Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part I

The Progress Of The Christian Religion, And The Sentiments, Manners, Numbers, And Condition Of The Primitive Christians.101

101 (return) [ In spite of my resolution, Lardner led me to look
through the famous fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Gibbon. I
could not lay them down without finishing them. The causes
assigned, in the fifteenth chapter, for the diffusion of
Christianity, must, no doubt, have contributed to it materially;
but I doubt whether he saw them all. Perhaps those which he
enumerates are among the most obvious. They might all be safely
adopted by a Christian writer, with some change in the language
and manner. Mackintosh see Life, i. p. 244.—M.]

A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment
of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of the
history of the Roman empire. While that great body was invaded by
open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble
religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up
in silence and obscurity, derived new vigor from opposition, and
finally erected the triumphant banner of the Cross on the ruins
of the Capitol. Nor was the influence of Christianity confined to
the period or to the limits of the Roman empire. After a
revolution of thirteen or fourteen centuries, that religion is
still professed by the nations of Europe, the most distinguished
portion of human kind in arts and learning as well as in arms. By
the industry and zeal of the Europeans, it has been widely
diffused to the most distant shores of Asia and Africa; and by
the means of their colonies has been firmly established from
Canada to Chili, in a world unknown to the ancients.

But this inquiry, however useful or entertaining, is attended
with two peculiar difficulties. The scanty and suspicious
materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel
the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church. The
great law of impartiality too often obliges us to reveal the
imperfections of the uninspired teachers and believers of the
gospel; and, to a careless observer, _their_ faults may seem to
cast a shade on the faith which they professed. But the scandal
of the pious Christian, and the fallacious triumph of the
Infidel, should cease as soon as they recollect not only _by
whom_, but likewise _to whom_, the Divine Revelation was given.
The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing
Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native
purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He
must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption,
which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak
and degenerate race of beings. 102

102 (return) [ The art of Gibbon, or at least the unfair
impression produced by these two memorable chapters, consists in
confounding together, in one undistinguishable mass, the origin
and apostolic propagation of the Christian religion with its
later progress. The main question, the divine origin of the
religion, is dexterously eluded or speciously conceded; his plan
enables him to commence his account, in most parts, below the
apostolic times; and it is only by the strength of the dark
coloring with which he has brought out the failings and the
follies of succeeding ages, that a shadow of doubt and suspicion
is thrown back on the primitive period of Christianity. Divest
this whole passage of the latent sarcasm betrayed by the
subsequent one of the whole disquisition, and it might commence a
Christian history, written in the most Christian spirit of
candor.—M.]

Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the
Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the
established religions of the earth. To this inquiry, an obvious
but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the
convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling
providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom
find so favorable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of
Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the
human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as
instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted,
though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the
first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of
the Christian church. It will, perhaps, appear, that it was most
effectually favored and assisted by the five following causes:

I. The inflexible, and if we may use the expression, the
intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the
Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial
spirit, which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles
from embracing the law of Moses.1023

II. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional
circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that
important truth. III. The miraculous powers ascribed to the
primitive church. IV. The pure and austere morals of the
Christians.

V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which
gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart
of the Roman empire.

1023 (return) [Though we are thus far agreed with respect to the
inflexibility and intolerance of Christian zeal, yet as to the
principle from which it was derived, we are, toto cœlo, divided
in opinion. You deduce it from the Jewish religion; I would refer
it to a more adequate and a more obvious source, a full
persuasion of the truth of Christianity. Watson. Letters Gibbon,
i. 9.—M.]

I. We have already described the religious harmony of the ancient
world, and the facility with which the most different and even
hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other’s
superstitions. A single people refused to join in the common
intercourse of mankind. The Jews, who, under the Assyrian and
Persian monarchies, had languished for many ages the most
despised portion of their slaves, 1 emerged from obscurity under
the successors of Alexander; and as they multiplied to a
surprising degree in the East, and afterwards in the West, they
soon excited the curiosity and wonder of other nations. 2 The
sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites
and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out as a distinct
species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised,
their implacable habits to the rest of human kind. 3 Neither the
violence of Antiochus, nor the arts of Herod, nor the example of
the circumjacent nations, could ever persuade the Jews to
associate with the institutions of Moses the elegant mythology of
the Greeks. 4 According to the maxims of universal toleration,
the Romans protected a superstition which they despised. 5 The
polite Augustus condescended to give orders, that sacrifices
should be offered for his prosperity in the temple of Jerusalem;
6 whilst the meanest of the posterity of Abraham, who should have
paid the same homage to the Jupiter of the Capitol, would have
been an object of abhorrence to himself and to his brethren.

But the moderation of the conquerors was insufficient to appease
the jealous prejudices of their subjects, who were alarmed and
scandalized at the ensigns of paganism, which necessarily
introduced themselves into a Roman province. 7 The mad attempt of
Caligula to place his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem was
defeated by the unanimous resolution of a people who dreaded
death much less than such an idolatrous profanation. 8 Their
attachment to the law of Moses was equal to their detestation of
foreign religions. The current of zeal and devotion, as it was
contracted into a narrow channel, ran with the strength, and
sometimes with the fury, of a torrent. This facility has not
always prevented intolerance, which seems inherent in the
religious spirit, when armed with authority. The separation of
the ecclesiastical and civil power, appears to be the only means
of at once maintaining religion and tolerance: but this is a very
modern notion. The passions, which mingle themselves with
opinions, made the Pagans very often intolerant and persecutors;
witness the Persians, the Egyptians even the Greeks and Romans.

1st. The Persians.—Cambyses, conqueror of the Egyptians,
condemned to death the magistrates of Memphis, because they had
offered divine honors to their god. Apis: he caused the god to be
brought before him, struck him with his dagger, commanded the
priests to be scourged, and ordered a general massacre of all the
Egyptians who should be found celebrating the festival of the
statues of the gods to be burnt. Not content with this
intolerance, he sent an army to reduce the Ammonians to slavery,
and to set on fire the temple in which Jupiter delivered his
oracles. See Herod. iii. 25—29, 37. Xerxes, during his invasion
of Greece, acted on the same principles: l c destroyed all the
temples of Greece and Ionia, except that of Ephesus. See Paus. l.
vii. p. 533, and x. p. 887.

Strabo, l. xiv. b. 941. 2d. The Egyptians.—They thought
themselves defiled when they had drunk from the same cup or eaten
at the same table with a man of a different belief from their
own. “He who has voluntarily killed any sacred animal is punished
with death; but if any one, even involuntarily, has killed a cat
or an ibis, he cannot escape the extreme penalty: the people drag
him away, treat him in the most cruel manner, sometimes without
waiting for a judicial sentence. * * * Even at the time when King
Ptolemy was not yet the acknowledged friend of the Roman people,
while the multitude were paying court with all possible attention
to the strangers who came from Italy * * a Roman having killed a
cat, the people rushed to his house, and neither the entreaties
of the nobles, whom the king sent to them, nor the terror of the
Roman name, were sufficiently powerful to rescue the man from
punishment, though he had committed the crime involuntarily.”
Diod. Sic. i 83. Juvenal, in his 13th Satire, describes the
sanguinary conflict between the inhabitants of Ombos and of
Tentyra, from religious animosity. The fury was carried so far,
that the conquerors tore and devoured the quivering limbs of the
conquered.

Ardet adhuc Ombos et Tentyra, summus utrinque Inde furor vulgo,
quod numina vicinorum Odit uterque locus; quum solos credat
habendos Esse Deos quos ipse colit. Sat. xv. v. 85.

3d. The Greeks.—“Let us not here,” says the Abbé Guénée, “refer
to the cities of Peloponnesus and their severity against atheism;
the Ephesians prosecuting Heraclitus for impiety; the Greeks
armed one against the other by religious zeal, in the
Amphictyonic war. Let us say nothing either of the frightful
cruelties inflicted by three successors of Alexander upon the
Jews, to force them to abandon their religion, nor of Antiochus
expelling the philosophers from his states. Let us not seek our
proofs of intolerance so far off. Athens, the polite and learned
Athens, will supply us with sufficient examples. Every citizen
made a public and solemn vow to conform to the religion of his
country, to defend it, and to cause it to be respected. An
express law severely punished all discourses against the gods,
and a rigid decree ordered the denunciation of all who should
deny their existence. * * * The practice was in unison with the
severity of the law. The proceedings commenced against
Protagoras; a price set upon the head of Diagoras; the danger of
Alcibiades; Aristotle obliged to fly; Stilpo banished; Anaxagoras
hardly escaping death; Pericles himself, after all his services
to his country, and all the glory he had acquired, compelled to
appear before the tribunals and make his defence; * * a priestess
executed for having introduced strange gods; Socrates condemned
and drinking the hemlock, because he was accused of not
recognizing those of his country, &c.; these facts attest too
loudly, to be called in question, the religious intolerance of
the most humane and enlightened people in Greece.” Lettres de
quelques Juifs a Mons. Voltaire, i. p. 221. (Compare Bentley on
Freethinking, from which much of this is derived.)—M.

4th. The Romans.—The laws of Rome were not less express and
severe. The intolerance of foreign religions reaches, with the
Romans, as high as the laws of the twelve tables; the
prohibitions were afterwards renewed at different times.
Intolerance did not discontinue under the emperors; witness the
counsel of Mæcenas to Augustus. This counsel is so remarkable,
that I think it right to insert it entire. “Honor the gods
yourself,” says Mæcenas to Augustus, “in every way according to
the usage of your ancestors, and compel others to worship them.
Hate and punish those who introduce strange gods, not only for
the sake of the gods, (he who despises them will respect no one,)
but because those who introduce new gods engage a multitude of
persons in foreign laws and customs. From hence arise unions
bound by oaths and confederacies, and associations, things
dangerous to a monarchy.” Dion Cass. l. ii. c. 36. (But, though
some may differ from it, see Gibbon’s just observation on this
passage in Dion Cassius, ch. xvi. note 117; impugned, indeed, by
M. Guizot, note in loc.)—M.

Even the laws which the philosophers of Athens and of Rome wrote
for their imaginary republics are intolerant. Plato does not
leave to his citizens freedom of religious worship; and Cicero
expressly prohibits them from having other gods than those of the
state. Lettres de quelques Juifs a Mons. Voltaire, i. p. 226.—G.

According to M. Guizot’s just remarks, religious intolerance will
always ally itself with the passions of man, however different
those passions may be. In the instances quoted above, with the
Persians it was the pride of despotism; to conquer the gods of a
country was the last mark of subjugation. With the Egyptians, it
was the gross Fetichism of the superstitious populace, and the
local jealousy of neighboring towns. In Greece, persecution was
in general connected with political party; in Rome, with the
stern supremacy of the law and the interests of the state. Gibbon
has been mistaken in attributing to the tolerant spirit of
Paganism that which arose out of the peculiar circumstances of
the times. 1st. The decay of the old Polytheism, through the
progress of reason and intelligence, and the prevalence of
philosophical opinions among the higher orders.

2d. The Roman character, in which the political always
predominated over the religious party. The Romans were contented
with having bowed the world to a uniformity of subjection to
their power, and cared not for establishing the (to them) less
important uniformity of religion.—M.

1 (return) [ Dum Assyrios penes, Medosque, et Persas Oriens fuit,
despectissima pars servientium. Tacit. Hist. v. 8. Herodotus, who
visited Asia whilst it obeyed the last of those empires, slightly
mentions the Syrians of Palestine, who, according to their own
confession, had received from Egypt the rite of circumcision. See
l. ii. c. 104.]

2 (return) [ Diodorus Siculus, l. xl. Dion Cassius, l. xxxvii. p.
121. Tacit Hist. v. 1—9. Justin xxxvi. 2, 3.]

3 (return) [ Tradidit arcano quæcunque volumine Moses, Non
monstrare vias cadem nisi sacra colenti, Quæsitum ad fontem solos
deducere verpas. The letter of this law is not to be found in the
present volume of Moses. But the wise, the humane Maimonides
openly teaches that if an idolater fall into the water, a Jew
ought not to save him from instant death. See Basnage, Histoire
des Juifs, l. vi. c. 28. * Note: It is diametrically opposed to
its spirit and to its letter, see, among other passages, Deut. v.
18. 19, (God) “loveth the stranger in giving him food and
raiment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger: for ye were strangers
in the land of Egypt.” Comp. Lev. xxiii. 25. Juvenal is a
satirist, whose strong expressions can hardly be received as
historic evidence; and he wrote after the horrible cruelties of
the Romans, which, during and after the war, might give some
cause for the complete isolation of the Jew from the rest of the
world. The Jew was a bigot, but his religion was not the only
source of his bigotry. After how many centuries of mutual wrong
and hatred, which had still further estranged the Jew from
mankind, did Maimonides write?—M.]

4 (return) [ A Jewish sect, which indulged themselves in a sort
of occasional conformity, derived from Herod, by whose example
and authority they had been seduced, the name of Herodians. But
their numbers were so inconsiderable, and their duration so
short, that Josephus has not thought them worthy of his notice.
See Prideaux’s Connection, vol. ii. p. 285. * Note: The Herodians
were probably more of a political party than a religious sect,
though Gibbon is most likely right as to their occasional
conformity. See Hist. of the Jews, ii. 108.—M.]

5 (return) [ Cicero pro Flacco, c. 28. * Note: The edicts of
Julius Cæsar, and of some of the cities in Asia Minor (Krebs.
Decret. pro Judæis,) in favor of the nation in general, or of the
Asiatic Jews, speak a different language.—M.]

6 (return) [ Philo de Legatione. Augustus left a foundation for a
perpetual sacrifice. Yet he approved of the neglect which his
grandson Caius expressed towards the temple of Jerusalem. See
Sueton. in August. c. 93, and Casaubon’s notes on that passage.]

7 (return) [ See, in particular, Joseph. Antiquitat. xvii. 6,
xviii. 3; and de Bell. Judiac. i. 33, and ii. 9, edit. Havercamp.
* Note: This was during the government of Pontius Pilate. (Hist.
of Jews, ii. 156.) Probably in part to avoid this collision, the
Roman governor, in general, resided at Cæsarea.—M.]

8 (return) [ Jussi a Caio Cæsare, effigiem ejus in templo locare,
arma potius sumpsere. Tacit. Hist. v. 9. Philo and Josephus gave
a very circumstantial, but a very rhetorical, account of this
transaction, which exceedingly perplexed the governor of Syria.
At the first mention of this idolatrous proposal, King Agrippa
fainted away; and did not recover his senses until the third day.
(Hist. of Jews, ii. 181, &c.)]

This inflexible perseverance, which appeared so odious or so
ridiculous to the ancient world, assumes a more awful character,
since Providence has deigned to reveal to us the mysterious
history of the chosen people. But the devout and even scrupulous
attachment to the Mosaic religion, so conspicuous among the Jews
who lived under the second temple, becomes still more surprising,
if it is compared with the stubborn incredulity of their
forefathers. When the law was given in thunder from Mount Sinai,
when the tides of the ocean and the course of the planets were
suspended for the convenience of the Israelites, and when
temporal rewards and punishments were the immediate consequences
of their piety or disobedience, they perpetually relapsed into
rebellion against the visible majesty of their Divine King,
placed the idols of the nations in the sanctuary of Jehovah, and
imitated every fantastic ceremony that was practised in the tents
of the Arabs, or in the cities of Phœnicia. 9 As the protection
of Heaven was deservedly withdrawn from the ungrateful race,
their faith acquired a proportionable degree of vigor and purity.

The contemporaries of Moses and Joshua had beheld with careless
indifference the most amazing miracles. Under the pressure of
every calamity, the belief of those miracles has preserved the
Jews of a later period from the universal contagion of idolatry;
and in contradiction to every known principle of the human mind,
that singular people seems to have yielded a stronger and more
ready assent to the traditions of their remote ancestors, than to
the evidence of their own senses. 10

9 (return) [ For the enumeration of the Syrian and Arabian
deities, it may be observed, that Milton has comprised in one
hundred and thirty very beautiful lines the two large and learned
syntagmas which Selden had composed on that abstruse subject.]

10 (return) [ “How long will this people provoke me? and how long
will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have
shown among them?” (Numbers xiv. 11.) It would be easy, but it
would be unbecoming, to justify the complaint of the Deity from
the whole tenor of the Mosaic history. Note: Among a rude and
barbarous people, religious impressions are easily made, and are
as soon effaced. The ignorance which multiplies imaginary
wonders, would weaken and destroy the effect of real miracle. At
the period of the Jewish history, referred to in the passage from
Numbers, their fears predominated over their faith,—the fears of
an unwarlike people, just rescued from debasing slavery, and
commanded to attack a fierce, a well-armed, a gigantic, and a far
more numerous race, the inhabitants of Canaan. As to the frequent
apostasy of the Jews, their religion was beyond their state of
civilization. Nor is it uncommon for a people to cling with
passionate attachment to that of which, at first, they could not
appreciate the value. Patriotism and national pride will contend,
even to death, for political rights which have been forced upon a
reluctant people. The Christian may at least retort, with
justice, that the great sign of his religion, the resurrection of
Jesus, was most ardently believed, and most resolutely asserted,
by the eye witnesses of the fact.—M.]

The Jewish religion was admirably fitted for defence, but it was
never designed for conquest; and it seems probable that the
number of proselytes was never much superior to that of
apostates. The divine promises were originally made, and the
distinguishing rite of circumcision was enjoined, to a single
family. When the posterity of Abraham had multiplied like the
sands of the sea, the Deity, from whose mouth they received a
system of laws and ceremonies, declared himself the proper and as
it were the national God of Israel; and with the most jealous
care separated his favorite people from the rest of mankind. The
conquest of the land of Canaan was accompanied with so many
wonderful and with so many bloody circumstances, that the
victorious Jews were left in a state of irreconcilable hostility
with all their neighbors. They had been commanded to extirpate
some of the most idolatrous tribes, and the execution of the
divine will had seldom been retarded by the weakness of humanity.

With the other nations they were forbidden to contract any
marriages or alliances; and the prohibition of receiving them
into the congregation, which in some cases was perpetual, almost
always extended to the third, to the seventh, or even to the
tenth generation. The obligation of preaching to the Gentiles the
faith of Moses had never been inculcated as a precept of the law,
nor were the Jews inclined to impose it on themselves as a
voluntary duty.

In the admission of new citizens that unsocial people was
actuated by the selfish vanity of the Greeks, rather than by the
generous policy of Rome. The descendants of Abraham were
flattered by the opinion that they alone were the heirs of the
covenant, and they were apprehensive of diminishing the value of
their inheritance by sharing it too easily with the strangers of
the earth. A larger acquaintance with mankind extended their
knowledge without correcting their prejudices; and whenever the
God of Israel acquired any new votaries, he was much more
indebted to the inconstant humor of polytheism than to the active
zeal of his own missionaries. 11 The religion of Moses seems to
be instituted for a particular country as well as for a single
nation; and if a strict obedience had been paid to the order,
that every male, three times in the year, should present himself
before the Lord Jehovah, it would have been impossible that the
Jews could ever have spread themselves beyond the narrow limits
of the promised land. 12 That obstacle was indeed removed by the
destruction of the temple of Jerusalem; but the most considerable
part of the Jewish religion was involved in its destruction; and
the Pagans, who had long wondered at the strange report of an
empty sanctuary, 13 were at a loss to discover what could be the
object, or what could be the instruments, of a worship which was
destitute of temples and of altars, of priests and of sacrifices.

Yet even in their fallen state, the Jews, still asserting their
lofty and exclusive privileges, shunned, instead of courting, the
society of strangers. They still insisted with inflexible rigor
on those parts of the law which it was in their power to
practise. Their peculiar distinctions of days, of meats, and a
variety of trivial though burdensome observances, were so many
objects of disgust and aversion for the other nations, to whose
habits and prejudices they were diametrically opposite. The
painful and even dangerous rite of circumcision was alone capable
of repelling a willing proselyte from the door of the synagogue.
14

11 (return) [ All that relates to the Jewish proselytes has been
very ably by Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, l. vi. c. 6, 7.]

12 (return) [ See Exod. xxiv. 23, Deut. xvi. 16, the
commentators, and a very sensible note in the Universal History,
vol. i. p. 603, edit. fol.]

13 (return) [ When Pompey, using or abusing the right of
conquest, entered into the Holy of Holies, it was observed with
amazement, “Nulli intus Deum effigie, vacuam sedem et inania
arcana.” Tacit. Hist. v. 9. It was a popular saying, with regard
to the Jews, “Nil præter nubes et coeli numen adorant.”]

14 (return) [ A second kind of circumcision was inflicted on a
Samaritan or Egyptian proselyte. The sullen indifference of the
Talmudists, with respect to the conversion of strangers, may be
seen in Basnage Histoire des Juifs, l. xi. c. 6.]

Under these circumstances, Christianity offered itself to the
world, armed with the strength of the Mosaic law, and delivered
from the weight of its fetters. An exclusive zeal for the truth
of religion, and the unity of God, was as carefully inculcated in
the new as in the ancient system; and whatever was now revealed
to mankind concerning the nature and designs of the Supreme Being
was fitted to increase their reverence for that mysterious
doctrine. The divine authority of Moses and the prophets was
admitted, and even established, as the firmest basis of
Christianity. From the beginning of the world, an uninterrupted
series of predictions had announced and prepared the
long-expected coming of the Messiah, who, in compliance with the
gross apprehensions of the Jews, had been more frequently
represented under the character of a King and Conqueror, than
under that of a Prophet, a Martyr, and the Son of God. By his
expiatory sacrifice, the imperfect sacrifices of the temple were
at once consummated and abolished. The ceremonial law, which
consisted only of types and figures, was succeeded by a pure and
spiritual worship equally adapted to all climates, as well as to
every condition of mankind; and to the initiation of blood was
substituted a more harmless initiation of water. The promise of
divine favor, instead of being partially confined to the
posterity of Abraham, was universally proposed to the freeman and
the slave, to the Greek and to the barbarian, to the Jew and to
the Gentile. Every privilege that could raise the proselyte from
earth to heaven, that could exalt his devotion, secure his
happiness, or even gratify that secret pride which, under the
semblance of devotion, insinuates itself into the human heart,
was still reserved for the members of the Christian church; but
at the same time all mankind was permitted, and even solicited,
to accept the glorious distinction, which was not only proffered
as a favor, but imposed as an obligation. It became the most
sacred duty of a new convert to diffuse among his friends and
relations the inestimable blessing which he had received, and to
warn them against a refusal that would be severely punished as a
criminal disobedience to the will of a benevolent but
all-powerful Deity.