INTEND TO WRITE of one of the greatest transactions the world hath ever yet been acquainted with: “The Original and Progress of Mahometanism,” wherein a new religion was introduced into the world to the desolation, in a manner, of paganism, Judaism and Christianity, which hath now maintained itself above a thousand years and has increased its extent and proselytes over more than a fifth part of the known earth. Whereas Judaism, including all its colonies, was never equal thereunto, nor perhaps Christianity itself, if we consider the condition of it either before Constantine, or even to the days of Theodosius (during all which time as the senate of Rome so the greatest part of the empire were pagans), or afterwards, when uniformity was settled.1 But the inundation of the Arian Goths and the general irreligion, impiety, and division into sects, some whereof were idolaters, do not permit me to think that true and fervent Christianity was so far diffused as Mahometanism is at present.²

The same narration includes in it the rise of an empire greater than any of the four so famed monarchies, erected in a barren poor country in the midst of two potent princes, one reigning over the Eastern Christians, the other over the Persians: and all this to be brought about in the compass of a few years by a man of a mean estate, fiercely opposed, and slenderly befriended.³

By this time your curiosity prompts you to search after the physiognomy of this extraordinary person. This great soul was lodged in a body of a middle size: he was no giant nor did his stature equal that of an Almain Cimber whose bulk amazed the old Romans.4 He had a large head, a brown <2> complexion but fresh color, his beard long and black but not gray, a grave aspect wherein the awfulness of majesty seemed to be tempered with admirable sweetness which at once imprinted in the beholders respect, reverence, and love. His eyes were quick and sparkling. He had very handsome legs, an incomparable mien, easy motion and every action of his had a grace so peculiar that it was impossible to see him with indifference. The Arabians compare him to the purest streams of some river gently gliding along, which arrest and delight the eyes of every approaching passenger.⁵

Nothing was more mild than his speech, nothing more courteous and obliging than his carriage. He could dexterously accommodate himself to all ages, humors and degrees.⁶ He knew how to pay his submissions to the great without servility and to be complacent to the meaner sort without abasing himself. He had a ready wit, a penetrating and discerning judgment and such an elocution as no Arabian before or since hath ever equaled. When he pleased he could be facetious without prejudice to his grandeur: he perfectly understood the art of placing his favors aright. He could distinguish betwixt the deserts, the inclinations, and the interests of men; he could penetrate into their geniuses and intentions without employing vulgar espials or seeming himself to mind any such thing.

In fine, such was his whole deportment.

So was his natural freedom tempered with a befitting reservedness as instructed others not to importune him with unbecoming proposals, but never suffered any to understand what it was to be denied. Besides all those embellishments and qualifications, he had a great strength and agility of body, an indefatigable industry, an undaunted courage such as never forsook him in the greatest dangers. He was much addicted to ride the best and most warlike horses, <3> and since every action of great men is remarkable and often carries a presage of future accidents, I shall relate one. He being once mounted on a brave but unruly courser, his friends desired him to forsake his back; but whether it were that he duly apprehended his own skill and abilities, or his great spirit thought it more fitting to contemn than acknowledge a danger into which he had rashly engaged himself, he denied the request, adding that it became the timorous and effeminate to have their horses exactly managed for them: that a generous and true Arab could not be surprised with an untamed steed, that the intractableness of his horse added to his pleasure, as a storm delights an intelligent pilot since it gives him an occasion to discover that skill which could not be manifested otherwise, and rewards the danger and trouble by an accession of glory.

Behold the character of that man who hath gained so much upon the esteem of one part of the world and filled the rest with astonishment.

But to discover the means by which he achieved those great things is a matter of more difficulty, and in order thereto you must consider what it was that disposed the people to such a change and what gave beginning thereunto. Prudent persons distinguish cautiously betwixt those two circumstances and know that the bravest actions do frequently miscarry under very happy pretenses or beginnings, in case the antecedent causes be not proportionate to the design.7 Never any republic did dwindle into a monarchy or any kingdom alter into an aristocracy or commonweal without a series of preceding causes which principally contributed thereto.⁸ Never had Caesar established himself, nor Brutus erected a senate: and if you inquire why the first Brutus could expel Tarquin and the second could not overthrow Augustus and Antony;⁹ why Lycurgus, <4> Solon, and others could establish those governments which others have in vain attempted to settle in Genoa, Florence and other places, you will find it to arise from hence:¹⁰ that some considering those antecedent causes which secretly and securely incline to a change took the advantage thereof, whilst the others did only regard the speciousness or justice of their pretensions without a mature examination of what was principally to be observed.¹¹ This is certain: that when the previous dispositions intervene, a slight occasion, oftentimes a mere casualty, opportunity taken hold of and wisely prosecuted, will produce those revolutions which otherwise no human sagacity or courage could accomplish.¹²

I cannot find any authentic ground to believe that the sects among the Jews were more ancient than the days of the Maccabees, but arose after that Antiochus had subdued Jerusalem and reduced the generality of the Jews to paganism; and (the better to confirm his conquests) erected there an academy, placing the Pythagorean, Platonic, and Epicurean philosophers there. This I conceive to have been the original of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.¹³ Though afterwards, when the Maccabees had made an edict against and anathematized all that taught their children the Greek philosophy, one party did honest their tenets by entitling them to Sadoc and Baithos, and the others from a Cabbala derived from Eleazar and Moses successively.¹⁴

The introduction of those sects and of that Cabbala occasioned that exposition of the prophecy of Jacob (Genesis 49:20): “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”15 From whence they did according to that fantastical Cabbala imagine that when so ever the scepter should depart from Judah and the dominion thereof cease, that then there should arise a Messiah of the line of David (this was no general opinion: for how then could any have imagined Herod the Great to have been the Messiah; and how could Josephus fix that character upon Vespasian) who should <5> restore the empire and glory of Israel, and all nations should bow and submit to his scepter?¹⁶

I do not read that the Jews harbored any such exposition during the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar; albeit that the scepter so departed at that time from the tribe of Judah and house of David that it never was resettled therein. After their return to Jerusalem, no such thing is spoken of when Antiochus Epiphanes subdued them, profaned their temple, destroyed their laws and rites, and left them nothing of a scepter or lawgiver—during all which time, although they had the same prophecies and scripture, there is no news of any expected Messiah.¹⁷ But after that, the curiosity of the rabbis involved them in the pursuance of mystical numbers, and Pythagorically or Cabbalistically to explain them, according to the Gematria.¹⁸ Then was discovered that Shiloh and Messiah consisted of letters which make up the same numerals, and therefore a mysterious promise of a redeemer was insinuated thereby. And the prophecy of Balaam (Numbers 24:17) concerning a star out of Jacob and a scepter rising out of Israel with a multitude of other predictions (which the condition of their nation made them otherwise to despair of) must be fulfilled under this Messiah.

I name no other prophesies because either they are general and indefinitely expressed as to the time of their accomplishment, or else inexplicable for obscurity and uncertain as to authority, as the weeks of Daniel, which book the Jews reckon among their hagiographa or sacred (but not canonical) books.¹⁹ And also this prophesy had a contradictory one (Jeremiah 22:30), where it is said of Coniah, no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. And Ezekiel 22:26–27: “Thus saith the Lord God: Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.”

The aforesaid obscure prophecy, which did not take effect at first until the reign of David, and which suffered such a variety <6> of interruptions, seems to have fallen under this interpretation in the days of Herod the Great, whom the Jews so hated for his usurpation upon the Maccabee Levitical family and his general cruelties; he was particularly detested by the Cabbalistical Pharisees. That to keep up their rancor against him and his lineage, and to alienate the people from him, I could easily imagine this to have been a contrivance, wither perhaps was Herod displeased with the interpretation of the prophesy after that the Herodians had accommodated it to him and made him the Messiah, who after their conquest and ignominy under Pompey,20 had restored the Jews to a great reputation and strength, rebuilt the temple, and found some who could deduce his pedigree from the thigh of Jacob, as directly as David and Solomon. This sense of the prophecy being inculcated into the people, and all those Jews or strangers or proselytes, which resorted to Jerusalem at the great festivals from Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, and all those parts where the Jews had any colonies, there was an universal expectation of the Messiah to come (I except the Herodians) which continued amongst them ever after and possesses the Jews (our Jews are but the remains of the Pharisees) to this day.²¹

Their impatience for his appearance seems to have been less under Herod the Great (there being no mention of false Messiahs then), perhaps because the prophecy was not so clear and convincing whilst Herod was king since the scepter and legislative power seemed to be still in Judea. Though swayed by an Idumean proselyte, the priesthood continued, the temple flourished, and there was a prince of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Hillel of the lineage of David.²² But ten years after the birth of Christ, when Archelaus was banished to Vienna,²³ and Judea reduced into the form of a province, the scepter seemed then to be entirely departed from Judah. The kingdom was now become a part of the government of Syria and ruled by a procurator, who taxed them severely. Then the sense of their miseries made the people more credulous, and whether they more easily believed what they earnestly desired might happen, or that the malcontents did the more frequently and diligently insinuate into the multitude that opinion, there arose then sundry false Messiahs, and the world was big with expectation raised by the Jews in every country who had used the intelligence <7> from their common metropolis (Jerusalem) that the great prince was coming who should reestablish the Jewish monarchy and bring peace and happiness to all the earth.²⁴

Those circumstances made way for the reception of Christ, and the miracles he did (miracles were the only demonstration to the Jews, Mark 8:11). Convincing the people that he was the Messiah, they never stayed till he should declare himself to be so (I think he never directly told any so but the woman of Samaria, John 4:26) or evince his genealogy from David. For though some mean persons called him the Son of David, and the populace by that title did cry “Hosanna” unto him, yet did he acquiesce in terming himself the Son of Man, but esteemed him a prophet Elias, Jeremiah, and even the Messiah. And when he made his cavalcade upon an asinego, they cried him up as the descendant of King David. But his untimely apprehension and death, together with his neglect to improve that inclination of the people to make him king, did allay the affections of the Jews towards him, disappoint all their hopes, and so exasperated them that they, who had been a part of his retinue in that intrado of his, called for his execution and adjudged him by common suffrage to be crucified.25 His disciples fled; the apostles distrusted and sufficiently testified their unbelief by not crediting his resurrection. After that he was risen again, and they, assured thereof, they assume their former hopes of a temporal Messiah, and the last question they propose to him is: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6).

After his assumption into heaven, they attend in Jerusalem the coming of the Holy Ghost which seized in them and gave them the gift of tongues for a season: whereby they preached to the Jews, Elamites, Parthians, Alexandrians et cetera (those Salmasius shows not to be absolute strangers, natives of those countries, but Jews planted there) as also the proselytes.²⁶ Those surprised with the miracles of the cloven tongues and gift of languages, being possessed with the desire and hopes of a Messiah, and being there ascertained by Peter that Jesus whom Pilate had crucified was the Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), were to the number of three thousand immediately baptized in his name. And such as were to depart, when they came to their colonies, did divulge the <8> tidings and engage other Jews and proselytes to the same belief, the apostles themselves going about and also ordaining others to preach the glad tidings of a Messiah come who, though dead, was risen again (according to the obscure prediction of David) for the salvation of Israel, and whose second appearance would perfect the happiness of all nations, as well Jews as Gentiles.²⁷

That we may the better understand the way whereby those glad tidings were spread, it is requisite to be informed of the condition of the Jews in those days. It will not injure any relation if I translate a piece of a letter written by Agrippa, a king in Jewry (though not of Jerusalem), to Caius Caligula on behalf of the holy city, and published by Philo in his embassy to the emperor:

Jerusalem is the metropolis not only of the country of Judea, but of many other places, by reason of the colonies translated thence at several times, either in adjacent territories, as Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, Caelo-Syria, or those more remote, as Pamphylia, Cilicia, most parts of Asia as far as Bithynia, and the inmost parts of Pontus. Nor is Europe exempt from this jurisdiction, the Jews being planted in Thessalia, Boetia, Macedonia, Etolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, throughout Peloponnesus, especially in the principal parts of that isthmus. Nor is the continent only replenished with this nation: they have settled themselves in the chiefest isles as Euboea, Cyprus, and Crete. I mention not those beyond Euphrates, every place where the soil is rich, except a small part of Babylon and some parcels in other principalities inhabited by Jews.28

To illustrate this further, let us consider the number and interest of the Jews at Alexandria. What the glory and power of the Alexandrian and Egyptian Jews was, it is easy to understand out of Josephus and Philo. They were exceeding numerous there, the chiefest dignitaries, as well military as civil, were vested in them. They had a peculiar temple built for them at Heliopolis and Onias.29 For their High Priest (though deserted before the time of Christ), they had always their distinct ruler under the Egyptian kings, chosen by themselves out of their senate to rule them for life, being <9> styled Ἀλαβάρχης, Γενάρχης, Ἐθνάρχης³⁰ And you may easily guess at their splendor and number by this relation of the rabbi: he that has not seen the cathedral church (or chief synagogue) at Alexandria never saw the real glory of Israel. It was like a royal palace: there were two porticos by which to enter into it; there were in it seventy chairs adorned with gold and jewels according to the number of the elders; and a wooden pulpit in the midst thereof, wherein stood the bishop of the synagogue.³¹ And when the law was read after the pronouncing of every benediction, a sign was given by the shaking of a handkerchief for the people to say “Amen.” They did not there sit promiscuously, but men of several ranks and professions did sit in distinct places. There were once so many Jews there that the multitude was double to what went first out of Egypt.³²

In the next place, let us consider the multitude at Babylon and the neighboring territories, of those which went up with Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zorobabel. The number was but small, and those consisting of two tribes principally Judah and Benjamin with four orders only of the priests and Levites. Josephus³³ informs us that the rest of the multitude of Israelites chose rather to remain in the Babylonian territories, wherefore only two tribes are to be found in Asia and Europe subjected to the Roman Empire. The other ten tribes continue beyond Euphrates until this day, being an infinite people not to be numbered.³⁴

This account, how ten tribes remained, ought not to seem strange to those who consider how St. James writes his catholic epistle to the twelve tribes which were scattered abroad;³⁵ nor to them which believe that the seventy-two interpreters of the Bible were chosen out of the twelve tribes,³⁶ or who give any credit to the itinerary of Benjamin Tudelensis, a Jew who met with many of those Israelites that were captivated by Salmonasar in Media and other neighboring countries.³⁷ Many of the Israelites fled³⁸ into Judea also removed thence with the Levites upon the schism, and the rest continued in the dominions of Ashur till Nebuchadnezzar <10> brought the Jews into the like captivity and scattered them all over his dominions, which comprised one hundred and twenty-seven provinces (Esther 8:9). And it is not to be doubted but the interest of the Jews was very great there about the time of Christ, since at the time of Benjamin’s travels about five hundred years ago, they had so great a power and jurisdiction there, since they could be contradistinguished from the Palestine Jews, have their own Targum and Talmud, and their republics and universities in Soria, Pumbeditha and Nehardea continuing till the times of Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius, besides an infinity of synagogues and a reverence universally to the rulers, equivalent to what was shown unto the Christian bishops and clergy.³⁹

All those came up frequently to the great festivals at Jerusalem, as Salmasius shows out of Acts 2:9, where the old Jews from the place of their residence are called Parthians, Medes, Elamites.40 And besides this inestimable number of Jews, there was a multitude of proselytes whom they continually converted to entire Judaism. For not only Abraham but all the Jews did perpetually endeavor to draw others to their religion.⁴¹ Idumeans were made proselytes in the days of Hyrcanus; in the Babylonian Empire, many of the nations turned Jews (Esther 8:17). The Talmudists reckon upon Nero, Cæsar, and Antoninus Pius as proselytes.⁴² But to evince their number better, let us learn from Salmasius that the originary Jews did never use the Septuagint in their synagogues, but that was made use of by the proselyte Jews and their posterity at Alexandria and elsewhere. The Hellenists, mentioned in the Acts, were no other; and the deacons elected there to provide for the widows were of that number, and being a proselyte of Antioch.⁴³ That they were Jewish proselytes appears from hence: that the gospel had not then been preached to the Gentiles.

How diligent the Pharisees were to engage new converts the gospel tells us, and to descend so after ages, which is of some importance to the subsequent discourse. Dio Cassius tells us that in the time of Adrian when Bar Kokhba acted the Messiah, many nations joined with that imposter and the Jews; so that the whole world was in a commotion, which cannot be understood of any but entire proselytes.⁴⁴ For the Jews would not have mingled with others. And after that, under the Christian emperors, our codes and ecclesiastical constitutions inform us that they retained the custom of inveigling proselytes. This being the condition of the Jews, and all the nation, however dispersed, <11> being prepared aforehand to entertain any tidings of a Messiah who should advance the throne of David to an universal monarchy, it is not to be wondered that Christianity was so soon spread over the whole earth.⁴⁵

But wherein consisted this primitive Christianity which was there diffused? Certainly, the principal tenet which gained upon the spirits of all men was the doctrine of the coming of the Messiah. And it is evident that this was the fundamental article, from whence the Christians had at first their name in Antioch,⁴⁶ and which they propagated everywhere as the sum of their religion: that Jesus who was crucified was the true Messiah, that he was risen again, and would return in glory to restore Israel and establish truth and peace throughout the earth.

The first part is apparent from these texts.47 The second seems demonstrated hence: that not only the Jews but the⁴⁸ Christians were millenaries and did believe and expect the temporal reign of the Messiah and the union of the Jews and Gentiles under one most happy monarchy. Not one of the two first ages did dissent from this opinion; they which opposed it never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least 250 years after Christ. Of this opinion was Justin Martyr and (as he says) all Christians that were exactly Orthodox; Irenæus sets it down directly for a tradition and relates the very words which Christ used when he taught the doctrine.

And if this tenet were not an universal tradition in the most primitive times, I profess I know not what article of our faith will be found to be such upon the most diligent research.

This doctrine was taught by the consent of the most eminent Fathers of the first ages without any opposition from their contemporaries, and was delivered by them not as doctors but as witnesses, not as their own opinion but as apostolic tradition.⁴⁹ This tenet has been so fully handled by Dr. Mead (not to mention some others) that I might have declined the allegation of those impartial and able witnesses—the Lord Falkland and Mr. Chillingworth.⁵⁰ These were the principal tenets of those that were the first Christians, and from whence they were denominated. As to the subordinate doctrinals, they were no other than these: that the Messiah being already come, and since his ascension, being upon his return, in order to the recollection of Israel, the reestablishing of that kingdom and uniting of all nations under one scepter, a scepter of righteousness and truth; that all persons ought to prepare themselves for this holy kingdom of the Messiah and of heaven, and to relinquish all idolatry and wickedness, to repent <12> of their sins unfeignedly, and to submit to those laws under the obedience whereof God had concluded mankind though in sundry manners,⁵¹ there being one obligation upon the Jews and entire proselytes, and another upon the rest of men, who were not under that dispensation but subjected to the seven commandments of Noah, and, by due observing thereof, might render themselves capable of a portion in the future life and be sufficiently qualified for the kingdom of Christ on earth: it being the custom of the Jews always to make proselytes where so ever they lived. And if they prevailed not so far, at least to reduce them from idolatry and Gentilism to the observation of that law of nature which they esteemed all the progeny of Noah and such as were not of the Jewish profession to be obliged to.⁵²

It is no wonder if upon the persuasion that the Messiah were born, and returning again in glory, that some became apostles and others evangelists and teachers, both to Jews and Gentiles. The partition wall and distinction was to be taken away when all the world should become subjects to the same prince, who should extend his favors first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, the greatest prerogatives and privileges appertaining to the Jews as the peculiar people and children of the promise.53

We find in the first churches a distinction between Christians that were Jews and entire proselytes and those that were Gentiles or uncircumcised. The first had their apostles, all except Paul being of that number, and of Peter it is particularly said that he had the apostleship of the Jews committed to him, as Paul was charged with that of the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9). And of those which were scattered upon the persecution as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, they preached to the Jews only (Acts 11:19), though amongst the Jews there we find this distinction: that some of them being entire proselytes, but not understanding Hebrew nor reverencing that holy language so much as the originary Jews, they spoke Greek and used the Septuagint in their synagogues. Those are the Grecians spoken of (Acts 11:20) as Salmasius well observes.⁵⁴ And such were the churches in Jerusalem to whom the apostles appointed deacons, all proselytes. Of them that preached to the Gentiles, some taught them the necessity of circumcision and becoming entire proselytes: thus did Peter (Galatians 2:14) and others (Acts 15:2), and even Paul circumcised Timothy though the son of a gentile father (Acts 16:3). Sixteen bishops of Jerusalem were successively circumcised, saith Sulpicius Severus; and even those who derived their pedigree so as to show they were of the kindred of Christ, called deposyini, were always of the circumcision <13> (Eusebeus, Ecclesiastica Historia liber 1, caput 7).⁵⁵

From hence we may frame to ourselves a prospect of the primitive judaizing church, since it is certain that they were zealous as to the Mosaical Law (Acts 21) and lived in a perfect conformity to the legal rites. It is not to be doubted but their religion and doctrinals varied much from ours: such a sacrament as we make baptism to be, they had none, the Jewish baptism extending only to proselytes when newly made and their present family, not successive posterity—except we take it in a general sense for washing, as Luke 11:38. And so they might baptize either arbitrarily upon some great occasion, as at the preaching of John, or out of respect to legal or superstitious Pharisaical uncleanness. To this alludes the apostle when he tells the Hebrews of the doctrine of baptism (Hebrews 6:2). They that were circumcised resorted at usual times to the public temple service (Acts 3.1): they paid vows, offered sacrifices, and walked orderly, keeping the law, and yet were believers (Acts 21:20) et cetera. And there is not any sign that they were separated from the other Jews or were accounted heretics upon any other account than that they held Jesus to be the Messiah and taught in his name (Acts 14:17–18).

As to that other sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, neither did they use that otherwise than Christ had done, as a Judaical rite used either at the Passover or constantly at meals, the cup of blessing being then distributed by the master of the household, and the bread broken and distributed. The use of red wine, the breaking of the bread formally, and the distributing of it, the very names and rites are the same which were usual among the Jews. Nor was this ever done in the Jewish synagogues but at home. And so it is recorded they continued daily in the temple and, breaking bread at their own houses, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart (Acts 2:46). It is very probable that they added to the usual benediction of the bread and wine some commemorations in honor of the Messiah, which was no innovation or schismatical act since every rabbi might enlarge the synagogue worship or private devotion of his disciples in that manner. And it was usual for them so to do, wherefore this could give no distaste. And if we may believe that they imitated Christ in the celebration of his Last Supper, as that we may (for what was read of the Lord was delivered unto them (1 Corinthians 11:23), we must believe that all the ceremonies of the Jews were entirely retained by them at such time, seeing that in the evangelists we find nothing done in the Lord’s Supper but what the Jewish rituals prescribe. <14>

Scaliger avows it:” Ea omnia quae Evangelio traduntur, in ritibus Judaeorum sine ulla discrepantia eodem modo praecepta esse,”56 with whom doth Buxtorf and those that are most versed in the rabbinical learning agree.⁵⁷ But that they did never believe Christ to be the natural son of God by eternal generation,⁵⁸ or any tenet depending thereon, or prayed unto him, or believed the Holy Ghost, or the trinity of persons in one deity, is as evident as it is that the Jews and they did expect no such Messiah, and the introducing such doctrines would have been capital among them as tending to blasphemy and polytheism. It was blasphemy adjudged in Christ to say that he should sit at the right hand of power—that power being esteemed an incommunicable attribute of God. And so suffered Stephen (Acts 7:56–57) though Jesus did not upon the adjuration of Caiaphas say that he was Christ the Son of God (Matthew 26:63), and albeit it is manifest that the term “Son of God” was not unusual amongst the Jews so that they bestowed it on men, yet did they not import thereby any real divinity in the person (nor did Caiaphas in this adjuration mean so), but an extraordinary perfection lodged in humanity and hyperbolically expressed.

Neither is to be believed that they conceived that Christ’s death had put an end to the ceremonial law as consisting of types and fading shadows since they obstinately retained them so long after. And, which is most considerable, during this time they were instructed and governed by the apostles and their immediate successors. Such was the condition of the Judaizing Christians amongst which it is further remarkable that as the Jews originally did use the Hebrew Bible in their synagogues (howsoever that they expounded it in Syriac and Chaldean as they do now in Spanish, Italian, and according to the language which the auditory best understands), and the proselytes did follow the Septuagint and had a Greek liturgy, so it happened in Christianity: the Jewish converts did use the Hebrew Bible, and others adhered to the Septuagint, and as they hated each other before by reason of the use of the Septuagint, so they seem to have retained the same passion and animosity under the gospel. And the murmuring of the Greeks (Acts 6:1) perhaps derived its beginning from hence—the Hebrews not relieving the widows of those others, whereupon the <15> Hellenist proselytes had seven deacons chosen out of their number to attend to that care.⁵⁹

The Hellenists did relate miracles concerning their version and feigned a tale of seventy cells in which each translator finished his version, and upon comparing, they were found to be the same word for word. But the Jews say that darkness was upon the face of the earth in the time of Ptolemy when that translation was made and in the month of Thebeth kept a fast to testify their sorrow and resentments for it.⁶⁰ And though the Hellenists did reside in Judea or resort thither from Alexandria and Antioch, yet they held synagogues distinct from those of the Hebrews. Thus we have the synagogue of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, et cetera (Acts 6:9). Such were the Jewish synagogues of which Justin Martyr and Tertullian speak, in which the Septuagint was read;⁶¹ such was that in Cæsarea the Metropolis of Judea, whereof we read in the Hiero-solymitan Talmud that Rabbi Levi went to Cæsarea, and hearing them reading the lesson in Greek, he would have hindered them, but Rabbi Jesse was angry and said: “Must not he read at all who cannot read Hebrew? Let him read in any language that he understands and he discharges his duty.”⁶²

This distinction of synagogues upon the same account was introduced amongst the Christians. For though the Hellenists and Gentiles did use the Septuagint and Greek service, the Hebrews did not so, nor used they the same gospels with the other. Such were the Nazarenes who lived at Cæsarea Borea, and elsewhere, who used the Hebrew Bible and either a gospel peculiar called Evangeluim Nazareorum or Evangeluim Secundum Hebraeos or at least the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew, but with that discrepancy from the others, that the church hath rejected it as apocryphal, sophisticated, with sundry fables and otherwise corrupted.63 But the Nazarenes and Ebionites, the remains of the Judaizing churches, did repute that as the only authentic <16> gospel, as Epiphanius relates.⁶⁴

And from hence I conceive arose that division whereby some declared themselves to be of the synagogues of Paul, others of Apollo, and others of Cephas. The apostle of the circumcision did retain the Jewish rites, the Hebrew Scriptures and Hebrew Gospel (according to what descended to the Nazarenes at Pella Borea, et cetera) with a regimen exactly Judaical.⁶⁵ But Apollo, being an Alexandrian Jew (or rather Jewish proselyte), as one would guess by his name, used (no doubt) the Septuagint and such books as composed the canon at Alexandria, and in all probability did introduce in his synagogues a conformity with the Alexandrians’ rites and government, adding thereunto that Jesus was Christ which is all that I find he preached (Acts 18:28). But Paul who dealt with the Gentiles and did not reduce them under the Judaical law and circumcision, nor enforced them to any uniformity, but became all things unto all (by way of condescension) that he might gain them to Christ, whence his synagogues or churches must needs have varied exceedingly from those erected by Peter and Apollo, which gave occasion to the distinction at Corinth, some being of Paul, some of Apollo, and some of Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12).⁶⁶

From hence, if one will frame unto himself a prospect of the first Christianity, he must imagine to himself distinct synagogues of the original Jews and Hellenist proselytes none of those subordinate to the same governors, but as independent as were the Jewish synagogues everywhere, each synagogue having its peculiar bishop or angel of the church and ruling presbyters which are termed in the civil law and by the Jews archisynagogi and presbyteri, though perhaps the nasi or patriarch at Jerusalem might have one universal superintendency over them as he had a power to exact money from all the Jewish synagogues in the <17> east and west. The officers which were sent to gather his aurum coronarium or tax were called “Apostles.”67 And in imitation thereof did Christ institute his apostles.

The whole constitution of the primitive clergy relates to the Jewish synagogue not to the hierarchy. The presbyters were not priests but laymen set apart to their office by imposition of hands: no temples, no altars, no sacrifices were known in those days, the name of priest unheard of then.⁶⁸ Before the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, the said apostles did go forth and collect the said money as shekels paid to the temple which was afterward converted into aurum coronarium. In the subsequent ages, there is mention of the patriarchi minores to whom the Theodosian Code gives the title of spectabiles (as the other grand patriarchs are styled illustres and clarissimi), as also primates.⁶⁹ There is also mention of the hieres whose office is not known now except it relate to the cohen now in use among the Jews.

How ancient are the lesser patriarchs (who seemed to have ruled over the archisynagogi and presbyters of particular synagogues) I cannot tell.⁷⁰ But since all learned men do now agree that the Christian Church was governed according to the pattern of the Jewish synagogue, there can be little doubt but that every officer of the Christian synagogues resembled those of the others as well in office as name; and that as they retained the rites and customs of the Jewish synagogue in all other things (as to structure), not building their synagogues east and west but west and east so that the coming in was at the east and they prayed to the west (so is Saint Peter’s Church, built now at Rome), in <18> observing the Sabbath, paschal, circumcision et cetera—so they did in their government. And it is observable that, even at this day, though the Jewish synagogues agree in the substance of their service, yet for the particulars thereof, there is a great discrepancy amongst them in several countries, and so there was in the primitive times amongst the Christians.⁷¹

It is very possible also that the Judaizing Christians were at first subordinate to the Jewish patriarch and primates, having none of their own, before the Jews were animated against them and anathematized them as they were at first called by one common denomination of Jews. And some of them frequented the Jewish synagogues, the tenet of Christianity rendering them only mimes or heretics not separatists (as St. Jerome says), and they continued to do so in his time, through all the synagogues of the eastern Jews.72

We may further collect out of the different sects of the Jews (some of every one whereof embraced Christianity) the differences to have been as great in the Christian synagogues as in those of the Jews where the Sadducees, Essenes, Pharisees and Samaritans made sects.⁷³ Each retained their opinions mixed with the doctrine of the Messiah. And here came those Judaizing sects of which such a number is recounted by Epiphanius.⁷⁴ We may also imagine a great diversity betwixt the Jews living in the land of promise and those which lived out of it: for the Jews did not take themselves (nor do now) to be obliged to the Mosaical <19> rites, much less any temple worship, out of Palestine. The criminal laws have no coercive power out of these bounds,⁷⁵ the Paschal Lamb is not slain in any other country, all ground besides that holy Canaan is too impure and profane for such services and rites, though they did by authority of their rabbis frame to themselves many succedaneous rites and retain circumcision, the Judaical doctrines, and an opinion of their particular holiness above the Gentiles.⁷⁶ Of these Judaizing Christians or believing Jews (being reckoned not as heretics but good Christians) doth Origen speak as continuing to his time as the Gentiles that were converted to the belief of the Messiah, though Paul were the apostle of the uncircumcision and did not reduce them under the Mosaical Law and rites.⁷⁷ Yet being originally an Hebrew, it is easy to observe that in the settling of the church government, and in the penalty of excommunication, he did introduce in their church several Judaical constitutions, and also accommodated the pagan ceremonies frequently thereunto.

The intromission of the Gentiles by baptism was no Jewish rite in proselytes of the uncircumcision and can only be looked on as a particular washing from uncleanness such as was that of John Baptist or in imitation of that pagan rite so frequently used in case of enormous sins to wash them away by bathing in a river to which the poet Ovid alludes: “Ah nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis/fluminea tolli posse putatis aqua! Sed tamen, antiqui ne nescius ordinis erres,” Tristia, liber 2. And Virgil: “Tu genitor, cape sacra manu patriosque penatis; me bello e tanto digressum et caede recenti attrectare nefas, donec me flumine uiuo abluero.”⁷⁸ <20>

It is most certain that baptism heretofore was not administered by aspersion as now, but by a total immersion.79 And as to the baptizing of children, if it were used by any in the first ages, it is condemned by Tertullian and others, and can vouch no precedents or precepts out of scripture.⁸⁰ The discontinued usage of baptizing for the dead hath more to show for it since it is mentioned in scripture and not condemned in the Greek Church. Even Nazianzen was not baptized till thirty-three years old, albeit a bishop’s son,⁸¹ nor was Valentinian, the Emperor Theodosius, although descended of Christian parents, nor Saint Ambrose, nor Constantine and his son Constantius: so that we may not wonder to read that sundry heretical Christians did reject baptism totally, perhaps it having never been used in their churches. Such were the Seleuciani, Hermiani, Pauliciani, and that ancient and numerous sect of the Manicheans.⁸² Even the Jacobites did not use baptism, but with a hot iron imprinted the sign of the cross in the forehead of their partisans.

If I may be allowed to guess at the original of baptism, I would derive it from the pagan custom aforesaid of washing away expiatorily in rivers the most enormous sins;⁸³ in the doing whereof as the pagans were very tender, so the Christians were more frank, as Zosimus relates of Constantine the Great. And the baptism of children from hence: that because the Romans used the eighth and ninth day to devote their infants unto the dea mundina and give them names then,⁸⁴ and the Greeks had theirs <21> to the same purpose on the tenth day after their birth, therefore the Christians out of compliance with that superstition of the vulgar did hereby incline them to initiate them unto Christ. Such condescension in other cases as in the observation of Christmas, New Year’s Day, Mayday, Shrovetide and the pre-vigils and wakes of saints,⁸⁵ and the form of churches, the praying to the east, processions about parish bounds, the denomination of the clergy by the titles of antistites, pontifices, sacerdotes, and the churches by the name of templa and aedes, the shaving of the clergy, the surplice, the antiphons, and a thousand other things observable in the ancient Gentile Christianity had no other original. Even the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and all its rites seem to be deduced hence: the festivals of the pagan gods were usually suppers. This was so at the first: there was great feasting at them; so in this case at first, they were performed in the temples; so was this at the first, and so continues to be still. All the names of the pagan mysteries are fixed on this sacrament and its rites, et cetera: the procedure from the catechumeni to competentes and then to fideles,⁸⁶ the preparation before it, and all austerities so resembling that, they easily show whence they were derived.⁸⁷

But withal I must add that whereas those mysteries were not everywhere the same (for in the mysteries of Mithra they gave to the initiated a cup of water and some bread with some accessional forms of words), so neither were the rites of this Christian sacrament everywhere the same. Where the reverence of the mysteries was greatest and most solemn and accompanied with greater mortifications, there the Christians were more strict. Where it seemed rather substituted to the pagan <22> festival suppers, there they were more jocund and the κυριακόν δεῖπνον was no other amongst the Christians than these suppers paganical δεῖπνα, or pontifi-cum canæ of the Gentiles.88 In some places, their ἑταιρεῖαι or assemblies of men at festivals—these were allowed everywhere in Greece and Alexandria and usual amongst the Gentiles. They are termed συσσίτια, θιάσοι, ἔρανοι, and those which assembled there εἰλαπίναι, et cetera.⁸⁹ They were either held upon a religious accommodation as the συμβολή—or merely for pleasure and conversation as the rest. Each person contributed his part or share to the defraying the expenses, and that contribution was called συμβολή—symbola or symbolum. The associates had a kind of admission amongst themselves and the manner of assembling gained it the name of ἑταιρία and κοινωνία,⁹⁰ and at those meetings there was usually laid up either the overplus of the money collected or perhaps some further collection made for any distressed member of the society or against such contingencies. These were publicly allowed by authority and held monthly. They were oftentimes held in the temples and also in other appointed places.

He that will compare this with that account which we have of the Christians’ Love Feast or agape and considers that though the magistrates did not usually allow of private combinations or meetings, and yet approved these if they extended not to the danger of the public, will think that the κυριακὸν δεῖπνον and the κοινωνία were but appellations of some such sodalitium or fraternity.91 And this seems apparent from the communion of the Corinthians where every man brought in his contribution of food and wine and eat and drank thereof. <23> The fault which the apostle doth blame in them is that the communists did not import what they brought into the rest of the fraternity, but each fed upon his own symbola so that the poorer did rise hungry and the richer did riot it. He tells the Corinthians that if they will eat apart, they may do it at home, not in the church.⁹² This procedure was contrary to the rules of such … ,⁹³ and such as were poorer were put to shame and slighted by reason of the meanness of their contributions. He speaks there of the sacrament, and if we compare that and with the agape we must conclude the agape and communion all one. It is no wonder then if we read of several ways of celebrating this supper amongst the ancients. Even in the apostles’ time some communicated with the pagans at their festivals and to the honor of Christ did drink the cup of devils,⁹⁴ and did partake of the table of devils (1 Corinthians 10:20–21): from whence we may observe that the rites were the same though they differed in the objects of their devotion.

This being the duality of their rites and ceremonies, let us take a view of the doctrines which the Gentiles were converted unto. These seem to be principally contained in the grand tenet that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews who was to unite Jew and Gentile under one temporal monarchy. To qualify the Gentiles as befitting subjects for that celestial prince, they were to repent of their sins, renounce idolatry, and entirely to obey the seven commandments under which the Jews did believe all the Gentiles were to be concluded if they would have any person in the life to come or kingdom of heaven. This seems most evident from the apostolical decree made by the synod at <24> Jerusalem wherein there was a contest about what obligation the believing were to be brought under, whether they ought to be circumcised and instructed in the whole law of Moses to keep it, or whether they should be subjected to the seven commandments of Noah only. The synod concludes upon the latter. It is manifest from that synod that of these which entertained the doctrine of the Messiah and so became Christians, some were Pharisees and retained the opinions and traditions of their sect, together with the doctrine of Christ. They were not heretics if Ebion and Cerinthus were the persons that occasioned.⁹⁵

It is most certain they which held the opinion were then in good esteem with the church and are said to be the same of the sect of the Pharisees which believed (Acts 15:5), and they were a part in that apostolical synod (though overruled). How else could there have been such συζήτησις—so great a dispute there, as the text avers (Acts 15:7).96 So there were of the Sadducees that professed Christianity and believed Jesus to be the Messiah yet denied the resurrection. Of such does Justin Martyr speak in his dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, when he reckons up as a third part of Christendom those which were called Christians yet denied the resurrection and tenet of the Chiliasts.⁹⁷ It is true he esteems them as wicked and heretical persons, but reckons them Christians. Seeing then that though the converts did retain their former opinions generally, and that Christianity itself was but a reformation of Judaism (as Mr. Selden more than once inculcates): to understand the decision we <25> must consult the doctrine of the Jews as to this point.⁹⁸

Now it is a most received tenet amongst them that a Gentile continuing a Gentile was obliged to nothing but the law of nature contained in those seven precepts, and not to the Mosaical Law at all, and that it is needless if we consider the subsequent passage only as an instance of things commonly known to be necessary. Had the synod meant any other way, what a confusion would there have risen upon so great an innovation in the Jewish tenets. How can we imagine that they which were so zealous for the same would have acquiesced therein? How should they suffer this additional clause out of the Mosaical Law to be extended to the uncircumcised: that is to abstain from things strangled, which was permitted to the Gentiles (Deuteronomy 14:21). But that clause is held to be spurious in the text by St. Ambrose and others, and really it is incredible that it should ever have been in that decree. Nor can it be reputed a necessary point in the decree to abstain from things offered unto idols except we understand thereby to abstain from idolatry.⁹⁹ For Paul decides that point otherwise to the Corinthians: that it was simply lawful for them to eat things offered to idols and that it is an indifferent matter, except in case of scandal, as Heideggerus doth demonstrate out of the place.¹⁰⁰

I do therefore take it for granted that this was the fundamental doctrine of the Gentile Christians. But I must further add that as the Jews retained their tenets and usages under Christianity, so did the Gentiles many of theirs. Thus Pantaenus and Clement Alexandrinus mixed Stoicism with Christianity; Origen and others, Platonism and Peripateticism, and I have read of Cynical and Epicurean Christians. It is also to be noted <26> that as the Judaizing Christians were offended with Peter for going to Cornelius a Gentile (Acts 11:2), so neither did they come to the same assemblies or communicate with them except it were upon extraordinary occasion and by a paramount apostolical procedure.101 Thus Peter having at first associated with the Gentile Christians at Antioch and eaten with them: when some came unto him from James, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation (Galatians 2:12–13), which distance continued afterwards in the Judaizing churches. For albeit that the Jews held that the pious amongst the Gentiles might be saved, yet did they esteem them as unclean and such as they might not freely converse or eat with (Acts 10:28).¹⁰²

It may be questioned whether the Gentile Christians did not believe the deity of Christ. They were so accustomed to the deifying and conferring divine honors and worship upon men that it is not to be doubted but many did believe him to be a god in the pagan sense, as other heroes were reputed. And thus Pliny in his inquisition after Christianity found that they did sing certain hymns to Christ quasi deo, as if he were a god. And Tertullian relating the same thing says: they did sing hymns Christo et Deo.¹⁰³ Nor can there be any doubt thereof or that there were many pieces of poetry composed by the brethren which ascribed a divinity to Christ. But if there be any ground for that assertion of Artemon, Apolonides, Hermophilus, and Theodotus, the most learned, subtle, and philosophical disputants (though styled heretics) of the ancient Christians, that all the first Christians, and even the apostles themselves, were taught and did teach that Christ was a mere man (which was their tenet) and that the truth of this doctrine <27> was continued in the church until the days of Pope Victor who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter, and that Zephyrinus his successor did alter and corrupt that truth—if it be true which the Arians said that none but idiots and simple persons believed any such thing, and that till the decision at Nicaea the more knowing Christians did not hold him to be really God.¹⁰⁴

If we may conceive that they were firmly taught that there was but one God, and that they were too dull to comprehend or invent those subtle distinctions of essence and person, consubstantiation, eternal generation, and if it be certain that the Fathers after the Nicene Council were not agreed concerning the meaning of those uncouth words, and that the world was long after dissatisfied with the use of them, and that such as Gregory Nazianzen and Basil were shy how they taught the deity of the Holy Ghost or of Christ or touched upon the Trinity, homousianism;105 and if we reflect upon the Creed intituled to the apostles and certainly very ancient that there is no intimation hereof in it;¹⁰⁶ if we take notice how differently the Fathers explicate themselves upon that point, and how much the other works of Athanasius do differ from the Creed which goes under his name, we may very well doubt concerning their judgment if not conclude the contrary.¹⁰⁷

As to their rites and church government, the apostle of the uncircumcision who became all things to all men that he might gain them to Christ did comply with their weakness and prejudice. Many pagan usages and superstitions were retained; their church government was much modeled according to the pagan usages in their temples and sodalities. It is not impossible that they might have had in some places as well priests as temples dedicated and altars; the distinction of their churches into the ordo and plebs savors of the Gentile customs in the civil government of their cities.¹⁰⁸ It is not to be believed that the Jewish apostles did appoint or ordain officers for them: <28> the Jews did not use to ordain Jews for judges to the stranger proselytes. Neither would they certainly appoint them rulers in their churches. Besides, it is notorious that the first bishops were elected by the suffrage of the people and might be deposed by them, that they might upon a dissension break into a subdivision of episcopacies and erect two or three or more in one city. And of bishops there was no subordination but a parity.

It is easy to imagine that during the numerousness, grandeur, and power of the Jews in Palestine, Egypt, and Babylon, and throughout all Greece, and whilst all the Gentiles expected a Messiah of the Jews to whom they were to be subjected, they did pay a great respect unto the Jews and were much swayed by their dictates. But about fifty-two years after the destruction and government of the Jews under Titus, there arose another Messiah amongst the Jews who accommodated to himself the prophecy of Balaam and styled himself Bencochab, or the son of the star.¹⁰⁹ The famed Rabbi Akibba joined with him and saluted him as the King Messiah.¹¹⁰ Great was his power and a bloody war did he wage with the Romans and the Emperor Adrian. After three years, he and four hundred thousand Jews were miserably slain by the emperor and those that escaped were so angry with their present Messiah that they termed him Barcozabh or Cuzzibha, the Son of a Lie.¹¹¹ Adrian marched with his victorious army to Alexandria (where the Jews in favor of Bencochab had destroyed the Romans) and put to death an infinite of the Jews there. The multitude which the Jews say was slain in that war is scarcely to be believed. He put down their synagogues everywhere, so that it is not to be credited that the Jews did anywhere after this appear embodied in the Roman Empire.

And now we may conceive naturally that the Christians must <29> totally disclaim the Jews and pretend only to a spiritual Messiah. They could not have preserved themselves but by such an action, and undoubtedly, not long after that, we find mention of priests, temples, and the rites of the church do evidently comply with paganism. What befell the Judaizing churches I know not, but they became in little esteem and sank at last under the name of Ebionites and other heretics. This revolution had a mighty influence upon Christianity, and Adrian in his letter to Servianus, wherein he gives him an account of Egypt, doth avow that all the Christians, besides their devotion to Christ, did worship Serapis.112 “Illi, qui Serapim colunt, christiani sunt et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos dicunt. Nemo illic archi-synagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo christianorum presbyter; non mathematicus, non aruspex, non aliptes. Ipse ille patriarcha, cum Egyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum.”¹¹³

Some would have this letter to be false or full of untruths since it seems incredible that the Christians should do so. Besides, since the great patriarch of the Jews did not come into Egypt at all, and it is certain the Christians had then no patriarch at Alexandria or elsewhere, how can this passage be verified? I am of a contrary judgment and do believe that the bishop of Alexandria by reason of the greatness of his power and splendor was called analogically or by way of flattery a patriarch.¹¹⁴ This appears from Eutychius in his Origines Alexandrini and from other oriental writers who speak of St. George as son to the patriarch of Alexandria, though really in his time (under Diocletian) there were none.¹¹⁵ As to the mixing of pagan worship with Christianity, not to say what the thurificatores (one whereof was a pope) did <30> upon compulsion,¹¹⁶ if ever there were such a legion as that formed, fulminating in the army of the Emperor Adrian or the Legio Thebea (both famed in ecclesiastical story) or any legionary soldiers that professed Christianity, I am confident they never had any dispensation from worshipping the Roman eagles: “Sequerentur Romanas acquilas propria legionum numina.”¹¹⁷ And I am the more confirmed in this sentiment since under the Christian emperors the imperial banner called labarum was worshiped in like manner.¹¹⁸

I am sure that the Egyptian Christians were not so scrupulous afterwards but that they procured to themselves and executed the office of archierosyna whose power was to superintend over and manage the pagan temples, festivals, rites, and whole religion of Egypt.119 And this they continued to do until Theodosius the Great did prohibit them to do so, AD 389.¹²⁰ It is no less strange a thing that the Christian emperors should for a long time be and wear the habit of the pontifices maximi; that the senators, which were Christians at Rome, should as they went to the senate be present at the sacrifices of the Altar of Victory, about the removal whereof Symmachus and the majority of the senate, being pagans, did proffer a complaint.¹²¹ I shall illustrate this point with a strange relation out of Eutychius who was one of the patriarchs of Alexandria. It is thus: When Alexander, the predecessor of Athanasius, was first made patriarch of that place, he found there a temple and a great brazen idol dedicated to one Michael and much frequented by the pagans, and the inhabitants of Alexandria and Egypt did keep a great festival in honor of this idol on the twelfth day of the month <31> Haturi and offered up many sacrifices thereto. The patriarch had a great mind to abolish this idolatry, but met with much opposition about it. At last he prevailed by subtlety: he told them that his idol was an insignificant statue, but if they would perform the same devotion and offer up the like sacrifices to Michael the Archangel, he would intercede with God for them and procure them greater benefits than that idol could. Whereupon he broke the idol in pieces and shaped it into a cross, and called the temple St. Michael’s Church—which church was afterwards called Cæsarea, and was burnt when the western army took Alexandria. And the festivals and sacrifices were continued in honor of St. Michael, and, even still, the Cophite Christians in Misrar, or Grand Cairo, and in Alexandria do celebrate the festival of St. Michael on that day and offer many sacrifices unto him.¹²²

The relator is a historian of good credit, but I do not remember to have read the like sacrificing to have been performed by Christians elsewhere, though any man conversant in antiquity knows that a multitude of pagan usages crept in among the Christians. And though they did not sacrifice, yet they brought to their priests at the altar the first fruits, as was formerly practiced to the rural gods. And rather the objects of the devotion were changed than the things abolished: the same festivals were retained in a manner to the honor of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or the saints, which were performed before to Mercury, Venus genetrix, Bacchus, and the rural deities. As the aforesaid calamities of the Jews did make a great alteration in Christianity, so did the frequent persecutions by the Roman emperors against them who looked upon them as no good subjects since they expected a temporal Messiah and oftentimes disclaimed all subjection to the pagan magistrates, sometimes rebelling, as in the reign of Diocletian did the Christians of Alexandria and the adjacent countries under St. George and in France under Amandus and Ӕlianus.123 They looked upon them generally as enemies to the received and established religion or idolatry of the empire and feared the consequences of a change therein. Besides that, the <32> people hated them. Upon that account, everywhere, many bickerings and tumults happened thereupon. They did also look upon the mortification and monasticness of the Christians as inconsistent with the government, enfeebling men’s minds and alienating them from military employments, the sinews of empire, and spoiling trade, by decrying luxury and all excess as well as in diminishing the sale of cattle and other commodities used in the pagan solemnities.

There, amongst many others (which Papinianus as I remember is said to have digested into seven books concerning the justice of punishing the Christians), were the motives upon which these persecutors went.¹²⁴ And though Christianity were not extirpated, yet it changed much its complexion. The opinion of a temporal Messiah was laid aside, subjection to the pagan magistrate preached, many dissolute and enormous assemblies disowned and declared heretical. The Christians fought for the gentile emperors and watched at the temples to defend them, declared them to be no martyrs who disturbed or demolished them. Much of their rigor and strictness was abolished or preserved only in a few monasteries. As the Christians suffered this alteration, they were infected by the conversation and superstitions of the pagans. So those on the other side became much altered by mixing with the Christians: they were inclined to a contempt of their gods and an indifferency in their religion; they were exasperated at the threats of their priests and the expensiveness of their rites and devotions. The discipline of the Roman legions being extinct and the armies composed most of foreign men of mercenary spirits and no friends to the established religion, the soldiery beheld opulent priests and vestals together with their colleges with an envious eye and cared not if a new religion were introduced, so that they might share the spoils of the old.

In this juncture I find Constantine to have made himself emperor. Right he had none, being a bastard and not elected nor admitted by the senate. His sword was his title; success warranted it. His soldiers were not more assured of his courage and conduct than animated by the hopes of honor and riches, which the conquest of Italy and change of religion and government would instate them in. He subverted the power of the senate, removed the seat of the empire, altered much of the religion, and gained most of the sacerdotal lands and revenues by the change.125 He was no Christian in profession <33> till a few days before he died. He never was at prayer among the catecheumeni till then, nor so much as baptized, and without that initiating sacrament. It is not to be imagined that he could be instructed in, or admitted to, those doctrines and acts of nearer communion. All that is written contrary hereunto are palpable untruths or deeds of flattery.

It is true his mother seemed zealous for Christianity and built many churches, and he, out of his spoils, allotted some to pious uses thereby to amend the condition of the Christian clergy and oblige them to him. He endeavored the reducing of Christianity into one uniform doctrine: he assembled the Council at Nicaea and there framed a confession of faith and by new honor gave great luster to the church and ensured a secular power everywhere by advancing the ecclesiastical and that of the Christian bishops. These were spies and checks to his governors, and since Rome and Alexandria were the two places that had most influence upon his empire, he and his successors advanced those prelates to a kind of princely dignity that they might gain the greater veneration among the people and equal the splendor of the pagan priests. Then began temples to be dedicated with as much solemnity by the Christians as ever anywhere by the pagans and entitled to the apostles, martyrs, and angels for magnificence and largeness. They were equal to those of the heathens and, as in the fabrics and dedication of the churches, the resemblance of paganism was introduced. So the ecclesiastical government was made parallel to it.¹²⁶ You read now not only of temples and altars, but the bishops, sacerdotes, antistites, sacræ legis, et cetera. As the heathenish religion was supported by a priesthood under the Pontifix Maximus and his college, consisting of the provinciarum sacerdotes (Asiarchæ, Syriarchæ, et cetera) which were also called sacerdotes, the flamens (whose power exceeded not their city or town), the ministri, prefecti, and hierophantæ agrorum which attended in country villages—just such was the reglement of the Christian Church and the jurisdiction in a manner equal.

Thus was the empire to be balanced, but, withal, the Christian emperors strengthened themselves by favoring the Jews, whose aversion from idolatry was as great or greater than that of the Christians. The interest they had in Persia did preserve them still in great splendor, notwithstanding the desolation which Hadrian had brought upon them. And they are a sort of people that so adhere and support each other that they are not to be destroyed. They began to spread again, and Christian emperors gave them not only freedom of religion but permitted their patriarch to gather his aurum coronarium in the East and <34> Western empires and to live with very great pomp and command. The rulers of the synagogues, lesser patriarchs, presbyters, and others concerned in the government of that nation, were exempted from civil and personal duties and employments by the decrees of Constantine, Constantius, Valentinian, Valens, Theodosius, and Arcadius.127 They were not only freed from affronts and contumelies, their synagogues protected, but the same respect paid to their rulers was shown to the Christian bishops and hierarchy (thus Arcadius, Codex Theodosianus, 16. 8. 13):

Judaei fuerint obstricti ceremoniis suis: nos interea in conservandis eorum privilegiis veteres imitemur, quorum sanctionibus defi-nitum est, ut privilegia his, qui inlustrium patriarcharum ditioni subjecti sunt (archisynagogis patriarchisque ac presbyteris ceterisque, qui in eius religionis sacramento versantur, nutu nostri numinis preseverent ea, quæ venerandae Christianæ legis primis clericis Sanctimonia deferuntur. Id enim & divi principes Constantinus, Constantius, Valentinianus & Valens, divino arbitrio decreverunt—(AD 397).¹²⁸

Afterwards Theodosius the Younger confirmed their privileges, AD 412. But by reason of several enormities and misdemeanors which fell out by reason of their grandeur, and for reasons of state, the patriarchship was abrogated, AD 414. Yet the particular patriarchs and rulers of the synagogues gather for their own use the said pension of aurum coronarium till it was annexed to the imperial exchequer by Theodosius the Younger, AD 429. In this flourishing condition did the Jews spread themselves in great numbers under a regular government over the Eastern and Western empire. Both Palestines and Egypt, Arabia, Babylon, and Persia were replenished with them, their rabbis flourished, their Talmuds and Targums were compiled about this time, and Judaism reduced to that system in which we at present find it in the Empire.

Now we see those grand religions all in a flourishing and powerful condition. The pagans whose interest was continually undermined by the emperors and imperial governors in several provinces and by the Jews and Christians: whatsoever laws were made in favor of them and for their liberty were either directly <35> violated or pretenses daily sought to give color to that injustice. And whether they, being driven to despair, might entertain foreign correspondency is to me unknown but not improbable. It is most certain that they fomented discord among the Christians and on all occasions (as Athanasius particularly relates of the contests at Alexandria) they did abet the Arians and adhere unto them openly; their philosophers did dispute for the Arians in the Council of Nicaea. And as Alexandria had been the seat of the ethnic learning—philosophy natural, moral, and political, physic and mathematics being there most eminently professed and taught—so from hence they were propagated over the Eastern Empire.129 And the philosophers there did insensibly engage their Christian scholars into several heterodoxies according as their genius inclined each of them, to Platonism or Peripateticism.

It is most certain that the Arians, and all the subdivisions of that numerous sect were profoundly learned in those sciences, and that Origen derived his knowledge from an education under them and the benefit of their libraries there. The Christians had great encouragements and immunities et cetera to support them, and great privileges were enacted for such as turned to that religion and penalties frequently decreased and oftentimes rigorously inflicted on the pagans. But what contributed much to the prejudice of Christianity was their divisions among themselves. Besides the petty sects occasioned by pure ignorance, folly, or madness (of which kinds the catalogues of heretics do present us with many) which were easily extinguished by the imperial power or fell of themselves. There were three potent sects which did give a great check to the more facile and complacent Christianity of the Empire: the Donatists possessed in a manner all Africa and had some hold in Italy; the Arians possessed in great part the Eastern Empire; and the Novatians were with great repute for purity and piety diffused everywhere.

These were all settled under their episcopal reglements with distinct churches. The Donatists began in Africa upon this occasion: after that persecution ceased against the Christians, those whom either zeal or passion had made obstinate sufferers for Christianity detested and refused communion with such as either had delivered up their Bibles and holy writers up to the pagan emperors in obedience to their decrees (these were called traditores), or had exempted themselves from danger by paying a sum of money (which were called libellatici), or had offered incense and complied for the season with prevailing and persecuting paganism (which were <36> called thurificatores). And a bishop who either had or was said to have delivered up his Bible, being surreptitiously chosen and ordained at Carthage for that city, the other bishops partly in vindication of their rights which the ecclesiastical constitutions had vested them in, partly out of zeal against such a betrayer of Christianity, declined his communion, excommunicated all that adhered unto him, and ordained another bishop of the place. The people generally adhered to the Donatists. Great was the schism, and two hundred and thirty bishops owned that party,130 whilst the bishop of Rome and the Italian clergy (who had been universally involved in the like compliance) did adhere to the other, as also did the imperialists at finding that party more pliable and suitable to their political ends and inclined to such a lax discipline that the Gentiles might upon easy terms be admitted to their churches.

The Donatists, exasperated hereby and finding no favor (or rather as they said no justice) from Constantine the Great, sought and found protection in Julian the Apostate by reason of their submissive and invidious address. After Julian the succeeding emperor did oppose and oppress them rigorously, fining them, confiscating their goods, estreating their churches, banishing many, and in a manner outlawing them. But as the resolution with which they suffered did ingratiate them with the populace (who are prone to think they are unjustly oppressed who bear their punishments bravely and with pretense to martyrdom for religion), so the arguments with which they defended their cause being very conformable to the strict Christianity professed in those parts and, rebaptizing those of that side which were converted to them, did imprint in the people every way an opinion or suspicion that the imperialists were scarcely to be reckoned among the number of Christians. The Donatists continued till after the days of Honorius, and, being reduced to great distress by their persecution, it is not to be wondered if many outrages were committed by those who saw themselves, their families and relations, utterly undone by such as, contrary to the general tenets of the Christians, employed force against them. And as it is usual with men in despair, and as Africans disposed to revenge to join with any third party, it is no wonder the conquest of Africa proved easy to the Goths, who were afterwards ejected after a long and fierce war by Justinian, and the Arians no less oppressed than the Donatists before.

And so I leave Africa in a fair way to comply with the designs of Mahomet,131 the constant wars having made them valiant and bold, their humor malicious, their sufferings angry, and their religion indifferent to any novelty. For during those contraventions, for want of instruction by their own clergy or the <37> imperialists who minded little but ease and ambition (and were extremely ignorant), it is easy to be imagined that they retained only a sense of some generals in Christianity and had nothing of ecclesiastical government or order amongst them: no sacraments, no not of baptism, except they conformed, but this notion so whispered and insinuated into them that the conformists were not truly Christians that it seems to have been the great article of their creed.

The Novatians had their origin from the like occasion. All the Italian clergy, except Novatus and two more (as I remember) had consented to idolatry in the time of Diocletian and Maximinus and, upon the change of condition afterwards, returned with their followers to Christianity.132 This act of the Italian clergy (the bishop of Rome being involved in it) gave a beginning to the complacent and indulgent Christians of those ages, whereby the discipline of the church was ruined and men admitted and readmitted upon easy terms.¹³³ Novatus and his adherents who had not apostatized would not communicate with such nor readmit them upon any penance: not that they thought it impossible for such to be saved, but that it was not in the power of the church upon any terms of repentance to associate with them, according to that of the Apostle (Hebrews 6:4–6). These were the Puritans, as I may call them, of those ages: they were men of a strict life and withal of a peaceable disposition.¹³⁴ They were orthodox in their judgment about the Trinity which made those that adhered to the Nicene Council to show them great respect, to own their bishops and protect them, who seem of all sects alone not to have intermeddled with the public affairs and revolutions and acquiesced. So in a toleration as never that I know to have endeavored aright to the prejudice of other sects, or sinisterly to advance their own party, they continued till the ruin of the Eastern Empire. And their successions are recorded in our church history, and their oppression under the bishop of Rome is condemned by Socrates.¹³⁵ Although this sect did raise no faction in the Empire, yet it is easy to conjecture that their continuance in open schism, the grounds whereof were known and asserted publicly in the Eastern and Western Empire everywhere, and their exemplary lives (in which whatever there was of innocence and true zeal in primitive Christianity seemed then to be lodged and preserved) must needs have added to the contempt of the imperial religion, as if it were corrupted in its discipline and purity, and so far have strengthened the dissenting parties.

The Arians were so powerful a sect in the Empire that the followers of <38> the Nicene Council were not equal to them either in number, splendor, interest, or riches, if you will believe the learned Petavius and others.136 They did offer to be tried by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council. At the Nicene Council they were rather condemned by a party there by the general consent of the Christian Church. For Constantine, out of above 2,000 bishops assembled, excluded all but 318, nor were there perhaps (for accounts vary) all bishops that made the council. They were all of a judgment at first and so parties rather than judges.¹³⁷ The Arians had not the freedom to dispute their case, and the emperor Constantine was so little satisfied with their prescription that he recalled Arius soon and, a little before his death, was baptized by an Arian bishop. Constantine and Valens were professed Arians, not to mention the Goths. Valentinian, Theodosius, and other emperors protected and honored them with military and civil commands.¹³⁸ Their doctrine was not only confirmed by 8 councils, which were at divers times assembled at Tyre, at Sardis, at Syrinium, where 660 bishops were of their opinion—but three of name which held the contrary,¹³⁹ but that they also punished others, their adversaries, who were of a contrary opinion to them with confiscations, banishments, and other grievous punishments. Whether the power of their chieftains, the riches of their churches, the magnificence of their worship (they first brought music into the church), the fame of their learning and pretensions to reason, which is always an invidious plea, did raise jealousy in the emperors and hatred against them in the Trinitarians, or what most contributed to their first depression and persecution I know not. Since to persecute for religion was by the Trinitarians—Athanasius, Hilary, and others—then accounted an Arian and unchristian tenet, it is not to be doubted, but after the days of Theodosius the reason of state did prevail most toward their subversion, lest they should join with the Goths who possessed themselves of Italy, Spain, Africa, and other provinces. And terrible to the Byzantine Empire, whatsoever it was, it is easy to comprehend that the depression of them did facilitate the conquest of the Goths. And if you will credit Salvian, the Goths were very pious in their way, mild to the conquered, just in their dealings, so that the wickedness of the Christian rulers of provinces, their depredations upon the people, and the insolence of the foreign soldiers by which they ruled, made even the Trinitarians willingly submit to the dominion of the Goths and prefer it before that of the Eastern Empire.¹⁴⁰

I come now to the Trinitarians <39> who I cannot but represent as enemies to all human learning.¹⁴¹ They had canons forbidding them to read any ethnic book, and a pique which disposed them to destroy all they met with of that kind. Thus we may suppose them universally ignorant, except some few who appear to be somewhat knowing; and as were the pastors so were the people. Their religion consisted rather in an outside service than inward piety or knowledge; their faith was in a manner implicit, the mysteries of religion (such I call the doctrine of the Trinity and its dependencies) were scarce ever mentioned to them in sermons, much less explicated. Hence the vulgar became prone to embrace superstition, to credit miracles how ridiculous or fabulous so ever. Visions, allegories, allusions to texts were convincing arguments and no demonstration like a feigned story and legend or what might be interpreted a judgment upon a heretic. As to the imperial courts, I know not well what religion to install them into. They did long wear the habit of Roman pontifices maximi and, after Gratian and his successor had laid that aside, they exercised their power.¹⁴² You will find a hundred times in the Theodosian and Justinian codes that they assumed the titles of nostrum numen, aeternitas, perennitas and that they made their predecessors deceasing to be reputed divi. They continued the Circensian games, the obscenities of the theater and scenical women, with a multitude of other idolatrous and even brutal practices for which one would be astounded to read laws made in the Theodosian Code.¹⁴³

As to matters of religion, the emperors enacted what they pleased about it and imposed it on the generality. For synodical decrees did not bind; others then were willing or present and consenting in those days. And you may meet with accounts of the Christian faith in imperial edicts enjoined to be believed by Theodosius as well as Justinian so that I may reckon amongst the Trinitarians a sort of people who were of the court religion and believed as their prince ordained, living unconfined by the dictates of the then declining church. The Trinitarians, though they had resolved upon and subscribed unto the Nicene Council and embraced those forms of speech which are now in use, yet they could not tell what was meant by them: the Latin Church allowed not of three persons but of three hypostases, the Greek Church approved of three hypostases not of three persons, and difficult it was for them to explicate ousia or essence. These hard words produced a subdivision amongst them, consisting of Nestorians and Eutychians: the Nestorians believing the divinity <40> of Christ held that he was made up of two different persons and so perfect God and perfect man; the Eutychians averred that Christ had but one nature and that upon the hypostatic union the deity and humanity were so blended together by confusion of properties and substances that one person endowed with one will did emerge thence.

Those two sects were of great power in the Eastern Church, and though they were both condemned in the third and fourth general councils, yet did they spread far and near throughout Palestine, Egypt, the Kingdom of Abyssinia, and all Persia. Each of them had their patriarchs, bishops, churches, contradistinct from the Melkites. And now we see the face of Christianity thus represented: those that adhered to the Council of Chalcedon and subscribed to it, as did all the imperial clergy, were called Melkites (that is to say men of the king’s religion) by the Nestorians and the Eutychians. The authors of these two sects were learned men and potent bishops: Eutychius was patriarch of Constantinople, and with him joined Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, and Severus, patriarch of Antioch, and Jacobus Baradeus from whom the Jacobites are denominated at this day. Nestorius was also patriarch of Constantinople, and his sect very much diffused.144

The truth is: such was the ignorance of the people, and such the debauchery of the ages then, that if a man did but live a pious, strict life, with great mortifications and outward devotion, and were but an eloquent preacher, he might in any place of the Eastern Empire make a potent sect instantly. And to show how ignorant the clergy were in the general Council of Chalcedon in the time of Marcianus the emperor, take notice that at that time the Greek tongue was so well understood at Rome, and the Latin in Greece, that the bishops of both countries, which were 630, were glad to speak by interpreters. Yea, in the very same Council of Chalcedon, the emperor made one speech in Greek for the one part, and another in Latin for the other,145 the matter of both being the same. The Council of Jerusalem made certain creeds both in Greek and Latin. The pope’s legates at the Council of Ephesus had their interpreter to expound the words, and Celestine’s letters were there read. The Acts tell us how the bishops desired they should be translated into Greek and read over again, insomuch that the Romish legates had almost made a controversy of it, fearing lest they should prejudice the papal dignity by such an act and alleging therefore how it was the ancient custom to propose the bulls <41> of the See Apostolic in Latin only and that might now suffice—whereupon those poor Greek bishops were in danger not to have understood the pope’s Latin.¹⁴⁶

But the legates were at length content with reason. It was evidenced to them that the major part could not understand a word of Latin. But the prettiest of all is Pope Celestine’s excuse to Nestorius for his so long delaying answering his letters, the ground being this: that he could not by any means get his Greek construed any sooner. Pope Gregory the First ingeniously confesses to the bishop of Thessaly that he understood not a jot of his Greek. It is very probable that the proverb of honest Accursius was even then in use: “Græcum est; non legitur.”¹⁴⁷

This was the condition of Christianity in which Justinian the emperor found it about the year 540. He, by conquest in Africa, subdued the Arian Goths and Vandals there as also in Italy, established and enforced the Trinitarian religion by severe laws, suppressed all the different sects and religions in the empire, abusing the Jews, suppressing the Arians and all other heretics (except it be true that he favored the Eutychians). He reigned thirty-nine years. After him succeeded Valentinus, Justinius II, Tiberius, Mauritius, Phocas, and Heraclius, in whose days arose Mahomet.¹⁴⁸ It is observable that all these times were so corrupt and Christianity so depraved that the Church of England and generally the Protestants reject the authority of them and admit no general councils after that of Chalcedon under the Emperor Martianus.¹⁴⁹ Their reigns suggest nothing considerable to the subsequent discourse.

But that Christianity was then degenerated into such a kind of paganism as wanted nothing but the ancient sacrifices and professed polytheism, and, even as to the latter, there wanted not some who did make three gods of the Trinity. Others made a goddess of the Virgin Mary. The reverence to the saints differed little from that of the pagans to their heroes and lesser gods, and images were brought into churches then, though not by public authority. And it is no less remarkable that obscure persons had several times been promoted by fraud or indifferent means to the Empire. Also the Emperor Mauritius, having reigned long and gained much upon the esteem of his own subjects and on the Persians, to whose King Chosroes he had married his daughter, and he had thereupon turned Christian, was barbarously murdered by a conspiracy of Phocas and the bishop of Rome, the last being incensed <42> against Mauritius because he had permitted John, bishop of Constantinople, to assume the title of oeucumenical bishop, which title the pope declared to be antichristian. But Phocas, being made emperor, returned this acknowledgment to the bishop of Rome (who had solemnly owned him and given him repute) that he should be head of the church and universal bishop, AD 612. Chosroes, exasperated at the death of his father-in-law, who together with his wife and children were cruelly butchered, and abominating the Christians whose great prelate should countenance such an act, he renounced Christianity, destroyed all the Christians in his country who would not renounce the Melkites and turn Nestorians, which gave an occasion to Nestorianism to spread itself far and near in Persia and those oriental countries.150 Their patriarch resided in Mesopotamia at Musall, or Mawsell, which is supposed to be built nigh the old city of Nineveh. He invaded Syria and Palestine, sacked Antioch and Jerusalem, carried away multitudes captive into Persia, and excited the Jews to a rebellion in Palestine. Phocas, having reigned eight years, was slain by Heraclius who made himself to be chosen emperor by the soldiers. Chosroes, having disobliged his subjects in turning Christians and being afterwards unfortunate in his wars, was deposed by his son Syroes and murdered by him. He lived but a year and was succeeded by Hormisdas.¹⁵¹

Whilst the Grecian Empire was thus unsettled by the frequent change of emperors, and the detestable means by which Phocas had gained the throne, having much alienated many from the love of Christianity, and the Eastern Church was divided into factions by the means of the bishop of Rome promoting his new authority there, and the Nestorians and Jacobites or Eutychians multiplying under their several patriarchs to the great disturbance of the church, anathematizing and being anathematized; and whilst that Persia was broken by intestine divisions and wars, and the people indifferent as to their princes, who should rule them, and divided by the mixture of Jews and Christians spread among them in great numbers everywhere, Mahomet arose and began the empire of the Saracens and a new religion.

It may perhaps seem strange that the general description of the primitive Christians which is here represented should differ so much from the usual accounts thereof which are given by the divines and vulgar historians. But in answer hereunto, I desire the reader to consider first the grounds and <43> proofs which I go upon, and if the authors be good, the citations true and indisputable, if the progress of Christianity be such as is conformable to the constant course of human affairs and great revolutions, that then he would not oppose me, by discourses of miraculous accidents, unimaginable effusions of the Holy Ghost, and such like harangues as no reason can comprehend nor example parallel.152 Secondly: let him consider that since we are destitute of any solid chronicles or Christian annals before the days of Constantine the Great (for so Eusebius saith), and that he could find nothing substantial to establish an ecclesiastical history upon except the Acts of the Apostles, and that whatsoever is alleged against me must be out of suspected or spurious writers, partial in their own case and ignorant either for the want of learning or want of books and opportunities to be informed aright, or a prejudiced opinion blinding their judgments, I conceive the credit of what I write ought to seem most valid, because it is consonant to the Acts of the Apostles and the real existence of things.

It ought to seem a complete refutation of them all: that if what I say be true as undoubtedly it is, the contrary must be false. If it be further urged that the apologies of the ancient Christians are inconsistent with the relations I make, and that so great a deformity in the tenets and practices of the first Christians can never be reconciled to what they say, I answer that the apologies ought to be looked upon no otherwise than as rhetorical pleas and the defenses of advocates for their clients, wherein all things are managed as much to the advantage of the defendant as it is possible, and that it is most evident that this course was taken by those Christian Fathers. Neither indeed do I want testimonies of their imprudence whereby to satisfy any man that they would not scruple at palpable untruths if they might derive any benefit from thence. Justin Martyr in his apology to Antoninus Pius the emperor (not to mention that Irenæus, Eusebius, and Tertullian do relate the same) doth aver that Simon Magus did miracles at Rome and that he had a statue erected to him in the reign of Claudius Caesar with this inscription, “Simoni Deo Sancto,”153 of which relation there is not a word true. And was not this most impudently done to obtrude a narration upon the Roman emperor which all Rome must know to be false? And even Justin who lived at Rome must have understood it <44> to be so.¹⁵⁴

So Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and Tertullian, in their apologies, say that the emperor Marcus Antoninus, being reduced to great straits for want of water in Germany, and in danger to be taken thereupon by his enemies, the Christian legion called Legio Fulminea, did obtain such a return from God to their prayers, that at the same time a plentiful shower supplied the Roman army, whilst thunder and lightning destroyed the hostile Germans; whereupon the said emperor should write to the senate to decree that the Christians should not be molested, that any man might turn Christian, and that no governor of any province should divert any man or turn him from being a Christian. All which story is a mere forgery, as Vossius hath demonstrated at large and most imprudently urged to those who were certain of the contrary.¹⁵⁵ I shall instance but in one more case and that is of the Sybils, whom Justin Martyr allegeth in favor of Christianity, as also doth Constantine in this oration in behalf of it. Yet are those Sibylline prophesies supposititious and feigned by the Christians as Casaubon, Blondel, Valesius, and others do acknowledge.¹⁵⁶ A thousand such pious frauds might be instanced in, but that many learned men within this last century have saved me the trouble of prosecuting any such discourse.

I must add that the church history of the primitive times seems mainly deduced from the Latin and Greek writers who give no account either of the Syriac or Judaizing churches so that we hear no news of the latter till St. Jerome and Epiphanius came to represent them as heretics for adhering to the same doctrine and discipline which St. Peter and St. James and all the apostles (except Paul) had instructed them in, and wherein they had not been controlled during the lives of those who first founded the church. What … authority had power to do it, or how doth it appear that they had either corrupted their tenets or depraved their gospel, the Jews being so tenacious of tradition, and those being men that pursued no designs or worldly interests besides, were they ever heard by an indifferent judge or general council of all Christendom?¹⁵⁷ No affairs were in so unlikely a posture as to that matter amongst the Greek and Latin Christians that, if they had been convened legally and fairly, not one of their adversaries could have understood what they said or judged of their allegations otherwise than according to their own prejudiced opinions.

But to speak more closely: it is evident that the first Christian Fathers when they would magnify the number of their converts or adherents would not only bring into their catalogue such pagans as opposed idolatry, though they no way pretended unto <45> Christ and Christianity, but even all such as did profess it in any way and under how great variety so ever of rites or tenets—just as the Jews did reckon the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes and other lesser sects in the number of Jews and as the modern Christians do compute in the Eastern Church, the Grecians, Melkites or Syrians, Georgians or Muscovites, Nestorians, Indians or Christians of St. Thomas, Jacobites, Cophites, Armenians, Abyssinians, and Maronites, and in the west Papists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Socinians, and such like even to the inhabitants of Liefland where they would make an estimate of Christianity and its extent.158 Nor doth there want reason for this procedure, for as we denominate men and estimate those to be of human race who have the general resemblance, propagation, speech, and laughter, how different so ever their morality and rationality be: so in Christianity the external profession in general doth entitle them unto the appellation. And if all persons grossly ignorant—demi-Jews, demi-pagans, demi-philosophers, and such like as posterity has concluded under heresy—may not come under this notion, I do not know where to find the primitive church or Fathers. Since most if not all the Fathers of the three first centuries come under this number and the martyrs were no others, it is a caution suggested to us by the learned Casaubon and subscribed unto by all men of understanding that the Fathers do most frequently mistake in point of history as well those of the Greek as Latin Church (either through ignorance and inadvertency or because they inconsiderately need use of any story that seemed to make for their advantage in their sermons or writings).¹⁵⁹ And that they deserve as little credit in reference to matters of faith is apparent by writings of Mr. Dale, Hottinger, et cetera,¹⁶⁰ the sole consideration whereof made the judicious Protestants reject their authority and pay them but a precarious veneration. As to the subsequent condition of Christianity, that which we seem descended from is no other than a mixture of the religion of the Essenes, the Jewish heretics, and of the Egyptian therapeutæ which likewise were Jews, but not Essenes, together with the superadded tenet of Jesus being the Messiah and of other doctrines derived from the Gentile philosophy, and of certain paganical rites and ceremonies.¹⁶¹

It is apparent that Eusebius and Epiphanius reckon upon these Essenes and therapeutæ as Christians, disciples of St. Mark, and the great ornament of the profession.162 Monkery deduces its original from them, and their lives were the patterns and precedents of those Christians who are renowned for the austere practice of piety, which the first apologies represent. It is apparent that the first Christians <46> from whom we are derived were Alexandrian proselytes which, retaining the name of Jews, did adhere unto the Septuagint. And hereupon these Christians whether of the Latin or Greek Church had no other Bible than that, or a version of it, and from hence they read those books which after ages called apocryphal. Neither had our gospel any other original than from Alexandrians or other Hellenists. It is confessed that Luke was of Alexandria; that Mark also was such is most probable. And, as to the others, it is evident that either they are but versions or not to be entitled to any other beginning than that some Hellenists published them in the name of Matthew and John. For Matthew may certainly be said to have written in the common Syriac which was then the Hebrew tongue.¹⁶³ The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been dictated by Peter and only translated by him into Greek as most of the ancients inform us. And the apostles did not understand Greek at all: the gift of tongues lasted but for that time, and all the sacred books except what bears the name of Paul (who did understand Greek) are but translations or counterfeits performed by unknown persons whose fidelity or integrity those questioned who rejected them or who embraced them.

But it is manifest that they are written by most illiterate persons. As to the Greek tongue,

Pro vero sane tenendum est, omnes fere discipulos Christi & Apostolos, ut erant idiotæ & plebaei, piscatores nimirum, nautæ & portitores, non aliam novisse linguam praeter vernaculam, hoc est Galilaeum, & Syriacum idioma quod in illa regione obtinebat. Etsi enim multi in Syria & Iudæa Græcè sciebant, hoc ad infimæ plebis homines nihil attinebat qui vernaculam tantum noverant, Græcè prorsus ignari. … Scribebant igitur Apostoli idiomate suo, & lingua sibi familiari & vernacula, quæ protinus à Syris ἑλληνίζουσι vel Graecis ipsis ad fidem conversis, quos cecum habebant Euangelii praerdicandi adjutores & administros, in Græcum transferebantur. De quibusdam hoc certò’ compertum est, de aliis ignoratum, quia non proditum: de omnibus tamen verisimile est, quia de quibusdam verum est. Non enim disparatio eorum, qui gente ac genere & vocatione ac munere pares. … Quod ad Novi Testamenti libros attinet, ea causa quoque asseri potest cur multum diverso ab elegantiore & puriori Hellenisimi loquendi genere conscripti sunt. Ab idiotis quippe partim compositos dicere licet, partim à metaphrastis, & ipsis non ad modum Græci sermonis peritis.164

I have transcribed this passage out of Salmasius (whose entire discourse upon the Sixth Question there deserves to be read). Not that I believe that either the <47> Gospel of Mark or John were penned originally in Syriac (for then the Judaizing Christians would have had them as well as those of Matthew), or that the Epistles of Peter, James, and John (or that the Hebrews which is but a translation said to be made by Clement or some other) were ever penned in that language, which the supposed authors only knew, but to evidence how little certainty we have of their original and authenticness. And if they were not derived from those Hellenistical Jews, I know as little whence to fetch them as when they were written. It is true that Paul did understand Greek, but his epistles were as little regarded as his person amongst the Judaizing Christians. And they had as bad an opinion of him as the Jews themselves. It appears by Paul’s carriage (Acts 23:6) that he did act by somewhat like to juggling in his proceedings.¹⁶⁵ How else could he cry Christianity assuring each of them singly that he was in the truth and that afterwards, when Paul was dead, each of them pretended his religion to be the true religion derived from Paul, whence arose great feuds amongst them.

To pass from this discourse to that other concerning the ignorance of the first Christians and their enmity to all ethnic learning: It appears that in the days of Christ none but the vulgar sort (the Galileans were the worst among the Jews) did believe in him. The wise, the rulers, were such as the truth of the gospel was hidden from. And in the days of Paul, not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble were called, but the foolish things of the world were chosen, 1 Corinthians 1:26. And truly afterwards, till near the time of Constantine, very few of any better rank or intellectuals did embrace Christianity, which made the heathens upbraid the Christians as men that gained only on children, women, and the poorer and more ignorant sort of persons. Nor did they pretend to learning as appears out of Lactantius, Annobius, Minucius Felix. Nay, they were enemies to all human learning, as appears by the old constitution of Clement whereby all the books of the Gentiles are prohibited (Clement Romanus l: 1 Constit. caput 6). And the Council of Carthage did prohibit the clergy to read any such books, et cetera.166

What I have said is notoriously true as to this point and needs no further proof except that I illustrate the condition of Christianity by that passage of <48> Avicenna who, being to relate the nature of medicinal simples according to the Greek Alphabet, says that he follows Alphabeta Barbarorum.¹⁶⁷

I proceed now to the particular narration of the birth and actions of Mahomet whose rise, that we may the better understand, it is necessary that we consider the situation of Arabia and search into the original of the Saracens, a nation not mentioned by the ancient Greeks or Romans, and of whom there is no account given by the Christians contemporary to Mahomet.