OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 97 I. A laudable regard for the honour of the first proselytes has i. a purs countenanced the belief, the hope, the wish, that the Ebionites, Ewonitea or at least the Nazarenes, were distinguished only by their obstinate perseverance in the practice of the Mosaic rites. Their chui'ches have disappeared, their books are obliterated ; their obscure freedom might allow a latitude of faith, and the softness of their infant creed would be variously moulded by the zeal or prudence of three hundred years. Yet the most charitable criticism must refuse these sectaries any knowledge of the pure and proper divinity of Christ. Educated in the school of Jewish prophecy and prejudice, they had never been taught to elevate their hopes above an human and temporal Messiah. 2 If they had courage to hail their king when he appeared in a plebeian garb, their grosser apprehensions were in- capable of discerning their God, who had studiously disguised his celestial character under the name and person of a mortal.^ The familiar companions of Jesus of Nazareth conversed with their friend and countryman, who, in all the actions of rational and animal life, appeared of the same species with themselves. His progress from infancy to youth and manhood was marked cause. 2. The Arminian Le Clare, who has composed in a quarto volume (Amster- dam, 1716) the ecclesiastical history of the two first centuries, was free both in his temper and situation ; his sense is clear, but his thoughts are narrow ; he reduces the reason or folly of ages to the standard of his private judgment, and his im- partiality is sometimes quickened, and sometimes tainted, by his opposition to the fathers. See the heretics (Corinthians, Ixxx. ; Ebionites, ciii. ; Carpocratians, cxx. ; Valentinians, cxxi. ; Basilidians, cxxiii. ; Marcionites, cxli., iS:c. ) under their proper dates. 3. The Histoire Critique du Manich^isme (Amsterdam, 1734, 1739, in two vols, in 4to, with a posthumous dissertation sur les Nazarenes, Lausanne, 1745) of M. de Beausobre is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins with incomparable art the systematic thread of opinion, and trans- forms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or an heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive ; he betrays an amiable partiality in favour of the weaker side; and, while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism. A copious tafjle of contents will direct the reader to any point that he wishes to examine. 4. Less profound than Petavius, less independent than Le Clerc, less ingenious than Beausobre, the historian Mos- heim is full, rational, correct, and moderate. In his learned work, De Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum (Helmstadt, 1753, in 4to), see the Nazarenes and Ebionites, p. 172-179, 328-332 ; the Gnostics in general, p. 179, &c. ; Cerinthus, p. 196-202 ; Basilides, p. 352-361 ; Carpocrates, p. 363-367 ; Valentinus, p. 371-389 ; Marcion, p. 404-410 ; the Manichasans, p. 829-837, &c. Kol ydp TTai'Tes i)/x^'? Toi" Xpio'Toi' avOpiinrov ef a.u6 pioTftav irpoa&OKojixiv yevricrecrdai, says the Jewish Tryphon (Justin. Dialog, p. 207) in the name of his countrymen ; and the modern Jews, the few who divert their thoughts from money to religion, still hold the same language and allege the literal sense of the prophets. ^Chrysostom (Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, toin. v. c. 9, p. 183) and Athanasius (Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. toni. v. 1. i. c. 2, p. 3) are obliged to confess that the divinity of Christ is rarely mentioned by himself or his apostles. VOL. V. 7
