, was altogether a diftinft 
 afTembly from the ancient and original congregation. 
 In thefe refpefts, then, we fee that Irensus and Ter- 
 tuUian are in perfeft harmony with each other ; but in what 
 further relates to the church of Rome we fliall find them 
 
of the Second Century, 95 
 
 regarded in the light of laws, namely, that cent. 
 thefe churches had been planted, reared up ^__"l__y 
 
 and Authority of 
 the apoftolit 
 
 confiderably at variance. Irenasus extols it on many- 
 accounts, and attributes to it a certain fuperiority or pre- 
 eminence ; but TertulHan, although he had read, and in 
 other refpeds follows Irenjsus, fpeaks only of the felicity 
 or good fortune of the Roman church ; of its fuperiority 
 in any other refpeft he appears to know nothing. The 
 reafon of this difference may, I think, be afligned without 
 much difficulty. Irenaeus had been at Rome, and he was 
 without doubt, indebted for many kindnefles to the Roman 
 bilhop, Eleutherus ; added to which he was the bifhop of a 
 poor little church which had fufi'ered confiderably in the 
 then recent perfecution under Marcus, and flood very much 
 in need of thecounfel and afliftance that were to be afforded 
 by the great and opulent church of Rome and its bifhop. 
 To fpeak in plain terms, he was no flranger to the advan- 
 tages that were to be derived from the wealth and benefi- 
 cence of the church of Rome, and he therefore made no 
 fcruple of flattering her pretenfions as to a point on the 
 accomplifhment of which he knew that fhe was bent, 
 namely, that of exalting herfelf to a fuperiority over the 
 other Chriflian 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 moft ftrenuous afferter of the 
 primitive Chriflian liberty. Therefore, although he was in- 
 debted for a confiderable part of what is urged in argument 
 by him againfl the Gnoflics to Irenaeus, as muft be manifeft 
 to any one upon collation, he yet adopts none of the com- 
 pliments that are paid by this latter writer to the Ro- 
 man church ; nor does he aflign to it any pre-eminence over 
 the other churches, except in that fuperior degree of feli- 
 city which it derived from the glorious death of the 
 apoflles Peter and Paul, and the miraculous prefervation of 
 the apoftle John. But let us now fee, fince we have thus 
 entered into the fubjed, in what confifls that celebrated 
 eulogium of Irenseus on the Roman church which Ren. 
 Maftuetus pronounces to be a grievous ftumbling block to 
 all who have quitted the church of Rome and fliaken off 
 the yoke of the catholic faith ; which the friends of the 
 papacy confider as the very citadel of that pre-eminence 
 which the church of Rome arrogates to itfelf over every 
 •ther church ; and in explaining and commenting on which 
 9 fo 
 
9^ The Ecclefiajlical Hijlory 
 
 CENT, and regulated either by the hand or under the 
 «— ■^!— ( ™- 
 
 Authority of 
 
 <]ie apoftolic fo many great and excellent men have beftovved no little 
 churches. portion of labour. With the remarks of others on the fub- 
 jeft, whether well or ill-founded, I {hall not concern my- 
 felf, but merely ftate, in as few words as poflible, what, up- 
 on an impartial view of the matter, appears to me to be the 
 truth. After ftating that in his oppofition to the Gnoftics 
 he fhould not adduce individually the authority and difci- 
 pline of all the apoftolical churches, but, for the fake of 
 brevity, content himfelf with referring to the church of 
 Rome, as exhibiting a fair example of the whole ; Irenaeus 
 thus proceeds ; ad banc enim ecclefiam (the church of Rome) 
 propter potiorem principalitcitem iieceje eji omnem convenire ec- 
 clejiam, hoc ejl., eos, qui funt utidique Jideles, in qua femper ah 
 hisy qui funt utidique^ confervata ejl ea, qua ejl ah apojlolis tra- 
 ditio. Thefe, then, are the words which have given rife to 
 fuch fubtile and laborious difquifitions. But let them be 
 twifted in any manner whatever, I have not the leaft he- 
 fitation in declaring, it to be my decided opinion, that 
 if the right which the church of Rome, at this day, 
 afferts of dictating to the other Chriftian churches, be 
 founded chiefly on this paflage, it ftands but on a very 
 weak and tottering foundation indeed. But left my judg- 
 ment fliould appear to have been haftily formed, let it only 
 be confidered in a general way. (I.) That the fenfe in 
 which the words of Irenaeus are to be underftood is alto- 
 gether obfcure, and that through either ignorance or want 
 of fltill in the Latin tranflator, it is impoflible to compre- 
 hend, with any degree of precifion, the meaning intended 
 to be conveyed by certain terms, on the right underftand- 
 ing of which the inteUigibility of the whole paflage very 
 materially depends. What, for inftance, I would afk, are 
 we to underftand by potior principalitas ? What meaning, 
 again are we to annex to the exprefllon convenire adeccle- 
 ftam Romanam ? In vain will it be for us to pretend to 
 afcertain the fenfe of this paflage until the original Greek 
 of Irenseus be recovered. (H-) That Irenaeus is fpeaking 
 of the church of Rome in the fecond century, a period 
 at which it might, no doubt, with juftice be aflerted that 
 all its bifliops and teachers had continued fl:eadfaft in the 
 obfervance of that difcipline which had been tranfmitted to 
 them by the apoftles Peter and Paul. To apply, therefore, 
 what he theji fays, to the church of Rome in its prefent 
 ilate, is to do much the fame thing as if, in proof of the 
 
 rights 
 
if the Second Century. 97 
 
 immediate fuperintendance and care of fome cent. 
 one or more of the apoflles themfelves. "• 
 
 XXII. Although '^„jJ,ityof 
 
 the apoftoHc 
 rights and power that belong to the emperors of Germany, ^^li"'*^"^^' 
 who alfo bear the title of Roman emperors, we were to ad- 
 duce the rights and powers that were exercifed by the firft 
 emperors of the Auguftan race, Oftavius Auguftus, Tibe- 
 rius, Cahgula, and Claudius. Without doubt, we fhould 
 account it a very ingenious piece of pleafantry in any man 
 to quote what Suetonius or Tacitus may have faid refpett- 
 ing the authority of Auguftus or Tiberius by way of (hew- 
 ing what is due from the Germar princes to their prefent 
 emperor. By the fame arguments, then, as a jurift would 
 make ufe of in refuting fuch a man may an efteftual anfwer 
 be given to thofe who, from a pafTage in Irenaeus, pretend to 
 afcertain what are at prefent the rights and power of the 
 Roman pontiff. (III.) That this is the teftimony of a 
 private individual, of one that was nothing more than the 
 bifhop of a fmall infignilicant church that had been but a 
 few years before eftablifhed in Gaul, of a man moreover 
 who in his writings has given, not a few proofs of a judg- 
 ment far from found or correct, as well as of a mind evi- 
 dently labouring under the fhackles of prejudice. But who 
 is there, poffefTed of but merely common fenfe and inform- 
 ation, that would recognife in the di&a or precepts of any 
 private individual, and more efpecially in thofe of an indi- 
 vidual who had betrayed no fmall deficiency of judgment, 
 and been convifted of having fallen into more than one pal- 
 pable error, a ftandard whereby to afcertain and demon- 
 ftrate the public rights of ftates or churches ? Should 
 there, however, be found a man fo difpofed, we can meet 
 Irenaeus with an authority not at all inferior to himfelf 
 either in point of judgment or of talents, namely Tertullian, 
 who denies that the church of Rome poffefTed any pre-emi- 
 nence over the reft of the churches, except it were in 
 point of felicity or good fortune. What, therefore, the 
 fupporters of the church of Rome take upon them in 
 this inftance to maintain upon the authority of Irenaeus, 
 we fhall affume to ourfelves the liberty of denying upon 
 the authority of Tertullian. Having, then, premifed thus 
 much in a general way, let us now direft our attention 
 more particularly to the words of Irenaeus. Necejfe eji, 
 he tells us, omnem ecclefiam convenire ad ecclejiam Romanam ; 
 and for this he affigns two reafons ; the firft, propter pott- 
 erem prtncipaUtatem ; the fecond, gtiia femper in ea confer- 
 
The Ecclefiajlical Hiftory 
 
 XXII. Although, therefore, all the churches 
 had, at the commencement of this century, 
 
 various 
 
 vata ejl apo/iohrum tradit'to. Now it unluckily happens that 
 the terms in which this precept is conveyed are fuch as to 
 leave its meaning fomevvhat dubious. By the words cotive- 
 n'lre ad ecclefiam Romanam, it fhoiild feem mod lilcely that 
 we ou^ht to undf rftand accedere ad Rr,manam ecclefiam, or 
 confulere ecclefiam Romanam, and that what Irenaeus meant 
 to fay was this ; — that it belioved all Chriftians, in matters 
 of doubt, connefted with relig^ion, to refort for advice and 
 direftion to the church of Rome, {i.e. the church of Rome 
 in its then ftate,) inafmuch as it was the mofl ancient 
 and the larpell of all the churches of the weft, and owed 
 its foundation to the hand of the apoftles themfelves. But 
 if fuch be this father's meaning, and the reafons which 
 he fiibjoins fcarcely allow us to doubt of its being fo, there 
 is certainly nothing in it that can afford the church of 
 Rome much fupport in the prefeut day. It is not within 
 the power, even of the moft fubtile difputant, to make it 
 appear that Irenaeus meant that his words fhould be ap- 
 plied to the church of Rome in all fubfequent ages and 
 times. On the contrary we have, in the latter reafon which 
 he afligns for his precept, a convincing proof that he fpoke 
 in relation only to the more ancient and early church of 
 Rome as it exilted in his own time. The reafon that he 
 afligns why the other churches fhould have recourfe to that 
 of Rome is, quia in ea traditio apojlolorum confervata eji. 
 Now nothing can be more plain than that he here fpeaks 
 merely of time paft. Had he meant that the church of 
 Rome was to be confulted and made the arbitrefs in all ages 
 to come, he unqueftionably would have written, in qua tra- 
 ditio apojlolorum confer'vata ejl, et femper confervabitur. As 
 to the hrft reafon given by Irenseus, namely, propter potiorem 
 principalitatem, it is altogether involved in obfcurity and 
 doubt. Y or principalit as is fuch an ambiguous word, and 
 admits of being ufed in fuch a variety of fenfes, that, owing 
 to the negligence of Irenseus, or his Latin tranflator, in not 
 more particularly indicating what he meant by it, a degree 
 of darknefs, not eafy to be difpelled, is thrown over the 
 whole of this fentence. The conjefture that ftrikes me as 
 the moft plaufible in regard to it is, that by the word prin- 
 cipalitas Irenaeus might mean thofe four honourable dif* 
 tinftions appertaining to the churcn of Rome which he had 
 juft before enumerated, nanaely, magnitude, antiquity, ce- 
 lebrity. 
 
of the Second Century, 99 
 
 various laws and inftitutions in common, which cent, 
 had been received from the apoftles them- . ^\ _. 
 felves, and were p-irticularly careful in main- civu unity 
 taining: with each other a certain community '""fodueed 
 
 - O 1 1 • 1 • T anionf^ftthc 
 
 or tenets, morals, and charity ; yet each mdi- ciiriftian*. 
 vidual church which had a bifhop and prefby- 
 ters of its own, affumed to itfelf the form and 
 rights of a Httle diftind repubHc or common- 
 wealth ; and with regard to its internal con- 
 cerns was wholly regulated by a code of laws, 
 that, if they did not originate with, had, at 
 leafl, received the fanclionof the people conftitut- 
 ing fuch church. This primitive Hberty and inde- 
 pendence, however, was by degrees relinquifhed, 
 and it became the practice for all the minor 
 churches within a province to form themfelves in- 
 to one large aiTociation, and to hold at dated fea- 
 fons, much after the manner of confederate repub- 
 lics, a convention, in which the common inte- 
 refts and welfare of the whole were taken into 
 
 lebrity, and apoftolical origin. Maxima, fays he, et antl- 
 qui/Jlma, et omnibus cognite, a gloriofjjtmis duobus apoJloUsi , 
 Petro et Paulo, fundata et conjlitutte ecclefi€. In thefe, pro- 
 bably, confifted ih^it potior pnncipalitas which Irenaeus at- 
 tributes to the church of Rome ; he never dreamt of af- 
 certaining what would be its claims to pre-eminence in 
 every future age. At leafl this explication of his words 
 poffeffes a force and fimplicity that I believe we fliall 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 ex- 
 tending it to a much greater length. I will therefore only 
 add, that I cannot help viewing it as a thing particularly un- 
 becoming in men of learning and talents, to pretend to fay 
 that the public rights of the univerfal church, and the form 
 of government prefcribed for it by Chrift, are to be elicited 
 from the obfcure and uncertain words of a private indivi- 
 dual, the bifhop of merely a poor little infignificant church, 
 a good and pious man unqueftionably, but one, at the fame 
 time, whofe mental qualifications and endowments were cer- 
 tainly nothing more than of the middling order. 
 
 H 2 con- 
 
loo The Ecclejiq/lical Hijlory 
 
 confideration and provided for. Of the imme* 
 diate authors of this arrangement we are un- 
 informed, but it is certain that it had its ori- 
 gin in Greece ; and there are many things 
 cTuiians/'"' which combine to prove, that during this cen- 
 tury it did not extend itfelf beyond the con- 
 fines of Afia. In procefs of time, however, the 
 very great advantages attending on a federation 
 of this fort 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 ; fo that 
 the Chriftian community may be faid, thence- 
 forward, to have refembled one large common- 
 wealth made up, like thofe of Holland and 
 Switzerland, of many minor republics. Thefe 
 conventions or aflemblies, in which the dele- 
 gates from various aflbciated churches confulted 
 on what was requifite to be done for the com- 
 mon welfare of the whole, were ievmedfynods 
 by the Greeks, and by the Latins councils. To 
 the laws enacted by thefe deputies under the 
 powers with which they were inverted by their 
 refpedive churches, the Greeks gave the name 
 of cations or general rules, and by this title it 
 alfo became ufual for them to be diftinguifhed 
 by the Latins [^z]. 
 
 XXin. The 
 
 [fl] The reader will find what I have here ftated very 
 forcibly illuftrated and confirmed by Tertullian in a very 
 notable paffage that occurs in his book de Jejunilsy 
 cap. xiii, p. 71 1. opp. edit. Rigalt. Tertullian is advocating 
 the caufe of the Moiitanifts, whofe tenets he had efpoufed, 
 and to whom the orthodox Chriftians attributed it as a fault 
 that tliey had taken upon them to inftitute certain fafts or 
 feafons of abftinence. The reafon afligned by the regular 
 Chriftians for objedling to the rules rcfpeding fafts pre- 
 fcribed by the Montanifts, was deduced from the nature of 
 11 divine 
 
of the Second Century. loi 
 
 XXIII. The aflbciatlons, however, thus Intro- cent. 
 duced amongft the churches, and the councils , }^' . 
 
 to Effea* pro- 
 duced by the 
 divine worfhip. God, faid they, ought to be honoured o?jtS° 
 and worfhipped by the Chriftians of their own free will, not ^„it„ 
 from compulfion, or by the command of another. Den'tque 
 refpondetis hac ex arhitr'io agenda^ non ex imperio. In this 
 age, therefore, the nature and charafter of the true rehgion 
 continued to be well underftood by the generahty of 
 Chriftians, inafmuch as they denied it to be fubjeft to 
 the controul of any human laws. To this argument Ter- 
 tullian replies, in the firft place, that the Montanifts, in 
 obfcrving certain fafts, did not conform themfelves to the 
 ordinances of men but to God, or the Paraclete, t. e. the 
 Holy Spirit, who had enjoined thofe fafts by the mouths 
 of his fervants. Plus humana Ucebit vohtntat't quam divina 
 potejlat'i ? Ego me feculo, non Deo I'tberum memini ; Jic meum 
 eft uhro ojjicium facere Dominoy ficut indicere ill'tus eft. He 
 agrees, therefore, with the reft of the Chriftians that reli- 
 gion is not to be controuled by human laws, and ftrenu- 
 oufly advocates the caufe of liberty : but at the fame 
 time he infifts on it that obedience is to be paid to the 
 commands of God, as delivered by certain of his fervants. 
 To this the Antimontanift Chriftians readily yielded their 
 afient. The only thing, therefore, that remained in difpute 
 between them and TertuUian was, whether Montanus and 
 his followers were really, as they afferted, infpired by the 
 Holy Spirit, or not ? With regard to this he replies, in the 
 fecond place, that amongft the Antimontanift Chriftians the 
 bifhops had the power of enjoining fafts, as alfo, in cafes of 
 great emer£;ency, of impofing extraordinary contributions 
 on the people. Bene autem quod et epifcop't un'tverfe plebi 
 mandure jejunia ajfolent : non d'lco de indujirla Jlipium conferew 
 darum, ut vejlra captura eji : fed inter dum et ex aliqua foUic'ttu- 
 dints ecclejiajlica caufa. Thefe words are of the very firfl 
 importance and authority in enabhng us to afcertain the 
 extent to which the power poflefled by the bifhops of the 
 primitive church reached. Had it been poflible for the 
 bifhops of this period of their own accord, /'. <?. without 
 the affent of the people, to do more than what is here 
 ftated, TertuUian would, moft affuredly, not have failed 
 to notice it on this occafion, when his attention was par- 
 ticularly direfted to the rights and power which might 
 lawfully be exercifed by men over the flock of Chrift. 
 It appears, therefore, that with regard to two things 
 H 3 the 
 
;o2 The Eccleftajiical Hiftory 
 
 to which they gave rife, although not unattended 
 with certain benefits and advantages, were, never- 
 
 thelefs 
 
 the bifhop's fole mandate alone was fufficient. In the 
 firft place, he might enjoin falts ; for fince every thing 
 relating to the fervice of God was placed immediately 
 under the care and diredion of the bifhop, and fafts were 
 confidered as conftituting a part of fuch fervice, it was but 
 juft that the times for obferving them fhould be left to his 
 appointment. The biiliop, it feems, could alfo, in any 
 cafe of emergency, that called for pecuniary aid, and fuch 
 cafes were by no means uncommon, require of the people 
 to make fuch an additional contribution, according to their 
 means, as might enable him to meet fuch exigency. 
 Concerning the bifliop's power as to this, TertuUian fpeaks 
 in his ufual unpohfhed, obfcure, and laconic manner ; and 
 it may, therefore, not be amifs to offer the reader fome 
 explanation of what he fays on this head. It is manifeil 
 then, that under the title ol Jl'ipes he refera to thofe con- 
 tributions which the Chriftians were accuftomed to make 
 in confequence of an admonition from the bilhop. Thefe 
 contributions he divides into ordinary and extraordinary. 
 The words, ut vejlr^ capturts ejl, relate to thofe of the 
 ordinary kind, Captura has here the meaning of reditus 
 (income, ability, gains). The cuftom was for every 
 Chriftian ordinarily to contribute towards the common 
 flock in a certain degree, proportionate to his means or 
 ability. In addition to thefe ordinary offerings, we find 
 a diftinft mention made of certain extraordinary ones, 
 ■which were called for in cafes of emergency. Extraordinary 
 expences were not unfrequently incurred by churches in 
 the entertainment of ftrangers, in relieving the fick, and 
 thofe of the brethren who were languifhing in captivity, 
 and in various other ways, to the defrayment of which the 
 free and voluntary oblations, as they were termed, of the 
 Chriftians were occafionally found unequal. The exigencies 
 here fpoken of are in part particularized by TertuUian 
 himfelf bi Apologet. cap. xxxix. p. 325. Difpenfatur, fays 
 he, naufragils, et ft qui in metallis, et Ji qui in infuUst vel 
 in cujiodiis duntaxat ex caufa Dei feSa alumni confejjionis 
 fua Jiunt. Whenever a cafe of this nature occurred, the 
 bifhop addreffed his flock, requiring every one to contribute, 
 not only according to his means, but in a degree propor- 
 tionate to the magnitude and preffure of the occajion, fo 
 that the neceffity of the church might be fully anfwered ; 
 9 and 
 
of the Secofid Century. 
 
 L03 
 
 thelefs, produdtive of fo great an alteration in c E n t. 
 the general ftate of tlie church, as nearly to "• 
 
 effea 
 
 and to this mandate it was cuftomary for all to pay obe- 
 dience with the utmoft alacrity. The meaning, therefore, u„i7y. 
 of Tertullian's words is this : " I will not fpeak of the 
 very great readinefsof the Chriftians in making the ordinary 
 contributions required of them by the bifhop ; for I know 
 that no one as to this afts from compulfion, but each perfon 
 gives according to what his ability or circumftances per- 
 mit. But, not unfrequently, unlooked-for accidents and 
 emergencies occur, which demand pecuniary relief to a 
 certain extent, and require that the ratio of contribution 
 fhould be determined by the bilhop ; nor does any Chriitian, 
 in fuch cafes, ever hefitate in paying obedience to his com- 
 mands." In the third place, Tertulliau replies, that it was 
 cuftomary in Greece for councils of the churches to be 
 convened, and that therein laws were enafted and duties 
 impofed, to which, notwithftanding that they were purely 
 of human origin, no exception was ever taken. Aguntur 
 preterea per Gracias ilia cert'ts in locis concilia ex univerjis 
 ecclejiis^ per qua et altiora queque in commune traStantur^ et 
 ipfa reprafentatio totius nominis Chrijiiani magna veneratione 
 celebratur. From thefe words it appears, ( i ft> ) That at 
 the clofe of the fecond century the praftice of convening 
 councils had not been adopted either in Africa, the country 
 where Tertullian lived, or in the Latin Church, or in the 
 Eaft, or in Egypt, but folely in Greece, or, as Tertullian 
 expreffes it, per Gracias, «. f. the nations both in Europe 
 and Afia that bore the name of Greeks. (2ndly,) That thefe 
 councils were in his time regarded as of mere human origin, 
 not as having been inilituted either by Chrift himfelf or 
 his apoftles. For what he had in view was to prove that 
 good and pious men might enjoin fails, and prefcribe other 
 falutary regulations to the church of Chrift. Since, there- 
 fore, in fupport of his argument, he adduces the a&.s of 
 thefe councils, it is plain that he muft have confidered 
 them as aflembhes which owed their origin to mere human 
 authority, and their afts, not in the light of oracles or 
 didlates 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 aflembling of thefe Greek 
 councils, and that no power exifted of convening them 
 elfewhere. (^thly,) That thefe councils did not bufy 
 H 4 themfelvea 
 
104 
 
 CENT. 
 II. 
 
 Effefts pro- 
 duced by the 
 introduftion 
 of this civil 
 anity. 
 
 The Eccleftafiical Hijiory 
 
 efFed the entire fubverfion of its ancient con- 
 flitution. For, in the firfl place, the primitive 
 
 rights 
 
 themfelves about things of inferior moment, each individual 
 church being left to determine on fuch matters for itielf, 
 but employed themfelves in the difcuffion and arrangement 
 of points of a higher and weightier nature, or fuch as were 
 of general intereft and importance. (5thly,) That the 
 bifliops, who were prefent at thefe councils, were merely 
 the reprefentatives of their refpeftive churches ; that is, 
 that they neither affcnted to, nor originated any thing 
 therein in their private individual capacity, but always in 
 the names of the churches of which they were refpeftively 
 the delegates. Reprafentatioy fays Tertullian, tot'ius nominis 
 Chrljliani cehhratiir. Now totum nomen ChrifHanum evi- 
 dently, in this place, means, tota eccLJia^ the whole church 
 bearing the name of Chrill. The bilhops, therefore, were 
 confidered as reprefenting, colleftively, the entire affociated 
 Chriftian flock, and, individually, the different churches 
 over which they refpefti'vely prefided ; and hence arofe the 
 veneration in which thefe councils were held. The opinion, 
 that the bifliops, aflfembled in council, officiated in the place 
 of Chriil himfelf, and that the very nature of their fun6tion 
 conftituted them both legiflators and judges of the Chrif- 
 tian community, had not at this time even fuggefted itfelf. 
 Tertullian efteemed thefe councils worthy ot the higheft 
 commendation , for he thus proceeds : Et hoc quam d'tgnum 
 Jide aufpicante congregari und'ique ad Chrijlum ?' Vide quam 
 bonum et quam jucundum hab'ttare fratres in unum. He 
 moreover adds, what is well worthy of remark, that the 
 bifhops were accuftomed, before they commenced their 
 deliberations, to petition for divine aid and afliftance by 
 prayer and fading : Conmntus autem illi Jlatiombus prim 
 et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum doletitibus et ita demum 
 congaudere gaudentibus norunt. It appears, therefore, that 
 ecclefiaftical councils had their origin amongfl the Greeks 
 in the fecond century, and that their utility becoming 
 manifeft, they were gradually adopted by the church at 
 large. The information thus afforded by Tertullian, with 
 refpeft to the origin of councils, is fupported by the general 
 hiftory of Chriftian affairs ; for no notice whatever occurs 
 of any ecclefiaftical councils held prior to the fecond cen- 
 tury ; and with regard to thofe holden in the courfe of that 
 age, the few memorials of them that have reached us very 
 plainly indicate them to have been for the molt part held 
 
 in 
 
of the Second Century. 1 05 
 
 rights of the people, in confequence of this new c E NT. 
 arrangement of things, experienced a confiderable .^^L ^, 
 
 diminution, Effea* pro- 
 duced by the 
 
 in Greece. Towards the clofe of this century the pra6lice 0"/ thi^cWu" 
 of holding councils of this kind pafled from Greece into unity. 
 Paleftine and Syria, as appears from Eufebius, E'tftor. Ecdef. 
 lib. V. cap. xxiii. p. 190, 191, where mention is made of 
 councils held about the end of the fecond century by the 
 bifliops of Paleftine and the province of Ofdroena, refpefting 
 the controverfies then in agitation concerning the proper 
 time for celebrating Eafter. By certain of the learned it 
 is alfo contended, that on the fame occafion a council of the 
 Italian bilhops was convened at Rome by the Roman pontiff 
 Viftor. Vid. Pet. CouftaHt. Ep'ijl. Romanor. Pontifcumy 
 torn. i. in Viftore, § 4. p. 94. and others. In proof of 
 this, they quste the following words of Eufebius : xxi tSv 
 liv\ VufjiYi^ d\ o^eiujq ttWft i:i^\ r3 «vtS (I^Tityi^xtoc, ^R'7riaxo-r<fv 
 BiKTo^a. S^iXHja., which are thus rendered by Valefius, alia 
 iter)} extat epi/iola fynodi Romana, cut ViSoris epijcopi namen 
 prafi :utn eft. But not to reft upon the circumftance, that 
 no mention is made of any Roman fynod in the Greek 
 original, the name of Vi<5lor, bifliop of Rome, being the 
 only one prefixed to this epiftle, puts it out of all queftion 
 that it was not the letter of ^nj fynod, but merely of Viftor 
 himfelf; for fynodical epift-les were uniformly fubfcribed 
 by all the bifhops prefent. The only conftruftion, there- 
 foie, of which thefe words of Eufebius feem properly to 
 admit, is this ; that Vi6lor having, as was then the cuf- 
 ternary pra£lice, confulted with the Roman prefbyters, 
 addr^'flfed, with their confent, this letter, in his own name*, 
 to the church ov?r which he prefided ; which thing of it- 
 felf furnifhes us with an argument, that the praftice of 
 many churches affembling together in council, had not at 
 that time pafled from Greece into Italy. And perhaps it 
 may not be amifs to notice it by the bye, that Valefius has 
 fallen into fome other miftakes with regard to the account 
 given by Eufebius of the controverfy refpefting Eafter, in 
 confequence of his eftimating the ftate of the church ii> 
 the fecond century from its condition in after ages. But 
 I have not yet pointed out all that is deferving of notice 
 with regard to this paflage of TertuUian. Amongft other 
 things, it is particularly worthy of remark, that he fpeaks 
 therein of councils as having had their origin in Greece. 
 Indeed, in no province could it have been more natural for 
 this practice of holding councils to have arifen than i« 
 
 GreecCi 
 
|o6 The Ecclefiq/iical Hijlory 
 
 CENT, diminution, inafmuch as, thenceforward, none 
 "• but affairs of comparatively very trifling confe- 
 
 quence 
 
 Greece. Under a monarchical government, fuch as that of 
 emperors and kings, the idea of holding councils would 
 probably never have entered into the minds of the Chrif- 
 tians ; but in fuch a province as Greece was, the notion 
 might readily enough fuggell itfelf. The Greeks were, 
 as we all know, divided into many minor ftates and re- 
 publics. Amongil thefe petty governments an intimate 
 aflbciation for general purpofes lubfifted ; and for many 
 ages prior to the coming of Chrift it had been ufual for 
 them to hold very frequent councils, and to affemble, by 
 their delegates or reprelentatives, at certain places, in order 
 to dehberate and refolve on what might belt promote their 
 common interells. The moll celebrated of thefe affemblies 
 was their general national council, or that of the Am- 
 phiftyons, which was held at Delphi at ftated feafons of 
 the year, in fpring and autumn, and to which were referred 
 all controveriies of any confiderable weight or moment 
 that might have arifen between any of the confederated 
 ftates. Vid. Ublonis Emm'ii Grac'ia vetus, tom. iii. p. 340, 
 et feq. Nouveau D'lSl'ionaire H'ljl. Cr'it. par Chaufepied, 
 tom. i. voce jimphiSy ones. Thefe councils were not altoge- 
 ther difcontinued even after Greece had been reduced into a 
 province by the Romans. The great council of the Am- 
 phidlyons, in particular, continued, with the confent of 
 the emperors, to hold its meetings, even down to the 
 time when Tertullian wrote, as may be feen in Paufanias. 
 In a province fo much accuflomed to councils, it is no 
 wonder that the Chriftians fhould hit upon the thought, 
 that it might redound to the welfare of the church if, 
 after the example of the Greek ftates, and particularly of the 
 Amphiftyons, affemblies or councils of affociated Chriftians 
 were to meet at certain ftated feafons, and deliberate re- 
 fpefting their common interefts. Light is hence thrown 
 on canon xxxth of thofe bearing the title " Apoftolical," 
 and which are commonly attributed to Clement of Rome, 
 as well as on the fifth of the Nicene ones, by both of which 
 the bifhops are enjoined to affemble in council twice in 
 the year, namely, in the fpring and fall. Thefe were the 
 identical times at which, as we have above ftattd, it was 
 ufual, even fo low down as the fecond century, for the 
 Amphidyons to hold their meetings ; and hence I think it 
 is evident, that it was the peculiar conftitution and habits 
 
 of 
 
of the Second Century. 107 
 
 quence were ever made the fubjed of popular cent. 
 deliberation aiid adjuftment ; the councils of the ._ — Lu 
 aflbciated churches affuming to themfelves the Effeaspro- 
 riffht of difculline; and reaulatinej every thing of ^"cedbythe 
 moment or importance, as well as or determuimg of tim civil 
 all queftions to which any fort of weight was """y- 
 attached. Whence arofe two forts of ecclefiaftical 
 law, the one public or general, and thencefor- 
 ward termed " Canonical," from the canons; 
 the other private or peculiar, confifting merely 
 of fuch regulations as each individual church 
 deemed it expedient, after the ancient manner, 
 to ena6l for itfelf. In the next place, the dignity 
 and authority of the bifhops were very mate- 
 rially augmented and enlarged. In the infancy, 
 indeed, of councils, the bifhops did not fcruple 
 to acknowledge that they appeared there merely 
 as the miniflers or legates of their refpedive 
 churches, and that they were, in fa£t, nothing 
 more than reprefentatives ading from inflruc- 
 tions : but it was not long before this humble 
 language began, by little and little, to be ex- 
 changed for a loftier tone ; and they at length 
 took upon them to alfert that they were the 
 legitimate fucceflbrs of the apoflles themfelves, 
 and might confequently, of their own proper 
 authority, didate laws to the Chriftian flock. 
 To what an extent the inconveniences and evils 
 arifmg out of thefe prepofterous pretenfions 
 
 of their country which led the Greek Chriftians to think 
 of eftabhfhing ecclefiaftical councils ; and that, in con- 
 ftituting aflemjalies of this kind, they merely availed them- 
 felves, in the caufe of religion, of a meafure that had 
 long been confidered as produdive of very effential ad- 
 vantages in the ftate. With regard to the different points 
 thus touched upon, I can perceive a very wide field for 
 difcuflion lying open before me ; but on the prefent occa- 
 fion I am compelled to be ftudious of brevity. 
 
 reached 
 
X o8 The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, reached in after times, is too well known to 
 ^_ , _'- J require any particular notice in this place. An- 
 Effeaspro- Other efFeft which thefe councils had, was to 
 Suftion' ^^^^^ ^^ ^^P°^ ^^^ gradually deftroy that ab- 
 ofthiscivU folute and perfed equality which had reigned 
 """"y- amongft the bifhops in the primitive times. For 
 
 as it was neceflary that fome certain place Ihould 
 be fixed on for the feat of council, and that 
 the right of convening the affembly and pre- 
 fiding therein as moderator, as well as of col- 
 lecting the fuffrages, and preferving the records 
 of its afts, fliould be veftcd in fome one or 
 other of its members, it for the mofl part be- 
 came cuftomary to give a preference in thefe 
 refpe6ls to the chief city of the province and 
 its bifhop, and hence, in procefs of time, fprung 
 \ip the dignity and authority of " metropolitans," 
 a title conferred by way of diftinftion on the 
 bifhops of principal cities. Thefe affociations of 
 churches, fituated within one and the fame pro- 
 vince, foon gave rife to the pradice of many 
 different provinces aflbciating together ; and 
 hence a flill greater difparity, by degrees, in- 
 troduced itfelf amongft the bifhops. In fine, 
 this cuftom of holding councils becoming at 
 length univerfally prevalent, the major part of 
 the church [b'] affumed the form of a large 
 civil commonwealth, made up of numerous in- 
 ferior 
 
 [^] I purpofely exprefs myfelf after this manner, fince 
 it can be made appear, from unqueftifmable authority, 
 that in every part of the then known world there were 
 certain churches, and thofe too of confiderable magnitude 
 and confequence, (for inftance, the African church properly 
 fo called, in Africa, the Chaldaic and Perfic in Afia, and 
 that of Britain in Europe, to pafs over others that might 
 be mentioned), which, although they adopted the practice 
 of holding councils, and did not keep themfelves entirely 
 
 aloof 
 
Qf the Second Century, 109 
 
 ferlor republics ; to the prefervation of which cent. 
 order of things it being found expedient that "•_ 
 a chief or fu'^erintending prelate fhould be ap- Effea* pro- 
 pointed for each of the three grand divifions ducedbythe 
 of the earth; and that, in addition to this, oTthu'cWu" 
 a fupreme power fhould be lodged in the unity. 
 hands of fome one individual bifhop ; it was 
 tacitly aflented to [_c'] that a certain degree of 
 ecclefiaftical pre-eminence fhould be recognifed 
 as belonging to the bifhops of Antioch, Rome, 
 and Alexandria, the principal cities in Afia, 
 Europe, and Africa, and that the bifhop of 
 Rome, the noblefl and mofl opulent city in 
 the world, fhould moreover take the prece- 
 
 aloof from all affbciation, yet declined to make a part 
 of that grand Chrillian confederation which was gradu- 
 ally entered into by the reft ; and were, for a long time, 
 inflexibly tenacious of their own juft liberty and inde- 
 pendence. The churches which thus tacitly declined 
 joining the general affociation, and maintained no other 
 community with thofe principal prelates who were ftyled 
 patriarchs, than that of religion and charity, of them- 
 felves furnifh us with an efFeftual argument in refutation 
 of thofe who afcribe the origin of this aiTociation to our 
 blefled Lord himfelf, and make it to have fprung from 
 fome law of his. For had it been the command of our 
 Saviour that his church fliould take the form of a large 
 commonwealth, moft alTuredly no Chriftian aflembly would 
 have lain claim to independence, and refufed to acknow- 
 ledge the authority of thofe who were appointed to pre- 
 fide over the general interefts of the whole body. 
 
 [c] The coucil of Nice, the principal one of thofe that 
 are termed CEcumenical, by its fixth canon, which treats 
 of the pre-eminence of the bifhops of Rome, Antioch, and 
 Alexandria, places it out of all queftion that the dignity 
 and authority of thefe prelates reiled, not on divine right, 
 nor on any thing in the nature of an apoftolic mandate, 
 but folely and entirely on ancient ufage or tacit confent. 
 Its commencement in Latin is, Antiqua confuetudo fervetur^ 
 in Greek to: d^x^^^ «^i xfWTttTo. Vid. Lud. Ell. du Pin. dt 
 /inttqua EccUJite DtfcipUna^ p. 19, 20. 
 
 dence 
 
ti6 The Ecdeftajlical Uijiory 
 
 CENT, dence amongfl thefe principal bifhops, or, as 
 , .": . they were afterwards ftyled, patriarchs, and 
 Comparifon alfo afliime the primacy of the whole Chrif- 
 ?an wiJSe' ^^" church throughout the world [^]. 
 Jewifti XXIV. By whatever advantages this new 
 
 pnefthood. fQj.jj^ q£ ecclefiaftical government might be at- 
 tended, they were confined exclufively to paf- 
 tors of the higher order, /'. e. the bifhops who 
 fat in thefe councils as the reprefentatives of 
 their refpeftive churches : but much about the 
 fame time there arofe and quickly gained grotind 
 in the Chriflian world, an opinion refpecling 
 the nature of the funftions wherewith the minif- 
 ters of the church were inverted, which tended, 
 in no fmall degree, to augment the dignity and 
 rights of the whole facred body. Whilfl the 
 leafl probability remained that Jerufalem might, 
 
 [JJ The extent of the authority and power poffeffed in 
 the primitive ages by thefe bifhops, who were thus invefted 
 with the prefidency of the larger ecclefxaflical confedera- 
 tions, may, without much difBculty, be eftimated when it is 
 confidered that they were raifed, by tacit confent, above 
 their brethren, merely upon the principle of fupplying fome 
 external link or bond whereby the minor aflbciations, or 
 churches, which were all independent of each other, might 
 be held together. What the different metropolitans were 
 in refpeft of their provinces, that was a patriarch in refped 
 of a larger portion of the world. That great thing, there- 
 fore, which we term the Hierarchy, and which has, moft 
 unhappily, been the caufe of fo many difputes and wars 
 amongfl Chriftians, if it be examined into with impartiality, 
 and traced back to the firft ages of the church, will be found 
 to have taken it9 rife from very fmall and inconfiderable be- 
 ginnings, in fafl to have originally fpnmg from nothing 
 more than the plan adopted by the Greek churches of 
 moulding their ecclefiaftical eftablifhment after the model of 
 their national civil government and councils, and that it was 
 only by degrees that it attained to that degree of confe- 
 <iuence and liability which has enabled it in fubfequent ages 
 to bid defiance to all the efforts of power and art to over- 
 throw it. 
 
 at 
 
of the Second Century* 1 1 1 
 
 at one time or other, again rear its head from cent. 
 the duft, the Chriftian teachers and elders af- ^^,,Jy,^ 
 fumed to themfelves no titles or diftindions, at comparifon 
 leafl: none but the mod modeil and humble of^ tiie f^hrjf- 
 ones [<?J ; but when the rate or that once glo- jewHh 
 rious city had been finally fealed by Hadrian, priefthood- 
 and not the mod diftant hope could any 
 longer be entertained by the Jews of feeing 
 their ancient government re-eftabhflied, thefe 
 fame pallors and minifters, for the mod part, 
 conceived a wifh to have it believed by their 
 flocks that they themfelves had fucceeded to 
 the rights of the Jewifli priefthood. The bi- 
 fhops, therefore, made it their bufmefs thence- 
 forward to inculcate the notion that they were 
 invefled with a character refembling that of 
 the great high priefl of the Jews, and were 
 confequently poflelTed of all thofe rights which 
 had been recognifed as belonging to the Jewifli 
 pontiff. The funftions of the ordinary Jewifh 
 priefts were, in like manner, flated to have 
 devolved, though under a more perfeft form, 
 on the prefbyters of the Chriflian church ; 
 and finally, the deacons were placed on a 
 parallel with the Levites or inferior miniflers 
 of the temple. Whether the comparifon thus 
 inflituted between fundions altogether oppofite 
 in their nature, had its origin in art and de- 
 fign, or was rather the offspring of ignorance 
 and imprudence, is a thing not now to be 
 afcertained ; of this, however, there can be no 
 doubt, that having once been approved of and 
 
 [f 3 Ignatius, in the commencement of his epiftles, ftyles 
 himfelf ^i6(po^ov,cieiferum, a title affumed by him, as it fhould 
 feem, in common with other bifhops of his time, and im- 
 porting a man commiffioned to make known to the world 
 the will and commands of the Deity. 
 
 admitted 
 
1 1 2 The Ecclefiaftkal Hijiory 
 
 GENT, admitted to be juft, it not only gave rife to 
 "• a variety of errors, and introduced a greater 
 ^^JJ^^JJJ*]^ diftinftion between teachers and learners than 
 oftheChrif- feems confonant to the fpirit of the Chrifllan 
 je" A ''''■' difcipline, but alfo very materially added to 
 priefthood. the rights and emoluments of the minifters 
 and difpenfers of Chrifl's word [/]. 
 
 [/] This comparifon of the Jewifh with the Chriftian 
 facred order, amongft other things, unqueftionably gave rife 
 to the claim of tythes and firft fruits, which is certainly of 
 higher antiquity than the time of Conftantine the Great. 
 And it ieems not at all unlikely that a defire of augmenting 
 their income, which was but flender and uncertain, might 
 have firft fuggefted to certai;i of the bifliops this plan of in- 
 veiling the ininillers of the gofpel with the rights of the Jew- 
 ifh priefthood. That the offering of the firft fruits had al- 
 ready, in the age of which we are treating, come to be re- 
 garded as a matter of divine right, is placed, as it were, be- 
 yond all doubt by Irenasus, who, in his work contra Kairefes, 
 lib. iv. cap. xxxii. § 5. p. 249. reprefents it as having been in- 
 culcated by Chrift himfelf in the celebration of the laft fup- 
 per. Chrtfiusfuh dijc'ipulis dans confilmm pr'itnitias Deo gfferre 
 ex fuis creaturis, non quaft indigently fed ut ipft nee infruSuoJi 
 nee ingratijint, etim qui ex creatura panis ejl, accepit ct gratias 
 egit, dicens, Hoc eji meiim corpus, ^c. And in cap. xxxiv. 
 p. 250. we are told by him, offerre igitiir oportet Deo primitias 
 ejus creatura, ficut et Mofes ait, non apparebis vacuus, iffc. 
 From which paffages it is manifeft that the Chriftian teach- 
 ers had already conceived the plan of bettering their con- 
 dition by calling in the authority of the Mofaic law. That 
 tithes had not, at this time, been eftabliftied, at leaft in the 
 .Latin church, is, I think, equally to be proved from Irenjeus, 
 who, in cap. xxxiv. p. 250. fays, Et propter hoc illi qiiidem 
 (the Jewifh priefts) decimas fuorum habehant conjecratas : 
 qui autem perceperiint libertatem (i. e. the Chriftians) omnia qua 
 funt ipforum ad dominicos decernunt ufus, hilariter et libere dan- 
 tes. It is certain, however, that in the Greek and oriental 
 churches they began to be adopted fooner than in the Latin 
 ones, and were rendered, T am led to think, even fo early as 
 this century, inafmuch as mention is made of them by the 
 Greek writers of the third century, and alfo in the apoftoli- 
 cal conftitutions, as of a thing well known andeftabliftied. 
 
 XXV. The 
 
of the Second Century. 113 
 
 XXV. The external change thus wrought cent. 
 in the conflitution of the church would have \_ , -'~ j 
 been, however, far lefs detrimental to the Awftefor 
 interefls of Chriftianity, had it not been ac- P^^^of^i^y 
 
 ^ f. . . introduced 
 
 compamed by others ot an niternai nature, amongftthe 
 which ftruck at the very vitals of religion, cimftkns. 
 and tended, in no fmall degree, to affedl the 
 credit of thofe facred writings on which the 
 entire fyftem of Chriftian difcipline relies for 
 fupport. Of thefe the mod confiderable and 
 important are to be attributed to a tafte for 
 the cultivation of philofophy and human learn- 
 ing, which, during the preceding century, if 
 not altogether treated with negled; and con- 
 tempt by the Chriftians, had at leaft been 
 wifely kept under, and by no means permitted 
 to blend itfelf with religion ; but in the age 
 of which we are now treating burft forth on a 
 fudden into a flame, and fpread itfelf with the 
 utmofl rapidity throughout a confiderable part 
 of the church. This may be accounted for 
 in fome meafure from its having been the 
 pradice of the many Greek philofophers, who 
 in the courfe of this century were induced to 
 embrace Chriftianity, not only to retain their 
 priftine denomination, garb, and mode of liv- 
 ing, but alfo to perfift in recommending the 
 ftudy of philofophy, and initiating youth therein. 
 In proof of this we may from amidft nume- 
 rous other examples adduce in particular that 
 of Juftin the celebrated philofopher and mar- 
 tyr [^]. The immediate nurfery and very cradle, 
 as it were, of Chriftian philpfophy muft however 
 
 be 
 
 [j^] That Juftin Martyr continued to wear the philofo- 
 pher's mantle fubfequently to his embracing Chriftianity is 
 evident from the exordium to his dialogue with Trypho, 
 
 VOL. fi. 1 fiDCe 
 
114 1"^^^ Ecclefiqftical Hijlory 
 
 c E N T. be placed in the celebrated femiiiary which long 
 •._ .. ^L, _. fiourifhed at Alexandria under the denomina- 
 Ataiiefor tion of the Catechetical fchool. For the per- 
 phiiofophy jpQjjg ^Yio prefided therein in the courfe of the 
 
 introduced r i • i • i t> 
 
 amongft the age ot which we are treatmg, namely, rantae- 
 Chriftians. j^^g^ Athcnagoras, and Clement of Alexandria, 
 not only engaged with ardour in the cultivation 
 of philofophy themfelves, but alfo exerted their 
 influence in perfuading thole whom they were 
 educating for the office of teachers in the church, 
 to follow their example in this refpedl, and make 
 it their praftice to aflbciate philofophical prin- 
 ciples with thofe of religion [/>]. It is to be 
 
 obferved 
 
 fince Trypho is there made to fay that he conceived him to 
 be a philofopher from his garb. Origen, in a letter pre- 
 ferved by Eufebius, Hijlor. Ecclef. lib. vi. cap, xix. ftates 
 that Heraclas, who was afterwards bifhop of Alexandria, 
 was accuftomed, previoufly to his ftudying philofophy, to 
 appear cloathed after the common fafliion, jcotuT so-SuVi ; but 
 that upon his placing himfelf under the tuition of Ammo- 
 nius, he affunied the philolbpher's mantle and continued ever 
 after to wear it ; even notwithllanding his being received 
 into the orderof prefbyters. 'ATroJi/o-ajUEvoi >c«* iJiA&cro(?!oi' avaXa- 
 <3Jv o-^^/^* \^^X%^ "^2 Jay^o Ty,^£j. Vid. Origen. 0pp. torn. i. p. i, 
 edit, Benedift. Jerome in his Catal. Script, Ecclef. cap. xx. 
 p. ^6. edit. Fabric, fpeaking of the Chriftian philofopher 
 Ariftides, fays, Ar'ijlules Atheiuenfis, ph'ilofophus eloquentijji- 
 mus et fub prijlino hahitii d'tfcipidus Chriji'i. There can furely 
 be no neceffity for my adducing more inftances than thefe. 
 A fplendid encomium on philofophy from the pen of Juftin 
 Martyr occurs at p. 5, 6. of his dialogue cum Tryphoncy 
 where he pronounces it to be " the chief good," jUEyjfos 
 K7rtjj.K, " a thing moft acceptable in the fight of God, and 
 the only fure guide to a ftate of perfeft felicity." A more 
 ancient encomiaft of philofophy is not, I believe, to be 
 pointed out amongft the Chriftian writers. He defines phi- 
 lofophy, p. 12, to be E7rJr'3jtt») tSovto^ xa» t5 aXuSw; lnriyyu(7K;, 
 " the fcience of being," (that is, of thofe things which are 
 real and immutable,) " and the knowledge of truth." The 
 €nd or objedl of philofophy he pronounces to be liy^«<jixov<«v, 
 »< felicity." 
 
 [/.>] Pantsenus was, without doubt, the firft of the 
 
 Egyptian 
 
of the Second Century. 115 
 
 obfervcd however, that what was termed by e n t. 
 thefe philofophy, was not the difcipline of any ,_ —'—^ 
 
 par- Atailefor 
 ]ihilofophy 
 
 Egyptian Chriftians that engaged in the ftudy of philo- amon<^l th.; 
 fophy : for Origan, in that epiftle of his preferved by Chriffians. 
 Eufebius, Hi/lor. Ecclef. lib. vi. cap. xix. p. 221. wherein 
 he rephes to thofe who had imputed a love of letters 
 and philofophy to him as a fault, defends himfelf under 
 the cover of only two examples, the one ancient, the 
 other of recent date : the former is that of Pantsnus, 
 the latter of Heraclas, whom he reprefents as having been 
 one of his fellow-ftudents in the fchool of Ammoiiius. 
 Had any one amongft the Chriftians of Egypt engaged 
 in the cultivation of philofophy before Pantsenus, there 
 can be no doubt but that Origen, whom nothing whatever 
 that had taken place in antecedent times amongft the 
 Egyptian Chriftians appears to have efcaped, would, by- 
 way of more readily vindicating himfelf, have brought 
 forward earlier inftances of an attachment to philofophy 
 than even that of Pantanus. — That I fhould fay any thing 
 of Athenagoras appears to me altogether unneceffary, as 
 there is extant, in addition to the apology written by 
 him in defence of the Chriftians, a traft of his concern- 
 ing the refurre£tion of the dead, which is replete with 
 evidence of the great extent to which he engaged in the 
 cultivation of philofophy. Clement, the third prefident of 
 the fchool of Alexandria in fucceflion from Pantaenus, 
 and whom, by way of diftinftion, we ufually ftyle the Alex- 
 andrian., has left behind him, in various things which he 
 pubhfhed, abundant proof of his partiality for philofophy, 
 fuch a partiality, indeed, as appears to have exceeded all 
 ordinary limits. Jof. Aug. Orfi, in the Ecclefiajltcal Hijlory 
 written by him in Italian, tom. ii. p. 406. confiders this 
 Clement as the firft of the Chriftian writers that efpoufed 
 the caufe of philofophy. But he is deceived ; Juftin Mar- 
 tyr, as we have already feen, had previoufly flood forth as 
 its advocate and eulogift, and undoubtedly Pantasnus in his 
 day had done the fame. There can be no queftion, how- 
 ever, but that Clement is to be ranked amongft the firft and 
 principal Chriftian defenders and teachers of philofophic fci- 
 ence, indeed that he may even be placed at the head of thofe 
 who devoted themfelves to the cultivation of philofophy with 
 an ardour that knew no bounds, and were fo blind and mif- 
 guided as to engage in the hopelefa attempt of producing an 
 accommodation between the principles of philofophic fcience 
 I 2 and 
 
J 16 The Ecclefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 particular fed, but a feledion of fuch princi- 
 ples and maxims from all the different philo- 
 
 fophic 
 
 and thofe of the Chriftian religion. He himfelf exprefsly tells 
 us in his Stromata, lib. i. cap. i. p. 326. opp. that he would 
 not hand down Chriftian truth pure and unmixed, but «vajLC£- 
 fjLiyfjL^rriv To'i'i ^iXoT'o'piXi doyijiCnTiy fxcKWov 6i lyxlxaXnju^svtiy xctt rTTt- 
 HEx^Mju/xEvtiv, " aflbeiated with, or rather veiled by and fhrouded 
 under the precepts of philofophy." For, according to 
 him, the rudiments or feeds of celeflial wifdom communi- 
 cated by Chrift to the world, lay hid in the philofophy of the 
 Greeks, after the fame manner as the efculent part of a nut 
 lies concealed within a fliell. And on this ground we find 
 him, in the fame book, cap. iv. p. 331. cHtertaining a belief 
 that Solomon, in Prov. ii. 3,4, 5, 6, 7, meant to inculcate 
 the ftudy of philofophy, and attributing to the cultivation of 
 philofophy a certain efiicacy in rendering men juft and up- 
 right, ToTi bVo (PiXoo-oipixi osJixaKDjuiEvoK /SoijSei* ^r,aa,v^i^tra.t. 
 
 He had before faid, at p. 319, that the fouls of men were fed 
 or nourifhed kxto. t»i\ eAX»)v4xv)v <piXo<To^i3cvt •* by the philofophy 
 of the Greeks," and added the above-noticed comparifon 
 of this fpecies of philofophy with a nut, to which he fre- 
 quently has recourfe, by way of exprefling his opinion of 
 the nature and value of human wifdom. For he appears to 
 have been firmly perfuaded that the eflence of the Greek 
 philofophy was found, wholefome, and falutary, in faft, that 
 it was perfeftly confonant to the fpirit of Chriftian wifdom, 
 but that it was compaffed about and veiled from immediate 
 obfervation by a cloud of fuperftition and idle fictions, juft 
 in the fame way as the kernel of a nut is concealed by the 
 fhell, and that we fliould therefore make it our bufinefs in- 
 duftrioufly to penetrate this exterior covering, fo as to dif- 
 cover the true relationfhip between human and divine wif- 
 dom. Stromat. lib. vii. p. 832. cap.ii. The origin of the 
 Greek philofophy he, without fcruple, attributes to the Dei- 
 ty himfelf, whom however, in the communication of it to the 
 world, he conceives to have availed himfelf of the inftrumen- 
 tality of inferior agents, wto? eV*v h JtJ«\- xai to*? 'EXXjio-i t^V fi- 
 Xoa-o^iccv hoc tSv iiTroSfErs'^wv dyyi'Kuv. Hie (the Deity) £^, qui dat 
 Cracis philofophiam per inferiores angelos. To the Chriftian 
 rehgion he afngns a fuperiority over philofophy, inafmuch as 
 the Lord referved the promulgation of it for himfelf: dw' 
 V fttgl? Kv^la y) 5o|a tuv mrEKovTwy, at Opinio credentium (the 
 religion profeffed by the ChnM^^m) pars eji Domini (was 
 communicated by the Lord himfelf). In explaining and 
 
 illuftrating 
 
of the Second Century, 117 
 
 fophic fyflems as appeared to be moft con- cent. 
 fentaneousto right reafon, and admitted of be- ,_,_ ^1^. 
 
 ing A tafte fov 
 philofopliy 
 
 Ml n • 1 • • • 1 • 1 5 1 • 1 1 • • introduced 
 
 illuftratmg his opinion on this head, he is led to intimate amongft the 
 his perfedl conviftion as to a point on which we find him Chriftiaos. 
 pretty plainly exprefllng his fentiments in other places, and 
 in which Juftin Martyr coincides with him ; namely, that be- 
 fore Chrift's advent, philofophy was the way to eternal life, 
 and that therefore no doubt can be entertained of the Gre- 
 cian fages having obtained falvation. In his Stromat. lib. i. 
 cap. vii. p. 337. lib. vi. cap. viii. p. 773. he fays, that phi- 
 lofophy was divinely communicated to the Greeks as a fpe- 
 cial teftament or covenant, and that it in faft conftitutes the 
 bafis of that doftrine which the world has fince received 
 from Chrift : tydi Ti (piXo^o^iot-t xa» fj-xXXov "EXXrta-iv oiov ^taSn'xrjv 
 oi)CE«a.v a.uTo7j dsdocrSat, iwobaS^ov acraiv rijg x.xtcc 'K.^irov ^iXocro^ix^. 
 In faying this, however, he means it to be underfiood that 
 the prince of darknefs, whom he terms the inveterate culti- 
 vator of tares, had plentifully difleminated his noxious weeds 
 in the philofophy of Greece as well as in that of the barba- 
 rous nations. In the fame book vi. Stromat. cap. xvii. p. 
 822. & feq. he urges many things in favour of the dignity 
 and excellence of philofophy, amongft which the following 
 paffage is particularly worthy of remark : 'Ejxotw? 5v 'la^ctioij 
 
 xXuVif y\ xaSoXiXfl^ £»; -nri^nia-iov 5l){aioo-y'v>i; Xaov xara r^v Ik •ct«~ew; 
 Jj5«trxa.At3tv : merito ergo Judals qu'idem lex^ Grac'ts autem data 
 eft philofophia ufque ad adventum (of Chrift) : ex eo autem 
 tempore univerfalis ejl voeatio ad peculiarem populum jujl'itla 
 per earn que ejl et fide doSrinam (the Chriftian religion). 
 The fenfe, then, entertained by Clement of philofophy is 
 very clearly to be perceived. Previously to the coming of 
 Chrift, philofophy had, according to his opinion, been the 
 fame thing to the Greeks that the law of Mofes was to the 
 Hebrews. Both of them were originally derived from God, 
 who, however, in the communication of them to mortals, 
 availed himfelf of the rainiftration of angels. Both of them 
 pointed out the road to falvation ; the former to the Greeks, 
 the latter to the Jews. Neither the one nor the other fyftem 
 of difcipline could pretend to abfolute perfeftion, nor did 
 either of them preferve itfelf free from the adulteration of 
 human opinions. In procefs of time, therefore, it pleafed 
 the Deity to impart to the whole human race a more perfeft 
 wifdom through Jefus Chrift. Neither the law of the Jews, 
 nor the philofophy of the Greeks, however, is to be confi- 
 I 3 dered 
 
1 1 8 The Ecdeftqftkal Hijiory 
 
 ing fo tempered and modified as to reconcile 
 them, In a certain degree, with Chriftian notions 
 and tenets []/]. 
 
 XXVI. The 
 
 dered as thereby abolifiied, but as in part perfedled, and in 
 part difencumbered of various faulty particulars, the off- 
 spring of mere human refinement and conceit. To any one 
 entertaining an opinion like this, it muft of neceflity appear 
 that the leading principles of Chriftianity are fo to be un- 
 derftood and interpreted as to make them accord with the 
 maxims and precepts of the beft and vvifeft of the Grecian 
 fages. It will readily then, I think, be granted by every 
 one who fhall duly confider the conftancy with which the 
 prefedts of the fchool of Alexandria, from the time of Pan- 
 tjenus, perfifled in recommending and inculcating the ftudy 
 of philofophy, that to this fchool and its mafters is chiefly 
 to be afcribed that love of philofophic fpeculation to which 
 the primitive Chriftians were evidently ftrangcrs, but which 
 towards the clofe of this century began to diffufe itfelf gra- 
 dually throughout the whole church, and infenfibly to fup- 
 plant that holy fimplicity which charafterifed Chriftianity 
 during the firft age. For further information refpefting 
 this celebrated fchool at Alexandria, which, whether it was 
 productive of moft benefit or detriment to the Chriftian 
 caufe, would, I believe, be found hard to determine, the 
 reader may confult the Antiquitates Academics of Hcrm. 
 Conringius, p. 29. ; a particular differtation on the fubje'ft 
 by And. Schmidius, prefixed by Andr. Hyperius to his 
 book de Catech(^i ; a work written in Italian, by Aulifius, 
 Delle Scuole Sacrc, lib. ii. cap. i. ii. p. 5 — 17. and cap. xxi. 
 p. 92 ; The Hijlory of Catech'ifms, in German, by Lange- 
 mackius, P. I. p. 86. 122. & feq. as well as other works. 
 
 [i] Clement of Alexandria, who certainly holds the 
 firft place amongft the patrons of philofophy, fupplies us 
 with this definition of it ; {Siromat. lib. i. cap. vii. p. 338. 
 edit. Potterian.) <t>iXo(To(f:lc<.v r>\H T»iv Zrwijc^jv XEyw,«Jt tj))/ UXx- 
 
 TdJViXrlv, )? T«V 'ETTJXi^f £<0V T£, KCA 'Af irOTsXiXriV, aXX OTX H^raai TTOCf 
 
 Si^cccTKOvTa, tSto <TviJi,vS,v TO E)C/\.E)CTt)cov i^iXoao^^lict (^»i/-(t'' ccra. ^£ a'v- 
 Sfwmvwv \oyi(Tixm dizon^o^ivoi 7r«jE;)^c'^3t|av, roiZra. tiK «v ttote ^ua. 
 (ivoifjt. 'uv, Philofophiam atttem dico non Sto'icam, nee Platonicanii 
 aut Epicuream et Ar'iJlotericam,fed quacttmque ab h'tsfeBis reEte 
 diBa funt, qute docent jujlit'iaw cum p'ta fcientia, hoc totum fe- 
 ledum dico philofophiam : cetera autetn qua ex humanis ratio- 
 einatlonibus prafe£la adulteraveruntj ea nunquam divina dix- 
 1 1 erim^ 
 
mentions 
 aiiionft the 
 Chrillians 
 
 phy. 
 
 of the Second Century. 119 
 
 XXVI. The rife, however, of this tafte for c E n t. 
 phllofophical fpeculation, and the afcendancy , _ "^_. 
 which they perceived it gradually acquiring in cou 
 the minds of fo many of their teachers, be 
 came a fource of the moil poignant regret to whirrel^'rJ 
 all fuch as continued fteadfaftly attached to that *° p^"^°^°" 
 ancient and fimple fpecies of piety which had 
 been delivered down by the Apoftles and their 
 difciples ; inafmuch as they faw reafon to fear 
 that the caufe of celeflial truth might be thereby 
 materially injured, as in reality proved to be 
 the cafe, and that divine wifdom would not 
 long retain either its proper value or dignity 
 in the eftimatlon of mankind. In confequence 
 of this the Chriftian church became divided in- 
 
 erim. Now all this, without queftion, appears to be well 
 and wifely faid, and perfeftly accords with what is lain 
 down refpefting the nature ofphilofophy by Juftin Martyr, 
 in his Dial, cum Tryphone, p. 6. & feq. But the truth is, 
 that every one who will be at the pains to turn over the 
 writings of Clement himfelf as well as thofe of his very ce- 
 lebrated difciple Origen, and of Juftin, muft very readily 
 perceive that many things were regarded by them as per- 
 feftly confentaneous to right reafon and the fpirit of Chrif- 
 tianity which are, in faft, not to be reconciled with either. 
 Notwithftanding all the defire which thefe good men evince 
 to perfuade us that they entertained a partiality for no par- 
 ticular fedl, they were certainly attached to the Ecleftics^ 
 a fe£t that flourifhed formerly in Egypt, and confidered 
 every thing as indifputable which had received the fanftion 
 of that fe6l. Of this not a doubt can remain with any one 
 who will take the trouble to compare Clement and Origen 
 with Philo Judaeus, one equally a difciple of the Ecleftic 
 fchool. This feft of the Ecleftics, of which a particular 
 account is given by Ja. Brucker in his Hijloria Philofophtie 
 critical although it culled fomething from every fedl, was 
 yet wont to give the preference or chief authority in every 
 thing relating to the Deity, the human race, and this ne- 
 ther world, to Plato, than whom, it was fuppofed, none 
 had retained more of the original and genuine philofophy 
 of human nature. 
 
 14 to 
 
1 20 The Ecdefiajlkal Hijlory 
 
 c E N T. to two parties which oppofed each other with 
 
 "• the utmoft warmth ; the one regarding every 
 
 Contentions fp^cics of huHian learning, and more parti- 
 
 amongftthe cularly philofophy, with deteflation and con- 
 
 with'rera'rd tempt, and enjoining the brethren to maintain 
 
 to phiiofo- the faith in all its genuine fimplicity ; the other 
 
 ** ^' contending for the utility and excellence of 
 
 philofophic difquifition, and encouraging the 
 
 teachers of the church to occupy themfelves 
 
 in demonftrating the accordance of religion 
 
 with the principles of right reafon [^]. The 
 
 iffue of this difpute, which lafted for a confi- 
 
 derable 
 
 [if] Refpefting this contention between the adverfarieg 
 and friends of philofophy, abundant tcftimonies are to be 
 adduced both of this and the fucceeding century. Amongft 
 thofe of the age now under review, there is extant in Eufe- 
 bius, Hijlor. Ecclef. hb. v. cap. xxviii. p. 197. a remarkable 
 pafTage of an unknown author who had written a book in 
 oppofition to the errors of Artemon, and who inveighs fe- 
 vereiy againft the Artemonites for neglefting the ftudy of 
 the Holy Scriptures, and devoting themfelves to the culti- 
 vation of philofophy and the Ariftotelian logic, endeavouring 
 to find fupport for their errors refpedling Chriil in the arts 
 and difcipline of unbelievers, artibus ac difciplin'ts itifideliumt 
 (fo Valefius tranflates the words mt? t£v a.-z\,Tt>iyi Ttxva.*?), and 
 linally ftudying to obfcure and deprave the fimple religion 
 of the New Teftament by encumbering it with the fubtle 
 refinements of vain and impious men, ty! tuv aSsoJv tsavy^yia, 
 (that is, as we may gather from what he before fays, the 
 rules and precepts of the Ariftotehan logic). In this 
 pafTage, there are two things that prefent themfelves as 
 chiefly deferving of remark. The firft is, that the men 
 who are therein reprehended, were accuftomed to fcrutinize 
 fuch paffages of fcripture as were urged againft them, by 
 the very niceft logical teft : a praftice which this writer 
 hefitates not to pronounce impious and intolerable. Kccv 
 etvToTi 7rgoT£»vn t»j f-nrov y^x^yii Sstxri,-, ElsToI^acn ttotejov avvi-ifjLfxi' 
 vov y) Sid^ivyixivov dwarcn TOirjacA a^v[jLOC avWoynrfj-S. Quod Ji 
 guts aliquem divins fcrlptura locum els objecerlty examinant, 
 utrum connexum an disjunffum Jyllogifmi genus ex eo confici 
 pojfit. The other thing that particularly offers itfelf to 
 9 ob- 
 
of the Second Century. 1 2 1 
 
 derable while, at length was, that vidtory de- cent, 
 clared itfelf in favour of the patrons of phi- , "• 
 
 lofophy, Conteniion, 
 amongft the 
 
 obfeivation in the paffage we allude to is, that the clafs whh reganl 
 of men whofe opinions and pratlices it combate were to philofo- 
 tnuch devoted to the ftudy of geometry, and applied to f^y- 
 Chriftian theology that mode of teaching and demonllrating 
 which is peculiar to geometricians : jtaxaXiTrovTEc os to.; a.yia,<; 
 t5 Sta yjaipa;, yiujxEr^iciv iTmwiveatVf ai( xv ix. Trf.; yjij ovtsj jcxi Ix. 
 tjT^- yiTj XxXSvTi:. Reliilis atque abje^'ts facr'ts Dei fcr'tptur'is t 
 geometric fiudent, quippe qui terreflres ftnt et loquantur terrena. 
 — 'Ei/)cX=»^*-,j yav Tra^a rlj-kv ccvtHv ^iXo^ovw? ysJujutTpIiTa*. Eucltdis 
 igttur geometria apud nonnnllos eorum Jludiofe excolitur. 
 There is, therefore, nothing done at prefent for which a 
 precedent is not to be found in former times. When we 
 tind the culture of philofophy, of logic, and geometry 
 placed by this man amongft the crimes of heretics, it is 
 pretty plain in what degree of repute thefe ftudies were 
 held by the generality of Chriftians in thofe days. Majiy 
 very diftinft veftiges of this difpute refpefting the value of 
 philofophy and its ufc in theology, are to be met with in the 
 writings of Clement of Alexandria, who, moreover, fome- 
 times takes occafion to cenfure with fufficient acrimony 
 thofe who portended great detriment to the caufe of Chrif- 
 tianity from the introduftion of philofophy into the church, 
 and called upon all the fincere profefTore. of Chriftianity to 
 revert to the ancient fimplicity of the apoilles. To thofe 
 who read him, it will be obvious that the things which are 
 agitated with fo much eagernefs vx the prefent day, engrofled 
 equally the attention of former ages, and that the contention 
 between faith and reafon, by which the world has been dif^ 
 turbed fo greatly of late, is by no means a matter of recent 
 origin. In the very outfet of the work to which he gives 
 the title of Stromata, we find him undertaking the defence 
 of philofophy. The opponents of philofophy he, in lib. i. 
 cap. i. p. 326. divides into two claffes : the firfi confift- 
 ing of the more moderate ones, or thofe who contended 
 merely that philofophy was of no ufe. *' I am no ilranger,** 
 fays he, " to what is urged by fome, whofe ignorance 
 leads them to fee danger in every thing, namely, that 
 our attention ought to be exclufively direfted to things 
 of the firft neceflity, and on which we may build our faith, 
 and not be fuffered to occupy itfelf in foreign and fruitlefs 
 ftudies, fuch as bufy and detain the mind without conduc- 
 ing it to any certain end." The other clafs was compofed 
 
 «f 
 
122 The Eccleftajllcal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, lofophy, and that thofe teachers came to be 
 ^ _": J moft refpeded who, in unfolding the dodrines 
 
 Contentions 01 
 
 amongft the 
 
 with recard of thofe who were more vehement in their oppofition to 
 to philofo- philofophy, contending that it was not merely ufelefs but 
 phy. pernicious, and the invention of the parent of evil. 
 
 " Others, however," he proceeds, " carry their hoftility 
 fo far as to rank philofophy with the greateft of evils, 
 and confider it as invented for the ruin of mankind by 
 fome malignant adverfary," tt^s,- tjvo; Iv^i-rs xom^S, that is, as 
 he himfelf explains the expreflion in another place, " the 
 devil." To the former of thefe he artfully replies, cap. ii. 
 p. 327. (1.) If the inutility of philofophy were even as 
 certain as you pretend, ftill it is a thing both ufeful and ne- 
 ceffary that its vanity and emptinefs fhould be demonftrated, 
 and as this cannot be done without a knowledge of its prin- 
 ciples, we have, even here, an argument that the ttudy 
 of philofophy is not without its ufe ; h xki, cix^ns-o; £«« <^«- 
 'Xo(7o<plx, a iVXi^'^To^ v Tn c ccx^ri^iO!,g /SfS'ajWj?, iVX^^TOC- That 
 I have afligned to thefe words their true fenfe is, I think, 
 placed out of all doubt by what follows. Proceeding with 
 his reply he obferves, (II.) That even if philofophy, when 
 regarded apart by itfelf, was of no ufe whatever, and con- 
 tributed nothing towards aiding the Chriftian in the attain- 
 ment of his grand objeft, yet Itill an acquaintance with it 
 mull be highly ornamental to the charafter of a Chriftian 
 teacher, and by giving him a certain dignity and authority 
 in the eyes of his auditors, muft enable him, with the 
 greater eafe, to make an impreflion on the minds of thofe 
 who were hoftile to the caufe of religion. With the other 
 clafs, who confidered philofophy as pernicious, and nothing 
 better than an invention of the devil himfelf, he difputes at 
 much length, and, as we are bound to confefs, neither unflcil- 
 fully nor idly. We fhall merely give the fubftance of a few 
 of his arguments. (I.) In the firftplace, then, he contends 
 that philofophy is not calculated to draw men away from 
 faith or piety, as its adverfaries affirmed, but was rather to 
 be looked upon as the fafeguard of religion, inafmuch as it 
 fupplied men with a fuller demonftration of faith, a-vyyvixva.' 
 erla,)! nvoc. Tr/rswi a.vo^tix.Tix.i^v. (II.) That from a collation or 
 comparifon together of fuch of the principles of philofophy 
 and Chriftianity as were inconfiftent with or oppofed to each 
 Other, the truth was rendered more apparent, and our ftock 
 of knowledge confequently much improved, than which no- 
 thing could be more defirable or important. (III.) That 
 
of the Second Century. 1 23 
 
 of religion, called in the aid of philofophlcal cent. 
 principles and precepts. . " • ^ 
 
 XXVII. That Contentions 
 amongfl the 
 Chriftians 
 
 our conviAion of mind miiil neceflarily be ftrengthened and witli regard 
 confirmed by our acquiring that more accurate knowledge tophilofo- 
 of religion which was to be obtained through the afliftance P y* 
 of philofophy ; /Ssttaiov AajU.CavovTwv izua-jj,!/. tiTj wAnSaj koctk- 
 A»'4":wi. And here, by the bye, I mufl; obferve, that I can- 
 not help wifhing for a new tranflation of Clement by fome 
 one well flcilled in the Greek language. The old one by 
 Hervetus fails, in many places, to give us the fenfe of the 
 original, and in others expreffes it in a very obfcure manner. 
 (IV.) That a knowledge of philofophy was requifite in 
 order to repel and put to filence the enemies of the Chriftian 
 faith, cap. iii. p. 325. fince it was the practice of fome of 
 thefe to make fport of the truth, and reprefent it as replete 
 with barbarifm ; to /3y%5'j4§ov h 7rai^/»a ^irl^j-imk ; whilfl: others 
 were accuftomed to attack the Chriftians with various little 
 teazing fubtiltics and jefts, which, although founded 
 in fallacy, were yet conceived with too much art to be ex- 
 pofed and refuted without fome degree of flcill. That we 
 ought to provide ourfelves, therefore, with philofophy, as a 
 kind of defenfive armour for repelling the weapons of fo- 
 phiftry. Cap. v. p. 331. From thefe arguments we may 
 pretty well coUeft the motives by which the Chriftian teach- 
 ers of the fecond century were led to cultivate philofophy. 
 There was one inducement, however, of which Clement 
 takes no notice, but which I cannot help confidering as hav- 
 ing been a very principal one. The Chriftian teachers were 
 well aware of what eflential benefit it would be in promoting 
 their caufe, not only with the multitude, but alfo amongft 
 men of the higher orders, could the philofophers, whofe 
 authority and eftimation with the world was unbounded, be 
 brought to embrace Chriftianity. With a view, therefore, 
 of accompliftiing this defirable objeft, they not only adopted 
 the ftudy of philofophy themfelves, but became loud in 
 their recommendation of it to others, declaring that the dif- 
 ference between Chriftianity and philofophy was but trifling, 
 and confifted merely in the former being of a nature fome- 
 what more perfect than the latter. And it is moft certain 
 that this kind of condu6l was fo far produftive of the de- 
 fired efFeft, as to caufe not a few of the philofophers to en- 
 •rol themfelves under the Chriftian banner. Thofe who 
 
 have 
 
X 24 The Ecclefiajlical Hijlory 
 
 XXVII. That particular fcheme or mode 
 of philofophiling which was adopted at the 
 
 firft 
 
 have perufed the various works virritten by fuch of the an- 
 cient philofopers as had been induced to embrace Chriftian- 
 ity, cannot have failed to remark that the Chriftian difci- 
 pline was regarded by all of them in no other light than as a 
 certain mode of philofophifing. But to return to Clement, 
 in other places, Stromal, lib. i. cap, xvii. xviii. p.366.wefind 
 him adverting to a third opinion entertained by many Chrif- 
 tians refpefting philofophy, and which holds, as it were, a 
 middle ftation between the two already noticed. This opi- 
 nion was, that philofophy had been furreptitioufly brought 
 down from heaven, and communicated to mankind by thofe 
 angels whom, according to the ancients, a love of pleafure 
 had induced to rebel againft God, and take to themfelves 
 wives from amongfl the daughters of men. "Evtot ^\ Swciuti; 
 
 Nonnulli autem (whom he diftinguifhes from thofe who main- 
 tained that the devil himfelf was the author of philofophy) 
 univerfam ph'ilofophiam qua/dam potejlates e calo delapfas infpi- 
 rajfe exijlimant. To this opinion many of that age fub- 
 fcribed ; amongft whom we find that Hermias, who was the 
 author of a traft that has reached our days under the title of 
 Irrijio Philofophia., and is commonly annexed to Tatian. In 
 the exordium of his little work this writer fays, ^oKtiyd^ ua 
 
 r^v a'fX'l^v ((?i*Xo(7-o^t'av) liXri^sva; drro Trij twv 'Ayyi^uv dvoraa-lcc? . 
 Videtur mihi ( philofophia ) ab angelorum defeSlione prlncipium 
 repetiijfe. In proof of this he adduces the ftrifes and conten- 
 tions of philofophers. Indeed Clement himfelf appears not 
 entirely to difTent from this opinion. Vid. Stromat. lib. v. 
 p. 650. Thofe who thought thus refpedling the origin of 
 philofophy, could not, of courfe, altogether rejeft and con- 
 demn it, but amongft them there were not wanting fome, 
 however, who deemed it fmful for men to avail themfelves of 
 what had reached them thus furreptitioufly and through fo 
 polluted a channel. To thefe Clement replies, that it was 
 indeed a very heinous crime in the fallen angels to be guilty 
 of this theft, but that, notwithftanding the circumftance of 
 its having been ftolen, the excellence and value of the thing 
 itfelf had been neither fuUied nor diminiflied. Various other 
 arguments, by which Clement defends the caufe of philofo- 
 phy, and combats thofe of the Chriftians who would fain 
 
 haTC 
 
sfthe Second Century. 125 
 
 nrft by the prsefeds of the fchool of Alex- cent. 
 andria, and a few others, did not indeed main- . "' _, 
 tain its ground for any great length of time, Thefchooi 
 but was by degrees confiderably departed ^^y^siJc' 
 from : the fpirit of philofophifmg, however, 
 fo far from experiencing any decline or abate- 
 ment, continued to increafe and diffufe itfelf 
 more and more, particularly towards the clofe 
 of this century, when a new fed fprung up 
 at Alexandria under the title of " The Mo- 
 dern Platonifts.** The founder of this fed 
 was Ammonius Saccas, a man of a fubtile 
 penetrating genius, but prone to deviate, in 
 many things, from right reafon, and too much 
 inclined to indulge in ridiculous flights of ima- 
 
 have arretted its progrefs, are to be met with in his Siromata. 
 Great pains are particularly taken by him in refuting fuch 
 as maintained that philofopky was invented by the evil one 
 for the purpofe of deceiving the human race and leading 
 them aftray from the truth ; from whence we may infer, 
 that this opinion was more generally received, aad had taken 
 deeper root than the reft in the minds of the multitude. 
 To what I have above noticed I (hall merely add what he 
 urges in reply to thofe who were accuftomed to caft in the 
 teeth of the advocates of philofophy the words of St. Paul 
 in Col. ii. 8. admonifbing the Chriftians to beware of being 
 fpoiled through philofophy. In the opinion of Clement, 
 Stromat. lib. vi. cap. viii. p. 771. 799. St. Paul is to be 
 confidered as addreffing himfelf in this place to the more 
 perfeft Chriftians, or, as he terms them, thofe " who had 
 attained to the very heights of Gnoftic intelligence, "rov l\ 
 TK "yvwrwa ju.iraXaju.G'avovTa v4^yj," and that what he meant 
 was to caution fuch Chriftians againft reverting to the phi- 
 lofophy of the Greeks, inafmuch as this fpecies of philofo- 
 phy was merely a kind of elementary learning, ro<;j^£iwl>i ^*W. 
 kccXkx., comprehending nothing more than the firft rudi- 
 ments of wifdom, a want of which could well be difpenfed 
 with in Chriftians, who had arrived at the higheft degree of 
 divine information. But all this is evidently ftrained, and in 
 direA oppofition to the obvious and natural fenfe conveyed 
 by the words of St. Paul, 
 
 gination. 
 
Il6 The Ecclefiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, gination [/]. In addition to a multitude of 
 
 JJj J others who flocked to this man for inflru£lion, 
 
 his 
 
 [/] Particular celebrity attaches itfelf, both in facred 
 and literary hiftory, to the name of Ammonius Saccas, a 
 philofopher of the Alexandrian fchool, from whom pro- 
 ceeded thofe philofophical fanatics the " Modern Platonifts," 
 who, from the third century to the fixth, lorded it with de- 
 fpotic fway over every other feft throughout nearly the 
 whole of the Roman empire. That the life and a£tions of 
 a man capable of effedling fo great a change in the afpeA of 
 Chriftianity as well as philofophy, fliould be for the moft 
 part fo completely involved in obfcurity as to defy elu- 
 cidation, is certainly much to be regretted ; fince, could we 
 obtain a more accurate knowledge as to thefe, it would no 
 doubt enable us, with much greater readinefs, to account 
 for many opinions and cuftoms that fprung up amongft the 
 Chriftians fubfequently to his time. Whatever could be ob- 
 tained on the fubjeft from ancient authors, hath been dili- 
 gently collefted together and illuftrated, with his ufual abi- 
 lity, by J. Brucker, H'ljlor. Cr'ilic. Philofoph. tom. ii.p. 205, 
 & feq. who has alfo entered at much length into the hiftory 
 of the feft of which Ammonius was the founder. The 
 reader may alfo confult Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Biblioth. Grac. 
 lib. iv. cap.xxvi. p. 159. Refpefting the religion of Am- 
 monius, in particular, there is confiderable doubt. Porphyry, 
 who had had the opportunity of hearing Plotinus, one of 
 the principal difciples of Ammonius, fays, (apud Eufeb. 
 H'ljlor. Ecclef. lib. vi. cap. xix. p. 220.) that he was born 
 of Chriftian parents, but that, on arriving at man's eftate, he 
 went over to Paganifm. Eufebius, however, contradifts 
 Porphyry, and afferts that Ammonius continued ftedfaft in 
 the Chriftian faith to the end of his life. This difcordance 
 in the teftimony of Eufebius and Porphyry, as to the reli^ 
 gion in which Ammonius ended his days, has occafioned 
 much difference of opinion among men of erudition, fome 
 giving credit to the former, others to the latter. Thofe 
 who hold with Porphyry have certainly arguments of confi- 
 derable weight on their fide, and feeling fenfibly their force, 
 I was fome time fince induced to exprefs my conviftion of 
 the apottacy of Ammonius from Chriftianity. To pafs over 
 other things, who, let me aflc, can eafily perfuade himfelf 
 that the fed of the Modern Platonifts, than whom fcarcely 
 any fet of men ever occafioned greater evils and calamities 
 
 to 
 
of the Secojid Century. 127 
 
 ledures were conftantly attended by a great c e^n t. 
 number of Chriftians, who were inflamed with u— v— ^ 
 
 an Thcfchool 
 of Ammo- 
 nius Saccas. 
 to the Chriftians, could poflibly have been founded by a 
 man who was aftually himfelf a Chriftian ? The teftimony 
 of Eufebius as to this matter is not of the flighteft weight ; 
 for it is evident that he was mifled by the name, and con- 
 founded the philofopher Ammonius with a Chriftian writer 
 whofe name was fimilar. The Ammonius to whom Eufe- 
 bius alludes had, he tells us, written a variety of things : 
 Ammonius the philofopher, we know for certain, never pub- 
 lifhed any thing. On a full review, however, of the merits 
 of this controverfy, I feel inclined to believe, that Am- 
 monius, although, for the moft part, an apoftate in heart, and 
 thoroughly averfe from the principles entertained by the 
 Chriftians in general, yet never openly feceded from the 
 church, but difguifed the real nature, and tendency of his 
 difcipline. Learned men will fee whether there be any 
 weight in the reafons by which I have been led to this con- 
 jeAure. ( I.) When Ammonius firft opened a fchool at 
 Alexandria, and for a long time afterwards, he was undoubt- 
 edly, in the true fenfe of the word, a Chriftian. For many 
 years Origen, Heraclas, and various others of the Chriftian 
 youth, who had been captivated by a love of philofophy, 
 fat under his tuition. But the teachers of the Alexandrian 
 church would furely never have permitted thefe young men 
 to fele£l for their mafter a perfidious renegade. Apoftates 
 of this defcription were regarded in the light of im- 
 pious pefts ; and the moft pofitive injunftions were given for 
 no one to hold converfe with them. This one obfervation 
 alone is fufficient to detraft much from the authority of 
 Porphyry's teftimony refpefting the defeftion of Ammonius; 
 for, according to that, Ammonius, as foon as he was of an 
 age to think for himfelf, and to comprehend the firft rudi- 
 ments of philofophy, renounced the profeflion of Chrifti- 
 anity ; which is notorioufly falfe, (II.) There was no ne- 
 ceffity for Ammonius to fecede from the Chriftian church. 
 So far from entertaining any thing like an enmity to Chrift, 
 he held him in veneration as a perfon of a divine character 
 and a teacher of celeftial wifdom. What he took ex- 
 ception to was the interpretation given by Chriftians to the 
 maxims and precepts of the gofpel. It was therefore very 
 poflible for him to continue amongft the Chriftians, and to 
 join with them in paying every homage to Chrift, but at the 
 fame time to aflhme the liberty of privately expounding the 
 
 religion 
 
1 28 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 c E^ N T. an eager defire after knowledge, and of whom 
 two, namely, Origen and Heraclas, became 
 
 after- 
 religion of the gofpel according to that fenfe in which he 
 had been led to view it himfelf. But it may perhaps be ob- 
 jefted to me, that Ammonius, although he entertained a ve- 
 neration for Chrift, yet held it proper to worfhip the hea- 
 then deities, a thing altogether incompatible with Chriftian 
 principles, and that, in the performance of this worftiip there- 
 fore, he muft neceflarily have feparated himfelf from the 
 church : but this difficulty is, I think, eafy to be gotten 
 rid of by any one acquainted with what the Ammanian 
 difcipline actually was. What Ammonius enjoined was 
 not that thefe gods (hould be worfhipped, but that they 
 fhould not be treated with contempt ; not that the wor- 
 ftiip of them was neceflary, but that it was juftifiable, 
 decent, allowable. By the multitude, whofe ruling paflion 
 is an eager appetite for bodily and fenfual gratification, it 
 was but fitting, according to the principles of the Ammo- 
 nian feft, that thefe gods fliould have every fort of homage 
 paid them, inafmuch as they were conftituted by the fu- 
 preme deity the guardians and difpenfers of all thofe good 
 things which minifter to the delight of the fenfes ; but 
 no neceffity whatever could exift for their being either 
 invoked or worfhipped by a wife man and a philofopher, 
 whofe objeft was the purifying of his foul, and keeping 
 it, by means of meditation, as far as poffible removed from 
 every influence of the body. The gratifications of fenfe 
 not entering into the views of the latter, he might of courfe, 
 they held, omit cultivating the favour of thofe from whom 
 fuch gratifications are to be fought, and (hould confine his 
 adoration to the parent of fouls alone, the Supreme Being. 
 (III.) The difciples of Ammonius, as Porphyry declares 
 in Fit. Plotini. c. iii. agreed amongft themfelves, in confor- 
 mity, no doubt, to an injunftion of their preceptor, that 
 they would not make commonly known the more abfl:rufe 
 and recondite doftrines of their matter, from which re- 
 folution, however, they afterwards thought proper to re- 
 cede. Ammonius himfelf alfo ever decHned committing 
 his opinions to writing, and would communicate them only 
 by word of mouth, lefl; it might occafion him difturbance. 
 But in none of his principles or maxims that have been di- 
 vulged by his difciples is there any, even the minuteft thing 
 that could poflibly excite againft him any ill-will, or bring 
 him into any fort of danger amongft; the heathen worfliip- 
 pers. It appears, therefore, moft likely that his motive for 
 
 con- 
 
of the Second Century. 1 29 
 
 afterwards very diftinguifhed charafters, the for- c e n t. 
 mer fucceeding to the prefidency of the fchool, ,____^1__^ 
 the latter to that of the church of Alexandria [;;/]. xhefchooiof 
 By the Chriftian difciples of Ammonius, and Ammoniu* 
 
 ^ -11, /^' 1-ir Saccas. 
 
 more particularly by Origen, who m the luc- 
 ceeding century attained to a degree of emi- 
 nence fcarcely credible, the dodrines which 
 they had derived from their mafter were fedu- 
 loufly inflilled into the minds of the youth with 
 whofe education they were entrufled, and by 
 the efforts of thefe again, who were fubfequently, 
 for the moil part, called to the miniftry, the 
 
 concealing the leading principles of his do6lrine, was a fear 
 of the light in which they would have been regarded by the 
 Chriftians, amongft whom he had been born and pafTed the 
 greater part of his hfe : for had they once been able to difco- 
 ver the true nature and tendency of hisdo6trine, not a doubt 
 can exift but that his excommunication would have fol- 
 lowed as a matter of courfe. (IV.) The circumftance of 
 its being pofitively denied by Eufebius, and after him by 
 Jerome, Catal. Scr'iptor. Ecclef. cap. Iv. that Ammonius 
 ever deferted Chriftianity, although in regard to this they 
 may not be ftriftly correA, is yet an argument that his 
 apoftacy was a thing utterly unknown to thefe moil expe- 
 rienced Chriftian writers, and not only to them but to the 
 whole Chriftian world. But how, let me afk, could the 
 public defeftion of fo great a man and philofopher, if it 
 had ever occurred, have failed -to make a noife in the 
 world, or altogether have efcaped recolleAion. 
 
 [r«] Origen, in an epiftle preferved by Eufebius, Hijlor. 
 Ecclef. lib. vi. cap. xix. p. 221. fays that Heraclas, at the 
 time of his becoming acquainted with him, had been nearly 
 five years under the inftruftion of a certain profeflbr of phi- 
 lofophy. The name of this inftrudor he does not mention ; 
 but fince he himfelf was taught philofophy by Ammonius, 
 there can be no doubt but that it was to this profeflbr 
 he alluded. The probability is, that even at that time 
 the credit of Ammonius was much on the decline in Egypt, 
 and that on that account Origen ftudioufly avoided naming 
 him, left the difcovery of who had been his mafter, might 
 fupply his adverfaries with the means of exciting a ftill 
 greater degree of animofity towards him. 
 
 VOL. II. K love 
 
130 The Eccleftajiical Uijlory 
 
 CENT, love of philofophy became pretty generally dif- 
 ^ ^' . fufed throughout a confiderable portion of the 
 
 church. 
 Thephiiofo- XXVIII. The favourite obje£t with Ammo- 
 Ammonius "'"^» ^^ appears from the difputations and writ- 
 ings of his difciples, was that of not only 
 bringing about a reconciliation between all the 
 different philofophic feds, Greeks as well as 
 barbarians [;2j, but alfo of producing a har- 
 mony of all religions, even of Chriftianity and 
 
 hea- 
 
 [«] The fentiments of the fe«St as to this are clearly 
 expreffed by the emperor JuHan, than whom it could never 
 boaftofa moreilluftriousmen.ber,Ora/io«fVI.fOK/r« Cynicosy 
 opp. p. 184. Edit. Spanhemiar. Mr-.^Ets yv vyAt rh (piXotro^^lxv 
 
 IK jjLkoig rroniru. 'ClaVi^ ya,^ aXn'vaa: /jh«, arti) dt x«t ^t'Xoo-o'pioi, 
 Quocirca philofophiam nobis plures in partes nemo dividat : 
 velpotius plures ex una nonfaciat. Ut enim Veritas una e^ ; 
 tta et philofophia But, obferves the emperor, it may be ob- 
 je£led, in the firft place, that there are a multitude of diffe- 
 rent fefls. Thefe fe6ts however, he replies, arc merely dif- 
 ferent modes of coming at the truth, and ought to be con- 
 fidered in no other light than as different routs by which 
 men may travel towards the fame place. For as thofe who 
 defign to go to Athens, are by no means reftrifted to one 
 particular road, but are at libery to adopt different courfes 
 by fea as well as by land ; fo they who are in queft of the 
 truth may purfue different modes of arriving at it. But it 
 may be objefted, fecondly, he remarks, that of thofe who 
 have adopted thefe different modes many have wandered out 
 of the way and loft themfelves. His anfwer is, that tJiis is 
 very true ; but let any one only be at the pains of afcertain- 
 ing the courfes chalked out by the refpeftive parents or 
 founders of thefe fefts, and he will find them all con. 
 fiftent and tending to the fame end, 7rjaTti;o-avT«f Vk tv tjT 
 inari t£> fcj^s'o-sav o-ko-jthto y.at vconoc li/^JiVs* avfci^tuvoc. Unius 
 cujusque feSa princifes afpiciat iUe, et quam Jlnt omnia con- 
 fentanea cognofcet. This was the very principle adopted by 
 Ammonius, whofe wifh it was to bring all the good and 
 wife of all nations under one and the fame rule and dif- 
 cipline. The followers of Ariflotle and of Plato, faid he, 
 
 may 
 
of the Second Century, 131 
 
 heathenifm, and prevailing on all the wife and cent. 
 good men of every nation to lay afide their ^' 
 contentions and quarrels, and unite together as xhephUofo- 
 one large family, the children of one common p^^yof 
 mother. With a view to the accomplifhment ^"""°°'*"- 
 of this end therefore he maintained, that divine 
 wifdom had been firfl: brought to Hght and 
 nurtured amongfl the people of the eaft by 
 Hermes Trifmegiftus, Zoroafter, and other great 
 and facred chara£lers \o~\ ; that it was warmly 
 
 efpoufed 
 
 may indeed differ and fall out, as may alfo the philofophers 
 of Greece and the barbarous nations, but let any one go 
 back to the firft origin of the different feds, and he will 
 find them all confentaneous. 
 
 \_o~\ It is plain from the writings of Plotinus, Proclus, 
 Simplicius, Damafcius, and others of the Ammonian fchool, 
 whofe works have come down to our times in fufficient 
 number, that this fe£t referred the origin of all wifdom 
 to the eaft, and were ever fond of citing as authorities 
 the writings of Hermes, the oracles of Zoroafter, the 
 verfes of Orpheus, and I know not what other reliques 
 of the ancient philofophers of Egypt and the eaft. Nor 
 do I think it by any means an improbable conjeAure of 
 fome of the learned, that the writings of Hermes now 
 extant, as well as the magic oracles, which are for the 
 moft part attributed to Zoroafter, were in i-a.&. the pro- 
 ductions of the more recent Platonic fchool. Of the very 
 great partiality entertained by this feft for the ancient 
 philofophy of the Affyrians and Egyptians, which they 
 contended was in every refpedl confentaneous to their 
 own fyftem of difcipline, there is, amongft others, a no- 
 table teftimony extant in the well-known work of Jam- 
 blicus de Myjleriis JEgypt'iorum., the author of which in 
 lib. i. cap. i. ii. unequivocally intimates that Pythagoras 
 and Plato fought their philofophy from Egypt j and, to ufe 
 his very words, antiquas Mercurii columnas kiiitantes phi- 
 lofophiam inde conjliiuijfe. The fame author, as is obferved 
 by Gale in his annotations, p. 184. although he makes 
 Hermes the parent of all wifdom, yet, in no very obfcure 
 terms admits that even before his time, the Chaldeans 
 had been in the habit of philofophifing. That Ammo- 
 K 2 nius 
 
1 32 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 c EN T. efpoufed and cherlfhed by Pythagoras and Plata 
 
 I. ^ , amongfl the Greeks [/>] ; from whom, although 
 
 The phiiofo- the other Grecian fages might appear to have 
 &'™.. diffented, 
 
 nius himfelf not only inftilled into the minds of his fol- 
 lowers a veneration for this barbarous philofophy, as it 
 was termed, but alfo placed the fountain of all wifdom 
 in Upper Afia, in Chaldea, Perfia, and India, is plain 
 from what has been handed down to us by Porphyry in his 
 Life of that eminent difciple of the Ammonian fchool, Plo- 
 tinus, cap. iii. p. 96, 97. edit. Fabrician, vol. iv. Bibliotl'u 
 Grac. For he ftates him to have attained to fuch a degree 
 of proficiency under Ammonius that he even came to the 
 determination of further profecuting his ftudies amongft the 
 magi of Perfia and India, and intended to have gone thi- 
 ther with the army of the emperor Gordian j l^w'^x^i raJ 
 
 TJi'f vcipoc. ToTj ni^txatj Itit^Jeiio^evjI:-, tth^xv XocSliv TTvi/a-at xai 
 To7f Trajj Iv^ol'i )caTo^9ajU£v«c. Sedulus audivit (for eleven years) 
 jimmonium, tantumque in philofoph'ia projecity ut philofophi(B in- 
 
 fuper in quaPerfafe exercebant Jacere periculum affeSaverit^at- 
 que etiatnfapientiam precipue apud Indos probaiam profequi con- 
 
 JVttu:rit. Plotinus could certainly never have imbibed this anx- 
 ious defire to acquaint himfelf with the maxims and tenets of 
 the Perfians and Indians, had he not heard his mafter extol 
 them and declare that philofophy had been communicated to 
 Egypt fiom the eaft. Hence too it was, that when thofe dege- 
 nerate Chriftians, who are diftinguifhed by the title of Gnof- 
 tics, brought forward what they termed the oracles and writ- 
 ings of Zoroafter, Zoftrian, and others of the eaftern magi, 
 with a view of proving that their own principles were ftridlly 
 in unifon with the ancient philofophy of the eaft, Plotinus, 
 porphyry, and others of the Ammonian fchool, immediately 
 made it their bufmefs to deftroy the credibility of thefe 
 writings, by fliewing that they were not the produAions of 
 thofe illuftrious characters to whom they were afcribcd, as 
 the reader will find related at length by Porphyry in his 
 Life of PlcUinus, cap. xvi. p. 118, IJ9. For unqueftion- 
 ably thefe latter would never have troubled themfelves to do 
 this, had they not earneft;ly wi(heJ to have it generally be- 
 lieved that their own doftrine was the fame with that wif- 
 dam which Zoroafter and other phllofophers of the eaft had 
 drawn from above, and communicated to mankind. 
 
 [/)] Ammonius was evidently defirous of being thought 
 a Platonift, and the title of Platonifts was the denomination 
 
 alTumed 
 
))hy of 
 Aiiiraonius, 
 
 vfthe Second Century, 133 
 
 diHented, yet that with nothing more than the cent. 
 exercife of an ordinary degree of judgment and . _ "^ . 
 attention, it was very poflible to make this dif- Thephiiofo 
 cordance entirely vanifh, and ihew that the only 
 points on which thefe eminent charafters dis- 
 agreed were but of trifling moment, and that 
 it was chiefly in their manner of exprefling 
 their fentiments that they varied [^q~\. The re- 
 ligion of the multitude, he alfo contended, went 
 
 hand 
 
 affumed by the whole body of his difciples, as the reader 
 may find proved from the teftimoiiy of ancient writers, by 
 Brucker in his Hijlory of Philofophy, and by myfelf, in my 
 diflertation de Ecckjia per reccntiores Platoiilcos turbala. 
 It may, indeed, at firft appear fomewhat ftrange that men 
 who imagined Plato to have learnt his philofophy from the 
 Egyptians, and the Egyptians themfelves to have been in- 
 debted for their difcipliiie to tlie people of the eaft, fhould 
 have chofen to denominate themfelves after the Grecian phi- 
 lofopher. Why not term themfelves the difciples of Her- 
 mes, or Zoroafter, whom they reverenced as the very pa- 
 rents of philofophy ? Our wonder, however, muft ceafe when 
 it is confidered that Ammonius was of Grecian origin, that 
 his auditors were Greeks, and that it was, moreover, the ob- 
 je6l of his difciples to acquire credit and obtain for them- 
 felves a reputation amongft the Greeks. From the; Egyp- 
 tians they, of courfe, had nothing to expedt, inafmuch as 
 thefe were always accuftomed to look for inftruAion to the 
 priefts and wife men of their own nation, not to Greeks : 
 but the Greeks, attached beyond meafure to every thing of 
 their own, held, as is well known, the philofophy of what 
 they termed barbarous nations in the moft fovereign con- 
 tempt. It being a primary objeft, then, with Ammonius and 
 his difciples to conciliate the favour of the Greeks, they 
 were under the neceflity of felefting for a patron fome one 
 or other of thofe whom the Greeks regarded as philofo- 
 phers ; and amongft thefe they could find none whom they 
 could adopt as fuch with greater propriety and convenience 
 than Plato. 
 
 [y] The fcheme thus entertained by Ammonius of 
 doing away all diffenfions amongil philofophers, and mak- 
 ing it appear that all the ancient fefts, particularly the 
 Platonic and the Ariftotelian, were agreed as to every 
 K 3 tiling 
 
1 ^4 ^^^ Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 hand in hand with philofophy, and with her 
 had fhared the fate of being by degrees cor- 
 . rupted and obfcured with mere human conceits, 
 fuperftition, and lies : that it ought therefore to 
 be brought back to its original purity, by purg- 
 ing it of this drofs, and expounding it upon 
 philofophical principles : and that the whole 
 which Chrill had in view by coming into the 
 world, was — to reinftate and reflore to its pri- 
 mitive integrity, the wifdom of the ancients, — to 
 reduce within bounds the univerfally prevailing 
 dominion of fuperftition, — and in part to correct, 
 and in part to exterminate, the various errors 
 that had found their way into the different po- 
 pular religions. This great defign of bringing 
 about an union of all fe£ts and religions, the 
 offspring of a mind certainly not deftitute of 
 genius, but diftraded by fanaticifm, and fcarcely 
 at all under the dominion of reafon, required, 
 in order to its execution, not only that the moft 
 drained and unprincipled interpretations ftiould 
 be given to ancient fentiments, maxims, docu- 
 ments, and narratives, but alfo that the aflift- 
 ance of frauds and fallacies fhould be called 
 in : hence we find the works which the dif- 
 ciples of Ammonius left behind them abound- 
 ing in things of this kind ; fo much fo indeed, 
 that it is impoflible for them ever to be viewed 
 in any other light than as deplorable monu- 
 ments of wdfdom run mad. 
 
 thing of moment, is diftinAly unfolded by that illuftrious 
 difciple of the Ammoiiian fchool, Hierocles : (Z,//5. de Fata 
 zpudPhot. Bibliotb. cod. ccxiv. & cod. cccli, p. 283. & 730.) 
 and whatever writings we have extant of any of his fol- 
 lowers, concur in placing this matter out of all contro- 
 verfy. 
 
 XXIX. But 
 
of_ the Second Century, 135 
 
 XXIX. But to defcend more into particulars, cent. 
 Ammonius in the firft place adopted the an- "^ , 
 cient and generally received principles of the xh.- theore- 
 Egjyptians refpedinc; the Deity, the world, the ^'"1 °^ ^p«- 
 loul, providence, the power ot daemons, and lofophy.^ 
 the like. Agreeably, for inllance, to what we Ammoniua. 
 well know to have been the doctrine main- 
 tained by the Egyptian philofophers of old, he 
 contended that every thing was a conflituent 
 part of one great whole [r]: that the Deity 
 Gould be fevered from this univerfe only in 
 
 imagi- 
 
 [r] That the whole fyftem of the Ammonian philofophy 
 was built on that difcipline which was profefTed by the 
 Egyptian priefts, and which they made it their boaft to have 
 derived from Hermes^ is to be proved, as well from a variety 
 of other things, as in particular from this, that the very fame 
 dogma on which all the wifdom of the Egyptians refted for 
 fupport, conftituted alfo the leading principle of the Ammo- 
 nian fchool, from whence all its other maxims and tenets took 
 their rife, vi%. that all things are from God, all things are in 
 God, and all things are one ; God and the univerfe conftitute 
 one whole, nor can they be feparated except in imagination. 
 Thofe who are converfant in the antiquities of Egypt well 
 know, that this dogma comprehends the whole of the fecret 
 wifdom of that nation. The reader will find this treated of at 
 muchlengthby the author of that difcourfe <^^ Natura Deo- 
 rum, which is attributed to Hermes Trifmegiftus, and which, 
 from its being generally thought to have been tranflated Into 
 Latin by Apuleius, is commonly printed amongft the workj 
 of this latter author. He will find alfo the other principles 
 which we have here ennumerated, there adverted to. See 
 moreover Eufeb. PreparcU. Evangel, lib. iii. cap. ix. as alfo 
 what is remarked by Cudworth in his IntelleBual Sy^em, 
 tom. i. p. 404. & feq. And that this fame leading princi- 
 ple was moll warmly efpoufed by Plotinus, Proclus, Simpli- 
 cius, Jamblicus, and the whole herd of the Modern Platonifts, 
 is beyond a doubt ; for what other than this do they fay 
 when they affert the world to be coupled with God and from 
 all eternity to have emanated from God ? Only let us attend 
 to the prayer of Plotinus, the mofl famous of the difciples 
 of Ammonius, offered up when he was dying, as recorded 
 K 4 by 
 
The Eccleftajiical Hi/iory 
 
 imagination, or, which is the fame thing, that 
 this world had flowed from all eternity from 
 the Deity : which is in faft affigning to the 
 world an exiftence of equal duration with that 
 of the Deity, although of a different kind ; 
 that all minds were equal in point of nature, 
 but of very different degrees : that they were 
 all, without exception, the offspring of the di- 
 vine effence, and had therefore formerly all par- 
 taken of a flate of blifs in the regions above : 
 that moil minds of the inferior order being 
 ftimulated by a defire to enjoy thofe pleafures 
 which were to be derived to the fenfes from 
 an alliance with matter, had defcended into ter- 
 reflrial bodies [_s~\ : that every man therefore, in 
 addition to a fenfitive and mutable foul derived 
 from the foul of the univerfe, poffeffes inclofed 
 within his mortal frame, a mind unchangeable 
 and nearly related to the Deity himfelf; and 
 that hence it is the duty of a wife man to af- 
 cend hi fpirit to the parent of all things, and 
 to flrive by every means in his power to hold 
 communion with him. From minds of the 
 higher order, or, as they were termed, daemons, 
 the Deity had, he afferted, given to the diffe- 
 rent nations of the earth fuperintendants and 
 
 by his fcholar Porphyry in the hiftory of his life, cap. ii. 
 
 <I>rVas TTE^ao-Sat tov Iv ri^Tv Ssov avayftv TTfof to Iv ru> wojvTt 
 ^I'io'j. Quum vero mort't appropinquaret ----- adhtic te, in- 
 quit., expeSls, atque e quid em jam annitor, quod in nobis divinum 
 e/l ad dhvinun ipfum quod viget in univer/o redigere. 
 
 [j] Hence we may account for what Porphyry fays of 
 Plotinus appearing to be, as it were, afhamed of the con- 
 nexion of his foul with the body ; Iuikh ^\v ajo-^vvo/^tEvw 
 Ti £v <Ti>^oi.Ti M, pudore quodam ajffici indebatur, quod anima 
 ejus in corpore ejet. Vit. Plotin. cap. i. p. 91. where obferve 
 what Fabricius has remarked on this paflage. 
 
 guardians 
 
0/ the Second dntury. i«7 
 
 guardians, and to the different departments of cent. 
 nature governors and direftors. Certain of thefe, ._ _ 1 _. 
 diflinguifhed beyond the reft for their virtue and Thetheore- 
 power, he confidered as prefiding over the fun, ".JativephV- 
 the moon, the planets, and the other ftars ; lofophyot 
 whilft of the remainder, to whom was entrufted A'"'"^"'"'- 
 the care of inferior and terrene things, many 
 were adtuated by vicious propenfities, and fome 
 were fo completely deftitute of every virtuous 
 and dignified principle, as even to rejoice over 
 others ills, and burn, as it were, with the luft 
 of doing harm. His next care was to incor- 
 porate thefe principles with the Platonic difci- 
 pline, a talk of but little labour, inafmuch as, 
 with the exception of but a few things, the 
 tenets of Ammonius and thofe of the Athenian 
 sage, were not diftinguifhed from each other 
 by any very material fhades of difference [/]. 
 In the laft place he exerted every pofTible in- 
 genuity 
 
 [/] The difcipline of Plato differs in many refpefts 
 from the wifdom of the Egyptians ; in not a few things 
 however the congruity between them is abfolute and per- 
 feft. To incorporate the one with the other, therefore, 
 could not be a work of much labour. RefpeAing that 
 dogma which we have feen to be, as it were, the chief 
 and corner-ftone of the Egyptian and Ammonian phi- 
 lofophy, namely, that of the Deity and this univerfe con- 
 ftitutiiig one great whole, there is no fort of accordance 
 whatever between the fyftem of Plato and that of the 
 Egyptians. For Plato, as is proved beyond all contro- 
 verfy by his Timaus, although he maintained that the 
 matter of this world is eternal, yet drew a diftinftion 
 between it and God, and conceived that it was with the 
 affent and by the will of the Deity that it had at fome 
 period been digefted and reduced into form. In the hope 
 therefore of being able to do away this difcrepance be- 
 tween the Egyptian and Platonic fyftems of difcipline, 
 the followers of Ammonius have exerted their abilities to 
 the utmoft, and have turned and twifted the Timaus of 
 Plato in eTery poffible way with a view to conceal its 
 
 re^ug- 
 
^3? I'^f Eedefiajlical Uijlory 
 
 CENT, genulty and addrefs in giving to the dogmas 
 
 ^ ^^- of the remaining fedls, nay even to the fables 
 
 ' ' of the ancient poets, and the hiftory of the 
 
 heathen deities, that kind of interpretation which 
 
 made them appear in perfect unifon with his 
 
 fyflem ; and whenever he met with any thing 
 
 in either of thefe that could by no means be 
 
 brought to harmonife therewith, he rejeded it 
 
 as totally unfounded in reafon \_u\ 
 
 The moral XXX. With this fyftem of theoretical or fpe- 
 
 AiilmoSs"^ culative philofophy, which its author, a man of 
 
 powerful talents, defended with no little portion 
 
 of fubtilty and addrefs, was conjoined a courfe 
 
 of moral difcipline in the higheft degree rigid 
 
 and auflere. On fuch people indeed as were 
 
 neceiTarily involved in the cares and concerns 
 
 of this life, Ammonius did not impofe precepts 
 
 of much difficulty in the obfervance, but fuf- 
 
 repugnance to their own tenets refpefting the eternity 
 of the world. But with all their pains they have done 
 nothing, except it be to prove that with them the an- 
 cient dogmas of the Egyptians pofTeffed more weight and 
 were held in greater edeem than the authority of Plato. 
 As a fair fpecimen of the whole we refer the reader to 
 the commentary of Proclus on the Timaus of Plato. 
 
 [m^ This attempt to unite the principles of every other 
 feft and religion with thofe of the Egyptians, is the 
 grand feature that diftinguiflies this new philofophy from 
 the Ecleftic fyftem, which flouriflied at Alexandria prior 
 to the time of Ammonius. The Ecleftics fought out 
 and adopted from every fe6t all fuch things as appeared to 
 them to make any near approach to the tiuth, and rejefted 
 what they confidered as having little or no foundation in 
 reafon ; but Ammonius, conceiving that not only the phi- 
 lofophers of Greece, but alfo all thofe of the different 
 barbarous nations, were perfectly in unifon with each other 
 with regard to every effential point, made it his bufinefs fo 
 to temper and expound the tenets of all thefe various fefts 
 as to make it appear that they had all of them originated 
 from one and the fame fource, and all tended to one and the 
 fame end. 
 
 fered 
 
of the Second Century. 139 
 
 fered them to live agreeably to the laws of 
 nature and thofe of their country ; but every 
 one who laid claim to the character of a wife The moral 
 man was ftridtly enjoined by him to alTert the pwiofophyof 
 liberty of his divine and immortal part, by ex- 
 tricating it, as it were, from all connexion with 
 the body ; the confequence of which would be, 
 that it would, even in this life, enjoy a com- 
 munion with the Deity, and when death fhould 
 difencumber it of every grofs and corporeal tie, 
 efcape free and unpolluted into the arms of the 
 firft gieat parent of all things. "With this view 
 he willed all fuch to lead a life refembling that 
 to which Plato gives the denomination of Or- 
 phic [y~\ ; to abftain from wine, flefli, and every 
 kind of food which might tend to invigorate 
 or refrefh the body ; to decline marriage, to court 
 folitude, to abftrad the mind from the fenfes 
 and call it off from vifible objects, to drive by 
 means of contemplation to fubdue the impulfes 
 and powers of the fenfitive foul ; in fine, to 
 {hrink from no exertion that might tend to 
 free the immortal fpirit from all corporeal in- 
 fluence, and reflore it to a participation of the 
 divine nature [jwl^, Thefe obligations, to which, 
 
 according 
 
 ^■y] Plato in lib. vi. de LeglbuSf p. 626. ed. Ficin. in 
 treating of mankind during the primaeval ages, obferves, 
 amongfl other things, Eajxwv ^'' u.-ml'xpvT). 'tti^x ^o''o>'«'>' ecS^e'v, 
 i 61 TaV Toiv Ssiv ^w^i^i ciijxxrt f*hxiyuv, aXXa 'O^^JXCi TtvEf Xtyo- 
 /jiEvot /S*o* lylyvovTO «/xcDv toT; tote, ct-J/i/p^wv/xtv l^ofj-ivoi TrarruVf Ifx-^V' 
 X,i»^ ^E T«v«yTiov ':i«»Twv aV£;^o/x£vo*. Carn'ibus vero abjiinebant. 
 Nam vefci carnibus et Deorum aras poUuere /anguine imp'ium 
 videbatur. ha Orphica quadam vita tunc vigebat. Inani- 
 matis quippe omnibus vefcebantur et ab animatis omnibus ab' 
 fiinebant. 
 
 [w] More in the way of illuftration, as to what we have 
 here ftated, is to be gathered from Porphyry alone in his 
 work TEfl a.'froxriu or concerning abftinence from flefii, than 
 from all the reft ot the Aramonian fed of his time put to- 
 gether. For, although he abounds in fubtilty, he yet fur- 
 
 pafTes, 
 
1 40 The Ecclefmjlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, according to the Ammonlan fcheme, every wife 
 . ,'- _' n^an was fubjed, its author, as was natural for 
 The moral onc that had been born and educated and con- 
 AmSi!^ ftantly lived amongft Chriftians, was accuftomed 
 to expound and recommend in a language and 
 phrafeology evidently borrowed from the Chrif- 
 tian difcipline, a praftice of which many very 
 flriking inftances alfo occur in fuch of the writ- 
 ings of his followers as are extant among us 
 at this day \_x~]. In addition to this rigid fyftem 
 of difcipline, the offspring of the peculiar te- 
 nets 
 
 pafles, in point of perfpicuity, every other of the Modern 
 Platonifts, and treats not only of abftinence, but likewife of 
 thofe other duties which he confidered as attaching them- 
 felves to the character of a wife man. Vid. lib. i. § xxvii. 
 et feq. p. 22 — 34. 
 
 [.v] It has been obferved long fince by men of learning, 
 that the writings of the Modern Platonifts, fuch as Hie- 
 rocles on the golden verfes of Pythagoras, Simplicius, 
 Jamblicus, and others, are replete with Chriftian phrafes 
 and expreflions ; and their conclufion has been, that thefe 
 things were pilfered out of the facred writings, and thus 
 applied by the followers of Ammonias from an anxious de- 
 fire to recommend their difcipline by rendering it apparently 
 confiftent with the doArines of Chiftianity. With regard 
 to this, the reader may confult a diflertation of mine de Studio 
 Ethnicorum Chr'ijl'ianos imiiandi, which is to be found 
 amongft my other difTertations relating to ecclefiaitical hif- 
 tory. But there is certainly no occafion for our imputing 
 to thofe men any thing like a wicked or fraudulent inten- 
 tion. For who, let me aflc, can feel any confiderable degree 
 of furprife at finding a fyftem of philofophy which origi- 
 nated with a man like Ammonias, apparently a Chriftian, 
 unfolded with a certain colouring of Chriftiauity, and ex- 
 plained in terms of common ufe amongft Chriftians ? The 
 facred writings of the Chriftians muft have been familiar to 
 Ammonius, even from his tender years, and his ears muft 
 have been well accuftomed to their peculiar forms of fpeech. 
 Befides it is certain, that either with an artful view or from 
 a downright error in judgment, he encouraged the opinion 
 that there was no diff'erence whatever, at leaft none of any 
 monnent, between the fyftem of difcipline which he himfelf 
 fought to eftablifh as the true one, and that which had been 
 
 propounded 
 
of the Second Century. 14 1 
 
 nets entertained by him refpedling God and cent. 
 the human foul, Ammonius propounded to his .^ " • . 
 followers an art fraught with lefs important be- yj^g moral 
 nefits, and fuited only to capacities of a refined pbiiofophyof 
 and an exalted nature, which he termed The- "*™ 
 urgia, and for which there can be no doubt 
 but that he was indebted to the Egyptian 
 priefts. This art embraced the faculty of fo 
 confecrating and purifying by certain fecret 
 rites that part of the mind or foul which re- 
 ceives the images of corporeal things, as to 
 render it capable of perceiving dasmons, and alfo 
 of holding an intercourfe with fpirits or angels, 
 and of performing, with their afliftance, things 
 admirable in themfelves and utterly beyond the 
 powers of human nature alone to accomplifh. 
 This fpecies of magic was not cultivated by all 
 the philofophers of the Modern Platonic fchool, 
 but only by thofe of the higher order, who 
 afpired to a fort of fuperiority over the reft. 
 In faft an acquaintance with it was confidered 
 rather as ornamental than ufeful, and as by 
 no means neceffary in attaining to the chief 
 good [7]. 
 
 XXXI. In 
 
 propounded by Chrift. Wherefore he made no fcruple, 
 when difcourfmg on the neceflity ef purifying the foul and 
 bringing it back to God, or in defining the nature of true 
 virtue, to make ufe of Chriftian terms and phrafes, and 
 whatever things of this kind came from his mouth were, no 
 doubt, treafured up with a fort of reverence by his difciples, 
 and foon communicated throughout the whole fe6t. 
 
 [j- J The ridiculous and empty fpecies of fcience fo cele- 
 brated amongft the Modem Platonifts under the name of 
 Theurgia, bore a very near refemblance to that kind of magic 
 which was termed good or lawful, in oppoiition to the black 
 or illicit magic, and was, indifputably, of Egyptian origin.. 
 Nothing indeed could be more eafy than for the Egyptians, 
 who believed that the univerfe 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 thefe daemons 
 
 might 
 
glOM. 
 
 142 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 XXXI, In order that the different popular 
 religions by which a plurality of Gods was re- 
 cognized, 
 
 might be obtained. The nature of this fcience is fuffici- 
 TXrreU- ^"^y explained by Au.^uftine Jt Clvitate Dei, lib. x. cap ix. 
 p puar re I- ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^.j ^^^^ Theurgiam, fays he, Porphyrins utilem 
 ejfe dic'it mundanda parti anirna, iion quidem intelleSualii qua 
 rerum intelUgibiUutn percipitur Veritas nuUas habentiumfimili- 
 tudines corporum, fed fpiritali, qua corporalium rerum capi' 
 vntur imagines. Hanc enim dicit per qua/dam confecrationes 
 Theurgicasy quas teletas vacant, idoneam fieri atque aptam 
 fufceptioni Jpirituum et angelorum et ad videndos Deos. The 
 rational foul derived no benefit whatever from this fcience, 
 and it was therefore very poffible for any one to be happy 
 and bleffed without underftanding any thing of it ; hence we 
 may perceive the reafon of its not being cultivated by the 
 whole body of the Platonifts. Ex quibus tamen, continues 
 Auguftine, Theurgicis teletis fatetur intelleduali anims nihil 
 purgationis accedere, quod earn facial idoneam ad videndum 
 Deum fuum, perfpicienda ea qua vere funt (viz. loc ovt«). 
 
 Denique animam rationalem in fuperna pojfe 
 
 dicit evader e, etiamfi quod ejus ffiiritale efi, nulla Theurgica 
 arte fuerit purgatum : porro autem a Theurgo fpiritalem 
 purgari haSetius, ut non ex hoc ad immortalitatem, aternitO' 
 temque perveniat. Thefe few fentences certainly offer a long 
 and extenfive field for comment in the way of illuftration ; at 
 prefent however I fhall ftudy to be brief. According to the 
 Modern Platonifts man is poffeffed of a twofold foul ; the 
 one rational and generated of the Deity, the other fenfitive 
 and capable of being impreffed with the images of mundane 
 things, and derived from the foul of the corporeal world. 
 The former of a nature imperifhable and immortal, the lat- 
 ter extinguiftiable and of merely finite duration. Each, 
 during its continuance in the body, is inert, and devoid of 
 light, but may, to a certain degree, be illuminated, quick- 
 ened and refined. The means by which the rational foul 
 may be gradually purified and illuminated are contempla- 
 tion, the praftice of virtue, conftant exercitation, abttinence, 
 and extenuation of the body. When properly purified, it is 
 capable, without the afliftance of eyes, of feeing the Deity 
 himfelf, and all thofe things which have a true and real exift- 
 ence, and becomes united with God by the clofeft and moft 
 indiffoluble of ties. The fenfitive foul is purified by means of 
 certain natural remedies well known to thofe who are profi- 
 cients in the fcience termed Theurgia ; for being gerierated 
 of matter, by matter alone can it be affefted, CTen as cor- 
 rupt 
 
of the Second Century, 1 43 
 
 cognized, might not appear repugnant to his cent. 
 doftrine, Ammonius endeavoured to reduce the ^ ^- 
 whole hiflory of the heathen deities, as it had ^i^^ f^^^■^_ 
 been handed down by the poets and inculcated mentsof 
 by the priefts, to fomewhat of a rational fyf- feivSlig' 
 tern, and contended that it was altogether an the difFeient 
 allegorical exhibition of either natural or moral g£.''"*''' 
 precepts and maxims [z]. Conformably to the 
 Chriftian faith, he maintained that there was 
 one God, from whom all things had proceeded. 
 The hoft of beings whom the multitude and 
 the heathen priefthood commonly honoured 
 with the name of gods, he would not allow to be 
 aftually gods, but merely the minifters of God, 
 
 rupt bodies are to be amended by contrivance and art with 
 the afliftance of fuch powers as are contained in herbs, pre- 
 cious ftones, and various other things. Being thus cleanfed 
 of its impurities, this kind of foul becomes capable of per- 
 ceiving daemons and angels, and of maintaining a familiar in- 
 tercourfe with them. Nor is this at all to be wondered at : 
 for tho dsemori!?, according to the Ammonian fcheme, 
 are clothed with bodies of a flender and refined texture, 
 which are invifible to mankind whilft the fenfes remain in a 
 dull, corrupt ftate, but become apparent and vifible when 
 once thofe things are removed by which the faculties are 
 clogged and rendered inert. For the fame reafon the ce- 
 leftial and rational foul, notwithftanding that it may have 
 been purified from all contagion of the body and the fenfes, 
 and entirely cleanfed from every thing vicious and corrupt, 
 can never arrive at any knowledge of, or intercourfe with 
 daemons. For it poffefFes not the faculty of perceiving fen- 
 fible things, and is therefore incapable of difcerning fuch 
 natures as are joined to bodies, although thofe bodies may 
 be of a fubtile and refined order, but ereAing itfelf above 
 every thing corporeal, it arrives by inexplicable means at a 
 knowledge and intimate connection with its firft great pa- 
 j-ent. 
 
 [2] The whole Ammonian fchool was devoted to alle- 
 gory, and converted the hiftory of the heathen gods into a 
 fort of philofophy. As a fpeciraen, we refer the reader to 
 Porphyriusy^ jintro Nympharum apud Homer, de Styge^ and 
 others of his fmaller pieces. 
 
 or 
 
144 The Ecclefiajlkal Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, or daemons, to -whom the fupreme governor 
 . _" ; , of the univerfe had committed the fuperintend- 
 The fenti- ancc and guardianfhip of nations, or the di- 
 Ammonius ^^^^°^ ^^ Certain parts of nature, or finally 
 refpeaing the adminiftration and guidance of human af- 
 ^^'uWH ^^^^^ ^^'^ aftions [«]. To thefe agents of dL 
 JkSi".'"^'^' vine providence he thought it reafonable that 
 a certain fort of honour and v^^orfhip fhould be 
 paid : jufl as amongft men a certain degree 
 of attention and refped is (hewn to the le- 
 gates of Idngs, and inferior magiftrates ; but 
 he by no means deemed it neceffary that 
 they fhould be addrelTed with the fame cere- 
 monies that were ufed in worfhipping the 
 Deity, much lefs that they fhould be conci- 
 liated or appeafed with facrifices and the blood 
 of animals. According to him, none but na- 
 tures that were inimical to the human race, 
 and that delighted in fenfuahty, could find any 
 gratification in the death and blood of ani- 
 mals. The offerings in which fuch natures as 
 refembled and were allied to the Supreme Deity 
 took pleafure were frankincenfe, hymns, herbs, 
 . and things altogether innoxious. It was no 
 other than fitting, he conceived, that prayers 
 fhould be addrefled to thefe agents of the 
 
 [«] Paulus Orofius, Hifioriar. lib. vi. cap.i. p. 364, 365. 
 Qu'idam dum in mult'is Deum credunt, multos Deos indifcreto 
 tiviore Jinxerunt. Sed h'lnc jam vel maxime, cum audoritate 
 vcritatis (that is, the Chriflian religion) operante, turn ipfa 
 et'iam ratione difcutunte, d'lfcejfum eft. Qu'ippe cum et philofo' 
 
 phi eorum dum intento mentis Jludio quaruntyfcru- 
 
 tanturque omnia, unum Deum auBorem omnium rcpererunt^ ad 
 qunn umnn omnia referrentur ; undeetiamnuncpagani,quos 
 jam declarata verilas (/. e. the Chriflian religion) de contu- 
 macia magis, quam de ignorantia, convincit, cum a nobis difcu- 
 tiuntur, nonfe plures Deos fequi, fed fub uno Deo magna plures 
 minijlros vencrari fatentur. 
 
 Deity, 
 
■of the Second Coitury, 14 j 
 
 Deity, inafmuch as to them was committed cent. 
 the difpenfation of God's benefits and bleffings, . 1^' ^ 
 but that prayers of this kind were to be re- 
 gulated by reafon and wifiom, fmce the good 
 things that were placed at the difpofal of thefe 
 dccmons were thofe which concerned merely 
 the welfare of the body, not fuch as might 
 benefit the celeflial and immortal fpirit. It 
 became therefore a wife man, he held, whofe 
 main obje6l ought to be to improve the ex- 
 cellence and felicity of his mind, for the moft 
 part to pafs by thefe inferior deities, and pre- 
 fer his petitions at once to the Supreme Be- 
 ing. 
 
 XXXII. With a view to render Chriflianlty Tiietenetsof 
 apparently confiftent with his new philofophy ^If^Silig' 
 and the ancient religion, Ammonius admitted Chrift. 
 that Chrifl was a great and wife character, 
 full of the counfel and power of the Deity, 
 an admirable Theurgi/i, and a friend to the 
 daemons : that the discipline which he had in- 
 ftituted was of a mod holy nature, and had 
 been confirmed by miracles and preternatural 
 figns: but he denied that Chrift had ever 
 taught any thing repugnant to the principles 
 which he himfelf fought to eftablifh, or that 
 he had endeavoured to abohfh the ancient po- 
 pular religious rites and the worfhip of the 
 daemons that had been appointed by the Deity 
 to prefide over nations and the different de- 
 partments of nature [b~\. And that he might 
 the more readily procure for this part of his 
 
 fyflem 
 
 [^] The reader will underftand me as not meaning to 
 deny that vnongft thofe who adopted the Ammonian 
 difcipline, there were fome that were alike inimical to 
 Chrift and to the Chriftians. We have an illufirious in- 
 
 voL. It- L ftance 
 
146 The Ecclefiajikal Hijlory 
 
 c E N T, fyflem an acceptance with the world, he en- 
 "• deavoured as far as poffible, by means of ftrained 
 ' inter- 
 
 ftance of this in the emperor Julian, and other examples 
 might eafily be adduced from amongft the Platonifts of 
 that age. For the hatred which thefe perfons bore to 
 Chrift and his followers, particular reafons might be af- 
 figned, which thofe who are verfed in matters of anti- 
 quity will be at no lofs in difcovering : but that Am- 
 monias himfelf confidered Chrift as entitled to the high- 
 eft honour, and that his true followers, although they 
 were the authors of moft grievous injuries to the Chrif- 
 tians, yet manifefted a refpe6l and efteem for the charac- 
 ter of Chrift himfelf, is placed beyond a doubt by a va- 
 riety of teftimoiiies. Propriety could not allow that a 
 man who made it his objeA to bring about an union of 
 all fefts and religions, and maintained that Chrift had 
 come for the exprefs purpofe of reinftating the true and 
 moft ancient philofophy and religion of the human race, 
 {hould either think or fpeak otherwife than honoursbly 
 of this fame Chrift. Neither is it at all probable that 
 the veneration for Chrift, which he had imbibed, as it 
 were, with his mother's milk, could eafily have been re- 
 nounced by a man who, in departing from the true and 
 right faith, appears to have been influenced, not fo 
 much by a depraved and vicious difpofition, as by too 
 great a partiaHty for the Egyptian philofophy and the ar- 
 dour of an exuberant imagination. The reader will pro- 
 bably not be difpleafed at my adducing fome pafTages 
 from ancient authors in fupport of what I have thus ad- 
 vanced. Auguftine enters much into difpute with thofe 
 philofophers of his tim-e who profefled a refpeft and ve- 
 neration for Chrift, but maintained that the Chriftians had 
 not adhered to the principles of their mafter. Lib. i. de 
 Confenfu E'vangelt/Iarum, torn. iii. P. II. opp. cap. vi. § xi. 
 p. 5. Hoc dicii7it, fays he, tilt vel max'wie Pagani, qui Do- 
 m'lnum ipfum Jefam Chr'iftum culpare aiit hlafphemare non 
 audentf eique tribuunt excclleniiffimam fap'ientiam, fed iamen 
 ianquam homin'i : dijc'ipidos -vera ejus, dicunt, rnag'ijlrofuo am- 
 pVius tribujffc quam erat, ut eum Fdium Dei dicerent, et Verbum 
 Dei per quod fa£lafunt omnia, et ipfum ac Deum patrem unum 
 ejfe : acji quafimilia funt in eipoJloUcis Uteris, qiiilus eum cum 
 Patre unum Deum colendum (Jfe did'icimus : houorandum enim 
 iamquam fapientifftmum virum pvtant ; colendum autem tam- 
 quam Deum tiegant. Some little while after, § 14. cap. viii. 
 
 p. 6. 
 
of the Second Century. 147 
 
 interpretations, or rather perverfions, to enllft cent. 
 on his fide the tenets of the Chriflians refpeft- y_ _ 1 ^ 
 
 ing Tlieteneuof 
 Ainmunius 
 refpefling 
 p. 6. he gives us to underftand what opinion they en- Cluift. 
 tertained refpefting Ciiriil's miracles, namely, that he 
 was a Tlieurgift or magician of the tiril rank, and that 
 he left behind him two books, comprifing the principles 
 of the Theurgic or magic art. Ita 'vero ijli deftpiunt, ut 
 lilts libr'is, quos eum (^Qhr\\i) fcripjtjfe cxijlimant, dicant conti- 
 neri eas artes, qtilbns eum putant ilia fec'ijfe m'lracula quorum 
 fama ub'ique percrebuit : quod exijlimando fe ipfos produnt 
 quid d'tligant et quid affedent. Auguftine adds that pof- 
 fibly books of this kind might have been written by 
 fome one under the name of Chrift. Amidil much other 
 matter it is exprefsl)*^ intimated by Auguftine that this 
 reverence for Chriii had been handed down to the phi- 
 lofophers of his time by the Platonifts, and particul-irly 
 by that illuftrious liar of the Ammonian fchool, Por- 
 phyry. Cap. XV. p. 8. Quid? Quod ijli vani Chrijiilauda' 
 tores et Chriftiana religionis obliqui obtreSatores propterea non 
 audent blajphemari Chrijlum, quia quidam philofophi eorum^ 
 Jicut in Ubris fuis Porphyrius Siculus prodidit, confuluerunt 
 deos fuos quid de Chrijio refponderent, ilU autem oracuUs fuis 
 
 Chrijliim laudare compiilftfunt. ■ Ac per hoc ifti, ne contra 
 
 deorum fuorum refponfa conentur, continent bl:fphemias a 
 Chriflot et eas in difcipulos ejus effundunt. Concerning thofe 
 oracles by which the heathen deities are faid to have ex- 
 tolled the chara(9;er of our Blefled Saviour, Auguftine treats 
 more at large in lib. xix. de Ci-vitate Dei, cap. xxiii. p. 428. 
 & feq. torn. vii. opp. from Porphyry's work de Pbihjfophia 
 ex OracuUs. Amongft other thnigs he remarks, Dicit etiam 
 
 bena philofophus ifte de Chrijio. Denique tanquam mi- 
 
 rabile aliquid atque incredibile prolaturus, prater opinionem, 
 inquit, profedo quibufdam •videatur ejfe quod diSuri funius ; 
 ChriJIum enim dii piijftmum pronuntiaverunt et immortalem 
 fa£tumy et cum bona pradicatione ejus ineminerunt : Chrijlianos 
 vero poUutos inquit, et contaminatos et errore implicatos tjfe di- 
 cunt, et multis taltbus adverfus eos blafphemiis utuntur. The 
 oracle itfelf, of which the fenfe is thus given by Porphyry, 
 I purpofely omit. A Latin tranflation of it is to be 
 found in Auguftine, but it is not a clear one. Euf^bius 
 gives it in Greek from the above-cited work of Por- 
 phyry inliis 'Demonflratio Evangel, lib. iii. cap. viii. p 134. 
 Another tiracle, bearing in like manner honourable tefti- 
 mony to the charafter of Chrift, namely, one delivered by 
 I, 2 the 
 
J 48 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT ing the Deity, the human foul, the world, the 
 trinity of ptrfons in the Godhead, good and 
 
 bad 
 
 the Milefian Apollo, is to be met with in Lattantius 
 Inftitut. Divinar. lib. iv. cap. xiii. p. 446. Auguftine con- 
 ceives that thefe oracles were either the inventions ot 
 the enemies of Chriftianity, or that they were dehvered by 
 daemons for the purpofe of feducing the Chriilians froni 
 the true religion. Qtiis itajhltus ejl ut non inteUtgat aut ab 
 hom'ine calMo eoque Chrijllanls inimlctfimo hac oracula fuip 
 confiaa,aut confilio fmlli ah hnpuris damonlbus ijla fuijfc re- 
 fponfa; ut fcilket quoniam laudant Chrijlnm propterea -ve- 
 raciter crednntur vituperare Chri/iianos ; atque ttaJipiJiiit, 
 intercludant viamfalutls aterna, in qua ft qui/que Chrtpanus. 
 To this opinion of Auguftine, that- thefe oracles were the 
 inventions of the enemies of the Chriftians, I very readily 
 fubfcribe. The philofophers, the adverfaries of the Chril- 
 tians as Auguftine exprefsly ftates in the former-cited 
 pafTage, confulted the heathen deities refpeaing the cha- 
 rader of Chrift ; and the priefts of thofe deities, without 
 doubt, returned an anfwer conformably to what they 
 ' knew to be the opinion of the perfons thus confulting 
 them. But it ftrikes me, that thefe philofophers were in- 
 fluenced by a different motive in procuring thefe oracles 
 from that which fuggefted itfelf to Auguftine. In faft, 
 they had learnt from Ammonius, the founder of their 
 fe£t, that Chrift was a charafter of the firft eminence, and 
 worthy of the higheft praife ; and this opinion they fcru- 
 pled not openly to profefs. To the numerous enemies of 
 the Chriftian religion, however, their conduft in this re- 
 fpeft was highly off'enfive, and particularly to the heathen 
 priefthood, who were apprehenfive that the praifes thus 
 beftowed on Chrift might injure the caufe of Paganifm, 
 and would rather have had Chrift blended with the Chrif- 
 tians in one indifctiminate cenfure and malediftion. The 
 Platonic philofophers, therefore, with a view to remove 
 from themfelves every fort of odium on this account, and 
 to prove that the opinion which they maintained refpe£l- 
 ing Chrift was one that might be juftilied, made enquiry 
 of the gods as to what was to be thought of Chrift's 
 charadter : and having obtained an anfwer, fuch as they 
 defircd, no further room was left for cavil, inafmuch as 
 by producing thefe oracles they could at any trnie prove 
 to demonftration that the opinion of the gods was on their 
 fide. And who (liould pretend to call men in queftion 
 
 for 
 
of the Second Century. 1 45 
 
 bad angels, and the like, as well as their diffe- c e n t. 
 rent maxims and precepts relating to piety and . ^ ^'_ . 
 
 morals. The tenets of 
 Ainmonius 
 refpeflitig 
 for maintaining opinions that had received the fan6tion of ChrHl. 
 the gods ? Let us now fee what other fentiments Aucruf- 
 tine iiates to have been entertained by thefe philofophers 
 refpedling Chrift and the Chriftians. They denied that 
 it had been Chrift's intention to abrogate the worfliipof the 
 heathen deities. Veruntajnen, fays he, de Confenf. E'van- 
 gelijlar. Hb. i. cap. xvi. p. 8. ijfl ita difputanti quod hac everfto 
 templorum, et damnatiofacrificiorum, et confraSioJlmulacrorum 
 non per doSr'mam Chri/iijiat, fed per difcipulorum ejus, quos 
 aliud quam ab lllo didicerunt, doculffl contendunt ; ita volentes 
 Chrijiianamjidem, Chrijium honorantes laudantesqucy convellerc. 
 On the contrary they maintained, that Chrift himfelf paid 
 an honorary worfhip to thefe deities, and that it was by 
 their, or in other words the daemons', afliftance he wrought 
 his miracles, 1. c. cap. xxxvi. p. 18. Ita enim volunt et 
 ipfum credit nefcio quid aliud fcripfijfey quod diligunt, nihilque 
 
 j'tnfijfe contra deos fuos, fed eos potius magico ritu coluijfe ; et 
 difcipulos ejus non folitm de illo fu'Jfe mentitos, dicendo ilium 
 Deunti per quern fa£la funt omnia, cum aliud nihil quam homo 
 
 fuerity quamvis e.xcelle/tti//im£ fapientia ; verum etiam de diis 
 torum non hoc docuijfe quod ab illo didicijfent. They were 
 ready, however, to admit that Chrift had aboHflied the wor- 
 Ihip of certain daemons of the inferior order, and had 
 enjoined men to addrefs themfelves to the deities of heaven 
 alone, and, more particularly to the Supreme Governor of 
 all things. That fuch was their opinion, Auguftine proves by 
 a notable paffage from Porphyry, of which he gives us tlie 
 following tranflation into Latin in his work dc Civitate Dei, 
 lib. xix. cap. xxiii. § iv. p. 430. tom. vii. opp. Sunt (the 
 reader will recoUeft that it is Porphyry who is fpeaking) 
 
 Jpiritus terreni minimi loco quodam malorum damonum potejiati 
 
 fubjeSti. Ab his fapientes Hebraorum quorum utius ijle etiam 
 Jefus fiiit ; ab his ergo Hebrai damonibus pejjtmis et mino- - 
 r'lbus fpiritibus vetabant religiofos et ipfis vacare prohibebant : 
 venerari autem magis ccelejies deos, amplius autsm venerari 
 Deum patrcm. Hoc autem et dii prxcipiunt, et in fupcripribut 
 o/lendimus, quemadmodum animum ad'vertere ad Deum monenty 
 ct ilium colere ubique imperant. Verum indoSii et impia natura 
 (i.e. the Chriftians) quibus verefatum non concejfit a diis dona 
 obtinere, neque habere Jovis immcrtalis notionem, non audientes 
 et deos (i. e. thofe oracles which he had antecedently ad- 
 duced) et divinos viros) (Ammonius, whom, it appears from 
 L 3 the 
 
The Ecdefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 morals (^). Such points of the Chriftlan doc- 
 trine as it furpailed his ingenuity to render by 
 
 any 
 
 the teftimony of Hierocles apud Phot. Biblioth. p, 283. they 
 were accuftomed to ftyle 'bioli.'Socx.'vo:, Plotiniis, whom in like 
 manner they termed Se;©;, and others who had been taught 
 by thefe,) deos quidem omries reciifaverunt, prohibhos autem 
 diimonesy ct hos non odijfefed revertri-, Deum autem ftmulantes 
 colere, eajo'ia per qn/e Dcus adoratur, non agunt. Nam Deus 
 quidem ufpote omnium pater nullius indigit [i.e. he delights 
 not in facrifices and vidlims), fed nobis ejl bene cum eum per 
 jujlitiam et caJHtatem ahafque virtutes adoramus, ipfam vitam 
 precem ad ipfum fa denies per imitationem et iuquifitionem de 
 ipfo. Inquijitio enim purgat, (by inquifttio he here means 
 contemplation, meditation, and the abilraftion of the 
 mind from the fenies ; a mind to .which this kiiid of 
 difcipline had become familiar, was conlidered by the Mo- 
 dern Platonilh as in the higheft deeree purified and 
 cleanfed,) imitatio deijicat affeBionem ad ipfum operaiido. He 
 (Porphyry) had faid a littL' before, yfniw/iS (ol Chrift) aliis 
 animabus fataliter dedit err ore implicari. Prcpterea ergo diis 
 
 exqit ipfe vera (Chrift) ^/wj et in ccehim ficnt pit con- 
 
 ceffit. Itaque nunc quidem non blafphemabis, miferebcris autem 
 homlnum dementiam^ ex eo in eis facile praccpfque periculum. 
 What we hear from Porphyry, that illuftrious enemy of the 
 Chriftians, we may confider ourfelves as hearing from Am- 
 Baonius himlelf and his principal difciple Plotinus. For as 
 it is certain that what Plotinus taught he had derived from 
 Ammonius, fo may we be fure that for whatever is to be 
 gathered from Porphyry, he himfelf was indebted to 
 Plotinus. 
 
 [c] That the Modern or Ammonian Platonifts made it 
 their objedl, in a certain degree, to reconcile the maxims of 
 the Egyptian and ancient Platonic philofophy with thofe 
 of Chnilianity, muft be plain to any one who {hall confider 
 the way in which Plotinus expreifes his opinion refpe6ting 
 the exiftence of three principles or chief hypoftafes in 
 one God ; the manner in which all the philofophers 
 of this feA fpeak concerning daemons and fpirits, their 
 tenets refpefting the nature of God and the human foul, 
 and the opinions they avowed refpefting the world and its 
 origin. Moft affuredly nothing can be more apparent than 
 that all thefe things are fo treated of and explained by them 
 as to make it appear that little or no difference exiftcd be- 
 tween their fyftem of difcipline and Chriftianity. They 
 borrow from the Chriftians diftindionp, words, phrafes, 
 
 and 
 
of the Second Century. 151 
 
 any means fubfervient to his purpofe, he pro- c e n t. 
 nounced to be unauthorifed additions that had ,_ _^ |l _, 
 been made to the fyftem of Chrift, by ignorant xiieteneuof 
 and injudicious difciples. The principal articles ^f"^^"^'"" 
 to which he thus took exception as interpola- chrift.' 
 tions, were thofe which refpefted the divinity of 
 Chrift, the falvation obtained through him for 
 the human race, the abandoning the worfhip 
 of a plurality of gods and adoring the one 
 only Supreme Being. None of thefe points, 
 he contended, had ever been inculcated by Chrift 
 himfelf, nor had he forbidden the paying of 
 an honorary worftiip to all daemons indifcri- 
 minately, but only to fuch as were of an evil 
 nature. When in the following age this mat- 
 ter was brought into difpute, and the miracles 
 of our Blefl'ed Saviour were urged by the 
 Chriftians in proof both of his divinity and 
 alfo of his having meant to explode the worfhip 
 
 and whatever elfe they can, and accommodate them all to 
 theirown way of thinking. Indeed fo dexterous were they at 
 this, that we find them, according as it might beft fuit their 
 purpofe, at one time corrupting and debafing the Chriftian 
 tenets in order to make them accord with their own opinions, 
 whilft at another they, on the contrary, correfl and amend 
 their own principles fo as to make them coincide with the 
 maxims of Chriftianity. Hence it came to pafs that the 
 greater part of thefe Platonifts, upon comparing the Chriftian 
 religion with the fyftem of Ammonius, were led to imagine 
 that nothing could be more eafy than a tranfition from the 
 one to the other, and, to the great detriment of the Chriftian 
 caufe, were induced to embrace Chriftianity without feeling 
 it neceflary to abandon fcarcely any of their former princi- 
 ples. A memorable pafTage as to this occurs in Auguftine's 
 book, de Vera Religmie, cap. iv. § vii. p. 559. torn. i. 
 opp. Itaquefi banc vifam iU't v'lri noblfcum rurfus agere potu- 
 iffenty "viderent profedO) cujus auSoritate facUius confuleretur 
 homiti'ibusi et panels mutatis verbis et fententi'ts Chrifliani 
 fierentt ficut pler'ique recentiorum nojlrorumque temporum Pla- 
 tonicifecerunt. See alfo his epiftle to Diofcorus, ep. Ixviii. 
 § xxi. & xxxiii. p. 255. 260. torn. ii. opp. 
 
 L4 ^f 
 
152 The Ecclefiafiical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. of demons, the philofophers of the Ammo- 
 
 . _ •_ , nian fchool maintained that feveral of the 
 
 Theienetsof morc eminent of the Pagan worfhippers, fuch 
 
 Ammoiiius ^g Apollonius Tvanseus, Pythagoras, Euclid, 
 
 Chrift. Apulenis, and others, had immortahzed theip 
 
 names by miracles equally great and fplen- 
 
 did with thofe which had been wrought by 
 
 Chrifl [J J. 
 
 XXXIII. When 
 
 [|^] It appears clearly to have been the general praftice 
 of the Platonifts of the third and fourth centuries, to com- 
 pare our BlefTed Saviour v/ith Apollonius Tyanasas, Py- 
 thagora?, and other philofophers who were renowned 
 for their miracles ; and that Philoilratus vvite the 1'fe of 
 Apollonius, Porphyry and Tamblicos that < f Pytaagoras, 
 and other autiiors, moll likely, thofe of other wife men, ex- 
 prefsly with a view to fliew that, amongll the worfhippers of 
 the heathen deities, there had been men diftinguifhed for 
 ails of a fimilar nature with thofe by which Chrift had ren- 
 dered himfelf illuflrious. That fuch was th'.nr objeft, the 
 reader will find fully proved by Gothofred Olearius, in his 
 notes on Philoftratus, and by L.Kufter in his annotations on 
 lamblicus and Porphyry's life of Pythagoras. Thole who un- 
 dertook the idle and abfurd tallc of making this comparifon, 
 found it neceflary to detraft much from the honour that is 
 due to the Saviour of the world, but thty did not make it 
 their aim to deprive his chara6ler of every fort of dignity 
 and glory. Their objeft was merely to bring him down to 
 a level with thofe whom they deemed to have been the 
 wifeft and beft of mortals, and who bore an affinity to the 
 immortal gods. The only things therefore for which they 
 contended in this way were thefe two ; Firft, that the mi- 
 racles of Chrill do not afiovd any abfolute or pofitive proof 
 of his divinity, as the Chriftians maintained ; inafmuch as it 
 could be fliewn, that men, having no pretenfions to the rank 
 of deities, had performed things of a fimilarly wonderful 
 nature ; Secondlv, that Chrift could never have meant alto- 
 gether to overturn and abolifh the worfhip of daemons, {i.e. 
 the heathen deities,) or the ancient popular religions, fince 
 the moft religious of the heathen worfhippers had diftin- 
 guifhed themfelves by miracles, even as he. Thefe very 
 Lives, therefore, of the ancient philofophers, and the com- 
 parifons therein drawn between them and Chrifl, moft 
 plainly prove that the fedl of Aramonius or that of the Mo- 
 dern 
 
of the Second Century, 155 
 
 XXXIII. When once this pafTion for philo- cent, 
 fophifmg had taken poffeffion of the minds of ^ _ "'_ . 
 the Egyptian teachers and certain others, and Forced intei- 
 been gradually diffufed by them in various [J^'J^j.""."^ 
 direQions throughout the church, the holy ture*. ' 
 and beautiful fimplicity of early times very 
 quickly difappeared, and was followed by a 
 mofl remarkable and difaflrous alteration in 
 nearly the whole fyftem of Chriflian difcipline. 
 This very important and deeply to be regretted 
 change had its commencement in the century 
 now under review, but it will be in the fucceed- 
 ing one that we fhall have to mark its chief 
 progrefs. One of the eariiefl evils that flowed 
 from this immoderate attachment to philofo- 
 phy was the violence to which it gave rife 
 in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. 
 For whereas the Chrifllans had from a very 
 early period imbibed the notion that under 
 the words, laws, and fads, recorded in the 
 facred volume, there is a latent fenfe con- 
 cealed, an opinion which they appear to have 
 derived from the Jews [£-]], no fooner did this 
 pafFion for philofophifmg take poffeffion of 
 
 their 
 
 derii Platonifts held the charafter of Chrifl in very great 
 honour, akhough they viHfied and would wilhngly have al- 
 together extirpated the Ctirillians. 
 
 [f ] In the writings of fathers, even of this century, ex- 
 prefs notice is occafionally taken of thofe four fenfes of Scrip- 
 ture to which the Chriftian expofitors were for fo many ages 
 accuftomed to direft the attention of their readers, namC'Jy, the 
 literal, the allegorical, the tropolcgical, and the anagogical. 
 The firft three of thefe are noticed by Juftin Martyr, [DiaL 
 cum I ryphone, p. 333. edit. Jebbian. ) who, after making fome 
 remarks as to thj fenfe attached to the words of the facred 
 VoUime, adds, xat yǤ ev itx^x^oX^ xlBov xoWxxS xxXliv 0.7/1- 
 5e»|x lit Xfl»rov K«» £V T^oTToXoy/o. 'I5i!ti)te ym\ 'icr^anA. Nam per 
 
 parabolam, (that to which Juftin here applies the term 
 
 Parable 
 
The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 their minds, than they began with wonderful 
 fubtilty to prefs the Scriptures into their fer- 
 vice in fupport of all fuch principles and max- 
 ims as appeared to them confonant to reafon ; 
 and at the fame time mod wretchedly to per- 
 vert and twill every part of thofe divine ora- 
 cles v/hich oppofed itfelf to their philofophical 
 tenets or notions. The greateil proficients in 
 this pernicious pradice were thofe Egyptian 
 teachers who firlf directed the attention of the 
 Chriflians towards philofophy, namely, Pantaenus 
 and Clement. Their expofitions of the Scrip- 
 tures have not reached our days, but it ap- 
 pears from fuch of the writings of Clement 
 as are at prefent extant, that he and Pantaenus 
 are not to be confidered as having flruck 
 out an abfolutely original path in this refpeft, 
 for that in reality they were merely followers 
 
 Parable is, by fubfequcnt Chriftian writers, denominated 
 ylUegory or the allegorical fenfe,) ilium (i. e. Ifaiah) per/ape 
 Chrijlum nocare lapidem oJl(.nd'ii et tropologice Jacolum et If- 
 raehm. Of the anagogical fenfe, as they term it, whereby 
 the fcriptural accounts of things appertaining to this life 
 are applied to fpiritual and heavenly matters, many exam- 
 ples are to be met with likewife in Juftin, and alfo in Cle- 
 ment. That the early Chriftians derived this practice of an- 
 nexing to the words of Scripture feveral different fenfes, from 
 the Jews, no one, at prefent, appears in the lead to doubt. 
 It is moreover to be remarked that although Juftin, Irenaeus, 
 and the other fathers of this century, whofe writings have 
 come down to our times, are continually obtruding on us 
 myftical and allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures, 
 yet not one of them who dwelt without the confines of 
 Egypt ever attempts by means of ingenuity to elicit from^ 
 the facred writings any of the dogmas or maxims of philo- 
 fophy. By all of them the words of Scripture are made to 
 refer 1o Chrift and to heavenly things alone, although in a 
 manner not altogether the moft happy or judicious. This 
 appears to me not a little extraordinary, and particularly iu 
 Juftin Martyr, who certainly confidered philofophy as of di- 
 Tine origin, 
 
 of 
 
of the Second Century, i ^^ 
 
 of the celebrated Alexandrian Jew, Philo, whofe cent. 
 writings they alliduoufly ftudied, and whofe ,_ ^ '- „_) 
 empty wifdom they were unhappily led to ad- Forced inter- 
 mire and to imitate [/]. pretauou of 
 
 XXXIV. With JureL"'^' 
 
 [/] Nearly all thofe corruptions, by which, in the fe- 
 cond and fubfequent centuries, Chriltianity was disfigured, 
 and its priftine fimplicity and innocence almoft wholly ef- 
 faced, had their origin in Egypt, and were thence commu- 
 uicated to the otiier churches. This province alfo gave 
 birth to the difcomntiendable pvaftice of glofling over phi- 
 lofophical opinions with the words of Scripture, or rather 
 of draining fcriptural phrafes and expreffions in fnpport of 
 fuch maxims as might appear to be dictated by reafon. The 
 lirll Chriftians who made this art their lludy were Pan- 
 tasnus and Clement, fucceflively prsefefts of the catechetical 
 fchool of Alexandria; menof unqueftionable worth and piety, 
 but immoderately devoted to what they deemed the true 
 philofophy. It appears from St. Jerome, Catal. Scriptor. 
 Eccl. cap. xxxvi. that many commentaries on the Holy 
 Scriptures by Pantasnus were formerly extant ; but they 
 have all long fince fallen victims to the ravages of time. 
 The manner, however, in which he expounded the 
 facred writings may be collefted from the works that are 
 extant of his difciple and fucceflbr, Clement of Alexandria. 
 One of his rules of interpretation, in particular, is preferved 
 by Clement in his Eclogx ex Scripturis Prophetarum, fub- 
 joined to his works, § Ivi. p. 1002. edit. Potterian. Pan- 
 tsenus, it there appears, laid it down as a maxim, that the 
 prophets, in what they uttered, fpake for the moft part 
 indefinitely, ufingthe prefent tenfe at one and the fame time 
 both for the future and the prseterite. Taking this rule of his 
 preceptor for his guide in expounding the words of David, 
 Pfal. xviii. 6. Et in folc pofutt tabernaculum fuuniy Clement 
 firll of all affumes that tiiey are to be underfiood as relating 
 to Chriil, and tht-n goes on to expouod the praeterite/»(p/a/V 
 as referring both to the pad time and the future ; and pro- 
 ceeding upon this plan, the words of David are found to ad- 
 mit, not merely of one, but fevcral very extraordinary in- 
 terpretations. Indeed it cannot fail to ftrike every one, that 
 this rule of Pantaenus is every way calculated to admit oF 
 various different fenfes being applied to almoft every 
 word of the facred volume : and the'e cannot be a doubt 
 but that it was invented exprefsly with a view of intro- 
 ducing the utmoft latitude of interpretation in the expofi- 
 
 tion 
 
156 The Ecclefiajiical Hijhry 
 
 XXXIV. With this evil was connetled ano- 
 ther that proved equally detrixiiental to the inte- 
 
 The praaiee Fcfts 
 
 arifes of ex- 
 
 Chrdlian te- ^i^" o^ ^^^ Holy Scriptures, fo as to admit of their being 
 nets upon accommodated nd libitum to the occurrences of paft as well 
 philofophi- as future times. Let us afTume merely what Pantsenus af- 
 cal princi- fumed, namely, that the words of Scripture relating to 
 Thefecret a<3:ions or occurrences do not refer to one particular time, 
 (lifcipiine. b^t to feveral different periods ; and it will be difficult to 
 point out any part of the facred volume that may not be 
 wonderfuily dilated, and abfolutely loaded, as it were, with 
 a variety of fenf^'S or interpretatiotis. Clement, the difciple 
 of Paiuaenus, was the author of a work of confiderable 
 length, to which he gave the title of Hypotypofes, and 
 in which he is faid to have given an expofition of nearly all 
 the facred writers one after another. He likewife wrote a 
 commentary on what are termed the Canonical Epiflles. 
 Thefe works are loll, but in fuch of his writirigs as remain 
 we meet with fufficiently numerous examples of the manner 
 in which he was accuftomed to expound the Scriptures. To 
 give an inflance or two by way of illuflration. In his Stro- 
 mata, lib. i. cap. xxviii. p, 426. we find it aflerted, that the 
 Mofaic Iaw3 have a four-fold fenfe ; T?Tja.;;,^w; il r^uTv 
 IxXmttsov tS vo/a^ Tr> ^ixr,(Tiv. He liowever enumerates only 
 three of thofe fenfes ; the myftical, the moral, and the pro- 
 phetical. Every law, according to him, in the firfl place 
 reprefents fome fign, that is, the words of the law are 
 images of other things, and, in addition to their proper fenfe, 
 have an improper or fecondary one alfo attached to them. 
 Secondly, every law comprifes a precept for the right order- 
 ing of life. Thirdly, every law, like a prophecy, predi6ls 
 fomething future. As Clement enumerates only three fenfes 
 in which the law is to be underflood, although he fpeaks of 
 four, Hervetus, his tranflator into Latin, conjedtures that 
 in the word Ttt^oi.x^i there is a corruption, and that inflead 
 of it we ought to read r^ixiT;. But the learned writer has, 
 in this refpeft, fallen into an error. Clement in his enu- 
 meration pafTes over the natural fenfe attached to the words 
 of the law, as a thing too obvious to require pointing out, 
 and particularizes merely the three lefs evident ones. For 
 the inveftigating thefe recondite fenfes of the Mofaic law 
 with effeft, he deems philofophy, or the dialeftic art, an 
 highly neccflary auxiliary. AjaXEKTi/tiTsgov }\ Tr^oo-tTsov v.vrrttr,v 
 ilx.oXyriot.v rrj,- Sfi'a;, ^i5W)taXia.; S>ija'/iEvot,-. iT/? aUUm valde 
 diakSice ad legem accedendum confequentiam {i, e. the recon- 
 dite 
 
of the Secojid Century. 157 
 
 refts of Chriflianity. For, not content with ^ e^n t. 
 thus perverting and flraining the Holy Scrip- ^^,^1^^ 
 
 tUreS Thepraaice 
 arifet of ex- 
 ))Ounding 
 dite and abftrufe fenfes of the law,) di-vma: c!o£lrin<e venati- Chriftiante- 
 tibus. The tendency of thefe maxims, and how greatly ^Vf "''"" 
 they lean in favour of fpecious and philofophical explica- c-^i' p,.[J^.ir 
 tions of the law, muft be manifeft to every one. Clement pjes. 
 alfo agrees with Philo Judaeus in the opinion that the Greek The fecret 
 philofopliers derived all their principles from Mofes. Vid. dlfcipiine. 
 Stromal, lib. ii. cap. v. p. 439. Whatever therefore appears 
 to him juft and confonant to reafon in the maxims or tenets 
 of the philofophers, he is fure to difcover laid down fome- 
 where or other in the books of tlie Old Teftament ; and 
 this leads him, not unfrequently, to ftrain and diftort in a 
 mod extraordinary manner, the words of Mofes and the 
 other facred writers, in order to make them, apparently, 
 fpeak one and the fame language with Plato and the reft 
 of the philofophers of Greece. One point which he, in 
 particular, feeks to eftablifh is, that a Chriitian ought to 
 cultivate philofophy and the liberal arts before he devotes 
 himfelf wholly to the ftudy of divine wifdom. The reader 
 will, in all probability, feel his curiofity fomewhat awakened 
 on learning that this is to be proved from the hiftory of 
 Abraham, S&rah, and Hagar, as given by Mofes. Clement's 
 manner of doing it is this : (Stromal, lib. i. p. 333.) Abra- 
 ham, he afTerts, to be the image of a perfeA Chriitian ; Sa- 
 rah the image of Chriftian wifdom ; and Hagar the image 
 of philofophy or human wifdom. Abraham lived with 
 Sarah, for a long time, in a ftate of connubial fterility. 
 The inference from this, according to Clement, is, that a 
 Chriftian, as long as he confines himfelf to the ftudy of di- 
 vine wifdom and religion alone, will never bring forth any 
 great or excellent fruits. Abraham, then, with the confent 
 of Sarah, takes to him Hagar ; which proves, according to 
 Clement, that a Chriftian ought to embrace the wifdom of 
 this world or philofophy, and that Sarah or divine wifdom 
 will not withhold her confent. Laftly, Abraham, after Ha- 
 gar had borne him Ifmael, refumed his intercourfe with 
 Sarah, and of her begat Ifaac : of this the import is, that a 
 Chriftian, after having once thoroughly grounded himfelf in 
 human learning and philofophy, will, if he then devotes 
 himfelf to the culture of divine wifdom, be capable .of pro- 
 pagatmg the i'lce of true Chrillians, and of rendering 
 eflential fervice to the church. Plato and his difciples 
 ffiaintained that the world was two-fold ; the one intelleHual, 
 
 or 
 
ij^ ' The Ecclefiqflical Hijiory 
 
 E N T. tures in fupport of fuch phllofophical tenets as 
 they deemed juft and reafonable, the Chriftians 
 
 of 
 
 or only to be perceived mentally and by reafon, the other 
 'Vi/ibh or an objeft of the fenfes. This maxim met with the 
 approbation of Clement : hence he is led to contend, that 
 Plato derived this idea of a two-fold world from Mofes, and 
 that it is to be fupported on the authority of holy writ. 
 The intelleSua/ world, or that which is imperceptible to the 
 fenfes, he finds alluded to in the firft words of Genefis, '* In 
 the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ; but 
 the earth was (aojaro.-) invifible." And in the following 
 words, " And God faid, let there be light," &c. he, with 
 equal facility, difcovers that a reference was intended to the 
 •vifible or corporeal world, Stromat, lib. v. p. 702. et feq. 
 This abfurd art of perverting and draining the Holy Scrip- 
 tures did not, however, originate with the prssfefts of 
 the catechetical fchool of Alexandria, but was derived by 
 them from the celebrated Alexandrian Jew, Philo. Cle- 
 ment's devotion to this writer is unbounded ; him he is con- 
 tinually extolling, him he imitates, and from him he tran- 
 fcribes a variety of paflfages without even the changing 
 of a word. Nor did Origen in the fucceeding century, 
 or thofe who followed him, a£l otherwife. It is not, there- 
 fore, Origen who ought to be termed the parent of allego- 
 ries amongft the Chriftians, but Philo. Indeed this has 
 been already very jullly remarked by Photius, who obferves, 
 (in Bibl'ioth. cod. cv. p. 278.) 'E^ a ol^a.^ xal irai; clWr.yo- 
 ^»x&; T)5'f y^cdpn; Iv TO liKXriTicc A&yoj sVp^sv oi^yjf.i h:7^vr,)ici.i. 
 Et vcro ah hoc arl'ttror omnem allegoricum Sacra Scriptura 
 Jermonem in ecclejlam promanajfe. This indeed is not alto- 
 gether true, fince many of the Jews, and in particular the 
 Pharifees and Effenes, had indulged much in allegories 
 before the time of Philo ; but of this there can be no 
 doubt, that the praefefts of the Alexandrian fchool caught 
 the idea of interpreting Scripture upon philofophical prin- 
 ciples, or of eliciting philofophical maxims from the facred 
 writers by means of allegory, from Philo, and that by 
 them it was gradually propagated amongft the Chriftians 
 at large. It is alfo equally certain that by the writings 
 and example of Philo, the fondnefs for allegories was vaftly 
 augmented and confirmed throughout the whole Chriftian 
 world : and it moreover appears, that it was he who firft 
 infpired the Chriftians with that degree of temerity which 
 led them, not unfrequently, to violate the faith of hiftory, 
 
 and 
 
of the Second Century. 159 
 
 of the Ammonian fchool, with a view to illuf- cent. 
 trate, ftill more clearly, the perfect accordance . "' -_i 
 of human with divine wifdom, and in this way Thepraaice 
 the more readily to draw over philofophers to 7^^"^°^^''" 
 their fide, proceeded to the further length of chriftilnte- 
 giving to the mofl plain and obvious*^ max- 'T-I'Tk- 
 ims and precepts or the goipel fuch an expo- cai piimi- 
 fition as might render them apparently con- "^^l;^^^,^ 
 fiftent with the philofophical notions and ,opi- difcipiine. 
 nions which they had fo unfortunately been led 
 to efpoufe [^]. In their manner of doing this, 
 however, a greater degree of caution and pru- 
 dence 
 
 and wilfully to clofe their eyes againft the obvious and pro- 
 per fenfe of terms and words. The examples of this moft 
 prefumptuous boldnefs that occur in the writings of Philo 
 are indeed but rare ; particular inftances of it, however, are 
 not wanting; as may eafily be fliewn from Origen and 
 others who took him for their guide, and who, mani- 
 feftly, confidered a great part both of the Old and New 
 Teftament as not exhibiting a reprefentation of things that 
 really occurred, but merely the images of moral adions. 
 If the reader will give himfelf the trouble to refer to 
 Philo de Allegor'icis Legis, lib. iii. p. 134. he will find in the 
 turn that is there given to the hiftory of Jofeph and Poti- 
 phar's wife, an inftance which may ferve to convince him 
 that this celebrated Jew made no fcruple of perverting, and 
 even abfolutely reverfingtTTe truth of facred hiftory when- 
 ever occafion might appear to demand it. 
 
 [_g~\ Whatever, for inftance, is to be met with in Scrip- 
 ture refpeding God the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, was fo expounded by thefe Chriftians as to ren- 
 der it confiftent with the do6trine of three hypoftafes or 
 natures in God as maintained by Plato, Parmenides, and 
 others. QXem^nU Stromat. lib. v. p. 7x0. Again, what is 
 faid by the facred writers refpe£ling the future deftruftion 
 and burning of the world, was fo explained by them as to 
 make it accord with what was taught by Plato and the 
 Stoics refpedling the purification and renovation of the 
 world by fire. Vid. Clement Sfromat. lib. v. p. 647. 211. 
 & feq. The reftoration or refurreftion of the dead was fo 
 interpreted as to accommodate it to the tenets of the Grecian 
 1 1 fages. 
 
i6o The Ecckfiaftical Uyiorj 
 
 CENT, dence was obferved by fome than by others. 
 ,^^^J^^ By not a few the expofitions of the Chrillian 
 Thepra^ire myftencs, which their ingenuity had thus fug- 
 arifesofex- prefted wcre promulgated without referve, and 
 chriftiantc- cndcavours uled to get them adopted by the 
 "SofJTi- ^^^^^^5 ^s appears from the difputes that took 
 caipriuci- place with Praxeas, Theodotus, Hermogenes, 
 TheVecret ^^^ Artemon. But by far the greater part, 
 djfcipiine. purfuing the example of the Egyptian teachers, 
 appear to have wifhed, that the principles of 
 Chriftianity fhould be unfolded and explained 
 to the people at large, with every poilible de- 
 gree of plainnefs and fimplicity, and that the 
 more abftrufe and philofophic interpretation of 
 them fhould never reach the ears of the mul- 
 titude, but be made known only to certain fe- 
 led; perfons of tried faith and a cultivated un- 
 derftanding ; and not even to thefe through 
 the medium of writing, but merely by word of 
 mouth. Hence arofe that more fecret and fub- 
 lime theology of the ancient Chriftians to which 
 we have of late been accuftomed to refer under 
 the title of Difciplina Arcani \_h\ and which 
 Clement of Alexandria ftyles yv^tn': or know- 
 ledge^ 
 
 fages. The diiFerent paflages in holy writ that relate to the 
 illuminating, purifying, and regenerating of the mind were, 
 with great ingenuity, made to correfpond with what was 
 taught by moft of the Egyptian and Platonic philofophers 
 of the ancient as well as modern fchool refpeding the phi- 
 lofophical death, or the feparation of the rational foul from 
 the fenfitive one, and alfo from the influence of the body. 
 In fa»!^ there are but few points of Clniftian theology, 
 which the teachers who were inflamed with this eager de- 
 fire to produce an union between Chriftianity and philofo- 
 phy, left untouched. 
 
 \hr^ That the more learned of the Chriftians, fubfe- 
 quently to the fecond century, cultivated, in fecret, an ab- 
 ftrufe difcipline of a different nature from that which they 
 
 taught 
 
of the Second Century. i6i 
 
 ledge^ but which differs from what is called cent. 
 Myftkal Theology^ only in name [/"]. , _ ^' _^ 
 
 XXXV, As Thefecret 
 
 (iifclpline. 
 
 \r\ The fecret difcipline was of a more comprehenfive 
 nature than the myftical theology, inafmuch as it embraced 
 the whole of the philofophical theology tliat fpriing up in 
 Egypt in the fecoud century, and gradually found its way 
 from thence to other nations. What we find termed myfti- 
 cal theology appears to have comprifed the beft and nobleft 
 part of this fecret difcipline ; I mean thnt which refpefts 
 life and morals, the purifying of the foul, and exalting it 
 above every objeil of fenfe. For it is well known, that the 
 true and genuine Myftics adopted, as the very bafis and 
 ground-work of their difcipline, thofe principles refpedling 
 the Deity, the world, the foul, and the nature of man, 
 which the Chriftians had borrowed from the Egyptian and 
 Modern Platonic philofophy, and were accuftomed, from 
 this century downwards, to communicate merely to a fele£t 
 number of auditors. 
 
 taught publicly, is well known to every one. Concerning 
 the argument, however, or matter of this fecret or myfte- 
 rious difcipline, its origin, and the caufes which gave rife to 
 it, there are infinite difputes. But thefe contentions, as is 
 commonly the cafe amongft mortals, inftead of elucidating, 
 have rather tended to throw additional obfcurity over a 
 thing, of itfelf fufficiently intricate, and that feems, as it 
 were, to have fet illuftration at defiance. This has more 
 particularly been the cafe fince the advocates for the Papacy 
 have endeavoured to avail themfelves of this fecret difcipline 
 of the ancient Chr'ftians in fupport of their caufe. To me 
 it appears, that this obfcurity might be in part removed if 
 due attention were paid to a circumftance which feems to 
 have been hitherto commonly overlooked, namely, that 
 amongft the ancient Chriftians, there exifted, not merely one, 
 but feveral fpecies of fecret difcipline, which were indeed of 
 fome afRnity to each other, but between which it is necef- 
 fary in regard to this queftion to draw a line of diftinftion, 
 in order to prevent our confounding together things in 
 themfelves really different. In the firft place, there was a 
 fort of fecret or myrtenous difcipline that related to thofe 
 who were enemies to the Chriftian religion and wovfhippers 
 of falfe gods : but even this was of more than one kind. 
 For firft, there was a fort of difcipline of this nature that re- 
 TOL, 11. M fpedted 
 
l62 
 
 The Ecclefiajlical Hijlory 
 
 XXXV. As the love of philofophy originated 
 amongft the Chriflians a two-fold interpreta- 
 tion 
 
 fpefted all who were adverfe to the Chriftian faith generally 
 and without diftinftion. There were certain points of be- 
 lief, for iii'laiice, at this time current amongft the Chriftians 
 refpc6ting the deftrudtion that hung over tlie city of Rome 
 and the empire, as well as the wars and final difcomfiture of 
 Antichrill-, the near approach of the end of the world, the 
 milleniiim, and other matters, peradvcnture connefted with 
 thefe. Now if things of this kind had been promulgated 
 without rcferve amongft the multitude, there can be no 
 doubt but that a very confiderable degree of enmity and 
 ill-will would have been excited in the minds of the Roman 
 people towards the Chriftians. Great care was therefore 
 taken to conceal every thing of this nature from all except 
 comparatively a few, of whofe fidelity and fecrecy there 
 could be no apprehenfion. Wherefore, when Montanus and 
 his followers, in this very century, publicly prophefied the 
 downfal of the city and empire of Rome, it proved highly 
 difpleafing to the Chriftians, and they at once withdrew 
 themfelves from every fort of connexion with a man who 
 could be guilty of fuch imprudence. Hoc folum, fays Ter- 
 tuUian, (in his Find'tc'ia Montani which are loft, but of which 
 this paflage is preferved apud Pradejlinat. a Jac. Sirmond. 
 edit. lib. i. Haeres.xxvi. p. 30.) hoc fohtm d'lfcrtpamus (the 
 Montanifts from other Chriftians) quod fecundas nuptias non 
 recipimus et prophetiam Montani de futitro judicio non recti' 
 famus. Now, as to the future general judgment, all Chrif* 
 tians believed in it, and there could, therefore, have been no 
 occafion for Montanus to prophefy any thing at all about it. 
 By futurum judicium in the above paftage, therefore, we muft 
 underftar.d the judgment which this man had inadvertently 
 prophefied as awaiting the Roman empire in particular ; 
 and againft this prophefy the Chriftians deemed it prudent 
 to proteft, left the enmity of the Roman emperors and peo- 
 ple, of which they had already fufficiently felt the weight, 
 fhould be ftill further excited againft them. Another fpecics 
 of fecretdifcipline had relation to thofe whom the Chriftians 
 were defirous of refcuing from the dominion of fuperftition 
 and initiating in the princii)les of Chriftianity. With thefe 
 they found it neceflary to proceed fomewhat cautioufly, left, 
 by a premature comniunicationof the truth, their mindi might 
 receive impreflions unfavourable to the Chriftian rehgion. 
 They, therefore, obferved at the tiril a total filence with 
 
 regard 
 
of the Second Century. 1 63 
 
 tion of thofe principles by which th' intelled cent. 
 is inftrufted in the way of falvation, the one "• 
 
 regard to the do6triiie contained in the Scripture«refpefting 
 the perfon, merits, and fiindions of Chrift ; as well as thofe 
 other myfteries, to the right comprehending of which the 
 human mind is of itfelf unequal, and confined themfclves 
 wholly to fuch things as right reafon points out con- 
 cerning the Deity, the nature of man, and his duties. When 
 thefe had been fufficiently inculcated and fuitably received, 
 and not before, they proceeded to points of a higher and 
 more abftrufe nature. RefpeAing the praAice of the early 
 Chriftians in regard to this, the reader will find a notable 
 paffage in the Apojlolical Conjiitutlons, lib. iii. cap. v. Pa- 
 ' trum Apojlolic. tom.i. p. 280, 281. In either of thefe fpe- 
 cies of fecret difcipline there fhould feem to have been no- 
 thing at which any one of an impartial and well-informed 
 mind can take any ferions offence. Entirely diftindl from 
 thefe there exifted another fpecies of fecret difcipline, which 
 regarded Chriftians alone, and had refpeft, in part, to the 
 catechumens, or thofe who had not as yet been received in- 
 to the church, and in part to the regular members of the 
 church. This difciphne, fo far as it regarded the catechu- 
 mens, is fufficiently known. The catechumens were not 
 admitted either to the common prayers, or to a fight of the 
 celebration of the facred rites ordained by Chrift, or to what 
 were termed the feafts of love ; nor were theyat all initrufted 
 us to the nature of thefe parts of divine worftiip, or any of 
 the injunctions or regulations appertaining to them, until 
 they had beeu regularly adopted as members of the church 
 by baptifm ; and, confiftently with this, the facred preachers 
 made it a rule to abftain from entering into any difcuf- 
 fions immediately relating either to baptifm or the Lord's 
 fupper, in prefence of the catechumens. But this kind of 
 difcipline had certainly in it fomewhat of an alien caft, and 
 betrayed an imitation of foreign manners and cuftoms but 
 little laudable. Of a much more praife-worthy nature was 
 the pradlice of confnlting the furtherance and advantage of 
 weak and iUiterate Chriftians, by direfting the teachers to 
 accommodate their difcoarfes to the capacities of their 
 hearers, and in popular addreffes to omit all fuch things as 
 were not, without difficulty, to be comprehended by perfons 
 of low and fimple minds. Inftruftions to this effeft are to 
 be found in Origen contra Celfum, Ub. iii. p. 143. edit. 
 Spencer, as well as in other Chriftian writers. Undoubt- 
 M a edly 
 
1 64 The Ecclefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, public, and accommodated to vulgar minds, the 
 ,__^^;,__^ other fecret, and intelligible only to capacities 
 
 IMoral theo- of 
 
 logv all'iimcs 
 a two- fold 
 
 fharaiftcr. edly nothing can be more commendable and wife than to 
 avoid troubling weak and fimple minds with things, to 
 the right comprehenfion of which an ordinary degree of 
 intelligence is by no means equal. In addition to all thefe 
 different fpecies of fecret difcipline, which had relation to 
 particular claffes of men, and were regulated by certain 
 modes and times, there remains ftill yet another to be men- 
 tioned, of a nature altogether different, being contronled 
 neither by time nor place, and having refpeft to no clafs 
 of men in particular, but, with a few exceptions, equally 
 regarding all, as well Chriftians as tliofe who were ftran- 
 gers to the Chrillian faith. Tliis, without queftioH, con- 
 fifted of divers maxims and opinions which were cherifhed 
 by the Chriftian teachers in private amongft themfelves, 
 and never communicated to the people at large, or even 
 to their own immediate difciples indifcriminately, but only 
 in fecret to fuch of thefe latter as had given fatisfaftory 
 proofs of their truft-worthinefs and taciturnity. Clement 
 of Alexandria is the firft writer that notices this fort of dif- 
 cipline : before him no mention whatever is made of it 
 by any author. There can, therefore, be but little doubt 
 but that it originated amongft the Chriftians of Egypt, 
 and was, by them, communicated to the other churches, 
 Clement reprefents this fecret difcipline, to which he gives 
 the title of yvio-t;, as having been inftituted by Chrift 
 himfelf. From a pafTage in his Hypotypofes, a work long 
 fince loft, which is cited by Enfebius in Eccl. Hi/lor. lib. ii. 
 cap. i. p. 38. it appears that he confidercd this yvcua-ic, or 
 gift of knowledge, as having been conferred by our Lord, 
 after his refurredtion, on James the Juft, John, and Peter, 
 by whom it was communicated to the other apoftles ; 
 and that, by thefe, this treafure was committed to the 
 feventy difciples, of whom Barnabas was one. A fimilar 
 palfage to this occurs in his Stromata, lib. i. p. 322. in 
 which, however, to the three apoftles enumerated by Eu- 
 febius, he adds a fourth, namely, Paul, whom he alfo con- 
 ceives to have been inftrufted in this fecret difcipline by 
 Chrift himfelf. Nor does he difcover the leaft hcfiotion in 
 afl'erting, with the Gnoftics, that the difcipline communi- 
 cated by our Bleffed Saviour to mankind was of a two-fold 
 nature, the one calculated for the world at large, the other 
 deftgncd only for the wife and prudent ; the former confift- 
 
of the Second Century. 165 
 
 of the higher order; fo likewife did it occafion cent, 
 a two-fold form to be affumed by that wifdom ^^ J'j , 
 
 which. Moral theo- 
 lo(iy affumes 
 a two-foM 
 ing of what was taught publicly to the people by Chrift character, 
 himfelf, and is to be found in the Scriptures, the latter, of 
 certain maxims and precepts that were communicated merely 
 by word of mouth, to a few only of the apoftles. 'Ov •Tro'Wo':^ 
 k'TCiKot-Kv-l'iv a ixri" tcoXK'Hj'v »iv, oXiyofj ot ctg 'Treocrr, Kiiv nViVccTo, tcTj 
 eloK TE (■A^s^acrdo'A, aoa TUTro-'SJivat Wfo; dvrcc. Non revelav'it 
 (Chrijius) multis ea qua non erard multorvnu fet panels qui- 
 bus fclebat couvenire, qui et ea psjfent accipere et ex els In- 
 formari. Stromat. lib.i. cap. i. p 323. Clement makes it 
 a matter of boaft that the fecret difcipline thus infticuted by 
 Chrift was familiar to thofe who had been his mafters and 
 preceptors, whom he very lavi{hly extoUs, and feems to 
 exult not a little in having, under their tuition, enjoyed the 
 advantage of being inftrutted in it himfelf. A part of it, 
 indeed, he fays, had, through length of time, efcaped his 
 memory, but that the reft of it remained ftill frelh in his 
 mind. He promifes, moreover, that he would advert to 
 fome of the chief or leading points of this venerable know- 
 ledge in his Stromata, but reprefents himfelf as bound not 
 openly to make known or explain the whole of it, left, ac- 
 cording to the proverb, he ftiould put a fword in the hand 
 of a child. Tot, jxiv iKuiv 7rafaT£yu7ro|Liai, fays he^ p. 324* f^^E* 
 
 ywv I'Ti'fnjjiovuc, (poSuf/.ivo'; y^u(Piiv, a, kx\ Xiyav l^vXcc^ajxtv. Non- 
 nuUa quldem confulto prxtermttto, fclenter dellSum faclens, 
 timens fcrlbere, qutt etlam cavl dlccre. In another place, "y/z. 
 p. 327. he fays, l-Tw^aiui k^v-tttsTv jvth%vi>,'S to. t^c ymrn^w; 
 IpiXonai a-zi^fj-KTu. Llbrl mel Stromatum volunt artijiclofe celare 
 femina cognltionls. To any one who might be at a lofs to 
 account for his declining to make publicly known, and in a 
 great meafure altogether concealing, a fpecies of knowledge, 
 confefledly of the higheft importance and value, he replies 
 (cap.iii. p. 328.) that it was not to be comprehended, ex- 
 cept by minds that had been thoroughly purged and deli- 
 vered from the dominion of the pafiions, that there would, 
 moreover, be a danger in it, left occafion might be given to 
 contentious perfons for cavilling and infult. "Otj /x/yaj o 
 xtvdvvof To» ccToffrlrov w; ccXv^uk; Trij 'ov7U}<; (^iXo<70^i<x,i; Xoyov l^o^y^rj - 
 
 TTKVTa d£ cy6jj.(x.ru. xa* ^r.^a.'vu dito'^'fiiVTHa-iv Hda,^ji.u<; x.o(7y.'M<;. 
 Quia magnum eji perlculum vere arcanam vene phllofophla ra- 
 tionem lis propalare, qui profufe quldem ac petulanter^ fed non 
 jurgf volunt contra omnes dlcere, omnia autem nomina et verba 
 M 3 turptter 
 
1 66 The Ecclefiajlical Hijlory 
 
 which, in a more particular manner, refpe£ls 
 life and morals 5 the one fuited to the mul- 
 titude, 
 
 turpiter ac indecore ejaculanttir. See alfo lib. ii. p. 432, 
 & feq. Many other paflages of this kind are to be met with 
 in Clement by any one who will be at the trouble of dili- 
 gently exploring his Stromata. What thofe maxims and 
 principles were which Clement conceived himfelt to be pre- 
 cluded from communicating to the world at large, cannot 
 long remain a fecret to any diligent and attentive reader of 
 his works. There cannot be the fmalleft queftion but that 
 they were philofophieal explications of the Chriftian tenets 
 refpedling the Trinity, the foul, the world, the future re- 
 furreftion of the body, Chrift, the life to come, and other 
 things of a like abitrufe nature, which had in themfomewhat 
 that admitted of being expounded upon philofophieal prin- 
 ciples. They alfo, no doubt, confiited of certain myftical 
 and allegorical interpretations of the divine oracles, calcu- 
 lated to fupport thofe philofophieal expofitions of the 
 Chriftian principles, and tenets. For fince, as we have 
 above feen, he exprefsly intimates that he would in his 
 Stromata unfold a part of that fecret wifdom which was de- 
 figned only for the few, but that in doing this he would not 
 fo far throw off all referve as to render himfelf univerfally 
 inteUigible ; and fince we find him, in the courfe of the 
 above-mentioned work, continually giving to the more ex- 
 cellent and important truths contained in the facred vo- 
 lume, fuch an interpretation as tends to open a wide field 
 for conjeflure, and alfo comparing, not openly but in a 
 concife and half obfcure way, the Chriftian tenets with 
 the maxims of the philofophers, I am willing to refign 
 every pretenfion to penetration if it be not clearly to be 
 perceived of what nature that fublime knowledge refpe6t- 
 ing divine matters muft have been, of which he makes 
 fuch a myftery. Nor was there any other fpecies of fe- 
 cret knowledge befides this poffeffed by his principal dif- 
 ciple Origen, who, although he was anxious to make the 
 Chriftian religion conform itfelf, in almoft every refpedl, 
 to the rule of his philofophy, had yet the wifdom to 
 propound his opinions with prudence and caution, and to 
 avoid a full and explicit difcovery of them. What Cle- 
 ment fays refpefting the divine origin of this difcipline 
 is, unqueftionably, a mere fi6lion, devifed, either by him 
 or fome other admirer of philofophy, with a view to 
 tilence the importunate remoHftances of thofe friends to 
 
 Chriftian 
 
t)f the Second Century. \ Sy 
 
 tude, who incline to fociety and fuffer them- cent, 
 felves to be involved in the cares and concerns . ^^ ' ^ 
 
 or More theo- 
 logy affuines 
 
 Chriftian fimplicity who, mindful of St. Paul's injunftion, cliarafter. 
 were continually protefting againft any attempt to blend 
 philofophy with the religion of the gofpel. To Clement, 
 fuch fanftified deceptions and pious inventions appeared 
 not at all unwarrantable; indeed there can be no doubt, 
 but that they were countenanced by all fuch of the Chrif- 
 tian teachers as were of the Egyptian or Modern Platonic 
 fchool. Why James, and John, and Peter fhould have been, 
 in particular, iixed upon as the apoftles whom Chrift fe- 
 lefted as the mofl worthy of having this recondite wif- 
 dom communicated to them by word of mouth, is very 
 eafily to be perceived. For thefe were the three difci- 
 ples whom our Bleffed Saviour took apart with him up 
 into the mountain when he was about to be transfigured. 
 Matt. xvii. I. Luke ix. 28. To reprefent them therefore 
 as having in a peculiar manner been favoured with an infight 
 into all my Series appeared to be but confiftent and proper. . 
 In reality there can be no doubt but that Clement, and moft 
 probably alfo his mailers, whofe authority he frequently 
 adduces, learnt the mode of blending philofophy with reli- 
 gion from Philo ; and the fecret difcipline, or the pradlice 
 of cautioufly concealing their philofophical explications of 
 the Scriptures and the principles of Chriftianity, from the 
 Egyptians as well as from Philo. The thing, in fa<5l, is not 
 altogether diffembled by Clement, who frequently compares 
 his fecret difcipline with the heathen myfteries and the in- 
 terior and recondite wifdom of the philofophers, and defends 
 it by a reference to both of thefe. But the matter muft. be 
 clear, beyond a queftion, to any one who fhall perufe the 
 writings of Philo with attention ; fince he in many places 
 equally extols the fecret difcipline, and, for the mofl: part, 
 fpeaks of it in the fame terms, and defends it by the fame 
 reafons and arguments as Clement. Nor is the recondite 
 difciphne of Philo of a different nature from Clement's ; on 
 the contrary it correfponds with it in every refpe£l. Vid. 
 Philo, in lib. de Cherubim, p. T44, 145. de Sacrijiciis, p. 139. 
 lib. de Plantatione Noe, p. 231. et paflim. Being, in lib.iii. 
 Allegor. Legtim, p. 131. about to give an explication of the 
 words of Sarah, in Genefis, xxi. 6. " God hath made me to 
 laugh," he thus befpeaks the attention of thofe who were 
 initiated in the fecret difcipline, 'Ava7rET«o-avTij ra wra., ol 
 pu'i«i, i:xf(xl'i^xa^i TeXiTctj Is^u^rctTKf. Itaque quotquot ejl'u trt' 
 M 4 itiati^ 
 
1 68 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 of this life ; the other calculated for fuch as, 
 afpiring after a higher degree of fanQity, and 
 
 a more 
 
 it'iatl, expanfts auribus accip'ite myjler'ia facrat'ijjlma. After 
 this preamble he prefents the reader with a philofophical 
 explication of thefe words of Sarah, which cannot be faid to 
 be altogether an obfcure one, but, at the fame time, it is by 
 no means clear or perfpicuous : in fhort you may plainly 
 perceive that what he aims at is, not to make hirafelf under- 
 ftood generally, but only by fuch as had been initiated in 
 the fecret difcipline or philofophical religion. In this he is 
 imitated exattly by Clement in lib. de Cherubim, p. J 46, 
 147. edit. Anglic, p. 115. ed. Paris, where he undertakes 
 to explain, from the Mofaic hiftory, the manner in which 
 virtue is generated, and how, of itfelf, it generates other vir- 
 tues. For firft of all he thus gravely repulfes the profane: 
 'Axoa? E7rt^fa|o6Ta.'0-av duaioyA^ovi^ roc? tccvniiv n [xcTucrnriixra.y. 
 Siiperjl'itiojl vel d'lfcedant vel ohturent aures fuas. TiXirdq 
 
 divina cn'nn myjltria tradimus his, qui tallhus facris digne in- 
 itlatl funt. 'Exf/va; ^s i-A U^o(PcivTr,'(70iJ.vj Ka,riax,'>^ifjiuoti 
 
 SfEjais i^av. Illos autem haudquaquam ad htzc facra admlttl- 
 mus, qui tenentur morho hifanablll, fajlu vcrbormn et nomlnum 
 fuco, et morum prajllglh. Numerous paflages fimilar to 
 thefe are to be found in Clement. The explication and 
 demonftration drawn from Mofes, to which this pompous 
 exordium is a prelude, is indeed, upon the whole, not un- 
 intelligible ; its entire force and fignification, however, is 
 not to be comprehended except by the initiated in the myf- 
 teries of the Philonian philofophy ; and to all fuch a very 
 earneft and particular injunftion is addreffed by Philo at the 
 conclufion of his Inftitutes, requiring them on no account to 
 make the vulgar partakers of their knowledge. It will be 
 enough for me to give merely a tranflation of his words. 
 ''Having then, Oyeinitiated! through the channel of purified 
 organs, acquired a knowledge of thefe things, let them fink 
 deep into your minds as holy myfteries, not to be revealed 
 to the profane. Bury them within your bofoms, and pre- 
 ferve them there as a treafure ; a treafure confifting, not of 
 corruptible things, fuch as filver and gold, but of the faireft 
 and moil valuable portion of true wealth, namely, a know- 
 ledge of God and of virtue, and of the offspring that is ge- 
 nerated of them both. Whenever ye chance to meet with 
 any one elfe of the initiated, befeech him with the moft 
 
 earnell 
 
of the Second Century. 169 
 
 a more intimate communion with the Deity, c e n t. 
 turn their backs on the bufmefs, noiie, and buftle , J^; , 
 
 ^* Moral tlieo- 
 lo:;y afTumci 
 a two-fold 
 
 earned intreaties not to conceal from you any rnyllery that ,.!,ara^#r. 
 he tnay have more recentlv difcovrred, and leave liim not 
 until you fhall have obtained from him the mofl intimate in- 
 C\cr\\t into it ." In his book de Sacr'ificiis ylhd'is et Caiiti, 
 p. 173. torn. i. opp. he with aftomfhmj; lubtilty deduces 
 from Gen. xviii. 6, where Sarali is laid have " made ready 
 quickly three meafures of line meal, and baked cakes there- 
 of upon the hearth," a fuppnrt for the principle which 
 he frequently takes occafion to inculcate of the exiltence 
 of three powers in the Deity ; and huvinpr done fo, he here 
 likevvife, by way of conclufion, makes a point of remark- 
 ing that neither this nor any other myftery ought to be 
 generally made known : pyiosvi w^o%=t^'<;,- EH.X«Xfl t« 5=r« 
 fjivr^r., T«/^t:L'Sf/=vi o'dvTa. Hat Ij^Ejui^Sbcrsij ev airoffrtru Cv- 
 >MtiT.. An'tma d'lvina myjlcr'ia nem'in't proloquatur facile ; 
 fed fervans ea recondita reticeat et in fcreto fervet. No de- 
 triment, I am perfuaded, can enfue from my declining to 
 notice at large the remarks on this and fimilar paflages that 
 have been publifhed by Tliomas Mangey, the late editor of 
 Philo, fince they afford but little afiiftance to a reader 
 who is defirous of penetrating into the caufes and reafon 
 of things. It may however be worthy of notice in this 
 place that Philo makes the principle of the exiilence of 
 three powers in the Deity, concerning which there has 
 been amongft men of the iirft eminence fnch a diverfity 
 of opinion and conjefture, a part of the fecret difcipline. 
 Hence it is that we never find him either openly propound- 
 ing or attempting any expHcation of it, but on the contrary 
 always fpeaking of it in fuch ambiguous terms as ferve 
 only to involve jt in obfcurity. Nor does he at all times 
 obferve one au^ the fame mode in treating of it, but 
 purfues a very different method in fome places from what 
 he does in others. In regard to this, fee what I have 
 faid in my notes on Cudworth's IntelleBual Syfletn, tom. i. 
 p. 640. as well aj what has been moft learnedly remarked 
 both in refped to this and other palTages of Philo by that 
 eminent fcholar and mofl fuccefsful emulator of illuftrious 
 predecefTors, Jo. Bened. Carpzovius, in his Exerc'itationes in 
 Epifl. ad Hehreos ex Ph'done Prolegom. p. cxxxv. & feq. 
 In my opinion therefore it muft ever prove a mere wafte of 
 time and pains to attempt any explication of the trinity of 
 Philo, or to afcertain in particular his notions refpefting the 
 
 nature 
 
The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 of the world. It is true, indeed, that even at 
 an early period, when the Chriftians were as 
 
 yet 
 
 nature of what he terms the Logos or JVord. The wary 
 Jew is particularly cautious of committing himfelf with re- 
 gard to thefe things, and evidently wilhes to excite rather 
 than to gratify a thii il for a more intimate infight into them. 
 I fpeak from experience ; no interpretation that can be de- 
 vifed or thought of is readily to be reconciled with all the 
 different paffages refpefting thefe myileries, that occur in 
 his works ; indeed fuch is the difcordance of thefe pafiages, 
 that they appear even totally repugnant to each other. In 
 this way, it was but befitting for a man to proceed when 
 treating of the fecret or myfterious difcipline. "A^irat, 
 fays he, in his book de SacriJicUs Abclis et Caini, tom. i. 
 p. 189. where with a very cautious and delicate hand he 
 touches on fome of its leading points, "A^srai ^\ tI: x.ch tp» 
 Sto,- w," £» oiTTOppToij- Xoyoc, ov d-Kooii-^ TTf Eo-btirspajv 'ira.fxx.a.r'mcr' 
 9at ;)/pn^ viojri^av wra, £7ri?ifc'|c;vTaf. Celebratur et al'tat 
 qudt tamen admyfteria, {i.e. the fecret difcipline) /^r/zW 
 fentent'ta, deponenda penes aures feniorutn, obturatis junior um 
 auribiis. On the prefent occaiion I cannot but feel that it 
 would be wrong in me to detain the reader with what elfe 
 might be adduced from Piiilo on this fubjeft : a word or 
 two more, therefore, and I have done. Piiilo, without 
 doubt, imitated the Egyptians ; Clement, as unqueftionably, 
 followed the example of Philo ; and Origen trod clearly 
 in the foottteps of both. The more recent Chriftian teachers, 
 for tlie moll part, formed themfelves upon the model of this 
 latter father. The fecret difcipline of Philo confifted in the 
 application of philofophic principles to religion and the fa- 
 cred writings ; nor was that of Clement ever thought to 
 differ from it, except by thofe who had not fufiiciently in- 
 formed themfelves on the fubjedl. The reader will underiland 
 me in what I have faid above as not meaning to attribute 
 the abfolute invention of this difcipline to Philo : for we 
 know that long before his time it had been the praftice of 
 feveral Jews to expound and illuilrate Mofes from the writ- 
 ings of Plato and other Greek philofophers : but of this, I 
 think, there can be no doubt, that Clement and the other 
 Egyptian teachers by whom this difcipline was firft intro- 
 duced into the Chriftian church, were indebted for their ac- 
 quaintance-with it entirely to Philo. Wonderful, indeed, is it 
 to contemplate the influence and authority which this Alex- 
 andrian Jew had at one time acquired amongft the Chriftians. 
 
 V/e 
 
of the Second Century. 171 
 
 yet ftrangers to phllofophy, there were to be c e n t. 
 found amongft them perfons who, by abflain- . J 1 _^ 
 ing from thofe things which gratify the fenfes, Moral thco- 
 fuch as marriage, fiefli, wane, and the more ^°;';^o"l^Td'' 
 folid kinds of food, and by neglefting every charaftcr. 
 culture or attention to the body, fought to dif- 
 engage and purify their minds from all inordi- 
 nate delires and aifeftions, and thus to confe- 
 crate themfelves entirely to God [_k~] : but upon 
 the introdudion of the Egyptian and Platonic 
 
 philofophy, 
 
 We may even go the length of faying that, without Philo, 
 the writings of thofe whom we term *' the Fathers" would 
 in many refpeds be frequently altogether unintelligible. 
 
 [if] That amongft the moft early Chriftians there were 
 fome who profeffed a more ftrift and fevere courfe of life 
 than others, and not only debarred themfelves of lawful gra- 
 tifications and indulgences, but alfo broke down the ftrength 
 and vigour of their animal frame by frequent faftings and 
 other rigorous prafticcs, is placed out of all doubt by nu- 
 merous tcftimonies. It is alfo well known that thefe per- 
 fons were commonly termed " Afcetics," from the verb 
 ua-Kiiv, which means to train or prepare one's felf for a com- 
 bat. See, amongft many other authorities, Dc)Ymg, Exerc. 
 de j^fcetis Veterum, fubjoined to the thiid book of his Ohfcr- 
 vationes Sacra ; and Bingham's j^nt'iquities of the ChrtJUan 
 Church, vol. iii. p. 3. & feq. "What gave rife to this fort 
 of people, and at what time they firil made their appear- 
 ance, is not equally clear. To me it appears that thofe 
 Afcetics (for they were not at all of one and the fame 
 defcription, neither did they all obferve the fame rules) 
 I fay, it ftrikes me that thofe Afcetics who declined 
 marriage and preferred a life of celebacy, without, however, 
 rejecting any other of the comforts and conveniences of 
 life, muft have been the moft ancient of any ; and that 
 perfons of this dcfription were to be found even in the 
 very infancy of Chnftianity. For we know that what is 
 faid by Chrift himfelf in Matt. xix. 12. refpefting thofe 
 who make themfelves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's 
 fake, as well as what St. Paul fays in i Corinth, vii. 7. 25. 
 & feq. 38. refpeding the preference due to celibacy, was 
 by moft fa underftood from the firft as to caufe it generally 
 to be believed that unmarried perfons were happier, more 
 1 1 perfect. 
 
The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 philofophy this fimple mode of life was reduced 
 into the form of an art, and interwoven with 
 
 fuch 
 
 pcrfed, and more acceptable to God than others. Hence 
 there was always to be found amongft the Chriftians no 
 fmail number of perfons who deemed it expedient to avoid 
 marriage. Let us hear the celebrated Chriftian philofopher 
 of this century, Athcnagoras, in j^polog, pro Chrijiianisy 
 cap. xxviii. p. 129. ed. Oxon. "Ev^a; ^"av woXAaV i^-/ ircJf 
 
 ra fxciXXo'j a-uv£o-E(7voit toj Ssa-. Inven'tas auteni multos ex nojlris 
 in utroque fes^u, qui in calihatu confenefcant, quod it a Deo 
 fe conjunSliorcs ftituros fperent. And to the fame purport 
 TertuUian, cle Cultu Ftminar. lib. ii. p- 179 cap. ix. ed. 
 Rigalt. Non enim et mulli ita fntiunt,et fefpadonatui obfignant 
 propter regtium Dei tarn forlem et^ utique perm'iffani volupta- 
 tem fponte ponentes ? Thofe Afcetics, who either abftained 
 from flefli and wine, or elfe mortified their bodies by fre- 
 quent fallings, or devoted themfelves to a courfe of fevere 
 and laborious difcipline, by way of countenancing all vi- 
 cious propenfities and perturbations of the mind, are, un- 
 queilionably, of more recent origin, and cannot, I think, 
 be placed higher than the age of which we are now treating. 
 On thefe alfo we find commendation beftovved by the 
 writers of this century ; but they are always placed be- 
 neath thofc who were emphatically termed EyxjaisK " the 
 continent," in oppofition to the " incontinent ;" that is, 
 they are always placed after thofe who had renounced 
 marriage. Quid euim, fays TertuUian, {de velandis Virginibus, 
 cap. iii. p. 194.)^ et incontinentes dicant fe a continentibus 
 fcandaltv:,ari (t. e. fuppofing thofe who are married fhould 
 complain of being fcandalized by thofe who have pro- 
 feffed celibacy) continentia revocanda ejl ? add to which 
 what is to found in Du Frcfne's Glojffiry, torn. ii. p. 1020. 
 fub voc. Contincntes. Without doubt we may conclude 
 that Chrift himfelf and St. Paul were confidered as hay- 
 ing exprefsly recommended celibacy, but that with regard 
 to an abttinence from flefh and wine, fallings and the like, 
 they had left behind them no particular injunftions : that 
 the latter, therefore, although perhaps in themfelves both 
 proper and laudable, were neverthelefs regarded as of merely 
 human inftitution, whilft the former appeared to pofTefs the 
 charafter of a divine recommendation. TertuUian in one 
 part of his treatife de Cultu Faminarum, lib. ii. cap. ix. 
 p. 1 79. makes mention of both thefe fpecies of Afcetics 
 
of the Second Century. ly^ 
 
 fuch maxims refpefting the Deity, the human c E lN t. 
 foul, and the nature of man, as were thought ^^• 
 
 mofl Moral theo- 
 logy aflumes 
 
 . ,• , i' • 1 n 1 • • r 1 • • " two-fold 
 
 but m inch a way as plainly to Ihew that in point ot dignity charaaer. 
 and fanftity, he gave a decided preference to the continent, or 
 thofe whom he terms " Voluntary Eunuchs." For after hav- 
 ing fpoken of thefe latter, he goes on thus; — Numqu'id non 
 aliqui ipfam Dei creaturain ftb'i interdicunt, ahjl'inentes vino et 
 antmalibus efculentisy quorum fruSus nulli periculo aut follici- 
 tudini adjacent, fed humililat em animafua in viSus quoque cajli- 
 gatione Deo immolant ? To any one who will duly weigh 
 the force of thefe words, and compare them with what 
 goes before, it cannot fail to be apparent that TertuUian 
 was far from placing the Abftinent on a level with the Con- 
 tinent, or thofe who renounced marriage. The opinion, 
 pretty generally entertained by the learned, that thefe 
 Afcetics of the early ages were accuftomed to diftinguifli 
 themfelves from other Chriftians by their dress, and that in 
 particular, by way of pointing themfelves out as philofo- 
 phers, they adopted the mantle or cloak, appears to me 
 to require the fupport of ftronger and more pofitive tefti- 
 mony than any one has hitherto been able to adduce in its 
 favour. J am ready to allow indeed that fuch of, them as 
 made pretenfions to a greater degree of ftriftnefs either in 
 point of continence or abftinence, might affeft to make this 
 known by the quality or colour of their garb : But that 
 the Afcetics of the early ages, as a body of men, dillin- 
 guifhed themfelves by any peculiar drefs, or that the philo- 
 sopher's cloak or mantle, in particular, was ever confidered 
 as appropriite to them, is what I cannot, by any means, 
 bring myfelf to believe. The teftimonies that are ufually 
 brought forward in fupport of the above opinion are either 
 of more recent date than the tirft three centuries, or elfe re- 
 late merely to thofe philofophers who, notwithltanding their 
 converfion to ChrilHanity, retained their priftine garb, that 
 is, the mantle or cloak : of which practice the reader will 
 recoUedl me to have noticed fome examples a few pages 
 back. And I really muft enter my proteft againft; any fuch 
 unwarrantable deduftion as this, — that becaufe thofe who 
 were philofophers before they embraced the Chriftian faith, 
 remained fo ftili notwithltanding their converfion to Chrfti- 
 anity, and continued as before to inveft themfelves with a 
 cloak or mantle by way of dillinftion, it is incumbent on us 
 to believe that all the Chriftian Afcetics aflumed this cloak 
 or philofophical drefs likewife. If, however, fome certain 
 
 individuals 
 
The Ecclcfiajiical Hijlory 
 
 mofl confonant to reafon. All fuch Chrifllans, 
 for inftance, as afpired to a degree of fanftity 
 beyond the vulgar, were enjoined by means of 
 contemplation, fobriety, continence, mortifica- 
 tions of the body, folitude, and the like, to 
 feparate, as far as poffible, that foul which was 
 the oifspring of the eternal reafon of the Deity, 
 from the fenfitive foul, as well as from every 
 fort of bodily influence, fo that they might, even 
 in this life, be united to and enjoy the mofl 
 intimate communion with the Supreme Parent of 
 fouls, and upon the difiblution of the body, their 
 minds being thoroughly difencumbered of every 
 fordid and debafmg tie, might regain, without 
 impediment, their proper flations in the regions 
 above. To this fource is to be afcribed the 
 rife of the Myffics, a denomination of men 
 that firfl made their appearance amongft the 
 philofophifmg Chriftians of Egypt in the courfe 
 of this century, and gradually fpread themfelves 
 throughout the Chriftian church [/]. Hither 
 
 alfo 
 
 individuls of the Afcetics, by way of manifefting to the 
 world the kind of life to which they had devoted them- 
 felves, did aftually affume the philofophic cloak, which I 
 beg to be underftood as by no means intending to deny, 
 there cannot be a doubt but that they did fo purely out of 
 imitation of the heathen fages, and by way of pointing out 
 to the Greeks and Romans, that amongft the Chriftians alfo 
 were to be found philofophers. 
 
 [/j It was not until long after the light of Chriftianity 
 had rifen on the world that the terms " myftical theo- 
 logy" and " Myftics" were ever heard of. The things 
 themfelves, however, to which thefe names came after- 
 wards to be applied, are by far more ancient than the 
 Chriftian church. Long antecedent to the coming of Chrift 
 there were to be found, not only amongft the Egyptian! but 
 alfo amongib the Jews, who copied after the Egyptians, (a» 
 is placed out of allqueftion by the EfTenes and Therapeutae) 
 as well as in other nations, certain perfons who made it their 
 
 ftudy. 
 
of the Secona Century. 175 
 
 alfo may we refer the origin of Monks, Her- cent. 
 mits, and Coenobites, whofe rules and inftitutions .^ JJ;; , 
 
 are Moral theo- 
 logy airunies 
 
 ftudy, by means of fading, labour, contemplation, and (.h»r<i(fte;-. 
 other afflidive exercifes, to deliver their rational fouls, 
 which they confidered as the offdpring of the Deity un- 
 happily confined within corporeal priions, from the bonds 
 of the flefh and the fenfes, and to reftore them to an unin- 
 terrupted communion with their God and parent. This 
 difcipline arofe out of that ancient philofophy of the Egyp- 
 tians, which confidered all things as having proceeded from 
 God, and regarded the rational fouls of the human race as 
 more noble particles of the divine nature. When the Mc. 
 dern Platonic fchool made that philofophy, in a certain de- 
 gree, its own, its difciples were alfo incited to the adoption 
 of this fyftem of bodily mortification. Neither, as has long 
 fince been remarked, is there any other tendency in what 
 is laid down by Plato himfelf refpefting the origin of minds, 
 »nd of their fall into earthly bodies. Philo, whom we have 
 already fo often cited, will here again furnifh us with 
 conliderable light. The tenets of this very celebrated 
 Jew (whofe opinions were for a while held in much more 
 efleem than they deferved by the Chriftians,) refpefting 
 the foul, were in fa6l a compound or medley of the Egyp- 
 tian, Platonic, and Mofaic principles. In the firft place he 
 lays it down that in man there are two fouls ; the one 
 rational and generated of the Word, the other fenfitive. 
 de ylllegor. Leg'is, lib. i. p. 5r. 54. 57. torn, i. opp. The 
 former or rational mind he regards as a portion of the Deity, 
 that is, according to the Egyptians, a part of the moll re- 
 fined and fupreme sether, and that conformably to the 
 Mofaic account this had been imparted to man by the 
 breath of God ; in which it is to be remarked that he 
 differs from Plato. Vid. Allegor. Leg'ts, lib.iii. p. 119. The 
 latter or fenfitive foul he confiders as impelled and ani- 
 mated by the divine mind, Alhgor. Leg'is^ lib. i. p.5i. 
 & 54. The rational foul, according to him, is the feat ^ 
 of abftraft notions ; whilft the fenfitive foul is occupied 
 folely by the images of things that are objefts of the 
 fenfes. de Mundi OptficWy p. 41. & feq. tom.i. ed. Anglic. 
 I pafs over a variety of things which, for the moft part, 
 border too nearly on exceflive refinement, and are not Iain 
 down with fufiicient perfpicuity. Proceeding on principle* 
 like thefe, he inculcates a doftrine altogether fimilar to that 
 taught by the Myftics ; namely, that the celeftial and 
 
 rational 
 
176 
 
 C E N 
 II. 
 
 Moral theo- 
 logy unTumes 
 a iwo-fold 
 character. 
 
 The Eccleftq^ical Kijlory 
 
 T. are uniformly grounded upon the principle of 
 
 the op- 
 prefTion 
 
 delivering the immortal fpirit from 
 
 rational foul fhould ereA itfelf above every objeft of the 
 fenfes, — that it fhould feek, by means of contemplation, to 
 feparate itfelf from the body, — that, mindful of its divine 
 origin, it fhould be conftantly afpiring to communion with 
 its parent, and that it fhould endeavour, by every poffible 
 means, to undermine and weaken the power and influence of 
 the body and the fenfes. To a foul once exalted alove 
 empty and corporeal things, he holds forth a promife of di- 
 rine illumination, and pleafure incredible. It may not be 
 amifs perhaps to confirm what I have thus itated by a fpe- 
 cin>en or two, in order that the votaries of myfticifm may 
 be brought acquainted with the fources from whence thofe 
 principles, in which they fo much delight, are drawn. Let 
 U9 then hear with what pomp and poetical colouring Philo 
 defcribes the afcent of the foul to God, cle Mund. Opijicio, 
 p. 16. torn. i. opp. fvxri itv.cra.'i t>i\ aicr9riT>iv ia'a.-i vm^-^v^ai 
 IvTOvSa \^'if\tOLi, iri? voriT^; Koct uv tloiv hTccvBoe, ajaSjiToJv, ev ehe/va 
 T(X "Tra.^a.lil'YiJ.cc'ra, y.ai t«; l^s»c SsaerajUEvo?, ^VEf^c'AXovroi xaXXn, 
 (ueS*) y/iSccXiM KCcTdo-^^i^eUf ua-ri^ u HOfV^avTiwvTE.r, h-jticr^a,, ht^u 
 yifj-KT^il; liJ-'.^a acci tto^h (So^tUw.:. j^nima emergens fupra 
 omnem fenfililem ejfent'iam demum intelliglbUts dejiderio cor- 
 rlpitur, (we have here, obvioufly, what is termed by the 
 Myftics, the " purgation," next follows their " illumina- 
 tion,") tllic confp'icata exemplarla, ideafque rerum quas hie 
 vidit fenfibilhim, eximias if/as pulchritudines, (a coincidence 
 with the Platonic philofophy is here obfervable,) ebr'ntate 
 quadam folria capta, tamquam Corybantes lyniphattir alio plena 
 amore longe meliore. This high mcafure of felicity is 
 crowned by a conjundlion with the Parent Deity of all 
 
 things. i/?j' a ^^oj t-/)v olx^av a-J^iJa TrKfafff/z^^sic rav vornuy It' 
 civroy Uvon eoKii lov fj.iya.v /SaaiXECi. TT^i^ofxzvn d jrtti'v, Cs/a 
 ^iiiTO'; UK^d'Oi Kccl a^iysif afya* p;^E4^appy t^ottov Expf£c/VT«i, w^' 
 Ta»; jua^just^vytzi? to Tri,- ^iccvaocc o//p.a (7xoTo^jv?av. ^ quo ad 
 fummum fajligium adduHa rerum ititelligibilium, ad ipfum 
 magnum regem videtur tendere ; turn vero in videndi cupt- 
 dam purijftmus ac merijfimus divina lucis radius more tor- 
 rentis effunditur, ita ut ad eum fplendorem caliget mentis oculus. 
 Surely the reader will believe that he has been liftening to 
 the Coryphaeus of the Myftics, Dionyfius, or to feme 
 Henry Sufo, or fome other fimilar charafter. In his y//- 
 leg»r. Legis, lib.i. p. 59. 60. he divides fouls into two 
 claffes, "the ConfefTing (E^cjuoXoyy/^E'vi;?), and "the La- 
 bouring'* 
 
of the Second Century. 177 
 
 preflion under which it groans in being con- cent. 
 
 nefted . ^— _j 
 
 Moral theo- 
 bouring (f'fya^oibtfvsc). The "confeffing fouls" are thofe 'o^ affumes 
 which, being freed from all ccntagicm of the body, as well as V"^"o" 
 divelted or all cogitation and emotior., and exalted above 
 every objeft of the fenfes, have given themfelves up 
 entirely to God, and maintain themfelves in the moil per- 
 feft ftate of quietifm. "Oxav ya^ h<^n o v«? IocvtS km 
 icivrov avEvsyJC/i 0Ei^ _ _ _ _ TUviKavra huoXoylicv t«\ -rr^o^ lov 
 
 ovT« 'iToiuia.i. Now in what author, 1 would aflt, (hall 
 we find language better agreeing with the pompous de- 
 clamation of the Myftics, or more aptly coinciding with 
 their difcipline ? Qtium mens extra femet'ipfam excejfcrit, 
 
 Deoque feipfum ohtuler'it tunc confejfwnem edit erga 
 
 eum qui folus vere ejl. But let us proceed : — Iw,- ^\ ixvtov 
 
 ■• iiTirnTi-jnTcn ui; uinov Ttvo-', pccxfxv cc^sTiT'ii i^i ivccocc'^wpliv Sew 
 x** huoXoyiiv (tvrZ. Quamdiu vera an'tma fe caufam ret 
 cujufpiam exlflimat (that is, fo long as the foul itfelf thinks, 
 or refiefts, or exercifes a will of its own), multutn abejl qutn 
 cottfiteatur, cedatque Deo. But even all this is not fuffi- 
 cient : for he will not allow even that ceflation of the 
 foul from every kind of aftion or exertion, which he enjoins, 
 and which is the object or end of the myftic life, to be the 
 work of the foul, but will have it to be the operation of 
 the Deity. The rational foul, he maintains, to be a por- 
 tion of the Deity, and that it is therefore by the innate, 
 or rather implanted power of God in her, that fhc is 
 enabled to call off the bonds of the fleih and the fenfi- 
 tive foul, and to compofe herfelf to a ftate of the moft 
 perfedt quietifm. Ka* yo;^ kvto tSto to I^O|ao\oyTicr9«t voJjTEOv^ 
 oTt Egyov £5"* i^%* Tjjf \'^'XJ'>'- 01.XK0 tS (pccivr,)iTo; i-vrri ©£« to 
 Ivxa-^i^ov. Nam et ipfa confejjio debet inteUig'inon anima opus, 
 
 fed Dei qui earn banc gratitudinem docet. The " labouir- 
 ing fouls" of Philo are thofe which endeavour, by a con- 
 ftant cKercife of thought, refle£tion, and judgment, to ar- 
 rive at virtue ; and ftrive to counterad all vicious pro- 
 penfities and perturbations, by means of reading, medi- 
 tation, and prayer : and concerning thefe he fublequently 
 difcourfes much at large. Let us now endeavour briefly to 
 afcertain from his Allegor. Legis, lib. i. p. 64, 65. what his 
 doftrine was refpefting the body. The very perfection of 
 true wifdom he pronounces to confift in alienating one's 
 felf from the body and its concupifcence. Under the de- 
 nomination of the body, however, he immediately gives 
 us to underftand that he means to include the fenfes, alfo, 
 VOL. II. N- of 
 
178 
 
 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 c E N 1 . ne£ted with the body, of purifying it from the 
 . _": , corrupdons 
 
 Moral theo- 
 logy afliimes of the body, nay even the very voice itfelf ; fo that he 
 a two- told fhould feem to enjoin a man defirous of attaining to a 
 charaaer. ^^^.^ ^^ virtue, not only to mortify the fenfes, but alfo 
 to forego the ufe of his tongue and voice. S;;^£Jov ya^ 
 cro^la-c fjyov t5t' l^h, aXXoTfi£(7vat v^^; to C7a'jua, Ji«* tccj Ixi- 
 2vfj.lot.; dviH tij J'a'jroXii/a-tv nccnioi^^ h fxotov ^i tSj s'x''^ '^^'■' 
 vav, d'AXu, y.oLi ativ alVSr.crtv, xat to\ X&yov, xkj t(} (7mfji.a,t This 
 fubjeft is purfued by him at much length, and he cites 
 in fupport of his doftrine even Mofes himfelf, with whom 
 he maintains that Heraclitus is in perfedl unifon. Laftly, 
 he aflerts, that the foul during its continuance in the 
 body lies as it were buried in a fepulchre, and partakes 
 in no degree of life, until after its feparation from viti- 
 ated and inert matter. "fvx*): ^i t'-v ev a-ni^oi.Ti tw (rt^/uaT*. 
 
 tvTETOjutEl//xsyr)i* i» d\ a.'zo^a.wifxi)! tyi; \v^^ <^uar\<; tou id»ov /fftov 
 xai d'Tri'KKoi.yfxiMr,^ kxkS xal vEXfS t2 avvdiia aufjixro:. jintma 
 corpori infepulta eft tamquam monumento : quod Ji mortui 
 fuerimus, (the foul being delivered from the body,) turn de- 
 mum anima vivit vitam propriam, et a coUigato fihi cor^ 
 pore, quod malum et mortuum ejl, Uberatam. In fhort, 
 it would be eafy for any one who might be fo inclined. 
 to colleft from the writings of Philo an entire body of 
 myftical theology, correfponding even to minutenefs, with 
 the fyftem of Dionyfius and the other Myftics of more re- 
 cent times. I cannot therefore help feeling fomewhat fur- 
 prifed that Arnold Poiret and others fhould, in their cata- 
 logue of myflic writers, have omitted to infert the name of 
 this Jew, than whom, certainly, there is not a more ancient 
 myflical author extant amongft us, and from whom, it 
 fhould feem, that the philofophifing Chriflians drew the 
 greatefl part of their myftic dilcipline. Tht principles and 
 maxims, then, of which we have been fpeaking, having, in 
 the courfe of this century, infinuated themfelves into the 
 minds of the Egytian Chriltians, and their teachers and in- 
 ftrutlors beginning alfo to acquire a flrong relifh for the 
 writings of Philo, there fprung up fuddenly a two-fold 
 fpecies of piety and virtue, the one popular and public, 
 the other myflerious and fecret ; as alfo a two-fold order of 
 Chriflians, the one confifling of " Operants," or thofe who 
 engaged in the labours and bufinefs of life ; the other of 
 " Quiefcents," or thofe who endeavoured, by means of fre- 
 quent meditation, corporeal mortifications, fllence, folitude, 
 debilitating of the fenfes, and the like, to deliver the foul 
 
 from 
 
of the Second Century. lyg 
 
 corruptions of fenfe, and of rendering It fit to c E n t. 
 
 Moral theo- 
 from the prifon of the body, and unite it to the parent or logyaffumcs 
 fountain of all minds. Of each of thefe fpecies of difcipline *^""'^"''^ 
 very obvious traces are to be difcovered in the writings of '^"'^^-''''• 
 Clement of Alexandria and JuHin Martyr, which have za 
 yet, however, been adverted to but by a few, and by fome 
 even of thefe been wrongly interpreted. By Chrill. Tho- 
 mafius, for inftance, an author who, on other occafions, has 
 proved hirafelf to be a man of erudition, as well as by fome 
 others, an accufation was, not many years back, preferred 
 againft Juftin Martyr and other Chriftian teachers of this 
 and the fucceeding century, on the ground of their having 
 teen guilty of a mod bafe and ridiculous fophifm in main- 
 taining that Chrift, or the Word, was in all the Grecian phi- 
 lofophers, and more efpecially in Socrates, and that through 
 this Chrift, or Interior Word, thefe men had attained unto 
 everlafting falvation. Vid. Obfervat. Halenf. Latin, tom. ii. 
 x)bferv. VII. § xxx. p. jo8. & feq. It is certain, however, 
 that thefe perfons have rather betrayed their own ignorance 
 of ancient matters, than conviAed either Juftin or his a/To- 
 ciates of any thing Hke mifreprefentation. The reafoning 
 of Juftin, according to the Platonic principles which he and 
 other Chriftians of thofe times had been led to efpoufe, wai 
 perfeAly correc't, nor did he, as has been infinuated, by a 
 kind of amphibology, impofe either on himfelf or others, but 
 cheriftied precifely the fame opinion refpefting an indwelling 
 Chrift, and an Interior Word, as is entertained by the Myo- 
 tics of modern times. According to thefe Chriftian difciples 
 of Plato and Philo Judaeus, Chrift is the fame in God that 
 reafon is in man. Believing, therefore, as they did, that 
 all minds or fouls originally were parts of and fprung from the 
 Logos, or Divine Reafon, an opinion which they had derived 
 partly from the Egyptians and in part from Plato, it could 
 not but follow that they fliould confider Chrift as dweUing 
 in the minds of aU men, and as operating and adling in all 
 who followed the diftates of right reafon. With regard to 
 the confequences attendant on this, I have not, at prefent, 
 room to enter into any difcuflion of them. In difmilfing 
 this fubjedl, however, I cannot help direfting the reader's 
 attention, in a particular manner, to the wonderful influence 
 which country and climate have on men's morals, modes of 
 life, and opinions. The notion of all minds having fprung 
 from God, and that they were to be brought back to a ftate 
 of the moft perfeft quiefcence in the bofom of this their firft. 
 N 7 great 
 
i8o 'I'^J^ Ecclefiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 c E N T. be admitted into the prefence of the Deity in 
 "• the 
 
 Mcral theo- 
 logy affiimes 
 a two- fold 
 fharacfier. 
 
 great parent 
 mortifications 
 
 by means of contemplation, and. corporeal 
 originated in regions where men's bodies 
 are opprefled and exficcated by the folar heat, and was 
 communicated from thence to other nations. In thofe 
 countries, the immoderately fervid ftate of the atmofphere 
 renders men averfe to labour or aftion of any kind ; and 
 caufes them to place their fupreifte felicity in reft, in con- 
 templation, in a ceflTation from every kind of adlion of mind as 
 well as of body. As it was impoflible for them then to regard 
 the Deity in any other light than as fuperlatively happy, 
 they were naturally led to believe that God himfelf aded in 
 no way whatever, but committed the government of the 
 univerfe to daemons or genii, and preferved himfelf in a ftate 
 of perfect quiefcence, eafe, and contemplation. Hence pro- 
 ceeded thofe tenets of the orientals, — of God being like a 
 light of the moft pure and ferene nature, — of the world 
 and its inhabitants being committed to the care and guar- 
 dianftiip of daemons, — of the abfolute inaftion and quietifm 
 of theSapreme Being, — of the tranquil proceffion of all 
 things from the Deity, without any decree or exertion on 
 his part, and the like. So prone are mortals, in forming their 
 notions of the Deity, to have too much refpeft for what 
 pafies within their own bofoms, and to make the contracted 
 frnie of their own fenfes a ftandard whereby to eftimate the 
 feelings and felicity of Omnipotence. 
 
 Again, believing as the people of thofe countries did, 
 that the minds of men, like all other things, had ema- 
 nated from God, and were partakers of the divine na- 
 ture, it was but confentaneous that they fhould place 
 
 the 
 gion 
 
 felicity of thefe alfo, and the very height of reli- 
 , in contemplation and ftillnefs, and fhould both 
 point out the way of attaining to that tranquillity, and 
 alfo prorounce thofe to be the happieft and moft like 
 to God who fecluded themfelves from the fociety of 
 men, and turning their backs on the concerns of this world, 
 pafled their days in a ftate of moft facred inaftion and holy 
 eafe. Thefe opinions, when they came to be blended with 
 Chriftianity, gave rife to a multitude of folitary and 
 gloomy charafters, who were at firft chiefly confined to 
 Egypt, but whofe example, inafmuch as it carried with it 
 a great appearance of fanftity, was quickly followed by 
 great numbers in other nations. By the inhabitants of re- 
 gions 
 
of the Second Century. i8i 
 
 the realms of everlafting light and hfe[;72]. cent. 
 
 XXXVI. Religion having thus, in both its ^_J^J__ 
 
 branches, the fpeculative as well as the pradi- Alteration i* 
 
 Cal ^'"^ '(oita ol" 
 ' divine wor- 
 Ihip. 
 gions where the cold firings the nerves, and invigorates 
 men's bodies fo as to give them a propenfity to aftion and 
 labour, a very different notion of the Deity liad been formed, 
 and confequently their conceptions of mental happinefs by 
 no means correfponded with thofe entertained in more genial 
 climates. Inftead of a God delighting only in quiet and re- 
 pofe, we here find a Deity all bufinefs and activity. Myllical 
 theology, therefore, the offspring of a burning climate and a 
 flothful race of mortals, found, upon its introdudion into 
 Europe from the Eaft, an abundance of admirers and eulo- 
 gifts, but no very great number of difciples who exemplilied 
 its precepts in their lives. In point both of morals and in- 
 ftitutions there was always a very material difference between 
 our monks and myftics and thofe of Egypt, India, Syria, 
 and Arabia. Men born under ilcies like ours, are ftrangers 
 to that apathy and inertnefs which conftitute, as it were, 
 the very foul of the myftic difcipline. Indeed of this won- 
 derful influence of climate we are furnifhed with an illuftra- 
 tion even in the provinces of Europe alone. For, confining 
 ourfelves merely to this quarter of the globe, we fliall find 
 that in diftridls expofed to the rays of a fervid fun the vo- 
 taries and friends of Myfticifm are numerous, whilftin coun- 
 tries of a moderate or frigid temperature there are to be met 
 with but very few, if any, 
 
 [|ffj] That there was a difference between the monks and 
 the afcetics of the firft ages, has of late been very generally 
 infifted on, and in my opinion on very fufficient grounds. 
 According to my view of the fubjeft, there was certainly 
 not only a difference, bui a very great difference, between 
 them. I am bound to confefs, however, that it appears to 
 me no lefs certain that the monks were derived from the 
 afcetics. As long as the afcetic regimen confifted merely 
 in continence and an abftinence from fenfual gratifications 
 and indulgences, and was unfettered by any of the precepts 
 of the Egyptian philofophy, there was nothing to prevent 
 men profeffing it from continuing in fociety and refiding in 
 the midft of their kindred and their families : but when that 
 regimen affumed a different afpeft, when it came to be re- 
 duced into a fyftem, and connected with the philofophical 
 doftrines refpefting the nature oi the foul, and of bodies ; 
 when the Afcetics adopted the behef, that every endeavour 
 N 3 was 
 
i82 
 
 The Ecclefiafiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, cal, aflumed a two-fold character, the one pub- 
 lic or common, the other private or myfterious, 
 
 it 
 
 was to be ufed to fet free the divine fpark that lay impri- 
 foned within the body, — to fubdue the influence of ths 
 fenfes, — to feparate the mind from fenfe, and reftore it to its 
 iirft original, — to blot from it all fenfual images, and re- 
 prefs in it every tendency to perturbation ; — when they 
 came to regard Quietifm as conftituting the fupreme good, 
 — when their doctrines, I fay, had once aflumed this cha- 
 racter, it was but natural for them to renounce the fociety 
 of men, and devote themfelves to a life of feclufion and fo- 
 litude. For they furely could have found nothing more 
 difficult than, amidft the noife of worldly occupations and 
 the frequent interruptions of friends and acquaintance, to re- 
 gulate their lives according thefc principles, t. e. to purify 
 the mind, to rcprefs the fenfes, and to maintain a tran- 
 quillity unruffled by any fort of cogitation or emotion what- 
 ever. Thefe principles, which the Afcetics in Egypt firft 
 imbibed from the mouths and writings of their teachers to- 
 wards the clofe of this century, were by far more widely 
 diffufed in the fucceeding one, owing to a love for the 
 Egyptian, or, if the reader would rather, the Alexandrian 
 and Ammonian philofophy becoming every day more gene- 
 ral amongft the African and Afiatic Chriftians. About this 
 period therefore we find the Afcetics beginning to withdraw 
 themfelves from cities and the fotiety of men, and retiring 
 into folitudes and deferts, and hence they acquired the title 
 of " monks," /'. e. folitary perfons. Vid. CafTian, Collation. 
 xviii. cap. v. p. 517. opp. The reader will not, however, 
 underftand me as meaning to deny that there had been, even 
 at an earlier period, fome few who, by way of arriving at a 
 higher degree of fanftity, had renounced every intercourfe 
 with men, and fpent their lives in retirement and feclufion 
 from the world : for there are many circumflances which 
 tend to induce in us a behef that fuch was adtually the cafe. 
 But of this there can be no doubt, that until the Chriftians 
 began to entertain a partiahty for that pernicious fpecies of 
 philofophy to which we have fo often adverted, it was by no 
 means deemed neceflary to forego all intercourfe with the 
 world to attain to even the very higheft degrees of fanftity, 
 and that by far the greater part of the Afcetics never did 
 fegregate themfelves from the families to which they be- 
 longed. When at length the Afcetics, by way of more rea- 
 dily delivering the imprifoned foul from the bondage of the 
 
 body 
 
of the Second Century, 183 
 
 it was not long before a diftinCtion of a fimi- 
 lar kind took place alfo in the Chriftian difci- 
 
 pline, 
 
 body and the fcnfes, and rendering it capable of perceiv- 
 ing and holding communion with the Deity, were led 
 to feparate themfelves from all commerce with the world, 
 they by degrees adopted the plan of forming themfelves 
 into focieties or colleges, and having agreed on a rule of 
 life correfpondent with their tenets, each fociety chofe for 
 itfelf a governor, diredlor, or fuperintendant, to whom 
 the reft of the coUeftive body might look up for exam- 
 ple, advice, and encouragement. Hence the origin of mo- 
 nafteries and abbeys. — But there were fome to whom 
 even this kind of focial intercourfe, limited as it was, ap- 
 peared incompatible with the grand defign of liberating 
 and compofmg the immortal mind. To them there ap- 
 peared to be danger left a community of labours and 
 prayers, nay even the very feeing and holding converfe 
 with the brotherhood might awaken the mind to various 
 cogitations and emotions, and thus prevent it from ar- 
 riving at a ftate of quiet and repofe. They, therefore, 
 withdrew into deferts and caverns, and there devoted them- 
 felves to alife of feverity and mortification, a life, in 
 faft, eftranged from every kind of human folace and con- 
 venience, and hence they came to be termed " ancho- 
 rites" or " hermits." I will confirm what I have thus 
 faid refpefting the caufes which occafioned the Afcetics 
 to withdraw from the world and become monks, by the 
 teftimony of Caffian as to the end or purpofe of the mo- 
 naftic life, which muft, in the prefent inftance, be allowed 
 to poffefs the greateft weight, inafmuch as it conveys the 
 fentiments of fome of the immediate fuccefTors of thefe firft 
 Chriftian monks. For it is well known that Caffian drew 
 what he records refpefting monaftic affairs and inititutions 
 from the monks of Egypt, with whom he was particu- 
 larly converfant. Thus then in Collation, ix. ch. ii. p. 360. 
 he introduces the illuftrious Egyptian Abbat, Ifaac, as 
 expreffing himfelf : Omnis monachi Jin'ts, cordifque per- 
 feSio ad jugem atque ind'ifruptam orattonis perfeverantiam 
 tendity tt quantum humante fragiliiati concsdltur, ad immo- 
 bilem tranquill'ttatem mentis ac perpetuam nititur puritatem. 
 Ob quam pojfidendam, omnem tarn laborem corporis., quam 
 contriiienem Jpiritus indefejfe quarimus et jugiter exercemusy et 
 eji inter alterutrum reciproca quedam infeparabilifque con- 
 jun^io. And in chap. iii. ylb omni difcurfu atque evagatione 
 N 4 lubrica 
 
184 The Ecclefiqftical Hi ft or y 
 
 CENT, pline, and form of divine worlhip. For obferv- 
 . " • , ing that in Egypt, as well as in other coun- 
 Aiteraiionin trics, the heathen worfliippers, in addition to 
 the form of their public religious ceremonies, to which every 
 ftiip. one was admitted without diftindion, had cer- 
 
 luhr'ica animus inhibendus, ut it a paulatim ad contemplationeni 
 Dei ac fptritualis intuitus incipiat Juhlimari. In Collation i. 
 which is entitled de Monachi intetitione, we find this fub- 
 jeft treated of at much length by another Egyptian abbat 
 of the name of Mofes, who in chap.iv. p. 219. ftates, 
 amongft other things, that, Jinis profe^ionis nwnachorum e/l 
 regnum. Dei, fed dejlinatio eorum eji illam cordis purificatio- 
 nem qu£ ad vi/ionem Dei ducat. This he, in chap. viii. p. 221. 
 illuftrates by the example of Martha and Mary, affirming 
 that a monk ought a contcmplatione afcendere ad illud quod 
 dicitur unum, id ejl, Dei f alius intuit urn, ut etiam fanBorum 
 aSus et minijleria mirifica fupergrejfus, folius Dei jam pul- 
 chritudine fcientiaque pafcatur. Monks, or Myftics, were, 
 tlierefore, the offspring of that fecret moral difcipline of 
 the Chriftians winch was built upon the Egyptian philo- 
 fophical tenets refpefting the Deity, the world, the foul, 
 and the nature of man ; and may be placed much on a 
 level with the EfTenes and Therapcutae of the Jews. 
 Some faint veftiges of this are difcoverable, even at the 
 prefent hour, in the minds and inllitutions of the monks 
 of Syria, Egypt, and Greece ; of which, did I not feel 
 myfelf called upon to bring this note to a fpeedy con- 
 clufion, I could readily adduce very abundant proof. The 
 European monks of our limes, on the contrary, appear 
 to have altogether loft every idea of the caufcs that gave 
 birth to the mode of life which they profefs, and fcarcely 
 retain any femblance or even fhadow of primitive manners 
 or regulations. In this, however, there is nothing that 
 Ihould occafion any great furprife. Myftical theology and 
 its ofFepring, the monaftic life, are the fruit of an ardent 
 fun and a parching climate, and, confequently, not at all 
 calculated to arrive at any degree of maturity in our part 
 of the world. It has uniformly happened, therefore, to 
 all the various orders of monks that have at different 
 times been eftablifhed under llcies fo temperate as ours, 
 that within a fhort period they experience no very trifling 
 abatement of their primitive fervor, and fufFer the precepts 
 and inllitutions of their founders to become, as it wei'e, 
 a mere dead letter. 
 
 tain 
 
of the Second Century, 185 
 
 fain fecret and moft facred rites, to which they cent. 
 gave the name of " myfteries," and at the cele- , ^' __ ^ 
 bration of which none, except perfons of the Alteration!,, 
 mofl approved faith and difcretion, were per- thc*ormot 
 mitted to be prefent, the Alexandrian Chrif- IhijT''"'^' 
 tians firft, and after them others, were be- 
 guiled into a notion that they could not do 
 better than make the Chriftian difcipline accom- 
 modate itfelf to this model. The multitude 
 profeffing Chriflianity were therefore divided 
 by them into the " profane," or thofe who 
 were not as yet admitted to the myfteries, 
 and the " initiated," or faithful and perfed. 
 To the former belonged the " catechumens," or 
 thofe that had indeed enrolled themfelves under 
 the Chriftian banner, but had never been re- 
 gularly received into the feliowfhip of Chrift*s 
 flock by the facrament of baptifm ; as alfo thofe 
 who, for fome tranfgreflion or offence had been 
 expelled from communion with the Faithful. 
 The latter, who were properly termed " the 
 church," confifted of all fuch as had been re- 
 gularly admitted into the Chriftian community 
 by baptifm, and had never forfeited their pri- 
 vileges, as well as of thofe who, having by 
 fome mifcondu(9; incurred the penalty of ex- 
 communication, had, upon their repentance, been 
 again received into the bofom of the church. 
 It became, moreover, cuftomary, even in this 
 century, more efpecially in Egypt and the neigh- 
 bouring provinces, for perfons defirous of being 
 admitted into either of thefe claffes, to be pre- 
 vioufly exercifed and examined, we may even 
 fay tormented, for a great length of time, with 
 a variety of ceremonies, for the moft part nearly 
 allied to thofe that were obferved in preparing 
 people for a fight of the heathen myfteries. 
 
 Upon 
 
1 86 The Ecclefiajlical Uiftory 
 
 CENT. Upon the fame principle, a two-fold form was 
 ^ "• , given to divine worihip, the one general and 
 Alteration in Open to the people at large, the other fpecial 
 the form of ^nd concealed from all, except the faithful or 
 fhip"* ""^ initiated. To the latter belonged the common 
 prayers, baptifm, the agapcc or love-feafts, and 
 the Lord's-fupper ; and as none were permitted 
 to be prefent at thefe " myfleries,*' as they 
 were termed, fave thofe whofe admiflion into the 
 fellowfhip of the church was perfe£l and com- 
 plete, fo likewife was it expected that, as a 
 matter of duty, the moft facred filence (hould 
 be obferved in regard to every thing con- 
 nected with the celebration of them, and no- 
 thing whatever relating thereto be committed 
 to the ears of the profane. From this con- 
 ftitution of things it came to pafs, not only 
 that many terms and phrafes made ufe of in 
 the heathen myfleries were transferred and ap- 
 plied to different parts of the Chriftian wor- 
 fhip, particularly to the facraments of baptifm 
 and the Lord's-fupper [«], but that, in not a 
 few inftances the facred rites of the church 
 
 were 
 
 [«] Inftances in abundance, of tenns and phrafes applied 
 after this manner, are to be found in Clement of Alexan- 
 dria alone, who feems, as it were, to pride himfelf in placing 
 the rites of Chriftianity on a parallel with the heathen myfte- 
 ries, and in applying to the former certain terms and modes of 
 expreflion deduced from the latter. Poflibly we may not do 
 wrong in referring to this fource the application of the term 
 ** Synibolum" to thofe profeflions of faith which were made 
 ufe of to diftinguirti the Chriftians from the reft of the world. 
 The figns or watch-words communicated to thofe who were 
 admiflible to the myfteries, in proof of their fraternization, 
 and that they might be readily diftinguifhed from impoftors, 
 were, it is well known, termed " Symbola." The oriental 
 Chriftians, alfo, of this age were accuftomed to compare 
 baptifm with that luftration with which it was the praAice 
 9 ^^ 
 
oj the Second Century. 187 
 
 were contaminated by the introduftion of va- c E n t, 
 rious pagan forms and ceremonies [0]. ^^ -"— ^ 
 
 XXXVII. As Alteration in 
 the form of' 
 divine wor- 
 to confecrate, in a certain degree, thofe who were about to ihip. 
 be initiated in the myfteries ; and the profeflion of faith, de- 
 hvered at the font, with the wMch-word or iign communi- 
 cated to the candidates for admiflion to the fecret rites of 
 heathenifm : on which account it was ufual for this pro- 
 feflion of faith to be foleniiily delivered in the very adl of 
 baptifm to every one admitted into the church. Indeed in 
 its operation the profeflion of faith, to which we allude, was 
 by no means diflimilar to the fign of myftical initiation 
 amongll the heathen. For as, by means of the latter, thofe 
 who had been admitted to a participation of the myfteries, 
 were to be diftinguiflied from the profane, fo likewife, did 
 that fum of the Chriftian religion which newly baptized 
 perfons received at the font ferve as a mark whereby to 
 know the true faithful, not only from heathen worihippers, 
 but alfo from the catechumens. To any one allowing to 
 this a due meafure of attention, I think it will not appear 
 improbable, that the term " Symbol" was one of thofe 
 things that were adopted by the Chriftians from the difci- 
 pline of the heathen myfteries. Nothing, certainly, is more 
 common than for two things having feveral points of refem- 
 blance, to come in the courfe of time to be diftinguifhed by 
 one and the fame title. 
 
 \_o~\ A fubjeft highly favourable, as it fliould feem, to 
 the difplay of literary talent, and, certainly, every way wor- 
 thy of the attention of a fcholar well verfed in matters of 
 antiquity, has long offered itfelf to the public in the rites de- 
 rived by the Chriftians, from the difcipline of the myfteries. 
 As yet, however, it has never been regularly taken up by any 
 one. Until this be done, evidence fufficiently manifeft and po- 
 fitive, as to the faft of the adoption of heathen forms and ce- 
 remonies by the Chriftians, is to be colleded from the follow- 
 ing authors as well as others ; vi%. Is. Cafaubon. Exerc. XVI. 
 In Annal. Baron, p. 388. la. Tollius, Infignih. Itiner'is Italici ; 
 Not. p. 151. 163. Anton, van Dale, Di^. in Antiquit. $5* 
 Marmora, difl". I. p. 1.2. Pet. King, H'tfl. Jpoft. Creed, cap.i. 
 $ xvi. p. 8. 15. 23. Ez. Spanheim, Remarques fur les Em- 
 pereurs de Julien, p. 133, 134. 138. 434. & feq. Edm. 
 Merill, Obfervat. lib. iii. cap. iii. David Clarkfon, Difcours 
 fur les Liturgiet, p. 36. 42, 43. Should any one enquire 
 what caufes could poflibly have led the Chriftian teachers 
 to adopt the rites of paganism, I anfwer, that in all pro- 
 bability 
 
The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 XXXVII. As by far a greater number of 
 learned and philofophical charaders were con- 
 verted to Chriflianity in the courfe of this cen- 
 tury than during the preceding one, it is not 
 to be wondered at, that this period fliould alfo 
 have had to boafl of many more authors who 
 confecrated their talents to the fervice of the 
 true rehgion and the edification of the brethren. 
 Numerous, however, as the Chriflian writers of 
 this age were, but few can be named whofe 
 works have efcaped the ravages of time. Of 
 thofe who wrote in Greek there are three of 
 diftinguilhed eminence, namely, Irenseus, Juflin 
 Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria ; men whom, 
 allowing for the times in which they lived, we 
 certainly cannot other wife regard than as learned, 
 eloquent, and gifted with no contemptible de- 
 gree of genius and talent. The firfl of thefe 
 having pafled from Afia Minor into Gaul, was 
 primarily made a prefbyter, and afterwards 
 bifhop, of a fmall church which had in this 
 century been founded at Lyons. Of his writ- 
 ings in fupport of the Chriflian faith, which 
 were not a few, none befides his five books 
 againji berefies have come down to our time ; 
 
 bability their only motive was an anxious defire to enlarge 
 the bounds of the church. The rites themfelves certainly 
 poffefled no very partidblar recommendation in point of 
 grandeur or dignity ; but a hope might very naturally be 
 entertained that the heathen worfhippers, upon finding 
 fomewhat of an accordance to fubfift between the religion 
 in which they had been bred up and Chriftianity, as to ex- 
 ternals, might the more readily be prevailed on to difmifs 
 their prejudices and embrace the latter. The end propofed 
 in this cafe was, in itfelf, certainly of the moft pure and up- 
 right nature, and may, therefore, juftly be entitled to our 
 praife ; but it muft at the fame time be acknowledged that 
 the means made ufe of for attaining it were not equally un- 
 exceptionable and praifeworthy. 
 
 and 
 
of the Second Century, 1 gg 
 
 and indeed thefe (with the exception of the cent. 
 firfl) have reached us merely through the me- , l^ - 
 dium of a wretchedly barbarous and obfcure chnftian 
 Latin tranilation [/>]. The fecond, who was enters. 
 finally led to embrace Chrillianity after having 
 tried almofl every philofophical fed, publiflied, 
 amongfl many other works, two apologies for 
 the Chrifiians addreffed to the emperors Anto- 
 ninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, which are 
 not undefervedly held in very high eftimation \jf\. 
 Both of thefe fuffered martyrdom in the caufe 
 
 of 
 
 \_p~\ Two very fplendid editions of the books of Irensus 
 adverfus Herefesy were given to the world foon after the 
 commencement of the eighteenth century. The one by the 
 learned lo. Ernelt. Grabe, Oxon. 1702. fol. the other by 
 Ren. MalTuet, a Benediftine of the congregation of St. 
 Maur. Lutet. Parif. 17 10. fol. To the laft are prefixed 
 very ample diflertations by the editor, in which a variety of 
 things relating to Irenaeus and the fefts whofe principles he 
 combats are brought under examination and illuftrated. By 
 both of thefe, however, a wide field has been left open to 
 any future editor of Irenasus. Many are the paflages that 
 ftill require the hand of a fagacious emendator, and many 
 are the pafTages that ftill invite the attention of an erudite 
 and able expofitor. Each of the above-named editors hath 
 fallen into numerous errors even with regard to the very 
 diftinftion of words. 
 
 \jf\ An edition of the works of Juftin the philofopher 
 and martyr (we purpofely omit noticing any editions of par- 
 ticular tradls of his, -fuch as his Iwo Apologiei and his 
 Dialogue <with Tryphd) was publifhed at London in the year 
 1722. fol. by Styan Thirlby, an ingenious writer, but who 
 has omitted every thing that has been improperly attributed 
 to Juftin. This edition has never been held in much efti- 
 mation. A more ample one was publiflied at Paris, 1 742, 
 fol. by Prudentius Maranus, a Benedidline monk, who has 
 included every thing that goes under the name of Juftin, and 
 enriched the whole with copious notes and fome long difler- 
 tations of his own. To Juftin, moreover, are ad^ed the 
 following minor Greek writers of this century, viz. Tatian, 
 Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias, the 
 author of a little book holding up the Greek philofophers 
 
 tp 
 ID 
 
100 The Ecclefiajiical Hi/tory 
 
 of Chrift ; the latter at Rome under the reign 
 of the emperor Marcus, the former at Lyons 
 J^^.~^ ' during the perfecution of Severus. — The third, 
 a prefbyter of the church of Alexandria, and prae- 
 fea of the Chriftian fchool eftablifhed in that 
 city, was a man of various reading, and parti- 
 cularly well verfed in the literature of ancient 
 Greece. Of the numerous works in behalf of 
 Chriftianity that are afcribed to him, we poflefs 
 merely his Siro?nata, Pedagogue^ and Exhortation 
 to the Greeks. Unfortunately his attachment to 
 philofophy was fuch as to lead him into many 
 and very great errors [r]. To thefe three are to 
 be added Theophilus bifhop of Antioch, whofe 
 three books to Autolycus in defence of the 
 
 to ridicule, and to which he gave the title of Irrlfw. The 
 diligence of Prudentius in coUedling various readings and 
 paffages of ancient writers, entitles him certainly to commen- 
 dation ; but he is by no means happy in his judgment of 
 the opinions of Juftin and others of the fathers, or in his pro- 
 pofed correftions of the errors of tranfcribers. 
 
 [r] A very excellent and beautiful edition of Clement 
 Alexandrinus was publifhed by Archbifhop Potter, Oxen. 
 1715, fol. The world however has been taught to look for 
 a better and more ample one, to the French Benediftines. 
 
 Potter, a man of very great ability, and particularly well 
 flcilled in Greek literature, has certainly, in an eminent de- 
 gree, deferved well of Clement. For he has difcovered a 
 peculiar felicity in the reftoration of a great number of paf- 
 fages, and aptly illuftrated many others by quotations from 
 antient authors, Owing, however, to a weaknefs of fight, 
 and the preffure of matters of the firft moment, it was not 
 permitted to this illuftrious charadler to do all that, under 
 different circumftances, he might have accomplirtied. The 
 Latin tranflation therefore llill remains incorreft, and in 
 many parts we have ftill to lament a want of light and per- 
 fpicuity. Very gteat difficulty is oftentimes to be encoun- 
 tered in developing Clement's meaning, it being frequently 
 involved in much obfcurity, and founded upon maxims or 
 principles at prefent but little known : neither is it by any 
 means an eafy matter, on many occafions, to perceive the 
 prder and concatenation of his thoughts. 
 
 verity 
 
af the Second Century, 1 9 1 
 
 verity and dignity of the Chriftian religion are c e n t. 
 ftill extant. Tatian, an Aflyrian philofopher , ^ ' ^ 
 and orator, of whofe numerous writings we pof- chriaiau 
 fefs no other remains than an Oration addreffed writers. 
 to the Gentiles of his time, but which will not 
 be found undeferving of perufal, even in the 
 prefent day; and finally Athenagoras, a philo- 
 fopher of no mean rank, and prasfeft of the 
 Chriftian fchool of Alexandria, whofe Apology 
 for the Chri/iians, and Treatife concerning the 
 Refurredion, have both of them happily ef- 
 caped the ravages of time[j]. 
 
 Of the Chriftian Latin writers of this cen- 
 tury none of any name or value have reached 
 our days except Tertullian, who was originally 
 a lawyer, but afterwards became a preft)yter of 
 the church of Carthage. Much of ingenuity 
 and acumen undoubtedly difcovers itfelf in the 
 various treatifes of this author now extant, which 
 are written partly in defence of the Chriftian 
 religion againft its enemies and corrupters ; and 
 partly with a view to the reformation of men's 
 morals, and the lighting up within their bo- 
 
 [j] An edition of Theophilus, feparately correfted and 
 illuftrated, was publifhed by lo. Chrift. Wolfe, Hamb. 
 1724, 8vo. The remains of this Chriftian writer were 
 again given to the world, with additional annotations and 
 various readings, by Prudentius Maranus at the end of his 
 edition of Juftin Martyr. Tatian was pubhftied feparately 
 by William Worth, Oxon. 1700. 8vo ; and Athenagoras by 
 Edw. Dechair, Oxon, 1706, 8vo ; both enriched with 
 various annotations of learned men. Nothing certainly 
 can be more beautiful than thefe two editions in point of 
 external form, but of their internal merit we are con- 
 ftrained to fpeak with fome referve : for whether regard 
 be had to the words themfelves, or the fenfe intended to 
 be conveyed by them, there was certainly abundant room 
 afforded for bringing forward thefe authors to much 
 greater advantage 
 
 foms 
 
19^ 
 
 Rife and pro- 
 pagation of 
 Chriftian 
 teas. 
 Jiidaizing 
 Chriftians. 
 
 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 foms a fpirit of genuine godlinefs and piety ; 
 but they are all of them compofed in a ftyle, 
 not only tumid and bombaftic, but beyond all 
 meafure obfcure. The opinions, moreover, 
 which they exhibit, are harfh, oftentimes un- 
 certain, and not lefs foreign from reafon than 
 from the facred writings. In fine, they plainly 
 indicate him to have been a man of a credu- 
 lous turn of mind, much addifted to feverity, 
 and poiTefled of more fubtilty than folid learn- 
 ing CO- 
 
 XXXVIII. Amidfl this mixture of profperous 
 
 and untoward circumftances, and thefe endea- 
 vours, on the part of certain teachers, to ren- 
 der letters and philofophy inflrumental in giving 
 additional liability and recommendation to the 
 
 [^3 Of all the editions of Tertullian's works that of 
 Nic, Rigaltius, Paris, 1641, fol. may be deemed the beft. 
 The one publiihed by Ph. Priorius, Paris, 1663, fol. is in- 
 deed more enriched with annotations of the learned, but not 
 better or more correft. The two editions which have fub- 
 fequently iffued from the Venetian prefs are, in point of 
 beauty and elegance, far behind thofe of Paris ; nor is their 
 fidelity always to be relied on. An edition of this very 
 obfcure writer, at once comprehenfive, accurate, and fuffi- 
 ciently illuftrated, has long been a defideratum with the 
 ftudents of ecclefiaftical antiquities. — Such an one has at 
 different times been promifed to the world by men of very 
 eminent abilities, and amongft the reft by the BenediAine 
 fraternity, but, unlefs I am altogether deceived, the learned 
 ■will never be gratified v^ith fuch an edition of TertuUian 
 as they would wifh to poflefs. For not to notice the 
 obfolete and unufual terms which he on fome occafions feems 
 fludioufly to go out of the way for, and equally pafling 
 over a variety of phrafes connefted with jurifprudence, 
 and of which it is fcarcely to be hoped that any one 
 fhould give us any fatifadory explanation at the prefent 
 day, his thoughts are, in innumerable inftances, expreffed 
 in a way fo concife, fo obfcure, and fo ambiguous, that 
 we are left in a ftate of utter uncertainty as to what it is 
 that he means. 
 
 caufe 
 
of the Second Century, 193 
 
 caufe of Chriftianity, the church moft unhappily cent. 
 became divided into various fa(5lions and lefts, ''* 
 which had for their authors and leaders a fet of ,]^,\^y,:,n^ 
 men who wifhed rather to take their own v/ifdom chriiiiaM, 
 for a ftandard than to be guided by the words of 
 Chrift and his apoftles. The firft diflenfion of 
 this nature that took place, occurred amongft the 
 Chriflians of Paleftine imder the reign of the 
 emperor Hadrian. For when Jerufalem, which 
 had begun in fome meafure to revive from its 
 afhes, was finally razed to the foundation by this 
 emperor, and the whole Jewiih nation were ren- 
 dered fubjefl: to laws of the mod rigorous caft, 
 the greatefh part of the Chriflians inhabiting Pa- 
 lefline renounced the law of Mofes, to which 
 they had before paid obedience, and placed them- 
 felves under the guidance of a leader named 
 Marcus, who was not a Jew, but a ftranger, and 
 whom they appear to have fele6ted for the exprefs 
 purpofe of manifefting that they meant to have no- 
 thing in common with the Jews. Filled with indig- 
 nation at this proceeding of their brethren, the 
 reft of the Jewifh converts, v/ho ftill retained an 
 immoderate attachment to the law of Mofes, with- 
 drew into that part of Paleftine which is diftin- 
 guiflied by the name of Perasa, and there efta- 
 blifhed a peculiar church of their own, in which 
 the ceremonial law was retained in all its ancient 
 dignity. This church, which could, unqueftion* 
 ably, have been but a fmall one, never attained to 
 any degree of celebrity, but, after having main- 
 tained its ground in Paleftine for fome centuries, 
 began, not long after the age of Conftantine the 
 Great, to go back, and gradually dwindled away 
 into nothing \ji]. 
 
 XXXIX. Infig- 
 
 [k] a very notable paffage relating to this matter oc- 
 voL. II. o cur» 
 
1 94 The Ecclefiqftical Hi/lory 
 
 XXXIX. Infignificant, however, as thefe Ju- 
 daizing Chriftians, comparatively, were in point 
 
 of 
 
 curs in Sulpitius Severus, H'ljior. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. xxxi. 
 p. 245. Et quia Chriirtani [i. e. thofe living in Paleftine) ex 
 Judais poti^imum putabantur {^namque turn Hicrofolyma non 
 tjiji ex circumc'ijione hahehal ecclefta facer dot em^ nul'itum cohor- 
 tern cujlodias in perpetuum ag'itarejtijjtt, qua Judaos onines Hie^ 
 rofolyma aditu arccret. Quod quulem Chriftiana jidei profi' 
 ciehat : quia turn pctne omnes Chrijlum Deum fub legis ob- 
 fervatione credebant. Nimirum id Domino ordinante, difpoji- 
 turn, ut legis fervitus a Ubertatc Jidei atque ecclefia tolkretur. 
 Ita turn prinium Marcus ex gcntibus apud Hierojolymam epif- 
 copus fuit. Although this pafTage of Sulpitius is .either lo 
 lucid nor fo regular as might be wiftied, it yet clearly points 
 out the origin of that church, v^hich held, that by becom- 
 ing Chriitians men did not exonerate themfelves from the 
 necefllty of obferving the law of Mofes. For it appears 
 from it ; (I.) That the Chriftians of Jewifh extracSlion, refid- 
 ing within the confines of Paleftine, as long as any hope 
 remained that Jerufalem might recover from its firft over- 
 throw, were accuftomed to unite an obfeivance of the Mo- 
 faic ritual with the worfliip of Chrift. (II.) That the 
 greateft part of thefe Chriftians were, under the reign of 
 Hadrian, when every hope of feeing Jerufalem revive was 
 extinguiftied, induced to repudiate the law of Mofes, and 
 choofe one Marcus, a ftranger, for their biftiop. This, un- 
 queftionably, they did under an apprehenfion that if they 
 appointed a bifhop of Hebrew origin he might be induced, 
 from an innate attachment to the law of his forefathers, to 
 attempt the gradual reftoration of thofe ceremonies which 
 they had come to the determination of for ever renouncing. 
 (HI.) That the reafon which induced thefe Chriftians to re- 
 nounce the law of Mofes was the feverity of the emperor 
 Hadrian, who had furrounded with a military guard the 
 fpace on which the city of Jerufalem formerly ftood, 
 and prohibited the whole race of Jews from having any ac 
 cefs thereto. "With regard to this point, indeed, Sulpitius 
 is lefs perfpicuous and luculent than could be wiftied, and 
 is altogether on the referve as to many things on which it 
 would have been more judicious in him to have fpoken out. 
 Upon the whole, however, we can pretty well afcertain 
 what his meaning is, and without much difficulty fupply 
 thofe particulars in relpeft of which he is deficient. The 
 Chriftians rcfiding in Paleftine, fo long as they continued to 
 
 obferve 
 
of the Second Century. 195 
 
 of numbers, unanimity was not to be met with 
 amongfl them ; for they were divided into two 
 
 feds 
 
 obferve the law of Mofes, were looked upon by the Romans 
 QS Jews ; and certainly not altogether without reafon. When 
 Hadrian therefore had prohibited the Jews from all accefs to 
 the fpot whereon Jerufalem had formerly ftood, thefe Chrif- 
 tians found thenifelves equally inlerdifted from any approach 
 thereto. But it feems that thefe latter felt particularly un- 
 eafy under this reftraint, and were mod anxioufly defirous to 
 free themfelves from it. They therefore renounced alto- 
 gether the ceremonieB of the Mofaic law, and left the Ro- 
 mans might doubt of their fincerity, they committed the 
 government of their church to one who was not a Jew but 
 a ftranger. Having thus openly divorced themfelves from 
 every connexion with the Jewifli law, they were permitted 
 by the Romans to have free accefs to that diftridl from 
 whence the Jews wrere altogether excluded. All thefe 
 things, it muft be admitted, may, with a moderate degree of 
 attention, be coUeded from Sulpitius notwithftanding the 
 very great degree of negligence with which he writes. But 
 we (hall now proceed to make fome enquiry as to a point on 
 which this author is altogether filent ; namely, as to what 
 caufe could poflibly have excited in thefe Chriftians fo very 
 ftrong a defire to have accefs to the fcite of Jerufalem, that 
 fooner than not obtain this objeft of their wilhes, they were 
 led to abandon their paternal law and rites, and fubjeft 
 themfelves to a man who was not a Jew ? Is it to be be- 
 lieved that fuperftition could have ttimulated them to all 
 this ? Could they have been prompted by a wifli to feed and 
 refrefh their minds with a view of thofe places in which our 
 Bleffed Saviour had paffed his life and rifen again from the 
 dead ? Could they have been a6tuated by the belief, which 
 was at one time fo very general amongft the Chriftians, and 
 which continues to be entertained by not a few even in the 
 prefent day, that it conftitutes not the meaneft part of reli- 
 gion and piety to vifit facred places ? But it is abfolutely 
 incredible that men pofTelun^ fuch a ftrength of mind as to 
 repudiate the religious ceremonies of their anceftors, which 
 had been ahered to for ages with the utmoft fcrupulofity, 
 and to commit the fuperintendance of their facred rites and 
 religion to a foreigner, fhould, at the fame time, have been fo 
 weak and fuperftitious as to be incapable of enduring the 
 thought of being excluded from thofe places which Chrift, 
 o z whilft 
 
196 The Ecckjiajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, fedls differing widely from each other in their 
 
 , ^^j ^ tenets refpeding Chrift, and the neceffity of obe- 
 
 TheNaza- dience 
 
 Hbionites. whilft here below, had honoured by his prefence. If fuch 
 were their charafter, it might well be faid, that in their 
 breads fiiperftition had been oppofed to fuperftition, and 
 that the greater, contrary to all probability, had fallen before 
 the lefler one. There muft, unqueftionably, therefore, have 
 been fome other reafon which induced thefe Cliriftians to con- 
 fider the liberty of having free accefs to the fcite of Jerufa- 
 lem as of greater moment than an adherence to their paternal 
 ceremonies and inftitutions, and not to hefitate at purchafing 
 this privilege by an utter renunciation of the Mofaic law. 
 Nor do I conceive that much labour or difficulty will be ch- 
 countered in afcertaining what this reafon was. At no very 
 great diftance from the fpot whereon Jerufalem formerly 
 flood, the emperor Hadrian had conftrufted a new city 
 bearing the name of ^lia Capitolina, and which had been 
 endowed by him with very confiderable privileges. Into 
 this new colony the Chriftians who had fled for refuge ti; 
 the infignificant little town of Pella and its neighbourhood, 
 and were daily experiencing great deprivations and incou- 
 venience, felt an anxious defire to be admitted. But the 
 emperor had peremptorily excluded all the Jewifh nation 
 from this his newly-built city ; and as the Chriftians who 
 adhered to the law of Mofes were apparently not diftin- 
 guifhable from Jews, this prohibition was, of courfe, 
 confidered as extending likewife to them. Feeling it then 
 of the firft importance to their well-being to procure for 
 themfclves the liberty of removing with their effefts into the 
 city of jfElia, and of being admitted to the rights of citi- 
 zenfhip there, a confiderable number of thefe Chriftians 
 came to the refolution of formally renouncing all obedience 
 to the law of Mofes. The immediate author of this mea- 
 fure was, in all likelihood, that very Marcus whom they ap- 
 pointed as their biftiop : a man whofe name evidently fpeaks 
 him to have been a Roman, and who doubtlefs was not un- 
 known to thofe of his nation that had the chief command in 
 Paleftine, and might poffibly have been related to fome 
 officer of eminence there. Perceiving, therefore, one of 
 their own nation placed at the head of the Chriftians, 
 the Roman praefefts difmifled at once all apprehenfion of 
 their exciting difturbance in the newly-eftabliftied colony, 
 and from this time ceafed to regard them as Jews. In 
 confequence of this favourable alteration in the fentiments 
 12 of 
 
Gf the Second Century, u^y 
 
 dience to the law, and poflibly as to various other cent. 
 matters of opinion. Of thefe the one, namely, ^^* 
 
 that 
 
 of the Romans towards them, the Chriftians found them- 
 felves no longer debarred from the Hberty of fettling in the 
 newly-founded city, but were, without fcruple, admitted to 
 a participation of its privileges, which were of the moft va- 
 luable and important nature. In what we have thus 
 fuggefted, there is nothing whatever difficult ot belief, and 
 it muft certainly be allowed to receive a fanftion of no httle 
 weight from what we find exprefsly recorded by Epipha- 
 nius, de Ponderibus et Menfuris., § xv. p. 171. that the 
 Chriftians, upon their renouncing the law of Mofes, were 
 fuffered to remove from Pella to Jerufalem. By Jerufa- 
 lem we muft underftand the emperor Hadrian's new city, 
 which, pofterior to the time of Conftantine the Great, infen- 
 fibly loft the name of ^lia Capitolina, and acquired that of 
 Jerufalem. Vid. Henr. Valefius, Adnot. ad Eu/ebium, p. 61. 
 But even if no memorial of this were extant, no room what- 
 ever could be afforded for controverfy. For it is indifpu- 
 tably certain, that from the time of Hadrian there exifted a 
 Chriftian church of celebrity at JElii, and that the prelates, 
 who were commonly termed bifhops of Jerufalem, were in 
 point of fad bifhops of ^lia. I muft beg the reader, however, 
 not to underftand me as meaning that the Chriftians of Palef- 
 tine, in renouncing the law of Mofes, were influenced folely 
 by a wifti to obtain the Hberty of removing into the city of 
 iElia. Without doubt, that Marcus, at whofe inftance they 
 were prevailed on to renounce the law of Mofes, made it ap- 
 pear to them, by irrefragable arguments, that the authority 
 and dignity of the Mofaic ritual had been abohfhed by the 
 coming of the Mefliah. By men, however, who had been 
 accuftomed, even from their tendereft years, to regard the 
 law of Mofes with the higheft degree of veneration, his ar- 
 guments would have been received with lefs effe6t had they 
 not been feconded by a profpeft of being admitted to a 
 fhare in the privileges of ^lia, and of thus obtaining a deli- 
 verance from the opprefiions and numerous other evils to 
 which the Jews were at this period fubjefted ; or if the 
 fecond and complete fubverfion of Jerufalem by Hadrian 
 had not extinguiftied every hope of feeing the temple re- 
 built, and the Jewifh nation reinftated in the privilege of 
 worlhipping God on that fpot, after its accuftomed manner. 
 Sulpitius does not add that this remarkable defe6tion from 
 the obfervances of their forefathers was not general amongft 
 o 3 the 
 
Ebionites. 
 
 198 The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, that of the Nazarenes, is not confidered by 
 ^i- ancient Chriftian writers as coming within the 
 J^32a- clafs of heretics ; but the other, that of the 
 rencs and Ebionites, is uniformly reckoned in the cata- 
 logue of thofe feds whofe principles ftrike at 
 the very fundamentals of the Chriftian faith. 
 Neither of them adopted thofe accounts of our 
 Blelfed Saviour's life which were held facred 
 by other Chriftians, but each had a pecuHar 
 gofpel of its own, differing in feveral refpecls 
 from that which we regard as genuine [y'}. By 
 
 the 
 
 the Chriftians of Judaea, but that a part of them ftill re- 
 mained invincibly attached to the Mofaic law, and with- 
 drew from every intercourfe with thofe of their bre- 
 thren who had renounced it. Indeed there was no oc- 
 cafion for his noticing this, inafmuch as the thing was 
 notorious. Nothing, in fa6l, can be better attefted tlian 
 that there exifted in Paleftine two Chriftian churches, by 
 the one of which an obfervance of the Mofaic law was 
 retained, and by the other difregarded. This divifion 
 amongft the Chriftians of Jewifh origin, did not take place 
 before the time of Hadrian, for it can be afcertained, that 
 previoufly to his reign the Chriftians of Paleftine were 
 unanimous in an adherence to the ceremonious obfervances 
 of their forefathers. There can be no doubt, therefore, 
 but that this feparation originated in the major part of 
 them having been prevailed on by Marcus to renounce 
 the Mofaic ritual, by way of getting rid of the numerous 
 inconveniences to which they were expofed, and procuring 
 for themfelves a reception, as citizens, into the newly- 
 founded colony of .^lia Capitolina. 
 
 [•y] That the gofpel of the Nazarenes was not the fame 
 with that of the Ebionites, is moft clearly manifeft from the 
 few notices refpefting each of them that are to be met 
 with in ancient writers. Vid. Jo. Albert. Fabricius, Cod. 
 Apocryph. Nov. Teji. tom. i. p. 355. et feq. In the gofpel 
 of the Ebionites, for inftance, to pafs over other things, 
 the firft two chapters of St. Matthew were omitted, whereas 
 it appears from St. Jerome that thefe chapters formed a 
 part of the gofpel of the Nazarenes. The reader will 
 find this fubject more particularly adverted to in my Fitii 
 4ikia Antiq^ue Chrijl'tanorum Difcipline contra Tolatidi Naza-> 
 
 rmumx 
 
of the Second Century. 199 
 
 the Nazarenes {jiv]^ our BlefTed Saviour was cent. 
 
 confidered, not only as having been generated 
 
 of 
 
 renum, feft. i. cap. v. p. 112. Setting afide the aftual dif- 
 ference of their tenets, this one faft is fufficient to prove 
 that the Ebionites and Nazarenes were two feparate and 
 diftina fefts. 
 
 [w] Epiphanius is the firft who ranks the Nazarenes in 
 the clafs of heretics. By more ancient writers the Ebionites 
 are confidered as of that defcription, but not the Nazarenes. 
 The reafon of this I fufpeft to have been, that the Chriftians, 
 previoufly to the time of Conftantine the Great, although 
 they might regard the Nazarenes as brethren Jabouring un- 
 der a degree of error, yet never confidered them as cor- 
 rupters of the Chriftian faith : nor will this appear extra- 
 ordinary to thofe who are in the lead converfant with. 
 Chriftian antiquities. For the tenets of the Nazarenes re- 
 fpe£ling Chrilt were by far more juft and correct than 
 thofe of the Ebionites, and, although they would have 
 deemed it inexcufable in themfelves to negleft the cere- 
 monial obfervances of the law of Mofes, they yet by no 
 means exafted an obedience to the Jewifh ritual from 
 thofe who were not of the Hebrew race. But Jews of 
 this defcription, who were contented with obferving the 
 law themfelves, and fought not to impofe it on others, were, 
 in the fecond and third centuries, looked upon as genuine 
 Chriftians, and deemed not unworthy of the name of bre- 
 thren. This is clearly intimated by Juftin Martyr, Dia/. cum 
 Tryph. p. 136. edit. Jebbian. For being interrogated by 
 Trypho in his difputation with him, whether thofe Jews 
 who, notwithftanding that they had embraced the Chriftian 
 faith, continued fteadfaft in their obfervance of the law 
 of Mofes, could obtain falvation ? he thus replies : T^iyjj 
 OTt cra-'^rjc7£T«i '^oiH'xoc, eoiv juri' Ty? clxXii; avSfwTra; exttoivtoj 'jret- 
 Seiv ixyion^riTOit Tavroc dvTui (pvXaa-cni'jf \iywv hi (TuSn'cna-Scii 
 a^raV, i«v /ar raZra, (J>tXa.|a);r»v. Ego qii'ideni falvatum talem 
 iri aio, qui alios homines infententiam fiiam adducere annifus 
 non fuerit, non fervatum eos iri affirmans niji eadem (the 
 law,) fecum fervawrint. Many more things of this kind 
 are to be found in Juftin's dialogue ; but at the fame time he 
 does not diffemble that there were fome who were lefs liberal 
 in their determination of this point. But, pofTibly, it may 
 be objefted by fome that the Nazarenes were anciently in- 
 cluded under the name of Ebionites : nor is this objediou 
 altogether deftitute of colour. For it is certain, that the 
 o 4 writers 
 
 Tl.e Naza- 
 renes and 
 Ebionites 
 
The Na7a- 
 lenes ami 
 Ebionitfs. 
 
 20O The Ecclejiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, of" a virgin, but alfo ^s partaking, in a certain 
 
 writers of the fccond and third centuries orcafionally made 
 ufe of the term Ebionites in a much more comprehenilve 
 fenfe than we find it bearing in works of a more recent 
 date. In fa£l it fhould feem that, at that early period, the 
 denomination of Ebionites was apphed indifcriminately to 
 all fuch Jews, as notwithftanding their convtrfion to Chrif- 
 tianity, continued to obfervc the law of Mofes. Vid. Origen 
 contra Celfum, lib. iii. opp. torn. ii. p. 385. Hence it 
 comes to pafs that we find the Ebionites of thofe times 
 diftributed into two clafles, the orthodox, and the here- 
 tical ; into thofe who believed our Bleffed Saviour to have 
 been born of a virgin, and thofe who denied this. Vid. 
 Origen contra Celf. lib. v. torn. ii. opp. p. 625'. Eufebius, 
 H'ljlor. Ecclef. lib. iii. cap. xvii. p. 99. Theodoret, Fahul. 
 Haretic. § ii. cap i. p. 219. et feq. But when I take into 
 confideration what is faid by Irenseus and others on the fub- 
 jeft of the Ebionites, I cannot help giving the preference to 
 the opinion which I have firft above ftated refpc£ting them. 
 The term Nazarene, moreover, with, thefe men had precifely 
 the fame import as that of Chriftian has with us. For being 
 Jews, and fpeaking only the Hebrew language, they found 
 a difficulty in naturalifing the word Chr'i/iinnusy which is of 
 Greek origin, and therefore fubftituted Nazaraus, a term 
 bearing equal relation to our Saviour Chrift, in its room. 
 St, Matthew in his Gofpcl, chap. ii. 23. ftates it as a pre- 
 ditlion of the prophets of the Old Teitamcnt, that the 
 Meffiah fhould be called a Nazarene. Under the fan£lion of 
 this authority then, thefe Judaizing Chriftians thought them- 
 felves warranted in afliiming the title of Nazarenes, juft in the 
 fame way as the Greek converts had taken the denomination 
 of Chriitians from the Redeemer's title of X^iro?. Either 
 term alike indicates the difciples or followers of that Meffiah 
 who had been promifed of old to the Jewifh nation. Hence 
 we may colledl the fenfe in which we ought to underftand 
 what Epiphanius has recorded refpefting the Nazarenes. 
 Haref. xxix. ^ vi. arf X^trt^vyV ey-vra; Ivovojxy.j-c/.Vf aWk 
 'Na(^ii,'fo''»a'i. Nolunt Chrljtiani vocari, feci Na-zarai. Being 
 Jews, they felt a repugnance to adopt a Greek denomi- 
 nation, but felefted a Hebrew term of fimilar import and 
 figniiicance, and one that appeared to them of an equally 
 honourable nature, fince it was no uncommon thing for 
 our Lord to be ftyled a Nazarene ; and inftances had oc- 
 curred even of his having applied this appellation to himfelf. 
 In this, certainly, there was nothing whatever that could 
 rcafonably be imputed to them as a fault. 
 
 degree. 
 
of the Second Century. 20l 
 
 degree, of the divine nature [.v]. The rites in- c e n t. 
 
 ilituted by Mofes, they regarded as ftill necef- , ^ , 
 
 fary to be obferved by all Chrillians of the Ti.eNaza- 
 Hebrew race, but they did not exad a con- ''^^^^^^^ 
 formity to the Jewifh law from fuch as were 
 of a different origin : neither did they confider 
 the additions that had been made to the Mo- 
 faic ritual at different times, by certain mafters 
 
 [jc] What the precife opinion entertained by the Na- 
 zarenes, refpefting Chrift, was, is not altogether clear. 
 Many of our moft eminent fcholars, fuch as Grotius, 
 Voflius, Spencer, and Huet, conceive them to have been 
 altogether exempt from error in their notions on this fub- 
 jedt, and that their belief was in no refpe6l different 
 from ours as to the union of two natures in Chrift, 
 the one human, the other divine. By no one has this 
 orthodoxy of the Nazarenes been vindicated with greater 
 learning and abihty than by Mich. Lequien, in his Adnot. 
 ad Damafcen. tom. i. p 82, 83. as well as in a particular 
 differtation de Na%arenii et eorum Fide, which is the fe- 
 venth of thofe that he has annexed to his edition of 
 Damafcene's works. Nothing whatever has been fuffered 
 to efcape his diligence that could pofTibly aid in demon- 
 ftrating that the Nazarenes' belief refpefting Chrift was 
 equally corre6t with our own. But none of all the proofs 
 which he adduces from ancient authors can be faid fo 
 far to eftabhfti the fa6t as to leave no room for doubt, Ma- 
 nifeft, indeed, it is, that the Nazarenes regarded our Blef- 
 fed Lord as of a higher and more exalted nature than a mere 
 man ; and that they looked upon him as having been begotten 
 of a virgin by the omnipotent will of the Deity, and ad- 
 mitted him to be, in a certain fenfe, the Son of God, 
 endowed with divine power. But whether they believed 
 him to have had an exiftence prior to Mary, and that 
 God and man were united in his perfon, admits of very 
 confiderable doubt. In faft the fenfe of all the paffages 
 that have been brought forward by men of erudition with 
 a view to eftablifti this, is very uncertain and equivocal. 
 On the contrary there are fome paiTages in ancient au- 
 thors which appear to furnifh fuflicient proof of the Na- 
 zarenes having denied the divinity of Chrift. See, for ex- 
 ample, Origen's difcourfe de Duobus Cac'ts, torn. i. opp. 
 p, 427. edit. Huet. 
 
 «ind 
 
202 The Ecclefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 and dodors of the law, as deferving of any 
 fort of refped, but treated them as things that 
 ought to be either abohflied or at lead fuffered 
 to fink into oblivion Tj]. 
 
 XL. The Ebionites, who derived their name 
 either from fome man, or from fome particular 
 fad cr opniion [s], were a feci of a much worfe 
 
 defcription 
 
 [j] That the Nazarenes were avcrfe to the rites and 
 inftitutiotis which had been added to the Mofaic precepts 
 by the Pharifees and interpreters of the law ; and that 
 they confidered nothing as obligatory except the genuine 
 commands of the great Hebrew legiflator, is abundantly 
 manifeft from the teftimony of St. Jerome, who had not 
 only read their books, but lived on terms of familiarity 
 with them. Vid. Com. in Efaiam, torn. ii. opp. p. 34. & 106. 
 But whether they confidered the law of Mofes as of ge- 
 neral obligation, or as binding on the Jews exclufively, 
 remains as yet a queftion with the learned. For my own 
 part, I feel not the leafl hcfitation in declaring my affent 
 to the opinion that the Nazarenes believed the Mofaic 
 law to be obligatory on no other Chriftians than thofe 
 who were dcfcendants of the ftock of Abraham. And a 
 principal rcafon with me for acceding to this opinion is, 
 that St. Jerome, who was intimately acquainted with their 
 principles and tenets, rcprefents them as having enter- 
 tained the higheft veneration for St. Paul, and as having 
 afligned him a diftinguifhed place amongft thofe whom they 
 regarded as teachers of celeftial truth. Hicron. Com. in 
 Efaiaui, tom. ii. p. 35. For how could it be pofuble that 
 the great apoftle of the Gentiles, who laboured with 
 fuch zeal in proving that the law of Mofes ought not to re- 
 tain its ancient force and authority, fhould have been com- 
 mended and held in high elUmation by men who confidered 
 obedience to that law as indifpenfable in every one who 
 would arrive at falvation ? Not a doubt can cxift but that 
 the Ebionites, who would willingly have impofed an ob- 
 fcrvance of the Mofaic law on the chriftians in general, exe- 
 crated St. Paul as an impious impugnerof that law. This 
 argument is of greater ftrength and weight than to be fliaken 
 by certain d'tda of St. Auguftine or others, that by a forced 
 interpretation may be made to militate againfl; it. 
 
 fz] Teitullian, and, after him, many other ancient Chrif- 
 
 tian 
 
of the Second Century. 203 
 
 defcrlption than that of the Nazarenes. For in c E n t. 
 the firil place, although they held our Saviour ^_ _"• _^ 
 Jefus Chrift, in great veneration as a divine xheEbion- 
 legate or prophet, they would not admit that "«»• 
 any miraculous circumftances attended his birth, 
 but maintained that he was the natural fon of 
 
 tian writers derive the appellation of*' Ebionites" from fome 
 man. Vid. Jo. Albert. Fabricius, Adnot. ad Philajirum de 
 Here/, p. 8 1. & fcq. Neither is there any difficulty in believ- 
 ing that fome Jew of the name of Ebion might have been the 
 author of thofe tenets by which the Ebionites were diftin- 
 guifhed from other Chriftians of the Hebrew race. But in- 
 afmuch as Origen, Philocal. cap. i. p. 17. who is followed 
 by Eufebius, Hl/l, Ecclef. lib. iii. cap. xxvii. p. 99. ftates 
 this fedl to have acquired the title of " Ebionites" or " pau- 
 pers" from the low and abjeft fentiments which they enter- 
 tained refpefting Chrift ; and the fame Origen, in another 
 place, contra Celfum, lib. ii. p. ^6. accounts for the name 
 from their attachment to the indigent and infufficient law of 
 Mofes ; and laftly, fince the Ebionites themfelves, as is ob- 
 ferved by Epiphanius, Haref. xxx. § xvii. p. 141. confidered 
 the name to have had an allufion to the poverty and needi- 
 nefs of their anceftors, certain of the learned have conceived 
 that more credit is due to thefe opinions than to the former 
 one, although they at the fame time betray an utter igno- 
 rance as to which of thefe latter is moft to be relied on. 
 Were it to be left to me to determine this point, I fhould at 
 once give the preference to the opinion of the Ebionites 
 themfelves ; for nothing can be more certain than that by 
 far the greateft number of thofe Chriftians of Jerufalem, 
 from whom the Ebionites were defcended, were involved in 
 a ftate of indigence ; nor is it at all unlikely that this their 
 poverty might have been caft in their teeth by the reft of 
 their brethren and finally have given rife to a taunting ig- 
 nominious appellation. Origen and Eufebius, as may be 
 gathered even from the inconfiftency of the former in his 
 explication of this name, convey no information that can be 
 depended on, as to the origin of the term Ebionites, but 
 merely give us their own interpretation of the word, or 
 point out how aptly it appears to reconcile itfelf with the 
 tenets of the fed. But as this queftion refpefting the origin 
 of the term Ebionites is, in faft, of no very great import- 
 ance, I prefer leaving it undetermined, to engaging in any 
 controverfy on the fubjeft. 
 
 Jofeph 
 
204 The Ecclefiajiical Eiftory 
 
 CENT. Jofeph and Mary, begotten according to that 
 , J^i , law by which all other mortals are produced. In 
 The Ebion- the next place they not only obferved the Mofaic 
 »t«- law of ceremonies in all particulars themfelves, 
 
 but alfo infilled on its being requifite for every 
 one who would obtain favour with God, to do 
 the like. St. Paul, therefore, who had fo flre- 
 nuoufly exerted himfelf in demonftrating that 
 no neceffity exifted for conforming to the Mo- 
 faic ritual, it may eafily be believed, found but 
 little favour with them. Laflly, they refufed to 
 give up even the fuperflitious appendages which 
 had been added to the inflitutions of Mofes by 
 the Pharifees and dodors of the law \_a\. 
 
 XLI. From 
 
 [a] In the ftatement which I here fubmit to the reader 
 refpefting the Ebionites, I am borne out, in feveral particu- 
 lars exprefsly, and as to others in no very obfcure terms, by 
 Irenjeus, and the beft Chriftian writers of the early ages. 
 With regard to the laft circumftance noticed, namely, that 
 of their having retained, in addition to the rites prefcribed 
 by Mofes, the fuperftitiou? obfervances and pra6lices intro- 
 duced by the Pharifees, in oppofition to the Nazarenes, by 
 whom thefe innovations were utterly lopped off and dif- 
 carded, it may indeed appear to a curfory examiner of the 
 authors above alluded to, to admit of fome doubt. An at- 
 tentive confideration, however, of the following words of 
 Irenasus will, I think, place the matter out of all difpute. Et 
 c'lrcumciduntur ac perfeverant in his confuetudin'tbus, qua funt 
 fecundum legem et Judaico charaHere vita. Lib. i. adv. Heref. 
 cap. xxvi. p. 105. & feq. Irenaeus here obvioufly makes a 
 diftiiiftion between an obfervance of the precepts of the law 
 and the Jewilh mode or charader of life, and reprefents the 
 Ebionites as conforming no lefs to the one than the other. 
 But as to this Jewifh chara£ter, or mode of life diftinil 
 from the precepts of the law of Mofes, what elfe can it 
 mean than that rule of life and morals which had been 
 impofed on the necks of the Jewifh multitude by their maf- 
 ters and doftors as a fort of fecondary law ? What Ire- 
 nxus adds of their having worfhipped the city of Jerufalem 
 as the immediate refidence of the Deity, I confider as indif- 
 
 putably 
 
of the Second Century. 205 
 
 XLI. From the infignificant and obfcure feds, cent. 
 which we have thus enumerated, unfupported as . _ '_ ^ 
 they were by any confiderable degree either of Seas gene- 
 talents or authority, the Chriftian church ex- o^.-gj^jft 
 perienced comparatively bur little detriment. By lofopiiy. 
 far the greater part of the ill-will and malig- 
 nity which it had to encounter from with- 
 out, as well as of the difcord and diflenfions, 
 by which it was internally diflrafted and dif- 
 turbed, is undoubtedly to be attributed to thofe 
 who were for expounding the religion of Chrift 
 upon the principles of the oriental philofophy. 
 During the firfl century thefe men can fcarcely 
 be faid to have emerged from obfcurity : they 
 
 putably falfe and injurious. For it was never held lawful 
 by the Jews to worfhip, even in the flighteft degree, any 
 thing except the one true and living God. What gave 
 occafion to this calumny was their cuftom of turning always 
 towards the fcite of Jerufalem when they offered up their 
 prayers. Prior to the war of Hadrian there can be no doubt 
 but that the Jews were accuftomed to refort, for the purpofes 
 of prayer, to the fpot whereon the temple had formerly flood, 
 in order that they might conform themfelves, as far as poifi- 
 ble,to the cuflom of their forefathers and the ancient religious 
 difcipline of their nation. But even this miferable confolation 
 was wrefted from them by Hadrian, who by a fevere edift 
 forbad any Jews to approach Jerufalem, and furrounded the 
 whole area of the temple and the holy city with a military 
 guard. Nothing more was left then to this aiflifted peo- 
 ple, fo fondly attached to the praAices of their anceftors, 
 than, when engaged in prayer, to turn their faces towards the 
 fpot where once had flood their city and their temple. 
 
 Epiphanius, Haref. xxx. in treating of the Ebionites, at- 
 tributes to them many other errors than thofe above enu- 
 merated, amongfl which are to be found feveral, not only of 
 a filly, but of the very grofTefl nature. He, however, takes 
 care to apprife his readers, ^ iii p. 127. & § xiv. p. 141. 
 that his remarks refpeft the Sampfseans and the Elcefaites as 
 well as the Ebionites, and that the primitive Ebionites were 
 entire flrangers to any fuch heretical opinions. It would 
 be wrong therefore to blend thofe dodrines with the tenets 
 of the Ebionitea. 
 
 lived 
 
2o6 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. lived unnoticed and the converts that they made 
 . _ J 'l^. were but few ; but under the reign of Hadrian, 
 Seas gene- the apoflles, and the principal of their difciples 
 orient \^-^ being dead, they began to take courage, and by 
 lofophy.^ " degrees fucceeded in forming numerous congre- 
 gations of their followers in various of the pro- 
 vinces ; and indeed did not reft fatisfied with 
 merely inftituting thefe aifociations, but left no 
 means uneffayed that might contribute either to 
 their reputation, their (lability, or their in- 
 creafe \_b~]. Under the banners of thefe new fefts 
 great numbers of Chriftians, who had previoufly 
 entertained none but found opinions, were tempted 
 to enrol themfelves, being feduced, in part by a 
 fanatical kind of eloquence that charafterifed 
 many of their leaders, in part by the very great 
 ihew of piety exhibited by others, and in part by 
 the profped of being countenanced in living 
 more at their eafe and finning without controul. 
 A no lefs difaftrous evil attending the rife of the 
 Gnoftics was, that both the Jews and the hea- 
 thens, confidering the difgraceful maxims and 
 tenets of thefe fedaries as the genuine princi- 
 
 (^^3 Several of the more early Chriftian writers have left 
 it on record, that under the reign of Hadrian, when the 
 Apoftles were all dead, the Gnoftic fe6ts, that had pre- 
 vioufly languifhed in obfcurity, began to emerge from 
 their concealment ; and that by the exertions which they 
 ufed in gaining profelytes, and eftablifhing congregations 
 of their followers, the caufe of genuine Chriftianity was 
 moft fadly difturbed and impeded. Vid. Clemens Alex, 
 lib. vii. Stromat. cap. xvii. p. 898. & fcq, Cyprian, Ep'tfl. 
 Ixxv. p. 144. ed. Baluzian. Hcgefippus apud Eufeb. Htji. 
 Eccl. lib. iii. cap. xxxii. p. 104. & Hb. iv. cap. xxii. p. 142. 
 although as to the fenfe of this latter paflage the learned 
 are not exaftly agreed. The admiflion of this teftimony 
 is unavoidable, inafmuch as we meet with nothing in other 
 writers at all repugnant to it, and the origin of none of 
 the Gnoftic fefts, except that of the Cerinthians, can be 
 traced higher than to the age of Hadrian. 
 
 1 1 pies 
 
of the Second Century, 207 
 
 pies of Chriftianity, were led to regard the re- cent. 
 ligion of the gofpel with increafing hatred and ^ J|l _j 
 contempt : fo that the Chriftian teachers were So-^s gene- 
 thenceforward neceflarily compelled to employ rated ot the 
 
 _, ,, , -^ri- 11 1 oriental phi- 
 
 a confiderable portion ot the time allotted to lofoi.hy. 
 the eftablifliment and propagation of the faith, 
 in repreffing the progrefs of Gnofticifm, and in 
 expofmg, through the medium of writings and 
 difputations, the infane pretenfions and principles 
 maintained by its abettors [c]. 
 
 XLII. This 
 
 [c] The Greeks and Romans, who were ftrangers to the 
 genuine principles of Chriftianity, erroneoufly conceived 
 that the maxims and tenets of the Gnoftics were thofe of 
 the Chriftiaiis at large. Many of thefe maxims and tenets, 
 however, were not only foolifti and ridiculous, but funda- 
 mentally vile and difgraceful, and hence it came to pafs, that 
 the Chriftians were looked upon either as perfoas devoid of 
 reafon and worthy only to be held in derifioii, or elfe as a 
 fet of unprincipled wretches that could not be treated with 
 too much feverity. The teftimony of many of the ancient 
 fathers might be cited as to this, but I fhall content myfelf 
 with adducing only one paflage out of Irenieus adverf. 
 Htzref. lib. i. cap.xxiv, ad detraBionem d'lvln'i ecclefia nominiSf 
 quemadmodum et gentes, a Satana pram'ijfi funt, (he is fpeak- 
 ing of the Carpocratians, a Gnoftic feft of infarnous me- 
 mory) ut't fecundum al'ium modum, qua fitiit illorum audientes 
 homines, et put antes omnes nos tales ejfe, avertant aures fuas a 
 prxconio veritatls, aut, et videntes, qua funt illorum, omnes nos 
 blafphement, in nullo eis communicantes, neque in doBrina, ne- 
 que in moribus, neque in quotidiana converfatione. Sed vitam 
 quidem luxuriofam, fententiamimpiam (habentes) ad velamen 
 malitia ipforum nomine ( Chriftianorum ) ahutuntur. The cafe 
 was much the fame with the Jews who had fettled amongft 
 the Greeks and Romans without the confines of Paleftine. 
 For many of thefe, who were at firft far from being equally 
 prejudiced againft Chriftianity with the reft of their bre- 
 thren, upon hearing the Gnoftics maintain, that the God of 
 the Hebrews and of the Old Teftament was a different 
 being from the True and Supreme God, — that nothing 
 like divine authority or dignity could properly b'j attributed 
 either to Mofes or his law, — that the God of the Jews 
 was indeed an angel endowed with vaft power, but devoid of 
 
 clemency 
 
2o8 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 X. XLII. This bufinefs of arrefling the progrefs 
 of Gnoflicifm amongft the multitude, became 
 every day a concern of flill wider extent, and 
 attended with increafmg difficulties, in confe- 
 quence of the numerous diffenfions, difputes, 
 and reparations that were continually taking 
 place amongft the votaries of the oriental phi- 
 lofophy. For notwithftanding all of thofe who 
 looked upon the Creator of the world as a dif- 
 ferent being from the Deity, may be confidered 
 as having commenced their career upon nearly 
 one and the fame fet of principles, yet they 
 had proceeded but a little way when as many 
 of them as preferred following their own judg- 
 ment rather than any other man's, ftruck off 
 into different paths, and not only gave to the 
 philofophy which they had efpoufed a diver- 
 fity of modification in itfelf, but alfo intro- 
 duced variations in the manner of reconciling 
 and conne6ting it with the Chriftian religion. 
 Hence were generated difagreements, difputa- 
 tions, and controverfies, which foon gave rife 
 to fadions, parties, and fefts that were conti- 
 nually at flrife with each other. It is by no 
 means eafy to determine as to the number of 
 thefe feiSls. There feems, indeed, to be but 
 little hazard in our confidering them as having 
 been lefs numerous than they are reprefented 
 
 clemency and wifdom, and a flave to the luft of dominion, — 
 that the refurredion of the dead was undeferving of belief, 
 — that matter was intrinfecally corrupt, and, confequently, 
 all bodies inherently vicious and depraved, I fay, upon 
 hearing the Gnoftics avow not only thefe but various 
 other principles and maxims diametrically oppofite to the 
 religious tenets of the Jews ; and haftily running away 
 with the idea that fuch was the way in which Chrift had 
 inftrufted his difciples to think and believe, they were led 
 to regard the Chriftian religion with every poflible degree 
 oi" hatred and difguft. 
 
 by 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 by ancient authors ; but at the fame time it c 
 is certain, that the greateft difcord prevailed 
 amongfl the Gnoftics, and that the feCls gene- 
 rated by this difcord were not a few [J]. Owing 
 to the inconfiflency and obfcurity of ancient 
 authors, we find ourfelves equally in the dark 
 as to the precife time when either of thefe fefts 
 individually was formed, or the circumftances 
 that attended its rife : but fmce it is certain 
 that all of them, which attained to any degree 
 of confequence or celebrity, were in a flourifli- 
 ing Hate fo early as the middle of this century, 
 it is not to be doubted but that the principal 
 of them muft have been inftituted not long 
 fubfequent to its commencement. 
 
 {_d'\ It feems not at all improbable that the ancient 
 Chriftan teachers, in confequence of their not obferving 
 a due degree of caution in diftinguiihing between the 
 Gnoftic fe6ls might multiply them without reafon. Each 
 fe£l, moll likely, was at the firft known by a variety of 
 names ; one perhaps derived from the place where it ori- 
 ginated, another from its founder, and another again from 
 fome particular tenet or leading principle : and it is cer- 
 tainly very poflible that, from their either not fufficiently 
 attending to tliis circumftance, or perhaps being entirely 
 unacquainted with it, thofe who made it their bufinefs to 
 oppofe thefe fefts might fall into the error of reprefent- 
 ing them as much more numerous than they a6tually were. 
 It n\ould feem, alfo, that certain of thefe fedls were 
 known by different names in different parts of the world ; 
 by one, for inftance, in Syria, by another in Egypt, and 
 by a third, poffibly, in fome of the other provinces : a 
 portion of this or that particular feft, moreover, it is pro- 
 bable might acquire a peculiar denomination from fome 
 eminent teacher to whom they might have attached them- 
 felves. Men, by far more fagacious than the ancient 
 Chriftian paftors were, have, been frequently impofed upon 
 in matters of this kind, and been led to believe in the 
 exiftence of a much greater number of fedls than ever 
 had any being. Even modern ecclefiaftical hiftory fup- 
 plies us with a remarkable inftance in illuftration of this 
 in the cafe of the Anabaptifts. 
 
 VOL. II. p XLIII. In 
 
2 1 o The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 XLIII. In bringing fome of the principal of 
 thefe fedls under review we find our attention 
 firft called towards the Elcefaites, whofe foun- 
 der, according to Epiphanius, was a Jew 
 named Elxai, who, under the reign of Tra- 
 jan, fo fuccefsfully ingratiated himfelf with 
 a Jewifh fe£t, named the Offens, as to make 
 converts of them all, and prevail on them, 
 in a body, to adopt his errors. This man, 
 although a Jew, and of courfe a worlhipper 
 of the one only true God, yet contrived to 
 blend much of the fuperftitions of the eafl 
 with the religion of his forefathers ; and, amongft 
 other things, protefted altogether againfl the 
 ufe of facrifices, contending that the offering 
 up of viftims to the Deity was a pra£lice to 
 which the patriarchs of old were utter ftran- 
 gers. This circumftance, confidering that in 
 other refpedts he manifelled a reverence for 
 Mofes, and adhered ftriftly to the Jewilh 
 ritual, feems to indicate his having belonged 
 to ihe fed of the Eflenes, who pretended that 
 the law of Mofes ought not to be taken li- 
 terally, but that there was a recondite fyftem 
 of morality concealed beneath its precepts. 
 It is, however, not by any means certain, 
 as even Epiphanius himfelf allows, that the 
 Elcefaites were a Chriftian fed. Elxai, it is 
 true, in a book which Epiphanius had feen. 
 fpeaks in a general way of Chrift, and be- 
 llows on him very high encomiums, but no- 
 thing whatever is added from whence it can 
 be afcertained whether or not he meant, un- 
 der that title, to fpeak of Jefus of Nazareth. 
 This certainly is not charaderiftic of a Chrif- 
 tian ; and I, therefore, for my own part, en- 
 tertain not the leaft doubt but that the Elcefaites 
 
tf the Second Century. 1 1 i 
 
 were a Jewifh fe6t, and fome branch of the cent 
 
 Eflenes [^]. ^]!^ > 
 
 XLIV. If the Elcefaites then be confidered The ijiniofo- 
 as not coming; properly within the defcription p'') "*" ^*' 
 or a Chriltian lect, we are certainly bound, m 
 marfhaliing the leaders of the different Gnoftic 
 factions, to affign the firft place to Saturnjinus of 
 Antioch, whom the early Chriltian writers repre- 
 fent as having been a difciple of the Samaritan 
 Menander ; a circumftance which, though it can- 
 not well be believed, muft yet be allowed to pof- 
 fefs no inconfiderable weight as an argument in 
 favour of the antiquity of his fe61; [/]. This 
 man, previoufly to his becoming a Chrillian, be- 
 longed to that clafs of philofophers who believed 
 that, in addition to the Deity, of whom they pre- 
 tended that no one had any knowledge, there 
 had exifted from all eternity, a material principle 
 intrinfically evil and corrupt, over which prefided 
 
 [^] Epiphaniii?, ^^rf/l xix. § iii. p. 41. Eufebius, /i^//?. 
 Ecclef. lib. vi. c. xxxviii. p. 234. Theodoret. Fahul.Hxret* 
 lib. ii c. vii. p. 221. &: feq. 
 
 \_f~\ If Saturninus had been a difciple of Menander, pro- 
 priety would have required that his feftfliould have been re- 
 ferred to the firft century ; and amongft the learned there have 
 not been wanting feveral, as L.e Clerc and others, who, upon 
 this fiiigle ground alone, have been adlually induced to 
 refer it to that age. But in this inllance too hafty and 
 implicit a reliance has certainly been placed on thofe an- 
 cient writers who reprefcnt Saturninus as having been edu- 
 cated under Menander. For firft, the difcipline of Me- 
 nander differs moft materially from that which Saturninus 
 profefled ; and in the next place, Menander, as I have 
 above ftievvn, cannot, with the leaft propriety, be confi- 
 dered as coming within the defcription of a Chriftian he- 
 retic. Much rather therefore may we credit the teftimony 
 of Eufebius, H'ljl. Red. lib. iv. cap. vii. and Theodoret. 
 Fabular. Haretic. lib. i. cap.ii. p. 193. by both of whoni 
 Saturninus is exprefsly reprefentcd as having flourifhed 
 under the reign of the emperor Hadrian. 
 
 p 2 a certain 
 
2 i 2 The Ecclefiajiical Hijlory 
 
 c E N T. a certain governor or prince. This world, ahd 
 the firft parents of the hunian race, he fuppofed 
 to have been created by feven angels, without 
 the knowledge of the Supreme Deity. Thefe 
 feven fpirits, there can be no doubt, were the 
 fame with thofe powerful genii begotten of God, 
 whom the people of the eafl conceived to refide 
 in and rule over the feven planets or moveable 
 ftars ; for that fuch were the founders of this 
 nether world, was an opinion entertained by 
 various others of the Gnoftics. The fabric of 
 the world, when completed, did not appear dif- 
 pleafmg in the fight of the Almighty, wherefore 
 he breathed into man, who as yet was endowed 
 with nothing beyond mere animal life, a rational 
 foul ; and having divided the newly-created 
 world into feven diftrids, he permitted the feven 
 angels by whom it had been faihioned, to affume 
 the dominion thereof, referving, however, to 
 himfelf a fupreme and irrefiftible command over 
 the whole. One of thefe angels, Saturninus 
 held to be the ruler of the Hebrew nation, 
 the being that brought them up out of the land 
 of Egypt by the hand of Mofes, and after- 
 wards gave them a law, and whom the Jews, 
 therefore, not knowing any thing of the Su- 
 preme Deity, ignorantly paid their adoration to 
 as God. To Satan, or the ruler who prefided 
 over matter, this creation of the world and the 
 human race was in the higheft degree difpleaf- 
 ing ; wherefore, being Simulated by hatred and 
 emulation, he contrived to introduce upon earth, 
 in oppofition to the human beings on whom 
 the Deity had beflowed a rational and virtu- 
 oully difpofed foul, another race of men, cre- 
 ated by himfelf out of matter, and endowed 
 with a malignant and irrational foul like his 
 
 own. 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 own [^]. Hence was generated that aftonifliing 
 difference which is found to exifl: between the 
 
 hi- 
 
 [^] The principal ancient writers that have treated of 
 the difcipline of Satiirninus are Irena-us ndi). Haref. lib. i. 
 cap. x\iv. Tertiillian de Prafcript. contra Harrt. cap. xlvi. 
 Theodoret. Fabular. Haret. lib. i. c. ii. Eulebiiis Hijlor. 
 Ecclef. lib. iv. cap. vii. Epiphanius Hteref. xxiii. p. 62. & 
 Auguftiii. in lib. de Harefih. c. iii. but by none of thefe has 
 the fubjedl been handled othervvife than in a confufed, con- 
 cife, and obfcure manner. The confequence of this has 
 been, that whenever modern writers have attempted to ex- 
 tract an account of the philofophy and religion of this Syrian 
 from any of the authors above-mentioned, they have been 
 lure to fall into errors, and conjure up for themfelves diffi- 
 culties where none in reahty exift. Thofe errors and diffi- 
 culties I have made it a part of my bufinefs to corrcft and 
 overcome, as far as the obfcurity of ancient authors, and their 
 irregular mode of narration would permit : and I will here 
 lay before the reader a ftatement of thofe particulars in 
 which I have found realon to differ from the commonly re- 
 ceived opinion. (1 ) Tliat Saturninus afllgned to the cor- 
 rupt material principle, which lie confidered as having been 
 co-eternal with the Deity, a peculiar prince or governor, is 
 no where exprefsly ftated by any ancient authors ; from 
 what they have left us on record, however, refpefting his 
 Satan, we may, I think, fairly colled as much. Saturninus 
 taught, as mud clearly be perceived by any one who (hall 
 attentively coi.fider what is faid ot him by Irenaeus, that 
 Satan, upon ddcovrring the human beings that had been 
 formed by the creators of the world, and endowed with a 
 rational foul by the Supreme Deity, went to work and cre- 
 ated, out of matter, a man of a corrupt and oppofite cha- 
 rafter. This Satrai, Irer.xus terms the " angel inimical to the 
 creators of the world," but more particularly " to the God 
 of the Hebrews." But, certainly, his very work befpeaks 
 him to have been fomething greater and more powerful than 
 an an^rel. The creators of thr world were angels, but they 
 pofTelTed not the power of imparting to tiie human beings 
 whom they had formed a rational foul. The men of their 
 creation breathed and crawled about upon the face of the 
 earth like worms, aiid had it not been for the commifera- 
 tion of the Supreme Being, they never wouiJ have pofTeflTed 
 that fpark of life, a rational foul. But tlie power of Satan 
 was fuch, that he could beftow on the man whom he cre- 
 p 3 ated 
 
2 1 4 T^he Eccleftajlical Hi/lory 
 
 inhabitants of the earth ; of whom fome are of 
 a found and virtuoufly difpofed mind, others of 
 
 a radically 
 
 ated an aftual foul, a foul, peiverfe it is true, and naturally 
 inclined to what is evil, but indifputably inlelleftual or ra- 
 tional. The ancient writers indeed do not exprefjly iVate 
 this, but it IS an inference that admits of no controverfy. 
 For wicked men, who are defcended from tliat original 
 man whom Satan created, are unqueilionably cndoAved witli 
 a foul as much as good men, although it be a foul that natu- 
 rally inclines them to tvil. But this foul they certainly 
 cannot have received from God, the fountain of nothing but 
 what is good, and they therefore muft have been indebted 
 for it to Satan, their father. The Satan of Saturninus then, 
 although an evil being, muft have been equal in power to 
 the Supreme Deity, and alike capable of animating bodies 
 with a rational foul. 
 
 From thefe premifes it follows, that we muft believe Sa- 
 turninus to have attributed to his Satan an independent ex- 
 iftence coeval with that of the Deity, and likewife the 
 command or controul of matter from all eternity. It is, 
 moreover, to be fuppofed, that the foul with which Satan 
 infpired the man that he had formed, was taken by him from 
 the foul of matter. Wherefore, it ftiould feem moft likely, 
 that Saturninus agreed with fome others of the Gnoftics in 
 believing matter to be animated. (II.) That the Deity 
 was not difpleafed with the world that had been created by 
 the feven angels, is another circumftance as to which ancient 
 authors are filent, but which may fairly be inferred from his 
 having imparted to the men formed by thefe fame angels a 
 rational mind or foul. Having rendered the inhabitants of 
 the world capable of living well and happily therein, it is 
 impofTible that the world itfelf fliould have appeared dif- 
 pleafing in his figlit. Although, therefore, the world had 
 been created without the knowledge of the Deity, yet, 
 when it was perfected, he beheld it with approbation, and 
 deemed it worthy of having its exiftence continued for a cer- 
 tain time. (III.) That Saturninus confidered the Deity as 
 having placed this world under the government of thofe who 
 had framed it, refcrving to himfelf, however, the fupreme 
 dominion and likewife the worfhip of mankmd, is clear from 
 what he taught refpeding the defection of the founders of 
 the world from God. If there had been no previous obli- 
 gation or fubjecfiion, there could have been no defertion of 
 duty or rebellion. Thofe of the learned are deceived, there- 
 fore. 
 
of the S'econd Century. 215^ 
 
 a radically vicious chara6ler inclining to every c E n t. 
 thing that is evil. The former derived their "• 
 body from the founders of the world, their foul xiiepioX 
 from the Supreme Deity ; the latter derive both phyof Sa- 
 body and foul from Satan, the governor of mat- "*""""' 
 ter \_h'\. That all thefe things were devifed by 
 
 way 
 
 fore, who reprefent Snturninus as having maintained that 
 the founders of the world were originally evil beings ; an 
 error into which many have fallen with regard to the difci- 
 pline of various others of the Gnoftic fedls. — The fpiritual 
 beings noticed by Saturninus are of three defcriptions ; tlie 
 Supreme Deity, the angels who created the world, and Sa- 
 tan, the prince or governor of matter. The Supreme Deity 
 he confidered as eflentially good, the Chief Good ; the 
 prince of matter as eflfentially evil ; the creators of the 
 world, the rulers or governors of the feven moveable liars, 
 as neither eflentially good, like the Deity, nor evil like 
 Satan, but holding, as it were, a middle kind of charadter; 
 that is, being endowed with free will, they were at liberty 
 to follow either good or evil. (IV.) That Satan, or the 
 prince of matter, was enraged with the founders of the 
 world, and privily counterafted the deligns of them and 
 the Supreme Deity, by creating a depraved and malig- 
 nant race of men, we find noticed by ancient writers ; 
 but aai to the caufe of his indignation and hatred, they are 
 wholly filent, leaving this, like almod every other part of 
 the difcipline of Saturninus, but very imperfeftly defcribed. 
 It will be no very difficult matter, however, to fupply the 
 deficiency in this inftance from conjefture. Thofe feven 
 angels, in their formation of the world, and replenifning it 
 with inhabitants, hadinvaded the province of Satan, and drawn 
 away matter from his dominion. Filled with indignation, 
 as it was natural for him to be, at this, he, out of op 
 pofition, introduced upon earth a race of men ofhisow.i 
 forming, by whom thofe who had been created by the 
 angels might be continually vexed and tormented. 
 
 \h~\ Irenaus ftates exprefsly in lib. i. cap. xxiv. that 
 Saturninus was the firft of the Gnoftics that divided man- 
 kind into two claffes, the one naturally good, the other 
 evil. The fa£l was, that he defpaired of being able to 
 account for all the evil in the world from matter alone, 
 and therefore had recourfe to the expedient of fuppofing 
 all whofe propenfities appeared to be radically vicious to 
 P J. have 
 
1 1 6 The Ecckfio/iical Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, way of accounting tor the cxiilence of natural 
 ^^ as well as moral evil, mufi: be obvious to every 
 '^""^"""^ one. 
 
 TheSatur- XLV. Upon his converii')n to Chriftianity, 
 ninianfyfi^em Satuminus made it his endeavour to produce, 
 leoog). ^^ ^^^ ^^ poflible, a congruity between the reli- 
 gion that he had thus efpoufed and his former 
 philofophical opinions. The way he took was 
 to pretend that the founders and governors of 
 the world had, after a certain period, rebelled 
 againft the Supreme Deity [ij- That in confe- 
 
 quence 
 
 have been infpired with a wicked foul, and that the prince 
 of matter had created this race of men and breathed into 
 them a foul fimilar to his own, a foul naturally ' .clined 
 to every thing evil and depraved, in order to prevent his 
 being altogether excluded from any dominion over the 
 world. But with regard to the tenets of Saturninus re- 
 fpe6ting the formation of the firft men, Irenasus, like other 
 ancient authors, fpeaks very indiftinttly. He fays, in a 
 general way, duo genera hominum plafmc.ta ah angdis (iicit. 
 Learned men have been hence led to conclude, ihai Sa- 
 turninus conceived the founders of the world to have cre- 
 ated bad as well as good men, and that, therefore, they 
 muft have been of an evil nature themfelves. But to an 
 attentive reader it nnift be obvious that he did i-ot con- 
 ceive wicked men to have derivc'd their origin frcm the 
 fame parents as had produced the good, but ti;at they 
 were the children of Satan. 
 
 [f] Refpecling this fedition of the founders of the 
 world, which Saturninus reprefented as the caufe of 
 Chrift's advent, Irenasus thus expreffes hiinfclf ; El propter 
 hoc qvod d'l/folvsre 'ooiucr'int patrem ejus (of Chrift) omnes 
 pr'inc'ipes (of the world) advcn'iffe Chr'iflum ad dcJlru£lionem 
 Judaorum D< i, ^c. At the tirtt fight, certainly, this may 
 appear particularly obfcure ; but it will "ot long embarrals 
 any one who is acquainted with the difci])h-ie of the Gnof- 
 tics. The creators of the world, being elated with pride, 
 conceived a wifh to be themfelves confidered as gods by the 
 human race, and, in confequence of this, became defirous of 
 extinguifhing all knowledge and worfliip of the Moll High 
 amonglt men. By Patrem Chrijii d'ljjolvere, therefore, Ire- 
 njeus means arrogating to themfelves that which was due to 
 
 God 
 
tf the Second Century. 1 1 7 
 
 quence of this, Chrifl, the Son of God, had cent. 
 defcended from above and taken upon him a , "; , 
 body, not indeed a true or real body compofed 'i i,c Satur- 
 of depraved matter, but merely the fhadow or n"'ia"f)ft'n> 
 refemblance of one. That the cauie or purpole 
 for which Chrift came into the world was, that 
 he might overthrow, not only the dominion of 
 the founders of the world, but alfo that of Sa- 
 tan, or the prince of matter, and his fatellites : 
 he was, moreover, to deflroy thofe minillers of 
 Satan, the men of his creation ; and finally to 
 liberate and bring back to God the good men, 
 in whom exifted a divine foul \k\ The moral 
 
 difcipline 
 
 God alone, and extinguifhiHg In men's minds all know- 
 ledge of the Supreme Father : The orthodox Chriftians 
 and the Gnoftics were in perfeft agreement as to this, that 
 the worfhip of a plurality of gods, which at the time of 
 Chrift's appearance, prevailed nearly throughout the world, 
 had been introduced by a fet of proud fpiritual beings, un- 
 juftly covetous of divine honours ; and that the gods, there- 
 fore, whom the nations worlhippcd, had a real exiftence, 
 and were, in faft, evil daemons. But there was this differ- 
 ence between the Gnoftics and other Chriftians, that the 
 former reckoned the God of the Jews as one of thofe apof- 
 tate fpirits who were defirous of withdrawing men from the 
 worfliip of the true and Supreme God ; and conceived that 
 the creators of the world, whom they diftinguiftied from the 
 Supreme Deity, were the principal authors of this grievous 
 iniquity ; whereas the latter believed that certain evil an- 
 gels, who had themfelves previoufly rebelled againft the 
 true God and only Creator of the world and every thing in 
 it, and who, in confequence of fuch their rebellion, were 
 fufFering under a fevere, but well-merited, punifhment, had 
 ir.ftigated men to withhold their worfhip from the true 
 and Supreme God, and beftow it on natures hateful in his 
 fight. 
 
 [/f] This view of the Saturninian difcipline, it rauft be ac- 
 knowledged, is mutilated and defective in almoft all its parts ; 
 but the fault muft reft with the ancient writers who have not 
 left U3 the means of rendering it more perfeft. A few 
 things, however, may be added as obvioufly deducible from 
 
 the 
 
2 1 8 The Ecdeftq/lical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, difcipline prefcribed by Saturninus to his fol- 
 ._ ^ ^- , lowers was rigid and aullere. Regarding matter 
 TheSatui- as inherently corrupt, and the body, therefore, 
 "f^'r^^r^™ as the feat of all vices, he enjoined an abfti- 
 eoogy. j^gj^^g horn wine, flelli, and every aliment that 
 might tend to recruit or invigorate the corpo- 
 real frame ; fo that the body, being extenuated 
 and brought low, the mind might, with the 
 
 the tenets above noticed. As Saturninus would not admit that 
 Chrift took upon him a real body, he muft of necelfity have 
 denied his having been feized and ill-treated by the Jews, his 
 having fuffered on the crofs, and alfo his refurreftion from the 
 dead. His belief muft therefore have been, either that fome 
 other perfon underwent capital punifhment in Chrift's ftead, 
 or that it was merely fome femblance or fliadow of Chrift that 
 appeared on the crofs. The objeft of Chrift's advent, ac- 
 cording to Saturninus, was, that he might reftore to man- 
 kind that knowledge of the Supreme Deity which they had 
 unfortunately loft. It is evident, therefore, that he had no 
 idea of an expiation of fins through Chrift, but conceived, 
 according to the leading principle of Gnoftici,fm, that yvwo-K, 
 as it was termed, or a knowledge of the Supreme Father of 
 the univerfe, and a thorough contempt for the falfe gods 
 that were worftiipped by the world at large, were alone fuf- 
 ficient to the obtaining of falvation. None of the human 
 race, however, he contended, could attain to a knowledge 
 of the Deity but thofe on whom the Supreme Being had 
 conferred a divine foul. The far greater part of mankind, 
 therefore, having, according to him, been endowed by Satan 
 with an iniquitous mind, were, of courfe, incapable of deriv- 
 ing any benefit from Chrift. Thofe who received Chrift 
 were the good ; and the minds of thefe being illuminated 
 with a knowledge of the true God, reverted, on the diflb- 
 lution of the body, to the celeftial father, the body itfrlf 
 returning to matter, from whence it had been hrft taken. 
 Thofe who rejected Chrift were the wicked ; and thefe Sa- 
 turninus confidered as deftined to perifh altogether ; the 
 body itfelf being refolved into matter, and the evil foul 
 which animated the body returning to the foul of matter 
 from whence it was originally taken. None of the Gnoftics, 
 it may be remarked, feem to have been aware of any other 
 end for which Chrift came into the world, than that he 
 might overthrow idolatry and revive amongft the human 
 race a knowledge of the true God. 
 
 greater 
 
of the Second Century, 2 1 9 
 
 greater readinefs and alacrity, perceive and wor- c E n t. 
 
 fliip the Supreme Deity. He was alfo averfe ^ J'j ^ 
 
 to marriage, inafmiich as its objed: was the iheSaiur- 
 propaffation of bodies f/l. In what way, or by ninianfyikm 
 
 r , i^ o . . L,J ;5 ; of theology. 
 
 what authorities baturninus lupported his tenets 
 
 and 
 
 [/J Irenaeus does not fay that all the followers of Satiir- 
 uinui abftained from animal food, but merely that many of 
 them did fo, and that not a few weak perfons were vaftly 
 captivated by this fort of felf-dcnial. It appears then, that 
 Saturninus either left his dilciples at liberty to abftain from 
 animal food or not, according to their pleafiire, or that he 
 did not prefcribe a courfe of difciphne equally harfn and fe- 
 vere to all. Of the two, the latter llrikes me as the mod pro- 
 bable. His followers, J fhoald conceive, were arranged 
 much in the way that was afterwards adopted by Manes 
 and others, i.e. divided into difciples of the firft and fe- 
 cond clafs. The latter, not afpiring to any very fuperior 
 degree of fanftity and virtue, although they never ex- 
 ceeded the bounds of fobriety and moderation, yet made 
 ufe of the fame kinds of bodily aliment as other men ; 
 but the former, being anxious to difpel tbofe clouds with 
 which the mind was fubjeft to be enveloped from its con- 
 nexion with the body, a'ld to arrive at a clearer knowledge 
 of the Deity, allowed themfelvt-s no fort of bodily fuftenance, 
 except of the mod fleuder kind. After this manner alfo, 
 ought we, I think, to underftand what is faid I y ancient 
 writero of the Saturninians having been prohibited from mar- 
 rying. For although Irenaeus Hates thefe men to have 
 looked upon marriage and generation as of Satanic origin, 
 from whence it neccflarily follows that they mull have re- 
 garded all fexual intercourfe as abfolutely unlawful, it is 
 with difficulty I can bring myfelf to believe that Saturninus 
 allowed none of his difciples to marry. All leaders of fedts 
 make it their principal objecl to colleft together as many 
 followers as poflible. But fefts whofe leading principle it 
 is to fubdue, and even ftifle altogether, the infliindls of 
 nature, can never become numerous or extenfivf, but after 
 exifting for a while in a low dwindled (late, are fure to fall 
 to decay. With a view to prevent this otherwife inevitable 
 confequence, the founders of thofe feds whofe moral dif- 
 cipline was particularly rigid and auftere, were accufto—ed, 
 for the mod part, to exaft an implicit conformity to tlieir 
 rules, merely from fuch as were meant to ftand forth as 
 an example to others ; the reft were left much at liberty 
 to confult their own natural inclinations. The Saturnian feft 
 
 appears 
 
120 The Eccleftajlkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, and doftrine we are altogether uninformed. It 
 1 ^^'' _, appears however that the code of the Old Tefta- 
 ment, which we know to have been held in reve- 
 rence by the Gnoflics, was rejefted by him on 
 the ground oi its having been compiled in part 
 by the creators of the world, and in part by 
 the prince of matter, or Satan. 
 Thephiiofo- XL VI. Nearly about the fame time that Syria, 
 fe."*^^*^" and more particularly its chief city, Anticch, 
 was infefted and diflurbed by the wild theories 
 of Saturninus, an Alexandrian philofopher of a 
 fimilar genius, named Bafilides, was endeavour- 
 ing to introduce amongfl: his countrymen and 
 the inhabitants of the various provinces of Egypt 
 another form of religion, differing widely from 
 the principles entertained by the Chriftians at 
 large [;«]. His fyftem took for its bafis certain 
 
 points 
 
 appears never to have extended itfelf beyond the confines 
 of Syria ; it fhould alfo feem to have been but of" fhort du- 
 ration, 
 
 [m] Bafilides and his feft are treated of by all thofe an- 
 cient autliors that have written on herefies, and whom we 
 have above referred to when fpeaking of Saturninus. But 
 fince moft of them merely copy, and not unfrequently in- 
 correftly, from Irenacus, we (hall direft our attention prin- 
 cipally to him. It may not be amifb, however, occafionally 
 to turn to thofe authors who, in treating of other matters, 
 have here and there incidentally adverted to Bafilides or 
 his tenets, the principal of whom is Clement of Alexandria, 
 who had read the books written by Bafilides and his fon 
 Ifidore, and in his Stromata cites many paflages from them 
 in the very words of the authors themfelves. For Bafilides 
 himfelf wrote four and twenty books of commentaries on 
 the gofpel ; and his fon left behind him exhortations, moral 
 precepts, and a variety of other things. None of thefe 
 works, it is to be regretted, are at this day extant. We 
 have alfo to lament the lofs of a copious confutation of 
 the abovementioned work of Bafilides by Agrippa Caftor, 
 a very celebrated and erudite Chriftian writer of this cen- 
 tury. From the paflages cited out of the books of Ba- 
 filides by Clement, it is eafily to be perceived that the 
 
 man 
 
oj the Second Century. 221 
 
 points which, in common with Saturniniis and cent. 
 the reft of thofe who were addided to the ori- ._ _ 1 _, 
 ental philofophy, he alfumed as indifputable, The phiiofo- 
 namely, that there had eternally exilted a Deity jlJi"^^*^'" 
 of the very higheft excellence, of a nature, in 
 fad, beyond all human conception ; that mat- 
 ter had alfo an eternal exiftence ; that it was 
 
 man was neither deftitute of gravity, nor of an appearance 
 of great piety towards God : For he writes in a very 
 decorous and rehgious ftyle. His manner of diftion, how- 
 ever, is obfcure and out of the common track, fo that 
 there is occafionally a difficulty ii: getting at his mean- 
 ing. Nor is his adverfary Clement, in many inftances, at 
 all more intelligible. Indeed he, not un frequently, is fo 
 unfortunate as to involve the maxims which he affails in 
 ftill greater obfcurity, and feems to enter the lifts againft 
 things which he does not fufficiently underftand. Turn- 
 ing to more modern writers, in addition to what is to be 
 met with in the ordinary ecclefiaftical hiftorians, and the 
 Dtffertationes In Irenxum of Ren. MafTuetus, it will be found 
 that great care and induftry have been exerted in digeft- 
 ing and illuftrating the tenets of Bafilides by Ifaac Beau- 
 fobre in his H'tjlory of the Man'tchees, vol. ii. y 8. et feq, 
 Bafilides is ranked by this writer araongft the precurfors 
 of Manes ; and not improperly fo, in my opinion, if by the 
 title of " precurfor" we are to underftand one who bnilds his 
 difcipline on the fame foundation, and confequently has 
 many tenets in common. Beaufobre, however, in other 
 refpefts unqueftionably a ruan of the firft eminence, may 
 well be complained of in this, that although he cannot deny 
 Bafilides to have entertained errors of the moft flagrant na- 
 ture, he yet confiimes mnch time in exculpating him, and 
 fetting him off to advantage. The labour however is, in not 
 a few inftances, altogether thrown away. Bafilides flouriftied 
 nearly at the fame period with Saturninus, that is under the 
 reign of Hadrian, and died, according to the Chronicle of 
 St. Jerome, at Alexandria, about the time that Barchocheba, 
 the pretended Meffiah of the Jews, was endeavouring to 
 bring about a revolution in Paleftine. The ancient Chrif. 
 tian writers who, without a ftiadow of reafon, feign to 
 themfelves a regular fucceffion of heretics fimilar to that of 
 the Grecian philofophers, reprefent Bafilides alfo as having 
 been a difciple of Menander the Samaritan ; but what we 
 have remarked above refpedling Menander muft, we con- 
 ceive, be fufficient to prove this altogether unfourided. 
 
 animated. 
 
222 • The Eccleftajiical Hijiory . 
 
 CENT, animated, and intrinfically corrupt ; and from 
 .^^^^^^ ^hefe premifes it neceflarily followed that the 
 The phiiofo- frame or machine of this world could not have 
 uJ^^^^" ^^"" ^^^ ^^'°'"^^ of the Deity, inafmuch as he was 
 totally eftranged from every thing evil [/z]. The 
 nature of the Deity, however, together with the 
 origin of this world, and of the human race, 
 was explained by him after a more diffufe and 
 fubtle manner than by Saturninus, in confe- 
 quence of his calling in the afliftance of the 
 Egyptian philofophy. His doctrine was that the 
 Deity had, long before the foundation of the 
 world, begotten of himfelf feven natures of the 
 moft exalted kind, or, as the Gnoflics termed 
 them iEons, who, together with the Deity, from 
 whom they proceeded, conftitute a perfed and 
 fupremely bleffed Ogdoad\_o]. Of thefe jEons 
 
 two 
 
 [«] From what is handed down to us by ancient writers 
 refpefting the tenets of Bafilides, there is nothing- to be col- 
 lefted that can authorife us in concluding that, hke the reft 
 of the Gnoftics, he confidered matter as being^ under the 
 dominion of a ruler or prince peculiar to itfelf, or that he 
 believed in the exiftence of angels naturally inclined to 
 evil. For every thing that has occurred refpeftiug the 
 world and the human race he apparently refers to three 
 caufes alone ; namely, (I.) The Supreme Deity, of whom 
 it is impoflible to form any adequate conception ; (II.) De- 
 praved matter ; and (III) The creators of this world. 
 
 [o] Irenaeus mentions fix jEons only, as having been re- 
 cognized by Bafilides ; viz. the Deity himfelf, or the Fa- 
 ther^ Nus, Logos, Phronefis, Sophia, and Dynamis. But 
 Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. lib. iv. p. 637. adds two 
 more, Juftitia and Pax, and exprefsly ftates that BafiHdes 
 held the divine family to be compofed of eight individuals. 
 In regard to this fubjeft two queftions fuggeft themfelves. 
 Firft whether thefe ^ons are to be confidered as perfons 
 truly and really diftinft from each other ? or whether they 
 ought not rather to be regarded as merely virtues or attri- 
 butes of the Supreme Being, and that it was in thought or 
 imagination alone that Bafilides feparated them from the 
 Deity, and gave them the form of perfons ? The latter 
 opinion is efpoufed by Ren. Maffuetus, Differt. in Irendum, 
 
 i.p. 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 two of the feminine fex, if any conclufion is 
 to be drawn from their names, viz. Sophia and 
 
 Dynamis, 
 
 I. p. 38. and Ifaac Beaufobre, Hi/?, de Manichee, torn, ii. 
 p. 6, 7. as well as by fome others. And without doubt it 
 appears to be, in a certain degre^, favoured by the names 
 which Bafilides gives to his ^ons, inafmuch as they are 
 thofe by which certain of the virtues or attributes of intelli- 
 gence and will are denoted. There is a circumftance, how- 
 ever, which, I am free to own, draws me over entirely to 
 the other of thefe opinions, and that is, that the iEon next 
 in point of rank to the Father, namely, Nus, cannot pofli- 
 bly be regarded in any other light than as a diftin£l perfon. 
 For this Nus is reprefented as the fon of the Supreme Fa- 
 ther, and as defcending to this world for the purpofe of libe- 
 rating captive minds. Such then as he is, who holds the 
 chief ftation in this divine family, muft unqueftionably all 
 thofe who follow him be ; nor can any reafon whatever 
 be affigned for our thinking othervvife of them, except it be 
 what we have above noticed refpedling their names ; from 
 v/hence, hovrever, no conclufion on the fubjeft can properly 
 be drawn, fince it is certain that many of the Gnoftics whofe 
 ^ons it is impoflible for us to regard in any other light 
 than as real perfons, diftinft from each other, and from the 
 Supreme Deity, gave to fuch of their ^ons names of a fimi- 
 lar nature and defcription with thofe above enumerated 
 The fecond quertion is, whether the jEons of Bafilides, like 
 thofe of Valentine and others of the Gnoitics, were of diffe- 
 rent fexes, and whether they were conceived to have inter- 
 married with each other ? Referring to their names we find 
 fome of them mafculine, others feminine : but there are not fo 
 many mafculine as feminine names in his catalogue ; neither 
 does Irenaeus or Clement, or any other ancient author repre- 
 fent Bafilides as teaching any thing refpedling the marriages 
 ofhis-ffions; which certainly feems to indicate his having en- 
 tertained notions lefs grofs, as to this point, than fome others 
 of the Gnoftics. But from acceding to this opinion we find 
 ourfelves recalled by Clement, who, after giving us the tenets 
 of Bafilides refpefting the origin of the world in his own 
 words, fubjoins this, moreover, as one of his principles ; "Oacc 
 \k a-v^xjyly.: Tjo'^p^Exaj, -nrXn^iiiACcrx fr«V "c^rx S\ d-TTo hoc, iiy.6'j;c. 
 Quacumque ex conjtigat'tone procedunt, pleromatafunt : qua- 
 cumque autetn ab uno, imagines funt. Stromat. lib. iv. p. 603. 
 In this paflage pleroma mull be underftood to have the fam* 
 meaning with ^on. This is evident from the words of 
 I z Bafilider^ 
 
224 "^^^^ Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 CENT. Dyna?)iis, or wifdom and power, generated of 
 »_—!!—_/ themfelves certain princes or angels of the firll 
 Thephiiofo- order. Thefe latter having founded for them- 
 phyofBafi- feives an habitation or heaven wherein to dwell, 
 begat certain other angels of an order fome- 
 what inferior to their own ; who, in Uke man- 
 ner, having conftrudled an heaven for them- 
 felves, became the parents of a third order of 
 angels. Thefe fabrications of heavens and ge- 
 nerations of angels, were by degrees multiplied 
 to fuch an extent that they at length came to 
 correfpond with the number of the days in the 
 year, no lefs than three hundred and fixty-hve 
 heavens, and as many different claffes of angels, 
 having been fucceffively called into exiftence [/>]. 
 All thefe heavens were fuppofed to be under 
 
 the 
 
 Bafilides himfelf, as quoted by Clement juft before, where 
 we find him exprefsly making ufe of the term a»Jy. For 
 as by a figure of rhetoric, thofe natures which inhabit 
 eternity are denominated JEous, fo alfo thofe who dwell 
 with the Deity in the Pleroma, or place of his peculiar re- 
 fidence are termed Pleromata. BafiHde?, therefore muft 
 be underftood as faying that an ^on could be generated in 
 no other way than as the human race are ; namely, h 
 tri'^vylccc, from' an intercourfe of the fexes. But if this was 
 his doftrine, it is clear that his difcipline could not have 
 materially differed from that of the reft of the Gnoftics ; 
 and that the account given of it by ancient writers is 
 far from being perfect or complete. 
 
 [^] That fuch was the doftrine of Bafilides, has, I believe, 
 hitherto been univerfally credited on the faith of Irenacus, 
 who, exphcitly enough tells us that it was fo, adv. Hare/. 
 lib. i. cap. xxiv. Nor do I myfelf entertain the leaft doubt 
 of the thing, inafmuch as I know that other notions very 
 nearly refembling thefe ridiculous fancies were cherifhed by 
 the Egyptians, amongft whom Bafilides was born and edu- 
 cated. Beaufobre, however, in his Hiftf/ire de MaiiicheCf 
 torn. ii. p. 9. will have it to be impoffible that Bafilides 
 could have been fo utterly abfurd and irrational as ferioufly 
 to maintain the exiftence of three hundred and fixty-five 
 heavens, and an equal number of angelic orders. But in 
 
 juftificatiou 
 
of the Second Century. 225 
 
 the dominion of a Supreme Lord to whom Ba- cent. 
 filides gave the name of " Abraxas ;" a title , ' J' _j 
 that fhould feem to have comprehended under Thepiiiiofo- 
 it httle more of myflery than this, that the j'|y^"'' ^^'" 
 Greek letters of which it is compofed, if taken 
 as numerals, will be found to exprefs the num- 
 ber of the Bafilidian heavens, nj'iz. 365 [(7]. The 
 
 laft, 
 
 juftication of his incredulity lie can alledgc no other reafons 
 than thefe : — The opinion is in itfe'f chiidifh and abfurd : 
 — it could therefore never have entered in the mind of Bafi- 
 lides. Bafilidjs was an aftronomer : — but it is incredible 
 that any aftronomer flmuld have believed in fuch a multitude 
 of heavens : — - the thing-, therefore, could not have been be- 
 lieved by Bafilidcs. Now that reafnns fuch as thefe fhould, 
 for a moment, have iiad any weight with a man of quick 
 c;^pacity, is to me a matter of allonifhment ; for nothinjr 
 furely can be more devoid of force ; and if they be once ad- 
 mitted, the greateft part of what ancient writers have 
 handed down to us refpefting the Gnoftics muft, of neceflity, 
 be rcjedled as unw^orthy of belief. Great indeed might have 
 been the force of thefe arguments had Bafilades been a wife 
 man and a flcilful aftronomer: but fo fr^r from this having 
 been the cafe, it is admitted, even by thofe who wifti the 
 beft to him, that he was a man of weak judgment, and fet- 
 tered, in no trifling degree, by the trammels of fuperftition. 
 But to what purpofe fhould we multiply words ? If his 
 dogma rcfpefting the number of the heavens itood unfup- 
 ported by any circumftance elfe, it would be placed beyond 
 the reach of controverfy by the name '* Abraxas" alone, 
 which he gives to the Supreme Lord of thofe heavens, and 
 which contains within itfelf precifely the number 365. 
 
 [^1 That the name " Abraxas" or " Abrafax," for it is 
 fpelt in both ways, was confidered by Brffilides as a facred 
 word, and was applied by him to a certain nature of the 
 moft exalted order, admits not of the lead doubt. But 
 what this nature «was, as alfo what was the origin and mean- 
 ing of this appellation, is a matter of much obfcurity, and 
 one that has confequently given rife to a great variety of 
 conjectures and difputations amongit the learned. Irenseus, 
 from whom all the reft appear to liave borrowed what in- 
 formation they convey refpefting this controverted word, 
 touches on it but very briefly, lib. i. c. xxiv. § 7. E/fe autem, 
 fays he, principem i/lorum {of the $6^ heavens) 'AQ»^»f, 
 VOL. II. Q e( 
 
2 26 The Eccleftajiical Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, laft, or three hundred and fixty-fifth of thele 
 "•_ , heavens, being fituated immediately on the con-. 
 
 fines 
 
 et propter hoc ccclxv. numeros habere in fe. From thefe 
 words two things are to be colleded. Firft, that the Su- 
 preme Lord of the heavens had this title applied to him by 
 Bafilides : and fecondly, that his reafon for fo applying it 
 was, that if the letters of which it is compofed be taken 
 as numerals, or in an arithmetical fenfe, they exhibit the num- 
 ber 365, and therefore, in a certain degree, exprefs the 
 funftion and dignity of the Supreme Lord of all the hea- 
 vens. It is not, however, ftated by Irenxus, and I would wifh 
 the reader particularly to attend to this, nor by any other 
 ancient Greek or Latin author, that this name was invented 
 or firft thought on by Bafilides. The fecond point which 
 we gather from Irenasus, inafmuch as it receives the ftrongeft 
 confirmation from the very word itfelf, which, in reahty, if 
 the letters compofing it, be taken as numerals, will be found 
 to exprefs the number 365, appears to be admitted with 
 fcarcely any exception by the learned of the prefent day ; 
 and although there are not wanting eminent men who think 
 that this word was looked upon as pofTefTrng fome other 
 power befides its numeral force, and who have endeavoured 
 by a reference to the ancient Egyptian and Greek lan- 
 guages, or in fome other way to afcertain what it was, they 
 have never yet been able to bring forward any thing bearing 
 the leaft femblance of truth or refpeftabihty, in fupport of 
 their opinions. See Bern, de Montfaucon, PaUograph. Grac. 
 lib. ii. cap. viii. Bafnage, Hijlo'ire des Jutfs, torn. iii. p. 70a. 
 Paul. Erneft. Jablonflcy, de Nominis Abraxas Signtficationey 
 which laft the reader will find in the Mifcellan. Nov, Lip- 
 fienf. tom.\'m. §xi. p. 88. & feq. Let us then content 
 ourfelves with that which is apparent, and not wafte our 
 time in fearching after things that, in all probability, we 
 fhall never difcover. With regard to the point firft above 
 alluded to as deducible from the words of Irenacus, we find 
 it giving rife to great diverfity of opinion amongft men of 
 the moft eminent abilities, by whom a very learned warfare 
 has been carried on as to who that prince or Supreme Lord of 
 the heavens was, to whom Bafilides gave the name of 
 Abraxas. Thofe ancient writers who lived neareft to the 
 time of Irenacus affert that by the term Abraxas was meant 
 the Supreme Deity ; and to this the greater part of more 
 modern authors, without hefitation, affent. But the writers 
 •f ancient times, as well as thofe of modern days, who give 
 
 thif 
 
vf the Second Century. 227 
 
 fines of eternal matter, the prince of thofe an- 
 gels whofe dwelling this nether heaven was, 
 
 conceived 
 
 this interpretation to the words of Irenasus, manifeftly rim 
 into the error of expounding the difciplineof Bafilides upon 
 orthodox principles. With Cliriftians of the true faith, the 
 creator and ruler of the heavens is one and the fame with 
 the Supreme Deity ; hut the opinion of Bafihdes was of a 
 very different complexion. According to him, the three 
 hundred and fixty-five heavens were neither framed by the 
 Supreme Deity, nor were they at all fubjetl to his dominion 
 or controul. His beHef was, that the angels were the fabri- 
 cators of the heavens, and that the government of thefe 
 celeftial abodes relied with thofe who had thus framed tliem. 
 'Befides there is another thing which deprives this ancient 
 opinion of all weight or authority. Bafilides maintained, 
 that the Supreme Deity had no name, and would never 
 countenance his being fpoken of under any other title than 
 that of " the Father." We have the exprefs teftimony of 
 Irenasus as to this, who ftates that the Supreme Deity was 
 ftyled by Bafilides, iiinatus et innomtrwtus Pater. He mull 
 therefore have been inconfiftent with himfelf had he, after 
 this, given to the Deity any fpecitic title. Another opinion 
 was ftarted in the lall age by John Chifflet who, in his 
 Comment, ad Gemmas Bafilidianas, p. 58. contends that, 
 by the, title Abraxas was fignified the fun, who completes 
 his atmual circuit in three hundred and fixty-five days. This 
 opinion has been adopted by feveral of our later writers of 
 the firft reputation, and amongfl others, by the very learned 
 Ifaac Beaufobre who, in his H'lftory of the Manlchees, torn. ii. 
 p. 5 1 . has, with great abihty and learning, brought forward 
 various new arguments and reafons in its fupport. But in 
 addition to not a few other things, in which thefe argu- 
 ments are defedlive, it is particularly deferving of remark 
 that they affume it for a faft, but fail altogether in prov- 
 ing that Bafilides regarded the fun as the prince or fu- 
 preme lord of all the heavens. For my own part, after 
 liaving confidered every thing that has been handed down 
 to us refpefting the tenets of Bafilides, with the greateft 
 poflible attention, I can find nothing whatever that (hould 
 afford the leaft grounds for our even fufpe£ling that he 
 might conceive the fun to be the refidence of that great 
 angel whofe empire he fuppofed to extend over all the 
 heavens- Beaufobre, in all probability perceiving this, en- 
 deavours indeed to make the difcipline of Bafilides wear a 
 0. 2 very 
 
2 2 8 The Ecclefiajikal Uijlory 
 
 CENT, conceived the idea of digefting the confufed 
 mafs that thus lay near him, and of forming 
 
 very different afpeft from that which it exhibits as defcribed 
 by Irenjsus and others, and contends that the idle con- 
 ceit of a continued feries of 365 heavens belongs to Ire- 
 nceus and not to BafiHdes. But, as I have remarked above, 
 he does this without any evidence or authority ; and, after 
 all, gains little or nothing by it in fupport of his hypo- 
 thefis refpeding the title Abraxas, For it may ftill con- 
 tinue to be required that the faft of Bafilides having at- 
 tributed to the fun the government or dominion of the flcies, 
 and of his having in confequence thereof confidered this 
 grand luminary, or fome all-powerful genius refiding there- 
 in, as deferving of the moft diftinguifhed, not to fay divine, 
 honours, fliould be proved to us, not by Abraxean or Ba- 
 filidian gems, that is, not by asnigmatical fculptures of 
 which we have as yet received no explanation that can 
 he depended on, but by paffages from ancient authors. 
 That eminent fcholar Paul. Erneft. Jablonfl^y, however, 
 has thought lit, upon the whole, to efpoufe this opinion, 
 though not without exercifing his genius upon it, and en- 
 deavouring to make it accommodate itfelf, in fome mea- 
 fure, to the religion of the gofpel, left it fhould feem too 
 extravagant for a Chriftian man to entertain. See his very 
 learned diflertation de Slgnificatione Nominis Abraxas, printed 
 in the MtfceVanea Lip/ienf. Nov. vol. vii. He conceives that 
 Abraxas meant the fun, and thinks that although this is 
 not exprefsly ftated by the ancient Chriftian fathers, yet 
 that they occafionally give obfcure intimations of it. § ix. 
 Bafilides, according to him, transferred this title to Chrift, 
 who in the facred writings is compared to the fun, and, 
 Malach. iv. 2. is termed the Sim of Righteoufnefs. Abraxas 
 therefore, was the name of Chrift himfelf, and Bafilides, 
 in thus applying it, meant to inftrutt his followers that 
 the long and anxioufiy expefted Sun of Righteoufneis had 
 appeared, and that grateful and acceptable year of the 
 Lord, fpoken of by Ifaiah the prophet, Ixi. 2. was beg.vp. 
 It would give me pleafure could I perceive that thele 
 things were as clear and well-founded as they are inge- 
 nious and pious. But the faft is, that there are many 
 things affumed by this illuftrious writer as eftabliflied, 
 which appear to me to be, by no means, placed beyond 
 the reach of controverfy. He affumes, for inftance, that 
 Bafilides afcribed a divine authority to the books of the 
 
 Old 
 
oj the Second Century. 229 
 
 it into a world, and replenifliing it with inha- cent. 
 bitants. This defign he, with tlie afliftance of ,__"__, 
 
 the ihrphiiof.j- 
 
 phy ot 13afi- 
 
 Old Tellanient ; which certainly was not the cafe, if any 
 faith whatever is to be placed in ancicut writers ; — that 
 the name Abraxas was lirtl invented by Bafilidcs ; but 
 no fiich thi.ig is to be met with any wlif-re on record ; — 
 that thofe gems on which the name of Abraxas is to be 
 found, and which arc commonly termed Bafilidian gems, 
 were all of them of the manufadure of Balilides ; a thing 
 that appears to me altogether inciedible ; — that from 
 thefe gems fomethin^ certani and definitive may be col- 
 leded ; but which unqueilionably iidmits of very confider- 
 able doubt. — In fliort, not only thefe, but a variety of 
 other things are afTumed by him, to which no one the lead 
 converiant in matters of antiquity can eafiiy be brought 
 to yield his afleiit ; indeed, ingenuoufly to confefs the truth, 
 his whole hypothefis appeas to me to cany with it an air 
 of darknefs and amh'guity, and to be by no means eafy of 
 comprehei lion. For my own part, laying afide all con- 
 ceits and conjefturcs, however much they may be diftin- 
 gniflied by erudition or acumen, I think that as to this 
 point Irenaeus alone is delerving of attention, and that it 
 may be clearly enough colieCled from him who this Abraxas 
 was that makes fuch a confpicuous hgure in the Bafilidian 
 difcipiiiie. According to Irenaeus this title was given by 
 Bafilides to the prince or fnpreme governor of all the hea- 
 vens. Undoubtedly then this Abraxas could have been 
 none other than the tirlt and greateft of the angels 
 that were i-enernted of Sophia and Dynamis ; he who, to- 
 gether with his aiTociates, founded tliat iiril: of the heavens 
 which, in point of formation, took precedence of all the 
 reft. His rule or government naturally extended itfelf over 
 all the heavens that wen> fnbfequenUy formed, tor he was 
 the father of the angels that framed them, and, of courle, 
 had much the fame kind of reverei ce paid him by thefe his 
 projrer.y as was manifelted ior the Deity, by the yEons refi- 
 dent with him in the plercma. He was therefore defervedly 
 ftyled Princeps Ccelorum, the piiix-e or fupreme lord of the 
 heavens : and the difcipline of Bafilides recognizes no other 
 prince of the heavens befides him. The r^ame Abraxas 
 which comprifcs tiie number ^6^, was pecidiany apphcable 
 to him, inafmuch as it was lie alone that or.gi rated the 
 whole 365 heavens; of which none would have ^xi.led had 
 he not framed the tirft and highelt: of them, and likcwile be- 
 Q, 3 gotten 
 
The EcclcJiajVical Hi/iory 
 
 the minor angels that were refident with him, 
 at length carried into efl'ecl : but whether with 
 
 or 
 
 gotten that inferior order of angels by whom the fecond 
 heaven was made. A great abundance of ancient gems, 
 bearing, in addition to divers other figures of Egyptian in- 
 vention, the name or title of Abraxas, is at this day extant, 
 and more of them continue to be every now and then difco- 
 vered in various parts of Eeypt. In addition to what is to 
 be met with in other authors who have incidentally adverted 
 to the fubjeft, the reader will find a coiifiderable number of 
 fpecimens of thefe gems exhibited by J. Macarius in a trea- 
 tife of his exprefsly dedicated to their illuftration, and 
 which was enlarged and publifhed by J. Chifflet, Antwerp, 
 1657. 4to, under the following U\.\eyAbraxas,feu de Gemmis 
 Baftlidianis Difqu'ijilio, as well as by Bern, de Montfaucon 
 Palsograph, Grtzc. hb. ii. cap. viii. Relying upon what is 
 ftated by Irenaeus and other ancient authors, that the title 
 Abraxas was held facred by the Bafilidian feft, the learned 
 have been almoil unanimous in confidering all thefe gems as 
 of the manufafture of Bafilides and his followers, and that 
 they were dittributed to his difciples in the place of amuleti 
 to guard them againft poifons, witchcraft, and fuch-like 
 ills : and hence amongft ftudents of antiquity it has been 
 ufual to diftinguifh them by the title of Bafilidian gems. 
 Beaufobre, however, in his Hijloire de Manichee, vol. ii. p.5 1. 
 has with much ftrength of genius entered the lifts againft 
 this prevaihng opinion, contending, that from the words and 
 figures engraven on thefe gems, it is clear that, inftead of 
 being afcribed to perfons poflcffing the leaft tinfture of 
 Chriftianity, they ought rather to be confidered as the pro- 
 duftions of men utterly unacquainted with the true religion, 
 and the flaves of a moft bale and degrading fuperftition. 
 With not a few the force of his arguments has prevailed : 
 but amongft thefe we are not at liberty to reckon the emi- 
 nently learned Jablonfky, who, in his dilTertation already no- 
 ticed, labours hard to overthrow Bcaufobre's rcafoning, and 
 to uphold the common opinion refpeding the Chriftian, and 
 more particularly the Bafilidian, origin of thefe gems. The 
 faft is, that unlefs thefe gems be regarded as of Chriftian 
 origin, Jablonfky's interpretation of ihe word Abraxas muft 
 inevitably fall to the ground According to my view of the 
 fubjeft it feems impoflible to deny Beaufobre this much, 
 that no inconfiderable portion of thefe gems are of a nature 
 that will not admit of our believing them to have come from 
 
 the 
 
of the Second Century. 23 1 
 
 or without the knowledge of the Supreme Deity cent. 
 is uncertain. Of this, however, we are left in ^__!^J_^ 
 
 no Thephilofo- 
 phy ot Bafi- 
 lldes. 
 the hands of any Chriftian workman, although, un- 
 queftionably, feme of them exhibit certain marks or 
 figns that may be confidered as having fomewhat of a dif- 
 tant reference to the Chriftian reHgion. For by far the 
 greater portion of them carry on their face the infignia of 
 the Egyptian rehgion, and are evidently the offspring of a 
 fuperftition too grofs to enflave the mind even of an half 
 Chriftian. In my opinion therefore Bafilides did not tirft 
 devife or invent the title of Abraxas, but borrowed it, as he 
 did a variety of other things, from the difcipline ot the 
 Egyptian priefts : nor is there, as I have already above ob- 
 ferved, any ancient writer whatever that attributes the in- 
 vention of this title to Bafilides. Now let us, only for a 
 moment fuppofe, that Abraxas was a title by which the 
 Egyptians were accuftomed, long before the rife of Chrifti- 
 anity, to defignate the ruler or chief of thofe demons or an- 
 gels whom they believed to prefide over the heavens and the 
 ftars, and we fhall have no further to feck, either as to the 
 nature or defign of thefe gems, or the reafon of their being 
 infcribcd with this name. It was an ancient opinion of the 
 Egyptians that the daemons who rule over the heavens and 
 the ftars, poft'efs alfo no little degree of influence over hu- 
 man affairs, and that amongft them there are fome who de- 
 light in the evils of the human race, and make it their ftudy, 
 either of themfelves, or through the inttrumentahty of agents, 
 to afflia mankind with difeafes or other grievous ills. _ With 
 a view then to defend themfelves againft thefe enemies and 
 torturers, and to fecure both body and mind from the cala- 
 mities which evil fpirits of this kind might meditate againit 
 them, thefe deluded people were accuftomed to infcribe on 
 gems the name of that daemon whom they fuppofed to have 
 the fupreme command over all the heavens and their rulers, 
 together with fome additional letters or figures which they 
 fuppofed to pofTefs great virtues, and to hang thefe gems as 
 amulets about their necks. Their notion was, (indeed the 
 fuperftition is not even yet obliterated amongft the vulgar of 
 the eaft,) that the evil daemons, upon beholding the terri- 
 fic name of their fupreme lord and ruler, accompanied with 
 the abovementioned myfterious words and figures, would 
 find themfelves incapable of working any harm to the per- 
 fon wearing this defence, and would confequently take to 
 flight. Bafihdes, who was an Egyptian, tranfplanted this 
 Q 4 opinion, 
 
232 The Ecclefiajlkal Hi/iory 
 
 c £ N T. no doubt, that Bafilides did not conceive the 
 ,^___^'_^j form of this world and of mankind to have 
 Theph.iofo- been firfl devifed by thefe angels themfelves, but 
 piiyoFBafi- that they w^orked after a model with' which they 
 had been fupplied by Sophia, or Wifdom, one of 
 the iEons [r]. The firft of the human race, 
 
 in 
 
 opinion, and tlie praflice confequent upon it, into his 
 fyftem, with this difference only, that rejefting fuch figures 
 or words as were profane, and would have been a fcandal 
 and difgrace to the religion that he had adopted, he, in 
 their room, annexed to the title of Abraxas certain others 
 more fuitable to the Chriltian charafter. 
 
 [r] Bafilides did not, like the other Gnoftics, confider 
 the architeft of this world to be evil in his nature ; but ap- 
 pears ra- her to have thought very highly of him, terming 
 him, according to Clement, " the prophet and image of the 
 True God ;" to whom Sophia, or Wifdom, that is one of 
 the iEons, communicated the model of the world and of the 
 human race. Stromal, lib. iv. p. 603. Nearly all the Gnof- 
 tics, indeed, were agreed in this, that the founder or foun- 
 ders of this world did not themfelves devife the fafhion 
 thereof, or of mankind, but in the formation of botli had 
 before their eyes that model of the world and of the human 
 race which exjfts with God in the pleroma. In truth, 
 it was impoffible for Bafilides, confidently with his tenets, 
 to think otherwife than well of the Creator of the world, 
 inafmuch as he deducrd the origin of fuch creator through 
 two jEons from the Deity himfelf, and confequently muft 
 have admitted of his bearing fomewhat of an affinity or 
 relationfhip to the divine nature. This creator of the 
 world was not however confidered by him as good after 
 the fame manner that God is good ; namely, as being al- 
 together incapable of meditating, or even conceiving any 
 thing evil : but rather as poffeffing a middle kind of na- 
 ture, and endowed witli a freedom qf will that might be 
 turned either to a good or a bad account. From the 
 Supreme Being nothing evil could proceed, from matter 
 nothing good. But tlie angels who formed the world out 
 of matter, or who were fuppofed to adminifter and govern 
 , it, had an equal power of inclining themfelves either way, 
 
 to good or to evil. This was the opinion of all the 
 Gnoftics who believed that the creator of the world, or 
 as they termed him Demiurgus, was not originally of an 
 
 evil 
 
kfi- 
 
 lides. 
 
 of the Second Century. 233 
 
 in addition to a body compofed of matter, were c k n t. 
 
 poffefled of a fenfitive and conciipifcent foul de- , ^' 
 
 rived from the foul of the world. To this, Thepiuioib- 
 through the benevolence of the Deity, was fub- \^2f 
 fequently added an intelligent and rational foul, 
 whofe powers, however, were much impeded 
 and diminifhed by that brutal foul which had 
 been derived from matter [.(■], The angels who 
 
 framed 
 
 evil nature: a circumftance that at once accounts for our 
 finding Demiurgus extolled and fpoken of in the moil ex- 
 alted terms by perfons who in the next breath reprefent 
 him as the author and caufe of much mifchief and calamity. 
 The faft was, that they regarded him as a being of an ex- 
 cellent nature, but at the fame time as one that had made an 
 ill ufe of his liberty. 
 
 \^s~\ Almoft all the Gnoftic fcfts confidered man as pof- 
 fefled of two fouls ; the one brutal, and endowed merely 
 with a perceptive libidinous faculty ; the other rational, and 
 gifted with wifdom and inteHigence : the latter divine in its 
 origin, tlie former earthly and derived from the foul of mat- 
 ter. Nor were different fentiments on the fubjeft enter- 
 tained by Eafilides, of whom Clement exprefsly fays, ^v'o 
 yv.^ l-n ■^vxo'-; C~07nir<yA k7a iro: b rijj.7v. Is ergo duas quoque in 
 nobis pon'it animas. Stromat. lib. ii. p. 44B. His fon liidore 
 alfo wrote a particular treatife tti^X "jr^oc-^vHi -^vxri^i de Anima 
 adnata, that is, concerning that foul which coalefces, or, as 
 it weie, unites itfelf in one with the rational foul, the concu- 
 pifcent foul that is continually leading aftray the intelligent 
 foul with which it is alfociated in the body. From this 
 work of Ifidore's Clement quotes feveral paffages. To the 
 queftion however, of how it came to pafs that a portion of 
 the divine nature, a foul of reafon and intelligence, fhould 
 be condemned to a refidence in this loathfome vitiated body ? 
 the Gnoftics do not return an uniform anfwer. Of what 
 might be the opinion of Bafilides as to this, the learned pro- 
 fefs themfelves to be altogether ignorant. But to me it ap- 
 pears that all uncertainty on the fubjeil is removed by Cle- 
 ment, who had read the books of Bafilides, and who, after 
 giving a long quotation from him, adds as follows ; 'AXXa tJ 
 EcicrAc'i^*) »j vwoSeo-*,- -Ey-joajua^Tiio-aa-av (^r.txX t>iv ^vxrii h ert^iD (3iui 
 T»)y /toX«3-*v UCTo^ixEvsi ivravBa., Sed Baftlidis hypothefts dicit, 
 animam, qua prius peccaverat in alia vita, hie pati fuppli- 
 cium. Stromat. hb.iv. p. 600. At the firft I entertained 
 
 feme 
 
234 The Eccleftajiical Ui/lory 
 
 c E N T. framed this world apportioned the government 
 
 . _ ^: , of it and its inhabitants amongfl themfelves in 
 
 Thephiiofo- fuch a way as that each nation or people might 
 
 Hdes°^ ^*'' ^^^^ ^^^ peculiar prefident or ruler. The chief 
 
 of thefe angels was reprefented as having made 
 
 choice of the Jewifh nation for himfelf, and 
 
 given to it a law by the mouth of his fervant 
 
 Mofes. 
 
 A rule of life and adion was alfo prefcribed 
 to the various other nations of the earth by the 
 angels to whofe guardianlhip and government 
 
 fome doubt as to whether thefe words referred to the fouls 
 of all mankind, or to thofe of martyrs alone. For the 
 paffage preceding them relates to martyrs only. But the 
 words of Clement that immediately follow entirely remove 
 this doubt, and render it evident that we ought to under- 
 ftand the paffage as referring to the fouls of the whole hu- 
 man race. The fouls of men he divides into two clafles ; 
 (I.) " The eleft," or thofe of martyrs ; (II.) " The com- 
 mon," or thofe of the ordinary defcriptioii. The former he 
 reprefents as receiving an honorary punifhment in martyr- 
 dom, the latter as undergoing the punifhment due to their 
 offences. It is evident therefore, I think, after what manner 
 Bafilides accounted for the affociation of divine fouls with 
 grofs material bodies. The greater part of thefe fouls had 
 been guilty of fome grievous tranfgreffion in the regions 
 above, and had confequently rendered themfelves obnoxious 
 to punifnment. When the founder of this world, therefore, 
 had created the human race endowed with nothing more 
 than merely a fenfitive foul, the Deity caufed thofe other 
 fouls to take up their abode, for a feafon, in men's bodies 
 by way of expiating their offence, and rendering themfelves 
 worthy of being reftored to their former eflate. And in 
 this the Deity adled conformably to his goodnefs. For 
 fince thefe fouls had, by their tranfgreffion, incurred an ex- 
 clufion from the celeftial regions, and rendered it impoffible 
 that they fhould ever be again received there without having 
 made expiation, a way was pointed out to them, in the 
 maintenance of a continual conflidl with matter and the 
 temptations of the fenfitive foul, by which they might wipe 
 away the remembrance of their offence, and once more 
 cleanfe themfelves from every impurity and flain. 
 
 thev 
 
of the Second Century. 235 
 
 they had been refpedively affigned. Finally, cent 
 
 with a view to the prefervation of the rational , ^' 
 
 fouls, or thofe that were of a kindred to the 
 Divine Nature, the Supreme Deity had, accord- 
 ing to Bafilides, at various times fent to the dif- 
 ferent nations of the world legates and prophets 
 from himfelf, who, by their exhortations and in- 
 flrudlion, might prevent thofe fouls from fmking 
 altogether into a ftate of brutal infenfibility [/]. 
 The fouls that were attentive and paid obedience to 
 the calls of thefe divine miflionaries, were, upon 
 the diffolution of the material body, received up 
 into the regions of felicity ; but thofe which re- 
 jefted the proffered benevolence were conflrained 
 to migrate into other bodies, either of men or 
 brute animals, and there to take up their refi- 
 dence until they fhould become qualified for 
 reafcending to their prifline blifsful abodes \_ii\. 
 
 XLVII. When Bafilides, overpowered by the The Bafiii- 
 divine luflre of Chriflianity, had been induced J^",^^;^', 
 to enrol himfelf amongfl the number of its vota- 
 ries, he made it his fludy to bend and inter- 
 pret its principles in fuch a way as that they 
 
 [<3 The Bafilidians pretended to be in thepofTeffion of the 
 oracular communications of certain of thefe legates and pro- 
 phets that had been fent by the Deity to the human race 
 before Chrift's advent. The prophecies of Cham, for in- 
 ftance, which are mentioned by Clement, Stromat. lib. vi. 
 p. 642. the difcourfes of Barcabba and Barcophus, noticed 
 by Eufebius, H'tjlor. Ecclef. lib. iv. c. vii. p. 120. and other 
 writings of a like defcription. All of thefe were forgenes, 
 no doubt, but yet I think they muft have been of fome an- 
 tiquity. 
 
 \ji\ Origen is my authority for ftating Bafilides to have 
 believed in the migration of difobedient fouls on the diffolu- 
 tion of the corporeal frame, into new bodies, either of men 
 or brute animals. See his Comm. in Matth. tom. xxviii. 
 p. 136. as alfo in Rom. v. p. 530. edit. Huetian. The prin- 
 ciple alfo ftriftly accords with his other tenets refpefting 
 the human foul. 
 
 might 
 
236 The Ecclejtq/iical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, might appear rather to fupport than to mili- 
 tate againft thefe his philofophic tenets. The 
 caufe of Chrift's advent he maintained to be 
 the defedion of the founders and governors 
 of this world from the Supreme Deity, the 
 contentions and wars amongft themfelves in 
 which they were continually engaged, and the 
 confequent utter depravity and miferable fitu- 
 ation of the whole human race. Thofe emi- 
 nently powerful genii, he afferted, who both 
 created and govern the world, being endowed 
 with the mofl perfedt freedom of will as to 
 the choice of either good or evil, inchned by 
 degrees to the latter, and endeavoured to root 
 out and obliterate all knowledge of the true 
 God, with a view to get themfelves regarded 
 and worfhipped by mankind as gods in his 
 flead. They then engaged in wars amongft 
 themfelves, each one ftriving to extend the 
 fphere of his own power \jv~]. The prefi- 
 
 dent 
 
 [•u] To us of the prefent day all this may appear very 
 filly and ridiculous ; but it was not viewed in this light by 
 the oriental nations and the Egyptians, from whom Bafilides 
 borrowed a confiderable part of his fyftem. An opinion had, 
 from very remote antiquity, prevailed amongft the nations 
 of the eaft, and was adopted by the Jews, that this world 
 was governed by angels, and that each nation or people had 
 its prefiding or ruhng angel. Whatever, therefore, might 
 happen to any particular region, either of a fortunate or a 
 difaftrous nature, was attributed not fo much to the earthly 
 fovereign or prince of that region as to its angelic guardian 
 and governor : the former, in every thing vvliich he might 
 do, whether good or evil, being confidered as afting under 
 the immediate incitement or inftigation of the latter. Hence 
 when kings and nations went to war with each other, the 
 angels prefiding over thofe nations were conceived to be the 
 authors of fuch wars. For thefe celeftial rulers were fuppofed 
 to burn with a defire of extending the limits of their domi- 
 nion and acquiring an increafe of power, and, with that 
 
 view, 
 
of the Second Qenfury. 2^y 
 
 dent or ruler of the Jewifh nation, in parti- cent. 
 cular, the chief angel of the whole, aimed at , "l,^ 
 nothing fhort of univerfal fovereignty, his efforts rhoBafin- 
 being direfted to the entire fubjugation of his <i''a"fyftein 
 affociates and the various regions of the earth " ^'*"^°^'' 
 over which they refpe61:ively prefided. The 
 confequences produced by this perturbed date 
 of things were, that the true religion funk in- 
 to 'oblivion, men refigned themfelves wholly to 
 the dominion of depraved appetites and lulls, 
 and every part of the earth groaned under an 
 accumulation of calamities, crimes, and wretch- 
 ednefs. Touched with compalTion on behold- 
 ing fouls of a divine origin involved in fo much 
 mifery and diflrefs, the Supreme Deity directed 
 his Son, that is Nus, the fir ft of the (even 
 JEons begotten of himfelf, to defcend on earth 
 for the purpofe of putting an end to the do- 
 minion of thefe prefiding angels, particularly 
 that of their fuperlatively proud and arrogant 
 chief, whom the Jewifli nation had learnt to 
 venerate as a God. Having accomplilhed this, he 
 was to revive amongft men the long loft know- 
 ledge of his father, and teach them to fubdue 
 the force of thofe turbulent and irregular ap- 
 petites, which war agalnft the foul. Taking 
 upon himfelf, therefore, the form and fem- 
 blance of a man, but without affuming a real 
 body, the fon made his appearance amongft the 
 Jews, and entered on the duties of the function 
 
 view, to infufe into the minds of kings and nations a dif- 
 pofition to make war on other flatcs. It is eafy then to 
 perceive in what fenfe we ought to underftand what is 
 taught by fo many of the Gnoftics refpefting the angelr. 
 occafioning difturhances in mundane affairs, ftirring up 
 wars amongft mankind, and bringing down a variety of 
 afflidions and calamities on the human race. 
 
 that 
 
2;|8 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, that had thus been afligned him by his father, 
 "• confirming the truth of his dodrine by miracles 
 of the moft ftupendous nature. Enraged at 
 this invafion of his dominion, the god of the 
 Jews caufed Chrifl to be apprehended and con- 
 demned to fuffer death : but the latter, not be- 
 ing cloathed with a real body of his own, 
 adopted that of Simon the Cyrenian, who 
 had been compelled to bear his crofs, and tranf- 
 ferred his form to Simon ; fo that iniiead of 
 Chrifl it was Simon the Cyrenian whom the 
 Jews crucified \yo\. The fouls that paid obe- 
 dience 
 
 [^w] In exhibitinsj a view of the tenets of Bafilides 
 i-efpe£ling Chrift, I have followed the example of every 
 other writer of ecclefiaftical hiftory that I have feen, and 
 taken for my guide Irenaeus. I niuft, however, confefs 
 that it is exceedingly difficult, I had almoft faid impoffi* 
 ble, to reconcile Trensus's account with what Clement of 
 Alexandria fays refpefting the Bafilidian inftitutes, and 
 the quotations which he gives us from the writings of 
 Bafihdes himfelf. This was firft noticed, I believe, by 
 Ren. MafTuetus, Dijfert. in Irenaum, p. 6l. But this au- 
 thor prefers the authority of Irenaeus to that of Clement, 
 and endeavours to give fuch an interpretation to the 
 words of the former as would do away the above-noticed 
 want of harmony between the tivo. In this, however, 
 he is unqueftionably wrong, fince it is evident that in every 
 thing refpefting Bafilides, Clement, who had aftually pe- 
 rufed the writings of the man himfelf, and who, being an 
 Egyptian, had had the opportunity of witnefllng on the 
 fpot the rites and obfervances of the Bafilidian fed, which 
 had its origin in Egypt, muft be much more deferving 
 of attention than Irenjeus, who refided in Gaul, and muft 
 neceflarily have obtained what information he might poflefs 
 on the fubjeft merely at fecondhand. Beaufobre, with more 
 propriety, in his Hi/}, de Manichee, vol. ii. p. 24. & feq. 
 deemed it beft to turn his back entirely on Irenseus, and 
 in eliciting the fentiments of Bafilides refpecting Chrift, 
 to depend wholly on what is to be met with on the fub- 
 jeft in Clement. Clement, it may firft be obferved, ad- 
 duces [Stromat. lib. iv. p. 600.) a "paflage from the writ- 
 ings of Bafilides, in which he denies that Chrift was with- 
 out 
 
of the Second Century, a^g 
 
 dience to the precepts and injundions thus com- cent. 
 municated to them from above, might exped, "• 
 
 upon The~B^i"ir' 
 
 dian fyftem 
 out fpot or ftain, and intimates, in no very obfcure terms, " ' '<'"S)- 
 that by his fufFerings and death he merely made atonement 
 to divine juftice for his own proper fins. Bafilides was one 
 who detracted much from the fantlity and pre-eminence of 
 the martyrs, who were extolled and venerated beyond mea- 
 fure by the Chriftians of his time, contending that the fuf- 
 ferings and evils which they endured, were inflifted on them 
 by the juft judgment of God on account of fins which they 
 had committed either in the courfe of their lives here below, 
 or elfe, before their coming into this world, in the regions 
 above. To this error the orthodox Chriftians oppofed the 
 'example of our Saviour, who, although he was in the high- 
 eft degree holy and immaculate, was yet expoftd to inex- 
 preffible fufferings, and underwent even death itfelf. By 
 way then of getting rid of the force of this argument, Bafi- 
 lides had the temerity to affert that Chrift, inafmuch as he 
 was a man, could not have been immaculate or a ftranger to 
 every thing finful. "E* /u.£y roi a-po^^on^on h^idaoio rovXoyoy, Ifol, 
 Kv^^wTTov, ovTiv av ovo^xcryic, a-v^^witoi t»v«t SiKCitov re tov Sec/. 
 KaSosfo? yi-^ y^ilc, wcrirt^ uti rtc, Uxo fvTa. Quod Jl vera 
 me vehement'tus urgcas, dicam, quemcunque homlnem noml- 
 naveris, ejfe homlnem, jujium autem Deum. Nullus enim 
 eji mundus, ut tile dicit, a forde. Bafilides, we may ob- 
 ferve, expreffes himfelf with fome caution, and with a view 
 to avoid exciting ill-will, forbears making any direft mention 
 of Chrift by name. But Clement, who was in poffeflion 
 of his writings, fays that he is treating rxvTKpvc •nrefl t5 
 xufi« — ** openly of our Lord," and after fome further re- 
 marks, adds, that fuch a man was deferving of the title of 
 " atheift," inafmuch as he deified the devil, (Se/ai^ajv y.h tov 
 ^{olSoXov) and had the audacity to term our Lord a man ob- 
 noxious to fin, (avS^wwov a^a^TTiTixov ) . In making this ac- 
 cufation, however, Clement fufFered himfelf to be carried 
 into extremes, and has, in confequence, given to the tenets 
 of Bafilides a much darker colouring than belongs to them. 
 Bafilides never thought of deifying the devil, or any thing 
 like it. He maintained indeed, that the founder or creator 
 of this world was of divine origin ; but this being was 
 not. according to his tenets, the fame with the devil, as 
 Clement raftily perfuaded himfelf, but a nature of the moft 
 exalted kind, although one that had fomewhat deviated from 
 the right path. Bat if Bafilides held that Chrift himfelf, 
 
 inafmuch 
 
a4Q The Ecclefiaftical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, upon the diffolution of the body, to regain their 
 original feats in the bUfsful manfions above ; 
 
 but 
 
 inafmucli as he was a man, could not be immaculate, how 
 can that be true \vhich Irenaeus reports of his having main- 
 tained that Chrill affumed merely the femblance or fhadow 
 of a body, and that Simon the Cyrenian wa-: crucified by 
 the Roman foldiers in liis Head ? To offend God by finhinsf, 
 and to undergo the penalty of fin, a being muft necefiarily 
 be cloathed with a real body. The ar^rument deduced from 
 this pafTage of Bafilides is feconded by what Clement fays 
 {Stromat. lib. i, p. 408.) of the Bafilidians having been ac- 
 cuftomed annually to commemorate the baptifm of Chrift 
 with great devotion on the fifteenth day of the month 
 termed by the Egyptians Tubi, which anfwers to the ninth 
 or tenth of our January. No being could have undergone 
 luftration or ablution by water but one ifiYefted with a real 
 body. If Bafilides therefore believed Chriil to have been 
 actually baptized by John in the waters of Jordan, it fol- 
 lows, of necefiity, that his opinion muil have been mifrepre- 
 fented by thofe who tell us that h.e maintained Chrift; to have 
 taken on himfelf merely the femblance of a body. On thefe 
 grounds it fnould feem that tlie commonly received opinion 
 as to the tenets of Bafilides, in regard to the point under 
 confideration, mull be given up. Bafilides, like others of 
 the Gnoltics, made a diilin£lion between Jefus and Chrift. 
 Jefus he accounted to have been a mortal born according 
 to the ordinary courfc of nature, a man of great fanftity, 
 but yet not free altogether from fin. Chrift he regarded 
 as one of the ^ons, that is, the chief of thofe immuta- 
 ble natures that had been begotten of God himfelf. Piety 
 having led the upright man Jefus to fubmit himfelf to 
 the baptifm of John, Chriil, by the divine command, de- 
 fcended into him from the regions above. When this 
 fame Jefus was feized on by the Jews and condemned to 
 undergo capital punifliment, Chrift departed out of him, 
 and returned again into heaven, leaving Jefus at the mercy 
 of his enemies who put him to death by crucifixion. In 
 all probability Irenaeus might transfer to Bafilides a dogma 
 peculiar to fome other Gnoftic fed, or attribute to the 
 whole Bafilidian fe£l and its founder an erroneous fuppo- 
 filion entertained by merely a few of its members ; or 
 finally, be mifled by authorities that were not to be depended 
 on. Although I am perfuaded that the cafe muft be r.early 
 as I have here ftated it, 1 yet cannot help acknowledging 
 12 that 
 
of the Second Century, 241 
 
 but thofe who neglected availing themfelves of c E n t. 
 the proiFered inflrudion, were deftined to mi- . 1^'_ _f 
 
 grate The Bafili- 
 dian fyftem 
 
 that I was a long time held in doubt as to whether the two ^' 
 
 pafTasfes above cited from Clement Avere of fufficient weight 
 to overthrow the authority of Irenoeus, fupported as it is by 
 the confent of all ancient writers. For, to any one who 
 fhall attentively confider the words of Bafdides as quoted by 
 Clement, it may very naturally occur that poflibly Clement 
 might be mittaken in his application of this paffage to our 
 Blefled Lord, inafmuch as Chrift's name is not mentioned 
 therein. That a day, indeed fhould have been annually kept 
 facred by the Bafilidians in commemoration of the baptifni 
 of Chrifl, has nothing in it abfolutely irreconcileable with 
 the account given by Irenaeus. For fince fome of the Gnof- 
 tics maintained that Chrift, in appearance, was nailed to the 
 crofs, died, and rofe again from the dead, it is very polfible 
 Bafilides might have believed that the fpeftators were im- 
 pofed on by a fimilar illulion in regard to his baptifm. But 
 my doubts were all removed, and I at once gave Irenasus en- 
 tirely up, upon my meeting with a third paffage in Clement, 
 fuperior to the two above noticed, and of a nature that ren- 
 ders it utterly incapable of being reconciled with the tenets 
 of Bafilides, as dated by Irenasus. For in his Stromata, \\h. i. 
 p. 408. Clement has exprefsly left it on record that the 
 Baiilidians had difputes amongft themfelves as to the parti- 
 cular day on which Chrift died. All indeed were agreed 
 that his death took place in the fixteenth year of the reign 
 of the emperor Tiberius ; but as to the particular day, fome 
 contended that it was on the 25th of the Egyptian month 
 Phamenoth, others that it was on the 19th of the month 
 Pharmuth, and others again that it was on the 25th of this 
 latter month. Clement adds that there were fome amongft 
 the Bafilidians who believed Chrift to have been born on the 
 24th or 25th of the month Pharmuth. But how, let me 
 aflc, could there have been any difputes as to the particu- 
 lar day of our Bleffcd Saviour's birth or death amongft 
 people who denied that Chrift had ever been born or died 
 at all ? How could fuch people have maintained that Si- 
 mon the Cyrenian underwent the punifhment ordained by 
 the Jews for our Lord ? If what Irenaeus ftates relpefting 
 the tenets of the Bafilidians be correct, their difputes would 
 have been as to the particular day of Simon's death ; re- 
 fpedling the day of the death of Chrift no difpute could 
 VOL. 11. R poflibly 
 
242 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 grate into other bodies, either of men or brute 
 animals, until their impurities fliould be wholly 
 
 purged 
 
 pofTibly have taken place amongft men who believed him 
 never to have died at all. But in what way foever this ought 
 to be underftood, the doftrine which Irenaeus dates to 
 have been taught in the Bafilidian fchool is clear beyond 
 a queftion ; namely, " that it behoves men not to confefs 
 " him who was adlually crucified, but him who came in the 
 *• form of man, and was fuppofed to have been crucified. 
 
 '♦ If any one confefs him that was adlually crucified, 
 
 " he is yet a fervant, and in bondage to thofe (angels) 
 " by whom the bodies of men were created ; but whofoever 
 *' ihall deny him is freed from their dominion :" — BafiHdes 
 made a diilinftion between the man Jefus and the jEon, the 
 Son of the Suprente God, the Chrift that defcended into 
 Jefus at the time of his baptifm by John. When the Jews 
 laid hold on Jefus, Chrift withdrew himfelf from him, and 
 left the man alone to encounter their fury. It was the man 
 Jefus alone, therefore, diverted entirely of the divinity, 
 whom the Romans caufed to expire on the crofs. Where- 
 fore, according to Bafilides, it was wrong to place one's 
 truft in him who was adlually crucified, who was merely 
 for a time the earthly tabernacle or abode of the Son of 
 God, and who, when fufpended on the crofs, had no- 
 thing whatever of the divine nature remaining in him ; 
 but right reafon required that falvation and happinefs 
 fliould be fought for in none other than that Chrift by 
 whofe power alone the man Jefus had accomplifhed the 
 various miracles that he wrought. A full and complete 
 knowledge of the tenets of Bafilides refpedling the Saviour 
 of the human race is what we have not the means of 
 obtaining ; but what his opinion was of the caufe for 
 vi'hich Chrift came into the world is fufRciently apparent. 
 Chrift, he maintained, did not come for the purpofe of 
 expiating by his fuffering* and death the tranfgreflions of 
 the human race, and making fatisfaftion to the divine juftice 
 in man's ftead : for he immediately took his departure out 
 of Jefus when the latter was about to undergo the puniflunent 
 of death : and as to what Jefus underwent, he, as we have 
 already feen, was deemed to have made atonemement there- 
 by merely for his own proper olTences, not the fins of others ; 
 for being a polluted mortal himfelf, it was impoflible that he 
 could become a propitiatory facrifice for other tranfgrefTors. 
 
 The 
 
of the Second Centurp 243 
 
 purged away. As for the body, a mafs of cor- cent. 
 rupt and vitiated matter, no hope was to be ._ -^— ^ 
 entertained of its being ever reflored to life The. Bafiii- 
 again. Of the books of the Old Teftament, '^l^^;^^^"^.^ 
 which he conceived to have been compofed, in 
 part, by command of the prince of the Jewifh 
 nation, and in part at the inllance of the other 
 angels, Bafilides could not, of courfe, have made 
 any great account. What the books of the New 
 Teftament might be, of which he approved, is 
 not at prefent known. 
 
 He wrote a long explanatory comment in- 
 deed on the gofpel, but whether the gofpel, 
 which he thus took upon him to expound, was 
 one of thofe which we recognize as genuine, 
 or a different one, is not altogether certain [a:]]. 
 
 XLVIII. The 
 
 The only reafon, therefore, according to Bafilides, for which 
 Chrift came into the world, and for a time joined himfelf to 
 the man Jefus was, that he might overthrow the dominion of 
 the founders of this world, and particularly that of the God 
 of the Jews, and by reftoring to mankind the long-loft know- 
 ledge of the Supreme Deity, prevail on them to forfake the 
 worfhip of thofe beings who falfely ftyled themfelves gods ; 
 that he might moi-eover excite in men's minds fuch a de- 
 termined oppofition to thofe lufts which are generated of 
 the body and the fenfitive foul, as would eventually free 
 them from all impurity, and thus qualify them, upon the 
 dilTolution of the corporeal frame, for re-afcending to the 
 blifsful regions above, from whence they originally fprang. 
 
 [.v] Origen exprefsly fays, that Bafilides had a pro- 
 per gofpel of his own. Com. in Luc. p. 210. edit. Huetian. 
 But as this is not imputed to him by Clement or any other 
 ancient writer, I confider it as falfe. That the gofpel, how- 
 ever, which he made ufe of, was in fome refpefts different 
 from ours, is what I can eafily bring myfelf to believe. St. 
 Jerome {Proem. Comm. adTitum,) ftates, that of St. Paul's 
 Epiftles thofe addreffed to Timothy and Titus were rejefted 
 by Bafilides ; nor is there any difficulty in crediting this. 
 R 2 The 
 
fi44 '^^-^ Ecclefiajiical Hi/iory 
 
 XLVIII. The moral difcipline prefcribed by 
 Bafilides, although founded, in fome degree, in 
 fuperilition, and fupported rather by vain and 
 empty fubtleties than any true or folid princi- 
 ples, yet held out no encouragement to the ir- 
 regular appetites and vices of mankind. The 
 foul, he maintained, v^^as poflefled of a fufficient 
 power or energy to overcome every incitement 
 to evil, internal as well as external ; and con- 
 fequently that no man could become wicked 
 except through his own fault. God, he afferted, 
 would forgive no other offences but thofe which 
 had been unknowingly and unwilHngly com- 
 mitted, and confidered even a propenfion or 
 leaning towards any fm, in one and the fame 
 light with the a6lual commiffion of fuch fm. 
 All this is fo obvioully repugnant to a licentious 
 courfe of life and aftion, that it is impoflible 
 
 The firft of the Epiftlcs to the Corinthians I coUeft to have 
 been approved of by him from the paflage cited by Clement. 
 Stromat. lib. iii. p. 509. But what I think more particu- 
 larly deferving of remark as to ihis point is, that Bafilides 
 did not pretend that his tenets could be fubftantiated folely 
 from thofe facred writings which are in the hands of the 
 Chriftians at large, but intimated that he had been beholden 
 for them in part to other fources. A part, he faid, he had 
 learnt fiom the mouth of Glaucias, whom he defcribed as 
 having been the interpreter (;o^w'a.) of St. Peter, meaning, 
 ' as I fuppofe, one who was mafter of the fentiments or opi- 
 nions communicated privately by St. Peter to certain fele6t 
 difciplcs, whilft another part had been derived immediately 
 from St. Matthias. Vid. Clemens Alexandr. Stromat. lib. vii, 
 p. 898. 900. His doftrine, therefore, like that of moft 
 others of the Gnoftics, was, that the difcipline propounded 
 bv Chrift was of a two-fold nature ; the one fimple, popular, 
 public, and to be colleded from the writings of the New 
 Teitament ; the other fublime and fecret, received from our 
 Saviour's lips by his apoftles, aiul tranfmitted by them, not in 
 writing, but merely by word of mouth, to certain difciples of 
 known and approved fidelity. 
 
 for 
 
of the Second Century. 245 
 
 for us to place any faitli in the accounts of c e n t. 
 thofe ancient authors who reprefent Bafilides as 
 having countenanced the utmoft laxity of man- 
 ners amongft his followers [ y]. The unfavour- 
 able fufpicions that were entertained by many 
 refpeding the nature of his moral dilcipline, 
 appear to have been excied in part by the 
 infamous lives led by fome of his difciples [z], 
 
 and 
 
 Q'] Irenaeus, St. Jerome, Epiphanius, and other ancient 
 writers, reprefent Bafilides as having granted to his followers 
 the moR perfeft liberty of doing whatever they might lift. 
 They, in fa£t, ftate him to have recognifed no diftinftion 
 •whatever between good and bad adlions. But to this accu- 
 fation we are prevented from giving credit by the paflages 
 cited from the writings of Bafilides himfelf, as well as from 
 thofe of his fon Ifidore, by Clement of Alexandria, in which 
 the points of moral do6lrine above adverted to, as well as 
 others of a fimilar nature, are propounded in dired and ex- 
 prefs terms. Points like thefe could never have been main- 
 tained by one who gave the rein to every natural appetite, 
 and indulged his followers in the pradlice of all kinds of 
 iniquity. See Clemens Alexandr. Slromat. lib. iv. p. 600. 
 where we have the words of Bafilides himfelf exprefsly declar- 
 ing that " he who would commit adultery is an adulterer, al- 
 though opportunity may have failed him ; he who would 
 not fcruple to commit murder a murderer, although his hands 
 may never have been imbrued in human blood;" which 
 correfponds exaftly with the doctrine delivered by Chrift. 
 See alfo lib. iv. p. 634. where he aflerts that God will par- 
 don no fins without puniOiment, " except fuch as may have 
 been committed involuntarily or through ignorance," which 
 indeed is pronounced too harfh and fevere, even by Clement 
 himfelf. Finally, in lib. ii. p. 488. we have the words of 
 his fon Ifidore feverely rebuking thofe who, with a view 
 of palliating their fins, fay, " \ found myfelf irrefiftibly 
 compelled to do fo and fo ; — in what I have done I have 
 not afted wiUingly, I was feducedinto it." Men, he adds, by 
 the afTiftance of the rational part, (that is the immoital foul 
 of divine origin,) have it in their power, and ought to fubdue 
 the inferior creature (that is, the brutal fenfitive foul). 
 
 [2;] Clemens Alexandrinus, '\'a\i\%Stromata^ hb. iii. p. 510. 
 R 3 defcribcs 
 
■1^6 The Ecdeftafikal Hijlory 
 
 and in part by the objedionable opinions which 
 __ he maintained in regard to the lawfulnefs of 
 
 The moral conccaHng one's religion, of denying Chrift in 
 Rtid«°^ times of peril, of partaking of the flefli of vic- 
 tims offered to idols, of difparaging the eftima- 
 tion and authority of the martyrs, and perad- 
 venture as to various other points \_a~\. The 
 
 Bafilidian 
 
 defciibes the Bafilidians who were refident at Alexandria in 
 his time as being very debauched and diffolute in their man- 
 ners. Some of them appeared to think that, having attained 
 to the utmoft fummit of virtuous perfeftion, no further re- 
 flraint on their appetites was neceflary ; others confidered 
 themfelves as elected to falvation, and deemed it impoflible 
 for them, by any fort of tranfgreflion, to fall from that 
 ilate of felicity. But Clement, as became an honeft man 
 and a lover o{ truth, adds, that thefe reprobate Bafilidians 
 gave a very wrong interpretation to the precepts of their 
 mailers, and oppofes to them the very words of Bafdides. Oi 
 WjOTTixTOjE;-, fays he, tSv ^oy^cciiDV y. 'vccvtoc, aVTOJ? ■ct^xtteiv a-vy- 
 ;^w^yo-iv, Invetitores Jive patres dogmatum qua: probant, non 
 potejlatem iUis fecerunt tatia perpetrandi. Clement therefore, 
 although inimical to the Bafilidian fe6t, yet found himfelf 
 compelled in juftice to acknowledge that neither in the writ- 
 ings of Bafilides, nor in thofe of his fon Ifidore, was there 
 any thing whatever that fhould contenance men in a finful 
 courfe of life, and that the diffolute condudt of the difci- 
 ples could, in no fhape be charged on the doftrine or pre- 
 cepts of the mafter. 
 
 \_a] Nothing whatever excited a greater diflike to Bafi- 
 lides amongft the orthodox Chriftians than the fentimtnts 
 entertained by him refpc6ting the martyrs. By the unani- 
 mous voice of the Chriltian church the martyrs were exalted 
 to the right hand of the Majeily on high, and pronounced 
 worthy of having almcft divine honours paid to them ; but, 
 according to Bafilides, their merits were, by no means, of a 
 tranfcendant nature ; neither ought any greater reverence to 
 be paid to their memory than to that of other pious perfons. 
 The ancient writers indeed, who treat of the dodlrine of Ba- 
 filides are not ftriftly m unifon with each other, neither do 
 they all attribute to it the fame degree of turpitude; but in 
 this they are all agreed, that it was every way calculated 
 to enfeeble and corrupt the minds of Chriftians, and feduce 
 
 them 
 
of the Second Century, 447 
 
 Bafilidian fed flourifhed for a confiderable time, cent. 
 and had not become altogether extindl even fo , ^|'. ,_j. 
 late as the fourth century. Themoni 
 
 XLIX. What- <io.%inoof 
 
 BafJides. 
 
 them from that fidelity and allegiance which they owed 
 to their divine mafter. Nor can any one doubt of this 
 who fliall attentively confider even thofe extrafts alone from 
 the writings of Bafihdes which are to be met with in Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria. The opinion entertained by him re- 
 fpedling the martyrs was connedled, as muft readily be 
 perceived by any one who will compare together what is 
 faid by ancient writers refpedling the morals and conduct of 
 the Bafilidians, with another and ftill more grievous error, 
 namely, that it was lawful for Chriftians, not only to con- 
 ceal and difguife their religion, but alfo, in cafe of life or 
 fortune being brought into danger, even to deny and ab- 
 jure the very name of Chrift The Bafilidian doftrine, as 
 to this point, is given us in the following terms by Ire- 
 naeus [adv. Haref. lib.i. cap. xxiv. p. 102.) with whom 
 other ancient authors agree; S'lcitt FUiiim (that is Chrift, 
 who for a ce^ain time joined himfelf to the man Jefus) 
 incognitum omnibus ejfe, ftc et ipfos a nemine oportere cog- 
 
 nofc't. Quapropter et parat't funt ad negai'ionem (Chrilli) 
 
 qui tales funty immo mag'is tie pati guidon propter nomen 
 (Chrifti) pojfunt, cum Jint omnibus fm'iles (that is, becaufe 
 they live jult in the fame way as the heathen worfhippers, 
 and conform themfelves in every refpeft to the manners 
 of the people amongft whom they happen to refide). That 
 men of a felfifh turn of mind flionld readily have embraced 
 this error, in thofe perilous times when the Chriftians were 
 daily made to undergo puniftiments of the moft horrible 
 nature, and frequently had to meet death under all its 
 terrific forms, cannot in the leaft be wondered at ; and we 
 are certain that it found acceptance with many, particu- 
 larly the Gnoftics. Nor were the Bafilidians unfupplied 
 with fomewhat of a fpecious and impofing argument where- 
 by to colour and extenuate this perfidious kind of con- 
 duA. For fince they denied that Chrift, the fon of the Su- 
 preme Deity, ever aftually coalefred in one and the fame 
 perfon with the man Jefus, and maintained that it was the 
 man Jefus alone (^Chrift having quitted him) who fnff"ercd 
 upon the crofs, they might, without falfehood, afBrm that 
 they did not worftiip as the Deity, or the offspring of the 
 Deity, him whom the Romans, at the inftigation of the 
 R 4 Jew* 
 
248 The Eccleftajikal Hijiory 
 
 XLIX. Whatever might be the errors and de- 
 pravity of Saturninus and Bafilides, Alexandria 
 
 produced, 
 
 Jews put to death, neither did they rely on him for fal- 
 vation. Nay, they might have gone the length of adding, 
 that they confidered Jefus who was crucified, as a finner, 
 who had merited the grievous punifhment thathe underwent ; 
 for that fuch was their opinion is manifefl from the words 
 of Bafilides which we have quoted above. And that they 
 were accuftomed, in defence of their conduft, to have re- 
 courfeto fome fuch quibbling as this, is plainly to be collected 
 from Irenasus ; who reprefents them as maintaining that 
 *' men ought not to confefs him who was aftually crucified," 
 (/. e. the man Jefus, out of whom Chrift had departed pre- 
 vioufly to his being affixed to the crofs,) " but him who 
 came in the form of man, and was fuppofed to have been 
 crucified." Men profefiing fentiments like thefe might well 
 remain fafe and fecure in the very midft of the enemies of 
 Chriftianity, who had no idea, as appears from Pliny, that 
 any Chriftian would revile Chrift crucified. Thediftindlion 
 thus made between Chrift and Jefus was a thing of which 
 they entertained not the leaft conception. The Bafilidians 
 then, were particularly anxious, by every means in their 
 power, to avoid being confounded with thofe Chriftians who 
 were denounced by the Roman laws. This led them to do 
 as well as fubmit to feveral things from which all true 
 Chriftians would have recoiled with horror. One of thefe 
 undoubtedly was that of being prefent at the pagan facri- 
 fices, and partaking of the meats offered to falfe gods. An- 
 cient writers caft this in their teeth with all imagiiuiblc ran- 
 cour, but are entirely filent as to the motive ; which may, 
 howrever, readily be conceived from what we have noticed 
 above. All true Chriftians made it a point, conformably to 
 the injunftion of St. Paul, never to be prefent at any of the 
 facrifices or religious feafts of the heathens, and confidered 
 it as an abomination to touch meats that had been offered to 
 the pagan deities, circumftances which rendered their de- 
 teftion at all times extremely eafy. The BafiUdians there- 
 fore, who made fecurity their ftudy, had recourfe to an op- 
 pofite line of conduft, and neither fcrupled to mingle with 
 the heathen worftiippers in their facrifices, nor to feaft with 
 them afterwards in their temples on the remnants of the vic- 
 tims. If life or fafety required it, they were alfo ready 
 boldly to avow that they had nothing to do with Chrift, 
 
 meaning. 
 
of the Second Century. 249 
 
 produced, nearly about the fame time, in the cent. 
 perlbn of Carpocrates, a charader by ftir worfe , ^'_ _^ 
 
 than Thefyllem 
 of (^arpo- 
 
 meaning, in this cafe, the man thai was actually crucified, 
 not the true Chriil whom they fuppofed to have dcfcended 
 from above, and, after fojouniing here on earth for a while, 
 to have again returned to liis Father's abode. By means of 
 this their perfidious diflimulation tliey fucceeded, according 
 to ancient authors, in efcaping the perfecutions which befel 
 the other Chriftiaus ; and we, coniequently, find no martyrs 
 of the BafiHdian fe£t. The Bafihdians, in faft, were not in the 
 lead ambitious of martyrdom. This being caft in their teeth 
 by the other Chridians, who wer'^ accuilomed to place no 
 little part of their felicity and glory in the number of their 
 martyrs, and to confider an eagcrnefs after martyrdom as a 
 charafteriftic feature of the true church, Bafilides and his 
 fon retorted by aflfailing the credit of the martyrs, and 
 maintaining that thofe Chriftians afted very unadvifedly who 
 either profefTed a wifh to pour out their own blood in the 
 caufe of Chriil, or contended that a greater degree of fanc- 
 tity and honour ought to be afcribed to the martyrs than to 
 other Chriflians. By way of fupporting himfelf in this 
 opinion he afTumed it for a fa<^, as appears from his own 
 words, as cited by Clement, Stromat. lib. iv. p. 600, that 
 the evils which men fuffer in this life are nothing more than 
 the punifliment of offences committed by the foul either 
 during its refidence in the body, or in a previous ftate of ex- 
 iftence. God being all jull, he faid, it was impofTible that 
 he fliould fuffer an innocent and unoffending perfon to un- 
 dergo pain and affliction ; and we were therefore, of neceflity, 
 compelled to believe that men muft, by their tranfgrellions, 
 have merited whatever calamities we may fee befall them. 
 This then being affumed, his concluiion was, that fo far from 
 attaching any peculiar degree of fanflity to the charafter of 
 thofe Chriftiaus who were punifhed and put to death by the 
 Romans on account of their religion, we fhould ratherconfider 
 them as belonging to the clafs of thofe who, either in this life 
 or in a previous ftate of exiftence, had grievoufly offended the 
 Deity by their tranfgreffions. In defence of this opinion he 
 went, as we have above feen, the length cf afferting that even 
 Jefus of Nazareth himfelf, in whofe body Chrift the Son of 
 the Deity for a while took up his abode, in being crucified 
 underwent merely the punifhment due to his own proper 
 offences. The horror excited even by the bare mention of 
 
 this 
 
35© The Eccleftaftkal Hijiory 
 
 than either of thefe two, nay, a very monfter 
 of a man, if faith is to be placed in thofe ac- 
 counts of his tenets and doftrine which are given 
 us by ancient as well as more recent authors. 
 To confefs the truth, however, the more an- 
 cient writers have not only left us a very lame 
 and unintelligible account of the Carpocratian 
 fyftem of difcipline, but appear to have failed 
 in arriving at any thing like a perfect compre- 
 henfion of it themfelves, nay, in fome refpedts, 
 to have aftually mifreprefented it, whilft at the 
 fame time, in regard to other particulars, they 
 themfelves feem to have been much mifunder- 
 ftood by more recent authors [^]. The philo- 
 
 fophy 
 
 this doftrine in the minds of thofe Chriftians whofe difci- 
 pline was founded on the facred writings, occafioned the au- 
 thor of it to be viewed by them in the moft unfavourable 
 light. By Bafilides himfelf, hov/ever, the principle was not 
 confidered as unjuflifiable or injurious to the Deity, inaf- 
 much as, according to his foolifh way of thinking, a dif- 
 tinftion exifted between Chrift the Son of God and the 
 man Jefus, Chrift having been a compound of two perfons, 
 the one human, the other divine. That fentiments like 
 thefe, differing fo widely from what were commonly en- 
 tertained, and apparently calculated to do away every kind 
 of piety towards God, fhould have caufed the Chriftians in 
 general to think unfavourably of the whole moral difci- 
 pline of Bafilides, cannot in the leaft be wondered at, al- 
 though it was certainly in great part far from being of 
 that diflblute and unfeemly charader which was com- 
 monly attributed to it. Confiderable grounds for fuf- 
 picion were likewife afforded by the depraved and per- 
 verfe lives led by many of the Bafilidians, who, by an 
 abufe of the precepts of their matter, endeavoured to juf- 
 tify themfelves in all manner of iniquity. 
 
 [^] For the religion of Carpocrates our leading authoy- 
 ty is Irenaeus, who in c. xxv. of his firft book adverf, Haref. 
 enters into the nature of it at much length, but in a manner 
 by no means either comprehcnfive, diftinft, or perfpicuous. 
 Refpe6ting his moral difcipline feme few particulars are 
 
 given 
 
of the Second Century, %^i 
 
 fophy of Carpocrates refpeding the Deity, cent. 
 the world, and the nature of man, diftered ._ "' i 
 but little from the fentiments entertained on Thefyflem 
 thefe fubjefts by the reft of thofe whom we "[^^^^J'^' 
 commonly term Gnoftics. He believed, for in- 
 ftance, that there exifted a Deity fupreme over 
 every thing, and, in point of nature, infinitely 
 beyond the reach of all human comprehenfion ; 
 
 — that of this Deity had been generated cer- 
 tain jSlons or immortal and immutable natures ; 
 
 — that matter was eternal, and that it was the 
 fountain or fource of every thing evil and per- 
 nicious. He further held that the world had 
 been founded by angels who, in point of na- 
 ture, were far inferior to the Supreme Being ; 
 
 — that the rational fouls of men had been fent 
 down from the regions above into terrene bo- 
 dies as into a fort of prifon \_c\ ; — that the foun- 
 ders 
 
 given us by Clement of Alexandria, Stromal, lib. iii. p.5 1 1 . & 
 feq. that appear to be deferving of credit, inafmuch as they 
 were extraibted fronrt a book written by Epiphanes the fon 
 of Carpocrates, de Jujlitia Dei. What other particulars we 
 find recorded by Epiphanius, Tertullian, Theodoret, and 
 other haerefiologifts, are partly tranfcribed from IrensEUS, 
 and in part collefted from vulgar report ; neither do they 
 altogether accord with each other. It is utterly out of the 
 power of any one therefore, to exhibit any thing like a cor- 
 reft and complete view of the Carpocratian fyftem of reli- 
 gion in all its parts. Many things are wholly omitted by 
 Irenaeus, which it is impoflible for us to fupply, even in the 
 way of conjefture, and on others he barely touches in a 
 tranfient manner, without troubling himfelf to give us either 
 comment or explanation, 
 
 [c] What the fentiments of Carpocrates were refpefting the 
 foul is very obfcure and uncertain. Of this indeed, we are pretty 
 well aflUred, that he confidered the fouls of men as of divine 
 origin, and as having been fent down from above into thefe 
 earthly bodies as into a prifon : but as to what kind of na- 
 ture he might attribute to them, or to what caufe he might 
 
 afcribe 
 
252 The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, ders of this world, after extinguifhing amongfi: 
 ._ ^' _, mankind every knowledge of the true and Su- 
 Thefyftem premc Deity, had arrogated to themfelves the 
 crates''° ^^^^^ ^^^ honours of gods, and endeavoured by 
 every means to prevent the fouls imprifoned in 
 bodies of matter from underftanding that there 
 was any nature of a more excellent or perfeft 
 kind ; — that confiderable afliftance was afforded 
 to them in this matter by a certain angel ma- 
 lignant in his very nature, that is the devil, 
 whofe ftudy it is to draw over mankind from 
 the true God to the prince of this world ; 
 — that the fouls who are fo unfortunate as 
 to be thus feduced by this evil angel, upon 
 their being releafed by death from one body, 
 are conflrained to migrate into another, whilft 
 fuch as fuccefsfully refill his wiles, and thofe 
 of the founders of this world, afcend, on the 
 diffolution of the body, to God the parent of 
 all fouls. All this has nothing in it at all in- 
 credible, and fufficiently accords with thofe prin- 
 ciples on which the whole Gnoftic philofophy 
 was built. 
 
 afcribe their being thus configned to terrene bodies, we have 
 no ground fufFicient to warrant even a conjefture. There is 
 however, a paflage cited by Clement of Alexandria {Stromat. 
 y lib. iii. p. 5 13.) from the bonk written by Epiphaiies the 
 
 fon of Carpocrates, de Jujl'it'in Dei, from whence it appears 
 that tlie ktter conceived the fouls of men to have had their 
 appetites and inftinds implanted in them by the Deity him- 
 felf, not only thofe of an harmlefs or an indifferent nature, 
 but fuch likewife as are unlawful and prohibited. Hence 
 it is apparent, not only that his opinion refpefting the origi- 
 nal nature of the foul was a very extraordinary one, and 
 vaftly different from that entertained by the refl of the 
 Gnoflics, but alfo that he did not, like others of the Gnof- 
 tics, conceive man to have been endowed with two fouls, the 
 one merely fenfitive, concupifcent, and deduced from matter, 
 the other, rational, and free from every diforderly appetite, 
 
 L. An 
 
of the Second Century. 253 
 
 L. Ancient authors, however, leave us en- cent. 
 tirely in the dark as to the mode in which ._ J|_ j 
 Carpocrates endeavoured to make the Chriflian ti.c Carpo- 
 religion accommodate itfelf to thefe principles, ca'"'-'" ^''^o- 
 The doftrine he taught is commonly reported '^^^" 
 to have been that Jefus was begotten of Jo- 
 feph and Mary, according to the ordinary law 
 of nature, and that he was fuperior to the reft 
 of mortals in no other refpe£t than that of having 
 a more excellent foul refiding within him, and > 
 
 being endowed by the Deity with certain qua- 
 lities and virtues by means whereof he was en- 
 abled to overcome the power of the founders 
 of this world. But there is not wanting abun- 
 dant caufe for fufpicion that, as to this, his te- 
 nets have been mifreprefented, and that, in point 
 of faft, he, like other Gnoftics, made a dif- 
 tindion between the man Jefus and Chrift, con- 
 fidering the latter as one of the ^ons, and 
 fon of the Supreme Deity [<^]. AVith regard 
 
 to 
 
 [_d'\ All the writers of ecclefiaftical hiftory agree in declar- 
 ingthatby none of the Gnoftics was thecharader of our Blef- 
 fed Saviour held info little refpecl as by Carpocrates. Chrift, 
 if we may give credit to their ftatement, was confidered by 
 Carpocrates as having oeen a mere man, begotten of Jo- 
 feph and Mary according to that law by which all other 
 mortals are produced ; but a mind of greater ftrength and 
 dignity than ufual having accidentally fallen to his lot, 
 the Deity was pleated, in addition, to confer on him divers 
 virtues to which other men were ftrangers, andcommiluon him 
 to enlighten the human race, and withdraw them from the 
 worfliip of the founders of this world. That fuch were his 
 fentimentsthey are led to believe from the following' words 
 of Irenaeus ; Jefum autem (dicit Carpocrates) e Jofepho natuniy 
 et cumfimil'is rtUquis homhi'ibus fuer'it, (UJlaJfe a reliqu'ts fecuii' 
 dum id, quod anima ejus Jivma et mutida cum (/fet, commemo- 
 rata fuer'it qua v'tfa ejfentjibi in ea circuinlationei qute fuiJJ'et 
 ingenito Deo. According to this, Carpocrates believed that 
 the foul of Jefus, previoufly to its connexion with the body, 
 rxifted juft in the fame way as all otlier fouls, with the 
 
 Deitv 
 
254 ^'^^ Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 to the caufe however for which Chrift was fent 
 down by his Father to manRind, it is impoffible, 
 
 TheCaipo- li 
 
 cratiaii theo- 
 
 Deity in the regions above, but that, on its being fent to 
 occupy a body here below, it did not, like other fouls, lofe 
 all remembrance of what it had known and underftood in 
 its former ftate, but having once obtained a clear percep- 
 tion of the truth, took care never again to lofe fight of 
 it, and confequently maintained for itfelf a fuperiority over 
 other minds. This dottrine manifeftly favours of Platon- 
 ifm, and the difcipline of the oriental philofophers. For 
 Plato, as is well known, held that a knowledge of the 
 truth is implanted in the foul by nature, but that, upon 
 its junction with the body, this knowledge is obfcured, and 
 an entire forgetfulnefs of every thing paft takes place. 
 Under the influence of this opinion, he maintained, that 
 to enquire and gain knowledge is nothing more than to 
 renew or recover the memory of things that had been be- 
 fore known but forgotten. When fuch a foul as Carpo- 
 crates conceived Chrift's to have been, became united to 
 the material body begotten of Jofeph, it could not other- 
 wife happen but that a man of an extraordinary and pre- 
 eminent nature fhould be thereby conltituted. Of the af- 
 fociation of any third or divine nature with the body and 
 foul of Jefus no mention occurs in thefe words of Ire- 
 ngeus : wherefore very learned men have been led to con- 
 clude that Carpocrates believed Jefus to have been a man 
 compofed of a mortal body and an immortal foul, and no- 
 thing more. This opinion appears to be corroborated bv 
 feveral things which are fubfequently recorded by Irenseus. 
 In the firfl; place we find it ftated by him that certain 
 of the Carpocratians were fo arrogant as to aflert that they 
 themfelves were equal to Jefus, {ut fe Jefu dicant Jimiles) , 
 others fo mad as abfolutely to maintain that they were fu- 
 perior to him, {fort'tores eo ejfe'^, inafmuch as they had re- 
 ceived fouls of the fame degree and order as Chrift's. 
 But could it be poffible, let me afl<, for any thing pe- 
 cuHarly great or divine to be attributed to Chrift by per- 
 fons who were fo fottifhly vain as to imagine that they 
 themfelves were equal or even fuperior to him ? It is in 
 the next place ftated by Irenaeus that the Carpocratians 
 had painted likenefles of Chrift, as well as other repre- 
 fentations of him, which they crowned, and held up to 
 veneration in company with thofe of the philofophers Py- 
 thagoras, 
 
of the Secorid Century, 255 
 
 if his other tenets be duly confidered, that Car- cent. 
 pocrates, could have believed it to have been ^^' 
 
 any JheCarpo- 
 ci-atian tlieo- 
 
 tliagoras, Plato, and Ariftotle. When interrogated as to '^°^' 
 the way in which they had obtained thefe likenefTes, they 
 replied, that a portraiture of Chrift had been painted by 
 the command of Pilate. Thefe things certainly feem to 
 prove that Chrift was confidered by the Carpocratians 
 merely in the light of a philofopher, and was placed by 
 them on a level with Plato, Pythagoras, and the reft. 
 But upon purfning the thread of Irenasus's difcourfe, it 
 appears to me that both ancient and modern writers have 
 neglefted to beftow a due degree of attention on his 
 words, and in confequence thereof have failed in arriving 
 at a juft conclufiou refpefting the opinion which Carpo- 
 crates entertained of Chrift : for which, however fome ex- 
 cufe is certainly to be found in the brevity and obfcu- 
 rity of the writer's ftyle. What I would remark is, that 
 immediately after the words cited at the commencement 
 of this note Irenaens goes on thus ; Et propter hoc ab eo 
 (the Supreme Deity) m'tJJ'am ejfe ei (the foul of Jefus) niir- 
 tutem uti mundi Fahr'tcatores effugcre pojfft, et per omnes tranf- 
 grejfa et in omnibus Hberata ndfcenderet ad eum. Now allow- 
 ing their due weight to thefe words, I cannot help feeling 
 ftrongly incHned to believe that Carpocrates thought no lefs 
 refpeCtfuUy of Chrift than Bafilides and other Gnoftics, and 
 held that one of the divine ^on?, (for the Gnoftics term 
 thefe virtues i in Greek Jwx/xsti) defcended into the man 
 Jefus who, on account of the fuperior excellence of his foul, 
 was, beyond all other mortals, deferving of fuch honour, at 
 the commencement of his miniftry, and continued with him 
 during his progrefs ; but that upon his being feized and con- 
 demned to fuffer death, this ^on departed out of him, and 
 re-afcended to the regions above. This, at the leatt, is evi- 
 dent, that Carpocrates recognifed in Jefus three diftinft parts ; 
 I. a body begotten in the courfe of nature ; 2. a foul fent 
 down from the immediate refidence of the Deity for the pur- 
 pofe of being aflbciated with this body ; and 3. a virtue di- 
 vinely communicated to this foul on account of its fuperior 
 excellence : which virtue, in all probability, ought to be 
 accounted as one and the fame with that Chrift whom 
 the leaders of the various Gneftic factions pretended to 
 diftinguifti from the man Jefus. With regard, therefore, 
 to what is reported by Irenaeus as to fome of this fedl hav- 
 12 ing 
 
256 The Eccleftqftkal Hijlory 
 
 c E N T. any other than that he might aboliih the wor- 
 , J^; , fhip of a plurality of gods, or to fpeak after 
 
 the 
 
 The Carpo- 
 cratian theo 
 logy. 
 
 ing accounted themfelves equal to Jefus, and the whole of 
 them having placed him no higher than on a level with the 
 philofophers, it muft be conlidered as not referring to 
 the virtue which for a time refided in Jefus, or to Chrift the 
 vSon of the Deity, but merely to the man Jefus taken 
 in the abftraft. This explication of the tenets of tlie Car- 
 pocratians refpefting Chrift:, derives no little confirmation 
 from what Irenceus fays of their having taught that fouls 
 were faved " through faith," i. e. in Chrift, "and Charity." 
 For if the fentiments entertained by Carpocrates refpefting 
 Chrift were what they are commonly reprefented to have 
 been, it is impoffible to annex any fenfe or meaning to thefe 
 words. How co\i\A faith in a mere man be held up as the 
 means of bringing any one to falvation ? Certain of this 
 feft, we are told, made it a matter of boaft that they 
 were poflefled of fouls in no refpeft inferior to the foul 
 of Jefus ; nay, fome even went fo far as to affert that 
 they were endowed with fouls fuperior to that of Jefus. 
 Both, therefore muft have felt perfuaded that they pofteflcd 
 within themfelves the fame power of fuccefsfully combating 
 the founders of this world as Jefus Chrift did. But if a 
 faith in Jefus Chrift, fuppofing them to have confidered him 
 merely as an eminent man, could, in their opinion have led 
 to falvation, furely they muft have believed that a faith in 
 thofe men who were equal or even fuperior to Jefus Chrift 
 would be attended with equally beneficial confequenccs. But 
 this would have been contradidling themfelves, inafmuch as 
 it would have been admitting that a faith in Chrift was not 
 abfolutely neceffary to falvation. But if Carpocrates made 
 a diftinftion between Chrift and the man Jefus, as I think 
 he did, we may readily perceive in what fenfe he might fay 
 " that falvation was obtained through faith in Chrift." In 
 fuch cafe there can be no doubt but his meaning muft have 
 been that a faith in that Virtue, or ^on, the Sou of the Su- 
 preme Deity, who animated and governed the man Jefus in 
 the execution of his divine commiflion here on earth, would 
 obtain from the father celeftial happinefs for all fuch fouls 
 as might be poflefled of it. What we have thjis fuggefted 
 will receive alfo confiderable illuftration and fupport from 
 the following words of Iren?eus, if properly attended to. 
 Jefu aiitem dlcunt (i. e. the Carpocratians) ammam in Juda- 
 
 orum 
 10 
 
x)f the Second Century, a^y 
 
 the manner of the Gnoftics, put an end to the cent. 
 dominion of the founders of this world, and . " : _^ 
 
 after TheCarpo- 
 cratian theo- 
 
 orum confuetud'me nutritam contefnpjlffc eos -(the founders of ° 
 this world) et propter hoc •utrtutes accep'ijfe^ per quas evacua-vit 
 qua fuerunt in partis paffiones, qua irrratit hominibus. Com- 
 inentators, as is not unufual with them, have pafTed thefe 
 words of frennsus over without remark, although they cer- 
 tainly call for attention and explanation far beyond many 
 others on which an abundance of pains has been beilowed. 
 For any illullration of this pafiage therefore we are driven 
 to depend wholly on ourfelves. It inay be remarked then, 
 (I.) that Irenaeus here reprefents Carpocrates as havingtaught 
 " that the foul of Jefus contemned the fabricators of this 
 world," or thofe angels who made this world, and hold do- 
 minion over it : which is much the fame thing as if he had 
 faid, that Jefus did not worfhip thofe gods whom the na- 
 tions of the earth held in reverence, but confined his adora- 
 tion to the one only True and Supreme Deity, (II.) It is 
 added as the reafon why the foul of Jefus entertained a con- 
 tempt for the founders of this world, — quod Judaorum con- 
 fuetadine nutr'ita efet : that is, the Jews held the gods of the 
 nations in contempt, and worfliipped only one Deity, there- 
 fore Jefus, who was born and educated amongtt the Jews, 
 was led to do the like. I fliall not ftay to remark that what 
 is thus ftated correfponds but ill with the account which 
 frenacus juft before gives us of the Carpocratian tenets re- 
 fpefting the virtue and fortitude naturally belonging to the 
 foul of Jefus, or that it reflefts but little honour on the cha- 
 vadler of Jefus : but I cannot pafs over this, that if the 
 doArine of Carpocrates be rightly conveyed in thefe words, 
 he muft have excluded the God of the Jews from the num- 
 ber of the angels who framed this world, and regarded him 
 as the Supreme Deity ^ which, if it were true, would fe- 
 parate him widely indeed from all others of the Gnoftica. 
 For if the foul of Jefus, in worfhipping one God alone, 
 and treating with contempt the founders of this world, 
 imitated the example of the Jewifh people, it follows, of 
 neceffity, that the Jews could not have worfhipped the 
 founders of the world, but muft have confined themfelves 
 to the fervice of the one Supreme God. But it is im- 
 poflibJe to believe that Carpocrates could have thought 
 thus honourably of the Jews and their religion. For, not to 
 notice other things, we have in Clement of Alexandria a 
 VOL. u. s very 
 
258 The Eccleftaftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, after having excited in the fouls that had long 
 
 , ]^^ , been languifhing under the dominion of fuper- 
 
 flition 
 
 Tlie Carpo 
 cratiati tlicc 
 logy. 
 
 very ftriking paffage cited from Epiphanes, the fon of Car- 
 pocrates, in which he derides the Jewifh law, and openly 
 contends that the beft part of it is nonfenfical and childifli. 
 Stromal . lib. iii. p. 514. Either Irenasus, therefore, muft 
 have here been guilty of an error, or the Latin tranflator 
 muft have much mifreprefented his meaning. (Ill) Irenaeus 
 points out the reward v/hlch, according to the Carpocratians, 
 tlie Deity conferred on the foul of Jefus on account of the 
 contempt thus flievvn by him for the founders of the world : 
 "D/'a. V'lrtutes per quas evncuav'it qua fverunt in pcen'is pajfioncs 
 qucE hierant honnnibvs. The laft three words are un- 
 intelligible, and may therefore be confidered as having been 
 fomehow or other corrupted : but the meaning intended to 
 be conveyed by the others is clear enough ; namely that the 
 Deity communicated to the foul of Jefus certain virtues or 
 powers by means whereof it might evacuate, that is triumph 
 over, the pains and affliftions to which his body was ex- 
 pofed. Carpocrates, therefore, believed that Jefus in re- 
 ality underwent torments and death, but that in confe- 
 quence of the virtues divinely communicated to him he was 
 infeiifible of their feverity and power. As to the particular 
 way in which he conceived this to have been brought about, 
 whether, for inftance, he imagined Jefus to have been de- 
 prived by the Deity of all fenfation, or whether he conceived 
 the Deity to have infpired Jefus with a fortitude and ele- 
 vation of mind fuperior to every evil that could be inflifted 
 on him, we are not competent to fpeak. We fhould evidently 
 do wrong however were we to confound thefe virtues by 
 which Jefus was enabled to triumph over the pains of the 
 crofs, with that one great inrtue -which refided in him during 
 the time that he lived at liberty and wrought his miracles 
 amongft the Jews. The latter he was underftood to have 
 poffeffed previoufly to his being feized on and crucified, with 
 the former he was not fuppofed to have been endowed until 
 in the very aft of contending with torments and death. 
 Thefe things confidered, we may conclude Carpocrates to 
 have taught that that great virtue, which had its refidence 
 in Jefus during the time of his teaching and working mira- 
 cles amongft the Jews, depaited out of him when he was 
 about to fufFer : but that the Deity did not leave him com- 
 fortlefs, but fupplied him with fuch other fuccours from 
 
 above 
 
of the Second Century. 2PO 
 
 liition a wifli to know and worfhip the Supreme cent. 
 Deity, might point out to them the way in which "• 
 this knowledge of the True God would enable ' ' ^ 
 them to triumph over the wiles of the devil as 
 well as the power of the founders of this world, and 
 qualify them for re-afcending, on the diflblution 
 of the body, to their original itations in the 
 realms of light. 
 
 LI. All ancient writers concur in reprefent- The moral 
 ing the moral difcipline of Carpocrates as in SJjSatel 
 the higheft degree vile and pernicious, and the 
 lives led by his followers as hi.ving confequently 
 been grofs, libidinous, and filthy in the extreme. 
 Nor can we altogether withhold our credit from 
 this: for it is certain that he countenanced a 
 community of women, and inculcated feveral 
 other things which had a manifeft tendency 
 to encourage men in various wicked and fla- 
 gitious pradices. There are not wanting, how- 
 ever, circumftances which incline us to believe 
 that the inferences deduced from his tenets have 
 not been in every inftance correal, and that the 
 turpitude of certain of his maxims was tem- 
 pered and correfted by do£lrine of a very dif- 
 ferent charader and tendency contained in 
 others [^]. Nor can I eafily bring myfelf to 
 
 believe 
 
 above as efFe6tuall7 prevented his foul from finking under 
 the weight of thofe manifold and grievous injuries and fuf- 
 ferings to which his corporeal frame was expofed. 
 
 [f] Nothing can pofllbly be conceived more infamous and 
 grofs than the moral doftrine of Carpocrates was, if any 
 faith is to be placed in the accounts given us of it by all an- 
 cient writers. According to them he maintained ; (I.) That 
 there is nothing naturally evil in itfelf, but that all dif- 
 tinftion between good and bad actions exifts merely in 
 human opinion and laws ; and, confequently, that every 
 one, in a moral point of view, is perfectly at liberty to 
 do as he may like. (TI.) That women, and every thing 
 s 2 elfe 
 
26o The Ecclejiajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, believe what is handed down to us refpefting 
 ^^___^J___^ a place 
 
 The moral 
 
 Hifciplineof elfe belonging to this world, ought to be common, for 
 Carpociates. that it was the will of God that all men (hould poffefs 
 an equal right in every thing. (HI.) That the road to 
 everlafting felicity lay open to thofe fouls alone who de- 
 voted themfelves to the perpetration of every vile and flagi- 
 tious aftion, which it was poflible for the heart of man 
 to conceive. I pafs over certain things lefs heinous and 
 difgufting, inafmuch as every thing that can be deemed 
 impious and deteftable is certainly comprehended in the 
 above. Conformably to thefe principles it is faid to have 
 been cuftomary for the Carpocratians, in their nofturnal 
 affemblies, to extinguifh the light and engage in a promif- 
 cuous libidinous intercourfe. Clem. Alex. Stromal, lib. iii. 
 p. 514. Of the above, that which I have noticed in the third 
 place, I conceive to be a mere calumny, which had its origin 
 probably in fome tenet or other n(.t fufficiently underftood. 
 For can any one poflibly believe that a man who regarded 
 the Deity as juft, good, and beneficent, who conceived men's 
 fouls to be the offspring of this Deity, and who entertained 
 a reverence for Chrift ; can any one, I fay, for a moment 
 perfuade himfelf that a man of this defcription (and that 
 Carpocrates was fuch an one is evident from the paffages 
 cited by Clement of Alexandria out of the writings of his 
 fon Epiphanes,) fliould have maintained that none but fouls 
 contaminated by every fpecies of iniquity, and as it were 
 glutted with fenfual indulgence, would ever find their way- 
 back to the Deity, the fountain of all good ? Equally void 
 of any folid foundation do I confiderwhat is told us refpeft- 
 ing the nofturnal orgies of his difciples. For this opinion 
 I fhall prcfently aflign certain reafons that I rather think 
 the reader will confider as carrying with them fome weight. 
 As to the firft and fecond of the tenets above noticed, they 
 are avowed without referve by Epiphanes, the fon and moll 
 ftrtnuous defender of Carpocrates and his opinions, from 
 whofe book de Jujl'it'ta Dei., Clement of Alexandria {Stromat. 
 lib.iii. p. 512. & feq.) gives us fome long quotations, in 
 which it is endeavoured, by various arguments, to prove that 
 many things are by human laws pronounced to be evil which 
 in point of faft have nothing whatever of evil or iniquity 
 belonging to them. The Deity, it is boldly affirmed by 
 this writer, defigned every good thing which he bellowed 
 on mortals, to be ufed and enjoyed by them in common. 
 Mankind, by their laws, however, have deftroyed this com- 
 munion of ufe, and introduced a feparate property in things. 
 
 Humak 
 
of the Second Century. 261 
 
 a place amongft the gods having been afligned cent. 
 
 Human laws, therefore, he maintains, are repugnant to the The moral 
 divine will. Thefe maxims are evidently inculcated by him <^J*c'pl'nf' <^f 
 with a reference to matrimony, and what are termed men's -*'P°'^""^''*- 
 goods : for he fays exprefsly, that women, according to the 
 divine law, ought to be common, and that the fame princi- 
 ple applies to fruits, corn, and animals : and that it is merely 
 of human ordination that thofe who aflert their right to the 
 enjoyment of thefe things in common are termed adulterers 
 and thieves. This paffage is followed by another even 
 worfe. For he pronounces the law " Thou fhalt not co- 
 vet," to be abfolr.tely ridiculous, inafmuch as the defires and 
 appetites of the foul were implanted in it by the Deity ; 
 and ftill more ridiculous, he fays, is the addition of the Jew- 
 ifh legiflator, " Thou (halt not covet thy neighbour's 
 goods ;" for it was impoffible that the Deity, who im- 
 planted defires in the foul, could have commanded that 
 thefe defires (hould be fubdued and extinguifhed. But 
 the moft ridiculous thing of all he pronounces to be that 
 injunftion of the fame legiflator, " Thou (halt not covet 
 thy neighbour's wife ;" for there can be no doubt but 
 that the Deity defigncd all women to be common. Thefe 
 things certainly admit of no palliation whatever ; and it 
 (hould therefore feem to be eUablilhed beyond a queftion 
 by the words of Carpocrates himfelf, or at leaft thofe of 
 his fon, that nothing whatever was confidered by him 
 as unlawful, but that theft, fornication, adultery, &c. 
 although prohibited by human laws, were, in his opinion, 
 confentaneous to the divine will. Which opinion is even 
 ftill more impious than that which is attributed to him 
 by the early Chriftian writers : iiiz. " That all aftions 
 are in their nature indifferent, and that it is by human laws 
 alone that certain of them are pronounced to be evil." For 
 whoever maintains that the lufts and appetites by which 
 mankind are difturbed, were implanted in their mmds by 
 the Deity himfelf, and that the aftions to which men are 
 prompted by fuch lulls and appetites, are confentaneous to 
 the divine will, muft of necelTity hold that theft, fornication, 
 robbery, adultery» &c. are to be regarded as good works. 
 Hence then we may perceive that it was not akogether, 
 without grounds or reafon that fome were led to alTert that 
 Carpocrates believed heaven to be accelTible to fuch fouls only 
 as had in this life devoted themfelves to the perpetration of 
 every fpecies of crime and iniquity. My belief, however, is 
 that the man did notpropound the above principles to his dif- 
 s 3 ciples 
 
262 The Eccleftajlical Hijiory 
 
 c EN T. to his fon Epiphanes by the inhabitants of the 
 
 The moral 
 
 aifcipline of ciples atlarge, but only to certain feleft and confidential ones. 
 
 Larperates. _^ teacher who like Carpocrates maintained that our bleffed 
 Saviour's dodtrinc was of a two-fold defcription, the one 
 popular, the other ftcret, would naturally have recourfe to 
 a fimilar method of inftriidion, and addrefs himfelf to the 
 multitude after a difPerent manner from that which he 
 adopted with regard to his friends and intimates. The atro- 
 city and impiety of his opinions and doftrine, however, 
 are in no degree extenuated by this. Notwithftanding all 
 thefe things, however, I cannot help confeffingmyfelf ilrong- 
 ly inclined to believe that the v. ickednefs and depravity of 
 Carpocrates could never have been fo prepofteroufly abfurd 
 and loathfomeas is commonlyimagined, butthat,to thetenets 
 above noticed, which are undoubtedly of the moft vile and 
 abominable nature, t ere muft have been fubjoined others, 
 calculated, inacertain degree, to correil; their turpitude and 
 couiileraft their poifon. Every one acquainted with hu- 
 man affairs muft well know that if certain parts of various 
 fyftems of difcipline were to be feparated from the reft, and 
 confidered by themfelves, they would afl'ume, not only an ab- 
 furd, but an altogether impious and execrable character ; but 
 let them only be rcftoredto their proper fituation, and again 
 connected with thofe things from which they were disjoined, 
 and moftof thtir deformity will at once difappcar. Ancient 
 writers bring us acquainted with but a very fmall portion of 
 the Carpocratian philolophy and religion, and even this is ex- 
 hibited by them in averyloofe and diforderly manner. Could 
 we obtain a view of the entire body, with all its various 
 joints and finews, it is very poflible that the things which 
 now produce affright, and fill us with a certain degree of 
 horror, might, I will not fay put on an imexceptionable 
 and attraftive appearance, for that certainly is not within 
 the reach of poiftbility, but afl'ume fomewhat of a lefs 
 hideous and difgufting afpeft. In truth, it exceeds my 
 powers of comprehenfion to underftand how a man who, 
 to pafs over other things, believed the Deity to be, in every 
 fenfe, perfection itfelf, who referred the feeds of all iniquity 
 to matter, who confidered immortal fouls during their refi- 
 dence in the body to be confined, as it were, within a prifori, 
 who maintained that the Deity was anxious for the deli- 
 verance and falvation of ihefe fouls, and that Chrift had 
 pointed out to them the way of extricating themfelves from 
 the darknefs of matter j how fuch a man, I fay, could look 
 
 upon 
 
of the Second Century, 
 
 city of Sama, in the ifland of Cephalonia [/]. 
 
 Like 
 
 upon •virtue as merely an empty found, and believe that 
 every one was at liberty to follow the dictates of his lufts 
 and appetites. Still more incompreher.fiblc does this be- 
 come to mc when 1 perceive, what ;s apparent, even from 
 the pafTages cited out of the writings oi his fon, that the 
 man thus held up to us as fiich a monfter of iniquity, was 
 in full pofleffion of his reafon. Then, we have the tefti- 
 mony of Irenseus exprefsly Hating Carpocrates to have 
 taught that men were to be faved through faith and charity, 
 lik Tvtrit'j; x-cci c(.yy^itn<; crw^EcrSat. Now a man who enter- 
 tains this opinion, let him expound it in what manner he 
 may, muft certainly condemn any lajuries done to others, 
 and require that his followers fiiould cultivate fome fort of 
 ■ acquaintance with both juftice and virtue, which is in dire6t 
 oppofition to the dogma generally attributed to Carpo- 
 crates, "that no actions are naturally evil in themfelves, and 
 that the diftinftion between good and bad adlions exifts 
 merely in human laws and opinions." For if future felicity 
 is to be acquired by the exercife of love and good offices 
 towards others, it ncceflarily follows that there muft be 
 fome divine law in exiltence commanding us to abftain from 
 every thing that may injure our fellow creatures, and to do 
 thofe things which may contribute to their welfare. Laftly, 
 it ftrikes me as particularly deferving of remark, that the 
 fame Irenaeus who exhibits the Carpocratians in fuch an un- 
 favourable point of view as to other things, Hands forward 
 as their patron and defender againil thofe who reproached 
 them with the commiffion of crimes and offences of the 
 deepeft dye ; and fays that he could by no means give 
 credit to the rumours that were prevalent of their iniqui- 
 ties ; -ton li fxi-j -Tr^itxacroii vx^ c/.ino7'; to. a-^ix kva ix.'bia-^tx,, 
 jca* ccvei^nfx'ivx, iyui i^k u'j Trjrtvo-an/^i. Et Ji quiaemjiant hitc 
 apud eos qua funt trreligiofa, et hijujla, et vetita, ego nequa- 
 quam credam. Surely this may be accounted teftimony of 
 no fmall weight, coming as it does from one who was in 
 other refpedls their moft hoftile adverfary. Puflibly the 
 do£lrine of Carpocrates might be this, — that the dif- 
 tin£liou between good and bad anions had no exiftepce but 
 in human laws, but at the fame time that in the prefent 
 corrupt and perverfe ftate of things fuch laws were proper 
 and neceflary. 
 
 [/] Clement of Alexandria, (5'/ro;«a/. lib. iii. p. 511.) 
 s 4 relates 
 
264 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT. Like the reft of the Gnoftics, he afferted that his 
 ^^_J[V__^ tenets and dodrine were founded on the fecret 
 The moral difcipHne communicated by Chrift to a few only 
 Hifcipiine of of his followers. Hence it is clear that he 
 
 Larpocrates. , , 
 
 could 
 
 relates that Epiphanes, the fon of Carpocrates of Alexan- 
 dria, by a Cephalonian woman, a young man of vaft at- 
 tainments and promife, but who died at the age of fe- 
 venteen, had a place afligned him amongft the gods by 
 the inhabitants of the city of Sama in the ifland of Ce- 
 phalonia, and that divine honours were annually paid to 
 him in that city, where wore to be feen a magnificent 
 temple, altar, &c. ere<Eted to his memory. The fame ac- 
 count, fomewhat amplified, is to be met with in Epiphanius, 
 Haref. xxxii, p. 210. & 211. But it fhould feem that this 
 narrative is altogether of one and the fame caft, and equally 
 undeferving of credit, with that of Juftin Martyr refpefting 
 the apotheofis of Simon Magus, and the ftatue eredted to his 
 memory by the Romans. For who can believe that the 
 people of Sama, who were polytheifts, and addicled to the 
 fuperftitions of the Greeks, could have afted fuch a ftrangely 
 inconfiflent part as to affign a place amongft theirgods, and 
 annually pay divine honours to a young man who was a 
 Chriftian, or at leaft a vvorfhipper of Chrift, and who held 
 in deteftation the gods of the Gentiles, whom, in common! 
 with his father, he believed to be a fet of proud, malignant 
 angels, the authors of this world, and the prefent calamitous 
 ftate of things in it ? Then again, why confer thefe ho- 
 nours on Epiphanes, any more than on his father ? — or his 
 mother who was a Cephalonian, a woman of the country? In 
 fa6t, I fufpeft that, as in the ra'e of Simon, fo Hkewife in 
 this of Epiphanes, an affinity between words and names has, 
 owing to a want of caution in the firft Chriftians, given rife 
 to a moft egregious error. Thofe who arc converfant with 
 the Greek language well know that the word 'ETt^av/i^v was 
 a term very frequently made ufe of in the Grecian rites ; 
 and that it was common for the Greek writers to denominate 
 the appearance of any particular deity E7rt(pav£;a.. The fefti- 
 vals inftituted in commemoration of fuch divine manifefta- 
 tions or appearances were alfo termed iiri<Pa.na,. It ftrikes 
 me therefore as highly probable, that it might have been 
 cuftomary for the people of Sama to refer to fome feftival 
 or other of this kind under the title of £ff*^«vf»«^ and that 
 
 certain 
 
of the Second Century. 265 
 
 could have attached but Httle weight or au- c E n t. 
 thority to the facred writings. He did not . JJl . 
 however reject them entirely, but feems in par- The moral 
 ticular to have approved of the gofpel accord- c^;ifj|",\°J; 
 ing to St. Matthew [g]. 
 
 LII. In 
 
 certain Chriftians of Egypt accidcritally fojourning in that 
 city, but entirely unacquainted with the cuftoms, rehgion, 
 and names of the Greeks, being caught by the found of the 
 word, and recoilefting that Epiphanes, the fon of Carpo- 
 crates of Alexandria, had a Cephalor.ian woman for his mo- 
 ther, haftily ran away witi) the idea that this 'Ewn^avja was 
 a feftival iniUtuted by the people of Sama in honour of that 
 Epiphanes. On their return to Alexandria it was natural 
 for them to recount what they had thus witneffed, and, as 
 they thought, well underftood : and hence, I take it, arofe 
 the fable of the apotheoiis of Epiphanes, and the expenfive 
 honours that were annually paid to his memory by the peo- 
 ple of Sama. 
 
 {g) IrenaEUS tells us that the Carpocratians in their writ- 
 ings {aiiyy^ocix[x^.aiy) ftated that their tenets and doftrine 
 were communicated by Jefus in a fecret myfterious manner 
 to his apoftles, with an injundlion that they fhould make thefe 
 things known only to certain feleft and confidential perfons. 
 Moft of the Gnoftics were accullomed to (helter themfelves 
 behind a tale of this fort by way of getting rid of any 
 thing that might be urged againft them out of the Looks of 
 the New Teftament. The apoftohc writings, they aflerted, 
 contained merely the ordinary religion of Chriil, or that 
 which was fuiled to the capacities of the multitude, a thing 
 totally different from the fubhme and recondite Chriftian 
 difcipline. Eventually, however, the very means which 
 they thus took to forward their own caufe, and depreci- 
 ate the authority of the facred writings, were produdlive 
 of confequences directly the reverfe. For by admitting, a& 
 they did, that the books of the New Teftament were the 
 writings of Chrift's apoftles, and at the fame time deny- 
 ing that their own tenets were derived from this fource> 
 they in faft fupplied their adverfaries with two very pow- 
 erful arguments in fupport of the genuine Chriftian faith. 
 Since Carpocrates then pretended to have derived his 
 fyftem of difcipline from the fecret communications of 
 Chrift to his apoftles, we may naturally conclude that he 
 
 held 
 
266 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 LIl. In fecundity of genius however, ex- 
 tent of travels, reputation, number of difciples, 
 and various other refpeds, the heretics whom 
 we have juft been commemorating were left at 
 an infinite diflance behind by Valentine, who 
 like them was born in Kgypt, but having at 
 the commencement of this century originated a 
 new fyftem of difcipline, and met with no little 
 fuccefs in the propagation of it amongft his coun- 
 trymen, was induced to transfer his abode to 
 Rome (Jo). In this city and its neighbourhood 
 
 he 
 
 held the books of the New Teftament very cheap, and 
 confidered them as calculated merely for the multitude. 
 As Irenaeus, however, ftates him in fupport of his opinion 
 refpedling the tranfmigration of fouls, to have adduced the 
 words of St. Matthew, chap. v. ver. 25, 26. there feems to 
 be reafon for believing that he approved of the writings of 
 that evangelift. 
 
 \h~\ Of all the Gnoftic fefts, not one, with the excep- 
 tion of the Manichees, has more engaged the attention of 
 antient writers in defcribing its tenets and difcipline than 
 that of the Valentinians. Not to notice the more recent 
 writers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, fuch as 
 Epiphanius, Theodoret, Auguftin, and others, who have 
 either regularly or incidentally been led to treat of this fedl 
 and its tenets, we find, on recurring to the writers of the 
 fecond century, the lera of its origination, Irenaeus devoting 
 the firft feven chapters of his work j^dverfus Harefes, to 
 a comprehenfive review of its difcipline, Tertullian not 
 only attacking its principles in a particular treatife, but 
 alfo inveighing warmly againft them in his book Je Pra- 
 fcript. adv. Hteret. as well as in various other parts of his 
 writings, and Clement of Alexandria very frequently ad- 
 verting to them in his Stromata, forthe purpofe of expofing 
 their tallacv, and bringing them into diicredit. Notwith- 
 ftandir.g this however, it would be cafy to point out many 
 things in the Valentinian fyftem of difcipline, which are 
 but partially intelligible, and in regard to which we can- 
 not but wifh for further information. The moft natural 
 conclufion is, that as to fome particulars, the knowledge 
 which thefe writers themfelvcs had acquired was but very im- 
 
 perfed. 
 
of Valen- 
 
 ofthe Second Century. 267 
 
 he prevailed on fuch a number of Chriftians to c e n t. 
 embrace his corrupt opinions, that the church '^• 
 became alarmed, and, after having been twice ex- ThTJ^T^ 
 communicated without effect, he was at length 
 abfolutely and finally expelled from her bofom 
 as a defperate and incorrigible heretic. For- 
 
 pcrfeft, although as to others our ignorance no doubt may 
 arife from their hoc having exprefled themfelves with a 
 fufficient degree of perfpicuity and precifion. There 
 can be no doubt but that the Valentinian feft was of more 
 recer.t origin than thofe of which we have already given 
 an account, for it is pretty pLiiily to be collected from 
 the tetlimony of ancient authors, that it had no regulai 
 exiftence until after Valentine had quitted Italy and taken 
 up his refidence in the ifland of Cyprus ; which unquef- 
 tionably did not take place until about the middle of this 
 century. Prcvioufly to this, Valentine, although he dif- 
 fered in opinion materially from other Chriftians, and met 
 with no little fuccefs in the propagation of his errors, 
 yet maintained communion with the church, and was willing 
 to pafs for one of its members. That form of religion, 
 however, which he confidered as the true and genuine one, 
 muft have fuggefted itfelf to him at a much earlier period, 
 inafmuch as he had taught it in Egypt and at Rome many 
 years prior to his excommunication and expuluon from the 
 church. According to Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. 
 lib. vii. p. 898. he was iuppofed to have been a pupil of 
 Theodas the difciple of St. Paul. If this be true, he muft 
 have lived in the firft century, and attained to a great age. 
 The interpretation given to the words of Clement as to this, 
 by almoft every writer who has adverted to them is, that 
 Valentine made it a matter of boaft that his difcipline was 
 founded on principles privately imparted by St. Paul. Nor 
 does it appear to me at all unlikely, that this might be what 
 Clement intended to convey. For it was the cuftom of 
 the Gnoft:ics, who could r^ot but admit that their opinions 
 were at variance with the facred writings, to fhelter them- 
 felves behind certain fecret communications from Chrift and 
 hib apoftles. I think it but right however to obferve, that 
 we have no exprefs ftatement in Clement to the above effeft. 
 All that he fays is fimply this, that there were perfons 
 who reprefented Valentine as having been a difciple of 
 Theodas. A3 to the authors of this rumour he is filent. 
 
 faking 
 
268 The EcclefiaJHcal Hifiory 
 
 EN T. faking Italy therefore, he withdrew to the ifland 
 of Cyprus, where, laying afide all diflimulation, 
 he became the parent of a fed, which in point of 
 form and external obfervances differed in no ma- 
 terial degree from other Chriftian affemblies ; 
 but in opinions and tenets retained fcarcely any 
 refemblance to them whatever. From this fpot 
 the fed foon widely diffufed itfelf throughout 
 Afia, Africa, and Europe. Valentine, it ihould 
 feem probable, ended his days in Cyprus, fome- 
 what about the middle of this century. It is 
 reported that the idea of inflituting a new fed 
 firft fuggefled itfelf to him in confequence of his 
 having been difappointed in the attainment of the 
 bifliopric of I know not what city, and that his 
 condud ought rather to be afcribed to ambition 
 than to error : but the hifiory of his fortunes 
 feems to give a complete contradidion to this \j\. 
 
 LIII. The 
 
 (/') Tertullian in his difcourfe contra Valentin, cap. iv. 
 informs us that Valentine afpired to a bifhopric, a ftation 
 for which his genius and eloquence appeared eminently to 
 qualify him, but that the preference was given to a martyr, 
 or more rightly a confeflbr : and, that filled with indigna- 
 tion at this, he became an opponent of the genuine religion, 
 and fet about eltablifhing a new feft. Now as to the firft 
 part of this ftatement, namely, that Valentine was difap- 
 pointed in the hope of being promoted to a bifhopric, there 
 is nothing in it at all difficult of belief : but the latter part 
 of it muft undoubtedly be falfe, if what Tertullian himfelf 
 and other ancient writers report refpeftiug the fortunes of 
 this man be true. For Tertullian in his book de Prafcrip- 
 t'lone Hareticorum, cap. xxx. p. 242. exprefsly reprefents 
 him as for a long time praftifing diflimulation, and ftu- 
 dioufly gloffing over his erroneous doftrines, not only during 
 his refidence in Egypt, but alfo afterwards at Rome. 
 Which plainly proves that nothing could be farther from 
 his intention than that of eftabhfliing an heretical fe6t. 
 The fame writer fays, that led away by too great a define 
 after knowledge, and an unbounded curiofity, he, by degrees 
 
 for- 
 
of the Second Century. 269 
 
 LIII. The leading principles of the Valen- 
 dnian fyfteni of diicipline correfponded with 
 
 thofe The Valen- 
 tinianiEons. 
 
 forfook the high road of truth, and laboured in difleminat- 
 ing his erroneous principles amongfl: the Chriftiansat Rome. 
 On this account he was twice fubjefted to a temporary 
 excommunication, and as often received again into the bo- 
 fom of the church, but it being found that no faith whatever 
 was to be placed in his promifes, for that he conftantly re- 
 curred to his old habits, and the propagation of his heretical 
 opinions, he was at length excluded, without hope of return, 
 from every fort of affociation or in.ercourfe with the faithful. 
 From all this, it is manifeft, that he felt an unwillingnefs 
 to be divorced from the church, and confequently could 
 have entertained no thoughts of eftablifhing a feparate fe6t. 
 For furely, a man, who on two occafions exerted himfelf 
 to the utmoft to obtain re-admiflion into the church, after 
 having been excommunicated, and with a view thereto 
 twice entered into an engament to amend his opinions 
 and conduft, could have felt no difpofition whatever to 
 become the parent of a feft, but mull have been anxious 
 to retain his connexion with the faithful. When at length 
 however, his utter expulfion from the church was irrevo- 
 cably fealed by a public decree, we find him withdrawing to 
 the ifland of Cyprus, and there laying the foundation of a 
 particular fedl. It was not therefore the difappointment of 
 his hopes with regard to a bifliopric, but the feverity of 
 the Roman church, that made Valentine a feftary, and led 
 him to fecede with his difciples from the regular Chriflian 
 Fold. I rather fufpeft then, that Tertullian muft have 
 blended together two things entirely unconnefted with 
 each other, and confounded the caufe of Valentine's journey 
 to Rome, with the caufe of his feparation from the church. 
 The true hiftory of the matter, in all probability, is this : — 
 Valentine had been led to cherilh the expeftation of fuc- 
 ceeding to thebiihopric of fome church in his native country, 
 Egypt. It was an ancient and eftabhfhed rule, however, 
 amongfl the Chriftians, that whenever any perfons coming 
 within the defcription of confcffors, were to be met with 
 amongft the members of a church, they fhould on a vacancy 
 be promoted to the bifhoprick of fuch church, in prefer- 
 ence to all other, yea, even more learned candidates. A 
 confeflbr, then, probably, prefented himfelf in the church 
 to the prefidency over which Valentine had afpired, and the 
 
 hopes 
 
27© The Eccleftq/lical Hi/hry 
 
 CENT, thofe of the various other Gnoftic fefts \_k~] ; nor 
 
 . i^:,^ did its founder attempt to diiguife this, but was 
 
 well 
 
 The Valen- 
 tinian JEons. 
 
 hopes and expeftations of the latter, confequently termi- 
 nated in grievous difappointtnent. Filled with vexation 
 and difguft at his want of fuccefs, he bade adieu to 
 his native country, and travelled to Rome. During his 
 abode in the capital of Italy, fo far was he from meditating 
 the formation of a feft, or any thing detrimental to the 
 church, that he rather ftudied, by means of his eloquence 
 and reputation for learning, to open a way for himfelf to 
 its offices and honours. Finding himfelf, however, here 
 again deceived in his expectations, and the Roman church, 
 having in confequence of his pertinacity in error, expelled 
 him from her bofom, without hope of return, he with- 
 drew into the ifland of Cyprus, and there became the 
 parent and patron of the feft which goes under his name. 
 
 {h) From what fource the Valentinian religion and 
 philofophy were derived, has been made the theme of much 
 ingenious d'fputation by the learned of modern days, fince 
 the time that Jo. Franc. B'ldd us, in his differtation de 
 Hareft Vnletitin'iana annexed to his Introduflio ad H'tftoriam 
 Phtlojoph'ia Hebraorum^ pronounced both the one and the 
 other to have originated in the Cabbala, or philofophy of 
 the Hebrews. Ancient authors, for the moll part, con- 
 ceived the Valentinian fyftem to have been a child of the 
 Platonic fchool : but if we abftraft from it a few things, 
 which certainly bear an affinity to fome of the Platonic 
 tenets, the remainder will be found to differ fo eflfentially 
 from the philofophy of the ancient academy, that without 
 violence no fort of reconciliation can be produced between 
 them. Much lefs are thofe to be attended to, who repre- 
 fent Valentine as having endeavoured to imitate and im- 
 prove upon the theogonies and cofmogonies of Hefiod and 
 other ancient Grecian, Phoenician, and Egyptian poets. 
 That there is a vaft difference between thofe ancient theo- 
 gonies and the Valentinian philofophy refpetling the 
 Deity a .d this world, muft readily be perceived by any one 
 who will be at the pains of comparing them together. 
 With regard to its having been derived from the Cabbala, 
 it muft certainly be admitted that in the fyftem of Va- 
 lentine, there are fome things bearing no very diftant re- 
 femblance to the maxims delivered down by the antient 
 Jewifli mafters: but at the fame time there are in it other 
 
 thingf^ 
 
f)f the Second Century, 271 
 
 well contented that himfelf and his followers cent. 
 Ihould be ftyled Gnoftics. Being endowed by ■ _ 1 j 
 nature, however, with a genius moil furprifingly Tiie Vaien- 
 prolific, he boldly ventured forth beyond the t""'*«^°'- 
 limits within which the reft of this tribe had 
 deemed it expedient to confine themfelves, and 
 dilating on fuch topics as had been previoufly 
 noticed by them merely in a general way, dif- 
 tributed them into parts, and, with the affiftance 
 of an inexhauftible imagination, endeavoured to 
 fill up the intervals in fuch a way as effedually 
 to meet the numerous difficulties with which he 
 
 things in abundance, of a diametrically oppofite charafter. 
 Befides, it is my belief, that for the rudiments of that 
 difcipline which the doftors of the Cabbala profefs, the 
 Jews were indebted to the oriental philofophers. Thofe 
 who coincide with the Enijlifh prelate G. Hooper, in 
 referring the Valentinian liftions to an Egyptian origin, 
 find themfelves equally embarrafled with the reft, when 
 they come to enter into particulars. In my opinion the 
 clafs to which Valentine ought to be referred is not fo 
 involved in obfcurity, but that it may be pointed out 
 without any very great difficulty. By all the ancient 
 writers he is reckoned amongft the Gnoftics : and his fyftem 
 poflefTes all thofe features, by which the Gnoftic difcipline 
 is peculiarly charafterized, fuch as a Pleroma, Bythus, ^ons, 
 Sophia, Demlurgus, and the like. Without doubt then 
 the firll elements of the fyftem which he originated were 
 drawn from the oriental philofophy. To thefe he added 
 not a few conceits of his own, and after a new mode digefted, 
 expounded, amplified, and brought into connexion various 
 things which had been treated of by others, merely in a 
 confufed, obfcure, brief, and defultory manner. This 
 couM not have proved any difficult taflc, to one whom all 
 writers concur in reprefenting as a man of the moft fertile 
 imagination and unbounded fancy. In what refpefts how- 
 ever, Valentine was beholden altogether to the Gnoftic 
 difcipline, or for what particulars he was indebted prin- 
 cipally to his own invention, the Gnoftic tenets furnifhing 
 him merely with a general outline, it is impoflible for any 
 one, at this day, to determine with any thing like pre- 
 cifion. 
 
 knew 
 
272 The Eccleftqftical Hijiory 
 
 c E^N T. knew they were befet [/]. Firft, in the Pie* 
 ronia, or that immenfe fpace refulgent with un- 
 clouded 
 
 [/j The difference between Valentine and the various 
 other leaders of Gnoftic fefts, will be found to confift chiefly 
 in what I am now about to point out. Moft of the latter 
 appear to have been in the habit of philofophizing long pre- 
 vious to their embracing Chriftianity. Their endeavours, 
 therefore, were dire6ted to make the Chriftian religion ac- 
 commodate itfelf to the philofophic fyftem of which they 
 approved. With Valentine, on the contrary, a profeffion 
 of the Chriftian faith feems to have preceded the ftudy of 
 philofophy ; the confequence of which was, that in his 
 fyftem philofophy was made wholly fubfervient to Chrif- 
 tianity, and certain parts of the former, which appeared not 
 eafily to admit of a reconciliation with the principles of the- 
 latter, were altogether thrown into the ftiade. The greater 
 part of the words which he makes ufe of in unfolding his 
 opinions are taken from the books of the New Teftament. 
 This circumftance, according to my judgment, plainly de- 
 clares, that thefe books, together with the Chriftian religion, 
 muft have been received and approved of by him before he 
 fet about conftituting a regular difcipline of his own. Cer- 
 tainly many of his aeons would not have had Chriftian names 
 given to them, but others of a very different chara&er, had 
 Valentine, previoufly to his embracing Chriftianity, been in 
 the habit of philofophizing in the fame way as the reft of 
 the Gnoftics did refpefting the Deity and the origin of all 
 things. Another argument as to this point is, I think, to 
 be drawn from the reafons (in themfelves truly ridiculous 
 moft afl"uredly, and proving to demonftration the man's 
 extravagance and folly, but neverthelefs deduced from the 
 books of the New Teftament) which he adduces in fup- 
 
 f)ort of various parts of his difcipline. Being queftioned, 
 or inftance, as to how he came to know that there were 
 exadly thirty aeons neither more nor lefs, he anfwers that 
 he drew his conclufion as to this from the thirty years of 
 Chrift's life which were fuffered to elapfe previoufly to his 
 entering on his miniftry. Irenaeus contra Htsref, lib. i. c. i, 
 § 3^ p. 7. In the adoption of this number he, with great 
 but very childifti fubtlety, attempts ftill further tojuftify 
 himfelf from our blefled Saviour's parable refpefting the 
 labourers fent by the houfeholder into the vineyard. 
 Matthew XX. Firft, he contends that by the hours at which 
 the labourers were hired we ought to underftand aeons ; and 
 9 then 
 
11. 
 
 The Valeii- 
 
 afihe Second Century, 273 
 
 clouded light, which the Gnoftics confidered as c e n t. 
 the immediate habitation of the Deity, he placed 
 thirty ^ons, or natures of the higheft dignity, 
 of whom the one half were males, the other tiniani'Eons 
 females. Thefe again he divided into three 
 orders of different degrees of excellence and 
 
 then reckoning up thofe hours, he, with the utmoll confi- 
 dence, afferts that nothing whatever can be clearer than that 
 the number of the aeons muft be thirty ; for if one, and 
 three, and fix, and nine, and eleven, be added together, they 
 will be found to yield a total of thirty. What can be more 
 obvious ? His diiodecad he defends on the ground that 
 Chrift, when he was twelve years of age, difputed with the 
 Jewifh doftors in the temple, and that twelve was the num- 
 ber of our Lord's apolUes. Irenseus, 1. i. c. 3. p. 14. 
 Many arguments of a fimilar defcription might, with a very 
 moderate degree of labour, be coUefted from Irenjeus and 
 other writers. Now all thefe things, unlefs I am much 
 miftaken, obvioufly indicate a man dcfirous of adjufting and 
 determining various philofophical precepts which he had 
 accidentally picked up, by the teft of fcripture, not one 
 labouring to make the principles of Chriftianity conform to 
 certain rules and maxims of philofophy in which he had been 
 previoufly grounded. I am induced therefore to believe 
 that Valentine, after embracing the Chriftian faith, in all its 
 genuine fimplicity, accidentally fell in with fome man or 
 other addifted to the Gnoftic philofophy, and that, being 
 captivated with its nonfenfical theories, he conceived the 
 refolution of comparing them with the facred writings, 
 expedicing that, with the affiftance of fcripture, he might be 
 able to expound thena in a way m.ore accurate and confen- 
 taneous to religion than had hitherto been purfued by the 
 Gnoftics. The refult of this undertaking was, that he 
 became the author of a new kind of philofophical reli- 
 gion, differing, not fo much in words and terms, as in the 
 difpofition and connexion of the things themfelves, from 
 others that had preceded it. The terms Pleroma and JEonst 
 for inftance, were obvioufly derived from his inftruftor in 
 the Gnoftic way of philofophifing ; but in expounding the 
 nature of the former, and determining the number of the 
 latter, he, after confulting the facred writings, ftruck out 
 into a path entirely his own. 
 
 VOL. II. T power : 
 
274 ^^-'^ Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. power : an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad, 
 "• The Ogdoad, which poffefled in many refpeds a 
 ThTvaieii- fuperiority over the reft, and contained within 
 tinian.£ons. {[ the caufes and reafons of all things, he re- 
 prefented as made up of two Tetrads. The firft 
 of thefe Tetrads he ftated to confift of the Deity 
 himfelf, whom he termed Bythus and Propator, 
 and his fpoufe Ennoia (Thought), who was alfo 
 occafionally ftyled Sige (Silence), together with 
 their immediate offspring, Nus (Mind), and Ale- 
 theia (Truth). The fecond, which was fome- 
 what inferior in point of dignity to the firft, he 
 reprefented as being compofed of Logos (the 
 Word), and Zoe (Life), Anthropos (Man), and 
 Ecclefia (the Church). Of thefe latter four, he 
 conceived the firft two to have been generated of 
 'Nus and Aletheia, and in procefs of time to have 
 become the parents of the fecond pair. The 
 Decad, which followed next in fucceffion to the 
 Ogdoad, he confidered as owing its exiftence, in 
 the firft inftance, to Logos and Zoe. From thefe 
 fprung Bythius and Mixis, who in their turn 
 begat Ageratos and Henofts, from the union of 
 whom again were produced Autophyes and He- 
 done, of whom were generated Acinetos and Syn- 
 crafts, whofe offspring, Monogenes and Macaria, 
 terminate the Decad. For in thefe iEons the 
 generative power was fuppofed gradually to di- 
 minifh until it became quite extinft. From An- 
 thropos and Ecclefia, the other branch of the 
 fecond Tetrad, fprung that order or clafs of the 
 celeftial family to which the title of Duodecad 
 was given, in confequence of its being compofed 
 of twelve uSEons, the one half males, the other 
 females. The firft two of thefe were Paracletos 
 and Pijiis, of whofe offspring, Patricos and Elpis^ 
 were generated Metricos and Agape. By the 
 9 union 
 
of the Second Century, 275 
 
 anion of thefe latter again were produced Alms cent. 
 and Synefis, of whom were begotten Ecclefiq/ikos ^ ^- 
 and Macariotes, with whofe offspring, Theletos xheVaien- 
 and Sophia, who proved unfruitful, the Duodecad tinia.i.-Eons. 
 terminates. To thefe thirty j^Eons were added 
 four others of a fmgular and extraordinary na- 
 ture, to whom no female aflbciates were affigned. 
 Of thefe the firll, who was ftyled Horns, being 
 placed by his parents Bythus and Sige, at the 
 extreme limits of the Pleroma, kept a continual 
 guard over its boundaries, and reflrained the 
 inferior aeons, left poffibly being ftimulated by 
 an ambitious curiofity they might be tempted 
 to overleap their proper barrier, and be fwal- 
 lowed up in that immenfe ocean by which the 
 Pleroma was fuppofed to be furrounded. Next 
 after Horus came Chrijios (Chrift), and Pneuma 
 agion (the Holy Spirit), two unafTociated aeons, 
 whom Bythus, the father of all, through the 
 channel of Monogenes, called into exiftence for 
 the purpofe of inftru£ting and confining within 
 the line of duty fuch other aeons as might be 
 found wavering, or in any degree difpofed to 
 deviate therefrom. The laft of this numerous 
 fpiritual family was Jefus, a moft noble aeon, 
 produced by the united ad of all the other aeons, 
 endowed by them with every gift and faculty of 
 the moft exalted kind, and conftantly encom- 
 pafTed with a mighty hoft of angels as a guard. 
 In this long and tivefome fable, it is fcarcely pof- 
 fible to believe that there can be any thing con- 
 tained at all favouring either of wit, wifdom, or 
 ingenuity : and all the pains which have hi- 
 therto been beftowed in endeavouring to recon- 
 cile thefe intricate reveries of a difordered brain 
 with reafon and truth, can only be regarded in 
 T 2 the 
 
2j6 The Eccleftajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, the light of fo much labour entirely thrown 
 . "•_ . away [wz]. 
 
 TheValen- LIV. Thcfc 
 
 nn/Eons. 
 
 [»i] Amongft men diftiiiguifhed for their learning there 
 have not been wanting fome who, pofleffing the rational 
 faculty in an eminent degree themfelves, are unwilling to 
 believe that Valentine could have been wholly deftitute of it, 
 and have therefore endeavoured to hit upon fome means or 
 other for interpreting his principles and tenets in fuch a 
 way as might at leaft give them the appearance of being 
 partly founded in truth. The ftrange and unaccuftomed 
 kind of language, they fay, to which he had recourfe, threw 
 fuch a veil of obfcurity over his tenets and doftrine, as the 
 ancient fathers found themfelves utterly unable to penetrate : 
 but only let this veil be removed by a flcilful and fagacious 
 hand, and the things themfelves, rather than the reprefenta- 
 tions of thofe things, be brought under review, and there will 
 appear to be much lefs difagreement between the Valentinian 
 tenets and opinions and thofe of the Chriftians in general, 
 than has been commonly imagined. Vid. Camp. Vitring. 
 Obfervat. Sacr. Li, c. 2. p. 138, & feq. Souvera'in Pla- 
 ton'tfme devotle, cap. viii. p. 68. Ifaac de Beaufobre, 
 Hijloire de Man'tchee, v. i. p. 54.8. 551. 582. 588 & feq. 
 Ja. Bafnage, H'tjio'ire des Julfsy tom. iii. p. 729. and 
 amongft the firft. Pet. Faydit Eclairajfemens fur I'H'tftoire 
 Ecclef. des deux premieres Siec/es, p. 12. Iff yllteration du 
 Dogme Theologique par la Ph'ilofophie d'ArlJlote, p. 186. 
 365, & feq. where he intimates himfelf to have in contempla- 
 tion An Apology for Valentine. The reader will underftand 
 me as by no means wifhing to difcommeiid fuch attempts, 
 which feem to fpeak highly in favour of the fagacity, equity, 
 and prudence of their authors ; neither does the circum- 
 ftance of their having been made, occafion in me any great 
 furprife. For it cannot be denied but that here and there 
 certain fparks of the truth appear to gleam forth from amidft 
 the Valentinian drofs ; and we are certain that the early 
 Chriftian fathers, in numberlefs inftances, were not fuffi- 
 ciently on their guard againft miftaking and mifreprefenting 
 the tenets which they undertook to combat. It feems to 
 me, however, that I am fully warranted in going the 
 length of faying this much, that if Valentine himfelf could 
 arife out of his grave he would rejedl the good offices of 
 thefe his ingenious and erudite defenders. For we 
 have his own confeflion, that the difcipline which he 
 taught was altogether at variance with the religion pro- 
 
 feffcd 
 
277 
 
 T. 
 
 of the Second Century, 
 
 LIV. I'hele iEons, although of divine origin, c e^n 
 
 were ._ ^'__ 
 
 The Viilen- 
 
 feffed by the greater part of the Chnilians of hi. day. He tinian theo 
 alfo denied that his principles and tenets were to be liip- 
 ported from the holv Scriptures as they were then read, and 
 as they are read bv us at prefent, and boaftcd that they 
 were in great meafure founded on the fecret communications 
 of Chriil and his apolUes, and certain writings of St. Mat- 
 thias. From all thefe things then it is manifelt, that it 
 mnft be ading in dired oppofition to what would be his 
 wiftes, were he ahve, for any one to maintain that the only 
 difference between his tenets and thofe of his opponents 
 confiils merely in words and the manner in which they have 
 been handed down to us. Befides, amongft thofe advocates 
 for Valentine, there is not to be found one who will pretend 
 to deny that in his fyftem of difcipline not a few things pre- 
 fent themfelves which are altogether inexplicable, and fome 
 fo utterly ftupid and abfurd, as to afford no ground what- 
 ever for excufe. A circumltance, which, unlefs I am much 
 miftaken, is of itfelf fufficient to prove what a wafte of 
 time and pains it is for perfons to employ themfelves in 
 endeavouring to purge fuch a fyftem of its drofs, and give it 
 a new complexion. For we find it confefTed that the enig- 
 matical parts prc-fent an infurmountable obftacle to our 
 arriving at any certain conclufion with regard co fuch parts 
 as are more intelligible; and furely the abfurdities with 
 which it abounds, inafmuch as they leave us in no doubt as 
 to the man's extravagance and folly, muft be allowed to 
 place it beyond a queftion that Valentine could not have 
 been fuch a charader as to merit that any wife man fhould 
 become either his defender or apologift. How, I would 
 af]<, can that be found or wholefome which is interwoven and 
 incorporated with what is erroneous and abfurd ? — or that 
 be confentaneous to reafon which depends on principles and 
 opinions that fet all reafon at defiance ? By way of illuftration, 
 let us take, for example, the thirty jEonsof the Valentinian 
 fyftem, and the mode in which they are conneded with each 
 other. Thofe of the learned who have undertaken to ad- 
 vocate the caufe of Valentine fuggeft, with more or lefs 
 confidence, that by thefe ^ons we ought not to underftand 
 real perfons exifting feparately from the Deity ; for that all 
 this hsrefiarch had in view was to diftinguifti between cer- 
 tain notions and ideas, by affigning to them particular 
 names, and clothing them with the form and charafter ot 
 
278 The Ecclefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. were yet fuppofed to be liable to the fame paf- 
 ._ "•_ , fions 
 
 The Valen- 
 
 tinian iheo- perfoiis. This celeilial family of ^ons, begotten of the 
 ^%"l- Deity himfelf, is, they fay, to be regarded in fomewhat of 
 
 a metaphyfical light, as exhibiting the fucceffion, feries, and 
 conneftion of the virtues and aflions of the Supreme Being. 
 For nothing can be more common than for thole who would 
 wiili to (peak perfpicuoufly of things altogether abftraAed 
 from feiife, to have recourfe to a perfonification of their 
 ideas. But this opinion, although it may for a moment 
 carry with it a fpecious and impofing air, will, on examina- 
 tion, be found to have nothing either of weight or pro- 
 bability attached to it. For as Valentine was confeffedly 
 a Gnoilic, and the iEons of all the other Gnoftics were 
 conceived to be not merely feigned or imaginary but real 
 perfons, it is moft natural to conclude that the Valentinian 
 iEons were regarded as beings of a like defcription. Again, 
 if we proceed to apply this expofition to the Valentinian 
 difcipline, it may indeed be poflible for us, though not 
 without difficulty, to make it in fome degree accord with 
 the firft four pair of ^ons ; but let us attempt to move one 
 ftep farther on, and we are immediately encountered by 
 refiftance, all the -^ons thenceforward, by the aftions and 
 affeftions which are attributed to them, tacitly declaring it 
 to be utterly impoffible that they could ever have been in- 
 tended to reprefent notions or ideas of the Divine virtues 
 and actions, (i.) Thefe JEons, as we fiiall prefently fee, 
 were fuppofed to have been filled with envy at the glory 
 with which Nus, the moft exalted of them was invefted ; 
 a circumftance, as it ftrikes me, inconteftibly proving that 
 both he and they could have been confidered in no other 
 light than as real perfons. For in what way a divine virtue 
 or aftion could be filled with envy, or ficken at another's 
 exaltation, is certainly not within the reach of any ordinary 
 degree of comprehenfion. (2.) All thefe ^ons were am- 
 bitious of mentally comprehending the magnitude of their 
 firft parent, the Supreme Deity. (3.) An attempt to gra- 
 tify this inordinate ambition brought the laft of them, who 
 was inferior to the reft in point of virtue, into the greateft 
 peril. (4.) Chrift and the Holy Spirit were generated of 
 the Deity for the purpofe of reprefiing, in the other ^ons, 
 this moft dangerous wifh of attaining to a knowledge of the 
 Divine Nature, and preventing them from yielding to its 
 impulfes. (5.) Edified and invigorated by thefe inftruftors, 
 
 the 
 
of the Second Century. 279 
 
 fions and perturbations of mind as diftra£t the c e n t. 
 
 the ^ons, who had previoufly occupied thcmfelves wholly The Valen. 
 in contemplating the majefty of the firft great Parent, di- tinian theo- 
 refted their attention to a different objeft, and by an union logy. 
 of their energies produced Jefns, with a hoft of angels for 
 his guard, a nature conftituted, as one may fay, of the very 
 marrow of all the JEons. (6.) This generation of Jefus 
 exhaufted, as it were, thofe powers with which they pre- 
 vioufly fuperabounded ; for they are reprefented as after- 
 wards keeping a due reftraint on themfelves, and not in- 
 dulging in their former inordinate defire of attaining to a 
 comprehenfion of the Deity. (7.} On the borders of the 
 Pleroma was placed Horus, a moft powerful ^on, whofe 
 province it was to take care lefl any of his brethren, under 
 the influence of fome fudden impulfe, might be tempted to 
 overleap the boundaries of their celeftial abode. Now all 
 thefe things are obvioufly of fuch a nature as to preclude 
 every poffibility of their being attributed to any other than 
 beings endowed with intelleft and will, and exifting by 
 themfelves really and truly, diflinft, not only from the 
 Deity, but from each other. Valentine muft therefore 
 either have been out of hisfenfes, and not have known what 
 he meant himfelf, or he muft have believed his jEons to have 
 been real perfons, the offspring of the Deity, and have re- 
 garded the Pleroma, as he termed it, in the light of a king- 
 dom divided into as many provinces as there were pairs of 
 ^ons, each having two rulers peculiar to itfelf, the one a 
 male, the other a female. I can perceive it, however, 
 to be very pofTible that the notion may fuggeft itfelf to 
 fome, and in faA I believe it has fo fuggefted itfelf, that 
 thefe iEons were fimilar to the Ideas which Plato is faid to 
 have feigned to himfelf, and which many of his difciples 
 certainly did feign to themfelves, namely, natures really 
 exifting in the Deity as living exemplars or images of mun- 
 dane things. Without doubt Valentine, if refpeft be had 
 to the names of merely fome of his ^ons, may appear to 
 have had fomewhat of this kind in contemplation ; but, 
 when examined throughout, the names of others will be 
 found altogether irreconcileable with this fuppofition. Nor 
 does it ftrike me that his caufe would derive any confiderable 
 degree of fupport from this interpretation, even fuppofmg 
 it to be in every refpeft well founded ; for what are thofe 
 Platonic Ideas but perfons ? 
 
 T 4 human 
 
2 So The Eccieftaflical Hijiory 
 
 c E N 'J', human race [«]. All of them, for inftance, are 
 ^ ^ ^ ^' , repj-efented as being filled with envy at the dif- 
 The Vaien- tlngulfhed felicity enjoyed by Nus the chief fon 
 theo- of the Deity, who alone was adequate to the full 
 
 tinian 
 
 [«] This imperfeftion in the JEons, or Divine Natures, will 
 excite but little furprize if it be confidered that the Deity 
 himfelf was regarded by all defcriptions of the Gnoilics, and 
 particularly by the Valentinians, in a very different light 
 from that in which he was viewed by every other deno- 
 mination of Chriftiaiis, and that they did not allow even 
 this firil great Author of all things to be poflefTed of any 
 thing beyond a limited degree of intelligence and power. 
 Molt affuredly the knowledge of the Deity could not, ac- 
 cording to them, have been very extenfive, fince he was 
 incapable of forefeeing what would be the fate of the jEons 
 generated of himfelf, and took no means to provide for their 
 fafety and tranquillity until his eyes were opened by the 
 vaftly perilous attempt of the iEon Sophia. That they 
 believed him to poffefs merely a circumfcribed power is 
 equally evident from his being reprefented as unable to 
 prevent the occurrence of many things contrary to his will 
 without the limits of the Pleroma, or to obftruft the infti- 
 tution of a new order of things to the origination of which 
 he could not but have been inimical. The parturition of 
 Sophia, we are told, was unqueftionably highly difpleafing 
 to the Deity. The confequences of that parturition then, 
 fuch as the formation of matter, the birth of Demiurgus, the 
 fabrication of the world, and the like, could never have been 
 acceptable in his fight. Whatever things were done there- 
 fore, without the limits of the Pleroma, appear to have been 
 accompliihed without his approbation, and may, confe- 
 quently, be adduced as fo many proofs of his infirmity or 
 want of power. The Deity of the Gnollics was alio def- 
 titute of various other qualities, which right reafon as well 
 as the facred writings point out as belonging to the Supreme 
 Being. If fuch, then, were the ideas entertained by the 
 Valentinians and the whole tribe of the Giioftica refpeding 
 the firil great Parent of all things, who can feel in any de- 
 gree furprifed that his offspring fliould have been regarded 
 by thofe pretenders to fuperior wifdom as agitated by blind 
 and unruly affeftions, and pining away under the influence of 
 envy and an inordinate curiofity ? 
 
 compre- 
 
of the Second Century. ' 281 
 
 coiiiprehenfion of his father's greatnefs, and all c E n t. 
 of them defcribed as animated with the moll , "' , 
 ardent defire of attaining to a fmiilar degree of The Vaien- 
 knowledge, not one of them believing it beyond J"^'*" ^'^^^ 
 the reach of his capacity to arrive at a juft °'' 
 conception of the tranfcendent majefly and ex- 
 cellence of the fir ft great Parent. Inflamed be- 
 yond meafure with this defire of fully compre- 
 hending the nature of the Supreme Deity, Sophia, 
 or Wifdom, the youngeft, and confequently the 
 weakefl of the ^ons, became at length fo agi- 
 tated and perturbed, that, had fhe not been 
 prevented by Horus, the guardian of the celeflial 
 boundaries, fhe would have overleaped the limits 
 of the Pleroma, and plunged headlong into the 
 vafl ocean of matter that lay beyond it [0]. This 
 violent commotion, however, was produdive ot 
 an effedt which it was utterly out of the power 
 of Horus to prevent, namely, that Sophia was 
 delivered of a daughter ftyled Achmnoth, who, 
 being expelled from the Pleroma, was immerfed 
 in the rude and chaotic mafs of unformed matter 
 which lay without it. With a view to prevent 
 the other branches of his family from incurring 
 any fimilar rifk. By thus, or the Supreme Being, 
 by means of Nus, produced two new ^Eons, 
 Chriji and the Holy Spirit ; of whom the former 
 had it in command to inflrudt the celeflial fa- 
 mily that the immenfe greatnefs of the Deity 
 
 [03 In the Greek of Irenasus it is £»$ tj^v Ixm ialxv, which 
 is rendered by the old Latin tranflator in univerfam fub- 
 Jlantiam. But it is evident that this is the fame as Wv -ra 
 oXy so-tav, uuiverjitatts rerum materiam. Without fide the 
 Pleroma was fituated, according to Valentine, the immenfe 
 mafs of matter. He did not, however, as we ftiall prefently 
 fee, conceive it to be poflefTed of either motion, form, or a 
 generative power. 
 
 could 
 
28 a- The Ecclefiajiical Hijhry 
 
 CENT, could be comprehended only by Nus, or the 
 Fiifl Begotten ; whilft the latter was to exhort 
 and perfuade the J£.ons to fubdue, as far as 
 pofTible, every irregular commotion of mind, and 
 to make it their objed to celebrate and worfhip 
 their firfl great Parent with a tranquil fpirit. 
 Calmed and enlightened by the admonitions of 
 thefe inftrudors and guides, the ^ons unani- 
 moufly refolved to give a difierent direftion to 
 their energies, and, uniting together their powers, 
 produced, with the approbation, and in honour 
 of the Supreme Father, the being flyled Jefus, 
 the moft illuftrious Star of the Pleroma. 
 
 LV. Scarcely were the internal peace and 
 tranquillity of the celeftial commonwealth thus 
 re-eftablifhed, when commotions of the moft 
 violent kind began to take place without its 
 limits ; commotions which eventually occafioned 
 the formation of this world, and the generation 
 of the human race. Achamoth, the daughter 
 of the jfEon Sophia, upon being expelled from 
 the Pleroma, lay at the firft in a very miferable 
 ftate, being utterly deftitute of either form, 
 figure, or light. Touched with her calamitous 
 fituation, Chrift, who, as we have feen, was 
 inverted with the fundion of a governor and 
 inftru£lor of the jiEons in conjundion with the 
 Holy Spirit, imparted to her fomewhat of form, 
 intelligence, and rationality. Aroufed and fti- 
 muhted by the affiftance thus given her, Acha- 
 moth made a nearer advance to the Pleroma, 
 and endeavoured to obtain for herfelf a larger 
 portion of light. In her attempts at this, how- 
 ever, fhe found herfelf feduloully oppofed by 
 Horus, the ever-watchful guardian of the borders 
 of the Pleroma; a circumftance which threw 
 her into the moft violent perturbations, and 
 
 over- 
 
of the Second CentKry. 28^5 
 
 overwhelmed her, as it were, with apprehenfion cent. 
 and anxiety. At one time, giving way to de- ^_ _i j 
 fpondency, ftie would be diffolved in tears ; at The Vaien- 
 another, recolledling the light of which fhe had J™^" ^^^- 
 obtained a glimpfe, her countenance would be 
 illumined with fmiles. Thefe different affedions 
 had a very wonderful influence on the barren 
 and fhapelefs niafs of matter with which fhe 
 was furrounded, and eventually gave birth to 
 the various elements of the univerfe. From 
 the irrefiftible defire with which flie was in- 
 flamed of obtaining further light, arofe " The 
 Soul of the World;' " The Soul of Demiurgus," 
 and the like ; from her anxiety and forrow, all 
 other things. All liquid matter had its origin 
 in her tears, all lucid matter in her fmiles, all 
 the elements of the world in her forrows and 
 defpondency [/>]. All the component parts of 
 
 the 
 
 C/l Valentine fhoulcl fecm from this to have regarded 
 Achamoth, or, as fhe was at other times ftyled, Enthymefis, 
 as the parent of matter, which, in point of fiift, was no- 
 thing more or lefs than referring the origin of matter to 
 the Deity himfelf. For Achamoth, the parent of matter, 
 was the daughter of Sophia ; and this latter was derived of 
 the Deity, being the laft of the ^ons. Valentine there- 
 fore did not affert the exiftence of two eternal principles, 
 the Deity and Matter ; but conceived all matter to have 
 been, in point of faft, derived from the Deity, although 
 with the intervention of divers generations. Such is the 
 expofition that -has been given of the tenets of Valentine 
 on this head by feveral very eminent fcholars ; and it muft 
 be confeffed that in doing fo they appear to have fome fup- 
 port from the teftimony of ancient writers. I cannot, how- 
 ever, fay that this, by any means, accords with the judgment 
 which I myfelf have been led to form on the fubjeft. The 
 do6trine of Valentine, it is my belief, was, that matter had 
 exifted without the limits of the Pleroma for an infinite 
 period prior to Achamoth's birth, but in a confufed and 
 unformed flate, entirely deftitute of motion, and every 
 
 other 
 
The Ecclefiajikal Hijlory 
 
 the world were therefore now fupplied ; but 
 there was ftill wanting an archited who might 
 reduce them into order, and knit them together 
 in one grand whole. Addreffing herfelf in fup- 
 plication, therefore, to Chrift, Achamoth ob- 
 tained the favour of having Jefus, or the Saviour, 
 fent to her, furrounded with his hofl of angels. 
 With this affiftance fhe produced three fub- 
 ftances, the material, the animal, and the fpiri- 
 tual J on one of which, namely, the animal, {he 
 
 other quality. For, as we have already obferved juft above 
 from Irenaeus, and could, if it were necefTary, confirm, by 
 the teftimouy of TertuUian and other ancient writers, Va- 
 lentine placed without the limits ot the Pleroma tjiV o\m, or 
 t5 oAy iaioct, fubjlatitlam un'iverfam, or umver/t, " the univer- 
 fal fubllance," or " the fubftance of the univerfe." Now 
 by this name no one furely will pretend to fay that he could, 
 have meant empty fpace, for the very name itfelf entirely pre- 
 cludes fuch a fuppofition ; and if he did not mean fpace, it ap- 
 pears to me impoffible that he could have meant any thing 
 elfe but matter. Whatever, therefore, is related by ancient 
 authors refpefting the offspringborn of Achamoth without the 
 limits of the Pleroma, ought to be underftood as indicating 
 merely thofe mutations or changes which her perturbations 
 produced in matter which had previoufly lain ii\ a ftate of 
 abfolute quiefcence and deftitute of every quality. Her 
 tears did not generate the liquid matter, but merely occa- 
 fioned a part of matter, which had previoufly exifted in a 
 folid ftate, to deliquefce and feparate itfelf from the reft. 
 Her fmiles did not produce the pellucid matter, but merely 
 caufed a portion of matter, which had previoufly been 
 opaque and abfolutely impervious, to become luminous and 
 tranfparent. Her forrow did not call into exiftence air, 
 water, fire, and earth, but merely caufed fuch commotions 
 in a part of matter, that all thefe elements were produced 
 from it. In fliort, Enthymefis, or Achamoth, might be 
 looked upon, with regard to a few things, as the author 
 of certain modifications, and flie might likewife be con- 
 fidered as having communicated divers qualities te matter 
 in general ; but ftie certainly, in my opinion, could ne- 
 ver have been regarded by Valentine as the parent of matter 
 itfelf. 
 
 beftowed 
 
of the Second Century. 285 
 
 beftowed the gift of Forin, a boon rejeded by t e n t. 
 the other two ; and hence fprung Defiiiurgus the ,_ ,_ L ^p 
 Founder and Governor of all things \_q~\. 
 
 LVI. Demiurgus beins: thus generated of The Vaien- 
 
 , ", 1 • 1 J 1 1 r tinian teneU 
 
 animal matter, undertook, without delay, the lor- refpeaing 
 mation of the corporeal univerfe, a work in the creation. 
 which he was privately affifted in part by Jefus, 
 or the Saviour, and in part by his mother Acha- 
 moth. The courfe he purfued was, in the firft 
 place, to feparate the animal matter from the 
 material. Of the former, or the animal por- 
 tion, he then formed certain celeftial bodies, 
 particularly feven heavens, by which, it is eafy 
 to perceive, were meant feven planets or wan- 
 dering ftars, which conftituted places of refi- 
 dence for, and were governed by an equal 
 number of the mofl powerful fpirits or angels[r]. 
 The fupreme heaven Demiurgus referved to 
 himfelf, and afligned to his mother th^it fpace 
 which feparates the Pleroma from the world. 
 The material portion, in confequence of its 
 having originated from a threefold fource, 
 namely, the apprehenfion, the forrow, and the 
 anxiety of Achamoth, was of a threefold nature, 
 and, under the plaflic hand of Demiurgus, gave 
 
 l^y] This fable is recounted at much greater length by 
 Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other ancient writers. To me, 
 however, it appeared unneceflary to lay before the reader 
 any thing more than a llcetch of its leading features ; or, 
 if I may fo fpeak, I deemed it fufficient to exhibit a general 
 view of the different adls without entering into the minutiae 
 of each fcene in detail. 
 
 [r] We may here difcover evident traces of the non- 
 fenfical dreams of the Egyptians refpedting feven animated 
 planets, or moveable ftars, poffeffing the governance and 
 direftion of the corporeal univerfe. The idea was adopted 
 by moft of the Gnoftics, efpecially by fuch as had received 
 their education in Egypt. 
 
 birth 
 
286 The Ecclefiajiical Hijlory 
 
 CENT, birth to three diflinft genera of things. From 
 ^^ _ "; , that which was the fruit of Achamoth's appre- 
 TheVaien- henfion or fear were produced the various de- 
 tinifcn t«neti fcriptions of animals ; from the offspring of her 
 th/creatfon. forrow the cvil angels, of whom the principal 
 one, that is, the devil, had his habitation in the 
 air below Demiurgus; and from that which 
 had flowed from her anxiety, the elements of 
 the world, all of which had been tempered with 
 fire. Man was compounded by Demiurgus of 
 both fubftances, the material and the animal, 
 and enveloped by him with an external fenfible 
 body as with a tunic or mantle. To thefe two 
 conilituent parts of man, a portion of the fpiritual 
 or celeftial fubflance was added by Achamoth, 
 the mother of Demiurgus, but entirely without 
 the knowledge of her fon. The outward cor- 
 poreal frame of each individual man, therefore, 
 was faid, by ancient authors, to comprife, as it 
 were, three men ; ift. The material man, who 
 was incapable of falvation ; 2dly, The animal 
 man, who might be either faved or loft -, and, 
 3dly, The fpiritual man, who could never perifh, 
 having been generated of the celeftial or di- 
 vine fubftancefj]. 
 
 LVIL The 
 
 {[j] The particulars here ftated are not, it muft be con- 
 feffed, handed down to us by ancient writers in a manner 
 fo determinate, full, and perfpicuous as might be wiflied. 
 By no one, however, who will be at the pains of com- 
 paring with each other, all the different branches of the 
 Valentinian fyftem of difcipline, can any difficulty be ex- 
 perienced in comprehending what it was that thefe authors 
 in reality meant to convey. Man, according to Valentine, 
 was compounded of a twofold body, the one internal, the 
 other external ; as likewife, of a twofold foul. The internal 
 body confifted of fluid matter ; the external one, which he 
 fpeaks of as a tunic enveloping the one within, was framed 
 
 of 
 
vf the Second Century, 287 
 
 LVII. The Founder of the world, having per- cent. 
 feded the work which he had undertaken, be- ^ _"_ _f 
 
 came TheValen- 
 tinian tenet* 
 
 of matter that had remained denfe and concrete. The latter c^rfft '"^ 
 was perceptible by the fenfes, the former not. This two- 
 fold body Irenaeus and other ancient writers denominate 
 the material man ; but whether in the Valentinian fenfe, or 
 merely according to their own underllanding of the matter, 
 I am unable to determine. DifTolution inevitably awaited 
 this material many or, more properly fpeaking, this cor- 
 poreal frame of tlie man, after which it would be again 
 abforbed in the grand mafs of matter from whence it had 
 been originally taken. For the Valentinians, like all the 
 other Gnoftic fefts, were conftrained by the nature of their 
 principles to deny every poflibility of a future refurreAion 
 of the body. Of the twofold foul poflTefled by man, ac- 
 cording to the Valentinian theory, the one was taken by 
 Demiurgus from the animal fuhjiance or matter, that is, 
 as is fufficiently evident from the more fubtile and ethereal 
 fpecies of matter, or that of which the foul of the world 
 was conftituted and likewife the heavens framed. This 
 foul is that which contains within it the vital principle, as 
 alfo the faculties of fenfe and perception, and was by an- 
 cient writers termed the animal man. The ultimate fate of 
 this foul might be either perdition or falvation. This is 
 to be underftood thus : if the fenfitive foul fhould forfake 
 the worfliip of Demiurgus and his aflbciates, and, turning 
 itfelf to the Supreme Deity, fhould refift every unlawful 
 appetite, and fubmit its faculties to the dire<5lion of the 
 rational foul, which is the fame thing as placing itfelf un- 
 der the dominion of right reafon, it would in time coalefce, 
 to a certain degree, with the rational or celeftial foul, and in 
 this way obtain for itfelf immortality. Should this fame foul, 
 however, purfue an oppofite courfe, and, fpurning at the 
 dominion of the rational foul, prefer continuing under the 
 government of the fenfes, it would, on the diffolution of the 
 body, return to the foul of the world, or that more fubtile 
 fpecies of matter from whence it was originally taken. The 
 other foul, or that which was conferred upon man by Acha- 
 moth, and which ancient writers denominate the fpiritual 
 many is the rational mind, which, from its very nature is im- 
 mortal, having been taken from the divine fubftance of which 
 the iEons confift. That this foul fhould perifh muft be 
 impoflible, fince it would be the very height of abfurdity to 
 
 fuppofe 
 
a88 The Ecclejiajlkal Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, came at length fo puffed up with arrogance and 
 
 ^•_ ^ pride as to imagine that he hinifelf was the only 
 
 TheVaien- true God, and in confequence thereof to arro- 
 
 tinian tenets gate to himfelf, by the mouths of divers pro- 
 
 chri(?"'^ phets which he difpatched to the Jewifli people, 
 
 the honours due to the Supreme Deity. His 
 
 example as to this being followed by his alfo- 
 
 ciates, the prefidents or rulers of the celeflial 
 
 orbs, as well as by the minor angels, who were 
 
 invefted with dominion over the different parts 
 
 of this univerfe, every knowledge of the real 
 
 and only Supreme God was gradually obhterated 
 
 from the minds of the human race, the generality 
 
 of mortals refigning themfelves wholly to the 
 
 empire of their lufts, and turning a deaf ear to 
 
 all 
 
 fuppofe any part of the divine efTence obnoxious to decay ; 
 wherefore, at fome time or other, either fooner or later, it muft 
 of neceffity afcend to the regions above, not indeed to the 
 Pleroma itfelf, where none but natures of the higheft and moft 
 perfeft order refide, but to that vaft region of fpace inhabited 
 by its mother Achamoth. In thefe his tenets refpeding man, 
 Valentine differed widely from the reft of the Gnoftics, pro- 
 vided the fentiments of thefe latter have not been curtailed 
 or abridged by ancient authors, but Taeen handed down to 
 us whole and entire. As to the reafon that induced Acha- 
 moth to add to the fenfitive foul another of a better and 
 more noble defcription, vh-. a rational one, it appears to 
 me very eafily to be difcovered. Achamoth was naturally 
 inclined to favour the fenfitive foul, inafmuch as it was her 
 own offspring, and confequently felt defirous, if by any 
 means the thing could be brought about, to accomplifh its 
 falvation. Hence (he was induced to give it, for an aflbciate 
 or companion, a particle of the divine efTence, or a celeftial 
 foul, hoping, that by means of this alliance, the fenfitive foul 
 might be corrected, and, in addition thereto, be imbued with 
 a knowledge of the Supreme Deity. In fupport and con- 
 firnjation of this part of his difcipline, there can be no 
 doubt but that Valentine availed himfelf of all thofe paffages 
 that are to be met with in St. Paul's epiftles refpetting ap- 
 petite oppofing itfelf to reafon, and the contentions between 
 the flefh and the fpirit. 
 
of the Second Century. 28 ( 
 
 all the fuggeftions of reafon \f\. With a view cent 
 to the extrication of mankind from this deplo- . ^J^_^ 
 rable flate, Chrift, who was compounded both xheVaien- 
 of the animal and the fpiritual fubflance, and tinian tenet: 
 was furniflied, moreover, with a fenfitive body, chnft. "^ 
 (compofed however of ethereal matter,) defcended 
 from the regions above to this nether world, 
 pafllng through the body of Mary, without con- 
 tamination, as water does through a conduit. 
 Upon the baptifm of this celeflial guefl by John 
 in the waters of Jordan, Jefus, an iEon of the 
 highefl order, defcended on him in the form of 
 a dove \_u\' The divine man, thus conftituted, 
 
 immediately 
 
 [/] Thefe particulars are but very obfcurely handed down 
 by Irenaeus and others. By calhng in, however, the affiH- 
 ance of the various other Gnoftic fyftems, and collating the 
 different parts of the Valentinian fcheme with each other, 
 we have been enabled, as we truft, to throw fome little ad- 
 ditional light on the fubjedl, and to place it in fuch a point 
 of view as may bring the reader acquainted with the true 
 nature and internal economy of Valentinianifm in all its 
 branches. 
 
 [mJ As to the opinion entertained by Valentine refpefting 
 Chrift, or the Saviour, we are left, by the early Chriftian 
 writers, as much in the dark as we are with regard to the 
 Valentinian tenets refpedling man. The Saviour, they fay, 
 •was reprefented by Valentine as confifting of four parts ; a 
 fpiritual part, an animal part, a corporeal part, and, finally, 
 a celeftial part, or the real Saviour, which, afluming the 
 form of a dove, defcended upon Chrift at his baptifm. Now 
 to this partition, which, by the bye, I believe not to have 
 originated with Valentine, h\i\. to have been purely the in- 
 vention of Irenaeus, it may perhaps be fcarcely worth the 
 while to take any formal exception ; but it is certainly far 
 from being well conceived, and adapts itfelf but aukwardly 
 to the fubjeft. The Valentinian Saviour, like the Saviour 
 recognized by all other Chriftians, was conftituted of an 
 union of the Son of God with man, but he differed materially 
 from the Saviour of other Chriftians in this, that he confifted 
 of two perfons, of whom the divine one continued with that 
 which was human merely for a few years, in order that the 
 
 VOL. n. u important 
 
&90 The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, immediately commenced, by means of difcoiirfeSj 
 
 ^ J^; , miracles, and denunciations, a mofl vigorous 
 
 ' attack 
 
 The Valen- 
 tinian tenets 
 rclpe^ling 
 iJhiift, 
 
 important legation to mankind might be fulfilled, and took 
 his departure when the latter was about to undergo capital 
 punifhment. The human perfon, or man, {hould feem to 
 have been looked upon as in a great meafure refembling 
 other men ; for we find a two-fola foul afcribed to it, thg 
 one divine or rational, which is termed by ancient writers 
 t\iQ fpiritual part of ChrtJI, the other fenfitive, percipient, tlie 
 feat of appetites and averfions, and which is ftylcd by autliors 
 of antiquity the animal part of Chrifl. With this two-fold 
 foul they likewife conjoined a body. In the nature of its 
 body, however, this human perfon differed very confiderably 
 from other mortals. For, in the firfl place, this its body was 
 not twofold as the bodies of other men were held to be, the 
 one internal and fluid, the other external and denfe or folid, 
 but merely a fingle, uncompoimded corporeal frame. Again, 
 this body was not compofed of terrene matter, but of that 
 whicli was fubtile and ethereal, although vifible or per- 
 ceptible by the fenfe?. For had Chrift been cloathed with 
 a corporeal frame refembling ours, it would, according to 
 the Valentinian fcheme, have been poflible that, yielding t© 
 the contagious influence of the body, he might have inclined 
 to the fenfitive or concupifcent foul, and ftirred it up to 
 contend for dominion with the divine or rational foul. 
 In that human perfon, or man, with whom Jefus the Son 
 of God, one of the moft exalted of the ^ons, confented to 
 unite himfelf, it was but fitting that nothing ll\ould be 
 contained which might oppofe itfelf to right reafon, but 
 that every motion, every propenfity and defire fhould be 
 fubjeft entirely to the diftates of the celeftial mind. 
 Wherefore he was not furnifhed with a terrene body, 
 but adorned with one of pure aethereal or celeflial mould. 
 Hence alfo, in the laft place, this humah perfon was of 
 neceflity held by the Valentinians to have acquired nothing 
 whatever from the Virgin Mary, but to have paffed through 
 her womb as water through a conduit. For had he adopted 
 any, even the minuteft particle from the body of Mary, it 
 might, like leaven, have corrupted the whole mafs, and 
 generated in the fenfitive foul, a propenfity inimical to right 
 reafon ; matter being confidered by the Gnoftics aS the 
 fource or foundation of all our vices and depraved incli- 
 nations. As to the notions entertained by the Valentinians, 
 refpeding the Son of God j who, for a while* united him- 
 felf 
 
of the Second Century* 291 
 
 attack on the tyranny of the founder of this cent, 
 world and his aflbciates, whilft at the fame time , ^' ^ 
 he re-inftated mankind in the knowledge 'of the TheVaien. 
 fupreme Deity, and inflrufted them as to the ^^"'''jy^"^'^' 
 mode of bringing into fubjedion that foul cij-^iv."''' 
 which is the feat of fenfual appetite and ail our 
 irregular defires. Enraged at thefe proceedings, 
 the Founder of the world caufed Chrifl to be 
 apprehended and crucified. Previoully however 
 to his undergoing this punifhment, not only the 
 Divine Jefus, the Son of the Deity, but alfo 
 the rational foul with which he had been ani- 
 mated, took their departure out of him and 
 'fled away. It was his fenfitive foul alone, 
 therefore, that in conjunction with his sethereal 
 body, was affixed to the crofs. Thofe mortals, 
 who in obedience to the precepts of Chrift, 
 Ihould renounce the worfhip of all falfe gods, 
 the God of the Jews not excepted, and con- 
 
 felf to this very extraordinary and admirable human perfori) 
 it is not rieceflary that I {hould fay much : fuffice it to 
 obferve> that although they regarded him as a Being of a 
 very high and excellent nature, their ideas of him fell far 
 Ihort of thofe which Chriftians in general entertain of the 
 Son of God. They confider him, it is true, as an ,^on of 
 the mod exalted rank, begotten of the eflence of the Deity, 
 but neither in nature, degree, or power, is he placed by 
 them on an equal footing with the father. From the 
 particulars which I have thus enumerated, it muft, I 
 think, be ftrikingly apparent, how widely the Valentinian 
 tenets, refpefting the perfon of Chrift, differ from ours. 
 Upon the feizure and condemnation of Chrift by the Jews, 
 the Valentinians held, that not only the fon of the Deity, 
 or that ^on which had refided within him, took his depar- 
 ture, but alfo one of the fouls by which he had been 
 animated, namely, the rational or celeftial one. It was the 
 fenfitive foul alone, they believed, that in conjunftion with 
 the ethereal body was affixed to the crofs. From this, 
 however, it is apparent, that the Valentinians muft have 
 conceived Chrift to have adually fuffered and died. 
 
 u 2 fining 
 
292 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, fining their adoration to the Supreme Father 
 ^ ^ ^•_ alone, fhould make the fenfitive and concupifcent 
 The Vaien ^^^^ fubmlt Itfelf to the cafligatlon and emendatory 
 tinian tenets dlfclpline of right reafon, would obtain falva- 
 chS.'"^ tion for their fouls of both defcriptions, which, 
 on the diifolutlon of the body, would be tranf- 
 ferred to the regions of unbounded fpace ad- 
 joining the Pleroma, and there be made par- 
 takers of everlafting joy and felicity. The fen- 
 fitive fouls of thofe on the contrary, who Ihould 
 purfue an oppofite courfe, and fpurning at the 
 controul of the rational foul, fhould perfevere 
 in upholding the caufe of fuperftition, had no 
 profpedl: whatever held out to them, but that 
 of everlafting perdition {y~]. When 2^\ thofe 
 parts of the Divine nature, conftituting what 
 were termed celeftial fouls, Ihould be delivered 
 from the bondage of matter, and cleanfed from 
 
 {jv'] Great as was the difference of opinion between the 
 Valenl.inians and other Chriflians v;ith regard to the perfon 
 of Chrift, it was equalled by their difcrepance in fentiment 
 refpefting his funiStion, and the caufe for which he died. For 
 Valentine did not believe that the fins of mankind had Deen 
 expiated by the fufferings and death of Chrift ; neither did 
 he believe that the Son of God, or even the rational 
 foul of the man Chrift, had been at all affefted by fuch 
 fufferings and death. According to him the only purpofe 
 for which the glorious jEon, termed Jefus, came into the 
 world, was that he might offer terms of falvation to thofe 
 fouls in which is feated the faculty of fenfe and volition. 
 The terms were that they fliould forfake the worfhip of all 
 falfe gods, the God of the Jews, or founder of the world, 
 not excepted, and devoting themfelves to the Supreme and 
 only true God, render, according to the example of Chrift, 
 all their propenfities and defires fubjeft to the controul of 
 the rational or celeftial mind. All that the Valentinians 
 therefore afcribe to Chrift, was his having communicated 
 a knowledge of the true God to our benighted race, and 
 taught by his precepts and example, that our defires were 
 to be placed under the dominion of reafon. 
 
 all 
 
of the Second Century. 2p2 
 
 all impurity, Achamoth would, it was aflerted, cent. 
 pafs into the Pleroma, and there be united with ^ ['' 
 Jefus as with a hufband j whilft Demiurgus The Vaien- 
 would proceed to take up his abode in thofe tinian tenets 
 regions of fpace contiguous to the Pleroma, ch?fft/"^' 
 which had previoufly been the habitation of his 
 mother. The fpiritual or celeftial fouls, at the 
 fame time taking leave of the fenfitive fouls, 
 their former companions, would, in like manner, 
 afcend into the Pleroma, and for the future be 
 aflbciated with the angels : whilft the fenfitive 
 fouls, or thofe of inferior order, would continue 
 to experience the higheft degree of felicity in the 
 region without the Pleroma, under the dominion 
 of Demiurgus. Finally, the fire that had been 
 originally diftributed throughout every part of 
 the univerfe, would burft forth from its conceal- 
 ment, and involving the whole machine of the 
 world in flame, produce its utter deftrudion [w]]. 
 
 That 
 
 [w] The Valentinian fable in its termination correfponds 
 exadlly with that of the Manichoeans. A perfedl agree- 
 ment between them is alfo difcoverable in not a few other 
 particulars. This one circumftance alone is fufficient to place 
 it beyond all controverfy that the Gnoftic difcipline was, ia 
 a great meafure, derived from the tenets of the oriental 
 philofophers refpefting the origin of evil. By not only- 
 Valentine, however, but others of the Gnoftics, there was 
 blended with thofe oriental maxims, no fmall portion of the 
 idle conceits and phyfical opinions of the Egyptians, The 
 general tendency of the Oriental, the Gnoftic, and the Ma- 
 nichaean fchemes is to inculcate, that this world was framed 
 out of rude and vitiated matter, without the knowledge or 
 confent of the Supreme Deity, and that either through acci- 
 dent or defign, no inconfiderable portion of the divine or cele- 
 ftial fubftance was incorporated therewith. That the Deity 
 is conftantly endeavouring, by the affiftance of right reafoa 
 gradually to detach this portion of himfelf, or of the divine 
 fubftance, and more particularly fuch part of it as is impri- 
 foned within the bodies of the human race, from depraved 
 matter, and once more to reftore it to its origin in the realms 
 of light. During the time neceflarily required for the ac- 
 u 3 com. 
 
2 94 'J- he Ecclefiaflical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT 
 
 The Valen- 
 tinian tenets 
 
 Chrill. 
 
 That Valentine Ihould have encouraged, or even 
 countenanced in his followers any thing like 
 moral depravity, or a fuiful and flagitious courfe 
 fef\icainy of life, is altogether impoflible ; fmce his in- 
 junctions were that the inferior foul of man 
 fhould always be made to yield obedience to the 
 one that was fuperior, or in other words to right 
 reafon. We, at the fame time, however, feel 
 no difficulty whatever in fo far giving credit to 
 Irenaeus, and other ancient writers, as to believe 
 that certain of his difciples and followers might 
 have led a very difgraceful courfe of life, and 
 endeavoured, by a perverfion of the precepts 
 of their mailer, to fupply themfelves with an 
 excufe for plunging into vice and every fpecies 
 of iniquity \_x'\, 
 
 LVIII. From 
 
 complifhment of this objeA, he patiently tolerates the exigence 
 of this univerfe, or machine of the world, and may even be 
 faid, in a certain degree, to employ his power in upholding 
 it. For fuch is the nature of its conftrudion, that it 
 nouriflies within its bofom the feeds of its own delbuftion, 
 I. e. an adlive and vigorous combuftible principle, difFufed 
 throughout its whole frame, and which, unlefs it were kept 
 in fubjeftion by the Deity, would foon put an end to the 
 world and every thing belonging to it. When all the 
 fouls of men, however, and every particle of the divine 
 eflence, fhall have obtained a deliverance from matter, the 
 Deity will ho longer prevent this flnmbering fire from 
 buriling forth, but fuffer it to iffue from its caverns and 
 receffes, and involve the whole corporeal univerfe in flames 
 and deflruftion. This doftrine may have been exhibited by 
 different fefts under a variety of forms, fome more fubtile, 
 others more homely and grofs, fome again more limple, 
 others more refined and ingenious ; but the fum and 
 fubftance of the matter itfelf will be found to be ia all the 
 fame. 
 
 [v] Much has been handed down to us by Irenseus, lib. i. 
 c. vi. and much by other ancient authors refpefting the 
 wickednefs and crimes of the Valentinians ; whom they re- 
 prefent as having maintained that every thing was lawful 
 for them, inafmuch as they had attained to the highefl de- 
 gree 
 
cf the Second 'Century. 
 
 LVIII. From the Valentinlan fchool are faid 
 to have ilTucd not a few founders of other feels, 
 
 who, 
 
 gree of divine knowledge ; aud as liavirg freely indulged in 
 the violation of every law divine as well as human. By no 
 ancient writer, however, is Valentine liimfelf charged with fdiool 
 any thing of this kind, nor do we any where find a depra- 
 vity of morals attributed to the feft at large. The accu- 
 fation of Irenseus extends merely to certain of the Valen- 
 tinians. Hence, I think it is evident, that Valentine could 
 not have countenanced his difciples in a vicious courfe ot 
 life ; but that certain of his followc--s, by giving a different 
 interpretation to the precepts of their mafter from what he 
 ever intended, endeavoured to make them a cloak for their 
 iniquities. This might very eafily occur. As it was the 
 opinion of many cf the Chriftians, that let a man only be 
 pofiefled of faith and he might fin as much as he liked, fo is 
 it highly credible that ceitain of the Valentinians might 
 maintain that when once a perfon had abftradled the foul 
 fiom the body, and attained to that intimate knowledge of 
 the true God, which they ftylcd yrxo-i-, he could in no fhape 
 whatever be affeCtcd by the aftions of the body. Into this 
 grievous error they were indeed the more likely to fall, from 
 their difbelief of the future refurreftion of men's bodies. 
 The Valentinian difcipline itfelf, fo far from countenancing 
 men in a finful wicked courfe of life, exprefsly inculcated 
 that the way to eternal happinefs lay open only to thofe 
 fouls who, after the example of Chrift, fliould render all 
 their propenfities and defires fubjeft to the celeflial and im- 
 perifliable foul ; or, in other words, to right reafon. Irenseus, 
 and others who have written after him, I know very 
 well, relate that Valentine recognifed three defcriptions 
 or clafles of men ; a-a)|U«T*>coj or the corporeal ; -^vx^y-oi, or the 
 animal ; and vnvf/.a.tiy.oi, or the fpiritual. The corporeal 
 men, are the heathen, or the worfhippers of falfe gods ; the 
 fpiritual men, the Valentinians or Gnoftics ; and the animal 
 men, all other Chriftians. Of thefe, the fini muft of ne- 
 ceflity perifh ; the fecond, by an equal neceflity, muft be 
 faved ; thelaft are capable of being either faved or involved 
 in perdition. That the fpiritual men (hoi.ld bufy them- 
 felves at all as to good works is perfectly unneceflary ; fince 
 it is impoflible that they fliould perifli. The animal men 
 are under the neceflity of cultivating piety. The corporeal 
 men, inafmuch as they are entirely deftitute of hope, may 
 ^onfider themfelves as abfolved from every law. Now if 
 u 4 fuch 
 
2g6 
 
 The Eccleftajlical Hi/lory 
 
 CENT, who, retaining the fundamental principles of their 
 "• mafter's difciplinc, endeavoured, either by certain 
 
 partial 
 
 fucli had been the dodriiie taught by Valentine, it wonld 
 certainly have been holding out an invitation to the greater 
 part of the human race to indulge in every fpecies of 
 iniquity, and granting to his follow^ers, in particular, the 
 licence of doing whatever they might lift. But the te- 
 nets which we thus find afcribed to Valentine by Irenasus 
 and other ancient writers, are manifellly repugnant to va- 
 rious parts of the Valentinian difcipline : and it is more- 
 over certain that Valentine confidered all men to be by 
 nature equal ; all endowed with a two-fold foul ; and the 
 gate of falvation as irrevocably clofed againfl none. I 
 therefore entertain not the leaft doubt but that thefe anci- 
 ent authors underftood his fentiments but very imperfeftly, 
 or elfe were, on fome account or other, induced defignedly 
 to mifreprefent them. That mankind were diftributed by 
 Valentine into three claffes, the animal, the ipiritual, and 
 the corporeal, is what I by no means pretend to queftion j 
 but he certainly never did think, nor was it poflible he 
 fhould think, that the corporeal clafs were deftitute of fouls, 
 and, of neceffity doomed to perdition. What he meant to 
 fay was doubtlefs this, that amongft men of the corporeal 
 clafs, or the worfhippers of falfe gods, the body commonly 
 ufurps the dominion, and ftifles every energy and power of 
 the foul. As long then as they fliould continue in that ftate, 
 nothing was to be hoped for by them, upon the diflblution of 
 the body; for if they died under fuch circumftances, the 
 fenfitive foul would perifh, and the rational one, being in- 
 capable of death, would be transferred into another corporeal 
 frame. After a fimilar manner ought we to underftand 
 what he fays of men of the animal clafs. For his doftrine 
 was, not that thefe were deftitute of a rational foul, but that 
 the fenfitive and concupifcent foul had in them obtained the 
 mattery fo as to prevent the celeftial foul from executing its 
 office, They were therefore, according to him, nearer to 
 falvation than thofe of the corporeal clafs, who referred 
 every thing to the body, and totally negleded the foul. 
 The clafs to which he gave the title of fpiritual, confifted 
 of thofe in whom that particle of the divine efTence, the 
 celeftial mind, the feat of reafon and of wifdom, enjoys 
 the pre-eminence, and holds in fubje6tion, not only the body, 
 but alfo that other foul by which the body is afted upon 
 and influenced. Thefe muft, of neceflity, be faved, in- 
 
 afmuch 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 partial emendations, or by a new expofition and 
 arrangement, to improve upon the original plan, 
 and communicate to it a more fpecious and im- 
 pofmg air. It Ihould feem, however, not at all 
 unlikely that the fame thing which occurred in 
 
 afmuch as they refemble Chrift, and conduA themfelves 
 agreeably to his example. 1 have been obliged to fpeak 
 the lefs diftinftly lefpeAing the difference in the two-fold 
 foul with which Valentine confidered man as having been 
 endowed, in confequence of ancient authors having omitted 
 to mark this difference with fufficient precifion. This much 
 however, is clearly to be perceived, that one was confidered 
 as being, by nature, immortal ; the other as not being im- 
 mortal by nature, but capable of becoming fo upon yield- 
 ' ing due obedience to the fuperior foul. It is alfo apparent 
 that the former was looked upon as formed of the divine 
 fubftance, or that whereof the Deity himfelf confills ; the 
 latter es conflituted of the more noble part of matter, or 
 fuch as was made ufe of in the framing of the heavens. We 
 are not however able to fpeak with equal confidence, as 
 to the nature or extent of the virtues or powers which each 
 was fuppofed to pofTefs. Valentine, it is true, reprefents 
 the fuperior foul, as the immediate feat or refidence of 
 rationality and wifdom : but at the fame time he places a 
 certain fort of reafon alfo in the inferior foul. For he 
 enjoins this latter to attend to the diftates and direftion of 
 the fuperior foul, a thing, that without reafon and intelli- 
 gence it mufl have been utterly incapable of doing. It 
 had alfo the power of either obeying or refifling the fuperior 
 foul ; and mufl confequently, in addition to reafon, have 
 been endowed vi-ith liberty or freedom of will, a thing not 
 pofTeffed by the fuperior foul. Thefe, as well as various 
 other particulars of the Valentinian difcipline, admit not in 
 the prefent day, of an explication altogether fatisfafitory, 
 inafmuch as ancient writers are filent as to many things 
 of effential importance to a right underflanding of the 
 fubjeft, whilft they, at the fame time pervert other things, 
 and not unfrequently give us as the genuine tenets of Valen- 
 tine, what are merely inferences or deduftions drawn by 
 themfelves. Finally, in their account of this man's doftrines 
 and opinions, every thing like method or order, is beyond 
 all meafure difregarded ; and various things which ought 
 to have been afTociated together and brought into one view, 
 are difunited and kept far apart. 
 
 the 
 
298 The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, the cafe of Simon Magus, again took place with 
 t J|l , regard to Valentine ; namely, that every one 
 infcriorfefts who profefTcd fentiments, bearing the leafl affinity 
 he-'"'Tl or refemblance to his opinions, was at once. 
 
 their 
 
 origin 
 
 lentinian 
 fchool. 
 
 totheVa- without farther evidence, accounted to be of 
 the number of his difciples. Amongft thofe 
 who are thus reported to have derived the firil 
 rudiments of their difcipline from Valentine, we 
 may firfl notice Ptolemy, the founder of the fed 
 of the Ptolemaites, a man of ingenuity and 
 eloquence, who differed widely from the general 
 body of the Valentinians in his tenets refpecting 
 the -/Eons, as well as in regard to fome other 
 points. His ^ons are not only differently named 
 and arranged from thofe of his reputed preceptor, 
 but he appears likewife to have confidered them 
 merely in the light of divine attributes or vir- 
 tues [7]. Far different were the fentiments of 
 Secundus, who is commemorated by Irenaeus as a 
 
 f j;] Refpefting Ptolemy, in addition to Irenasus, Tertul- 
 lian, [Lib. contr. Valent. c. iv. p. 290.) Auguftine and others, 
 I would recommend the reader particularly to confult 
 Epiphanius, Haref. XXXIII. p. 216. 222., who gives 
 us a letter of his to a woman named Flora, which was 
 afterwards publifhed more correftly by J. Erneft. Grabe,in 
 his Spictlegium Patrum el Hareticorum, torn. ii. p. 69. In 
 this letter he communicates, without referve, his fentiments 
 refpefting the law of Mofes, declaring it, in his opinion, 
 not to have been derived from the Supreme Deity ; but to 
 have been framed in part by the Jewifh doftors, in part by 
 Mofes, and in part by Demiurgus, or the founder of this 
 world. This opinion refpeding the origin of the law of 
 Mofes, it has not been uuufual for learned men to confider 
 as peculiar to Ptolemy ; but as to this, they are unqueftion- 
 ably in an error. That the Jewifh law did not owe its 
 origin to the Supreme Being, was an article of common 
 belief throughout the whole Gnollic fchool, although the 
 leaders of the different fefts into which it branched might 
 differ fomewhat in the mode of expreffing their fentiments 
 on the fubjeft. Even Valentine himfelf did not think other- 
 wife. 
 
 very 
 
of the Second Century. 2 go' 
 
 very dilliiiguifiied difciple of the Valentinlan cent. 
 i'chool. According to him the iEons were real ^^• 
 fubftances or perfons, and what is particularly JX^Ihv^ 
 deferving of remark, he placed at the head of that owrd 
 them two principles, light and darknefs ; a cir- lo'.L^v? 
 circumftance which plainly proves him to have lentinian 
 borrowed more from the Oriental philofophy than ^'^°^*" 
 his mafter had done, and alfo indicates in him 
 fomewhat of an inclination to the difcipline of 
 the Manichees [z]. A third difciple of the 
 Valentinian fchool, not at all inferior to thefe in 
 point of fame, indeed, rather their fuperior, was 
 Heracleon, an author whom we find Clement 
 of Alexandria and Origen repeatedly citing, for 
 the purpofe of expofmg and confuting his errors. 
 Whether Heracleon diifented in reality from 
 Valentine, or merely in v/ords and phrafes, and 
 if there was really a difference between them, in 
 what fuch difference confiited, and what were 
 the peculiar opinions or tenets of the former, 
 are points, which, in the prefent day, it will be 
 found far from eafy to determine \_a\. 
 
 [2] Vid. Irenseus, lib. i- cap. xi. Epiphanius, Haref, 
 xxxi. Auguftin. de Haref. cap. xii. It is certain that 
 much difFerence of opinion fubfifted between Ptolemy and 
 Secundus, as to the nature of the jEons : the one confider- 
 ing them as merely modes or virtues of the Divine nature, 
 the other as real fubftances or perfons ; and each contending 
 that his own fentiments on the fubjeft correfponded with 
 thofe which had been entertained by their mafter. Refpefting 
 the nature and true grounds of this difpute, one might 
 readily engage in much learned difquifition ; but as there is 
 no neceflity for it, I fliall content myfeif merely with 
 obferving, that from this controverfy, Valentine appears to 
 have been a man of fome genius certainly ; but at the fame 
 time one of a weak indecifive mind, who indeed propounded 
 many new opinions, but left the greater part of them fo ill 
 defined, as to afford matter for continual difputes amongft 
 his difciples. 
 
 fa] Vid. J.Erneft. Grabe. SpiaJeg. Patrum et Hareticor. 
 torn. ii. p. 82. & feq, 
 
 \% LIX. Amongfl 
 
30O The Ecclefiajikal Hijiory 
 
 CENT. LIX. Amongfl: the difciples of Valentine we 
 t - l_f find ancient authors agree alfo in reckoning 
 Marcus and (though on what authority is uncertain) one 
 Coiarbafus. Marcus, the founder of the fed of the Mar- 
 cofians, and a Coiarbafus, who was fome how or 
 other conneded with this Marcus, either as an 
 aflbciate, a pupil, or a preceptor. Of Coiarbafus 
 not much is handed down to us by either Ire- 
 nseus or any other writer. What little they do 
 fay of him almofl entirely refpeds his tenets 
 concerning the uEons, whom, it appears, he dif- 
 tributed, named, and aflbciated in a very different 
 way from Valentine. To enter further, there- 
 fore, into the hiftory of this man's opinions would 
 be only a wafte of words. Concerning Marcus, 
 however, many things are left us on record, par- 
 ticularly by Irenseus. Of thefe fome may eafily 
 be reconciled with the principles of the Valen- 
 tinian difcipline, but others are entirely new, 
 and, at the fame time, exceedingly obfcure, fo 
 much fo indeed as fcarcely to admit of expli- 
 cation. 
 
 Among other notable attainments and exploits 
 he is faid to have difcovered very profound myf- 
 teries in the Greek letters, to have ftudied magic, 
 worked miracles by the affiftance of demons, de- 
 bauched women, inftilled into his followers the 
 vileft of principles, and compiled a code of the 
 mofl puerile and abfurd inflitutions. In the 
 heavy catalogue of accufatlons thus brought 
 againfl him, fome particulars were no doubt well 
 founded, others wholly fictitious, and fome de- 
 duced from a mifapprehenfion, or a wrong in- 
 terpretation of his opinions. To draw the proper 
 line of diftindtion between the one and the other 
 of thefe, might not perhaps be altogether be- 
 yond the power of a perfon intimately converfant 
 
 with 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 with the Gnoftic difcipllne ; but it would be a 
 work replete with labour and fatigue. Con- 
 templating the hiftory of this man with every 
 poffible degree of candour, and even rejedling, 
 as fpurious, every part of what are Itated to 
 have been the Marcofian tenets, except fuch things 
 as could not poffibly have been feigned, it will 
 neverthelefs be found impoffible to form a more 
 lenient judgment of Marcus than this : That he 
 was a man of the Jewifh perfuafion, in all pro- 
 bability neither wicked nor impious j but, at the 
 fame time, one who exercifed his mental powers 
 only to make himfelf ridiculous, and who, hav- 
 ' ing his brain bewildered with Oriental, Egyptian, 
 and Jewifli extravagancies, converted the uni- 
 yerfal religion, which he pretended to profefs, 
 into a fyftem of the moft egregious nonfenfe and 
 deformity \b~\. 
 
 LX. Ancient 
 
 [^] Refpeaing the tenets of Marcus, and the fea of the 
 Marcofians founded by him, which, extending itfelf through 
 various regions, particularly Gaul, impofed on many of the 
 more plain and fimple of the Chriftians, Irenjsus treats 
 much at large, {Adv. Haref. lib. i. cap. xiv. & feq.) al- 
 though in a very immethodical, unconneded manner. The 
 fubjeft has alfo been taken up after him by others. Of 
 thefe tenets vpe need only dirett our attention to fuch as 
 it was utterly impoffible that either Irenxus or any other 
 writer fhould have feigned, to be convinced that the man 
 muft have been difordered in his brain, indeed entirely out 
 of his wits. The evidence of this is, in fa6l, fo glaringly 
 cbvioiis, that we can only wonder it fhould ever have en- 
 tered into the heads of learned men to exercife their genius 
 in endeavours to reclaim and purify fo incorrigible and 
 hopelefs a fubjea, By_way of fpecimen, we will prefent 
 the reader with the Marcofian tenets refpeding the force 
 and power of the Greek letters, as they are given us by 
 Irenzus, nearly in the very words of Marcus himfelf. 
 t«St' sv (the reader will underftand that thefe are the words 
 of one of the Supreme ^ons whom Marcus reprefents as 
 having been fent to him in the form of a woman) ixvr' i^ 
 
3ol The Ecclefiajlical BiJloPj 
 
 CENT. LX. Ancient writers are alfo agreed in 
 reckoning, as the difciples of Valentine (in ad- 
 
 II. 
 
 Bardefanes. dition 
 
 T» Tra^ VjuTv EkxoiT* Tso-tra^a ypajujwara aTToppojoi; urafp^Eiv yivwcr/.e 
 
 TWV Tf»«» ^VVX[/.£lll» UKOVi-KCCCf rUV TEJtJ%5^0-i» 70V 6X0H TCtlV CCVU! 
 
 foij^e/ajy tov cl^i^uoV t» fjuv ya,^ a,(^mx y^a.fj.y.o'.'rix tma yi[jLia-ov 
 iTyat TS Trawfoj xdl T>j? aXji^EiOii, St« to d^xvov^ dvTcv^ ihaii 
 TaTE0i/ «pp»i'Tyj >c»> avE)tXaA»)Tai' to? oe yijxi'^wvx oKTa^, o>t« Ttf 
 Aoya >cai in: ^wnfj e*3i to fz-sVa ucnn^ VTrocf^^uy tuiv te ^i^wwy 
 x-ocItiuv fla>vr;EVT£e;V xal avaSE'%EC-^at tw» /xev us-Ep-^Ev Tr,v aTo'/poia?, 
 T&iy ^'uTTEf a"JT*i\ Tr,y ava^o^a'v Tst Ss <?!fc'V.;EvTa. xcz.t aiJTct ETTTa^ 
 &VTa m av^^uvt! Kxl fv; E)t>tX5icrjjt-:, ivn ctci tov av-j^jiiTa (Pi;v>f 
 9r^0E?t9Sc7« \ fj.'j^-i<i.-<Tt Ta. o\y.. c asip iJXOs ''■>'=" i?wv')f fj^o^iriv dvru; 
 TTi^nTToi-na-iv. Has igiiur qua apud nos funi vigiriti quatuor 
 lUiera, emanakones effe intellige trium virtutum ItnaglnaleSi 
 earum qua continent unlverfum, qute funt furfum ehmentoruin 
 numerum. Mntas en'im I'ttteras novem puta ejfe patris et 
 "verltatisi quoniamftne voceftnt, id ejl, inenarrahiles et Ineloqui'- 
 biles. Setnivocales autem cumjmt 080, Log'i eJfe et Zo'e's, quo-' 
 niam quaft media fint inter mutas et iwcahs, et recipere eorum 
 quidem qua fuperfint emanationem, eorum vero qua fuhftiit 
 elevationem. Vocales autem et ipfas feptem eJfe, anthropi et 
 ecclejiayquoniam peranthfopum vox progrediens forma'vit omtiiOt 
 Sonus enim vocis fcrmam eis circumdedit. Irensus, lib. i. 
 cap. xiv. § 5. p. 70. Communications, fimilarly fubtile, 
 and even flill more ridiculous and obfcure, refpefting the 
 force and properties of the Greek letters, and their ac- 
 cordance with divine matters, both precede and follow the 
 above. That it fhould ever have entered into the mind 
 of Irenoeus or any other perfon to have invented things 
 like thefe, and afcribed them to Marcus, by way of bring- 
 ing him into difcredit, is not to be believed. They 
 are, in faft, taken from his writings, and given in his own 
 words. Now, can any one, let m.e aflc, who is himfelf in 
 poffeffion of his fcnfes, for a moment regard thefe fublime 
 mylleries as the offspring of a found and rational mind ? 
 But I will add another fpecimen, which muft, 1 think, place 
 it beyond all queftion, that Marcus and his followers alto- 
 gether turned their backs on every principle of true wifdom, 
 and were devoted tc the filly conceits and extravagancies 
 of the Egyptians. In Irenaeus are to be found certain 
 prayers, which the Marcofians di6lated to dying people, to 
 be recited when, in their journey to the celeftial regions, 
 they came to pafs through the provinces of Demiurgus and 
 his alTociates, Iren. lib. i. cap. xxi. §3. p. 97. In thefe 
 prayers alfo, there is no room to fufpeft any thing like 
 
 fraud 
 
of the Secdnd Century, 303 
 
 dition to others whom we deem it unnecessary to c e n t. 
 notice, inasmuch as they are scarcely known, ,_J}' _, 
 
 even Bardefane*. 
 
 fraud or mifapprehenfion. If the fenfe or meaning of them 
 be attended to, they will be found to have a near refemblance 
 to thofe of a iimilar kind in ufe with the Ophites, which 
 are preferved by Origen in his work contra cetfum^ although 
 they certainly differ from them fomewhat in words. They 
 are, moreover, of fuch a defcription as to preclude every 
 idea of their having been invented by any adverfary of the 
 Marcofian fed. It was the opinion, then, of the Marcofians, 
 as well as of the Ophites and others of the Gnoftics, and 
 deiived by them, as I conceive, from the Egyptians, that 
 the fouls of the good and virtuous, upon taking leave of the 
 body, and proceeding to the manfions above, had to pafs 
 through the celeftial orbs, and the planets or wandering 
 ftars, which were under the dominion of Demiurgus and 
 ■other moft powerful Genii, who were completely adverfe to 
 this paffage of fouls through their domains, and particularly 
 anxious to arrcft their progrefs. The efforts of thefe in- 
 vidious tyrants, however, might, it was believed, by means 
 of certain words and phrafes, be fo far rendered abortive as 
 to prevent their impeding fouls in their afcent to the 
 Deity ; and it was of courfe confidered as expedient that 
 dyin^ perfons fhould provide themfelves with prayers and 
 formulje of this defcription : tutu; ^\ -ry; ^rs^; tov Arjpy^yoy 
 dKova-avTccc, (we give the words of Irenaeus) a-^d^^K Tcc^%^r»««, 
 x«.t KXTxyviinixi dvTu/v th? ft^ir» i«* Toiig yivm thj jatjTpoj* auToi' 
 di Topst/S'wa.i lif TS4 tdtjc pt-J/avTa tov Sta-i^o'v avra, rhrrigi rnv ij/v;^*]';' 
 Hac autem eos qui circa Demiurgum fiuit audientes, valde con- 
 turbari, et reprehendere fuam radicem, et genus matris : ipfos 
 autem (the fouls which had taken their leave of the body), 
 ahire in fua, projicientes nodos ipforum, idejl, animam, meaning 
 the fenfitive foulitfelf, or what of the fenfitive foul thefe ce- 
 leftial fouls might have brought with them from the body. 
 For any one to attempt to explain away the utter inanity 
 and abfurdity of things like thefe, apears to me a moft mi- 
 ferable abufe both of learning and talents. I would not, 
 however, be underftood as denying that fome things with 
 which the Marcofian feft is reproached by Irenaeus and 
 others, might either be mifunderftood by ignorant people 
 unacquainted with the force of the words and terms made 
 ufe of, or unfairly reprefented by heedlefs and malevolent 
 fpeftators, to whom every thing appeared vile and flagi- 
 tious that was unufual with the Chrittians ; amongft which 
 
 I reckon 
 
304 The Ecclefiqftkal Hijlory 
 
 CENT, even by name, at this day), thofe two very cel^- 
 . ^^- ^ brated charaders, Bardefanes and Tatian, from 
 
 Bardefanes. both 
 
 I reckon what is reported refpefting the forcery and delu- 
 five tricks, or if the reader had rather, the religious falla- 
 cies of Marcus, which appearto me unworthy of the leaft 
 credit, inafmuch as it is to be fupported by no kind of argu- 
 ment, and may be invalidated on feveral grounds. What- 
 ever Irenaeus has tranfmitted to us refpefting things of this 
 fort, appears to have been collefted from the tettimony of 
 certain women, who might have eafily been impofed upon, 
 and under the hope of obtaining for themfelves a more 
 ready re-admiflion into the congregation of the faithful, 
 whom for a while they had deferted, might poffibly have 
 been induced to embellifli their narration in a way not 
 exaftly correfponding with the truth. It is faid, for 
 example, that in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, 
 Marcus was accuftonied, either by means of magic or fome 
 fort of jugghng, to tinge the wine in the chalice with a 
 red or purple colour. ■:TOTyi^ix oivm K'zx.^xyJv(x. (fays Irenaeus, 
 lib. i. cap. xiii. p.6o. ) Tror.cnroiHf^vjoi Ei;;>/a^*4-E'rv, k«» IttI 
 vrKeov Ikthvuv tov Xoyov t«? ETTinXro-fwc, Tro^'pv^ix. -ao.] l^vd^it 
 
 cltX^VAViU^lO'A "TTOlli' Wi dOX.i7v TOV OiTTO TOJV VTTt^ TO. oXa %C4^1V TO ai^UOC. 
 TO EdiMTi?? CCcl^ClV iV Till Ikuvco 'jTom^lu diV, Trj," ETri^cAflVji'; «l/Ta. 
 
 Pro calicevino mijlo, Jingens Je gratias agere, iff muUiim prO' 
 Jucens verba invocat'ionis purpureus iff rttb'icundus calix ut ap- 
 pareat facit, ita ut v'ldeatur gratia ah us qui funt fupra omnia 
 (i. e. the JE.oi\5) fanguinem fuum in illius calicem per ejus invo- 
 cationemjlillare. Now with regard to this, learned men have 
 denied, and as I think, rightly, that for the accomplifhment 
 of a thing of this fort anyrecourfe to magic could be neceflary. 
 They fufpeft neverthelefs, that Marcus muft in fome way 
 or other have deluded the eyes of the beholders. But, for 
 my own part, I have not the leaft doubt but that in this cafe 
 a very innocent praftice, and one that originated from a 
 good defign, has been expofed to unmerited reproach 
 through the miftake of fome fpeftator who was unac- 
 quainted with the Marcoiiaii difcipline. The cuftom with 
 this fe£t no doubt was, that ih • chalice fliould be filled firft 
 with white wine, probably by way of reprefenting, by a 
 fort of figure, the purity and fan6tity of Chrift'.s blood. 
 .In the adl of confecration, however, it was the ufage for 
 the prieft to mingle a portion of red wine with the white, 
 ,fo as to make the contents of the chahce in fome fort re- 
 femble blood, and thereby excite in the minds of thofe 
 
 prefcnt, 
 
of the Second Century, ^05 
 
 both of whom the caufe of Chriftianity derived cent. 
 no inconfiderable degree of benefit, although ^• 
 
 each 
 
 Bardcfaues. 
 
 prefent, a more lively recollection of the Redeemer's facri- 
 hce. Poflibly it might happen, that this mingling of the 
 red wine with the white by the prieft, might efcape the ob- 
 ftrvation of certain perfons who chanced to be occafionai 
 witnefles of the public worfhip of the Marcofians, and that 
 upon perceiving red wine diftributed in the cup, without 
 being aware that any other than white wine had been poured 
 into it, they were led to conclude that this change muft 
 have been wrought by the affiftance of fome evil fpirit, 
 and to reprefent the matter in this light to others. Who is 
 there that can be ignorant of the multitude of errors to 
 which millakes of this kind give rife ? My opinion is pre- 
 cifely the fame with regard to the other miracle which is 
 fubfequently related by Irenseus. On the table, around 
 which it was cuftomary for the Marcofians to affemble 
 when celebrating the Lord's fupper, was placed a cup of a 
 much larger iize than the chalice out of which the commu- 
 nicants drank. Into this larger cup it was the ufage for the 
 prieft to pour what little portion of the wine might be left 
 by the communicants in the chalice, or fmaller cup ; and the 
 confequence, we are told, was, that thefe few drops became 
 on a fudden fo amplified as to fill fuch larger veflel, even to 
 overflowing, with liquor of an enfanguined colour. Irenacus 
 recounts this as one of the prodigies, or if the reader had 
 rather, one of the frauds of Marcus ; for I muft own that 
 his words admit of being taken in either fenfe : x»* Tojat/ra 
 
 T« /AtyaXy TrX'i^wvEPTOi: Ix. m fjtixja Troxneiy oists xat vire^rK^ua^oit 
 t| ccvTii. Dein cum tal'ia quadam dixit., et infelicem illam 
 (muliereni) ad infaniam adegit, turn mirabilia facere videtur, 
 major e calice minor e it a ut {poculum) redundaret impleto. But 
 it is eafily to be colledled, even from the words of Irenaeu3 
 himfelf, by any one who fhall duly attend to them, although 
 it muft be acknowledged that his manner of expreffing him- 
 felf in this paflage is very confufed and obfcure, that no 
 trick or deception was aftually praftifed in this cafe, and 
 that the idea of the thing's having been accompliflied by 
 any fraudulent or preternatural operation in all probability 
 originated with certain ignorant or heedlefs and prejudiced 
 fpeftators. With the Marcofians it was not the cuftom for 
 feveral to partake in fucceffion of one cup, as is the praftice 
 with other Chriftians, but a feparate portion of wine was 
 VOL. II. % given 
 
3o6 The Eccleftqftical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. each of them became the parent of a new fed, 
 . ._"l^. and patronized feveral very important errors. 
 Bardefanes. ^^ this, however, it is manifefl that the authors 
 to whom we allude mufl have laboured under a 
 miftake, fmce the dodrine of Bardefanes, as well 
 as that of Tatian, is very confiderably removed 
 from the Valentinian principles and difcipline. 
 Each had a manifefl leaning to the oriental opi- 
 nions which were cherifhed by the Gnoftics 
 refpeding the origin of all things, and more 
 particularly evil ; but by neither was the plan 
 of the Gnoftics adhered to in endeavouring to 
 produce an accommodation between thofe tenets 
 and the principles of Chriftianity. Bardefanes,, 
 who was born of Chriftian parents at EdefTa in 
 Mefopotamia, and appears to have been a man 
 of very confiderable talents and erudition, had, 
 by his writings, acquired for himfelf no little 
 degree of reputation under the reigns of the 
 emperors Marcus Antohinus and Lucius Verus ; 
 but having unluckily been induced to efpoufe 
 the oriental (or^ as ancient writers term them, 
 
 given to each peifon by the pritft. When any one did not 
 drink the whole of what was thus handed to him, the 
 remainder was poured into a larger cup that ftood on the 
 table ; and the chalice was replenifhed with a frefh quantity 
 of wine for the perfon next in rotation. Whatever was left 
 in the fmaller cup being thus conftantly emptied into the 
 larger one, the latter of courfe, in time, became full; nor 
 can I bring myfelf to believe that this fe£l could have been 
 fo flupid and filly as to regard a thing of fuch neceffary 
 occurrence in the light of a miracle. What I fufpeft is, 
 that certain occafional fpeftators of the Marcofian rites, 
 obferving the wine to increafe in the larger cup, which had 
 been placed on the table empty, without perceiving the 
 adlual caufe by which fuch increafe was produced, were 
 haftily induced to imagine that it was either accompliftied 
 by the afliftance of fome evil demon, or otherwife brought 
 about by fome more fubtle kind of fraud. 
 
 Vakn- 
 
of the Second Century, j.07 
 
 Valentinian) notions, refpecting the exiflence of c £ n t. 
 two principles, he devoted himfelf, for a while, , "•_ ^ 
 to the propagation of an erroneous do6:rine j BidefwelT' 
 and, being polfefled of great fubtilty and addrefs, 
 fucceeded in gaining over numerous converts, 
 from whence fprung the feft of the Bardefanijii 
 that flourifhed in Syria and the neighbouring 
 regions {jT^. After fome time indeed, he again 
 
 embrace4 
 
 [c] Of Bardefanes we find frequent mention made by 
 ancient writers. His liiftory is particularly entered ii>to by 
 (amongft others) Eufebius, H'ljlor. Ecchf. lib. iv. c. 30. 
 p. 151. Epiphanius, Haref. Ivi. p. 476. Theodoret. 
 Heretic. Pabular, lib. i. cap. 22. p. 208. Auguftir. de Hare- 
 fihiis, cap. XXXV. See alfo the Chronicon Edeffemtm apud 
 Jof. Simon. Aflemann. Bihltotb. Oriental. Vatican, torn, i, 
 p. 389. et feq. Various extrafts from bis writings are alfo to 
 be met with in Eufebius de Praparat. E'van^eltca, Porphyry 
 de AhjTinentia, and the works of other ancient authors, 
 which leave us in no doubt as to his genius and abilities! 
 The nature of his difcipline is by no one more clearly 
 explained than by Origen, Dialog, contra Marcionitas, 
 fed. iii. p. 70. & feq. edit. Wetfen. From all thefe different 
 fources, however, it is impofllble for any one to obtain any 
 thing like a full and complete hiftory of the life of Bar- 
 defanes, or a perfeft and fatisfadlory conception of hi? 
 philofophy and religion. By more modern writers, there- 
 fore, who have undertaken to lUuftrate the hiftory of this 
 herefiarch and his tenets (the moft diftinguifhed of whom, 
 in addition to Tillemont, a very laborious and accurate 
 writer, certainly, but one by no means deferving of the very 
 high degree of reputation which be enjoys, and Aflemann, 
 to whom I have juft above referred, are Fred. Strunzius iji 
 his H'tjlor'ia Bardefan'is ct Bardefaniflarumf publifhed at 
 Wittenburg in 4to. and Ifaac Beaufobre in his Hijiotre dp 
 Manichee, vol. ii. p. 128.), we find feveral things left in» 
 volved in obfcurity, and much of uncertain conje6lure 
 ;ihtermixed with real hiflory. Kefpefting the origin of thp 
 l^pfe ,of Ba,rdefanes a different account is given by Eufebius 
 from what we meet witb ip Epiphc^nius. By the former, 
 Bardefanes is reprefented as having been addi<9;ed to the 
 Valentinian tenets previouily to his en>bracing the orthodox 
 fait>, whereas ,the latter ftates him to h^y,? ^rft of all 
 cheiftihed the t^ue Jfaitji, a^d then .tp jh^ye ,te^n 4^ducejd 
 
3o8 The Eccleftajlical Hijhry 
 
 CENT, embraced the orthodox faith, and became the 
 y_}}'_ j determined opponent of certain of thofe errors 
 Bardefanes. of which he had formerly been the diftinguiftied 
 patron and defender ; but the poifon which he 
 had imbibed was never thoroughly eradicated 
 from his mind \d~\, nor was he ever capable of 
 healing the cruel wound which his condud had 
 given to the interefts of Chriftianity. His doc- 
 trine was, that all things had originated from two 
 principles ; the one good, /. e. the Deity ; the 
 other evil, viz. the Prince and Governor of 
 matter, which he held to be eternal and intrin- 
 fecally corrupt. The formation of the world, 
 and the creation of mankind, he afcribed to the 
 fupreme and fuperlatively excellent Deity; but 
 a world of an infinitely better conftitution than 
 the one which w^e at prefent inhabit, and mankind 
 of a nature vaftly fuperior to that of the human 
 race at this day [^]. The primitive world, ac- 
 cording 
 
 into error by the Valentihians. If, as is moft probable, 
 Bardefanes was born of Chriftian parents, the account given 
 by Epiphanius is certainly the one beft entitled to credit, 
 and I have therefore, without fcruple, adopted it. 
 
 [J] This is exprefsly Hated by Eufebius, H'ljlor. Ecclef. 
 lib. iv. cap. 30. and might, if it were neceffary, be con- 
 firmed by the teftimony of other writers. Bardefanes in 
 fa£l difcarded whatever was fo obvioufly repugnant to the 
 principles of Chriftianity as not to admit of any thing like 
 a reconciliation therewith, fuch, for inftance, as the Valen- 
 tinian tenets refpeding an evil principle, the eternity of 
 matter, the body of Chrift, the return of our mortal frames 
 to matter without any hope of a future refurreftion to life, 
 and the like ; but as to the notion of fin having owed its 
 origin to matter, and various other opinions which he had 
 before been led to efpoufe, he retained them to the laft, and 
 availed himfelf of their affiftance in expounding a part of 
 the Chriftian religion. 
 
 [^] This notion refpedting the origin of the world and 
 of mankind moft decifively feparates Bardefanes from Valen- 
 tine and every ocher Gnoftic leader, by all of whom the 
 
 world 
 
of the Second Century, .309 
 
 cording to Bardefanes, was entirely free fromc e n t. 
 every fpecies of evil ; and man, as he came from . ^^' ^ 
 the hands of his Maker, was compounded of a Bardefanes, 
 celeflial mind joined to an aerial or highly fub- 
 tilized body. When the Prince or Governor of 
 matter, however, had fucceeded in feducing the 
 innocent foul into fin, the Deity permitted him 
 to go the further length of enveloping man 
 with a denfe and cumbrous body, compofed of 
 depraved matter ; and, by way of punifliing the 
 human race for their defedlion, allowed this 
 author of all evil to mar the fair face of the 
 world, and defpoil it of the greatefl part of its 
 beauty [/]. Hence the perpetual contention 
 
 between 
 
 world was confidered as having been framed, in oppofition 
 to the will of the Deity, by a being to whom they gave 
 the title of Demiurgus, 
 
 [/] It may not be amifs to apprize the reader that I 
 cannot pretend to vouch the authority of ancient writers 
 for every thing which I have here ftated. In none of thefe 
 authors, for inltance, is there to be found any thing re- 
 fpefting a primitive world created by God, and a pofterior 
 world corrupted through the machinations of the Prince or 
 Governor of matter ; but they all fpeak as if Bardefanes 
 had imagined the univerfe, as it is at prefent conftituted, 
 to have been the work of the Supreme Deity, and confe- 
 quently that the world, as we now behold it, differs in no 
 refpeft from the world as it exifted prior to the lapfe or 
 tranfgreflion of fouls. Again, they appear to intimate it 
 as his belief, that men, in confequence of their difobedience, 
 were, by way of punifhment, inverted by the Deity him- 
 felf with depraved or vitiated material bodies. But I will 
 venture to affert, that unlefs we would make Bardefanes 
 inconfiftent with himfelf, it is mipoRible to attribute to him 
 fentimente like the above. For how could any man, who 
 confidered the Deity as exempt frum every fpecies of evil, 
 and, at the fame time regarded matter, not only as intrin- 
 fecally corrupt, but alfo a^ fubjedl to the dominion of 
 an evil ruler, how, let me afli, could any man, viewing 
 things in this light, have believed that the all-good Deity 
 would either have invaded the vile and contaminated pro-^ 
 X 3 vince 
 
3 lb The Eccleftaflical Hiflory 
 
 CENT, between reafon and appetite by which man- 
 . "•_ , kind are tormented in the prefent day ; for 
 Bardefanes, the gFofs and coFFupt material body with 
 which man became thus inverted is ever impel- 
 ling the foul to a6ts of iniquity and fm. For the 
 purpofe of putting an end to this calamitous 
 ftate of things, Jefus, according to this here- 
 fiarch, defcended from the manfions above, and 
 
 vince of his adverfary and enemy, or moved a finger in 
 giving arrangement or diftribution to vitiated matter, or, 
 iaftly, have placed fouls, generated of himfelf, in a region 
 fo thoroughly devoted to iniquity T By no kind of fophiftry 
 could adls like thefe have been reconciled writh a nature 
 decidedly hoftile to every thing evil. Bardefanes, therefore, 
 muft either have recognifeda primitive world, the vsrorkman- 
 ihip of the Deity, in contradiftinftion to a later one that 
 had been corrupted by the author of all evil, or he muft 
 have believed in the exiftence of a paradife beyond the 
 confines of this world, and conceived the univerfe which 
 we inhabit, to have been framed by the Prince or Governor 
 of matter in humble imitation of fuch paradife. In the 
 fecond place, how could it be poflible for a man, who was 
 obvioufly anxious to exempt the Deity from every im- 
 putation of evil, to have believed that this all-perfe6l Being 
 was induced, in confequence of the fall of the human race, 
 to cloath them with a vitiated body, compofed of matter 
 that was under the dominion of his adverfary, and reeming 
 <vith every corrupt and depraved appetite ? Can that Being 
 be deemed in an abfolute fenfe good, who is the author or 
 caufe of finful or evil condu(Ei in others ? I have no doubt, 
 therefore, but that, in expounding the doArine of Barde- 
 fanes refpefting the conjunftion of the body with the foul, 
 there muft have been fomething or other omitted by Origen 
 and the reft of the ancient writers. According to the opinion 
 •Which I have been led to form on the fubjeft, Bardefanes 
 muft have held either that the Deity, in confequence of 
 man's having finned, and thus rendered himfelf fubjedl to 
 the dominion of the malicious ruler of matter, would not 
 interfere to prevent the latter from encumbering the human 
 race with bodies formed of clay ; or elfe that mankind 
 had, in an unguarded moment, through the machinations 
 of the Author of all evil, been fo far beguiled, or rather 
 befotted, as to fall in love with the bodies which he pre- 
 fented to them, and aflunte them of their own accord. 
 
 afTumed 
 
of the Se€ond Century. 3 1 1 
 
 aflunied a corporeal frame ; a frame, however, cent. 
 not at all refembling the bodies with which the . "'_ ,, 
 human race are enveloped, but of a celeftial and Bardefancs. 
 ethereal nature. It was therefore in appearance 
 merely that this heavenly guefl was brought 
 forth, or that he ate, fuffered, and underwent 
 death ; for that in reality he neither was born, 
 nor did he die \^g~\. The doftrine, which he re- 
 prefented Jefus as having taught, was that the 
 fouls of men fhould yield in nothing to the 
 influence of the body ; but be conftantly flriving 
 to releafe themfelves from the chains of vitiated 
 matter. On the diflfolution of the material body, 
 the fouls who had availed themfelves of the 
 inftrudion thus afforded them, would, he held, 
 afcend, inverted with their original bodies of 
 ethereal mould, into the prefence of the Supreme 
 Deity ; whilfl the terrene and external body itfelf, 
 which had, in fad, been the prifon of the foul, 
 and the origin or fountain of all its tranfgref- 
 lions, would, he fuppofed, again be abforbe 
 in the vaft material mafs from whence it had 
 been taken, without the leaft hope of revivifcence 
 or a future refurredion. 
 
 LXT. Tatian, who was a native of Affyria, and *^'*'*' 
 a man of confiderable learning and talents, 
 having, according to his own account [[Z>], 
 
 from 
 
 Zg"] The opinion thus entertained by Bardefanes re- 
 fpe&ing the celeftial or ethereal nature of Chrift's body, 
 muft, unlefs I am much miftaken, have been the only 
 reafon that induced ancient writers to clafs him with the 
 Valentinians, with whom he held fcarcely any thing elfe in 
 common. 
 
 \_h'\ In his oration " to the Greeks,'' which has efcaped 
 
 the fate of his other writings, and remains extant at this 
 
 day. Although not entirely free from errors, it is a 
 
 difcourfe replete with various erudition, and written in a 
 
 X 4 ftyle 
 
3 1 2 The Eccleftajlical Hi/lory 
 
 from a perufal of the facred writings been led 
 to entertain a favourable opinion of Chriftianity, 
 Tat'ian. ' betook himfelf to Rome, and there afliduoully 
 laboured in cultivating a more intimate acquaint- 
 ance with its nature and principles, under the 
 tuition of the celebrated Juftin Martyr. The 
 latter having been called upon to lay down his 
 life in the caufe of his Divine mafter, Tatian, at 
 firft opened a fchool in the city of Rome, but 
 at length was induced to return to his native 
 country, where, either on the inftigation of his 
 own mind, (for he was naturally of an auflere 
 difpofition,) or by the perfuafion of others, he 
 was led to embrace the tenets of thofe who, in 
 expounding the principles of Chriftianity, called 
 in the affiftance of the oriental philofophic no- 
 tions refpeding the Deity, matter, the world, 
 and the human foul. The exa£l form of the 
 religion which he invented, or otherwife adopted, 
 is not to be collected from any ancient writer \_f\. 
 Of this much indeed we are certain, that it 
 muft have pofleffed fomewhat of the Valentinian 
 caft, fmce, befides afcribing great honour to the 
 ^ons, we find that it recognifed a diftindtion 
 between the founder of the world and the Su- 
 preme Deity, and difclaimed the notion of 
 
 ftyle by no means deficient in polirti. It is commonly to 
 be found annexed to the works of Juftin Martyr, and was 
 in 1700, publifhed feparately at Oxford, in 8vo., accom- 
 panied with various annotations, by an Englirti ftudent of 
 the name of Worth. 
 
 [/'] Befides Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and others, who have 
 written exprefsly on the fubjedl of the early Chriftian fedls 
 and herefies, there are many, who, in treating on other 
 topics, have incidentally been led to make mention of Tatian: 
 from none, however, can he be faid to have received that 
 meafure of attention to which a man of his eminence waa 
 certainly entitled. 
 
 Chrift's 
 
of the Second Century. 313 
 
 Chrift's having aflumed a real body \Jf\. There 
 can therefore be no difficulty in accounting for 
 the circumftance of Tatian*s having been regarded 
 by many as a difciple of the Valentinian fchooh 
 It is, however, equally certain, that as well in 
 other things, as in the precepts which relate to 
 morality, the difagreement that exifted between 
 the fyftem of Tatian, and that of Valentine, 
 was far from being either trifling or inconfi- 
 derable. Matter, for inflance, being confidered 
 by the former as intrinfecally evil, and the bodies 
 of men confequently as not having been framed 
 by the Deity, but as fo many prifons of celeftial 
 fouls, he willed his followers to abftain from 
 propagating their fpecies, and likewife from 
 every thing that might conduce either to the 
 ftrengthening or recreation of their corporeal 
 fabric : in other words he commanded his dif- 
 ciples to avoid wedlock, to forego the ufe of 
 animal food, as well as of wine, and, leading a 
 folitary life, to content themfelves with a very 
 moderate quantity of the mod flight and meagre 
 fuftenance. To fuch an excefs indeed were his 
 regulations with regard to abflinence carried, that 
 even in the celebration of the Lord's supper, he 
 enjoined the ufe of water inflead of wine [/]. 
 
 This 
 
 \h'\ Vid. Clemens Alexand. Stromal, lib. iii. p. 460, & 
 Excerpt. ex Philofoph. Orient, p. 806, Epiphanius, Haref. xlvi. 
 cap. i. p. 391. Origen in Lib. de Orations cap. xiii. p. 77. 
 Edit. Oxon. Hieron. Comm. in Galat. vi. p. 200, &c. 
 
 [/] A diflike to wine ftiould feera to have prevailed 
 amongft the philofophers of the Eaft from a very remote 
 period, and more particularly amongft fuch of them as 
 believed in a two-fold origin of things, by whom we find it 
 commonly termed the blood of the Devil, or evil principle. 
 See what has been coUefted on the fubjeft by Paul Erneft 
 Jablonflcy, in his Pantheon j^gyptiorum, parti p. 131. In 
 prohibiting the ufe of wine therefore to his followers, 
 
 Mohammed 
 
^14 The Ecclefiaflical Hijlory 
 
 CENT. This fevere and melancholy fyftem of difcipline 
 \_- ^ _' procured for his followers, of whom Tatian had 
 Tatiaa. fooH to boaft of great numbers in Syria, the 
 people of Avhich country naturally lean to an 
 aufterity of manners, and fubfequently in other 
 regions, the denominations of Encratites, or " the 
 Continent," Hydroparajiates, or " Water Drink- 
 ers," Apotadites^ or '' Renuntiants," of this 
 world's goods, and the like ; although it was by 
 on means unufual for them to be termed, in re- 
 ference to the author of their fed, Tatianites, or 
 Tatiaiiijis. A fpecies of piety that wears an 
 auftere and rigid afped, being fure to make a 
 confiderable impreffion on the minds of people 
 in general, it is not to be wondered at that this 
 fe£t fhould have maintained its ground in various 
 countries, fo low down as the fourth century, or 
 indeed even later \_m\ 
 TbeOphitts. LXII. That I (hould enter into a hiftory of 
 the fmaller and more obfcure of the Gnoftic 
 feds, of which a numerous catalogue might eafily 
 be colleded from ancient writers, will not, I 
 take it for granted, be thought neceffary ; for 
 befides that nothing of any moment refpeding 
 them is to be met with on record, it fhould 
 feem that ancient authors fell into the error of 
 
 Mohammed does not appear to have originated any new or 
 difficult law, but merely revived and fanftioned with his 
 authority an ancient regulation of the Arabs, the Perfians, 
 the Syrians, and other oriental nations. We may hence too, 
 eafily account for that deteftation of wine by which almoft 
 all the Gnoftics of Afiatic origin, and, at a fubfequent 
 period, the Manichseans were charadlerifed. 
 
 \m~\ Vid. Jof. Simon. AfTemanni, Bihlioth. Oriental. 
 Clement. Vatican, tom.i. p. 93. Affemann, who was himfelf 
 a Syrian, and well acquainted with the temper and habits of 
 his countrymen very juftly remarks, that the naturally rigid 
 and auftere difpofition of the Syrians tended greatly to 
 favour the extenfion of this feft, 
 
 con- 
 
of the Second Century, 3 1 5 
 
 confidering as feparate and diftindt fefts, what cent. 
 were merely members or branches of other "• 
 fed:s, to fay nothing of the occafion that was TheOphite*. 
 afforded for the miflaken multiphcation of fedts, 
 by the practice that appears to have prevailed of 
 frequently giving to an individual fed: a great 
 variety of denominations [«]. I cannot, how- 
 ever, 
 
 [«] It would be very poffible for any one who might 
 feel fo difpofed, to colled: from the works of ancient 
 writers, a fufficiently extenfive catalogue of Gnoftic fefts, 
 that are reprefented as not coming within the defcription of 
 any of thofe to which we have above adverted. Mention in 
 particular is made of the followers of Cajfian, the Docetest the 
 Severiansy the Apnjlolics, the Adamites, who are faid to 
 have aimed at reviving the manners by which mankind were 
 charadlerized in a ilate of primitive innocence ; the Caimtes, 
 who are reported to have held in reverence Cain, Corah, 
 Dathan, the inhabitants of Sodom, and Judas Ifcariot ; the 
 Abelites, who are reprefented as having allowed of marriage, 
 but at tiie fame time dlfcountenanced the procreation of 
 children; the Sethians, who regarded Seth as the Chrift; the 
 Florittlans, a fe£l that owed its origin to Florinus and 
 Blaftus, two Valentinians, who had their refidence at Rome, 
 and various others of different denominations. Of anything 
 that remains on record, however, refpefting thefe fe£ls, it 
 would be but a wafte of time to take notice, inafmuch as 
 their hiftory is in pan very obfcure, in part devoid of 
 eveiy thing like certainty, and in part utterly unworthy of 
 being related. Befidcs, it is incredible that the Gnoftic 
 tribe could ever have been fplit into fuch a multitude of 
 feiSts and fadions, although it is not to be denied but that 
 its tenets were well calculated to give rife to a great diverfity 
 of opinions. It is my belief therefore, that the variety of 
 names by which it was not uncommon for an individual 
 fe£l to be diftinguifhed, one, perhaps, having a reference to 
 fome diftinguifhing tenet, another to its founder, another 
 to fome particular place or the like, occafionally led 
 people into the error of imagining that there exifted fo 
 many feparate and diftinft fefts. The error, for inftance, 
 that is afcribed to the Docetes, refpefting the.body of Chrift, 
 was not properly the error of one fed, but was common 
 to a great portion of the Gnoftic tribe, and I therefore 
 have no doubt, but that thofe who were termed Docetes by 
 
 fome, 
 
3 1 6 The Ecclefiaftical Uiflory 
 
 TheOphites. 
 
 ever, omit taking notice of the Ophites^ a forry, 
 infatuated fet of men, on whofe tenets Irenseus and 
 other ancient writers have beftowed a much 
 greater degree of attention than on thofe of 
 many other feds. With regard to the firfl rife 
 of this fe6t, there are various confiderations 
 which will not permit us to doubt of its having 
 had its origin amongft the Jews, or of its having 
 exifled long prior to the age of Chrift. Struck 
 with the magnitude and fplendour of our blelTed 
 Saviour's miracles, a part of the Ophites were 
 induced to acknowledge his divine authority, 
 referving to themfelves neverthelefs the liberty of 
 making the religion which he promulgated con- 
 form itfelf to certain principles which they had 
 previoufly adopted from the Egyptian and oriental 
 philofophy. The remainder of the fe6l, however, 
 continued to cherifh their ancient fuperflitions, 
 and execrated the name of Chrift in common 
 with other Jews. Hence arofe two defcriptions 
 of the Ophites, the one Jewifh, the other 
 Chriftian. The tenets of the latter embraced 
 moft of thofe vain fancies which were cherifhed 
 
 lome, had a different denomination given to them by others : 
 whence it happened that what was merely one individual 
 feft, was regarded by uninformed people as two. The 
 feft of the Ophites., or Serpentinians, was founded by one 
 Euphrates ; in all probability therefore, although they were 
 ftyled by fome Ophites, yet others gave them the title of 
 Euphratices, and thofe who were ignorant of this might 
 confider the latter as a diftinft feft from the former. By 
 Epiphanius and others, the Gnoftics are reprefented as an 
 individual feft, diftinft from the Valentinians, the Carpo- 
 cratians, the Bafdidians, and the reft : and yet it is noto- 
 rious at this day, that all thefe latter arrogated to themfelves 
 the title of Gnoftics, as a badge of fuperior wifdom. I 
 intentionally pafs over fome other things that might be no- 
 ticed as oppofed to our believing the heretical fefts to have 
 been fo numerous as ancient authors reprefent. 
 
 by 
 
of the Second Century. 317 
 
 by the other Gnoftics of Egyptian origin, re- c e^n t. 
 
 fpedting the ^ons ; the eternity of matter, the ^^„^^ , 
 
 creation of the world without the approbation or TheOpMies. 
 knowledge of the fupreme Deity, the impri- 
 fonment, as it were of fouls within the body, 
 the directors or rulers of the feven planets, 
 or wandering liars ; the tyranny exercifed by 
 Demiurgus, whom they termed Jaldaboth, and 
 his affociates, over celeilial minds; the progrefs 
 of fouls afcending to the Deity through the feven 
 celeftial orbs, and the means which Sophia, or 
 Achamoth had in contemplation for delivering 
 them from the power of Demiurgus ; they alfo 
 held that Chrift had defcended from above, 
 and joined himfelf to the moft juft and holy 
 man, Jefus, for the purpofe of overthrowing the 
 dominion of the architect of this world, but that 
 upon the feizure of Jefus by the Jews, Chrift 
 withdrew himfelf and returned to his ftation in 
 the celeftial regions. The difference therefore 
 between thefe Ophites and the other Gnoftics of 
 Egyptian origin as to things of any material mo- 
 ment was but fmall. They had, however, one 
 tenet peculiar to themfelves, and to which they 
 owed the appellation of Ophites, namely, that 
 the ferpent by whom our firft parents were be- 
 guiled was not an enemy but a friend to the hu- 
 man race, and that it was either Chrift himfelf 
 or Sophia, who under the difguife of a ferpent's 
 form wilhed to overthrow the councils of the 
 architeft of this world, or Jaldaboth, and to 
 accomplilh the falvation of mankind. Under the 
 influence of this ftrange perfuafion they are faid 
 to have nouriftied a number of living ferpents, 
 and paid them a fort of honorary worfhip [0]. 
 
 LXIII. Nearly 
 
 (0) For a more particular difcuffion of the hiftory and 
 
 tenets 
 
The Ecclefiajiical Hi/lot j 
 
 LXIII. Nearly about the fame time that the 
 Roman church was infefled by the depraved 
 opinions of Valentine, its tranquillity was further 
 difturbed by the diffemination within its bofom 
 of another fyilem of heretical difcipline, that 
 owed its origin to one Cerdo, a native of Syria, 
 a fyilem which, if we can depend on ancient 
 authors for having given it to us entire, was 
 certainly fhorter, more fimple, and confequently 
 eafier to be underftood, than that of Valentine, 
 but built upon the fame principles, and teeming 
 with fnnilar depravities [/>.] With Cerdo was 
 
 affociated. 
 
 tenets of this isQi, as far as they are at prefeut to be col- 
 lefted fiom ancient writers, the reader is referred to a Ger- 
 man work of mine, written exprefsly on the fubjedl, and 
 printed at Helmftadt 1746, in quarto. 
 
 [/>] Refpeding this Cerdo, whom almoft all ancient 
 writers concur in reprefenting as the preceptor of Mar- 
 cion, but who, with greater propriety perhaps, might have 
 been termed by them Marcion's friend and aflbciate, but 
 very little is to be met with on record. We know, indeed, 
 that he was by birth a Syrian, and that he lived and taught 
 at Rome about the middle of this century ; but as to every 
 thing elfe refpedling him, we ate left altogether in the dark, 
 or in a ftate of the greateft uncertainty. "With regard to 
 the life and fortunes of Marcion, not much more that can 
 be relied on has been handed down to pofterity. By moft 
 of the ancient writers however, the tenets of both have 
 been either profefTedly or incidentally brought under re- 
 view. In addition to what is to be met with on the fubjeft 
 in Irenaeus, (who takes continual occafion for difplaying 
 his decided hoftility to the principles of Marcion,) Epipha- 
 nius, Theodoret, and other herefiologifts, we find n\oft of 
 tlie early fathers whofe works have reached our times, ad- 
 verting to various of the Marcionite tenets, for the purpofe 
 of exprelfing their deteftation of them. Were we to be 
 called upon for a reference to thofe writers from whom moft 
 information is to be obtained with regard to the difcipline 
 of Marcion, we ftiould aflign the firft place to Tertullian, 
 whofe five books againft this herefiarch we deem worthy of 
 perufal, although written ia a very tumid and emharra^ed 
 
 ftyle, 
 
of the Second Century. 3 1 9 
 
 alTociated Marcion, the fon of a bifhop of Pontus, cent. 
 a man of genius and learning, as well as of dif- ,_ '_ ^ 
 tinguifhed gravity and moderation, who had, at Cerdoand 
 an earlier period, when he refided in Afia, ma- Marcion. 
 nifefted his diflfent from the eflablilhed tenets of 
 the church, and thereby, as it fhould feem, ren- 
 dered himfelf an object of public cenfure [_q~\. 
 
 On 
 
 ftyle, to fay nothing of the poem againft Marcion, extend- 
 ing likewife to five books, which is commonly attribute4 
 to TertuUian, and annexed to his works, although by 
 many thought unworthy of his pen, and afcribed to fome 
 other author ; and in the next place we (hould diredl the 
 reader to that dialogue againft Marcion which is commonly, 
 although, as fome fuppofe, falfely attributed to Origen, 
 and was pubhflied feparately in Greek and Latin, by J. Ru- 
 dolph Wetftein, Bafil, 1674, 4to. From neither of thefe 
 however, muft the reader expeft to obtain a regular and 
 complete view of the fyfteni of Marcion in all its parts : 
 what they give us is merely a flietch of its leading features, 
 or rather an exhibition of fuch parts as are diftinguifhed for 
 their deformity, without any kind of order or connexion. 
 Of more modern writers, Ifaac Beaufobre has beftowed 
 great pains in developing the true principles and nature of 
 the Marcionite difcipline in his Hifto'ire de Manichee, torn. ii. 
 p. 69, & feq. although in a way that occafionally favours 
 too much of his propenfity to hunt after excufes and apo- 
 logies for heretics. Of Tillemont, MafTuet, and others, 
 I fay nothing : all thefe run into the oppofite extreme, 
 being too ready to give credit to every thing which ancient 
 writers have left on record refpedling Marcion and his 
 preceptor. 
 
 [{^3 Epiphanius {Haref. xlii.) relates that Marcion was 
 at firft diftinguifhed for the feverity of his morals, and led a 
 folitary life, but that becoming the viftim of illicit paffion, 
 he feduced a young woman, and was in confequence thereof 
 excommunicated by his father the bifhop : that finding it 
 impoffible to obtain the forgivenefs of his parent upon any 
 terms, he fled to Rome, and endeavoured, by the moll urgent 
 felicitations, to prevail on the prefbyters, by whom the Ro- 
 man church was at that time governed, Hyginus being 
 dead, to receive him into the communion of the faithful; 
 but that thefe prefbyters conftantly declined complying with 
 \a» requeft, on the ground that it was not permitted them 
 
320 The Ecclefiqftical Hijiory 
 
 CENT. On his arrival at Rome, Marcion appears for a 
 "• while to have difguifed his real fentiments with 
 
 regard 
 
 to do fo without the confent of the bifhop by whom he had 
 been excommunicated, (and in this particular, certainly, the 
 ftatement is perfeftly in unifon with what we know to have 
 been the ancient difcipline ; for in primitive times it was an 
 invariable rule, that no one who had been expelled from 
 communion with the faithful fhould be again received into 
 the bofom of the church without the knowledge and con- 
 fent of the bifhop by whom he had been excommunicated,) 
 and that Marcion therefore, inflamed wnth indignation, 
 affociated himfelf with Cerdo, who was at that time bufied 
 in difTeminating his erroneous doftrines at Rome. With the 
 exception of Beaufobre, implicit credit has been given to 
 this by almoft every writer fubfequent to Epiphanius ; and 
 the ftatement, confidered merely in itfelf, has certainly 
 nothing at all incredible in it. There are certain circum- 
 ftances, however, which, when they come to be taken into 
 the account, will not permit us to regard the matter as 
 placed altogether beyond the reach of controverfy. In the 
 firft place, all the ancient writers who treat of the hiftory 
 and opinions of Marcion, appear to have been quite unin- 
 formed as to what is thus related by Epiphanius, except 
 the uncertain author of the Appendix to TertulHan's book 
 de Prefcr'iptionibus adverf. Harelicos ; and the authority of 
 Epiphanius is certainly, as every one knows, not of fuch 
 weight as that his teftimony fingly fhould be allowed to 
 overbalance the filence of every other ancient writer. And 
 in the next place it is worthy of remark, as has been ob- 
 ferved by feveral of the learned, that Marcion during his 
 refidence in Afia, before ever he had vifited Rome, appears 
 to have given difturbance to the church by his tenets ; (Vid. 
 Dion, Petavins Not. ad Epiphan. Heref. xxii. Jof- Sim. 
 A^^rsxzn, Biblioth. Or/en/<7/. Clement. Vatican, tom. i. p. 389. 
 Jo. Pearfon, FinJlc. Ignatlan. p. ii, cap. viii. p. 372. Anton. 
 Pagi Crtttca in Baronium, torn. i. ad ann, T44. feft. 3.) 
 which renders it extremely probable that the true reafon 
 of his being excommunicated by his father was not his il- 
 licit amours, but his heretical dodlrines. And in rny opi- 
 nion it would be no very unhappy conjefture were it to be 
 fuggefted that the meaning of Epiphanius had been mifap- 
 prehended, a literal interpretation having inadvertently been 
 given to what this author had never intended to have been 
 received in any other than a figurative fenfe, and that by the 
 
 virgin 
 
of the Second Century. ^21 
 
 regard to religion, under the hope of being able cent. 
 to obtain for himfelf fome fituation of dignity in . ^}- ^ 
 the church ; but having, in an unguarded mo- Ccrdo and 
 ment, been led to difclofe fo much o{ the nature ^^i^rcion. 
 of his tenets as efFe6tualIy to cut himfelf off from 
 every expectation of this kmd, (for he was fo 
 imprudent as in familiar converfation with fome 
 of the Roman prefbyters to fpeak contemptuoufly 
 of the books of the Old Teftament, and the God 
 of the Hebrews,) he at once threw off the mafk, 
 and openly affociating himfelf with Cerdo, de- 
 voted the remainder of his days to the eflablifh- 
 ment of a new fed in Italy, and various other 
 provinces through which he travelled [r]. So 
 eminently fuccefsful was he in the accomplifh- 
 ment of this objeft, that he left behind him a mofl 
 
 virgin whom Marcion is reprefented as having feduced, we 
 ought to underftand merely the Church, whofe purity he 
 had fulhed by the diflennination of unfound opinions. The 
 ancient fathers were, it is well known, very frequently wont 
 to compare the church to a virgin, and to treat the inftitu- 
 tion of a new fed as a violation of maiden purity. It is alfo 
 by no means impolTible, that the tranfgreflion of which it 
 appears from Tertullian {de Prafcript. cap. xxx.) and others, 
 that Apelles, the difciple of Marcion was guilty, might 
 miftakenly have been imputed to his mafter. 
 
 [r] According to Epiphanius, Marcion enquired of the 
 Roman preftyters in wiiat fenfe we ought to underftand 
 what is faid by our blefled Saviour in Luke v. 36. of not put- 
 ting new wine into old bottles, or fewing an old piece upon 
 a new garment. The prefbyters appear to have explained 
 the meaning of Chrift's words as well as they were able, but 
 1 am bound to confefs, in a way that does them but little 
 credit, either on the fcore of learning or penetration. Dif- 
 fatisfied with their anfwer, Marcion is reprefented as having 
 avowed his belief, that by thofe words it was Chrift's in- 
 tention to intimate, that the books of the Old Teftament 
 were fuperfeded by his authority, and that thofe of the 
 New Teftament were not to be confidered as having any 
 connexion with them, 
 
 VOL. II. y numerous 
 
322 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, numerous tribe of followers in almoft every re- 
 i^J_ _f gion of the earth, who, in fpite of every effort 
 that was made to fubdue them, continued to 
 maintain their ground down to the fifth, nay, 
 even to the fixth century \_s~\. Of his difciples, 
 Lucan or Lucian, Severus, Blaftes, and others, 
 but more particularly Apelles, are faid, in fome 
 refpe£ls, to have corrected the errors of their 
 mailer, in others, to have aggravated them, and 
 to have become the authors of various new fedts ; 
 but the accounts given of them by different 
 writers pofTefs but little confiflency, and feem 
 not at all calculated to (land the tell of fevere 
 examination. 
 ^hP^f'^ LXIV. Ancient writers vary confiderably in 
 
 ot Marcion. . p, , .-••'. rn/r- 
 
 their expofition or the duciplme or Marcion. 
 Their difagreement, however, is not fo great as 
 to prevent us from afcertaining, in a general way, 
 what were his fentiments refpeding the origin 
 of all things, and the nature of Jefus Chrift, 
 whom he confidered as having come into the 
 world for the purpofe of faving fouls. In the 
 firfl place, he, after the example of the oriental 
 
 [^s"] Tcrtullian in his Prafcrlpt. adv. Heret. cap. xxx. 
 p. 242. fays that Marcion was twice excommunicated from 
 the Roman church, and that it was intended to have yielded 
 to his intreaties, and received him back again even the third 
 time, provided he would undeceive thofe whom he had 
 cotiupted with his errors, and bring them back with him 
 into the bofom of the church, but that death overtook him 
 before he could accomplifli this, and that he confequently 
 died excommunicate. Irenaeus has recorded much the 
 fame thing of Cerdo ; and learned men have therefore been 
 led to conclude, that TertuUian has in this inftance fallen 
 into an error, and imputed that to Marcion which properly- 
 belonged to Cerdo. Vid. Tillemont Memoires pour fervir a 
 VHijlo'ire de l*Egiife,tom. ii. p. ii. p. ^\/\.. & feq. The thing 
 is certainly not of fuch moment as to countenance us in de- 
 voting any time to its inveftigation. 
 
 philofophers. 
 
of the Second Century. 323 
 
 philofophers, figured to himfelf two primary cent. 
 principles, from wiience all things had pro- ^^• 
 ceeded, the one devoid of every thing evil, the ThT^tlT^ 
 other deftitute of every idnd of good ; the former of Mardon. 
 the Prince of Light, the latter the lord or go- 
 vernor of matter and darknefs. Of thefe tv^^o 
 deities, the befl: and mod powerful, not only 
 begat of himfelf a number of immortal and 
 immutable natures of different orders and degrees, 
 but alfo laid the foundations of the fuperior or 
 celeflial world in which the flars hold their courfe. 
 The Creator of this nether world and its in- 
 habitants, he reprefented as holding a middle 
 ftation, between thofe two primary beings, con- 
 fidering him as an angel of divine origin, endowed 
 with the moft extenfive powers, who had formed 
 this vifible univerfe and the human race out of 
 corrupt and Ihapelefs matter, againft the confent 
 of its prince or ruler, mingling however there- 
 with a confiderable portion of celeflial or sethereal 
 matter, and uniting with the vitiated and mortal 
 body, a foul divine in its origin and endowed 
 with rationality [/]. This founder of the world 
 
 was, 
 
 [/] None of the ancient writers furnifh us with a com- 
 plete view of the fyftem of Marcion. Its external form may 
 in feme fort be collefted from them, but as to its interior 
 arrangement we are left wholly in the dark. Upon com- 
 paring together early authorities, we, in fpitc of their 
 great difagreement with each other, are pretty well able to 
 afcertain what were it's leading features, but as to any of 
 its minor parts, or the way in which the whole might be 
 knit together, we have nothing to guide us beyond con- 
 jeAure. Conjefture, however, may in this cafe be exer- 
 cifed with greater confidence than in fome others, fince the 
 religion of Marcion bears a very (Irong refemblance to the 
 difciphne of the Manichees, with regard to which we pof- 
 fefs much fuller information. Maicion no doubt was pro- 
 vided with a long flory refpecfti- g the origin of thi^ vilible 
 world, of a fimilar nature to that with which Manes fur- 
 Y 2 ni(hed 
 
324 The Ecclefiqftkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, was, according to Marcion, that Being whom the 
 i_— !!l_ J^^^ worfhipped as the Supreme Deity ; the fame 
 The fyftem that commiffioned Mofes, and gave to the Hebrew 
 of Marcion. nation through him a law, a law not indeed pofi- 
 tively evil, but imperfed, and fuited to men who 
 were ignorant of the Supreme Deity, and paid 
 greater obedience to their own fenfual appetites 
 and inclinations, than to the dictates of right 
 reafon. Between this parent of the material 
 world, and the two above-mentioned eternal prin- 
 ciples of all things, the chief point of difference 
 appears to have been that the former was looked 
 upon as being neither pofitively good, nor yet 
 as abfolutely evil ; but of a nature partaking of 
 both, or as Marcion expreifed it, he was jujl \_u~\. 
 
 For 
 
 nifhed his followers ; but ancient writers give us merely a 
 fummary of it, and content themfelves with ftating him to 
 have maintained that the world was framed of evil matter 
 by an angel of the lirft order, whom, by way of diftindlion, 
 he denominated the Deity, or god of the world. As the 
 Marcionitcs, however, did not pretend to deny but that 
 there were many things good in this vifibie world, which 
 could not have been derived from the kingdom of the evil 
 principle, and fmce they moreover admitted that mankind 
 were pofTeffed of a divine foul, a foul bearing an affinity to 
 the fupreme Deity, we are of neceffity conftrained to re- 
 gard them as believing like the Manicheans, that a portion 
 of celeftial matter had been mingled with that which was 
 naturally evil, and the bodies of men endowed with hea- 
 venly foufs derived from the habitation of the fupreme 
 Being. This much I have thought fit to add by way of 
 fupplement to what is to be met with in ancient authors. 
 At prefent I fee no occdhon for farther remark. 
 
 \_u'\ There can be no doubt but that the many ancient 
 as well as modern wi iters, who reprefent Marcion as having 
 taught that the founder of the world was by nature evil, 
 have been guilty of an error. Origen, Tertullian, and 
 nurnc.-ous otlier authorities might be cited in proof of his 
 having conlidered the architedl of this univerfe, as a being 
 entirely diftmft from both the good and the evil deity. The 
 
 Supreme 
 
of the Second Century. 32^ 
 
 For by means of punifliments and calamities cent, 
 which the good Deity was from his nature in- i_._ ^_, _ | 
 capable of infliding, this middle Being took xhefyftcm 
 vengeance on all thofe who negleded his laws, «fMaixion. 
 whilft on the other hand, he, with bleffings and 
 rewards, which it was not in the nature of the 
 evil Deity to confer, remunerated thofe who 
 a6led uprightly, and led a life agreeable to his 
 commandments. Between him and the Lord or 
 Governor of matter, there was perpetual war. 
 For fmce, in the creation of the world, and the 
 replenifhing of it with inhabitants, he had invaded 
 the province of this Prince of darknefs, the 
 latter, out of revenge, fet himfelf to work with 
 every poffible degree of care and diligence to 
 feduce mankind from their allegiance to their 
 maker, and bring them into fubjedion to himfelf. 
 
 Supreme God, the Lord and governor of light, he regarded 
 as in the Itridteft fenfe good, fo as to be abfolutely incapable 
 of harbouring an evil thought or intention ; nay, fo infinitely 
 benevolent as not to be able to punifh, even his enemies. 
 The prince, or ruler of darknefs and matter, he believed to 
 be pofitively evil, an utter ftianger to every fort of good, 
 and deftitute of the power of bleffing, even his friends. 
 The founder of the world, he eftecmed as neither good nor 
 evil, but as being what he termed yz^/', that is, being invefted 
 with the power of either blefling or chaftifing, he configned 
 his enemies over to punifhment, and remunerated his friends. 
 Origen Dial, contra Marcionit. p. 48. edit. Weften. ),' 
 yy y.io'ri kfx,'^ VTryry.oHTi tw ooyaBu: avscrtv oiducryi, virmotia: Si tu 
 TTQvr.^u SxtJ^tv ^i^inai. Medium principium (i. e. the founder 
 of the world whom he confidered as holding a middle 
 ftation between the good and the evil deity) quietem prabet 
 illis qui obediunt bono, pcenas autem injligit il/is qui parent 
 mala principio. To which may be added what is faid by 
 Clement of Alexandria, 5'/row«/. lib. iii. p 425. — Oi Lvo 
 
 Mcc^y.i'jjio^ <Pu7iv KccKYiv Ik ^iwau ysvojjiivnv ^yiy-n^^ya. Marcionis 
 
 fedatores dicunt naiuram rerum faBam ejfe a conditore feu 
 Demiurgo qui juflus eji. More as to this will be found in 
 Beaufobre's Hijloire de Manichee, vol. ii. p. 89, et feq. 
 
 Y 3 Thofe 
 
326 The Ecclefiaftical Hiftory 
 
 CENT. Thofe fouls who fufFered theinfelves to be led 
 y_3'_ _, aftray by the counfels of this deceiver, and 
 paid obedience to his mandates, would, according 
 to Marcion, on the diflblution of the body, be 
 fent by the God of the Jews, the founder and 
 legiflator of the world, into a place of woe, 
 where they would fuffer inexpreffible torments ; 
 whilft thofe who in fpite of every artifice re- 
 mained fleady in their allegiance to their Creator, 
 would, after death, be transferred into the 
 regions of unbounded felicity and joy [1;]. 
 the tenets LXV. With a vicw to put an end to this war 
 ref^am'" of the evil principle with the founder of the 
 chrift. ^ world, and at the lame time to recal the fouls 
 that lay imprifoned within material bodies, back 
 to their true origin, the fupreme and all-benevo- 
 lent Deity, according to this herefiarch, fent 
 down to the Jews a moft excellent nature, 
 nearly refembling himfelf, namely, his fon Je- 
 
 [•u] I have above expreffed myfelf nearly in the words of 
 the ancient writers. I will now endeavour in the way of 
 explanation to fupply what not only they, but more recent 
 authors have omitted. The Creator of the world was, ac- 
 cording to Marcion, the fame wich the God and legiflator 
 of the Jews. They therefore who obeyed him were Jews 
 either by birth or converfion, and obferved the law of 
 Mofes. His adverfaries were the Gentiles, who, rejecting 
 the God of the Jews, paid their adoration to a multitude of 
 falfe deities. For the Gods whom the heathens wor- 
 fhipped, Marcion, like moit of the ancient Chriftian 
 teachers, regarded as wicked angels or minifters of the evil 
 principle, the lord or governor of darknefs. Whoever then 
 paid divine honours to thpfe, he of courfe regarded as the 
 fubjedis of the evil principle, the ruler of matter. In fliort, 
 the fim of what Marcion wiihed to incidcate appears to 
 have been this, that the Jews exclulively would be faved, 
 inalmuch as they continued ftedfaft in their obedience to the 
 founder of the world, but that perdition would be the lot 
 of all the heathen nations, in confequence of their yielding 
 themfelves fervants to the evil deity. 
 
 fus 
 
of the Second Century. 327 
 
 fus Chrifl, invefting him with no fort of body c e n t. 
 or material cloathing, but merely with fuch a , "• . 
 femblance or likenefs of a body as might render ihe tenets 
 him vifible to human eyes \yu\. The fon, with of Marcion 
 a view to obtain for himfelf a more ready atten- c&.'"^ 
 tion from the people to whom he was thus com- 
 miffioned, pretended that he was the Chrift of 
 whom their ancient prophets had fung, and de- 
 monflrated the truth of his legation by a variety 
 of miraculous ads [a:]. With refped to the na- 
 ture 
 
 . [w J Ancient writers are far from being either confiftent 
 or perfpicuous in their expofition of the tenets of Marcion 
 refpefting the Son of God. Such particulars relating to 
 this fubjeft as are exprefsly handed down to us by the ma- 
 jority of thofe fathers who in point of weight and antiquity 
 are beft entitled to credit, or which may fairly be deduced 
 from their writings in the way of inference, the reader will 
 find given above. From thefe it is perfedlly clear that Mar- 
 cion would not allow that the Saviour of the world was 
 cloathed with a real body, or took upon him our nature : 
 but whether he believed him to have been invefted with 
 merely the fiiadow or refemblance of a body, or with a 
 body compofed of refined ethereal matter, appears to admit 
 of fome doubt. Each of thefe opinions has its abettors. 
 Another point that may be faid to admit of being contefted, 
 with httle advantage in point of argument on either fide, is, 
 whether Marcion believed the Son of God to have made his 
 appearance amongft the Jews on a fudden, under the form 
 or likenefs of a perfeft man, or conceived him to have been 
 apparently born of a virgin, in like manner as he believed 
 him in appearance, and according to the opinion of mankind, 
 to have died ? 
 
 [.v] Marcion was ready to admit that the ancient Jewifh 
 prophets, whofe writings are comprized in the code of the 
 Old Teftament, had held forth the promife of a Mefliah or 
 deliverer to the Hebrew nation : nor did he pretend to 
 doubt, as is manifeft from a paffage of Tertullian which 
 we fhall prefently brmg forward, but that this Melfiah 
 would, at fome time or other, actually make his appear- 
 ance, and in a certain degree leftore the fallen fortunes of 
 the houfe of Ifrael. But he pofitively denied that our 
 bleffed Saviour was fuch Mefliah : and indeed, according 
 Y 4 to 
 
The Ecclefiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 ture of Chrifl's fundions, Marcion held, that he, 
 in the firft place, had it in command to revive 
 
 amongft 
 
 to liis tenets, it was impoffible for him to act otherwife. 
 For fiiice it was his behef that the God whom the Jews 
 worHiipped was merely the founder of this world, and not 
 the fupreme or fuperlatively excellent Deity, it could not 
 but follow that he fhould have regarded the ancient Jewifh 
 prophets as the leL^alts merely of this creator of the univerfe, 
 and not of the Supreme Being, and likewife have conceived 
 that the Mtfliah, whofe advent they predifled, would not be 
 one and the fame with the Son of the Moll High, whom he 
 believed to have made his appearance in Jefus with a view 
 to the falvation of men's fouls. For it was not to be ima- 
 gined that the Lord of everlailing light, or the Supreme 
 Deity would commiflion the fervants of the architeft of this 
 world, a being fo vaftly inferior to bimfelf, to announce the 
 advent of his ion. It however militated in no trifling degree 
 againft this opinion, that the Son of God actually pro- 
 fefled himfelf to be that Chiift or Meffiah whofe coming had 
 been predifted by the prophets ot the Old Teftament. For 
 notwithflanding that Marcion had a proper gofpel of his 
 own, differing confiderably from ours, and maintained that 
 fuch particulars in the hiilory of Chrift as were in oppofition 
 to his tenets ought to be rejefled as fpurious interpolations, 
 he had not the hardihood to call in queilion fuch a glaring 
 fa£l as that of our bleffed Saviour's having, throughout the 
 whole courfe of his miniftry amongil the Jews, maintained 
 that he was that Meffiah whom their prophets had taught 
 them to expe£l By way of removing this obftacle there- 
 fore, Marcion afierted that our Saviour had in this inftance 
 praftifed a deception on the Jews, and falfely porfonated 
 their promifed MtfTiah by v-fay of obtaining from them a 
 more favourable nception and hearing. Conjlituit Marcion ^ 
 fays TertuUian, [contr. Marc, lib.iii. cap. xv.) alitim ejfe 
 Chr'ijlum qui Tiber'tanis tcwporlhus a Deo quondam ignoto (;. e, 
 the good principle) revelatus Jit in falutcm omnium Gentium, 
 alium qui a Deo creatore (i. e. the God of the Jews, whom 
 he termed J u it) in rejiitutionem Judaici Jlatus fit dejlinatus 
 quandcque venturus. - - - fed quoniodo inquit {M.arc\on) 
 irreperet {.Jefus or the Son of God) in Judaorum Jidemy 
 niji per folemne apud eos et fatniUare nomen (namely that of 
 Chrift). Now one who could believe that the Son of God 
 liimfelf had recourfe to fraud and lying for the puipofe of 
 infinuating himfelf with the Jews, muft neceffarily have con- 
 ceived 
 
of the Second Century. 329 
 
 amongft mankini the knowledge and worfhip of c en t. 
 the fupreme and only true God, and to over- , _": . 
 throw, not only the kingdom of the Prince of thp tenets 
 Darknefs, which had its foundation in, and was jf^^^^'^jj"" 
 upheld by fuperflition, but alfo the government chnii. 
 and dominion of the founder of this world, or 
 the God of the Jews : and in the next place, he 
 was to fupply the fouls endowed with reafon, 
 with inftruftion as to the means whereby they 
 might cleanfe themfelves from the conta;^ion of 
 the body and of matter, and render themfelves 
 worthy of attaining to everlaflmg felicity in the 
 realms of light. Such being the objects of his 
 miffion, he was at once aflailed with the united 
 llrength of the Prince of Darknefs and the 
 founder of this world. The latter in particular, 
 perceiving that no refpedl whatever was paid by 
 Jefus to his law, and that his fubjeds were in- 
 cited to fedition, procured him to be appre- 
 hended by his fervants, and condemned to under- 
 go the punifhment of death, not being in the 
 leaft aware that the perfon with whom he had 
 to deal was the fon of the fupreme Deity. His 
 expedations, however, were completely difap- 
 pointed : for as Jefus was not inverted with a real 
 body, it was impoffible that he could be fub- 
 jeded to punifliment, or die. Chrift, however, 
 permitted his imaginary body to be apparently 
 puniflied and deprived of life, by way of im- 
 preffing on the minds of mortals, that the vile 
 and corrupt body wherewith they are cloathed, 
 
 ceived that every fpecies of fallacy was allowable which 
 might contribute towards advancing the truth, and 1 am 
 therefore induced to think, that ancient writers are deferving 
 of credit in what they ftate as to Marcion's having vitiated, 
 mutilated, and in divers refpefts altered, the books of the 
 New Teftament. 
 
 ought 
 
The Ecclefiqftkal Hijiory 
 
 ought to be deemed unworthy of the leaft confi- 
 deration by a wife and religious man \_y~\. Having 
 executed his commiffion here on earth, the Son 
 of God, according to Marcion, defcended into 
 'tSr^ the infernal regions, and fet at liberty all thofe 
 fouls whom the Founder of the world had there 
 condemned to the flames, in confequence of their 
 having manifefted a contempt for his lawLz]- 
 
 The 
 
 [ j] What I here ftate refpefting the motive for Chrift's 
 undergoing a feigned death is merely a conjefture of my 
 own. Marcion indifputably denied that Chrift in reahty 
 either fuffered or died ; but, at the fame time, he affirmed 
 that his imaginary or apparent death was attended with 
 falutary confequences to the human race. For we find 
 Megethus, a Marcionite, reprefented by Origen, Dial, 
 contr. Marcion. fed. ii. p. 53. as thus fpeaking : o ^n^.iii^yo^ 
 idm Tov olyx^^v Xvovroc cIvtS to\ voixov nn^iXivaen dvrS, fx-ii 
 EtdwV, oTi 6 ^cx,vix,ro<; rS dyx^S curri^M wv^^wttwi' lyiviTo. Cond'ilor 
 (i. e. the Founder of the world, or God of the Jews) ub't 
 anlmadvertit bonum ilium (i. e. Jefus, the Son of the good 
 Deity) legem fuam {^'v'lz. the law of Mofes) violare, Jlruxit 
 el inJidiaSi nefclus bonl hujus (/'. e. Jefus) mortem homlnum 
 falutem ejfe. Now, to me, it appears quite impoffible to 
 divine any other kind of falutary confequences that could 
 be derived by the human race from the feigned death of 
 Jefus than what I have above pointed out. Jefus Chrift, 
 by apparently giving himfelf over to death, meant to im- 
 prefs on mankind that neither the body nor the difTolution 
 of the body deferved a moment's concern, and that, for the 
 fake of the foul, even violent hands might be lain on the 
 body, inafmuch as it was a mere machine, compofed of 
 depraved matter, the very faeces, as it were, of themaHgnant 
 Deity. Hence all the Marcionites, as we find recorded 
 by the whole body of ancient fathers, fo far from fearing, 
 or feeking to avoid death, were anxious to encounter it, 
 nor were they ever furpafled by any other fe6t either in 
 the number or the courage of their martyrs. 
 
 [z] Marcion held that Jefus, after having executed the 
 commiffion with which he was charged to mankind, de- 
 fcended to the infernal regions, and brought up with him 
 from thence the fouls of all the finners of whom mention is 
 made in the books of the Old Teftament, fuch as Cain, the 
 
 Sodomites, 
 
of Marcion 
 refpeft'mg 
 Chrlft. 
 
 of the Second Century, 33 1 
 
 The rule of life prefcribed by Marcion to his c E n t. 
 followers is acknowledged, even by his adver- ^^I.,^ 
 faries, to have been fevere in the extreme. Im- The tends 
 preiled with the belief that the foul was conflantly 
 in the greateft danger of being enervated and 
 corrupted through the influence of the material 
 body by which it was enveloped, he particularly 
 inculcated the necefTity of bringing the latter 
 into fubjedion, and recommended to his fol- 
 lowers to avoid marriage. He alfo willed them 
 to fpurn the delights of fenfe, and content them- 
 felves with diet of a meagre, attenuating nature, 
 fii-ch as bread, water, herbs, pulfe, and fifli \_a~\. 
 
 LXVI. The 
 
 Sodomites, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, whilft he left 
 behind him the fouls of all the juft, fuch as Abel, No;ih, 
 and Abraham. See Irenaeus, lib. i. cap. 29., Epiphaiiiiis, 
 and others. Many, it is true, would have this to be a 
 mere ftory invented by his enemies; but they labour under 
 an error. From the very natu'-e of Marcion's difcipline 
 it was impoffible that he fliould have believtd otherwife. 
 According to him the finners recorded in the writings of 
 the Old Tedament had not incurred the difpleafure of the 
 Supreme Deity, but offended merely the Founder of this 
 world, or the God of the Jews. Chrift, therefore, having 
 come into the world for the exprefs purpofe of putting an 
 end to the dominion of this latter being, it was but juft 
 that he fhould fet at liberty thole who were fuffering. 
 punifhment for their difobedience to his laws. On the 
 other hand, it was his opinion that the faints of the Old 
 Teftament had never made it their ftudy to pleafe the 
 Supreme Deity, but merely the archite6t of this world j 
 wherefore there could be no reafon whatever for Clinll's 
 having any thing to do with them. Befides thefe latter 
 were not in a ftace of fuffering or unhappinefs, but were 
 receiving the reward of their obedience to the Parent of 
 the world and his commandments. 
 
 [<j] That Marcion prefcribed to his followers a rigid 
 and auftere courfe of life, and that it was the practice of 
 his difciples therefore to rejett every kind ol worldly gra- 
 tification, and pafs their hves in a ftate of coutiuence,^ 
 penury, and bodily afflidion, fo as to render the arrival of 
 
 their 
 
The Ecclefiaftical Hijiory 
 
 LXVI. The various commotions which thus 
 arofe out of the endeavour to bring about an 
 
 acco- 
 
 their laft hour an objeft of dcfire rather than of fear, is 
 admitted by all the ancient Chriftian writers. I think it 
 right, however, in this place, to repeat an obfervation that 
 I have already made above, namely, that the accounts 
 which are handed down to us by ancient authors, of 
 the rigid and fevere fyftem of moral difcipline by which 
 certain of the Gnoftic and other fefts were charafteri/cd, 
 are not to be underftood as applying indifcriminately to all 
 the individuals of which fuch fefts were compofed, but in 
 an efpecial manner to the priefts and fuch fele£t difciples as 
 might be ambitious of attaining to a more than ordinary 
 degree of fanftity. For the founders of ihefe fefts were 
 naturally anxious for their increafe and propagation ; and 
 being fully aware that the rigid courfe of moral difcipline 
 which they prefcribed muft, if generally adopted, tend in 
 great meafure to defeat this objeft, took care fo to tem- 
 per their injunftions as that the multitude fhould be at 
 liberty to hve after the manner of other people, the more 
 rigid precepts having a reference merely to the public 
 inftrudors and fuch as were more than ordinarily ftudioiis 
 of fecuring their own falvation. To conclude : It cannot 
 fail to be readily perceived by every one who fhall invefti- 
 gate, with attention, the account here given of the fefts 
 that are ufually claffed under the general title of Gnoftics, 
 that the chief point of difference between them refted in 
 this, that fome of them recognized the ancient oriental 
 dogma refpefting the exiftence of two principles in its full 
 extent, whilft others abridged it fomewhat, and fupphed 
 the place of what they thus cut off with vifionary fancies 
 drawn from other quarters. In the following refpe6ts they 
 appear to have been all of one mind, namely, — that in ad- 
 dition to the Deity, matter, the root and caufe of every 
 thing evil and depraved, had exilled from all eternity ; — 
 that this corrupt matter had not been reduced into order by 
 the Supreme and all-benevolent Deity, but by a nature of a 
 far inferior rank ; — that the founder of the world, there- 
 fore, and the Deity, were beings between whom no fort of 
 relationfhip whatever exifted ; — that the bodies of mankind 
 owed their formation to the founder of the world, but that 
 their fouls were the offspring of the Deity ; — that the 
 former, therefore, would return to matter without the leaft 
 hope of revivification, whilft the latter, provided they threw 
 
 off 
 
of the Second Century. 
 
 accomodation between the oriental philofophy 
 and the Chriftian religion, although in themfelves 
 fufficiently afflictive, may be faid to have pre- 
 vailed rather without the confines of the church, 
 and to have interfered but little with its internal 
 ftate. By far more baneful and pernicious in 
 their confequences to the welfare of the Chriftian 
 caufe were thofe difagreements and diffenfions 
 which not long after fprung up within the very 
 bofom of the church itfelf, and amongft Chris- 
 tians who in refpeft to the fum and fubftance of 
 religion were entirely agreed. Of this fpecies 
 of diffenfions the firft entitled to notice is that 
 which Montanus, under the reign of Marcus 
 Aurelius, about the middle of this centuiy, ori- 
 ginated at Pepuza, an obfcure, infignificant little 
 village in Phrygia [/>]. This herefiarch, a man 
 
 of 
 
 off the yoke of the founder of this world, would afcend to 
 the Dfity, or at lead to that region which lies immediately 
 contiguous to the habitation of the Deity. Thofe, more- 
 over, who were natives of Syria and Afia afligned to matter 
 a peculiar prince or governor whom they believed to have 
 been felt-exiftent, or lo have fprung from matter itfelf ; in 
 other words, they believed in the exigence of an evil prin- 
 ciple as well as a good one. This prince of matter, how- 
 ever, they confidered as a diftinft being from the founder of 
 the world. To thofe of the Gnoftics who had been bred 
 up in Egypt, fuch as Bafilides, Valentine, and others, this 
 prince or governor of matter was entirely unknown ; but 
 they in their turn encumbered the oriental dodlrine with 
 various whimfical conceits, of Egyptian origin, refpeding 
 the heavens, the ftars, the defcent and afcent of fouls, the 
 princes or rulers of the wandering ftars, the eternal forms 
 of all things exifting in the Pleroma, as well as feveral other 
 mafiprs to which the Afiatics feem not altogether to have 
 yielded their affent. 
 
 [(^] Refpfeaiig the tenets of Montanus and his followers 
 we are fupplied v.'ith fufficient information, as well by the 
 extracts, from certain books no longer m exiftence, which 
 are given us by Eufebius in his Ecckjijlical Hijtory, lib. v, 
 
 c,i$. 
 
334 The Ecdejiajiical Hijiory 
 
 c E N T. of low origin, and, as it fhould feem, not na- 
 turally inclined to evil, but of a melancholic 
 
 difpofition 
 
 c. i6. et feq. as, from what is left on record by other hif- 
 torians of ancient fefts, and more particularly Tertullian, 
 who has devoted a feries of books to the defence of the 
 Montanifts and their tenets. My opinion, however, is, 
 that in as far as it relates to this feft, the teftimony of this 
 latter writer is not to be received without caution ; for to 
 pafs over the faft, that we are quite in a ftate of uncertainty 
 as to which of his books were w^ritten prior to his becoming 
 a Montanift and which after, I am altogether deceived if 
 he does not frequently, as is the general pra-^ice of advo- 
 cates, give a certain fort of colouring to the dotlrines of 
 his mafter, and exhibit rather what he wifhed Montanus to 
 have maintained, than what Montanus aftually did maintain. 
 Abundantly fupplied, however, as we are with information 
 as to the tenets and opinions of Montanus, there is a certain 
 degree of confufion and obfcurity which refts over the 
 hiftory ofthisherefiarch and his follov^'ers, nor can it, in the 
 abfence of all authentic memorials, be readily reduced into 
 any kind of order. Learned men have difputed, and feem 
 likely, to the end of time, to maintain difputes as to the 
 exaft period of the rife of this fadion in Phrygia. Above 
 I have followed the conjedlure that appears to be fupported, 
 and not without reafon, by the major part of thofe who 
 have turned their attention to the fubjeft. It is, however, 
 far from being approved of by all. Jo. Phil, Baratier in his 
 book de Succejfione Romanor. Potitijicum, p. 135 & feq. con- 
 tends, at much length, that we ought to refer the rife of 
 this fe6l to the year cxxvi. The Abbe de Longerue, whofe 
 differtation de Tempore quo Montani Harejis nata eft, is to 
 be found in Winkler's Sylloge Anecdotortim, p. 25'4, endea- 
 vours to prove thac it fprang up under the reign of An- 
 toninus Pius about the year cxl. J. Le Clerc, in his 
 H'tjloria Ecclejtajllca duor. prim. Saculor. p. 676. places its 
 origin under the year civil. The calculations of other 
 writers have produced different refults ; but between t'lefe 
 the difcordance has not been lefs, fo that in fpile of every 
 endeavour to reconcile them recourfe mull neceffariiy be 
 had to conjecture at laft. Amongft more recent writers 
 I have not Tiet with one who has not either condemned or 
 vindicated Montanus to an excefs. Thofe who reprefent 
 him as an execrable mortal ; a compound of deception, vice, 
 and every fpecies of iniquity ; a wretch imbued with the 
 
 vile ft 
 
of the Second Century. 335 
 
 difpofition and infirm judgment, in confequence cent. 
 of fome morbid afFeclion of the mind, became fo ._ _"l._^ 
 difordered in his imagination as to conceive that The herefy 
 the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete or Comforter, by ^^J^'^- 
 
 vileft notions refpefting religion, a very bond-fervant to the 
 devil, and terminate their inveflive by ftatuig him and 
 Maximilla to have been guilty of felf-murder, may certainly 
 urge the authority of ancient writers on their fide ; but then 
 they are fuch writers as are little to be depended upon, and 
 this account of Montanus may therefore well be confidered as 
 in no flight degree overcharged. On the other hand, thofe 
 who hold him up as a pattern of fanftity and virtue, a man 
 divinely infpired, and enduring perfecution for righteoufnefs 
 fike ; one who, with the exception of a few trifling errors, 
 the aberrations of an ingenuous mind, had nothing whatever 
 to be defired in him ; who, in Ihort, would have us believe 
 that the ancient Chriftians, by whom Montanus was ex- 
 communicated, were, as to everything eflential, of the fame 
 way of thinking with himfelf, and, in the feverities which 
 they exercifed towards him, were influenced entirely by- 
 prejudice and paflion, mofl affuredly carry their vindication 
 of him to an extent which the truth will not juftify. That 
 Montanus was not aftuated by a wicked mind, but was 
 an ignorant fimple man but little acquainted with the 
 genuine principles of religion and piety, and that a certain 
 degree of mental imbecility, conjoined with a melancholic 
 difpofition, at length drove him out of his fenfes, is what 
 I feel no difiicuky in believing ; but that he was a martyr 
 to bis fanflity, and attempted nothing amifs, or that he was 
 not out of his wits, are points to which I am certain it will 
 never be in my power to yield my afTent. Great ingenuity 
 and no lels eloquence have been lately difplayed in an 
 attempt to difpel the obfcurity that envelopes the tenets 
 of Montanus by Theophilus Wernfdorf, a man diftin- 
 guiflied for his learning, and eminently flciUed in matter of 
 antiquity, whofe Commertatio de Montan'tjtis Saculi II. 
 vulgo credit'ts Haretic'ts, publifhed at Daiitzic, 1751, 410. 
 reached me while I was engaged on this note. He is the 
 advocate of Montanus, and maintains hat the ancient Chrif- 
 tia IS could have had but little if any caufe for condemning 
 him. The difference in opinion between us is not fo great 
 as to prevent me from acknow! igiig ihat this learned 
 writer has handfomely executed the talk which he under- 
 took. 
 
 lo whom 
 
33^ The Ecclefiajlical Hijhry 
 
 whom the apoflles of our blefled Saviour had 
 been animated, had, by divine appointment, de- 
 fcended upon him for the purpofe of fortelling 
 things of the greatefl moment that were about to 
 happen, and promulgating a better and more 
 perfect difcipHne of Hfe and morals than that 
 which had been built upon the apoflolic man- 
 dates \_c\. Teeming, therefore, with this fancied 
 
 infpiration, 
 
 \_c~\ The ancient writers, whom the greater part of the 
 more recent ones imphcitly follow, reprefent Montanus 
 as having fo egregioufly violated common fenfe as to main- 
 tain that he was aftually the Paraclete, or Holy Ghoft 
 itfelf. But I ftrongly fufpeft that, in this inftance, the 
 words of thefe authors do not put us exaftly in pofTeflion 
 of their real ftntiments, which, no doubt, were correfl. 
 None of them, unlefs I am altogether deceived, could have 
 meant to fay that Montanus conceived himfelf to be the 
 very perfon of the Paraclete, or that his body 'vas animated 
 by the Holy Spirit in the place of a foul ; for to have 
 believed this he mud have been inconfiftent v/ith himfelf, 
 and the moft filly of all mortals. Thefe writers th-n could 
 only have meant that Montanus endeavoured to perfuade 
 people that the Paraclete fpake through him, and that the 
 prophecies which he uttered were not of his own conception, 
 but dictated by the Paraclete ; and in this they were 
 perfeftly correft, for fuch was certainly his doftrine. The 
 ambiguity and indiftindlnefs with which both ancient and 
 modern writers have expreffed themfelves on this fubjedl is 
 to be afcribed folely to the obfcurity of Tertullian, who very 
 frequentbr terms Montanus. The Paraclete, and whofe words 
 and manner of expreflion thefe authors were led to make 
 their own. What I have faid of the man's labouring under 
 fome morbid affedlion of the mind Hands in need, I think, 
 of no juftification ; for fince the innocence and aufterity of 
 his life abfolves him from every fufpicion of evil defign, and 
 the enormities that we find occafionally reported of him 
 are undeferving of any fort of credit ; fince, moreover, the 
 notion entertained by certain of the early Chriftian writers, 
 that both his body and foul had been taken poiTeflion of 
 by the devil, carries with it not the fmalleft femblance of 
 truth, indeed is altogether contradifted by the very pro- 
 phecies which he uttered, there remains, as it ftrikes me, no 
 
 other 
 
9f the Second Century. 337 
 
 infpiration, and burfling through every kind of ^ ^ ^ t. 
 rational reftraint, he poured forth a multitude of ._,— ^1^ 
 prophecies in which the Roman territory and Theherefy 
 government were threatened with calamities of "anS°"" 
 the mofl grievous nature ; and a feverer rule of 
 life and adion was prefcribed to mortals in the 
 very words, as it was pretended, of the Deity 
 himfelf. At the firft he fo far fucceeded as to 
 prevail on many to believe, that he was in reality 
 the character which he wifhed to pafs for, and to 
 win over to his party, amongft feveral others of 
 no mean rank, two opulent women named Prif- 
 cilla and Maximilla, who with others of his 
 difciples pretending like their mafter to the gift 
 of prophecy, diffufed his opinions within a (hort 
 time throughout Afia, Africa, and fome portion of 
 Europe [^J. When people's minds however began 
 in fome degree to recover from the effect of this 
 firft impreffion, and thefe recently divulged pro- 
 phecies came to be fcrutinized with proper calm- 
 nefs and attention, the impofture became appa- 
 rent, and the bifhops of Afia, after difcufling the 
 fubjed in certain of their councils, adopted the 
 refolution of expelling Montanus, together with 
 his friends and aflbciates, from every fort of con- 
 nexion with the faithful. The example thus 
 fet by the Afiatic prelates was gradually followed 
 
 other conclufion to which we can arrive than this, that he 
 was a man difordered both in body and mind ; unlefs, per- 
 haps, fome fhould be willing rather to fufpeft him of having 
 praftifed a pious fraud. 
 
 [^] In addition to others diftinguifhed for their virtue 
 and fanftity it appears, that even the bifhop of Rome, 
 whom moft writers fuppofe to have been Viftor, was for a 
 while induced to regard Montanus in the light of a prophet 
 divinely infpired, and that it was Praxeas who awakened 
 him from this delufion. Vid. Tillemont Memoires pour 
 fervir a V Hijhxre de PEgli/e, torn. ii. p. iii. p. 124. & feq. 
 
 VOL. H. 
 
 by 
 
The Eccleftajiical Hijiory 
 
 by the other Chriftian bifhops, fo that the ex- 
 communication of the Motanifts became at length 
 univerfal. Cut oflf therefore from all intercourfe 
 with the general body of Chriflians, thefe here- 
 tics formed themfelves into a peculiar church, 
 the chief prefident over which had his refidence 
 at Pepuza in Phrygia. This fed continued to 
 flourifli down to the fifth century, when it ex- 
 perienced fome annoyance from imperial edicts : 
 \_e~\ and the lift of its members was ennobled by 
 not a few names diftinguilhed both for learning 
 and genius, amongft which none claims a higher 
 rank, in point of celebrity, than that of Ter- 
 tullian, a man of great eminence certainly, but 
 beyond all meafure rigid and auftere, who in 
 feveral books written by him exprefsly on the 
 fubjed, advocates with confiderable firmnefs and 
 
 {/] That the feft of theMontanifts had not become extin6l 
 even fo low down as the fifth century, is evident from the 
 imperial edifts relating to it that are extant in the Codex 
 Theodoftanus, torn. vi. We there find the Montanifts de- 
 nounced by a lawof Honorius, under the year 398. p. 168. 
 as alfo by another fevere edift of the fame emperor, pro- 
 mulgated A. D. 407. (p. 177.) where they are termed 
 Phrygians and Prifcillianifts, from Prifcilla one of the fe- 
 male converts to Montanifm, and affociated with the Mani- 
 chees. Under the following year 408. (p. 182.) we find 
 the Prifcillianifts again denounced by a frefh edi A ; and two 
 years after, viz. A. D. 410. (p. 186.) under the titles of 
 Montanifts and Prifcillianifts, they are ftill further pro- 
 fcribed by the emperor Thcodofms the Younger, In the 
 year 415, (p. 200.) another rigid law was ena6ted againft 
 theMontanifts; and finally, in the year 423 (p. 202) we 
 find them made the objefts of a penal enadlment under the 
 titles of Phrygians and Pepuzites, which latter appellation 
 they acquired from the little town in Phrygia, from whence 
 the fed had originally fprung. The frequent repetition of 
 laws like thefe, proves plainly that numerous branches of 
 this fe6l were in exiftence even fo late aa the fifth century. 
 
 fpirit 
 
bfthe Second Century, 339 
 
 fpirit the caufe of the fedt under whofe banners cent. 
 he had been induced to enlift []/]. ' ^;_ 
 
 LXVII. With regard to the leading and ge- The error. 
 nerally-received notions of the Chriftianson the ofMon* 
 fubjed of rehgion, Montanus attempted no inno- ^^"'*'' 
 vations of any moment j^^ J ; nor were his moral 
 
 precepts 
 
 [/] In embracing Montanifm, TertuUian appears to 
 have been lefs aftuated by a cool and difcriminating judg* 
 ment than by felf-love, or a wifh to promote the growth of 
 certain opinions to which he was immoderately attached. 
 Moft of the principles of moral difcipline propounded by 
 Montanus, fo far from being either new or unheard of 
 amongft the Chriflians, had been aftually adopted by feveral 
 of them before his time. Of this number was TertuUian, 
 a man of a morofe and faturnine difpofition, to whom the 
 moral difcipline of the Chriftians in general had long 
 appeared by far too indulgent and relaxed. Upon finding 
 therefore that Montanus was an advocate for the principles 
 which he confidered as true and juft, he at once, without 
 ever feeing or hearing the man, pronounced that he muft 
 have been infpired of the Holy Ghoft. The objedl of this 
 good father's patronage was, in faft, not fo much Mon- 
 tanus as himfelf and his own opinions. 
 
 \_g'\ Neither Montanus nor his female difciples in their 
 prophecies made any fcruple of touching upon the principal 
 dogmas of Chriftianity ; nay, they occafionally avowed 
 them, and entered the lifts as their defenders againft thofe 
 who would have corrupted them. TertuUian in his book 
 de RefurreSione, cap. Ixiii. p. 429. reprefents Montanua 
 and his male and female difciples, whom he defignates by 
 the titles of Serv'i ^ Anc'dU Del, as having flood forth 
 in defence of the doftrine of the Refurreftion againft the 
 Gnoftics, and alfo as having, per novam prophetiam de Pa- 
 racleto itiundantem, removed many of the difiiculties with, 
 which not only this article of faith, but others were encum- 
 bered. Cujus {prophetia,) he continues, Ji hauferis fontesy 
 nullatn poter'is fttire doSrinam, nullus te ardor exuret quaf- 
 tionum, Refurrefitonetn quoque earnis ufquequaque potando 
 refrigerabis . In the fame book, cap. xi. p. 386, he ad- 
 duces a fragment of one of the prophecies of Prifcilla, in 
 which fhe particularly reprehends thofe who oppofed the 
 doftrine of a future refurreftion of the body. Nemo tarn 
 carnal'tter vivit quam qui negant earnis rejurrc&'tonem. . . . 
 
340 The Eccleftaftical Hijlory 
 
 CENT, precepts altogether new and unheard of, or of 
 "• fuch a nature as to appear intolerable in the eyes 
 
 of 
 
 De quibus luculenter Iff Paracletus per prophetidsm Prifcam : 
 Games funt £3* carnem oderunt. Difputin^ againft Praxeas, 
 Tertullian aflerts that the Paraclete recognized three perfons 
 in the Godhead, and that he himfelf had been much af- 
 fifted by the prophecies of the Paraclete in attaining to a 
 right comprehenfion of this dogma. Protulit fays he (in 
 Lib» contra Praxeam, cap. xiii.) Deus fermonemt quemad- 
 modum etiam Paracletus {i. e. Montanus) docety ficut radix 
 fruticeniy £5* fans Jluvium, iff fax radium. A-nd after 
 fome intermediate obfervations, he thus proceeds : Nos qui 
 tf tempora Iff caujfas Scripturarum per Dei gratiam in/pi- 
 cimus, maxime Paracleti (the Holy Spirit fpeaking as he 
 believed through Montanus) non hotninum difcipuU, duos 
 quidem dejinimus, Patrem Iff Fi/ium, Iff Jam ires cum Spiritu 
 SanSo . . . duos tamen Dominos iff duos Deos numquam ex 
 ore nojiro prof erimus. It is plain therefore, that Montanus 
 muft have difcufTed fome of the moft wreighty points of reli- 
 gion, and refolved them in a manner fufficiently fubtile and re- 
 fined. In handling thefe topics, however, he appears to have 
 ftudioufly avoided bringing forward any thing materially dif- 
 fering from the generally received opinions. St. Jerome, 
 indeed, Epift. xxxvii. ad Marcel/am, torn. iv. Opp. p. 64.. 
 edit. Benedidl. accufes the Montanifts of Sabellianifm, i/li 
 Sabellii dogma feUantes, Trinitatem in unius P erf once angu/lias 
 cogunt. But how little faith is to be placed in this accufation 
 muft be apparent from the words of Tertullian, above cited, 
 in which he moft exprefsly declares the Paraclete, as he 
 terms Montanus, to have recognized three perfons in the God- 
 head. If I may take credit to myfelf for any penetration, 
 the charge thus brought forward by St. Jerome was a moft 
 invidious and unwarranted confeftary deduced from the 
 circumftance of Montanus having arrogated to himfelf the 
 perfon of the Paraclete, and aflerted that the Deity himfelf 
 Ipake through him. For from this, his adverfaries, as 
 appears from Epiphanius, Haref xlviii. § ii. p. 41a. tom. i. 
 Opp. were led to conclude that he wiftied to pafs himfelf 
 for the Deity ; and a perfon who had been fo mad as to 
 have entertained fuch a with, might certainly have appeared 
 to his enemies, as defirous of aboliftiing all diftinftion of 
 perfons in the Godhead, and compreffing the Deity in 
 unius perfona angu^ias, namely, his own. In thus exonerating 
 Mootanue from the imputation of having violated the 
 
 leading 
 
of the Second Century. ^41 
 
 of the Chriftians. For in the age in which he c E n t. 
 flourifhed there were not wanting, even amongfl , " • 
 
 tne The errors 
 of MonU- 
 
 leading principles of Chriftianity, the reader muft not un- 
 derfland me, however, as meaning to infmuate that hie 
 errors were but of a light or trivial nature. For on the 
 contrary, it is certain that he entertained very injurious, and 
 not only injurious, but highly dangerous fentiments, ref- 
 pefting the moral difcipline propounded by Chrift and his 
 apoftles ; a circumftance of itfelf fufficient to warrant hit 
 being excluded from the number of the orthodox Chriftians, 
 and claffed amongft heretics. He taught, for inftance, 
 that the moral law was left by the Son of God and his 
 apoftles, in an imperfeft or rude and immature ftate, and 
 that he himfelf was commifTisned of the Holy Ghoft to 
 fill up and bring to perfeftion what Chrift had thus left 
 jejune and incomplete. This dogma, Tertullian, the moft 
 diftinguifhed of all the followers of Montanus, hefitates 
 not to propound in the moft undifguifed terms, in various 
 parts of his writings, although, as to other things, he 
 occafionally has recourfe to fubterfuge, and endeavours, in 
 fome degree, to qualify the opinions of his mafter. Let us 
 hear how he fpeaks in his book de Velandit Virginibutt 
 cap i. p. 192. which may be taken as a fair fpecimen of the 
 whole. Jujlitiat (i.e. the moral law,) primofuit in rudimentit^ 
 natura Deum metuens, deh'inc per legem t5* prophetas pro- 
 movif in infantiam, dehinc per evangelium efferbuit in JU' 
 ventutem, nunc per Paracletum (Montanus) componitur in 
 maturitatem. Hie erit folus a Chrifto, (i.e. after Chrift) 
 magifier et dicendus et verendus. Can any thing poffibly be 
 more evident ? Montanus conceived that there was as much 
 difference between the moral difcipline enjoined by Mofes 
 and the prophets in the words of God, and that which was 
 propounded by Chrift, as there is between an infant and a 
 young man, and that between the moral law of Chrift and 
 that prefcribed by the Holy Ghoft through himfelf, there 
 exifted as great an inequality, as there is between a youth 
 and a man arrived at maturity. In another place de 
 Monogamia, cap. xiv. p. 686. Tertullian expreffes himfelf 
 after the following manner, Regnavit duritia cordis ufque 
 ad Chri/lumy regnaverit 55* infirmitas carnis ufque ad 
 Paracletum. It was his opinion therefore that Chrift: 
 made an allowance for the infirmity of our flefh, and only 
 contended againft hardnefs of heart ; but that Montanus, 
 by the commaod of the Deity, affailed alfo the infirmity of 
 z 3 the 
 
342 
 
 The Eccleftajikal Hi/ioij 
 
 CENT, the more orthodox Chrlftians, certain who pub- 
 "• licly avowed their approbation of moft of thofe 
 
 points 
 
 the flefh. Now this was certainly an effential error, and 
 involved within it other errors of a Hke noxious nature, and 
 equally fubverfive of the true principles of religion. The 
 importance of this error is not diminifhed, but rather in- 
 creafed, bv the confideration that the additions made by 
 Montanus to the moral difcipline enjoined by our blefled 
 Saviour confifted merely of certain precepts of light moment 
 relating to fails, fecoud marriages, the veiling of virgins, 
 and other particulars, refpe6ting external demeanour. For 
 fmce Tertullian would wiUingly have us believe, that by 
 the promulgation of thefe precepts, Montanus, or the Holy 
 Spirit through him, had brought the moral law to maturity, 
 or in other terms given the finifhing hand to that which 
 was before imperfett, it is plain that he mufl have confidered 
 external aftions, modes, and inftitutions, and thofe too of 
 rather a minute and trifling nature, as conftituting the 
 moft material part of religion and piety ; an opinion equally 
 intolerable and pernicious with the former. Jefus Chrift 
 and his apoftles have left it in command, that we fhould 
 love the Lord our God beyond every thing, and our fellow 
 mortals as ourfelves. Now thefe injunftions, according to 
 Montanus, were indeed very good, but at the fame time 
 merely juvenile ones, and calculated only for the Chriftian 
 world during its minority ; whereas the additions made to 
 them by Montanus himfelf refpefting faft-days, virgins 
 wearing veils, the avoiding fecond marriages, and the like, 
 carried the moral law to an infinitely higher degree of dig- 
 nity and perfeftion, and rendered it fuitable to the Chriftian 
 commonwealth when advanced to the age of manhood and 
 perfe£lion. The fum and fubftance of the moral law there- 
 fore, it neceffarily followed, was to be looked upon as con- 
 tained in thefe minute and infignificant regulations. The 
 latter of thefe errors was not, as far as can be afcertained at 
 the prefent day, ever openly attributed to Montanus by 
 his adverfaries, but he was properly charged by them with 
 the former, as with one of the moft grievious nature. 
 Nor have I the leaft doubt but that it was this error chiefly 
 that occafioned him to be regarded in the light of an 
 impoftor, and produced the excommunication both of him 
 and his followers. An ancient writer, whofe catalogue of 
 Herefies is annexed to TertuUian's book de Prafcript^ 
 Uturetkorumx reprefents (in cap. lii, p. 354.) the Montanifts 
 
of the Second Century, 343 
 
 points which conftituted the leading features of c e n t. 
 the difcipline which he inculcated ; fuch as that 
 
 fafts 
 
 zsho\d\n^Paracletum plura in Montana d'txijfe, quam Chri/lum 
 in Evangelio protuVi/fe, nee tanium plura, fed etiam meliora 
 atque tnajora. And in this he certainly does tltem no injury 
 wha;ever. For TcrtuUian, vvhofe teftimony neceflarily 
 carries with it peculiar weight, as coming from one who 
 muft have been intimately acquainted with the opinions of 
 his feft, intimates this very thing in the words which we 
 have above cited. The difcipline of Chrift is reprefented as 
 bearing merely a juvenile charafler j that of Montanus one 
 of mafculine vigour and maturity. Who then can entertain 
 a doubt but that the latter muil have been deemed to have 
 propounded greater and better things than the former ? 
 Thofe who are entrufted with the education of youth, over 
 whom reafon in general poflefTes but little influence, take 
 care to accommodate their precepts to the infirmity of 
 their charge ; but greater and better things are brought 
 forward by thofe to whom is committed the inltitution of 
 perfons arrived at man's eftate, and whofe unruly appetites 
 have been brought into feme fort of fubje£lion. St. Jerome^ 
 (Epift. xxxvii. torn. iv. Opp. p. 64.) attributes to Montanus 
 the fame error, but exa^fgerates and amplifies it beyond all 
 meafure. Deum voluijje in Frteri Tejlamento per Moyfen isf 
 propbetas Jalvare mundum, fed quia non potuit explere, corpus 
 fumpjijfe de virgine, tff in Chrijh fubfpecie Jilii pradicantem 
 mortem ohiijfe pro nobis. Et quia per duos gradus mundum 
 falvare nequiverit, ad exlremum per Spiritum San£lum in 
 Montanum, Prifcam ^ Maximillam, defcendijfe : ^53* plenitu- 
 dinem quam Paulus non habuerit... habuijfe Montanum. In this 
 certainly, there is fomewhat of truth, but it is coupled with 
 one or two things that have no foundation whatever in 
 fa£t. No grounds, for inftance, exift for charging Mon- 
 tanus with entertaining the Sabelhan dogma of one perfon in 
 tlie Deity afting under the different charafters of Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit ; a thing altogether foreign from his mind ; 
 and the doftrine he inculcated refpefting a change and gra- 
 dual improvement in moral diiciphne is invidioufly trans- 
 ferred to the cathohc religion, and the mode of obtaining 
 everlafting falvation. The conclufion to which, I think, 
 equity would direft us, is, that Montanus and his aflbciates 
 were not aware of all the evils with which the great and 
 dangerous error into which they fell was pregnant, and I am 
 therefore unwilling to have him charged with all its confe- 
 z 4 quences. 
 
344 The Ecclefiajiical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, fafts ought to be multiplied and protrafted ; 
 ' that fecond marriages were unbecoming in per- 
 fons profefling the religion of Chrift ; that the 
 church ought not to extend its pardon to perfons 
 guilty of the more grievous fms ; that all deco- 
 ration of the body ought to be difregarded ; 
 that for women to array themfelves in coftly at- 
 tire was repugnant to the injunctions of the 
 apoflles Paul and Peter ; that the ftudy of letters 
 and philofophy tended rather to injure than pro- 
 mote the caufe of religion and piety ; that vir- 
 gins ought to wear veils, left they might awaken 
 impure defires in perfons beholding them, that 
 it was not allowable for Chriftians in times of 
 perfecution to betray any thing like timidity, or to 
 adopt a prudential line of condud ; and, con- 
 fequently, that it was incompatible with genuine 
 Chriftian fortitude for perfons, at fuch feafons, 
 to endeavour to fave themfelves by flight, to 
 redeem their lives by money, or to hold their 
 meetings for the purpofes of worfliip by ftealth 
 or in a private manner. Neither was any fort 
 of ftigma confidered as attaching itfelf to thofe 
 who defended fuch opinions, nor does it appear 
 that they were on that account deemed the lefs 
 worthy of being continued in communion with 
 the faithful : indeed by many they were even 
 highly commended, and by others were looked 
 upon with an increafed degree of refpedt and 
 veneration (i6). Notwithftanding, however, that 
 
 the 
 
 quences. The error, however, was in kfelf of the moft 
 grievous nature, and the accufers of Montanus appear to 
 have well underftood its enormity, a circumitance that muft. 
 be allowed fully to juftify their feverity. 
 
 {h ) Montanus aflertcd that it was the defign of the Hely 
 Spirit or Paraclete, through his means, to render perfeft 
 the fyftem of moral difcipline which Chrift bad left incom. 
 
 plete^ 
 
of the Second Century, 
 
 the fhades of difference between the doftrine of 
 Montanus and that of other Chriflians as to mod 
 
 points The errors 
 of MoBta- 
 
 plete. The improvements, however, which he fuggefted as 
 neceffary to be made in the Chriftian code, had not any di- 
 redl or immediate relation to the amendment of the inte- 
 rior man, or the furtherance of real and fubftantial piety, but 
 primarily had refpeft merely to the reclaiming of Chriflians 
 to a greater degree of ftriftnefs and gravity in their external 
 demeanour. The moll material of his precepts I have enu- 
 merated above ; of which, however, ft may not be improper 
 to remark there are three, namely, thofe refpefting the ne« 
 gledl of drtfs, the impropriety of female ornaments, and a 
 contempt for letters and philofophy, which are not exprefsly 
 attributed to Montanus by ancient writers, but which, inaf- 
 much as they are warmly contended for by Tertullian, the 
 mbft diilinguifhed of his followers, might, 1 thought, with 
 every degree of probabihty, be reckoned amongft the num- 
 ber of his inftitutes. The reft are indifputably his. In the 
 firft place then, he wifhed to introduce amongft Chriftians a 
 greater frequency of fafting than had been cuftomary. 
 Other Chriflians, for inftance, had contented themfelves 
 with celebrating only one folemn faft in the year, namely, 
 the Antepafchal one ; but Montanus enjoined his followers 
 to obferve two additional weeks, with the exception of the 
 Saturdays and Sundays, as feafons of abftinence, that is, not 
 abfolutely to decline at fuch times taking any fuftenance at 
 all, but to content themfelves with food of an arid, meagre 
 nature, and to drink nothing therewith but water. The 
 manner in which thefe additional yearly fafts, each o{ which 
 confifted of five days, were obferved, occafioned them to be 
 termed Xerophagia. Montanus was alfo an advocate for 
 the multiplication of private fafts : he did not however fix 
 thefe at any particular number, but left every one at 
 liberty to confult his own inclination, contenting himfelf 
 with merely inculcating, in a general way, that frequent 
 fafting was of wonderful efficacy in appeafing the Deity, 
 as well as in healirg the mind, and fortifying it againft 
 thofe evils to which Chriftians muil of neceffity be ex- 
 pofed. A more rigid celebration of thofe fafts which 
 they obferved in common with other Chriftians waslikewife 
 enjoined by this herefiarch to his followers. For whereas the 
 Chriftians in general were accuftomed, during the grand 
 yearly antepafchal faft, to take fome fort of refrefhment after 
 luDfet, MoQtaaus ordained that thofe of hi» fed Ihould pur- 
 
 fue 
 
346 The Eccleftajlkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, pomts were but trifling, very fufficient caufe ex- 
 "^ ifted for expelling him from all communion with 
 
 the 
 
 fue a different mode, and not only at this feafon, but alfo 
 during any private fafts which they might think fit to impofe 
 on themfelves, retire to reft fupperlefs. The weekly fafts 
 that were obferved by the Chriftiansof thofe times, vi%. the 
 fourth & fixth days, or as we term them Wedaefdays and 
 Fridays, were commonly confidered as terminating at the 
 ninth hour, or according to modern computation, at three 
 o'clock in the afternoon ; but Montanus would not allow of 
 their being brought to fuch an early conclufion, and infifted 
 on it that they Thould be prolonged until the evening. Of 
 fecond marriages, which were confidered by this herefiarch 
 as unlawful, I fay nothing. That St. Paul had given his 
 fanftion to them he did not pretend to deny, but contended 
 that the Paraclete had, through him, revoked the licenfe 
 that had been granted by the apoftle. Againft Chriftians 
 guilty of any of the more grievous fins, fuch as adultery, 
 murder, and idolatry, equal feverity was not exercifed by all 
 the churches. By moft of them pardon was ufually granted 
 for the firft offence to adulterers, but murderers and idolaters 
 were always irrevocably excommunicated. Montanus, how- 
 ever, afferted it to be the command of the Holy Spirit, that 
 perfons polluted by either of the three enormous fins above 
 mentioned ftiould be expelled from the church abfolutely, 
 without any hope of return. Of the hope of obtaining for- 
 givenefs from God he did not pretend to deprive thofe peo- 
 ple, but he infifted on it that the church ought,, on no ac- 
 count, to be reconciled to them, left in fo doing its clemency 
 might encourage a difpofition to fin. In moft churches it 
 was cuftomary for the widows and wives to go veiled ; not 
 fo the virgins. Montanus enjoined that thefe latter alfo 
 ftould wear veils. In times of perfecution it had been not 
 unufual for Chriftians either to redeem their lives of the 
 Heathen magiftrates with money, or, if they deemed this 
 not juftifiable, to confult their fafety by flight. Againft 
 reforting to either of thofe expedients Montanus protefted 
 in the ftrongeft terms, and exhorted the followers of Chrilt 
 not to be put to flight by the threats of their enemies, but 
 to meet them manfully and with difdain. Montanus, how- 
 ever, is not to be confidered as the firft author of thefe va- 
 rious precepts, but rather as having enforced what had been 
 originally propounded by others. For as the early Chrif- 
 tians differed in opinion as to many other things, fo likewife 
 
of the Second Century, 347 
 
 the faithful. For thofe things which had been cent. 
 merely propounded by others in a fpirit of meek- . _"' ^ 
 
 nefs T^^ errors 
 of Monta- 
 nus. 
 were they far from being agreed as to the external fer- 
 vices that were to be rendered to the Deity ; and in the 
 fecond century there exifted, if it may be permitted us fo to 
 fpeak, two moral fyftems, whereof the more moderate and 
 lenient one permitted Chriftians to follow the ordinary 
 courfeof life in as far as it was not repugnant to or militated 
 againft the divine commands ; hut the more rigid and fevere 
 one fought not only to feparate the fcllowers of Chrift from 
 the reil of mankind in their manners, their garments, their dif- 
 courfe, and the whole regimen of their lives, but alfo to im- 
 pofe on them many more burthens, and to involve them in 
 greater difficulties and dangers than were attached to the com- 
 mands either of our blelTed Lord or his apoftles. With the ex- 
 ception of a very few things, the latter of thefe fyftems may 
 be faid to have worn almoft the fame afpeft with that which 
 was inculcated by Montanus and his affociates. The Chrif- 
 tians therefore, it appears, took no exceptions to the pre- 
 cepts of Montanus, nor could they, with the leaft propriety, 
 have done fo ; for they not only tolerated principles fimilar 
 to his in others, but even highly commended them. But 
 this they could by no means bring themfelves to bear with, 
 that an individual fhould take upon him to pronounce thofe 
 things to be of the firft neceffity, which were by others 
 deemed merely good and ufeful ; and to obtrude on the 
 brethren his own opinions as new commands of the Holy 
 Spirit fupplementavy to the fyftem of morals promulgated 
 by Chrift : whence it inevitably followed that all who would 
 not adopt them fhould be regarded as contemners of the 
 Holy Spirit. All the regulations which Montanus was de- 
 firous of introducing amongft the Chriftians are manifeftly 
 in themfelves of a light and trifling kind j but in his opinion 
 they were excellent and of the laft importance, in faft, every 
 way worthy of being propounded to the human race as 
 coming direAly from the Holy Spirit himfelf. The lefs, 
 however, the dignity attached to commands which any one 
 may be willing to have us receive as didlated by the Holy 
 Ghoft, the greater the crime of him who would impofe on 
 the brethren fuch minute and trifling obfervances. Tertullian, 
 indeed, in fome places feems to exprefshimfelf as if Montanus 
 did not confider his preceptsaspoffefledof any virtue or effica- 
 cy in the attainment of fdivation, and regarded the communi- 
 
 cationa 
 
The Eccleftqftkal Hi/iory 
 
 nefs and without any detriment to chriftian har. 
 mony and liberty, were arrogantly brought for- 
 ward by him as oracles dictated by the Holy Spirit, 
 for the benefit of the univerfal church j whence 
 it neceffarily followed, that he muft have regarded 
 all thofe who refufed to place implicit confidence 
 in him and his female affociates, as contemners 
 of the Holy Spirit, and confidered himfelf and 
 his followers as conftituting the only true church. 
 This one circumftance of itfelf, without doubt, vir- 
 
 cations made by the Holy Spirit to mankind through him, in 
 the light rather of admonition and advice than of laws and 
 commands : but he does this only in places where he is feek- 
 ing to throw all the blame of diffenfion and difcord on his ad- 
 verfaries, or endeavouring to gain patrons and friends for him- 
 felf and his affociales. In others, where he affumes the cha- 
 rafter of the difputant, and undertakes the defence of Mon- 
 tanus, he, in no very obfcure terms, intimates, that thofe 
 who refufed to comply with the injunftions of his preceptor, 
 or rather of the Paraclete fpeaking through his preceptor, 
 deprived themfelves of very material afliftance in obtaining 
 everlafting falvation. And that the genuine fentiments of 
 Montanus are given us in thefe laft mentioned paffages, is 
 placed beyond a doubt by numerous teftimonies. By way 
 of (hewing that I do not ftate this without fome fort of 
 foundation, 1 will adduce one paffagc in which he evidently 
 holds out that by means of fails expiation might be made 
 for that fin of our firft parents, which hath contaminated 
 all their pofterity, than which it is fcarcely pofllble to de- 
 vife any thing more foreign to the principles and fpirit of 
 Chriftianity. Porro, fays he, (in Lib. de Jejuniis, cap. iii. 
 p. 705. edit. Rigalt.) cum iff ipfe jejunium mandet - ' quit 
 jam dubitabit omnium erga viSum macerationum hanc fuiffe ra~ 
 tionem, qua rurfus interdiSo cibo Iff obfervato praceptOi pfi' 
 mordiale jam deliHum expiaretur, ut homo per eamdem mate- 
 riam cau/a Deo fatisfaciat, per quam offenderat, id ejl per 
 tibi interdiSionem, atque ita falutem amulo mode re-accende- 
 ret inedia, Jicut extinxerat fagina, pro unico illiciio plura li- 
 cita contemnens. In faft, TertuUian is not fufficiently con- 
 fiftent with himfelf, but, as is not uncommon with perfons 
 poffefling a genius above controul, inclines at this time one 
 way, and at that time another, according to circumflances. 
 
 tually 
 
of the Second Century, 349 
 
 tuallyfeparatedhimfromthechurch,andampIyjiif- cent. 
 tified the Catholic Chriftians in refufing any longer ^_ "• ^ 
 to hold communion with him and his alTociatesf;]. The erron 
 
 Jq ofMon- 
 tanos. 
 
 f/]. The opinions of the age in wliich he lived would not 
 allow of its being imputed to Montanus as a crime, that he 
 affumed the charafter of a prophet, A perfuafion continued 
 to prevail amongft the Chriftians of thofe times, that the 
 fpirit of prophecy had not become altogether extinft, and 
 there were then in exiftence divers perfons who were recog- 
 nized by the Chriftians under the charafter of divine le- 
 gates. What produced the feparation between Montanus 
 and the Catholic Chriftians was, that thefe latter felt af- 
 fured within themfelves by certain arguments and reafons, 
 that he was not commiflioned of God, but of the Devil. 
 This opinion of theirs was grounded chiefly on the three 
 following confiderations. 1. That his prophetic efFufiona 
 were delivered in an ecftafy, that is, as I conceive, he pro- 
 feffed himfelf to utter thefe commands of the moft High 
 under the influence of an irrefiftible impulfe, without being 
 in the leaft degree confcious himfelf of what it was he faid. 
 
 2. That he introduced the Deity himfelf as fpeaking. 
 
 3. That he promulgated, as coming immediately from God, 
 laws that were partly new, and no where to be met with 
 in the facred writings, and in part contradi6tory to the in- 
 ftitutions of Chrift and his apoftles. Of thefe arguments, 
 the two former ones might, unlefs I am much miftaken, 
 be confuted and completely gotten rid of, but the laft is of 
 the greateft weight, and can by no means be overthrown, 
 although TertuUian with a zeal that may well excite our 
 pity, labours ftrongly in diminifhing its force. Novitatem 
 igitur, fays he, (in Lib. de Jejunlls, cap. i. p. 701.) ob- 
 jeSant de cujus inlicito prafcribant : aut hgrefim judicandanit 
 Ji humana prefumpUo efl, aut pfeudo-prophetiam pronun- 
 tiandam, Jifpiritualls indidio eft. - - - Certe in Evangelio illos 
 dies jejuniis determinatot putant, in quibus ablatus ejl fponfus, 
 fcf has ejfe jam foloi legitimos jejuniorum Chrijlianorumy abo- 
 litii legalibus et propheticit vetujatibus. - - - Dtfferenter je- 
 junandum ex arbitrio, non ex imperio nova difciplina, pro 
 temporibus et caujfis uniufcujufque. • - Sic Sff Apojlolos ob- 
 fervajfe^ l^c. To which add what is faid by him in his book 
 
 de Monogamia,CA]p.i. p. 673. where he clearly intimates it to 
 be a point in difpute between the Catholics and Montanifts; 
 ^n capiat Paracletum aliquid tale docuiffey quod aut novum 
 deputeri pojjit adverfut CathoUcam traditionem, aut onerofum 
 
 adver/ut 
 
The Ecclefiajiical Hi/iory 
 
 In the prophecies moreover which were uttered 
 by this herefiarch and his female companions 
 
 there 
 
 adverfus kvem farcinam Domini, No one furely, let him 
 boaft what he may of being commiflioned of God to pro- 
 mulgate a more holy and perfeft fyftem of moral difcipline 
 than was prefcribed by our bleffed Saviour and his apoftles, 
 unlefs he at the fame time bring forward fomething that 
 may aflifb our faith, or contribute towards the further puri- 
 fication of our minds, can have the leaft pretenfions to be 
 ranked amongft the number of divinely-infpired teachers or 
 prophets. By the adverfaries of Montanus, indeed, fome- 
 what more has been built upon this argument than can, in 
 point of fairnefs, be deduced from it, for it certainly by no 
 means warranted the conclufion that Montanus was infpired 
 of the Devil. The argument icfelf, however, is in no de- 
 gree afFefted by this error, but was poffeffed of the fame 
 force in that age as it has at prefent. Montanus on the 
 other hand mofl ftrenuouHy contended, that the Deity him- 
 felf, or the Paraclete, fpake through him, and was loud in 
 his reproach of all thofe who refufed him their fupport. 
 The only true church, he afferted, confifted of himfelf and 
 his followers ; the reft were, without exception, condemned 
 by him as fpurious. An ancient writer, cited by Eufebius 
 {Hijlor. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. xvi. p. i8i ), fays, Wv ^\ >ta9oX» 
 X«t Trao-av T>5V vto tov H^a,-io-i E>c>tX»)(7t«v bAac"^>iju.?;» dteoi3-K.ovTOC Tfa 
 «7r«v^aJKr|bi.Evy TrvEW/xaTOf, ct* ju.«'te T*/Ar^ ^rfvi Tra^o^oy £»,- «vT»Jr 
 To f EuJoTT^oi^JiTiJcdv lXcc,[/.Sxvi 7rv£U,u«. Univerfam vero, qua 
 per orbetn terrarum fparfa ejly ecchjiam, idem ille arrogan- 
 tyjimus fpiritus malediais appetere eos doc eh at, eo quod net 
 honor em nee aditum ullum ad ipfam pfeudo-propheticus fpi- 
 ritus aperiret. And beyond all doubt this ftatement i% 
 entitled to the higheft credit, for unlefs Montanus would 
 have been inconfillent with himfelf, it was neceffary for 
 him boldly to affert that all fuch churches as oppofed 
 him were at enmity with the Holy Spirit, and alienated 
 from God. Themifon, in like manner, who ranks not as 
 the laft of his adherents, is charged by ApoUonius apud 
 Eufeb. 1. c. cap. xviii. p. 185. with having, in the ca- 
 tholic epiftle that he wrote, fpoken blafphemoufly of our 
 Lord and his apoftles, (wz. by aflerting that the moral 
 difcipline which they had inculcated was imperfedt), and 
 alfo of the holy church : BXaa-v3»?/x<T»)at ^e etr 70% JtiJ^iov ku,\ t«V 
 ArocoXm KUi Tr)\ dy'Kx.v licxXncrjav. Hence Montanus (as is 
 ^fo iatimated by ApoUonius apud Eufeb, 1. c. cap. xviii. 
 9 P- 184. 
 
of the Second Century. 351 
 
 there was a tone which might well induce the cent. 
 Chriftians at large to avoid maintaining any fort of }^' 
 
 interCOUrfe The error, 
 of Mon- 
 p. 184. and confirmed by the teftimony of other authors), ^*"'^* 
 was led to give Pepuza and Tymium, the two little towns 
 of Phrygia, where he and his aflbciates refided, the title of 
 Jerufalem, /. e. the only true church, with a view to gather 
 together there men from all parts. Tertullian is not at all 
 more mild or lenient than thefe, although, as I have above 
 noticed, he occafionally feems defirous of paving the way 
 towards an accommodation ; for he takes every opportu- 
 nity of loading all fuch Chriftians as differed from Mon- 
 tanus, with contumely, and conftantly applies to them the 
 title Pfychici, /. e. men deftitute of the Holy Spirit ; 
 whilft he terms thofe who fided with that herefiarch, Spi- 
 rituales, and the only Holy. Penes nos autem., fays he, in 
 lib. de Monogamia, cap. i. p. 673. quos fplritales mer'ito did 
 facit agnitio fpiritalium char'tfmatumy continent'ta tarn religiofa 
 efl. - - - Sed Pfychicls non recipientibus fpiritum ea qua funt 
 fplritus non placent. What need I add that in his book de 
 Pudicitia, cap. xxi. p. 744, he, without the leaft circumlo- 
 cution denies any church in oppofition to Montanus to be 
 the true one ? Quid nunc SsC ad ecclejiam ^ff quidem tuam 
 P/ychice ? - ' - Ecclefta proprie ^ principaliter ipfe ejl fplritus^ 
 in quo eft Trinitas unius Divinitatis, Pater iff F'dius £5* Spiritus 
 SanSus. (where we may obferve by the bye, the grounds 
 on which Montanus and his followers came to be charged 
 with Sabellianifm. For Tertullian fpeaks as if he believed 
 all the three perfons of the divine nature to be only that one 
 which animated Montanus. Et idea ecclefta quidem deliffa 
 condonabity fed ecclefta fpiritus (/'. e. of Montanus), per fpi* 
 titalem hominem^ non ecclefta numerus epifcoporum. From 
 what we have thus adduced it is manifeft, that inftead of 
 the Catholic Chriftians expelling Montanus from the church, 
 the feparation rather originated with him, and that he with- 
 drew himfelf from a church that he could not confider as 
 the true fpoufe of Chrift. And indeed the Montanifts 
 themfelves confeffed that the origin of the divifion was 
 not to be imputed to the Catholic Chriftians, but that 
 they themfelves firft feceded, refufing any longer to hold 
 communion with what Tertullian terms Pfychica et car- 
 nalii ecclefta. Epiphanius jfiTtfr^. xlviii. cap. xii. p. 413, 
 "KiyacTi ^lot, x^P*""/^*"^* afffiavat rnj tx)cXna-iaf. JaElant fe 
 •h calejlia dona (t. e. the Prophecies of Montanus which 
 the Catholic Chriftians rejeded) ab ecclefta difcejije. 
 
 And 
 
352 The Ecclefiajilcal Hiftory 
 
 intercourfe with him ; for fince he announced the 
 
 _ moft difaftrous fortunes as awaiting the human 
 
 Theereorsof lacc, there was certainly reafon to apprehend that 
 Montanus. (j^g Chriflians, if they continued in aflbciation with 
 
 him might come to be regarded as enemies to the 
 
 commonweakh [k~\. 
 
 LXVDI. Amongft 
 
 And the fame author twice recognizes this as a true repre- 
 fentation of the cafe in the introduftion to his hiftory of this 
 fcA, remarking, in cap. i. p. 402, 403, that the Man* 
 tanifts feparated themfelves (c^Vso-ji^io-a* ^l eosutsV), from the 
 church ; and a little while after that E|fC»<r«v ex ruv dyluvf 
 they withdrew themfelves from the fold of the faints. All 
 fort of communion being renounced, and war publicly 
 declared, by Montanus, againft the church, the bifhops of 
 Afia retaliated by difclaiming, in folemn convocation, all 
 further connexion with a man whofe hoftility to the church 
 was, by his own declaration, thus placed beyond a queftion. 
 And to what other conclufion, I pray, could this affair have 
 led ? Between a man who, profeffing himfelf to be a legate 
 of the moft High, declares war againft all fuch as may 
 venture to call in queftion his commiflion, and thnfe who 
 not only call in queftion fuch his commiflion, but alfo think 
 themfelves juftified in regarding that man as a falfe prophet, 
 and one of the agents of the devil, what fort of communion, 
 cither of offices or religion, can, for a moment, poffibly be 
 maintained ? I have entered the more fully into this fubjeft 
 for the purpofe of (hewing what a wrong eltimate, re- 
 fpe6cing the fchifm of Montanus, has been formed by fuch 
 of the learned as attribute the whole blame of difcord and 
 divifion, on this occafion, to the Catholic Chriftians. That 
 the conduA of ihefe latter was in no degree reprehenfible is 
 what I do not take upon me to alTert ; but this much, 
 certainly, is apparent, that Montanus originated the quarrel, 
 and that the Catholic Chriftians had abundant caufe for 
 condemning a man who had not only imbibed the moft 
 pernicious opinions, but had alfo been the author of a fchifm 
 or feparation in the church. 
 
 [if] At the time when Montanus prophefied, namely, 
 under the reign of the emperor Marcus AureHus the phi- 
 lofopher, the affairs of the Chriftians were every where, 
 a6 we have above ftiewn, involved in the utmoft peril. It 
 became, therefore, a matter of the very firft importance to 
 them to be ftri^ly on their guard, left, in any thing which 
 
 they 
 
of the Second Century. 3 j;^ 
 
 LX VIII, Amongfl the adverfarles of Montanus cent, 
 none held a more diftinguifhed place than Praxeas, ,^ "Vj 
 
 a man p^xcas. 
 
 they might fay, teach, or do, they might lay themfelves 
 open to mifreprefentation, or furnifh the Romans with any 
 pretext for accufation or complaint. But that imprudent, 
 or rather infane man, Montanus, predidled, witliout referve, 
 a variety of things in the higheft degree obnoxious to the 
 Romans ; fuch, for inftance, as the overthrow of their 
 city and empire ; the deftruftion that awaited the world ; 
 wars, plagues, and calamities of dive-s kinds, that might 
 fpeedily be expefted, as well as the tremendous advent of 
 Antichrift ; concerning which things, whoever dared to utter 
 any prophecies, were always conlidered by the Romans as 
 enemies to the ftate, and confequently made to undergo 
 capital punifhment. Tertullian, in his apology for Mon- 
 tanus, a work that unfortunately has perifhed, reduces the 
 whole matter in difpute between his mafter and other Chrif- 
 tians under two general heads, namely, " fecond marriages," 
 and '* the future judgment." His words are preferved in 
 the ancient work edited by J. Sirmond, Paris, 1645', ^^°' 
 that goes under the title of Pradejlinatus, lib. i. cap. xxv. 
 p. 30. Hoc folum difcrepamus, quod ftcundas nuptias non 
 rec'tp'imusy et prophet'iam Montani de futuro judicio non 
 recufamus. It is to be obferved that TertuUian here makes 
 light of the controverfy between Montanus and the church, 
 as was cuftomary with him whenever he conceived that 
 it might tend to promote his purpofe ; but on this we (hall 
 not ftay at prefent to make any remark. All that we 
 would wifli to imprefs on the reader's attention is, that it 
 is clear from thefe words that Montanus had,amongft other 
 things, predicted fomewhat refpefting a future judgment, 
 and that this prophecy of his was held moft facred, and 
 had more than ordinary weight attached to it by his fol- 
 lowers ; but that it was marked with the moft decided 
 difapprobation by the catholic Chriftians. It would be 
 idle in any one to pretend to refer this prediftion to the 
 laft general judgment of the world and the human race ; for 
 as to this there was the moft perfeft accordance between 
 Montanus and all other Chriftians. Indeed it was impof- 
 fible that the Chriftians (hould make it a matter of ac- 
 cufation againft Montanus, that he predidled the near ap- 
 proach of the laft judgment ; for it was at that time a 
 point of common belief with the whole church, that the 
 final confummalion of all things was at hand. We are 
 VOL. n. A A bound 
 
354 The Ecdefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, a man of no mean reputation in the church, in- 
 . - " -- _j afmuch as he had, on an occafion that involved 
 
 Praxeas. ^^^ 
 
 bound to conclude, therefore, that Montanus predifted 
 the approach of fome particular judgment {i. e. fome 
 calamities and evils not far remote) of which the Chriftians 
 knew that they eould not join with him in prophefying 
 without involving themfelves in the utmoft peril. But 
 what elfe could this be than the judgment that awaited 
 the Roman empire ? The temerity of this man, unlefs I am 
 altogether deceived, was fuch, that he announced the moft 
 fignal punifliments as about to fall on the Romans, the 
 enemies of the Chriftian faith, and predifted, at no very 
 diftant period, the final overthrow of the whole empire. 
 That other Chriftians, as to this, entertained a belief fimilar 
 to his, namely, that our bleffed Saviour would fpeedily 
 avenge the blood of his flaughtered fervants on the Ro- 
 mans, and overturn their government, is what I very well 
 know. But of this their belief they made a fecret, referring 
 it to the D'tfclplhia Arcan'i., or that kind of knowledge which 
 it vi^as deemed expedient to cherifh in filence, and en- 
 truft only to a few of approved ftability and faith, inafmuch 
 as they were well cfTured that any difclofure or promul- 
 gation of it could not be made without expofmg their 
 fortunes to the utmoft jeopardy and hazard. And in this 
 place I will content myfelf with referring merely to thofe 
 prophecies refpedling the dreadful calamities which awaited 
 • the Roman empire, that are fet down as received from the 
 mouths of the Chriilians by the author of Philopatrh 
 (a work commonly afcribed to Lucian) : \\d. Luciani Opera, 
 tom. iii. p. 613 & feq. edit. Rcizian. Hence we are fur- 
 niftied with an eafy interpretation of the words of an an- 
 cient writer cited by Eufebius, Hi/f. EcckJ. Hb. v. cap. xvi. 
 p. 180, and of which the learned have hitherto confefted 
 themfelves utterly unable to elicit the meaning. He 
 fays that Montanus foretold things that were to come, 
 icc/.^J: TO JCKTo) •JTU^dir.atv Koci ■/.oi.tci oM^x^v avwStn T^i- Ix.nXna-t'Xi, 
 'iBor, prater morem aique inji'ttutuin Ecclefia a majorihus 
 traditum et conthiua deinctps Jucccjfione propagatum ; which 
 is as much as to fay that it was the ancient and invariable 
 ufage of the church caulioufly to abftain from divulging 
 or making public mention of any tenets or prophecies that 
 might tend to excite animofity againft the Chriftians, or 
 bring them into danger ; fuch, for inftance, as thofe which 
 refpefted the coming of Antichrift, the overthrow of the 
 
 Roman 
 
of the Second Century, q^SS 
 
 his life in the utmofi; peril, manfully avowed his cent. 
 faith in Chrift before a heathen tribunal, and ^^■ 
 on the fame account undergone an imprifoninent p,^^„ 
 of no inconfiderable duration [/]. Having at a 
 
 fubfequent 
 
 Roman empire, or any other impending evils or calamities. 
 But Montanus broke through this cuftom, and proclaimed 
 to the world what had never before been communicated to 
 any except contidential ears. And in this moft hazardous 
 line of condu£l the females, who had efpoufed the caufe of 
 Montanus, fhould teem to have been by no means backward ^ 
 
 in following the example of theii mafter ; for Maximilla 
 predifted TroX-'^y^- xai cc-Kwva-.xTUiT, " wars and tumults" as 
 awaiting the Roman empire (Eufeb. 1. c. p. 182), and that, 
 after her death, no more piophetefTes would arife, but 
 people might look for o-uvt/xux t5 iilniT " the confum- 
 mation of all things." Thefe prophecies, fuppofmg that 
 nothing elfe offenfive or objettionable had been brought 
 forward by Montanus and his aflbciates, muft furely, 
 of themfelves, have juftified all fuch Chriftians a« had 
 the welfare of the church at heart, in excluding thefe 
 bold and incautious men from their fociety. The fed of 
 the Montanifts, as they themfelves boaft, and the ancient 
 fathers do not pretend to deny, abounded in martyrs. It 
 fhould feem, however, not at all improbable, that moft of 
 thefe might have fallen martyrs to their own imprudence 
 and temerity, rather than in the caufe of Chrift, and been 
 put to death by the Roman magiftrates as confpirators 
 againft the commonwealth. 
 
 [/] For whatever can, with any degree of certainty, be 
 offered in the way of hiftory refpefting Praxeas, we are of 
 neceflity indebted wholly to the treatife written in con- 
 futation of his do£trine by TertuUian, a work by no means 
 deficient either in learning or addrefs, but obfcure in the 
 extreme, and vehement beyond all meafure ; a work, in 
 faft, written by a man who was an enemy, not only to the 
 Praxean doftrine, but alfo to the author of tliat dodlrine, 
 inafmuch as he had been the chief inftrument in prevailing 
 on the bifhop of Rome, who had at firft lent a favourable 
 ear to Montanus and his prophecies, and whom learned men 
 conceive to have been Vi£lor, to change fides, and go over 
 to his adverfaries. This offence againft his mafter kindled 
 fuch wrath in the bofom of TertuUian, that he fets no 
 bounds whatever to his reprehenfion, and occafionally breaks 
 out JHto an abufive ftrain, altogether unbecoming the 
 A A a Chriftjan . 
 
2^6 The Ecclefiajikal Hi/iory 
 
 fubfequent period, however, been led to engage 
 zealoufly in the tafe of combating the erroneous 
 Praseas. dodrines of others, he unfortunately fell into an 
 error himfelf refpeding the Divine Nature and 
 the Saviour of the human race, not at all lefs 
 grievous than thofe with which he had undertaken 
 to contend ; for by means of various arguments, 
 fupported by palTages drawn from the holy fcrip- 
 tures, he endeavoured to do away all diflinftion 
 between the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, and maintained that it was not fome one 
 divine Perfon, but the Father, the fole Creator 
 of all things, that united himfelf with human 
 
 Chriftian cliarafter. In contemplatinpc the nature of 
 Praxeas's error, I have been led to fufpeft, and I think 
 not without reafon, that fuch error might have had ite 
 origin in his hoftihty to Montanus. Montanus, as appears 
 from TertulHan, had, in his oracles, treated of the dogma 
 of the exiftence of three perfons in the divine nature, and 
 ttudioufly inculcated a true and real diftinftion between the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Vid. TertuUian 
 contra Praxeam^ c. xiii. p. 644. Nos, fays he, jnaxime Para- 
 clet't, non hominum difcipuli, dnoi quidem dejitiimus, Patrem et 
 F'dium, et j-am tres cum Spiritu SanSo, fecundum rationem 
 aconomits, quit facit numerum. And in the fame book, 
 cap. ii. p. 635, TertuUian avows himfelf, by means of the 
 Paraclete (i. e. Montanus), whom he terms deduElor omn'is 
 'veritatisi to have been better inftrufted in the dogma refpecS- 
 ing God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; that is, 
 he had received from the mouth of the Paraclete a fuller 
 and clearer knowledge of that dogma. Praxeas, then, the 
 decided opponent of Montanus as to moll other things, 
 being in all probability determined to have nothing what- 
 ever in common with fuch a man, and expefling perhaps 
 that it might place his adverfary in a flill more invidious 
 light, came, as I fufpeft, to the refolution of refilling him 
 on this ground alfo, and, in onpofition to the dogma of 
 Montanus, recognizing a Trinity of Perfons in the God- 
 head, fent forth his own dogma aflerting the abfolute in- 
 dividuality of the Deity. An infinity of examples might 
 be adduced of men whom the very love of truth itfelf has 
 plunged into error. 
 
 nature 
 
t)f the Second Century* ^57 
 
 nature In the perfon of Chrift. Hence his fol- 
 lowers came to be termed Monarchians and Patri- 
 pajians[jn~]. Being deteded in this error, and ^xTa7 
 
 publicly 
 
 [;«] TertuUian's book againft Praxeas is unqaeftionably 
 of a very fufficient length, but at the fame time it is not 
 fo exphcit as to bring us thoroughly acquainted with the 
 opinions of the man whom it is its objeA to confute. Of 
 tliis indeed it leaves us in no doubt, that Praxeas denied a 
 diftinflion of perfons in the Divine Nature, we mean, any 
 real dillin'^ion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, and contended for what is termed by Tertullian 
 the Monarchy of God. In faA, it fhould feem that he 
 confidered thofe who recognized any real diftinftion be- 
 tween the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as main- 
 tainino- the exiftence of three Gods. After what manner, 
 however, Praxeas expounded thofe pafTages of Scripture 
 which relate to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and con- 
 trived to make them accord with his tenets, is far from 
 being equally perfpicuous. From certain pafTages in Ter- 
 tuUian's work, it ihould feem to have been the opinion of 
 this herefiarch, that, by the terms Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, tliree modes of exiftence, as well as agency of the 
 Divine Nature, were indicated, and that the Deity, when 
 exifting and operating in Chrift, after a new and unac- 
 cuftomed manner, alTumed the title of Son, but that, when 
 refidino- and afting in holy and pious perfons, it was his will 
 to be "denominated the Holy Spirit. Pojl tempus, fays 
 Tertullian, when fpeaking the fentiments of his adverfary, 
 cap. ii. p. 634. pater natus et pater pajfus ; ipfe Deusy Do- 
 minus omn'ipotens, Jefus Chrljlus pradicatur. And fhortly 
 after, cap. iii. p>635. Unlcutn Deumnon alias putat creden- 
 dum, quam fi ipfum, eumdemque et Patrem et Filium et 
 Spiritum Sativum dicat. - - - . Numerum et difpofitionem 
 Trinitatis divifionem prafumunt Trinitatis. - - - Itaque duos 
 et tres jam jaditant a nobis pradicariy fe vero unius Dei 
 cullores prefumunt, quafi non et unitas irrationaliter colkaa, 
 herefim faciaty et Trinitas rationaliter expenfa •veritatem 
 tonjlituat. Monarchiam (inquiunt) tenemus. cap. v. p. 637, 
 But to pafs on to more explicit proofs, in chap, x, p. 680. 
 Tertullian thus expreffes the fentiments of the Monarchians : 
 Neque Pater idem et Filius ut Jint ambo unus et utrumque 
 alter, quod vaniffimi i/li Monarchiam volunt. Ipfefe, inquiunt^ 
 Filium Jibi fecit. Indeed, that there was nothing repugnant 
 or abfurd in this opinion, they pretended to demonftrate by 
 A A 3 the 
 
358 The Ecclefiajlical Hijiory 
 
 CENT, publicly accufed thereof at Rome, he put on the 
 
 J^-_ , appearance of conceffion, and, in a recantation 
 
 which 
 
 Praxeas, 
 
 the example of a virgin's bringing forth without having 
 knov/n man. Ergo, inquinrif, diffic'dc non fu'it Deo, ipfum 
 fe et Palrem et F'tlium facere, adverfus trad'iiam formam 
 rebus hunianis. Nam et Jlerilem parere contra naturam dif- 
 Jicile Deo non fuit, Jicut nee •v'lrginem. Now thefe things, 
 unlefs 1 am ahogether deceived, can be undcrftood after 
 no other manner thrin this : The Deity, who is, in the 
 ftriftcft fenfe of the word, One, put on, in fome fort a 
 different form, and affumed a different mode of exifling and 
 aCling, when, joining himlelf to Chrift, he took the name 
 of a Son, and, under that chara£ler, conveyed inftruftion 
 to the human race. Deus fecit fe fih'i Filium : for, being 
 poffeffed of infinite power, he can eafily vary his effence at 
 pleafure. The very paffages of the New Teftament, more- 
 over, by which Praxeas endeavoured to uphold his dogma, 
 feem to demonftrate that it ought to be expounded in the 
 way that I have pointed out. Sed, fays Tertullian, cap. xx. 
 p. 651. argument at tonibus eorum adhuc retundendis opera pra- 
 henda efl. - - - - Nam ficut in veteribus nihil aliud tenent 
 quam, ego Deus, et alius propter me non efl, ita in Evangelio 
 refponjionem Domini ad Philippum tuentur : ego et Pater 
 unum fumus ; et, qui me viderit, videt et Patrem : et ego in 
 Patre et Pater in me. His tribus capitulis totum injlru- 
 mentum utriufque teflamenti volunt cedere : which words, 
 whoever fliall adduce, by way of doing away all diftinftion 
 between the Father and the Son, muft neceflarily hold that 
 there is no difference whatever between the Father and the 
 Son, except the mode or form of exifting and adfing. But 
 this interpretation of the Praxean dogma is oppofed by 
 certain other paffages in Tertullian, wherein he exprefsly 
 intimates it to have been the opinion of his adverfary, that 
 the title of Son, as given to Chrifl, ought not to be confi- 
 dered as the name of the Deity rcfiding in Chrifl, but of his 
 human nature; that the Deity himfelf, who is termed the 
 Father, united to himfelf the Man Chrift ; and that this 
 fame Man was denominated the Son of God in confequence 
 of his having been begotten by the Deity of the Virgin 
 Mary ; a way of thinking not at all to be reconciled with 
 his having taught, that what was divine in Chrift was a 
 certain form or mode of the Divine Nature to which the 
 Deity gave the title of Son, by way of diftinguifliing it 
 from that other form or mode which is termed the Father. 
 
 Let 
 
of the Second Century. 35C^ 
 
 which he wrote and publifhed, profefled his en- cent. 
 
 tire acquiefcence in the catholic fentiments re- 
 
 fpeding 
 
 Let us hear Tertullian himfelf, cap. xxvii, p. 65'9. undique 
 ohduEli djJlin8ione Pattis et Filii (that is, borne down and 
 overwhchned by the word? of the facred volume, in v/hich 
 exprefs diftinftion is made between the Father and the 
 Son) quam, manente conjiinBione, difponimus ut folis et radiiy 
 et f otitis et Jluvli, per individuum tamen numerum duortim et 
 trium ; aliter earn ad fuam n'lJnhminus fententlam interpretari 
 conantur ut aque in una perfo7ia utrumque d'ljlinguant, Patrem 
 et Filium, dicentcs Filium cafnem ejff, id efl, Hom'inem, id eft ^ 
 Jefum ; Patrem autem Spiritum (meaning the foul, if I mif* 
 take not), id ejl, Deum, id ejl, Chrijlum. Et qui unum 
 enmdemque contendunt Patrem et Filium, jam incipiunt dividers 
 illos potius quam unare. Si enim alius eji Jefus, alius Chriftusy 
 alius erit Filius, alius Pater, quia Filius Je/iis, et Pater 
 Chrijlus. Talem Monarchiam apud Valentinum fortajjis 
 didicerunt, duos facere Jefum et Chrijlum. Agreeably to this 
 opinion, Praxeas maintained Patrem pajfum ejfe in Chrijlof 
 or, as he preferred expreflingr it, compajfum eJfe ctim Filiot 
 or, with the Man Jefus. Tertullian, cap. xxix. p. 662. 
 obferves, Frgo nee eompajjus ejl Pater Filio ; fic enim direSam. 
 blafphemiam in Patrem veriti, diminui earn hoc mode fperant, 
 concedentes jam Patrem isf Filium duos eJfe : Ji Filius quidem 
 patitur. Pater vera compatitur. Stulti £5° in hoc. Quid ejl 
 
 enim compati quam cum alio pati ? Times dicere pajjibilem 
 
 quern dicis compajftbilem. From which paffage, by the bye, 
 it is apparent how the followers of Praxeas came to be 
 termed Patripajftans, as alfo, that, by this appellation, no 
 fort of injury was done them, as certain of the learned have 
 fuppofed. Thofe who deny that the title of PatripafTians 
 could with propriety be afligned to them, do fo under the 
 impreflion that thefe people believed the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit to be three forms or modes of the divine na- 
 ture ; which, it is plain, muft be at the leaft very un- 
 certain, from what we have above remarked. In addition, 
 then, to thofe remarks, if this title be taken into the ac- 
 count, I think not a doubt can well be entertained but 
 that the latter of the two expofitions above given of the 
 Praxean dogma muft be the right one. We may, therefore, 
 confider Praxeas as having maintained, I. That the Deity 
 is in the ftrifteft fenfe an individual Being, altogether un- 
 compounded and indivifible. II. That this Being is in 
 holy writ termed the Father. III. That this fame in- 
 A A 4 dividual 
 
 II. 
 
 Praxeas. 
 
360 The Ecclefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, fpeding the Divine Nature. Upon paffing over 
 afterwards into Africa, however, he again flood 
 
 forth 
 
 II. 
 
 Praxeas. 
 
 dividual Being formed for himfelf a Son in the Man Jefus. 
 IV. That he coalefced, in one Perfon, with fuch Man, his 
 Son. V. That when this Man, his Son, fiifFered, he, the 
 Father, fuffered with him. VI. That whenever our Sa- 
 viour, therefore, is termed the Son of God, this title muft 
 be confidered as applying merely to his human nature. 
 What the opinion of Praxeas was refpefting the Holy 
 Spirit is no where exprefsly pointed out by Tertullian. 
 It may readily, however, be conceived, from the nature of 
 his difcipline, that he muft have regarded it as a fort of ray 
 or virtue of the Father, /. e. the Deity. Whether Ter- 
 tullian, moreover, who, as we have feen, gives two different 
 expofitions of the Praxean dogma, did not at the firft fuf- 
 ficiently comprehend its nature and force, and was too pre- 
 cipitate in applying to the Divine Nature the faying of 
 the Monarchians, Deus ipfe fefibi Fil'ium fecit : or whether 
 the Monarchians, upon finding themfelves driven, as it 
 were, into a corner by the multitude of pafTages in holy 
 writ, in which a clear diftinftion is made between the Fa- 
 ther and the Son, forfook their former opinion, and had 
 recourfe to that other which acquired for them the denomi- 
 nation of Patripalfians, muft of neceflity be left undetermined. 
 But now another queftion fuggefts itfelf. Since it is cer- 
 tain that Praxeas did not conlider the eternal Son of God, 
 or any mode of the Divine Nature under the name of a Son, 
 to have been refident in the Man Chrift, but believed the 
 whole Father, or the Deity, to have taken up his abode in 
 the Son of God, that is, in the Man formed by God, in 
 what way are we to underftand what he fays of the afTocia- 
 tion of the Father with the Man Jefus ? Did he, by the 
 title of the Father, mean to be underftood as defignating the 
 very Perfon of the Father or Deity, or merely a certain 
 power, or efficiency, as fome term it, of God the Father ? 
 Almoft every one leans to the former opinion, and I think 
 not without reafon, if any faith is to be placed in Ter- 
 tullian, who is the only author from whom any informa- 
 tion, 38 to this dogma of Praxeas, is to be derived in the 
 prefent day ; for, in a variety of pafTages, this writer re- 
 prefents his adverfary as having maintained that the Father 
 was born and fufFered on the crofs ; nay, he adduces the 
 Monarchians themfelves as in a certain degree acknow- 
 ledging this, inafmuch as they pronounced the Father to 
 
 have 
 
of the Second Century. 361 
 
 forth the avowed patron of the doftrine which ^ ^ ^ '^• 
 
 he had abjured at Rome, and fought and ob- 1 J. 1 
 
 tained rmea*, 
 
 have fufFered together with the Sen ; an idea, which, 
 if I am poffefled of the lead penetration, the followers of 
 Praxeas could never have entertained, had they imagined 
 that it was merely a certain power or virtue of the Father 
 that was prefent in the Son. For how could a certain 
 divine power or efficiency, communicated to the Son for a 
 time, have fufFered and been crucified with him ? Mich. Le 
 Quien, however, the learned editor of Damafcene's works, 
 would rather have us believe Pra\-erm cenfiajfe Domlnum 
 Jefum fola Dcltat'is efficieiitia imbtitiim ful/fe, non autem ejfe 
 perfonam Patris, qua: In De'itate ct humanitate fuhjl'it'ijjet ut 
 Pater proprte pajj'us et cruclfixus diceretur. Adnot. ad Da- 
 mafcen. Lib. de Harefihus, tom. i. p. 90. In fupport of 
 this interpretation, however, the learned writer adduces 
 nothing but that one paffage of Tertullian, cap. xxvii. 
 p. 659. juft above cited, in which he reprefents the Mo- 
 narchians as maintaining Patrem eJfe Sptritum Jefu, id efi, 
 Deum. But how, from this paffage, any thing like that 
 which he takes to be the true expofition of the Praxean 
 dogma is to be fupported, I muft; confefs myfelf utterly 
 at a lofs to comprehend. The learned Pet. Wefleling, 
 therefore, found but. little difficulty in overthrowing this 
 new interpretation of the Monarchian tenets, and upholding 
 the ancient one by numerous citations from Tertullian. 
 See his Probabilia, cap. xxvi. p. 223 & feq. Franeq 1731, 
 8vo. My own fentiments as to this matter are already given. 
 If Tertullian is deferving of attention, the dogma of the 
 Monarchians admits of no other interpretation than what 
 has commonly been given to it, and which the reader will 
 find fpecified above. I would be far, however, from dif- 
 fembling,. that it may be a matter of fome doubt how far 
 Tertulhan, whofe treatife againft Praxeas was obvioufly the 
 produftion of a mind, hoftile, perturbed, and boiling with 
 indignation, is to be relied upon for having given us an in- 
 genuous, ample, and faithful expofition of the opinions of 
 his adverfary. By accident I met with a notable pafTage in 
 Juflin Martyr, Dial, cum Try phone, p. 371, 372. edit. 
 Jebbian. in which he obferves, that amongft the Chriflians 
 of his time, there were fome who maintained that the 
 word of God, or the Son, was merely a certain power or 
 virtue of the Father, and which could in no wife be feparated 
 from the Father; as the light of the fun upon the earth is 
 
 not 
 
362 The Ecclefiajiical Hi/ion 
 
 tained many adherents from amongfl the people. 
 
 It does not, however, appear that he became the 
 
 parent of a particular fed. 
 
 Theodotus LXIX. Juft about the fame period, or feme 
 
 and {hort time before, the Catholic doctrine refpeft- 
 
 r emon. .^^ C\in{i and the exiftence of three perfons in 
 
 the divine nature was aflailed after a different 
 
 manner by one Theodotus, who had paffed over 
 
 to Rome from Conftantinople, and praftifed the 
 
 not to be difunited from that which fliines in the heavens ; 
 that fuch divine virtue had manifefted itfelf in many dif- 
 ferent ways, and hence had acquired a variety of names, 
 being fometimes termed an Angel, fometimes a Glory, at 
 other times a man, and, at others the Word ; that God 
 emitted this virtue at his will, and again at his will re- 
 called it : yn/(Ja-Ku 'vi-ioti <J)«o-<ce»v t^x ^vva,[xiv t«v 7ra^» tu ttxt^o; 
 ruv oXciiv ^avETcrav . - - - dyyiXov }ioc\i7<7^ai Iv tri ir^o; «v9«u7ra; 
 •K^oo'^u). Scio ejfe qui dicant virtutem a Patre rerum omnium 
 proven'tentevi, Angelum vocari cum ad homines progreditur : 
 oa^av Je ETTEtSi) h ipavrcca-loc <^a/vET«*. Gloriam 'ueroy cum in 
 •vtjione quadam exhihetur. av^^cx, Je ttotI kcci avSpt'Trov xaXcio-Sai 
 IvH^n h jjio^ipMC toiccvraic (palvtrcn. Virum autem et hominem no- 
 minari quando in formis ejufmodi (namely in the form of a 
 man^ or a human being) confpicitur. kccI "Koyov xa'Aho-iv, ETTEi^ri 
 x.xk TO.; T» TOiT^o? o//.iXta; <p='f Et to7; avS^wTOJi. Verbum appellari 
 earn quod patris fermones ad homines perferat. a.;^w'^is-ov liitocr^oi 
 raiiTViv Tm outocfj^tv i5Ta^;^£iv, ovttej t^o'ttov to rS 'Xm (fu><; Ivl y*?; 
 6tv#i» a^w^irov ovrog -rS riAia Iv t3 Qrccvui. Virtutem autem illam a 
 patre nullo modo disjungi pojfg, quematnodum foUs lux in terris 
 a fole qui in ccelo eji fegregari nequit. 'O ■n-a.'vn^, orcv BiJxnro.i, 
 3tva//iv ccvTH Tr^OTTc^av ttoiei. xai crav BaX>jTat, TraAiv avx^iXXii hi 
 (uvTov. Pater curn vult, efficit ut hac ejus virtus projiliat, ilf 
 cum vult, eamdem ad feipfum retrahit. Now thofe who 
 taught a doftrine like this, muft neceffarily have denied 
 all real diftinftion of perfons in the divine nature, and be- 
 lieved the divine nature of Chrift to have been merely a 
 virtue or ray fent forth for a while from the eternal light 
 of the father. To this defcription of Chriftians it is not 
 impoflible that Praxeas might belong, and that having, 
 with a view in fome meafure to difguife his tenets, ex- 
 pounded them differently at different times, TertuUian 
 was prevented from attaining to any thing like an exaft 
 orprecife knowledge of them. 
 
 art 
 
and 
 
 Artemon. 
 
 i>fthe Secojid Century. 363 
 
 art of a tanner, but was, notwithftanding, a man cent. 
 of no mean proficiency in letters \jf\. This ^ _ ^L , _j 
 herefiarch denied altogether the divinity of xheodotus 
 Chrift, refufing to acknowledge 'in him any 
 other kind of perfonal excellence than that of 
 his corporeal frame having been divinely be- 
 gotten [<?J. The fame dodrine is faid to have 
 
 been 
 
 [n3 Refpedling Theodotiis and Artemon, there is a 
 long quotation given by Eufebius in nis Ecclejiajlical Hijlory, 
 lib. V. cap. xxviii. from an ancient writer whofe name is not 
 mentioned. But neither from this, nor from Epiphanius, 
 ,nor Theodoret, nor any other of the ancient hasrefiologifts 
 can we obtain a full and fatisfaftory account of thefe men 
 and their opinions. 
 
 [0] Theodotus, as is related much at large by Epipha- 
 nius, Haref. liv. cap. i, ii, iii. p. 464 & feq. and in a fhorter 
 way by Tertullian, Auguftine, and Philafter, being called 
 in queftion at Conftantinople on account of lus religion, 
 abjured his faith in Chriil, and when he was fharply re- 
 proached with this by the Chriftians of Rome, to which 
 city he had fled for refuge, he, by the excufe which he 
 offered, plunged ftill deeper into lin. For he denied him- 
 felf to have committed any offence at all againft God, inaf- 
 much as Chrift, whom he had denied, was nothing more 
 than a mere man. That this account (hould have been in- 
 vented there is no reafon whatever for believing. We are 
 not however furnifhed by it with any thing like a perfpi- 
 cuous or fatisfaftory view of this herefiarch' s fentiments 
 refpefting Chrift ; nor are the ancient writers agreed in 
 their cxpofition of his tenets on this fubjeft. Epiphanius 
 ftates him to have maintained that Jefus was begotten ac- 
 cording to the fame law by which all other mortals are pro- 
 duced, namely, of the feed of man. But the ancient 
 author of the Catalogue of Heretics, annexed to Tertullian'a 
 prefcriptions, and with whom Theodoret agrees, fays, that 
 Theodotus did indeed regard Chrift as a mere man, but 
 then as a man that had been begotten of a virgin by the 
 Holy Spirit. And to this teftimony learned men are dif- 
 pofed to give more credit than to Epiphanius, a writer of 
 no great weight, and far from being correft in his account 
 of heretical opinions. But if the inference bejuft to which 
 learned men have been led by the ancient author of the Little 
 Labyrinth, a work written ia oppofition to the Theodotians 
 
 and 
 
3 ^4 The Ecclefiajiical Hifiory 
 
 CENT, been maintained at Rome, either fome fhort 
 . ^ ^' , time before, or elfe within a little while after 
 Theodotus Theodotus, by one Artemas or Artemon, from 
 and whom the Artemonites took their denomina- 
 
 Artenion. 
 
 and Artemonites, and from which a citation is given by Eufe- 
 bius, Hijl, Ecclef. lib. v, cap. 28. namely, that the dodlrine 
 of Artemon was the fame with that of Theodotus, the cor- 
 redtnefs of even this laft ftatement will admit of being called 
 in queftion. For not to notice that there are not wanting 
 thofe who conceive the opinions of Artemon to have cor- 
 refponded with thofe of Paul of Samofata or Arius, we 
 are told by Gennadius of Marfeilles de Dogmat. Ecclefiajl. 
 cap. iii. p. 4. edit. Elmenhorft. that Artemon held, Chriflum 
 divin'ttatis init'ium nafcendo accep'tjfe. He did not therefore 
 deny Chrift to be God and man, but conceived him to have 
 been Ityled God in confequence of God's having affociated 
 himfelf with the man Chrift from the very commencement 
 of his exiftence ; which opinion more nearly correfponds 
 with that which, as we have above (hewn, was entertained by 
 Praxeas, than with that which is commonly attributed to 
 Theodotus, Artemon's opinion, we mean, was, that a cer- 
 tain divine power, not a perfon, united itfelf to the man 
 Chrift who was born of a virgin, and that in confequence 
 of this affociation of the divinity with the human nature of 
 Chrift, he who was a man was in the facred writings alfo 
 termed God, and might be ftyled God. But to confefs the 
 truth, it appears to me to be much lefs certain than is com- 
 monly imagined, that Theodotus and Artemon entertained 
 one! and the fame opinion refpefting Chrift. Theodoret'clearly 
 makes a diftinftion between the Theodotians and the Arte- 
 monites ; and although the author of the Little Labyrinthy 
 as quoted by Eufebius, affbciates them together in his 
 work, and direfts his arguments againft them jointly, it is 
 yet far from being clear that there were no points of dif- 
 fenfion between them. This much certainly they had in 
 common, that they denied all real diftinftion of perfons in 
 the Godhead, and confequently would not admit that a 
 divine perfon had united himfelf with Chrift. Wherefore 
 they might well be encountered in one and the fame work, 
 and w'lXh. one and the fame fet of arguments. But a com- 
 munity of fentiments as to thefe particulars by no means 
 rendered it impoflible that they (hould differ in their opi- 
 nions refpcfting Chrift, 
 
 lion. 
 
of the Second Cetitury. 365 
 
 tion [/)]. Towards the clofe of the century cent. 
 Theodotus was condemned by the Roman bifhop ■_ - \ ^ 
 Viftor ; and it Ihould feem not unlikely that Tiicodotu* 
 Artemon and his difciples were excommunicated Artcmon. 
 by the fame prelate. — The notices that have 
 reached us refpeding thefe fe6ls, both of which 
 fhould feem to have quickly difappeared, are but 
 fcanty. The circumflance of all others mod 
 deferving of attention in refped to them is, that 
 the Theodotians and Artemonites are faid to 
 have fet a great value on philofophy and geo- 
 metry, indeed more than well comported with 
 a proper refpeft for religion and the facred 
 writings [^q]. In truth the principal fruit derived 
 from the introduction of a tafte for the Grecian 
 philofophy amongft the Chridians was, that by 
 the application of its precepts to the mylteries of 
 religion, birth was given to a variety of opinions 
 and difputes refpeding the manner in which thefe 
 latter ought to be underftood. 
 
 LXX. A ftation in point of time fomewhat Hermo- 
 prior to thefe laft-mentioned corrupters of the s''"'""" 
 Catholic dodrine refpefting the divine nature 
 
 [/>] Whether it was Theodotus or Artemon that firft 
 difturbed the church by the propagation of an erroneous 
 doArine, is one of thofe fubjects on which the learned are 
 divided, with fcarcely any preponderance of argument on 
 either fide. The reader, if he pleafe, may pafs over a 
 queftion fo uncertain and minute ; but fhould any one wifli 
 to know and weigh the arguments that are adduced on 
 either fide, he may have recourfe to WeiTehng, who in his 
 Probabllia, cap. xxi. p. 172 — 180, having diligently pon- 
 dered the whole of them, coincides with thofe who con- 
 fider Theodotus as having preceded Artemon, 
 
 Iq'] With regard to this there is given us by Eufebius, 
 Hyior. Ecclef. hb. V. cap. xxviii. p. 197. & feq. a paffage 
 from an ancient writer which is well deferving of attention, 
 although the reprehenfion it conveys may be thought, per- 
 haps, fomewhat too fevere. 
 
 and 
 
366 The Eccleftajikal Hijiory 
 
 CENT, and the Saviour of the human race, appears to 
 
 , }^'^,j belong to Hermogenes, a painter by profeflion, 
 
 Hermo- t>ut at the fame time a man of a fubtile genius, 
 
 genes. ^nd a philofopher, whom we find denounced by 
 
 Tertullian as a heretic of the firfl clafs, although 
 
 he feems never to have become the parent of 
 
 any particular feft, but to have paffed the whole 
 
 of his days in undifturbed communion with the 
 
 church [r]. Hermogenes was a corrupter of 
 
 the catholic do6trine refpeding the origin of the 
 
 world. For fmce he confidered matter as the 
 
 fource or fountain of all evil, he felt it incum- 
 
 [r] Amongft the works of Tertullian that are extant, 
 there is a vehement philippic of his againft Hermogenes, 
 pofTeffing feme degree of merit it is true in point of inge- 
 nuity and eloquence, but written in ilyle at once difficult 
 and obfcure. In this work Tertullian encounters merely 
 the tenets of Hermogenes refpefting matter and the origin 
 of the world. The opinion of the latter concerning the 
 nature of the foul had been attacked by him in another 
 book now loft, which he notices in his Trcatife ^^ ylnima, 
 cap. i. as intituled de Cenfu yfnima. In this contention with 
 Hermogenes, Tertulhan is remarkably abufive, although 
 he docs not pretend to deny that his adverfary was a man 
 of genius, eloquence, and found underllanding as to the 
 leading principles and tenets of the Chriftian religion ; 
 which will appear the more furprifing to thofe who are 
 aware that the Chriftians, in the age of which we are treat- 
 ing, were accuftomed to deal more mildly with thofe who 
 confidered matter as having exifled with the Deity from all 
 eternity, and the world as having been compounded thereof. 
 But it was not fo much his errors as his morals, which were 
 quite in oppofition to the difcipline of Montanus, that ren- 
 dered Hermogenes hateful in the eyes of Tertullian, who, 
 as every one knows, was an ardent Montanift. For he had 
 often times been married, a thing held impious by Mon- 
 tanus, and in the exercife of his profcflion had difregarded 
 the rigid rules laid down by this preceptor. Pneierea, fays 
 Tertullian, cap.i. p. 265. pingit ill'icite, nubit ajjidue ; legem 
 Del in lihid'tnem defendity in artem contemnit. . . . totus adulter, 
 £ff pradicationis Cif carnis, fiquidem et nubentium contagio 
 foetet. 
 
 bent 
 
of the Second Century, 367 
 
 bent on him to deny that the Deity had created cent. 
 matter out of nothing. — This involved him in ._ \ _- 
 the neceffity of maintaining that the matter of Hermo- 
 which God formed the world was eternal, al- s*^"'^- 
 though fubjed to his power \/\. Under the 
 
 denomination 
 
 [j] Hermogenes was not led to deny that matter had 
 been created out of nothing by the all-powerful will of the 
 Deity in confequence of a belief that the thing was alto- 
 gether impofTible, but from his taking it for granted that 
 matter was the fole fountain of every thing vicious and evil, 
 • — For he is brought forward by Tertullian, at the commence- 
 ment of his book, as arguing after the following manner: 
 If God made matter, he made it either of himfelf, or out of 
 nothing. Either of thefe fuppofitions is abfurd. If God 
 made matter of himfelf, he could not have been a fimple, in- 
 divifible, immutable being, — If he created it out of nothing, 
 he could not have been good, or fuperlatively excellent. For 
 matter is intrinfecally vicious and corrupt. Prohide, (we 
 give TertuUian's very words) ex nih'ilo non potu'ijfe eum 
 facere (i. e. matter), Jic confendit, bonum et optimum defintens 
 dominum, qui bona atque optima tam 'velit facere quam fit. 
 His conclufion therefore was, that no alternative was left 
 us but to believe that matter was coeval with the Deity, 
 having exifted together with him from all eternity. From 
 this mode of reafoning it is manifeft that Hermogenes con- 
 fidered the produftion of matter, as, to ufe the language 
 of philofophers, phyfically pojihle, but as every way un- 
 worthy of the Deity, and therefore morally impojfibky and 
 that this his opinion was founded on the perfuafion that 
 matter was the feat and origin of every thing evil. Since 
 the error then of Hermogenes refpedling the fabrication of 
 the world from eternal matter proceeded entirely from this 
 opinion refpefting the origin of evil, Tertullian ought to 
 have made the caufe or origin of evil the chief ground of 
 his contention with him, and to have fhewn that evil was 
 derived, not from matter, but from other fources. This being 
 once proved, the erroneous notion of Hermogenes refpeding 
 the creation of the world, muft of neceffity have fallen to 
 the ground. But omitting every thing of this fort, Ter- 
 tullian at once commences a furious attack on the dogma of 
 his adverfary refpefting the eternity of matter ; that is, he 
 pafles over in filence the root and principle of the error, and 
 content* himfelf with attacking merely a confeftary dedu- 
 I cibl> 
 
368 The Ecdefiajlkal Hijiory 
 
 denomination of the world he included not only 
 
 corporeal fubftances but mind and fpirit, which 
 
 Hermo- he confidercd as having been in like manner 
 
 genes. produced by the Deity from vicious and eternal 
 
 matter [/]. As toany other points of Chriflian 
 
 behef 
 
 cible from it. To this obfervation we may add another no 
 lefs neceffary to the right undeiflanding of the dodlrine of 
 Hermogenes. Although he confidered matter as coeval 
 with the Deity, he neverthelefs maintained that the Deity 
 had from all eternity ruled over it, and held it in fubjeftion, 
 a circutnftance which renders his opinion much more to- 
 lerable than that of certain others, who cither afligned to 
 matter, which they believed to be eternal, a peculiar ruler 
 diftinft from the Deity, or elfe contended that before the 
 foundation of the world the Deity and matter had no con- 
 nexion whatever. That the opinion of Hermogenes was 
 really fuch as I here ftate it to have been is placed out of 
 all difpute by one of the arguments which he brings for- 
 ward in proof of the eternity of matter. The argument I 
 allude to is this : God hath been Lord from all eternity ; 
 therefore from all eternity there muft have exifted matter 
 fubjeft to his dominion. But let us hear the expofition 
 which Tertullian himfelf gives us of this argument, cap. iii. 
 p. a66. ^■^djicit ISf aliud. Deiim femper Datm ei'iam Do- 
 tninum fu'ijfe, numquam non Dtum. Nulla porro modo potuijfe 
 ilium femper Dominuin haber'i, Jicut et femper Deum,fi non 
 
 fuijfet aliqu'td retro femper, cujus femper Dominus haheretur : 
 
 fuijfe It aque mat eriam femper Deo Domino. 
 
 CO ^^ '^ certain from what is faid by Tertullian in his 
 book de Anima-, cap. i, and other teftimonies, that Her- 
 mogenes did not attribute a more noble origin to men's fouls 
 than to their bodies. No doubt he might conceive that 
 matter of a more fubtile kind was ufed by the Deity in the 
 formation of fouls, but ftill he did not deny them to have 
 been compofed of matter. And to me the reafon eafily fug- 
 gefts itfelf why Hermogenes Ihould have thought thus. 
 Perceiving that fouls were fubjeft to depraved propenfities 
 and appetites, and at the fame time being fully perfuaded 
 that every thing evil and vicious was generated of matter, 
 and had its refidence in matter, he could not but conclude, 
 that the fouls of men no lefs than their bodies were framed 
 or compofed of matter. Whether he entertained the fame 
 opinion refpedling the good angels is not to be known at 
 this day. But that he conceived the evil angels together 
 
 with 
 
Hcnno- 
 
 oj the Second Century. 
 
 belief he appears to have attempted no inno- c £ n \7 1 
 vation whatever [«]. ^ "• 
 
 with their leader or chief to have been formed out of matter, '"^^^^^^'fj 
 and that they would, at a future day, a^ainbe refolved into "' '' 
 matter, is recorded by Theodoret, Fahnlar H.ercl. lib. i. ^"'"''' 
 cap. xix. p. 207. torn. iv. opp. In what way he contrived 
 to reconcile thefe principles with the tenets of the Chrif- 
 tians at large, refpefting the immortality of the foul, the 
 angels, and other things, it migiic poflibly be in our power 
 to alcerta:n were we in pofTcffiou of the book written againft 
 him by 'i'ertuHian, de Cenfu Jnima. 
 
 [w] Tertullian, although he was moft intimately ac- 
 quainted with the tenets of Hermogenes, and regarded him 
 with an implacable hatred, yet never once accufes him of 
 entertaining any other errors than thofe above noticed re- 
 fpeftmg matter, the creation of the world, and the nalure of 
 fouls. What is of ftill greater importance, this vehement 
 writer acknowledges, in exprefs terms, that the dogma of 
 his adverfary refpefting Chrift, the corner-ftone of all reli- 
 gion, was found and orthodox. Chri/Ium, fays he, cap. i. 
 p. 265. Dom'mum non ahum v'lddxtr al'iter cognofcere (that is, 
 he appears to entertain a belief refpedling ^'Chrift fimilar to 
 that of other Chriltians) nUnm tamen facit, quern allter 
 cognofcit : (/. e. what he profefles refpeding Chrift, 
 however, in words, he enervates and renders of no avail by 
 his opiiiions) Immo totum quod ejl Deiis aufert, nolens ilium 
 ex nilnlo univerfa fecijfc. A ChnJUanis enini converfus ad ph'do- 
 fophos, - -fumpjit a Stoicis mater'iam cum Domino ponere, qu(Z 
 ipfa femper fuerit, neque nata, neque fada, nee initium hahens 
 ommno, necfinem^ ex qua Dominus omnia pojleafecerit. .T\\ds 
 charges in faft, although moft invidioufly brought forward, 
 inftead of criminating the perfon againft'whom they are ad- 
 duced, ferve clearly to demoiiftrate his innocence. And I 
 therefore cannot agree with thofe of the learned who fup- 
 p.ife that Hermogeiies, whom Clement of Alexandria in his 
 Eclogiz Prophetica, § Ivi. p. 1002, reports to have taught 
 that Chrift depofited his body in the fun, was one and the 
 fame with the painter of whom we have been treating, who 
 contended for the eternity of matter, althou'Th in fupport of 
 this their opinion they may urge the authority of Theo- 
 doret. That Hermogenes alfo againft whom Theophilus of 
 Antioch and Origen are ftated by Theodoret to have writ- 
 ten, I take to have been a different man from him to whom 
 our attention has been direfted. Poflibly amongft the Valen- 
 tinians or fome others of the Gnoftics there might have 
 been a man of this name that attained to fome degree of cele- 
 brity in confequence of his broaching certain new opinions. 
 
 ^'OL. n. B B LXXI. In 
 
The Eccleftajlical Hiflory 
 
 LXXI. In addition to thefe numerous and 
 great difputes, involving the very eflentials of re- 
 ligion, there arofe towards the clofe of this cen- 
 tury, between the Chriftians of Afia Minor and 
 thofe of other parts, particularly fuch as were of 
 the Roman church, a violent contention refpedt- 
 ing a matter that related merely to the form of 
 religion or divine woi fhip ; a thing, in itfelf, truly 
 of light moment, but in the opinion of the dif- 
 putants, of very great importance. The affair 
 was this. The Afiatic Chriftians were accuf- 
 tomed to celebrate their paffover, that is the 
 Pafchal feaft which it was, at this time, ufual 
 with the Chriftians to obferve in commemo- 
 ration of the inftitution of the Lord's Supper 
 and the fubfequent death of the Redeemer, on 
 the fourteenth day of the firft Jewifh month ; 
 that is to fay, at the fame time when the Jews 
 ate their Pafchal h\mb ; occafioning thereby an 
 interruption in the faft of the great week. This 
 cuftom they ftated themfelves to have derived 
 from the apoftles Philip and John, as well as 
 from many other characters of the very firft 
 eminence. But the reft of the Chriftians, as 
 well in Afia as in Europe and Africa, deemed 
 it irreligious to terminate the faft of the great 
 week before the day devoted to the comme- 
 moration of our Saviour's return to life, and 
 therefore deferred the celebration of their paf- 
 fover or pafchal feaft, until the night imme- 
 diately preceding the anniverfary of Chrift's re- 
 furredion from the dead. And for their act- 
 ing thus, the Roman Chriftians, in particular, 
 alleged the authority of the apoftles Paul and 
 Peter. I'his difference gave birth to another 
 of ftiil greater moment. For as the Afiatic 
 Chriftians always commemorated our Lord's re- 
 turn to life on the third day after their par- 
 taking 
 
of the Second Century. 371 
 
 taking of the Pafchal fupper, it was a circum- cent. 
 ftance liable to occur, and the which, no doubt, . "• _^ 
 frequently did occur, that they kept the anni- Comroverfy 
 verfarv of Chrift's refurre6tJon, which after- "^f '"P^f^i",^ , 
 
 1 '1 1 • n-11 • u tlie Pafchal 
 
 wards acquired, and continues itill to retain the obfemnces^ 
 denomination of Pafcha or Eafler, on a different 
 day from the firfl day of the week, or that which 
 is commonly termed Sunday ; whereas the other 
 Chriflians, as well thofe of the Eall as of the 
 Weft, made it a rule to hold their annual cele- 
 bration of our blelfed Saviour's triumph over 
 the grave on no other day than that on which 
 iu aAually occurred, namely on the firft day of 
 the week [y~\. 
 
 LXXII. In 
 
 [•y] Ancient writers, at the head of whom we may place 
 Eufebius, Hiji. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. xxiii. are very neghgent 
 and obfcure in the accounts they give us of the nature and 
 caufesof this great controverfy refpecting the time of keep- 
 ing Eafter, which had nearly been produftive of a moft de- 
 plorable fchifm. Hence the whole clafs of more recent 
 authors who have treated of the fubjeft, and none more 
 than thofe who in eftimating the force and meaning of an- 
 cient terms, have permitted themfelves to be led away by 
 modern notions, and are not over-burthened with infor- 
 mation as to the manners and cuiloms of early times, have, 
 in their explanation of it fallen into various errors, and been 
 by no means happy in unfolding the true grounds of the 
 difpute. The common opinion is, that the Afiatic Chrif- 
 tians were reprehended by the reft for celebrating the anni- 
 verfary of our Lord's refurreftion at the fame time that the 
 Jews were accuftomed to eat their paflbver. But this is al- 
 together a miftake, and a thing with which they are never 
 once reproached by any ancient authors. And indeed, to be 
 convinced how little foundation there could be for fuch an 
 idea, we need only a(k ourfelves what, I will not fay reafon, 
 but femblance or fhadow of a reafon, could poffibly have in- 
 duced thefe Chriltians to commemorate the refurreclion of 
 our Lord at the time of his having been put to death ? Moft 
 certain it is that Chrift's return to life did not take place on 
 the fourteenth day, when the Jews, agreeably to the in- 
 B B 2 jundlions 
 
The Ecclefiajlical Hi/iory 
 
 LXXII. In the courfe of this century attempts 
 
 were 
 
 junctions of their law are accuftomed to celebrate their 
 pafTover, but two days afterwards, at the leaft, that is to 
 fay, on the fixleenth, or perhaps even fo late as the feven- 
 teenth day. Nor were the Afiatic Chrillians ignorant of 
 this ; nor did they pretend to deny it. What then could 
 poffibly have impelled them to be guilty of fuch an egregious 
 incongruity as to determine that the gi-and annual cele- 
 bration of Chrift's refurrection fhould be obferved on the 
 fourteenth day of the month, a day on which they were 
 well apprifed that fuch refurreftion did not take place ? 
 There are extant moreover, in an epiftle written by Poly- 
 crates the bifliop of Ephefus in defence of the Afiatic cuf- 
 tom, and which is in part preferved by Eufebius, Hl/I. 
 Ecclef. lib. V, cap. xxiv. I fay, there are extant in this epiille 
 certain paJTages from which it is clear that no difpute what- 
 ever exifted as to the time of celebrating the annivcrfary of 
 the refurreftion. Pulycrates fays, that he and the reft of 
 the Afiatic bifhops, in keeping the paiTover, on the fourteenth 
 day of the month, conformed themfelves to the Gofpel, the 
 the common rule of faith & religion to Chriftians ; £ry'f>;(r«v 
 T>iv i5ju,£oav t'iic TS5-(7*f so-scaiSEHaVr,- t2 7rc'a-;^« ^<xra, to 'Eyay^'eXicv, 
 l-i.mXv ':x!Oi^n(.Qai;o\ni';, dWa, ;tc,TC- 70v y.c-v6vce, rri; 'WtrE^J «x.oXs'vavTe;-. 
 Servai'unt ( thofe holy men) diem Pafcha qiiarta dechna luna 
 juxta evangclium, nihil omnino "uarianti's, fed regiilam Jidei 
 conjianter fequentes. In the fequel Polycrates again appeals 
 to the Holy Scriptures, and, relying on their authority, 
 concludes his difputation in the words of the apoftles, y^<7j-, 
 V. 29. " We ought to obey God rather than men.'' The 
 Afiatics, therefore, we fee, contended that they conformed 
 to the example of Chrift, as propounded in the Gofpel. 
 Nor did their adverfaries pretend to deny that the Gofpel, 
 and the example of Chrift as held forth in the Gofpel^ 
 were in favour of the Afiatic rule. What they contended 
 for was, that in things of this fort, there was no ncceffity 
 for clofely and literally adhering to the rule of the Gofpel, 
 or the example of Chrift as exhibited in the Gofpel. 
 If, faid they, (as appears from the Ecchftajlical Hijlory of 
 Socrates Scholafticus, lib. v. cap. xxii )the days and months, 
 when Chrift did any particular thing are not, in the leaft, to 
 be deviated from by thpfe who would imitate his example, 
 it is necefTjry that none of thofe circumftances fliould be 
 omitted with which his celebration of the paffover was ac- 
 companied ; it ougiit therefore to be eaten in an upper 
 
 chamber, 
 
of the Second Century. 2)7 2> 
 
 were not unfrequently made to put an end to c en t. 
 
 this 
 
 chamber, Sec." Now what are we to gather from all this ? 
 Do we find it ftated in the Gofpel, that Chrift arofe from 
 the dead on the fourteenth day of the month, or that this 
 was the day fet apart for the commemoration of that event ? 
 Did Chriil, when he partook of the pafchal fupper with his 
 difciples, celebrate the feiUval of his refnrrcftion ? Nothing 
 of this kind, as every one well knows, is to be met with in 
 our Lord's hiilory. It is plain then, that what the Afiatics 
 contended for muil have been this, that tlve day on which 
 they were accuftomed to hold their pafchal feait was the 
 fame with that on which it appears from the Gofpel that 
 Chrift, whofe example it is incumbent on all Chrillia.is to 
 follow, celebrated the pafTover with his di^'cipk-s. The dif- 
 pute therefore, between them and the rell of the Chriftians, 
 had no relation to the day of Chrift's refuneftion from the 
 dead, but refpefted the holding of a pafchal fupper fimilar 
 to that which was celebrated by Chrift with his difciples a 
 fhort time previous to his crucifixion. This common error 
 refpefting the feaft of Chriil's refurredion having been cele- 
 brated by the Afiatic Chriilians on the fame day that the 
 Jews ate their paflbver, arofe out of a miftaken interpre- 
 tation of the word Pafcha. Since the time of the Couiicil 
 of Nice this term has, for the moft part, been confidered as 
 indicating that day on which our blefTed Saviour arofe 
 from the dead, and on which it is ufual for us to com- 
 memorate this his triumph over death and the grave. But 
 by the more early Chriftians, previous to the Council of 
 Nice, another meaning was annexed to it, it being made ufe 
 of by them to defignate the day on which Chrift celebrated 
 the pafTovcr and was offered up on the crofs, the true paf- 
 chal lamb, for the fins of the human race. Of its bearing 
 this fignilication numerous examples might be adduced, but 
 I will content myfelf with giving merely two, by way of 
 convincing thofe v.ho are but moderately informed on the 
 fubjeft of Chriftian antiquities, that 1 am not without au- 
 thority for what I thus ftate. The firft I ftiall take from 
 TertuUian, the moft celebrated Latin writer of this century, 
 who, in his book, de Oratlone, cap. xiv. p. 155. 0pp. ex- 
 prefles himfelf in the following terms. Sic et die Pafcba, quo 
 communis iff quafi puhlicajejunii Religio ej}, merit deponimus 
 ofculum, nihil curantes de occultando quod cum omnibus faciamus. 
 Now, who does not perceive that by the word Pafcha we 
 here ought to underftand the day on which the Chriftians 
 were accuftomed to commemorate our blefled Saviour's 
 death ? For on this day it was the univerfal praftice, 
 B B 3 throughout 
 
374 ^^^ Eccleftajiical Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, this dilTenfion, which was found by fad expe- 
 rience 
 
 throughout the whole Chriftiaft church, to fall ; whereas on 
 the anniverfary of Chrift's refnrreftion every kind of fading 
 was inhibited. In another place, nii-z. in liis book de Je- 
 juniis, cap. xiv. p. 712. TertuUian terms the whole week, 
 which the Chriftians commonly fty led the ^rffl/, or the holy 
 week, Pafcha. Quamquam vos et'iam fabbatuin ft quando 
 continuatis, numquam n'tfi in Pafcha, (that is, on the Sabbath 
 of that week in which the pafchal feall is celebrated in 
 commemoration of Chrift's death and fufferings) je;«nrt«^z/»i 
 putatts. By other writers alfo, we find the viord pafcha 
 ufed in this latter fenfe. To the example of this very an- 
 cient Latin author, I fubjoin that of a Greek writer of much 
 more recent date, namely the author of the Chronicon Paf- 
 chale, edited amongil the Byzantine hiftorians, by Rader, 
 and Du Cange ; whence it appears, that even long fubfe- 
 quent to the Council of Nice the ancient notion attached to 
 the term Pafcha had not become entirely extindl. This au- 
 thor at p. 8. of the Parifian edition of his work by Du 
 Cange moft clearly applies the term Pafcha to a different day 
 from that whereon the anniverfary of Chrift's refurreftion is 
 kept, and which we term Pafcha or Eafter, and indicates 
 by this word the day dedicated to the annual commemo- 
 ration of our bleffed Saviour's death. In memory of Chrift, 
 the true pafchal lamb, fays he, xar eko^-ov hixwov n tS Sew 
 \>C>iX-r\<jM Tiiv c/,y'i<x,y rS TCa,i7X^ fOg'TiiV sTtTsA;?, KTrAavw; Trjjac-ai 
 rrti i^' t5 rrgoiTs ju,*ivo5 t?)? ceXevvic. Quotannis ecchfia Del fane- 
 turn pafchtitis fejlum celebrat, rede obfervata x'lv.primi menfis 
 Luna. Kat iC' f^-lv tv^SUri aurn - - - - Iv ip/^si HUjia^n th'» 
 dyluv -ri<; Ix. vcJtpan d^y.^caux; XpirS tS G)i3 tjjuuv topTriv ccy-t. Hac 
 •vera (the fourteenth day of the month) inventa, fequenti 
 Dominica fanSum Chr'iJIi Dei nofiri ex mortuis refurreSi- 
 oni Jeflitw peragit. Many more paffages of a fimilar kind 
 might be cited from this chronicle, but 1 pafs them over as 
 unnect flary. I will add, however, a notable paftage from 
 the cpiftle written by the Emperor Conftantine the Great to 
 the bifhops who could not attend the Council of Nice, and 
 which ispr fcrvedby Theodoret, HijL Ecclef lib.i. cap. ix. 
 p. 627. Tiie extraft will be found to apply more imme- 
 diately to the fubjeft before us, and places it out of all dif- 
 pute that the controverfy between the Afiatic and other 
 Chrift ians refpedling the pafchal fealon, had no reference 
 whatever to the day of Chrift's refurreftion, but to that of his 
 fufferings and death, riegl Trj? fays the Emperor, ayicDTctTvi? ry 
 iraaXJOi' rt ^i^a,i; ytvofj^ivn^ ^yirritriui; £do|t xoivrT yvwjun xaXaJf E%ftv, ett* 
 fjLuii if/xEgaj TravTcts Ta\<»7r«vT«;^s iTtniXuv, De fanSiJfimo Die Paf 
 
 cha 
 
of the Second Century. 07 r 
 
 riencetoyield repeated occafion for unchriflian-like cent. 
 
 wranglings ^^• 
 
 1 r /r / 1 • Controvcify 
 
 c/ja quum lis cxorta ejfet ( this was one and the fame contro%'erfy refpeain;^; 
 with that of which we are now treating, for after havinjr the Pafciml 
 lain dormant, it was renewed at the time of the Council olf ^^''^f-'vances. 
 Nice, and was finally fet at reft by a decree of that afTembly) 
 optimum fa£lu communi fentent'ia (of the Nicene fathers) 
 "vijum ejl, UNO eoHemqjie tempore hunc omncs ub'tque gentium ce- 
 lebrare. In what fenfe it was meant that the term Pafcha 
 ftiould be underftood in this paffage is fliortly after ren- 
 dered manifeil^ by the emperor himfelf in the following 
 words : sfs?* ya.^ rS ks'ivwv e'^s,- c'ttooA/.S^vtoc ccXtiSe-Zoo. tcc^ei, 
 
 Itt* -rs\- fxsXXovTO.; diuvx; Tny rri; sTTiTvijv'o-Eij,- toivtyi; crv^TTX^)^u;<Tiy 
 E.yyivEo-Saf. Fas enim ejl rcjcda illonim (the Jews) con- 
 fuetudiney veriore infiituto, quod circa diem pajionis haBe- 
 nus tenuimus, ejufdem obfervationls iifum ad futura facula 
 propagari. By Pafcha^ therefore, the fubjeit of their dif- 
 putation, it is plain was meant i^^i^y, -r« irx'^Hc, the day of 
 our Lord's paffion. No^ being aware of this ancient 
 fignification of the word Pafcha, more recent writers, 
 when they read of the Ahatic Chriftians having been 
 involved in a controverfy with thofe of Rome refpefting 
 the pafchal feaft, were haftily led to perluade themfelves 
 that the Afiatic Chriftians celebrated the anniverfary of 
 Chrifl:'s refurreaion on the fame day on which the Jews 
 ate their Paflbver ; underftanding the word Pafcha accord- 
 ing to its more recent fenfe, and never adverting to the 
 poflibility of its having, in earlier times, borne a different 
 one. The merit of tirft difcovering this, however, does 
 not properly belong to me. The perfon who firft of any, 
 as far as my information reaches, difcovered that the com- 
 mon notion in regard to this celebrated controverfy re- 
 fpedling the pafchal feafon was erroneous, was that illuf- 
 trious member of the order of Jefuits fo diftinguifhed for 
 his writings, the father Gabriel Daniel. See his Dijfertation 
 de la DifcipUne des quartodecimans pour la Celebration de la 
 paquc, in the third volume of his Recueil de divers Qwurages 
 Philofophiques, Theologiquesy et Hiftoriques. — Paris , 1 7 24, 
 in 4to, p. 473 — 506. The fame thing, if I well remember, 
 is alfo noticed by Pet. Faydit in his notes to a fermon 
 preached on the feafl: of St. Polycarp - . This error was more- ' 
 
 * In a fubfequent publication, Dr. Molheim took an opportunity of ftat- 
 ing that his memory had in this inftance proved unfaitliful, and that on a 
 re-perufal of Faydit's book, he found hinifetf under the neceflity of retrac- 
 ing the compliment which lie had here paid to that writer's penetration. 
 
376 
 
 C E N T. 
 
 The Ecckfiajlical Hi/lory 
 
 wranglings and the moil intricate and acrimo- 
 nious 
 
 over fubfequently adverted to in a Programma propounded 
 in the nuiveriity of Gottiiigeii on Eafter-day, by that very 
 profound and ingenious fcholar Chriftoph. Aug. Heumnn, 
 who feeras not in the lead to have been avi'are of its having 
 been previoufly detected by other people. Whillon too, 
 in the Memoirs of his Life and Wiitings, Lond. 1749, 8vo, 
 torn. ii. p. 601. complains that no one appeared to be ac- 
 quainted with the true grounds and caule of this Pafclial 
 controverfy, and acknowledges that he himfelf was for a 
 long time involved in fimilar ignorance ; but adds, that in 
 his three Tra6lp, London, 1742, Svo, he had unfolded the 
 true nature of it from original authorities. Of thefe feveral 
 works I regret to fay that I have neither, juft at this mo- 
 ment, within my reach, except that of Daniel, who, al- 
 though he certainly difcovers much information and judg- 
 ment as to feveral particulars, yet in regard to many others 
 has not, as it appears to me, attained exaftly to a true ftate 
 of the queftion. I will therefore myfelf make trial how 
 far it may be poflible to place the nature of this very ob- 
 fcure controverfy in a jufl: and perfpicuous point of view. 
 (I.) The early Chriltians, retaining as they did, not a few of 
 the Jewifh rites and ceremonies, were accuilomed, after the 
 manner of the Jews, to partake on a certain day of a Pafchal 
 fupper, and eat together a Pafchal lamb. This has been 
 demonfti-ated from various authorities, by Hen. Dodwell, 
 in his work on the life of Franhlnccnfe in the Church. At 
 prefent I ihall not occupy myfelf in regularly repeating 
 fuch demonftration, inafmuch as the truth of the thing will 
 be rendered apparent by various circumftances to which it 
 will be neceffary for me to advert in the courfe of this dif- 
 cuffion. This cuftom maintained its ground both in the 
 eaftern and the weftern church for many ages. Amongll 
 the oriental Chriftians, the Armenians, the Copts, and 
 others, it prevails even at this day. By the Chriftians of 
 the weft it has been gradually relinquifhed : fome obvious 
 traces of it, however, are ftill to be difcerned even in 
 Chriftian Europe. The principal diff'erence in faft is, that 
 amongft the European Chriftians the celebration of this 
 facred repaft, which ufed formerly to take place in the 
 churches or other places of public aflembly, is now confined 
 within the walls of private houfes. This repaft the early 
 Chriftians were accuftomed to diftinguifti by the Jewifh 
 denomination of Pafcha, and certainly not without fome 
 fhew of reafon, for in point of external form it correfponded 
 very nearly with the Pafcha, or pafTover of the Jews. The 
 
 repaft 
 
of the Second Century. '^JJ 
 
 nious difputes \jiu']. Under the reign of Anto- cent. 
 
 ninus . _ 1 ^ 
 
 Ciotitr: verfy 
 
 Tivl The reader may confult as to this Epiphanius in '"f*^''^/V'^"i 
 TJ r A J- IS- o the Pafthal 
 
 Hccref. Audtanorum, Ixx. §. ix. p. 82 1 . , obfervances. 
 
 repaft itfelf was undoubtedly of J^wifli origin, and might 
 tlicrefore well continue to be diftinguifhed by the ancient 
 Jewifli appellation. In the caufes or reai'ons for celebrating 
 this repaft, the Chriftians and Jews were widely feparated. 
 
 from each other. (H.) The caufes or reafons by which 
 
 the Chriftians were actuated in the celebration of this 
 pafchal feaft are not beyor,d the reach of difcovery. In 
 the firfl; place they held themfelves bound to follow the 
 example of our bleffed Saviour, who, prcvioufly to his 
 laying down his life for the falvation of the human race, 
 celebrated the pafTover with his difciples, and had thereby, 
 as they thought, given his fanftion to this Jewifli rite, and 
 in a manner commended the obfervance of it to his difciples. 
 SL'condly, it appeared to them, that the remembrance of 
 the Holy Supper wliich our bleffed Saviour inftituted after 
 his celebration of the pafTover, might be beft preferved in 
 this way. Nor can there be any doubt but that ihey clofed 
 this their pafchal feaft with the celebration of the Lord's 
 fupper. Laftly, believing as they did on the authority of 
 St. Paul, I Cor. V. 7. that the Pafchal Iamb of the Jews 
 was a type or figure of Chrift's being offered up for the 
 fins of mankind, it appeared to them that there could be 
 no better way of commemorating the Redeemer'^ facrifice, 
 and bringing it, as it were, immediately before their eyes, 
 tl)an by celebrating that figurative reprefentation of it 
 which God liimfelf had prefcribed. This idea, moreover, 
 of Chriil's death having been prefigured in the flaughter of 
 the Pafcl-.al lamb, and the fruits of his death by the Pafchal 
 feaft, being deeply rooted in the minds of the early Chrif- 
 tians, occafioned them, as we have above (hewn by ex- 
 amples, to term the day devoted to the commemoration 
 
 of our Saviour's death the Pafchal day. (HI.) The 
 
 Chriftians of Afia Minor were accuftomed to celebrate this 
 facred feaft, commemorative of the inftitution of the Lord's 
 fupper and the death of Jefus Chrift, at the fame time when 
 the Jews ate their Pafchal lamb, namely, on the evening of 
 the fourteenth day of the firft m.onth. For, as is clear from 
 the words of Polycrates, bifliop of Ephefus, which we 
 
 juft 
 
378 
 
 The Ecclefiajiical Hijlory 
 
 CENT, ninus Pius, in particular about the middle of this 
 ^^' century 
 
 juft above cited from Eufebius, they confidered the example 
 of Chrift as poflefling the force of a law ; and, as is equally 
 manifeft, they did not conceive our Saviour to have antici- 
 pated the paflbver, as is believrd by many at this day, and 
 particularly by the Greeks, but that the Pafchal lamb was 
 eaten by him and his difciples precifely on the fame day on 
 which the Jews, conformably to the direftions of the 
 Mofaic ritual, were ever accuftomed to eat theirs. Let us 
 hear as to this Epiphanius, who, althougli he is very obfcure 
 in his explication of the opinion of the Quarta-declmans, as 
 thofe were termed who celebrated the^r Pafchal feall at the 
 fame time with the Jews, yet intimates perfpicuoufly enough, 
 that the matter in difpute between them and the other 
 Chriflians refpefted the time of eating the Paichal lamb. 
 In Haref. L. Quarta-dec'im. § ii. p. 420. he exprefles him- 
 felf after the following manner ; x^-o-i ya,^ Iv t~) Tia-a-a.^icrx.cx.i- 
 ds>tc4T« TO iTa.cxp'. ayaai, ^^nacv i-yjddi To itfo^ccrov XccSi'iv coVo 
 
 0£>C«.T*li, KAl THJEIV clvT^ EWJ TE<T£7«f St7Xaii8K.5CTV5v. - - ioCV ell 
 
 ^rpo^; E(79rsg«v tu9>) to^ Txa-x'X' »i dvrri Tia-cra.^Ba-x.oi.i^sKCi'rr) ett*- 
 (^(ia-Kys-» eI StaTsXst rljus'^aj Iv t« vnrs^oi.. Prtmum en'im Ji 
 {Quarta-decimani) Pafcha die xiv. celebrant, necejfe efl ut 
 jtignum jatn die dec'tmo adducant, atque ad diem decimum 
 guar turn (vivum) cuftodiant. Quod fi ad Vefperam Pafcha 
 fuerit hnmolatum quod xiv. die illucefcente geritur, fex 
 dies jejunio tribuendi funt. In thefe words of Epiphanius 
 there are fome things which defy explanation, and Petavius 
 himfelf, by the Latin tranflation which he has given us of 
 them, and which is in part erroneous, and in part imperfeft, 
 has tacitly acknowledged that he was unable to compre- 
 hend altogether what it was that Epiphanius meant to 
 convey. I will however endeavour to feparate what is clear 
 and apparent from what mud of neceflity remain involved 
 in obfcurity. Firft then it is manifell, that the difpute 
 with the Quarta-decimans was refpefting the Pafchal feaft 
 and the Pafchal lamb, not the day for commemorating the 
 refurreftion of our bleffed Saviour from the dead. For in 
 this paffage the word Pafcha, in the firft inftance, evidently 
 means the Pafchal feaft, and in the fecond the Pafchal 
 lamb. Secondly, it is clear that the Quarta-decimans, like 
 the Jews, ate their Pafchal lamb on the fourteenth day of 
 the month. Thirdly, it is apparent that they took home 
 this lamb in order to its undergoing the requifite prepara- 
 tion, 
 
of the Second Cmtury. 279 
 
 century a ferious difcuffion of the affair took 
 
 place 
 
 Conlroverfy 
 
 tion, fo early as the tenth day. Fourthly, it is obvious ,^^6 I'afclial 
 that they kept this lariib alive until the fourteenth day. obtVnances. 
 Fifthly, it is plain that they flew this lamb, with certain 
 ceremonies no doubt, on the evening of the fourteenth day. 
 Whence it follows. Sixthly, that they folemnly feafted on 
 this lamb on the right following this evening. We fhall 
 prefently fee that the advL-rlaries of the Quarta-decimans did 
 not difagree with them refpefting this fupper itfelf, but 
 as to the time of celebrating it. (IV.) By this Pafchal 
 feaft which the Afiatic Cliriftians were accuftomed to cele- 
 brate at the fame time with the Jews, an interruption took 
 place in that ftrift and folemn faft which the other Chriftians 
 •made it a rule inviolably to obfervc tliroughout the whole 
 of the great or holy week. Immediately after the cele- 
 bration of this fealt, however, it was the praftice of the 
 Quarta-decimans to refume their fading, and continue it until 
 the day appropriated to the commemoration of our Savioui's 
 return to life. The reader will find this recorded byEpipha- 
 nius in Heref. Ixx. Audianorum, % xi. p. 823. The ^udians, 
 in their celebration of the Pafchal feait, were accuftomed to 
 follow the example of the Afiatic Chriftians or Quarta-de- 
 cimans, and juftified their praftice by alleging that in the 
 Apojlolical Con/litutions, a work different from the one that 
 has reached our days under that title, and at prefent con- 
 fidered as irrecoverably loft, the Apoftles had exprefsly 
 enjoined that in celebrating their Pafchal rites the Chriftians 
 were to obferve the fame time with the Jews. Epiphanius 
 labours hard to deprive them of this argument ; and amongft 
 other things with which he encounters them, adduces the 
 following paflage from the fame Conftitutions ; Asyso-t 0'* 
 
 CCDTOJ ATroroAo*? CTJ OT«V EXEl'vOl iVU')(U)VTa,i V^?*,' V>li(t/OVTE,- VViq 
 
 K«i OTKV d-jroi 'TTiv-^Za-i ta a^vfj-oc, Erto'vTs? ev "JUK^iTiv^ v//?*f 
 Ivwp^ETtrSi . lidem Jlpoftoli (in the conftitutions which ye 
 quote as favouring your pradlice) praclp'tunty Dum e.pu- 
 lantur lU'i (the Jews), vos jejunantei pro Hits lugete, quo- 
 n'lam Fejlo illo die Chrijium in Crucem fujliilerunt. Cumque 
 illi lugcntes azym'ts isf laSuc'is agrejl'ibus vefcentur, vos 
 epulawinl. The Chriftians are here enjoined by the Apoftles 
 to celebrate the paffover with the Jews, and thereupon they 
 are told to feaft and rejoice at the time when the Jews were 
 forrowfuUy eating their unleavened bread and bitter herbs, 
 and on the contrary to mourn and faft on the day that the 
 
 Jew* 
 
380 The Ecclefiajiical Hi/lory 
 
 ^ ^11^ ^' pl^ce at P.ome between Anicetus, the bifhop of 
 
 that 
 
 Jews rejoiced on account of their having put Chrlft to 
 death. Petaviii<? the enulite tra; flator of Epiphanius, 
 avows himfelf unable to comprehend the meaning of the 
 Apollles in this. But from what we have obferved above, 
 there is as much light thrown upon this apoilolical in- 
 jundion as is neceffary. The Chiiitians who agreed with 
 tlie Jews as to the time of cckbrating the Paffuver, held 
 with joy and gladnefs their Pafchal fcaft in commcn-ior;ition 
 of tlie inftitution of the Lord's (upper on the fame night 
 that the Jews fed on bitter herbs and unleavened bread, 
 but on the following day, when the Jews gave themfelves 
 up to rejoicing, thefe Chriiliaiis returned again to fading, 
 humiliation and tears, inafmuch as it was on that day that 
 their Lord and Mafter Chrill had been pnt to death on the 
 
 crofs. (V. ) On the third day following the fourteenth 
 
 of the month, the Afiatic Chriilians always celebrated the 
 anniverfary of Chrift's refurreeiion from the dead. For 
 fjnce, as we are informed by Polycrates, they made it a 
 point to follow as exaftly as pofllble the example of Chrift, 
 and the rule of the Gofpel, and it appeared from the tef- 
 timony of the evangelifts that Chrill arofe from the dead 
 on the third day after the Jewifh paflbver, confiltency re- 
 quired that they Hiould fix on this day for the annual comme- 
 moration of that glorious event. This practice, however, 
 gave rife to another difference between them and other 
 Chriftians. For it was the cnftom with the latter never to 
 keep the fcaft of the refurrefdon on any other than the firil 
 day of the week, or, as we term it, Sunday : whereas the 
 former, we mean the Afiatic Chriftians, very frequently ce- 
 lebrated Chrift's triumph over death and the grave on one or 
 other of the ordinary week days. For as the fourteenth day 
 of the month did not always fall on one and the fame day of 
 the week, and they always commemorated our bleffed Sa- 
 viour's return to life on the third day after the fourteenth, it 
 of courfe happened that fuch comn^emoration took place 
 with them in one year on a Monday, in the next, perhaps 
 on a Tuefday, and in a third on a Wednefday, and {o on. 
 When the fourteenth day of the month, for inftance, fell on 
 a Tuefday, thefe Afiatic Chriftians kept the feaft of the 
 refurreftion on the Thurfday following : or fuppofing it 
 to fall on a Wednefday, their feaft took place on the 
 Friday after. Hence the Roman prelate Vidor, and thofe 
 who took part with him, decreed ; cJj av fj-in ^« Iv a.}^Xn tote 
 
 T^f KV^iUKri^ ri^i^X TO TWi IK VzKQUDI dvXCOiaiUi tOTTI^OiTO tu Kl/oty 
 
of the Second Century. 381 
 
 that city, and Polycarp the celebrated bifhop of c e n t. 
 
 Smyrna. ^___i^l_j 
 
 Controverfy 
 pvr»ij''5v. Koit oz-jj; \v rscvryi jj-ovn twv kxtu to n^cs-x» wrH^y <Pv\- refpeiting 
 T^xTTOfj-Sx Tci^ e-BTiX-Ja-iic. Ne videlicet ulh alio quam Dominico '^^ Pafchal 
 Die myjierium refurrrciioiiis Domini ntiquam cAehretur ; utque o"'^"^"'^^*- 
 eo duntaxat die Jtjuniontm Pafcha tenninum obfervemus. Eu- 
 febius, HiJIor. JEccIef. lib. v. cap. xxiii. p, 190. It is 
 plain, therefore, that the Afiatic Chriftians mud frequently 
 have celebrated The myjtery of the Refnrreaion of Chrifl on 
 a different day from Sunday : for hr.d they, in the celebra- 
 tion of this myftery, conformed to the pradlice of other 
 Chriftians, there would have been no neceffity for this regu- 
 lation. In thefe words of Eufebius, however, it is ob- 
 f?rvable that a clear dillindlion is made between the day of 
 the myilery of Chrift's refurreftion and what is termed Paf- 
 cha, that is the feafon devoted to the commemoration of 
 his death and paflion. In the obfervance of Pafcha, that is, 
 the commemoration of Chrift's fufferings and death, the 
 Afiatic Chriftians, as to time, agreed precifely with the reft : 
 the only thing in v.-hich they differed was, that whereas the 
 latter fafted without intermiffion throughout the whole of 
 the feafon, the Afiatics indulged themfelves with a tempo- 
 rary relaxation on the fourteenth day. The myftery of 
 Chrift's refurredlion, however, was not always celebrated by 
 them on the Sunday, as was the uniform pradice of all other 
 Chriftians, but, occaiionally, on other days of the week, 
 agreeably to what we have above remarked. This dif- 
 ference was certainly of greater moment, and, to confefs the 
 truth, one lefs e:\fily to be endured than the other. For to 
 celebrate the feftival of Chrift's refurreftion on a different 
 day of the week from that whereon he attually arofe, muft 
 have appeared repugnant, not only to the faith of hiftory, 
 
 but to ancient cuftom and Chriftian decency. (VI.) 
 
 The Chriftians dwelling without the conlines of Afia 
 deemed it irreligious to terminate the Pafclial faft before 
 the feftival of the rcfurreflion ; and as altogether unbecom- 
 ing and difgraceful in Cliriftians to hold out any oftenfible 
 conneaion between their pafchal lamb, fo widely differing 
 in its purpofe and defign from that of the Jews, and the 
 Jewifli paffover. They therefore deferred their Pafchal feaft 
 until the night preceding the feftival of oar Saviour's refur- 
 redion, and conncded the commemoration of the inftitution 
 of the Lord's fupper with that of Chrift's triumph over 
 death and the grave. Let us hear as to this Epiphanius, 
 in Haref. 1. Qjtartadecifmnorum. §iii. p. 421, «' y.y'ux. GiS 
 
The Ecclefiqftical Uijlory 
 
 Smyrna [a;]. But by no arguments whatever 
 could the Chriflians of Afia be prevailed on to 
 
 abandon 
 
 \_x~\ See Eufebius Hijlor. Ecclef. lib. iv. cap. xiv. p. 127. 
 and lib.v. cap. xxiv. p. 193. In faft it is to this author that 
 we are indebted for nearly the whole of what is here 
 related. 
 
 £^5oju«5t - - "va Y-ccia. rst, vivo tS xi-^/y ysv^'jusva jcara ro'T^ojTOTVTrov, 
 un et-vKTaa-i? Tix-oLilvui-xicc. EcclefiafanEla Dei - - - tion folum 
 decimam quartam diem fed etiatn hehdomada obfervat - - - 
 ut ad eorum exemplar qua funt a Domino gejla Refurre8io 
 epuhque celebrentur. And after fome intervening remarks, 
 he COntinueSj ^sjopsv ds sTrtTiTv clyl<xv xu^iaxii\ 70 TE^oj T115 arvjj.' 
 Tropt'trfWi* ^.a^bavef/sv d£ to v^oSarov ol'tvo o!y.a.TYii, oyojjicx, tS Ir.aS 
 Eirr/vovTEi ola, to Iwra, »va//w'' Xa9*i »)/xa5 ju,r,dsv tSv Kara t»5v aX*i- 
 SctKV ^rao-av Tfli ^wTiK»j; ravTYi; t5 izoia'Xj^ t>i? tJoiXniTiarJxnc '7rja')» 
 jx«T£»af. InfanSam Dominicam religiojtjjimi temporis jincm cou' 
 jicimus : Jed agniim jam turn a decimo die fumimus quoniam in 
 Iota liilera Jefu nomen agnofcimus, ne quid omnino ddigetitiam 
 nojlram effugiat, quod ad ecclejiajlicam falutaris pafcha eek' 
 brationein pertinere videatur. Now we will not fpend our 
 time in endeavouring to difpel the obfcurity in which this 
 paffage alfo of Epiphanius is involved, but direft our atten- 
 tion merely to fuch things as ftand in no need of elucidation. 
 In the firft place, then, it is to be remarked, that thcadver- 
 faries of the Afiatic Chriftians celebrated a pafchal feaft 
 juft as thefe Chriftians themfclves did. Secondly, that they 
 conjoined this feaft with the feftival of our Lord's refur- 
 reftion. Thirdly, that as to this matter they, no lefs than 
 the Afiatics, perfuaded themfelves that they followed the 
 example of Jefus Chrift ; but in what way they could 
 poffibly have made this appear is not very eafy to compre- 
 hend. Fourthly, that by this feaft, which they celebrated in 
 the night preceding the day devoted to the commemoration 
 of our Lord's refurre6tion, they clofed their pafchal feafon, 
 or that moft holy period of time which was annually fet 
 apart for the folemn commemoration of Chrift's fufferings 
 and death. This feaft, therefore, conftituted no part of the 
 commemoration of the refurreftion, but was the grand 
 concluding aft of the preceding pafchal feafon. The 
 night being elapfed, thefe Chriftians commenced with 
 the dawning day their celebration of the anniverfary of 
 Chrift'8 triumph over death and the grave. Fifthly, it 
 
 appears 
 
of the Second Century. 083 
 
 abandon their pradice, which they confidered as c e n t. 
 having been handed down to them by the apof- , "1 _^ 
 
 tie Controverfj 
 refpe<Sing 
 
 appears that the pafchal lamb, of which they partook on the obfervanci 
 night preceding the feail of the refiirreftion, was felefted 
 and put under a courfe of preparation on the tenth day of 
 the month; a circnmftance correfponding precifely with the 
 pradlice of the Afiatics. For this Epiphanius gives us a 
 far-fetched reafon derived from the letter I, which is the 
 firll in the name of Jefus. The force of this reafon, how- 
 ever, may be comprehended without difficulty. The letter 
 Iota was made ufe of by the Greeks to denote the number 
 ten. Thefe Chriitians then, if any faith is to be placed in 
 the ftatement given by Epiphanius, reafoned after this 
 ■ manner : the name of Jefus begins with the letter I ; but 
 the letter I denotes the number ten ; that lamb therefore 
 which is the fhadow or emblem of Jefus, who was facrificed 
 for our fins, ought to be felefted from the flock, and brought 
 to the houfe of the high prieft on the tenth day. This 
 mode of reafoning was certainly by no means foreign to 
 the genius or difpofition of the early Chriftians, who, like 
 the Cabbalift Jews, conceived great myfteries to be involved 
 in certain numbers. I muft confefs, however, that I do 
 not believe this to have been the true origin of the cuftom, 
 but rather fufpeft Epiphanius to have followed, in this in- 
 ftance, merely the fnggeflions of his own fancy. The lamb 
 thus feparated from the flock on the tenth day, and in a 
 certain degree confecrated, was not immediately flain, but 
 feems to have been kept alive until the evening next pre- 
 ceding the fcaft of the refurreftion. Sixthly, it appears 
 that thefe adverfaries of the Afiatic Chriftians gave to the 
 whole of the feafon which they devoted to the commemo- 
 ration of Chrill's fnfFerings and death, and more particularly 
 to that feaftwithwhich they concludedit, the denomination of 
 Pafcha. This is manifefl: from thelaft words of Epiphanius. 
 (VII). Thefethings, then being duly weighed and afcertained, 
 it is, I think, plainly to be perceived in what refpefts the 
 Afiatic Chrifliians or Quarta-decimans differed from the reft. 
 Their difagrcement was not, as the learned father Daniel 
 imagined, refpeding the proper feafon or day for comme- 
 morating Chrift's death: for it was no lefs the praftice of 
 the Chriftians in general than of the Afiatics to confider as 
 pecuharly folemn andfacred, that day on which Chrift made 
 atonement by his death for the fins of the human race: and 
 
The Ecclefiaflical Hifiory 
 
 tie St. John. Impiiiient therefore of their per- 
 tinacity, it was towards the clofe of the cen- 
 tury determined by Victor, bifhop of Rome, that 
 thefe Afiatics Ihould be dealt with after a more 
 peremptory manner, and be compelled by certain 
 laws and decrees to conform themfelves to the 
 rule obferved by the greatefl part of the Chriilian 
 community. In this lefolution he was fuppoi ted 
 by the voice of fcveral councils that v/erc called 
 together in various provinces on the fubjed ; and 
 under the cover of their fanftion, he addrc^ffed to 
 the Afiatic bifliops an imperious epiflle, admo- 
 nifhing them no longer to perfifl in dill'ering ironi 
 other Chriftians as to their pafchal obferv- 
 
 even as to the very day itfi'lf no difference of opinion what- 
 ever exited between them and the Afiatics. ■770.^x7 y.^:ii^.;^a., 
 fays Epiphanius, ffare/.lL.i. §iii. p. 421. jAv ri^v reo-a-oi^sa-- 
 xc.ih-^.(x,Tvv . Ft nos qttartain illam dcc'imam diem (which is held 
 iacred by the Quarta-decimans) reli^io/e fcrvamus. Neither 
 did the time ior celebratiri'r the feafl of our Lord's re- 
 furreftion conftitute the principal or leading point in dif- 
 pute between them, but the time for holding the pafchal 
 fupper. The difpnte, in fa6l, embraced the three follow- 
 ing queftions : Firll, whether it was proper to begin the 
 day devoted to the comincmojation of Chrill's fulferings 
 and death with the pafchal fupper, and thereby break in upon 
 the facred and folemn faft of the day ? The Chriftians of 
 Afia Minor afferted the propriety of this ufage, the other 
 Chriftians denied it. Secondly, whether it was becoming, 
 in the difciples and followers of Chrift, to cat their pafchal 
 lamb at the fame time when the Jews, his moft inveterate 
 and rancorous enemies, ate theirs ? The Afiatic Chriftians 
 contended that it was ; the other Chriftians, that it was not. 
 Thirdly, whether it was proper to celebrate the feaft of 
 our bleftijd Saviour's refuireftion always on the third day 
 after the fourteenth day of the month on which he was put 
 to death ? The Afiatic Chriftians maintained that it was ; 
 the others, that it was not; thefe latter infifting, that as 
 it was on the firft day of the week that Chrift aftually 
 arofe from the dead, no other day than this ought to be 
 appropriated to the commemoration of that ftupcndous and 
 unparalleled event, 
 
 I ances. 
 
of the Second Century. 385 
 
 ances \_y\. Finding, however, that they were not in c e n t. 
 this way to be moved, but that they boldly ad- ._ - ^- ■ _; 
 drefled letters to the Roman church by Polycrates, Termh.at 
 bifiiop of Ephefus, in juflification of their ancient 
 practice, Vidor proceeded to the further length of verf; 
 excluding them from his communion, or, in other 
 words, he pronounced them altogether unworthy 
 of being any longer confidered by him and his 
 church in the light of brethren \j^~\. This im- 
 prudent 
 
 lUll 
 
 of the I'af- 
 chal coutrj- 
 
 \_y~\ Polycrates in his Epiftle to the Roman church, npud 
 Eufob. B'ljt. Ecckf. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 19 •., fays, y TTTUjop-s:* 
 ix* TO?; xJiT567r?^v,3-j-o//,£'voii. Nihil moveor iis qua nobis ad for' 
 midinem intent antur . Thefe words plainly prove that Victor 
 did not piirluL' a moderate and amicable courfe with his 
 Afiatic bn^thren, but had recourfe to threats, and wifhed 
 to haye impvcffed their minds with fear. 
 
 [z] Eufebiiis Hifior. Ecckf. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 192, 
 fays, E.'jcTWf aS^owiTj;,- Ao-i%; 7r«cr*i> a/xa t'xii o^iox^e, iKYX-r^cix^; 
 
 avuK-n^vr-Tuiv u^iX^>i-. Of thefe ivords Valefius j]jives us the 
 following tranflation. Vi8or omnis Afia incinarmnque Pro- 
 vinciarum Ecckfias, tamquam contraria reclx Fidei fentientes, 
 a Communinneabfcindere conatiir, datifqtie litteris univcrfos qui 
 illic erant fratres profcrlbit, isf cib unit ate ecdejia prorfus alicnos 
 effe promintiat. From the word 7rsi|aTa*, which Eiifebius makes 
 ufeof, this learned writer thought himfelf jiiftitied i.i conclud- 
 ing thatVidor did not in reality exclude the Afiati.cs from all 
 conuiiunion with the faithful, but merely wiilieo, or 
 attempted fo to exclude them, and that this his attempt 
 was fruilrated by the interference of Irenseus. This inter- 
 pretation is approved of by many of the friends to the 
 papacy, who feem to imagme that the temerity of Viftor 
 is thereby fomewhat extenuated. Others would contend 
 that at leaft this much mud be granted them, that the 
 words of Eufebius are ambiguous, and that we arc confe- 
 quently left in a ftate of obfcurity as to whether Vi6tor 
 actually excommunicated the Afiatics, or merely wifhed 
 and endeavoured to have them excommunicated. By the 
 greater part however, not only of Proteilant but Roman 
 Catholic writers, it has long been confidered that what is fub- 
 fequently faid by Eulebius of Vidlor's having by letters ex- 
 VOL. II. c c eluded 
 
386 
 
 The Ecclefiajlkal Hi/iory 
 
 CENT, prudent Itep might have been productive of the 
 "• mofl ferious detriment to the interefts of Chrif- 
 
 tianity 
 
 cliided theAfiatics from his communion, relieves his preced- 
 ing words from every fort of obfcurity. and makes it apparent 
 that the Roman prelate did not content himfelf with merely 
 willing the thing, but aftually carried his threats into exe- 
 cution. But to me it appears that even thefe, although 
 their ideas on the fubjeft are more correft than thofe of 
 Valefius and his followers, have not exadlly caught the 
 meaning of Eufebius. The hiftorian, unlefs I am alto- 
 gether deceived, is fpeaking of two defigns which Vi6lor 
 had in view, the one of which was merely conceived, the 
 other carried into effeft. Viftor both wifhed and endea- 
 voured to bring about the expulfion of the Afiatics from 
 all communion with the Catholic church, as corrupters of 
 the true-religion ; but in this he failed of fuccefs : for the 
 other bifhops would neither conform themfelves to his will, 
 nor imitate his example. What therefore he could accom- 
 plifli without the concurrence of the other bifhops, that 
 he did ; that is to fay, he by letter expelled the Afiatics 
 from all communion with the church of Rome over 
 which he prefided. The latter words of Eufebius are badly 
 rendered by Valefius, and through this faulty tranflation, 
 fupport has been afforded to a common error in regard to 
 what was done by Vidlor on this occafion, to which I Hiall 
 prefently advert. The Greek words, avaxy/^uTTwy txHotvwvn'ryj 
 are rendered into Latin by Valefius thus, ab unitate 
 ecclefia prorfus aVienos effe pronunt'iat. But this by no means 
 correfponds with the Greek original, in which nothing 
 whatever is faid of alienation, ab imitate eedefia. The 
 tranflation ought to have ran a commun'ione fua al'tenos 
 pronuntiabat. The words of this eminent fcholar how- 
 ever, are ftridtly in unifon with the common opinion of 
 both Roman Catholics and Proteftants, who are all una- 
 nimous in confidering Viftor as having, by his letters, de- 
 prived the Afiatic brethren of every fort of communion 
 with the whole Chriftian church ; in faft, as having on 
 this occafion aflerted the fame powers with regard to ex- 
 communication as were exercifed by his fucceffors poflerior 
 to the age of Charlemagne. The Proteftants in particular 
 call upon us to mark in this cafe the firfl fpecimen ' of the 
 arrogant and domineering fpirit of the bifhop of Rome, the 
 firft example of anti-chriftian excommunication. But thefe 
 worthy men laboured under an error, and formed their 
 
 judgment 
 
of the Second Century, '^'^-j 
 
 tianity had not Iren^eus, bifliop of Lyons in Gaul, cent. 
 interfered, and, although differing himfelf in opi- ^ ^; 
 
 niOn Terininatioti 
 of the Paf- 
 
 judgment of a matter of antiquity from the pradice of more **^^*^°''*™" 
 
 recent times. In the age in which Viftor lived, the power ^"^' 
 
 of the bifhop of Rome had not attanied to fuch an height 
 
 as to enable him to cut off from communion with the 
 
 church at large all thofe of whofe opinions or praftices he 
 
 might fee reafon to difapprove. The very hiftory of the 
 
 Pafchal controverfy now before us, places this out of all 
 
 difpute. For had the bifhop of Rome pofTeffed the right 
 
 and power of cutting off whom he ploafed from all com- 
 
 munion with the church at large, neither Irenjeus nor the 
 
 reft of the bifhops would have dared to oppofe his will, 
 
 but muft have bowed with fubmiflion to whatever he 
 
 might have thought proper to determine. Every bifhop 
 
 however poffefTed the power of excluding all fuch as he 
 
 might confider to be the advocates of grievous errors, or 
 
 as the corrupters of religion, from all communion with him- 
 
 felf and the chnrch over which he prefided, or in other 
 
 words, he might declare them unworthy of being confidered 
 
 any longer as brethren. This power indeed is poffefled 
 
 by the teachers of the church even at this tlay. Viftor 
 
 then, exercifed this common right with which every bifhop 
 
 was inverted, and by letters made known to the other 
 
 churches that he had excluded the Chriltians of Afia Minor, 
 
 on account of their pertinacity in defending their ancient 
 
 pra6lice, from all communion with himfelf and the churcl) 
 
 of Rome, expefting, in all probability, that the other 
 
 bifhops might be induced to follow his example, and in like 
 
 manner renounce all connexion with thefe Afiatics. But 
 
 in this he was deceived. «x\' a rraa-i, yi toIt i7rn7x.6voir raDr' 
 
 vYktkito, fays Eufebius, Bijor. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. xxiv. 
 
 p. 192. Vertim non omnibus hac placebant Epifcopis. The 
 
 reft of the bifhops declined following the example of the 
 
 Roman prelate in a line of condufl fo very dangerous and 
 
 imprudent. There can be no doubt, however, but that 
 
 they would have followed his example, indeed, whether 
 
 wiUing or not, they muft have followed it, if in this age the 
 
 doors of the church might have been clofed againft men by 
 
 the mere will of the Roman bifhop. The conduft of 
 
 Viaor therefore, on this occafion, although diftinguifhed 
 
 by temerity and imprudence, does yet not wear fo dark an 
 
 afpea as is commonly imagined, neither could it have been 
 
 attended with confequences of fuch extenfive importance 
 
388 The Eccleftajlical Hi/iory, iffc. 
 
 CENT, nion from the Afmtics, written letters to the 
 ._ ^ __, bifliop of Rome and the other prelates, pointing 
 TenninMioii out, in the moft forcible termSj theinjuflice of de- 
 chaUonlio- P^iving of their rights, and pronouncing unworthy 
 v«rfy. of the name of Chriftians, brethren, whofe fenti- 
 
 ments, v^ith regard to religion itfelf, were ftdftly 
 correft, and againft whom no other matter of 
 offence could be alleged than a diverfity as to 
 certain external rites and obfervances. The 
 Afiatics alfo, in a long epiflle which they cir- 
 culated throughout the Chridian world, took 
 care to remove from themfelves every fufpicion 
 of an attempt to corrupt the Catholic religion. 
 A fort of compromife, therefore, took place with 
 regard to thofe ritual differences, each party retain- 
 ing its own peculiar opinions and ufages, until 
 the holding of the council of Nice, in the fourth 
 century, when the cultom of the Afiatics was al- 
 together abolifhed. 
 
 as thofe would have us believe who hold it up as the firft 
 abufe of excommunication. The faft is, that they who 
 treat the matter in this way, are guilty of an abufe with re- 
 gard to the tQim excommutiication. Vidlor did not (according 
 to the fenfe in which the term is at prefent underftood) 
 excommunicate the Afiatics, but merely declared that he 
 and the members of the church over which he prcfided, 
 muft ceafe to confider them in the light of brethren until 
 they fhould confent to renounce their objeftionable practices. 
 
 END OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 
 
 StTuhan and Prffi<j/i, 
 Print«is-Street, Lonilon.