CRISTO RAUL

AN INQUIRY INTO THE HERESIES OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE

BY

THE REV. EDWARD BURTON

 

INTRODUCTION

LECTURE I.

Subject proposed. An investigation into the early heresies will illustrate passages and expressions in the New Testament. The orthodoxy of these heretics has sometimes been maintained. Definition of the term Heresy, and its meaning as used by the Fathers. Not unreasonable that heresies should appear so early. Length of time which elapsed before the apostles quitted Ju­daea. Brief sketch of the first propagation of Christianity, and particularly by St. Paul.

LECTURE II.

Means of ascertaining the doctrines of the early heretics. Necessity and utility of consulting the Fathers. The early here­tics were Gnostics. Outline of the Gnostic philosophy. It has been traced to three sources. Examination of two of them, the Eastern doctrine of two Principles, and the Jewish Cabbala.

LECTURE III.

Examination of the third and principal source, the Platonic philosophy. Effect of the foundation of Alexandria upon Gre­cian philosophy. Jews in Alexandria; Essenes. Rise of the eclectic philosophy and of Gnosticism. Peculiar use of the term Knowledge. Allusions to this knowledge in the New Testament.

LECTURE IV.

Simon Magus the parent of Gnostic heresies. His history. Doctrine of aeons. Passages in the New Testament concerning JEons.

LECTURE V.

Tertullian mistaken concerning Elements. Opinion of the Gnostics concerning the Pleroma. Allusions to this opinion in the New Testament. Gnostics denied the inspiration of the prophets; and the Resurrection. Heretics mentioned by name in the New Testament. Moral practice of the Gnostics of two opposite kinds. Fatal effect of their licentiousness upon Chris­tianity. Nicolaitans.

LECTURE VI.

Opinions of the Gnostics concerning Jesus Christ. Docetse. Alluded to in the New Testament, and specially refuted by St. John. History of Cerinthus and Ebion. Explanation of the text.

LECTURE VII.

Gospel of St. John. That apostle accused of corrupting the Gospel. Justin Martyr defended from the charge of introducing Platonism. Peculiar use of the term Logos by St. John. The term not so used in other parts of scripture, nor in the Targums. Date of St. John’s writings. The term itself was borrowed from the Platonists or the Gnostics. St. John’s intention in writing his Gospel.

LECTURE VIII.

Recapitulation. An acquaintance with early heresies may be of use in the Unitarian controversy. Mistakes of the Unitarians in appealing to the Ebionites. No heretic in the first century maintained the simple humanity of Christ. Theodotus. Paul of Samosata. Sabellius. Conclusion.

 

INTRODUCTION.

The first of the following Lectures sufficiently explains the nature of the subject, which is proposed for discussion: and I shall employ this Introduction in giving some account of the authors whose works I hare either myself consulted, or a perusal of which is recommended as useful for making us acquainted with the heresies of the apostolic age.

It is hardly necessary to observe, that the writings of the early Christians, who are commonly quoted under the name of the Fathers, constitute the most valuable authority upon this point. They are in fact the only original works to which we can appeal: and though the minds of men will differ exceedingly as to the degree of credit which is to be given to the Fathers in particular instances, yet we cannot reject them altogether: and the most critical or most scep­tical reader must consent to receive the little which he ad­mits to be true in ecclesiastical history, upon the testimony of the Fathers. I do not mean to say that it is necessary to peruse all the patristical writings in order to obtain a knowledge of the early heresies. There are perhaps none of these works, which do not contain some scattered and incidental notices connected with this subject: and it would be rash to pronounce a decided opinion upon controverted points, or to give a critical delineation of heretical and orthodox belief, without some acquaintance at least with the Fathers of the three, or even the four, first centuries of the Christian era. Most of the professed heresiologists lived later than this period: and we generally find the most systematic classification, and the most detailed accounts, of heretics in the works of more recent writers. This is a circumstance, which requires us to read such works with caution: but even where they stand alone, we must not always entirely reject their statements: and although we may sometimes suspect them, and not unfrequently convict them of contradictions, they have often been the means of preserving information, which would otherwise have been lost; and we must in fairness consider them not as always speaking the language of their own day, but as having copied from much older and more valuable documents. For a minute and critical account of the principal ancient writers, who have treated of heresies, I would refer to the work of Ittigius, de Heresiarchis oevi Apostolici et Apostolico proximi, Lipsiae, 1690. from the Preface to which I have ex­tracted the greatest part of the following statement.

Justin Martyr, in the former part of the second century, wrote a work against Marcion, and another against all here­sies : but neither of them has come down to us.

The great work of Irenaeus was directed, according to the Latin translation, against Heresies: but Eusebius and Photius, who have preserved the Greek title, represent it as being, A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called: which shows, as I shall observe in the course of these Lectures, that it was intended as a refuta­tion of the Gnostic heresies. It was in fact directed chiefly against the heresy of Valentinus: but the writer takes the opportunity of giving a short account of all the heretics who preceded him, beginning with Simon Magus. Irenaeus flourished about the year 185. The Greek original of his work is unfortunately lost, except the greater part of the first book and a few occasional fragments: but the whole of it is preserved in a very ancient Latin translation. The best edition was published by Massuet, at Paris, in 1710; and was reprinted at Venice in 1734, page for page, with some new fragments discovered at Turin, and edited by Pfaffius: but the genuineness of these fragments is ex­tremely doubtful.

Tertullian, who flourished about the year 200, has left several works, which are of value in a history of heresies. He treated of all the heresies which preceded his own day, in a Dissertation, entitled De Prescriptione Haereticorum : but the concluding part of this treatise, subsequent to the forty-fifth chapter, is now generally looked upon as a later addition. Tertullian also wrote against several particular heresies, as that of Hermogenes, who believed in the eter­nity of Matter; of Valentinus and Marcion, who were two of the most distinguished Gnostics in the second century; and of Praxeas, who was one of the earliest supporters of the Patripassian heresy. AH these treatises have come down to us: and it is impossible to have an adequate notion of the Gnostic doctrines without a perusal of the work against Valentinus, and the five books against Marcion. The best edition of Tertullian was published at Paris, in 1675, by Priorius; though that in 6 volumes 8°. by Semler, Halae, 1770—6, is valuable as containing some additions to the tract de Oratione, which were discovered by Muratori.

Philaster, or Philastrius, who was Bishop of Brescia about A. D. 380, drew up a small work, de Heresibus, which has been published in different Bibliothecae Patrum, and sepa­rately in 1528, 1611, and 1721: but it has been proved to contain many inaccuracies.

We know from Augustin, that Jerom wrote a treatise upon heresies, though Augustin himself does not appear to have seen it. Cl. Menardus published at Paris, in 1617, Indiculus de Heresibus Judaeorum, which was supposed by him to have been written by Jerom; but good reasons have been alleged for thinking it spurious; and the work itself is extremely short.

The longest and most elaborate work which has come down to us upon ancient heresies, is that of Epiphanius, who was Bishop in the island of Cyprus, and flourished A.D. 368. It was published by Petavius, at Paris, in 1662, and reprinted with some few additions in 1682, at Leipsic, though Coloniae appears in the title-page. The authority of Epiphanius does not stand high; and he must be allowed to have been a credulous writer, who did not exercise much judgment or criticism in the collection and arrangement of his materials. But still his work is indispensable to the ecclesiastical historian; and it contains a mass of valuable information, much of which must have been taken from more ancient documents, and which certainly was not the produce of his own invention.

Augustin, who lived in the same century with Jerom and Epiphahius, also wrote a short treatise upon heresies. He enumerates eighty-eight different sects, of which the Pelagians are the last. The notices of each heresy are concise, and do not supply much new information. The work is to be found at the commencement of the eighth volume of the Benedictine edition of Augustin.

In the year 1648 J. Sirmondus published a work upon heresies, divided into three books, and bearing the name of Praedestinatus. The writer appears to have lived not long after the time of Augustin, and to have followed the same order in the enumeration of heresies. Various conjectures have been formed as to his real name. Some have supposed him to have been Primasius, an African bishop; others have attributed the work to Arnobius Junior, or to a per­son named Vincentius: but this must be looked upon as a point which is still undecided. The author, whoever he may have been, had either access to some documents which had not been seen by the other writers, whose works have come down to us, or he added many particulars from his own.imagination. I should rather suspect the latter to have been the case. The work has been republished in 1677 and 1686.

The writer, who has treated the subject of heresies at most length, next to Epiphanius, is Theodoret, who was bishop of Cyrus in Syria, and composed a work; in five books against all heresies, about the year 452. It may be found in the fourth volume of the edition of the works of Theodoret published at Paris by J. Sirmondus in 1642. This writer, though he is much more concise than Epiphanius, appears in many respects to be more deserving of credit. His sources of information were evidently not the same; and he has given proofs of being a much more judicious and criti­cal compiler. Wherever Epiphanius and Theodoret differ, few persons would hesitate to follow the latter.

Leontius of Byzantium, a writer of some note at the end of the sixth century, wrote a work de Sectis, which is di­vided into ten parts, and contains an account of several early heresies. It has been published in 1578 by Leunclavius, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, 1624, vol. I.

Isidorus, bishop of Hispala, who flourished A. D. 595, wrote a work entitled Origenes; and in the third, fourth, and fifth chapters of the eighth book, a description is given of all the early heresies. The best edition of the works of Isidorus is that of Du Breul, 1617.

It is hardly necessary to mention the work of Anastasius, entitled Hodegus, which was composed towards the end of the sixth century; and in the fourth chapter of which there is a brief enumeration of all the heresies down to the time of Nestorius. It may be found in the Bibliothecae Patrum, and in Fabliaus, Bibl. Gr. vol. VII.

The same may be said of the circular Epistle written by Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, about the year 629, in which he gives a long list of several heretics: but of some of them he mentions little more than the names. It may be found in the Collections of general Councils, and in Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. VII.

A more detailed account of the early heresies was given by Timotheus, a presbyter of Constantinople, who is placed by different writers at the beginning of the sixth or seventh centuries. The object of his work was to describe the process of admitting heretics into the church. It was published by Meursius in 1619: by Combefisius, in the second volume of his Auctarium Novum, Paris, 1648; and, lastly, by Cotelerius, in the third volume of his Monumenta Ecclesia Graecce: but this edition of the work differs very much from the preceding.

John Damascenus, as he is generally called from his native place, Damascus, was one of the most distinguished writers of the eighth century, and he has left a work of some length, which treats of all heresies. But the greater part of it is in fact nothing else than a compilation from Epiphanius; and the account of the later heresies is alone the original work of Damascenus. The best edition of this author is that of Lequien, Paris, 1712.

Rabanus Maurus, who wrote in the ninth century, has given a list of early heresies in the 58th chapter of the second book of his work de Clericorum Institutione: but he has evidently copied Isidorus of Hispala.

We do not meet with any other heresiologist till the twelfth century, when Euthymius Zigabenus published his Panoplia Dogmatica Orthodoxae Fidei, in which the tenets of several heretics are refuted. The whole of this work has never been published in Greek : but copies of it exist in the Bodleian and other libraries.

Zonaras, who flourished at the beginning of the same century, composed, among many other works, a Tract, en­titled Caiwn in Sanctissimam Deiparam, in which he briefly refutes several heresies. It was published for the first time entire by Cotelerius, in his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecce, vol. III.

In the same century, Honorius, a presbyter of Aucun in Burgundy, composed a work upon Heresies, which was published at Basle in 1544: at Helmstadt in 1611: and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, 1618. vol. XII., and Constantinus Harmenopulus wrote a book de Sectis Hereticis, which was published by Fronto Ducaeus, in his Auctuarium, 1624. vol. I.

Nicetas Choniates, (whose history of the emperors of Constantinople is well known among the works of the By­zantine historians, and who fled to Nice in Bithynia, when Constantinople was taken by the Crusaders,) wrote also a long work in twenty-seven books, entitled Thesaurus Or­thodoxy Fidei. The five first books were published in Latin by P. Morellus in 1580, but the Greek has never yet appeared in print, though MSS. of the entire work are preserved in the Bodleian and in the Laurentian library at Florence. The fourth book contains an account of forty-four heresies, which preceded the time of Arius.

It is hardly necessary to mention the works of later writers, who from the time at which they lived cannot be quoted with any confidence, when they differ from more ancient authors. Some of them, however, if they did not altogether invent the facts which they have recorded, must have had access to older works which are now lost. Ittigius mentions the names of the following writers who have given an account of early heresies: Guido de Perpiniano, (A. D. 1830.) Matthaeus Blastares, (A. D. 1335.) Bernhardus Luxenburgensis, (A. D. 1520.) Gabriel Prateoli, (A. D. 1570.) Alphonsus a Castro, (A. D. 1540.) Theodorus Petreius, (A. D. 1594.) Bonaventura Malvasia, and Daniel Cramerus.

For the whole of this list of heresiologists, I am greatly indebted to the work of Ittigius, already referred to, and to the laborious collections of Fabricius and Cave.

The history of early heresies has been illustrated by se­veral modern writers, who have either undertaken to com­pose a general ecclesiastical history, or have applied them­selves specifically to a consideration of the subject, which occupies the following pages. In the department of eccle­siastical history, our own country does not hold so conspi­cuous a place as in some other branches of theological learn­ing: and the French and German writers have perhaps been most laborious and most successful in throwing light upon those early times. I need only mention the names of Du Pin, Tillemont, and Mosheim: but the work of Tillemont, entitled Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire ecclesias-tique des six premiers Siecles, will be found particularly va­luable in an inquiry like the present. The reader will not want to be reminded, that the author of these Mémoires was a member of the Romish church: but Tillemont was not only an indefatigable compiler and scrupulous in giving references, but his candour and liberality are often worthy of admiration; and it is evident that he would have spoken more plainly, and given a more critical decision, upon some occasions, if he had not been fettered by the decrees of his own credulous church.

For a copious list of modern ecclesiastical historians, I would refer to Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. XII. and Salutaris lux Evangelii, &c. c. V. p. 64. Ittigius, Historiae Ecclesiasticae primi a Christo nato seculi selecta Capita, (Prcef.) Weismannus, Hist. Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti.

The name and the writings of Mosheim are too illus­trious to require much comment: but if Tillemont and the French historians were warped by the spirit of Romanism, Mosheim and others of his school are to be read with cau­tion, as having been influenced by that love of scepticism, which has shewn itself so much more openly and more dan­gerously in the German divines of our own day. I would observe also, that the Ecclesiastical History of Mosheim, which is more known and studied in this country than any of his other works, is by far the least satisfactory as record­ing the state of the church in the first century. That inter­esting and momentous period occupies only 146 pages in, the English translation of the work: and it is to be regretted that an account, which is so meagre and superficial, has not been superseded by some history in our own lan­guage, which is written more in detail, and in a spirit more congenial with the forms and institutions of our own church. There are however two other works of Mosheim, which de­serve much greater praise, and much more attention than they commonly meet with in this country. These are Institutiones Historiae Christianae Majores, and De Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum Commentarii. The first contains a very elaborate and detailed account of the affairs of the church in the first century: and it was the intention of the author to have illustrated the history of the six first centuries on the same plan: but this scheme was never completed. The other work, as the title implies, records the events of the three first centuries, and of about, twenty-five years of the fourth century. The reader of ecclesiastical history will find every point connected with those times illustrated in these two works. The most co­pious and accurate references are given to original writers: every fact and every statement is submitted to the most minute and rigid criticism: and though a member of the Church of England will sometimes think, that the con­clusions of Mosheim are erroneous, I should be unwilling to suppose that he did not mean to be strictly impartial, and that he was not guided by a sincere love of truth. I would also observe, that Mosheim published several disser­tations upon subjects connected with ecclesiastical history, which have been collected into two volumes, and published for the second time with considerable additions in 1767. It is impossible to speak too highly of the use and importance of these admirable dissertations.

There is an ecclesiastical history now in progress in Ger­many, which promises to be of considerable value in this department of theology. I allude to the Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion und Kirche, pub­lished at Hamburg by Dr. Aug. Neander. The first part of the second volume has already appeared, which carries the history nearly to the end of the fourth century. I have derived no small advantage from this learned work in composing the Notes to the following Lectures; and it is to be hoped, that, when completed, the whole will be trans­lated into English. The writer is a theorist, as are many of his countrymen; and I could wish that some of his ob­servations had not been made: but he has investigated with great patience of research, and with a very original train of thought, the early history of the church; and if he carries into execution, what he has partly promised to undertake, a full and special history of the church in the time of the apostles, he will probably confer a lasting benefit on liters ture in general.

I may now mention the names of some other writers, who have directed their attention particularly to the history of early heresies. The first place is deservedly claimed by Ittigius, to whose work I have already referred, de Haresiarchis oevi Apostolici et Apostolico proximi, seu primi et secundi a Christo nato Seculi Dissertatio, Lipsiae, 1690. This laborious and valuable work is directed specifically to the investigation of the subject, which I have proposed for discussion in these Lectures; and it would be endless to point out the benefit which I have derived from a perusal of it. Ittigius also published Historiae Ecclesiastical primi a Christo nato Seculi selecta.Capita, Lipsias, 1709; the fifth chapter of which contains an account of the early heresies, with some additional observations, which were not in the former work.

I would next mention the work of Buddeus, entitled, Ecclesia Apostolica, Jense, 1729, which contains a minute and critical account of all the heresies of the first century. There is also another treatise by the same author, Dissertatio de Hceresi Valentiniana, which though belonging more pro­perly to the history of the second century, is of consider­able service in the present investigation.

The following work of Colbergius will be found to con­tain much useful information, de Origine et Progress Heresium et Errorum in Ecclesia. 1694.

Van Till also wrote a short treatise de primi Saeculi Adversariis, which is closely connected with this subject, and which forms the preface to his Commentarius in IV. Pauli Epistolas. Amsterdam, 1726.

The work of Fabricius, entitled, Salutaris Lux Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, Hamburgi, 1731, contains a fund of information concerning the early history of the Gospel. The eighth chapter is especially devoted to a consideration of the philosophers and heretics who opposed the rise of Christianity: but the heresies are discussed very briefly.

The same may be said in some respects of the work of Weismannus, entitled, Introductio in memorabilia ecclesiastica Historia sacra Novi Testamenti, or Historia ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, though the references to other writers are by no means so copious. The thirty-fourth section in the first century is devoted to a History of the Heresies of the apostolic Age.

The Prolegomena of Lampe to his Commentarius analytico-exegeticus Evangelii secundum Joannem, Amster­dam, 1724, contains nearly all the information which we possess concerning the thirty last years of the first century. It deserves to be read with great attention, though I can­not but look upon many of the conclusions as erroneous.

The name of Vitringa is well known in several depart­ments of theological learning: but I would confine myself at present to his Observationes Sacrae, the best edition of which was printed in three volumes at Amsterdam in 1727. This work contains dissertations upon various subjects: and in the following Lectures I have availed myself of those de Sephiroth Kabbalistarum; de Occasione et Scopo Prologi Evangelii Joamnis Apostoli; de Statu Ecclesice Christianae a Nerone ad Trajomum; de Heresibus natis in Ecclesia Apostolica.

A further account of these and other works connected with the history of heresy may be seen in Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 322.; and still more copiously in Sagittarius, In- troductio ad Hisioriam Ecclesice, tom. I. p'. 812; tom. II. p. 655. Also in Walchius, Bibliotheca Theologica, c. VII. sect. 10. vol. III. p. 742.

There is also a work written in Italian by Travasa, en­titled, Istoria Critica delle Vite degli Eresiarchi del primo , b 2

secolo; and another in German by Godf. Arnold, entitled, Unpartheyische Kirchen und Ketzer Historie von Anfcmg desNeuen Testaments bis aiif das JahrChristi, 1688, Frank­fort, 1700-15, or An impartial History of the Church a/nd of Heretics from the commencement of the New Testament to the yean- of Christ 1688. The latter work has been greatly extolled by some writers, and as vehemently con­demned by others, according as they have approved or dis­approved of the liberal and philosophical spirit which ap­pears to have influenced the author ^c.

Another German work may also be mentioned, which will perhaps be thought less objectionable, Entwurf einer vollstdndigen Historie der Kezereien, fyc. or Sketch of a complete History <f Heresies, fyc. by C. W. F. Walchs, Leipsic, 1762, &c. in eleven volumes, the first of which contains an account of the early heresies.

To many persons it is needless to mention the collection of Dissertations in four volumes folio, which form so valu­able an appendix to the Critici Sacri. In investigating the heresies of the Apostolic age, I have been particularly in­debted to the Dissertation of J. S. Saubertus de voce Aoyoc, of B. Stolbergius de Agapis, of E. R. Rothius, de Nico-i laitis, and of J. M. Langius de Genealogiis nunquam '. Jiniendis, SfC. and some others, to which I have referred in the course of these Lectures.

An inquiry into the heresies of the first century might? appear to exclude a consideration of the tenets of the Ma- nichees. But though Manes, or Manichaeus, who gave the name to these heretics, did not appear till the end of the third century, it is well known that the tenets which he,, espoused had been held before under different names. There is a work upon this particular subject, which may be recommended to the attention of the reader, and which throws light upon the history of many heretics who pre­ceded Manes. I allude to the treatise of J. Ch. Wolfius, entitled, Manichceismus ante Manichceos, Hamburgi, 1707;

‘ Mosheim has given an account of this work, Instit. Maj. p. 329.

which in addition to much valuable information, and many judicious reflections, contains copious and accurate refer­ences to the works of other writers.

There is another work, which is indispensable in the his­tory of Manicheism, and which is full of information upon many points connected with earlier heresies. This is the well-known work of Beausobre, in two volumes 4°. Histoire critique de McmicMe et du McmicMisme, Amsterdam, 1734. This may truly be characterized as one of the most extraor­dinary productions which ever came from the pen of a writer, who professed to be a believer in the truth of the Gospel. We have no right to doubt, whether this was the case with M. De Beausobre: and yet there never was a work, which required from us a larger portion of charity, when form­ing a judgment of the author’s religious belief; or which should be read with greater caution, both for the principles which it inculcates and the conclusions which it draws. The object of Beausobre may be described in a few words to have been, to depreciate the Fathers, and to prove that their statements are worthy of no credit; while on the other hand he justified the tenets and the conduct of every here­tic, and shewed that their characters had been most unjustly calumniated. To a certain extent, and within certain limits, such an attempt is serviceable and even praiseworthy. I am most willing to admit, that the Fathers have in many cases misrepresented the early heretics, and circulated ca- ¹ lumnies concerning their enormities. Beausobre has shewn the most unwearied industry, and the most profound criti­cal acuteness, in detecting these falsehoods, and in placing several points of history in a new and a truer light: but it would be an outrage upon historical candour and upon philosophical criticism to deny that he has often run into paradox, and that he has sometimes laboured to defend his favourite heretics at the expense of truth. I am aware, that the present age lays claim to particular merit for dis­carding prejudices, and for casting off the shackles of au­thority in matters of ecclesiastical antiquity. There is an air of sincerity, as well as of originality, in the declaration of a modern writer, who says, “ I must acknowlfedge a con- ^u sciousness of something like a bias in favour of a heretic, “ whether ancient or modern*¹.''’ Such appears to have been the feeling entertained by Beausobre: and it would be most irrational to deny, that a freedom from prejudice is one of the fundamental requisites in a search after truth: but a preconceived “ bias” must necessarily be connected with prejudice, whether it lead us to orthodoxy or to hetero­doxy ; and I have yet to learn, that there is any merit in feeling an inclination for heretics rather than for the Fa* thers. Our object should be to arrive at truth: if the inquiry should enable us to clear the character of any per­sons, who have hitherto been condemned, the discovery should give us pleasure: but if we are at the same time obliged to convict other persons of falsehood, the discovery should give us pain. This is the duty of a critical, and I would add, ,of an honest mind: and I have made these re­marks upon the work of Beausobre, because it is so full of information, it so completely exhausts the subject of whiclil it treats, that it is impossible not to recommend it to every' reader of ecclesiastical history, though it is impossible also not to lament the spirit in which it is written.

Though our own country,, as I have already observed, has not produced any good ecclesiastical history, I must not omit to mention the name of Lardner among those persons, who have contributed to the more accurate knowledge of early heresies. His great work upon the Credibility of the Gospel History contains many biographical sketches, and much judicious criticism upon the tenets of heretics: but he also wrote a distinct work, entitled, History of Heretics, in which he has shewn the same extent of reading, and the same unwearied industry in collecting his scattered materials| which characterise all his other writings. For minuteness; and accuracy of reference Lardner stands almost unrivalled^ and I should be most unwilling to detract from the praise which he has so deservedly obtained for candour and impartiality. I cannot however but regret, that in so many instances he has adopted the views and sentiments of Beau- sobre: and I am casting no imputation upon the honesty or sincerity of Lardner, when I merely remind the reader, that the'particular view, which Lardner had taken of Christianity, was likely to make him see the events of those early times in a. different view from ourselves. .

The works of Waterland will throw considerable,light upon the tenets of the early heretics : and they , are so well known, and so highly valued, that I need only specify his Judgment of the primitive Churches, which forms the sixth chapter of The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Tri­nity, vol. Y. p. 174. The heresies of Cerinthus and Ebipn are here treated at great length; and the conclusions .drawn from the writings of the Fathers are often the reverse of those of Beausobre and Lardner. . . .

The two first of the following Lectures will be sufficient to shew, that an investigation into the primitive heresies re­quires a particular acquaintance with the errors of the Gnos­tics. It is unnecessary to add, that Gnosticism cannot be understood without a perusa of Irenaeus, and some at least of the other Fathers, whose works I have specified above. I would also mention a short treatise written against the Gnos­tics in the third century by the Platonist Plotinus." This forms the ninth book of the second Ennead in the great work of that philosopher; and is.extremely interesting from the time at which it was written, though it does not in fact supply us with much information; and it.is remarkable, that the name of Gnostic does not occur throughout the book. We are indebted to Porphyry, in his Life of Plotinus, for a knowledge of the fact, that the Gnostics were the per­sons intended to be attacked: and the same writer also states, that the title of the book, against the Gnostics, was added by himself.

A difference of opinion has existed as to the allusions to Gnosticism which are to be found in the New Testament. A French writer expresses himself upon this subject in the following manner: “ II est aujourd’hui hors de doute que, “ des deux cot^s, on est all6 trop loin: les uns, les Hammond, les Brucker, les Michaelis^e, les Mosheim et les “ Herder, en montrant, presque sur chaque page du Nou- “ veau Testament, des traces de la soi-disant philosophie ori- “ entale, du Gnosticisme et du Zoroastrisme; les autres, les “ Ernesti, les Tittman et leurs sectateurs, en allant jusqu’4 “ nier, que les auteurs des volumes sacres aient fait quelque “ allusion k ces doctrines^f.” Of the two last mentioned writers, Ernesti has delivered his opinion against these allu­sions to Gnosticism in his Instit. Interp. Novi Testamenti, part. III. c. 10. §. ult. and in Bibl. Theolog. Nova. vol. III. p. 430. 493. vol. V. p. 7. vol. VIII. p. 538. Tittman has maintained the same argument at greater length in a special treatise, the object of which is explained by the title, de Ves- tigiis Gnosticorum in Novo Testamento frustra qucesitis, Lipsiae, 1773. In addition to the writers upon the other side, who are named above, Tittman also mentions Grotius, WalchiusS, and Semler^h: and I am perfectly willing to agree with Tittman, that some of these writers have shewn much too great a facility in discovering allusions to Gnosticism in the New Testament. No person has gone further in apply­ing these passages to the Gnostics than Hammond: and we are told, that Usher and others expressed themselves afraid of meeting him, lest they should again be troubled with this eternal mention of the Gnostics'. Hammond has shewn his propensity to this method of interpetation in his Annotations upon the New Testament: but he has carried the principle beyond all bounds in his treatise upon Antichrist, which is the first of four Dissertations written by him in defence of Episcopacy against Blondell. This treatise will be found to contain many valuable observations concerning the early Gnostics; and though I agree with the writers mentioned above, that Hammond has gone too far, I must also sub­scribe to the opinion of the French writer quoted above, that those persons are equally mistaken, who have denied that any traces of Gnosticism are to be found in the New Testa­ment ^k. In the following Lectures I have endeavoured to keep clear of both these extremes. The dissertations pre­fixed by Massuet to his edition of Irenasus supply a learned and valuable Commentary upon the history of Gnosticism.

M. J. Matter, professor at • Strasburg, whose words I have lately quoted, has published a learned and valuable history of Gnosticism in two volumes, with a third volume containing plates and illustrations. The title of this work is as follows, Histoire critique du Gnosticisme, et de son influ­ence sur les Sectes religieuses et philosopMques des six pre­miers siecles de Fere Chretienne. Paris, 1828. There is perhaps no work which treats this obscure subject at so much length, or which contains so much information con­cerning it; though the reader should be cautioned against some mistakes and inaccuracies, which are truly astonishing, and can only be attributed to carelessness¹. For the benefit of the reader I may transcribe the titles of some other works upon the same subject, which are mentioned by this au­thor, which I regret that I have not been able to meet with.

Lewald, Commentatio de doctrina Gnostica, Heidelberg. 1818.

^k I have not seen a work published (Syrus), and died at the beginning by professor Horn of Dorpat io Latin of the fourth ceDtury: whereas he and in German, the subject of which died in the year 402, and since he is to inquire into the Gnosticism nf was then nearly one hundred years the Old and New Testament. old, he probably flourished earlier

¹ Thus to speak of Origen as than Ephrem, though he survived “ £mulc et contemporaio de S. C16- him by twenty years. But the most “ ment d’Alexandrie” (vol. I. p. 34.) extraordinary confusioo, if I rightly is a very vague expression, when Ori- understand the passage, is at p. 210, gen was pupil of Clement, and flou- where he speaks of Gregory of Nazi- rished thirty or forty years later. At anzum, “qui suit ici les renseignc- p. 36. he speaka with praise of Ori- “ mens d’Elie deCrfcte;” upon which gen’s work against Marcion ; by I ahall only observe, that Gregory which he can only mean the Dialogue flourished in the middle of the fourth de recta in Deum Fide, which has century, and Elias Cretensis wrote a been long decided not to be a work commentary upon his works in tlie of Origen. At p. 38. he says that middle of the eighth.

Epiphanius lived later than Ephrem

Munter, Essayupon the ecclesiastical Antiquities of Gnos­ticism, Anspach. 1790.

Neander, Development of ihe principal Systems of Gnos­ticism, Berlin, 1818.

The two last works are written in German: and some other references are given by M. Matter in vol. I. p. 25, 26.

I would also particularly recommend another work, writ­ten by M.Matter, Essdi historique sur VEcole d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1820, which contains a summary of nearly all the in­formation necessary for an acquaintance with that union of philosophical sects, which led the way to Gnosticism.

In tracing the causes of Gnosticism, I have considered the opinions of those writers who have connected it either with the Jewish Cabbala, the Oriental doctrine of two prin­ciples, or the Platonic philosophy. References to the prin­cipal works, which illustrate the Cabbala, will be found in note 14. The book, which is generally recommended as ex­planatory of the eastern doctrines, is Hyde’s Veterum Per- sarum et Parthorum et Medorum Religionis Historia, the second edition of which was printed at Oxford in 1760. There is such a depth of learning displayed in this work, and the quotations from Arabian and other oriental writers are so copious, that no person, who is engaged in investi­gating this subject, can neglect the perusal of it. He must indeed derive from it a variety of information : and yet few persons could read it without lamenting in it the want of order and arrangement: even the usual assistance of an in­dex is absent: and truth compels me to add, that the au­thority of Hyde for matters contained in this history has of late years been gradually diminishing. Beausobre com­plained nearly a century ago, that “ les extraits, que M. Hyde “ nous a donnez de ses auteurs Arabes, sont si obscurs, et “ si embarrassez d’idees, qui paroissent contraires, que je “ n’ose presque me flatter d’avoir attrape leur pensee^m.” Brucker has spoken still more strongly of the little depend­ence which is to be placed upon these extracts from Arabian writers: “ Id enim a doctissimo Hydeo potissimum factum ^m Hist, de Manichfe. tom. I. p. 175.

“ esse, illumque lectionis exotic® amore occupatum apud “ Arabas certissimas veritates vidisse, quae aliis conjecture “ levissimae et traditiones suspectse videntur, indigestam “ quoque admirandae lectionis molem accurate judicio non “ digessisse, et ipsa libri eruditissimi inspectio docet, et ma- “ gnis viris, rem sine praejudicio et admiratione eruditionis “ insolitae et peregrinae aestimantibus, recte judicatum estⁿ.” Lastly, the French writer, whom I have quoted above, says openly, “ Tant que Ton a juge la doctrine de Zoroastre sur “ Touvrage de Hyde, il a ete impossibile de juger le Gnosti- “ cisme⁰.”

With respect to the third source, to which I have traced the doctrines of the Gnostics, it is necessary, as I have ob­served more than once, to make a careful distinction be­tween the writings of Plato himself and of his later followers. Plato is perhaps more admired than read by many persons, who are really scholars and fond of classical pursuits. In investigating the philosophical tenets of the Gnostics, I con­sider it to be very essential, that the original writings .of Plato should be studiedP. The reader may then pass on to the works of the later Platonists: and it is to be regret­ted, that so few materials have come down to us, which enable us to follow the philosophy of Plato through all its changes. The works of writers, who called themselves Pla­tonists, and who lived subsequent to the rise of Christianity, are neither few nor unimportant. But of the followers and successors of Plato for upwards of three hundred years be­fore the Christian era, we unfortunately know little from any writings of their own. To supply this deficiency, the Prceparatio Eva/ngelica of Eusebius is a most valuable re­source : and though Eusebius, as I have taken occasion to observe, misunderstood the sentiments of Plato upon some points, he enables us to form our own opinion as to many of the Grecian philosophers, by having preserved copious extracts from their works, which would otherwise have been lost. The study of the later Platonists, such as Plotinus, Proclus, &c. is neither popular, nor, in the general sense Of the term, edifying. But in inquiries like the present it cannot be altogether dispensed with: and I am rather wish­ing to make the task light and easy, than to impose a too heavy burden, when I point out the following authors as most serviceable upon the present occasion. The commen­tary of Chalcidius upon the Timaeus is less intricate in its language, and is at the same time a truer and fairer repre­sentation of Plato’s real sentiments, than most of the works which proceeded from the later Platonists. The many and violent changes, which they had made in their master’s tenets, are fully exhibited in the great work of Plotinus: and since few persons would have patience to read the whole of it, a sufficient specimen of the obscurity of these writers, and of the effect which Christianity had produced upon the thoughts and language of the heathen, may be seen in the fifth book, which is entitled, vsp) toov rpicov ap^ixdiy {ntoaratriow. The work, of Porphyry, de Abstinentia ah esu AmmaUum, is directed to a much less abstruse subject, and will afford some curious information.

It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the works of Philo Judaeus are particularly valuable in an inquiry into the early history of the Christian church. Coinciding as they do in their date with the first promulgation of the Gospel, and recording the opinions of a man, who was deeply versed in Jewish and heathen literature, they cannot fail to throw much light upon that mixture of philosophical systems, which forms so peculiar a feature of the early heresies.

There is however one work, which may not only be called indispensable to a person making an investigation like the present, but which may supersede the necessity of consults ing many other authors. I allude to Brucker’s Historia Critica Philosophies, the second edition of which was pub­lished in six volumes at Leipsic in 1767. It may almost be said with truth, that all the information which had been collected, and every opinion which had been entertained, up to that time, concerning philosophy and philosophers in every part of the world, are brought together in these vo­lumes. The variety of reading, and the patience of inves­tigation, which were necessary for making this collection, have perhaps never been surpassed: and though a person, who examines the original sources, to which Brucker ap­peals, will often have to lament the inaccuracy of his re­ferences, and sometimes to question the soundness of his judgment, it is difficult to name any subject connected with the opinions of ancient times, which is not copiously illus­trated in this work. The use which I have made of it in tracing the early heresies, will be seen in almost every page of the following Lectures: and I can truly say that the benefit, which I have derived from it, is much greater than it would be possible to express by any quotations or ac­knowledgments however numerous.

I have also examined with some attention Cudworth’s celebrated work upon the Intellectual System, which has been considered, both by our own and by foreign writers, to be a valuable storehouse for inquiries into ancient phi­losophy. The best edition was published at Leyden in two volumes 4°. in 1773, by Mosheim, who translated it into Latin, and added very copious notes and dissertations of his own. These notes have greatly increased the value of the work; and furnish perhaps as many proofs of profound learning and critical accuracy, as any thing which Mosheim ever published. It is remarkable, however, that the anno­tator more frequently differs from his author, than agrees with him: and I cannot but observe, that though Cud- worth has collected vast materials, and brought together a great mass of information, his views are often erroneous, and his conclusions quite untenable. No person has proved this more fully than Mosheim himself: and whoever studies the Intellectual System of Cudworth, will find himself in danger of being often led into error, unless he reads it in the edition and with the notes of Mosheim.

I have now pointed out the principal works, which I con­sider to be of use, in tracing the history of early heresies. In the course of these Lectures references are given to many other authors: and one of the objects which I have had in view, is to furnish the reader with access to the best and fullest information upon every subject which is discussed. Where a topic has been amply illustrated and exhausted by writers of note, I have Sometimes thought it sufficient merely to refer to their works: and the reader, who may not agree with me in opinion, or who may wish for more knowledge than I have been able to supply, will thus be enabled to consult the best authorities. I know but of one objection to this system of references, which I have carried to so great a length. It may expose me to a charge of ostentation, and of wishing to have it imagined that I have read all the works which are named in the fol­lowing pages. I can only answer, that if the plan is really one, which is likely to benefit the reader, I do not regard the objection which applies only to myself. It would have been the greatest of all presumptions to have entered upon an inquiry like the present, without attempting at least to know the sentiments of the best and most approved writers upon the same subject. There is little merit in following the steps of others, in picking up the information which they have chanced to let fall, and in laying it again before the public in a new form. This is all which I pretend to have done: and in arranging my materials, I have been studiously anxious to point out the sources to which I was indebted, and at the same time to direct the reader to die same means of gaining information, and of detecting any error in my quotations or my conclusions. There is nothing so suited to make an author diffident of his own work, as to examine minutely the labours of others, and to verify their references. The errors and inaccuracies which such an ex­amination brings to light, might almost deter any other writer from venturing upon the same field, and risking si­milar detections. Truth is perhaps the first requisite in an author; but accuracy is the second: and since there is little use in making professions of honesty and impartiality, I shall content myself with stating, that I have been particu­larly careful in referring to passages in other writers; and I have never copied a quotation without at least searching for it in the original work, and endeavouring to represent it faithfully.

I had not proceeded far in these Lectures, before I dis­covered that the plan, which I am necessarily bound to follow, is attended with difficulties and inconveniences. In the first place the Bampton Lecturer has to unite two ob­jects, which cannot very easily be made compatible. He has to engage the attention of a congregation during eight Sermons which are orally delivered: and afterwards these same Sermons are to appear in a printed book. It is obvious that the style and the method, which might be suited to one of these purposes, may not be well adapted to the other. If one of them is exclusively attended to, there is a chance of the other being unsuccessful: or if the author aim at both, he may possibly fail in both. This however is by no means the greatest inconvenience: for few persons would hesitate as to the choice which they are to make in such an alternative: and though there may be something of arro­gance in an author speaking thus of his own work, I con­ceive it to be his duty as well as his ambition to say with the Athenian historian, I; aei pukkov $ uyaaviapu Ij to

itapu%gijfia axouew %uyxenai.

There is however another inconvenience attendant upon the twofold shape, in which these Lectures appear before the public; and the difficulty is much more strongly felt in proportion to the degree of critical research, which the subject requires. A long and minute detail of historical or critical evidence is extremely irksome to a congregation: nor indeed is it easy to follow an intricate argument, or to connect the separate parts of it, when the whole depends upon the attention and the memory. And yet the subject which I have chosen is one, which calls for an elaborate in­vestigation in almost every page. To have introduced all my materials into the body of the Lectures, would have been quite incompatible with the prescribed and ordinary length of such discourses: and although some of my read­ers will perhaps think the Notes already too long, they might, if it had appeared expedient, have been extended to a much greater length. There was therefore only one

course remaining, to state the facts and conclusions in the Lectures, and to leave the detail of arguments and evidence for the Notes. This is the plan, which I have generally followed. The shorter notes are printed at the bottom of the page; but those, which contain a longer and more ela­borate discussion, are placed together at the end. I am aware, that this is not a convenient plan to many readers: but I repeat, that in the present case it was unavoidable; and whoever is acquainted with Mosheim’s Institutiones Majares, or his work de Rebus ante Constantinum, will have seen this plan carried to a much greater length, where there does not appear to have existed the same necessity, and where the notes, which greatly exceed the text in bulk, contain nearly all the information. The Notes at the end of the present volume will perhaps be passed over by many persons, who will not read them in their respective places, because they interrupt the body of the Lecture: beside which they may be thought tedious, and too full of minute references to ancient writers. Still however I cannot avoid pointing out the expediency of reading the Notes together with the Text, and of forgetting, as far as is possible, that part of the work was addressed to a congregation. I wish the whole to be read and considered as a whole. The point, which I have chosen for discussion, is one which ought to have been treated as a consecutive and connected history: it comprehends in fact nearly the whole of the ecclesiastical history of the first century: and though so much has been done by foreign writers in this depart­ment, I cannot but again repeat my regrets, that no eccle­siastical historian has appeared in our own country, who has given a full and particular account of the progress of the Gospel in the early ages of the Church.

 

LECTURE I.

Acts xx. 30.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

There never perhaps was a time, when the writings of the New Testament were so minutely and critically examined, as in the present day. So various indeed, and so severe have been the tests, to which that book has been submitted, that we may say with confidence, when advocating its truth, that there is no description of evidence which it does not possess, there is no species of doubt or suspicion from which it has not been cleared. The writers of our own country have been among the foremost and the most successful in traversing this ample field: and we have good reason to thank God, that hitherto at least they have not been seduced by that false and fatal philosophy, which has caused some of their fellow-labourers to make shipwreck of their faith. I could wish, that of the protestant divines in Ger­many we could speak in terms of approbation only, or that our censure was confined to mistakes of judg­ment. They have indeed been mighty champions in the field of criticism; and the church of Christ will always acknowledge and profit by their labours, though she laments the darkness which has so strangely beset them, while they were leading others to a fuller and a clearer light. For works of general introduction to the New Testament, the German the­ologians stand preeminent, and have left little in this department for future critics to supply. Much how­ever may yet be done by a division of labour: and persons of inferior minds and more limited reading may add something to the general stock of know­ledge, if they confine their investigations to particular points.

Thus one person may illustrate the language of the New Testament, by a reference to contemporary writers: another may discover and explain allusions by an observance of eastern manners : the geography and chronology of the sacred books may furnish matter for distinct inquiries : and thus while all are employed upon separate parts, the whole system is better understood; and critical learning promotes what ought to be its final aim, and what is unques­tionably its noblest use, the means of bringing man nearer to God, and of shewing him in a clearer light the mercies of his Creator, his Sanctifier, and bis Redeemer.

There are many passages in the New Testament and particularly in the Epistles, which are either un­intelligible or lose much of their force, if the reader is unacquainted with the circumstances in which the writer was placed. What a comment should we have upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and what a key to many of its difficulties, if we were able to compare it with the letter to which it was an answer ? and no discovery could be so valuable to the biblical critic, as the writings of those persons who opposed or perverted the preaching of the gospel. In the absence of such documents, ecclesiastical history supplies some facts in the lives of the apostles, which enable us to throw light upon many of their expressions. It will be my object in the present Lectures to bring together these scattered notices, and to consider the heresies which infested the church' in the lifetime of the apostles.

The plan, which first presented itself, was to con­fine the inquiry to those heresies only which are mentioned in the New Testament. But this was not sufficient. Some of the passages, in which erro­neous opinions are condemned, admit such different interpretations; and some of the allusions are so ob­scurely worded, that it will sometimes be doubted whether in these passages any heresies are intended at all. Even where the names of persons are expressly mentioned, we know so little of their history and of the tenets which they espoused, that we must go to other sources beside the New Testament, if we wish for information concerning them. Instead therefore of confining myself to those heresies, which are men­tioned in the New Testament, I shall direct your at­tention to all the heresies which are known to have existed in the apostolic age. And when I speak of the apostolic age, it might be equally correct to speak of the first century of the Christian era: for it seems certain, that St.John survived the rest of the apo­stles ; and the death of St. John, according to every account, very nearly coincided with the commence­ment of the second century^.

The object then of the present Lectures, is to con­sider the heresies which infested the church in the first century, while some of the apostles were still alive: and though the inquiry will bring to our no­tice many persons and events, which are not recorded in the New Testament, yet the illustration of that book is an object of which I shall never lose sight; and I should wish to advert to every passage, which is connected directly or remotely with any heretical opinion.

It is not difficult to perceive the utility of such an inquiry. If false doctrines were disseminated in the church, while the apostles were alive, it is at least: highly probable that they would allude to them in their writings: and the meaning of such allusions, must necessarily be obscure, unless we know some­thing of the principles, which the writers were con­futing, We cannot rightly understand the antidote,, unless we know something of the poison which it is intended to destroy. That there were heresies in the days of the apostles, is expressly asserted by the apostles themselves. St. Paul in the text said to the elders of Ephesus, Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away dis­ciples after them. To the Corinthians he writes, There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you : (1 Cor. xi. 19.) and if it be said that these pre­dictions, like those of our Saviour concerning false Christs and false prophets, referred to a future and distant period, we may remember that the same apostle speaks of false teachers having already broken into the fold. Thus he mentions heresies among the works of the flesh, which were most to be avoided: (Gal. v. 20.) and he instructs Titus to reject an heretic after the first and second admonition. (III. 10.) St. John also says in plain terms, Even now are there many Antichrists: they went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would have continued, with us. (1 John ii. 18,19) If we only read the Bible with the same interest, which is produced by other ancient writings, our curiosity would natu­rally be raised to know something more of these false teachers. The desire of information will be increased, when we find St. Paul saying so earnestly to the Colossians, Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, (ii. 8.) The term philosophy may excite attention, though heresy and schism pass unnoticed: and it is plain, that the influence of heathen learning upon the simplicity of the gospel had already been felt, when St. Paul ended an Epistle with those impressive words, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposi­tions of science falsely so called; which some pro* fessing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Tim. vi. 20, 21.) The most careless reader would wish to know something more of the Nicolaitans, who- are only twice mentioned by St. John, (Rev. ii. 6, 15.) and with scarcely any marks to characterize their creed. We read also of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who said that the resurrection is past already. (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.) The name of Hymenaeus is also coupled with that of Alexander, as persons who had made shipwreck of their faith. (1 Tim. i. 19, 20.) Phygellus and Hermogenes are mentioned as per­sons, who had turned away from St. Paul. (2 Tim. i. 15.) Diotrephes evidently gave great trouble to St. John in the church of Ephesus: (3 John 9.) and though the names, which only live as coupled with error or crime, might well be forgotten, yet these names are rescued from oblivion, and have been stamped upon the eternal pages of that book, which still records them wheresoever the gospel shall be preached in the whole world.

The inquiry, which I propose to institute, would be useful, if it merely enabled us to understand these passages, and if it only increased our materials for illustrating the scriptures. But a knowledge of the heresies of the apostolic age becomes highly im­portant, if not essentially necessary, when we look to the controversies, which in later times have agi­tated the Christian church. It has been said, and the bold assertion has been repeated in our own day, that the Unitarian doctrines were the doctrines of the primitive church. It has been asserted with a positiveness, which ignorance alone can rescue from the charge of wilful mistatement, that the Ebionites, who believed Jesus to be a mere man, were not spoken of as heretics by the earliest Fa­thers. If these assertions be true, the pillars of our faith are shaken even to the ground. Names of party are always to be deprecated, and never more so than in religion. But where sects exist, they must have names: and if the statements of the Unitarians be true, the orthodox and the heretical must change their ground: we are no longer built upon the foundation, of apostles and prophets: with shame and with reproach we must take the lowest room: we must retire—i a the company indeed of fathers and of councils, those venerable names, which have adorned and spread the doctrine of God our Saviour—we must retire, not even to the rear of that host which fights under the banners of the Lamb; but we must range ourselves in the ranks of the enemy, with those who have corrupted and per­verted the pure word of truth; and the charge of heresy, with all the woes denounced against it* must fall upon ourselves. In the name therefore of Truth, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the sake of our own souls and of those who will succeed us, let us go to the fountain from whence the living waters flow, let us see who they were that with unhallowed hands polluted its holy stream: let us learn, whe­ther we are now drinking it pure and undefiled, or whether we have hewed out broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jerem. ii. 13.)

Before we proceed further, it is perhaps neces­sary that we should come to a right understanding of the term heresy: for since this, like other terms, from a twofold or general signification, has been restricted to one, and that a bad one, mistakes and confusions may arise, if we do not consider the dif­ferent senses in which the word has been used. It is not necessary to observe, that the Greek term, (alpeais) in its primary signification, implies a choice or election, whether of good or evil^d. It seems to have been principally applied to what we should call moral choice, or the adoption of one opinion in preference to another. Philosophy was in Greece the great object, which divided the opinions and judgments of men: and hence the term alpeais, (he* resy,) being most frequently applied to the adoption of this or that particular dogma, came by an easy transition to signify the sect or school in which that dogma was maintained. Thus though the heresy of the Academy or of Epicurus would sound strange to our ears, and though the expression was not common with the early Greek writers, yet in later times it became familiar, and we find Cicero speak­ing of the heresy to which Cato belonged, when he described him as a perfect Stoic^e. The Hellenistic Jews made use of the same term to express the leading sects which divided their countrymen. Thus Josephus^f speaks of the three heresies of the Pha­risees, Sadducees, and Essenes: and since he was himself a Pharisee, he could only have used the term as equivalent to sect or party. St. Luke also in the Acts of the Apostles (v. 17. xv. 5.) speaks of the heresy of the Pharisees and Sadducees: and we learn from the same book (xxiv. 5, 14.) that the Christians were called by the Jews the heresy of the Na%arenes s. With this opprobrious^ addition, the term was undoubtedly used as one of insult and contempt; and the Jews were more likely than the Greeks to speak reproachfully of those, who differed from them, particularly in matters of religion. The three Jewish sects already mentioned were of longs standing, and none of them were considered to be at variance with the national creed: but the Chris­tians differed from all of them, and in every sense of the term, whether ancient or modern,- they formed a distinct heresy^h. The apostles would be likely to use the term with a mixture of Jewish and Gentile feelings: but there was one obvious reason, why they should employ it in a new sense, and why at length it should acquire a signification invariably expressive of reproach. The Jews, as we have seen, allowed of three, or perhaps more, heresies, as exist­ing among their countrymen. In Greece opinions were much more divided; and twelve principal sects have been enumerated, which by divisions and subdivisions might be multiplied into many more. Thus Aristotle might be said to have belonged at first to the heresy of Plato; but afterwards to have founded an heresy of his own. The shades of differ­ence between these diverging sects were often ex­tremely small: and there were many bonds of union, which kept them together as members of the same family, or links of the same chain. In addition to which, we must remember that these differences were not always or necessarily connected with re­ligion. Persons might dispute concerning the sum- mum bonum, and yet they might worship, or at least profess to worship, the same God. But the doctrine of the gospel was distinct, uncompromising, and of such a nature, that a person must believe the whole of it, and to the very letter, or he could not be admitted to be a Christian. There is one body, says St. Paul, and one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, me baptism, one God and Father of all: (Eph. iv. 4, 5.) which words, if rightly understood, evidently mean, that the faith of the gospel is one and undi­vided'. Hence arose the distinction of orthodox and heterodox. He who believed the gospel, as the apostles preached it, was orthodox : he who did not so believe it, was heterodox. He embraced an opinion —it mattered not whether his own or that of an­other, but he made his own choice, and in the strict sense of the term he was an heretic. It was no longer necessary to qualify the term by the addition of the sect or party which he chose; he was not a true Christian, and therefore he was an heretic^k. It was in this sense, that the term was applied by the early Fathers. If a man admitted a part, or even the whole, of Christianity, and added to it something of his own; or if he rejected the whole of it, he was equally designated as an heretic¹. If Mahomet had appeared in the second century, Justin Martyr or Irenaeus would have spoken of him as an heretic^m: from which it may be seen, that the term was then applied in a much more extended sense than it bears at present". By degrees it came to be restricted to those who professed Christianity, but professed it erroneously: and in later times, the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the council of Nice, was al­most the only test which decided the orthodoxy or the heresy of a Christian⁰. Differences upon minor points were then described by the milder term of schism: and the distinction seems to have been, that unity of faith might be maintained, though schism existed; but if the unity of faith was violated, the violator of it was an heretic. This distinction ap­pears hardly to have been observed in the apostolic age; and St. Paul has been thought to use the term heresy, where later writers would have spoken of schisms. In the course of these Lectures, I shall speak of the heresies of the apostolic age in the sense which was attached to the term by the early Fathers: and all that I wish to be remembered at present is, that the term is not to be understood ac­cording to modern ideas; but that an heretic is a man who embraces any opinion concerning religion, that opinion not being in accordance with the faith of the gospel.

It may be asked by some persons, as a preliminary question in the present discussion, whether it is not strange, that heresies should have sprung up at all in the lifetime of the apostles. It might be said, that the care and protection of the Almighty was of such vital importance to the infant church, that he would never have suffered the enemy to sow tares so early in the field. Or if we consider the apostles as proclaiming a commission from God, and con­firming their pretensions by stupendous miracles, it would seem impossible for any human presumption to proceed so far, as to alter a doctrine which came immediately from heaven. It is not my intention to enter into the ^abstract question, why God allowed divisions to appear so early in the church. If it be proved that they did then exist, the believer in re­velation will be satisfied that God saw wise reasons for permitting it to be so : and to the unbeliever, or the sceptic, it would be useless to offer such reasons, because it would still be open for them to say, that it would have been better if the evil had not existed; The believer, as I said, will be satisfied with know­ing the fact: or, if he seek for a reason, he will find it in the words of St. Paul, There must he also he­resies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Cor. xi. 19.) Which words are to be understood, not as ascribing a motive to the Almighty in allowing divisions; but as pointing out a good effect which came from them when they appeared p: as if St. Paul had said, I lament your divisions, though I am not surprised at them: it is natural to our condition that they should arise, and God will not always interfere to stop them: neither is the evil, though in itself great, un­attended with good; for where some err from the right way, others will take warning from their danger; and their own faith being strengthened^ and made more conspicuous, will serve, perhaps, to lessen the number of those who might otherwise have fallen. ,

With respect to the other remark, that men could hardly have been so presumptuous as to alter the doctrine of the apostles, we can only say, that it shews a very slight acquaintance with human na­ture. If we shut, our eyes to our own experience, and to history, we might perhaps imagine, that the preaching of the apostles would strike such awe into their hearers, that they would need no voice from heaven to say, Thou shalt not add thereto, nor di­minish from it. But there never was a truer, though it is a melancholy picture of the human heart, than what we read, that when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart. (Exod. ix. 34.) What was the case with Pharaoh, when the effect of the natural phenomena had died away, the same would be felt by many when the preternatural signs, which attended the apostles’ preaching, were no longer before their eyes. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, says our Saviour, neither will they he persuaded, though one rose from the dead: (Luke xvi. 31.) and the same knowledge of human nature, which dictated this strong expression, would hinder us from being surprised, if men should be found who love darkness rather than light; and who cor­rupted the words of truth, even as they came from the mouths of the apostles.

The surprise, however, if it should be felt, will perhaps be diminished, if we remember, as was ob­served above, that the heresies, of which we are speaking, were not heresies in the modern sense of the term. It will appear in the course of these Lec­tures, that many persons, who were called heretics in the first and second centuries, had little or nothing in common with Christianity. They took such parts of the gospel as suited their views, or struck their fancy: but these rays of light were mixed up and buried in such a chaos of absurdity, that the apostles themselves would hardly have recognised their own doctrines. Such were most of the heresies in the lifetime of the apostles : and when we come to con­sider the state of philosophical opinions at that pe­riod, we shall cease to wonder that the Fathers speak of so many heresies appearing in the lifetime of the apostles.

There is another consideration, which is not al­ways remembered, but which may tend to diminish our surprise, that the doctrine of the gospel was so soon corrupted. The dates of the different books of the New Testament will perhaps never be settled, so as to put an end to controversy and doubt. But still, with respect to many of them, we can approach to something very like certainty¹. We know from St. Paul’s own statement, (Gal. i. 18. ii. 1.) that two consecutive periods of three and fourteen years elapsed between his conversion and his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas. There are strong reasons for concluding, that this visit to Jerusalem was that which he made upon his return from his first aposto- lie journey, when he declared all things that God had done with themi. It appears, therefore, that seven­teen years elapsed between St. Paul’s conversion and his entering upon his second apostolic journey! Or if we take the two periods of three and fourteen years to be meant inclusively, we may shorten the whole period to fifteen years. Some commentators and chronologists have imagined a much longer in­terval to have elapsed between these two events: and they have supposed that St. Paul did not set out upon his second tour till twenty years after his conversion. There are good reasons, however, for preferring the shorter period : and I would do so at present, because the calculation, which is most unfa­vourable for an argument, is, in fact, the safest, if the argument, notwithstanding that disadvantage, still carries weight. I will assume, therefore, that St. Paul set out upon his second apostolic mission in the fifteenth year after his conversion: and I would observe also, that it is not very important for us to settle the precise year in which that event took place. For though chronologists differ as to the year of St. Paul’s conversion^r, yet whatever date we take for that event, the subsequent dates still main­tain the same relative position : or, in other words, the period of fifteen years still remains the same. To which I would add, that in accordance with the principle mentioned above, I follow those chronolo­gists, who place the conversion of St. Paul in the same year with the crucifixion of our Lord.

We have therefore advanced thus far, that in the fifteenth year after our Saviour’s death, St. Paul set out upon that journey which led him through Cilicia and Phrygia to Macedonia, and from thence to Athens and Corinth. It is capable almost of demon­stration, that none of St. Paul’s Epistles were written during his first apostolic journey: and no commen­tator has imagined any of the catholic Epistles, as they are called, to have been written till many years later. We may assert, therefore, without fear of contradiction, that the First Epistle to the Thessalo- nians is the first in chronological order of St. Paul’s Epistles. This was written in some part of the eighteen months which St. Paul passed at Corinth : (Acts xviii. IX.) and, without entering at present into farther detail, we will assume it to have been written in the year 47. It appears, therefore, that seventeen years elapsed between the first promulga­tion of the gospel and the date of the earliest writing which has come down to, us. Those Epistles, from • which most evidence will be drawn concerning the early heresies, were written several years later: and I am speaking greatly within compass in saying, that the accounts which we have of heresies in the first century, are taken from documents which were written twenty years after the first promulgation of the gospel.

I have said, that this fact is not always borne in mind by persons who are considering the events of the first century: and yet this period is unquestion­ably the most important which ever has occurred in the annals of mankind/ If we cast our eyes over the history of the world, the most awful period, perhaps, was that space of one hundred and twenty years, (Gen. vi. 3.) when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was pre­paring. (1 Pet. iii. 20.) But the awfulness of that period is felt more in the reflexions of those who have lived since, than it was by the people them­selves, who had that space allowed them for repent­ance, and despised the warning. That period, it is true, was terminated with the destruction of a world: the other period commenced with the salva­tion of a world. When the sun emerged from that darkness which hung over the cross of, Christ, it was the harbinger of a light far more glorious than that which broke upon the world, when God'said, Let there be light. There were then no beings upon earth to enjoy that light, or to bless the giver of it: but when the Sun of Righteousness arose with heal­ing on his wings, then indeed might it be said, much more than at the material creation, that the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted fw joy. (Job xxxviii. 7.) Then was the Gospel first preached, and listened to by a few, whose sound is now gone out into all lands, and its words unto the ends of the world. (Psalm xix. 4.)

And yet how little do we know of the progress of the Gospel, not only for those twenty years which have been already mentioned, but for the whole of the first century? If we examine the Acts of the Apostles with this view, we shall find that the author passes over long periods of time without mentioning any incident. Thus in part only of three chapters, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, we have a period of twelve years; and yet the only events recorded are the escape of St. Paul from Damascus, two miracles of St. Peter, and his; con­version of Cornelius. If it had not been for an in­cidental expression of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, we should never have known that he passed three years in Arabia immediately after his conversion: or that fourteen more years elapsed be­fore the end of his first journey. Whether he passed the greater part of this period in his native city, Tarsus⁸, and what was the nature of his occupation* we seek in vain to learn*. We could hardly con­ceive that the chosen apostle of the Gentiles would be inclined or permitted to delay the great work, to which he had been called : nor would it be easy to imagine, that the other apostles were idle in spread­ing that gospel, which they had been so solemnly or­dered to preach among all nations ^u. The death of St. James, and the imprisonment of St. Peter by order of Herod, prove that they were not idle, and that the gospel made its way. But still it was not till four­teen years after our Lord's ascension, that St. Paul travelled for the first time and preached the gospel to the Gentiles. Nor is there any evidence, that during that period the other apostles passed the confines of Judaea. There are in fact many argu­ments, which prove the contrary²: and a tradition is preserved by two ancient writers, that our Saviour told the apostles not to leave Judsea for the space of twelve years ^x. Whether this tradition was well grounded or no, the fact appears to have been nearly as there stated. According to the calculation which I have followed, the twelfth year after our Lord’s ascension was completed in the year 43, and in 45 I have supposed St. Paul to have proceeded upon his first journey. At the same time y, or perhaps a little before, other of the apostles may also have under­taken some of those journeys, which we know rather from tradition, than from authentic history, that they severally performed ^z. But during the time, when we have supposed the apostles to have confined them­selves to Judaea, the gospel was making rapid pro­gress in several parts of the world.

* This is the point to which I now wish to direct your attention, and particularly to the fact, that this progress was without the cooperation and control of the apostles ; which may itself be sufficient to fur­nish a reason for the appearance of so many here­sies, and for such strange corruptions of Christianity, in those early times. If we would know the effect which was produced beyond Judaea by the reports concerning Jesus, we may go back to the time, when he was himself upon earth, when we are told, that certain Greeks, i. e. some Hellenistic Jews, came up to worship at the feast, and expressed a wish to see Jesus. (John xii. 20, 21.) The conversation which he had with them was held only five days before his death: (xii. 1. 12.) and it is not unreasonable to suppose, that many of these persons formed a part of that vast concourse of foreign Jews, who were present at the following Pentecost. In those days, when thousands, or rather millions of Jews, were settled in countries remote from Judaea, it is plain that only the most zealous would observe the ancient custom of attending the mother city at the great fes­tivals ³. It is natural also to suppose, that some of these persons, after performing so long a pilgrimage, Would stay at Jerusalem, not only for the Passover, but would remain there a few weeks, so as to be present also at the feast of Pentecost. We know, that on the day of Pentecost, which followed the crucifixion of Jesus, 3000 persons were baptized: part of these must have been Jews, who came from a distance⁴: and it is probable, that some of them had been present at the conversation with Jesus, which St. John records, and that many of them had witnessed the crucifixion. When these men re­turned to their several homes, both those that were baptized, and those that were not, they would relate the wonderful things which they had seen and heard: and within a few weeks after the day of Pentecost, men believing the gospel would be found in Persia and Cyrenaica, in Rome and in Arabia. (Acts ii. 9—^1.)

The next event, which contributed to the propa­gation of the Gospel, was the persecution which fol­lowed upon the death of Stephen, when we read that they were all scattered abroad throughout the re­gions of JucUea and Samaria: (Acts viii. 1.) but it is added, except the apostles. We learn afterwards, that Judaea and Samaria were not the only places to which these persecuted believers fled. (xi. 19.) The inhabitants of those countries escaped to their own homes: but among the Jews, who had come from a greater distance, and had been converted, some, we are told, belonged to Cyprus and Cyrene, as well as to the nearer places of Phoenicia and An­tioch. All these appear at first to have fled to An­tioch, (xi. 19. 20.) and to have stayed there some time preaching the gospel in that populous and wealthy capital. At length however they would return to their homes : and the Christian doctrines would be spread by their mouths in Cyprus and Cyrene. Of Cyrene we hear nothing more in the New Testa­ment ^a ; nor of Cyprus* till St. Paul visited it in his first journey ^b. It has been thought indeed from the vicinity of this island to the coast of Cilicia, that St. Paul may have gone thither during his long resi­dence at Tarsus. But this is mere conjecture. The Acts of the Apostles leave St. Paul at Tarsus in the third year after his conversion; (ix. 30.) and ten years afterwards we find him still at Tarsus, when Barnabas went thither and brought him to Antioch. During this period the gospel was making its way in many parts of the three quarters of the world, though as yet none of the apostles had travelled beyond Judaea: and when we come to consider the state of philosophy at that time, and the fashion Which prevailed of catching at any thing new, and of uniting discordant elements into fanciful systems, we shall not be surprised to find the doctrines of the gospel disguised and altered; and that according to the language of that age many new heresies were formed. The gospel in those days and in those coun­tries may be compared to small vessels drifting with­out a pilot, where conflicting currents altered their course, and rocks and shoals awaited them on every side. In the midst of such dangers we cannot won­der that many were carried about with every wind of doctrine, (Eph. iv. 14.) and that some made ship­wreck of their faith. (1 Tim. i. 19.)

The example of Rome, the seat of empire and of science, may serve to illustrate what has here been said. We read, that among the multitudes assem­bled at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, there were strangers of Rome, both Jews and proselytes^ (Acts ii. 10.) i. e. descendants of Abraham, who lived at Rome, and inhabitants of Rome, who were Jewish proselytes. There can be no doubt, that all these men would carry back with them a report of what had happened at Jerusalem : and some of them would carry also the doctrines which they had em­braced. From this time we have scarcely any men­tion of Rome in the Acts of the Apostles, till St. Paul arrived there as a prisoner twenty-five years after our Lord’s ascension. It seems almost demon­strable, that no apostle had preceded him in a visit to that city^c: and it is equally plain, that Chris­tianity had made great progress there long before his arrival^d: we cannot therefore wonder, when the masters of the field were so long absent, if many tares grew up together with the wheat. We know what was the case at Corinth, where the great apostle himself planted the church, (1 Cor. iii. 6, 10. iv. 15.) and at his first visit continued a year and six months teaching the word of God among them: (Acts xviii. 11.) and yet in the fourth year after he left them, (having perhaps visited them again during the interval,) he heard that there were divisions and contentions among them; (1 Cor. i, 10,11.) and that some said, I am of Paul, and I of Apolhs, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. (12.) We know also that St. Paul was the first apostle who visited Galatia; (i. 6. iv. 19-) and he himself testifies, that they received him as an angel of God: (iv. 14.) and yet within four years of his second visit he was obliged to wi'ite and reprove them for being removed from him that called them into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, (i. 6.) I do not mean that St. Paul was the first person who introduced Christianity in Galatia or at Corinth: the observations, which I have made, would pre­pare us for the contrary, and there is evidence that he found the seeds of the gospel already sown⁵: but if they had the benefit of his personal presence among them, being taught by him as the truth is in Jesus, (Eph. iv. 21.) and yet listened to false teach­ers who corrupted the word, how much more must this have been the case, in places which the apostle did not visit so soon, and where, as in Rome, the gospel made its way for five and twenty years, with nothing but the zeal of individuals to spread it, and subject to all the fancies which those individuals might adopt ? It seems plain from St. Paul’s own words, that some years before he went to Rome, he had heard of false doctrines being introduced among them, or he would not have said so earnestly to them at the end of his Epistle, Now I beseech yon, brethren, 'mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them: (xvi. 17.) and again, I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. (19 )

It is my intention to inquire into what St. Paul here calls the divisions and offences which endan­gered the early church. The inquiry will in some respects be painful, as every thing must be, which speaks of division where union should prevail, and which shews how easily the unlearned and the un­stable may corrupt the holiest truths. It is indeed painful to reflect how short was the duration of that peaceful and heavenly calm, when the multi­tude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul. (Acts iv. 32.) It seemed, as if the words of the heavenly host were then beginning to be ac­complished, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good wiU toward men. (Luke ii. 14.) But the vision of the Angels was scarcely more transient than those peaceful days. The following chapter begins with recording the death of two dis­ciples for avarice and falsehood: and the next with the murmuring of the Grecians against the He­brews. Diversity of doctrine soon followed; and from those days to the present, as St. Paul foretold in the text, men have arisen, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them. It is my in­tention to confine myself to the apostolic times; to those times, when it pleased God to teach mankind by his special messengers, what they are to practise and what they are to believe: but those times will also furnish us with an awful warning, as to what we are to fear and what we are to avoid: they will teach us to mistrust the wisdom of man, when it is not enlightened and sanctified from above: they will teach us, that the human mind may build up sys­tems, and may wander up and down through the regions of theory; but that truth is seated in the throne of God; and that he alone can arrive at truth, who lays his hopes, his wishes, and his reason at the foot of that throne.

 

LECTURE II.

Col. II. 8.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

I OBSERVED in the former Lecture, that all the Fathers speak of heresies infesting the Church in the lifetime of the apostles. We shall have occasion to consider hereafter, what is asserted with one con­sent by all of them, that Simon Magus was the parent and founder of all heresies. The testimony is equally strong, that Simon’s opinions were taken up by Menander, who was succeeded in time by two disciples, Basilides and Saturninus. These men lived in the former part of the second century: at which time, or not long after, two other persons, Marcion and Valentinus, still more notorious for the extravagance of their opinions, were at the head of extensive sects. The doctrines of all these per­sons are stated to have had many points of resem­blance : and those of Marcion and Valentinus are as clearly ascertained, as any other which the his­tory of philosophy has preserved. Consequently if the pedigree be rightly traced, which deduces their opinions from -the School of Simon Magus, we are not without some clue as to the errors which pre­vailed at the very beginning of the gospel.

I have said that the heresies of the second cen- ‘ tury are clearly and historically ascertained: and no person can read the elaborate work of Irenaeus, which he wrote expressly to confute those heresies, without allowing, that whatever might be his talent or his judgment, he must have known the doctrines which he opposed. Irenaeus and all the Fathers agree in saying, that the heretics, whom I have named, belonged to the Gnostic School^a: and there­fore by the argument, which was before used, we may infer that the Gnostic opinions, or at least something like to that which was afterwards called Gnosticism, was professed in the time of the apo­stles.

Again we learn from the same Irenaeus^b, in which he is supported by many early writers, that St. John published his Gospel to oppose the heresy of Cerin- thus: he adds, that the Cerinthian doctrines had been already maintained by the Nicolaitans, and that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the Gnostics®. Here then we have another positive evidence, that the Gnostic opinions were held in the time of the apostles: and if this were so, it might naturally be expected, that some allusions to these opinions would be found in the apostolic writings. It will be my object to investigate this point: but the tenets of Gnosticism hold so prominent a place in every ac­count which we have of the earliest heresies, that it will be necessary for us to consider them at some i sngth, and to endeavour to acquaint ourselves with their peculiar character.

There are few points, which are so striking in a perusal of the early Christian writers, as the fre­quent mention of the Gnostic tenets. The reader, who has some acquaintance with the doctrines of the heathen philosophers, and is familiar with those of the gospel, finds himself suddenly introduced to a new sect, the very name of which was perhaps unknown to him before. When he comes to the second century, he finds that Gnosticism, under some form or other, was professed in every part of the then civilized world. He finds it divided into schools, as numerously and as zealously attended as any which Greece or Asia could boast in their hap­piest days. He meets with names totally unknown to him before, which excited as much sensation as those of Aristotle or Plato. He hears of volumes having been written in support of this new philoso­phy, not one of which has survived to our own day. His classical recollections are roused by finding an intimate connexion between the doctrines of the Gnostics and of Plato: he hears of Jews, who made even their exclusive creed bend to the new system: and what interests him most is, that in every page he reads of the baneful effect which Gnosticism had upon Christianity, by adopting parts of the gospel scheme, but adopting them only to disguise and de­form them.

Such is the picture which unfolds itself to the reader of ecclesiastical history in the second century: a picture, which must be allowed to contain a ground­work of truth, though perhaps it has been too highly coloured by the enemies of the Gnostics, who wrote against them when the evil was at its height, and who felt that all their united strength was required to stem the overwhelming torrent. By the blessing of God it was stemmed, and died away: and, like other hurricanes, which have swept over the moral and religious world, it has left no trace of its devas­tation behind; it is forgotten, and almost unknown.

Some , persons will perhaps doubt, whether Gnos­ticism was ever so widely spread as it is here repre­sented : and though many causes might be assigned for the little interest which the subject excites, I be­lieve the proximate cause will be found in the ab­sence of all mention of Gnosticism from classical writers. There is perhaps no expression which ex­cites so universal and so strong a feeling, and yet is so difficult to define, as what are commonly called the classical writers. If we fix certain periods of time, before and after which no writing is to be ac­counted classical, then indeed we have a definition which is certain and precise. But to what tribunal of learning or of taste shall we commit the fixing of these intellectual boundaries? We may trace the line which separates cultivation from the sands be­yond it, but there are still some spots, some oases in the desert, which claim a connexion with more fa­voured regions, and which we admire the more for the barrenness which surrounds them. Custom, however, and prescription, have great influence in classical studies: and many who are most fond of them, would perhaps be surprised, if they were to reflect how few authors they have read, who wrote since the commencement of the Christian era. Of those that are preferred, it is difficult to pronounce whether the term classical is, or ought to be, applied to them. But thus much appears certain, that the Christian writers of the second century do not come under that description. In this, perhaps* there is more of chance than of rational or systematic classi­fication. If the second century, instead of the fourth, had witnessed the conversion of the Roman govern­ment, the Fathers of the Christian Church might have been ranked among the classics: or if, from defect of style, this name had been denied them, there is no reason why Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, might not have held as high a rank in literature as Plutarch, Lucian, or Athe- naeus. If style and language are to decide the ques­tion, the Christian Fathers need not fear the test. Both parties may have drawn from the same cor­rupted sources of eloquence; but Justin Martyr is much less obscure than Plutarch, and decency is at least not outraged by the Christian writers. If depth of argument be required, Irenaeus is as close and as convincing a reasoner as his heathen contem­poraries : and if the lighter reader loves to gather in Athenaeus the flowers of ancient poetry, he may gratify the same taste in the amusing and diversified pages of Clement of Alexandria. The Christian Fathers are not surely neglected, because, abandoning the speculations of men, they give us truths which are revealed from heaven: or if philosophical opinions have so great a charm, and if we must know the systems and the fancies which one man has invented and another has destroyed, there never was a greater record of intellectual absurdity than the history of Gnosticism. •

It will be said, perhaps, that the absurdity of a system is not exactly the point which we should choose, to recommend its study. But if we would know the human mind, we must observe its failings and aberrations, as well as its more successful flights. History, it has been said, is only a record of the vices and cruelties of mankind : and if man had never erred in the pursuits of science, the his­tory of philosophy would be reduced to a narrow compass. Gnosticism, it is true, is pregnant with absurdities : but this can be no argument agairst the study of it, when volumes have been written to explain the follies of Epicurus ; or when the mazes in which Plato has involved his unintelligible re­finements, are held up as speculations almost too sublime for unassisted reason^e. I do not say that Gnosticism deserves to be studied on its own ac­count. We might well forget that our fellow-beings had ever devised so wild and irrational a scheme: but if the rise of Gnosticism was contemporary with that of the gospel, and if the apostles felt themselves called upon to oppose its progress, it thenceforward assumes a kind of dignity from the contact, and we wish to be acquainted with doctrines which occupied the attention of St. Paul and St. John.

In attempting to give an account of these doc­trines, I must begin with observing, what we shall see more plainly, when we trace the causes of Gnos­ticism, that it was not by any means a new and dis­tinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system. Thus we find in it the Pla­tonic doctrine of Ideas, and the notion that every thing in this lower world has a celestial and imma­terial archetype We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabbalistic jargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion of the Jews : and many Gnostics adopted the oriental no­tion of two independent coeternal principles, the one the author of good, the other of evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms, which must have been taken from the gospel: and Jesus Christ, under some form or other, of ./Eon, emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into all their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that knowledge, which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them to their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was mystery: its end and object was to purify its fol­lowers from the corruptions of Matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being, suited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge.

We have a key to many parts of their System, when we know that they held Matter to be intrin- secally evil, of which consequently God could not be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet; that the Creator of the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the author of good, and the father of Christ. Their system al­lowed some of them to call the Creator God: but the title most usually given to him was Demiurgus. Those, who embraced the doctrine of two princi­ples, supposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle: and in most systems, the Creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked upon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some again believed, that angels were em­ployed in creating the world: but all were agreed in maintaining, that matter itself was not created; that it was eternal; and remained inactive, till dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum, Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra rfedegit.

Ovid. Metam. I. 32.

The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a Pleroma of inaccessible Light; and beside the name of first Father, or first Principle, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable na­ture of his perfections. This Being, by an operation purely mental, or by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes, from whom by a series of descents, more or less numerous according to different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called JEons from the periods of their existence before time was, or Emanations from the mode of their production. These successive iEons or Emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and their existence was in­dispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might account for the creation of the world without mak­ing God the author of evil. These iEons lived through countless ages with their first Father: but the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric circles; and they gradually de­teriorated, as they approached nearer and nearer to the extremity of the Pleroma. Beyond this Pleroma was Matter, inert and powerless, though coeternal with the supreme God, and like him without be­ginning. At length one of the iEons passed the limits of the Pleroma, and meeting with Matter created the world after the form and model of an ideal world, which existed in the Pleroma or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is, that incon­sistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For let the intermediate iEons be as many as the wildest imagination could devise, still God was the remote, if not the proximate cause of creation. Added to which, we are to suppose that the Demi- urgus formed the world without the knowledge of God, and that having formed it he rebelled against him. Here again we find a strong resemblance to the Oriental doctrine of two Principles, Good and Evil, or Light and Darkness. The two Principles were always at enmity with each other. God must have been conceived to be more powerful than Mat­ter, or an emanation from God could not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to reduce Matter to its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the Demiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always endea­vouring to cure: and here it is, that the Gnostics borrowed so largely from the Christian scheme. The names indeed of several of their iEons were evidently taken from terms which they found in the gospel. Thus we meet with Logos, Monogenes, Zoe, Ecclesia, all of them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in the Ple­roma. At length we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two of the last iEons which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world to remedy the evil which the creative iEon or Demiurgus had caused. He was to emancipate men from the ty­ranny of Matter, or of the evil Principle; and by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto unknown^f, to fit them by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge to enter the divine Pleroma. To give this knowledge was the end and object of Christ’s coming upon earth: and hence the inventors and believers of the doctrine assumed to themselves the name of Gnostics &.

In all their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with the same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence of evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real connection with matter. Yet the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to be the same with him who was revealed in the gospel: and it was notorious, that he was revealed as the son of Mary, who appeared in a human form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the difficulty were principally two. They either denied that Christ had a real body at all, and held that he was, an unsubstantial phantom; or granting that

• .

^f It was a leading tenet of “ sive de ces Emanations, ri- Gnosticism, that the supreme “ demption et retour vers la God was unknown before the “ puret6duCr6ateur,r£tablisse- coming of Christ: and this may “ ment de la primitive har- perhaps throw some light upon “ monie de tous les etres, vie the altar to the unknown - Gad, “ heureuse et vraiment divine ayvitaja 6e<3, which St. Paul “ de tous dans le sein m&me found at Athens, (Acts xvii. “ de Dieu: voilk les enseigne- 23.) and which is also men- “mens foudamentaux clu tioned by Lucian. “ Gnosticisme.” Matter, Hist.

e “ Emanation du sein de Critique du Gnosticisme. Introd. “ Dieu de tous les Stres spiri- vol. I. p. 18.

“ tuels, d6g6n6ration progres-

there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents, they believed that one of the iEons, called Christ, quitted the Pleroma, and descended upon Jesus at his baptism. It is not difficult to see how the scriptures would be perverted to support both these notions : though if we are right in assigning so early a date to the rise of Gnosticism, it was rather the preaching of the apostles, which was perverted, than their written doctrines: and from what was stated in my former Lecture, concerning the progress of the gospel in distant countries which the apostles had not yet visited, we can easily un­derstand, that truth would be mixed: with, error, and that the mysterious doctrines would be most likely to suffer from the contact.

We have seen, that the God, who was the father or progenitor of Christ, was not considered to be the creator of the world. Neither was he the God of the Old Testament, and the giver of the Mosaic law. This notion was supported by the same ar­guments which infidels have often urged, that the God of the Jews is represented as a God of ven­geance and of cruelty: but it was also a natural consequence of their fundamental principle, that the author of good cannot in any manner be the author of evil. In accordance with this notion, we find all the Gnostics agreed in rejecting the Jewish scrip­tures, or at least in treating them with eontempt. Since they held, that the supreme God was revealed for the first time to mankind by Christ, he could not have been the God who inspired the prophets: and yet with that strange inconsistency, which we have already observed in them, they appealed to these very scriptures in support of their own doc-

D 4

trines. They believed the prophets to have been inspired by the same creative iEon, or the same Principle of evil, which acted originally upon mat­ter : and if their writings had come down to us, we should perhaps find them arguing, that though the prophets were n&t inspired by the supreme God, they still could not help giving utterance to truths..

Their same abhorrence of matter, and their same notion concerning that purity of knowledge, which Christ came upon earth to impart, led them to re­ject the Christian doctrines of a future resurrection and a general judgment. They seem to have under­stood the apostles as preaching literally a resurrec­tion of the body: and it is certain, that the Fathers insisted upon this very strongly as an article of be­lief. But to imagine, that the body, a mass of cre­ated and corruptible matter, could ever enter into hea- ’ven, into that Pleroma which was the dwelling of the supreme God, was a notion which violated the fundamental principle of the Gnostics. According to their scheme, no resurrection was necessary, much less a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to perfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the grossness of matter, and by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnos­tic could comprehend, he was raised to be an inha­bitant Of the divine Pleroma.

If we would know the effect, which the doctrines of the Gnostics had upon their moral conduct, we shall find that the same principle led to two very op­posite results. Though the Fathers may have ex­aggerated the errors of their opponents, it seems un­deniable, that many Gnostics led profligate lives, and maintained upon principle that such conduct was

not unlawful. Others again are represented as prac­tising great austerities, and endeavouring by every means to mortify the body and its sensual appetites. Both parties were actuated by the same common notion, that matter is inherently evil. The one thought that the body, which is compounded of matter, ought to be kept in subjection; and hence they inculcated self-denial, and the practice of moral virtue : while others, who had persuaded themselves that knowledge was every thing, despised the dis­tinctions of the moral law, which was given, as they said, not by the supreme God, but by an inferior iEon, or a principle of evil, who had allied himself with matter. -

Such are the leading doctrines of the Gnostics, both concerning their theology and their moral prac­tice. The sketch, which I have given, is short and imperfect; and a system of mysticism, which is always difficult to be explained, is rendered still more obscure when we have to extract it from the writ­ings of its opponents. The System, as I have said, was stated to have begun with Simon Magus; by which I would understand, that the system of uniting Christianity with Gnosticism began with that he­retic ^h : for the seeds of Gnosticism, as we shall see presently, had been sown long before. What Simon Magus began, was brought nearly to perfection by Valentinus, who came to Rome in the former part of the second century: and what we know of Gnos­ticism, is taken principally from writers who opposed Valentinus. Contemporary with him there were many other Gnostic leaders* who held different opin-

^h See Siricius, de Simone Mago, Disq. I. Thes. 65. p. 58.

ions: but in the sketch, which I have given, I have endeavoured to explain those principles, which under certain modifications were common to all the Gnos­tics. That the supreme God, or the Good Principle, was not the Creator of the world, but that it was created by an evil, or at least by an inferior Being; that God produced from himself a succession of jEons, or Emanations, who dwelt with him in the Pleroma; that one of these iEons was Christ, who came upon earth to reveal the knowledge of the true God; that he was not incarnate, but either assumed an unsub­stantial body, or descended upon Jesus at his bap­tism ; that the God of the Old Testament was not the father of Jesus Christ; and that the prophets were not inspired by the supreme God; that there was no resurrection or final judgment; this is an outline of the Gnostic tenets, as acknowledged by nearly all of them ; and it will be my object to con­sider whether there are allusions to these doctrines in the apostolic writings.

These writings are in fact the only contemporary documents to which we can appeal for the first cen­tury. The brief Epistles of Ignatius may contain a few facts connected with the end of that century, and the beginning of the next; and the writings of Justin Martyr, (though his work directed expressly against Marcion and other heretics is unfortunately lost¹,) may throw light upon many points disputed between the Christians and the Gnostics. But the work of Irenaeus, which was intended as an answer to all heresies, and entitled, with a manifest reference

' Justin himself says, eart 8e vav. Apol. 1: 26. p. 60. The 1)jW> (Cat (TVVTayfia Kara iraxrav t5>v first Apology was written about yeyevr)iievw> aipetreav owreray/ie- the year 140. .

to the words of St. Paul, (1 Tim. vi. 20.) a Detection and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, is the great storehouse from which we draw our informa­tion concerning the Gnostics. Most probably a na­tive, and certainly an inhabitant of Asia Minor in the early part of his life, Irenaeus could well judge of the Gnostic doctrines, which, as we shall see, were received with peculiar eagerness in that country. Having been instructed in Christianity by Polycarp, who was the immediate disciple of St. John, he would not only know what were the true doctrines of the gospel, but the points also in which St. John thought those doctrines to be most in -danger, from the cor­ruptions of the Gnostics. Being afterwards removed to the bishopric of Lyons in Gaul, he would have ample opportunity to observe the heresies which in­fested the western churches: and all these advan­tages, added to the qualifications of his own mind, which seems to have been acute and amply stored, give a value to his authority, which can hardly be attached to the works of later writers. Tertullian at the end of the second century wrote many elaborate refutations of the early heresies : and his works will be studied with more attention, because he belonged to another great division of the Christian church, the African, and in different quarters of the world heresies might naturally assume very different aspects. We should look perhaps with particular interest to the Fathers of the Alexandrian church: not only from the fact, that the catechetical schools of that cftjr were particularly distinguished; but because Alexandria and Egypt, as we shall see presently, were the great promoters of the Platonic doctrines, with which-those ofthe Gnostics were closely con­

nected. Clement at the end of the second, and Origen in the middle of the third century, supply us with many facts connected with the early heretics: and their information concerning the apostolic age agrees with what we had already collected from writers of the Asiatic* the Western, and the African churches. All these writers assert with one consent, that the gospel was corrupted by the Gnostics during the lifetime of the apostles ; and they point out many passages in the apostolic writings, which were directed against these corruptions. So far therefore as external tes­timony is concerned, there can be no doubt that the New Testament contains allusions to Gnosticism: and I should proceed without further delay to examine these passages, if I was not desirous to consider pre­viously the most probable causes which led to the Gnostic doctrines.

There is no system of philosophy, which has been traced to a greater number of sources, than that which we are now discussing: and the variety of opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the very different aspects which Gnos­ticism assumed, or from wishing to derive it from one exclusive quarter. Thus some have deduced it from the eastern notion of a good and evil principle; some from the Jewish Cabbala; and others from the doctrines of the later Platonists. Each of these systems is able to support itself by alleging very strong resemblances: and those persons have taken the most natural and probably the truest course, whp have concluded that all these opinions contributed to build up the monstrous system, which was known by the name of Gnosticism’.

We will begin with considering that, which is un­

doubtedly the oldest of the three, the Eastern doc­trine of a Good and Evil Principle. There is no fact, connected with remote antiquity, which seems more certainly established, than that the Persian re­ligion recognised two Beings or Principles, which, in some way or other, exercised an influence over the world and its inhabitants. To the one they gave the name of Ormuzd, and invested him with all the attributes of Light and Beneficence : the other they called Ahreman, and identified him with the notions of Darkness and Malignity⁸. It has often been disputed, whether these two Principles were considered as self-existing coetemal Gods, or whether they were subject to a third and superior power. The knowledge which the Greeks had upon this subject seems to have been no clearer than our own. Thus Plutarch says, that some persons be­lieved them to be two rival Gods ; while others gave the name of God to the Good Principle, and of Dcemon to the Evil. Aristotle applied the latter term to both of them, calling them the Good and the Evil Daemon⁹. It is observable, however, that Herodotus, when speaking of the religion of the an­cient Persians, takes no notice whatever of these two Principles; and though he charges them with sacrificing to a plurality of Deities, it is plain that he looked upon them as the worshippers of one supreme God^k. Aristotle also could hardly have thought otherwise, or he would have applied to the two Principles a higher term than that of Daemon. Plutarch evidently considered that both of them had had a beginning, and that one of them at least

^k I. 131.

would come to an end: for he says, that Ormuzd took its rise from Light, and Ahreman from Dark­ness ; so that Light and Darkness must have existed before them: he adds, that the time would come when Ahreman would be destroyed, and an age of pure unmixed happiniess would commence. Upon the whole, I cannot but consider that those persons have taken a right view of this intricate subject, who represent the Persians as having been always worshippers Of one supreme God.

It is true, that the simplicity of their worship was soon corrupted: and the heavenly bodies, par­ticularly the great source of light and heat, became the objects of adoration. It is undoubted that the Sim, under the name of Mithra, received from them the highest honours : and it will solve many diffi­culties, if we conceive, that as their ideas became more gross, and the externals of religion occupied more of their attention, they came at length to identify the Sun with the one supreme God. That Light should also be worshipped, as an emanation from the Sun, seemed a very natural step in their idolatry; and Light could only be hailed as a Prin­ciple of Good. We know that Fire, the material emblem of their God, has its worshippers in that country even in the present day: and to personify Darkness, or the absence of Light, required but a small additional stretch of superstition or of fancy. Here, then, we have at once the two Principles of Good and Evil, of Light and Darkness : and so far the system of the Magi was a natural consequence of their worship of the Sun. With respect to the creation of the world, it seems probable, that at first it was supposed to be effected by one supreme Being;

and in the purer days of their religion the Sun hiiii- self would be included in the works of creation. But when the Sun came, as I have supposed, to be identified with the supreme Being, the Work of cre­ation was attributed to him; and the two Principles were looked upon as subordinate agents, the min­isters of his mercy and his vengeance¹⁰. There is evidence that a difference of opinion existed among the Magi upon this subject. Some of them em­braced what has been called the dualistic system, or the notion that both Principles were uncreated and eternal: while others continued to maintain the an­cient doctrine, either that one Principle was eternal, and the other created ; or that both proceeded from one supreme, self-existing source¹¹. This funda­mental difference of opinion, together with the idol­atry which was daily gaining ground, seems to have led to that reformation of religion, which, it is agreed on all hands, was effected in Persia by Zoroaster.

All the nations of antiquity seem to have had some great leading character, who, like Zoroaster of the Persians, stands at the head of their religious code. The history of all of them is involved in ob­scurity : and there is a general tendency to call dif­ferent persons by the same name; or, rather, to ascribe the acts of many to one individual. Such seems to have been the case with Zoroaster: and nothing can shew more strongly the celebrity of his name, and at the same time the ignorance concern­ing him, than that Plutarch speaks of his having lived five thousand years before the Trojan war. More rational chronologists have supposed that Zer-

dusht, or Zoroaster, flourished in the reign of Darius Hystaspes; and he is said to have introduced a re­formation of religion in Persia, which was generally, though not universally, received.

The oriental writers are fond of asserting, that Zoroaster conversed with the captive Jews, and bor­rowed from them many of his ideas. The fact is perhaps chronologically possible; and the religion of the descendants of Abraham, who was by birth a Chaldaean, could hardly fail to occupy the attention of a man who was seeking to reform his national creed. The Jews in Babylon, whatever they and their fathers may have been before, were certainly known as the worshippers of one God. I have en­deavoured to shew that this was also the belief of the ancient Persians : and Zoroaster may well have consulted with the Jews, if it be true that the re­form which he introduced consisted in establishing the doctrine, that the two Principles were subservi­ent to a third and higher Principle, by which they were originally created. This third Principle, or supreme God, was perhaps very different from that pure Being who revealed himself to Abraham: there may still have been an identification of Mithra, or the Sun, with the first cause: but to bring back his countrymen to an acknowledgment of a first Cause, is worthy of the praises which have been bestowed on the name of Zoroaster¹³. He established, though not perhaps without some alloy, that great truth which God announced to Cyrus by His prophet, and which contains an evident allusion to the Persian doctrines, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me: I am the Lord, and there is none.

else: there is no God beside me: I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil *. (Isaiah xlv. 4-7.)

Such then was the doctrine of the two Principles subsequent to the time of Zoroaster: and if this doctrine had any effect in producing the Gnostic philosophy, we must expect to find in the latter some traces of the Persian system. The notion of the Good and Evil Principles being distinct and contrary to each other would be in accordance with the sentiments of the Gnostics, who believed the supreme God and the Demiurgus to be perpetually at variance: but still there were some essential dif­ferences between the two systems. The Good Prin­ciple of the Gnostics was not produced from God, but was the supreme God himself, who was in no way concerned with the creation or government of the world: so also the Evil Principle of the Gnos­tics, or Demiurgus, though ultimately deriving his origin from God, derived it through several succes­sive generations. We have seen, that the iEons or Emanations of the Gnostics were invented, that as many degrees as possible might be interposed be­tween the supreme God and the Creator of the world. It might perhaps be shewn, that the reli­gion of the Magi would suggest the idea of succes­sive emanations : but if the Gnostics borrowed any thing from the Persians, it would be by investing their Demiurgus or Creator with those attributes of malignity, which were assigned to the Evil Princi­ple. There may be good reasons for thinking that

¹ This is referred to the Per- p. 486. ed. Amst. and by Wol- sian doctrine of two Principles fius, Manichaismus ante Mani- by Spencer de Leg. Heb. Ill, chaos II. 3. p. 38.

E

this was the case: and while Valentinus was per­fecting and spreading the Gnostic system which I have described above, Cerdon, who was also classed with the Gnostics, was propagating a doctrine, which bore some resemblance to that of the Persians. This doctrine became better known under his successor Marcion, who has been charged with holding two Principles, and with believing that there was one supreme God, and another produced by him, who became evil, and created the world. These two branches of Gnostics agreed in teaching, that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the world, nor the God of the Old Testament. They agreed also in believing, that Christ had not a real body, and in denying the inspiration of the pro­phets, and the resurrection of the body. The Orien­tal doctrines became better known in the world at large, when Manes or Manichaeus at the end of the third century came direct from Persia, and blended the religion of the Magi with that of the gospel. The Manichaean doctrines however lead us to a period too remote from our present subject: and I only mention them at present to observe, that the fact of Manes being placed so decidedly at the head of a party shews that his doctrines were dif­ferent in some points from those of the rest of the Gnostics. They most nearly resembled those of Marcion; and Marcion is represented as a native of Pontus; which would be more likely to bring him into contact with the Persian doctrines. Gnosticism however had certainly taken deep root long before: and upon the whole I conclude, that the Oriental doctrines were not the principal cause which led to Gnosticism, though those who embraced Gnosticism

would find much in the notion of a Good and Evil Principle, which was in accordance with their own opinions^I3.

We come next to consider the mystical philoso­phy of the Jews, which has been known by the name of Cabbala. But this part of our subject need not detain us long: for though some persons may have ascribed too much influence to the Cabbalistic doctrines, none perhaps have meant to argue, that the Cabbala was the only source of Gnosticism: and on the other hand, if the Cabbala contained any points of resemblance to the leading tenets of the Gnostics, few persons would deny that those who mixed Judaism with Gnosticism would be likely to draw from the Cabbala™. In one sense all the Gnostics borrowed from the Jewish religion, as they did from the Christian; that is, they considered the Jewish and Christian revelations to have been made by beings of a superior order to man. Here then we have a distinction between the Gnostic philo­sophy, and every other that preceded it. It ad­mitted the Mosaic dispensation to be part of that great system, which proceeded from the Beings who governed the world: and when we consider the period at which Gnosticism arose, we should expect to find in it the opinions of the later Jews rather than of the more ancient.

The Jewish Cabbala may be loosely defined to be a mystical system, affecting the theory and practice of religion, founded upon oral tradition. It has

^m In note ⁷ I have mention- that several of the Gnostic sects ed some of the writers, who were founded by Jews. De re­referred Gnosticism to the Cab- bus ante Const. Introd. II. 18. bala. Mosheim has observed,

been disputed, at what time the Cabbala may be said to have begun: and it has been argued, be­cause a Rabbi at the end of the second century was the first to make a collection of the scattered tradi­tions of his countrymen, that the Cabbala, as a system, did not exist before, and that therefore it could not have contributed to the rise of Gnosticism. It has however been satisfactorily shewn, that the Presidents of the Sanhedrim, for several years before the birth of Christ, had gradually been raising un­written tradition to a level with the written law. If we would believe the Cabbalists themselves, a collection of those traditions had already been made by Ezra: but such a document has never been pro­duced. They say also, that God revealed some secret doctrines to Adam, which were received from him by tradition: similar doctrines were received from Abraham and Moses: and hence these unwritten traditions were known by the name of Cabbala, from a Hebrew word signifying to receive. It will perhaps be conceded, that some communications were made to the Patriarchs beyond those which the sacred books have recorded. Thus the history of the Creation, if it was known to the Jews before the time of Moses, must have been preserved among them by an unwritten tradition. It is also plain, that a mystical interpretation of scripture, which is another important part of the Cabbala, did not rest entirely upon a false and artificial foundation. St. Paul has taught us, that under certain restrictions we are authorized in extracting a double sense from scripture: and I say this to shew, what has been the conclusion of learned men, and which seems in fact to be the fair and rational conclusion, that there

was once a pure Cabbala, that is, there were some genuine unwritten traditions; and there was a sober and rational mode of allegorizing scripture: but in both these points the later Jews sadly departed from the simplicity of their fathers¹⁴. In both these points there was a striking resemblance between the Cabbalists and the Gnostics. With the latter, to interpret scripture literally was the exception; and they only did it, when it suited their purpose: their rule was to extort a hidden meaning from every passage; and to make every word, and al­most every letter, contain a mystical allusion. The Gnostics also resembled the Cabbalists in appealing to oral tradition. They said, that Christ taught two doctrines ; one, the common and popular ; and another, which he delivered to his disciples only^lS. But this was a small part of the resemblance be­tween the Cabbalists and the Gnostics: nor would it have been inferred, that the two doctrines were connected, if the Cabbala had not contained a sys­tem of emanations, which bears some affinity to that adopted by the Gnostics.

Few subjects are more perplexing, than to explain the ten Sephiroth or Emanations, which according to the Cabbala proceeded from the first Cause: and we ought to be very cautious of theorising upon the sub­ject, because the system of the Cabbala approaches so near to that of Spinoza, that the one as well as the other may be open to the charge of atheism. Very strong proof should be brought, before we per­suade ourselves, that the Jews admitted a system which led even indirectly to atheism: and the whole perhaps may be solved by that unfortunate desire, which we have already seen to have perplexed the

E 3

Gnostics, a desire to explain the origin of Matter and of Evil. The Cabbalists seem so far to have forgotten their scriptures, that they adopted the prin­ciple, which pervaded the whole of heathen philo­sophy, that “ nothing can be produced out of no- “ thing.” They did not hold the eternity of Matter with the Greeks ; nor with the Persians had they recourse to two opposite Principles : they cut the knot which they could not solve; and they taught, that God being a spirit, who pervaded all space, the universe also was not material, but spiritual, and proceeded by emanation from God. The first Ema­nation was called in their language the first man, or the first begotten of God ; and he was made the medium of producing nine other Emanations or Se- phiroth, from which the universe was formed.

All this is highly mystical; and it is melancholy to see how low the human mind can fall, when it attempts the highest flights. Imperfectly as I have described the system of the Cabbalists, it will be seen that it bears no small resemblance to that of the Gnostics, who interposed several iEons or Emana­tions between the supreme God and the creation of the world. The names also of some of the Gnostic JEons are evidently taken from the Hebrew. All this has led some persons to imagine, that the Cab­bala was a cause of Gnosticism. There undoubtedly was a Cabbala, or secret doctrine, among the Jews, before we hear any thing of the Gnostic philosophy: tke latter therefore could not have contributed to produce the former. But still the two systems pre­sent considerable differences. The JEons of the Gnostics were not emanations in the same sense with the Sephiroth of the Cabbala. Each pair of ./Eons

engendered another pair, and one of the latest acted upon Matter and created the world. But the Cab­balistic Sephiroth were all Emanations from God, and the world also emanated from them, without the in­tervention of Matter. It is needless also to point out, that the notion of Christ being one of the iEons, who was sent to reveal the true God, Could not have found a place in the Jewish Cabbala: and yet this is a fundamental point connected with the name and doctrine of the Gnostics. It is natural for us also to ask, how the Cabbala came to receive a system of philosophy, so far removed from the simplicity of the Mosaic ; and how the opinions of the Jews, hitherto so exclusive and so little known, could produce any effect upon a system, which at the time of which we are speaking, was spread over great part of the world. These questions would lead us to a discus­sion far too long for the present Lecture: and I may so far anticipate the subject of the next Lecture as to state, that a solution of these questions may pro­bably be found by a consideration of the Platonic doctrines¹⁶.

For the present I will only add, that if any part of the absurdities, which I have endeavoured to ex­plain, was gaining ground in the time of the ppostles, there was good reason for St. Paul to say to his con­verts, as in the text, Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceitⁿ. Philosophy is indeed the noblest stretch of intellect which God has vouchsafed to man: and it is only when man forgets that he received his reasoning powers from

" The term philosophy in this by Tittman, de vestigiis Gnosti- passage is supposed to relate eismi in N. T. frustra queesitis exclusively to the Jewish Law p. 85, &c.

E 4

God, that he is in danger of losing himself in dark­ness when he sought for light. To measure that which is infinite, is as impossible in metaphysics as in physics. If it had not been for Revelation, we should have known no more of the Deity, than the heathen philosophers knew before : and to what did their knowledge amount ? They felt the necessity of a first Cause, and they saw that that Cause must be intrinsecally good: but when they came to systems, they never went further than the point from which they first set out, that evil is not good, and good is not evil. The Gnostics thought to secure the triumph of their scheme by veiling its weaker points in mystery, and by borrowing a part from almost every system. But popular, and even successful as this attempt may have been, we may say with truth, and with that remark I will conclude, that the scheme which flattered the vanity of human wisdom, and which strove to conciliate all opinions, has died away and is forgotten; while the gospel, the unpresuming, the uncompromising doctrine of the gospel, aided by no human wisdom, and addressing itself not merely to the head, but to the heart, has triumphed over all systems and all philosophies; and still leads its fol­lowers to that true knowledge, which some have en­deavoured to teach after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

LECTURE III.

1 Tim. vi. 20, 21.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed, to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

X OBSERVED in my last Lecture, that the scheme devised by the Gnostics for preventing God from being the author of evil, differed in some material points from the Persian doctrine of a good and evil Principle¹’. It appeared also, that the Cabbalistic philosophy was by no means the same with that of the Gnostics: and even granting that Gnosticism borrowed something from both these systems, still the idea of blending the ancient religion of the Magi, the more recent mysticism of the Jews, and the pure doctrines of the gospel, into one heteroge­neous whole, appears so wild a scheme, and so to­tally at variance with any thing which we have met with before, that there must have been something in the philosophical opinions of those days, which led the way to it; and we might expect to find some common stock upon which these different sys­tems were grafted.

It will be my endeavour to shew in the present Lecture, that the Platonic doctrines were the princi­pal source of Gnosticism, and that they had also an effect upon the Cabbalistic philosophy of the Jews.

In order to shew this, it will be necessary to explain what were the original doctrines of Plato himself; what was the state of the Platonic philosophy at the time of which we are treating; and why that philosophy, after borrowing so largely from other systems, should spread itself so widely in the world.

To unravel the mazes of Platonism, and follow it through all its metaphysical subtleties, is a task which I would not presume to undertake; and our subject .does not require such a waste of labour. Some of Plato’s conceptions have perhaps never yet been fully understood. If they were, his writings would hardly have needed so many comments and explanations from his own day to the present. It is indeed a system of almost impenetrable darkness: or perhaps the admirers of Plato would wish us to say, that he soared to so sublime a height, so far above our gross and material conceptions, that the eye is dazzled with following his flight, and loses him in the immensity and incomprehensibility of Being. But be this as it may, I have no hesitation in saying, that the Timseus and Parmenides, two of the Dialogues of Plato, require a surrender of our reason, and a belief in intellectual mysteries, com­pared with which the Christian Revelation is plain­ness and simplicity itself. All this makes it difficult to ascertain the fundamental doctrines of Plato, even so far as we require them for our present subject: and the difficulty is increased by the effort which was constantly made by the later Platonists to alter the sentiments of their founder, and to make him say that which he had never so much as imagined. The later Platonists saw their doctrines corrupted by the Gnostics, and many of them had read the

Jewish and Christian Scriptures. They found Christianity daily gaining ground : and when it was hopeless for them to conquer, they endeavoured to conciliate: they laboured hard to shew that the doctrines of Plato and the gospel were in many points alike: and the obscurity of Plato’s language enabled them to ascribe to him sentiments which he certainly never entertained. Thus the later Pla- tonists, and even the Christian Fathers, speak of Plato contradicting himself, by sometimes saying that Matter was eternal, and sometimes that it was created¹⁸. The Platonists went so far as to assert, that Plato did not hold that Matter was eternal.. But the assertion was undoubtedly false: and no position seems more firmly established, and none is more important for a right understanding of ancient philosophy, than that all the schools of antiquity agreed in acknowledging the fundamental principle, that nothing was produced out of nothing,

Nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus unquam.

Lucret. I. 151.

Hence it followed, that all the Grecian philosophers believed Matter to be eternal^a. Whether the one proposition does necessarily lead to the other, or whether a system of emanations, like that of the Cabbala or of Spinoza, might not account for crea­tion without the intervention of Matter, is a ques­tion which we are not called upon to discuss. The Grecian philosophers did not' adopt the system of emanation¹⁹. They all held, that Matter was eter­nal: and such undoubtedly was the opinion of Plato.

^a See Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. §. 37. p. 29.

This was the expedient by which all the philoso­phers thought to rescue God from being the author of evil: forgetting, as it appears, that at the same time they limited his omnipotence, and made him, though not the author of evil, yet himself subject to its influence: for a being who is all good, and yet restricted in his power, is undoubtedly subject to evil. This, however, is only one of the many incon­sistencies which appear in ancient philosophy; and I have already pointed out another, when speaking of the Gnostics,—that the ancients gave to God a power of modifying Matter, though they believed it to be coeternal with himself²⁰.

It is, I believe, true—though the remark will not perhaps immediately obtain assent—that unassisted human reason never arrived at the idea that God can create Matter out of nothing²¹. This is one of the points, which we know from revelation only: and that man’s metaphysics are as yet very imper­fect, who can conceive God to be omnipotent, and yet imagine that any thing exists without his will, which he cannot modify and annihilate as he pleases. The world by wisdom Jenew not God. Plato was wise, but he knew him not: he saw him darkly and at a distance; but his mind was too small to con­template the time when God spake the word, and called Matter into being. Here, then, was the basis, the false, the unphilosophical basis, on which all the Grecian sages built their systems. Matter was co­eternal with God; and the world was formed, either by Matter acting upon itself, or being acted upon by God. The School of Epicurus made Matter act upon itself, and the Deity was reduced to a name. The Stoics and Peripatetics believed God to have

acted upon Matter; but it was from necessity, and not from choice^b.

Plato had already adopted a system more worthy of the Deity, and conceived that God acted upon Matter of his own free will, and by calling order out of disorder formed the world^c. Plato certainly did not believe the world to be eternal, though such a notion is ascribed to Aristotle^d. Plato held the eternity of Matter; but he believed the arrangement and harmony of the universe to be the work of the Deity. Here begins the peculiar intricacy of the Platonic system. Every thing, except the Deity, which exists in heaven and in earth, whether the object of sense or purely intellectual, was believed to have had a beginning. There was a time when it did not exist: but there never was a time, when the Idea, i. e. the form or archetype, did not exist in the mind of the Deity. Hence we find so many writers speak of three Principles being held by Plato, the Deity, the Idea, and Matter²². It is dif­ficult to explain the Platonic doctrine of Ideas, without running into mysticism or obscurity: but perhaps if we lay aside for a time the doctrines of

^b The opinion of these dif- He contrasts this notion with

ferent sects concerning the his own, which was, that they

creation of the world is well were produced “ with reason

explained by Thomasius, Sche- “ and divine knowledge pro-

diasm. Histor. §. 37. p. 29. “ ceeding from God.” Sophis-

Exercit. de Stoica mundi exusti- ta, p. 265. Anaxagoras was

one, Diss. II. de IV Grsecorum the first philosopher who taught

sectis, p. 29.. K, this. Eus. Prop. Evang. x. 14.

^c It would seem as if the p. 504 : xiv. 14. p. 750. majority of persons in Plato’s ^d See Philo Judaeus de Mundi

day believed that “ Nature Incorruptibilitate,vol.II. p.489.

produced all things by a kind Cudworth IV. 14. vol. I. p. 366.

“ of spontaneous cause, and ed. Mosheim. “ without a producing Mind.”

the ancients, and take our own notions of the Deity, we may be able to form some conception of Plato’s meaning.

We believe that there was a time, when the world which we inhabit, and every thing which moves upon it, did not exist: but we cannot say that there ever was a time, when the works of creation were not present to the mind of the Deity. There may therefore be the image of a thing, though as yet it has received no material form: or to use the illus­tration of the Platonists, the seal may exist without the impression⁶. We know indeed that our own minds can form to themselves images, which are not only unsubstantial, but no likeness of which was ever yet an object of sense. In the same manner the images of all created things are present to the mind of the Deity: and these images must have existed before the material copies of them. Plato supposed these images to possess a real existence, and gave to them the name of Form, Example, Archetype, or Idea; and the use, which he made of them, constitutes the peculiar character of the Pla­tonic philosophy³³. He saw that these Ideas not only preceded the creation of the world, but must have been present to the Deity from all eternity; and he could assign to them no other place than the mind of the Deity, which he sometimes calls Mind, and sometimes Reason. Plato’s conception of the creation, or to speak more properly, the formation of the world, borders hard upon the sublime. He

^e °Oz/ Tponov crfypaylbos fiias fiarcov <j)v(T€is 7raft7rX??0eis. Didy-

ikpayeta yivcvQai iroKka, kclL av- mus apud Eus. Pr<Ep. Evang.

Xyas ei.K.6vas bos avbpos, ovtcos ck XI. 23. p. 545. fiias eKa,(m?s tfieas o1(t8t)T(dv <r<o-

conceived the first process of it to be purely mental. The mind or reason of God, in which were the Ideas of all things, acted upon Matter, and gave to the universe a soul, or moving principle. Creation began with beings purely intellectual, whom Plato, in deference to popular opinion, called Gods, but which were very unlike to the Deities of Paganism; and from the obscurity of his language it is difficult to distinguish them from the heavenly bodies²⁴. These intellectual beings received a principle of im­mortality, and were commissioned by God to create beings of an inferior order, whose souls had already existed, when the soul of the universe was formed. Here again we find Plato struggling with the diffi­culty of believing God to be the author of evil. God employed his celestial agents to finish the creation, and to form mortal bodies: for if he formed them himself, he would be the creator of evil, and that evil would be immortal. This was the weak part of Plato’s philosophy: but the same weakness per­vaded every other system; and without seeking to penetrate his obscurity any further, we may proceed to compare the sketch here given of his doctrines with those of the Gnostics.

The Gnostics, as we have seen, agreed with Plato in making Matter coeternal with God^f. They also believed, that the material world was formed after an eternal and intellectual Idea. This peculiar and mystical notion is the very soul of Platonism: and we learn from Irenaeus, that it was held by all the Gnostics³⁵. Both parties also believed in an inter-

^f Et hoc autem, quod ex Anaxagoras et Empedocles et subjecta materia dicunt fabri- Plato primi ante hos dixerunt. catorem fecisse mundum, et Iren. II. 14, 4. p. 134.

mediate order of beings between the supreme God and the inhabitants of the earth: these beings were supposed by both to have proceeded from the Mind or Reason of God: and it may furnish a clue to much of the Gnostic philosophy, if we suppose the iEons of the Gnostics to be merely a personification of the Ideas of Plato s; or we may say generally, that the Gnostics formed their system of iEons by combining the intellectual beings of the Platonic philosophy with the angels of the Jewish scriptures. We shall also have occasion to see in the course of these Lectures, that the Gnostics believed in a trans­migration of souls: and this is one of the doctrines which Plato appears to have taken from Pytha­goras.

There is indeed one material difference between the system of Plato and that of the Gnostics. Ac­cording to the former, God ordered the intellectual beings, which he had produced, to create the world; and he delegated this work to them, that he might not be himself the author of evil. But according to the Gnostics, the Demiurgus, one of the inferior iEons, created the world without the knowledge of God. This is perhaps as rational an hypothesis as that of Plato himself; and the one may very natu-

8 This seems to have been “ nactus, Colarbaso viam de-

the notion of Irenaeus : “ Pro “ lineavit. Earn postmodum

“ primis ac maximis Diis ^o- “ Ptolomaeus instravit, nomi-

“ nas formaverunt; et pro se- “ nibus et numeris TEonurn

“ cundis Diis, &c. &c.” II. 14, “ distinctis in personales sub-

1. p. 133 : and that these per- “ stantias, sed extra Deum de-

sonifications were gradually a- “ terminatas, quas Valentinus

dopted by the later Gnostics, “ in ipsa summa divinitatis, ut

is said by Tertullian, who writes “ sensus et adfectus et motus

thus of Valentinus; “ Cujus- “ incluserat.” Adv. Valentin. 4.

“ dam veteris opinionis semen p. 251.

rally have grown into the other, during the frequent * agitation of the question, concerning the origin of evil. It may be observed also, that the constant hostility, which existed between the supreme God and the creative iEon or Demiurgus, does not find any parallel in the Platonic philosophy. This was probably borrowed from the eastern doctrine of a Good and Evil Principle: and what the scriptures say of Satan, the great adversary of God and man, may also have contributed to form the same doc­trine.

We may now leave for a while the subtleties of Platonism, and consider what there Was in the his­tory of philosophy, which led to the union of so many and such different systems.

When Alexander led his army into Asia, he was not inattentive to the interests of science : and we are informed, that several philosophers followed in his train, whose object was to observe the produc­tions and the opinions of the eastern world ^h. These men would not be likely to pass through the Per­sian provinces, without noticing the doctrine of the two Principles, which had existed for ages in that Country, but which as yet was little known in Greece. Such of them as returned home, would naturally impart to their countrymen the result of their inquiries into the eastern doctrines; and an

^h Pliny speaks of some thou- p. 694 E.) Anaxarchus, of the

sands of persons being sent for Eleatio School, (Arrian. Plu-

the investigation of natural his- tareh. 11. cc. Diog. Laert. IX.

tory. (VIII. 16.) Among the iElian. Var. Hist. IX. 30.)

philosophers, who went with Onesicritus, a Cynic, (Arrian.

Alexander, we read of Calisthe- VI. 2. Lucian. Peregrin. 25,

nes, a relation and disciple of vol. III. p. 348. Diog. Laert.

Aristotle, (Arrian. IV. 10. Q. VI.) and Pyrrho. (Diog, Laert.

'Curt. VIII. 6. Plutarch. Alex. IX.)

F

event had lately happened in the philosophical world, which was highly favourable to the reception of new opinions.

When the city of Alexandria was founded, great inducements were held out for men of literature and science to resort thither: and the founder was ap­parently careful to shew no preference to any parti­cular school '.We are told, that the call was readily obeyed: learned men flocked to Alexandria from every quarter; and under the two first Ptolemies the same or even greater efforts were made to render that city the emporium of science as well as of com­merce. By founding the celebrated library, and by other acts of munificence, these two kings attracted many philosophers to their court^k: and we are told, that the Platonists (who after their master’s death had branched into several schools) were particularly numerous. The return of Alexander’s army, and of the philosophers mentioned above, would naturally have given the Greeks some acquaintance with Eastern theology, and Platonism would be likely to receive some accessions from that quarter¹. The situation of Alexandria was also suited to give it a peculiar interest in the eyes of the Platonists. Their

' See Brucker, vol. I. {?. lioth. Augusta, p. 31. Prideaux,

1354. vol. II. p. 685 : but I Connexion, sub an. 284. A. C.

would particularly recommend but particularly Matter, sur

Matter’s Essay sur I’Ecole I’Ecolc d’Alexandrie, tom. I. p.

d’Alexandrie. Paris. 1820. which 48.

throws much light upon the sub- ¹ See Brucker, vol. II. p.

jects discussed in this Lecture. 965. Eratosthenes, who was

^k Pausan. in Attic. Strabo, librarian under Ptolemy Euer-

XIII. p. 608. ed. 1620. Am. getes, wrote in recommendation

mian. Marcel. XXII. 16. p. of the doctrines of Plato, and

266. ed. 1693. For the Library was himself called a second

at Alexandria, see Lipsius, de Plato.

Biblioth. c. 2. Corring. de Bib-

founder, as is well known, had travelled into Egypt, as Pythagoras and other Grecian sages had done be­fore him ^m. At the time of which we are now speak­ing, literature in Egypt was considerably on the de­cline". But in its better and happier days, that country could boast of having been the instructress of Greece; and many of the Platonic doctrines agreed with those of the Egyptians. Thus we know, that the Egyptians held Matter to be eternal, though they believed that the world was created °. We find them also, like Plato, identifying their Gods with the heavenly bodies p : and if Plato learnt some of his peculiar doctrines from the Egyptians, he learnt also from them to clothe them in a veil of mystery. It is difficult to ascertain precisely what was the Egyptian notion concerning the Deity. It appears however, that they believed in the existence of one supreme God, who was diffused through all space. If we can penetrate their symbolical theology, Osiris was this Deity, and Isis was a personification of Matter. Typhon also was a principle of evil residing in Matter; and in this there seems to have been an agreement between the Egyptian and Oriental doc­trines 'i. Whatever may be thought of the resem-

^m Diodor. • Sic. (I. 96. see 298. Mosheim, ad Cudworth,

Wesselingad 1.) Strabo, XVII. iv. 18. vol. I. p. 502. not.^x p. 806. Plutarch, (de Is. et P Diod. Sic. apud Eus. Prap

Osir. p. 354. D. see Wytten- Evang. I. 9. See Brucker, vol

bach, ad 1.) also Brucker, I. p. 303. vol. I. p. 365. 374. 633. Schra- ^Li Isis and Osiris are explain

derus, de Ortu et Prog. Philoso- ed very differently in Eus

j>hi(E. Prxp. Evang. I. 9. p. 27. Ill

" Manetho is the only na- 11. p. 115. 116. See Brucker

tive Egyptian, who was con- vol. I. p. 287—291. Mosheim

spicuous for his learning in the ad Cudworth, IV. 18. vol. I. p

reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 522. Wolfius, Manichteismus

⁰ This is said by Diog. Laert. ante Manichmos, II. 14. p. 68.

I. 10. See Brucker, vol. I. p.

blance between the Egyptian and the Platonic, it was at least interesting to a Platonist to meet in Alex­andria with Egyptian philosophers, and to trace some of his master’s opinions to the source from which he drew them.

The genuineness however of Plato’s doctrines would not be likely to be preserved entire in the midst of so many different sects. A new impulse would also be given to Platonism by the arrival of some Pythagorean philosophers, who fled from Italy to Alexandria in the time of the Ptolemies^r. The school of Pythagoras, which had long ceased to be numerous, (probably because Plato had borrowed its most popular and attractive parts,) was at this time almost extinct: and the last supporters of it, who now came to Alexandria, would be likely to receive a kinder welcome from the Platonists than in any other quarter. Pythagoras, as I have already ob­served, travelled into Egypt: and if ancient testimony may be believed, he was also a disciple of Zoroaster, and was indebted to the Jewish scriptures. The two latter points however are extremely doubtful²⁶; but that Plato adopted many opinions of Pythagoras, is certain beyond dispute. Timaeus, who is employed by Plato in the most elaborate of his dialogues, as the expounder of his own opinions, was a professed Pythagorean; and without recurring again to the subtleties of Plato, it may be sufficient to observe, that the doctrine of Ideas, that most peculiar feature of Platonism, was undoubtedly taken from Pythagoras^s. The fancy also of attaching a mystical importance to

^r See Brucker, vol. I. p. tionePhilosophies Italicee. c. 15. 1354. vol. II. p. 763. 779. p. 176.

Schaeffer, de Natura et Constitu- ^s See note ²³.

eertain numbers, and the doctrine of a transmigra­tion of souls, were both adopted, first by Pythagoras, and after him by Plato.

The time however arrived, when Alexandria was no longer the general and peaceful asylum of learned men : and Ptolemy Physcon, in the second century before Christ, departing from the liberal policy of his predecessors, obliged the philosophers, by his cruel and sanguinary conduct, to quit his capital; and most of them retired into Greece or Asia Minor'. Hence it probably was, that at the rise of Gnosticism we find most traces of it in the cities of Asia Minor: and it is also not improbable, that as soon as the storm was past, and men of learning might again resort to Alex­andria, they would bring back with them some new doctrines ; and the religion of the Magi might be Joined to the speculations of Plato and Pythagoras⁰. The Platonic philosophy was thus likely to receive considerable modifications in the Alexandrian school; and there was still another quarter, to which I have not yet alluded, but which may be proved to have exercised great influence upon the sentiments of the later Platonists.

When Alexander founded his new city, he ^esta­blished in it a numerous colony of Jews, and allowed them the same privileges with the Macedonians and other settlers. Prom this time the customs and re­ligion of the Jews became much better known in the world at large, than they had been before. Seleucus Nicator shewed them the same favour by allowing them to settle in all the cities of his dominions ^x ;

* Athensetis, IV.ult. Justin. 191. 645. 944.

XXXVIII. 8. * Josephus speaks of a great

" See Brucker, vol. II. p. number of Jews settling in

F 3

and Ptolemy Philadelphus, a few years later, by caus­ing the scriptures to be translated into Greek, ena­bled the philosophers at his court to enter upon that new branch of study³’. There is positive evidence, that the Jewish scriptures were read by the heathen philosophers; and the Jews appear in turn to have studied the heathen systems, particularly that of Plato. The peculiar doctrines of both parties would be likely to be affected by this communication : but we must not imagine, that the Jews, who dwelt at Alexandria, practised or taught their religion in its original purity. That extraordinary and infatuated people were from the earliest times inclined to en­graft foreign superstitions upon their national wor­ship : and when their idolatries at length caused the Almighty to destroy their city, and send them cap­tives to Babylon, they came in contact with a new system of superstition, different from that of Egypt or Canaan, which had before ensnared them. The Jews, who returned from Babylon at the end of their captivity, would be sure to bring with them some of the rites and customs of the people whom they had left: but they also found the evil already waiting for them even at their doors. The mixed people, who settled in Samaria, when Shalmaneser had de­populated it, set up a variety of idolatries, and joined them to the worship of the God of the Jews. (2 Kings,

xvii. 24—34.) Most of the idolaters were from the nations beyond the Euphrates: and this heteroge­neous mixture of creeds continued in the country, when the Jews returned from captivity. We know

Egypt in the reign of Ptolemy with the Macedonians. Antiq. Soter. Those in Alexandria XII. i. cont. Apion. II. 4. See had equal rights given to them Aristeas, p. 104.

from scripture, that of those who were the first to return, many formed marriages with the people of the neighbourhood : (Ezra ix. 2.) and the zeal, with which Ezra endeavoured to prevent this intercourse, shewed that he considered the religion of his coun­trymen to be in danger. We learn also from Jose­phus, that many Jews continued to live in the coun­tries beyond the Euphrates: he speaks of them as many myriads: and he shews in several places, that they kept up an intercourse with their country­men at Jerusalem : they attended the festivals: they paid the didrachma to the temple, and sent their pedigrees to be registered at Jerusalem?: all which shews that a constant communication was kept up between the Jews and those Eastern nations, where the religion of the Magi had lately been reformed by Zoroaster. In one sense, the Jews had greatly profited by their captivity in Babylon; and we read no more of the whole nation falling into idolatry. The Persians indeed were not idolaters: and it was from them that the greatest effect was produced upon the opinions of the Jews. It seems certain, that their notions concerning angels received a con­siderable tincture from those of the Persians²⁸: and the three principal sects, of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, shew how far religious differences were allowed among them, and yet the unity of faith was Considered to be maintained* The Cab-

y See note and Brucker, phus, Antiq. XIII. 5.9: XVIII.

vol. II. p. 654. 1, 2. de Bello Jwd. II. 8. 1.

^z The origin and history of where he will find the most

the Jewish sects have been ancient and valuable account

treated of by so many writers, of the Pharisees, Sadducees,

that I shall only refer the reader and Essenes ; and to Brucker,

in the first instance to Jose- vol. II. p. 712. who has named"

F 4

bala, of which I spoke in my last Lecture, contains many doctrines concerning angels and other mystical points, which can only have come from an Eastern quarter: and the secondary or allegorical interpre­tation of Scripture, with which the Cabbala abounds, began soon after the return from captivity. If far­ther proof be wanting of the tendency of the Jews to adopt foreign manners, we may find it in Jose­phus and the books of the Maccabees²⁹. The situa­tion of Jerusalem between the rival kingdoms of Syria and Egypt, brought them into perpetual con­tact with Grecian institutions; and though Antio- chus Epiphanes, when he tried to force the Jews to change their customs, met with that resistance which persecution always creates; though zealous and in­flexible patriots were found, who resisted every in­novation ; yet in times of security, and when the enemy was not at their gates, they were eager enough to depart from their national habits, and to adopt the superstitions of their more polished neigh­bours.

It was with Jews of this character, that the Greek philosophers of Alexandria came into contact: and the influence seems to have been mutual which both parties had upon each other. The Greeks, and par­ticularly the Platonists, learnt a purer doctrine than their own concerning the unity of God: but they learnt also, what the Jews had lately imported from Persia, a more complicated system of good and evil Daemons, who had great power over the earth, and who were perpetually at war with each other and with God. The allegorical mode of interpretation

nearly all the principal writers Prideaux, Connexion., sub an. upon the subject. 1 may add 107. A. C.

was also particularly attractive to the Platonists: and this seems to have been a method of compro­mise agreed upon by both parties: the Jews pro­posed it as a means, by which they might persuade the Platonists, that their doctrines were not so dissi­milar : and the Platonists consented on these terms to admit the theology of the Jews. Hence arose a new school in Alexandria, which might be called that of the Platonizing Jews^a: and out of the same system, as I conceive, arose the Judaizing Platonists, who, with a few other additions,-became afterwards the Gnostics.

If any person should doubt what has been said concerning the effect of Platonism upon the Jews, he may satisfy himself by reading the Apocryphal book of Wisdom, which was certainly written some time in the second century before our Saviour. The writer of it evidently thought that Matter was not created, (xi. 17.) and he speaks of the Word or Logos of God exactly in the same sense which the Platonists attached to the term³⁰, (xviii. 15.) At a later period than this, arid contemporary with the rise of Christianity, we have a stronger evidence in the works of Philo Judaeus, who was so decided a copier of Plato, that the coincidence grew into a proverb³¹. Philo himself, as well as Josephus, gives us many proofs of that mixture of opinions, which is the peculiar character of the Alexandrian school: and whoever reads the accounts, which these two writers give of the Essenes, will see that opinions were rapidly verging towards that eclectic and mys-

¹ For the preference given II. p. 692. Walchius, Obs. in by the Jews to the Platonic Nov. Feed. 14. p. 99. . philosophy, see Brucker, vol.

tical system, which was known by the name of Gnosticism ^b.

The question has often been asked, why the Evangelists do not represent our Saviour as taking any notice of the sect of the Essenes: but the words of Philo will, I think, furnish us with a sufficient answer. He divides the Essenes into the practical and the contemplative: the former were those who lived in Syria and Palestine; the latter were those who were dispersed in other countries. The prac­tical Essenes appear to have been few: Philo and Josephus compute them at only four thousand ; a small number for the whole of Syria and Palestine: and since we read that they lived in villages,;, avoid­ing the large towns, it is not extraordinary that we do not hear of them in the discourses of our Saviour, who was generally in Jerusalem when he addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees. The fact seems to have been, that the Essenes were originally Phari­sees : but adopting more rigid habits, and living in retired places, they preserved the austerity of the Pharisees without their hypocrisy; and as to mat­ters of religion, they did not much depart from the manners of their forefathers. But the contemplative Essenes, or Therapeutae, were a very different race of men. According to Philo, they were to be found in several parts of the world, but abounded particularly

^b We have the most valu- I. 5. de Bello Jud. II. 8. 2. able and authentic materials Eusebius has also preserved an for the history of the Essenes account, which was given of

in the two works of Philo, them by Porphyry, de Absti-

Qaod liber sit quisquis, &c. vol. nentia, IV. p. 332.(Prsep.Evang.

II. p. 457. and de Vita Con- IX. 3.) but it is evidently taken

templativa, p. 471: and in Jose- from Josephus, phus, Antiq. XIII. 5.9 : XVIII.

in Egypt and in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. Egypt, it may be observed, has at all periods been distinguished for men leading solitary lives: mon- achism took its rise in Egypt: and the contempla­tive Essenes might not unfitly be described as Jew­ish, or rather Platonic monks®. In religion, they were so far Jews, that they worshipped one God: but Josephus expressly says, that they did not par­take in the public sacrifices; and when Philo speaks of their books, he does not mean merely the scrip­tures, but writings of the founders of their sect, which were filled, as he says, with dark and obscure sayings. Their life, as their name implies, was a life of contemplation. Temperate and abstemious in their habits, and shunning the abodes of men, they passed their days in retirement, giving themselves up to an unceasing and mystical devotion³’. Per­sons in this frame of mind were well suited to pre­pare the way for Gnosticism : and the same state of things, which led to the eclectic philosophy and the schools of the later Platonists, would also produce the doctrines of the Gnostics.

^c The Pseudo-Dionysius ap- crates says, that avKt]Tr)pia had

pears to have considered depa- probably existed a long time

irevrcu and pomxp), as synony- in Egypt, but that the system

mous. (Eccies. Hierarch. VI. 3. was carried much further by

p. 386. ed. 1634.) But the Ammon, who lived A.D. 330.

term fiomxbs was not used till (IV. 23.) Sozomen observes,

long after the apostolic age ; that there were no monastic

and monachism probably owed establishments in Europe about

its rise to the severity of per- the year 340; and that they

secution, as Sozomen observes, were introduced into Palestine

I. 12. and Niceph. Call. VIII. by Hilarion, who lived at the

39. ’Aotc^tt/s was a term in same period. (III. 14. p. 116.)

much earlier use with the Athanasius mentions aa-K-qrai at

Christians, and was taken from Rome in the year 355. (Hist.

heathen writers. (See Casaub. Arian. adMonachos, 38. p. 366.)

Exerc. II. ad Baron. §. 13. See Bingham, Antiquities, VII.

Suicer. voc. amtrfrqs et ftovaxos. 1, 4. Mosheim, de Rebus ante

Valesius in Eus. II. 17.) So- Const. Cent. 11.35- Not. m.

The eclectic philosophy, of which Potamon has been looked upon as the founder, was an attempt, not in itself irrational, to unite different systems. The supporters of it read the Jewish and Christian scriptures: and their ambition was to prove that both of them were borrowed from Plato. It was in this school that some of the Christian Fathers stu­died : and the names of Ammonius, Plotinus, Por­phyry, Proclus, and others, though connected with some of the most formidable attacks which were made upon Christianity, were sufficient to entitle the later Platonists to a great and merited ce­lebrity³³-

Gnosticism in the mean time had proceeded from the same source, but had run on in a much more tortuous and devious course. I have perhaps said enough to shew, that the Platonic school of Alex? andria was the real cause of Gnosticism ^d. We may suppose, that discussions would be frequent among the learned men of different sects, who frequented that city: and it appears, that leaving the more useful branches of ethical, political, or physical phi­losophy, many or most of them perplexed themselves with the eternal question, Unde malum, et quare f What is the source and the cause of evil^e? This diffi-

^d Strabo, who flourished while our Saviour was upon earth, says of the Alexandrians, “ they receive many foreign- “ ers, and have sent out not a “ few of their own people: and “ there are schools there of all “ sorts of science and litera- “ ture.” XIV. p. 463. ed. 1587.

^e The minute discussions of the Alexandrian philosophers afforded much amusement in

ancient times, and Timon Phliar sius wrote this epigram upon their endless contentions;

TToXXot fl£V $lHTKOVTai CJ/ Alyv- 77TW 7ro\v(f)u\a) fiifSkiaKoX xapaKelTai, dweipvra STjpLoZvres,

Movo'ecav iv raXapco.

Athen. Deipnos. I. 22. (p. 84.

ed. Schw.)

Philetas of Cos, who was re­ceived by Ptolemy Soter, wast-

culty has been thought by some to have led to all the false religions which have appeared in the world: and the Gnostics, in order to solve the question, built up a monstrous and extravagant system by the union of many creeds. It was with this view, that they placed Matter beyond the limits of the Pleroma, which was the abode of the supreme God. For this also they invented their numerous succession of iEons, by one of whom, without the command or the will of God, the world was created. This was the scheme and framework of the Gnostic theology. Whatever militated against it, was alle­gorized and tortured into agreement. To study this system, was not the means, but the end. They boasted that they alone could have the knowledge of God: and to become perfect in this knowledge, was the only true object of human existence. The disputes of different sects in Alexandria, and the ad- tional excitement, which was given by the Jewish scriptures, led gradually to this mystical philosophy; and if we are right in supposing that the Jews after the captivity borrowed many opinions from Persia, we may add t'he eastern doctrine of two Principles as another and important element in Gnosticism ^f. This view of the subject may reconcile all hypo­theses : and we may conclude, that those who have deduced Gnosticism from the doctrines of the Magi,

ed away and died, because he forms us, that the followers of

could not solve the fallacy call- Prodicus (who were Gnostics)

ed TjrevSofievog' (Suidas in v.) and boasted of having some mys-

Diodorus of Iasus about the terious books of Zoroaster,

same period died of grief, be- (Strom. I. 15. p. 357.) The

cause he could not answer same is said of the Gnostics by

Stilpo of Meeara (Diog. Laert. Porphvrv in his life of Ploti-

1. II. Vit. Euclid.) nus. .

^f Clement of Alexandria in- ' £ -

of Plato, or of the Cabbala, are all in one sense right; and that from these three sources, with the addition of Christianity as soon as it appeared, the different schemes of Gnosticism were formed.

It is not so important, nor indeed would it be possible, to mark the time when Gnosticism began. The seeds of it were sown, when rival schools first disputed upon the origin of evil; when the Jews first took to allegorize their scriptures; and when the Platonic Essenes made religion consist in con­templation. The name of Gnostic was of much later application; probably not till some time after the appearance of Christianity. We meet with it first in Irenseus, who uses it as a generic term to de­scribe all the heretics, who engrafted Christianity upon heathen philosophy: and he tells us, that the persons, against whom he was writing, assumed the title to themselves s. We may conclude therefore, that the term Gnostic was in common use before the time when the work of Irenaeus was composed: and some writers have imagined it to be introduced about the middle of the second century ^h.

It is demonstrable, however, that long before this time, and in the early days of Grecian philosophy,

s I. 25, 6. p. 104, 105. The Haresiarchis, II. 9. 22. p. 181. term yvanris is used in the Epi- Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. stle of Barnabas for the mysti- §. 32. p. 20.) Justin Martyr cal interpretation of scripture, seems to allude to the Gnostics, (§.6. p. 18. §. 9. p. 29. §. 10. when he says, “He that thinks p. 35.) But though it may be “to know any thing without proved that this Epistle was “ true knowledge, knows no­in existence in the middle of “ thing: he is deceived by the the second century, there is no “ serpent.” Epist. ad Diognet. positive evidence that it was 12. p. 240. written before the end of the ¹¹ See Colbergius, de Orig. et first century. (See Ittigius de Prog. Hares. II. 2. p. 50.

the term knowledge, as applied to the Deity and the essence of things, was used in a peculiar sense. Some philosophers denied that any thing could be known: others boasted to have this knowledge. The Platonists always maintained their claim to a more perfect knowledge of divine truths³⁴: and it was in the Platonic schools of Alexandria, that Clement and other of the Fathers learnt to apply the term yvwaig to a full and perfect knowledge of the Chris­tian doctrine. Clement uses the term in a good sense: in the same manner that our Saviour often speaks of wisdom and knowledge with reference to the gospel: but Clement tells us expressly, that there were others, who, puffed up with their own conceit, boasted of being perfect and possessing ex­clusive knowledge³⁵. These were evidently the Gnostics, and they would learn to arrogate the title, not only from the Platonists, but also from the Jews of Alexandria, who soon came to use the term Wis­dom with a mystical signification. It is well known that Wisdom, as it is used in the Book of Proverbs, was understood by the Fathers in a personal sense; and they referred it to the first or second Persons of the Trinity. Their personification of the term was probably learnt from the Platonizing Jews: and the idea was carried to a greater length in the Apo­cryphal book of Wisdom, which, as I have already observed, was written in the second century before Christ. Philo Judaeus also has many expressions, which shew the mystical sense, in which Knowledge and Wisdom were used by some of his country­men³⁶. We may assume it therefore as a point suffi­ciently established, that before and after our Sa­viour’s birth there were Jewish and heathen phi­

losophers, who professed that to know God was the only Wisdom, and who boasted themselves to pos­sess that knowledge.

Such notions might have passed off, like other phi­losophical errors, without being noticed by the apo­stles, if the Gnostics had not proceeded, in pursuance of their eclectic system, to draw Christianity also into the vortex of their philosophy. Then it was, I conceive, that St. Paul thought fit to say to the Colossians, Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, (ii. 8.) But he had al­ready spoken more plainly to Timothy in those emphatic words which I have chosen for my text,

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. The oppositions of science falsely so called, avrt&ea-eis lpevduvvfiLov yvaeevg, seem to point so directly at the pretensions of the Gnostics, that we can hardly doubt as to the meaning of St. Paul. The Fathers with one consent apply the expression to the Gnos­tics ; and Irenas us evidently alluded to these words, when he entitled his great work, An Exposition and Refutation of Knowledge falsely so called³¹. It has been disputed, whether by the antitheses of Gnosti­cism we are merely to understand the opposition which false teachers offered to the gospel; or whe­ther allusion was intended to Light and Darkness, God and Matter, the Good and Evil Principle, and other such oppositions, which formed part of the Gnostic system'. The latter interpretation is more

‘ This interpretation was pre- ante Const. Introd. I. 24: Bud- ferred by Mosheim, de Rebus deus, Eccles. Apost. p. 347.

recondite, and might be more satisfactory for our present purpose : but it is safer perhaps to adopt the former; and the vain babblings, to which the apo­stle alludes, may well be referred to that mystical jargon in which the Gnostics explained their notions of the Creation.

If we are right in our application of this passage, there is also another, which may be referred to Gnos­ticism, in which the same expression of vain bab- blings^k is repeated. St. Paul saysin his second Epistle to Timothy, Of these things put them in remem­brance, charging them before the Lord, that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the sub­verting of the hearers. Study to show thyself ap­proved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth^x. But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will in­crease unto more ungodliness; and their word will

Ittigius, de haresiarchis, p. 38. and Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. §. 35. p. 25. It was op­posed by Wolfius, Manicheeis- mus ante Manichteos, II. 41. p. 17 8 . and Calovins ad 1.

^k I should mention, that Ire- nseus in 1 Tim. vi. 20. read Katvocjxovias for Kevo(j)a>vias' at least his translator wrote vocum novitates. (II. 14. 74-p. 135.) Iren sens also refers natvorfiavias, as well as avnBccreis to \jrev8avv- fioy yv<k<rea>s, which the position of the article requires us to do. Most Latin authorities support the reading of Kaivo<pa>vias; and beside the Greek Fathers men­tioned by Griesbach, wc may add Epiphanius, Hear. LXXIII. 11. p. 858. (See Thomasius Schediasm. Hist. §. 35- P- 26.)

Buddeus thought, that St. Paul alluded to the ovofiara /Sapfiapiiea, which according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXI. 4. p. 58.) were in­vented by Simon Magus, (Ec- cles. Apost. p. 348.) The same was thought by lttigius, de Ha- resiarchis, p. 38. and that St. Paul alluded to Simon, is said also by Estius, and Espencaeus ad 1. and by Magalianus, Op. Hierarch, vol. I. p. 764.

¹ The metaphor in opdoTopovvTa is taken from the irt of cutting or forming a road : and so it is coupled with obov in Prov.iii. 6. xi. 5. St. Paul therefore ex­horts Timothy to follow the straight and undeviating line of truth in preaching the gospel, neither turning to the right nor to the left. See Suicer in voc.

G

eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenceus and Philetus: who concerning the truth have erred, say­ing that the resurrection is past already; and over­throw the faith of some. (2 Tim. ii. 14—18.) I shall have occasion to notice these words again, when I consider that tenet of the Gnostics, to which I have already alluded, that they did not believe in the re­surrection. For the present I shall only observe, that this is an additional argument for applying the passage to the Gnostics ™: and we may therefore conclude that Hymenaeus and Philetus had distin­guished themselves as leaders of that sect.

There are other passages in which St. Paul alludes to profane babblings and strifes about words ⁿ: but I would particularly notice what he says in the chapter from which the text is taken : If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doc­trine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Tim. vi. 3.) What is here said of questions and strifes of words, might be applied to any of the sects, which were at that time numerous in Asia Minor: but from the expression, he is proud, knowing nothing, I should infer that an allusion was intended to the vain pretensions of the Gnostics: and if so, there were either persons among them, like the sophists of

^m It is so applied by Tertul- " l Tim. i. 4. iv. 7. 2 Tim. ii. lian, de Prescript. 7. p. 204. 23. Tit. i. 14. iii. 9.

old who taught their doctrines for money; or the pretended Christians sought to make a gain by a show of miraculous power p.

There is perhaps more direct allusion to the pre­tended knowledge of the Gnostics in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where the apostle prays, that ye may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height', and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God; (iii. 18,19.) and again, Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of ihe stature of the fulness of Christ, (iv. 13.) The fulness of God and ihe fulness qf Christ in these two places may be thought, as I shall observe hereafter, to relate to the Gnostic doctrine concerning the pleroma: and the knowledge qf the Son of God, is said to bring us unto a perfect man; which is a direct application of a Gnos­tic sentiment. In the first of these two passages we read, that ihe love qf Christ passeth knowledge, i. e. it passeth the knowledge or wisdom of the world: and I have little doubt, that when St. Paul spoke of comprehending the breadth and length and depth and height, he had in his mind some mystical notions of the Gnostics, which he here turned, as he did upon other occasions, to a higher and holier sensed

“ For the crowds which at­tended the sophists, I would refer to Plato, Protag. p. 314, 315. and for the sums of money which they collected, to Hipp. Maj. p. 282.

p Allusion is made to false teachers being actuated by mo­

tives of gain in Acts xx. 29. Rom. xvi. 18. 2 Cor. ii, 17. 1 Thess. ii. 5. Tit. i. 11. Jude 16.

We find some traces of a notion of this kind in Nume- nius, a Platonist of the second century, who, in an inquiry

The interpretation, which I have given to these two passages, will perhaps be confirmed, when we find at the end of the last, that we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning crafti­ness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. (Ephes. iv. 14.) Some false doctrines are evidently alluded to in these words : and the passages which precede them, incline us to refer them to the Gnostics.

I

There is also a passage in the Epistle to the Colossians, which may strongly remind us of the mystical knowledge to which the Gnostics pretended. St. Paul expresses his hope, that their hearts might be comforted, being hnit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, (ii. 2, 3.) Ac­cording to the Gnostics, the mystery of God and the treasures of wisdom and knowledge belonged exclu­sively to themselves. St. Paul therefore means to point out to the Colossians the emptiness of this boast, and to lead them to that pure and holy source, where true knowledge was only to be found. In the same manner I might quote many passages, where St. Paul contrasts the wisdom, of the world with the wisdom of God. The Greeks, he says, seek after

after to ov, says that Matter aopitrros, aKoyov' el Se uAayos, ay-

cannot be to ov, iforafibs yap ij vwcttov. The pretensions of the

iJAjj po&Srjs Kai ogvpponos, fiados Gnostics to penetrate the depths

Kal irXaros Kai prjxos aopurros. of God, may perhaps be alluded

(Eus. Prcep. Evang. XV. 17. p. to in Rev. ii. 24. by the words

819.) and what follows might ta $adr\ roC larava. This was

seem to connect this sentiment the opinion of Hammond, de

with the Gnostics, elecmvAneipos Antichristo. III. 1. p. 5. See

fj vkq, a6purrov eivai avrr/V el Se also Rom. xi. 33. I Cor. ii. IO.

wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, the power of God, and the wisdom, of God. (1 Cor. i. 22—24..) and again, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory, (ii. 6,7.) There is a danger perhaps of indulging our fancy in tracing these allusions to the Gnostic doctrines^r. I have confined myself at pre­sent to those passages which seem to refer to that knowledge which gave to the Gnostics their peculiar name.

In my next Lecture I shall endeavour to illustrate some other texts, in which different points of this philosophy appear to be described. But since the Gnosticism, which we have to consider, was not merely a mixture of Platonism and Judaism, but also adopted and corrupted some doctrines of the gospel, I shall begin by inquiring who was the Gnostic that first borrowed any part of the Chris­tian scheme: and if we can ascertain what were the principles which he professed, or the system which he invented, we shall be most likely to discover the errors which the apostles were called upon to" op­pose. That St. Paul had to combat some false sys­tems, and to caution his flock against some preten­sions of worldly wisdom, is evident beyond dispute. The Fathers, as I have observed, conceived him to allude to Gnosticism. Upon this point, at least, their

^r The word yvmms may be 2 Cor. vi. 6. viii. 7. x. 5. xi. 6.

usedwithreference to theGnos- The first of these is referred to

tics in the following passages, the Gnostics by Iren sens, II.

1 Cor. viii. 1. 7. xii. 8. xiii. 8. 26. 1. p. 154.

G 3

testimony is of the highest value. The writers of the second century saw the evil at its height: and though they may sometimes have strained a passage, to expose the errors of their opponents, yet they had no interest in tracing back the Gnostic doctrines to the apostolic age, or in shewing, contrary to truth, that knowledge falsely so called could raise alarm in the mind even of St. Paul.

LECTURE IV.

2 Tim. Ui. 13.

Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

I STATED in my last Lecture, that I should now proceed to consider who was the first Gnostic, that mixed up Christianity with his own false and hete­rogeneous philosophy. If ancient testimony is to decide the question, there could only be one opinion upon the subject: for the early Fathers are nearly unanimous in saying, that the parent of all heresies, by which they mean of Gnostic heresies, was Simon Magus⁸. The truth of this assertion has been de­nied by some writers, and particularly by Mosheim, who says, “ This impious man is not to be ranked “ among the number of those who corrupted with “ their errors the purity and simplicity of the Chris- “ tian doctrine; nor is he to be considered as the “ parent and chief of the heretical tribe, in which “ point of light he has been injudiciously viewed by “ almost all ancient and modem writers: he is “ rather to be placed in the number of those who “ were enemies to the progress and advancement of

^a I may mention Irenaeus I. 4. p. 58. XXVII. 1. p. 102.

23. 2. p. 99. II. Prffif. 1. p. Pseudo-Cyprian, de Rebaptism.

115. III. Praef. p. 173. Eu- p. 365. Cyrill. Hierosol. Ca-

seb. Hist. Eccles. II. 13. The- teches. VI. 14. p. 95. XVI. 6.

odoret. Hcer. Fab. I. 23. p. 209. p. 296. See Ittigius, de Hee-

Compend. p. 188. II. Praef. p. resiarchis, p. 39.

215. Epiphaniiis, Hcer. XXI.

“ Christianity¹¹.” And again, “ The notion that all “ the various sects of the Gnostics derived their origin “ from Simon Magus, is entirely groundless⁰.” The argument here advanced by Mosheim is the same which is used by all persons who deny the assertion of the Fathers'¹: but the seeming difference of opin­ion may perhaps be removed by a definition of terms: and the remark which I made in my first Lecture concerning the word heresy, may enable us to understand the meaning of the Fathers, and to assent to the truth of their remark.

If we mean by the term heretic, a man who pro­fesses to believe the genuine doctrine of the gospel, but whose opinions have been pronounced by the church to be erroneous, then we should not call Simon Magus the parent of all heresies. But I have observed, that this was not the sense in which the term was used by the Fathers, who called a man an heretic, if he invented or adopted any peculiar opin­ion. We are not therefore to take an expression of the Fathers, and examine it according to ideas which are different from theirs : and though it may be true that Simon Magus was “ an enemy to the pro- “ gress and advancement of Christianity,” though he cannot in fact be called a Christian, yet if he borrowed any part of the Christian scheme, and

^b Eccles. Hist. vol. I. p. 140. Librorum. IV. p. 226. J. F.

^c lb. p. 143. Buddeus had previously ex-

^d Mosheim has asserted the pressed a doubt, de H<er. Fa-

same in his Com. de Rebus ante lentin. XVI. p. 641. and they

Const. Cent. I. 65. not. ^h- and have been followed by Orsi,

in his Dissertation de uno Si- Storia Ecclesiastica, vol. I. p.

mone Mago, 6. p. 68. Instit. 348. Beausobre.vol.I. p.34. II.

Maj. p. 394. though he rather p. 2. Brucker, vol. II. p. 670.

qualifies his assertion in his See also Buddeus, Eccles. Apost.

Dissertation de Causis suppos. p. 317.

united it to his own, he would be called, in ancient times, an heretic; and the Fathers assert that he was the parent of all heretics. Mosheim could hardly have been ignorant, that this is precisely the way in which many of the Fathers explain their meaning. Thus Irenaeus., though he says that all heresies were derived from Simon^e, and that all, who in any man­ner corrupt the truth, were disciples and successors of Simon Magus^f, yet states expressly, that Simon only pretended to believe in Christ, and that his followers held out the name of Jesus as an attrac­tion, wishing by that means to conceal their real doctrines®. Origen, in his work against Celsus, quotes that unbeliever as objecting to the Christians, that some among them made the God, who was Father of Jesus Christ, not to be the same with the God of the Jews^h. This we know to have been a Gnostic doctrine; and Origen replies, “ that there “ may be some persons who call themselves Gnosr “ tics, as there may be Epicureans who call them- “ selves philosophers : but neither can they be “ really philosophers, who deny a Providence, nor “ can they who introduce strange inventions, not “ agreeable to the doctrine of Jesus, be Christians: “ there may be some who receive Jesus, and there-

^e I. 23. 2. p. 99. positive in asserting, that they

- ^f. Pag. 106. held the .doctrines of Simon.

« Pag. 106. This passage is This may account for what is

quoted by Mosheim, as proving said by Origen,that there could

that “ not one of the Gnostic not be found thirty Simofiians

“ sects held Simon in the least in the whole world in his day.

“reverence:” but whoever Cont. Cels.I.57. p.372. VI. 11.

consults the passage,'will see p.638: yet the sect appears not

that it by no means proves so to have been extinct. See

much. Irenaeus is only speak- Mosheim, Inst. Maj. p. 408. ing of the name which these ^h V. 61. p. 624. heretics assumed : but he is ’

“ fore boast themselves to be Christians; but how “ does this accusation affect the true believer?” He then adds, that among those heretical Christians Celsus particularised Simon Magus ; and he replies, “ But Celsus seems not to be aware that the follow- “ ers of Simon by no means acknowledge Jesus to “ be the Son of God.” Eusebius say s. expressly, that Simon Magus was looked upon as the first founder of every heresy; and then adds, that all those who embraced his opinions pretended that they were Christians'. The words of Epiphanius are equally express, who says, “ The first heresy after the “ time of Christ is that of Simon Magus, which is “ not properly and regularly classed with those “ which bear the name of Christ^k.” I have perhaps stated enough to shew that the Fathers knew well what they were asserting, when they called Simon Magus the father of all heresies. They knew that he was not a Christian, but they believed him to be the first who mixed Christianity with Gnosticism, and consequently the leader of all those heretics who professed to believe in Christ³⁸.

Some persons have felt so great a difficulty in ad­mitting this assertion of the Fathers, that they have resorted to what is a common refuge in dilemmas of this kind; and have imagined, contrary to all his­torical evidence, that there were two different per­sons of the name of Simon; one who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and another who was leader of the Gnostics. This notion has been so completely refuted by Mosheim in a special disser-

' Ecdes. Hist. II. 13. p. 62. mon “ only assumed the name

^k Haer. XXI. 1. p. 55. In “ of Christ.” Anaceph. vol. II. another place, he says that Si- p. 139.

tation, that little more need be said upon the sub­ject³⁹. Though Mosheim denied that this Simon was the parent of all heresies, yet he was well aware that the Fathers, who declared him to be so, in­tended the same Simon Magus who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. There can indeed be no doubt upon the subject; and I shall only use one argument in support of the testimony of the Fathers.

Justin Martyr, about the year 140, presented a Defence of Christianity to the emperor Antoninus Pius; in which he mentions as a well-known fact, that Simon, a native of Gittum¹, a village in Sama­ria, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, was looked upon there as a god, and had a statue erected to him, with a Latin inscription, in the river Tiber, between the two bridges. Justin adds, that nearly all the Samaritans, and a few also in other nations, acknowledged and worshipped him as the supreme God^m. There is in this passage such a minute detail, such a confident appeal to the em­peror’s own knowledge of what the apologist was saying, that we can hardly suppose the story to be false, when not only the emperor, but every person in Rome, would have been able to detect it. I would observe also, that Justin Martyr was himself a native of Samaria: hence he was able to name the very place where Simon was born; and when he says in his second Defence, which was presented a few years later, “ I have despised the impious and “ false doctrine of Simon which is in my country",”

¹ Or Gitta. For the ortho- p. 337. graphy of this name, see Le ^m Apol. I. 26. p. 59.

Clerc ad Constit. Apost. VI. 7. " Apol. II. 15. p. 98.

when we see the shame which he felt at the name of.Christian being assumed by the followers of that impostor, we can never believe that he would have countenanced the story, if the truth of it had not been notorious.; much less would he have given to his own country the disgrace of originating the evil.

We may now proceed to the life: of Simon Magus, as far as we can collect it from different writers. We have seen that he was a native of Gittum, a town ,in- Samaria; and it is .stated in a suspicious document, of ancient, though jdoubtful date, that he Studied for some time at Alexandria⁰. Concerning the time of his birth, and of his first rising into no­tice, little can now be known. The only contempo­rary document which mentions him, is the Acts of the Apostles; and we there read, that when Philip the deacon preached the gospel in Samaria after the death of Stephen, there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sor­cery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to wham, they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, sayings This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard^ because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries, (viii. 9—11.) Ac­cording to the calculation, which I followed in my last Lecture, the death of Stephen happened in the

⁰ This is taken from the post. 6.) but Montfaucon sup- Clementine Homilies, II. 22. a posed the composition of them

work consisting of nineteen to be later by some centuries.

Homilies, and falsely ascribed (Op. Athanas. vol. II. p. 125.)

to Clemen^ofRome. Le Clerc They were first published by

considered' them to be written Cotelerius, in his edition of the

by an Ebionite in the second Patres Apostolici, in 1672. See

century: (Praef. ad Patres A- Lardner, Credibility, c. 29.

same year with the crucifixion of our Lord : and it appears from the passage now quoted, that Simon’s celebrity had begun some time before. We are then told, that Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and won- dsred, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. {13.) I need not mention how he shortly fell away from the faith which he had embraced; and how St. Peter rebuked him for thinking that the gift of God might be purchased for rnoney: (20.) but I would observe, that some of those persons who insist upon the fact that Simon was not a Christian, appear to have forgotten that he was actually baptized. For a time at least he believed in Jesus Christ; and part of this belief he appears always to have retained: i. e. he always believed that Jesus Christ was a Be­ing more than human who came from God.

If these events happened, as I have supposed, within a short time of our Lord’s ascension, the Fathers had good reason to call Simon Magus the parent of all heresies: for he must then have been among the first persons, beyond the limits of Jeru­salem, who embraced the gospel; and we might hope, that there was no one before him who per­verted the faith which he had professed. St. Luke at least mentions no other ; and thoiigh Dositheus has been named as the companion of Simon Magus, and the Dositheans are placed before the Simonians by some writers, yet it seems probable, if such a person existed at all, that Dositheus was leader of a Samaritan sect before or after the period of which we are speaking; and the time would hardly allow him to have embraced Christianity, and fallen away from it, before Simon Magus⁴⁰.

From the detailed account which we have of Si­mon in the Acts of the Apostles, I should be inclined to infer these two things : 1, that St. Luke knew no earlier instance of apostasy from the gospel; and he mentions this because it was the first: and 2, that when St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, the heresy of Simon was widely spread, and there­fore he tells his readers how it had begun.

Concerning the remainder of Simon’s life we know little; and. in that little it is difficult to se­parate truth from fiction. I should be inclined, for the reasons given above, to believe the account of Justin Martyr, who says that Simon Magus went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and attracted numerous followers. Eusebius quotes this passage of Justin Martyr: but he adds, upon some other authority, which he does not name, that St. Peter came to Rome at the same time; and that in conse­quence of his preaching, the popularity of the im­postor was entirely destroyed p. This would be a most interesting and important fact, if we were cer­tain of its being true: but Eusebius contradicts himself in his account of Simon Magus going to Romei; and later writers have so embellished the story of this meeting, and made the death of Simon so astonishingly miraculous, that criticism is at a loss to know what to believe. The account which we have of Simon’s death is in a few words as fol­lows. St. Peter and St. Paul being both at Rome, Simon Magus gave out that he was Christ, and in

p Eccles. Hist. II. 13 et 14. “ novs,” and yet in c. 14. he

1 In c. 13. he says that Si- says that he went to Rome

mon went to Rome, “ when immediately after the rebuke

“ the religion of Christ had which he received from St.

“ now spread «s travras dvdpm- Peter, Acts viii. 20. &c.

proof of his assertion he undertook to raise himself aloft into the air. The attempt at first appeared as if it would succeed ; but the two apostles addressing themselves in prayer to God, the impostor fell to the ground, and his death ensued shortly after. It is difficult to give this marvellous narration without forgetting that we are treating of a grave and sacred subject: and the question for us to consider is, whe­ther we are to look upon the whole as a fiction, or whether, as is most probable, it contains a basis and groundwork of truth.

I would observe in the first place, that Arnobius, who did not write till the beginning of the fourth century, is the first person who says any thing of Simon’s death at all approaching to this story: nor does he by any means give it with all the particu­lars which later writers have supplied. It will be observed also, that Eusebius, who wrote after Ar­nobius, does not say any thing of Simon’s extraordi­nary end; but merely states that his credit and in­fluence were extinguished, as soon as St. Peter began to preach in Rome. It is probable therefore that no Greek writer before the time of Eusebius had men­tioned this story: but on the other hand, there is such an host of evidence, that the death of Simon Magus was in some way or other connected with the presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, that we might be carrying our scepticism too far, if we rejected it altogether⁴¹. Perhaps the relation of Eu­sebius, so far as it is supported by Justin Martyr, may enable us to ascertain the truth. Eusebius, in the first place¹, says that Simon Magus came to

^r Eccles. Hist. II. 13.

Rome, where the religion of Christ had been preach­ed throughout the world, els wavrag avQpumvg. This expression is not upon any hypothesis to be taken very literally: but the gospel could not in any sense be said to be preached throughout the world, till at least some time after the apostles had left Jerusa­lem. I conjectured in my first Lecture that this did not take place till about the time of St. Paul setting out on his first journey. He set out in the year 45, which was the fifth year of the reign of Clau­dius : and since that emperor reigned nearly four­teen years, we have about nine years remaining, during which Simon Magus, according to the state­ment of Justin Martyr, may have gone to Rome. We might perhaps quote Justin as indicating that the arrival of Simon in that city was late in the reign of Claudius: for sufficient time had previously elapsed for the religious tenets of Simon to spread through all Samaria, and to be received in several other parts of the world. It might be thought also from the Epistle to the Romans, that St. Paul, at the time of his writing it, had not heard of the Gnostic philosophy making much progress in Rome. He says that the faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout the whole world, (i. 8.) and their obedience was come abroad unto aU men: (16,19.) nor can I discover in this Epistle any allusions to Gnosticism: except it be in these words at the conclusion, Now I beseech you, brethren, mark th€m which cause di­visions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them: for they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, bid their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obe­

dience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf': but yet I would ham you wise unto that which is good, and simple concern- ingevil. (xvi.17-19.) These words may certainly have been directed against the false doctrines and pre­tended wisdom of the Gnostics ; and what is said of men not serving Jesus Christ, but their own belly $ may remind “us of what we know to have been the original desire of Simon Magus, to purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost for money, that he might exercise it himself: and the same allusion may be intended in the words which I quoted in my last Lecture, where St. Paul speaks of false teachers* who supposed that gain was godliness, (1 Tim. vi. 5.)

1. e. who turned religion into gain. If this be so, we may at least infer, that the doctrines of Simon Magus were but beginning to spread in Rome when this Epistle was written. It was written early in the year 53, which was the last year but one of the reign of Claudius: so that if we suppose the im­postor to have gone to Rome in the year before* Justin Martyr’s testimony is so far confirmed, who says that he was there in the reign of Claudius^s.

I should also infer from the words of Justin, that Simon remained a considerable time at Rome; or he would hardly have attracted so many followers, and received such honours in that city. St. Paul

^s The Recognitions of Cle- mon in that city, it must have

ment (II. l.) speak of Aquila been previous to the year 46 :

as having been a disciple of and Simon himself, though a

Simon: and they evidently Samaritan, would probably

mean the Aquila who joined- have been obliged to leave

St. Paul at Corinth. (Acts xviii. Rome by the decree of Clau-

2.) This was in the year 46, dius. But the authority of th® and Aquila was just come from Recognitions cannot be de- Rome; so that if he heard Si- pended on.

H

arrived in Rome for the first time in 56, two years after the death of Claudius; and from the total silence of ancient writers upon the subject, it seems not probable that Simon Magus was at Rome during the two years of St. Paul’s residence. I should con­clude therefore that Simon Magus went to Rome some time after the year 45 in the reign of Clau­dius, probably about the year 52, but had left it before the year 56: and since St. Luke appears to have published the Acts of the Apostles at the ex­piration of the two years which St. Paul spent at Rome, he may have inserted what he there says of the early history of Simon Magus, on account of the mischievous traces which he found of his doc­trine in Rome. If this hypothesis is correct, and if the testimony of Eusebius is also to be received, we must conclude that Simon Magus made a second visit to that city; a notion which is by no means improbable, if he was received there as a god, and honoured with a statue⁴¹. But notwithstanding his boasting and his success, he may still have been glad to leave Rome before St. Paul arrived there. The awful threatenings of St. Peter, (Acts viii. 20— 23.) though delivered about twenty years before, may still have sounded in his ears: and it may have been the dread of again confronting an apostle, which had driven him from place to place, that his spurious and garbled Christianity might circulate without encountering the truth. When St. Paid quitted Rome in the year 58, Simon Magus was probably on the watch, and again returned thither: or at least, according to Eusebius, when St. Peter was preaching in that city, the impostor was also there. Many ancient accounts agree in saying that

St. Peter and St. Paul suffered martyrdom together at the end of the reign of Nero. The Neronian persecution began in the year 64: and it is probable that St. Paid arrived at Rome about that time, and was followed by St. Peter. We have thus an in­terval of six years between St. Paul leaving Rome and returning to it again: and in the course of that interval I should infer that Simon Magus once more preached his doctrines in that city.

The history of these six years, so far as concerns the labours of the apostles, is almost a perfect blank. We may learn a few facts concerning St. Paul from his Second Epistle to Timothy, which was written after his arrival in Rome: and this Epistle contains many expressions which may be referred to the Gnostic doctrines: but they relate to what hap­pened at Ephesus, where Timothy was then re­siding; and we learn nothing of what had been going on at Rome, except from one short sentence, At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me. (iv. 16.) There may have been a predisposition in these persons to desert St. Paul, from the efforts which Simon Magus had made to gain proselytes during the apostle’s absence: and when the flames of persecution arose, these false or wavering Christians may have been glad to screen themselves by saying, that they were followers of Simon, and not of Christ. What became of the im­postor himself at that eventful period, we cannot learn: and when Eusebius tells us that his power and influence were extinguished ,by the preaching of St. Peter, it is difficult to conceive how this effect could have been produced, when the apostle himself was suffering from Nero’s ferocious cruelties. Per­il 2

haps we are to understand, that the followers of Simon, when they saw that the name of Christian, which they had assumed, exposed their lives to danger, would readily abandon a belief which had gained no hold upon their hearts*: but the true believers, whether at the stake or in the lion’s mouth, confessed their Saviour and their God; and the con­stancy of these men would gain converts to the true faith, while the trembling followers of Simon were glad to be forgotten and unknown¹¹. This perhaps may be the true interpretation of the statement in Eusebius, without our having recourse to the dra­matic effect of a public disputation between the apostle and the impostor ^x, or to the still more mar­vellous accounts which are given of the impostor’s death. Certain it is that the church of Rome was less infected by heresies for several years than the churches of the east?: and when Ignatius wrote to the Romans, about forty or fifty years after the time of which we are treating, he particularly mentions their being free from false doctrines². It is possible

¹ This is confirmed by Ori- Hist. p. 206. Nicephor. II. 27.

gen, who says of Simon, “that Glycas, Annal. p. 235. L. J. a

“ in order to gain followers, S. Carolo, Biblioth. Pontif. p.

“ he removed from his disci- 484.

“ pies the danger of death, >' This is said in several

“ which the Christians were places by bishop Bull. (Jud.

“ taught to undergo, by teach- Eccl. Cath. V. 2, 3. VI. 2. 19.)

“ mg them that idolatry was He quotes Rnffinus, who ob-

“ indifferent.” c. Cels. VI. 11. serves, that “ no heresy had

p. 638. “ taken its rise in Rome(In

^u For the principles and con- Symbol. §. 3 :) and he consi-

duct of the Gnostics with re- ders this to have been the

spect to the duty of martyr- meaning of Tertullian when he

dom, see note 64. calls the church of Rome “ fe-

^x For the public conferences “ lix ecclesia.” (de Prescript,

between St. Peter and Simon 36. p. 215.)

Magus, see Cedren. Compend. _/ ² In tit. Epist.

that the persecutions, which always raged more in the capital than in the provinces³, may have contri­buted to this happy result: in those days persons would not embrace Christianity, without well con­sidering what they were doing: it was the fire of persecution which tried every man's work qf what sort it was; (1 Cor. iii. 13;) and in this manner it may be perfectly true, that the preaching of St. Pe­ter in those perilous and sanguinary timeis was the means of extinguishing the doctrine of Simon Ma­gus.

That doctrine, however, as we have seen, had been spreading for upwards of twenty years in vari­ous parts of the world: and Justin Martyr informs us, that its progress was surprisingly great. It is plain from his statement, and from that of other writings, that no small injury arose from this cir­cumstance to the cause of the gospel. The absurd opinions and flagitious lives of many of the Gnostics caused the name of Christ to be blasphemed among the Gentiles, who did not distinguish between the real and pretended followers of Jesus Christ. It is not improbable, that the name of Samaritan, which was confounded by some heathen writers with that of Christian, may have become so widely spread from the popularity of Simon Magus⁴³.

That popularity seems principally to have arisen from his astonishing success in exhibitions of the magic art^b. It may seem absurd in our own day to

' ^a See Mosheim, (de Rebus note ⁴³. Brotier in Tacit. An-

ante Const. Cent. I. 35. note ", nal. XV. 44.

and Instit. Maj. I. 5. 22. p. ^b The Recognitions of Cle-

129.) where references will be ment are filled with the most

found to several other writers, fabulous stories of Simon’s as-

Also Gibbon, e. 16. p. 412. tonishing performances. Lib.

H 3

speak of magic being practised so successfully as the Fathers assure us that it was by Simon and his fol­lowers. But we need not go far back from our own enlightened times, if we would learn to what lengths human credulity can be carried. St. Luke himself has used the term magic, when speaking of Simon, (Acts viii. 9- 11.) and again with reference to Ely- mas, whom St.Paul struck blind in Cyprus⁰, (xiii. 6.) Irenaeus is express in saying that the followers of Simon, and other adherents of Gnosticism, were ce­lebrated for magic⁴⁴: nor can we think that this was merely a calumny of the Fathers, when we find Justin Martyr acknowledging that many Christians, before they were converted, had practised these wicked superstitions'¹. We have also the testimony of heathen writers to the same point. Thus Sueto­nius, when speaking of the persecution of the Chris­tians under Nero, describes them as “ a race of men “ of a new and magical superstition⁴⁵:” from which we may conjecture, that the Christians were falsely charged with those tricks and delusions which were really practised by the Gnostics. I may mention also, that Plutarch, who wrote at the beginning of the second century, had evidently heard of these in­cantations ; and the heathen philosopher might be mistaken for a Christian Father, when he states as a well-known fact, that “ magicians order those who “ are vexed by devils to repeat the Ephesian words ^e.” These Ephesian words or letters are well known to the classical reader as a popular method of enchant-

II. See also Nicephorus, Hist, in Gal. v. 20.

Eccles. II. 27. ^d Apol. I. 14. p. 51.

^c St.Paul mentions (pa.piia.Keiy. ^e Sympos. VII. 5. p 706. D. among the works of the flesh

ment^f: and we have proof that Ephesus, for some centuries before, had been celebrated in this ways. That enchantments were practised there in the days of the Apostles, we may learn from the New Testa­ment itself: for it was at Ephesus that many of them which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: (Acts xix. 19^h.) and Timothy was residing at Ephesus, when St. Paul forewarned him, as in the text, that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. These seducers, or <ymires, were evidently men who dealt in magic: and though the charitable expression of St. Paul may have been partly true, that some of them were not deceivers, but deceived ; this can hardly have been the case with Simon Magus, whose heart, we know, was not right in the sight of God. (Acts viii. 01.) There is no positive evidence that Simon Magus ever was at Ephesus, though that city seems to have been particularly infected with Gnostic doc­trines’ : but there is every reason to believe that he was engaged for a long time, and with great success,

*

^f See Wyttenbach’s Note to of J. Ch. Ortlob, de Ephesiorum Plutarch, de Sent. Profect. in Libris, in the same Collection, Virt. p. 85. B.. and Eustathius Part II.

ad Od. I. p. 694. ed. 1559. ' There is reason, however, Dilherr, Eccles. Syr. p. 355. to hope, that the faith of the Praetorius, Alectryomantia, p. Ephesians was not more shaken 175. by these attacks than that of

b Plutarch speaks of Sa-oi rav other Churches. See the ad- paywv iv ' Ecpecra tiwrpi^ovres in dress to the Church of Ephesus the time of Alexander. Rev. ii. 2. So Ignatius praises

^h Concerning these books, the Ephesians, “ that no heresy see Ursinus, Analect. Sacr. vol. “ dwelleth in you(6.) though

II. c. 5. p. 60. and a Disserta- he speaks immediately after of tion of Ch. Siberius de irepiep- pretended Christians being a- yLa Ephesiorum,, appended to mong them, to whom they had the Critici Sacri: also another not listened.

H 4

in deluding the inhabitants of Samaria and Judaea. Our Lord foretold, that false Christs and false pro­phets should arise, who would shew great signs and wonders: he adds, If they shall say unto you, Be­hold he is in the desert, go not forth^k: (Matt. xxiv. 24-26.) and it is remarkable how exactly the words of Josephus prove the completion of the prophecy. The Jewish historian tells us, that toward the end of the reign of Claudius magicians and impostors persuaded the multitude to follow them into the de­sert, for they would shew them signs and wonders; and many were persuaded, and suffered for their folly¹. It has been thought by some that Josephus actually names the person of whom we are now speaking: for he mentions a Jew, of the name of Simon, a Cyprian by birth, who was a friend of Felix the governor, and pretended to be a magician ^m. This, however, is mere conjecture: and the name of Simon was so common in that country, that we can­not infer any thing from the coincidence, particularly when Justin says expressly, that Simon Magus was a native of Samaria¹¹- We need not go beyond the mys­teries of the Cabbala to understand that the exercise of magic would be popular in Judaea: and if it be true that Simon Magus studied at Alexandria, he would find that the Pythagorean and Platonic doc­trines were by no means free from such supersti-

^k See Matt. xxiv. 5. 11. Baron, ad an. 35. n. 20. p. 104.

Mark xiii. 5, 6. Luke xxi. 8. It is doubted by Ittigius, p. 27.

^I Antiq. xx. 8. 6. p. 972. J. C. Wolfius, Cur. Philol. ad

^m lb. 7. 2. p. 969. Act. Apost. viii. 9. p. 1125.

^II The Simon mentioned by Bmcker, vol. II. p. 668. Mo- Josephus was considered to be sheim thinks it safer to follow Simon Magus by Le Moyne, Justin. Instit. Maj. p. 398, 9. Proleg. ad Var. Sacr. 18. 2. 6. though he once held a different Basnage, Exerc. H. Crit. c.- opinion, DeunoSimoneMago, 17.

tions. We have thus a key to the astonishing suc­cess which Simon Magus obtained in propagating his doctrines. He deluded the multitude by lying wonders; he enticed the learned by philosophy and vain deceit. It is probable that the natae of Christ was profaned to both these purposes. We know from the Acts of the Apostles that exorcism was a regular profession among the Jews⁰: (xix. 13.) and though Simon found that the gift of God was not to be purchased with money, (viii. 20.) he would try to imitate the Apostles as much as he could, and, like the sons of Sceva, he would call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus. (xix. 13.) When the unhappy demoniacs were acted upon by fancy, the experiment would often succeed : and thus that holy name, at which every knee should bow, was associated with impious rites, and used as the spell of an enchanter.

With respect to the doctrines of Simon Magus, we know for certain that Christ held a conspicuous place in the philosophy which he taught: but to define with accuracy the various points of this phi­losophy, is a difficult, if not impossible task. The Fathers perhaps may be suspected of laying too many impieties to the charge of this heretic; and some of their accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. Still, however, we may extract from their writings an outline of the truth; and in this instance, as before, I would attach particular weight to the authority of Justin Martyr. That writer says, that nearly all the inhabitants of Samaria, and a few persons in other countries, acknowledged and

⁰ See Harenbergius, de Magis Judais, in Mus. Bremens, vol.-1.

worshipped Simon Magus as the first, or supreme GodP: and in another place he says that they styled him God above all dominion and authority and power *1. Later writers have increased the blasphemy of this doctrine; and said that Simon declared him­self to the Samaritans as the Father, to the Jews as the Son, and to the rest of the world .as the Holy Ghost^r. But I cannot bring myself to believe that he ever advanced so far in wickedness or absurdity. The true state of the case may perhaps be collected from the words of St. Luke, who tells us that Simon gave himself out to be some great one, and that the people said of him, This man is the great power of God. (Acts viii. 10.) Such is the title which he bore before he had heard of Christ; and there is no reason to think that he afterwards raised his pre­tensions, and identified himself with God. He gave himself out as the great power of God, i. e. a person in whom divine power resided³: and, after he had heard the Apostles, he seems to have so far enlarged his doctrine, as to have said, that the God, whose minister he was, and who had always been wor­shipped in Samaria, had revealed himself to the

p Apol. I. 26. p. 59. “ speciosus, ego Paracletus,

9 Dial, cum Tryph. 120. p. “ ego omnipotens, ego omnia 214. “ Dei.” (in Matt. xxiv. 5. vol.

¹ Iren. I. 23. p. 99. II. 9 2. p. 126. Epiphan. Hser. XXI 1. Vol. I. p. 55. Vol. II. p 139. Theodoret. Heer. Fab. I 1. p. 192. Augustin. Har. vol

VII. p. 193.) See Siricius de Simone Mago, Disq. I. Thes. 31. p. 30.

“For the meaning attached by Simon to the word diva/us,

VIII. p. 6. Tertullian also see Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p

says, that Simon called himself 401. Suicer, v. Swa/ur. It

“ summum Patrem.” (DeAni- may have been on this account

ma, 34. p. 290.) Jerom repre- that St. Paul calls Christ the

sents Simon as saying, “ Ego power of God and the

“ sum Sermo Dei, ego sum of God, 1 Cor. i. 24.

Jews by his Son, and to the rest of the world by the Holy Ghost. There is reason to believe that he de­dared himself to be the Christ who appeared to the Jews; or rather, he said that the same spirit which descended upon Jesus had descended afterwards upon himself; for he did not believe that Jesus had a real body, but he taught that he was only a phan­tom. To this he added, that the Holy Ghost, by which God was revealed to the Gentiles, resided in himself: and this I take to be the real origin of the story, that he was the God who revealed himself as the Father to the Samaritans, as the Son to the Jews, and as the Holy Ghost to the rest of the world⁴⁶.

Another charge, which it is equally difficult to believe, relates to a female companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first Idea, or Con­ception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another mental process, in which this first Idea was a partner, he produced the Angels, and they created the world. All this is highly mystical, and writers have had recourse to different allegories, by which the absurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living person with an Idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be assumed as certain⁴’. But we see in this story evi­dent traces of the Gnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first Cause, or Bythus, act upon or ’Ewarn, i. e. upon his own mind, and produce the first pair of iEons. This, then, was the doctrine of Simon: The supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of Angels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or principal power resided in Simon

Magus. But when later writers had said that he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he, who, by an operation of his own mind, produced the Angels.

If I have argued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of its impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which is impious; for he believed that the world was cre­ated, not by the supreme God, but by inferior be­ings : he taught also, that Christ was one of those successive generations of iEons which were derived from God; not the iEon which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue mankind from the tyranny of the Demiurgus, or creative iEon⁴®. Simon was also inventor of the strange notion, that the Person who was said to be born and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His other doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not inspired by the supreme God, the fountain of good, but by those inferior be­ings who created the world, and who were the au­thors of evil. He denied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his followers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious conduct.

Such was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the pseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon himself seems to have been one of those Jews, who, as we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil spirits^l. But he was also a man of speculative mind ; and, having

⁴ See also Matt. vii. 22. xii. 27.

studied the doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so commonly agitated, concerning the eternity of Matter, and the origin of Evilⁿ. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was created by Angels who were themselves produced from God. This, as we have seen, was a corrupted Platonism ^x- Plato imagined, that the Ideas which were in the mind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the supreme God by an operation of his own mind pro­duced the Angels. The first Intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world: Simon also taught that the Angels, or iGons, created the world: but in one respect, as I have observed before; the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato; for they taught that the Angel, or Angels, who created the world, acted contrary to the wishes of the supreme God y. We will now see whether the New Testament contains any allusions to this leading tenet of the Gnostics, that the world was not created by God, but by Angels or iEons.

“ The Recognitions speak of ion of the later Gnostics, though

Simon as “ particularly well Simon himself appears to have

“ versed in Greek literature.” departed less abruptly from the

(II. 7.) That he wrote books, doctrine of Plato. The author

is said by Jerom, (in Matt, of the Recognitions makes him

XXIV. 5. vol. VII. p. 193.) the say, “ Ipse (bonus Deus) misit

Apostolical Constitutions, (VI. “ creatoremDeum, ut conderet

16.) and Dionysius Areop. de “ mundum: sed ille, mundo

Divin. Nom. VI. 2. p. 736.) “ condito, semetipsum pro-

He is also stated to have been “ nunciavit Deum.” II. 57.

a distinguished orator and dia- Yet Epiphanius represents him

lectician, (Recogn. II. 5.) as teaching that the world was

^x According to Hyde, the Per- not of God; (p. 52.) that he

sians also taught, that God or- himself created the Angels, who

dered the good Angels to create created the world, (p. 56.) The-

the heavens, and the Devil odoret says the same, p. 192.

caused darkness, c. 22. p. 293. See Brucker, vol. II. p. 677.

y This was certainly the opin- Mosheim, Instit. p. 414.

The term JEon, is one to which it is very difficult to attach a definite or uniform meaning *. It seems however almost demonstrable, that in its primary sense the Greek term was applied to an indefinite period, and that period was relatively a long one ^a. When philosophers had agreed that the world had a beginning, but that God was without beginning, a word was Wanted to express the duration of God’s ex­istence. The indefinite term aim naturally presented itself: and hence we find Aristotle deducing from it, even etymologically, the notion of Eternity^b; and Plato expressly opposed it to xpo'vo?, or Time^c- Time began when the Intelligences, which were produced by God, created the world: but God himself, and these Intelligences, had existed before Time. The duration of their existence was therefore measured by iEons. It is obvious however, that the term was applied with different notions to God and to these In­telligences. When applied to God, it properly signi­fied eternity, or unoriginated immensity of duration. But the Intelligences which He formed, had a begin-

^z Theodoret says of the Gnos­tics, “ They are not aware that “ JEon is not something which “ has a substantial existence, “ but a certain space indicative “ of time ; of infinite time, “ when it is applied to God, “ sometimes of a period com- “ mensurate with creation, “ sometimes with human life.” Heer. Fab. V. 6. p. 264.

^a Aristotle says that aliov was used for the measure of the period of human life, de Caelo, I. 9. For the different meanings of the term, see Damascen. de Orthod. Fid. II. 1. vol. I. p.

153. Suicer v. alav. Mangey's note to Philo Judaeus, vol. I. p. 619. Tittman. de Vestigiis Gnosticismi in N. T. frustra qucesitis, p. 210.

^b Kai yap tovto Tovvofia Oelats ECpdeyKTat napa tg*v dp^atcov .... eortv (2770 tov del elvat TrjV

imovvjilav. De Ccelo, I. 9. p. 97. ed. 1605.

^c Eikg> 5* eTTtvoei klvtjtov Ttva atatvos TTOLTjfTai, Kai diaKOO'fiSw apa ovpavbv irotei pepovros alatvos ev ev\ tear dpL0pov lovtrav alSvtov €LKOVa, TOVTOV OV &7J %pOVOV 0>VO-

jiaKajxev. Timtms, p. 37. xpovos It ovv per ovpavov yeyovev. ib. 38.

ning, though not in Time: and the same term, when applied to their existence, signified a long, but not an eternal duration. We have only to carry on this idea, and we may easily comprehend the iEons of the Gnostics. Philosophers had already personified the Platonic Ideas, and converted them into intellectual beings: the next step was to call them by the name which properly signified the duration of their exist­ence⁴⁹. The iEons therefore of the Gnostics were incorporeal beings, who had a beginning, but whose existence commenced before time, or the creation of the world. This however was an esoteric and pecu­liar sense of the term: in common language it still continued to signify a certain portion of time: and' Philo Judaeus, though when speaking philosophi­cally he opposes it to time, yet in several places uses it for any period which is relatively long, and even for a portion of human life. The Greek trans­lators of the Bible also used it in both these senses. When applied to God, it generally means eternity; but it frequently signifies merely a long period of time.

The writers of the New Testament evidently used it in this sense: and they often qualify the expres­sion, so as to mark the present state of human ex­istence^d. But when we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that God hath spoken unto us by his Son, by whom also he made the worlds, tovf al&vaf, (i. 2.) we have perhaps here an evident allusion to the Gnostic doctrines: and the apostle may have in­tended to say, that Christ was not one of the later iEons, as the Gnostics vainly taught, but it was he by whom the iEons themselves were made^e. Nor

^d Matt. xii. 32. xiii. 22. Luke ^e Theodoret charges the xvi. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 10. &c. &c. Gnostics with saying that there

would the apostle by this use of the term counte­nance the Gnostic doctrine of iEons: he would merely mean to say, that before those periods of time which the Gnostics had personified, or before those angelic beings, out of which the Gnostics had made their imaginary iEons, Christ the Son of God existed; and it was he who made those very beingsj which were said by the Gnostics to have made the world. I do not mean to say, that the term alwms ought not in this place to be translated the worlds : it probably had obtained that meaning before the time of the Apostle: (see Psalm lv. 19. and Heb. xi; 3.) but I conceive that the Jewish Christians, to whom he was writing, would well know the Gnostic use of the term, and it would convey to their ears the doctrine which was intended by the apostle, that Christ the Son of God was before all time^f. It was probably for the same reason, that the act of crea­tion is so often attributed to Christ: and when St; John said, All things were made by him, and with­out him was not any thing made, (i. 3.) he certainly meant to include intellectual beings, such as the Gnostics called iEons, as well as the visible world, which he afterwards calls Koalas. In many other places aU things are said to have been made by Christ but nowhere is the Gnostic doctrine of iEons and of the creation more fully refuted than in the Epistle to the Colossians: By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in

were many JEons older than N. T. I. p. 710. the Creator. Hter. Fab. V. 6. ^f Valentinus said that St.

p. 264. Fabricius says, “ that Paul spoke of the iEons. Iren.

“ it would not be absurd to I. 3, 1. p. 14.

“ understand angels in this s See 1 Cor. viii. 6.

“ place by al&ves.” Cod. Apoc.

earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist, (i. 16,17.) St. Paul appears to exhaust his vocabulary, and to dive into the arcana of Gnosticism, that he may prove Christ to have existed before all time; not only before the world, though that was made by him; but before every being which the most profound ab­straction, or the most inventive fancy, had clothed with an imaginary existence. By these and similar expressions the system of the Gnostics was totally subverted: they held that God and the Creator were two different persons⁵®: but the apostles say in one place that God created the world, in another that Christ created it; in another that God created it by Christ and for Christ: nor is this all: not only was the material world created by Christ, but all angelic, beings (one of whom was said by the Gnostics to be the Creator, and another to be Christ*) are declared by the apostles to be themselves cre­ated by Christ.

If these declarations were so repeatedly made by the apostles for the purpose of refuting the Gnostic doctrines, it is probable that those commentators may be right, who have supposed St. Paul to have had the same object in view, when he said to Titus, But amid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about ike law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic after ike first and second admonition reject', know­ing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself, (iii. 9,10.) It has been supposed, that the genealogies here mentioned might

i

relate to those numerous generations of iEons, which the Gnostic philosophy interposed between the su­preme God and the Demiurgus : and, if so, we might feel still less doubt concerning another passage, where these genealogies are called endless. St. Paul says to Timothy, Neither give heed to fables and end­less genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying, which is in faith—-frcm which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law, under­standing neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. (1 Tim. i. 4-7.) In both passages, beside these genealogies, mention is made of contentions about the law: from whence some have inferred, that the Jewish genealogies, rather than the Gnostic iEons, were the subject of the apostle’s vituperation. We know, that the Jews were particular in pre­serving their genealogies: but it is difficult to see what mischief could arise from this cause to St. Paul’s Christian converts at Ephesus. Beside which he says, that these teachers of the law understood neither what they said, nor whereof they affirmed; which could hardly be the case with any Jews, if they were so attached to their religion, as to be careful in keeping their genealogies. Neither would St. Paul be likely to speak of these genealogies as fool­ish questions, when it is plain from two of the gospels, that the Jewish genealogy of Jesus Christ and his descent from Abraham were considered im­portant points¹*. On the other hand, we know that the Jewish Cabbala was filled with fables about

^h The descent of Christ from preaching. 2 Tim. ii. 8. Acts

David, and therefore from A- xiii. 23. Rom. i. 3. ix. 5. Heb.

braham, appears to have been vii. 13, 14. an important point in St.Paul’s

successive emanations from God: and these fables, together with the corrupted philosophy of Plato, contributed to the growth of Gnosticism. The Gnostics therefore, according as the case required, would endeavour to support their doctrines by ap­pealing to Plato or to the Jewish scriptures: they would try to pervert both to suit their purpose; and these may have been the persons, who St. Paul speaks of as desiring to he teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. The Epistle to Timothy con­tains some other passages, which allude very plainly to the Gnostic doctrines; and I should therefore conclude, that what is here said of endless genealo­gies may very probably relate to their successive generations of iEons⁵¹.

I am only aware of one other place in the New Testament where the word iEon can be thought to be personified, and used for one of the Angels or Spirits of the Gnostic creed. It is in the Epistle to the Ephesians (ii. 2.) where St. Paul speaks of their having walked in time past according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worTceth in the chil­dren of disobedience. What is here translated the course of this world is the JEon of this world, tov alma, tov ko(T[j.ov toutov, and if this member of the sen­tence is to be explained by the one which follows, according to the prince of the power of the air, it might certainly seem to be inferred, that the jEon of this world, and the prince of the power of the air were one and the samei. It is plain from other

' Buddeus confesses that no about this text. Beausobre-pre- interpreter ever satisfied him fers taking alava in a personal

I 2

expressions of St. Paul, that the Almighty does allow evil spirits to have some power in injuring his crea­tures^k: but when the apostle said, that the Ephe­sians had walked formerly according to the course, or iEon, of this world, he may have used the term in its proper sense, and have meant to say, that they had walked according to those evil habits which had prevailed in the world from the commencement of that period, which marks its duration. (Compare Col. iii. 6, 7. Rom. xii. 2.) The iEon of this world would thus be the period of time allotted to the existence of this present scene of things: and St. Paul seems to use it in this sense, when he speaks of our wrestling against the rulers of the darkness of this world, or iEon, (Eph. vi. 12.) and of the God of this world, or iEon, having blinded the minds of them which believe not. (2 Cor. iv. 4.) In both these passages St. Paul is evidently speaking of evil spi­rits : and the term JEon can only be used with reference to that period of time, in which these fallen beings are allowed to exercise their malignant power. The Gnostic philosophy was filled with superstitious and mystical notions concerning Angels or iEons.. The speculations of Plato would furnish an ample foundation for such a superstructure; and the Cabbalistic Jews would load it with several orders of good and evil Angels, the names of which were brought with them from Babylon¹. Hence

sense, “ selon l’Eon, ou le " quae in saeculo versantur, ac­" Prince de ee Monde.” vol. I. “ cipitur: ut in Gal. i. 4: Eph. p. 575. I should mention that “ ii. 7.” vol. VII. p. 594. Jerom interprets alavav in Eph. ^k Eph. iv. 27. vi. 12. Col. i. iii. 9. of “ omnes spirituales et 13. 1 Pet. v. 8. James iv. 7.

“ rationabiles creaturae quae in ¹ I may refer to notes 24,

“ saeculis fuerunt. Saeculum and 28, where I have spoken

“ quippe frequenter pro his of the belief in Angels as held

every leader of the Gnostics had some peculiar no­tion concerning Angels; and it has been thought that St. Paul alluded to some of them, or to Simon Magus in particular, when he said to the Colossians, Let no man beguile you of your reward in a volun­tary humility and worshipping of Angels, intrud­ing into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (ii. 18, 19.) It is said by Tertullian^m, that Simon Magus wor­shipped Angels, and that he was rebuked for this by St. Peter, as for a species of idolatry. He evidently means, that Simon worked his pretended miracles by invoking the agency of spirits: and we have abundant proof, that great power was attributed to the spiritual world in the time of our Saviour, and for many ages after. Clement of Alexandria¹¹ in­forms us, that those who practised magic offered worship to Angels and daemons ; and he appears to have had in his mind this passage of the Epistle to the Colossians. Epiphanius also says, that Simon in­vented certain names for principalities and powers⁰: all which may incline us to think that St. Paul may have alluded to the Gnostics, and particularly to the Jewish Gnostics, who intruded into things which they had not seen, when they speculated upon the creation and government of the world-by Angels ; who were vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind,

by the Platonists and the Cab- ^m De Prescript. Hseret. 33.

balists: and from these two p. 214.

quarters the Gnostic notion of " Strom. III. 6. p. 533.

Angels was derived. ⁰ Hser. XXI. 4. p. 58.

I 3

when they boasted of having arrived at the per­fection of knowledge in these matters; and who did not hold the head, from which all the body by joints and bands is knit together; when instead of making God and Christ p the head of all things in heaven and in earth, they only gave to Christ a place among the other iEons, and taught that the world was cre­ated by an Angel or Angels, who in so doing acted in opposition to God⁵³.

With the examination of these passages I shall close the present Lecture, reserving for the next some other points of the Gnostic doctrines, which appear to be alluded to in the apostolic writings. We have perhaps been considering the history of a man, who caused a greater portion of evil, than ever proceeded from the mere aberrations of a speculating mind. If Simon Magus was the first who profaned the name of Christ to his philosophical ravings and his unholy mysteries, he is a proof to what an ex­tent delusion and credulity may be carried; but he is also a proof that mere human philosophy alone may play around the ear, and exercise the head, but it does not touch the heart. Where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the disputer of this world f the foolishness of God is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

p Compare Eph. iv. 15, 16.

LECTURE V.

Titus i. 16.

They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.

Before i proceed to consider the other points of the Gnostic system, which are alluded to in the New Testament, I should wish to notice an opinion of Tertullian, which, if correct, would go further to shew that the apostles referred to that false phi­losophy, than almost any instance which we could produce. Tertullian, in his work upon heresies, ex­pressly discusses our present subject; and among the heresies which he represents as refuted by the apostles, he says, that “ St. Paul, when he con- “ demned those who served, or were in bondage to “ elements, points to a doctrine something like that “ of Hermogenes, who taught that Matter was not “ produced, and put it on a level with God who is “ not produced; and thus making a deity out of “ Matter, the parent of the elements, he bring®' him- “ self to worship that which he put on a level with “ God^a.” I would observe upon these words, that Hermogenes appeared as the leader of a sect about the year 170; and taught, as we see from this pas­sage, that matter is eternal, and that God did not create the world out of nothing¹*. This we know to

^a De Prescript. Hseret. 33. ^b Mosheim, de Rebus ante p. 214. Const. Cent. II. 7°-

I 4 •

have been the belief of many philosophers long before the days of Hermogenes; and Tertullian thought that St. Paul meant to expose this error, when he spoke of persons being in bondage to elements^c. There are two Epistles of St. Paul to which Tertullian may have alluded, that to the Galatians, and that to the Colossians; but in neither of them can it be sup­posed, that the elements, which are spoken of, relate to the elements of Matter, out of which the world was made. The error of the Galatians was evi­dently that of a fondness for Judaism : and St. Paul almost defines his use of the term elements, when he says, How turn ye again to ihe weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bon­dage ? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years^rt. (iv. 9. 10.) So also in his Epistle to the Colossians, he explains himself in the same way, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudi­ments [or elements] of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye Subject to ordinances, Touch not, taste not, handle not^ef (ii. 20, 21.) No person can doubt, that in both these places allusion is made to the ordinances of the Mosaic law. It may be conjectured indeed, that the Gnostics, whose principle it was to borrow something from every creed, made a boast of observing these outward or­dinances, and thus succeeded in gaining the Jews. In the Epistle to the Colossians, which was written

^c Chrysostom supposed St. so we, when we were children,

Paul in Col. ii. 8. to allude to were in bondageunder the elements

the error of observing certain of the world. days, and to mean by <n-oix«a ^e So in v. 8. he had said, Be-

the Sun and Moon. Serm. VI. ware lest any man spoil you, See.

in Col. after the rudiments of the world,

^d He had said in v. 3. Even and not after Christ.

probably six years after that to the Galatians, there are many allusions to Gnostic errors^f: and it may have been these insidious teachers, (some of whom, it will be remembered, were Jews by birth,) who endeavoured to bring the Colossians into bondage, under the elements of the world. But the Galatians seem to have suffered merely from Jewish teachers, who wished scrupulously to enforce every precept and ordinance of their religion.

It is not difficult to see why St. Paul spoke of these ordinances as the elements of the world. An element is the first beginning or outline of any thing: as when St. Paul says to the Hebrews, Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles [or elements] of the oracles of God, (v. 12.) It was thus that the letters of the alphabet were called elements: and so the component parts of Matter were called elements ; in which sense Tertullian supposes St. Paul to have used the term ; and in which sense it is unquestionably used by St. Peter, when he says, that at the last day the ele­ments shaM melt with fervent heat. (2 Pet. iii. 10.) But in the same manner the Mosaic dispensation was merely the element or imperfect beginning of the Christian dispensation. As St. Paul says in the

^f Buddeus refers it generally (cont. Marcion. V. 19. p. 485.)

to the Cerinthians, who may In another place he refers Col.

be considered a branch of Jew- ii. 8. to Grecian philosophy,

ish Gnostics. Eccles. Apost. (De Prescript. 7. p. 204, 5.)

p. 461. 464. Clem. Streso re- Grotius himself conceived St.

ferred it to Jewish philoso- Paul to have used expressions

phers. Medit. in Col. ad 1. p. which might be applied to the

49. Grotius observes, that Jews and to philosophers, par-

Col. ii. 21. is said by Tertullian ticularly the Pythagoreans.—

not to refer to the Mosaic law. See Wolfius, Maniehieismus an-

But Tertullian only Says, that it te Manicfueos, II. 42. p. 181. does not refer to it exclusively.

first of these two Epistles, the law was our school­master to bring us unto Christ: (Gal. iii. 24.) it taught merely the elements of that faith which was afterwards to be revealed. Tertullian appears to have been deceived by St. Paul speaking of the ele­ments of the world; and to have understood him to mean the elements of matter, out of which the world was made. But the form of expression is one very common in Greek, and might perhaps be better ren­dered by worldly elements^g. St. Paul calls them weak and poor elements; because, as he says in an­other place, the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb.x.l.) So also he says, that the Mosaic sacrifices could not make him that did the service perfect, because they stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances. (Heb. ix. 9,10.) These ordi­nances of the flesh, or carnal ordinances, were pre­cisely the same with the elements of the world, or worldly elements : and we may conclude, therefore, that it was to the elements of Christianity contained in the Mosaic ceremonies¹¹, and not at all to the ele-

s So in Col. ii. 18. we find pl'ainly, when speaking of the

tov voos rrjs (TapKos for O’apKiKOV law, o fiev, iratdayayov rpoirov

poos’ in James i. 25. dKpoarrjS vrj-TTLa^ovTL TO) TrpuTtpa Aaw cttoi-

emXjjoyMM'Tjs for iirCkr)<Tpa>v aiepoa- X^{ela T}V^S fyx*i^{s T}^^{v T0}'"^> 8eov irape-

rrjs. Si'Soti \oyiav. eont. Marcell. I. p.

¹¹ This was evidently the in- 3. This shews in what sense

terpretation of Eusebius, who, Eusebius understood ra arotxela

when speaking of ra irpwra xal tov Kocrjiov, though in another

axrdevrj oroi^ela, calls them crip,- place he quotes the words rols

j3o\a itai e'lKovas. Dem. Evang. I. ko<t)ukois oroi^ei'oif with refer-

i°. p. 37- He also uses the ence to the elements, which were

expression rqs irpumjs .oroi^euo- worshipped by the idolatrous

(Teas Ttjs Kara Mtacrea \arpelas, heathen. Prop. Evang. I. 9. p.

ib. 6. p. 18: and still more 33. Clement of Alexandria

ments of Matter, that St. Paul referred in these places.

I am not aware of any passage in which the Apostles expressly declare, that God created the world out of nothing. This was one of the ques­tions which exercised the learned in the Schools : but it was not one with which the Apostles chose to encumber the minds of their hearers’. Whether the world was created by God, or by an inferior being, was a very different question. It involved directly the majesty of God, and indirectly the whole scheme of Christian redemption. All the practical errors, which arose out of a belief in the eternity of Matter, were exposed and condemned by the Apo­stles : but the belief itself, like other physical and metaphysical points, was left to the gradual deve- lopement of knowledge ; when at length it will be seen, as I have already observed, that to conceive God not to have the power of creating or annihi­lating Matter, is one of the most palpable inconsist­encies which the human intellect can entertain.

There is another expression, which occurs fre­quently in the New Testament, but concerning which we cannot so easily decide, whether it is ever used with reference to the Gnostics. I allude to the

was wrong in interpreting the irepiKeipevoi Kai rrjs Koo-fiiiajs 8prj-

elements of the world to mean o-m'arKarapxovTes. Bell.Jud.IV.

“the Grecian philosophy,” but 5. 2.

he was right in calling it aroi- * I only know of one pas-

XeKBTuoji' nva Kai irptmaiheLav -rijs sage which contains any thing

a\r)0elas. Strom. VI. 8. p. 771. like an allusion to a philoso-

Kaa-fUKos appears to be used in phical opinion about the crea-

Heb. ix. 1. with reference to tion; and that is 2 Pet. iii. 5 :

the Mosaic ritual: and the ex- but this appears to contain an

pression ro ayiav koitfiiKov may ancient notion of the Jews, be compared with the following See Psalm xxiv. 2.- cxxxvi. 6. in Josephus: Trp> Upav iadrjra

word Pleroma. It is well known, that this word held a conspicuous place in every system of Gnostic theology. The Pleroma was the name by which they described the dwelling-place of the first Cause, or supreme God. It is easy to see that this notion is fraught with absurdity: for if the Pleroma is not coextensive with the immensity of space, if there is any thing beyond or out of it, it follows, that either the Deity is made up of parts, and is in fact mate­rial ; or at least, that there is a portion of space in which he is not. The Gnostics were obliged to ad­mit the latter conclusion ; but they thought this a less inconsistency than to connect God in any man­ner with evil. They taught that Matter, which was coeternal with God, was out of the Pleroma ; but the Pleroma was the abode of God, and of the iEons which he put forth. We may trace the groundwork of this notion in the Platonic philosophy, which made the first of the three worlds to be the invisible or intellectual, where the Ideas, or first conceptions of all things, resided in the mind of the Deity : but I do not find in the writings of Plato any use in this sense of the word Pleroma. It was certainly used by the later Platonists ; and it has been disputed whether they did not borrow it from the Gnostics. It may be demonstrated also, that it was very com­mon with the Gnostics before the time of Irenaeus : and, what is more to our purpose, there is some evi­dence that it had a place in the vocabulary of Simon Magus. It is not very probable that he was the first inventor of it; and there are good reasons for supposing that this was one of the notions, for which the Gnostics were indebted to the Oriental philoso­phy⁵³. Whatever we may think of the origin of

this term, if it was at all common in the days of the apostles, there would be nothing extraordinary in our finding allusions to it in the New Testament.

It cannot be denied, that the word Pleroma is often used by the sacred writers without any other meaning than its common one of filling or com­pleting. But this is no argument in the present question. Nothing can be more marked or peculiar than the use of the term Logos in St, John’s Gos­pel, as applied to the Son of God ; and yet St. John often uses the same term in its common signification of word or discourse^k. In the same manner I only' wish to inquire, whether there are not some places in St. Paul’s Epistles, where he had in his mind the Gnostic notion concerning the Pleroma. We must remember, that the Pleroma was the abode of God and the iEons only: but it was the boast of the Gnostics, that they who had knowledge might in time ascend to the Pleroma. Now it seems to have been the object of St. Paul to get rid of this mysti­cal and exclusive notion : and with this view he may be conceived to have said to the Ephesians, Christ is the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the pleroma or fulness of him thatfilleth all in all', (i. 22, 23;)—and again, That ye may know the love of Christ, which passeih know­ledge, that ye might be filled with all the pleroma or fulness of God. (iii. 19.) And again, Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the pleroma or fulness of Christ, (iv. 13.) In all these passages, the* Ephe-

^k John ii. 22. iv. 39. viii. 55. xii. 38. xxi. 23.

sians were told, that the body of believers was the real Pleroma of God and of Christ: they dwelt in Christ, and Christ in them : and they were to come to this Pleroma by the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge. Here also is an allusion to the doctrines of the Gnostics; and we may think so the more from what we read at the end of the last passage, that we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, (iv. 14.)

But there is a still more apparent allusion to the Pleroma of the Gnostics in those remarkable words which occur in the Epistle to the Colossians, where it is said of Christ, that it pleased that in him should allfulness dwell, (i. 19.) And again, In him dweU- eth all the fulness qf the Godhead bodily, (ii. 9.) In the first of these two places the Pleroma may mean, as before, the body of believers who dwell in Christ, and he in them; but in the second, where we read, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments qf the world, and not after Christ; for in him dweUeth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; in these impressive words St. Paul may be conceived to have said, Listen not to that vain philosophy, which boasts by knowledge falsely so called to bring you to God, who dwells in an imaginary Pleroma: He dwells in Christ, and Christ in Him : seek therefore by the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, to dwell in Christ, and so may ye come to the only real and true Pleroma. There is perhaps too much of fancy in this interpretation; but it is at least somewhat confirmed by what we

know to be the fact, that the Gnostics themselves dwelt with peculiar emphasis upon these texts, and drew from them a mystical meaning, to suit their own notions concerning the Pleroma⁵⁴.

I stated in my second Lecture, that all the Gnos­tics agreed in denying the inspiration of the prophets and of the Jewish scriptures. The God of the Jews, and of the Old Testament, was not the supreme God and Father of Jesus Christ: but, according to different systems of the Gnostics, he was either the iEon who created the world, or one of the many Angels who presided over the world, or the principle of evil, who was a kind of second God. It was a funda­mental tenet of Gnosticism, that the supreme God was not revealed, till one of the iEons, called Christ, was sent to repair the evil which the Demiurgus, or creative iEon, had caused: consequently the supreme God was not revealed in the Jewish scriptures : and we have abundant evidence, that all the Gnostic sects agreed in holding this doctrine^ss. It was in fact a natural consequence of their sentiments con­cerning the creation of the world, and the origin of evil.

Some persons may perhaps think that the Saddu­cees led the way to this impiety; since they have been charged with rejecting all the books of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch. But learned men have endeavoured to shew, and apparently with great force, that this opinion is founded upon a mis­take ^s6; and if any Jewish sects led the way to the rejection of the prophets, it would rather be the Pharisees, and those who made the word of God of none effect by their traditions. This abuse of un­written traditions was carried to the greatest length

in the Cabbala; and we have seen, that the Cabbala contributed greatly to the rise of Gnosticism. What­ever may be thought of the Sadducees, it can hardly be doubted that the Samaritans denied the inspiration of the prophetical books. Simon Magus, it will be remembered, was a native of Samaria; and it is ex­pressly said by many of the Fathers, that he and his immediate successors denied the prophets to be inspired by the supreme God. We have thus per­haps found the cause of this opinion being so con­stantly maintained by all the Gnostics. The great leader of the sect was bred up to deny the inspiration of the Jewish prophets: from his earliest childhood he had probably heard them abused with all the ran­cour of national antipathy: and when he perfected his scheme of philosophy, he made it an article of belief, that the supreme God could not have been the God of the Jews, nor could he have inspired the prophets.

The faith of the Christian converts was exposed to danger in this fundamental point, whenever they listened to a Gnostic teacher: and this perhaps may explain why the apostles, though addressing them­selves to Gentile converts, so often quote the Jewish prophets. It was essential to them, to shew that the Jewish and Christian dispensations were parts of one and the same system: that the same God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, by whom also he made the worlds. (Heb. i. 1, 2.) This one sentence subverted several consequences of the Gnostic doctrine. The supreme God was not, as the Gnostics said, unknown till the time of Christ.

He was unknown indeed to the heathen, to those who did not like to retain God in their knowledge: (Rom. i. 28.) but he was known to his chosen peo­ple ; he was known to his prophets, who had from the first foretold the coming of Christ, by the salva­tion of the Gentiles. When St. Paul spoke of the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, (Eph. iii. 4. 5.) he may have wished to shew, con­trary to the Gnostics, that the same Spirit inspired the apostles and prophets, and that to both of them was revealed the mystery of the same God. So also he is anxious to shew, that both Jews and Gentiles have access by one spirit unto■ the father, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and pro­phets. (ii. 18—20.) Such assertions as these entirely overthrew the tenets of the Gnostics; and we might suppose, that the character of the prophets was in some danger from false and blaspheming teachers, when we find St. Peter saying, even to his Jewish converts, Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost\ (2 Pet. i. 21.)

Of all the errors in the Gnostic creed, there was none more fatally pernicious, than that which denied the resurrection and a final judgment: neither is there any, to which more direct allusion is made in the apostolic writings. I shall first attempt to shew why this was a necessary part of the Gnostic creed, and what were the real sentiments of that party concerning it.

Paul also said that all scripture is inspired by God. 2 Tim.

K

The Gnostics were naturally led to deny the re­surrection, when they persuaded themselves that Christ had not a real substantial body^m. If Christ did not die, he could not rise again ; and when St. Paul said to the Corinthians, If there be no resur­rection of the dead, then is Christ not risen, (xv.13.) the argument which he really wished to urge was this—Christ is risen, therefore there is a resurrec­tion of the dead. This was the most convincing proof which the apostles could poss bly advance. Here was no abstract argument, no metaphysical deduction: Jesus Christ said, Believe in me, and like me ye shall rise again : he did rise : they saw and believed. The strongest of all arguments, the evidence of their senses, was lost upon the Gnostics. Beside which, there were other principles in their irrational philosophy, which led them not only to reject, but to despise this consoling doctrine. They held, that the body was formed, not by the su­preme God, but by an inferior being. Some of them referred it at once to the evil Principle: but all of them believed it to be a portion of Matter, which was moulded into form by a being at enmity with God. To emancipate the soul from this material thraldom; to free it from the fetters which bound it to earth, and impeded its flight to the Pleroma, this was the great boast of the Gnostic philosophy. The separation of soul and body was the point to which they most ardently looked: and to unite them again, by a final resurrection, would be to bring matter

^m This is the argument of “ cis nomen aufertur. Cruce

Archelaus, in his dispute with “ autem non suscepta, nec Je-

Manes: “ Si non est natus, “ sus ex mortuis resurrexit,

“ sine dubio nec passus est; “ nec aUquis alius resurget.”

" quod si non est passus, Cru- Rel. Sacr. vol. IV. p. 259.

and spirit once more into contact, and again to amalgamate the elements of good and evil.

This leads me to consider, in the second place, what were the opinions of the Gnostics themselves concerning the resurrection : for pretending, as they did, to receive the preaching of the apostles, they could not deny that in some sense or other the doc­trine of a resurrection was contained in the gospel. Their explanation of the doctrine was this. Before the coming of Christ, the world was in ignorance of the true God. Christ revealed this God to the world: and they who received the revelation, rose again from the death of ignorance to perfect know* ledge. So far did they carry their eclectic principle, that they baptized the converts, and even borrowed something like the Christian form. The favourite metaphor of St. Paul would not escape them : and skilled as they Tvere in allegory and figure, they taught that the Gnostic baptism was a real resur­rection, and the only resurrection which was ever intended^S7. It will he asked, perhaps, what was their opinion concerning the state of the soul after death? Upon this point we have abundant evidence. They taught, that the soul of the perfect Gnostic, having risen again at baptism, and being enabled by perfection of knowledge to conquer the Demiur- gus, or Principle of evil, would ascend, as soon as it ‘vas freed from the body, to the heavenly Pleroma, and dwell there for ever in the presence of the Fa­ther : while the soul of him, who had not been al­lowed while on earth to arrive at such a plenitude of knowledge, would pass through several transmi­grations, till it was sufficiently purified to wing its flight to the Pleroma⁵⁸.

Such was the doctrine of the Gnostics concerning the resurrection : and we may now proceed to con­sider what notice is taken of it in the New Testa­ment. I need not dwell upon the fact, that the re­surrection formed the prominent point in all the preaching of the apostles. If this, the corner-stone of the edifice, was removed, they consented that the whole should fall: and among what are called the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, we find the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Heb. vi. 1, 2.) Nor was the importance of the doctrine their only reason for thus enforcing it. From some cause or other connected with the phi­losophy of the heathen, there seems to have been more difficulty in admitting the doctrine of the re­surrection, than any other tenet of Christianity. Fond as the Athenians were of hearing and telling some new thing, the notion of a resurrection was too strange even for them. It was for this that St. Paul was brought before the Areopagus ; and when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. (Acts xvii. 32.) St. Paul seems to have well known the bent of Agrippa’s mind, when he said to him, Why should it be thought a thing in­credible with you, that God should raise the dead f (Acts xxvi. 8.) We know from other evidence that it did seem a thing the most incredible of allⁿ : and

ⁿ Some curious observations 33 and 35 : but the passages

upon this subject may be seen by no means prove so much,

in Jortin’s Remarks upon Ec- The instance which he quotes

clesiastical History, vol. II. p. from a lost work of Plutarch is

198, &c. Eusebius wishes to more to the purpose, (c. 36.)

prove that Plato believed in a though it may be nothing more

resurrection: Prtep.Evang.XI. than a return of suspended

when the minds of thinking men were in this state, the gospel had to encounter an obstacle which did not affect the preaching of the Gnostics.

The first instance which we find of the resurrec­tion being questioned among Christians, is in the Epistle to the Corinthians. If Christ be preached, says St. Paul, that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor. xv. 12.) And we find afterwards, that these persons asked, How are the dead raised up f and with what body do they come ? (35.) I need not here discuss the physical or metaphysical ques­tion, either how the scattered particles of matter can again be united, or how, if the material particles are dispensed with, the identity and consciousness of the individual can be preserved. It is plain that St. Paul saw no difficulty; and we might be satisfied with knowing that in some way or other we shall be changed. (51.) But the question of the Corin­thian Christians was evidently the result of philo­sophical speculation: and though I do not say that in this instance the Gnostics were the chief movers, yet St. Paul well knew the evil which was abroad, and that if his converts once doubted the fact of the resurrection, they might soon learn to explain it away by the allegorical subtleties of the Gnostics^S9.

animation. I should say the Hody, (Resurrection of the same

same of the cases referred to Body, SfC. Part I. p. 29.) The

by Vigerus in his Note ad I. contrary is proved by Mosheim

particularly that in Val. Max. in his Dissertations, vdl. II. p.

I. 8. 12. That the ancients 586,81c. See also Jo. Fechtius,

had this belief, was maintained Schediasm. Sacr. Diss. I. Nodes

by Huetiusi (Quasi. Alnet. de Christianas, Exerc. XI. Spen-

Concordia, SfC. II. 30. p. 230.) ccr’s note to Origen, cont. Cel-

Pfannerus, (System. Theol. Gen- sum. II. 16. til. purioris. c. 19. p. 429.)

It does not appear that these heretics had as yet made much progress in Corinth, or in that part of Greece ; but we have already seen that there was great danger from them at Ephesus; and in St. Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy, there is express allusion to a doctrine which we know to be that of the Gnostics. He there tells Timothy to charge his flock, that they strive not about words to no profit : (ii. 14.) but shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (16.) I have already quoted these words, as alluding to the philosophy of the Gnostics : and St. Paul goes on to say, And their word will eat, as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenneus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some. (17, 18.) If we did not know the doctrine of the Gnostics, we might be at a loss to understand these words. But we have seen, that this was precisely the view which they took of the resurrection. To the Gnostics it was already past: at the time of their initiation they had risen from ignorance to knowledge, from death to life : they looked there­fore to no future resurrection, to no final judgment: God had accepted them, when He gave them know­ledge ; and after a longer or shorter life past in the contemplation of His attributes, their souls would break from their material prison-house, and be lost in the infinity of the Pleroma⁰.

⁰ Tertullian charges the Va- and both these were Gnostics,

lentinians with saying that the Mosheim thought that Hyme-

resurrection is past already, (de naeus and Philetus .expected a

Prescript. 33. p. 214.) Epipha- new life only for the souls of

nius says the same of the Ar- men, and not for their bodies :

chontici, (Hasr. XL. 8. p. 299.) (de Rebus ante Com!. Cent. I.

Of those whose faith was overthrown by this specious rhapsody, St. Paul has only consigned the names of two to perpetual shame. But if the Hy­menaeus, who is here mentioned in company with Philetus, be the same Hymenaeus who, in the First Epistle to Timothy, is coupled with Alexander, we have then the name of a third person whose faith was overthrown by the errors of the Gnostics. In his First Epistle, St. Paul exhorts Timothy to hold, faith and a good conscience; which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck : of wham is Hymenceus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Tim. i. 19, 20.) We here collect nothing of these two persons, but that they had put away a good conscience, and made shipwreck of their faith. But it may be observed, that both the persons who are called Hymenaeus, appear to have been residents at Ephesus ; both of them were well known to St.Paul and to Timothy: both of them had departed from their faith in Christ; and both, as I shall shew presently, were charged with having put away a good conscience. There is some reason

59. note ^T.) but Buddeus re­fers the expression with much more probability to the figura­tive or allegorical resurrection of the Gnostics. (Eccles. Apost. p. 301.) See also Mosheim, Inst. Maj. p. 320. Van Till considered Hymenaeus and Phi­letus to be Gnostics, (Com. in 4 Pauli Epist. p. 176, 7.) so did Hammond, (ad 1.) and so also did Vitrii.ga, (Obs. Sacr. IV. 9. 7. vol. III. p. 925.) though he supposed them to

be Jews, and perhaps Saddu- cees. He also conjectured, that they alluded to a political resurrection; such as the re­turn from captivity, or the es­cape from Antiochus Epipha- nes. Such an interpretation is highly improbable ; and the one which I have adopted is in accordance with what all the Fathers tell us concerning the Gnostics. Many opinions are collected by Ittigius, de Hare- siarchis, p. 85.

therefore to think, that the same Hymenseus is in­tended in both Epistles p : and if, after an interval of twelve years, St. Paul still found in him the same active opponent, it is possible that the Alexander who is named together with him in the First Epistle, may be the same who is also mentioned in the Se­cond, where we read, Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. (iv. 14.) St. Paul appears to be speaking of evil which had been done to him shortly before at Ephesus, where this Alexander had greatly withstood the apostle’s preaching. The other Alexander also dwelt £t Ephesus ; and if he were the same who had been delivered by St. Paul to Satan twelve years before, revenge as well as the usual violence of an apostate, would lead him to withstand St. Paul’s words to the utmost of his power 9.

It appears but too certain from this Second Epistle, that at that time there had been a great falling away in Asia Minor, from the faith in Christ. St. Paul specifies particularly Phygellus, and Hermo­genes^r; (2 Tim. i. 15.) and from all that we collect

p Mosheim labours very hard to prove that the two persons called Hymenseus were not the same; (de Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 59. note ^v.) but I can­not see the force of his argu­ments. Their identity has been assumed by Van Till, (de primi Steculi Adversariis, V. i. p. 16.) Vitringa 1. c. Buddeus, (Eccles. Apostf. p. 306.) and Ittigius, (de Haresiarchis,) p. 86.

'i Vitringa considered the Alexander mentioned in 1 Tim.

to be the coppersmith named in 2 Tim. iv. 14. and also the Alexander who took part in the riot at Ephesus, Acts xix. 33. (1. c. p. 926.) Ittigius also assumes the identity of the two first, p. 86.

^r Tertullian might be thought to have classed Phygellus and Hermogenes with those here­tics who denied the resurrec­tion : (de Resurrect. Camis

24. p. 339.) and Epiphanjus names Hermogenes in com­pany with Cerinthus, Ebion,

concerning the progress of false philosophy in that country, and from the many allusions to Gnosticism in these two Epistles, we may perhaps infer that Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander, Phygellus, and Hermogenes, had all made themselves conspicuous during the lifetime of St. Paul, in spreading the Gnostic doctrines. It can scarcely be doubted, that Hymenaeus and Philetus, who said that the re­surrection is past already, were also guilty of lead­ing immoral lives ; or, as is said of the other Hyme­naeus, of having put away -a good conscience: for St. Paul goes on to say, Nevertheless, (i. e. notwith­standing this fatal error concerning the resurrection,) the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord Tenoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ de­part from iniquity. (2 Tim. ii. 19.) This therefore was the mark or seal^s by which the real and pre­tended Christians were distinguished: the true Chris­tian held faith and a good conscience; he departed from iniquity ; but the Gnostic, who also named the name of Christ, did not depart from iniquity: he put away a good conscience; and had not that mark, by which the Lord lenoweth them that are his.

This leads me to a very important point in this discussion, what was the effect produced by the

and others, who believed Jesus Rebus 1. c.) Buddeus is unwill-

to be a mere man. (Hser. LI. ing to reckon them among he-

6. p. 427.) This is not con- reties. (Eccles. Apost. p. 310.)

firmed by any other author: See Ittigius, Appendix, p. 26.

but I can hardly think with ⁸ The seal in 2 Tim. ii. 19.

Mosheim, that Phygellus and seems to be the same with that

Hermogenes were guilty of no mentioned in Rev. ix. 4. which

other misconduct, than that of was also a mark of distinction

leaving Rome to save their between real Christians and he-

lives in time of persecution, (de reties.

Gnostic doctrines upon the moral practice of their supporters. I have stated in my second Lecture, that the morals of the numerous branches of Gnos­tics were of two very opposite kinds ; some of them practised great austerity; others allowed themselves every indulgence. Clement of Alexandria makes this the chief distinction, which might be applied to every heresy: “ Either,” he says, “ they teach men “ to live indifferently; or, going too far the other “ way, they preach up abstinence by a mistaken re- “ ligion and moroseness*.” The fundamental prin­ciple of the Gnostics would lead them to both these consequences'¹. The body being a material com­pound, and inherently connected with evil, some of them would treat it with contempt, and attend only to the soul, which making knowledge its food, and gratifying no other appetite, would at length free itself from the body and all its material corruptions. Others would argue, that the body, with its desires and wants, being the work of a being at enmity with God, it was beneath the dignity of him who had knowledge to think any thing concerning it: the restraints of the Jewish law were not given by God: the Gnostic knew nothing of the precepts of men : he soared far above their sublunary ethics: and what mattered it, if he indulged his body, while his soul was feasting on its intellectual banquet*?

With respect to these two divisions of Gnostics, St. Paul seems to allude to the former, when he said to Timothy, Now the Spirit speaketh expressl/y,

* Strom. III. 5. p. 529. Cent. I. part. II. 5. 7. de Rebus

^u See Mosheim, Instit. Maj. ante Const. Introd. I. 36. Cent.

p. 359- . . ^{L 62}-

^x See Mosheim, Eccles.Hist.

that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils^, speaking lies in hypocrisy °, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats. (1 Tim. iv. 1—3.) After which he observes, For bodily exercise, i. e. the mortification of the body, profiteth little. (8.) He says also to the Colossians, Let no man beguile you of your reward in a vo­luntary humility: (ii. 18.) and the same term occurs shortly after, where he blames them for being sub­ject to ordinances, Touch not, taste not, handle not: which things, he says, have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh (20-23)\ From both these passages it appears, that there would be persons who taught their fol­lowers not to marry, and to abstain from meats: and the Fathers are unanimous in saying, that this was the case with many of the Gnostics^b. It seems pro­bable, that the mixture of Judaism, which entered into the Gnostic doctrines, may partly have contri-

y AiSatricaKiais baifiovLaiv, either ^a Jortin thinks that Jesus may

devilish, doctrines, such as evil have worked his first miracle

spirits would teach; or doctrines at Cana, to confute those who

concerning demons, as Parma-nav condemned wine, and the use

Bi8a\rjs. (Heb, vi.2.) Medepre- of animal food, and marriage,

fers the latter. Remarks on Eccles. History,

^z ’Ew ImoKpitret ^rev8o\6yav. vol. II. p. 18.

Knatchbull well translates this, ^b Clement of Alexandria con­tainer Beza, Castalio, &c.) nects St. Paul’s words in i Tim. through the hypocrisy of lying iv. 3. with the declaration of teachers. Our English version St.John concerning Antichrist, seems to connect speaking lies (Strom. III. '6. p. 531.) Epi- with devils, or with those who phanius refers 1 Tim. iv. 1—3. give heed to devils: but the ori- to the Gnostics, (Haer. XXVI.

ginal does not. 16. p. 98.)

buted to the growth of these opinions®. We know that the Corinthians consulted St. Paul concerning marriage and abstaining from meats. He explains in his reply the whole doctrine of Christian liberty: but from his saying, If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend, (1 Cor. viii. 13.) it is plain that such abstinence was a very different thing from that alluded to in the two other Epistles. St. Paul allowed the Corinthians to abstain, if they did it to edification : but when writing to Timothy and to the Colossians, he speaks of men making a show of humility and neglecting of the body; of men giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy. It will be ob- - served, that St. Paul says, that such persons shall arise in the latter days, i. e. at some time subsequent to that at which he was writing ; and from his giving Timothy this warning, I should infer, that though the evil might have been already in the world, it had not yet begun to produce much effect⁶⁰. Six years elapsed between the date of the first Epistle to Timothy and that to the Colossians ; and it would appear from the latter, that the practice of mortify­ing the body through a show of humility had already manifested itself in Asia. If we now look to the testimony of the Fathers, we shall find that this cus­tom was of late growth among the Gnostic sects. Thus Simon Magus is charged with taking the op­posite extreme, and leading a licentious life: his dis­ciple and successor Menander is said to have followed

^c See the references at page phus concerning the Essenes, 74, note ^b, to Philo and Jose- who practised great abstinence.

his example : and it is not till we come to Saturni- nus, at the beginning of the second century, that we find St. Paul’s predictions fulfilled of persons for­bidding to marry. Saturninus is stated to have done this, as well as to have abstained from animal food: and it is worthy of remark, that Menander, the suc­cessor of Simon Magus, had himself two disciples, Saturninus and Basilides : the former inculcated the greatest austerities ; Basilides is charged with the grossest debaucheries: and it was this perhaps, rather than any difference in their doctrines, which placed them at the head of two eminent branches of the Gnostics. The Ebionites also, whose heresy began before the end of the first century, are said to have abstained from animal food⁶".

There is reason however to fear, that the prohi­bition of marriage and abstinence from certain kinds of meats were sometimes used as a cloak for criminal indulgence. We may hope, that the stories which were circulated concerning the Gnostics were in many cases exaggerated: but it seems impossible to deny that great excesses were committed by per­sons, who used the name of Christ in their systems of philosophy⁶². The accounts of these unhappy persons, which are given by the Fathers, are almost too gross and shocking even to be thought of: but the fact of the enormities which were practised is abundantly proved by the apostles themselves. What catalogue can be more loaded with crime, than the following from St. Paul ? In the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blas­phemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, un­holy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false

accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from, such turn away: for of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. iii. 1—7^d.) The last sentence is an exact description of the Gnostics, who pro­fessed, according to Justin Martyr, that “ although “ they were sinners, yet if they had knowledge of “ God, he would not impute to them their sins ^e and the same allusion seems to have been intended by St. John, when he said, Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him, verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John ii. 3—5^f.) I shall only quote one more passage, which contains the words of the text, and is equally expressive with the last: There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, says St. Paul, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. Unto the pure

^d This passage is referred to ceived the last days to be ar-

the Gnostics by Epiphanius. rived. Be Unitate Ecclesid, p.

Her. XXVI. 16. p. 98: and 199, 200.

Cyprian says that it bad al- ^e Dial, cum Tryph. 141. p.

ready been accomplished in 231.

the heresies which had ap- ^f "'EyvaKa and rereXfiWai were

peared. He therefore con- Gnostic terms.

all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus i. 10—16.) It is plain that these passages do not refer to the common vices of those, who know and acknowledge their duty, but forget to practise it. They were directed against those, who sinned upon principle; who professed that they knew God, while in works they denied him. The Gnostics appear not only to have abused their own powers of reasoning; but to have per­verted the truth, as it came from the mouths of the apostles. To the pure, says St. Paul, all things are pure: and in, another place, all things are lawful for me. (1 Cor. vi. 12.) Such expressions as these were not lost upon the sensual reasoning of the Gnostics. They used every argument to persuade the Christians to live according to their lusts: they perverted the doctrine of St. Paul concerning justi­fication by faith; they wrested that and all other scriptures to their own destruction: and it was to meet these insidious arts, that St. Peter warns his brethren not to use their liberty as a cloak of maliciousness s; (1 PeL ii. 16.) that St. James says, JBe ye doers qf the word, and not hearers only, deceiving, i. e. putting a fallacy upon your­selves; (i. 22.) and that St. John uses those emphatic words, Little children, let no man deceive you: he

s See Gal. v. 13. Clem. Christian liberty. Strom. III. Alex, alludes to the Gnostics j. p. 531. perverting this principle of

that doeth righteousness is righteous: he that com- mitteth sin is of the Devil. (1 John iii. 7, 8.^h)

Nor was it the only consequence of Gnostic licen­tiousness, that many real Christians were led away, and made shipwreck of their faith. It was from the gross immorality of nominal Christians, that the holy name of Christ was blasphemed among the Gentiles. Our Saviour had forewarned them in the spirit of prophecy, Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake: (Matt. xxiv. 9-) and we learn from St. Paul, that it was slanderously reported, and some affirmed that the Christians said, Let us do evil, that good may come'¹. (Rom. iii. 8.) St. Pe­ter observes that the Gentiles spoke evil of them, as of evildoers. (1 Pet. ii. 12,15. iii. 16.) And whence did these calumnies arise ? Not surely from the preaching of the apostles: not from the lives of them or of their followers; they came from certain men who crept in unawares, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness: (Jude 4.) who when they speak great swelling words of va­nity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error: while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the ser­vants of corruption. (2 Pet. ii. 18,19.) These were

^h This text is applied to the 3—5. iv. 7. Titus iii. 8. 1 Tim.

Simonians by Grabe (ad Bulli vi. 3. Jude 4, 10, 16, 18. 2 Pet.

Harm. Apost. p. 30.) and by ii. 1, 18, 19. James iii. 13.

Waterland (on Regeneration, That they were sometimes suc-

vol. VI. p. 371. and Sermon eessful is shewn in 1 Tim v.

XXI. vol. IX. p. 263.) There 14, 15.

may be allusions to false teach- ¹ This is referred to the Gnos-

ers who indulged the passions ticsbyEpiphanius. Hter.XXVl.

of their hearers in 1 Thess. ii. ii. p. 93.

the men Who brought the Christians into contempt: who raised against them the charges of incestuous rites, of Thyestean banquets, and all those horrors which poetry alone had hitherto imagined; but which were all supposed to be realized in the practice of the oinhappy Christians⁶³. Their apologists in the second jmd third centuries were forced to clear themselves from these atrocious calumnies: and while the Chris­tians were suffering from the profligacy of the Gnos­tics, the real criminals escaped by the same laxity of principle which led them to commit the crime. The Gnostics did not refuse to offer incense to the gods, and to partake of heathen sacrifices. The Christians were willing to be made themselves the victims; but they died with unpolluted hands, and with lips still calling upon Christ.

This leads me to consider a particular division of the Gnostics, which is perhaps the only one men­tioned by name in the New Testament. St. John says in his Revelations, to the Angel of the church of Ephesus; But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate ; (ii. 6.) and again to the Angel of the church of Fer- gamos; So hast thou also them that hold the doc­trine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hoite. (15.) These are the only two places where the Nicolaitans are mentioned in the New Testament: and it might appear at first, that little could be inferred from these concerning either their doctrine or their prac­tice. It is asserted however by all the Fathers, that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the Gnostics : and the epistles, which were addressed by St.John to the seven Asiatic churches, may perhaps lead us to the same condlusion. Thus to the church at Ephesus

L,

he writes, Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them, liars, (ii. 2.) This may be understood of the Gnostic teachers, who falsely called themselves Christians, and who would be not unlikely to assume also the title of apostles. It appears from this and other pas­sages, that they had distinguished themselves at Ephesus; and it is when writing to that church, that St. John mentions the Nicolaitans. Again, when writing to the church at Smyrna, he says, I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (9.) I have perhaps said enough in my former Lec­tures to shew, that the Gnostics borrowed many doctrines from the Jews, and thought by this means to attract both the Jews and Christians^k. We might therefore infer, even without the testimony of the Fathers, that the Gnostic doctrines were prevalent in these churches, where St. John speaks of the Nicolaitans : and if so, we have a still more specific indication of their doctrine and practice, when we find St. John saying to the church in Pergamos, I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Salaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. (14.) Then follow

* This may perhaps enable obey the law of Moses; and he

us to explain the expression of may have used the term Kara-

St. Paul, /3X«rfT£ tovs Kvvas, jSSe- rofirj rather than 7repiro/«j to ex-

Trere tovs kokovs ipywras, /SXeVere press this spurious or pretended

Trjv KaraTPixTjv. (Phil. iii. 2.) He Judaism. See Castaho, Zegerus

may have alluded to persons, ad 1. Hammond, de Antichristo,

who adopted circumcision and IV. 2. p. 16. Compare also

certain outward ceremonies, Rev. xxii. -1 5. but did not in other respects

the words which I have already quoted, So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nico­laitans, which thing I hate. There seems here to be some comparison between the doctrine of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans : and I would also point out, that to the church in Thyatira the apostle writes, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Je%ebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (20.) The two passages are very similar, and may enable us to throw some light upon the history of the Nicolaitans. Tertul- lian has preserved a tradition, that the person here spoken of as Jezebel was a female heretic, who taught what she had learnt from the Nicolaitans¹: and whether the tradition be true or no, it seems certain, that to eat things _tsacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication, was part of the practice of the Nicolaitans.

These two sins are compared to the doctrine of Balaam : and though the Bible tells us little of Ba­laam’s history, beyond his prophecies and his death, yet we can collect enough to enable us to explain this allusion of St. John. We read, that when Is­rael abode in Shittim, the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab : and they, i. e. the women, called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed

¹ De Pudicit. 19. p. 571. hence it is supposed that this

Buddeus considered Jezebel to woman was the wife of the

be a real name: (Eccl. Apost. bishop of Thyatira. See Gro-

p; 401.) Several authorities tius and Dionysius (Carthusia-

read rrjv yvvaiKa. <rov ’le£a/3eX, nus) ad 1. which Griesbach prefers : and

down to their gods. (Numb. xxv. 1, 21.) But we read further, that when the Midianites were spoiled and Balaam slain, Moses said of the women who were taken, Behold, these caused the children of Israel, thr ough the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor. (xxxi. 16.) This, then, was the insidious policy and advice of Balaam. When he found that he was prohibited by God from cursing Israel, he advised Balak to seduce the Israelites by the women of Moab, and thus to entice them to the sacrifices of their gods™. This is what St. John calls the doc­trine of Balaam, or the wicked artifice which he taught the king of Moab: and so he says, that in the church of Pergamos there were some who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. We have therefore the testimony of St. John, as well as of the Fathers, that the lives of the Nicolaitans were profligate and vicious : to which we may add, that they ate things sacrificed to idols. This is expressly said of Basi- lides and Valentinus, two celebrated leaders of Gnostic sects: and we perhaps are not going too far, if we infer from St. John, that the Nicolaitans were the first who enticed the Christians to this im­pious practice, and obtained from thence the distinc-

^m This may well explain the formation. That Balak con-

conduct of the Almighty to- suited Balaam, is said in Micah

wards Balaam, and the expres- vi. 5. See Josephus, Antiq, iv,

sion of the Angel, Thy way isper- 6. Philo Judaeus, Dc Mose, vol.

verse before me. (xxii.32.) Com- II. p. 127. De Monarch. I. p.

mentators and critics have not 220. De Fortitud. p. 381. The

always studied the heart of Ba- whole history is minutely de-

laam. Though so little is said tailed by these writers. See

of his policy in the Bible, it Waterland, Sermon XXXII. on

was a fact, upon which the the History and Character of

Jews appear to have had much Balaam, vol. IX. p. 397 ; also

historical or traditional in- vol. VI. p. ip8.

tion of their peculiar celebrity⁶⁴. Their motive for such conduct is very evident. They wished to gain proselytes to their doctrines : and they therefore taught that it was lawful to indulge the passions, and that there was no harm in partaking of an idol- sacrifice. This had now become the test to which Christians must submit, if they wished to escape persecution: and the Nicolaitans sought to gain converts by telling them that they might still be­lieve in Jesus, though they ate of things sacrificed unto idols. The fear of death would shake the faith of some: others would be gained over by sensual argumentsⁿ: and thus many unhappy Christians of the Asiatic churches were found by St. John in the ranks of the Nicolaitans. Our Saviour might be thought to allude to this same apostasy, when he delivered that emphatical prediction, Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another: and many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many; and because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (Matt, xxiv. 9—12.) We know from the seven Epistles in the Apocalypse that the work of persecution had already waxed hot. The Apostle writes to the Church in Smyrna, Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, ihe devil shall east some qf you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

“ See Hammond, de AtMehristo. III. 5, &c. p. 8.

L 3

(ii. 10.) To the church of Pergamos, Thou boldest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you where Satan dwelleth. (13.) To the church in Philadelphia, Thou hast a little strength, and hast hept my word, and hast not denied my name. (iii. 8.) It was in these perilous times that the doctrines of the Nicolaitans so fatally prevailed ; and that in some churches, as in Sardis, there were but few names which had not defiled their garments. (4.)

We might wish perhaps to know at what time the sect of the Nicolaitans began : but we cannot define it accurately. If Irenaeus is correct in saying that it preceded by a considerable time the heresy of Cerinthus⁰, and that the Cerinthian heresy , was a principal cause of St. John writing his Gospel; it follows, that the Nicolaitans were in existence at least some years before the time of their being men­tioned in the Revelations : and the persecution under Domitian, which was the cause of St. John being sent to Patmos, may have been the time which enabled the Nicolaitans to exhibit their prin­ciples?. Irenaeus indeed adds, that St. John directed his Gospel against the Nicolaitans as well as against Cerinthus i: and the comparison which is made be­° The same is said by Ter- the passage in Irenaeus may tullian, Epiphanius, Augustin, perhaps only prove that the Philastrius, &c. doctrines of the Nicolaitans re­

P Concerning this persecu- sembled those of the Cerinthi- tion, see the Dissertation of ans; and therefore both were J. F. Hollenhagen, in the The- in fact refuted by St. John, saurus Theologico-philolog. ap- though he wrote directly against pended to the Critici Sacri, Cerinthus only. (Diss. de Nico- Part. II. p. 1036. laitis, 13. p. 416.) He also re-

<i Mosheim observes, that fers to some Annals edited by

tween their doctrine and that of Balaam, may per­haps authorize us to refer to this sect what is said in the Second Epistle of St. Peter. The whole pas­sage contains marked allusions to Gnostic teachers: and I will quote such parts of it as seem most con­nected with our present subject. But there were false prophets, says St. Peter, among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who primly shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them: (ii. 1.) upon which words I would observe, that the doctrine of redemption and atonement by Jesus Christ was ne­cessarily excluded from the Gnostic creed. St. Peter continues, And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of,- and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. (2,3.) But the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: but chiefly them, that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness. (9, 10.) Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings, while they feast with you: having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin: beguiling unstable souls; an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children; which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness. (13—15.) This is the strong language of a man who had seen the evils

Lindenbrogius, in which the (lb. 28. p. 454.) See Lampe, rise of the Nicolaitans is fixed Prolegom. ad Corn, in Joan. II. in the reign of Titus, A. D. 81. 3. 44. p. 199 : 47- P- 3^oa-

L 4

which he describes: and if, by making the same al­lusion to Balaam, he intended the same persons, whom St. John compares to that deceitful prophet, we may then conclude that the sect of the Nico­laitans, or at least the forerunners of that sect* were in existence before the death of St. Peter, which happened about the year 65.

By the same argument we may refer to this sect what is said by St. Jude, There are certain men crept in unawares, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (4.) They speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core^r. (10, 11.) It may perhaps have been owing to the fatal success of the Gnostics, and to the custom which seems to have been common with the apostles, of comparing those teachers to Balaam^s, and other wicked charac­ters of the Old Testament, that we find so strong a resemblance between the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Epistle of St. Jude. Being accustomed to combat the same errors, and perhaps in the company of each other; they naturally used the same ideas and the same images : and if St. Jude referred to the Ni­colaitans, he supplies us with another proof of their accommodating and shameless principles. These, he says, i. e. these false teachers, are spots''in your

^r (Ecujnenius referred the ⁵ St. Paul alludes to the same passages in St. Peter and St. history in I Cor. x. 7, 8.

Jude to the Nicolaitans.

feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear. (12.) This is the only place where the Agapee, or LoVe-feasts of the early Chris­tians, are mentioned by name in the New Testament: but St. Peter evidently alludes to them in the words already quoted, Spots they are and blemishes, sport- ing themselves with their own deceivings, while they feast with you. (ii. 13.) It seems that the Nico­laitans, still acting in their feigned and double cha­racter, attended the Christian Agapee as fearlessly as they partook of an idol-Sacrifice : and then it was that they tried with success the fiendlike policy of Balaam: they converted those pure and simple meetings into scenes of riot and debauchery; till the Agapse of the Christians became a by-word among the heathen ; and the gospel was charged with en­couraging crimes, which had scarcely defiled the ob- scenest rites of Paganism^Ss

There is another question concerning the Nico­laitans, which has excited much discussion : but to Which I can only briefly allude in this place. It is a question entirely of evidence and detail: and the two points to be considered are, 1. whether the Nicolaitans derived their name from Nicolas of An­tioch, who was one of the seven Deacons : 2. suppos­ing this to be the fact, whether Nicolas had disgraced himself by sensual indulgence. Those writers, who have endeavoured to clear the character of Nicolas, have generally tried also to prove that he was not the man, whom the Nicolaitans claimed as their head. But the one point may be true without the other : and the evidence is so overwhelming, which states that Nicolas the Deacon was at least the person intended by the Nicolaitans, that it is difficult to

come to any other conclusion upon the subject. We must not deny that some of the Fathers have also charged him with falling into vicious habits, and thus affording too true a support to the heretics who claimed him as their leader. These writers however are of a late date; and some, who are much more ancient, have entirely acquitted him, and furnished an explanation of the calumnies, which attach to his name. At this distance of time we can only weigh testimony and probabilities : there is at least no harm in hoping, that the faith of so many Christians was not destroyed by the altered doctrine or vicious ex­ample of one, who had helped to sow the first seeds of the gospel, and nursed it with a parent’s care⁶⁶. We know that the Gnostics were not ashamed to claim as their founders the apostles, or friends of the apostles. These same Nicolaitans are stated to have quoted a saying of Matthias in support of their opinions*. The followers of Marcion and Valen­tinus professed also to hold the doctrine of Matthias": those of Basilides laid claim to the same apostle^x, or to Glaucias, who, they said, was interpreter to St. Peter y. Valentinus boasted also of having heard Theudas, an acquantance of St. Paul*. At a much latier period Manes was said to have succeeded Bud- das, who was the disciple of Scythianus, a contem­porary of the apostles”. The latter story is not even chronologically possible : and it may be observed in all these cases, that the heretics claimed connexion

⁴ Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 4.

P- 523.

^u lb. VII. 17. p. 900.

= lb.

y lb. p. 898.

* lb.

^a Dispnt. Archelai et Ma- netis, 51. (Rel. Sacr. vol. IV. p. 267.)

either with persons, of whom the New Testament mentions only the names ; or who are not recorded at all in the apostolic writings. The same may have been the case with Nicolas the Deacon: and though I allow, that if the Nicolaitans were distinguished as a sect some time before the end of the century, the probability is lessened that his name was thus abused; yet if his career was a short one, his his­tory, like that of the other Deacons, would soon be forgotten: and the same fertile invention, which gave rise in the two first centuries to so many apo­cryphal gospels^b, may also have led the Nicolaitans to give a false character to him whose name they had assumed.

^b See note ^IS. Irenseus speaks add the following passage from

of the Gospel of Judas, as a book the same author concerning

used by the Caiani. (I. 31. 1. the Ebionites, “ They pretend

p. 112.) Epiphanius mentions “ to admit the name of the apo-

the same, and another book “ sties in order to persuade forged hy them, entitled Pauli “ those who are deceived by

Anabaticum, (Hoer. XXXVIII. “ them : and they forge books

2. p. 277.) I have selected “ in their names, as if they were

these instances, because the “ written by James and Mat-

Caiani were connected with “ thew, and the other apostles.”

the Nicolaitans : and I may (Hxr. XXX. 23. p. 147.)

LECTURE VI.

1 John v. 6.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by “water and blood.

In my last Lecture I took occasion to consider all •those heretics who are mentioned by name in the New Testament. All of them appear to have been connected with the Gnostics. I have likewise no­ticed the moral practice of those heretics, and their sentiments concerning God, the creation of the world, the inspiration of the prophets, and the resurrection. There were also two other persons, whose names, though not mentioned in the New Testament, are connected by many of the Fathers with the history of St. John; and who are stated to have lived some time before the close of the first century. I allude to Cerinthus and Ebion; whose doctrines I propose to examine in the present Lecture: and this will enable us to consider what hitherto I have only noticed incidentally, the place which was assigned to Jesus Christ in the Gnostic philosophy.

I have remarked more than once, that Christ was believed by the Gnostics to be one of the JEons, who was sent into the world to reveal the knowledge of the true God, and to free the souls of men from the power of the .creative iEon or Demiurgus. This was the outline of the belief which was held by all the Gnostics concerning Christ; and as a necessary consequence of this belief, they all xLenied his in-

carnation. It is the observation of Irenaeus % that according to the opinion of none of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh: and I stated in my second Lecture, that there were two ways in which the Gnostics explained the appearance of Jesus upon earth, and obviated the difficulty of making an iEon sent from God to be united to Matter, which is in­herently evil. They either denied that Christ had a real body at all, and held that he was an unsub­stantial phantom ; or granting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents, they be­lieved that the iEon Christ quitted the Pleroma and descended upon Jesus at his baptism ^b. The former of these two opinions seems to have been adopted earlier than the latter: and those who held it, from believing that Jesus existed only in appearance, were called Docetce. The Docetae again were divided into two parties: some said that the body of Jesus was altogether an illusion: and that he only appeared to perform the functions of life, like the Angels who were entertained by Abraham; or as Raphael is made to say to Tobit, All these days I did appear unto you: but I did neither eat nor drink, but ye did see a vision: (xii. 19.) The other Docetae thought that Christ had a real and tangible body; but that it was formed of a celestial substance, which was resolved again into the same etherial elements, when Christ returned to the Pleroma. We need

^a III. ii, 3. p. 189. “ indicasset innominabilem Pa-

^b These two notions are thus “ trem, incomprehensibiUter et

described by Irenaeus, “ Quo- “ invisibiliter intrasse in Ple-

“ niam autem sunt qui dicunt, “ roma—alii vero putative eurri

“ Jesum quidem receptaculum “ passum, naturaliter impassi-

“ Christi fuisse, in quem de- “ bilem exsistentem,” &c. III.

“ super quasi columbam de- 16, 1. p. 204.

“ scendisse Christum, et quum

not in the present inquiry take any further notice of this distinction : and it is sufficient to know, that the notion of Christ’s body being a phantom was entertained at a very early period. Eusebius says expressly that the first heretics who erred from the truth were Docetae^c: and though the language of Jerom is somewhat poetical, we are perhaps to understand him literally when he said, that the body of our Lord was declared to be a phantom, while the apostles were still in the world, and the blood of Christ was still fresh in Judaea ^d. The fact seems to be, that as soon as the Gnostics admitted Christ into their heterogeneous philosophy, it was said that Christ had not a real body; and here again we find the Fathers referring to Simon Magus as the author of this heresy. Simon, as we have seen, is charged by the Fathers with declaring himself to be Christ; which I have endeavoured to explain by the supposition, that he claimed to have the same iEon residing in himself, which had appeared to be united to Jesus. His followers invented a still more absurd and impious doctrine: and Irenaeus records it as the notion of Basilides, that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Jesus⁶’. It might be thought that this story was invented, after that the publica­tion of the gospels made it impossible to deny, that a real and substantial body had been nailed to the cross: and we can easily account for the fact pre­served to us by Irenaeus, that the Docetae made most use of the gospel of St. Mark ^e. This gospel

^c De Eccles. Theol. I. 7. ^e Qui autem Jesum sepa-

p. 64. rant a Christo, et impassibilem

^d Adv. Lucif. 23. vol. II. perseverasse Christum, passum

p_ iay. ' vero Jesum dicunt, id quod se-

enters into no detail concerning the birth of Jesus, and omits some particulars, which I shall notice presently, as proving the reality of the body of Jesus. The Docetse therefore found less difficulty in accommodating St. Mark’s gospel to their pecu­liar notions; and we may suppose, that they also alleged passages from the other gospels in support of their own opinions.

The whole history of our Saviour* between his resurrection and ascension, would be quoted as prov­ing their hypothesis. His escape from the close and guarded sepulchre; his vanishing from the disciples at Emmaus; his appearing among them while the door was shut, might all seem to lead to the idea, which the disciples indeed on one occasion enter­tained, that he was an incorporeal spirit. If it were said, that his body after death might have under­gone some change; they would have appealed to what he did before his crucifixion, to his walking upon the sea, and to his twice making himself invi­sible, that he might elude the malice of his enemies^f. All these were strong facts in favour of the Docetae: and we may suppose that they made the most of them, when we find them resting on much weaker arguments, such as those words of St Paul, that iGod sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, (Rom. viii. 3.) and that Christ took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men%. (Phil. ii. 7.) So fearless indeed were they in

cundum Marcum est praeferen- tion, but begins with the de-

tes Evangelism, &c. III. 11,7. scent of the Spirit at his bap-

p. 190. Epiphanius informs us tism. Hmr. LI. 6. p. 428.

that the Alogi were partial to ¹ See Luke iv. 29, 30. John

this gospel, because it says no- jt. 39.

thing of Christ’s divine genera- s Tertullian alludes to the

perverting, the plainest passages, when they made against them, that they explained our Saviour’s words to mean, A spirit hath not Jlesh and bones, as ye see that I have not'*. (Luke xxiv. 39.) Upon which last passage I would observe, that the doubts entertained by the disciples were totally different from those of the Docetae. The disciples, and par­ticularly St. Thomas, hesitated whether the person, whom they then saw, was the same who had been crucified: but they never doubted his having had a real body, or whether that body was nailed to the cross.

The points to which I have alluded, as favouring the Docetae, are taken from the written Gospels : but the same facts, and perhaps others, would be well known in the world by the oral preaching of the apostles. From the first beginning of the gospel, Simon Magus was active in spreading his false doc­trines concerning Christ: and if they gained ground, we might expect to find some refutation of them in the apostolic writings. I mentioned in my first Lecture, that at least fifteen years elapsed between the death of Christ and the date of St. Paul’s earliest Epistle. With respect to the date of the three first (Gospels, it is difficult to come to any definite con­clusion : but there seems probability in the notion that St. Luke’s Gospel was written during the two

abuse of these texts, de Carne Vult itaque sic dictum, quasi, Christi, 16. p. 320. adv. Mar- Spiritus ossa non habet, sicut cion. V. 14. p. 478. Hilarius me videtis habentem, ad Spi- speaks of their being quoted ritum referatuf, sicut me vide­' by the Manichees. de Synod. 85. tis habentem, id est, non ha­p. 1198. See Beausobre, vol. bentem ossa sicut et spiritus. II. p. 533. Adv. Marc. IV. 43. p. 460. ^h Tertul. says of Marcion,

M

years of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea¹; and there is strong traditional evidence that St. Mark’s was written about the time of St. Peter’s death. The date of St. Matthew’s Gospel is more open to dispute. Some have placed it within a few years of our Saviour’s ascension: while others, and, I think, with more reason, have supposed it to be not much earlier than that of St. Mark^k. If we adopt this calculation, the Gospel of St. Luke is the earliest document in which I should trace any allusion to the notions of the Docetse; and this was probably written between the years 53 and 55, or about twenty-three years after our Lord’s ascension. The Epistles which St. Paul wrote before this period, with the exception of the First to Timothy, were not addressed to places, where the Gnostic doctrines seem to have prevailed. These doctrines, as we might expect from the history of their founder, appear to have been earlier known in Asia than in Europe; and for some reason, with which we are not acquainted, they have been seen to have taken deep root in the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Timo­thy was residing at Ephesus when St. Paul addressed to him his first Epistle: but there was no need to tell Timothy, from whom he had not long parted;

* The Acts appear to have been published soon after St. Paul’s release from Rome, or they would probably have con­tinued his history. We may suppose that St. Lute com­posed them during the two years which St. Paul spent at Rome : and it is demonstrable, that his Gospel was published before the Acts.

^k Perhaps the most extraor­dinary omission in the Gospel of St. Matthew is the fact of the ascension: but if it was’ written after the publication of the Acts, which begins with that fact, and which formed a kind of supplement to all the Gos­pels, the omission is not un­natural.

what were the opinions of the Gnostics concerning Christ. Accordingly we find no allusion to the Do- cetae in this Epistle: and if the Gospel of St. Mark was written at Rome, that may perhaps explain why it contains no traces of the same opinions. But St. Luke, who probably composed his Gospel in Pa­lestine, (and the same remark will apply to St. Mat­thew,) had seen that the Gnostic doctrines Were sadly prevalent in the east, and therefore both of them inserted in their writings the human genealogy of ChristThe Gnostics were unanimous in deny­ing Christ to have been born. Some-of them allowed that Jesus might have had human parents: but Jesus and Christ were two separate beings; and the iEon, Christ, descended upon Jesus at his baptism. Now the history of the miraculous conception, as told by St. Matthew and St. Luke, is totally sub­versive of this hypothesis: and there may be some weight in the verbal criticism of Irenaeus, who says that “ Matthew might have written, Now the birth “ of Jesus was on this wise: (i. 18.) but the Holy “ Ghost, foreseeing corrupters and guarding against “ their deceitfulness, said by Matthew, Now the “ birth of Christ was on this wise^m

But it is needless perhaps to dwell on these mi­nute points, when the three first Evangelists all

¹ Hence Marcion expunged vol. IV. p. 165. Theodoret.

the genealogy from the Gospel Heer. Fab. I. 24. p. 210.) of St. Luke : not, as the Unita- ^m III. 16. 2. p. 204, 205. If

rians say,because hedid not be- appears that the copies used

lieve the divinity of Christ, but by Irenaeus read Xpurrov only,

because he would not believe and not ’Irjtrov Xpurrov, in Matt,

his humanity. (Iren. III. 11, 7. i. 18. and such is the reading

p. 190. 12. 12. p. 198. Ter- of some other Fathers, the Vul-

tull. adv. Marcion. IV. 2. p. gate, and some MSS.

414. Origen. in Joan. tom. X.

relate the institution of the Eucharist and the his­tory of the crucifixion. When Christ declared ma­terial bread and wine to be symbols of his body and blood, it is almost impossible to conceive that the substance represented a shadow. If Christ had nei­ther body nor blood, as the Docetae taught, he would never have deceived his disciples by saying, This is my body, and this is my blood: and whenever the Christians celebrated the Eucharist, they shewed, as St. Paul says, the Lord’s death: they shewed their belief in that which the Gnostics unanimously de­nied ⁿ. This perhaps may explain, why we find in St. Paul’s Epistles so few allusions to the Docetae. While he knew that his converts celebrated the Eu­charist, he also knew that their faith was sound concerning the body of Christ⁰: and on the same principle we can understand why the Docetae, as Ignatius informs us, did not meet to celebrate the Eucharist. Holding the opinions which they did, it would have been most irrational to have taken the bread and wine as symbols of that which had no real existence. We have seen, it is true, that the Nicolaitans attended the Christian Agapae, where the mystical elements were certainly received. But the presence of these men, as is well observed by St. Peter and St. Jude, were spots in their feasts of

ⁿ This argument is used in “ blood did he give the images,

the Dialogue to which I have “ when he ordered his disci-

referred in note ¹³, de recta in “ pies to keep up by them a

DeumFide, IV. p. .853. where “ recollection of himself?” the hypothesis of the Docetae is ^u Whichever reading we a-

refuted at great length: “ If,” dopt in 1 Tim. iii. 16. St. Paul

as they say, “ he was without expressly asserts that Christ

“ flesh and blood, of what flesh, appeared in the flesh, i. e. with

“ or of what body, or of what a real body.

charity. They came, as is said by St. Paul of other false teachers, they came in privily to spy out the liberty which they had in Christ Jesus. (Gal. ii. 4.) This was not to eat the Lord’s supper; and when we think that the same men came reeking from an idol sacrifice to profane the Christian Agapae, we may conceive that the strong language of St. Paul was addressed to them, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be par­takers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils⁶⁸. (1 Cor. x. 21.)

The same argument which was furnishbd against the Docetae by the celebration of the Eucharist, was also supplied by the history of the crucifixion. The Docetae struck at the very root and foundation of the gospel: they held that Christ did not die, and consequently that we are not redeemed by his blood. Every expression therefore, which the apostles used concerning redemption by the death of Christ, was an express contradiction to the Gnostic notions: and since we hear in our own day that a real redemption through the blood of Christ was not the doctrine of the apostles, let us listen to Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, in his argument against the Docetae. “ The Lord,” he says, “ having redeemed us by his “ own blood, and given his life for our lives, and his “ own flesh for our flesh,—all the doctrines of the “ heretics are overthrown. For they are vain, who “ say that he suffered in appearance only; for these “ things did not come to pass in appearance, but in “ substantial truth p.” And in another place, “ If “ he did not really suffer, then are no thanks due to.

>’ V. I. i. p. 292. M 3

“ him, since his suffering was nothings—He there- “ fore united the human nature to the divine. For if it had not been man who overcame the adver- “ sary of man, he would not have been really over- “ come : and, on the other hand, if it had not been “ God who gave salvation, we should not have had “ it with security *i.” Such was the argument of Irenaeus against the Docetae: and it is equally strong against all who deny the divinity of Christ, and redemption through his blood. Many expres­sions also in the apostolic writings, which we might otherwise pass over, may have been directed against this fatal error. As when St. Paul says, We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones^r; (Eph. y. 30.) or when he speaks of those who are enemies of ihe cross of Christ: (Phil. iii. 18 ^s.) or St. Peter, of the false teachers who primly shall bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them. (2 Pet. ii. 1.) These and other ex­pressions are scattered up and down in the apostolic writings, and would be well understood by the true believers : but I would now return to the Gospel of St. Luke, where we find a plain allusion to the fan­cies of the Docetae in the passage already referred to, Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my­self, handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh

9 III. 18. 7. p. 211. “ Jesus Christ is come in the

¹ Ireneeus quotes this text, “ flesh is Antichrist, and who-

when arguing against the Gnos- “ever does not confess the

tics, and in favour of the Eu- “ mystery of the Cross is of

charist. V. 2, 3. p. 294. “ the Devil.” (Ad Philip. 7.

^s This is referred to the Do- p. 188,) Buddeus refers it to

cetee by Theodoret ad 1. and the Judaizing teachers. Eccles.

at least very similar to the ex- Apost. p. 126. 555. Compare

pression of Polycarp, “ Who- 1 Cor. i. 17.

" ever does not confess that

and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke xxiv. 39, 40.) I can hardly conceive that St. Luke, who was not present at the time, intro­duced this passage, without intending to remove some doubts which Gnostic teachers may have eaused: and that these doubts were circulated in Palestine, we may infer also from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which was perhaps written about four years after the Gospel of St. Luke. The two first chapters of this Epistle are occupied in proving that the nature of Christ was not that of Angels : a notion, which, as I have observed, one party of the Docetae was inclined to entertain: and the apostle concludes his argument with what must be consi­dered a direct refutation of these heretics, Foras­much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, i. e. the devil. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels: but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him tc be made like unto his brethren\ (Heb. ii. 14—17.) All this is very strong: but the Gospel and Epistles of St. John contain pas­sages which are still more express.

It is not material for us to decide the question, which of these documents was written first: but in conformity with the opinion of most critics, I will begin with referring to the First Epistle of St. John, the earliest date of which is placed at about ten

¹ This is considered as a refutation of the Docetae by Theodo­ret. Her. Fab. V. 12. p. 283.

years after the Epistle to the Hebrews¹¹. It is per­haps not unworthy of remark, that St. John was acting together with St. Peter, when Simon Magus, the parent of all heresy, was rebuked by him in Sa­maria. (Acts viii. 14.) He had watched the pro­gress of heretical opinions for a much longer period than any other of the apostles, and so impressed was his mind with the danger arising from the tenets of the Docetse, and so forcibly does he seem to have been struck with these doctrines at Ephesus, that without any prelude he immediately begins his Epistle with contradicting them: That which was from the beginning, he says, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life—that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you. (1 John i. 1—3.) Again he warns his converts in express terms of the danger which awaited them : Beloved, he says, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God*: and every spirit that

" “ Drs. Benson, Hales, and “ place it before the destruc-

“ others, place it in the year “ tion of Jerusalem, but with-

“ 68 ; bishop Tomline in 69; “ out specifying the precise

“ Lampe, after the first Jewish “ year.” Horne’s Introduc-

“ war, and before the apostle’s tion, &c. vol. IV. p. 428. See

“ exile in Patmos ; Dr. Lard- Lampe, Prolegom. in Joan. I. 7.

“ ner, A. D. 80, or even later; 4. p. 106.

“ Mill and Le Clerc, in A. D. * Concerning the remarkable

“ 91 or 92 ; Beausobre, L’En- various readings in this place, I

“ fant, and Du Pin, at the end would refer to my Testimonies

“ of the first century ; and of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,

“ Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, No. 248. Sixtus Senensis

“ Michaelis, and Macknight, might be thought to say that

confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the fleshy, is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John iv. 1—3.) The same declaration is made in the Second Epistle, Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. (2 John 7.) To deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, was nothing else than to hold the doctrine of the Doce­tae : and if any doubt were felt upon this subject, it would be removed by the testimony of Ignatius² and Polycarp% both of whom had heard St. John, and both of whom allude to this passage, when they are proving against false brethren that Christ was truly bom, that he truly died, and truly rose again.

If we now turn to the Gospel of St. John^b, we find him declaring, almost at the beginning of it, that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us: (i. 14.) an expression, which, as Irenseus justly ob­serves, shews the falsehood of every notion enter­tained by the Docetae⁰. It must also have been re­marked by every one, that St. John relates much more circumstantially than St. Luke the proofs which our Saviour gave after his resurrection of his

the corruption was made by Joan. II. 2. who places it be-

Manicheus. Bill. S. 1. VII. fore the destruction of Jerusa-

hser. I. p. 561. ed. 1591. lem.

y Mar cion said this. Tertull. ^c III. n. 3. p. 189. Barde-

de Prescript. 33. p. 214. It is sanes, who was a Docetist,

applied to the Docetae by Pe- tried to evade the force of this

tavius, Dogmat. Theol. de In- text. See Beausobre, vol. II.

cam. I. 4. p. 8. p. 138. Epiphanius observes,

^z Ad Smym. 5. p. 36. that it also refuted those who

^a Ad Philip. 7. p. 188. said that Christ descended upon

^b For the date of this Gos- a mere man. H<er. LXXVII. pel, see Lampe, Prolegom. in 29. p. 1023.

having a real body. He says that Jesus first shewed his hands and his feet to ten of the disciples : and after the expiration of eight days, he had that re­markable conversation with St. Thomas, which it is not necessary for me to quote. But if the story was already in circulation, which we know to have been afterwards current with the Docetae, that St. John had found the body of his master to be unsubstan­tial, and to offer no resistance to the touch⁶⁹, we can easily understand why he entered so minutely into particulars which entirely refuted such an idle tale. This also might explain why it is he himself who twice informs us, that he leaned on the breast of Jesus at supper: (xiii. 23 : xxi. 20.) and it was with this view only, I conceive, that he spoke so emphatically of the blood and water coming from our Saviour’s side, jLnd he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe, (xix. 35.) There is an earnestness and solemnity in these words, occurring as they do in the middle of a narrative, and almost interrupting the connexion of a sentence, which is at least very remarkable. The inferences deduced from this fact may be different: but it is plain, that St. John wished us to understand that he had actu­ally seen what he relates concerning the blood and water: and yet it may appear strange, that a cir­cumstance such as this should call forth so solemn an attestation. Commentators have generally agreed that the fact, which is here so earnestly stated as a matter of belief, was the real and actual death of Jesus: that animation was not merely suspended for a time, and returned again when the body was removed from the cross ; but that the process which

we call death had actually taken place. Modern commentators will add, that the presence of water mixed with the blood proves that the pericardium was pierced : and it has been asserted, that in the case of persons dying from torture, the quantity of water is increased. But though these statements have been made by persons who ought to be compe­tent to decide, we must not forget that the early Christian writers thought very differently upon the subject. Hippolytus and Origen, who wrote in the third century, considered the blood and water to be an extraordinary phenomenon, which distinguished the death of Jesus from that of every other person. So far from looking upon them as a proof of Jesus being dead, they remark that blood immediately eongeals in dead bodies: and they dwell upon the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus as an unparalleled occurrence, which contained a mystical and hidden meaning:

It may be said perhaps, that in those days anatom­ical and physical phenomena were little understood: but still it appears plain, that in the third century St. John was not supposed to have used these strong expressions with a view of proving that Jesus was dead’⁰. To which I would add, that he' would hardly have used them with that intention, unless some per­sons, at the time when he was writing,, had denied the reality of Christ’s death; unless the idea was prevalent with some persons at least, that the body of Jesus had been taken from the cross before life was extinct. But it does not appear, that any here­tics, or any enemies of the Gospel, ever entertained such a notion as this ^d; the Jews and Greeks were

^d Origen has mentioned some “ Christ was not really dead, heretics, who taught "that “ but had the likeness of death.

ready enough to concede that Christ had died: and as to the Gnostics, they would not allow that the body of Jesus had been nailed to the cross at all; and most assuredly they would never believe, that it poured forth blood and water. To which it may be added, that the fact of the soldiers not breaking the legs of Jesus, which St. John had just before re­corded, was a still more convincing proof of his death. With respect to the fact of water being col­lected round the heart of a dead person, I do not presume to offer an opinion: I believe however that the notion will be found not to* be correct. This at least I have no hesitation in asserting, that to prove the death of Christ from this fact, is an idea entirely modern. It is not perhaps generally known, that the body of Christ was always supposed in former days to be pierced on the right, and not on the left side. Whoever has seen ancient representations of the crucifixion, may satisfy himself of this fact: and even now there are ceremonies in the Romish church connected with this notion, which shew that for­merly no one conceived the heart of our Saviour to have been pierced’¹. I have thus endeavoured to shew that the emphatic words of St. John were not intended to demonstrate that Jesus was actually dead; and when we consider the very general suc­cess which the Gnostic doctrines had met with in Asia, it seems much more natural to suppose, that

“ and rather appeared to die quite unnecessary to answer

“ than really died.” They sup- them. (Ad Rom. 1. V. §. 9. p.

ported their doctrine by the 563, 564.) In the Index to the

words of St. Paul in Rom, vi. Benedictine edition it is said,

5. r<3 ofioitofiari tov Bavarov avrov, that these heretics were Basi-

which may shew what sort of lides and Manes: but no au-

reasoners they were ; and Ori- thority is given for such an

gen very justly adds that it is opinion.

St. John recorded this fact with a view to confute the Docetae. Many arguments for the reality of Christ’s body might be evaded. But when the soldiers with their own hands took his body, and piercing it with nails found in it the same resistance which is made by other material substances, it would seem impos­sible to persuade them, that the object of their vio­lence was a mere phantom. But of all the circum­stances which attended the crucifixion, none would be more conclusive for the corporeal nature of Jesus, than the fact of a spear being thrust into his side, and blood issuing from the wound. If any doubt should have been felt as to the reality of his body, the circumstance of the blood would surely remove it: and it was natural, that St. John would dwell with particular emphasis upon the fact, since it was one which he had seen with his own eyes, and which so powerfully confuted the arguments of his opponents.

It only remains for me to consider the other part of the Gnostic creed, which held that Jesus and Christ were two distinct persons ; and that the Mon Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism⁷². This notion seems to have been entertained by all the Gnostics, whether they were Docetae or no: it was at the baptism of Jesus, that Christ quitted the pleroma, and united himself either to an imma­terial phantom, or to a previously existing human being, and this same iEon returned to the pleroma, when Christ was, or appeared to be crucified^e. If we may argue from the apostolic writings, the notion of Simon Magus, which was in fact that of the

^e Chr. Lupus thought that sufferedin the flesh, (i Pet. iii. St. Peter meant to confute this 18.) Not. ad Tertv.ll. de Pree- notion, when he said that Christ script, p. 551.

Docetae, “prevailed for a long time before the other was thought of. I shall shew presently that St. John refuted the notion of Christ descending upon Jesus at his baptism: but his writings might lead us to think, that Jesus was still considered by the heretics to have an immaterial body, and not to be a man, the offspring of human parents. We know from history, that the latter notion was entertained before the death of St. John : and the evidence is so strong, of his having written against Cerinthus and Ebion, the supporters of such a doctrine, that it is hardly possible to doubt that these two persons lived in the first century. It falls therefore within the subject of these Lectures to consider the history of Cerinthus and Ebion: and I shall proceed as briefly as I can to collect those facts which appear most authentic con­cerning them.

I need not observe, that the names of these here­tics do not occur in the New Testament; but if some writers are to be believed, one of them at least was implicated in certain transactions, which are men­tioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus Cerinthus is said to have been one of those Jews, who, when St. Peter returned to Jerusalem, expostulated with him for having baptized Cornelius, (xi. 2.) He is also stated to have been one of those, who went down from Judaea to Antioch and said, Except ye be cir­cumcised after the manner qf Moses, ye cannot be saved, (xv. 1.) According to the same account he was one of the false teachers who seduced the Gala­tians to Judaism : and he is also charged with join­ing in the attack which was made upon St. Paul, for polluting the temple by the introduction of Greeks, (xxi. 27, 28.) I cannot find any older authority for

these statements than that of Epiphanius^f, who wrote late in the fourth century, and is by no means worthy of implicit credit. He asserts also, that Cerinthus was one of the persons alluded to by St. Luke, as having already undertaken to write the life of Jesus s. But all these stories I take to be en­tirely inventions; and there is no evidence that Cerinthus made himself conspicuous at so early a period. We have seen that Irenaeus speaks of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, as being considerably prior to that of the Cerinthians: according to the same writer Carpocrates also preceded Cerinthus^h : and if it be true, as so many of the Fathers assert, that St. John wrote his Gospel expressly to confute this heresy, we can hardly come to any other conclusion, but that it was late in the first century when Cerin­thus rose into notice¹³.

He appears undoubtedly to have been a Jew; and there is evidence, that after having studied philo­sophy in Egypt, he spread his doctrines in Asia Minor'. This will account for his embracing the Gnostic opinions, and for his exciting the notice of

^f They will aJl be found in’ p. 103—105. Epiphanius also

his account of Cerinthus, HtEr. seems to put Carpocrates first.

XXVIII. Baronius, Natalis Hair. XXVIII. 1. p. 110. The-

Alexander, Usher, and Cave, odoret names several heretics

were partly inclined to believe between Carpocrates and Ce-

some of these statements. They rinthus. ..

are opposed by Buddeus, (Ec- ‘ “ Having passed aconsider-

cles. Apost. p. 127.) Basnage, “ able time in Egypt, andstu-

(Annal. Polit. Eccles. ad an. 50. -“died the philosophical sys-

§. 19. p. 599.) “ tems, he afterwards went

e Haer. LI. 7. p. 428. “ into Asia.” Theodoret. Har.

^h At least he names Carpo- Fab. II. 3. p. 219. Irenaeus

crates before Cerinthus, and he speaks x>f his teaching in Asia,

appears to be observing the I. 26. 1. p. 105. order of time, I. 25, and 26.

St. John who resided at Ephesus. He was certainly a Gnostic in his notion of the creation of the world, which he conceived to have been formed by Angels: and his attachment to that philosophy may explain what otherwise seems inconsistent, that he retained some of the Mosaic ceremonies, such as the observ­ance of sabbaths and circumcision, though, like other Gnostics, he ascribed the Law and the Prophets to the Angel who created the world⁵⁴. We have seen, that this adoption or rejection of different parts of the same system was a peculiar feature of the Gnos­tic philosophy: and the name of Cerinthus probably became so eminent, because he introduced a fresh change in the notion concerning Christ. The Gnos­tics, as we have seen, like their leader Simon Magus, had all of them been Docetae : but Cerinthus is said to have maintained that Jesus had a real body, and was the son of human parents, Joseph and Mary. In the other points he agreed with the Gnostics, and believed that Christ was one of the iEons who de­scended on Jesus at his baptism.

It is difficult to ascertain who was the first Gnos­tic that introduced this opinion. Some writers give the merit of it to Ebion: and yet it is generally said that Cerinthus and Ebion agreed in their opinions concerning Christ, and that Cerinthus preceded Ebion. Again, Carpocrates is said to have held the same sentiments ; and he is placed by Irenseus be­fore Cerinthus; so that it is difficult, if not impossi­ble, to decide the chronological precedence of these heretics. Perhaps the safest inference to draw from so many conflicting testimonies is this : that Carpo­crates was the first Gnostic of eminence who was not a Docetist; but that the notion of Jesus being

born of human parents was taught with greater precision and with more success by Cerinthus⁷⁵. Ebion was not the inventor of this notion, so far as he agreed with Cerinthus: but it appears, as we shall see presently, that he introduced a new modi­fication of the doctrine, and it was this which gained him his peculiar celebrity. Carpocrates is reported to have been most distinguished by the gross immo­rality of his life: and whatever we may think of the imputations cast upon the Gnostics in general, it seems impossible to deny that this person at least professed and practised a perfect liberty of action.

There is strong evidence, that in this instance also Cerinthus followed his example: and there is a peculiar doctrine ascribed to this heretic, which if it originated with him, may well account for the cele­brity of his name. Cerinthus has been handed down as the first person who held the notion of a millen­nium: and though the Fathers undoubtedly believed, that previous to the general resurrection the earth would undergo a renovation, and the just would rise to enjoy a long period of terrestrial happiness, yet there was a marked and palpable difference be­tween the millennium of the Fathers and that of Cerinthus. The Fathers conceived this terrestrial happiness to be perfectly pure and freed from the imperfections of our nature: but Cerinthus is said to have promised his followers a millennium of the grossest pleasures and the most sensual gratifica­tions’⁶. It is singular that all the three sources, to which we have traced the Gnostic doctrines, might furnish some foundation for this notion of a millen­nium. Thus Plato has left some speculations con­cerning the great year, when after the expiration

of 36000 years the world was to be renewed, and the golden age was to return^k. ; It, was the belief of the Persian Magi, according to Plutarch, that the time would come when Ahreman, or the evil principle, would be destroyed, when the earth would lose its impediments and inequalities, and all man­kind would be of one language, and enjoy uninter­rupted happiness¹. It was taught in the . Cabbala that the world was to last 6000 years, which would be followed by a period of rest for 1000 years more. There appears in this an evident allusion, though on a much grander scale, to the sabbatical years of rest. The institution of the jubilee, and the glowing descriptions given by the prophets of the restore tion of the Jews and the reign of the Messiah, may have led the later Jews to some of their mystical fancies™: and when all these systems were blended together by the. Gnostics, it is not strange if a millennium formed part of their creed long be­fore the time of Cerinthus¹¹-

^k I have mentioned in note Introd. ad Hist. Phil. Ebr. 41. ^7b, the charge hrought by Cel- p. 361. and the authors quoted sus of the Christians having by him. Newton, Diss. oh Rev. borrowed from Plato upon this xx. Burnet, Theory of the Earth, subject. Eusebius observes,that IV. 5, 6. That some of the Plato agreed with the Jewish Jews in our Saviour’s time ex­writers in expecting a new state pected the next life to be one of existence, or a heaven upon in which persons will marry earth, and quotes a long pas- and eat meat, may be inferred sage from the Phaedo, p. 108. from Matt. xxii. 28. and Luke &c. (Prtep. Evang. XI. 37. p. xiv. 14, 15. More recent Jews 564.) bave held the same notions.

¹ Plutarch, de Is. et Osir. p. ' "I have observed in note ⁴⁸,

370. B. See also Hyde, c. 33. that Simon Magus has been

p. 408. suspected of holding this no-

^m For the doctrine held by tion: and Jerom asserts that

the Cabbalists and the notion it was maintained by the Ebion-

of the Jews generally concern- ites as well as the Cerinthians,

ing the jubilee and the final in Esaiam, lxvi. 20. vol. IV.

state of the world, see Buddeus, p. 8 23.

It seems probable however that he went much further than his predecessors, in teaching that the millennium would consist in a course of sensual in­dulgence : and it may have been his notions upon this subject, added to those concerning the human nature of Christ, which led him to maintain, con­trary to the generality of Gnostics, that Christ had not yet risen, but that he would rise hereafter”. The Gnostics, as we have seen, denied the resurrec­tion altogether. Believing Jesus to be a phantom, they did not believe that he was crucified, and they could not therefore believe that he had risen. But Cerinthus, who held that Jesus was born, like other human beings, found no difficulty in believing lite­rally that he was crucified: and he is said also to have taught that he would rise from the dead at some future period. It is most probable that this period was that of the millennium: and the words of St. John in the Revelations would easily be per­verted, where it is said of the souls of the martyrs," that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, (xx. 4.)

It has been supposed by some writers, that this was the notion, and not the one more commonly maintained by the Gnostics, to which St. Paul al­luded when he urged in his First Epistle to the Corin­thians, that Christ had really risen from the dead. I should rather have thought that Cerinthus had not published his sentiments at so early a period: but if he was really referred to by St. Paul in this passage, we may perhaps adopt the explanation of some of the Fathers concerning an obscure expres­sion which occurs in the course of the argument. St. Paul asks, after having asserted the doctrine of the

N 2

resurrection, Else⁰ what shall they do which are bap­tizedfor the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they then baptised for the dead f (xv. 29.) and Epiphanius has preserved a tradition, that the Ce- rinthians, if one of their proselytes died without being baptized, substituted a living person in his room, and baptized him for the person who was dead. It will perhaps be allowed, that if such a practice could be proved to have existed, this would furnish a simpler and more literal interpretation of St. Paul’s words than any other which has been given to them. Some of the Fathers have adopted this literal ex­planation : and the objection, which is generally brought, that St. Paul would not have taken an argument from the practice of heretics, has not perhaps much weight. St. Paul was evidently ar­guing against heretics who denied the resurrection: and if he had asked them why they baptized their converts, since the baptismal resurrection was a sign, and therefore an acknowledgment, of a future and final resurrection, they would have replied, that baptism admitted their converts to every Gnostic privilege, and was in itself the resurrection: but that the soul of a Gnostic, as soon as it was freed from the body by death, flew up to the Pleroma. St. Paul would then rejoin, If this be so, why do you baptize a living person for the dead, for one whose soul is already separated from the body? it is plain that in this case you must expect some change to happen to the dead person in consequence of bap-

⁰ ’Ettci seems to be used in Plato, dAV t<ras ovk SKlyov epyov

this place, for otherwise, if this etrnv, CO SetKpares' eirei TTavv ye

be not so, as it is in Rom. iii. o’a<f>£>s txoipi av eirt8ei£ai woi.

6. xi. 6, 22. i Cor. v. io. and Euthyphron, p. 9. in the following passage of

tism. There is nothing unnatural in supposing St. Paul thus to argue from a concession made by his opponents, though those opponents were heretics: and that he was really doing this, may perhaps be inferred from the words which immediately follow, And why stand we in jeopardy every hour f t'i kcu Ktv$wevo[j.ev icdaav aipav; a form of construction which might lead us to think that he had not before been speaking of true Christians, but now returned to them. His argument therefore is this : If there be no resurrection, why do the heretics, who say so, practise a vicarious baptism even for the dead, and why do we stand in daily danger of our lives, when by denying our belief in a resurrection, we might escape that danger ? I repeat that this would be the simplest and most literal interpretation of St. Paul’s words: and the whole seems to depend upon the degree of weight which we give to the tradition preserved by Epiphanius’⁸.

But I have perhaps dwelt too long upon the his­tory of Cerinthus, and I should proceed immediately to consider that of Ebion, if Epiphanius had not preserved the names of four other persons, who agreed with Cerinthus in believing Christ to be born of human parents. These persons are Cleo- bius or Cleobulus, Claudius, Demas, and Hermo­genes. Of the two first, though they are mentioned by other writers, I shall say nothing more in this place, because their names do not occur in the apo­stolic writings: but Epiphanius evidently meant by Demas the same person, of whom St. Paul writes to Timothy, Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessa- lonicai (2 Tim. iv. 10.) and by Hermogenes he

N 3

meant the same who is coupled with Phygellus as having turned away from St. Paul in Asia. (i. 15.) Anecdotes such as these, when they occur in the writings of the later Fathers, should be received with great caution: and I should be unwilling to believe, without some stronger evidence, that Demas had actually apostatized from his faith, and joined the ranks of the Gnostics. That Hermogenes and Phygellus did this, I have already shewn to be pro­bable : and it is even said by a writer later than Epiphanius, that Demas became a priest in a hea­then temple at Thessalonica. We might suspect that this place was fixed upon as the scene of his apostasy, merely because St, Paul had said, Demas is departed unto Thessalonica: but we should re­member that in the same sentence Crescens is said to have gone to Galatia, and Titus unto Dalmatia; neither of whom was ever charged with apostasy: and the more probable as well as the more charit­able conjecture would be, that during the persecution which was then raging by the order of Nero, those persons, as St. Paul says, loved this present world, i. e. they did not feel themselves called upon to expose their lives unnecessarily, and they profited by the permission which their heavenly Master ap­peared to have given, When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another¹⁹.

With respect to Ebion, it has often been disputed whether such a person ever really existed, or whe­ther his followers were not called Ebionites, from a Hebrew term signifying poor?. It is certain that in later times the Ebionites took credit to them­

selves for being named after the first believers, who made themselves poor*: and their opponents re­proached them with this name, as being expressive of the poverty of their doctrines, and of the mean opinion which they entertained of Christ^1, But not­withstanding these verbal allusions, it seems by no means improbable that there was such a person as Ebion⁸⁰: and by some writers he is said to have been a disciple of Cerinthus. We might be more certain of speaking correctly, if we say that they were contemporaries⁸¹: and it is only on the author­ity of two late writers that Ebion is represented as an eloquent man⁵, and attached to the philosophy of the Stoics*. Whether he published his doctrines in Rome and Cyprus, as is said by Epiphanius", may perhaps be doubted; but that he disseminated them in Asia³⁵, and in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, can hardly admit of a dispute.

In many points he resembled Cerinthus : and the sentiments of the two heresiarchs have perhaps been sometimes confounded. Thus they both are repre­sented as Jews ; and both of them agreed in ob­serving some parts of Judaism, as well as in reject­ing others. It is said of Ebion in particular, that

(

‘I Epiphan. Hesr. XXX. 17. imorpe(j>ere 1rah.1v iir\ ra acrdevrj p. 141. fcai irrtu^a aroi^eia. Gal. iv. 9.

^r lb. Origen. de Princip. Perhaps Tertullian meant to IV. 22. p. 183. cont. Cels. II. make this remark in the words 1. p. 385. In the latter place, which I have quoted at the be- Origen says that the Ebionites ginning of note ⁸¹. were eitavvjioi Trjs Kara rrjv efcSo- ^s Gabriel Prateoli.(A.D. 157°0 yrjv TTTcoxeias tov vofiov and since ¹ Marius Mercator. (A. D. it is undoubted that they ad- 418.)’ Append, ad Contradict. hered to the Mosaic law, I am 12 Anath. Nestorii. §. 13.. part, rather surprised that no com- II. p. 128. cd. 1673. mentator has referred to them ^u Haer. XXX. 18. p. 142. those words of St. Paul, 7r£s ^x lb. etp.423.

N 4

he acknowledged the patriarchs, and some of the earlier prophets: but not the later ones, nor the whole of the Pentateuch⁸'. Like Cerinthus, he is said to have believed in a millennium 7; and his moral practice has been stated to have been equally licentious : but if it be true, that he abstained from eating animal food, it might be thought that the ac­counts of his sensuality are exaggerated or misre­presented². With respect to the difference of opinion between Cerinthus and Ebion, we are not bound to suppose it to have been great, though they are named as leaders of two distinct sects. They both differed from the rest of the Gnostics in not believ­ing Jesus to be a phantom: and it is certain that the Ebionites were divided among themselves in their notion concerning Jesus. Some of them be­lieved with Cerinthus that he was a mere man, bom of human parents : while others, though they do not appear to have believed his preexistence, taught that he was conceived miraculously of the Virgin Mary. It is not unlikely that Ebion himself maintained this latter doctrine, and this may account for his

y This is stated by Jerom in enjoined celibacy, but that Esaiam lxvi. and we may continence of this kind was perhaps infer it from an ex- afterwards prohibited by them: pression in Irenaeus, “ Quse (p. 126.) and that they even “ autem sunt prophetica, cu- compelled their youhg men to “ riosius exponere nituntur.” marry at an early age, and al­I. 26. 2. p. 105. lowed divorces with such faci-

¹ I know of no author, ex- lity, that a man might marry

cept Epiphanius, who speaks seven wives : “ for they do

of the profligacy of the Ebion- “ even this without scruple.”

ites. He says that they com- (p. 142.) And yet in the same

bined the bad principles of all page he mentions their absti-

heresies, and he specifies “ the nence from animal food, which

“ loose morality (kiikotpair lav) circumstance is also recorded

“ of the Carpocratians.” (p. by Damascenus and Timotheus

125.) He adds, that they once Presbyter.

holding so conspicuous a place in the list of heretics. It has been observed, that he ascribed the creation of the world to God, while Cerinthus supposed it to be the work of Angels⁸³: but we know too little of Ebion’s philosophy to put this distinction in a strong light: and I should rather make the difference be­tween them to have consisted in their notion con­cerning Jesus. It seems probable that the first Ebionites believed in the miraculous conception, though not in the full sense which was attached to those words by the orthodox Christians. The Ce- rinthians believed Jesus to be bom in the ordinary way: and I should suspect that in course of time many of the Ebionites came over to that opinion, so as to leave little or no difference between them ; but some still adhered to the original notion that Jesus was born of a Virgin, though they denied that he was the Son of God⁸⁴.

In speaking of the doctrines of these heretics, we must be careful always to observe their distinction between Jesus and Christ. Concerning the person of Jesus they differed, but concerning the descent of Christ upon Jesus at his baptism they were perfectly agreed. They therefore made Jesus and Christ two distinct persons ; and they would neither have said that Christ was born, nor that Jesus was the Son of God. Unless we bear this in mind, we shall not see the full force of some of the expressions in St. John’s First Epistle. There he says, Who is a liar, but he that denieih that Jesus is the Christ t He is Antichrist, that, denieth the Father and the Son. (ii. 22.) And again, Whosoever shall confess that JESUS is the Son of God, God dweUeth in him, and he in God. (iv. 15.) I have already observed*

that there is much in this Epistle which refers to the Docetae: but the two passages which I have just quoted may perhaps be considered as directed rather against Cerinthus or Ebion\. Whatever St. John might say against the notion of Christ de­scending upon Jesus at his baptism, would apply to these two heretics as well as to the Docetae : for in that point they were all agreed: and the words which I have chosen for my text contain, as I ima­gine, a direct allusion to that doctrine.

The passage in the fifth chapter, concerning the water and the blood, is justly held to be obscure: and I am aware of the mystical allusions which have been traced between the water and blood in this place, and the same substances flowing from our Saviour’s side, and the two sacraments of the Christian Church^b. The Fathers were fond of such allusions as these⁰. But I say it with deference, that such exercises of the imagination are more suited to the infancy of biblical criticism than to the more pro­found and rational speculations of the present day. Without examining any of these interpretations, I shall proceed to consider whether we cannot refer the whole passage much more satisfactorily to the Gnostic notion concerning Christ.

^a “ In Epistola eos maxime descended upon Jesus at his

“ antichristos vocat, qui Chris- baptism. See note ⁸⁴.

“ turn negarent in carne ve- ^b See Waterland, vol. V. p.

“ nisse, et qui non putarent 190.

“ Jesum esse Filium Dei. Illud ^c Tertullian connects iJohn.

“ Marcion, hoc Hebion vin- v. 6. with John xix. 34. and

“ dicavit.” Tertull. de Pres- adds, “ venerat per aquam et

script. 33. p. 214. I should “ sanguinem, ut aqua tingere-

quote this as another proof “ tur, sanguine glorificaretur.”

that Tertullian considered Ebi- De Baptismo, 16. p. 230. See

on as believing Christ to have above, p. 171

The fifth chapter begins with these words, Who­soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.- It will perhaps be allowed, that to be born of God means to be a Christian, to have that faith which Christ requires when he admits a person into his covenant. St. John therefore here says, Whoso­ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has the true faith of a Christian; from which it follows, that whosoever does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, has not the true faith of a Christian. Now this was precisely the point which all the Gnostics, whether Cerinthians or Docetae, refused to believe. They would not say that Jesus is the Christ, at least they would not say that he was the Christ at his birth, or before his baptism. They held that Jesus was one person, and Christ another. The two were united for a time, when Christ had descended upon Jesus at his baptism: but they had existed sepa­rately before his baptism, and they were again se­parated before his crucifixion. It was with good reason therefore that St.John made this point the^ test of a Christian’s belief: it was necessary for him to say explicitly that Jesus is the Christ^d: and St. John is only proposing a similar test, when he says in the fifth verse, Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of

^d I cannot imagine what sus came in the flesh, (iv. 3.) Mosheim could mean by as- He conceived the first to be serting that “ no Gnostics de- Jews, who denied our Saviour’s “ nied Jesus to be the Christ.” divine nature ; and the second (Instit. Maj. p. 3x4.) He sup- to be Gnostics. But no Gnos- poses St. John to have alluded tic, whether a Docetist or no, to two different descriptions of believed J.esus to be the Christ heretics, those who denied Jc- before his baptism ; and there- sus to be the Christ, (ii. 22.) fore I consider both expres­and those who denied that Je- sions to refer to the Gnostics.,

God f In the fourth verse he had explained what he meant by overcoming the world. This is the vic­tory, he says, that overcometh the world, even our faith. So that to overcome the world, and to be bom qf God, are used by St. John for the same thing, for the true belief which it is necessary for a Christian to hold. He tells us therefore that the true Chris­tian must believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jesus is the Son of God. The Gnostic would have said, that Christ was united to Jesus at his baptism, or he would have said, attaching his own meaning to the words, that Christ was the Son of God: but St. John rejected these imperfect and evasive confes­sions, and required the true Christian to say une­quivocally, that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jesus is the Son of God. He then continues. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. The Gnostics no doubt had heard in the preaching of the apostles, and by this time they had seen it in the written Gospels, that when Jesus rose out of the water, the Spirit descended upon him like a dove, and a voice was heard, which said, This is my beloved Son. This was the foundation upon which the Gnostics built their doctrine concerning Christ. They held that the Spirit, which descended like a dove, was one of the iEons called Christ: that Jesus went into the water either a delusive phan­tom, or a mere human being, but that when he came out of the water, Christ was residing in him. St. John denies this in the verse which I have read: This is he, he says, that came by water and blood, even Jems Christ: not Jesus only, nor Christ only,

but Jesus Christ: not two separate beings united for a time, but one person. Nor did this one person, Jesus Christ, come by water only, or in the water only, when he was baptized: but he had been come long before by blood, when he was first made flesh and dwelt among us. And as to the Spirit which descended like a dove, and which was said by the Gnostics to be the iEon Christ, then for the first time coming down from heaven, St. John goes on to say, It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth: or in other words, The Spirit was not Christ, as the Gnostics say, but it came to bear witness of Christ, to testify that Jesus, on whom the Spirit descended, was the Son of God: and this witness was given by God himself, when he said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaded. If any of the Gnostic writings had come down to us, we should perhaps find that it was a common expression in them to say that Christ came by water, or in the water. It at least seems plain, that some persons must have said so, or St. John would not have thought it necessary to assert, that he did not come by water only. But ecclesiastical history acquaints us with no persons who would have said that Christ came by water only, except the Gnostics: and they, whether Cerinthians or Docetae, would certainly have said so, since this was their funr damental doctrine concerning the descent of Christ. I would observe also, that though our translators in each place wrote “ by water,” the expressions are not the same in the Greek ; and the literal transla­tion would be, This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood, ovk ev rai v^an /xovov, akX’ lv

toS vteni km Tu alftiaTi, which last clause might per­haps- be rendered, “ but in the water and by blood and the meaning of the whole passage would be, that Christ did not come when the Spirit descended upon Jesus in the water, but Christ was with Jesus both when he was in the water, and before, when he was born into the world^e.

v It may be said, perhaps, that the phrase coming by blood is a very extraordinary one, to express bang born into the world: to which I would answer, that the fairest' and safest way to interpret an author is by his own expressions ; and when St. John in his Gospel wished to speak of the spiritual birth of a regenerated Christian, in opposition to his first or na­tural birth, he writes, Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (i. 13.) It is plain, that to be born of blood is used in this place by St. John for a natural or ordinary birth : and so I conceive, that when he spoke in his Epistle of Jesus Christ coming by blood, he meant to assert, contrary to the Gnostics, that Christ as well as Jesus was born of Mary, or, as it is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he was par­taker of flesh and blood, (ii. 14.) I have perhaps spent too much time upon what may seem to some a matter of verbal criticism : but I could not pass over what appears to me so plain an allusion to the Ce- rinthian heresy without discussing it at some length. I am aware, that this is not the usual interpretation, and I offer it with the greatest diffidence^f: but when

' In the first clause of v. 6. iii. 5. we have yevvr)6rj ig SSaros. it is fit’ vflaTog, in the second h> ^f Michaelis understood this

Tim vSan, and John the Baptist passage to be directed against

speaks of himself as baptizing, the Cerinthian notion of Christ

eV Sfian, John i. 33. In John descending upon Jesus at his

the whole Epistle is so pointedly directed against the Docetae, and when this view of the passage enables us to explain it literally without any allegorical or mystical meaning, I can hardly help concluding that the interpretation is right, and that the false doc­trines of the Gnostics concerning Christ were those which St. John intended to confute⁸*.

baptism : but he explains corn- ferings and death of Christ, vol. iug by blood to relate to the suf- III. part i.e. 7. §. 3. p. 283.

LECTURE VII.

John xx. 81.

These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

In my last Lecture I pointed out some passages in the Epistles of St. John, which appeared to be di­rected against the Gnostic opinions concerning Christ. I also observed, that St. John in his Gospel refutes the notions of the Docetae; and I stated, that accord­ing to the testimony of several ancient writers, his express object in publishing his Gospel was to check the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion. It has often been shewn, that the doctrines delivered in the opening of his Gospel confirm this statement. But I feel it impossible, in examining the Gospel of St. John, not to notice some of the remarks which have been made upon his peculiar phraseology.

We are here obliged to act partly upon the defen­sive; and we must not only consider St.John as the opponent of heresies, but we are called upon to in­quire, whether St. John himself did not introduce new expressions and new doctrines, and corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel. These are heavy charges against the beloved disciple of his Master; and I am entering perhaps upon what is thought dangerous ground, when I propose to consider the influence, which the Platonic doctrines had upon Christianity.

o

But it becomes not the inquirer after truth to neglect or evade a question, because it is beset with danger. It is an old remark, that truth is a single point, but error is infinite: and so long as it pleases God that reason shall be our guide, there is always a chance of our falling, even while we fix our eyes steadily on the light. But the humble fear, which leads us to be diffident of ourselves, is very different from that wilful blindness which is afraid to examine, for fear of meeting difficulties. God forbid, that the timid friend or the insidious opponent of Christianity should say, that in any point it shrinks from inquiry. It has pleased God, that the gospel should be at­tacked, and the same almighty Being has raised up champions in its cause. They have answered every argument, they have refuted every calumny : and he who defends any outwork of our faith, has little else to do than to arm himself with weapons which have already been victorious, and to lay hold of the same shield which has already repelled every as­sault. But it is the peculiar character of infidelity to forget its own defeats: and though the same ar­guments have again and again been answered, they are again and again revived: and the ignorant or doubting mind is in danger, because it knows not the antidote to the poison which is offered. So it is with the charge which has often been brought, that Christianity was corrupted by the doctrines of Plato: a charge, which I may say with confidence, has laid open in its supporters more inconsistencies, and more mistatements than any other, which ever has been advanced.

I have endeavoured to shew in the course of these Lectures, that the Platonic philosophy was one of

the chief causes which led to Gnosticism : and we are told in return, that the Platonic philosophy in­fected Christianity itself. I am far from saying that all persons, who have opposed this charge, have taken their ground judiciously, or put the question in its true light. If Christianity as well as Gnosti­cism had been solely the offspring of the human mind, there is no reason why both hypotheses might not be true ; and the Platonic philosophy might be the source, from which the two streams of Chistian- ity and Gnosticism diverged, nieeting again occa­sionally as they flowed. But Christianity was not an invention of the human mind; and before we proceed further in this subject, I should wish to lay down two fundamental principles: 1. That there are certain points of vital importance for us to believe; by which I mean, not only that to know and believe them is absolutely necessary, but that we must know and believe them in one way and no other. 2. That these points* which are essential to our belief, are such as have been revealed by God. Now if these two principles be granted, it seems to follow as a demonstrable conclusion, that no human opinions can modify or alter in any way whatsoever these fundamental points. Thus for instance, if we say that the divinity of Christ is a doctrine revealed in the Bible, but if our opponents could prove that it was not preached by the apostles, but borrowed by the Fathers from the Platonists, then assuredly we should stand convicted of a contradiction in terms. If we could not answer them, we must either per­sist in saying that a doctrine which was invented by man was also revealed by God, or we must allow that the doctrine itself is not of vital importance. I

o 2

see no middle course for us to adopt: and the ground is therefore so far cleared before us, that we must make a marked distinction between points which are essential and those which are not. If it can be proved that essential articles of our faith, those which we profess to have direct from God, were in­troduced into the church from Platonism, then I have no hesitation in saying that Christianity itself must fall to the ground. The remnant of our faith might still be true; but who would rest his sal­vation upon a speculative chance ? Who would care to cling to the little which was left him of the gospel, if after having fondly hoped that he was warmed by a ray from heaven, he found that he had only been enveloped in an exhalation from the schools ?

It is not so, at least it need not be so, with points which are not fundamental. Here it is, that some advocates of the gospel have shewn too jealous a sensibility, and too great a determination to con­cede nothing to the Platonists. If they say upon conviction, and by an examination of details, that the Platonic philosophy had no influence upon the Fathers, we are bound to believe that they mean to speak the truth. But let us beware how we pre­judge the question, or decide hastily without a know­ledge of the facts. If a person, who has read and reflected on the Bible, were asked, whether he thinks it probable that the apostles and their suc­cessors were influenced at all by heathen philoso­phy, he might answer, that it is not probable: but if the same person were told that Justin Martyr, the earliest Christian Father, who had not con­versed with the apostles, had been an heathen and a

Platonist^a; that Clement and Origen were brought up in the schools of Alexandria, where the Platonic philosophy was most popular with Jews and Gen­tiles, would he reason any longer upon probabilities ? or if he did, would he not be giving a decided ad­vantage to our opponents, who would require a strong case to be made out against the probability that these writers were influenced by Platonism ? There remains therefore but one course, to examine the writings of these persons: a preliminary step, which I fear has been too much neglected by the supporters and the opponents of the charge, that Christianity was corrupted by the Platonic phi­losophy.

It would be easy in the first place to observe, in what terms Justin Martyr and the other Fathers speak of Plato: for if, as we are told, they still con­tinued partial to that philosopher, we should find them endeavouring to narrow the line which sepa­rated them, and to shew that the sublime specula­tions of the heathen, and the revelation which came from heaven, had many points of resemblance. Now it is undeniable, that we do find the Fathers shew­ing this preference to Plato. They do speak of him as teaching the purest and sublimest philosophy; and they do endeavour to prove, that this philoso-

³ He speaks of himself as tonist: he adds, “ the concep-

once “ rejoicing in the doc- “ tion of incorporeal beings

“ trines of Plato:” (ApoL II. “ delighted me greatly; and the

12. p. 96.) and he tells us that “ theory of the Ideas gave wings

he first studied with a Stoical “ to my imagination.” He was

philosopher, then with a Peri- then converted to Christianity,

patetic, then with a Pythago- Dial. cum. Tryph. 2. p. 103. He

rean, and, finding no satisfac- had been at Alexandria. Co-

tion in any of these schools, hort. 13. p. 17. he betook himself to a Pla-

phy resembled the gospel. But at the same time they avow their dissent from Plato; they tell us plainly in what that dissent consisted; and when they give to Plato the precedence in philosophy, it is because among erroneous systems they considered his to ap­proach nearest to the truth⁸⁶. So far were they from making Platonism the rule to which Christianity was to be accommodated, that in some points at least they did exactly the reverse. They assert, with very little evidence, and often contrary to sound reason, that Plato borrowed from. the Jewish scriptures⁸’: and it is demonstrable, that in their zeal to make Plato agree with revelation, they re­present him as saying what he never said, such as that matter was not eternal but created by God^b. This was not the conduct of men, who were so deeply imbued with their ancient creed, or who in­haled so fatally the atmosphere around them, as to set the wisdom, of men above the wisdom of God.

In the next place it is easy to see what were the doctrines of Plato, and what were the doctrines of the Fathers. Both are on record as matters of his­tory. But I would repeat one caution which has been often forgotten in the present controversy; which is, that the later Platonists differ exceedingly from their first founder; and whether it be true, or no, that Platonism influenced Christianity, it is de­monstrable that the Jewish and Christian scriptures had an effect upon Platonism. If the Fathers bor­rowed from the Platonic philosophy, it must be with the later Platonists that we trace their agree­ment; and upon this I would willingly rest the

^b See note ^lS.

issue of the dispute: for it is well known, that the Platonists were the bitterest enemies which the Christians had to encounter. It is true, that they charged the Christians with borrowing from Plato; and these were the same points which the Christians charged Plato with borrowing from Moses: but the later Platonists never ceased their attacks upon the Christians, for corrupting, as they said, the doc­trines of Plato: and when the gospel at length triumphed over heathenism, the Platonists were the last to defend the breach, and many of them died still combating for their expiring cause^c. All this might lead us to imagine that the Platonic phi­losophy and Christianity were considered to have points of resemblance: but that man would be bold indeed, who with so many proofs of disagreement before him, would decide, without well weighing the question, that the Christians borrowed from the Platonists. One point is quite certain, that those who have brought the charge in modern times differ entirely from the Platonists of the four first cen­turies. These philosophers asserted, that the Chris­tians had taken their doctrine of the Logos from Plato, but they reproached them for using it in a totally different sense^d. Our modern opponents have changed the form of the accusation, and say,

^c I need only mention the yeiv tov vibv tov Qeov elvai avro-

names of Porphyry, Sopater, \6yov, and for making Christ

Edesius, Maximus, Marinus, ol Xoyov naBapov ital ayiov, aXXa

Isidorus of Gaza, and Ammo- koi dvBpamov dnfioraTov (II. 3¹ ■

nius; the two last of whom, p. 413.) He says also that the

even in the sixth century, ex- Christians spoke of the Son of

erted themselves in attacking God, because the ancients had

Christianity. called the world the Sfon of

^d Celsus abuses the Chris- God; (VI. 47. p. 669.) tians, a>s o^,u<frt£afievois iv Tip Xe-

that the preexistence and divinity of the Logos were never heard of in the time of the apostles; that it was invented for the first time by Justin Martyr, who took it from the Platonists. It is plain, that the two charges are wholly different, and in fact quite incompatible: the first I conceive to have a groundwork of truth, the latter to be totally false.

Of all the charges which have been repeated by one writer after another, and apparently with little consideration, none is more easy to be refuted than that which makes Justin Martyr the inventor of a new doctrine, and the corrupter of Christianity. I cannot trace this opinion to any earlier author than Zuicker, a Prussian Socinian, who lived in the seventeenth century; and he publicly maintained, that Simon Magus and the Gnostics invented a new doctrine concerning the Logos, totally different from that of the apostles concerning Christ; and that at length Justin Martyr, through his attachment to Platonism, introduced this doctrine into the church^e. Our own country has produced another writer, and almost in our own times, who has embraced this opinion, and confidently pronounced that Justin Martyr is the first Christian writer, who adopted the doctrine of the permanent personality of the Logos. But Priestley has gone much further than

* Zuicker made this asser- of Orpheus. 3. The Platonic

tion in the Irenicum Irenicorum, philosophy. 4. A remnant of

published in 1658. p. 17, 18. attachment to heathenism. 5.

He assigns six principal causes The custom of deifying men.

which led Justin Martyr to in- 6. A superstitious proneness to

troduce his new doctrines of worship one who was merely

Christ and the Logos : 1. The a man. See Bull’s Primitiva et

heresy of Simon Magus. 2. The Apost. Trad, and Nelson’s Life

verses forged under the name of Bull, §.69. p. 336. ed. 1827.

his predecessor in the boldness of his assertions^f. Zuicker was well aware, that the Gospel of St. John was fatal to his hypothesis; and he therefore de­cided that the beginning of that Gospel was not written by the apostle. This was a bold assertion, but it did not treat with contempt our critical or our reasoning powers. Priestley took a totally dif­ferent course, and when speaking of the first verses of St. John’s Gospel, he says, “ In this celebrated “ passage there is no mention of Christ, and that “ the word Logos means Christ, is not to be taken for granted s.” In another place he even goes so far as to say, “that the Christians for whom St. “ John wrote his Gospel, never imagined that Christ “ was meant by the Logos'¹.” We perhaps have a right to assume, when these two writers have re­course to arguments like these, that they found in tbe Gospel of St. John an insuperable objection to their scheme. Accordingly the one endeavoured to mislead our reason, the other would teach us to dis-

^f Zuicker was followed by Sandius in his Nucleus Histories Ecclesiastic<e and Interp. Para­dox. p. 151: the author of Ju­dicium Patrum, fyc. contra G. Bulli Def. Fid. Nic. and by Souverain, Platonisme devoite. It is needless to specify any particular passages in Priest­ley’ s History of the Church, and his History of early Opinions. The innovation introduced by Justin Martyr enters into al­most every argument of both these works. Mosheim is ac­cused of having said the same by the editor of Justin Martyr: (Praf. p, x.) but he repels the

charge in his Dissertations, (vol.

I. p. *j64. vol. II. Prsef.) The editor seems also to be unfair in bringing the same charge again/t Le Clerc, when he quotes his EpistoltB Critical VII. VIII. IX: though Le Clerc seems to have said something of the kind in his Biblioth. Univ. tom. X. p. 181, 403. Bibl. Choi- sie. tom. XII. p. 213.

s Hist, of early Opinions, vol. I. p. 68.

^h lb. III. p. 160. Socinus, Q-ellius, and all the early So- cmians allowed that the Logos meant Jesus Christ.

card it: for most assuredly if any person will say, that when St. John wrote, The Word was made flesh \and dwelt among us, he did not mean the same person whom he afterwards speaks of as Jesus Christ, there can be little profit either to learning or religion by carrying on the dispute.

Justin Martyr is evidently fixed upon as the cor­rupter of Christianity, because he is the earliest of the Fathers who had not conversed With the apo­stles. Whatever he says therefore cannot be traced to any other of the Fathers: but even in this view of the case, there is much unfairness or assumption in the argument of our opponents. The earliest work of Justin Martyr was written, as I have ob­served, about the year 140; and in this and all his writings he speaks plainly and unequivocally of the personality of the Logos. Now it is at least a very weak argument, because no earlier writings are now in existence which contain the same doctrine, that therefore there never were any: and the more natu­ral conclusion would be, that Justin Martyr used words and phrases which would be understood by his contemporaries, rather than those which from being new would be unintelligible, or expose him to general reproach. If the doctrine professed by Jus­tin Martyr was not that of the apostles, we must at least allow a few years for its growing into use, and for Justin being able to speak of it as the doctrine everywhere received. But we need not go back many years, to come to the end of the first century, when St. John himself was yet alive; and after the death of that apostle, there would be thousands of persons, who well knew his sentiments, and who would have shrunk with horror from Justin or any

other person, who made innovations in the Gospel. What shall we say of Polycarp, who, as Irenaeus informs us, had conversed with many who had seen Christ, had been instructed by the apostles, had been appointed by them to the bishopric of Smyrna, and was the immediate disciple of St. John*? Did not Poly carp know the real doctrines of St.John, or would he have tolerated the slightest change in them ? And yet Polycarp lived to a very advanced age, and is supposed to have been martyred about the year 166, long after the period assigned for the corruption of Christianity by Justin Martyr. It was some years after that period, that he is stated by his disciple Irenaeus to have come to Rome, and to have brought back many Christians who had been seduced by Valentinus and Marcion. It is notorious, that these heretics borrowed largely from the Platonic doctrines, from which also we are told that Justin Martyr borrowed: and yet Irenaeus, who speaks of Valentinus being condemned by Poly­carp, commends Justin for the soundness of his faith. Surely then if any point is capable of de­monstration, it is that Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all held the same doctrines. It is also plain that irenaeus everywhere speaks of Christ as the divinely preexisting Logos : Justin Martyr held the same language before and after the arrival of Polycarp at Rome; and Polycarp may be taken as preserving the uniformity of faith from the death of the apostles to late in the second century. If then there ever was a gratuitous assumption, it is this, that Justin Martyr made inroads on the purity

' III. 3, 4. p. 176, 177. et apud Eus. V. 20.

of the gospel: and if ever we had security for the soundness of a Christian’s faith, it is that which Polycarp and Irenaeus furnish to Justin Martyr^k.

Nor is this all. It seems to be forgotten that Ignatius, who died but a few years after St. John, speaks of Christ exactly in the same manner with Justin Martyr. The latter writer expresses himself with more precision, and gives proofs of a more philosophical mind; but one sentence may often shew the sentiments of a man as plainly as the most laboured argument: and if Ignatius had written nothing else concerning Christ than that which he has written, that he is “ the Son of God, his eternal “ Logos¹,” it would be most unwarrantable to say, that the personality of the Logos was a doctrine first introduced by Justin Martyr. But it would be trifling with criticism, as I have already observed, to prove that St. John himself held the personality of the Logos : and the argument of Zuicker is far more rational than that of Priestley, who said that St. John himself was indebted to Platonism for his doctrine of the Logos⁸⁸. This is a statement which it well becomes us to examine ; and the subject is closely connected with that of the present Lectures,

.—an inquiry into the heresies of the first century.

Most persons must have been struck with the opening of St. John’s Gospel: not only for the high and mysterious doctrines which it propounds so abruptly, and in a manner so entirely different from

^k The charge brought against Trad. Maranus, Benedictine

Justin Martyr is refuted by Ca- editor of Justin Martyr, Prtef.

saub. ad Baron, p. 5. Lansse- part. II. c. 1. p.x. lius, Column. Casaub. Dispunct. ¹ Ad Magnes. 8. p. 19. c. 1. Bull, Primit. et Apost.

the other Evangelists, but also for the use of a to­tally new term, which none of those Evangelists had used before. It was the opinion of many of the Fathers, and not a few modern writers have adopted the same notion, that the word Logos is used in the Old Testament, and in many passages of the New, beside the Writings of St. John, with reference to the Son of God, i. e. to Jesus Christ. Thus we find it constantly asserted, that the second and third Persons of the Trinity are intended in the 33rd Psalm, where we read, By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, (v. 6^m.) So also those words in the 119th Psalm, (v. 89.) For ever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heavenⁿ, and other similar expressions in the Psalms⁰ have been applied to the Son of God. In the New Testament, St. Luke has been thought to use the term Logos in this sense, when he speaks of eyewitnesses and ministers of the WordP : (i. 2.) and where in the Acts he re­presents St. Paul as saying, I commend you to God, and to the Word of His Grace, which is able to build you up. (xx. 32.) St. James has been consi­dered to have done the same, when he writes, Of his own will begat He us with the Word of truth;

^m Iren. I. 22. 1. p. 98. Eus. Dem. Ev.V. 5. p. 228. Epiph. Har. LXIX. 34. p. 757. LXXI. 4. p. 832. Theodoret,Hatr.Fab. V. 4. p. 261.

ⁿ Epiph. Host. LXV. 3. p. 609, 610.

⁰ Psalm xlv. l. “ Eructavit “ cor meum Verbum bonum,” is quoted by Origen in Joan. tom. I. 23. p. 25. et alibi. Athanasius, deDecret. Syn. Nic.

21. p. 227. et alibi. Marcellus apud Epiph. Har. LXXII. 2. p. 836. Eus. Dem. Ev. III. 15. p. 179. Psalm cvii. 20. He sent his Word and healed them. Eus. Dem. Ev. VI. 7. p. 264. cont. Marcell. II. 2. p. 36. Psalm cxlvii. 18. He sendeth out his Word andt melteth them. Epiph. Har. LXV. 5. p. 612.

p Marcellus apud Epiph. Har. LXXII. 2. p. 836.

(i. 18.) and many more instances might be brought, in which the term Logos is supposed to have been applied to Christ before the writings of St. John. I am aware of the presumption of opposing the opin­ion of the ancients, or of learned men in later times, who have made the Scriptures their study. But I am unwilling that any even of the outworks of our faith should rest upon a weak foundation; and I can hardly think it judicious to maintain the early use of the term Logos by such instances as these. It will be plain to every reader, that the Word in these passages from the New Testament may be taken simply to mean the doctrine of the gospel, as the Word which God has revealed through his Son: and if this may be the interpretation, we shall never Satisfy gainsayers by shewing that there may be another. v

I allow that there are passages much stronger than those which I have quoted, where the Logos or Word may without any violence be understood personally of Christ, and where perhaps a more ap­propriate sense may be obtained by such an inter­pretation. Thus when St. Peter says in the Acts, The Word which God sent unto the children of Israel', preaching peace by, Jesus Christ, he is Lord of all, (x. 36.) the idea of God sending the Word brings naturally to our mind the personal Logos, or his Son Jesus Christ**: and this notion might be confirmed by what we read in the next verse, That Word ye know, which was published through­out all Judcea, and began from Galilee. Here, in­deed, it is said, that the Word was not sent, but published, and the personality of the Word might <i It is so understood by Hippolytus, cont. Noetum. 13. vol. II.

seem to be excluded: but then it will be observed, that St. Peter here changes the form of his expres­sion, and the term is not as before, koyof, but pypa. In his First Epistle, St. Peter speaks of our being born again by the Word of God which Uveth and abideth for ever: (1 Pet. i. 23.) and here also the living Word might be taken for the personal Logos or Son of God: but I would again observe, that in the next verse, where we read, But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever: and this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you, the Greek term is not A0705, but St. Paul also, in his

Epistle to Titus, speaks of God having in due times manifested his Word through preaching: (Tit. i. 3.) and there is a more remarkable passage in the Epi­stle to the Hebrews, which has been applied in the personal sense to Christ by many commentators: The Word of God, says the apostle, is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a dis- cerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart: nei­ther is there any creature that is not manifest in his ,ight. (Heb. iv. 12, 13.) The construction of this sentence might certainly allow an interpreter to at­tach personality to the Word of .God^T: and this in­terpretation might be confirmed by our finding from Philo Judaeus, who used the Logos in the Platonic sense, that it was common with the Jewish Pla­tonists to compare the Logos or Reason of God to a sword. Philo has certainly more than one passage, which strongly reminds us of this in the Epistle to

^r It is so taken by Athanasius in several places.

the Hebrews: and I would not pronounce that the apostle may not have had in his mind the use which was made of the idea by his philosophical country­men⁸⁹: but our faith in such an interpretation might be shaken by observing that St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaks of the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God^s: (vi. 17.) and there the term is not \oyog, but py^a. Upon the whole, I can only repeat what I observed before, that none of these instances are sufficiently certain to prove that the Logos was intended personally for the Son of God: and, at all events, it will be allowed that the instances are few, and that St. John uses the term in a much more marked and unequivocal manner than any of the other writers^c. Let an unprejudiced person, after reading the rest of the New Testament, then proceed to the writings of St. John; and he cannot fail to observe that there is a term in St.

^s Grotius at Heb. iv. 12. mentions John v. 38. Acts xx.

quotes a verse of Phocylides, 32. beside some of the instances

o7rXov toi \6yos avSp'i Top&repov which I have quoted : “ Quin-

i<m a-iSripov. “ etiam in multis aliis Foederis

* This application of the “ Novi libris Xo'yos hnmotrraTos

term Logos, as used in the “ significatur, quse interpretum

Old Testament, to Christ, is “ vulgus fugisse videntur.” Mi-

pursued at some length by chaelis opposes this interpreta-

Eusebius, Dem. Ev. lib. V. tion, Introd. vol. III. Part. I.

and Prtsp. JEv. VII. 12: XI. 14. c. 7. §.3. as does archbishop

Waterland conceived that Heb. Laurence, in his Dissertation

iv. 12, 13. applied to the Son upon the Logos, p. 26. Dey-

of God, vol. II. p. 154 ; and lingius conceived Psalm xxxiii.

Mangey, in his preface to Philo 6. to refer to Christ, Observ.

Judaeus, p. xiii. supports the Sacr. vol. I. p. 249; as did

interpretation of the Fathers : Lampe, (Com. in Joan. i. 1. :)

“ memoratur Aoyos iwnotrraTos but he thought the application

“ in Novo Foedere ssepius quam of 2 Sam. vii. 21. Psalm cvii.

“ vulgo videtur, turn apud cse- 20. cxlviii. 8. Hag. ii. 5. un-

“ teros sacros scriptores turn certain.

“ D.Joannenipsum.” He then

John’s Gospel with which he was not before fami­liar. What then was it which led St. John to em­ploy this term? He uses it without any explanation: he evidently supposes that his readers would under­stand it; and the natural inference would be, that the persons, for whom his Gospel was written, were in the habit of speaking of Jesus Christ as the Lo­gos or Word of God.

It now becomes of great importance that we should notice the dates of some of the apostolic writings. The Second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, which was the last that he wrote, appears to have been composed in the year 64 or 66, not long- before the apostle’s death. The two Epistles of St. Peter were probably written about the same time; and the Second of them so closely resembles the Epistle of St. Jude, that we might naturally refer them to nearly the same period. There are good reasons for supposing that the Epistle of St. James was written rather earlier; and according to every tes­timony, the latest of the three first Gospels was pub­lished not long after St. Peter’s death. We may conclude therefore With tolerable certainty, that all the writings of the New Testament, except those of St. John, were composed and circulated before the year 66: and I should be inclined to add, that as far as we can argue from this evidence, it was not then common with Christians to speak of Jesus Christ as the Logos or Word of God. Concerning the date of St.John’s Gospel, very different opinions have been given. Some have placed it in the year 68, others 30 years later : and those who follow the latter cal­culation have much more reason on their side. A similar diversity exists concerning the date of St.

p

John’s First Epistle: but I would observe, with re­spect to his Epistles, that the personal sense of the term Logos is much less marked and certain than it is in his Gospel. No one perhaps would rest an argument upon the controverted verse, where we read, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: (1 John v. 7.) and, excepting this passage, there is only one other at the opening of the First Epistle, which would at all be quoted as maintaining the personality of the Logos. Here also the expression concerning the Word of IJfe might be considered doubtful; and without taking any further notice of St. John’s Epistles, we may therefore consider the opening of his Gospel as the earliest writing in which Christ is plainly and unequivocally spoken of as the Logos or Word^u.

It appears from what has been said above, that 80 years may have elapsed between the date of this Gospel, and any other of the apostolic writings: a fact which has perhaps not been sufficiently attended to, but which is of the greatest consequence in the pre­sent discussion*. We must remember that Chris­tianity itself was then in its infancy: and every term, which was appropriated to the Gospel, was either altogether new, or at least new in its applica­tion. We should not therefore be surprised, if at the end of a period much less than that of 30 years a term should have become common, which had not even been heard of at the beginning of that period.

" The term Logos is undoubt- * The Epistle of Clement was edly applied to Christ in Rev. written in that period : but it xix. 13. but this was probably nowhere speaks of the Son of written but a short time before God as the Logos, his death. »

The mere fact therefore of St. John speaking of Christ as the Logos, though none of the other apo­stles had done so, would contain nothing extraor­dinary. We find from the Revelations that the Lamb was then another epithet which was applied to Christ: we can easily see the origin of the applica­tion, and can trace the process by which a typical resemblance gradually grew into a name. We may learn from the same book, that in the period which I have mentioned the term Angel had acquired a totally new meaning, and had come to be applied to the bishops of the churches. So also in the whole of the New Testament the term Gospel is taken for the oral preaching of the apostles, or the doctrine which was revealed by Jesus Christ: and yet we find the earliest of the Fathers using the same term for a particular collection of written documents y: the term had by that time acquired a new and re­stricted signification: the writer employed it, and he knew that all his readers would understand it, in that sense. ,

The question however naturally presents itself, how-came the term Logos in the course of these 30 years to acquire a sense which had not been attached to it before ? This is the most difficult part of our subject: and it is here perhaps that the friends as well as the enemies of revelation have not always

y It has heen asserted by disproved by a quotation like the

some modern writers, that Jus- following from Justin himself:

tin Martyr did not quote from Oc djrdoroAdi eV roly yevofievois in

our present Gospels : and that avrav cmofivrjfiovevficuTiv, a xaXcI-

the 'AnofwrifiovevfiaTa rav Aimoro- tcu EvayycXia, ovras napeSioKav Iv-

Xojp, or Memoirs' of the Apostles, reraXdat avro'isTov'Xrjo’ovv'Xa^ovTa

to which he refers, were not liprov, ev)(aptO'Tr](TavTa elTTelv, TOv-

the four Gospels. Such state- to iroieire k. t. X. Apol. I. 66.

ments appear to be sufficiently p. 83.

entrenched themselves in the safest ground. The charge has been brought* that the Platonic doctrines, and even Platonism as it was taught by the Gnostic heretics, was the cause of St. John speaking of Christ as the Word of God. On the other hand, the defend­ers of our faith have maintained, that Christianity was not in the smallest degree affected by the doc­trines of Plato. If it be meant, that the apostles did not suffer any particle of heathen philosophy to cor­rupt the doctrines of the gospel, never, I conceive, was a more demonstrable truth pronounced by the apostles themselves : but I cannot see, though some persons will think it a rash and ill advised conces­sion, I cannot see why we should not allow, or even why we should not expect, that the language and phraseology of the gospel would bear some marks of the philosophy which it had to encounter².

In order to explain myself, I must make some re­marks upon the use of the term Logos in the philo­sophy of Plato. Whoever has studied the works of that speculative writer, must be aware that the Mind or Reason of the Deity held a very conspi­cuous place in his theological system®. The Mind

¹ It is with great satisfaction “ God is Light, not like the vi- that I have found an opinioti “ sible light of the Sun or of

similar to this in “ Some Ac- “ Fire, but God according to

“ count of the Writings and “ them is Logos, or Word,'not

“ Opinions of Justin Martyr,” “ an articulate word, but the

a work just published by the “ Logos or Word of knowledge, bishop of Lincoln, but which “ by which the hidden mys- unfortunately did liot reach me “ teries of knowledge are visi-

till part of this volume was “ ble to the wise. And the

printed. It contains the most “ Brachmans say that they

complete demonstration of the “ alone know this Light, which

point alluded to in p. 211. note “ they call God and the Logos.”

y. Philosophitmena (falselyascribed

^a The Indian Brachmans are to Origen, vol. I. p. 904.) cap.

also said to have held that 24. See Brucker, vol. I. p. 205.

of the Deity was the seat of those Idqas, those eter­nal but unsubstantial prototypes of all things, from which the material creation received its qualities and forms. Hence we find the work of creation attri­buted sometimes to God, sometimes to his Mind or Reason¹’, sometimes to the Ideas*. But we must carefully remember that Plato never spoke of the Reason of God as a distinctly existing Person: it was only a mode or relation, in which the operations of the Deity might be contemplated- There are passages in the works of Plato which might mislead us ; and which might be quoted, without a careful observation, as proving that Plato ascribed a distinct existence to a second cause, or God, begotten by the first. He speaks indeed of God being the Father of a Being who is God, the Son of God? and even the only be­gotten: but it is quite plain that he is here speaking of the intellectual world, the first substantial effect of that creative faculty which the Ideas in the mind of the Deity possessed. This intellectual world had no material existence: it was still seated in the Mind of the Deity, and hence it was often identified with the Reason of God⁹°. The Stoics also made great use of the reason of God in their philosqphical sys^ tem. With them it was another term for the pro­vidence of God: and they seem to have been the in­ventors of that distinction, by which Logos came to be spoken of in two different characters. It was either the Xoyog evhaderoc, or what may properly be

Beausobre, vol. I. p. 467. Phi- nothing else than theDeityhim-

lostratus makes the Indians self. '

speak of “ the Mind of the ^b So St. Peter speaks of the

“ world(Vit. Apollon. III. world being jnade ra toO 6coC

34. p. 125, 126.) but he shews \6ym. 2 Petl iii. 5.

in c. 35. that this Mind was ^c See note²³.

P 3

called reason, the internal conception of the mind: or the Xoyog irpocfioptKo?, this same conception embodied in speech and sound⁹'. The Greek language allowed the term Xoyag to be used in both these senses, for reason or a word: and the Latins expressed the two significations of it by contrasting the terms ratio and oratio⁹’.

If we now turn to the followers of Plato in later times, we shall find the Reason of God holding a still more prominent place in their philosophy, and spoken of in terms which approach nearer to per­sonality. But I think it could be demonstrated, that this arises either from the Reason of God being identified with God himself, or from the same term koyog being applied to those intellectual beings, which under the term daemons or angels, were recognised by the earlier and later Platonists. The subtle, for we can hardly say the sublime, speculations of Plato, gave to the first intelligences a being, and yet no substantial existence: they were only modes or relations of the mind of the Deity, and hence as seated in the \oyos, they were often called by him Xo'yoi. I have mentioned that one of the modifica­tions of Platonism was to give to these beings a more substantial existence; they came gradually to * bear a closer resemblance to the angels of Scripture: and it is in this sense that Philo Judaeus, who was a decided Platonist, often seems to speak of the Xo'yoj, or Xoyot, as having a real personal existence. Still how­ever I would maintain, that Philo, when speaking as a Jew or as a Platonist, of the Reason of God, never imagined that it was a person distinct from God. According to Philo, God and the Reason of God were_vthe same. He was God as to his essence,

but as to his attributes or operations he was Reason or Mind⁹³, One of the first steps in the Gnostic philosophy seems to have been to personify the operations of the mind of the Deity. We are not informed of the names of the iEons in the earliest system of the Gnostics : but Valentinus taught that God acted upon Ennoia, i. e. upon his own Concep­tion ; and from thence proceeded the successive ge­nerations of iEons. One of these iEons was termed Logos: and we may say with truth, that between the genuine followers, of Plato, and the corrupters of his doctrine, the Gnostics, the whole learned world, at. the time of our Saviour’s death, from Athens to Alexandria, and from Rome to Asia Mi­nor, was beset with philosophical systems, in every one of which the term Logos held a conspicuous place⁹⁴. I repeat, however, that the Platonists, ex­cept when they spoke of the Angels, as Koyoi, never used the term Legos in a personal sense: and con­sequently when St. John called Christ the Logos, when he spoke of him as so distinctly personal, that the Logos became flesh, and was dwelling upon earth, while God was in heaven,, this was an idea which he could never have taken from the, earlier or later Platonists. So little indeed did the later Platonists think of bringing this charge against the Christians, that Proclus reproached Origen for de­serting Plato, and making the Logos eqtfal to the first Cause^rt: and Origen himself points out to Cel- sus, that while the heathen used the Reason of God as another term for God himself, the Christians used the term Logos for the Son of God^e.

^d In Platonis Theologiam, ^e Cont. Cels. V. 24. p. 596.

II. 4. p. 90. ed. i6i8„

It might be more to our present purpose to con­sider what has been asserted by some writers, that Simon Magus gave himself out as the Logos or Word of God^f. We know from St. Luke that he was called the great power of God; and I have ob­served, that most probably he claimed to have the same iEon residing in himself which had descended upon Jesus. It is plain, however, that he was called the great power of God before he believed in Christ; and if we could be certain that at that time he also styled himself the Word of God, nothing could be more natural than that the Word of God and Christ would come to be confounded. It is probable that he announced himself indifferently by both titles ^K: and I pointed out in my first Lecture the importance of the fact, that nearly fifteen years ’elapsed between our Saviour’s death and St. Paul’s first apostolic journey. During the greater part of this period, Simon Magus and his followers were spreading their doctrines; and I have shewn that Christ, as one of the iEons, held a conspicuous place in their theological system. There is reason there­fore to suppose that in many countries, before they were visited by an apostle, the name of Christ was introduced in a corruption of the Platonic doctrines;

^f See the quotation from “ mo ChrisLus, est et Sermo Jerom at p. io6: and Origen “ Antichristus.” (In Mat. vol. appears to have heard of some III. p. 852.) here,tics who called themselves s The (confusion also might the Word of God, when he says, have arisen in this manner. “ Nec seducamur, sed vigfle- We have seen that Philo called “ mus, ne quis nos fallat eorum the angels \6yoi. Logos there­‘' qui veniunt in nomine Christi fore might have become a name “ dicentes, Ego sum Christus, for ah emanation from God: “ ego sum Veritas et Sapientia and Simon may have called “ et Lumen verum. Puto au- himself a Logos, though not “ tem quia non solum est Ser- the Logos.

and that the Logos, which was used by Plato for the reason, was now changed to signify the Word of God. St. Paul would find himself anticipated by this false notion of Christ in many countries which toe visited; and his first effort would be to eradicate from the minds of men the impression which they had received. So far would he be from borrowing the personality of the Logos from the Platonists, that he would wish his followers to forget the Pla­tonic Logos altogether. Jesus Christ, according to St. Paul’s preaching, was neither the koyos hha&ezog, nor the Koyos npofjtopiKos. He was neither, the unem­bodied Reason of God, nor that Reason embodied in sound. Neither of these images furnished any ana­logy. He was not an unsubstantial phantom, in which the Logos as an iEon from heaven resided : but he was the begotten Son of God, who had ap*. peared upon earth with a human and substantial body. This view of the subject, instead of leading us to think that Christ was spoken of as the Logos in writings earlier than those of St. John, might in­cline us to expect directly the contrary : and if St. Paul used the term, he would rather be likely to use it so as to draw off his converts from thinking of the Platonic Logos, and to turn them to the en­grafted word, which was able to save their souls.

Such may have been the conduct of St. Paul while he was planting the gospel in new countries, and while he was plucking up the tares which the enemy had sown. But it is plain, that before and after his death there was a great falling away of believers from the church. False teachers, as he had himself predicted, broke in upon the fold. Persecution had thinned the ranks of the true believers; and it is

plain, that in Asia Minor, and particularly in Ephe­sus, the Gnostic doctrines had spread like a canker. I have already observed, that from this period to the date of St. John’s Gospel, an interval of about thirty years elapsed. We know little of the history of the church in that eventful period: but the Re­velations, which were probably published not much later, shew that at that time also persecution and false doctrines had committed great ravages in Asia. Now I cannot see that there is any thing unnatural in supposing, that in this long interval of time the Platonic, or rather the Gnostic doctrines, had become so well known to Christians, that terms and expres­sions from that philosophy were accommodated to the gospel. It could hardly indeed have been other­wise. Many had been familiar with Platonism be­fore they had become Christians. Of those who had quitted their faith, and returned to it again, many would bring with them the recollection of their Gnostic errors : we may be sure there would be some (who, if their minds were weak, do not perhaps deserve a harsher term, and) who would strive to allay animosities, and to compromise divisions, by shewing that the language of Platonism might be applied to Christianity. The minds of men may have been in this frame when St. John wrote his Gospel. If he wrote it after his return from Pat- mos, there had been a period in which his watchful eye and superintending care had been withdrawn. We are told that Cerinthus and Ebion had been unwearied in spreading their new view of Gnos­ticism : and .when St. John returned from banish­ment, he may have found that the true believers had adopted a Gnostic term, though attaching to it

/

very different ideas, and spoke of Christ as the Lo­gos of God.

If we suppose this to have been the case, (nor is the hypothesis a violent one,) the whole mystery of St. John’s phraseology vanishes at once. I cannot think that the process which I have described was unnatural or unlikely to have happened¹’. We have in fact many similar instances of accommodation of terms, though we do not meet with them in the apostolic writings. Why did the Fathers speak of unbaptized persons as apvvjrot, or uninitiated, except by a reference to heathen mysteries’ ? Whence was it that the term Sacramentum was universally adopted in the Latin church, except from the ana­logy of a military oath ? Nay, we cannot read the works of Clement of Alexandria, without perceiving that the very term Gnostic was applied by the Christians to themselves, who contrasted their own true and heavenly knowledge with that which was professed by the Gnostics, falsely so called. Ac-

^h This is nearly the hypo- “ Being, St. John might, with-

thesis of Michaelis, who ex- “ out the least impropriety,

presses himself thus: “Perhaps “ retain this name in a work

“ the opinion, that St. John “ which was written against

“ derived the term A6yos from “ the Gnostics, and apply it to

“ the Gnostics, will be thought “ the second Person of the

“ by many to affect in some “ Trinity.” (Vol. III. p. 282.)

“ degree his character as a di- I may add, that we have in­" vine apostle. But such per- stances in later times of Chris­" sons should recollect, that tian writers adopting Gnostic " there is nothing more in a terms. Synesius called God “ mere name than in a sign of Buflor rrarpaos. (Hymn. II. 27.)

" algebra. It is the. notion He says also, <rv Sc apptjv, <rv 8e

“ ascribed to the name, and Brjkvs' <ri> 8e Giya, <rv 8’ avaf

“ not the.name itself, to which alavos ali>v, &c. (Ib. 64.)

“ we must attend. If the ‘ See Mosheim, de Rebus

“ Gnostics gave the name of ante Const. Cent. II. 36. Not.

“ Aoyos to the Being who came n. o.

“ next in order to the supreme

cording to this notion, St. John was as far as possi­ble from being the first to apply the term Logos to Christ. I suppose him to have found it so univer­sally applied, that he did not attempt to stop the current of popular language, but only kept it in its proper channel, and guarded it from extraneous cor­ruptions. He knew very well that the word Logos did not properly belong to Christianity: but terms are of little importance, if the ideas which they con­vey are sound: and I can see nothiug more extraor­dinary in St. John making use of a popular expres­sion, than in St. Paul arguing from the inscription to the unknown God, though he knew very well that the altar was not really raised to the God whom he then announced. We may put a parallel case, which might happen in our own days. We are told that the Avatar, or Incarnation of Vishnu, holds a conspir cuous place in the Hindoo mythology. Now if a Christian missionary should find that the Indian notion of an incarnation was substantially the same with that of the' Christians, would he introduce a new term, or would he not suffer his converts to speak of the Avatar of Christ as they had before spoken of the Avatar of Vishnu ? There is no com­promise of principles in an accommodation such as this. He would explain that the incarnation of Christ had happened only once : and he would also explain the causes which occasioned it: but if he was scrupulous in not using the term which had been profaned by superstition, we may be sure that his converts would use it for themselves: and at length he would be compelled, as we have supposed St. John to have been, to admit the heathen term, and consecrate it to a purer creed.

It has been said that the Christians came to speak of Christ as the Word, because in the Jewish Targums, Memra, or the Word, was substituted for the ineffable name Jehovah. The fact appears to be partly true; but the argument deduced from it is extremely fallacious. When we read of God act­ing or speaking by himself, he is said in the Tar- gums to have acted or spoken by his Word: and it has been asserted that Memra, or the Word, is used distinctively for the Messiah. But it has been proved satisfactorily, that Memra is never used in the Targums for a distinct and separate person: it is in fact only another form for the pronoun himself. It was at first applied only to Jehovah, as when he is said to have sworn by himself, or to have made a covenant between himself and any one. The use of the term was afterwards transferred to human actions: and though the Targums apply it in those places which they interpret of the Messiah, yet this application of it is by no means exclusive: and as I have said, it is never used for a person separate and distinct from the principal subject of the sentence. If this be so, the Christians could never have bor­rowed this form from the Targums to express their notion of the Son of God^k. The Platonic Jews, such as Philo, may have found an agreement be­tween the Memra of the Targums and the Logos of Plato: but this was, as I have observed, because the Platonic Logos was rather an attribute than a

^k The names of writers on and archbishop Laurence, Diss.

both sides of the question may on the Logos. Deylingius, Ob-

be seen in Wolfs Bibliotheca serv. Sacr. vol. I. p. 247. Mi-

Hebrtea, vol. II. p. 1186—89. chaelis, de SID'D ChaldtBorum.

The reader may also consult Le Glerc, Epist. Crit. VIII.

Saubert, Diss. de Voce Aoyor; p. 277. ,

person, and the Reason of God was merely the mind, or will, or counsel of the Deity, shewing itself in action. It is certain, that not one of the Fathers ever alludes to the term Logos being borrowed from the Jewish Targums¹. When they account for the origin of the term, it is by the analogy of human reason and human speech. A word is the expo­nent of an idea. They are in fact the same thing. A word, before it is uttered, is merely a thought; and the thought, when embodied in sound, is a word. The Greeks could express both by the same term Logos: and hence the Fathers compared Christ to the Logos, or Reason of God, inasmuch as he was one with Him, and though produced from him, was yet inseparable : and they compared him to the Lo­gos or Word of God, inasmuch as he had a personal existence, the effect of which was distinctly per­ceptible.

We may regret that the Fathers should have recourse to these analogies, which like that of the Sun and its effulgence, or water and its vapour, can still very imperfectly represent the modes of the di­vine existence. But the Fathers clearly shew that the term was not one of their own inventing: and when it is argued from this analogy that the Fathers be­lieved Christ to be an unsubstantial energy, a mere mode or quality of God, nothing can be more unfair, nor shew a greater ignorance of the writings of the Fathers. They appeal, it is true, to this analogy; but they repeat over and over again, that the

¹ The words of Origen are “ never heard any one of them

well worthy of remark, who “ approve of our doctrine, that

says to Celsus, “I have met “ the Son of God is the Word.”

“ with many Jews who pro- (Cont. Cels. II. 31. p. 413.)

“ fessed to be learned, and I

analogy is imperfect: and it is impossible for words to be stronger than those of Irenaeus, who charges the heretics with ascribing thoughts and words to God, like those of human beings, whereas God is all mind and all reason⁹⁵. It is plain that the term itself was borrowed from the school of Plato: and if it had not been for the Gnostics, it would never have been applied to Christ, nor would St. John have used it in his Gospel. Let it once be proved that St. John borrowed his doctrine of the Logos from Plato, and I will abandon the hypothesis, not only as untenable, but wicked. But what is the fact ? Plato, as I have often observed, spoke of the Logos, or Reason of God, as the Deity himself in action: St. John speaks of the Logos as the begot­ten Son of God. He could not therefore have taken his meaning of the term from Plato: and I have also stated, that the later Platonists charged the Christians with having borrowed the term, but altered its meaning. Neither could St. John have taken his doctrine of the Logos from the Gnostics. According to them there was a time when God or the first Cause existed alone in the Pleroma: though Christ as an iEon, was eternal, it was not as the schoolmen would say, a parte ante, but only a parte post: but St.John says, In ihe beginning was the Word, and ihe Word was with God: and he re­peats it again, The same was in the beginning with God, Again, in most schemes of the Gnostics, the Logos and Christ were two separate iEons: both of them therefore could not be God; nor was it ever imagined by the Gnostics that the Logos or Christ was properly God. But St. John says, The Word was God. Again/the Gnostics believed the world

to have been made by an evil being or ail inferior .ZEon, and Christ was sent to oppose the evil which was caused by the Demiurgus. St. John on the other hand says, All things were made by him, i. e. by the Logos: and without him was not any thing made. The time would fail me, were I to attempt to shew that every clause in this passage was di­rected against a Gnostic error: but enough perhaps has been said to prove, that though the term itself was borrowed from the Platonists, nothing could be more opposite than the Platonic or Gnostic doctrine concerning the Logos, and that which was declared by St. John⁹⁶. The apostle may be supposed to have said to his converts, You have all learnt to speak of Jesus Christ as the Word of God: but beware lest that term should lead you to false and impious notions concerning him: remember that Jesus Christ our Logos has a real and substantial existence: he is not merely the mind of God, still less is he like a word, put forth from the mouth, which vanishes away: our Logos existed always with God; he is God, and the only begotten Son of God: it was he who created all things: and in these latter times it was he who came down from heaven, was made flesh and dwelt among us, even Jesus, who is the Christ, the Son of God.

If we take this view of the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, we may be inclined to believe the very pre­valent tradition, that he directed it against the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion. It would be more correct perhaps to say, that he wrote it against all the Gnostics and their notions concerning Christ: and the words which I have chosen for my text, have not perhaps been sufficiently considered, when

St. John himself declares, These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name™. The Cerinthians and Ebionites, as w6 have seen, did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. St. John here tells us that he wrote to establish this fundamental point. Jesus was not an unsubstantial phantom, nor was he a mere human being, upon whom Christ, one of the iEons, descended at his baptism: but Jesus was the Christ, when he first became flesh and dwelt among us: and Jesus Christ was the Son of God. If we believe this, we may have life through his name: for as the same St. John says at the beginning of his Gospel, As many as received him,'to them gave

^m Michaelis has said of these words, “ But the purport ex- “ pressed in this passage was “ the general purport of all the “ Evangelists, not that of St. “ John alone.” vol. III. p. 276. It is true that all the Evange­lists wished to prove that we are to have life through the name of Christ; and I should have thought that Michaelis had not understood St. John’s peculiar object in asserting that Jesus was the Christ: but at p. 282 he expresses himself as follows : “St. John himself has “ really declared, though not “ in express terms, that he “ wrote with a view of con- “ fitting errors maintained by “ the Gnostics. He says, c. xx. “31. These are written, #c. To ‘ ‘ most readers this will appear “to be nothing more than a “ declaration, that he wrote “ with the same general view

“ as the other Evangelists, to “ shew that Jesus was the pro- “ mised Messiah, and to con- “ vince the world of the truth “ of Christianity. But whoever “ compares this passage with “ his First Epistle, v. 1—6, will “ find it to be a declaration, “ that he wrote in order to “ convince the Gnostics inpar- “ ticular.” Lampe maintained most paradoxically, that St. John did not make the asser­tion, Jesntn esse Christum, with the same intent in his Gospel and in his Epistles. (Proleg. in Joan. II. 3, 34. p. 192.) but Lampe had decided, that the Gospel was not written against the Gnostics. Irenseus says of the words in John xx. 31. that the apostle wrote them, “ pro- ‘<yidens has blasphemas regu- " las, quae dividunt Dominum, “ &c.” III. 16, 5. p. 206.

Q.

he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (i. 12,13.)

LECTURE VIII.

Heb. x. 23.

Let us holdfast the profession of ourfaith without wavering.

The review which I have taken of the heresies of the first century being finished, and the principal passages of the New Testament examined, in which those heresies are noticed, it only remains for me shortly to recapitulate the conclusions which have been drawn, and to offer such remarks as seem to arise from the subject under discussion.

I would begin with observing, what must have been apparent throughout the course of these Lectures, that no heresy has been noticed which was not con­nected in some points with the Gnostic philosophy. I have already said enough concerning the definition of the term heresy; and have shewn that it was not restricted by the Fathers to the sense which it bears now. According to the modern signification of the term, there was no heretic in the time of the apostles: for the Gnostics, who, whether they be­lieved Jesus to be a phantom or no, all agreed in believing that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, would not now be spoken of as Christians in any sense of the term. The Fathers have ex­pressly stated, that they were not Christians: and yet they called them heretics: which shews very plainly in what sense the term heretic was then used. But if we mean by an heretic, a man who

Q 2

professes to receive the whole of Christianity; who appeals to the same scriptures as the standard of his faith; but who holds opinions which have been pro­nounced by the church to be erroneous, in this sense there was no heretic in the time of the apostles; at least there was none to whom allusion is made in the apostolic writings. It may perhaps be contrary to preconceived opinions, that every passage in the New Testament, concerning false doctrines and false teachers, should be referred to the Gnostics®. But such is the unanimous and unvarying language of all the Fathers : nor can we be surprised if there were no persons who believed the divine commis­sion of the apostles, and yet presumed to alter the doctrine which the apostles preached. The heresies of the first century were introduced by men who did not acknowledge the apostles : they took as much of Christianity as suited their purpose, and engrafted it upon a philosophy which had already been com­pounded out of several different systems.

I have endeavoured to point out the sources from which the Gnostic philosophy was derived: and I have observed, that conflicting hypotheses may be reconciled, if we suppose it to have arisen from three different quarters. The basis of this heterogeneous system I conceive to be the philosophy of Plato. Of the two other sources, which have been mentioned, the Oriental doctrine of the two principles did not for a long time spread itself in the west: and the

^a I do not mean to refer to doubtedly caused divisions and

the Gnostics what is. said in dissensions in the Church, but

the Epistle to the Galatians, or they were not the heretics

in other places, of Judaizing spoken of by the Fathers. Christians. These persons.un-

Cabbala of the Jews was either confined to that pe­culiar people, or was equally late in making itself generally known. But the Platonic philosophy, though divided into different branches, maintained its ground from the time of Plato to the very latest struggles of expiring paganism. The most important era in heathen philosophy, subsequent to the rise of the different schools, was the encouragement given to learning at Alexandria, and in the court of the Ptolemies. Then it was that the eclectic system really began ; though some centuries elapsed before it grew into a distinctive name. It was there that Academicians, Peripatetics, and Stoics discussed, but could not settle, the questions concerning the nature of the Deity, and the origin of matter and of evil. Even the Pythagorean philosophy was once more heard in those endless disputations : and the con­quests of Alexander in the East had made the Greeks more acquainted than before with the an­cient theology of the Magi. It was the founding of Alexandria which first threw open the Jewish scrip­tures to the world at large: and the religious tenets and customs of that peculiar people began to be made known in every country.

But the religion of the Jews, subsequent to their captivity, was very different from that which they had carried with them to Babylon. Tradition 'lad usurped the place of the written law: and those who most reverenced the scriptures, distorted and obscured them by allegorical interpretations. A to­tally new system of theology was invented; founded', as they might pretend, upon the revelations of Moses, but encumbered with a load of extraneous and unintelligible mysteries. Such was the Jewish

(13

religion, as it would be explained to the philosophers at Alexandria: and it is evident from the works of Philo, how the pure waters of Siloa had been in­fected by the troubled streams of heathenism.

It is plain, on the other hand, that Platonism re­ceived several modifications: and the Jews had cer­t

tainly a great share in compounding the system, which afterwards assumed the name of Gnosticism. Plato undoubtedly believed in the unity of God: and in this the Jewish scriptures directly supported him. The same scriptures also maintained the existence of Angels; and these were easily identified with the Daemons of Plato. The Platonists, however, main­tained, that these angelic beings were employed by the first Cause to create the world : and the Plato- nizing Jews lent a willing ear to this most unscrip- tural speculation. The Platonists learnt by degrees to divest the language of their master of some of its mystery: and beings, which were supposed by him to be purely intellectual, if not entirely unsubstan­tial, came to assume a more real and tangible exist­ence. Hence various orders of beings acted as con­necting links between God and the world : a notion which the Jews would be able to enrich with a co­pious vocabulary brought by them from Babylon. Such was the process by which the Ideas of Plato were changed, as I have observed, into the JEons of the Gnostics. In Alexandria also, Jews and Pla­tonists were not divided concerning the eternity of matter. It is plain, that Philo supposed Moses to have written, not of the creation, but merely of the arrangement of matter : and when the doctrines of Plato were so far changed, as that the world was said to be formed, not only by inferior beings, but

without the consent of God, then the Gnostic philo­sophy may be said properly to have begun. It was then that this branch of the Platonists would boast of having a purer knowledge of God than any other of their rivals. Plato had been anxious to rescue God from being the author of evil: but the Gnostics removed him still further from its contact: they supposed him to be even ignorant of its first existence; and hence the enmity which they ima­gined to exist between God and the Demiurgus. I conceive that this part of their system derived a con­siderable tinge from the Oriental philosophy: and though we cannot fix the precise period when Gnos­ticism began, we may say generally that it was taking deep root at the time of our Saviour’s appear­ing upon earth.

I have observed at some length, that the Fathers were correct in speaking of Simon Magus as the parent of all heresies. Not that they meant to say that Simon Magus was a Christian; they expressly say that he was not: but he was the first who in­troduced the name of Christ into the Gnostic philosophy. With the character of Gnosticism be­fore that period we have nothing to do : but after the time of Simon Magus, there was no branch of the Gnostics which did not make great use of the name of Christ. This name was henceforth identified with one of the Gnostic iEons : and it was to him, that the office was ascribed of imparting that knowledge, which made the peculiar boast of the Gnostic philosophy. There was nothing in the writings of Plato which countenanced such a doc­trine : though it is highly probable that the Gnos­tics would avail themselves of that remarkable pas-

Q 4

sage, which seems to indicate the expectation of a person coming from heaven, who would teach man­kind the knowledge of God^b. Such a person was Jesus Christ. We can prove, that the national expectation of the Jews was known in the world at large⁰: and the apostles themselves announced Jesus Christ as a teacher sent from God. We can easily therefore understand, why the Gnostics so readily embraced' the doctrine of Simon Magus concerning Christ. Beside which I have observed, that his name was of great use in those magical and superstitious acts which the Gnostics are known to have prac­tised. The miracles which were worked by the apostles were what first attracted the attention of Simon Magus; and hence he gave out that the same spirit, which had resided in Jesus, resided also in himself. It was in accordance with these pretensions, that the notion was invented of Christ having de­scended upon Jesus- at his baptism, and having quitted him before his crucifixion. Simon also taught, as I have fully explained, that the apparent body of Jesus was an unsubstantial phantom: and it was under this disguise, that the name of Christ was known in several countries before they were visited by the apostles.

^b Alcibiad. II. p. 150. “We “ must wait,” says Socrates, “ till we can learn our proper “ conduct towards the Gods “ and men.” To which Alci- biades replies, “ But when will “ this time arrive ? and who is “ to instruct us ? For I can “ imagine no greater pleasure “ than in seeing that person, “ whoever he may be.” It has

been doubted however, whe­ther this passage has not been strained to bear a meaning which was never intended to be given to it. Concerning the genuineness of this Dialogue, sec Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. II. P- 15-

^c Tacit. Hist. V. 13. Sueton. Vespas. 4. Josephus, Bell. Jud.

I observed that Simon Magus and the Gnostics were spreading their doctrines for fifteen years be­fore St. Paul undertook his first journey: and he would find himself anticipated in many places which he visited by these erroneous notions concerning Christ^d. It appears from the passages which we have considered in the apostolic writings, that the Gnostic doctrines made their way earlier in the East than in the West. Justin Martyr particularly men­tions the Samaritans as having embraced the tenets of their countryman. Tbe whole of Palestine seems to have been infected: and we may infer, though we cannot exactly assign the cause,- that Asia Minor, and particularly Ephesus, very eagerly embraced the new philosophy^e. We find many allusions to the Gnostics in the two Epistles to Timothy, who was then residing at Ephesus : and the notion, that what is more specially called the Epistle to the Ephesians was a circular Epistle addressed to several¹ churches, may be confirmed by the fact that all this neighbour­hood was overrun by Gnostic teachers^f. The Epistle to the Colossians contains the same allusions: and at a later period, the Epistles addressed to the seven churches in the Revelations lead us to the same con-

^d See Recognit. III. 65. Clem.

Horn. III. 59.

^e Chrysostom speaks of St.

John living at Ephesus, evda to TTaXaLOV i(f>LX0<T0(f)0VV OL Trjs'EXA17- VLKTjS <rvp.popias anavres. in Joan.

Horn. II. 2. vol. VIII. p. 9.

The zeal with which the kings of Fergamus encouraged lite­rature for a period of one hun­dred and sixty years may have produced this effect in Asia

Minor: and in the Life of Apol­lonius Tyan . we read, of Ephe­sus as fiea'T^v (jipovTKTfidTav uvaair ^uXocto^ndp' re Kai prjropiKav,v(j>^s‘ av rj irnXis ov)( fanra p.vplant 8e dpOpai- 77 wp Urxya, <ro(j>iav enaivovira. VIII. 7. p. 339.

^f A Dissertation has been written by G. Fr. Gude, de Statu Ecclesiee Ephesinee JEvo Aposto- lico.

elusion, that all that country continued to suffer from this pestilent heresy.

If we now turn to the western churches, there is not much indication that Gnosticism was prevalent in Rome before St. Paul’s arrival. It had perhaps begun to appear there ; and we know from Justin Martyr, that Simon Magus was most favourably re­ceived in that city. Before St. Paul’s second visit to Rome, the corruption of the gospel had made con­siderable progress: and we may suppose, that the evil in passing from the East into Italy would not leave Greece unvisited, a country which was always disposed and willing to embrace any new opinions. I do not however find much traces of Gnosticism in the Epistles to the Corinthians. The Christians at Corinth appear to have been fond of putting ques­tions to St. Paul: and there are some marks of their faith being affected by philosophical opinions. We can hardly doubt from their maritime situation, that their intercourse with the East would make them acquainted with the Gnostic philosophy: but it cer­tainly was not so prevalent there as at Ephesus b: and if we look to the north of Greece, we do not find that the churches at Thessalonica or Philippi caused St. Paul any uneasiness upon this ground. We may suppose, perhaps, that the inhabitants of those places were not so much addicted, as their more southern countrymen, to philosophical specu­lations : and the same remark may apply to the

8 Clement, in his Epistle heresy, for, at the time of his

to the Corinthians, speaks of writing to them, they were far

their antipathy to schism and from being free from divisions

division: (c. i. p. 148.) by and disputes, which he must have meant

converts in Galatia, when compared with the more refined and learned inhabitants of the neighbourhood of Ephesus. We might expect that the new philo­sophy would be imported early into the island of Crete: and accordingly the Epistle to Titus, which was addressed to him in that country, has been quoted as containing allusions to Gnosticism.

Such was the state of opinions which St. Paul would encounter in the countries which he visited. In some respects he would have met with less dif­ficulty, if the name of Christ had never been heard of before his arrival. He had much to unteach, and much to eradicate. But what weighed most upon his mind, was the danger to which his converts were exposed of quitting the faith which he had preached, and being spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit. It was not merely that they lost themselves in the mazes of useless metaphysics ; it was not that they gave the attributes of creation to a being who was himself created : these, and other such speculations might lead them indeed into a labyrinth of error ; but St. Paul well knew the shoals and quicksands of that troubled sea: he knew that they who embarked on it were not only exposed to a long and uncertain voyage, but that their souls were doomed to ship­wreck, and that no haven awaited them but the haven of presumption or despair. The Gnostic philoso­pher taught, that there was no resurrection, and no final judgment: he took away from the Christian his only hope ; and to complete the melancholy void, he said that Christ had not died, and that no atone­ment had been made. Such was the doctrine which the Christian embraced, when he preferred the wis­dom of man to the wisdom of God. Nor was this

all: when no final day of retribution was feared ; when the social and domestic virtues were lost in a wrapped and mystical devotion, the ties of morality were loosened, and the unhappy searcher after knowledge plunged into all the riot of luxurious and profligate indulgence. To the misguided Christian himself the ruin was complete both to his body and his soul. But the- evil was not confined to those who abjured their faith. It was by the false bre­thren that the name of Christian was brought into contempt. Crimes of the most atrocious cast were imputed to those who believed in Christ: and the unholy superstitions and the unholier lives of the Gnostics might be classed perhaps with the principal causes, which made the Christian blood to be poured out like water¹'.

I have shewn, that the Nicolaitans were men­tioned by name as leading vicious lives, and as com­promising their faith by sacrificing to idols. There can be little doubt that Hymenaeus, Alexander* Philetus, Fhygellus, and Hermogenes, all belonged to some division of the Gnostics⁹’. We know per­haps, though not from Scripture, the names of other heretics who were contemporary with the apostles. Menander, the disciple of Simon Magus, must have lived before the end of the first century; and one of the Fathers speaks of his appearing while some of the apostles were yet alive⁹⁸': Cerinthus and Ebion

^h That the number of early * Theodoret. Her. Fab. II.

martyrs was small, was argued praaf. p. 216. Jerom represents

by Dodwell in Diss. Cyprianica him as living in the time of

XII. for the writers who have the apostles. (Adv. Lucif. 213.

answered him, I would refer to vol. II. p. 197.) Praedestinavus

Fabricius, Salutaris Lux Evan- says, that his doctrines were

gelii, c. VII. p. 132. opposed by Linus, who was

appear to have been contemporaries of St. John ^k ; and Carpocrates is mentioned as preceding both of them in the profligacy of his life, and the peculiarity of his opinions concerning Christ.

I have explained the two great distinctions among the Gnostic teachers: that some believed the body of Jesus to be a phantom, while others believed that he was bora of human parents. The Cerinthians undoubtedly professed the latter opinion ; and so apparently did some of the Ebionites: but others, who bore that name, taught that Jesus was con­ceived miraculously by a Virgin mother. What­ever might be their differences upon this point, they all agreed in thinking that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and when Jesus was led to his crucifixion, that Christ returned to the Pleroma.

I have shewn that the Gospel and Epistles of St. John were particularly directed against this notion, which had been gaining ground for thirty years subsequent to the death of St. Peter and St. Paul. Persecution and false teachers had made great havoc in the church during that period: and it was in the same long interval of time, that I con­ceive the term Logos to have been adopted, and applied even by true Christians to the person of Christ. It was applied however by them, because the Platonizing Jews and Gnostics had long been

the first bishop of Rome after Apoc.ii. 2. says, “ Isti fuerunt

St. Peter. (Hter. 2.) Colbergius “ hseretici, qui se a Christo

conceives him to have flou- “ missos dicebant, ut Ebion,

rished in the reign of Titus. “ Macrion, et Cherinthus, qui

(de Orig. et Prog. Hares, p. 17.) “tunc in Asia surrexerunt."

^k Dionysius Carthusianus, But I know nothing more of

who wrote in the fifteenth cen- this Macrion. tury, in his commentary upon

in the habit of using it: and I have shewn that the object of St. John was to mark the true sense, in which alone the term could be safely employed.

In this manner the history of the Gnostics, as we collect it from the New Testament, is of no small value in the ecclesiastical history of the first cen­tury. Our materials for tracing the events of that momentous period are sadly scanty: and particu­larly for the thirty years which elapsed between the death of St. Paul and the writings of St. John. But these writings appear to unfold the completion of a prophecy, which had been made by the other apo­stles. St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude, all foretold that in the latter days false teach­ers would arise, who would seduce many. I have already applied these prophecies to the errors of the Gnostics; and St. John appears to confirm the in­terpretation which has been given of the latter days; Little children, he says, it is the last time: and as ye have heard, that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know, that it is the last time. (1 John ii. 18.) He then goes on to say, that he is antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son, (22.) and he who confesseth not that Jests Christ is come in the flesh, (iv. 3.) I have shewn that these expressions refer to the Docetae and all the Gnostics : from whence it seems demon­strable, that the Gnostics, who were the antichrist of St. John, were also the false teachers who were spoken of by the other apostles as coming in the latter days.

But it is not merely as an historical fact, that a knowledge of the rise and progress of Gnosticism is valuable. Though the doctrines of the Gnostics

have long since ceased to be maintained, yet we may perhaps learn something of the true Christian faith, if we observe the errors and corruptions by which it was perverted. The notion of placing Christ among the iEons, or emanations from God, was not altogether an invention of the Gnostics. They took the name of Christ, and the outline of their belief concerning him, from the preaching of the apostles: and, since doubts have been enter­tained in modern times concerning the real doctrine which the apostles preached, we may perhaps draw some argument from the tenets of the Gnostics, who heard and read in the lifetime of the apostles all that they delivered concerning the Christian faith.

It is well known to those who have studied the Unitarian controversy, that it has often been asserted, that the Cerinthians and Ebionites were the teach­ers of genuine Christianity, and that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and of universal redemption through his blood, were the inventions of those who corrupted the preaching of the apostles¹. If this were so, we must convict all the Fathers, not merely of ignorance and mistake, but of deliberate and wil­ful falsehood. To suppose that the Fathers of the second century were ignorant of what was genuine and what was false in Christianity, would be a bold hypothesis: but if Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp,

¹ See Zuicker in his Ireni- sons mentioned in early times

cum, as quoted by Bull, Prim, as heretics, and not the Unita-

et Apost. Trad. III. 4. Dr. rians or Ebionites, he is in an

Priestley confined his remarks inextricable dilemma: for if

to the Ebionites, and allowed the Ebionites were Unitarians,

that the Cerinthians wereGnos- so were the Cerinthians: if the

tics: but when he says that Cerinthians were Gnostics, so

the Gnostics were the only per- were the Ebionites.

asserted as a matter of fact, that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute the errors of Cerinthus, it is idle, or something worse, to say that Irenaeus did not know for certain if the fact was really so. As far then as the testimony of the Fathers is concerned, the Cerinthians and Ebionites were decidedly here­tics. The Unitarians on the other hand maintain that the Ebionites were the true and genuine be­lievers”: and it is easy to see that the preference was given to these teachers, because they held that Jesus was born of human parents. Never, I con­ceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal al­liance formed, than that between the Ebionites and modem Unitarians. We find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed in every point with the So- cinian or Unitarian creed: and yet it may almost be asserted, that in not one single point do their senti­ments exactly coincide. If a real Ebionite will de­clare himself, we are not afraid to meet him. Let him avow his faith; let him believe of Christ as Ebion or Cerinthus taught; let him adopt the ravings of the Gnostics: we shall then know with whom we have to combat; we may gird on the sword of Irenaeus and meet him in the field. But let him not select a few ingredients only from the poison: let him not take a part only of their in­fatuated system. If he will lean on that broken reed, let him talk no more of Ebion or Cerinthus

^m The orthodoxy of the E- of Christ. Mosheim wrote a

bionites was maintained by treatise with the following title,

Rhenferdius in a rather para- Dogmata Eliomeorum in nullo

doxical Dissertation de fictis antiquissimorum coetmm obtinu-

Judceorum Haresibus: but he isse docetur; which is in his^;

contended that their faith was Vitidicia antique Christianorum

sound concerning the divinity Discipline, p. 206.

only, but let him say boldly, either that the Gnos­tics agreed with the apostles, or that the Gnostics preached the true Gospel, while the apostles were in error.

We can hardly suppose the Unitarians to be ignorant that the 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 axe 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 neither 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, as we have seen, 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

R

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 shews that they were not Do­cetae. 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 bom 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 two 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 Gnos-

tics as holding the human nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person wholly different from Christ"?

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 Gospel⁰. 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 preexistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely con­ⁿ Having spoken of this sub- answered, it may be necessary ject at some length in my Tes- to resume the discussion, but timonies of the Ante-Nicene not till then.

Fathers, No. 106. I shall say ⁰ Simon Magus is stated to no more at present: but I can- have said, that Rachel his mo- not help referring the reader to ther conceived him when a “ A Vindication of the Au- Virgin. (Recognit. II. 14. III. “ thenticity of the Narrative 47.) If we could be certain of “ contained in the first two this fact, it would furnish a “ chapters of the Gospels of very strong proof that the mi- “ St. Matthew and St. Luke,” raculous conception of Jesus by a Layman, 1822. When was preached by the apostles, the arguments in this work are

trary 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 reconcileable with other parts of their own creed. The testimony therefore of these Ebionites, in favour of the miraculous concep­tion, is stronger perhaps even than that of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no points from the doctrine of the apostles.

But we have not yet done with the testimony of the Gnostics: and I would offer it as a general re­mark, which has not been sufficiently attended to, that so far were the early heretics from doubting or denying the divinity of Christ, that the tendency with all of them was to fall into the opposite ex­treme, and deny his human nature. 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 iEons, who 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.

We are often told of the mysteries of Christianity: and the Unitarians would persuade us, that the pure and simple Gospel has been overlaid by a successive mass of unintelligible corruptions. But let us con­trast the belief of the Ebionites, to whom the Uni­tarians appeal, with our own. I speak not now of those Ebionites who held the miraculous conception; for they are supposed to be in error like ourselves: but the other Ebionites and Cerinthians believed that Jesus for thirty years of his life was the same as any ordinary mortal; and that then, when he was baptized, CKrist descended upon him, and con­tinued united to him till just before his crucifixion. The sole cause assigned for this unprecedented union was to reveal to mankind the knowledge of God. The redemption of a lost and ruined world never formed a part of their visionary creed : and we may say with truth, that whatever is mysterious in the two natures of Christ, was retained by the Ebionites; but they rejected that which the mind is able and willing to comprehend, the mercy of God, and the salvation of our souls.

But I have said that the Ebionites and all the Gnostics may lead us to some notion of the true and apostolical doctrine concerning Christ. The Fathers have removed for us the wood, hay, and stubble, and the firm and solid foundation is discerned beneath. The union of a human nature with the divine, the preexistence of Christ, and his birth from a Virgin, are doctrines which may all be traced, if they were not actually professed, by every branch of the Gnos­tics. The other points, at which infidels have scoffed, the miracles of Jesus Christ, his resurrection and ascension, are all allowed by the Unitarians as well as

R 3

by ourselves: and if the divinity of Christ be esta­blished, which was certainly acknowledges in their own sense by the Ebionites, it remains then for rea­son to decide, whether the salvation of mankind was not a more worthy cause for the divine nature to unite itself to the human, than any which has been assigned by knowledge falsely so called. The fact, that there was not one heretic in the first century who did not maintain the divinity of Christ, has not been sufficiently attended to. The Ebionites, it is true, believed in the human nature of Jesus: but that Christ was born of human parents, or that in any sense of the term he was a mere man, would have been treated by the Ebionites as the most irrational and impious error. So long as we know from his­tory that the first Gnostics believed Jesus to be a phantom ; and that they, who acknowledged his human nature* yet held that Christ descended upon him from heaven; so long we have a right to argue that the apostles could not have preached the simple humanity of Christ. 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. I have observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled the first Socinians, i.e. they believed in the miraculous conception of Jesus, though they denied his preexistence : but this Was because they held the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two sepa- . rate persons ; and they believed in the preexistence and divine nature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.

It is not so easy to decide from history, who was the first person that held the Unitarian, or even the Socinian doctrines. There is a passage in Eusebius which has much perplexed the commentators, where it is said that Theodotus, at the end of the second century, was the founder and father of that apostasy which denied Christ to be God. The passage occurs in a quotation made by • Eusebius from an older writer P; and We are informed that Theodotus hav­ing denied his faith in a time of persecution, and afterwards fled to Rome, he sheltered himself under the miserable subterfuge that he had not denied God but man; and for thus calling Christ a man, he was expelled from the church by. Victor, who was then bishop of Rome. The story is too well authenticated for us to doubt the fact: and many attempts have been made to explain why this person is spoken of as the first who denied Christ to be God. Commen­tators have observed, that Cerinthus and Ebion had done the same before; but this is by, no means true: those heretics did not deny Christ, but Jesus, to be divine: and Theodotus appears to have been the first who, without separating Jesus from Christ, asserted that Jesus Christ was a mere human being. This will, I think, explain the passage in Eusebius, and reconcile it entirely with ecclesiastical history. Many heretics had denied Jesus to be God, and many Christians had gone over to the same creed : but Theodotus was the first Christian who openly taught that Christ was a mere man; and he did not live till the end of the second century. There are

p Supposed to be Caius by Dr. Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. voU Pearson, de Success. Rom. Pon- II. p. 18. tif. Diss. II. i. 3. p. 147. See .

reasons for thinking that Theodotus by no means went so far as to maintain what is now Called the simple humanity of Christ¹⁰⁰: and I cannot help quoting a remarkable passage in Athanasius, which shews that in his opinion at least such a notion had never been entertained.

Athanasius is stating that the Arians had been condemned for saying that Christ was created, and that there was a time when he did not exist: “ But “ if any one,” he says, “ should wish to expose “ them by a still stronger argument, he will find “ that this heresy is not perhaps far removed from “ heathen notions, but that with respect to other “ heresies, it goes much further, and is the very “ dregs of them. For the error of those heresies “ has been either concerning the Lord’s body, and “ his union with man, some inventing this falsehood “ and some that, or in saying that the Lord had not “ been on earth at all, which is the error into which “ the Jews were led: but the Arian heresy is the “ only one which with still greater madness has at- “ tacked the divinity itself, and said that the Logos “ had no existence at all, and that the Father was “ not always a Father 9.” Athanasius says plainly in this passage, that the Arians went further than any other heretics in denying the divinity of Christ. The distinctive mark of Arianism was this : it was maintained, that there was a time when Christ did not exist; and that there was a time when he was called into being by God. It was observed with truth by Athanasius and the Fathers, that this was to say, in other words, that Christ was created: but

m Ad Episc. Egypt, et Lyb. 17. p. 287, 288.

still the Arians maintained in their own sense, that Christ was God: they did not refuse to speak of him as very God of very God: and it would be preposterous to say, that men who spoke thus of Christ, went farther in denying his divinity, than those who said he was a mere man, without any in­herent divinity at all. It follows, therefore, that Athanasius could never have heard of persons hav­ing maintained the latter notion: and when he de­scribes the preceding heresies, he says expressly that they related to the Lord’s body and his union with man. These words evidently refer to the Gnostics, whether Docetae of Ebionites ; and Athanasius says that they did not lower the divinity of Christ so much as the Arians. There may be something of polemical hyperbole in this statement; and his com­parison of the Arians and Gnostics would not per­haps bear a strict examination: but this much may at least be concluded, that Athanasius knew of no persons since the first rise of Christianity, who had lowered the divinity of Christ so much as the Ari­ans : and I have shewn that it was Jesus, and not Christ, whose divinity the Gnostics denied ; but all of them believed Christ to have preexisted, to have proceeded forth from God, and to have been united for a time to a real or apparent human body. We still therefore are without any evidence of the proper Unitarian doctrines being held in the three first cen­turies. Theodotus may have been overlooked by Athanasius ; or, which appears not improbable, though he believed Christ to be a mere man, he held that something divine resided in him-

Theodotus is stated to have been succeeded in his opinions by Artemon¹⁰¹; and the tenets 01 that he-

retie became more notorious in the hands of Paul of Samosata. Both Artemon and Paul have been named as supporters of the Unitarian doctrines; and the assertion has been so often and so fearlessly repeated, that it is almost admitted as an historical fact. And yet no point is more capable of demonstration, than that these two persons did not hold the simple hu­manity of Jesus Christ. They do not appear to have been Gnostics ; and even in the modern sense of the term they were heretics.. Paul indeed was bishop of Samosata ; and he was certainly the first Christian bishop who was charged with believing Christ to be a mere man. But we must not allow ourselves to be misled by words. To believe Jesus Christ to be a mere man, had a very different mean­ing in those days from what it bears now: and it seems to be overlooked or forgotten, that Paul con­sidered Christ to be the external manifestation of the Logos of God. This Logos had existed from all eternity with God, but it had not a separate personal existence. Christ therefore had no existence till Jesus was bom of Mary, and then the Logos united itself to him; and thus Jesus Christ, who was by nature a mere man, became united to God¹⁰². Such was the belief of Paul of Samosata; from which it is plain, that his opinions nearly resembled those which about the same time were matured and in­dustriously propagated by Sabellius. Athanasius and other Fathers have made this observation: and it is unnecessary for me to remark, that the east and the west are not more opposed to each other, than are the doctrines of Sabellius and those of the Unitarians. I may say of Sabellius, as I did of the Gnostics, that no person could have thought of iden-

LECTURE VIII. 251

•

tifying Jesus Christ with God, and of saying that the Father and the Son were merely two names or energies of the same deity, unless the nature of Christ, in some sense or other, had been declared to be more than human¹⁰³.

It is thus that the history of heresy may be made our guide in seeking and ascertaining the truth. My first object in this discussion was to illustrate those passages in the New Testament which allude to false teachers. An inquiry like the present may be made subsidiary to ecclesiastical history: and in the scanty materials which we have for the events of the first century, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate the scattered notices which occur in the apostolic writings. These writings may be com­pared to rays of light, which shine in the midst of darkness. By them, and by them only, can we trace the foundations of our faith. Scarcely were they published to the world, when their contents were mutilated by daring and unhallowed hands. The same‘persons who robbed the Deity of his attribute of creation, who denied the incarnation of his Son, and our redemption through his blood; the same sacrilegious innovators did not fear to mangle and distort what the finger of God had written. The early heretics rejected some parts of the New Tes­tament, because they would not believe that Christ was born of human parents. The attempt was bold, but it was consistent. In our own day we find the same passages of scripture rejected, and upon the authority of the same heretics: but the objects pro­posed in the two cases are diametrically opposite. The Ebionites are appealed to by the Unitarians as denying the divinity of Christ, which they never

did. So convinced were they of Christ’s descent from heaven, so wholly irreconcileable was it with their creed to question or deny it, that they would not believe even an inspired apostle, when he said that Christ was born of a human mother. What shall we say then of men who follow the Ebionites in mutilating the scriptures, but with a purpose which would have filled the Ebionites with horror or with contempt ? Let us say in charity, and with humble hope, that blindness in part is happened unto them, but that the time will come, when the dayspring from on high shall visit them; and when the Son of God, whose nature they have mistaken, will shew to them, not in terror, but in mercy, that he indeed is God, and mighty to save.

I trust that I have said nothing which bespeaks either triumph or exultation, when contrasting our own faith with that of others. I cannot indeed for­get, as a source of joy and consolation, that we put our trust in one who was more than man, and that we depend not upon our own works, but upon his atoning blood, to expiate all our sins. But to him who created us, and sent his Son to redeem us, to him alone be' it ascribed, that we still adhere to that faith which was preached by the messengers of Christ: and while we offer our praises to God, and to his Son, who has thus protected us from error, let us also humbly pray that some drops of that atoning blood may be spared for those, who have spoken lightly of Christ’s holy name. Let us also remember that the same Almighty Judge, who will inquire into the causes of unbelief, will also visit those delinquencies which arise from a corrupted heart. There is perhaps too great a tendency in

our nature to condemn those who differ from us in opinion, without reflecting that we shall all stand before the same tribunal. God only knows what errors proceed from the head and what from the heart. The scriptures do not encourage us to make these distinctions: they say indeed, that unbelievers shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire, which is the second death: (Rev. xxi. 8.) but they are not placed there alone; they have com­panions in that place of suffering, whose error is not that of belief: in that day it will profit us little that we have believed in Christ, if we hsfve not obeyed him: and his words may afford a warning; to ourselves, as well as a lesson of charity towards others, when he says of the slothful and presump­tuous servant, that his Lard will cut him in sunder, and will appoint, him his portion with the unbe­lievers. (Luke xii. 46.)

NOTE 1.—See Lecture I. p. 16.

I MAY perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in the British Critic, (No. VI. April, 1828,) in which I have dis­cussed at some length the chronology of St. Paul’s life and writings. Since the publication of that article, I have seen no reason to alter the opinions which were there expressed: and in the present Lecture the same calculations and the same conclusions have been adopted. The following are the dates which were there assigned to the Epistles of St. Paul.

	A.D.		A.D.
1 Thessalonians -	- 46	2 Corinthians -	52
2 Thessalonians -	- 47	Romans -	- 53
Titus - -	- 51	Ephesians, Coloss. Phile­
Galatians - -	- 52	mon-, Philippians - 58
1 Corinthians	- 52	Hebrews -	- 58
1 Timothy -	- 52	2 Timothy -	64—66

The reader should also be informed that the year 31 was assumed for the crucifixion of our Lord ; and that the con­version of St. Paul was supposed to have happened in the same year. This was the opinion of Baronius, Petavius, Tillemont and Cave: and we may infer the same of Jerom and other of the Fathers. One of the most important dates to be settled in the life of St. Paul is that of his first arrival in Rome. - I have placed it in the year 56, contrary to most chronologists, but with the concurrence of Petavius, Capellus ^a, and bishop Burgess among the moderns, and with the express authority of Eusebius and Jerom. The reader is again referred for details to the article already mentioned.

NOTE 2.—See Lecture I. p. 20.

It is at least plain, that notwithstanding the baptism of Cornelius, (who, it must be remembered, was previously a proselyte^b,) the gospel was not preached openly, if at all,

^a Cave also supposed St.Paul to have arrived in Rome A. D. 57. I find the years 59, 60, 61, 63, assigned to this event by different chronologists.

^b This is plain from the expression (pofbau^vos rfo ©say, (x. 2.) which cer­tainly meant a proselyte from heathenism to Judaism. The phrase is re­peated at ver. 22. where it is added, that he was of good report among all the nation of the Jews. If we compare Acts xiii. 16 and 26 with 43, the expression aI (pofiovftivoi <rlv ©eav will seem to he identical with rm ffs&opivM *£otrvt\t>‘reov. To which it may he added, that St. Peter would not have re­ferred Cornelius to the Jewish prophets, if he had not already heen ac­quainted with them, and admitted their authority.

to the Gentiles, till the forbearance of St. Paul was wearied out at Antioch in Pisidia. (Acts xiii. 4t6.) Upon his return to the Syrian Antioch, he related how God had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles, (xiv. 27.) as if it was a new thing. Even after this, the dispute was raised by some persons coming from Judaea, whether circumcision was not of universal obligation, (xv. 1.) All which makes it very improbable, that any apostle had preached the gospel in dis­tant countries, or this great question would otherwise have been set at rest before. I am aware that the gospel was preached at Antioch and in Phoenicia and Cyprus soon after the persecution, which followed the death of Stephen: but it is expressly said, that the apostles did not leave Jeru­salem at that persecution, (viii. 1.) It has been maintained by some writers of the Romish church, upon the single au­thority of Jerom, that St. Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 42 or 43^c. But Valesius^d himself has given up the point; as have Papebrochius, Pagi, and others of the Romish church; and the falsehood of it has been so often shewn, that it is not necessary to repeat the arguments.

NOTE 3.—See Lecture I. p. 22.

It was calculated in the reign of Nero, that 2,565,000 males partook of the paschal sacrifice, beside the remaining population⁶. Josephus, in more than one place, speaks of the vast concourse of Jews who flocked to Jerusalem upon those occasions: but his words seem to imply that by far the larger part came from the country immediately about Jerusalem. Thus, in the place last quoted, speaking of the vast number of prisoners taken by Titus, he says, toutcov to ttKsov 0fi.6<pu\0V fj.lv, a\\‘ oux liriytapid-u' awo yotp rf,; )(a>pa( oXjjj stt) rf/v twv ’A^ua-jov eoprrtv cruveAijAufloVej, x. T. A. and, speaking of the same festival in the reign of Archelaus, he says, xaTEtat fj.lv uneipoc ex. rrj; Aecuj br» Ttjv Spijcrxelav^f. and

again, xareurt ir\t]6u; uvapiSpLijTO; ex rijc %a>pa;, yjStj §e xa) ex rrjs v7TEpopia; en) Qprio-xela. tou &souS. From all these expres­sions it must be inferred, that the Jews, who came from dis­tant countries, were few, when compared with those who

^c The Chronicle of Eusebius used also to be quoted as makiog the same assertion : but this part of the Cbrooicle does not exist in the Greek 5 and it has been supposed, that this was one of the interpolations made by Jerom. The Armenian version of Eusebius, published at Venice in 1818, confirms this suspicion, since it says nothing of St. Peter’s journey to Rome.

^d Ad Eus. Hist. Eccles. II. 16. ' Josephus, Bel. Jud. VI. 9, 3.

^f lb. II. 1. 3. s Antiq. XVII. 9. 3.

came from Palestine. It is demonstrable indeed that this was the case. St. Luke informs us, that there were Jews living in every nation under heaven, (Acts ii. 5.) and Josephus says the same thing, ou yap so-nv Im rijj olxou^evjjs Sijjitoj,⁴ o jJ.r) fAoigav ufx.eregav e%cov^h. This was in the reign of Nero: and not long after our Saviour’s birth, the Jews in Rome must have amounted to several thousands, since we read that 8000 of them were present when Archelaus ap­peared before the emperor at Rome¹. Philo Judaeus as­serts, that there was a million of Jews resident in Egypt, a statement which is considered by his editor Mangey to be hyperbolical and incredible^k. The same author informs us, that his countrymen were dispersed over the whole con­tinent and in every island¹: and I cannot help quoting the following passage, which so remarkably confirms the state­ment in the Acts: “ Jerusalem,” he says, “ is my ancestral “ city, and the metropolis not only of Judaea, but of many “ other countries, in consequence of the colonies which it “ has sent out at different times into the neighbouring coun- “ tries, such as Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Ccele-Syria; “ and into those more distant, Pamphylia, Cilicia, the great- “ est part of Asia Minor, as far as Bithynia and the eastern “ shores of the Euxine; so also into Europe, Thessaly, “ Bceotia, Macedonia, vEtolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, the “ greater and best parts of Peloponnesus. And not only “ are the continents full of Jewish colonies, but the princi- “ pal island also, Euboea, Cyprus, and Crete. I say no- “ thing of the countries beyond the Euphrates: for all of “ them, except a small portion, particularly Babylon and “ the satrapies which occupy the rich country round, have “ Jews living in them^m.” He had already mentioned the Jews, who lived in Babylonia, at p. 578: Josephus also, in several places, speaks of the Jews who lived beyond the Euphrates; and he says that there were many myriads of them¹¹. He adds indeed, that they came to Jerusalem for the sacrifices⁰; and Philo states, that they sent UpomiLirovs every year with money for the templeP. It may be proved that this was the didrachma% which, as we learn from Ci­cero, was sent from Italy and all the provinces to Jerusa­lem¹: and there can be no doubt, from these passages, that a constant intercourse was kept up between the Jews at Jerusalem and their countrymen throughout the world.

^h Bel. Jud. II. 16.4. > lb. II. 6. 1.Antiq. XVII. 11. 1. ^k Adv. Flaccnm. vol. II. p. 523. ¹ De Legat. ad Caium. p. 577. ^m lb. 587. “ Antiq. XV. 2. 2. XVIII. 9;1. ° lb. XVII. 2. 2. p De Leg. ad Caium. p. 578. 1 See Josephus, Antiq. XVIII. 9.1. ' Pro L. Flacco. 28.

Philo even expressly says, that “ an infinity of Jews came “ from an infinity of cities, some by land and some by sea, “ from east, west, north, and south, to every festival^s.” Still however it is quite plain, if we consider the resident population of Jerusalem and Judaea, that the number of males at the festivals would have been much greater than two millions and an half, if very many had come from dis­tant countries. Eusebius seems to have imagined, that the command given in Exodus xxiii. 14,17- and Deut. xvi. 16*. was only intended to apply to the Jews in Judaea, and not to those in distant countries, outs toi; Itt'i y>)j aWoSanr^ anai- xnrfihoig ’IooSaloig¹: and we may learn from Philo himself, that the feast of Tabernacles was observed at Alexandria ^u, though this would seem an express violation of Deut. xvi. 16. The motive for going to Jerusalem no longer existed, if the festivals could be observed in other places: and at all events it can hardly be supposed, that these myriads of foreign Jews made the visit very often in their lives. Ma­homet appears to have followed the Jewish lawgiver in en­joining a pilgrimage to Mecca upon all the faithful: but he required it only once from every one.

NOTE 4.—See Lecture I. p. 22.

St. Peter addressed himself to both descriptions of Jews, ^vAv8pef ’lov&aloi xa) oi xtxToixouyre; 'lepoutraXijfj.x, (ii. 14.) and he appears to appeal to all of them, when he reminded them of the miracles which Jesus had worked, as ye yourselves also know, ii. 22. The miraculous gift of tongues would be likely to make most impression upon the foreign Jews, be­cause they heard each their own language; the native Jews would only hear men speaking in a language which was not that of Palestine, and which to themselves was unintel­ligible. This distinction seems to be marked in the 12th and 13th verses: And they, i. e. the foreign Jews, (see ver. 11.) were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to an­other, What meaneth this f Others, i. e. the native Jews, said, These men arefull of new wine. There is great pro­

* De Monarchia, vol. II. p. 223. ⁴ Dem. Evang. I. 5. p. g.

^u Adv. Flaccum, p. 534.

* The latter expression means the sojourners in Jerusalem, not the settled inhabitants; see ii. 5 : and when St. Luke says of the miserable death of Judas, that it was known to all those dwelling at Jerusalem, van roi; xxroi- Koviriv 'li^ovireiXviii, i. 19* he prohahly referred to himself, there being reason to believe that be was a native of Antioch, and was present at Jerusalem upon this occasion. I may observe, that Schleusner is not correct in translating tovs xotroixouvrt&s iv 'Isgavtra^ri/A (Luke xiii. 4.) cives Hierosolymitanos.

bability, therefore, that many of the 3000 who were bap­tized, were foreign Jews. If the death of Stephen hap­pened within a short time of our Lord’s ascension, as some persons have supposed, it is almost demonstrable, that many foreign Jews were among the first converts; for the dis­pute between the native and Hellenistic Jews, mentioned in vi. 1. happened before the death of Stephen; and the latter formed a large portion of the church at that time. The foreign Jews were evidently included in the persecution which followed the death of Stephefi; and consequently they must have been converted.

NOTE 5.—See Lecture I. p. 26.

It may be observed, that among the multitudes assem­bled at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, no persons are mentioned from Greece Proper, unless the island of Crete be included. The news of what had happened in Judaea might therefore not be carried into Greece so early as to Rome;, or Egypt, or Cyrenaica: but we cannot conceive that they would long remain in ignorance. During St. Paul’s journey through Macedonia, (Acts xvi. 11.—xvii.15.) there is no mention of his finding any Christian congrega­tions : but the readiness with which his preaching was re­ceived by the devout Greeks, i. e. the Jewish proselytes, seems to shew that some of them must have more than heard of the Christian doctrines before his arrival. The words which were said to him by' the man of Macedonia in a vision, Come over into Macedonia, and help us, (xvi. 9.) might betaken as an indicationthat Christianity had already made a beginning in that country, but wanted the aid of the apostte to establish it and give it a right direction. At the beginning of his residence in Corinth, the Lord said to him in a vision, I have much people in this city, (xviii. 10.) and though these words might not actually mean that many were already believers in the gospel, we can hardly take them as expressing less, than that there was much people disposed favourably toward the doctrines of the gospel. With respect to Galatia, St. Paul, as 1 have observed, was undoubtedly the first apostle who preached there: but the great readiness with which the Galatians received him (Gal. iv. 14,15.) might lead us to think that they were previously disposed to listen to his doctrines. Other teachers certainly went among them after St. Paul had visited them: and unless the false doctrines had been already in the country before St. Paul delivered to them the truth, they would

s 2

hardly have suffered the one to supplant the other. We may remember, that persons from the surrounding countries of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Phrygia, were present at Jeru­salem on the day of Pentecost.

NOTE 6.—See Lecture II. p. 29.

It is observed by MosheimX, that “ an opinion has “ prevailed, derived from the authority of Clemens the Alex- “ andrian, that the first rise of the Gnostic sect is to be “ dated after the death of the apostles, and placed under the “ reign of the emperor Adrian : and it is also alleged, that “ before this time the church enjoyed a perfect tranquillity, ^c‘ undisturbed by dissensions or sects of any kind. 15ut the “ smallest degree of attention to the language of the holy “ scriptures, not to mention the authority of other ancient “ records, will prevent us from adopting this groundless no- “ tion.” Nothing can be more just than this observation of Mosheim: but Dodwell, in his Dissertations upon Irenaeus², attached so much weight to the words of Clement, that he fixed the rise of heresy in the year 116, which was the last year but one of Trajan’s reign. The passage in Clem. Alex, is obscure, and apparently corrupt: but the part, to which Dodwell and Mosheim allude, is as follows: narco 8e, 7regi rob; ’ASpiavou roS /3a<ri\siai p^govouj, oi raj aipstrsi; hmvoriiravTE; ysyova<n^a. The persons here spoken of, as leaders of heresies, were Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion: all of whom cer­tainly lived in the second century; and this is all that Clement intended to assert. He says expressly that Basi­lides pretended to have been taught by Giaucias, who was kppyvevs to St. Peter; and that Valentinus claimed the same connexion with Theudas, an acquaintance of St. Paul. It is also plain, though the passage is probably corrupt, that he connects these heretics with Simon Magus; so that what­ever he may have said of heresy in the time of Hadrian, his own words supply us with the names of three persons Giau­cias, Theudas, and Simon Magus, who were contemporaries of the apostles. The fact seems to be, that Clement spoke of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, because they were much more notorious, and reduced Gnosticism to a much

y Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. part. 2. c. V. 3.

¹ Diss. I. 12. p. 20. though his words have been rather unfairly quoted. So also Arnoldus, Hist. Eccles. et Hares, tom. I. lib. X. 4. 1. p. 41. and Titt- man, de Vestigiis Gnosticorum in JV. T. frustra qucesitis.

^a Strom. VII. 17- P’ 898. For the proposed emendations of this passage, see the note in Potter’s edition, and Mosheim, de uno Simone Mago. 22.

move regular system than their predecessors. He by no means says, as Dodwell would infer, that heresy began in the time of Hadrian^b: his expression is oi rag ulpe<rti; hm- votjtravTec, those who struck out new heresies, or, who added to the heretical opinions; which hasnot been sufficiently observed by commentators⁰. Irenasus intended to make the same ob- servatipn, when he said of the heretics whom he was con­futing, “ All of them are much later than the bishops, to ^s< whom the apostles committed the churches'¹.” Irenaeus wrote particularly against Valentinus and Marcion, and the heretics of his own day, who lived nearly a century after the time of the apostles; but at the beginning of his work he mentions several heretics, who were contemporaries of the apostles; so that there can be no doubt as to his meaning in the passage quoted above. The same may be said of the words of Firmilianus bishop of Caesarea in his letter to Cyprian^e, concerning the rebaptizing of heretics : “ As to “ what Stephen (the bishop of Rome) has said, that the “ apostles forbade the baptism of those who came over from “ heresy, and left this as a rule to posterity, you have re­plied most satisfactorily, that no one is so foolish as to be- “ lieve this rule to have been handed down from the apo- “ stiessince it is evident, that these execrable and detest- “ able heresies existed after their day; and Marcion, the “ disciple of Cerdon, is known to have introduced his im- “ pious doctrine against God long after the time of the apo- ^<s sties; and Apelles, who agreed with his blasphemy, added ^<s many other new and still more grievous errors hostile to ■“ faith and truth. The date also of Valentinus and Basi- “ lides is well ascertained, and it was very long after the ^<s times of the apostles, that they rebelled against the church “ with their wicked falsehoods.” It is plain, that all these writers were speaking of the same heretics, Valentinus, Mar­cion, 8tc. and not of their predecessors : and the reason of this distinction will also be apparent in the course of these Lectures. The heretics of the first century were not in any

* It is rather a singular circumstance, tbat Eusebius names tbe reign of Hadrian as the time when Christianity (A^'ktara. us vrowrct; KvQgaorous tfxftettrs. Preep. Evang. IV. 17. p. 164.

^c Jn the same manuer Tlieodoret, when he speaks of the heretics who took their rise from Simon Magus, says, ovrot cr«v<rsj tf(Atx^d.s nvus ha.Waya.g rvis 'bvtHnfhovi ttfivtvonxo'Tts x.r.X. Heer. Fab.\. 1. p. 193. and of the

Ebionites, returns 2s rrj; ctl^iffiius fyl'e fith ’E/3/av, ^ Mct^xikXou xat <J>airuvev to.$ ha,(pfyov$ Hcer. Fab. Compend. p. 188. Eusebius speaks of

the Grecian philosophers, r£>v (asv roitrht* rm 21 iripots i^tjxeXovQtjxorav, nvm 2e xai fitxs i*m\onxorm. Presp. Evang. XIV. 15. p. 753.

^d V. 20. 1. p. 317, see also III. 4. 3. p. 179. ^e Cypriani Op. Epist.

LXXV. p. 144.

sense of the term Christians: whereas those of the second century were either apostates from Christianity, or pretended to receive the gospel. That this was the meaning of Fir- milianus is proved almost to demonstration by the following expression of Cyprian himself, who refers to Titus iii. 10, 11. and then says, “ No one ought to defame the apostles, “ as if they approved of baptisms performed by heretics, or “ communicated with them without the baptism being per- “ formed by the church, when the apostles wrote thus con- “ cerning heretics, and at a time when as yet the more vio- “ lent heretical plagues had not broken out, nor had Mar- “ cion of Pontus as yet arisen, whose master Cerdon came “ to Rome in the time of Hyginus, who was ninth bishop of “ that city; whom Marcion followed, and, increasing his “ wickedness still further, thought fit to blaspheme God the “ Father and Creator more impudently and openly than “ the rest, and furnished still more wicked and fatal weapons “ to those heretics who were madly and sacrilegiously rebel- “ ling against the church^f.” It is plain from this passage that Cyprian meant to speak of Cerdon and Marcion as later than the times of the apostles : but it is also plain, that he conceived the seeds of their heresies to have been sown be­fore. Dodwell and other writers have also laid much stress upon a passage quoted by Eusebius from Hegesippus, where it is said that “ the church continued a virgin till the “ time of Trajan: for it was not yet corrupted by vain “ doctrinesg;” an expression, which Valesius endeavours to reconcile with history, by supposing Hegesippus to have alluded only to the church of Jerusalem¹¹. But this is quite unnecessary. Eusebius alluding to the same passage in another place, (iii. 32.) adds, apparently in his own words, “ that if there were any before that time, who endeavoured “ to corrupt the wholesome rule of the evangelical preach- “ ing, they lurked in darkness and obscurity.” We come therefore to the same conclusion as before, that it was not till the time of Trajan or Hadrian, that Christians openly came forward as leaders of heresies: and in the passage first quoted from Hegesippus, he expressly deduces Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, &c. from Simon and other heretics, who are known to have lived in the time of the apostles. This question might never have been raised, if persons had sufficiently attended to the meaning of the term heretic, as used by the Fathers; and a list of heretics, who appeared in

^f Epist. LXXIV. p. 138. 8 Eus. Hist. Eccles. IV. 22.

^h So also Basnage, AnnaL Polit. Eccles, vol. II. ad an. 116. §. •j. p. 37. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 315.

the time of the apostles, may be seen in Tertullian, de Pre­script. c. 33. p. 214. and Jerom adv. Lucif. 23. vol. II. p. 197. Tittmani, who argued against the existence of Gnos­ticism in the first century, comes in fact to the same con­clusion which I have advanced, when he says, “ Quod cum “ dicebamus sub Hadriano factum esse, nolumus quidem in- “ ficias iri audacius, fuisse qui ante ha?c tempora in multis “ opinionibus cum Gnosticis conspirarent.” (p. 249.)

See Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, in Prsef.

Coteler. Not. in Ignatii Epist. Interpol, ad Trail, c. 11.

Mosheim, de, Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. §. 60. not. Y. Diss. de Nicolaitis, vol. I. Dissertationum ad H. E. pertinen- tium, p. 487. and Instit. Maj. p. 309.

Routh in Reliq. Sacr. vol. I. p. 233.

NOTE 7.—See Lecture II. p. 44.

It is observed by Mosheim *, “ The ancient doctors, “ both Greek and Latin, who opposed these sects, [the “ Gnostic,] considered them as so many branches that “ derived their origin from the Platonic philosophy. But “ this was mere illusion. An apparent resemblance "between “ certain opinions of Plato, and some of the tenets of the “ Eastern schools, deceived these .good men, who had no “ knowledge but of the Grecian philosophy, and were ab- “ solutely ignorant of the Oriental doctrines. Whoever “ compares the Platonic and Gnostic philosophy* will easily “ perceive the wide difference that exists between them.” In another work^k he says still more strongly, “ After “ having examined the subject with every possible degree “ of impartiality and attention, I am most thoroughly con- “ vinced that the founders of the Gnostic schools cannot, “ with the least propriety, be reckoned among the followers “ of Plato.” In each place he proceeds to point out the Oriental doctrines as the real source of Gnosticism: but I cannot agree with him in the details or the result of his criticism: and it will be my endeavour to shew in these Lectures, that though the Gnostics made some material al­terations in Platonism, still their system was founded upon that philosophy, and flowed from it, though many tenets were introduced from other quarters. The Fathers certainly noticed many points of agreement between the Gnostics and

■ Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. Part. z. c. I. §. 4.

^k De Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 62. note ^z. Again in Instit. Maj. p. 138. 326. 340. where the names of some writers may he found who differed from Mosheim. Also in Diss. de Suppos. Lib. p. 230.

S 4

Platonists: but they also adverted to many differences be­tween them, as I shall have occasion to shew. Among the moderns, the Platonic origin of Gnosticism has been par­ticularly advocated by Massuet in the preface to his edition of Irenaeus, Diss. I. Art. I. §. 25. &c. Vitringa, Ob s. Sacr.

V. 13. p. 149. Petavius, Dogmat. Theol. de Trin. lib. I. Luc. Holstenius, de Vita Porphyrii, c. I. p. 5. ed. Cantab. 1655. Colbergius, de Orig. et Progress. Hares, and Van Till, who expresses himself thus¹; “ Erant autem illi (Gno- “ stici) ex disciplina Platonica philosophiae traditivae studiosi “ et amantes: atque gloriabantur, se cum istius philoso- “ phiae principiis et dogmatibus religionem Christianam non “ solum prope conciliare, sed etiam ex ea illustrare et per “ earn confirmare.”

Buddeus appears to have gone too far in deducing Gno­sticism from the Jewish Cabbala, for which he was re­proved by Massuet in his preface, §. 21. Beausobre also has some remarks upon this theory in his*Hist, de Manich6e, vol. II. p. 155, 160. Buddeus delivered this opinion in his History of the Heresy of the Valentinians: and in his Annotations upon that History, published afterwards, (§. 15. p. 619.) he partly qualified his former statement* and allowed that the Platonic and oriental doctrines had an in­fluence upon the Cabbala and upon Gnosticism. His real opinion seems to have been nearly the same with that which has been advanced in these Lectures: and after noticing the assertion of Vitringa, that all the Gnostics agreed with the Orientals, in holding two principles, he continues, “ Sed an “ omnibus, qui ex isto grege fuerunt, et eadem quidem “ ratione, ilia tribui queant, valde dubito: licet nonnul- “ lorum haec fuerit sententia, apud alios etiam quaedam

“istius systematis vestigia occurrant. Caeterum cum

“ Pythagoras et Plato multa ab JEgyptiis et Chaldaeis ac- “ perint, eorumque adeo philosophia in nonnullis cum orien- “ tali ista conveniat, mirum non est, quosdam Gnosticorum “ ista commenta ab iEgyptiis, quosdam a Pythagora, alios “ rursus a Platone derivare voluisse. Revera enim illi non “ dissentiunt, sed facile inter se conciliari possunt. Immo ^{{ cum et inter Gnosticos extiterintj qui ex Judaeis prognati “ ista orientalis philosophiae dogmata cum gentis suae pla- “ citis conjungerent, hinc et Kabbalae, sea corruptee ac “ impurae, in quaplurima orientalis istius philosophiae vesti- “ gia deprehenduntur, originem dederint: nec isti errant,

¹ Com. in 4. Pauli Epistolas, Praef. de primi Saculi Adversariis. V. 2. p. 15-

“ aut a prioribus in eo, quod caput causae est, dissentiunt,

“ qui Gnosticorum placita a Kabbala J udaeorum derivant^m.” Hottinger also deduced Gnosticism in part from the Cab­bala, Thes. Philol. I. S. 5. p. 444-5. Langius in his Dis­sertation upon 1 Tim. i. 3.¹¹ makes the following observa­tions, “ Quae quidem Gnosticorum secta, si rem potius “ quam nomen aestimare velis, vetustissima est, et diu ante

Christi tempora jam inter Judaeos viguit, a quibus etiam “ nugas istas, sive theologiam sublimiorem Judaico-Paga- “ nam, Simon et Simonianae haereseos nepotes et consangui- “ nei magnam partem acceperant, atque ad Evangelii doc- “ trinam accedentes, nugas istas Platonico-Judaicas subli- “ missimas, (quae hodie inter Judaeos Kabbalce nomine pro- “ stant,) adeo libere et varie (more illorum nugatorum per- “ petuo) adplicuerunt, ut temporis lapsu haereses multi- “ plices inde enascerentur, quag tamen omnes Gnosticorum “ titulum sive acceperant, sive affectaverant.” And again, “ Fabularum et Genealogiarum Judaicarum a Paulo dam-

natarum rationem genuinam peto ego ex antiqua Judaeo- “ rum yi/«S<rsi, h. e. Theologia Judaica, ad Platonismi indo- “ lem jam olim temporibus Templi secundi reficta, quae ho- “ die inter Judaeos prostat sub titulo Kabbalce, quaeve tantae “ antiquitatis est, ut non modo sit aperte satis Gnosticorum “ ab Irenaeo desenptorum deliriis prior, sed etiam adeo fun- “ damenti loco iisdem substrata, ut ne quidem Gnosticorum “ pseudo-Christianorum dogmata sine Kabbala, h. e. Gnosti- “ cismo Judaico, intelligi queant. Unde infero, Paulum in “ suis ad Timotheum et ad Titum Epistolis ex professo “ contra Kabbalam Judaicam sive Judaeorum Theologiam, “ ex Platone et Pythagora olim refictam, disputare.” p. 637. With many of these sentiments I entirely agree, except that I should perhaps make Platonism the primary, and the Cab­bala a secondary cause of Gnosticism. That Gnosticism ought to be deduced from all these three sources, Platonism, the Oriental doctrines, and the Cabbala, it will be my object to shew in these Lectures; and Brucker upon the whole confirms this opinion, though he appears to agree with Mosheim in condemning those persons who referred the Gnostic doctrines to Platonism ". He says expressly,

^m Eccles. Apost. p. 322. See also Diss. de Hcer. Valent. §. 15. p. 619.

ⁿ Published in the Thesaurus Theologico-Philol. at the end Of the Critici Sacri, part I. p. 633. &c.

⁰ Hist. Philos, de Philos. Oriental. I. vol. II. p.639. See also vol. VI. p. 400. Walchius agreed with Mosheim in deducing Gnosticism from the Oriental philosophy. {Hist. Heeres. part. I. p. 224.) The position is denied by Tittman in his treatise de Vestigiis Gnosticismi in Novo Testamento frustra qucesitis, who considers Gnosticism to be a compound of the Platonic philosophy, the Cahbala, and Christianity, p. 241.

“ Haec licet ita se habeaut, negandum tamen non est, acces- “ sisse quaedam ex philosophia Pythagorico-Platonica ad “ hanc philosophiam orientalem,” p. 644. He allows, that the term yvaitnc came from the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy, “ Ex quo colligimus, Gnosticorum nomen orien- “ tales philosophos turn demum sibi vindicasse, cum Graeci “ ad orientalem philosophiam Pythagorico-Platonicam trans- “ ferrent, et ex utraque mixtum metaphysicae genus exsur- “ geret: quod non ita longo ante natum Christum tempore “ evenisse, in sequentibus dicemus,” p. 642. He also made this mixed Platonism to be more ancient than the Cabbala, “ Ex hac enim philosophia Alexandrina, quae ex Veteri “ jEgyptiaca, Orientali et Pythagorico-Platonica conflata “ fuit, Cabbalam Judaeorum exortam et spuriam philoso- “ phiam populo Dei obtrusam fuisse, demonstrabimus.” p. 645. Brucker certainly derived Gnosticism from the three sources to which I have referred it; and he points out how the eclectic system of philosophy, or Syncretisrrlus, as he terms it, took its rise in Alexandria. This is shewn very clearly at the end of his first volume, in the chapter, de Fatis Philosophic Gracce extra Graciam: . .. . “ ex iEgyptiaca “ veteri, Orientali et Pythagorico-Platonica philosophia no- “ vum philosophise chaos conflatum est: . . . . . et inter “ Judaeos quidem spuriam illud philosophise genus peperit, “ quod Cabbalam vocavere .... inter Christianos autem “ primum ab haereticis ex iEgypti scholis egressis, qualis “ Valentinus fuit, adoptata, hincque fidei Christianae sincera “ simplicitas temerata, mox infelici sidere a purioris ecclesiae “ doctoribus adamata est.” p. 1357. Beausobre appears to have expressed the truth in a few words, when he said, “ La “ doctrine des Gnostiques dtoit un compost de la Philoso- “ phie de Platon, de la Philosophie Orientale, et de la doc- “ trine Chretienne (vol. I.p. 314.) and the following words of Lampe appear to me to represent the fact still more cor­rectly : “ Ac primos quidem fontes Valentinianismi in phi- “ losophia Gentilium, praecipue Platonicorum, quaerendos

“ esse concedo. Cum vero Platonicorum dogmata in

“ Iiabbalam Judaicam recepta essent, multique ex Gnosti- “ cis Judaeis etiam plaCere vellent, hinc factum, ut in suum “ systema Kaballistarum quoque commenta quamplurima

“ adsciverint.— Ut tamen et Christianis specie quadam

“ veritatis imponerent, ex Evangelio Joannis commodam “ captabant ansam.” Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 48. p. 201.

Since I have ventured to express an opinion concerning the Platonic origin of Gnosticism, differeht from that which was entertainedby Mosheim, I would add that Plotinus, the

celebrated Platonist, has himself left it upoh record, that the Gnostics corrupted the doctrines of Plato. One of the divisions of the great work of Plotinus is specially directed against the Gnostics P: and Mosheim refers to this treatise, as shewing the difference between Plato and the Gnostics. He also appeals to the Life of Plotinus, written by Porphyry, in which it is said, “ that the Gnostics considered Plato as a “ minute philosopher, who had never ascended in mind and “ thought to the first principles of all things'!.” But the quotation is not given fairly. Porphyry does not say any thing of the Gnostics considering Plato a minute philoso­pher ; and the remark is rather that of Porphyry himself, who says of the Gnostics, “ they deceived many, and were “ themselves deceived, as if Plato had not arrived at the “ depth of the intellectual existence which by no means proves, that the Gnostics did not derive their doctrines from Plato; but only that they boasted to have surpassed him, and- to have completed that which he had merely begun. Porphyry expressly tells us, that the Gnostics, against whom Plotinus wrote, arose out of the ancient philosophy^r, and pretended also to have Revelations of Zoroaster : but when Mosheim refers to this passage, as proving “ that the Gnos- “ tics affirmed that they had not learnt their wisdom from “ Plato, but from these books⁸,” we must again accuse him of unfairness, since nothing whatever is said of such an affir­mation being made by the Gnostics. Plotinus himself says of them as follows: “ Upon the whole some of their doc- “ trines are taken from Plato; and others, which they have “ invented to form their own philosophy, are found to be “ wide from the truth *.” He then mentions the doctrines which they had taken from Plato, and shews how they had corrupted them : but though he calls these corruptions an innovation, and though they may probably have come from an eastern quarter, it is plain that the basis of their philoso­phy, according to Plotinus, was derived from the school of Plato. Mosheim finishes a long dissertation upon this sub­ject with sa^ ng, “ If any one wishes for a shorter demon- “ stration of the Gnostics having had very different masters “ from Plato, and that they borrowed their miserable fables

p Ennead. II. 9. p. 199. <i Cap. 16. p. 118. in Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. IV.

^r Mosheim understands this ancient •philosophy to mean that of Hermes, Zoroaster, Orpheus, &c. Hiss, de Causis suppos. lAbrorum. §.3. p. 223-4, but this is an entire assumption ; and Porpbyry probably meant the philosophy of Greece. •

• Instit. Maj. p. 344. ¹ Pag. 303.

“ from the Chaldee philosophy, let him only observe and “ consider the doctrines of the Manichees. That the foun- “ der of this sect was born and educated in Persia, and “ united the precepts of the Magi with Christianity, no “ person can doubt. Nor, as far as I know, would any one “ conjecture that he studied Plato, or the works of Plato^u.” But this argument, if it proves any thing, may be turned against Mosheim: for Manes flourished at the end of the third century, long after Gnosticism had been established ; and his addiction to the Oriental philosophy was always con­sidered the peculiar mark by which his system was distin­guished from that of other Gnostics.

NOTE 8.—See Lecture II. p. 45.

According to Hyde ^x, the name of God, or the principle of good, was Yezad or Yezda/n, which might be translated Supplicandus. But he was also called Ormuzd, Hormuz, or Hormizda, which name was written by the Greeks or ’£lpop.txty)g. It seems probable, however, that these were not originally names of the same Being; but that the First Cause, or supreme God, was called Yezdan; and the good Principle, which proceeded from him, was called Ormuzd. The name of the evil Principle was Aharinlan, Ahreman, Ahriman, or Ahrimanam, which signifies poUutus, or Se- ductor, and was written by the Greeks ’Apsifiavio;. Hyde has not explained the meaning of the word Ormuzd, or Hor- muzd. Our countryman Windety conceived it to mean ihe source or receptacle of light. Le Clcrc^z deduced it from a Chaldee term signifying a brilliant flame : but Beau„- sobre ^a and Brucker ^b are inclined to adopt the conjecture of M. de la Croze, who observed that Horo in ancient Persian signified good, and Mazd signified JLivine, and thence a pure intelligence, or genius; and thus the term Hormuzd is equi­valent to the good Genius, or ayaSo; Sal/xaiv of the Greeks. Beausobre ana Brucker both adopt the opinion of Hyde, that Ahreman is derived from two Persian terms, Ah&r Ri- man, valde impurus, or Ahar Raiman, valde Seductor. Other etymologies of these names may be seen in the work of Wolfius, Manichceismus ante Manichceos, II. 12. p. 59.

» Jnstit. Maj. p. 35^- * Hist. Rel. Vet. Pers. c. g. p. 159.

y De Vita functorum Statu, sect. III. p. 36. ed. 1694.

¹ Ind. Philolog. ad Orac. Zoroast.

* Hist, de Manicli6e. II. 2. 2. vol. I. p. 169.

^b De Philosoph. Pers. vol. I. p. 171.

The religion of the Magi appears to nave engaged the attention of several Greek writers even in the earlier ages. Diogenes Laertius ^c quotes Aristotle, Dinon, Hermodorus, Hermippus, Eudoxus, Theopompus, Eudemus, Hecataeus, and Clearchus as having noticed it. Aristotle in his first book de Phihsophia said, “ that the Magi were more ancient than “ the ^Egyptians, and that they recognised two principles, “ a good Daemon and an evil Daemon : the former was “ called Jupiter and Oromasdes, the other Hades and Ari- “ manius.” But the most detailed account of the doctrines of the Magi is to be found in Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride, p. 369. E. who says that the notion of the universe being controlled by two opposite principles was very generally re­ceived : “ for some think that there are two Gods, like “ rivals, one the Creator of good, the other of evil; others “ give the name of God to the better, and of Damon to the “ other; as Zoroaster the Magian, who they say lived 5000 “ years before the Trojan war. He called the one Oroma- “ zes, and the other Arimanius ; and added that the former “ resembles light most of all sensible things, and the other “ resembles darkness and ignorance : and that Mithra is in “ a middle place between these. Hence the Persians call “ Mithra the Mediator. He taught that votive and grateful “ sacrifices should be offered to the one; but to the

“ other, such as are dismal, and suited to avert evil.---------------------

“ They also tell many fables about their Gods: such as “ the following ; Oromazes and Arimanius are at war with “ each other, the former being sprung from the purest “ light, the latter from darkness. The former ereated “ six gods: the first, of Benevolence; the second, of “ Truth; the third, of Justice; the fourth, of Wisdom; “ the fifth, of Wealth ; and the- sixth, of good pleasures. “ The latter created as many rival gods. Then Oromazes “ increased his size threefold, and removed as far from the “ sun as the sun is distant from the earth, and adorned “ the heavens with stars, and placed there one star before “ all the rest, as a guard and watch: this was Sirius, or the “ dog-star. He also made twenty-four other gods, and “ put them into an egg. But the gods, who had been “ created in equal number by Arimanius, pierced this egg^d,

c In Procero.

^d There is some corruption here, hargwenzvTss to uov yav&/$s» rk

x.uxk vo7$ uyxBoT;. I do not know what verb to extract from yava/Qlv, but the latter part of it is evidently oQsv, which is wanted for the construction: nyov, fregei'unt, would perhaps be thought too bold a conjecture, or I would read <uh nyov, oQiv.

“ and hence evil became mixed with good. The destined “ time will come, when Arimanius, after having brought “ pestilence and famine, must be entirely destroyed and “ annihilated by these gods; and the earth being made “ smooth and level, all mankind will be happy and of one lan- “ guage, leading the same kind of life and under the same “ laws.” This notion of an egg may be recognised in the system of Orpheus, as we learn from the same Plutarch, Sympos. p. 635. E. p. 636. D. and it seems also to have pervaded other systems of philosophy ^e. Plutarch alludes to the Oriental doctrines in several parts of his works, p. 270. D. p. 1026 B. and some persons have thought that ne was himself inclined to adopt this philosophy ^f. It may perhaps be true, that some notion of two opposite principles was held under some form or other by all the ancients: and yet it need not follow that one scheme was borrowed from the other. The existence of good and evil must have been felt by all persons: and the personification of these opposites would be equally universal, though giving rise to very different systems of belief. Plutarch observes, that the Chaldasans looked upon the planets as godsj some of which were au­thors of good, and others of evil. The Greeks also, as he observes, attributed what was good to Jupiter Olympius, and the contrary to Pluto the Averter: and according to the mythologists, Harmonia was the offspring of Mars and Venus; of whom the former was cruel and contentious, the latter was mild and social. There may be something of fancy in these remarks; but there is more foundation for what he says of the Greek philosophers, that Heraclitus made War or 'Opposition to be the parent and governor of all things; that Empedocles gave the name of Friendship and Harmony to the good principle, and of Strife and Con­tention to the contrary; and that Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, and Plato all made the existence of certain con­traries an important part of their systems. All this may be true, and yet it need not follow that any of these phi­losophers were indebted to the theology of the Magi. The personification of good and evil, as I have already observed, may have led them to these notions; and some of them perhaps have been classed with the believers in two prin­ciples, because they all held God and Matter to be alike eternal S. Pythagoras might certainly be represented as

^e See Wyttenbach’s note upon Plutarch de Is. et Osir. (vol. VII. p. 236.)

^f See Cuclworth, IV. 13. and Mosheim’s Notes, (vol. I. p. 298.)

& See Cudworth, IV. 6. vol. I. p. 272.

agreeing with the Persians: and when he is stated by Plu­tarch and Porphyry ^h, to have believed in “ two opposite “ Powers, one which was goad, and to which he gave the “ names of Monad, Light, R &ht, Equal Sfc. and another “ which was evil, which he called, Duad, Darkness, Left, “ Unequal, ftc.” we might suspect that he had taken his ideas and phraseology from the East. But Beausobre ‘ and Brucker ^k have both given reasons why we should hesitate in adopting this notion. The same may be said concerning Plato, who is stated by Plutarch to have taught in his work de Legihts, that the world was governed by at least two different souls, one of which was good and the parent of good, and the other evil and the parent of evil. The pas­sage may be found de Leg. X. p. 669. B. and similar sen­timents are expressed in the Timaeus p. 538. D. Polit. p. 175. A. Republ. II. p. 430. D But the expedients in­vented by the Greeks, and particularly by Plato, tq rescue God from being the author of evil, and to charge Matter with being the cause of it, were so various, that if we connect the Platonic philosophy with the Persian, we may say with equal reason, that all tbe Grecian sages borrowed frpm the Magi. Whoever wishes to examine how far the doctrine of two principles was received by the ancients, should con­sult Cudworth, and Mosheim’s Annotations, (1. c.) and par­ticularly Wolfius in his very learned work Manichceismus ante Manichceos.

NOTE 10.—See Lecture II. p. 47.

According to Hyde, the religion of the ancient Persians must be considered in three points of view: 1. the wor­ship of the one supreme God: 2". a superstitious regard for the heavenly bodies : 3. fire-worship ^m. I have already ex­pressed my sentiments concerning Hyde in the introduc­tion ; and he certainly must not be followed implicitly in the investigation of this subject. But this threefold divi­sion of the Persian religion will be found convenient; and it marks, as I conceive, the successive steps in their supersti­tion. Hyde is very earnest in contending that the worship of one God was always retained in Persia; and with re­spect to the theory oi religion, as it was explained by the iMagi, this was probably the case. The book of Daniel is

^h Vita Pythag. p. 197. ed. Cantab. 1655.

' Hist, de ManidWe, I. 3. vol. I. p. 29. &c.

¹¹ Hist. Philosoph. de Vita Pythag. vol. I. p. 1080.

¹ These references are to the edition of Ficinus, 1590.

Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 3.

perhaps correctly referred to ^m as shewing that the kings of Persia believed in one supreme God. See also Ezra i. 2.

The first step in eastern superstition was the worship of the Sun and the heavenly bodies. This has generally been called Sabaism, from a Persian word resembling the He­brew exercitus, the host of heaven. This is the ety-

T x

mology given by Hyde ⁿ, and seems the most probable ; though others have deduced it from Sabi, or Sabius, a son of Seth⁰, and from various other sources P. Hyde asserts very positively, that the ancient Persians did not properly worship the Sun or any of the heavenly bodies as God; and he would wish to prove, that they were considered as inter­mediate beings, through whom the supreme Being might be worshipped <1. He says the same concerning their adoration of angels. It cannot be denied, however, that the Sabii paid divine honours to the stars; and in later times some of them made images or sensible representations of these objects of their worship; a custom, which, as we know from Hero­dotus and other writers, did not exist in earlier times. The worship of fire was perhaps the first step in what would properly be called their idolatry, and preceded the worship of images. It was at the same time also, that they began to erect temples, which were not necessary while they con­fined themselves to one God, nor even when they first paid divine honours to the Sun and planets. The vast plains of Mesopotamia were then the only temples; but when fire came to be acknowledged as the sensible image of the Sun, it was necessary to enclose it in Pyrea or five-temples'¹. All this was a very natural process; and there can be little doubt, that the superstition of the Persians was first di­rected to the Sun, then to the other luminaries, then to fire, and lastly to images. But when Hyde would persuade us^s, that the Persians borrowed the worship of fire from the Jewish custom of burning a perpetual light in the temple, the notion must be pronounced at once to be fanciful and untenable. His arguments are perhaps deserving of more attention, when he says* that fire was never, in the proper

™ Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 157. » Cap. 3. p. 85.

" See Pocock, Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 138. ed. 1650. Beausobre, Hist, de Manichie, IX. 1. vol. II. p. 603, 604. Hottinger, Hist. Oriental. J. 8. p. 170.

P See Spencer, De Leg. Heir. II. 1. p. 237. Wolfius, Manichieismus untQk Manichtros, II. 18. p. 85.

a P. 126, 152, 153. ^r Hyde, p. 149.

⁵ P. 11. It is not improbable, that the Persians may have been struck with the resemblance between this part of the Jewish worship and their owu. See 1 Esdra. vi. 24.

■ P. 13, 138, 14B, 158.

sense of the term, worshipped by the Persians: i. e. that they always made a difference between the worship paid to God, gnd that paid to his material emblems. In the same manner "Be denies that they ever worshipped the Sun or planets as God. His arguments have been examined with great learning by Philippus a Turre^u, who is not disposed to agree with them: and Brucker speaks of Hyde having attempted to clear the Persians from idolatry, “ infeliciter “ tamen, si quid judicamus, et contra omnis antiquitatis “ fidem Beausobre might rather be quoted as support­ing Hydey: and he takes equal pains to acquit Manes of the charge of idolatry. It would not however follow, be­cause Manes, who lived in the third century of our era, and who borrowed much from Christianity, avoided some of the grosser parts of superstition, that therefore idolatry had never been practised in Persia. Cud worth² advances many reasons for thinking, that tjie Persians always re­cognised a being who was superior to the Sun : and if this point could be established, it might certainly be inferred, in some sense at least, that the Persians were not idolaters. Hyde asserts this very strenuously^a: and yet the worship of Mithra is a fact, which seems to be as well established, as any which history has preserved. Any person, who has visited Rome, is familiar with the ancient representations of Mithra, under the form of a man vanquishing and slaying a bull. Engravings of them may also be seen in the work of Hyde, p. 111. and of Phil, a Turre, p. 157. and the most usual inscriptions are deo soli Invicto mithbae, omni- potenti deo mitheae, &c. This certainly seems to connect Mithra with the Sun, and both of them with God : and yet no person could say, that these figures were images of the Sun, or that divine honours could really be paid to such figures. Brucker decides, in opposition to Hyde, that Mithra was the Sun, and was worshipped as a God^h: but when he quotes Porphyry as supporting this notion, he is certainly mistaken. Porphyry^c has preserved a passage from Eubulus, in which Mithra is called the Father and Creator of all things: but if We examine this passage, we shall find, that the Sun itself was among the objects created by Mithra; so that Eubulus could not have meant to identify the Sun with Mithra.

“ Monument, vet. Antii, part. II. c. z. p/167.

^ De Philosoph. Persaram, 10. vol. I. p. 166, 167.

y Hist, de Manich£e, IX. 1, 11. &c. p.1597, 599.

¹ IV. 27. vol. I. p. 699, &c. * P. 106, 118, 120.

^b De Philos. Persarum 10. vol. I. p. 167.

• De Antro Nympharum, p. 253, &c. ed. Cantab. 1655.

Brucker also refers to Herodotus, as proving that Mithra was the Sun, because he represents the Sun as the only God, which was worshipped by the Persians. “ Esse vero hunc Mi- “ thram Persis Solem, inde recte conficitur, quod teste He- “ rodoto (I. 131.) et Strabone (XV.) solum e Diis Solem “ Persae colant, atque equos sacrificent.” It is difficult to see the propriety of this inference, and Herodotus certainly does not say what is stated by Brucker. He says, that the ancient Persians sacrificed only to the circle of the heavens, which they called Jupiter, and to th,e Sun and Moon, the Earth, Fire, Water, and the Winds. It is probable, that he wrote this passage in accordance with Grecian ideas: and by sacrifice we may understand religious worship, of what­ever kind it might be; and Jupiter signified the supreme Being, according to the highest notions which Herodotus could form of it. This passage therefore expressly makes the supreme God and the Sun two distinct beings: and Brucker seems entirely to have forgotten that Herodotus went on to say, “ But they afterwards learnt to sacrifice to “ Urania, which they took from the Assyrians and Ara- “ bians. The Assyrians call Venus Mylitta; the Arabians, “ Alitta; and the Persians, Mitral Here we have the very term Mithra, and instead of being applied to the Sun, it is given to Venus. This has perplexed the commentators: but if we think of the Venus Genitrix of Lucretius, we shall perhaps understand, why the name, which was given by the Persians to the vivifying or creative principle, was applied by Greek or Latin writers sometimes to the Sun, and sometimes to Venus. This perhaps may furnish a clue to the whole mystery. Mithra was the title given to the creative power of God, to that animating principle, (resem­bling in some respects Plato’s Anima Mtmdi,) which per­vades the universe. It would be very natural, that this principle should sometimes be¹ identified with God, and sometimes abstracted from him. It would be natural also, that this principle, when considered abstractedly, should be personified, and have a material emblem. This emblem was the Sun: but as the principle, of which it was an emblem, was sometimes identified with God, so the Sun also was looked upon as God. This is the conclusion to which I should come after a consideration of all the opin^ ions upon this subject^d: and though Hyde has probably

^d Matter, in his Histoire du Gnosticisme, has furnished a strong confirm­ation of this theory of the Persian religion out of the Zeod-Avesta: “ L’Etre

“ supreme est qualifi£ de Temps sans bornes.............. La premiere Emanation

“ de l’Eternel fut la lumi&re primitive; et de cette lumi&re sortit le roi de

gone too far in rescuing the Persians from the charge of idolatry, I .should still be inclined to look upon the theory of their religion, and perhaps its practice among the more enlightened, as maintaining the existence of one God, who was the First Cause of all things and superior even to the Sun. This seems also to be the conclusion of Phil, a Turre in the work already alluded to, and of Mosheim in his anno­tations upon Cudworth, IV. 16. vol. I. p. 420, &c. The reader may also consult Beausobre, vol. I. p. 106, 563. and Freret, Mim. deVAcad. des Inscript. XVI. p. 270. The names of writers, who have illustrated the worship of Mithra, may be seen in Fabricius, Bibliogr. Antiquar. VIII. 12. p. 250. X. 10. p. 322. and Wolfius, Manichceit mits ante Mamchazos, II. 13. p. 62.

Note 11.—See Lecture II. p. 47.

. If I have reasoned correctly' concerning the acknowledg­ment of one supreme God among the Persians,, I should also find no difficulty in concluding, that the two opposite principles of Good and Evil were originally considered to be subordinate to God, and to have proceeded from Him. The confusion may have arisen very naturally from the good principle being identified with God, who was also good : and when the one principle was looked upon as eter­nal, the other would soon come to be viewed in the same light. This would particularly be the case, when that end­less, unfortunate question, concerning the origin of evil, was discussed; for all the ancients seem to have agreed in think­ing it less irrational to suppose the principle of evil to be coeternal with God, than to make it in any measure to have proceeded from Him. Hyde would persuade us, that the Magi were divided into two parties upon this subject^e: that the orthodox believed one, the good principle, to be eter­nal ; but that others, who were hence called Dualistce, and of whom in later times were the Manichaeans, believed both principles to be eternal. If Hyde’s view of this question were correct, it would be more proper to say, that the Per­sians acknowledged one God the author of good, who was eternal, and likewise an evil principle, which had a begin­ning. But this system, though pardy espoused by Pri- *deaux^f and Beausobres, is extremely crude and improbable.

“ lumi&re, Ormuzd. An moyen de la parole, Ormuzd cr£a le monde pur.” vol. I. p. 78.

^e Page 26. 162. 296.

^f Connection of the Old and New Testament, ad an. 486. p. 215. s Hist, de Manichfie, II. 1. 3. vol. I. p. 171, &c.

T 2

Hyde himself has given a much more credible account, when he says*¹, that some of the ancient Magi made Or- muzd and Ahreman to have proceeded out of Tight. This I take to have been their real doctrine: and Brucker in fact comes to the same conclusion, when he decides that these two principles were produced from a third which was Mithra'. I have already said, that Mithra was the crea­tive or generative principle, from which all things pro­ceeded: its existence was anterior to the universe; though its power and effect was only seen in the formation and government of the universe. The ancient Persians may have had no more difficulty in believing the evil principle to have proceeded from Mithra, than the ancient Jews had in believing Satan to be a fallen angel. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the natural inclination of the human mind is to refer all things, whether good or evil, to God as their cause, and to believe that in some way or other the evil ministers to good : but it is philosophy, and the love of finding ab­stract, independent causes, which led all the ancients^k, and not.a few moderns, to be afraid of making God the author of evil. The Persian Dualists were of this kind: but I have no doubt, that in the ancient system of the Magi evil as well as good proceeded from that universal principle which superintended the universe. It was perfectly natu­ral, that Light should be taken to represent the one, and Darkness the other: to which I would add, that it was more natural to suppose that the same Being who gave light should himself occasionally withdraw it, than that another and rival being should force him to withdraw it. The lat­ter opinion carries with it the marks of being a corruption of a more simple and ancient creed.

Note 12.—See Lecture II. p. 48.

Clement of Alexandria is quoted by Brucker¹ as saying, that Pythagoras was the first who made the name of Zo­roaster known to the Greeks. But instead of Za>pox<TTprjv 6 IluQuyopcts IS^Xcuo-sv, we are perhaps to read etyXuitrev in Cle­ment"¹: and therefore it may still be true, as J. H. Ursinus

¹¹ P. 298. ■ De Phil. Persarum, 13. vol. I. p. iyij.

^k Perhaps I ought uot to say all the ancients; for Homer appears to have considered Jupiter as the dispenser of evil as well as of good, II. 527. which is on6 of the reasons assigned by Plato for expelling him from his republic. (Republ. II. p. 379.) See Wolfius, Manichteismus ante Manichaos,

II. 27. p. 107.

¹ De Philos. Chaldseorum, 10. vol. I. p. 118. ^m Strom. I. 15. p. ^57.

asserted ⁿ, that Plato is the earliest Greek writer, who has mentioned Zoroaster °. The name was written by the Greeks Zcugoa<rrgj]s, ZcupoaSo;, ZapaSris, ZaflpxTo;; and they differed exceedingly among themselves, as did the Latins also, con­cerning the time in which he lived. Plutarch, as we have seen, mentions an account of his having flourished 5000 years before the Trojan war: which he probably took from Hermippus, who wrote expressly upon the subject P. Eu­doxus and Aristotle supposed him to have lived 6000 years before the death of Plato: and Pliny himself, who censures these accounts as extravagant, is rather inconsistent in plac­ing him many thousand years before Moses. Of those, who were more moderate in their calculations, Xanthus of Ly­dia is quoted by Diogenes Laertius <1 as reckoning 600 years from the time of Zoroaster to the expedition of Xerxes: and Suidas (v. Zoroast.) represents him as having preceded the Trojan war by .only 500 years. These dis­crepancies led some ancient writers to the notion which has been embraced by many moderns, that there was not one person only, but many, who bore the name of Zoroaster. Pliny undoubtedly had met with such an hypothesis^r: and a passage in Arnobius^s, though it may admit of different in­terpretations, probably expresses the same opinion. Brucker has mentioned six different persons, who have been spoken of under this name by Greek and Latin writers. He ap­pears as a Chaldaean, a Bactrian, a Persian, a Pamphylian, a Proconnesian; and the one, who is mentioned by Apu- leius ‘ as having instructed Pythagoras at Babylon, is con­sidered by Brucker to be different from all. The Oriental accounts are equally discordant; and some represent him as a Chinese, some as a native of Palestine. We should perhaps be able to come to some conclusion upon this point, if the etymology of the name Zoroaster could be determined: for, if it was a name of office, there is no reason why there might not have been many Zoroasters. Hyde informs us, that the word in Persian might signify either pure gold • or impure gold^u. But this will not assist us mucn. He mentions another etymology, which is more plausible, according to which the name signifies the Jriend of jire. This however is rejected by Dr. Wait^x upon grammatical grounds; and he informs us, that in

ⁿ In a work published in 1661, concerning Zoroaster, Hermes Trisme- gistus and Sanchoniatbo, sect. 2. p. 12.

⁰ Alcibiad. I. p. 122. p Plin. XXX. 1. <1 Procem. I. p. 1. ^r XXX. I.

^s I. p. 31. For the different punctuation and interpretation of this passage, sec Stanley, Hist. Phil, part XIV. I. 2. and Hevaldus ad 1.

‘ Florid. lib. II. ¹¹ p. 315. * Classical Journal, VII. p. 224.

T 3

Sanscrit Soora Truta would signify the science of the sun. Etymology is always a dangerous study, particularly when its flights are taken in the direction of the east: and though the science of the sun is a very inviting signification for this mysterious name, it may perhaps have as little foundation as the friend of fire; or the supporters of it may possibly be looked upon in as ridiculous a light hereafter, as those Greek writers who, with a laudable partiality to their own language, made acrraov a component part of Zoroaster, and thus gave the name a direct connection with astronomy. The Persian and Arabic writers are in one respect deserv­ing of credit, because instead of claiming this extraordinary character as a native of their own countries, they have been willing to look upon him as one of the Jewish patriarchs. Even Adam himself, and Nimrod, and Ham, and Abra­ham, and Moses, have all been put forward as candidates for the name of Zoroaster: ana such notions have been entertained by some modern writers 7: but it is hardly ne­cessary to refute them: and the opinion, which is followed by Hyde, Beausobre, and Brucker, that the real Zoroaster lived in the time of Darius Hystaspes, seems too well sup­ported to be doubted or denied. When I speak of the real Zoroaster, I do not mean to say that there may not have been more persons than one who bore this name: and Foucher may possibly be correct in thinking that the first lived in the time of Cyaxares, and introduced some changes into the re-, ligion of his country². But even this writer agrees in placing the second Zoroaster in the reign of Darius Hystaspes: and I shall therefore assume it as an established fact, that this was the person who is spoken of by so many eastern writers, as having caused a great reform in the religion of Persia. Hyde informs us^a, that he has found the name written in eighteen different ways in the Persian and other languages : but the form which is most prevalent is Zerdusht. He ap­pears to have been by birth a Mede: and though Hyde conceives him to have employed only four or five years in reforming his national religion, we must suppose that he had conceived the idea, ana made preparations for carrying it into effect, long before. Hyde however tells us, that he did not apply for the sanction and authority of Darius till the thirtieth year of that king’s reign ; and though Darius only reigned six years longer, yet Zoroaster died before

y See Brucker, vol. I. p. 120. note •.

^z M£m. de l’AcadSmie des Inscriptions. XXV. p. 99—148. XXVII. p. ²S3—394- XXIX. p. 87—228. XXXI. p. 443—512.

^a P-3I3-

him. But all this is very uncertain, as is the date, which Hyde assigns to the death of Darius. He places it in 555 A.C. Other and better authorities have placed it in 486 or 485^b. That Zoroaster in some way or other was indebted to the Jews for his religious opinions, seems certain beyond dispute: and hence probably it has been asserted by the Arabian writers that he was himself a Jew. • It is not so easy, out of the many conflicting accounts, to select which of the Jews it was who instructed him. Elias, Daniel, Je­remiah, and Ezra, have been mentioned: but the safest con­clusion seems to be that of Prideaux^c, which supposes him to have conversed with Daniel. It can hardly be supposed that the residence of the Jews in Babylon would not have had some effect upon the opinions of Zoroaster: and if he was contemporary with Daniel, he would naturally have ap­plied to him for information. It seems certain that he had read the Jewish scriptures: and, according to some Persian historians, he gave himself out to be the prophet whom God was to raise up like unto Moses ^d. This, and other preten­sions which he made, have caused him to be spoken of as an impostor: and it is not improbable that he sought to strengthen his reform by laying claim to supernatural powers. We must not however deny him the praise which he deserved: and though Hyde’s defence of Zoroaster has been considered by some persons as carried too far, there are strong grounds for concluding with the learned writers mentioned below^e, that he placed the unity of God upon a much firmer footing than that which it occupied before he began his reform. He seems to have established the belief (which was in fact the ancient belief of the Magi) that nei­ther of the two principles ofG-ood and Evil was eternal and independent, but that both of them proceeded from God. He was not however the teacher of an entirely pure or un- symbolical religion: for he is stated to have ordered the erection of fire-temples wherever he went. This was per­haps a politic and necessary compromise. He found that idolatry was daily gaining ground among his countrymen ; and he despaired of wholly drawing them away from mate­rial objects of adoration. He therefore selected fire, which was already worshipped by them, and ordered this, which

^b See Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, p. 247. second edition.

« Connection, part I. book IV. sub an. 486 A. C.

^d See Hyde, p.321. Beausobre, I. 2. 10. vol. I. p. 263.

• Prideaux, Connection, ut supra. Brucker, vol.T. p. 148.174. Beausobre, vol. I. p. 171. Cudworth also argues tbat Zoroaster believed in one God, the Cause of all things, IV. 13. and 16. Hyde’s defence of Zoroaster is opposed by Bayle, art. Zoroastre.

was the least gross and material of any object of sight, to be looked upon as the emblem of the Deity. Zoroaster per­haps owed his celebrity to this erection of fire-temples, as much as to any other cause. His purer notions concerning the unity of God would not be so much appreciated by a debased and superstitious people, as the permission to build temples and to worship fire. The books also which he wrote would be another source of the celebrity which he obtained. This is not the place to enter into the controversy concern­ing the Zend-Avesta, which was supposed by Hyde to be a genuine work of Zoroaster. It had not been printed in the time of Hyde, though he himself had a copy of it. Anquetil du Perron published a translation of it at Paris in 1771, from which an opinion may be formed of its pretensions. The principal authors who have treated of it are mentioned below^f: but sir W. Jones has given good reasons (Asiatic Researches, II. 51.) for believing the Zend-Avesta to be a modern compilation. Whoever wishes to investigate the his­tory of Zoroaster, may consult Brucker, Beausobre, Pri- deaux, and Foucher, in the works already mentioned: also Buddeus, Hist. JEccl. V. T. vol. I. p. 349* vol. II. p. 848. Hornius, Hist. Philos. II. 4. p. 77. D’Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient, voc. Zoroastre. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. I. 36.

NOTE 13.—See Lecture II. p. 51.

The real question to be considered is, who was the first person that mixed up the Oriental doctrine of two principles with Christianity ? But it is so easy to confound the Gnostic system with the Oriental, and the opposition of Good and Evil holds so prominent a place in both, that it is scarcely possible ever to arrive at any positive decision. It is certain that Manes corrupted Christianity with the Eastern doc­trines, because we read that he came direct from Persia: but we should wish to know whether the gospel had not already been corrupted from the same quarter. Beausobre asserts, that there were only three founders of sects who deserve to be considered as precursors of ManesS: these were Basilides, j Marcion, and Bardesanes. Jortin also says^h, that “ Basili- “ des seems to have been the first who introduced it [the

^f Anquetil du Perron, in the work above-mentioned, and in Mfan. de VAcad. des Inscriptions, XXXI. p. 339—442. XXXIV. p. 376—415. Brucker, vol. I. p. 152. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. 1. p. 65. Huetius, De- monst. Evang. Prop. IV. c. 5. p. 78. ed. 1679. Hyde’s account of it is in c. 25 and 26.

e Hist, de Manich^e, IV. 1. vol. II. p. 3.

Ii T) -«Im nn 17n<ilno!^citino 1 Uictnnr trrvl TT n n(\A

“ doctrine of two principles] into Christianity at the begin- “ ning of the second century.” Beausobre professes himself decidedly of this opinion ; (vol. I. p. 39. 326;) but he was determined not to believe the statement of all the Fathers, that Simon Magus was the parent of the Gnostic heresy; and therefore he chose to consider Basilides as distinct from the Gnostics. Irenaeus however expressly traces the doc­trines of Basilides up to Simon Magus, and couples him with the Gnostics'. Justin Martyr also mentions the Basi- lidians in company with the Valentinians, Saturnilians, and other heretics of the same kind^k, without marking any dif­ference: and it seems impossible to resist the evidence that Basilides was a Gnostic. He may perhaps have given the title of God to the Demiurgus more plainly than his prede­cessors, and he may have invested this Being with more at­tributes of evil: hence he may have been looked upon as a believer in two Principles or two Gods: and this may have caused Philastrius to say of Basilides, “ Qui et haeresiarches “ dicitur a multis.” He was certainly the inventor or first teacher of some peculiar notions, because Irenaeus, who speaks of Saturninus and Basilides as fellow-disciples of Menander, says that Saturninus agreed with his master, but Basilides thought to go much deeper. Theodoret makes the same observation, when he says that Basilides looked upon the fables of his master’s school as poor and mean, and invented others, which were still more impious. This was probably true; but still I see no evidence that he bor­rowed his notions from the East. His tenets may be seen in Irenaeus, (I. 24. 3. p. 101.) the Pseudo-Tertullian, (de PrcBscript. Hceret. 46.) Theodoret, (Haret. Fab. I. 4. p. 194.) and Epiphanius, (Har. 24. vol. I. p. 68.) If we look to Irenaeus, who is the oldest of these authorities, we find him saying, “ Basilides autem, ut altius aliquid et veri- “ similius invenisse videatur, in immensum extendit senten- ^Ci tiam doctrinae suae, ostendens Nun primo ab innato natum “ Patre, ab hoc autem natum Logon, deinde a Logo Phro- “ nesin, a Phronesi autem Sophiam et Dynamin, a Dynami “ autem et Sophia Virtutes et^Principes et Angelos, quos “ et primos vocat, et ab iis primum ccelum factum.” This is nothing, else than the Gnostic system of iEons: nor can I see in it any proof of a connexion with the Oriental doc­trines. Basilides had certainly studied in Alexandria ^

■ I. 24. 1. p. too. Some writers have also charged Simon Magus with be­lieving in two Principles. See note 48 towards the end.

k Dial, cum Tryph. 35. p. 133.

¹ Irenaeus, p. 100. Eusebius says, that he founded schools in Egypt, IV. 7. Hieron. Catal. Script, c. 21. vol. II. p. 847.

which would rather connect him with the Grecian philoso­phers. The strongest evidence which connects him with the East, is a passage in the Dispute between Archelaus and Manes, where we read, “ Fuit praedicator apud Persas etiam “ Basilides quidam antiquior, non longe post nostrorum “ Apostolorum tempora”¹.” Dr. Routh observes, that this is the only passage which speaks of Basilides having gone to Persia; and we cannot be certain that the same individual is intended. He is spoken of rather as having taught in Persia, than as having learnt any thing there: ana if he did adopt any of the Persian notions concerning two Prin­ciples, he must still be considered to have carried the Gnos­tic philosophy with him into Persia. With respect to the sentiments of Basilides upon other subjects, he is said to have believed Jesus to have been a phantom, as Simon Ma­gus and other Gnostics had done before him ; and to have invented the story of Simon of Cyrene having been crucified instead of Jesus¹¹. Both these points are denied by Beau- sobre⁰, and apparently with some reason. The followers of Basilides are also stated to have justified upon principle, and in their own practice, an indifference of human actions P. Beausobre allows that some Basilidians at Alexandria lived viciously, but he denies that Basilides countenanced such conduct9; and, since Clement expressly says that “the “ founders of their doctrines did not allow them to do this^r,” we may hope that such was the case. This heretic is also charged with allowing his followers to partake of things sacrificed to idols^s, a practice which, as we shall see, was common with the Gnostics, that they might not be included with the Christians in suffering persecution: and accordingly we find the Basilidians charged with denying the necessity of martyrdom¹. Basilides also denied the resurrection of the body^u, and believed in a metempsychosis. Different opinions have been entertained as to the time at which he lived: but if he was a disciple of Menander, who was a dis-

^m Reliq. Sacr. vol. IV. p. 275, 276.

” Iren. p. 100, 101. Theodoret, p. 195. Epiphanius, p. 71. Philastrius.

“ Vol. II. p. 25. See Lardner, History of Heresies, book II. c. 2. §. 6, 7. Mosheim, De Rebus ante Const. Cent. 11.47- not.". I would refer, how­ever, to the Inscription which I have quoted at the end of note ⁶³.

p Iren. p. 102. Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 1. p. 510. Theodoret, p. 195. Epiphanius, p. 71. Philastrius.

1 Vol. II. p. 40- Lardner agrees in this, 1. c. §.12. .

' Strom. III. i.p.510. See Mosheim, De Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 48. not. y, ^z.

• Iren. p. 102. Theodoret, p. 195.

‘ Origen in Mat. vol. III. p. 856. Pseudo-Tertull. 46. p. 220. Epiphan. H<er. XXIV. 4. p. 71.

^u Theodoret, p. 195.

ciple of Simon Magus, we might expect to meet with him about the beginning of the second century. When Justin Martyr wrote his Dialogue with Trypho (about the year 140) the Basilidians were already known as a sect: so that he may very probably have spread his doctrines in the reign of Trajan, as Beausobre supposes¹. This agrees with the ex­tract given above from Archelaus, that Basilides lived “ not “ long after the time of the apostlesand though Firmi- lian, as quoted at p. 261, places Basilides “ very Tong after “ the times of the apostles,” this may be spoken with refer­ence to all the apostles, except St. John, who appears to have survived the rest by nearly thirty years. Clement, aS quoted also at p. 260, includes Basilides among the heretics who lived in the time of Hadrian: and if we place him even at the beginning of that emperor’s reign, (A.D. 117.) he lived about seventeen years after the death of St. John, and nearly fifty years after the other apostles. Eusebius in his Chronicle speaks of Basilides appearing in the seventeenth year of Hadrian. He wrote several books, which are quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Whoever wishes to investigate the history of this heretic, will find the most detailed account in Beausobre IV. 2: but his opinions are to be received with caution. The subject is also fully handled by Lardner, History of Heretics, book II. c. 2. Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 46, &c. Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, II. 2. p. 98. Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares. III. 2. p.

eine Geschichte der Christlichen Re-

The second precursor of Manes, mentioned by Beau­sobre, was Marcion: but he ought rather to have given this place to Cerdon, since it is allowed on all hands that Marcion was a follower of Cerdon. It cannot be denied that some of the accounts which we have of Cerdon might be -taken to countenance the notion of his having imbibed the eastern doctrine of two principles. Thus the Pseudo- Tertullian says of him, “ He introduced two beginnings, “ (initia,) that is, two Gods, one good, the other evil: the “good is the superior; the cruel is the creator of the “ world7.” Philastrius says more plainly* that “ he dared “ to teach that there were two principles, one God who was “ good, and one who was evil.” If we take these expres­

* Vol. II. p. 3. See Routh in Reliq. Sacr. vol. I. p. 235- Dodwell, Diss. in Iren. III. ig. p. 247. Cotelerii nota ad Ignatii Epist. Interpol, ad Trail, p. 66. Lardner, History of Heretics, book II. c. 2. §. 1. Ittigius, de Hare- siarchis, II. 2. p. 99.

y De Prescript. Hseret. 51. p. 222. So Epiphan. Hcer. XLII. 3. p. 303.

sions literally, they by no means represent the Persian doc­trines : for it is quite certain, that none of the Magi ever looked upon the two principles as two Gods: and we may perhaps agree with the general assertion of Beausobre^z, that no heretic ever believed in a plurality of gods. There can be no doubt that Cerdon acknowledged one supreme God: and, according to Irenaeus^a, he taught, “that the “ God who was announced by the Law and the Prophets “ was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: for the “ latter is known, and the former unknown: the latter is “ good, the former is just.” Theodoret says the same thing^b; “ He taught that there is one God, the Father of “ our Lord Jesus Christ, who was unknown to the pro- “ phets; and another, the Creator of the universe, and “ giver of the Mosaic law; the former is good, the latter “just.” This is in fact nothing else but Gnosticism, ex­cept that Cerdon spoke of the iEon who created the world as God. Irenaeus accuses the Gnostics of “ inventing many “ gods ^c;” by which he only meant, that they gave the name of God to several beings who proceeded from the one su­preme God: and he explains his meaning more particu­larly when he adds, “ They say that their iEons are called “ gods, and fathers, and lords, and even heavens^d.” Ire­naeus expressly deduces Cerdon from Simon Magus ^e: and Epiphanius confirms his connection with the Gnostics, by classing him with the school of Heracleon, who we know to have agreed with Valentinus^f. All this makes me doubt whether Cerdon can properly be said to have imbibed the Oriental doctrines any more than all the Gnostics, who, as I have observed, may have taken some of. their attributes of the Demiurgus from the East. Cerdon came to Rome from Syria, while Hyginus was bishop of RomeS. It ap­pears from Irenaeus, that he was certainly a Christian, and often recanted his errors: from which I should infer, that he did not begin his career as a Gnostic philosopher; but that he was first orthodox, and was afterwards led away by the Gnostics. This probably was not the case with Menan­der, Saturninus, and Basilides. The life and doctrines of Cerdon are briefly considered by Lardner, Hist, qf Heresies, book II. 9- Tillemont Memoires, tom. II. part. II. Art. 5. p. 194.

The celebrity of Cerdon was lost in that of his successor

¹ Vol. I. p. 497. ^a I. 27. 1. p. 106. ^b Hseret. Fab. XXIV.

vol. IV. p. 209. ^c III. 24. 2. p. 223. ^d IV. 1. 1. p. 228.

^e I. 27. 1. p. 105. ^f Hser. XLI. 1. p. 299. s Iren. I. 27.1. p. 105. III. 4.3. p. 178.

Marcion, who was one of the most distinguished heretics of the second century, and who is mentioned by Beausobre as the second person before Manes, who mixed the eastern doc­trine of two principles with Christianity. Marcion is generally considered as a supporter of the Persian doctrines: but there is as much reason for saying, that he and his followers be­lieved in three or even in four principles, as that they be­lieved in two. Thus though Eusebius speaks of Marcion as “introducing two principles*¹,” yet Athanasius' and Epiphanius^k say, that “ he held three principles.” The- odoret tells us that “ Marcion was not satisfied with the doc- “ trines of Cerdon, but increased the impiety of them by “ inventing four unoriginated substances: he called one of “ them good and unknown, and gave it also the name of “ the Father of the Lord : another was the Demiurgus and “ just, whom he also called evil: beside these he named “ Matter, which is evil, and subject to another being who “ is evil¹.” It is plain, that the term principle is not to be taken in these passages in the same sense which it bears, when applied to the Persian doctrines : and it was a dispute rather about words than real opinions, when the followers of Marcion, as we learn from Eusebius, (1. c.) were divided in the time of Commodus, and Apelles held only one prin­ciple, others adhered to their master and believed in two, while others, of whom Syneros was the leader, increased them to three. Epiphanius gives this account of the doc­trine of Apelles ^m: “ He and. his followers said, that there “ are not three Principles, nor yet two, as Marcion and “ Lucianus thought: but there is one God, who is good, “ and one principle, and one power which cannot be named: “ which one God, or one principle, takes no interest in the “ affairs of this world. But this same holy and good God,

^h Hist. Eccl. V. 13.

¹ De Decret. Syn. Nic. 26. vol. 1. p. 231. Orat, III. cont. Avian. 15. p.

564- ‘

^k Haer. XLII. 3. p. 304. And he shews the uncertainty of his expressions, when he says at p. 6ig. “ Marcion teaches two principles, or rather three, “ which are contrary to each other.” That Marcion held three principles is said also in the Dialogue de recta in Deumfide., falsely ascrihed to Origen, (vol. 1. p. 804, 805.) Cyrillus Hieros. Catech. XVI. Damascenes, Haeres. 42. Much light is thrown upon thissuhject hy the Dialogue of the Pseudo- Origen, from which it appears that the Marcionites believed, 1. in a good principle, or God, the Father of Christ, who presided over the Christians : 2. in a just God or principle, which created the World, and presided over the Jews : 3. in an evil God or principle, who presided over the heathen. It may have heen peculiar to Marcion to speak of this third heing, as a third God or Principle^ but he had only to give this name to one of those numerous -ffions, which were already acknowledged hy all the Gnostics. ‘

I Hseret. Fab. I. 24. p. 210. ^m Haer. XLIV. 1. p. 381.

“ the supreme and good God, made another God ; and the “ other God which was made, created all things, the hea- “ vens, the earth, and every thing in the world.” Thus we see that Apelles was said to have held only one principle, though he taught that there were two Gods: and if we now turn to Justin Martyr, the earliest writer who notices Mar­cion, we find him representing his doctrines thus": “ Mar- “ cion of Pontus at this very time is teaching his followers “ to believe in another God greater than the Demiurgus,

“ and to deny the God the Creator of this uni-

“ verseand in another place⁰, “ He is now teaching men “ to deny the God the Creator of heaven and earth, and “ Christ his Son who was predicted by the prophets : but “ he introduces another God beside the Creator of all things, “ and another Son.” This is nothing else than the Gnostic doctrine of the supreme God and Father of Jesus Christ not being the Creator of the world, nor the God of the Jews: and accordingly Irenaeus P represents Marcion as blaspheming the God, who was announced by the Law and the Prophets, and calling him the author of evil, and saying that Jesus was sent by the Father, who is superior to the God that created the world. It is demonstrable, that when the Fathers spoke of Marcion as believing in more principles or more gods than one, they merely understood him to have deified some of the Gnostic iEons. Thus though Atha­nasius, as quoted above, speaks of Marcion having held three principles, (by which he probably intended God, the Demiurgus, and Matter?,) in another place^r he couples Marcion with Basilides and Valentinus, who^made the world to have been created by Angels. These Angels were evi­dently the iEons^s, to whom Marcion and other Gnostics sometimes gave the name of Gods, and sometimes of Prin-

“ Apol. I. 26. p. 59. ⁰ Ih. 58. p. 78. p I. 27. p. 106.

<1 Beausobre, who has some good observations upon the two ineaniugs of the word Principle, thinks that the three principles of Marcion were God, the Demiurgus, and the Damon. But the two last were almost identical in the Marcionite creed, and it seems more probable to look upon Matter as the third principle. (Hist, de Manichie, IV. 6, 8. vol. II. p. 89.) Since I wrote this, I have heen pleased to find an exact accordance of sentiment, as to Marcion's three Principles, in Neander’s Allgemeine Geschichte, &c. part. 1. p. 791.

' Orat. II. cont. Arian. 21. vol. I. p. 489.

»I am aware that it has been denied that Marcion believed in the thirty iEons, which were held by Valentinus: hut the fact is expressly asserted by Gregory Naz. (Orat. XLI. 2. p. 732.) and his Scholiasts; and the correctness of Gregory in this particular is completely established by Bull, Def. Fid. Nie.

III. 1. 11. Bull makes Valentinus to have preceded Marcion : which is doubt­ful. Tertullian speaks of Valentinus as a disciple of Marcion : (de came Christi 1. p. 307.) they certainly lived at the same time.

oiples: and the passage quoted from Theodoret, concerning Marcion’s four principles, may be illustrated from an ex­pression of Timotheus Prebyter, who says, that “ Marcion “ supposed there to be four unoriginated substances of “ things: but he also contracted these four into two; one “ of whom he called good and unknown; the other he “ called the Demiurgus and just and evil.” Upon the whole I have no doubt that Marcion believed strictly in the unity of God: but he also held that matter was eternal, and that the world was created by an inferior being to whom he gave the name of God. His celebrity arose, not so much from his introducing any new doctrines, as from his enlarging upon those, which had been taught before him : as Cyprian says of him⁴, “ He added to the impiety of Cerdon, and thought “ fit to blaspheme God the Father and Creator more shame- “ lessly and more openly, and furnished still more wicked “ and fatal weapons to those heretics, who were madly and “ sacrilegiously rebelling against the church.” Whoever wishes to see more concerning the belief of a plurality of Gods or principles, as held by Marcion and others of the ancients, may consult Cudworth and Mosheim’s Annota­tions, vol. I. p. 298, &c.

With respect to the other opinions held by Marcion, he denied the incarnation of Christ in every sense of the term: he believed the body of Jesus to be unsubstantial and illu­sive". Tertullian observes, that his disciple Apelles allowed that Christ had a body, but denied that he was born : ^ef admissa carne nativitatem negare* and we are enabled to explain this statement by what Epiphanius tells us of Apelles y, that he believed “ Christ to nave come and not “ to have appeared illusively, but to have assumed a real “ body, not from the Virgin Mary, but to have had a real “ fleshy body, neither begotten by a father, nor born of a “ virgin; but that he had real flesh in the following manner: “ when he came from heaven to earth, he brought a body “ with him composed from the four elements.” Tertullian goes on to say, that Valentinus, another disciple of Marcion, believed both the incarnation and nativity of Christ; but

* Epist. LXXIV. p. 138.

" Irenaeus probably meant this, when he said, that Marcion believed Jesus to be “ in hoininis forma manifestatum.” 1. 27. 2. p. 106. Tertullian says it expressly in his work againstMarcion : particularly III. 8. p. 401. and also de came Christi, 1. p. 307. “ Marcion, ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit “ etiam nativitatem; aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et carnem.”

¹ De carne Christi, 1. p. 307 : 6. p. 311.

y Haer. XLIV. p. 381. According to Theodoret, (Epist. 145. vol. III. p. 1024.) this notion had been held before by Basilides.

believed both the incarnation and nativity of Christ; but explained them in a different manner. According to Ire- nseus, it was the opinion of Valentinus that Jesus took nothing from Mary²: which, as he truly observes, is the same thing as to have believed his body to be a phantom. Epiphanius enables us to understand these two statements, and explains the true doctrine of Valentinus to have been, cLvcadev xarevrivo^evai to crwftx, xai coj Sia trcuA. 151/05 58cop, Sia D/iaplct; Tyjg mxp8svot) SfsAijXuflsvai. fiySev 81 arro t)); mtpSevtXYjs [tyTgots siA>j— tpevai, aAAa avcuQev to crajjxa e%eiv ^a. These then were the three different ways in which the nativity of Christ was denied or explained away by Marcion and his followers, though some writers have not been careful to observe the distinc­tion¹’.

The Marcionites denied the resurrection of the flesh ^c: and believed in a transmigration of souls^d. I do not find that they are anywhere charged with leading immoral lives, like many of the Gnostics: out, on the contrary, they are stated to have enjoined mortification of the body, to have abstained from animal food and from marriage^e. Epipha­nius speaks of their rejecting the Law and the Prophets^f: and Theodoret goes so far as to say, that they rejected the whole of the Old Testaments. But I only understand from these statements, that they did not look upon the Old Tes­tament as inspired by God: a notion which was held by all the Gnostics, and which flowed naturally from their common principle, that the supreme God was not the God of the Jews. There can however be no doubt that Marcion muti­lated the New Testament, and particularly the Gospel of St. Luke: he rejected the two Epistles to Timothy, that to Titus and the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse¹¹: he also ar­

¹ ovtiiv ttc rSjs Manias V. I. 2. p. 292. ^a Ha'r. XXXI. 7* P- ¹7¹ •

^b Tbus the Pseudo-Athanasius (eont. omnes Haereses, 8. vol. II. p. 235.) speaks of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides, as all believing is ruXHnos tldug cragsXOavra tov xvpov 3/fis tsjs a%gcZvT9v xal otTll^eydfiov Met^ias, though tbis, as we have seen, was the opinion of Valentinus only. So Gennadius (de Dogmat. Eccles. c. 2.) and Vigilius (adv. Eutycb. 1. III.) speak of Marcion believing Christ to have brought a body from heaven, which body was con­ceived by Mary.

^c Tertull. de Prescript. Hseret. 33. p. 214. Theodoret, Hcsret. Fab. I. 24. p. 211. Epiphanius, Hcer. XLII. 3. p. 304.

^J Epiphanius, 1. c. p. 305.

^e Iren. I. 28. 1. p. 107. Tertull. De Prescript. 30. p. 212. adv. Marc. I.

1. p. 366. Clem. Alex. Strom. 111. 3. p. 515.

¹ Haer. XLII. 4. p. 305. e Haeret. Fab. I. 24. p. 210.

^h Ittigius (De Haeresiarchis, p. 141.) only infers, that Marcion rejected the Apocalypse, because Cerdon did so: but Tertullian says expressly,

“ Apocalypsim ejus (Joannis) Marcion respuit.” adv. Marc. IV. 5. p. 415.

ranged the others in an order totally different from that which was generally followed?. .

The date of this heretic may be learnt with some degree of exactness. Irenaeus speaks of his preaching as being most prevalent while Anicetus was bishop of Rome^k; and Anicetus sat from 157 to 168: or according to other and more probable calculations from 142 to 161. But Marcion must have begun to spread his doctrines some time before; since Justin Martyr, as we have seen, speaks of his having gained many followers at the time of the publication of his first Apology, i. e. A. D. 140 or 150. Clement also places Marcion among the heretics, who flourished in the times of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius¹: and Antoninus reigned from A.JD. 138 to 161. We may therefore fix his date between the years 130 and 160^ra.

Whoever would wish to investigate the history of this heretic, can hardly avoid studying the five books written expressly against him by Tertullian: but they must be read with some allowance for invective. His life and doctrines are also illustrated at great length by Beausobre, vol. II. p. 69, &c.; by Ittigius, De Hceresiarchis JEvi Apostolici, II. 7. p. 135, &c.; by Tillemont, Memoires, tom. II. part. 2. p. 181. Mosheim, De Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 63, &c. Wolfius, Manichceismus ante Manichaos, II. 48. p. 199 ; by Lardner, History of Heresies, II. 10. p. 448, 8cc. A shorter account may be found in Cave.

I have said, that Beausobre names Basilides, Marcion, and Bardesanes, as the three persons who held the Mani- chsean doctrines before the time of Manes. I have endea­voured to shew that there is not much ground for supposing Basilides and Marcion to have held the Oriental doctrine of two Principles, except so far as this doctrine had an influ­ence upon every system of Gnosticism. Bardesanes, who was a native of Edessa in Mesopotamia, and therefore more likely to be acquainted with the religion of the Magi, seems certainly to have believed in the two Principles in the Per­sian sense. Eusebius speaks of him as intimately acquainted with the Chaldaic philosophy": and there would be further grounds for thinking this, if, as Lardner is inclined to sup-

■ Ireo. 1.27. 2.p. 106. Tertull. de Prescript. 38. p. 216. De Came Christi,

2. p. 308. adv. Marc. IV. 5. p. 416. V. 21. p, 434. Origen. in Rom. X. 43. p. 687. Hieron. Procem. in Epist. ad Tit. Epiphanius Heer. XLII. 9. p. 309.

^k “ Invaluit sub Aniceto.” III. 4. 3. p. 179. ¹ Strom. VII. 17. p. 898.

^m Beausobre, vol. II. p. 72. 82. Lardner, vol. VIII. p. 450. Pearson. Vindic. Ignatii part. II. c. 7. and in Diss. de Success. Pontif. Rom. IX. 13. p. 134.

" Prsep. Evaug. VI. 9. p. 273.

U

pose, he was the same person who is called b}^r Jerom⁰ and PorphyryP Bardesanes the Babylonian. He lived about the year 160 or 170, and was a strenuous assertor of Chris­tianity, for which he was particularly qualified by his know­ledge of the Greek and Syrian languages 1. He wrote against Marcion and other heretics, but afterwards fell into some of the errors of the Valentinian School^r. It is, how­ever, very unjust to class Bardesanes, as is sometimes done, with the Valentinians. He received the whole of the Old and New Testament: in the strictest sense of the term, he held the unity of God : he believed that God, who was the Father of Jesus Christ, was the Creator of the world ; and he even held that the Word of God, or His Son, cooperated in this creation. He believed, however, that the body of Jesus was a delusive image, which came down from heaven ; and this he probably took from Valentinus. He also agreed with that heretic in denying the resurrection of the body ; and this seems to be the principal reason why Epiphanius is so vehement against him. Eusebius is, I believe, the earli­est writer who mentions Bardesanes: and this is in favour of the opinion expressed above: for had he been looked upon as a decided heretic, he would hardly have escaped being noticed by Clement, Tertullian, or Origen. There is indeed a work ascribed to Origen, De recta in Deum fide, or contra Marcionistas, in which the doctrines of Bardesanes are explained at length, and which is the safest and fullest source to which we can go for the sentiments of this writer. I cannot, however, help agreeing with those who decide that the work is spurious^s. We may probably look upon it as a composition of the fourth century ; and the opinions of Bardesanes are explained by Marinus, who is one of the

” Adv. Jovin. II. 14. vol. II. p. 344. * De Abstin. IV. 17. p. 356. ed. 1767.

1 Epiphanius II. 1. Haer. LVI. p. 476. This, however, is doubted, and with some reason, by Lardner.

^r Euseh. H- E. IV. 30. Epiphanius, Lardner, and Mosheim,are certainly mistaken when they quote Eusebius and Jerom as saying that Bardesanes began by being a Valentinian. See Eus. 1. u. and Jerom. Cat til. c. 33.

• It was believed to he the work of Origen by Wetstein, and Cave rather inclined to this opinion. Huetius supposed it to be written by Maximus, who flourished about tlie year 196. The Benedictine editor of Origen follows Tillemont in ascribing it to Adamantius, a writer mentioned by Theodoret, (Haeret. Fah. I. 25. p 212.) as having written against Marcion, though he is omitted by Cave. To the arguments advanced by the editor against it being the work of Origen, I would add, that in Jnho i. 3. the words 3 yiyovsv are coupled with niSs %t, according to the modern punctuation : though it is well known that the early Fathers, and Origen himself, made the sentence end with Jilt ?». The treatise is published at the end of the first volume of Ori- gen’s works. Fabricius rather agrees with Tillemont, Bibl. Gr. V. 1. vol.V. p. 223.

speakers introduced in the Dialogue. .It appears from the third section of this Dialogue, that there were three points in which Bardesanes differed from the Catholic church. He believed that the Devil was not created by God; that Christ was not born of a woman; and that we shall not rise again with our bodies. It is pleasing to find from Eusebius¹ that Bardesanes lived to retract some of his errors, and to abjure the doctrines of Valentinus. He adds, indeed, that he did not entirely shake them off: but Eusebius, or any of the Fathers, would have spoken thus of a man who continued to deny the resurrection of the body: and we may hope that this was the only point in which Bardesanes ultimately differed from the Catholic church. A long extract from a work of Bardesanes is preserved by Eusebius, Prcep. Evcmg.

VI. 10. p. 273. The fullest account of his life and doctrines is given by Beausobre, vol. II. p. 128, &c. They are also well discussed by Lardner, (Credibility, part 2. c. 28. vol.

II. p. 316.) and more briefly by Cave, and by Tillemont, Memoires, tom. II. part. 3. p. 93. Strunzius, Hist. Bar- desanis. Mosheim, De Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 60. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 599. V. p. 198.

There can be no doubt that Manes, or Manichaeus, held the doctrine of two Principles, and that he held it in the Oriental sense, for he was himself a subject of the Persian empire, being born in the province of Babylon. His opin­ions are detailed at considerable length by Theodoret^u and Epiphanius* : but it is observed by Beausobre, that all the Fathers have taken their account of Manicheism from the “ Disputation between Archelaus and Manesy.” This pro­fesses to have been a Dialogue held between Manes and Archelaus bishop of Caschar, about the year 278. The genuineness of this piece is wholly denied, and its authority treated with great contempt by Beausobre, who looks upon it as a romance, fabricated by some Greek, and published after the year 330, or about sixty years after the death of Manes^z. It is not my intention to enter into this question:

' Ecdes. Hist. IV. 30. ^u Haevet. Fab. I. 26. p. 212.

■ II. 2. Hffir. LXVI. p. 617. f.

^v Published by Zaccagni, in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum, Roms, 1698; by Fabricius, in bis edition of Hippolytus, Hamhurgi, 1716. (vol. II. p.142 ;) and by Dr. Routh, in bis Reliquiee Sacra, vol. IV. p. 118. See Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. V. 1. vol.V. p. 262.

* Vol.I. p.6.129. The greater part of itexists only in a Latin translation, which appears to have been made from the Greek. Many proofs of this are adduced by Zaccagni in his preface : to which I would add the phrase in §. 14. “ Intuemini mihi aliquem.” Mihi is evidently a Gracism, imistSi

(iot nvcc.

but the reader may find in Dr. Routh’s Reliquiie Sacrcp.^a the names of several writers who have defended these Acts against the criticism of Beausobre. I may mention, that the scene of the Disputation is laid at Caschar in Mesopotamia, and that Beausobre denied the existence of any town of that name in that country^b. It will be seen, however, in the Reliquiae; Sacra,, that Beausobre was mistaken in this asser­tion, and that there was such a town as Caschar in Mesopo­tamia, on the confines of Babylonia. I would add, that the value of this document, though it may be diminished, is not destroyed, if, instead of supposing it to be the substance of a real dialogue, we suppose it to have been written in that form, and under the names of persons who might have held such a dispute at the time and place which are assigned. There can be little doubt, that in one point at least the author of the Disputation has committed a great mistake. He says^c, that a person of the name of Scythianus, who lived in the time of the apostles, was the author and founder of the Manichasan heresy: and we learn from Epiphanius^d, that Manes was the slave of a widow woman, who inherited the property of Terebinthus: and this Terebinthus is stated to have been the disciple of Scythianus. But if Manes was bom in the year 239 or 240, as Beausobre supposes, it is almost impossible, according to the story of Epiphanius, that Scythianus could have lived in the time of the apostles^e. Beausobre has advanced good reasons for supposing that Scythianus and Manes were contemporaries^1,: and instead of believing, with Epiphanius, that Terebinthus was the disciple of Scythianus, he supposes him to have been a dis­ciple of Manes, and to have survived him!?. I have said, that this ingenious critic supposed Manes to have been bom in 239 or 240. He also conceived him to have begun his heresy in 268, and to have been put to death in 277^h. Hyde, in his History of Ancient Persia, does not in fact differ greatly from this account, though he speaks of Manes appearing at the beginning of the reign of Probus, A. D. 290". In the first place, the accession of Probus is generally and more correctly fixed in the year 276: and secondly,

- Vol. IV. p. 130. ^b Vol. I. p. 134, &c.

^c §. 51. Reliq. Sacr. IV. p. 267. ^d Vol. I. p.617.

<= See Beausobre, vol. I. p. 25. who justly finds fault with Cave and Wolfius for wishing to hring Scythianus near to the time of the apostles. Ittigius reasoned as Beausobre. De Heeresiarchvs, II. 10. 9. p. 191,192.

^r Vol. I. p. 26. e P. 63.

^h For these dates, see Beausobre, vol. I. p. 6g. 122, 129. 210.

‘ C. 21. p. 284.

Hyde himself quotes Shahristani the Persian historian as saying, “ that M&ni appeared in the time of SMbur son of “ Araeshir, and was put to death by Behram the son of “ Hormuz the son of Sh&bur.” Greek or Latin writers would have spoken of these kings as Sapor the son of Ar- taxerxes, and Varanes the son of Hormisdas; and the reign of Sapor, who died in 271 or 272, coincides with the period assigned by Beausobre. Various significations have been given to the name of Manes or Manichseus: but Beausobre adopts the opinion of Usher, and thinks that both forms of the name may be derived from the Persian word Manaem, or Manachem, which signifies a Comforter; and he remarks that it was a common name with the kings of Edessa^k. His censure of the Fathers for indulging their humour or their spleen in deducing the name from pave);, a madman, is per­haps a little too severe. If I were to detail the life of Manes, it would only be an abridgment of the elaborate work of Beausobre, who has collected every thing that is known concerning him. I may state, however, that he does not believe him to have been born in a condition of slavery, as many writers have supposed. He represents him as a man of great learning, instructed in many sciences and in paint­ing : he also supposes him to have been a Christian from the first, which is totally contrary to what is asserted by Archelaus. He was ordained priest while he was very young; but falling into heresy, he was expelled from the church, and favourably received at the court of Sapor, who succeeded his father in 241. That prince listened to Manes so far as the doctrine of two Principles was concerned : but when Manes proceeded to introduce his peculiar notions of Christianity into the religion of his country, he lost the favour of the king, and was obliged to retire into Turkistan. Upon the death of Sapor in 271 or 272, he again returned to the court, and was well received by Hormisdas, the new monarch. This reign only lasted two years: and though his son Varanes was inclined at first to favour Manes, he was compelled to give way to the calumnies and jealousies which existed against him; and after a public conference, in which, as might have been supposed, Manes was defeated, he was put to death, either by crucifixion or by excoriation, in 277. The religious opinions of Manes were heretical, both with respect to Christianity and to the doctrine of the Magi. According to Hyde¹, there were seventy sects among

^k P. 69. See Wolfius, Maniclueismus ante Manichaos, II. 53. p. 215.

¹ P. 25. 162.

the Magi, all of which believed in the existence of two Principles. I have endeavoured at p. 279. to explain what was the nature of the reform introduced by Zoroaster : and Beausobre seems to conclude, not without reason, that the difference between Zoroaster and Manes was this. The former referred every thing to God as a first Cause: but the latter considered Matter also to have an independent existence, and to be the origin of evil^m. Still, however, the Manichseans firmly maintained the unity of God : and though they believed Matter to be coeternal with God, they are no more chargeable with believing in two Gods, than Plato or any of the Greek philosophers, all of whom, as will be shewn hereafter, held the eternity of Matter. One of the leading errors of Manes seems to have been, that he attri­buted to Matter a self-existing, inherent, moving power: and consequently he did not ascribe the creation of the world to God. But upon this intricate subject, I can only refer the reader to the elaborate investigations of Beausobre". With respect to the opinion of Manes concerning Jesus Christ, he followed the Gnostics in denying his incarnation. The same reasons which led Basilides or Marcion to this conclusion, would have acted also upon Manes : and accord­ingly we find him adopting the notion that the body of Jesus was unsubstantial⁰. Some writersP have charged him with the impious pretension of being himself Christ, or the Holy Ghost, and in fact with assuming to himself the attributes of divinity. But this is undoubtedly a calumny, as Beausobre has most satisfactorily proved q. He probably laid claim to having the Holy Ghost (the existence of which as a divine Person he fully allowed) residing in a peculiar manner in himself: and this, as well as his name, which signified Comforter, may have given rise to the story. There are much stronger grounds for believing that he re­jected the Old Testament, or at least treated the greater part of it with indifference^r. The Manichseans also rejected- some parts of the New Testament^s: they denied the resur­rection of the flesh¹: and believed in a transmigration of souls".

Such is a brief account of the life and writings of Manes. The reader will have perceived, how greatly I am indebted

“■ See Beausobre, vol. I. p. 178. 489. This agrees with what is said by Theodoret, Haret. Fab. I. 26. p. 212 : Augustin, cont. Faust. XXI. 1 : and Sharistani, as quoted by Hyde, p. 283. See also Brucker, vol. III. p. 489.

” Vol. I. p. 488, &c. ⁰ See' Beausobre, VIII. 1. vol. II. p. 517, &c.

" Theodoret, I.e. Archelatis, Reliq. Sacr. IV. p. 173. 190. 199.

1 Vol. I. p. 254. 263, &c. ^r lb. p. 269. • lb. p. 291.

* Vol. II. p. 560. ^u lb. p. 487.

to the work of Beausobre : and no person, who wishes to be acquainted with Manichaeism, can well avoid the study of it. A shorter, though at the same time a very full account of the Manichees is given by Lardner, Credibility, part 2. chap. LXIII. The reader may also consult Tollii Insignia Itinerarii Italici, p. 126; D’Herbelot, Art. Mani; Fabri- cius, Bill. Gr. vol. V. p. 281. Jortin, Remarks am Eccles. History, vol. II. p. 250, 264. Tillemont, Mbnoires, tom. IV. part. 2. p. 744. Wolfius, Mcmichceismus ante Mani- chaeos, II. 53. p. 214. and Hyde, Relig. Vet. Pers. c. 21. p. 281. who has abridged Beyerlink, and has adduced many passages concerning Manes from Oriental writers.

I have endeavoured to shew in this note, which has already grown to too great a length, that the Oriental doc­trine of two principles was not the chief source from which Gnosticism was derived, though it may have had some in­fluence upon parts of that heterogeneous system. We ought carefully to distinguish between the different senses, in which the term Principle, *px*l, has been used. God is a Principle, as being the beginning or cause of all things. With the Greek philosophers, Matter was also a Principle, as being without beginning. But neither the Ormuzd nor the Ahreman of the Persian creed were Principles in either of these senses: they were subordinate to God, and they were employed in acting upon Matter: which shews at once how different were the two Principles of the Greeks from the two Principles of the Magi. I am speaking now of the religion of the Magi, as it existed anciently, and as it was reformed by Zoroaster: and I am inclined to suppose, that the origin of Matter and of evil was not a question, which greatly interested the ancient Persians. Their notion of Ahreman being produced from the first cause was a much more simple scheme, and one which it is much more easy to reconcile with the Scriptures, than the complicated and inconsistent hypotheses of the Grecian sages. When Greece and Persia came more closely into contact, the philosophical tenets of both countries would be likely to influence each other: and though the notion may not be commonly re­ceived, I cannot help thinking that the Grecian philosophy produced quite as great an effect upon that of Persia, and introduced into it as many changes, as any which itself re­ceived from the East. The Gnostics, who are charged with holding two Principles, appear to me to have held them more in the Grecian, than in the Persian sense of the ex­pression : and therefore, as I shall endeavour to shew in my third Lecture, the Gnostic doctrines are to be traced to

u 4

those of Plato, rather than to those of the Magi, as their principal source. The tenets of Bardesanes and Manes were naturally more in accordance with those of Persia: but they lived long after the rise of Gnosticism; and I can­not see, that any of the Gnostics of the first century can justly be said to have believed in two Principles otherwise than Pythagoras or Plato might be said to have done so^x. The subject is most fully ana ably discussed by Wolfius in his Manichceismus ante Manichazos: but though it is pre­sumptuous to differ from such an authority, and* though I am indebted to that work for much information and many references, I cannot help thinking, that it does not suffi­ciently observe the distinction between the belief in two Principles which was held in Persia, and that which was held in Greece.

NOTE '14.—See Lecture II. p. 53.

Whoever wishes to investigate this obscure subject, will find most points of his curiosity satisfied in the learned "and elaborate work of Brucker, who in the section de Philoso­phia JudcBorum Esoterica sive Cabbalistica has either col­lected all the information which is necessary, or has given references to the best writers upon the subject. These writers have been very numerous, but I would particularly mention J. Picus Mirandula in his Apologia, p. 110. Op. ed. 1601; Th. Hackspanius, Cabbalas Judaicce brevis Expo- sitio; Buddeus, Introduct. ad Hist. Philosoph. Ebrewrum; J. Capnio (commonly called Reuchlinus,) de Arte Cabba­listica; Ch. Knorrius a Rosenroth, Kabbala denudata. The last is generally considered the fullest and best work upon the subject; and a brief though very useful abstract of it is given by Langius in his Dissertation already referred to at p. 265. A collection of several works upon this subject was published by Pistorius in 1587.

It was not till the end of the second century, and proba­bly about the year 190, that Rabbi Jehuda, surnamed Hakkadosch, or the Just, who has always been looked upon as one of the most learned of the Jews, collected into one

* Plato guards agaiDst the notion of two Gods, whose sentiments were opposed to each other, when he speaks of the motion which the universe received from God, and of its own innate moving power : (Politic- p. 270;) and he afterwards shews that by the latter he meant tlfix^Bvri »at \vft<pvros I•rfivp'tet, p. 272. Plutarch might lead us into error when he says that Plato believed the world to be moved by more than ooe Soul, aud principally by two; one of which was the author of Good, the other of Evil. (De Is. et Osir. p. 370. F.)

body the scattered traditions of his countrymen. He de­voted forty years to this laborious work, and may be said to have laid the foundation of the Talmud y, by publishing the Mischna², which may be called the Text, in opposition to the Gemara^a, or Commentary of later Rabbis^b. The “ Mischna is a kind of code of laws for the. ritual worship and the moral practice of the Jews; and it also prescribes rules for the interpretation of the scriptures. The charac­teristic feature of the Mischna is that it places Oral tradi­tion on the same level with the written word of God. After the time of Jehuda indeed, these traditions were no longer unwritten: but the very fact of his employing forty years in collecting them shews that they must have existed in a pro­digious number before his day; and we should naturally expect that they had been circulating orally for a long time^c. The Jewish writers inform us, that this was the case; and they represent Jehuda Hakkadosch, not only as the suc­cessor, but the lineal descendant of Hillel, surnamed Has- saken, the Elder, who was born at Babylon B. C. 112, but afterwards removed to Jerusalem; and for forty years,'dur­ing which period he was president of the great Sanhedrim, he was the strenuous supporter of the traditions of his coun­trymen. Hence some have looked upon Hillel as the first founder of the Talmud; but though he advocated the vali­dity of these unwritten traditions, it does not appear that he ever made any collection of them. Hillel died B. C. 12^d, and was succeeded by his son Simeon, who has been sup­posed by some to be the same person who took our Saviour in his arms, when he was presented in the temple^e. Simeon y From laV to learn.

² From rm> to repeat. Hcuce rufflo was a repetition or second part of the

TT T ' *

Law.

^a From 701 to finish.

-T

^b Beside Brucker, vol. II. p. 820. the reader may consult Bartoloccius Bib- lioth. Rabbin, vol. III. p. 18. Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, III. 6. p. 138. Wol- fius, Bibl. Hebr. part 2. p. 658. Prideaux, Connection, suh anno 37. B. C.

^e Philo Judaeus speaks strongly iu praise of unwritten tradition. DeJusti- tia, vol. II. p. 361. ed. Mangey. It is plain that Philo and Josephus, and particularly the latter, were acquainted with many historical traditions, which are not recorded in the Bible. Eusebius speaks of Josephus as rks W*uQlv '1 avSatxots SeuregaJfi'eis otGFflxgifiaixws, OCT. ^LE(Zgatos 'E/Zpaiail/ TWy%uvaiv. Dem. Evang’. VI. 18. p. 291. The word hvripini has nearly the same signi­fication as Mischna.

^d See Prideaux, 1. u. and Brucker, vol. II. p. 791. who names all the prin­cipal writers that have treated of Hillel.

^e Luke ii. 25. The identity of these two Simeons has been maintained by Mollerns in his Homonymoscopia, p. 201. and denied by Vorstius in his Observ. ad Chronol. Dav. Gantzii, p. 283. The names of other writers upon this question may be seen in Wolfius, Bibl. Hebr. part. 2. p. 862.

was sueceeded by his son Gamaliel, who appears certainly to be the person mentioned in Acts v. 34. and xxii. 3. and who lived to the eighteenth year before the destruction of Jerusalem. He was then succeeded by his son Simeon, who perished in that destruction, and was followed by his son Gamaliel, the second President of that name. Simeon, the third of that name, succeeded his father Gamaliel; and after Simeon, his son Jehuda Hakkadosch was appointed, who, as I have stated, collected the Mischna in the year 190. There can be no doubt, that all these presidents of the Sanhedrim promoted to the utmost of their power the reve­rence which was paid to oral tradition: and after the de­struction of Jerusalem there seems to have been no limit to the inroads which were made upon the ancient religion of the Jews. Rabbi Akibha, and Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai were among the most distinguished teachers who lived after the taking of the city: and the Book of Jezirah, or Crea­tion, which is attributed to Akibha, is filled with the most trifling, not to say wicked, absurdities, which were evidently borrowed from different heathen philosophies. Akibha, who was put to death A. D. 120, in the insurrection raised by Bar Cochebas, was succeeded by his pupil Simeon Ben Jochai, who is looked upon by the Jews as the chief of the Cabbalists, and of whom they relate the most ridiculous and incredible stories. If the book called Sohar, or Splen­dor, was the work of Simeon, there can be no doubt, that the Cabbalistic doctrines were in their full vigour in his day. This book was not much known till the thirteenth century, and some persons have ascribed to it a very recent date; but the most probable hypothesis seems to be, that though it received many subsequent additions, yet part of it was composed by Simeon Ben Jochai in the second century^f.

It will appear from this short and superficial sketch, that the Cabbala had certainly grown into a system at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem : but there is also evidence, that it had been cultivated by the Jewish doctors long before. I have given a list of the presidents of the San­hedrim from Hillel, who died twelve years before the birth of Christ, to Jehuda Hakkadosch; and there is no doubt, that during the presidency of these men the Jewish schools were infected by many foreign corruptions. But the prede­cessors of Hillel are traced up to the year 291, B. C. when

^r Concerning this book, see Langius in the Dissertation referred to at p. 265. and Brucker, vol. II. p. 711,838. Of the writers referred to by Brucker, perhaps the most satisfactory is Knorrius, in bis Kabbala denudata, vol. II. praf.

upon the death of Simon the Just, his place of President of the Sanhedrim was filled by Antigonus of Socho, who is considered the first of the Mischnical doctors S. The suc­cessors of Antigonus were the persons, who are called Scribes and Teachers of the law in the New Testament: and no proof is required, that they made the word of God of none effect by their traditions^h.

It is impossible therefore to assent to those writers, who have said that Gnosticism could not be derived from the Cabbala, because the Cabbala was not in existence till after the second century'. The seeds of it had been sown Jong before, and at the time of the promulgation of the gospel an abundant harvest was springing up. R. Simon deduced the Cabbalistic doctrine of the Jews from the philosophical and astrological speculations of the Chaldees^k: and he thought that these notions were imported into Judaea, when the Jews returned from their captivity. Langius is op­posed to this • hypothesis¹; and argues from the book of Daniel, that the Jews were more learned than their con­querors, and were therefore more likely to have instructed tnem, than to have borrowed any thing from them. This however is a very insufficient argument to shewthat some Jews did not learn false and superstitious notions at Babylon; and Beausobre has shewn"¹, that the Cabbalistic notion of God, which was that of a pure and extended Light, was the same with that of the Orientals. A later writer" has traced several points of resemblance between the Cabbala and the system of Zoroaster. The notion of emanations, as he has observed, is the essential feature of the Cabbala; and since there is no warrant for this in the Bible, nor did it appear in the

Prevailing schemes of heathen philosophy, he very naturally educes it from the East, where many of the Magi taught that every thing emanated from God the fountain of light. The Jews seem also to have brought with them from Babylon many strange notions concerning Angels : and on the whole we may safely conclude, that many of the corruptions, which appear in the religious system of the Cabbala, were the con­sequence of their captivity. I am far however from assert­ing, that Babylon was the only, or even the principal quarter, from whence the Cabbalistic doctrines were derived. Some

« See Prideaux, sub anno 291. ^h Matt. xv. 6.

¹ This was said by Massuet in his preface to Irenaeus, Diss. I. 21. and by Colbergius de Orig. Hares. I. 11. p. 33. See Matter, Hist, du Gnosticisme, torn. I. p. 94-

^k Hist. Crit. Vet. Test. I. 7. p. 47. ¹ Diss. in 1 Tim. i. 3. ut supra,

p. 643. ^m Vol. I. p. 468. ⁿ Matter, 1. c.

writers⁰ have traced them to Egypt; by which we may understand either the mystical theology of the native Egyptians, or the numerous and eclectic schools of philo­sophy which had arisen in Alexandria. That the Greek philosophy, as taught in the latter city, had a great effect upon tne learning of the Jews, can hardly be doubted: and I need only refer to the elaborate researches of Brucker, who has shewn almost to demonstration, that the Cabbala was in existence some centuries before the Christian era, and that much of it was borrowed from the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophies P.

It may naturally be asked, how the Jews could reconcile these extraneous additions to their theology with the written books of Moses and their other prophets: and this opens to us another and most prolific department of the Cabbala, which consisted in extracting a hidden meaning from the scriptures, and interpreting them in such a manner, that almost any doctrine might be proved from any text. I shall have occasion to say more of this mystical interpreta­tion of scripture in note³¹, and at present I would observe that the whole system was called rnnp Cabbala, from %P.

’’ r which is received by tradi-

, The theoretica is again

subdivided into the inartificialis or philosophica, and the artificialis or UteraUs. The Cabbala philosophical, or as it is sometimes called metaphysica, comprises the doctrines con­cerning God, Spirits, the Creation, the Soul, &c. the literalis is the secret and symbolical interpretation of the scriptures. The Cabbala practica may be almost said to be synonymous with magic, and consisted of a superstitious use of sentences and words of scripture to produce a supernatural effect¹.

The most important question connected with the history of the Cabbala is, whether the whole system is the offspring of later and successive corruptions, or whether there was once a pure Cabbala, which was another and legitimate branch of the Jewish religion. The latter opinion was maintained by Buddeus^s; and Brucker upon the whole is

° See Basnage, Hist des Juifs, 1. III. c. 16, ig. Spencer, de Ritibus e Gentium Moribus translatis, in bis work de Legibus, lib. III. Diss. I.

t See particularly vol. II. p. 698, 706, 933, 940, 943, 950. Also Beau­sobre, vol. II. p. 332.

9 See Brucker, p. 916. Hottinger, Tb.es. Philol. I. 3, 5. p. 437. ^r For these divisions and subdivisions of the Cabbala see Brucker, vol. II. p. 970. Langius, 1.1. p. 643. Buddeus speaks of the Magic of the Cabbala, Hist. Phil. Ebr. p. 423, 424.

■ De Moderamine incorruptae Tutelae, p. 519.

consist of two great divi-

not disposed to dispute it*. We can hardly in fact come to a contrary conclusion, as I have ventured to observe at p. 53: but I cannot see any evidence, that this pure Cab­bala was ever reduced to writing; or that any rules were prescribed for the mystical interpretation of scripture, until the Cabbala itself became corrupted and loaded with many superstitions. The Jews would wish us to believe, that Adam and Abraham were instructed in the Cabbalistic art^u. Moses also is said to have received other doctrines from God, beside those which are contained in the Law^x: and it is very generally asserted that Ezra committed, the unwritten traditions of his countrymen to writing. We are referred, in proof of this, to the second Apocryphal Book of Ezra xiv. 46. J. Picus of Mirandula even went so far as to flatter himself that he possessed some of these books, which had been written by EzraY: but it is needless to add, that his belief in the antiquity of these books is as ground­less, as is the whole story invented by the Jews concerning this work of Ezra². There is at least no evidence that such a work ever existed : and I cannot but look upon it as unfortunate, that Picus of Mirandula^a and other writers should have quoted these Cabbalistic forgeries as support­ing the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. I am far from intending to say, that the Rabbinical and Talmudical writings may hot have their use in the inter­pretation of the Old Testament, and even in confirming some parts of the Christian revelation. But it requires an extremely sober and judicious criticism, to know where to stop, and how to distinguish the more ancient parts of the Talmud from recent interpolations and additions ^b. Some writers would persuade us that the Cabbalistic doctrines

^c Vol. II: p. 950. It seems to be allowed also by Carpzovius, Introd. in Theol.Jud. c. 6.Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, c. 7. §. 2. quaest. I. p. 291. Vitringa Observ. Sacr. vol. I. Diss. II. De Sephirolh Cabbal. I. j. p. 128.

" Reucblinus, de Arte Cabbalistica.

^x Picus Mirandula, Apol. p. 81. 116. ? Apolog. vol. 1. p. 82.

¹ See Brucker, vol. II. p. 657.

^a “ Hos ego libros non mediocri impeusa mihi cum comparassem, summa “ diligentia, indefessis laboribus cum perlegissem, vidi iu illis (testis est “ Deus) religionem, non tarn Mosaicam, qusm Christianam : ibi Trinitatis “ mysterium, ibi Verbi iocarnatio, ibi Messiae diviuitas, ibi de peccato ori- “ ginali, de illius per Christum expiatione, &c. &c.” Apol. p. 82.

^b Brucker bas some sensible observations upon this subject, vol. II. p. 934. Lightfoot’s Horee Hebraicw et Talmudiece, is a well-known work; and Pfeiffer wrote, An scripta Talmudica et Rabbinica ad explicationem scripture: sacra aliquemhabeant usum? I would mention also Bartoloccius, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbin, vol. III. p. 745. Galatinus de Arcan. Cathol. Ver. I. 7. Muhlius, Praf. Apol. pro Studio Talmud, vol. VII. op. Cocceii. Hacksnaoius, de XJm Scriptorum Judaicorum.

may be traced in the New Testament itself. Thus when St. Paul says to Timothy, This is a faithful saying, ancl worthy of all acceptation? that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners⁰, it has been said that kisolv/r,, ac- ’ceptatum, is merely a translation of the word Cabbala, and that St. Paul meant to say,—If any person wish to hear the Cabbala, I will shew to him the real and true Cabbala, which is, that Christ Jesus came, &c.^d Knorrius, who has done more than any other writer to illustrate the Cabbala, attempted to find traces of it in the Lord’s Prayer^e: in which he has been followed by Buddeus^f: but other writers have looked upon it as a groundless notion S. So also what St. Paul says of the name of Jesus in Phil. ii. 10. has been thought to bear a Cabbalistic sense^h: and the Epistle to the Hebrews has been said to contain traces of doctrines taken from the Cabbala'. These are only a few instances selected out of many: but a cautious and judicious reader of the New Testament will hardly think such comments de­serving of much attention. I have ventured to say at p. 52. that “ St. Paul has taught us, that under certain restrictions “ we are authorized in extracting a double sense from scrip- “ ture ^kand I might perhaps have felt inclined to enlarge upon this topic, if it had not formed' the subject of the Bampton Lectures, which were preached in 1824 by the late lamented J. J. Conybeare; where references may be found to all the principal writers, who have illustrated the secondary interpretation of scripture.

NOTE 15.—See Lecture II. p. 53.

The following passages may shew the doctrine of the Gnostics upon this subject.

“ They say, that Jesus spoke privately in a mystery to “ his disciples and the apostles, and enjoined them to de- “ liver these things to those who were worthy and would “ obey them.” Iren. I. 25. 5. p. 104.

* I Tim. i. 15. and again iv. 9.

* Paul. Fagius in Targ. Onkeli, ad Deut. v. 27. ,

* Part. III. et IV. Apparatus in Librum Sobar. Praif. ad R. Irirae portam ctclorum. Cabbala denudata part. I. '

^f Observ. Select, vol. I. Obs. I. He was defended by Syrbius in a German work published at Jena in 1709. See also Meuscben, Nov. Test, ex Talmudc illustrat. .

6 Werensdorfius, Olearius, Schniidius. (See Brucker, p. 934. 1054.)

^b Picus Mirandula.

‘ Buddeus, Hist. Philos. Ebr. p. 326. Observ. Select, vol. I. Obs. I. 7, 8.

^k See 1 Cor.ix. 9. x. 4, 9. Gal. iv. 22, &c.

“ When they arc refuted from the scriptures, they turn “ round and accuse the scriptures themselves, as if they “ were not true, and of no authority; and because they “ contain variations, and because the truth cannot be dis- “ covered from them by those who are ignorant of tradi- “ tioh. For this was handed down, not by writing, but by “ word of mouth: on which account St. Paul also said, “ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: “ yet not the wisdom of this world. (1 Cor. ii. 6.)” Iren.

III. 2. 1. p. 174.

“ They are accustomed to say, that the aposdes did not “ know every thing; in which they are actuated by the “ same madness, as when they change the attack and say, “ that the apostles knew every thing, but did not deliver “ every thing to every body.” Tertull. de Prescript. Hce- ret. 22. p. 209.

“ They think that the aposdes did not reveal every thing “ to every body: for they spoke some things openly and “ to all; some in secret and to a few: for which reason also “ St. Paul used these words to Timothy, O Timothy, keep “ that which is committed to thy trust. (1 Tim. vi. 20.)” Ib. 25. p. 210.

“ The followers of Simon call themselves Gnostics: for “ they say, that God has revealed to them the things which “ the scriptures have kept silent.” T.heodoret. ad 1 Tim. vi. 20.

These passages will be sufficient to shew the agreement between the Gnostics and the Cabbalists in this particular; and several heathen philosophers set a similar example, as may be seen in the works mentioned in the note¹. The same principle led to the forgery of so many apocryphal books, which appeared in the second century, under the name of the Revelations of Peter, Paul, &c. &c. The fol­lowing extract from Epiphanius will be sufficient to explain the method in which these heretics proceeded. He is speaking of the Caiani, a branch of the Gnostics, and says, “ They have forged another writing under the name of “ Paul the Apostle, full of impurities, which is used by the “ Gnostics, and which is called ’Avu^utikov YluuXou: they “ find their pretext for this in what the aposde says of his “ having ascended to the third heaven, and heard unspeak- “ able words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. “ (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4.) These, as they say, are the unspeakable

¹ Goldastus, Epist. de cryplica vet. Philos. Doetrina. Schefferus, de Phi­los. Ital. c. 13. p. 125. Pfannerus, System. Theol. Gentil. purior. o. i. §. 12. p. 28.

“ words"¹.” Most of these apocryphal Gospels are published by Fabricius in his Codex PseudepigraphusNovi Testamenti: and a detailed account of them is given by Beausobre, 1. II. vol. I. p. 337, &c. Ittigius, Append, ad Diss. de Haresiar- chis, p. 97. de Pseudepigraphis, &c. See also Mosheim de Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 63. and in a special dissertation de Causis suppositorum Librorum, vol. I. Diss. p. 217. The same writer has also observed, (lb. Cent. II. 34. not. ^h.) that traces of an occult or mysterious doctrine, which was not to be generally divulged, are to be found in the writings of Philo Judaeus, and of the Christian Fathers, particularly Clement of Alexandria. He treats of the same subject in Instit. Maj. p. 248.

NOTE 16.—See Lecture II. p. 55.

It is the remark of Brucker that the first foundation of the Cabbalistic system is this:—Nothing is produced out of nothing, and therefore all things emanated from Godⁿ.. If we bear this in mind, it will furnish a key to the whole phi­losophy of the Cabbala, and it will shew wherein it resem­bled, and wherein it differed from Platonism and Gnosticism. Plato made Matter to be coeternal with God: the Cabbalists considered it to be an emanation from God. They did not however conceive it to flow immediately from the first Cause: but, like Plato, they interposed a spiritual being between God and the material creation. “ Before the crea- “ tion of the worlds, primeval Light filled all space, so that “ there existed no void : and when the supreme Being, who “ existed in this Light, resolved to display and shew forth “ his perfections in the Worlds, he retired into himself, and “ formed round him an empty space, in which he let fall “ his first emanation, a ray of light, which is the cause, the “ principle of every thing which exists: which unites at “ once the power of generation and conception; which is “ male and female in the sublimest sense; which penetrates “ every thing, and without which nothing can subsist a “ single moment⁰.” To this first emanation the Cabbalists gave the name of the first man, or Adam Kadmon : and a strong resemblance may be traced between this first man, and the Ormuzd of the Persians, which was an emanation -from Light. It resembled also the intellectual world of

^m Haer. XXXVIII. 2. p. 277. See Irenaeus, I. 20. 1. p. 91. Eus. Hist. Eccles. III. 25.

" Vol. II. p. 950. Also Beausobre, vol. II. p. 165.

“ Matter, Hist, da Gnosticisme, vol. I. p. 99.

Plato, which was only a metaphysical emanation from the Mind or Reason of the Deity P; and also the first pair of j3£ons of the Gnostics, which were in fact only a personi­fication of the Platonic Logos. According to all the three systems, the creation of the world was the work, either of this first emanation, or of other beings, which successively .-'emanated from it: but the Cabbalists, as I have already observed, did not suppose Matter to be coeternal with God. The first man produced by one emanation all the creatures that are in the world; but at first they were all pure and good spirits, though not of the same order: for they were arranged in ten orders or Sephiroth^, which are represented either in concentric circles, or in other mystical schemes ac­cording to the fancy of the Cabbalists¹. The names of these Sephiroth were Corona, Sapientia, Prudentia, Magni- ficentia, Severitas, Pulchritudo, Victoria, Gloria, Funda- mentum, Regnum. It is the observation of the French writer^s already referred to, that these Sephiroth were only the attributes of the Deity: and I shall have occasion to shew, that when Philo Judaeus appears to speak of the Platonic \oyot as persons, he is in fact only speaking of the attributes of God. It was one peculiar feature in Gnosticism to personify these attributes: and the following passage in Irenaeus will shew what good reason there is for connecting the JEons of the Gnostics with the Sephiroth of the Cab­balists: “ Others again hold the extraordinary doctrine, “ that there is a certain primeval light in the essence of “ Bythos, happy, incorruptible and unbounded: that this “ is the parent of all things, and is called the first, man. “ They say that his conception, (Ennaea,) when put forth, “ is the son of him who put it forth, and that this son is “ the second man'.” Several other successive emanations or generations are then mentioned : and there can be little doubt, that these Gnostics took their doctrine from the Cabbala. Theodoret, speaking of the same heretics ^u, says expressly, that “ they gave names to these sons, using the “ Hebrew language :” and Irenaeus has preserved the names of eight of them, all of which appear to be taken from the

f See Langius, p. 644. as referred to at p. 265. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 316.

1 From TSD to uuraber. See Brucker, vol. II. p. 1003. Beausobre, vol. I.

—T “ ‘

p. 510. Vitringa, Ohs. Sacr. vol. I. Diss. *. de Sephiroth Kabbal. He con­demns the notion which would connect the Greek term with Sephir.

¹ Brucker has given the arrangement of these Sephiroth, p. 1003.1020. and Matter, Planche I. Vitringa, 1. c. p. 136. 142.

• Matter, tom. I. p. 101. So also Vitringa, I. c. p. 137.

¹ I. 30. 1. p. 108. " Hseret. Fab. I. 14. p. 205.

Hebrew*. All this seems to connect the iEons of the Gnostics with the Sephiroth of the Cabbala. Both of them proceeded by successive processes from God; though the notions of the Gnostics were more gross and material than those of the Cabbalists. According to both systems, the later emanations degenerated, and creation was the consequence of this deterioration. I have stated, that ten spiritual Sephi­roth emanated from the first man: and of these the seven last became bad, and may be said to resemble the evil daemons of Plato and of the Scriptures. From the last in the series the material creation was formed: and yet, so obscure and mystical is the Cabbalistic philosophy, Matter is in fact excluded from their system, and every thing is resolved into Spirit. This is perhaps the most inconsistent and inexplicable part of the Cabbala; and I can only refer the reader to Brucker, who points out the absurdity of it, without pretending to explain ity. The difficulty is in fact inseparable from a system of emanations. In some way or other, spirit must be supposed to become matter: and if instead of ten Sephiroth we imagine ten thousand, the transition from spiritual to material will be equally unintel­ligible. The Platonists did not encounter this difficulty, for they supposed matter to be coeternal with God: and it is this which leads me not to look upon the Cabbala as the original cause of Gnosticism. The Gnostics agreed with the Platonists in believing matter to be eternal: and though the iEon, which acted upon matter and created the world, might be said in one sense to have emanated from God, yet it was.not an emanation in the Cabbalistic sense: and so far were the Cabbalists from supposing any of their emana­tions to have acted upon matter, that they believed all sub­stances to be spiritual, and themselves to have emanated from God. For the same reason we cannot consider the Cabbalis­tic notion of emanations to be derived from Platonism, or from any Greek philosophy. It is true, that the Logos, or fdea, or Intellectual World of Plato, which was the first step in the process of creation, might be looked upon as an emanation from the mind of the Deity: but if I understand the Cabbala correctly, emanation, according to that philo­sophy, was an extension of the substance of the Deity, and therefore totally different from the intellectual emanation of

* Ialdabaoth, Iao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus, Horeus, Astaphaeus. See Croius in bis Conject. et Observ. in qutedam loca Origenis, Sfc. published at the end of Grabe’s edition of Irenseus. Also Knorrius, Kabbala denudata, Appar. in lib. Sohar. p. 8.

y Vol. II. p, 988. See also Beausobre, vol. II, p. igi.

Plato. I am aware also that the later Platonists, Proclus, Simplicius, and others, interpreted Plato’s meaning to be, that Matter was eternal, not as having an independent ex­istence, but as having been united from eternity with God, and emanated from bim; and that the world proceeded from God, like rays from the sun^z. This, however, was evidently a misrepresentation of Plato’s theory : and would probably never have been devised, if the more rational and philosophical doctrine of the Christians had not been gain­ing ground, which taught that God created matter out of nothing*. It is highly probable that the Cabbalistic notion of emanations owed its origin to the same cause which led to the Platonic doctrine of Ideas. They appear to have been two different attempts, and equally unsuccessful, to explain how God was the Creator of the world, and yet not the author of evil. If we would trace the Cabbalistic doc­trine of emanations to its source, we must look to the East. Bruckev has clearly shewn that the Persian philosophy was founded upon this notion^b. Ormuzd and Ahreman were emanations from the fountain of light: and Zoroaster taught that every thing flowed from these two principles⁰. When the Oriental philosophy became better known to the Greeks by the discussions which took place in the schools of Alex­andria, the system of emanations was eagerly caught at as one which furnished a solution for the origin of evil^d. Hence arose the theory of successive emanations, as taught in the Cabbala: and from the same mixture of Oriental, Jewish, and Platonic opinions, the Gnostics invented their scheme of successive generations of iEons. I conclude, therefore, as I have said before, that neither the Persian doctrines, nor those of the Cabbala, were the first cause of Gnosticism, though both of them may have contributed materially to its growth. But the eternity of Matter is so decided a feature in the Gnostic scheme, and is so totally opposed to the Persian and Cabbalistic theories, that I can­not help looking to the Platonic philosophy as the founda­tion and root of Gnosticism. The conclusion of Buddeus^e seems highly probable, that there were two kinds of Gnos­

* This aeems to have been the notion of Eusebius, who was unwilling to say ex nihilo nihil jit. Demonst. Evang. JV. I. p. 145.

^a This subject is weM' discussed by Mosheim, in his Notes upon Cudworth, IV. 6. vol.I. p. 27z. note”. He decides that Plato certainly ascribed to Matter an indtependent eternal existence.

^b Vol. II. p. 645. See also Matter, Hist, du Gnortieisme, vol. I. p. 107. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 152.

^c Brucker, voir H. p. 651. ¹¹ lb', p. 648.

Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 591.

tics, some who were Jews, and some who were Gentiles. If Gnosticism was, as I have supposed it to be, a compound of Platonic, Persian, and Jewish doctrines, which were formed into a system at Alexandria, this must have been the case: and the Jewish Gnostics would perhaps dwell more upon the system of emanations, than those who began immediately from Platonism. Accordingly we find many of the Gnos­tics speaking of the ^Eons as wpofioXa), or emanations from God: and they laboured to shew their own resemblance to the Christians, by proving that the latter believed the Son and the Holy Ghost to be put forth from God in the same sense^f. The Fathers certainly sometimes speak of the Son as a 7Tj5o/3oX^, or prolatio of the Father. Their frequent allusion to the emanation of a ray from the sun, might seem to countenance this notion: and Tertullian in particular has defended the use of the word wpofioX)), notwithstanding the abuse of it which had been made by hereticsS. Still, how­ever, we find some of the Fathers refusing to employ the term^h ; and others expressly marking the difference between the orthodox and heretical use of it'. The Gnostics may be said to have adopted the Platonic theory concerning the origin of Matter, but to have borrowed or modified their notions concerning the spiritual world, and all those beings who were interposed between God and creation, from the Cabbala: though we must not omit to add, that the Cab­bala itself was formed by an admixture of the Oriental and Platonic doctrines.

Though this note is already too long, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words concerning the resemblance supposed to exist between the philosophy of the Cabbala and that of Spinoza. The names of the principal writers who have pointed out this resemblance, and of those who have defended the Cabbala, will be found below ^k. I may begin with stating, that Spinoza was born at Amsterdam of Jewish parents in 1632. Being of an inquisitive turn of

f Sec Athanasius, de Synodis, 16. vol. I. p. 729. Epiphan. ilrrr. XXXI. 7. p. 171.

s Adv. Praxeam, 8. p. 504. ^h Origen. de Prirtcip. IV. 28. vol. I. p. 190.

' Hilarius, de Trinitate, VI. 9. p. 883. See Beausobre, vol. 1. p. 546. 549.

II. p. 7.

^k The Cabbala was charged with Spinozism byWachterin bis Spinozismus Judaicus, and by Reimman iu his Hist. Theol. Jud. l. 18. 23. p. 604. 627. It was defended by Syrbins, de Origine Atheismi, p. 22. and by Buddeus, de Atheismo et Superstitione, I. 6. p. 12. Basnage is rather inclined to think the two systems different; (Hist, des Juifs, IV. 7. p. 128;) and Wachter afterwards changed bis mind, and in his Elucidarium Cabbalisticum, t. 4. endeavoured to clear both the Cabbala and Spinozism from the charge of Atheism. Brucker has discussed the suhject at mncb length, vol. II. p. 1054.

mind and intense application, he soon became suspected by the Jews of differing from them on religious points: and betaking himself in consequence to Christian teachers and their writings, he was particularly struck with the philoso­phy of Des Cartes. He was at length compelled to with­draw himself from the Jewish communion, but never pro­fessedly joined the Christians, and was never baptized. He died in 1677¹. His notion was, that there is only one sub­stance, and that this does not create other substances, but by two modifications, Thought and Extension, varies and expands itself to infinity. Hence it follows, that God and the Universe are one substance: in fact God is the Universe, and the Universe is God : and the whole system has there­fore been charged with leading to Atheism, or to what has been called Pantheism"¹. If we now turn to the Cabbala, we find it so far agreeing with the theory of Spinoza, that both of them make only one source of all things, and both of them, by denying the creation of matter, ascribe to all things a spiritual existence. But it seems most unfair to charge the Cabbala with Atheism, because another system, which employs the same terms, leads to that conclusion. Spinoza, it is true, gave the name of God to his one uni­versal substance: but it is plain that it was merely a name. God was the cause of all things, because all things proceeded from God : but beyond this circle the argument of Spinoza can never go. If we analyse his system, we shall find that Thought and Extension are not voluntary, but necessary attributes of the universal substance : and if Spinoza denied the charge of Atheism, it was merely from a quibble about terms: he acknowledged a God, but it was a God of his own imagination; and to say that this is the real God of the Universe, is in fact a petitio principii. The doctrine of the Cabbala was in many respects very different. God need not have put forth the first man, if he had not willed to do so : and before this emanation existed, he was certainly God in the highest sense of the term. Spinoza, according to his own language, said, “ Deum se rerum omnium causam im- “ manentem, non vero transeuntem statuereⁿ :” and we might correctly represent the Cabbalists as saying, “ Deum

¹ The n&mes of tho$g persons who have written of Spinoza may he seen in Brucker, (vol. V. p. 683.) who has himself given a minute account of him.

^m That Spinoza was not the first who held this doctriue, has been shewn by Bayle in his Dictionary, and by Buddeus in his work de Spinozisma. ante Spinozam. Do not the anti-material systems of Malcbranche,. Berkeley, and Collier, lead to the same conclusions?

" Epist. 21. ad Oldenburgium.

“ rerum omnium causam esse, non immanentem, sed transe- “ untem et emanantem.” A -metaphysician will perceive that these two statements are directly opposed to each other: the Deus immanens of Spinoza is only another ex­pression for Nature, which, so far from being a first Cause, necessarily implies a higher cause : but the Deus transient, or emanans of the Cabbala, is a God endued with power and will: and we may therefore conclude that the Cabbala, though it may be charged with many absurdities, cannot justly be accused of leading to Atheism.

The reader may consult Waterland, (Second Charge, vol. VIII. p. 63.)

NOTE 17.—See Lecture III. p. 57.

I observed, in the notes to the last Lecture, that almost all the errors of the ancient systems of philosophy may be traced to the difficulty of explaining the origin of evil. This led the Greek philosophers to make Matter the cause of evil, and to give to Matter an eternal existence, independent of God⁰. It also led the Persians and the Cabbalists to have recourse to their systems of emanations, according to which, the later and more remote emanations deteriorated, and so the universe was formed. Lastly, it led the Gnostics to unite both these systems P: to believe, with the Platonists, that Matter was eternal, and that it was acted upon by in­tellectual beings; but to believe also, with the Cabbalists, that some of these beings had gradually become evil: and hence they conceived the idea of the world being formed without the knowledge of God. For the opinion of Plato concerning the origin of evil, I would refer the reader to Cudworth, and Mosheim’s Annotations, (IV. 13. vol. I. p. 310.) That it was this question which led to the errors of the Gnostics, is expressly said by’ Tertullian: “ Eadem “ materia apud hsereticos et philosophos volutatur, iidem “ retractatus implicantur, Unde malum, et quare ? et unde “ homo, et quomodoq ?” And again, “ Languens enim “ (quod et nunc multi, et maxime hasretici) circa mali quas- “ stionem, Unde malum ? et obtusis sensibus ipsa enormi- “ tate curiositatis, inveniens creatorem pronuneiantem, Ego “ sum qui condo mala, quanto ipsum praesumpserat mali “ auctorem, et ex aliis argumentis, quae ita persuadent per-

⁰ Justin Martyr observes, that Plato said that ^iC Matter was uncreated, ^<l that he might not seem to make God the author of evil.” Cohort. 20. p. 21.

p See Beausobre^ vol. II. p. 147. 1 De Prescript. Hseret. 7. p. 204.

“ verso cuique, tanto in creatorem interpretatus malam ar- “ borem malos fructus condentem, scilicet mala^r.’’ The opinion of Valentinus, who was a Gnostic, and a decided Platonist, concerning the origin of evil, may be seen in the fourth section of the Dialogue, to which I have already re­ferred at p. 290, and which has been ascribed to Qrigen. All the difficulties of the question, as they appeared to per­sons of that day, are there stated: and it may also be seen how the difficulty was solved, by the supposition of matter being eternal^s. Irenaeus has some good and sensible remarks concerning our ignorance upon this point, and the propriety of our leaving such questions to God. II. 28. 7. p. 158. The same language is also held by Origen, cont. Cels. IV. 65. p. 553. and Arnobius, II. p. 81. The arguments of Atheists, from the existence of evil, may be seen in Cud- worth, II. 16. vol. I. p. 117.

NOTE 18.—See Lecture III. p. 59.

Justin Martyr notices the following contradictions in Plato. “ Sometimes he says that there are three Principles of the

Universe, God and Matter and Idea (sJSog); sometimes “ that there are four; for he adds also the soul of the uni- “ verse. And again, having first said that Matter was not “ created, he afterwards says that it is created: and having “ first given to the Idea a principle of its own, and having “ pronounced it to exist essentially by itself, he afterwards “ says that it exists in the conceptions of the mind. Again, “ after having declared, that every thing which is produced, “ is corruptible, he afterwards says, that some things which “ are produced, are indissoluble and incorruptible^l.” The first of these contradictions arises from au indistinct and in­definite use of the word or Principle. The second I shall consider presently: and as to the third, I shall also shew hereafter, that Plato never gave to the Ideas a separate or personal existence. With respect to created things being corruptible, the language of Plato will only appear incon­sistent to those, who have not studied Plato’s theory in his own words. In the Timaeus^u he represents God saying to the intellectual beings, whom he had created, “ The things “ which are produced by me are indissoluble, because I will “ it. Every thing* that is joined together may be dissolved:

^r Adv. Marcionem, 1.2. p. 366.

⁵ See Brucker, vol. III. p. 300, &c. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 159.

' Ad Graecos Cohort. 7. p. 12.

« P. 41. See Philo Judaeus, de. Mundi incorruptibilitate, vol. II. p. 490.

x 4

“ but to wish to dissolve that which is well joined and which “ is in a good state, is the act of an evil being. Wherefore “ since you have been produced, you are not immortal nor “ at all indissoluble; nor yet shall you be dissolved, nor “ meet with death, because my will shall be a still greater “ and more effectual bond than those by which you were “ bound, when produced.” Plato therefore supposed that created things were in themselves capable of dissolution, but that by his own decree he made them indissoluble: and this will explain the contradiction, which is noticed by Jus­tin Martyr.

Epiphanius has also charged Plato with sometimes saying, that Matter was produced by God, and sometimes, that it was coeternal with him^x. Cyril of Alexandria has done the samey; and such appears to have been the notion of all the Christian Fathers². It is more extraordinary, that the later Platonists should have represented their founder as not be­lieving matter to be eternal. Hierocles, who wrote in the fifth century, said, “ that according to Plato, God formed “ the visible world, but that he had no need of a preexisting “ Matter to serve him as a subject: his will alone was suf- “ ficient to give being to all things³.” Quotations to the same effect have been brought from several other Platonists, Hermias, Damascius, Plotinus, Jamblichus, &c. &c^b. but Chalcidius^c saw the matter in its true light, when he said, “ It now remains for me to consider the opinion of Plato “ concerning Matter, which the followers of Plato appear to “ interpret differently: for some have thought that it is said “ by him to be produced, in which they follow words rather

* Hser. VI. vol. I. p. 14. >' Cont. Julian. ,

¹ The contradictions of Plato are also noticed by Velleius tbe Epicurean, a pud Cic. de Nat. Deor. 1.12.

» De Fato et Providentia, p. 4. 53. ed. 1655. apud Phot. Cod. 251. p. 1381. ed. 1653. Bayle supposed Hierocles to have borrowed his notions from the Christians. Diet. art. Hierocles. So also Beausobre, vol. II. p. 177.

^b See Galantes in bis Comparatio Christiana Theologies cum Platonica, IX. p. 236. Cudworth, V. Sect. 2, 14. (vol. II. p. 251. ed. Mosheim.) Fabri­cius, Biblioth. Gr. vol I. p. 473- Introduction to the Universal History, p. 7. Bcausohre, vol. I. p. 236. 479. vol. II. p. 150. 176. Wolfius, Manichteismus ante Manichaos, II. 32. p. 125.

^c He is generally supposed to have lived in the fourth century, and has left a Commentary upon the Timaeus of Plato. It has been much disputed whether he was a Christian. Vossius, Huetius, Fabricius, Beausobre, and others have decided in the affirmative, as may be seen in the works referred to by Fabricius, Bibl. Lot. III. 7. and by Brucker, vol. III. p. 473. The latter mentions Govietus as pronouncing him to have been a Pagan : to whom

I would add Baltus in his Defense des Peres, p. 478. Mosheim was inclined tn think that Chalcidius formed a kind of eclectic system of religion out of Christianity and Platonism : {de turbata per Platon, ecclesia, §.31.) and Brucker nearly adopts the same conclusion, vol. III. p. 480.

“ than things'¹.” There can be no doubt that Plato did not believe Matter to have been produced by God : he be­lieved it to have existed without any beginning, and to be equally eternal with God. I need only refer to the Timaeus, p. 30, and 48. The term, which Plato applies to Matter, avayxy, or Necessity, would lead us to think that he as­cribed to it an existence independent of God: and such is the remark of Ghalcidius^e, who seems in this respect to be the best interpreter of his master’s doctrine. Plato then be­lieved Matter to be eternal, though, he believed the world to be produced and to have had a beginning: arjd this may explain why different writers have interpreted his meaning differently, and why he has been accused of inconsistency. In the language of Chalcidius^f, he believed Matter, “ before “ it was arranged-, and received its form and order, to be “ without beginning or cause ; but if considered as arranged “ and put in order, it is produced by God who arranged “ it.” The term xoVftoj, as applied to the world, was used to denote this harmonizing and arrangement of the dis­cordant elements of the world : and the method here pro-

f)osed for reconciling Plato with himself, is not that of the ater Platonists only, but is precisely that, which Plutarch employs in his treatise de.Animaz ProcreationeS, where he alludes to “ the alleged and seeming contradiction and dis- “ agreement of Plato with himself. For no one would at- “ tribute such confusion and inconsistency, in matters which “ he had particularly studied, even to a drunken sophist, “ much less to Plato, so as to make him speak of the same “ nature as at once unproduced and produced ; to say that “ the soul is unproduced, as in the Phaedrus, and produced, “ as in the Timasus^h.” He then explains the apparent con­tradiction thus: “ He speaks of the soul as unproduced, “ with reference to its moving every thing discordantly and “ disorderly before the production of the world; but as “ produced and begottpn, when God formed it intelligent “ and in order, out of this durable and most perfect sub- “ stance, &c.” The soul therefore was eternal, if considered

^J §. 298. p. 388. I quote from the edition of Fabricius, in which we read —~—“ verbaque clara potius qiiam rem secuti.” It is obvious to substitute verba queedam. Proclus, Apuleius, and Alcinous agreed with Chalcidius on this point.

• §. 269. p. 378. SeeWiudet, de Functorum Statu, Sect. 111. p.31. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 162. Brucker, vol. I. p. 676. Bultus, Defense des Saints Peres, III, 9. p'. 321. Wolfius, Manichteismus ante Manichaos, II. 38. p. 164.

^f §. 293. P-3⁸7- * p. 1015, 1016.

¹¹ See the Phaedrus, p. 245. and the Timaeus, p. %i, 42. 69. The same con­tradiction is noticed by Chalcidius, and explained in the same way, §. 226. p. 361.

as existing in Matter, before it was arranged by God; but it had a beginning, and was produced by God, if considered with reference to the powers, which were given to it by God. The same solution will apply to the question of Matter itself being produced or unproduced.

With a similar inattention to the language and sen­timents of Plato, some of his later followers represented him as saying, that the world was eternal*; whereas he only said, that the Matter, out of which the world was formed, was eternal^k. It was thus that the later Pla­tonists departed in many instances from the real tenets of their leader : and if we take the opinions of Plato from the writings of Proclus, Plotinus, Jamblichus, &c. we shall be led into perpetual mistakes, or we shall falsely accuse Plato of contradicting himselfThere can be little doubt that the rapid increase of Christianity Jed the later Platonists to alter their master’s doctrine, and to make him appear to agree with the Christian notion of Matter being created by God : but I was anxious to establish the fact that Plato be­lieved in the eternity of Matter, because the Gnostics held this doctrine, and I have supposed Platonism to be the principal or fundamental source of Gnosticism. Irenaeus says plainly, “ As to their assertion that the Creator made “ the world out of subject Matter, Anaxagoras, Empedo- “ cles, and Plato held the same doctrine before them^m.” Valentinus, who was one of the most celebrated Gnostics in the second century, undoubtedly held this notion: and we have his sentiments expressed by one of his adherents in the following manner: “ I conceive that there exists^ to- “ gether with God, that which is called Matter, out of “ which he created all things, separating them by a wise “ contrivance, and arranging them properly ; out of which “ also Evil seems to come; for Matter being without qua-

■ See Cudworth, IV. 14. vol. I. p. 368. 36. p. 867. Atticus, a Platonist of the second century, mentions this misrepresentation. (Eus. Preep. Evang. XV. 6.) Baltus considered the opinion of Plato upon this point to he doubt­ful ; hut he is certainly mistaken. Defense des Saints Peres, 111. 11. p.334.

^k Aristotle is said to have heen the first person who helicved the world to be eternal: (de Casio, 1.10.) i. e. he was the first who held the eternity of the one identical world which we now see: for other philosophers, Ocellus, Par­menides, Xenophanes, &c. had held the eternity of the world, i. e. of a suc­cession of worlds, before the time of Aristotle. See Philo Judaeus, de. Mundi Incorruptibilitate, p. 489 : and Mosheim’s Annotations upon Cudworth, IV. 14. p. 366. note

¹ Some excellent remarks upon this subject will be found in Beausobre, vol. II. p. 1J6. and Mosheim’s Notes to Cudworth, IV. 14. vol. I. p. 352. note 1: his Dissertation de Creatione ex nihilo, 29. p. 994. aud De Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 29. See also Brucker, vol. I. p. 680.

^m II. 14. 4. p. 134.

“ lity and form, and also carried about without any order, “ and requiring the skill of the Deity, he did not refuse to “ apply it, nor did he leave it to be always carried'about in “ that manner ; but he began to create, and wished to “ separate the best parts of it from the worst, and thus he “ created: but the dregs which came from it during the “ process, these he left as they were, being without any ar- “ rangement for the purposes of creation, and of no use to “ him : from which it appears to me, that the present evils “ of mankind arise¹¹.” Such was the opinion of the Gnos­tics in the second century: and it is plain, that this was bor­rowed from Grecian philosophy. We may learn the same from the treatise of Tertullian against Hermogenes, who appears to have been at first a Christian, but to have adopted Gnosticism: “ Turning,” as Tertullian says⁰, “ from the “ Christians to the Philosophers, from the Church to the “ Academy and the Portico, he has learnt from the Stoics “ to place Matter on a level with God, as if it had always “ existed; neither bom, nor made, nor having any begin- “ ning nor end, out of which God afterwards made all ^u things.” The whole treatise may be read with advantage upon this subject: and it will be seen that Tertullian, as in this passage, deduces the eternity of Matter from the Stoics, rather than the Platonists P. The real opinion of Plato con­cerning the origin of evil, has led to many dissensions in an­cient and modern times: and I would refer the reader, who wishes to investigate this subject, to Mosheim’s Annotations upon Cudworth, IV. 13. p. 312. note ^k; and Brucker, vol. I. p. 684. The fact seems to be, that Plato did not express him­self clearly upon this subject: but it is equally certain, that he believed a principle of evil to be inherent in Matter; and that if he did not say in direct terms that Matter was the cause of evil, it flowed as a necessary consequence from his theory <1. The question was never suffered to rest, either in the Academy or in the other Schools : and I have already observed more than once, that it was this interminable dis­cussion which led finally to Gnosticism. Tertullian, as we

■■ Dialogus de recta in Deum Fide, Sect. IV. inter op. Origen. vol. I. p. 841. See also Irenaeus II. 10. 2. p. 126,127.

" P. 233.

P So again at p. 204. De Prescript, c. 7. he says, “ Et ubi materia cum “ Deo sequatur, Zenoni's disdplina est.”

1 Chalcidius expresaly says, that Plato agreed with Pythagoras in making Matter the source of evil. §. 294. p. 387. §. 295, 296. p. 388. He also in­forms us that Numenius, another Platonist, interpreted Plato’s doctrine in the same way. For Plato’s own sentiments concerning God not being the cause of evil, sec Republ. II. p. 379. 111. p. 391. X. p.617.

have seen, made the Stoics the authors of the opinion, that Matter is the cause of evil: and there can be no doubt that this doctrine was taught much more openly, and in a more

• systematic form, by the followers of Zeno than by those of Plato. The Stoics made God act upon Matter, not volun­tarily, as Plato thought, but from necessity: and hence it was a more natural consequence of their theory, that there was something in Matter which God could not controul. This was the principle of evil: and we therefore may add the stoical philosophy to the other ingredients which formed the compound of Gnosticism^r. But if it be said that the Gnostics took their notion of Matter and of Evil from Zeno rather than from Plato, it is merely meant that Zeno taught more openly and explicitly that doctrine, which was equally contained by implication in the hypotheses of Plato^s.

NOTE 19-—See Lecture III. p. 59-

I am aware that Mosheim considered the philosophy of Orpheus, and of the ancient Theogonies,.to be founded upon a system of emanation: that Matter, or Chaos, proceeded eternally from God¹. Brucker is also inclined to adopt the same opinion¹¹. But we must remember, that others have traced in the ancicnt Theogonies a system like that of Spi­noza, which confounded the world with God, and in fact only made God a modification of Matter. The point there­fore must at least be considered uncertain: and, at all events, Plato, and the philosophers after his day, considered Matter to have an eternal existence independent of God: from which I should rather infer, that they did not look upon the philosophy of Orpheus as founded upon a system of emanations: and certainly the opening of Ovid’s Metamor­phoses may apply as well to the theory of Plato, as to the more ancient notions of Chaos.

A Dissertation, which I have not seen, was published at Erfurdt in 1806, on the “ System of Emanation and Pan- “ theism of the Eastern Nations of Antiquity.”

' For the doctrine of the Stoics concerning the origin of evil, see Cudworth

IV. 13. Brucker, vol. I. p. 934. Lipsius, Physiolog-. Stoic. I. Diss. 14. The difficulty felt by the Stoics in deciding this question seems to have been caused by their attributing so much influence to fate. They wished to repre­sent Matter as neither good nor evil in itself, v. Chalcid. §. 295. p. 387.

* The agreement between the Platonic and Stoic philosophies is sbewn by Mangey in his preface to Philo Judaeus, p. viii. See also Wolfius, Manichte- ismus ante Manichaos, II. 36. p. 149. Neumanuus, de Christianismo Stoico.

■ In Cudworth, IV. 17. vol. I. p. 457. note ^m. « Vol. I. p.389. 417.

1 may perhaps appear to have spoken slightingly of the philosophy of Plato: and after a diligent perusal of his works, I cannot but consider many of his conceptions to be crude, irrational, and absurd*. I am willing to allow, that much of this arose from his having no guide but human reason: and had he been assisted by revelation, he would probably never have had recourse to the wretched expedient, by which he rescues God from being the author of evil. The following passage, which explains his notions upon this subject, is taken from the Timaeus. When God had pro­duced the intellectual beings who are sometimes called Dae­mons, and sometimes Gods, he addresses to them a speech, of which I have already quoted a part at p. 311: he then continues, “ There still remain three races of mortals, which “ are not yet produced. If these are not brought into ex- “ istence, the worldy will be incomplete : for it will not “ have in it all the kinds of living beings; and yet it ought, “ if it is to be properly perfect. If these were to be pro- “ duced, and to receive their life from me, they would be “ equal to Gods. In order therefore that they may be “ mortal, and yet that this universe may have its proper “ existence, do you betake yourselves in the natural course ^<! to the creation of living beings, imitating the power which “ I exerted when you yourselves were produced. And as “ to that part in them, which ought to be like in name to “ immortals, which is called divine, and which will be the “ ruling principle with those among them, who are always “ anxious to be obedient to justice and to you, I will give “ it, having sown the seed and made a beginning. As to “ the rest, do you unite the mortal to the immortal; form “ and produce these living beings ; supply them with food, “ that they may increase; and when they decay, receive “ them again².” The intellectual beings executed the work committed to them : “ In imitation of God, they tobk from “ him the immortal principle of the soul, and formed round “ it the mortal body, and gave it the whole vehicle of the “ body, and placed in it, by way of addition, another spe- “ cies of soul, the mortal, which contained in itself grievous

^x See Mosheim, Instit. Maj. I. 28. p. 66.

y It must he remembered, that Plato used ov^avh and xfopos as synony­mous. 0 >ras oi/gctvo$ tj xoo-fAos, % xx) asAAo, 0 ri vort bva(fia,T_lo(_lti.vo$ (jb&Xi<rr ccv lixotro, voW 7ift7v uvoftccffBu. Timaeus, p. 28. See also the last sentence of the Dialogue. "Ov 2s ovgccvov xui xoffftcv itfojvoftaxafttvf x.r.k. Politic, p. 269*

² P. 41-

“ and necessary passions; first, pleasure, the greatest en- “ ticement of evil; then pain; then courage and fear, &c. “ &c.^a” The remark of Chalcidius upon this passage is as follows¹⁵: “ Plato made God the Creator of the souls them- “ selves : but the office and department of those things, “ which are appendages to the soul, was committed to other “ and inferior divine powers: so that the pure souls, un- “ polluted, vigorous, and adorned with reason, should be “ the work of God : but the creation of the vicious parts of “ die soul should be ascribed to those powers, to whom “ such an office was committed by God the Creator.” Such was the expedient devised by this great philosopher to ex­tricate God from being the cause of evil: and a more un- philosophical or more clumsy artifice was never probably imagined. If we were to speak of any human potentate, who held the language, and acted on the principle of Plato’s God, we could only despise the mean equivocation, and the gross evasion of responsibility, which marked his conduct.

NOTE 21.—See Lecture III. p. 60.

I have not made this remark unadvisedly, nor without authority. The dictum, which I have quoted from Lucre­tius, and which Persius has expressed by saying

• • ■ v.- S'S?¹ .

De nihilo nihilum, in nihilum nil posse reverti, III. 84.

was universally received and acknowledged by the philoso­phers of old: and it is the remark of Chalcidius ^c, “ that it “ is the common doctrine of all philosophers, that neither is “ any thing made out of nothing, nor does it perish and be- “ come nothing.” I am aware that Cudworth would wish us to understand this saying as only implying, that nothing is produced without an efficient cause ^d. But I can neither follow his reasoning, nor admit his conclusion. At all events this efficient cause was not necessarily God: and the dic­tum of De nihilo, &c. was certainly held by some who de­nied an intelligent, external, moving Cause, and who made the world to be God. Plutarch appears to represent the meaning of the ancients much more correctly, when, speak­ing of Plato’s theory, that “ the substance and matter, out

* P. 69. ^b §. 184. p. 346.

^c §. 291. p. 386. It is given as the fundamental principle of Xenophanes, tipicurus, and Metrodorus, by Plutarch apud Eus. Prop. Evang. I. 8.

^J I. 28. vol. I. p. S3. V. sect. 2. vol. II. p. 232. ed. Mosheim. See Wol- fius, Manichmsmus ante Manich&os, I. 4. p. 22.

“ of which the world was formed, was not produced, but “ was always at hand to the Creator,” he adds, “ For Crea- “ tion is not from out of that which does not exist, but “ from that which does not exist in a good or sufficient “ manner⁶.” This was undoubtedly the opinion of all the ancient philosophers. They could not conceive that God could call Matter into being, or that he could give an ex­istence to that which had no existence before. Chalcidius has mentioned the Hebrews as believing that Matter was produced^f: but he mentions no other persons as holding that opinion. Eusebius expressly asserts that no such per­sons could be founds: “ It is peculiar to the Hebrew doc- “ trines to look upon the supreme God as the Creator of all “ things, and of that substance itself, which is the subject “ of bodies, which the Greeks call uXtj, Matterand if we are not satisfied with the opinion of later Platonists, or Christian Fathers, I would quote the assertion of Cicero himself, who says of the notion that anything can arise out of nothing, “ What natural philosopher ever said this ?” and a saying is preserved of Aristotle, o omco irgoregov yeyove, touto ouS’ otv yhoiTo, “ that which never had any previous “ existence, cannot be brought into existence ^h.” He says in another placethat upon this point all natural philoso­phers were agreed. Cudworth indeed asserts, in opposition to this notion, that Plato and many of the ancients believed the soul to be produced by God, and yet to be not created out of Matter: and he therefore asks, if it was believed that God could create souls out of nothing, why could he not be believed to have created any thing ^k ? The argument would have some weight, if the premises of it were correct: but Cudworth has fallen into an error, which I have al­ready alluded to, when quoting the words of Plutarch at

5. 313 : the fact is, that Plato did not believe that God pro- uced the soul out of nothing, any more than he believed that Matter itself, in which the elements of.the soul were involved, was produced out of nothing: in the language of Chalcidius, Plato believedj “ fuisse semper tam animce “ quam corporis vim; nec Deum ex his, quae non erant, “ fecisse mundum, sed ea, quae erant sine ordine ac modo, “ ordinasse: itaque potius ea, quae existebant, exornasse,

^e De Animae Procreat. p. 1014. B. ^f §. 274. p. 380.

e Praep. Evang. VII. 18. p. 333. ^h Atticus apud Eus. Prop. Evang. XV. 6. p. 802.

‘ Physic. I. 4. et 8. The passages from the ancients are collected by Ga- laker, ad M. Anton. IV. 4. p. 130. cd. 1652. and Gassendus, Physic. I. 3. vol. I. Op. p. 232.

^k See vol. I. p. 101. II. p. 233. 239. 249.

“ quam generasse ea quae, non erant This argument therefore falls to the ground, as Mosheim has clearly shewn; and I would refer the reader to his Dissertation de Creatione ex NihUo^m, in which he has clearly proved, contrary to Cudworth, that neither the Grecian, ^Egyptian, Phoenician, Indian, nor in fact any ancient philosophers, ever imagined that God created Matter. The same con­clusion is as fully maintained by Burnet, Archaolog. I. 7. p. 63. ed. 1698. and Brucker, Hist, de Ideis, Supplem. II. Beausobre is also compelled to acknowledge that the Chris­tians were the first to believe the creation of Matter; though he says in his peculiar manner, “ II seroit glorieux “ a la raison qu’une verity si sublime ne lui eut pas “ echapp6, et avantageux a la foi, qu’elle eut sur cet article “ le suffrage des plus beaux Genies du paganismeⁿ.” I should rather have said, that it would have been a wonder­ful stretch of human intellect if it could have formed this sublime conception: and that we ought to bless God for giving to us that faith, which has discovered a doctrine beyond the reach of unassisted reason. Beausobre acknow­ledges that all, or nearly all, the Christian Fathers believed that Matter was created by God⁰: he expresses some doubts concerning Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Arno- bius P : but it seems more probable that these writers agreed with the rest of the Christians <1. It might require a longer discussion to decide whether the Jews in ancient times be­lieved Matter to be created or eternal: Beausobre has con­sidered the question^r, and is inclined to conclude that the creation of Matter did not form part of their creed. He adds, that the later Rabbis have adopted this belief: but

¹ §. 31. p. 287.

^,n Printed in his edition nf Cudworth, vol. II. p. 287. I would also refer, to his Annotation on IV. 6- vol. \. p. 272. note ⁿ. and to the Diss. de Studio Ethnicorum Christianos imitandi, in his Dissertations, vol. I. p. 368. It should be mentioned, that other writers have maintained the notion that the creation of Matter was believed by some of the heathen: e.g. Huetius, Queestiones de Concordia Rationis et Fidei, II. 5. p. 139, Aug. Steuchus Eugubinus, de perenni Philosophia, VII. 6. Pfanncrus, Systerna Theologies Gentilis purior. V. 3. Dacier, Vita Platonis, p. 123, Fabricina, Bibl. Gr. vol. I. p. 473* Wolfius, Manicheeismus ante Manichevos, I. 3. p. 15. I con-¹ coive, that one sentence from Mosheim’s Annotations is an answer to all the instances adduced by these writers; and that the meaning of the ancients was merely this, ^u Deum formam et ordinem in confusam et rndem indux- “ isse materiam.”

" Vol. II. p. 166. ⁰ P. 165. 230. p P. 165. 230. 235.

1 The Christians, who have ascribed eternity to Matter, are mentioned by Faydit, Eclaircissement sur VHist. Eccles. p. 35. Some good reasoning upon this subject may be seen in the passage quoted from Maximus, a Christian writer, by Eusebius, Prop. Evang. VII. 22.

^r V. 3. vol. II. p. 182.

he supposes, with some reason*, that they are indebted for the knowledge of this truth to' Christian writers. We have seen that the Cabbalists, though the; ' ^J1 ’' ■

supposing him to have created Matter out of nothing: and the learned Jews, such as Philo, who were not altogether Cabbalists^ appear to have adbpted in great measure the philosophy of Plato. With respect to the sentiments of the Jews in more ancient times, I conceive the true conclu­sion to be, that they did not philosophize at all upon the subject. The Jews were not a people of acute or inquisi­tive minds: their conceptions seem to have been rather gross than metaphysical; and they were always ready to adopt the opinions of others, without examining them ab­stractedly, or seeing if they Could be reconciled with their owns Hence it was that, in mixing with foreign nations, they rather corrupted'their own religion, thah corrected the corruptions of others; and the later Jews were more inclined to make Moses bend to Plato, thart Plato to Moses. Hence it is not at all surprising, if no passage should be found in the Old^: Testament, which speaks of Matter being created. Bfcausobre concludes that this is the fact^s: arid' perhaps He may be correct in saying, that there is no pas­sage whieh necessarily requires us to givd it that interpre­tation *.■ But he forgets to add, that¹ there is no passage which speaks of Matter¹ being eternal ; and the fair-conclu­sion seems to be that which is given above, that¹ the ancient Jews never considered the question^u. Still, however, I could never bring myself tobelieve that Mbses was igno­rant of this fundamental truth. The first words of the' Book of Genesis rhay not positively¹ decide, as Beausobre

* V. 4. p. 204. The same observation has been made by'Vorstius (Resp. ad part. II. Diseept. M: Slddi, p. 65.) and' Episeopius, (Instit. IV. 3, 1. p. 345 .J but they merely meant to say that the creation of Matter is'not expreisly asserted in the Bible. Some Socinian writers hate openly main­tained the eternity of Matter : e. g. Smalcius (Refiet. Dispuiai. FraUzii, p. 414.) and¹ Moscorovius [Refitf,. Append: p. 29.) See Scherzerus, Colleg. Anti-Socm. p. 47. and Leydeckenis, Jrchaolog. Stic'. Disa. II. p. 31.

‘ He hasnot noticed Gen. ii. 5. where we read that God made every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. Perhaps he would nnt have allowed that these words proved the crea­tion of matter : and yet 1 conceive that no Platouist would ever have aaid that God made every plant 1rga tov lyivetrSat Isri tvs ytis.

^u Such was the sentiment of Eusebius, who, after ahewing the difference between Plato and Aristotle concerning the creation nf the world, adds, “ Moses and the Jewish scriptures do hot trouble themselves much with these “ matters r and with reason ; for they considered them to be of no use to- “ wards amendment of life to those who employed themselves upon them.” Prop. Evang. XV. 8. p. 808.

to have emanated from God, were

Y

observes, whether God formed the world at that time out of preexisting Matter, or if he created it out of nothing. But even if we suppose the former, Moses may have in­tended that this preexisting Matter had been created by God: and the proper question to ask is this, What would; have been the sentiment of a Jew, who read these words of Moses, and who had never heard any thing of the eternity of Matter? It is most probable that he would conceive God to have created the world out of nothing: and the reasoning of Beausobre is certainly inconclusive, when he argues from the absence of direct and positive texts upon this point, that the Jews believed in the eternity of Matter. I should therefore agree with Mosheim*, that the Jews in ancient times, who reflected at all, never entertained any other idea than that God created the world out of nothing: but he is perhaps not judicious in referring, as a proof of this, to 2 Mac. vii. 28. Look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not, on If ovx ovtcov sirq'nj<rev auTa o ©eoj. Mosheim was probably deceived by the words §£ oux ovtcov :' but Beausobre has shewn that this expression does not ne­cessarily imply a creation out of nothing. St. Paul, in. 1 Cor. i. 28, uses ra ovtu. as equivalent to t« Ij-ouflsvi)- Imevu: and in Rom. iv. 17. he speaks of the dead as r« /wj , ovra, though tjiey certainly cannot be said not to be in. existence at all. He meant, that they are not now the same with.what they will be hereafter: and in the same sense Plato himself says, when explaining the term iroajTixy, “ Whatever did not exist before, but which is afterwards “ brought into being, (o npoTtpav rig ov vcnepov eij ouelav “ ayy,) we say that he who . brings it makes it, and the “ thing which is brodght is madeYand afterwards, revert­ing to this definition he says, “We defined %otr\Tixi) to be “ every faculty, which is the cause of those things coming “ afterwards into being which before were not, (toT? ^ ispo- “ rspov ovuiv utyrepov ylyvtcdca ^z.)” He then applies this to the creation, and asks, “ whether all things, animate and inani- “ mate, which before were not, (npoTegov oux out a,) did not “ have their being by the workmanship of God.” It is plain therefore that Plato spoke of things which were not with reference to the creation of new forms out of preexist-

^x Diss. de Creatione ex Nihilo, p. 288. y Sophista, p. 219.

² lb.p. 265* So also Conviv. p. 205* h yap Tat i» rod ph ovros its to ov Jovn oruovv atria iraffa tcrrt tfotyfftS) ernrn xat at uvrii iraffats ra7$ rs%vats tgyafftat rotvurus iifft. • -

ing Matter ^a: and it was from this ambiguity of expression that he was sometimes accused of contradicting himself with respect to the creation of Matter. Tertullian evidently thought that the expression might bear this meaning, when he said^b, “that even if God had made the world out of “ preexisting Matter, still he would have made it out of “ nothing, since the things were not what they were after- “ wardsand Methodius, when he wishes to prove that things may be crcated out of nothing, quotes the case of a builder, who does not make a town or a temple out of an­other town or another temple, but out of something else; so that men may be said to “ make something out of no- “ thing; aux. ovrcov iroiovvra; tivu ^c.” These instances will shew, that when God is said to create from things which are not, the expression does not necessarily imply the crea­tion of Matter in the sense which a Christian would attach to the terms: and still more satisfactory proof may be given of this, if we examine the works of Philo Judaeus. Beau­sobre has given good reasons for concluding that Philo did not suppose Matter to have been created by God ^d. Eusebius was of a contrary opinion ^e: and Huetius has asserted, that Philo supposed God to have created Matter^f. Beausobre has examined three passages, which have been quoted from his works, and has shewn that they are not sufficient to establish the fact, that Philo held the creation of Matter. He has also adduced two passages, in which Philo speaks exactly like Plato concerning the preexistence of Matter: and having read through the works of Philo with some at­tention, I should wish to dwell a little longer upon this sub­ject, which may, I think, be decided beyond the possibility of dispute.

I will first mention some other ^passages which might seem to countenance the notion, that Philo believed in the creation of Matter. Thus he uses the expression tijv Sijjoii- 6vpyi)6el<rav uAtjv, where, speaking of God pronouncing his

- In the same manner he says of manual arts, that “ they finish the sub- “ stances produced by them wbich before were not, itjotsjov aux otmc." Politic, p. 258.

^II Adv. Marcion, II. 5. p. 384.

^c Apud Phot. Cod. 236. p. 914. ed. 1653. Tbis is said also by Maximus, a Christian writer, quoted by Eusebius, Prap. Evang. VII. 22. p. 339 ; and by Atticus, aFlatonist, ib. p. 803.

* Vol. II. p. i8g.

• Praep. Evang. VII. 21. The passage certainly does not support Euse­bius.

^f Not. ad Origen. p. 1. Brucker tbinks that Philo believed Matter to have proceeded from God by emanation, vol. II. p. 884. not. ^b : but I cannot agree with him.

creajjon tp be “ very good,” he says, “ God did not praise “ Matter which had been created, which is lifeless, discord- “ ant, and dissoluble, and in itself corruptible, inconsistent, “ and unequal, but the works of his own skill, produced “ after one and the same equal, consistent, and uniform “ power S.” The epithets here applied to Matter are pre­cisely those which Plato would have used when speaking of it before it was acted upon by God : and I should therefore infer that Sij^iougyijfleio-ai' uAjjv means Matter which was used for creatiqn. In several places Philo speaks of God creat­ing the world from things which, were not: thus, “Is it “ possible sufficiently tp praise God who composed the uni- “ verse ex ovtwv^h;” “ Why did he make thjngs which “were not? r« pij oWa*;” “God, having produced all “ things, not only brought them to light, but even made “ things which before did not exist, being not only the per- “ son who formed, but who created, them, a zpoTepov oux ijv, “ eTTOifjtrev, ou Sij/woopyoj jj.ovov_f aXha. xul kt'httii; auTOs siiv^.” I need not observe, that 8ijjxioupyoj is constantly used by Platp for an artist, a person who makes any thing out of any thing; and the term is applied to God when he gave form to Matter, and created the world. Philo evidently used it in the same sense, as may be seen in the following passage; “ When you meet with these materials, like a good , work- “ man, (Sq/uovgyos) impress the best form upon the material “ substances, and produce a commendable work¹.” Philo therefore considered xtiVtijj as a higher expression of the creative power of God, than fyfjuovpyos. Again, “ God “ being the only person who really exists, is also in the “ truest sense a Creator, (mdjtijj,) since he brought intq “ being things which were not, ru py Svra. yjyctyev ei$ to “ ehaii^m.” “ He brought the most perfect, work, the world, “ into existence, out of*that which was not: Ix rpu ovto; “ el; to. slv«i ⁿ.” All these expressions might appear at first sight to support, the notion of God having created Matter: but it may be demonstrated that Philo himself attached no such meaning to them. Thus he uses precisely, the same expression with relation to parents and their children. He charges children with impiety who “ do not reverence “ those who brought them into existence out of that which “ was not, and in this respect imitated God °.” He

s Quis Rer. Divin. Haeres. vol. I. p. 495.

¹ Legum Alleg. III. vol. I. p. 89. ' De Nom. Mutat. p. 585.

^k Quod a Deo mittantur somnia, p. 632. ¹ De Profugis, p. 550.

^m De Mose. III. vol. II. p. 150. “ lb. p. 176.

⁰ De decem Oraculis, p. 199.

calls parents “ the resemblance and imitation of the power “ of God, since they bring into existence those who were “ not, tubs py ovtu; si; to si i/ai 7rapayayf>vT£i P.” He says, that the first gift of parents to their children is “ their birth, “ by'frhich, that which is not is brought ihto being, to fti) “ fa ayeiai s); to sTi'ai').” These passaged will sheWj that Philo did not meart to speak of God creating out of nothing, in the sense which we now attach to the expres­sion, when applied to God. But he explains himself more fully j when speaking of “ the creation and arrangement of “ the world,” he says, “ he called into being things which “ were not, (t« fx.rj ovtu skaXe<rsv sij to slvat) by producing “ order out of disorder, 'equalities out of that which had no “ qualities, consistency out of inconsistency, uniformity out “ of disagreement, congruity and harmony out of that which “ was incongruous and inharmonious, equality dut of in- “ equality, light out of darkness¹.” These expressions evi­dently imply a preexistence of Matter, and arie such as Plato himself would have used. He says still more plainly: “ As nothing is produced out of that which is not, (zx tov “ pj ovto; ovdzv ylviTai,) so also nothing is destroyed and re- “ dutied to that which is not: for out of that which exists “ nowhere, it is impossible that aiiy thing should be pro- “ duced^s.” The expression here used, tou ouSajtiij ovtoc, is much stronger than the former ones, and means literally that which has no existence at all. In the other places, Philo was only speaking, like Plato, of new forms and qualities being given to Matter, but not of the creation of Matter itself: and if ariy doubts could still remain as to his sentiments upon this subject, I would quote the follow­ing passages: “ When the Maker of the world brought the “ substance, which was in itself disorderly and confused, “ into order out of disorder^ arid out of confusion into dis- “ tinctness, and began to form it, &c. See.⁴” He speaks 6f Matter as “a substance without quality, form, or figure⁰,” ■Which is precisely a Platonic expression. He represents God as saying, “ I fixed the Constitution of the universe, “ h nging disorder and disarrangement irito order and ar- “ rangement^x.” “ He gave figure to that universal sub- “ stance which was without figure, and form to that #hicfi “ was without form, and shaded that which was without “ quality, and, having perfected it, fixed his seal upon the

f De Special. Leg. p. 271. 1 De Humanitate, p. 397.

^r De Justitia, p. 367. * De Milndi Incorrupt, p. 488.

¹ De Plaflt. Noe. vol. I. p. 329. ^u De Profugls. p. 54'7-

* Quod a Deo mittantur Somtiia. p. 656.

Y 8

“ whole worldy.” “ The elements are lifeless matter, which “ is of itself motionless, and subject to the Creator for all “ the species of figures and qualities².” These passages, and particularly the last, will perhaps be considered as de­monstrating, that Philo did not believe matter to be Created by God, but that he followed Plato in supposing God to have merely given order and harmony to that, which had existed from all eternity. I may add, that this is expressly the language held in another work, written by a Platoniz- ing Jew, the Book of Wisdom, xi. 17, where we read, Thy Almighty hand, that made the world of matter without form, Sec. fyc. and perhaps we may be right in concluding, that the Jews in general, who studied the Grecian philo­sophy, did not believe that matter was created out of no­thing by God.

Beausobre has also considered, whether there are any passages in the New Testament, which speak unequivocally of God having created matter*: and he shews, that Rom. iv. 17, Heb. xi. 3, and Apoc. iv. 11, which are the only passages that have been alleged, cannot be said to prove the point. With this conclusion I fully agree: and we must be satisfied by observing with Tertullian, that if the Scrip­tures do not expressly declare that all things were made out of nothing, they certainly do not countenance the idea that matter preexisted^b. It remains therefore for reason to decide, which of the two notions is most worthy of an Almighty Being; which is in fact the most rational and philosophical notion. I have no doubt, that the author of the Dialogue already quoted ^c spoke truth when he said to his opponent, “ You suppose matter to be coeternal with God, “ that you may not make God the author of evil.” This was the sole cause of such an irrational hypothesis being formed: and we have seen how totally and miserably it failed in rescuing God from being the author of evil. That evil exists, we know from our own experience: we know also, that all things, which exist, are ordained of God; and that they need not have existed, if God had not willed it. If this position be allowed, it is consonant to reason to be­lieve, that God gave to the things, which he had created, a liability to become evil: but it is not consonant to reason to believe, that matter existed without the consent of God. The fallacy lies in supposing a priori that evil ought not to exist: whereas it is more philosophical to argue a poste-

y Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, p. 665.

^z De Vita Contemplat. vol. II. p. 472. * Vol. II. p. 213.

^b Adv. Hermog. 21. p. 241. ^c De recta in Deum Fide, ip. p. 844.

riori, because evil does exist, that therefore it ought to exist. This the sceptic will not allow: and reasoning a priori has led many persons into a labyrinth, but I have seldom heard of its extricating them from it: and I may end this long note by asserting, without fear of contradiction, that the sublimest conception, which ever yet entered into the mind of man, is that of God being alone before things were, and ordaining by one act of mind that things should be.

NOTE 22.—See Lecture III. p. 61.

Irenaeus says of Plato, “ Materiam dicit, et Exemplum “ et Deum^d.” But Plutarch is most to the point, when he says, “ Socrates and Plato had the same opinions upon “every thing: they.make three principles, Godj Matter, “ Idea: God is mind; Matter is that first thing which was “ subjected to production and destruction; Idea is an in- “ corporeal essence in the contemplations and imaginations “ of the Deity: and the Deity is the Mind of the world^e.” I have already alluded in note ¹³ to the question, whether Plato held two or more Principles: and it may be well to remember, what Plutarch tells us^f, that Plato and Aristotle considered the terms dp%vl and otoi^eTov to be different: “ irroi^sTa are compounded, but are not compound-

“ ed, nor are they effects; thus for instance, earth, water, “ air, fire, are a-roi^sla' but we apply the term ap%rj to that, “ which has nothing previous out of which it is produced; “ for then not the thing itself, but that out of which it was “ produced, would be an apx^l- But there are some things “ previous to earth and water, out of which they were pro- “ duced, viz. matter, which was without form and species.” This appears to be a just exposition of the meaning attached by Plato to the term apyy; and we can therefore have no doubt that we should call God and Matter two of his Prin­ciples : for both of them were eternal, and neither was pro­duced by the other. But it does not seem so certain, whe­ther we ought to speak of the Idea as an apx/t- It is true, that the Idea was not God, and God was not Idea: and yet the two can only be separated by a process of the mind. The Idea was not a person or substance, which had an ex­istence distinct from God; as I shall shew more at length in note ²³. Plutarch, as we have seen, defines it to be an incorporeal essence, ou<rla a<riup.uTo;; in comprehending which expression, we are not merely to think of body as opposed

<* II. 14.3. p. 133.

^e De Placitis Philos. I. 3. p. 8}8. B. Also Sympos. viii. 2. p. 720. B.

f lb. p. 875. C.

to spirit; for in that sense God himself might he defined to 'be cm incorporeal essence: but Plutarch meant, that the Idea has no real existence at all: in the language of Scho­lastic theology it is not i/tpsa-To; r<; for how (Eould that, which has a separate and distinct being, have its abode, as Plutarch places it, “ in the contemplations and imaginations “ of the Deity?” No system of Metaphysics can give jto these imaginations a fixed or definite existence: they are said to be in the mind of the Deity: but if we proceed to personify them, it is only by the same form of language, which personifies any of his attributesand the Justice or the Omnipotence of God can no more be called Be:wgs, than the Justice or the Power of Men. It is plain, there­fore, that if the Thoughts of the Deity are not Beings, the Ideas which reside in those Thoughts cannot be Beings: and I can hardly see how the Idea can be palled an apxtt in the Platonic sense. We may take an analogy from the works of man: and Plato’s notion of the divine Creation makes the analogy more perfect than it would be consi­dered now. A sculptor conceives the notion of making a statue: he is therefore the apxy °f the statue: and the marble, out of which he forms it, is, according to the Pla­tonic notion of Matter, another a-px*! ■ but it seems trifling with distinctions to say, that the idea, which is formed be­forehand in the mind of the sculptor, is a third ; and yet this has been said of the Ideas in the miTid of the Deity. It is however much more intelligible tq speak of the Idea as a third Principle, tjian to say, as some persons have said, that Plato held four or even five Principles. Thus the Soul of the World has been considered to be one of his Princi­ples s: and it is difficult to say, whether this Soul proceeded entirely from the Mind pf the Deity, or whether it was be­fore involved in the chaotic mass of Matter. In either case we could hardly speak of it as a Principle. If it was the offspring of the Mind of God, it certainly was not a prin­ciple according to Plutarch’s definition given above: and if the Soul of the World always existed in Matter, it is logi­cally incorrect to call that a Principle, which is only a part of a Principle. The Academics, softer Plato’s time, spoke of still another Principle, which was Nature, in which were the Seeds, or Aayoi ampfj.aTMo\ of things- But in this man­ner the Platonic apx^a> might be multiplied without end: and if we carry metaphysical abstraction as far as it can go, I do not see how we can recognise in Plato’s system any

8 Cyrill. Alex, advers. Julian. II. Plutarch has been said to attribute this notiou to Plato. See Wolfius, Manichceismus ante Maninhteos, II. 33.p. 132.

more than two Principles, God and Matter. If he spoke of more than these, it was rather from a subtlety of distinc­tion, or from a peculiarity of language, than from any­thing necessarily connected with his system¹*: and if we look to truth and not to theory, to things and not to words, Plato was no more obliged to make two Principles out of God and his Ideas, than we are. Plato may have thought and spoken of them as two; but that only shews, as I ob­served before, that the mind even of Plato was too small to contemplate Creation. The view, which I have taken of Plato’s Principles, appears to be the same with that of his commentator Chalciaius, who tells us, that Plato and all the ancients agreed in holding two initia rerum, or Princi­ples*. He then defines Principles to be those things which do not derive their origin from any thing else, and which are not made up of each other, (nec ex se invicem constare.) Plato, he says, held two Principles, God and Matter: “ but, “ since that which makes any thing looks at some model “ while it is working, the necessity of a third principle was “ perceived. The Principles therefore are God, and Mat- “ ter, and this Model, (Ewmplum.) God is the first mov- “ ing principle, set in actio# and Matter is that first prin- “ ciple, out of which every thing is made.” The last words seem to shew, that, notwithstanding his threefold division, Chalcidius still only recognized two Principles in the closest sense of the term: and I suspect, that it was not till some time after the dissemination of the Christian doctrine of a Trinity, that Plato’s two Principles were increased by a third. Of this I shall say more in note 9°.

NOTE 23.—See Lecture III. p. 62.

Eusebius quotes Atticus as calling the doctrine of Ideas “ the head and main strength of Plato’s philosophy^k.” Seneca also spoke of the Intellectual World as the propria supellex of Plato, his own peculiar property¹: and Aristotle, who, as is well known, was decidedly at issue with Plato upon this doctrine, says that he was the first, who used the

¹¹ Plato was evidently entangled in great doubts and perplexities' as to whether Mind and che thought of the Mind were one and the : rme thin ? . (see Tim,-Elis, p. 51:) he decides that they are Sui ‘yew; but this* I contend, is only a metaphysical distinction, and must not be considered as a real one.

ⁱ §■ SOS' P-39°- , _ _ , , ' . s „ >

^k Ta xitpetXtztov xxi vo av^og IIXotTwvas ctlgztfsas : and again, <ro &xgov <rf xett s0%t»rov rStv na.*Tmo? <piXoffo<pnpa,tuv. Praep. Evang. XV. 13. p. 815- This _;was T. Cl. Atticus Herodes, who flourished ahout A. D. 143. Lucian makes Socrates call the Ideas ro xe,<ro<p'iafa Vitarum Auct*

1 Epist. LVIII.

term Idea in this sense^m. We must not however suppose, that he was the first inventor of the notion. It has been said, that Socrates first attempted to define the doctrine of Ideas'¹. Plato’s own Dialogues would lead us to infer, that Timseus the Pythagorean, and Parmenides, who was of the Eleatic school, a branch of the Pythagorean, had arrived at the same conclusions before: and Aristotle informs us, that Plato had learnt in the school of Heraclitus to seek for knowledge, not in the objects of sense, which are always fluctuating, but in some other mode of being, which is fixed and permanent⁰. The education therefore of Plato would have led his mind to this abstruse and fanciful system P: and I can do no more in this place than refer to the notion, which was maintained by Brucker <5, but opposed by Mo­sheim^r, that the Ideas of Plato were derived from, and closely resembled, the Numbers of Pythagoras. Whoever wishes to understand this fundamental point of Plato’s phi­losophy, must consent to wade through the writings of Plato himself; though amongst many pretty conceits, many poeti­cal embellishments, and many profound if not sublime ab­stractions, he will be wearied with much which is puerile, and much which is below the’ dignity of sober criticism^s. The doctrine of Ideas will be found directly or indirectly asserted in almost all the treatises of Plato: but we must consult particularly the Dialogues entitled Parmenides, Ti­maeus, and the Sophist.

Brucker and Mosheim are again at issue, as to whether Plato gave to these Ideas a real existence separate from the

^m Metapbys. I. 6.

" This was said by Aristocles, a Peripatetic of the second century, quoted by Eusebius, Prtep. Evang. XI. 3. p. 510.

• Metapbys. I. 6. Plato’s connexion witb the disciples of Heraclitus is con­firmed by Apuleius, de Dogmat. Platon.

p Plato had attended Cratylus, a disciple of Heraclitus, and Hermogenes, a disciple of Parmenides, before he went to Socrates. He was at the age of twenty, when he first attended Socrates, and remained with him eight years. See Brucker, vpl. I. p. 632, 640. Eusebius speaks of Plato as heing more intimately acquainted than any other person with the philosophy of Pytha­goras. Coat: Hierocl. p. 519.

1 Vol. I. p. 696. 1046. and in a special Dissertation de Convenientia Nu- merorum Pytliagorce cum Ideis Platonis, in the Amomvtates lateraricB, published by Schelhornius, vol. VII. Art. 7. p. 173. The uotion was also maintained by Cudwortli, IV. 21. Beausobre, vol. I. p. 313, 571.

' In Cudworth, IV. 21. vol. I. p. 598.

” Baltus sums up the opinion of the Fathers concerning Platd in the fol­lowing words, “ C'^toit un homme, disent ils, qui n’avoit en t£te que la “ vanity, et qui ne cbercboit pas iL dire des chosea utiles, mais seulement k “ faire parade de son Eloquence. De lil ce verbiage, cette ennuyeuse pro- “ lixit£ et cette obscurity, [que l’on trouve dans ses ouvrages, et qui les “ reodroit inutiles, quand m£me ils contiendroient quelque chose d’utile.” Defense des Saints Peres, III. 18. p. 407.

Mind of the Deity, and beyond that which mere imagina­tion assigns to them. Brucker* maintained the affirmative in this question, and Mosheim the negative¹¹. It is perhaps a waste of time to discuss such subtleties, which are only of importance in the history, and not in the realities of phi­losophy. I cannot however help thinking, that the dispute must after all be rather employed about words; and that Brucker must have understood the ova la airui^aTos of Plu­tarch in a different manner from Mosheim or Plutarch him­self. I would therefore repeat the observation, which was made in a preceding note, that if the Mind or Reason of the Deity has not a distinct being, except in the language of Metaphysics, that which is seated in the Mind cannot have a distinct being: if it can, the shadow may contain the substance, or the less may contain the greater*. Brucker appears to have had a confused notion of the word oucrla, which has been translated Substance, Essence, or Being. Thus he quotes Plato as saying of the Idea, that it is ysvo; ti exeurTov act) over la aurij v.ah' axnijv, “ a kind of «genus of “ every thing, and a Being in and of itself J:” and he lays great stress upon this expression, as if Plato declared the Idea to be a Substance, distinct and separate, or at least which could be separated, from the divine Mind. This appears to be an incorrect and forced application of the . : term oua-la. In the first place I would observe, that Plato himself saw the probability, that his Ideas, or intellectual forms, would be considered to have, only an imaginary or metaphysical existence. He remarks this in the Timaeiis, p. 51: and in the Dialogue, called the Sophist, he ex­pressly alludes to the fierce disputes, which had arisen concerning the word owla. “ Some,” he says, “ while “ they deduce every thing from above and from the in- “ visible world, speak as if they were actually laying hold “ of rocks and trees with their hands. For when they “ are touching such substances as these, they contend that “ that alone exists which allows us to touch and lay hold of “ it: this they define to be aai(j.a and ova let, and if any one “ say that any thing else exists which has not a body, “ (<r«Sj[Aa,) they treat him with sovereign contempt, and will

‘ Historia Doctriuse de Ideis, p. 6o. Hist. Philos, vol. I. p. 698. Le Clerc held the same opinion.

« In Cudworth, IV. 36. vol. I. p. 856. See the preface to Justin Martyr, p. x. xvi. where many arguments are brought against Brucker’s theory.

* Atticus describes the Ideas as Tat tov BiaS vov,fAUTU Tgitr&vn£a TC'x.yua- <ra/v, ™ r&v ytvo/iivuv iragaSsiyf&aros, tt.ffGifLa.ra, peosl vottrd, Eus. Prtsp• Eluting", XV.' 13. p. 815. What is this but a ‘metaphysical existence?

r Vol. I. p. 697. The quotation is from the Parmenides, p. 135.

“ hear him no longer. Their opponents defend themselves “ very cautiously as to their notions of what comes from “ the superior invisible world, and Contend that certain in- “ tellectual and incorporeal forms are the true ovtrla^z.” He then decides, as we might suppose, in favour of the latter opinion; so that vinriu, in the Platonic acceptation of the term, is something vovjfov, which is perceived by the mind: it has i metaphysical existence; but whether it has an existence beyond this* is not here asserted. This is one of the points, which I coticeive to have beeh left undecided by Plato. He was here lost in the mazes of his own crea­tion ; and his object was so to perplex and involve his fol­lowers, that they should not perceive, that he had himself lost his way. At the beginning of the Parmenides he makes Socrates say, that when he is speaking of the Idea, he is afraid of falling into an abyss of nonsense and being lost^a. The argument pursued by him in the Dialogue would hot perhaps tend to diminish the feat's of himself or his heaTers. He shews that this universal Ideaj to %v, neither moves, nor is still: it is not like to any thing else, iior to itself, nor yet unlike: it is not older than any thing* nor younger: it is not in time, sv xpovcu: it does not partake qf being, ovk outrla; /XETE^sib: in short it is nowhere, ouSa/nce; apa s&ti to sv. He then proves that it is all the things which he had before proved it not to be ^c : and he again distinctly repeats, that it is not an ouatu: rto iv) aoa, sitsiirj etrriilj out)’ sktsov

Oure anaXXuxTsov outs /xeTaAvj7rTeoi/ over la; oiSa/uuj^d. It was in this way that Plato explained his peculiar philosophy,

And found no end, in wandering, mazes lost.

Philo Judaeus may be quoted as disproving the substantial existence of the Ideas, while he appears to wish to establish it. “ Some,” he Says, “ affirm that the incorporeal Ideas are “ an empty name without partaking of reality, by which “ they take away from existing beings the being which is “ most necessary of all, that is, the archetypal pattern of “ all things which are qualities of being, according to which “everything receives its form and measure^e.” There is little need to observe, that that which is the pattern of all existing beings, can only have a metaphysical existence: if

¹ Sophists, p. 246.

^a As/eras vfoti il$ rtv ufiuOlov tyXuetgieiv IfAVitraiv tiictipQoipat, p. 130.

b P. 141. « p, 14.7.151.155. '

* P. 163. The reader will perhaps call to mind the satyrical' dialogue of Lucian, where in reply to the merchant’s question, vod Se hrrxiriv [&l filed] ; Socrates replies outixpou'sj ya.^ *6v iTgy, obx. «v sTsv. Vitarum Auct.

^e De Sacrif. vol. II. p. 261.

it is more than this, it must equal in magnitude and in every other quality that which is the copy of it, and would be another universe. If we take this view of the doctrine of Ideas, as held by Plato, we shall have no difficulty in understanding,, why God, the Mind or Reason of God, and the Ideas in the Mind of Godj are often confounded^, and used as convertible terms. Proc]us quotes Parmenides as spying, that •mua. ISsoe.. ©s05^f. The Idea therefore, as being eternally present to the Mind of God, may be taken for God hjmself, or for his Mind: in the same manner as Chal­cidius says, “ The Reason of God; is Gods.” The same commentator afterwards speaks of “ the Mind of God” ar­ranging, the order of the universe¹¹: and in another place he says, that “ the /dea gave form to the w.orldIt is very necessary to bear this in mind, while we read the works of Plato: and we shall have occasion tp_;return to the subject again, when we come to consider the Platonic Logos. For the present I would, observe, that; Plato’s notion of. the creation was this: he conceived, that the Deity acted upon the inert and discordant massif Matter, which had existed from all eternity, and. impressed, upon it those forms, which had been eternally present to his; own,Mind.

NOTE 24.—See Lecture III. p. 63.

In speaking of[ the Gods or Daemons of Plato, we must be careful, as I have already observed, to distinguish be­tween the opinions of Plato himself and those of his later followers: for there can be little doubt, that what was said by. Jewish and, Christian writers concerning Angels, had an effect upon the writings of the later Platonists, who proba­bly endeavoured, to remove the absurdities of Polytheism, by teaching that all the other Gods.j were only spiritual beings, who were, subordinate to the one supreme God^k. In the first place we must observe, that, Plato speaks of twp kinds of Gods, The first were purely intellectual, and were in fact the Ideas in the Mindiof the Deity¹. These are sometimes spoken ofias Gods, and were merely the manifestation of the Deity himself in his different attributes. They are sometimes called. Supercaslestial; and the place

^r n&£i rm *v rw IleX/re/#? ®eoXoy/xuv rvtfuv. PlotiDUS

also says, woXXa.%ou Ss <ro ov xot) <rov vouv ryv, /5sasy xiyu. Ennead. V, 1.8. p. 489*

^B §■ 54- P' ²99- ¹¹ §■ 302. p-39°- ⁵ §• 270.P.378.

^k See Orosius, Histor. VI. i. p. 416. Angustini Epist. X.VI. vol., II. p. 20. Wolfius, Manichceismus ante Manichaos, II. 38. p. 162. Cudworth, IV. 1 j.

¹ This point is clearly shewn in the preface to Irenaeus, p. xxvii. and is confirmed by many quotations from the later Platonists.

assigned to them as their abode has been known by the name of the Intellectual World of PJato. But this Intel­lectual World was nothing else than the Mind of the Deity, in which were these intellectual Gods, the Forms or Ideas of all things. The second order of Gods was the image of the first; and may be said to resemble our notion of spi­ritual existences: for the first, (as I said before of the Ideas,) was something still more abstract than spiritual, and had merely a metaphysical existence. These second or celestial Gods were the first step in the process of crea­tion. It was to them that God addressed that speech, which I have already¹" quoted in part from the Timaeus, “Ye Gods, of Gods, of whom I am the Creator and the “ Father, &c. ye are not in yourselves immortal or indis- “ soluble, but yet ye shall be so, because I will it.” He then delegates to them, as I have already explained, the remaining work of the creation. These are the Gods, of whom Plato speaks thus in the Phaedrus", “ Jupiter the “ mighty Sovereign in heaven, driving his winged chariot, “ goes first, arranging and superintending every thing: he “ is followed by a host of Gods and Daemons, divided into “ eleven parts: for Vesta remains alone in the mansion of “ the Gods: but all the other Gods, as many as are mar- “ shalled in the number of the twelve, take the lead accord- “ ing to their respective order.” I would observe upon this passage, that Jupiter is here used for the supreme God, according to Plato’s notion of the Deity : but it may be shewn from other passages⁰, that Plato sometimes gave to these Gods the names which we find in ancient mytho­logy, Saturn, Jupiter, &c. No person can imagine that Plato really held the same gross and ridiculous notions of the Gods, which were generally entertained by the heathen : and the remark of Justin Martyr P, which is re­peated by many of the Fathers⁵, may perhaps be true, that he concealed his real sentiments, and adopted the popular language “ through fear of the hemlock.” Perhaps what he said in the passage lately quoted, of the Gods being divided into twelve orders, may have been taken from the common mythologists: but this is at least certain, that Plato believed

4

^m Page311, 317. " P. 246.

⁰ See Timaeus, p. 40. He shews, that he considered these to he mere names, invented by men, in the Philebus, p. 12. See Cndworth, IV. 14. vol.

I- P-379-

p Cohort. 20. p. 21. 25. p. 25.

<i Athenag. Apol. 23. Euseb. Prap. Evang. II. 6, 7. XIII. 14. Theodoret. adv. Grcec. Serm. HI. p. 512. 519. Plato bimself speaks very strongly abont not interfering with the established religion, de Leg. IV. p. 709. X.p.889, &c.

in the existence of certain invisible and spiritual beings, who held a middle rank between God and man, who were not eternal, but received their being from God, and were endued by him with a principle of immortality. It has been con­jectured, that Plato borrowed much of this part of his sys­tem from the Jewish scriptures; a notion, which I cannot but think extremely improbable, and which I shall have occasion to consider hereafter. At present I would observe, that the Chaldaean philosophy recognised a multitude *of Gods and Daemons¹; from whence the notion may easily have been carried into Greece. It was certainly not original with Plato. Plutarch speaks of Plato and Pythagoras as following rois nahai hokiyots, in believing that there were beings of a mixed nature between that of God and man^s: and by these ancient Theologi he meant Orpheus, Musaeus, and other writers in the darker ages of mythology. In another place he says, “ that great difficulties were solved “ by those persons who first thought of an order otDaemons “ between Gods and men, which in a manner forms an “ union between us and brings us together; whether it was “ the doctrine of Zoroaster and the Magi, or whether it “ came from Orpheus in Thrace, or from Egypt, or Phry- “ gia, &c. &c^t.” The difficulties here alluded to were pro­bably those connected with the origin of evil: and it was from the same motive that Plato adopted the system, when he supposed the work of creation to be delegated to the Gods. Plutarch expressly says that he adopted it, and he names Pythagoras as having held it before him. This phi­losopher believed the air to be full of spirits'¹: and such seems to have been the notion of Plato: but some obscurity appears in his writings from his supposing the heavenly, bodies, sun, stars, &c. to be intelligent beings, and applying to them the name of Gods. That he did this, cannot be doubted. In the first place, he calls the universe “ a living “ being,” XJaw, %mv evvovv ts^x, tybov reAeov ex Tshsm

TuiV jj-spmY: ybttv tu wavr h uvrcp £cua nepls^pv². But this universe and its parts were only the image of the Intellec­tual world, in which were the Ideas of all things: and these Ideas, as we have seen, are spoken of as Gods. The uni­verse therefore, and its parts, were also Gods, as being the image of Gods: and hence we find Plato saying that “ God

^r See Brucker, vol. I. p. 133. * De Is. et Osir. p. 360. E.

‘ De Defect. Orac. p. 415. A.

“ EIvai ti •ravrct tov uiga ipu%av ef&xXtov xa) rovrovs robs tiaipovds re xat yg&ixs voplfatrltti. Diog. Laert. VIII. p. 221. See Brucker, vol. I. p. 1083.

* Timseus, p. 30. s’ lb. p. 33. , ¹ lb. p. 33. See also p. 69.

“ produced the world* su8a//xov« flsov^a.” But the most striking passage is the following: ^w When the Father, who “ produced it, (the world,) perceived that it was in motion “ and had life, having been made the image of the eternal “ Gods, (the Ideas,) he admired it, and being delighted¹*, “ he conceived the idea of making it still more like to the “ Example: and as this (the Intellectual world, or Idea) “ is an eternal living being, %ct>ov a'thov, he endeavoured to “ make this universe the same to the utmost of his power⁰.” Every part therefore of the universe was considered to have life, and to be divine; because it was the image of that which had: life and was divine. Hence the sun, the stars, and the earth which we inhabit, are called Gods : but they are “ visible and created Gods'³,” in opposition to the in­tellectual and eternal Gods, or Idem. The universe itself is called “ the self-sufficient and most perfect God^eand the earth* “ the first and eldest of the Gods within the uni- “ verse^f.” This is perhaps sufficient to explain the language and the meaning' of Plato: but I may add the remark of Chalcidius, “ Ccelestia corpora constricta vitalibus nexibus, “ id est, stcllas animalia facta esse adserit, et cognovisse' “ quae a Deo-jubebanturS.” Chalcidius thought that these heavenly bodies were the Gods to whom the work of crea­tion was delegated¹¹: but this does not necessarily follow : and there is no need to make the system of Plato more un­intelligible and irrational than it really was. It is plain, that he felt himself perplexed, when speaking of the generation or production of the secondary Gods: and this may have been one of the points for which he was charged with ob­scurity by the ancients’, or upon which he was suspected of concealing his sentiments. “ It is difficult,” he says^k, “ to “ discover the Maker and Father of this universe; and ‘‘ when we have discovered him, it is impossible to speak of

him to all.” In the same manner, after he has spoken of

^a Timaeus, p. 34.

^b See Gen. i. 31. And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold it was very good.

^c Timaeus, p. 37.

ⁱ lb. p. 40. See also Epinomis, p. 984. de Leg. X. p. 899. Pythagoras believed the stars to be gods: Diog. Laert. in Pythag. 27.

• lb. p. 68. ^f lb; p. 40.

b §; ti2. p. 319. Phi.o Judaeus speaks exactly like Plato upon this point. De Gigantibus.

^h §. 138. p. 331. §. 199. p. 350. He also quotes Gen. i. 16. as shewing that a ruling power was given to the heavenly bodies. He might have added Job xxxviii. 7.

‘ See Cic. ad Att. VII. 13. Sextus Empiricus, adv. Mathemat. I. 13, p. 283-^ped; 1718.

^k Timaeus, p. 28.

the visible Gods, i. e. the heavenly bodies, he confesses that “ to speak of the Mother Daemons, and to know how they “ were produced, is above our power; and we must follow “ those who have treated of the subject before, who, as they “ said, were the offspring of the Gods, and must certainly “ have known their own progenitors. We cannot therefore “ disbelieve the children of the Gods, although they speak “ without probable or demonstrative arguments; but we “ must follow them as men who profess to speak of their “ own concerns, and we must obey what is received as law¹.” No person will perhaps believe that Plato really looked upon his predecessors in philosophy as descended from the Gods. As Chalcidius observes upon this passage^m, “ he spoke “ rather upon a principle of credulity, than of persuasion or “ proofand he therefore professed to adopt the popular belief, and proceeded to apply to these Gods the names which were given them in the common mythology¹¹. It may perhaps have been from the same motive that he gave the name of Gods to the heavenly bodies: and it is remarkable, that in another Dialogue⁰ he speaks thus: “ The first in- “ habitants of Greece appear to have considered those only “ as Gods, whom many barbarous nations consider so now, “ the sun, and moon, and earth, and stars,, and heaven. “ Seeing them always moving on and running \&sovToi), from “ this principle of running (0e7v P) they called them Gods.” It might be thought from this passage that Plato did not really look upon the stars as Gods: and the truth probably is, that he no more considered them as Gods, in the popular and superstitious sense, than when he spoke of Jupiter and Apollo, he adopted the common and degrading notions of those deities. Plato, however, certainly appears to have looked upon the heavenly bodies as being actuated by a living principle. Hence he calls them £«Sa, living beings : and since their nature was different from that of men, and superior to it, he supposed them to partake more of the divine, and gave them the general name of Gods. He agreed with Pythagoras in thinking that the whole air, or

¹ lb. p. 40.

§. 126. p. 326. Sec also Eusebius, Prop. Evang. XIII. 14.

⁰ Chalcidius says that Plato alluded to Orpheus, Linus, and Musseus. Plutarch, as we have seen, said the same: to whom we may also add Proclus in Tim. V. p. 291.

° Cratylusj p. 397. Eusebius observes, that the most aocient nations, the Phoenicians and Egyptians, worshipped the heavenly bodies. Prop. Evang. I.9.

p See Plutarch, de Is. et Osir. p. 375. C. Euseb. Prop. Evang. V. 3. p. 182.

Z

rather all space, was full of spirits; and I would refer the reader to the Epinomis‘1 for Plato’s notion concerning the different orders of living beings which inhabit the five re­gions or portions of space. But though he professed him­self at a loss to explain the manner in which the lower order of Gods was produced, he had a fixed and definite notion of their holding a middle station between the higher Gods and man¹. These were the beings to whom he peculiarly applied the name of Damons : and when we read what he said of their ministering to the wants of men, and mediating between them and the great first Cause, we cannot wonder that the later Platonists considered the Daemons of Plato to be the same with the Angels of Scripture³. The passages which most illustrate Plato’s notions concerning these mini­stering spirits or Daemons are in the Convivium, p. 202. and the Politicus, p. 271¹: and we learn from a passage in the Phaedon^u, that he believed a particular Daemon to be allot­ted to each individual: and the reader may find a curious account of good and evil Daemons, according to the belief of the later Platonists, in Porphyry’s treatise de Abstinentia ab Esu Animalium, II. 38. p. 171, &c. ed. 1767.

For the subjects discussed in this note, I would refer the reader to Brucker, vol. I. p. 706; and Beausobre, vol. II. p. 259. 267. *

NOTE 25.—See Lecture III. p. 63.

This might perhaps be called the most striking point of resemblance, because it proves, more plainly than any other, the connexion between Platonism and Gnosticism. That the resemblance existed, may be seen in the following passages. Basilides is said to have imagined, “ Nun primo ab innato “ natum Patre, ab hoc autem natum Logon, deinde a Logo

P. 981, &c. 984, &c.

^r See Conviv. p. 202. Chalcidius, §. 130. p. 328. Eusebius, Prtep. Evang.

Xlir. r_S.

• See Chalcidius, §.131. p. 328. Philo Judaeus said the same, de Giganti­bus, vol. I. p. 263. De Mundo, vol. II. p. 604. The later Platonists adopted the term Angels, as is observed by M. Casauhon, (ad M. Anton, p. 392. ed. Gataker.) Grotius ad Mat. i. 20. Tan. Faber also thought that it had been used in earlier times, (Epist. Crit. I. 64. p. 216.) but he only brings one in­stance which is not to the point. See the Diss. de Studio Ethnieorum Christi­anas imitandi, among the Dissertations of Mosheim, (vol. I. p. 347.) where it is also said that the later Platonists learnt from the Christians to use the term Damon only in a bad sense. See also Jac. Ode, Comment.de Angelis,

I. 73. p. 11. Wolfius, Manichtsismus ante Manichteos, II. 38. p. 165.

* See also Plutarch, as referred to above, de Is. et Osir. p. 360. Aristotle appears to have dishelieved this notion of intermediate Daemons: see the note of Fabricius ad Cbalcid. §. 248. p. 369.

" P. 107.

“ Phronesin, a Phronesi autem Sophiam et Dynamin, a “ Dynami autem et Sophia Virtutes et Principes et Angelos, “ quos et primos vocat, et ab iis primum coelum factum. “ Dehinc ab horum derivatione alios autem factos, aliud “ coelum simile priori fecisse, et simili modo ex eorum deri- “ vatione quum alii facti essent, antitypi eis qui super eos “ essent, aliud tertium deformasse coelum, 8ec^x.” In the preface to the second hook, Irenaeus says that he has ex­plained “ quemadmodum conditionem secundum imaginem “ invisibilis apud eos Pleromatis factam dicunty.” The whole of the seventh and eighth chapters of his second book are employed in considering the notion of the visible world being the image of the invisible: and in the fourteenth chapter, where he shews that the Gnostics borrowed many of their notions from the ancient philosophers, he says, “ Quod autem dicunt imagines esse haec eorum quae sunt, “ rursus manifestissime Democriti et Platonis sententiam “ edisseftmt.” Valentinus is said to have taught, “ simili- “ tudines tales fieri ad imitationem eorum, quae sunt sur- “ sum².” I would add, that Plotinus, the celebrated Pla- tonist, speaks of the Gnostics having borrowed from Plato his notion of an invisible or intellectual world^a.

It, is hardly necessary to observe, that Plato held a lan­guage precisely similar to this concerning the creation of the visible world. At the heginning of the Timaeus, he says, “ it is absolutely necessary that this world should be “ the image of something¹¹and his whole system of Ideas is merely the developement of this principle. Chalcidius, speaking of the world, says, “ Quid, quod institutus est ad “ exemplum alterius intelligibilis et immutabilis perennita- “ tis^c?” and this was the notion which was held by all the Gnostics. Tertullian, after he had explained the Platonic doctrine of Ideas, says,- “ Relucentne jam haeretica semina “ Gnosticorum et V?lentinianorum^d ?”

Note 26.—See Lecture III. p. 68.

Pew points have been more debated in chronology, than the dates of the different events in the life of Pythagoras. I shall do no riiore at present thato mention the three princi­pal'hypotheses, and give references to the authors, who have

^x Iren. I. 24. 3. p. 101.

y P. 1 IS' The resemblance of this passage would be more striking in the Greek, which we may suppose to have been, r*t» *t/«v xav ukovu. roZ

hut atvTobc Aogctrov KXtigtufietroi yeytviiffOeti Qxfi.

* III. 11. 2. p. 188. • Ennead. II. 9. 6. contra Gnostieos, p. 203.

^b P. 29. , ^e §. 2g. p. 285. ^d De Anima, 18. p. 277.

maintained them. The three authors are Dodwell^e, Bent­ley^f, and Lloyds; and they have assigned the following dates to the birth of Pythagoras.

The period of his death is still more uncertain, since different writers have made him live to the age of 80,90,95, 99,104, and 117. Bentley’s hypothesis has not met with many fol­lowers. That of Dodwell has been embraced by Buddeus, Le Clerc, and Stanley : but Brucker is more inclined to that of Lloyd. He thinks that Pythagoras must have been born between the years 603 and 568. A. C. but, if this is the only certainty at which we can arrive, the case must be consi­dered rather hopeless which presents a period of 35 years, without our knowing which particular year of that period we are to choose ^h. That Pythagoras travelled into Egypt, may be considered as a settled point which no person will dispute : Brucker thinks, that he may possibly have visited Phoenicia: but upon the whole he rejects as untenable the story of his residence in Persia. This is asserted in most detail by Jamblichus *, who informs us, that after Pythagoras had passed twenty-two years in Egypt, he was carried Jby the army of Cambyses into Persia, and there conversed with the Magi. The journey into Persia is supported by the au­thority of Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Apuleius, Lactantius, Eusebius, &c. but Brucker still considers it as fabulous; to whose reasonings I refer the reader for every information upon the subject. It should be stated, that the expedition of Cambyses into Egypt is fixed by all chronologists in the year 525 A. C. at which period Pythagoras would have been at the age of 78, 61, or 43, according as we adopt any of the three hypotheses mentioned above. He is said to have conversed in Persia with a person, whose name is written Zabratus, Nazaratus, Zares, Zaran, or Zaratas: and this person has often been conjectured to be no other than Zoro­aster. I have stated in note¹² that Zoroaster is supposed to have flourished toward the end of the reign of Darius Hys- taspes, and that this king’s death is placed in 485. A. C. which date makes it still more difficult to reconcile the conflicting tes-

« De state Phalaridis et Pythagorae. Lond. 1704.

^f Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, p. 50.

s Chronological Account of the Life of Pythagoras, London 1699.

^h For other writers, who have discussed this subject, see Brucker, vol. I. p. 998. note ^c.

' Vit. Pythag. c. 4. p. 15. ed. 1707.

Bentley . .

. A. C. 603. . 586.

568.

timonies, The whole question is most elaborately discussed by Brucker^k., This writer also rejects the notion, which has been supported by several persons, that Pythagoras was indebted to the Jews for many of his opinions. If it could be proved, that he passed some years in Persia, and was there during the life of Zoroaster, it is certainly not impro­bable, that he conversed with some of the Jews who were still in that country ; and the Jewish scriptures, if he had met with them, would certainly have made an impression upon a mind like that of Pythagoras¹. But all this is ex­tremely uncertain; and it is much safer to suppose, that whatever religious or philosophical opinions Pythagoras adopted from foreign countries, were received by him in

i life of Pythagoras, as written by Brucker, contains almost every thing which can be collected upon the subject, and an appendix to it is added in vol. VI. p. 257.

The most detailed account of the translation of thq scrip­tures into Greek is that of Aristeas, who professes to have been one of the persons employed. It is quoted largely by Eusebius'¹¹, who calls the author Aristaeus; and it is pub­lished at the end of the second volume of Havercamp’s edition of Josephus. The authenticity of the account was fully believed by Josephus and Philo; and some modern writers have been inclined to receive it: but the majority must be considered to have pronounced against it. The names of the principal writers, who have treated of Aristeas, will be found below". According to this narration the number of translators was seventy-two. A Jewish writer of

^k Vol. I. p. 982, &c. The jouruey of Pythagoras to Persia has been main­tained by Beausobre, vol. I. p. 30. and by Hyde, p. 297, 298.

¹ Brucker gives references to many writers, who supposed Pythagoras to have borrowed from the Jews, p. 1004, note *. We may add Buddeus, de Ha°r. VaL p. 616, 617. Wendelious, Diss. de Tetracty Pythagortz. Hue- tius, Dem. Evang. IV. 2. 7. p. 44. Reuchlinus, de Arte Cabalisticu, 1. II. p. 775. ed. 1.550. More, Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 154. S. Andreas, Ex- amen generate Cabbala Philos. H. Mori, p. 67. Langius, in Digs, ut supra, p. 639, 640.

^m Praep. Evang- VIII. 2, &c.

“ I. Vossius, de LXX. Interp. eorumque Chronolog. Walton, Prolegom. ad Bibl. These were inclined to helieve the work of Aristeas. Leo Castrius and Alph. Salmero supposed it to be interpolated. The first person, who pro­nounced the work to be spurious, was Ludovicus Vives. He was followed by Scaliger, Ant. Van Dalen, Dissert, super Aristea; H. Hody, Diss. contra Hist. Aristea, et de Bibliorum Textibus originalibus. Brucker, vol. II. p. 686. Wolfius, Bibl. Hebr. part. I. p. 213.

it.

NOTE 27—See Lecture III. p. 70.

the twelfth century⁰ speaks of seventy elders being sent from Jerusalem, one of whom was Eleazer, at the suggestion of Aristaeus : a passage has been adduced from the Talmud, which speaks of five only of the elders having made the translation P: but other passages in the Talmud 9 confirm the story of Ptolemy having committed the work to seventy- two persons, who each of them translated the whole of the scriptures, and yet all of them agreed even to every letter ^r. These different stories certainly throw an air of suspicion over the whole transaction: but the most sceptical person has not doubted, whether the translation, or at least a part of it, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Some have contended, that the books of Moses were alone trans­lated, because Josephus and Aristeas speak only of the Law^s: but it seems doubtful, whether this expression was not used by the Jews for the whole of the scriptures. It is at least certain, that at the time when the Book of Ecclesiasticus was written¹, the whole of the Jewish scriptures had been translated into Greek; and this was at least one hundred years before Christ. Another controversy has been raised, as to whether there was not an older translation, which had been made before the time of Ptolemy. The evidence of such a fact rests upon the single authority of Aristobulus, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria ^u and Eusebius ^x: and the accuracy of it is important to those persons, who suppose Pythagoras and Plato to have been acquainted with the Jewish scriptures. The names of the writers, who have discussed the question, may be seen below Y.

° Josephus Gorionides, III. 17. p. J04. ed. Oxon. 1706. See Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. III. p. 249.

v Massecheth Sapberim, I. 7. “ Quinqne seniores scripseruiit Legem Grace “ pro Ptolemaeo rege, fuitque iste dies acerbus Israeli, sicnt dies quo factus “ est vitulus, eo quod Lex non potuit verri secundum quod est ei necessa- “ num.” See Ligbtfoot, Horte Hebr. in Matt. i. 23.

Megillah, fol. 9.

^r The latter incredible legend was received by Philo Judaeus, de Vita Mo- sis, vol. II. p. 140. Justin Martyr, Cohort. 13. p. 17. (who says that he had seen at Alexandria the vestiges of the different apartments which tbe trans­lators used:) Ireoseus, III. 21. 2. p. 215, &c. &c.

* L. Bos in his Prolegomena has given instances, in which the style of the Pentateuch differs from that of the other books. But this might very natu­rally have arisen from different persons having been employed upon different parts of the work, as iu the case of our own English version.

¹ See tbe Prologue to that Book.

« Strom. I.'22. p.410.

³¹ Prap. Evang. VII. 13. p. 323. IX. 6. XIII. 12.

y Walton, Prolegom. IX. 6. Fabricius, Sibi. Gr. vol. II. p. 316. J. G. Engelbach, Diss. de Versione Graca LXXvirali antiquiore. Reimannus, Hist, Theol. Judaicm, VII. 4. p. 110. Hody, ut supra, I. 9. p.48. Wolfius, Bibl. Hebr. part. II. p. 445. Hottinger, Thesaur. Philolog. I. 3. 3. p. 281. Cellarius, Diss. de LXX Interpret. G. Hencke, de Usu LXX interpret.

It was the opinion of R. Simon², that the Jews brought their notions of Angels and Spirits from Babylon. This is opposed by Brucker^a, who observes, that there are many traces of a belief in the ministry of Angels to be found in the sacred writings, which are older than the time of the captivity. This is perfectly true: and Simon probably only meant to say, that the Jews added many superstitious no­tions to their former faith upon this subject. Some curious information concerning the Jewish belief in Angels may be seen in Hyde^b, who quotes a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, iii which it is said, “ that the names of months “ and of Angels came up with the Jews from Babylonia, as “ for instance Gabriel, Michael, Iyar, Nisan, &c.” This notion has been adopted by most writers, and particularly by Beausobre^c, who observes with truth that we do not find the name of an Angel in any book of the Jews, which was written before the captivity. A German writer has ob­served, that in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. David is said to have been moved by God to number the people: but in 1 Chron. xxi.

1. the same act is ascribed to the instigation of Satan': upon which he remarks, “ The Jews before the Babylonish cap- “ tivity were accustomed to speak of God, as the immediate “ author of all things, good and bad: -but after that, they “ believed that the world was governed by the intervention “ of angels, and especially that evil angels exerted their “ powers to the destruction of men. It is therefore no won- “ der that the author of the Book of Chronicles, (Ezra, as “ most think,) should change the form of speech before “ used into that which prevailed in his time, and ascribe to “ the instigation of the Devil, or of an evil Genius, an event “ so hurtful to the Israelites ^d.” The remark is ingenious, and may perhaps be true; though the maker of it appears to have overlooked the poetical imagery of the Book of Job i. 6, &c. From the introduction of Satan in the latter pas­sage, Warburton has drawn an argument for the late date of that Book^e: but it has been shewn, that the Jews were

f

Brncker, vol. I. p. 637. II. p. 687. Waterland, vol. VIII. p. 5. Brett’s Dis­sertation on the ancient Version of the Bible, (printed in Watson's Tracts, vol. III. p. 1.) and particularly Matter, sur VEcole Alexandrie, tom. I. p. 74.

¹ Hist. Crit. Vet. Test. I. 7. p. 48. * Vol. II. p. 723.

^b Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers. c. 20. p. 268, &c.

^c Vol. II. p. 624. where there is much curious matter concerning Angels.

^d Datlie, Translation of the Historical Books of the Old Testament.

• Divine Legation, VI. 2.

acquainted with the name and offices of Satan long before their captivity, though they looked upon him not as an in­dependent evil Spirit, but as a subordinate minister of God^f. It is in this light, that he is represented in the Book of Job. If we look into the Cabbala, or the writings of the later Rabbis, it can hardly be doubted, that the Cabbalistic doc­trine concerning Angels received great additions from the East. Buddeus was more inclined to deduce it from the Platonists: but it would be much easier to shew, that the Platonists altered their philosophical opinions upon this point from their intercourse with the Jews: and it was then, as I have remarked in note *♦, that the Angels of Scripture were said to be the same with the Daemons of Plato. I shall jnly observe, that the Cabbalists make ten orders or de­grees of Angels, though they differ in their names: as may be seen in the Pneumatica Kabbalistica, in the second volume of the Kabbala denudata of Knorrius, part. 3. Diss.

II. 6. p. 227: Reuchlinus, de Arte Cabbalistica, 1. III. p. 836. and Maimonides, de Fundament. Leg. II. 8. p. 18. The reader, who is curious in these matters, may consult the work entitled de Caelesti Hierarchia, which has been ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, but is demonstrably of a much later date, and was probably composed in the fourth century. The writer appears to have been a Platonist, who borrowed largely from the mystical rhapsodies of the Cabbalists. Beside the authors already mentioned, I would refer to a Dissertation upon Apoc. XII. 7, 8, 9. written by Schwartze, and insertea in the Thesaurus Theolog. ap­pended to the Critici Sacri, where references may be found to all the principal writers, who have treated of Angels. See also Th. Gale, Observ. ad Jamblicum, p. 206.

NOTE 29- See Lecture III. p. 72.

Josephus informs us, that at the beginning of the reign of Alexander the Great, many of the Jews at Jerusalem, and even of the priests, had intermarried with foreigners, which was considered by the stricter party as having dangerous consequencess. We read also, that many Jews were en­listed in Alexander’s army, when he marched from Jeru­salem¹¹ : and though it is added, that they stipulated for leave to follow their peculiar usages, it is not likely that the

^f See Russell, On the religious Belief and Practices of the ancient He­brews, I. 2.

6 Antiq. XI. 8. 2.

^h lb. J. Hecatseus, as quoted by Eusebius, (Prap. Evang. IX. 4. p. 408.) says that they served in the armies of Alexander and his successors.

manners of a Grecian camp, or a campaign in the East, would not produce an effect. The same author informs us, that a large party at Jerusalem adopted Greek manners in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes', or A. C. 170. and we learn the same from the books of the Maccabees'¹. At a later period much innovation of this kind must have been introduced by the addiction of Herod to Roman manners; and Josephus informs us, that the example of the king was copied by many of his followers¹. He speaks also of there being a great number of Jews settled in different cities of Ionia, who complained to Agrippa of receiving many insults, and not being permitted to follow their own customs¹". That the Jews were generally considered to be averse to adopting any thing from abroad, requires no proof. Josephus quotes Molon as bringing this as a charge against his countrymen¹¹: and the Rabbis have preserved a ridiculous story concern­ing the Greek language being forbidden to be taught, while Aristobulus was besieging Hyrcanus °. Whatever efforts may have been made in this way, it is certain that the Greek language came to be of very frequent use among the Jews. Lightfoot has shewn from the Talmuds, that the expression in Vernacula GrcecaP was common with the Rabbis: and no­thing can be stronger than the words of one of them*!, who says “ that the Jews wrote for the most part in the Greek “ language for the sake of the common people, who under the “ second temple were more skilled in that, than in their na- “ tive language.” He then confirms his remark by the ex­ample of Philo, and I shall give abundant evidence of the prevalence of Grecian manners with the Jews, when I speak of that writer. The reader may consult Buddeus, Hist. Eccles. V. T. tom. II. ad period. 2. VII. 17. Hist. Philo- soph. Ebr. p. 213. Brucker, vol. II. p. 703, 708. M. Leidek- kerus, de Statu Keipubl. Heb. IX. 3, 6. p. 628. et de Re- publ. Ebr. XII. 6. 7. p. 673. Spencerus, de Ritibus, &c. Hebrceorum a Gentium Usu desumptis. Le Clerc, Epist. Crit. IX. p. 250, 303.

¹ Ih. XII. j. I. In XIII. I. i. he speaks of those who had abandoned the customs of their country, and adopted *rav xotvov fitov.

¹ i Mac. i. 12,43. See also x. 14. 2 Mac. iv. 9,10,13,19. vi. 1, 6,7. viii. 1. xiv. 3. Also Brucker, vol. II. p. 703.

¹ Antiq. XV. 9. 15. XVI. 15. ^m Ih. XVI. 2. 3. " Cont. Apion. TI. 36.

“ It may be seen in the Dissertation of Munster ad Act. x. 12. in the The­saurus Philolog. (Crit. Sacr. p. 451.) See also Biscoe On the Acts, p. 81, &c.

P ’31V ttta. Lightfoot, Hora Heb. ad Mat. i. 23.

1 R. Abraham Harophe, MassechetSchekalim, c. 35. SeeMorus, deIJngua authentica Novi Testamenti in the Thesaurus Philolog. part. II. Crit. Sacr. p. 62. and the Dissertation of Langius, §. 42. in part. I. of the same Thesaurus, p. 641. Also Schwartzius, de opinatis Discipuloriem Christi Soloscismis, X. 16. p.57.

The most untenable position that was ever advanced con­cerning the Book of Wisdom is that of its having been written by Solomon^r. Others have ascribed it to Philo Senior, who lived about A. C. 155. and others, without the slightest foundation, to Philo Judaeus^s. The real author of the book will perhaps be never ascertained: but the opinion of those persons seems well founded, who fix the date of its composition at the end of the second century before Christ. That the writer, whoever he was, had blended the doctrines of Plato with those of the Jews, seems to have been proved by Brucker beyond all dispute¹, though it has been denied by Buddeus". I would only refer to the following passages,

I. 7. VII. 22, 25. VIII. 7, 20. IX. 8. XI. 17. XVI. 12.

XVIII. 15. It has been observed, that the nine first chap­ters have marks of being written by a different author from those which follow. See Houbigant, Prolegom. in Not. Crit. p. ccxvii.

NOTE 31.—See Lecture III. p. 73.

*H Yl'kartav jj <t>'iXaiv nhaTtevl^ei, Vel Platophilonizat

vel Philo platonizat, was a common proverb with Greek and Latin writers, and is to be found even in the Talmud*. Many of the Fathers have noticed the agreement: e.g. Jerom writes, “ What shall I say of Philo, whom the critics de- “ clare to be a second or a Jewish Platoy?” Eusebius also remarked of Philo, that he “ emulated particularly the school “ of Plato and Pythagoras².” He could hardly indeed have copied one of these philosophers, without also copying the other: for Plato, as I have observed, adopted many of the sentiments of Pythagoras; and the agreement between them

^r This was maintained principally hy N. H. Gundlingius, Observ. Halenses. vol. V. Obs. 13. The names of other persons may he seen in Mollerus, Uomo- nymoscopia, p. 226.

⁸ See Kortholtus, de Canone Scriptures, c. 13. p. 278. Kippiugius, ererc.

XIX. de sacra Scriptura, u, 130. Huetius, Dem. Evang. Prop. IV. p. 198. Du Pin. Prolegom. in 5.5.1.3. 15. Fabricius, Bibl.Gr.vol.il. p. 735. Buddeus, Hist. Eccl. V. T. vol. II. p. 967. Wolfius, Biblioth. Heb. Part. I. p. 973. ' *

* Vol. II. p. 694. and in a special Dissertation de Vestigiis Philosophies Alexandrines in Libro Sapienties, published in the Miscell. Berolin. vol. VI. p. 150. See also Matter Essai Historique sur VEcole d' Alexandrie, tom. II.

p. 141­

¹¹ Hist. Phil. Ebr. p. 80.

* Snidas. Photins Cod. 105. p. 277. Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. c. XI. vol.

II. p. 835. Isidor. Pelus. III. ep. 81. p. 287. ed. 1638. and the reference to the Talmud in note *i. p. 345.

y Epist. LXX. ad Magnum, vol. I. p, 426. ^z Hist. Eccl. II. 4.

was pointed out, not only by Diogenes Laertius¹, but by Aristotle himself^b. That Philo followed the philosophy of Pythagoras, has been noticed by other ecclesiastical writers®: and his own works, which have come down to us, enable us to confirm the observation. He quotes the Pythagoreans in one of his treatises'⁵, and in another he speaks of them as “ the most sacred band of the Pythagoreans⁶.” This will account for the many allusions which he makes to the mys­tical powers of certain numbers : and when speaking of the number 4, he shews at the same time his partiality to Pytha­goras and Plato, and his inclination to see an agreement between these philosophers and Moses- His words are* “ The number 4 is particularly distinguished by all the “ philosophers who believe in incorporeal and intellectual “substances, and especially by Moses^f:” he then quotes Levit. xix. 24. References will be given below to other pas­sages, in which he indulges in the same fanciful allusion to certain numbers g. Nor were these the only philosophers, whose systems appear to have been studied by Philo. He quotes Zeno*³ and Heraclitus* by name; and his agreement with the Stoical philosophy has been observed by his editor Mangey k. But Plato was the master, to whom he made the greatest surrender of his reason and his fancy ; and in following the speculations of that writer upon the nature and the operations of the Deity, he seems almost to have 5 forgotten, that his own scriptures proceeded from God him­self. With this remark I might have concluded this note, if among other paradoxes the Platonism of Philo had not been denied by certain writers. This was done particularly by Jonsius in his History of Philosophy^], and Buddeus was at first inclined to take the same view, but afterwards changed his opinion"¹. Jonsius was most satisfacte ily refuted by Fabricius¹¹; and Le Clerc⁰, and BruckerP,/have also shewn

_vj.:-

* III. 8. ^b Metaphys. 1.. 6.

« Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 15. p. 360. Sozomen. I. 12. It is rather strange that Valesins, in his note upon the latter passage, should express his igno­rance why Philo is called a Pythagorean. See Brucker, vol. I. p. 1088.

^a Leg. Allegor. I. vol. I. p. 46.

* TOV rav nlAayoqum U^oitutov Qizffov. Quod liber sit, &c. vol. II. p. 44j.

^f De Abrahamo, vol. II. p. 3.

8 De Mundi Opific. vol. I. p. 3. De Mose, III. vol. 11, p. i£2. De X. Ora- eulis, p. 183, 198. De special. Leg. p. 353.

^h De Num. Mntat. vol. I. p. 589. Quod liber sit, &c. vol. II. p. 453.

* Onis Rer. divin. Haeres. vol. I. p. 503. ^k Pralf. p. viii. ¹ 111. 4.

” Hist. Philosoph. Ebr. p. 216. Tbe attachment of Philo to Platonism

was denied by Vander Wayen, de voce xiya. p. 42.

ⁿ Bibl. Gr. IV. 4. vol. III. p. 105. and de Platonismo Philonis, Lips. 1693.

⁰ Epist. Crit. VIII. p. 256.

P Vol. II. p. 801. See also Mosheim in Cudworth, IV. 36. vol. I. p. 828.

beyond dispute that Philo was deeply imbued with the Platonic philosophy. I have already given some proofs of this when speaking of Philo’s belief in the eternity of matter; and I shall have occasion to produce some more instances when speaking of the Logos; and having made a collection of all the passages of Philo, which bear upon this point, I select the following as carrying most demonstration : “When “ God foresaw, as God, that there can be no good imita- “ tion of that which is good, without an example (napa- “ Ssiy/Aa), and that none of the objects of sense can be free “ from blemish, unless it is fashioned after an archetypal “ and intellectual Idea, when he wished to create this vi- “ sible world, he first formed that which is intellectual, “ that he might produce this corporeal world by using “ that which is incorporeal and most divine in its form, as “ an example; thus the younger is the likeness of the elder, “ and contains as many sensible objects as there are intel- “ lectual in the other <l.” He supports this notion of Ideas by referring to Gen. ii. 5. and asks, “ Does he not then “ manifestly represent incorporeal and intellectual Ideas, “ which are the seals by which the objects of sense are pro- “ duced^r ?” In the same manner he extracts from Gen. i. 26. the notion of “ the sensible man” being formed after the likeness of “an intellectual man^s.”

Philo’s notion concerning the stars exactly resembled that of Plato. Thus he says that before the creation of man “ there were certain natures endued with reason, some in- “ corporeal and intellectual, others not without bodies, such “ as the stars⁴.” In another place he says of the stars, that “philosophers have pronounced them to be living “ beings, and altogether intellectual^u.” He applies to them the term “ living beings” in other passages ^x: and he calls them “ the blessed company of the sensible Deities y,” an expression which no other than a Platonist would have used. It is perhaps needless after these instances to re­mark, that Philo quotes Plato in several places; and in ad­ducing a passage from the Thecetetus he says, that it is “ magnificently expressed by one of great note among those “ who are admired for their philosophy ^z.”

<i De Mundi Opific. vol. I. p. 4. Compare the Timaeus, p. 28. ^r lb. p. 30.

* lb. p. 32. Leg. Alleg. I. p. 49. 53. 61. II. p. 67. 69. III. p. 106. See Chalcidius, §. 54. p. 299. §. 276. p. 381. where Philo is quoted: and Beau- sobre, vol. II. p. 314.

» De Mundi Opific. p. 34. " De Plant. Noe. vol. I. p. 331.

* De Mundi Opific. p. 17. De Somniis, p. 641. De Gigant. p. 263, &c. &c.

y De Mundi Incorrupt, vol. II. p. 501. See Plato as quoted at p. 55. note ^b.

* De Profugis, vol. 1. p. 555.

Philo’s fondness for allegorizing the scriptures is another peculiar and striking feature in his works. His treatises upon the different books of Moses are a perpetual commen­tary of this kind: and though we cannot suppose him to have believed that all the facts recorded by Moses had no real and historical existence, some of his expressions might almost lead us to this conclusion. He explains the story of Paradise by an allegory¹, as he does the formation of Eve ^b: and when discoursing of Gen. iv. 14. he says, “ Let “ no one, by admitting the obvious meaning of the passage- “ without examination, ascribe his own foolish notions to “ the Law: but by considering what is enigmatically and “ covertly intended, let him discover the truth^c.” He be­gins his comment upon Gen. iv. 16. with saying, “ Let us “ now inquire, whether we ought to attach a more figure “ tive meaning to the words of Moses, since the obvious “ and apparent signification is very far from the truth ^d and he says afterwards, “ It remains therefore, when we “ consider that none of the passages before us are taken in “ their primary sense, that we should betake ourselves to “ allegory ^e.” In another place, after noticing the literal interpreters of a passage, he says, “ I find no fault with “ these, for perhaps they also have truth upon their side: “ but I would advise them not to stop here, but to proceed “ to the figurative explanations; considering that the letter “ of the scriptures is a kind of shadow of the substance, “ but the meaning contained within it is the real and sub- “ stantial truth ^f.” Notwithstanding these passages, I can­not persuade myself, as I observed above, that Philo did not believe the books of Moses to be historically true. He is generally looked upon as the first writer who adopted the allegorical method of interpretation; and we certainly can hardly conceive that any other person ever carried it to a greater length. But we are not sufficiently acquainted with the works of the learned Jews of that period to say when the system began: Josephus was not addicted to it; but Aristeas, who is quoted by Eusebius E, and Aristobulus, who lived before Philo wrote upon the subject¹¹, defends and explains the use of it. It was practised by the Essenes, as is shewn in the following note; and the Cabbala, as I

• De Mundi Opific. p. 37. Leg. Alleg. I. p. 52. De Plant. Noe. p. 334. ^b Leg. Alleg. II. p. 70. * Quod deterius, &c. vol. I. p. 221.

^d De Poster. Caim, p. 226. • lb. p. 227.

-^f De Gonfus. Ling. vol. I. p. 434. See De Joseph, vol. II. p. 46. De X. Oraculis, p. 180. e Prsep. Evang. VIII. 9. p. 370.

¹¹ Origen. cont. Cclsum, IV. 51- P- 542. S43-

have already observed, abounded with it: and every thing leads us to the conclusion, that it was in the philosophical schools of Alexandria, that the secondary or allegorical me­thod of interpreting scripture took its rise¹. The word, which Philo so often uses for the secondary or allegorical signification of a passage, vitovoia., is to be found in the same sense in the writings of Plato, who shews that the custom then existed of giving an allegorical meaning to what Ho­mer and the other poets said of the Gods ^k. That this me­thod of explaining the popular mythology prevailed in a great degree both in Greece and Egypt, may be seen in the quotations from Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, &c. made by Eusebius¹. The reader may consult Mosheim, Instit. MaJ. p. 230; and the practice of the later Platonists may be illustrated by what Marinus says of Proclus, Vita, c. 33. p. 84. ed. Fabricii. See also Mosheim, de turbata per Pla- tonicos Ecclesia, §. 21. Huetius, Origenian. II. Quasst. XIII. 3. p. 242.

NOTE 32.—See Lecture III. p. 75.

I have followed the generality of writers in considering the Therapeutae of Philo to have been a division of the Essenes: but Valesius^m is certainly right in his observa­tion, that Philo does not call them so; and there is much weight in the arguments which he advances to shew that they were not Essenes. Scaliger considered them to be so¹¹. I am not much concerned in deciding this question; and I only mean to remark, that the same state of things, which gave rise to the Therapeutae in Egypt, contributed also to the growth of Gnosticism. I cannot however see any rea­son for thinking that Philo meant to speak of the Thera-

Jjeutae as a Jewish sect, though many Jews may have be- onged to them, and the Jewish doctrines may have in­fluenced the whole body⁰. Josephus observes, that the Essenes resembled the Pythagoreans in the austerity of their lives P: and Brucker considers the remark to apply to the Therapeutae of Egypt, as well as to the Essenes of Pa­' See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cept. II. 33. not. ^f. k De Republic. II. p. 378. ¹ Praep. Evang. III.

“ Ad Eus. H. E. II. 17. It might be douhted, whether Josephus does not allude to the Therapeutae in De Bel. Jud. II. 8. 13. and, if so, be certainly makes them a branch of the Essenes. Valesius appears to have overlooked the passage.

” De Emend. Temp. VI. p. 538. ed. 1629.

⁰ Langius published a dissertation, de Esseeis, in 1721, in which he argued, that the Essenes were a Gentile, and not a Jewish sect. I mean the remark made above to apply only to the Therapeutae. p Antiq. XV. 10. 4.

lestineq. A modern writer¹ observes, “Quant aux Essd- “ niens et aux Therapeutes, le melange des pratiques ori- “ entales et occidentales, des opinions persanes et pythago- “ riciennes, qui caract^rise le philonisme, plus encore le “ gnosticisme, est si patent chez les uns et les autres, qu’on “ ne sauroit m£me le contester.” This is precisely my own opinion : and I would particularly notice the following pas­sage in Philo^s, who tells us, “ that when they read their “ sacred books, they study their peculiar philosophy, and “ have recourse to allegory: for they think that the literal “ signification is the symbol of a hidden meaning, which is “ discovered in a secondary sense. They have also writ- “ ings of people who lived long ago, who were the founders “ of the sect, and left many specimens of the allegorical “ kind, which are used as models.” This reminds us very strongly of the system pursued in the Alexandrian schools both by Jews and Platonists: and whoever reads the whole description given by Philo, will see that the Therapeutae had many points in common with those Gnostics, who led austere and ascetic lives. I might have been tempted to dwell longer upon this subject, if it had not been already exhausted by Brucker⁴; to whom I refer the reader for every information concerning the history of the Essenes. He will also furnish references to all the writers who pre­ceded him, and to those who have refuted the very extrava­gant hypothesis of the Essenes having been Christians. Fabricius has given references to several writers, who have treated of the Therapeutae, in his Salutaris Lux Evangelii, &c. c. III. p. 51: and I may add the Ecclesiastical History lately published by Neander^u, in which good reasons are advanced for not considering the Therapeutae as connected with the Essenes. I may mention also Prideaux, Connexion, Part II. 5. 5. Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Introd. II. 13. Instit. Maj. I. 2. 13. p. 79-

NOTE 33.—See Lecture III. p. 76.

Great disputes have arisen in the literary world concern­ing the origin of the Eclectic school of philosophy; and some writers have placed Potamo, who is said to be the founder of it, in the reign of Augustus, and others at the end of the second century. It is sufficient to observe, that the name of Potamo is not mentioned by any author earlier

i Vol. II. p. 764.777.

' Matter, Hist, du Gnosticisme, I. 1. vol. I. p. 91.

• Pag. 475. See also p. 483. • Vol. II. p. 759.

“ Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion, part I. p. 79.

than Diogenes Laertius, who flourished in the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Diogenes, after mention­ing all the different schools, concludes with saying, “ And “ a short time ago (vpa oxiyav) a kind of eclectic sect was “ introduced by Potamo of Alexandria, who selected the “ points which pleased him out of each of the sects Against this is brought the testimony of Suidas, who speaks of Potamo as having lived “ before and after the reign of “ Augustusand some persons have tried to torture the words of Diogenes, so as to make them bear this meaning. But the words %pb oAiyou cannot, by any process of criti­cism, be made to extend over a century and a half; and the silence of all former writers concerning Potamo is in my opinion decisive. I should therefore agree with Brucker in deciding that Potamo lived toward the end of the second century: and the reader, who wishes to follow up this ques­tion, will find in Brucker the names of all the writers who have advocated each hypothesis Y. We must not however imagine that the eclectic philosophy did not take its rise till the end of the second century. I have perhaps said enough to shew, that for some time before the commence­ment of our era opinions had been verging towards eclecti­cism. Plato himself was indeed in some measure an eclectic philosopher: and his successors the Academics were still more so. But the watchword was given to this party, when the Ptolemys threw open their court and their schools to the philosophers of every sect and country. It was then that the eclectic philosophy took its rise ^z: but it does not appear that it was formed into any definite and particular school, nor was one person more than another distinguished as,a leader. The nature of the case required it to be so: for what rules and regulations could be prescribed for a system, the character and essence of which was to be always borrowing from every system, and consequently to be ever on the change ? To speak correctly, there was no school of eclectic philosophy: but philosophers of all schools were eclectics, and formed independent schemes for themselves. This has not perhaps been sufficiently observed; and it is a mistake to quote Diogenes Laertius as saying, that the ec­lectic philosophy took its rise a little before his own day.

^s Prooem. p. 5.

^v Vol. II. p. 193. I would add Glaeckner, de Potamonis Mexandrini Phi­losophic, eclectica, and Matter, Essai sur VEcole (V Alexandria₇ tom. 1. p. 296.

* Brucker, p. 189. 202-3. Menedemus, who founded a school in his native city of Eretria, and who was received at Alexandria hy Ptolemy Soter, was in fact an eclectic. See Diog. Laert. II. 125.

He only says, that Potamo introduced a kind of eclectic philosophy of his 3wn ^a: and Potamo’s system was probably as fixed and definite as that of any of the philosophers from whom he borrowed it. As soon as it was founded, it ceased to be eclectic; and I should therefore quote Diogenes as speaking, not of the eclectic philosophy in general, but of ifche particular system of Potamo; and though we might say, that there had been for a long time before an eclectic spirit of philosophizing, we could not say that there had been any definite eclectic school. It was in these princi­ples, that Philo was brought up; and Mosheim justly characterizes his doctrines as a compound of the Egyptian, Platonic, and Mosaic principles'¹. Plutarch may also be looked upon as an eclectic: and so may all the later Pla- tonists in a greater or less degree : and I cannot but agree with Brucker⁰ in thinking, that though many other sys­tems contributed their share, yet Platonism was the princi­pal ingredient, or rather the basis upon which the other parts were erected. Mangey, the editor of Philo, appears to have thought otherwise; and would persuade us, that the Platonic philosophy had become unpopular in the days of Philo, and was scarcely heard of in the schools of Athens or Alexandria*¹. It seems strange, that such a doctrine should be held, while we have the works of Cicero to ap­peal to: and the quotation, which is brought from Seneca, certainly does not prove the point for which it is adduced. Seneca observes, “ Itaque tot familiae philosophorum sine “ successore deficient. Academici et veteres et minores “ nullum antistitem reliquerunt^e.” But these words only shew, that at that time there was no Platonist of eminence, nor indeed any decided leader of any definite school: and whoever consults the whole passage, will see that it equally asserts the decay of every system of philosophy.

The School of Plato, or the Academy, is generally said to have given rise to five different sects, the Old, the Mid­dle, and the New Academy, to which have been added

* Mosheim makes the mistake of saying, that Potamo is called the founder of the eclectic school: and he places him, erroneously as I conceive, in the time of Augustus. De turbataper Platonicos Ecclesia, §. 3.

^b De rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 35. not.See also the preface to the edition of Philo’s works printed at Geneva in 1613.

' Vol. II. p. 361.

^d Prasf. p. ix. Baltns says the same iu his Defense des Saints Peres, I. 11. p. 68, but his arguments only prove that genuine Platonism was almost ex­tinct. Cleopatra appears to have patronised the Platonic philosophy, and to have been assisted in her studies by Philostratus. (Compare Philostrat. Vit. Sophist. I. 5. p. 486. and Plutarch. Vit. Anton, p. 929. A.)

« Natural Quaest. VII. 32.

A a

a fourth and a fifth. The Old Academy, which professed to preserve the doctrines of Plato, as he himself had deli­vered them, was maintained after his death by Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo, Crates, and Crantor: but according to Eusebius^f, these persons began, even immediately upon the death of Plato, to distort his doctrines and mix them up with new ones. Plato died B. C. 347, and upon the death of Crantor, Arcesilaus founded the second or middle Academy, about the year 270 B.C. or perhaps earlierS: and he also is said by Eusebius to have introduced fresh innovations, by teaching that assent was always to be with­held, and that there was no evidence of the senses. He was at first intimately acquainted with Zeno, who studied every system, though he afterwards violently opposed him; and from his own fondness for adopting different opinions, he was described as

Trpotjfts Ylkurcuv, omQev Tluppcov, f/.sinro; AidSoopog.

His followers were Lacydes, Evander, and Egesinus. We cannot fix the precise period at which the middle Academy terminated: but the third or new Academy was founded by Carneades, who died about the year 180 B. C. at the age of 85: and according to the authority already quoted¹¹, he contributed still more to debase and corrupt the cha­racter of Plato’s philosophy by the subtlety of his reason­ing and the boldness of his sophisms. Carneades had only one successor, Clitomachus, who presided in his school for 30 years, and died about 150 B. C. when Philo founded a new school, which has been called the fourth division of the Academy. Others however have supposed Philo to have succeeded Clitomachus at a later period : and this opinion must be correct, if Cicero attended Philo at Rome in the year 88. Philo was the master of Antiochus, who again introduced a new division of the Academy, which has been called the fifth. This was in the year 78 B. C.; so that from the death of Plato to the succession of AntiochuSj there is a period of 269 years; and with Antiochus the re­gular successors of Plato may be said to have terminated. These divisions and subdivisions only confirm what was said above, that the eclectic system was rapidly gaining

^f Prsep. Evang. XIV. 4. p. 726. The whole of this passage is well worth reading: and in c. 5 he quotes Numenius, a Platonist of the second century, who says that the Academics and Stoics were more, given to quarrel among themselves than any other sect. He thinks that Plato was the cause of this hy his own obscurity.

g See Clinton, Fasti Hcllenici, p. 367.

i> Numenius apud Eus. XIV. 8. p. 737.

ground; and if Antiochus has been called by some writers the last of the Platonists, it would be equally correct to call him the first of the Eclectics. His object seems to have been to reconcile all sects with the Academy; and Cicero says of him “ that though he was called an Academic, he “ was, with a few alterations, a genuine Stoic¹.” Whoever wishes to investigate these different changes in the school of Plato, will find Cicero^k, and Sextus Empiricus¹, to be the most valuable of ancient authorities; and the labour of all references may perhaps be superseded by the work of Brucker^m. The eclectic philosophy had previously been illustrated by Olearius" ana Huetius⁰.

From the period mentioned above, to the beginning of the third century, we hear of several Platonists, such as Thrasyllus, Theon, Alcinous, Favorinus, Taurus, Apuleius, Atticus, Numenius, and Maximus Tyrius; but the Platonic philosophy is generally said to have been revived by Am- monius, surnamed Saccas. He was educated in Christianity at Alexandria, and was a disciple of Clement P or his mas­ter Pantaenus: but he is thought by some to have after­wards fallen into heathenism, and is looked upon as the founder of the later Platonists. He died A. D. 243, and left *no works behind him¹!. The true statement seems to be, that Ammonius was the first philosopher, who blended the Christian doctrines with those of Plato : and from this time Christianity exercised an influence directly or indirectly upon all the heathen philosophers. They could no longer shut their eyes to the sect, which was so rapidly increasing, and they secretly altered many of Plato’s doctrines, so as to give them an apparent agreement with those of the Gospel.

The most distinguished heathen disciple of Ammonius was Plotinus, whose life has been written by Porphyry. He was born A. D. 205, and died in 270^r. One only of his works has come down to Us, entitled Enneades.

* Acad. Quaest. iv.43, 45. So also Sext. Empiric, p. 62. ed. 1718. Accord­ing to Numenius, he introduced a multitude of strange doctrines into the AcademyEus. Prop. Evang. XIV. 9. p. 739.

^k Acad. Quaest. ¹ Pyrrbun. Hypotypos. c. 33. p. 56.

^m Vol. I. p. 727, &c. Also Matter, Essai Hist, sur I’Ecole £ Alexandrie, tom. II. p. 128. 235. 249.

“ Diss. de Philosopb. Eclect.

⁰ Traits de la foiblesse de l’esprit hnmain. II. 10.

P A remarkable expression of Clement concerning the fnrinatinn of an eclectic philosophy from the Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean, and Aristotelic, may be seen in his Strom. I. 7* p< 338.

9 See Cave. Mosheim, De turbata per Platonicos Ecclesia, et De'rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 27. Brucker, vol. II. p. 205.361. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. IV. p. 159­’ See Brucker, vol. II. p. 217. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. IV. 26. vol.IV. p. 88. a a 2

Plotinus was the master of Amelius and Porphyry. Amelius became his pupil in the year 246, and continued with him till his death. None of his writings remain, ex­cept some fragments preserved by Eusebius^s. The fame of Porphyry has surpassed that of his master, and he was one of the most formidable opponents, who ever wrote against Christianity. He became a disciple of Plotinus in the year 264, and died in 304^l. His works, which have come down to us, are named by Fabricius, p. 182: to which list I may add a work discovered and published in 1816 by Angelo Maio, being a letter to his wife Marcella, and also a fragment of a poem in ten books, entitled nepl t% ex Aoy/cov <pjXocro<p/a;.

Porphyry was succeeded by Iamblichus, who witnessed the fatal blow which was given to heathenism by the con­version of Constantine, and died in 333^u. He followed his master in writing a life of Pythagoras, which has come down to us, as also Sermones Protreptici, some fragments de mathcmatica communi disciplina, Commentarius in In­stitution es arithmeticas Nicomachi Geraseni, and de myste- riis JEgyptiorum.

Contemporary with Porphyry was Chalcidius, of wjiom I have already spoken at p. 312> where I have observed, that it is doubtful whether he were a Christian or no, and that he has left a Commentary upon the Timseus of Plato^x.

The profession of any system of heathenism was now at­tended with some danger; and except during the short reign of Julian, Platonism gradually sank in importance, and its followers were diminished. We can hardly refuse to believe the testimony of Eusebius, who says that the fol­lowers of Plato had always been quarrelling among them­selves, and continued to do so in his day, when very few of them were lefty. Amopg the successors of Iamblichus, we find the names of JEdesius, Eustathius, Eusebius Myndius, Maximus Ephesius, Priscus, Chrysanthus, Eunapius, Hie­rocles, who were all distinguished in the eclectic scnool; but the fame of Proclus eclipsed them all, who was born in the year 412, and died in 485^z. When at the age' of 28, he wrote a commentary upon the Timseus of Plato, which has come down to us, as have several other works.

* Brucker, vol. II. p. 233.

¹ lb. p. 236. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. IV. 27. vol. IV. p. 181.

^u Brucker, ib. p. 260. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. IV. 28. vol. IV. p. 282.

* Brucker, ib. vol. III. p. 472. Cave.

y Praip. Evang. XIV. 4, p. 726.

¹ Brucker, vol. II. p. 319. Fabricius, V. 26. vol. VIII. p. 455.

He was succeeded in his philosophical chair at Athens by Marinus, who did not hold it long, and some mathema­tical works are extant, which have been ascribed to him ^a. He also wrote the life of his master Proclus.

Hegias, Isidorus, and Zenodotus, are mentioned as suc­cessors of Proclus; and I ought perhaps to name Synesius among the Platonic philosophers of the fifth century, though he was ordained Bishop of Ptolemais He was in some points a believer in Christianity, but in others a Platonist, and flourished about the year 410. Several of his works are extant^b. None of the later followers of Plato were more celebrated than Damascius, who flourished about the year 540, and has left some writings. After his day the different systems of heathen philosophy still boasted some followers; but they were only the ineffectual struggles of an expiring cause; and though the errors of Platonism may have in­fected some believers in Christianity long after the sixth century, yet the later Platonists may be said to have ceased as a distinct body about that period. Even in the fifth century a philosopher complained, that the glory of the Alexandrian and Athenian Schools was departed ^c: and at the beginning of the sixth, Justinian ordered all persons to embrace Christianity, or quit their country. The lives of most of the persons, mentioned in this hasty sketch, are given by Eunapius: and of modern writers, who have treated of the later Platonists, beside Brucker and Fabricius, to whom I have so constantly referred, I would mention Olea- rius, de Secta Eclectica, which work may he seen at the end of Stanley’s History of Philosophy: Huetius, Traite de la Jmblesse de VEsprit humain, ii. 10: and Heuman- nus, Act. Philos. I would also refer to a very learned and useful work, written by Matter, entitled, Essai historique sur VEcnle d'Aletccmdrie, tom ii. p. 137, 253: and the history of the Christian School of Alexandria is illustrated by Corringius, de Antiquitat. Academicis, diss. i. 29. p. 27. Schmidius, in the work of Hyperius de Catechesi: Mo­sheim, de rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 25. &c. Instit. Maj. p. 245. There is also a Dissertation of Heyne de genio sceculi Ptolemceorum, in the first volume of his Opus- cula, (Gotting. 1786.) p. 76, which is full of information concerning the writers of the Alexandrian School.

» Brucker, vol. II. p. 337. Fabricius, vol. VIII. p. 463.

" Brucker, vol. III. p. 507. Fabricius, vol. VIII. p. 221. Le Clerc, Bibl. Chois. VIII. p. 309. Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History. vol. IV. p. 243. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 565.

^c Theophrastus, apud JEn. Gazaeura, de Immortal. Animas, p. J, 8. ed. 1655.

a a 3

Justin Martyr says of Plato and Aristotle, “ that they “ professed to have learnt the perfect and true notion of “ God^dand he mentions Plato among those, “ who “ thought themselves able by their own human wisdom to “ know (yvcui/ai) for certain the things that are in heaven^e.” He tells us also, that while he was himself studying Pla­tonism, “ he was foolish enough to hope that he should “ arrive at the sight (xcctw!/arflai) of God: for this is the “end of Plato’s philosophy^fand observing upon the contradictions in the different systems, he says, “ They do “ not seem to have arrived at certainty of science or at “ knowledge (yy^sriv) which cannot be refuted S.” There are perhaps some expressions in the works of Plato, which shew, that his followers considered knowledge to be a term, which ought to be very rarely applied, and that they limited it to the apprehension of eternal and immu­table truths, such as the nature of the Deity, the first Cause, &c.: but I can see no evidence, that Plato attributed it ex­clusive ' ¹ ’ ¹¹ that yvc/jcri$ had at first a

other words of the same import¹¹. Thus Plato speaks of his own hearers soon discovering “ that there was a great “ abundance of people who thought that they knew (eldsvai) “ something, but who knew little or nothing*:” and when he speaks of the highest kind of knowledge, he says that he means that “ which is concerned with what really exists^k.” In another place he says, “ that we cannot know (yvuimi) “ any thing clearly, so long as we are united to the body

“ and when we are freed from the foolishness of the

“ body, it is probable, that we shall know (yvcocro/xEo-fla) “ every thing clearly of ourselves¹.” The term yvmr<j is frequently used in the following passage, and it appears to be employed in a particular sense: “ It seems, that know- “ ledge has no existence, if all things change, and do not “ continue: for if knowledge itself does not cease to be

<> Cohort. 5. p. 10. ^c lb. 7. p, 12. ^f Dial, cum Tryph. 2. p. 104.

s Apol. II. 13. p. 97.

¹¹ Numenius, a distinguished Platonist of the second century, speaks of Plato perceiving, “ that the Creator (Demiurgus) alone was known by men, “ but that the first Mind, as it is called, was altogether unknown.” This however is more the language of a Gnostic, than of Plato himself. For Plato's vise of the term yiSms see Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. §. 10. p. 4.

§. 2S-P-'S- _

‘ Apol. Socr. p. 23.

^k Teiv iv reu a iffmv ov 0VTU5 L'Xtzrr,u-/,^ oZttu\>. Phsedr. p. 247.

¹ Phaedo. p. 66-7.

more

meaning than or

“ knowledge, knowledge would continue for ever, and “ would be really knowledge. But if knowledge itself “ fall away, it would at the same time pass into another “ kind of knowledge, and would not be knowledge™ Again, “ I conceive that it is agreed by all persons, who “ Mve the smallest portion of sense, that by far the truest “ knowledge is that which is employed about what really “ exists, and what is by nature always essentially the “ same¹¹.” We also find the adjective yveoimxb;, as when we read of yveocrrixij tor yjcutrriKv] enurrrnii.ii, expressions which are applied to an art or science which is not practical, but speculative, as in the case of what are called abstract sciences⁰: but I find no instance in Plato of yvuitrTixbs being applied exclusively to the supporter of any particular system. We may see, however, from the examples here adduced, that it was easy for the term to acquire this mean­ing : and if knowledge was restricted to the apprehension of the highest truths, it was a natural process that some parti­cular sect should arrogate to itself this exclusive title. I conceive this process to have taken place in the schools of Alexandria: but I cannot see much force in the instances, which have been adduced from the Septuagint, as shewing that yvwtn; and yi/eocrrijf were used in a peculiar sense at the time of that translation P. Neither have I observed any passages in Philo Judaeus upon which much stress can be laid. He speaks of the disagreement between those “ who “ think nothing comprehensible, and those who say that “ many things are known (ympi^e<r$at'l:”) and of those “ who have known (eymx&rn) how to live as God directs, “ and so as to please the one existing Being^r.” He also says, that “ the soul which honours that Being, ought for “ that Being’s sake not to honour Him without reason and “ without knowledge (uvem<rrrip.ovct);,) but with knowledge “ (sTrio-T^jj) and reason^s.” “ But we who are followers and

^m Cratylus, p. 440.

“ Phileb. p. 58. So we find truTrnfin defined, to ov yvuvm as e%si. Republ. V. p. 4^8. ^and yyaliris to be tov as) ovtos, u\\’ ov tov ttotz ti ytyvopfaov xui avroWv- fiivov. Republ. VII. p. 5²7­⁶ See Politic, p. 259, 260. v

v Matter, in Ms Histoire du Gnosticisme, (vol. I. p. 118.) refers to 1 Sam. ii. 3 : but yvimm zvpos seems only to mean a God of knowledge, as in our version : he refers also to Isai. xlvii. 10. but yvSo’is is found only in the ver­sion of Symmachus, which was made about 200 yeara after Christ. Michaelis has discovered several traces of Gnosticism in the LXX. (Diss. de indiciis philosophies Gnosticte temp. LXX. in Syntagm. Comment. Goetting. 1767. part. II. p. 249.) and Ernesti has gone equally into the other extreme. (Exeg. Bibl. VIII. p. 721.)

1 Quis rer. divin. hxres. vol. I. p. 508.

^r De Animal. Sacrif. vol. II. p. 240. ' lb. p. 242.

A a 4

“ disciple^ of the prophet Moses, will not give up the in- “ quiry after God (roD ovrog), considering that the know- “ ledge of Him is the great end of Happiness*.”

Apollonius of Tyana, among other advantages which were to come from an acquaintance with the Pythagorean philo­sophy, says that it would give yvUmv Qeaiv ou So'fai/’¹. These instances may perhaps shew that the Alexandrian philoso­phers followed Plato in applying knowledge to the appre­hension of eternal truths; but they do not afford any evi­dence of what was afterwards called Gnosticism being then in existence: and, upon the whole, there is every reason to conclude, that the name of Gnostic did not grow into com­mon use till the second century; though the term know­ledge had for a long time borne a peculiar sense, and was assumed as a distinction by the holders of particular opinions.

There is another question, whether the Gnostics are to be considered as constituting a distinct heresy, or whether many heretics, who held very different sentiments, were called by this common and generic name. They are treated as a separate sect by Epiphanius*, Augustiny, Prasdestina- tus, and others: but the earlier Fathers evidently under­stood the name to apply to different bodies of men, who had certain opinions in common concerning God, the Demi- urgus, the iEons, Jesus Christ, &c. &c. Epiphanius him­self asserts, that there were ten different brancnes of Gnos­tics² : and it was because these numerous sects partly differed and partly agreed with each other, that we find some writers deriving the Gnostics from Simon Magus, some from Nicolaus, and some from Basilides, &c^a. I can­not but agree with Buddeus*¹ in thinking that the earlier Fathers were right, and that Gnostic was a generic, and not a specific term. Langius also asserts⁰, (and with this sentiment I entirely coincide,) “ that the name of Gnostic “ was genera], and applied to all those who used yvtoins,

¹ De Sacrif. vol. II. p. 264. ^u Epist- LII- p. 398.

* Hser. XXVI. p. 82. He supposed them to have had their origin in the Pontificate of AnicetuS, or in the middle of the second century. (Hter. XXVII. 6. p. 108.) But it is plain that he was speakiug of Gnosticism, when it had assumed a regular and systematic form. In another place, (Hter. XXI. 4. p. 58.) he deduces the Gnostics from Simon Magus.

y De Hseres. c. VI. ¹ Haer. XXXI. t. p. 163.

» See Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. §. 31. p. t8. Colbergius, de Oi-ig. et Prog. Hares. II. 2. p. 51.

b Eccles. Apost. p. 579, 580. See also Ittigius, de Hteresiarchis, II. 9. p. 162.

« Diss. ad 1 Tim. I. 3. p. 647. The same opinion is expressed hy Ittigius, de Hteresiarch. II. 9. 4- p- 165. Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hter. II. 1. p. 48. 50.

“ i. e. the absurdities of Plato, as a cloak to their theology.

“ I call all those Gnostics who audaciously mixed

“ up the knowledge rav Svtcov, i. e. the Platonic and Pytha- “ gorean philosophy, with the Old Testament, or with the “ Gospel.” *

Whoever wishes for more information concerning yvxa-ig and Gnostics, may consult Thomasius, Origines Hist. Ec- cles. et Philos. §. 11. 21. p. 25. Schediasm. Histor. §. 7. p. 2, &c. Ittigius, H<p.resiarchis. II. 9- Brucker, vol.

II. p. 639. Horn. Biblische Gnosis, p. 85. Matter^ His- toire du Gnosticisme. Hammond, Dissertatio prot nialis ad Episeopatus Jura. Croius, Specimen Conjecturarum ad loca qucedam Origenis. Consalvus Poncius, inter epi- stolas Latinii, vol. I. part. 2. p. 344. Mosheim, Ins tit. Maj. p. 333, &c. Hartmannus, de Rebus Christianorum sub Apostolis. c. 22. p. 570.

NOTE 35.—See Lecture III. p. 79.

I need only refer to the following passages, in which ■yvuiinf is usea for a knowledge of true religion, or of the gospel: Rom. xv. 14. 1 Cor. i. 5 : viii. 7. xiii. 2. 2 Cor. x. 5. Phil. iii. 8. 2 Pet. iii. 18. It has been thought by some commentators that tjie Word of Knowledge in 1 Cor. xii. 8. was an extraordinary ability to understand and ex­plain the Old Testament, and was nearly the same with prophecy^d. There is no reason therefore why yvuxrt; and yyuicmxbc might not have been used from the first in a good sense: and in the Epistle of Clement, which was certainly written before the end of the first century, we may see in­stances of yvcbcrt; being used for a perfect knowledge of the gospel^e. In the same manner Irenaeus says, that “ true “ knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the original “ form of the church established throughout the world^f.” We also find in a fragment ascribed to Irenaeus, “ True “ knowledge is that understanding which is according to “ Christ, which Paul calls the Wisdom of God hidden in a “ mystery S.” It does not appear, however, that the Fathers applied the term Gno&tic, i. e. the mam of knowledge, to real Christians, till the time of Clement of Alexandria; and it was probably the abuse and false assumption of the name

^d See Lord Barrington’s Essays, 1.4. vol. I. p. 27. II. 6. vol. II. p. 45.

' C. 1. p. 147. c. 36. p. 168. c. 40. p. 170. c. 41. p. 171. '

^f IV. 33. 8. p. 272.

s This is the beginning of the first fragment published by Pfaffius from a MS. at Turin, and inserted at the end of the reprint of Massuet’s edition, Venice, 1734. There is an evident allusion in the fragment to the Gnostics: but I cannot help feeling strong suspicions that Irenaeus was not the author.

which led him to attach a new meaning to it, and to ascribe to the true Christian a kind of abstract and mystical re­ligion, which some persons may think enthusiastic and un­attainable. Thus, after shewing that knowledge and under­standing are spoken of in the gospel, he says, “ The man “ of knowledge (ywoo-rixoj) is he who understands and sees “ clearly. His work is not the abstaining from evil; for “ this is a step toward the greatest advancement; nor yet “ to do good, from motives of fear .... or through hope “ of the promised reward .... but to do good for sake of “ charity, is alone the object of the man of knowledge¹¹.” In another place, “ He is properly the man of knowledge, “ who is experienced in wisdom of every kind¹.” After quoting Matt. v. 48. he observes, “ As we speak of a per- “ feet physician, and a perfect philosopher, so may we also “ of a perfect Gnostic^k.” Many other passages might be quoted, which shew the opinion of Clement upon this sub­ject : but he is equally explicit in characterizing the spuri­ous Gnostics, and in shewing that he meant the one portrait to be the opposite of the other. Thus he says, “ I am “ astonished how some presume to call themselves perfect “ and Gnostics, thinking higher of themselves than of the “ apostles, puffed up and boasting¹.” In another place, after having quoted from one of their writings, he adds, “ Such also are the sentiments of Prodicus and his follow- “ ers, who falsely call themselves Gnostics: they say, that “ they are by nature sons of the supreme God, &c. &c^m.” For the term Gnostic, as applied by Clement to true Christians, see Thomasius, Schediasm. Historic. §. 43. p. 39.

NOTE 36.—See Lecture III. p. 79.

I need not quote passages to shew that Plato and Aristo­tle attached a very high and philosophical sense to the term crof ia, Wisdom. Plato appears to have been uncertain whe­ther Wisdom and Knowledge were the same": but it is plain that Wisdom soon came to be used for the knowledge which is obtained in the highest and snblimest departments of philosophy. Philo Judaeus may inform us what sense was attached to the term in the schools of Alexandria: thus

^b Strom. TV. 22. p. 625. ' lb. I. 13. p. 350. ^k Ib.VII. 14. 886.

¹ Paed. I. 6. p. 128, 129. Irenaeus says of the Gnostics, that “ they pro- “ fessed to he wiser not only than the Presbyters, but even than the apostles, “ and to have discovered the genuine truth.” III. 2. 2. p. ij$.

"> Strom. III. 4. p. 525. Valentinus said that the Christians had faith, hut that his own followers had knowledge. Ib. II. 3. p. 433.

" Theaet. p. 145.

he says, “ What purifies the mind, is Wisdom, and the doc- “ trines of Wisdom, which lead to the contemplation of the “ world and the things therein⁰.” Again, “ Wisdom is the “ light of the mind, as on the contrary Folly is the darkness “ of the mind: for as perceptible light to the eye, so is “ knowledge (emorq/Mg^ to the reason, for the contemplation “ of incorporeal and intellectual objectsP.” But the most remarkable passage is the following : “ It is neither lawful “ nor possible for any person to form a judgment of Wis- “ dom, (which is older not only than my own formation, “ but than that of the whole world,) except God, and those “ who love it sincerely and purely and genuinely 1.” I have called this the most remarkable passage, because it speaks of Wisdom being “ older than the worldin which ex­pression there seems an evident allusion to Prov. viii. 22, 23. where Wisdom says, The Lord possessed me in the begvn- ning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everltisting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was, Qc. Sfc. I have said, that this passage was always taken by the Fathers in a personal sense, and applied by them to the se­cond or third Person of the Trinity^r. Epiphanius is, I be­lieve, the earliest writer who remarks that it is not quoted in the New Testament as referring to Christa The obser­vation is perfectly just: and yet when St. Paul says of Christ that he is the power of God and the Wisdom of God¹, and that he is made umto us Wisdom^u, it is not perhaps too fanciful to suppose that he was led to this expression by the term Wisdom having been already used in a personal sense. Aristobulus, a Jewish writer who lived in the time of Pto­lemy Philometor, is quoted by Eusebius^x as agreeing with Philo in making Wisdom a cause of the Creation, and as referring to the passage in the book of Proverbs, Josephus also shews that Wisdom had acquired a technical sense with his countrymen, when he says of the Sadducees, “ that they “ paid no regard to any thing except the Law, and as to “ the teachers of Wisdom, as they term it, they reckon it a

* De Sacrif. vol. II. p. 253. p Ib. p. 255.

9 De Human, p. 385. A similar allusion to Prov. viii. 22- is made de Ebrir etate, vol. I. p. 362.

^r I may refer to my Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, No. 28; to Waterland, vol. II. p. J44, 145; and to Waltherus, Quadragena Miscell. Theolog. p. 186. See also Eus. Demonst. Evang. V. 1. p. 211.

■ Haer. LXIX. 20, 21. 24. vol. I. p. 743.745. 748. Ancor. 42, 43. vol. II. p. 48.

* 1 Cor. i. 24. ■» lb. 30.

* Praep. Evang. VII. 14. p. 324. XIII. 12. p. 667. The history of this writer is, however, very doubtful. See Brucker, vol. II. p. 698. Valcknaer, de dristobulo Judao.

“ virtue to dispute with themyupon which Jortin re­marks, “ 2oip/« here is Rabbinical, Pharisaical, Traditionary “ Wisdom, and its Professors and Doctors were called 2opo), “ Chachams. Wisdom is the doctrine of the Jewish schools “ and synagogues².” It is perhaps worthy of remark, that where St. Luke represents our Saviour as saying, Therefore also said the Wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, Sj-c.³- St. Matthew makes him say, Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, <SfC.^h The two passages are evidently parallel: and the prophecy, which in the one place our Saviour delivers in his own person, in the other he ascribes to the Wisdom of God. There seems therefore strong reason to conclude, that the Jews were in the habit of using Wisdom in a personal sense : and this may explain why the Gnostics made Sophia one of their /Eons, as I nave shewn from Irenaeus at p. 339. The Wisdom, which is condemned by St. James, iii. 13—8. may have been the pretended Wisdom of the Gnostics. The passage is referred to the Valentinians by Epiphanius, Har. XXXI. 34. p. 206.

NOTE 37.—See Lecture III. p. 80.

This text is alluded to and applied to the Gnostics by Irenaeus, 1.11.1. p. 53. II. 14. 7. p. 135. IV. 41.4. p. 289. V. praef. and by Clement of Alexandria, who observes, “As “ pride and self-conceit make philosophy suspected, so does “ false knowledge, and that which bears the same name, “ make true knowledge suspected: concerning which the “ apostle says, O Timothy, &c. The heretics, finding them- “ selves convicted by this passage, reject the Epistles to “ Timothy⁰,” Strom. II. 11. p. 457. by Origen, c. Cels.

III. 11. p. 454. In Mat. XII. 12. p. 528. by Epiphanius, Har. XXIII. 2. p. 63. XXXV. 2. p. 260. by Theodoret. ad 1. (who refers it to the Simonians, as does Nicetas Cho- niates, Thes. Orthod. c. 1.) by Chrysostom, Horn. XVIII. in 1 Tim. vol. XI. p. 655. by Theophylact, who refers it to the Nicolaitans; and the Nicolaitans were Gnostics. Of modern writers, who have referred this passage to the Gnostics, I may cite Camerarius, Ant. Fayus, Grotius, Hammond, &c. See Thomasius, Schediasm Hist. §. 28, 29. p. 16,17. §. 33. p. 21. A different notion was held by Le Clerc, Wolfius, and Tittman.

y Antiq. XVIII. i. 4. ² Remarks on Eccles. Hist. vol. II. p.341.

» xi. 49. ^b xxiii. 34.

^c Origen speaks of some persons daring to reject the Epistle to Timothy. In Mat. vol. III. p. 916. so also Jerom, in Epist. ad Tit. praef. vol. VII. p. 685.

I do not dwell upon the fact, that Simon Magus was actually baptized^ and consequently that at one period at least he was a Christian. But it is also plain, that this high privilege was subsequently lost, and I will therefore grant, that Simon is not to be looked upon as a Christian. This,, as I have shewn, was expressly stated by the Fathers: and the following passages are adduced, to prove still further, that these writers did not mean to make Simon the founder of any Christian sect, but of those heretics, who mixed up Christianity with their false philosophy, and so pretended to be Christians.

The earliest testimony, which we have of these false Christians after the time of the apostles, is that of Ignatius, who writing to. the Christians at Ephesus about the year 116, praises them for not being seduced by false teachers, “ who were accustomed to carry about the name [of Christ “ tians] with wicked deceit, but who performed works un- “ worthy of God^e.” Justin Martyr, in answer to what had been said of Christians being convicted of evil practices, observes, “ In the same manner that among the Greeks, “ those who hold any particular opinions, are called by the “ one common name of philosophy, although their opinions “ are different; so also with those who are not Greeks, but, “ who are or appear to be wise, there is one common naiw* “ given to them; for all are called Christians: and there- “ fore we request, that the actiorts of all those, who are. “ accused, should be examined, that the person convicted “ may be punished as a criminal, and not as a Christian^f.” In the same manner, he says, “ Let those, who are found “ not to live as Christ taught, be acknowledged not to be “ Christians, although they utter with; their mouths the “ doctrines of Christ S.” After having made express men­tion of Simon and his followers, he says, “ All who took “ their origin from these persons, are called Christians, in “ the same manner as those, who do not agree with phi- “ losophers in holding the same doctrines, bear the common “ name of philosophy^h.” “ I, who have learnt that a “ wicked covering is thrown over the holy doctrines of the “ Christians by evil daemons, with a view to lead other

^d Acts viii. 13. Mosheim has some observations upon this point in his Diss. de uno Simone Mago, 16. See also Siricius, Simone Mago, Disq. I. Thes. 17. p. 18. Augustin founds an argument upon the fact of Simon being baptized, de Baptismo cont. Donat. VI. 19. vol. IX. p. 169.

» C. 7. ^f Apol. I. 7. p. 47. s lb. 16. p. 53. ^h lb. z6. p. 59.

“ men astray, have laughed at those who assume this false “ title, and at their pretence, and at the opinion commonly “ entertained'.” When Trypho objected, “ that he had “ heard of many, who professed to acknowledge Jesus, and “ who were called Christians, and yet ate of things sacri- “ liced to idols, and said that they were not injured by it,” Justin replies, “ From the very fact of there being such “ men, who profess themselves Christians, and who ac- “ knowledge Jesus who was crucified to be both Lord and “ Christ, and yet who do not teach his doctrines, but those “ of seducing spirits, we, who are disciples of the true and “ genuine doctrine of Jesus Christ, become more confident “ and grounded in the hope which was announced by him. “ For the things, which he by anticipation said would take “ place in his name, these we actually see come to pass.” He then quotes the prophecies of our Saviour in Matt. vii. 17. xviii. 7. xxiv. 11. Mark xiii. 22. and of St.- Paul in 1 Cor. xi. 18^k. and then continues, “ There are therefore, “ and there were, many persons, who taught men to do and “ say impious and blasphemous things, coming in the name “ of Jesus; and they are called by us after the name of “ those persons, who were the beginners of each doctrine “ and opinion : for they teach their followers in different “ ways to blaspheme the Maker of the universe, and Christ “ who was foretold as coming from him, and the God of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: with none of whom do we “ hold communion, knowing them to be impious, and irre- “ ligious, and immoral, arid profligate, and that instead “ of worshipping Jesus, they confess him only in name; “ and they call' themselves Christians, in the same manner “ as the heathen give the name of God to works of art, and “ they partake of impure and unholy rites : some of them “ are called Marcionites, others Valentinians, others Basi- “ lidians, others Saturnilians, and they bear various other “ names* according to the opinion held by their founder¹.” This passage clearly shews that Justin did not allow the Gnostics to be Christians, though they were often called so: and all^: the heretics here specified are frequently de­duced¹ from Simon Magus. In the same manner Justin says, “ As to those who are called Christians, but who are

i ApoT. II. 13. p. 97-

^k Justin therefore understood the predictions concerning false Christs, false apostles, and false teachers to refer to the Gnostics. I have stated in note *♦, that Buddeus restricted the application of these terms to converted Jews. Hammond considered them to relate to the Gnostics, [de Antichristo, V. I. p. 17.)

“ impious and irreligious heretics, I have observed to you, “ that every thing which they teach is blasphemous and “ impious and absurd ^m.”

In addition to the passages already quoted from Irenaeus, I would observe that he says of Saturninus and Basilides, the successors of Simon, “ They say of themselves that “ they are not Jews, and yet not Christiansⁿand in another place he speaks of tne Gnostics “ boasting to have “ Jesus as their Master,” though his doctrine was totally different from theirs °.

Theodoret, in the preface to his work upon heresies, which begins with Simon Magus, says that the Devil “ selected men that were worthy of being inspired by him, “ and gave them the name of Christians, as a kind of “ maskP:” and again, “he imagined that the identity of “ name would bring reproach upon all: for both the teach- “ ers of these impious doctrines, and the ministers of the “ gospel, were called Christians; and any one who did not “ know the difference, thought that all who partook of the “ same name were equally wicked').”

Epiphanius also, beside the passage already quoted con­cerning Simon not being really a Christian, says that “ men “ give the same name to all the heretics, such as Manichees, “ MarcionistspGnostics, and others, and call them all Chris- “ tians, though they are not Christians: and each heresy, “ although it bears another name, is pleased with receiving “ this, because it is honoured by the title: for they think “ to derive dignity from the name of Christ, not from faith “ in him or from their works^r.”

After reading these passages, the reader will perhaps agree that there is no force in what Mosheim and^: others have said, that Simon Magus cannot be considered as the parent of all heresies, because he was not a Christian. The Fathers have made the assertion, and we must judge of their meaning by their own words: nor are their statements upon this point very unlike to that of St. John, who says, Even now are there many antichrists: they went out from us, but they were not of us : Jbr if they had been of us, they woidd have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest, that they were not aU of us. (1 John ii. 18,19-)

^m lb. 8o. p. 177. ⁿ I. 24. 6. p. 102. • II. 32. 2. p. 165.

r Haer. Fab- I. Prolog, p. 191. 1 Ib. II. praef. p. 216.

' Haer, XXIX. 6. p. 122.

The first person who conceived this notion was Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. V. 12. 9. p. 148. Vitringa, however, believed the tradition to be true, which made some person called Simon to have begun the Gnostic theology. Ib. p. 143. He was followed by Heumannus, Act. Erudat. Lips. An. 1717. p. 179. and Beausobre, Hist, du Manichee, vol. I. p.'259- II. p. 2. Diss. sur les Adamites, subjoined toL’En- fant’s History of the Hussite War, part II. p. 309. The opinion has been refuted by Ittigius, Select.' Cap. Hist. Eccles. Sac. I. V. 23. p. 284. Lampe, Proleg. in Joan. I. 3. p. 40. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. V. 3. p. 318. and by Mosheim, de Uno Simone Mago. Brucker also agrees with Mosheim, vol. II. p. 667: and since both of them allow that the Fathers meant to speak of the same Simon, who is mentioned in the Acts, it is extraordinary that they should not have perceived, that they were disputing merely about words. Beside the arguments already quoted, Mosheim observes, that Simon could not have been the parent of all the Gnostic sects, because the tenets of many of them dif­fered from his own : and he also dwells upon the fact, that Simon is nowhere spoken of, as having founded a school, or instructed disciples. But such arguments are unworthy of Mosheim. The Fathers were perfectly aware of both these facts: but still they knew that Simon had held the fundamental tenets of Gnosticism, and that he had been the first of that party to make any use of the name of Christ. They therefore considered him as having set an example, which had afterwards been followed by many others: and if we use the term heresy in the sense which was attached to it by the Fathers, it is impossible to point out any per­son, earlier than Simon Magus, who mixed up any part of Christianity with Gnosticism. Perhaps the following pas­sage of Theodoret may be taken as explanatory of the meaning of the Fathers, and as setting this dispute entirely at rest: “ I shall divide my work into five books: the first “ will contain an account of those fables, the authors of “ which have invented another Creator, have denied the “ one Principle of all things, have imagined other Principles “ which have no existence, and have asserted that the Lord “ shewed himself among men in appearance only. The “ first inventor of these doctrines was Simon Magus, the “ Samaritan, and the last was Manes the impostor of Per- “ sia^s.” If therefore Simon Magus was the first Platonist

• Haeret. Fab. Compend. p. 188.

or Gnostic, who borrowed any thing from Christianity, why should we object to the Fathers, when they chose to call him the parent of all heretics? In.the words of Grotius “ Cum Paganismo Christianam religiohem miscere aggresr “ sus est omnium primus Simon Magus:" The same con­- elusion is adopted by Dodwell, Diss. IV. ad Irencewm, p. 806. Siricius, Disq. I. de Simone Mago, thes. 65. Tho- masius, Schediasm. §. 36. Wolfius, Manichceismus ante M&nichceos, II. 40. p. 175. Lampe, Prolegom. in Joan. I; 3. p. 41. not. ^b. who writes as follows, “ Cum ergo Platonis- “ mum cum Christianismo confundentes aliquatenus ad Si- “ monis deliria accessisse viderentur, probabile est, Patres “ ad invidiam majorem sect® conciliandam, ut plerumque “ fit, pro Simonis sequacibus eos venditasse.”

NOTE 40.—See Lecture IV. p. 93.

That a Samaritan named Dositheus put himself at the head of a religious party, about the time of our Saviour’s appearing upon earth, cannot be questioned. Some persons have contended, that there was more than one heretic of this name": but I see little evidence that there was any Dositheus who made himself conspicuous*' after the death of our Saviour.Origen mentions Dositheus of Samaria about the time of the apostles, who gave himself out to be the Christ*: and there can be little doubt that he is to be classed with Theudas, Judas of Galilee, and other impos­tors, who professed themselves to be the Messiah, at the time when the general expectation of the Jews was at its heighty. There is ho evidence of his having availed himself

• in any degree of the name or pretensions ofJesus : and this circumstance, added to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers with respect to Simon Magus, would lead me to give precedence in point of time to Dositheus, and to place him before the period of our Saviour’s’ministry. Nearly all

* Ad Matt. xxiv. n.

“ Ittigius makes a distinction between the Dositheus who was contempo­rary with the apostles, and the one mentioned by Epiphanius. (de H&resiurvh. J. 1.3.) Drusius thought that there were many Dosithei. (De tribus sect. Jud. III. 4. et 6.) See Coteler’s note to Const. Apost. VI. 8. Mosheim, In- stit. Maj. p. 378.

* Cont. Cels. 1.57. p. 372. Com. in Mat. 33. p. 851. Horn, in Luc. XXV. p. 962. in Joan. XIII. 27. p. 237. See Photius, Cod. CCXXX. p. 883.

1 See Josephus, Antiq. XX. 8. 6. Bel. Jud. II. 13. 4. Mosheim expresses his inability to explain why Dositheus was particularly hostile to the memory of Judah the son of Jacob. (Photius, Cod. CCXXX. p. 883.) May it not hare been becausc Dositheus knew that the real Messiah was to he of the tribe of Judah ?

B b

the heresiologists² have classed hiitl with the Jewish or Samaritan sects, and not with those which arose after the preaching of the gospel: and Jerom says expressly that he preceded the coming of Christ¹. Whether he was the in­structor of Simon Magus, may perhaps be doubted. This has been asserted by ancient writers^b; and there is every probability i:hat they were contemporaries. There is reason also for thinking that Dositheus held some of the opinions which were characteristic of the Gnostics: thus he is said to have been the first who denied the inspiration of the pro- phets^c, to have rejected the doctrine of the resurrection^d, and to have practised great corporal austerities^e. Many other circumstances may be read of him in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies ; but the accounts are manifestly full of fable, and it is difficult to extract from them any por­tion which can be pronounced positively true. I cannot, however, help adding, notwithstanding-the great authorities on the other side, that the evidence in favour of there having been more than one Dositheus, is extremely slight; and we may assert with some degree of safety, that an heretic named Dositheus appeared in Samaria not long before the time of our Saviour; that he gave himself out to be the Messiah ; that' he held some opinions, which were common to the Gnostics; and that Simon Magus was acquainted with his doctrines. Origen speaks of some Dositheans in his day, who pretended to have some books written by Dositheus, and who said that he had never died, but was still alive^f. More may be seen concerning him in Photius, Cod. CCXXX. p. 883. Serarius, Trihceres. II. 19- p. 87. Minerval. IV. 10—12. Drusius, de tribus Sectis Jud. III. 4—6. J. ScaJi- ger, Elench. Trihazr. Serar. c. 15. p. 107. Le Moyne, Not. ad Var. Sacr. vol. II. p. 1099. Ittigius, Hceresiarch. JEvi Apostol. I. 1. and Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, c. V. p. 255. Buddeus, Hist. Phil. Ebr. 20. p. 86. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. II. 5. 11. p. 376. De Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 65. Chronicon Samaritanum apud Ab. Echellen-

^z Epiphau. [Her. XIII. p. 30.) Philastrius, Damascenos, Pseudo-Tertull. (Prescript. Hepr. 45.)

¹ Adv. Lncif. 23. vol. II. p. 197.

^b Constit. Apost. VI. 8. Recognit. Clem. I. 54. II- 8. The Clementine Homilies make Dositheus a disciple of Simon, II. 24. and Theodoret appears to make the Dositheans a branch of the Simonians: {Hter. Fab. I. t. p. 193.) but the former accuunt is the most prohable,

^c Pseudo-Tertull. de Prescript. 45. p. 219. Hierou. cont. Lucif. 1. c.

“ Recognit. Clem. I. 54. Authorities are divided concerning the opinion of Dositheus upon this point. See Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 384, 385.

• Epiphan. Hter. XIII. p. 30. ^f In Joan. tom. XIII. 27. p. 237. _

sem, Adnotat. ad Jfyebed. Jesu, fyc. p. 157. Laur. Cozza, Comment, in Augustin, de Hares. ,

V

NOTE 41.—See Lecture IV. p. 95.

A host of references for this marvellous story is given by Coteler in his notes to the Apostolical Constitutions, VI. 9. by Tillemont in his Memoires, tom.. I. art. 34. p. 477. and by Ittigius, Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 17. p. 274. I shall therefore refer the reader to these authors, where all the ancient testimony may be found. According to every account, it was the ambition of Simon Magus of setting his own false miracles against the true ones of St. Peter, which led to the catastrophe. Some writers represent the challenge to have been given by the apostles, others by the impostor^h: and as Tillemont relates the story, “ Simon, wishing to shew “ that as the Son of God he was able to ascend into heaven, “ caused himself to be raised into the air by two daemons in “ a chariot of fire, for which purpose he made use of his “ power of magic. But St. Peter having united his prayers “ to those of St. Paul, the impostor was deserted by his “ daemons, fell to the ground, and broke both his legs : “ after which he destroyed himself through shame and vex- “ ation, by falling from the top of a house to the bottom.” I have stated, that Arnobius is the earliest writer who fur­nishes any foundation for this story, and his words are as fol­low : “ Viderant currum Simonis Magi et quadrigas igneas “Petri, ore difflatas et nominato Christo evanuisse. Vide- “ rant, inquam, fidentem diis falsis, et ab eisdem metuenti- “ bus proditum, pondere praecipitatum suo, crucibus jacuisse “ praefractis: post deinde perlatum Brundam, cruciatibus et “ pudore defessum ex altissimi culminis se rursum praecipi- “ tasse fastigio¹.” In this passage there is not a word said of Simon having attempted to fly: and.if we had known nothing of later embellishments, we should only have inferred from it that Simon made use of a fiery chariot to impose upon the multitude by some pretended miracle, that the prayers of St. Peter caused his experiment to fail, that he fell out. of the chariot, and fractured his legs. That Arnobius had read an account of this kind can hardly be denied; nor can I see any thing improbable in supposing that some such an

b Theodoret. Herr. Fab. I. i. p. 192.

^b Canstit. Apost. VI. 9. The Constitutions were probably written in tbe fourth century. See Jortin, Discourse VI. on the Christian Religion, and Remarks on Eccles. History, vol. I. p. 228. Lardner, Credibility, c. 85. It­tigius, de Pseudepigraphis, c. 12. p. 190. Turner, Discourse on thepi'etended Apostolical Constitutions. *Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol.V. p.33.

» Lib. II. p. 50. *

event actually took place. It is also not unnatural, that the same narrative which was followed by Arnobius should have led later writers to make additions to it, and to con­found Simon’s subsequent and voluntary fall from the top of a house, with his former fall out of his fiery chariot. Euse­bius, as I have stated, does not give the slightest counte­nance to the story^k. Epiphanius, who was fond of the marvellous, and was certainly not over-critical in his exami­nation of evidence, appears never to have heard of it; and he only informs us that Simon died after having fallen down m the middle* of Rome¹. This is perfectly recon- cileable with the passage from Arnobius; and I should say the same of the following account given by Theodoret, who wrote about A. D. 423. “ Simon came to Rome in the “ reign of Claudius, and so confounded the Romans by his “ magical tricks, that he was honoured with a brasen statue. “ But St. Peter arriving there also, stripped him of the “ wings of his deceit, and at length having challenged him “ to a contest of miraculous power, and having shewn the “ difference between divine grace and imposture, threw him “ down (xxTsppa^s) from a great height,' in the sight of all “ the Romans, by-his prayers"¹.” If Arnobius and Theo­doret followed the same document, we certainly cannot;¹ say that the later writer magnified or embellished the story. He does not even mention the fiery chariot, though his words imply that Simon made some experiment, which was intended to appear miraculous. He only mentions, as Epi­phanius had done before him, that Simon “ fell down and we might almost fancy that Theodoret’s style, which is often poetical, had furnished some materials for the inven­tion of later writers. He says that St. Peter “ stripped “ Simon of the wings of his deceitand the author of the Constitutions certainly speaks of Simon flying through the air". Ambrosius says that “ Peter caused Simon to fall “ down when he was taking a magical flight up to heaven, “ having dissolved the power of his incantations⁰:” and

^k I Lave not seen the following passage from Eusebius quoted in this con­troversy. He is stating that nature has fixed certain limits which cannot be passed, and has given laws to all bodies ; to which he adds, “ No one there- “ fore can pass with his body through the air, despising the ahodes of earth, “ without immediately paying the penalty of his folly.” Cont. Hierocl. p. gig. I do not mean to say that Eusehius intended any allusion to Simon, whose name is not mentioned: hut we might at least infer that Eusebius had heard of some person who met his death iu an attempt to fly.

* ’Ev fAitry <rrj vatv 'Psnftuiaiv wo\u a recXas xtcrK&eiraiv ri&vttx-l. Mter. XXI. fj.

V-S9- ‘ ' '

^m Haer. Fah. I. I. p. 191. ¹¹ 11. 14. VI. 9.

“ Hexaem. IV. 8. vol. 1. p. 78.

this is perhaps no very great enlargement of the original story, as told by Arnobius. Simon is there said to have prepared a fiery chariot, which he must certainly have in­tended by some artifice or other to have put in motion : but his scheme was frustrated, and he fell down from the emi­nence on which he had fixed this perilous vehicle. It was not very unnatural that later writers should have described his aerial journey as having actually commenced, or that they should speak of his attempting to fly, without making any mention of the chariot. Some persons indeed have supposed the story of Simon’s extraordinary death to have been taken from what we read in Dio Chrysostom P and Suetonius % of a person having attempted iii the reign of Nero to fly like Icarus, and who died' in the attempt. The coincidence of the'time is perhaps worthy of remark : but .beyond this there is no reason for supposing, that the one story gave rise to the other. I would observe, however, that the fate of this unfortunate Icarus shews that there is no improbability in supposing a person to have attempted to fly in the reign of Nero: neither can it be doubted, that Simon Magus had recourse to some artifice or other, to delude and astound the multitude. The only part of the story therefore', which requires much credulity, is the effect which we are to attribute to the prayers of St. Peter. But let us suppose the rest to be true; let us suppose Simon to have prepared a fiery chariot, and to have publicly pro­claimed that he was going to perform a miracle, greater than any which Peter .had exhibited; and who will say that the apostle might not have prayed to God, or that his prayers might not have been heard ? That Simon met his death by the failure of one of his pretended miracles, is, I think, extremely probable: and those, who doubt the effi­cacy of the apostle’s prayers, may charge the Christians with ascribing to the sanctity of St. Peter, what was really owing to some mismanagement in a hazardous experiment. After all, the whole story may be a fiction: but I have offered these remarks, to shew that the marvellous circum­stances attending it are not really so great, as some persons would assert^r. The remark of Jortiri, that “ the silence of “ the Fathers before Arnobius is alone a sufficient reason to

P Or. XXI. p. 371. ed. 1604. This was the notion of Baronius, ad An. LXVIII. 14. p. 648. Grangseus, Schol. in Juvenal. III. 79, 80. Beausohre, vol. I. p. 203.

cl m 1 Nero. 12. Some have also appealed to Juvenal, 111. 79.

^T Even Mosheim is willing to admit that St. Peter may perhaps have met Simon Magus in Rome. Instit. Maj. p. 402. See also Sirieius, de Simone Mago, Disq. I. Thes. 10. p. 11.

“ reject this story^s,” is undoubtedly deserving of attention, and may perhaps be decisive : but whoever believes Dio Chrysostom, and Suetonius, has at least no right to dis­believe, that any person in the reign of Nero attempted to fly, and failed in the attempt. We have seen, that the earlier accounts concerning Simon do not require us to be­lieve even so much as this: and upon the whole I would conclude, that though Tillemont may be ridiculed for pre­ferring to be deceived in company with so many Fathers⁴, yet the extreme incredulity of Jortin, Beausobre, arid others, is equally open to the charge of prejudice : and when Beau­sobre requires us to admit his discovery, that Leucius, who forged the Acts of St. Peter, was also the inventor of this story ^u, we may at least wonder that he censures any per­son for surrendering his belief without sufficient evidence. Beside the writers already quoted, I would refer to Lan- gius, Diss. IV. de Hceresiol. Scec. I. et II. Ittigius, de Hceresiarch. I. 2. 8. p. 28. Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 16. p. 273. Mosheim, Institut. Maj. II. 5. 12. p. 403.

NOTE 42.—See Lecture IV. p. 98.

I shall perhaps be accused of credulity for being inclined to admit another story concerning Simon Magus. I have quoted Justin Martyr at p. 91. as saying, that Simon had been honoured as a God at Rome, ana had a statue erected to him, with a Latin inscription, in the river Tiber, between the two bridges^. Justin repeats the same story afterwards*: and he has been followed by Irenaeus y, Tertullian ^z, Theo­doret³, Cyril of Jerusalem*⁵, Augustin ^c, and other Fathers; but notwithstanding these authorities, we are informed by Brucker^d, that “ the tradition is very properly rejected by “ most persons, who are not prejudiced in favour of anti- “ quity, and who remember that ecclesiastical writers have “ been liable to error.” The opponents of the story rest principally upon the fact of a fragment of marble^e having

■ Remarks on Eccles. Hist. vol. I. p. 257.

¹ M^moires, 1. c. p. 479* Some Romanists have referred Rev. xii. 7—9. to the combat between St. Peter and Simon Magus, v. Calov. ad 1. and Boulduc, de Ecclesia post Legem, p. 31. Even Grotius gives some support to the notion. -

“ Vol. I. p. 396. See also p. 203, 204.

* Apol. I.J6. p. 77. and in his Dispute with Trypho (120. p. 214.) "he alludes to what he had said in his Apology of Simon being looked upon as a God. -

y I. 23. 1. p. 99. ¹ Apol. 13. p. 14. » Haer. Fab. I. p. 191, 192. ^b Cateches. VI. 14. p. 96. ed. 1720. ^c De Haer. I. vol. VIII. p. 6. ©

^d Vol. II. p. 669.

^e It is generally described as the base of a statue: but Baronius (ad An. 44.) thinks it is too small to have ever had a statue upon it. Tillemont,

been dug up in the island in the Tiber, in the year 1574, with this inscription:

SEMONI SANCO DEO. FIDIO SACRVM SEX. POMPEIVS. SP. F COL. MVSSIANVS QVINQVENNALIS DECVR BIDENTALIS DONVM. DEDIT.

It has been supposed, that this inscription misled Justin, who was not well versed in the Latin language, and that he mistook semoni sanco for simoni sancto ; and Mosheim goes so far as to say, that this opinion will be embraced by all, “ who think tnat truth is of more importance, and of “ more sanctity, than all the Fathers and all antiquity^f.” The Fathers themselves would probably have acquiesced in this sentiment: but even the authority of Mosheim.does not necessarily convert a mere opinion into truth; and it ap­pears to me, that the credulity of the Fathers is extremely small, when compared with the notion of Justin Martyr having been so grossly deceived in the evidence of his senses. The words of Justin are too precise to allow us to suppose that he had not seen the statue; and he would hardly have asserted in an Apology addressed to the em­peror, what every person in Rome would have known to be false. If he had done so, the absurd mistake, which he had committed, would have been immediately discovered; and the writers who followed him would have taken care not to repeat it. If we are called upon to reject the story from the improbability of a statue being erected to Simon Magus, the argument cannot be admitted. We know how eager the people of Lystra were to pay divine honours to Paul and BarnabasS: and Philostratus informs us, that. Apollo­nius of Tyana (a worthy counterpart of Simon) was wor­shipped in many places as a Godji, with altars and statues. Athenagoras furnishes an instance still stronger to the point, when he states that the people of Troas erected

who supports Justin, gives an undue advantage to his opponents, by saying that a statue was discovered. The same mistake bas been made by other writers.

^f Instit. Maj. p. 406. e Acts xiv. 1i<

h Vit. Apol. IV. I. p. 140, 141 : 31. p. 171 : VII. 21. p. 3QI : VIII. 5, p. 325,ed.1709.

statues to Nerullinus, a man who lived in those days’: and Clement of Alexandria mentions another Gnostic, Epipha- nes the son of Carpocrates, who was worshipped as a God in Cephallene, with a temple, altar, sacrifices ^k, &c. I am aware that Caligula forbade the erection of a statue of any living person, without his special permission¹; but it ap­pears from this very fact, that statues were exceedingly numerous in Rome: and the edict was probably ineffectual; for Dio Cassius states that the city was full of statues, and that Claudius did not allow any private person to erect one without leave of the senate: but the statue of Simon Magus, according to Irenaeus, was erected by Claudius himself; according to Augustin, by public authority. So far there­fore from the Story being in itself improbable, there was nothing very unusual or extraordinary in a statue being erected to Simon Magus, if he was received at Rome in the manner mentioned by Justin Martyr: and if Justin is not to be believed in this particular, criticism must hence­forth resign its place to prejudice. In the same Apology Justin Martyr mentions that Antinous was worshipped as a God^m; and statues of this deified favourite have come down to us: but if they had not, what critic, or what common reader of Roman history, would have questioned the veracity of Justin in this particular? It appears to me equally improbable, that Justin should have been mistaken in the case of Simon Magus: and if it had not been for the fragment dug up in the year 1574, the opponents of the story would have had little to object. I do not lay much stress upon the fact, that this fragment is of marble, whereas Theodoret states that the statue erected to Simon was of brass. A brasen statue, it will be said, may have stood upon a marble base; or if it should be proved that this was not the iden­tical inscription seen by Justin, he may have seen many others similar to it, and confounded the two names. It will be conceded, that statues and inscriptions may have been common to the Sabine Deity Semo Sancus or Deus Fidiusⁿ: but it requires a large share of that credulity, which Mosheim ascribes to the Fathers, to suppose that all

^ji:Legat. 26. p. 304. ... * *■' ‘

k Stroun. III’. 2. p. 511. Mosheim disbelieves this, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 51. not.^f. but his reasoning is far from satisfactory. See Jortin’s Remarks on Eccl. HiMory, vol. II. p. 160. Neander thinks it unreasonable to disbelieve it, Attgemeine Geschichte, &c. part I; p. 772.

^I Sueton. Calig. 34. ^m C. 29. p. 61.

^II See Liv. VIII. 20. Ovid. Fast. VI. 213. and Heinsius' note. Gruter, p. XCVI. Cluvcr. Antiq. Ital. II. 8. p. 643. Castalio, Observat. inCrit. Decad.

III. c. 10.

of them agreed in mistaking semoni sanco for simoni sancto. I have not yet met with a wilder hypothesis than this in the most visionary of the Fathers : and I Would rather share the obloquy which has been c&st upon their small proficiency in criticism, than.join in decrying the authority of Justin by an argument Which requires us to believe that he could not read an inscription. Mosheim has been followed by Neander⁰, who observes that Justin was acquainted with Greek, but not with Roman,, mythology; and he adds, “ the more critical Alexandrians say nothing “ of this story; and when Origen (cant. Cels.-I. 57.) tells “ us, that the name of Simon was known out of Palestine “ only to the Christians, who were acquainted with it from “ the Acts of the Apostles, he appears to prove the account “ of the statue erected to him at Rome to be a fable.” But this is a very incorrect representation of Origen’s words, who is speaking of the Simonians in his own day, i. e. in the middle of the third century, and says, ** I doubt whe- “ ther thirty Simonians could now be found in the whole “ world, and perhaps I have named more than there really “ are. There are a very few in Palestine;' but his name is “ not heard of in any other part of the world, throughout “ which he was anxious to spread his fame : for those who ^tc have heard- of it, have heard of it from the Acts of the “ Apostles; and those who have given that account of him “ were Christians, and the fact itself has shewn, that Simon “ was no divinity.” The reader will now see that it is most unjust to quote Origen as saying, that Simon’s name was not known beyond Palestine in his own life-time, which is what the German writer would wish to persuade us; and Origen would rather lead us to infer that some efforts had been made by Simon himself, or by his followers, to prove that he was a God. Much has been written upon both sides of this question, which after all is not very important; and I allow that those who doubt or deny the truth of the story, are the niost numerous and the most entitled to respect as critics. They are Heraldus, ad Tertull. Apol. 13. Vossius, de Idol. I. 12. Salmasius, ad Spartian. Vale- sius, ad Eus. H. E. II. 13. Spafihemius, de ficta Prqfe- ctione Petri in Urb. Rom. part IV. 10. p. 381. Op. vol. II. Ciacconius, Prcef. ad Expos. Column. Rostrat. Ant. Van Dale, de Statua Simoni ■ Mago erecta, lib. de Oraculis, p. 579- Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares, p. 13. Milles, Not. ad Cyrill. Hieros. Cat. VI,³ 9. p. 87. Reinesius,

” Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion, part I. p. 780.

Syntagm. Inscript, p. 2. Petavius, ad Epiphan. Haer. XXI. p. 41. Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 27. Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 13. p. 267. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 406. de Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 66. Brucker, vol. II. p. 669. Walchs, Historie der Kezereien, vol. I. p. 144.

The writers, who have supported the story, are Spence- rus, Not. ad Orig. cont. Cels. I. 57. Baronius, ad An. 44. n. 55—9. Grotius, in 2 Thess. ii. 8. Siricius, de Simone Mago, Disq. I. Thes. 6. p. 6. Hammond, Diss. de Jur. Episc. I. 9. 13. p. 30. Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. I. 36. Halloix, de Fit. et Doct. IUustr. Orient. Eccl. Script, vol. II. p. 382. Tillemont, Memoires, vol. II. p. 340. Mara- nus, in his preface to the Benedictine edition of Justin Martyr, III. 6. p. lxxxiv. Orsi, Storia Ecclesiastica, vol. II. p. 119. Hathuany, in the Museum Helveticum, vol. II. p. 617. Cozza, Comment, in Augustin, de Hceresibus, c. I. p. 6. Lselius Bisciola, Horaz Subsecivce, XII. 8. Jortin gives some reasons why the story should not be positively rejected. Remarks, vol. II. p. 159. Travasa, Istor. Crit. p. 121. Le Nourry, Apparat. ad Biblioth. Max. Patrum, vol. I. p. 6. Laubriisse], des Abus de la Critique, &c. tom. II. p. 102. Foggini de Itinere Petri Romano. Exerc. XII.

Lists of writers upon both sides may be seen in Walchs’ Historie der Kezereien, vol. I. p. 144. Mollerus, Homony- moscopia, p. 205. Marchand, Dictionnaire, vol. II. p. 61.

NOTE 43.—See Lecture IV. p. 101.

Vopiscus in his Life of Saturninus, speaks of “ Christiani, “ Samarit®, et quibus praesentia semper tempora cum enor- “ mi libertate displiceant.” He also quotes a letter of Ha­drian, in which he said, “ Illi qui Serapin colunt, Christiani “ sunt; et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos di- “ cunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Judasorum, nemo Sa- “ marites, nemo Christianorum presbyter, non mathemati- “ cus, non aruspex, non aliptes. Ipse ille patriarcha quum “ JSgyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis “ cogitur Christum P.” Lampridius also, in his Life of Heliogabalj&S, (3.) speaks of that emperor having intended to establish in Rome “ Judaeorum et Samaritanorum reli- “ giones et Christianam devotionem^q.” We may learn from these passages, how little the Roman government knew of Christianity: and perhaps we may also infer, that in Egypt at least, many who had professed to be Christians, relapsed

p Pag. 959- ed. 1661.

afterwards into Paganism. I should suspect many of these persons to have been Christians only in name: they may have heard of Christ, in the same way that the Romans heard of him, when he was preached by Simon Magus; but they were no more Christians, than they were Jews or Samaritans. That a person, who worked miracles, was liable to be called a Samaritan, at least by the Jews, is plain from what was said to our Saviour himself, “ Say we “ not well, that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil¹?” which words may also shew, that the Samaritans had the reputation of being familiar with evil spirits; and they may make us less surprised at the great success which Simon is said to have met with in Samaria. A French writer has thought that the sensation, which had been caused in that country by the pretensions of Simon, may be traced in the conversation, which our Saviour held with the woman of Sychar; (John iv.) “ Tout cet entretien prend une tout “ autre importance, quand on l’examine sous le point de “ vue que nous indiquons^s.” The peculiar doctrines of the Samaritans, which differed essentially from the Jewish, may be seen in Drusius, Prceterit. p. 124. de tribus Sectis, III.

10, &c. Masius, Com. in Jos. xi. p. 204. Hottinger, Eocer- cit. Anti-Morin, et Thes. Philolol. I. 1. 6: p. 44. Scaliger, de Emend. VII. p. 661. Brucker, vol. II. p. 661. and the authors referred to by him. Carpzovius, Crit. Sacr. Vet. Test. part. II. c. 4. p. 585. Reland, Diss. Miscell. Diss. VII. de Samaritcmis. Wolfius, Bibl. Hebr. vol. II. p. 434. Gesenins, de Samaritanorum Theologia.

NOTE 44—See Lecture IV. p. 102.

The following passages in Irenaeus apply to Simon and his disciples; “ Horum mystici sacerdotes liMdinose quidem “ vivuht, magias autem perfidunt, quemadmodum potest “ unusquisque ipsorum. Exorcismis et incantationibus “ utuntur. Amatoria quoque et agogima, et qui dicuntur “ paredri et oniropompi, et quaecunque sunt alia perierga “ apud eos studiose exercenturSpeaking of Saturninus and Basilides, he says, “ Utuntur et hi magia, et imagini- “ bus, et incantationibus, et invocationibus, et reliqua uni- “ versa periergia^u.” Of Carpocrates, “ Artes enim magicas ^<e operantur et ipsi, et incantationes, philtra quoque. et cha- “ ritesia, et paredros, et oniropompos, et reliquas maligna- “ tiones, diceutes se potestatem habere ad dominandum jam &

■ John viii. 48. • Matter, Hist, du Gnosticismc, vol. I. p. 159.

* I. 23. 4. p. 100. " I. 24. j. p. 102.

“ Principibus et fabricatoribus hujus mundi^x.” The charac­ter of the Gnostic miracles may be learnt from the following passage: “ Super haec arguentur qui sunt a Simone, et Car- pocrate, et si qui alii virtutes operari dicuntur, non in V virtute Dei, neqne in veritate, neque ut benefici homini- ^M bus facientes ea, quae faciunt; sea in perniciem et erro- ^f‘ rem, per magicas elusiones, et universa fraude, plus lae- “ dentes quam utilitatem praestantes his, qui credunt eis, in “ eo quod seducanty.” “ Sed et si aliquid faciunt, per “ Kiagicam operati, fraudulenter seducere nituntur insensa- “ tos: fructum quidem et utilitatem nullam praestantes, in “ quos virtutes perficere se dicunt; adducentes autem pue- “ ros investes, et oculos deludentes, et phantasmata osten- “ dentes statim cessantia, et ne quidem stillicidio temporis “ perseverantia, non Jesu Domino nostro, sed Simoni Mago “ similes ostenduntur^z.” The magical rites used by Mar­cus, a Gnostic of the second century, may be seen in I. 13.

I have quoted these passages from Irenaeus, because they appear decisive as to the practice of the Gnostics in the second century. Other Fathers might be cited to the same purpose: and if their authority is not sufficient, we find Plotinus the Platonist writing in the third century against the Gnostics, and saying of them, “ They profess to remove “ diseases: if they professed to do so by temperance and “ regular diet, they would say what is true, and would “ speak like philosophers. But now when they assert that “ diseases are evil daemons, and when they say and publish “ that they can drive them out by a word, they wish to “ raise their character in the opinion of the people, who are “ astonished at the miracles worked by magicians'¹.” The exorcism of daemons was one branch of the magic art, which according to Plotinus was practised by the Gnostics: and their addiction to magic may serve to confirm what has been said above, that the Gnostics derived their origin from Si­mon Magus. Beausobre would wish to persuade us,' that the Basihdians did not practise magic: but I cannot help classing this among the other attempts of that paradoxical writer to vindicate the heretics at the expense of sound criticism, and sometimes of truth. We have seen above, that Irenaeus expressly charged the Basilidians with prac­tising magic: and Beausobre employs some very irrelevant criticism to prove, that the editors ought not to insert the word imagimbus, or at least not imagimbus as well as

* I. 2$.3. p. 103. j II. 31. 2. p. 164. ¹ II. 32. 3. p. 165.

* Adv. Gnost. 14. p. 212.

magia^h. Whoever reads the passage, will see that the omission of either term will not at all affect the question: and it is singular, that beside the testimony of Irenaeus, we may appeal to a large collection of amulets' and charms, which are still in existence, and which are allowed on all hands to have been used by the ancient Gnostics⁰. They were evidently intended as Atexvpharmaca, either against dis­eases or evil spirits: and the connexion between Gnosticism and Jewish and Egyptian superstitions is proved by them beyond a doubt. Many of them bear the name Abraxas or Abrasax, which, as we learn from Irenasus^, was a name held in great esteem by the Basilidians, as signifying by its letters the number 365; for they believed that this was the number of the heavens: and other writers inform us, that this was the name given by Basilides to the supreme God ^e. Beausobre again endeavours to rescue the Basilidians from the charge of having used these charms^f: hut his observa­tions, though extremely learned,' and well worthy of being read, will hardly convince any unprejudiced mind: and the work of Matter, already so often referred to, will shew to demonstration, that these engraved stones were used by persons who joined the name of Christ to many impure and superstitious rites.

The three sources, from which I have deduced the doc-

^b Vol. II. p. 45. Lardner adopts tbe opinion of Beausobre, and is open to tbe same charge of contradicting himself, or at least disputing ahout words. Hist, of Heretics, II. a. 14. Beausobre also says, that the magic of tbe Basi­lidians “ n’est attestee proprement que par S. Iren£e, son livre £taut la source “ dans laquelle ont puis£ ceux qui sont venus apr£s lui.” This is not true. Eusebius quotes Agrippa Castor, as having exposed in his writings the magi­cal tricks (yoyTila;) and the mysterious rites (t« ‘z'x'c'[pr_lTx\ of Basilides. (IV. 7.) Agrippa wrote several years before'IfenSeus.

^c Jean l’Heureux or Macarius in the sixteenth century published Abraxas, sew Apistopistus, i. c. de Gemmis Basilidianis Disquisitio. This was re­published in 1657, by Chiflet, with engravings of one hundred and twenty gems. Other similar figures may be seen io Kirdier, Magia Hieroglyph. and in Montfaucon, Aritiquiti Expliqu&e, tom. II. part. II. p. 353. PaUso- graph. Grtec. II. 8. Grooovius, Ductyliqthecn Gurlcei. Dr. Walsh lias also lately published An Essay on ancient Coins, Medals, and Gems, &c. in which some new specimens of this kind are engraved: But Matter, in his Hist air e du Gnosticisme, has given the most valuable account of them, with several figures. See also Bellermann, ueber die Abraxas-Gemmen. Berlin, 1820. Wormius, Hist. Sabefliana, H. 9. p. 70, &c. Lardner, Hist, of Heretics, IL 2. 16, &c. A. Capellus, Prodromus iconicus sculptilium Gemmamm Basi- lidiani, Sfc. generis. Venet. 1702.

^d I. 24. 7. p. 102. For the meaning of the word Abrasax, beside the au­thors mentioned in note ^c, see Jablonski, de Nominis Abraxas Significatione, Opusc. vol. III. p.So. Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, II. a. p. 101. Mosbeim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 46. not. 1.

^e Pseudo-Tertull. de Prescript. 46. p. 219. Hierou. in Amos. 111. vol. VI. P-2S7-

trines of the Gnostics, may all of them have contributed to make them addicted to magic: for we find undoubted proofs of it among the Persians, the Jewish Cabbalists, and the Platonists. I need not observe, that the term Magus, as applied to a magician'or enchanter, has a very different meaning from what it bore, when applied to the Persian Magi. Hyde informs us, that the highest order of priests, in Persia was called M&gh or Mugh, from whence the Greek term was derived S: nor is there any evidence, that these priests used any incantations, or pretended to super­natural aid. Philo Judaeus speaks of the Persian Magi as men “ who investigated the works of nature for the dis- “ covery of truth, and who quietly learnt and taught the “ virtues of religion ^h.” Suidas defines the Magi to be tptXo- trotpoi xa) pikodeoL: and Hesychius, after having given the common and bad signification of the term Magus, adds, that with the Persians it signified rov fleotre^jj, xa\ hoXoyov xa'I Upea. So also Apuleius observes, that Magus in Persian signified the same as Sacerdos in Latin; and he quotes Plato as interpreting the religion of the Magi to be Qscbv 6spa7rn'a, the worship of the Gods But we have still stronger testimony than this in the words of Aristotle, as quoted by Diogenes Laertius^k, who said of the Magi, t^v ytD)T<xi}> (/.avreiuv ouS’ eyvuxrav. This seems unquestionably to be true of the ancient Magi. They did not themselves pre­tend to any occult or supernatural influence: nor did they boast of the heavenly bodies or the spiritual world being subject to their power. But there was that in their religion, which prepared the way for such superstitious notions. They were great observers of the stars: and astronomy and astrology are not only often confounded by the vulgar, but experience shews, that a very advanced state of religion or science is necessary to hinder the one from running into the other. I have already stated that the Persians believed in a numerous host of spirits: and when Philo Judaeus says of the Chaldaeans, that “ they look upon the stars as Gods, “ as also the whole heaven and the world, according to “ whose will good and evil happens to every one though this may not be true of the older and purer theology of the Persians, it was perfectly natural that their religious belief

6 C. 30. p.369. c. 31. p.377. See the note of Ouzelius upon Minutius Felix, p. 245. ed. 1672 : and Huetius, Demonst. Evang. Prop. IV. p. 75.

^h Liber quisquis, &c. vol. II. p. 456.

> Apologia, p.30. ed. 1635. Apollonius of Tyana says, payos 0 tcuv OsuiVs *} b rhv Ipuirty Epist. VII. P-39^r-

^k Prooera. p. 2. ¹ De Nobil. vol. II. p. 441, 442. See also Hyde, p.403.

should degenerate into this. So also we know, that the Persians were accustomed to study the nature of plants, and their medicinal properties"¹. According to a well-known distich,

Ille penes Persas Magus est, qui sidera novit,

Qui sciat herbarum vires, cultumque Deoruin.

But each of these practices, though originally innocent, was liable to grow into superstition: and when Pliny accuses the Magi of using a certain plant as a charm, which was gathered after the vernal equinox, and dried by the moon for thirty nights⁰ ; or when Plutarch states, “ that they “ bruised a herb called omomi in a mortar, and invoked “ Hades and darkness ; after which they mixed it with the “ blood of a wolf which they had killed, and carried it to “ some place where the sun never shone⁰;” we may either say with HydeP, that these writers confounded the later and worse sense of the term Magus with its more ancient and true meaning, or that in the days of Pliny and Plutarch the Persian Magi had fallen into the same superstitious practices, which were then very prevalent throughout the world. The same Pliny would persuade us that the Greeks derived their knowledge of the magic art from the Persians: and he speaks of Ostanes, a distinguished person among the Magi, as accompanying Xerxes in his expedition, and teach­ing his occult philosophy wherever he went¹!. He also men­tions another Ostanes, who lived in the time of Alexander, and who was also conspicuous for his skill in magic. That there were one or more Persians of this name, who were Magi in both senses of the term, is extremely probable^r : but it is not so likely that the magic art was introduced into Greece by only one individual, or at any one particular time. If it first began in Persia, there was abundance of intercourse between that country and Greece, which might have caused it to spread in the latter : but I should be in­clined to infer, that Egypt was quite as instrumental as Persia in preparing the way to the superstitious ceremonies of jthe Gnostics^s: and the Jews, who settled in Alexandria,

™ Xen. Cyrop. VIII. “ XXI. ii. vol. II. p. 244.

" De Is. et Osir. p. 369. E. F.

P Pag. 299. He also quotes Theodorus of Mopsyestia as charging Zoroas­ter with magical rites, for which there certainly is no evidence. See Brucker, vol. I. p. 125.

1 XXX. 1. p. 523.

^r See Brucker, vol. I. p. 159. Fahricius, Bibl. Gr. 1. 14. vol. I. p. 92.

• Fliny says that the Greek philosophers, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Demo­critus, Plato, who travelled into Egypt, went thither only to learn magic. XXX. 1. p. 523. .

might have been the medium of communicating some of the superstitions which had been brought from Babylon to Judaea. :

I have already stated in note '⁴, that the Cabbala Prac- tica was little else than a system of magic: and we may suppose that the Cabbalistic Jews had some share in making Alexandria, what it is described to be by Philo, a place where “ the people are notorious for flattery and magical “ tricks (yorjrsiaf) and pretence^l.” Another passage from this same writer will inform us what was the kind of magical superstitions common in his own day, while it also shews the difference between the two meanings attached to the term Magic. “ The true Magic,” he says, “ which is a science “ of discovery, which illustrates the works of nature by “ clearer representations, and is looked upon as dignified “ and proper to be sought; this is practised not only by in- “ diviauals, but by kings and courtiers, and particularly by “ those in Persia to such a degree, that it is said that no “ person among them can be advanced to the throne, unless “ he has first been admitted among the Magi. But there is “ another sort, which, to speak correctly, is the counterfeit “ of the former, an evil art, which mountebanks and scoun- “ drels follow, and the very worst descriptions of women “ and slaves, professing to remove enchantments and per- “ form lustrations, and promising to bring lovers to the ^tf most incurable hatred, or enemies to the most excessive “ good-will, by certain charms and incantations¹¹.” Such was the state of magical science in the days of Philo, i. e. at the first commencement of the gospel: and we know from our Saviour’s own words, that phylacteria, or charms, were worn by the Jews*. They were also worn, though appa­rently of a different kind, by the Gnostics: and the Hebrew characters, which appear upon many of these ancient gems, shew very clearly that the Cabbala contributed, as was said above, to the formation of Gnosticism.

But the third, and principal source, from which I have derived the Gnostic doctrines, was not free from an addic­tion to Magic. The followers of Pythagoras and Plato were in the habit of using mysterious words and forms, to which they ascribed a supernatural effect. Porphyry says of Pythagoras, that “ he charmed away the sufferings of “ the body or mind by rhythm and melodyy and incanta-

• De Virtutibus, vol. II. p. 569. " De Special. Leg. vol. II. p. 316.

* Matt, xxiii. 5. See Surenliusius, ad Mischnas lib. de Benedict, vol. I. p. 9. Bartoloccius, Biblioth. Magna Rabbin, vol. I. p. 576.

y Vit.Pyth. p. 193. ed. 1655.

“ tionsand that “ he relieved those who were suffering “ in their minds, partly by incantations and magic, partly “ by music².” Iamblichus also says of the Pythagoreans, that “ they used incantations for certain disorders¹.” What­ever we may think of this testimony, as applied to Pytha­goras himself, we may safely refer it to his later followers: and there can be no doubt that they and the later Pla- tonists^b prepared the way for that superstitious belief in the power of daemons, which.forms so striking a feature in the Gnostic character. I need only refer to what Pliny tells us of Anaxilaus of Larissa, a Pythagorean philosopher in the time of Augustus, who carried the science of magic to a great length⁰: the works of Tacitus will furnish nu­merous instances of magical superstitions in the following reigns ^d: and if it be true, as some have supposed, that Si­mon Magus studied in the Platonic; schools of Alexandria⁶, we cannot wonder if we find him described as a magician and a Gnostic. The followers of Ammonius, or the later Platonists, undoubtedly believed in the existence of a sci­ence, by which refined and purified souls might carry on an intercourse with spiritual beings^f: and it is by no means improbable, that the miracles worked by Christ and his apostles induced them to lay claim to a participation in this supernatural power. -

It is said by some writers that Magic was divided into two kinds, one which was called by the Greeks Seovpyla, the other ■yoYjTiloi; and Mosheim describes the former as the

Sower of driving away evil daemons, and repelling their in- uence by the assistance of God and of good Genii; the latter, as the art of injuring men by the assistance of evil' Genii S. A Christian can hardly recognise this distinction: though perhaps we may say, that some persons really thought themselves able to obtain the aid of good spirits by prayer and other offerings, so as to work visible miracles: while others knew very well that they were merely imposing upon weak and credulous minds. Whoever wishes to know the opinions of the ^ancients concerning good and evil Dae­mons, and the power exercised by them over men, may con­

* Vit. Pyth. p. 195. - lb. p. 139. ed. 1707.

See Porphyry de Abstinentia II. 42. p. 182. ed. 1767.

* XIX. 1. XXVIII. II. XXXV. 15. See Brucker, vol. II. p. 86.

•* Annal. II. 27. VI. 29. XII. 59.

• See Colbergins, de Orig. Heer. I. 2. p. 3. Brucker, vol. II. p. 668. Bud- deus, de Hcer. Valentini, p. 641.

^f See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 30. Baltus, Difense des Saints Peres, Liv. III.

s De uno Simone Mago. 13. p. 84. ad Cudwortb IV. 15. vol. I. p. 396. not. 1. He represents the distinction as having been made by the later Platonists.

C C

suit Ant. Van Dale, de Divinationibus Idololatricis. Mo- sheim’s Notes to Cudworth IV. 33. vol. L p. 797. note ^r. V. 82. vol. II. p. 153. note y. Baltus, Defense des Saints Peres, Liv. III. Biscoe, on the Acts, c. VIII. p. 265. The curious work of Iamblichus, de Mysteriis JEgyptiorum, may also be consulted: and the history of the magical art may be illustrated by a reference to Huetius, Demonst. Evang. Prop. IX. c. 39- p. 420. Arndius, Lexicon An- tiq. Eccles. voc. Magia.

NOTE 45.—See Lecture IV. p. 102.

“ Genus hominuni superstitionis novae ac maleficae.” Ne­ro. 16. Upon which words Gibbon observes, “ The epithet “ of makfica, which some sagacious commentators have “ translated magical, is considered by the more rational “ Mosheim as only synonymous to the exitiabilis of Taci-' “ tus^h.” Gibbon refers to the well known passage in Taci­tus, which describes the punishments inflicted upon the Christians by Nero': and he says that Tacitus “ accused “ the Christians of the most atrocious crimes, without in- “ sinuating that they possessed any miraculous, or even “ magical powers, above the rest of mankind.” Tacitus uses the words exitiabilis superstitio, which, notwithstand­ing the remark of Gibbon, may certainly be taken to imply a supposed acquaintance with supernatural powers: and as to tne term malejica, which is used by Suetonius, the most natural interpretation is that which connects it with the use of magic arts ; as when Tacitus says that Piso was accused of causing the death of Germanicus, “Et reperiebantur solo “ ac parietibus erutae humanorum corporum reliquiae, car- “ mina et devotiones, et nomen Germanici plumbeis tabulis “ insculptum, semiust-i cineres ac tabe obliti, aliaque male- “ jicia, queis creditur animas numinibus infernis sacrari^k.” It may be added,’that Tacitus in another place uses the ex­pression magicas superstitiones^, which may confirm the notion that tne superstition with which the Christians were charged was connected with magic. When the Manichaeans and other heretics were accused in later times of magic, there can be no doubt that the term maleficus was used in this sense^m. But it must require a scepticism plusquam Gibboniamus to deny that the early Christians were sus­

¹¹ XVI. p. 407. note 35. * Annal. XV. 44.

^k Annal. II. 69. ¹ XII. 59.

^m See Cod. Gregorian, lib. XIX. tit. 4. de MaUJUAs. Cod.Tlieod. de Male- fids. IX. tit. XVI. tom. III. p. 113. ed. 1665. l.vg. 9. de //postal, tom. VI. p. 202. de Ila-ret. ib. p. 104. Beausobre endeavours to vindicate theMani- chees from the charge of magic, vol. II. p. 799.

pected of magic. Origen informs us, that Celsus “ Accused “ the Saviour of being enabled to do the works which ap- “ peared so extraordinary, by magic (ydjTs/a¹¹.”) Arnobius also mentions the common and childish calumnies which were spread against Jesus ; such as, “ He was a ,magician, “ he performed all those miracles by clandestine arts, he “ stole the names of powerful angels and occult doctrines “ from the mysteries of the Egyptians⁰.” The author of the Recognitions represents one of the Scribes as saying, “ Your Jesus performed his signs and wonders as a ma­gician, and not as a prophetPand such, no doubt, was the meaning of the Jews, when they accused him of work­ing his miracles by the agency of evil spirits. What was said of the master, was said also of his servants and follow­ers, as our Saviour himself foretold q: and among the other calumnies which were spread against the Christians, they were very generally accused of impure and magical super­stitions. There can be little doubt that they fell under this suspicion from being confounded with the Gnostics, who, as I have already observed, made use of the name of Christ, and were often called Christians. Eusebius speaks of Satan devising every plan “ that enchanters and deceivers, by as- “ suming the name of our religion, might lead those believ- “ ers, who were ensnared by them, into the pit of destruc- “ tion ; and at the same time might turn away those, who ^{< were not yet converted, from coming over to the Gospel, “ by the example of their own deeds¹?’ This scheme, which might truly be described as the work of a malignant Spirit, succeeded too well: and ecclesiastical history informs us, that the Christians were accused of all those impious super­stitions, which I have shewn from Irenaeus to have been practised by the Gnostics^s. It is not improbable that what St. Paul heard of the Christians upon his first arrival at Rome, that the sect was every where spoken against⁴, may have been owing to the followers of Simon Magus having been confounded with the Christians: and I have little doubt that a principal cause of the persecutions which were carried on against that unhappy and harmless body, may be found in this mistake. I shall have occasion to dwell more at length upon this subject in note 63. ,

" Cont. Cels. I. 6. p. 325. The Jews said the same, III. 1. p. 448.

" I- p- 2$.

P I. 58. Eusebius notices this charge, Demonst. Evang. Ill- 3. p- 102. 6. p. 125. 132.

1 Matt. x. 25.

^r IV. 7. See Augustin. Serm. LXXI. vol. V. p. 384, &c.

⁸ Origen. cont. Cels. VI. 40. p. 662. ¹ Acts xxviii. 22.

2 C 2

NOTE 46.—See Lecture IV. p. 107.

There will be little or no difficulty in understanding what the Fathers have said of the pretensions of Simon Magus, if we conceive him to have given himself out to be an ema­nation from God: and we have seen, that the doctrine of Emanations had been engrafted upon Platonism from the East some time before. That this is the true representation of the case, I would infer from the contradictions of the Fathers themselves. Thus when Irenaeus states, that Simon said of himself, “ esse se sublimissimam Virtutem, hoc est, “ eum qui sit super omnia Pater ^u,” the explanation is evi­dently an addition of Irenaeus, and in fact contradicts Si­mon’s own declaration, which is nearly the same with that in Acts viii. 10. Again, though Irenaeus, Theodoret, and others, have said, that Simon professed to have appeared to the Gentiles as the Holy Gnost, Epiphanius informs us, that he proclaimed his mistress Helena to be the Holy Ghost^x: both of which statements cannot be true. Again, Epiphanius says of Menander, the disciple of Simon, that he gave himself out as a greater person than his mastery: and yet he had said just before, that Menander professed to be a Swa/xif sent from God; so that he could not have called himself greater than Simon, if Simon had actually pretended to be God. This contradiction appears still plainer, if we compare Theodoret, who expressly says, that Menander did not call himself the first Ivvap.i;: for this, he said, was unknown ^z. It is impossible therefore, if Simon had professed to be God, that Menander could have called himself greater than Simon, and yet have acknowledged, that he was not the first : and I can only infer, that

both Simon and Menander gave themselves out to be 8uva- fisi; sent from God: which is indeed expressly stated by Jerom, where he says, that “ Simon Magus and his disciple “ Menander proclaimed themselves to be Powers of God*:"" and in the Recognitions Simon is made to say of himself, “ I am the first Power^b.” This is farther confirmed by Theodoret himself, who says, that the followers of Simon

^u I. 23. 1. p. 99. ^x Haer. XXI. 2. p. 56.

y Haer. XXII. 1. p. 61. Petavlus has also pointed out the inconsistency of Epiphanius sayinfr, that though Simon called Helena the Holy Ghost, he gave no name to himself. Not. p. 41.' I would compare this with what Ire­naeus says of Valentinus, who taught uvxt SvaSa avovof&ocffTov, ris to ftkv <rt xuXiialou afpvTor, to 3s tiym. (I. 11. 1. p. 32.) Simon prohahly said that the first jEon was ivaviftajrrcs, nomen ineffabile: but he did not say this of himself, as Epiphanius and the other Fathers imagined.

¹ Haer. Fah. I. 2. p. 193.

“ Dei Virtutes. Adv. Lucif. 23. vol. II. p. 197.

^b “ Ego sum prima Virtus.” III. 47.

looked upon him as 0slav rtvd SuvufLiv⁰: and the author of the Clementine Homilies^d makes Simon say expressly, “ I “ am not the Son.” He even denied, that Christ could be called the Son of God, or that 'God could be said to have a Son^e. Some writers have inferred from what is said of Simon by the Fathers, that he was a Sabellian, i. e. that he looked upon the Son and the Holy Ghost as manifestations of the Father under different forms ^f. But the doctrine of emanations, as held by Jews and Platonists in the time of Simon, is not to be confounded with the theory of Sabellius, though it may have led the way to it: and Simon would probably have differed entirely from Sabellius, both as to the number of divine emanations, and the purposes for which they were put forth. Petavius has attempted, but not very successfully, to give a more literal interpretation to the words of the FathersS; and Ittigius is inclined to adopt the same view^h: but the opinion, which I have ex­pressed concerning Simon declaring himself to be an emana­tion from God, is the same which has been adopted by Beausobre", Brucker ^k, and Basnage¹.

When Justin Martyr says, that Simon was worshipped as a God, he may have meant that this was done after his death. Or if he spoke of honours paid to him when living, we know enough of the foolish idolatry of the heathen, to distinguish the apotheosis of a mortal**'from the divinity ascribed to beings, who had always been Gods. It jnay perhaps have been the tradition of these divine honours, which led to the notion, that Simon gave himself out to be the supreme God: and the Fathers, who knew of only one God, forgot that the heathen could worship many deities, without believing any of them to be the supreme God.

Mosheim thinks, that the Fathers may have mistaken Simon, who called himself the Father, meaning thereby the first or principal iEon^m; and he shews from Irenaeus¹¹, that this first -(Eon was called NoDv xa) Mtwoysvij, IIarepa xa)

^c Haer. Fah. I. I. p. 101.

^d XVIII. 7. Yet in the Recognitions he is made to say, “ I am the Son “ of God (Hl. 47.) fro™ which I should conclude, that he used the term Son in a figurative sense, and did not mean to speak of a begotten Son. This will reconcile both statements. ^e Recognit. 11. 49. 111. 2, 8. ^f See Ch. Wormius, Hist. Sabell. II.'2. p. 54.

8 Dogmat. Theol. de Trin. I. 14. 7. ^h Hist. Ecclcs. selecta Capita, V. 10. p. 262.

' Vol. I. p. 257, 258. II. p. 322. ¹ Vol. 11. p. 670.

¹ Exerc. Hist. Crit. ad An. 35. Num. 20. p. 105. See also Massuct’s preface to Irenaeus, art. III. 100. ^m De uno Simone Mago, 17: " I. 1.1. p. £.

c c 3

’Apxyv to>v iravrtov. This explanation will perhaps meet with few followers.

NOTE 47—See Lecture IV. p. 107.

The following are the principal passages in the writings of the Fathers concerning this female associate of Simon. Justin Martyr, after stating that Simon was worshipped as a God, adds, “ They say also, that a certain Helena, who “ travelled about with him at that time, and who had for- “ merly been a prostitute, was his first Idea or Concep* “ tion⁰.” The account given by Irenaeus is much more detailed. “ Having purchased a woman called Helena, “ who was a prostitute at Tyre, he carried her about with “ him, and said that she was the first Conception of his “ mind, the mother of all things, by whom in the beginning “ he conceived the idea of making the Angels and Archangels: “ for that this Conception proceeded forth from him; and “ knowing her father’s wishes, descended to the lower “ world, and produced the Angels and Powers; by whom “ also he said that this world was made. But after she had “ produced them, she was detained by them through envy, “ since they were unwilling to be considered the offspring “ of any other being: for he himself was entirely unknown “ by them ; but his Conception was detained by those “ powers and Angels, which were put forth from her, and “ suffered every insult from them, that she might not return “ upward to her father: arid this went so far, that she was “ even confined in a human body, and for ages passed into “ other female bodies, as if from one vessel into another. “ He said also that she was in that Helena, on whose “ account the Trojan war was fought. . . and that after “ passing from one body to another, and constantly meeting “ with insult, at last she became a public prostitute, and “ that she was the lost sheep. On this account he came, “ that he might first of all reclaim her, and free her from “ her chains, and then give salvation to men through the “ knowledge of himself P.” He adds afterwards, that his followers “ had images of Simon, made after the figure of “ Jupiter 9, and of Helena after the figure of Minervato which custom St. John has been supposed to allude, when he said, Little children, keep yourselves from idols¹. (1 John

° T«v acr aurov svvoiav ffgairtiv yevopivqv. Apol. I. 26. p. 59.

P I. 23. 2. p. 99.

•1 Concerning Simon being worshipped as Jupiter, see Brucker, vol. II. p. 671. Mosheim, fnstit. Mdj- p. 422.

^r Grabe ad JBulli Harm-. Apost. p. 30.

v. 21.) Tertullian either translated Irenasus, or followed some other document, which was common to both of them ; and gives precisely the same account of Helena, her former infamous life, her being the first Conception of Simon, who was the supreme Father, her producing the angels, being detained by them, being the Spartan Helen, &c. &c.^s We only learn from Origen that some of the Simonians worshipped Helena, and were called from that circumstance Heleniani^l. Epiphanius nearly agrees with Irenasus and Tertullian, but makes the account still more absurd, by saying, that Helena was pronounced by Simon to be the Holy Ghost. He adds, that she was also called Prunicus ^u, and that by her he created the Angels, who created the world. Theodoret also agrees with Irenasus and Tertul­lian ^x, but does not add, what appears to be peculiar to the account of Epiphanius, that 'Simon proclaimed Helena to be the Holy Ghost. I need not quote from any of the later Fathers, who agree in the main with the statements already given: but the author of the Recognitions appears to relate a very different story, when he says, that Dositheus was in love with a woman named Luna; and that “ after the death “ of Dositheus, Simon married Luna, with whom he travel- “ led about, deceiving the multitudes, and asserting that he “ was a certain Power, which was superior to God the “ Creator; but that Luna, who accompanied him, had “ been brought down from the highest heavens, and was “ Wisdom, the mother of all things: for whom, he said, “ the Greeks and barbarians fought, and were able to a “ certain degree to behold her image; but they were en- “ tirely ignorant of herself, and her existence; for she “ dwelt with the supreme and only God ^y.” We may re­cognise an agreement between this account and that of the other writers, except in the name assigned to this

* De Anima, 34. p. 2go. We read in this passage, “ Helenam quamdam “ Tyriam de loco lihidinis puhlicae eadem pecunia redemit, dignam sibi “ mercedem pro Spiritu Sancto.” We might at first think, that these last words contained an allusion to Helena being tbe Holy Ghost: but it is quite plain, that Tertullian, who had called Simon “ redemptor Spiritus Sancti,” alluded tD his having wished to purchase the gift Df the Holy Ghnst: and that he meant in this place to say, that Simon afterwards employed the same mnney to purchase his mistress Helena, dignam sibi mercedem pro Spiritu Sancto ; “ a worthy purchase this, which he valued at the same price as the “ Holy Ghost!” Is it possible that a mistaken construction of this, nr a similar passage, should have led later writers to say, that Helena was the Holy Ghost ?

* Cont. Cels. V. 62. p. 625.

“ For the meaning of this word, see Petavius, ad Epiph. Har. XXV. 4. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 326.

* Haeret. Fab. I. 1. p. 193. 11I. 12. p. 513.

C C 4

woman. But even in this particular the difference is not so great as it appears. Luna is in Greek Selene, which is not very dissimilar to Helena^z; and in some editions of Irenaeus we read Selenen for Helenam, and the same sub­stitution is made by Augustin and Cyril ^a. We shall per­haps find the cause of this variation, if we consult the Clementine Homilies, where we meet with an obscure and most absurd passage, about John the Baptist having thirty followers, according to the number of the days of the moon: “ among these there was one woman, whose name was “ Helena, that this also might not be without a mysterious “ meaning: for a woman being half of a man makes the “ number thirty imperfect, as is the case with the moon, “ whose orbit makes the course of the month not perfect^b.” We are then told, that Simon was the most celebrated among the thirty, and that he afterwards travelled about with this Helena, “ who, he said, had come down from the “ highest heavens to the world, having sovereign power, as “ the universal mother and Wisdom: for whose sake the “ Greeks and Barbarians fought, having formed an image “ of the reality: for she herself was at that time with the “ supreme God.” We can no longer doubt, that this foolish story contained some mystical or allegorical meaning, and several writers have endeavoured to explain the allegory. I would refer particularly to Vitringa^c, Horbius^d, and Beausobre^e; the latter of whom has shewn much learning and ingenuity in proving Helena to be the Soul, which was involved in the corruptions of matter, and the extrication of which was the cause of Simon appearing upon earth. It is the observation of Mosheim, that “ nothing is more easy “ than to shew upon what slight foundations this opinion is “ built^f:” and having referred the reader to other authors, I shall adopt the example of Mosheim, as expressed in another work, where he says, “ Concerning Helen, the as- “ sociate of this despicable mortal, I shall enter into no “ discussion or enquiry. The labours of the learned with “ regard to her history have hitherto only tended to involve “ nearly the whole of it in difficulties and obscurity?.” I would only remark in conclusion, that since Simon gave

¹ See Mosheitn, Instit. Maj. p. 427. ^a See Beausobre, vol. II. p. 510. ^bHom. II. 23. p. 633. ^c Obs. Sacr. I. 2. p. 131.

^d De ult. Orig. Simonis Magi, I. 4. p. 523. II. 4. p. 547. See also Sirieius, Disquis. I. de Simone Mago, Tbes. 45. p. 41. Boulduc, de Ecclesia post Legem, c. 5. p. 31: c. 6. p. 37. ^e Vol. I. p. 36. II. p. 324. 329. 510. See also Brucker, vol. II. p. 672. ^f Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. V. 13. note ^b. See also Instit. Maj. p. 419. 426. g De Rebus ante Const, Cent. I. 66. note ‘.

out, that an emanation from God resided in himself, he may. also have said, that another emanation resided in his com­panion ^h. They may thus have considered themselves as the receptacles of the first pair of iEons: and the mystical or allegorical parts of the story may have been the fancy of later -writers. This is, I think, a much more probable hypothesis, than that Simon himself intended any allego­rical allusion.

With respect to this woman being the Spartan' Helen, I need not observe, that the notion is a proof of the transmi­gration of souls being a doctrine held by Simon. That such was his belief, is observed by Tertullian ‘ and others: and I shall have occasion to shew in note 58, that all the Gnostics believed in a Metempsychosis. What was said in the Recognitions and the Clementine Homilies, of the Greeks and Troians having fought for a phantom and not a reality, is evidently taken from the fable, which is pre­served by Plato^k, Euripides¹, and others, and which ap­pears to be traced to Stesichorus ^m, as the earliest writer, who recorded it.

NOTE 48.—See Lecture IV. p. 108.

Though there is no reason to suppose that Simon was the first or original inventor of this system of iEons, yet since he was probably the first Gnostic, who introduced the name of Christ into this mythology, it becomes interesting’ to know the number and the names of the JEons, which formed part of his philosophical creed. Theodoret gives us the following account of his doctrine: “ He supposed there “ to be an infinite Power, which he called the root (pl^aifia) “ of all things. He said, that this was Fire, which had a “ twofold energy, one apparent, the other hidden; that the “ world was created*, and that it was created by that energy “ of Fire which is apparent; that from this energy there “ were put forth at first three pairs, (cru^uy/atf,) which he “ also called roots: he called the first pair, Nous and ’Eirl- “ voia; the second, and "Evvoia ; the third, Aoyta-fi.1;

“ and He named himself as the infinite Power

“ . . . . and he said that Helena was his first Conception “ (ivvoiuvThis account does not appear at first to agree with that which is given by Gregory of Nazianzum

¹¹ This is in fact the conclusion of Mosheim. Instit. Maj. p. 420, 421.

‘ De Anima, 34, 35. p. 290, 291. k £)_e Republ. IX. p. 586.

I Helen. 33.

^m Plato, 1. c. Tzetzes in Lycophr. no. Irenaeus also alludes to Stesicho- rns, p. 99.

" Haer. Fab. I. 1. p. 192.

and his Scholiasts. It is well known that Valentinus, who was one of the most celebrated Gnostics of the second cen­tury, invented a system of thirty iEons⁰: but it is also an acknowledged fact, that the whole system did not originate with himself, but that the first Ogdoad, as it was called, i. e. the eight more ancient and principal iEons, were borrowed by him from the earlier Gnostics P. These eight yEons were Bu9o; and Siy>j, Nouj and ’AXy/hia, Aoyo; and Zcuij, "Avipamo; and ’Exx^ijcn'a. The whole number was arranged by Valen­tinus in pairs of fifteen male and fifteen female iEons; and the successive generation of the eight first may be seen in the following scheme

Bythos == Sige

Nus === Alethia

Logos • = Zoe

I 1.

Anthropus — Ecclesia.

It may be inferred from the words of Gregory of Nazi- anzum <1, that Valentinus was preceded by Simon in main­taining the succession of these eight iEons, and that Simon also made them all to have proceeded from Bythos and Sige. Elias Cretensis and Nicetas^r, two of the commenta­tors upon Gregory, assert this more plainly; and Elias informs us, that the Simonians made Bythos and Sige to be the first iEons; from these came Mens and Veritas; from these Sermo and Vita; from these Homo and Ecclesia. It appears, therefore, that the eight first iEons of Valen­tinus were taken from those of Simon and the first Gnostics: and there can be little doubt that Eusebius alluded to Simon, when he said, that “ the leader of the impious here- “ tics laid it down as his doctrine, that at first God and “ Sige existed^s.” It is not difficult to trace the origin of all this mysticism. God, or the first Cause, was called . Bythos, because his nature was unfathomable, and he was supposed to dwell in a pleroma of inaccessible Light. In

° Iren. I. 1.3. p. 7. Epipban. Hair. XXXI. %. p. 164.

P Iren. I. 11.1. p. 52. II. 13. 8. p. 131. Epiphan. 1. u.

<i Orat. XXV. 8. p. 459, 460. XLI. 2. p. 732.

^r The former lived in the eighth, the latter in the eleventh, century : and their commentaries are published in the edition of 1630.

■ De Eccles. Theol. II. p. 114. The Recognitions represent Simon as be­lieving in many Gods, and one incomprehensible God, superior to them all. (II. 38.) This is nothing else than the system of iEons.

this we may observe a resemblance to the Oriental doc­trines: but the notion of God acting upon his own mind was an offspring of the school of Plato. According to Ire­naeus, “ Bythos, who was incomprehensible, invisible, eter- “ nal, and unoriginated, existed for infinite ages in a pro- “ found silence and quietude: but Ennaea existed with “ him, whom they also call Charis and Sige^t.” Sige there­fore was the Mind of the Deity, and implied the solitude in which he lived, before any other being existed: but the notion of Nus being produced from this union, and of Logos being produced from Nus, is evidently a modification of the Platonic Theology. Mosheim has observed with his usual accuracy", that of these eight iEons of Simon Magus, only six can properly be said to have proceeded from God: for the first pair of iEons, Bythos and Sige, are in fact the Deity himself and his own Mind. The system adopted by Simon, as it is explained by Theodoret, made the first Cause, or infinite Power, to be Fire: and this is nothing else than the inaccessible Light, which was the abode of Bythos. So also the hidden energy of Fire, as it is called by Theodoret, may be identified with Sige, or the Mind of the Deity. Theodoret states, that three pairs of iEons were put forth' from God, which confirms the observation already quoted from Mosheim. The first pair, according to Theodoret, was Nus and Epinaea: in the system of Valentinus, which is also that ascribed to Simon by Elias Cretensis, the first yEons put forth from Bythos and Sige were Nus and Alethia. Nus therefore is the same in both schemes: and I suspect that Theodoret, instead of adding the.name of each female iEon, has only given another name to the male; so that Nus, which, according to Irenaeus, was also called Monogenes ^x, has received from Theodoret the additional name of Epincea. If we proceed to the second pair of iEons, the 4>ajv>j of Theodoret may easily be identified with the Aoyog of Valentinus; but there is still the same difficulty with respect to the female iEon, which according to the former was Enncea, to the latter was Zoe. So also the third pair of iEons* which according to Theo­doret was Logismus and Enthymesis, can hardly be recon­ciled with the Anthropus and Ecclesia of Valentinus. Theo­doret appears to have followed some authority, which was totally different from all the other accounts; but there is still sufficient identity for us to recognise in it the Bythos and Sige, which were looked upon by the Gnostics as the

'1.1.1.p. 5.

" Iustit. Maj. p. 412.

*1. 1. 1. p. 5.

source of all the iEons. Great confusion probably arose from the error of supposing Simon to have identified him­self with God; whereas it is highly probable, that he only gave himself out to be an emanation from God. Whether he considered himself and Helena as the first pair of iEons, or rather as having these two iEons residing in themselves, cannot perhaps be ascertained 7. If we could trust the Fathers in this particular, he was arrogant enough to have said this or even much more: but when we find that Va­lentinus supposed Nus or Monogenes (the first emanation from God) to have put forth, after the birth of Logos and Zoe, two other iEons, which were Christ and the Holy Ghost^z, I cannot help suspecting, that this also was one of the points which Valentinus borrowed from the early Gnostics, and probably from Simon. That Simon intro­duced the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost into his system of iEons, can hardly be doubted; and hence arose the error of attributing to him the blasphemous declaration, that he was revealed as Christ to the Samaritans, and as the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles. I have already expressed my opinion, that he professed to have the same iEon resid­ing in himself, which had resided in Jesus. This was Christ. And he may perhaps Have said, that another iEon, to which, after the example of the apostles, he gave the name of the Holy Ghost³, resided in his companion. Ire­naeus has preserved a singular fact, if we can depend upon the accuracy of it, which is, that Basilides made Christ to be another name for Nus, the first emanation from God, and supposed him to have been sent under this name to liberate mankind from error ^b. If this was also the opinion of Simon, he did not make Christ to be a separate iEon: and he may have asserted, that Nus, or the first iEon, after having resided in Jesus, and returned to the Pleroma, descended also upon himself. All this must for ever re­main extremely uncertain: but that Simon believed in the existence of three pairs of iEons, which proceeded from Bythos and Sige, has been proved by several writers. I would refer to Mosheim, Instit. Ma/j. p. 411, 412. Brucker, vol. II. p. 674. Coteler’s note ad Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. 8.

y Such is the notion of Mosheim, Instit. Mag. p. 429. He also proves SvmfAts to he synonymous with j*Eon, in his Diss. de Uno Simone Mago_y 15. p. 91,92.

^z Ireoaeus, I. z. 5. p. 11.

^a Mosheim woujd explain the words of Epiphanius hy giving another meaning to the Holy Ghost. Instit. Maj. p. 430. See also his notes lo Cudworth, IV. 36. p. 850. note¹.

^b I. 24. 4. p. 101. Theodoret says the same, Heer. Fab. I. 4. p. 195.

but above all, Pearson’s Vindicia-, IgnatiancE, part. II. c. 6. where it is triumphantly shewn, that the first ogdoad of Valentinus was borrowed from the older Gnostics. Pearson is very ably supported by Bishop Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. III.

1. 3, &c.

Whatever else has been said by the Fathers concerning Simon Magus, may be seen in the writers already referred to, particularly Ittigius, de Heeresiarchis, I. 2. p. 23. Ap­pend. p. 4. and Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 6. p. 258. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. II. 5, 12. p. 389. Brucker, vol. II. p. 667. Wolfius, Manichaismus ante Manichceos, II. 40. p. 175. Colbergius, de Orig. Hares. I. 1. Thomasius, Schediasm. Histor. §. 34. p. 22. Siricius, Simonis Magi Pravitates; and Mosheim particularly praises a dissertation of Horbius, in the Bibliotheca Hceresiologica of Voigtius, vol. I. part. 3. p. 511. to which I may add, that the Cle­mentine Homilies and Recognitions, though they are full of fables, and perhaps represent the sentiments of later Gnostics, contain much curious matter concerning Simon Magus.

These writers will furnish every thing concerning the life and doctrines of the parent of heresy; but since a principal object of these Lectures is to point out any passages in the apostolic writings, which allude to early heresies, it ought to be mentioned, that some writers have supposed the words of St. Paul in 2 Thess. ii. 3—12. to allude to Simon Ma­gus. Grotius was a strenuous supporter of this interprets tion, though he only referred v. 8—12. to Simon, and the preceding part of the (passage to the emperor Caligula. He supposed the falling away to mean the great impiety of the emperor, who was the man of sin and the son of perdition. The mystery of iniquity was his attempt to have his statue erected in the temple of God at Jerusalem : and he who now letteth was L. Vitellius, the governor of Judaea, who did not second this impiety of his master. The wicked one mentioned in v. 8. was Simon Magus, whose signs and Tying wonders are described in v. 9—11; and the Lord consumed him with the spirit of his mouth, when St. Peter vanquished him in.Rome. Grotius was followed by Ham­mond ^c, who referred the whole of the passage to Simon Magus. He understood the coming of Christ, mentioned in v. 1, 2. to mean the destruction of Jerusalem. The falling away, in v. 3. is either the turning of the apostles from the Jews to the Gentiles, or some remarkable defection

- Dissert. I*. Prooem. de Antichristo, c. 9. p. 25.

of Christians to the ranks of the Gnostics. The man ?f sin, &c. is Simon Magus, who is said by the Fathers, as in v. 4. to have made himself God^&. That which letteth, or which hindered Simon from openly declaring himself, was the still remaining attachment of the Christians to the law of Moses: and Hammond says, that the Gnostics did not openly join the Jews in persecuting the Christians, till the latter had entirely cast off Judaism ; and then the Gnostics, together with the Jews, were punished by God, a/nd con­sumed witk the spirit of his mouth at the destruction of Jerusalem. Grotius was answered by P. Molinseus (du Moulin) under the name of Hippolytus Fronto, by Jonas Slichthingius, under the name of Johannes Simplicius, and by Maresius, (Des Marets.) He defended his interpretation in an Appendix to his Annotations; and Maresius again replied to him in a work entitled Concordia discors et Anti- christus revelatus. Ittigius ^e also declares himself unfavour­able to the interpretation adopted by Grotius: and it will perhaps be generally allowed, that the notion of Hammond is less improbable, which explains the whole passage of one and the same person. I cannot however see the slightest reason for supposing, that St. Paul intended to allude par­ticularly or exclusively to Simon Magus. If he had done so, his Epistle would have had any thing rather than the effect of quieting the fears of the Thessalonians concerning the day of Christ. The rapid success of Simon Magus, which followed soon after the writing of this Epistle, would have proved to them still more that the day was at hand. But if Simon Magus was the man of sin, the mystery of iniquity had been already at work for some time. This Epistle was probably written in 47, or sixteen years after the first meeting between St. Peter and Simon Magus; dur­ing the whole of which period there is reason to suppose, that Simon was propagating his lying wonders. It will be remembered also, that Caligula died in 41; so that St. Paul could not possibly allude in this Epistle to the profanation which that emperor meditated in the temple of Jerusalem: nor would that profanation have so greatly affected the converts at Thessalonica^f. I conceive the falling away of

^d Hammond observes that It)—©ed'v is not above, but against God, though he seems to make no difference in his interpretation of the passage. The words however do not necessarily imply that the man of sin exalted himself above God : he may only have presumptuously opposed his decrees.

^e De Haeresiarchis, p. 29, &c. Hist. Eccles. Select. Cap. V. 18. p. 277. See also Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. vol. I. p. 619. Bochart, Op. vol. II. p. 1044. Moore’s Mystery of Iniquity. Newton, Dissertation XXII.

^f Hammond has been answered by Le Clcrc and Whitby, ad I. The former

Christians, mentioned in ii. 3. to be the same with that pre­dicted by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iv. 1. which I shall shew in note 60, to refer to Gnosticism. This defection is spoken of as happening in the latter times: and St. John tells us plainly, that when he wrote his First Epistle, the last time was come, ii. 18: to which I would add, that when we read in his Second Epistle, This is a deceiver and an Antichrist, 7. it ought to be the deceiver and the Antichrist, where o tiKu- vo; may refer to the hepysiav itkav^ in 2 Thess. ii. 11. I therefore conceive St. Paul to allude to a great defection of Christians to the Gnostic doctrines, which took place in the interval between St. Paul’s death and the end of the first century. The Gnostic doctrines had been propagated long before, as is declared by St. Paul, when he says, the mystery of iniquity doth already works: but it does not appear, that they spread among Christians. The professors of Gnosti­cism had generally anticipated the preachers of the Gospel: and while the apostles were alive, and particularly St. Paul, the Christian converts continued firm. In those words, Ye know what withholdeth, and he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, St. Paul evidently alluded to something, which the Thessalonians understood, having heard of it before from him, but’ which he did not now choose to mention. He may perhaps have intended him­self, and the other apostles, all of whom, except St. John, were taken out of the way, before the great JalUng away took place: and though St. John appears to have seen the beginning of the apostasy, it probably did not break out till he was taken away by being banished to Patmos. This view of the subject may further illustrate what was said in note 6, of heresies not having endangered the church till the beginning of the second century. Gnosticism had not made much progress among Christians till that period: and Eusebius has preserved a passage from Hegesippus, who wrote in the reign of Hadrian, which remarkably confirms what has here been said: “ When the holy company of apo- “ ties had met with their deaths in different ways, and that “ generation had passed away of the persons wno had been

supposed the apostasy to be the great revolt of the Jews from the Romans. See Newton, Diss. XXII. who mentions all the interpretations of this pas­sage.

s The word mystery in this place has perhaps misled some commentators. St. Paul appears only to have used a proverbial expression, as when Josephus says, “ that a person would not he mistaken, who called Antipater’s life “ xaxias a mystery of wickedness.” (Bel. Jud. I. 24. 1.) We

sometimes speak of a man as a monster of iniquity, as something the exist­ence of which is unnatural and can hardly be accounted for.

“ thought worthy to hear the heavenly wisdom with their “ own ears, then the wickedness of error began to assume “ a systematic form through the deceit of strange teachers; “ who, when no apostle was now remaining, attempted “ openly and shamelessly to preach knowledge, falsely so “ called, in opposition to the preaching of the truth ^h.” It was then, or even earlier, that the 'mystery of iniquity be­gan to take effect: and our Saviour may be thought to have predicted the same result in partly the same terms, when he said, Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many: and because iniquity shall abound, (Sia to TrkijSuvSijvai Ttjv uvofilav,) i. e. when the mystery of iniquity shall be com­plete, the love of many shall wax cold. (Matt. xxiv. 11,12.) I would refer the man of sin, and the son of perdition', to those Christians, who abjured their faith and embraced Gnosticism : the arrogant pretensions of the Gnostics may be exposed in v. 4; and their false miracles in 9—11: with which passage we may again compare the prediction of our Saviour, There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders: insomuch that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. (Matt. xxiv. 24, 25.) When we read in v. 8. whom the Lord’shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, I conceive St. Paul merely to mean, that the holders of these impious doctrines will be condemned at the last day : nor can I see any thing in the whole passage, which re­quires us to refer the completion of the prophecy to a period not long preceding the last day. I allow, that the Thessalonians appear to have been in error upon this point, and to have imagined, that the day of Christ was at hand, v. 2. but their mistake first began upon a different question. They had doubts concerning the resurrection ; and some of them entertained no hope concerning those who were al­ready dead^k. They seem to have taken literally their call into the kingdom of God or of Heaven, and to have ex­pected that Christ would come visibly to claim them for his own^]. St. Paul assures them, that they which were dead should rise again at the last day; and that those, who were still alive, would not enter into the presence of Christ, and

^i] Eus. Eccl. Hist. III. 32.

¹ Our Saviour applied this expression to Judas, John xvii. 12: and we read of alpmn in 2 Pet. ii. I. where Gnostic heresies seem clearly to

be indicated. Dean Woodhouse, who with great reason refers the fifth trum­pet and the first woe in Rev. ix. to the Gnostic heretics, compares the word ’Amxxim in v. ii. with the former expressions.

^k i Thess. iv. 13. ¹ See 2 Pet. iii. 4.

receive their eternal reward, before those who were already dead"¹. If this, passage is rightly understood, there is nothing in it, which countenanced the idea, that the day of judgment was nearunless indeed the Thessalonians mis­took St. Paul, when he said, we which are alive and remain, 15,17. It is plain, that he meant to speak of those, who should be alive when that day came, and not of himself individually: but this, or some other expression”, appears to have been mistaken; and St. Paul recurs to the same subject in his Second Epistle⁰. The Thessalonians under­stood by the day of Christ, and the coming qf Christ, an event which was near at hand: but St. Paul countenanced no such idea, when he spoke of the coming ofour Lord Je­sus Christ, and our gathering together unto him. % Thess. ii. 1. He spoke of the gathering together of the dead as well as of the living: and in order to convince his converts, that they which were still alive, would not have any ad­vantage over those who were dead, he reminds them of what lie had told them before, that many of those who were still alive, so far from being reserved for a speedy interview with Christ, would fall away from their faith, and would never enter into the presence of Christ at all P. This seems a very natural reason for the introduction of this prophecy. St. Paul had often delivered it when among them, that he might warn them against the danger <1: ana he now repeats it, as a topic of consolation to the friends of those, who had died in the faith of Christ: with which we may again compare the words of our Saviour in his me­^m I would point v. 15. thus, on hpus oi ^avrss, oi fegiXwropsvoif'us rnv wifiou- Wos» rod Kugiov oh fiM <pOd<ruftsy robs xotf^nOivras. For this construction, see Ram. ix, 31. ] douht whether •ngikEtvop.Evoi us rw *apov<riav could mean remaining' until the coming. •

ⁿ Perhaps that in I Thess. i. 10. xdt avxpsvuv rov vtov alrov sx rZv ob^av&vy or in ii. 12. rov xaXouvros vficis bis *r»jv lavrou fiatriXstav xai or ill ii. 19*

Tjs aurou vagai/tricc' or in iii. 13, v. 23. lv rJj •xagavffia. rod Kvgtou.

⁰ If we compare 2 Pet. iii. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15. it would seem that the perversion of St. Paul’s words, which is mentioned by St. Peter in v. 16. was the same with that, which was made by the Thessalonians concerning the coming of Christ: aud in v. 17, 18. St. Peter gives similar exhortations to the Christians to stand firm to their faith, and not to be seduced by the Gnostics.

p I would translate the third verse, Let no man deceive you in any man­ner whatever, unless the falling away come first: and I would paraphrase it thua: Let no man deceive you, by .saying that the living have an advantage over the dead, being reserved to see the day of Christ: let no man say this, until the predicted apoatasy ia come; and then it will be seen, whether the living have really an advantage over the dead; it will then be seen, who are likely to enter into the presence of Christ. I should connect on with ftntev* rp&srov* See Knatchbull, ad 1. and Viger. VTII. 9.4. q See 1 Thess. iii. 4.

d d

morable prophecy, But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (Matt. xxiv. 13^r.) We need not conclude, that the Thessalonians were particularly in danger from the Gnostic doctrines, and I should rather infer that they were not. Neither is there any reason to suppose, that they had heard much of Simon Magus. I do not therefore refer the prophecy particularly to him, though it seems to relate to the practices of his followers: and though the Fathers do not altogether support the interpretation here given, yet many of them refer it to Antichrist: and if they took their notion of Antichrist from 1 John ii. 18. they must have understood the prophecy to relate to some event which had already begun to shew itself. Irenaeus refers it to Antichrist in III. 6. 5. p. 181. et 7. 2. p. 182. et IV. 25. 1. p. 322: and though it is plain, that he at­tached a mystical meaning to Antichrist, and expected him to reign for some years, yet he may have conceived this reign to have commenced in the lifetime of St. John, and he may have applied the term Antichrist generally to all enemies of the gospel. This latter notion has been adopted by many writers, and some of them might be quoted as apply­ing the term Antichrist to the Gnostics. Clement of Alex­andria appears to do so in plain terms, when he quotes the passage from St. John’s Epistle, and connects it with the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. iv. 3^s. Origen, after observing “ that all real virtues are Christs, and all pretended virtues “ are Antichrists^l,” specifies some of the latter, which we know to have been practised by the Gnostics; and among others, “ arbitror et castitatem esse Antichristum, quae est “ apud haereticos, in errorem mittens homines, ne intelli- “ gant ecclesiasticam castitatem Christum.” Afterwards he speaks still more plainly, “ Generaliter unus est Anti- “ christus, species autem illius multae: tanquam si dicamus, “ mendacium generaliter unum est, secundum differentias ^{{ autem falsorum dogmatum inveniuntur multa esse men- “ dacia. Si enim mendacium nihil differt a mendacio, puta, “ Basilidis, aut Marcionis, aut Valentini, aut Appellis, “ aut aliquorum similium, unum videtur esse mendacium. “ Hi autem secundum diversa dogmata mentiuntur ; multi " sunt qui exsurgunt. Hi enim sunt Antichristus, et qui- “ cumque post eos resurrexerint^u.” Cyprian in several places (as may be seen by the Index to his works) con­' With this declaration I would compare that contained in Rev. xxi. 8. and John xvi. I—4.

• Strom. III. 6. p. 531, 532. ' In Mat. vol. III. p.852, 853.

” Ib. p. 865. See what follows.

sidered the predictions concerning Antichrist to relate to the persecutions of Christians: but he also shews that he looked upon the passage in 1 John iv. 3. to relate to here­tics*: and his notion of Antichrist is very plainly shewn, when he says that our Saviour did not specify any particu­lar adversary in Luke xi. 23: “neither did the blessed “ apostle John distinguish any heresy or schism, or make a “ separation of any in particular; but he called all, who “ had gone forth from the church, and acted contrary to “ the church, Antichrists, saying, Ye have heard that Anti- “ christ shall come, &c. (1 John ii. 18, 19.) Whence it “ appears, that all are enemies of the Lord, and Antichrists, “ who are proved to have withdrawn from the unity of the “ catholic churchy.” Jerom says, “ I imagine that all “ Heresiarchs are Antichrists, and under the name of Christ “ teach those things, which arc contrary to Christ^z:” and Cyril of Jerusalem furnishes some support to the interpre­tation of Hammond, when, he says that St. John wrote the same passage with reference to Simon Magus ^a. Tertullian also says, that St. Paul alluded to Antichrist^b : and in one place he expressly refers it to the Antichrist mentioned by St. John ^c. Upon the words in v. 7. he says, “ Tamtvm qui “ nunc tenet, teneat, donee de medio Jiat. Quis, nisi Ro- “ manus status ? cuius abscessio in dccem reges dispersa An- “ tichristum superducet.” p. 340. I profess myself unable to comprehend this interpretation, though many commentators have approved of it^d : and I cannot imagine, how the Ro­man empire in the reign of Claudius could be said to be any let or hinderance against the appearance of Antichrist. My own interpretation will perhaps be rejected as equally fanciful: but it at least furnishes an intelligible sense; and we may see in the modesty of the aposde, a reason why he did not express himsielf more openly. A dissertation upon

' Epist. LXXIII. p. 134. The places where Antichrist is taken for perse­cutions are p. 30, 89, 90, 92, 96, 120, 233, 270,329.

y Epist. LXXVI. p. 152. See also Epist. LXXIV. p. 138. where he again says that all heretics are Antichrists, and then proceeds to speak of Cerdon and Marcion.

* In Matt. xiiv. 5. vol. VII. p. 193.

“ Cateches. VI. 14. p. 95. ed. 1720. Hippolytus seems to have expected, that Antichrist was to come from the trihe of Dan. de Antichristo. 15. vol. I. p. 10. Newton quotes most of the passages from the Fathers, Diss. XXII.

^b De Resurrect. Carnia. 24. p. 339, 3410. See the note of Rigaltius.

<= Adv. Marcion. V. 16. p. 480,481. See also Apol. 32. p. 27.

<> Tertullian prohably followed Montanus, who is known to have uttered many prophecies against the Roman government. See Mosheim, de rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 67. not. He is the earliest of the Fathers who gave this interpretation.

this passage has been written by Mornaeus, Mysteriwm ini- quitatis, who refutes the arguments of Hammond.

Some commentators have referred James i. 13, 17. to the followers of Simon. The words of the apostle are these: Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any mam,. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father (flights. Bene- dictus Justinianus, a Jesuit^e, accused Simon Magus of pro­pagating two errors, 1. that God was the author of evil:

2. that there were two principles of all things, and that some things proceeded from the good principle, others from the evil. He conceived that St. James refuted the first error in v. 13. and the second in v. 17. But Ittigius^f ob­jects, that the apostle does not appear to be confuting a new error in v. 17. and he might have added, that the two errors attributed to Simon Magus are inconsistent with each others. Hanschius^h also thought, that St. James in this passage alluded to Simon Magus, who held that God cre­ated Angels out of Matter, which was coeternal with him­self, and that these Angels were the cause of evil. Buddeus expresses a doubt, whether this was one of Simon’s tenets' : and there is at least no evidence, that he was so conspicuous a maintainer of it, as to deserve this particular notice. It is true, that the popularity of Simon’s doctrines in Samaria may have attracted the attention of St. James, who was bishop of Jerusalem : but at the time when this Epistle was written, it is probable that Simon Magus was spreading his opinions in other parts of the world. With respect to the real sentiments of Simon concerning the origin of Mat­ter and of Evil, he seems to have believed in the coeternity of Matter with God, but expressly to have denied, that God was the author of evil^k. He has been charged by some writers with holding the Oriental doctrine of two

' He wrote a Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, and died in 1622.

^f De Haeresiarchis, p. 33. See also Wolfius, Manichaismus ante Mani- chteos, II. 43. p. 184.

£ Bishop Bull argues at some length, that St. Janies alluded to the doctrine of the Pharisees concerning Fate and the influence of the Stars. Harm. Apost. II. 15, 20.

^h De Enthusiasmo Platonico, IV. 13. p. 60.

• Eccles. Apost. p. 359. There is certainly no warrant for the assertion made by Vincentius Lirinensis, that Simon considered God as the author of all evil, and as having made man of such a nature, that he could do nnthing but sin. Advers. Haret. c. 34. Vincentius lived in the fifth century. See Si- ricius, de Simon Mago. Disq. I. Thes. 47, 48. p. 43.

^k For the proof of these points, I would refer to Clement. Homil. XIX. Brucker, vol. II. p. 675. Beausobre, vol. I. p. 37. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. P-4I3- . .

Principles: and Irenaeus might be thought to countenance this, when he says that Cerdon took his beginning from the followers of Simon¹. Epiphanius also says, that Cerdon borrowed from Simon and Saturninus^m: and Cerdon, as I have observed at p. 283, is generally supposed to have be­lieved in two Principles. Epiphanius indeed expressly says of Simon, that “ he believed the world to have been made “ defectively by the Rulers and Powers of evilⁿ: an ex­pression, which might be interpreted in the same way ; and Gregory of Nazianzum names Simon first among those here­tics, who divided the Author of all things into two, and ima­gined a war between the good God and the Creator⁰. Modern writers have taken the same view of Simon’s doctrines P: and hence, as I have already observed, allusion has been found to them in James i. 18,17. and Hinckelman, with still greater improbability, has supposed the oroide7a, men­tioned in Col. ii. 8. to refer to the two Principles held by Simon <1. The falsehood of such a notion has-been exposed by Wolfius^r: and I would say generally of the expressions used by St. James, that he may have had a view to some of the opinions, which were then so prevalent concerning the origin of evil; but I cannot see any evidence, that he alluded particularly to Simon Magus. I would again refer to note 13 for the opinion, which was then expressed con­cerning the Gnostics having adopted the Oriental doctrine of two Principles : and I would add, that Simon may have believed the supreme God to have been at variance with some inferior Spirits, who presided over the world, and yet he could not be properly said to have held the doctrine of two Principles.

There is vet another passage in the Epistle of St. James, which has been referred to Simon Magus. Upon those words, What doth it projit, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? ii. 14. Grotius observes, that the Simonians denied the necessity of works, and refers to Irenaeus, I. 23. 3. where we find that Simon taught “ that men are saved by grace, and not according to “ good works: for works are not righteous in their own “ nature, but accidentally.” That this Epistle was directed

¹ I. 27.1. p. 105. ^m Haer. XLI. 1. p. 299.

” Haer. XXI. 4. p. 58. ⁰ Orat. XXV. 8. p. 459, 460.

p See Wolfius, Bruckcr, and Beausobre, 1. c. Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. §. 34. p. 22.

1 Detectio fundamenti Bflhmiani, p. 116. The passage was also referred to Simon by Cornelius a Lapide, ad I.

’ Manichaeismus ante Manichaeos, II. 42. p. 181. He thinks however that Simon may he classed with those who believed in two Principles.

d d 3

against the immoral principles of the Gnostics, is said also by F. Q. Gregorius^s. Bishop Bull has stated, that the fol­lowers of Simon were intended¹; and Hammond conceived, that St. James was writing against the Gnostics. It is very possible, as Buddeus has observed ^u, that these heretics may have quoted and perverted some of St. Paul’s strong ex-

Eressions concerning faith, and that St. James may have ad these false conclusions in his view. But it seems natural to suppose that the apostle was combating errors among the Christians, rather than among the Gnostics*: and with re­spect to Simon Magus in particular, the same writer ob- servesy, that he not only removed good works from causing justification', but denied that any works were good. He is even said to have denied that any actions are in our own power, and to have taught, that all our conduct is influ­enced by fate². St. James does not make the smallest allu­sion to this absurd and wicked notion: and the opinion of Grotius is perhaps as untenable as that of the Romanists, who, in their zeal against the Protestants, have explained the heresy of Simon to have been, that a mafo is justified by fa ith only^a. Buddeus perhaps takes useless pains in re­futing this assertion, which could hardly have been made by any person who knew the history of Simon, and who re­membered that he could not have preached justification through faith in Christ. This groundless attack upon Pro­testantism has been refuted by Gerhardus, Loc. de Eccles.

§. 207. p. 1037. Bebelius, Antiq. Eccles. Scec. I. Art. VI. p. 94. Siricius, de Simone Mago, Disquis. I. Thes. 60. p. 53. Vedelius, Eocerc. I. ad Epist. Ignat, ad Trail, c. 13. p. 45. and Springlius, de Hodiern. Hazret. I. 2. 2. p. 236.

I shall have occasion at the end of this Lecture to consi­der the words of St. Paul in Col. ii. 18. which have been referred to Simon Magus. I may mention also, that Hor- bius suspected Simon of having held the doctrine of a Mil­lennium : but there is little or no evidence of this, as is shewn by Buddeus, Ecclcs. Apost. p. 336.

Whoever wishes to investigate what has been said con­cerning the crime of Simony, which has been traced to Si­mon Magus, may consult Launoius, Tract, de Eccles. Rom. Trad/d. circa Simonian. Obs. 3—5. p. 303.

* Diss. Post, de Temperamentis Scriptornra N. T. §. 8.

‘ Examen Censurae. Animadv. XV. 8. p. 188. See also Grabe, ad Bulli Harm. Apost. p. 77.

» Eccles. Apost. p. 357.

*■ This is the remark of Ursians, Analect. Sacr. vol. II. lib. V. 7. p. 348. O P. 356. ¹ Recognit. III. 21, 22.

- See Justinianus ad Jac. ii. 14. p. 84. Lorinus, Praef. c. 5. p.4. Cornelius a Lapide, prooem. p. 3.

NOTE 49.—See Lecture IV. p. 111.

That the JEons of the Gnostics were derived from the Ideas, or Intelligences of Plato, has been fully proved by Beausobre, III. 9. Brucker, vol. II. p. 647. Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, III. 28.13. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 143. and Matter, Hist, du Gnosticisme, vol. I. p. 49. The same writers have also proved the resemblance of these iEons to the Sephiroth, or Emanations of the Cabbala^b: and we may safely conclude, that the Oriental doctrines acting upon Platonism led to the system of the Gnostic iEons. When Eusebius says of Plato, that “ he supposed there to be “ many beings like Gods, effluxions and emanations of the “ first and second Cause⁰,” he gives a description, which is as suitable to the Gnostics as to Plato. I have spoken at page 64 of the process by which tho Ideas of Plato became more and more personified: and the only remaining step ■was to apply the term Aicuv to these beings. This does not appear to have been done by Plato himself, nor is it easy to ascertain when the expression was first used. We nave seen, however, that Aristotle speaks of the term being signi­ficative of the Deity: and in proof of its being applied to God, Massuet^d quotes Epictetus, who says, “ I am not an “ iEon [i. e. not God] but man^e.” He refers also to the Pseudo-Dionysius, who calls God “ the beginning and the “ measure of iEons, the essence of Time, and the iEon of “ essential things^f.” These, however, are expressions of re­cent writers : and Justin Martyr has preserved a much more ancient use of the term, when he says that Pythagoras spoke of God as xga<ns toov o\uiv alcivuivS. This, however, may not be taken for a personification of the term : nor am I able to define the exact time, at which Aisuvsj came to be used in the plural for intellectual beings produced from God. It has been conjectured, that the Hellenistic Jews were the first to make this application of the term^h: and it

is certain, that the Hebrew word which is trans­

‘ • T -

lated by them aituvsj, has the same indefinite meaning of a

^b See also upon this point Buddeus, de Hcer. Val. p. 629. Beausobre, vol.

II. p. 316. Vitringa, Ohs. Sacr. vol. I. p. 138, 139.

^c TlXstayuv $zuv vvrarlOsTai sTvaj yWas, atroppoias rivets Kai srg0j3roti w^uirav

»ai <rou Ssutegfli/ airiou. Prtsp. Evang. XIII. 15.

^d Praef. ad Iren. Art V. 49.

^e Arrian, in Epietet. Diss. II. g. vol. I. p. 188. ed. 1799.

¹ De Div. Nom. V. 4. p. J22. ed. 1634. The words are not quoted accu­rately: and though the writer calls God “ the beginning of the JEons," he shews that he used the term aim as opposed to and not personally.

e Cohort. 19. p. 21.

^b Croius, Specim. Conject. ad loca quadam Origenis, ad fin. edit. Ire 11 an Grabii, p. 14. Beausobre opposes the notion, vol. I. p. 573.

D d 4

long period of time and of eternity. It is also true, that the same Hebrew term is used by Rabbinical writers for the World': and so we find aim used for the World in the Book of Wisdom, iv. 2. xiii. 9. xiv. 6. which was probably the work of an Alexandrian Jew. This may almost be called a per­sonification of the term; and was apparently the first step in the process, by which, according to Mosheim^k, “ from ex- “ pressing only the duration of beings, it was, by a meto- “ nymy, employed to signify the bevngs themselves.'¹'' If an Alexandrian Jew learnt to speak of the World as an JEon, a Platonist, who looked upon the World as a living, intelli­gent being, might very naturally apply the term to all the intelligent beings, which he conceived, like the World, to have been produced from God: and thus the word JEon may gradually have acquired the signification which it bore in the system of the Gnostics. A passage in Philo Judaeus may be produced in this place, who, though he does not employ tne term Mon, yet seems clearly to indicate that the doctrine of JEons, as held by the Gnostics, existed in his day. After having spoken of some persons who denied the existence of a God, he observes, that “ others have taken a “ contrary course, through their dread of Him who seems “ to be present everywhere, and to behold all things, men “ who are unfruitful in Wisdom, and who promote Atheism, “ the greatest of all wickednesses : they have introduced a “ number of male and female beings, some elder and some “ younger, filling the world with a multitude of presiding “ Intelligences (Xo'yoi¹.)” At the end of the same treatise, he speaks of these persons as “ introducers of a theogony.” We can hardly doubt, from these passages, that the doe- trine of ^Eons existed in reality, if not in name, in the time of Philo. Tillemont has asserted, that Simon Magus was “the inventor of the iEons^mbut there is every reason to think that the name and the system were invented before his day; and Tillemont was deceived by the fact which has been so often asserted, that Simon was the parent of the Gnostics, and that the iEons of Valentinus were the same with those of Simon. Grotius entertained a different opin­ion : and after having stated that Simon united Paganism with Christianity, he adds", “ Carpocrates so far departed

¹ See Schlinder, jLexicon Pentaglot. in v. p. 1331* In Eccles. iii. 11. the LXX bave translated by tov *iuvx.

T T

^k Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. Part. II. c. I. 7. note ^m. De Rebus ante Const. Introd. I. 33. note ^z.

¹ De Sacrif. vol. II. p. 262. ^m M^moires, torn. II. p. 64. Art. Simon.

" Ad Matt. xxiv. 11.

“ from his system, that since the name of Gods was odious “ to the Christians, he substituted in their stead Angels, or “ JEons as he called them, this being a translation of the “ term fTPf"!’ (living creatures,) which is in Ezekiel, i. 5. “ and transferred to them all the theology of Orpheus, “ Hesiod, and Pythagoras.” I cannot subscribe to any part of this hypothesis. This use of the term JEons was probably in being long before the time of Carpocrates: the passage in Ezekiel is entirely irrelevant: and it is highly improbable that the Gnostics took their iEons from the ancient Theogonies⁰. I do not deny that their philosophical system, as it was perfected by Valentinus, may be repre­sented as resembling in many points the Grecian mythology. I am aware also, that Irenaeus charges the Gnostics with having borrowed their generations of iEons from the fables of the poetsP: Epiphanius says the same"!: and it is per­haps a singular coincidence, that Hesiod, in his Theogony, speaks of thirty Gods, and Valentinus supposed there to be the same number of iEons. But this is rather to be taken for rhetorical declamation than deliberate argument: and Tertullian may be interpreted much more literally, when he speaks of Valentinus in several places as being a follower of Plato^r. This will also account for the resem­blance between the philosophy of Valentinus and that of the ancient poets: for Plato himself, as I observed in note ²⁴, was saia to have borrowed from the ancient Theogonies. We cannot, therefore, be surprised, if many traces of heathenism may be found in the doctrines of the Gnostics: but it does not therefore follow, that they took them direct from the heathen poets. In the same manner it has been asserted, that the iEons of Valentinus were borrowed from the Egyptian philosophers⁸: and when we remember, how largely indebted Plato may have been to the same masters, and how much his followers in the schools of Alexandria must have mixed with Egyptians, we cannot wonder that the Platonizing Gnostics had some marks of the same origin. Upon this subject I would refer to Beausobre, vol. I. p. 550; and particularly to Brucker, vol. III. p. 296. who has shewn

" Croicus agreed with Grotius in this notion, p. 16. See Beausobre, tom. I. p. 579. who refutes-it.

p II. 14. 1. p. 133.

9 Haer. XXXI. 3. p. 165. This notion is refuted by Buddeus, de H<er. /W. p.617.

^r De Praescript. Haeret. 7. p. 204.30. p. 212. De Came Christi, 20.p. 322. For the Platonism of Valentinus, see Beausobre, vol. II. p. 161.

• See Hooper, de Val. Hcer.

that the system of Valentinus was a mixture of almost every creed.

NOTE 50.—See Lecture IV. p. 113.

I have had occasion to mention, that the Gnostics so far departed from the philosophy of Plato, as to suppose, that the world was created without the knowledge of God : but

I have also quoted Plato himself as believing, that the creation of the visible or material world was delegated by God to beings created by himself. Hence Plato was able - to apply the term Creator either to God, as the great first cause, and the maker of the inferior Intelligences, or to those Intelligences, as the Agents employed by God. Justin Martyr observes, that there was a great difference, accord­ing to Plato’s notions, between the terms mtr,tijj and Sijaiou^- yoi. “ The ttohjtijs,” he says, “ makes what is made of his “ own power and authority: but the Syjft,ioupyb{ forms his “ work, having received the power of producing out of “ matter*.” I have not been able to trace this distinction in the works of Plato; and I suspect it to have been one of the erroneous representations made by the later Platonists. They probably wished to apply ttodjtijs to what is properly called Creation, the making of something out of nothing; and Stjftioopyo; to the forming or shaping of something out of preexisting Matter ". But I have already shewn, that Plato had no notion of creation out of nothing: and Justin Martyr is obliged to observe in this same passage, that Plato speaks of God as the Sij/tioupyoj, not the ttodjtijs, of the other Gods^x. There can be no doubt that Plato applied the term Stj/iioopyoj to God 7; but he did not restrict it to him : thus he called the earth “ the guardian and Stjaioupyo; “ of night and day²:” and he makes God tell the other Gods “ to betake themselves to the creation (Syjuioupyla) of “animals®.” He also uses Sy/j.uvgybs in several parts of his works in the common and popular sense of a worhmam, or mamifacturer^h: and there can be no question, that the

‘ Cohort. 22. p. 23.

^u Athanasius applied xrto-rbs to the person who created matter out of no­thing, and rt^'sms to him who only employed preexistent matter. De In- carn. 2. vol. I. p. 49. See Cudworth, IV. 36. vol. I. p. 886.

^x He alludes to the celebrated passage from the Timaeus, quoted at p. 317. 334. foot 0£c2/Vj cov eya fAiou^yog-

y See also Timseus, p. 42. where he speaks of these delegated Creators pifiovftivot tov ir<pirz(>ov ^nfAiavfiyov. *

^z Timseus, p. 40. ^alh. p. 41.

^b See Republ. X. p. 596. where Stifuovgyos is used for and tyw/j-

7-575. In p. 597 he calls a painter ^n{Mov(>yo$ ko.) tomvns-

Greek writers always understood it to mean a person who forms something out of preexisting materials. But their philosophy hindered them from conceiving any other no­tion : and when we find the Gnostics always speaking of the Demiurgus as an inferior being, we may be sure, that this’ arose from the dread, which all philosophers felt of making God the author of evil. We have seen, that Plato partook of this dread, and that he set the example of calling in inferior agents, who created, or rather arranged the world. Perhaps the doctrines of Epicurus may have had some effect in modifying the opinions of the later Platonists; and when one of the most distinguished among them lays it down as an undisputed fact, “ that the supreme God is freefrom, all “ employment and is King, but the creative God passes “ through heaven and exercises command⁰,” he is certainly adopting neither the language nor the principles of Plato, who expressly argues against the notion of the Deity not taking part in all the concerns of men ^d. It is therefore to his later followers that we must look for the origin of the Demiurgus of the Gnostics ; a* being, whom they supposed, with Plato, to derive his existence from God; but whom they clothed with all those attributes of deterioration and of evil, which they received from the Eastern philosophy. Plotinus, the celebrated Platonist, accuses the Gnostics of having departed in this respect from genuine Platonism. He observes, that they borrowed from Plato the notion of a second Creator, but that they entirely mistook his mean­ing concerning this Being, and the whole process of Crea­tion ^e. Perhaps we should here call to mind the remark of Brucker^f, that all the Eastern' philosophers made it a part of their system to ascribe the creation of the world to a second God. It matters not whether we find the Gnostics maintaining that the world was made by Angels, or Powers, or iEons, or a Demiurgus. This is only a difference of names: and the same fundamental error pervaded every system, that the supreme God of the universe was not the same being who created the world. I have mentioned the opinion of Simon Magus upon this subject at p. 107. His disciple Menander said that the world was made by An­gels S. Saturninus, who succeeded Menander, is reported to have taught, that the world was made by seven Angels^h:

^e Numenius apud Eus. Prop. Evang. XI. 18. p. 537. He lived toward the end of the second century.

I&4 De Leg. X. p. 902, 903.

• Ennead. II. 9. 6. contra Gnosticos, p. 203, 204. ^f Vol. I. p. 142.

s Iren. I. 23. g-p. 100. Epiphan. liter. XXII. 1. p. 61.

^h Iren. I. 24. r. p. 100. Epiphan. Hoar. XXIII. 1. p. 62.

and Basilides, another of his successors, made the scheme more complicated by supposing the angels, who were pro­duced from God, to have made the first heaven; then to have created other Angels, who made a second heaven; and so on, till there were 365 orders of Angels, and as many heavens*. Marcion is said by Justin Martyr^k to have taught that the Demiurgus was inferior to the supreme God: but Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides, are all said by Athanasius to have believed that the world was created by Angels¹: from which we may infer, that the Fathers applied the term Angel to any spiritual being, who was not the supreme God. As to Valentinus, whose system com­prehended thirty pairs of iEons, he is said by Theodoret"¹ to have taught, that Sophia, which was tne last of the iEons, brought forth Matter, out of which the world was formed. The accuracy of this statement may perhaps be doubted : but what has been here said of these heretics, will be sufficient to shew the absurd theories of the Gnostics concerning the Creation of the World.

Some curious and ingenious remarks concerning the word Demiurgus may be seen in Heyne’s Dissertation, Demo- gorgon, seu Demiurgus, e disciplina magica -repetitus, in the third volume of his Opuscula, (Gotting. 1788.) p. 309: and Neander has treated the subject with much clearness in his Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion, part I. p. 650. fr

NOTE 51.—See Lecture IV. p. 115.

It is plain that Irenaeus understood these passages to relate to the Gnostics, since he begins his work, which was directed exclusively against them, with these words: “ Some “ enemies of the truth introduce false doctrines and foolish “ genealogies, which rather minister questions, as the apo- “ stle says, than godly edifying which is in faith? In "two other places also he refers to the Gnostics, what St; Paul says of rejecting an heretic after the first and second ad­monitionⁿ. Tertullian applied these texts to the Valen- tinians, by which we must understand him to mean the Gnostics, who were precursors of Valentinus : “ Sed et “ cum genealogias indeterminatas nominat, Valentinus “ agnoscitur; apud quem iEon ille nescio qui novi et non “ unius nominis generat e sua Charite Sensum et Verita-

■ Iren. p. ioi. Epiphan. Har. XXIV. I. p. 69.

^k Apol. I. 26. p. 59. See Epiphan. Hcer. XLII. 3. p. 304.

¹ Orat. II. cont. Arian. p. 489. ^m Hser. Fab. I. 7. p. 198.

¹¹1. 16. 3. p. 83. III. 3. 4. p. 177.

“ tern: et hi aeque procreant duos, Sermonem et Vitam; “ dehinc et isti generant Hominem et Ecclesiam, estque hoc “ prima ogdoas JEonum: exinde decem alii et duodecim “ reliqui iEones miris nominibus oriuntur, in meram fabu- “ Jam triginta iEonum °.” So also in another place: “ Sed “ qui ex alia conscientia venerit fidei, si statim inveniat tot “ nomina iEonum, tot conjugia, tot genimina, tot exitus, “ tot eventus, felicitates, infelicitates, dispersse atque con- “ cisae divinitatis, dubitabitne ibidem pronuntiare, has esse “ fabulas et genealogias mdeterminatas, quas apostoli spi- “ ritus, his jam tunc pullulantibus seminibus haereticis, “ damnare praevenitP?” Epiphanius also referred the ex­pressions concerning genealogies to the Gnostics <J: and these instances may be sufficient to shew the opinion of the early Fathers. Chrysostom and Theophylact remark, that St. Paul may have alluded either to the Jewish genealogies or to the heathen theogonies. Jerom also observes¹, that the Jews were very particular about the pronunciation of words, and the pedigrees recorded in the Bible: from which we might infer, that he supposed St. Paul to intend the Jews. Of modern expositors, Calovius^s and Hartman¹ are rather inclined to take the same view: but Langius truly observes¹¹, as I have already done at p. 114. that the Jew­ish genealogies were hardly dangerous as a matter of faith. With respect to the other opinion, that St. Paul alluded to the heathen theogonies, this is partly embraced by Ham­mond, (ad 1.) who reminds us, that the Gnostics borrowed much from the Greek poets; and also by Vossius ^x. But even in this view of the subject, we must consider the Gnostics to be the persons intended by St. Paul; and it is therefore immaterial, as I observed in note 49, whether we believe or no that they took part of their system from the theogonies of the heathen poets. So also, when Vitringa y and Buddeus² consider St. Paul to have alluded to the Cabbala, we may in some measure agree with them, because it is almost certain, that the Cabbala combined with the Platonic philosophy to build up the interminable system of the Gnostic JEons. Grotius appears to have taken the

° De Prescript. Haeret. 33. p. 214. P Adv. Valentin. 3. p. 251.

Haer. XXXIII. 8. p. 223. ^r In. Tit. iii. 9. vol. VII. p. ^34.

* In 1 Tim. i. 4. He argues at much length against the Cabbalistic Sephi- roth being intended by St. Paul.

* De Rebus Gestis Christianorum sub Apostolis, c. 12. p. 292.

” Diss. de Genealogiis, &c. §.17.

* Epist. I. ad And. Rivet, de Ignatio.

y Vol. T. Diss. II. de Sephiroth. Cabbal. II. 2. p. 137, 138.

* De Haer. Val. p. 640.

same view of the subject, when he observes, (ad I.) that allusion may have been intended to the Sephiroth of the Cabbala. He also refers to Tertullian, as saying that these notions were taken from the Platonists, “ but some names “ were retained, and some were altered. Plutarch also in- “ forms us in his treatise upon Isis, that such genealogies “ had existed long ago among the Persian Magi; and the “ Platonists who have written about Principles, have men- “ tioned them. Porphyry however discovered, and said “ that he had proved, that the writings which were circu- “ lated under the name of Zoroaster, were composed by ‘Vthe Gnostics, to whom St. Paul here alludes.” This is perhaps a correct statement: but I cannot help quoting the words of Langius, who has written the best Dissertation upon the subject, and with whom I entirely coincide as to the origin and growth of Gnosticism. “ Fabularum et “ Genealogiarum Judaicarum a Paulo damnatarum ratio- “ nem genuinam peto ego ex antiqua Judaenrum yvmiret “ h. e. Theologia Judaica, ad Platonismi indolem jam olim “ temporibus templi secundi reficta, quas hodie inter Jn- “ dasos prostat sub titulo Kabbalas, quasve tantas antiquitatis “ est, ut non modo sit aperte satis Gnosticorum ab Irenaso “ descriptorum deliriis prior, sed etiam adeo fundamenti “‘loco iisdem substrata, ut ne quidem Gnosticorum pseudo- “ Christianorum dogmata sine Kabbala h. e. Gnosticismo “ Judaico intelligi queant. Unde infero Paulum in suis ad “ Timotheum et ad Titum epistolis ex professo contra “ Kabbalam Judaicam sive Judaeorum Theologiam, ex Pla- “ tone et Pythagora olim refictam, hujusque fabulas et “ genealogias vere cmepavTov; disputare. §. 23.” Mosheim also thinks, that these passages may be referred to the Gnostics¹; as did Wolfius, Biblioth. Ebr. vol. II. p. 1208. and Cur. Phtlohg ad X Pauli Epist. ad 1 Tim. i. 4. p. 412. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. V. 8. p. 584. and beside the excellent Dissertation of Langius, already quoted^b, I would refer to Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. I. 2. p. 137, 138. IV. 9- 16. vol. III. p. 931.

If we may assume that this is the true interpretation of

1 Tim. i. 4—7. and Titus iii. 9, 10. there are other ex­pressions of St. Paul, which we may also refer to the Gnostics. Thus St. Paul tells Timothy, not to give heed to fables: 1 Tim. i. 4. and these are connected in v. 7. with

^a Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. part II. i. 7. De Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 60. Instit. Maj. p. 142. 316.

^b It is printed in the Thesaurus Theologico-Philolog. appended to the Critici Sacri.

teachers of the law. We may therefore refer to the same persons what he says to Titus: There are many unruly a/nd vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circum­cision ; whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. . . . Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith: not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth, i. 10—14. We find the same allusion to fables in

2 Tim. iv. 3. For the time will come, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teaehers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables: and again in 1 Tim. iv. 7. But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness^c: and this expression not only connects itself with 1 Tim. i. 4. and Titus i. 14. but also with the charge against “profane and vain babblings,” in 1 Tim. vi. 20. which I have quoted before, as unquestionably relating to the Gnostics. That the apostle did not merely refer to the customs of the Mosaic law, but to those customs as mixed up with Gnosticism, may be inferred from what we read in Heb. xiii. 9. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profit­ed them that have been occupied therein. What is here said of meats, may very probably refer to the distinctions pointed out in the laws bf Moses: but a Jew writing to Jews, if he had merely intended these, would not have described them as divers and strange doctrines. I may also again refer to the passage quoted at p. 82. where St. Paul warns Timothy against questions and strifes of words, 1 Tim. vi. 4. and again, But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes, 2 Tim. ii. 23: both which pas­sages will remind us of the “foolish questions and genealo- “ gies” mentioned in Titus iii. 9. All these passages there­fore may safely be referred to the Gnostics: and we may also gather from them the historical facts, that Jewish fa­bles were closely connected with Gnosticism; and that this false philosophy was spreading rapidly in Asia Minor and in Crete between the years 51 and 64.

Some persons have thought that the disputer of this world, mentioned in 1 Cor. l. 20. may refer to the same teachers of the law, and the same foolish questions, which

^c This is referred to the Gnostics by Irenaeus, I. 16. 3. p. 83.

are named in the Epistle to Timothy. References to the writers who have supported this interpretation may be seen in Brucker, vol. II. p. 708: but it would be rash to con­clude from this one expression that St. Paul alluded to Gnostic teachers, rather than to the ordinary disputes of Grecian philosophers.

NOTE 52.—See Lecture IV. p. 118.

The writers of the church of Rome have been rather per­plexed by the words of St. Paul in Col. ii. 18. which con­demn the worship of Angels. Thus Petavius referred the passage to Simon Magus, in his notes to Epiphanius, Haer. XXI. p. 40: but in his Theologia Dogmat. de Angelas,

II. 10. vol. III. p. 81. he was inclined to apply it to heathen superstitions. Baronius^d conceived St. Paul to allude to the Cerinthians, who placed the Angels above Christ: but he denied that the Cerinthians offered religious worship to Angels, or that St. Paul intended to condemn it. Baronius was answered by Natalis Alexander (saec. I. c. 10. p. 52.) and by Garnerius, in his edition of the works of Theodoret, vol. V. p. 491- who agreed in thinking that the Cerinthians were intended by St. Paul, but charged these heretics with offering direct worship to Angels. Ittigius^e •and Buddeus^f also agree in referring the passage to the Cerinthians, who said that the world was made by good Angels, and boasted of having received revelations from such beings: though Buddeus adds, that any heretics may have been intended who united the Oriental philosophy with Judaism. He preferred applying the passage to the Cerin­thians rather than to the Simonians, because the latter ascribed the creation of the world to evil Angels, whom they would not have been likely to worship. Beveridge, however, supposed the Simonians to be intendeds : and this, as we have seen, was the opinion of Tertullian. The chief difficulty in adopting this opinion arises from the fact, that Simon believed the Angels, who created the world, to be evil: and for this reason, as is said by Irenaeus^h and Theodoret', he told his followers not to regard them. Still, howfever, there is reason to think, as Petavius observes, that he believed these daemons were to be appeased by magical and superstitious rites: and he might have held the opinion

³ Ad An. 6o. num. 18. p. 605. See also Spondanus, Annal. ad an. 60. §. 7,8. p. 99.

⁰ De Haeresiarchis, p. 53. ^f Eccles. Apost. p. 460—2.

s Pandect. Can. et Annot. ad Concil. Laod. can. 35. vol. II. p. 196.

^h I. 23. 3. p. 99. , • Haer. Fab. I. 1. p. 192.

which, as it appears from Porphyry^k, was that of the later Platonists, “ that all magic (yoijre/a) is performed through “ evil daemons : for those who compass tneir wicked acts by “ magic, pay the greatest honours to them and to their “ leader.” Theodoret indeed informs us, that there were some heretics who held the impious notion “ that souls “ were sent into bodies, that by working in them all profli- “ gacy and iniquity, they might worship (hpaTrsua-ai) the “ Angels who created the world, by practising these impie- “ ties*.” We find the name of the Euchitae among these heretics: but it has been shewn"¹ that we ought to read EuTu^rai or Euru^lrai, and Clement of Alexandria men­tions the Entychitae as a branch of the Simonians ⁿ. There is reason to think that Theodoret intended the same per­sons ; for the other heretics, whom he mentions in this place, are Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, the Caiani, and the Antitactae; (all of whom were Gnostics:) and where he speaks of Simon Magus, he says that from him originated the Cleobani, Dositheani, Gortheni,—Eutychetas and Cainistce. There is therefore some reason to believe, that a branch of the Simonians -worshipped Angels: and if Simon himself studied in Alexandria, he might have taken this practice not only from the heathen and Jewish Pla­tonists, but also from the Essenes or Therapeutae, who are said by Josephus⁰ to have observed the names of Angels; which may remind us of the remark already quoted from Epiphanius, that Simon “ invented certain names for Prin- “ cipalities and Powers.” If we are correct in attributing to him and his followers the practice of magical incantations, it seems perfectly natural that they should have offered some kind of worship to spiritual beings: and it may have been this to which St. Paul alluded in Col. ii. 18. where he ap­pears, as I shall shew hereafter, to point to other errors of the Gnostics. It is not improbable that St. John may have intended to correct the same mistaken practice, when he twice mentions that he was forbidden to worship an Angel, See thou do it not: I am thy Jelhw-servant, and of' thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus?. St. John was writing at a time when the Gnostic errors were most alarm­ingly prevalent. If the fragments published by Pfaffius are justly ascribed to Irenaeus, we may quote that Father as referring these words of St. Paul to the Gnostics^ : and we

^k De abstinentia, II. 41. p. 181. ed. 1767. ¹ Haer. Fab. V. 9. p. 273, 274.

^m See Coteler. Monument. Eccl. Gr. vol. III. p. 640. .

ⁿ Strom. VII. 17. p. 900. ⁰ De Bel. Jnd. II. 8. 7.

p Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 8, 9. <1 Fragm. I.

e e

can at least infer from his writings, that some of these here­tics worshipped Angels, if he did not actually allude to this passage, when he says in his acknowledged works, that the true Christian “ does nothing by invoking Angels, nor by _a “ incantations, nor by any other im/proper cwriosity^r.” Epiphanius mentions a sect of heretics called Angelici, but professes himself unable to account for their name⁸: he gives several conjectures, one of which is, that they sup­posed the world to have been 'made by Angels: and in the abstract of contents, prefixed to this book, he assigns as another reason, that they invoked Angels⁴. Augustin also mentions the Angelici, who, as he says, “ inclined to the “ worship of Angels"and it is plain that he meant the same heretics, because he quotes Epiphanius as saying that they were entirely extinct. It may be mentioned also, that the 35th Canon of the Council, held at Laodicea in 367, ordered, “ that Christians ought not to leave the Church of “ God, and go and repeat the names of Angels.” All this makes it quite certain that some of the early heretics wor­shipped Angels : but whether St. Paul alluded particularly to the followers of Simon Magus, is more than I would un­dertake to decide. Those persons who make the Oriental doctrines the principal source of Gnosticism, will perhaps be struck by comparing St. Paul’s words in this part of the Epistle to the Colossians with the following passage in Cle­ment of Alexandria: “ The Magi also are very strict in ab- “ staining from wine and animal food and marriage, and ^ic they serve Angels and Daemons^x.”

For the application of this text to Simon Magus, I would refer to Wolfius, Manicheeismus ante Mcmichceos, II. 42. p. 183. who quotes several other authors. The whole pas­sage is interpreted in a very different manner by Tittman, de Vestigiis Gnosticismi in N. T. frustra qucesitis, p. 118, &c.

NOTE 53.—See Lecture V. p. 124.

The author of the Recognitions represents Simon Magus as explaining his notion of the Pleroma in the following terms: “ There must be some place, which is beyond the “ world, or without it, in which there is neither heaven, nor “ earth, lest their shadow should produce darkness even “ there. For this reason, since there are neither any bodies “ in it, nor darkness from bodies, it must be an immensity “ of light: and consider what sort of light that must be,

^r II.32. 5. p. 166. « Haer. XXXIX.

* Haer. LX. p. JoJ. ‘ Pag. 398.

* Strom. III. 6. p. 533.

“ which has no successions of darkness. For if the light of “ the sun fills the whole of our world, how vast do you “ suppose is that incorporeal and infinite light? It is un- “ doubtedly so great, that the light of our sun would seem, “ when compared with it, to be darkness and not light y.” The Index to Irenaeus will shew how frequently the term was used by Valentinus, who placed all his thirty jEons within the Pleroma. Hence the Gnostics might truly call this invisible region w^peo/x.a fls0T)]T0f: and some persons have imagined that they borrowed the expression from St. Paul’s Epistles. But the Epistle to the Colossians was not written till the year 58: and it seems much more natural to imagine that St. Paul used these words, because they were already common in the vocabulary of the Gnostics. I have stated, that the word is not used in this sense in the writings of Plato : nor am I able to point out the time when it was first so employed. Massuet, in his preface to Irenaeus, asserts that the later Platonists frequently used it^z : and he quotes a passage from Iamblichus^a, in which it is said, that the things on earth have the essence of their, existence !v roTj irXripwpMiTi rlov Hscav. I should rather infer, that the later Platonists borrowed their use of the term from the Gnostics: and that the latter took it from the Oriental philosophy, is so satisfactorily proved by Brucker, that I nave only to refer the reader to his worK, vol. II. p. 673. Lampe, how­ever, asserts that the word Pleroma was alike unknown to the Platonists and the Cabbalists: but he probably spoke only of the times preceding the rise of the Gospel. (Prole- gom. in Jocm. II. 8. 48. p. 201.)

NOTE 54.—See Lecture V. p. 127.

Among the other ravings of Valentinus, he imagined, that the whole Pleroma of jEons joined together, and each contri­buting the best portion which they could, they formed an­other iEon, which was called Jesus, and Saviour, and Christ, and Logos, and Every thing, navra, because it was pro­duced by all of them ^b. There was however another jEon, prior to this, which was also called Christ; and the name generally given to the last was Saviour. To this iEon the Gnostics applied several texts of Scripture, such as Rom. xi. 36. Eph. i. 10. Col. iii. 11. and among them Col. ii. 9­in him dweTleth all thefulness of the Godhead ^c. In allusion

y II. 6i. ¹ Diss. I. Art. I. 35.

^a De Myst. I. 8. p. 15. ed. 1678. Gale says in his notes, that the word trx.ti(aipa came from the Chaldee Oracles and the School of Valentinus.

^b Irenaeus, I. 2. 6. p. 12. ' I. 3. 4. p. 16.

E e 2

to the same passages, they called the Saviour EuSoxijtoj, or* 7r«i» to lr\v}goofj.at 8»’ auroo r/utoxrio'e Sofairai tov 7ruTspa^_} or, as it appears from Epiphanius ^e, “because it pleased them all, “ that in him Fulness should dwell.” There can be no doubt therefore, that the Gnostics considered the word Ple- roma in these passages to be applicable to their own imagi­nary Pleroma: and we may say with Irenaeus, when speak­ing of a similar misapplication of texts, “ In this manner “ they speak of their Pleroma, and the formation of all “ things, doing violence to good expressions, that they may “ suit their own evil inventions: and they attempt to draw “ their proofs, not only from the Gospels and the apostoli- “ cal writings, perverting the interpretation of them, and “ corrupting their meaning, but also from the Law and “ Prophets, &c. &c.^f” Waterland conceived the words of St. John in i. 16. of his fulness have all we received, to refer to the Pleroma of the Gnostics, vol. V. p. 185.

NOTE 55.—See Lecture V. p. 127.

Epiphanius says generally of the Gnostics, “ They blas- “ pheme not only Abraham, and Moses, and Elias, and “ the whole company of prophets, but also God who selected “ themS:” and again, “they deny the Law and the Pro- “ phets ^h.” The truth of this charge may be confirmed by the following instances: Simon Magus is said by Irenaeus to have taught, “ that the Prophets were inspired by the “ angels who created the world, when they uttered their “ prophecies; and that therefore those who fixed their hopes “ in himself and Helena, need not care for them anymore'.” Epiphanius states his doctrine to have been, “ that the Law “ was not from God, but from an inferior power; (!£ upi- “ tTTspa; Svmpea)() and that the Prophets were not from the “ good God, but from different powers. He assigned these “ according to his own fancy, the Law to one power, David “ to another, Isaiah to another, Ezekiel to another, and “ each of the Prophets to one particular director. He said “.that all these belonged to the inferior power, and were out “ of the Pleroma; and that whoever believed the Old Tes- “ tament, was liable to death ^k.” Saturninus, who was one of the successors of Simon, believed “ that the God of the “ Jews was one of the Angelsand, “ that some of the

ⁱ Irenaeus, I. 12. 4. p. 58. Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. 1.12. p. 202, 203.

<* Hser. XXXV. i.p. 259. ^f I. 3. 6. p. 17.

b Hsr, XXVI. 11. p.93,94. See Iren. II. 35. 2. p. 170. ^h lb. 15. p. 97.

¹ I. 23. 3. p. 99.

k Haer. XXI.4. p. 58, 59. See Constit. Apost. VI. 19. p.352. 20. p. 353.

“ prophecies were dictated by those Angels, who made the “ world ; others by Satan, whom he also declared to be an “ Angel opposed to those who made the world, and parti- “ cularly to the God of the Jews¹.” His fellow-disciple Basilides taught in the same strain, “ That the prophecies “ were from the Principalities which created the world, and “ that the Law in particular was from the chief of them, “ who led the people out of Egypt^m.” These are the opinions, which, if they are rightly represented, were pro­pagated by the Gnostics, while the apostles were preaching. In the second century, we find Marcion named by Irenaeus as the chief of those heretics, who said, “ that the Prophets “ were inspired by another God ⁿand he appears to be arguing equally against him and Valentinus, when he says, “ that they would not allow that the Prophets were sent by * “ the same person who was also the father of our Lord, “ but asserted that the prophecies were given by different “ Powers °. The prophets had also been rejected by Cer­don, who was the predecessor of Marcion P. I have already quoted the pseudo-Tertullian as saying 9 that Dositheus the Samaritan was the first who ventured to reject the pro­phets, as not having spoken by the Holy Ghost: and though the accuracy of this statement may be questioned, it is per­haps true that the Gnostics were indebted to the Samaritans for this part of their creed. The Jewish part of the Gnostic teachers would hardly have inculcated a doctrine so repug­nant to their national faith : neither is it correct to say, that the Gnostics rejected the prophets: I have already had occa­sion to observe, and Irenaeus confirms the remark in every page, that they quoted the prophets, and perverted the quo­tations, whenever they thought to prove their point by so doing. They therefore only denied, that their inspiration came from the supreme God: and when they said, that different parts of the Old Testament were inspired by differ­ent Powers, or that the whole of it was inspired by the God of the Jews, they only expressed their belief in the doc­trine, that different Powers or Gods presided over different nations, one of whom was the God of the Jews. These na­tional or local Gods were in fact only Angels or iEons; and when Simon Magus is made to say, that he believed in many Gods, he adds, that there was one supreme and in­comprehensible God, the God of all the gods^r.

¹ Iren. I. 24. 2. p. 101. Epiphau. Hcer. XXIII. 2. p. 63, 64.

■■■ Iren. I. 24, 5. p. 102. » IV. 34.1. p. 275.

⁰ V. 26. z. p. 324. See also IV. 35.1. p. 276.

v Epiphan. hTar. XL1. p. 300, 301. <1 De Prescript. 45. p. 219.

^r Recognit. II. 38, 39. p. 518.

NOTE 56.—See Lecture V. p. 127.

It is an ancient notion, that the Sadducees admitted no part of the scriptures, except the books of Moses. Brucker quotes Tertullian^s, Origen ^l, and Jerom^u, as delivering this opinion: to whom I would add Athanasius*. These ancient authorities have been followed by several modern writers, whose names are mentioned by Brucker y; to whom may be added Petavius ^z, Prideaux ^a, and Grotius ^b. The first person who ventured to dispute this opinion, was, I be­lieve, Drusius^c, who was followed by Joseph Scaliger ^d, and other writers, whose works are named by Brucker. I may add Spanheim^e, Pearson^f, Bulls, Jortin^h, and Wa- terlandThe subject has been so ably discussed by seve­ral of these learned writers, that I shall not attempt to re­peat or abridge their arguments. Scaliger is considered by Bull to have decided the question; ana the English reader will find an answer to the usual arguments which are brought from Josephus, in Jortin. Brucker himself wrote upon the same side; and I cannot help thinking, that the notion of the Sadducees having rejected the prophets, is not deserving of the credit which it frequently receives. The evidence of the Sadducees having agreed with the Samaritans in some of their doctrines, may be seen in the works referred to above.

NOTE 57.—See Lecture V. p. 181.

“ Resurrectionem enim per id, quod est in eum (Menan- “ drum) baptisma, accipere ejus discipulos, et ultra non “ posse mori, sed perseverare non senescentes et immor- “ tales ^k.” The Gnostics taught, that regeneration was ne-

* This is the Pseudo-Tertullian, de. Prescript. 45. p. 219.

* Cont. Cels. 1.49. vol. I. p. 365. in Mat. tom. XVII. 36. vol. III. p. 828.

" In Matt. xxii. 31. vol. VII. p. 179.

* Ad Episc. iEgypt. 4. p. 273. f Vol. II. p. 721.

^z Annot. in Epiphan. p. 28.

^a Connection, part II. hook 5. suh an. 107. A. C. ^b Ad Matt. xxii. 23.

¹¹ De tribns Sectis Judseorum, III. 9. p. 137. Prideaux quotes Drusius as having held the opposite opinion.

^d Elench. Trihaeres. c. 16. p. 112.

* Duh. Evang. part. III. Duh. XXIX. 4. p. m.

^f Vindic. Ignat, part. I. 7. p. 467. Pearson’s authority is quoted on this •side hy Jortin ; hut he does not say, that the Sadducees paid much deference to the prophets. His authority is rather neutral.

5 Harm. Apost. Diss. Post. X. 14.

^h Remarks, Appendix to vol. II. p. 339.

* Sermon XXIV. vol. IX. p.306.

^k Iren. I. 23. 5. p. 100. Also Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26. p. 59. Tertull. de Anima, 50. p. 300. Brucker appears to have mistaken the meaning of Me­nander. Vol. II. p. 665.

cessary, for without it they coul,d not enter into the Pleroma. They said, that the baptism which was taught by Jesus, conveyed remission of sins; but the redemption, which came by Christ, led to perfection. To prove this, they re­ferred to our Saviour’s words in Luke xii. 50. Mark x. 38. Some of them brought their converts to the water, and bap­tized them “ into the name of the unknown Father of the “ universe, into Truth and the mother of all things, into “ him who descended upon Jesus, into unity, and redemp- “ tion, and the communion of PowersOthers made use of some Hebrew terms, which signified, “ I invoke that “ which is above all the power of the Father, which is called “ Light, and the Holy Ghost and Life: for thou hast “ reigned in the body.” Irenaeus, whom I have followed in these details, has preserved other forms of Gnostic bap­tism ^m : and he goes on to say, that some of these heretics did not bring their converts to the water, but mixing oil and water together, poured it on their heads. Others again would not use water at all, nor any external or visible sign : for the knowledge of the invisible .God required, as they said, no such aids; but this knowledge itself was perfect redemption. We learn from the same author", that when a Gnostic was on the point of death, his head was anointed with a mixture of oil and water, and some mystical words were said over him, that he might escape the grasp of the Principalities and Powers. His body then remained in this lower world, and his soul appeared in the presence of the Demiurgus. Another prescribed form of word's enabled him to escape from the power of the Demiurgus: and the inner man, which was something still more sublime than the soul, ascended to its ultimate and heavenly abode. This rhapsody is expressed more simply by Irenasus in another place, where he represents the Gnostics, as saying, “ that “ as soon as they were dead, they passed the heavens and “ the Demiurgus, and went to the Mother, or (in their own “ sense of the expression) to the Father °.” If they were pressed by the fact, that the soul of Jesus went immediately

^I Koivavtuv rav Suvapsaiv. Bishop Bull allows, that the article de commu- nione Sanctorum was not part of the original creed. (Judic. VI. 19.) Might we not quote this Gnostic form of baptism as some proof, that the genuine formula, as used by Christians, contained, some clause concerning commus nion ? The three last clauses used by the Gnostics resemble those de una catholica ecclesia, de remissione peccatorum, de communione sanctorum, in the Christian creeds.

^m I. 21. 2. p. 94, &c. St. Paul may hare had these in view, when he said, There is one body and one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph. iv. 4.

^II Pag. 97. ⁰ V. 31. 1. p. 330. See also Tertull. Scorpiac. 10. p. 495.

E e 4

after its separation ad inferos P, they said that inferi merely meant this lower world, “ but that the inner man left the “ body here, and ascended to a supercelestial place.” This agrees with the still earlier testimony of Justin Martyr, who

speaks of some persons, “ who were called Christians-------------

“ and said there was no resurrection, but that as soon as “ they died, their souls were taken up into heaven <J.” There can be no doubt, that he alluded to the Gnostics; and Polycarp is evidently writing of the same heretics, when he speaks of persons “ perverting the scriptures to their “ own lusts, and saying that there is neither resurrection “ nor judgment^r.” I may conclude this note with the fol­lowing passage from Tertullian, which shews how funda­mental doctrines may be explained away and destroyed by allegory. “ Nacti quidam solemnissimam eloquii prophetici “ formam, allegorici et figurati plerumquej non tamen sem- ^,f per, resurrectionem quoque mortuorum manifeste annun- “ tiatam, in imaginariam significationem distorquent, asseve- “ rantes, ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intelligendam. “ Non enim hanc esse in vero, quas sit in medio, discidium “ carnis atque animas; sed ignorantiam Dei, per quam homo “ mortuus Deo non minus in errore jacuent, quam in se- “ pulcro: itaque et resurrectionem earn vindicandam, qua “ quis adita veritate redanimatus et revivificatus Deo, igno- “ rantiae morte discussa, velut de sepulcro veteris homims

“ eruperit: exinde ergo resurrectionem fide consecutos,

“ cum Domino esse, quum cum in baptismate induerint^s:” If we could depend upon the statement of Epiphanius, that the Samaritans were ignorant of the resurrection of the dead, and did not believe itwe might infer that the Gnostics re­ceived this doctrine from Simon Magus, who was a Sama­ritan. But Brucker has given reasons for thinking that Epiphanius was mistaken ^u.

NOTE 58.—See Lecture V. p. 181.

Irenaeus shews that the transmigration of souls was a fa­vourite tenet of the Gnostics, or he would not have devoted

p The whole of this passage of Irenagus may be quoted as a proof, that the descent into hell formed part of the ancient creeds; and it may have been inserted on account of this fundamental error of the Gnostics, rather than to meet the Apollinarian heretics in the fourth century, who held that Christ had not a human soul. See Bull, Judic. VI. 19, and Grabe, Annot.adl. §.

12. Lavater, de Descensu J. Christi ad inferos.

q Dial, cum Tryph. 80. p. 178.

^r Ad Philip. 7. p, 188. ⁶ De Resur. Carnis, 19. p. 336.

* Haar. IX. 2. p. 25. So also the Recognitions, I; 54. p. 506,

^u Vol. II^p.665.

a portion of his work to the refutation of it^x. Theodoret also speaks of Manes, and the Gnostics before him, as hav­ing borrowed this notion from Plato and Pythagoras y. It is stated to have been held by Simon Magus ^z; by Basilides, who absurdly quoted the words of St. Paul in Rom. vii. 9- as asserting the same doctrine^a; and taught that a transi­tion of souls into other bodies after death was the only ■punishment appointed for sinners^b: and by Carpocrates and his followers, who made use of it as a cloak for their profligate lives⁰. But the following passage in Epiphanius is most to the purpose, where he says of Marcion’s aversion to animal food, “ He imagines, as do those who think with “ him, that there is the same soul in men and other ani- “ mals: for this erroneous notion is entertained by many “ of the heresies: for Valentinus and Colorbasus, and all “ the Gnostics and Manichees, say that there are transmi- “ grations of souls, and successive incorporations of the soul “ of men who have no knowledge: they say also, that these “ souls make their rounds, and are successively incorpo- “ rated in each animal, until the soul acquires knowledge, “ and being thus purified , and released it passes into hea- “ ven ^d.” These instances might be sufficient to prove that ’ield by the Gnostics; but I will add

brated Platonist, who names the transmigration of souls among those doctrines which the Gnostics had borrowed from the school of Plato^e. Theodoret, as we have seen, also traced it to Plato and Pythagoras: and Irenaeus says that “ Plato, that ancient Athenian, who was the first to in- “ troduce this opinion, when he could not defend it, ima- “ gined the cup of oblivion, and thought by this means to “ escape the difficulty ^f.” These words can only be under­stood to mean, that Plato was the first Athenian philoso­pher who introduced this notion into his system, and that “ the cup of oblivion” was an invention of his own. The latter may be true; but it is needless to prove that Pytha­goras, Empedocles, and others, had maintained a metemp­sychosis before him. Pythagoras appears to have been the first who introduced the doctrine into Greece; and he is

^x II. 33. p. 167. y Hteret. Fab. V. 20. p. 297.

^z See what is said of Helena by Irenseus, 1.23. 2. p. 99. and by Tertullian, de Anima, 34. p. 290. ^a Origen. in Rom. 1. V. vol. IV. p. 549. Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. p. 600. ^b Origen. in Mat. p. 857. *' Theodoret. 1. c. Iren. I. 25. 4. p. 104.

^J Haer. XLII. p. 330. ■ Ennead. II. 9. contra Gnosticos, p. 203.

^f II. 33. 2. p. 167.

Fathers that of Plotinus, the cele-

said by DiodorusS to have taken it from the ^Egyptians. It has been disputed also, whether it was not held by the an­cient Persians¹¹: but it. is sufficient for our purpose to ob­serve, that Pythagoras probably adopted it in Egypt, and Plato learnt it from the Pythagoreans. The opinion of Plato upon this point cannot be doubted. The passages, in which he has explained himself, may be seen below¹: and he may be represented in a few words as teaching, that souls originally came from heaven, and that a period of ten thousand years would elapse before they returned thither. This period however may be shortened in the case of those souls which have been thrice successively in the body of a philosopher. In such cases the soul may return to heaven in three thousand years. But, in ordinary instances, the soul is judged at the termination of its first period; and after being sent to some place, either under or above the earth, it returns at the end of a thousand years to enter upon a new life: but this may be either in the body of a beast, or of another human being. According to this sys­tem, knowledge was only the recollection of something which had been learnt in a former state of existence: and this was a notion to which Plato appears to have been par­ticularly attached ^k. From what has been said in the course of these Lectures, it may easily be understood, why a doc­trine, which was embraced by Plato, was received also by the Gnostics. Nor was Platonism the only source from which they may have taken it: for there is good reason to think that the Cabbalists had also adopted it¹: and it has been thought by some writers, that the Pharisees in our Saviour’s time were believers in a metempsychosis. This however is a disputed point, into which it is not necessary

e Lib. I. 98. p. 110. ed. Wesseling. Eusebius says that Plato spoke like an Egyptian about the metempsychosis. Prop. Evang. XIII. 16. See Brucker, vol. I. p. 1093.

^h This is asserted by Beausobre, vol. II. p. 491. though it is denied by Hyde, c. 34. p. 415.

> Phaedrus, p. 248. Meno, p. 81. Fhsedo, p. 70. 81. Republ. p. 614. Ti- maeus, p. 42. See also Eus. Prop. Evang. XIII. 16. Proclus in Timceum, VI. p. 331. ed. Basil.

^k See Phadrus, p. 248. Meno, p. 81. 85. 86. Phcedo, p. 72. 73. 76. Also Tertullian. de Anima, 23. p. 280. . ■

¹ See Loria, de Revolutionibtis Animarum, 1.1.11. Morns, Expos. Vision. Ezech. Brucker, vol. II. p. 754. Windetus, de Vita Functorum Statu, §. £. p. 76. The opinion of Philo upon this subject has been questioned: but the.- following passage seems to countenance the doctrine: a %'teuros auras

otffapdirtuv Iffn 'htaLKiKos[Lyi[Li'ita't, ab rats oturotTs iv raj'stri' rat ftiv yxv itffXgmffQat Xoyos t%u OMfhuai Qvnrots, xai xuret rivas aigtffftims srtgtoiavs oL’raXXamffbaLi TaAiV.

De Plant. Noe. vol. I. p. 33¹ • Josephus believed in a metempsychosis, de BelLJud. III. 8. 5. j). 247.

for me to enter. References to writers upon both sides of the question may be found in Brucker, vol. II. p. 754: and the history of this doctrine, as it has been embraced in different countries, is treated with much learning by Spize- lius, de re Literaria Sinensium, sect. 13.^m We may suffi­ciently account for the Gnostics believing in a transmigra­tion of souls, when we know that they were preceded by the Platonists and the Cabbalists.

It has often been said, that some Christian writers, and particularly Origen, believed in a transmigration of souls. Jerom ⁿ asserted it of Origen; and Huetius⁰, BeausobreP, and others, have made the same statement. That Origen believed in the preexistence of souls cannot be denied <1: and Gregory of Nyssa has shewn that the two doctrines are connected together^r: but I cannot help doubting, whe­ther the charge was not brought against Origen by in­ference and implication, rather than by positive proof. There is no passage in his existing writings which shews a belief in the transmigration of souls. On the contrary he seems to be decidedly opposed to it: he speaks of using the doctrines of Christianity “ to heal those who are suffer- “ ing from the foolish notion of the metensomatosis^she says of Celsus, “ If he had been aware what awaits the soul

“ in its future eternal existence, he would not have so

“ violendy attacked the notion of an immortal being coming “ into a mortal body; not according to the metensomatosis “ of Plato, but by another and sublimer method^t.” Speak­ing of those words in Mat. xi. 14. This is Elias, which was for to come, he observes, “ From this passage, which stands “ almost alone, some persons have introduced a metensoma- “ tosis, as if Jesus himself had thus confirmed the notion: “ but, if this were true, we ought to .find something like it “ in many passages of the prophets or evangelists ^u.” In another place he speaks of persons, “ who are strangers to “ the doctrine of the church, supposing that souls pass “ from human bodies to the bodies of dogs according to

^m Beausobre has also some ingenious and learned remarks upon this doc­trine, vol. II. p. 487. but tbey must be read with caution. See also Baltus, Defense des Saints Peres, III. p. 290, &c.

“ Epist. CXXIV. ad Avitum, vol. I. p. 914. Apol. adv. Ruftn. II. 8. vol. II. p. 407. See also Justinian. Epist. ad Menam.

⁰ Origcniau. Lib. II. Quaest. VI. N°. 17. r Vol. II. p. 492.

1 See Mosheiin’s Notes to Cudwortb, 1.31. p. 64. not ^h. He refers to H. Morus, Prof, ad Op. Philos. §. 18. p. 20. Leo Allatius, Not. ad Methodii Sympos. p. 96.

^r Apud Justinian. Epist. ad Menam. • Cont. Celsum, III. 75. p. 497.

¹ lb. IV. 17. p. £12. ^u Com. in Mat. vol. III. p. 441, 442.

“ their different crimes ^x.” But the most remarkable pas­sage is where he is again speaking of Elias, as mentioned in Matt. xvii. 10. and says, “ In these words it appears to me “ that Elias does not mean the soul, lest I should fall into “ the doctrine of the metensomatosis, which is not held by “ the church of God, nor handed down by the apostles, nor “ does it appear anywhere in the scriptures.” He then ar­gues at considerable length against the notion y: and upon the whole I cannot but conclude, that the charge, which has been brought against Origen, is entirely groundless. This was shewn formerly by Pamphilus in his Defence of Origen, (c. 10;) and Huetius professes the same opinion in the work to which I have already referred, (§. 19, &c.) though Beausobre quotes him, as if he had charged Origen with agreeing with Pythagoras and Plato.

NOTE 59.—See Lecture V. p. 183.

I should rather infer, that the persons, whose arguments were combated by St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Co­rinthians, denied a Resurrection in any sense of the term: and it would seem from his words in xv. 29—32. that they did not believe in any future state of the soul at all: at least they did not believe, that a person, who met with af­fliction in this life, could be recompensed by happiness hereafter². One of their arguments was evidently taken from the impossibility of comprehending with what body the dead shall rise again, xv. 35: and this objection, which was likely to be urged by any Grecian philosopher, was ad­vanced also by the Gnostics, who chose to understand the doctrine of the Christians to mean, that the material body will be raised again and reunited to the soul. It is unde­niable, that most if not all the Fathers did literally and strenuously maintain, that we shall rise again with our bodies. The Resurrection of the Flesh was asserted by Tertullian in a separate treatise, which bears that title: and there is no point which he and all the Fathers labour more strongly to establish against all the professors of Gnosti­cism. Accordingly we find every branch of the Gnostics accused of denying the resurrection : but we must remem­ber, th&t. the resurrection of the body was always intended in this expression : and perhaps the ardour of controversy led the Fathers to charge some of their opponents with an

* Com. in Mat. vol. III. p. go6. y lb. p. 567, 568.

' Such appears to have been the opinion of Origen. in Mat. XVII 29. p. 811. See Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. IV. 9. 5. vol. III. p. 924.

incredulity or an impiety of which they were not really guilty. That the Gnostics believed in the immortality of the soul, is certain beyond dispute. Neither does it appear that they supposed each soul, after its separation from the body, to be absorbed in the Pleroma or in the Deity: they therefore conceived each soul to exist in a distinct state of individuality ; and such an existence implies a state of con­sciousness. The difference therefore between the doctrine of the Gnostics and that preached by the apostles, was not so much concerning the nature of spiritual existence, and the consciousness of the soul after its separation from the body: but the difference consisted in what I have already endeavoured to explain, that the Gnostic believed the soul to enter upon its purified and celestial existence immedi­ately after death, without being exposed to any final judg­ment, or any further change. The Fathers very justly ex­posed the error of this notion: but I cannot help thinking, that their desire to establish the resurrection led them to hold a language, and to inculcate a doctrine, which is no­where expressly revealed in scripture. It is nowhere as­serted in the New Testament that we shall rise again with our bodies³-. Unless a man will say, that the stalk, the blade, and the ear of corn are actually the same thing with the single grain which is put into the ground, he cannot quote St. Paul as saying that we shall rise again with the same bodies: or at least he must allow that the future body may only be like to the present one, inasmuch as both come under the same genus: i. e. we speak of human bodies, and we speak of the heavenly bodies: but St. Paul’s words do not warrant us in saying that the resemblance between the present and future body will be greater than between a man and a star, or between a bird and a fish ^b. Nothing can be plainer than the expression which ne uses in the first of these two analogies, Thou sowest not that body that shall be, xv. 37. He says also with equal plainness of the body, It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body: there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body, 44. These words require to be examined closely, and involve remotely a deep metaphysical question. In common lan­guage the terms Body and Spirit are accustomed to be op­posed, and are used to represent two things which are to­tally distinct. But St. Paul here brings the two expres-

^a It appears from a remark of Celsus, that the resurrection of the body was not believed in its literal sense by all Christians. Origen. c. Cels. V. 14. P- S⁸7-

sions together, and speaks of a spiritual body. St. Paul therefore did not oppose Body to Spirit: and though the looseness of modern language may allow us to do so, and yet to be correct in our ideas, it may save some confusion if we consider Spirit as opposed to Matter, and if we take Body to be a generic term which comprises both. A Body therefore in the language of St. Paul is something which has a distinct individual existence. If we were to call it a substance, the expression might again be liable to indis­tinctness ; because Substance in modern language conveys the idea of materiality, or at least of tangibility. But the language of Metaphysics might allow us to call Spirit a substance. St. Paul, as we have seen, would have called it a Body: and Tertullian in the same manner says that the Soul may be called a Body, though he adds that it is a body “ propriae qualitatis et sui generis ^c.” His expressions seem still more extraordinary in another place, where he asserts that God is a body: “ Quis enim negabit Deum “ corpus esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus “ sui generis in sua effigie^d.” One of his commentators observes that this expression is not to be endured, and that it savours of anthropomorphism. But we must not judge of Tertullian’s phraseology according to the modern accepta­tion of words. If he chose to say with St. Paul, that a Spirit is in one sense a Body; and if it be true, as it undoubt­edly is in some sense, that God is a Spirit^e, it seems to fol­low logically, that God is a Body in Tertullian’s and St. Paul’s sense of the term. It is true, that we must consider whether the word Spirit is not here used equivocally. Every person perhaps would admit, that a Spirit, i. e. a spiritual or angelical being, is a Body in St. Paul’s sense of the term, i. e. it is a Being or Substance: but whether God is a Spirit in this signification of the word, involves one of the deepest of all metaphysical questions, and would lead us to inquire, whe­ther the Deity possesses personal individuality, or whether he is to be abstracted from all ideas of lineaments and space. There is no need to examine this abstruse subject, nor to seek to penetrate that light, which no man can approach unto, 1 Tim. vi. 16: but I would observe, that our ideas are liable to great indistinctness upon this point. All per­sons are not disposed at first to admit, what is neverthe­less undoubtedly true, that a Spirit is bounded by space. Every Spirit is not every where: there must be portions of space, where any given Spirit is not: it is therefore bounded

^c De Amnia, c. 9. p. 269. ^d Adv. Praxeam, c. 7. p. 504. ^c John iv. 24.

by space, and as Tertullian says of the Soul, “ Solenniora “ quseque et omnimodo debita corpulentias adesse animse “ quoque, ut habitum, ut terminum, ut illud trifariam di- “ stantivum, longitudinem dico, et latitudinem, et sublimi- “ tatem, quibus metantur corpora philosophic” It is very unfair therefore to say that Tertullian was an anthropomor- phite in his notions of the Deity: he believed that God had a distinct being, and that he was, in the language of St. Paul, a spiritual Body. In the same manner St. Paul tells us, that every individual, when he rises again, will have a spiritual body: but the remarks which I have made may shew, how different is the idea conveyed by these words from the notion which some persons entertain, that we shall rise again with the same identical body. St. Paul appears effectually to preclude this notion, when he says, Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, of God, 50. The Fathers felt the force of this text, when they were defending lite­rally the resurrection of the flesh: and Beausobre is in this instance not unjust to the Fathers, when he says of one of them, “ Adamantius, ou l’Orthodoxe, presse par cette ob- “ jection, a recours a une tres-mauvaise defaite, quoiqu’elle “ ait <5t<5 adoptee par plusieurs des Peres. II dit une v^rite, “ mais qui n’est point a propos. Selon lui la Chair et le “ Sang ne signifient dans cet endroit que les actions vici- “ euses de la Chair. II faut en convenir; cette solution don- “ noit la victoire a l’adversaire: car il est plus clair que le “ jour, que l’Apdtre a pris la Chair et le Sang dans le sens “ propre: sans remarquer, que cette expression ne signifie “jamais que l’Homme mortels.” Tertullian labours at great length to establish the same interpretation of 1 Cor. xv. 50^h. and Epiphanius does the same, when arguing against the Manichees'. Nothing however can be plainer, than that St. Paul asserts in this place, that the bodies, with which we shall rise at the last day, will not be bodies of flesh and blood: we shall be changed, 52: and Jesus Christ shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, Phil. iii. 21. Epiphanius tries in the same manner to explain away another expression of St. Paul, where he speaks of delivering a man unto Satan, for the destruction of the jlesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. v. 5. Manes made use of this text to prove, that the soul or spirit will be saved without the body: and Epiphanius shews, that in this in­^f P. 269. ⁶ Vol. XX. p. 139. ^h De Resur. Carnis, c. 48. p. 354. ■ Haer. LXVI. 87. p. 707.

stance at least, his opponent had the advantage of the argu­ment^k. Upon the whole I should conclude, that though the Gnostics entirely mistook the doctrine of the resurrec­tion, the Fathers also did not represent it in its proper light. The former error perhaps led to the latter: and while the notion entertained by the Gnostics concerning Matter made them shrink with horror from a reunion of the body and the soul, the Fathers insisted more strongly upon the resurrection of the body, in order to maintain the belief in a future judgment, which was denied by the Gnos­tics. Neither party seems to have been aware of the full meaning of the expression, there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body; an expression which allows us to believe that we shall rise again with a consciousness of identity, but which leads us also to conclude that the bodies, with which we shall rise, will not be material. Origen ap­pears to have approached much nearer to the truth in this particular than any other of the Fathers: and he certainly did not believe, that the same material body of flesh and blood would rise again unchanged¹: for which opinion he incurred no small share of reproach, and Epiphanius la­bours at great length to prove it to be heretical^m. There are few persons, however, who would not allow that the arguments of Epiphanius are miserably weak. The history of this controversy and of Origen’s sentiments concerning the resurrection, are very fully discussed by Huetius, Ori- genian. 1. II. c. 2. Queest. 9. p. 209.

NOTE 60.—See Lecture V. p. 140.

In note 48, I have said that the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess. ii. 3. relates probably to the same period which is predicted in 1 Tim. iv. 1. There are other expressions also of the same kind in different parts of the New Testa­ment: thus St. Paul says in 2 Tim. iii. 1. This lenow also, that in the last days perilous times shall come: and he then proceeds to detail a catalogue of most atrocious crimes". The same period appears to be indicated in iv. 3, 4. For the time will come, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teach­ers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. St.

^k Haer. LXVI. 86. p. 706. ¹ Cont. Celsum. V. 18. p. 590.

^m Haer. LXIV. p. 528, &c.

" If we compare 2 Tim. iii. 1, 6, 8. it is at least plain that the evils, which were to appear so glaringly in the last days, had already begun when St. Paul was writing.

Peter uses the same expression, Knowing this .first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after thevr own lusts, 2 Pet. iii. 3. and he appears to make the same prediction, when he says in ii. 1. there shall be false teachers among you. St. Jude, who greatly resembles St. Peter, says in the same strain, Remember ye the words, which were spoken before⁰ of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you, there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts j 17,18. St. James also, after having spoken of the mi­series that shall come, v. 1. concludes with saying, ye have as it were heaped up fire for the latter daysP, 3. It would not be difficult to shew, that the descriptions given in all these passages apply to Gnostic teachers: and I have al­ready referred to 1 John ii. 18. as enabling us to know what was meant by the latter days. Little children, says St. John, it is the last time: and as ye have heard, that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. It may perhaps be satisfactory to bring all these expressions together in one view.

1 Tim. iv. 1. iv (tCTepais xaigoij.

2 Tim. iii. 1. Iv Icr^araij fi/Aipaig.

James v. 3. Iv str^arai; yfispoug.

2 Pet. iii. 3. !*•’ lo^aroy tcov ripEpcov.

1 John ii. 18. lo^anj mpa.

Jude 18. Iv Itr^aTU) %pova).

If we should conclude that St. John alluded to the pre­dictions which had been made by the other apostles, the question is so far decided, that the latter days were at least beginning at the end of the first century 4: and that St. John meant to allude to an event, which had actually taken place, appears plain from his words, which immediately fol­low, They went outfrom us, but they were not of us: for if

” This will perhaps enable us to explain the expression in v. 4. There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this con­demnation, its rohro re xpftu, i. e. who had been written of before, or predicted, as coming to this condemnation. Hammond gives this interpretation. De Antichristo, III. 21. p. 13.

v I couple is with ISntravgitraTt. We thus avoid the confusion of meta­phor between Jire and rust, and tQiiffuuglffscre has an accusative which it governs. There are several places in which fire may be taken to signify the persecutions, which awaited the Christians, t Cor. iii. 13. 1 Pet. i. 7. iv. 12. In 2 Pet. iii. 7. I should couple tragi with <1 In I Pet. i. 5. St. Peter appears to use ev xxigSi for the end of the

world: hut in Acts ii. 17. he quotes the prophet Joel as saying, b mat ht%£- reus i/i'egtus, though in the LXX we only find ptra. naira, and St. Peter cer­tainly conceived the time to be then arrived.

F f

they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but it was that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. I have already hazarded the conjecture in note 48, that St. John spoke of those persons, who fell away from Christianity to Gnosticism: and these false Christians are exactly described in the passage last quoted. Gnosticism, as I have observed, had made great progress in the lifetime of St. Peter and St. Paul: but it was not till some years after their death that the Christians openly seceded, and in any considerable numbers, to the Gnostics. If we read the letters addressed by the same St. John to the seven churches in the Revelations, we shall find reason to think, that this apostasy, whether caused by the sword of persecution, or the errors of Gnosticism, was alarmingly great: and it is not too much to think, that the apostles should have predicted such an event, which was the first important epoch in the history of the church, and which was to take place at the time, when the last surviving apo­stle was about to be removed. I should give the same interpretation to the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 29. o xatpb; s’uvsa’TaXf/.svoc to A017tov Iotiv, the time which is soon to follow is one of trial and affliction: (v. Schleusner in (tuo-teAAcu :) and this will explain his mysterious hints con­cerning the expediency of having as. few worldly ties as possible in those times of trial, when, as he predicts in

2 Tim. iii. 12. all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. See also Phil. iv. 5, 6. and Heb. x. 23—25. 32—39. So also when St. Peter said, navTiuv tie to tsKo; yyyixe, (1 Pet. iv. 7.) he may have meant to express, a time is soon coming, which will decide the jute of all, which will shew whether you continue in your faith and will be saved, or whether you depart from it, and are lost: be ye therefore sober and watch unto prayer. This inter­pretation is more probable, when we read immediately after., Beloved, think it not stramge concerning the Jiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing hap­pened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch'as ye are partakers of Chrisfs sufferings; that when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceedingjoy. If ye be reproached

for the name of Christ, happy are ye. For it is time

that judgment (or the trial) must begin at the house of God¹. If this was the trial, to apl^a, to which St. Peter alluded, it is not improbable, that St. John also referred to the same day of trial, 7% xpis-sw;, in his First Epistle, iv.

^r See also Matt. xiii. 21. James i. 2, 12. v. 8—10. 1 Cor. xi. 19.

17. where he exhorts those whose love is made perfect, to have boldness in that day: because as he, i. e. Jesus Christ, is, so are we in this world: which argument may remind us of that used by St. Paul in 1 Tim. vi. 13. and by St. Peter in 1 Pet. ii. 21. When St. John went on to say, perfect love casteth out fear, we might understand him to be using an exhortation to martyrdom : and most commentators have supposed, that by the sin unto death in v. 16. he intended to speak of apostasy. The latest date, which can be as­signed to the expressions quoted from St. Peter and St. Paul, is the year 66; which may have been upwards of thirty years before the time when St. John spoke of the prediction being fulfilled. It has been thought by some commentators⁵, that the Epistle of St. Jude must have been written some time after the death of the apostles, because he speaks of the events which they had foretold, being then come to pass. But the words of St. Jude do not necessarily imply this; and there is no reason, why the Epistle might not have been written very shortly after the death of St. Peter and St. Paul. There can be no doubt from the words of St. Jude in v. 17> as well as of St. Paul in 2 Thess. ii. 5. that this apostasy of the latter days formed a frequent topic in the apostolic preaching: and when we take into con­sideration, that every one of the prophetic descriptions may be applied to the Gnostics, we shall perhaps think it more probable, that this speedily approaching evil was predicted by the apostle, than some distant calamity, which was to be fulfilled at a remote period, and which could not affect any

Sersons, whom the apostles were addressing. All the other

escriptions appear to relate to the immoral practice of the Gnostics: but that in 1' Tim. iv. 1—3. is directed against the opposite error: and since we have seen from Clement of Alexandria, that there was this division in the opinions and the practice of heretics, there is no reason why^: the one as well as the other should not have been the object of the apo­stolic prediction.

I ought perhaps to enter into an Explanation, why I do not follow the host of commentators,-who have referred the prophecy in 1 Tim. iv. 1, &c. and in 2 Thess. ii. 1—12. to the errors of the church of Rome. I can only say, that after giving the passages every consideration, I cannot see the smallest probability of this being the right interpreta­tion. If the prediction had begun to be accomplished before

• (Ecumemus, Grotius, Estius, Witsius, Mill, &c. Their opinion is opposed by Boulduc, Comment, in Judce Epist. in prolus. et ad v. 17.

F f 2

the death of St. John, the most bigotted adversary of Rome could hardly say that the errors of that church had shewn themselves so early. It is a much more convincing, and a much more tenable argument, to shew that these errors were not then in being: and to prove—which might be proved even to demonstration—that the church of Rome for some centuries had not even heard of many of its later cor­ruptions. It is said, that the expressions, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, contain a plain allusion to the customs of that church. But a prohi­bition of marriage, which extends only to the clergy, and an abstinence from some articles of food, which is enjoined only for particular days and seasons, will hardly answer to St. Paul’s expressions. It is the absurd and puerile distinctions concerning what is lawful and unlawful to be eaten, which have made the decrees of the Romish church contemptible : and it is the facility and venality of her indulgences, by which those decrees may be evaded, which stamp them as unscriptural and sinful: but the fasts of the churcn of Rome are not in themselves, i. e. in theory and in principle, un­scriptural or unapostolical. I cannot therefore think that these were the abstinences predicted by St. Paul. The church of Rome is corrupt and in error concerning fasts: but her corruptions consist, not in enforcing abstinence, but in furnishing her deluded sons with subterfuges and eva­sions ;, in pampering the appetite, rather than subduing it; and in laying the principle of fasting, not in conscience or in the will of God, but in arbitrary distinctions and human decrees. The Gnostics, on the other hand, as I shall shew presently, prohibited marriage and enjoined abstinence, as universal and perpetual precepts; and the prediction is therefore much more applicable to them: to which I may add, that if all the other apostolical predictions concerning the latter days may be referred to the Gnostics, it is highly probable that this is to be so likewise. We ought perhaps to be very cautious how we trace any allusion to the church of Rome in the New Testament, when we find the Roman­ists making use of this very passage, and turning it against ourselves. It will be observed, that the words, and com- mandmg, in v. 3. are not in'the Greek, where we only read xcoAuovrcov ya/^eii/, «7re^ea-0«i /3pa)^«rcov: but it is easy to see, as many commentators^t have pointed out, that some word equivalent to commcmdmg must be supplied. Fr. Costerus,

¹ The fullest illustration of this idiom, which I have met with, is by Ch. Th. Saver, Observata ad loca qutedam prioris Ep. ad Tim.

a writer of the Romish church, takes a very different view of the passage; and by interpreting it literally, without supplying any other word, he thinks that the protestants, who forbid to abstain from meats, may have been intended by St. Paul: “ Verbum abstinere cum ab alio nullo rega- “ tur, quam a participio prohibentium, videbuntur potius “ designari haeretici, qui prohibent abstinere a cibis, quam “ catholici, qui jubent abstinere^u.” Such an argument as this is beneath criticism, and can only provoke a smile where we ought to be serious: but I mention it, to shew how cautious we ought to be in interpreting scripture; and how easy it is to become ridiculous, when we follow party feeling rather than charity and sound reason.

Whoever wishes to see the arguments of those persons, who have applied these prophecies of St. Paul to the church of Rome, may read Bishop Hurd’s seventh Warburtonian Lecture; Bishop Newton’s 22d and 23d Dissertations on the Prophecies; Benson’s Paraphrase, and Notes on St. PauVs Epistles, (reprinted in Watson’s Tracts, vol. V. p. 268.) Langford’s Notes and Characters of the Man of Sin. Mede’s Works, book III. p. 623. Jurieu’s Accom­plishment of the Prophecies. References may be found to other protestant writers in Milner’s End of Controversy, Letter XLV. who refutes this interpretation, as does Bos- suet, Variations des Eglises, part. II. Liv. 13. Grotius and Hammond were also opposed to it.

I may mention, that Epiphanius referred 1 Tim. iv. 1, &c. to the Gnostics. In one place he says, after quoting the passage, “ Most of these heresies forbid to marry, and “ order men to abstain from meats, not giving such pre- ^<£ cepts for the regulation of life, nor for the sake of supe- “ rior virtue and its rewards and crowns, but because they “ think those things abominable which were instituted by “ the Lord ^x.” In another place he quotes the first verse, and applies it to the Valentinians y: but he probably did not mean to proceed further in the quotation, since the moral conduct of the Valentinians was rather the opposite of abstinence. In a third passage, where he is speaking of the Hieracitae, a branch of the Gnostics, he says that in them, and in persons like to them, are fulfilled the apostle’s vf or As, forbidding to marry, &c. &c^z, Epiphanius at least had no doubt, that the words had already received their accomplishment in the Gnostic heresies.

“ Enchirid. c. i8. P.JS7- * Haer. XLVIII.8. p. 410.,

y HSer. XXXI. 34- P- 206. - Haer. LXVII.'8. p. 716.

3? f 3

NOTE 61.^See Lecture V. p. 141.

Since I have applied the prediction in 1 Tim. iv. 1—3. to the Gnostics, it is necessary to shew that the practices foretold by St. Paul were common and notorious among ' those heretics. The Ebionites are the first in point of time to whom we can apply these expressions, and they appear to have shewn themselves in the interval between the.death of St. Paul and the end of the first century. Epiphanius represents them as having corrupted and interpolated the writings of Clement of Rome, and pretending to live like St. Peter^a. Thus they said, that he abstained from animal food, as they also did, as from every thing else which was prepared from flesh meat. Epiphanius adds, that this was true with respect to Ebion and his followers, though they could not assign any good reason for their abstinence : but if passages were quoted to them from the Old Testament, which supported the eating of animal food, they followed the rest of the Gnostics, and denied the authority of these books'⁵. With respect to marriage, they did not come under the prediction of St. Paul: for the same writer says, that Clement exposed their forgeries, and mentioned as an in­stance, that he himself inculcated virginity, which they did not embrace. The expressions quoted by St. Paul in Col. ii. 21. Touch not, taste not, handle not, and which were evidently used by false teachers, have been supposed by some commentators to include a prohibition of marriage. Van Till and Hammond extract this sense from the words Touch not, py : Grotius thinks that Touch not, taste not, referred, to abstinence from food; and that the third precept, fujBs 8lyrif, referred to marriage. If either of these interpretations are correct, we cannot adopt the opinion of Buddeus, that St. Paul was here writing against the Cerin- thians : for marriage was certainly not prohibited by these heretics. It is possible that St. Peter may have met with doubts in some of .his converts concerning marriage; and the expression in 1 Pet. iii. 6. /«j <po(?>ou[j.wa.i /xijSe/Jay nroijiny, may have been intended to remove any scruple of this kind^c. The same may be said of Heb. xiii. 4. We come next to Saturninus, the disciple of Menander, who succeeded Simon Magus. He is said by Theodoret to have been the first who taught that marriage was a work of the Devil; and he is

“ Haer. XXX. 15- p- 139. ^b Ib. 18. p. 142.

^c Our translation of this passage appears to be wrong. I should couple ayxQotrotovtrai, & c. in v. 6. with at ay tat •ywxTxts in v. 5* and read 'Sdppx— rtjcva in a parenthesis. St. Peter perhaps meant to say, that the holy women in the old time felt no scruples nor fears concerning the lawfulness of mar­riage.

also stated to have ordered his followers to abstain from animal food^d. This is partly confirmed by the older testi­mony of Irenaeus, who says of the followers of Saturninus, “ Nubere autem et generare a Satana dicunt esse. Multi “ autem ex iis, qui sunt ab eo, et ab animalibus abstinent, “ per fictam hujusmodi continentiam seducentes multos^e.” In the second century we find these self-mortifying heretics grown into a separate sect, and taking the name of Encra- titae. Irenaeus informs us that Tatian was their founder^f, though he also deduces them from Saturninus and Marcion. Theodoret likewise observes, that “ Cerdon and Marcion “ established virginity as a rule, declaring war against the “ Creator, that they might not increase his creation by mar- “ riageS and with respect to Marcion in particular, who was the follower of Cerdon, we find Tertullian saying that St. Paul condemned the prohibition of marriage, “ which is “ the rule with Marcion and his follower Apelles*¹.” Epi­phanius also says of Marcion, that “ he inculcated virginity, “ and ordered a fast to be kept on the sabbath ‘and in another place he speaks of him as “ teaching men not to “ partake of animal food, because those who eat flesh will be “ liable to condemnation, as having eaten the life Irenaeus, as we have seen, spoke of Tatipn as following Marcion in his condemnation of marriage¹: and we learn of him. from Epiphanius^m and Theodoret", that after the death of Justin Martyr, he travelled into the East, and wishing to become the head of a party, he adopted all the absurdities and errors of the Gnostics. He taught an ab­horrence of marriage, and an abstinence from animal food and wine. “ He is the founder,” as Theodoret writes, “ of “ the heretics called Hydroparastatae and Encratitae, The “ former have their name from offering water instead of “ wine°: and the Encratitae, from not drinking wine, nor “ partaking of animal food. They abstain from these, ab- ‘^f horring them as something wicked: and they practise

^d Haer. Fab. 1.3. p. 194. V. 24. p. 304.

• I. 24. 2. p. 101. This passage is copied by Epiphanius, Harr. XXIII. 2, p. 63. See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 45. not. ’.

^f I. 28. 1. p. 107. So says Epiphanius, Han-. XLVIJ. 1. p. 399.

s Haer. Fab. V. 24. p. 304.

¹¹ De Prescript. 33. p. 214. Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 3. p. 515. For the practice of Marcion in this particular, see Beausobre, vol. II. p. 121.

' Haer. XLII. 3. p. 304. ^k lb. p. 330.

1 Tav yoLpov re xa) iregvsjav, tragairA.>?rws Magxtavi xeti 'Sbragvlvtu, avaya-

^tvtrots.

“ Haer. XLVI. p. 390. " Haer. Fab. I. 20. p. 208.

» I take this to allude to the Eucharist. See Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 19. p. 375. and the note there.

“ celibacy, calling marriage fornication.” Such is a descrip­tion of the Encratitae, who, as we are informed by Epipha^- nius, existed in great numbers, even in his own times, in Pisidia, Phrygia, Galatia, and in the whole of Asia Minor. The heresy of Montanus was also calculated to give great encouragement to these professors of abstinence and morti- ficationP. The name of Encratitae may probably have been generic, and comprehended several minor divisions of here­tics, who practised similar austerities'!. Epiphanius men­tions the Lucianistse, so called from Lucianus, a follower of Marcion, who rejected marriage^1,: the Severiani, from Se- verus, a follower of Apelles, who condemned marriage and the use of wine^s: the Hieracitae, from Hieracas, who had studied the Grecian and Egyptian philosophy, condemned marriage, and led an extremely ascetic life, abstaining from all meats and wine. The latter heretic was preceded by Manes, whose name became much more notorious ; and the Manichaeans are charged by many of the ancients with re­probating marriage and animal food. These charges are investigated by Beausobre with his usual diligence and in­genuity. He gives good reasons for thinking that it was only the Elect among the Manichees who practised these mortifications ; but that the Hearers were allowed to marry and to live as they please. The reader will find the discus­sion in the places marked below*: and I shall bring no more instances to prove that St. Paul may well have made an error, which was so deeply and widely spread, the sub­ject of his prophetic warnings. It may be added, however, that some of the apostles were quoted as examples of absti­nence and self-privation, though it may be doubted whether such cases were not invented by the Gnostics, and inserted in their apocryphal histories. Thus Epiphanius, as we have seen, accused the Ebionites of having invented such a story of St. Peter; and in the Recognitions, which are sup­posed to have been forged by an Ebionite, that apostle is made to say that he lived on bread and olives, and seldom tasted vegetables". Gregory of Nazianzum appears to have believed the fact^x; though Clement of Alexandria most

p See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 67. not. ^h. and the note to Origen, vol. III. p. 494.

1 Origen informs us, that the Encratitae rejected St.Paul’s Epistles, the reason for which is not so apparent, {cont. Cels. V. 65. p. 628.)

' Haer. XLIII. r. p. 378. ■ Hasr. XLV. p. 388.

^f Vol. II. p. 47°- 7⁶S■ The practice of the Gnostics generally in this particular is discussed at p. 459. See also Porphyry, de Abstin. I. 27. p. 41. II. 3. p. 103. ed. 1767. -

^u VII. 6. p. 560. * Orat. XIV. 4. p. 259.

probably had not heard of it, since he only refers to his eating nothing common, or uncleanY. He says, however, that St. Matthew lived upon seeds and berries and herbs, without flesh-meat: and Hegesippus, as quoted by Euse­bius², mentioned many instances of austerity, which were practised by James the Just, and in particular that he never drank wine, nor tasted animal food.

This note would become much too long, if I was to in­quire into the various sources from which the Gnostics bor­rowed these austerities. For this part of their system they seem to have been indebted rather to the East, than to the school of Plato; though Pythagoras, as is well known, was extremely abstemious in his diet, and averse to animal food³. The Pythagoreans, who found an asylum in Egypt in the time of the Ptolemys, may have contributed to spread these principles: and the Essenes or Therapeutae, as I have al­ready observed, were said to resemble the Pythagoreans in certain points. Some of them did not marry; and all of them were addicted to fasting. Apollonius of Tyana ab­stained from animal food and wine, and lived upon vegeta­bles*¹. One of the most extraordinary speculations in which Plato indulged, was the community of wives, which he pre­scribed for his imaginary republic ^c. It might well be doubted whether he was really in earnest, in proposing this scheme: nor would it be easy to say what practical effect it would have had, if the followers of Plato had continued to speculate upon it. Both the divisions of Gnostics, the aus­tere and the dissolute, might perhaps have been influenced by it^d. But I forbear to dwell upon this topic: for what

y Fsedag. II. i. p. 17$.

^z Eccles. Hist. II. 23. Epiplian. Harr. LXXVII1.13. p. 1045- Hieron. in Catal. vol. II. p. 815.

^a See Brucker, vol. I. p. 1017. Socrates and his followers did not adopt this abstinence. Porphyr. de Abstin. I. 15. p. 28.

^b Philostrat- I. 8. p. 10.

- Repuhl. IV. p. 424. V. p. 449. 457. De Legibus V. p. 739. Timaeus, p. 18.

^d Grotius says of tliis scheme, ^u Quid aliud quara ex eivitate tota unum “ fecerunt lupanar ?” De Verit. II. 13. Clement of Alexandria gives it as bis opiniou that the Carpocratians mistook the meaning of Plato, who only intended to say that it was open to all persons before marriage to make their proposals to any womau they pleased. (Strom. III. 2. p. 514, 515.) But this was certainly not the meaning of Plato. Neither docs Eusebius appear to have spoken his real sentiments, when he said that Plato might prohahly have meant, that the magistrates were to have tbe power of allotting wives to any persons, and in any manner they pleased. (Praep. Evang. XIII. 19. p. 708.) Lactantius saw the matter in a very different light, and abuses P1& in the most unmeasured terms. Instit. III. 21, 22 ; as did Theodoret* Serm. IX. ad Gracos, vol. IV. p. 615. An attempt has heen made to defend Plato by J. Ch. Burmannus, Parallel. Polit, IV. 3. but he bas been answered by Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog, Hceres. I. 12. p. 37, &c.

we cannot understand, it is impossible to admire : and the more I look into the Republic of Plato, the more I should be disposed to agree with those learned men who have pro­nounced it to be a form of polity, “ which was imagined, “ and can only have its existence, in the brain of Plato, “ which was replete with philosophical enthusiasm^e.” The later Platonists, of whom Ammonius may be considered the founder, enjoined a life of rigid abstinence upon the more philosophical of their members ^f. It may be mentioned, that the highest order of priests among the Magi ate nothing but bread and vegetables S. The Egyptian priests also ab­stained on some occasions from the use of wine, and were never allowed to eat fish^h. These instances will shew how widely spread was this principle of mortification : and when we remember how large an ingredient of Judaism there was in Gnosticism, we may also call to mind the fastings and austerities of the Pharisees, as depicted in the Gospels. The church of Corinth does not appear to have been so much affected by Gnosticism in early times as the churches of Asia Minor. But Corinth was a kind of centre of Gre­cian philosophy : and both Jews and Greeks would proba­bly have joined in putting the question to St. Paul concern­ing the lawfulness of marriage*. The Corinthians apparendy had only doubts and scruples, because the Gnostic austerities had not yet grown into a system: but in the latter days, when their great apostle and founder was no more, there is reason to fear that many of them gave heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy.

The reader may find much curious matter upon the sub­ject of this note in the work of Porphyry, de Abstinentia ab esu Animalium. The case of the early Christians, who ab­stained from marriageis discussed by Con. Rittersbusius, Comment, ad Salvinianum, p. 375. ed. Bremens; and Mo­sheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 35. not.^k. de Tur- bata per Platon. Ecclesia, §. 49- The prohibition of wine among the philosophers of the East is illustrated by Jab- lonsky, Pantheon JEgyptiorwm,, II. 1. p. 131. See also Itti- gius, de Hceresiarchis, II. 12. p. 199.

^e See Brucker, and the authors referred to, vol. I. p. 726. ^f See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 30. s Hyde, c. 31. p. 385. Clem. Alex. Sti'om. III. 6. p. 533. ^h See Plutarch, de Is. et Osir. p. 353. and Wyttenbach’s note.

1 1 Cor. vii. t.

^k That there were Christians, who abstained from animal food, is acknow­ledged by Origen, who says this of the iirxtirctt. Cont. Cels, V. 49. p. 615”'

It is not my intention to consider the arguments which have been brought to prove that the Fathers falsely ac­cused the Gnostics of immorality and profligacy. Such an assertion has been made by Heraldus, in his notes to Minu- cius Felix, p. 86*; by Le Clerc, Hist. Eccles. an. 76. §. 10. p. 485¹; and particularly by Beausobre, Hist, de Mmiichee, vol. II. p. 445. 730. 788. and Diss. II. sur les Adamites, part II. p. 326. Rothius, in his Dissertation de Nicolaitis, professes that he had once agreed with Heraldus, but ,had afterwards changed his mind^m. Weismannus gives the arguments on both sides, but rather inclines to follow the Fathers". I would not deny, that there may be much of declamation, and perhaps of party virulence, in the writings of the Fathers; that they may have been misinformed con­cerning the secret mysteries of heretics, as the heathens were concerning the Christians; and that late and credu­lous writers, like Epiphanius, may have admitted many stories, which common charity, as well as common criticism, would pronounce to be impossible. All this I would con­cede: but let us make all these abatements from the state­ments of the Fathers, and still enough will remain to lead every unprejudiced person to agree with the cautious and philosophical Mosheim, “ that the greater part of those who “ affected the title of Gnostics boldly set all virtue at defi- “ ance, and polluted themselves by every species of crimi- “ nal excess, is manifest not only from the testimony of “ Christian writers, but also from the accounts given of “ them by those adversaries of Christianity, Plotinus the “ Platonic philosopher, and Porphyry °.” The latter re­mark, which I shall notice presently, must carry with it great weight; as must another observation of the same writer, who charges the defenders of the Gnostics with inconsistency, when they believe what is said by the Fathers of the austerities practised by some heretics, but disbelieve what is said of the immoralities of others. Mosheim justly remarks, that if the Fathers had represented all the Gnostics

¹ See also Kortboltus, Paganus Obtrectator, c. VI. p. 93, &c. Thoma- sius, Schediasm. Hist. p. 33. ■ ^v

^m C. 4. §. 8. The Dissertation ia printed in the Thesaurus Theologico- Philolog. appended to the Critici Sacri. .

⁰ Hist. Eccles. Novi Testament]. Sec. II. §. 17. p. 126.

⁰ De Rehus ante Const. Introd. cap. I. 36. not. ». He refers to Plotinua, contra Gnosticos, c. 15. p. 213, 214. and to Porphyry, de Abstinentia, 1.42. p. 35. ed. Cantah. See also Mosheim, Instit. Mag. p. 417. and Diss. de Causis suppos. lAbrorum, §. 10. not. p. 237. Colhergius, de Qrig. et Prog. Hares. II. 8. p. 77.

as licentious, we might reasonably have suspected their testimony; but when they carefully distinguish the one party from the other, and describe some of the Gnostics as surpassing even the Christians in strictness, it is at least unreasonable to believe this part of their statement, and not the other P. To this opinion I entirely subscribe; and I shall shew, in note 63, t]iat the calumnies, whicb were cast upon the Christians, are rightly explained by the Fathers to have owed their origin to the vices of the Gnostics. At present I shall confine myself to specifying a few instances, connected with early times, and taken principally from Ire­naeus, which may serve to shew that the moral practice of the Gnostics was corrupt and vicious. I may first quote the still earlier testimony of Polycarp, who, after having alluded to the Docetae, adds, “ And whoever perverts the “ sayings of our Lord to his own lusts, and says that there “ is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the first-born of “ Satan q.” This passage not only proves that Polycarp was speaking of Gnostics, but shews also the immoral tend­ency of their doctrine concerning the resurrection. Justin Martyr appears almost to mention the Gnostics by name, when he speaks of men who said, “ that though they are “ sinners, yet if they Jcnow God, the Lord will not impute “ to them sin^r.” Irenaeus informs us, that the Gnostics imagined three divisions of men, the material, the animal, and the spiritual. Of the material they took no notice: they considered the Christians to be the animal; and they themselves, who had perfect knowledge of God, were the spiritual. “ Hence they pronounce, that good moral con- “ duct is necessary for us, because without it we cannot be “ saved: but they affirm, that they themselves will un- “ questionably be saved, not from moral conduct, but be- “ cause they are by nature spiritual. For as the material “ is incapable of partaking of salvation, so on the other “ hand they think that the spiritual is incapable of receiving “ corruption, whatever moral conduct they may practise^s: “ for as gold when deposited in mud does not lose its “ beauty, but preserves its own nature, the mud not being “ able to injure the gold; so also they say of themselves, “ whatever may be the character of their material morality, “ that they cannot be injured by it, nor lose their spiritual

P Instit. Maj. p. 363. 1 Ad Philip. 7. p. 188.

^r Dial, cum Tryph. 141. p. 231.

• St. John may therefore have intended the Gnostics, when he spoke of persons saying they had no sin. 1 John i. 8—10. Compare ii. 4. iii. 6. He expressly says, that he wrote hia Epistle on account of false teachers, ii. 26.

^<e substance. Hence the most perfect among them perform “ all forbiddeh things without any scruple: . . . and some of “ them, obeying the lusts of the flesh even to satiety, say, ^et that carnal things are repaid by carnal, and spiritual “ things by spiritual; others privately corrupt the women, “ who receive this instruction from them; so that fre- “ quently the women who have been deceived by some of “ them, have afterwards been converted to the Church, “ and confessed this, together with the rest of their error^t.” Irenaeus repeats the latter assertion in another place ^u, and adds, that even in his own province in Gaul he had met with women to whom this had happened; so that it seems most unreasonable to dispute his testimony. Epiphanius fills up this outline with the most horrible and disgusting details; and we can hardly think that the whole is an exag­geration, when he prefaces it so solemnly by writing, “ I “ should not have ventured to say all this, if I had not in a “ manner been compelled by the excess of grief which I “ feel in my mind, when I am astounded at their enormi- “ ties, and when I think to what a load and abyss of wick- “ edness the Devil, the enemy of man, leads those who “ obey him, so as to pollute the mind, and heart, and “ hands, and mouth, and body, and soul, of those who are “ ensnared by him in such great darkness^x.” Tertullian has explained their principles and their practice in a few words: “They say that God is not to be feared, and there- “ fore all things are free for them, and without restraint 7.” Nor were the Christian Fathers the only writers who brought this charge against the Gnostics; for Plotinus says plainly, that while they professed to know God, they followed their own desires, and paid no regard to virtue²: and Porphyry most probably alluded to the Gnostics when he said, “ The “ notion that a person may follow his sensual passions, and “ yet exercise his intellectual faculties, has ruined many of “ the barbarians, who have run into every species of plea- “ sure out of contempt. . . and deceiving themselves in “ this manner, they make their actions correspond to their “ principles; and instead of liberty, they hurry themselves “ into the abyss of misery, and are lost^a.” It is well known, that the heathen philosophers spoke of the Jews and Christians as barbarians; and it was natural for Por­phyry to choose to confound the Christians with the Gnostics.

* I. 6. 2. p. 29. « 13. 6, &c. p. 64.

* Haer. XXVI. 3. p. 84. y De Prescript. 43. p. 218.

* Cont. Gnosticos, c. XV. p. 213, &c. The passages are quoted by Mo- sheim, Instit. Maj. p. 361. '

* De Abstinent. I. 42. p. 70. ed. 1767.

If we now turn from these general assertions to particular instances, we shall find Simon Magus, as I have already stated, to be charged by the Fathers with sanctioning and practising immorality. He said, according to Irenaeus, “ that “ men were free to do what they wished; for that they “ were saved according to his grace, and not according to “ good works: for works were not good by nature, but “ accidentally, according as they were fixed by the Angels “ who made the world, and who by precepts of this kind “ led men into slavery. Wherefore he promised that the “ world was now set’at liberty, and that all, who belonged “ to him, were freed from the dominion of those who cre- “ ated the world. Accordingly their mystical priests live in “ obedience to their lusts, &c.^” I have already (at p. 282.) p^pfessed myself willing to believe, that 5a ides did not himself countenance vicious practice, though his followers cannot be acquitted of this charge. With respect to Car- pocrates also there seems little room for doubt. Irenaeus says of his followers, “ They have run into such unbridled “ madness, as to say, that every thing which is irreligious “ and wicked is in their power, and may be practised by “ them: for they say, that works are good and evil only “ by human opinion ^c.” That there was at least some truth in this statement, may be proved from the extracts which Clement of Alexandria has given from a work written by Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates^d. ■ Epiphanius, when speaking of this heretic, enters into a detail of the most odious and incredible debaucheries^e: and Theodoret places Basilides, Carpocrates, Epiphanes, and Prodiciis, at the head of “ the teachers of prolhgacy and immorality ^f.” Va­lentinus in the second century, whose doctrine is called by Irenaeus “ a recapitulation of all heretics S,” did not fall short of his predecessors in the looseness of his¹ morals^h: or perhaps it might be more safe to conclude with Mo­sheim ', that some of the followers of Valentinus, and not

^b I. 23. 3. p. 99, 100. See also Epipban. Hter. XXI. 2. p. 56: 4. p. 58. Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. I. 1. p. 192, 193. Daraascen. de Her. 21. Augustin. de Fide et Operibus, 14. vol. VI. p. 176. Mosheim professes himself compel­led to believe the truth of these charges. Institut. Mug. p. 417. See Grabe, ad Bulli Harm,. Apost. Diss. I. c. 2. p. 30. and Bull’s Examen Censura, vol. IV. p. 11.

« I. 25.4. p. 103, 104.

^d Strom. III. p. 512, &c. See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. Si. not.^e.

« Haer. XXVII.

^f Haer. Fab. V. 27. p. 311, 312. He says more of Prodicus at p. 197.

s IV. Praef. 2. p. 227. ^h See Theodoret, Fab. I. 7. p. 200.

' De Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 57. not.¹.

that heretic himself, perverted his principles, and lived as they pleased. But I shall not dwell any longer upon this point, having brought sufficient instances to confirm the apostolical predictions, that there would be persons in the latter times who professed to know God, but in works they denied him.

The reader of German will find some curious informa­tion in the Ecclesiastical history of Neander (Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion, p. 767.) concerning these antinomian Gnostics: and at p. 773 he gives the fol­lowing inscription, which was found near Cyrene, and which he assigns to the sixth century. 'H iraaSiv oiirtm xa) yuvai- xiov xoivorrjs injyifl rijf Qe!a$ ear) Sixaiocuvijj, eiprjvtj re TsXsia to 15 tov TiupXou o^Xou exXextoi; Styuial; avftpaviv, 08; ZapaStjj re xa) Iludaydpai rwv iepopavrwv apioroi xoivrj <rufit/3iouxe7v truvlevro. The other is not so explicit, but it has evident marks of Gnosti­cism. ©ajfl, Kpdvog, ZatgoaiTTgiic, riuQtxyopa;, 'Emxoupas, MaiSa- xYjc, ’Iaiavvtjj, Xpttrroj re xctl 0! jjfierepai Koupavaixo) xaQijyijTtx) <ru/x.pmw; EvrlXAcutriv ijfuv, fiySev olxeioiraiela’dai, roic. 8e vo/ia15 kpjiriyslv, xa) rtjv •Kapamp.iav xar air a\s fish, toSto yap t] Ttj; 8ixaio- (ruiojs 7njyi), rouro ro /xaxapicuj Iv itoivij JJrjv. These inscriptions were first published by Gesenius in a small volume, de Inscriptions Phasnicio-Grceca in Cyrena^ca nuper reperta ad Carpocratianorum Hceresin pertinente, Halas, 1825; where he refers to an extract given by Clement of Alexan- dria^k from a work of Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates, which remarkably illustrates the first of these inscriptions. It may be mentioned, that the second has at the head of it the name of Simon of Cyrene: and both of them appear to have been written with an affectation of antiquity.

NOTE 63.—See Lecture V. p. 145.

Eusebius took the same view of the progress and the con­sequence of heresy, when after speaking of the ruin which it brought upon the unhappy Christians, who were enslaved by it, he adds, “ But to the unbelieving heathen it supplied “ a great superabundance of obloquy against the Gospel, “ since the reports which arose from the heretics spread into “ an accusation of the whole Christian race: and this was “ the principal cause of the most strange and wicked suspi- “ cions being spread against us among the unbelievers of “ that day, as if we indulged in unlawful intercourse with “ our mothers and sisters, and in unholy banquets¹.” That these charges were really brought against the Christians,

^k Strom. III. p. 512.

‘Eccles. Hist. IV. 7.

appears from the works of Justin Martyr, who asks Try- pho, whether he objected to them for not observing the Mo­saic institutions, “ or,” he says, “ has our life and character “ been calumniated among you ? I mean, do you also be- “ lieve concerning us, that we eat men, and that putting “ out the candles when the feast is over, we revel in iri- “ cestuous intercourse¹¹¹ ?” Trypho acknowledges, that such stories were not worthy of belief, for they were contrary to human nature; but he shews at the same time the existence and extent of the calumny, when he speaks of it as a thing which most people reported, irep) wv oi icaWo) Aeyoucnv. The same Father, in his first Apology ⁿ, speaks of “ the abo- “ minable and wicked works which are attributed to us, of “ which there is no witness nor proofand when he ex­plains his meaning, he at the same time shews his love of truth, by saying of Simon Magus, “ All who took their “ origin from him are called Christians,—but whether they “ practise those abominable acts which are fabulously re- “ ported, the overthrowing of the lights, the promiscuous “ intercourse, and the eating of human flesh, I do not “know⁰.” Justin was unwilling to charge the Gnostics with these practices ; though he evidently thought that the pseudo-Christian heretics were the causes of these calumnies being brought against the Christians. We learn from the Apology of Athenagoras, which was published a few years after tnat of Justin, that these charges were briefly com­pressed into three ; atheism, Thyestean banquets, and (Edi- podean unions P. Irenaeus, who wrote not long after, has the following remarkable passage concerning Carpocrates and his disciples: “ They have been put forward by Satan “ for the detriment of the holy name of the Church, that “ men who hear of their various practices, and who think “ that we are all of the same kind, may turn away their “ ears from the preaching of the truth; or, when they see “ what is their conduct, they may abuse us all, although we “ have nothing to do with them, either in doctrine, or man- “ ners, or daily conversationSeveral writers, whose names will be found below^r, have said the same thing; and there is reason to think, that for the two latter charges, the Christians were partly indebted to the profligacy of the Gnostics. Justin, it is true, would not accuse the followers

^m Dial, cum Tryph. io. p. no, iii. ” 23. p. 58. Also 10. p.49.

⁰ lb. 26. p. j)9.

P 3. p. 282. 31. p. 308. See Thomasius, Schediasm. Hist. §. 38. p. 33.

« I. z$. 3. p. 103.

■' See Theophil. ad Autol. III. 4. p. 382, 383. Tertull. Jpol. j. p. 7. art Nationes I. 7. p. 44,45. Minucius Felix, p. 80, &c.

of Simon Magus of literally practising such enormities: and in the letter written from the churches of Vienne and Lyons^s, they are spoken of as things, “ which it is lawful “ neither to mention nor conceive, nor even to believe that “ such things were ever practised among men.” The writers therefore of this letter had no idea of imputing such crimes to the Gnostics: but it does not therefore follow, that the Gnostics were guilty of no immoralities, which might have caused these stories. This is perhaps the true state of the case: and is a kind of middle course between the violence of ancient writers, who literally accused the Gnostics of these atrocities^l, and the paradoxical scepticism of certain moderns, who would doubt whether the Gnostics were pro­fligate at all. Justin Martyr in more than one place accuses the Jews of being the propagators of the calumnies against the Christians ^u. He says, that the Jews sent emissaries into every part of the world, to spread the fable of the body of Jesus being stolen from the sepulchre; and to add, that his followers had founded a new and atheistical religion, and were, the teachers of all those impurities and impieties which were universally ascribed to them ^x. This remark is con­firmed by Origen in the following passage, which deserves to be quoted at length. He charges Celsus with having calumniated the Christians, like the Jews, “ who at the begin- “ ning of the preaching of Christianity spread an evil report “ against it, as if they sacrificed a child and partook of its “ flesh ; and that the Christians, when they wished to per- “ form their deeds of darkness, extinguished the lights, and “ each had intercourse with his neighbour: which slander- “ ous report in former times prevailed with many to an ex- “ traordinary degree, arid convinced the strangers to the “ Gospel that the Christians were of this character: and “ even now it deceives some, who are averse in consequence “ from coming even into harmless conversation with Chris- “ tiansy.” If these statements are true, we must at least acknowledge, that the first calumnies were not caused by any immoralities of the Gnostics. The report concerning the Thyestea/n banquets may have taken its rise from the secret meetings of the Christians, where the body and blood

* Preserved by Eusehius V. I. and supposed by some to have heen written by Irensens. See Dr. Routb’s Reliquite Sacrte, vol. I. p. 397.

* See Epiphanius, Har. XXVI. 3. p.84. 4-'p.86.

“ With respect to the calumnies spread by the Jews, I would refer to Fa- bricius, Saluiaris Imx Mvangelii, &c. c. VI. p. 121.

* Dial, cum Tryph. 17. p. 117 : 108. p. 202 : 117. p. 210: 120. p. 213.

y Cont. Cels. VI. 27. p. 651: 40. p. 662. Tertullian also says of the Jews, “ ab illis enim coepit infamia.” Adv. Marcion. III. 23. p. 411.

Gg

of their Redeemer were mystically eaten^z: and the same meetings, when held under the name of Agapce, may have given some colour to the other infamous accusation^a. It is highly probable, that calumnies of this kind would have been first disseminated in Judaea, where the Gospel began; and without charging the Jews with any systematic attempt to spread the falsehood, it is also probable that many of them, as they returned every year to their respective coun­tries from Jerusalem, would take some pains to injure the rising sect by the stories which were current in Judaea. If the irregularities of the Corinthian Christians ^b were com­mon in other places, we cannot be surprised that the mali­cious slander found some persons to receive it. Still how­ever we must think, that the chaste and temperate lives of the Christians would have silenced these reports. And so perhaps they did. But when towards the end of the first century there were numbers of people, who called them­selves Christians, but whose lives were notoriously vicious, it is no wonder that the heathen made no distinction be­tween real and nominal Christians. Both parties had pri­vate meetings and mystical solemnities. Hence it was easy to say, that where the name was the same, the practice was so also : and thus the Gnostics, though they may not have been the first causers of the calumnies against the Chris­tians, may have contributed greatly to propagate and con­firm them. It is admitted on all hands, that such calum­nies existed: it can be proved also, that the Gnostics were confounded with the Christians, and that many of them led immoral lives: who then will say, that we are prejudiced or unjust, if we conclude that the immoralities of the Gnos­tics were one cause of the Christian name being blasphemed ?

No works, which have come down to us from the Fa­thers, are more interesting than the Apologies or Defences, which were published in support of Christianity; and the subject discussed in this Note cannot be understood without a perusal of them. The earliest, of which we have any ac­count, is that presented by Quadratus, bishop of Athens, to the emperor Hadrian, about the year 126*: but it is unfor­tunately lost. That of Aristides, also an Athenian, which was presented about the same time, has shared a similar fate. The two Apologies of Justin Martyr are extant: the

¹ Wbat is said in the Recognitions of Simon Magus killing young children for the purposes of his incantations, can only be looked upon as an unfounded calumny. (II. 13.) Apollonius of Tyana was accused of the same crime. Fbilost. VII. 11. p. 287: 20. p. 300. VIII. 7. p. 342.

^a See Origen. cont. Cels. I. 1. p. 319. and Spencer’s note.

See 1 Cor. xi. 21.

first, presented in the year 140 or 150 to Antoninus Pius; and the second, in 162 to Marcus Aurelius. The work or Oration of Tatian contra Grcecos, which was composed in 165, is a kind of defence and; exposition of Christianity. The next regular Apology was that presented to Marcus Aurelius by Melito, bishop of Sardes, in 170 or 177: but only a few fragments are preserved, which may be seen in the Reliquiae Sacrce. Perhaps this had been preceded by the Apology of Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, which was pre­sented to the same emperor, but has not come down to us. About the same period Athenagoras presented his Apology, which is still extant, and generally entitled Legatio pro Christianis ^c. Miltiades published an Apology about the year 180, which is lost. About the same time Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, wrote his three books to Autolycus, which contain a defence of the Christian religion. In the year 186 or 187 Apollonius was martyred at Rome, and de­livered a defence in the senate, which has long since been lost. The Cohortatio ad Gentes of Clement of Alexandria, written soon after the year 190, is a spirited contrast be­tween Christianity and heathenism. Tertullian published his Apology in the reign of Alexander Severus, about the year 198“: beside which we have his two books ad Na- tiones, which contain a full exposition of the Christian doc­trines. His work addressed to Scapula, pro-consul of Africa, may also be classed with these compositions. The dialogue written by Minucius Felix, about the year 210, between Cascilius Natalis, a heathen, and Octavius Januarius, a Christian, is a powerful exposure of the absurdities of Pa* ganism. The same may be said of the seven books of Ar­nobius adversus Gentes, which were written at the begin­ning of the fourth century, and which put in a very strong light the superiority of Christianity over every other reli­gion.

In this short and superficial catalogue, I have mentioned some works, which were rather attacks upon Paganism, than defences of Christianity. As specimens of spirited declamation, of ingenious sarcasm, and often of unanswer­able argument, they deserve to meet with greater and more general attention: and concerning the calumnies which were cast upon the early Christians, they furnish the only au­thentic and original evidence, upon which we may rely. Upon this subject the reader may consult Dr. Routh’s Note, Reli-

' See Mosbeim’s Dissertation upon this subject, vol. I. p. 272, &c. He places it A.D. *77-

^d See Mosheim, Diss. ad Hist. Eccles. pert. vol. I. p. 1, &c.

Gg 2

quice Sacrce, vol. I. p. 307; Brotier’s Note to Tacitus, Annal. XV. 44.'(vol. II. p. 494.) Turner, The Calumnies upon the Primitive Christians accounted for; Kortholt, Paganus Obtrectator; Teuberus, de Martyribus ChrisU- anis odio humani generis convictis ; Huldricus, de Calum- niis Gentilium in Christianas; Gleitsmannus, de Apologiis; Beausobre, vol. II. p. 751; Wormius, de veris Causis, cur delectatos humanis Camibus, &rc. Christianos calumniati sunt Ethnici. ■

NOTE 64.—gee Lecture V. p. 149.

I have assumed, that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the Gnostics: and in proof of this I may quote the express words of Irenaeus, who says of them, “ Qui sunt vulsio “ ej us, quae falso cognominatur sciential” Epiphanius also speaks of this heresy, as connected with that of Simon Magus^f: and if additional proof were wanting, we might find it in the doctrines of the Nicolaitans, which resembled upon the whole those of the Gnostics. They held the fundamental tenet, that the same God was not the Creator of the world, and the Father of Jesus ChristS: they be­lieved in the successive production of JEons^h: and their moral practice, as I have already stated, is said by many writers to have had all those marks of impurity which cha­racterised the Gnostics'. After the testimony quoted from Epiphanius, we might be surprised to find him saying in another place, that the Gnostics sprang from the Nicolai- tans^k; and in another, that they came from Simon, Menan­der, Saturninus, Basilides, .Nicolaus, &c. &c.* But it is not difficult to reconcile these apparent contradictions, and to explain why other writers should speak of the Nicolaitans as the origin of the Gnostics. I have said enough to shew, that Gnosticism did not make much progress among Chris­tians, or cause much open apostasy, till toward the end of the first century. It was about the same period, i. e. be­tween the death of St. Paul and that of St. John, that the Nicolaitans rose into notice: and I have ventured to con­jecture, that they may have been the first persons who en-

• III. ii. i. p. 188. ^r Hasr. XXV. 7. p. 81.

8 Iren. I. c. Augustin. Hteres. J. vol. VIII. p. 6.

*■ See Epiphanius, Hter. XXV. Pseudo-Tertull. de Prescript. 46. p. 220. Augustin, de Heer. 5. If Colhergius is correct in referring Irenaeus, I. 30. to the Nicolaitans, (de Orig. et Prog. Heer. c. 2. p. 61.) this is the most detailed account which we have of their doctrines. Langius is of the same opinion. Diss. de Genealogiis, §. 63, &c.

¹ See the interpolated Ignatius, ad Tra.ll. 11. Tertullian, adv Marcion. I. 29. p. 380. Epiphanius, &c.

^k Hasr. XXV. 2. p. 77. ¹ Hser. XXVII. 1. p. 102.

ticed the Christians to depart from their former firmness, and to partake of the heathen sacrifices. The persecutions, which were then raging, seduced some of these unhappy Christians to listen to the arguments of the Gnostics, who were always upon principle opposed to martyrdom. This is the point, which I shall now proceed to establish: and the fact of the Nicolaitans being charged with eating things sacrificed to idols, will be an additional reason for classing them with the Gnostics. Irenaeus says of the followers of Basilides, “ contemnere autem et idolothyta, et nihil arbi- “ trari, sed sine aliqua trepidatione uti eis^m:” and after­wards, that other heretics had-learnt from Basilides and Carpocrates “ negligentiam ipsorum, quae sunt idolothyta, “ ad manducandum; non valde haec curare dicentes Deum ⁿ.” But though he says nothing of Simon Magus or Menander, the predecessors of Basilides, yet we learn from Origen, that “ Simon, in order to gain more followers, removed “ from his disciples the danger of death, which the Chris- “ tians were told to make choice of, and taught, that idola- “ try was a thing indifferent⁰.” We may learn from 1 Cor. viii. 1. that the question concerning meats offered to idols was agitated in the Christian church long before the times of Basilides: and the word yvwo-t; in this passage might perhaps lead us to infer, that the dispute was promoted by the Gnostics. The decree of the Council of Jerusalem would also shew the same thing. Simon Magus, as I have observed at p. 99. might have had an opportunity, under Nero’s persecution, of preaching the doctrine, which Origen ascribes to him : and it may be inferred from Tertullian P, that his disciple Menander held the same language con­cerning the non-necessity of martyrdom. Agrippa Castor, who wrote several years earlier than Irenaeus, confirms what he says of Basilides, and describes that heretic as teaching, “ that it made no difference whether persons “ tasted tilings offered to idols, and abjured their faith “ without scruple in the time of persecution i.” That this was the principle of the Nicolaitans, we know on the author­ity of St. John himself: and Irenaeus is speaking not only of the Valentinians, but of all the Gnostics, when he says, “ they eat things sacrificed to idols indifferently, thinking

^m 1. 24. 5. p. 102. See Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 48. not. “.

■ I. 28. 2. p. 107. Origen speaks of Basilides teaching his followers,

“ indifferenter agere ad denegandum et ad sacrificandum diis alienis.” In Mat. p. 856, 857.

⁰ Cont. Cels. VI. 11. p. 638. Origen enters at much length into this sub­ject. Ih. VIII. 24, &c.

p De Anima, 50. p. 300, 301. 1 Apud Eus. Eccles. Hist. IV. 7.

“ that they are not defiled by them ; and they are the first “ to go to every convivial^; amusement of the heathen, which “ is held in honour of the Gods; so that some of them do “ not abstain from the murderous exhibition of men figbt- “ing with beasts or with each other, which is hateful to “ God and man^r.” That such was the practice of the Gnostics in the second century, and that the name of Chris­tian was calumniated in consequence, is proved beyond all dispute by the following passage in Justin Martyr. He represents Trypho as saying, “ I hear that many persons, “ who speak of confessing Jesus, and who are called Chris- “ tians, eat things offered to idols, and say that they receive “no injury from it.” To which Justin replies: “From “ the fact of there being such men, who confess themselves “ Christians, and who acknowledge Jesus as Lord and “ Christ, and yet do not teach his doctrines, but those of “ deceitful spirits, we, who are disciples of the true and “ pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, become more confident and “ grounded in the hope w.hich he announced. . .. Now there “ are and have been many, who come in the name of Jesus, “ and teach men to do and say impious and blasphemous “ things^ and they are called by us according to the name “ of the persons from whom each doctrine and opinion “ originated: . . . some of them partake of wicked and im- “ pious sacrifices : some of them are called Marcionists, “ Valentinians, Basilidians, &c. &c.^s” We have also evi­dence, that the Elcesaites, who became known in the reign of Trajan, inculcated the doctrine, that it was not sinful to deny Christ in the time of persecution *. Tertullian, as is well known, was a constant upholder of the imperative duty of Christians suffering death, rather than compromise their principles in the slightest degree. His writings breathe this inflexible spirit in almost every page: and the work entitled Scorpiace is a direct attack upon the Gnostics for not submitting to martyrdom: “ When the Christians,” he says, “ are suffering from persecution, then the Gnostics “ burst forth, then the Valentinians creep out, then all the “ shunners of martyrdom boil over, themselves burning “ with eagerness to hurt, to shoot, to kill. For knowing “ that many are simple, and unlearned, and weak, and that “ many, perhaps even Christians, are inconstant, they judge “ that they are at no time more accessible, than when fear “ has allowed courage to escape; especially when any se-

' I. 6. 3. p. 30. ^s Dial, cum Tryph. 35. p. 132.

* Origen. apud Eus. Hist. Eccles. VI. 38. Epiphan. Hmr. XIX. 1. p. 40.

“ verity has been crowning the faith of martyrs ^u.” These passages may explain the strong expression in the Revehu- tions, I hate the deeds qf the Nicolaitans: and they will shew, that to eat things sacrificed to idols was a common practice with the Gnostics, who did this in order to escape persecution, and often persuaded the Christians to do the same ^x. If the Christians were first or principally seduced into this practice at.the time when the Nicolaitans rose into notice, this will account for Epiphanius and other writers representing the Nicolaitans as the founders of the Gnostics Y. They were the first who caused an open secession of Chris­tians to the ranks of the Gnostics; and whatever we may think of other heretics, the Nicolaitans were undoubtedly entitled to the name of Antichrist, whom St. John speaks of as being already come. (1 John ii. 18.) There may also be another reason why the Nicolaitans are placed at the head of the Gnostics. According to Irenaeus they agreed with. Cerinthus, and the Cerinthians were Jewish Gnostics. We. must also conclude the same of the Nicolaitans, if they derived, or even pretended to derive, their origin from Nicolas the Deacon. But, as Buddeus observes ^z, the Jews were always disposed to look with abhorrence upon meats offered to idols: and we must therefore suppose, that the Nicolaitans differed from the Cerinthians on this funda­mental point. They may have been the first Jewish Gno­stics, who partook of things sacrificed to idols: and this may be the meaning of the words addressed to the Angel of the Church in Smyrna, I know the> blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, Rev. ii. 9 : it may at least assist us in explaining, why the Nicolaitans, who do not appear to have, held any peculiar doctrine, are made to hold so-prominent a place among the Gnostics.

For the doctrine arid practice of the Gnostics concerning Martyrdom, I would refer to Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 177, 178. Hammond, Diss. de Antichristo, III: 9.

Note 65.—See Lecture V. p. 153.

I have said that Jude 12. is the only place in the New

" Scorp. I. p. 487, 488.

^x St. John’s expression is, x£arovv<tas'*riV'h%a%riv rm N/xaAaiVajv, which seems to prove, that he alluded to Christians, who had been seduced by per­sons who were not Christians.

f In the same manner Epiphanius says, that “ Marcellina came to Rome, “ while Anicetus was Bishop, (about the middle of the second century,) and “ corrupted many by spreading the doctrines of Carpocrates. Hence came “ the beginning of those who are called Gnostics.” Haer. XXVII. 6. p. 107, 108.

* Eccles. Apost. p. 406.

Testament where the Agapas or Love-feasts of the early Christians are mentioned by name. There appears however to be a plain allusion to them in 1 Cor. xi. 17, &c.: and the passage in 2 Pet. ii. 13. is very similar to that in Jude. The word auvsuojX'O’ju.svoi occurs in both places; and some MSS. read aya7raij for airaraij in 2 Pet. ii. 13. This however was probably a correction of the text, which arose out of the si­milarity of the passages ^a; and if ayairaij had been the ori­ginal reading, it is very improbable that it should have been changed to ctnaraij. The latter term is indeed very essen­tial to the passage, and shews the deceitful and insidious intentions with which the Gnostics intruded themselves into the Christian Agapse. That the Christians were accus­tomed to meet in this manner, is shewn by many of the Fathers, but by none more explicitly than by Tertullian: “ Ccena nostra de nomine rationem sui ostend.it. Id voca- “ tur quod dilectio penes Grsecos. Quantiscunque sumpti- “ bus constet, lucrum est pietatis nomine facere sumptum;

“ siquidem inopes quosque refrigerio isto juvamus------------ nihil

“ vilitatis, nihil immodestise admittit. Non prius discum- “ bitur, quam oratio ad Deum praegustetur. Editur quan- “ turn esurientes cupiunt: bibitur quantum pudicis est utile. “ Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint etiam per noctem ado- “ randum Deum sibi esse. Ita fabnlantnr, ut qui sciant “ Dominum audire. Post aquam manualem et lumina, ut “ quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, “ provocatur in medium Deo canere. Hinc probatur quo- “ modo biberit. jEque oratio convivium dirimit^b.” Beau- sobre has argued from a passage in Clement of Alexandria, that these feasts were not called Agapce in the time of the apostles : “ S. Clement le nie positivement, et regarde cet “ usage comme un abus profane du beau nom de Charite. “ Quelques tuns, dit il, usant de leur langue effrenee, ont la “ hardiesse (Fappeller charity, des repas, oil Ton sent la “ graisse et Vodeur des viandes: ctyunrp rive; -roX^Sim xakslv, “ aS’jpai y\a>TTp Ssnrvapia rtva, xvltrtrri; xai ^cajj.u>v

“ airoirvsovTa. Clem. Al. Psed. 1. III. 8. [II. 1.] p. 141. “ Ce passage fait voir clairement, que le nom d’’Agapes ne “ fut point donn^ aax repas que les Chretiens faisoient en- “ semble, ni par les Apotres, ni par leurs premiers disci- “ pies⁰.” He then proposes to substitute sutu^iaif for aya- vais in Jude 12. because Clement would never have made such an assertion if he had found the term in an apostolic

• So in Jude 12. some MSS. read

^b Apol. 39. p. 32. ^c Vol. II. p. 635. note 8.

epistle. He says that this is the reading of some MSS. and of the Vulgate: but the epulis of the Vulgate is a very legiti­mate translation of ayaitai^, and Griesbach only notices two MSS. of the thirteenth century, which read eito^lai;, and this is evidently a marginal reading, substituted in a later age, when the custom of Agapae was no longer heard of. There can be no doubt however that Beausobre has entirely mistaken the passage in Clement, who merely meant to re­probate the abuse of the term Agape, as applied to ordinary and intemperate repasts. His words, which immediately follow, are, to xaXov xa) c-cortjpiov epyov rou ko'you, rtjv ayamjv rijv ijyia<rfx.evt]v, xuSpiSioi; xa) puasi xaOvfiplgoVTe;, ttotco re

xa.) rpufijj xai xavvip @Aa<j($r\}t.ovvT£s rouvojna, <np«XXovrai tJjj U7ro- rrjv ivayyeX'iav rou ©sou Semvagiois e$;aivi7<r$ai TrpoirSoxtj- <ravref. In this passage there is express mention of the holy or sanctified Agape, which is called the good and saving operation of the Word: the persons, whom he condemns, are spoken of as blaspheming the name, i. e. perverting the use of it: from all which I should be led to quote Clement, as decidedly supporting the notion of the Agape being an ancient and holy custom: and the terms, which he uses, were probably suggested to him by the fact, that the Love- feasts of the early Christians were always accompanied with the celebration of the Eucharist^d. This was evidently the case in the Corinthian church: and it appears, that during the first and part of the second century the Eucharist was celebrated at the end of the feast; till a change was made in consequence of disorderly and intemperate scenes which took place, and the sacrament was then administered before the regular meal was eaten ^e. Still it appears that occasion was sometimes given for scandal. The mysteriousness of the rite, as I have observed in note 63, gave rise to the story of human sacrifices being eaten by the Christians: the meeting of persons of both sexes and all ranks, most probably in the evening, would encourage further calum­nies^f; and when the false Christians introduced the disor­der and excess which are condemned by St. Peter and St. Jude, the enemies of the gospel would have much stronger ground for suspicion and reproach. Clement of Alexandria, as we have seen, speaks of Agapce being held by the heretics

¹ This is confirmed hy another expression of Clement, where he is speaking of the Nicolaitans, and expressly says, that they made a profane and indecent application of the term Communion : ilrh 2’ ol <rviv trav^rifitev 'A.tpgoMrt]v xoivavlav fAvifriKviv avayopuavfftv. Strom. II]. 4. p. 523.

• See Salmasius, Apparat. ad lib. de Primatu Papa, p. 190, &c. ed. 1645.

^f Pliny did justice to the Christians, when he described their feast as “ ci- “ bus promiscuus et innoxius.” Epist, X. 97.

of his day: and though we can hardly believe all the enor­mities which Epiphanius attributes to the Gnostics, he was probably correct in saying that they made an indecent use of the word Agape S. The injury which would accrue to Christianity from the intrusion of heretics into their Love- feasts, was doubtless one of the evils which St. Paul foresaw in the apostasy of the latter days. Nor does the evil appear to have been of short duration. Hence the Council of Lao- dicea, which was held about the year 367, prohibited the Love-feasts altogether¹*: and other Councils passed similar decrees. These however were provincial, and not general Councils: and it is plain from the writings of Chrysostom, Augustin, and others, that the Agapce continued to be held to a later period. They are mentioned in the Acts of the Council held at Toul in 859: and in the Synopsis divino- rurn Canonum, published by Arsenius in the thirteenth century'. The Commentary of Theodoras Balsamon, (who was Bishop of Antioch in the twelfth century,) upon the Canons of different Councils, will throw some light upon this subject. The reader may also consult the Dissertation of Stolbergius de Agapis, and Suicer’s Thesaurus, v. ’Ayocarj. Mosheim, de Rebus ante Constant. Cent. I. 37. not. ^s. Bohmer, Diss. IV. Juris Ecclesiastici Antiqui, p. 223. Bingham, Antiquities, &c. XV. 7. Ittigius, Select. Cap. Hist. Eccles. Seec. II. c. 111. 2. 52. p. 180. Pfaffius, De Orig. Juris Eccles. p. 68.

NOTE 66.—See Lecture V. p. 154.

That the Nicolaitans claimed as their founder Nicolas the Deacon, is said by Irenaeus¹¹, the Pseudo-Tertullian, de Prcs- script.¹ Hippolytus^m, Hilarius¹¹, Gregory of Nyssa⁰, Je­rom P, Epiphanius % and other writers of less note. Au­gustin expresses himself doubtingly¹, and so does Cassi- anus^s: hence some writers, among whom is Mosheim*, have conjectured that the Nicolaitans, who are mentioned by the

s Haer. XXVI. 4- p.86. ^b Can. 28.

' See Justelli Biblioth. Jwr. Canon, vol. II. p. 755. Can. 30. ^k I. 26. 3. p. 105. ¹ Cap. 46. p. 220. ^m Apud Phot. Cod. 232. p. 901. “ In Mat. c. 25. p. 729. ⁰ Ad Eun. II. vol. II. p. 704.

p Epist. ad Heliodor. p. 34. ad Ctesiph. p. 1025. ad Sabinianum, p. 1082. Dial. adv. Lucif. 23. vol. II. p. 197.

1 Hser. XXV. 1. p. 76. ^r De Hseres. §. g. vol. VIII. p. 6.

^s Collat. XVIII. 16. Mosheim does not quote this testimony correctly. “Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. part II. c.V. r 5. de Rebus ante Const. Cent. 1.69. not.^r. Instit. Maj. p. 462. He does not maintain this hypothesis in the Dissertation de NicolaitiS, &c. See also Wolfius, ManicheeismUs ante Manichaos, II. 44. p. 187. Paraus, inApoc. p. 76. Alsted, Chronol. Hares. 38. p. 394. Colber- gius, de Orig. et Prog-. Hares. II. 3. p. 54.

Fathers, may have been a different sect from the Nicolai - tans condemned in the Revelations, and founded by a to­tally different person. For this opinion however there is not the slightest evidence. The writer who goes into most detail in charging Nicolas the Deacon with licentious con­duct, is Epiphanius^u: but Clement of Alexandria relates a very different story, which, though not free from indecency and impropriety, yet acquits Nicolas of sensual indulgence*. In another place he says expressly, that Nicolas himself prohibited all gratification of sensual pleasure Y. It should perhaps be mentioned, that neither the Greek or Latin church have ever treated Nicolas the Deacon as a saint. Some writers have had recourse to etymological conjectures in order to account for the name of Nicolaitans. Thus Lightfoot deduced it from Necola, Let us eat to­

gether². Vitringa observes, that NixoXao;, which signifies Victor populi, is the same with the Hebrew name of Ba­laam, which may be rendered Dominus populi³. Samuel Crellius, who wrote under the name of Artemoni- us^b, conceived that St. John alluded to the Nicolaitans in

1 Epist. iv. 4. v. 5. where he speaks of overcoming the world, as if he had meant to say, The real Nicolaitan, the person who really overcometh the world, is he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God. Hence he imagined that the Nicolaitans arrogated to themselves this name, as boast­ing that they had overcome the world. I should be in­clined to adopt the words of Spanheim concerning all these conjectures, who speaks of that of Vitringa as Jrigida allu- sio^c: and I have no doubt that the apostles compared the

- Haer. XXV.

* Strom. III. 4. p. 523. He is followed by Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. III. 1. p. 226. Spanheim, Hist. Christian. Sac. I. 14. p. 575. Basnage, Annul. Po- lit. Eccles. ad an. 83. p. 792. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. p. 370, 390. Fleury, Hist. Eccles. II. 31. p. 167.

y Strom. II. 20. p. 490, 491.

¹ Hor. Heb. in Act. vi. 5. Vol. II. p.662. et ad 1 Cor. vi. 12. p. 756. Itti­gius agrees with Lightfoot.

* Observ. Sacr. IV. 9. 32. vol. III. p. 938. Anacris Apocalyps. p. 34. This resemblance had been observed hefore by Cocceius, Cogitat. in Apoc. ii. 6. who conceived the papists to be prefigured; and by Gurtlerus, System.Theol. XXXIII. 3.25. p. 542. and by M. Hoffman, who -understood by it the Roman empire. (Chronotax. Apocalyp. p. 135.) See also Van Till, de sensu VII. Epistolayum Apoc. Mystico, c. 2. p. 748. Langius, Haresiol. Diss. II, 18, 19. p. 19, 20. Diss. III. 2. p. 20. Janus, de Nicolaitis, Sfc. III. 16. Michaelis, Introd. XXVIII. 3. vol. IV. p. 360. Eichorn, in Apoc. p. 74. Drusius, ad voces N. T. p. 126. Waterland, vol. VI. p. m.

^b Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli restitutum, &c. part. II. 15. 2. p. 361.

^c Hist. Christian. Saec. 1.14. p. 576. Origen explains Balaam to mean

followers of this sect with the followers of Balaam, merely because that false prophet seduced the Israelites to eat things sacrificed to idols.

Rothius, in his Dissertation de Nicolaitis, (c. IV. 1.) considers this sect to have been referred to in Rom. xiv. 15.

2 Cor. iv. 2. 2 Tim. iii. 6. Lightfoot also applied to them 1 Cor. vi. 12. But the allusions in these places are much too vague and general to allow us to attach them to the Gnostics: neither is it at all probable that the Nicolaitans had at that time risen into notice. They may have begun to shew themselves in the Neronian persecution, when St. Paul wrote his Second Episde to Timothy: but I should rather fix their date, as I have stated at p. 150, at a later period, and nearer to the end of the first century. Euse­bius speaks of this heresy, as having lasted a very short time^d: but some Nicolaitans are mentioned as being in Cy­prus in the time of Epiphanius^e; and there is evidence that they left descendants, who under different names maintain­ed the same doctrines and practices. Thus the Caiani or Caianistae, who are ranked among the early Gnostics by Irenaeus^f, are spoken of by Tertullian as “ alii Nicolaitaes.” If we may believe Irenaeus, who is followed by other writers*¹, they derived their name from the strange perversity with which they singled out Cain, Esau, Corah, Judas', and such like characters, as objects of their particular regard. It is not impossible that- St. John himself may have made his allusion to Cain in his First Epistle, iii. 12—15. with reference to. these heretics. We may learn from Origen, that Christianity continued for a long time to suffer from such persons being confounded with Christians: for when Celsus brought as an objection that the Christians were di- yided into many sects, Origen replies, “ Celsus seems to “ have noticed some heresies, which do not even agree with “ us in bearing the name of Jesus. Perhaps he has heard of “ the heretics called Ophiani and Caiani, or whatever other “ sect there may be which is totally distinct from Jesus: “ but this has nothing to do with the accusations against

vanvspopulus. In Num. xxiv. 3. p. 273. lb. Horn. XIV. 4. p. 324. So does Jerom in Ezech. viii. 5.

<• Eccles. Hist. III. 29. ^c Vita Epiphanii, 59. vol. II. p. 370.

^f 1.31. p. 112. See also Pseudo-Tertull. de Press crip I, 47. p. 220. s De Prescript. 33. p. 214. Epiphanius also deduces them from the Ni­colaitans and Valentinians. See Ittigius, de Haresiarchis, p. 114.

^h Epiphan. Hcer. XXXVIII. 1. p. 276- Theodoret. Har. Fab. I. 15. p. 206.

■ Philastrius states that the Cerinthians honoured the memory of Judas; but I know of no other writer who asserts this.

“ the Christians^k.” He afterwards notices a more specific charge brought by Celsus, that the mysteries of the Chris­tians resembled those of the Persians. This is denied by Origen, who observes, that Celsus had produced no proofs, and then adds, “ I conceive that he has made his statement “ from mistaking what he has heard of a very obscure sect “ called Ophiani¹.” Shortly after he speaks still plainer, and says that the Ophiani derived their name from honour­ing the serpent, as having first communicated to man a knowledge of good and evil; “ but so far are they from “ being Christians, that they abuse Jesus no less than Cel- “ sus would do; and no person is allowed to join their “ meetings, till he has uttered curses against Jesus^m.” Other writers, beside Origen, have coupled the Ophitae with the Caiani, and Epiphanius deduces them from the Nicolaitans". He also speaks of their worshipping the ser­pent, and calling it Christ. The latter statement may well be doubted : and the worship of the serpent⁰ may be traced to the same perversity of mind which led the Caiani to single out Cain, Judas, &c. In the same manner they may very probably have selected Balaam: and though this is not mentioned by any writer, it is perfectly in accordance with the rest of their system, and might furnish another reason for their predecessors the Nicolaitans being com­pared to Balaam. Irenaeus is supposed to describe the tenets of the Ophitae in the 30th chapter of his first book ; though he does not mention them by name. Origen speaks of Euphrates as a leader or founder of the sect of Ophi­ani P: but we have no further intimation of such a person, unless he is the same Euphrates who is named by Theo­doret as having given rise to the heretics called Perataeq. An investigation into the history of these heretics may be seen in Matter, Hist, du Gnostidsme, c. 3. p. 180. and in Mosheim, de rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 62. and in a Ger­man work published by him upon this subject in 1746 : also in Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares. II. 9. p. 81. Nean- der, AUgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Rdigion, part

I. p. 747.

Some writers of the Church of Rome have supposed the

^k Coot. Celsum, III. 13. p. 455. ¹ Ih. VI. 24. p. 648.

" lb. 28. p. 651, 652. See also VII. 40. p. 722.

« Haer. XXXVII. 1. p. 268.

⁰ Theodoret says that the followers of Marcion worshipped the serpent, and that he had himself found a hrazen serpent which was used in their mysteries. He also says that they honoured Cain, which shews how inti­mately the different sects of Gnostics were connected. Hter. Fab. I. 24. p. 210. v Cont. Celsum, VI. 28. p. 652. * Haer. Fah. 1.17. p. 206.

heresy of Nicolas to have consisted in his living with his wife, notwithstanding his clerical office. I would only refer to Petrus Damiani, vol. III. Op. p. 180. Baronius, ad an. 68. p. 647. Calixtus, de Conjugio Clericorum, p. 194i, Can. 19. Concil. Turon. II. (ConciL Gal. vol. I. p. 336.)

Other writers have thought, that the Epistles to the seven churches are not to be treated as historical documents, but only prophetical allegories ; and that consequently the Ni­colaitans never existed as a separate heresy. Such was the opinion of Cocceius, Cogit. in Apoc. II. 6. who was answered and refuted by Witsius, de sensu Epist. Apoc. vol. I. Mis­cell. p. 640. The same hypothesis was maintained, with respect to the Nicolaitans, by J. G. Janus, de Nicolaitis ex Hareticorum Catalogo ewpungendis, whose arguments would, I should think, convince few persons. A masterly refutation of them may be seen in Mosheim’s Dissertation, Demonstratio Secta Nicolaitarum. Further information concerning the Nicolaitans may be found in Coteler’s note to the Apostolical Constitutions, VI. 8. Ittigius, de Hazre- siarchis, I. 9. p. 87. Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 48. p. 314. Tillemont, Memoires, vol. II. part. I. p. 74. Bud- deus, Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 365. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 460. Rothius, de Nicolaitis.

NOTE 67.—See Lecture VI. p. 159-

I have described the different divisions of the Docetae in note 13, p. 287. and the subject is investigated with much ingenuity by Beausobre, vol. II. p. 137. 519. 532. It is difficult to understand from Irenaeus what was the opinion of Simon Magus upon this point, since he represents him as identifying himself with Jesus, “ Et descendisse eum (Si- “ monem) transfiguratum, et assimilatum Virtutibus, et “ Potestatibus, et Angelis; ut et in hominibus homo appa- “ reret ipse, quurn non esset homo; et passum autem in “ Judaea putatum, quum non esset passus^r.” Epiphanius also describes Simon as saying of himself, wafloWa Tmrav- Sevai, aXXa Soxtjtrsi /j.ovov^s: and the same statement is made by Theodoret⁴. I have already given reasons for believing this to be a misrepresentation: and since there is no evidence that the history of Jesus made any impression upon Simon Magus till after the crucifixion, he may easily have taught, as I have supposed, that the same iEon which had resided in Jesus, resided also in himself. It is most probable that he never spoke of himself as the person who appeared to be

^r I. 23. 3. p. 99. * Hser. XXI. 1. p. 55. * Haer. Fab. I. 1. p. 192.

crucified: but the same notion concerning Matter, which led him to say that Jesus suffered in appearance only, may have caused nim also to say of himself that his body was not substantial. The author of the Recognitions has pre­served a ridiculous story to this effect, in which we read that a rod passed through the body of Simon as through smoke^u: and this view of the subject will reconcile many inconsisten­cies in the history of Simon. I have already alluded at p. 159. to the opinion of Basilides concerning Simon of Cy- rene. Irenaeus also represents Saturninus as saying, “ Sal- “ vatorem innatum esse et incorporalem, et sine figura, “ putative autem visum hominem*.” There is nothing said here of Simon Magus being identified with Jesus; and it is plain that Saturninus meant to speak only of Jesus Christ. Though Cerinthus and Ebion did not adopt the fancy of the Docetas, it was propagated with great success in the second century, and for a long time after. I have already spoken in note 13, of Cerdon, Marcion, and Valentinus, as Docetas. Epiphanius also mentions the Archonticiy, who appear to have commenced in the second century. Manes, or Manichasus, as is well known, adopted the same senti­ments²: and without quoting any more instances, I may observe that, according to the Coran, “ Jesus was privately “ withdrawn into heaven, and a kind of image was fastened “ to the cross, so that Jesus did not die, and the eyes of the “Jews were deceived³.” Beausobre remarks^b, that the hypothesis of the Docetas was mostly embraced by the Gen­tile Christians; whereas those who had been wholly or partly Jews, preferred the other notion, that Jesus was a mere man, upon whom Christ descended at his baptism. This remark is confirmed by the cases of Cerinthus and Ebion ; but I am not aware that it could be established as a general principle, or be traced to any probable cause. Wolfius has observed, that the error of the Docetas was embraced by all the heretics who held the notion of two principles⁰: and the observation is partly true, if we understand him to mean that all were Docetas who denied that God could in any way be connected with Matter. There is reason, however, to suppose that Cerinthus and Ebion held the latter notion :

» II. ii. ’I. 24. 2. p. IOO, IOI.

y Haer. XL. 8. p. 298. ¹ See p. 294.

* See Grotius, de Verit. VI. 3. Alex. Morus, Diatrib. ad Esaiam. liii. p. 33. who says that the Mahometans believe Joseph of Arimathaea to have been crucified instead of Jesus.

^b Vol. I. p. 378.

' Manichseisinus ante Manichaeos. II. 51. p. 208. Buddeus has shewn how the two notions were connected, Eccles. Apost. p. 566.

and yet they were not Docetae: so that the remark of Wol- fius must be received with some limitation. In addition to the Docetae, whom I have named, he mentions the Marco- siani, Ophitae, Sethiani, &c.: and the passage will furnish the reader with references to several authors who have illus­trated this subject. The learned are not agreed as to the time when the name of Docetae was first applied to these heretics. It was used by Serapion^d, who flourished about the year 180; and by Clement of Alexandria⁶, who lived at the same period: and it is the opinion of Ittigius^f and Buddeus? that the term was not in common use before that time. I would observe, however, that Clement’s words might lead us to think that the sect had been known for some time under that name. The same writer speaks of Julius Cassianus as o Tij; Son^a-ece; lgaf>xcov^b, which we can only understand to mean that he was a leader or principal man among the Docetae : for he speaks of him as proceed­ing from the school of Valentinus, which fixes his date to the middle of the secpnd century. These heretics were also called Phantasiastae and Phantasiodocetae : and Le Moyne' has thought that the term Anthropomorphi was applied to them by Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans^k : but though Ignatius is certainly speaking of the Docetae in that place, there is no reason to think that he used this term with reference to the human form of Jesus, but merely to desig­nate these heretics as beasts in a human form.

Beside the authors to whom I have already referred, the reader will find much information concerning the Docetae in Forbes, Instruct. Hist. Theol. II. 1. p. 77. Petavius, Dogmat. Theol. tom. IV. de Incarn. I. 4. p. 14. Buddeus, de Christo vere cruci affixo, apud Leonhard. Meditat. Sacr. p. 146. Milles’s edition of Cyril. Hierosol. 1703. p. 51. Mosheim, Instit. Maj. p. 337.

NOTE 68.—See Lecture VI. p. 165.

The passage, to which I have referred in Ignatius, is as follows : “ They abstain from the Eucharist and from “ prayer, because they do not acknowledge that the Eu- “ charist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, which suffered for our “ sins, which the Father in his goodness raised. Now they, “ who speak against the gift of God, die in the midst of “ their disputes: but it were better for them to celebrate

^d Apud Ens. Hist. Eccles. VI. 12. « Strom. VII. 17. p. 900.

^f De Haeresiarchis, II. 10. p. 184. e Eccles. Apost. p. 557. ^h Strom. III. 13. p. 552. ¹ Not. ad Var. Sacr. vol. II. p. 409. ^k §• 4- P- 35-

“ the Agape^x, that they may also partake of the resurrec- “ tion¹⁴¹1” The context shews, that Ignatius was here speaking of the Docetse. The whole Epistle indeed is full of-allusions to them. It begins with speaking of the cross and the blood of Christ, “ who was truly of the line of “ David according to the flesh,—truly horn of a Virgin,— “ truly nailed to the cross in the-flesh for us in the time of

Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch. For he suf-

“ fered all these things for our sakes, that we may be saved: “ and he truly suffered, as he also truly raised himself: not “ as some unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance, “ (to Soxsiv), they themselves being [Christians] in appear - “ ance: and according to their opinions, so shall it happen “ to themselves, being not members of the body", and “ devilish. For I know and believe that he was in the flesh “ after the resurrection: and when he came to Peter and “ the rest, he said to them, Take, handle me, and see; for “ I am not an incorporeal spirit: and immediately they

“ touched him, &c. and after his resurrection, he ate

“ and drank with them, as beingfleshly, although spiritually “ united to the Father.” He then exhorts them to avoid the holders of a contrary opinion, “ for if these things were “ done by our Lord in appearance, I also am a prisoner in

“ appearance only. What does it profit me, if a man

“ praises me, but blasphemes my Lord, not acknowledging “ that he had a fleshly body ?—Xet no man be deceived— “ unless they believe in the blood of Christ, they will be “ condemned—they care not for the Jgape⁰, neither for “ the widow, nbr the orphan, nor the afflicted, &c.then follow the words quoted above concerning the Eucharist: and we must certainly infer from the whole Epistle, that the Docetse were making great efforts at Smyrna at the be­ginning of the second century, and that they did not believe the bread and wine to represent the body and blood of ChristP. It is possible that allusion may be made to the

^I Coteler recommends this translation of aymrStv? which is probably used in both its senses as denoting that the Christians met together, not only to eat the Lord’s supper, but with loving and Charitable hearts one toward another. This may furuish another instance against Beausobre’s remark, quoted in p. 456.

^m Ad Smyrn. ‘j. p. 36.

^II 'Atraipareistin allusion, as I conceive, to their not believing Jesus to have had a body,-and to their not heing themselves members of Christ’s mystical body or church.

• trsgl ayderns. Here again I conceive that allusion is made to the two ob­jects for which the Agapae were held, the celebration of the Eucharist, and contributions for the poor.

p In the Epistle ad Magnes, 9. p. 20. we find xnrtiZ.tr J/ ah™S,

h h

same opinions in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we read, Let us consider one another to provoke unto love (ayawrjv) and to good works, not Jbrsakingthe assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, x. 24, 25. Other pas­sages in Ignatius, which contain express allusions to the Docetae, will be found in the Epistles ad Magnes. 11. p. 20. ad Trad. 9. p. 23: 10. p. 24.

It will perhaps be said, that if the institution of the" Eucharist furnished such a strong argument against the Docetae, it is singular that St. John, who wrote so plainly against those heretics, omitted this history altogether in his Gospel. To which I would answer, that it is acknowledged to have been the object of St. John, not to repeat what the other evangelists had said, but to supply what they had omitted. Now all the three others had mentioned the insti­tution of the Eucharist, and St. John confirms their narra­tion by alluding to the feast at which it was instituted, xiii.

2, 4, 12, 23, 26 : but though he does not himself repeat this fact, yet hei has supplied another remarkable refutation of the Docetae in the sixth chapter of his Gospel, where our Saviour speaks so strongly of his Jlesh and blood being eaten. We need not enter into the discussion, whether he spoke in this place with reference to the future institution of the sacrament, or no. Whether we take the affirmative with the Romanists, or the negative with most protestants, still upon any hypothesis our Saviour would not have spoken symbolically of his flesh and blood, if he had not really possessed those material parts of a human body: and St. John may well be conceived to have introduced this dis­course, with a view to expose the errors of his Gnostic opponents. Having collected those passages in the early Fathers, where allusion is made to the expressions in John vi. I may briefly mention, that the Eucharist was not sup­posed to be prefigured in them by Clement of Alexandria, Pcedag. I. 6. p. 121,123,125*1. by Origen, in Levit. Horn. VII. 5. vol. II. p. 225. m Psalm, lxxvii, 25. p. 771. cxviii. 171. p. 817, 818. in Joan. tom. I. 23. vol. IV. p. 23. by Cyprian. Testimon. III. 25. p. 314. by Eusebius, de Eccles. Theol. III. 12. p. 179, 180. by Athanasius, Epist. VI. ad Serap. 19. p. 709, 710. If the reader will

xa) ray rov uitrov, ov <rms apmuvroii, and the Latin translation has—et mor­tem ipsius, quem quidam negant. The ancient version has quod; but I should rather write quam. The Docetae are certainly intended.

“i See also the Excerpta of Theodotus, at the end of Clem. Alex. 5. 13. P- 971-

refer to these passages, he will perhaps conclude, that the Fathers were not in the habit of interpreting the expres­sions in John vi. of the institution of the Eucharist.

. NOTE 69—See Lecture VI. p. 170.

The reader may wish to see this absurd story as quoted by Beausobre¹ from an apocryphal work of Leucius, who lived in the second century. St. John is made to say, “ that “ having touched Jesus Christ, he had sometimes found “ him to have a material and solid body, but that at other “ times he had found it to be immaterial and incorporeal, “ and in short a mere nothing. Having observed the Lord, “ when he walked upon the ground, he had never been “ able to discover any trace of his steps ; that when he was “ invited to the house of a certain Pharisee, they gave him, “ like the rest, his portion of bread; but that instead of “ eating it, he distributed it to his disciples.” The same story appears to be noticed in a Latin Commentary upon the First Epistle of St. John, which is ascribed to Clement of Alexandria⁸: “ It is reported among the traditions, that “ John, when he touched the external body of Jesus, put “ his hand in deep, and that no firmness of flesh resisted “ him, but it made way for his hand.” It was for this rea­son, as the commentator continues, that St. John used the expressions in his First Epistle.' Origen has preserved a tradition, that our Saviour appeared differently to different persons¹. I may mention in this place, that the pas­sage concerning Jesus sweating blood was expunged from some copies of St. Luke’s Gospel, xxii. 44^u. This was probably done by the Docetae; and they may have led the way to that interpretation of the passage, which was fol­lowed by some of the Fathers, who did not conceive our Saviour to have sweated blood, but only drops as thick as blood ^x.

NOTE 70.—See Lecture VI. p. 171.

I allow however, that the authority for the heart of our Saviour being pierced is of some antiquity. In the treatise, de duplici Martyrio, which has been falsely ascribed to Cy­prian, we read, “ quidquid resederat m corde sanguinis, “ emisit ut nos confirmaremury.” A legend of the middle

' Vol. I. p. 386. * Op. p. 1009. * In Mat. vol. III. p. 906. §. 100.

^u Epiphan. Ancor. 31. vol. II. p. 36. Some MSS. omit it.

* See Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, N°. 297.

y Ad calcem Cypriani, Op. p. cclvii. The writer professes in c. 10. that 240 years had elapsed since die time of Christ.

H h 2

ages, called the Visions of St. Bridget, represents the Vir­gin Mary saying, “ Then it seemed to me, as if my heart “ was pierced, when I saw the heart of my dearest son “ pierced:” I. 10. p. 17. ed. 1611. and again, “ He was “ pierced so bitterly and cruelly in the heart, that the “ piercer did not cease, until the spear touched the side, “ and both parts of the heart were on the spear:” II. 21. p. 130. and again, “ The side being opened, and the spear “ drawn out, blood appeared on the point of a kind of “ brown colour, that we might understand from this that “ the heart was transfixedIV. 70. p. 272. In some an­cient offices of the Romish church we also meet with the following verses;

Dulcis hasta, latus Dei,

Te replevit sanguine,

Dulcis mucro per cor Dei

Volvitur in flumine. •

Si cor habes maculatuni, ¹

Inspice vulnus tarn latum Cordis ejus, illinc fluit Unda quae sordes abluit.

When the Sultan Bajazet sent part of this very spear to Pope Innocent VIII. in 1492, a comparison was written between this relic and the vest without seam by Marcus Vigerius, bishop of Praeneste, in which he says of the spear, “ It did not touch the extremities only, like the vest, but “ the centre and most noble part of his most holy body; “ or perhaps it touched the region of the heart, and the “ heart itself; to which at the death of Christ, when the “ rest of his body was exhausted, all the vigour of the vital “ moisture retired as to a citadel and its own home, from “ which cause perhaps blood and water followed the spear:” and again, “ The iron was covered with water, which it “ brought from the innermost fountain of the heart; and “ from a shining point it became red and bloody, died in “ his royal and priestly blood.” The same notion was maintained by Fr. Collins, a Milanese divine, in a work which he wrote de Sanguine Christi.

With respect to water being contained in the pericar­dium, the fact is asserted by Hippocrates, or whoever was the author of the work de Corde^z, and by Galen, 1. V. de Locis affectis ^a. Of modern writers, G. Bertinus states that “ Pericardium continet aquosum humorem, ut cor calidissi-

¹ Tom. IV. p. 269. ed. 1639. * Cap. 1. tom. VII. p. 480.

“ mum vjscus eo veluti rore madeat et facilius palpitet. In “ vulnere cordis cum hie humor aquosus effluit, statim mors “ conseqiiitur. Unde evangelist®, &c^b.” Ern. Tremellius also, in the middle of the sixteenth century, made this com­ment upon the words of St. John, “ Hoc vulnere plene “ facta fuit mortis Christi lides. Nam effusa aqua ex hoc “ vulnere indicavit ferrum usque in pericardion penetrasse, “ illius videlicet aquae conceptaculum, quo vulnerato necesse “ est onine animal protinus mori.” Beza, Grotius, and other commentators, have said the same thing: and the names of some medical writers will be found below, who have asserted, that water is formed in the pericardium at death⁰. These authorities, however, will hardly be sufficient to convince us, that this took place at the crucifixion. Some of the writers seem merely to have argued from the parti­cular case-of our Saviour: others of them, though they speak of water being thus formed, do not offer this as a solution of the difficulty: and all of them may be said to have written in an age, when anatomical science was very imperfectly understood. ^

The early Fathers, as I have observed, saw the matter in a very different light. They looked upon it as something entirely preternatural: and in their desire to give it a mys­tical interpretation, they connected it with the two sacra­ments, or with the water and blood mentioned in 1 John v. 6. Apollinaris, who was bishop of Hierapolis about the year 170, wrote a work de Paschate, in which he speaks of Jesus “ being pierced in his side, and shedding out of his “ side the two instruments of restoring our purification, “ water and blood, word and spirit^d.” Tertullian, after speaking of the baptism of blood or martyrdom, as well as that of water, says, “ These two baptisms he put forth “ from the wound of his pierced side, in arder that they “ who believed in his blood, should be washed with water ; “ and that they who were washed with water, should “ also drink his blood ^e.” In another place he makes the same remark, and says, “ Whence also there flowed from “ the wound in our Lord’s side, water and blood, the in- “ strument (paratura) of both sacraments V Hippolytus

^b Medicina libris XX. methodice absolute, V. 9. p. 90.

^c And. Laurentius, Hist. Anatom, lib. IX. de Organis vitalibus. Nic. Nancelius, Analogia Microcosmi ad Macrtfcosmon, IV. 10. p. 515. And. Vesalius, de humani Corporis Fabrica, VI. 8. p. 728. G. L. Blasius, Com­ment. in Feslingii Syntagma Anatom, p. 132. Th. Bartholinus, de Latere Christi aperto. Schneiderus, tie Catwrrhis, II. 4. p. 42. et 9. p. 93.

^d Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. I. p. 151. See particularly Dr. Routk’s note ad 1.

« De Baptismo 16. p. 230. ^f De Pudicitia, 22. p. 573.

H h 3

observes, “ The body of our Lord supplied both to the “ world, the sacred blood, and the holy water: and his “ body, when dead according to the custom of men, has in “ itself a mighty power of life. For things which are not “ poured forth from dead bodies, these were poured forth “ from his, blood and water; that we might know, how “ great a vital efficacy the power which dwelt in his body “ possessed, so that the dead body itself did not appear like “ to other dead bodies, and might pour forth to us the causes “ of life S.” Origen makes a similar observation, when he says, “ Blood congeals in other dead bodies, and pure water “ does not flow from them: but the case of the dead body “ of Jesus was extraordinary, and blood and water were “ poured from his sides even when dead^h.” In a work ascribed (but probably without reason) to Athanasius, we read, “ He was pierced in no other part, but in his side, “ from which there flowed water and blood; that since de- “ ceit formerly came by the woman who was formed out of “ the side, so by the side of the second Adam there might “ be redemption and purification of the former ; redemption “ by the blood, and purification by the waterEpipha­nius details the mystery at greater length, and increases it by repeating the story, which other writers have preserved, that Adam was buried on Calvary ^k : “ upon which hill our “ Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, and by the blood and “ water which flowed from his side when pierced, he shewed “ enigmatically our salvation, beginning at the first origin “ of our race and sprinkling the remains of our first parent, “ that he might shew to us the sprinkling of his blood, for “ the purification of our defilements and of our souls when “ they repent; and as a prefiguration of the purifying of “ the filth of our sins, the water was poured out upon him “ who lay under the spot and was buried, that he and we “ his descendants might have hope¹.” In the passage quoted above from the work de duplici Martyrio, it is said, “ It was contrary to the course of nature that blood and “ water flowed from the side of a dead body, that the triple “ testimony might be complete. He poured forth his whole “ Spirit, that we might breathe again; whatever remained of “ watery humour, he strained out, that we might be washed;

« Horn, de duohus Latronibus, vol. I. p. 281. ^h Cont. Cels. 11.36. p. 416.

' De Pass, et Cruce Domini, 25. vol. II. p. 100.

^k Origen says that he had heard this tradition. In Mat. 126. vol. 111. p. 920. See also the Pseudo-Athauasius referred to in tbe last uote, 12. p. 90. Qusest. ad Antiochum (inter Op. Athanas. vol. II. p. 279.) Bihlioth. Patr. Gallandii, vol. V. p. 215.

¹ Haa-. XLVI. 5. p. 394.395-

“ whatever blood had settled in the heart, he put forth, that “ we might be strengthened.” Similar interpretations, may be seen in another work ascribed to Cyprian ^m; in Jerom", in Chrysostom⁰, in AugustinP, &c. &c.; but enough has been said to shew, that the Fathers considered themselves at liberty to adopt any fanciful interpretation of this passage which they pleased, and that they, had no notion of it being intended as a proof that Jesus was actually dead. Mo­dern writers have been divided as to the question, whether the presence of water was natural or preternatural, or whe­ther the two sacraments were prefigured or no: and refer­ences may be found to their different opinions in the Dis­sertation of J. Ch. Ritterus, de Aqua ex Christi Laterepro- jluente, and in that of J. A. Quenstedt, de Vulneribus Christie.

In considering St.John to have recorded.this phenome­non, with a view to refute the Docetae, I am perhaps ex­pressing an opinion which may appear new : and I shall therefore state, that some of the Fathers looked upon the passage decidedly in this light. Irenaeus brings several ar­guments, deduced from , the life of Jesus, against the Do­cetae : he mentions his taking food, his being hungry,- his being fatigued; and after naming many things, which Jesus would not have done, if he had not had a real body, he ends thus, “ Neither would blood and water have come out, “ when his side was pierced: for all these things are tokens “ of flesh (a real body), which he assumed from the earth¹.” Origen also, though he pronounced the blood and water to be something extraordinary, uses it in another place as con­clusive against those who said that our Saviour had not a material but a spiritual body: he follows Irenaeus in alleging many other proofs, and then says, “ We must also think “ the same of the blood and water which proceeded from “ his side, when the soldier pierced it with a spear^s.” Atha­nasius, when he is maintaining the reality of Christ’s human nature, observes, “We may also perceive what I have said “ in that which took place at the crucifixion; how our Sa­^m De Rebaptismate, p. 364.

¹¹ Epist. LXIX. ad Oceanum, 6. vol. I. p. 418.

⁰ In Joan. Horn. LXXXV. 3. vol. VIII. p. 507.

p Serin. V. de Duct. Jacob, vol. V. p. 30. de Civitate Dei, XXII. 17. vol. VII. p. 679.

1 Both these Dissertations are priuted in tbe Thesaurus Theologico-Philo- log. appended to the Critici Sacri. I would add Basuage, Annul, ad an. 33. §. 26. Lampe in Joan. xix. 34. Gregory XIII. said that water ought to be mixed with the wine in the Eucharist, because hoth flowed from out Saviour’s side. Ritteri, Diss. 41.

^r III. 22..2. p. 219. See also IV. 33. 2. p. 271, where there is the same argument.

• In Epist. ad Gal. vol. IV. p. 691.

h h 4

“ viour demonstrated the reality of his body by putting “ forth the blood; and by the addition of the water, he “ shewed his unpolluted purity, and that it was the body of “ God^s.” In the same work, when refuting the same here­tics, he speaks of “ the reality of his body being proved at “ the crucifixion, by the effusion of the blood.” Waterland was decidedly of opinion, that St. John meant to refute the Docetae by bearing record of the blood and water, though he connects it, erroneously as I conceive, with the blood and water mentioned in 1 John v. 6. (vol. V. p. 190.) Ber- tholdt has also supposed that St. John in this passage in­tended to refute the Docetae.

NOTE 71.—See Lecture VI. p. 172.

It may be doubted, whether the writers, to whom I re­ferred at the beginning of the last note, and who speak of the heart of our Saviour being pierced, intended to assert that it was the left side which was pierced. Ritterus says in his Dissertation, “ Sunt, qui sinistrum defendere conantur, et “ ex mente veterum quorundam, qui cor Christi lassum fu- “ isse dicunt. At falso nituntur principio, ac si cor in si- “ nistra lateris parte esset positum. Est enim quoad basin in “ medio, ut docet Bartholinus in Institut. Anatom. II. 6.” Without dwelling longer upon this point, I would observe, that some ancient writers conceived both sides to have been pierced, or that the spear passed through both, and blood issued from one orifice, and water from the other. Eusta^ thius, bishop of Antioch, is quoted by Theodoret, as speak­ing of “ the pierced sides ‘” of our Saviour. Among the poems of Prudentius we find the following expression,

Ipse loci est Dominus, laterum cui vulnere utroque Hinc cruor effusus fluxit, et inde latex ^u ;

and in an epigram by the same or another Prudentius, we read,

Tvajectus per utrumque latiis, laticem atque cruorem

Christus agit; sanguis victoria, lympha lavacrum est^x.

In another poem he speaks of “ costarum vulnera Y and Pope Leo I. mentions “the wounds of his side²:” which expressions perhaps gave rise to the difficulty of deciding, whether Christ’s wounds were five or six ; a question which has been very gravely discussed' by writers of the Romish church, and Cornelius a Lapide as gravely decides, that

■ Cont. ApoIliD. I. 18. p. 937. * Dial. I. vol. IV. p. 37.

“ Peristeph. Hymn. VIII. 1 j. * Diptychon. 42.

^v Apotheos. 220. ^z Epist. XCVIII.3.

both opinions are probable ^a. It is perhaps more worthy of remark, that at the celebration of the mass, the host is so placed with respect to the cup, that it may represent the blood flowing from the right side. This custom was ordered as long ago as by Ivo, bishop of Chartres, in the eleventh century, who says, “ Hostia, quae jnxta calicem consigna- “ tnr, sic debet esse posita, nt sna et calicis positione aex- “ trum Christi latus reprassentet^b.” Innocent III. who was pope from 1198 to 1216, also gives the same directions: “ Calix ponitur ad dextrum latus oblatae, quasi sanguinem “ suscepturus, qui de latere Christi dextro creditur vel cer- “ nitur profluxisse ^c.” I may mention also, that St. Fran­cis, who is believed by the Romanists to have had the five wounds of Christ impressed miraculously upon his body, is expressly said to have received the mark of the lance on his right side^d. With respect to paintings, which represent our Saviour after the crucifixion, I need only mention three which are among the most celebrated; the Descent from the Qross, by Daniel di Volterra; the same subject by Reu­bens ; and the Interment, or, as it is commonly called, the three Maries, by Annibal Carracci. In both of these, the wound is on the right side: and I know of no exception to this rule among the earlier painters. Those of a more mo­dern date have, I believe, changed the practice: and they either place the wound on the left side, or they have fol­lowed the caution of Lucas Cranach, one of the most dis­tinguished German painters of the sixteenth century, who being asked why he had omitted the wound in our Saviour’s side, replied, “ that no divine had proved to him out of “ scripture what was its proper place.”

I have perhaps gone too minutely into this question, which after all is of very little importance. But the removal of error is always of some consequence: and it has been so often and so generally asserted, that the words of St. John demonstrate the death of Jesus, that I was anxious to shew how entirely destitute such a notion is of all ancient author­ity. Other writers upon this subject are Gretserus, de Cruce Christi. Faesius, de Vulneribus Christi. Collius, de

^a So absurd were the arguments admitted on both sides of this question, that Hieronymus Bardi appealed to the cloth which had wrapped our Saviour’s body* and which was preserved at Turin. It only contained the marks of jive wounds 1 *

^b Epist. 231. p. 403. ed. 1610.

^c De sacro altaris mysterio, II. 57. p. 117. ed. 1550,

^d See his Life by Bonaventura, c. 13. and Butler’s Lives of the Saints. The Romanists might perhaps retort upon the Protestants, when they find Ritterus quoting JSzek. xlvii. 2. in proof of the water coming from the right side.

Sanguine Christi. Voetius, de perfosso Latere Christi, inter Select. Disput.

NOTE 72.—See Lecture VI. p. 173.

The Christians may themselves have contributed to strengthen this error of the Gnostics by speaking of Jesus being anointed as the Christ by the Holy Ghost at his bap­tism. Thus Irenaeus, when he is refuting the Gnostics upon this very point, says, “ Inasmuch as the Word of God was “ man, of the root of Jesse, and a son of Abraham, in this “ character the Spirit of God rested upon him, and he was “ anointed to preach the gospel to the humble^e.” Theodoret also asserts, that the name of Christ came to him from the unction of the Spirit^f. Beausobre accuses Archelaus most unfairly of agreeing with the heretics upon this points. The words of Archelaus are certainly rather unguarded. He says to Manes, “ He who was born of Mary was the Son, “ Jesus, who was willing to undertake this great contest. “ This is the Christ of God, who descended upon him, who “ was born of Mary ^h.” But I would observe in the first place, that Archelaus was here asserting against Manes, that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism, as much as after: and in proof of this he had previously said, “ If you “ say, that Christ was not born of Mary, but appeared as a “ man, &c. &C.*” Beausobre observes upon this last pas­sage, that the word Christ must be a mistake, and that it ought to be Jesus: “ car notre auteur distingue soigneuse- “ ment entre Jesus et le Christ; l’un est le fils de Marie, “ l’autre le Fils de Dieu.” But this is an entire assump­tion of the point at issue; and we have an equal right to make the latter passage interpret the former. It is evi­dent also, that the opinion of Archelaus was not the same with that of Manes; for the latter wishes to force him into an agreement, and says, “ If you say, that he was born of “ Mary a mere man, and that he received the Spirit at his “ baptism, he must therefore appear to be Son by adoption, “ and not by nature^k.” Manes therefore knew that Ar­chelaus believed Jesus to be Son by nature, and not by adoption, and he wishes him now to confess the contrary. Beausobre observes, “ Archelaus repond, mais sans nier “ aucunement la consequence.” This is not strictly true: for almost his first words are, “ To you it appears wicked “ to say, that Jesus had Mary for his mother, and you

' 111. 9. 3. p. 185. See also 18. 3. p. 210.

. * Haer. Fab. V. 11, p. 279. * Vol. I. p. 115.

^h Rel. Sacr. IV. p. 264. ' Ib. p. 261. ^k Ib. p. 262.

“ have stated other things in your argument, all of which “ I dread to repeat.” We have a right to infer, that one of the points, which Archelaus dreaded to repeat, was the assertion of Jesus not being Son of God by nature. This was directly contrary to his own belief, as Manes appears to have known; and the point, which they were now dis­puting, was whether Jesus was really born of Mary or no. Archelaus believed, like all the Fathers, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born of Mary: but he also believed, that he was anointed by the Holy Ghost, before he entered upon his ministry.

NOTE 73—See Lecture VI. p. 175.

Irenaeus, whose authority is particularly valuable from his acquaintance with Polycarp, says expressly that “ John “ wished by the publication of his Gospel to remove the “ error, which had been • sown in men’s minds by Cerin- “ thus¹.” The same is asserted by Jerom^m, though Theo­dore^ speaks doubtingly upon the subject: “ They say that “ Cerinthus sowed the tares of his own heresy, while John “ who wrote the Gospel was still alive¹¹.” Those heretics, who ascribed St. John’s Gospel and Revelations to Ceriri- thus⁰, must probably have supposed them to be contem­poraries : but if we give any credit to a story recorded by Irenaeus, there can be no doubt of the fact. He says, when speaking of Polycarp, “ There are some who have heard “ him tell, that John the disciple of our Lord, being at “ Ephesus and going to bathe, and seeing Cerinthus in the “ place, hurried out.of the bath without bathing, and added, “ Let us run away, lest even the bath should fall to pieces, “ while Cerinthus the enemy of truth is in itP.” Theodoret relates the same story <5: and so does Epiphanius ; but by a slip of the memory, as it appears, he has put the name of Ebion for that of Cerinthus^r. Feuardentius, in his note upon Irenaeus, quotes Jerom^s as saying, that the bath ac­tually fell, and crushed Cerinthus and his friends: but it is justly observed by Ittigius and by Tillemont, that the trea­

^I III. ii. i. p. 188.

^m Praef. ad Mat. vol. VII. p. 3. Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. vol. II. p. 829.

^II Haer. Fab. II. Praef. p. 216. ⁰ Epiphan. Haer. LI. 3. p. 424.

P III. 3. 4. p. 177. 1 Haer. Fab. II. 3. p. 220. .

^r Haer. XXX. 24. p. 148. Baronius thinks that the anecdote may be true of Ebion as well as of Cerinthus. It is singular that Jewel, in his letter to Signor Scipio on the Council of Trent, speaks of Olympius as the person in the bath; which must have been a mistake either of the writer or the printer. ,

* Contra Lucif.

tise of Jerom contains no such statement; and I have not met with it in any writer earlier than Gabriel Praieoli, who lived in the sixteenth century. The truth of the story has been questioned altogether by Lampe*, but defended by Oeder^u: and Mosheim has justly observed, that if the dis­agreement between Irenaeus and Epiphanius is to make us reject this story, “ the greatest part of ancient history must “ be laid aside and accused of falsehood.” Epiphanius cer­tainly ascribed an early date to Cerinthus, since he says that he and Ebion were contemporaries of Basilides and Saturninus, but lived a little before them ^x. It has been observed, that Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria, as merely saying, that St. John was urged to write, because the three other Evangelists had only recorded ra B-w/xarixa, or what related to Jesus in his human nature y. But I cannot see how the one tradition interferes with the other: and if the friends of St. John had found that the Gnostics appealed to the three Gospels, and perverted them to sup­port their own doctrines, it was very natural that* they should wish another to be written, which might more de­cidedly combat these errors.

The date of Cerinthus has been discussed by Basnage ^z, Faydit^a, and Lampe^b; all of whom suppose him to have lived in the reign of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius. Their arguments have been answered by Buddeus ^c and by Oeder; and Mosheim is inclined to support the ancient notion, which would place Cerinthus at the end of the first cen­tury. Michaelis is decisive in thinking that St. John wrote to confute the heresy of Cerinthus: and so also is Water- land, vol. V. p. 175, who fixes the date pf this heresy, A. D. 60. Neander believes the ancient traditions to be true, Allgememe Geschichte der ChristUchen Religion, part. I. p. 672.

NOTE 74.—See Lecture 'VI. p. 176.

Mosheim has collected and detailed with great minute­ness the philosophical opinions of Cerinthus^d. I shall con-

‘ Prolegom. in Joan. I. J. p. 69. Also by Arnold, Hist. Eccles. I. 4. 21. and by Dr. Middletou, Works, vol. II. p. 416.

“ De Scopo Evang. Joan. p. 22. ^x Haer. XXXI. 2. p. 164.

y Hist. Eccles. VI. 14. See also III. 24. and Jerom, Prtef. in Mat.

² Exerc. Hist. Crit. cont. Baron, ad an. 21. p. 358. Annul. Polit. Eccles. vol. II. p. 6.

* Edaircissemens sur la Doctrine, &c. des 2 premiers Siecles. c. 5. p. 64.

^b Prol'eg. in Joan. II. 3. 17. p. 182. ^c Eccles. ApDst. 5. p. 412.

^d Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. part II. c. V. 16. De Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 70. but particularly in his Institut. Maj. p. 445. See also Lampe, Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 31. p. 189.

tent myself with describing them in the words of the earliest Fathers. Irenaeus represents him as teaching, “ that the “ world was not made by the supreme God, but by some “ Power greatly separated and removed from the supreme “ Power which is above all, and ignorant of the God who is “ over all^e.” In another place he charges him with “ be- “ lieving the Creator not to be the Same person with the “ Father of our Lord, and the Son of the Creator^f not to “ be the same with Christ who came down from above, who “ also continued impassible, when he descended upon Jesus “ the son of the Creator, and flew up again to his own “ Pleroma; that the beginning was Monogenes, but that “ Logos was the real son of the only-begotten; and that “ the creation of our world was not made by the supreme “ God, but by some Power holding a very subordinate “ rank, and cut off from a communication with those things “ which are invisible and not to be named S.” Epiphanius speaks of him as teaching, “ that the world was made by “ Angels, and that it was not made by the first and supreme “ Power*¹.” Theodoret agrees with this, when he describes his doctrine to have been, that “ there is one God of the “ universe, but that he is not the Creator of the world, but “ certain Powers separated from him, and altogether igno- “ rant of him *.” In another place he expressly names him with Basilides and others, “ who said that the world was “ made by certain Angels, the chief of whom was Iada- “ baoth^k.” The readers of Irenaeus¹ and Epiphanius^m will be familiar with the latter name, or Ialdabaoth, as it is generally written, which seems to have been one of the 35ons or Emanations of the Nicolaitans and most of the Gnostics. Upon the whole it is quite plain, as Mosheim concludes, that Cerinthus was in every sense of the term a Gnostic : and Epiphanius may perhaps be correct in saying, that the only point, in.which he differed from the rest, was in paying a partial attention to Judaism". That he was himself a Jew, may be inferred from the authority of the same writer, who says that he was circumcised, and enjoined

• I. 26. 1. p. 105.

^f Fabricatoris. Mosheim thinks that this may rather be taken for Joseph the Carpenter. Instit. Maj. p. 450-1.

* III. 11. 1. p. 188. ^h Hter. XXVIII. 1. p. no.

■ Haer. Fah. 11. 3. p. 219.

^h lb. V. 4. p. 260. This is confirmed by Athanasius, who says that Car- pocrates helieved the world to be made hy Angels; (Orat. I. cont. Arian* 56. p. 461.) and Cerinthus agreed with Carpor.rates,

1 1.30. 5. p. 109. Haer. XXV. 3. p. 78. XXXVII. 3. p. 270.

“ Jetom speaks of his uniting the Law and the Gospel, jEpist. CXII. 13. vol. I. p 740.

circumcision and other Jewish rites upon his followers. The same is said by Jerom °, and several later writers P: and notwithstanding the fact, that Irenaeus and Theodoret say nothing of his affection for Judaism, I cannot agree with Massuet, the editor of Irenaeus, who thinks that Epi­phanius was mistaken in this assertion <5. Mosheim is in­clined to support Epiphanius, as does Buddeus: and the whole difficulty perhaps consists' in understanding, how a Jew could agree with the Gnostics, one of whose principles was to reject the Old Testament, and to deny that the su­preme God was the God of the Jews. Perhaps however there is a great error in expecting consistency in a Gnostic : and the former history of the Jews might hinder us from feeling surprise, if Cerinthus, as he is reported by Epipha­nius, believed “ the Law and the Prophets to have been “ given by Angels, and that he who gave the Law was one “ of the angels who created the world.” When he goes on to charge Cerinthus with inconsistency, for saying that the Law was given by a bad Angel, and yet enjoining obedience to the Law, we may perhaps hesitate before we admit the testimony. Buddeus has expressed his doubts¹: and it seems most probable, that Epiphanius in this instance has attributed to Cerinthus what was the common doctrine of the Gnostics; but that Cerinthus so far differed from the rest, as to teach that the creative Angel, and the one who gave the Law, were good beings.

I should state, that the name of this heretic is sometimes written Merinthus: and Epiphanius doubts, whether Cerin­thus and Merinthus were two separate persons, or only dif­ferent names for one and the same^s. It has been observed by some writers, that Merinthus in Greek signifies a halter: and Mosheim is probably right in conjecturing, that the alteration was made for sake of derision. Philastrius writes the name Cherintkus: and Guido d^e Perpiniano, in the fourteenth century, speaks of the Chyrinthians, who were so called from Chyrinthus; and of the Merinthians or My- rinthians, who received their name from Myrinthus. But these are the mistakes or inadvertencies of later writers.

NOTE 75.—See Lecture VI. p. 177.

I shall follow the same plan as in the last note, and give

° Epist. CXII. 13. vol. I. p. 740.

p Augustin. Hoer. vol. VIII. p. 7. Damasceu. de Har. PhilastriuS, Prae- destinatus, Isidorus Hisp. Orig. VIII. 5. Honorius August.

"i Praef. §. 127. ^r Eccles. Apost. p. 457.

•Haer. XXVIII. 8. p. 115, 116; Augustin. Hter. vol. VIII. p. 7. Da- mascen. liar. 28, vol. I. p. 82.

the opinions of Cerinthus concerning Jesus Christ in the language of the early Fathers. I have already in part quoted Irenaeus at p. 477. and he says in another place of Cerinthus, “ that he ascribed an inferior station to Jesus, who was not “ born of a Virgin : (for this appeared to him impossible:) “ but that he was the son of Joseph and Mary, born like “ all other men, and that he surpassed all men in right- “ eousness, prudence, and wisdom: that Christ descended “ upon him after his baptism in the figure of a dove, from “ that supreme Power which is above all, and then an- “ nounced the unknown Father, and performed miracles; “ but that at last Christ flew back again from Jesus, and “ that Jesus suffered and rose again : but that Christ con- “ tinued impassible, having a spiritual existence¹.” Ac­cording to Epiphanius he taught, “ that Jesus was the son ^w of Joseph and Mary, and that after he was grown up, “ Christ descended upon him, that is, the Holy Ghost, in “ the form of a dove, in the river Jordan, and revealed the “ unknown Father to him, and by him to his followers: “ and from this cause, after that the power was come upon “ him from above, he performed miracles; and when he “ suffered, that which came from above fled up again from “ Jesus: and that Jesus suffered and rose again ; but that “ Christ, who came upon him from above, and was im- “ passible, fled up again, (which was that which descended “ in the form of a dove;) 'and that Jesus was not Christ In other places he speaks of Jesus as a mere man born in the ordinary way ^x. Theodoret agrees so exactly with the two former writers, that I need not transcribe the passage y:” and the reader may now understand the doctrine of those Gnostics, who were not Docetae, but believed Jesus to be an ordinary man. Epiphanius has preserved a curious fact concerning the Cerinthians, that “ they use the Gospel of “ Matthew in part, and not entire; but they use it on ac- “ count of the genealogy which proves the incarnation²:” and in another place he tells us, that “ Cerinthus and Car- “ pocrates use the same Gospel as the Ebionites, and wish “ to prove from the genealogy at the beginning of Mat- “ thew’s Gospel, that Christ [Jesus] was born of Joseph “ and Mary. But the Ebionites have a different notion; “ for they cut away'the genealogies in Matthew, and begin

* I. 26. 1. p. 105. ^u Haer. XXVIII. i. p. no, in.

* ’Ex crecgecrgtfiris •v/'/Xov ayQgaitrov, H<et. LI. z. p. 423. Tgao-Qarov xa,\ atvfyutfav. 4, p. 424.

y/Hser. Fab. II. 3. p. 219.

² Atu rtfv ymttXoy'ixv r»jv hfecoxov. Hcer. XXVIII. 5. p. 113..

“ with the words, In those days came John the Ba/ptist, &c. “ iii. l.^a” It may appear strange, that Cerinthus and Ebion, who are both charged with believing Jesus to be a mere man, should have drawn contrary inferences from the be­ginning of Matthew’s Gospel: but we must remember, that Epiphanius speaks of Cerinthus admitting this Gospel only in part: and there is abundant evidence, that the Gospel used by the Ebionites was by no means the genuine Gospel of St. Matthew. The fact seems to be, that both these heretics mutilated and altered it, as best suited their own fancies. Cerinthus probably took so much of the genealogy, as proved the Jewish descent of Jesus, and consequently his human birth ; but rejected every thing which supported his miraculous conception. The Ebionites, or at least part of them, who knew that St. Matthew did not speak of Jesus as a mere man, thought it safer to reject the whole of the genealogy.

It is more difficult to decide, what was the difference be­tween Carpocrates and Cerinthus in their opinions concern­ing Christ. Epiphanius^b and Theodoret^c appear to have copied Irenaeus^d in describing the sentiments of Carpocra- tes; and I quote Theodoret as the most concise, who speaks of him as teaching, “that Jesus was born of Joseph and “ Mary like other men, but that he excelled in virtue, and “ had a pure soul which remembered what it did when liv- “ ing with the Unbegotten.” It is plain therefore that Carpocrates was not a Docetist; and he may have been the first Gnostic who rejected that absurdity. The publication of the Gospels may probably have driven him to admit so much of the truth: but there seems little or no difference between his notion concerning Christ and that of Cerinthus. I have already referred to Epiphanius as saying, that the only difference between Carpocrates and Cerinthus consisted in the latter being addicted to Judaism: and this may have contributed to put him at the head of a party, rather than any peculiarity of opinion concerning Jesus Christ.

Since there is great reason to suppose that Carpocrates lived before the end of the first century, I may be expected to enter into a little more detail concerning him. I have stated, at p. 175. that nearly all the Fathers agree in plac­ing Carpocrates before Cerinthus^e: and yet some modern

» Haer. XXX. 14. p. 138. b Haer. XXVII. 2. p. 102.

' Hser. Fab. I. 5. p. 196. ^d I. 25. 1. p. 103.

^e This is allowed and fully proved by Lampe, Proleg. in Joan. II. 3. 20. p. 184. though he places Carpocrates as well as Cerinthus in the second cen­tury. Ib. p. 185.

writers have decided that he did not appear till the second century^f. If we follow the Fathers concerning Cerinthus, we are bound also to believe, that he was preceded by Car- pocrates; and Ijnust repeat what I have remarked in more than one place, that there is an interval of nearly thirty years between the death of St.'Paul and the publication of St. John’s Gospel, concerning which we know little or no­thing g. Towards j|he end of this period I conceive Carpo- crates to have spread his doctrines: and I have given a reason for thinking, that he modified the Gnostic hypothesis concerning Christ, in consequence of the diffusion of the three first Gospels. This would lead us to the same con­clusion concerning his date: and without admitting the story, which is told by Praedestinatus ^h, that Carpocrates was con­demned in Cyprus by Barnabas, I have little hesitation in supposing him to have spread his heresy about the same time with the Nicolaitans, and to have met with the same success among the Gentile Gnostics, as Cerinthus did among those who had been Jews. His name is written Carpocras by Epiphanius, but the more usual form is Car­pocrates. An expression in the same writer would lead us to think that he was a native’ of Cephallene'; though Cle­ment of Alexandria^k and Theodoret¹ say expressly that he was of Alexandria. Perhaps we may safely conclude that he studied in the latter city; and since Theodoret adds that his son Epiphanes was versed in the Platonic philo­sophy, we may easily account for the father being seduced by Gnosticism. Theodoret also states, that these, i. e. the father and son, car "ied their heresies to their height in the reign of Hadrian; which is perfectly consistent with the notion of Carpocrates having begun his heresy before the end of the first cgntury: and if those commentators are right, who suppose St. Jude to have written his Epistle some time after the death of St. Paul, the followers of Car­pocrates may have been among the number of those whom he condemns. Clement informs us that Epiphanes died at the early age of 17, and Hadrian began his reign A. D. 117, so that Carpocrates may very well have been a contem-

^f See Prasf. to Irenaeus, §. 119. Mosheim, Institut. Mag. p. 440. who does not himself think that this late date is clearly proved : hut he places him in the second century, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 49, &c. So does Col- bergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares* III. 2. p. 97. He is placed before Cerin­thus by Imbonatus, deAdventu Messice ab Heereticorum calumniis vindicato, §. 2. p. 157- ,

s See Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. IV. 7. vol. III. p. 900, &c. ^h VII. p. 13. ed. Sirmondi. * Haer. XXXII. 3. p. 210.

^k Strom. III. 2. p. 511. ¹ Haer. Fab. I. 5. p.196.

' I i

porary of St. John and also of Hadrian. His sentiments concerning the Creation and concerning Jesus Christ are reported by Irenaeus ^m, Epiphanius ⁿ, and Theodoret⁰: and since they all represent him as agreeing so nearly with Ce­rinthus, it is not necessary to transcribe the passages. Epi­phanius has preserved a fact, which if true is well worthy of remark, that th£ followers of Carpoc/ates assumed the name of Christians; and this also would agree with the notion of their date being fixed toward the end of the first century: but I should be inclined to understand this expression ra­ther of Epiphanes and his successors in the second century, than of the immediate followers of Carpocrates in his earlier days. Eusebius P quotes Irenaeus, as calling Carpocrates the father of the Gnostics, and as stating him to have prac­tised openly the same magic arts which Simon had used in secret. Irenaeus does not exacdy say this in his work which is extant, but he speaks of his incantations and other similar delusions. I have already mentioned that Cerinthus only followed the example of Carpocrates in admitting the ge­nealogy, or at least part of it, which is contained in St. Matthew’s Gospel. With respect to the moral conduct and principles of Carpocrates, I nave already stated them at p. 44o. to have been marked by extreme profligacy: and, notwithstanding the scepticism or the charity of Lardner, I cannot but think that in this instance the testimony of the Fathers is to be preferred. To the authorities before ad­duced, I may add that of Clement of Alexandria 9, who says that the Carpocratians held a community of wives, from which cause great scandal was brought upon the Christian name. He adds, that they practised all kinds of enormities at their convivial meetings; and that Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates, whom I have already mentioned, was worshipped as a God at Same in Cephallene. He men­tions this latter fact with so much detail^ that I cannot doubt the truth of it: and when Lardner dwells upon the incredibility of such divine honours being paid by Chris­tians to a Christian, I can only repeat what I endeavoured to shew in note 38, that the Gnostics were not Christians, nor ever considered as such by real Christians, though they often assumed the name, and were confounded with them by the heathen. Whoever wishes for a more detailed ac­count of Carpocrates, will find it in Ittigius, de Haresiw- cMs, p. 108. and Appendix, p. 35: also in Lardner, Hist.

^m I. 25. p. 103. " Haer. XXVII. p. 102. ° Haer. Fab. I. 5. p. 196.

i' Eccles. Hist. IV. 7. 1 Strom, ut supra. See the Inscriptions at p. 447.

qf Heretics, book II. c. 8. Massuet’s Preface to Irenaeus, §. 119. TiUemont, Memoires, vol. II. part II. p. 158. Mo­sheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 49. Fuldner, de Car- pocraticmis, in Ulgenius’ Historisch-theologische Abha/ndhm- gen der GeseUschaft zu Leipzig, 1824. p. 180.

NOTE 76.—See Lecture VI. p. 177.

The earliest writer, who speaks of Cerinthus as holding the doctrine of a millennium, is Caius, who lived about A. D. 210, and is quoted by Eusebius^r. He represents Cerin­thus as teaching, “ that after the resurrection the reign of “ Christ will be on earth, and that the flesh will again live “ subject to desires and pleasures in Jerusalem.” Eusebius adds, “ that being an enemy to the holy scriptures, and “ wishing to deceive, he said that a thousand years would “ be consumed in the marriage feastby which he pro­bably meant, that Cerinthus perverted certain texts of scrip­ture, particularly Rev. xix. 9. xx. 3, 4. He also quotes Dionysius, who was bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 265, and who said of Cerinthus, “ that he taught that the king- “ dom of Christ would be on earth, and would consist of “ those things of which he was himself fond, being given to “ indulge his body, and extremely carnal, that is, of all “ kinds of sensual pleasure, eating and drinking and mar- “ riage, and (that he might appear to use more decent ex- “ pressiohs) of feasts and sacrifices, and the slaughtering of “ victims.” The substance of this is repeated by Theodo­ret ^s, who evidently follows Caius and Dionysius, Mosheim is not inclined to believe the charges which are here brought against Cerinthus: but since we can come to no certain conclusion, where ancient testimony is on the one side, and cbnjectural criticism on the other, I can only refer the readef to the argume'nts of Mosheim, in his Institutiones ■ Majores, p. 457. and de Rebus a/nte Const. Cent. I. 70. not.¹ I have said that the Fathers also believed in a mil­lennium, for which I must again quote the authority of Eusebius. He is speaking of Papias, “ who had heard “ John, and was the companion of Polycarp:” he calls him a man “ of weak intellect,” /<po8pu a-fiwpo; cuv tov vovv, and says of him, “ that he had handed down several things as “ havifig come to him by unwritten tradition, such as some “ strange parables and precepts of our Saviour, and other “ such fabulous things. Among these he said that there

^T Eccles. Hist. III. 28.

⁸ Haer. Fab. II. 3. p. 219. Augustin, Hter. vol. VIII. p. 7.

I i 2

“ would be a period of 1000 years after the resurrection of “ the dead, when the kingdom of Christ would be esta- “ blished upon this earth. Which notion he formed, as I “ conceive, by misinterpreting the apostolical declarations,

“ and not understanding their figurative expressions.----------

“ He was also the cause of all the other ecclesiastical writers “ adopting the same opinion, who defended themselves by “ the antiquity of this man; such was the case with Ire- “ naeus, and whoever else has expressed the same senti- “ ments¹.” The notion of a millennium had been main­tained before the time of Irenaeus by Justin Martyr, who tells Trypho, “ that Jesus was to come again to Jerusalem, “ and again to eat and drink with his disciples".” But he speaks much more plainly afterwards, when Trypho asked him whether he really believed, “ that Jerusalem would be “ rebuilt, and that the Christians would meet there, and “ together with the Jews enjoy happiness in the presence of “ Christ^x?” to which he replies, “ I have confessed to you “ before, that I and many others have entertained this “ opinion so as to be firmly convinced that the thing will “ take place; but I have also explained to you, that there “ are many Christians of sound and religious minds who do “ not agree in thinking so: for as to those who are called “ Christians, but who are wicked and irreligious heretics, I “ have told you that all their doctrines are blasphemous

“ and wicked and absurd: but as for myself and all

“ other Christians who think rightly upon all points,- we “ are convinced that there will be a resurrection of the “ body, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will be “ rebuilt and ornamented and enlarged, as Ezekiel, Isaiah, “ and other prophets acknowledge.” He then quotes Isaiah lxv. 17, &c. and adds, “ Beside which, a man of our reli- “ gion whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, “ foretold in a revelation which was made to him, that “ those who believe in our Christ will pass 1000 years in “ Jerusalem, and that after this the universal and (to speak “ briefly) the eternal and simultaneous resurrection of all “ men, and the judgment, will take place. Which also our “ Lord declared, They shall neither marry nor be given in “ marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, being children “ of God, of the resurrection" Luke xx. 35, 36. Irenaeus expresses himself with equal or even greater plainness. Having condemned the heretics, who denied the resurrcc-

‘ Eccles. Hist. III. 39. p. 137. ^u Dial, cum Tryph. 51. p 147.

*-80. p. 177. See also 139. p. 230.

tion of the body, who, as he says, “were ignorant of the “ mystery of the resurrection of the just and of the king- “ dam, which is the beginning of incorruption, by which “ kingdom those who have been worthy become gradually “ accustomed to comprehend God,” he adds, “ the just must “ rise first in the new state of things, and enter into the pre- “ sence of God, and receive the promise of the inheritance, “ which God promised to the Fathers, and reign in it; after “ which will be the judgment.” He then quotes the promises which were made to Abraham in Gen. xiii. 14,15,17. xxiii. 11,.&c. and which have not yet been accomplished; and then those words of our Saviour tp his disciples, I wiU not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom, Matt. xxvi. 29. upon which he observes, “ He promised to “ drink of the fruit of the vine with his disciples, by which “ he shewed both the inheritance of the earth, in which the “ new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the carnal resurrec- “ tion of his disciples. For the new flesh which rises again, “ is that which also receives the new cup. But he cannot “ be understood as drinking the fruit of the vine, when in “ the company of his disciples in the super-celestial region; “ nor are they without flesh, who drink it: for to drink of “ the vine, belongs to the flesh and not to the spirit.” He then appeals to Papias, as we might expect from the pas­sage in Eusebius, and quotes several declarations of the prophets, e. g. Isaiah vi. 11. xi. 6. xxvi. 19? xxx. 25. xxxi. 9- xxxii. 1. Iiv. 11. lviii. 14. lxv. 18. 25. Jeremiah xxiii. 7. xxxi. 10. Ezekiel xxviii. 25. xxxvii. 12. Daniel vii. 27. xii. 13. upon which he observes, that it is impossible to explain all these prophecies by allegory and figure, “ for all “ these relate without doubt to the resurrection of the just, “ which is to take place after the coming of Antichrist and “ the destruction of all the nations who are subject to him,

“ in which the just will reign on the earth, &c.-------------------- But all

“ these descriptions cannot apply to the happiness of hea- “ ven, but to the times of the kingdom, when the earth is “ restored by Christ, and Jerusalem rebuilty.” Tertullian informs us that he wrote a book upon this subject, entitled de Spe Fidelium, which is now lost: but he professes his belief, “ that a kingdom is promised to us on earth, before “ our heavenly state, and different from it, which will last “ for one thousand years after the resurrection, in Jerusa-

y All these quotations are made from Ireuaeus, V. 31—35. where the reader will find all that is said by that Father upon the subject. ,

1 i 3

“ lem, a city of divine formation which is to be brought “ down from heaven².” I might perhaps have abridged these quotations; but since the Fathers have often been accused of adopting the error of the millenarians, I was unwilling to conceal their sentiments, or not to give them in their own words. It cannot be denied, that Papias, Ire­naeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, believed lite­rally that the saints would reign with Christ upon earth previous to the general resurrection. It must be observed, however, that Justin Martyr speaks of some Christians who were perfectly orthodox, and yet did not entertain this be­lief. It is singular also, that Irenaeus says nothing of the period of one thousand years, nor., though he quotes many passages from the Revelations, does he refer to xx. 3, 4. which might seem to have given rise to the notion. What­ever we may think of the error, into which so many of the Fathers fell, it is plain that their notions concerning a mil­lennium were entirely different from the gross and sensual ideas which they ascribe to the followers of Cerinthus: to which I may add, that the idea itself seems to have been generally abandoned before the end of the third century. Thus when Celsus objects to Origen, that the Christians had borrowed from Plato the notion of another world or earth greatly superior to this, Origen says in his reply, that God had promised by Moses a good and happy country to those who obeyed him; but he does not add a word con­cerning the reign of Christ upon earth, though this was the place where he might have been expected to mention it; and he expressly says, that this better country is not, as some think, the terrestrial Judaea, nor is it any place in this earth^a. In another work^b he pointedly condemns the lite­ral and sensual interpretation, which some persons affixed to the prophecies, and their expectation of a resurrection to carnal enjoyments. A few years later, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote a work in two books, entitled de Pro- missionibus, purposely to confute the notion of an earthly millennium, which had been propagated by Nepos, an Egyptian bishop. Some fragments of this work are pre­served by Eusebius⁰. Dionysius had first convened a meet­ing of the clergy and others, who followed the sentiments of Nepos, and succeeded in convincing them of their error;

¹ Adv. Marcion, III. 24. p. 411.

* Cont. Cels urn, VII. 28. p. 714.

^b De Princip. II. 11. 2. p. 104.

^c Hist. Eccles. vii. 24. See also Jerom. Praef. in lib. XVIII. Comment, in Esaiam, vol. IV. p. 767. and Catal. Script, v. Dionysius, vol. II. p. 897.

so that we may safely assume, that a belief in a millennium was not the orthodox belief in the diocese of Alexandria at the end of the third century. Eusebius, as we have seen, considered the notion as erroneous. Theodoret also asserts, “ that the kingdom of our God and Saviour will not be on “ earth, as is said by Cerinthus and those who resemble “ him, nor confined within a definite time. Let them ima- “ gine their period of one thousand years, and their cor- “ ruptible pleasure, and their other indulgences, together “ with their sacrifices and Jewish celebrations: but we “ expect a life which will never terminate ^d.” Jerom and Augustin^e held the same language, and condemned the notion of an earthly millennium: and upon the whole we may safe' j conclude, as I observed above, that after the middle of the third century the doctrine was not received as that of the catholic church, though it long continued to be maintained by a few, who were called Milliarii, Milliastae, Milliasti, Millenarii, Chiliastae, and Chilionetitae. The here­tics, who are mentioned, beside the Cerinthians, as believing in a millennium, were the Ebionites, Marcionites, Montanists, Meletians, and Apollinarians. Grabe, in his notes to Irenaeus, has rather favoured the belief in a millennium: and Dean Woodhouse, in his admirable Commentary upon the Apo­calypse, has referred to Newton’s Dissertations on Rev. xx. Lowman’s Paraphrase, Kett on Prophecy, Bishop Gray’s Discourse on Rev. xx. 4, 5, 6. and Whitby’s Treatise on the true millennium. I would also refer to the following writers, Calixtus, de Suprem. Judicio, p. 163. Gerhardus, de Chiliasmo: and de Consummatiome Sceculi, §. 67. Voetius, Select. Disp. Theol. vol. II. p. 1248. Mosheim, Institut. Maj. p. 457. Lardner, Credibility, c. XLIII. 14. Massuet, Prcef. ad Irenceum, Diss. I. §. 126. III. §. 121—23. Beau­sobre, vol. I-p. 504. II. p. 115. Langius, Hceresiol. Sce­culi I. etll. Diss. III. 7. p. 14. Tillemont, Memovres, vol.

II. part. II. p. 243. Burnet’s Theory of the Earth, book IV. Ittigius, Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 81. p. 291.

NOTE 77.—See Lecture VI. p. 179.

Mosheim^f notices the contradictory statements of Epi­phanius, who says in one places, that Cerinthus believed “ Jesus to have suffered and risen againand in another¹¹, “ that Christ suffered and was crucified, but was not yet

⁴ Hser. Fab. V. 21. p. 297.

^e Hser. vol. VIII. p. 7. De Civ. Dei, XX. 7. vol. VII. p. 580.

^f Instit. Maj. p. 452. The same is said by Ittigius, de Haresiarchis, p. 54.

% Hser. XXVIII. 1. p.m. Ib. 6. p. 113.

“ risen, but would rise again, when the general resurrection “ of the dead took place.” Mosheim thinks that Epipha­nius made the latter statement through forgetfulness and inadvertence, and that the former is the correct one, which is confirmed by Irenasus, who represents Cerinthus as teach­ing, “ that Christ flew up again from Jesus, and that Jesus “ suffered and rose again'.” I perfectly agree with Mo­sheim, that the testimony of Irenaeus is preferable to that of Epiphanius: but perhaps we may reconcile the two state­ments of the latter writer, without charging him with con­tradicting himself. In the first place, Mosheim has omitted to observe, that Epiphanius himself, after making the latter statement, writes thus; “ These expressions therefore and “ sentiments of the Cerinthians are inconsistent, aumraxa so that he seems to have been perfectly aware of the seem­ing contradiction which he probably met with in some writ­ings of the Cerinthians. I would observe in the next place, that the two passages contain a remarkable difference of ex-, pression : in the first he says, that Jesus rose again; in the other, that Christ was not yet risen: and this difference ought not to be neglected, when we remember that the Cerinthians, like all the Gnostics, considered Jesus and Christ to be two separate persons. It must be noticed also, that Irenasus makes Cerinthus say, that Jesus rose again, but that Christ flew up from Jesus before his crucifixion: and this is precisely the language of Epiphanius, who adds immediately after the first passage, “ but that Christ who “ came upon him from above flew up again without suffer- “ ing; that it was this which came down in the form of a “ dove_t and that Jesus is not Christ.” The inconsistency therefore which we have to reconcile is this: that Jesus rose again, but that Christ is not risen: and this may perhaps be effected, if we suppose Cerinthus to have believed that Jesus, who rose again, submitted afterwards to the usual lot of mortality, and died like other men. The Cerinthians and all the Gnostics, who believed that the iEon Christ abandoned Jesus before his crucifixion, must have believed also that the body, or apparent body, of Jesus, after the re­surrection, was destitute of Christ. It is probable that the Docetas would explain the story of the ascension to mean merely the return of a delusive phantom to its ethereal ele­ments, or the sudden disappearance of that which had never had a real existence. But the Cerinthians, who believed Jesus to be born with a real body like other men, would

* l. 26.1, p. 105.

naturally have inferred, though Jesus rose again from the grave, yet since his body was no longer the receptacle of Christ, that after the due course of time he died again, like Lazarus and all the other persons who had been restored to life^k. It is perhaps worthy of remark, that the only Gos­pel which the Cerinthians professed to follow was that of Matthew, and this does not contain the history of the as­cension¹. There is no evidence therefore that they believed this fact: and if such a notion was spread by any of the Gnostics before Cerinthus, St. Paul may have intended to refute it, when he said, Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him. Rom. vi. 9. I would also refer to the tenets of Carpocrates, who is said by Epiphanius to have been followed almost entirely by Cerinthus. Irenaeus represents him as teach­ing, that the soul of Jesus, being strengthened and purified by a virtue sent from above, ascended finally to God: and that the souls of all men, who lived like to Jesus, might do the same"¹. Now it seems quite clear, that Carpocrates did not believe that the bodies of men would ascend to heaven. The theory of all the Gnostics concerning the corruption of matter effectually precluded such a notion. It seems pro­bable, therefore, that he did not believe that the body of Jesus ascended: and if such was the doctrine of Carpo­crates, we may conclude that the same was held by Ce­rinthus. But though Cerinthus did not believe in a final resurrection of the body, he held that the bodies of the saints would rise to enjoy a millennium upon earth: if he did not believe that the body of the man Jesus had ascend­ed into heaven, he could not avoid supposing that his body would rise to partake of this millennium : and when speak­ing of the Gnostics generally, Epiphanius says, that they either taught that Christ was not yet risen, but that he would rise again with all men, or that the dead would not rise again at all". Cerinthus must also have held, that the souls of men would in some way or other be united to their bodies during that period : and so he may have taught that the body of Jesus would again be united at that time to the iEon Christ, which would again descend upon him from above: and thus it might be said, that Christ, or rather

¹ Irenaeus speaks of heretics who believed that Christ “ incomprehensibi- “ liter et invisibiliter intrasse in Pleroma.” III. i6. i- p 204.

' See p. 162. note ^k.

^m I. 25. 1. p. 103.

ⁿ Haer. XXVIII. 6. p. 114. Nicetas also represents the Cerinthians as saying, that Christ would rise at tbe general resurrection.

Jesus Christ, would rise again to reign with his saints upon earth; and both the statements of Epiphanius might be true, that Cerinthus believed Jesus to have risen again, but that Christ was not yet risen. The latter doctrine is attri­buted to the Cerinthians by several other writers, quoted by Mosheim: but he does not mention the expression of Philastrius, who says that Cerinthus believed the soul of Jesus to have ascended to God, but not his body. The opinion which I have here advanced may perhaps rest prin­cipally upon conjecture: but I am not aware that it con­tains any thing improbable; and it enables us to reconcile what otherwise appears inconsistent in the tenets of the Cerinthians. Epiphanius evidently took his accounts from different statements made by those heretics: and in one of them they may have been speaking of the resurrection of Jesus from the grave; in the other of his final resurrection to be reunited to Christ at the millennium. It is perhaps impossible to ascertain what was the opinion of Cerinthus concerning the condition of men subsequent to the millen­nium : but it is most probable that his doctrine would then coincide with that, which was held by the rest of the Gno­stics ; and that he believed the soul to ascend immediately to the Pleroma, without any general judgment, but that the body remained on earth to be resolved into its original matter⁰.

The contradictions of Cerinthus upon this point have been discussed by Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares. I. 9. p. 22.

NOTE 78.—See Lecture VI. p. 181.

The passage in Epiphanius, to which I have alluded, is that where he states Cerinthus to have taught, that Christ was not yet risen. It was for this reason, as he says, that St. Paul argued about the resurrection in 1 Cor. xv.: to which he adds, “ The doctrine of these men particularly “ prevailed in Asia Minor and in Galatia; and a story has “ come down to us by tradition, that when any of them “ happened to die without baptism, others were baptized in “ their name instead of them, that they might not, when “ they rose again at the resurrection, suffer punishment for “ not having received baptism, and become subject to the “ power of the Creator of the world. It was for this rea- “ son, as the tradition says which is come down to us, that

° Epiphanius represents Carpocrates as teaching, that there was salvation for the soul only and not for the body. Heer. XXVII. 6. p. 108. Augustin says the same.

“ the same holy apostle said, If the dead rise not at all,

“ why are they then baptized for them P?” He then goes on to say, that he did not himself believe St. Paul to have alluded to this custom : and Epiphanius is the only writer who has preserved a tradition of it, as connected with Ce­rinthus. In another place he says of the Marcionites, “ when their catechumens die, other persons are baptized¹!:” and though, if we admit this fact, it would not prove that the custom existed in the time of St. Paul, it can hardly be doubted that the followers of Marcion practised a vicarious baptism for the dead. Tertullian alludes to St. Paul’s words in two places^r, and uses the expression vicarium bap- tisma: in the latter of them he is arguing against Marcion, and it is plain, that that heretic countenanced the custom of baptizing a living person for the dead : though Tertullian, like Epiphanius, did not attach this interpretation to the words of the apostle. Chrysostom confirms the notion of the Marcionites following this practice, and adds some cu­rious particulars: “ When any one of their catechumens “ dies, they conceal a living person under the bed. of the “ deceased, and going up to the dead body they talk to it, “ and ask, whether he wishes to receive baptism ? when he “ makes no reply, the person who is concealed below an- “ swers for him, that he is willing to be baptized, and thus “ they baptize him instead of the deceased^s.” Chrysostom also adds, that the Manichseans t, as well as the Marcionites, used this vicarious baptism. Such is the evidence in favour of this custom from the writings of the Fathers : and I may add, that this interpretation of St. Paul’s words was adopted by Ambrosius ^u and Philastrius. Several modern writers have also supported it. Calixtus calls it the most simple of all^x: and it has been approved of by H. Justellusy, And. Hyperius ^z, D. Dreierus ^a, Calovius ^b, Dannhawerus ^c, Jac. Laurentius ^d, Grotius^e, Camero^f, and in part by Scaliger s.

p Haer. XXVIII. 6. p. 113, 114.

1 Epiphanius says nothing of this in his long account of the Marcionite heresy; but the passage occurs in his summary of the third book, p. 230.

' De Resur. Carnis, 48. p. 355. Advers. Marcion. V. 10. p.473.

⁵ Horn. XL. in 1 Cor. vol. X. p. 378. Theophylact has evidently copied this ad 1 Cor. xv. 29.

' Beausobre docs not dispute this, and thinks that they may have taken it from the passage iD 1 Cor. vol. II. p. 124. .

^u Ad 1 Cor. xv.. 29. but it is almost certain that Ambrosius was not the author of this Commentary.

* De Igne Purgat. §. 55.

y Cod. Can. Eccles. Univ. ad Can. 57. p. 173.

¹ Ad 1 Cor. xv. 29. ‘De Igne Purg. ^b De Method, doc. et disp. p. 452.

^c Christeid. p. 445. ^d In Paulum tuninni, ad 1 Cor. xv. 29. p. 440.

^e Ad 1 Cor. xv. 29. ^f lb. e lb.

Notwithstanding these authorities, I still do not mean to decide, that St. Paul allude<’

said above, that this interpretation is the simplest and most literal of all. H. Muller informs us in his Dissertation upon this passage, that he had met with seventeen different ex­planations of it; which might reasonably make us cautious, before we give the preference to any of them. With re­spect to Cerinthus, I cannot think that he had begun to spread his doctrines at the time of this Epistle being writ­ten : but there may have been Gnostics, who practised vi­carious baptism before, and from whom he may have bor­rowed it. It should be mentioned, that the Cerinthians did not receive St. Paul’s Epistles ^h : so that it is not probable that they would adopt any custom from an expression used by that apdstle; which is what Beausobre conjectures concerning the Manichaeans. The probability of vicarious baptism having been practised by the Gnostics is perhaps increased by what we learn from Irenaeus, that when any of their party were dying, they poured upon their heads a mixture of oil and waterPhilastrius says of the Ca- taphryges ^k, that they baptized the dead: but Augustus, who speaks of having seen the work of Philastrius, and generally agrees with it, does not mention this fact, which must therefore be considered doubtful. There is how­ever positive evidence, that the dead were sometimes bap­tized : for in the council held at Carthage A. D. 397, it was ordered by the sixth Canon, “ That the Eucharist should

“ not be given to the bodies of deceased persons-------------- It

“ must be provided, that the weakness of the brethren should “ believe also, that the dead cannot be baptized, when tjiey “ perceive that the Eucharist is not given to the dead If the custom thus prevailed of baptizing persons who were actually dead, we may have less difficulty in believing, that the same superstition would lead to the practice of vicarious baptism. But I have said enough upon this obscure and much controverted subject. The reader, who is anxious for further investigation, may consult the two Dissertations of Grade and Muller, which are printed in the Thesaurus

^k Philastrius, c. 36. Epiphanius also says tlial they rejected St. Paul. liar. XXVIII. 5. p. 113.

< I. 21: 5. p-97- .

^k These were heretics, who followed Montaous, and first appeared toward the end of the second century. Eus. Eccl. Hist. IV. 27. Origen, vol. IV. p. 696.

¹ Concerniug the latter practice, see Dallseus, de Cultibus Latinorum, VII. 30. p. 957*

vicarious baptism ; though

Theologico-Philolog. appended to the Critici Sacri; Itti­gius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 55. and Hist. Eccles. selecta Ca­pita, V. 34. p. 298. who gives references to several other writers: and Bingham, Antiquities, &c. XI. 4. 4.

I have stated at p. 416. that the words of St. Paul in Col. ii. 18. have been referred to the Cerinthians, as wor­shippers of Angels: which subject is discussed at some length by Ittigius, p. 51: and for every other point con­nected with the history of Cerinthus, I would refer to Mo­sheim, Institut. Maj. p. 438. TiUemont, Memoires, vol. II. part. I. p. 96. Lardner, History qf Heresies, book II. c. 4. Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hceres. 1.9. p. 20. Ittigius, 1. c. and Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 25. p. 286. Water- land, Judgment qf the Primitive Churches, vol. V. p. 174. Neander, Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion, part. I. p. 671.

NOTE 79.—See Lecture VI. p. 182. .

Epiphanius, in the passage to which I have alluded, is spealdng of the heretics who denied the divine nature and the miraculous conception of Christ: “ Hence,” he says, “ Cerinthus and Ebion held him to be a mere man, as aid “ Merinthus, and Cleobius or Cleobulus, and Claudius, and “ Demas, and Hermogenes, who loved this present world, “ and left the way of truth ^m in which words the allusion to 2 Tim. iv. 10. is evident. Concerning Claudius I have not been able to collect any more particulars: but Cleobius, or Cleobulus, is mentioned by several writers as an heretic of very early times, and his name is sometimes coupled with that of Simon Magus. The earliest authority is Hegesip- pus, as quoted by Eusebius ⁿ, who speaks of seven Jewish sects, out of which came Simon, Cleobius, Dositheus, &c. The next writer, to whose works we can assign a-positive date, is Theodoret: and among the heretics, who' sowed tares among the wheat, he mentions Simon, Menander, Cleo­bius, Dositheus⁰, &c.; and he is evidently alluding to the same person, when he names among the heretics who sprang from the same root with Simon Magus, the Cleobani, Dosi- theani, &c.P In the Apostolical Constitutions the apostles are made to say, “ When we went forth among the Gentiles “ to preach the word of life, then the Devil worked among “ the people to send after us false apostles for the profana- “ tion of the Word : and they put forth a certain Cleobius, ‘^f and coupled him with Simon : these were disciples to one

“• Hser. LI. 6. p. 427. " Eccles. Hist. IV. 22. '

“ Hser. Fab. II. Prsef. p. 218. p lb. I. 1. p. 193.

“ Dositheus, &c. Src.¹)” and they then proceed to descrihe the tenets of these heretics, which are precisely those of the Gnostics. In another place of the same work, Simon and Cleobiusare mentioned as having fabricated poisonous books in the name of Christ, and his disciples^r. In the interpo­lated Epistle of Ignatius ad TralUcmos, §. 11. we read, “ Avoid the branches which spring from the Devil; Simon

“ his first begotten son, and Menander and Basilides--------------

“ avoid the impure Nicolaitans avoid also the chil-

“ dren of the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus^s.” None of these heretics are named in the corresponding passage of the genuine Epistles. References to later writers, who have named Cleobius, or Cleobulus, maybe found in Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 40, and in Coteler’s Note to the Aposto­lical Constitutions, VI. 8. I shall only mention an apocry­phal letter, supposed to have been written by the Corinthian Church to St. Paul, in which they inform him, that Simon and Cleobius had been spreading their dangerous doctrines at Corinth, teaching that the Prophets were not to be read, that God was not omnipotent, that there was no future re­surrection, &c. &c. A copy of this letter in Armenian, and St. Paul’s answer to it, which is called his Third Epistle to the Corinthians, is mentioned by Usher¹ to have been in the possession of Gilbert North.

Though many of the authorities here mentioned may give rise to much doubt, both as to the writers and their dates, it can hardly be questioned, but that a tradition prevailed in very early times of a person named Cleobius, or Cleobu­lus, having propagated the same doctrines with Simon Ma­gus in the lifetime of the apostles : and this is perhaps the only conclusion which it is safe to draw.

With respect to Demas, the work which mentions his idolatrous office at Thessalonica, is the Synopsis de vita et morte Prophetwrum, Apostdlorum et Discipulorum Domini, which has been ascribed to Dorotheus, who flourished A. D. 303: but it is evidently spurious* and full of the most absurd improbabilities. The same work supposes St. John to have alluded to Demas, Phygellus, ana Hermogenes, when be said in his First Epistle, They went out from us, but they were not qf us, &e. ii. 19 : but this is mere conjec­

i VI- 8. ^r lb. 16.

* Petavius has observed, (ad Epiph. LI. 6. p. 88.) that Baronius falsely makes Theodotus and Cleobulus the offspring of the Nicolaitans, into which mistake he was probably led by the Latin translation, “ fiigitc perversi “ illius nepotes.”

* Ad Ignat, ad Trail, ii.

ture. The apostasy of Demas has been denied by Baronius, Annal. ad an. 59. num. 11. Witsius, Meletem. Leidens. de Vita, <Sfc. Pauli, XII. 31. p. 207. Cocceius and Hammond, ad I. Grotius^u and Beza have supposed that Demas re­turned to St. Paul, because he is mentioned by him in Col. iv. 14* and Philemon 24: but these two Epistles were cer­tainly written before 2 Tim. Buddeus is inclined to judge favourably of Demas, Eccles. Apost. p. 310. and in a work entitled Demas, sive de Apostasia in Syntagm. Diss. p. 283.

Ittigius quotes an anonymous commentator upon St. Matthew, who names Vansuus, together with Cleobius, among the early heretics: and in his Appendix, p. 12, he gives good reasons for thinking him to be the same person who is mentioned by Augustin¹ in company with Simon Magus. The older editions of Augustin read Simonis et Varice, or Simonis et Varii su<B: but the Benedictine edit­ors have given the true reading Barjesu: and there can be little doubt that the person intended was Elymas the sor­cerer, who, as we learn from Acts xiii. 6. was called Bar- jesus. But we must not believe any thing concerning the subsequent history of this man upon such authority: and no .person can be acquainted with ecclesiastical writers, par­ticularly the spurious works, without observing that a fond­ness prevailed in very early times for amplifying or inventing a history of every person mentioned in the New Testament. «

NOTE 80.—See Lecture VI. p. 183.

The question concerning the real existence of a person named Ebion has been so often, discussed, that I shall only give references to the principal writers upon both sides; having first stated that the earliest writer who mentions such a person is Tertullian, who is followed by Augustin, Jerom, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Hilarius, &c. O^rig^en is generally quoted as disproving the existence of Ebion. He says that the Jewish believers in Jesus were !sr»vujw.oi rijj X.UTO. tijv hxioxyv tmo)(sia( tou vo/xou yeyevrjfx.evoi. ’Ej3/cov te yaq a itapu ’IouSot/oij xaXeTrai* xai ’E/3io)vaioi j£g>jjK.ar/5ou<rii/

ol asro ’louftaiuiv tov ’Iija'oSv co$ Xpwrov evot 7. But

perhaps these words might be interpreted to mean, “ They “ are called Ebionites after a man, whose name (Ebion) “ signifies in Hebrew the poor man: and thus their name “ agrees with the poverty of their doctrine.” This inter­pretation might be confirmed by the following passage in

“ He considers Demas to be the same with Demetrius mentioned in

3 John, iz.

* Cont. lit. Petil. III. 48. vol. IX. p. 321. -^v Cont. Cels. II. 1. p. 385.

Theodoret, who gives the same etymblogy, and yet undoubt­edly believed in the existence of Ebion : rauTtja-i 8e rijs <p«- \ayyos ypfcv ’E/3<W, tov 7rTcoj^ov 8s ouraig 'Rflpaioi irpo<rayops6-

OUTtV ^z.

That the sect of the Ebionites was not called from a per­son of that, name, has been maintained by Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. V. 10. 8. vol. II. p. 127. Le Clerc, Hist. Eccles. ad an. 72. p. 476: Bibl. Univ. vol. XX. p. 128. Simon, Hist. Crit. N. T. part. I. c. 8. Arnoldus, Hist. Eccles. part. I. 1. 4. 13. p. 43. Rhenferdius, Diss. de jictis Ju- dceorum Hceresibus, p. 4. Langius, Haresiol. Scec. I. et II. Diss. IV. 2. 2. p. 18. Curcellaeus, de voc. Trin. adversus Maresium, Diss. I. 125. p. 882. Op. Priestley, History of early Opinions, III. 8. p. 177. Matter, Hist, du Gnos- ticisme, III. 1. p. 320. vol. II.

On the other hand, the real existence of Ebion has been maintained by Fabricius in his notes to Philastrius, c. 37. p. 81. Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 59. and Appendix, p. 17. Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 37. p. 303. Mo­sheim, Obs. Sacr. et Histor. I. 5. p. 233. though he ex­presses himself doubtingly, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 40. not.² and Instit. Maj. p. 478. but in a special Disser­tation upon the question, (vol. I. p. 547, &c.) he rather weakens the arguments of those who have denied the exist­ence of Ebion. Waltherus, Jesus ante Mariam, (inter Dissert. Theolog. Academ.) p. 98: Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. p. 496. Bull, Judicium Ecclesice Cathdlicce, II. 17. Light- root, vol. II. p. 148. who states that Ebion is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud among the authors of sects. Water- land, vol. V. p. 197.

NOTE 81.—See Lecture VI. p. 183.

Many writers have considered the Ebionites to belong to the second century^a: and I by no means feel so confident of their having appeared in the first century, as I do with respect to the Cerinthians. When Irenaeus states that St. John wrote his Gospel to check the heresies of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, he does not say any thing of the Ebion­ites; though this is added by Jerom and Epiphanius^b: and Tertullian is the earliest writer who speaks of Ebion as a contemporary of the apostles. When treating of the here­sies of the apostolic age, he observes that “ St. Paul Writing “ to the Galatians, inveighs against the observers and de- “ fenders of circumcision and the Law: this was the heresy

z Haer. Fab. II. i. p. 218. * Mosheim, Horsley.

^b Baa¹. LI. 12. p. 434. LXIX. 23. p. 746.

“ of Ebion^c.” But few persons would be persuaded to be­lieve that Ebion had begun to spread his doctrines at so early a period: and the whole of this passage in Tertullian is marked by fanciful assertions, which could not be main­tained. Eusebius must have believed in the early date of the Ebionites, since he says, that “ the first preachers of “ the Gospel (by which he must have meant the apostles) “ gave them their name^d.” Epiphanius is more positive and precise as to the early date of Ebion. In the first place, he states what is omitted by Irenasus, that St. John wrote his Gospel, because the Ebionites, as well as the Cerinth- ians, believed Christ to be born of human parents'³ : beside which, he informs us more precisely that the heresy of the Ebionites began after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Christians had retired to Pella: and he seems to have had some minute information upon this point, since he'even names the village in which Ebion at first lived^f. He leads us to the same conclusion,'when, he- is speaking-of the Os- seni, one of the seven Jewish sects which were in existence at the time of our Saviour’s birth. He states, that this sect continued for some years: and that one Elxai, who belonged to it, joined the Ebionites in the reign of Trajan: after which time the Ebionites held many contradictory notions, which they had not received from Ebion5. We must there­fore infer, that the Ebionites had been in existence some time before the reign of Trajan. Theodoret appears to have been of the same opinion; for when he is classing and ar­ranging the different heresies, he speaks of Ebion as the be­ginner of that which believed Christ to be a mere man^h : and when he comes to mention them in detail, he speaks of Ebion first, then the Nazarenes, and then Cerinthus, who, he says, began anothier heresy about the same time*. I can­not think that Theodoret is correct, who might thus seem to place Ebion before Cerinthus ; whereas there is every rea­son to think that he followed him. That Ebion was the

^c De Prescript. Hasret. 33. p. 214. See above, p. 183. note ^r.

^d De Eccles. Theol. I. 14. p. 75. • Hasr. LXIX. 23. p. 746.

^f Haer. XXX. 2. p. 126.

e Haer. XIX. 1. p. 40 : 5. p. 43. Haer. XXX. 17. p. 141. Scaliger and Basnage considered the doctrines of Elxai to bave been a revival of those of the Essenes or Tberspeutae: see Brucker, vol. II. p. 787, 788. Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 43. Rhenferdius considered the name of Elceseean not to bave been taken from an individual, but to bave been applied to persons, who held idolatry to be indifferent, and who were called ]^,wnN3^l3«, from WTO, negate factum; or 'M'JN, from ntti, tegere, dissimu­late. (De fictis Jud. Hares. §. 56. p. 33, &c.) See also Coteler, Monum. Eccl. Gr. vol. I. p. 775.

^h Haer. Fab. I. Compend. p. 188. ' Ib. II. u. 1—3.

. K k

successor of Cerinthus, is said by the Pseudo-Tertullian and by Jerom¹. Philastrius goes so far as to say that he was his disciple™. We perhaps,ought to give no credit to the assertions of later writers, such as Praedestinatus, who states that St. Luke found the Ebionites in the church at Antioch, and. therefore inserted in his Gospel the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary, Luke i. 35. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions also speaks of the Ebionites as appearing in the time of the apostles": and Ittigius has quoted a very dubious account of their heresy being checked by the apostle Philip in Hierapolis⁰. The precise year in which this heresy appeared is named by Gabriel Prateoli and Alfonsus a Castro : for the former says that it was A. D. 80, in the reign of Titus, when Anacletus was bishop of Rome : and the latter names the same year, when, as he says, Domitian was emperor, and Cletus bishop of Rome. He adds, that Cerinthus was his contemporary: and though writers such as these carry with them little or no weight, they must probably have had some authority, if not written, at least traditional, for such minute particulars; and the time which they have named is by no means improbable to have been that which witnessed the first appearance of Ce­rinthus. It is in fact nearly the same date which is given by Epiphanius, and may perhaps have been taken from the works of that writer. The Paschal Chronicle names the year 105 as that in which the Ebionites appeared, after the death of St. John : but this may have been the time when, according to Epiphanius, they received an accession of new doctrines by associating themselves with Elxai. Upon the whole, I am more inclined to maintain my original position, that Cerinthus. and Ebion were contemporaries, or nearly so; that Cerinthus appeared first, in the lifetime of St. John; and it is most probable that Ebion also rose into notice before the death of that apostle. This is exactly the opinion of Waterland, who, as I observed, places the Ce­rinthians A. D. 60. and the Ebionites A.D. 72. (vol. V. p. 196.)

, NOTE 82.—See Lecture VI. p. 184.' '

That the Ebionites were at first a Jewish sect, must be con­sidered almost a settled point. Those persons at least who

^k De Prescript. Hseret. 68. p. 221. . ¹ Cont. Lucif. 23. vol. II. p. 197.

^ra De Hseresibus. But he probably went only upon conjecture; since at p. 258. he professes that he concluded Cerinthus to have preceded Ebion, be­cause Ireuseus names him first.

ⁿ VI. 6. ⁰ De Hseresiarchis, Append, p. 18. ■

deny the existence of Ebion, and think that the Ebionites de­rived their name from a Hebrew word signifying poor, must look upon them as Jews. But the historical evidence is also decisive. Irenaeus, who is the earliest writer that men­tions them, says, that “ they rejected the apostle Paul, call- “ ing him an apostate from the lawP.” Origen speaks of both the divisions of Ebionites living like Jews <3; and he has preserved a peculiar tenet of Ebion, that Christ came upon earth principally for the sake of those who were (Israelites after the flesh^r: a notion which has been supposed by some persons to be combated by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, and by St. John, when he said, He is the propitia­tion for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sms of the whole world. 1 John ii. 2. Eusebius says the same with Irenaeus of their rejecting all the Epistles of St. Paul, and observing the Jewish ceremonies^s. Epiphanius furnishes us with more particulars upon this point, which he appears to have taken from an Ebionite work, called the Acts of the Apostles. They said that St. Paul was born of Greek parents, that he went up to Jerusalem, where he remained some time, and wishing to marry the high priest’s daughter, he became a proselyte, and was cinAimcised; but that failing in his object, he wrote against circumcision, the sabbath, and the law¹. It is easy to see that this dislike to St. Paul arose from the strong expressions which he uses in his Epistles against Judaizing teachers: but it is also plain, that persons who could think and write thus of St. Paul cannot be entitled to the name of Christians. This indeed is asserted by Epiphanius, who says of them, “ They “ have presbyters, and chiefs of the synagogue; for they “ call their church a synagogue, and not a church; and “ they are followers of Christ only in name":” and in an­other place, where he is speaking of Ebion, he says, “ He “ wishes to have the appellation of the Christians; for he “ certainly has not their practice and sentiments and know- “ ledge, nor the harmony of the Gospels and the Apostles “ concerning faith*.” Irenaeus goes on to say, “ They use “ circumcision, and continue in those customs which are “ according to the law, and in the Jewish mode of life, so “ that they even worship toward Jerusalem, as if it were

P I. 26. 2. p. IOj.

9 Cont. Cels. V. 61. p. 625. see 65. p. 628. and in Gen. Hoinil. III. 5- vol. II. p. 68. in Jeretn. Hoinil. XVIII. 12. fdI. III. p. 254. in Mat. tom. XI. 12. p. 494. p. 895.

' De Princip. IV. 22. p. 183. * Hist. Eccles. Ill 27.

' Haer. XXX. 16. p. 140.

« Ttu Xgtff ru 5s ov opart povov ftfivuvovrzi. p. 142. ^x P. 125.

k k 9,

“ the house of God.” Epiphanius confirms this account, and supplies many other particulars. He says of Ebion, “ Though he was a Samaritan in his abominable principles, “ he denies the name; and professing himself a Jew, he “ opposes the Jews, though agreeing with them in party.” He says afterwards, that “ he followed the Jewish law in “ observing the sabbath and circumcision, and every other “ point which is attended to by Jews and Samaritans:” and still more particularly, “ They boast also of having circum- “ cision, and they pride themselves in considering this as “ the seal and mark of the patriarchs and just men who “ lived under the law, for whose sakes they compare them- “ selves with those persons, and wish to prove the confirma- “ tion of this rite from Christ himself, as do the Cerinthians. “ For they say, according to their absurd argument, It is “ enough for the disciple to be as ihe master: now Christ “ was circumcised; do thou therefore be circumcised².” With respect to their reception of the Old Testament, we collect from Epiphanius the following points: “ They did “ not receive the whole of the Pentateuch as written by “ Moses, but-rejected some expressions: they acknowledged “ Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and Moses and Aaron, “ and Joshua the son of Nun, who was merely the succes- “ sor of Moses, but nothing else. They did not recognize “ any of the prophets later than these, but anathematized “ and derided them, such as David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jere- “ miah, Daniel, and Ezekiel: they also treat Elijah and “ Elisha as nothing: for they abuse their prophecies, and “ do not agree with them; saying, that they were prophets “ of understanding only, and not of truth*” But we learn from an older authority than Epiphanius, that the Ebionites thought light of the prophets, “ and contended that the “ prophets spoke of their own impulse,” i. e. not by the Spirit. This writer was Methodius^b: and Dr. Priestley; as I have observed elsewhere⁰, was ignorant of this passage when he stated that “ Epiphanius is the only writer who “ asserts any such thing^d.” Theodoret, though he gives but a short account of the Ebionites, appears to have had an accurate knowledge of them, and to have studied their tenets attentively, as I shall observe presently: with respect to the point which we are now considering, he informs us, “ that they observed the sabbath according to the law of “ the Jews, and also kept the Lord’s day holy like the

i P. 125. ^% P. 150,151. - P. 142. >> Sympos. p. 113. ed. 1672.

^c Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Conclusion.

^a History of early Opinions, III. p. 217.

“ Christians ^e.” Buddeus has some remarks upon the Ju- daizing tenets of Ebion, which are worthy of attention. Eccles. Apost. p. 515,516. Also Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 40. not.^a

NOTE 83.—See Lecture VI. p. 185.

I have spoken of the Ebionites as Gnostics; which, though it may seem a point of small moment to readers unacquaint­ed with this subject, is yet of the greatest importance in enabling us to jjadge of the controversy between bishop Horsley and Dr. Priestley. The 7cpmTov \J/£uSos of the latter writer (and it is one which enters into almost every argu­ment of every one of his works) consisted in his asserting that the Gnostics were the only heretics mentioned by the early Fathers, and that the Ebionites were not looked upon as heretics. I have shewn in my Testimonies of the Ante- Nicene Fathers, that the latter assertion is totally unfound­ed ; and Horsley did not sufficiently insist upon the fact, that the Ebionites were Gnostics, which might have saved him many arguments, and ought to have obliged Priestley, even from his own premises, to acknowledge himself de­feated^f. Whoever can read the work of Irenasus, and see how the Ebionites are introduced among the other heretics who came from Simon Magus, and can yet deny that the Ebionites were Gnostics, can hardly be considered an un­prejudiced reader, or a sincere inquirer after truth. It is true, that the description given of them by Irenaeus is ex­tremely concise; and commentators have introduced a va­rious reading into the passage, which might allow us to draw from it two very opposite conclusions. .His words are as follow: “ Qui autem dicuntur Ebionaei, consentiunt qui- “ dem mundum a Deo factum : ea autem, quae sunt erga “ Dominum, non similiter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates “ opinanturs.” This is the reading of Massuet’s edition, and no MS. has been quoted as presenting any variety. Coteler however wished the negative non to be expunged¹¹:

• Haer. Fab/ II. i. p. 219.

^f Dr. Priestley has incautiously admitted that the Elcesaites, mentioned by Eusebius, (VI. 38.) were prohably Jewish Gnostics. (Hist, of the Chris­tian Chureh, vol. I. p. 321.) But these people had their name from Elxai, who, as I have stated at p. 497, joined the Ebionites. (See Valesius ad Eus.) Dr. P. also says, “ It is exceedingly evident that Irenaeus had no view to “ any persons whatever besides the Gnostics.” (Hist, of early Opinions, I. 4. 4. p. 274.) But the Ehionites appear on the list of Irenaeus with per­sons immediately before and after them, who are allowed to be Gnostics. Therefore the Ebionites were Gnostics. Probatur Major by Dr. Priestley.

£ I. 26. 2. p. 105.

^h AdConstit. Apost. VI.6. So thought Dannhawerus, Christeid. p. 522.

K k 3

and Pearson, Bull, and Grabe proposed to effect a similar alteration by reading consimiliter instead of wow similiter. This correction of the passage is defended at some length by Vitringa^h, who observes that Irenasus intended to speak of the Ebionites as agreeing with the Cerinthians in one point, and differing from them in another: but since he had said that the Cerinthians believed, “ non a primo Deo “ factum esse mundum,” Vitringa thinks that the received text would make the Ebionites differ from them in both points. I would remark, in answer to this, that there is no proof of Irenaeus having had the intention which Vi­tringa ascribes to him: and the word consentiunt, instead of referring to an agreement with the Cerinthians, may refer to an agreement with thecatholic or orthodox church. I shall shew presently what was the difference between the Ebionites and Cerinthians concerning Christ; but at present I would confine myself to the theory of Ebion concerning the creation of the world. It appears from the words of Irenaeus just quoted, that he believed it to be made by God : and Theodoret confirms this statement, as well as the interpretation, which I have given to it, by saying of Ebion, “ He said, as we do, that there is “ one unbegotten being, and he proved him to be the “ Creator of the world'.” There is also another remark­able passage in Theodoret, which I shall quote at length. It is in the Compendium of his work upon heresies, which he says that he shall divide into five books: “ The first “ will contain the description of those fables, the inven- “ tors of which imagined another Creator, and by denying “ that there was one Principle of all things, conceived “ other Principles which have no existence, and said that “ the Lord appeared among men only as a phantom. The “ first inventor of these doctrines was Simon Magus the “ Samaritan, and the last was the impostor Manes the Per- “ sian. The second book will explain the religious opinions

^h Ohs. Sacr. V. 10. 8. vol. II. p. 127. Also by Lampe, Proleg. ad Joan. ii. 3. 40. p. 196. and Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. p. 488. Ittigius approves of one or other of these corrections, p. 61, as does Mosheim, Inst. Maj. p. 480. Mas- suet and Fahricius (ad Philastrium, c. 37.) prefer the received reading. If we turn the passage into Greek, and adopt a different punctuation, we msy perhaps extract a more intelligible meaning. The original was probably to this effect: 0> Ss Xtyofizvot ’E/3teuvaToi bpoXoyovffi (Av [^7v] rev x-offfiov u<iro ®tov vrt'Z'oifitrQtt.r ra Tz Kara rov Kustov ol vaQuvXviffias' voovfft ,t<6v a$ KqptvQos Kofi Kag- n'oxgaryg, tvayyiXiu ol ru Kara MarBa7oy K£%g>jvrai povqj, I have taken the word vretgearXycriajs from Theodoret, who seems to have had the passage of Irenseus before him. Heer. Fab. II. 1. p. 218. Damascenus also says, ’E$/#- vaiot vragairkwriOi ro7s Kvgtvfacivois xai Na%&ga/oig. De Hat.

ⁱ Haer. Fah. II. 1. p. 218.

“ of those persons who were opposed to the former, who “ acknowledged with us that there is one Principle of all “ things, but called the Lord a mere man. Ebion began “ this heresy, and it received different additions till the time “ of Marcellus and Photinus.” I have already spoken at some length of Simon Magus and other Gnostics, who have been charged with holding two Principles: and I have en­deavoured to shew that they by no means believed in two Gods; but that in their anxiety not-to make God the cause of evil, they supposed, an inferior order of beings, who were originally created by God, to have been actuated by a prin­ciple of Evil, and to have made the world without the know­ledge of God. Such is said by Theodoret to have been the notion of Simon Magus : but he adds, that this was not the belief of Ebion: Ebion therefore believed that the world was made with the knowledge and consent of God : but it does not follow, that he believed God himself, in the strict sense of the term, to be the Creator of it. I should rather infer the contrary from the words of Theodoret: for he says that Ebion agreed in this point with the Christians; but the Christians believed that God made the world by his Son: and since we know that Cerinthus believed the world to have been created by Angels, it is highly probable that Ebion also believed the world to have been made by a spi­ritual being or beings, appointed to that office by God ; and that the latter was one of the points in which he differed from Cerinthus. The expression in Theodoret, that Ebion believed in the existence of one unbegotten being, might perhaps lead us to infer that he also believed, like the Gnos­tics, in a succession of begotten iEons: and the opinion here expressed is, I think, much more probable than that of the Pseudo-Tertullian, who says of Ebion, “ He did not “ agree in every point with Cerinthus, for he said that the “ world was made by God, and not by Angels^k.” Epipha^ nius, though he gives a very long and detailed account of the Ebionites, says nothing of their opinions concerning the creation of the world ; but he shews in two places that the existence of Angels formed part of their theory, and that they believed Christ to be one of them. “ Some among “ them say that Christ came from above, and that he was “ created before all things, being a spirit; that he is supe- “ rior to Angels, and Lord of all, and is called Christ, and “ had for his portion the world to come¹:” and again,

^b De Prescript. Haeret. 48. p. 221.

* Tov sKBits Se etlmot Ktxkvpufftiui, which is very incorrectly translated by

k k 4i

“ They affirm, as I said before, that two beings were ap- “ pointed by God, one was Christ, and one was the Devil: “ and they say that Christ took the portion of the world to “ come^m, and that the Devil had the present world com- “ mitted to him, each at the appointment of the Almighty, “ and according to their own request. For this reason they “ say that Jesus was born in the ordinary way, and elected, “ and by this election was called the Son of God, from “ Christ, who came upon him from above in the form of a “ dove. But they say that he [i. e. Christ] was not begotten “ of God the Father, but created as one of the Archangels, “ though he is greater than they, and that he is Lord of “ the Angels, and of all things which were made by the “ Almighty¹*.” The statement contained in this passage is not at all inconsistent with that given by :Theodoret: for Epiphanius evidently considered the Devil, or the evil spirit, to be created by God, and subject to his disposal; a doc­trine which must be allowed to be the same with that of the Old and New Testament. I have not met with any writer who has examined the tenets of the Ebionites concerning the creation of the world, though so much has been written concerning their notion of Jesus Christ: and this perhaps is the reason why the assertion of Dr. Priestley has been so often repeated, without meeting with refutation, that the Gnostics were the only heretics in the earliest times, and that they did not include the Ebionites. I have no doubt, as I said above, that the contrary of this assertion might be maintained; though the Ebionites probably did not go nearly such great lengths as the generality of Gnostics ; and with respect to the .creation of the world, they appear to have partly retained the true notion, which a believer in the Mosaic, history would form. There is abundant evidence that Cerinthus, though like Ebiota he was a Jew, did not adhere to the. creed of his forefathers in this particular: and I should accoiint for this difference by supposing that Ce­rinthus received his education at Alexandria; or in some other place where the Jewish and Platonic doctrines were likely to .be blended; whereas Ebion had lived in Jerusa­lem, and had 'heard only by report of the. fancies of the Gnostics. Cerinthus appears to have taken his notion of Christ from the common system of the Gnostics : but being a Jew, and therefore more likely to have heard something

Petavius, Qui cum perpetuam illic habitationem sortitus sit. p. 127. See the passage next quoted, which evidently refers to this.

^m Tov fttXXovros ecimos e/Xn^tvan rov xX9gov. » P. 140.

of the personal history of Jesus, he adopted the more ra­tional hypothesis, that Jesus was not a phantom, but a real human being. It was still more improbable that the Ebion­ites should be Docetas: and if I was to characterize their doctrines in a few words, I should say that they differed from the Jews, on the one hand, in believing Christ to have been sent from God, though they did not look upon him as the promised Messiah; and from the Christians, on the other hand, in believing Jesus to be a mere human being, and that Christ, with whom he was united for a time, did not suffer upon the cross. There is not the smallest evi­dence that the Ebionites looked upon Christ as the Messiah foretold by the prophets: and it is impossible that they should have done so, if they treated the prophets with con­tempt. This alone would be sufficient to refute the notion of Dr. Priestley, that the Ebionites were Christians, who continued to observe the. customs of the Mosaic law. Their rejection of the prophets was one, of the characteristics of Gnosticism, and their separation of Jesus from Christ was another. Perhaps we ought not. to add their abstinence from animal food : for there is evidence, as I have shewn in note .61, that this custom prevailed with some parties, both of Jews and Gentiles, at that time. We know that this was the case with the Essenes : and if Dr. Priestley had asserted that the Ebionites rose out of the Essenes, his posi­tion might have been much more tenable. The points of resemblance between them were neither few nor unimport­ant. Epiphanius might almost be quoted as expressly asserting this fact. He tells us, that the Ebionites resem­bled the Ossasi in some of their doctrines: and it appears that these Ossasi were the same as the Osseni, who are men­tioned by the same writer as a distinct Jewish heresy⁰. It was the opinion of Scaliger, that these were the same as the Essenes: and if so, the connexion of the latter with the Ebionites is clearly established. Petavius, however, does not consider it to be proved that the Osseni and the Essenes were the same. Josephus speaks of the Essenes as having a community of goods : and the Ebionites said of themselves, that they were called Poor* because they had laid the value of tbeir goods at the apostles’ feet.' I have mentioned the abstinence from animal food as common to both : and. it is most probable that the first Ebionites practised other aus­terities, like the Essenes. The latter did not believe in the resurrection; though they held, that the soul, as soon as it

was freed from the corruption of the body, was carried to a region of happiness and delight. This was very similar to the notions of the Gnostics, which in many respects were those of the Ebionites. The Essenes were particularly strict in the observance of the sabbath, and this was always men­tioned as a peculiarity of the Ebionites. There is no evi­dence that tne Essenes rejected the prophets ; though they appear to have held other sacred books in equal reverence. This might lead us to think that they differed from the other Jews with respect to the inspiration of the prophetical books : and if ever there was a time when any of the Jews might have been likely to relinquish their faith in the pro­phets, it was when they saw their city destroyed, and all their hopes of an earthly deliverer extinguished. It was precisely at this time, according to Epiphanius, that the Ebionites appeared: and the view which I have here taken may perhaps explain, why some persons in ancient and mo­dern times have asserted, that the Christians rose out of the EssenesP. I imagine the Ebionites to have taken their rise after that Christianity had made much progress among the Jews of Palestine: but they certainly were not the orthodox Jewish Christians, as I shall shew more at length in the following notes.

What I have said concerning the Ebionites being Gnos­tics, is confirmed with great learning by bishop Pearson, in his Vindicice Ignatiance% where he shews that Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Magnesians,was arguing against the Ebi­onites : and Ignatius evidently alludes to persons, who ad­hered to the Mosaic law, who believed Christ to be one of the iEons, and who appear not to have regarded the pro­phetical declarations concerning Christ. Bishop Bull, it is true, does not agree with Pearson in this opinion^r; and he thinks that Ignatius rather referred to the Cerinthians (who adhered to Judaism) and the Gnostics. But that great man seems to have forgotten that the Ebionites ad­hered to Judaism as much as the Cerinthians, or even more so: and his own arguments therefore may tend as much to support the hypothesis of Pearson as to overthrow it. This is nearly the remark of Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 64. Colbergius also classed the Ebionites with the Gnostics, de Orig. et Prog. Hceres. II. 1. p. 48. Lampe says that Ce­rinthus and Ebion were classed among the Gnostics by “ sexcenti tam vetustiores quam recentiores scriptores.” Prolegom. in Joam. ii. 3. 11. p. 180.

p See note 32. p. 351. « Part. II. c. 4. ^r Def. Fid. Nic. III. 1. 6.

NOTE 84.—See Lecture VI. p. 185.

The most important feature in the Ebionite creed con­cerning Christ, is the fact which I have already stated, that the Ebionites were divided among themselves in one point of great moment; that some of them believed in the mira­culous conception of Jesus, while others denied it: but be­fore I proceed further, I would observe, that the division which some persons have made of the Ebionites into ma- jores and minores, has no foundation, and arose from a mis­taken interpretation of the Latin version of Nicephorus^s. It has been observed, that the distinction was not made at all by Irenaeus in the passage already quoted: in another place he says expressly, “ Vain also are the Ebionites, “ who will not admit the union of God and Man by

“ faith nor will understand, that the Holy Ghost came

“ upon Mary, and the power of the Highest over- “ shadowed her; wherefore also that which was born “ was holy, and the Son of the most high God the Father “ of all, who worked his incarnation *:” and in another place, where he condemns the translation of Isaiah vii. 14. as given by Theodotion and Aquila, Behold a young wo­man shall conceive, &c. he says, “ that the Ebionites fol- “ lowed this, when they said that Jesus was begotten by “ Joseph¹³.” We cannot therefore say that Irenaeus sup­posed the Ebionites to believe in the miraculous conception : and we must either alter fhe passage first quoted, by leav­ing out the negative, or, if we cannot extract from it any other sense, we must infer, that Ebion believed Jesus to be a mere man, and yet did not exactly agree with Carpocrates and Cerinthus. We know from the history of Socinus and others, that a person may believe the miraculous conception of Jesus, and yet deny his preexistence or divine nature. But this could not have been the creed of Ebion, according to Irenaeus; for he expressly says that the Ebionites spoke of Jesus as “begotten by Joseph.” Tertullian also appears to have been ignorant of this division of the Ebionites; at least he speaks without any qualification or restriction of Ebion denying the virginity of the mother of Jesus ^x. If we now look to other writers, we shall find frequent men­tion of the two divisions of the Ebionites. When Celsus objected to Origen, that persons calling themselves Chris­tians differed greatly from one another, Origen replies that these were heretics: and after mentioning some of their doc-

« Hiat. Eccles. III. 13. See Ittigius, p. 62. The mistake was made by Huetius, Not. in Origen. (vol. III. p. 733. ed. Benedict.)

* V. 1. 3. p. *93. “ 111. 21. 1. p. 215. * De Virg. veland. 6. p. 176.

trines, he adds, “ Let it be granted that there are some who “ receive Jesus, boasting in consequence of this to be Chris- “ tians; and who also choose to live after the Jewish law “ like the great body of the Jews: these are the two kinds “ of Ebionites, who either confess, as we do, that Jesus was “ born of a Virgin, or that he was not born so, but as other “ men, &c. &c.y” He says in another place², that “ both “ the Ebionites rejected Paul’s Epistlesand he evidently alluded to these same persons, when he said, “ And when “ you look to those of the Jews who believe in Jesus, and “ see their faith concerning the Saviour, that sometimes “ they think he was born of Mary and Joseph, and some- “ times of Mary alone and the Holy Ghost, but yet not “ with the true notion of his divinity, &c. &c.^a” I should add, that in another place he speaks of the Ebionites be­lieving, “that Jesus was born of a man and a woman, as “ we are,” without saying any thing of the division among them upon this point. Eusebius probably copied from Ori- gen, when, after saying of the Ebionites, “ that they con- “ sidered Jesus a mere ordinary man, who only became “ righteous by his own moral progress, and was born of “ Joseph and Mary,” he goes on to say, “but others, who “bear the same name, think differendy from these, and “ escape their strange absurdity by not denying that the “ Lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost: and yet “ neither do these acknowledge that he preexisted, being “ God the Word and Wisdom, and therefore they are in- “ volved in the impiety of the former ^c.” Theodoret tells us plainly, that he followed Irenaeus and Origen in his his­tory of heresies^d: and we may therefore suppose that he also copied-from Orioen, when he said of Ebion, “ He be- “ lieved that the Lord Jesus Christ was born of Joseph “ and Mary, being a mere man, who excelled other men in

“ virtue and purity v and there is another division be-

“ side the former, which bears the same name, (for they “ also are called Ebionites,) which agrees with the former “ in every other point, but says that the Saviour and Lord “ was born of a Virgin ^e.” We might perhaps infer that Theodoret did not mean to speak of this latter division of the Ebionites as small or insignificant, when in another place, after mentioning Cerinthus as believing Jesus “ to

v Cont. Cels. V. 61. p. 624, 625. ¹ lb. 65. p. 628.

¹¹ Ou ,1ctiv xa) fiiru ns ttvrm deaXaylas. In Mai. tom. XVI. 12. vol. III. P- 733-

■> In Luc. Horn. XVII. p. 952. ^c Hist. Eccles. III. 27. p. 121.

<* Hser. Fab. Compend. p. 189. • lb. II. 1. p. 218, 219.

“ have been born, after the common manner of men, of Jo- “ seph and Mary,” he adds, “ But the Ebionites, Theodo- “ tians, &c. said that Christ [Jesus] was a mere man born “ of the Virgin^f:” and he takes no notice of the other Ebionites, who agreed with Cerinthus. It is remarkable, that Epiphanius says nothing directly of these two kinds of Ebionites: and yet the absence of his express testimony upon this subject is more valuable, because we can prove from his own words that he had met with traces of this division in writings of the Ebionites, though he himself does, not seem to have been aware of it. He repeatedly re­presents the creed of the Ebionites to have been, “ that “ Jesus was born in the ordinary way of Joseph and “ Mary S:” but he also says that tbey struck out the gene­alogy from the Gospel of Matthew, “ because they wished “ to prove that Jesus was really a man, but that Christ “ was united to him when he descended as a dove, and that “ Christ [Jesus] himself was begotten and born in the or- “ dinary way. And yet they deny that he was a man, and “ argue from what our Saviour said, when it was told to “ him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethr£n stand without,

“ desiring to speak with thee, Who is my mother and

“ brethren ? &c. Matt. xii. 47, 48. Hence, as I observed, “ Ebion shews himself under many forms as being full of “ imposture ^h.” He notices this change or contradiction in the Ebionite creed more plainly at p. 126, where he says, that “ Ebion at jirst pronounced Jesus to have been begot- “ ten by Joseph; but that in course of time, and even to “ this day, his followers, as if they had turned their own “ meaning into inconsistency and perplexity, give each a “ different account concerning Christ.’’ He goes on to say, that some of them believed Christ to be Adam ; others, (as I have already quoted the passage,) that he was a Spirit, created before all things, and superior to Angels: “ again, “ when they choose, they deny this, and say that the Spirit, “ which is Christ, came into him, and clothed himself with “the person called Jesus: and there is great obscurity “ among them, each of them maintaining a different hypo- “ thesis.” 'He repeals this at p. 162. by saying, “ I have “ already stated that each of them forms a different notion “ concerning Christ. At one time Ebion himself said that “ he was a mere man born in the ordinary way: at another “ time the Ebionites who followed him said that a power,

^f Ib. V. ii. p. 278.

e Hser. XXX. 2. p. 125. 14. p. 138, (39. 17. p. 141. LI. 2. p. 423. LXIX. 40. p. 763. ^h Haer. XXX. 14. p. 138, 139.

“ which was above and from God, obtained a Son, and that “ he at different periods clothed himself with Adam and “ divested himself of him.” Whatever we may think of the credulity of Epiphanius, and his uncharitable abuse of heretics, it is impossible not to see from the whole of his account of the Ebionites that he had read many of their own books, and that he found in them the absurdities which he has recorded. It was his own opinion, that the great diversity in their tenets began when they were joined by Elxai in the reign of Trajan, as I have stated at p. 497: and he says of Elxai, that he introduced some fancy of his own with respect to Christ and the Holy Ghost. This hy­pothesis concerning the date of the changes in the Ebionite creed is by no means improbable: and a passage in Theo­doret will throw great light upon the doctrines of Elxai, and the effect which they may have had upon the Ebionites. “ The Elcesaeans,” he says, “ take their name from one El- “ cesai, who began the heresy; and they have compounded “ their own false doctrine by borrowing fables from dif- “ ferent heresies. As to the beginning of all things, they “ agree with us': for they say that there is one unbegotten “ Being, and they call him the Creator of all things. But “ as to Christ, they say that there is not one only, but one “ above and another below; and that the latter dwelt in “ many persons long ago, and afterwards descended: as to “ Jesus, sometimes he says that he is of God, sometimes he “ calls him a Spirit, sometimes that he had a virgin for his “ mother: but in other writings he contradicts this^k.” Theo­doret adds, that Origen wrote against this heresy: and since the name of Elcesai, or Elxai, does not occur in any of his existing works, but he mentions a division of the Ebionites who thought of Jesus as Elxai is stated to have done, it is by no means improbable that Origen agreed with Epipha­nius, and ascribed this change in the creed of the Ebionites to the time when they were joined by Elxai. That Epi­phanius found discrepancies and contradictions in the writ­ings of the Ebionites, cannot be doubted: and he has left sufficient evidence that some of them spoke of Jesus not being born in the ordinary way. Putting therefore toge­ther all the evidence which has been adduced from the Fa­thers, I should infer that Ebion himself and his first fol­lowers agreed with Cerinthus in believing Jesus to be be­gotten by Joseph : but as Christianity spread more widely, and the written Gospels became better known, the history

' Compare this with what I have said at p. 502. of the passage in Ireuaeus.

^k Haer. Fab. II. 7. p. 221.

of the miraculous conception was admitted even by many heretics to be true: and thus Origen spoke of the Ebionites being divided upon the subject; and Theodoret seemed in one place to forget that any of them denied it.

But though it may be considered an undisputed point, that the first Ebionites looked upon Jesus as a mere man, born in the ordinary way, we must remember that this re­fers only to their belief concerning Jesus, and not concern­ing Christ; a most important distinction, which I shall fre­quently. have occasion to make, and which furnishes another means of detecting many mistatements in Dr. Priestley’s ar­guments. The quotations, which I have given from Epi­phanius, are sufficient to shew that the Ebionites agreed with Carpocrates and Cerinthus in adopting the Gnostic te­net, that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism : and whoever will refer to the extracts quoted by Epiphanius¹ from the actual Gospel of the Ebionites, will perceive that they made use of the history of the baptism of Jesus, and even introduced additions to it, in order to prove, as Epi­phanius observes, “ that Christ was begotten in him, when “ he descended in the form of a dove.’’ If Irenaeus in the disputed passage spoke of the Ebionites as agreeing with Cerinthus and Camocrates concerning Christ, we must quote that Father as making the same statement with Epipha­nius upon this point. Tertullian might be thought to allude to the same notion, when he says of Ebion, “ He made “ Jesus to be a mere man, and only of the seed of David, “ that is, not also the Son of God; he considered him to “ be certainly in some degree more exalted than the pro- “ phets, so that an angel might be said to reside in him, as “ it might in Zacharias, or any other ^m.” By this notion of an Angel residing in Jesus, I conceive that Tertullian al­luded to the Gnostic doctrine of the ^Eon Christ descend­ing upon him ; which he probably met with in some Ebionite books, but which was expressed with the same obscurity which was noticed by Epiphanius. That this was the mean­ing of Tertullian, is confirmed by what he says in another place, that St. John included Ebion among the Anti­christs, who taught that Jesus was not the Son of God ⁿ. There are two passages in Eusebius, which may also be quoted as shewing, that though Ebion believed Jesus to be a mere man, he by no means asserted the simple humanity of Christ, in the sense which is attached to that expression by modern Unitarians. In each place Eusebius is refuting

¹ Haer. XXX. 13. p. 138. ^m De Carne Christi, 14. p. 319.

ⁿ Dc Prescript. Haeret. 33. p. 214.

the tenets of Sabellius, and points out particularly that the Sabellians did not believe Christ to be truly and literally the Son of God. For this reason, he says, they were ex­pelled from the church : “ and so the first ambassadors of “ our Saviour named those persons Ebionites, calling them “ by a Hebrew term poor in intellect °, who confessed that “ they acknowledged one God, and did not deny the reality “ of our Saviour’s body, but did riot acknowledge the di- “ mnity of the Son.'" In the other passage he says, “ If “ Marcellus (who was a Sabellian) denies that the Son has “ a real personal existence, it is time for him to suppose “ him to be a mere man, composed of body and soul, so as “ to differ in no respect from the common nature of man. “ But this doctrine has also been expelled from the Church ; “ for this was the notion which was held long ago by the “ Ebionites, and lately by Paul of Samosata, and those who “ are called after him Pauliani P.” There is something very remarkable in Eusebius thus comparing the Ebionites with Paul of Samosata, who, though be believed Jesus to be a mere man, yet believed also, that the eternal Logos of God was manifested in him ^q. He denied that this Logos was the Son of God, or that it had a personal existence; and for this reason his doctrine is compared by Eusebius to that of Sabellius : but Paul’s doctrine of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ was confined to his generation and birth: in this respect he looked upon him merely'as the man Jesus, but he considered him to be Christ, because the Logos of God was exhibited and personified in him. It is therefore a fair and legitimate inference from the words of Eusebius, that he considered the Ebionites. to have believed Jesus to be a mere man, but united with a divine emanation called Christ: and that this is a correct inference, may be inferred from his words, which immediately follow, “ What then is “ left after these notions, but to introduce a belief of Jesus “ being merely a body without any thing dwelling in it ?” The Ebionites therefore did not believe, that Jesus was a mere man, without any thing else dwelling in him, which is the point that I have been endeavouring to establish; or, to speak more plainly, they believed that some higher being, either spirit or emanation, resided for a time in the man Jesus: and what can we conceive of this doctrine, but that they agreed (as Irenasus appears to say) with Carpocrates

° This passage, which is incorrectly divided, and wrongly translated in

the present' editions, may easily he restored thus,------- 'E/iimxiws Mfuzgw,

'E/Zgai'xfi ffrai%ou$ TW 5juvajuv UKoxaXotivTts. De Eccles. Tkeol, I. 14. P- IS- ‘

p lb. 20. p. 91. 1 See page 250. and note 102.

and Cerinthus; and that they believed, (as Epiphanius un­questionably asserts,) that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism P I have been more anxious to prove this point, not only because it overthrows at once all Dr. Priestley’s ar­guments concerning the simple humanify of Christ, but be­cause the truth of it has been denied by writers, who were as far removed as possible from supporting the Unitarian tenets, and who say that the Ebionites did not agree with the Cerinthians in believing, that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism ; but that Jesus acquired his superior sanctity and dignity, merely by the exercise of superior vir­tues ^s. I conceive this to be an entire mistake. Epipha­nius, it is true, and Eusebius, as I have quoted them above, speak of the Ebionites as believing Jesus to have become righteous by his own moral advancement.: and it is also true, that this opinion is not expressly ascribed to Carpo­crates or Cerinthus : but it is too much to conclude from thence, that they did not hold it: and when we remember that Jesus was supposed to be at least thirty years old at the time of his baptism, it was very natural, that those who believed him to be a mere man, should conceive that these thirty years were spent in a course of pure and holy con­duct, for which he was rewarded by being made the recep­tacle of a Spirit* or emanation from God ^l. What has here been said, may perhaps be confirmed by passages from spu­rious works, which have been ascribed to the Ebionites. Beausobre is of opinion, that “ the Testament of the Twelve “ Patriarchs” was written by an Ebionite^u. Lardner also thinks “ it may be questioned, whether the author did not “ so far agree with the Ebionites, as to be an Unitarian.” I do not pretend to settle this point: but Lardner has col­lected passages, in which Christ is spoken of as God and great God, and express mention is made of the Spirit de­scending upon him from heaven ^w. The Socinians indeed are bound, according to their own principles, to admit my conclusion concerning the Ebionites: for they assert that the Nazarenes arid the Ebionites are identical; and a pas­sage in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which is preserved by Jerom *, contains express mention of the Spirit descending

• Bull, Judic. Eccl. Cath. II. 2. Massuet, Praf. ad Iren. Diss. I. §. 130. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. p. $2$. Waterland, vol. V. p. 224.

¹ “ llle, qui est de disposition Jesus, qui est mundi fabricatoris, in quem “ post baptisma descendisse, boc est, post triginta annos, supermini Sal- “ vatorem dicunt.” Iren. 111. 10. 4. p. 186.

» Vol. I. p.354, 355. ^w Credibility, XXIX. 3. p.345. ed. 1827.

* In Esaiam iv. 11. vol. IV. p. ij6. See also otber extracts from tbis Gospel in Fabricius, Cod. Apocryph. N. T. vol. I. p. 355, &c.

L 1

upon Jesus at his baptism. Lampe has taken precisely the same view concerning the agreement of the Cerinthians and Ebionites. (Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 39, &c. p. 195.)

It is not my intention to enter at much length into the question concerning the identity of the Ebionites and Naza- renes. The controversy between bishop Horsley and Dr. Priestley upon this point is well known to most of my readers. The notion was, I believe, put forth for the first time by Zuicker, a Prussian Socinian, in his work entitled Irenicum Irenicorum, published in 1658, in which he asserted y, that the Nazarenes were those Ebionites, who believed the mira­culous conception of Jesus; and that they were the primi­tive Christians of Jerusalem, who chose to adhere to the Jewish law. This hypothesis, together with the identity of the Gospel of the Nazarenes with that of the Ebionites, has been repeated under different modifications by several writ­ers. It had been maintained indeed in some measure be­fore, as by Grotius² and Vossius ^a: but these writers, (though the first of them has been suspected of Socinianism,) were far from intending that the Nazarenes denied the divinity of Christ; and went upon the opposite assumption, that the Ebionites, who believed in the miraculous conception, were orthodox Christians. The view, which was taken by Zuicker of this question, was adopted by Toland, in his work called Nazarenus: and by Samuel Crellius, under the name of Artemonius, in his Initium Evangelii S. Joarmis restitu- tum, part. II. 10. 1. p. 328; and I need not refer to the several works of Dr. Priesdey. Zuicker was answered at some length by Bull^b; and Toland’s arguments were re­futed by Mosheim in his Vvndicice antiques Christicmorum DiscipVmcB adversus Tolandi Nazarenum. He has alluded to the same subject in his work, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. 11.39. not.^vw and Instit. Mm. p. 466, 481. but he here speaks more doubtingly of the faith of the Nazarenes; The soundness of their opinions has been maintained by Huetius, ad Origen. in Mat. tom. XVI. 12. p. 733. Bas- nage, Ex ere. Hist. Crit. ad an. 41. num. 19. p. 398. Simon, Hist. Crit. c. 7. p. 72, 79. c. 8. p. 88* 91. Lequien, in Ms edition of Damascenus, vol. I. p. 82, &c. and Diss. VII. de Nazarenis et eorum fide, Praef. p. xcii. Rhenferdius, de Fictis Jud. Hceres. §. 23. p. 15, &c.; and by Horsley in

y Fag. 73, iii. ¹ Prolog, in Mat.

- Diss. de Genealogia Christi, u. vol. VI. p, 55. The same is said by Spencer, ad Origen. cont. Celsum, II. 1. p. 385. Beausobre, vol. II. p. 517. Petavius ad Epiphan. p. 55.

^b Judic. Eccles. Cath. II. 10, &e. See also Prim, et Apost. Tradil, I. 7.

his well known Charges. I would refer also for an account of the Nazarenes to Baierus, Diss. de Nazarenis. Langius, Hceresiologia scecuU primi, Diss. IV. and to Fabricius, Salutaris Lux Evangelii, &c. c. III. p. 48. who names several other writers.

With respect to the difference or the identity of the Gos­pel of the Naaarenes and of the Ebionites, I would refer to Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 69. and Appendix p. 19. and Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, V. 45. p. 311. Fabricius, Codex Apoc. Nov. Test. vol. I. p. 355. Olearius, Obs. Saar, ad Mat. Obs. 10. p. 94. Mosheim, Vindic. Antiq. Christiamorum Discipline, I. 5. 8. p. 112. ■

The whole question has been so thoroughly sifted by the learned writers mentioned above, and such complete de- monstratfon has been given, that the orthodox Nazarenes and the Ebionites were not the same, that I shall offer but few remarks upon the subject: and instead of shewing against Dr. Priestley, that the Ebionites were not orthodox as Christians* I would content myself with what is perhaps new ground, and shew that they were not orthodox as Jews. I would most willingly let the issue of the dispute depend upon the answer to these two questions: 1. Would the Jews, who embraced Christianity, have believed or no that Jesus Christ was the Messiah foretold by the prophets? 2. Would the Fathers have allowed any persons, who did not believe this, to be genuine Christians ? I have already observed, that the Ebionites did not, and could not, have believed Jesus to be the promised Messiah : and from hence I would also affirm, that the Fathers Would not have spoken of them as true Christians: and yet Dr. Priestley and the other Socinian writers would persuade us, that these Ebionites or Nazarenes (for they consider them as the same) were merely the Jews who embraced Christianity, and retained their observance of the Mosaic law. That there were such Judaizing Christians in those days cannot be denied: Thou seest brother, said the Jews to St. Paul, how many thouscmds of Jews there are which believe; and they are aM zealous of the law. Acts xxi. 20. We learn the same fact from other places in the Acts, and from St. Paul’s own Epistles, particularly those to the Romans and Galatians. The following passage from Justin Martyr may also shew what was the case in the second century. Trypho having asked Justin, whether a Jew who believed that Jesus was the Christ, and yet thought fit to observe the Mosaic law, would be saved, Justin replies, with a charity which is truly delightful, “ I certainly say, as it appears to

l 1 2

“ me, that such a man will be saved, if he does not contend “ that other men, I mean those of the Gentiles who have “ been circumcised⁰ from their error through Christ, should “ observe the same customs as himself, and that they cannot “ be saved unless they observe them.” Trypho then asks, whether there were not some persons, who thought that these Judaizing teachers could not so be saved? Justin acknowledges that there were; but expressly declares, that this was not his own opinion ^d. I would now ask any un­prejudiced person, whether it is not quite plain that Justin considered these Judaizing Christians to be perfectly ortho­dox, and to agree with himself, upon every other point, except their observance of the Mosaic law ? The Socinian writers must maintain, that these Judaizing Christians were the persons considered by themselves to be the Nazarenes or Ebionites: and I would ask, whether Justin would have spoken of these persons in the manner quoted above, if he had known them to hold the opinions, which the Ebionites are said by Socinians to have held ? Would he have pronounced unequivocally, that they might be saved, if he had known that they did not believe Jesus to be the Son of God ? He says himself in another place ^e, of those who believed Jesus to be Christ, but who maintained also that he was a mere human being, that he would not agree with them, even if the same doctrine was held by the majority of those who thought with himself. This passage is generally supposed to refer particularly to the Ebionites: and the two passages taken together appear to me decisive against the notion of Ebionite being merely a name for the Judaizing Christians: and I should draw this conclusion, not merely from the words or tenets of Justin, but from the expression of Try­pho himself, who defines a Christian to be one who believed Jesus to be the Messiah. Trypho knew very well, that those of his countrymen who embraced Christianity, be­lieved Jesus to be the Messiah: and it is therefore impossi­ble, that either he or Justin could have been speaking of persons, who believed that Jesus was neither the Messiah, nor the Son of God.

I do not mean to affirm, that Nazarene was a name ex­clusively applied at first to the Judaizing Christians. It appears rather to have been applied as a term of reproach

^c Justin had been shewing that circumcision was no longer necessary, and he uses the term here in a figurative, sense, of the circumcision of the heart by faith.

^d Dial, cum Tryph. 47. p. 142.

^e Ib. 48. p. 144. For the true meaning of this passage see Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cnth. c. VII. Waterland, vol. V. p. 201.

to the whole body of Christians^f: and it is not improbable, that in later times it may have been restricted to those who adhered also to the law of Moses. The number of these Christians would naturally diminish : and it is by no means unlikely, that some writers, who knew of them only by report, would confound them with the Ebionites, who pro­fessed like themselves to believe in Christ, and were known to be zealous for the law of Moses. This appears to have been the case with Epiphanius, who, it should be remem­bered, is the earliest writers that speaks of the Nazarenes as heretics, and he was evidently very ill-informed about them. Thus he says, that they were contemporaries of the Cerinthians; but whether they are to be placed before or after them, he cannot tell^h: neither could he assert, whether they agreed with Cerinthus in believing Christ to he a mere man, or whether they thought that he was conceived of Mary by the Holy Ghost'. He was also ignorant, whe­ther the Gospel of Matthew, which they used, contained the-genealogy or no^k: all which shews, that he had not read their books, and knew very little about them. This may perhaps be accounted for by his saying, that they were mostly in Coele-Syria and Decapolis, near to Pella, where he represents their heresy as having first begun: which woul<l at least shew, that he did not think it had spread widely. Throughout his account of them he does not once compare them to the Ebionites; though he says afterwards, that Ebion agreed with them *, and borrowed his opinions from them ; and he also speaks of the Ebionites and Naza­renes having first appeared in the same country ^m, and of their both using the same book of Elxai ⁿ, whom I have already spoken of as connected with the Ebionites. Putting all these facts together, I have no doubt but that Epipha­nius in his own mind considered the Nazarenes to resemble the Ebionites in some points, because he knew, that they agreed in adhering to the Mosaic law: but it is equally plain, that he did not consider the two heresies to be iden­tical. Thus he says expressly, that the Nazarenes received

^f Acts xxiv. J.

s Mosbeim observes, (Instit. Maj. p. 469.) that the Nazarenes were without any controversy the same as the Peratici, mentioned by Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII. p. 900.) and who are said to have had their name from the country. But Spencer (ad Orig. cont. Cels. VI. 28.) had remarked that these. Peratici were the same with the Peratoe mentioned by Theodoret, (Haer. Fab. I. 17. p. 206.) as taking their name from Euphrates, who is called by him Peraticus, i. e. (as I imagine) a native of Peraea; and Mosbeim was probahly mistakeo.

^h Haer. XXIX. 1. p. 116. ■ Ib. J. p. 123. ^k Ib. 9. p. 124.

¹ Ib. XXX. 1. p. 125. ^m Ib. XL. 1. p. 291.

” Ib. LIII. 1. p. 461. -

L 1 3 .

all the Old Testament, believed in a resurrection, and held that Jesus Christ was the Son of God⁰; none of which points formed part of the Ebionite creed: and it is most probable, that he looked upon them as the remnant of the first Judaizing Christians, but suspected that their faith had gradually become corrupted. If we now look to other writers, we shall find them giving proofs of the same igno­rance and uncertainty concerning the Nazarenes. Thus what Epiphanius named rather as a subject of inquiry, Theodoret asserts as a matter of fact; and says of the Nazarenes, “ They are Jews, who honour Christ as a just “ man, and use the Gospel which is called that of Peter P. “ Eusebius says, that these heresies began in the reign of “ Domitian. Justin the philosopher and martyr, and Ire- “ naeus the successor of the apostles, and Origen wrote “ against them <l.” This is the whole of the account, which Theodoret gives of the Nazarenes: and if he had not de­scribed the Ebionites immediately before, we might have thought that he looked upon the two heresies as one and the same. As it is, we can only take the expression of these heresies to refer to the Ebionites as well as the Naza­renes : and since Eusebius does not any where name the Nazarenes, but only speaks of the Ebionites^r, it is plain that Theodoret considered the doctrines of the two sects to be similar, and that the Nazarenes, as he says, only ho­noured Christ as a just man. Jerom also had a bad opinion of the Nazarenes, tr. uugh he says that they believed in the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary: but he adds, that while they wished to be Jews, and Christians, they were neither one nor the other^s. He had probably heard, that by the Son of God they meant something very different from the Christian sense of the expression: and the former part of the passage shews, that he looked upon them as resembling the Ebionites. If we turn to Augustin, Damascenus, Praedestinatus, and other writers, we find them all saying of the Nazarenes, that they acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God: and yet it is equally plain, that in some respect or other they all considered them as here­tics. There never therefore was a more gratuitous assump­tion, than that by which the Nazarenes have been identified

"Hser. XXIX. 7. p. 122.

p Beausobre says, that Theodoret was mistaken in this, because the Gospel of Peter spoke of Jesus as aphantom, vol. 1. p. 375.

>1 Haer. Fab. II. 2. p. 219.

^r Eusebius places the Ebionites in the reign of Trajan, and not of Domi­tian. Eccles. Hist. III. 27.

■ Epist. CXII. 13. vol. I. p. 740.

with the Judaizing Christians. That they called themselves Christians, and that they Judaized, is perfectly true: but there is not a particle of evidence, that any one of the Fa­thers considered them as orthodox. I have already stated, that their name is not even mentioned till the time of Epi­phanius : and when Theodoret tells us that Justin Martyr wrote against them, how can we possibly believe, that these were the same Judaizing Christians, of whom he says to Trypho, that he thinks they may be saved ? The Unitarian argument is constructed on the following scheme. The Ebionites believed Jesus to be a mere man: the Ebionites were the same as the Nazarenes: the Nazarenes were the same as the Judaizing Christians : the Judaizing Christians were looked upon as orthodox: therefore the doctrine, which held Jesus to be a mere man, was considered ortho­dox by the early Christians. But the fallacy in this argu­ment is palpable: and the feeblest logician might perceive, that it employs a term which is grossly equivocal. The same persons, who identified the Nazarenes with the Ebion­ites, did not consider the Nazarenes to be the orthodox Judaizing Christians: and if there were any persons, who held the latter opinion, they did not think that the Naza­renes believed Jesus to be a mere man. We may therefore say, without a mistatement, that some of the Fathers consi­dered the Nazarenes to agree with the Ebionites: or we may say, that Nazarene was a name which came to be restricted to the Judaizing Christians. But we must not confound these two propositions: and this double or equi­vocal use of the term Nazarene may enable us to unravel nearly all the sophistry of Dr. Priestley and his school.

The subject of the early Judaizing Christians has been investigated by Witsius, Miscellan. Sacr. vol. II. Exerc. XXII. p. 721. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. IV. 9, Sec. p. 922. Van Till, de Primi Sceculi Adversaries, c. IV. p. 12. Bud­deus, Eccles. Apost. c. 3. p. Ill: who would limit the term false apostles to converted Jews, and refers to Bom. xvi. 17. Gal. i. 7. iv. 17. v. 10. 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14. Phil. iii. 2, 19. Rhenferdius, de Fictis Judceorum Hceresibus.

NOTE 85.—See Lecture VI. p. 191.

I am aware that I may be charged with an unfounded assumption, in supposing the Cerinthians to have said, that Christ came by water only: nor can I prove by actual , re­ference to any Gnostic writing, that such an expression was used. But I must repeat^-what I have observed already, that some heretics must have said this, or St. John would not

l 1 4

have asserted the contrary: and if we take the other words, Iv rai SSan, instead of Si’ SSarof, there is every probability that the Cerinthians would have said of Christ, that he came in the water only, and that he was not born with Jesus. That they did say this, is in fact almost asserted by some of the Fathers: and I will quote some passages, which prove them to have said, that Christ came, or was born or produced (eyivero) in the water of Jordan. Irenaeus, after speaking of the voice from heaven, says, “ For Christ did “ not then descend upon Jesus; nor was Christ one person “ and Jesus another: but the Word of God, who is the “ Saviour of all, and Lord of heaven and earth, who is “ Jesus, who also assumed our flesh, and was anointed with “ the Spirit from the Father, was made Jesus Christ^t.” Epiphanius speaks of “ heresies which said, that Christ, “ 1. e. the dove, came upon him from the Jordan^u.” In another place he asserts, against the Ebionites, “ If he was “ worshipped by the Magi as soon as he was born, he was “ not born a mere man, but God.: and Christ is not born “ (yiWai) after thirty years, nor after his baptism, but “ Christ was born at first from the Virgin Mary, God and “ man^x:” and he charges the same heretics with saying, “ That Christ was born (lyevsro) from the time that the “ Spirit came upon himy.” It appears from all these quo­tations, that the Gnostics said, though not in the very words used by St. John, that Christ came in the water only: and the Fathers refute the assertion by shewing with St. John, that Christ came by blood, or in other words, that Jesus was Christ as soon as he took upon him flesh and blood. It is also plain, that all these heretics agreed in saying, that Christ was the Spirit which descended in the form of a dove: and it is therefore very natural, that St. John, after having asserted that Jesus was Christ at the time of his birth, should go on to say, that the Spirit which descended upon him at his baptism, was not Christ, but came to bear witness, that Jesus was Christ already: for the descent of the Spirit was accompanied with a voice from heaven, which said, This is my beloved Son. We must remember, that St. John in the fifth verse had stated it as the test of a true Christian’s belief, that Jesus is the Son of God: and in the sixth verse he explains this to mean, that he was always the

^t III. 9. 3. p. 184. The last words are Jesus Christus factus est, which I have no doubt were in the Greek ’iwous Xp<rrd$ iymra, and might be ren­dered, was born Jesus Christ.

^u ’Asr0 rov 'Uficcvov Xgiffro; sis etvrov, Hcer. LI. 20. p. 442.

* Haer. XXX. 29. p. 154. y lb. p. 155.

Son of God, not merely after his baptism, hut both before his human birth and after it: and he confirms this by the testimony of the voice from heaven, which accompanied the descent of the Spirit. It is a singular circumstance, that some of the Fathers quote the words of Psalm ii. 7. as those which were spoken from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee. Augustin says that some later copies of St.Luke’s Gospel contained this reading: and it is found in the Cambridge and other MSS.^z The Fathers perhaps did not object to this substitution, because the words of the Psalmist assert so plainly, that Christ is the begotten and not the adopted Son of God: but there is reason to think, that the alteration was made by some of those heretics, who supposed Christ to have descended upon Jesus at his baptism; and who appealed to these words as proving that Jesus was made the Son of God on that day, and not before. According to Epiphanius, the Gospel of the Ebionites added the words of the Psalm to those of the evangelists: for he quotes it thus, “ And there was a voice “ from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in “ 'whom, I am well pleased: and again, This day have I “ begotten thee: and immediately a great light shone round “ the place; which when John saw, he said to_thim, Who “ art thou Lord? and again, a voice from heaven said to “ him, This is my beloved Son, in whom lam well pleased³-."" It is probable, that this interpolation had not taken place, when St. John wrote his Epistle, or he would have cited the words, as they were really spoken: but he knew that they were to be found in all the three Gospels, and would be well known to his readers. St. Peter also may have had the same notion of the Gnostics in his mind, when he said in his Second Epistle, We have not followed cunningly de­vised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of. his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2 Pet. i. 16,17,18. St. Peter may have appealed to the words spoken at the transfiguration, not merely because he had not him­self been present at the baptism, but in order to shew, that

^z I have gren the references iii my Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fa­thers, N°. 76. See Augustin, de Consensu Evang. II. 15. vol. III. part. 2. p. 46.

» Hser. XXX. 13. p. 138.

the same words were spoken on both occasions; and that therefore the Gnostics could not quote them as proving, that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism: and the cunningly devised fables•, <re<ro<pi<r[ievoi jw.o9oi, may allude to the Gnostic notion of Christ having come at the bapdsm of Jesus, or in the water only. St. Peter says, that he did not follow these fables, when he made known the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: he does not say merely the coming qf Christ, but of Jesus Christ, as St. John says, This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: and both the apostles may be supposed to have had in view the refutation of the same heresy. Epiphanius evidently understood the witness qf the Spirit, which is mentioned by St. John in v. 6. to allude to the voice from heaven, which accompanied the descent of the Spirit: for he says, that St. Luke recorded the story of Jesus disputing with the doctors in his twelfth year, and saying even then to his mother, that he was in his Father’s house, “ that the argu- “ ment of those people might be refuted who say, that the “ descent of the Holy Ghost upon him is to be dated from “ the time of his baptism; and that it might be known for “ certain, that the Word came into the world from above, “ and was incarnate of Mary; and that the Spirit descended “ upon him in the Jordan, to signify who it was that re- “ ceived the witness of the Father, This is my beloved Son; “hear ye him^b.” When St.John said, it is the Spirit that beareth witness, he evidently alluded to the same voice from heaven* which is quoted by Epiphanius: and perhaps •this view of the subject may furnish some light in the in­vestigation of the passage concerning the three witnesses.

It is by no means my intention to enter at length into the discussion of this unhappy text, which during the course of the last two centuries has been examined usque ad nauseam: and of which discussions we may say with some truth,

Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra.

I shall make a few observations presently concerning the external evidence, the preponderance of which must be al­lowed to be against the genuineness of the 7th verse. Still, however, I have endeavoured to divest myself of this pre­vious notion, and to examine the disputed text with all im­partiality, according to what I have supposed to be the course of St. John’s argument. The result of this investi­gation has been to increase my doubts very considerably:

^b Hser. LI. 20. p. 442.

but in joining myself to those commentators who have pro­nounced the 7t.h verse to be an interpolation, I cannot help deprecating the tone and feelings of those critics, who seem to take a pleasure in exposing the forgery, and who exult over the rejected passage, as over a prostrate enemy. If I may keep up the metaphor, I should part with the 7th verse, not as from a friend, who had sought to betray me, and whose duplicity I had detected and exposed; but as from one, who had been incautiously recommended, and whose powers I had found unequal to the services for which he was engaged. I may be charged with weakness, and perhaps with bigotry, but I confess that I give up the genuineness of the text with reluctance. Not that I think the absence of it shakes in the smallest degree the founda­tions of our faith:

Non tali anxilio nec defensoribus istis

Tempus eget:

but I plead guilty to being insensible to the pleasure, which some minds can entertain, when any evidence, which/ has long been looked upon as valid, can be treated > with ridi­cule and contempt. I lay claim to no merit for learning or ingenuity, even if I have furnished a new argument for at­tacking the genuineness of the text: and I would cheer­fully own myself altogether mistaken, if any external testi­mony should be discovered, which compelled me to admit the verse. But it is time that we should proceed to the consideration of the passage; and I shall begin with repeat­ing what I have already stated, that the object of St. John, in this part of his Epistle, is to shew, that Jesus and Christ were not two separate beings, who were united for a time, but that from the birth of J^sus they were one and the same. He assets, therefore, that Jesus was not made Christ, nor adopted as the Son of God, at his baptism; but that he was Christ and the Son of God when he was first born into the world: and as a witness of this he appeals to the words spoken by God himself, This is my beloved Son. The point at issue was, whether this:witness applied to Jesus before or after his baptism; in other words, whether Jesus and Jesus Christ were one being or two. Now if we look to the words of the 8th verse, as they are in the Greek, we shall find St. John expressly saying of the witnesses to which he appeals, oi rpeis eU to h sitrn. Our version, which says, And these three agree in one, does not convey any very definite meaning: but let us remember the dispute to have been, whether Jesus Christ who came out of the water

was one and the same with Jesus who went into the water, and who was born of Mary, and we may perhaps think that the words eig to ev were intended to declare this unity or identity. The witnesses appealed to by St. John are the Spirit, which is explained by St. John himself (v. 9, 10.) to mean the voice from heaven; the water, or the baptism of Jesus, at which time he was said by the heretics to have been born again as Christ; and the blood, or his natural birth, when he was born of Mary. These three,' as St. John says, si; to h eicriv, i. e. as I should understand the expres­sion, are for the unity, or prove the unity, of Jesus Christ: and if we read the 6th and 8th verses together, omitting the 7th, I should paraphrase the whole passage thus: “ Jesus “ Christ, the Son of God, of whom I have been speaking, “ is that same Jesus who was born and baptized: he was “ not made Christ, nor was he adopted as the Son of God, “ when he was baptized, and when the Spirit descended “ upon him, in Jordan; but he united both these charac- “ ters, when he was born of Mary his mother: and as for “ the Spirit, which descended upon him, it merely came to “ testify what was openly proclaimed by the voice from “ heaven, that he had always been the Son of God. The “ Gnostics refer only to the voice from heaven and to his “ baptism, as proving that he was then made the Son of “ God: but I refer also to the time when he was born into “ the world; and I assert that the words spoken from hea- “ ven were as true then as they were afterwards; and these “ three things, his birth, his baptism, and the voice from “ heaven, all prove the unity of his character as Jesus “Christ; not as Jesus only, who became Christ at his “ baptism; but as Jesus Christ, who was always the Son “ of God.” If this interpretation is allowed, I cannot help observing that there seems no occasion for the 7th verse. If the object of St. John was to assert that Jesus was Christ and the Son of God before his baptism, there seems no reason why the statement should be interrupted, in order to admit a declaration of the doctrine of the Trinity⁰. The point which is asserted by the three witnesses, is the iden­tity of Jesus and Christ, as well before as after his baptism; and I cannot see how this is established by the fact of the three persons, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, being one. But the three other witnesses were intimately connected with the question under discussion: the Spirit

^c Waterland has suggested a reason, but it does not appear satisfactory. Vol. V. p. 191,192.

had audibly proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God; the water, or his baptism, was said, by the Gnostics to have invested him with this character; and the blood, or human birth of Jesus, was said by St. John to have united him to Christ. This union therefore of Jesus and Christ is the unity, to Iv, which these three witnesses establish; and the person who interpolated the 7th verse introduced an en­tirely new sense when he said that the three witnesses were themselves one. It will be observed, that in the 7th verse we read oi rpsif sv eicri, and in the 8th, oi rpe7; si; to sv eiViv. I conceive the two expressions to be entirely different: and that St.John h^id no intention whatever of saying that the three witnesses were themselves one, but that they served to prove the unity of Jesus Christ. The question has often been asked, how the seventh verse came to be introduced into the text: and critics have had no scruple in answering, that some fanciful expositor wrote it as a remark in the margin, and that some zealous Trinitarian afterwards in­serted it into the text. That the verse owed its origin to some fanciful commentator, is perhaps perfectly true. Al­most all of them perceived that the witness of the Spirit alluded to the descent of the Holy Ghost and the voice from heaven: but the real meaning of the water and the blood seems soon to have been forgotten. Most of the Latin MSS. read tres wmm sunt; and this may be one reason why the 7th verse was inserted earlier in the Latin copies than in the Greek; for a strict Trinitarian would not have cared to say that the Father,. Son, and Holy Ghost sis to sv sltri: but he would have been very glad to have ex­tracted from this passage, that the three Persons unum swnt: and accordingly when the text was admitted into the Greek copies, it was not written, as in the 8th verse, oi rpft; ei; to sv siai, hut ol rpfis h eien^d, which seems to confirm the idea that the. Greek text in the 7th verse was a translation from the Latin.

Though I cannot help concluding against the genuineness of this text, I may add, that the argument which is taken from the silence of Athanasius and the other Greek Fathers, is perhaps carried too far. It seems to be forgotten, that the 7th verse, which says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, would certainly not have silenced an Arian, who would also have quoted the text, and affixed to it his own interpretation: in the same manner as we learn from

^d Dionysius of Alexandria quotes oi rp?s « iv eiViv. Cont. Paul. Samos. Qusest. IV. p. 231, 235. but at p. 239. tU to it: so that the difference by this time had probably ceased to be observed; unless we suppose tbat the varia­tion was caused by transcribers.

Epiphanius that the Arians explained John xiv. 10. xvii.

23. to mean, “ that the unity was not at all of nature, but “ of agreement⁶:” and so they might have said, that the unity, which is predicated of the three Persons in 1 John v. 7. was not an unity of nature. There was also another rea­son why the most zealous Trinitarian might not have chosen to quote the text. He exposed himself by so doing to the charge of Sabellianism: for Eusebius informs us^f, that the Sabdlians, when they wished to prove that the Father and the Son were one and the same, insisted particularly on John x. 30. xiv. 10. and so in a work which has been falsely as­cribed to Athanasius, when that Father is made to quote to an Arian, I and the Father are one, John x. 30. the other replied, “ Then you are a Sabellian S.” Either of these rea­sons might have operated to hinder a controversial writer from quoting 1 John v. 7. The Sabellian controversy oc­cupied the latter half of the third century; and nearly the whole of the fourth was taken up by that and the Arian to­gether : so that our surprise might be diminished, if we do not find the orthodox writers insisting upon a text, which would have been quoted by one of their opponents as fa­vourable to themselves, and which would not have produced any impression upon the other.

I have dwelt so long upon this disputed passage, that I can only say a few words concerning another argument, by which St.John seems to shew in his Gospel that Jesus was Christ before his baptism. The three first evangelists had represented John the Baptist as saying, He that cometh after me is mightier than I: but it is remarkable, that St. John repeats three times that his words were, He that com­eth after me was before me, i. 15. 27. 30. In each place the words are, e/jMpfxrdev jttau ykyovsv, and the word 'preferred seems to be improperly introduced into our translation t Teyovev can only mean existed, or was in being: and if Jesus, considered as a man, came into the world later than the Bap­tist, he could only be said to be before him with reference to his higher nature¹¹. It can be proved that the Baptist

• Haer. LXIX. 19. p. 743. 67. p. 793.

^f De Eccles. Tlieol. III. 19. p. 193. See Epiphan. Haer. LX11. 2. p. 514. ,

e Disput. coot. Arium. vol. II. p. 209. See Hilarius, de Synod. 85. p. 1199.

^h Eusebius uses this argument, to prove against the Sabellians, that Christ was the'Xoyos otpetrrue of God, and not an unsubstantial energy; “When John “ proclaims that he was before him, Sabellius pays oo attention, although “ John the Baptist according to the flesh preceded the hirth of the Saviour. “ How then does he testify that he was before him ? For by his birth accord^ “ iog to the flesh, the Saviour was not before him : so that inasmuch as he ^e< was the only-begotten of God, he was before John.” De Eccles. Theol. I. 19. 4. p. .85, In line 33 I have altered Targos to as the sense re^-

nnSiuiC anil nra liovo in Kno t h Tli/j T of!n tcanolotinn id a

made this declaration, before Jesus came himself to be baptized: and it is very probable that the Evangelist re­peats it three times, in order to impress upon his readers, that Jesus did not receive his higher or divine character at his baptism. It will be observed, that St.John does not himself record the baptism of Jesus: and having thrice repeated so strong a testimony to his divine nature, he per­haps did not wish to relate the history, which the he­retics had so wilfully perverted. If we compare John i. 27. with Matt. iii. 11. we shall see that the words in the former passage were spoken before the baptism of Jesus: at which time the Baptist only said generally, There stcmdeth one among you, &c. but he did not then point him out more particularly. If we now turn again to Matt. iii. 13. we shall find that the baptism of Jesus occurred immediately after the above words were spoken: from which we may collect, that what we read in John i. 29. relates to a circumstance which took place after the baptism of Jesus. John thennaddresses him openly as the Lamb of God, 29: he says to the people, “ This is he of whom I said to you yesterday, before he was “ baptized, There cometh one after me, &c. 30: at that time, “ I did not know him, 31, 33; but he that sent me to baptize “ with water, said to me, Upon whom you see, &c. 33: Now “ I saw the spirit descend from heaven upon this man like “ a dove, 32, and therefore I knew that he was the person “ of whom I had been told.” If we attend to these dis­tinctions in the different addresses made by John the Bap­tist, they may easily be reconciled with themselves, and with the narratives of the other evangelists. It might be thought also, that St. John gave this detailed account of the baptism of Jesus, with a view to refute the notions of the Docetae. We know at least from Tertullian, that Marcion, who was a Docetist, rejected or altered this part of St. John’s Gospel, “ because it was contrary to his own opinion*.”

Concerning the history of the baptism of Jesus, I would refer to Olearius, Obs. Saer. ad Mat. Obs. X. p. 92, &c.

NOTE 86.—See Lecture VII. p. 198.

I have quoted the words of Justin Martyr at p. 197. as shewing, that Plato’s philosophy was held in high repute: but I have also referred to him at p. 311- as charging Plato with inconsistencies. When he says of himself, that he was Jbolish enough to think, that by following Plato, he should arrive at the knowledge of God, he does not speak in very

' De Came Christi, 3. p. 309.

high terms of his philosophical system: and after charging him with borrowing from Moses, he says expressly, that he was mistaken in his notions of heaven and earth and man ^k. There is an evident mixture of sarcasm as well as of censure in the following sentence; “ Plato, as if he had come down “ from above, and had accurately observed and seen every “ thing in heaven, says that the supreme God has his exist- “ ence in the substance of fire¹.” He then observes, that Aristotle had clearly exposed the falsehood of this statement: and though his editor observes that Justin was mistaken, and that Plato never made such an assertion concerning God, this would rather shew that Justin had not studied the sen­timents of Plato very accurately. In several places he ob­serves that the doctrines of the gospel agree with those of Plato: but he generally qualifies it with adding, that those of the gospel are superior. Thus he asks in his first Apo­logy, “ If some of our doctrines resemble those of the poets “ and philosophers who are held by you in honour, but “ some are higher and more divine, and if we are the only “ persons who demonstrate our doctrines, why are we un- “ justly hated among all men^m?” and when he speaks of his conversion to Christianity with satisfaction, he adds, “ Not that the doctrines of Plato are different from those of

“ Christ, but they are not altogether similar:------------------ whatever

“ good doctrine is held by any persons, that belongs to us “ Christians".”

Theophilus is another writer who has been charged with corrupting Christianity from Platonism : and his language concerning the Logos certainly bears marks of an intimate acquaintance with neathen philosophy: but his regard for Plato must have been mixed with no small consciousness of his defects, when he writes, “Into what absurd trifling (p\v- “ up lav) has Plato fallen, who has the reputation of being “ the wisest of the Greeks⁰.”

Irenaeus can hardly be supposed to have had a great re­gard for Plato, when ne so often asserts, as I have observed in note 25. that the Gnostics studied in his school: and it is but a small compliment which he pays him; when after con­demning the Gnostics for saying that the supreme God was notJust as well as^ood, he says, that “ Plato is more religious “ than such men P.”

^k Cohort. 30. p. 29. ¹ lb. 5. p. 10. Again 31. p. 30.

^m Apol. 1. 20. p. SS• ^B Apol. II. 13. p. 97. '

⁰ Ad Autol. III. 16. p. 390. Theophilus was bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century, r III. 25. 5. p. 224.

Clement of Alexandria, r ^T ' ^{1 1} ited, was

shew, that he was a great admirer of the philosophy of Plato. But he is frequent in pointing out instances, where Plato took his ideas, and even his expressions, from Moses; and he shews in several places, that he believed the doctrine of tbfe Trinity to be contained in the writings of that philo­sopher. If we think, as I shall endeavour to shew presently, that neither of these positions can be reasonably maintained, we shall hardly suspect Clement of making Christianity bend to suit the genius of Plato: and it is demonstrable in almost every page of his writings, that he tortured and per­verted the words of Plato to represent him as speaking like a Christian.

Tertullian, who, like Irenaeus, had not studied in the philosophical schools of Alexandria, agrees also with that Father in looking upon the Platonic doctrines as the source of Gnosticism. He even uses the strong expression, “ Pla- “ tonem omnium haereucorum condimentarium factum S.¹’ It is of the same heretics he is speaking, when he gives a warning to those, “ qui Stoicum et Platonicum et Dialectic “ cum Christianismum protulerunt^r:” and when we find him treating the personal character of Plato with so little respect, as to say, “ that he sold himself to Dionysius for “ sake of his belly?,” we can hardly conceive that he allowed his faith in Christ to be corrupted from such a quarter.

What I have said of Clement will apply equally to Origen, who was brought up like himself, and under his tuition, in the schools of Alexandria. He fancied, that he saw in Plato the same agreement with the doctrines of the Old and New T^estament: but his judgment was not likely to be greatly blinded by the subtleties'of that writer, when he says of him, “ If I may speak boldly, the ornamented “ and studied language of Plato, and of those who have “ expressed themselves in the same style, has benefited but “ a few, if indeed it has benefited them at all⁴:” and I shall have occasion to shew presently, that the charges brought against him by Celsus were for having altered and corrupted the doctrines of Plato.

The only other writer, to whom I shall refer, is Euse­bius : and I select him, because no one of the Fathers has gone beyond Eusebius in tracing a resemblance between the sentiments of Plato and the main truths of Christianity. It is singular, however, that he wrote his great woj •, the

» De Anvna, 23. p. 280. ^r De Praescrip.t. 8. p. 205. ■ Apol. 46. p. 36.

‘ Cont Celsimi, VI. 2. p. 650. See also VII. 41, 42. p. 123.

m m

brought up in the schools

writings

Prceparatio Evangelica, to refute a charge which is the very opposite of that which has been brought in modern times, and to answer a question which was put to the Chris­tians by the heathen, “What have we seen so fine or so “ holy in the writings of the barbarians, [Jews and Chris- “ tians,] as to incline us to prefer these to the noble phi- “ losophy of our forefathers, that is, the philosophy of “ Greece⁰?” I do not mean to say, that Eusebius despised this philosophy, or that of Plato in particular: yet with all his partiality for Plato, he says of him, “ If you will look “ at the light itself by the natural powers of reason, you “ will perceive that admirable philosopher, who alone of all “ the Greeks touched the very threshold of the truth, dis- “ gracing the name of the Gods by applying it to con- “ temptible matter and to images made after the likeness of “ men by the hands of workmen; and after the height of “ his sublime language, by which he laboured to discover “ the Father and Creator of this universe, sinking down “ from the celestial vault into the lowest abyss of abomina- “ ble idolatry*.” Great part of the thirteenth book of.his Praparatio Evangelica is employed in shewing, that Plato was mistaken in many of his philosophical tenets: and I shall conclude this note with the following passage, which exhibits the opinion of Eusebius in a strong light: “ Why “ should I pursue the subject farther, ana bring forward “ any more of Plato’s doctrines, since we may form a con- “ jecture of those which I have not mentioned from those “ which have been quoted? I was not induced to say thus “ much from motives of abuse, since I am an exceeding “ admirer of the man. Nay, I look upon him as a friend “ more than any of the Greeks, and as one whose senti- “ ments were agreeable and allied to my own, although not “ altogether the same; but I have shewn the deficiency of “ his ideas, when pyt in comparison with Moses and the ’ “ Hebrew prophets. And yet it was in the power of any “ one who intended to decry him, to find ten thousand “ faults with himy.” For the opinion of the Fathers con­cerning Plato and the Greek philosophers, I would refer to Brucker, vol. III. p. 284, &c. Baltus also in his Defense des Saints Peres brings several instances to shew that the Christian Fathers could not have been attached to any system of heathen philosophy ^z. He labours particularly to prove, that the sect of the Academics was neither nu­merous nor popular; but he seems to have forgotten, that

^u Praep. Evang. XIV. Prooem. * Praep.Evaog. XIII. 14, p. 691, 692.

y lb. 18. p. 705. ^z Liv. I, c. 4, &c.

the opponents of Christianity might still argue, that the dodtrines of this small body had corrupted the Gospel : and when he says that none of the Fathers, excepting only Justin Martyr^a, can be said with certainty to have come from the school of the Platonists, he renders the whole of his argument of little use. In his second and third books he takes a position, which is much more tenable, and proves by an abundance of quotations, that all the Fathers ex­pressed their decided disapprobation of the doctrines of Plato. This part of his argument has never been answered.

NOTE 87—See Lecture VII. p. 198.

Quotations might be given from almost all the Fathers, which would shew their firm belief that Plato was indebted to Moses for many of his opinions: but since any index to the works of these writers will point out the passages, I shall only state generally that nearly all the Christian writers, from Justin Martyr downwards, supposed Plato not only to have agreed with Moses by a coincidence of thought, but to have actually profited by the Jewish writ­ings ^b. Nor was this notion peculiar to the Christian Fa­thers. Hermippus is quoted by Origen^c as saying, that Pythagoras introduced his philosophy into Greece from Judaea: and Philo Judaeus speaks of Zeno having bor­rowed one of his notions from the Jewish law^d. Josephus appears to assert the same of Plato^e: and Aristobulus, an­other countryman of Philo, is quoted by Clement of Alexan­dria ^f, as saying, that Plato copied the Jewish law, and that Pythagoras took many of his doctrines from the same quar­ter. Numenius, who was a Platonist of the second century, went so far as to say, “ What is Plato, but Moses atticiz- “ ingS?” When we find Jewish¹¹ and heathen writers ex­pressing themselves in this manner, we must not be too severe upon the Fathers, who have held the same opinion. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Augustin, have per­haps gone the greatest lengths in tracing the resemblance between Plato and Moses: and the reader will find much information upon this subject in Brucker, vol. III. p. 332.

■ Pag. 83.

^h I know only of one exception among the Fathers, and this was Lactan- tius, Inst. IV. 2. v. Betuleii Not. ad I.

^c Cont. Celsnm, I. 15. p. 333, 334.

¹¹ Liber quisquis virtuti studet. Vol. II. p. 454.

^e Cont. Apion. II. 36. p. 492.

^fStrom. I. 22. p. 410, 411. and by Eusebius, Prtep. Evang. XIII. 12.

p Clem. Alex. 1. c. p. 411. Suidas v. Numenius.

^h Otber Jewish testimony is adduced by Bartoloccius, Biblioth. Rabbin. vol. I. p. 467.

If I was to give an opinion concerning the origin of this notion, I should conjecture, that the earliest Christian writers thought to remove one objection against their doc-* trines, by shewing, that so far from being new, they agreed with those of Moses, which were much more ancient than any philosophy of the Grecian sages. To obviate objections still further, they would endeavour to prove, that these Grecian sages were themselves indebted to the same quarter. It is probable, that the Jewish writers, such as Philo and Aristobulus, who had already used the same arguments, had been endeavouring to remove a similar prejudice, which existed against the Jewish religion¹: and the later Platonists, not being able to deny the greater an­tiquity of the books of Moses, allowed that there was an agreement between that legislator and Plato: but there is reason also to think, that they wished to refer both the Jewish and the Grecian philosophy to a common origin in Egypt or in the East. This was the method by which they answered the arguments of the Christians, concerning the high antiquity of the books of Moses: and it was the same object probably, which led them, as I shall observe again hereafter, to put forth many spurious works in the name of Hermes, Zoroaster, and the Sibyls^k.

The ancient and modern writers, who have supported the notion mentioned above, have supposed that Plato obtained this insight into the Jewish doctrines during his residence in Egypt; where he is not only said to have conversed with learned Egyptians, who were acquainted with the Jews, but to have haa the benefit of a translation of the Jewish scrip­tures into Greek, which was made long before that which we know by the name of the Septuagint¹. I have already touched upon this latter subject in note 27, and the whole question has been so ably investigated by Brucker ^m, that I can only refer the reader to his elaborate discussion. Brucker de­cides, that the notion of Plato having been in any way con­versant with the writings of Moses is utterly untenable: and I cannot but think, that those who maintain the oppo­site side of the question, rest their arguments upon much

■ See Josephus cout. Apion.

^k See Fahricius, Bibl. Gr. I. 29—33. p. 167. vol. I. and Jortin’s Remarks, vol. 1. p. 283, &c. Galen has preserved the fact, that the titles of several books were falsified in the time of Ptolemy Physcon. Com. in Hippoc. de Natwra Horn. II. init. vol. III. p. 128.

¹ Sandius thought that the Greek philosophers were instructed hy some writings of Moses which are now lost. See Brucker, vol. I. p. 85.

^m Vol. I. p. 635. For those writers who have supposed Solomon to have been the source of information to Aristotle and othcr Gredcs, see vol. 1. p. 87. See also Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 40.

weaker grounds. The passage, to which I have referred, will also give the names of several other writers, who have agreed or differed with the Fathers upon this point; and I would add to the list of authors there cited, that Mangey, in his preface to Philo Judaeus, p. xiv. xv. supports the notion of Plato having borrowed from Moses; and Langius opposes it in his Dissertation, de Genealogiis, to which I have often referred, §. 35. Bryant has made a singular mistake, when he quotes Plato as saying, “ The Idea is the “ intellect, or Wisdom, of the Deity, which foreigners call “ the Logos, or Word of God ⁿ.” He supposes these fo­reigners (oi /3apj3apoi) to be the Jews; and that Plato here acknowledged, that he had taken his notion of the Logos from the Jews. But the words are not those of Plato, but of Clement of Alexandria, who is proceeding to quote a passage from Plato, and who speaks of the Jews and Chris­tians as fiupfiapot, because this was the term applied to them by the Greek philosophers. Clement probably believed, that Plato had heard of the Logos from the Jews⁰: but this is a very different thing from Plato asserting it himself, which is what Bryant would have us imagine P.

The passage in Brucker, which I have quoted above, will supply many other references. Waterland has also discussed the subject of the ancient philosophers being in­debted to the Jews, and has named several authors, who have preceded him. He is disposed to maintain the affirma­tive : but his arguments are not convincing as to any direct communication between the Jews and other people. What he says of a traditional knowledge of revelation, has pro­bably much weight: but the Fathers evidently did not mean this. Charge to the Clergy of Middlesex, 1731. vol. VIII. p. 1.

NOTE 88.—See Lecture VII. p. 204.

It is painful to be obliged to expose the inaccuracy of Dr. Priestley in translating'passages from the early writers. In book III. c. 7. §. 1. of his History of early Opinions, we find the following title to the section: “ The acknow- “ ledgments of the Christian Fathers that John was the first “ who taught the doctrines above mentioned.” In proof of this position, he quotes Origen as saying, that “ John “ alone introduced the knowledge of the eternity of Christ “ to the minds of the Fathers:” and in the note he gives the original Latin as follows: “ Joannes sola ejus aeterna in

“ Apud Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 3. p. 654, ⁰ See Strom. I. 15. p. 355. p Sentiments of Philo Judaeus concerning the Logos, p. 73. ed. 1797.

“ notitiam fidelium animarum introducit. Opera, vol. II. “ p. 428from which it appears, that the word alone is most unwarrantably applied to St. John ; nor is any thing said concerning the Fathers. The writer, who is now ac­knowledged not to have been Origen, is in this place con­trasting St. John with St. Peter, and says, “ Petrus seterna “ simul ac temporalia in Christo uno facta divina revelatione “ introductus inspicit; Joannes sola ejus seterna in notitiam “ fidelium animarum introducitthe translation of which is evidently as follows: “ Peter is introduced at once by “ divine revelation to an inspection of what was eternal and “ what was temporal in Christ: John introduces his eternity “ only to the knowledge of the souls of the faithful.” An­other quotation is from Eusebius, who is made by Dr. Priestley to say, that “ John began the doctrine of the di- “ vinity of Christ, that being reserved for him, as the most “ worthy.” The Greek is as follows: rij; 8s QeoXoyia; avag- j-a<r5a(, w; av aurcv irgo; tou Qilou irviuparog ola xpsfarovi vapa- Trstpvkayfthu);. III. 24. It is rather extraordinary, that Dr. Priestley should have taken no notice of the words npb; tou flsi'ou 5r»so/K.«ro;. The English reader would certainly under­stand Eusebius to mean, that St. John had begun the doc­trine of the divinity of Christ, as an invention qf his own. But in the first place Eusebius says, that the doctrine came to St. John from the divine Spirit: and it may be ques­tioned whether aurai irapanetpuhaypLevYjg should not be trans­lated “ preserved by him,” rather than ^liJbr him.” How­ever this may be, there can be no doubt, in the second place, that to translate rijj 6=o\oylx; aTrap^a<rdui, he began the doctrine of the divinity, is most unwarrantable. Eusebius had been saying, that “ John naturally omitted the genea- “ logy of the human nature (fTa.pv.bg) of our Saviour, which “ had been previously written by Matthew and Luke:” and then adds, “ but he began with his divine nature,” i. e. he began his Gospel with declaring the divinity of Christ. The expression is evidently the same with that in the Latin translation of Origen^r: “ Joannes enim, qui a “ Deo exordium fecerat, dicens, In prmcipio, &c.” and with the Greek of Theodorus Mopsuestenus, who says of St. John, eu0u ph xa) l| ap;£)jf irsp'i tcuv T»jf fleor>)rof 7r£^iXo(ro- iprjxevat layfj.a.Tuiv ^s. I am sorry to observe, that Dr. Priest-'* iey’s writings are full of mistranslations of this kind.

i Dr. Priestley quotes from the edition printed at Basle in 15711 The Benedictine edition does not admit the Homilite in diversos, from which this

extract is taken. See Praef. in vol. IV. p. I.

^r In Luc. Horn. XXIX. p. 9^7- * Expos, in Joan. i.

t>

That St. John borrowed the term Logos from the Pla­tonists, was said also by Sandius, Intern. Paradox, in Joan. i., and by Le Clerc, Biblioth. Univ. vol. X. p. 400.

NOTE 89.—See Lecture VII. p. 208.

The passages in Philo Judaeus, to which I have alluded, are the following. He compares the flaming sword (Gen. iii.

24,) to the Word of God, and says, oJuxivjjtotutov yap xa) Sipfiov Kayos, {jlocKhttu 6 tov ahlov, ori xa) aiiro iravra <pfla<rav Tra.prip.ztya.TO, xa) %po navTtav voou^evov, xa) sir) ■xavTtav <patv6/j.svov. De Cherubim, vol. I. p. 144. He interprets Gen. xv. 10. allegorically, and says, AisTtev avra peaa, to TI; oo npoa-fls'ii, ha tov a&eixTov evvorjg Seov ri/xvovra, rag ts tuiv (rxpaTcov xa) •jrpayfj-arcov ij-ij; diraca; yg/Ao'trSai xa) jjvaitrflai Soxouo'aj Quen;, Tto TOfjhst Ttav Gv/jmavTtuv uvtov Koycp, 05 eig Trjv o£i/T«T)]v &x.ovrjQe); axfiijv, Siuipcav ovieirore kyye 1 ta a’taOijTa iravTu, vnttiav 8s t^btP¹ Taiv xTo/Aiov xa) \eyopivm afiepcov SjefeASj). Quis rerum divina- rum Hares, p. 491. Shortly after, when speaking of the creation, he says, outcuj b 8eo; axovniirafteiio; tov ropea, tow iravTtav avtov Xoyov, SiaipsT t\v ts ap.op<pov xa) aitotov tHov o\m ova-lav, p. 492. The resemblance between these passages and Heb. iv. 12,13. is certainly striking: and if it could.be proved, that the Christians had already begun to apply the term Logos to Christ, we might believe that the apostle meant to make the application in this place, and that he was led to it by the figurative language, with which the Jewish Christians, to whom he was writing, were familiar¹. There are other passages in the works of Philo, which have a remarkable agreement with expressions in the Epistle to the Hebrews; and I may quote them in this place, that my readers may be better able to decide the question, whe­ther the state of philosophy among the Jews had any effect upon the apostolic writings.

Heb. i. 3. ^A0; cov ^apaxrrjp rfj; imoGTaireai; avT0v. Philo speaks of the soul being impressed <rtppaylZi 8eou, r,; 0 %agaxTrjp IotSv atSiag Xoyo;. De Plant. Noe, Vol. I. p. 332.

Heb. i. 14. ov%) itavn; elu) Kenovpyma Ttvsvj.lara; Philo speaks of ayyekoi XeiTovpyoi. De Humanitate, vol. II. p.

387. , , , , , ,

Heb. iii. 1. xaTavoYjtrare tov «7toVtoAov xa) ao^spsa tjjj ojtto- Koyia; rj/iiuv. Philo has the same expression, 0 jw-syas “P%^,s- peu; ojttoKoylas. Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, vol. I.

p. 654.

Heb. iii. 13. The frequent mention of the word to day may remind us of what Philo says upon Deut. iv. 4. a-^u=pov ‘ See Gerhardus ad 1.

M m 4

8’ Itrriv o oarspctTo; xa) aSiefrnjroj aim. De Ptofugis, vol. I. p. 554. < '

Heb. v. 8. ipafav, a$' tu)/ ha6e may be compared with spa- iov plv o hiaSov in Philo, de Profugis, vol. I. p. 56*6. But it seems to have been a proverbial expression.

Heb. v.,12—4. What is said of milk and strong meat, may be illustrated by the following; vywwis /aIv sctti yaka. Tpotyrf Tekeloig 8e ra ex irupobv Ktfj-^aTci, xa) 'J/uj£»js yakaxTutiei; fj.sv ctv elev Tpafa)' xata ryv nduhxrp ijkixluv, to. xijf syxuxklou /j,ou<nxijg TTponaiSeufAstra• Tskeiai 8e xa) avSpdiriv evirpenel; al Sia <ppovy<rea>s xa) raxpgcxruvrif xa) airdcyf agsrtj; upyyyirEis. De Agri- cultwra, vol. I. p. 301.

Heb. vi. 13. e7rsi xar ouSevo; el%e fts/^ovoj oftoa’at, mfj-ocs xuCT sauTou. Philo, commenting upon the same passage in Gen. xxii. 16. says, opag oti ou xaS hegou opvuei fleoj, ouSsv yap auTdu- xpfmov ahXct xuf? iaurau, o; lo'ri irdvrm apiorof. Leg. Alleg.

iii. vol. i. p.m.

Heb. xi. 4. xa) Si’ aurij; airoSavcov sti kakfnat. These words have been differently interpreted: but it seems most pro­bable, that reference was intended to Gen. iv. 10., and Philo argues from that passage in the same way; fiapTupyret 8s to ^gVjo'flei' koyiov, ev ci ipaivrj %paifuevo;, xa) (3ouiv a nenovQev mo xaxou (TuvUrau njAauyaif euplcxerat. ttcu; yap o pyxst’ .cuv 8ia- Asystrflai Sovarog; Quod determs potiori insidhatwr, vol. I. p. 200.

Heb. xi. 24. Compare this with the following passage in Philo, o 8e W aurov <p&d<ra; tov ogov avSgcmlwi; euru^lag, xa). flirjggrgiSouf fj.lv tou tocoutou fiatrikeui; vofwrBs);, rij; 8s iramcwou; kpxyjs ogov ovdeirai ysyovob; sActiVi rwv aLitdvrtov 8id8o%o;, rtjv <ruy~. yivixijv xa) Trpoyovixyv li^Acucrs iraiSs/av, ra pi.lv tSsv si<nroiv]a'afjJ~ vaiv ayada, xa) el k.afj.irpoTspa xaipol;, vo&a sivai imokafidov’ ra 8s toiv <pu<rei yivemv, si xa) irpb( oklyov afotve<rjegct, olxela yovv xa.) yvfaa. De Mose, vol. II. p. 85. ■

I cannot help thinking, that some of these coincidences are more than imaginary; and that the apostle had in his mind ideas and expressions, which were common in that day among his countrymen⁰ . With respect to St. Paul, he ap­pears to have received his education* in part at least, at Je­rusalem ^x: (Acts xxii. 3.) but he speaks of his own city Tarsus as by no means mean, ao-{i[/.ou, (xxi. 39.) and we

“ It may be observed tbat iu Heb. xii. 21. he quotes some words of Moses, wbich are not recorded in Exodus. He appears also in xi. 37. to allude to some facts of history which do not appear in the scriptures, as is observed by Origen, ad /Ifricanurn, 9. vol. I. p. 19.

^x There-is a Dissertation of Ch. G. Thalemannus de Doctrinn Pauli Ju- daicanon Greeca.

learn from Strabo, that even Athens and Alexandria were surpassed by Tarsus in the study of philosophy y. This statement indeed does not agree with what we read of Apol­lonius Tyaneus, that he was sent by his father to study under Euthydemus, a celebrated rhetorician of Tarsus, and found the place by no means adapted to philosophical pur­suits ^z: but this was not for want of teachers, since we are also informed, that while he was studying there, he mixed with Platonists, Peripatetics, and Epicureans ^a. If St. Paul studied at Tarsus, it must have been at a time which fol­lowed very shortly after the residence of Apollonius in that city; but it also appears from the Acts, that he lived there for several years after his conversion: and it is perfectly possible, that St. Paul may have found opportunities and inducements to study, which may not have been congenial to the mind of Apollonius.

Bryant has quoted a great abundance of passages from the works of Philo, which have a resemblance to others in the New Testament: but he produces them with a very different object, to prove that Philo had seen the writings of the apostles, and borrowed many ideas and expressions from them.

The reader may consult Carpzovius, Sacrde Exercita^ tiones in Epist, ad Heb. ex Phibtie, who has illustrated the whole of the Epistle from the works of Philo.

NOTE 90.—See Lecture VII. p. 213.

No person can be surprised, that the language of Plato should appear to resemble that of Christian writers, who is aware that Plato spoke of the world as God, begotten by God, the Son of God, the only begotten, the image of God, &c. &c. All these expressions are applied by Plato to the intellectual and material world: and hasty reasoners have hence been led to infer, either that the Christians borrowed these terms from Plato, or that Plato himself had an insight into the mysteries which were to be revealed. I have already given some instances of these expressions in Note 24, and the following are perhaps still more striking. “ Where- “ fore the Creator did not make two worlds, or an infinity

y Lib. XIV. p. 673* ^ed» 1620. The passage is curious as pointing out a difference between Tarsus and Alexandria. ^u In the farmer city,” says Strabo, “ all the students are natives, and strangers rarely resort thither : ^c< neither do the natives remain there, but they perfect themselves by going “ out of the country, and when they have done this, they easily adopt a fo- “ reign residence, and few of them return home.”

^z Philostrat. I. 7. p. 8. ed. 1709. Brucker, vol. II. p. 102.

^? Euseb. cont. Hierocl. p. 518.

“ of worlds, but this one only begotten (fioi/oyevijf) world, “ which was made, exists, and wfll still exist^b.” “ This “ universal reason (Aoyio-fno;) of the eternal God, rea- “ soning about the God that was hereafter to exist—■— “ begot it a blessed God ^c.” “ This world having received “ the mortal and immortal beings and being filled with “ them, thus became a visible living being containing vi- “ sible beings, the sensible image of the intellectual God, “ the greatest, and best, and fairest, and most perfect, this “ one world, the only begotten ^d.” Whoever is acquainted with the writings of Plato, and particularly the Timaeus, will perceive, that all these expressions relate to the world, and properly to the first or intellectual world, of which God was the Father by an act or energy of his reason. The verbal resemblance between this part of the Platonic phi­losophy and the Gospel was not lost upon the ancients: and Celsns is represented as saying to Origen, “ I will now ex- “ plain whence it came into the heads of the Christians to “ speak of the Son of God. The ancients had called this “ world, as being made by God, his Son: a great resem- “ blance truly between the one and the other Son of God^e!” Upon which Origen observes as follows: “ He thought, “ that when we spoke of the Son of God, we perverted “ what had been said of the world, which was made by “ God, and is his Son, and itself God. For he was not “ able to refer to the times of Moses and the prophets, and “ to see that the Jewish prophets foretold in general terms, “ before the Greeks and those whom Celsus calls the an- “ cients, that there was a Son of God^f.” If it can be shewn that the Old Testament speaks of the Son of God, or that the Jews believed in the Son of God, before they knew any thing of the Grecian philosophy, this argument of Origen is perfectly sound: but he goes on to refute Celsus by another mode of reasoning, which has had many followers in ancient and modern times, and which I cannot but think is alto­gether erroneous. He says, “ But he [i. e. Celsus] would “ not quote the passage in the Epistles of Plato, which I “have mentioned before, about the person who arranged

^b Timaeus, p. 31.

^c Xb. p. 34. This passage might satisfy Wolfius, who says, “ Denique “ locum, quo Plato mundum Dei nomine insigniverit, adhuc requiro.” Ma- nichceismus ante Manicliceos, IX. 34. p. 143. . I would also add the following

passage : IvotHcrtv Tovhi tov xoirfAov ■—-tnXofltvos otpcTTev ysnufiu vetw,

toutov swotti Usov yivvitTov. de Animct Mundi) p. 94*

<1 lb. p. 92. ^e Cont. Celsum. VI. 47. p. 669.

^f Origen in another place says expressly, that the world was cousidered by Plato to he a second God. Cont. Cels. V. 7. P* i>81, 582.

“ all this universe being the Son of God, lest he should be “ compelled by Plato himself, whom he often praises, to “ admit that the Creator of this universe is the Son of God, “ and the first and supreme God is his Father.” Origen had evidently adopted the notion, to which I have alluded in Note 50, that God was not considered by Plato to be the Creator (Sr^ioupyb;) of the material world: but he thought, like most of the Fathers and most of the later Platonists, that this work of creation was performed by a second being or God, begotten by the first, to whom they often gave the name of airioj, the cause, as supposing him to be a kind of second cause, or instrument employed by God. The pas­sage to which Origen refers, and which he had quoted be­fore?, is in Plato’s Sixth Epistle, where he tells his corre­spondents “ to swear by God the Governor of all things, “ both which are and which are to come, the Father and “ Lord of him who is Governor and Cause^h.” Origen con­ceived, that the Governor and Cause, in the conclusion of this sentence, was to be referred to a second or subordinate being, who was the Son of him who is called Governor of all things: but 4^ has been satisfactorily shewn¹, that.here also Plato meant to speak of the intellectual world, or the Ideas in the mind of God, as being the cause of all things: and if any doubt could be felt as to this interpretation, we may refer to Plato himself, who explains his own expres­sions thus. He is considering what science is most valuable to man, and he says, “ I conceive that some God .rather “ than Fortune gives this to us, and so preserves us. But “ I must explain what God I mean, although I may appear “ strange, and yet I am not strange: for how can we think “ that that, which is the cause of all good things to us, is “ not also the cause of what is by far the greatest good, viz. “ prudence ? What God then is it which I am speaking of “ in these high terms ? It must be the intellectual world, “ (oupavov,) which it is most just that we should honour, and “ pray especially to it, as do all the other daemons and gods. “ But we should all allow that this is the cause of all other “ good things to us^k.” There may be much of obscurity ana mysticism in this passage, as in many of Plato’s fancies concerning the Deity: but there can be no doubt that the expression which Origen interpreted of the Son of God, or second Cause, is to be explained in the same way. Other

s Ib. 8. p. 636.

^h Tav T&Jy travratv Osav riyif&ova ra/v r£ avruv xoa ruv p.t'kXivruy₉ rau re hyif^Oiag xeci ettrtoo •tart/la xogiov esrofitvovras. p. 323.

¹ Prsef. in Just. Mart. p. xii. ^k Epinomis, p. 976, 977.

passages have been quoted, in which Plato is supposed to speak of this second Cause as a being distinct from God; and among them the following, which from the difficulty of translation I must give in its original language: “ tovtov “ Qavat (us Xsysiv tov tov ayaSoO sxyovov, ov tayaSov syevv^arev “ avahoyov savTci, o tI usp ctirb sv tu> vorjraj t<mcp nfio; ts voiiv “ xai ra vcou/x.£Va, touto tovtov kv rai opat<2 7rpos ts ov[»iv xa\ to. “ dpmftsvuV There is certainly an appearance in this place of Plato speaking of the sum.rn.um bonum, (which is sup­posed to be God,) begetting a being like to itself: but this is only one instance out of many, how erroneous conclusions may be drawn by a reference to insulated passages: and if any person will look closely to the context, he will see that there is no allusion whatever to God, or the first Cause, begetting a Son; but (as it is explained by the editor of Justin Martyr¹") that it speaks of the production of know­ledge and truth in the mind of man. Upon the whole I cannot but think that those persons have reasoned correctly, who decide that Plato never conceived the idea of God having produced a being distinct from himself, who might be called his Son, in the Christian or personal sense of the expression. Celsus, as we have seen, had no notion of Plato having thought or written in this manner: but when he found the Son of God in the writings of Plato, he knew that it could only be referred to the intellectual world. I have endeavoured to shew, in Note 23, that this intellectual world, or the Ideas, had only a metaphysical and not a sub­stantial existence: and hence it follows, that the Logos or Reason of God, as the term was used by Plato, could not be a separate person, or a being distinct from God. Celsus seems to have been well aware that God and his Logos were really one and the same: and being himself probably i a follower of Plato", he still adhered to the original lan­guage of that philosopher. He says expressly, “ He, i. e. “ God, is the Reason (X&yoc) of all existing things: it is “ not therefore possible for him to do any thing contrary “ to reason, or contrary to himself⁰.” Origen also was well aware of this, and shews in his answer to the above remark how very different was the Christian and the Platonic use

¹ De Republ. VI. p. 508. It is quoted hy Eusebius, Prcep. Evang. XI. 21.

p. S4²- ^{m Pa}S- ^xv-

“ Origen chose to call Celsus an Epicurean: but Wesseling shewed tbe incorrectness of this notion in his Probdbilia, c. 23. p. 187 ; and Mosheim gave reasons for classing him with the later Platonists in his preface to the German translation of Origen. The same conclusion is supported at some length by Neander in his Allgemeine Geschichte, &c. part. 1. p. 254—259.

⁰ Cont. Cels. V. 14. p. 588.

of the term Logos: “ The Reason of all things is, accord- ‘‘ ing to Celsus, God Mmself: but according to us, it is his “ Son: concerning whom we axe taught to say, In the be- “ ginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, “ and the Logos was God. But according to us also it is “ impossible for God to do any thing contrary to reason, or “ contrary to himselfP.” Origen meant to say, that the Christians, as well as Plato, could speak of the mind or reason of God; and could say, that God was all Mind or all Reason: but when they applied the term Logos to Christ, they used it in a totally different sense: they used it for the begotten Son of God, who had a distinct, separate, and per­sonal existence. If Origen had stopped here, his reasoning would have been perfectly sound: and we might shew in the same way that the Christians could not have taken their doctrine of the Logos from Plato, because Plato never ascribed to the Logos of God a distinct personal existence. But Origen had stuoied Platonism in the later days of that philosophy: and the Platonists had been accustoming them­selves more and more to personify the Mind of the Deity, and to speak of it as a second Cause, or a second God. Hence Origen, as we have seen, referred to the works of Plato himself, as proving the existence of this second Cause: and Eusebius devotes the eleventh book of his Preeparatio Evangelica to shewing, that Plato actually maintained this doctrine. In support of this notion he appeals to Plato himself: but his instances are those which I have already -explained, as relating only to the Mind of the Deity, the Ideas in •which were said by Plato to be the cause of all things. He then appeals to Plotinus, Nume- nius, Amelius, and others, who wrote long after the esta^ blishment of Christianity: and it is perfectly true, that these later Platonists speak of a second and eyen a third God, as being produced from the Mind of the great first Cause. But no person can read the fragments preserved to us from these writers, without perceiving that Plato had been tor- cured to an agreement with die gospel, and not the gospel to an agreement with Plato There is indeed in these writers a striking resemblance between the language which they hold concerning the Mind of God, and that of the

* Cont. Cels. V. 24. p. 59s, 596.

« See Le Clerc, under the name of Jo. Phereponus, in Append. Op. Au­gustin. vol. XII. p. 473. Oleariiis, de Philosep Ecleciica, c. 3. p. 1220. The Commentary of Hierocles npon the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, or of Simplicius upon the Enchiridion of Epictetus, will shew to what extent the Platonists had borrowed ideas from the Christians.

Fathers concerning the Son of God. Eusebius was so con­vinced of this resemblance, that he suspected Plato of hav­ing borrowed his notions upon this point from the Jews: but a much more correct statement would be, that Plato himself had no idea whatever of a second Cause, personally distinct from God ; and that his later followers adopted this notion from the writings of the Christians^r. Eusebius has preserved a remarkable passage from Amelius, a Platonist of the third century, which shews how the Christian writ­ings were read by the heathen, and also what was the opin­ion of the heathen concerning the Christian belief in the divinity of the Logos. He appears to have been writing concerning the Platonic Logos, and expresses himself thus: “ This then was the Logos, according to which, as it is “ eternal, all existing things were made, just as Heracli- “ tus might speak of it, and which indeed is spoken of by “ the barbarian as being with God, holding the rank and “ dignity of the Principle, and as being Goa: by which all “ things whatsoever were made; in which every thing lives “ that was made; and as being life, and having existence, “ and as descending into a body, and putting on flesh, and “ appearing as a man, while at the same time ne also shewed “ the majesty (ftsyaAsTov) of his nature: in a word, that he “ was again resolved into his original divinity, and was God, “ such as he was, before he descended into the human and “ fleshly body^s.” There is no need of the remark of Euse­bius, that the barbarian⁴ here mentioned is the evangelist St. John, whose Gospel appears to have been accurately studied by the Platonist Amelius : and such I conceive was the process by which Plato was gradually clothed in a Christian dress, and made to speak as if he had anticipated the doctrine of the Christian Trinity". When St. John wrote his Gospel, so far was he from borrowing his doctrine of the Logos from Plato, that he used the term in a totally

^r Such is the conclusion of Bayle, Continuation des Pensies sur les Co­mites, tom.l. §. 68. p. 34£. Le Clerc, Bibl. Choisie, tom. III. p. 89. Ar- naldus, Seconde Dinonej&tion du Pecht Philosophique, p. 93. Fabricius, Prolegom. ad vit. Proelf, sect. II. fol. 6, b. Baltus, Defense, Sfc. IV. 7. p. 476. P' S4S-

^r Prtep. Evang. XI. J9- p. 540. The passage is referred to also by Cyril. Alex, in Julian. VIII. p. 283. Theodoret, Serm. II. ad Grescos, vol. IV. p. 500. It is perhaps alluded to by Basil, Horn. XVI. vol. II. p. 134. and Augustin, de Civ, Dei, X. 29. vol. VII. p. 265.

* For the term as applied to St.John, see Chrysostom, Horn. II.

in Joan. vol. VIII. p. 9.

" For words and phrases borrowed by the Platonists from Christian writ­ings, see H. Ursinus, de Zoroastre, Herm. Sfc. Exerc. II. 7. p. 150. and the Dissertation de Studio Ethnieorum Christianas imitandi among the Disser­tations of Mosheim, vol. I. p. 339, &c.

different sense. Celsus, as I have shewn, had no notion of any resemblance of this kind: and he was obliged, in. his zeal to abuse the Christians, to charge them with having converted the Intellectual World of Plato into a personal Son of God. What the Christians were accused by Celsus of having done, the later Platonists, in a great measure, ac­tually effected: and expressions, which were originally in­tended for the operations of the mind of the Deity, were ap­plied to a separately existing being. This new era in the Platonic philosophy appears with good reason to be traced to Ammonius as its pnncipal cause at the end of the second centnry; who being bred a Christian, and according to Eu­sebius* continuing so to his death, was the first Platonist who spoke of a second Cause or of three Principles, in any thing like the Christian sense of those expressions ; and thus became the real founder of the eclectic school, not so much by borrowing something from Christianity and something from Platonism, as by perverting the terms of one system to meet the tenets of the othery. Hence Amelius could see in the Gospel of St. John an agreement with his own notion of Plato’s doctrine of the Logos: but this notion was no more that of Plato himself, than the creed of Amelius was that of St. John. I do not mean to say that the later Pla­tonists were alone responsible for this perversion of Plato’s words. The Christian writers perhaps prepared the way for it, when, in order to remove the objections to Christianity, and to clear it from the charge of novelty, they pretended to find in Plato an aCgreement with the Jewish- scripturcs. Thus Justin Martyr says that Plato learnt from Moses to speak of the Son of God, and to acknowledge a second, and even a third Principle, derived from the first Cause². It is distressing to see the absurd expedients to which Justiil and other Fathers had recourse, in order to make out this fanciful resemblance: but if any person can imagine that they first perverted the language of Plato; that they first changed the Son of God, which was the Intellectual World, into a personal Son ; that they first saw in the writings of Plato a notion of a Trinity; and that they then betook themselves to transfer this new doctrine to the Gospel, it would be useless to reason with such an opponent. It is plain to common sense that the contrary must have been the fact: and when Justin and the other Fathers distort the

* Hist. Eccles. VI. 19.

y See Brucker, vol. II. p. 211. Mosbeim, dejiebus ante Const. Cent. II. 27, 28. Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr. IV. 26. vol. IV. p. 159.

² Apol. I. 60. p. 78, 79.

words of Plato, to make them agree with a doctrine which Plato himself had never entertained, it is plain that they must have learnt this doctrine from some other quarter, and must have been already impressed with the truth of it in their own minds, before they set about to prove that it was contained in the writings of Plato. It was the same wish to recommend Christianity to the heathen, which led Justin Martyr to quote Orpheus, and the older Greek poets, as speaking of God and the Creation in language similar to that of Moses. That the more ancient writers may have had stronger traces of primitive tradition than their super­stitious and polytheistic descendants, may perhaps be true^a: but a critic can only smile, when he finds Justin quoting the following passage from Orpheus,

ovpctvlv ipxl^ai <rs ©sou /j.eyuKov <ro<pou [<ropov] spyov, auSyv opxl^oo tre icarpl;, Ttjv <p3iy^aro irpmrov, rjvlxa xocrfiov airavra sal; arijgifaTO )3oo^ai;^b,

and commenting upon them thus: “ By auJij (the voice) in “ this place, he means the Word (Ao'yoi/) of God, by which “ the heaven, the earth, and all the creation, was made, as “ the holy Scriptures inform us, to which he had himself “ paid some attention in Egypt, and knew that all the crea- “ tion was made by the Word of God.—He here calls the “ Word auSy (the voice) on account of the metre: and that “ this is so, is plain from his calling it the Word a little “ above, when the metre allowed it, as thus:

“ eh 8s \oyov flsTov rcvna irgoa-sSpsus."

We can certainly say little of the critical powers of Justin Martyr, when he supposed that the writer of these verses had any notion of the Word of God in a personal sense, or that he thought of any thing beyond the Mind of the Deity, and that Mind issuing its commands⁰: but we might say the same of a person who could think that the verses of Orpheus contributed in any degree to form Justin’s own notion concerning the Logos. It is plain, that Justin en­deavoured (absurdly perhaps) to accommodate Orpheus to the Bible : and so ne endeavoured to make Plato speak like

» See Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. V. n. vol. IX. p. 135.

•> Cohort. 15. p, 19. Quoted also by Cyril. Alex. Cont. Julian. 1. p. 33,

« Cudworth has supported the notion of a Trinity being held by Orpheus and the earlier poets, IV. 17. p. 451. but the weakness of his conclusions is shewn by Mosheim in his Annotations, note ”, and by Brucker, vol. I. p. 390. Mangey, the editor of Philo Judaeus, who was not the most judicious of rea- soners, is disposed to agree with Justin, Prcef. p. xiii. See Bull, Priimtim et Apost. Traditio, c. IV. vol. VI. p. *91. ed. 1827.

a Christian: but I contend, that no person has a right to abuse the Fathers, who can believe that Justin first extracted the doctrine of a Trinity from the works of Plato, and then engrafted it upon the Gospel. Such an accusation would be quite as weak in its reasoning as the passage which I have lately quoted from Justin himself: and the person who charges Justin with introducing the divinity of the Son and the Trinity as new doctrines, which were borrowed from Platonism, is bound to prove that Plato, or at least the Pla­tonists of the first century, held these doctrines. With re­spect to Plato himself, the contrary of this fact is demon­strable : and it could be shewn with equal plainness, that it was not till the diffusion of Christianity and Christian writ­ings compelled the Platonists to act upon the defensive, that they changed the form of the argument, which had been used by the Fathers, and instead of saying that Plato bor­rowed from Moses, they asserted that the Christians bor­rowed from Plato. It is by no means improbable that the numerous forgeries, which, under the name of Orpheus, Hermes, Sibylline Oracles, &c. &c. were appealed to by Christians and heathens in the early ages, were composed with the same view by some Gentile philosophers, who wished to deduce the systems of Plato and Pythagoras from a totally different source, and to ascribe to them a greater antiquity than even the time of Moses^d. But this would lead us into too wide a discussion: and I must content my­self with referring to Mosheim’s Dissertation, de Turbata per Platonicos Ecclesia, where he has shewn the effect which was mutually produced upon the Christians and the Pla­tonists by the approximation of their creeds.

With respect to the notion of a Trinity, as held by Plato, I shall only observe, that though the later Platonists found traces in the writings of their master, not only of a second, but of a third Principle or Cause^e, produced by the first Cause, this was entirely a new doctrine, and a palpable per­version of their master’s language: to which it may be

^d See Dodwell, Discourse concerning SaocboDiatbon, §. 4, &c. p. 8. §. 40, 41. p. 94, 95. ................ .

* See Plotinus, Gnnead. V. 1. tuv t^iuv u^ikuv iKratrrdtrswvj p. 481. ed. 1580. He seems to have been conscious that this was a new doctrine, though he pretends tbat it was not: and after saying that Plato spoke of three things, the first Cause, (ttbe JVlind or Idea, and the Soul, he adds, “ And “ this statement is not new, nor of the present day, but was expressed-long “ ago, though not openly; and the present statemeut is explanatory of the “ former, confirming by proofs, namely, by Plato’s own writings, that these “ opinious are ancient.” P. 489. See also Proclus in Tim. II. p. 93. ed. Basil.

N n

added, (and this argument is alone sufficient to defend the Christians,) that the later Platonists differed entirely among themselves concerning these three Principles^f. I do not wish to free the Fathers from contributing their share toward this perversion. They thought that they were de­fending Christianity, by shewing its agreement with tenets held by their opponents: and when we find that the later Platonists admitted the agreement to exist, we must entirely, acquit the Fathers of any intentional dishonesty in the argu-, ment. If any person should still think that-Christianity is benefited by the. attempt to prove that Plato held the doc­trine of a Trinity, I can only say, that, entirely disbelieving the fact, I cannot join in expecting the benefit which is to be derived from such an argument. Whoever wishes to study this question, will find Cudworth among the most de­termined supporters of the Platonic Trinity: and I would refer particularly to the following places of his work in Mo- sheim’s edition: vol. I. p. 821, 868, 879, 882, 886, 891, 898, 903. The same doctrine, as held by the later Pla­tonists, is examined at p. 823, 827, 838, 842, 849, 853, 905. He shews the agreement between the Platonic and Christian Trinity at p. 946: though he shews some points of difference between them at p. 906, 959. Cudworth in­deed thought that the belief in a Trinity was universal, as he asserts at p. 822. He treats of it, as held by the Per­sians S, at p. 427, 429, 435: by Orpheus, p. 451: by the Egyptians, p. 528^h; by Pythagoras, p. 572: by the Greeks generally, p. 689. A refutation of the notion that Plato held the existence of three Principles in any manner resem­bling the Christian Trinity, may be seen in Mosheim’s An­notations at several of the places mentioned above; and in Brucker, vol. I. p. 704. II. p. 410. I would also refer to a passage in Dr. Priestley’s Letters to Horsley, (p. 99.) where Priestley, in an unguardedjnoment, wrote as follows: “ As “ to the Trinity of Plato, it was certainly a thirfg very un- “ like your'Atnanasian doctrine; for it was never imagined “ that the three component Members of that Trinity were “ either equal to each other, or, strictly speaking, one." This appears to me a complete surrender of his whole argu­ment ; for if that, which the Platonists “ never imagined,” was the foundation and corner-stone of the Christian creed,

^f See Augustin, de Civ. Dei. X. 23. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. VIII. p. 273. Baltus, Difen.se des Saints Peres, IV. 19. p. 578. Le Clerc, Epist. VII. p. 247.

g See Wolfius, Maniehaismus ante Manicheos, II. 13. p. 65.

^h See Brucker, vol. I. p. 292. Wolfius, I. c. 14. p. 69.

how could the Christians have borrowed it from the Pla­tonists ? Cudworth was preceded in his view of the Platonic Trinity by Aug. Steuchus, in his work de Perermi Philoso- phia: and Mornaeus (de Mornay) de la Vtrite de la Rel. Ckrit. c. 6. p. 95. The subject has been considered by Le Clerc, Epist. Crit. VII. who is answered at much length by Baltus in his Defense des Saints Peres, liv. IV. but I cannot think that Baltus is, in this instance, fair to Le Clerc. See also the note to Origen, de Prmcip. I. 3. vol. I. p. 60. Classical Journal, vol. III. p. 125. IV. p. 89, 484. V. p. 240.

Cudworth has also maintained, that the second Principle of the Platonists resembled the Son of God, or Logos of the Christians, vol. I. p. 871-4: but this notion is entirely re­futed by Brucker, vol. III. p. 259. and in the preface to Justin Martyr, part. II. c. 1. p. x. I would also refer to Huetius, Qucest. Alnet. II. 3. Bungus, de Numer. Myster. p. 185. Galantes, Compar, Theol. Christianee cum Plato- nica. III. p. 90. Petavius, de Trinitate, I. 1. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 40. who names several authors.

That the Christians took their notions of the Trinity, the divinity of the Son, &c. from the Platonists, was said by Souverain, Le Platonisme devoild.

NOTE 91.—See Lecture VII. p. 214.

The Stoics, as is well known, carried the notion of a Pro­vidence to the greatest lengths: and yet they were accused, no less than the Epicureans, virtually of denying a Provi­dence, and identifying it with Fate or Necessity'. It is certain, that they applied to this ruling or direc .±ag power the same term, Aayoc, which Plato had used for the creative power of God. Thus Plutarch, who was unfavourable to the Stoics, distinguishes between the two terms, and speaks “ of one Reason (koyou) arranging the world, and one Provi- “ dence (jpovolac) superintending it^k:” but in another place, where he is describing the Stoical philosophy in particular, he speaks of “ one Reason and one Providence,” as synony­mous¹. Tertullian also says still more plainly of Zeno, “ that he made Logos the Creator, who formed and ar- “ ranged every thing: he also called it Fate and God and “ the Mind of Jupiter, and universal Necessity^m,” It might perhaps be shewn, that the Stoics differed from the Platonists in speaking more plainly of the Governor of tbe

¹ See Brucker, vol. I. p. 926. Wolfius, Manicheeismus (mte Manichaos, 11.38. p. 158.

^k De Is. et Osir. p, 377. F. ¹ lb. p. 369. A. “ Apol. 21. p. 19.

N n 2

world being a different Being or Principle from the Creator of it. It is probable, that at first they were spoken of as different operations of the same Mind or Reason: and hence we may trace the process, by which in later times the. Rea­son of the Deity came to be personified, as a second Cause. The same term, Reason, was applied to both these opera­tions of the Deity: and it seems certain, that the Stoics in­vented the distinction of the Koyog•IvSiafleToj, and the \oyo; wpoQoptxo;. The former was applied to the Deity, when only employed in thinking or reflecting; the latter was applied to his external manifestations. It is certain, that no such verbal distinction is to be met with in the writings of Plato: and though he employs Xoyog to express the internal or reflective operation of the mind of God, he shews in one place, that this was not its strict and literal meaning. “ Aia- “ voice and Koyog," he says, “ are the same thing: but the “ internal communing of the soul with itself, which is car- “ ried on without sound, this we call havoia: but that which “ flows from it through the mouth with sound, is called “ Xoyo;^u.” Plato therefore considered the term Koyog to be applied properly to the external manifestations of the Deity: and this twofola meaning of the term was expressed by the Stoics with the addition of the terms IvSiuSzto; and ■Kpofaqina;. For the use of these two terms, I would refer to an excel­lent note of Wyttenbach upon Plutarch, p. 44. A. No person can read the works of the Fathers, without perceiv­ing that these two expressions held a conspicuous place in

as residing eternally with the .Father, and as intimately con­nected with him, as a man and his own mind or thought: he was the Xoyo; wpoipopixos, as having a separate existence, a being put forth from God and manifested to the world. The Arians wished to establish, that the Son was only the Xoyo; irpotpopixog, by which they assigned to him a beginning; in­asmuch as the thought must precede the sound, which gives it utterance. Athanasius and the catholics asserted that the Son was the Xo'yo; ev8ixQeto; as well as nqotpopiKo;' and it may be supposed, that a controversy like this gave room to great subtleties: and that the most orthodox writer, while he was pursuing these metaphysical refinements, was likely to tread on the very verge of heresy, if not actually to use expressions, which led him into Sabellianism, while he was flying from Arianism. Philo Judaeus often speaks of the IvSiafleroj and wpopoptxos Ao'yoj, as may be seen in the follow-

u

Sophist, p. 263.

ing places: vol. I. p. 215, 244, 270, 447. II. p. 13, 154,' 347. Bishop Bull has treated the subject with his usual learning in his Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. III. c. 5, &c. See also Beausobre, vol. I. p. 537, 538. Lardner’s Credibility, ad an. 247. p. 662.

Note 92.—See Lecture VII. p. 214.

Chalcidius understood Plato to mean the \oyo; hhahro;, rather than the Xoyoc npoipopixbs, for he writes, “ Et Ratio Dei “ Deus est, humanis rebus consulens, &c. ^A and in the following passage he marks the two meanings pf the term : “ Sine voce ac sono motus Ratio est, in intimis mentis pe- “ netralibus residens. Haec autem differt ab Oratione. Est “enim Oratio interpres animo concept* Rationis y.” Se­neca had the same idea, when he wrote, “ Q-uisquis forma- “ tor universi fuit, sive ille Deus est potens omnium, sive “ incorporalis Ratio ingentium operum artifex ^z.” But in each of these cases the Reason of God is put forth and ma­nifested, not confined to the Mind of the Deity. Tertul- lian also was aware of the two senses of the Greek term Logos, when he spoke of Christ “ shewing himself to be “ the Logos of God, i. e. his primordial Word, first-begot- “ ten, accompanied with Power and Reason^a.” He had before said, “ that God made this universe by his Word “ and Reason and Power. It appears also,” he adds, “ that “ the framer of the universe is considered by the heathen “ philosophers to be Logos, i. e. Word and Reason, (Ser-

“ monem atque Kationem.) We also ascribe to the

“ Word and Reason and Power, by which, as I have said, “ God created all things, a proper spiritual existence, whose “ Word gives directions, whose Reason arranges, and whose “ Power executes. We have learnt that this Logos was “ put forth from God, and put forth by generation, and “ therefore called the Son of God, and God, from unity of “ substance^b.” It is plain that Tertullian considered the analogy of Reason to be applicable to the Father and the Son, so far as related to their substantial union: but he was also perfectly aware that it failed with respect to their personal distinction. Lactantius notices the two significa­tions as follows: “ Sed melius Graeci koyav dicunt, quam “ nos Verbum sive Sermonem: \oyo; enim et Sermonem “ significat et Rationem, quia ille est et Vox et Sapientia “ Dei^c.” Notwithstanding the remark of Tertullian ^d, that

* In Timaaum, §. 54. p. 299. * Ib. §. 103. p. 316. ^z Ad Helviam, 8.

* Apol. 21. p. 20. Virtute et Hatione is si xai kayot, fc Itj. p. 19,

* Instit. IV. 9. ^A Adv. Prax. g. p. 503.

Ratio is a fitter translation of Logos than Sermo, I cannot help thinking that the distinct personality of the Son is more plainly intimated by his being called the Word of God; and archbishop Laurence has given a strong confirm­ation of this remark by stating, that in all the thirty-six in­stances where the terra Logos occurs in St. John’s Gospel, it means Word, or Speech, and never Wisdom, or Reason. He also adds the critical observation, that the corresponding expressions of Logos in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, do not bear the double signification of Reason and Speech, but only the.latterⁿ. I may add, that the Vulgate uses the term Verbum, but Beza and Erasmus preferred Sermo: of which distinction we may say, that the latter is more suited to the Arian or Socinian hypothesis: and we may make a similar observation relative to the German expres­sions ; for Luther adopted Wort in his translation, but the Socinians prefer Rede: and the latter term, which rather signifies Speech or Conversation than a Word, is certainly less suited to convey an idea of personal individuality.

NOTE 93.—See Lecture VII. p. 215.

I am aware, that in delivering this opinion concerning the meaning of Philo Judaeus, I am differing from great authorities. Grotius has appealed to many expressions of Philo, as being in accordance with the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Logos⁰. Bishop Bull conceived, that when Philo spoke of the Logos as the Son of God, he was not following the sentiments of Plato, but of the JewsP. Mangey, in his Preface to the works of Philo, asserts that he ascribed a distinct personality, a substantial existence to the Logos, and that he took his ideas and language con­cerning the Logos, not from Plato, but from the Jews. Bryant has written a separate treatise on “ the Sentiments “ of Philo Judaeus concerning the Aoyoj or Word of God,” in which he maintains the same doctrine, though he also endeavours to prove, that Philo had seen the writings of the New Testament. It is with great diffidence that I feel myself holding an opinion different from that of these learn­ed men: but having read the works of Philo without preju­dice, or rather with a previous impresoion that his writings contained some indications of a personal Son of God, in the Christian sense of the term, I quitted them with a contrary

ⁿ Dissertation upon the Logos of St.John, p. 43, 45.

" De Vent. V. 21.

■ Def. Fid. Nic. I. 1. 16. vol. V. p. 33. ed. 1827. The same is said by Van der Vjfayen, de voce X'oycs.

impression, and with a firm conviction that Philo never meant to attribute personality to the Logos, and that his thoughts and expressions are to be traced to the school of Plato9. I do not mean to deny that Philo has spoken of the Logos in terms, which were never used, nor ever even conceived by Plato: and there is every reason to think, that the difference was caused by his being acquainted with the more ancient as well as the later writings of his own countrymen. I have already said that the doctrines of the Jews produced an effect upon the Platonic philosophy, as it was taught in the schools of Alexandria. That the Angel, or Messenger of the Covenant, and the being who appeared to the patriarchs, was not God the Father, but a being pro­duced from him, was a notion so universally held by all the Fathers, even the earliest of them^r, and is so countenanced by St. Paul himself^s, that we cannot but believe it to have been generally received among the Jews; and learned men have very clearly shewn that this was the case¹. It was a notion, of which Plato was necessarily and altogether igno­rant : but the Platonizing Jews endeavoured to accommo­date it to the language and sentiments of Plato. That phi­losopher, as I have often stated, spoke of the Reason of God creating and governing the world: which was only another mode of speaking of God himself. His successors, as I have already observed, were fond of distinguishing these attributes or operation^ of the Deity, and almost in­vesting them separately with a personal character. The Gnostics, as I have also stated, went so far as to divide them into separate persons: and so Philo is said to have spoken of the Logos, or Reason of God, as a distinct per­son : hut I shall endeavour to shew, that he never thought of the Logos otherwise than as an attribute, operation, or manifestation of the Deity: it was God himself revealing himself to mankind by some visible act of Mind or Intelli­gence. Bishop Bull has quoted some strong passages to shew that Philo considered the Logos to be the same being, who was conceived by the Fathers to be the Son of Goa. Thus he speaks of God governing all the works of his crea­tion, “ having placed over them his true reason, his first- “ born Son, who is to take charge of this sacred flock, as a

i It is perhaps worthy of remark, that there is Eothing concerning the Logos in the writings of Josephus : and the reason may have been, that his learning was acquired at Jerusalem, not at Alexandria.

^T I may refer to my Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, N°. 23. See Bull, he/. Fid. Nie. IV. 3. Waterland, vol. I. p. 20.

• 1 Cor. x. 4, 9.

* Allix, Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church, &c. c. XIII.

N n 4>

“ kind of deputy under a great king: for it is written, Be-. “ hold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the “ way ⁰. (Exod. xxiii, 20.)” So also the Word of God, or the divine Word, is said to have called to Adam in the garden* : to which instances I may add, that the Angel who spoke to Hagar is called “the divine Logosy;” and “ the Word of God” is said to have wrestled with Jacob², to have spoken to Moses in the bush^a, and to have rained fire from the Lord upon Sodom^b. I fully allow, that it may be proved from these passages, that Philo believed God to have revealed himself to the patriarchs by his Lo­gos ; but I deny that he considered this Logos to be a per­son distinct from God: it was only a mode or manifestation of God himself. Philo never lost sight of the Platonic notion, that the Mind, or Reason of God, was the seat of those Ideas, which were not only the patterns, but the cause of all existing things ^c: consequently when he spoke of the Logos of God doing any thing, or causing any thing, he only meant to speak of God doing or causing it, and he still meant by the Logos that Intellectual World, the first off­spring of the Mind of God, which was itself the cause and the creator of every thing which existed in the material world. This may be shewn by a remarkable passage, which Bull has quoted in support of his own view, but which he copied inaccurately. He quotes Philo as speaking of “ ©sou Xoyov “ xoafj-oTrotouvTot, the Word of God which made the world.” But the original passage is very different. Philo is speak­ing of the great goodness of God in creating the world, and adds, “ If any one would wish to speak more openly, he “ might say, that the Intellectual World is nothing else “ than the Reason of God, who (i. e. God) made the world, “ rj 6sou Xoyov Jj'Sij jcocr|&o7roiouvTo$^d.” Philo therefore does not say in this place, that the Logos of God made the world, as Bull quotes the passage, but that God himself made it: and he evidently speaks as a Platonist, and considered that the pattern of the material world existed in the Intellectual World, i. e. in the Mind or Reason of the Deity. Bryant has put his view of the subject in a strong light, when he brings together all the expressions applied by Philo to the Logos, and shews that he has called it, the Son of God, his beloved Son, the first begotten Son, the second God, the second Cause, the Image of God, the Creator, the Mediator

“ De Agricultura, vol. I. p. 308. * De Somniis, vol. I. p. 650.

y De Cherubim, vol. I. p. 139. ¹ De Nom. Mutat, vol. I. p. 591.

» De Somniis, vol. I. p. 650. ^b Ib. p. 633.

^c See the extracts given from Philo, at p. 348.

^d De Mundi Opificio, vol. I. p. 5.

between.God and man, the High Priest, &c. &c.^c All these expressions are applied by Philo to the Logos: but there is perhaps not one of them, which Plato would not have applied to the Intellectual World, as being not only the pattern of all material things, but the cause of their existence: and he did actually call it, the Son of God, the only-begotten, and the image of God. I conceive Philo to have spoken in the same manner in the following passages. “ God wishing to create this visible world, first formed the “ intellectual, that he might use that which is incorporeal, “ and most like to God, as a pattern, when he was making

“ this corporeal world: nor can the world which is

“ composed of Ideas have any other place than the Divine “ Reason (Koyov) which arranged these things^f.” “ It is “ evident, that the archetypal seal, which we say is the In­tellectual World, must be itself the archetypal pattern, “ the Idea of Ideas, the Logos of Gods.” “ Thus the in- “ corporeal world was completed, being seated in the divine “XogosV Philo entirely forgot Moses in his desire to follow Plato, when he said that the man, who was made after the image of God, b xar sixova avUpanro; (Gen. i. 26.) was totally different from the material man', (ii. 7.) He supposed the first to be the invisible image or archetype of the second, and to be seated, like all the other Ideas, in the Mind of God. Hence because this invisible man was no­where else, but in the Logos, he actually calls the Logos

o xolt sixova avSpwvo;, as in the following passage: “ Al- “ though no one ever yet deserved to be called the Son of “ God, let him endeavour to adorn himself after hi§ first- “ born Logos, the eldest Angel, who as an Archangel has “ many names; for he is called the Principle, and the Name “ of God, and Logos, and the man after ihe image*-? It is perfectly astonishing that Bryant should have allowed himself to quote this passage, as a proof that Philo spoke of the Logos, as appearing in a human form), when Philo himself expressly classes the xar eixova clvdpamo; among the invisible, immaterial archetypes in the Mind of God. It is equally extraordinary, that Mangey should propose to read o5 x«t sixova avSpwirog, because “ Philo never speaks of the “ Logos as a man, or as formed after an image, since he is “ himself the image., after which man is formed.” But this is precisely what Philo meant to signify by b xot sixova

^e Pag. 40. 203. ^f De Mundi Opificio, p. 4. £ lb. p. 5.

^k lb. p. 7. ' lb. p. 32. Mleg. I. p. 61.

^k De Confus. Ling. vol. I. p. 427. Sec also p. 505.

~ ¹ Pag. 29. 102.

Hvdpamos, the invisible or intellectual man who is after the image of God in the Mind of God: and it never entered into his conception to speak of the Logos as a material man. It is true, that Philo had persuaded himself, that this was the real meaning of Moses: but it can also be proved, that he himself took the notion from the Platonists : for Justin Martyr, who thought that Plato had taken his account of the creation from Moses, charges him with having mistaken the words of Moses: “ he thought that the man, who is first “ named, existed before the one who was made; and that “ the one who was formed out of earth, was made later “ after the preexisting pattern^m.” It is true, that Philo speaks of the Logos as God: but then he also says that the universal Mind is Godⁿ: in the same manner he says in one place, “ the Logos of God is above all the world, and is the eldest and most generic (ysmcorarof) of all created “ things⁰:” and yet in another place he says, “ God is the “ most generic thing, and the Logos of God is second P.”

I would also quote the following passages: “ The Logos of “ God is his shadow, which he used as an instrument when “ he made the world: and this shadow is as it were the “ archetypal pattern of other things.” “ Behold this world: “ you will find the cause of it to be God, by whom it was

“ made : and the instrument to be the Logos of God,

“ by whom it was arranged <l.” The following passage will prove, that the Logos of Philo was not a separately existing being, but only another expression for the Deity, who acts by a thought or a word, both of which are comprehended in the term Logos. “ God spoke and made at the same “ time, nothing intervening between the two: or if I may “ express the doctrine with more truth, the Logos is his “ work^r. Now nothing moves more rapidly than a word

“ (Xoyot/) even among men : and as He who is unpro-

“ duced is quicker than every thing produced, so also the “ Logos of Him who is unproduced outruns that of beings “ who are produced^s.” It has been observed, that Philo speaks of the Logos as wpes-^uToiros, the eldest Son of God: but this was merely to mark the Intellectual World as prior to the material world: thus he says, “ This world is the “ younger Son of God, as being sensible: for that which is

^m Cohort. 30. p. 2Q, 30. See Beausobre, vol. II. p. 314.

” Toy ran oahi» m5 « lo-ri 6e«. Alleg. III. p. 93. ° lb. p. 121.

p lb. II. p. 82. De Cberubim, vol. I. p. 162.

' 'o \iyts ifym airm, which is rightly translated, dictum et factum idem est. ■

^a De Sacrif. Abelis et Cain. vol. I. p. 175.

“ elder than this he calls Idea, and that is Intellectual O’ “■ We are justified in saying that the Creator, who made “ this universe, is also the father of that which was made; “ and the mother of it is the knowledge (effWTtj/Mjv) of him “ who made it, with whom God was united, and she con- “ ceived the only and beloved son, this world. Wisdom is “ introduced by one of the sacred writers, speaking of him- “ self in this manner, God possessed me the first of his “ works, and Jbunded me before the world^u.” This is an evident allusion to Prov. viii. 22.^x, and the Wisdom or knowledge of God is here said by Philo to have produced the world: so that if we take what he says of the Logos of God in a personal sense, we ought also to understand the Wisdom of God personally: whereas it is plain, that the Wisdom of God is merely another term for God himself. This may enable us to refute another fanciful notion of Bryant, who would persuade us that the Platonizing Jews believed in a Trinity of divine persons, God, Mind or Rea­son, and Wisdom y-. but the following passage must pre­vent us from admitting such an opinion. Philo gives an allegorical interpretation of Numbers xxxv. 25, and.says, “The High Priest is not a man, but the divine Logos .... “ who had incorruptible and the purest parents; his father “ was God, who is also the father of all things; and his mo- “ ther is Wisdom, by whom all things came into existence².” This passage effectually precludes the notion of a Trinity in the Christian sense: for Bryant would persuade us, that the Logos of Philo answers to the Son of God of the Chris­tians : but the Logos is here said to be produced from God and Wisdom; i. e. when God in his Wisdom thought to create the world, his mind impressed upon Matter those forms, the Ideas of which had been eternally present to it. Bryant also would give a mystical sense to what Philo here says of the High Priest not being a man: as if it was in­tended to signify, that his nature was not human but divine. But it is plain that Philo was merely following his usual love of allegory, and asserted, that the High Priest' in this place is not to be interpreted literally of a man, but figura­tively of the Logos. The following passage also is nothing but a Platonic description of the process of creation: “ The “ father of the universe bade this eldest son spring forth, “ whom elsewhere he has termed the first-born, and he that

* Quod Deus sit immutabilis, vol. I. p. 277. I have adopted the correction of iHav for ouilvu.

¹¹ De Ebrietate, vol. 1. p. 361,362. * See Note 36. p.363.

>' Pag. 76. ^z De Profiigis, vol. I. p. 562. See also p. 553.

“ was begotten, imitating the ways of his father, looking to “ his archetypal models, formed the different species ^a.” If the passages already quoted are not sufficient to prove that the Logos of God, according to Philo, was merely an energy or manifestation of God himself, we may find this doctrine expressly asserted. “ The Word which is born to Him is “ not a mere striking of the air, mixed up with any thing “ else, but it is incorporeal and divested, not differing from “ the monad V The readers of Plato will be aware that the monad was only a term for God. “ His power, which “ formed and arranged every thing, is truly called God^c.” Upon those words in Gen. xxxi. 13, I am the God, &fc. Philo observes, “ He calls his eldest Logos in this place “ God^d:” all which only confirms what is very simply de­clared by Chalcidius in his Commentary upon Plato, Ra- “ tio Dei Deus est^e.” If Bryant had accurately considered the language of Philo, he would have observed, that the re­lative term 7rpEo-/3uraroj, eldest, as applied to the Logos, pre­cludes the notion of his being literally and personally the Son of God. I have already quoted a passage in which the mate­rial world is called the younger Son of God, which may ex­plain in what sense the Intellectual World is called his eldest Son. We might infer the same from the passage last quoted, where Philo speaks of “ the eldest Logos:” and accordingly we find the same term applied to the Angels, who are called Ao'yoi^f: and the eldest Son is called in distinction the Arch­angel. Thus Philo is speaking of the Angels, when he says, “ As many as are the Koyot, so are the kinds and sorts “ of virtues.” When commenting upon Gen. xlviii. 15,16. he observes, “ It is a beautiful distinction which makes God, “ and not the Logos, the person who Jed him; but very “ naturally he speaks of the Angel, which is the Logos, as “ redeeming him from evil. For it pleases him that God “ himself in his own person should give the principal bless- “ ings; but the second are given by the Angels, his Ao'yoi^h.” But to prevent all doubt upon the subject, he says in a few words, “ He that follows God, has as a matter of course the “ Ao'yoi which attend upon him, which it is customary to

^a De Confus Ling. vol. I. p. 414.

¹ Quod Deus sit immutabilis, vol. I. p. 285.

* De Confus. Ling. vol. I. p. 425.

^d Quod a Deo raittantiir Sotnnia, vol. 1. p. 651;. ^e Cap. 54. p. 299.

^r Schurzfleiscbius, in his Dissertation upon the Logos, expresses a doubt whether Philo calls the Angels \iym. §. 5, Many instances of his doing so are adduced hy Sandius, Interp. Paradox, p. 260. See Grotius ad Sap. xviii. 15. .

b De Post., Cain. vol. I. p. 242; ^h Leg. Alleg. III. vol. I. p. 122.

“ call AngelsThe following passage, which is conceived entirely in the manner of Plato, may explain how the term Ao'yoi came to be applied to the Angels. Philo says that before the creation of man there were “ certain rational (Ao- “ yixai) Natures, some incorporeal and intellectual, others “ not without bodies, such as the stars’⁵.” The intellectual Gods were in fact merely the Ideas in the Mind of the Deity, which by giving form to Matter created the material world, and also the other Gods or spiritual beings, which had an actual existence. The first or intellectual Gods were called Aoyixoi, because they were in the Mind of the Deity; they were in fact his Logos or Reason: but the second Gods, which Philo and the Platonizing Jews identified with the Angels of scripture, were formed after the pattern of the former, and were therefore also called Aoyixoi or Aoyoi, because they were copies of the first or archetypal Logos¹. If we are not careful in making this distinction, the lan­guage of Philo will appear inconsistent; since he sometimes speaks of these spiritual beings as having an actual exist­ence,'and sometimes he seems to treat them as mere attri­butes or operations of the Deity. In the former case he is speaking like a Jew of the ministering Angels, or like a Platonist, of the heavenly bodies; in the latter he personi­fies the several attributes of God, and supposes them to be beings attendant upon him. Thus he says, “ that with the “ one true God there are two supreme and principal facul- •“ ties, Goodness and Power: that by Goodness he pro- ■ “ duced the universe, and by Power he governs that which ■“ is produced. His Reason is a third thing between the “ two, and keeping them together: for it is by his- Reason “ that God governs and is good ^m.” Again, he speaks of Abraham receiving the three Angels, “ when God, attended ■“ by two of the supreme Powers, Sovereignty and Good- “ ness, himself being between them, appeared in a threefold “ form ; not one of which is limited ; for God is uncircum- “ scribed, and his Powers also are uncircumscribedⁿ.” If we compare these two passages together, it is plain that the Logos of God is no other than God himself; and that he

* De Migrat. Abrahami, vol. I. p. 463. ^fc De Mundi Opif. vol. I. p. 34.

¹ The conuexion of Gnosticism with the Alexandrian Platonism may be seeu in the following passage: rov ayysXov aoUavro at avro Oua? svtivov, koyov »Ta.yyiKlm rov ovros. Xiyovtrt 2s xctt rob$ aluvas ofituvufAMg rev Xayaj \o-

yovs. Excerpt, e Theodoto. (ad fin. Clem. Alex. p. 975.) The iEons of the. Gnostics were therefore the same \vith the x'oyai of Philo j and both were confounded with the Angels of the scriptures.

^m De Cheruhim, vol. I. p. 144.

ⁿ De Sacrif. Abelis et Cain, vol. X. p. 173.

is only personified by a figure of speech, like the Power or Goodness of God. Again, when commenting upon Deut. x. 17. he says, “ Do not you see, that the first and greatest of “ the Powers attend upon God, tire beneficent and the cor- “ rective Power ? The beneficent is called God, since by “ this he formed and arranged the universe: the other is “ called Lord, by which he wields the dominion of the uni- “verse⁰.” It will be observed, that God is here said to have formed the world by his Beneficence, which will ex­plain what we are to understand by the more frequent expression, that he formed it by his Logos. The Logos of God is evidently no more a distinct person, than is the Be­neficence of God: the latter is here said by Philo to be only another term for God himself: and these attributes are identified with the Logos in the following passage, where Philo speaks of “ the Logos of the Supreme, and his “ creative and kingly power: for to these belong the heaven “ and the whole world P.” He speaks more plainly of these attributes in the following passage; “ God cannot change, “ and wants the assistance of no other being: but of the “ Powers which he put forth for creation, to benefit the uni- “ verse, some have names given to them relatively, as, for

“ instance, the kingly, the beneficent allied to these is

“ the creative power, which is called God: for by this “ power the Father begat and arranged all things').” - I have perhaps said enough to shew that Philo never conceived the idea of the Logos being a person distinct from God; though,he may have gone much farther than Plato in personifying the Logos and the other attributes of God; and we can easily understand how the Gnostics at this very time were extracting from the Platonic philosophy their endless genealogies of JEons. If this be so, Bryant’s hypothesis can hardly be admitted, that Philo borrowed many ideas and expressions from the apostolic writings. I would by no means assert that this was chronologically im­possible : and Bryant appears to be much nearer the truth than Mangey, when he argues that Philo survived our Sa-. viour by several years. But if the apostles spoke of the Son of God, as a being so distinctly personal, that he was in a human body on earth, while his Father was in heaven, what possible resemblance, I would ask, is there between this doctrine, and any thing in the philosophy of Plato? and how could a creed like this have supplied any ideas to

° De Sacrificantibus, vol. II. p. 258. p De Profugis, vol. I. p. 561.

« De Nom. Mutat. vol. I. p. 582, 583. Similar passages may be seen in vol. II. p. 18,19, 20, 150.

Philo, who still spoke of the Logos of God as another ex­pression for God himself; and meant by it the attributes and operations of God, as displayed in the creation and government of the world ? Dr. Priestley would persuade ijs, that St. John wrote his Gospel in order to refute the Gnos­tic notion of the personality pf the Logos, and to prove that he was only “ an attribute of the Father, and therefore not “ to be distinguished from God himself. It is possible,” he adds, “ that John had heard of the doctrine of Philo, “ who made a second God of the Logos: and if that kind “ of personification had begun to spread among Christikns “ so early as the time of John, it is not impossible but that “ he might, in his usual indirect manner, allude to it^r.” But the facts are directly against this hypothesis: and if Dr. Priestley had studied Philo, he might have seen, that Philo’s, notion of the Logos was precisely that which he supposes St. John intended to maintain. Le Clerc adopted a totally different hypothesis, and conceived that St. John in the opening of his Gospel intended to confute the doc­trines contained in the works of Philo concerning the Lo­gos®. An answer has been given to this theory by Vi­tringa ¹ and by Lampe ^u. But it has been observed, that there are expressions applied to the Son of God in the New Testament, which so remarkably resemble those which are applied by Philo to the Logos, that the one must have been borrowed from the other. To which I would reply, that we must make a marked distinction in these expres­sions, which appear so similar: and I would also lay down the following canon, That where the same terms are found in two systems, but in one of them they are used simply and literally, in the other figuratively, that system which uses them literally cannot have borrowed them from the other. Now with respect to the terms Son of God, and Beloved Son, the Christians applied these literally to Christ; but Philo and the Platonists never meant that the Intel­lectual World was literally the Son of God. The resem­blance therefore here is only verbal or accidental. I would say the same of the term only begotten, which, though I have not observed it in the works of Philo, is applied by Plato to the World. So also the Christians believed the Son to be eternal, superior to Angels, and the Creator of all things, in his own personal character; so that they could not have borrowed these terms from Philo, who applied

^r History of early Opinions, I. 3. vol. I. p. 181, 182.

■ Pafaphras. XVIII. priorum commatum Gv. Joannis. Epist. Crit. IX.

* Observ. Sacr. V. 11. p. 130, &c. “ Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 52. p. 204.

them to the Logos, merely because that Logos was God himself. But with respect to such expressions as first be­gotten, Image of God, and Light, which are applied to Christ, it is by no means improbable that the terms them­selves may have been adopted by the Christians, because they were in common use: and if the term Logos, as I have endeavoured to shew, came to be used for Christ, from its holding so conspicuous a place in the Gnostic phi­losophy, it was very natural that it should retain, as its accompaniments, other expressions, which the Platonists had applied to it, and which suited in an equal or even in a greater degree the doctrine of the Christians.

The opinion of Philo upon this subject has been dis­cussed with great learning by Mosheim, Annot. in Cud- worth, IV. 36. not. ^v, and by Brucker, vol. II. p. 808, &c. The latter shews also that the Logos of Philo and St. John were quite different in vol. III. p. 259: as does Witsius, Miscell. Sacr. part. II. exerc. 3. Vitringa decides, that Philo was indebted for his notions about the Logos entirely to the school of Plato. Observ. Sacr. V. 11. vol. II. p. 132. So does Le Clerc, Epist. Crit. VIII. p. 257. Sandius, who was an Arian, endeavoured to prove, that Plato as well as Philo spoke of the Logos as a distinct person. Interp. Pa­radox. p. 267, &c.

NOTE 94—See Lecture VII. p. 215.

I have given at p. 394. the scheme of the eight first Gnostic -(Eons according to the system of Valentinus. It will be seen, that. Bythos, or the first cause, produced Nus, and Nus produced Logos. Archbishop Laurence has ob­served with truth, that we cannot positively decide that 'these iEons were arranged in the same way in the first cen­tury^f. And yet there is great evidence, as I stated in Note 48. that the eight first iEons of Valentinus were borrowed from those of the earlier Gnostics : and when Irenaeus speaks of St. John writing his Gospel to refute the errors of the Gnostics, he expressly says, that they taught, that Logos was the Son of Monogenes S. We learn from another place in Irenaeus, that Monogenes was a different name for the same iEon, which was also called Nus^h : so that we may reasonably assume, that the first Gnostics considered Logos to be one of the earliest emanations from the first cause. It is perhaps not difficult to give some explanation of this fanciful system. Bythos, or the Unfathomable, was not an

« III. II.1.p. 188.

¹¹ I. i-p. 5-

unnatural name for the great first Cause: and when he was coupled with Ennoea, or Sige, this was merely express­ing by allegory, that God was alone with his own Mind, be­fore any thing was produced. But the Gnostics were not content with following Plato, who spoke of God and the Mind of God as one and the same, but they gave to his Mind a separate personality, and called Nus the first iEon produced from Bythos and Ermcea. Nor was this all. Plato had also called the Mind of God Logos: and this was ac­cordingly invested with a similar personality, and Logos became the name of the third jEon. The three first iEons, Bythos, Nus, and Logos, were therefore nothing else than names or modes of God himself: but it seems probable, that the division of Logos into evSictOeros and TtgoQopixb; also produced an effect upon the system of Gnostic iEons. It is perhaps possible, by a minute metaphysical abstraction, to speak of Reason as the offspring of Mimd: and yet when the terms are applied to the Deity, it is difficult not to identify them : but if Logos be taken for a Word, it is a much less violent me.taphor to speak of Logos as the offspring of Mind. The Gnostics probably defended their system on these grounds : and a passage in Irenaeus seems to tell us expressly, that the Gnostics did not make their Logos IvSia- flerof, but irpofopiKQs'. Tertullian, though, as we have seen, he preferred translating Logos by Ratio, says that Nus put forth not Ratio, but Sermo^k: and Theodoret, as I have quoted him at p. 393. calls this iEon not Aoyoj, but 4>tovij. This may perhaps explain, why Bythos was coupled not only with Ennoea, or Conception, but also with Sige, or Silence. Before a thought is embodied in sound, the Mind may be said to be silent: but as soon as it gives utterance to the thought by words, the silence is broken ; and so a Word may be said to be the offspring of Silence as well as of Mind. This was precisely the allegory, which was re­presented by the Gnostic iEons: and though it might seem more natural for them to have said, that Bythos and Sige produced Logos, we may remember that the intervening iEon, Nus, was merely another name for the first Cause, though raised by the Gnostics into a distinct iEon; and that if we divest the system of its allegory, we might say in­differently, that Logos was the offspring of Nus, or of By­thos and Sige. There is however some evidence, that this second jEon, Nus, did not appear in the earliest scheme of Gnostic iEons. Cyril of Jerusalem has left a statement, which is different from any other, and has greatly perplexed ⁵ II. 12. 5. p. 129. ^k Adv. Valedtin. 7. p. 253.

O O

the commentators. He writes thus, “ Bythos begat Sige, “ and from Sige he begat Logos: in which he was worse “ than the Jupiter of the Greeks, who was united to his “ sister; for Sige was said to be the offspring of Bythos^l.” No other writer has said that Sige was the daughter of By­thos, or that Logos was the offspring of Bythos and Sige : for which reason Pearson ^m would leave out the word Logos, and would merely read, that Bythos begat an offspring (lrfjtvowo/>)ire) from Sige. But the remarkable passage in Ig­natius, which I have quoted in part at p. 204, may perhaps confirm the statement given by Cyril. Ignatius says, “ There “ is one God, who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his ‘^f Son, who is his eternal Logos, not proceeding from Silence, “ (Sige ⁿ.)” No person can doubt, but that Ignatius here alluded to the Gnostic notion of Bythos and Sige : and he might seem to agree with Cyril in saying, that Logos, ac­cording to the Gnostics, was the immediate offspring of By­thos and Sige, without the intervention of Nus and Alethia. Irenaeus informs up, that the same J5on was known by several names: thus he tells us, that Bythos was called also Propa­ter, or the first Father. Ennosa, with whom he was united, was called Sige and Charis. In the same manner Nus, the first iEon produced from them, had the other appella­tions of Monogenes, Pater, and Arche. We are told also by Irenaeus and Tertullian, that Nus was like and equal to his Father in all things, and was alone capable of compre­hending his immensity ; which may perhaps lead us to the conclusion, that the later Gnostics made two separate beings out of one; and that Bythos and Nus were originally the same. If this were so, the Gnostics of the first century, and before the time of Ignatius, made Logos (not the Rea­son, but the Word of God) the first emanation from the Mind of God: and when Irenaeus said, that Monogenes was another name for Nus the first iEon, he was perhaps so far right, that it was a name of the first JEon; but I would conjecture that this first iEon was not Nus but Logos. There may be much of hypothesis in all this: but if we suppose the Gnostics to have taught that the first-begotten of God was called Logos and Monogenes, we might easily believe on the one hand, that the Christians, who were con­verted from Gnosticism, would transfer these terms to the true Son of God; and that St. John on the other hand would be careful to point out the difference between the Logos of the Christians and the Logos of the Gnostics.

¹ Catech. VI. p. 89,90. ed. 1703. ^m Vindic. Ignat, part. II. c. 5 •

“ Ad Magnes. 8. p. 19.

Dr. Priestley was undoubtedly wrong, when he said that the Gnostics believed the Logos to be Christ and the Maker of all things⁰. There never were any Gnostics, who be­lieved the Mon Christ to be the Maker of all things. The Demiurgus was a totally different ^Eon: and Christ was supposed to be put forth, purposely to free mankind from the tyranny of the Demiurgus, and to reveal the knowledge of the true God. Neither is there the slightest evidence, that the Logos and Christ were identified by the Gnostics. Irenaeus says of the Gnostics, that they made Monogenes, Logos, and Christ, to be all different beings P. Christ was supposed to be a much later iEon than the Logos 9, which was the second, if not the first: and one object of St. John may have been to eradicate all these notions; to shew, that the Son of God was really and truly first begotten and only begotten; that if the term Logos was to be applied to him, it must be identified with Chnst; that Christ, the only Lo­gos, and no other Son of God, was the Maker of all things ; that he was not a late emanation, but had been from all eternity with God. .

The principal writers upon the Logos are the following: Stolbergius, de Aoyui et via Platonico, in Exerc. Graec. Ling. Diss. II. p. 196. Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra, part. II. Exerc. III. de Sermone Deo, p. 87. Lamy, de Verbo Dei. Saubertus, de voce Aoyoj. Archbishop Laurence, Disser­tation on the Logos. Vander Wayen, Diss. de Aoyog. Ed- zardus, de Verbo Substantiali. Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. vol. I. p. 244. Carpzovius, Prolegom.! ad Exerc. Sacr. in Epist. ad Heb. ex Philone, lib. VII. p. cvii. Waterland, Sermon 1. vol. II.

NOTE 95.—See Lecture VII. p. 223.

The following passages from the Fathers will shew how conscious they were, that the analogy of human reason or human speech was altogether imperfect when applied to the Son of God; and the different methods which they take to explain how the Son of God can be called the Logos of God, may lead to the conclusion already advanced, that Logos was a term which came to the Christians from some other quarter, and that they themselves had no wish to adopt it. Thus Justin Martyr defends the use of the term Logos,

° Hist, of Corruptions, vol. I. p. 12.

pI. 9.2. p. 44. II. 19. 9. p. 144. III. 16. 8. p. 207. IV. 53.3. p. 271. Theo­doret. Harr. Fab. V. 2. p. 253.

1 Iren. 1. c. p. 144.

when addressing the heathen, by reminding them that they called Mercury the Word or Messenger of God^r.

Irenaeus condemns the Gnostics for making Logos to be produced from Nus, “ taking the production of it from the “ case of men, and applying it to God, as if they had made “ some great discovery in saying that a word is put forth “ from the mind, which all know to be perfectly true with “ respect to men; but in the supreme God, who is all Mind “ and all Logos, and who has nothing in himself which is “ prior or posterior, but continues equal and like and one, “ no production of this kind can take place^s.” And again, “ but God being all Mind and all Logos, what he thinks, “ that he also speaks; and what he speaks, that he also “ thinks. For his thought is Logos, and his Logos is Mind, “ and Mind comprehending every thing is the Father him- “ self. He therefore who speaks of the Mind of God, and “ gives a particular production to the Mind, declares him to “ be compound, as if God were one thing, and the principal “ Mind another. It is the same with respect to the Word: “ he who ascribes to him a production in the third degree “ from the Father, separates the Word at a great distance

“ from God. They have therefore not made any great

“ discovery by inventing these emissions, nor any hidden “ mystery, by transferring that which all persons under- “ stand, to the only-begotten Word of God*.”

Eusebius seems to have thought himself at liberty to give any explanation of the term Logos which he chose. Thus in one place, where he institutes a special inquiry into the meaning of St. John, he says that he called the Son of God the Ij}gos, on account of those expressions in the Old Tes­tament, where the Word of the Lord is said to have come to the prophets'¹: but he had before given five different signi­fications of the Greek term Logos, and said that none of these could be applied to the Son of God, who was the Logos absolutely, and not relatively ^x. In another place he said he was the Son, oti touc tSiv oma.vrusv Srjpioupyixou; re xal voivjTixovg \oy005 0 sraiiroxpuTcop sv aura xarafiefiMiToci, Xoyw xa) Taj-ei Toi cujMTctvTu Sis7rsiv aurco xa1 8iaxu/3epvav wctgtxSovgy": to which he adds, “ For let no one think that the Word of “ God is similar to a word, which among men is composed

^r 'Egpiw Xoyov <rov sgfiyvtvrlxov xat ifavruv %ibaffnaXoV' Apol. I. 21. p. 56. ftyv Xoyov tov •Tra.fia ayyiXrixov. Ib. 22. p. 57*

■ II. 13. 8. p. 131, 132. ¹ Ib. 28. 5- p. 157.

^u De Eccles. Theol. II. 18. p. 128, 129. * Ib. 13, 14. p. 120.

y Dem. Evang. V. 5. p. 229, 230.

“ of syllables, and made up of nouns and verbs, articulate “ and put forth.”

Augustin says plainly, that the Son is called the Word of God, because his Father makes known his will by him, in the same manner that a man makes known his mind by words ^z.

NOTE 96.—See Lecture VII. p. 224.

I have ¹¹ ' 223. given some explanation of the

have also stated at p. 475. that this Gospel was said by some of the Fathers to nave been directed particularly against Cerinthus and Ebion. Epiphanius adds, that the very first words refuted the Ebionites; but that nevertheless these heretics prefixed the name of St. John to some of their own fictitious writings³. The Valentinians went so far as to quote the beginning of this Gospel as favouring their own tenets ^b: other heretics rejected it altogether: and the Gos­pel, as well as the Revelations of St. John, were ascribed by them to Cerinthus. Epiphanius gives the name of Alogi to these heretics, because they rejected St.John’s doctrine con­cerning the Logos ^c. The subject has been treated by many learned writers, who have pointed out the different Gnostic errors, against which each particular clause was directed. This is done with much ingenuity by Michaelis in his Intro­duction to the New Testament; but I cannot venture to de­cide whether he is? correct in asserting that St. John also wrote “ against the sect, which took its name from John the “ Baptist: for the members of this sect not only made use “ of the word light, &c. but contended, that John the Bap- “ tist was the Light, a doctrine combated by our Evange- “ list^d.” Michaelis says, that a totally new light was thrown on St. John’s Gospel in the last century, by the dis­covery of the religious writings of the Sabians, a sect who still call themselves disciples of John the Baptist^e. But it is rather against this hypothesis, that not one of the Fathers, nor any other writer in ancient or modern times, had any

* De Fide et Symb. e. 3. vol. VI. p. 153. ■ Hasr. XXX. 23. p. 147.

^b Iren. I. 8. 5. p. 40. III. 11. 7. p. 190. See Beausobre, vol. II. p. 291.

^c Haer. LI. 3. p. 423.

^d Page 286. TTie same notion was held by Tittman and Ziegler, and is also briefly alluded to by Grotius (in Joan, init.') It seems to have originated with the Socinian commentators, and was maintained by Svnalcius, (Homil. X. supra initium Joannis, &c. p. 2.) Slichtingius (Comment. in Joan, init.) and Wolzogenius (Prolegom. in Joan. c. III.) It is considered and rejected by Lampe, (Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 49. p. 201, 202.)

^e See Ignatius a Jesu, de Christianis S. Joannis. Romae 1652. Wagensei- lius, Synops. Hist. Univ. part II. p. 84.

different

opening of St.John’s Gospel. I

notion of St.John having combated the tenets of this sect till the end of the 18th century. Michaelis observes, that the Sabians have sometimes been called Hemerobaptistse. But I cannot discover his authority for this remark. Epi­phanius mentions such a sect as existing among the Jews ^f, but he clearly did not connect them in the smallest degree with Christianity or with John the Baptist. They had their name from their frequent and daily ablutions. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions also mentions them S: but he appears to have heard nothing more concerning them. Still however there is force in the remark of Michaelis, that the Evangelist would not have said of John the Baptist, He was not that light, unless some persons had asserted that he was: and if there were persons in those days who held the opinions of the modern Sabians, we perhaps shall not be able to give so good an explanation of the frequent mention of Light, as by supposing the Evangelist to have had them in his view. That St. John must have had some peculiar rea­son for speaking so often of Light, must be evident to every one who reads his Gospel and Epistles: but the total loss of all the writings of the Gnostics, and our little knowledge of the thirty years which preceded the death of St. John, must perhaps make it hopeless for us ever to understand the allu­sion. Waterland would refer the expression of Light and Darkness in v. 5. to the eastern doctrine of two principles, which he conceives to have been held by Cerinthus ^h. But the evidence in support of this notion is extremely slight. It is possible however that we are seeking for a mystery, where after all there was little or none. The Gnostics, it is well known, made it their boast that they alone had the knowledge of the true God: and they were very likely also to say, that they alone were in the light, while all the rest of mankind was in darkness. Similar expressions were used by the Apostles concerning the true Light, i. e. the Gospel. Matt. iv. 16. Rom. ii. 19. 2 Cor. iv. 4. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 9- They call the Christians children of Light, Eph. v. 8. 1 Thess. v. 5. an expression which our Saviour himself had used, Luke xvi. 8. and St. John represents him in several places as calling himself the Light, viii. 12. ix. 5. xii. 46. It appears also, that persons boasted of being the Light, or in the Light, who were far from deserving so high a distinction. St. Paul says it of the Jews, Rom. ii. 19. ana when St. John writes, He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now', 1 John ii. 9. it seems plain,

t Haer. XVII. p. 36. ⁸ VI. 6. ^h Vol. V. p. 1S3. 362.

i Compare 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 1 John iii. 14, ij.

that some persons said they were in the light, whose pre­tensions were thought by St. John to be false. The Gnos­tics, as I have already observed, borrowed the right of bap­tism from the Christians; at the performance of which rite they said, that they rose again from death to life. It is not improbable that they also used the less violent metaphor, and spoke of being brought from darkness into light: and I con­jecture this, because we know that the Christians spoke of baptism in this manner. The term lightened, or illuminated, (pcoTia-Oei/Ts;,) is twice used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (vi, 4. x. 32.) and in each case there is an evident allusion to the time of admission into the Christian covenant. In the third or fourth century Baptism and Enlightening came to be synonymous terms ^k; and it was therefore very natural that the Gnostics should have borrowed, together with the ceremony, the term which was applied to it: or I would not dispute against the notion, that the Gnostics may have been the first to speak of themselves as being in the light. At all events, there are good grounds for conjecturing that Gnosticism was said by its disciples to be the only true light: and whoever considers the rapidity with which names of party are spread, and the effect which they produce upon the opinions and minds of men, might picture to himself without much difficulty, that during that period, of which we know so little, between the deaths of St. Paul and St. John, the terms light,and darkness were in general circula­tion ; that the Gnostics were in their own eyes the illumi­nated, while all who did not possess their knowledge were in darkness. If this hypothesis be admitted, it is perhaps more simple to conclude that St. John meant to assert that Christ was the true light, in opposition to the pretensions of the Gnostics, than to suppose that he combated the errors of the Sabians, or that he had in view the Oriental and Cabbalistic notions of the fountain of divine light. A passage in Cle­ment of Alexandria might even lead us to think, that he looked upon the opening of St.John’s Gospel as a compa­rison between the effect of Christian and Gnostic baptism. He informs us that the Gnostics ridiculed the Christians for calling themselves children, whereas they themselves were perfect He then shews, that the Christians called them­selves children, because they were born again at baptism: but he adds, that though children, they were also perfect and knew God in a much truer sense than the Gnostics:

^k See Suicer’s Thesaurus, <ptaritrp.it, QarirrvpiM.

¹ Paedag. I. 6. p. nz, &c.

“At the moment of our being regenerated, we received “ that which is perfect, which was the object of our earnest “ desire: for we were enlightened; and'this is to know God.

“ When we are baptized, we are enlightened; when

“ enlightened, we are adopted as sons; when adopted, we “ are made perfect; when perfect, we obtain immortality.

“ This operation is expressed by various names, Grace,

“ Enlightening, Perfection, and Washing. it is Enlight-

“ ening, by which that holy and saving light is beheld, “ by which we have a clear perception of what is divine. “ So that we alone are perfect, when we first begin

to arrive at the confines of life; and we live, by being “ separated from death. The following of Christ there- “ fore is salvation: for that which was made in him is “ life^m. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth “ my word, and beUeveth on him that sent me, hath ever- “ lasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but “ is passedfrom death unto life. John v. 24. Thus to be-

“ lieve and to be regenerated is alone perfection in life.----

“ He alone that is regenerated, as he bears the name, so “ also by being enlightened he is freed immediately from “ darkness; and thenceforth he receives the light. But “ not yet, as the Gnostics say, has he received the perfect “ gift. I allow it. But still he is in the light, and the “ darkness comprehendeth him not.'" The allusion to the opening of St.John’s Gospel is very apparent. The 4th and 5th verses are expressly quoted: and Clement under­stood them to mean, that a Christian, when he is baptized, is raised from death to life, from darkness to light, and that he enjoys in a true sense all those privileges which the Gnostics only pretended to possess. In another place he says, “ He that has the light is awake, and darkness com- “ prehendeth him notⁿand he would have paraphrased the 4th and 5th verses thus: “ He that is born again in “ Christ rises to a new and immortal life: this life is the “ true light of men: it is the only light, which dispels the “ darkness of sin and death : and over him who hath that “ light darkness has no power.” If it be asked, how this declaration is connected with what goes before, the answer seems plain. The three first verses assert the divine nature of Christ, in opposition to the erroneous doctrines of the Gnostics concerning him. They assert what he was before

^m I have already spokeu of this mode of reading John i. 3,4. at p. 290. Clement appears to have understood the passage figuratively as meaning, He that is born again in Christ, is life.

ⁿ Psedag. II. 9. p. 218.

he came into the world, his eternity, his divinity, his unity with God, and with that God who created the world. All these points were denied by the Gnostics; who added, that Christ was sent into the world merely to reveal the know­ledge of God; and that this knowledge was light and life. St. John, therefore, after having explained what Christ was in his own nature, goes on to state what was the cause and the consequence of his coming into the world: it was in­deed, as the Gnostics said, to bring life a/nd immortality to light; but in a very different sense from what the Gnostics affixed to these terms: and the whole of his Gospel may be considered as explaining to us what is light and what is life. The Gnostics probably said, that knowledge alone was light and life, and paid little regard to the person of Christ, who had merely revealed it. But St. John wrote to shew that Christ was himself both Light and Life: and we may com­pare the expression in his Gospel, The Logos was with God, with that at the beginning of his First Epistle, We shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. By comparing these two pas­sages together, we find that the Logos and Lvfe are identi­fied with each other, and with that person who was mani­fested imto us, or, as it is in the Gospel, who became flesh, and dwelt among us. This last assertion may have been directed against all the Gnostics, whether Cerinthians or Docetse, who equally denied that the divine nature of Christ was born or took flesh : and I would not maintain that St. John had not also in his view those expressions of the Pla- tonizing Jews, which appear so similar to the Christian doc­trines, but which, as I have endeavoured to shew, were really so different⁰. The Logos of these writers, and par­ticularly of Philo, had no distinct personal existence; and the Jewish Gnostics may have formed their notions upon this system. St. John may therefore have intended to shew, that the Logos, or Son of God, as he was acknowledged by the Christians, had a personal existence, and was united with the human nature of Jesus.

I must repeat, that we know so little of the Gnostic doc­trines for the last thirty years of the first century, that we cannot expect to understand' accurately all the allusions in the Gospel of St. John : but enough perhaps has been said to shew, that it was intended generally as a refutation of the Gnostic notions concerning Christ. A more minute

⁰ That St. John had in view the notion of Philo concerning the Logos, was maintained by Le Clerc in the paraphrase mentioned at the end of this note, and in Epist. Crit. IX.

analysis of the beginning of the Gospel has been given by Bishop Bull, Judic. Eccles. Cathol. c. II. Le Clerc, Pa­raphrasis 18 primorum Commatum Evang. S. Joannis. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. V. 10, &c. De Occasione et Scopo Prologi Evang. Joannis, vol. II. p. 122. Michaelis, In­troduction, SfC. Buddeus, Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 437. Lampe, Comment, in Evang. S. Joannis. Oeder, de Scopo Evangelii Joannis. Matter, Histoire du Gnosticisme,vol.I. p. 154. Cocceius, Consid. principii Evang. S. Johannis. Waterland, vol. V. p. 180. Elias Benedictus (Benoit) in Evang. Joan, versiculos XVIII. primos.

NOTE 97.—See Lecture VIII. p. 236.

I ought perhaps to say something of Diotrephes, whom St. John mentions in his Third Epistle. I wrote unto the Church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and Jbrbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church. (9,10.) This is all which has come down to us concerning Diotrephes, and there is little or no evidence that he is to be classed among heretics. Grotius conceived him to have been a presbyter in the church to which Gaius belonged, and to have been a candidate for the bishopric which was then vacant. He also supposed him to have been a Gentile Christian, and to. have refused communion with the Jewish Christians, who still adhered to the law of Moses. There is however very little ground for this conjecture; and Bartholomseus PetriP ' maintained the opposite opinion, that Diotrephes was him­self a Judaizing Christian. Salmasius adopted a different notion, and expressed himself as follows: “ Since Dio- “ trephes would not acknowledge any superior who had “ power over the presbyters, but the apostles had a right “ of preeminence over them, as being the first presbyters, “ and having appointed the others, Diotrephes therefore “ would not admit St. John, who would have been superior “ in his own right to all bishops and presbyters in his own “church*!.” Hammond does not altogether oppose this notion^r, though he hints, that the pride and obstinacy of Diotrephes is not unlike the character of the Gnostics. That

r He continued Estius’ Commentary upon the Epistles.

i See Salmasius, under the name of Walo Messalinus, de Episcopis et Presbyteris, Diss. I. c. I. p. 24.

^r Diss. de Antichristo, c. 13. p.43.

this person was ambitious of some preeminence, and that in some way or other he opposed the authority of St. John, cannot be doubted: but it is difficult to see how his case can be brought at all to bear upon the question of episco­pacy®. Bede perhaps goes as far as we can safely conjec­ture concerning him, when he says, “ that he preferred by “ a novelty of doctrine to usurp to himself a preeminence “ in knowledge, rather than humbly to obey the ancient “ commands of the church which St. John preached¹:” but when he also speaks of him as “ a proud and insolent here- “ starch,” he has hardly authority for such an expression: and upon the whole I would conclude with Buddeus, that all we know of his character is “ ambit.io, maledicentia, in- “ hospitalitas^u.” A long and ingenious dissertation of Mo­sheim upon this subject may be read in his work de Rebus ante Constantmum, Cent. I. 59- not.^T See Lampe, Pro- legom. in Joan. i. 7.13. p. 113.

NOTE 98.—See Lecture VIII. p. 236.

I have already had occasion frequently to allude to the tenets of Menander: but the account given of him by Jus­tin Martyr is so valuable, on account of his early date, that it ought to be quoted before that of every other writer. After having mentioned Simon Magus, he adds, “We “ know also that one Menander, who was himself a Sama- “ ritan of the village of Capparetaea^x, after being a disciple “ of Simon, and actuated by daemons, when he was in An- “ tioch, deceived many by his magical art. He also per- “ suaded his disciples that they would never die: and now “ there are some of his followers who believe thisy.” The account given by Irenaeus is also short, and not at variance with the preceding. It is as follows: “ The successor of “ Simon was Menander, a Samaritan by birth, who also “ carried magic to a great length. He said that the first “ Power was unknown to all, but that he was himself the “ person who was sent as a Saviour from the invisible beings “ for the salvation of men. He said that the world was “ made by angels, and he taught, like Simon, that they “ were put forth from Ennoea. By the magic which he ^£e taught he professed to convey knowledge, so as to sur- “ pass even the angels who created the world: for his dis- “ ciples received resurrection by baptism in his name, and

* See Blondel, Apol. pro sent. Hieron,. sect. II. p. 13. and Hammond, 1. c.

* Ad 1. vol. V. Op. p. 1050. " Eceles. Apost. p. 315.

¹ Tbeodoret calls this village Cbabrai. Har. Fab. 1.2. p. 193.

y Apol. 1.26. p. 59.

“ could not die any more, but continued free from old age, “ and immortal²." In another place he speaks of the Gnos­tics taking their beginning from Menander³, which shews that he must have thought his tenets to have closely resem­bled those of Simon Magus. Epiphanius and Theodoret do not supply any additional particulars, except that the former mentions that Menander gave himself out as being superior to his master.

For the history of Menander and his principles, I would refer to Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 47. Eccles. Hist, se- lecta Capita, V. 24. p. 284. Mosheim, Instit. Mag. p. 432. Tillemont, Mimoires, vol. II. part I. p. 83. Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares. I. 8. p. 17.

I have often mentioned that Menander is said to have been succeeded by Saturninus and Basilides, the former of whom spread his doctrines in Syria, the latter in Egypt. Baronius supposed that Basilides lived in the apostolic age, though he did not then make himself conspicuous*¹. Pear­son also thought that Menander flourished under Vespasian, and that Saturninus and Basilides laid the foundation of those opinions in the reign of Domitian, which they after­wards spread in the reign of Trajan^c. The arguments of these two writers, who have been supported by Massuet^d and Waterland^e, have been answered by Dallaeus^f and LarroquanusS, who have shewn it to be more probable that the dates of these two heretics should be fixed somewhat later. I have already given other references at p. 283, con­cerning the time at which Basilides lived ; and though both of them were most probably born in the time of the apostles, and perhaps began to spread their doctrines in the reign of Trajan, their history seems to be most connected with the reign of Hadrian. The authority of Praedestinatus is cer­tainly not sufficient to make us believe that Saturninus was condemned by St. Thomas.

For an account of Saturninus I would refer to Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, II. 1. p. 96. Tillemont, Memoires, vol. II. part II. p. 91. Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 44, &c. Lardner, Hist, of Heresies, book II. c. 1. Colbergius, de Orig. et Prog. Hares. III. 2. p. 97.

Micraelius, in his Syntagma Historiarum Ecclesice om­nium, assigns the following dates to the early heretics:

¹1.23. g. p. 100. ^a III. 4.3. p. 179.

^b Ad an. 120. ⁰ Vindic. Ignat, part II. c. f.

^J Prsef. in Iren. Diss. I. §. 112, 113. ^c VoI.V.p.363.

^f De Script. Dionys. et Ignat. II. 10. p. 285.

« Observ. in Vindic. Ignat, p. 253.

Simoniani sub Caligula innotuerunt - A.D. 39. Hymenaeus, Philetus, Phygellus, Alexander, Hermo­genes, Elymas magus sub Claudio - - 44. Nazaraei et Nicolaitae sub Nerone - - 56. Ebionei statim post excidium Hieros. sub Vespasiano 73. Menandriani sub Tito - - - - 80. Diotrephes sub Domitiano - - - 86. Cerinthiani sub eodem .... go. Basilidiani, Carpocratiani, Saturniniani sub Adriano 126.

NOTE 99-—See Lecture VIII. p. 243.

No mistake is more common with modern Unitarian writers than to speak of the early Unitarians, as they call them, believing in the simple humanity of Christ. But the phrase is palpably inaccurate. We shall find the Fathers themselves occasionally neglecting the proper distinction: and Epiphanius, when speaking of Cerinthus or Ebion, sometimes says that they believed Christ to be a mere man, where he ought to have written Jesus. It is perhaps diffi­cult always to guard against this incorrectness of expression: and I have detected it even in the accurate and careful Mosheim. Thus he says, “ that all the Gnostics, although “ they erred most grievously, yet considered Jesus as the “ Son of God, and Saviour of the human race*¹.” He ought to have said Christ, or at least Jesus Christ, for no Gnostic ever thought that Jesus was the Son of God. He makes a similar mistake, when he is refuting the notion of Simon Magus having given himself out as Jesus Christ: “ Could “ he have adopted the person of Jesus Christ, who alto- “ gether abhorred Jesus, and impiously asserted that Christ “ was a magician, who was unable to avoid the punishment “ of the cross' ?” It is well known, that none of the Gnos­tics ever spoke of Christ being crucified: they held, that when Jesus was crucified, the iEon Christ flew up again to the Pleroma. These mistakes, however, proceeded merely from inadvertence, and should only be considered as slips of the -pen.' But a similar confusion pervades almost every page of Dr. Priestley’s works ; and when the verbal inaccu­racy is corrected, his arguments fall to the ground. It is plain, that he selected the Ebionites in preference to the Cerinthians, as the primitive Unitarians, because he chose to assert that they were not Gnostics; and because he knew that the Cerinthians believed Christ to be a divine Mon, who descended upon Jesus. I have endeavoured to shew,

!■ Instit. Maj. p. 395.

■ lb. p.422.

that in both these points the Cerinthians and Ebionites re­sembled each other: but supposing it not to be the case, what a small body of men must these primitive Unitarians have been, even in Dr. Priestley’s view of the case ? The Cerinthians, though they believed Jesus to be a mere man, were not the primitive Unitarians intended by Dr. Priest­ley. He allows that they were Gnostics, and that all the Gnostics were accounted heretics from the earliest times. Where, then, were the primitive Unitarians, before the Ebionites arose ? and how came they to be confined to so small a body as the Ebionites ? Having made these re­marks, I will quote a few passages from Dr. Priestley’s History of early Opinions. He concludes, “ that there “ could not have been many persons who believed the doc- “ trines of the preexistence and divinity of Christ in the “ age of the apostles^k.” If-he meant, that there were not many who believed in the preexistence and divinity of Jesus, it is certainly true that none of the Gnostics held such a tenet: but if he meant to use the term Christ in its proper sense, he must have known his remark to be utterly untrue: for all the Gnostics, except the Ebionites, are al­lowed to have believed Christ to be an iEon, who had pre­existed, and was in some sense divine. Again he says, “ All the Jewish Christians continued believers in the sim- “ pie humanity of Christ only, and acknowledging nothing “ of his preexistence or divinity'.” It is plain, that Dr. Priestley here alluded to the Ebionites: and I have at­tempted to shew that it was the simple humanity of Jesus which they held, and not of Christ. But waving that point, Dr. P. says, that “ all the Jewish Christians believed in the “ simple humanity of Christand his expression may in­clude the Cerinthians as much as the Ebionites: but the Cerinthians would have shrunk with horror from the notion of Christ, who descended upon Jesus, being a mere human being. Again, Dr. P. says, that Irenaeus “ always speaks “ of the Ebionites as denying the preexistence and divinity “ of Christ™.” Now as it is at least a controverted point, whether the Ebionites believed or no that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, Dr. P. should have been precise in his terms, and he should have observed, that Irenaeus never uses the language here ascribed to him. He says that the Ebionites believed Jesus to have been begotten of Jo­seph : but as to their denying the divinity of Christ, he does not say a syllable concerning it. There is another

k III. 8. vol. III. p. 158.

¹ lb. p. 161.

^m lb. p. 163.

passage, in which it is difficult to acquit Dr. Priestley of a wilful alteration of the terms. He quotes Origen as saying of the Ebionites, “ And when you consider the faith con- “ cerning our Saviour of those of the Jews who believe in “ Christ, some thinking him to be the Son of Joseph and “ Mary, and others of Mary only, &c.ⁿ” Here there seems positive evidence of some persons believing Christ to be the son of Joseph : but when we turn to the original passage, which I have translated at p. 508, we find that Origen wrote Jesus, and not Christ, which alters the whole statement, and leaves it still in doubt whether these persons believed Christ to have descended upon Jesus or no. Dr. Priestley must either have substituted Christ for Jesus wilfully, or he did not know that the difference affected a point of doc­trine. He makes the same mistake when he quotes Euse­bius as saying “ that Theodotion and Aquila were both “ Jewish proselytes, whom the Ebionites following, believe “ Christ to be the Son of Joseph⁰.” In the first place, the words are not those of Eusebius, but Irenaeus: and in the next place, he does not use the term Christ, but the pro­noun him, aurov, the last antecedent to which was the Lord; and it is neither the sign of a candid or an accurate writer, to supply the word Christ. In another work, Dr. Priestley states that Paul of Samosata “ held the doctrine of the hu- “ manity of Christ P.” But Paul held no such doctrine, as I shall shew in Note 102: he believed Jesus to be a mere human being; but he conceived him to become Christ by being united to the eternal Logos of God. If we turn from the pages of Dr. Priestley to those of the accurate and candid Lardner, we find a very different representation of the matter, and the distinction of Jesus and Christ is always carefully observed. Thus he states that Cerinthus asserted the real humanity of Jesus: that he said that Jesus was a man born of Joseph and Mary; and that at his baptism the Holy Ghost, or the Christ, descended upon him. It may be said perhaps that other writers were merely guilty of verbal inaccuracies, which candid criticism ought to over­look. But they are not merely verbal inaccuracies. Dr. Priestley intended his readers to conclude, that the early Christians believed in the simple humanity of the person called Jesus Christ, without his having any thing divine in his nature. I repeat, that this is a gross mistatement; and nothing but ignorance could shelter the maker of it from the charge of wilfully perverting the truth.

” lb. p. 167. ⁰ lb. 12. p. 219, 220. ex Eus. V. 8.

p History of the Christian Church, vol. I. p. 398.

Some good remarks upon this distinction between Jesus and Christ will be found m Lampe, Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 31. not.ⁿ p. 190; and he says of the Ebionites, “ Istud “ tamen asserere licet, sententiam eorum, qui Ebionitas sim- “ pliciter Deitatem Christi negasse tradunt, aeque incertam “ esse, ac de Cerintho ostensum est, neque illos, saltern in “ sua origine, aliter de persona Christi, quam ipse Cerin- “ thus, docuisse.” Ib. 39. p. 195, 196.

NOTE 100.—See Lecture VIII. p. 248..

The words in Eusebius are tov a-xurea Qeodorov, tov yov xa) 5r«Tep« tcwttjf rrjc apvijtriSsou uTrocTUGlas 9. Other writers have spoken of Theodotus in the same manner. Epiphanius certainly conceived him to have invented a new doctrine concerning Christ being a mere man^r. The Pseu- do-Tertullian says, that “ he introduced the doctrine, by “ which he said that Christ was only a man, but denied “ that he was God^s.” Damasccnus also speaks of his striking out a new notion (sirsvoyve) in calling Christ a mere man⁴: and Timotheus Presbyter, who evidently copied Eusebius, says plainly that Theodotus “ was the first who asserted “ Christ to be a mere man.” All these expressions tend to the same point: but before I consider their meaning, I shall briefly mention that Theodotus was a tanner, or dresser of leather, at Byzantium, and that he went to’ Rome about the year 192. He is represented by Epiphanius as a man of considerable learning, and versed in the Grecian philosophy.' He appears also to have written in defence of his own opin­ions, and many of his arguments from the scriptures are no­ticed by Epiphanius: but it is difficult to subscribe to the notion, though supported by Ittigius, Cave, and Fabricius, that the Excerpta, which are published at the end of the works of Clement of Alexandria, and ascribed to Theodotus, were written by this heretic. Theodoret informs us, that the founders of this heresy altered and mutilated the scriptures¹³. Ittigius observes, that Eusebius has erred from the truth in what he has said of Theodotus being the first who called Christ a mere man; for Ebion and Cerinthus had held the same doc­trine long before^x. But Dr. Priestley has gone further than this, and charges Eusebius with unfairness to the Unitarians, “ though in his own writings alone he might have found a “ refutation of his assertion y.” It is true, as Horsley has

i Hist. Eccl. V. 28. ^r Haer. LIV. p. 463. Synops. I. II. tom. I. p. 397.

" De Prescript. Haeret. S3- p. 223. ¹ De Haer. vol. I. p. 89.

^u Hasr. Fab. II. s- P- 221. * De Haeresiarchis, p. 261.

y Hist, of Corruptions, vol. I. p. 19.

observed, “ that any one who should assert that Theodotus “ was the first who taught a doctrine, which sunk our Lord “ into the rank of a mere man, might easily be confuted “ from the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius: in which the “ Cerinthians and the Ebionites, who are taxed by all anti- “ quity with that impiety, are referred to an earlier pe- “ nod^z.” Different writers have attempted in different ways to reconcile Eusebius with history and with himself. Bishop Bull conceived him to mean, “ that Theodotus was “ the first among the Gentile Christians, who had asserted “ that‘doctrine; since the former assertors of that blasphemy “ had almost been supporters of Judaism under the pro- “ fession of Christianity; they were therefore to be con- “ sidered as belonging rather to the synagogue than to “ the Church, and to be looked upon more as Jews than “ Christians, or certainly as holding a middle place between “ both ^a.” This solution however can hardly be considered as satisfactory. Cave’s observation upon the words of Eu­sebius is as follows: “ Not that others had not asserted this “ before him, but that he was the first to publish this im- “ piety openly and without disguise, and to reduce it to a “ specific heresy.” Waterland supposes Eusebius (or rather the writer quoted by him) to have merely meant, that Theo­dotus was founder of a new sect, called Theodotians^b. Bishop Horsley supposes that the difference consisted in this, that the Ebionites only denied our Lord’s original divinity; but that they admitted, like Socinus, some unin­telligible exaltation of his nature after his resurrection, which rendered him the object of worship; and that Theodotus denied even this ^c. He adds, that Theodotus may also have been the first, who in any sense taught the mere humanity of Christ at Rome^d. If Horsley had described the tenets of the Ebionites, as he represents them in the passage im­mediately following that now quoted, I should have entirely agreed in his explanation of Eusebius. He goes on to say, that “ Ebion, in his notions of the Redeemer, seems to have “ been a mere Cerinthian and he thinks it probable, “ that he held the Cerinthian doctrine of a union of Jesus “ with a superangejjc being, and the Cerinthian doctrine “ was, that this union commenced at our Lord’s baptism.” This is exactly the point, which I endeavoured to establish

* Charge, I. 16. p. 37. ed. 1789.

* Judic. Eccles. Cath. III. i.-Def. Fid. Nic. II. 3. 7. ^b Vol. V. p. 225.

⁰ Epiphanius speaks of Theodotus as believiDg Christ to be fum

avQpaisrav iJsiXav. UdiV. LVII. 2. p. 481.

* Charge, I. 16. p. 37, &c. Letter XIV. p. .240, &c.

Pp

in Note 84: which refutes, as I imagine, the whole of Dr. Priestley’s theory; and enables us most satisfactorily to interpret Eusebius. It is perhaps not safe to insist upon the letter of what is said by all the early writers, when they speak of Theodotus being the first, who held Christ to be a mere man. The language of Epiphanius is certainly not sufficiently precise and accurate, to allow us to build any argument upon his using the term Christ in this place: and yet I conceive it was not by accident, that all of them agree m representing the doctrine of Theodotus in the same terms; and that none of them speak of his being the first to believe Jesus a mere man. Had Eusebius said this, he might be given up unconditionally to the censures of Dr. Priestley: but let the hypothesis be granted, that the Ebion­ites agreed with the Cerinthians in believing Christ to have been united with Jesus at his baptism; let it be granted, that the Ebionites held this doctrine, which was held by all the other Gnostics whatsoever, and the whole difficulty of the passage in Eusebius vanishes at once. The Cerinthians undoubtedly did not believe Christ to be a mere man: they believed him to be a preexisting emanation from God ; and they did not believe that Jesus was Christ, in any sense of the term, till this union was effected. It is probable, that Theodotus believed nothing of this union : he believed that Jesus was always the Christ from the moment of his birth; that he was born into the world like any of the prophets, and entrusted with a divine commission: and thus he may have been strictly and literally the first, who taught that Christ was a mere human being, born in the ordinary way. The same explanation has been given by Vitringa^e and by Lampe^f: and the words of the latter writer so entirely agree with what I have asserted concerning the early here­sies, that I may quote them in this place : “ Neque ante “ eWm (Theodotum) Deitatem Christi in dubium vocatam “ esse, vel ex eo patet, quia nulli ante eum defensores ejus

“ in ecclesia fuere. Cur vero Deitas Christi non defensa

“ est, nisi quia hactenus nemo directe contra earn pugnavit?

“ Sicut autem apologise pro Deitate Christi in prima

“ setate Apostolicam excipiente deerant, ita ne nominata “ quidem est Deitatem Christi negantium haeresis.” It might seem like arguing in a circle, if I were to quote this passage in Eusebius as confirming the nation, that the Ebionites in some sense or other believed in the divinity of Christ, though not of Jesus. And yet to a person, who

• Obs. Sacr. V. 10. 8. vol. II. p. 128. ^f Prolegom. in Joan. II. 3. 32. p. 191.

had no preconceived opinion upon the subject, the words of Eusebius must certainly seem to imply, that neither the Ebionites, nor any persons in the first century, believed Christ, in the close and literal sense of the expression, to be a mere human being. I have endeavoured to shew, that there are several other reasons, which might bring us to the same conclusion : and this will appear still further, when I come to consider the fact which has been stated, that the Ebionites resembled Paul of Samosata and the Sabellians in their doctrine. At present I shall observe, that even Theo­dotus does not appear to have held what is now meant by the simple humanity qf Christ: for, though Epiphanius makes him to have said that Jesus Christ was born like other men, Theodoret classes the Theodotians with those persons, who believed Christ to have been born a mere man qf the Virgins: and the Pseudo-Tei - ⁿⁱ- ■

“ Virgin by the Holy Ghost, but a mere human being, “ with no authority over that of other men, except what a ** holy life would give ^h.” The heresy of Theodotus has been connected with those of Artemon, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and others: but it does not appear to have ex­isted long under the peculiar name of its founder. Epi­phanius states, that he did not know whether there were any Theodotians in his time; and Theodoret speaks of their being so entirely extinct, that few persons knew even of the name'. For a further account of Theodotus I would refer to Ittigius, de Hceresiarchis, p. 259. Waltherus, Jesus ante Mariam, §. 10, &c. inter Diss. Theol. Academ. 1753. Lardner, History qf Heretics, book II. c. 17. TiUemont, M&mcAres, vol. III. p. 115. Waterland, vol. V. p. 223.

NOTE 101.—gee Lecture VIII. p. 249-

The author, who is quoted by Eusebius as mentioning Theodotus, directed his work against the heresy of Artemon, or Artemas, who would appear from Eusebius to have followed Theodotus, though Theodoret places him first^k. TiUemont however is of opinion, that Theodotus began the heresy; and it seems most probable that they lived nearly at the same time, but that the name of Artemon became more celebrated¹. It is certain that he agreed in thinking Christ a mere man, and his followers endeavoured to prove, that the apostles had held the same doctrine. The account

e Hffir. Fab. V. 11, p. 278.

^h De Prescript. Haeret. 53. p. 223. ■ Haer. Fab. II. 11. p. 224.

' ^k Haer. Fab. II. 4. p. 220. ¹ See Wesseling, ProbabUia, c. 21. p. 172.

precision, that Theodotus believed

given of him by Theodoret is as follows: “ His opinion “ concerning the supreme God was the same as ours, and “ he said that he was the Creator of the world: but he “ taught that the Lord Jesus Christ was a mere man, born “ of a Virgin, and superior to the prophets in his moral “ conduct. He also said that the apostles preached this “ doctrine, for which he misinterpreted the meaning of the “ scriptures, and said that the successors of the apostles “ spoke of Christ as God, though he was not so.” Epipha­nius says, that the heresy of Artemon had become quite extinct, when it was revived by Paul of Samosata™. This is perhaps not strictly true: but Eusebius, Theodoret, the bishops at the Council of Antioch, and others, agree in connecting the heresies of Artemon and Paul with each other, so that the accordance of their opinions cannot be doubted: but there is reason to think that Artemon and Theodotus went beyond not only their predecessors, but also their immediate followers, in denying the divinity of Christ. From an expression of Gennadius ⁿ, that Artemon believed “ Christum divinitatis initium nascendo accepisse,” Mosheim has supposed this heretic to have taught, that a divine power, not a person, was united to the man Jesus⁰: and if this were so, his opinions would be not far removed from those of Sabellius. Methodius might also be quoted as coupling Artemas with the DocetaeP: but since this is contrary to every other statement, and the passage itself will admit of another interpretation, we need not take any further notice of it. The history of Artemon may be found in Ittigius, de Haresiarchis, p. 261. Tillemont, Memoires, vol. III. p. 117. Lardner, Credibility, ad an. 212. History of Heresies, book II. c. 16.

NOTE 102.—See Lecture VIII. p. 250.

Several of the ancient heresiologists have given an ac­count of the doctrines of Paul of Samosata : but the follow­ing contemporary documents will furnish the most satisfac­tory information. Two letters of the Council of Antioch; one to Paul himselfthe other to Dionysius bishop of Rome, and Maximus bishop of Alexandria *1: the Letter of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Paul: an Answer of the same Dionysius to Ten Questions proposed by

^m Haer. LXV. 1. p. 608. • De Dogmat. Eccles. c. 3. p. 4.

⁰ De Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 69. not.».

P ^wOr£ 3e tov rw viw, as ’Agrsf&xs, at ^oKrttru aui-ov ava<pt}vdp.ivot ‘XiQvitlvotu

Sympos. p. 109, no. ed. 1657.

1 These are published in Dr. Routh's Reliquia Sacra, vol. II.

Paul^r; and a Creed, or Confession of Faith, which has been supposed to have been drawn up at Antioch, but the genuine­ness of which has been disputed⁸. I shall confine myself, at present to the first of these documents, the letter written by the Bishops assembled at the Council of Antioch, which was held in the year 269, purposely to consider the opinions propagated by Paul. After many sittings a sentence of deposition was passed agrinst him; but a letter was pre­viously addressed to him, in which the persons assembled at the Council gave a, summary of their religious creed, which, as they say, “had been preserved in the catholic “ church from the time of the apostles to that day.” By considering the expressions^ which are used in this letter, and the points of doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, which it endeavours particularly to enforce, we may form the best notion as to what were the tenets held by Paul, which the Council intended to condemn. The letter then asserts, that the Son of God was begotten before all creation, was the Logos of God, and God, not by foreknowledge, but in essence and substance: that he was always with the Father, and with him created the world; that he had a real sub­stantial existence, being the personal Logos of God; that it was he, who appeared to the Patriarchs; and that he was setit from heaven by the Father, and took ,our flesh of the Virgin Mary. If we consider these expressions, we might suppose Paul to have denied, that Jesus Christ had any distinct personal existence before his birth from Mary: it ■would not follow, that he did not use the terms, Son of God, and Logos of God; but we might infer, that he only used them as other expressions for God himself. In an­other letter, written from this same Council, it is said of Paul, “ he will not acknowledge that the Son of God came “ down from heaven.” We have already seen, that Euse­bius spoke of Paul as having revived the heresies of Theo­dotus and Artemon, who believed Jesus Christ to be a mere man, though born of a Virgin. Athanasius may also enable us to form an opinion of the tenets of this heretic, since he mentions them in several of his writings. Speaking of the Council of Antioch^ he says that Paul believed, “ that the “ Son did not, exist before Mary, but had the beginning of “ his existence from herand that the Council declared, “ that the Son existed before all things, and that he did “ not become God from being human, but that being God

^r These two treatises are among the works of Dionysius published at Rome in 1J96.

⁵ I may refer to my Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, N". 327.

p p 3

“ he took’ on him the form of a servant, and being the “ Logos he became flesh^t.” This also would seem to shew, that Paul did not refuse to call Christ the Logos or the Son of God; but that he denied that as the Logos or the Son, he had any previous existence. I will now give the senti­ments of Paul, as they are expressed in other passages of Athanasius: It was his opinion, “ that the essence of the “ Logos was a different thing from the Light which was in “ it from the Father; so that the Light which was in the “ Son was one with the Father; but he himself was dis- “ united in his essence, as being a creature¹¹He, or at least his followers, “ separated the Logos from the Son, and “ said that the Son was Christ, but the Logos was dif- “ ferent^x.” “ He denied the Logo's of God, and the carnal “ presence of the Logos y.” “ He said that Christ was a “ man, and different from the Logos which is God².” “ He “ denied that Christ was God before the worlds, and said “ that he became God by advancement after his appearing “ in the world, being by nature a mere man³.” “ He ac- “ knowledged that the person who was born of Mary be- “ came God, having been preordained before the worlds, “ but that he had the beginning of his existence from “ Mary^b.” I have collected these expressions of Athana­sius together, because he appears to have been well ac­quainted with the opinions of Paul, and because he lived so much nearer to his time than Epiphanius and Theodoret, who have given a detailed account of him. It is plain from the words of Athanasius, that Paul indulged in deep and metaphysical speculations concerning the nature of Christ; and the peculiarity of his tenets seems to have consisted in the belief which he held concerning the Logos. He be­lieved that a person called Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary, but that in every other respect he was a mere human being, and that nothing which was bom in him had any preexistence. In course of time God made this person the means of manifesting his Wis­dom to the world; and Jesus, by thus having the Logos of God dwelling in him, became Christ and the Son of God: but the Logos had no distinct personal existence before, nor was the Logos born of Mary together with Jesus. Jesus

¹ De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. 43. p. 757.

^u De Decret. Syn. Nic. 24. p. 229.

* Orat. III. Cont. Arian.30. p. 640, 641. See Dionys.Op.p. 213, 214.

y Ad Episc. ./Egypt. 4. p. 273.

¹ Epist. ad Maximum, 3. p. 920.

^a De Synodis, 26. p. 739. See Socrates, Hist. Eccl. II. 19. p. 100.

^b Cont. Apol. I. 20. p. 938.

therefore became Christ and the Son of God at the same time; but neither Christ nor the Son of God had any per­sonal existence before Jesus was united to the Logos of God. The Logos of God had always existed, and might be called the Son of God: but it was not a distinct being, and was in fact only a mode or operation of God himself. This exposition of the tenets of Paul of Samosata is in accord­ance with all the passages quoted from Athanasius, and with the statement of Epiphanius, who says, “ Paul ac- “ knowledged God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one “ God: and he said that his Logos was always in God, and “ so was his Spirit, as in the heart of man is his own Logos: “ but that the Son of God has not a personal existence, but

“ is in God himself. And that the Logos came and

“ dwelt in Jesus who was a human being. And thus, as he “ says, there is one God: not that the Father is a Father, nor “ is the Son a Son, nor the Holy Ghost an Holy Ghost: but “ there is one God, the Father, and His Son in him, as the “ Logos in man^c.” I have retained the word Logos in this passage, when it is applied to man, as well as to God: but Paul evidently intended the Aoyoj irpoQopmbs, the putting forth or external manifestation of the Logos, which in men is effected by a Word; and Paul supposed God to have put forth or manifested his Logos by Jesus. Thus Leontius of Byzantium, who wrote in the sixth century, says of Paul, “ He did not believe that the personal Logos was bom in “ Christ, but by Logos he meant the command and ordi- “ nance of Goa; that is, God ordered and effected what he “ wished, hy means of the man Jesus^d.” Damascenus writes in the same manner, “ He very nearly affirmed that Christ “ had no personal existence, when he fancied him to be the “ Xoyof irpotpoptxog, but to have existed only since his birth “ from Mary^e.” So also Zonaras, “ By the Son who existed “ previously without beginning, he meant the \oyag npotyo- “ ptxos, and said that God the Creator made use of him as “ an instrument*.” It is not difficult to understand why Paul of Samosata entered into these metaphysical refine­ments concerning the Logos. He wished to invent a new method of explaining the union of the divine and human natures in Christ: and he preferred the system, which sup­posed that union to be subsequent to the birth of Christ. This was the first and fundamental difference between his own opinion and that of the Church: and it was therefore

' Haer. LXV. i. p. 608. ⁱ Act. III. p. 504. ed. 1624.

• De Hares. 65. p. 91.

^f'Canon. inDeiparam, p. 47⁰ⁱ ed. Cotelcr. 1686. vol. III.

P p 4

essential for him to believe, that Jesus was born a mere hu­man being: but it is plain, how little to the purpose it is for Unitarians to quote Paul of Samosata, as believing in the simple humanity of Christ. In the first place he main­tained the miraculous conception of JesusS; which shews, as I have already observed, how firmly this article of the Christian faith must have been established, since it had no connexion with Paul’s peculiar tenets, which might have been maintained in every point, if Jesus had been the Son of Joseph, as well as Mary. In the second place it proves, that the union of the divine and human natures in Christ was also a doctrine generally believed; and it is unques­tionable, that Paul did not mean to deny it. He only re­fused to acknowledge, that the divinity, of which Jesus partook when he became Christ, had previously possessed a distinct personal existence; but he supposed that the Xoyos wpotpopixos of God was as much united to Jesus, as the hoyo; ivSiafle-rof was to God himself. It is plain also, that this doc­trine approached very nearly to Sabellianism, as I shall shew in Note 103; but I shall observe at present, that it had also a connexion with notions which had been held by the Gnostics from the beginning of Christianity. The Gnos­tics acknowledged, that something divine resided in Jesus after his baptism, at which time he became Christ. Some of them perhaps said that this was the Logos of God: and I have conjectured that the Christians borrowed the term Logos from the Gnostics. It is probable, therefore, that before the end of the first century both Christians and Gnostics had taken to speak of the divine nature of Christ as the Logos of God: but they differed in this, that the Christians supposed the union to have taken place at the conception of Christ, whereas the Gnostics imagined it to have been at his baptism. Such was the opinion of the Cerinthians, and, Sts I have endeavoured to shew, of the Ebionites likewise. Such also in the third century was the doctrine of Paul of Samosata: but having been bred up in the Church, he had nothing in common with the Gnostics concerning their iEons; but supposed the divine nature in Jesus to be the eternal, though unsub­stantial, Logos of God. We may now understand, why the Ebionites have been connected by some of the Fa­thers with Paul of Samosata. Thus Theodoret, as I have quoted him at p. 502, says of those who held the Lord to be a mere man, “ Ebion began this heresy, and it re-

s See the £th Question proposed by Paul to Dionysius, p. 237.

“ ceived different, additions till the time of Marcellus and “ Photinus." These two heretics are connected by Epi­phanius¹¹ and Theodoret' with the Sabellians; but they, as well as the Sabellians, are said at the same time to have resembled Paul of Samosata^k. So also Eusebius speaks of the doctrine, “ which the Ebionites long ago, and Paul of “ Samosata lately, and those who after him are called Pau- “ liani, had maintained¹.” It is plain, therefore, that in the opinion of the Fathers there was some connexion be­tween the tenets of the Ebionites and those of Paul of Sa­mosata. But this resemblance could hardly have existed, if Paul believed Jesus to be God after his union with the Logos, and if the Ebionites, as we are told by the Unita­rians, believed Christ in every sense of the term to be a mere human being. There can be little doubt, that the Ebionites, as well as Paul, believed in the union of some­thing divine with the human nature of Jesus: and this ex­actly accords with what I have endeavoured to prove, that the Ebionites, like the Cerinthians and all the Gnostics, supposed a divine iEon to have been united with Christ after his baptism. I would again observe, that the ease of Paul may shew what an improper use may be made of the ex­pression, believing in the simple humanity of Christ: for this is said of, Paul by Athanasius, and yet he says plainly; that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be God. One simple observation may explain the whole : the Christians believed Jesus to have a divine as well as an human nature from the moment of his conception : some heretics believed him, be­fore the union of these two natures, to be a mere human being.

For fuller information concerning Paul, I would refer to Cave, Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr. vol. V. p. 279- Tillemont, Memoires, vol. IV. p. 612. Lardner, Credibility, ad an. 247. Bull, Judicium Eccl. Cath. III. 5. vol. VI. p. 76. Waltherus, Jesus ante Mariam, (inter Dissert. Theolog. Academ.)

It might appear strange, that the Arian heresy should be said to have any connexion with that of Ebion and Paul of Samosata. It is however asserted very plainly in the letter of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to his namesake of By­zantium, which was written about the year 319. He there says, “ the doctrine which has lately risen up against the true “ faith of the Church, is that of Ebion and Artemas, and an

^k Hser. LXXI. p. 828. LXXII. p. 833. * Haer. Fab. II. 10,11. p. 224.

^k See Wormius, Hist. Sabell. IV. 2. p. 142.

¹ De Ecclcs. Theol. I. 20. 7. p..91.

“ imitation of Paul of Samosata ^m.” The same remark is made in part by Athanasius, who says of the Arians, “ they “ seem to be ignorant, or to pretend to be so, that this he- “ resy was held in abomination even before the Council of “ Nice, when Artemas laid the foundations of it, and before “ him the Council of Caiaphas and the Pharisees of that “ day ⁿ.” It is not difficult to see the reason of these com­parisons. The Arians did not believe that Christ had ex­isted from all eternity. They therefore conceived him to be a created God; which, as Athanasius repeatedly ob­serves, is the same as denying him to be God at all: and since the Jews believed Jesus to be a mere man, which was also the notion of Ebion, Artemas, and Paul of Samosata, these persons were said by Alexander and Athanasius to be the precursors of Arianism. The reader may consult Meis- ner, de Origine Arianismi.

NOTE 103.—See Lecture VIII. p. 251.

I have said, that the doctrines of Sabellius were directly opposed to those of the Unitarians, by whom I must be supposed to mean the modern Unitarians. Dr. Priestley however appears to have thought very differently from this: and in his History of the Christian Church he uses the terms Sabellian and Unitarian, as exactly synonymous. Th us he says, that “ those who incurred censure for hold- “ ingthe Unitarian doctrine in this period (A. D. 249—84.) “ were Noetus of Smyrna or Ephesus, Sabellius in Africa, “ and Paulus Samosatensis, bishop of Antioch °.” Dr. Priestley has authority for thus classing Sabellius and Paul of Samosata together : for such, as we have seen, was the view taken of their heresies by the Fathers: but if I have rightly explained the doctrines of Paul, they were very different from the Unitarianism of Dr. Priestley; and I shall endeavour to shew that this was the case with the tenets taught by Sabellius. We must not however suppose, that Sabellianism was first propagated by Sabellius in the middle of the third century. I have already mentioned the notion, though I cannot myself take the same view, that the doc­trines of Simon Magus were a sort of Sabellianism P. Jus­tin Martyr however condemns the Jews for thinking, that when God was said to have appeared to any of the patri­archs, it was God the Father : whereas the Christians, as is

^m Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. I. 4. p. 15. “ De Synodis, 20. p. 733.

" Vol. I. p.393. Sandius, who was an Arian, also asserted that the Sa- bellians were orthodox. Hist. Enucleat. p. 78.

p See Note 46. p. 389.

well known, applied all these passages to God the Son: he says, “ the Jews, who think that it was always the Father “ of the universe who talked with Moses, whereas the per- “ son who spoke to him was the Son of God, who is also “ called an Angel and Apostle, are justly convicted of “ knowing neither the Father nor the Son: for they who “ say that the Son is the Father, are convicted of neither “ understanding the Father, nor of knowing that the Father “ of the universe has a Sou, who also being the first born “ Logos of God, is likewise God *1.” If this were the only passage of the kind in Justin Martyr, we might have doubted whether he did not confine his remark exclusively to the Jews: but in another place, after giving many proofs that it was the Son who appeared to the patriarchs, he says, “ I am aware, that there are some who wish to meet this by “ saying, that the power which appeared from the Father “ of the universe to Moses, or Abraham, or Jacob, is called “ an Angel in his coming among men, since by this the will “ of the Father is made known to men; he is also called “ Glory, since he is sometimes seen in an unsubstantial “ appearance; sometimes he is called a man, since he ap- “ pears under such forms as the Father pleases; and they “ call him the Word, since he is also the Dearer of messages “ from the Father to men. But they say, that this power “ is unseparated and undivided from the Father, in the “ Same manner that the light of the sun when on earth is “ unseparated and undivided from the sun in heaven; and “ when it sets, the light is removed with it: so the Father, “ they say, when he wishes, makes his power go forth ; “ and when he wishes, he brings it back again to himself¹.” We can hardly imagine that Justin was here speaking only of the Jews: but it seems plain, as bishop Bull has ob­served®, that there were persons in his day, who called themselves Christians, but who believed that the Son was merely an unsubstantial energy or operation of the Father ; who did not believe, as Justin goes on to say, that “ the “ Son was different from the Father, not nominally only, “ but numerically,” i. e. personally. Dr. Priestley would perhaps say, that these persons were Unitarians: though their opinions, as they are explained by Justin, were cer­tainly not the same which were held by Dr. Priestley : and Wormius, in his History of Sabellianism, has endeavoured to prove that the Valentinians were intendedHe argues

i Apol. I. 63. p. 81. ’ Dial, cum Tryph. 128. p. 22T.

• Def. Fid. Nic. II. 4. 4. IV. 3.17. Jud. Eccl. Cath. Append, ad c. VII. 8.

* II. 5. p. 62.

at some length to shew, that Valentinus might justly be considered a Sabellian ; and I shall notice this opinion pre­sently. A German writer¹¹ is also inclined to think, that Marcion may have adopted some of the Patripassian doc­trines in Asia Minor. The first person, however, who is mentioned by name as holding sentiments such as these, was Praxeas; though Theodoret* and Jerom y represent some of the Montanists as verging to Sabellianism; and Montanus must be considered to have preceded Praxeas. But when we remember that Tertullian became at length a disciple of Montanus, and yet wrote against Praxeas, we must conclude that it was not to Montanus himself, hut to some of his later followers, that the charge of Sabellianism applied ^z. We may therefore give the first place to Praxeas, against whom Tertullian wrote a special treatise: and it is singular, how we can trace the same ideas in those days, which have led in our own to the exclusive appropriation of the term Unitarian. Tertullian begins with these words : “ Varie Diabolus aemulatus est veritatem. Adfectavit illam “ aliquando defendendo concutere. Unicum Dominum vin- “ dicat omnipotentem mundi conditorem, ut et de unico “ haeresim faciat^a.” He then goes on to explain the tenets of Praxeas: “ He says that the Father himself descended “ into the Virgin, that he was himself born of her; that “ he himself suffered; in short, that he is himself Jesus “ Christ.” Lardner has endeavoured to prove, that Praxeas did not actually say that the Father suffered: but I cannot think that in this instance he has shewn his usual candour: and in the passage which he quotes from Tertullian ^b, that writer truly observes, that when Praxeas said, Filius pati- tur, pater vero compatitur, he asserted indirectly, if not di­rectly, that the Father suffered : and hence the heretics, to whom Praxeas belonged, acquired the name of Patripas- sians. Origen describes the Patripassians as persons, “ who “ with more superstition than religion, that they may not “ appear to make two Gods, nor on the other hand to deny “ the divinity of the Saviour, assert that there is one and “ the same existence of the Father and Son : i. e. that one

■■ Neander, Allgemeine GcscMchte d'er Christlichen Religion, part. I. p. 796.

¹¹ Haer. Fab. III. 2. p. 227. y Epist. XLI. 4. vol. I. p. 187.

-1- This is also the opinion of Wormius, II. 10. p. 79.

^a Again in c. 3. p. 502. “ Duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari, se “ vero unius Dei cultores praesumunt; quasi non et unitas inrationaliter col- “ lecta haeresim faciat, trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat.” It appears also from Prudentius, that the Sabellians called themselves Unio- nitae, (Apotheos. 178 )

^b C. 29. p. 518.

“ hypostasis exists, which receives two names according to “ the difference of causes : i. e. one person answering to two “ names⁰.” This was the opinion of Praxeas, according to Tertullian: and when he argued that the Son had no sub­stantial personality, he made use of the analogy of a word put forth from the mind of man. Praxeas appears to have risen into note at the end of the second century ^d : and the next person we meet with, who maintained the same opin­ions, was Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, whose date may lie fixed in the year 230. Dr. Priestley speaks of Be­ryllus as an Unitarian ^e : and the following account of his tenets is given by Eusebius: “ He said that our Lord and “ Saviour did not previously exist in any individual or defi- “ nite mode of being, before his coming into the world ; and “ that he had no divinity of h' - - ¹ ° ’

vened to consider this heresy, at which Origen was present, and Eusebius adds, that Beryllus recanted his errors. We have no evidence, whether Beryllus ought to be classed with the Patripassians: but this doctrine was certainly avowed by Noetus, who became known in Asia Minor about the year 244, or, as some think, twenty years earlier. Dr. Priestley ranks him among the Unitarians of that period. Hippolytus wrote a treatise against him, which is still ex­tant ; and as they were contemporaries, we can hardly ques­tion the authority of Hippolytus, when he represents Noe­tus as saying, “ that Christ is himself the Father, and “ that the Father himself was born and suffered and dieds.” He also informs us, that Noetus reasoned as follows: “ Since ■“ I acknowledge Christ to be God, he must be himself “ the Father, since he is God: but Christ suffered, being “ himself God ; therefore the Father suffered, for he was “ himself the Father^h.” This agrees with the account given by Theodoret, who has preserved the names of two predecessors of Noetus, of whom we know nothing more. “ Noetus,”- he says, “ was of Smyrna, and revived the “ heresy, which one Epigonus had first conceived, and

^c In Epist. ad Tit. vol. IV. p. 695. See also Com. iu Matt. XVII. 14. p. 789.

^d For an account of Praxeas, see Ittigius, de Haresiarchis, p. 266. Tille- mont, Mimoires, vol. III. p. 126. Lardoer, Hist, of Heretics, book II. c. 20. Mosheim, de Rebus ante Const. Cent. II. 68. Wesseling, Probabil. c. 26. p. 223. Wormius, Hist. Sabell. II. 12. p. 86.

^e Hist, of the Church, vol. I. p. 320.

^f Hist. Eccles. VI. 33. See Tillemont, Mimoires, vol. III. part. 3. p. 198. Lardner, Credibility, ad an. 230. Fabricius, Gr. vol. V. p. 272. Cave, Wormius, II. 13. p. 93. Waterland, vol. V. p. 230.

“ Father dwelling in him ^f.”

6 §. [. vol. II. p. 6.

^h §. 2. p. 7.

“ Cleomenes had taken it up and enforced it. The sum “of the heresy is this. Thr - ¹ _3ne God

“ when he pleases, and shews himself when he pleases; “ and that the same is invisible, and seen, and begotten, “ and unbegotten ; unbegotten originally, but begotten “ when he chose to be born of a Virgin; impassible and “ immortal, and again passible and mortal: for being im- “ passible, he chose to endure the suffering of the cross. “ They apply to him the name of Son and Father, being “ called by one or the other according to the occasion. “ Callistus maintained this heresy after Noetus, having in- “ vented some new additions to the impiety of the doc-. “trine¹.” We know nothing more of this Noetus: but this heresy, or at least one similar to it, became much more celebrated in the middle of the third century, by the means of Sabellius, who spread his doctrines in Pentapolis in Africa, and was opposed by Dionysius, bishop of Alexan­dria. According to Theodoret, he taught “ that the Father, “ Son, and Holy Ghost, are one hypostasis, and one person “ under three names'⁵.” Epiphanius speaks of his agreeing in every thing with the Noetians, except that he did not make the Father to have suffered¹: and I conceive this lat­ter statement to be correct, though Methodius expressly charges Sabellius with that blasphemy^m. Damascenus agrees with Epiphanius in acquitting him of it. The case seems to have been this. The precursors of Sabellius, not being able to explain how three individual persons were united in one Godhead, asserted that it was the divinity of the Father, which was in the Son; and hence they were compelled to admit, that it was part of the divinity of the Father, which suffered in Jesus Christ. Sabellius thought to avoid this difficulty, by making the divinity of the Son an actual emanation from the Father: and I give this opin­ion upon the authority of a passage in Theodoret’s Ecclesi­astical History, where it is said that the Son was begotten of the Father, “ not after the manner of bodies, by parts “ being cut off, or by distinct emanations, as is the opinion

> Haer. Fab. III. 3. p. 227, 228. See also Epipbaoius, Hoer. LVII. p. 479. Tillemont, M&noires, vol. IV. p. 527. Lardner, Credibility, ad an. 220. Wormius, II. 14. p. 97.

^k Haer. Fab. II. 9. p. 223. ¹ Haer. LX1I. I. p. 513. Synops. p. 398.

^m Sympos. p. 109. ed. 1657. The same is said in a Confession of Faith preserved by Athanasius, de Synodis, p. 740. See Wormius, Histor. Sabell. c. 1. p. 36. who follows these writers : but his arguments are far from satis­factory. Alex. Morus defends Sahellius from being a Patripassian. Diatrib. ad Esaittm. liii. p. 7.

“ and Father, the Creator

unseen

“ of Sabellius and Valentinus".” I am aware that bishop Bull interprets these words to mean, that Sabellius and Valentinus charged the orthodox party with making the Son to be begotten “ after the manner of bodies, &c.⁰:” but the former is the more natural construction of the passage ; and since Valentinus supposed his iEons to be successively generated, exactly in the manner here described, ralg Ix Siaipsaswv amppoi'ai;P, he could not have brought this as a charge against the orthodox creed. I conclude, therefore, that Sabellius adopted in part the system of emanations, and supposed the Son and the Holy Ghost to be unsub­stantial emanations from the Father, like light from the sun, or like the koyog wgofopixos from the Mind. Epipha^ nius says of him, that he considered the Son to be sent from heaven, “ like a ray from the sun, which returns back again “ whence it carnet.” Other writers also have imagined a resemblance between the tenets of Sabellius and those of Valentinus': and Athanasius must have thought so, when, in writing against the Apollinarians, who resembled the Patripassians, he says, “ the suffering [of Christ] will be “ common to the whole Trinity, as Valentinus thought, if “ the Logos in its divine nature is inseparable from the “ Father^s.” All those heretics who considered the Son as the kayos npoipopixog, maintained the doctrine, which is here described by Athanasius: i. e. they considered Christ to be an emanation from the koyo; Ii/SiaSsrog, which was inseparable from the Father. There was therefore some resemblance between the doctrine held by Sabellius and that of the Gnostics: for both of them believed the divinity, which was in Jesus, to be an emanation from God: but Valentinus and the Gnostics undoubtedly ascribed a much more distinct personality to their iEons, than Sabellius did to the Son and the Holy Ghost⁴; and it would be unfair to compare Sabellius with Valentinus, except, as I said before, that each of them considered Christ to be an efflux or emanation from God. This will explain why Sabellius is said to haveresembled Paul of Samosata^u; and why the Ebionites were connected by several writers with Marcellus and Photinus, who were Sabellians^x. All these persons held an union of the human nature of Jesus with a divine emanation. But by what possible figure of speech, or by what perversion of argument, can the Sabellisins be called Unitarians, in the modern sense of the term ? I can subscribe to the observa­tion of Beausobre, “ Le Sabellianisme n’est au fond que “ l’Heresie des Unitaires, c’est-a-dire, de ceux qui ne re- “ connoissent qu’une seule Personne Diviney.” Sabellius and his predecessors undoubtedly formed their several hy­potheses, because they thought that, a belief in three divine Persons was a belief in three Gods. But if the negation of this proposition is to constitute, Unitarianism, who is so ignorant as not to know that all the Fathers, and the catho­lic church from the beginning, have been Unitarians^z ? Sabellius and his party did not wish to prove that the Son and the Holy Ghost were not each of them God : such a thought never entered into their minds; but they conceived that they had invented a more intelligible method qf ex­plaining the divinity of the second and third Persons. And to what did their imaginations lead them ? Some of them were driven to maintain that God himself, the one only God, was in Jesus Christ, and that God the Father suffered upon the cross. They did not perhaps utter such a blas­phemy ; they laboured to evade the confession of it; but they never were able to prove that their principles did not necessarily lead to such a conclusion. Others avoided this difficulty ; and investing an unsubstantial, metaphysical efflux with the name and attributes of Deity, they boasted of having explained in a more intelligible manner the union of the divine and human natures of Christ. But if the Sa- bellians were Unitarians in Dr. Priestley’s sense of the term, would it not have been much easier and simpler to deny this union altogether, and to have said at once that the Son and the Holy Ghost were not God at all ? I repeat, therefore, that the Sabellian hypothesis is a standing and demon­strable argument, that Jesus Christ was not believed in.the early ages of the Church to have been sent from God, merely Tike a prophet or apostle ; but that in some way or other he was supposed to be united to a portion of that divinity, which resides in the one only God. This is an important point in the history of our faith : and I was led into this brief review of the Sabellian doctrines, that I might confirm the remark quoted above from Athanasius, in Which he spoke of the Arian hypothesis as more derogatory from the divine nature of Christ, than any which had been previ­ously entertained. The two fundamental tenets of Arianism were these; that there was a time when Christ was not; and that there was a time when he was called into being, not having existed before. Of these tenets I would say boldly, that let the maintainer of them place that period as remote as any process of mental abstraction can carry it, still if there once was but one being who was called God, and afterwards there were two, we must acknowledge that there are two Gods. I say boldly, that no system of physics or metaphysics can hinder the Arian from making Christ a created God, or a God only in name. Athanasius knew very well that this was not the case with any modification of the Sabellian creed, which allowed that whatever there was of divinity in Christ, proceeded from that one eternal source of Deity, which we call God. I may also quote a remarkable passage in Eusebius, which shews that he con­ceived the Sabellians to have gone greater lengths than any preceding heretics in lowering the divinity of Christ. He charges Marcellus, a Sabellian, “ with having denied the “ divine and human nature of God the Son more strangely “ than any other impious heresy. For of those who have “ been heterodox, some have said that the Son of God had “ no preexistence, substantial or otherwise, but supposed “ him to be a mere man, born in,the ordinary way like “ other men, and to have been honoured by being adopted “ as a Son : and when they ascribed this, to him, they ac- “ knowledged that he had immortal and endless honour and “ glory, and an everlasting kingdom. Others denied his “ human nature, and supposed him to be the Son of God, “ himself a preexisting God. But these persons, who car- “ ried their error thus far, were strangers to the Church: “ but Marcellus, after having presided over the Church of “ God so long, destroys the substantial existence of the Son “ of God—of whom he presumes to say, that he had no “previous existence, substantial or otherwise.” It is plain from his own words, that Eusebius was here speaking of heretics who did not belong to the Church. He therefore meant the Gnostics: and the first description answers to the Cerinthians and Ebionites, the second to the Docetae. He then says, that they did not go so far as the Sabellians, which may appear a strange assertion: but he explains him­self to allude to that tenet of Sabellianism, by which the divinity of the Son was supposed to have no previous per­sonal existence. It was merely an emanation, sent forth upon that express occasion by God, and which afterwards returned again, and was absorbed into the same fountain of Deity. In this respect Eusebius chose to consider the Gnostics as departing less from the orthodox faith: and unquestionably the hypothesis of the Cerinthians or the Docetae furnishes a strong collateral proof, that the Chris­tians believed the divine nature in Christ to have a distinct personal existence. The emanations of the Gnostics were personal and substantial: and it was not till the third cen­tury that the divine nature of Christ was said to be a mere attribute or energy of God.