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 favour of such an imperfect Christian, if he were content to practise the Mosaic ceremonies, without pretending to assert their general use or necessity. But when Justin was pressed to declare the sentiment of the church, he confessed that there were many among the orthodox Christians, who not only excluded their Judaising 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.† While the orthodox church preserved a just medium between excessive veneration and improper contempt for the law of Moses, the various heretics deviated into equal but opposite extremes of error and extravagance. From the acknowledged truth of the Jewish religion, the Ebionites had concluded that it could never be abolished. From its supposed imperfections, the Gnostics as hastily inferred that it never was instituted by the wisdom of the Deity. There are some objections against the authority of Moses and the prophets, which too readily present themselves to the sceptical mind; though they can only be derived from our ignorance of remote antiquity, and from *See the very curious Dialogue of Justin Martyr with the Jew Tryphon. The conference between them was held at Ephesus, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and about twenty years after the return of the church of Pella to Jerusalem. For this date consult the accurate note of Tillemont, Memoires Ecclesiastiques, tom. ii., p. 511. Of all the systems of Christianity, that of Abyssinia is the only one which still adheres to the Mosaic rites (Geddes's Church History of Æthiopia, and Dissertations de le 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 Æthiopians were not converted till the fourth century, it is more reasonable to believe that they respected the Sabbath, and distinguished the forbidden meats, in imitation of the Jews, who, in a very early period, were seated on both sides of the Red Sea. Circumcision had been practised by the most ancient Ethiopians from motives of health and cleanliness, which seem to be explained in the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Americains, tom. ii., p. 117. 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. 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 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' labour, 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 venal offence of their first progenitors. The God of Israel was impiously represented by the Gnostics as being liable to passion and to error, capricious in his favour, 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 new * Beausobre, Histoire du Manicheisme, l. i., c. 3., has stated their objections, particularly those of Faustus, the adversary of Augustin, with the most learned impartiality. Apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptû: adversus omnes alios hostile odium. Tacit. Hist., v. 4. Surely Tacitus had seen the Jews with too favourable an eye. The perusal of Josephus must have destroyed the antithesis. Dr. Burnet (Archæologia, l. ii., c. 7) has discussed the first chapters of Genesis with too much wit and freedom. § The milder Gnostics considered Jehovah, the Creator, as a Being of a mixed nature between God and the Dæmon. 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. system of truth and perfection. The most learned of the fathers, by a very singular condescension, have imprudently admitted the sophistry of the Gnostics. Acknowledging that the literal sense is repugnant to every principle of faith as well as reason, they deem themselves secure and invulnerable behind the ample veil of allegory which they carefully spread over every tender part of the Mosaic dispensation.* It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth, that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ.t We may observe with much more propriety, that, during that period, the disciples of the Messiah were indulged in a freer latitude both of faith and practice, than has ever been allowed in succeeding ages. As the terms of communion were insensibly narrowed, and the spiritual authority of the prevailing party was exercised with increasing severity, many of its most respectable adherents, who were called upon to renounce, were provoked to assert, their private opinions, to pursue the consequences of their mistaken principles, and openly to erect the standard of rebellion against the unity of the church. The Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name, and that general appellation which expressed a superiority of knowledge, was either assumed by their own pride, or ironically bestowed by the envy of their adversaries. They were almost without exception of the race of the Gentiles, and their principal founders seem to have been natives of Syria or Egypt, where the warmth of the climate disposes both the mind and the body to indolent and contemplative devotion. The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible world. As soon as they launched out into that vast abyss, they delivered themselves to the guidance of a disordered imagination; and as the paths of error are various and infinite, the Gnostics were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects,§ of whom the most celebrated appear to have been the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and, in a still later period, the Manichæans. • See Beausobre, Hist. du Manicheism, 1. i., c. 4. Origen and St. Augustin were among the Allegorists. Hegesippus, ap. Euseb., 1. iii., 32, iv. 22. Clemens Alexandrin, Stromat. vii. 17. In the account of the Gnostics of the second and third centuries, Mosheim is ingenious and candid; Le Clerc dull, but exact; Beausobre almost always an apologist; and it is much to be feared, that the primitive fathers are very frequently calumniators. § See the catalogues of Irenæus and Epiphanius. It must indeed be allowed, that those writers were inclined to multiply the number of sects which opposed the unity of the church. LIBERALITY OF THE CLERGY. THEIR PRACTICE CONTRASTED WITH THEIR PROFESSION. ALL men hear much of the merit of those who subscribe to the various modes by which theology obtains and expends the sinews of war-'lucre ;' and though it may be a delicate investigation, still it is an important one, to examine into statistics to discover by whom the necessary amounts are mainly provided. When we consider how much the clergy iterate and reiterate the statement that the cause of God will certainly come to a standstill unless the missions, the Bibles, the schools, the visitings are kept upand when we all know that parsons no more than printers, or bishops than bookbinders, will work without pay-it is certainly worthy of a little investigation, to discover whether the clergy consider that they contribute their quota by talking only, to the funds necessary to carry on the before-mentioned work of the Lord. The Daily News, a few weeks since, contained a very interesting article on this subject, from which I propose to take a few statistics in illustration :: Most of our readers are aware of a division of the body ecclesiastical which has for some years been gradually extending itself, which divides the Church into two bodies entitled High Church and Low Church. Each division has its pet institutions, supported more or less according to the bias of the donor; although, taking the subscriptions of the bishops as a type of the clergy as a body, it would appear the High Church is decidedly the favourite. The High Church Societies areThe National Society, The Additional Curates Society, The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, The Christian Knowledge Society. The Low Church Societies are- Now to the National Society the twenty-seven Right Reverend Fathers in God gave, with donations by nineteen out of the number, the sum of £2880 5s. So far so good. But it appears that the same number of laymen, taken indiscriminately from the subscription list, contributed the sum of £4561 -balance against Episcopal liberality being £2030 13s., still leaving all the great body of lay subscribers unaccounted for. By the returns of the next society in rotation, the Additional Curates Society, it appears twenty-eight bishops by yearly subscriptions, and sixteen by donations, contributed £2720 11s. But here also the same number of laymen contributed £8714. So that, in this case, lay benevolence exceeds clerical by £5993 9s.; and would show a still more glaring preponderance were there any more bishops to give anything, because the total receipts of this society were for last year over £27,000, the great bulk of which was contributed by laymen. To the Propagation Society the benevolence of the Bishops is perfectly contemptible-£214 14s.; and out of a grand total collected of £124,111, there is no difficulty to find twenty-seven laymen to double and treble their paltry gifts. The total revenue of the Christian Knowledge Society was £32,440. The Episcopal contributions by twenty-six of their body amounted to £120 14s., while twenty-six of the laity subscribed £1193 10s.-balance against the descendants of the Apostles £1072 16s. So that to the High Church societies, usually supposed to be especially founded and maintained by Episcopal influence, we find the real facts to stand thus: ditto ......... 5936 4 0 15203 10 0 Episcopal subscriptions and donations for one year Lay ditto of same number of donors being £9267 6s. more than those of Episcopacy. But on turning to the Low Church societies a marked difference exhibits itself, and enables us to feel the pulse of the Fathers in God as to Evangelical views and objects. First, the total income of the Pastoral Aid Society is £31,357. Of this sum, taking sixteen bishops against sixteen laymen, the result is a subscription of £138 4s. by the former, against £436 5s. by the latter-balance in favour of lay benevolence £298 1s. The next in rotation is the Church Missionary Society. Ten prelates gave a fraction under five guineas each, while ten laymen gave an average of £140 each—and the returns of this association exhibited an income of £77,480; so that to compare episcopal to lay benevolence is like comparing a puddle to the Atlantic ocean. One would be apt to think the spread of the Prayer Book was an object to which the bishops would readilly contribute. But it appears by the returns of the Prayer Book and Homily Society that only four bishops give any thing, and they the sum of seven guineas amongst them, the total income being £1681-four laymen from among the number contributing £53 is. The British and Foreign Bible Society has an income of £95,933, with six bishops as subscribers, contributing the sum of £18 13s.—while six laymen are in the list whose total subscriptions amount to £7386. And to conclude with the British and Foreign School Society, the income of which is £11,711, three bishops only subscribe, giving £69 6s.; while three laymen contribute £431. So that in the Low Church societies the results are vastly more against episcopal benevolence than the High Church, standing thus :— ditto ......... Low Church gifts and subscriptions by the bishops 354 0 0 Ditto by same number of laymen 9895 6 0 Now it may be objected that the bishops give according to their means, and as it is not courteous to state this to be an assumption without proof, the following table will put the matter in a very clear position. The estimates are altogether in their favour-for setting aside the fact that large sums are received by them in the shape of fees and fines, of which we never hear, still |
