20 more justly ascribed by the Christians to the wrath, of the Supreme Deity. The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity." They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigor. The emperor founded, under the name of Ælia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages. They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had preserved above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, and more firmly cemented their union with the Catholic church.21 The Ebionites. When the name and honors of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the 19 Eusebius 1. iii. c. 5. Le Clerc, Hist. Ecclesiast. p. 605. During this occasional absence, the bishop and church of Pella still retained the title of Jerusalem. In the same manner, the Roman pontiffs resided seventy years at Avignon; and the patriarchs of Alexandria have long since transferred their episcopal seat to Cairo. 20 Dion Cassius, 1. lxix. The exile of the Jewish nation from Jerusalem is attested by Aristo of Pella (apud Euseb. 1. iv. c. 6), and is mentioned by several ecclesiastical writers; though some of them too hastily extend this interdiction to the whole country of Palestine. Eusebius, 1. vi e 6. Sulpicius Severus, ji. 31. By comparing their unsatis factory accounts, Mosheim (p. 327, &c.) has drawn out a very distinct representation of the circumstances and motives of this revolution. *This is incorrect: all the traditions concur in placing the abandonment of the city by the Christians, not only before it was in ruins, but before the siege had commenced. Euseb. loc. cit., and Le Clerc. - MILMAN. † Marcus was a Greek prelate. See Dæderlein, de Comment Ebionais, p. 10-G. 22 obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Beroa, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honorable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites." In a few years after the return of the church of Jerusalem, it became a matter of doubt and controversy, whether a man who sincerely acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, but who still continued to observe the law of Moses, could possibly hope for salvation. The humane temper of Justin Martyr inclined him to answer this question in the affirmative; and though he expressed himself with the most guarded diffidence, he ventured to determine in favor of such an imperfect Christian, if he were content to practice the Mosaic ceremonies, without pretending to assert their general use or necessity. But when Justin was pressed to declare the sentiment of the church, he confessed that there were very many among the orthodox Christians, who not only excluded 22 Le Clerc (Hist. Ecclesiast. pp. 477, 535) seems to have collected from Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and other writers, all the principal circumstances that relate to the Nazarenes or Ebionites. The nature of their opinions soon divided them into a stricter and a milder sect; and there is some reason to conjecture, that the family of Jesus Christ remained members, at least, of the latter and more moderate party. 23 Some writers have been pleased to create an Ebion, the imaginary author of their sect and name. But we can more safely rely on the learned Eusebius than on the vehement Tertullian, or the credulous Epiphanius. According to Le Clerc, the Hebrew word Ebjonim may be translated into Latin by that of Pauperes. See Hist. Ecclesiast. p. 477.* *The opinion of Le Clerc is generally admitted; but Neander has suggested some good reasons for supposing that this term only applied to poverty of condition. The obscure history of their tenets and divisions, is clearly and rationally traced in his History of the Church, vol. i. part ii. p. 612, &c., Germ. edit.-MILMAN. "Ebionites." - The name of Ebionites was of earlier date. The first Christians of Jerusalem were called Ebionites, on account of the poverty to which they were reduced by their deeds of benevolence. (See the Acts of the Apostles, c. 4. v. 34: and c. 11. v. 30, the Epistle to the Galatians, c. 2. v. 10. Romans, c. 15. v. 26.) This name was also given to those Jewish christians who still retained their Judaizing opinions, and lived at Pella; they were finally accused of denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and as such excluded from the church. The Socinians who have recently denied this doctrine, have availed themselves of the example of the Ebionites, to prove that the primitive Christians held to the same opinions which they profess on this subject. Artemon among others, has developed this argument in all its force; Doderlein and other modern theologians have proved that the Ebionites were falsely accused in this respect. (Commentaires de Ebionoeis, 1770, 1-8.)-GUIZOT. The passages in scripture quoted above contain no proofs of the early Christians in Jerusalem having been called Ebionites, nor do they indicate such poverty as would have warranted the appellation. —ENGLISH C'IURCHMAN. their Judaizing brethren from the hope of salvation, but who declined any intercourse with them in the common offices of friendship, hospitality, and social life." The more rigorous opinion prevailed, as it was natural to expect, over the milder; and an eternal bar of separation was fixed between the disciples of Moses and those of Christ. The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away, either into the church or the synagogue. 25 While the orthodox church preserved a just The Gnostics. medium between excessive veneration and improper contempt for the law of Moses, the various heretics deviated into equal but opposite extremes of error and extravagance. From the acknowledged truth of the Jewish religion, the Ebionites had concluded that it could never be abolished. From its supposed imperfections, the Gnostics as hastily inferred that it never was instituted by the wisdom of the Deity. There are some objections against the authority of Moses and the prophets which too readily present themselves to the skeptical mind; though they can 24 See the very curious dialogue of Justin Martyr with the Jew Tryphon.* The conference between them was held at Ephesus, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and about twenty years after the return of the church of Pella to Jerusalem. For this date consult the accurate note of Tillemont, Mémoires Ecclesiastiques, tom. ii. p. 511. 25 Of all the systems of Christianity, that of Abyssinia is the only one which still adheres to the Mosaic rites. (Geddes's Church History of Ethiopia, and Dissertations de La Grand sur la Relation du P. Lobo.) The eunuch of the queen Candace might suggest some suspicions; but as we are assured (Socrates, i. 19. Sozomen. ii. 24. Ludolphus, p. 281) that the Ethiopians were not converted till the fourth century, it is more reasonable to believe that they respected the Sabbath, and distinguished the forbidden meats, in imitation of the Jews, who, in a very early period, were seated on both sides of the Red Sea. Circumcision had been practised by the most ancient Ethiopians, from motives of health and cleanliness, which scem to be explained in the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains, tom. ii. p. 117. *Justin Martyr made an important distinction, which Gibbon has left unnoticed. The first Jew-Christians were called Ebionites, and had retired to Pella. Those who were persuaded by their bishop, Marcus, to abandon, at least partially, the Mosaic law and return to Jerusalem, took the name of Nazarenes; those who persisted in their Judaism retained that of Ebionites. These last alone are rejected by the church, and severely reprehended by Justin Martyr. He is more lenient towards the Nazarenes, who, though still observing themselves some parts of the Mosaic law, did not compel pagan converts to conform to it; while the Ebionites, properly so called, desired to enforce their compliance. This appears to have been the principal distinction between the two sects. Dæderlein, p. 25. - GUIZOT. in all this we see that there was a considerable difference between early Jew and Greek Christianity. The "Greek prelate" Marcus prevailed on some to adopt the latter, while the others, who continued recusant, were disowned by the two religions between which they stood, and gradually dis-peared. This explains Justin Martyr's severity. - ENGLISH CHURCHMAN. SKEPTICISM OF THE GNOSTICS. 121 only be derived from our ignorance of remote antiquity, and from our incapacity to form an adequate judgment of the divine economy. These objections were eagerly embraced and as petulantly urged by the vain science of the Gnostics.26 As those heretics were, for the most part, averse to the pleasures of sense, they morosely arraigned the polygamy of the patriarchs, the gallantries of David, and the seraglio of Solomon. The conquest of the land of Canaan, and the extirpation of the unsuspecting natives, they were at a loss how to reconcile with the common notions of humanity and justice. But when they recollected the sanguinary list of murders, of executions, and of massacres, which stain almost every page of the Jewish annals,† they acknowledged that the barbarians of Palestine had exercised as much compassion towards their idolatrous enemies, as they had ever 23 Beausobre, Histoire du Manichisme, 1. i. c. 3, has stated their objections, particularly those of Faustus, the adversary of Augustin, with the most learned impartiality. *On the "war law" of the Jews, see Hist. of Jews, i. 137. - MILMAN, The Jews have been persecuted and despised by all nations and all sects. The Mahometans trace their origin to Abraham, whom they revere: the Christians hase their hope of salvation upon the promises made to the seed of the same Chaldean patriarch; yet, while Christians and Mahometans can agree on no other subject, they willingly unite in persecuting Abraham's descendants, - the "chosen people." It is true the Jews were an ignorant, brutal and idolatrous nation, and perhaps merited a portion of the suffering they were forced to endure; but the better class of the Hebrews were superior to many of the early Christians, and probably not much inferior to the Pagans. It must at least be said to their credit, that they never mutilated their persons, like the Christian fanatics, who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," as taught to believers, in Matt. xix. 12. As a stream never rises above its source, we should not expect to find the early Jews paragons of morality. Their founder, Abraham, surrendered his wife Sarah to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who "entreated "Abraham well for her sake, and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and "men servants and maid servants, and she asses and camels." (Gen. xii. 15-16.) Like the goddess Hebe, Madame S. seemed endowed with immortal youth, for at ninety years of age, when most sensualists become prudish and pious, she was still gay and charming. The lustful Abimelech, king of Gerar, was the next victim to this aged beauty's charms, and the pious and thrifty Abraham received in compensation one thousand pieces of silver and further important additions to his live stock. (Gen. xx. 2, 14, 16.) King David, (who was the ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary,) debauched "Bath-sheba, the legal wife of Uriah, the Hittite, and when this wanton informed him that she had conceived, he conspired against her husband's life. (II. Sam. xi. 2-17.) The Lord sent Nathan, the prophet, to rebuke this villainy, which duty he eloquently performed. (II. Sam. x 1-7.) He afterwards, however, anointed Solomon, the offspring of sin and sha as king of Israel. This worthy surrounded himself with a seraglio hundred concubines and seven hundred wives and princesses. He bec idolator, worshiping " Ashtoreth," the goddess of the Zidonians, "Milco abomination of the Ammonites, "Chemosh," the abomination of Mo "Molech." the abomination of the children of Ammon. (I. Kings xi 3-7 taught that all was vanity, and "that which befalleth the sons of men bela. "beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other 'they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a be go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." F 19, 20.) In view of the above facts, we ask, were not the Gnostics justific 122 DISBELIEF OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT. shown to their friends or countrymen." Passing from the sectaries of the law to the law itself, they asserted that it was impossible that a religion which consisted only of bloody sacrifices and trifling ceremonies, and whose rewards as well as punishments were all of a carnal and temporal nature, could inspire the love of virtue, or restrain the impetuosity of passion. The Mosaic account of the creation and fall of man was treated with profane derision by the Gnostics, who would not listen with patience to the repose of the Deity after six days' labor, to the rib of Adam, the garden of Eden, the trees of life and of knowledge, the speaking serpent, the forbidden fruit, and the condemnation pronounced against human kind for the venial offence of their first progenitors." The God of Israel was impiously represented by the Gnostics as a being liable to passion and to error, capricious in his favor, implacable in his resentment, meanly jealous of his superstitious worship, and confining his partial providence to a single people, and to this transitory life. In such a character they could discover none of the features of the wise and omnipotent Father of the universe." They allowed that the religion of the Jews was somewhat less criminal than the idolatry of the Gentiles: but it was their fundamental doctrine that the Christ whom they adored as the first and brightest emanation of the Deity appeared upon earth to rescue mankind from their various errors, and to reveal a 27 Apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu: adversus omnes alios hostile odium. Tacit. Hist. v. 4. Surely Tacitus had seen the Jews with too favorable an eye. The perusal of Josephus must have destroyed the antithesis. 2 Dr. Burnet (Archæologia, 1. ii. c. 7) has discussed the first chapters of Genesis with too much wit and freedom.t 29 The milder Gnostics considered Jehovah, the Creator, as a Being of a mixed nature between God and the Demon. Others confounded him with the evil principle. Consult the second century of the general history of Mosheim, which gives a very distinct, though concise, account of their strange opinions on this subject. Few writers have suspected Tacitus of partiality towards the Jews. The whole latter history of the Jews illustrates as well their strong feelings of humanity to their brethren, as their hostility to the rest of mankind. The character and the position of Josephus with the Roman authorities, must be kept in mind during the perusal of his History. Perhaps he has not exaggerated the ferocity and fanaticism of the Jews at that time; but insurrectionary warfare is not the best school for the humaner virtues, and much must be allowed for the grinding tyranny of the later Roman governors. See Hist. of Jews, ii. 254.- MILMAN. Dr. Burnet apologized for the levity with which he had conducted some of his arguments, by the excuse that he wrote in a learned language for scholars alone, not for the vulgar. Whatever may be thought of his success in tracing an Eastern allegory in the first chapters in Genesis, his other works prove him to have been a man of great genius and of sincere piety. — MILMAN. A recent work on this subject, entitled Some Mistakes of Moses, has met with a favorable reception. The author, Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, like the Rev. Dr. Burnet, is also "a man of great genius" if not 'of sincere piety." - E. |