UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
31. OUAIS.PLHIULA AMOYAM
CIACUMSPICE
Hihinaan
181
Tiit MAMAIAniointim hind,
SCIENTIA
ARTES
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
bundvitit
TI:FIOR
11:J.J.J.S.V. JUU) Nat.v.)
Links Donna
Watum) IANUNU hitun
UMIINIHIHOIHUTUMIKIT
i
7
III
b. 4
Α Ν
IN QUI RY
IN TO
THE SECONDARY
CAUSES
WHICH MR GIBBON HAS
HAS ASSIGNED
FOR
The Rapid Growth of Chriſtianity.
Hailes,
By Sir
DAVID D A L R Y M P L E.
ΤΑΥΤΗΝ ΜΟΝΟΝ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΟΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑΝ ΑΣΦΑΛΗ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΜΦΕΡΟΝ. .
Juſtin Martyr.
E DIN BU R G H:
PRINTED MURRAY & COCHRANE.
For T. CADELL, LONDON.
BY
MDCCLXXXV I.
BL
2173
G44
H15
13-1104583
GRATEFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY
INSCRIBED
BY
SIRDAVID DAL R Y M P LE
TO
RICHARD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
MDCCLXXXVI.
1
:
CH A P T E R I.
}
t
MR.
R GIBBON juſtly obferves, that “a candid but rational in-
1
quiry into the progreſs and eſtabliſhment of Chriſtianity,
may be conſidered as a very effential part of the hiſtory of the
Román empire."
“While,” ſays he, “ that great body was invaded by open vio-
" lence, or undermined by ſlow decay, a pure and humble re-
ligion gently inſinuated itſelf into the minds of men, grew up
« in ſilence and obſcurity, derived new vigour from oppoſition,
« and finally erected the triumphant banner of the Croſs on the
“ ruins of the Capitol.” * “Our curioſity is naturally prompt-
ed to inquire, by what means the Chriſtian faith obtained fo
“ remarkable a victory over the eſtabliſhed religions of the earth.
To this inquiry, an obvious, but Jatisfactory anſwer may be re-
“ turned ; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doc-
“ trine itſelf, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But
as truth and reaſon ſeldom find ſo favourable a reception in the
world, and as the wiſdom of Providence frequently condeſcends
to uſe the paſſions of the human heart, and the general circum-
ſtances of mankind, as inſtruments to execute its purpoſe, we
may ſtill be permitted, though with becoming reverence, to aſk,
not indeed what were the firſt, but what were the ſecondary cauſes
“ of the rapid growth of the Chriſtian Church.” i. 535.536.
* Mr Gibbon, in his exordium, ſpeaks alſo of the propagation of the goſpel after
Chriſtianity became the eſtabliſhed religion of the Roman empire; but on this, as fo-
reign to his ſubject, he does not enlarge.
A
That
CH A P T E R I.
1
That which is placed in the foremoſt rank of " the ſecondary
- cauſes of the rapid growth of the Chriſtian church," ſeems ſo
fingular, that, were it not exhibited in the very words of Mr Gib-
bon, my readers might ſuſpect me of having either miſunder-
flood or falĞfied the original.
He ſays, that one of the cauſes of the rapid growth of the
Chriſtian church was, " the inflexible, and, if we may uſe the ex-
preſſion, the intolerant zeal of the Chriſtians, derived, it is true,
“ from the Jewiſh religion, but purified from the narrow and un-
“ focial ſpirit, which, inſtead of inviting, had deterred the Gen-
" tiles from embracing the law of Moſes;" i. 536.
Mr Gibbon heſitates to employ an expreſſion, which, when
rightly underſtood, is altogether appolite. For " the great prin-
ciple of the Chriſtian church is intolerance, and the zeal of the
primitive Chriſtians was intolerant.
Chriſtian zeal has no concern with the perſons or fortunes of
thoſe who are inimical to Chriſtianity; and, knowing of what ifpi-
rit it is, will not call for fire from heaven on its adverſaries, ..
But Chriſtians, believing in one God, could not enter into re-
ligious fociety with men who believed, or were willing to have it
thought that they believed, in a multiplicity of gods *. To ſpeak
in ſcriptural language, they held, that light hath no fellowſhip
with darkneſs; and that the temple of God can have-no-agreement with
idols ; 2. Corinth. vi. 16.
Now, was not this intolerant zeal, however purified from a narrow
and unfocial ſpirit, a cauſe of all others the moſt unlikely to accele-
rate the progreſs of Chriſtianity ?. 1..
Yet the evidence produced by Mr Gibbon ought to be heard,
Beginning with Moſes, he ſays, “ The ſullen obftinacy with
" which the Jews maintained their peculiar rites and unſocial
.
:.
$
* More will be ſaid on this topic when Jewith intolerance comes to be treated of.
manners,
C HA P T E R I.
3
manners, ſeemed to mark them out as a diſtinct ſpecies of men,
“ who boldly confeſſed, or who faintly diſguiſed, their impla-
“ cable hatred to the reſt of human-kind;". i. 537.
Ini ſupport of this charge, he quotes a trite paſſage of Juve-
nal: * and he adds in a note, “ The letter of this law is not to be
“ found in the preſent volume of Moſes. But the wiſe and the
“ humane Maimonides openly teaches, that if an idolater fall in-
to the water, a Jew ought not to ſave him from inſtant death.
“ See Baſnage, Hiſtoire des Juifs, . I. vi. c. 28.” i. 537.
One might be led to infer from this note, that, in the volume
of Moſes which Juvenal uſed, there was an ordinance to the fol-
lowing effect: “ Thou thalt not ſhew the way unto the Heathen,
" neither ſhalt thou diſcloſe the fountains of water unto the un-
“ circumciſed;" and that, in the preſent volume of Moſes, how-
ever much it may differ from Juvenal's copy, the ſpirit, although
not the letter of ſuch an ordinance, is ſtill diſcernible f.
* Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moſes :
Non monftrare vias, eadem niſi facra colenti;
Quahtum ad fontem folos deducere verpas.
1
+ Johannes Britannicus, an Italian commentator on Juvenal, roundly affirms, that
Mofes did enact a law of the import mentioned by the fatyriſt: “ Moſes," ſays he,
• willed that the Iſraelites ſhould be ſo totally averſe from all other religions, as not
to have any intercourſe whatever, unleſs with men of their own faith; that they
6 ſhould not direct a Heathen on his way, or ſhew him where water was to be had
" when he aſked it. This is contrary to every ſentiment of humanity. But Mofes
" thought that ſuch a conduct was not improper towards thoſe who profeſſed a diffe-
“ rent religion from his own, which, however, was always held, even by the Hea-
" thens themſelves, to be inhuman and barbarous.” [Voluit Moſes Judæos adeo ab
omni alia religione effe,averſos, ut ne commercium quidem ullum haberent, nifi cum
co qui eadem facra colleret ; nec viam erranti, nec aquam quærenti monftrarent:
quod contra omnem eſt humanitatem. Putavit tamen Mofes non indignum videri
adverſus eos qui facra ſua non colerent; quod quidem apud omnes, vel Ethnicos, inhu-
manum et barbarum habitum ſemper fuit]. See Juven. Sat. xiv. 1. 103. edit. Hen-
ninii, p. 650. It may be fome; apology for “ Johannes Britannicus," that, while he
miſrepreſents the law, he denies the divine legation of the lawgiver.
But
.: A 2
4
CH A P T E R I.
xxii. 21.
But to ſuch inferences we may oppoſe a few paſſages ſelected
out of the Pentateuch. “ Thou ſhalt neither vex a ſtranger, nor
oppreſs him: for ye were ſtrangers in the land of Egypt;" Exod.
“ Alſo thou ſhalt not oppreſs a ſtranger: for ye. know
“ the heart of a ſtranger, ſeeing ye were ſtrangers in the land of
Egypt;" Exod. xxiii. 9. -"And if a ſtranger fojourn with thee
“ in your land, ye ſhall not vex him. But the ſtranger that
“ dwelleth with you, ſhall be unto you as one born amongſt
you, and thou ſhalt love him as thyſelf; for ye were ſtrangers
“ in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God;" Levit. xix. 33.
34. “ For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of
“ lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth
not perfons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judge-
ment of the fatherleſs and widow, and loveth the ſtranger*, in
giving him food and raiment. Love
Love ye therefore the ſtranger :
ye were ſtrangers in the land of Egypt;" Deut. x. 17. – 19.
We are taught from our youth to admire the energy of the
words of Dido in Virgil:
" for
I learn to pity woes fo like my own f.
DRYDEN.
The expreſſion, “ love the ſtranger, for ye were ſtrangers in the
« land of Egypt," is ſtill more emphatical; it is a precept form-
ed on an appeal to the feelings of a whole nation.
And although the ſtranger that dwelleth, with you," may,
perhaps, ſignify, one who had embraced the Jewiſh faith ;" yet
all the other paſſages in which“ ſtrangers” are mentioned, muſt
be underſtood of " perſons 'without the pale of the church.”
If ſuch proviſions were made, in the law of Moſes, for the fe-
curity and comfort of Heathens, we may certainly conclude, that
nothing, either in the letter or ſpirit of that law, forbade the Jews
$
-
1
ΖΕΥΣ ΦΙΛΟΞΕΝΟΣ, is a more endearing appellation, than ΖΕΥΣ ΞΕΝΙΟΣ.
.
+" Non ignara mali, miferis fuccurrere diſco."
to
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
1
I.
5
ܕ ;
to perform the general offices of humanity to ſtrangers, whôm
“ God loveth."
He who wiſhes to avoid this concluſion, muſt either recur to
the exploded hypotheſis, that the books of Moſes have come down
to us in a mutilated ſtate; or, adopting an hypotheſis ſtill more
extravagant, he muſt aſſert, that the Jews, the guardians of thoſe
books, have foiſted precepts of humanity into them.
It is hard to diſcover the meaning or tendency of the fequel of
Mr Gibbon's note: " But the wife and the humane Maimonides
openly teaches, that if an idolater fall into the water, a Jew
manho ought not to ſave him from inſtant death.
Are the epithets wife and humane uſed ironically, or do they
import, that Jewiſh prejudices overcame the wiſdom and humani-
ty of Maimonides?
The word “ But” connects the two parts of the ſentence: and
therefore it might be conjectured, that the author meant to ſay,
that although no ordinance, ſuch as Juvenal mentions, can be
found in the preſent volume of Mofes; yet that a wife and hu-
mane commentator on the Mofaical law ſuppoſes ſuch an ordi-
nance to have exiſted heretofore in that law *
The cafuiſtry of Maimonides was not derived from the Mofaical
law, but from the traditionary maxims of the Jewiſh teachers:;
and all his wiſdom and all his humanity could not reſtrain him
from drinking deep of that ſtream of corruption.
We need not wonder that ſuch was the caſe in the eleventh
century, at which time Maimonides wrote ; for our Lord
himſelf lamented that, even in his days, the teachers of Iſrael
“ made the commandment; of God of none effect by their tra-
“ ditions ;" Matth, xv. 6.
* The ſtyle of Mr Gibbon is generally ſuppoſed to be clear; and yet I meet with
many things in his work which ſeem ambiguous. If, at any time, I ſhould have the
ill fortune to miſunderſtand him, he will pardon my miſtake.
To'
3
ri
6.
I.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
To this wayward caſuiſtry there are other alluſions in the wri-
tings of the Evangeliſts. Thus, as it ſhould ſeem, from the pre-
cept, “. Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf," Levit. xix. 18.
the Jewiſh teachers inferred, that an oppoſite precept, Thou
“ íhalt hate thine enemy *,” was alſo the commandment of God.
“
Matth. v. 43.
The Heathens took no pains to make themſelves acquainted
with the true import of the law of Moſes; and the Jewiſh caſuiſts,
by their baſe gloſſes, disfigured it. But that law ought not to be
judged on the evidence of ignorant cavils, and perverſe interpre-
tations.
In this ſection, intitled, “ Zeal of the Jews," there are other
particulars which merit explanation.
Thus, it is ſaid, that “ the Jews multiplied to a ſurpriſing de-
gree
in the eaſt, and afterwards in the weſt."
Some reaſon ought to have been aſſigned for this ſurpriſing in-
creafe, and the more fo, becauſe it is ſaid, preſently after, that
6 it ſeems probable that the number of profelytes was never much
w!ſuperior to that of apoftates;" —that “the deſcendants of Abra-
“ham were apprehenſive of diminiſhing the value of their inhe-
ritance, by ſharing it too eaſily with the ſtrangers of the
that " whenever the God of Iſrael acquired any new
Lilvotaries, he was much more indebted to the inconſtant humour
" of Polytheiſm, than to the active zeal of his own miſſionaries;”-
and that "the painful, and even dangerous rite of circumciſion, ,
alone capable of repelling a willing profelyte from the ſy-
nagogue.” i. 539.-541.
There is hardly a phraſe in all this hiſtorical and critical de-
duction that can paſs unobſerved.
is
16 earth;"
was
* It is probable that the interpreters, who, at this paffage, make a marginal refer-
ence to Exod. xxxiv. 12. Levit. xix. 18. and Deut. vii. 2. mean only to point out the
texts in the Pentateuch that were perverted by the Jewiſh caſuiſts.
The
CHAPTER I.
- 7
The God of Iſrael, as Mr Gibbon muſt know, is alſo the God of
heaven and of earth; and therefore He could not be indebted for
votaries, either to the humour of Polytheiſm, or to the zeal of
Jewiſh millionaries.
Beſides, God never ſent miſſionaries with the purpoſe of con,
verting Heathens to the belief of the Jewiſh religion.
Mr Gibbon obſerves, that the Jews increaſed ſurpriſingly, and
at the ſame time he ſuppofes, that this ſurpriſing increaſe was not
owing to any 'acceſſion of profelytes.
Heathen writers feldom, if ever, ſpeak honourably of Judaiſm;
and yet they ſeem agreed, that the number of profelytes to that
religion was great.
In the fragments of Seneca, we read, “ So univerſally do the
" cuſtoms of that moſt flagitious people prevail, that now they are re-
“ceived all over the world. The conquered have given laws to the
>
conquerors *.”
1
" The
66
· And. Tacitus ſays, " The worſt of men every: where, deſpiſing the
religious rites of their own country, were: wont to pile up their
“ contributions and alms at Jeruſalem t." And again,
Jews inſtituted the rite of circumciſion, in order to diſtinguiſh
themſelves from the reſt of mankind. They who have revolted
to the cuſtoms of the Jews do the ſame; and the firſt thing that
they are taught is, to deſpiſe the gods, and to diveſt themſelves
“ of patriotiſm 7."
60
*
Uſque eò ſceleratiſſimæ gentis conſuetudoconvaluit, ut per omnes jam terras
" recepta fit. Vi&ti victoribus leges dederunt.” Seneca ap. Auguftin. De civitate Dei,
vi. II.
+ “ Nam pellimus quiſque; Spretis religionibus patriis,. tributa et ftipes illuc conge:
66 rebant.” Hift. v. 5.
I “Circumcidere genitalia inſtituere, ut diverſitate nofcantur. Tranſgreſi in mo.
rem eorum idem ufurpant; nec quidquam prius imbuuntur, quàm contemnere:
“ deos, exuere patriam.” Hift. v. 5. It is amuſing to remark the zeal which the
politician Tacitus, himſelf a fataliſt or a Sceptic, expreffes for Polytheiſm and idolatry,
Senecau
2
8
CH A P T E R I.
mo
Seneca and Tacitus, however improperly they may have jud-
ged of the character of the profelytes to Judaiſm, could not be
miſtaken in this fact, that there were ſuch profelytes, and thoſe
ſo numerous, as to excite the attention, and perhaps the fears,
of the Heathen world,
The decencies of modern language will not allow any detail
with regard to “ the painful, and even dangerous rite of circum-
“ ciſion.” We may, however, obſerve, that it could not have de-
terred that ſex to whoſe devotion Mr Gibbon aſcribes' much of
the ſucceſs of Chriſtianity, from avowing the Jewiſh religion;
and that it “ did not repel willing proſelytes from the door of the
“ moſque.”
Mr Gibbon obſerves, that “ the deſcendants of Abraham-
were apprehenſive of diminiſhing the value of their inheritance,
by ſharing it too eaſily with the ſtrangers of the earth."
But the Jews could not imagine that their temporal inheritance
was in danger of having its value diminiſhed by the coming of
profelytes amongſt them; and as for a Spiritual inheritance, al-
though many ſects may be apt enough to exclude adverſaries from
a portion in it, yet they are generally willing to ſhare it with
pro-
ſelytes.
Granting the humour of Polytheiſın to have been incon-
*. ftant *,” it remains to be explained, how that inconſtancy
ſhould have led Polytheiſts to embrace the doctrine of Theiſm.
Again, it is ſaid in the ſame ſection, that neither violence, nor
art, nor example, “ could ever perſuade the Jews to aſſociate with
" the inſtitutions of Moſes the elegant mythology of the Greeks t;'
and
66
* The Heathens were more inclined to receive new gods, than to diſmiſs old ones.
For example, Ihapeleſs maſſes of ſtone were the moſt ancient idols. Terminus, a
god of that fort, would not make way for the Capítoline Jupiter; and his claim of
poffeffion appears to have been allowed.
+ Mr Gibbon contraſts the moderation of the Roman Emperors with the jealous
prejudices
CH A P T E R I.
9
I
and it is added, “ The current of zeal and devotion, as it was
contracted into a narrow channel, ran with the ſtrength, and
“ ſometimes with the fury, of a torrent." i. 538.
What are we to underſtand by all this? Does Mr Gibbon
ſpeak in his own character, or in that of an unbeliever ?
Was it reaſonable that the Jews ſhould aſſociate with the Mo-
faical inſtitutions a mythology unſupported by proof, and whoſe
uſurped authority the wiſeſt amongſt the Heathens had dif-
claimed; and would it not have been abſurd for them to have
aſſumed any part of a garb which did not fit eaſy on thoſe who
had long uſed it?
This, however, is not all. The Jews could not aſſociate " the
elegant mythology of the Greeks with the inſtitutions of
“ Moſes;" for the Greeks were Polytheiſts, and the Jews profef-
Theiſm. Now, I ſhould wiſh to know, how the belief
and worſhip of many gods could be harmoniouſly united with the
belief and worſhip of the One God? It is hard then to accuſe that
unfortunate people of ſullenneſs and obftinacy, for not endea-
vouring to accompliſh impoſſibilities.
Of old, indeed, they went a conſiderable length in the
way
of
accommodation. They reſorted to Egypt, Phoenicia, and Syria,
to the magazines from which the Greeks got the elegancies of
their mythology, and with Jehovah they aſſociated any other di-
vinity whoſe worſhip happened to be faſhionable amongſt the
neighbouring nations: for they vainly imagined, that the ONE
and SELF-EXISTENT, when he condeſcended to be, in an eſpe-
cial manner, the God of a particular people, would communi-
cate his honour to idols, the repreſentation of deified men, or
of material objects.
fed pure
prejudices of their ſubjects; and he remarks, that " the polite Auguftus condeſcended
to give orders, that facrifices ſhould be offered for his proſperity, in the temple of
" Jerufalem." Decline and Fall, i. 538.
B
If
1
10
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R Ι.
If our facred books may be credited, this experiment of aſſocia-
tion proved fatal to the church and ſtate of the Jews; and it is
admitted on all hands, that no farther attempts of the like pre-
poſterous nature were ever made: So, from the memorable æra of
the Babyloniſh captivity, the devotion of the Jews became con-
tracted into the narrow channel of the belief of One God, inſtead of
gently expanding itſelf in the various and ſhallow tracts of Poly-
theiſin.
The ſad conſequences enſuing from the attempt to admit in-
tercommunity of religions into the theocratical ſyſtem, will ſerve
to account for a circumſtance in the hiſtory of the Jews, with
which Mr Gibbon is greatly, and, I ſuppoſe, ſeriouſly emba-
raſſed. He ſays, that “ the devout, and even ſcrupulous attach-
ment to the Mofaic religion, fo conſpicuous among the Jews
“ who lived under the ſecond temple, becomes ſtill more ſur-
priſing, if it is compared with the ſtubborn incredulity of their
« forefathers.” i. 538.
Inſtead of " Aubborn incredulity of their forefathers,” Mr Gib-
bon ought to have ſaid, “ their propenſity to idolatrous worſhip.”
For the ancient Ifraelites entertained no doubts as to the reality of
the miracles performed at the Red Sea, and in the Wilderneſs.
Indeed when they worſhipped Jehovah under fymbols of their
own deviſing, and did homage to the divinities of the Heathen,
they violated the covenant, and tranſgreſſed the fundamental law
of their government; yet ſtill they meant not to abjure “ the
• Lord their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt.”
It is true, that they were ſtubbornly incredulous, but in a different
fenſe from that which Mr Gibbon figures to himſelf; for they
murmured at every obſtacle in their way, and diſbelieved the fu-
ture accompliſhment of God's promiſes *.
After having mentioned the attachment of the Jews to the
$
* Heb. c. iii. v.7.-19.; 6. iv. V. IL.
Moſaic
CH A P T E R I.
II
"
Moſaic religion, as he calls it, Mr Gibbon proceeds to give a de
lineation of that religion for which Chriſtians were zealous. In
this he appears to have copied foine Chriſtian divine, and to have
added a few touches of his own, which are eaſily diſcernible.
He next obſerves, that “ the Jewiſh converts, who acknow-
ledged Jeſus in the character of the Meſſias, 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 Mofaic law, and from
“ the immutable perfections of its great Author.”
Mr Gibbon is at pains to place in the beſt point of view the
arguments which he ſuppoſes the Judaizing Chriſtians to have
uſed ; and then he concludes with the following note. Theſe
arguments were urged with great ingenuity by the Jew Orobio,
" and refuted with equal ingenuity and candour by the Chriſtian
“ Limborch.” i. 543.
It has been remarked, that there was no occaſion for Mr Gib-
bon to have entered into a detail of refuted arguments; or, at leaſt,
that to what Orobio urged, he ought to have added what Lim-
borch anſwered.
But I paſs to ſomething more material. It is ſaid, that “the
Jewiſh converts acknowledged Jeſus in the character of the Mef-
“ fias,” and “ reſpected him as a prophetic teacher of virtue and re-
ligion.” i. 542. Did their Chriſtian faith amount to no more
than this ? if ſo, they were far, very far indeed, from diſcerning
the nature and offices of Chriſt; and “the brethren of the cir-
cumciſion" muſt have differed little from “ the Poliſh brethren.”
This requires explanation.
There follows, in the work of Mr Gibbon, a Diſſertation on
what he calls the Nazarene church of Jeruſalem.
B 2
In
12
CH A P T E R I.
In it he attempts to prove, that throughout the firſt century,
and even during ſome part of the ſecond, there were, in effect,
two Chriſtian churches; that circumciſion, and other rites of the
Mofaical law, were practiſed in the one, but in the other reject-
ed * Mr Gibbon ſeems to hold, that the former, or the Naza-
rene church of Jeruſalem, had the faireſt pretences to orthodoxy;
but that, being overpowered by the number of Gentile converts,
and compelled by the neceſſity of the times, it agreed to relin-
quith its primitive rites, and to become incorporated with the
latter, or the church of the uncircumciſion.
I do not propoſe to examine minutely a diſſertation foreign to
the great object of Mr Gibbon's inquiries; and yet there are ſome
circumſtances in it which deſerve attention.
“ 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.” i. 544. In proof
of this, there is reference made to Euſebius, Hift. Ecclef. 1. 4. C. 5.
Euſebius, no doubt, fays, that the firſt fifteen biſhops of Jeru-
ſalem were Hebrews by birth, and “ of the circumciſion." He
adds, that the church at Jeruſalem was altogether compoſed of
believing Hebrews.
But is it certain that all thoſe fifteen biſhops were circumcifed
" Jews ?"
“ Of the circumciſion” may be a periphrafis, diſtinguiſhing the
Jewiſh people from the Gentiles, without any reference being in-
* Toland, in his malicious rhapſody, called Nazarenus, goes farther. He fays,
that “the Jews, though aſſociating with the converted Gentiles, and acknowledging
“ them for their brethren, were ſtill to obſerve their own law throughout all gene.
* rations; and that the Gentiles, who became fo far Jews as to acknowledge One
" God, were not, however, to obſerve the Jewiſh law; but that both of them were
" to be for ever after united into one bond or fellowſhip;" Preface, p. 5. This the
candid and conlftent author of Pantheiſticon is pleaſed to call the original plan of
Chriſtianity!
tended
CH A P T E R I.
13
1
tended to the peculiar rite of circumciſion; and it has not been
proved, that, after the burning of the temple in the days of Vef-
paſian, the Hebrew Chriſtians perſevered in the uſe of that rite.
Beſides, it will be remarked, that Eufebius (1. iv. c. 5.] ſpeak3
of the ſucceſſion of biſhops at Jeruſalem until the time at which
the Jews were finally ſcattered, in the eighteenth year of Hadrian.
Now, from the burning of the temple under Veſpaſian, to the fi-
nal ſcattering under Hadrian, there was an interval of no more
than ſixty-four years; ſo that the greateſt part of the fifteen bi-
ſhops muſt have been born, and, probably, all of them may have
been born before the burning of the temple *; hence they might
have been circumciſed, although the practice of circumciſion had
ceaſed amongſt the Hebrew Chriſtians at that remarkable æra.
Accordingly, we learn from Euſebius, that Juſtus, the third
biſhop of Jeruſalem, was a converted Jew †: So the circumſtance
of his having been actually circumciſed, affords no preſumption
whatever, that the Hebrew Chriſtians continued to practiſe the
rite of circumcifion.
It is next faid, that “ the Gentiles, with the approbation of
their peculiar apoſtle, rejected the intolerable weight of Mo-
“ faical ceremonies.” This is extraordinary; for we learn from
Scripture I, that the apoſtles and elders at Jeruſalem did, in the
moſt deliberate and folemn manner, pronounce the Gentiles to be
* If we ſuppoſe, as is moſt likely, that Jude, the fifteenth biſhop, was younger
than his predeceſſors, and that he had attained to the age of fixty-four at the time
when Hadrian ſubdued and deſtroyed Jerufalem, it will follow, that all the fifteen
biſhops were born before the burning of the temple under Veſpaſian.
+ Της εν Ιεροσολύμοις επισκοπής τον θρόνον Ιεδαίος τις όνομα '
Ιυσος, μυρίων όσων εκ
περιτομής εις τον Χρισόν τηνικαυτα πεπιςευκότων, εις και αυτός ών, διαδέχεται. Hit.
Ecclef. 1. 3. C. 35. The words, ĉis na dutòs , which imply, that Juſtus himſelf
a convert, are omitted in the verſion of Valeſius; and conſequently this fact cannot
be known to thoſe who conſult his verſion alone. .
I AEs xv. 1. 19.
free
wag
14
1.
CH A P. TER
free from that weight, which, it is here faid, they rejected with
the approbation of their peculiar apoſtle.
Toland, it is true, took much pains to ſeparate Paul from the
other apoſtles. But I imagined that the notions of Toland, and of
his copiſt Lord Bolingbroke, had been long ago exploded by every
one converſant in the Scriptures *; and it is ſingular that they
ſhould have been again produced by Mr Gibbon, an avowed
friend of Chriſtianity.
This hypotheſis concerning the Nazarene church, in its nature
extravagant, and dangerous in its conſequences, ought not to be
aſcribed to Mr Gibbon. He has unwarily adopted the fancies of
Moſheim, and preſented them to the public in an elegant Engliſh
dreſs.
Moſheim, with very eminent literary abilities, could not al-
ways reſiſt the temptation of appearing fingular: having diſen-
gaged himſelf from the trammels in which his countrymen mo-
ved heavily, he ſometimes wandered from the road.
A paſſage in Sulp. Severus, which Mofheim admits to be “ ob-
C
* In the paſſage under conſideration, Mr Gibbon has committed a ſmall miſtake.
He ſays, “ The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jeruſalem to the little town of
“ Pella, beyond the Jordan;" p. 545. But it was before the fiege of Jeruſalem by
Titus, that the Jewiſh Chriftians retired from the devoted city'; Euſeb. Hift. Ecclef.
1. iii. c. 5. This retreat was in conſequence of the injunctions of our Lord, Matth.
Χxiv. 15. Εufebius fays, ο μεν αλλά και τα λακ της, εν Ιεροσολύμοις εκκλησίας, κατά τινα
χρησμόν τους αυτοθι δοκίμοις δί αποκαλύψεως δοθέντα προ τε πολέμε μετανασήναι της πόλεως, ,
και τινα της Περαίας πόλιν οικείν κέκέλευσμένε. Πέλλαν αυτήν ονομαζκσιν. κ. τ. 6. That
which Eufebius here terms “ a revelation given to approved or reſpectable perſons,"
appears to have been an impreſſion made on their minds as to the juſt ſenſe of the
words of our Lord, Matth. xxiv. 15. It is probable, that until the Chriftians ſaw
the ſtandards of Ronie erected in Judea, they underſtood not the full import of the
phraſe,
« abomination of deſolation.”—Epiphanius, in his careleſs and incorrect
manner, fays, that the warning to remove from Jeruſalem was given by an angel,
De Ponderibus et Menſuris, l. xiv. tom. 2. p. 171. edit. Petav. 1682 ; yet elſewhere he
truly ſays, that the Chriſtians removed in conſequence of Chriſt's injunctions. Hæres,
29. t. 1. p. 123
" {cure
CH A P T E R
15
I.
& fcure and ill arranged,” * furnilhed him with materials for a
fyſtem highly praiſed by Mr Gibbon, i. 546. n. 21.
It required the genius of Moſheim to work up ſuch flimſy ma-
terials, and his reputation to make them faſhionable.
Sulp. Severus thus fpeaks: “ Et quia Chriſtiani (in Paleſtina]
ex Judæis potiffimùm putabantur, (namque tum Hieroſolymæ
non nifi ex circumciſione habebat ecclefia facerdotem), militum
" cohortem cuſtodias in perpetuum agitare juffit, quæ Judæos
omnes Hieroſolymæ aditu arceret. Quod quidem Chriſtianæ
“ fidei proficiebat, quia tum pene omnes Chriſtum Deum fub
legis obſervatione credebant; nimirum id, Domino ordinante,
diſpoſitum, ut legis ſervitus a libertate fidei atque eccleſiæ tol-
leretur; ita tum primùm Marcus e gentibus apud Hierofoly-
mam epifcopus fuit t." It is irkſome for one to attempt a
tranſlation, without having a clear apprehenſion of the import of
the original. The meaning of Sulpitius ſeems to be this: And
as the Chriſtians [in Paleſtine) were underſtood to be chiefly
compoſed of Jews, (for at that time the church of Jeruſalem
had no prieſt but of the circumcifion), Hadrian ordered a band
“ of ſoldiers to keep continual watch, and to exclude all Jews
“ froin entrance into Jeruſalem, which indeed proved advan-
tageous to the Chriſtian religion; for, in thoſe days, almoſt
every one who acknowledged the divinity of Chriſt, obſerved
" the Moſaical law. But Providence fo ordered it, that the thral-
dom of the law might be removed from the liberty of the faith
and the church; ſo then, for the firſt time, one from the Gen-
“ tiles, Mark, became biſhop of Jeruſalem.”
Let us now ſee the commentary of Moſheim on this confuſed
“ It is certain,” ſays he, “ from the words of Sulpicius,
1. That the Chriſtians in Paleſtine, who were of Jewilh ori-
"
66
text.
* De Rebus Chriftianorum ante Conſtantin. M. p. 325. note *,
+ Hif. Sacr. l. 2. c. 31.
ginal,
16
1.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
“ ginal, joined the ceremonial law with the worſhip of Chriſt, lo
long as any hope remained of the reſtoration of Jeruſalem,
" after its firſt deſtruction by Titus. 2. That when all hope of
“ ſuch an event ceaſed, at the ſecond deſtruction by Hadrian, the
greateſt part of thoſe Chriſtians rejected the Mofaical law,
and
choſe Mark, a ſtranger, for their biſhop. This they certainly
did, leſt a biſhop of the Jewiſh nation, through his innate af-
“ fection for the law of his people, ſhould inſenſibly reſtore the
abrogated ceremonies. 3. That the aboliſhing of the Mofaical
law was occaſioned by the ſeverity of Hadrian, who ſurrounded
" the ſite of Jeruſalem with his foldiers, and debarred all Jews
“ from entrance therein. This, ſays Moſheim, is not ſo clearly ex-
plained by Sulpitius as it ought to have been, but his omiſſions
may be eaſily ſupplied. While the Chriſtians in Paleſtine con-
“ tinued to obey the law of Moſes, they were conſidered by the
“ Romans, and not without ſome appearance of reaſon, to be
" Jews; ſo the prohibition of entering into Jeruſalem extended
to them alſo. But the Chriſtians, being exceedingly deſirous
« of viſiting that city, renounced the ceremonial law, and, to
prove the fincerity of their conduct, elected a ſtranger for their
“. biſhop. This feparation having been once made, the Romans
" allowed that acceſs to the Chriſtians which was denied to the
Jews.” All this, according to Moſheim, may, with moderate
attention, be drawn out of the words of Sulpitius *.
But Mofheim's alembic is capable of much more:
" It remains
to be inquired,” ſays he, why the Chriſtians ſhould have
“ been ſo deſirous of having acceſs to Jeruſalem, as rather to re-
nounce their national law, and to place a ſtranger over them
“ for their biſhop, than to remain deprived of that permiſſion?"
On this point Sulpitius is filent, but his commentator enlarges.
* " Hæc omnia ex Sulpitio, valdè licet negligenter fcribat, mediocri attentione
" adhibitâ, eliciuntur."
« Hadrian
CH A P T E R. I.
17
“ Hadrian had erected a new city in the neighbourhood of Jeru-
“ falem, which he called Ælia Capitolina, and which he endowed
“ with ample privileges. The Chriſtians reſiding in the little
town of Pella, and in the adjacent country, were incommo-
diouſly lodged, and therefore were very deſirous of being admit-
ted as citizens in the new colony; ſo moſt of them thought fit
to aboliſh the ceremonial law inſtituted by Moſes; and by thus
“ diſtinguiſhing themſelves from the Jews, they obtained admit-
tance into Ælia Capitolina. It is exceedingly probable, that that
very Marcus, whom they choſe for their biſhop, ſuggeſted this
project to them. His name ſhows him to have been a Roman;
and, no doubt, he was known to the Roman governors in Palef-
tine, and perhaps he was related to ſome principal perſon a-
mongſt them."
Moſheim ſeems to have perceived that his hypotheſis was lead-
ing to ſtrange concluſions, and therefore he thought fit to check
himſelf a little. I would not have it underſtood,” ſays he, “ that
“ the Jewiſh Chriſtians were led to rejéct the law of Moſes merely
«s from the deſire of eſtabliſhing themſelves at Ælia Capitolina.
Undoubtedly Marcus, who perſuaded them to the meaſure,
“ did alſo demonſtrate, by weighty arguments, that Chriſt had
“s taken away the authority of the Mofaical rites. His arguments,
" however, would have made leſs impreſſion on the minds of
perſons bred up, from their tender years, in the law of Moſes,
" had they not longed to be made partakers of the conveniencies
“ and privileges of the new colony, and to be relieved from the
vexations and hardſhips which the Jews ſuffered under the
goa
vernment of Hadrian; and, in a word, had not the ſecond de-
“ ftruction of Jeruſalem made them defpair of ever beholding the
temple rebuilt, and liberty of worſhipping God, after the man-
ner of their own laws, reſtored to the Jewiſh nation.
Thus we ſee, that had it not been for the arguments of Marcus,
co-operating with the conveniency of reſiding at Ælia Capitolina,
С
the
18
CH A P T E R I.
the Jewiſh Chriſtians of Paleſtine might have continued for ages
to uſe the Mofaical rite of circumciſion, and the Chriſtian rite of
baptifm, to celebrate the paſſover, and to partake of the holy
communion. All this is proved from an obſcure, ill-arranged
paſſage in an incorrect writer of the fifth century, who, to ap-.
pearance, ſays no ſuch thing; and, which is more ſingular ſtill, it
is proved by a critic who undertook to confute the Nazarenus of
Toland! When we ſee the extravagancies of the learned, well
inay we pronounce, that “ Pride was not made for man.”
It does honour to the good ſenſe of Mr Gibbon, that, while
tranſcribing from Mofheim, he has ſoftened fome circumſtances,
and omitted others : for all his eloquence would not have been
fufficient to convert the entire narrative from romance into hi-
ſtory.
Mr Gibbon ſeeins to think, that the remnant of the Nazarenes
of Jeruſalem, or the Jewiſh converts who adhered to the Mofaical
law, were branded with the name of the Ebionites *
He
* It is generally held, that the Ebionites were ſo called from the Hebrew word
Ebjonim, that is, poor. Hence Toland ſays, “ They were called, by way of contempt,
- Ebionites, or beggars, juſt as the firſt Proteſtants in Flanders, gueux." Naza.
renus. p. 26. But unfortunately the name gueux is of political, not religious origin.
The obſervation, however, was well meant.
Mr Gibbon, i. 546. not. 23. ſays, “ Somne writers have been pleaſed to create an
“ Ebion, the imaginary author of their feet and name. But we can more ſafely rely on
" the learned Eufebius, than on the vehement Tertullian or the credulous Epipbanius.
The queſtion is not important, yet it may ſtill be doubted, whether there did not
exiſt a man named Ebion or Hebion, who was the leader of the feet called Ebionites
or Ebionæans. Eufebius indeed ſays, " The ancients commonly called them Ebionites,
or who entertained a poor and low opinion of Chriſt.” 'EBIovairs 7885 órxcíws Énephus Sor
οι πρώτοι, πιωχώς και ταπεινως τα περί τα Χρισ. δοξάζοντας. Ηift. Εcclef. iii. 27. This is
taken from Origen. de Principiis, iv. who ſays, “ we do not receive thoſe things in
" the ſenſe of the Ebionites, the poor in underſtanding, men whoſe name corre-
« fponds with the meanneſs of their intellects ; for Ebion, in Hebrew, fignifies poor."
8x
CH A P T E R I.
19
He adds, for which he has the authority of the Fathers, from
Juſtin Martyr to Auguſtine, that the Ebionites were held to be
heretics: and it is to be preſumed, that no man in our days will
diſpute the juſtice of that appellation.
But he proceeds, in a note, p. 546. to obferve, that there is
“ ſome reaſon to conjecture, that the family of Jeſus Chriſt re-
“ mained members, at leaſt of the more moderate party of the
« ,
Ebionites."
He quotes no authority for this ſlight conjecture, which, how-
ever ſlight, has a meaning. If we alſo may be permitted to con-
jecture, Mr Gibbon alludes to the following paſſage in the ec-
cleſiaſtical hiſtory of Le Clerc. “ It may be that, amongſt the in-
“ habitants of Choba in the apoſtolical times, there were ſome
" Nazarenes who gave themſelves out to be kinſmen of our
“ Lord, and perhaps were ſo *.” The unvouched may be and per-
haps of Le Clerc hardly merited a place in the works of Mr Gib-
bon.
Mr Gibbon might, with propriety, have ſaid ſomething con-
cerning the faith as well as the rites of the Ebionites, that rem-
nant of the church of the Nazarenes, whoſe primitive tradition
could have laid claim to be received as “ the ſtandard of ortho-
doxy;" and this the more eſpecially, becauſe, as Mr Gibbon
knows, Toland declares it to be the concurring opinion of the
έκ έλαμβανόμεν ταυλα ως οι πτωχοι τη διανοία Eβιωναίοι, της πτωχειας της διανόιας επώνυμοι»
'Εβιων γαρ ο πιωχός παρ, Εβραίοις ονομάζεται. Here the exiftence of fuch a perfon as
Ebion is not denied. The paſſages in Tertullian alluded to by Mr Gibbon, are, de
Preſcriptione Hæreticorum, c. 33. and d. Carne Chriſti, c. 14.
*" Nec quidquam vetat inter temporum Apoſtolicorum Chobenſes fuiffe quoſdam
“ Nazarenos, qui ſe 8C Tours dicerent, et fortaſſe effent.” Hift. Ecclef. p. 477. note 3.
This may be true, but it is exceedingly improbable. See Euſeb. Hift. Ecclef. 1. ii. c. 23.
1. ii. C. II. C. 20. C. 32. Perſons any way connected with our Lord, appear to have
been highly honoured in the Chriſtian church throughout the firſt century.
C 2
Fathers,
20
CH A P T E R I.
&
Fathers, That the Nazarenes and Ebionites affirmed Jeſus to
“ have been a mere man," &c. *
Although Mr Gibbon be conciſe in his account of the Ebio-
nites, he is copious in deſcribing the character and opinions of
the Gnoſtics. “They were,” ſays he, “ diſtinguiſhed as the moſt
polite, the moſt learned, and the moſt wealthy of the Chriſtian
name;" and, which is rather ſingular in men of that deſcription,
they were, for the moſt part, averſe to the pleaſures of fenfe.'
He adds, " that the general appellation [of Gnoſtics), which
“ expreſſed a ſuperiority of knowledge, was either aſſumed by
“ their own pride, or ironically beſtowed by the envy of their
" adverſaries t."
Let us now ſee what that knowledge was for which they prided
themſelves, or which their adverſaries envied in them.
According to Mr Gibbon, they took exceptions at every part
of the Old Teſtament, from the creation of the world to the end
of the Jewiſh theocracy. He adds, in a note, “ The milder Gno-
“ ſtics conſidered Jehovah, the Creator, as a being of a mixed
nature between God and the demon. : Others confounded him
“ with the evil principle.”
So much for their judgement of the Old Teſtament, and for
their belief in a Deity.
Now for their goſpel-faith. “ It was their fundamental doc-
“ trine, That the Chriſt whom they adored as the firſt and bright-
“ eft emanation of the Deity, appeared upon earth, to reſcue
“ inankind from their various errors (Paganiſin and Judaiſm),
" and to reveal a new ſyſtem of truth and perfection.”
To complete the picture, Mr Gibbon adds, They blended
* Nazarenus, p. 27.
+ The expreffion, “envy of adverfaries," proves that Mr Gibbon has not difco-
vered any thing in the writings of St Paul or St John alluding to the name of Gno-
fics.
66 with
CH A-P T E R I.
21.
}
*
" with the faith of Chriſt many ſublime, but obſcure tenets, which
they derived from Oriental philoſophy, and even from the re-
ligion of Zoroaſter, concerning the eternity of matter, the ex-
“ iſtence of two principles," &c.
Such was the reſult of the politeneſs and learning of the Gno-
ſtics. The portrait may, for aught I know, bear a perfect re-
ſemblance to them; but hardly can any feature of Chriſtianity be
diſcerned in it, excepting this, that the Gnoſtics and the Chri-
ſtians concurred in believing the exiſtence of the devil; thoſe, as
compoſing a part of the Divinity; and theſe, as the adverſary of
God and man
With reſpect to the Gnoſtics, it is further ſaid, that "they
were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular ſects:
“ each of the fects could boaſt of its biſhops and congregations,
“ of its doctors and martyrs;" i. 550. This circumſtance feems
important, if it be meant, that each of the fifty ſects of the Gno-
ſtics produced men who ſuffered death for their adherence to
“ the faith in Chriſt."
Mr Gibbon quotes Euſebius as his voucher, [Hift. Ecclef. 1. iv.
c. 15.]. The words of that hiſtorian are to the following pur-
poſe: “ To the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp there is
" added an account of other martyrdoms in Smyrna about the
ſame time; and amongſt the ſufferers was Metrodorus, appear-
ing (or eſteemed] to be a preſbyter in the error of Marcion,
who, having been delivered over to be burnt, was put to
---
“ death t."
Here
* He had ſaid before, that the deity of the Gnoſtics was of a mixed nature, and
ſometimes confounded with the evil principle.
+ Εν τη αυτή δε περί αυτε γραφή και άλλα μαρτύρια συνήπτο κατά την αυτήν Σμύρναν
πεπραγμένα υπό την αυτήν περίοδον τε χρόνο της το Πολυκάρπε μαρτυρίας: μεθ' ών και
Μητρόδωρος της κατα Μαρκίωνα πλάγης, πρεσβύτερος δή είναι δοκών, πυρί παραδοθείς, ανήρηται.
Hiſto
22
CH A P T E R I.
>
Here Euſebius mentions, amongſt the martyrs at Smyrna, one
perfon eſteemed to be a preſbyter of the ſect of Marcion; and
yer
that hiſtorian is appealed to as the ſingle witneſs for proving, that
each of the fifty fects of the Gnoſtics could boaſt of its martyrs.
This is remarkable; for at that very moment Mr Gibbon had
the article in Bayle's Dictionary, v. Marcionites, under his view.
Now, Bayle admits that the Gnoſtics, in general, did not yield
themſelves to martyrdom in the cauſe of Chriſt. His inclination
to contradict and to expoſe Jurieu, who had affirmed this, natu-
rally led him to maintain the contrary. But the evidence of Ter-
tullian was too clear to be obſcured, and too expreſs to be gain-
faid *: ſo all that Bayle could do was to remark, that " although
the Marcionites agreed in certain points with the opinions of
“ the Gnoftics, yet as to the point of ſuffering martyrdom, they
might have differed from them t."
Indeed, had not the diſciples of Marcion differed in ſome te-
nets from the Gnoſtics, it is hard to ſay for what point of Chri-
ſtian faith they could have ſuffered martyrdom.
Moſheim attempts to account for it thus: “ The Marcionites
s held, that violence ought to be done to the body, as being
compoſed of evil matter, and of the dregs of the malevolent
Hiſt. Ecclef. 1. iv. c. 15. Mr Gibbon might have added Afclepius, ſuppoſed to be a
Marcionite bilhop, who ſuffered in the laſt perſecution ; Euſeb. De Mart. Paleſt. c. X.
The account of the martyrs of Smyrna, firſt publiſhed by Archbiſhop Uſher, makes
no mention of Metrodorus. If the zeal of the copiſt omitted him, it was zeal with-
out knowledge.
Quum igitur fides æftuat, et Ecclefia exuritur, de figura rubi, tunc Gnoſtici
erumpunt, tunc Valentiniani proſerpunt, tunc omnes martyriorum refragatores ebul-
« liunt, calentes et ipfi offendere, figere, occidere.” Scorpiace, c. i.
+ « Il eſt bien vrai que Marcion convenoit avec les Gnoſtiques en certaines choſes,
“ mais cela n'empêchoit point que ſa fecte ne fut differente de la leur; et ainſi, fans
un temoignage exprés, et ſans des preuves particulieres, on n'a nul droit de lui im.
" puter les ſentimens des Gnoftiques touchant le martyre.” Dictionaire, v. Marci-
onites, note, E. viii,
“ deity.”
CH A P T E R I.
23
-
deity *.” This, however, is a vague and fanciful conjecture.
Dr Jortin ſays, That the Marcionites were put to death, be-
“ cauſe they acknowledged Jeſus to be the Son of God, and would
not renounce him, and ſacrifice to idols t."
The latter part of this conjecture is probable enough; and it
may fitly be ſaid, that the Marcionites, who died for that per-
ſuaſion, were martyrs to truth. This teſtimony unto blood leaves
no doubt of their fincerity; and it would be preſumptuous for us
to aſſert that it was unacceptable to God.
But this proves nothing as to the martyrs of the fifty fects of
the Gnoſtics ! I
Mr Gibbon concludes his account of the Gnoſtics with theſe
memorable words: “
: though they conſtantly diſturbed the peace,
“ and frequently diſgraced the name of religion, they contribu-
“ ted to aſſiſt, rather than to retard the progreſs of Chriſtianity.”
That men who conſtantly diſturbed the peace, and frequently
diſgraced the name of Chriſtianity, ſhould have forwarded its
progreſs, is a propoſition which, at firſt ſight, ſeems rather para-
doxical.
It is not the general propoſition, that “God brings good out
of evil,” which Mr Gibbon maintains here. He muſt be an
incurious obſerver of the ways of Providence who queſtions it.
But this ſupplemental ſecondary cauſe of the progreſs of Chri-
ſtianity is deſcribed to be fomething of a very different nature.
“ The Gentile converts, whoſe ſtrongeſt objections were directed
againſt the law of Moſes, could find admiſſion into many
1
* “ Vim corpori effe inferendam, machinæ nimirùm ex prava materia fcecibuſque
“ maligni Dei conſtructæ." De Reb. Chrift. ante Conſtant. M. p. 409. note ***.
+ Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiſtory, ii. 330.
# Dr Middleton [Inquiry, p. 209.] has a curious paffage concerning the martyrs
amongſt heretics.' A learned reader will find amuſement in comparing the Doctor's
paraphrafe of Euſebius with the original.
Chriſtian
24
CH A P T E R I.
“ 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 ultimate-
ly benefited by the conqueſts of its moſt inveterate enemies ;"
that is, the Gnoftics became “ ſchoolmaſters to bring men to
Chriſt.” The road appears ſomewhat circuitous; but there
is no reaſon to complain of that, ſince it proved a ſafe one.
The divine legation of Moſes was " fooliſhneſs” to the Gentiles,
of whom Mr Gibbon ſpeaks; nor could the prophets under the
law have been better received by them than Moſes was. There
were many Chriſtian ſocieties, that is, focieties of Gnoſtics, into
wbicb the Gentiles could find admiſſion, without being obliged
to lay aſide their prejudices, or to pay any regard to Moſes and
the prophets. In thoſe ſocieties they were inſenſibly led to yield
their full afſent to the doctrines of Chriſtianity.
Let us ſee what they were taught amongſt the Gnoftics. God
did not create the world; man did not fall from his original ex-
cellence; the legation of Moſes was not divine; no ſuch thing as
a Jewiſh theocracy ever exiſted; the religion of Jeſus had no con-
nection with the Mofaical economy; and, to complete all, Chriſt
did not die on the croſs, and, conſequently, did not riſe again.
On ſuch foundations, if they may be ſo called, was Chri-
ſtianity to be eſtabliſhed in the minds of the Gentiles : hence their
faith became imperceptibly fortified and enlarged; and, in the
end, the church received benefit from the triumphs of the Gno-
ſtics over moral evidence !
It has been ſometimes ſuppoſed, that he who has ſuffered him-
ſelf to be deluded into the belief of abſurdities, may, with more
eaſe, repudiate them, than embrace truth in their ſtead; and that
he who is once made ſenſible of his having believed too much, is
apt to diſbelieve every thing, and ſo exchange credulity for fcep-
ticiſm. But it fared better with thoſe Gentiles who, having been
inſtructed
1
CH A P T E R I.
25
inſtructed in a fyftem inconſiſtent even with the firſt principles of
natural religion, were inſenſibly led to the knowledge and firm
belief of the truths of the goſpel.
Mr Gibbon illuſtrates his hypotheſis by an hiſtorical example.
He obſerves, in a note, that “ Auguſtine is a memorable inſtance
“ of this gradual progreſs from reaſon to faith. He was, during
« ſeveral years, engaged in the Manichæan ſect." i. 551. n. 37.
I confeſs myſelf incapable of comprehending the ſenſe of this
note. The contraſt between reaſon and faith may, in foine refpects,
be juſt: But how can Auguſtine, by becoming a Chriſtian, after ha-
ving been infected with the errors of Manes, be ſaid to have made
a gradual progreſs from reaſon to faith? Surely Mr Gibbon could
not intend to dignify Manichæiſm with the name of reaſon!
Let me remark, in paſſing, that the fermons of Ambroſe, and
a diligent peruſal of the epiſtles of St Paul, were the means of con-
verting Auguſtine to the Chriſtian faith *
To the account of the Nazarenes and Gnoſtics, there is added
one diſſertation under this title, “ The demons conſidered as the
gods of antiquity;" and another under this title,
Abhorrence
“ of the Chriſtians for idolatry,” i. 551.-556. But as the ſenti-
ments of the Chriſtians in thoſe particulars could neither ſerve to
convert the Jews, nor to gain the approbation of the Heathens,
they are foreign to the fubject of Mr Gibbon's inquiry; and there-
fore they ſhall be paſſed over at prefent, with this ſingle obſervation,
That what Mr Gibbon ſays of the univerſal influence of Paganiſm,
although comprehended within a few pages, has the worth of a
volume. It ſhows, in ſo ſtrong a light, the difficulties which Chri-
ſtianity had to encounter, that it anticipates the confutation of what
he ſays afterwards of the weakneſs of Paganiſm.
* Confeſ 1. vi. c. 3. -“ Arripio Apoſtolum Paulum-perlegi totum intentiflimè
" et cautiflimè, tunc verò, quantulocunque jam lumine adſperſo, tanta fe mihi phi-
" lofophiæ facies aperuit," &c. contra Academicos. l. ii. Co 2. n. 5. 6.
D
CHAP .
26
C H A P T E R II.
CH A P T E R II.
THE
VIDENCE.
HE next ſecondary cauſe to which Mr Gibbon aſcribes the
rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity, is, “ The doctrine of a fu-
ture life, improved by every additional circumſtance which could
give weight and efficacy to that important truth.” i. 536*.
From the ſequel it appears, that under the notion of a future
life, Mr Gibbon includes future puniſhments as well as rewards;
and this he pronounces to be a doctrine true and important.
It is a truth implying in it another, no leſs momentous, a PRO-
On theſe is religious Theiſm founded, itſelf an ex-
cellent preparative for the rational belief of Chriſtianity.
Mr Gibbon proceeds to exhibit a view of the opinions of Hea-
then philoſophers concerning the immortality of the ſoul; and in
this part of his work there are many things highly to be applaud-
ed. His concluſion, in particular, ought to be kept in remem-
brance: Since, therefore, the moſt ſublime efforts of philoſophy
can extend no farther than feebly to point out the deſire, the
hope, or at moſt the probability of a future ſtate, there is no-
thing, except a divine revelation, that can aſcertain the exiſt-
ence, and deſcribe the condition, of the inviſible country which
" is deſtined to receive the ſouls of men after their feparation from
«. the body t." i. 558.
* Biſhop Watſon, Dr. Chelſum, and other writers, have ſo fully confidered this
pårt of Mr Gibbon's work, that little elſe remains for me but to recapitulate their.
obfervations.
† At p. 561. he ſpeaks of “ the doctrine of life and immortality, which had been
W dictated by nature, approved by reaſon, and received by ſuperſtition.” Between the
two paſſages there is, poflibly, nothing more than. a. ſeening contradiction.
There:
CH A P T E R 11.
27
among the
There follows an account of the doctrine of the immortality of
the ſoul among the Pagans of Greece and Rome, and
barbarians; an account not altogether correct, and, ſo far as it
relates to the Druids, very obſcure.
With reſpect to what is next ſaid of the opinions concerning the
immortality of the ſoul and a future ſtate, which were entertained
by the Jews before the goſpel æra, it may be doubted, whether
Mr Gibbon delivers his own judgement or that of others. His
picture of the Sadducees, if at all like, appears to be very flatter-
ing and favourable; and as to the Phariſees, we might ſuſpect,
that, in one particular at leaſt, he goes too far, when he ranks
the “ doctrine of angels” among “ the new articles of faith which
the Phariſees accepted from the philoſophy or religion of the
“ Eaſtern nations.” But ſuch things, being foreign to the chief
purpoſe of this treatiſe, ſhall not be enlarged upon.
We come now to that cauſe of the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity
which Mr Gibbon terms,
“ The doctrine of a future life, impro-
ved by every additional circumſtance which could give weight
" and efficacy to that important truth.”
It is ſaid, That“ when the promiſe of eternal happineſs was
propoſed to mankind, on condition of adopting the faith, and
“ of obſerving the precepts of the goſpel, it is no wonder that ſo
advantageous an offer ſhould have been accepted by great num-
bers of every religion, of every rank, and of every province in
the Roman empire." i. 561.
Aş Mr Gibbon is here treating of the ſecondary cauſes which
accelerated the progreſs of Chriſtianity, the evidences of the di-
vine miſſion of Jeſus muſt be laid out of the argument. It would
be a great abuſe of words, were one to reckon among ſuch fe-
condary cauſes, the evidence of this fact, that “the Lord is riſen
" indeed."
D2
66
Yet,
28
II.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
was
Yet, through ſome unaccountable inadvertency, Mr Gibbon has,
at this place, introduced the reſurrection of Jeſus from the dead:
for in no other ſenſe can the following words be underſtood. “ It
Mill neceſſary that the doctrine of life and immortality--.
“ ſhould obtain the ſanction of divine truth from the authority
and example of Chriſt."
The reſurrection of Jeſus being once admitted, the proof of the
other miracles ſaid to have been wrought by him, will hardly be
brought into controverfy; and then the truth of his teſtimony,
and the ſure promiſes of the Holy Spirit, become manifeſt. But
this leads to the conſideration of the original, inſtead of the ſecon-
dary cauſes of the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity: A ſubject very di-
ftant from the avowed purpofes of Mr Gibbon's inquiry.
When, therefore, we lay aſide the evidences of the divine
miſſion of Jeſus, as in treating of ſecondary cauſes we muſt do,
that will appear moſt tranſcendently wonderful, and indeed in-
credible, which Mr Gibbon careleſsly terms no wonder.
Is it no wonder, that on a promiſe of eternal happinefs, made
without authority or credentials, by fome mean and obfcure per-
fons, for ſuch muſt the caſe be fuppoſed, great numbers of every
religion, and of every rank throughout the Roman empire, ſhould
have laid aſide all prejudices, embraced a faith contrary to e
ſtabliſhed opinions, and engaged themfelves in a new, difficult,
and hazardous courſe of life?
To believe and to obey, to adopt the faith and to obſerve the
precepts of the gofpel,” is repreſented as a mighty eaſy matter.
But ſhould we ſay, that there was nothing to hinder great num-
bers of Jews from believing in a ſpiritual deliverance and a fpi-
ritual kingdom, and great numbers of Heathens from believing
in the reſurrection of dead bodies, the world might give us the
name of Theoriſteo ,
Chriſtian
CH A P T E R
29
II.
Chriſtian immortality is a ſtate which, humanly ſpeaking, the
Heathens who lived in the Evangelical times could neither under-
ſtand nor aſpire after.
Mr Gibbon proceeds to mention the additional circumſtances
which
gave weight and efficacy to the doctrine of the immortality
of the ſoul.
“ In the primitive church,” ſays he, “ the influence of truth
was very powerfully ſtrengthened by an opinion, which, how-
ever much it may deſerve reſpect for its uſefulneſs and antiquity,
“ has not been found agreeable to experience. It was univerſally
“ believed, that the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven
were at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had
been predicted by the apoſtles; the tradition of it was preſerved
by their earlieſt diſciples; and thoſe who underſtood, in their
“ literal ſenfe, the diſcourſes of Chriſt himſelf, were obliged to
expect the ſecond and glorious coming of the Son of man in the
“ clouds, before that generation was totally extinguiſhed which
“ had beheld his humble condition on earth.
" lution of ſeventeen centuries has inſtructed us not to preſs too
cloſely the myſterious language of prophecy and revelation;
“ but as long as, for wiſe purpoſes, this error was permitted to
“ ſubſiſt in the church, it was productive of moſt falutary effects
on the faith and practice of Chriſtians, who lived in the awful
« expectation of that moment when the globe itſelf, and all the
“ various race of mankind, ſhould tremble at the appearance of
“ their divine Judge.” i. 562.
To all which there is added in a note, “ This expectation was
countenanced by the 24th chapter of St Matthew, and by the firſt
epiſtle of St Paul to the Theſſalonians."
Amidſt all this pomp of ſcriptural language, there is one ob-
fervation which is hardly fcriptural. An error in doctrine is faid
The revo-
66
95.
110)
30
II.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
:
to have been permitted for wiſe purpoſes, and to have powerfully
ſtrengthened the influences of truth.
But ſeveral other things occur here that well deſerve our at-
tention.
1. Mr Gibbon profeſſes to treat of “ the ſecondary cauſes of the
“ rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity;" and yet, inſtead of Ihewing why
the Chriſtians became numerous, he changes the ſubject, and en-
deavours to ſhew how an error, ſuppoſed to have become preva-
lent among Chriſtians, had moft ſalutary effects on their faith
and practice.
2. It may well be queſtioned, whether the immediate diſciples
of our Lord believed that the end of the world was at hand.
Granting, for argument's fake, that, in the 24th chapter of
Matthew, the end of the world might be underſtood as an event
to follow preſently after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem ; yet ſtill
our Lord foretold, in language not ambiguous, that
great and
important events ſhould enſue between that deſtruction and the
conſummation of all things * Now we may well ſuppoſe, that
the firſt diſciples of our Lord would interpret any dark ſayings of
their Maſter, in a ſenſe conſiſtent with what he had more clearly
delivered to them. The mode of interpreting paſſages to appear-
ance plain, by paſſages obviouſly obſcure, was reſerved for other
times.
3. To affirm that this approaching end of the world was uni-
verſally believed in the apoſtolical times, is, with all deference to
thoſe who have ſo faid, a palpable error: for St Paul knew the
contrary to be truth, and openly avowed it in the face of the
church. And it may ſeem ſingular to aſſert, that this expec-
tation of the end of the world was countenanced by St Paul in his
firſt epiſtle to the Theſſalonians; while he himſelf, in his ſecond,
* Και Ιερεσαλήμ έσαι πατεμένη υπό εθνων, άχρι πληρωθώσι καιροί εθνων. Luke, Xxi. 24.
poſitively
CH A P T E R
31
II.
" Let
*"
poſitively declares, that he never ſaid or meant any ſuch thing;
and added theſe remarkable words, deciſive of his opinion,
no man deceive you by any means; for that day ſhall not come
except there come a falling away firſt, and that man of ſin be
revealed, the ſon of perdition *. And what he elſewhere ſays
concerning the apoſtacy of latter times t, proceeds on the ſuppo-
ſition that the end of the world was not at hand.
It is true, that ſome men, in the apoſtle's own times, miſunder-
ſtood him; but after he had fully explained himſelf, it is likely
that they did not continue in the wayward humour of ſtill miſ-
underſtanding him, and perverting his ſentiments.
4. This ancient and uſeful error, as Mr Gibbon is pleaſed to
call it, could not have fubfifted long in the church; for the ex-
perience of one generation muſt have confuted it as effectually as
a revolution of ſeventeen centuries;" and then it muſt have loſt
all its falutary influence on the faith and practice of Chriſtians.
Had the prophecy been ſo underſtood, as Mr Gibbon ſays it
was, the Chriſtians might have been led to diſtruſt the promiſes
of our Lord, when they ſaw, that by the mere lapſe of time, or
the paſing away of that generation, the prophecy had become inca-
pable of completion; and this would have retarded, inſtead of
accelerating, the progreſs of Chriſtianity.
2. Thell. ii. 3. All this has been fully explained and enforced by many learned
men. See, in particular, Hallifax, fermon v. p. 135.-140.
t 1. Tim. iv. 1. It would be loſt labour to produce more paſſages from ſcripture:
to the like purpoſe. He who can heſitate on this point, after ſuch plain proofs have
been laid before him, muſt remain unconvinced. As Mr Gibbon refers his readers
to the “ ingenious and elegant diſcourſes” of Biſhop Hurd on the prophecies, I muſt
preſume that he has read them; yet it is to be feared, that he read them merely as
a model of ingenuity and elegance, without attending to their matter and weighty
argument. The interpretation of the phraſe, “ latter times," and the account of the
diviſions of that period, ferm. vii. would, if duly conſidered, have prevented many
miſtakes,
Mr
32
vi
CH A P T E R II.
Mr Gibbon ſays,
" The doctrine of the Millennium was inti-
“ mately connected with the ſecond coning of Chriſt.”. i. 562.
This ſeems a miſtake; for one main objection to the doctrine
of the Millennium ariſes from the difficulties which occur in ac-
commodating it to what our Lord has ſaid of his ſecond coming.
Mr Gibbon, in deſcribing more particularly the Millennary
ſtate, obſerves, that a city was erected of gold and precious
“ ſtones, and a fupernatural plenty of corn and wine was be-
“ ſtowed on the adjacent territory; in the free enjoyment of
whoſe ſpontaneous productions the happy and benevolent people
was never to be reſtrained by any jealous laws of excluſive
pro-
perty
“ The doctrine of the Millenniumfeems ſo well adapted
to the deſires and apprehenſions of mankind, that it muſt have
" contributed, in a very conſiderable degree, to the progreſs of
“ Chriſtianity.” i. 563.
This, however confidently aſſerted, is without evidence. . The
doctrine of the Millennium, in its original form, is ſuppoſed to
have been exhibited to St John. But men muſt, by ſome means
or other, have been fatisfied of St John's authority to publiſh that
*"
* There is added in a note, “ One of the grollest images may be found in Irenæus,
« [l. v. p. 455.], the diſciple of Papias, who had ſeen the Apoſtle St John." One
might fuppofe, that ſomething of the nature of a Mahometan paradiſe was here
underſtood. But the epithet groleft ſeems to have been borrowed from Dr Middle-
ton, Inquiry, p. 46. , and it only means, that the paſſage, literally taken, contains
a groſs abſurdity. Papias, indeed, deſcribes the ſupernatural plenty in ſuch hyper.
bolical expreſſions, that we can hardly imagine - him, filly as he was, to have meant
any thing elſe but an allegory. It may be obſerved, in paffing, that Dr Middleton,
while treating of the doctrine of the Millennium, uſes his wonted freedom of tranſ-
lation. " Irenæus," ſays he, “ aſſerts that doctrine from the authority of a tradition
" handed down to him by all the old men who had converſed with St John.” The
words of Irenæus are, Quemadmodum preſbyteri meminerunt, qui Johannem diſci
pulum Domini viderunt, audiſe ſe ab eo, &c.; Adv. Hares, l. v. c. 33. that is, old men,
not ALL ald men. The interpolation is palpable, and its tendency obvious.
revelation
CH A P T E R
33
II.
revelation before they gave credit to it; and accordingly we know,
what, it was reaſonable for us to conjecture, that he addreſſed his
account, not to the Gentiles, but to believers.
Beſides, the hope of a temporary inheritance could not convert
men to a religion which had given them the better promiſe of " a
“ houſe eternal in the heavens ;" and the being with Chriſt on
earth for a thouſand years, was nothing to the being with him in
a fpiritual ſtate " for ever."
It is more probable, that the figurative expreſſions in St John
came to be interpreted, by Jewiſh converts, into a reſemblance of
that temporal kingdom which it was hard for them to renounce
altogether, and, by Gentile converts, to be accommodated to the
old popular notion of Fortunate iſlands and Elyſian fields *
One thing Mr Gibbon muſt adınit, that the doctrine of the
Millennium, as being founded on the Apocalypſe, could not have
contributed at all to the progreſs of Chriſtianity before the publi-
cation of that myſterious book. It follows, that the church par-
ſed twice through the flames of perſecution, and grew mighty by
her trials and ſufferings, without the aid of this ſecondary cauſe.
What follows is inaccurately expreſſed, and conveys a meaning
very different, it may be preſumed, from the intention of the
author, “ But when the edifice of the church was almoſt com-
* pleted, the temporary ſupport was laid aſide, the doctrine of
« Chriſt's reign upon earth was, at firſt, treated as a profound al-
legory, was conſidered by degrees as a doubtful and uſeleſs
" opinion, and was, at length, rejected as the abſurd invention
* of hereſy and fanaticiſin.” i. 563.
* The prophecy in the 20th chapter of the Apocalypſe, be its fenfe what it will,
is not accompliſhed; neither have we any marks which might lead to the expecta-
tion of its fpeedy accomplilhment: fo, if we inquire at all into the nature of the Mil-
lennium, our inquiries ought to be modeſt and diffident.
E
From
34
CH A P T E R II. .
+
From this detail we might be led to ſuppoſe, that the princi-
pal teachers in the Chriſtian church concurred in uſing the doc-
trine of the Millennium as a temporary prop to the fabric of re-
ligion, which they were employed in building, and that they
threw it down whenever it became uſeleſs: yet ſurely Mr Gibbon
did not mean this; for he knew that the doctrine of the Millen-
nium, as deſcribed by himſelf, was diſliked by many eminent
and learned perſons; and that, inſtead of miniſtering conſolation,
it did, from the beginning, produce unprofitable contentions *
He concludes this part of his diſquiſitions with the following
words: A myſterious prophecy, which ſtill forms a part of the
“ facred canon, but which was thought to favoạr the exploded
" ſentiment, has very narrowly eſcaped the proſcription of the
“ church." i. 563.
After the labour beſtowed by men of fuperior literature in de-
fending the authority of the Apocalypſe, it would ill become me
to ſay much on the ſubject.
But the hiſtory of the " hair-breadth 'ſcapes" of the Apoca-
lypfe is too fingular to be diſmiſſed without a few remarks: And
perhaps it may be in my power to add ſomething to that
argument which is, or at leaſt ought to be familiar to all who
profeſs any knowledge of eccleſiaſtical antiquities.
“ In the council of Laodicea, about the year 360, the Apoca-
lypſe was tacitly excluded from the facred canon by the ſame
« churches of Aſia to which it is addreſſed;" note (67:) #
وز
general
.
* Ως και σχίσματα και αποφασιας όλων εκκλησιων γεγονέναι, are the emphatical words
of Dionyfius of Alexandria, Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. vii. 24. He complains that many
perſons in his time bad become ſo fond of a book which they could not underſtand,
as to neglect the ſtudy of the goſpels and epiſtles.
+ This obſervation feems to have been borrowed from Mill. Prolegomena, xxvii.
" Integrum inſuper Concilium Epiſcoporum Afiaticorum in ipfa urbe Laodicea, cui
«i feptima Epiſtola Apocalypſeos fcripta erat, congregatum eam itidem canone ex.
(clufit.”
If
C:H A P T E R II,
35.
If the letter to the ſeven churches of Afia had been truly ad-
dreſſed to them by the Apoſtle St John, its authority would have
been beyond juſt doubt.
Let us ſee the evidence produced for proving that the letter was
not addreſſed to them by St John.
After an interval of more than two hundred and ſeventy years,
the biſhops of Aſia thought fit to deny that their predeceſſors ever
received ſuch a letter, and therefore they tacitly excluded it from
the ſacred canon.
They did not, however, recollect, that copies of that letter had
been circulated, at a very early period, throughout the Chriſtian
church, and that the copies had become numerous *; that Papias
the contemporary of St John, ſpake of it; that Juſtin Martyr,
almoſt his contemporary, quoted it; that it was the ſubject of
a treatiſe written by Melito, Biſhop of Sardis, in the early part
of the ſecond century t; that Irenæus produced about twelve
paſſages
:
* It is plain, that, even in the times of Irenæus, there exiſted many copies of the
Apocalypſe, ſome more ancient, and others of a more recent date; ſome of leſs, and
others of greater authority: for he quotes a paſſage from it, of which there occurred
various readings, and he determines for that reading which was to be found in all
“ good and ancient copies;" [év nãou Tois omdatbus xj 4pxáros, ay tiypoipos.] Adv. Hæres,
1. 5. c. 30. The original words are preſerved by Euſebius, Hift Ecclef. 1. 5. C. 8.
+ Nothing remains of Melito's tract beſides its title, which Euſebius has preſerved.
Hift. Ecclef. iv. 26.
The author of “a diſcourſe, hiſtorical and critical, on the Revelations," printed
in 1730, ſeems to doubt, whether Melito wrote on the Apocalypſe, or againſ it?
It would have been a circumſtance of confiderable moment, had Melito queſtioned
the authenticity and authority of the Apocalypſe.
He was Biſhop of Sardis in the ſecond century, and it is held, that he drew up his
Apology for the Chriſtians in the year 167, after the birth of Chriſt. If Valefius be
right in his interpretation of the words of Euſebius, that Apology was the laſt of the
numerous treatiſes which Melito publiſhed. Euſebius, after having enumerated the
others, fays, επί πασι και το προς 'Αντωνίνον βιβλίδιον. The paffage is this rendered by
E 2
Valeſius :
.
36
CH A P T E R "II.
1
paffages from it; and, not to multiply authorities, that Clea
mens
**
Valeſius.: “ poftremus omnium eſt libellus ad Imperatorem Antoninum." If it was
the laſt of his works we might conclude him to have been well advanced in years
when he compoſed it: and this would make him almoft the contemporary of St
John, who died about the end of the firſt century. But the words, émii não, may
imply " above all," as well as “ after all;" and they may reſpect the merit and ce.
lebrity of the performance, independent of the time at which it was compofed.
In either view, the date of the Apology being once fixed to the year 167, it fol-
lows, that Melito muſt have been acquainted with many biſhops the contemporaries
and companions of St. John, and muſt have known what their opinion was con-
cerning the authenticity and authority of the Apocalypfe.
Of Melito Biſhop of Sardis, and Apollinaris Biſhop of Hierapolis, Eufebius thus
ſpeaks.“ The following is a catalogue of ſuch of their works as have come to my
" knowledge. Of Melito: the two of Eaſter, [literally, the of Eaſter, two.]; and the
" [treatiſes] of the conduct of life, and of the prophets ; the [diſcourſe] of the church."
And, after having mentioned ſeveral others, he adds, "and the [treatiſes] of the
“ Devil, and of the Apocalypſe of John.” [781wv és viucelépar yrwour épiktai ta ÚNOTE-
ταγμένα. Μελίτωνος, τα περί το Πάσχα δύο, και τα περί πολιτείας και προφήτών, και ο
περί εκκλησίας.--Και τα περί τε διαβόλα, και της αποκαλύψεως Ιωάννα.]
This literal tranſlation is made for the uſe of the unlearned reader, and for the
better enabling him to underſtand the import of what will be mentioned in the ſequel.
The plural, td, is rendered" the treatifes," and the fingular, ., "the diſcourſe;" be.
cauſe, in the former cafe, Bißríd, or fomething fyrionymous, is implied, and, in the
latter, aóyos, or the like ; fonituíd, which, in claſſical authors, means “ civil regi.
" men," is frequently uſed by the ancient Chriftian writers for's demeanour or conduct
« in life,” and it is fo rendered here. Let us now fee in what ſenſe the author of
“ the hiſtorical and critical diſcourſe" chufes to underſtand Euſebius. He ſays, that
« amongft the tracts of Melito, there was one entitled, of the devil of the Revelations,
as Eufebius relates."
A tranflation ſo extravagantly erroneous might have been aſcribed to ignorance
of the Greek language, for men with ſmall Greek ſometimes cavil at the canon of the
New Teſtament, were it not that the Latin verſion of Valeſius is ſufficiently plain,
- Ad hæc de diabolo et de Revelatione Johannis.
The fame critic who found “the devil of the Revelations” in Eufebius, could not
find the word John there. That would, at leaſt, bave proved, that a Biſhop of Sardis,
in the fecond century, made no doubt of the Apocalypſe having been publiſhed by
gne John.
There
:
Q: H A P T E R II.
37
mens Alexandrinus appealed to it upwards of thirty times *
And it is to be preſumed, that they did not know that the Chri-
ftian authors who wrote before the middle of the fourth century,
had transfuſed into their works almoſt every paragraph, and even
ſentence of the Apocalypſe.
Had they recollected or known theſe circumſtances, it would
have been more judicious and more modeſt for them to have aſked
the concurrence of the Chriſtian world, before they proceeded to
what Mr Gibbon imputes to them.
Hitherto the hypotheſis has been admitted, That “the ſame
There is no reaſon for ſuppoſing, that, in the ſame tract, Melito treated “ of the
" devil” and “ of the Apocalypſe :" we might as well ſuppoſe, that what he had to
offer concerning "the conduct of life” and “the prophets,” fubjects totally different,
were comprehended under the ſame tract.
This is not ſaid to ſerve an hypotheſis, becauſe, had the title of Melito's treatiſe
been ſuch as the critic wiſhed, there would have been no more ground for imagining
that he doubted the authenticity of the Apocalypſe, than that he doubted the exiſt-
ence of the devil.
Beſides, an additional argument would have thence ariſen for proving, that Melito
acknowledged the authenticity of the Apocalypſe. Had he not done fo, he never
would have written a differtation on the fenſe of the word '“ devil," Revel. xii. 9. XX. 2.
which, however, the critic muſt have fuppoſed.
Mr Gibbon will excuſe the impropriety of introducing into an examination of his
work, theſe ſtrictures on a writer who had not even the vulgar art of veiling bad
purpofes in ſpecious language.
* It is remarkable, that the Chriſtians of Vienna, and Lyons of Gaul, in their let-
ter " to the brethren throughout Aſia and Phrygia," defcribing the perſecution un-
der M. Antoninus, make no fewer than fix references to the Apocalypſe, whereas
they make no more than ten references to all the other fcriptures of the New Teſta-
See Remains of Chriſtian antiquity, i. 210. In one place of that letter it is
faid, “ that the Scripture might be fulfilled, he that is unjuſt, let him be unjuſt fill;
" and he that is righteous, tet him be righteous fill." [iræ ñi ypapa Tampworñ, à ôx optos céroe
unodla étı xai ö fíxaros doxaswJółw tle.] Eufeb. Hift. Eccleſ. v. 1. This paffage is to be
found in Revel. xxii. ii. and no where elfe. Hence we may conclude, that the
Chriftians of Gaul, in that early age, admitted the authority of the Apocalypſe, and
ſuppoſed that their brethren of the Aliatic churches admitted it likewiſe.
• churches
ment.
38
II.
CH A P T E R
C6
“ churches of Afia to which the Apocalypſe was addreſſed, did
tacitly exclude it from the ſacred canon."
But this will be thought very doubtful, when the nature of the
council of Laodicea, and the purport of its both canon, to which
Mr Gibbon alludes, are conſidered.
A provincial council-was aſſembled, in the fourth century, at
Laodicea in Phrygia, probably between the year 370 and '380.
The meeting was an obfcure one; and as nothing paſſed at it
which in thoſe days was held to be of importance to the Chriſtian
world, its preciſe ära has not been aſcertained. .
The canons made in that council are loft; but there is extant
a ſummary of them in Greek, with two verſions of it, the one by
Ifidorus, furnamed Mercator; and the other by Dionyſius, ſur-
named Exiguus.
In the title of this ſummary, the council is thus deſcribed:
“ The Holy Synod gathered together at Laodicea in Phrygia Pa-
catiana, out of various juriſdictions of (the dioceſe] Afana *.”
It was neceſſary to make this obſervation on the title f, becauſe
learned men, not ſuppoſing the matter to be of any conſequence,
have confided in the juſtneſs of the verſions made by Ifidorus and
Dionyſius.
Ifidorus tranflates εκ διαφορων επαρχίων της Ασιανής,
,
66 Ex diverſis re-
gionibus Afiæ;" and Dionyfius, “ Ex diverſis provinciis Afic;"
and hence the title has been ſuppoſed to contain the word Afra,
and its ſenſe has been miſunderſtood.
The word Afana implies diæcefis Afrana, a tract of country go-
verned by an officer termed Vicarius Afiane diæceſeos. Under that
'86
+
* Η αγία Σύνοδος και κατά Λαοδικειαν της Φρυγίας Πακατιανής συνκρότηθεισα εκ διαφόρων
en apxiwr tñs Aviarñs. Harduin. Concil. i. 782.
+ The title itſelf ſeems to be, in ſome meaſure, corrupted; for, if I miſtake not,
Laodicea on the river Lycus, the place here meant, was ſituated in Phrygia Salutaris,
and not in Phrygia Pacatiana.
dioceſe,
CH A P T E R
39
II.
>
dioceſe, Afia Major, comprehending the cities of Epheſus and
Smyrna, was not accounted; and accordingly the biſhops of thoſe
cities appeared at the general council of Nice as from Afia Ma-
jor *, and not from the dioceſe Afiana. It follows, that two at
leaſt of the ſeven churches, and theſe by far the moſt eminent,
neither had nor could have had any concern in the deliberations
of the council of Laodicea; and that they did not even tacitly
“ exclude the Apocalypſe from the ſacred canon.
It ſeems probable, that the council at Laodicea was compoſed
of the Phrygian biſhops, and of ſome few biſhops from other di-
ſtricts of the dioceſe Aſiana.
Iſidorus relates, thạt twenty-two biſhops aſſembled at that
council; at the council of Nice forty-two biſhops, from the dio-
ceſe Aſiana, aſſembled. This ſhows, not only that the number of
biſhops at the council of Laodicea was ſmall, but alſo that a much
larger number might have been aſſembled there, if the biſhops of
the dioceſe Afana † had all taken their ſeats.
And now we ſee that we ſhould form a very wrong eftimate of
the council of Laodicea, were we to conſider it as the repreſenta-
tive of all the churches of Aſia.
Having thus ſeen what was the nature of that council, let us
éxamine what it did in relation to the Apocalypſe.
By its 59th canon, the council enacted, “ That pſalms, the
compoſition of private perſons, and uncanonical books, ſhould
" not be rehearſed in church; but that the canonical books alone
“ of the Old and New Teſtament ſhould be fo rehearſed .”
* Menophantus Biſhop of Epheſus, and Eutychius Biſhop of Smyrna.
+ I preſume that the reader will obſerve, that the word dioceſe is uſed for a civil
diſtribution of territories in the lower empire.
$ “Οτι ε δε ιδιωτικες ψαλμες λέγεσθαι εν τη εκκλησια εδέ ακανόνισα βιβλια, αλλά μόνα
τα κανονικά της καινής και παλαίας διαθήκης. No other word but rehearfed occurs for
λέγεσθαι,
In
40
CH A P T E R II.
In the both canon, there is a liſt of the books which ought to
be read, [evayırósxeolau]. That liſt contains Baruch, with the epiftle,
fuppoſed to be the 6th chapter of Baruch; but it does not contain
the Apocalypſe. This ſeems to be a fair ſtate of the fact.
Here it is to be obſerved, that the verſion by Dionyſius Exiguus
does not contain the both canon; and hence we may conclude,
that in the Greek ſummary which he tranſlated, no ſuch canon
was to be found. Such being the caſe, one may doubt of its au-
thenticity. Ifidorus Mercator, who lived in a later age than Di-
onyfius Exiguus *, might have tranſlated it from a copy which
did not exiſt when Dionyſius made his verſion.
Beſides, the verſion of Ifidorus ſays more than what is in the
Greek ſummary. Its words are, What books ought to be
read t." [öva de Benia drayovcoxeolær], but the verſion adds, “and to
“ be received as authoritative,” [et in auctoritatem recipi). This
changes the ſenſe altogether; for the biſhops at Laodicea might have
had prudential reaſons for not allowing the Apocalypſe to be read
in churches , and yet might have entertained no ſuſpicion as to
its genuineneſs and authority 1. This may be the import of the
both
* Dionyſius lived in the 6th century. He is remarkable for having, in his Cyclus
Pafchalis, introduced the computation of time from the birth of Chriſt. His ära be-
gins with what he calls the year 533. Iſidorus lived in the eighth century.
+ “ To be read,” is uſed as being the moſt literal tranſlation; but it is admitted
on all hands, that the word means “to be publicly read in churches."
# The church of England allows no more than ſeven chapters of the Apocalypſe
to be publicly read, [ch. i. iv. vii. xii. xiv. xix. xxii.], and yet ſhe accounts the whole
book to be canonical; and ſo ſhe might have accounted it, although thoſe ſeven
chapters had been omitted in the public reading, as well as the other fourteen. This
illuſtration is borrowed from Mr Milner's tract againſt Mr Gibbon. p. 26.
| If, as is moſt likely, the Biſhop of Laodicea bare ſway in the council, we may
fee a reaſon why he ſhould have wiſhed to exclude a certain part of the Apocalypſe
from the public reading. As, in ſome churches, the praiſe beſtowed on them, at a
particular ſeaſon, has been arrogated to ſucceeding generations; ſo the cenfure on
the
CH A P T E R II,
4.1
1
1
both canon, as it is in the Greek; but the verſion of Iſidorus im-
plies more.
The reſult of the whole is, that if the both canon of the coun-
cil at Laodicea be authentic, twenty-two biſhops of Aſia, towards
the end of the fourth century, made no mention of the Apoca-
lypſe while they were enumerating the books to be read in
churches. Thus the Apocalypſe did not at that time make fo
narrow an eſcape from the proſcription of the church,” as Mr
Gibbon imagines *
But it ſeems“.that the ſentence of the biſhops at Laodicea had
been ratified by the greater number of Chriſtians” in the days
of Sulpicius Severus t.
The importance of the teſtimony of Sulpicius Severus depends
on the meaning of the word plerique, which he uſes; and the que-
ſtion is, whether, in the paſſage alluded to, it implies many or moft.
After having poſitively aſſerted that St John the Apoſtle wrote
the Apocalypſe during his baniſhment to Patmos, and under the
reign of Domitian, he adds," which book indeed, either fooliſhly
or impiouſly, is not received by many [or by mof] men I.”
the church at Laodicea, c. iii. 14. &c. might have been underſtood to affect pofterity
in after ages. Here let it be obſerved in paffing, that Laodicea was overthrown by
an earthquake, A. U. C. 813; and that the Neronian perſecution began A. U. C.
817. ; it is not probable that St John would have addreffed the Laodiceans, as he
does at ver. 17. had their city been ruined about five years before. This may contri-
bute to ſupport the very ancient tradition, that the Apocalypſe was publiſhed under
the perfecution by Domitian.
* In juſtice to Mr Gibbon, it muſt be obſerved, that what he ſays 'as to the rejec-
tion of the Apocalypſe by the churches of Afia, is merely an improvement on Mill's
Prolegomena. Mill may have been an able collator of manuſcripts, but he was not
poffefſed of any critical acumen; witneſs his defence of the authenticity of the 2d
epiftle of St Peter, in which his prime argument is, that if the epiſtle was not written
by that faint, it muſt have been written by an impoſtor.
+ About the beginning of the fifth century.
Qui quidem a pleriſque, aut ftultè aut impiè, non recipitur." Hift. Ecclef. ii. 45.
F
Mr
42.
CH A P T E R - II.
1
Mr Davis * has collected examples ſufficient for proving, to the
ſatisfaction of any impartial reader, that Sulpicius Severus fre-
quently uſes the word plerique in the ſenſe of ſeveral or many; and
that he ſo uſes it when the context -poſitively excludes the other
interpretation of moſt. +
Beſides, Sulpicius Severus could never have meant to ſay, that
the greater number of Chriſtians at large did not receive the Apo-
calypſe as a book of authority. -- In this days, ithe Chriſtians of the
Weſt and of the South received it without hefiration.; and, had
he faid the contrary, we muſt have admitted that he oppofed him-
felf to hiſtorical truth, either with the view of ſerving fome favou-
rite hypotheſis, or from caprice. Love for a favourite hypotheſis,
and the impulſe of caprice, may ihave perverted the judgement of
abler men chan Sulpicius Severus; bat thefe caufes, however for-
cible, could ſcarcely have had the effect of making him ſay, that
the greater number of Chriſtians differed from his own opinion.
To all this let me add, that a perſon who had lifted himſelf in
a depreſſed party, might have been apt to ſay, that moft men, of
the multitude, were fooliſh or impious, when they favoured opinions
inconſiſtent with his own. But Sulpicius Severus ſtood not in
that predicament. He thought of the Apocalypſe as the Italian
and African churches, and as many other churches did; and it is
hardly poſſible that he ſhould have included them under a pitiful
minority; this, however, he muſt þave done, had 'he meant to
ſay that moſt men would not receive the Apocalypſe.
* Reply to Mr Gibbon's Vindication, p. 71.
† For example, Sulpicius fays, “ Hujus [Cham] filius, Chủs nomine, Nembrod
“ gigantem genuit: a quo Babylon civitas conſtructa traditur. Pleraque etiam oppida
“ eâ tempeſtate condita memorantur.” Sacr. Hift. I. 1 p. 8. edit. Elz.-“ Mediš
“ hyeme, quæ ſolito afperior inhorruerat, adeo, 'ut plerofque vis algoris'extingueret,"
Vita Martin. c. ii. p. 218.-Sulpicius never could mean, that moſt cities were founded
in the days of Nimrod, or that, during the hard winter which he defcribes, the
greater part of men died of exceffive cold.
One
.
>
i
+
C H A P T E R
43
II.
1
1.
One important objection to the hypotheſis of Mr Gibbon con-
cerning the Apocalypſe is ſtated by himſelf: for he thus ſpeaks,
“ from what cauſes is the Apocalypſe ſo generally received by the
“ Greek, the Roman, and the Proteſtant churches ?"
That all Chriſtian churches, however widely and irreconcile-
ably they may differ in opinion as to other matters, ſhould with
one voice aſſert the authority of the Apocalypſe, is a remarkıble
circumſtance, and hardly conſiſtent with the hypotheſis of Mr
Gibbon; and yet he has attempted to account for this unánimi-
ty, and to ſhow that it affords no evidence for proving the Apo-
calypſe to be authentic *.
“ The Greeks,” ſays he,
ſays he, “ were ſubdued by the authority of
an impoſtor, who, in the ſixth century, aſſumed the character
« of Dionyſius the Areopagite t."
But there is no evidence of this; and it is much more probable
that an impoſtor quoted the book becauſe it had already obtained
credit, than that the book obtained credit, becauſe it had been
quoted by him. This, of itfelf, ſeems ſufficient to outweigh an
unvouched aſſertion to the contrary.
In the earlier part of the fecond century, Melito Biſhop of Sar-
dis wrote a treatiſe on the Revelation of St John; and in the fifth
century, Andrew-Biſhop of Cæſarea, in Cappadocia, wrote com-
mentaries on that myſterious book. Had thoſe biſhops doubted
of its authenticity, they would not have beſtowed their labour in
the compoſing of ſuch works. It is, however, taken for granted
92
* In ſuch a caſe, Horace, as a fatyriſt, might have ſaid, “ Nil Scriptoribus arduum."
+ It is needleſs to inquire from what fource Mr Gibbon derived this information.
Mr Davies [Reply, p. 73.] ſuppoſes that the following paſſage from Abauzit is al-
luded to. “ L'Apocalypſe s' introduifit ainſi peu à peu, ſur tout depuis que le faux
“ Denys Areopagite, qui la metroit au rang des livres facrés, commençoit à paffer
« chez les Grecs pour le veritable Denys. S. Maxime, dans le ſeptieme fiecle, fit
o fort valoir cet auteur." Diſcours Hiſtorique ſur l'Apocalypſe, p. 315.
F 2
by
44
IT.
CH A P T E R
I
1
by Mr Gibbon, that their authority had no influence over the
Greeks.
Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, men of infinite reading,
admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypſe, juſt as the Greek
and Roman churches and the churches of the Reformation do at
this day. Chryfoftom, not only a learned, but alſo a very faſhion-
able preacher, and many others of eminent note in the Eaſtern
church, were of the like opinion. To the ſame purpoſe are the
teſtimonies, formerly quoted, of Papias, Juſtin M. and Irenæus;
and of the Chriſtians of Vienne and Lyons, in the ſecond centu-
ry. Yet, it ſeems, the Greeks refifted all evidence, and perſevered
in their unbelief, until, at length, they were ſubdued by a kna-
viſh Platonic viſionary!
A juſt apprehenſion that the Grammarians might become
more important than the Theologians, engaged the council of
Trent to fix the feal of their infallibility on all the books of
Scripture contained in the Latin Vulgate, in the number of
" which the Apocalypſe was fortunately included.”
well be ſuppoſed, that the Theologians wiſhed to have
the Latin Vulgate held as the only text of authority (pro authentica.]
*
2.
It may
* From among the teſtimonies for the authenticity of the Apocalypſe, that of the
third council of Carthage, Can.' xlvii. [an. 397) is purpoſely, omitted ; and indeed it
appears ſingular, that Proteſtants ſhould have had recourſe to a canon which, to-
gether with the Apocalypſe, receives the books of Tobit and Judith as authentic.
It may not be improper to obferve, that Pope Celeſtin quotes Revelations, xxij.
18. 19.) in his letter to Neftorius, read in the council of Epheſus an. 430.
τίς πώποτε εκ άξιος τε αναθεμαλιθήναι εκρίθη, και αφοιρων τι, ή προστιθείς τη πίσει και τα γαρ
μεσως και φανερως παραδοθένα ημίν παρα των αποστόλων, θε προσθήκην ηε μείωσιν επιδέχεται.
ανέγνωμεν γαρ ΕΝ ΤΑΙΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΙΣ ημων, μάθε προστιθέναι δείν μήε αφαιρείν. μεγίστη γαρ
και τον προστιθένα και τον αφαιροντα τιμωρία δεσμει. Harduin. Concilia. 1. 1304 -Pope
Celeſtine was in ſuch favour with the council of Epheſus, that the Fathers joined in
this acclamation : “ Thanks to Celeſtine, to the new Paul-to the guardian of the
“ faith.” (NEL NATALỘ púr.xxi tñs riolews. ib. 1471.] This ſecond Paul aflert-
ed the authority of the Apocalypſe.
For
CH A P T F R
45
II.
For had more latitude been given, and the public uſe of Hebrew
and Greek copies of the Scriptures allowed, the grammarians,
that is, critics and philologiſts, would, by their improved ver-
fions, have diſturbed the profound quiet of the church. Againſt
this inconveniency the council provided by one decree: it was by
another decree that the council aſcertained the ſacred canon, and
left that place to the Apocalypſe which it had poſſeſſed for ſo
many ages.
3. The advantage of turning thoſe myſterious prophecies a-
gainſt the fee of Rome, inſpired the Proteſtants with uncom-
“ mon veneration for ſo uſeful an ally."
This paſſage in Mr Gibbon's work has given great offence, and,
no doubt, it is oddly expreſſed. For, not to mention other ob-
jections, it ſeems to imply, that the Proteſtants might have reject-
ed the Apocalypſe and expelled it from the ſacred canon, and
that they would have done ſo, had they judged that meaſure ex-
pedient.
Hence we might be led to ſuppoſe, that they, who at the æra
of the Reformation departed from the church of Rome, acted on
a concerted plan. But it is the very reverſe of this, as all inen
know, which their enemies object to them.
The truth is, that the Proteſtants in general admitted the au-
thority of the Apocalypſe juſt as it had been admitted for ages
throughout the Chriſtian world, and that they interpreted certain
memorable paſſages in it juſt as they had been interpreted by e-
minent perſons of the church of Rome, when diſguſted with the
exceſſes, or ſhocked at the enormities of Papal dominion.
Had the Proteſtants, in contradiction to evidence, ſuffered them-
ſelves to be guided by their chief leaders, Luther and Calvin, they
would not have ſhown any eagerneſs to ſeize “the advantage of
turning the prophecies of that myſterious book againſt the fee
" of Rome."
Luther
I
-
46
II.
CH A P T E R
Luther at firſt rejected the authority of the Apocalypſe, which
the church of Rome herſelf acknowledged *.
Afterwards,
* There are different prefaces to the Apocalypſe prefixed to different editions of
Luther's tranſlation of the Bible.
The editions of Luther's tranſlation of the Bible which contain his original preface
to the Apocalypſe, are not to be found in Britain ; at leaſt they have been ſearched
for without ſucceſs, as well in the Budleian Library as in the British Muſæum.
By the favour of a worthy and eminent perſon, whom I am not at liberty to
name, I have obtained from the Divinity Profeffor at Helmſtadt the following accu-
rate verlion of what Luther fays of the Apocalypſe in his firſt edition, 1522.
Præfatio Lutheri in Apocalypſin Johannis. Anno 1522.
" De hoc libro pariter ſuum cuique ſalvum relinquo judicium, nec meam cuique
ſententiam aut opinionem obtrudere cupio. Tantùm declaro quid mihi videatur.
Equidem plura defidero, cur neque Apoſtolicum cenfeam, neque Propheticum. Pri-
mum, idque maximum, dubium inde oritur, quod Apoftoli non viſis inhærere,
fed perſpicuis ac diſertis verbis vaticinari folent, quemadmodum etiam Petrus, Pau-
lus, Chriſtus in evangelio; atque ita munus apoftolicum decebat, perfpicuè et citra
imagines aut viſa, de Chriſto et geſtis ejus loqui.
Præterea, nemo Prophetarum Veteris, nedum Novi Teſtamenti, ita tatus eft in viſis
tque imaginibus, ut vix poflim quin quarto libro Efræ illum fimilem ftatuam, ne-
que omnino veſtigium inſpirationis ſanctioris reperiam.
Accedit, quod, ut mihi quidem videtur, nimium ſuo libro arrogat, illumque c-
nixius, quam in alio ullo libro ex numero fanctorum (qui multo majoris erant mo.
menti) factum eft, commendat, ſubjunctâ comminatione, qui quidquam ademerit de eo,
de illo etiam Deum ademturum ele, &c. contra ea, beatos fore, qui contenta obſerva-
verint; quamvis nemo quid contineat ſcire, nedum obſervare, poffit, et perinde fit,
ac fi totum non haberemus, multique alii fint libri obfervandi longè præftantiores.
Fuerunt etiam ex patribus olim multi, qui librum hunc rejicerent; et quanquam
Hieronymus in eo commendando verbofior eft, illumque, ultra omnem prædicatio-
nein,
ſublimem effe, immo tot myſteria continere quàm verba, affirmat, fidem tamen
dicto facere non potuit, et aliis quoque locis in laudando liberalior effe folet.
Denique cuilibet ita licebit de hoc libro judicare, quemadmodum animo ſe ferri
fentiet. Meus quidem animus parùm cum ifthoc libro congruit; mihique ad tanti
non faciendum hæc ratio fufficit, quod nec doceri, nec agnoſci in eo videam Chri-
ftum; in quo tanien primæ cernuntur partes Apoftoli, quemadmodum, Act. i.
« Teftes mihi eftote," poftulat. Itaque eos teneo libros, qui mihi Chriftum exhibent,
clarè ac purè fpectandum."
The
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
47
II.
*
Afterwards, indeed, he ſeems to have inclined more to the re-
ceived opinion: But ſtill it is plain, from the ſtyle of his later
prefaces, and from the apologies made for him by his followers
thar Luther never had an uncommon veneration for the myſterious book.
The other great reformer, Calvin, had no doubts as to the au-
thority of the Apocalypſe, yet he cautiouſly abſtained from wri-
ting any commentaries on it. Nay more, although in his Inſti-
The very fame words occur in the edition 1524.-But in the edition 1535, the
ſtrong paffages are omitted, and the book is acknowledged to be divine, with ſome
doubt, however, about its author, and with the offer of an hypotheſis by which the
viſions might be interpreted.
In a later edition he thus ſpeaks : “ The third kind of prophecy is that which fore-
e tels by bare images and figures without interpretation, like this book of the A-
« pocalypſe. So long as ſuch prophecy receives no certain interpretation, it is a
“ hidden and dumb prophecy, unprofitable and unfruitful to Chriſtians. And thus it
o has hitherto fared with this book. Many, indeed, have attempted to explain it,
« but ſtill they have advanced nothing certain; and they have rather hatched out of
" their own fancies a variety of things inept and incongruous. On account of fuch
66 uncertain interpretations and hidden ſenſes, I have hitherto left it untouched; and
“ this the more eſpecially, becauſe ſome of the ancient fathers thought it was not
“ written by John the Apoſtle. See Euſeb. Hift. Ecclef. ii. 25. For my part, I leave
“ the matter thus doubtful, that no one may be hindered to believe the book to be the
" work of St John, or to do as he chooſes."
In another preface to the ſame book, Luther ſpeaks more favourably of it, but ſtill
in general terms; and he concludes thus: “If the Scriptures ought always to be read
ós with humility, modeſty, and reverence, ſuch a frame of mind is peculiarly requi-
« fite for the perufal of this book, that we may not fink into an abyſs of vile dreams
“ and fancies, as many inquiſitive men have lately done, who imagine that they
“ have ſearched out all thoſe fecrets which God hath reſerved to himſelf, until he
“ ſhall gradually diſcloſe their meaning, ſo far as his own glory and our welfare re-
“ quire.” Theſe verſions have been communicated to me by a reſpectable friend, on
whoſe ſkill in the German language I can rely.
* “ Lutherum quod attinet, quicquid olim fcripferit in veteri præfatione, in ea fanè
quæ hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypfi afferit aliud, quàm in dubio fe
« relinquere utrum fit Joannis Apoſtoli, quod nonnulli ex vetuſtioribus patribus id in-
« ficiati fint, nihil tamen hoc ipſo ſe prejudicari velle aliis." Chr. Kortholt. de canon.
Script. fanct. c. 18.
tute,
48
II.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
tute, he laboured to prove that the Pope, or rather Papal domi-
nion, was Antichrift, yet he produced no paſſage froin the Apoca-
lypſe as tending to ſupport that favourite tenet *.
We may now conclude, from the evidence produced, that nei-
ther Luther nor Calvin ever uſed this ally againſt the Jee of Rome ;
and therefore Mr Gibbon will allow us to add ſome words to
his propoſition, and then it will run thus: “ The advantage of
turning thoſe myſterious prophecies againſt the ſee of Rome,
was rejected or diſregarded by Luther and Calvin, the chief leaders
amongſt the Proteſtants; but it inſpired the other Proteſtants with
uncommon veneration for fo uſeful an ally."
Mr Gibbon muſt admit the fairneſs of this addition, for the
truth of it has been proved; and yet the addition does ſo much im-
pair his intended inference, that, had he been aware of the fact,
he would, I perſuade myſelf, have omitted this precipitated note.
The ſhort matter is this: the Proteſtants in general, notwith-
Nanding the doubts and reſerve of their leaders, admitted the au-
thority of the Apocalypſe, as they found it fully and unam-
biguouſly eſtabliſhed; and it would have been the height of ab-
ſurdity for them to have attempted to expel from the ſacred ca-
non, a book, whoſe prophecies ſeemed to juſtify their ſeceſſion
from the church of Rome t.
* “Quant. S. Jean. eſt reprins par l'ange, de ce qu'il s'eſtoit agenouillé devant lui,"
&c. Apocalypſe, xix. 10. Inft. 1. i. c. 12. 5. 3.
" St Jean. dit que tous les ſaincts ont lavé leurs robes au fang de l'Agneau.” A-
poc. vii. 14. Inft. I. iii. c. 5. §. 2.
« L'Ecriture nous donne bien une meilleure confolation, en prononçant que ceux
" qui font morts en noſtre Seigneur font bien heureux." Apoc. xiv. 13. Inft. 1. iii.
c. 5. §. 10.
† Perhaps Mr Gibbon meant to ſay no more than wbat is here affirmed. If ſo,
he has expreſſed himſelf in words ill-chofen, and of dubious interpretation. If we
hold the Apocalypſe to be, in plain language, an undigeſted fiction, it remains for
Mr Gibbon, an avowed Proteſtant, to explain how it ſhould have become an uſeful ally
to the Proteſtant caufe.
СНАР.
CH A P T E R III.
49
3
1
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
III.
A
Mongst the ſecondary cauſes of the rapid progreſs of Chri-
ſtianity, Mr Gibbon reckons “ the miraculous powers of
" the primitive church;” and he obferves, “ that the ſuperna-
tural gifts - aſcribed to the Chriſtians, muſt have conduced to
their own comfort, and very frequently to the conviction of
“ Infidels." i. 567.
Here the reality of ſuch ſupernatural gifts ſeems ſuppoſed; and
yet, unleſs the tendency of Mr Gibbon's diſcourſe be miſunder-
ſtood, their reality is quettioned.
He adınits the truth of the miracles reported to have been
wrought in the apoſtolical times, i. 570. 571.; and there is no
doubt amongſt Chriſtians, that the rapid progreſs of their reli-
gion was partly owing to thoſe miracles.
Before the death of St Paul, the Chriftians had become very
numerous; and it is impoſſible for any candid inquirer to deny,
that they became ſtill more numerous before the death of St
John*; and thus, during the æra of undiſputed miracles, Chriſti-
anity' made a rapid, and indeed an aſtoniſhing progreſs. The mo-
ral evidence ariſing from this muſt have tended to the converſion
* We learn this, not merely from " the ſcanty and ſuſpicious materials of eccle-
• Gaſtical hiſtory," as Mr Gibbon chuſes to ſpeak, i. 535. but from two Heathen
writers of great name. The well-known paſſages in Tacitus and Pliny the Younger,
bear teſtimony to the amazing progreſs of the Chriſtian religion; in particular, we
learn from Pliny, that not ten years after the death of St John, the multitude of
Chriſtians in Bythinia, a province very remote as well from Judea as from the capi-
tal, was exceedingly great,
G
of
50
III.
CH A P T E R
of infidels at that time, in like manner as it now tends to confirm
the faith of believers,
Here Mr Gibbon might have ſtopped : But he proceeds
through all the ſucceeding ages of the church, and unfortunately
engages himſelf and his readers in a labyrinth of controverſy.
I do not pretend to examine at large every thing that Mr Gib-
bon has ſaid or furmiſed on the ſubject of miraculous powers; ſome
particulars, however, ſhall be touched.
Mr Gibbon ſays, That "the Chriſtian church, from the time
of the Apoſtles and their firſt diſciples, has clarined an uninter-
rupted ſucceſſion of miraculous powers;" and, amongſt them,
he particularly mentions “ the power of raiſing the dead."
We can hardly reconcile this obſervation to the truth of hiſtory,
Under the phrafe of " Chriſtian church,” Mr Gibbon un-
doubtedly comprehends“ the churches of the Reformation;" and
ihat
part of his propoſition comes now to be conſidered.
It will be difficult to ſhow that the churches of the Reforma.
tion have claimed the power of raiſing the" dead,” and no leſs
difficult to reconcile what Mr Gibbon ſays here, of ſuch a power
being claimed by them, with the remark which immediately fol-
lows, in theſe words, “ of the primitive miracles, the power of ex-
orciſing is the only one which has been aſſumed by Proteſtants *.
Are we to interpret his general propoſition thus: “ That; ever
. fince the days of the Apoſtles and the firſt diſciples, the power
of raiſing the dead, and the other miraculous powers men-
“ tioned by Mr Gibbon, have been claimed, fome in one age,
+
* It is poſſible that, by " Proteſtants," Mr Gibbon meant " individuals in the Pro-
“teſtant churches;" and yet, if the word be taken in that fenſe, it will not be eafy to
diſcern the tendency of the remark: for then he might have ſaid, and with no leſs.
reaſon, that the Proteſtants aſſumed the power of raiſing the dead; and he might
have proved this from the celebrated ſtory of the French prophets in the reign of Q.
Apne.
66 and
1
CH A P T E R III.
51
" and ſome in another, either by the Chriſtian church, or by in-
66 dividuals of that great body?"
This interpretation, though vague and void of conſequence,
ſeems the only one than can reconcile Mr Gibbon to himſelf, and
to the truth of hiſtory.
Here let it be obſerved, in paſſing, that at p. 567. Mr Gibbon
aſſerts, That" the Chriſtian church has claimed an uninterrupted
“ ſucceſſion of power to raiſe the dead;" while, at p. 569. he
beſtows much good criticiſm to prove, that Theophilus Biſhop
of Antioch, towards the cloſe of the ſecond century, knew not of
any
fuch
power being claimed at that time in the Chriſtian church.
Surely Mr Gibbon does not look for our aſſent to ſuch contra-
dictory propoſitions as theſe, that in the ſecond century, the
Chriſtian church claimed a power to raiſe the dead, and yet that
the Biſhop of one of the moſt eminent ſees knew nothing of ſuch
a claim.
Having premiſed this much, let us examine the noted paſſages
in Irenæus, to which Mr Gibbon, after the example of Dr Mid-
dleton, alludes *
His words are: “ But the miraculous cure of diſeaſes of the
« moſt inveterate and even preternatural kind, can no longer oca
“ caſion any ſurpriſe, when we recollect that, in the days of Ire-
næus, about the end of the ſecond century, the reſurrection of
the dead was very far from being eſteemed an uncommon event;
that the miracle was frequently performed, on neceſſary occa-
ſions, by great faſting, and the joint ſupplication of the church
of the place; and that the perſons thus reſtored to their prayers
I had lived afterwards amongſt them many years. Irenæus, adv.
“ hæres, 1. ii. c. 56. 57.; 1. v. c. 6†.”
1
+
* Inquiry, p. 12.
+ Mr Gibbon quotes I. v. c. 6. not adverting that it is not to his purpoſe, and that
Dr Middleton, from whom he had the remark, quoted that chapter with a very dif-
ferent intention.
As
G 2
52
III.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
As to the paſſages from Irenæus, Dr Middleton reſolutely and
fairly ſpake out his ſentiments, and he declared his ſtrong ſuſpi-
cions of fraud and colluſion. * This plain dealing is laudable.
It ſeems that the words of Irenæus have been miſunderſtood by
foie perſons who wiſhed well to Chriſtianity, and by others of
more equivocal character, and that he does not ſpeak of any re-
fuſcitation of the dead which had happened in his own days,
and conſiſted with his perſonal knowledge.
1. No other inſtance of ſuch a miracle is to be found during
two centuries after the apoſtolical times.
Euſebius indeed ſays, that Papias mentions the reſuſcitation of
a dead perſon. But without inquiring into the degree of autho-
rity due to the reports of Papias, it may ſuffice to obſerve, that,
according to Eufebius, Papias did not ſpeak of what he himſelf
had ſeen or knew, but of what had come to him by tradition, and
particularly of what he had learnt from the daughters of. Philip,
one of the ſeven deacons t. Now, it is certain, that the: daugh-
ters of Philip lived in the apoſtolical times; for they ſaw St Paal
* Inquiry, p. 74.
+ Παράδοξά τινα ισορεί και άλλα, ως άν εκ παραδόσεως εις αυτόν ελθόνθα. το μεν εν καία
την Ιεράπολιν Φιλίππου τον απόσoλον άμα ταϊς θυγατράσι διατρίψαι, ----- ως δε κατά της
αυθες ο Παπίας γενόμενος, διήγησιν παρειληφέναι θαυμασίαν, υπό των τε Φιλίππε θυγα-
τέρων, μνημονεύει, τα νυν σημειωθέον. νεκρι γαρ ακάσασιν κατ' αυτόν γεγονυΐαν ισορει. κ. τ. ε.
Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. l.iii. c. 39. It is here faid, that Papias related what he heard from
tradition, and that he ſpake of what had happened " in his own times," [xc avlov].
A tradition from the daughters of Philip might well be referred to as reſpecting the
days of Papias, who lived in the apoſtolical țines. It is poſible that what Papias re-
lated on the authority of the daughters of Philip, was the miracle wrought on Eu-
tychus of Troas, mentioned in Alts, xx. 9.-12.' This miracle was wrought a very
few weeks before the daughters of Philip faw St Paul at Cæfarea : they might have
mentioned it to Papias fifty or fixty years after the event; and Papias, fond of anec-
dotes and traditionary ſtories, might have imagined the miracle to have been ſome.
thing different from what is related in the Acts of the Apoſtles:
'in
i
1;
G H A P T E R
53
III.
in their father's houſe at Cæſarea, ten years before the martyrdom
of that Apoſtle.
2. To borrow the words of Dr Jortin, “;When Irenæus ſpeaks
" of reſurrections (rather reſuſcitations], he ſays the ſoul returned,
the dead were'raiſed, and remained, our suiv, with us, that is, with
us Chriſtians; but he fixes not the time when they were recalled
to life, or were to be ſeen. It is not evident, therefore, even
upon his own account of it, that the dead were raiſed or re-
mained alive, at the time he wrote. It is remarkable, that when
“ he mentions reſurrections, he has the caution always to uſe the
« aorift, επέσρεψεν, εχάρις θη, ηγέρθησαν, παρέμειναν **
3. Irenæus ſays, the dead fo raiſed up “ remained with us for
a confiderable number of years ;” [παρέμειναν συν ημίν ικανούς έτεσι.]
If any of the perſons ſo raiſed up had been alive at the time of
his writing, he could not, without the higheſt impropriety of
language, have uſed ſuch an expreſſion; and this leads me to
imagine, that Irenæus fpake of ſome paſt event, and not of any
thing which ſtill continued to take place in the Chriſtian church.
4. Quadratus lived before Irenæus. In his oration, addreſſed
to the Emperor Hadrian, he ſays, that the perſons raiſed from the
dead by our Lord,“ remained alive for a conſiderable ſpace, ſo
thaď ſome of them reached even unto our times t.” Had Qua-
diatus known of any reſuſcitations in his own times, it is more
* Remarks on Ecclefiafiical Hifiory, ii 2:06.-208. Dr Middleton, in his tranſla-
tion of the paſſage, uſes the paſt tenſe ;. but he prefixes the word that, which, to a
mere Engliſh reader, gives it the air of the preſent. See Inquiry, p 11.
+ Ησαν επί χρόνον έκανόν, ώς τε και εις της ημετέρες χρόνος τινές αντων αφίκοντο.
Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. 1. iv. c. 3 Dr Brooke, by ſome ftrange inaccuracy, tranſlates
the words thus! " infomuch that ſome of them were even at that time ſtill living."
See Examination of Dr Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 238. The words of Quadratus
may, with more propriety, be underſtood of the ſtate of things twenty or thirty
years before; and it is doubted, whether éis to's Autelépeç xpórxs can be underſtood
of the preſent moment.
than
.
54
CH A P T E R III.
than probable, that he would have mentioned them on that oc-
caſion; and there can be no doubt, that if he had mentioned
them, Euſebius would have preſerved the paſſage.
5. Neither will it be held preſumptuous to obſerve, that when
our Lord thought fit to raiſe up the dead, he performed that mi-
racle in a public manner, and before witneſſes the moſt unex-
ceptionable, and that his hiſtorians have carefully recorded all
the circumſtances relating to ſuch wonderful events. The like
obſervation applies to the reſuſcitation of Tabitha and of Euty-
chus, related in the acts of the Apoſtles *
It is with pleaſure that I have an opportunity of expreſſing
theſe fentiments in the more forcible language of Dr Middleton.
“ In the hiſtory of the Goſpel (ſays he) we find the miracles of
$6 this kind, which were wrought by our Lord, to have been per-
66 formed by him in broad day-light, and in the midſt of crouds.
Thus, in the city of Nain, the widow's ſon was raiſed from
“ the bier, as they were carrying him to his grave, in the fight
of much people; ſo that the rumour of it went forth through all
Judea, and all the region round about, Luke, vii, 17. The daugh-
ter alſo of the ruler was raiſed by him in ſuch a manner, that
# the fame of it is ſaid to have gone abroad into all the land, Matth.
" ix. 26. And in raiſing Lazarus, Jeſus lift up his eyes, and ſaid, ,
“ Father, I thank thee that thou haſt heard me. And I knew that
“ thou always heareſt me ; but becauſe of the people which ſtand by, I
ſaid it, that they may believe that thou haft ſent me: Upon which
many of the Jews who had ſeen the things which he did, believed
on him, John, xi. 41. &c. $."
From all theſe reaſons, complexly conſidered, one might infer,
for that there is no evidence ſufficient to prove, that after the apoſ-
* AEts, ix. 36.-41.; XX. 9.-12.
# Vindication of Free Inquiry, p. 62.
s tolica)
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
55
III.
;
“ tolical times, the power of reſuſcitating the dead ſubſiſted in
" the Chriſtian church.”
In the paſſage under review concerning the reſuſcitation of
the dead, Mr Gibbon ſpeaks alſo of the miraculous cure of dif-
eaſes: of this hereafter; meanwhile it is propoſed to make ſome
remarks as to the other miraculous gifts and powers.
The gift of tongues was originally conferred, to be a ſign of the
effuſion of the Holy Spirit, and for enabling the firſt diſciples of
our Lord to announce the goſpel to all nations.
It was a miracle wrought on the perſons who received it.
There is little faid of it by the writers who lived in the next cen-
tury after the apoſtolical times, and that little is expreſſed in very
general terms. Hence we may well heſitate as to the evidence of
the gift of tongues having been continued beyond the firſt cen-
tury.
Before the end of that century, or the death of St John, the
goſpel was widely diſſeminated; and about that time, the canon
of the Scriptures of the New Teſtament, fo far as immediately re-
lates to faith and practice, was well eſtabliſhed. Thus we have,
in the firſt century, an univerſal church, and a written rule for
its direction, drawn up in that language which was moſt gene-
rally underſtood.
It is probable that, about the ſame time, there were tranſlations.
made of the Scriptures of the New Teſtament into the Latin
language* ; that which was generally received and chiefly ufed,
had the name of the Italian verſion. But we have not light enough
from the writers who have mentioned thoſe tranſlations to be ca-
pable of afcertaining their preciſe dates.
*“ Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit Codex Græcus, et
aliquantulum facultatis fibimet utriuſque linguæ habere videbatur, auſus eſt intere
« pretari ;” Auguſtin. d. Doct, Chrift. ii. 11.
Hence
1
56
III.
1
CH A P T E R
:
Hence we might be apt to conclude, that there was a fitneſs in
withdrawing, even at ſuch an early period, the gift of tongues *
but we are incompetent judges of what is fit or unfit; and there-
fore we muſt add to this, that there is no authority. from Scrip-
ture, for ſuppoſing that ſuch a gift was to continue longer, and no
ſufficient human teſtimony that it did t.
We
{
* Dr Middleton could ſee no ſuch fitneſs, although, on other occaſions, he ar-
gues from fitneſs independent of evidence. For he thus fpeaks : “ I might riſk the
"! merit of my argument on this ſingle point, that, after the apoſtolic times, there
" is not in all hiſtory one inſtance, either well atteſted, or even ſo much aş men-
" tioned, of any particular perſon, who had ever exerciſed that gift, or pretended
“ to exerciſe it, in any age or country whatſoever. Mr Dodwell ſuppoſes it to have
" ceaſed in the reign of M. Aurelius, about fixty years after the death of St John.
“ But it is not credible, that'a gift of ſuch eminent uſe ſhould entirely ceaſe, while
“ all the reſt were fubfiſting in full vigour, and abounding every day more and more.
“ If, according to the common hypotheſis, we admit them all to be true, it is not
" poſible to imagine any cauſe why this in particular ſhould be withdrawn, and the reſt
o continued; but if, agreeably to my fyftem, we contider them all as fictitious, we
" then fee an obvious and manifeſt reaſon for it: For all the other extraordinary
gifts, of healing diſeaſes, caſting out devils, viſions, and ecſtatic revelations, afford
a great room for impoſtors to exert all their craft of ſurpriſing and dazzling the
“ fenfes of the ſimple, the credulous, and the ſuperſtitious of all ranks; whereas
“ the gift of tongues cannot eaſily be counterfeited, or a pretenſion to it impoſed on
“ men of ſenſe, or on any, indeed, but thoſe who are utterly illiterate, and ſtran-
“ gers to all tongues but their own.” Inquiry, p. 1'20. Di Middleton found it con-
venient to aſſume this propoſition, That “ if the miraculous gift of tongụes did not
" come down farther than the apoſtolical times, none of the others did.” Some of
his antagoniſts, inſtead of denying the propoſition, haſtily and imprudently main-
tained the endurance of the gift of tongues in common with every other mịraculous
gift; and by ſuppogog the evidence as to each gift to be equal, they embarrafled the
controverſy. This was juſt what ſuch a polemical writer as Dr Middleton would have
wiſhed. He may have been inferior to ſome of his antagoniſts in learning, but in ſkill
he far ſurpaſſed them. He led them, before they were aware, to defend too much
ground: the conſequences will be ſeen by any one who has ſtudied that controverſy.
+ The only paſſage, with reſpect to the ſpeaking with tongues, that occurs in any
of the ancicat Chriſtian writers, is this of Irenæus. Kubais i monawr dxxóuer didenpwr
PSV
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
57
III. .
66
We know nothing of the time and manner in which the goſpel
was originally propagated amongſt nations ignorant of the Greek
and Roman languages, and of that dialect of Syria familiar to the
Apoſtles, as inhabitants of Paleſtine; and therefore it would be
preſumptuous to ſay, how the gift of tongues was exerciſed
amongſt thoſe nations, or when it ceaſed."
Another of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, was that of the diſcern-
ing of Spirits.
Amongſt the various endowments of the church, ſome of
" which were to convict gainfayers, and others to edify believers,
“ there was one of the latter kind of ſpecial uſe to ſupport the
dignity, and to diſtinguiſh the divine original of all the reſt.
" And this the Apoſtle calls the diſcerning of Spirits; a virtue
" which, like the touch of Ithuriel's ſpear in the poet, laid bare
" the deformity of impoſture. With this Peter detected Simon
" the magician, and Paul confounded Elymas the forcerer.
But when the thing itſelf had ceaſed, the pretence to inſpi-
εν τη εκκλησιά προφήλικα χαρίσματα εχόντων, και παντοδαπαϊς λαλένθων δια το Πνεύματος
yadoras. X.7. £. ap. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. v.7. Suppoſing Irenæus to have meant
" that he himſelf had heard many of the brethren in the church ſpeaking with
tongues through the Spirit,” we muſt acknowledge his evidence to be in point,
but ſtill it would be ſingle; and, conſidering the extraordinary nature of the gift, the
manner in which Irenæus ſpeaks of it might ſeem vague and ſuperficial. Perhaps
he only meant to relate what he had heard reported by others. The gift of tongues,
when originally beſtowed on the Apoſtles and certain of the firſt converts to Chri-
ſtianity, was not only for a ſign of the Holy Spirit, but alſo for a vehicle to com.
municate the goſpel to the uttermoſt ends of the world. What Irenæus fays has no
relation to the propagating of the Chriftian faith ; and although his words were un.
derſtood in the wideſt ſenſe, the exerciſe of the gift could have had no other effect
than that of ſtrengthening and confirming believers in a faith which they already held.
It is very remarkable, that the ancient apologiſts, Juſtin, M. Athenagoras, Theo-
philus, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix, are ſilent as to the gift of tongues. Irenæus,
in another noted paffage, Adv hæres, i. 2. neither afferts that he himſelf had that
gift, nor acknowledges that he had it not.
H
ration,
58
III.
CH A P T E R
" ration, for ſome wiſe ends of Providence to us unknown, ſtill
“ continued to infeſt the church with its wretched mimicries;
" while that virtue which was to detect them, the diſcerning of
Spirits, was withdrawn, with the reſt of the inſpired graces :
and yet the command, to try the Spirits whether they were of God,
was ſtill our duty; but to try, without the faculty of diſcern-
ing, would be, at beſt, an impertinent employment.
“ From this embarraſs we are delivered by the gracious pro-
vidence of the Holy Spirit, who provided, that thoſe whom he
“ had endowed with the gift of diſcerning of Spirits, ſhould leave
“ behind them ſome rules, whereby to try the Spirits, and ſo to
“ defend themſelves from the ſeduction of error and impoſture *
Thus far an eminent writer, in whoſe ſchool, to uſe a faſhion-
able phraſe, there is much to be learnt by philoſophers and théo-
logiſts.
I do not perceive that the gift of diſcerning of Spirits continued
after the apoſtolical times. The exiſtence of that gift in the days
of Irenæus can hardly be inferred from the ſingle and indefinite
paſſage in which he ſpeaks of many brethren bringing to light,
“ for the common utility, the hidden things of men t." It would
have been well had the Chriſtians of the ages which ſucceeded
that of the Apoſtles been attentive to try the Spirits according to
the rules preſcribed by our Lord and his Apoſtles. Had they
joined the wiſdom of ferpents to the harmleſſneſs of doves, and
remarked what are the true fruits of divine
grace,
“their mutual
charity and unſuſpecting confidence would not have been ſo
“ often abuſed by perfidious friends I.”
;
# Warburton's Sermons, vol. 1. p. 156.
+ Και πολλων ακύομεν αδελφων τα κρύφια των ανθρώπων εις φανερών αγώνων επί
7W ouupéposlı
. Iren. ap. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. v 7.
# Decline and Fall, i. 573. Prudens fimplicitas ought to be the motto of every ju-
dicious Chriſtian.
Had
CH A P T E R III. .
59
Had the Chriſtians of the ſecond century poſſeſſed the gift of
diſcerning the ſpirits, their amiable fimplicity would not have
been impoſed upon in the way that Mr Gibbon, after Lucian, re-
lates.
It
may be doubted, whether the gift of prophecy was beſtowed
after the apoſtolical times.
Here, by the gift of prophecy, is underſtood the gift of interpre-
ting the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, of applying them to the
events of evangelical hiſtory, and of foretelling the fates of the
church.
Perhaps ſome looſe or rhetorical expreſſions, implying a farther
continuance of the gift of prophecy, may be diſcovered in the
writings of the primitive fathers *;. but we have the ſacred canon
before us, and we have the writings of many of thoſe fathers
ſtill extant, and, on inquiry, we ſhall find that later commenta-
1
not.
* Dr Middleton imagined that the evidence of Juſtin. M. as to every miraculous
gift, might be ſet aſide, on proof that the honeſt, though inaccurate apologiſt, ar-
rogated to himſelf a gift of interpreting the ſcriptures, which, in truth, he poffeffed
Had Dr Middleton made good his affertion, ſtill the concluſions which he
meant to draw from it might have been diſputed. But the probability is, that Ju-
ftin. M. did not pretend to any farther knowledge than what fincere Chriſtians, in
general, pofſeffed His words are, Αποκάλυψεν εν ημίν πάνlα όσα και από των γραφών δια
της χάριτος αυής νενοήκαμεν. "Οιεσθε αν ημάς ποτέ, ώ άνδρες, νενοηκέναι δυνηθήναι εν ταϊς
γραφαϊς ταυλα, ει μή θελήμαζι τε θελήσανloς αυλα ελάβομεν χάριν τε νοήσαι. Dial. part. 2.
Be this as it will, Dr Middleton ought not to have rendered dia' tñs rápilos ául8.
thus, “ by the Special gift of God.” The interpolation of the word "ſpecial" is ca-
pable of miſleading an unlearned reader. See Inquiry, p. 27. 30. Dr Middleton,
when preſſed by his antagoniſts on this ſubject, affirmed that he did not underſtand the
meaning of the theological phraſe, ordinary grace! See Vindication, p. 47.---54. In the
ſame paffage, Dr Middleton tranſlates yoñoai tauta, “ to underſtand the Scriptures."
One ſhould have ſuppoſed that, by analogy, yeyonxévai tauta meant" to have un-
“ derſtood the Scriptures ;" but, for the ſake of elegance, theſe words are tranſlated,
“ to acquire ſo perfect a knowledge of the Holy Scriptures."
H 2
tors,
Go
IIT.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
A
tors, who never pretended to the gift of prophecy, have done
more towards a rational and ſcientific application of the Old Tef-
tament to the New, than ever the primitive fathers did.
With reſpect to the foreſeeing the fates of the church, already
mentioned as part of the gift of prophecy, it does not appear that
the fathers had any further knowledge of that ſubject than what
they obtained from the ſacred canon.
But it may be ſaid, that ſome of the primitive Chriſtians, after
the apoſtolical age, might have had the gift of prophecy, although
the fathers themſelves had it not.
This, however, is exceedingly improbable: for, had ſuch been
the fact, the fathers would have given frequent and unequivocal
teſtimony to it. But there hardly appears a .veſtige of any thing
of that nature, even in the writings of the fathers who lived in
the ſecond century*, excepting what is to be ſeen in Tertullian;
and Tertullian, himſelf a viſionary, and one who looked on Mon-
tanus as a perſon divinely inſpired, cannot be admitted in the
character of a credible witneſs for proving the continuance of the
gift of prophecy unto his own times.
* Origen, ſpeaking of the ſtate of things in the early part of the third century,
ſays, “ the Chriſtians perform many cures, and they foreſee some things, as the
« Word [ΛΟΓΟΣ ] willeth;” [πολλας ιάσεις επιτελεσι, και ορωσι τινα, κατά το βέλημα το
Λόγο, Contra Cellum. 1. 1. p. 34. edit. Spencer.] It is fingular enough that learned
men, who differed greatly in other matters, ſhould have concurred in miftranſlating
fuch plain words as oρωσι τινα.
. Spencer renders them “ prævident futura," inſtead
of “ prævident quædam ;" Dr Middleton, “they foreſee things to come,” Inquiry,
p. 14.; and Dr Chapman, “ they foretell things to come,” Charge, note, p. 98.
Thus, as if it were by common conſent, they omit the material word fome, and they
leave unlearned readers to conclude, that Origen aſſerted the gift of prophecy to have.
been no leſs general in the early part of tħe chird century than in the apoſtolical
times. This is juſt the reverſe of what he ſays, as will appear from the paſſage itfelf,
to be quoted hereafter at full length. Indeed, it may be concluded from the words.
of Origen, that, in his times, there were ſmall pretenſions to the foreſeeing of
events.
It
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
61
III.
nature.
It may be doubted, whether the knowledge of future events,
communicated in the form of a viſion*, ought to be treated of
under the head of miraculous gifts and powers. Let it, how-
ever, be obſerved in general, that we muſt be very ſure of the
evidence reſpecting ſuch knowledge by viſion, before we admit
the reality of any ſuppoſed examples of it. The numberleſs in-
ſtances of deluſion as to this particular, although not ſufficient to
authoriſe an undiſtinguiſhing ſcepticiſin, are at leaſt ſufficient to
put us upon our guard againſt a raſh aſſent to pretenſions of this
While we admit, and indeed who can deny it, that the
Divinity may at all times communicate the knowledge of future
events in the form of a viſion, it behoves us to weigh well the
evidence produced for proving that the Divinity did communicate
ſuch knowledge at any time after the apoſtolical age.
As to “ the miraculous powers of expelling evil ſpirits, and of
healing diſeaſes,” there ſeems to be more evidence that they con-
tinued in the church after the apoſtolical age, 'than there is as to
the others formerly mentioned.
With reſpect to the power of expelling evil ſpirits from the bo-
dies of men, we muſt obſerve in the entrance, that it ſeems wrong
to deny, that, at the coming of our Lord, certain malevolent fpi-
rits were permitted to poſſeſs men, and to afflict them in a man-
ner to us inexplicable.
This may not be the leſs true becauſe inexplicable: for there
are myſteries no leſs profound in the book of nature, the truth of
which is univerſally admitted, than in the book of grace.
Some learned perſons, of whoſe fincerity in the Chriſtian faith
1
* Dr Middleton has ſpoken of viſions in a light ſtyle, and with diſtinguiſhed irr.
correctneſs, Inquiry, p. 96.--98. There are many learned and uſeful obſervations
on this ſubject to be found in Dr Chellum's Remarks on the two laſt chapters of Mr
Gibbon's Hiſtory, P: 71.-80.
there
:
.
62
III.
CH
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
.
there can be no doubt, have, nevertheleſs, controverted the pro-
poſition, that" at the coming of our Lord, certain malevolent
“ fpirits were permitted to poffefs men;" yet the texts of Scrip-
ture in ſupport of it are ſo numerous and ſo expreſs, that hardly
any thing could have produced the fanciful interpretations of the
caſe of the demoniacs; but a fond wiſh of making all circumſtances
plain in a book which is, from its nature, myſterious, and, until
the conſummation of all things, will not be fully underſtood.
In the days of our Lord and his Apoſtles, poffeſfion by evil ſpi-
rits had the appearance of lunacy and of other diſeaſes.
It has been judicioudy obſerved, that diſeaſes inflicted by pof-
Jeffrons, muſt have reſembled the diſeaſes which occur in the gene-
ral courſe of things. From the likeneſs of the ſymptoms in both
caſes, a poſſeſſion by evil ſpirits might have been conſidered as a
natural diſeaſe, and a natural diſeaſe as a poſſeſſion by evil ſpirits.
The ſacred hiſtorians, writing to the people at large, do not
always draw the preciſe line between thoſe caſes; yet, on ſome
occaſions, they diſtinguiſh, by unambiguous circumſtances, pof-
Seſion from diſeaſe*.
That which Chriſt did by his own authority, his Apoſtles and
his firſt diſciples did in his name; and if it pleaſed God to per-
mit poſſeſſions after the apoftolical age, we are warranted to con-
clude, that the perſons ſo poſſeſſed were freed from evil ſpirits in
the name of our Lord.
There is no doubt that, even after the apoftolical age,
the Chri-
ſtians pretended to exerciſe the power of caſting out evil ſpirits.
That this was a mere pretence, founded on colluſion, is an ex-
travagant hypotheſis. Such a fraud could not have been carried
on ſucceſsfully, and without detection, for upwards of two cen-
* See, particularly, Matth. viii. 28.-32.; Mark, i. 23.-26.; iii. 11. 12.;
v. 6.-13.; Luke, ir, 33.-35. ; viii. 27-33.
turies,
CH A P T E R III, .
63
:
or,
turies, by a perſecuted and depreſſed party, whoſe religion was
not only contrary to the religion of the ſtate, but alſo incompa-
tible with it.
But, poſſibly, there may be fome errors in the circumſtances
which Tertullian and other ancient writers relate concerning the
ejection of evil ſpirits.
Thus, for example, Minucius Felix ſpeaks of evil ſpirits,
“ who either inſtantly ſpring out, or diſappear by degrees, as the
“ faith of the patient aſliſts, or the grace of the healer influen-
“ ces *.” The expreſſion, grace of the bealer,” [gratia curan-
tis), may mean,
“ the favour of him who heals,” that is, “ God,”
the grace beſtowed on the exorciſt." In either ſenſe of the
expreſſion, it is plain, that a progreſſive change from diſeaſe, of
whatever nature, to health, is here meant. Between the cure of
demoniầcs, properly ſo called, in the New Teſtament, and that
of the perſons mentioned by Minucius Felix, there is this obvious
and characteriſtical difference, that the former is always deſcribed
to have been inſtantaneous, and the latter is ſaid to have been
ſometimes gradual.
To affert that God may not work a miraculous cure by degrees
as well as inſtantly, would be blaſphemous and abſurd; but ſtill,
without offence to reaſon or piety, we may obſerve, that a gra-
if conſidered as miraculous, ought to be aſcertained by
ſtrong evidence indeed; becauſe ſuch a cure has no ſupport from
the analogy of miracles admitted to be true, and, to a certain de-
gree at leaſt, it participates of the nature of ſtories whoſe credit is
dubious.
Again, Minucius Felix, in imitation of Tertulliant, ſays, that
dual cure,
1
* “ Vel exiliunt ftatim, vel evanefcunt gradatim, prout fides patientis adjuvat,
aut gratia curantis afpirat;" Minucius Felix, c. xxvii. p. 283. edit. Gronovii..
+ Tertullian, Apol. c. 23.
an
64
CHAPTER III.
was
an evil ſpirit, when he was expelled, acknowledged himſelf to be
Saturn, Serapis, Jupiter, or ſome other imagined divinity whom
the Pagans worſhipped * Here we muſt be allowed to heſitate, .
It is probable that moſt of the gods of Paganiſm were deifųed he-
roes, men who, by reaſon of their having eſtabliſhed equal laws,
or invented uſeful arts, did, after their deceaſe, obtain divine
honours from the vulgar.
To this purpoſe Minucius Felix himſelf ſpeaks: “Before the globe
laid open by the intercourſe of commerce, and before nation's
" borrowed from each other, as well religious ceremonies as
manners, each people venerated its founder, or one of its re-
“ nowned leaders, or a queen ſuperior in fortitude to her ſex, or
any fellow-citizen, who, by the diſcovery of ſome uſeful art,
and by communicating it to mankind, deſerved to be held in
“ remembrance. Thus were the dead rewarded, and, at the
“ ſame time, poſterity was excited tº imitate them. Read the
« works of hiſtorians and philoſophers, and you will perceive
" the truth of what I affert. Euhemerus enumerates thoſe who
“ have been conſidered as deities, for their perſonal merit, or for
“ benefits conferred by them on mankind; and he recounts their
" births, countries, and places of burial, and points them out
in various regions t," &c.
* “ Ipfe Saturnus, et Serapis, et Jupiter, et quicquid dæmonum colitis, victi do..
“ lore, quod funt, eloquuntur;" c. xxvii. p. 280.
+ “ Denique, et antequam commerciis orbis pateret, et antequam gentes ritus fuos
“ moreſque miſcerent, unaquæque natio conditorem ſuum, aut ducem inclytum,
“ aut reginam pudicam fexu ſuo fortiorem, aut alicujus muneris vel artis reperto- .
rem, venerebatur, ut civem bonæ memoriæ ; fic et defunctis præmium et futuris
“ dabatur exemplum: lege hiſtoricorum [al. Stoicorum] ſcripta, vel ſcripta fapi-
" entium; eadein mecum recognofces; ob merita virtutis, aut muneris deos habi.
tos, Euhemerus exſequitur, et eorum natales, patrias, ſepulchra dinumerat, et per
“ provincias monftrat,” &c. Minuc. Felix, c. xx. xxi.
In
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
65
III.
In another place he ſays, “ All the writers on antiquity, whe-
ther Greek or Roman, have related that Saturn, the firſt of
this race and ſwarm of divinities, was a man.-
Now, this
Saturn, dreading the fury of his ſon, Aed from Crete, and
came to Italy; and having been admitted by Janus to the
“ privileges of hoſpitality, he inſtructed the rude and clowniſh
“ inhabitants in many things. He, therefore, who fled was a
man,--the father of a man, and himſelf ſprung from man.--
Jupiter, the ſon of Saturn, his father having been thruſt out,
reigned in . Crete; there he had ſons, and there alſo he died.
“ The cave of Jupiter is ſtill viſited, his tomb is pointed out, and
" he is proved to be a mortal from the very nature of the ſacred
66 rites inſtituted in his honour
There are other paſſages in the ſame author which admit the
truth of the fyſtem of hero-worſhip; and I muſt own, that it al-
ways appeared fingular to me, that Saturn, who was, in the opi-
nion of Minucius Felix, a King of Crete, and the inſtructor of
rude Italy, ſhould have been repreſented, by the fame author, as
an evil ſpirit afflicting the bodies of men.
The lyſtem of hero-worſhip has ſo much ſupport from Pagan
antiquity, and, at the ſame time, is ſo neceſſary for the interpre-
tation of many texts in Scripture, that it is not to be lightly aban-
*
** Saturnum enim, principem hujus generis et examinis, omnes fcriptores vetufta-
“ tis, Græci Romanique, hominem prodiderunt. Is itaque Saturnus, Cretâ pro-
“ fugus, Italiam, metu filii fævientis, accefferat ; et Jani fufceptus hofpitio, rudes
« illos homines et agreſtes multa docuit. --Homo igitur utique qui fugit
Homo - et pater
“ hominis, et natus ex homine - Ejus filius Jupiter Cretæ, excluſo parente, reg-
os navit ; illic obiit, illic filios habuit. Adhuc antrum Jovis: viſitur, et ſepulchrum
“ ejus oftenditur, et ipfis facris ſuis humanitatis arguitur," c. xxii. The tranſlation
of Minucius Felix, which I publiſhed in 1781, is here uſed, with ſome changes of
phraſe. That tranſlation owes much to the learned perſons who reviſed it. The in-
troductory paragraph, in particular, far excels any thing that I could have written
without affiftance.
I
doned.
.
66
III.
CH A P T E R
doned. Rather than abandon it, let us grant that Tertullian
erred in his narrative, and that Minucius Felix contradicted him-
felf.
Under this head, there occurs another circumſtance which well
deferves our attention. From what Tertullian and Minucius Fea
Fe-
lix have recorded, one ſhould be apt to ſuppoſe, that this expulſion
of Saturn and his fellows was effected not once only, but on re-
peared occaſions. Now, if the Chriſtians, in the ſecond and third
centuries, had the power of caſting out Saturn; is it not ſtrange,
that a repetition of the like form of exorciſing him ſhould bave
again become neceſſary?
Although we ſhould grant, that when the patient talked in the
character of Saturn, Serapis, or Jupiter, he was a mere lunatic,
and not one under the thraldom of an evil ſpirit, it does not fol-
low, that he was not actually cured of a diſeaſe by the interven-
tion of the Chriſtians.
This circumſtance has not been ſufficiently attended to; and I
make no doubt that there are perfons who hold the ſtate of the
caſe to be this, “either Saturn, Serapis, or Jupiter, was exs
pelled from the body of a man, or there was a ſhameful col-
“ lufion between the ſuppoſed patient and the Chriſtians who
pretended to heal him.” The former hypotheſis might ftuinble
many a fincere believer, and the latter would be eagerly adopted
by infidels.
But the cure might have been real and miraculous, although
the condition of the patient might have been miſunderſtood.
The inſtantaneous reſtoration of a lunatic to found mind, will
be admitted to bear, at leaſt, as many marks of a miracle as the
inſtantaneous reſtoration to health of a perſon afflicted with any
other known diſeafe, whether acute or chronical.
And thus, although we ſhould fuppofe, that, in the fecond and
third centuries, certain perſons were ſaid to have had evil ſpirits
ejected
.
CH A P T E R
67
III.
.
dos
1
ejected out of them, while, in truth, they were, without human
means,
relieved from a ſtate of lunacy, it does not follow, that no
miraculous power was diſplayed in their cure.
The hypotheſis here fuggeſted will not diminiſh the number of
the cures, although it may remove ſome of them from one claſs
into another.
This leads us to conſider “ the miraculous power exerted in the
“ healing of diſeaſes.” And here it muſt be premiſed, that the
number of the miracles ſuppoſed to have been wrought in the ſe-
cond and third centuries, would not be diminiſhed, although
ſome of them ſhould have been wrought on lunatics, and not on
perſons poßefled. For it is no leſs a miracle to cure lunácy, at once,
and by no other means but prayer, than it is to expėl evil
fpirits. So, if the obſervations juſt now made have any weight,
the reſult will be, that the primitive Chriſtians more rarely ex-
pelled evil ſpirits, and more frequently cured natural diſeaſes,
than they are reported to have done.
Mighty things are faid of the power of imagination; but that it
ſhould inſtantaneouſly reſtore lunatics to a found mind, is fome-
thing ſo very incredible *, that he who can perſuade himſelf to
believe it, will have ſmall cauſe for intulting the Chriſtians on
account of their eafy faith!
The eccleſiaſtical writers of the ſecond and third centuries in-
variably aſſert, that many diſeaſes were healed by the prayers of
the Chriſtians. As they often ſpeak on the credit of others, and
not from their own obſervation, it is poſlible that, in ſome of
their
may be circumſtances exaggerated, and even
miſtakes; and it muſt be admitted, that their evidence loſes much
?
reports, there
1
* There may, poffibly, be ſome very rare examples of this; but I ſpeak, as one
ought to ſpeak on ſuch occagions, of daily experience, and the ordinary courſe of
things,
12
of
68
III.
CH A P T E R
of the credibility which it would otherwiſe have had, when they
ſpeak of diſeaſes having been cured, and yet do not mention by
whom or on whom the cures were performed.
But they do not always ſpeak in ſuch general terms. Thus, for
example, Tertullian enters into particulars, when he deſcribes a
cure wrought by Proculus, a Chriſtian, in the days of the Empe-
ror Severus.
This narrative is curious and intereſting, and it has been
thought worthy of ſome ſtrictures by Mr Gibbon.
" The Emperor (Severus), ſays he, was perſuaded that, in a
dangerous fickneſs, he had derived fome benefit, either ſpiritual
is
or phyſical, from the holy oil with which one of his ſaves had
“ anointed him. He always treated with peculiar diſtinction
ſeveral perſons of both ſexes who had embraced the new reli-
“ gion.” Mr Gibbon adds, [note 108.] “ Dr Jortin, Remarks on
ecclefiaftical hiſtory, v. ii. p. 5. &c. conſiders the cure of Seve-
rus, by means of holy oil, with a ſtrong deſire to convert it
« into a miracle," i. 668.
This ſtory, related incidentally by Tertullian*, deſerves a more
accurate examination than either the affertors of the miraculous
powers, or their antagoniſts, have choſen to beſtow on it f.
For the better underſtanding of this ſtory, we muſt examine it
as connected with the preceding part of Tertullian's diſcourſe.
The ſtyle of that writer is, in general, harſh and abrupt, and
hence his meaning becomes frequently obſcure; yet I hope to
I
* Ad Scapulam, c. 4.
+ Dr Church could not find room, in a treatiſe of four hundred pages, to ſay
any thing as to this cure; and fo he left it, as he found it, expoſed to the gloffes of
Dr Middleton. Neither has Dr Dodwell ſaid much on the ſubject; and yet both of
them found room to attempt a vindication of Juftin. M. for having aſſerted that the
Romans reared an altar to Simon Magus! See Vindication of the miraculous powers,
p. 154. and Free Anſwer to the Free, Inquiry, p. 67.
make
C H A P T E R III,
69
make the paſſage in queſtion intelligible to every unprejudiced
reader.
Tertullian, with a generous and manly ſpirit, cenſures Sca-
pula, the Preſident of Africa, becauſe, contrary to the practice
of ſome former magiſtrates, he had gone beyond the letter of the
Imperial edict in perſecuting the Chriſtians. The author adds,
“ Every thing of this nature might, in duty, be fuggeſted to you
by thoſe very pleaders of yours, who, let them make what
outcry they will, enjoy benefits conferred on them by the
“ Chriſtians : for a certain perſon's ſecretary (or clerk), who had
“ been thrown headlong by a demon, was ſet at liberty; and ſo
“ alſo were a kinſman and a little boy of other perſons. And
“ how many men of rank are there, for I ſpeak not of the lower
« fort, who have been relieved either from demons or maladies *?
“ Beſides, Severus himſelf, the father of Antoninus, was mind-
“ ful of the Chriſtians: for he ſought after Proculus, ſurnamed
“ Torpacion, a Chriſtian, and the ſteward of Euhoda (or Euho-
“ dus), who had, on a particular occaſion, cured him by oil,
" and he retained him at court as long as he lived. Antoni-
nus, nurſed on Chriſtian milk, knew the man well. Severus
alſo, inſtead of doing harm to very diſtinguiſhed perſons of
" both ſexes, whom he knew to be of that religion, gave a fa-
“ vourable teſtimony to them, and even openly ſet himſelf
againſt the multitude, when raging againſt us t."
Here
1
Tertullian undoubtedly meant to have added by the Chriſtians;" for the con.
text requires that addition.
↑ “ Hæc omnia' tibi et de officio ſuggeri poffunt, et ab eifdem advocatis, qui et ipſi
«« beneficia habent Chriſtianorum, licet adclament quæ volunt: .nam et cujufdam
« notarius, cùm a dæmone præcipitaretur, liberatus eſt, et quorundam propinquus,
“ et puerulus. Et quanti honefti viri, de vulgaribus enim non dicimus, aut a dæmo-
“ niis aut a valetudinibus remediati funt? Ipfe etiam Severus, pater Antonini, Chri.
• ftianoram
70
III.
C. H A P T ER
Here the firſt thing to be inquired is, at what time did Tertul-
lian addreſs this treatiſe to Scapula ? Pamelius ſays that it was in
the ninth year of Severus [A, D. 202.); but he gives no ſufficient
reaſons for his conjecture.
This much is certain, that it was not before the ſeventh year
of Severus (A. D. 200.), when that Emperor began to perſecute
the Chriſtians; nor after the ſixteenth year [A. D. 209.), when the
perſecution appears to have been ſtaid *
We
€
s6 ftianorum memor fuit: nam et Proculum, Chriſtianum, qui Torpacion cognomi.
“ nabatur, Euboda [Euhodi] procuratorem, qui eum per oleum aliquando cura.
“ verat, requiſivit, et in palatio fuo habuit ufque ad mortem ejus : quem et Anto.
“ ninus optimè noverat, lacte Chriftiano educatus. Séď et clariflimas fæminas et
« clariffimos viros Severus, ſcieas hujus fectæ effe, non modo non læſit, verùm et
s teſtimonio exornavit, et populo furenti in nos [al. in os] palàm reftitit.” Ad Sca.
pulam, C. 4.
* It is not improbable, that the perſecution began ſomewhat later than is here
fuppoſed, and ended, in Africa at leaſt, fomewhat ſooner.------ Mofheim ſays, ' [d.
Reb. Chriſt. ante Conſtantin. M. p. 456.457.), that the treatiſe ad Scapulam, was
drawn up about the beginning of the reign of Caracalla. Certainly it could not
have been drawn up at any later period : for, towards the concluſion of the treatife,
Tertullian ſpeaks of Emperors in the plural number : “ Magiſtrum neminem habe.
" mus, nifi Deum folum -- cæterùm quos putas tibi magiſtros, homines funt, et
“ ipfi morituri quandoque." This phrafe is applicable to no year of Caracalla but
the firſt, during which he reigned in conjunction with his brother Geta. It is, how.
ever, very unlikely, that Caracalla ſhould have begun his reign by perfecuting thoſe
men whom he ſuffered to continue in tranquillity during the remainder of it. Be-
fides, Sulpicius Severus reckons the whole years of Caracalla under that period,
which is commonly called the long peace of the church. Perhaps Moſheim founded
his opinion on the words " ipfe etiam Severus, pater Antonini,” as if implying that.
Severus was then dead : But the words may mean nothing more than a compliment
to the young Emperor, by diſtinguiſhing the old Emperor as the father of Antoninus.
There are other expreffions in this paffage calculated to gain the favour of Caracalla.
If Moſheim founded his opinion on the words “et in Palatio ſuo habuit uſque ad mor-
tem ejus," and underſtood them of the death of Severus, and not of Proculus, he,
ſurely
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
71
III.
We now proceed to examine the import of the paſſage in
queſtion.
· Tertullian fays, that the pleaders or advocates had received be-
nefit by the cures which their dependents and relations owed to
the Chriſtians; and, therefore, that they ſhould have ſuggeſted to
Scapula the propriety of limiting penal edicts to the expreſs letter
of the law. It is exceedingly probable that, in mentioning the
cure wrought on the clerk of a certain perſon, he had a particular
man in view, whoſe name he thought fit to conceal, either
from motives of prudence, or for the purpoſe of introducing a
rhetorical innuendo.
According to the deſcription given by Tertullian, the man of
whom he fpeaks had the ſymptoms of an epilepſy. That I
may
not blend one controverſy with another, I ſhall not attempt to de-
termine whether the diſeaſe proceeded from what are called natu-
ral cauſes, or from the permitted agency of fome malevolent fpi-
rit. It is enough to ſay, that the man laboured under a grievous
diſeaſe *; and, ſo far as we may give credit to Tertullian, was
cured by the interpoſition of the Chriſtians. The ſame thing may
be ſaid as to the other cures here mentioned, with this difference
only, that as to them, the, narrative is more general, and that
ſurely miſtook their fenſe: for, according to his own hypotheſis, the addreſs to Sca-
pula was drawn up in the firſt year of Caracalla. If. “ uſque ad mortem ejus” mean
“ until the death of Severus," Proculus was either alive at the time of Tertullian's
writing, or had died but a few months before. Now, the phraſe which follows,
“ quem et Antoninus optimè noverat,” cannot be applied to one either alive at that
time, or lately dead.
Hiſtory, from the days of Julius Cæſar until our own times, informs us, that
fits of the epilepfy may be mitigated by means of an exact regimen. Whether the
diſeaſe be curable, is a queſtion which phyſicians can beſt anſwer. It may, however,
be preſumed, that neither the force of imagination, nor natural ſtrength of conſtitua
tion, can remove the epilepſy.
there
**
1
.
72
III.
CH A P T E R
3
there are no circumſtances in it which ſo directly allude to any
individual, as the words “ clerk of a certain perſon” do.
Thus far it is ſuppoſed that all my readers will agree with me
as to the ſtate of the fact.
Tertullian immediately adds, “ Severus himſelf was mindful
«s of the Chriſtians." This tranſlation, by being literal, falls
ſhort of the ſenſe of the original. Since it is ſaid, that Severus, a
perfecuting Prince, was“ Chriſtianorum memor;" it may be fair- ,
ly concluded, that ſome benefit, thought to have been conferred
on himſelf, or on a perſon in whom he took an intereſt, excited
a grateful remembrance, very unlike the harſh character of Se-
verus.
The next thing to be inquired into is, what did any Chriſtian
perform that could induce ſuch a man as Severus to beſtow marks
of diſtinguiſhed favour on one Chriſtian, to be merciful, by con-
nivance at leaſt, towards many others, and, even on ſome occa-
fions, to ſtay the raging of the people, whom his own edicts had
animated in the bloody work of perſecution?
Here alſo it is ſuppoſed that all my readers will admit the
que-
ſtion to be fairly ſtated.
Examples of the benignity of a Pagan and perſecuting Empe-
ror, when recorded by an adverſary, will, in particular, obtain
eaſy credit with thoſe who judge favourably enough of Pagan
and perſecuting Emperors, and not too favourably of their ad-
verſaries.
“ Severus beſtowed peculiar marks of his regard on Proculus,
a Chriſtian, the ſteward of Euhodus, who had cured him by
s oil.” This is a brief ſtate of what Tertullian fays.
It is generally ſuppoſed, and with very great probability, that
the Euhodus here mentioned, was a perſon much diſtinguiſhed in
the days of Severus, and one perfeAly well known to Scapula,
.and
CH A P T E R
73
III.
and to every reader of the treatiſe addreſſed by Tertullian to that
Preſident.
We can hardly imagine that Tertullian would have deſcribed
Proculus, ſurnamed Torpacion, by calling him “ the ſteward of
Euhoda," of a woman altogether obſcure, and bearing a ſervile
name: but there is much propriety in deſcribing him as “ the
66 ſteward of Eubodus.”
Euhodus, from the ſlave * of Severus, became his freed-
man, and one of his chief favourites, had the charge of the
education of Caracalla t, remained in high credit during the
97
* The name of Euhodus was frequently borne by ſlaves and freedmen. See Gru-
ter. Inſcript. t. iv. p. 181,; though, indeed, it may be rather termed a nickname,
or nom de guerre, implying good luck; or more appofitely
, in French, le parvenu : fo
alſo Euhoda muſt have been a ſervile name, being the feminine of Euhadus.
One thing,
+ Mr Gibbon ſays, that the preceptor of Caracalla was a Chriſtian, vol. i. p. 668;
but he produces no authority in ſupport of his aſſertion. He adds, “If that young
“ prince ever betrayed a ſentiment of humanity, it was occafioned by an incident,
« which, however trifting, bore ſome relation to the cauſe of Chriſtianity.” What
he alludes to is the paffage fo often quoted from Spartian. “ Septennis puer, quum
“ colluſorem fuum puerum, ob Judaicam religionem gravius verberatum audiffet,
neque patrem ſuum neque patrem' pueri vel auctores verberum dių refpexit.”
Æl. Spartian, Antoninus Caracallus, in princip. I never could underſtand this paf- .
ſage, concerning a play.fellow of Caracalla, who was ſeverely whipped on account
of the Jewiſh religion, to the great diſpleaſure of that young prince.
however, ſeems plain, that Dr Lardner, Teſtim. iii. 4. is much miſtaken in his con-
jecture, that Judaica religio means Chriſtianity. Some of the earlier Heathen writers
may have confounded the two religions; but it is impoffible that Spartian could; for
he lived in the days of Conftantine the Great. It is fingular, indeed, that Mr Gib.
bon ſhould have produced this ſtory as the only proof of Caracalla having ever be-
trayed a ſentiment of humanity. For Spartian, in that yery page of his work, ſays,
that Caracalla, during his earlier years, ſhowed many ſigns of a good difpofition, and
that, in particular, when criminals were expoſed to wild beaſts in his preſence, he
turned away his eyes from the ſpectacle, and wept, [" fi quando feris objectos dam-
natos vidit, flevit, aut oculos avertit."] Mr Gibbon has overlooked this, and
much more, and has confined himſelf to the ſtory of the Jewiſh boy.
K
life
A
74
III.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
pupil *
life of his old maſter, and was put to death by his
But whom did Proculus cure? was it Severus or Euhodus?
Dr Middleton ſays, “ Tertullian tells us, that Proculus, a
Chriſtian, cured the Emperor Severus of a certain diſtemper by
“the uſe of oil.” He does not deny that the cure was performed,
but he attempts to account for it frum natural cauſes f.
Mr
E
1
* Concerning Euhodus, fee Dion Caſius, l. lxxv. p. 861. 862. I. 'lxxvii. p. 870. edit.
Leunclavii.
+ Inquiry, p. 76. Dr Middleton manages this argument with much controverſial
ſkill. To the narrative of Tertullian, concerning a fact ſaid to have happened in his
own times, and almoſt under his eyes, he joins the narrative of Jerom concerning a
fact faid to have happened in a remote country before Jeroni was born; and having
thus joined the two ſtories, he takes it for granted that they muſt ſtand or fall toge-
ther. “St Jerom (ſays he) affirms, that Hilarion, the Monk, uſed to heal all the
" wounds of the huſbandmen and ſhepherds with conſecrated oil. Theſe cures, if
true, might be accounted for probably without a miracle, by the natural power
" and efficacy of the oil itſelf; fince, in our days, the bite of vipers, after inflaming
a man's arm to a degree which threatened deſtruction to him, is known to have
“ been checked and cured in a ſhort time by the application of oil, which might
" perhaps have been the very caſe of Hilarion's ſhepherds."
This perhaps is incomparable: for, in the paflage alluded to, Jerom fays expreſsly,
that the ſhepherds whom Hilarion cured, “had been ſmitten by ferpents and other
“ venomous animals.” Jerom related the circumſtances of the fact fairly, though,
poffibly, his concluſion from them was erroneous. Dr Middleton omitted thoſe
circumſtances, and then produced them as a conjecture of his own. The paſſage,
which he has curtailed, runs thus: “Ecce ſitiens arenoſaque regio, poſtquam pluviis
“ irrigata eft, tantam [l. tantâ] ferpentum et venenatorum animalium ebullivit mul-
« titudinem [1 multitudine], ut percuffi innumerabiles, niſi ad Hilarionem cucur.
riffent, ftatim interirent. Benedicto itaque oleo -univerſi agricolæ atque paftores
tangentes vulnera, certam (al certatim) falutem reſumebant.” Vita Hilarion. c. 27.
Dr Middleton, on the authority of Jerom, has extended the cure to all wounds,
while Jerom himſelf limits it to the cure of wounds inflicted by the bite or ſtings of
venomous animals. It is not certain that the words “ benedi&to oleo” ought to be
rendered, “ with confecrated oil," in the common acceptation of the phraſe. It rather
ſeems to mean, “ with oil on which Hilarion bad prayed for a blefling." Men no
leſs free from fuperftitious fancies than Dr Middleton ever was, pray for a blefling
on
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
75
III.
Mr Gibbon ſteps beyond Dr Middleton's conjecture, and fup-
poſes that there was no cure at all, but that Severus juſt perſua-
ded himſelf that he got ſome benefit by oil with which one of his
ſlaves anointed him* Nay more, Mr Gibbon leaves it uncertain,
whether this benefit, however ſmall or ambiguous, was of a ſpi-
ritual nature, or ſomething which merely reſpected the health of
the patient.
Notwithſtanding the authority of Dr Middleton, Mr Gibbon,
and many other writers, I incline to think that the cure was
wrought, or ſuppoſed to have been wrought, on Euhodus,
and not on Severus; and that Severus having heard of the relief
which his favourite had obtained, ſought after Proculus, and kept
him about his perſon.
The words in Tertullian may as well imply, that Proculus cu-
red Euhodus, as that he cured Severus.
When the phraſe " Proculum requiſivit" is conſidered, it ſeems
inconſiſtent with the notion of Proculus having cured Severus
himſelf. The Emperor, had he been cured by oil which Proculus
adminiſtered, would have had no occaſion to ſeek after or inquire
for his phyſician.
It is probable that hitherto my readers, in general, will ſee no
great cauſe to controvert the facts and circumſtances which I have
endeavoured to eſtabliſh.
But now there occurs an obſervation, which, if well founded,
on medicines adminiſtered. “ Menſa benedicta," in the language of Jerom's age, is
a table at which grace has been ſaid,” and “ cibus benedictus" is “ food for which
a blefling has been aſked," not "a confecrated table,” or “ confecrated food.”
* It is impoflible to diſcover the fource of this anecdote. Tertullian ſays no ſuch
thing; and he is equally filent as to ſome benefit, perhaps of a ſpiritual nature,
which Severus perfuaded himſelf that he had received from the anointing with oil.
Indeed, he ſays, which Mr Gibbon has overlooked, that, in the times of Severus,
eminent perſons of both ſexes profeſſed the Chriſtian religion, but he makes no
mention of Proculus as a Chriſtian flave.
K 2
might
-
1
26
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
III.
might fuperfede all further inquiry into the nature of the cure
wrought by Proculus,
One of the writers in the controverſy concerning The miraculous
powers, thus fpeaks : " Tertullian, who relates the ſtory, makes
no mention at all of a miracle in the cafe. His words are theſe:
« A Chriſtien named Proculus, cured the Emperor Severus of a cer-
“ tain diſtemper by the uſe of oil; for which ſervice the Emperor was
“ favourable to the Chriſtians, and keps. Proculus, as long as he lived,
" in his palace *.'
If Tertullian, who lived at the time when the cure was per-
formed, made no mention at all of a miracle, it would be prepoſter-
ous for us, in the eighteenth century, to attempt to difcover
more in the ſtory than this, that Proculus cured Euhodus, or Se-
verus by oil.
It appears, however, from the context, although not from Dr
Middleton's quotation, that Tertullian fuppoſed that the cure by
oil, and the cures of the epilepſy and other diſeaſes which he
mentions, were all of the fame 'nature, the operation of God
through the miniſtry of the Chriſtians.
We learn from the work of Serenus Sammonicus t, a celebra-
ted phyſician at the court of Severus, that oil of various forts
* Defence of Dr Middleton's Free Inquiry, by Frederick Toll, A. M. p. 98.
+ Q. Sereni Sammonici de Medicina liber.-H. Stephan. d. Med. princ. con-
founds him with his ſon, who was preceptor to the younger Gordian, and who left
in legacy to his pupil a library of ſixty-two thouſand volumes, Jul. Capitolin. Gordi-
anus junior, p. 159. that very library of which Mr Gibbon thus ſpeaks, “ Twenty-
“ two concubines, and a library of fixty-two thouſand volumes, atteſted the variety
os of his inclinations; and from the productions which he left behind him, it appears
" that the former as well as the latter were deſigned for ufe rather than for oſtenta-
« tion," vol i. p. 215. Pity that Gordian had not collected four thouſand volumes
in addition to the legacy; then it might have been ſaid, that for every three thou-
fand of volumes in his library, he had one concubine and three baſtards, and the
antitheſis would have been complete.
was
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
77
III.
was much uſed in the Recipes of thoſe days. Oil indeed appears
to have been at that time the popular and faſhionable medicine;
and therefore it would have been trifling in Tertullian, to have
ſaid that Proculus cured Euhodus with a medicine generally uſed.
The ſenſe of the author ſeems to be altogether different. When
the ſacred hiſtorian fays, that the Apoftles “ anointed with oil
many that were fick, and healed them,” Mark, vi. 13. he fure-
ly does not mean that it was the oil which healed the fick; but
he means that the Apoſtles, in working the cure, ufed oil as a
ſymbol of the authority of Chriſt, the fpiritual ſovereign, by whofe
commiſſion, and in whoſe name they acted.
Had Tertullian ſaid, Proculus anointed with oil Euhodus,
who was ſick, and healed him," we ſhould have concluded imme-
diately, that, by uſing the words of the Evangeliſt, he meant to
refer to the evangelical hiſtory, and that he ſuppoſed the cure to
be miraculous. But the context being conſidered, it ſhould ſeem
that Tertullian has expreſſed himſelf in words equivalent to thoſe
uſed by St Mark *.
It remains for us to aſcertain, as nearly as poſſible, the time at
which this cure was wrought.
by the
* The reader will judge whether the words “ per oleum" do not mean
« oil," the idiom of the Latin language is ſuch, that a periphrafis is neceſſary for
conveying a ſenſe correſponding to theſe words “ the oil.” Hence modern writers
in Latin would, in ſuch cafe, have prefixed the Greek article thus :
per Tò
66 oleum."
It is more likely that, in the cure of Euhodus, Proculus imitated the practice of
the Apoſtles, Mark, vi. 13. than that he meant to act in conformity to the directions
given by St James, V. 14. : for that which St James directs to be done appears
limited to the caſe of believers. “Is any fick among you, let him fend for the elders
« of the church,” &c. [ασθηγά τις εν υμίν, προσκαλεσάσθω της πρεσβυτέρες της εκκλησίας.]
Beſides, there is no reaſon to ſuppoſe that Proculus was a preſbyter; for the office
of preſbyter, in the ſecond century, could hardly have been compatible with that of
ſteward or intendant to Euhodus.
Euhodus,
78
III.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
Euhodus, the flave, and afterwards the freedman of Severus,
muſt have owed to his patron that wealth which obliged or ena-
bled him to maintain Proculus as his iteward or intendant.
The fortune of Euhodus muſt have been acquired during the
reign of Severus, and not before it.
We learn from Spartian, that Severus, born in a ſtate of me-
diocrity, lived in a frugal manner, and perhaps affectedly, after
the old Roman faſhion. Although he had governed Sicily and
Pannonia with proconſular powers, and had even borne the of-
fice of conſul, he continued to reſide in a ſmall and inconvenient
dwelling at Rome, and was proprietor of no more than a ſingle
farm. It was not till about the laſt years of Commodus, that he
purchaſed a larger houſe, with gardens, according to the faſhion
of that age *. At the time of his elevation to ſovereign power he
was in debt, contracted, probably, with a view to the accom-
pliſhing of his ambitious purpofest.
Severus, having been proclaimed Emperor, underwent great
toils and much danger before he could eſtabliſh himſelf on the
Imperial throne.
Every one who has carefully perufed the hiſtories of Dion Caf-
fius, Spartian, and Herodian, will admit that Severus could not
have had leiſure or opportunity to beſtow conſiderable donatives
on a freedman, until the fourth year of his reign.
1
* " Conſulatum cum Apuleio Ruffino primum egit -- poft confulatum anno
" fermè fuit Romæ otiofus : deinde -- exercitui Germanico [leg. Pannonico] præ.
“ ponitur. Proficiſcens - hortos fpatiofos comparavit, quum antea ædes breviſi-
mas Romæ habuiſſet, et unum fundum.” Æl. Spartian, Severus, p 65.
+ Dehinc æs alienum diffolvit,” Æl. Spartian, p. 67. Salmafius, ſtruck with
the rage of emendation, perverted the text, and, made Spartian fay, that Severus
diſcharged, not his own debts, but the debts of his friends; Not. ad Spartian, p. 136.
whereas Spartian meant to extol the integrity of the Emperor, in making paymen
which none of his creditors durft or could have exacted..
Hence
CH A P T E R
79
III.
Hence it may be concluded, that Proculus could not have been
the adminiſtrator of the rents and ifſues of ſuch donatives fooner
than the fourth year of Severus; and that the cure wrought by
him on Euhodus could not, in the probability of human events,
have happened at an earlier period.
We have formerly ſeen, that it was in the ſixteenth year of Se-
verus, at the lateſt, that Tertullian, addreſſing himſelf to Scapula,
the African governor, fpake of the cure wrought by Proculus, a
Chriftian.
Thus the event which Tertullian relates, muſt have happened
within twelve years of the time at which he related it.
There was a conſtant intercourſe between Carthage, where
Tertullian reſided, and the capital; and we may well affirm,
that- any thing ſingular occurring at Rome, would have been
known at Carthage as ſoon as, in our own days, any thing fin-
gular occurring at London would be known at Hamburg or
Bourdeaux,
Beſides, Pamelius, vita Tertull. has proved that Tertullian was
at Rome in the ninth year of Severus, when he exhibited his tri-
umph over the Parthians, that is, within five years of the time at
which, by the calculation already mentioned, Proculus wrought
the cure of Euhodus.
So much for Tertullian, who wrote about the beginning of the
What was the ſtate of the miraculous powers in
a few years after the time of Tertullian, will be beſt known from
the writings of Origen.
In various paſſages of his treatiſe againſt Celfus, he has made
mention of ſuch miraculous powers, as, according to his account,
exiſted in the earlier part of the third century.
Thus, he ſays: “But we, ſhould Celſus deem it to be proper, ,
are ready to point out an unſpeakable multitude of Greeks as
“ well as Barbarians, who acknowledge Jeſus; and ſome of them,
third century.
" by
80
>
CH A P T E R III.
66 tural
by the cures which they perform, thew how a certain ſuperna-
power is received through that faith. The only means
“ which they employ, in behalf of thoſe who need healing, are,
to invoke God over all, and the name of Jeſus, and to read
portion of evangelical hiſtory. For, after this manner, we
“ alſo have ſeen many perſons relieved from grievous diſeaſes,
“ from diſorders of the judgement, from madneſs, and various
.“ other maladies, which neither men nor demons could have
cured *"
It ſhould ſeem that, in the fair conſtruction of words, this im-
ports, that Origen had been an eye-witneſs to the wonderful cures
which he deſcribes; and, if any Chriſtian witneſs can be admit-
ted at all, it will be difficult to point out one of more credibility
than Origen,
To the fame purpoſe, although with more brevity, he elſe
where ſpeaks: “ It is obſervable, that, after the time at which
Jeſus ſojourned upon earth, the Jews became altogether deſert-
“ ed; and that they retained no longer any of the things which
“ of old were held in high eſtimation amongſt them. There is no
ſign left of fome divinity reſiding with them; no more pro-
phets or miracles. Of theſe, however, after ſo long a period,
" the veſtiges are ſtill to be found amongſt Chriſtians, and ſome
* Ημεις γαρ, ει τέλο σεμνόν νομίζει, εναργώς δείκνυμεν αμύθηθόν τι πλήθος Ελλήνων τε και
βαρβάρων ομολογώνων τω Ιησή τινές τε σημεία τε ειληφέναι τι δια την πίσιν ταύθην πα-
ραδοξότερον, επιδείκνυνται εν οις θεραπεύεσιν» έδέν άλλο καλένδες επί της δεομένες θεραπείας,
ή τον επί πάσι Θεόν, και το τε Ιησε όνομα, μετα της περί αυτε ισορίας: τέλοις γαρ ΚΑΙ
ΗΜΕΙΣ ΕΩΡΑΚΑΜΕΝ πολλές απαλλαγέννας χαλεπών συμπλωμάτων, και εκτάσεων και μανιών,
και άλλων μυρίων, άπερ άνθρωποι έτε δαιμονες εθεράπευσαν.. Contra Cellum, 1. iii. p. 124.
edit Spencer. Origen uſes Xanezwy oupAlwholar, [bad fymptoms, des accidents fá.
cheux], for “ dangerous diſeaſes ;” Èx50015, tranſlated diſorder of the judgement;"
implies any fufpenſion of the rational faculties."
66. of
CH A P T E R.
81
III.
1
of them conſiderable too: and, if my teftimony be admitted as cre-
“ dible; I myſelf bave ſeen them*."
Another paffage, in the ſame work, is remarkable on many
accounts. Origen ſays, I am of opinion that the miracles of
Jeſus, which Celſus calumniouſly ſays he learnt among the
Egyptians to perform, afford evidence of the Holy Spirit ha-
“ ving appeared in the likeneſs of a dove; and, in ſupport of my
“ opinion, I argue not only froin them, but alſo, with probable
grounds, from thoſe which the Apoſtles of Jeſus performed.
“ And indeed, without the operation of miracles, the Apoſtles
“ could not have moved men, who had new notions and new
“ doctrines propoſed to them, to abandon the religious rites of
their country, and, with hazards even unto death, to admit
what thoſe teachers taught: and ſtill the veſtiges of that Holy
“ Spirit, which appeared in the likeneſs of a dove, are preſerved
among Chriſtians; for they expel † demons, and perform ma-
ny cures ; ; and, as THE WORD [Aorox] willeth, they foreſee
ſome things: and, however much Celſus, or the Jew whom he
S has introduced, may ſcoff at it, this ſhall be ſaid, that many
perſons have been converted to Chriſtianity, as if againſt their
so will, through ſome inſpiration, acting with energy upon them
* "Εσιν. ν ιδείν μεθα την Ιησε επιδημίαν, Ιεδαίες καταλελειμμένες πάντα, και μηδέν έχων-
Πας των πάλαι νομιζομένων αυλοίς ειναι σεμνων, αλλά και μηδέν σημείoν τε ειναι τινα θειόληλα παρ'
αυλοΐς. εκ έτι γαρ προφήlαι, έδε τεράσια, ών καν ίχνη επί ποσόν παρα Χριστιανούς ευρίσκεται,
και τινά γι μείζονα, και ει πισόι εσμεν λέγοντες, έωράκαμεν και ημείς. Contra Celfium, 1. ii. p. 62.
In the ſame book, p. 80, he ſpeaks, in general terms, of perſons having been healed
in the name of Chrift : μέχρι σήμερον θεραπεύεσθαι τω ονόματι αυτά ο Θεός βέλεται
+ The word expel is uſed, although not a proper tranſlation of end 80s. The
verb genadew, however uncommon, is claffical. Origen, on this occafion, has been
more ftudious of the purity of his Greek, than of correctneſs in theological language.
He ought not to have ſpoken of charms, or, rather, if the word may be admitted,
of decantations.
L
.
" in
82
CH A P T E R III.
" in viſions or in dreams, which fuddenly changed their mind
« from hatred of the word to a willingnefs of dying for it. In- '
deed; many inſtances of this nature have : come within my
own knowledge; and were. I to commit to writing thoſe at
which I was preſent, and an eye-witneſs, it would lay me open
to the deriſion of unbelievers *; and they would ſuppoſe me to
feign Ataries juſt as they ſuppoſe others to do: .yet God and my
own conſcience are witneſſes that my intention is, not by fic= '
“titious narratives, but by variety of aurhentic evidence, to eſta-
u bliſh the divine doctrine of Jeſus.t."
In this paffage, the teſtimony of Origen is unambiguous, ſo
far as it goes, with reſpect to the healing of diſeaſes. - It muſt,
however, be acknowledged, that Origen does not here, as in the
paſſages formerly quoted, ftate himſelf as an eye-witneſs of the
:
* Γέλωτα αλατύν όφλήσομεν τοίς απίσους. Here Origen complains of the broad
“ grin of infidelity.” But “ the fimper of infidelity is much more intolerable: for
ridicule cannot filence, and argument cannot confute a împering infidél!
* Σημείον δε διμαι τα τε όφθέντος αγία πνέυμάθος εν είδει περιφεράς, τα ύπό το
Ιησέ παράδοξα γεγενημένα άθινα διαβάλλον Κέλσος, φησίν. αυτόν παρ' "Αιγυπτίοις μεμα.
θηκότα πεποιηκέναι, και εκ εκείνους γε μόνοις χρήσομαι, άλλα γαρ, καλα το εικός, και δις
οι Απόστολοι τε Ιησά πεποιήκασιν. Εκ άν γαρ χωρίς δυνάμεων και παραδόξων εκίνυν τες
καινών λόγων και καινών μαθημάτων ακεανίας προς το καταλιπείν μεν τα πάτρια, παραδέξασθαι δε,
μεία κινδύνων των μέχρι θανάτε, τα τέτων μαθήμαα- και έπι ίχνη τ8 αγές εκείνα πλεύματος,
οφθίσος εν είδει περιστρας, παρά Χριστιανούς σώζεθαι. έξεπα δεσι διαίρεσκας, και πολλές ιάσεις επ-
τέλυσε, και ορώσι τινα, κατά το βέλημα το Λόγο, περί μελλόντων, κάν χλευάση δε Κέλσός το
λεχθησόμενον, ή, όν εισήγαγεν, Ιεδαίος όμως λελέξεθαι, πολλοί, ώσπερεί άκοήθες, προσε-
ληλύθασι Χριστιανις μό, πνεύματός τινος τρέψαντος αυίων το ηγεμονικών αιφνίδιον από τα μισεν
τον λόγον επί το υπεραποθανείν αυτε, και φαντασιώσανθος αυτές, υπάρ ή έναρ. πολλα γάρ
τοιαύθα έφορήσομεν ά τινα εαν γράφωμεν, αυλοι αυλούς παρατυχόντες και ιδόντες, γέλωθα πλάτυν
οφλήσομεν τοίς απίσοις, οιoμένοις ημάς ομοίως δε υπολαμβάνεσι ταύτ' αναπεπλακέναι, και αυθες
πλάσσειν άλλα γαρ Θεός μάρτυς τ8 ημετέρα συνειδόθος, βελομένα και δια ψευδών απαγγελιών,
άλλα διά τινος εναργείας ποικίλης συνίσάκεικ την Ιησε θείαν διδασκαλίαν. Contra Celfum, 1. 1.
p. 34. 35. edit. Spencer.
cures
G H A P T E R
83
III.
:
1
tures which he relates. But this ſeems of little moment; for no
one but a captious reader will require that an author, who has
repeated occafions of mentioning the ſame ſubject, ſhould always
treat it with the ſame degree of preciſion.
So far as I have been able to diſcover, there is no paſſage of
Origen, in which he aſſerts himſelf to have been preſent at the
expelling of any demon, 'The accuracy with which he diſcrimi-
nates between what he believed on the report;of others, and what
he believed on the teſtimony of his own ſenſes, is remarkable, and
it adds to the credibility of his evidence.
I have ſaid, that in the paſſage laſt quoted, “ Origen does not
“ ſtate himſelf as an eye-witneſs of the cures which he relates ;"
becauſe what he obſerves of ſudden converſions to the Chriſtian
faith, has no relation to any miraculous powers ſubliſting in the
church; it relates to a matter altogether different, to the means
which it may pleaſe God to uſe in bringing men to the belief of
Chriſtianity; and here, I preſume, there will be no controverſy:
for whether; we ſhould hold, that he withdrew from his ſervants
the power of working miracles at an earlier or at a later period,
ſtill “ the hand of the Almighty is not ſhortened.”
One more paſſage froin the works of Origen ſhall be produced :
although expreſſed in general terms, it is connected with what
has been already quoted of the works of that author. “ Signs of
“ the Holy Spirit were ſhewn when Jeſus began to teach, more
numerous after his aſcenſion, and in ſucceeding times leſs
numerous. But even at this day, there are traces of it in a few
men, who have had their ſouls cleanſed by the Word, and a
correſponding behaviour *.”
4
*
Σημεία δε το αγία πνεύματος κατ' αρχάς μεν τής 'Ιησε διδασκαλιάς, μετα δε την ανα.
ληψιν αυτ8 πλείονα εδείκνυντο, ύσερον δε έλαήoνα. πλην και νυν έή. 'χνη έσιν αυτ8 παρ' ολίγοις,
τας ψυχας τω λόγω και ταϊς κατ' αυτόν πραξεσι κεκαθαρμένους. Contra Cellum, 1. vii. p. 337.
L 2
Euſebius
84
CH A P T E R 1 III.
>
!
1
Eufebius began to write about fifty years i after the death of
Origen; and, according to his account, evil ſpirits were wont to
be expelled even in thoſe times *.. But I have inot been able to
diſcover that Euſebius ſpeaks of himſelf as an eye-witnefs of ſuch
faas.
In another paffage fe obferves," that“ the evidencés of divinity
" in Jefus Chriſt, arei tried and proved among us even by other
“ głating matters of fact; exceeding all power of words, where
our Lord him fèlf; even at this day; is:wont-to manifeſt ſome
portions of his power, though but ſmall, in thoſe whom he
" thinks-proper for'it t.**.,
:- Thèfé expreſſions-atë ſó general; that we eannot, with certainty,
determine, whether they relate to the expulſion of evil ſpirits, the
ſeeing of viſions, or the curing of diſeaſes...
It ſhould feem that, in the days of Euſebius, there were fewer
pretenſions to miraculous gifts and powers among the Chriſtians
than there were in the days:of Origen:!!,
Euſebius, as an eye-witneſs, hasi pathetically defcribédathie lóng
and grievous perſecution of the Chriftians' in Paleſtine; yet he
ſpeaks not of any miracle ever wrought by any of thoſe Martyr's ;
and he does not ſpeak even of viſions ſeen, or of prophecies utter-
ed.by tbem...
.!; ; ii. Virtuous
* Euſeb. Demonſt. Evangél. I. ili, p-91:'edit: Stephani."
ή Ταυλα της και αυθω Θεόληλος τα τεκμήρια εξήτασαι παρ' ημίν και βεβασάνισαι και δι'
ετέρων πραγμάτων εναργών πάντα καλυπτόντων λόγον, δι' ών αυτός ο Κύριος ημων εισέτι και
zűr, ôus de xpireasy, i passepa Tuá tão cută durémens Tráipcipáciyew Èrabe. Eufeb. Demonft. Evan-
gel 1 iii p.7'. I have uſed the verſion of Dr Chapman; notes on the. Charge,
P. 57. oinitting, however, bis glofs, “ fmall, comparatively," as not warranted by
$
u
ht
il
3
the text.
Concerning Polycarp the church in Smyrna thus fpeaks mes While he prayed, three
“ days before he was apprehended, he beheld, in a viſion, his pillow.conſumed by
flames; and turning to thoſe who were with him, he ſaid, in the ſpirit of prophecy,
It
CH A P T E R
85
III.
Virtuous friendſhip for the ſufferers, and zeal for the cauſe in
which they ſuffered, might have led 'Eufebius, on flight evidence,
to give ſome degree of credit to popular rumours, had there been
any ſuch, tending to increaſe the fame of the Martyrs; yet no-
thing of that nature is to be found in his work; and this is the
more remarkable, becauſe at that time there prevailed an opi-
nion among the Chriſtians in Paleſtine, that Providence interpo-
ſed, by ſigns and wonders, to confer an awful dignity on the ſuf-
ferings and death of the Martyrs.
To this purpoſe Euſebius ſpeaks, “ I doubt not that the things
“ which enſued will appear incredible to every one, excepting
eye-witneſſes; yet muſt I needs record them; and this the ra-
$
is
" It behoves me to be burnt alive." He was one " endued with the Spirit of pro-
" phecy; for every word which he uttered has already been, or will be hereafter ful-
56. filled.” Remains of Chriſtian Antiquity, vol. i. p.7. p. 20.
And to the ſame purpoſe, the churches of Lyons and Vienne ſpeak of Alexander,
à martyr from Phrygia. “ He was univerſally known for his love towards God, and
« his boldnefs in 'proclaiming the Word; and he was not without a portion of
apoſtolical grace,o ih. P: 54.: and the ſame churches ſpeak of a revelation made to
Attalus, another martyr, ib. p. 68.
Dionyfius, Biſhop of Alexandria, treating of the Decian perſecution, ſays, “I
declare before God, and he knows that I lie not, never did I of my own accord,
and without a divine impůlfe, [xx“äbees] take flight," Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. I. vi. C. 40.
Fructuoſus, Biſhop of Tarracona in Spain, when about to be burnt alive, “ through
" the admonition of the Holy Spirit thus (pake: There will not be wanting a paſtor
“ among you : for the loving kindneſs of the Lord ſhall never fail; and that which
ye now behold, feemeth but as the tribulation of one hour;" Remains of Chriſtian
Antiquity, vol. ii., P. 42.
It was foreffèwn to Cyprian, that he ſhould be taken into cuſtody, and beheaded,
Remains of Chriſtian Antiquity; vol. ii. p. 29. 1.12.
I do not pretend to determine any thing as to the nature of the viſions and proplie-
tical gifts mentioned in this note : my only purpoſe is to contraſt the particulars related
of former martyrs with the narrative of Eufebius concerning the Martyrs of Pa.
leftine...
ther,
86
III.
CH A P T E R
“ ther, becauſe almoſt the whole inhabitants of Cæſarea, young
“ and old, beheld the aſtoniſhing light."
" When the Heathens-imagined that they had ſunk this holy.
" and moſt bleſſed youth in the unfathomable deep, at once there
aroſe a mighty noiſe ; and the ſea and the air were agitated;
" and the whole city of Cæſarea, and the neighbouring coun-
try, trembled; and, at this ſudden and ſtrange event, the ſea,
as if unable to bear the corpſe of the divine martyr, caſt it out
“ before the gates of the city *.”
And again, “ There enſued this wonderful event: While the
ſky was pure and bright, and an univerſal ſerenity prevailed in
“ the firmament, on a ſudden, moſt of the pillars which upheld
" the porticoes in the city, ſent forth drops reſembling tears;
and, notwithſtanding there had been no dew from the air, the
market-places and the ſtreets became wet, I know not how, as
“ if beſprinkled with water: and forthwith it was a ſaying re-
peated among all, that the earth wept in this inexplicable man-
ner, as if it could not brook ſuch impiety; and that, , to the re-
* proach of men inexorable and void of ſympathy, ſtones and in-
animate matter mourned for the deeds which were done.
This relation, I doubt not, will be viewed in the light of
“ vain and idle tale by thoſe who come after us, but not ſo by
our contemporaries, to whom the recentneſs of the event
“ vouches its reality t."
It was no prodigy, that a dead body, funk in the ſea without
any weights fixed to it, ſhould have been thrown on ſhore by a
violent guft. of wind; or that, while the ſky ſeemed clear and ſe-
rene, the air ſhould have proved moiſt, and the ground become
damp #; and yet we ſee what impreſſion ſuch incidents made on
а.
ide
}
}
* Mart. Paleſt. c. iv.
# Mart. Paleſt. c. ix.
# This ſubject is examined at greater length in Remains of Chriſtian Antiquity,
yol. iii. p. 29.-31, and p. 63.-67.
the
CH A P T F R III.
87
the minds of the inhabitants of Paleſtine in general, and even on
Euſebius, a perſon not ſo credulous as fome authors have ſuppoſed
; and therefore we may conclude, that if, during the courſe
of
him *
* For example, Dr Middleton obferves, that Euſebius [Hift. Ecclef. vi. 9.] makes
mention of a miracle which Narciſſus, Biſhop of Jeruſalem, wrought, by converting
water into oil, for the purpoſe of ſupplying the church-lamps on Eaſter eve, Inquiry,
p. 127... The Doctor adds, “ of which oil, as Euſebius ſays, ſeveral ſmall quantities
“ were preſerved, by great numbers of the faithful, to his time, which was about an
“ hundred years after the date of the miracle."
Here we may, in charity, preſume, that Dr Middleton has been led into an error
by not attending to the conſtruction of a long period in Euſebius. The ſenſe of the
whole period depends on the word pari, which is placed at the beginning of it. Eu.
febius, inſtead of ſaying any thing on his own authority, or from his own belief,
only ſays that men report ſuch and ſuch circumſtances. The hiſtorian himſelf ap-
pears to have been peculiarly attentive to make this important diſtinction : in order
to mark the difference between his own affertion and the affertion of others, he'mul.
tiplies words nearly fynonymous [μνημονεύεσι, ισορεσι, φασί.]
To prevent any miſtake, Valefius, in his verſion, took the liberty of repeating a
tranflation of the word pari, although but once mentioned in the original.
Notwithftanding all this precaution, Dr Middleton, when quoting the Greek of
Eufebius, overlooked the unlucky word pari, once uſed by the hiſtorian, and
the ſame word twice tranſlated by his interpreter; and hence he has produced
the following maimed and imperfect fentence, [παρα δε πλείσoις των αδελφών επί μή-
κισον έξ έκών και εις ημάς βραχύ τι δείγμα 18 τότε θαυματος φυλαχθήναι.)
Eufebius mentions the tory as a tradition, [ως εκ παραδόσεως των κατα διαδοχην
édengwe]; but there is no cauſe for ſuppoſing that he himſelf believed it. Many
authors, in relating matters of dubious credit, uſe a like preamble ; “there is a tra-
“ dition," " it is reported,” or, “they fay.” How hard the fate of fuch authors,
were they to be held as vouchers for the truth of every ſuch tradition, report, and
ftory, and then, on that account, to be vilified and inſulted !
Upon the authority of others, Eufebius often relates things which he either doubt-
ed or diſbelieved ; and there are who think, that he might, with better judgement,
have omitted fuch things altogether. But if he had omitted them, and if other
books, containing thoſe ſtories of dubious credit, had been ſaved from the wreck of
time, then we ſhould have heard, “that Eufebius induſtriouſly omitted every cir-
“ cumſtance tending to ſhew the fictions of ſome of the primitive Chriſtians, and
" the credulity of others,"
1
88
C H A P T E R III.
+
of a perſecution of eight years, any of the Martyrs in Paleſtine had
wrought miracles, or feen viſions, or uttered prophecies, Euſe-
bius would not have paſſed them over in ſilence.
Chriſtianity was eſtabliſhed by law not many years after that
perſecution. Then, indeed, a new and a very different ſcene
opened, of which ſomething will be ſaid hereafter.
Mr Gibbon concludes his obſervations on the third ſecondary
cauſe of the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity, by ſtating certain dif-
ficulties, which deſerve our attention.
His firſt difficulty is expreſſed in the following words: “ Every
age bears teſtimony to the wonderful events by which it was
s diſtinguiſhed, and its teſtimony appears no leſs weighty and
reſpectable than that of the preceding generation, till we are
inſenſibly led on to accuſe our own inconſiſtency, if, in, the
" eighth or in the twelfth century, we deny to the venerable
Bede or the holy Bernard the ſame degree of confidence which,
“ in the ſecond century, we had ſo liberally granted to Juſtin and
$6 Irenæus *."
If,
To turn water into oil, for ſupplying the church-lamps on Eaſter-eve, would have
been a miracle nọt foretold by our Lord; neither would it have eſtabliſhed the
truth of his divine miflion : at the ſame time it might have ſerved to foſter fuperfti.
tious prejudices in thoſe weak Chriſtians who appear to have dreaded, as an unlucky
omen, the extinction of the lamps at that ſeaſon.
A miracle not foretold, bearing no ſigns of any uſeful tendency, and capable of
producing dangerous conſequences, ought not to be credited on a traditionary ſay ;
and this more eſpecially in the preſent caſe; for what is ſaid to have been done once
by Narciſſus, is ſaid to have been done often under the adminiſtration of Jefuit mif-
fionaries in the Eaſt Indies. Amongſt the Epigrammata Sacra, of Ignatius Dick.
erus, ii. 62. this title occurs, “ Lampades S. Franciſco Xaverio, apud Indos ac-
« cenfæ, frequenter folâ aquâ nutriuntur." Narciſſus eked out his oil with water;
but, in more modern times, pure water ſerved every purpoſe of oil.
* To this there is ſubjoined a query, [note 81.] “ in the long ſeries of ecclefiaftical
"hiftory, does there exiſt a ſingle inſtance of a faint afferting that he himſelf poffeffed
ps the gift of miracles ?"
If
1
C:H A P T E R III.
89
If, all circumſtances conſidered, what Bede relates of Cuthbert,
and Beraard of Malachi, be no leſs credible than what Juſtin M*
and. Irenæus relate of miraculous powers in their own times, we
ought not to deny them the ſame degree of confidence. But, be-
fores coming to that concluſion, it is fit that we ſhould make our
ſelves 'acquainted with the nature of the ſtories related by Bede
and Bernard.
1
!
A
66.
If, under the phraſe, “ ecclefiaftical hiſtory," the hiſtory of the New Teſtament
be comprehended, every one acquainted with the Scriptures can decidedly anſwer
this açure query in the affirmative.
Mr Gibbon, probably, meant to except the apoftolical times from this query; but
as his words are wide enough to comprehend them alſo, it may be fit to obſerve,
thar St Matthew afferts, that “ he himſelf poffeſſed the gift of miracles ;" for he thus
ſpeaks':
--s And when he had called unto him his twelve difciples, he gave them power
sa over unclean ſpirits, to cart them out, and'to heal all manner ofớickneſs, and all
.
" manner of diſeafe;" chap: x. i Here he aſſerts that Jeſus beſtowed the gift of
miracles on the twelve Apoſtles; and preſently after, while recounting their names,
he mentions himſelf as one of that chofen number ; ſo he muſt have poleled that gift
of miracles which Jeſus beſtowed on him.
Again, St Paul Poſitively afferts, that « lie himſelf poffefled the gift of miracles ;"
for he thus ſpeaks: “ I am become a fool in glorying, ye have compelled me: for I
ought to have been commended of you ;. for in nothing am I behind the very
6 chiefeft Apoſtles, though I be nothing. Truly the ſigns of an Apoſtle were
“ wrought among you in all patience, in ſigns, and wonders, and mighty deeds ;"
2.Cor. xii. 11. 12. Mr Anthony Collins is reported to have ſaid, " I think ſo well
" of St Paul, who was both a man of ſenſe and a gentleman, that if he had afferted
" that he had wrought "miracles himſelf, I would have believed him ;" Biographia
Britannica, v i. p. 626. not. G, 2d edit. This anecdote, if authentic, proves, that
Mr Collins, although one of the ſhrewdeft adverſaries of Chriſtianity, had read the
epiſtles of St Paul with little attention. The gift of miracles, of which I have been
ſpeaking, muſt be diſtinguiſhed from the other divine gifts beſtowed on the Apoſtles,
and frequently alluded to by them ; . as in 1 Pet. i. 12.; John, vii: 39. ; XX. 22. ;
Apoc. i. 10. &c.; i Gors, xiv. 18.; 2 Cor. vi. 6. 7.; and in many other paſſages.
* Juſtin M. is mentioned here, becauſe Mr Gibbon mentions him; yet there is.
hardly any thing in the works of Juſtin M. which relates to a power of working mi-.
racles beſtowed on any individual in the Chriſtian church.
M
Bede
go
C:H A P T E R III:
66,
L.
Bede relates the following ſtories of Cuthbert. "He 'had fown
ſome corn, and when it'ſprung up, and was in the ear, birds be-
gan to peck at it. He thus mițdly addreffed the birds:18:Wihy: :
are ye ſo, unjuſt, as to reap where:ye did not fow? Are ye paoger,
“ than I am? If ye have a commiffión from Heaven; to plunderà
me, I ſubmit; but if not, leave my territory." The birds ima
mediately flew away, and never returned.-
and never returned.--Some crows who,
probably, had not been preſent at Cuthbert's remonftrance, pluck-
ed Araw out ,of the thatch of his monaſtery, in order to make their ::
neſts; Cuthbert pronounced ſentence of perpetuał baniſhment
againſt them: they departed very fad; but after two days, a crow
returned, and throwing itſelf at the feet of the prophet, and for-
rowfully fluttering with its wings, ſeemed to crave forgiveneſs;
and, at the ſame time, preſented him with a piece of hog's. lard to
greaſe · his brogues. From that time the crows" ceaſed to moleſt
the thatch of the monaſtery in Lindisfarne. Thus far the vene-
rable Bede, who has not explained how the penitent crow ſhould
have thought of preſenting ſtolen goods to the faint by way of
atonement for robbery.
Of the holy Bernard, as Mr Gibbon inclines to call him, I am
not the apologiſt. Should we hold him to have been an honeſt
man, we muſt acknowledge that he was an extravagant fanatic;
and yet, in candour, it ought to be obſerved, that Bernard does,
not, on his own knowledge, relate even a ſingle miracle ſuppoſed
to have been wrought by Malachi. His credulity and his admi-“
ration of a ſtranger monk may have led him to believe reports
which were partly fabulous, and partly exaggerated.
Indeed it may be doubted, whether a iRoman Catholic of
our times would hold himſelf under any! obligation to believe
whatever Bernard has faid; for example, Walteof, afterwards
Abbot of Melros, wiſhed to accommodate Malachi with a horſe,
but the only one which he could beſtow, had a very hard tröt.
Malachi,
i
.
:2
(
}
1
CH A P T E R
gr
III.
Malachi, however, accepted of the preſent, ſuch as it was, and
ſaid, that in time the horſe would anfwer his purpoſe. He rode
it for nine years, and it proved an excellent pad. So far
goes
tlie
miraculous change of the Baron's trotting horſe into a pacer, for
the accommodation of the itinerant monk; and ſo far alone is
Malachi: concerned in the miracle. Bernard, however, adds,
“ That which made the miracle more manifeft to beholders, was,
«: thát the 'horſe, originally of a blackiſh colour or irongrey,
[fubniger], began to grow white, and that, not long after;
" there was ſcarcely one whiter to be ſeen.” The miracle would
have been ſtill more manifeſt to beholders, had the horſe, origi-
gally white; become, in proceſs of time, blackiſh or irongrey.
At a time when the honeſt Iriſh prieſts believed, that during
the twelve days obfequies of St Patrick the ſun never ſet *, the
ſucceſſive miracles wrought on the pad of Malachi might have:
found reaſonable credit.
'But whatever may be the caſe as to Roman Catholics, it is
ſuppoſed that Proteſtants will hardly accuſe themſelves of inconfift-
ency, when, admitting the evidence of miracles in the ſecond cen-
tury, they doubt whether, in the twelfth, Malachi inflicted a mor-
tal diſeaſe on his unfortunate countryman, whom he could not;
by argument, convince of the Real Preſence.
There are ſome fingular circumſtances in the miraculous works
performed by this ſaint. Even as Bernard relates them, they were
not always, like thoſe in Scripture, inſtantaneous. On the con-
trary,
the ſick perſon did not recover till a day or two after he
had been viſited by Malachi. The cures, in particular, which he
wrought on lunatics, are very problematical; for his patients
ſometimes relapſed, and became as mad as ever.
According to Bernard, the greateſt of all the miracles of Mala.
2
* Mellingham. Florilegium Infulæ Sanctorum, fol. b. 1,
M2
chi.
92
III.
CH A P T E R
T
1.1:
:: رد
chi was the cure of an inveterate ſcold: but one tires of ſuch
trifling,
The ſecond difficulty, ſtated by Mr Gibbon; is in theſe words:
“ Since every friend to revelation is perſuaded of the reality, and
every reaſonable man is convinced of the ceſſation of miraculous
powers, it is evident. that there muſt have been Jonne period in
"which they were either ſuddenly or gradually withdrawn front
" the Chriſtian church. Whatever æra is chofen for that purpoſe,
“ the death of the Apoſtles, the converſion of the Roman empire,
or the extinction of the Arian hereſy, the inſenſibility of the
Chriſtians who lived at that time will equally afford a juft mat-
ter of ſurpriſe. They ſtill ſupported their preţenfons,, after
they had loſt their power. Credulity performed the office of
fanaticiſm was permitted to aſſume the language of inſpi-
“ ration; and the effects of accident or contrivance were aſcribed
to ſupernatural cauſes;" i. 570.
By“ converſion of the Roman empire,” Mr Gibbon means
" the converſion of Conſtantine the Great to the Chriſtian faith *
One of the æras afligned for the ceſſation of miraculous powers,
is, that of “ the extinction of the Arian hereſy.” But there ſeems
no better reaſon for chuſing it than there would be for chuling
another, mentioned by Whiſton in one of his rhapſodies, the æra
of the Council of Nice, when, to uſe his own language, the Euſe-
bians were overborne by the Athanafians.
Mr Gibbon ſays, that every reaſonable man is convinced of
“ the ceſſation of miraculous powers.” By“ miraculous powers,"
it is preſumed that he means a power of working miracles, be-
ſtowed either on individuals or on the Chriſtian church." Yet
faith;
!
}
+
* This appears from note 82.; the expreffion, however, is inaccurate; for Mr
Gibbon might have recollected, that Conſtantine, by embracing Chriſtianity, and
making it the religion of the ſtate, did not convert the Roman empire from Paganiſm.
while
CH A P T E R III.
93
while we acknowledge the ceſſation of ſuch power, we muſt be
careful to diſtinguiſh it from the occaſional interpoſition of the
Divinity in the working of miracles: for his operations are not to
be limited by the preſumptuous wifdom of his creatures. This
is a propoſition which cannot be too frequently inculcated.
It is obſerved by Mr Gibbon, that the inſenſibility of the Chri-
ſtians who lived at the time, whatever it was, when miraculous
powers were withdrawn, affords 'a juſt matter of ſurpriſe; becauſe
they (the Chriſtians] ſtill ſupported their pretenſions after they
“ had loſt their power.”
If Mr Gibbon intended to fay, thạt the fame Chriſtians who had
loſt the power of working miracles, ftill ſupported their preten-
fions to that power, he has been exceedingly unfortunate in his
application of the word inſenſibility to ſuch men
*
I cannot diſcover any circumſtance in ecclefiaftical hiſtory
which tends to ſhow that a Chriſtian was ever deprived of mira-
culous gifts and powers, and yet continued to ſupport his
his preten-
fions to them: If I am right in this, the caſe put by Mr Gibbon
is merely ideal.
It is proper alſo to obſerve, that they who, like Mr Gibbon, li-
mit the miraculous gifts and powers to the apoſtolical times, do
not hold that St John, who probably outlived the other Apoſtles,
did exerciſe them all until the very laſt hour of his life; and that
they who luppoſe them to have been continued, either wholly or
in
part,
until the converſion of Conſtantine the Great, and the
civil eſtabliſhment of Chriſtianity, do not affirm that they were
exerciſed until the moment at which the Emperor was converted,
or Chriſtianity became the religion of the ſtate.
* Were an apothecary, on his ſtock of Peruvian bark being exhauſted, to make
up doſes of oak bark for his cuſtomers, we ſhould charge him with fraud, not with
inſenſibility.
Hence
1
94
CH A P T E R III.
-
Hence it might well happen, that'no men who had been ſpec-
tators of a miracle, wrought, for inſtance, in the healing of a dif-
eaſe, were ever ſpectators of a feigned cure: and this
may
ſerve
to ſhew, that Mr Gibbon too haſtily takes it for granted, that
Chriſtians, at the ceſſation of miracles, had an opportunity of
comparing real with fictitious miracles, and yet could not diſcern
any
difference between them.
That we may view the ſubject of Mr Gibbon's difficulty in a
fuller light, let us ſuppoſe, as is moſt probable, that the miracu-
lous gifts and powers were withdrawn, not at once, but gradually,
that is, ſucceſſively, or, one after another.
The reader bas already perufed an argument attempting to ſhew,
that, in all likelihood, the power of reſuſcitating the dead, and
the gift, called in Scripture “ the diſcerning of ſpirits,” were not
continued after the apoſtolical times, P. 52.-54. P. 57.59.;
that
the evidence of the gift of tongues having been continued after
the apoſtolical times, and until the ſecond century, reſts on a
fingle and unſatisfactory paſſage in the writings of Irenæus *,
P. 55.-57.; that, in the ſecond century, if not ſooner, the gift
of prophecy, or of interpreting the Scriptures of the Old Teſta-
ment, of applying them to the events of evangelical hiſtory, and
of foretelling the fates of the church, was withdrawn, P. 59. 60;
and that, even in the earlier part of the third century, there was
hardly any thing left which, in propriety of ſpeech, could be
* Eufebius ſays, that Irenæus points out the marks of a divine and wonderful
power left, even unto his times, in certain churches;" Hift. Ecclef. l. v.c.7.
[ 1δή και εις αυτόν υποδείγματα της θείας και παραδόξε δυναμεως εν εκκλησίαις τισιν υπαλέ-
delala..] This ſeems to imply, that, in the opinion of Euſebius, there had been ſome
fenfible diminution of miraculous gifts and powers between the apoſtolical age and
the time at which Irenæus wrote, There is a conſiderable chaſm in the next para-
graph, which may be ſupplied from the old Latin verſion of Irenæus ; Adv. hæres,
l. ii. c. 56. Valefius has overlooked this.
termed
CH A P T E R IIL.
95
termed a miraculous communication afforded in the way of viſion
to the Chriſtians,
p.
81.
With refpect to the miraculous gifts and powers hitherto men-
tioned, the conduct of the Chriſtians at large was preciſely what
might have been expected from men of integrity, candour, and
plain underſtanding. Whenever they ſaw that ſuch gifts and
powers were withdrawn, they no longer ſuppofed them to exiſt.
This appears from the
from the general language and conduct of the Chri-
ftian apologiſts: While they aſſert the exiſtence of ſome miracu-
lous gifts and powers, they are ſilent as to others; ſuch as, the
power of reſuſcitating the dead, the gift of tongues, and the gift
of diſcerning of ſpirits.
The Chriſtian's who lived at the time of the civil eſtabliſhiment
of Chriſtianity were not eye-witnefſes of ſuch miraculous gifts
and powers as had ceaſed two hundred years or even hundred
years before; fo, to that caſe at leaſt, the obſervation of Mr
Gibbon will not apply, that “the recent experience of genuine
" miracles ſhould have inſtructed the Chriſtian world in the
ways of Providence, and habituated their eye (if we may uſe a
very inadequate expreſſion) to the ſtyle of the divine artiſt;"
1. 571.
But although many of the miraculous gifts and powers ceaſed
long before the civil eſtabliſhment of Chriſtianity, there is
very
probable, if not complete evidence, and eſpecially from the wri-
țings of Origen, that, even in the earlier part of the third centu-
ry, the Chriſtians cured various diſeaſes by prayer, and without
any human means; and that they relieved perſons who appeared
to be under the dominion of evil ſpirits.
It may be admitted, that the evidence of ſuch cures is not ſo
full and ſatisfactory as that on which we believe the truth of
cures performed in the apoſtolical age; and it may alſo be admit-
ted, that ſome of the perſons ſaid to have been relieved from evil
fpirits,
.
1
.
of
96
G H A P T E R 111.
1
fpirits, were, in truth, relieved from lunacy and other natural
diſeaſes.
Such appears to me to have been the ſtate of the miraculous
gifts and powers in the earlier part of the third century. When
Euſebius wrote, not long before the civil eſtabliſhment of Chri-
ftianity, they were much diminiſhed, as we have already ſeen,
P. 84.-88. and what remained was “the manifeſtation of ſome
ſmall portions of the divine power.”
One ſhould have conjectured that the miraculous gifts and
powers which, between the apoſtolical age and the days of Origen,
had perceptibly decreaſed, and had decreaſed ſtill farther when
Euſebius wrote, would have diſappeared when Chriſtianity, ha-
ving overcome its adverſaries, became the religion of the ſtate.
Yet, if we may credit the accounts of ſome hiſtorians, the very
reverſe was the caſe; and the divine power was manifeſted with
more abundant light, and with a greater diverſity of wonders, in
the reign of Conſtantine and his children, than while St Peter, St
Paul, and St John remained upon earth..
Every learned reader will perceive that I allude chiefly to the
life of Antony, the Egyptian Anchoret, written by Athanaſius,
a portentous work, the life of an illiterate fanatic, and one who
gloried in his ignorance of letters, drawn up, for the moſt part,
from very inſufficient hearſay, by the ableſt Doctor of his age*.
In
* Some Proteſtant writers, eager to maintain the fame of Athanaſius, have doubted
whether “ the life of Antony,” as we now have it, be the work of that eminently
great man; and what thanks have they received for their pious attempt? They have
been reviled by the writers of another perſuaſion, no leſs than if they had been the
inventors or propagators of ſome new and peſtilent hereſy, Roſheim ſays, “s
pre-
« fractior et magis effrons incedit Rodolphus Hofpinianus; d. Orig. Monach. iii. I.
« Et cum eo Abraham Scultetus, Medulla. Theol. Patrum, part. ii. qui auſi affe-
rere, fcriptum hoc quod hodie fub Athanafii nomine circumfertur, nullam pror-
“ ſus fidem mereri, imò inſulli hominis commentum effe --- vide lector, quid de
“ emedullata
1
97
III.
CH A P T E R
!
In the fourth century the hermits of Egypt became famous.
The Chriſtians who lived in ſociety, and conſorted with man,
were
" emedullata illa Medulla Sculteti, quid de monachatu feu moechatu Hoſpiniani tibi
“ promittere debeas." Rofweid, vitæ Patrum, in vitam Antonii notatio, p. 31. I
thould wiſh to ſhare in the abuſe poured out againſt Hoſpinianus, Scultetus, and
other Proteſtant writers: but I cannot fee evidence ſufficient to clear Athanaſius
from the charge of writing this filly and moſt contemptible book. It is to be wiſhed
that ſome man of learning and candour would examine the life of Antony with care,
and communicate the reſult of his inquiries to the public. In particular, it may be
worth his pains to fix, if poſſible, the time at which Antony, having been ſuſpected
of Arianiſm, came down to Alexandria from his cell in Upper Egypt, for juſtifying
himſelf, and alſo to determine whether Athanafius was at that time in Alexandria, as
ſeems to be inſinuated, c. 41. 43. It will alſo be fit to inquire, whether the prophe.
cy as to the reſtoration of the orthodox church, c. 51. be ſpoken of as a prophecy
fulfilled; and whether it was actually fulfilled between the year of our Lord 359,
when Antony died, and the year 371, when Athanaſius died. Various other inqui-
ries of the like nature will occur to him who fits down, without paſſion or prejudice,
to try, by criticiſm, this ſimple iſſue, “ Did Athanafius write the life of Antony, or
66 did he not ?"
Meanwhile, it may be fit to obſerve, that the author of the life of Antony does not
inform his readers what part of the book it is for the truth of which he vouches. He
ſays, “I have written what I myſelf know, for I have often ſeen him, AND what I
“could learn from one who had been an attendant of his for no ſmall fpace of time."
[άπερ αυθός τε γινώσκω, (πολλάκις γαρ αυθον εώρακα), και ά μαθείν ηδυνήθην παρα το ακολύ-
Oho arlos culo xpóvor šx oríyor.] Proem. ad Vitam' Antonii.-Evagrius improperly
tranſlates the word tupara by viſitavi; and hence Cardinal Baronius, who knew no
Greek, imagined that the writer of the life of Antony had viſited him in the Egyptian
deſerts. He might have imagined, with equal reaſon, that the viſits were frequent; for
fuch is the force of the word vifitavi. But as nothing of all this appears, it follows, that
every thing reſpecting what happened in the deſert, is related on the ſole authority of
the attendant, Now, as to events which happened after Antony left the caſtle, [fee
p. 100.] the attendant muſt have received part of his information from others, unleſs
he had ſerved Antony for fifty years; and with reſpect to more diftant events, he
muſt have reported them all on the credit of the ſuperannuated old man.
The writer of the life, having often ſeen Antony, could give a juſt deſcription of
biş figure and demeanour. What he ſaw of his wonders, is related in a haſty, and
N
No
98
III.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
were aſtoniſhed, at the report of manners and inſtitutions ſo unlike
their own. They found, that ſome perſons had been baniſhed
into the deſerts of Egypt by the perfecuting Emperors; that others
had fled thither to avoid perfecution; and that many more, from
diverſe motives, had aſſociated themſelves, if that phraſe may be
allowed, with the baniſhed and the fugitives, and had formed a
ſyſtem of government unlike any thing.ever eſtablifhed by hu-
man or divine legislators. The attention with which they ab-
ſtracted themſelves from fublunary concerns, their ſingular con-
teſts with devils appearing in bodily ſhapes, their unexampled
auſterities, the viſions fạid to have been ſeen, and the miracles
faid to have been wrought by them, all concurred in perſuading
many unwary Chriſtians, that fomething ſtrange and ſupernatu-
ral was manifeſted in the deſerts of Egypt.
Antony, a perſon altogether illiterate *, was the chief of the
Egyptian
no very credible manner; for example, it is ſaid, that Pagans, and the prieſts of
idols, crouded to ſee the man of God, as Antony was univerſally denominated, ftrove
to touch the hem of his garment, and imagined that they received benefit from the
touch, c. 42. 43.
Let me add, that the author of the life admits, in his introduction, that he wrote
it in a hurry, and to ſatisfy the impatience of his correſpondents, without having
time to make proper inquiries at the monks, and to receive their anſwers concerning
Antony.
* Antony was an Egyptian of honourable birth. His parents put him to ſchool, but
he would never learn any thing; Athanaf. vita Antonii, c. 1. This, which might
have been termed obſtinacy or ſtupidity in a boy, he juſtified when of riper years.
• He neither knew letters, (ſays Sozomen), nor did he admire them; but he extol,
“ led good ſenſe, as being more ancient than letters, and itſelf the inventor of them;"
(γράμμαθα δέ εδε ήπίσαλο, έδε εθαύμαζεν, αλλα νεν αγαθόν ως πρεσβύτερον των γραμμάτων,
my dulor 7ð er évpelår ényrer.] i. 13. The ſame fanatical tenet is recorded, with much
Tolemnity, by Athanafius, vita Antonii, c. 45. Here let it be obſerved, that in the
life of this illiterate hermit, there occurs a ſermon to his brethren in the deſert,
C. 15.--20.; and a diſcourſe, addreſſed to ſome Heathen philofophers, on the vanity
of
t
CH A P T E R FH.
99
Egyptian hermits, afcetics, or monks; and that numerous fraternity
ſeems to have looked on every divine grace, gift, and power, as
concentred in him. Before he came of age he diſpoſed of all his
poffeffions *, which appear to have been conſiderable, and began
to earn a ſubſiſtence by manual labour. He afterwards betook
himſelf to dwell among the tombs in the neighbourhood of Alex-
andria. The devil and his affociates forced open the gate of An- .
tony's habitation, aſſaulted and grievouſly wounded him, and left
him half dead t. Before he was recovered enough to be able to
of Paganiſın, and the truth of the Chriſtian religion, C. 46. 47. I cannot ſubſcribe
to the doctrines of the ſermon, as when he ſays, that the devils have a particular ill.
will to monks, and women devoted to a ſingle life; that when devils appear viſibly,
they vaniſh on the ſign of the croſs being made; and I do not thoroughly underſtand
the reaſoning of the diſcourſe, yet I'muſt ſay, that if the ſermon and the diſcourte be
compoſitions of Antony, they exhibit a greater miracle than any recorded in his life;
for they are compoſed altogether in the ſtyle of a rhetorician, and according to the
rules of art. The knowledge of Antony in the mythology of the Heathens, and in
the afts practiſed by learned men to veil the abſurdities of that fyftem, is indeed won
derful ;, one ſhould be apt to ſuppoſe that Tertullian; Minucius Felix, or ſome learn-
ed Greek Father, was ſpeaking, and not a hermit from Upper Egypty. who could
not read, and who underſtood nought excepting his mother-tongue.
* On hearing that goſpel read, “ fell that thou haſt,” &c. he fold his lands, and
beſtowed the price among the poor: and on hearing that other goſpel read, " take
“ no thought for to-morrow," &c. he fold his other effects, and diſtributed their
value in like manner; Athanaſ. vita Antonii; c. 2. 3. Here, however, he was ſur
paffed by another and lefs celebrated monk, who, having 'no property but a copy of
the Goſpels, diſpoſed of the book; gave away its price in charity, and then exultingly
cried, “I have fold that book which ſays, fell all thou haſt, and give to the poor;"
Socrates Scholaſticus, v. 23.
+ We muſt beware of underſtanding this in a ſpiritual ſenſe. Antony was literally.
beat to the effuſion of his blood'; and he was gored by the devil in the likeneſs of a
bull. He often related the ſtory to his brethren in the deſert, and averred that the
wounds inflicted on his body were exceedingly grievous and painful; Vita Antonii,.c.7.
Perhaps, after all, the ſtory may have been true, and the evil ſpirit and his fellows may.
have been repreſented, not unaptly, by fome of the petulant and unfeeling rabble of
Alexandria, who took a barbarous pleaſure in abuſing a poor creature,, half crazed
with fanaticiſin and abſtinence.
ftandi
N. 2
too
CH A'P T E R.: III.
ſtand upright, they came back in the ſhape of ſavage, fierce, and
venomous animals, and wounded him aneti with inexpreffible
cruelty *
At the age of thirty-five he retired up the country, and dwelt
in different places of the Egyptian deferts for ſeventy years.
He firſt took poffeffion of an uninhabited caſtle; and, having
laid in a ſtore of bifcuit for fix months, he fhut himſelf up
from
all converfe with mankind. · His friends and admirers took care,
at itated times, to fæpply him with provifions, ſuch as he had
choſen for himſelf; and they let down his pittance through the
roof of the caſtle; but he would never ſhew himſelf, or converſe
with them. Having lived for twenty years after this ſingular fa-
fhion, he came forth; expelled evil fpirits, cured difeafes, and
aſſiduoufly preached up a monaftic life.
Antony hearing of the perſecution at Alexandria, repaired thi-
ther, with the view of ſuffering martyrdom: but although he af-
fected to appear in public, he was totally difregarded by the Hea-
then magiftrate; and while Peter Biſhop of Alexandria, and many
other eminent perſons, were apprehended and put to death, An-
tony was allowed to go about unmoleſted, and at large f: lo he
1
* This ſtory is better known than any of the other adventures of Antony, for the
comic painters in Roman-Catholic countries have been permitted, I know, not why,
to make it the ſubject of many groteſque pieces. I dare not repeat the conference
which Antony is ſaid to have had with our Lord; and it ſeems fuperfluous to repeat
the converſations which he held with the devil on the ſubject of thoſe aſſaults and
batteries, and alſo when he was tempted in a form leſs terrific, but not leſs dan-
gerous.
+ Vita Antonii, c. 23. This was in the ninth year of the laſt perſecution, A. D.
.311.
when Maximin Daia beheaded Peter Biſhop of Alexandria, Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. vii.
32. viii. 13. ix. 6. 'The ſafety of Antony has been aſcribed to fome miraculous
interpoſition in his favour. But, perhaps, his character was not ſo thought of at
Alexandria as in the deſert; and an illiterate layman, who could not have been tried
without an interpreter, might well bave eſcaped in the multitude.
returned
CH A PI T E R :III.
IOTI
ܪ
returned to the defert, and began to practife greater aufterities. He
put
oni a haircloth, and ever after abſtained filom bathing' kis
bódy, or even waſhing his feet
Various and extraordinary were the things which-ħappened to
him in the defert. - At one time the devit'appeared to him in the
likéhefs of an animal; Heither Centaur 'nof minotaur, But half-tián,
half-aſs. Antony made the ſign of the crofs ;' the monſter-rün
away, fell, and was killed *
Chili .!!!
At another time he was earried up into the aiří by angels. The
devils met him, and demátided how ke càme there, being a fitzó
ner? Thé' angels défied the devils to prove that Antony had ever
committed fin from the hour that he became a monk. Notwithſtanding
all their malicė; the devils could not make good their charge f.
This was tranfacted in a viſion ; i but, it was not a vifion of fiumis
lity; and it only tends to prove;? 'that al mónk may be without
fin, whereas Paymeiäñd the feculár clergŷ offend daily!!!
He ſaw the foulof Ammon; a:brother mónk, conveyed to heaven
by angeks ; and then, although Amirnôn refided at the diſtance of
thirteen days journey from hitti; he inftantły"told the precife hour
of his death $.
A quality he had mäch reſembling that which, in our days, is
called the ſecond fight. At the diſtance of a day's journey he per-
ceived a monk periſhing with thirſt in the wilderneſs, and he fent
timely relief to him. There are other inſtances of the like nature
given by his hiſtorian ||
To all which it may be added, that Antony diſcovered, by the
ſmell, a devil lurking in the body of a man; and that, on a cer-
tain occaſion, he twice croſſed the canalat Arfinöe, without be-
ing devoured by crocodiles **
1
+ Ib.c. 37.
# Ib. C. 32.
* Vita Antonii, c. 26.
# Ib. c. 31. 34. 38.
** Ib. c. 35. Co 14.
From
102
CH A P T E R : III.
1
ris
From this ſpecimen of the wonders ſaid to have been wrought
towards the middle of the fourth century, we may learn, that if,
at that time, the Chriſtians, in general, gave credit to them, it
was not by reaſon of any infenfibility, which, hindered them to dif-
tinguiſh between real miracles and fallacious wonders; but it was
becauſe they truſted too much to reports never tried by the ſtand-
ard of moral evidence.
::
It is probable that the adventures of Antony, his miracles, and
his ftrange viſions, would not have found much credit, had they
not been connected with an opinion, which began to be entertain-
ed, of the tranſcendent ſanctity of a monaſtic life, and of the
perſons who devoted themſelves to it.
:: Live
I doubt, however, as to their general reception when they:wete:
firſt, promulgated.; for Antony įs; ſaid to have declared himſelf the
enemy of Arianiſin, and to have pronounced ig to be the forerun-
ner of Antichriſt; and the laſt, that is, the worſt and the greateſt
herefy*;, and it cannot be ſuppoſed, that the Arians, at that time
a numerous and powerful body, would have yielded implicit faith,
to the eventful hiſtory of an orthodox monk, and eſpecially if,hiş.
hiſtorian was Athanaſius: we might as well fuppoſe that the or
thodox believed in the miracles of Agapetus, the Arian Biſhop of
Synnada, who, ſužpaſſing Antony, not anly drove diſeaſes away,
but alſo raiſed men from the dead to
l ::
Indeed, before the concluſion of the fourth century;, men were
willing to believe every wonderful tale calculated to enforce ..ve-
neration for a monaſtic life, and to confirm the popular ſentiments
as to the ſanctity of thoſe who profeſſed it.. Evidence and proba-;
bility. ſeem to have been no longer regarded, and the hearſay ito-
T
.
* Vita Antonii, c. 41. Little did Antony know that' a worfe and a greater error
was afterwards to ariſe concerning the nature of our Lord:
+ Philoftorgius, ii. 8. Svidas, on the authority of one Thalafius, ſays, that ano.
eher Arian Biſhop, Theophilus, refored a dead perſon to life.
ries
1
CH A P T E R **III.
103
3
A
)
54
1
ni
ries diffeminated, by travellers of all denominations, concerning
things- dónie ini a bornér, obtained eaſy credit with prejudiced and
fuperftitious auditors: is in sick!
In this view, let us examine ſome of the miracles ſaid to have
been wrought by Macarius, ſurnamed the Egyptian,
· He appears to have been the hermit of moſt eminence after the
deathof- Antony! siAt the age of thirty he bėtook himſelf to the
deſerti
; and; after having reſided there for listy 'years, he died:
[A.D. 391.]
In the year after Macarius died; Palladius, a perſonage well
known by the writings of Jerom, vifited the deſert, with the pur-
poſe of collecting-wonders for the edification of the civilized
world; and it muſt be acknowledged that his journey was pro-
ſperous.
Among others, he found, as he ſays, the following ſtory. A
leud Egyptian attempted in vain to debauch a matron of virtuous
character, Irritated at this, he got a magician to transform her
into a mare. . The diſconſolate huſband led his mape to Macarius,
who ſprinkled her head with conſecrated water, and reſtored her
original fhape. “Go in peace, (ſaid Macarius to the woman); but
“ remember henceforth to be more circumſpect; for your omillion
to communicate during five weeks, was the cauſe of the meta-
morphoſis
Palladius adds, that it was the conſtant talk in the deſert, that
Macarius raiſed a man from the dead, in order to confute a here-
tic who diſbelieved the 'refurre&ion of the body t.
Rufinus, on viſiting the deſert
, gleaned abundantly after Pal-
ladius.
Inſtead of relating the ſtory of the matron transformed into a
mare, he ſays, that there was a girl whom her relations imagined
1
* "
iſ,
Sun
t
* Palladii Laufiaca, f. 19.
+ Ib. c. 20.
to
A
104
G H A P T E R III,
to have been fo transformed, although the gift herſelf afferted the
contrary. Macarius anointed her with oil, aad then, her relations
ſaw that the ſuppoſed metamorphoſis was a magical delufion*
He next mențions a complicated miracle indeed, by which a
diſeaſed little girl was changed into a healthy man t...
Again, there changed to be found in the deſert a dead body,
bearing marks of violence. A perſon was taken ups on ſuſpigion,
as the murderer., Macarius aſked the dead man, whether that
perſon was guilty? "I was murdered, (faid the dead man), but
not by him.” The brethren preſſed Macariuş to aſk who com-
mitted the murder. “ No, (anſwered, he): it is enough that. I
clear the innocent: it is not my office to ,canvist the guilty:
perhaps the murderer.may yet be ftruck with compunction, and
repent, to the ſaving of his ſoul I."
... Rufinus
i
3
+
+
1
i
1
f
6
{!
Rufini vitæ Patrum, l. 2. c. 28.
+ Rufin. ib. A Roman author ſpeaks of the northi as being * Officina gentium:
the deſert of Egypt might, with equal reafon, have been: 'termed " officina miracusa
« lorum."
# Rufin, ib: & iii. 41. This is dangerous cafuiftry indeed! · Rufinus elſewhere
ſpeaks of ſome heterodox opinions wþich a human fçyll uttered in the courſe of cond
verſation with Macarius, l. ji § 172. Here Rofweid himſelf heſitates, and addş on
the margin, “SANE hæc intelligenda.” [Theſe things muſt be underſtood in a found
ſenſe.] This might have been the running title of his book.
I cannot quit this ſubject without mentioning what is faid by the Engliſh tranſla-
tor of the Hamilies afcribed to Macarius the Egyptian. His words are': “ To come
now to what is moſt materjal, what completes, his other miraclesa and proves, him
« beyond diſpute a man.of God, i. Kings, xvii. 24. it is upon record, that he even rai-
“ fed the dead to life. Once, indeed, it was to filence an Hieracite that had given
" no little diſturbance to the brethren, by the artifice of his diſcourſe; and at an-
“ other is he reported to have raifed one from the dead; ; to convince an beretic of
" the reſurrection of the body ; nor was this ever contradicted, or endeayoured to be
“ ftified in the deſert,” Introduction, 95. p. 14. That this precious morſel of antiqui-
ry might appear to better advantage, two miracles are made out of one: for it is
plain
CH A P T E R
103
III.
**
Rufinus alſo gives a ſecond and improved edition of the
ſtory in Palladius, concerning the man who was brought back to
life, that a heretic might be 'perſuaded of the reſurrection of the
body. The heretic was of the feet of the Hieracite, who are
ſuppoſed to have denied that tenet. He had 'frequently dif-
puted with Macarius on the ſubject; when at length the ſaint
ſaid, “ Let his faith be held right who can firſt recall a dead man
to life.” The heretic, who denied the reſurrection of the body,
accepted this ſingular challenge, and deſired Macarius to begin.
He inſtantly performed the miracle. The aſtoniſhed heretic run off,
and all the brethren purſuing him, drove him out of the country
Perhaps I have ſpoken too diffuſely of the third of thoſe ſeconda-
ry cauſes to which the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity is aſcribed
by Mr Gibbon. But the ſubject is both intricate and momen-
tous, and not the leſs ſo from the manner in which he has hap-
pened to treat it.
Let me conclude with obſerving, that real miracles cannot pro-
perly be ranged among the ſecondary cauſes on which Mr Gib-
bon deſcants: for, among the primary cauſes of the victory ob-
tained by the Chriſtian faith over the eſtabliſhed religions of the earth,
he reckons the ruling providence of its great Author. Now, the be-
ſtowing of miraculous powers and gifts by Chriſt and the Holy
Spirit, muſt, in Mr Gibbon's account, be an interpoſition of that
ruling Providence, and, conſequently, a primary cauſe of the
rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity.
plain that Palladius and Rufinus ſpeak of the fame ftory. A thing mentioned by
them can hardly be ſaid to be upon record; and as for the monks, they kept no re.
cord of miracles; but, on the contrary, delivered them down from one to another
by unwritten tradition. [Sodoxñ rapodóoews ATPAQOT.] Sozom, l. i. c. 14. I ad.
mit, however, that they did not fifle them in the deſert: that would have been un.
natural.
* Rufin. L. ii. c. 28.
o
AS
106
CH A P T E R :: II.
As to fiftitious miracles, iMç Gibbon has not afferţed, and I
bope he did not mean to affert, that they were one of the ſeconda
Fy cauſes which made the Chriſtian, faith obtain ;ximary-over the
eſtabliſhed religions of the earth. Byt lauld:apy looke, and
guarded phraſes of his ſeem to have a tendency that way, it is
to be preſumed that, on a ſerious review of the argument, he will
BLOT THEM OUT,
CHAP
1
CH A P T E R IV.
107
-
A
1
+
CH A P T E R
IV.
*
TO
the virtues of the primitive Chriſtians, the fourth cauſe of
the rapid growth of Chriſtianity is aſcribed.
" The primitive Chriſtian,” ſays Mr Gibbon, “ demonſtrated
“ his faith by his virtues; and it was very juftly ſuppoſed, that the
divine perſuaſion, which enlightened or ſubdued the under-
“ ſtanding, muſt, at the ſame time, purify the heart, and di-
rect the actions of the believer. The firſt apologiſts of Chriſti.
“ anity, who juttify the innocence of their brethren,- diſplay, in
" the moſt lively colours, the reformation of manners which was
“ introduced into the world by the preaching of the goſpel.” 1.572.
Here the virtues of the primitive Chriſtians are acknowledged:
It might, however, have been wilhed, that a leſs ambiguous
phraſe had been uſed than that of,“ the divine perſuaſion which
“ enlightened or ſubdued the underſtanding." Every conſiderate
reader will remark the fingularity of the alternative. It is one of
the offices of the Holy Spirit, to enlighten the underſtanding;"
but to " ſubdue” it, is none of them, unleſs the word " under-
" ſtanding" be taken in a different ſenſe when it is ſaid to be
“ fubdued,” than when it is ſaid to be “ enlightened.” Such
change of terms, however allowable to rhetoricians, cannot be
admitted in hiſtorical reaſoning.
Mr Gibbon might have ſaid, “ the divine perſuaſion, which
enlightened the underſtanding and ſubdued the will;" that is,
the wayward propenſities of human nature: theſe, undoubtedly,
are the offices of the Holy Spirit.
02
CC
32
But
108
CH À P T E R IV.
7
-But to proceed. Mr Gibbon concurs with St Paul in ſuppoſing
that " the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-ſuffering
(patience), gentleneſs, goodneſs, faith (or faithfulneſs], meek-
“ nefs, temperance*;" and he even acknowledges the ſuppoſition
to be very juft.
And yet, inſtead of proceeding to ſhow how the virtues of the
primitive. Chriftians tended to convert Heathens, or made others
to glorify their Father, he at once deviates from his ſubject; and,
if the phraſe inay be allowed, begins with a digreſſion.
“ As it is my intention,” ſays he, “ to remark only ſuch human
" cauſes as were permitted to ſecond the influence of revelation, I
« ſhall lightly inention two motives which might naturally render
" the lives of the primitive Chriſtians much purer and more au-
“ ſtere than thoſe of their Pagan contemporaries, Repentance
for paſt fins, and the laudable deſire of ſupporting the reputa-
tion of the ſociety in which they were engaged.
"
Thus, inſtead of deſcribing the effects which the virtues of the
primitive Chriſtians had in the converting of the Heathen world,
Mr Gibbon favours us with a diſſertation on the "catles of thofe
virtues. .
He begins with two propoſitions, which are of great moment. .
The firft is, That the primitive Chriſtians were virtuous; and the
fecond, That they were more virtuous than their Pagan contem
poraries. Theſe propoſitions will be admitted by all men who
like Mr Gibbon, are acquainted with the hiſtory of the primitive
church, and with the tenets and manners of Paganiſm in the early
times of Chriftianity.
But as ſome of the admirers of Mr Gibbon may chance to be
lefs converſant in antiquity than he is, it will not be improper to
fix in their minds his decided opinion, that THE PRIMITIVE
Galat. v. 22. 23:
7
:
.
CHRISTIANS:
CH APT' E R. IV. -,
109
!
و
CHRISTIANS WERE VIRTUOUS, and that THEY WERE MORE
VIRTUOUS THAN THEIR PAGAN CONTEMPORARIES,
Let us now follow Mr Gibbon in his digreſſion, and inquire into
the natural motives which impelled the Chriſtians to be more excel-
lent than their neighbours. :!, ;
“ It is a very ancient reproach, fuggeſted by the ignorance or
the malice of infidelity, that the Chriſtians allured into their
party the moſt atrocious criminals ;; who, as ſoon as they were
« touched by a ſenſe of remorſe, were eaſily. perſuaded to waſh
away, in the water of baptiſm, the guilt, of their paſt conduct;
“ for which the temples of the gods refuſed to grant them any
expiation;" i. :57.3. w soit un
In proof of this propofition, Celſus and Julian are quoted.
Julian, in his open, as well as in his morę politic and covert
attempts againſt Chriſtianity, was malicious, but we cannot, with
propriety, term him ignorant.
And the like may be obſerved as to Celfus ;:,who, under the
perſonated character of a Jew, miſinterprets the Scriptures, and
takes every advantage which the folly.or fanaticiſm of Chriſtian
individuals afforded him.
This perſonated character, and theſe little 'arts of controverſy, tend
to fhow that he was not ſo much an ignorant, as a malicious enemy;
and therefore, until ſome other evidence than that of Celſus and
Julian be produced, "the ignorance of infidelity." ſeems out of
the queſtion.
Mr Gibbon ſays, “ the mąlice of infidelity ſuggeſted, that the
“ moſt atrocious criminals, : as foon as they were touched by a
" ſenſe of remorſe, were eaſily perſuaded to waſh away, in the wa-
ter of baptiſm, a guilt for which the temples of the gods refuſed
them any expiation."
That “the temples of the gods refuſed to grant any expiation,"
is a poetical phraſe, importing, that the miniſters of the popu-
lar
{
!
to grant
I
9
110
CH A P T E R IV.'
* lar religion amongſt the · Pagans refuſed to grant that expiation
to criminals, which the Chriſtian teachers perfuaded them to
Hirective by baptiſm.
:1:1..
So ſcrupulous and ſevere were the Pagan prieſts, and on ſuch
eaſy terms might any one be admitted into the Chriſtian church!
But here, as every one muſt perceivę, the malicious infidels af-
fected to be ignorant of the genius of Paganiſm*.
It is ſaid, that “the moſt atrocious criminals were eaſily pér-
fuaded to waſh away their g'uilt in the water of baptiſm."
Now, this implies, that, according to the principles of Chri-
ftianity, the mere rice of baptiſm had the fingular virtue of waſh-
ing away guilt; and that the miniſters of Chriſt did not require
from their proſelýtes any belief of the Chriſtian fyftem, or any
engagements to amend in future;'' or, more briefly thus, that
" they held out baptiſm to be, in itſelf, a charm for the expiation
66 of fins."
Celſus, it is probabte, knew, and without doubt Julian did, that
this was precifely the reverſe of what Chriſt and his apoſtles taught,
and the diſcipline of the primitive church enforced.
Here we ſee that fpirit which Mr Gibbon well terms the
s malice of infidelity.”
“ Baptiſm," ſays Dr Bentley, "' is rallied as meré waſhing; and
repentance, as thumping the breaft, 'or other outward grimaće.
“ The inward grace and the iritrinſic change of mind are left out
* of the character. And whom are we to believe? theſe Pagans,
or our own felves ? Are we to fetch our notions of the ſacra-
ments from ſcraps of Julian and Celſus? or from the Scrip-
the pure fountain, and from what we read, know, and
is.
profefs t?"
ture,
so
A
in
* It may be remarked, in pafling, that the Greek dyos, and the Latin piaculum,
mean fin, as well as expiation for fin.
† Remarks upon a late Diſcourſe of Freethinking, xliii.
Theſe
1
GH A P T E R - IV.
III
Theſe are obvious remarks; but Mr Gibbon appears to have
conſidered the ſubject:in a more, uncommon point of view; for he
ſays, “ This reproach, when it is cleared from miſrepreſentation, con-
tributes as much to the honour as it did to the increaſe of the
church*. The friends of Chriſtianity may acknowledge, with-
out a bluſh, that many of the moſt eminent ſaints had been before
“ their baptiſm the moſt abandoned Jinners. Thoſe perſons, who in
" the world had followed, though in an imperfect manner, the
“ dictates of benevolence and propriety, derived ſuch a calm fa-
“ tisfaction from the opinion of their own rectitude, as rendered
“ them much leſs ſuſceptible of the ſudden emotions of ſhame,
grief, and of terror, which have given birth to ſo many wonder-
ful converſions. After the example of their divine Maſter, the
“ miſſionaries of the goſpel diſdained not the ſociety of men, and
eſpecially of women, oppreſſed by the conſciouſneſs, and
very
often by the effects of their vices. As they emerged from fin
" and ſuperſtition, to the glorious hope of immortality, they re-
“ folved to devote themſelves to a life, not only of virtue, but
“ of penitence. The deſire of perfection became the ruling paſ-
" fion of their ſoul; and it is well known, that, while reaſon em-
" braces a cold mediocrity, our paſſions hurry us, with rapid violence,
over the ſpace which lies between the moſt oppoſite extremes;" i. 573.
It is the purpoſe of Mr Gibbon, to “ clear the reproach from
miſrepreſentation.” He begins by admitting the fact charged;
and, with a ſort of conſcious exultation, he adds, that “
as the moſt eminent faints for Chriſtians] were, before their bap-
“ tiſm, the miaſt. abandoned ſinners;" and, left the fact ſhould be
diſputed, he ſubjoins an elaborate argument, for proving that
it muſt have been ſo from “ the reaſon of the thing."
many of
* The phraſe is uncommon in modern language. Reproach is here uſed for the
circumſtance with which the primitive Chriſtians were reproached.
In:
1
112
CH A P t Ř Tv.
1
In this he is praiſe-worthy, that he begins with facts, and does
not, like ſome theoriſts, firſt lay down " the reaſon of the
thing," and then accommodate facts to it.
: It is not abrolutely certain, whether Mr Gibbon here means to
ſpeak of Jewiſh or of Gentile converts ; I ſhall therefore take his
words in their moſt extenſive ſenſe, as including both.
Celfus fays, thắt the apoſtles were “ infamous perſons, publi-
cans, and boatmen, exceedingly wicked *".
Origen conjectures, that this delineation of the manners of the
firſt diſciples is copied from a paſſage in the epiſtle that goes "un-
der the name of Barnabas, which ſays, “ Jeſus ſelected for a-
" poſtles, to preach his goſpel, men finful above all other finners;
" that he might prove, that he came, not to call the righteous, but
“ finners to repentance t."
This epiſtle was not written by Barnabas, the celebrated com-
panion of St Paul; and indeed it is not mentioned by any Chri-
ftian writer till near the cloſe of the ſecond century I.
The aſſertion of this unknown author ſeems to have been
grounded, not on any hiſtorical facts, but on an inference from
that ſaying of Jeſus, that “ he came not to call the righteous, but
“ finners to repentance.” From this ſaying, imperfectly under-
ſtood, the author of the epiſtle concluded, that as 'the apoſtles
}
* Etippóros áropcóras, Teachvos, tie vaulas, tõs mornpolátys. Celſus ap. Origen, l. i.
p. 47. edit. Spencer.
ή Τες ιδέες απoσόλες, τες μέλλονίας κηρύσσειν το ευαγγέλιον αυτ8 εξελέξατο, όνας υπέρ
πασαν αμαρτίαν ανομοτέρες: ένα δείξη, ότι εκ ήλθε καλέσαι δικαίες, αλλ' αμαρωλος εις μετά-
YODOLY. $ 5.
$ The earlieſt mention of it is in the works of Clemens Alexandrinus. The care
neftneſs with which Archbiſhop Wake endeavours to ſupport the authority of this
epiſtle is fingular, Introduction to Apoſtolical Fathers, c. vii. Archbiſhop Laud was
not ſo credulous; ſee his elegant letter to Father Menard, Patr. Apoft. i. In. p. 20..
edit. Rufel.
were
CHAPTER
13
IV.
op
a man
T
were called in an eſpecial, manner; they muſt needs have been fin-
ners above all others.
jo
Here we may, fee, an examplejof the fad.confequences thich the
þafty and injudicious notions, of our friends toon often produced
Our adverſaries, ſuch as Celſuśmy being on the watch, lay, hold of
them, and turn them to their own purpoſes. The Evangelical
Hiſtory is open to allz; and, from thar hiftorwalone can we learn;
whether thoſe who, in the firft diys of Chriſtianityjackinowledged
Jeſus to be the Meſſiah, were “ moft:abandoned ſinners." . ::
Among the firſt who witneſſed this good confeſſion was Si-
meon. All that we know of his character is, that he was
juſt and devout, waitingi for the confolation of Iſraeliks":
The next is: Anna; a wonian indeed, buty with Mr Gibbon's
good leave, not“ oppreſſed by the conſciouſneſs and even effects
" of her vices." "She was of great age, and had lived with an
“ huſband ſeven years from her virginity; and ſhe was a widow
“ of about four fcore and four: years, which departed not from
" the temple, but ſerved God with faſtings; and prayers night and,
cc
day 1.??
When Jeſus choſe Andrew, Peter, James, and John to be his
apoſtles, he found them induſtriouſly occupied, in their vocation
of fiſhermen I. But neither on that; occaſion, nor on any other,
do we ſee him addreſſing himſelf to them, as to men more ſinful
than the other inhabitants of Galilee. Sinners, no doubt, they
were; and even after they became the diſciples of Jeſus, they re-
tained popular and national prejudices, and it muſt be acknow-
ledged, that their character does not come up to our idea of Chri-
ſtian perfection.
Matthew lat at the receipt of cuſtom when Jeſus called him ||
.
* δίκαιος και ευκαβης, προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν το Ισραήλ: Luke, ii. 23.
+ Luke, ii. 36. 37.
$ Matth. iv. 18 -22.
| Matth. ix. 9. Mark; il: 14.' Luke, v. 27. 28 :
P
The
}
1
3
6
114
CHAPTER-( IV.
The office of publicad was in difrépute among the Jews yet we
ought not from thence to ſuppofe Matthew to have been a bad
man, and much leſs, 4.a moft abandoned ſinner;” The office,
however rapaciouſly exerciſed by many, was innocent in itſelf:
and it is a juſt, although trité obſervation, that when publicans
came to be baptiſed of John, and “'faid unto him, Maſter, what
fhall we do? he ſaid unto them, Exact: no more than that which
" is appointed: you*j bùt did not enjoin them to relinquiſh
their employment, as being: fnful.
::
Had the apoſtles and firſt diſciples of Jeſus been, in general,
men of profligate lives, we might have expected, from the known
candour of the Evangeliſts, that a circumſtance ſo remarkable
would not have been palled over in filence: and this the rather,
becauſe the Evangeliſts are careful in recording the faults and'er-
rors of thoſe apoſtles and diſciples, even after they became follow-
ers of Jeſus. . '.
:. Concerning one-diſeiple, in paſticular, we learn, from the high-
eft authority; that he was not:“la 'moſt abandoned finger.
it is thus written: Jeſus ſaw Nathanael coming to him, and
" faith of hiủ, Behold an Iſraelite indeed, in whom is nib guile't."
And, without meaning to depreciate the efficacy of divine
grace,
we may conjecturé, that, in the natural difpofitions I of the dif-
ċiples whönh Jeſus loved," there was ſomething peculiarly ami-
able.
to call finners to repentance.” And the heavy la-
den, who, on this gracious invitation repaired to him, found reſt.
1.6 (7)
i,
ri:
$
€
d
Jeſus came
; .
iii.
A
.
* Luke, iii. 12. 13.
+ John, i. 47
is
| ,
Thus, John, Peter, and Thomas, all partook of the divine grace; and yet the
diverſity of character in thoſe three apoſtles induces us to conclude, that their natural
diſpoſitions were different. On conſulting partial or fićtitious accounts of holy per-
fons, we find them all, as it were, caſt in the fane, mould.
It
C H A P T E R
115
IV.
pe
1
!
t
1
It is no leſs certain, that, after their converſion, great finners
would love him much,
But it is both unwarrantable and dangerous to conclude from
this, that the diſciples of Jeſus, before they heard and obeyed his
call to faith and repentance, were, in general, perſons of profligate
lives, or“ moſt abandoned finners.”
It is unwarrantable to ſay ſo, becauſe ſuch an hypothefis has no
authority from Scripture; and that it is dangerous will be preſently
ſeen.
When Jeſus appeared upon earth, there prevailed a general ex-
pectation of the coming of the Meſſiah.
To prove that he was that Meſſiah, Jeſus appealed, to prophe-
cies already fulfilled, or which were gradually fulfilling in him;
to the doctrine which he taught;' and to the miracles which he
performed.
Now, we ought to weigh all circumſtances well before we pro-
nounce, that “many moſt abandoned ſinners,” ſuch as lewd wo-
men, robbers, and aſſaſſins,, were the perſons who firſt diſcerned
the fulfilling of the prophecies in Jeſus, the excellence of his doc-
trine, and the truth of his miracles.
And we ought to be more cautious ſtill, before we pronounce,
from the nature of the thing, that perſons placed in " the cold
mediocrity of reaſon" could hardly have become Chriſtians at all.
By the preaching of Peter, on the day of Pentecoſt, there were
added to the Church" about three thouſand ſouls."
From the abridgement of his diſcourſe, as given by St Luke*
it appears that he did not confine himſelf to ſuch topics as might
raiſe “ emotions of ſhame, grief, and terror," in his hearers. His
* Axts, ii. 40. The expreflion, “ abridgement of his diſcourſe," is uſed, becauſe
St Luke fays, “ with many other words did he teſtify,” ii. 40. [Elépois te aéyouç
Tacíoor Slep ceplúpelo.] that is," he ſaid much more, and he appealed to other evidence."
All this, although material, is loft or, obfcured in our vulgar tranſlation.
diſcourſe
inc
P 2
316
CH A P. TER IV
؛
1
diſcourſe was addreffed to their reaſon, no leſs than to their para
fions. It appealed to prophecy; to “ the miracles, wonders, and
figns, which God wrought by Jeſus.;" to the late fact of his re-
ſurrection; and to one ſtill later, the gift of the Holy Spirit.
At the beginning of the chapter, mention is made of “ devout
men;" and there is all reaſon to believe from the context, that
thofe men were hearers of St. Peter. Does Mr Gibbon réckon
among his wonderful converhors, thatıgreat, sincreaſe of the Chri-
ftian church, of which St Peter was the inſtrument? If he does,
he muft either hold, that thoſe“ devout men” were not convin-
ced by the arguments of the Apoſtle, or he muſt diſtinguiſh them
from his “ many moſtrabandoned finners."
Mr Gibbon fays, that. Jeſus diſdained not the ſaciety" of men,
" and eſpecially of women, oppreffed by conſciouſneſs, and
very
often by the effects of their vices.
It is no doubt true, that Jefas did not avoid the company of
thoſe who led viciousilives; land that he revensinvited them corre-
pentance. But we have no alithority from the Scripturės (to affert
that there were many perſons of that denomination, and eſpecially
women, who obeyed his gracious call, and became his diſciples.
There is one example of this fort, in the caſe of that female pe-
mitent whoſe converſion is recorded by St Luke*, and to whom
our Lord faid, " Thy faith hath faved thee; go in peace.”
But
* Luke, vü. 36.-30. The name of this tender-hearted and humible penitent is not
known. Many..commentators, from Chryfoftom down to Grotius, ſuppoſe her to
have been Mary Magdalene : but this is merely a fanciful conjecture, without evi.
dence. The author of the Golden Legends goes a ſtep further, and ventures to affert,
that " the woman in the city, which was a finner, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
“ lifter of Lazarus," are three feveral appellations of the fame perfon. He ſays, that
the caſtle of Magdalum, and Bethany, together with large poffeffions in Jerufalem,
belonged to Lazarus, and his two-lifters Marthia and Mary; that they divided the in-
heritance:
CHAPTER
117
IV.
But ſurely the circumſtances of her ſtory do not warrant the
expreſfion which Mr Gibbon has thought fit to uſe; and there
is, if poflible, ſtill leſs warrant for his applying it to the conduct
of the apoſtles.
The nature of Mr Gibbon's general obſervations would have
been more diſcernible, had he illuſtrated them by examples drawn
from the Evangelical Hiſtory. As he has omitted this, we are left
to mere conjecture; and poflibly we may imagine that he alludes
to.".eminent ſaints" who were not in his thought.
Perhaps he had:St Paul in his view; a moſt eminent ſaint in-
deed, but who'nevertheleſs acknowledged himſelf to be “the chief
* of finners *."
If ſo, it may be fit to remind him, that that Apoſtle was at no
moft abandoned fióner," in the common acceptation of
the phraſe; but, on the contrary, was one who “derived a calm
“ fatisfaction from the opinion of his own rectitude.”
St Paul, ſpeaking of his ftate while he was yet a perſecutor,
ſays, that he had been “ taught.according to the perfect. manner
“;of the law of the fathers, and was zealous-towards God:t;"
.
time a
1
heritance; and that the caſtle of Magdalum fell to the ſhare of Mary, who on that
account was called Magdalene. Mary, continues the hiſtorian, being very rich and
beautiful, abandoned herſelf fo exceſſively to unlawful pleaſures, that ſhe loſt her
own name, and got that of the finner. After having accommodated all this, as well
as he could, to the converſion of the penitent woman in St Luke, he adds, “this is
" the Mary Magdalene whom the Lord placed on a footing of moſt intimate famili-
“ arity, ſo that he made bimſelf her gueſt, and had her for his purveyor in his jour.
“nies. Hæc eft illa Maria Magdalena - Dominus eam familiariffimam fibi conftituit,
hoſpitam ſuam fecit, procuratricem eam in itinere habuit.” Sanét. Legend, fol. 160.
b. edit. 1476. The expreflion in Mr Gibbon correſponds better with the Golden Le-
gends, than with the Evangelical Hiſtory,
I Tim 1..15
+ Ats, xxii. 3. “ The perfect manner,” Táxpítar), that is, “the accuracy" or
1. ſtrictneſs" At c. xxvi. 5. xala tày empubesatny ásperiv, is tranflated, " after the
66. moſt Araiteft fect."
that,
*
.
1
118
IV.
CH A P T E R
1
that, " after the ſtraiteſt fect of the Jewiſh religion, he lived a Pha-
so riſee* ;” and at the ſame time, for his " manner of life from
s his youth,” he appealed to the evidence of his accuſers them-
felves.
And more particularly ſtill, he ſpeaks of himſelf to the Philip-
pians, as of one touching the righteouſneſs which is of the law,
66 blameleſs t."
Yet he acknowledged, that he was the chief of finners."
There was an interval of upwards of thirty years between the
time at which Saul, “ breathing out threatenings and ſlaughter
againſt the diſciples, made havock of the church 5," and the
time at which St Paul made this acknowledgement to his friend
Timothy.
The labours and the ſufferings which that good man had un-
dergone in the cauſe of Chriſt, and for the ſake of the brethren,
were great; yet all that he had done and ſuffered could not recon-,
cile him to himſelf, or make him overlook what he had been.
Many of the ſaints,” ſays he in another place,
“ did I ſhut
- up in priſon--and when they were put to death, I gave my
" voice againſt them; and I puniſhed them oft in every fynagogue,
$6 and compelled them to blafpheme ||."
$6
* Aas, xxvi. S.
$ Philip. iii. 6.
1 Αειs, viii. 3. ; 1x. I. The phrafes, έτι εμπνέων απειλής και φόνε, and έλυμαίνέλο την
éxxanoiav, have an energy in the original, which the tranſlation, “ breathing out
s threatenings and ſlaughter,” and “ made havock of the church," does not expreſs.
| Afts, xxvi. 10. 11. This word 6 blafpheme," [Bacoonucis,] may be illuſtrated
from a paffage in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, $ 10. Εγκειμένε δε το ανθυπάτε και λέ-
γονος, όμoσον, και απολύω σε λοιδόρησαν τον Χρισόν: ο Πολύκαρπος έφη, Ογδοήκονlα και έξ
έη δελεύω αυλώ, και δεν με ήδίκησεν· και πως δύναμαι βλασφημήσαι τον βασιλέα με, τον σώ-
" And when the Proconſul ſtill urged him, ſaying, ſwear, [by the for-
“ tune of Cæſar], and I will ſet thee free; revile Chrift; Polycarp thus fpake :
“ Theſe fourſcore and fix years ferve I him, and he has never wronged me; how
so then can I blaſpheme my King and my Saviour ?" Remains of Chriſtian Antiquity,
8.1. 12.
Not
carló ut ;
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
II9
IV.
1
Not only was he active in procuring the impriſonment of the
diſciples, in concurring with the popular cry againſt them, and
in uſing them ill, even when they were engaged in the folemn
offices of religion; but he alſo forced, or attempted to force them
to revile Chriſt.
Filled with the recollection of all theſe things, St Paul ſaid, “I
" thank Chriſt Jeſus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he
“ counted me faithful, putting me into the miniſtry; who was
before a blafphemer, and a perſecutor, and injurious. But I
“ obtained mercy, becauſe I did it ignorantly in unbelief: And
the
grace
of Lord was exceeding abundant, with faith and
love, which is in Chriſt Jeſus. This is a faithful ſaying, and
“ worthy of all acceptation, that Chriſt Jeſus came into the world
to ſave finners; of whom I am the chief. Howbeit, for this
“ cauſe I obtained mercy, that in me firſt Jeſus Chriſt might ſhew
" forth all long-ſuffering, for a pattern to them which ſhould
“ hereafter believe on hiin to life everlaſting*."
· If then Mr Gibbon meant to place St Paul among thoſe who,
before their converſion to Chriſtianity, were abandoned finners,"
he did injuſtice to the character of the moſt candid of men.
Mr Gibbon ſays, that“ thoſe perſons who, in the world, had
“ followed, though in an imperfect manner, the dictates of bene-
“ volence and propriety, derived ſuch a calm ſatisfaction from
«. the opinion of their own rectitude, as rendered them much leſs
1 Tim. i. 12.-16. Injurious,". [upasny], might be paraphraſed, “one who
« added inſult to injury.” When St Paul ſaid, that he perfecuted tlre brethren “ig-
“norantly in unbelief;" [ áyrowy ły daisíc], he did not mean, that lie was in a fitua-
tion which excluded him from the knowledge of the truth. It is more probable,
that he alluded to the words of our Lord, Luke, xxiii. 34. - Father, forgive them,
“ for they know not what they do.” [Ildtep, apes alors ý yap ördagi té moigos.]
« as St Peter did on another occaſion, when he faid, “ And now, brethren, I wot that
" through IGNORANCE ye did it," Als, iii. 17. See all this better explained, Hurd.
Serm. vol. ii. ferm. vii.
ſuſceptible
120
IV.
C'H A P T E R
1
ſuſceptible of the emotions which have given birth to ſo ma-
ny wonderful converſions."
It has been already obferved, in pafling, that this is not appli-
cable to the Jews; who, when our Lord appeared upon earth,
were looking earneſtly for “ the hope and confolation of Iſrael*;
and it would have been ſtrange indeed, if “ abandoned finners”
alone, or eſpecially perfons of ſuch a character, had ſearched the
Scriptures åt that time, and compared what was faid' of the Mef-
fiah in them, with what Jeſus taught and did.
The Heathens, who were ſatisfied with their own rectitude, be-
cauſe they had followed the dictates of benevolence in an imper-
felt manner, could hardly have aimed at that Chriſtian perfeétiori
which Mr Gibbon admires and applauds.
If Epicureans enjoyed calm ſatisfaction, without believing in
Providence; and Stoics, without having any certain and conſiſtent
notions of a future ſtate, and the numerous tribe of Sceptics,
without knowing what to believe at all; they would, no doubt,
be ill diſpoſed for receiving, from Jewiſh filhermen and tent-ma-
kers; a ſyſtem of faith, founded on the principle of a Providence,
and on the aſſurance of immortality.
Such were the learned and the eminent among the Heathens in
the earlieſt days of the church; and, as we may well imagine,
few of them became converts to the Chriſtan religion.
But let us examine the caſe of perſons in the middle and lower
ranks of life; for it is certain that the Heathens who, in the apof-
tolical
age
embraced Chriſtianity, were generally of that fort. The
queſtion is, Whether, before their converſion, they were worfe men
than the other Heathens who rejected the goſpel? If they were
not, Mr Gibbon's argument from the reaſon of the thing may be
laid aſide, together with his theory of emotions.
+ Aets, xxviii. 20. Luke, ii. 25.
Julian
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
IV.
-
Julian indeed affirms on this ſubject, what Mr Gibbon ſeems
to ſuppoſe, and he gives St Paul. for his authority; but he makes
a little alteration in the words of the Apoſtle, and quotes him as
having ſaid, “ ſuch ye were," inſtead of " ſuch were ſome of
you*"
1
$
1
Although all the Corinthian converts to whom St Paul addreſſes
himſelf, had been guilty of ſome one or other of the fins that he
mentions, it would not follow, that they were worfe m'en than
thoſe who rejected the goſpel.
The profligacy of the Heathens in the apoſtolical age was much
more enormous than ſome people know, or at leaſt are inclined to
confefs.
Several of the things mentioned by St Paul belonged to the very
profeſſion of Paganiſm, ſuch as thoſe ſuperſtitious and impure
rites which come under the general name of " idolatry.”
Other things alſo, which occur in the fame paffage, had too
much countenance from the popular religion; were practiſed,
without reſerve, by the people t; and, to ſay no more, were con-
nived at by the magiſtrate.
Corinth, for example, was vicious beyond the meaſure of vice
in great cities. Strabo relates, that the temple of Venus at Co-
rinth was exceedingly rich, ſo as to have in property more than
a thouſand harlots, the flaves (or miniſters) of the temple, dona-
* 1 Cor. vi. 11. Kei tule tives úte-Yutīs tomto úti. Cyril. adv. Julian. vii. 245.
edit. Spanheim.
+ Here let me remark, that an expreffion in Mr Gibbon's work, not altogether
foreign to the preſent ſubject, appears exceedingly reprehenſible. He ſays, with
what juſtice I mean not to inquire, that is of the firſt fifteen Roman Emperors, Clau-
« dius was the only one whoſe taſte in love was entirely correct," i. 93. n. 40.
This is ſaid of an Emperor who was very lewd, and who lived in inceſt. As to the
others, it ſeems their taſte in love was not entirely correct. What a ſtrange circum-
locution!
tives
d
122
CH A P.:! Ti E Ri IV:
tives made to the goddeſs by perfons of both fixes. Hence, fays
hen, the city was crow.ded, and became wealthy
The osgies, of: Bacchus made part of waat Mp Gibbon: calls the:
cheerful religion of Paganiſm, 1,5513. ;, and they would have affordeds.
a decent apology for drunkenneſs, had the Greeks required any
thing of that nature : but it is probable that thoſe rites, as well
as many otherswere formed on the manners, of the people; and
that, if the vulgar Greeks had not been, drunkards, their priežts
and legiſlators would not have made drypkennels, an. ingredient-
in the vulgar religion.
No one who is acquainted with what may be termed the nas
tional character of the Greeks, will deny that they were
“ lers.” While they were free, gr-fuppoſed themſelves to be free,
this, intemperance of language, reſembled liberty.;, and their conr,
querors, when they deprived them of every thing elſe, left thein.
in full polțelkon. of their petulant humourt.
“ revie
1
E
* Το τε της Αφροδίτης ιερόν έτω πλέσιον υπήρξεν, ώστε πλείες και χιλίας ιεροδέλες έκέκ-
Into 'flaiptis, as áretebesave the sechs žoribés ig yvir cītege'ig-Siá rávlees ši horvaxntīto v to-
ass, xj & RYTÍČEto. I viii. p. 581. To this it is that Srephanus Byzantinus refers.
Και ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΑΖΟΜΑΙ. το εταιρείκ·- απο τών έν Κορινθω εταίρων, κ. τ. ε. De Urbibus, ν.
ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΣ. .
Hence alſo the proverbial expreffion, A Kopívbíc. foisas; - Ko Ti €.
and the public players in that city." for the increaſe of the number of kaaplots."
From, a brothel o£ fuch, magnituds, maintained by the piety of the-people, univerſaļ
corruption of manners muſt have enſued: and although that Corinth which the A-
poſtle faw might have exhibited but a poor epitome of her more ancient debauche.
ries; yet climate, ſituation, andi religion being confidered, we muſt acknowledge
the propriety of his exhortation, peúyete tùy Tropreiar, 1 Cor. vi. 18. Aind this will
lead us to remark, that his tranſition in that chapter from one ſubject to anothecis
npt ſo abrupt as at firkt fight, we, may be apt to imagine ito, si
+ This humour was very ancient Homes, it is probable,, ſpake the language of
the people; and he makes his gods and goddeſſes uſe, great liberties in their familiar.
converſation.--It would be vain to attempt to make a collection of all the words.
which expreſs intemperance of ſpeech in the Greek language, ſuch as, pinasoidaposa
βαρύγλωσσος, πικρόγλωσσος, βλασφημος, δύσφημος, κακόφημος, &c. &c.
From
CH A P T E R
123
IV.
}
1
3
From this humour it is that we'ban aocount for a diagular cir-
cumftance in their hiſtory, that the Chmics, a.iiect of philoſophers,
with ſmall prétenfions trou ikonowledge, and none to i virtue, where
harboured atid toitrated, and even excouraged, in Greece, during
á löng liceellion of ages.
"Mr Gibbon ſays, 'that 'the fudden emotions of frame and terror
had a wonderful effect in the converting of men atid elipecially of
women, to the Chriſtian religion."....3.11
-It mult; however, bé obvibus, to every bohiė; that this implies
fome antecedent knowledge of Chriſtianity, and belief in its truth:
for as, the Heathens in general practiſed, without ſhame, many
things inconfultext with evangelical purity; it behoved the coni-
verts from Heatheniſin to learn that ſuch practices were fivamefuli
,
before they becamie afhained rof them!r! ".: .::;-. ..... ;-)
Neither is it likely that emotions of terror, of terror new and
bf, unexpected," #s Mr Gibbon elſewhere expreffes himſelf, could
have been railed without a previous perfuaſion of a judgement to
tome, and of the danger of delaying repentance. !.*; ».
Avid thus we may concludes that faith was the ground-work
of converſion in thoſe Heathens who, at the promulgation of the
goſpel, embraced Chriſtianity: and we may alſo be enabled to
förinidright eftinaatë of an hypotheſis mentioned by Mr Gibbon
in this paffage; and more largely explained in another, where he
fàýs; that;" the careleſs Polytheilt was iaffailed by new and unex-
pected terrors, againſt which neither his prieſts nor his philoſo-
phers could afford him any certain protection;" and that “ his
feafś might ta filift his faith and his reaſon; and if he could
6. once perfaerde kimſelf to fufpect that the Chriſtian religion might
poffibly be true, it became an eaſy. taſk.to convince him that it was
the fa feſt and moſt prudent party that he could poſſibly em-
“ brace *.” i. 567.
* See Wiatra xiv. ge. 27. where a more fávour’able caſe is put, but with a leſs fa-
vourable inference.
Q_2
Mr
4
1
.
124
CH A P T E R IV.
99
Mr Gibbon adds the reaſon which induced the profligate
rabble, on becoming Chriſtians, to become remarkably devout
and zealous in good works. His ſolution of this ſuppoſed phoe-
nomenon is thort and fimple. “The deſire of perfection," ſays
he,“ became the ruling paſſion of their foul; and it is well known,
that, while reaſon. embraces a cold mediocrity, our paſſions
“ hurry, us, with rapid violence, over the ſpace which lies be-
tween the moſt oppoſite extremes.
Different men will incline to graduate the moral weather-glaſs
in different ways; and ſome, on reflecting that there is much to
fear and much to hope, may be apt to remove reaſon at a greater
diſtance from the freezing point, than" cold mediocrity" ſeems to
be placed.
Mr Gibbon muſt allow me to deny, that it is well known that
our paſſions hurry us rapidly, from irreligion to perfect devotion,
or from profligacy to perfect virtue; for experience, to ſay no-
thing,of, revelation, aſſures us of the contrary.
Let me not be underſtood to deny that there are inſtances of
men who have at once, from a life of irreligion and profligacy,
attained to as perfect devotion and virtue as are attainable on this
ſide the .grave. I agree with Mr Gibbon, that ſuch converſions
“ wonderful:" but he ought not to aſcribe them to our paf
fions; for then they would not be.“ wonderful” to men who, like
Mr Gibbon, can analyze the paflions, and trace natural motives
to their correſponding effects.
The ſecond motive“ which might naturally render the lives of
" the primitive Chriſtians much purer and more auſtere than
" thoſe of their Pagan contemporaries,” is ſaid by Mr Gibbon to
have been“ the deſire of ſupporting the reputation of the ſociety
“in which they were engaged, and their own reputation, as con-
" nected with that fociety."
But unleſs the Chriſtians had been incited to virtue by other
motives
are
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
125
IV.
motives than a regard for their own reputation, and for that of
the ſociety to which they belonged, the conſequences, with re-
fpect to morals and behaviour, would not have been either univer-
ſal or permanent.
The philoſophers who appeared in the Heathen world had thofe
motives, joined to an exceſſive deſire after fame; and yet they
were not ſuch men as Mr Gibbon acknowledges the primitive
Chriſtians to have been.
Jeſus foretold, and the prediction was ſoon accompliſhed, that
his diſciples ſhould be reviled and perfecuted for his fake*.
Reputation could not have been the object of men who were
taught by their Lord to look for obloquy as the appendage of their
profeſſion.
We muſt therefore ſearch for ſome other cauſe, which enabled
thoſe Chriſtians to be more excellent than their neighbours.
Their motive to the practice of virtue, ſeparate from the motives
commonly termed natural, was, obedience to the lawgiver whoſe
authority they recogniſed; or, in fcriptural language, faith in
God the Father, and in his Son the Lord Jeſus Chriſt.
Mr Gibbon, not ſatisfied with Nightly mentioning two motives
which contributed to the purity of the lives of the primitive Chri-
ftians, ſubjoins a ſupplement, accounting, in a natural way, for
their virtues.
Some of the readers of the Decline and Fall have cenſured this
Supplement as uncandid, and even invidious.
The primitive Chriftians, as Mr Gibbon admits, were chaſte,
temperate, and economical; " but then,” ſays he," their ſerious
vi
* “ Bféffeď are they' which are perfecuted for righteouſneſs fake: for theirs is the
“ kingdom of heaven. Bleſſed are ye when men ſhall revile you, and perſecute you,
" and ſhall fay all manner of evil againſt you falſely for my fake. Rejoice, and be
" exceeding glad : for great is your reward in heaven: for fo perfecuted they the
« prophets wbich were before you.” Matth. v. 10.-12.
" and
1.26
G H'A P T E R. IV.
>
1
?
" and fequeſtered bife, averſe to the gray luvary of the 'nge, ian-
"ired them to chaſtity, temperance, deconomy, and all the tobber
«and domeſtic virbues:”: $ ique nous indispen 09
They were remarkable for integrity and fair . dealing on Botí sáts
they were generally of fome trade or profeflion, it was incunbent
on them to practife ſuch virtues, in order to remove the fufpicions
that an appearance of fanctity:isiapt to create.sisi in .
They were humble, meek, and patient, being exerciſed in the
habits of thoſe virtues by their convenipt of the world:
The more they were perfecuted, the more cloſely they adhered
to each other.
Their mutual charity, and unſuſpecting tonfiderice, have been
remarked by infidels, and were too often abuſed by perfaliotas
friends * :
::i111
And now, let us review the virtues of the primitive Chriſtians,
while with philofophical impartiality we trace effects to their cauſes.
:::: 1.0 Snit
We might add, that their muſual charity is acknowledged, and their unſuſpect-
ing confidencë ridiculed, by -the Atheiſtical buffoon, Lucian. Mr Gibbon ſays,
p. 574. "The philoſopher Peregrinus, of whoſe life and death Lucian has left us
« fo entertaining an account, impoſed for a long time on the credulous fimplicity of
" the Chriftians of AGa." It is impoflible to determine any thing as to the real cha-
racter of this Penegạnus while he retained bis fenfes. This andy: we know that he
became mad, and burnt himſelf alive, in the fight of all Greece, at the Olympian
games, Gellius, who knew him well, praiſes his judgement and çquanimity, and
ſays, that this diſcourſes were profitable, and delivered in a Teemly manner. [“ Phi-
lofophum, nomine Peregrinum, cui poftea cognomtrentum Proteus factum ext, di-
“ rum gravem atque conſtantem vidimus, quum Athenis effemus, diverſaħtein in quo-
“ dam tugurio extra urbem; quumque ad eam frequenter nentitanemụs; multa liet-
“ clè dicere eum utiliter et honeftè audivimus."] Vofl. Att. xii. 11. Gellius could
not have deſcribed a chief teacher. among the Stoics in higher fyrains of commenda-
tion. So, if Peregrinus was a knave, he impoſed on the credulity of Gellius, a Hea-
then grammarian, no leſs than on the credulity of the Chriſtians of Afia;, who, to
ſay the worſt of them, had not the gift of trying the ſpirits of men, and, through
ari exceſs of charity, were led to think more favourably of Peregrinus, than he.de
ſerved.
The
#
2
+
-
1:27
C. H A P T E R IV:
¢
!
1
The primitive Chriſtians, from their ſerious and ſequeſtered life,
were chaſte, temperate, frugal, and inured to all ſober and do-
meſtic virtues,
From prudence and ſituation they were of. ſtrict integrity, and
perfectly, fair in their dealings.,
From contempt of the world, they learnt to be humble, meek,
, .
and patient.
Perfecution bound them cloſer in: friendſhip to one another.
Their mutual charity has been; remarked even by infidels.; and
their exceſs in that virtue laid them open to the frauds of bad men.
If we thus employ, ourſelves in accounting for every virtue prac-
tiſed by, individuals, it is much to be feared that, in the end, we
may loſe that amiable quality of Chriſtian benevolence, which
" thinketh no evil."
Jeſus has left a, more humane rule to his friends. We are to
know men by their fruits ;, we are to judge of purpoſe by actions.:
and indeed any further knowledge is too high for us.
Hene it will non eſcape: obſervation, that Mr. Gibbon, without
intending to dia:W a very favourable likeneſs of the primitive Chri-
ſtians, has made Chniſtian principles the ground-work of many of
their virtues.
Thuş, he ſays; that " the ſerious and fequeftered life of the pri-
“ mitive Chriſtians, averſe to the gay luxury of the
luxury of the age, inured
" them to chaſtity, temperance; economy, and all the ſober and
“ domeſtic virtues.".
Now; the: epithet “ ſerious," is of more conſequence than it
may at firft fight appear. For a fequeftered life, averfe“ to the
gay luxury of the age,” is not neceſſarily attended by “ all the
“ ſober and doineſtic virtues.” The reverſe of all ſuch virtues
may be found among men who have never heard of the gay lux-
ury of the age. But, a ſerious life," or a life led with an habi-
tual regard to the nature and conſequences of action, may to a
certain
128
IV.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R.
or
certain degree produce the virtues of which Mr Gibbon ſpeaks ;
and thus the meaning will be, that ſuch virtues are the conſe-
quence of Chriſtian watchfulneſs: an important truth, and great-
ly to the honour of Chriſtianity!
Again, Mr Gibbon ſays, that from contempt of the world the
Chriſtians learnt to be humble, meek, and patient.
The phraſe "contempt of the world” is ambiguous: it may ſig-
nify" contempt of the ſuperfluities and vanity of the world,” or
contempt of all ſublunary things.” But whether it be un-
derſtood in the one ſenſe or the other, there is no doubt that ſome
ſects among the Heathen philoſophers profeſſed as great contempt
of the world as any of the primitive Chriſtians ever did; and yet
their ſpeculations and ſyſtems were of no efficacy in rendering
them humble and meek; and we may oppoſe Chriſtian patience
to the boafted apathy of the Stoics, without any dread of ſeeing
our religion depreciated by the contraſt.
It was on Chriſtian principles that the primitive Chriſtians
learnt to be humble, meek, and patient: for they remembered
the words of their Lord, “ Wholo ſhall exalt himſelf ſhall be aba-
« ſed, and he that ſhall humble himſelf ſhall be exalted.”—
“ Bleffed are the meek.”—“ Learn of me, for I am meek and
“ lowly in heart, and ye ſhall find reſt to your ſouls.”_" He that
endureth to the end ſhall be ſaved *.
One ſhould have thought that Mr Gibbon, after having treated
of repentance and reputation, and analyzed the Chriſtian virtues,
and accounted for them all, had exhauſted whatever he meant to
ſay on the fourth ſecondary cauſe of the rapid and remarkable
growth of Chriſtianity.
* Matth. xxiii. 12.; V. 5.; xi. 29.; X. 22.
Various other texts to the like pur.
pofe might have been quoted from the other Evangeliſts. Many paſſages in the Epi-
ftles are merely a commentary on ſuch texts, and ought to be conſidered as alluſions
to evangelical hiſtory.
Yet
CH A P T E R. IV.
129
>
!;">
1
1
1
?
Yet to the diſquiſition concerning the Virtu'es of the primitive
* Chriſtians," a large miſcellany of unconnected obſervations is
ſubjoined, under theſe general heads, “Morality of the Fathers i
14 Principles of huinan nature;" “ The primitive Chriſtians con-
* demn pleaſure and luxury;"
Their ſentiments concerning
marriage and chaſtity;"' and '“ Their averſion to the buſineſs of
56 war and government:”...!;
'. It would have been bettes, and more fcientificad, had Mr Gib-
bon, inſtead of deviating into collateral inquiries, adhéred to that
method which he at firſt choſe to preſcribe to himſelf. :
The purpoſe of this work is to examine the five ſecondary cau-
des aſſigned by Mr. Gibbon for the rapid and remarkable .progreſs
of Chriſtianity; and therefore I might be: pardoned for declining
to föHow him where ever his fàncy or genius leads.; yet there is
ſuch a variety of curious and intereſting matter in his miſcella-
neous obfervations, that I cannot altogether paſs them over in fi-
lence: :
;;::
ins-
Let it be remarked in general,' that the chief circumſtances
mentioned in this miſcellany ſeem to have had a natural tendency
to retard, inſtead of accelerating, the triumphs of Chriftianity over
the paſſions, 'prejudices, and opinions of mankind:
Neither is this all: for on comparing his ſupplementary diſqui-
fitions with his argument on the fourth ſecondary cauſe, it will be
found, that Mr-Gibbon contradicts not ởnly experience, but him-
ſelf.
Thus, for example, he ſays, " The Biſhops and Doctors of the
... church-carried the duties of ſelf-mortification, of purity, and
* of patience, to a height which it is fcárcely poſſible to attain,
6 and much leſs to preſerve.--A doctrine ſo extraordinary and
“ ſo ſublime muſt inevitably command the veneration of the
s people; but it was ill calculated to obtain the ſuffrage of tủoſe
ss worldly philoſophers who, in the conduct of this tranſitory life,
R
conſult
+
1
}
"
130
CiH A P T E R ;. IV.
1
.
1:1 Borri
1
f
.conſult only the feelings of nature, and the intereft, of fo-
” ciety.” 1.575
sisi!
Here the Chriſtian teachers are pút in full poffefſion of the ve-
neration of the people, and yet in the very next page Mr Gibbon
ſeems to aſcribe to the Chriſtians at large a diſpoſition that would
be rejected by the common conſent of mankind; and he ſays, in une-
quivocal terms, that " it was not in this world that the primitive
“ Chriſtians were deſirous of making themſelves either agreeable
$ or uſeful*.” „If ſo, they could not remain in poſſeſſion of the
veneration of the people.
Let us turn:back from p. 576 to p. 574. and we ſhall ſee that
the Chriſtians; no leſs than the philoſophers themſelves, did" in
" this tranſitory life conſult the intereſt of fociety;"
· Their care for the intereft of fociety, it muſt be admitted, did
not lead them" to conceal the ſentiments of an Atheiſt under the
“ facerdotal robes, or to approach, with the fame inward contempt
" and the fame external reverence, the altars of the Lybian, the
Olympian, and the Capitoline Jupiter;": 1, 38.; yet they were
chafte, temperate, fand economical, and inpredii to all the fober
and domeſtic virtues. They were of the ſtricteſt integrity, and
perfectly fair in their dealings; they were exerciſed in the habits
of humility, meekneſs, and patience ::, and the infidels themſelves
remarked their mutual charity and unſuſpecting; confidence. So
ſays Mr Gibbon; and the reader will judge, whether they, or the
Heathen philoſophers and politicians, as deſcribed by Mr Gibbon,
beſt conſulted the feelings of nature and the intereſt of ſociety.
The ſection, having this general title, Morality of the Fathers, is
introduced with theſe words : “ It is a very honourable circum-
ſtance for the morals of the primitive Chriſtians, that even
* The words, " in this world," are redundant; for the primitive Chriſtians could
not be defirous of making themfelves uſeful in another world.
“ their
GIH A P T E R IV.
131
1
+
*
}
il:;.::
" their faults, on rather : errors, welze derived from an exceſs of
" Pirtue,"11575...113 pines 0:1:14.1.2.11. :
This obſervation, for its amiable cândour, deſerves our :ap
plaufer and had Mr. Gibbon alwayş written in, ſuch a ſtrain, hiši
only critics: would have been the half-learned and fuperficial:ca-
villers at the Chriſtian religion.........
But he proceeds thus: “ The:Biſhops and Doctors of the church,
" whoſe evidence atteſts, and whoſe authority might influence
«! the profeſſions, the principles, and even the practice of their
5. contemporaries, had ſtudied the Sariptures with lefs, ſkill than
y! devotion; and they often received; : in the moſt literal ſenfe,
thofe rigidi precepts of Chriſt and the Apoſtles, to which the
bi prudence of ſucceeding.commentators i has:applied a looſer and
more figurative mode of interpretacion.!:. :13: :
- Biſhops and Doctors of the church” is a comprehenſive de-
nomination indeed! Under it, all the Chriſtian writers, for I know
not how many centuries,' might be;ranged; and accordingly M.
Barbeyrac, in his very judicious treatiſe * De la morale des Peres,
begins his inquiry with Juſtin Martyr, and ends it with Grego-
ry, ſurnamed the Great ; but, as Mr Gibbon ſpeaks of primitive
Chriſtians, and as he treats of the rąpid progreſs of Chriſtianity,
it may be prefumed that he limits his remark to the Biſhops
"and Doctors”: who wrote before the civil eſtabliſhment of the
Chriftian religion.
I mean not to enter intơ the noted controverſy
, reſpecting the
morality of the Fathers;::or, as: Mr Gibbon chufes to call them,
" the Biſhops and Doctors of the church t;" neither, indeed, has
1
1
ist
* It is ſo called by Mr Gibbon; Decline and Fall, i.,575.,
+ Every impartial reader who has not had occafion to peruſe the preface to the fu-
lian of Biſhop Warburton, will think himſelf beholden to me.for pointing out to him
a manly and candid inquíry into this intereſting fübject; by one who was no flave to
ins
fyſtems, and popular opinions, and popular prejudices.
R 2
Mr
:
132
CH A P T E R S IV.
1
i
1
Mr Gibbon treated fully of that ſubject: he. only mentions the
fathers as perſons whoſe evidence atteſts, and whofe authority
might influence the profeffions, the principles, and even dhe prac-
tice of their contemporaries ;': and thence he' takes occaſion to
fpeak of certain tenets of theirs which he fuppófes might have
been adopted by the church in general.
Here fome obſervations naturally preſent themfelves. viis
Of all the Chriſtian writers who lived in the firft threeicentu-
ries, Tertullian is he whofe works afford the moſt numerous: lex-
amples of crude and wild fancies; and no wonder; for the ſeeds
of fanaticiſm ſeem to have been always in him, which, at length,
fprung up, and produced abundant, fruits. Every one knows that
Tertullian, having adopted the opinions of Montanus, became as
contemptible a viſionary as ever diſgraced genius and learning.
Some men have attempted to draw the line between the works
of the orthodox and of the heretical Tertullian;, and for this they
had their reaſons, unneceffaryto be explained, at preſent: but even
in his earliełt works, the traces of a diſtempered imagination are
to be found.
Such, however, is the man on whoſe evidence Mr Gibbon
chiefly relies for illuſtrating the profeſſions, the principles, and
even the practice of the primitive Chriſtians; and he has made
more quotations from the writings of Tertullian than from the
writings of all the other “ Biſhops and Doctors” of the firſt three
centuries: fo that, in the work of Mr Gibbon, Tertullian appears
like the foreman of the Chriſtian world; delegated to ſpeak for all
the brethren from the days .of the Apoſtles until that time, at
which Chriſtianity was eſtabliſhed by law, for thoſe who lived
after him, as well as for thoſe who lived before him, or were his
contemporaries.
In his celebrated fifteenth chapter, MrGibbon frequently quotes
Tertullian, yet he bardly ever refers to Cyprian for proof of the
principles
S
1
cinsir
1,
?
ĈH A P T E R 7. IV.
!33
1
28
)
non
principles and practice of the Chriſtians. . It is odd, that:as they
lived in the ſame countryjoand were: nearly i conteś poraries, he
ſhould have relied for little on the teſtimony of the biſhop 'and
martyr, land fo much on that of the Montaniſt: 1
widt,
Further, the expreſfion uſed by Mr Gibbon is; fingularly cau-
tious, though I am-far from laying that there is any ſtudied am-
biguity in it." Inſtead of afferring thát the authority oflrhe:$iBi-
'fhopslarid Doctor's" did inflience, he obſerves that it might in-
fluence the profeſſions, principles, and practice of their contem-
poráries.
Should it be proved, that the primitive Chriſtians thougħt and
acted for themſelves, s pogwithſtandingthe authority of thoſe
Biſhops and Doctors,!". Mr Gibbon might fay, that he never aſ-
ſerted the contrary; for that he : Only: ſpake of what might have
happened, not of what did: Wind
No weighty fuperſtructure can be eſtabliſhed on fuch light,
foundations, for it ſtill remains unexplained, whether the autho-
rity, of which Mr Gibbon, ſpeaks, had influence; and if; it had,
what was the extent of that influence :
MrGibbon ſpeaks of an authority which might influence contem-
poraries; but he ſeems not aware that the word contemporaries muſt
be limited to the Chriſtians of the country in which his " Biſhops
" and Doctors” lived, or at leaſt to the Chriftians who were ac-
quainted with the writings and tenets of thoſe guides, and that
it cannot be applied to Chriſtians at'large. For example, although
the authority of Tertullian ſhould have had influence on the prin-
ciples and practice of the Chriſtians in Africa who were his con-
temporaries, 'it would be extravagant to ſuppoſe, that it had in-
fluence in Paleſtine, Syria, and Afia Minor, where the writings
of Tertullian were not generally known, and could only be un-
derſtood by few.
Beſides, it is plain, that the authority of Tertullian, on whoſe
evidence
..
1
134
C H A P T E R :? IV.
Duo
evidence: Mr Gibban feems chieflpito rely, did not influence the
principles :and practice of his contemporeries *18,5boril
: This mightlappear from the words of Mr Gibbon himſelf, who
quotes Tertullian asiaffinmingilihat the Chriſtians”..refulędep
take any active parnin the i military defence of the empire; and
"i that it was impioslable that, withoutiranquneing. a!more. facred
"idůty; they could:allude the character of foldiers,” ii 580.5 and
yet, tin theivery: famaes páge: Mr Sibbon ſays, Fertullian Juggeſts
orto them the 'expedient of roleferting it in 1.-sorosi.
Bugs
Boij ells; ingyun Olt, 15.10.0.
* M. Barbeyrac, having ſucceſsfully ridiculed many of the whimſies of Tertullian,
tibugüe it worth his paids tõ'expoft ile Hall de Prome of thë Chtitian Whiteis vitio
arė fáid to have admited the writings optkát Àfricần herkeigo Kibwards atéild ön
« Scat cependant, quet cas ont fait de luidaptrés péces, çtifuri sedur ) St Orkaren,
« qui ne paffoit point de jour, fans lire quelque choſe de Ferțulliąn, et qui difoit à
“ fon copiſte, en lui demandant les ouvrages de ce pere donnez moiman maiftre,
*t c'eſt ce que St JEROME dit teñir du copiſte même. Catat script. Eccleſ: P., 284.
sot. i, edic: Badi: ts37 *' Here there is a pleafdht dhälhtonir, which would have af.
fórded matter of exultatiofi'to M! Barbeyråe' häď áný of the fathérsé been guilty of 'it.
The copiſt or ſecretary of Cyprian could hardly have officiated in that capacity before
the age of eighteen or twenty, and could not have met with Jerom, ſooner than 120
years, reckoned from the death of Cyprian; ſo that he muſt have been about one hun-
dređand forty years of age when he communicated this anecdote to Jerom! It happens,
liowever, that Jeroin tells a very'different iſtorý. His words áre: “Vidi ego quem-
« dam Paulum Concordiæ, quod oppidum Italiæ eſt, ſenem, qui fe. beáti Cypriani jàm
“ grandis ætatis notarium, quum ipſe admodum effet adolefcens, Romæ vidiffe diceret,
“ referreque fibi folitum nunquam Cyprianum abfque Tertulliani lectione unam
“ diem præteriiffe, ac ſibi crebrò dicere,' da Magiſtrum, Tertullianum videlicet figni-
c. ficams.” The reader will obſerve, that Jérom does not tell to improbable' ä ftory
as that he himſelf had converfed with the copiſt of Cyprian ; He orilý fåys; that an
old man reported, that when he was very young, he heard another old man fay, that
Cyprian often called Tertullian the Maſter, and frequently read his works. Here,
then, there is nothing more than the hearſay of a hearſay, a thing altogether diffe-
rent from what M. Barbeyrac relátes,
+ The words of Tertullian are: " Aut deferendum ftatim fit, ut a mulțis acum,
w aut omnibus modis cavillandum, ne quid adverſus Deum' committatur, quae nec
1
ii
ex
CH A P T E R 1: IV.
135
1
-!1;'";[
1'i
3
But, to this purpofe, Tertullian's own evidence is ſtill more
appalites :: Hefays, "? How can à Chriſtian become a ſoldier, or
6 even an officer of juſtice, ſince the Lord has: deprived him of
$ his ſword? for;althdaghi military, men came to John the Bap-
“ tiſt, and received inſtructions from him as to their conduct,
" and although a centurion embraced the goſpel ; yet, afterwards,
“ the Lord; by difarming Peter,:difarmed every ſoldier*".. Such
was the opinion of. Tertullian. s Ņevertheleſs, the practice of the
Chriſtians in his; age, was different;i; for it appears from the trea-
tife de Corona Militis, that many Chriſtians ſerved in the Roman
armies; and again, in his Apology; he : fays, we are but of
yeſterday; and yet:we have filled your camps;" and, ": we fight
" along with you it." :
: ;?
...:::
“ There are," ſays: Mr Gibbon, "two very natural propenſties,
“ which we may diſtinguiſh in the moſt, virtuous diſpoſitions,
" the love of, pleaſure, and the love of action. If the former is
“ refined by art and learning, improved by the charms of ſocial
'P'T 62!!!
“.ex militia permittuntur, aut noviffimè perpetiendùm pro Deo, quod æquè fides pa-
" gana condixit, d. Corona, c. 11. The ſentence is obſcure, and its juſt reading is
not ſettled. See the note of Rigaltius. This much, however,, is plain, that Tertul-
lian means to point out the inconveniencies and temptations whịch attend Chriſtians
who become ſoldier's ; 'and the firſt mentioned by him is, that of their being induced
to. defert or quit the ſervice; ſo that he does 'by no means "ſuggeft 'the expedient
o of deſerting.”
*'“ Quomodo autem bellabit, imò quomodo etiam in pace inilitąbit, fine gladio,
«
quem Dominus abftulit? nam etfi adierant milites ad Johannem, et formam ob-
*** ſervationis acceperant, fi etiam centurio crediderat : omnem poſtea militem Domi.
" nus, in Petro exarmando, diſcinxit." d. Idololatria, c. 19. M. Barbeyrac ex.
plains iri pace to ſignify" quand les Chrétiens ne font expoſez à aucune perſecution ;)
Morale- dė's Péres, 6.6.8 6.: and no doubt páx has fometimes the ſenſe of a reſt
« from perſecution:" but I have choſen to follow the paraphrafe of Rigaltius.
+ “ Heſterni ſumus, et veſtra omnia implevimus,--caſtra ipfa - vobiſcum milita-
~ mus ;” Apolic: 37.22. In this there may be fome rhetorical exaggeration, which, ,
however, will not affect my argument.
.
“ intercourſe,
.
its
::
1
1
is
1
}
136
CH A P'IT ER N.
IG
46. intercourſe, and corrected : by a júft regard to 'oeconomy, to
S health, and to reputation, it is productive of the greateſt part
“ of the happineſs of private life * The love of adión is a principle
55 of a'much! ſtronger and more idoubtfabináture It often leads
to
anger, to ambition, and to revenge ; : :btit' when it is guided
by the tenſe of propriety and benevolente;:; it becomes the pa-
rent of every virtue and i lif ithoſe. virtdes cayel alecompanied
4" with equal abilities," a family;la .ftate, or a empire, may be
16. indebted for their fafer grand sproſperityitó the undáuñited coul
rage of a ſingle man. To the love of pleaſuře we may, therefore,
• aſcribe moſt of the agreeable; to the love of action we may at-
“ tribute moſt 'of the uſeful and reſpectable qualifications,' The
" character in which both the one and the other ſhould be united
ss and harmonized; would ſeem to conſtitute the moſt perfect idea
“ of human nature. The inſenſible and inactive diſpoſition,
which thould be fuppofed alike deftitute of both, would be re-
jected by the common conſent of mankind, as utterly incapable
of procuring any happineſs to the individual, or any public be-
* nefit to the world. But it was not in this world that the pri-
“ mitive Chriſtians were deſirous of making themſelves either
agreeable or uſeful." i. 575.
All this is, delivered in a folemn,, philoſophical
, and didactic
ſtyle; and we muſt preſume, that to the author himſelf it is per-
fectly intelligible, but to one of his readers it is not.
Mr Gibbon obſerves, that when “ the love of pleaſure is refined
by art and learning, improved by the charms of ſocial inter-
1
1
1
* This defcription ſeems vague. Suppoſe oņe ſhould ſay, “ Artifex quidam eru-
is ditus amicâ clanculùm utitur, bilari, facetâ, fanâ itidem, aç parvo parabili; ea de-
" mùm vita eft beatior." Surely this does not come up to the notion of what is
os productive of the greateſt part of the happineſs of private life;" although we have
artifex eruditus, [art and learning), hilaris et faceta, [ſocial intercourſe], paryo pa-
rabilis, Cæconomy), fana, [healtb], and clanculum, [reputation),
courſe,
1
"CH A P. T E R
137
IV.
A
courſe, and corrected by a juſt regard to ceconomy, to health,
and to reputation, it is productive of the greateſt part of the
happineſs of private life.” iiii ::!
What does this love of pleaſure imply? According to the deſcrip-
tion given of it by Mr Gibbon, before it can produce the greateſt
part of the happineſs of private life, it muſt be refined, improved,
and corrected. Hence, one might be apt to imagine, that a
thing which becomes, falutary only bý, ſuch a proceſs of refinement
and correction, is, in itſelf, impure, and even noxious. This at
leaft. is plain, that, if prepared by Mr Gibbon's receipt, it is a
compoſition too high-priced for the vulgar, who occupy moſt of
the ſtations in private life. Art and learning are two of its ingre-
dients, and whatever may be the ſenſe of the word art, it is cer-
tain that learning: never was, and probably never will be a general
acquirement; and here we are taught a thing of which we ſhould
otherwiſe have been ignorant, that the greateſt part of the hap-
pineſs of private life lies without the reach of the vulgar.”
Mr Gibbon adds, to the love of pleaſure we may. therefore
so aſcribe moſt of the agreeable qualifications ; — the inſenſible-
diſpoſition, which ſhould be ſuppoſed --- deſtitute of it, would
" be rejected by the common conſent of mankind, as utterly.inca-
pable of procuring any happineſs to the individual.--But it
was not in this world that the primitive Chriſtians were delirous
of . I
making themſelves agreeable."
Piel
The reader : will obſerve that, in the long period from which
theſe expreſſions are ſelected, Mr Gibbon has alfo introduced
“ the love of action” as a propenſity or principle; and that he has
treated of the effects of it, as well as, of “, the love of pleaſure."
Butý although the blending them "might ornament a period, the
nature and confèquences of each will be beſt underſtood when
they are ſeparately examined.
And here again it will not eſcape, the attention of the reader,
S
that
$
138
:IV
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
that Mr Gibbon, while treating of the virtues of the primitive
Chriſtians, [the fourth ſecondary cauſe of the rapid progreſs of
Chriſtianity), aſcribes to them an inſenſible diſpoſition, deſtitute
of the love of pleaſure, which would be rejected, by the common con-
fent of mankind, as utterly, incapable of procuring any happineſs
to the individual.
Now, if the diſpoſition of the primitive Chriſtians was ſuch as
to be rejected by the common canſent of mankind, why is it treated of
anong the ſecondary cauſes of the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity?
The caſe of the primitive Chriſtians, in being thus deſtitute of
the love of pleaſure, appears truly lamentable. Living," as they
did, in the religion of love, they muſt have enjoyed the charms
of ſocial intercourſe, ſo far as innocent; and Mr Gibbon himſelf
informs us, that they had a juſt regard to economy, to health,
and to reputation; theſe things, had the Chriſtians been poſſeſſed
of the love of pleaſure, would have improved and corrected it, but
as that principle was wanting, all their ſober and domeſtic virtues
could not render them agreeable in this world. .
Let us now examine the other great principle, which is of a
“ inuch ſtronger and more doubtful nature *, the love of action.”
...It is ſaid, that “ the love of action often leads to anger, to am-
“bition, and to revenge; but when it is guided by the ſenſe of
propriety and benevolence, it becomes the parent of every vir-
and if thoſe virtues are accompanied with equal abilities,
a family, a ſtate, or an empire, may be indebted for their fafe-
ty and profperity to the undaunted courage of a ſingle man
tue;
.
* The expreſion, “more doubtful,” is not altogether accurate : for it had been
already obſerved; that the love of pleaſure, in order to: its being made productive of
the greateſt part of the happineſs of private life, muſt be refined, improved, and cor-
rected; ſo that it alſo, as well as the love of action, is of a very doubtful nature.
IIad Mr Gibbon, inſtead of " more doubtful," ſaid, “ fill more doubtful,” bis
meaning would have been better expreffed.
Το
CH A P T E R IV.
139
1
!
وزیرد
{
" To the love of action, therefore, we may: attribute moſt of the
“ uſeful and reſpectable qualifications ;-* the inactive diſpoſition,
".. which-fhøuld be ſuppoſed deſtituce of it, would be rejected
"P, by the common conſent of mankind, ; as utterly incapable of
“ procuring-any public benefit to the world. But it.was not in
this world that the primitive Chriſtians were deſirous of making
" themſelves -- uſeful.”
It matters not who was the inventor of this ingenious theory;'
which ſuppoſes" the love of action" to be one of the great prin-
ciples in the conduct of rational beings.
A love of action is peculiarly diſcernible in children before they
can act on rational principles; and the moſt reſtleſs child is, ge,
nerally, the healthieſt. This is owing to an inſtinct independent
of reaſon, and proceeding from the wiſe will of the Giver of all
good; and it has no more connection with rational principles than
the power of fight has, or, the fenfe af feeling; and therefore we
cannot, with any propriety, attribute“ moſt of the uſeful and
reſpectable qualifications” to that ſpecies of the love of action.
The immaterial and immortal, ſpirit of man is always buſy, un-
leſs its exertions be impeded by ſome external or adventitious
cauſe; and hence it might be ſaid, in a metaphorical ſenſe, that
the human ſoul loves action. Is that the meaning of Mr Gibbon?
and is that all?
I write under very great diſadvantages, being unable to appre-
hend clearly the ſenſe of the phraſe “ love of action,” any more
than that of " the love of -pleafure."
It is ſaid, that “ the love of action, when guided by the ſenſe
of benevolence, becomes the parent of every virtue.” But ſince
benevolence is a virtue, how can the love of action, when guided
by it, become its parent ?
:.;Mr Gibbon aſſerts; “ that this “ love of action" often leads to
anger, to ambițion, and to revenge.” Does, "the love of action"
S2
lead
140
| IV.
C H A P T E R
!
1
{ ryone O'I'M
.
5
lead a pian to rail at: his wife, beat hiši ſervants, undermine his
rival in politics, or affaffinate bis endiny? :
loi bau 6
1. The inférence drawn by:Mr Gibbon from the thion and har
mony of the two principles might, at firſt view, appealed to point
át å diſcovery of their náture." The character;"*. -fays: he; -4.in
" which both the one and the other fhould be united and harmo-
nized, would ſeem to conſtitute the moſt perfect idea of human
' natúre;?::
is 'n pri
::.411,
· This might remind us of the character of that perſon who reali-
fed the moſt perfect idea of human nature'; 'yet'ſhould I ſay of
that perſon, whom Mr Gibbon and I were early taught to look on
as the gtkát Exemplar, that'thé' Tove of pleaſure and the love'of
action were two great principles in this conduct, Mr Gibbon
Would juſtly charge me with a weak attempt to vilify our SA-
VIOUR. :
: (Unleſs in him, we cannot look for the moſt perfect idea of hu-
man nature, br; rather, for perfection -exhibited in humañ -nä-
turé.
lindin siin
But let us review the moſt diſtinguiſhed Chårácters of mere men,
rough and very imperfect ſketches at beſt of moral'excellence;
and then decide whether the love of pleaſure and the love of ae-
tion were the great principles in the conduct of Phoción, Epámi-
nondas, and Marcus Antoninus ; of Alfred, the ſoldier, ſtudent,
and legiſlator; of Bayard, termed Le Chevalier fans reproche; of
the virtuous and gallant Sir Philip Sydney; of La Noue, whoin,
while he was engaged in the fierceſt túmults of party, all parties
applauded; and of William the Firſt;'Prince of Orange, 'who, that
he might eſtabliſh civil and religious liberty, abandoned everyo-
ther object, whether of intereſt or ambition.
And, not to multiply examples, we may affirm, that the ſimple
and mild virtues of thofe eminent fea-commanders de Ruyter and
Lawſon, flowed from a purer ſource than the love of pleaſure or
action.
31
1
$
1
.G H A P T E R IV,
141
opleidin
:?
!
6,
action:: „Whenever..the public had no occaſion for their ſervices;
they cwithdrew into the calm mediocrity of private, life, and only
returned from their vetrdab:when they were called to fight; bleedy
and die for the dandiof their fathers. 30181:. ';! 11: "i!; 's
His next fection bears this general title: "The primitive Chri-
“ ſtians condemn pleaſure and luxury.". Theſe terms are vague';
fory' inimódërñ language atrièatt; sth lihvard' pleaſure may imply
fomething that is lawful as well as what is unlawful: -and, there
are hardly two men who aſcribe theż ſame meaning to the word
luxuryou, ili
:1 bilo
But, without criticiſing on its title, let us examine the contents
of this ſection: s. The acquifitionof knowledge; ... fays Mr Gib-
bon, . the exerciſe of four feafonor fancy, and the cheerful flow
of unguarded.converfation, may employ: the šleifure of a biberal
“.'mind. Such aiſufements, however, were rejected with abhor-
rence; or admitted with the utmoſt caution;c by the ſeverity of
" the Fathers, who deſpiſed all knowledge that was not sufeful sto
os falvation, and who conſidered:all levity of diſcourſe as hlarimi-
“.rial abuſe of the gift lof ſpeech,"sli.'$26.4isin 37 ';
On comparing the title with the text, we ſee that Mr Gibbon
holds “ the primitive Chriſtians” and “ the Fathers??. to be eqúi-
valent. teritis. This friiſtake;-bbvidus toi every readerzi penyades:
his 'arguthient. Wheneverí he diſcovers; or: imagines that he has
diſcovered, a weak or abſurd opinion in the works of any primit
tive writer, he preſently concludes that all the primitive. Chri-
ſtřans'adopted it.
In the paſtage row under our view;" Fathers” istirnited to the
African writers of the third century'; 'for all the authorities on
which Mr Gibbon-relies are quoted from the workis of Tertul-
lian, Clemens Alexandrinus; and Lactantius..
It is fingular, that of the three witneſſes produced by Mr Gib-
bon for proving the opinion of the primitive Chriſtians in all,
countries,
A
/
)
3
142
2
CH A P T E R - IV.
.
;
j.!:
I
1
countries, and during three centuries, one of them, Tertullian,
fiould have been a viſionary and a rhenétic zıianother; Lactantius,
a perſon whoſe ſentiments are admitted by every ſchołar to have
been, in many and important particülars, erroneous; and a third;
Clemens Alexandrinus, a compiler of the opinions and even of the
conceits of Heathen philoſophers.
And it is, if poſſible, fillimore, fingular, that
. Tertullian, i Cle
mens Alexandrinušiand Lactantius, Naould be held out ab * de-
ſpiſers; af, all knowledge that was not mecellarycto; ſalvation.;...
for they were learned, and induſtrious to make parade of their.
learning......
JOne "might rather shave looked i for: Luch contempt of fecular
knowledge in Jacob Boehment andrbis siļliterate admirers, than in a
lawyer, să profeffor of fciences, and a rhetorician..
The truth is, that thoſe writers. did not deſpiſe feculaç know-
tedge, but they conſidered it to be of leſs utility and importance
that deligious attainments. .':
..
Poflibly Tertullian, iafter he became Montaniſt may have af
ſerted the fanatical tenet.of " devotion and ignorance ;" but that
will not affect my propofition.
Mr Gibbon proceeds to give a long . catalogue of enjoyments
and gratifications of ſenſe, ſaid to have been condemned by Cle-
mens: Alexandrinus, and other Chriſtian writers of the third cen-
tury.
1. It is faid, that" with our devout predeceſſors, the firſt fenfa-
“ tion of pleaſure was marked as the firſt moment of the abuſe
" of the ſenſes,"; 1..576. 577. But did they ſay ſo.? Did they, f
inſtance, hold, that the firſt ſenſation of an agreeable ſmell, was
the firſt moment of the abuſe of the ſenſe of ſmelling? Even the
ſtern Tertullian thought otherwiſe.: for, he relates, without the
ſlighteſt cenſure, that the Chriſtians of his age and country in-
dulged themſelves in the elegant gratification of the fenſe of fmel-
ling;
4
.:
:
3
1
..
CH A P T E R * IV.
143
1
: ,
2.
ling*; and Lactantius, after having broke looſe from the ſchools
of Heathen philofophy, ſays, that the pleaſures of the ſenſes
ought to be regulated; : -and then proceeds, like a Chriſtian mora-
lift, to condemn ſuch gratifications as are vicious f...
". The 'unfeeling candidate for Heaven 'was inſtructed to
« fhut his ears againſt the profane harniony of founds," i. 577.
The force as well as the truth of this expreſſion ſeems to reſt on
the word profane. It may well be ſuppoſed, that the Chriſtians
kept away from the muſic of their Heathen neighbours, as being
connected with the popular religion, or as having been rendered
ſubfervient to the purpoſes of debauchery.
There is no doubt that, in our days, muſic may be innocent;
and that fongs may be ſung without any offence to 'morals, or
even to decorum. But we are not from thence to infer; as ſeems
to have been inferred by ſome writers, that the primitive Chri-
ſtians, when they ſhut their ears againſt the muſic and ſongs of
the Heathen world, were moroſe, and unreaſonably 'rigid..? Oss
No one can deny, that the primitive Chriſtians did 'well-lin
keeping at a diſtance from thelmuſic and ſongs of the Heatliens,
when uſed in ſuch of their 'ceremonies'as were properly religious.
But Paganiſin was not confined to temples and the public of
fices of religion. It entered into civil life, ånd its influence ex-
tended even to 'convivial entertainments. It was the univerſal
practice of the Heathens, to perſonify virtues, habits, and quali-
ties, and to convert them into objects of worſhip. Hence a me-
trical eulogy on Fortitude or on Health became a religious hymn;
}
* “ Non'emo capiti coronam, quid tua intéreft emptis nihilominus floribus quo-
" modo utar? puto gratiùs liberis et ſolutis eti undiqué vagis. Sed et fi in coro-
“ nam coactis, nos coronam naribus novimus. 'Viderint qui per capillum adorantur,"
Apol c. 42.
+ “ Quinque fenfuum voluptates virtute fuperari atque opprimi debent; vel,
« quod paulò antè dicebam de affectibus, ad rationem fuam revocari,” Inſtit. Divin..
1
vi. 20,
and
144
G, H P T E R I. IV.
..
and hence; fon example; a Chriſtian could not have joined with
the Heathens in finging the famous hymn to Health, which ex-
tots that imaginary goddeſs as worthy. fof the higheſt, veneration.
Very few of the ſongs of the Heathens, even when they did
pot relate to the popular religion, -were-fit fori the ears of a Chri-
ftian*, at leaſt if we may judge of what is loft by: what is ſtill ex-
tanto
mai
sic.
The Chriſtians, adopted that part of the religious worship of the
Jaws which conliſted in muſic is and, therefore, it is impoſlıblę
that they could have “ ſhụt their ears againſt the harmony of
" ſounds;" it was the abuſe alone of muſic which they condemned.
Thefe preliminary, obſervations being kept in, view, we may ea-
fily account for:what Clemens Alexandrinus has ſaid, in the paſ;
fage alluded to by: Me Gibbon. So far, from:cenſuring muſic.in
general, Clemens ſays, that the lyre or the harp, that is, ſtringed
inſtruments, ought to accompany the finging of pſalms.or hymns,
and even the ſaying grace before and after meat t..,::
jlg is true, that he diſapproves of wind-muſic; and his reaſons
for this are not ſo ridiculous as, M. Barbeyrac repreſents them:::
But the decencies of modern language are ſuch, that it is im
poſſible, without deviating from them, to explain the meaning
of Clemens Alexandrinus.! .:. }.;',
:: We have feen, that in the firft and ſecond. inſtançeş: produced
be
:!;
1...:
* There is ſtill extant a Greek fong, applauding that which ought not to be once
named among us, and even urging its propriety.
+. Pædag. ii. 4. in that chapter, Clemens Alexandrinus ſays, Kai' yap aprovías
παραδεκτέον τας σώφρονας ττα δε αυτηρα, και, σωφρονικα μέλη απόλασσείαι, ταϊς, της μέθης
αγερωχίαις: καλαλείπτέον όν τας χρωματικές αρμονίας ταϊς άχρωμοις παρρινίαις, και τη αν-
dopopson jy toespxon uvoixạ. The learned reader needs not to be informed, that, ancient-
ly, a chaplet of flowers was the badge of debauchery; and that, in Greek, or logopéir
and étaipaveir, were, in effect, fynonymous. 'Hencé we may ſee what ſort of muſic it is
which the author condemns. #Morale
Morale des Pere's, c. v. g. 15. :'.' Io...
.by
1
+
?
+
:
4
tur
$
*
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
145
IV.
by Mr Gibbon, the opinions of thoſe primitive writers, to whom
he alludes, have been either miſtaken or ambiguouſly reported.
Let'us proceed to the others.
And here it may be fit to remark, that moſt of thoſe ſentiments
which are cenfured in the works of Tertullian, Clemens Alexan-
drinus, and Lactantius, occur in the works of Seneca, the philo-
ſopher and ſtateſman, who expreſſes them with more pompous
words, and in warmer ſtrains of decļamation, than any of the
three Africans uſe. So that, granting thoſe primitive authors to have
been, in the matter of Ethics, moroſe and abſurd, their moroſe-
neſs is not without great example, nor are their abſurdities fingular.
It is propoſed to compare “ the reaſonings” of the Chriſtian
writers of the third century with “ the reaſonings” of a Heathen
philoſopher.
In the courſe of this parallel, the quotations will be chiefly from
Clemens Alexandrinus, againſt whom M. Barbeyrac aimed moſt
of his learning and pleaſantry.
3.
The primitive Chriſtians were inſtructed to view with in-
s difference the moſt finiſhed productions of human art.” Sene-
ca went farther; he viewed them not only with contempt, but
even with fome degree of abhorrence. “ I cannot be perſuaded,”
ſays that eminent philoſopher, “to admit painters among the
“ profeſſors of liberal arts, any more than ſtatuaries, and thoſe who
* work in marble, and the other miniſters of luxury; in like-man-
ner, I extrude wreſtlers, whoſe whole ſcience is in oil and mud;
were I not to extrude them, I ſhould be obliged to admit per-
“ fumers and cooks, and every other perſon who beſtows his ta-
lents in furthering our pleaſures *."
* “ Non enim adducor, ut in numerum liberalium artium pictores recipiam, non
" magis quàm ftatuarios, aut marmorarios, aut cæteros luxuriæ miniſtros. Æquè luc-
tatores et totam oleo et luto conftantem fcientiam expello ex his ftudiis liberalibus :
“ aut et unguentarios recipiam, et coquos, et cæteros voluptatibus noftris ingenia ac-
56 commodantes fua," Epift. 88.
T
Thus,
)
146
CH A P T E R IV.
...
'
.: Thus, according to Seneca, Reynolds and Wilton ought not to
be diſtinguiſhed from “ the beſt wreftler on the green," or from a.
French cook who is at the head of his proféffion CL.;
Which of the primitive writers is it that affociates painters and
ſtatuaries with wreſtlers, perfumers, and cooks,' in the great aca-
demy of luxurys.
Sepeca; paſſionately exclaims againſt the firſt attempts towards
that elegance in the laying out of garden-ground which: we are
apt to admire as one of “ the moſt finiſhed productions of human
« art.” Let none who value the judgement of Seneca preſume
to fwell knolls, to ſmooth lawns, or' to formi caſcades*...
Had Seneca been acquainted with the ferpentine line of beauty,
he, no doubt, would have ſhewn, by many philoſophical argu-.
ments, that a ſtraight line, being conſonant with nature, was.
much preferable to undulations.
Seneea laughed at the abſurdity of thoſe improvers who planted
trees merely for the ſhade which they might-afford; and when his
contemporaries laughed in their turn, at- ſuch language uttered
by an improver like Seneca, he gravely diſcourſed of theory and
practice, and demonſtrated that his theory might be juſt, al-
though his practice were wrong t:
Of the primitive Chriſtians Mr Gibbonſays, that " they were
46 inſtructed to view with indifference the moſt finiſhed productions
w of human art.” But by whom were they inſtructed ? Lactan-
tius fall anſwer, Even by the Heathen philoſophers I.
4. “ Gay
1
+
r
.
* “ Luxuria vult-terras transferre- flumina præcipitare," d. Ira. 1. i. c. 16.
+ “Cur arbores, præter umbram nihil daturæ, conferuntur ?" d. Vita Beata, c. 17.
The whole paſſage well deſerves a.careful peruſal..
# "Voluptas oculorum varia et multiplex eſt, quæ capitur ex afpectu rerum quae
“ funt in uſy, vel naturâ, pel opere delectabiles. Hanc philoſophi rectiſſimè fuftulerunt:
“ Ajunt enim multà effe præclarius et homine dignius, ccelum potiùs, quàm ccelata,
“ intueris,
2
C: Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
147
*IV.
t
3
4.
« Gay apparel, magnificent houſes, and elegant furniture,
were ſuppoſed to unite the double guilt of pride and of fen-
fuality.” !i. 577..
To the like purpofe whole pages: might be tranſcribed from the
works of Seneca. Thus he ſays, “ Whenever proſperous times
“ have diffufed luxury, an attention more than uſual begins to
be paid to dreſs; next, pains are taken in the choice of houſes
s hold furniture; and, laftly; men beſtow much: ſtudy and care
even on their habitations, that they may be fo fpacious as, to
" cover whole fields, that the walls may gliften with marble
“ brought from foreign countries, that the ceilings be variegated
" with gold, and that the brightneſs of the floors correſpond
65. with that of the ceilings*.?...:
• Luxury wiſhes to be ſupported by ivory couches, to be
" clothed in purple, and to be overſpread with gold t."
“ Place before me whatever dazzles the eyes of nations and mo-
“ narchs ; let me behold the purchaſes made by blood, and with
6 the jeopardy of your lives; and the chief ſpoils won by luxury,
“ either in their order, or, which is better, all in one heap: That
66 which I firſt diſcern is a tortoiſe wrought up to the niceſt per-
“ fection of fineering, ſhells of the fouleſt and moſt ſluggiſh ani-
A
« intueri, et hoc pulcherrimum opus intermicantibus aftrorum luminibus, tanquam
« floribus adornatum, quàm picta, et ficta, et gemmis diſtincta mirari," Divin. Inftit.
1. vi. c. 20.
* « Ubi luxuriam latè felicitas fudit, cultus primùm corporis effe diligentior inci-
« pit; deinde fupellectili laboratur ; deinde in ipfas domos impenditur cura, ut in
" laxitatem ruris excurrant, ut parietes, advectis trans maria marmoribus, fulgeant,
ut tecta varientur auro, ut lacunaribus pavimentorum refpondeat nitor,” Epift. 114.
Every one acquainted with the ſtyle of Senecả muſt know with what difficulty his
meaning can be expreſſed in Engliſh. The gradation deſcribed by the philoſopher is,
in general, juft; but many of the intermediate ſteps, in the progreſs to great refine-
ment, are omitted.
t" Luxus ebore fuftinere vult, .purpurâ veſtiri, auro tegi," d. Ira, 1. i. Ç. 16.
T 2
" mals,
148
IV.
CH A P T E R
16 che
“ mals, bought at exorbitant prices, and then ſo ſtained as to
make them lofe their agreeable variety of clouding, and aſſume
appearance of real wood. Here I fee tables, a plank of tim-
“ ber valued at a fenator's fortune; and therefore the more va-
" luable becauſe twiſted into many knots by the croſs growth
“ of the tree. There, cryſtal cups, whoſe brittleneſs enhances
their price; for in the opinion of the injudicious, that very riſk
" which ought to deter us from wiſhing to pofſeſs a thing, in-
4 creaſes the pleafure of poſſeſſion. 1.fee pearls, but not one to
6 each ear; for our ears are now become inured to carry burdens,
« and pearls are united, and above them others alfo are placed.
6 The triumph of mad female extravagance over man, would not
" have been complete, had not two or three eſtates hung from
at each ear.
I ſee filken coverings, if indeed they may be denomi-
“ nated coverings, which neither protect the body nor the modeſty
w of women; and which are of ſuch a texture, that ſhe who wears
« them can hardly affirm herſelf not. to be naked *"
What
1
i
L
" Volo fub conſpectu meo ponere quæ gentiam oculos regumque præftringunt;
* volo intueri pretia ſanguinis animarumque veftrarum [f. veflratum]; prima mihi
« luxuriæ fpolia propone: five illa vis per ordinem expandere, five, ut eft melius, in
es unum acervum dare. Video elaboratam fcrupulosâ diftinctione teſtudinem, et
« fcdiffimorum pigerrimorumque animalium teſtas, ingentibus pretiis emptas, in
" quibus ipfa illa quæ placet varietas, fubditis medicamentis, in fimilitudinem veri.
[f. veri ligni]. coloratur. Video iftic menfas, et eſtimatum lignum fenatoris cenu
* fu, eò pretiofius, quò illud in plures nodos arboris infelicitas torlit. Video iftig
cryſtallina, quorum accendit fragilitas pretium ; omnium enim rerum voluptas.
is apud imperitos, ipfo quo fugare debet periculo, creſcit.--Video uniones, non fine
u gulos fingulis avribus comparatos ; jàm enim exercitatæ aures oneri ferendo funt:
u junguntur inter ſe, et infuper alii binis ſuperponuntur. Non fatis mặliebris infania
“ viros fubjecerat, nifi bina ac trina patrimonia auribus fingulis pependiffent. Video
ſericas veftes, fi veftes vocandæ funt, in quibus nihil eft quo defendi aut corpus:
aut denique pudor poffit ; quibus ſumptis, mulier parùm liquidò nudam fe non
sr efle jurabit," d. Beneficiis, l. vii. c. 9.: The reader will' not find; int Clemens.
Alexandrinus
CHAPTER
149
IV
ex,
What would have been faid, if any writer among the primi-
tive Chriſtians had aggravated the crying enormity of tortoiſe-
ſhell-ornaments, from the circumſtance of the tortoiſe itſelf being
the moſt ſluggiſh of animals? Pity that Seneca knew nothing of
the formation of filk! if he had, he would, no doubt, have in-
formed admiring poſterity, that Roman matrons took pride in
being arrayed in the entrails of vile worms!
“ In their cenfures of luxury,” ſays Mr Gibbon, “the Fathers
are extremely minute and circumſtantial," i. 577.
In deſcribing the luxury of the Romans, Seneca alſo is a
tremely minute and circumſtantial.” His eighty-fixth epiftle,
more particularly, ought to be peruſed by thoſe who talk of the
extreme minuteneſs, as well as of the pious indignation of the pri-
mitive writers. It may be doubted, whether Tertullian, in his
moſt fanatical mood, ever declaimed with greater extravagance
than Seneca does in that epinle.
Mr Gibbon proceeds to enumerate the various articles which
excited the pious indignation of the Fathers.
"]
‘Falſe hair.” Seneca, in drawing that admirable portrait
of Caligula, omits not his “ falſe hair*"
Vaſes of gold and ſilver.”. “ That which I like," ſays
Seneca, “is the clumſy plate which belonged to our homely fore-
fathers, without ornament or name of artificert.”-“ If a
man ſhould fet his wiſhes on having a houſe ſplendidly furnifh-
5.
6.
66
Alexandrinus, a differtation on tortoife-ſhell inlaged; but he will find a more ferie
ous argument, as to naked drapery, than is in Seneca. See Pædag. I. ii c. 10. p. 234.
edit. Potter:
* « Tanta capitis deftituti et emendicatis capillis afperfi deformitas," d. Conſtantia
fapientis, c. 18.
† “ Placet - argentum grave ruſtici patris, fine ullo opere et nomine artificis,"
d. Tranquillitate animi, co 1:.
ed
-
150
CH A P T E R IV
1
“ed with veſſels of gold, and with ſilver plate, the workmanſhip
of renowned ancient artiſts, with braſs, which the folly of a
« few has made precious, and with the marble of every nation,
** although all theſe things ſhould be accumulated in his poffef-
* fion, ſtill they would not fatiate defires .which are infatiable*."
7. Downy pillows.” How wretched muſt our anceftors
“ have been,” exclaims Seneca ironically; “ for the earth was
“ their bed t."" Attalus was wont to commend a pillow that
so did not yield to the body. Such a one I uſe, even in old age;
my
head leaves no mark on it f."
It may be proper to obſerve, that Clemens Alexandrinus con-
demns foft beds of down, as being inconvenient, and as tending
to obſtruct regular digeſtion 1: ſo that he aſſigns: a reafon for his
cenfure of them, which Seneca does not; and he adds,
« On the
6 other hand, it is a piece of Cynical vaịn glory, to be ſtudious of
“ ſleeping, like Diomede, on a bull's hide; this ought to be done
“ only in caſes of neceſſity +." When Seneca boaſted of his hard
;
* Si defiderat aureis fulgentem vafis fupellectilem et antiquis nominibus artificum
argentum nobile, æs paucorum inſaniâ pretioſum--et nationum omnium lapides,
“ iſta, congerantur licet, nunquam explebunt infatiabilem animum,” Confol. ad Hel.
vian, c. 11.
+ “ Scilicet majores noftri infelices erant quibus terra cubile erat," Gonç
fol. ad Helviam, c. 10.
$ 6. Laudare folebat Attalus culcitram quæ refifteret corpori; tali-utor etiam fe-
nex, in qua veftigium apparere non poflit," Epift. 108.
| Pædag. 1. ii. c.9. p. 216. in his diffuafives from what are termed -luxuries, Cle-
mens Alexandrinus generally introduces arguments with regard to the prefervation
of health. Whether the arguments be his own, or borrowed from ancient phyſicians
and moralifts, I know not.
+ « Πάλιν τε άυ κενοδοξίας έσι Κυνικής, καθάπερ τον Διομήδη, επιτηδέυειν,
«« Υπό δέσρωτο ρινών βοός άγράυλοιο.
« Jano es un äpce ni nepísaous evaykalo." Pædag. 1. ii. c. 9. p. 217.
pillow,
C'H A P T E R :IV.
IS
:***
1
pillow, Clemens Alexandrinus would ſcarcely have acquitted him
of Cynical vain glorya :-
.
“Whité bread.”. Seneca adviſes his friend and pupil Lucilius
to feed often on hard and coarſe bread *. I dine," ſays hey
" without a table, on dry bread; and, after ſuch a dinner, I need
not waſh: my hands st." To dine without a table ſeems the-tri-
umph of philoſophy, and to dine without having occaſion to
waſh, equals man with Jove !".!.:il
“ Having little, learn to be ſatisfied; and magnanimouſly utter
" aloud theſe words, Let us have water and a cake of barley, and
we will contend with Jupiter himſelf for felicity I." This ap-
pląuded ſaying was of Epicurus. The flight feems tolerably
high, yét the ſelf-ſufficiency of Seneca foared far. above it; for he:
adds,
nay, I beſeech you, not having them, let us fo con-
" tend ***
And in another paſſage, he aſks, " has that man too little; of
". whom it can only be faid, that he is not chilled with cold, that
he is not hungry or athirſt?. Jupiter himſelf poffefſes not
more th.."
It
1
1
1
!
1
* “Panis durus ac fordidus,". Epift. 18. See more to the like effé&t; Conſol. ad
Helviam, c. ii.
+ “Panis deinde ficcus, et fine menfa prandium ; poft quod non ſunt låvandæ
of manus," Epiſt. 83.
$ “ Diſce parvo efle contentus: et illam vocem magnus animofufque exclama;.
.
** Habeamus aquam, habeamus polentam, Jovi ipfi de felicitate controverfiam facia-
« mus,”. Epift. 110.
1 « 'Επίκερος ο Γαργήλιος κέκραγε λέγων, ώ ολίγον έκ: Ικανόν, τέτω γε δεν έκανόνε.
« "Ελεγη δε, έτοιμως έχειν και το Δή υπερ ευδαιμονίας αγωνίζεσθαι, μάζαν έχων και ύδωρ.”
Epicurus. ap. Ștobeum:
i**.Faciamus, oro te, etiam fi ifta defuerint,". Epift' 110:
:.H." An parum habet, quis tantùm non alget, non efurit, non fitit ? plus Jupiter ipfe
8. non habet, Epift. 119, Is this the language of the Portico, or of Bedlam: The:
ſentiments
1
1
152
CH A P T E R IV.
: It is probable that Mr Gibbon alludes to a paſſage in Clemens
Alexandrinus, when he ſays, that the Fathers condemned the uſe
of white bread. But I perſuade myſelf that he has truſted to the
accuracy of M. Barbeyrac's verſion, inſtead of confulting the ori-
ginal, which runs thus: “ Beſides, by boulting the flour, and fo
excluding the nutritive parts of the wheat, they over-refine (or
s render effeminate] that bread which, in itſelf, is light on the
“ ftomach, and
and may be eaſily digeſted
be eaſily digeſted ; and thus neceſſary
“ ſuſtenance is converted into a ſhameful gratification of taſte *"
Clemens Alexandrinus does not blame fine bread becauſe of its
delicacy, but becauſe of its unfitneſs for food. It is of no confe-
quence
whether his theory of aliments be juſt or erroneous; he
may
have been miſtaken in adopting a vulgar opinion, but the
concluſions which he draws from it are not unreaſonable.
8." The uſe of foreign wines.” This article hardly deſerved a
The pro-
ſentiments of St Paul are ſomewhat different from thoſe of the two wiſe men.
'Εγώ γαρ έμαθον εν οις ειμι, αυτάρκης ειναι. όιδα δε ταπεινεσθαι, διδα και περισσεύειν. εν παντί και
εν πάσι μεμύημαι και χορτάζεσθαι, και πειναν, και περισσεύειν και υστερείσθαι. He adds the reafon,
Freyta loxuw év tw év dura pixele pe Xpisą. Philip.iv. 11.-13. In another paffage, i. Tim.
vi. 6. 'Evrébejo is joined with autá preid, a thing which would have aſtoniſhed Se-
neca And the Chriſtian encouragement to this virtue is to be found in Heb. xiii. 5.
'Αρκόμενοι τους παρισιν αυθός γαρ ειρηκεν ου μή σε ανώ, εδ' ου μή σε καταλίπω.
.
niſe under the ſpiritual theocracy is like that under the Jewiſh, Deut. xxxi. 6.
There is more energy in “fer he himſelf hath ſaid," Lautòs yâp Espnxer], than in
all the high-sounding phraſes of Seneca.
* 'Αλλά και την ευκολον βρώσιν, τον άρτον, εκθηλύνεσιν, αποσάθονίες τα πυρά το τρόφιμοι,
as sò drayxaiov tñs spooñs, oreidos yíreoba, nidorñs, Pædag. I. ii. c. 1. p.164. M. Barbeyrac
tranſcribes the whole of the paſſage, in his notes, Morale des Peres, c. v. $ 13.; but
he tranſlates only part of it. His words are: Il met au rang des excès de bouche
• condamnable, l'uſage du pain blanc : c'eft, dit-il, effeminer et tourner un aliment
#6 neceſaire en opprobre de volupté.” This is not a full, and, perhaps, it is not a fair
tranſlation, even of the abridgement of Clemens Alexandrinus; for the French
word volupté, in its moſt common ſenſe, is much too forcible for the correſponding
word in the original.
place
CH A P T E R'. IV.
153
place in Mr Gibbon's catalogue; but ſuch as it is, Seneca did not
overlook it: for, while enumerating the luxuries of his own age,
he mentions" wine of different vintages, and of various nations *.”
Clements Alexandrinus, though a primitive Father, fpeaks very
reaſonably on this ſubject. If," ſays he,“ Chian wine be not
at hand, we ought not to be ſolicitous about it. All wines
come from God's vineyard, and any fort is enough for a.tem-
perate gueſt;-- and why may not the winė, of his own country
• fatisfy him t."
Here there is nothing of that pious indignation mentioned by
Mr Gibbon. Clemens Alexandrinus does not condemn the uſe of
foreign wines, when they can be had; but when ſuch cannot be
had, he cenſures thoſe who faſtidiouſly reject the wine of their
own country.
" Public falutations.” Seneca ſeverely cenſures the faſhion of
frequenting the levees of the powerful and the wealthy; and of
making frivolous viſits I; and he even cenſures morning ſalutations
at temples I. Had Clemens Alexandrinus. ſpoken in the like ſtyle,
j.
;
1
!
i the
* « Tot Conſulum regionumque vina,” Epift. 115.
ή και πολυπραγμονητέον τοίνυν τον δινον τον Χίον, άν απή – σωφρονι συμπότη δινος εις,
ενός γεώργιον θεε.- τί γαρ εκ απόχρη και επιχώριος επιπληρώσαι την επιθυμίαν, Pedag. 1. ii.
Ci 2. p. 184. 185. The Greek phraſe 8 TONU payporntéor, anſwers nearly to the col.
loquial phraſe in Engliſh, “there is no need to make much work about it.” The word
Oupnótus, is tranſlated "gueſt," becauſe there occurs not any word in the Engliſh
language which conveys the exact notion of ovuzótns. This is fingular in a nation
compoſed of clubs. Clemens Alexandrinus ſays, “ all wines come from God's vine-
yard." The reader will remark, that in this paſſage there are metrical numbers;
and, therefore, it is probable that here the author, as on numberleſs other occaſions,
alludes to ſome paffage in a Greek poet.
| De Brevitate vitæ, c. 14.; d. Beneficiis, l. vi. c. 33. 34. Theſe paffages. are very
circumſtantial, and no leſs curious.
I “ Quomodo fint dii colendi, folet præcipi.--Vetemus ſalutationibus matutinis
“ fungi, et foribus affidere templorum : humana ambitio iftis officiis capitur. Deum
U
1
" colic
154
, 0 HAPTE R. IV.
in
7
66
the example of the philoſopher might have afforded fome apology
for his pious. indignation; but ſomething very different was
meant than that which M, Barbeyrac calls fe faluer de mue,"
and which Mr Gibbon inadvertently renders“ public. faluta-
66 tions."
Clemens Alexandrinus fays, of “ the holy kiſs” mentioned in
St Paul's epiſtles," that it is not by the uſe of that ceremony, but
by the demonſtration of good-will, that we are to judge of real
“ Chriſtian love; that nothing bred more diſturbance in the
church, than that ceremony did when ufed by perſons void
of the real benevolence of the heart ; that the kiſs afforded
" ground for much abuſe and ſcandal; that it was myftical, and
“ hence Si Paul denominates it holy.": All this is unexceptionable;
and the inference which Clemens Alexandrinus ſeems to draw
from it is this, that the ceremony ought to be limited to the af-
femblies of the Chriſtians at the celebration of their myſteries or
fecret religious worfhips and that it ought to be performed with
gravity. Then he adds that remark, which Barbeyrac firſt, and
after him Mr Gibbon, have thought fit to detach from his
gene-
ral argument : “But Chriftians are not partakers even of the
“ ſmalleſt portion of divine.grace, when, with a fooliſh forward-
“ nefs, they falute each other in the public ways, fo as to wish to
* be remarked by the Heathens *": Let any one who underſtands
;.
" colt qui novit," Epit. 99. This is one example, "out of a thoáfand, of the ftate
of the Heathen world. The philofoplierg, law....deſpiſeda..and devided the fuperfti-
ripn of the peoples, and yet they did not atteinpt to introduce any. thing better in ies.
place.
* Αγάπη δε κ ένα φιλήματα άλλ' έχω εντούα κρίνεται δε δε, αδέν αλλ' ή φελήματι καταψο»
φεσι τας εκκλησίας, το φιλέκ ένδον εκ έχοντας αυτό, και γαρ δή, και τυτο εκπέπληκεν υπονόιας
αισχρας και βλασφημίας το αναίδην χρήσθαι των φίλήματι, όπερ έχρήν είναι μυστικόκ. "ΑΓΙΟΝ
αυτό κέκληκεν ο Απόστολος, κ. τ. ε.-- αλλα μην και οι κατά τας οδες αγαπητών ασπασμός, ,
παρρησίας ακοήτε γέμοντες, καταφακών τους εκτος είναι βελομένων, έδε ελαχίσης μέτοχεσι
xoipitas. Pædag. 1. iij. c. 11. p: 301.
Greek,
ii
(
;
.
}
{
CHAPTER
155
IV.
1
Greek, judge whether this be the language of fanaticiſm, or of
found reaſon and prudence, and then let him ſay, whether Bar-'
beyrac was not much to blame in miſleading Mr Gibbon.
9.
The uſe of warm baths.". Here Seneca loſes all patience.
He exclaims againſt every ſort of warm bath, whether natural or
artificial, whether wet or dry*. And here, which is not always ,
the cafe, he confirms his precèpts by his owit example. “Through-
out life," ſays he, “ I have avoided warm baths t.". It ſeems
that, in his younger days, he frequented the ſchool of Attalus
the philofopher; froin him he learnt, among other things, to love
poverty. On his return into the world, he continued to practiſe
a few of the leſſons which Actalus had taught him; and particu-
larly that of abſtaining from the uſe of the warm bath, and from
the eating of oyſters I. As to “ the love of poverty,” we know
not well what became of it; in all likelihood, it became purely
Platonic.
The practice of ſhaving the beard.” Seneca ſays, “while
occupied in the ſmoothing and poliſhing of our bodies, we ex-
tinguiſh any fpark that may yet remain of virtuous manners li."
10.
* Quid mihi cum iftis calentibus ftagnis ? quid eum ſudatoriis, in quæ fiecus vapor
66 corpora ?.
exhauſturus includitur ?" Epift. 51. “Ubicunque ſcatebunt aquarum ca-
" lentium venæ, ibi nova diverſoria luxuriæ excitabuntur," Epift. 89. I tranſlate
this for the benefit of my unlearned readers. “Where-ever there are new.watering-
“ places, there will be lodging-houſes and ordinaries.". This great truth is foretold
in elegant Latin.
+
“ In omnem vitam balneum fugimus," Epift. 108.
“Cùm verò commendare paupertatem cæperat, et oſtendere, quàm quicquid
“ ufum excederet, pondus effet ſupervacuum et grave ferenti: ſæpe exire è ſchola
“ pauperi libuit. — Inde mihi quædam permanfere, Lucili. Magno enim in omnia
« impetu veneram : deinde ad civitatis vitam reductus, ex bene cæptis pauca fervavi,"
&c. Epift. 108.
Adhuc quicquid eft boni moris extinguimus, laevitate et politurâ corporum."
Nat. Quæft. 1. vii. c. 31.
i
U2
With
156
IV
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
“
“ With what propriety," exclaims he, ironically,
can thoſe
men be faid to have nothing to do, who, every day, have ma-
ny hours to get rid of with their barber, while each ſingle hair
" that may chance to have ſprung up, fince the night before, is
cropped *?"
He aſks, What is the uſe of mirrors, or of any ſmooth ſurface
reflecting objects that are placed before it? His firſt anſwer is a
negative one; “Not ſurely that we might be enabled to pluck at
our beards, and poliſh the face of a man t!"
“ A nice and effeininate perſon ſpeaks in dainty language, ſuch
as they uſe who pluck out their beard, or who have it, and
rub it ſmooth about their lips, and leave the reſt of it ſtroked
.
Thus far the philoſopher. Let us now hear the Montaniſt.
Mr Gibbon ſays, “the practice of ſhaving the beard is, according
to the expreſſion of Tertullian, a lie againſt our own faces, and
an impious attempt to improve: the works of the Creator.
d. Spectaculis, c. 23."
Tertullian abounds in extravagant fancies, but that aſcribed to
him by Mr Gibbon is none of them.
While declaiming againſt public ſhews, Tertullian uſes ſome ex-
preſſions which Mr Gibbon ſeems to have miſunderſtood.
66 down I."
5
1
1
<!.
6
* “Quid illos otiofos vocas, quibus apud tonforem multæ horæ tranſmittuntur,
" đum decerpitur fi quid proximâ nocte fuccrevit ?" d. Brevitate vita, c. I 2.
+ “Non in hoc, fcilicet, ut ad fpeculum barbam faciemque [f. fauceſque] velle-
remus, aut ut faciem viri poliremus,” Nat. Quaft 1. i. c. 17.
1 “ Delicati hominis tenera et fluša oratio eft, quod vides iftos fequi, qui
" aut vellunt barbam, aut intervellunt, qui labra prorſus tondent et abradunt, fer-
• vatâ et fubmiſsâ cæterâ parte,” Epit. 114. Perhaps my verſion does not exactly
deſcribe the elegant trimming of thoſe days. One thing is remarkable ; Seneca ſeems
to aſcribe the decay of eloquence to ſhaving, while he himſelf, with his rough Stoicat
beard, contribured more, by his own example and authority, to that decay, than all
the fmooth-chinned coxcombs of Rome.
It
Ć H A P T E R IV.
157
It is difficult, in a literal tranſlation, to render intelligibly into
Engliſh, the harſh and obſcure language of Tertullian. The fol-
lowing paraphraſe may be thought to expreſs his meaning.
..“ Can be be acceptable in the fight of God, who uſes a rafor to
“ make himſelf appear different from what he is ? Such a man is
“ unfaithful towards his own countenance, not only by disfigu-
ring it, but alſo by ſubjecting it to contumely: for he ſhaves
" his head that he may perſonate bald Saturn; and his chin, that
" he may perſonate the goddeſs Iſis, and the young Bacchus :
" and, moreover, in ludicrous exhibitions, he aſſumes the guiſe
“ of a buffoon; and ſubmits to the inſult of having his cheeks
" ſmitten, as if he meant to turn into ridicule that precept of our
Lord, to him that ſmiteth one cheek, offer the other*.”
This paraphraſe may appear free, but the intelligent reader
will judge whether it deviates from the ſenſe of the original.
It is plain, that Tertullian does not ſpeak of the practice of ma-
ving the beard, as oppoſed to the letting it grow.
To have a ſmooth chin' might be neceſſary for one who repre-
fented the character of lfis or Bacchus; but Tertullian, however
abfurd his imaginations were, could not have ſuppofed that it was
neceſſary that a man ſhould fhave his beard for qualifying himſelf
aptly to repreſent the character of old Saturn.
We muſt grant, that Clemens Alexandrinus condemns the
practice of ſhaving the beard. This is not ftrange in an author
who had the Greek philoſophers conſtantly before his eyes; yet he
permits that trimming of the beard, againſt which Seneca fo pa-
thetically declaims.
Beſides, if any one will take the pains of examining the Pæda-
16 An Deo - placebit, qui vultus fuos novaculâ mutar ? Infidelis erga
faciem
“ fuam, quam non contentus Saturno, et Ifidi, et Baccho proximam facere, inſuper
& contumeliis alaparum objicit, quafi de. præcepto Domini laudat, [... ludat]," do
Spe&taculis, C. 23
gogus
158
CH A P T E R IV.
gogus, b. iii. c. 3. he will perceive that Clemens Alexandrious
treats of unutterable enormities which, in his days, were connect-
ed with the faſhions condemned by him. The perſons of whom
he ſpeaks, miniſtered to the abominations of wretches, whoſe
taſte in love,” that I may uſe the civility of modern language,
“ whoſe taſte in love was not altogether correct.'
If, in our own days, there were a particular dreſs appointed
by cuſtom to courtezans, he would not be termed a fevere mora-
liſt who ſhould cenſure virtuous women for aſſuming that dreſs,
and ſhewing falſe colours.
11. The only remaining article in Mr Gibbon's catalogue is,
" the prohibition of the uſe of any colour except white.”
Here, it is probable, that Mr Gibbon alludes to a paſſage in
which Tertullian argues, for the uſe of wool in its natural colour;
becauſe, if the Divinity had thought fit that wool ſhould have
been purple or ſky-blue, he would have created ſheep of thoſe co-
lours * The treatife which contains this rhapſody, bears other
marks of a deplorable diſorder of mind; and if Mr Gibbon relies
on ſuch a paſſage, from ſuch a work, for proving the opinion of
the primitive writers, and the practice of the primitive church, it
muſt be allowed that his proof falls wonderfully Thort of the
charge.
Clemens Alexandrinus fays, that " white and plain raiment is
" the moſt conſonant to men of clear conſciences and of genuine
" internal piety t; and that " white is the beſt colour for the
peaceable and the illumined t.."
ܝܺ
* “ Quis enim eft veftium honor juſtus, de adulterio colorum injuftorum ? Non
66 placet Deo quod non ipfe produxit, nifi fi non potuit purpureas et aerinas oves
« naſci jubere," d. Cultu fæminarum, 1. i. c. 8.
+ Τας δε λευκές, και η νόθες τα ένδον, λευκαίς και απεριέργοις αρμοδεώτατον εσθήσι χρήσθαι.
Pædag. 1. ii. c. 10. p. 234.
+ Ειρηνικούς άρα ανθρώπους και φοτεινούς κατάλληλοι το λευκόν. Pedag. 1. iii. c. 11.
P. 286.
With
CH A P T E R IV.
159
}
With reſpect to Clemens Alexandrinus, as a Chriſtian author, it
matters not whether this opinion be ſhallow or profound, dull or
ingenious, ſenfe or nonſenſe; for it is mere Platoniſm, and accom-
panied with a quotation in the very words of Plato*; ſo that, as to
this particular at leaſt, we may hope to hear no more of the pious
indignation of the Father, in his preference of white to all other
colours: he did but copy from an original which, according to
the preſent taſte; is unexceptionable.
Seneca does not enjoin the uſe of white garments alone to his
contemporaries; neither could he, without introducing confuſion
into the cuſtoms of Rome, civil as well as religious. But
of the enormities which afford topics for the eloquence of that
philoſopher, have been altogether overlooked by the primitive
writers; ſuch as, 1. The uſe of any tranſparent ſubſtance corré-
ſponding to the glaſs-windows of modern times; 2. The employ-
ing of ſtoves, in order to keep chambers warm; 3. The bringing
of fiſh alive to market; and, 4. The cooling, of liquors with
ice or ſnow:
ift, As to what might be denominated" glaſs-windows." Se-
neca ſays, “How much do ſome perſons of our times. cenfure
But.maný
ευκά πρέ-
i
* Ο πάντα άρισος Πλάτων, υφήν εκείνην αποδέχεται, ή μή πλέον έργον πρόσεξι γυναικός σώ-
φρονος, χρώματα δε λευκα', πρέποντα άν ειη σεμνότητι, και άλλοθι, λέγει, και εν υφή : βάμματα
δε μή προσφέρειν, αλλ' ή προς τα πολέμε κοσμήματα. ib. The correfponding paflage in
Plato runs thus : Yφήν δε μη πλέον έργον γυναικός μιας έμμηνον. χρώματα δε λευκά
ποντ’ άν θεαϊς ειη, και άλλοθι, και εν υφή. βαμματα δε μή προσφέρειν, αλλ' ή προς τα πολέμε
xoo punuar.d, d. Republica, 1. xii. p. 691. edit. Ficini. The learned reader will ob.
ſerve, that Clemens Alexandrinus has interpolated the virtuozs woman from the Old
Teftament, and moral.comelinefis from the New; but that, as to the reft, he quotes
Plato, and argues analogically from the ſentiments of that philoſopher. What fol-
lows in Plato well deſerves the attention of thoſe who imagine, chat trifling is the peo-
culiar attribute of the primitive Fachers.
Scipio
160
IV.
CH A P T E R
66
Scipio for his clowniſh manner of life, in not having had large
panes to give light to his warm bath *.”
2dly, “ Stoves.”_" A flight breath of air will be dangerouſly
chilling to him whoſe eating rooms are kept in an equal tempe-
rature by means of warm air conducted under the floor, and
“ diffufed around the walls t."
3dly, “ The bringing of fiſh alive to market." __“We were
wont to be ſurpriſed at the nicety of thoſe men who would
not touch a fiſh, unleſs on the day that it was caught, and
ss unleſs, as the phraſe is, it taſted of the fea. Hence, fiſh were
conveyed by poft; hence, way was made for the carriers, as
* they hurried along, bawling, and out of breath. To what a
length have the refinements in good living come! That fiſh is
now conſidered as ſtale which was caught and killed to-day.
5. Is he alive? ſays the Epicure. I cannot depend upon you in a mat-
ter of ſuch moment; let me have ocular demonſtration : bring him
so hither, that I may ſee him die 1.."
4thly, But it is on the ſubject of ice that Seneca exerts his ut-
moſt abilities in rhetoric.—“ We have diſcovered the ſecret of pi-
"'ling up water ſo as to make it reſiſt the warmth of ſummer,
► and defy its greateſt heat, by the coldneſs of the repoſitory pre-
*;
* " Quantæ nunc aliqui rufticitatis damnant Scipionem, quòd non in caldarium
“ fuum latis fpecularibus diem admiſerat," Epift. 86.; that is, in colloquial lan-
guage, “it was ſhockingly ungenteel for Scipio,”. &c. On the ſame ſubject he ſays
elſewhere, “Quem ſpecularia femper ab adflatu vindicarunt,” d. Providentia, c. 4.
+ “Cujus cænationes ſubditùs et parietibus circumfuſus calor temperavit, hunc
“ levis aura non fine periculo ftringet," d. Providentia, c. 4.
† “ Mirabamur tantum in illis effe faftidium, ut nollent attingere, niſi eodem die
“ captum piſcem: qui, ut aíunt, faperet ipfum mare. Ideò curſu advehebatur, ideò
“ gerulis, cum anhelitu et clamore properantibus, dabatur via. Quò pervenere de-
« liciæ ! is pro putrido piſcis affertur, qui [non] hodiè eductus, hodiè occiſus eft.
56 Nefcio de re magna tibi credere : ipfe oportet mihi credam : huc afferatur, coram me
14 animam agat," Nat. Quæft. 1. iii. c. 18.
pared
1
161
,CHAPTER
IV.
7
“: pared for that purpoſe; apdrwhat have we got for all our
pains? why, truly, that we may be able to purchaſe water,
" which we might have had for nothing *?"
ir
" Wrenched is the 'ftate of a lick perſon! why? becauſe he
66 does not melt ſnow; becauſe he does not add to the coldneſs of
his draught already mixed in' a large goblet, by laying pieces
of bruiken ice on ict."
You take Socrates to have been hardly dealt with, becaufe
" he quaffed, the ſtate-poiſon no otherwiſe than as a medicinal
“ draught beſtowing immortality, and diſcourſed of death till it
“ arrived'; becauſe his blood froze, and, a chillneſs, gradually co-
! ming over him, his pulfę ceaſed to heat, How much more is
" he to be envied than they for whom ſome impuré miniſter of
" debauchery drops. ſnow into a gold cup I?"
“ Women alſo, as well as men, nibble at ſnow, to give eaſe to
“ their boiling ſtomachs ||. Can you doubt that ſuch ſummer-
" fnow is the cauſe of obątructions in the liver +?"
The moſt acute cenſurer of the ancient Chriſtian writers will
hardly be able to point out in any of them, Tertullian himſelf not
r!
1
** Invenimus quomodo ftiparemus aquam, ut ea æftatem vinceret, et contra anni
« fervorem defenderetur loci frigore. Quid hac diligentiâ confecuti fumus? Nempe
* ut gratuitam mercemur aquam," Nat. Quaft. 1. iv. c. 13.
4.“ O infelicem ægrum ! quare ? quia non nivem diluit; quia non rigorem potio-
u nis fuæ, quam capaci fcypho mifcuit, renovat fraétâ inſuper glacie.” Epift. 78.
1 “ Malè tractatum Socratem judicas, quòd illam potionem publicè mixtam, non
" aliter quàm medicamentum immortalitatis obduxit, et de morte difputavit ufque
« ad ipfam! malè cum illo actum eft, quòd gelatus eſt fanguis, ac, paulatim frigore
" inducto, venarum vigor conftitit ! Quantò magis huic invidendum eſt, quàm illis-
“ quibus exoletus - ſuſpenfam auro nivem diluit!” d. Providentia, c. 3. The'rhe.
tofician blends nix and exoletus !
#" [Feminæ] æquè nivem rodunt, folatium ftomachi æftuantis," Epift. 95.
+ The phraſe " callum obducere," is tranſlated, “ the cauſe of obſtructions."
The original is not very intelligible; and, perhaps, Seneca's knowledge as a phyfi.
cian may here be queftioned.
X
excepted,
3
162
T
CH A P T E R IV.
£
excepted, more ridiculous declamations than thofe of Senecasa-
gainſt iced liquors.
Indeed, many things cenſured by paſſionate moralifts, under
the vague appellations of luxuries, are, in themſelves, indifferent,
and are cenſured merely on account of their being new or uncom-
mon. This may be ſhewn in the four particulars, of which Se-
neca has ſaid fo much, and which are not mentioned by the Chri-
fian writers in queſtion.
In our days, every Engliſh gin-ſhop has more convenient, and
perhaps more elegant glaſs-windows, than an Emperor, or even
the freed-man of an Emperor, had in the days of Seneca. Through-
out the northern continent of Europe, ſtoves are uſed in the ha-
bitation of the mechanic as well as in the palaces of ſovereigns.
The Dutch boor purchaſes live fiſh in the market; and iced liquors
are drank by the young Lazzaroni of Naples, men generally with-
our houſe and without home.
Should theſe obſervations ſerve as an apology for Seneca, it is
well; but ibat cândour which forgives him will, no doubt, 'be
equally indulgent to others, who, to ſay the very worſt of them
have only offended as he did.
The caſe of Tertullian is the leaſt favourable of any, and yet
candour may poſlibly find ſomething to be urged in behalf of a
man who, amid all his extravagancies, could thus expreſs him-
ſelf. “May we not, in long-ſuffering, ſafely commit every thing
to God? If our injuries, he is our avenger; if the damages.
“ which we have ſuſtained, he will make reſtitution; if our pain,
" he is our phyſician; and ſhould we lay down our life, it'is he
" who can raiſe us again *."
My labour, in inſtituting this compariſon between the extrava-
3
* “ Satis idoneus patientiæ fequeſter Deus. Si injuriam depoſueris penes eum,
u ultor eſt; 'fi damnum, reſtitutor eſt; fi dolorem, medicus eſt; fi mortem, refuf.
citator eft," d. Patientin, C. 15.
gant
CH A P T E R IV.
163
gant fancies of Seneca and thoſe aſcribed to ſome of the primitive
writers, will have been ill beſtowed, ſhould my readers imagine
that I mean to vindicate any errors in the primitive writers, by
pointing out ſimilar errors in an eminent Heathen philoſopher.
Mr Gibbon had full liberty to ſelect, from all the primitive
writers, whatever tended to expoſe them to ridicule; and yet,
even with the aid of the miſtakes and exaggerations of Bar-
beyrac, he has not been able to produce, from their works, ány
inſtances of injudicious and trifling cenſures on the luxuries and
conveniencies of life, which are not to be equalled, if not ex-
ceeded, by the paſſionate declamations of Seneca on the like topics.
But further, it was in the ſchools of Heathen philoſophy
that the Chriſtian writers learnt to declaim in that ſtyle, which
Mr Gibbon afcribes to pious indignation.". Let us be confift-
ent, and not blame the ſcholars, while we extol the maſters whom
they choſe to imitate*
After what has been ſaid, we need not make many obſervations
on the conclufion which Mr Gibbon thinks fit to draw.
« Chriſtianity was introduced among the rich and the polite, the
a obſervance of theſe fingular laws was left, as it would be at
* preſent, to the few who were ambitious of ſuperior ſanctity.
" When
* Of this prepoſterous imitation many inſtances might be given. The following,
ſelected from the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, will ſerve for a ſpecimen. That
learned man attempted to introduce into the Chriſtian religion many of the Stoical
paradoxes. He aſſerts, that the Chriſtian ought to be exempted from paflions,
and that perfecution is not an evil. Εξαιρετέον άρα τον Γνωσικών ημϊν και τέλειον, από
παντός ψυχικε πάθος. ή μεν γαρ γνώσεις, συνάσκησιν. η συνάσκησις δε, έξιν ή διαθεσιν. η κα-
τάσασις δε και τοιάδε, απάθειαν εργάζεται, και μετριοπάθειαν. απάθειαν δε καρπεται παντελής
tñs émilvuías éxxoti. Stromat. I. vi. c. 9. p.777.--Env 8 lép from furn, ótav Srce
κωσιν υμάς εν τη πόλει τούτη φεύγετε εις την άλλην. "Εχ ως κακόν το διώκεσθαι παραίνει
φεύγειν. κ. τ. €. Stromat. 1. iv. c. 10. p. 596. There is much more to the like
purpoſe. But we have not ſo learnt-Chriſt!
+
X2
* But
164
G H A P T E Ri IV.
". But it is always eaſy as well as agreeable, for the inferior ranks
of mankind, to claim a merit from the contempt of that pomp
St and pleaſure which fortune has placed beyond their reach, The
“ virtue of the primitive Chriftians, like that of the firſt . Ro-
mans, was very frequently guarded by poverty and igno-
rance*."? i. 577.
One Hould ſuppoſe from this concluſion, that the uſe of falfe
hair, of warm baths, and the practice of thaving the bearch, and
the like, were things appropriated to the opulent, and that they
were placed beyond the reach of the inferior ranks of mankind.
And another inference, ftill more fingular, "might be drawn
from it, that every thing faid by the primitive writers on the
fubject of ſuppoſed, luxuries, was aimed againſt the gratifications in
which the Heathens indulged themſelves, and had nothing to de
with the manners of the Chriſtians themſelves.
Mr Gibbon forgets that he is treating of a period which com-
prehends two hundred years, and that his inferences 'afe drawn
from authors who lived in the third century, and he will find ik
difficult to feconcile what he ſays here with what he, afterwards
fays, p. $912-51596. of the wealth of the church, produced by the
oblations of believers.
Mr Gibbon thus proceeds: “ The chaſte ſeverity of the Fa-
w thers, in whatever related to the commerce of the two fexes,
s flowed from the fame principle, their abhorrence of every enjoy-
$6 ment which might gratify the ſenſuał, and degrade the fpiritun!
nature of man. It was their favourite opinion, that if Adam
is had preſerved his obedience to the Creator, he would have li-
ved for ever in a ſtate of virgin purity; and that ſome harmleſs
le
* The compariſon between the primitive Chriſtians and the firſt Romans, might
afford a wide field for criticiſm; and it might be fhewn, that the word ignorance, with
which the period concludes, is egregioully miſapplied.
is
:
1
66. mode
CHAPTER :IT.
265
1
),
1
os
"9. mode .gf megetation; might have peoplęd Paradife with a raçe of
ingącent and immortalibaiggs.";4. 5772:57&r.
Mr Gibbon adds, in a note, Juſtin M. Gregory of Nylfag:Aų-
gufting Sifftrongly inclined to this opinion,”
The opinion of Gregory of, Nyffa, of. Augufim, or of any other
Chriſtian writer who lịwęd after Chriſtianity came to be eſtabliſhed
by law, cannot enter into, Mr Gibbon's inquiry as to the cauſes
of the rapid progreſs of our seligion la
It is difficult for an author to conceal his favqurite opinions, even
when decency requires fomg referve, jar when prudence hiņders-
him from being very expliçit. But the primitive writers, who, it
feemsi laid down the law to all,pther Chriſtiansg could not haave
been deterred from publiſhingia favourite.coainzonby any ſuch
conſiderations. Yet fo it is that Mr.Gibbon has not pointed
out, among the writers of the firit three centuries, any thing of
that kind, except in a paffage of Juſtin, M to which he refers with-
out quoting it.
:$ 5:0 nigilt sil oi 9240
The diſtinction between Fenfual, and Spiritual, which Mr Giba
bon aſcribes to the Fathers, was made by certain ueretịcs, called
Encratite, and afterwards.by Marcion, and the viſionaries who
followed his opinions
A plain man, an peruſing the firm, and ſecond chapters of Ger
neſis, would not have aſcribed the holy union of the fexes
$
.
1
:ii!'
I
By the aid of. Barbeyraſ, I have diſcovered the ſentiments, which Auguſtin ,en
tertained on this fubje&t. Although abſurd enough, they do not ſeem to be ſuch as:
Mr Gişbón aſcribes to him., See Moraleđes Peres, civ. 632. I have lately diſcover-
ed, tfiat a very ingenīdu's perſon has made the ſame obſervation, and has pointed out
a want of accuracy in that hiſtorian, whom he admires. In the fame critique, he ſays
:
ſomething of farcaſms, which is fingular enough. The treatiſe here alluded to,
ought to have been intitled, “ Effay on, female çelibacy.” Its preſent title is much
to9 ludicrous for a trčatife written, as may be preſumed, with a grave purpoſe. As.
to the opinion of Gregory of Nýlkä, I have alſo reacchića. Barbèýrac, but cannotdi
t
Alir
wt
I
cover it
166
CH A P T E R . IV.
s
D.
I!
to man's diſobedience ; and, on hearing the poſitive declaration
of our Lord, he muſt have concluded that marriage was in the be-
ginning *
But, unhappily, there 'aroſe in the Chriſtian church' many per-
fons who affected to be wiſe, not only above what was written,
but alſo againſt what was written; and I doubt not that ſome one
or other of thoſe perfons might have’uttered the extravagancies
which Mr Gibbon is pleaſed to number among the favourite opi-
nions of the primitive writer's .
To return from thoſe viſionaries to Mr Gibbon: He ſays, “the
" uſe of marriage was permitted only to the fallen poſterity of
56 Adam, as a neceſſary expedient to continue the human ſpecies,
“ &c.-The 'hëfitation of the orthodox caſuiſts on this intereſting
s ſubject, betrays the perplexity of men, unwilling to approve an
«« inſtitution which they were compelled to tolerate.” i. 578.
It is ſaid, in illuſtration, that "the virgins of Africa- permitted
prieſts and deacons to ſhare their bed, and gloried—in their un-
« fullied purity. This new ſpecies of martyrdom ſerved only to
56 introduce a new ſcandal into the church.” i. 579.
Much attention has been beſtowed in heightening this picture
with the warmeſt colours: but it ſeemed unneceſſary to tranſcribe
any more of his narrative than whạt might ſerve to render the
ir
3
* Matth. xix. 4. & 8.
+ Of the firſt author of this unexampled abſurdity, I know nothing.-Euripides,
furnamed the woman-hater, introduced into his Hippolytus, a complaint and remon-
ftrance againſt the gods on this ſubject
. Sir Thomas Brown, as every one knows,
repeated it; and our great poet dignified it by his lines,
Go why did Góá;
" Creator wiſe," &c.
The fatirical declaimer, the humoriſt, and the offended huſband, fatisfied themſelves
with propoſing an improvement on the works of Providence: But the Fathers of Me
Gibbon went farther, and conjectured that man was created anew by reaſon of the
fall!
ſubject
f
ri
1
CHAPTER
167
IV.
ſubject intelligible. Mr Gibbon adds, in a note, that “ Bayle
" has, amuſed himſelf and his, readers on this very delicate fub-
ject.” Bayle treats of very delicate ſubjects with very little-de-
licacy. His language is not that of a well-bred man; and the
topics on which he amuſes himſelf and his readers, are not al-
ways judiciouſly choſen. It is from him that,Mr. Gibbon has
borrowed the phraſe of new fpecies of martyrdom.” Mr Gib-
bon, in his ſecond volume, beſtows the epither of The MALI-
CIOUS on Bayle.
In - the notes, Cyprian, Epift. iv. is quoted as the voucher for
this fact; and, no doubt, the natural inference from it is, that
towards the middle of the third century, the prieſts and deacons
of the numerous churches of Africa, were either crazy fanatics,l, fit
only for a mad-houſe, or luxurious hypocrites, well deſerving a
place in a houſe of correction.
He will think himſelf indebted to me for obferving, that here he
has relied, on the good faith of others; and that he has not conſulted
the original authority': For there is not a ſingle word in the 4th
epiſtle of Cyprian and his brethren to Pomponius; importing that
any prieſt was even ſuſpected of the indecent extravagancies with
which Mr Gibbon, being himſelf milled, amuſes his young 'read-
One deacon was ſuſpected ; and him Pomponius, before he
had conſulted, with Cyprian, prohibited froin the exerciſe of his.
ſacred functions. Why then did Mr Gibbon {peak; ſo poſitively
concerning the prieſts and deadons of Africa ? It was becauſe he
truſted to the eyes of another, who choſe to fee, in the works of
Cyprian, what is not to be found there; and; thus, attempted to
fix an indiſcriminating hain on the Afriqan; eccleſiaſtics.r.;
What would be ſaid of an hiſtorian who ſhould obſerve; that
in the reign of Queen Anne, the lawyers at the Engliſh bar were
infidels, becauſe Toland, a lawyer, wrote in that reign; or that,
in the reign of George 1, the bookſellers of London employed
prielts
ers.
f
Idii
1.68
CHAPTER 1. P.
prieſts and deacons of the church of England: to write again at
Chriſtianity, becauſe, it that reign, Woolíton, a snad clergy-
man, pubļiſhed his rhapſodies on the miraclesrof Jefus? 1,5
This is borítowed from Barbieyrac 8:11"La vérité eft, que les
ss Peres de l'Egliſe 'regardoient du thoinis implicitement le deſius
as du mariage, ſecond ou prémier; comme 'ayant par lui même
aquelque choſe d'impur, i et qui-téent de la corruption de notre ina-
*trére els n'oforent cependant svouer la choſe tvāt crament,
" d'autant plus qu'ils falloit éloigner les ſoupçons de conformité
« avec les Montaniſtes. mainen Peut-être même que ces hérétiques
* preſſoient les Péres pár des conſéquences tirées de ce qu'ils
établilloient eux-memes au fujet dési fecondes põdés, et les sem
si duifoiéne' par là "a. Vai nětellité de faire, par rapport aux premi-
eres, te aux fecondés, ces aveus faibeu d'accord au fond avec
« leurs idées *.?
Mf Gibbori might, without any impropriety, 'make an elegant
paraphrafe of the ruftic French of Barbeyrać. It were to be with
ed, however, that he had adiverted to this cirėumſtance, that Bar-
beyrac ſpakje of the opinions of Jeroin and others, who, living
after the civil eſtabliſhment of Chriſtianity, could not, by their
doctrine and writings, have either retarded or accelerated its pro-
greſs before that eſtabliſhment.
It is added; "The fenfual connection was refined into a reſem-
“ blance of the myſtic union of Chriſt with his church, and was
pronounced to be indiſoluble either by divorce or death."
This extraordinary propoſition is not ſupported by any autho-
fities; and yet it would require fome very ſtrong evidence indeed,
to perſuade ús, that in the former caſe the primitive writers di-
rectly contradi&ted our Lord, and in the latter, St Pault.
1
66
5
16 The
$
• Morale des Peres, c. iv. $ 31.
+ Matth. xix. 9.; Rom. vii. 1. 2.;. 1. Cor. vii. 39. From the fimilitude of marriage
and the myſtic union of Chriſt with his church, the fair concluſion is, that adultery
1
or
CH A P T E R
169
IV.
content
1
The practice of ſecond nuptials was branded with the name
“ of a légal.'adultery; and the perfons who were guilty of fo ſcan-
“ dalous an offence againſt Chriſtian purity, were foon excluded
" from the honours, and even from the alms, of the church.”
There is added in a note, “ See a chain of tradition, from Juſtin
“. Martyr to Jerome, in the Morale des Peres, c. iv. $.6.-16." i. 578.
· M. Barbeyrac, on this occafion, ſerves as the ſubſtitute of Mr
Gibbon, ſo it is againſt him that my argument muſt be directed.
Some things, however, ought to be obſerved in the entrance.
The opinion of ſeven or eight individuals, who lived in differ-
ent'ages and countries, can hardly form" a chain of tradition."
As 'to " the chain of tradition" after the eſtabliſhment of Chri-
ſtianity by law, it is not connected with Mr Gibbon's ſubject, or
with the purpoſe of theſe obſervations.
And with regard to the opinions of Chriſtian writers who lived
'before that
æra,
it
may, perhaps, appear in the fequel, that Mr
Gibbón 'ought 'rather to have relied on his own reading, and his
own impartial judgement, than on halky compilations made by
Barbeyrac in the heat of controverſy.
Thus much having been premifed, let us examine the different
links in this chain of tradition-forged by Barbeyrac.
According to Mr Gibbon, the firſt teſtimony to the unlawful-
neſs of ſecond marriages is to be found in Juſtin Martyr.
It happens, however, that in the 4th chapter of Morale des Pen
res, Barbeyrac does not quote Juſtin Martyr at all.
In another paſſage, indeed, he quotes fome words of a frag-
ment on the Reſurrection, which he is willing to acknowledge as
the work of Juſtin Martyr*. But that quotation, fuppofing it to
+
of
or wilful deſertion, diffolves, marriage, not that marriage is indiffoluble; and the
caſe, of the death of one of the parties, has no concern with that myſtic union,
which Mr Gibbon fo fpeaks as if he underſtood it not.
* Morale des Peres, c. ii. $ 7.
Y
have
150
C H A P T E R IV.
have been righty interpreted by Barbeyrac, tends to condemn
marriage altogether; and ſurely an heretical tenet of the Encratita,
and afterwards of Marcion, had no countenance from the prina
ciples or practice of orthodox Chriſtians! This affords a prefump-
tion, at leaſt, that the work quoted by Barbeyrac had not Juſtin
M. for its author; at any rate, the paſſage proves too much, and
therefore it will not ſerve for the deciſion of the preſent contro-
yerſy..
“ Irenæus," ſays Barbeyrac, “ ſpeaks of the Samaritan woman as
$ being a fornicatrix, becauſe ſhe had married many times **
But there is nothing in the words of Irenæus which implies, that
he ſuppoſed the Samaritan woman to have been wont to marry
one huſband after the deceaſe of another ti or that he underſtood
the words of the goſpel in any other ſenſe than that in which Je-
rome and every other commentator of note underſtand them.
Barbeyrac has made a large commentary on a paſſage in Athen
nagoras to which, it is imagined, condemns ſecond marriages.
Every one converfant in eccleſiaſtical antiquity, knows that
Athenagoras was, in many particulars, an ill-informed Chriſtian,
and one who blended Platonic notions with the doctrine of Scrip-
ture: ſo that his ſentiments as to ſecond marriages, be they what
they will, cannot go a great great way in forming this mighty
“ chain of tradition.
Although we ſhould leave Barbeyrac in poſſeſſion of an obſcure
2
+
** St Irenée traite la Samaritaine de Fornicatrice, pour s'eſtre mariée pluſieurs fois.
c. iv. $14.
+ « Miferante Domino Samaritanæ illi prævaricatrici, quæ in uno viro non man-
.66 fit, fed fornicata eſt in multis nuptiis." Adv. Hæres. iii. 17. edit. Maſſuet.
!
# C. xxviii. p. 223.-226. edit. Lindneri. At that place there are ſome notes wor-
thy of perufal.
authority
CH A P T E R IV.
178
authority *, from an obſcure writer, we cannot allow him to
found his proof on the authority of Theophilus, Biſhop of Antioch,
whom he has egregionly miſtranſlated.
Theophilus ſays, that“ among the Chriſtians, the union of
one man and one woman is obferved;" that is, the Chriſtians
are monogamiſts, in oppoſition to the received ſenſe of the word
polygamiſts; and what Theophilus ſaid of his contemporaries, may
be faid of all Chriſtians at this day. Barbeyrac, however, chu-
fes to tranſlate the phraſe (Moroya pid-tupat.c] thus: “ The Chriſtians,
as fuch, take care not to marry more than once;" or, are fure
not to marry a ſecond time t." He underſtood Greek; what then
ſhall we ſay of ſuch a tranſlation ?
Barbeyrac fays, that Clemens Alexandrinus defines marriage to
be,
the firſt union which is contracted, according to the law,
« between a man and a woman, for the procreating of legitimate
«. children 1;" and the trandator adds, by way of inference from
the words which he pugs in the mouth of Clemens Alexandri-
nus, that, “ according to this definition, a ſecond union is not
" truly a marriage."
Let us ſee, however, whether the following be not a more juſt
tranflation. “ Now, marriage is the union of a man and a wom
}
* Much might be fạid for ſhewing that Athenagoras ſpeaks of polygamy and illicit
connections with women, not of fecond marriages. The queſtion turns chiefly og
the ſenſe of the word 'eziyou&iy.
" Les Chrétiens, comme tels -- ſe donnent garde de se marier plus d'une fois."
c. iv. § 14. This colloquial form of language is imitated in the tranſlation.
} “ Clement d'Alexandrie, Strom. ii. 23. definit le mariage, la premiere union qui
# fe fait ſelon la loi, entre un homme et une femme, pour procreer des enfans le-
& gitimes. Une ſeconde union n'eſt donc pas un vrai mariage, ſelon cette definition,"
c. iv. ğ 15. Barbeyrac joins the firſt Tit a párn] with union, [oứvodos], and yet his
argument ſeems to join it with marriage [vémos]. This he could not do openly, for
γάμος. Η πρώτη would have been falfe Greek,
;
Y2
inan,
172
IV.
CH A P T E R
.
man, for the purpoſe of procreating children legitimately:
" it is the firſt for the earlieſt] union inſtituted by the law of
66 God *."
The next paffage quoted by Barbeyrac from Clemens Alexan-
drinus, runs thus in hís tranſlation, “Every one of us has liber-
ty to marry, according to the law, what woman he chuſes; I
“ ſpeak of a firſt marriage t."
· I Thould incline to paraphraſe the words of the original after
this manner. “ Every Chriſtian, without exception, may marry
es whom he chuſes, provided always that there be no impediment
" by the divine law, [xatai và vópor yapêr). In mentioning this gene-
ral permiſſion, I ſpeak of firſt marriages 7.”
Barbeyrac appears to have underſtood the paſſage in this fenfe:
« All Chriſtians may marry once, but no Chriſtian may marry
« twice.” It is more probable, however, that Clemens Alexan-
drinus alludes to the rule, which began to prevail in his own
times, of excluding ecclefiaftics from the liberty of ſecond mar-
riages.
In this view, the ſenſe of Clemens Alexandrinus will be, that
all Chriſtians may marry once, but that ſecond marriages are not
permitted to all; for, according to an interpretation of Scripture
then received, a biſhop muſt be,“ the huſband of one wife.”
The only other paſſage which Barbeyrac quotes from this wri-
ter on the preſent ſubject, is that fanciful one, exhibiting, as it
+
* Γάμος μεν έν έσι σύνοδος άνδρες και γυναικός η πρώτη κατα τον νόμον, επί γνησίων τέχ-
www otopą. Strom. 1. i. c. 23.
+ “ Chacun de nous a le pouvoir d'epouſer, ſelon la loi, quelle femme il veut;
« j'entens en premieres noces.” c. iv. $ 15.
Η 'Αλλ' ο καθ' έκασον ήμων, ήν άν βέλεται, κατά τον νόμον γαμείν, τον πρώτον λέγω γά-
juos, čxu tür itxoiar. Strom. 1. jü. C. II.
Ihould
.CH A P T E R
173
IV.
66
thould ſeem, a parallel between polytheiſm and polygamy*; and,
conſequently, having no relation to ſecond marriages. .
“ Tertullian,” ſays Barbeyrac,“ in anſwering the accuſations
“ of lewdneſs brought againſt the Chriſtians, obſerves, that ſo
66 far from abandoning themſelves to any thing of that nature,
they limited to one woman the natural uſe of the ſex in mar-
riage; and, after he had given himſelf up to Montaniſm, he
a did but expreſs the like ſentiments in ſtronger words t."
The quotation from the Apology of Tertullian iş very obſcure;
or, to ſpeak more properly, it is unintelligible I.
Barbeyrac might have produced many paſſages in which Ter-
tullian condemns, and even execrates ſecond marriages. The
very firſt words of his treatiſe de : Morogamia are, "The beretics
" take away marriage, the carnal men reiterate it; the former do
not marry at all, the latter marry' more than once |l."
By " the heretics,” he is underſtood to mean the followers of
Marcion; and there can be no doubt that the phraſe "carnal
men,” deſcribes thoſe whom, in common language, we ſhould
call“ orthodox Chriſtians," that is, thoſe who remained within
the pale of the church, inſtead of following Tertullian, who held
* Και ως ειδωλολατρία εκ τε ενός εις της πολλές επινεμησίς εσι Θεξ. έτως η πορνεία εκ
τα ενος γάμε εις πολλές εσιν έκπτωσις. Strom. 1. iii. c. 12.
1
al
1
† « Tertullien, dans ſon Apologetique, repond aux accuſations d'impureté intentées
« contre les Chrétiens, que bien loin de s'abandonner à rien d'approchant, ils bor-
" nent même à une ſeule femme l'uſage naturel du ſexe dans le mariage. Quand ce
* Pere eût donné dans le Montaniſme, il ne fit que s'exprimer plus fortement ſur ce
* ſujet.", c. iv, § 16.
1
“ Chriftianus ad fexum nec fæminæ mutat.” Apol. c. 46. Here ſome words
have been either omitted or incorrectly copied by tranſcribers.
1
U “ Hæretici nuptias auferunt, Pſychici ingerunt. Illi nec ſemel, illi non femel nu.
“ bunt." De Monogamia, in pr.
that
174
CH A P T E R IV.
that Montanus was the Comforter (Paracletus] promiſed by ous
Lord *.
From the tenor of Tertullian's. treatiſe de Monogamia, it is plain
that the Chriſtians of his age, or at leaſty of his country, en-
tered into ſecond marriages without fcruple or hefitation, and
that he himfelf was imbued in fanaticiſm and hereſy. In evi-
dence of this, fome pallages are added in a note 7. In general, they
:. ' ilii, porn
arë
:: -
4
B
!
1
1.
* It was bold in Tertullian thus to apply a phraſe, which St Paul uſes to defcribe
thole who have no right to the name of Chridians. Ψυχικός δε άνθρωπος και δέχεται τα
ti II yev
vatos të Otč. j. Cor. if. 14. That by Pſychiti Tertullian'meant the Chriſtians,
is plain from his own words, adverfus Praxeam, ċ. '1. * Et ros quidem poftea agni.
" tio Paracletiiatque defenfio disjunxit a Pyychicis. ' . It may be obſerved, ita palling,
that Tertullian takes the divine, million of Montanus for granted, and imagines that
the whimfies of that yifionary ought to give łąw, to the Apoſtles
+ "[Pfyrhicij Monogamiæ diſciplinam in bærefin exprobant, nec ulla magis ex
« cauſa Paracletum negare coguntur, quàm dum exiſtimant novæ diſciplinæ inſtitu-
" torem, et quidem duriffiinæ illis, ut jam de hoc primùm confiftendum fit in
gene-
o rari retractatu, an capiat Paracterum aliquid tále docuiffe, quod aut novum der
- putari poffit adverſus Catholicam traditionem, aut'onerofum adverſus levem fat-
« cinam Domini? De utroque autem ipfe Dominus; pronunciavit, dicens [1. dixit]
« enim, adhuc multa habea quæ loquar ad vas, ſed nondum poteſtis portare ea : quum.
* venerit Spiritus Sanétus, ille vos ducet in omnem veritatem; fatis utique prætendit
ea aéturum illum quæ et nova exiſtimari poffint, ut nunquam retrò edita, et ali-
" quantò oneroſa, ut idcirco non editar" d. Manogamią, c. 2. After having vajaly -en-
deavoured to elude the arguments in favour of ſecond marriages drawn from the:
doctrines of St Paul, Tertullian has recourſe to a deſperate hypothefis; it ita res ex-
r igebant, ut [Paulus] omnibus omnia fieret, quo omnes bucrifacerat, parturiens illos
* donee formaretur Chriftus in ipfis, et calefaciens, tanquam nutrix, párvulos fidei,
* docendo quædam per veniam, non per imperium, aliud eft enim indulgere, aliud
“ jubere), proinde temporalem licentiam permittens, denuò nubendi propter infirmitảa
tem carnis, quemadmodum Moyfes repudiandi propter duritiam cordis. Et bic
itaque reddemus fupplementum ſenfüs. iftius.; fi enim. Chrikus abftulit: quod Moyſes
præcepit, quia ab initio non fuit fic, nec fic ideo ab alia veniffe virtute reputabitur
« Cbriftus, cur non er Paracletus abftulerit, quod 'Paulus 'indulfit? quia et fècun-
i
inte dunia
CH A P T E R
175
IV,
are too. abſurd to admit of a tranlation, which might offend max
ny, and could edify none. I venture, however, to tranſlate one
paffage, which plainly indicates the fituation of the unfortunate
man’s mind. “ Dido, the Queen of Carthage, ſhall riſe up in
judgement againſt Chriſtian women; for ſhe, being a fugitive
“ in a foreign foil, and about go become the chief foundreſs of a
" mighty (tate, had good reaſon. to ſeek to be united in wedlock
>
}
2
• dum matrimonium ab initio non fuit, nec ideo fufpe&tus habendus fit, quafi fpi-
" ritus alienus, tantùm ut Deo et Chriſto dignum fit quod fuperinducitur. Si Deo et
" Chrifto digaum fuit duritiam cordis tempore expleto compefcere, cur non dignum
« fit'et Deo et Chrifto tempore collectiore diſcutere? Si juſtum eſt, matrimonium
non ſeparari, utique et non iterare honeftum eft. Denique apud feculum utrumque
si in bona diſciplina deputatur, 'aliud concordiæ nomina, aliud pudicitiæ. Regnavit
6 duritia cordis uſque ad Chriftum, regnavit et infirmitas carnis ufque ad Paracle-
66 tum. Nova lex abſtulit repudium, habuit quod auferret ; nova prophetia, fecundum
“ matrimonium, non minus repudium prioris, ſed facilius duritia cordis ceffit,
« quàm infirmitas carnis,” ib. c. 14. There is much more raving to the like pur-
poſe, and the tendency of the whole is to prove that the perfection of Chriſtian mo-
rals is only to be found in the rhapſodies of Montanus.
Moſheim ſays, “ Montanus was not ſo devoid of reaſon as to ſuppoſe himſelf to
6 have been the Paraclete, or the Holy Spirit ; he only aſſerted, that the Holy Spirit
“ fpake by him : But the obſcure language of Tertullian, who pery often calls Mon-
" tanus by that name, 'has been the ſole cauſe of the inaccurate manner in which both
« ancients and moderns have treated this ſubject." Quod vero et veteres et recen-
tiores fententiam fuam ambiguè, nec ſatis luculenter exprefferunt, Tertulliani unice
obſcuritas effecit, qui Montanum fæpiffimè Paracletum nominat: cujus quidem ver-
ba et fermonis genus imitati funt.] d. Reb. Chriſtian. ante Conftantin. M. p 413. Af-
ter having thus contradicted every body, and laid all the blame on the obſcurity of
Tertullian's language, he thus concludes : “ All that remains for us to ſuppofé is,
66 that Montanus was diſeaſed both in body and mind, and perhaps' might be char-
" ged with a pious fraud.” [Hoc unum relinquitur, ut animo hominem et corpore
etiam ægrotaffe credamus, nifi fortè piæ fraudis eum arguere velimus.] And thus
Moſheim unravels his whole web; for, if we ſuppoſe Muntanus to have been diſor-
dered in his judgement, and ſuſpect him of knavery, all that Tertullian and other
writers have ſaid of him will be abundantly probable.
with
"
176
IV.
сн Арт ER
Y
with the fovereign of the country; and yet the choſe rather to
& burn than to marry a fecond time*."
Thus fpeaks Tertullian, “ whoſe authority might have influen-
ced the profeſſions, the principles, and even the 'practice of his
contemporaries!"
He is one link in Mr Gibbon's " chain of tradition, and the
chain breaks at him; for, although his judgement be decidedly
againſt ſecond marriages, his teſtimony proves that the Chriſtians
of his age held them to be lawful; nay more, that the doctrine
of the lawfulneſs of ſecond marriages ſerved as one of the marks
for diſcriminating the orthodox church from the deluded and
frantic votaries of Montanus.
And this naturally leads me to point out a miſtake into which
Mr Gibbon has fällen.
Barbeyrac charged the ancient Chriſtian writers with fome er-
roneous opinions reſpecting morals; and having been contradict-
ed by Pere Ceillier, he undertook not only to ſupport
, but to ág-
gravate his charge. This he did haſtily: and careleſsly, and in
the ſtyle of a prejudiced and angry controverfiſt, but without
aſcribing to the Chriſtians at large thoſe erroneous opinions which
he partly found, and partly imagined that he had found, in the
works of the ancient Chriſtian writers.
Mr Gibbon, not adverting to the diſtinction between the fenti-
ments of individuals and the tenets and practice of the Catholic
church, fuppoſes every thing that Barbeyrac reports as the fenti-
ment of any Chriſtian writer, to have been the doctrine admitted
and eſtabliſhed among Chriſtians. Hence, for example, he ſays,
5
1
1
There
* *
Exfurget Regina Carthaginis, et decernet in Chriſtianas, quæ profuga et in
alieno folo, et tantæ civitatis cum maximè formatrix, cùm Regis nuptias ultrò op-
“ taffe debuiflèt, ne tamen fecundas.eas experiretur, maluit e contrario uri quàm nu-
a bere," ib. c. 17.
that
€ H A P T E R
1
I.
277
1
B
that fecond marriages were held to be" a ſcandalous offence a-
gainſt Chriſtian purity."
We return to the “ chain of tradition.” Barbeyrac quotes Mi-
nucius Felix as faying, that " a Chriſtian either does not marry at
" all, or only marries once.” He adds, that “ in another paſſage,
" Minucius ſeems to make a ſecond marriage be conſidered as
« adultery *
Here there, are two quotations from Minucius. The ſenſe of
the former is, ambiguouss and Barbeyrac himſelf heſitates as to
the fenſe in which he is willing that the latter hould be under
ſtood.
According to Barbeyrac, Minucius ſays, that a Chriſtian ei-
" ther does not marry at all, or only marries once.” This might
ſeem to imply that the Chriſtians preferred celibacy to marriage.
Minucius, however, means no ſuch thing, nor could he with truth
have faid it.
The paſſage may be thus tranſlated. “ We willingly cloave to
" the bond of one marriage, and we either limit to one woman
our deſire of having children, or we remain in pure celibacyt."
This is ſaid in anſwer to the charge of promiſcuous lewdneſs
brought againſt the Chriſtians; and it has no neceſſary connec-
tion with the caſe of ſecond marriages. Minucius probably meant
to contraſt the behaviour of the Chriſtians with that of the Hea-
thens, who frequently put away their wives that they might mar-
ry again; and who, for the moſt part, were neither chaſte in wed-
lock nor in a ſingle life.
The ſecond quotation from Minucius does not conſider ſecond
3
“ Minucius Felix dit, qu'un Chrétien ou ne ſe marie jamais, ou ne fe marie qu'une
« fois, c. 35. Il ſemble ailleurs faire regarder les ſecondes nôcés, comme un adul-
" tere, c. 24."
+ “Unius matrimonii vinculo libenter inheremus, cupiditatem procreandi aut
« unam fcimus, aut nullam," c. 31.
marriages
N
1
178
IV.
CHAPTER
marriages as adultery. The author, ſpeaking of the capricious
varieties in Pagan worſhip, ſays," the wife of one huſband hangs
“ her garland on ſome ftatues; but to do this on others, is per-
$ mitted to her only who is the wife of many [multivira), and
“ the woman who can number moſt adulteries, is ſcrupulouſly
ſought after *."
Every ſcholar knows that, in certain religious rites among the
Heathens, thoſe women alone officiated who had never been mar-
ried unleſs to one man; but no ſcholár will ſay, that there were
other religious rites in which thoſe women alone officiated who
had married a ſecond huſband after the death of the firſt.
Barbeyrac durſt not maintain ſuch a propoſition; but he laid
hold of the ambiguity of the words multivira and adulteria, ventu-
red to draw from them an“ it ſhould ſeem," [il ſemble), and then
left it to others to make what uſe of them they could.
In common language, multivira means one who is connected
with many men, and adulteria means whoredoms. It is perfectly
plain that Minucius alludes to women who never thought of mar-
rying, to the proſtitutes who attended the temples of Venus.
. And therefore it is to be hoped that we ſhall hear no more of
this quotation from Minucius, as reprobating ſecond marriages,
or as placing them on a level with adultery.
" Origen,” ſays Barbeyrac,“ lays it down for certain, that ſe-
• cond marriages exclude from the kingdom of heaven t."
To this I might anſwer, 1. That Origen, for reaſons well
known, and unneceſſary to be mentioned, could not be a compe-
* " Alia ſacra coronat univira, alia multivira, et magnâ religione conquiritur, quæ
a plura poflit adulteria numerare," c. 24.
+" Origene pofe en fait, comme une choſe indubitable, que les ſecondes noces ex-
" cluent du Royaume de Dieu.”"Nunc verò et fecundæ, et tertiæ, et quartæ
“ nuptiæ, ut de pluribus taceam, reperiuntur, et non ignoramus quòd tale conju-
" gium ejiciet pos de regno Dei.” in Luc. Homil. xvii.
tent
1
CH A P T E R
179
IV.
,!
tent judge of the propriety or expediency either of a firſt or of a
ſecond marriage.
2. That to quote Origen for proving what were the principles
and the profeſſions of the Catholic church, is to aſſert the ortho-
doxy of Origen.
3. That, as appears from the context, Origen oppoſed his own
ſentiments to the practice of the Chriſtians of that age; and fo his
evidence directly contradicts the tradition for which Barbeyrac
7
}
quotes it.
But another anſwer occurs, and that is, that Barbeyrac has ei-
ther groſsly miſunderſtood, or wilfully miſinterpreted Origen.
That learned and fanciful man, by kingdom of God," meant
not " heaven," or " a blefled hereafter," but “ ſome tranfcend-
ent and peculiar ſtate of glory;" and ſo he explains himſelf in
the fequel of the very ſentence quoted by Barbeyrac *.
Barbeyrac quotes another paſſage from Origen, as if it con-
demned fecond marriages. But, without attempting to ſupport
or vindicate the argument which Origen uſes, let me obſerve, that
* « Sicut enim ab Eccleſiaſticis dignitatibus non folùm fornicatio, fed et nuptize
* repellunt, neque enim Epiſcopus, nec Preſbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua poffunt effe
“ digami, fic forfitan et de coetu primitivorum immaculatorumque Eccleſiæ, quæ
non habet maculam neque rugam, ejicietur digamus. Non quo in æternum mit:
“ tatur incendium, fed quo partem non habeat in regno Dei. Puto enim mono-
gamum et virginem, et eum qui in caftimonia perſeverat, effe de Eccleſia Dei;
eum verò qui fit digamus, licet bonam habeat converſationem, et cæteris virtuti-
“ bus polleat, tamen non effe de Ecclefia, et de eo numero, qui non habet rugam et
" maculam, aut aliquid iftiuſinodi: fed effe de ſecundo gradu, et de his qui invo.
" cant nomen Domini, et qui falvantur quidem in nomine Ieſu Chriſti, nequaquam
" 'tamen coronantur ab eo." ib. In this, as in many other paſſages of Origen, we
may difcern that defire of being wiſe above what is written, and that unhappy fpirit
of refinement, which led a very learned, and, I doubt not, a very worthy man, into
numberleſs errors and hereſies: yet, notwithſtanding all this, Origen was not guilty
of the extravagance imputed to him by Barbeyrac.
- .
Z 2
he
80
R
CH A P T E R IV.
4
1
he is there ſpeaking of the caſe of an old man who marries again *
This it is which he condemns, and poſlibly there are worſe hepeu
fres in his voluminous works.
Thus have I examined all the paſſages that Barbeyrac, in his
fourth chapter, quotes from the Chriſtian writers who lived be-
fore the eſtabliſhment of Chriftianity by law; and the reſult, ſo
far as agreeable to the hypotheſis of Mr Gibbon, is, that an ambir
guous paffage in Athenagoras reemo to. condemn fecond marria-
ges; and that Tertullian, a fanatic of the chief fect of fanatics,
not only condemn's them, but preſumes to cenfure the orthodox
Chriſtians for maintaining their lawfulneſs. To theſe authorities,
Mr Gibbon may, if he chuſes,
if he chuſes, add that of Origen. Of ſuch
materials is a chain of tradition, which extends through three
eenturies, compoſed !
Not fatisfied with a general reference to Barbeyrac, Mr Gibbon
makes two obſervations on his own authority. He ſays, that
they who married a ſecond time “ were foon excluded from the
64. honoups, and even from the alms of the church."
He ought not to have ſaid “ foon;" for as to his firſt obſer-
Fation, he might have learnt of Barbeyrac, that the practice of
excluding Digamiſts from the Epifcopal office, had its origin about
the end of the ſecand, or the beginning of the third century'ti
and he might have remarked, that Tertullian ventures; to repre-
hend the orthodox Chriftians, of his age for ſuffering Digamifts to
preſide in their affemblies I.
As
1
* La Morale des Peres, c. iv. $ 18. « μετά την τελευτής της γιγαμημένης εν γήρα
* Onane yuracima zaber." In Joann. vol. ii. p. 295. edit. Huet.
. Morate des. Peres, civ. 23.
I + Digami præfident apud vos," d. Monogamia, c. 12. It is true that Tertullian.
elſewhere fays, “Ufque adeo quofdam memini digamos loco dejectos," d. Exhort.
felit. C. 7. This, however, cannot afford any proof of a conſtant practice, efpe-
cially
CHAPTER
181
*
As to Mr Gibbon's ſecond obſervation, that Digamiſts “ were
foon excluded from the alms of the church, I know not on what
it is founded. Barbeyrac quotes a ſingular paffage from Jerom
which he underſtands in that ſenſe; but be the ſenſe of the paf-
fage what it will, we cannot, with any propriety, apply the word
“ foon" to the times of Jerom, as if he had lived in the early
days of Chriſtianity.
Perhaps Mr Gibbon allades to the widorus who performed the
office of deaconeſfés in the primitive church, and who, no doubt,
were ſupported by the contributions of the church which they
ferved. There might be good reaſon for not allowing them to
marry again'; or, if they did, for' withdrawing the contributions
of the church from them, tó iluſtrate this by a familiar ex-
ample: Certain members of the Church of Englarid are governors
of an hoſpital; they require that the matron of the hoſpital be a
ſingle woman, or a widow; and they declarë that if ſhe marry,
fhe thall loſe her office, and the ſalary annexed to it; and yet,
from fuck' án exămple, it would be ſomewhat raſh to conclude,
that thoſe members of the Church of England either recommended
celibacy, or blamed fecond marriagés.
+
cially when
we conſider the former quotation from the fame author. The notės (el
and [h] by Rigaltius, on Tertullian's treatiſe ad: Uxorem; 1: 1. c. well deſerve to be
perufed. They ſpeak the language of an intelligent and candid Roman Catholic.
* Morale des Peres; c. iv. $ 21. The paffage' quoted is contra Jovinian. l. i. p. 28.
CHAP
182
CH A P T E R .y.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
y.
1
.
.
N connecting his fifth ſecondary cauſe with the fourth, Mr
Gibbon ſays, “ But the human character, however.it
may
be
"' exalted or depreſſed by a temporary enthuſiaſm, will return by de-
grees to its natural level, and will reſume thoſe paſſions that
ſeem the moſt adapted to its preſent condition.". i. 581.
What ſhall we ſay? Were the virtues of the primitive Chri-
ſtians, to which, in the preceding ſection, Mr Gibbon had afcri-
bed the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity, merely the effects of a tem-
porary enthuſiaſm, exalting or debafing the human character?
Surely this cannot be his meaning; for we have already ſeen,
that he began his Diſquiſitions with theſe folemn and ſerious
words : “ Our curioſity is naturally.prompted to inquire by what
means the Chriſtian faith obtained ſo remarkable a victory over
“ the eſtabliſhed religions of the earth. To this inquiry, an ob-
“ vious but a ſatisfactory anſwer may be returned, that it was ow-,
ing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itſelf, and to
the ruling providence of its great Author." i. 536.
Since then God was the author of Chriſtianity, as Mr Gibbon
expreſſes it, and his ruling providence was its primary cauſe, a
temporary enthuſiaſm can hardly be numbered among the ſecondary
cauſes of its rapid progreſs.
And, therefore, we may ſuppoſe that the But of Mr Gibbon is
uſed inſtead of the obſolete word Moreover; and that it has no
more connection with what went before, than an Anglo-Saxon dos
would have had in like circumſtances,
Be
.
I
CH A P T E R
183
V:
1
1
Be this as it may, the human character having returned by de-
grees to its natural level, “ reſumes thoſe paſſions that ſeem the
“.moſt adapted to its preſent condition." And now we may expect
to ſee the Chriſtians act juſt as other men, neither exalted, by en-
thuſiaſm, above the ſtate of humanity, nor ſunk, by the like en-
thuſiaſm, below the ſtandard of right reaſon.
The fifth ſecondary cauſe of the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity
is ſaid to have been “ the union and diſcipline of the Chriſtian re-
. public, which gradually formed an independent and increaſing
“ ſtate in the heart of the Roman empire*." What Mr Gibbon
had faid juſt before, explains the meaning of the word gradually;
for he obſerves, that “the Chriſtian religion grew up in filence
and obſcurity."
And here a queſtion ariſes: If the union and difcipline of the
church were eſtabliſhed in conſequence of the human character
returning by degrees to its natural level; if the Chriſtian religion
grew up in ſilence and obſcurity; and if it gradually formed an inde-
pendent and increaſing republic; how are theſe things conſiſtent
with its rapid progreſs? Yet the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity is
the fact admitted, and the purpoſe of Mr Gibbon's inquiry is to
diſcover what were its ſecondary cauſes.
Every intelligent and attentive reader will obſerve, that, in
treating of this fifth cauſe, Mr Gibbon does not confine his re-
ſearches to the early times of Chriſtianity, but that he“ blends
in eloquent confuſion " the events which are ſaid to have
happened at different times.
* Mr Gibbon paints after a ſketch given by Voltaire. « Les aſſemblées ſecrettes,
qui bravoient d'abord, dans des caves et dans des grottes, l'autorité des Empereurs
“ Romains, forinereot
peu
à peu un etat dans l'ecat.” Siecle de Louis XIV.
+ This is an expreſſion which Mr Gibbon employs in ſpeaking of Burnet, the au-
thor of the Theory of the Earth, i. 565. and not without cauſe; for, in flowery lan-
guage and bad reaſoning, that work can hardly be paralleled.
Thus
184
CH A P T E R
Thus he obſerves, “ The community of goods, which had
“ agreeably amuſed the imagination of Plato, -- was adopted, for
a ſhort time, by the primitive Chriſtians." i,
591.
“A ſcheme
of policy- was adopted for the uſe of the firft century.” i. $83.
“ The Epiſcopal form of government appears to have been intro-
“ duced before the end of the firſt century.” i. 585. Such was the
" mild and equal conftitution by which the Chriſtians were go-
“ verned more than a hundred years after the death of the Apo-
Ales." i. 586. “ Towards the end of the ſecond century, the
“ churches of Greece and Alia adopted the uſeful inſtitutions of
provincial fynods." i. 586. “ The office of perpetual preſidents
" in the councils of each province was conferred on the biſhops
ss of the principal cities; and theſe aſpiring prelates, who foon
acquired the lofty titles of Metropolitans and Primates, ſecretly
prepared themſelves to uſurp over their Epiſcopal brethren the
" ſame authority which the Biſhops had fo lately aſſumed above
" the college of Preſbyters." i. 589.
i. 589. The prelates of the third
century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation into
" that of command." i. 587. And, to add but one example
more: Mention is made of the diſcordant decrees pronounced by
the councils of Ancyra and Illiberis, after the perſecution which
Diocletian raiſed againſt the Chriſtians, towards the cloſe of the third
century. i. 598.
Thus Mr Gibbon takes a wide view of the Chriſtian church
from its infancy until its mature ſtate; and, from the hiſtory of
different ages, he draws his concluſion, That an independent re-
public was gradually formed in the Roman ſtate; and that the
union and difcipline of the church became the fifth ſecondary
cauſe of the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity.
One might be apt to ſuppoſe, that a leſs mutable form of eccle-
fiaftical government would have been better adapted for produ-
cing that change which actually took place, than one imperceptibly
varying
CHAPTER
185
V.
1
7
5
varying from a college of Preſbyters to the lofty dominion of Me-
tropolitans and Primates; and that the contradictory decrees of
provincial ſynods, ſuch as thoſe of Ancyra and Illiberis, would
have weakened, inſtead of ſtrengthening, the diſcipline of this
great and independent republic.
It is remarkable, that during the courſe of three centuries,
there ſhould not have been any falſe brother found to diſcloſe this
Chriſtian plot, and no Heathen magiſtrates vigilant or judicious
enough to receive his information,
And it is ſingular, even in our own age, an age of fanciful
theories, that the rapid progreſs of Chriſtianity ſhould be aſcribed
to the Uſurpations of Metropolitans and Primates.
In his preamble to the account of the origin and progreſs of
this new government, Mr Gibbon obſerves, that the primitive
“ Chriſtians were dead to the bufineſs and pleaſures of the world;
" but that their love of action, which could never be entirely ex-
tinguiſhed, foon revived, and found a new occupation in the
government of the church.” i. 581.
“ Dead to the buſineſs of the world,” is an uncommon expref-
ſion, and therefore we muſt, firſt of all, endeavour to have its
meaning aſcertained.
By “ buſineſs of the world,” Mr Gibbon cannot mean “ the di-
ligent exerciſe of any particular calling;" for, in that fort of
buſineſs the Chriſtians were, of all men, the moſt alive. With
them, diligence in their calling was a duty preſcribed in the moſt
explicit terms, and enforced by argument * And Mr. Gibbon
himſelf admits, that, in conformity with the precepts of St Paul,
the primitive Chriſtians were inured to æconomy, and all the
" fober and domeſtic virtues."
It ſhould feem, then, that“ the buſineſs of the world” implies
the being occupied in public offices, either civil or military.
,
?
...
* Ephef. iv. 28.; 1. Thel. iv. 11. 12.; 2. Theff. ii. 8. 10. 12.
Аа
In
186
CHAPTER : V.
1
In the Roman ſtate, as in all other ſtates, ſome civil offices
were burdens, not benefits; and, inſtead of being ſolicited, were
impoſed. The primitive Chriſtians could not have pleaded any
exemption from them; and undoubtedly they muſt have borne
their ſhare of ſuch burdens in equal proportion at leaſt with that
of the Heathens of their own rank.
It may well be ſuppoſed that offices of honour and emolument
were rarely granted to the primitive Chriſtians. The mediocrity
of their ſtation in life, the ill-will of the Heathens, and their
own abhorrence of the popular worſhip, all ſerve to lead to this
concluſion.
Theſe obſervations, however, muſt be limited to the more early
ages of the church: for, in the third century, the face of things
changed. When the Chriſtians became more numerous, and were
ſtrengthened, to appearance at leaſt, by the acceſſion of the wife
and the learned to their ſociety, they, no doubt, mixed in“ the bu-
" fineſs of the world” more than their predeceſſors had a fair op-
portunity of doing; and there are even examples of their having
been admitted into the favour and confidence of Heathen Emperors.
Military offices ought to be viewed in a light fomewhat dif-
ferent.
From the time at which fovereign power at Rome ceaſed to be
hereditary, the armies of the empire gradually became its maſters.
As, in our days, there is nothing fhort of the dignity of the Dey
to limit the ambition of an Algerine' recruit, ſo was it in the de-
cline of the Roman empire. Every intrepid, active, and unprin-
cipled ſoldier, however obfcure his birth and original ſtation,
might have aſpired to the Purple; and indeed it is aſtoniſhing to
fee the number of thoſe who afcended from the meaneſt military
offices to abſolute dominion.
There could not have been any difficulty in finding ſoldiers for
armies poſſeſſed of ſo great influence and power; and it is natural
to
3
CH A P T E R V.
187
to ſuppoſe that ſuch military ſervice ill accorded with the diſpo-
fitions of the primitive Chriſtians. : To bear arms in defence of
the ſtate, was agreeable to their principles; but if any of them
choſe war as a trade, that muſt be aſcribed to corruption of mo-
rals, and to a relaxation of religious diſcipline.
Mr Gibbon indeed ſays, that "it was impoſſible that the Chri-
ſtians, without renouncing a more ſacred duty, could allume
" the character of ſoldiers. This indolent, or even criminal dif-
“ regard to the public welfare, expoſed them to the contempt
and reproach of the Pagans, who very frequently aſked, what
muſt be the fate of the empire, attacked on every ſide by the
Barbarians, if all mankind ſhould adopt the pufillanimous fen-
es timents of the new feat ?" i, 580.
He adds, in a note, As well as we can judge from the muti-
“ lated repreſentation of Origen [1. viii.], his adverſary Celſus
“ had urged this objection with great force and candor *."
It is to be preſumed that Mr Gibbon has urged the objection
with as much force and candor as Celſus did, and yet it is not
unanſwerable.
Origen had no right to ſpeak for the Chriſtians at large; ſo it is
of no moment whether he, as an individual, made a convincing
or only an evaſive anſwer to the objection of Celſus.
In another paſſage, Origen ſpeaks of “juſt wars t," by which
he,
1
I
A
1
* It is unlucky, that Origen ſhould have given a mutilated repreſentation of the
argument: for any ſpecimen of the candor of Celſus would have been a literary cu-
rioſity.
# Barbeyrac quotes this paffage immediately after the paſſage on which Mr Gib-
bon reſts his objection, Morale des Peres, c. vii. $ 20. not. I. ; and his embarrafr-
ment, whether real or affected, is remarkable. He propofes this dilemma: either
Origen ſpeaks of wars which are juſt with reſpect to men, confidered as ſuch, and
not as Chriſtians; or, he contradi&ts himſelf; as, if the laſt part of the alternative
A a 2
were
188
V.
CH A P T E R
be, probably, underſtood thoſe of the defenſive kind.
kind. . But
granting him to have altogether diſapproved of the uſe of arms,
the only fair inférence deducible from this is, that Origen, who,
in many particulars, thought differently from the church, did,
in this particular, adopt an opinion which ſectaries of various de-
nominations have held.
The primitive Chriſtians could not be indolent and pufillani-
mous ſpectators of the fate of the Cæſarean empire; for they ge-
nerally believed, that the coming of Antichriſt, the greateſt of all
calamities, was only delayed by the prefervation of that empire*.
I much doubt of the ſtory of the thundering legion, and I give
no credit to that of the Theban : yet it is evident from thoſe ſtories,
that there prevailed a general tradition of many Chriſtians having
ſerved in the Imperial armies long before the civil eſtabliſhment of
Chriſtianity t.
Mr Gibbon adds, that the Chriſtians were “ dead to the plea-
is fures of the world."
If by pleaſures of the world;" be meant“ immoral gratifica-
~ tions of fenfe," ſuch as were reprobated, in theory at leaſt, by
the moſt eminent of the Heather philofophers, the obſervation is
juſt; and fince the expreſſion is fcriptural, and has obtained a
fixed fignification in the Engliſh language, we are hardly at li-
berty to aſcribe
any
other to it.
'The refult then of the whole, when accommodated to the mate
ter of fact, is, that the primitive Chriſtians were, in a great mea-
fure, excluded from offices of honour and emolument, that they
were a thing ſtrange and inadmiſſible. He muſt be a poor logician, indeed, who
cannot extricate himſelf from this dilemmá. Origen, as an honeſt man, is a good.
vitnefs in matters of fact; but in matters of opinion, we cannot rely on him.
* See Hurd. Introduction to the ſtudy of the prophecies,. ii. 15. 19.; and Halli-
fax. Serm. v. 152.
# Tertulian. Apol. c. 501 Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef.. v..sa
dilliked
CH. A P T E R V.
189
.
1..
diſliked war as a trade, and that they had no ámbition to riſe to
military commands*
ini
It ſeems that ſuch men were not fufficiently occupied ; and
therefore, in order to amuſe their idleneſs, or gratify their love
of action, they invented ecclefiaftical government.
Granting, for a moment, that the primitive Chriſtians were not
only excluded from civil offices of truſt and emolument, but that
they held all war to be unlawful, and abſolutely refuſed to bear
arms; it remains to be explained, why a deep-laid and wide plan
of eccleſiaſtical policy ſhould have been deviſed, perſiſted in, and
executed by ſuch men,
Éxperience does not lead us to the concluſion which Mr Gibe
bon has formed. The Menonites, for inſtance, and the people
called Quakers, are debarred, by their principles, from civil offi
ces; and they hold all war, defenſive as well as offenſive, to be
unlawful; yet their love of action never excited them to under-
take what the primitive Chriſtians, in circumſtances ſuppoſed to
be ſimilar, are ſaid to have accompliſhed.
Mr Gibbon, in treating of ecclefiaftical government, ſeems to
hold the antiquity of what he calls Epiſcopal Presbyters: But I
know not whether the Old Diſenters of England will chuſe to ad-
mit him as a profelyte from Epiſcopacy, or rely on hiin as their
champion in defence of the claſſical form; for the controverſy in
his hands is equally poiſed.
He thinks that the Epiſcopal form of government was introdu-
ced before the end of the firſt century; and, as he explains himſelf
"The ſituation of the firſt Chriſtians," ſays Mr Gibbon, “ coincided very hap-
* pily with their religious fcruples; and their averſion to an active life contributed
" rather to excuſe them from the fervice, than to exclude them from the honours
* of the ſtate and army." i. 581. : and yet his own book demonſtrates, that in the
decline of the Roman empire, no rank, however obſcure, excluded men from thoſe
honours,
13
190
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
A I E R
V.
in a vote, during the life of the Apoſtle St John; and yet he ob-
ferves, that in the Epiſtle of Clemens, the contemporary of St
John, no traces of Epiſcopacy, either at Corinth or at Rome, are
to be diſcovered *.
My ſubject does not lead me to enter the liſts in the cauſe either
of Epiſcopacy or of Presbytery; neither could my opinion ſerve at
all to terminate a controverſy in which wife and learned men have
taken different ſides: But, as a friend of peace, and of the reli-
gion of peace, I muſt rejoice to ſee that the wiſeſt and the moſt
learned of thoſe who differ as to the origin of church-government,
are willing to ſuſpend, at leaſt, their diſputes; and.oh, that the
armiſtice might continue until the brethren be, once more, of
V
+
3
* Here are the words of Mr Gibbon. « See the Introduction to the Apocalypſe.
5. Biſhops, under the name of Angels, were already inſtituted in ſeven cities of A-
* fia," l. 584. not. 110. He adds, “And yet the Epiſtle of Clemens, which is pro-
si bably of as ancient a date, does not lead us to diſcover any traces of Epiſcopacy
« either at Corinth or Rome.” We mày remark, in paſſing, that here Mr. Gibbon
admits the book of the Apocalypſe to have been written before the end of the firſt
century, and that he is willing to hold the Epiſtle of Clemens as equally ancient.
A preceding note (104.] muſt not be overlooked, « The ariſtocratical party in
“ France, as well as in England, has ſtrenuouſly maintained the divine origin of
“ Biſhops: But the Calviniſtical Preſbyters were impatient of a fuperior, and the Ro-
“ man Pontiff refuſed to acknowledge, an equal. See Fra. Paulo." It was unne-
ceſſary to quote the whole works of Father Paul for proving that the Pope would not
acknowledge an equal : but it can hardly be proved from any of the works of Father
Paul, that, as the words ſeem to imply, the Pope did not acknowledge the divine right
of biſhops. ----Mr Gibbon has not explained what he underſtands by “ Ariſtocrati-
si cal party in France." If he means " the nobility," it is fit to remind him; "that the
French Calviniſts were, in that ſenſe of the phraſe, “ an ariſtocratical party :" if he
means * thoſe who maintained Epiſcopal government,” then the note will imply,
" that, in France, the maintainers of Epiſcopal government conſidered it to be of
e divine original ;" a great truth, but which hardly deſerved a place in Mr Gib-
bon's notes,
one*
..
CH A P T E R A
191
V.
.
one accord *.! Indeed this is not a ſeaſon for internal controver-
fy, while Moſes and Jeſus Chriſt, and even the First Cause,
are affailed with a boldneſs which will aſtoniſh the nineteenth
century, ſhould it prove more virtuous and learned than the
eighteenth,
I cannot allow myſelf to ſuppoſe, that, in ſuch times as ours,
Mr Gibbon meant to revive or inflame the controverſy reſpecting
the original form of church-government among Chriſtians,
Mr Gibbon, after having weighed the pretenſions to antiquity
on either ſide, drops the ſcales, and at once pronounces in favour
of a ſyſtem inconſiſtent with the regimen of biſhops, as having no
diverſity in clerical rank, and with the Preſbyterian model, as ha-
ving no ſubordination of judicatories. “The ſcheme of policy,"
fays he, " which, under the approbation of the Apoſtles, was
" adopted for the uſe of the firſt century, may be diſcovered from
the practice of Jeruſalem, of Epheſus, or of Corinth. The fo-
“ cieties which were inſtituted in the cities of the Roman einpire,
were united only by the ties of faith and charity. Independ-
ence and equality formed the baſis of their internal conſtitu-
tion." i. 583.
Moſheim attempted to reconcile the diſcordant parties in the
Chriſtian church, by tracing their various ſyſtems back to the
times of primitive antiquity. Mr Gibbon appears to have adopta
os
1
* Καθ' ημέραν τε προσκαρτερενθες ομοθυμαδόν εν τω ιερώ, κλώνες τε κατ' οίκον άρτον,
μιτελάμβανός τροφής εν αγαλλιάσει και αφιλόζήλι. There follows, ο δε Κύριος προσιτίθει τες
Om Soniéres xao? ruépar tñ fuxandię. Afts, ii. 46. 47. Pity that this method of propaga-
ting the goſpel iri domeſtic parts were not more generally practifed. The narrative
begins with προσκαρτερείες ομοθυμαδόν εν τω ιερώ. There are significant words, and
" thou ſhalt bind them for a ſign upon thine hand, and they ſhall be as frontlets be-
66tween thine eyes; and thou ſhalt write them upon the poſts of thy houſe, and
" on thy gates."
ed
A
192
V.
CH A P T E R.
ed this theory, but without taking notice of ſome conceſſions
which Mofheim judged it expedient to make.
“. The church of Jeruſalem,” ſays that author, " enjoyed for a
" ſeaſon much honour and great authority. This is inanifeſt
" from the Acts of the Apoſtles. The Chriſtians of Antioch fub,
“ mitted their diſpute concerning the Mofaical law to the judge-
ment of the church at Jeruſalem, Ats, xv.; and it is moſt
likely that other churches imitated their example, St Paul, al-
though divinely called to perform the offices of an Apoſtle,
was peculiarly ſtudious in obtaining for himſelf, and for the
“ doctrines which he taught, the approbation of that church,
" and of the Apoſtles, Galat. i. i8. ii.7. 8. 9. Such authority,
" however, took its riſe not from any thing perſonal in the
« church at Jeruſalem, for the never affected any pre-eminence
over the reſt of the churches; but from this, that the Apoſtles,
appointed by Jeſus Chriſt to judge of matters reſpecting reli-
gion, preſided in that aſſembly. Yet, to ſay the truth, ſhe
“ might, poſſibly, have been conſulted on dubious caſes, even
when the Apoſtles were abfent: For the Holy Spirit had de-
“ 'ſcended miraculouſly not on the Apoſtles alone, but on all at
Jeruſalem who profeſſed Chriſt, Acts, ii. 1. &c.: and hence there
were more men in that city than in the other churches illumi-
“ nated from above, and furniſhed with divine gifts. I doubt
not that the Epheſian church, while St John dwelt at Epheſus,
" had a like authority among the churches of Aſia; and I am
of opinion, that, out of reſpect to any church in which an
Apoſtle had for ſome time preſided, the neighbouring churches
" occaſionally took a model of teaching and diſcipline from her.
" Nay more, left I ſhould ſeem to make too ſcanty conceſſions, I
am very willing to grant that, on new opinions in religious
e matters being ſet forth, and on controverſies being ſtirred, the
şs apoſtolical churches, that is, the churches founded and taught
" by
even
CH A P T E R
193
V.
« by the Apoſtles themſelves, were, for ſome time, conſulta
66 ed *."
Granting that Mr Gibbon did right in pronouncing poſitively
where Moſheim heſitated, yet ſtill it muſt be obvious, that the
independence and equality of different religious focieties could ne-
ver have promoted“ the union of the Chriſtian republic.”
Mr Gibbon proceeds thus: “ The want of diſcipline and hu-
man learning was ſupplied by the occaſional aſſiſtance of the
* « Hierofolymitanæ quidem eccleſiæ per tempus aliquod magna fuit dignitas et
" auctoritas, quod ex Actis Apoftolorum patet. Antiocheni controverſiam ſuam de
" legis Moſaicæ præftantia ecclefiæ hujus judicio ſubjiciebant, A&t. xv. Idem alias
“ feciffe ecclefias, verifimillimum eft. Paulus, divinitùs licet ad obeundum Apoſtoli
munus vocatus, id tamen in primis agebat, ut fe fuamque diſciplinam Apoſtolis et
“ coetui Hieroſolymitano probaret et commendaret, Galat, i, 18. ii. 7. 8. 9. Verùm
“ hujus auctoritatis radix non tam in ecclefia erat Hierofolymitana, quæ nunquam
« ſupra reliquas eminere voluit, quàm in Apoftolis Ieſu Chriſti, qui Hierofolymitano
« coetui præſidebant, judiceſque a Chriſto rerum ad religionem pertinentium con-
66 ftituti erant.
Apoſtolos propriè confulebant, non Hieroſolymitanum coetum.
" Quanquam, ut verum fatear, et ipfe hic coetus, abfentibus etiam Apoftolis, ma.
“ gis quàm reliquæ. Chriſtianorum familiæ, 'rebus in dubiis, in confilium vocari
poo
terat. Multò enim plures, quàm in ceteris ecclefiis, homines erant Hierofolymis.
« lumine divino aliiſque donis celeſtibus inffructi; quoniam non in Apoſtolos tan-
65. tùm, verùm etiam in univerſum, qui tum Chriftum ibi profitebatur, populum Spia:
66. ritus Sanctus mirabiliter delapfus erat, A&t..ii. 1. &c. Non dubito, Epheſina ec-
“clefiæ, dum S. Johannes in illa vixit, parem inter Aſiaticas auctoritatem fuiffe ;
“ immò cunétis ecclefiis, quibus aliquamdiu Apoftolorum aliquis præfuit, hunc ha-
“ bitum effe, honorem opinor, ut vicinæ ab illis ecclefiæ docendi agendique exem--
« plum interdum peterent. Hoc etiam plus, nec enim præter rem difficilis ero, lar-
gior, fi quis velit ;, concedam nimirùm omnibus eccleſiis Apoftolicis, id eſt, il-
“ lis, quas ipfi Apoftoli conſtruxerant et erudiverant, hoc,, per tempus aliquod, das
• tum fuiffe, ut novis fortè de religione fententiis propofitis et difputationibus com.
64 motis conſulerentur," D. Reb. Chriſtian. ante Conſtant.-M..p: 1533
This work of Mofheim is little known with us'; and therefore, it was judged pros-
per to print the original paſſage at large, that it might be compared with the tranſla-
tion. It is no very eaſy talk to render the verboſe language of Molheim into tole-
mable. Englih.
Bib
« Prophetsiz
194
V.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
Prophets, who were called to that function without diſtinction
“ of age, of ſex, or of natural abilities; and who, as often as they
" felt the divine impulſe, poured forth the effuſions of the Spirit
“ in the aſſembly of the faithful.” i. 583.
It is ſingular, that an author, who, no doubt, has ſtudied the
Acts of the Apoſtles, and the Epiſtles of St Paul, ſhould ſuppoſe
that there was any want of diſcipline * in the early part of the firſt
century.
That in the apoſtolical times ſome form of diſcipline did exiſt,
even the Independents admit, in common with the favourers of
dioceſan Epiſcopacy, and of the Preſbyterian model. What that
form was, and whether it was, in its nature, unalterable, have
been the main queſtions agitated during the diſaſtrous conteſts
about ecclefiaftical regimen.
But the ſcheme of policy "adopted, according to Mr Gibbon,
“ under the approbation of the Apoſtles,” is different from
every
ſcheme which“ the hoſtile diſputants," as they are too truly cal-
led, have at any time adopted.
Here it behoves us to aſcertain the ſenſe in which Mr Gibbon
underſtands the word Prophet.
In the New Teſtament, the expreſſion“ to prophecy,” ſometimes
reſpects the interpreting of ſcripture; and under this is compre-
hended the application of ancient prophecies to evangelical events:
* It ſeems alſo to be ſuppoſed, that the gifts conferred on the Apoſtles were not
fufficient to ſupply the want of human learning, and that ſomething more was necef-
ſary for the propagation of the goſpel. On this opinion, probably borrowed from
Moſheim, it is needleſs to enlarge. But the want of hunian learning, fince apofto-
lical gifts have ceaſed, is a want indeed to him who propoſes either to teach or to
defend the doctrines of Chriſtianity. Let men of warm imaginations think what
they will, it is fit to remind them, that they muſt not deſpiſe any weapon which Pro-
vidence has been pleaſed to put within their reach, for oppoſing the affaults of un-
believers. May this admonition, given by a layman, be as candidly received as it is
faithfully meant !
ſometimes,
CH A P T E R
195
V.
ſometimes, again, it reſpects the foretelling of things to come, and
eſpecially of things which were to befall the church *
Mr
1
* Mr Gibbon adds this note: “ For the prophets of the primitive church, fee Mof-
heim, Diſſertationes ad Hift. Ecclef. pertinentes, tom. ii. p. 132.--208." The
title of the tract here referred to is, De Prophetis Ecclefiæ Apoftolica Diſſertatio. As
that tract cannot be made intelligible by an abridgement, it may ſuffice to obſerve,
that it does, în no fort, aid the hypothefis of Mr Gibbon. Moſheim appears to have
put a very wide ſenſe on the word prophecy; and even to have comprehended under
it the diſcerning of the thoughts of men. In that way he explains the difficult text,
i. Cor xiv. 24. 25. Moſheim has frequently treated of the prophets in the apoſtoli-
calåge, and not without fome diverſity, or at leaſt vacillancy of opinion. For ex-
ample, he fays, Inſtitutiones Hiſtoria Chriſtianæ Majores, fæc. i. part. ii, c. ii. $ 10.
" This power of prophecy is juſtly and univerſally reckoned amongſt the gifts which,
« by ſpecial favour from God, were appropriated to the Chriſtian church in its in-
" fancy. Every one, who laid claim to this gift, was allowed to ſpeak in the public
“ aſſemblies; but left ang impoſtor ſhould deceive the people, others, of whoſe pre-
of tenſions to the character of prophets there was full evidence, performed the func-
is tion of judges, and ſeparated the true from the falfe, i.Cor. xiv. 24•; and that
" things might be the better conducted, the Apoſtles themſelves furniſhed marks by
in which the prophets whom God had inſpired might be diſtinguiſhed from thoſe
es who were actuated by fancy or felf-conceit, i. Cor. xii. 2. 3o; i. John, iv.1."
And he ſays, in a note, “ For ſome reaſon which I cannot figure, moſt men have
* perfuaded themſelves that the perfons whom the books of the New Teſtament term
si prophet's, were merely expounders of the ſcriptures, and eſpecially of the predic-
« tions uttered by God'under the times of the Old Teſtament. All the circumſtan-
" ċes related of fuch prophets are inconſiſtent with this opinion, and it is inconſiſtent
" with the nature of the thing. Who can deny, that the holy penmen of the New
e Teſtament rather ufed the word prophet in the ſenſe generally affixed to it by the
« Jews of their own times, than in a ſenſe unneceffary, new, and unheard of ? Now,
és amongſt the Jews, a prophet was not one filled in expounding the predictions of
as the ancient prophets, but a meffenger of the divine will
, and än interpreter ſent,
" out of the common courſe of things, by God himſelf. I ſhould be apt to imagine,
" that, by the command of God, and through Iris inſpiration, the prophets under
« the goſpel did occaſionally explain fome parts of holy writ. But I can, by no
means, be induced to believe; that 'they who''were diſtinguiflied by that appella-
« tion, had no other ennploymenit ; and that to Wave the gift of prophecy, was juft the
es fame thing as to have the gift of interpreting the prophecies.” [Facultas hiæç vati-
B bã
cinandi
er
4g6
V.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
Mr Gibbon ſays, that certain perſons were called under the ap-
probation of the Apoſtles, to aſſiſt occaſionally in the function of
prophets; that they were called without diſtinction of
age, of ſex,
or of natural abilities; and, as often as they felt the divine impulſe,
cinandi merito inter dona illa ubique refertur, quæ naſcenti civitati Chriftianæ, fin-
gulari beneficio divino, propria fuerunt. Licebat omnibus qui hoc feſe munere præ-
ditos dicebant effe, publicè loqui ; at ne quis planus populum deciperet, ceteri, quos
fignis minimè dubiis conftabat prophetas effe, judicum agebant partes, verofque vates
a falfis fegregabant, i. Cor. xiv. 24.; idque ut felicius fuccederet negotium, ipfi Apo-
ſtoli notas fuppeditaverant, quibus prophetæ a Deo commoti dignofcerentur ab illis,
quos aut impetus naturæ, aut arrogantia creaverat, i. Cor. xii. 2. 3.; i. John, iv. 1.
Nefcio quonam modo evenerit ut plerique fibi perſuaderent eos, quos Novi Foe-
deris libri prophetas appellant, interpretes fuiffe divinorum librorum, in primis vati.
cinationum a Deo, ftante Antiquo Fædere, dictatarum. Reſpuit hanc opinionem omne
id quod de prophetis hiſce ſcriptum legitur. Immò res ipfa refpuit. Quis neget fanc-
tos fcriptores vocabulum propheta eâ notione adhibuiffe, quâ, tum temporis, inter
Judæos maximè uſurpari folebat, minimè verò fine neceffitate novam illi et inaudi-
tam poteftatem fubjeciffe ? Propheta verò nunquam Judæis homo fuit dexteritate ora-
cula priſcorum vatum declarandi præditus, verùm divinæ voluntatis nuntius et in-
terpres extraordinarius ab ipfo Deo miffus. Crediderim facile, prophetas hos inter-
dum, juſſu et inſtinctu divino, partem quandam divinorum librorum explanaffe : nul.
lo verò modo adducar, ut exiſtimem nihil feciffe aliud illos, qui hoc nomine inſignes
erant, donumque prophetiæ idem effe, quod facultatem oraculorum divinorum fen-
tentiam enodandi.] To the ſame purpoſe, but more briefly, he ſpeaks, d. Reb. Chri.
Aian. ante Conſtant. M. fæc. i. g xl. p. 129. 130. But in that work of his which is
beſt known among us, he ſeems to have given a fill more extenſive fignification to
the word prophet; for he ſays, “ It is certain that they who claimed the rank of pro-
o phets, were inveſted with the power of cenſuring publicly ſuch as had been guilty
" of any irregularity," Hiſtory of the Church, part ii. c. 2. $ 9. tranſlated by M'Claine.
I have choſen, in the text, to treat of the prophets of the apoſtolical age according to
the ſenſe of that word, as generally received, without meaning either to adopt or re-
ject that greater latitude of interpretation for which Moſheim contends. And here it
will be remarked, that what Moſheim ſays in his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory is inconſiſtent
with the hypotheſis of Mr Gibbon: for Mofheim could never have meant that, in the
apoſtolical times, perſons, without diſtinction of age or ſex, women, boys, and girls,
" were inveſted with the power of cenſuring publicly ſuch as had been guilty of any
irregularity.'
they
..
CH A P T E R
197
V.
* "
they poured forth the effuſions of the Spirit in the aſſembly of the
faithful.
The principal thing to be obſerved in this deſcription of the
pro-
phets is, that Mr Gibbon repreſents the perſons of whom he ſpeaks,
as having been divinely inſpired; for, according to him, they “ felt
" the divine impulſe," and " they poured forth the effuſions of
“ the Spirit *
Here, then, were perſons endued from Heaven with the gift
either of interpreting the Scriptures, or of foreſeeing events.
Now, by whom were they called to the exerciſe of ſuch gifts,
or to the performing of the function of prophets? Not by the Apo-
ftles themſelves; for Mr Gibbon ſays, that they were called "
“ der the approbation of the Apoſtles:" We muſt, therefore, ſup-
poſe, that they were called by the church, that is, by the Chri-
ſtian ſociety at large.
It follows, that a perſon endued with prophetical powers, could
not exerciſe them in the aſſeinbly of the faithful, without a call
from the Chriſtian ſociety at large, confirmed by the Apoſtles.
There muſt be ſome miſtake here; for no veftige is to be found
in the New Teſtament of an election of this nature.
No doubt, the Apoſtles, having the gift of the diſcerning of
Spirits, had power to prohibit him who falſely arrogated to him-
ſelf the gifts of prophecy, from attempting to deceive the people
un
* We muſt not, on any account, imagine, that theſe expreſſions are uſed ironia
cally; for then the ſenſe of the paffage would be, “ That certain perſons in the pri-
“ mitive church, either knaviſhly pretended to the gifts of prophecy, or, from a ſpi-
“ rit of fanaticiſm, fuppoſed themſelves to be poffeffed of ſuch gifts; and that, in
« compliance with the deſires of the Chriſtian multitude, and to perfect a ſcheme of
policy, the Apoſtles allowed ſome of thoſe falſe prophets to ſpeak in the aſſembly
* of the faithful.” This cannot be the meaning of the paffage; for it is adverſe to
the profeffed purpoſe which Mr Gibbon had in treating of the ſecondary cauſes of the
rapid growth of Chriſtianity..
by
198
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R V.
cy
by his fictions or his reveries *; and there can be as little doubt,
that they did, on ſuitable occaſions, exerciſe ſuch power: but there
needed no call from the church at large, or approbation of the
Apoſtles, for authoriſing a perſon endued with prophetical gifts
to exerciſe them; and, on the other hand, the church at large, and
the Apoſtles, could not, even by common conſent, ſay to a prophet,
“ Thou ſhalt not propheſy.”
That
power
which St Paul aſſumed by divine authority, was of
a very different nature. He did not ſay who ſhould be prophets,
and who not; but he regulated the exerciſe of the gifts of prophe-
in that manner which was agreeable to order, and moſt condu-
cive to the purpoſes of edification t; and it may be fairly preſu-
med, that a like courſe was followed by the other Apoſtles.
This much may ſuffice as to the fuppofed call of the prophets.
It remains to inquire, whether the function of prophets was
diſcharged, as Mr Gibbon imagines, " without diſtinction of
age
66 or fex"
If, by prophets, " the foretellers of events" be meant, Mr Gib-
bon juftly ſuppoſes that the Holy Spirit is not circumſcribed as to
his inſtruments; and that infinite wifdom may employ young or
old, and perfons of the one ſex as well as of the other, for accom-
pliſhing the ends of its providence, in every capacity and in every
office: and ſhould it appear that, in this particular, no diſtinction
was indeed made at the promulgation of the Gofpel, all intelli-
gent
Chriſtians will acquieſce in the ways of God without farther
inquiry.
But Me Gibbon, however zealous he may be to point out the
completion of ancient prophecies, ought not to take it for granted,
that they were literally fulfilled as to all particulars deſcribed
in the figurative language of the Prophet Joel, who ſays, in the
name of the Almighty, “ And it ſhall come to paſs afterward,
.''
}
See above, p. 57.
t i.. Cor.c. xiv.
66 that
CH A P T E R
199..
V.
" that I will pour out my Spirit upon all fleſh, and your fons and
your daughters Thall propheſy, your old men ſhall dream
" dreams, your young men ſhall ſee viſions *.»
For, when the
miraculous gift of tongues was beſtowed, St Peter declared the
prophecy of Joel to be accompliſhed ; although the old men had
not dreamed dreams, neither had the young men and the daugh-
ters of Jeruſalem uttered prophecies, or feen viſions.
I cannot diſcover, from Scripture, that, in the apoſtolical times,
boys and girls were endued with the gifts of prophecy, in
any
ſenſe of the word t.
It is poſlible that, by prophets, Mr Gibbon meant not fore.
tellers of events,” but “ interpreters of Scripture;" for he gives
them the ambiguous appellation of " prophetical teachers."
That, in the apoſtolical times, perſons, without diſtinction
" of age or of ſex,” were admitted to be teachers in a public af-
ſembly of Chriſtians, may well be queſtioned; for it is not
clear, that boys and girls were admitted to the conferences ſpoken
of in i. Cor. xiv.
St Paul would not ſuffer married women to ſpeak in church, or
even to propoſe difficulties, and aſk a ſolution of them there.
« Let them keep filence,” ſaid he; and in ſupport of this injunc-
tion, he appealed to the judgement of his hearers, in theſe words,
46 It is a ſhame for a woman to ſpeak in the church I."
1
* Joel, ii. 28. The meaning of the prophecy, as explained by St Peter, is, “That
" the operations of the Holy Spirit ſhall be made manifeſt.”
+ Philip the deacon had “ four daughters, virgins, [7Qpbevor], who propheſied,"
Aets, xxi. 9. But rapbevos properly ſignifies one grown up or arrived at woman's
eſtate; and hence was that whimfical etymology of the word deviſed, zaplivos Sec Tò
Tapaxalabéeir shy nirixíay. Beſides, it is not certain in what ſenſe the daughters of
Philip are ſaid to have propheſied.
i. Cor. xiv. 34. 35. ; i. Tim. ii. 11. 12. On this occafion, as on others, St Paul
ſpake in conformity with eſtabliſhed notions and manners. This will account for the
frong expreſſion, " it is a lhame,” [dio xpòr yag ésu]. literally, “it is a foul deed.”
From
-
200
V.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
From analogy, and from the manners of his times, we may
well conclude, although that preciſe caſe be not ſtated, that a like
filence was required of maidens; and that they were left to be pri-
vately inſtructed by their parents, as married women were by
their huſbands.
There is one paſſage, indeed, where St Paul ſpeaks of women
propheſying in a public affembly of Chriſtians*; but that paſſage
may, as probably, relate to the foretelling of events, as to the in-
terpreting of Scripture.
Mr
* i. Car. xi. 5. This paſſage has perplexed the commentators. In 1767, there
was publiſhed, under the name of the Prorector of the univerſity of Gottingen, a
differtation De doni prophetici variis gradibus in Ecclefia Chriſtiana, 4to. That author
fuppoſes qurà aporev Xquérn ñ #poputeuroa, to mean, "a woman who prays or fings
“ pfalms." He obſerves, that St Paul is not there fpeaking of any extraordinary or
miraculous gifts, and that this interpretation will ſerve to reconcile i. Cor. xi. 5. with
i.. Cor. xiv. 34. His words are : “ Antequam de variis doni prophetici gradibus
« plura dicamus id adhuc addimus, iis nos accedere, qui etiam in Novi Teſta-
• menti libris ſemel tpoon every de iis dici arbitrantur, qui ne quidem ipfi divini
fpiritûs motu extraordinario agitati, fed eâdem plane ratione, quâ nonnullis Veteris
on Teftamenti locis carmina divina ab aliis quoque prophetis confecta canentes a popnleveur
o dicuntur, inter quos Saulum cum prophetis vaticinantem, Baali prophetas, et
“ Davidis cantores a popnlevarlas referimus. Vix enim perfuadere nobis poffumus,
" aliam notionem huic voci ſubjectam effe poffe, i. Cor. xi. 4. 5, Nondum enim de
so donorum extraordinariorum uſu, fed de ordine in conventibus religiofis quibuf-
« cunque Chriſtianorum obſervando, capite hoc integro, differit Paulus, neque id
“ tantum vult, ipfos docentes et propriis verbis precantes adeffe viros nudato capite;
· mulieres tectas, ſed in quocunque facro conventu. Reétè igitur plures interpretes
" obfervarunt, aforsüzeo tas ij a popnleucir eſſe deſcriptionem totius cultûs divini,
« quemadmodum noſtro etiam tempore capere et precari de cultu divino integro plus
us res etiam complectente partes nonnunquam dicitur. Facillimam hæc interpretatio
" pandit viam conciliandi hunc locum cum c. xiv. 34. Addere enim D. Pauli ver-
“ bis, quod interpretibus pluribus placet, “Laqui. publicè quidem licet mulieribus..
« divino fpiritu iinpullis, at, nifi revelationem habeant, tacento," nexui integro eft
« contrarium, in quo de fermonibus aliis præter eos, qui ſpiritu.prophetico habebans
(b turiy
CH A P T E R V.
201
Mr Gibbon thus concludes his remarks on the prophets : " But
" theſe extraordinary gifts were frequently abuſed or miſapplied
by the prophetic teachers. They diſplayed them at an improper
“ ſeaſon, preſumptuouſly diſturbed the ſervice of the aſſembly,
“ and by their pride or miſtaken zeal, they introduced, particu-
larly into the apoſtolic church of Corinth, a long and melan-
“ choly train of diſorders. As the inſtitution of prophets became
“ uſeleſs, and even pernicious, their powers were withdrawn, and
“ their office aboliſhed." i. 583.
In proof of the diſorders introduced by the prophets into the
church of Corinth, Mr Gibbon refers not only to the epiſtles of St
Paul, but alſo to the epiſtles of Clemens to the Corinthians.
We may well ſuppoſe that the admonition and cenſure pronoun-
ced by St Paul had the effect of removing the abuſes of which he
complained. As to the ſecond epiſtle of Clemens, although its ge-
nuineneſs were admitted, it has not even the moſt diſtant relation
to the ſubject of which Mr Gibbon is treating; and as to what he
ſays of the firſt epiſtle, he féems, in ſome meaſure, to be ſupported
by the authority of Archbiſhop Wake*.
Nevertheleſs,
}
* tur, non eft fermo. De “ quibuſcunque fermonibus" intelligere verba Pauli nos
“ ipfa oppofitio cogit. Prophetis enim, ait, loqui quidem licet divino motis impulfu,
“ ita tamen, ut alter alterum fuo ordine excipiat, mulieres verò in eccleſia tacento.
66 Canentes autem nota carmina divina fuà comitari voce, abſque dubio licebat mu-
“ lieribus.”
*“ When St Paul wrote his firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians, the two great things
" that ſeemed to have eſpecially called for it, were, firſt, the diviſions of the church,
upon the account of their teachers, and through their vain conceit of their own
" fpiritual gifts; and, ſecondly, the great miſtake that was getting in among them
concerning the nature of the future reſurrection: and however the Apoſtle, by
s his writing and authority, did for the preſent put a ſtop to the one, and ſet them
“ right as to the other ; yet it ſeems after his death they began again to fall not
“ only into the ſame contentions, but into the ſame error too, that had cauſed them
« ſo much trouble before. Now, this gave occaſion to St Clement to write the pre-
сс
16 fent
202
V.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
Nevertheleſs, the evil of which Clemens complained, appears
to have ariſen rather from the facious fpirit of individuals in the
church, than from the pride, preſumption, or 'miſtaken zeal of
the prophets *.
*.
Bé,
Σ
« fent epiſtle to them.” Diſcourſe concerning the Apoſtolical Fathers, c. ii. § 12. 13.
The Archbiſhop ſuppoſes that the contentions among the Corinthians in the days of
Clemens, aroſe through " their vain conceit of their own ſpiritual gifts:" But he does
not limit the caſe to the particular gift of prophecy.
* Thus, in the very beginning of his epiftle, Clemens ſpeaks of " that foul and
os unholy diffenfion foreign and ſtrange to the elect of God, which a few raſh and
o felf-willed men have inflamed to ſuch madneſs,” &c. [ñs te erropíces i térns
τοϊς εκλεκτούς τε Θεέ, μιαρας και ανοσία σάσεως, ήν ολίγα πρόσωπα προπέλή και αυθάδη υπάρ-
χοντα, εις τοσέλoν απονοίας εξέκαυσαν, κ. τ. ε.]
Again, at $ 3. Clemens ſays, “So the baſe have been raiſed up againſt the honourable,
"6 thoſe of no reputation againſt the eminent; the fooliſh againſt the wiſe, and the
young
s againſt the aged ; therefore righteouſneſs and peace are far departed from you, be-
o cauſe every one hath forſaken the feår of God, and is become blind in faith towards
« him ;, neither walketh by the rule of his commandments, nor hath a converſation as
" is fitting in Chriſt : But each man proceedeth according to his own evil déſires, having
« taken up an unjuſt and ungodly emulation, whereby death alſo entered into the world!
[ύτως επ’ ηγέρθησαν οι άτιμοι επί της εντίμες, οι άδοξοι επί τες ενδόξες, οι άφρονες επί της
φρονί μες, οι νέοι επί τες πρεσβυτέρες. Δια τέτο πόρρω άπεςιν η δικαιοσύνη και ειρήνη, εν τω
απολείπτειν έκαςον τον φόβον τε Θεέ, και εν τη πίσει αυτά αμβλυωπήσαι, μηδέ έν τοϊς νομίμοις
των προσαγμάτων αυτά πορεύεσθαι, μηδε πολιτεύεσθαι κατα το καθήκον των Χρισώ, αλλα
έκαςον βαδίζων κατα τας επιθυμίας αυτά τας πονηρας, ζήλον άδικον και ασεβή ανειληφότας, δε
% και θανατος εισήλθεν εις τον κοσμον.] Here there is what may be termed the leading
nction of the epiſtle; and it ſeems inconſiſtent with the hypothefis, that Clemens
meant to treat of the pride, preſumption, or miſtaken zeal of the prophets."
More particularly ſtill, he ſays; at 14. “ Wherefore, men and brethren, it is
more juſt and holy that we be obedient unto God, than that-we follow them who;
o through pride and an unſettled fpirit, are become the authors of abominable dif.
~ ſention ; for, we ſhall bring upon ourſelves no ſmall hurt, but rather great peril,
" if we rafhly yield to the wills of men, whoſe aim is, by ftrife and fedition, to
κα' alienate us from that which is right.” [Δίκαιον εν και όσιον, άνδρες αδελφοί, υπηκόες
ημάς μάλλον γενέσθαι τω Θεώ, ή τοίς εν αλαζονεία και ακαταστασια μυσαρε ζήλε αρχηγούς εξα:
κολεθν
και
Η
CH A P T E R
203
Υ.
the powers
Be this as it may, Mr Gibbon ought to have explained more
particularly what is to be underſtood by the phraſe,
so of the prophets were withdrawn." We have ſeen that, aca
cording to his hypotheſis, the prophets were called by the mul-
citude, under the approbation of the Apoſtles. Are we to ſup
poſe, that when this inſtitution of prophets became uſeleſs, and
even pernicious, the church ceaſed to call them, or at leaſt that
the Apoſtles with-held their approbation of ſuch call? Hence it
might be inferred, that the inſtitution was a device of human po-
licy. But the words of Mr Gibbon cannot be ſo underſtood; for
he himſelf admits, that the prophets were divinely inſpired; and
therefore we may ſuppoſe his meaning, however -ambiguouſly
κολεθείν. βλάβην γαρ και τυχεσαν, μάλλον δε κίνδυνον υπoίσομεν μέγαν, εαν ριψοκινδύνως επι-
δωμεν εαυτες τοϊς θελήμασι των ανθρωπων, όιτινες εξακοντίζεσιν εις έριν και τάσεις, εις το απ.
αλλοτριώσαι ημάς τε καλώς έχοντος.]
At $ 44. mention is made of the exceſſes to which the multitude, incited by their
feditious demagogues, had run; “ for 'we ſee that you have put out from the mini-
κι ftry Tome men of good converfation.” [ορώμεν γαρ ότι ένίες υμείς με τηγάγετε καλώς
πολιτευομένες εκ της ---λειτουργίας. ]
And at 47. Clemens ſays, “ Beloved, what we hear is fhaineful, exceedingly
$6 ſhameful indeed, and unworthy of the Chriſtian profeſſion; that, by means of
one or two perſons, the beſt eſtabliſhed, the ancient church of Corinth riſes in
« fedition againft her priefts. [αισχρα, αγαπητοί, και λίαν αισχρα, και ανάξια της έν
Χρισώ αγωγής ακεέσθαι, την βεβαιοτάτην, και αρχαίας Κορινθίων εκκλησίαν, δι' ένα ή δύο πρό-
σωπα, τασίαζειν προς τις πρεσβυτέρες.
At $ 54. he pathetically exclaims, “ Who is there generous among you, who ten.
6. der-hearted, who filled with charity ? let him ſay, if, for my cauſe, there be diſen.
s6 fion, and ſtrife, and ſchiſms, I depart, I go whitherſoever ye will, and I do what..
s ever the people commandeth, only may the flock of Chriſt, with the prieſts fet over
66. it, be in peace. Whoſo doeth this ſhall obtain for himſelf great renown in the
και Lord, and every place hall welcome him.” [τίς εν εν υμίν γενναίος, τις ευσπλαγχνος,
τίς πεπλαροφορημένος αγάπης και ειπάτω. ει δι' εμέ τάσεις, και έρις, και σχίσματα, εκχωρώ, άπειμι,
ξ εαν βέλησθε, και ποιώ τα προςασσόμενα υπό το πλήθος. μόνον το ποίμνιον τα Χρισ ειρη-
νευέτω, μετά των καθεσαμένων πρεσβυτέρων. τύτο και ποιήσας εαυτό μέγα κλέος εν Κυρίω πε.
μποιήσεται, και πας τόπος δέξεται αυτόν.]
and
C C 2
204
V.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
thoſe pro-
and improperly expreſſed, to be, that" ir pleaſed God to with-
“ draw ſuch miraculous gifts whenever they became unneceſſary,
or were egregiouſly mifuſed." This appears to be a rational in-
terpretation of the paſſage, and it is agreeable to the truth of hi-
ſtory; but whether Mr Gibbon meant to convey that ſentiment to
his readers, I do not pretend to determine.
Perhaps it may be thought, that I have dwelt too long on theſe
expreſſions of Mr Gibbon, That" the prophets were called to that
sc function without diſtinction of age or ſex; and as often as they
“ felt the divine impulſe, poured forth the effuſions of the Spirit in
“ the aſſembly of the faithful."
But the truth is, that Mr. Gibbon has fpoken fo inaccurately of
the prophets of the apoſtolical age, as to make the inſtitution ap-
pear, at the firft view of his account of it, a maſs of impoſture
and fanaticiſm, tempered with human policy; and therefore it
became proper not only to ſtate the fact as to thoſe
phets, but alſo to attempt to reconcile the language of Mr Gibbon
with his avowed principles,
Under this head of " the union and difcipline of the Chriſtian
church," ſuppoſed to have been“ the fifth fecondary cauſe of
“ the rapid growth of Chriſtianity," Mr Gibbon treats of the va-
riations in ecclefiaftical government during the firſt ages of the
church, and of the conteſts among the clergy for
power and
pre-
eminence. He alſo enlarges on the practice of pronouncing ex-
communication, and of impoſing public penance. Haw theſe
things ſhould have contributed to the rapid growth of Chriſtia-
nity, he has not explained.
One circumſtance, of which he ſpeaks, deſerves more particu-
lar attention. It is thus expreſſed: “A generous intercourſe of
charity united the moſt diſtant provinces, and the ſmaller con-
gregations were chearfully aſliſted by the alms of their more:
H. apulent brethrenSuch an inſtitutions, which paid lefs regard
:
6.6
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
205
V.
to
66
the merit than to the diſtreſs of the object, very materially
- conduced to the progreſs of Chriſtianity.” i. 595.
So far he ſays well. It was reaſonable for humane Pagans, when
they faw the pious liberality of believers, to inquire into the nature
and evidences of THE RELIGION OF Love. Such inquiries can
never hurt the cauſe of Chriſtianity, and, in general, are favourable
to it. If, in this way, any Pagans were converted, their conver-
fion might be ſaid to have been owing to the virtues of the Chris
ftians.
What follows in Mr Gibbon is more exceptionable : “ The Pa-
gans," ſays he, “ who were actuated-by a ſenſe of humanity, ,
while they derided the doctrines, acknowledged the benevolence
“ of the new fect."
It ſeems, then, that the humane Pagans, while they did juſtice
to the benevolence of the new fect, continued to deride its doc-
trines; ſo that it was not by the means which I have fuppoſed,
that Chriſtian benevolence very materially conduced to the
pro-
greſs of Chriſtianity.”
Mr Gibbon adopts a different ſyſtem. He ſays, “ The proſpect
of immediate relief, and of future protection, allured into the
hoſpitable bofom of the church many of thoſe unhappy perſons
“ whom the neglect of the world would have abandoned to the
“ miſeries of want, ſickneſs, and of old age.” i. 595. That is, the
Heathens, who dreaded poverty, fickneſs, and old age, fought that
relief from the liberality of Chriſtians which they could not expect
even from the other Heathens," who were actuated by a ſenſe of
us humanity;" and fo they profeſſed their belief in Chriſt!
It will be remeinbered, that this, according to the hypotheſis of
Mr. Gibbon himſelf, could not poſſibly have happened in the early
ages
of the church, when it was compoſed of poor and mean per-
fons. The Chriſtians muſt have become opulent before their libe-
rality could have bribed the Heathens to ſeek their protection, the
protection
206
v.
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
protection of men expoſed to the hourly hazard of baniſhment
and confiſcations!
On this ſubject, Moſheim expreſſes himſelf with fome degree of
warinth. “ They," ſays he, " who feign other cauſes of the ra-
pid growth of Chriſtianity, do but repeat dreams to us, and
“ ſuch as cannot be reliſhed, unleſs by men ignorant of the na-
tural diſpoſitions and hiſtory of mankind. They imagine
" themſelves to have made ſome mighty diſcovery, while they
affirm, that the charity of Chriſtians towards the poor allu-
“ red a multitude of fluggiſh and debauched perſons to make
“ profeſſion of faith in Chriſt. It feems then, that the minds
” of men are fo conſtituted, that, to alleviate hunger for a
time, and to obtain ſcanty and homely food, they would be
“ willing to incur the immediate hazard of reputation and life,
" ſubmit themſelves to a ſevere diſcipline, like the Chriſtian,
” and, in one word, amidſt tortures, and puniſhments even unto
ignominious death, that they would diſplay invincible fortitude
in maintaining a religion to which from indolence alone they
“ had attached themſelves! There is as little common ſenſe in
“ the reſt of what the concealed enemies of Chriſtianity prate on
“ this ſubject *."
ALL
** Alias qui commipiſcuntur religionis Chriſtianæ tam fubitò propagatæ cauffas,
5 fomnia nobis recitant, quæ nullis placebunt, niſi rerum et morum humanorum im.
“ peritis. Magnum ſeſe neſcio quid reperiffe autumant, qui amorem Chriſtianorum
« erga pauperes turbam ignavorum et vitioforum hominum allexiffe ftatuunt, ut in
! Chrifti verba jurarent. Ita fcilicet homines animis affecti ſunt, ut famis ad tempus
s ſedandæ parcique et duri victûs conſequendi cauſâ, præſentiffimum honoris vitæ.
" que periculum adire, ſeveræ fefe diſciplinæ, qualis Chriſtiana, ſubjicere, religionem
“ denique, propter inertiam ſuſceptam, conftantiffimè inter tormenta et fupplicia, ad
« mortem uſque ignominioſam, tueri cupiant. Nihil faniora funt cetera, quæ his de
rebus garriunt, qui facris Chriftianis infidiantur.” Inſtitutiones Hiſtoria Chriſtiane
majores,
Ć É A P T E R
207
v.
All that now remains is to recapitulate briefly the Five ſecon-
dary cauſes, which, in the judgement of Mr Gibbon, “ fo effica-
" ciouſly affifted the truth of the Chriſtian religion.” i. 599*.
His firſt propofition, as we have ſeen, is, that Chriſtianity be-
came victorious over the eſtabliſhed religions of the earth, by its
very doctrine, and by the ruling providence of its great Author;
1
majores, fæc. 1. part. i. c. iv. § 13. Moſheim expreffes himſelf with more afperity of
ſtyle than is uſed from layman to layman: When indeed we laymen find it neceffary
to abuſe the clergy, we are apt enough to adopt the general language of Molheim,
but then we call them, or we ſay enough to make others call them, “intereſted
" kraves," rather than " fooliſh praters and viſionaries."
Upon this ſubject, however unpromiſing, Mr Gibbon' enlarges; in particular, he
fays, That “the zeal and activity of the Chriſtian clergy were united in the com-
« mon cauſe; and the love of power, which, under the moſt artful diſguiſés, could
( infinuate itſelf into the breaſts of biſhops and martyrs, animated them to in:
"creaſe the number of their ſubjects, and to enlarge the limits of the Chriſtian em-
“ pire. They were deſtitute of any temporal force, and they were for a long time
« diſcouraged and oppreſſed, rather than affifted, by the civil magiſtrate. But they
si had acquired, and they employed within their own ſociety, the two moſt effica-
66 cious inſtruments of government, rewards and puniſhments ; the former, derived
66 from the pious liberality, the latter, from the devout apprehenſions of the
or' faithful." i. 591.
Here there are ſeveral things remarkable. 1. It is ſuppoſed that the biſhops and
martyrs of the primitive church looked upon the reſt of the Chriſtians as their ſub-
jefts. 2. That the love of power, under the moſt artful diſguiſes, animated the pri..
mitive clergy to collect alms, and to beſtow them on the indigent. The enemies of
our religion have not ſaid ſo: for Lucian fcoffs at the beneficence of the Chriſtians,
and Julian feems mortified at it. . See Decline and Fall, vol. i: p. 595. not 143.
3. Rewards are ſuppoſed to be ſome of “ the moſt efficacious inſtruments of human
government;". for the context will not allow us to underſtand the paſſage, of the
moral government of God. 4. “ The devout apprehenſions of the faithful,” that is, ,
the fear' which the Chriſtians had of public penances and excommunication, ſerved
to increaſe the number of Chriſtians !
* Here, as on other occaſions, I am'much indebted to the writings of Biſhop Wat-
fon and Dr Chelſum:
and!
208
C H A P T E R V.
and his laſt, of a like import, is, That CHRISTIANITY IS THE
TRUTH,
Between his firſt and his laſt propofitions, there are, no doubt,
many diſſertations, digreſſions, inferences, and hints, not alto-
gether conſiſtent with his avowed principles. But much allow-
ance ought to be made for that love of novelty which ſeduces
men of genius to think and ſpeak raſhly; and for that eaſineſs of
belief, which inclines us to rely on the quotations and commen-
taries of confident perſons, without examining the authors of
whom they ſpeak.
I. The firſt ſecondary cauſe of the rapid growth of the Chriſtian
religion is ſaid to have been, “ The inflexible and intolerant zeal
“ of the Chriſtians;" a zeal, when unſupported, and even re-
preſſed by ſecular power, of all things the moſt likely to check,
inſtead of accelerating the growth of Chriſtianity.
II. “ The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional
circumſtance which could give weight or efficacy to that im-
portant truth *"
This, however, muſt have been a primary, and not a ſecondary
cauſe of the rapid growth of Chriſtianity: for, if we may credit
St Paul, “ Chriſt has aboliſhed death, and has brought life and
“ immortality to light, through the goſpelt."
III. “ The ſupernatural gifts afcribed to the Chriſtians.” This,
if underſtood of miraculous powers really exerciſed, ought to be
ranked among the primary cauſes of the rapid growth of Chri-
ſtianity; if underſtood of “ lying wonders,” it is hard to ſay, why
* Mr Gibbon, in his recapitulation of the five ſecondary cauſes, i. 608. mentions
" the immediate expectation of another world," inſtead of “ the doctrine of a fu-
" ture life.” But this is ſaid through mere inadvertency; for an opinion which aroſe
from a wrong interpretation of ſome paſſages in Scripture, could only take place
among thoſe who were previouſly convinced of the authority of the holy books.
ii. Tim. i. 10.
the
C Η Α Ρ Τ Ε R
209
V.
the Pagans, who had fictitious miracles of their own, ſhould have
rejected them, and adopted what, in the preſent argument, muſt
be conſidered as fables, the invention of a hated and perſecuted
fect.
IV. “.
“ The virtues of the primitive Chriſtians.” Mr Gibbon
admits not only that they were virtuous, but alſo that they
were more virtuous than their Heathen contemporaries. But
what made them to differ from others ? Let us anſwer, till we
are better informed, “ The grace of God that bringeth ſalvation,
“ hath appeared to all men; teaching us, that, denying un-
godlineſs, and worldly luſts, we ſhould live foberly, righte-
"ouſly, and godly in this preſent world ; looking for that blefl-
" ed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and
our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, who gave himſelf for us, that he
“ might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himſelf
a peculiar people, zealous of good works *.” So if the vir-
tues of the primitive Chriſtians did contribute, in ſome mea-
ſure, to the rapid growth of Chriſtianity, we muſt aſcribe ſuch
effects, not to any fecondary cauſe, but to the primitive cauſe of
thoſe virtues, the grace of God.
V.“ The union and diſcipline of the Chriſtian republic.” This
indeed would have ſtrengthened the church, if not augmented the
number of believers; but between the apoſtolical times and the
acceſſion of Conſtantine, the Chriſtians were not ſo ſtudious as
became them in preſerving “ the unity of the Spirit in the bond
“ of peace;” neither was diſcipline, at all times, regularly and
prudently maintained among them.
We read in Mr Gibbon of " the mutual hoftilities of the cler-
gy,
which ſometimes diſturbed the peace of the infant church;"
of " their turbulent paſſions, tinctured with an additional degree
of bitterneſs and obſtinacy from the infuſion of ſpiritual zeal;
* Titus, ii. 11.-14.
Dd
of
2 10
CH A P T E R V.
0
of “the ainbition of the Roman Pontiff, and the abſolute fway
“ of Cyprian over Carthage, and the provincial fynods;" of "a
** controverſy carried on without effuſion of blood, which was
owing much leſs to the moderation than to the weakneſs of the
* parties ;” and of“ invectives and excommunications reciprocally
"s hurled with equal fury and devotion;" of " diſcordant coun-
u cils ;” of “the lofty titles of metropolitans and primates which
aſpiring biſhops acquired;" and of “the emulation of
pre-
s6 eminence and power which prevailed among the metropolitans
" themſelves.”
There alſo we read of biſhops “ who were unfaithful ſtewards
“ of the riches of the church, and laviſhed them in ſenſual plea-
" ſures, or perverted them to the purpoſes of private gain, of
s fraudulent purchaſes, and of rapacious uſury*.”
All this, and more to the like purpoſe, is related in a ſection
which profeſſedly treats of the mighty conſequences ariſing from
the union and diſcipline of the primitive church.”
Thus it appears, that the things which Mr Gibbon conſidered
as ſecondary or human cauſes, efficaciouſly promoting the Chri-
ſtian religion, either tended to retard its progreſs, or were the ma-
nifeſt operations of the wiſdom and power of God.
* Ducline and Fall, vol. i. p. 582. 588. 589. 590. 591. 594. 598.
COR-
2 II
CORRECTION S.
p. 2. I. 26. for, a cauſe of all others the moſt unlikely read, of all cauſes
the moſt unlikely p. 13. 1. 1. for it has not been proved, read, there is no
evidence, p. 40. 1. 28. for fourteen. read fifteen. p. 48. I. 15. for preci-
pitated read too haſty. P. 52. 1. 15. for knew, read known, p. 55. 1. 26.
for Italian read Italic p. 60. l. 4. for foreſeeing read foreſeeing of
p. 62. 1. 11. after obſerved, add, in a note, Warburton, ferm. vol. iii. p. 235.
30.
after Matth. add, iv. 24. p. 67. 1. 8. for premiſed, read re-
peated, p. 70. l. 5. for This read Thus p. 72. 1. 14. for induce read
could have induced, p. 92. l. 1. for tires read is tired, p. 102. l. 4. for,
to diſtinguiſh read from diſtinguiſhing p. 164. 1. 15. del. themſelves.
p. 168. 1. 4. &e. This paragraph and the following one ought to have
been inſerted, in a note, at p. 166. 1. 15.
p.62.1.
$
A D'DITIONS.
Page 31. 1. 11. after the word “ ſentiments,” add, in a note'.
It muſt be confeſſed, that in the days of Clemens Romanus, who wrote
foon after the death of St Paul, the like error was revived in the church of
Corinth, i. Epift. § 23. But it appears from that epiſtle, that the error was
not general.
Semler, a profeſſor of divinity at Hall in Germany, has not ſcrupled to
affirm, That “ St Paul, wiſely, and of ſet purpoſe, accommodated himſelf
" to the weakneſs of thoſe men who looked for a ſpeedy arrival of the laſt
day.”. Quorum imbecillitati Paulus ſapienter et ſtudiosè obfecutus eſt.]
Semler. Hiſt. Ecclef. Selecta Capita, p. 22.
It is ſtrange that, in the eighteenth century, as well as in the firſt, there
ſhould have been found men hardy enough to deny to St Paul the common
privilege of being allowed to explain his own meaning!
Dd 2
Page
)
212
A D D I TI O N.S.
Page 34. 1. 17. add note.
Semler thus ſpeaks of the Apocalypſe : “ Apocalypſis dubiæ originis, et
“ infirmiorum in gratiam, picta magis quàm fcripta, varias fententias inde a
primo tempore experta eft. Chriſtiani ex Judæis non reſpuerunt, ſed pleri.
que eâ parùm ufi funt, non pauci omninò rejecerunt; poftea, cùm Tycho-
“ nius, [fæc. v.] ſpiritualem expofitionem præiverat, a pleriſque recepta fuit;
* fic tamen, ut de hiſtorica hujus libri origine et fide nondum omninò ita,
6 uti de aliis, nobis conftat ; fed res ad arbitrium et confcientiam lectorum
" hodie adhuc redeat." Semleri Hift. Ecclef. Selecta Capita, p. 18.
It is hard to ſay, whether the temerity or the ſtrange inaccuracy of ſuch
obſervations be moſt remarkable. The author ſeems to think that, among
the primitive Chriſtians, there was a difference of opinion as to the authority
of the Apocalypſe, becauſe that work is “ rather painted than written ;''
[picta magis quàm ſcripta]; that is, becauſe it is compoſed in figurative, ra-
ther than in hiſtorical language: But the learned profeſſor did not recollect,
that, were this a reaſon for inducing the primitive Chriſtians to doubt of the
authority of the Apocalypſe, a like reaſon ought to have induced Jews as well
as Chriſtians, to doubt of the authority of moſt prophecies in the Old Teſta-,
ment, and particularly of the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hoſea; for they
alſo are compoſed“ in figurative, rather than in hiſtorical language.” Sem-
ler ſeems to ſuppoſe, that they were the converted Jews who, in the early ages,
acknowledged the authority of the Apocalypſe: But Cyprian, neither an He-
brew nor the ſon of an Hebrew, has quoted ſeventy-eight verſes of the Apo-
calypfe, being almoſt the fifth part of that book.
add note.
Page 184. I.
3.
Here Mr Gibbon notes, that “ Molheim, in a particular diſſertation, at-
“ tacks the common opinion with very inconcluſive arguments.” I have
feen, but not peruſed the differtation ſo much ſlighted by Mr Gibbon. I have
peruſed another work of Moſheim, relating to the ſame ſubject, which con-
tains the following paſſage: “ The vulgar opinion about a community of goods
ss among Chriſtians, is the rather to be exploded, as ſome think they have
16 a handle given them by it to attack Chriſtianity itſelf. Hence, fome mo.
" dern
ADDITIONS and ERRATA.
213
« dern enemies of that religion make it their chief ſtudy to perſuade the ig-
- norant, that the precepts of Chriſt are better ſuited to deſerts, and to the
o fands of Lybia, than to well-ordered ſtates and governments. Were that
66 the caſe, ſuch precepts could very hardly, if at all, be conſidered as die
o vine." [Tanto diligentius vulgaris de communione bonorum opinio ex-
ftirpanda eſt, quanto multis illa videtur aptior ad vim Chriſtianæ religionis
divinitati inferendam: recentiorum enim religionis Chriſtianæ hoftium ali.
qui id agunt potiffimum, ut rerum imperitis perſuadeant, Chriſti precepta
deſertis potius locis, et arenis Lybicis, quàm civitatibus et rebus publicis bene
conſtitutis, accommodata effe : quod fi verum eſſet, vix, ac ne vix quidem,
divinis haberi poffunt. Inftitutiones Hiſtorie Chriſtiane Majores, fæc. i.
part. i. c. iv. § 4. not. *.]
pro
*
E RR AT A.
p. 19. 1. 25. for rap, read rap', p. 43. I. 28. for Davies read Davis p. 44.
1. 27. for apospar read doopwy p. 48. l. 23. after Quant. del. point p. 51.
1. 4. for than read that p. 77.1. 30. for asbyvą read dobevei p. 94. I. 27. for
υπαλέλειπται read υπολέλειπτο p. 96. 1. 28. for Rolheim read Rofweid
p. . p. 98.
1. 30. for 3 or read této p. 99. I. 14. for diſcourſe, read diſcourſe :
p. 163. 1. 27. for ëfer read ftv 1. 31. for 596. read 597. p. 172. 1. 29. for
în read ñy p. 191.1, 24. for naarlos read xawyles
1
3
DO NOT CIRCULATE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 07032 2253
1
1