tures, and to instruct them in the doctrines of their religion; and schools were every where erected for this purpose, even from the very commencement of the Christian church. We must not, however, confound the schools designed only for children, with the gymnasia, or academies of the ancient Christians, erected in several large cities, in which persons of riper years, especially such as aspired to be public teachers, were instructed in the different branches, both of human learning, and of sacred erudition. We may, undoubtedly, attribute to the apostles themselves, and their injunctions to their disciples, the excellent establishments in which the youth, destined to the holy ministry, received an education wuitable to the solemn office they were to undertake. St. John erected a school of this kind at Ephesus, and one of the same nature was founded by Polycarp at Smyrna. But none of these were in greater repute than that which was established at Alexandria, which was commonly called the catechetical school, and is generally supposed to have been erected by St. Mark.4

2

VIII. The ancient Christians are supposed by many to have had a secret doctrine; and if by this be meant, that they did not teach all in the same manner, or reveal all at once, and to all indiscriminately, the sublime mysteries of religion, there is nothing in this that may not be fully justified. It would have been improper, for example, to propose to those, who were yet to be converted to Christianity, the more difficult doctrines of the gospel, which surpass the comprehension of imperfect mortals. Such were, therefore, first instructed in those points which are more obvious and plain, until they became capable of higher and more difficult attainments in religious knowledge. Nay, more; even those who were already admitted into the society of Christians, were, in point of instruction, differently dealt with, according to their respective capacities. Those who consider the secret doctrine of this century in any other light, or give to it a greater extent than what we have here attributed to it, confound the superstitious practices of the following ages, with the simplicity of the discipline which prevailed at the time of which we write.5

IX. The lives and manners of the Christians in this century are highly celebrated by most authors, and recommended to succeeding generations as unspotted models of piety and virtue. And if these encomiums be confined to the

1 2 Tim. ii. 2.

2 Irenæus, adv. Hæres. lib. ii. cap. xxii. p. 148. ed. MasLuet. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles, lib. v. cap. xx. p. 188.

3 The Alexandrian school was renowned for a succession of learned doctors, as we find by the accounts of Eusebius and St. Jerome; for, after St. Mark, Pantænus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and many others, taught in it the doctrines of the gospel, and rendered it a famous seminary for Christian philosophy and religious knowledge. There were also at Rome, Antioch, Cæsarea, Edessa, and in several other places, schools of the same nature, though not all of equal reputation.

4 See the dissertation of Schmidius, De Schola Catechetica Alexandrina; as also Aulisius, Delle Seuole Sacre, book ii. chap. i, ii. p. 5-17. and chap. xxi. p. 92. The curious reader will find a learned account of the more famous Christian schools in the eastern parts, at Edessa, Nisibis, and Seleucia, and, indeed, of the ancient schools in general, in Assemanus' Biblioth. Oriental. Clement. Vaticanæ, tom. iii. par. II. p. 914-919.

5 Many learned observations upon the secret discipline have been collected by the celebrated Christoph. Matt. Pfaffius, in his Dissert. poster. de Præjudiciis Theolog. sect. 13. p. 149, &c. in Primitiis Tubingensibus.

greatest part of those who embraced Christianity in the infancy of the church, they are certainly distributed with justice. But many run into extremes upon this head, and estimating the lives and manners of all by the illustrious examples of some eminent saints, or the sublime precepts and exhortations of certain pious doctors, fondly imagine, that every appearance of vice and disorder was banished from the first Christian societies. The greatest part of those authors who have written concerning the innocence and sanctity of the primitive Christians, have fallen into this agreeable error. And a gross error indeed it is, as the strongest testimonies too evidently prove.

X. One of the circumstances which contributed chiefly to preserve, at least an external appearance of sanctity in the Christian church, was the right of excluding from thence, and from all participation of the sacred rites and ordinances of the gospel, such as had been guilty of enormous transgressions, and to whom repeated exhortations to repentance and amendment had been administered in vain. This right was vested in the church, from the earliest period of its existence, by the apostles themselves, and was exercised by each Christian assembly upon its respective members. The rulers, or doctors, denounced the persons whom they thought unworthy of the privileges of church-communion, and the people, freely approving or rejecting their judgment, pronounced the decisive sentence. It was not, however, irrevocable; for such as gave undoubted signs of their sincere repentance, and declared their solemn resolutions of future reformation, were re-admitted into the church, however enormous their crimes had been; but, in case of a relapse, their second exclusion became absolutely irreversible."

XI. It will easily be imagined, that unity and peace could not reign long in the church, since it was composed of Jews and Gentiles, who regarded each other with the bitterest aversion. Besides, as the converts to Christianity could not extirpate radically the prejudices which had been formed in their minds by education, and confirmed by time, they brought with them into the bosom of the church more or less of the errors of their former religions. Thus the seeds of discord and controversy were early sown, and could not fail to spring up soon into animosities and dissensions, which accordingly broke out, and divided the church. The first of these controversies, which was set on foot in the church of Antioch, regarded the necessity of observing the law of Moses, and its issue is mentioned by St. Luke in The Acts of the Apostles. This controversy was followed by many others, either with the Jews, who were violently attached to the worship of their ancestors, or with the yo. taries of a wild and fanatical sort of philosophy, or with such as, mistaking the true genius of the Christian religion, abused it monstrously to the encouragement of their vices, and the indulgence of their appetites and passions. St. Paul and the other Apostles have, in several places of their

tomary, that the converts should be baptized and received into the church by those under whose ministry they had embraced the Christian doctrine. But this custom was soon changed. When the Christian churches were well established, and governed by a system of fixed laws, then the right of baptizing the Christian converts was vested in the bishop alone. This right, indeed, he conferred upon the presbyters and chorepiscopi, or country bishops, when the bounds of the church were still further enlarged, reserving, however, to himself, the confirmation of the baptism, which was administered by a presbyter. There were, doubtless, several circumstantial rites and ceremonies observed in the administration of this sacrament for the sake of order and decency. Of these, however, it is not easy, nor, perhaps, possible, to give a certain or satisfactory account; since, upon this subject, we are too much exposed to the illusion which arises from confounding the customs of the primitive times with those of succeeding ages.

IX. Those who were visited with violent, or dangerous disorders, sent, according to the apostle's direction,13 for the rulers of the church, and, after confessing their sins, were recommended by them to the divine mercy, in prayers full of piety and fervour, and were also anointed with oil. This rite has occasioned many debates, and, indeed, they must be endless, since the silence of the ancient writers upon that head renders it impossible to decide the matter with any degree of certainty. The anointing the sick is very rarely mentioned in the ancient records of the church, though there is no reason to doubt of its having been a universal custom among Christians. 14

X. Neither Christ nor his apostles enacted any law concerning fasting. A custom, however, prevailed among many Christians, of joining abstinence with their prayers, especially when they were engaged in affairs of extraordi. nary moment and importance. 15 As this custom was authorized by no public law, the time that was to be employed in these acts of abstinence was left to every one's private judgment: nor were those looked upon as criminal, who contented themselves with observing the rules of a strict temperance, without going any further. 16 In the most ancient times we find no mention of any public and solemn fasts, except upon the anniversary of Christ's crucifixion. But, in process of time, days of fasting were gradually introduced, first by custom, and afterwards by positive appointment; though it is not certain what those days were, nor whether they were observed in the first century. Those, notwithstanding, who affirm, that, in the time of the

14 The accounts which the ancient authors have given of this custom, are, the most of them, collected in a treatise published by Launoius, De sacramentis unctionis infirmorum, cap. i. p. 444, in the first volume of his works. Among these accounts there are very few drawn from the writers of the first ages, and some passages applicable to this subject, have been omitted by that learned author. 15 1 Cor. vii. 5.

16 See the Shepherd of Hermas, book iii. Similitud. v. p. 931.935. edition of Fabricius.

apostles, or soon after, the fourth and sixth days of the week were observed as fasts, are not, it must be acknowledged, destitute of specious arguments in favour of their opinion.17

CHAP. V.

CONCERNING THE DIVISIONS AND HERESIES WHICH TROUBLED THE CHURCH DURING THIS CENTURY.

I. THE Christian church was scarcely formed, when, in different places, there started up certain pretended reformers, who, not satisfied with the simplicity of that religion which was taught by the apostles, meditated changes of doctrine and worship, and set up a new religion, drawn from their own licentious imaginations. This we learn from the writings of the apostles, and particularly from the epistles of St. Paul, where we find, that some were for forcing the doctrines of Christianity into a conformity with the philosophical systems they had adopted, 18 while others were as studious to blend with these doctrines, the opinions, customs, and traditions of the Jews. Several of these are mentioned by the apostles, such as Hymenæus, Alexander, Philetus, Hermogenes, Demas, ar.d Diotrephes; though the four last are rather to be considered as apostates from the truth, than as corrupters of it. 19

The

II. The influence of these new teachers was but inconsiderable at first. During the lives of the apostles, their attempts towards the perversion of Christianity were attended with little success, and the number of their followers was exceeding small. They, however, acquired credit and strength by degrees; and even from the first dawn of the gospel, laid, imperceptibly, the foundations of those sects, whose animosities and disputes, produced, afterwards, such trouble, and perplexity in the Christian church. true state of these divisions is more involved in darkness than any other part of ecclesiastical history; and this obscurity proceeds, partly from the want of ancient records, partly from the abstruse and unintelligible nature of the doctrines that distinguished these various sects; and, finally, from the ignorance and prejudices of those, who have transmitted to us the accounts of them which are yet extant. thing, indeed, we are certain, and that is, that the most of these doctrines were chimerical and extravagant in the highest degree, and so far from containing any thing that could recommend them to a lover of truth, that they rather deserve to occupy a place in the history of human delusion and folly.20

Of one

17 See Beverege's Vindication of the Canon, in the second volume of his edition of the Apostolic Fathers, p. 166. 18 1 Tim. vi. 20. 1 Tim. i. 3, 4. Tit. iii. 9. Col. ii. 8. 19 Tim. ii. 18. and in other places. See also the accurato accounts given of these men by Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 952. Ittigius, De hæresiarchis ævi Apostol. sect. i. cap. viii. p. 84. Buddeus, De Ecclesia Apostolica, cap. v. p. 292, &c.

20 Certain authors have written professedly concerning the sects that divided the church in this, and the following century, such as Ittigius, in his treatisc, De hæresiarchis ævi Apostolici et Apostolico proximi, printed at Leipsic in 1690, and also in the Appendix to the same work, published in 1696. Renatus, Massuet, in his Dissertations, prefixed to Irenæus, and Tillemont in his Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire de l'Eglise. But these authors, and others whom we shall not inention, have rather col

III. Among the various sects that troubled the tranquillity of the Christian church, the leading one was that of the Gnostics. These enthusiatic and self-sufficient philosophers boasted of their being able to restore mankind to the knowledge (gnosis) of the true and Supreme Being, which had been lost in the world. They also foretold the approaching defeat of the evil principle, to whom they attributed the creation of this globe, and declared in the most pompous terms, the destruction of his associates, and the ruin of his empire. An opinion has prevailed, derived from the authority of Clemens the Alexandrian, that the first rise of the Gnostic sect is to be dated after the death of the Apostles, and placed under the reign of the emperor Adrian; and it is also alleged, that, before this time, the church enjoyed a perfect tranquillity, undisturbed by dissensions, or sects of any kind. But the smallest degree of attention to the language of the Holy Scriptures, not to mention the authority of other ancient records, will prevent our adopting this groundless notion. For, from several passages of the sacred writings,' it evidently appears, that, even in the first century, the general meeting of Christians was deserted, and separate assemblies formed in several places, by persons infected with the Gnostic heresy, though, at the same time, it must be acknowledged, that this pernicious sect was not conspicuous either for its number, or its reputation, before the time of Adrian. It is proper just to observe here, that under the general appellation of Gnostics, are comprehended all those who, in the first ages of Christianity, corrupted the doctrine of the gospel by a profane mixture of the tenets of the oriental philosophy (concerning the origin of evil, and the creation of the world) with its divine truths.

IV. It was from this oriental philosophy, of which the leading principles have been already mentioned, that the Christian Gnostics derived their origin. If it was one of the chief tenets of this philosophy, that rational souls were imprisoned in corrupt matter, contrary to the will of the supreme Deity; there were, however, in this same system, other doctrines which promised a deliverance from this deplorable state of servitude and darkness. The oriental sages expected the arrival of an extraordinary messenger of the Most High upon earth; a messenger invested with a divine authority, endowed with the most eminent sanctity and wisdom, and peculiarly appointed to enlighten, with the knowledge of the Supreme Being, the darkened minds of miserable mortals, and to deliver them from the chains of the tyrants, and usurpers of this world. When therefore, some of these philosophers perceived that Christ and his followers wrought miracles of the most amazing kind, and also of the most salutary nature to mankind, they were easily induced to believe that he was the great Messenger expected from above, to deliver men from the power of the

lected the materials, from which a history of the ancient sects may be composed, than written their history. Hinckelman, Thomasius, Dodwell, Horbius, and Basnage, have some of them promised, others of them attempted such a history; but none of them have finished this useful design. It is therefore to be wished, that some eminent writer, who, with a competent knowledge of ancient philosophy and literature, is also possessed of a penetrating and unbiassed judgment, would undertake this difficult, but interesting work.

11 John ii, 18. 1 Tim. vi. 20. Col. ii. 8.

malignant geni, or spirits, to which, according to their doctrine, the world was subjected, and to free their souls from the dominion of corrupt matter. This supposition once admitted, they interpreted, or rather corrupted all the precepts and doctrines of Christ and his apostles, in such a manner as to reconcile them with their own pernicious tenets

V. From the false principle abovementioned, arose, as it was but natural to expect, a multitude of sentiments and notions, nost remote from the tenor of the gospel-doctrines, and the nature of its precepts. The Gnostic doctrine, concerning the creation of the world by one or more inferior beings, of an evil, or, at least, of an imperfect nature, led that sect to deny the divine authority of the books of the Old Testament, whose accounts of the origin of things so palpably contradicted this idle fiction. Through a frantic aversion to these sacred books, they lavished their encomiums upon the serpent, the first author of sin, and held in veneration some of the most impious and profligate persons of whom mention is made in sacred history. The pernicious influence of their fundamental principle carried them to all sorts of extravagance, filled them with an abhorrence of Moses and the religion he taught, and made them assert, that, in imposing such a system of disagreeable and severe laws upon the Jews, he was only actuated by the malignant author of this world, who consulted his own glory and authority, and not the real advantage of men. Their persuasion that evil resided in matter, as its centre and source, prevented their treating the body with that regaru that is due to it, rendered them unfavourable to wedlock, as the means by which corporeal beings are multiplied, and led them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and its future re-union with the immortal spirit. Their notion that malevolent genü presided in nature, and that from them proceeded all diseases and calamities, wars and desolations, induced them to apply themselves to the study of magic, to weaken the powers or suspend the influences of these malignant agents. I omit the mention of several other extravagancies in their system, the enumeration of which would be incompatible with the character of a compendious history.

VI. The notions of this sect concerning Jesus Christ were impious and extravagant. For, though they considered him as the Son of the Supreme God, sent from the pleroma, or habitation of the Everlasting Father, for the happiDess of miserable mortals; yet they entertained unworthy ideas, both of his person and offices. They denied his deity, looking upon him as the Son of God, and consequently inferior to the Father; and they rejected his humanity, upon the supposition that every thing concrete and corporeal is, in itself, essentially and intrinsically evil. From hence the greatest part of the Gnostics denied that Christ was clothed with a real body, or that he suffered really, for the sake of mankind, the pains and sorrows which he is said to have sustained, in the sacred history. They maintained, that he came to mortals with no other view, than to deprive the tyrants of this world of their influence upon virtuous and heaven-born souls, and, destroying the empire of these wicked spirits, to teach mankind, how they might separate the divine mind from the impure body, and render the former worthy of being united to the Father of spirits.