FIRST CENTURY.

PART I.

THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER I.

THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS STATE OF THE WORLD AT THE BIRTH OF OUR SAVIOUR.

teries

§ 1. State of the Roman empire-§ 2. Its evils-§ 3. Its advantages- § 4. Then in peace § 5. Other nations-§ 6. All were idolaters -§ 7. They worshipped different gods-§8. They were tolerant-§ 9. Most of their gods were deceased heroes -§ 10. Pagan worship-§ 11. It was confined to times and places- § 12. The mys§13. Paganism not the parent of virtue-§ 14. Its votaries sunk in vice§ 15. How supported by the priests-§ 16. The Roman and Grecian religions§ 17. The mixed religions of the provinces §18. Religions beyond the Roman empire classed—§ 19. Philosophers unable to reform the world - § 20. The Oriental and Grecian philosophy-§ 21. Some philosophers subverted all religion-§ 22. Others debased it; e. g. Aristotelians § 23. Stoics-§ 24. Platonics -§ 25. The Eclectics

-§ 26. Use of this chapter.

§ 1. GREAT part of the world, when God became incarnate, obeyed the Roman people. They ruled remoter nations, either by governors and presidents sent from Rome, but not for life, or let them use their own kings and institutions, though in such a way as kept up respect for the majesty and supreme power of the Roman state. The Roman senate and people themselves, though all appearance of liberty was not lost, really served a single man, Augustus, decorated with the offices of emperor, pontifex maximus, censor, tribune of the people, pro-consul; in a word, with everything that had any degree of national dignity and importance.1

§ 2. The Roman government, if we regard only its form and laws, was sufficiently mild and equitable. But from the injustice of

See Aug. Campianus de Officio et potestate magistratuum Romanor. et jurisdictione, 1. i. e. 1, § 2, p. 3, &c. Geneva, 1725, 4to. [Blackwell's Memoirs of the court of Augustus, 4to. Edinb. 1753. Schl.]

See Sir W. Moyle's Essay on the con

stitution of the Roman government, in his Posth. works, i. 1-48. Lond. 1726, 8vo. Scip. Maffei, Verona illustrata, 1. ii. p. 65. [Pet. Giannone, Histoire civile du royaume de Naples, i. 3, &c. Schl.]

presidents and nobles, their eagerness to enrich themselves; the popular anxiety not only to preserve acquisitions, but also to make fresh ones; the avarice besides of publicans, by whom the state revenues were usually farmed,' infinite grievances pressed upon the subjects. Those vices of magistrates and publicans despoiled the people of money and effects; while this anxiety not only occasioned many other evils, but also required numerous armies in the provinces, undoubtedly to the great oppression of their inhabitants, and stirred up almost perpetual wars.

§ 3. Still, this widely extended dominion of one people, or rather of one man, was attended with several advantages. First, it brought into union a multitude of nations, differing in customs and languages. Secondly, it gave freer access to the remoter nations. Thirdly, it gradually civilised the barbarous nations, by introducing among them the Roman laws and customs. Fourthly, it spread literature, the arts, and philosophy, in countries where they were not before cultivated. All these greatly aided the ambassadors of our Lord, in fulfilling their sacred commission.3

§ 4. When Jesus Christ was born, the Roman world was much freer from commotions than it had been for many years. For, though I cannot agree with such as think, after Orosius, the temple of Janus to have been then shut, and all the globe at peace; yet it admits of no doubt, that our Saviour came down to men, in an age, which cannot be compared with its predecessor, without being called eminently peaceful. According to St. Paul himself, this peace was absolutely necessary to those whom Christ intrusted with his message

to mankind.5

§ 5. Respecting other nations, not under the Roman power, from want of monuments one cannot say much that is clear and ascertained. Nor is it very necessary to our purpose: it is enough to understand one thing. The Eastern nations were oppressed by a severer domination of kings or tyrants; to the patient endurance of which, softness of body and mind, and even the religion which they professed, much conduced. Such as were, on the other hand, in the northern regions, or not far from them, had far more liberty, which was protected no less by rigour of climate, and a habit of body sprung from it, than by their mode of life and religion.

§ 6. All these nations were plunged in the grossest superstition. For though the idea of one supreme God was not wholly extinct,7

[See P. Burmann, de Vectigalibus populi Romani, c. ix. p. 123, &c. Schl.]

2 See Nic. Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l'empire Romain, 2nd ed. Brussels, 1728, 4to, and Everard Otto, de Tutela viarum publicarum, pt. ii. p. 314.

3 Origen, among others, acknowledges this: lib. ii. adv. Celsum, p. 79, ed. Cantabr. [See also Heilmann, Comment. de florente literarum statu et habitu ad relig. Christi initia. Schl.]

See Joh. Massoni, Templum Jani,

yet most nations, or rather all except the Jews, supposed that each country and province was subjected to a set of very powerful beings, whom they called gods, and whom the people, in order to live happily, must propitiate with various rites and ceremonies. These deities were supposed to differ materially from each other, in sex, power, nature, and offices. Some nations, indeed, went beyond others in impiety and absurdity of worship, but all were justly chargeable with neglect of reason, and extreme folly in matters of religion.

§ 7. Thus every nation had a class of deities peculiar to itself, over which one more powerful and venerable than the rest presided, yet even he must obey the laws of fate, or eternal necessity. The orientals had not, however, the same gods as the Gauls, Germans, and other inhabitants of the northern regions. The Grecian deities differed altogether from those of the Egyptians, who had no hesitation in adding to the gods, animals, plants, and I know not what works of nature and art besides.2 Each nation likewise had its own method of worshipping and propitiating the gods, differing widely from religious practices elsewhere. But, from ignorance and other causes, the Greeks and Romans maintained, that their gods were universally worshipped: and therefore called foreign deities by the names of their own. It can scarcely be said how much darkness and confusion this opinion has brought into the history of ancient religions, and

548, 12mo, where, from a critical investigation, proof is adduced, that the ancient pagan nations were universally ignorant of the Creator and Governor of the world; till Anaxagoras, about 450 B.C., and afterwards other philosophers, conceived that the world must have had an intelligent architect. Tr.]

[We conclude universally, that all that multiplicity of pagan gods, which makes so great a show and noise, was really either nothing but several names and notions of one supreme Deity, according to its different manifestations, gifts, and effects in the world, personated, or else many inferior understanding beings, generated or created by one Supreme: so that one unmade, self-existent Deity, and no more, was acknowledged by the more intelligent of the ancient pagans, (for of the sottish vulgar no man can pretend to give an account in any religion), and consequently, the pagan polytheism or idolatry consisted, not in worshipping a multiplicity of unmade minds, deities, and creators, self-existent from eternity, and independent upon one Supreme; but in mingling and blending, some way or other, unduly, creature-worship with the worship of the Creator. (Cudworth's Intellectual System, Lond. 1678, p. 230.) Hence Faustus, the Manichean, branded both Jews and Christians as nothing better than schismatics from gentilism, maintaining that their doctrine

of the divine unity was really derived from the heathens. Julian, the apostate, also maintained one common Creator, with inferior gods under him, each having to administer a province of his own. (Ibid. 231, 274.) In India, Bp. Heber was admitted into a small square court in the fort of Chunar, containing a large slab of black marble, holden in the highest veneration as the actual seat of the Deity during nine hours in every day. On the opposite wall was a rudely-carved rose enclosed in a triangle,' but no image was to be seen. (Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, Lond. 1828, i. 408.) Thus, in strict accuracy, polytheism cannot be charged either upon ancient or modern pagans: at all events, not upon their system, or its more enlightened adherents. The system, in fact, is an undue blending of creature-worship with the worship of the Creator. This is analogous to the Romish usage of praying to saints. S.]

2 Athanasius, Oratio contra gentes. Opp. i. 25. [See Le Clerc, Ars critica, pt. ii. sect. i. c. 13, § 11, and Bibliothèque Choisie, vii. 84. Warburton's Divine legation of Moses demonstrated, ii. 233, &c. And respecting the Egyptian gods, see P. E. Jablonsky, Pantheon Egyptiorum, Francf. ad Viadr. 1750, 8vo. F. S. von Schmidt, Opuscula, quibus res antiquæ, præcipue Egyptiacæ, explanantur. 1765, 8vo. Schl.]

how many errors it has produced in the books of very learned men.1

§ 8. But this variety of gods and religions in the pagan nations, produced no wars or feuds among them; unless, perhaps, the Egyptians are an exception. Yet even among them, the wars for their gods cannot properly be considered as sacred and religious. Each nation, without concern, allowed its neighbours to enjoy their own views of religion, and to worship their own gods in their own way. Nor need this tolerance greatly surprise us. For they who regard the world as a great country divided into different provinces, each subject to a distinct order of deities, cannot despise the gods of other nations, and compel strangers to worship their own divinities. The Romans, in particular, though they would not allow the public religions to be changed or multiplied, yet gave their citizens entire liberty to follow privately the worship of other countries, and to honour with assemblies, feasts, temples, groves, and other things, those foreign deities whose rites had nothing inconsistent with domestic safety and institutions.3

§ 9. The greater part of the gods of all nations were ancient heroes, famous for their achievements and worthy deeds, as kings, generals, and founders of cities; or even females, who had gained renown by something accomplished or invented. Hence the gratitude of posterity raised them to the skies. To these, some added the more splendid and useful objects in the natural world: among which, the sun, moon, and stars, being preeminent, received worship from nearly all; and some were not ashamed to pay divine honours to mountains, rivers, trees, the earth, the ocean, the winds, and even to diseases, to virtues and vices, and to almost every conceivable object least, to the deities supposed to preside over these objects.1

5

or, at

§ 10. The worship of these deities consisted in numerous ceremonies, with sacrifices, offerings, and prayers. The ceremonies were for the most part absurd and ridiculous; and throughout debasing, obscene, and cruel. The sacrifices and offerings varied according to the nature and offices of the different gods. Most nations immolated de cultu peregrinæ religionis apud Romanos, in his Opuscula, L. Bat. 1719, 4to. [Warburton's Div. Leg. i. 307. Cf. Livy, Hist. Rom. lib. xxv. 1, and xxxix. 18, and Valer. Max. i. 3. Schl.-See also N. Lardner, Credib. of Gospel History, pt. i. bk. i. c. 8, § 3-6. Tr.]

[The former editions contain notes by Dr. Murdock and Mr. Soames on Comparative Mythology, a subject which, when Mosheim wrote, had not been critically examined, and for the discussion of which little more was done by Bryant and Faber than to collect facts from which historical, ethnological, and philological scholars are now working out more probable theories. For a very learned and interesting examination of the part of the question that concerns language, see an essay by Prof. M. Müller in Oxford Essays, London, 1856; and his Lectures on Language, London, 1861, p. 11. Ed.]

2 See what Laur. Pignorius has collected on this subject, in his Expositio mensæ Isiace, p. 41, &c.

See Corn. à Bynckershoeck, Dissert.

See the learned work of G. J. Vossius, de Idololatria,lib. i.-iii. [and La Mythologie et les fables expliquées par l'Histoire, par l'Abbé Banier, Paris, 1738-40, 8 vols. 12mo, and Fr. Creutzer's Symbolik u. Mythologie der alten Völker, besonders der Griechen. Leipz. u. Darmst. 1810-12, 4 vols. 8vo. Tr.]

J. Saubertus, de Sacrificiis Veterum; republished by T. Crenius, L. Bat. 1699, 8vo.

animals, and some likewise human beings,' a most hideous practice. Their prayers might be truly called insipid, and void of true piety, whether one considers their form or matter; 2 over this whole worship presided pontiffs, priests, and servants of the gods, divided into many classes; whose business it was, to see that nothing should be done improperly. These people were supposed to enjoy the friendship and familiar converse of the gods; and they basely abused their authority to impose on the people.

§ 11. The religious worship of most nations was not only confined to certain places and temples,3 but also to certain times and stated days. In the temples were placed statues and figures of their gods; and these representations were thought animated in an inexplicable manner by the deities themselves. For, senseless as these worshippers of fictitious gods really were, they nevertheless did not choose to have the credit of adoring lifeless images, brass, stone, and wood, but the deity which the statue represented, whom they considered present in it, if its dedication had been properly performed.1

§ 12. Besides this common worship, to which all had free access, there were, among both orientals and Greeks, certain recondite and concealed rites, called mysteries; to which very few were admitted. Candidates for initiation had first to give satisfactory proof to the Hierophants of their good faith and patience, by various most troublesome ceremonies. When initiated, they could not divulge anything they had seen, without exposing their lives to imminent danger. Hence it is, that the interior of these rites is, at this day, little known. Yet we know, that in some of the mysteries, many things were done repugnant to modesty and propriety. Nor, from the whole of them, could understanding minds be at any loss to see that the gods who were worshipped, had been men more distinguished for their vices than their virtues.

1 H. Columna, ad Fragmenta Enni, p. 29; and J. Saubertus, de Sacrificiis Vet. cap. 21, p. 455.

2 Matt. Browerius à Niedeck, de Adorationibus veterum Populorum, Traj. 1711, 8vo. [and Saubertus, p. 343, &c. Schl.]

3

[Some nations were without temples, such as the Persians, Gauls, Germans, and Britons, who performed their religious worship in the open air, or in the shady retreats of consecrated groves.' Macl.]

Arnobius, adv. Gentes, lib. vi. p. 254, ed Heraldi. Augustine, de Civitate Dei, vii. 33. Opp. vii. 161, ed. Benedict. Julian, Misopogon, p. 361, ed. Spanheim.

Jo. Meursius, de Mysteriis Eleusiniis; and David Clarkson, Discourse on Liturgies, § iv.

[Cicero, Disput. Tusculan. i. 13, [and de Leg. 24. Varro, cited by Augustine, de Civitate Dei, iv. 31. Eusebius, Preparat. Evangel. ii. 3. Schl.] See also Warburton's Divine legat. i. lib. ii. § 4, who was confronted by J. Leland, Advantages and

necessity of the Christian Rev. vol. i. ch. 8, 9, p. 151-190.-C. Meiners, über die Mysterien der Alten; in his Miscel. philos. works, vol. iii. Leipz. 1776. The Baron de Ste. Croix, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de la religion secrète des anciens peuples, &c. Paris, 1784, 8vo, and (P. J. Vogel's) Briefe über die Mysterien; which are the 2nd collection of Letters on Freemasonry, Nuremb. 1784, 12mo. It has been maintained that the design of at least some of these mysteries, was, to inculcate the grand principles of natural religion; such as the unity of God, the immortality of the soul, the importance of virtue, &c., and to explain the vulgar polytheism as symbolical of these great truths. But this certainly needs better proof. It is more probable that the later pagan philosophers, who lived after the light of Christianity had exposed the abominations of polytheism, resorted to this subterfuge in order to vindicate the character of their predecessors. Tr.]