Ebionites and Cerinthians were a branch of the Gnostics. If the fact be
denied, the whole of this discussion might as well at once be closed. We
know nothing of Cerinthus and Ebion, but from the writings of the
fathers. If it had not been for them, we should never have known that
these persons believed Jesus to be born of human parents: the same
fathers unanimously add, that in this point they differed from the
preceding Gnostics, though agreeing with them on other points. If we are
to receive the testimony of the fathers in one particular, but to reject
it in every other, I need not say that argument is useless. But the fact
can never be denied nor evaded. The Cerinthians, to whom some Unitarians
have appealed, did not ascribe the creation of the world to God, but to
an inferior being. Like the rest of the Gnostics, who engrafted that
philosophy on Judaism, the Cerinthians and Ebionites retained some of
the Jewish ceremonies, though they rejected some of the Jewish
Scriptures. Many of them taught that the restraints of morality were
useless; and the Cerinthians, it is well known, promised to their
followers a millennium of sensual indulgence. With respect to their
notions concerning Christ, it is true that they believed Jesus to be
born of human parents; and this fact is referred to, as if it proved the
falsehood of what is called the miraculous conception of Jesus. But it
is plain that this tenet is mentioned by the fathers, as being opposed
to that of the other Gnostics, who held that the body of Jesus was an
illusive phantom. Such had hitherto been the belief of all the Gnostics.
But Cerinthus and Ebion, who were perhaps more rational in their
speculations, and who lived after the publication of the three first
Gospels, could not resist the evidence that Jesus was actually born, and
that he had a real, substantial body. This is the meaning of the
statement, that Cerinthus and Ebion believed Jesus to be born of human
parents. It shows that they were not _Docetæ_. But because there were
other Gnostics who were more irrational and visionary than themselves,
we are not immediately to infer that their own notion concerning the
birth of Christ was the true one. They believed, at least, many of them
believed, that Jesus was born in the ordinary way; that Joseph was his
parent as well as Mary. But they could hardly help believing so; for
they agreed with all the Gnostics in thinking (though it might seem as
if this point had been forgotten) that Jesus and Christ were separate
persons: they believed, as I have already stated, that Christ descended
upon Jesus at his baptism, and quitted him before his crucifixion. They
were therefore almost compelled to believe that Jesus, who was wholly
distinct from Christ, had nothing divine in his nature, and nothing
miraculous in his birth; in the same manner that they believed that the
death of Jesus, from whom Christ had then departed, was like the death
of any ordinary mortal, and that no atonement was made by it. But are we
on these grounds to reject the miraculous conception and the atonement
of Christ? Or are the Unitarians to quote these Gnostics as holding the
human nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person
wholly different from Christ?
4. We are told, indeed, that the first part of St. Matthew’s Gospel is
spurious, because the Ebionites rejected it. Undoubtedly they did. They
read in it that Jesus Christ was born, not Jesus only; and that he was
born of a virgin. They therefore rejected this part of St. Matthew’s
Gospel; or rather, by mutilating and altering the whole of it, they
composed a new gospel of their own to suit their purpose; and yet this
is the only authority which is quoted for rejecting the commencement of
St. Matthew’s Gospel. The fact, that some even of the Ebionites believed
the miraculous conception, speaks infinitely more in favour of the
genuineness of that part of the Gospel, and of the truth of the doctrine
itself, than can be inferred on the contrary side from those who denied
the doctrine, and mutilated the Gospel. Those other Ebionites appear in
this respect to have agreed with the first Socinians, and to have held
that Jesus was born of a virgin, though they did not believe in his
preëxistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely
contrary to all preconceived opinions, and the more simple doctrine of
the other Ebionites and Cerinthians was so much more suited to the
Gnostic system, which separated Jesus from Christ, that the evidence
must have been almost irresistible, which led one part of the Ebionites
to embrace a doctrine contrary to all experience, contrary to the
sentiments of their brethren, and hardly reconcilable with other parts
of their own creed. The testimony, therefore, of these Ebionites, in
favour of the miraculous conception, is stronger, perhaps, than even
that of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no
points from the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Apostles had preached,
according to the statement of the Unitarians, that Jesus Christ was a
mere human being, born in the ordinary way, what could possibly have led
the Gnostics to rank him immediately with their Æons, whom they believed
to have been produced by God, and to have dwelt with him from endless
ages in the pleroma? There literally was not one single heretic in the
first century, who did not believe that Christ came down from heaven:
they invented, it is true, various absurdities to account for his union
with the man Jesus; but the fair and legitimate inference from this fact
would be, that the Apostles preached that in some way or other the human
nature was united to the divine. So far from the Socinian or Unitarian
doctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites, I
have no hesitation in saying, that not one single person is recorded in
the whole of the first century who ever imagined that Christ was a mere
man. It has been observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled
the first Socinians, that is, they believed in the miraculous conception
of Jesus, though they denied his preëxistence; but this was because they
held the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two
separate persons; and they believed in the preëxistence and divine
nature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.
ECBATANA, a city of Media, which, according to Herodotus, was built by
Dejoces, king of the Medes. It was situated on a gentle declivity,
distant twelve stadia from Mount Orontes, and was in compass one hundred
and fifty stadia, and, next to Nineveh and Babylon, was one of the
strongest and most beautiful cities of the east. After the union of
Media with Persia, it was the summer residence of the Persian kings. Sir
R. K. Porter, in his Travels, says, “Having for a few moments gazed at
the venerable mountain, (Orontes, at the foot of which Ecbatana was
built,) and at the sad vacuum at its base; what had been Ecbatana, being
now shrunk to comparative nothingness; I turned my eye on the still busy
scene of life which occupied the adjacent country; the extensive plain
of Hamadan, and its widely extending hills. On our right, the receding
vale was varied, at short distances, with numberless castellated
villages rising from amidst groves of the noblest trees; while the great
plain itself stretched northward and eastward to such far remoteness,
that its mountain boundaries appeared like clouds upon the horizon. This
whole tract seemed one carpet of luxuriant verdure, studded with
hamlets, and watered by beautiful rivulets. On the south-west, Orontes,
or Elwund, (by whichever name we may designate this most towering
division of the mountain,) presents itself, in all the stupendous
grandeur of its fame and form. Near to its base, appear the dark
coloured dwellings of Hamadan, crowded thickly on each other; while the
gardens of the inhabitants with their connecting orchards and woods,
fringe the entire slope of that part of the mountain.” “The site of the
modern town, like that of the ancient, is on a gradual ascent,
terminating near the foot of the eastern side of the mountain; but there
all trace of its past appearance would cease, were it not for two or
three considerable elevations, and overgrown irregularities on and near
them, which may have been the walls of the royal fortress, with those of
the palaces, temples, and theatres, seen no more. I passed one of these
heights, standing to the south-west, as I entered the city, and observed
that it bore many vestiges of having been strongly fortified. The sides
and summit are covered with large remnants of ruined walls of a great
thickness, and also of towers, the materials of which were sun-dried
bricks. It has the name of the Inner Fortress, and certainly holds the
most commanding station near the plain.” Of the interior of the city,
the same author says, “The mud alleys, which now occupy the site of the
ancient streets or squares, are narrow, interrupted by large holes or
hollows in the way, and heaps of the fallen crumbled walls of deserted
dwellings. A miserable bazaar or two are passed through in traversing
the town; and large lonely spots are met with, marked by broken low
mounds over older ruins; with here and there a few poplars, or willow
trees, shadowing the border of a dirty stream, abandoned to the meanest
uses; which, probably, flowed pellucid and admired, when these places
were gardens, and the grass-grown heap some stately dwelling of
Ecbatana. In one or two spots I observed square platforms, composed of
large stones; the faces of many of which were chiselled all over into
the finest arabesque fretwork, while others had, in addition, long
inscriptions in the Arabic character. They had evidently been
tomb-stones of the inhabitants, during the caliph rule in Persia. But
when we compare relics of the seventh century, with the deep antiquity
of the ruins on which they lie, these monumental remains seem but the
register of yesterday.” Here is shown the tomb of Mordecai and Esther;
as well as that of Avicenna, the celebrated Arabian physician. The
sepulchre of the former stands near the centre of the city of Hamadan:
the tombs are covered by a dome, on which is the following inscription
in Hebrew: “This day, 15th of the month Adar, in the year 4474 from the
creation of the world, was finished the building of this temple over the
graves of Mordecai and Esther, by the hands of the good-hearted
brothers, Elias and Samuel, the sons of the deceased Ismael of Kashan.”
This inscription, the date of which proves the dome to have been built
eleven hundred years, was sent by Sir Gore Ouseley to Sir John Malcolm,
who has given it in his History of Persia; who also says that the tombs,
which are of a black coloured wood, are evidently of very great
antiquity, but in good preservation, as the wood has not perished, and
the inscriptions are still very legible. Sir R. K. Porter has given a
more particular description of this tomb. He says, “I accompanied the
priest through the town, over much ruin and rubbish, to an enclosed
piece of ground, rather more elevated than any in its immediate
vicinity. In the centre was the Jewish tomb; a square building of brick,
of a mosque-like form, with a rather elongated dome at the top. The
whole seems in a very decaying state, falling fast to the mouldering
condition of some wall fragments around, which, in former times, had
been connected with, and extended the consequence of, the sacred
enclosure. The door that admitted us into the tomb, is in the ancient
sepulchral fashion of the country, very small; consisting of a small
stone of great thickness, and turning on its own pivots from one side.
Its key is always in possession of the head of the Jews resident at
Hamadan.” “On passing through the little portal, which we did in an
almost doubled position, we entered a small arched chamber, in which are
seen the graves of several rabbies: probably, one may cover the remains
of the pious Ismael; and, not unlikely, the others may contain the
bodies of the first rebuilders after the sacrilegious destruction by
Timour. Having ‘trod lightly by their graves,’ a second door of such
very confined dimensions presented itself at the end of this vestibule,
we were constrained to enter it on our hands and knees, and then
standing up, we found ourselves in a larger chamber, to which
appertained the dome. Immediately under its concave, stand two
sarcophagi, made of a very dark wood, carved with great intricacy of
pattern, and richness of twisted ornament, with a line of inscription in
Hebrew running round the upper ledge of each. Many other inscriptions,
in the same language, are cut on the walls; while one of the oldest
antiquity, engraved on a slab of white marble, is let into the wall
itself.” This inscription is as follows: “Mordecai, beloved and honoured
by a king, was great and good. His garments were as those of a
sovereign. Ahasuerus covered him with this rich dress, and also placed a
golden chain around his neck. The city of Susa rejoiced at his honours,
and his high fortune became the glory of the Jews.” The inscription
which encompasses the sarcophagus of Mordecai, is to this effect: “It is
said by David, Preserve me, O God! I am now in thy presence. I have
cried at the gate of heaven, that thou art my God; and what goodness I
have received from thee, O Lord! Those whose bodies are now beneath in
this earth, when animated by thy mercy were great; and whatever
happiness was bestowed upon them in this world, came from thee, O God!
Their grief and sufferings were many, at the first; but they became
happy, because they always called upon thy holy name in their miseries.
Thou liftedst me up, and I became powerful. Thine enemies sought to
destroy me, in the early times of my life; but the shadow of thy hand
was upon me, and covered me, as a tent, from their wicked
purposes!--MORDECAI.” The following is the corresponding inscription on
the sarcophagus of Esther: “I praise thee, O God, that thou hast created
me! I know that my sins merit punishment, yet I hope for mercy at thy
hands; for whenever I call upon thee, thou art with me; thy holy
presence secures me from all evil. My heart is at ease, and my fear of
thee increases. My life became, through thy goodness, at the last, full
of peace. O God, do not shut my soul out from thy divine presence! Those
whom thou lovest, never feel the torments of hell. Lead me, O merciful
Father, to the life of life; that I may be filled with the heavenly
fruits of paradise!--ESTHER.” The Jews at Hamadan have no tradition of
the cause of Esther and Mordecai having been interred at that place; but
however that might be, there are sufficient reasons for believing the
validity of their interment in this spot. The strongest evidence we can
have of the truth of any historical fact, is, its commemoration by an
annual festival. It is well known, that several important events in
Jewish history are thus celebrated; and among the rest, the feast of
Purim is kept on the 13th and 14th of the month Adar, to commemorate the
deliverance obtained by the Jews, at the intercession of Esther, from
the general massacre ordered by Ahasuerus, and the slaughter they were
permitted to make of their enemies. Now on this same festival, in the
same day and month, Jewish pilgrims resort from all quarters to the
sepulchre of Mordecai and Esther; and have done so for centuries,--a
strong presumptive proof that the tradition of their burial in this
place rests on some authentic foundation.
ECCLESIASTES, a canonical book of the Old Testament, of which Solomon
was the author, as appears from the first sentence. The design of this
book is to show the vanity of all sublunary things; and from a review of
the whole, the author draws this pertinent conclusion, “Fear God, and
keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man;”--his whole wisdom,
interest, and happiness, as well as his whole duty. Ecclesiastes,
according to a modern author, is a dialogue, in which a man of piety
disputes with a libertine who favoured the opinion of the Sadducees. His
reason is, that there are passages in it which seem to contradict each
other, and could not, he thinks, proceed from the same person. But this
may be accounted for by supposing that it was Solomon’s method to
propose the objections of infidels and sensualists, and then to reply to
them.
ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, the rules by which churches are governed, as to
their spiritual concerns. The reformers having renounced the pope as
antichrist, and having laid it down as their fundamental principle, that
Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that it is the privilege of
every man to interpret it according to his own judgment, had to consider
in what manner the churches which they had formed were to be regulated;
and there soon arose among them upon this point diversity of sentiment.
Melancthon and the earliest reformers viewed with veneration the
hierarchy which had so long subsisted, as also many of the ceremonies
which for ages had been observed; and they expressed their readiness to
continue that distinction of pastors which their researches into the
history of the church had enabled them to trace back to the early ages
of Christianity. But while they declared in favour of this form of
ecclesiastical polity, they did so, not upon the ground that it was of
divine institution, or positively required by the author of Christianity
as inseparable from a church; but on the ground, that taking into
estimation every thing connected with it, it appeared to them eminently
adapted to carry into effect that renovation of piety, and that
religious influence, which they were so eager to promote. They thus made
ecclesiastical polity a matter of expediency, or of prudential
regulation; the one thing in their view, binding upon all Christians,
being to strengthen the practical power of religion. That this is a just
representation of the state of opinion among the first Protestants, will
be placed beyond a doubt by a few quotations from the confession of
Augsburg, and from the works of some of the most eminent divines who
then flourished. Speaking of this subject, the compilers of the
confession declare, “that they were most desirous to preserve the
ecclesiastical polity, and those degrees in the church which had been
introduced by human authority, knowing that, for wise and good purposes,
the discipline, as described in the canons, had been introduced by the
fathers.” “We wish,” they add, “to testify that we would willingly
preserve the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, if the bishops would
cease to act with cruelty against our churches.” And once again they
remark, that they had often declared that they venerated not only the
ecclesiastical power which was instituted in the Gospel, but that they
approved of the ecclesiastical polity which had subsisted, and wished,
as much as was in their power, to preserve it. It is quite plain from
these passages, that the framers of that confession, and those who
adhered to it as the standard of their faith, viewed ecclesiastical
polity as a matter of human appointment; and that, although they
venerated that form of it which had long existed, they looked upon
themselves as at liberty, under peculiar circumstances, to depart from
it. The truth, accordingly, is, that a great part of the Lutheran
churches, as we shall afterward find, did introduce many deviations from
that model for which their founders had expressed respect and
admiration; although episcopacy was in several places continued.
2. In consequence, however, of the exertions of Calvin, what were
denominated the reformed churches deemed it expedient wholly to change
this form of polity, and to introduce again the equality among pastors
which had existed in the primitive times. That celebrated theologian,
resting upon the undisputed fact, that in the Apostolic age no
distinction subsisted between bishops and presbyters, thought himself at
liberty to frame a system of polity upon this principle, persuaded that,
by doing so, he would most effectually guard against those abuses that
had given rise to the Papal tyranny which Protestants had abjured. He
accordingly introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so; and
he employed all the vigour of his talents in pressing upon distant
churches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his sentiments,
their ecclesiastical government. But, while he was firmly persuaded that
an equality among pastors was agreeable to the Apostolic practice, he
has shown that he did not conceive this equality to be so absolutely
required by Scripture, that there could in no case be a departure from
it. He was, in fact, convinced that all the purposes of religion might
be accomplished under a form of polity in which it was not recognised:
“Wherever,” he says, “the preaching of the Gospel is heard with
reverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time
there is a church.” Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to
be “those who by the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who
properly administer the sacred mysteries, and who preserve and exercise
right discipline.” In tracing the progress of the hierarchy, he
observes, that “those to whom the office of teaching was assigned were
denominated presbyters; that to avoid the dissensions often arising
among equals, they chose one of their number to preside, to whom the
title of bishop was exclusively given; and that the practice, as the
ancients admitted, was introduced by human consent, from the necessity
of the times.” That this exaltation of the bishop, and, of course, this
departure from parity, did not, in his estimation, render the church
unchristian, is apparent from what he says of it after the change was
introduced: “Such was the severity of these times, that all the
ministers were led to discharge their duty as the Lord required of
them.” Even after archbishops and patriarchs had arisen, he merely says,
in recording their introduction, “This arrangement was calculated to
preserve discipline.”
3. What Calvin thus taught in his “Institutes,” he confirmed in many of
the interesting letters which he wrote to various eminent persons. In
these letters he speaks with the highest respect of the church of
England, where the distinction of clerical orders was preserved. He
corresponds with the highest dignitaries of that church in a style which
he assuredly would not have adopted, had he considered them as upholding
an antichristian polity; and he repeatedly avows the principle, that, in
regulating the government of the church, attention must be paid to the
circumstances in which its members were placed. Beza, who was warmly
attached to presbytery, and who upon every occasion, strenuously
defended it, still admits that the human order of episcopacy was useful,
as long as the bishops were good; and he professes all reverence for
those modern bishops who strive to imitate the primitive ones in the
reformation of the church according to the word of God: adding that it
was a calumny against him, and those who entertained his sentiments, to
affirm, as some had done, that they wished to prescribe their form of
government to all other churches. In the excellent letter which he
addressed to Grindal, bishop of London, and in which he pleads the cause
of those ministers who scrupled to use the ceremonies which their
brethren approved, he bears his testimony to the conformity of the
church of England in doctrine with his church, expresses himself with
the highest respect of the prelate to whom he was writing, and concludes
by asking his prayers in his own behalf, and in that of the church of
Geneva; all of which is quite inconsistent with the tenet, that
presbytery is absolutely prescribed by divine authority.