Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part II

The enfranchisement of the church from the bonds of the synagogue
was a work, however, of some time and of some difficulty. The
Jewish converts, who acknowledged Jesus in the character of the
Messiah foretold by their ancient oracles, respected him as a
prophetic teacher of virtue and religion; but they obstinately
adhered to the ceremonies of their ancestors, and were desirous
of imposing them on the Gentiles, who continually augmented the
number of believers. These Judaizing Christians seem to have
argued with some degree of plausibility from the divine origin of
the Mosaic law, and from the immutable perfections of its great
Author. They affirmed, that if the Being, who is the same through
all eternity, had designed to abolish those sacred rites which
had served to distinguish his chosen people, the repeal of them
would have been no less clear and solemn than their first
promulgation: _that_, instead of those frequent declarations,
which either suppose or assert the perpetuity of the Mosaic
religion, it would have been represented as a provisionary scheme
intended to last only to the coming of the Messiah, who should
instruct mankind in a more perfect mode of faith and of worship:
15 _that_ the Messiah himself, and his disciples who conversed
with him on earth, instead of authorizing by their example the
most minute observances of the Mosaic law, 16 would have
published to the world the abolition of those useless and
obsolete ceremonies, without suffering Christianity to remain
during so many years obscurely confounded among the sects of the
Jewish church. Arguments like these appear to have been used in
the defence of the expiring cause of the Mosaic law; but the
industry of our learned divines has abundantly explained the
ambiguous language of the Old Testament, and the ambiguous
conduct of the apostolic teachers. It was proper gradually to
unfold the system of the gospel, and to pronounce, with the
utmost caution and tenderness, a sentence of condemnation so
repugnant to the inclination and prejudices of the believing
Jews.

15 (return) [ These arguments were urged with great ingenuity by
the Jew Orobio, and refuted with equal ingenuity and candor by
the Christian Limborch. See the Amica Collatio, (it well deserves
that name,) or account of the dispute between them.]

16 (return) [ Jesus... circumcisus erat; cibis utebatur Judaicis;
vestitu simili; purgatos scabie mittebat ad sacerdotes; Paschata
et alios dies festos religiose observabat: Si quos sanavit
sabbatho, ostendit non tantum ex lege, sed et exceptis
sententiis, talia opera sabbatho non interdicta. Grotius de
Veritate Religionis Christianæ, l. v. c. 7. A little afterwards,
(c. 12,) he expatiates on the condescension of the apostles.]

The history of the church of Jerusalem affords a lively proof of
the necessity of those precautions, and of the deep impression
which the Jewish religion had made on the minds of its sectaries.
The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews;
and the congregation over which they presided united the law of
Moses with the doctrine of Christ. 17 It was natural that the
primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days
after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years
under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received
as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very
frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent,
and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms.
But when numerous and opulent societies were established in the
great cities of the empire, in Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus,
Corinth, and Rome, the reverence which Jerusalem had inspired to
all the Christian colonies insensibly diminished. 18b The Jewish
converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the Nazarenes, who
had laid the foundations of the church, soon found themselves
overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the
various religions of polytheism enlisted under the banner of
Christ: and the Gentiles, who, with the approbation of their
peculiar apostle, had rejected the intolerable weight of the
Mosaic ceremonies, at length refused to their more scrupulous
brethren the same toleration which at first they had humbly
solicited for their own practice. The ruin of the temple of the
city, and of the public religion of the Jews, was severely felt
by the Nazarenes; as in their manners, though not in their faith,
they maintained so intimate a connection with their impious
countrymen, whose misfortunes were attributed by the Pagans to
the contempt, and more justly ascribed by the Christians to the
wrath, of the Supreme Deity. The Nazarenes retired from the ruins
of Jerusalem 18 to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan,
where that ancient church languished above sixty years in
solitude and obscurity. 19 They still enjoyed the comfort of
making frequent and devout visits to the _Holy City_, and the
hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature
and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at
length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of
the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the
Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the
rights of victory with unusual rigor. The emperor founded, under
the name of Ælia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, 20 to
which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the
severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should
dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a
Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The
Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common
proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion
assisted by the influence of temporal advantages. They elected
Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles,
and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the
Latin provinces. At his persuasion, the most considerable part of
the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of
which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of
their habits and prejudices, they purchased a free admission into
the colony of Hadrian, and more firmly cemented their union with
the Catholic church. 21

17 (return) [ Pæne omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione
credebant Sulpicius Severus, ii. 31. See Eusebius, Hist.
Ecclesiast. l. iv. c. 5.]

18b (return) [Footnote 18b: Mosheim de Rebus Christianis ante
Constantinum Magnum, page 153. In this masterly performance,
which I shall often have occasion to quote he enters much more
fully into the state of the primitive church than he has an
opportunity of doing in his General History.]

18 (return) [ This is incorrect: all the traditions concur in
placing the abandonment of the city by the Christians, not only
before it was in ruins, but before the seige had commenced.
Euseb. loc. cit., and Le Clerc.—M.]

19 (return) [ Eusebius, l. iii. c. 5. Le Clerc, Hist. Ecclesiast.
p. 605. During this occasional absence, the bishop and church of
Pella still retained the title of Jerusalem. In the same manner,
the Roman pontiffs resided seventy years at Avignon; and the
patriarchs of Alexandria have long since transferred their
episcopal seat to Cairo.]

20 (return) [ Dion Cassius, l. lxix. The exile of the Jewish
nation from Jerusalem is attested by Aristo of Pella, (apud
Euseb. l. iv. c. 6,) and is mentioned by several ecclesiastical
writers; though some of them too hastily extend this interdiction
to the whole country of Palestine.]

21 (return) [ Eusebius, l. iv. c. 6. Sulpicius Severus, ii. 31.
By comparing their unsatisfactory accounts, Mosheim (p. 327, &c.)
has drawn out a very distinct representation of the circumstances
and motives of this revolution.]

When the name and honors of the church of Jerusalem had been
restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were
imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes, which refused to
accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former
habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent
to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of
Berœa, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. 22 The name
of Nazarenes was deemed too honorable for those Christian Jews,
and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their
understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous
epithet of Ebionites. 23 In a few years after the return of the
church of Jerusalem, it became a matter of doubt and controversy,
whether a man who sincerely acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah,
but who still continued to observe the law of Moses, could
possibly hope for salvation. The humane temper of Justin Martyr
inclined him to answer this question in the affirmative; and
though he expressed himself with the most guarded diffidence, he
ventured to determine in favor of such an imperfect Christian, if
he were content to practise the Mosaic ceremonies, without
pretending to assert their general use or necessity. But when
Justin was pressed to declare the sentiment of the church, he
confessed that there were very many among the orthodox
Christians, who not only excluded their Judaizing brethren from
the hope of salvation, but who declined any intercourse with them
in the common offices of friendship, hospitality, and social
life. 24 The more rigorous opinion prevailed, as it was natural
to expect, over the milder; and an eternal bar of separation was
fixed between the disciples of Moses and those of Christ. The
unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates,
and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to
assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that
obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century,
they insensibly melted away, either into the church or the
synagogue. 25

22 (return) [ Le Clerc (Hist. Ecclesiast. p. 477, 535) seems to
have collected from Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and other
writers, all the principal circumstances that relate to the
Nazarenes or Ebionites. The nature of their opinions soon divided
them into a stricter and a milder sect; and there is some reason
to conjecture, that the family of Jesus Christ remained members,
at least, of the latter and more moderate party.]

23 (return) [ Some writers have been pleased to create an Ebion,
the imaginary author of their sect and name. But we can more
safely rely on the learned Eusebius than on the vehement
Tertullian, or the credulous Epiphanius. According to Le Clerc,
the Hebrew word Ebjonim may be translated into Latin by that of
Pauperes. See Hist. Ecclesiast. p. 477. * Note: The opinion of Le
Clerc is generally admitted; but Neander has suggested some good
reasons for supposing that this term only applied to poverty of
condition. The obscure history of their tenets and divisions, is
clearly and rationally traced in his History of the Church, vol.
i. part ii. p. 612, &c., Germ. edit.—M.]

24 (return) [ See the very curious Dialogue of Justin Martyr with
the Jew Tryphon. The conference between them was held at Ephesus,
in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and about twenty years after the
return of the church of Pella to Jerusalem. For this date consult
the accurate note of Tillemont, Memoires Ecclesiastiques, tom.
ii. p. 511. * Note: Justin Martyr makes an important distinction,
which Gibbon has neglected to notice. * * * There were some who
were not content with observing the Mosaic law themselves, but
enforced the same observance, as necessary to salvation, upon the
heathen converts, and refused all social intercourse with them if
they did not conform to the law. Justin Martyr himself freely
admits those who kept the law themselves to Christian communion,
though he acknowledges that some, not the Church, thought
otherwise; of the other party, he himself thought less favorably.
The former by some are considered the Nazarenes the atter the
Ebionites—G and M.]

25 (return) [ Of all the systems of Christianity, that of
Abyssinia is the only one which still adheres to the Mosaic
rites. (Geddes’s Church History of Æthiopia, and Dissertations de
La Grand sur la Relation du P. Lobo.) The eunuch of the queen
Candace might suggest some suspicious; but as we are assured
(Socrates, i. 19. Sozomen, ii. 24. Ludolphus, p. 281) that the
Æthiopians were not converted till the fourth century, it is more
reasonable to believe that they respected the sabbath, and
distinguished the forbidden meats, in imitation of the Jews, who,
in a very early period, were seated on both sides of the Red Sea.
Circumcision had been practised by the most ancient Æthiopians,
from motives of health and cleanliness, which seem to be
explained in the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Americains,
tom. ii. p. 117.]

While the orthodox church preserved a just medium between
excessive veneration and improper contempt for the law of Moses,
the various heretics deviated into equal but opposite extremes of
error and extravagance. From the acknowledged truth of the Jewish
religion, the Ebionites had concluded that it could never be
abolished. From its supposed imperfections, the Gnostics as
hastily inferred that it never was instituted by the wisdom of
the Deity. There are some objections against the authority of
Moses and the prophets, which too readily present themselves to
the sceptical mind; though they can only be derived from our
ignorance of remote antiquity, and from our incapacity to form an
adequate judgment of the divine economy. These objections were
eagerly embraced and as petulantly urged by the vain science of
the Gnostics. 26 As those heretics were, for the most part,
averse to the pleasures of sense, they morosely arraigned the
polygamy of the patriarchs, the gallantries of David, and the
seraglio of Solomon. The conquest of the land of Canaan, and the
extirpation of the unsuspecting natives, they were at a loss how
to reconcile with the common notions of humanity and justice. 261
But when they recollected the sanguinary list of murders, of
executions, and of massacres, which stain almost every page of
the Jewish annals, they acknowledged that the barbarians of
Palestine had exercised as much compassion towards their
idolatrous enemies, as they had ever shown to their friends or
countrymen. 27 Passing from the sectaries of the law to the law
itself, they asserted that it was impossible that a religion
which consisted only of bloody sacrifices and trifling
ceremonies, and whose rewards as well as punishments were all of
a carnal and temporal nature, could inspire the love of virtue,
or restrain the impetuosity of passion. The Mosaic account of the
creation and fall of man was treated with profane derision by the
Gnostics, who would not listen with patience to the repose of the
Deity after six days’ labor, to the rib of Adam, the garden of
Eden, the trees of life and of knowledge, the speaking serpent,
the forbidden fruit, and the condemnation pronounced against
human kind for the venial offence of their first progenitors. 28
The God of Israel was impiously represented by the Gnostics as a
being liable to passion and to error, capricious in his favor,
implacable in his resentment, meanly jealous of his superstitious
worship, and confining his partial providence to a single people,
and to this transitory life. In such a character they could
discover none of the features of the wise and omnipotent Father
of the universe. 29 They allowed that the religion of the Jews
was somewhat less criminal than the idolatry of the Gentiles; but
it was their fundamental doctrine that the Christ whom they
adored as the first and brightest emanation of the Deity appeared
upon earth to rescue mankind from their various errors, and to
reveal a new system of truth and perfection. The most learned of
the fathers, by a very singular condescension, have imprudently
admitted the sophistry of the Gnostics. 291 Acknowledging that
the literal sense is repugnant to every principle of faith as
well as reason, they deem themselves secure and invulnerable
behind the ample veil of allegory, which they carefully spread
over every tender part of the Mosaic dispensation. 30

26 (return) [ Beausobre, Histoire du Manicheisme, l. i. c. 3, has
stated their objections, particularly those of Faustus, the
adversary of Augustin, with the most learned impartiality.]

261 (return) [ On the “war law” of the Jews, see Hist. of Jews,
i. 137.—M.]

27 (return) [ Apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in
promptu: adversus amnes alios hostile odium. Tacit. Hist. v. 4.
Surely Tacitus had seen the Jews with too favorable an eye. The
perusal of Josephus must have destroyed the antithesis. * Note:
Few writers have suspected Tacitus of partiality towards the
Jews. The whole later history of the Jews illustrates as well
their strong feelings of humanity to their brethren, as their
hostility to the rest of mankind. The character and the position
of Josephus with the Roman authorities, must be kept in mind
during the perusal of his History. Perhaps he has not exaggerated
the ferocity and fanaticism of the Jews at that time; but
insurrectionary warfare is not the best school for the humaner
virtues, and much must be allowed for the grinding tyranny of the
later Roman governors. See Hist. of Jews, ii. 254.—M.]

28 (return) [ Dr. Burnet (Archæologia, l. ii. c. 7) has discussed
the first chapters of Genesis with too much wit and freedom. *
Note: Dr. Burnet apologized for the levity with which he had
conducted some of his arguments, by the excuse that he wrote in a
learned language for scholars alone, not for the vulgar. Whatever
may be thought of his success in tracing an Eastern allegory in
the first chapters of Genesis, his other works prove him to have
been a man of great genius, and of sincere piety.—M]

29 (return) [ The milder Gnostics considered Jehovah, the
Creator, as a Being of a mixed nature between God and the Dæmon.
Others confounded him with an evil principle. Consult the second
century of the general history of Mosheim, which gives a very
distinct, though concise, account of their strange opinions on
this subject.]

291 (return) [ The Gnostics, and the historian who has stated
these plausible objections with so much force as almost to make
them his own, would have shown a more considerate and not less
reasonable philosophy, if they had considered the religion of
Moses with reference to the age in which it was promulgated; if
they had done justice to its sublime as well as its more
imperfect views of the divine nature; the humane and civilizing
provisions of the Hebrew law, as well as those adapted for an
infant and barbarous people. See Hist of Jews, i. 36, 37, &c.—M.]

30 (return) [ See Beausobre, Hist. du Manicheisme, l. i. c. 4.
Origen and St. Augustin were among the allegorists.]

It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth, that the
virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or
heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred
years after the death of Christ. 31 We may observe with much more
propriety, that, during that period, the disciples of the Messiah
were indulged in a freer latitude, both of faith and practice,
than has ever been allowed in succeeding ages. As the terms of
communion were insensibly narrowed, and the spiritual authority
of the prevailing party was exercised with increasing severity,
many of its most respectable adherents, who were called upon to
renounce, were provoked to assert their private opinions, to
pursue the consequences of their mistaken principles, and openly
to erect the standard of rebellion against the unity of the
church. The Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the
most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name; and
that general appellation, which expressed a superiority of
knowledge, was either assumed by their own pride, or ironically
bestowed by the envy of their adversaries. They were almost
without exception of the race of the Gentiles, and their
principal founders seem to have been natives of Syria or Egypt,
where the warmth of the climate disposes both the mind and the
body to indolent and contemplative devotion. The Gnostics blended
with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which
they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion
of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of
two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible
world. 32 As soon as they launched out into that vast abyss, they
delivered themselves to the guidance of a disordered imagination;
and as the paths of error are various and infinite, the Gnostics
were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects,
33 of whom the most celebrated appear to have been the
Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and, in a still
later period, the Manichæans. Each of these sects could boast of
its bishops and congregations, of its doctors and martyrs; 34
and, instead of the Four Gospels adopted by the church, 341 the
heretics produced a multitude of histories, in which the actions
and discourses of Christ and of his apostles were adapted to
their respective tenets. 35 The success of the Gnostics was rapid
and extensive. 36 They covered Asia and Egypt, established
themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the provinces
of the West. For the most part they arose in the second century,
flourished during the third, and were suppressed in the fourth or
fifth, by the prevalence of more fashionable controversies, and
by the superior ascendant of the reigning power. Though they
constantly disturbed the peace, and frequently disgraced the
name, of religion, they contributed to assist rather than to
retard the progress of Christianity. The Gentile converts, whose
strongest objections and prejudices were directed against the law
of Moses, could find admission into many Christian societies,
which required not from their untutored mind any belief of an
antecedent revelation. Their faith was insensibly fortified and
enlarged, and the church was ultimately benefited by the
conquests of its most inveterate enemies. 37

31 (return) [ Hegesippus, ap. Euseb. l. iii. 32, iv. 22. Clemens
Alexandrin Stromat. vii. 17. * Note: The assertion of Hegesippus
is not so positive: it is sufficient to read the whole passage in
Eusebius, to see that the former part is modified by the matter.
Hegesippus adds, that up to this period the church had remained
pure and immaculate as a virgin. Those who labored to corrupt the
doctrines of the gospel worked as yet in obscurity—G]

32 (return) [ In the account of the Gnostics of the second and
third centuries, Mosheim is ingenious and candid; Le Clerc dull,
but exact; Beausobre almost always an apologist; and it is much
to be feared that the primitive fathers are very frequently
calumniators. * Note The Histoire du Gnosticisme of M. Matter is
at once the fairest and most complete account of these sects.—M.]

33 (return) [ See the catalogues of Irenæus and Epiphanius. It
must indeed be allowed, that those writers were inclined to
multiply the number of sects which opposed the unity of the
church.]

34 (return) [ Eusebius, l. iv. c. 15. Sozomen, l. ii. c. 32. See
in Bayle, in the article of Marcion, a curious detail of a
dispute on that subject. It should seem that some of the Gnostics
(the Basilidians) declined, and even refused the honor of
Martyrdom. Their reasons were singular and abstruse. See Mosheim,
p. 539.]

341 (return) [ M. Hahn has restored the Marcionite Gospel with
great ingenuity. His work is reprinted in Thilo. Codex. Apoc.
Nov. Test. vol. i.—M.]

35 (return) [ See a very remarkable passage of Origen, (Proem. ad
Lucam.) That indefatigable writer, who had consumed his life in
the study of the Scriptures, relies for their authenticity on the
inspired authority of the church. It was impossible that the
Gnostics could receive our present Gospels, many parts of which
(particularly in the resurrection of Christ) are directly, and as
it might seem designedly, pointed against their favorite tenets.
It is therefore somewhat singular that Ignatius (Epist. ad Smyrn.
Patr. Apostol. tom. ii. p. 34) should choose to employ a vague
and doubtful tradition, instead of quoting the certain testimony
of the evangelists. Note: Bishop Pearson has attempted very
happily to explain this singularity.’ The first Christians were
acquainted with a number of sayings of Jesus Christ, which are
not related in our Gospels, and indeed have never been written.
Why might not St. Ignatius, who had lived with the apostles or
their disciples, repeat in other words that which St. Luke has
related, particularly at a time when, being in prison, he could
have the Gospels at hand? Pearson, Vind Ign. pp. 2, 9 p. 396 in
tom. ii. Patres Apost. ed. Coteler—G.]

36 (return) [ Faciunt favos et vespæ; faciunt ecclesias et
Marcionitæ, is the strong expression of Tertullian, which I am
obliged to quote from memory. In the time of Epiphanius (advers.
Hæreses, p. 302) the Marcionites were very numerous in Italy,
Syria, Egypt, Arabia, and Persia.]

37 (return) [ Augustin is a memorable instance of this gradual
progress from reason to faith. He was, during several years,
engaged in the Manichæar sect.]

But whatever difference of opinion might subsist between the
Orthodox, the Ebionites, and the Gnostics, concerning the
divinity or the obligation of the Mosaic law, they were all
equally animated by the same exclusive zeal, and by the same
abhorrence for idolatry, which had distinguished the Jews from
the other nations of the ancient world. The philosopher, who
considered the system of polytheism as a composition of human
fraud and error, could disguise a smile of contempt under the
mask of devotion, without apprehending that either the mockery,
or the compliance, would expose him to the resentment of any
invisible, or, as he conceived them, imaginary powers. But the
established religions of Paganism were seen by the primitive
Christians in a much more odious and formidable light. It was the
universal sentiment both of the church and of heretics, that the
dæmons were the authors, the patrons, and the objects of
idolatry. 38 Those rebellious spirits who had been degraded from
the rank of angels, and cast down into the infernal pit, were
still permitted to roam upon earth, to torment the bodies, and to
seduce the minds, of sinful men. The dæmons soon discovered and
abused the natural propensity of the human heart towards
devotion, and artfully withdrawing the adoration of mankind from
their Creator, they usurped the place and honors of the Supreme
Deity. By the success of their malicious contrivances, they at
once gratified their own vanity and revenge, and obtained the
only comfort of which they were yet susceptible, the hope of
involving the human species in the participation of their guilt
and misery. It was confessed, or at least it was imagined, that
they had distributed among themselves the most important
characters of polytheism, one dæmon assuming the name and
attributes of Jupiter, another of Æsculapius, a third of Venus,
and a fourth perhaps of Apollo; 39 and that, by the advantage of
their long experience and ærial nature, they were enabled to
execute, with sufficient skill and dignity, the parts which they
had undertaken. They lurked in the temples, instituted festivals
and sacrifices, invented fables, pronounced oracles, and were
frequently allowed to perform miracles. The Christians, who, by
the interposition of evil spirits, could so readily explain every
præternatural appearance, were disposed and even desirous to
admit the most extravagant fictions of the Pagan mythology. But
the belief of the Christian was accompanied with horror. The most
trifling mark of respect to the national worship he considered as
a direct homage yielded to the dæmon, and as an act of rebellion
against the majesty of God.

38 (return) [ The unanimous sentiment of the primitive church is
very clearly explained by Justin Martyr, Apolog. Major, by
Athenagoras, Legat. c. 22. &c., and by Lactantius, Institut.
Divin. ii. 14—19.]

39 (return) [ Tertullian (Apolog. c. 23) alleges the confession
of the dæmons themselves as often as they were tormented by the
Christian exorcists]