m v^;;/.-,;^^:>;^ hM EVIDENCES GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. VOLUME III. THU EVIDENCES GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. By ANDREWS ^XORTU.X. VOLUME III. SECOND EDITION. CAMBRIDGE: PUBLISHED BY GEORGE NICHOLS. BOSTON: WM CROSBY AND H. P. NICHOLS. 1848. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, by Andrews Norton, in the (Klerk's Office of tlie District ("oiirt of tlie District of Massacliusotts. CAMBRIDGE: METCALF AND COMPANY, PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. CONTENTS PART in. (continued.) ON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OF TIIK GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE EARLY HERETICS . I CHAPTER VII. On the System of the Gnostics, as intended for a Solution of the Existence of Evil in the World . 3 Section I. On their Opinion, that the World was formed by an inferior Creator or Creators ..... 3 The system of the Gnostics, an attempt to solve the prob- lem of the existence of evil, pp. 3-5. — The solution given by the principal sects twofold, namely, that the Creator is an imperfect being, and that evil is inherent in matter, p. 5. — Opinions respecting the Creator, pp. 5-11. — These opinions to be vievped in connection with the doctrines of the age, and the other causes that led to their adoption, pp. 11, 12. — State of the popular and of the philosophical religion among the ancient Heathens, pp. 12 - 27. — The philosophers believed that VI CONTENTS. the world was governed by inferior gods, pp. 16, 17. — Opinions of Plato on this subject, pp. 17-25. — Anal- ogy of the doctrines of the Gnostics to those of the heathen philosophers, pp. 25-27. — Analogy to those of Philo, pp. 27, 28. — To those of the Jewish Rabbis and of Origen, who believed the world to be governed by angels, pp. 28-32. — To the opinion of the early Christians, that the heathen gods were evil demons, and the pagan world the realm of Satan, pp. 32, 33. — To the doctrine generally of the rule of Satan over the world, pp. 33-39. — History of this doctrine, pp. 34- 39. — Analogy remarked by Origen between the Creator of the Gnostics and the Logos of catholic Christians, pp. 40, 41. — The Gnostics led to their doctrine of an Un- known God, not the Creator, by the preceding state of religious opinion in the world, pp. 41, 42. — General tendency to the belief of some being or beings inter- posed between God and his creatures of this world, pp. 42 -44. — Illustrated by Cudworth's doctrine of Plastic Nature, pp. 42-44. — Reasoning of the fathers against the Gnostic doctrine of the Creator, pp. 45, 46. — Ar- guments of the Gnostics in its support, pp. 46-48. Section II. On the Opinions of the Gnostics concerning Evil, as inherent in Matter . . . . . .49 That evil is inherent in matter was a common belief long before the time of the Gnostics, p. 49. — It was the doctrine of Plato, pp. 50-52. — Was held by some Christians not Gnostics, pp. 52, 53. — Connected with the common notion of the evil nature of the body, p. 53. — The body considered as evil by Plato, pp. 53, 54. — By Philo, p. 55. — By St. Paul, pp. 55, 56. — Remarks on this opinion, pp. 66-58. — This opinion did not find much favor with the early fathers, p. 58. — Influences of it upon the practice and doctrines of the Gnostics, CONTENTS. Vll pp. 58, 59. — Opinions of the Gnostics relating to the Devil, pp. 59-65. — Error of Irenaeus concerning them, pp. 60-63. — The Gnostics regarded the principle of evil in the universe as inherent in matter, not as a fallen angel, pp. 61-65. — Concluding remarks; views of some of the catholic Christians respecting the origin of evil, pp. 65, 66. CHAPTER Vlll. On the peculiar Speculations of the Theosophic Gnostics ......... 67 Section I. Introductory Remarks on the Character of Ancient Philosophy ........ 67 Reasons for introducing these remarks, pp. 67, G8. — Diffi- culties attending the study of ancient philosophy from a want of correspondence between the ideas of the an- cients and our own, pp. 68-73. — Reasoning upon the higher subjects of thought a less serious thing with the ancient heathen philosophers than it is at the present day, pp. 73-76. — The art of reasoning very imper- fectly understood by the ancients, p. 76. — They fell into the error of founding hypotheses on preconcep- tions and not on facts, pp. 76, 77. — Notice of similar hypotheses in modern times, p. 78. — Remarks on the general character of such hypotheses, pp. 78-81. — The illogical reasoning of the ancient philosophers caused much inconsistency in their speculations, pp. 81,82. — Truth in respect to the higher objects of thought of less importance in ancient times than in our own, pp. 82 - 84. — The loose reasoning of the ancients proceeded from a want of clear conceptions ; conse- quently the meaning of the language employed in it was indeterminate, p. 84. — The same cause producing VIU CONTENTS. the same result at the present day, pp. 85, 86. — Ob- scurity affected by ancient philosophers, pp. 86-91. — The preceding remarks illustrated by Plato's account of the formation of the Soul of the Universe in his Timaeus, pp. 91 - 106. — Character of Plato, pp. 106, 107, note ; 109-113. — His speculations compared with those of the Gnostics, pp. 107-109. — Reasons why his writings had great influence on the minds of the catholic Chris- tians, pp. 110-113. — The speculations of the theo- sophic Gnostics connected with the Platonic philoso- phy ; but the doctrine of emanation, on which they are essentially founded, probably not introduced into this philosophy till long after the time of Plato, pp. 113, 114. SECTION II. On the Speculations of the Theosophic Gnostics con- cerning the Development of the Deity, and the Spir- itual World 115 Of these speculations the theory of the Ptolemseo-Valen- tinians affords the best type, p. 115. — This theory stated and illustrated, pp. 116-133. — Considerations respecting it, pp. 133- 151. — The derivative ^ons were formed of the substance of the Deity, pp. 133 - 135. — Analogy of this doctrine to other prevalent opinions, pp. 135-137. — How the derivative ^ons were regarded under their character as persons, pp. 137-141. — Re- marks of Ir^nseus and Tertullian concerning these tEohs, considered as hypostatized attributes or Ideas of the Divine Mind, pp. 142-144. — The conception of hypostatized attributes and Ideas of the Divine Mind has prevailed very extensively, pp. 144, 145. — These beings considered as capable of erring, of sinning, and of suffering, pp. 145, 146. — Notions of the Gnostics concerning the aberrations and sufferings of the ^on Wisduin, p. 146. — Of some of the fathers concerning CONTENTS. IX the sufferings of the Logos, pp. 146 - 148. — Scheme of the Valentinians a sort of allegory, transformed into a system of doctrines, pp. 148-150. — Systems essen- tially similar held by the other theosophic Gnostics, pp. 150, 151. — Mention of the Basilidians, p. 151. — Ac- count of the Marcosians, pp. 152- 158. SECTION III. Om the Speculations of the Theosophic Gnostics con- cerning the Formation of the Visible Ihiiverse . 159 An account given of the scheme of Ptolemy as the best example of these speculations, pp. 159- 168. CHAPTER IX. On the Opinions of the Gnostics concerning the Per- son OF Christ ........ 169 The Gnostics generally believed that Christ had not a proper body of flesh and blood, p. 169. — The Marcion- ites denied his nativity, and believed his apparent body to be a mere phantom, pp. 169, 170. — The theosophic Gnostics generally appear to have believed him to pos- sess a real body, pp. 170, 171. — Complex scheme, probably adopted by many of them, respecting the con- stitution of the Saviour, pp. 171, 172. — The Marcion- ites did not doubt the truth of the accounts of the mira- cles of Christ, or of his death and resurrection, pp. 172 -176. — Passage of Tertullian quoted and explained, pp. 175 - 178, note. — Extraordinary tradition preserved by Origen, that Christ assumed different forms at differ- ent times, pp. 177-179. — Remarks on this tradition, and on the opinion of the Marcionites, pp. 179 - 181. VOL. III. b CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. On the Opinions of the Gnostics respecting the De- sign OF Christianity 182 On this subject the Gnostics did not differ essentially from the catholic Christians, p. 182. — Remarks on the division of men into three classes, made by the theo- sophic Gnostics, and their belief that the " spiritual " were elect by nature, pp. 182, 183. — Opinions of the Marcionites, pp. 183, 184. — Neither the Gnostics nor the early catholic Christians believed the modern doc- trine of the Atonement, pp. 184, 185. — Gnokics wide- ly different from those religionists of modern times, who, through reliance on their spiritual intuitions, reject the belief of Revelation, pp. 185, 186. CHAPTER XI. On the Manner in which the Gnostics reconciled their Doctrines with Christianity .... 187 Discrepance between the doctrines of the Gnostics and the teaching of Christ such as may lead one at first view to suspect that they held the Gospels in no es- teem, p. 187. — But a similar discrepance has existed between the doctrines of a great majority of professed Christians and the teaching of Christ, pp. 187-190. — Prevalence of religious error, pp. 190, 191. — Faith, in consequence, disconnected from reason, and founded on a pretended intuitive discernment of spiritual things, pp. 191, 192. — Prevalent errors respecting the charac- ter and interpretation of the Scriptures, pp. 192-196. — Means by which the Gnostics, in particular, recon- ciled their doctrines with their Christian faith, pp. 196-215. — The allegorical and other false modes of CONTENTS. XI interpretation used by the theosophic Gnostics, pp. 190-199. — They appealed to a secret oral tradition, by which they contended that the esoteric doctrines of Christianity had been preserved, pp. 199,200. — The notion of such a tradition equally maintained by Clem- ent of Alexandria, pp. 200-205. — To be distin- guished from the public traditionary knowledge of Chris- tianity asserted by other fathers, pp. 202, 203 ; 204, 205, note. — And also from the fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the authority of Tradition, pp. 204, 205, note. — The notion of the Gnostics concerning the Apostles and Christ, that they accommodated their doctrine to the capacity of their hearers, not openly teaching the more mysterious truths of religion, pp. 205, 206. — Another opinion, that the Apostles generally, through the influence of their Jew- ish prejudices, were led into errors and did not discern all the truth, St. Paul, however, being regarded as much the most enlightened of their number, pp. 206-208. — Opinion, that the teachings of Christ were not all of equal authority, pp. 208-210. — Remarks on the no- tions of the Gnostics respecting the Apostles, pp. 210, 211. — On their pretence to infallible knowledge, pp. 211-214. — Peculiar case of the Marcionites in appeal- ing only to their mutilated copies of the Gospel of Luke and often of the Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 214, 215. — Apparent from what precedes, that the Gnostics could have appealed to no history of Christ at variance with the four Gospels, pp. 215-217. — But the subject admits of further explanation, p. 217. Xll CONTENTS. CHAPTER XII. On the Question, whether the Gnostics opposed to THE FOUR Gospels any other written Histories or History of Christ's Ministry 218 This question leads to a general review of those books which have been called apocryphal gospels, pp. 218, 219. — Considerations to be attended to in this exam- ination, pp. 220-226. — Had the Gnostics opposed any other history of Christ to the four Gospels, we should have had full information of the fact, pp. 221, 222. — But no evidence of such a fact appears in Irenasus or Tertullian, the two principal writers against the Gnos- tics, pp. 222, 223. — It is not probable that the ancient books which may be properly called apocryphal gospels were histories of Christ's ministry, but books giving the views of the writer concerning the doctrines of Christianity, pp. 223-226. — No apocryphal gospel mentioned by Tertullian, pp. 226, 227. — Irenaeus once speaks of a book called The True Gospel as in use among the Valentinians, pp. 227, 228. — If there were such a book, it was not an historical gospel, p. 229. — Its existence doubtful, and, if such a book existed, it was a work of no notoriety, and one to which the Val- entinians, in general, attached no importance, pp. 229- 231. — Irenaeus mentions one other supposed book, The Gospel of Judas, oi which he ascribes the use to a sect called Cainites ; but the existence of the sect or of the book is altogether improbable, pp. 231-234. — This is all the information concerning apocryphal gospels to be derived from the two principal writers against the Gnostics, pp. 234, 235. — Excepting the story of Ire- naeus about The True Gospel, there is no charge by any writer against the Valentinians, or the Marcionites, of using apocryphal gospels, unless Marcion's mutilated CONTENTS. XIU copy of Luke be so called, p. 235. — Nor against the Basilidians, before the Author of the Homilies on Luke, pp. 235, 236. — He, and others subsequently, speak of a Gospel of Basilides, pp. 236, 237. — No probability that such a book existed, p. 237. — The notion of its existence probably had its origin in the fact, that Basilides wrote a Commentary on the four Gospels, pp. 237-239. — Remarks on the preceding facts, pp. 239, 240. — Clement of Alexandria mentions The Gospel according to the Egyptians, pp. 240, 241. — Account of this book, pp. 241-248. — No other apocry- phal gospel mentioned by Clement, unless the Gospel of the Hebrews be so named, pp. 248-250. — But he speaks of a book called The Traditions, which has been imagined to be the same with The Gospel accord- ing to Matthias, p. 250. — Account of this book, pp. 250-254. — Of the title of The Gospel according to Matthias, p. 254. — The Gospel of Peter, p. 255. — Account of this book, pp. 255-260. — Origen in his un- disputed works mentions no other apocryphal book en- titled a gospel, besides this, p. 260. — Notices of sup- posed apocryphal gospels by the Author of the Homilies on Luke and by Eusebius, p. 261. — General remarks on the apocryphal gospels, pp. 261-267. — Not com- monly written with a fraudulent design, pp. 262-264. — Very little notice taken of them in ancient times, pp. 264-267. — Late apocryphal gospels, p. 267. — The Protevangelion of James, and other gospels of the Nativity, so called, pp. 267-273. — Fables respecting Joseph and Mary, pp. 269-273. — The gospels of the Infancy, so called, pp. 273 -282. — Fables respecting the infancy and childhood of our Lord, pp. 273-281. — Account of The Gospel of Nicodemus, so called, pp. 282-287, note. — Remarks on the fables concerning our Lord and concerning Mary, pp. 283 -290. — Con- clusion from the preceding statements, pp. 290, 291. — Subject resumed, p. 291. — Certain gospels, imagined XIV CONTENTS. to have been used by Tatian in forming his Dialessaron, pp. 292-295. — Pretended Gospel of Cerinthus, pp. 295-298. — Concluding remarks. Mistakes that have been committed concerning apocryphal gospels, pp. 298-302. CHAPTER XIII. Concluding Statement of the Evidence for the Gen- uineness OF the Gospels afforded by the Gnostics . 303 General view, 303. — Evidence particularly afforded by the Marcionites, pp. 303-305. — Evidence particularly afforded by the theosophic Gnostics, pp. 305-310. — Striking proof from Tertullian of the abundant use of the Gospels made by the Gnostics, pp. 310-316. — No history of Christ's ministry at variance with the four Gospels known by the early Christians, pp. 316-317. — Remarks on the supposition, that the Gnostics appealed to the Gospels only by way of reasoning ad hominem with the catholic Christians, pp. 318-323. — Conclud- ing remarks, pp. 323-336. ADDITIONAL NOTES. NOTE A. On the Distinction made by the Ancients between Things Intelligible and Things Sensible; on THE Use of the Terms Spiritual and Material AS applied to their Speculations ; and on the Nature of Matter NOTE B. On Basilides and the Basilidians CONTENTS. XV NOTE C. On the Gospel of Marcion xlvi NOTE D. On the Use of the Words Geos and Deus . . Ixi Corrections and Remarks .... Ixxviii PART III. (continued.) ON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE EARLY HERETICS. PART III. CHAPTER VII. ON THE SYSTEM OF THE GNOSTICS, AS INTENDED FOR A SOLUTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL IN THE WORLD. Section I. On their Opinion, that the World was formed by an inferior Creator or Creators. The view which we are now about to take of Gnosticism will lead us to consider it as a complicated, but inartificial, and wholly unsatis- factory attempt to solve the problem of the existence of evil in the creation. " The same subjects," says TertuUian, " are agitated by the heretics and by the philosophers. They are en- tangled in the same discussions : Whence is evil, and why does it exist ? and Whence is man, and how was he formed ? and the allied ques- tion of Valentinus, Whence is God ? " * By * De Prsescript. Haeretic. c. 7. p. 204. 4 EVIDENCES OF THE God, as here used in reference to the inquiry of Valentinus, is to be understood, not the Su- preme Being, but the Maker of the World. In another passage, speaking of Marcion, he de- scribes him as " diseased about the question, Whence is evil ? as many," he adds, " especially the heretics, now are." He represents him as perverting the words of Christ, " A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit " ; interpreting the former clause as , referring to the Supreme Being, and the latter to the Maker of the World. " Having his per- ceptions blunted by the very extravagance of his curiosity, finding the declaration of the Creator, ' I create evil,' * and having already presumed him to be the author of evil on the ground of those arguments which convince the ill-disposed, he has taught, in conformity to this, that the Creator is signified by the bad tree bearing bad fruit, that is to say, the evils which exist ; and has presumed that there must be another God, answering to the good tree bear- ing good fruit." t By the introduction of Christianity a new * Isaiah xlv. 7. t Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 2. p. 366. Conf. Origen. De Principiis, Lib. II. c. 5. § 4. 0pp. I. 88. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 5 impulse was given to the minds of men, Hea- thens as well as Christians, to investigate the origin of evil. The question. Whence is evil ? is called by Eusebius " that famous subject of discussion among the heretics " ; * but the dis- cussions concerning it were far from being con- fined to them. Of this problem the solution peculiar to the Gnostics was twofold. In its most general form, as held by the principal sects, especially by the Valentinians and the Marcionites, it may be thus stated. They taught, on the one hand, that the Creator was an inferior and imperfect being, and, on the other, that evil was inherent in matter. Imperfection and evil, therefore, were the necessary result of the defects both of the workman and of the material. We will first attend to their opinions respect- ing the Creator. By the theosophic Gnostics he was regarded, not as self-existent, but as deriving his being mediately from God. The Marcionites, perhaps, held the same opinion ; but we have no direct evidence that such was the fact. The Valentinians represented him as having been ignorant of the existence of the * Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. c. 27. 6 EVIDENCES OF THE Supreme Being before it was discovered to him by the coming of Christ, and as having sup- posed himself to be the only God.* It is not improbable that the Marcionites held a similar doctrine. The Valentinians believed, that, in the formation of beings, he wrought, though unconsciously, by suggestions from the Mon, called Saviour or Jesus ; and to this Mon they ascribed such agency, that they re- garded him as having, in a certain sense, given form to all things without the Pleroma.f The Marcionites ascribed to the Creator no similar direction from a higher power. By the Valen- tinians he was regarded as benevolent, and as rejoicing in the interposition of the Supreme Being by Christ, through which both himself and his creatures were to be exalted and blessed. They believed him to be still con- tinued in the government of the world, and intrusted with a certain care of the Church. f They spoke of him as the God and Father of what is without the Pleroma, as an angel like * Irenasus, Cont. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 5. § 4. p. 25. c. 7. § 4. p. 34 ; et alibi. t Irenaeus, Lib. L c. 4. § 5. p. 22. c. 5. § 1. pp. 23, 24. c. 8. § 5. p. 42. X Irenaeus, Lib. I. c. 7. § 4. pp. 34, 35. c. 8. ^ 4. pp. 39, 40. TertuUian. Advers. Valentinianos, c. 28. p. 260. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 7 to the Supreme God, and as formed in the image of the " Only Son," that is, of the first manifestation of the Deity.*^ The Basilidians appear to have held similar honorable concep- tions of the Creator.f But the Marcionites, though they allowed him to be just, J repre- sented him as a being to be feared rather than to be loved. They insisted more strongly than the theosophic Gnostics on the distinction, that he was "just," but not " good " ; by which they meant, that he directly inflicted no evils on men except as penalties for sin, and con- ferred blessings as rewards for the performance of duty ; but wanted the unmingled benevo- lence of the Supreme Being. Him they called good and not just, meaning, by denying him the latter attribute, that he inflicted no punish- ments. They proceeded still further in de- grading the character of the Creator. They applied to him, as we have before seen, the words, " A bad tree produces bad fruit." From various passages of the Old Testament, correctly * Irenaeus, Lib. I. c. 5. §§ 1, 2. pp. 23, 24. Lib. IIL c. 12. § 12. p. 198. Clement. Al. Stromat. IV. ^ 13. p. 603. Ptolemaei Epist. ad Floram, p. 361. f Clement. Al. Stromat. II. § 8. p. 449. X " Creator quem et Marcion justum facit." Tertul- lian. Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV. c. 33. p. 449. 8 EVIDENCES OF THE or incorrectly understood, they derived very unfavorable conceptions of him.* They be- lieved that the coming of Christ was intended * In the Dialogue de Redd Fide (Sect. II. p. 826), the speak- er, representing a Marcionite, is made to say, that " the Good God came through compassion for the soul of man, which he saw was under condemnation [that is, under condemnation from the Crea- tor on account of sin] ; and that the Creator plotted against him, and determined to crucify him, because he perceived that he was abrogating his laws." But the authority of the author of this Dialogue is not sufficient to establish the fact, that this doctrine was held by the earlier Marcionites concerning the Creator. Per- haps he may have had a ground for his representation in the lan- guage of some individual or individuals among those who called themselves Marcionites in the fourth century. Had the elder Marcionites held such a doctrine, Tertullian would have stated it expressly, and remarked upon it vehemently and at length ; nor would the other early fathers, none of whom mentions it, have left us in any doubt on the subject. The representation contained in the Dialogue has, however, been repeated by some modern writers, as by Beausobre (Hist, du Manich6isme, II. 120), Mos- heim (Commentarii de Rebus Christ, p. 407), and Walch (Hist, der Ketzereien, I. 511). — Mosheim (Ibid. p. 384) ascribes the same doctrine to the Yalentinians, which is a greater error ; for his statement is not only unsupported by any authority, but is di- rectly contradictory to the testimony of the ancients, as it has been already alleged, p. 6. A sentence of Tertullian (Advers. Marcion. Lib. III. c. 23. p. 411) has been referred to, as countenancing what is said by the author of the Dialogue. But it falls far short of asserting what he has stated. Had Marcion directly charged the Creator with procuring the destruction of Christ, Tertullian, as I have said, would not have left us to infer the fact from an indirect allu- sion to it in a single sentence. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 9 for the deliverance of the spiritually-minded from his reign, that they might be finally raised to a far higher state of glory than he could confer. But over all others they conceived that he still retained his authority, conferring rewards and punishments which extended to the future life. They regarded him as still the governor of this world (that is, of the material universe), and the peculiar god of the Jews, for whose redemption he was yet about to send his prom- ised Messiah.* Other opinions, still more derogatory to the Creator than those of the Marcionites, are re- ported to have been held by certain sects, he- retical or pseudo-Christian. Those ascribed to the Ophians, the most remarkable among those sects, have been already mentioned. Ptolemy, in the beginning of his Letter to Flora, says, that " some affirm that the Law of Moses was ordained by the opposing and destroying demon, to whom, likewise, they assign the formation of the world." Of individuals holding such * Tertullian. Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV. c. 6. p. 416. Tertul- lian often elsewhere refers to the doctrine of Marcion concerning a Jewish Messiah yet to come from the Creator; as, Lib. I. c. 15. p. 373. Lib. IIL c. 6. p. 399. c. 23. pp. 410, 411. Lib. V. cc. 8, 9. p. 471. c. 16. p. 481. VOL. III. 2 10 EVIDENCES OF THE opinions we nowhere else find any notice. It is not improbable that Ptolemy may have ex- pressed himself very loosely, and have referred to such notions as were entertained, as we shall hereafter see, by at least one of the catho- lic fathers, Athenagoras, concerning the rule of Satan " over matter and the forms of matter," and may have brought them into connection with the doctrine of the Clementine Homilies, that a part of the Law proceeded from Satan,* and with that of the sectaries spoken of by Clement of Alexandria, who represented him as the author of the whole.f There is, how- ever, no reason to doubt, that the opinions held by the Gnostics in general, and especially those of the Marcionites, led to extravagant and out- rageous errors in some individuals. But how far any of those individuals had a title to be called Christians is uncertain. Their extrava- gances are a subject concerning which our in- formation is very scanty and unsatisfactory. They attracted so little notice in their own time, that Clement of Alexandria tells us gen- erally, that " there is no controversy, it is acknowledged by all, that the Creator is just." t * See Vol. II. p. 249. f See Vol. II. p. 132. X Paedegog. Lib. I. c. 8. p. 141. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 11 We have seen what were the general con- ceptions of the Gnostics respecting the Creator. The thcosophic Gnostics associated with him other powers, subordinate to him, as agents in the government of the world. It is reported of some, as formerly mentioned, that they be- lieved the world to have been made and gov- erned by angels ; but it is not improbable that this is a mere vague or incorrect account of a doctrine essentially the same with that of the Valentinians.* The theory of the Gnostics, in ascribing the creation and government of the world to an inferior being, is wholly foreign from our pres- ent belief. But it should not be brought into view, separate from all its connections, as some- thing to be wondered at. It should be shown in its relations to the doctrines of their age, to the state of mankind then existing, and to the tendencies of human thought. One evident cause of its adoption appears in the Gnostic doctrines concerning the Jewish dispensation and the Old Testament. The Gnostics, ad- mitting, in common with other Christians, that the Jewish dispensation proceeded from the * See Vol. II. p. 28. 12 EVIDENCES OF THE Creator and Ruler of the visible world, and being at the same time unable to reconcile the representations given of him in the Old Testa- ment with their conceptions of the Supreme Being, were led to the conclusion that the Creator was an inferior god. But, in addition to this, their theory was in accordance with the philosophical speculations of their age. The current of opinion among the higher class of heathen philosophers set in the same direction. -It was more or less coincident with doctrines that had been widely diffused, and which were adopted both by Jews and by catholic Chris- tians. The supposition, that the Supreme Be- ing had first directly interposed in human affairs, and had first made himself known to men, by his manifestation in Christ, agreed, in the view of the Gnostics, with the actual history of man- kind, with the character of the Christian dis- pensation, and with express declarations of Christ. And strange as their theory of an infe- rior Creator may appear to us, there has been a tendency to similar speculations even among in- telligent Christians of modern times. These are topics which deserve some atten- tion ; and the first that may be remarked upon is the state of the popular and the philosophical religion in that portion of the heathen world GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 13 by which the Gnostics, as well as the catholic Christians, were surrounded. Ln the popular religion of the Greeks and Romans there was no recognition of God. Its heaven was a reflection of this earth. Its gods were formed after the model of human despots ; clothed indeed with more than mortal beauty and might, but having the same passions, the same gross vices, the same caprice, the same favoritism, and the same vindictiveness. Among those who rejected the popular superstitions, some, as the Epicureans, the sect of the wealthy, the powerful, and the worldly, virtually rejected, at the same time, all religious belief. The Stoics, the most devout of the more ancient sects, ascribed supreme divinity to the universe itself, which they regarded as a living being, or rather to the soul of the universe, the ethereal fire which they supposed to pervade and ani- mate it ; but their piety consisted in their being devout polytheists, though not according to the gross conceptions of the vulgar. The ancient heathen philosophers, before the time of Chris- tianity, regarded matter as uncreated ; it was a common opinion that the world, or universe, was without beginning ; and of those who rec- ognized in it the agency of divine power, many 14 EVIDENCES OF THE conceived of this power as having been in eter- nal union with matter. The world, in their view, was one complex, ever-existent being. This doctrine might glimmer into a dim rec- ognition of the personality of the divine prin- ciple, but it as commonly sunk into pantheism, and vague polytheistic notions of superintending divinities, and of mysterious laws and relations, operating independently of the will of any superior being. Aristotle says, that most of those who first philosophized or theologized taught that matter was the only principle, or the first cause of all things that exist.* He himself conceived of God as a sort of all- powerful, incorporeal magnet, moving without volition the uncreated universe, a God absorbed in contemplation, supremely happy in himself, but destitute of all moral attributes exercised toward other beings. Between such a God and mankind there could be no moral con- nection ; and accordingly it has been observed that there is a general absence of religious sen- timent from his writings. We find a remark- able passage in Plato, in which he introduces Socrates, on the day of his death, as describ- ing his former perplexity in studying the causes Metaphysic. Lib. 1. c. 3. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 15 and nature of things, and then proceeding with his discourse thus : — " But on hearing one read from a certain book (as he said, of Anax- agoras), that it is mind which orders all things, and is their cause, I was pleased with this cause, and it seemed to me to be in some respects a satisfactory supposition, that mind is the cause of all things." * This doctrine Plato thus represents as new to Socrates ; whom he further describes as dissatisfied at finding that Anaxagoras, in the detail of his system, " made," as it is expressed, " no use of mind " ; but, as if he had not introduced this principle, explained effects by material causes.f In the * Phffido, p. 97. f Ibid. p. 98. — With Anaxagoras, Socrates during the earlier part of his life was contemporary. How little agency he gave to mind in the formation of the universe may appear from what Diogenes Laertius says (Lib. II. c. 3. § 4), that he taught that " animals were first produced from moisture, heat, and earthy matter; and afterwards by generation." He, however, is said to have been the first who represented mind as the disposer of mat- ter in the ordering of the universe, and to have been celebrated on this account. (Diogenes Laert. II. 3. I. Cicero de Nat. Deorum. Lib. I. § 11.) Yet Thales, long before him, is also said to have introduced the agency of mind. But Thales belongs to the fab- ulous age of Grecian philosophy, and an opinion of later date was not improbably ascribed to him. The contradiction concerning the respective claims of Thales and Anaxagoras, which appears in the ancient accounts of Grecian philosophy, and especially in Cice- ro (Ibid. §§ 10, 11), where the two opposite propositions almost 16 EVIDENCES OF THE authentic exposition of the doctrines of Soc- rates given by Xenophon, the divine power and providence for which he contends are repre- sented as residing in and exercised by the gods ; though there are expressions which imply that he had a presentiment of the one God. To these expressions there is, 1 think, nothing cor- responding in the language of Xenophon him- self throughout his works. Plato, on the other hand, with little reasoning on the subject, and without any definite and connected explanation of his meaning, has imaginations concerning the Deity, which excite our surprise and admiration, when we compare them with the common no- tions of other Grecian philosophers before Chris- tianity. In his writings, in those of Cicero, and in the half-poetical conceptions of a few other men of a high order of intellect, we here and there discover, amid the general darkness of those times, glorious, but very partial and obscure, glimpses of God. But what is particularly to be remarked, as analogous to the views of the Gnostics, is, that the partial recognition of the Divinity in the confront each other, — one, that the agency of mind was first taught by Anaxagoras, and the other, that this agency had been taught by Thales, — may, perhaps, be explained by the little credit which was given to the latter account. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 17 mind of a heathen philosopher did not lead to such conceptions of his universal and immediate agency as Christianity has taught us to enter- tain. It was connected with the supposition, that the world was under the government of inferior gods. Plato was one of the most en- lightened of heathen theists, the great theologi- cal philosopher of antiquity. But the Gnostic doctrine respecting the formation and govern- ment of the world by inferior agents may be traced back to his speculations. We find its germ in the cosmogony which he has left us in his " Timaeus." In this work, Plato represents the Supreme Ruler of All as giving birth to gods inferior to himself, celestial, animating the heavenly bodies and informing them with intelligence. Togeth- er with these, he speaks of the earth as the first and most ancient of the gods comprehended within the universe ; and afterwards mentions the gods of the popular mythology, without clearly explaining his own opinion concerning them, but teaching that they are to be received as divine. He then describes the Supreme Being as thus addressing the newly formed gods: — "Now learn what I shall teach you. Three kinds of mortal animals are yet unpro- 18 EVIDENCES OF THE duced.* Without the existence of these, the universe will be incomplete ; for it will not contain every kind of living being ; as it should do, in order to be perfect. But if these beings were formed and endued with life by me, they would equal the gods. In order, therefore, that mortal beings may exist, and that the universe may be a complete whole, do you, according to your nature, take upon yourselves the creation of animals, imitating my power exercised in your production. And as to that part in those ani- mals [the intellectual part] which it is fit should be of like name with the immortals, being called divine, and which will rule those among them who are willing to be obedient to justice and to you, I will furnish this seed and make a begin- ning. For the rest, do you weave together the mortal with the immortal part, and fashion and give birth to animals, providing them with food for their increase, and receiving them again when they perish." Plato, then, conformably to his doctrine of preexistence, represents the Deity as forming at once all human souls, and committing them * The three kinds, as enumerated before by Plato (Timaeus, pp. 39, 40), are those which fly, those which dwell in the water, and those which walk the earth. GENUINENESS OF THE -GOSPELS. 19 to the care of the inferior gods. They were distributed in equal portions to the stars, or, as he afterward says, some to the earth, some to the moon, and some to the other measurers of time, to be embodied in proper season. " He gave," says Plato, " to the newly created gods the office of forming mortal bodies, and what was further necessary to be conjoined with the human soul, of furnishing whatever is con- nected with these inferior parts of man, and of ruling and directing the mortal animal in the best manner, except so far as he may cause evil to himself." * Plato, it appears, believed that the Supreme Beins exercised no immediate government over the concerns of men. The Gnostics believed the same. Plato taught, that man, as he ex- ists on earth, and the lower animals, with all the provision made for their wants, were the work of inferior powers. With this the doc- trine of the Gnostics coincided. He supposed the immortal part of man to have been furnished by the Supreme Being; and the theosophic Gnostics, in like manner, taught that the spir- itual principle in man, which alone was by na- ture immortal, was derived from the Pleroma. * Timaeus, pp. 39-42. Conf. p. 69. 20 EVIDENCES OF THE It is unnecessary here to explain the vague, undetermined, dazzling conceptions of the Su- preme Being which floated in misty light before the mind of Plato. As regards our present purpose, the point to be attended to is the im- passable distance to which he removes him from the beings of this earth, and the interposition of inferior gods, as the immediate makers and governors of men, and the proper objects of their religious worship. He does not remark, that to Him no temples were raised, no prayers addressed, no devotion of the heart offered up. He was that Unknown God, whom St. Paul, three centuries after the death of the philoso- pher, first announced to the Athenians as the only God, who alone " made the world and all that it contains, and gave to all life and breath and all things." In the tenth book of his " Laws," Plato defends earnestly the doctrine of a divine provi- dence, nor has he written any thing of a more religious character. Here, as elsewhere in his writings, one benevolent being, the author of all good, sometimes breaks through the cloud ; * but the whole tenor of the discourse is to de- * I refer particularly to what is said, p. 896, seqq., and pp. 903, 904. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 21 fend the existence, the providence, and the wor- ship of the gods. In another part of the same work, after saying that the only way to obtain the friendship of God (to translate verbally), or (to express what I suppose the true meaning) the friendship of Divinity, — of what is Divine, — is to become like God, he says, that hence " follows a principle, the best and truest of all, that for a good man to offer sacrifices and to have intercourse with the gods [the word is here in the plural] by vows, and oblations, and every form of worship, is in the highest degree beauti- ful and good, most conducive to a happy life, and exceedingly proper ; while the contrary of all this is true as regards a bad man." * There was nothing, I think, incongruous with the the- ology either of Socrates or Plato in the belief of the former that he was under the guidance of a good daemon ; nor in his directing, just before his death, a cock to be sacrificed to iEscu- lapius, considered as the god who delivered men from the maladies of life ; nor in the respect which his disciple Xenophon had for the heathen auguries and rites of worship. In the work of Plato from which I have quoted f there are two other opinions that * De Legibus, Lib. IV. p. 716. f I hardly know whether, in thus quoting the " Laws," it is 22 EVIDENCES OF THE deserve notice in relation to our subject. One is, that lie conceives that there are in the uni- verse two souls, or principles of life, one good and the other evil.* To this we shall hereafter have occasion to refer. The other is, that here, as elsewhere, he regards the stars, and espe- cially the bodies of our solar system, as ani- mated or moved by gods who ruled over the earth.f With this I conceive that the doctrine of the theosophic Gnostics corresponded. They ascribed to the Creator six assistant angels, to whom together with him they assigned seven heavens or spheres, of which they were the informing spirits. J There can be little doubt that they regarded these spheres as those of the Sun, the Moon, and the five primary planets, besides the Earth, with which they were ac- quainted. worth while to notice the skepticism of a modern German editor of Plato, Ast (Platon's Leben und Schriften, p. 384, seqq.), who denies to Plato the authorship of this work, which is ascribed to him by his disciple Aristotle. If it were not his work, there must have been another pliilosopher wholly unknown, another Plato, we may say, lost in obscurity, who as much deserved to be re- membered as his contemporary whose name has spread over the world. * De Legibus, Lib. X. p. 896. t De Legibus, Lib. YII. pp. 821, 822. Lib. X. pp. 886, 898, 899. Timeeus, pp. 39, 40. % Irenaeus. Lib. I. c. 5. § 2. p. 24. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 23 The doctrine, that the world is governed by powers inferior to the Supreme, appears through- out the writings of Plato. I will give one or two more examples. In that imperishable ac- count which he has left of the last hours of Socrates, in which the striking sentiment forms such a contrast with the wretched reasoning, he represents the friends of that philosopher as inquiring, " How he could with so much ease leave them, and the gods whom he himself professed to be beneficent rulers." Amid the moral sublimity of this dialogue, we should hardly have been surprised, if Socrates had directly raised his mind to the one Supreme, and replied in such language as a Christian might use, that he was " Safe in the hand of one disposing Power, Or in the natal, or the mortal hour." But the answer of the philosopher is different. It is sufficient for my purpose to give only its commencement: — "If I did not think that I was going in the first place to other gods wise and good, and then to men who have died better than those who are here, I should be wrong in not being distressed at the thought of death." * * Phffido, p. 63. Conf. p. 69. 24 EVIDENCES OF THE In the seventh book of his " Laws," Plato says : — "As regards what is in the highest sense divine, and the universal world,* it is affirmed [by the generality] that we must not busy ourselves in searching into the laws of their nature ; for that this is unholy." By " what is in the highest sense divine," Plato apparently intends the Sun and the Moon, " the great gods," as he calls them, and the planets, to which in common with them he gives the name of " celestial gods." In opposition to the rule just alleged, he proceeds to state what he represents as facts concerning these divinities, very important even in their religious bearing, namely, that their apparent are not their real motions, but that they revolve in circles ; and that those of them which seem to move most swiftly in fact move most slowly. " It is difficult," says Plato, in a passage which at once throws a broad light over the whole subject, " to discover the Maker and Father of the universe, and impossible, when discovered, to speak of him to the generality." f Cicero in his version of this passage uses * To;' niyicTTOv 6eov Kai oKov tov Koafiov : verbally, " The great- est God and the whole world." p. 821. t Timseus, p. 28. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 25 Stronger language, — " To point him out to the vulgar is forbidden." * Cicero, himself, who in clearness of mind, good sense, and high moral sentiment, stands almost or altogether alone among the wise of ancient times, in his treatise " Concerning Laws," suggested by that of Plato, enforces like him the worship of the gods. In discussing what he regarded as the fundamental doctrine of religion, it is " Of the Nature of the Gods " that he treats, and it is their providence which he represents the most religious as asserting. In the first part of the following sentence the Christian Lactantius may express himself too strongly, especially if he is to be understood as referring to the times before Christianity, but he does not express himself too strongly in its conclusion. "Though poets," he says, " and philosophers, and even polythe- ists, often acknowledge the Supreme God, yet no one has ever entered into any inquiry or discussion concerning his worship or the honor due to him." f The philosophy of Plato, which, in recogniz- * " Indicate in vulgus nefas." f " Sed tamen summum Deum, cum et philosophi, et poetae, et ipsi denique qui deos colant, saepe fateantur, de cuitu tamen et honoribus ejus nemo unquam requisivit, nemo disseruit." De Ira Dei, § 11. VOL. III. 4 26 EVIDENCES OF THE ing a supreme Being as a glorious but indistinct vision, removed him at the same time from all superintendence of the concerns of men, and subjected these to the government of inferior gods, in the worship of whom all practical re- ligion consisted, was the highest theology of ancient Greece and Rome before Christianity.* This theology was the basis of the theory com- mon to the Gnostics. But they modified it by two leading conceptions which they derived from Christianity. Admitting the truth of both the Jewish and Gospel history, they maintained that the Unknown God had at last manifested himself to men through Christ, and had called them away from the worship of the ruler or rulers of this material universe ; and, conform- ably to the manner in which they received and interpreted the declarations of the Old Testa- ment, they thought that its ruler or the chief among its rulers was the god of the Jews. There was a family likeness between the the- ology of the heathen philosophers and that of the Gnostics. But the catholic Christians, not- * Respecting the theology of the ancient philosophers, one may further consult Leland's " Advantage and Necessity of the Chris- tian Revelation " (Part I. Ch. X-XVIL), — a work of uncom- mon trustworthiness and value. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 27 withstanding some striking resemblances which we shall hereafter observe, were essentially sep- arated from both. " We shall not," says Ter- tullian, " approximate to the opinions of Qen- tiles, who, if ever they are compelled to ac- knowledge God, introduce other gods below him." * But the doctrine of a subordinate agency in the creation and government of the world was not confined to the heathen philosophers and the Gnostics. Before the time of the latter, it had passed into the theology of the Jews. The Jewish philosopher, Philo, in commenting upon the words, " Let us make man," repeatedly represents the Deity as addressing his Powers, and charging them with the formation of all that may tend to evil in the mind of man, be- cause " he deemed it requisite to assign to other artificers the production of evil, reserving to himself alone the production of good." f In this hypothesis, Philo is not always consistent with himself ; nor does it agree throughout with that of the Gnostics. But the rudiments of * Adversus Hermogenem, c. 7. p. 235. t De Profugis, Tom. I. p. 556. De Mundi Opificio. I. 17. De Confusione Linguarum. I. 431, seqq. 28 EVIDENCES OF THE various Gnostic speculations exist in his writ- ings ; and the transition was easy from his doc- trine of subordinate ministers, introduced that God might not be considered as the author of evil, to the Gnostic doctrine of the Creator with his associates. He himself, as may be perceived from what has been before said, de- rived his doctrine from Plato.* In the later Rabbis may be found the con- ception, that seventy angels ruled over, and were the gods of, the seventy nations into which the Gentile world was supposed to be divided ; while the Creator is represented as reserving the Israelites for himself, and is sometimes said to be their immediate governor, and sometimes to have appointed over them the archangel Michael as his vicegerent. The angels ruling the Gentiles are by some described as seventy angels who surround the throne of God and form his council ; by some, in accordance with a common belief of antiquity, as spirits animat- ing planets and stars and governing through their influences ; and by some as evil spirits, the * See before, pp. 17, 18. — I do not enlarge on the opinions of Philo in relation to the subject before us, as I have formerly explained them at some length in another work. See " Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians," Section X. p. 251, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 29 idolatrous gods of the Gentiles, having for their chief Sammael, the angel of death, the same with Satan. It was supposed that the different nations prospered or suffered according to their rule ; and that, when these nations were at war, their angels warred together likewise.* If these were merely the notions of the later Jews, they would not deserve notice in refer- ence to our present subject ; but similar con- ceptions prevailed among the Jews soon after their return from the Babylonish captivity. We find them in the book which they ascribed to Daniel, where the prince, that is, the angel, of Persia is represented as having withstood an- other angel, till Michael, who is spoken of as the angel of the Jews, came to his assistance ; and where the prince or angel of Greece is likewise mentioned.f These conceptions appear also in the false rendering given in the Septuagint of a passage in Deuteronomy : t — " When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he deter- mined the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel." In- * Eisenmengers Entdectes Judenthum ; i. e. Judaism Unveiled. Th. I. p. 803, seqq. t Daniel x. 13, 20. J Ch. xxxii. 8. 30 EVIDENCES OF THE Stead of the last clause, " according to the num- ber of the children of Israel," the rendering of the Septuagint is, " according to the number of the angels." The doctrine of the Jews concerning the government of the heathen world by angels was adopted by many of the fathers, who appealed for proof of it to the passage in the Septuagint just mentioned, and to the representations in Daniel. It deserves notice, not as showing the coincidence, but the parallelism, of opinions, that Origen introduces this doctrine in oppo- sition to an opinion advanced by Celsus, that the nations were each ruled by a power or powers, to whom it had been committed from the beginning, and whose peculiar laws and worship each was bound to maintain.* Re- specting the character of these angels of the nations, the opinions of the fathers were un- settled, like those of the Jewish Rabbis. The prevailing conception of Origen appears to have been, that, though appointed by God to their office, they had become degenerate and bad ; and that, when Christ was manifested, their dread of losing their rule made them enemies * Cont. Celsum, Lib. V. §§ 25, 26. 0pp. I. 596, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 31 of him and his followers.* Regarding the heathen world as subject to them, he expresses himself concerning the coming of Christ in such language as might have been used by the Gnos- tics : — " As, then, the princes of this world [the angels ruling this world] had seized on the portion of the Lord, it was necessary for the good Shepherd, leaving the ninety-nine in heaven, to descend to earth, that he might find and bear away on his shoulders the sheep that was lost, and bring it back to the fold of per- fection above." t The conception of Christ's leaving ninety-nine of his flock in heaven, and of his bearing back thither the sheep that was lost, is founded on doctrines which Origen de- rived from Plato. Following Plato, Origen be- lieved in the preexistence of souls, and that those souls that were here embodied had fallen from a higher state. The theosophic Gnostics, likewise, believed that the spiritual principle, so far as it existed in men, or, in other words, the spirits of men, had fallen from the Pleroma, and that the Saviour had come to deliver what was * De Principiis, Lib. III. c. 3. 0pp. I. 143. Homil. in Gene- sin, IX. ^ 3. 0pp. II. 85, 86. Comment, in Epist. ad Romanes. Lib. Vm. § 12. 0pp. IV. 639. t Homil. IX. in Genesin, ubi sup. 32 EVIDENCES OF THE spiritual from its connection with matter, and to restore it to its original seat. Some of them, it may seem from what is said by Irenaeus, applied the parable of the lost sheep in much the same manner as it was used by Origen.* Parallel with the doctrine concerning the government of the heathen world by angels was another concerning the gods of the Heathens ; but the bearing of the two upon each other does not appear to have been so defined as to make it possible to adjust them together into one connected and consistent scheme. " The Gen- tiles," says St. Paul, " offer their sacrifices to daemons, and not to God " ; f and there is no doubt that the word " daemon " is used by the Apostle in a bad sense. Accordingly, the fa- thers regarded the gods of the pagan mythology as evil daemons, ministers of Satan. Him they conceived of as ruling over them and their pagan worshippers. In the view of the fathers, those gods were impure spirits, burdened with material vehicles, and inhaling for their nour- ishment the fumes of incense and sacrifices. Whatever marvels in the pagan religion were * Cont. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 8. § 4. p. 39. c. 16, § 1. p. 80. t 1 Corinthians x. 20. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 33 not the work of human fraud, whatever was really supernatural in oracles, omens, and ap- pearances of the gods, was to be ascribed to them. They were deadly enemies of Chris- tianity, through which their worship was to be done away, and were continually exciting their worshippers to persecute and destroy the Chris- tians. The pagan world was, in a certain sense, the realm of Satan. These conceptions have been adopted, and made familiar to modern readers, by the great poet of Christian my- thology, who describes the fallen angels as becoming "known to men by various names, And various idols, through the heathen viforld." The doctrine concerning the rule of Satan over the world finally assumed a form among catholic Christians, in which it may be com- pared with the most unfavorable representations that have been given of Gnosticism, and in which it is not distinguished by any character- istic that may recommend it from what was regarded as the odious heresy of the Manichae- ans. Even so early as the second century, the lineaments of that belief on this subject which afterwards prevailed are distinctly traced in a passage of Athenagoras, According to Athe- 34 EVIDENCES OF THE nagoras, Satan was originally created an angel of light, and intrusted by God with the admin- istration of matter and the forms of matter. This ruler over matter, and the other angels who rule over the affairs of this first " firma- ment," fell into sin through the abuse of their moral liberty. Satan became an enemy of God ; and his administration is opposite to the goodness of God. Hence, he says, the poet Euripides doubted whether there was any divine providence over the concerns of men, and the philosopher Aristotle denied its existence. Ac- cording to Athenagoras himself, the providence of God regulates the general order of the uni- verse, but " men are moved and carried in dif- ferent directions according to the nature of each, and the operations of that ruler who is over them, and of his associate demons," who excite in men irregular desires conformable to their own natures.* Thus, instead of the Gnostic Creator, Athe- nagoras subjected men to the government of Satan, whom he viewed as the ruler of matter. This was his solution of the existence of evil. The doctrine was remotely derived from the * Athenagorae Legatio pro Christianis, pp. 302-304. Ed. Benedict. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 35 Persian theology, into which it had been intro- duced to solve the same difficulty. We will briefly trace its history ; for in different forms it entered both into the theology of the orthodox church and the heresies of the Gnostics and the Manichaeans. Our sources of information respecting the Persian theology, including the collection of writings entitled the Zend-Avesta, are of such uncertain credit, and so imperfect and contra- dictory, that we can speak with but little con- fidence of its history or vicissitudes, or of the detail of any particular system in which it ap- peared. But notwithstanding the cloud which has spread over it, some remarkable character- istics are to be obscurely discerned. The Per- sian sages appear from an early period to have held in some form or other the belief of one supreme beneficent Being. But they regarded the universe as divided into two opposite em- pires, the empire of light and the empire of darkness. The former was conceived of as the region of pure and happy beings, over whom reigned the beneficent God, Ormuzd. The latter was the domain of evil, peopled with malignant demons under the rule of Ahriman. This world was conceived of as being on the confines of these two empires, the result of their 36 EVIDENCES OF THE commingling and strife, the seat of their warfare, a region where the beneficent God and the Prince of Evil held divided sway. Hence it is, to use words that express the doctrine as truly as would the simplest prose, that " the same earth Bears fruit and poison ; where the camel finds His fragrant food, the horned viper there Sucks in the juice of death : the elements Now serve the use of man, and now assert Dominion o'er his weakness : dost thou hear The sound of merriment and nuptial song 1 From the next house proceeds the mourner's cry, Lamenting o'er the dead." The Persian doctrine implies but a very im- perfect conception of the omnipotence of God. But the same remark may be made of every other ancient system of theology, excepting the Christian. Nor is it probable that the generality of ancient Christians entertained any adequate ideas of this divine attribute. These are facts which it is necessary to bear in mind in studying the theological speculations of the ancients, which may otherwise appear to us even more incongru- ous than they were. Manes, or Manichaeus, who was a Persian, blended with Christianity the theology of his country ; and thus, in the latter half of the third century, became the founder of the sect of the Manichaeans. In common with the Gnos- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 37 tics, and other framers of religious systems, it was a main purpose with him to account for the origin of evil. Ahrimui was, in his system, easily converted into Satan ; and according to him, evil had its origin in eternal matter necessa- rily existing, and the demons resident in it and ruling over it, of whom Satan was the chief. They had made an incursion into the spiritual world, and, seizing upon a portion of spirit, had mingled it with matter and founded this world. To redeem this portion of spirit from its enthral- ment was the purpose of the interposition of God by Christ, and by Manes himself, who was Christ's successor, and the perfecter of his work. From the Ahriman of the Persians, the Jews, long before the time of Manes, probably de- rived their conception of Satan, the Adversary of God and man. Their notions concerning him were, however, modified by their belief of the supremacy of God, so that they regarded him as always under God's control. But he and his ministers were popularly conceived of by them, as causing the moral and physical dis- orders in the world, as tempting men to sin, and vexing them with diseases. From the Jews this conception passed into the theology of Christians. Our Saviour in his discourses 38 EVIDENCES OF THE used forms of speech founded upon these no- tions of his countrymen. It was his purpose to give his hearers a more vivid impression of the evil of certain acts and states of character by thus figuratively referring them to Satan as their source, and associating them with his hateful and terrific image. The same use of language likewise occurs in the writings of the Apostles ; and though they nowhere teach the popular doctrine as a doctrine of religion, yet it is not probable that the mind of any one of them was wholly unaffected by it. When, ac- cordingly, this belief concerning Satan began to prevail among Christians, every thing in the New Testament which appeared to favor it was interpreted literally, and made a ground for fur- ther inferences. We have seen the form which it had early assumed in the writings of Athe- nagoras ; but the ghastly phantom which he presents as ruling over the world afterwards dilated its terrors ; * " Horribili super adspectu mortalibus instans." * Dr. Thomas Burnet is a writer not likely to be charged with fanaticism or superstition. One may, therefore, be somewhat sur- prised at meeting with a passage in his posthumous work, " De Fide et Officiis Christianorum " (p. 70), of which the following is a translation. " The Gentiles appear to have given themselves up to the dominion of evil spirits, who by the permission of God GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 39 Far the greater part of men, according to the creeds of those days, were born, and ever con- tinued to be, " bond slaves of Satan " ; and the remainder were constantly suffering from his assaults and machinations. The doctrine of Athenagoras, which subjected the world to the rule of Satan, is more objec- tionable than the Gnostic doctrine, which sub- jected it to the rule of the Creator. But many or most of the Gnostics, as we shall again have occasion to observe, appear likewise to have introduced Satan, or the animate principle of had obtained the empire of this world. To this their chief laid claim, when, having shown to Christ all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, he said to him, Luke iv. 6, Iivill give thee power over the whole and the glory of those kingdoms, for it is com- mitted to me, and I give it to lohom I will. We know that the Devil is a deceiver ; but Christ himself also repeatedly calls him the Prince of this world, John xii. 31 ; xiv. 30 ; xvi. 11. What- ever was his right or title, he seems at that time to have had pos- session of the world ; and, God being as it were excluded, the ordering of affairs was at the pleasure of demons." The philos- ophy of Athenagoras, it appears, had survived in full vigor to the eighteenth century. The enors of the ancient fathers and the ancient heretics, which were adopted for the purpose, how- ever unskilfully executed, of vindicating the goodness of God, and which were countenanced and supported by the philoso- phy of the age, are to be differently regarded from the cor- responding errors of later times, some of which now stand insulated amid the intellectual and moral improvement of the world. 40 EVIDENCES OF THE evil resident in matter, as the adversary of the Creator and his works. In looking to a very different part of the catholic system of faith, we find another anal- ogy between the doctrine of the Gnostics and that of the early Christian fathers, which is remarked upon by Origen himself. Origen says, that the distinction made by the heretics, in affirming that the Creator is just, and the Father of Christ good, may, in his opinion, when accurately understood, be said of the Father and the Son. The Son is just ; he has received authority to judge the world righteous- ly. Men are here prepared by the various discipline which he appoints in justice for the time when he will deliver up his kingdom, when God, being all in all, will display his goodness toward those who have been disci- plined by his Son ; and perhaps all things, Origen adds, may be thus prepared for its reception. Christ himself has said that the Father alone is good. In like manner, Ori- gen thinks that a true sense may be given to the proposition, that there is one superior to the Creator, Christ being regarded as the Creator; for the Father is greater than he.* * Comment, in Joan. Tom. I. i} 40. 0pp. IV. 41. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 41 All those Christians of the first three centuries who conceived of the Logos as a person be- lieved like the Gnostics in a Creator of the uni- verse inferior to the Supreme Being ; for they referred its creation immediately to the Logos. It is only in this point, however, that there is any analogy between the Logos of the ancient fathers and the Creator of the Gnostics. In other respects the Logos corresponds rather to the first manifestation or development of the Deity in the Gnostic system of iEons. Thus, on every side, we perceive an approxi- mation to the doctrine of the Gnostics respect- ing the creation and government of the world by a being or beings inferior to the Supreme. We may suppose that they came to the study of Christianity prepossessed with the philosoph- ical doctrine, that human affairs were under the government of inferior gods, the Supreme Divinity being far removed from their super- intendence. Looking back upon the state of mankind, they saw, on the one hand, that the Father of All, as revealed by Christianity, had been an unknown God to the Gentile world. On the other hand, the gross and limited con- ceptions which the generality of the Jews en- tertained of God, under the name of Jehovah, 42 EVIDENCES OF THE and even the representations of the Old Testa- ment concerning him, seemed to them to relate to a being far inferior to that God whom Christ had made known. They were thus led to the conclusion, that the Father of All had first re- vealed himself to men by Christ, and through him had first interposed to deliver all that was spiritual and pure in the universe from the thral- dom of matter. Their doctrine might seem to them but little more than the declaration of an historical fact, that the true God was unknown to men before he was revealed by Christ. In almost every age, wherever the belief of one Supreme Being has been received, imper- fect notions of his nature and moral govern- ment, and the observation of the defects, ir- regularities, and evils, real or apparent, which exist in the present state of things, have led to conceptions more or less correspondent to those of the Gnostics. Some other being or beings have been interposed between God and his creatures, as having an immediate control over the physical or moral world. To the causes mentioned we may refer the famous doc- trine of the very learned Cudworth concern- ing the unconscious soul of the world. Plastic GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 43 Nature, as he denominates it, a being to the immediate agency of which he refers all phys- ical changes ; and which he describes, in lan- guage not altogether intelligible, as " a crea- ture incorporeal, though low and imperfect," but " an energetic and effectual principle, mov- ing matter by some energy of its own," " act- ing for ends artificially, yet neither intending those ends, nor understanding the reason of what it does, and therefore unable to act elect- ively," " the Divine Art concrete, and em- bodied in matter," " the manuary opificer of the Divine understanding." The reasons which Cudworth assigns for introducing this agent might have been adopted with little variation by the Gnostics in defence of their doctrine of an imperfect Creator. They are, because it seems " not decorous in respect to God, nor agreeable to reason, that he himself should do all things immediately and miraculously," for this " would render Divine Providence op- erose, sohcitous, and distractious " ; because the supposition is inconsistent " with the slow and gradual progress of things in nature " ; whereas, if the agent were omnipotent, the end proposed would be effected at once, without what would seem " this vain and idle pomp " ; and, further, because the supposition is incon- 44 EVIDENCES OF THE sistent " with those errors and bungles that are committed, when the matter is inept and contumacious, which argue the agent not to be irresistible."^ This theory was not only maintained by Cudworth, but countenanced and defended as not improbable by Le Clerc, a man extra- ordinarily free from mysticism and extrava- gance, whose intellectual vigor has preserved his writings to our own time in almost their original freshness. Even at the present day we are hardly disembarrassed from the con- ception of Nature, not as a poetical personifi- cation, but as a real agent ; and there are but few, perhaps, who habitually recognize in the operations of the physical world only an unin- terrupted display of God's power in imme- diate action. We are hardly yet familiar with the belief, that it is God alone who "Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees ; Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part, As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart ; As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns, As the rapt seraph that adores and burns." f * Intellectual System of the Universe, p. 150, seqq. f The concluding lines are to be understood as meaning V GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 45 It may readily be supposed that the catholic Christians found no difficulty in confuting the theory of the Gnostics respecting an inferior Creator or Creators. The following is a sum- mary of the reasoning of Irenaeus. If it be said that the world was made either by an- gels or by any inferior being, without the will of God, it must be supposed that the angels are more powerful than God, or that he is in- different to what takes place. It would be idle to conceive of the world as thus formed within his realm, where he is present ; and if formed without it, his being is circumscribed and he ceases to be infinite. This argument might seem trifling, if the theosophic Gnos- tics had not placed the material world with- out the Pleroma, the complete development of God, and thus afforded sufficient occasion for it. One other is added by Irenaeus. If the world, he says, exists conformably to the will, and with the knowledge, of God, he is properly its maker, whoever might be the im- mediate agents in its formation. Those agents that a hair and a heart, a man and an angel, are all equally produced and preserved in being by Divine power, by power full and perfect ; and that no one of them is the work of any agent inferior to God. 46 EVIDENCES OF THE derived their being from him, and are to be considered only as instruments in his hands.* — The very obviousness and simplicity of these arguments throw light on the state of opinion and reasoning to which men had advanced in the age of Irenseus. But the Gnostics, on the other hand, were not wanting in arguments to support their doctrine of a subordinate Creator and an Un- known God. We have seen how correspond- ent this doctrine was to opinions universally prevalent both among Heathens and Chris- tians. The Gnostics conceived that the his- tory of the world made it evident that the True God had been unknown to men till he was revealed by Christ. They dwelt upon the representations of the Divinity in the Old Testament, to prove that the God of the Jews could not be the True God, the God of Chris- tians ; while, at the same time, admitting the authority of the Old Testament, they recog- nized his claim to be the Creator of the ma- terial universe. They argued from the im- perfections and evils of the world, that it could not be the work of a good and omnip- * Cont. Hssres. Lib. II. c. 2. p. 117. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 47 otent Being, but bore evident marks of an imperfect maker. And they found, as they thought, full confirmation of their doctrine in the words of Christ, — " No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son may reveal him." These words, which they often quoted, they considered as affording un- equivocal proof that Christ came to reveal an Unknown God.* They alleged, also, other passages to the same effect. Thus, they quot- ed what is said by John in his Gospel, " No one has seen God at any time," as proving that the God revealed by Christ was not the god who had been seen by Moses and the patriarchs.! And they appealed to our Lord's declaration to the Jews, " Ye know neither me nor my Father," as evincing that the god known to the Jews was not his Father. J We have thus attended to one of the causes * Among the many passages in which this argument of the Gnostics is noticed, it may be sufficient to refer to Irenaeus, Cont. Haeres. Lib. L c. 20. § 3. p. 93. Lib. IV. c. 6. § 1. p. 233, and to TertuUian, Advers. Marcionem, Lib. IV. c. 25. p. 441. •j- Origen. De Principiis, Lib. II. c. 4. § 3. 0pp. I. 85. X Origen. Comment, in Joan. Tom. XIX. 0pp. IV. 283. 48 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. which the Gnostics assigned for the evils in the world, — the imperfection of its immediate maker, or makers. We have next to consider their opinions respecting the evil nature of matter. CHAPTER VII. (continued.) ON THE SYSTEM OF THE GNOSTICS, AS INTENDED FOR A SOLUTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL IN THE WORLD. Section II. On their Opinions concerning Evil, as inherent in Matter. " The Marcionites believe," says Clement of Alexandria, "that nature is bad, as proceed- ing from evil matter and a just Maker " ; * that is, a Maker who is only just. Such was the belief of the Gnostics in general. But there was nothing peculiar to them in their opinion that evil inheres in matter, nor in their application of this doctrine to account for the evils in the world. The theory had been com- mon long before their time. It was connected with the general doctrine of ancient heathen philosophy concerning the independent existence of matter. * Stromat. III. § 3. p. 515. 7 50 EVIDENCES OF THE Until the period when Christianity taught men to form a new idea of the power of God, as able to cause that to be which did not be- fore exist, matter was regarded by the ancient philosophers as uncreated and eternal. In the view of Plato it was not the product of di- vine power, but (to use the language of Cud- worth) the inept and contumacious material on which that power was exercised. In his di- alogue entitled " The Statesman," there is a long and strange passage concerning the rev- olutions of the world, caused by the refractory tendencies in matter during intervals in which the divine power that controls those tenden- cies is suspended.* He describes the world as, after one of these revolutions, fulfilling its appointed laws, at first accurately, but after- ward more dully and negligently. " And the cause of this," he says, " is the bodily part * Politicus, p. 269, seqq. One of the most respectable of the German writers on Plato, Socher, contends, T think on very in- sufficient grounds, that this Dialogue is not the work of Plato. (Ueber Platen's Schriften, p. 273, seqq.) There is, however, no dispute that the Dialogue is of the age of Plato, for it is quoted by Aristotle ; nor that it was generally reputed to be his work. The question of its genuineness, therefore, is unimportant, so far as it is adduced only to show the antiquity of the doctrine of evil in matter, and that this doctrine was supported by the authority of Plato's name. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 51 of its composition, inherent of old in its nature ; for this, being full of disorder before it entered into the composition of the world, received all that it has good from him who compounded it ; but whatever is bad and wrong in the universe proceeds from it, and is produced by it in living beings, in consequence of its former tenden- cies." * In his Timaeus he represents God as taking matter,t which was in discordant and disorderly motion, and reducing it from disorder to order ; "it being his will that all things should be good, and, as far as might be, nothing bad " ; t and in the same dialogue he presents the conception of necessity,^ by which he ap- parently intends what necessarily exists in mat- ter, as controlled by the power of the Deity. || In his Laws, the work of his old age, there is a remarkable passage, before referred to,1I in which he teaches that there are at least two souls (or principles of motion) pervading the * Politicus, p. 273. f " Matter" ; the expression of Plato is irdv oaov ^u oparov, " whatever was visible." It is a remarkable fact, forcibly illus- trating the state of philosophy in Plato's time, that neither the word v\r] in the sense of " matter," nor any other word appropri- ate to the expression of that idea, occurs in his writings. — See Additional Note, A. J Timaeus, p. 30. § 'AvdyKt]. II Timaeus, pp. 48, 56. 1 See before, pp. 21, 22. 52 EVIDENCES OF THE universe, one beneficent, and the other of an opposite character.* There is here no direct mention of matter ; but the passage was under- stood by Plutarch, and by others of the later admirers and expositors of Plato, as referring to a soul without intellect, resident in matter, and producing its disorderly motion while in its un- formed state. This Plutarch regarded as the principle of evil in the universe ; and the ex- istence of some such principle, he says, had been affirmed by the greater part of preceding theologists and philosophers.! During the second and third centuries, the doctrine, that matter, having an independent existence, is the source of evil, attracted atten- tion among Christians ; and treatises were written in opposition to it. It was generally rejected by the catholic Christians, who be- lieved matter to have been created by God. It was, however, maintained by Hermogenes, who was not a Gnostic, and against whom Tertullian wrote a treatise, still extant. Ar- nobius, likewise, who wrote about the be- ginning of the fourth century, asks the ques- * De Legibus, p. 896. •j- The passages from Plutarch relating to this subject may be found collected by Cudworth and Mosheim in the Systema Intel- lectuale a Mosheim. Tom. I. p. 299, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 53 tion, — " What if primitive matter (prima ma- teries), which has been disposed into the four elements, contain the causes of all miseries ? " * though this appears not to have been his own opinion. That the body is the antagonist principle of evil in man is a natural branch of the doctrine that matter is the antagonist principle of evil in the universe. But the former opinion subsisted unconnected with the latter, or connected but loosely and obscurely. By the Gnostics it was adopted in its whole extent. But it was no novel doctrine. Plato taught, as we have already seen, that the body was not the original residence of the soul.f Through the appointment of God, or from necessity, or in consequence of its own fault or its intrinsic weakness (for he is not consistent with himself in his representations), it had been removed, or had fallen, from its first estate, and become immersed and entangled in matter.J The philosophical doctrine of the im- mortality of the soul, widely different from the Christian, was connected with the belief of its preexistence either through the past duration of * Advers. Gentes, Lib. L p. 6. Ed. Thysii. 1651. t See before, pp. 17, 18. I Timaeus, p. 41, seqq. Phaedrus, p. 246, seqq. 54 EVIDENCES OF THE the universe, or from eternity, and of its having undergone many changes of being, and re- appeared on earth in many different forms. According to Plato, the soul, being confined within the body, is in consequence subjected to the violent affections connected with the senses, to desire mingled with pleasure and pain, and to fear and anger. Its perceptions are darkened, and its powers, enthralled. It is surrounded by a world of delusion ; and all its true knowledge consists in the reminiscences of the Ideas with which it was conversant in a higher state of existence, reminiscences awak- ened by the imperfect resemblances of those Ideas which material things present. Plato, accordingly, describes it as the highest purpose of philosophy to loosen the connection by which the soul is bound and agglutinated within the body, to withdraw it from the senses, except so far as we are by necessity compelled to use them, to enable it to be alone, collected within itself, and thus to free it, as far as possible, from pleasures and de- sires, and sorrows and fears, and by the exer- cise of all virtue to prepare it for a return to the life of the gods.* * Timffius, p. 42, seqq., p. 69, Phaedrus, pp. 249, 250. Phae- do, p. 64, seqq., p. 72, seqq., p. 81, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 55 The doctrine, that the body is the great source of moral evil, was common in ancient times. Philo, the Jewish philosopher, adopted on this subject the conceptions and language of Plato. He speaks of the body as a corpse which we bear about with us, as evil by nature and laying snares for the soul, as a sepulchre in which the soul is entombed, and as a prison full of pollution, from which it must free itself. Every virtue, he says, loves the soul ; every vice, the body ; what is in friendship with one is at enmity with the other. Virtues and virtu- ous deeds are perfect and blameless sacrifices which the body abhors.* This common sentiment of antiquity appears in the writings of St. Paul. " I know," he says, " that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells nothing good."t He regarded those as left to the influences of the flesh, who were without the spiritual principle to be derived from Chris- tianity. The law in the members, says the Apostle, warring against the law of the mind, brings men into subjection to the law of sin * Legum Allegorife, Lib. IIL 0pp. L 100, 101. De Creatione Principum, U. 367. De Migratione Abrahami, L 437. Quis Re- rum Divinarum Haeres, L 507. De Profugis, L 548. f Romans vii. 18. 56 EVIDENCES OF THE which is in the members.* There are passages in which his meaning is likely to be misunder- stood, from the comparatively limited sense in which the word jiesh has been metaphorically used in modern times, as denoting only the irregular appetites. He, on the other hand, according to the philosophy of his age, considers the flesh as the source of moral evil in general. Thus he enumerates among the works of the flesh, " idolatry, magical arts, enmities, quarrels, passion, anger, strife, divisions, parties, hatred, murder."! Those who have become Chris- tians, he says, have " put off this body of flesh." % The conceptions which were thus generally entertained have an obvious foundation in the nature of man. The appetites, by indulging in which the soul " embodies and embrutes," are to be referred to our material part. The diseases which the flesh is heir to disorder the affections and temper, fill the mind with phan- toms of misery, disturb the judgment, and some- times lay waste the inteflect ; and in our best * Romans vii. 23. f Galatians v. 20, 21. \ Colossians ii. 11. — I omit twi/ &fiapTio>u {of the 5ms), with Griesbach and others. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 57 estate, " the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle burdens the mind full of many thoughts." Still, the body is not the sepulchre, but the cradle, of the soul. It is a necessary condition of the present life, of this school of discipline and instruction which Divine Wisdom has prepared for us at the commencement of our being, and in which our powers of action, our capacities of enjoy- ment, and the objects around us, are so adjusted to each other as to promote the moral growth of the newly formed inhabitant of the universe. In a philosophical view, the body is not a clog upon the mind ; it may rather be compared to the weight which gives motion to a piece of machinery ; for its wants and desires are what first rouse the mind to action, and gradually bring into exercise its highest powers and best affections. If we cannot call the appetites the germ of our virtues, yet they may almost be considered as the soil in which our virtues take root. From them spring industry and fore- thought, which, as regards the greater part of men, are exercised most strenuously in supplying their demands ; and they call into exercise self- control, the first requisite in our moral discipline. The relation between the sexes becomes the source of the most disinterested love, and of all VOL. IIJ. 8 58 EVIDENCES OF THE the domestic charities. And it is in witnessing the bodily wants and sufferings of our fellow- creatures that compassion and benevolence are first awakened. It is remarkable that the conception of the evil nature of the body, though recommended by such authority, and though it subsequently had an essential influence in strengthening the ascetic system of morality among Christians, does not appear to have found much favor with the early fathers, any more than the doctrine of an evil principle in matter. Even Clement of Alexandria, whom we should suppose likely, as much as any one, to have been influenced by the Platonic philosophy, expressly contends that " neither the soul is good, nor the body bad, by nature." * The Gnostics, adopting the common doctrine of their age concerning the evil nature of the body, were further distinguished from the cath- olic Christians by some of the inferences which they drew from it. A portion of them made it a ground for strict asceticism and abstinence * Stromat. Lib. IV. ^ 26. p. 639. Conf. Lib. III. ^ 11. p. 545. ^ 16. p. 559. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 59 from all the pleasures of sense. Some, on the other hand, conformably to what has been be- fore stated,* are said to have found in it a license for criminal indulgence. They pre- tended that the vile body was so apart from the spirit, that the latter could not be contami- nated by the affections of the former. With many Gnostics it was probably not more opera- tive in its practical influence, than with the majority of other individuals by whom it was held. But it led them generally to the belief that Christ had not a proper human body of flesh and blood. It also caused them to deny " the resurrection of the body." The question concerning this subject was one of those most strongly contested between the Gnostics and the catholic Christians, however uninteresting the debate may appear to a philosopher of the present day. In connection with the notions of the Gnos- tics concerning the causes of evil, it remains to speak of their opinions relating to the Devil. But our direct and credible information on this subject is scanty. The conception of him as a personal agent does not appear to have been * See Vol. II. pp. 126, 127 ; p. 130, seqq. 60 EVIDENCES OF THE essential to their system. The notices still remaining which they themselves gave of their opinions are inconsistent with the representa- tions of the fathers. A comparison of them together may serve to show with what distrust we should regard the accounts of the fathers, even those of the best authority, when they are not dwelt upon and explained at length, or confirmed by their intrinsic probability, or by their consistency with what is known of the system of the Gnostics, or by collateral evi- dence. It thus illustrates the impracticability, which for the most part exists, of pursuing our inquiries respecting the doctrines of the Gnos- tics upon any safe grounds, when those inquiries extend beyond the great, characteristic features of their belief. Ireneeus, in his account of the Ptolemaeo- Valentinian theory,* says, that, according to Ptolemy, the Devil was formed by the Crea- tor, that he was called Cosmocrator, or the Ruler of the World, having his seat in this lower world, and that, being the Spirit of Evil (that is, his nature being spiritual), he knew the things above him (he was aware of the existence of the spiritual world, the Pleroma) ; * See Vol. II. p. 89. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 61 but that the Creator, not being spiritual, did not know of their existence.* In this account Irenaeus is followed by Tertullian f and other later writers. But the account is irreconcilable with that which Ptolemy himself gives of his opinions in his Letter to Flora. He there says : — " There is one unorifijinated Father, from whom prop- erly all things are ; for the chain of being de- pends from him The essence of the Adversary is destruction and darkness ; for he is material and multiplex. But the essence of the unoriginated Father of All is incorruption, and light itself pure and uniform. The essence of these two produced a certain twofold power [the Creator].! But he is the image of the Better." Here we find the Devil, or the principle of evil in the universe, described, not as spiritual (conformably to the account of Irenaeus), but as material, and not as produced by the Creator (a statement in itself sufficiently improbable), but as in some way contributing to his produc- tion ; — the idea of Ptolemy, I conceive, being. * Cont. Hasres. Lib. L c. 5. § 4. p. 26. f Adversus Valentinianos, c. 22. p. 259. 4 'H Se TovTcov ovcria btTTrjv fxeu Tiva Svvafxiv Trporjyayev. 62 EVIDENCES OF THE that matter entered into the composition of the Creator. Ptolemy goes on to exhort Flora not to be troubled by the question, How, when there is one good Being, the principle of all things, whose nature it is to make all things like himself, these two other powers should exist, one whose essence is destruction, and the other possessing a middle nature. But, unfortunately, we have not his answer to this question. He promises to give, at some future time, a solution of it, grounded on the apos- tolic tradition which had come down to the Gnostics, and confirmed throughout by the teach- ing of the Saviour.* From this passage we may judge that Ptol- emy, adopting the conception of Plato, Plu- tarch, and other philosophers, respecting the material soul, or the animate principle of evil in matter, which is at war with order and sta- bility, regarded this principle as the Adversary, the Devil. Such, from all that we can learn concerning the subject, appears to have been the doctrine of the Valentinians. They divided men into three classes, — the spiritual, the ani- mal and rational,! and the earthy. The last, according to Heracleon, were of the same sub- * Epist. ad Floram, p. 361. f Ol ylrvxixoi. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 63 Stance with the Devil ; whom he was so far from considering as spiritual, that he denied him the power of will, saying that he had only desires.* The same notion of the materiality of the Devil appears in the Doctrina Orien- talis.f And, what is remarkable, Irenaeus is as inconsistent with himself as with the Gnos- tic writers who have been quoted. For, im- mediately before the passage that has been adduced from him, he says that the Valen- tinians taught that the Devil and the evil de- mons had their origin from a substance which, according to his own account, the Valentinians considered as one form of matter. J It is probable that what thus appears to have been the doctrine of the Valentinians, namely, that the Devil was the animate prin- ciple of evil in matter, was also the doctrine of the Basilidians and the Marcionites. Of Marcion Tertullian says, that, " imputing un- * Apud Origen. Comment, in Joan. XX. ^ 20. 0pp. TV. 337-339. f Doctrina Orientalis, § 48. §§ 52, 53. ^ 34. Conf. Irenaeus, Lib. I. c. 6. § L p. 28. J 'Ek Se rris Xv7rr;s — Trjv yevecnu itxxqKtvai. Lib. I. C. 5. ^ 4. p. 26. For the meaning of ck rrjs Xvirrjs see what immediately precedes in the same section, p. 25, and Irenseus's whole account of the notions of the Valentinians concerning the formation of matter in the fourth and fifth chapters of his first Book. 64 EVIDENCES OF THE originated, unmade, eternal evil to unorigi- nated, unmade, eternal matter, he has thus made a god of evil." * The only question in regard to him or Basilides is. Whether they ascribed a personal, or an animate, existence to the principle of evil. This question, as far as regards Marcion, would be determined in the affirmative, if we could trust to the accounts of the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. What is certain in regard to the Gnostics in general is, that they regarded the principle of evil, whether animate or inanimate, as inherent in matter. They unquestionably did not agree with the catholic Christians in supposing that Satan and his angels had been created by the Supreme God as good angels, and had fallen through their own wickedness from their high estate ; — a conception with which we are fa- miliar through the mythology of Milton. Their doctrine, as we have no reason to doubt, cor- responded more nearly with the original Per- sian doctrine, , which had passed, as we have seen, into the philosophy of their times. They believed the antagonist principle in the uni- verse to have been by nature bad and resident in matter. In this respect they were nearly * Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 15. p. 373. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 65 allied to the Manichaeans. But it is to be added, that the Valentinians, at least, do not appear, like the Manichaeans, to have consid- ered this principle as having always existed in primitive matter ; but to have regarded it as assuming being and life when primitive matter was endued with its various forms at the creation. In concluding this subject of the opinions of the Gnostics concerning the immediate causes of evil in this world, it may be remarked, that, in proportion as Christianity afforded a more definite idea of a benevolent author of all things, the question of the origin of evil assumed new interest. It being conceded that the only infinite Power in the universe is purely benefi- cent, the problem. Why does evil exist ? at once presented itself. The thoughts of men were directed to the subject ; and the imperfect so- lution of the Gnostics was but one among those which were formed. The catholic Christians, generally, did not speculate so much concern- ing it as the heretics, nor were they agreed in their theories. But in the writings of the more philosophical of their number, in those of Clement and Origen, for example, we find some just and noble views. They taught that 66 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. moral evil was the necessary result of that free- dom of agency in created beings, without which they could not be subjects of praise or blame ; and that the evils, so called, proceeding from God, were disciplinary and corrective, the ad- monitions and chastisements of a father, the remedies of a physician. The generality of the Gnostics adopted the principles that have been explained. But concerning the immersion of spirit in matter the theosophic Gnostics pursued their theory still farther into the region of the Pleroma, and found its occasion in disorders which there took place. But their views on this subject were connected with their whole system of theo- sophic speculations, and to these we will next attend. CHAPTER VIII. ON THE PECULIAR SPECULATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. Section I. Introductory Remarks on the Character of Ancient Philosophy. I FEEL a reluctance to proceed at once to an account of the more imaginative part of the speculations of the Gnostics without some words of preparation. It would be doing them injustice to give a naked statement of their belief, if we may call it by so grave a name, without any ex- planation of the general character of the philos- ophy of that period in which it had its origin. A stranger from a foreign land, of which the manners and customs are altogether different from those of the country he is visiting, if brought among individuals unprepared for the peculiarities of his dress and behaviour, would not be more unfairly estimated, or exposed to more unfounded ridicule, than a speculatist of ancient times, whose opinions should at once 68 EVIDENCES OF THE be confronted with the conceptions of the pres- ent day. It should be understood, also, that a modern language is often but an imperfect in- strument for expressing the opinions of an ancient theorist. What is true of poetry is true also of the speculations of the ancients. The plausibility of the latter, like the beauty of the former, not unfrequently depends on a nice adaptation of words, callida verborum junctura, which can hardly be imitated in translation, and disappears in an abstract. It is often the case, that modern terms do not sufficiently correspond with those of an ancient language to admit of their being fitted together in the same manner. Having, then, formerly remarked the disadvan- tage to which the Gnostics are exposed from the circumstance that our accounts of them are derived principally from their opponents,* we will now attend to the other obstacles which lie in the way of a correct apprehension and a just estimate of their more mystical doctrines, arising from the general character of ancient philosophy, and the difficulties attending its study. The books of ancient philosophers are left * See Vol. 11. p. 34, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 69 US. The dead letter still remains ; but it is not easy to reanimate it with their thoughts. The same words are now printed which were origi- inally written ; but of the ideas which these words expressed, many have been essentially modified, or have become wholly obsolete. What was once a vivid conception can now be contemplated but dimly and imperfectly. What once was linked with a system of opinions, and recalled many associations, now finds nothing with which to connect itself in our minds. Our sphere of knowledge is greatly enlarged ; a much stronger light falls upon it ; delusions have disappeared ; many objects, which were partially seen and misapprehended, are now clearly discerned, and many present themselves under new aspects and relations. We may translate into our own language the words used by ancient philosophers ; but our modern terms are often far from suggesting to our minds the conceptions which those words once conveyed. In the progress of time, many ideas have been decomposed, and many have entered into new combinations, forming new aggregates. Every thing changeable in our minds, all but the essential principles of human nature, has been more or less chano;ed. To find in an ancient author a strain of sentiment with which our 70 EVIDENCES OF THE own feelings fully accord, a series of thoughts which appears to us altogether true, or rea- soning which brings conviction to our own minds, is like hearing our native tongue in a strange land. The speculations of the ancients were seldom such as, being addressed to the common reason of men and founded in universal truth, and therefore expressed in its ever intelligible lan- guage, require, throughout all ages, only a similar apprehension of truth in order to be understood. The difference between the in- tellectual character of men in ancient and in modern times may be felt at once ; but long- continued attention is required to comprehend, as far as may be, the extent and nature of the particulars which it embraces. We are continually liable to be deceived by apparent correspondences of language ; and as great mistakes are in consequence sometimes com- mitted in the study of their philosophy, as if, on account of the identity of name, we were to imagine that the consuls of Rome re- sembled in power and office the consuls of mod- ern commercial nations. Language is a full and ready means of com- munication only between those whose minds have been formed under similar influences, GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 71 whose ideas have been moulded after the same fashion, and whose associations run in similar channels. Such correspondence of thought and feeling is required, not merely that the terms used may be understood in the same sense, but also that the mind of the reader may be able to furnish at once those connecting and acces- sory ideas, that perpetual commentary on the words employed, which is necessary to supply the many breaks and deficiencies of expression that have their origin in the unavoidable imper- fection of language. In order to receive from the words of an ancient writer the meaning and impression which they were once adapt- ed to convey, we must often arrange our thoughts in new combinations, form new con- ceptions, and refashion others, regard subjects under an aspect foreign from that to which we are accustomed, and restore associations that have long been obsolete. We must forget our present knowledge and belief; and place ourselves in the midst of the imperfect information and the erroneous views by which he was surrounded. If this be not done, we may substitute for his speculations an incongruous sort of modern- antique doctrine ; and may praise or censure him, equally without reason, for the supposititious opinions we have ascribed to him. Two writ- 72 EVIDENCES OF THE ers of opposite belief may each fancy that he finds his own philosophy in an ancient author, and both may be equally in error, for both may have committed the anachronism of supposing him to have reference to conceptions which did not exist till long after his day. Some modern accounts of ancient doctrines resem- ble the descriptions that have been given, or have been feigned to be given, of European manners and customs by natives of the East. They are travellers' wonders. We may find in them verbal truth and essential error. The ideas of the ancient writer may be so disguised as hardly to be recognized, by being divested of their native dress, clothed in new words, and presented apart from all their usual as- sociations. We find partial views, misappre- hensions, an inability to estimate what is per- ceived according to its relative importance, and, in consequence of all, false inferences, which, if the expositor have a theory to maintain, or fancy that he has a talent for disquisition, spread their cloudy or dazzling discoloration over the whole subject. In studying the speculations of the ancients, we are, then, as far as possible, to keep their conceptions steadily before our minds, to refer GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 73 their language directly to those conceptions, and not to interpret it to ourselves through ^he ill-adapted medium of modern opinions and a modern tongue. But the earnest and unrelaxed attention which is thus required is, in itself, not altogether favorable to our attaining a right apprehension of the subject of our study. This arises from the character of ancient phi- losophy. The difficulty of the task leads us to examine too closely and intently theories not of a nature to be submitted to such critical scrutiny. We fix our eyes too steadily upon speculations adapted only for a general and cursory view. We expect from the author a grave feeling of the responsibility of the dis- cussion, corresponding to the gravity of the task imposed upon ourselves ; and we are like- ly to become far more earnest than he was to determine precisely his meaning, and reconcile his opinions, and, perhaps, his metaphors, with each other. Reasoning upon the higher and more im- portant subjects of thought was a far less serious thing with the ancient heathen phi- losophers than it is at the present day. The whole region of knowledge that lies beyond the sphere of the senses was involved in obscu- VOL. III. 10 ^4 EVIDENCES OF THE rity and doubt. No great truths generally ac- knowledged served as landmarks to guide the explorer. The higher philosophy, therefore, of the ancient heathens, comprehending all that relates to their theology, consisted, in great part, of conjectures and doubtful hypotheses. Una- ble to find arguments to satisfy the understand- ing, they addressed themselves to the imagina- tion. Proof of any theory could not be fur- nished. Uncertainty was on every side. The voice of Revelation was as yet unheard ; and the assurance which we derive from it of the fundamental truths of religion was unknown. In this absence of any decided belief, men were neither accustomed to reason strictly themselves, nor to demand strict reasoning from others. What was plausible passed current, and became a substitute for truth. In the famous dialogue in which Plato gives an account of the creation and constitution of the universe, he represents Timaeus, to whom he assigns the explanation of those subjects, as thus speaking : — " Since much has been said by many concerning the gods and the production of the universe, you will not wonder if my account of these things should not be fitted in all respects to bear the strictest examination, and command universal assent. But, if I pro- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 75 duce one not less probable than any other, it is to be received with favor ; for you must remem- ber that he who speaks and you who judge are but men ; so that if you receive from me a probable mythos, it will be well to seek no farther."* A probable mythos, or, in other words, an imaginary representation, supposed to have a semblance of the truth, was often all that was aimed at by the ancients in similar speculations. As such only, some of the more sober Gnostics may have regarded their theories concerning the spiritual world. It might be well, perhaps, especially in treating of the spec- ulations of the ancients, to adopt the term my- thos into our own language in one of its ancient senses, as denoting an imaginary account of unknown things or events, not supposed to be true in its details, but intended to affect the mind in the same manner as the truth.f In modern philosophy this kind of writing is not common ; but there is an example of it by the celebrated author of " The Light of Nature * Timaeus, p. 29. t The modernized term myth (English), or mythe (French and German), has been lately introduced; but it has been used so vaguely as to be rather a disadvantage than a gain, as regards pre- cision of language. 76 EVIDENCES OF THE Pursued," in " The Vision," in which he de- scribes the future life. The art of reasoning, more slow in its prog- ress than any other, was very imperfectly un- derstood by the ancients. In every branch of philosophy, not less than in the physical sci- ences, they committed the mistake of founding their hypotheses on preconceptions and not on facts. As regards the physical sciences, their imaginary and false speculations are now only a matter of history. But they were far more exposed to error in treating of objects beyond the sphere of the senses, than in explaining the phenomena of the material world. When, with our very different and more correct modes of thinking, we now study their theories, it is like freely examining in the daytime a spec- tacle adapted to be viewed only at a distance by artificial light. To explain the appearan- ces observed by them, instead of investigat- ing the laws of matter and mind, and the re- lations of existing things to each other, they passed beyond the bounds of human knowl- edge, and supposed the operation of agen- cies, beings, and qualities, of the existence of which no proof had been or could be pro- duced. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 77 Thus, to explain the origin of the world, the Epicureans fancied an infinity of atoms for ever falling through void space, with a slight inclination towards each other, and for 'h ever forming numberless combinations, of which this universe was one. To account for the changes in the qualities of material objects, Plato taught, that, from eternity, these qual- ities had possessed existence as Ideas^ and that they sometimes were connected with and some- times separated from the same portion of prim- itive matter ; the disappearance of one Idea, or quality, being followed by the access of another. The existence of evil was, as we have seen, explained by the supposition of an evil nature inherent in eternal, uncreated mat- ter, the necessary substratum of the visible universe. In the common intercourse of life every one may meet with undisciplined think- ers, of active minds, who are accustomed to frame theories after the same fashion. As I have said, their defect is, that they assume the operation of causes, or laws, of the ex- istence of which there is neither proof nor probability ; and it may be added, that this assumption is often connected with mistakes in regard to the character of the phenomena to be explained. 78 EVIDENCES OF THE Even in modern times this sort of reasoning, after having been partially, at least, driven from the physical sciences, has maintained its ground in the higher departments of philosophy. We have examples of it in the monads and pre'cs- tahlished harmony of Leibnitz ; in the neces- sary scale of being from Infinite to man, from man to nothing, which Bolingbroke imposed on the good sense of Pope ; in Hartley's theory of vibrations, and the conversion of vibratiundes into complex and abstract ideas ; in Priestley's doctrine of the materiality of the soul, con- nected by him w^ith the position that matter has no other properties than those of attraction, repulsion, and extension ; in the speculations of Darwin in his Zoonomia ; and throughout the writings of the modern German metaphy- sicians. When such conjectural hypotheses find fa- vor, they will be multiplied abundantly ; for they are of easy construction. They require no patient investigation of facts, no analysis nor induction. Nor, as they involve conceptions beyond the sphere of experience, do they admit of those precise definitions of thought which are incompatible with error, and which only a superior intellect can combine into new forms GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 79 of truth. The theorist passes at once from the world of reality into the world of imagination, the transcendental world, where he may fab- ricate and put together his materials at pleas- ure. Whatever phenomena present themselves, if he have sufficient ingenuity, he needs to be at no loss for an explanation. As in the Ptol- emaic system of the world, with its Gentries and exeentries, cyeles and epieyeles, orb in orb, he may by new additions always contrive to keep his hypothesis in repair, till it falls to pieces at the shock of truth. We are apt, in- deed, through a natural mistake, to infer from the difficulty that we may find in understand- ing such speculations that they are difficult of fabrication. If we suffer ourselves to be de- ceived by the pretensions of a writer, we may fancy that he thinks profoundly, when he is only so indistinct, confused, and illogical, that we cannot fathom his meaning. But truth is al- ways clear. Good sense is always intelligible. Obscurity is the birthplace and the lurking- hole of error. We can make no progress in the investigation of truth, if our ideas are vague and unformed. We might as well attempt to determine the phenomena of the heavenly bod- ies by observations taken in a mist. The first requisite in a philosopher is, that he apprehend 80 EVIDENCES OF THE his own meaning ; and if he do so, he can hardly fail to make his meaning understood. Other things being equal, a writer deserves to be read in proportion as he is intelligible ; that is, in proportion as his ideas are definite, clear, and rightly disposed in their relations to each other. If obscurity were an indication of wisdom, the theosophic Gnostics might be reckoned among the wisest of thinkers. We need not doubt, however, that there were many among them who fancied that they understood the speculations of their school. They whose minds are confused, and who are unaccustomed to look for a precise meaning in words, often read- ily believe that they comprehend what is unin- telligible. Wanting sagacity to discern the in- definiteness or the inconsistency of ideas, they are satisfied with words that present a sem- blance of meaning. At the same time, as was the case with the Gnostics, their vanity may be flattered by the thought that they can under- stand what wiser men cannot ; and they may, in consequence, admire the writer who affords them this gratification. In the incantations of former times, barbarous and unmeaning words were used to compel the spirits evoked ; and the history of our race, and our own observation. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 81 may attest the magical power of nonsense over the spirits of men. In proportion as we think inaccurately and reason illogically, in proportion as we neglect to define our conceptions, and trace out their relations, and discover their mutual bearings, so will our notions both concerning diflerent subjects, and concerning the same subject as viewed in various connections, be irreconcilable with one another. It is, I conceive, impossible, and if possible, it must be the labor of severe and long-continued thought, to detect all the inconsistencies of our ideas, and reduce all our opinions to a uniform system of belief. It is a task which the ancient philosophers did not attempt to perform. Their metaphysical specu- lations had more alliance with poetry than with reasoning. Often the conceptions presented by them were adapted to the purpose in view, with little regard to those which they might else- where express. Hence much unprofitable labor has been spent in endeavouring to bend their language to such a meaning, that the different doctrines of the same individual, or the same sect, may not appear altogether incongruous with one another. Some of their modern ex- positors have been far more concerned than VOL. III. 11 82 EVIDENCES OF THE they were, to render their philosophy consis- tent with itself. When such an account is given of the general system of opinions of an ancient theorist, as puts them in competition with those of a true philosopher ; or when such an account is given, that we do not at once perceive great oversights and deficiencies, this very circumstance affords reason to distrust its correctness. There is ground to suspect that the doctrines of the ancient theorist have been refashioned by his modern expositor. It is often much easier to fabricate a scheme of opinions to which the language of an ancient writer ap- proximates, or to which many of his expres- sions may be conformed, — an imaginary theory, which he did not hold, but which, if he had thought consistently, he might perhaps have held, — than to determine and explain the real state of his conceptions at different times, and the varying senses of the same words as em- ployed by him in different connections. Truth, in respect to the higher objects of thought, was of much less importance in ancient times than in our own. It was of less impor- tance, because, even if attained, it could have little influence on the generality of men. The free use of books being confined to compara- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 83 lively a very small number, and all other means of communicating the opinions and sentiments of enlightened men being scanty and imperfect, it could not be widely promulgated ; and so far as it was promulgated, it must appeal to argu- ments that but few would understand, and urge considerations that but few would feel. The express authority of revelation alone affords a firm and sufiticient basis for those truths which most concern human happiness and virtue. The most excellent speculations of ancient philoso- phers, though they tended without doubt to give a higher elevation to a few superior minds, — who, through a very natural, but very great mis- take, may now appear to us as the representa- tives of the ancient world, — yet affected in no considerable degree the moral condition of the generality of men. Truth, therefore, being pur- sued with little view to any practical result, was not sought for intently, nor with strong interest. No ancient philosopher appears to have thought more like a wise and good man of modern times than Cicero ; and in some of his writings there is a moral grandeur and power that no modern eloquence has surpassed. In his work " Con- cerning the Nature of the Gods," " that most difficult," he says, "and most obscure question," he begins with stating its importance in the 84 EVIDENCES OF THE Strong language of a religious philosopher. " Were piety toward the gods done away, I do not know," he says, " but that mutual trust, and all that binds men together in society, and that regard to the rights of others, which stands alone as the most excellent of virtues, would also come to an end." Yet he concludes this work with stating, in the person of Cotta, the objections to any divine providence, urged by the disciples of the New Academy, and leaves them not merely unanswered, but without at- tempting to weaken their force, except by a declaration that he thought the opposite opinion more probable. They were such objections, we may suppose, as had pressed upon his own mind, though without overthrowing his religious faith ; and such a statement of them, even coming from him, was not likely, as he knew, to produce any perceptible effect on the popular belief. The loose reasoning of the ancients pro- ceeded in great part from the want of clear conceptions ; and consequently the signification of the language employed in it was fluctuating and indeterminate. Many of the principal terms in ancient philosophy have but a dim and uncertain meaning. The conception meant to be expressed by a particular name embraces GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 85 perhaps incongruous ideas, of which the atten- tion, as it is differently directed, is now fixed upon one, and then upon another. As in the mechanical arts, the tools of the workman be- come more finished, and are better adapted to their purpose, in proportion to the progress of those arts, so it is, in the art of reasoning, with words, the tools of the logician. They become more clear and definite in their signification as men think and reason more distinctly and accu- rately. But in proportion as any period, or any school, is characterized by loose reasoning and cloudy and uncertain language, we may expect to find it distinguished also by the number of its philosophical theories, and the fancied subtil- ty and sublimity of its speculations. The fog that is spread around changes the appearance of familiar objects; it magnifies their forms, and blends with them its own unsubstantial shapes. The whole aspect of nature is different from that presented in a clear light; and he who describes, as really existing, what he has fancied himself to behold under this delusion, may be uninteUigible to one who sees things as they are. In some of the works of the mystical metaphy- sicians of the present day, we may find as strik- ing examples as any which antiquity affords, of general terms, floating loosely through a wide 86 EVIDENCES OF THE sphere of meaning, and incapable of being fixed in any definite sense ; of language, deprived of all real import, and presenting only spectral and unformed conceptions ; and of new and bar- barous words, the signification of which has neither been settled by usage, that best definer of language, nor analyzed and explained by the inventor. There is still another consideration to be attended to concerning the speculations of the ancient philosophers. When men's ideas are unformed and their language indefinite, those who attempt to speculate necessarily speculate obscurely. Having but a partial and unsteady view of the objects to which their attention is directed, they express themselves with an in- distinctness that may conceal error; in figurative language, between which and what is literally intended more or less correspondence may be supposed ; or with a wide generality of phrase that leaves their meaning indeterminate, — a matter of controversy, to be settled according to the different judgments of their disciples. Hence the sayings of those who were, or who were reputed, wise, in the earlier stages of intellectual cultivation, acquired the name of " dark sayings " ; and enigmatic language, and GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 87 imperfect modes of expression, by which noth- ing was clearly explained, came to be consid- ered as the appropriate dialect of philosophy. Thus a great fault was regarded as a badge of intellectual eminence. Obscurity was thought to be characteristic of profoundness. The inca- pacity which could not attain to clear ideas wrapped itself in dark robes, and spoke oracles in paradoxes and ambiguous language. The causes which produced this state of things have continued to operate, more or less, through the whole progress of philosophy. The alchemists and astrologers of former times used a peculiar gergo, or cant language, intelligible only to themselves ; and other professors of false philosophy have, like them, sought to dis- tinguish themselves from the generality by pe- culiar modes of speech, and the misuse of lan- guage. During the age of the Gnostics, those conceptions which have led to the affectation of obscurity were in full strength. We find them expressed and defended by Clement of Alexandria ; and a few sentences from that eminent father may cast some further light on the subject. " All those," he says, " who have theologized, both Barbarians and Greeks, have concealed the principles of things ; and have delivered 88 EVIDENCES OF THE the truth in enigmas and symbols, in allego- ries and metaphors, and in such modes of ex- pression." * Elsewhere he gives the reasons for adopting this style of teaching. " Life would fail me, should 1 undertake to enumerate all those who have philosophized symbolically, for the sake of assisting the mem- ory by brevity, and in order to excite attention to the truth All truths shown under a veil appear greater and more venerable ; beautiful, like fruits seen through water, or forms that discover their lineaments under drapery. For a blaze of light shows defects. Besides, what is plainly seen can be understood but in one sense ; but truths should admit of diverse acceptations, as they do when expressed obscurely. When they are so expressed, the unskilled and ignorant man falls into error, but the enlightened manf comprehends them. The wise have not been willing that all things should be free to all ; nor that the treasures of wisdom should be communicated to those who have not even dreamed of purifying their souls. For it is not right to bestow on every one what has been * Stromat. V. § 4. p. 658. t 'O yvaxTTiKos, " The Gnostic." See Vol. II. p. 10. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 89 acquired with so much labor, nor to expound the mysteries of the Logos [of Wisdom] to the profane. It is related that Hipparchus, the Pythagorean, being charged with explaining clearly in his writings the doctrines of Pythag- oras, was expelled from the school, and that a monumental pillar was erected to him as if he had been dead." * Clement has much more to the same effect in the fifth book of his Stromata.f In support of his doctrine he refers to many real or sup- posed examples and authorities. Clement him- self, however, is not distinguished, as a writer, for studied obscurity, nor did his doctrine pre- vail among catholic Christians. But, in the passages quoted from him, he is to be consid- ered as the representative of a class, and as expressing opinions common in his age. In treating of this subject in the fifth book of his Stromata, it seems evident that the hidden wisdom which he principally had in mind consisted in speculations relating to the nature of the Divinity, " the sacred mystic doctrine," as he expresses it, " concerning the * Stromat. V. § 9. pp. 679, 680. t Pp. 656-694. VOL. III. 12 90 EVIDENCES OF THE Unoriginated and his Powers." * It was the subject about which the theosophic Gnostics especially exercised their imaginations. Clem- ent introduces the ancient doctrine respecting obscurity in various other places, and particu- larly dwells upon it again in the sixth book of his Stromata.t Elsewhere, after maintain- ing a common notion of the fathers, that the heathen philosophers borrowed much from the Jewish Scriptures, he represents them as imi- tating from those Scriptures " the hidden char- acter of the barbaric [the Jewish] philosophy, its symbolical and enigmatical form, which is most useful, or rather most necessary, to a knowledge of the truth." | It is easy to understand what must have been the consequences of such an opinion of the excellence of obscurity. He who does not study clearness in the use of words cannot think clearly ; for, as regards all abstract sub- jects, words are not merely the means by which we express ourselves, they are also the means by which we think. We can no more reason on such subjects with a confused notion of their * Stromat. V. p. 694. Conf. pp. 685, 686 ; 689, 690 ; 692, seqq. Stromat. VII. p. 838. t Pp. 798-817. % Stromat. V. ^ 1. p. 429. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 91 significance, than we can pursue an investiga- tion in the higher branches of mathematics with a confused notion of the significance of the symbols to be employed. But when obscurity becomes a subject of praise, or when the great mistake is made of supposing it not to be the natural result of incapacity, but to be in some way connected with superiority of mind, there will be many pretended teachers of wisdom, who will pour forth their imperfect and inco- herent ideas, leaving it to their admirers to find or to imagine a meaning. The preceding remarks may prepare us for the speculations of the theosophic Gnostics con- cerning the origin of spiritual beings, and of the material universe. But a single example from an ancient writer will serve to illustrate what has been said, and to give a more distinct view of ancient philosophy. I will produce one from Plato, " that wisest man of Greece," says Cicero, " far excelling all others in knowl- edge." It is the account which he gives in his Timaeus of the formation of the Soul of the Universe ; * a famous passage, about which much was written in ancient times. The subject, it * Timseus, pp. 35, 36. 92 EVIDENCES OF THE will be perceived, has an analogy to that of the speculations of the Gnostics. " The Divinity," says Plato, " compounded the Soul of the Universe of the following ma- terials in the following manner. Of that sub- stance which is undivided and always the same [the substance of things intelligible *], and of that which becomes divided in the formation of bodies [^primitive matter f]? he compounded a third kind of substance [matter indued with qualities {], intermediate between both, par- taking of the nature both of the Uniform and the Different ; § and accordingly placed it in * " Of things intelligible " ; that is, of such as can be discern- ed by the intellect alone ; the opposite of things sensible. Vid. Timaeus, pp. 27-29 ; p. 48 ; pp. 51, 52. Phajdo, p. 78, seqq. Sophista, p. 248. Politicus, p. 269. f " Primitive laaiteT " ; that is, matter supposed to exist with- out qualities, as the mere substratum or recipient of qualities. Vid. Timaeus, pp. 48-51. See Additional Note, A. J What is meant by the third kind of substance is to be in- ferred from a doctrine fundamental in Plato's philosophy, that the union of things intelligible, that is, of Ideas, with primitive matter produces the forms of matter perceptible by the senses. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to observe, that the word " sub- stance " {ovaia) as used above must be taken in its widest accep- tation, as denoting " whatever exists, not as the accident of any thing else." ^ Trjs re ravTov (pvatais ai) nepl Koi ttjs Barepov, " of the nature both of the Uniform and the DiJJ'ereni.''- The words ravro and GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 93 the midst, between that which is without parts and that which is divided in bodies. Then taking these three, he mingled them together, so that the whole had one new form ; forcing the nature of the Different, which was hard to be blended, into connection with the Uniform, and mixing them with the third kind of sub- stance,* so as of the three to form one. Then Sdrepov have commonly been rendered Idem and Diversum, " the Same " and " the Diverse " or " Different " ; but this rendering conveys no clear ideas. It is evident that by those terms are re- spectively meant the two substances first mentioned ; but I think no satisfactory explanation has been given, either in ancient or modern times, of the sense in which they are applied to those substances. But by " the substance which is always the same " (a description which, with a little variation of phrase, repeatedly occurs in Plato, as in " The Sophist," p. 248, and " The States- man," p. 269) is evidently meant by him the substance which is always the same with itself, that is, which is always " uniform." By dare pop may, then, be meant the substance which is " different " from that which is always uniform, or " the other " of the only two original kinds of substance. However this may be, the names I have used, " the Uniform " and " the Different," suffi- ciently express the nature of the substances intended. Plato, here as elsewhere, evidently affects obscurity. — I do not perceive that any light is thrown on his use of the terms in this passage by his discussion in " The Sophist " (p. 254, seqq.) concerning ^'t6 T€ TavTov Koi Barepov,^'' the terms being there used to denote " the Same " and " the Different," considered as two of the most uni- versal Ideas. If I mistake not, a comparison of the use of the terms in the passage just referred to with their use in the Ti- maeus only serves to show the confusion that existed in the philo- sophical conceptions and language of Plato. * " Mixing them with the third kind of substance " ; verbally, 94 EVIDENCES OF THE he divided the whole into as many portions as were proper, each portion being a mixture of the Uniform, the Different, and the third kind of substance. He began to divide thus : he took first one portion from the whole ; afterwards he took the double of the same ; next a third, sesquialter of the second and triple of the first ; a fourth, the double of the second ; a fifth, the triple of the third ; a sixth, eight times the first ; and a seventh, twenty- seven times the first.* Afterwards he filled up the double and triple intervals, still taking portions from the same, and placing them in those intervals, so that in each interval there should be two means ; the one mean exceed- ing one of its extremes by a certain part of that extreme, and exceeded by the other by the same part of this other ; the other mean ex- ceeding one extreme and exceeded by the other by the same number.f Thus sesquialter, ses- " mixing them with the substance " ; fiiyvvs 8e /xera Trjs ovarias. By f) ovaia, as here used, there can be no question that the third kind of substance is meant ; though, as two other kinds of sub- stance had been mentioned before, the use of the article without any more definite reference produces a verbal ambiguity. * These portions correspond to the following numbers : — 1. 2. 3. 4. 9. 8. 27. I The first proportion mentioned is what is called harmonic. It appears, for example, in the numbers, 6. 8. 12 ; as 8 exceeds GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 95 quitertian, and sesquioctave intervals * being produced by these connecting links between the intervals first mentioned, he filled up all the sesquitertian intervals with intervals of a sesqui- octave ; leaving a portion of each sesquitertian 6 by one third of 6, and 12 exceeds 8 by one third of 12. The second proportion, it will be perceived, is arithmetical. The in- tervals to be filled correspond to those of the numbers mentioned in the last note. The double intervals are those in the series, 1. 2. 4. 8. The triple are those in the series, 1. 3. 9. 27. By supplying means in harmonic proportion for the double intervals we have the series, 1. n. 2. 2f. 4. 51 8. The arithmetical means of the double intervals will be as fol- lows : — 1. U. 2. 3. 4. 6. 8. The harmonic means of the triple intervals will stand thus : — 1. li. 3. 4^. 9. 13^. 27. The arithmetical, thus : — 1. 2. 3. 6. 9. 18. 27. Then inserting both the harmonic and arithmetical means, the series of double intervals will be thus supplied : — 1. 1^. If 2. 2§. 3. 4. 5^. 6. 8. The series of triple intervals, thus : — 1. 1^. 2. 3. 4J-. 6. 9. ISh 18. 27. * " Sesquialter " denotes the ratio of Ig- to 1. A sesquialter interval is one of which the greater extreme exceeds the less in this ratio. By " sesquitertian " is here meant the ratio of 1^ to 1 ; and by " sesquioctave " that of 1^ to 1. The use of the terms " sesquitertian " and " sesquioctave " in these senses is borrowed from the use of the corresponding Latin terms by Cic- ero in his translation of the passage of Plato, which is to be found among his Fragments. 96 EVIDENCES OF THE bounded by limits which have to each other the relation of the numbers 256 and 243.* * The sesquitertian intervals are those in the two series last given which intervene between the following numbers : — 1 and li. 1^ and 2. 2 and 2§. 3 and 4. 4 and 5^. 4J- and 6. 6 and 8. 13|- and 18. These are severally to be supplied with sesquioctave intervals, thus : — 1. U. lu- H- ih m- HM- 2. 2. 2i. 2^. 2|. 3 31. 3|i. 4. and so on. But when the sesquitertian intervals are thus filled, a portion of each is left between the last sesquioctave and the greater extreme, and the greater extreme has to the sesquioctave the ratio of 256 to 243. Thus 1^ is to 1^| as 256 to 243. What, then, was the purpose of Plato in giving all these num- bers and proportions ? The answer is, that these numbers, thus proportioned to each other, are expressive of musical intervals, or, in other words, they are what are called musical numbers. This will appear clearly by multiplying them severally by 768, so as to avoid the fractions, as in the following table : — 1 768 2 1536 and so on. The numbers produced by this multiplication may be found in the Table of Musical Numbers in Rees's Cyclopaedia (Article Music), as far as to 2048 ; and the higher numbers, and those to be produced by a further multiplication, may be obtained by the rule there given. It was reported of Pythagoras, many centuries after his death, that he first discovered the ratios of the musical intervals, in his investigations respecting the sounds produced by the heavenly H 864 Hi 972 1024 H 1152 111 1115 1296 1458 2i 728 2^ 1944 2| 2048 3 2304 31 3U 4. 2592 2916 3072. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 97 Thus the mixture from which he divided these portions was wholly used up. Then cutting the bodies in their motions. According to Macrobius (In Somnium Scipionis, Lib. II. c. 1), he found that no musical notes were in concord, unless the higher had to the lower one of the following ratios : sesquitertian, sesquialter, double, triple, quadruple, and sesquioctave. These, with the ratio of 243 to 256, are the rela- tions between the numbers of Plato. The ratio of 243 to 256 expresses that of the ancient musical limma, of which Macrobius (ubi supra) says, — "The ancients have named a sound minor than a tone, a semitone ; which, it is found, differs as little from a tone as the numbers 243 and 256 from each other This Plato calls a limma.'''' The conception, then, which is the nucleus of Plato's whole system of numbers, is simply, that the soul of the universe was formed according to the laws of harmony. This is the solution of his riddle. He might have acknowledged Dryden as his ex- positor : — " From harmony, from heavenly harmony, This universal frame began ; From harmony to harmony. Through all the compass of the notes, it ran." " More obscure than the numbers of Plato," or " More obscure than the Timaeus of Plato," (the true reading is doubtful,) is an expression of Cicero in one of his letters to Atticus. Tennemann, however, says, in his " System of the Platonic Philosophy " (in German, Vol. III. p. 179, note), that, "however obscure and enig- matic these Platonic numbers have been represented in ancient and modern times, yet in reality they are not so. Through an accurate acquaintance with the theory of the Pythagoreans con- cerning numbers, and the astronomical knowledge of the times of Plato, they might be explained, if it were worth the trouble." The remark is characteristic. It is probable, that, in describing the formation of the Soul of VOL. III. 13 98 EVIDENCES OF THE composition through lengthwise into two parts, he adjusted the middle of one part to that of the Universe according to the laws of harmony, Plato had in mind the Pythagorean doctrine of the harmony produced by the heav- enly bodies in their revolutions ; — ille tantus et tarn dulcis sonus, which Scipio heard in his " Dream," " ' When ' nature thundered in his opening ears, And ' charmed ' him with the music of the spheres." But Plato himself does not attempt to explain how this music of the heavenly bodies might be produced by the structure of the Mundane Soul ; nor does he indicate any relation between the two conceptions. By later writers (Chalcidius in Timaeum, p. 313. Ed. Fabricii ; Macrobius in Somnium Scipionis, Lib. II. capp. 1-3) such a relation was conceived of as existing. — It was imagined that musical sounds were produced by the impulse of the heavenly bodies upon the medium through which they moved (Macrobius says " the air"), and that these sounds were harmonious, because the distances of those bodies from each other corresponded to musical intervals. Eratosthenes, in the second century before Christ, attempted scientifically to measure the earth. He determined its circumference to be 31,500 Roman miles (the Roman mile is to the English as 967 to 10.56). Cen- sorinus (De Die Natali, c. 13), carrying back this knowledge to the time of Pythagoras, says that Pythagoras taught that the distance of the moon from the earth was half the circumference of the earth, or 15,750 Roman miles, which (for some unexplained reason) he considered as corresponding to the interval of a tone ; that Mercury was a semitone, or 7,875 miles distant from the Moon ; Venus the same distance from Mercury ; the Sun two tones and a semitone, or 23,625 miles from A^enus, and so on ; making, in the whole, the distance of the orb of the fixed stars from the earth to be 94,500 Roman miles. According to Macro- bius, the Platonists, proceeding on the same principle of a refer- ence to musical intervals, computed the distances of the heavenly GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 99 the Other in the form of the letter X, and, bending each round into a circle, he fitted them together, and to each other, opposite to the place where they were first put together, and gave them a revolving motion always uniform through the same space. And he made one of the circles exterior and the other interior. The exterior motion he appointed to be of the uniform nature, the interior of the different. That of the Uniform he carried round laterally to the right ; that of the Different, diameter- wise to the left.* The superior power he gave bodies differently, but not more correctly. — Thus a theory was formed to explain an imaginary effect by imaginary causes, be- tween which causes and the effect no intelligible relation could be traced. * Plato conceived of the outer circle of the Mundane Soul as causing the daily revolution of the heavens from east to west, and of the inner circle, divided into seven parts (to be immediately mentioned above), as causing the revolution of the Sun, Moon, and planets, from west to east. In calling the west the right, and the east the left, he used a mode of speaking, the correctness of which Aristotle (De CceIo, Lib. II. c. 2) says was asserted by the Pythagoreans ; and though Aristotle argues strenuously for an opposite use of the terms, it seems subsequently to have been common in treating of the heavens. See Philo de Cherubim. 0pp. I. 142. PUnii Hist. Nat. Lib. II. 6. 4. Plato says that the outer circle was carried round Kara ivKevpav, laterally, the inner koto. ha^eTpov, which I have ventured to ren- der diameter-wise. Apparently, what he intended by these indefi- nite words may be thus explained. He conceived of the inner circle of the soul (answering in its position to the Zodiac) as re- 100 EVIDENCES OF THE to the periphery of the uniform and homo- geneous nature. This he left undivided ; but the interior he divided into seven unequal cir- cles, according to the several divisions of the double and triple intervals,* there being three intervals of each kind. And he appointed the circles to move contrariwise to each other, but three w^ith equal velocity ; the other four with velocities different from each other and volving in the plane of its diameters ; that is, as he terms it, naTo. bid^erpov, diameter-wise ; but the outer circle, which, in his view, carried round the heavenly bodies, through every part of heaven, in their daily revolution, he conceived of as not revolving in the plane of its diameters, but as turning on an axis (the axis of the heavens) passing from north to south through its opposite sides ; that is, according to his expression, as carried round Kara n\evpav, laterally. Stallbaum, in his late elaborate edition of the Timaeus, quotes a passage from Proclus, who, he says, " very clearly explains " the terms just remarked upon " from the geometrical method of philosophizing of the ancient Pythagoreans and Platonists." But to my apprehension the pretended explanation of Proclus is only so far intelligible, as to show that he had in mind some conception equally incoherent, and irrelevant. Whatever meaning is to be discerned in the passage quoted from him consists, to all appear- ance, of imaginations of his own ; and I do not know on what ground the imaginations of Proclus, eight centuries after the time of Plato, are to be attributed to that philosopher. The later Pla- tonists afford evidence for nothing concerning the philosophy of Plato but their own conceptions of it. * The double and triple intervals are the six before mentioned. See p. 94, note f . GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 101 from that of the three, but revolving according to rule.* * The seven sections of the inner circle of the Mundane Soul are the seven orbs which Plato conceived of as carrying the heav- enly bodies of our system round the earth from west to east. The distances of those bodies from the earth he supposed to be in the following order: — The Moon, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn ; unless, perhaps, he thought Mercury nearer the earth than Venus ; a point on which the opinions of the ancients were divided. The inner circle of the Soul Plato has hitherto represented as a band. How he imagined it to be so divided as to form circles, one exterior to another, does not appear. The three circles supposed to move with the same velocity are those which are the deferents of the Sun, Mercury, and Venus ; Mercury and Venus each performing its apparent revolution round the Earth in about the same time with the Sun. But it is evident, that, if the orbs of Mercury and Venus are exterior to that of the Sun, and perform their revolutions in the same time with it, they must move, not with the like velocity, as Plato says (raxei ofioias), but with greater velocity. He also describes the seven sections of the inner circle as moving contrariwise to each other (Kara TavavrLa fj.ev aKXr}\ois) ; but it is equally clear that circles all moving from west to east cannot move contrariwise to each other. The contradiction of ideas, which represent circles of different diameters as performing their revolutions in the same time with the same velocity, does not admit of any management by which it may be veiled. The most we can do is to account for its appearance by a reference to the fact, that Plato had in mind the apparent motion of the three heavenly bodies of which he con- ceived those circles to be the deferents. The case is the same with his representation, that the seven circles which are deferents of the seven heavenly bodies all move from west to east, and at the same time move contrariwise to each other. This, likewise, 102 EVIDENCES OF THE " But after the whole structure of the soul was completed agreeably to the mind of him is to be accounted for only by supposing that he confounded the deferents of the heavenly bodies with the heavenly bodies them- selves, and referred to the apparent motions of the latter. Of this there is no hint in the passage before us ; but that such was the fact appears from another passage a few pages after ; which, however, if it throw some light, — not on the meaning of Plato's words, for that cannot be, but on the conceptions in his mind when he wrote those words, — yet brings also a new access of darkness. Plato there says (pp. 38, 39), that Venus and Mercu- ry perform their courses with the same velocity as the Sun, but " possess a power contrary to it (ttjv S' ivavriav elXrjxoTes avra 8vvafiiv) ; whence the Sun, Mercury, and Venus overtake and are overtaken by one another in turn." The Sun, Moon, and planets, he says, " are borne along by the oblique motion of the Different [the motion from west to east], passing through and controlled by the motion of the Uniform [the motion from east to west] ; some describing greater, and others lesser circles ; the lat- ter bodies revolving more swiftly, and the former more slowly. But, in consequence of the motion of the Uniform, those which revolve most swiftly, when they overtake those which revolve more slowly, appear to be overtaken by them ; for this motion bends all their circles into spirals, in consequence of their moving under the action of two contrary forces, and thus causes that body which recedes most slowly from it, this being the swiftest motion, to appear nearest tp it. ' ' Stallbaum gives, in a note, a translation of the latter part of this passage, in which he aggravates its character by the mistake of substituting " the motion of the Different " for the " motion of the Uniform,^'' as that which bends the courses of the heavenly bodies spirally, and " causes that body which recedes most slowly from it, this being the swiftest motion, to appear nearest to it." He then subjoins, — Qucb quomodo intelUgi debeant, certe nulla in- diget eitplicatione ; " How this is to be understood certainly needs GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 103 who framed it, he then fashioned the corporeal universe within it, and, adjusting the middle no explanation." There is an error of one word in this remark. Instead of" needs," he should have said " admits." Some fragments of meaning, however, may, I think, be dis- covered in the words of Plato himself. In consequence of " the motion of the Uniform,'" he says, " those bodies which revolve most swiftly, when they overtake those which revolve more slow- ly, appear to be overtaken by them." Apparently, he here refers to the fact, that, if one of the heavenly bodies of our system have a more rapid apparent motion to the east than another, then, viewed in reference to their daily revolution, the slower will ap- pear to be gaining on the swifter. Having been to the east of it, it will appear to the west ; and thus the slower, having first fol- lowed the swifter in its daily course, will afterwards rise, arrive at the meridian, and set before it. — The imagination of the courses of the heavenly bodies being rendered spiral by the con- trary forces of " the Uniform " and " the Different "is in itself intelligible ; but has no relation to the fact just mentioned, with which Plato has connected it. It appears to be an attempt to ac- count for the retrograde motion of the planets ; and, if so, it is as plausible a theory as that of Pliny (Hist. Nat. Lib. II. c. 13), who ascribes this motion to the percussion of the rays of the Sun, striking the planets in certain parts of their orbits in a particular direction. — In the conclusion of the sentence it is said, that the motion of the Uniform " causes that body which recedes most slowly from it, this being the swiftest motion, to appear nearest to it " ; and this remark is intended to explain why, among heaven- ly bodies, the slower appear to overtake the swifter. Plato, as we have seen, conceived of the motion of the Uniform, or, rather, of the cause of this motion, as residing in that circle of the Mun- dane Soul which, extending from north to south, revolves from east to west, and becomes in its daily revolution coincident with every meridian. When he speaks of the nearness of a body to the motion of the Uniform, it would seem that he must mean its 104 EVIDENCES OF THE of one to that of the other, fitted them to- gether. Thus the Soul, interwoven in every nearness to that circle. The proposition which he makes, being in effect that the body which recedes most slowly from it will appear nearest to it, is virtually an identical proposition. But, perhaps, what he had in mind was, that the slower body, having been passed by a swifter, while both are receding to the east from the circle of the Uniform, would remain nearer to that circle, and would consequently arrive at the meridian sooner, and would thus, as before explained, appear to have overtaken the swifter body in their daily revolution. I have seen a reference to a passage of the Epinomis, as show- ing that Plato " had a distinct acquaintance with the general char- acter of the planetary motions." But the Epinomis was, proba- bly, not a work of Plato, but of a much inferior author ; and the passage (p. 986, seqq.) is of no interest. It affords proof only of what, even in the time of the writer, must have been considered as the most elementary astronomical knowledge. The account of the planetary motions which I have formerly quoted (see be- fore, p. 24] from the seventh book of the " Laws " may, per- haps, be reconciled, at least verbally, with that given in the Timaeus, which we have been considering. In the tenth book of his Republic (pp. 616, 617) Plato gives another account of the as- tronomical system of the universe under the form of an allegory. But it has ever been the despair of his commentators. The glimpses of meaning that appear are rarer and fainter and more confused than those we have been following. There is still another remarkable fact respecting the astronom- ical speculations of Plato. Notwithstanding that in the passage quoted above he ascribes a diurnal revolution to the heavens, yet it has been supposed that in another passage, which follows at no great distance (p. 40), he ascribes a diurnal revolution to the Earth. Whether he do so or not has been a matter of doubt and controversy from his own time. The decision of the question depends ultimately on the meaning w hich he intended to give to GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 105 part of it from the centre to the farthest heaven, and circumfused around it, and re- an ambiguous word. He says, — " But the Earth, our nurse, rolling round (or conglobed round, ciKKofiivr^v) the axis of the Universe, he (the Creator) formed to be the maker and preserver of day and night." The last clause favors the supposition, that he liere meant to ascribe to the Earth a daily revolution, though it may be otherwise explained. But, whatever were his meaning, he was understood as asserting, in this passage, the revolution of the Earth, by his disciple, Aristotle. (De Coslo, Lib. H. capp. 13, 14.) He is said to have held this opinion by the historian of ancient philosophers, Diogenes Laertius. (Lib. HL § 75.) And Cicero, after mentioning the theory, that the heavens do not re- volve, but that their apparent revolution is caused by that of the Earth, says, that " some think that Plato has taught this in his Timseus, but rather obscurely." (Academic. Quaest. Lib. IV. § 39.) Nothing can more evidently show the confusion and ob- scurity with which Plato expressed himself, and consequently the confusion and incoherence of his ideas, than the question which existed, Whether he did or did not virtually contradict himself in the compass of a few pages ; and the opinion asserted or suggest- ed by the three writers whom I have mentioned, that such was the case. It is, at the same time, well deserving of remark, that no one of those writers takes any notice of the obvious inconsis- tency of the supposed meaning of the passage in question with what Plato elsewhere plainly asserts. On Plato's allegorical exposition of the universe, before referred to, in the tenth book of the Republic, one of his most intelligent and judicious translators, M. Grou, makes the following tolerant observation : — " We must not here look for astronomical precision and exactness. In narrations of this kind, which Plato employs from time to time to embellish his dialogues, he indulges much in imagination ; it is his object rather to please by poetical images, than to say what is true." But the essential foundation of all beauty in allegories, and in VOL. III. 14 106 EVIDENCES OF THE volving bj its own motion, entered upon the divine commencement of a life always in action, full of intelligence, to continue for ever." all poetical conceptions, is conformity to truth, actual or possible. An allegory which does not correspond to a real or conceivable state of things is but a pretended riddle without meaning. The mind of Plato was mystical, — often conversant with un- formed and incongruous conceptions, incapable of being definitely apprehended, which, as is the tendency of such minds, he mistook for important truths. Those conceptions he was naturally led to hide from too close examination by the use of terms in very loose and changeable senses, and by oracular and imperfect modes of expression, to which no intelligible and consistent meaning can be assigned. What, however, might now be fairly ascribed to in- capacity in the writer is to be accounted for in Plato by the im- perfect state of human knowledge in his time, and by the little progress that mankind had made in forming and defining abstract ideas, and in settling the significance of the language by which they are expressed. He was an explorer in new fields of specu- lation. His views were wide ; he opened many subjects, and he is fertile in thoughts and imaginations. But his discussions are often unsatisfactory and evasive. . He rarely explains himself clearly and fully. In attempting to be profound he becomes con- fused and obscure. A great part of his reasoning consists in the deceptive management of words, sometimes amusing from the dexterity with which it is performed, sometimes perplexing from the difficulty of understanding him, or, perhaps, from the difficulty of solving the puzzle which he propounds, but as often wearisome from its want of all real meaning or force. The time had not come when the questions which he raises could be properly treated. His morality is sometimes false from being overstrained, and sometimes, which was in part the fault of his age, grossly defective. Were it that of a modern writer in a Christian coun- try, even this censure would be far too mild. His notions of re- ligion, as may be supposed, were very imperfect. But, however GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 107 It is unnecessary to show how unsubstantial is this phantom of a theory, and how slightly it is connected with any truth whatever. All is assumption without proof; reasoning is out of the question ; it is a mere work of imagination ; and the same character belongs generally to the dialogue in which it is found, as well as to much else that has been left us by Plato. In the speculations of Ptolemy the Valentinian, to which we are about to turn (" quidquid male feriatum caput parturire potuit deliriorum,^^ as they are called by a modern expositor of them*), there is nothing more unsupported by proof, or great may be the deductions to be made from his character as a moral and religious teacher, yet his peculiar distinction consists in the high conceptions of morality and religion to which he often attained, and which he forcibly expresses. These charm us ; and excite our wonder from their contrast with what was around him. It was, we may believe, the noble tone of sentiment sounding forth from his writings, that kindled the enthusiasm of Cicero : " Sequar igitur," he says, in commencing the third book of his own work on Laws, " Sequar igitur, ut institui, divinum ilium virum ; quem quadam admiratione commotus saepius fortasse laudo quam necesse est." With this characteristic, Plato combined, as I have said, great fertility of mind, a style which, viewed, per- haps, relatively to that of other philosophers, was the admiration of antiquity, though some of its defects were recognized (as by Dionysius of Halicarnassus) , and much of an artist's skill in the disposition and portraiture of the circumstances and characters of his dialogues. • Massuet, in his first DisserUtion on Irenaeus, § 11. p. 5. 108 EVIDENCES OF THE more remote from modern conceptions, than in some of those of the Athenian philosopher ; on which, indeed, they were in great part founded. The early Christian writers, both catholic and heretic, have been treated unfairly in being separated from their predecessors and contem- poraries, brought before the bar of modern criticism, and condemned for their violation of laws of thinking and reasoning which were unknown to their age, and which the most celebrated of heathen philosophers regarded as little as they. " Non magis licuit Valentino,'''' says Le Clerc,* " ex Ideis Personas facere, quam, Platoni, et vul- garia prorsus aut etiam ahsurda caligine invol- vere, ut mira viderentiir, nee expendi a quovis possent.^^ — " Valentinus had no more right than Plato to transform Ideas into persons, and to involve trivialities and even absurdities in ob- scurity, in order to make them appear some- thing wonderful, and to prevent ordinary men from passing judgment upon them." It is true that Valentinus had no more right to do so than Plato ; but, perhaps, he had more excuse for doing so, since it would be idle to compare his * Hist. Eccles. duorum priorum Sseculorum. An. 121. ^ 7. not. 20. p. 583. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 109 intellectual powers with those of the Athenian philosopher. But the meaning of Le Clerc does not, I conceive, lie on the surface. What he principally meant to express was, without doubt, the implication, that there are specula- tions of Plato as extravagant and unfounded as those of the Valentinians. It is to be remarked, that the greater part of the passage which has been quoted from Plato relates to ideas of sensible objects, or to mathe- matical ideas ; — to ideas in the conception of which absolute precision is easily attainable. The ideas of figures, lines, and motions are, in their own nature, perfectly definite. The case is wholly diiferent with the abstract and com- plex ideas which belong to moral and metaphys- ical science. They have no external standard to which they may be referred. It requires great perspicacity to trace their outlines precise- ly, and to determine what should and what should not enter into their composition. Much watchfulness is necessary to preserve these shadowy abstractions and artificial combinations of thought unchanged during a process of in- vestigation. Men often give the same name to conceptions which are essentially different, but have an illusory semblance of each other. When, therefore, we find a writer confused and 110 EVIDENCES OF THE self-contradictory in treating what relates to physical and mathematical science, we may be assured that the same characteristics will exist in his moral and metaphysical discussions. If there is much incoherence in Plato's attempt to give an astronomical account of the system of the heavens, we cannot expect to find him more clear and satisfactory when he undertakes to treat of the intelligible world. I have particularly adverted to Plato in this connection, because the speculations of the Gnostics were intimately allied to the Platonic philosophy, either as it existed in the writings of its founder, or as it had been modified by his followers. Plato's influence was, also, great over the minds of the catholic Christians; and much that they connected with their Chris- tian faith was derived either immediately from him or from his representative, Philo. Nor is it difficult to account for his ascendency. Whatever may have been his defects or incon- sistencies, he had approximated nearer than any other of the ancient Greek philosophers to moral and religious truth, that is, to the doc- trines of Christianity. If he had not main- tained the truths which he asserted by any great cogency of reasoning, he had illustrated them by the splendor of his genius. Developing and GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. Ill enlarging the conceptions which he had derived from Socrates, he was, as I have before ob- served, the great theological philosopher of heathen antiquity. No other heathen writer had like him insisted on the connection between morals and religion. He had taught that there was a divine moral government over the world, in reference to which life should be regulated and the character formed. He had inculcated a constant regard to the well-being of the thinking principle in man, the immortal soul, which might be raised to companionship with gods, or degraded to animate a brute; which might be made happy or miserable hereafter, — miserable by yielding to the appetites and pas- sions, or happy by a life of philosophy and virtue.* It is not strange, therefore, that the * It is, however, important to be observed, that Plato's doctrine of the immortality of the soul was essentially different from the Christian doctrine of the personal immortality of men. It was connected with the belief of the prefixistence of souls from the commencement of the universe, and of their frequent transmigra- tion into different bodies of men and of inferior animals. With the belief of the prefixistence of the soul through a past duration, eternal or undefined, the belief of its future immortality, so far as it was held by any of the ancient heathens, seems to have been universally connected. It was also connected commonly, almost universally, with a belief in the transmigration of the soul. It was the prevailing doctrine of Plato, that, with the exception of some souls, who were fixed in a state of happiness or suffering 112 EVIDENCES OF THE writings of Plato should have been highly es- teemed by many of the fathers ; or that, among by having become highly purified or greatly depraved, all those originally created, whose number was subsequently neither increased nor diminished, were continually animating in succes- sion different bodies, and forming different beings. At the same time, he taught, that men, whose souls fell into neither of the two classes just mentioned, retained their personality for a certain period after death, during which they were rewarded or punished for their good or evil lives. When this period was finished, their souls returned to earth to constitute different individuals. From the region of the living there was a constant passage of souls to the region of the dead, and a constant return from it to the region of the living. As regards the generality of men, his scheme was wholly inconsistent with a belief in their personal immortal- ity. Yet on conceptions which were thus imperfect, and which in his different works are not altogether consistent with one another, he has founded the most solemn exhortations to the prac- tice of virtue, with reference to the well-being of the soul, and to the rewards and punishments of a future life.* Thus, at the conclusion of the argument for the immortality of the soul which he ascribes to Socrates, as uttered on the day of his death, he represents his master as thus addressing the few friends who were gathered round him in his prison : — " But, my friends, it is right to consider this ; that, if the soul be immortal, it needs our care not only as regards the present portion of time, which we call life, but as regards the whole of time ; and the danger may well appear very great, should we neglect it. If, in- * Besides what is contained in the Phaedo, the most important pas- sages in Plato respecting the immortality of the soul, and the future state of individuals, are, I think, to be found as follows: — Timasus, pp. 41, 42. p. 90, seqq. Phoedrus, p. 245, seqq. Meno, p. 81, seqq. De Republics, Lib. X. p. 608, seqq. Gorgias, p. 522, seqq. Apolo- gia, pp. 40, 41. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 113 the forms of philosophy which the age present- ed, that derived from him should have particu- larly recommended itself to the early Chris- tians. There was much connection, as I have said, between the speculations of the theosophic Gnostics and the Platonic philosophy. But those speculations were essentially founded on a doctrine which appears not to have assumed a distinct form in that philosophy till long after the time of Plato, and to have been of Eastern origin. It is the doctrine of the emanation of inferior beings from the Supreme. This doc- trine is partially developed by Philo, and from him, perhaps, the Gnostics immediately derived it ; as did the catholic Christians, in its applica- tion to the production of the Logos. But it is a doctrine which has spread over India ; and it deed, death were a deliverance from all things, it might be a gain for the bad to die, and, with the loss of the soul, to be delivered at the same time from the body and from their wickedness. But now since it appears that the soul is immortal, there is no other escape from evil, no other safety for it, except in its becoming as good and wise as possible. For the soul will go to Hades, hav- ing nothing but its discipline and instruction." What marvellous words are these to come down to us from pagan antiquity ! Be it Socrates or Plato who thus taught, " the counsel which he gave in those days was as if a man had consult- ed an oracle of God." VOL. III. 15 114 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. was connected by the Gnostics with remarkable conceptions, which appear also in the philosophy of the Bramins. Some of them will be advert- ed to in what follows. They are conceptions which men placed in very different circumstances do not seem likely to have held in common without some communication with each other. But the channel of communication between the heretics of the second century and the phi- losophers of India has not been satisfactorily traced. With these views of the general character of ancient philosophy, and of the influences acting upon the minds of the early Christians, both catholics and heretics, we will proceed to an account of the speculations of the theosophic Gnostics, and particularly of the theory of the Valentinian Ptolemy, in which they appear most fully developed. CHAPTER VIII. (continued.) ON THE PECULIAR SPECULATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. Section II. On their Speculations concerning the Development of the Deity, and the Spiritual World. Of the speculations of the theosophic Gnos- tics, the scheme of the Valentinians as modified by Ptolemy affords the best type or representa- tive. It is particularly explained and dwelt upon by Irenseus. It exhibits the more remark- able features which appear to have been com- mon to their systems. It presents us with the conception of a God far removed from the ma- terial universe ; and of divine beings, emanant, not created, and, in common with all other spiritual existences, deriving their substance from him. But its most striking characteristic appears in the representation of those divine 116 EVIDENCES OF THE beings as hypostatized attributes of God, or hypostatized Ideas of the Divine Mind.* According to the Ptolemaeo-Valentinian sys- tem, the First Cause and First Father of all things dwelt in profound repose for infinite ages in heights invisible and unutterable. He was denominated the Deep.\ With him was present, as his spouse. Thought, who was also called Fa- vor and Silence. At a certain period, the Father determined to put forth from himself the com- mencement of all things. Silence became preg- * The account that follows in this Chapter is derived from the first three chapters of the first book of Irenseus, except where some other authority is referred to. It involves conceptions bor- rowed from the philosophy of Plato and his followers, which I have elsewhere had occasion to explain. See " A Statement of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians," pp. 229-288. I refer to this explanation, because the subject is foreign from our present modes of thinking, and may perhaps be better apprehended by being regarded from different points of view ; and because in the work mentioned I have given authori- ties and arguments, which I have not thought it necessary to re- peat, for some of the assertions in what follows. I shall here- after refer to it by the title of " Statement of Reasons." By Ideas in the Platonic philosophy are meant the archetypal forms of all things existing in the sensible world, which arche- types or Ideas are supposed to have eternally existed in the intel- ligible world, and to be not only the archetypes, but also the forma- tive principles and essences, of all things in the sensible world. See before, p. 77. See also Additional Note, A. t Bu^os. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 117 nant through his power, and produced Intellect^ like and equal to him from whom he was ema- nant, and alone able to comprehend the great- ness of his Father. He was called also the Only Son* the Father^ and the Beginning^ of all things. With him was likewise produced Truths as his spouse. These four — four being a mystic number of the highest import with the Pythagoreans — formed the first Quaternity of Mons or Immortals^ which is the root of all things. In this account, the three iEons or Immortals who are introduced together with the Deity, as well as all those iEons who will be mentioned hereafter, are to be considered, not as allegorical personifications, nor as representing only certain modes in which the undivided Deity may be regarded by man, but as proper persons. The derivative iEons are attributes of God hyposta- tized, permanent manifestations of God in per- sonal forms, powers of God emanant, and acting externally, or archetypal Ideas of the Di- vine Mind endued with life. Silence, Thought, or Favor is to be viewed, at least in consistency with the system, as an attribute of the Deity, * Or the Only-begotten, Moi/oyej/i7s. t Or Principle, 'Apxri- 118 EVIDENCES OF THE residing with him in a personal form. The Only Son or Intellect, and his spouse, Truth, and the other iEons hereafter to be mentioned, are only those attributes and Ideas developed, which had before existed, folded up, if one may so speak, in the Divine Mind. Without doubt, unintelli- gible combinations of thought are presented in this statement ; and the theory is not to be com- prehended, but can only be pictured before the mind as a fleeting show of changing and incon- sistent images. The distinctness of a modern statement does it injustice,- by withdrawing it from the doubtful light and mystical obscurity in which it originally appeared. But many theo- ries that have been treated with greater favor and respect are equally exposed to the same dis- advantage. Each male ^Eon hereafter mentioned is, I believe, further to be considered as a develop- ment of some particular property of his imme- diate progenitor, the ^on from whom he ema- nates ; and each female iEon is an hypostatized Idea of somewhat intimately connected with, or immediately resulting from, her consort.* * " Feminam enim JEonem paiiter esse oportet cum masculo, secundum eos, quum sit velut affectio ejus. Et haec quum ita se habeant, et quum hcec dicantur ab ipsis,'^ &c. Irenajus, Lib. II. c. 12. ^^ 2, 3. p. 128. That this fact is only mentioned inciden- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 119 In this last conception we perceive one of those remarkable coincidences which present them- selves, between the theology of India and that of the Gnostics. "The Hindu goddesses," says Sir William Jones, "are uniformly represented as the subordinate powers of their respective Lords."* In the Hindu theology we find likewise the strange conception, which appears in the scheme of the Gnostics, of assigning a spouse to the Supreme Being. "The worship of the female principle," says Professor Wilson, " as distinct tally by Irenaeus shows how imperfect is our information respect- ing the theories of the Gnostics in regard to all but their funda- mental doctrines. Some further intimations of it are collected by Massuet in his first Dissertation on Irenaeus. Irenaei 0pp. P. II. pp. 16, 22. "Nothing," he says (p. 16), " is of more frequent occurrence in Proclus and others [of the Platonists], than gods, some male, some female, and some both male and female, where by the female are meant nothing but the powers and faculties of the gods, intimately adhering to them, through which they oper- ate and produce their proper effects." * Argument of Hymn to Sereswaty. — " Although," says Pro- fessor Wilson, " the general worship of the female personifica- tions of the Hindu deities forms a class by itself, yet, when indi- vidualized as the associates of the divinities, whose energies they are, their adoration becomes so linked with that of the male pow- er, that it is not easy even to their votaries to draw a precise line of distinction between them." " Sketch of the Religious Sects of the Hindus." Asiatic Researches, Vol. XVI. p. 12.5. See also, to the same effect, Colonel Vans Kennedy's " Ancient and Hindu Mythology," pp. 189, 283, 317, seqq. 120 EVIDENCES OF THE from the Divinity, appears to have originated in the literal interpretation of the metaphorical language of the Vedas, in which the will or pur- pose to create the universe is represented as originating from the Creator, and coexistent with him as his bride, and part of himself." He adds, that in the Sankhya system of philos- ophy, "Nature, Prakriti or Mula Prakriti, is de- fined to be of eternal existence and independ- ent origin, distinct from the Supreme Spirit, productive through no production, and the plas- tic origin of all things, including even the gods. Hence Prakriti has come to be regarded as the mother of gods and men, whilst, as one with matter, the source of error, it is again identified with Maya, or delusion, and as coexistent with the Supreme as his Sdkti, his personified ener- gy, or his bride. These mythological fancies have been principally disseminated by the Purd- nas, in all which Prakriti or Maya bears a prom- inent part."* We shall have occasion again to advert to the subject. But it should be observed, that Irenaeus inci- dentally mentions, that the Valentinians "some- times represented the Father as united with Silence, and sometimes as raised above both the * Sketch of the Religious Sects of the Hindus. Asiatic Re- searches, Vol. XVn. pp. 211-213. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 121 male and female nature."* Mysticism admits, or rather delights in, contradictions ; and it may appear useless to attempt to account for lan- guage which Irenaeus has left unexplained. But it may seem probable that the Valentinians as- cribed a commencement to the personal exist- ence of Silence, as well as to that of the other ^ons; and it is to be kept in mind, that their whole system of ^Eons is an account of the de- velopment of the Divine Nature, which, ac- cording to the notions of the Valentinians, might be viewed either in its essential unity, or as re- solved into these different hypostases. Froim these explanations and remarks we return to the detail of Ptolemy's account of the Pleroma. The first Quaternity of ^ons having been formed, the process of emanation went * Lib. L c. 2. ^ 4. p. 10. — In systems, like that of the Valen- tinians, which are formed out of allegories and metaphors petri- fied into doctrines, it is often difficult to determine how far the process has gone on. We cannot always readily distinguish in their language between what remains of a figurative character and what has hardened into an article of belief. But there seems no good reason to question that the Valentinians ascribed a proper personal existence to the spouse of God, as well as to their other -^ons. On the contrary, when Philo, like Ptolemy, assigned a spouse to God, Wisdom (see Statement of Reasons, pp. 255, 256), it cannot be doubted that his language is metaphorical, though he hypostatized the Logos and other Powers of God. VOL. III. 16 122 EVIDENCES OF THE Oil. The iEons continued to be emitted in pairs, one of each pair being male, and the other female. The Only Son (likewise called, it is to be recollected, Intellect and the Beginning), un- derstanding the end of his production, which was to be the fountain of being, emitted the Logos (or Reason) and Life, the Logos being the Father of all who were to succeed him. This derivation of the Logos and Life the Val- entinians maintained to be taught in the first verses of St. John's Gospel, pointing and ren- dering one passage differently from what we do. " In the Beginning,^'' that is, said they, in the Only Son, one of whose names is the Beginning, " was the Logos, and what was formed in him was Life''''; that is, Life, his spouse.* Per- haps, in the ostentation of superior acuteness, the Valentinians had refined upon the common doctrine, the doctrine of Philo, who derived the Logos immediately from God, and had thus in- terposed a new being between the Logos and God. But in these conceptions there was a re- markable coincidence between them and Origen. He explains the first verse of John in a similar manner. Following the Septuagint translation of the twenty-second verse of the eighth chap- * Irenaeus, liib. I. c. 8. § 5. p. 41. Doctrina Orientalis, ^ 6. p. 968. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 123 ter of Proverbs, which, is to this effect : — " The Lord formed me [Wisdom] the beginning of his ways to his works " ; * and hypostatizing the wisdom of God,t he contends that the Logos was in the Beginning, because the Logos always existed in Wisdom; and that he was not sim- ply with God, but was so as being in Wisdom. On this doctrine he insists repeatedly in his Commentary on John. J It may be remarked that a similar conception is found in Tertullian. The prophets and Apostles teach, he says, " that Wisdom was first formed [by God] the beginning of his ways to his works ; and that the Logos (Sermo) was then put forth, by whom all things were made." ^ To go on with the system of Ptolemy ; from the Logos (or Reason) and Life proceeded another pair of iEons, Man and the Church. Here again, perhaps, appears an over-subtilty in separating what had been before united. For, according to Philo, the Logos was the archety- * Kvpios cKTia-e fie apx^jv obav avrov els epya avrov. In this passage, which Origen often quotes in his Commentary on John, he several times (according to his present text) gives the reading 686v instead of 68a>v. t Comment, in Joannem. 0pp. IV, 39, 40. X Ibid. pp. 20-22, 47, et alibi. ^ Advers. Hermogenem, c. 45. p. 249. 124 EVIDENCES OF THE pal Idea of man, "the man of God";* and a similar conception is found in Clement of Alex- andria.f The eight Mons who have been mentioned, namely, God, under the name of the Deep, and Thought (or Silence), Intellect and Truth, the Lo- gos and Life, Mail and the Church, formed the primitive Ogdoad,t which, according to Irenaeus, was, in common with the first Quaternity of jEons, denominated " the root and support of all things." The Valentinians gave to it also the four names of the four male jEons ; intending, as I conceive, thus to signify, that these are only different names of the same Being, as viewed with reference to his essential nature, or to his different hypostatized attributes. Thus Theodo- ret says, that " they affirmed the Ogdoad to be the First ^on," that is, God.^ But the production of the ^Eons did not stop here. Ten others besides Man and the Church emanated from the Logos and Life ; and twelve from Man and the Church. This new genera- * De Confusione Linguarum. 0pp. I. 411, 413. t Stromat. V. ^ 14. p. 703. X " Ogdoad," from the Greek oySody, here meaning the Eight. ^ Haeret. Fab. Lib. I. n. 7. 0pp. IV. 198. The passage which I quote is obviously wrongly pointed and translated in Sir- mond's edition. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 125 tion of iEons ajipears to be another process of decomposition, in which the attributes of the Logos, the common progenitor of them all, are separated into distinct persons, the male ^Eons ; while the female are hjpostatized Ideas of something intimately connected with those at- tributes. All these iEons have significant names, which confirm, 1 think, the suggestion just made, but of which it is not worth while to give a translation. None of them reappears individually in the system, except the last female iEon proceeding from Man and the Church, who was named Wisdom ; being, as I conceive, the hypostatized Idea of human wisdom. This -^on does, as will appear, play a conspicuous part in it. Thirty ^Eons have been mentioned ; and these thirty iEons formed, according to Irenaeus, the Pleroma of the Valentinians, that is to say, the Full Development of the Divine Nature. Four other ^Eons belong, as we shall see, to the system of Ptolemy; but these four, Irenaeus says, were not considered as belonging to the Pleroma.* He argues against the inconsistency of their being excluded from it; nor does any reason appear why they were so. It is to be * Irenseus, Lib. IL c. 12. ^ 7. p. 129. 126 EVIDENCES OF THE observed, that they could have been separated from the Pleroma only when that was conceived of as the Development of the Deity. In the Pleroma considered as the Spiritual Realm of God they were undoubtedly included. But I strongly suspect that the statement of Ire- naeus is a misapprehension, founded perhaps on the fact that the Valentinians originally ac- knowledged the existence only of the thirty JCons who have been mentioned.* It is not probable that those who adopted the system of Ptolemy excluded the other four from the Pleroma, in either sense of that word. We shall hereafter see particular reasons to believe that they did not. But it is to be observed, that the Valentinian iEons are commonly spok- en of as being thirty in number. After enu- merating the iEons who have been mentioned, Tertullian says, — " This is that mystical Ple- roma, the plenitude of the thirty-fold Divinity."! The mystery of the thirty ^ons the Valen- tinians believed to be shadowed forth by the thirty years which our Saviour spent in private * The Author of the Addition to Tertullian (c. 49) says, that " Valentinus fixed the number of ^ons at thirty " ; but that Ptolemy added others. ■f- " Hoc erit Pleroma illud arcanum, Divinitatis tricenariae ple- nitudo." Ad vers. Valentinianos, c. 8. p. 253. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 127 before commencing his ministry ; and by the parable of the laborers who were sent into the vineyard at the first, third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours, these numbers taken together amounting to thirty ; and, according to Irenaeus, they made similar use of all those passages in Scripture in which numbers are mentioned, so far as they could accommodate them to their system. Of their iEons, generally, they found abundant notices in the New Testament, where a modern reader, unacquainted with the origi- nal, would not suspect their existence ; that is to say, in expressions where the Greek word alwv,* ceon, occurs. Thus they maintained that the tEous were often mentioned by St. Paul in the plainest manner, as, for instance, in his Episde to the Ephesians,t jvhere the words are rendered in the Common Version, — " Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end " ; which words they understood as meaning, " To Him be glory, — throughout all the generations of the iEon of the iEons," J that is, throughout all the generations of the first ^on, God. * " Age," often rendered in the Common Version " World." t Ch. iii. 21. % Eis ndcras ras yeveas rov almvos tcov aia>va>v. Irenaeus, Lib. L c. 3. ^ 1. p. 14 : where see Massuet's note. 128 EVIDENCES OF THE It is necessary to keep in mind, especially as we proceed, that we are treating of imagina- tions with which reason has nothing to do, and which cannot be brought into any coherence with one another. The derivative iEons are to be regarded, not merely as attributes of .God, or as Ideas of the Divine Mind, but as distinct persons capable of individual acts ; and as be- ing, with the exception of the Only Son, not only imperfect, but fallible. Thus, according to Ptolemy, in the devel- opment of beings from the Divine Substance, inferior to the Supreme, there was a commence- ment of imperfection, and consequent disorder, which finally led to the production of the ma- terial world. Of the immediate origin of this disorder the following account is given. The First Father, God, was comprehended by his first emanation, the Only Son or Intellect, and by him alone. He alone enjoyed the beatific vision of God. But all the other iEons felt the desire of obtaining the same knowledge ; es- pecially Wisdom, the last and youngest of the twelve, proceeding from Man and the Church. In her the passion became inordinate. She strove earnestly to comprehend the greatness of the Father, but it was impossible. The depths of his nature are unsearchable ; and GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 129 she, urged on by strong love, would at last have been swallowed up in them, and lost, had she not been restrained and held back by an Mon not before mentioned, the ^on Horos or the Boundary. Being controlled by him, she re- turned to herself, gave up her purpose, and was restored to her place in the Pleroma. The iEon just mentioned, Horos or the Boun- dary, was an emanation from the Father, through the Only Son. He was without a consort. His offices were to give stability to beings, and to separate them from each other, as by a rampart. In reference to his different employments many different names were given him, and among them, that of Xravpo^ (Stauros), not in the sense of " cross," but in that of " rampart." Having, however, given him this name, the Val- entinians had no difficulty in finding passages of the New Testament in which he was re- ferred to, passages in which the word aravpd'i, " cross," occurs. Several examples of such ap- plication are given by Irenaeus. The Gnostics were able the more readily to find proofs and mystical intimations of their doctrines in the New Testament from the number of names which they gave to the same Mon, and from assigning (as we shall see hereafter) the same name to different ^Eons. VOL. III. 17 130 EVIDENCES OF THE Wisdom was restored to her place ; but the agony of her passion had given birth to a shape- less female abortion, w^hich was cast out of the Pleroma, and whose future fortunes we shall hereafter have occasion to follow. Then, in order to give stability to the Pleroma, and to prevent other iEons from suffering as Wisdom had done, the Only Son, under the direction of the Father, emitted a new pair, Christ and the Holy Spirit. The office of Christ was to give them such knowledge concerning their own nature, the Father, and the Only Son, as they were capable of receiving. All being placed on an equality, the Holy Spirit taught them thanksgiving and gave them true peace. Thus all corresponding to each other in form and mind, each male ^on became an Intellect, a Logos, a Man, and a Christ ; and each female, in like manner, a Truth, a Ldfe, a Church, and a Holy Spirit* " Ovid might have destroyed * Hence it appears that Christ and the Holy Spirit, two of the four additional ^ons of Ptolemy, belonged to the Pleroma con- sidered as the Development of God. Nor is it probable, consid- ering the mode of his derivation, that Horos was excluded from it ; nor that the JEon Jesus (to be immediately mentioned above), " the star of the Pleroma," did not belong to the Pleroma in the highest sense of that word. It follows that there can be little doubt of the incorrectness of the assertion of Irenseus before men- tioned (pp. 125, 126). I remark this principally as affording one GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 131 his Metamorphoses," says Tertullian, " if he had been acquainted with this greater metamor- phosis." * In this account of the amalgama- tion, as it were, of the iEons, the conception, I suppose, discovers itself, that, notwithstand- ing their personal division, they are, under one aspect, included in the unity of the Father, as being his hypostatized attributes and Ideas ; and that the jEons, though distinct persons, constitute but one Divine Being. This, con- sidering all that precedes, it may be said, is an incredible imputation of absurdity on the Valentinians. Perhaps not. As we may talk of one infinite as being less than another, so we may talk of one doctrine, though utterly absurd, as being less absurd than another ; and thus we may say that the doctrine of the Valentinians is less absurd than Panthe- ism, a theory which has found favor in modern times. By " Pantheism " I certainly do not mean the doctrine that God is in all things, with which of late some have attempted to confound it ; but, using the word in its proper among the constantly recurring proofs of the inaccuracy, imper- fection, and inconsistency of the accounts of the Gnostics trans- mitted to us by the fathers. * Advers. Valentinianos, c. 12. p. 255. 132 EVIDENCES OF THE sense, I mean the doctrine that all things con- stitute the one God. In return for the new blessing which they had received, the iEons, full of joy, agreed to- gether each to contribute what was most ex- cellent in himself, and, uniting all their gifts, to put forth in common a new ^Eon in honor of the Father. This being, who was the per- fection, the star of the Pleroma, was denomi- nated Jesus or the Saviour. He bore also the patronymic names of Christ and the Logos, and, with reference to the mode of his production, was likewise called All or All things. With him emanated angels of a like nature, as his attendants. Of the sufferings of Wisdom, the last of the twelve iEons proceeding from Man and the Church, the Valentinians found a symbol in the apostasy of Judas, the twelfth of the Apostles, and in the suffering of Christ in the twelfth month (as they believed) of his ministry. The iEon Wisdom was typified also by the woman who, having had an issue of blood for twelve years, was cured by touching the fringe of the Saviour's garment, as Wisdom was restored upon touching the borders of the first Qua- ternity. To the ^Eon Jesus, one of whose names was All things, they applied various GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 133 passages of Scripture, specified by Irenaeus, in which all things are mentioned. And thus, says Irenaeus, they pervert to their purpose passages from the Gospels and Epistles, en- deavouring to misinterpret them into proofs of their doctrine ; and not only so, but with much subtilty and cunning they make the same use of the Law and the Prophets, in which many things, being said allegorically, are capable, on account of the ambiguity of their meaning, of being diversely applied. The expositions of the Valentinians illustrate in some degree the intellectual character of their age ; but I have adduced them particularly for the purpose of showing what constant use they made of the Scriptures and especially of the Gospels. Such, according to Ptolemy, was the com- mencement and derivation of existences inferior to the Supreme. It would be idle to attempt to settle all the questions that his scheme sug- gests, many of which, probably, he had not answered in his own mind, nor even proposed to himself. But there are several considera- tions that may serve to throw some light upon it. In the first place, then, the ^ons wore 134 EVIDENCES OF THE formed of the substance of the Deity, as is implied in their being hypostatized attributes or Ideas of the Divine Mind. The concep- tion of proper spiritual existence was not fa- miliar to the minds of the ancient philosophers, and had as yet, it is probable, been attained only by a small portion of the early Chris- tians. As we have seen, Ptolemy himself taught that the " substance of the underived Father was pure and uniform light " ; * and this imagination appears to have been com- mon. f It facilitated the conception of the for- mation of other beings out of his substance. Before the introduction of Christianity, as has been already implied,! the doctrine of proper creation, or of causing that to be, the material of which did not previously exist, was unknown to the ancient philosophers. Matter, conse- quently, was regarded as uncreated and eter- nal. Those who were not, as the Epicureans, simple materialists, but believed, with Plato, in mind as a coeternal principle, contended only that the forms and modifications of mat- ter were given to it by a superior power or powers. Primitive matter furnished the sub- * See before, p. 61. f See Additional Note, A. J See before, p. 50. • GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 135 Stance of all things sensible. But in follow- ing out the same principle, the substance of spiritual beings came to be considered as the Infinite Spirit. The doctrine, that the human intellect is a portion, or efflux, or emanation of the Divinity, has been very extensively held. The Stoics regarded it as a particle of that ethereal fire which was, in their view, the animating prin- ciple of all things, the universal Soul, God. Philo says that every human mind is allied to the Divine Logos (Intellect), being an impress, or particle, or ray of that blessed nature.* " The soul," he teaches, " proceeded from the Father and Ruler of All ; for what he breathed into man was the divine spirit, sent here to dwell as in a foreign land." f How else, he asks, can we account for the wonderful pow- ers of the human mind, " if it be not an in- divisible portion f of the Divine and Blessed Soul ? For the Divine Nature is not divided and separated, but is only extended." § The au- * De Mundi Opificio. 0pp. I. 35. The word " particle " does not express the force of the original term aTrdo-Tracr^a. See also Legis Allegorise, Lib. IIL 0pp. L 119. t De Mundi Opificio. p. 32. • ;}; " Portion " 'ATrdo-Tratr/xa. ^ Quod Delerius Potiori insidiari soleat. 0pp. L 208, 209. 136 EVIDENCES OF THE thor of the Clementine Homilies says, that " the soul, proceeding from God, is of the same substance with him " ; * that is, consubstantial with him, according to the technical language of theology. Justin Martyr says, — " We are allied to God, for the soul is divine and im- mortal, and a portion of the ruling Mind which sees God •' ; f that is, of the Logos. Some of the fathers who followed Justin adopted a similar doctrine, though it was earnestly op- posed by Clement of Alexandria J and others. I mention these facts to show that there was nothing foreign from the philosophy of the times in the supposition of the Gnostics, that beings of a higher order than man were formed from the substance of God. It may be added, that the philosophy of the Bramins teaches that all finite minds are but portions of the Divine. Thus it is said in one of the Upanishads, — "As from a blazing fire thousands of sparks of the same nature pro- ceed, so from the Eternal Supreme Being va- rious souls come forth, and again they return into him." ^ The Gnostic Pleroma, with its * Homilia XVI. § 16. f Dial, cum Tryph. p. 145. X Stromat. II. § 16. pp. 467, 468. Stromat. V. ^ 13. p. 699. § Rammohun Roy's Translation of the Moonduk-Opunishud. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 137 ^ons derived from the substance of God, is likewise coincident with the World of Emana- tions of the Jewish Cabalists, in which ten Sephiroths or Splendors, hypostatized powers of God, were conceived of by them as emanating, like the Gnostic jEons, from that eternal light, which they, like Ptolemy, regarded as consti- tuting the substance of God. The derivative iEons were attributes and Ideas hypostatized ; how, then, are we to regard them in their new character as persons ? Con- cerning the manner of their production, and the mode of their existence, the Gnostics, ac- cording to Irenaeus, did not explain themselves clearly, a fact which may be readily believed. He, therefore, undertakes to show that their doctrine must be false, whatever notions they might entertain on those subjects.* He sup- poses that the derivative ^ons may be com- pared to rays emitted from the sun, or to branches shooting from a tree, or to torches lighted from one already burning. These are all illustrations which were used by some of the orthodox fathers to explain the emanation, or, as they called it, the generation, of the Logos * Lib. n. capp. 12, 17. 18 138 EVIDENCES OF THE from God ; — though their application to this purpose is virtually rejected by Irenseus.* It appears, also, that the Gnostics compared their JEon Logos, proceeding from the ^on Intellect, to Logos, that is, discourse (according to one sense of the term " Logos "), proceeding from the human intellect ; f which was another fa- vorite figure of the fathers to represent the gen- eration of the orthodox Logos. The further question is raised by Irenaeus, Whether the iEons were to be considered as united with God after their emanation, or whether this was effectual and complete, so as to separate them from him, as the offspring of a man is sepa- rate from its parent. J The epithet translated " effectual and complete," he himself, though inconsistently with other passages in his writ- ings, applies to the generation of the Logos. ^ The question last mentioned he leaves us to suppose was, like most of the others he sug- gests, unanswered by the Valentinians. He * Ubi supra, et c. 13. f Lib. II. c. 13. ^ 8. p. 131. See Statement of Reasons, p. 283, seqq. J " An [emissi] pfficabiliter et partiliter." " Sed si quidem efficabiliter unusquisque illorum omissus est secundum ho- minum similitudinem," &c. Lib. II. c. 17. §i^ 2, 3. p. 138. § He calls it efficabilis generatio. Lib. III. c. 11. ^8. p. 190. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 139 proposes still another, Whether the ^ons were of the substance of the Divinity, or of a differ- ent substance. But this is evidently introduced rather for the sake of exhausting, by way of argument, all possible suppositions relating to the subject, than because any real doubt existed that the Gnostics believed them to be of the divine substance. But, after all his discussion of the subject, sufficient reasons exist for believing that there were some imaginations of the Gnostics re- specting the production of their derivative ^ons, which Irenaeus has not brought distinctly into view. There is no connection between our idea of emanation, or the flowing forth of one body from another, as a ray from the sun, and that of the ordinary production of animals. But, incongruous as these ideas are, the Valen- tinians, it appears, confused them together. This may be inferred from their introduction of female iEons ; from their supposition that Wisdom, the last of the ^ons, brought forth an abortive offspring without union with her spouse ; * and especially from their account of the production of the first derivative male ^on, * " Sine alterius complexu." Irenaeus, Lib. IL c. 12. § 4. p. 128. 140 EVIDENCES OF THE the Only Son* But there is other abundant evidence of the fact. Origen, in speaking of the orthodox doctrine, says that " the Father did not emit the Son, as some think." The term used by him is that which the Gnostics ap- plied to the production of their iEons. " For," continues Origen, " if the Son were an emis- sion of the Father, and the Father generated him from himself, as animals produce their off- spring, it would follow that both the emitter and the emitted must be corporeal." f The doctrine of the generation of the jEons is pre- sented, as I have before remarked, in a very gross form by a writer whom Epiphanius calls a Valentinian ; and Clement of Alexandria, in exculpating the Valentinians of his time from impurity, does so on the ground that they sup- posed only a spiritual intercourse between the yEons.t Respecting the manner of their pro- duction, the Gnostics, probably, as others in like cases have done, used language in the hope that it contained some meaning, without * See before, pp. 116, 117. ■j" Ytoi) yivtrai Ilar^p ov Trpo^dXav avrbv as o'wvrai rives • et yap Tvpo^oKrj fffTiv 6 vlos rov Tlarpos, Koi yevva fxev e'^ ai'TOv, owoia to. Tcbu ^acov yfvvrjp.aTa, avdyKtj (Ta[xa dvai tov Trpo^dWovra Koi rov TTpo^e^'\r]fi(vov. De Principiis, Lib. IV. § 28. 0pp. I. 190. t HvevnaTiicas iriBevTo Koivcopias- — See Vol. II. pp. 92, 93. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 141 having themselves any definite imagination of what that meaning might be. To the association of female ^ons with male in the work of emanation we find an analogy in the religion of the Bramins, of which it is said to be a fundamental principle, " that an invisible and immaterial being cannot mani- fest himself or exert his power except under a corporeal form, and that the energies of the male must remain inoperative until rendered active by a union with the passive qualities of the female. Hence, on willing creation, the Supreme Being necessarily, in order to effect that object, first gave existence to a male and female, who are known under the names of Purusha and Prakriti, and which alone are considered to be the original agents in the formation of this universe." It is added, that these are " corporeal manifestations of his es- sence " ; and " that all males, whether gods or men, are considered to be merely forms of Purusha, and all females, forms of Prakriti.^^ * In different words, these are the hypostatized Platonic Ideas or generic forms, the one of all that is male, the other of all that is female. * Kennedy's Ancient and Hindu Mythology, pp. 283, 284. See before, pp. 119, 120. 142 EVIDENCES OF THE Iren^us objects to the Gnostic theories, that they were founded on conceptions concerning the human mind transferred to the Deity. The Valentinians, as he tells us, had formed notions of the properties, conditions, and acts of the mind of man, and, in their ignorance of God, ascribed them to the Father of All ; making Thought to proceed from the Deity, Intellect from Thought, and Reason (the Logos) from Intellect. He argues against this decompo- sition of the Deity, and the supposed emission of those attributes as hypostases, in a manner which bore equally against the orthodox doc- trine of the Logos as it existed in the second and third centuries. God, he insists, is alto- gether simple and uncompounded, wholly in- tellect, wholly reason [Logos], wholly light. But to suppose Intellect to have been emitted from him, so as to have a distinct existence, is to suppose God a compound being. Whence and where, he asks, was Intellect emitted ? What space was there exterior to the Intellect of God into which it could be sent forth ? * I thus quote his reasoning, in an abridged form, in order further to illustrate the speculations of the Gnostics, and, through those, the style * Lib. II. c. 13. Conf. c. 14. § 8. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 143 of speculation which existed in and after the time of the Gnostics. Tertullian, in a passage formerly quoted, says that '' Ptolemy numbered the Mons in classes, and gave them distinct names, assigning to them the character of personal existences, but external to the Deity; while Valentinus had included those existences in the totality of the Divinity as feehngs, affections, and emotions." * It has been supposed that Tertullian, in these words, meant to assert that Valentinus did not hypostatize the iEons. But, if so, he would apparently contradict himself in two other pas- sages ; t and his account would be irrecon- cilable with that of Irenaeus,t with whom he elsewhere accords in his report of the Valen- tinian doctrines, and whom he evidently ap- pears to have taken for a guide on the subject. * See Vol. II. p. 91, note. t Advers. Praxeam, c. 8, p. 504. Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 5. pp. 367, 368. In these passages Tertullian represents Val- entinus as attributing a proper personal existence to the .^Eons. Thus, in the first passage referred to, he says : — " Valentinus probolas suas discernit et separat ab auctore." But he may, ac- cording to a use of language not uncommon in the fathers, have intended to denote the sect of the Valentinians by the name of A alentinus, and thus have ascribed to him individually opinions held only by his followers. t Irenseus, Lib. I. c. 11. p. 52, seqq. 144 EVIDENCES OF THE It may be, therefore, that Tertullian here as- cribes to Valeiitinus an opinion mentioned by Irenseus (hypothetically, as one that might be entertained by the Gnostics), according to which the iEons were not properly emitted, but re- mained within the Father, as circles one within another, all surrounded by him.* But, what- ever were the meaning of Tertullian in regard to Valentinus, there is no doubt that the the- osophic Gnostics, generally, regarded their ^ons as hypostases. In another place Tertullian de- scribes them as Platonic Ideas,t a represen- tation altogether consistent with the fact just stated. Philo, in like manner, gives the name of Ideas to the hypostatized powers of God, considering them as the formative principles of all things. I The conception of hypostatized attributes and Ideas of the Divine Mind is one which has most extensively prevailed. Turning from the Gnostics, we perceive it in the specula- tions of the catholic Christians concerning the Logos and the Holy Spirit ; in those of Philo * Lib. II. c. 13. §§6,7. p. 131. t De Anima, c. 18. pp. 276, 277. ^ See Statement of Reasons, p. 262, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 145 concerning the Powers of God ; in the Se- phiroths of the Jewish Cabala ; and in the philosophy of the later Platonists. We dis- cern it in the ancient Persian theology ; and it is displayed with the broadest extravagance in the religion of the Hindus. The coinciden- ces between the speculations of the Hindus and of the theosophic Gnostics are very re- markable. Some of them have been merely touched upon. In the " Institutes of Menu," in the first chapter, the doctrine of emanation is unfolded into a scheme which bears a strik- ing resemblance to that of the Valentinians, in its general character and in some of its de- tails. In that work, which, though much less ancient, perhaps, than even some European scholars have supposed, has yet certainly for many centuries been regarded as of divine authority by the Hindu sages, the system pre- sented is, to say the least, as remarkable as that of Ptolemy, for the extravagance of its imaginations, for the absence of any founda- tion in what is known or knowable, and for a series of conceptions from which it could not be inferred that reason is a faculty of the human mind. In the systems founded on the doctrine of VOL. III. 19 146 EVIDENCES OF THE emanation, incongruous as they are throughout, there is nothing more extraordinary than the personal characters sometimes ascribed to the hypostatized attributes and Ideas of the Deity. They are not only represented as beings far inferior to God, a notion in which, however incomprehensible, the imagination may acqui- esce, and by which the feeHngs are not shocked ; but they are sometimes represented as ignorant, fallible beings, capable of suffering. Such they appear in the system of Ptolemy, particularly in the case of Wisdom, the last of the female JEons. In tne popular religion of the Hindus the extravagance becomes outrageous ; for the most abominable fables are related even con- cerning the three immediate manifestations of the Supreme Being, Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu. As regards the aberrations and sufferings as- cribed to Wisdom in the Valentinian scheme, we may in some degree reconcile our imagina- tion to them, if we conceive of this Mon, as we probably should, not certainly as the proper Wisdom of God hypostatized, but as the hypos- tatized Idea of human wisdom. In this notion, that a being who is an hypos- tatized attribute or Idea of the Divine Mind may he capable of suffering, there was a strange coincidence — a coincidence where we might GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 147 least have expected it — between the opinions of the Vahmtinians and those of some of the more eminent early fathers. These fathers be- lieved that the Logos, that is, the hypostatized Reason, or Wisdom, of God, was the proper sufferer in the sufferings of Christ.* The fact becomes the more remarkable, when we find that the theosophic Gnostics, though they agreed with the fathers referred to in the general prin- ciple, that an hypostatized being belonging to the Divine Nature might suffer, started wide asunder from them in this application of it, and maintained that the Divine Being or ^on, who was united with the man Jesus, did not suffer with him, but left him and returned to the Ple- roma before the crucifixion. The Marcionites regarded the apparent body of Christ as a mere phantom incapable of suffering. In opposition to these doctrines of the Gnostics, those fathers insisted that the Logos himself truly suffered in the body in which he was incarnate. The doc- trine was not at once universally assented to. Clement of Alexandria vacillates concerning it ; and Origen did not adopt it. But, losing all sense and vitality, and growing into a shape still more monstrous, it finally prevailed ; and its * See Statement of Reasons, Section V. p. 62, seqq. 148 EVIDENCES OF THE ghastly spectre still haunts the Christian world. The doctrine in its latest form, if we may give the name of doctrine to words utterly without meaning, is, that God himself suf- fered. In order to apprehend, as far as possible, the fancies of the Valentinians, it may be observed that their scheme of the Pleroma is a sort of allegory, blended with certain philosophical spec- ulations of their age, and transformed into a system of opinions. A great part of it consists of figures of speech arrested and fixed as proper conceptions. That God, before the existence of other beings, dwelt alone with Thought, or Benevolence, or Silence ; that, in the production of those beings, his Mind (IV0O9, Intellect) was first put forth and manifested externally ; that Truth is an eternal attribute of the operations of the Divine Mind ; that the Power by which all things are formed and disposed, Logos, or Reason, or the Disposing Power, proceeds from, or is a manifestation of, the same Mind of God ; and that this Power is the source of Life to all beings produced by it, are propositions suffi- ciently intelligible, though presenting an arti- ficial and strange arrangement of conceptions. These propositions appear to form the ground- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 149 work of the theory of the Valentinians. We next find them regardmg the Logos or Reason of God as the archetype of Man, Man being formed in the image of God as regards his reason alone. Under this aspect the Logos becomes, as he is represented by Philo, the generic Idea of Man ; and the great end of Man's being is to be united with the true wor- shippers of God, or the Church. We have here the first eight ^ons, the primitive Ogdoad, of the Valentinians. Then follow the two series of ten and twelve iEons, in which, as we may conjecture, are respectively represented the at- tributes belonging to, and the effects produced by, the Logos, viewed first in relation to the uni- verse, and afterwards in relation to the Church. The Valentinians, however, would probably have been little satisfied with an explanation of their theory, which, throwing a part of it into the shade, and restoring, as far as possible, a figurative character to their language, should have converted it into nothing more than an obscure expression of common thoughts, un- naturally adjusted together. They professed, according to Irenaeus, to teach " wonderful and unspeakable and deep mysteries, known only to themselves." * There is no doubt that they * Lib. 1. c. 1. ^ 3. p. 7 ; c. 4. ^ 3. p. 20. 150 EVIDENCES OF THE spoke of their doctrines in terms which might have given sufficient warning that the subject was not one for the understanding to intrude upon ; and that their mysteries were to be dis- cerned only by the internal power of vision, which belonged exclusively to themselves as the spiritual. Such was the system of the Ptolemseo- Valentinians respecting the Pleroma, or, in other words, respecting the Deity and his ema- nations. Systems very similar to it appear to have been held by most of the theosophic Gnos- tics. To enter into a detailed examination of their varieties, founded on the imperfect, ques- tionable, confused, and contradictory informa- tion that remains to us, would be wholly foreign from our present purpose ; and, were it not so, would be, for the most part, a useless and un- satisfactory discussion, repaying in no degree the toil of the inquiry. These visionary and baseless speculations were, from their nature, unfixed and changing. The system of euiana- tions was continually receiving new modifica- tions from the different individuals by whom it was adopted. " Many, nay, all of them," says Irenseus, " separate from the heresy in which they were, through a desire of being teachers, GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 151 and proceed to advance something new." * But generally the fundamental principles of the theosophic Gnostics, and their modes of phi- losophizing, were the same, and their variations from each other rarely appear to have been such as to make them an object of any interest or curiosity. According to an ancient proverb, quoted by Irenaeus,t — " It is not necessary to drain the ocean to learn that its waters are salt." The proverb is applicable to many other speculations besides those of the Gnos- tics, and to many volumes that might other- wise present themselves before us in formidable array. I HAVE, however, in the preceding part of this work, had occasion several times to mention the Basilidians ; and though their peculiar opinions, so far as they may be learned or conjectured from such information as remains to us, throw but little additional light on the general charac- ter of the theosophic Gnostics, yet there are one or two questions concerning them of some inter- est. I shall, therefore, speak of them in a Note at the end of this volume. J * Lib. L c. 28. ^ 1. p. 106. — See Vol. H. p. 34. t Lib. n. c. 19. ^ 8. p. 144. X See Additional Note, B. 152 EVIDENCES OF THE But there is one other sect that may here deserve a brief notice. It is that of the Marcosians, of vs^hose system Irengeus gives as full an account as of that of the Ptolemaeo- Valentinians ; * probably because, as he men- tions, they prevailed particularly in his neigh- bourhood, on the Rhone.f Epiphanius has transcribed his account ; but neither he, nor any other writer, affords any additional knowl- edge concerning them. They were a branch of the great body of the Valentinians. The general outline of their system of emanations was similar to that of Ptolemy. What was most peculiar to them was their connecting it with speculations, utterly unintelligible, con- cerning the mysterious powers and relations of words and letters. To these speculations an analogy, which we shall hereafter notice, may be found in the Jewish Cabala. They were allied also to the cathoHc doctrine concerning the Logos ; % according to which the Logos, existing in God as his internal Reason or Dis- course (conformably to a now obsolete signifi- cation of the word Discourse, in which it was synonymous with Reason), was generated by * Lib. I. capp. 13 - 21. pp. 59 - 98. t Ibid. c. 13. ^ 7. p. 65. % Ibid. c. 14. ^ 1. p. 66. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 153 him as a person, and became his uttered Dis- course or Word.* The system of the Marcosians is an object of some curiosity, as affording one of the most remarkable among ancient examples of the depths of mysticism (a term that, in philo- sophical language, is the euphemism for non- sense) into which the mind may sink, and there revel. As their speculations, which fill page after page in Irenaeus, relate to Greek words and letters, it is difficult to detach a portion of them which may be clothed throughout in an English dress. But the following passage may suffice. Ireneeus had before him some work or works, apparently of Marcus, the founder of the sect, from which he copied or abstracted his account; and he has given the words of his original. " Know that your twenty-four letters are effluences, which present images of the three Powers that include the whole number of the elements above. Understand that the nine mutes are of the Father and Truth, because they are without sound ; that is, unspeakable and inexpressible. But the eight semivowels are of the Logos and Life ; because they are. * See Statement of Reasons, p. 283, seqq. VOL. III. 20 154 EVIDENCES OF THE as it were, intermediate between the mutes and the vocals (the vowels) ; and as they are effluent from those above them, so those below them bear a like relation to them. The vocals (vow- els), being seven, are of Man and the Church. For a voice proceeding from the Man gave form to all things ; for the sound of the voice clothed them with form." * In like manner with the Marcosians, and in the same spirit, the Jewish Cabalists, accord- ing to Basnage, discoursed of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. " Every letter," they said, " has some relation to the Sephiroths or Splen- dors [the first emanations from the Divinity], or to the works of God." Thus, for example, the first letter of the alphabet "indicates the inaccessible light of the Divinity. It is related to the first of the Sephiroths." " It infolds likewise other great mysteries," which it is un- necessary to detail. " The first ten letters an- swer to the ten Sephiroths, and the other letters have other uses." " The world was created with reference to the Hebrew alphabet, and the harmony of the creatures is like that of the letters which God employed in composing the Book of Life. A certain assemblage of letters * Irenaeus, Lib. I. c. 14. ^ 5. p. 70. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 165 causes the beauty and excellence of the uni- verse ; and, since the world was made with reference to the alphabet, certain things must necessarily be attached to every letter, and of these things it is the symbol and emblem."^ Perhaps the mysticism of the Cabalists would be better brought out by saying, that in these things the letter exerts its power. Besides the mysterious powers and relations * Histoire des Juifs, Liv. III. ch. 11. Tom. III. p. 301, seqq. Ed. 1716. See also Ch. 13. There is a truly remarkable analogy between the general notions of the Cabalists respecting the powers of the letters — an analogy extending even to some of the details into which they entered, as given by Basnage — and what is stated to be found in the Hindu Tantras. According to a writer in " The Friend of India " (Vol. III. p. 616), it is the doctrine of the Tantras concerning one of the Sanscrit vowels, that " it is an astonishing letter, it is bright as the shell of Vish- noo, it is full of the three gods and of the five souls ; it is in fact Bhwguvwtee herself. ' ' Of another letter it is said , — " The stroke on the left is Brwhma ; the lower stroke is Vishnoo ; the perpen- dicular Une Shiva ; the horizontal, SwrwswMtee ; the curve is Bhwgwvwtee. The space in the centre is Shiva." " This letter bestows liberation ; it produces wealth and holiness ; it is the root of all letters ; it is the feminine energy of nature, and the mother of all gods. In the upper angle resides the wife of Brwhma, in the middle angle Vishnoo's wife Jistha, in the lower Shiva's wife Roudree ; it is the soul of all knowledge ; the soul of the four casts, the origin of Brwhma's power to desire, of Vishnoo's power to know, and of the active energy of Shiva ; therefore is it to be perpetually praised." — In this manner, it is said by the writer of the article from which I quote, are the character and qualities of all the vowels and consonants described. 156 EVIDENCES OF THE of letters, Marcus likewise introduced those of numbers into his system. But speculations on the respective powers of different numbers were a common extravagance among the ancient philosophers from a very early period ; — we might say from the time of Pythagoras, if the accounts of his life and doctrines were not, for the greater part, fabulous, so that little can be affirmed with confidence concerning him. Such speculations were fundamental in the phi- losophy of those who were called Pythagoreans, when Aristotle wrote.*" Few subjects in an- cient times have yielded a heavier crop of mys- ticism than what might be gathered from nu- merous writers concerning the marvellous pow- ers and relations of numbers. As is a common case, the pretensions of Marcus were as monstrous as his absurdities. There seems no reason to doubt, or to explain away, the account of Irenaeus, according to whom Marcus affirmed, that " the first Quater- nity of ^ons, which is high above all, had descended to him, from places invisible and unspeakable, in the form of a woman, — for, he said, its masculine form the world could not * Aristot. Metaphysic. Lib. T. capp. 5, 6. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 157 support, — and revealed to him its own nature and the origin of all things, which it had never revealed before to any one of the gods or men." * Marcus himself, like Simon Magus and Apol- lonius of Tjana, appears to have belonged to the class of religious mountebanks, — individu- als claiming extraordinary inspiration and mar- vellous powers, who were not very uncommon during the first two centuries of our era ; and who, with characters modified by the differ- ence of circumstances, have shown themselves more or less conspicuously at other periods down to our own. According to Iren^us, who represents himself as speaking from personal knowledge, he was an impostor, a man of bad morals, and a pretender to magic.f He claimed, as we have seen, that a revelation had been made to him of a far higher charac- ter than that made to Christ. Such being the case, he may have imposed upon and deluded some Christians, who in becoming his follow- ers may not altogether have forfeited their title to the Christian name. But there seems no doubt that a majority of his sect had no more * Cont. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 14. § 1. p. 66. t Lib. I. c. 13. 158 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. claim to it than the Carpocratians or the Ophi- ans. The sect, indeed, appears to have been confined in its sphere, and short-lived ; for it attracted no attention from any other eminent writer besides Irenseus during the first three centuries. Having, in vrhat precedes, taken a view of the Gnostic Pleroma, as exhibited by Ptolemy, in its most perfect development, we shall now go on to the formation of things without the Pleroma, still following him as our guide. CHAPTER VIII. (continued.) ON THE PECULIAR SPECULATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. Section III. On their Speculations concerning the Formation of the Visible Universe. I PROCEED with the system of the Valen- tinians, as modified by Ptolemy.* In what follows I shall give merely its outline, for it would be useless to dwell on its detail, and shall state a few doubtful and unimportant points in the manner which seems to me most probably correct, without reference to the dif- ferent opinions that have been maintained. In consequence, as related in the last Sec- tion, of the sufferings of the ^on Wisdom, a * The account which follows is derived from the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Chapters of the First Book of Irenaeus. The statements of Irenaeus are confirmed in great part by the " Doc- trina Orientalis." §§ 43-65. 160 EVIDENCES OF THE female abortion was produced by her, that was cast out of the Pleroma. This offspring of Wisdom was formless, and devoid of compre- hension, but had the spiritual essence of an JEon. She was raised (as we shall see) from her imperfect state, and was then called, after her mother, Wisdom ; but seems more com- monly to have been denominated Achamoth, a name derived from the Hebrew, signifying wisdom. The JEon Christy taking compassion on her, extended himself for her relief over " the Boundary " * of the Pleroma. He gave her form and consciousness ; but did not endue her with knowledge. He then withdrew and left her, that she might awaken to a sense of her deprivation in being separated from the Pleroma, and feel an eager longing after higher things. Accordingly, she strove to at- tain the light by which she had been desert- ed ; but was restrained by the iEon Horos. Thus remaining alone, she became the prey of various contending passions, sorrow, fear, perplexity, accompanied by ignorance, and a yearning after him who had given her con- sciousness. In these circumstances she implored a re- * The iEon Horos. See before, p. 129. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 161 newal of the favor of Christ ; and he'sent the JEon Saviour, or Jesus, to her assistance. This ^Eon separated the passions of Achamoth from her, and mingled them with and united them to primitive matter. Mingled with this, they became the essential forms of matter. At the same time, her yearning after Christ gave be- ing to the substance of all souls, considered as not spiritual, but as rational. We have no word in English proper to describe this substance. I shall, therefore, denote it by a term borrowed directly from its epithet in Greek,* and call it " psychical." f In this manner the elements of things were formed by the ^on Saviour, who is accord- ingly, in one sense, to be considered as the maker of the visible universe ; the Valentini- ans applying to him the words of St. Paul, — " For by him were all things created, visible and invisible." Achamoth, in the mean time, had brought forth a substance of the same essence with herself, that is, spiritual. Thus three sorts of substances now existed without the Pleroma, — spiritual, psychical, and material. The Saviour gave instructions to Achamoth t Cud worth uses the epithet " soulish." VOL. III. 21 162 EVIDENCES OF THE how to proceed in the work of creation, and departed. Again left alone, she found herself unable to give form to the spiritual substance which she had produced. Taking therefore the psy- chical, she fashioned the immediate Creator of the world, the god of the Jews. Under the secret direction of his mother, of whose exist- ence he was ignorant, and of whose guidance he was unconscious, he became the former of all animal and material things, the God and Father of the new creation. Through the operation of Achamoth, instructed by the iEon Saviour, there resulted a correspondence be- tween the things without and those within the Pleroma ; Achamoth, herself, correspond- ing to the Infinite Being, and the Creator to the Only Son. The Creator made seven heavens,* each informed by an angel ; he himself animating one, as I conceive, and being over all. There can be little doubt (as I have before observ- ed t), that, in the ' conception of these seven heavens animated by angels, we find the com- mon philosophical notion of the ancients re- specting the seven heavenly bodies of our sys- * Oiipavovs. f See before, p. 22. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 163 tern, which they regarded as the glorious ve- hicles of divine intelligences ruling over the affairs of this world. But the Valentinians likewise considered those seven angels, togeth- er with Achamoth, as corresponding to the first Ogdoad of the jEons.* Achamoth now dwelt in " the Middle Space " (perhaps the orb of the fixed stars) between the new heavens of the Creator and the Ple- roma. The Creator was ignorant of the ex- istence of any beings of a higher order than himself. Having only a psychical, not a spir- itual, nature, he wanted power to comprehend what was spiritual. He fancied himself the origin of all things, the only God ; and thus announced himself by his prophets of the Old Testament, through whom he said, — "I am God, and beside me there is no other." f I pass over the account given by Irenaeus of the notions of Ptolemy respecting the for- mation of the Devil, which we have before ad- verted to, and found occasion to regard as essentially incorrect. { * In this paragraph I depart, in some particulars, too unimpor- tant to be dwelt upon, from the words of Irenaeus, and give what, I suppose, must, from the nature of the case, have been the mean- ing of Ptolemy. f See before, pp. 5, 6, J See before, p. 59, seqq. 164 EVIDENCES OF THE We come, therefore, next to the creation of Adam. First, an earthy substance was formed bj the Creator, not, however, of the dust of the earth, but of invisible, floating matter. This was a soul, or principle of life, similar to that of brutes. Into this vehicle the Cre- ator breathed a rational (psychical) soul of the same essence with himself; and the whole was afterward clothed with a covering of flesh, a body formed of the earth. But into the rational soul which proceeded from the Cre- ator, Achamoth, unknown to him, infused a portion of the spiritual substance which she had produced, a leaven of immortality, a spirit. From Adam, thus formed, proceeded three races of men, corresponding to the three parts of his incorporeal nature ; the earthy and ir- rational, as Cain ; the psychical, or rational, as Abel ; and the spiritual, as Seth ; the spiritual principle being always derived from Acha- moth. The first are, from their nature, des- tined to perish ; the second have the power of choice, and, as they incline themselves to good or evil, may be saved or lost ; the last, as spiritual, are secure of obtaining the blessed- ness of the Pleroma. To this class the theo- sophic Gnostics regarded themselves as belong- ing. From their spiritual nature, which was GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 165 superior to that of the Creator, thej were capa- ble of understanding the mysteries which they taught, and of which he had been ignorant. Other Christians belonged to the second class. These were to attain salvation by simple faith and good works. In reference, I suppose, to the communica- tion by Achamoth of the spiritual principle to men, by which they became inspired, the name " Holy Spirit " was given her by the Valen- tinians. To remedy the disorders and evils of which he himself was sensible, the Creator had de- termined to send a Saviour. Him he had predicted by the Jewish prophets. But to restore the order of the universe, a higher interposition was necessary than that of the Creator. At the baptism of his Christ, the iEon Saviour descended into him in the form of a dove, and became the true Saviour of the world. In the consummation of the present state of things, Achamoth will be restored to the Pleroma ; and the Creator will take her pres- ent seat, " the Middle Space." The spiritual, or rather their spirits, divested of their souls, will enter the Pleroma, and be united as brides to the angels attendant on the ^on Saviour. 166 EVIDENCES OF THE The rational (psychical), who have secured their salvation by faith and good works, will enter the future realm of the Creator, where, likewise, the souls of the spiritual will remain. From the first, those souls which had re- ceived the spiritual seed, implanted by Acha- moth, had manifested their superiority over all others. Though the Creator was ignorant of the cause of their excellence, they were objects of his peculiar favor. He constituted them prophets, priests, and kings. Thus the words uttered by his prophets (the Jewish prophets) did not all proceed from the Crea- tor ; that spiritual principle, which he could not give, spoke in them. Their declarations, therefore, are to be divided into two classes, according to the source from which they pro- ceeded. In like manner, the words uttered by the man Jesus sometimes proceeded from the iEon Saviour, sometimes from the spiritual principle derived from Achamoth, and sometimes from the Creator. But, though the operations of the spiritual principle in men had been remarked by the Creator before the descent of the jEon Saviour from the Pleroma, and though he had been moved by these appearances, yet he treated them with neglect, and imagined various causes GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 167 for the effects produced. " When, however, the Saviour came, he learned all things from him, and, with his whole attendant host, joy- fully welcomed him. The Creator was typi- fied by the Centurion in the Gospel, who says to the Saviour, For I also have soldiers and servants under my authority, and they do what I command. He will carry on the govern- ment of the world, as long as is requisite, especially for the purpose of taking charge of the Church ; and likewise with a view to the reward prepared for him, with which he has been made acquainted, a removal into the place where his mother dwells." The Valen- tinians also affirmed, " that Simeon, who took Christ in his arms and gave thanks, and said, Lord, now dost thou dismiss thy servant in peace, according to thy word, was a type of the Creator, who, upon the coming of the Saviour, was made aware of his own future translation, and gave thanks to the Unknown God."* * The words above quoted are taken from Irenasus, Lib. L c. 7. § 4. pp. 34, 35 ; and Lib. L c. 8. § 4. p. 40. Tertullian gives the same statement, Advers. Valentin, c. 28. p. 260. It corresponds, likewise, with what Origen (Comment, in Joan. T. 13. 0pp. IV. p. 274, seqq.) has quoted from the Valentinian, Heracleon, and with what is found in the Doctrina Orientalis (§§ 62 - 65). I re- 168 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. After what has been already said, the scheme explained in this Chapter affords no occasion for any particular remark. But it may be observed, that the Valentinians adduced in its support many passages from the Gospels and Epistles, in which, after the fashion of their day, they found a hidden sense. Of the man- ner in which they used such passages the ap- pHcation of those just quoted affords a favor- able specimen. We have, thus, gone over those opinions of the theosophic Gnostics which it is necessary to consider apart. We will next attend to the opinions both of the theosophic Gnostics, and of the Marcionites, concerning the person of Christ, which may best be viewed in connec- tion with each other. fer to these authorities, because the account of Mosheim, in his Commentarii de Rebus Christianorum, which is similar to that given by him in his Ecclesiastical History, is altogether erroneous. After speaking in the former work (p. 384) of the union of the ^on Jesus with Christ (the Christ of the Creator) he says : — " This divine man strenuously attacked the tyranny of the Creator of the World and his associates, by discourses, miracles, and in- vectives ; and taught men the knowledge of the Supreme Divin- ity, and the means of procuring the salvation of that soul in which are the senses and lusts. Exasperated by this, the Architect of the World caused him to be apprehended and crucified." — See before, p. 8, note. CHAPTER IX. ON THE OPINIONS OF THE GNOSTICS CONCEKNING THE PERSON OF CHRIST. The Gnostics generally believed that Christ had not a proper body of flesh and blood. This belief, as I have already said, was a consequence of their opinion respecting the evil nature of the body.* A proper human body was thought by them inconsistent with the perfect purity of the Saviour. But the Marcionites and theosophic Gnostics, while they agreed in this fundamental doctrine, dif- fered in their other opinions respecting his person. The nativity of Christ was denied by Mar- cion. He regarded it as wholly unworthy of the Divine Saviour to have passed through all the circumstances attendant on birth and in- fancy.! Christ, according to him, was the Son, the Spirit, the Power, the Messenger, * See before, p. 59. t TertuUian. Advers. Marcion. Lib. III. c. 11. pp. 402, 403. De Came Christi, c. 4. p. 309. VOL. III. 22 170 EVIDENCES OF THE the Christ, of the Unknown God.* The gos- pel used by Marcion was that of Luke mu- tilated by him ; f and, rejecting all the pre- vious history, he began with the appearance of the Saviour in the synagogue at Caperna- um. He was then manifested in this infe- rior world, not a man, but a divine being. J His apparent body was a mere phantom. A human body, besides its corrupt nature, must have been derived from the Creator, with whom Marcion (unlike the theosophic Gnostics) main- tained that his Christ had nothing in com- mon. He taught, that the Creator had prom- ised to his pecuhar people, the Jews, a Mes- siah of his own ; but that the advent of this Messiah had been anticipated, and his place preoccupied, by the manifestation of the Un- known God in Christ.^ Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, though he denied the nativity of Christ, held that he had a real, but not a human, body.|| So far * Tertullian. Advers. Marcion. Lib. III. c. 3. p. 397. Lib. IV. c. 21. p. 436. f See Additional Note, C. J Tertullian. Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV. c. 7. pp. 416, 417. c. 21. p. 436. ^ See before, p. 9. II Tertullian. De Came Christi, c. 6. p. 311. Advers. Marcion. Lib. m. c. 11. p. 403. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 171 as we may conclude from our imperfect in- formation, the generality of the theosophic Gnostics admitted, in like manner, the real- ity of his body, and, with this, his nativity also in a certain sense. Many of them ap- pear to have adopted the essential features of a scheme often brought into view by Irenseus.* According to this scheme, the iEon Saviour (who, it is to be remembered, was also called Christ) descended from the Pleroma into the Messiah of the Creator, the seeming man Jesus, at the baptism of the latter, and through him announced the Unknown God. In speak- ing of this complex being, the .^on seems to have been commonly called Christ ; the man, Jesus. Jesus having been intended by the Creator for his Messiah, his body had been prepared, in a wonderful manner, of the psy- chical substance, so as to be free from all the impurities of matter. His soul was de- rived from the Creator ; but there was a spir- itual principle within him (a spirit) furnished by Achamoth. As regards his nativity, he passed through Mary, his mother, as water * Cont. Hasres. Lib. L c. 6. § 1. pp. 28, 29. c. 7. § 2. pp. 32, 33. c. 9. § 3. p. 45. Lib. IIL c. 2. § 2. p. 175. c. 9. § 3. p. 184. c. 10. ^ 4. p. 186. c. 11. §^ 1, 3, 7. pp. 188-190. c. 16. p. 204, seqq. 172 EVIDENCES OF THE through a conduit, without receiving any thing from her substance. When taken before Pi- late, the Mon Christ left him. The spirit fur- nished by Achamoth likewise left him at his crucifixion ; and only the psychical part of the complex Saviour, the body and soul of Jesus, suffered. The opinion of the theosophic Gnostics con- cerning the body of Christ, as not a proper human body, though one capable of suffering, was an hypothesis in no way affecting the historical accounts of him. But it may be thought that the doctrine of the Marcionites, who conceived of his apparent body as a phan- tom, must have led them to reject much that is related in the Gospels. As I have mentioned, Marcion denied the nativity of Jesus, and rejected, in consequence, the first three chapters of Luke's Gospel, the only gospel which he used. But he did not call in question the actions, miracles, and ap- parent sufferings of Christ, as recorded by the Evangelist. He viewed those accounts as a true narrative of what appeared to the senses of men. Regarding the supposed prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Jewish Messiah as inapplicable to the true Christ, he relied on his miracles alone as proof of his GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 173 divine authority. In his view, no order in successive dispensations of the Supreme God, no preparation for the coming of his Christ, was required. " You affirm," says Tertullian, " that no order of that sort was necessary, as he was immediately to prove himself by facts, by the evidence of his powers, to be the son and messenger and Christ of God."* Marcion, likewise, received the accounts of the cruci- fixion, death, and resurrection of Christ, equally with the accounts of the transactions of his ministry. His admission of the truth of this part of the Gospel history is often referred to by Tertullian. Marcion, indeed, reasoned from it to prove that the Christ in whom he be- lieved was not the Messiah who had been promised to the Jews by their Creator-god ; " denying that it had been predicted that the Christ of the Creator should suffer on the cross, and arguing further, that it was not credible that the Creator should subject his son to that kind of death on which he had himself pro- nounced a curse ; saying. Cursed is every one who has hung on wood.^^ f * Advers. Marcion. Lib. III. c. 3. p. 397. t Ibid. Lib. III. c. 18. p. 407. — The quotation from the Old Testament, which I give conformably to the words in Tertullian (Maledictus omnis qui pependerit in ligno), is to be found in 174 EVroENCES OF THE In different passages, TertuUian insists that there was no reason why Marcion should deny the nativity of Christ, on the ground- of its being unworthy of the divine nature to be born, seeing that he admitted his crucifixion.* Re- ferring to, and misapplying, the words of St, Paul (to which, as I have before said,t he often appealed), " God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise," he maintains that it was not more foolish, in the view of human wisdom, for a divine being to be born than to be crucified. According to Mar- cion, he says,t " the nativity of Christ is dis- honorable to God, and unworthy of the Son of God, and foolish." " But God,^^ he replies, " has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise " ,* and he then proceeds to speak thus of the crucifixion. " Clearly, there are other things as foolish, relating to the contumely and sufferings en- dured by the divine nature. Or shall I call it agreeable to reason, that a divine being should Deuteronomy xxi. 23. This passage is also used by St. Paul, Galatians iii. 13. * Besides the passage to be immediately quoted, see Advers. Marcion. Lib. IE. c 11. p. 403. t See Vol. n. pp. 256-259. X De Carnc Christi, capp. 4, 5. pp. 309, 310. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 175 be crucified ? * Expunge this, too, Marcion ; or, rather, expunge this in the first place. For which is more unworthy of a divine being, which is more shameful, to be born, or to die ? to bear about flesh, or to bear a cross ? to be circumcised, or to be pierced with nails ? to be brought forth, or to be buried ? to be laid in a manger, or in a tomb ? You would be wiser, if you disbelieved all this likewise. But you will not be wise, unless you become a fool to the world by believing the foolish things of God. Have you spared the account * " Sunt plane et alia tarn stulta quae pertinent ad contumelias et passiones dei. Aut prudentiam dicam [non dicant] deum cru- cifixum 1 " — To translate the word deus by our word God, in these and subsequent passages of this extract, would be imputing to Tertullian a sense which he would have regarded with horror. See his work Adversus Praxeam, passim. See also Vol. II. p. 252, seqq. — " Sermo Dei," says Tertullian, "deus, quia ex Deo, non tamen ipse ex quo est." " The Logos of God is a divine being [verbally God] because he is from God, yet he is not that being from whom he is." Advers. Praxeam, c. 26. p. 515. It was with very indeterminate, inconsistent, and changing con- ceptions, that Tertullian, and the other early fathers, applied the name god to the Logos or Christ, whom, as a person, they re- garded as far inferior to God. But they gave him this name. on the ground of his being an attribute of God, his deriving, as a person, his substance from God, and his acting as the minister and representative of God. I have had occasion elsewhere (Statement of Reasons, pp. 280, 281) to advert to this subject. See Additional Note, D. 176 EVIDENCES OF THE of the sufferings of Christ, because, being a phantom, he felt them not ? I have already said, that he might equally submit to the empty indignities of an imaginary birth and infancy." * * Though it is not necessary to my purpose, I am tempted to pursue the quotation a little farther. The passage is a remark- able one. Tertullian goes on thus : — " But now answer me this, destroyer of the Truth ! Was not the divine Saviour really cru- cified ? Did he not really die, as he was really crucified 1 Was he not really raised again to life, as he really died ? Did Paul falsely determine to know nothing among us but Jesus crucified 1 * Did he falsely teach that he was buried, and falsely insist on his resurrection ? Then our faith is false ; and all we hope from Christ a phantom. Most wicked of men ! Excuser of deicides ! For Christ suffered nothing from his enemies, if he did not really suffer. Spare the only hope of the world, thou destroyer of the necessary dishonor of the Faith.f Whatever was unworthy of a divine being was for my good. I am safe, if I am not ashamed of my Lord. Of him, he says, who has been ashamed of me will I be ashamed. Fortunate in my want of shame, J happy in my folly, I find nothing else which can put me to the blush. The Son of God was born ; § — it is shameful, and, therefore, I am * Rigault gives this sentence thus : — " Falso ergo statuit inter nos scire Paulus tantum Jesum crucifixum." Instead of " Falso ergo statuit," I adopt the reading " Falso statuit," and understand this and the following sentence as interrogative. t Rigault's text is, — " Q,uid destruis necessarium dedecus fidei ? " Instead of" Quid destruis," I adopt the reading "qui destruis," with- out an interrogation. \ For " bene imprudentem," I adopt the reading " bene inipuden- tem." § For " Crucifixus est Dei filius," I adopt the reading " Natus est Dei filius." GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 177 Before quitting this subject, we will take notice of a remarkable passage of Origen, in not ashamed of it. And the Son of God died ; — it is altogether credible, because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again ; — it is certain, because it is impossible." The meaning of Tertullian in the last sentences may be thus explained. God, he argues, has, through the Apostle, avowed that he has chosen what is foolish in the view of men to confound the wise. Do you, then, refuse to admit the nativity of Christ, because it may seem to you dishonorable for the Son of God, the Divine Saviour, to be born ? Or is his real crucifixion to be dis- believed, because it may appear absurd to men to assert that such a being died 1 Or is the proper fact of his resurrection to be re- jected, because it may appear impossible to men that a dead body should return to life? On the contrary, these things, including his nativity, are in truth the foolish things which God has spoken of as characteristic of his dispensation. I believe them the more firmly, because, so far as they seem to men dishonorable, foolish, and impossible, so far they coincide with the avowed purpose of God. They bear the very character which he has ascribed to the means used by him to confound the wise. What are those fool- ish things, Tertullian asks immediately before, to which the words of the Apostle may apply? " The conversion of men to the wor- ship of the true God 1 the rejection of error ? the forming of men to righteousness, chastity, patience, mercy, innocence? — These are not foolish things. Search out what the Apostle referred to, and if you have reason to suppose that you have found it, then it will no longer seem foolish to you to believe * that a divine being was born, and born of a virgin, and with a body of flesh." The words, " Certum est, quia impossibile," " It is certain, be- cause it is impossible," have been often quoted, with some change (" Credo, quia impossibile," " I believe, because it is impossi- * For " non erit tarn stultum quam credere," I adopt the reading, " non crit jam stuhum credere." VOL. III. 23 178 EVIDENCES OF THE which he in some degree countenances an opinion quite as extraordinary, to say the least, asv that of the Marcionites. It is found in the Latin translation of his Commentaries on Matthew.* But there can be no reasonable doubt that it was originally written by him, not interpolated by his translator. He is com- menting on the fact, that Judas, when be- traying his master, pointed him out by a kiss to those who accompanied him ; the fact be- ing considered by Origen as implying that they might not otherwise have known his per- son, f His words, considerably abridged, are as follows : — " A tradition has come down to us, that ble"), ironically, with a cast of ridicule on Tertullian. In the last sentences adduced from him, his vehement eloquence has broken down the common barriers of language ; but it seems to be treating him hardly, to give a verbal meaning to his overbold and very concise expressions, in order to convert them into absurdities. The whole passage is one of the many, before referred to (See pp. 146, 147), in which he, Justin Martyr, and Irenasus express clearly and strongly their belief of the sufferings of the Logos. * Series Comment, in Matth. ^ 100. 0pp. III. 906. I Many of them probably did not know his person, as Jesus during his ministry was but very little, comparatively, at Jerusa- lem ; others might not readily have distinguished him by the light of the moon, mingled with that of torches and lanterns. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 179 Jesus had not only two forms, that in which he was seen by all, and that in which he was seen by his disciples at his transfiguration ; but that he appeared to every one in the form of which he was worthy ; and that (at times) when present, he appeared to all like another person.* Thus he resembled the manna, which had a different taste for different individuals, accommodated to every man's liking.f And this tradition does not seem to me incredible. But if it were so, we may explain w^hy the multitude who accompanied Judas, though they had often seen Jesus, nevertheless need- ed some one familiar with him to point him out to them, on account of the changes of his form." This extraordinary tradition does not ap- pear to have dwelt on the mind of Origen ; for he never elsewhere mentions it in his re- maining works ; but it presents a conception that may seem even stranger than that of the Marcionites.J The passage, however, well de- * " Sed etiam unicuique apparebat secundum quod fuerat dig- nus. Et cum fuisset ipse, quasi non ipse omnibus videbatur." ■]• This notion respecting the manna was derived by Origen from what is said in the Wisdom of Solomon, ch. xvi. 20, 21. X The story referred to by Origen is likewise mentioned by Photius (in the ninth century), as having been found by him in a 180 EVIDENCES OF THE serves attention ; especially in connection with their doctrine, — which existed before the mid- dle of the second century. Taken together, they serve to show with what fables and strange imaginations the history of Jesus would have been mingled, had it not, at an early period, been fixed in its true form by the authentic records of his contemporary disciples. They are among those collateral evidences (hereafter to be discussed) which, taken alone, afford irresistible proof that the Gospels were not compilations of a later period than that assigned for their origin. If the histories of Christ had been founded upon traditions existing among the Gentile Christians after their separation from the Jewish Christians, that is, after the apostolic age ; then, instead of bearing the character which they now have, they would have been not only irreconcilable with each other, but disfigured by such traditions as that preserved by Origen, and such conceptions as that of Marcion. The growth of fables re- specting our Saviour, which was blasted by book called " Circuits (IlfptoSoi) of the Apostles," professedly written by an author of the name of Leucius Charinus. In that book it was connected with the opinion of the Marcionites, and subsequently of the Manichaeans, that the apparent body of Christ was only a phantom. Photii Bibliotlieca, col. 202. Ed. Schotti. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 181 the existence of the Gospels, would have been rank without it ; and each compiler of a his- tory would have selected from relations true or false what was accommodated to his own belief or imaginations respecting Christianity and its founder. Marcion, for example, instead of mutilating, as he did, the Gospel of Luke, and using that alone, would have constructed a gospel of his own, much more favorable to his opinions than any thing he could derive from Luke. We will next consider what were the views of the Gnostics concerning the general design of Christianity, or, in other words, the pur- pose of the interposition of the True God by Christ. CHAPTER X. ON THE OPINIONS OF THE GNOSTICS RESPECTING THE DE- SIGN OF CHRISTIANITY. The subject of this Chapter, however impor- tant to be attended to, in order that we may form a correct estimate of the Gnostics, requires little explanation or discussion. It does not appear that the Christian Gnostics, as a body, differed essentially from the catholic Christians in their general views of the design of Chris- tianity. We, accordingly, have no remains of any controversy between the two parties con- cerning this subject. It may, or may not, be regarded as a qualifi- cation of these remarks, that the theosophic Gnostics were distinguished from the catholic Christians by maintaining the doctrine of the natural division of men into three classes, one secure of future blessedness in the Pleroma, another to be rewarded or punished by the Creator according to their deserts, and the third formed to perish.* But they ascribed (I speak * See before, p. 164. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 183 of the more respectable and sober of their number) a moral efficacy, and, as far as appears, a moral efficacy alone, to the Christian dispensa- tion. It was, in their view, a manifestation of the Unknown God, of the True God, to reveal himself and his purposes to men, to deliver them from the power of moral evil, and to form " the spiritual " and " the rational " (psychical) for the happiness of which they were respective- ly capable. The doctrine, that " the spiritual " were, by their nature, secure of future blessedness, was undoubtedly liable to be greatly abused ; and, considering the condition of the times, we have no reason to doubt that in many individuals it led to such irregularities as were charged on the theosophic Gnostics. Doctrines different from it in form, but the same in effect, have prevailed in modern times ; and in periods of great ex- citement, as in Germany at the time of the Ref- ormation, and among the fanatics in England in the seventeenth century, they have been fol- lowed by like disastrous consequences. But, during ordinary seasons, other principles and other influences, acting upon the minds of those by whom they are held, oppose and control their dangerous tendency. It does not appear that the Marcionites 184 EVIDENCES OF THE adopted the notion of the theosophic Gnostics concerning the natural division of men into three classes. This world they regarded as evil ; its ruler as of a character diverse from, and, in some respects, contrary to, that of the Supreme God ; and all connection with it through the pleasures of the senses as polluting. In their view, the Supreme God had interposed to enable men to deliver themselves from the realm of the Creator, and to attain to a far better state. This deliverance was to be effect- ed by cultivating their spiritual nature, by the practice of Christian virtue, and, especially, by what, in their opinion, formed an essential part of it, ascetic morality, and an abstinence from worldly pleasures. Thus were men to separate themselves from the world and its ruler. The Good God did not punish ; but with regard to the final lot of those not admitted to his spirit- ual world, our information is too imperfect to enable us to complete the scheme of Marcion. The belief of the theosophic Gnostics, that the ^on Christ left the man Jesus before his crucifixion, and that of the Marcipnites, that the seeming body of Christ was a phantom, incapable of suffering, make it evident that they could have had no notion of the doctrine GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 185 of Atonement as it appears in modern creeds, a doctrine which theologians have represented as the distinguishing feature of Christianity. But on this subject there was no controversy be- tween them and the early catholic Christians, to whom the doctrine was equally unknown. The theosophic Gnostics have been compared with those religionists in our own times, who maintain that the objects of faith may be felt, or may be discerned, by each individual mind, without the aid of Revelation, the belief in which they consequently reject. But the spirit- ual intuition, claimed by the Gnostics for them- selves alone, had no agreement with this doc- trine. It corresponds rather to the exclusive pretension to a supernatural faith, which many other Christian sects have set up since their time. From those modern religionists the Gnostics were likewise very widely separated by the fundamental distinction, that they recog- nized in Christianity a character altogether su- pernatural. They regarded it as a manifesta- tion of the Supreme God, in which his glory had, for the first time, irradiated this lower world; — as a miraculous interposition of the most extraordinary character. They were, there- fore, as strongly distinguished as any Christians VOL. III. 24 186 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. from all those speculatists who reject the belief that Christianity is a revelation from God. But how was it possible that the Gnostics could reconcile their peculiar doctrines with the teachings of Christ? This is a question to which we will attend in the next Chapter. CHAPTER XL OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GNOSTICS RECONCILED THEIR DOCTRINES WITH CHRISTIANITY. In comparing the peculiar doctrines of the Gnostics with the teaching of Christ, as record- ed in the Gospels, or with the Christian Scrip- tures generally, the question naturally arises, How could they imagine those doctrines to have been taught by the Master whom they professed to follow, or identify them in any way with Christianity ? We may, at first view, be inclined strongly to suspect that they held the common histories of Christ, and the other books of the New Testament, in no esteem ; and to adopt the inference of Gibbon, that " it was impossi- ble that the Gnostics could receive our present Gospels."* But, on further attention to the subject, we may perceive that there is nothing peculiar in the case of the Gnostics. Their systems have long been obsolete ; they are foreign from our * See Vol. II. p. 12. 188 EVIDENCES OF THE thoughts and imaginations ; and in comparing them with the systems of other sects, we are apt to measure their relative distance from Christianity by their relative distance from the forms of Christian belief with which we are familiar. Of opinions equally false, those with which we have long been acquainted seem to us much less extraordinary than such as are newly presented to our minds. In inquiring, therefore, how the Gnostics could mistake their doctrines for the doctrines of Christianity, the first consid- eration to be attended to is the fact, that their mistake was not greater than that which has been committed by a large majority of the pro- fessed disciples of Christ. The faith of the whole Christian world for ten centuries before the Reformation had no advantage over that of the Gnostics, in being more accordant with reason and Christianity. The gross literal errors and absurdities, maintained by the Catho- lics of this period, are in as strong contrast with the truths of our religion, as the mystic extrava- gances of the early heretics. The system by which the Catholic faith was supplanted among Protestants, with its doctrines concerning the threefold personality of God, and concerning God's government of his creatures ; with its representations of the totally depraved nature. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 189 capable only of moral evil, with which he brings men into being ; with its scheme of redemption required by man's utter misery and helplessness; its infinite satisfaction to the justice of God the Father, made by the sufferings of God the Son ; and its " horrible decrees," * may, perhaps, ap- pear to a rational believer of the present day to stand in as open and direct opposition to Chris- tianity as the systems of the leading Gnostics. Or, to come down to a later period, the hypoth- eses and expositions by which the Gnostics rec- onciled their conceptions with the declarations of Christ and his Apostles could not, as many will think, be more irrational and extravagant than the hypotheses and expositions of that modern school of German theologians who, ad- mitting the authenticity of the Gospels, find nothing supernatural in the history, but explain, as conformable to the common laws of nature, events which, according to their theory, have, from the time of their occurrence to the present * I borrow the expression from a well-known passage of Calvin. "Unde factum est, ut tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus aeternae morti involveret lapsus Adje absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? Decretum quidem horribile fateor." — "Whence is it, that the fall of Adam involved so many nations with their infant children in eternal death, without remedy, except that it so seemed good to God? It is a horrible decree, I confess." Institut. Lib. III. c. 23. § 7. 190 EVIDENCES OF THE day, been mistaken for miracles. I refer to the opinions of large bodies of Christians, or of men claiming to be called Christians ; and to speculations which have been defended by such as were, or have been reputed to be, learned and able. It is not necessary to pursue the illustra- tion by adverting to the doctrines of smaller sects. I will only observe further, as the case seems to me particularly analogous, that the disciples of Swedenborg are believers in our re- ligion, that they have their full share of the Christian virtues, and that they have reckoned among their number men of more than common powers of mind ; while he who rejects the sys- tems both of Ptolemy and of Swedenborg will probably think that there is no reason for pre- ferring one to the other, on account of its being the more rational faith, or having a better foun- dation in the Gospels. Whatever opinions a thinking man may en- tertain of Christianity, or of religion unconnect- ed with Christianity, when he compares them with those which have existed, or are exist- ing, among mankind, he will find himself in a small minority. Whoever may really have at- tained to the " bene munita, " Edita doctrina sapientum, tenipla screna," GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 191 to the serene temples, well fortified, built up by the learning of the wise, " Despicere unde queas alios, passimque videre Errareatque viam palenteis quaerere vitae," will assuredly not find them thronged ; and, from their height, he will see not a few others wandering in errors as extravagant as those of the Gnostics. Such have, for many centuries, been the doctrines of the larger portion of the professed followers of Christ, that Faith has been formally disconnected from Reason ; and reason, or, as the term is usually qualified, human reason, has been represented as its dangerous enemy. From the time of the Gnostics to our own, there has always been a very numerous class, com- posed of individuals who have held different and opposite tenets, but who have all in com- mon appealed, in some form or other, to an in- ward sense, a spiritual discernment, infallible in its perceptions, surpassing the powers of the understanding, and superseding their use. " The natural man," says St. Paul, meaning the unconverted, him who rejected revelation, "re- ceives not the truths of the spirit of God ; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them ; because they are spiritually dis- 192 EVIDENCES OF THE cerned " ; * that is to say, spiritual things, the truths taught by Christianity, are to be discerned only through the light which Christianity affords. But the words of the Apostle were early per- verted by the theosophic Gnostics ; f and there are none that have been more commonly or more mischievously abused. One main occasion of the existence, not only of the Gnostics, but of other sects of religionists, has been the vanity of belonging to a spiritual aristocracy, from which good sense, learning, and rational piety only form a ground of exclusion. Those Gnostics, with their pretence to spiritual discernment, had no more difficulty than later sects in finding what they looked for in the teachings of Christ. The ease with which different parties among Christians have discovered apparent support for doctrines the most irrational has been essentially connected with a fundamental error respecting the nature of those writings which compose the Old and New Testaments. Conformably to what I have before had occasion to remark, f all these writings, so different in character and val- ue, have been represented as constituting the * 1 Corinthians ii. 14. f Irenffius, Lib. I. c. 8. § 3. p. 39. % See Vol. II. p. cxcvi. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 193 Revelation from God. They have been ascribed to God as their proper author ; the human writ- ers being considered only as agents under his immediate direction. When, therefore, all these different writers, with all their imperfect and erroneous conceptions, were thus transformed in- to infallible divine instructers, there is no won- der that their words, even if correctly under- stood, should afford support for many errors. But, besides the direct consequence of this fun- damental misapprehension, there has been an indirect consequence not less important. The words contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments being regarded as the words not of men, but of God, the rational principles of interpretation, which would apply to them as the words of men, have been set aside. These principles would lead us to study the respective characters of the authors of those books, and the various influences which were acting upon them, and to make ourselves acquainted with the particular occasion and purpose of their different writings, and with the characters, circumstances, opinions, errors, and modes of expression of those for whom their writings were immediate- ly intended ; and when we had thus enabled ourselves, as far as possible, to sympathize with them, we should determine their meaning with VOL. III. 25 194 EVIDENCES OF THE a constant regard to the considerations which we had thus grouped together. But such knowledge is foreign from the purpose, if the books to be explained are not properly the works of human authors. It has, accordingly, been disregarded. The essential elements and rules of a correct interpretation have been neg- lected ; and the work of explaining the Scrip- tures has been denied to reason and judgment, and delivered over to men's preconceptions, ca- prices, imaginations, and spiritual discernment. The consequence has been, that in the perform- ance of this work we may find all varieties of error, from the wildest allegories and Cabalistic follies, down to the imposition of verbal mean- ings which are verbal or moral absurdities. The false modes of interpretation common in their day afforded the theosophic Gnostics, as false modes of interpretation have afforded later sects, a ready means of apparently reconciling their opinions with the Scriptures. Every one acquainted with theological con- troversy must be familiar with the fact, that, in defending doctrines contrary to the teaching of Christ, a few texts are seized upon, the words of which, when standing alone, admit an interpretation favorable to those doctrines ; GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 195 and that their defenders, fixing their attention on these texts, are able to close their eyes to the whole opposing tenor of the New Testa- ment. But the Gnostics could have been in no want of such texts as might readily be accom- modated to the support of their fundamental doctrine, that the God of the Jews was not the God of Christians. Marcion wrote a work on this subject which he entitled "Antitheses," the main object of which was to point out the contrariety between the representations given by Christ of his Father and those given of God in the Old Testament.* The opposition be- tween Christianity and some of the views of religion and morals presented in the Penta- teuch (which I have had occasion to remark) furnished the Gnostics with a storehouse of arguments from Scripture. As regards another principal point, the claim set up by the theo- sophic Gnostics to be by nature the chosen, or the elect, of God, as being the spiritual, they could have found no more difficulty in support- ing their pretensions from the New Testament, than any of those who, since their day, have claimed to be elected as the spiritual through * TertuUian. Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 19. p. 374. Lib. IV. .c. 1. p. 413. c. 6. p. 416. 196 EVIDENCES OF THE a decree of God, irrespective of any merits of their own. Similar modes of misinterpretation would apply as well in the one case as the other, and furnish a similar harvest of apparent proofs. After these general remarks, we will proceed to consider more particularly the means by which the Gnostics reconciled their doctrines with their Christian faith. The inquiry is one of particular interest, on account of the proof which it affords that the Gnostics had no other Gospel-history than that which was common to them with the catholic Christians and with ourselves ; and that, together with the catholic Christians, they used some one, or all, of our present Gospels, as the only document or docu- ments of any value respecting the ministry of Christ. In the first place, then, the theosophic Gnos- tics, in common with the catholic Christians, applied the allegorical mode of interpretation to the New Testament. Neglecting the proper meaning of words, they educed from them mys- tical senses. Of these, I have already, in the course of this work, produced examples ; and many more are given by their early opponents, ^ GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 197 particularly by Irenaeus. This afforded a ready means of accommodating the language of the New Testament to their conceptions. But their whole system of interpretation was, besides, ar- bitrary, and unsupported by any correct princi- ples. The vocabulary of the theosophic Gnos- tics, like that of other erring sects, consisted, in great part, of words from the New Testament, on which they had imposed new senses. The names of the iEons most frequently mentioned were borrowed from the New Testament ; and as the same name was applied by them to different individuals, — as the name of God, for example, was given both to the Gnostic Creator and to the Supreme Being, and that of Jesus both to the iEon so named and to the man Je- sus, — it thus became easy for them, on the one hand, to find supposed references to their theory, and, on the other, to explain away much that was inconsistent with it. Like other false expositors of Scripture, the Gnostics detached particular passages from their connection, and infused a foreign meaning into the words. Irenaeus, after saying that they ap- pealed to unwritten tradition as a source of their knowledge, goes on to remark, that, " twisting, according to the proverb, a rope of sand, they endeavour to accommodate in a plau- 198 EVIDENCES OF THE sible manner to their doctrines the parables of the Lord, the declarations of the Prophets, or the words of the Apostles, so that their fiction may not seem to be without proof. But they neglect the order and connection of the Scrip- tures, and disjoin, as far as they are able, the members of the truth. They transpose and re- fashion, and, making one thing out of another, they deceive many by a fabricated show of the words of the Lord which they put together." * The Gnostics, according to him, in thus putting together proofs from Scripture, resembled one who, taking a mosaic representing a king, should separate the stones, and then form them into the likeness of a dog or a fox.f He afterwards com- pares them to those who made centos from lines of Homer, by which some story was told alto- gether foreign from any thing in his works, f They allowed, he says, that the unknown God, and the transactions within the Pleroma, " were not plainly declared by the Saviour, because all had not capacity to receive such knowledge ; but, to those who were able to understand them, * Cont. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 8. § 1. p. 36. — For aocjiia in the last sentence, I adopt the reading (jiavraaia or (pavrda-fiari. See Massuet's note. t Ibid. X Lib. I. c. 9. ^ 4. pp. 45, 46. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 199 they were signified by him mystically and in parables." * In addition to these modes of interpretation, the theosophic Gnostics likewise maintained a principle similar to a fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholics, namely, that religious truth could not be learned from the Scriptures alone, without the aid of the oral instructions of Christ and his Apostles, as preserved by tradition. " When," says Ireneeus, " they are confuted by proofs from the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct, nor of authority ; they say that they contain contradictions, and that the truth cannot be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For that it was not delivered in writing, but orally ; whence Paul said, 'We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.' "f " The heretics," says Tertullian, " pretend that the Apostles did not reveal all things to all, but taught some doctrines openly to every one, some secretly and to a few only." | What * Lib. L c. 3. § 1. p. 14. Lib. IL c. 10. ^ 1. p. 126. Lib. IL c. 27. ^ 2. p. 155. t Lib. IIL c. 2. § 1. p. 174. X De Prasscriptione Haereticorum, cap. 25. p. 210. 200 EVIDENCES OF THE was peculiar in their own doctrines they re- garded as that esoteric teaching which had come down to them by oral tradition. Conformably to this, the Gnostics, in par- ticular cases, pointed out certain individuals, supposed disciples of the Apostles, from whom their leaders had received their systems. Thus Valentinus was said to have been taught by Theodas, an acquaintance of Paul, and Ba- silides by Glaucias, a companion of Peter.* It would seem, likewise, from a single pas- sage in Clement of Alexandria, that the Gnos- tics generally boasted that their opinions were favored by Matthias,t who was chosen an Apos- tle in the place of Judas. t Though the re- mark is not made by Clement, yet it is evi- dent that this appeal to the authority of a particular Apostle — one of whom scarcely any thing is now known, and of whom it fol- lows that scarcely any thing was known in the second century — proves that the Gnostics did not appeal with any confidence to the author- ity of the other Apostles. Irenaeus earnestly opposes the doctrine of a secret oral tradition.^ But it was maintained * Clement. AL Stromal. AIL ^ 17. p. 898. f Ibid. p. 900, X Acts i. 26. § Cont. Haeres. Lib. III. capp. 2-4. pp. 174-179. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 201 by Clement as expressly and fully as by the Gnostics. It was altogether consistent with his conceptions, before explained,* that the more recondite truths of philosophy were to be exhibited under a veil, and not to be com- municated to the generality. This higher knowledge, the philosophy of Christianity, to which he gave the same name (yvwaa) which the Gnostics gave to their speculations, he sup- posed was to be attained only by those who were in his view true Gnostics (yvcoa-rcKol), that is, truly enlightened. The greater number of Christians had only simple Faith, faith in the essential truths of Christianity, which was suf- ficient for them. On this Faith, as its founda- tion, all higher knowledge rested. f It was the notion of Clement, that the secret wisdom of which he speaks was first communicated by our Lord to Peter, James, John, and Paul, from whom it had been transmitted.! " Our Lord," he says, " did not at once reveal to many those truths which did not belong to many, but he revealed them to a few to whom * See before, p. 87, seqq. t See, among many passages to this effect, Stromat. VII. pp. 890, 891. % Stromat. I. p. 322. Etiam apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. n. c. 1. VOL. III. 26 202 EVIDENCES OF THE he knew them to be adapted, who were capa- ble of receiving them, and of being conformed to them. But secret things, as God [meaning, I conceive, philosophical speculations concern- ing God], are committed not to writing, but to oral discourses." * This notion of a secret tradition is not found in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or TertuUian. When the two latter speak of tradition, they mean that traditionary knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christianity which necessarily ex- isted among Christians. It is described by Irenaeus as a " tradition manifest throughout the world, and to be found in every church." f By it, he says, a knowledge of our religion was preserved without books among believers in barbarous nations. J At the end of about a century from the preaching of the Apos- tles, there must have been, throughout the communities which they had formed, a general acquaintance with what they had taught, even had no written records of our religion been extant. In regard, likewise, to facts, important in their reference to Christianity, as, for exam- ple, the genuineness of the books of the New * Stromal. I. p. 323. t Lib- HI- c. 3. ^ 1. p. 175. X Ibid. c. 4. ^ 2. p. 178. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 203 Testament, the Christians of the last half of the second century must have relied on the testimony of their predecessors. It is this tra- ditionary knowledge concerning Christianity, not secret, but open to all, which Irenaeus and TertulJian appeal to, with justifiable con- fidence, in their reasonings against the her- etics, when they distinguish between the ev- idence from tradition and the evidence from Scripture. The tradition of which they speak is altogether different from the secret tradition of Clement. The origin of the opinion common to Clem- ent and to the theosophic Gnostics may be explained by the supposition, that inferences, true or false, from the truths taught by Christ and his Apostles, and theories built on those truths, were conceived of, and represented, as having been taught by them ; and, since it did not appear that they made a part of their public teaching, the notion in consequence grew up, that they were taught by them pri- vately. This notion would ally itself with the conceptions of both Clement and the Gnostics concerning that higher esoteric wisdom which few only were capable of receiving. In hold- ing their common belief, it is probable that neither had a distinct conception of what was 204 EVIDENCES OF THE embraced in the tradition the existence of which they asserted. It appears from the whole tenor of the Stromata of Clement, that, in his view, the true knowledge, which, in union with ac- cordant virtues, constituted an enlightened Chris- tian (his Gnostic), in the highest sense of the words, comprehended the whole compass of intellectual philosophy, and particularly all that can be known by men respecting the nature, attributes, and operations of God.* If he had * Instead of producing at length the authorities and reasons for this statement, which would carry us too far away from our main purpose, I will quote a few sentences from the valuable work of the present Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Kaye), entitled " Some Ac- count of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria." It is the most important work on the subject of which it treats. The author says (pp. 238 -241) : — " By yvaais [the higher esoteric knowledge] Clement under- stood the perfect knowledge of all that relates to God, his nature and dispensations The Gnostic [Clement's Gnostic] com- prehends not only the First Cause and the Cause begotten by him [the Logos], and is fixed in his notions concerning them, pos- sessing firm and immovable jeasons ; but also, having learned from the truth itself,, he possesses the most accurate truth, from the foundation of the world to the end, concerning good and evil, and the whole creation, and, in a word, concerning all which the Lord spake With respect to the source from which this knowledge is derived, Clement says that ' it was imparted by Christ to Peter, James, John, and Paul, and by them delivered down to their successors in the Church. It was not designed for the multitude, but communicated to those only who were capable of recei\ang it ; orally, not by writing.' " The notions of Clement respecting this secret tradition are not GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 205 been asked, whether he believed that all this knowledge had been handed down by a se- cret tradition, the question might have pre- sented the subject to his mind under a new aspect, but he undoubtedly would have an- swered in the negative. Had he then been requested to point out what particular part of it he conceived to have been thus handed down, I think he would have been embarrassed by the inquiry. In connection with their notion of a secret tradition, the Gnostics, or some of the Gnos- tics, said, according to Irenseus, " that the Apostles, practising dissimulation, accommo- dated their doctrine to the capacity of their only to be distinguished from the reasonable conceptions of other fathers respecting that public traditionary knowledge concerning Christianity which necessarily existed among Christians, but equally also from an opinion which began to prevail in the latter half of the fourth century, and which has become fundamental in the Roman Catholic Church. This opinion is, that certain doc- trines and rites, which are not to be kept secret, but are to be made known to all, and to be believed or practised by all, are not expressly taught or enjoined in the New Testament, but are de- rived from the oral teaching or the appointment of Christ or his Apostles, a knowledge of which has been preserved by tradition. This principle was, perhaps, first clearly avowed by Basil of Cfesarea, in the latter half of the fourth century, in his treatise Concerning the Holy Spirit. 206 EVIDENCES OF THE hearers, and their answers to the previous con- ceptions of those who questioned them, talking blindly with the blind, weakly with the weak, and conformably to their error with those who were in error, and that thus they preached the Creator to those who thought that the Crea- tor was the only God, but to those able to comprehend the unknown Father they com- municated this unspeakable mystery in para- bles and enigmas." * " Some," says Irengeus, " impudently contend, that the Apostles, preach- ing among the Jews, could not announce any other God but him in whom the Jews had be- lieved." t Again ; some of the Gnostics, especially the Marcionites, maintained that Paul was far su- perior to the other Apostles in the knowledge of the truth, — " the hidden doctrine having been manifested to him by revelation." t They represented the other Apostles as having been entangled by Jewish prejudices, from which he was in a great measure free. Hence Tertul- lian, in one place, calls him " the Apostle of * Lib. m. cap. 5. § 1. p. 179. t Ibid. cap. 12. ^ 6. p. 195. X Ibid. c. 13. ^ 1. p. 200. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 207 the Heretics." * In support of this opinion, Marcion relied much on that passage in the Epistle to the Galatians f in which Paul rep- resents himself as having reproved Peter and Barnabas for not acting conformably to the principles of Christianity, but by their conduct " compelling the Gentiles to Judaize," that is, to observe the Levitical Law.f Marcion re- garded the Gospels as expressing the false Jew^ish opinions of their w^riters. But among the Gospels he conceived that there was ground for making a choice ; and he selected, for his own use and that of his followers, the Gospel of Luke, the companion of Paul. This he further adapted to his purpose by rejecting from it what he viewed as conformed to those opin- ions. Nor did he consider Paul himself as wholly free from Jewish errors, but likewise struck out, from those of his Epistles which he used, the passages in which he thought them to be expressed. Sometimes, according to Irenseus, the Gnos- tics, apparently without making an exception in favor of St. Paul, charged the Apostles gen- * Advers. Marcion. Lib. IIL c. 5. p. 399. f Ch. ii. 11, seqq. X Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV. c. 3. pp. 414, 415. Lib. I. c. 20. p. 37.5. Conf. De Prsescript. Hseretic. c. 23. p. 210. 208 EVIDENCES OF THE erally with Jewish errors and ignorance concern- ing the higher truths and mysteries of religion. "All those," he says, " who hold pernicious doc- trines, have departed in their faith from Him who is God, and think that they have found out more than the Apostles, having discovered another God. They think that the Apostles preached the Gospel while yet under the influence of Jewish prejudices, but that their own faith is purer, and that they are wiser than the Apos- tles." He states that Marcion proceeded on these principles in rejecting the use of some of the books of Scripture, and of portions of those which he retained.* " The heretics," says Ter- tullian, "are accustomed to affirm that the Apos- tles did not know all things ; while at other times, under the influence of the same madness, they turn about, and maintain that the Apostles did, indeed, know all things, but did not teach all things to all."t "I cannot help wondering," says Clement of Alexandria, " how some dare to call themselves perfect, and Gnostics, think- ing themselves superior to the Apostles." J But the theosophic Gnostics did not stop here. * Lib. m. c. 12. § 12. p. 198. f De Praescript. Haeretic. c. 22. p. 209. % Paedagogus, Lib. L c. 6. pp. 128, 129. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 209 Irenseus, after saying that the heretics, when confuted from the Scriptures, appealed to oral tradition, goes on thus : — " But when we, on the other hand, appeal to that tradition which, proceeding from the Apostles, has been pre- served in the Church by a succession of Elders, then they oppose tradition, saying that they, being not only wiser than the Elders, but wiser than the Apostles, have discovered the pure truth. For the Apostles, they say, mixed their legal notions with the words of the Saviour ; and not only the Apostles, but the Lord him- self spoke sometimes from the Creator [as the Messiah of the Creator], sometimes from the Middle Space [that is, conformably to the spir- itual nature which he had derived from Acha- moth], and sometimes from the highest height [as the Mon Christ from the Pleroma] ; * but * See before, pp. 166, 171. — According to the verbal con- struction of the old Latin Translation of Irenseus, which is here our authority, and which I have followed in my translation, though not in my exposition, these clauses apply equally to the Apostles as to Christ. But I cannot think that this meaning was intended by Irenaus, or, at least, that this was the meaning of the Gnostics. Irenasus elsewhere (Lib. I. c. 7. § 3. p. 34) gives a similar account of their opinions respecting the preaching of Christ, without mentioning the Apostles. Nor is there any probability that the Gnostics believed in the inspiration of men from the Pleroma, which opinion would be implied in the sup- voL. III. 27 210 EVroENCES OF THE that they themselves know with full assurance the hidden mystery, unmixed, in all its purity."* The opinion of the Gnostics, here expressed, concerning the discourses of Christ is analogous to the Orthodox doctrine, still extant, that he spoke sometimes as a man, sometimes as God, and sometimes in his mediatorial character, as neither God nor man simply, but as both united; and that as a man he was ignorant of what, being God, he knew. There is nothing to object to the general proposition of the Gnostics, that the Apostles were under the influence of Jewish prejudices, nor to the proof which they brought of this fact from the conduct of Peter and Barnabas, which was reproved by Paul. Their extravagance consisted in the irrational misapplication which they made of this principle. The spirit of God, which enlightened the minds of the Apostles as to all essential truths of religion, did not deliver them from all error, and transform them into all-wise and all-knowing philosophers. But, if the Apostles were liable to any errors, they were particularly exposed to the influence of position that the Apostles sometimes spoke " from the highest height." * Lib. III. c. 2. § 2. p. 175. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 211 those in which they had been educated, and could hardly escape being more or less affected by the inveterate conceptions and errors of their countrymen. It being the object of the Gnostics to separate Judaism from Christianity, and to distinguish the God of the Jews from the God of Christians, they naturally seized upon this truth to effect their purpose ; and as no strongly marked line can be drawn, defin- ing the sphere within which alone the Apos- tles were liable to error, they applied, or rather misapplied, a principle correct in itself, to all cases in which the words of the Apostles so explicitly contradicted their doctrine as to be incapable by any force of being conformed to it. It remains to add a few words concerning the belief of the theosophic Gnostics in their own infallible spiritual knowledge. This they conceived of as the result of their spiritual nature. " They object to us," says Clement of Alexandria, " that we are of another nature, and unable to comprehend their peculiar doc- trines." * A similar pretension to that of the Gnostics has been common among Christians. * Stromal. VII. § 16. pp. 891, 892. 212 EVIDENCES OF THE An essential doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is its own infallibility, an infallibility which must reside in some of its individual members. Among the sects into which Prot- estants have been divided, the generality have, at least in the earlier stages of their growth, maintained the principle, expressed in the per- verted language of St. Paul, that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and have, of course, confined this unerring spiritual discernment to themselves. Calvin taught that " the first step in the school of the Lord is to renounce human reason.* For, as if a veil were interposed, it hinders us from attaining to the mysteries of God, which are not revealed but to little chil- dren " ; t and after these words, he proceeds to quote, as might be expected, the often-quoted passage of St. Paul just referred to. Even the genuineness and inspiration of the books of the Bible, or, as he expresses it, the fact that they " had proceeded from the very mouth of God " {ah ipsissimo Dei ore fluxisse), " were not to be submitted to reasoning and argu- ments," but were spiritually discerned ; so as to be known with the same certaintv as men * " Humana perspicacia." t Institut. Lib. IH. c. 2. § 34. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 213 know that black is not white, and sweet is not bitter.* The theosophic Gnostics, in ex- pressing their sense of the incapacity of com- mon Christians to understand their doctrines, could not have used stronger language than that of Calvin concerning the natural blind- ness of the unregenerate to the truths of re- hgion. It was, in his view, the spiritual il- lumination of the elect, which enabled them clearly to discern these truths ; or, in other words, clearly to discern the identity of the system which he taught with the teachings of Christ. The Gnostics, as we have seen, were equally able with Calvin to identify their systems with Christianity. In the modes by which they effected their purpose, we may observe the same operations of the human mind as have been going on from their day to our own. One of the most effectual means of checking their further progress is by directing attention to the extravagances to which they lead. It is a main advantage resulting from the study of obsolete errors, and one which this study alone can furnish, that, as we have no preju- • * Ibid. Lib. I. c. 7. 214 EVIDENCES OF THE dices in their favor, we are able, without dis- turbance, to trace them to their sources ; and when those sources are discovered, we may perceive that they are still in full action, pro- ducing new errors, or more commonly, per- haps, reproducing old ones under a new form. It may be doubted whether a History of Hu- man Folly would not be a more instructive work than our Histories of Philosophy ; but its contents would not be throughout so differ- ent from theirs as its different title might lead one to expect. Among the Gospels, the Marcionites used only their copy of that of Luke. To this they joined ten Epistles of St. Paul, from which, as from the Gospel, they rejected cer- tain passages, as I have before mentioned. On this history of Christ, and on these Epis- tles, they founded their system, and from them they reasoned. They appealed to them as freely and confidently as did the catholic Chris- tians, and the theosophic Gnostics, to the books of the New Testament in general. The ar- guments which they drew from them are pre- sented to view in the writings of their op- ponents, especially of Tertullian. From those books they derived their knowledge of Christ GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 215 and of Christianity. It does not appear that they made a pretence to any exckisive spirit- ual discernment, or that they reUed on any secret tradition. It does appear that they made no use of any other history of Christ besides the Gospel of Luke. No apocryphal gospel is said to have been extant among them. They are never charged with having rested their system, vrholly or in part, on any such gospel. But, had there been ground for the charge, it w^ould undoubtedly have been made. The controversy between them and the cath- olic Christians would have brought out such a fact with the broadest distinctness. It would have been, to say the least, as much insisted upon as the fact that they struck out some passages from the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, notices of which are contin- ually recurring in the writings of their oppo- nents. Those passages the Marcionites re- jected, and they disavowed the authority of the other three Gospels, — not on the ground that they were not genuine, but because, believ- ing them to be genuine, they believed their authors to be under the influence of Jewish prejudices. But were those which have been mentioned 216 EVIDENCES OF THE the only means that the Gnostics made use of to find support for their systems in the real or supposed teaching of Christ ? Had they not, as has been imagined, gospels of their own, presenting a view of his ministry and instruc- tions, different from that contained in the cath- olic Gospels ; — accounts of Christ, which they preferred and opposed to those given by the Evangelists ? Every one has heard of apocry- phal and Gnostic gospels. As regards the Marcionites, these questions have been answered. It is evident that they had no such gospels or gospel. Those theo- sophic Gnostics, who adopted the means that have been explained of reconciling their doc- trines with Christianity, could, likewise, have had no such gospels. It has appeared, not only in the present Chapter, but throughout this work, that their systems, equally with the faith of the catholic Christians, were founded on the common account of Christ's ministry. In their reasonings, they constantly referred to the Gospels. They therefore could have re- ceived as of authority no history of his min- istry which varied essentially from those Gos- pels. Whether they had any other histories of his ministry, which did not vary essentially from the Gospels, is an unimportant question. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 217 SO far as it regards the main purpose which we have in view. For, if those histories pro- ceeded from authors who wrote from inde- pendent sources of information, they would serve, by their agreement, to confirm the ac- counts of the catholic Gospels ; while, if they were merely founded on those Gospels, or on some one of them, they would serve to show the authority which the latter had very early attained. But a question may be virtually settled with- out- all the explanation having been given which is necessary to our satisfaction, and to a full understanding of the subject. After all that has appeared, the inquiry may still recur. What, then, were those apocryphal and Gnostic gospels about which so much has been said ? To this inquiry I propose to give an answer in the next Chapter. 28 CHAPTER XII. ON THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE GNOSTICS OPPOSED TO THE FOUR GOSPELS ANY OTHER WRITTEN HISTORIES OR HISTORY OF Christ's ministry. This question will lead us to consider all those books that have been called apocryphal gospels which we have any reason for sup- posing to have been extant during the first two centuries, except the Gospel of the He- brews and the Gospel of Marcion. We have already seen the grounds for believing that the former, as it was first used by the Hebrew Christians, was the Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew, though its text, in some or many copies, may have afterwards become much corrupted.* The latter was merely the Gospel of Luke mutilated by Marcion. f The authority of neither of these books, therefore, could be opposed to that of the catholic Gos- pels ; nor can the epithet apocryphal, with its common associations, be properly applied to them. No book which was not in existence * See Vol. I. p. xlv., seqq. f See Additional Note, C. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 219 till after the end of the second century could have been used by the Gnostics as a basis for their opinions, or could, by any sect whatever, have been brought into competition with the four Gospels, as an original history of Christ's ministry. All that is necessary to be said in direct reply to the question proposed lies with- in a small compass. But the subject of apoc- ryphal gospels, as well as that of apocryphal books in general, has been treated in such a manner as necessarily to produce confused and erroneous conceptions respecting them. It is a subject which demands explanation, where argument is not needed ; and the inquiry on which we are about to enter will, through its incidental relations, extend much beyond the second century, and embrace books which were not extant till long after that period.* * In respect to the apocryphal gospels, the modern writer whose information is principally relied on is Fabricius. In his " Codex Apocryphus Novi Testament!," he has given a full and accurate account of all the passages relating to them which are to be found in ancient writers. I say, " a full and accurate account " ; because his work has now sustained that reputation unquestioned for more than a century. — Fabricius, however, has merely brought together a mass of materials, without applying them to the illustration of any fact whatever. He has not arranged the books which he treats of chronologically, with refer- ence to the period when they are first mentioned, or when they may be supposed to have appeared. Such an arrangement would 220 EVIDENCES OF THE I BEGIN by Stating the most important con- siderations respecting the question proposed ; and I hope to be excused for some repetition in hereafter recalling attention to them with reference to different writings. at once show that far the greater number deserve no considera- tion from any supposable bearing on the authority of the Gospels. He has arranged them in the alphabetical order of their titles, which tends to produce the impression, that they all equally de- serve attention. Fabricius was followed by Jones in the first two volumes of his " New and Full Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament." But the principal value of Jones's work consists in its giving in an English dress the information to be found in Fabricius, and in the republication of some of the later apocryphal writings (also published by Fabricius) with English translations. He had no clear comprehension of his own purpose in writing ; and his views and reasonings only tend to perplex the subject. He follows Fabricius in arranging the books in the alphabetical order of their titles. In 1832, J. C. Thilo published the first volume of his " Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti," a work commenced on an exten- sive plan, but of which no other portion has appeared. The first volume contains the later apocryphal writings, which had pre- viously been published, with others in addition, — all apparently edited in a careful and thorough manner, with Prolegomena and notes. It contains also the Gospel of Luke used by Mai-cion, as restored by Plahn, who has made Marcion's Gospel a particular subject of study. I shall refer to the three works which I have mentioned by the names of their respective authors. The copy of Fabricius which I use is of the second edition, printed in 1719, in three parts. That of Jones is of the Oxford edition, printed in 1798. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 221 Of the controversy carried on by the cath- olic Christians with the Valentinians and the Marcionites, we have, as has been seen, abun- dant remains. The opinions and arguments of those heretics are brought forward in order to be confuted ; and though we may not re- gard them as fully and fairly stated, yet, on the other hand, it cannot be supposed that any striking peculiarity in their opinions, or any main topic of their reasoning, has been passed over in silence. If they had opposed other histories of Christ to the four Gospels, if they had relied for the support of their sys- tems on accounts of his ministry different from those we now possess, we should find abundant notices of the fact. If they and the catholic Christians had been at issue on the question, Which among discordant histories of Christ was to be received as authentic, this would neces- sarily have been the main point in controversy, the question to be settled before all others. We find in the case of the Marcionites, that their confining themselves to the use of a mu- tilated copy of Luke's Gospel is a circum- stance continually presented to view ; and we have particular notices of the use which other heretics made of a few passages relating to Christ, not found in the Evangelists. The fa- EVIDENCES OF THE thers were eager to urge against the Gnostics the charges of corrupting and contemning the Scriptures, and of fabricating apocryphal writ- ings. Had there been occasion to make it, they would not have passed over what in their view would have been a far graver allegation, that the Gnostics pretended to set up other histories of Christ in opposition to those re- ceived by the great body of Christians. Such a fact, from its very nature, neither would nor could have remained unnoticed. Abundant evi- dence of it must have come down to us ; and if no evidence is to be found, we may con- clude without hesitation, that the Gnostics made no pretence to having more authentic histories of Christ than the Gospels. What, then, is the state of the case ? I answer, in the first place, that Ireneeus and Tertullian were the two principal writers against the Gnostics, and from their works it does not appear that the Valentinians, the Marcionites, or any other Gnostic sect, adduced in support of their opinions a single narrative relating to the public ministry of Christ besides what is found in the Gospels. It does not appear that they ascribed to him a single sentence of any imaginable importance which the Evangelists have not transmitted. It does not appear GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 223 that any sect appealed to the authority of any history of his public ministry besides the Gos- pels, except so far as the Marcionites, in their use of an imperfect copy of St. Luke's Gos- pel, may be regarded as forming a verbal ex- ception to this remark. The question, then, which we have proposed for consideration, would seem to be settled. The Gnostics did not oppose any other history of Christ to the catholic Gospels. Had they done so, it is alto- gether incredible that the fact should not have been conspicuous throughout the controversial writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian. But what, then, were those ancient books which have been called " apocryphal gospels " ? I answer, that, with the exception of the Gos- pel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Marcion, and a narrative which Tatian formed out of the four Evangelists, it is not probable that any one of them was a professed history of Christ's ministry. The main evidence of this fact will appear from a particular examination of the accounts which have been given of them. But it may be here observed, that the name " gospel," signifying in its primary meaning " a joyful message," " glad news," was given as a title to the works of the Evangelists, be- cause they contained an account of the joyful 224 EVIDENCES OF THE message which Christ gave from Heaven to men. It but indirectly denoted their charac- ter as histories of his ministry. The name " gospel " has ever been used to signify the whole scheme of Christianity ; and a book, containing the views of its writer concerning this system, or the views ascribed by him to a particular Apostle, might hence be entitled his gospel, or denominated by him the gospel of that Apostle. There was a book in com- mon use among the Manichaeans, called a gos- pel, which, as Cyril of Jerusalem expressly mentions, contained no account of the actions of Christ.* In later times, in the latter part of the seventeenth century, a book was pub- lished by Dr. Arthur Bury, which he entitled "The Naked Gospel." Another work appeared about the same time in Germany, which was called " The Eternal Gospel " ; and another with the same title was produced in the thir- teenth century.f It is not improbable, likewise, that the fathers may have used the term " gos- pel " in the same way in which it has been used by controvertists in modern times, when * It is ascribed by him to Scythianus as its author. Catache- sis, VI. § 13. p. 92. t Fabricius, I. 337*, 338. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 225 they have charged their opponents with teach- ing " another gospel." There is a French book entitled " The New Gospel of Cardinal Pal- lavicini, revealed by him in his History of the Council of Trent " ; * Scioppius, in one of his letters, talks of " the fifth gospel of Luther " ; f and the Jesuit Rene Rapin published against the Jansenists a work which he called " The Gospel of the Jansenists." J Thus in ancient times the charge of teaching a new gospel might occasion the title " gospel " to be given to some book by which it was not assumed ; or even lead to the false supposition, that there was some book which bore that title, or to which it might be applied, when no such book existed. Among what have been called the Gnostic gospels, we find, as 1 have for- merly mentioned, one under the name of " The Gospel of Eve," probably used by the Ophi- ans, which professed to contain that wisdom which Eve learned from the Serpent. This gospel, therefore, was not a history of the min- istry of Christ.^ Nor can we reasonably sup- pose that this character was ascribed to an- * Fabricius, I. 339, note. f La Roche's Memoirs of Literature, Vol. IL p. 252. I Fabricius, I. 339, note. ^ See Vol. n. p. 215, seqq. VOL. III. 29 226 EVIDENCES OF THE Other, said to be in use among the Cainites, called " The Gospel of Judas," meaning Ju- das Iscariot.* Epiphanius mentions a book as in use among Gnostics, which he says was named " The Gospel of Perfection." f Its title, and the brief account which he gives of it, imply that it was not an historical book, if indeed any such book existed. These re- marks are merely preliminary. As we pro- ceed, I trust it will appear that there is no ground for believing that any work which may properly be called a Gnostic gospel was a professed history of Christ's ministry, or that any history of his ministry was in circulation during the second century, among either the catholic Christians or the Gnostics, besides the catholic Gospels, and books, like those of Mar- cion and Tatian, founded upon one or all of them. With this understanding of what might be meant by the title " gospel," let us next in- quire what we may find respecting Gnostic or apocryphal gospels in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Tertullian often mentions the mutilated * Irenaeus, Lib. I. c. 31. ^ 1. p. 112. t Haeres. XXVI. § 2. p. 83. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 227 copy of Luke's Gospel used by the Marcion- ites. But this, as I have said, should not be spoken of as an apocryphal gospel. He nowhere, throughout his writings, ascribes to the Gnostics the use of any proper Gnostic gospel, in any sense of the term " gospel." He nowhere speaks of any apocryphal gos- pel whatever, or intimates a knowledge of the existence of such a book. The conclu- sion is unavoidable. Either he did not know of the existence of any such book, or, if he did, he regarded it as too obscure and unim- portant to deserve notice. But neither could have been the case in respect to any book which the Gnostics brought into competition with the Gospels. Once, and once only, Irenaeus speaks of what he calls a " gospel," as used by the Valentinians, in addition to the four Gospels. He thus expresses himself concerning it : — " The followers of Valentinus, throwing aside all fear, and bringing forward their own com- positions, boast that they have more gospels than there are. For they have proceeded to such boldness as to entitle a book not long since written by them ' The True Gospel,' [verbally " The Gospel of the Truth,"] a book 228 EVIDENCES OF THE which agrees in no respect with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that not even the Gos- pel can exist among them without blasphemy. For, if that which is brought forward by them be the true Gospel, but differ at the same time from those Gospels which have been hand- ed down to us by the Apostles (those who wish may learn in what manner from the writ- ings themselves), then it is evident that the Gospel handed down by the Apostles is not the true Gospel." * The Author of the Addition to Tertullian, probably copying Irenaeus, says, — " Valentinus likewise has his gospel besides ours." f By Valentinus is here, I presume, meant the Val- entinians ; sects being not unfrequently by the fathers thus designated from their lead- ers. These are the only notices to be found of the Valentinians, as a sect, having used * " Si enim quod ab iis profertur veritatis est Evangelium, dis- siraile est autem hoc illis [so. Evangeliis] quae ab Apostolis nobis tradita sunt ; (qui volunt possunt discere quemadmodum ex ipsis scripturis;) ostenditur jam non esse id quod ab Apostolis traditum est veritatis Evangelium." Lib. III. c. 11. § 9. p. 192. This difficult passage may perhaps be thus arranged with a change of pointing, a parenthesis, and the printing of scripiuris without an initial capital. But no difference of arrangement or translation is important as regards the present subject. f De Praescript. Haeretic. c. 49. p. 222. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 229 any other book called a gospel besides the ca- nonical Gospels. It is evident from the passage of Irenaeus, as well as from much other equally unequivo- cal testimony, that the Valentinians received the four Gospels in common use. The charge against them is, that they had more gospels than the catholic Christians, that is, one more. This additional gospel, therefore, could have contained no history of Christ's ministry at variance with that in the four Gospels, which they also admitted. But (if such a gospel existed) there is no probability that it was an historical book of any sort. It was a gospel, we may reasonably presume, of the kind be- fore described, containing an account of what its author believed to be the doctrines of the Gospel. If it had been a history presenting any additions to the narratives of the Evan- gelists, adopted by the Valentinians to support their opinions, they would have quoted it for this purpose ; and of the additional accounts, and of the arguments founded upon them, we should have had abundant notices in the writ- ings of their opponents, and in the fragments still extant of their own. But there are no such notices whatever. Such is the state of the case, if the Valen- 230 EVIDENCES OF THE tinians really had among them a book with the title supposed. But, though the account of Irenseus, so far as it relates to the exist- ence of the book, may be correct, there is reason for doubting it altogether. If he has fallen into a mistake, it is one that may easily be explained. The Valentinians, we may sup- pose, professed that they alone had " the true Gospel," meaning that they alone held the true doctrines of the Gospel ; and some of their opponents misunderstood them as mean- ing that they possessed a book with that title. Had they really, as Irenaeus says, boasted of possessing such a gospel, it must have been an important book in reference to the expo- sition of their doctrines. But, as I have said, it is nowhere referred to by Irenaeus himself, except in the passage just quoted. It is men- tioned by no subsequent writer except the Author of the Addition to Tertullian, who probably took his notice of it from Irenaeus. Tertullian himself, who was well acquainted with the works of Irenaeus, affords proof, by his silence concerning it in his writings against the Valentinians, that he was not aware of its existence, or regarded it as not worth no- tice. It follows, therefore, either that Irenaeus was in error in supposing that there was such GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 231 a book, or that he was in error in supposing that the Valentinians, generally, attached any importance to it. Iren^us gives one other title (before men- tioned), purporting to be that of an apocryphal gospel which he supposed to be in existence, and to be called " The Gospel of Judas," that is, of Judas Iscariot. He represents it as hav- ing been used by the Cainites. According to him, these heretics were distinguished by their abominable immorality, by their degrading the character of the Creator, and by their celebrat- ing such personages in the Old Testament as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites. They regarded them as allied to themselves by the possession of the same spiritual nature, and as having been, on account of this nature, per- secuted by the Creator. They apparently con- sidered Cain as the head of the spiritual among men. He was from " the higher power " (ct superiore principalitate). The truth, on these subjects, they said, was known to Judas alone ; and in consequence of this knowledge, " he performed the mystery of delivering up his master ; and thus through Judas all things earthly and heavenly [all the works of the Creator] were dissolved. And they produce," 232 EVIDENCES OF THE adds Irenaeus, " a fabrication to this effect, calling it ' The Gospel of Judas.' " * The ac- count of Irenaeus is repeated by Epiphanius and Theodoret. If there were such a book as Irenaeus names, there is no ground for believing it to have been a fabricated history of Christ's ministry. But it is highly improbable that any sect or any book existed, such as Irenaeus describes. It is a moral absurdity to suppose that there vs^as a Christian sect which held such doc- trines, and were guilty of such vices, as he imputes to the Cainites ; — that there were Christians avowing Cain to be their spiritual head, claiming alliance with the Sodomites, and taking Judas for their religious teacher. Nor would there be much less absurdity in imagining that any pseudo-Christian Gnostics exposed themselves in this barefaced manner to infamy and detestation ; that they claimed to be on a level with the worst characters in the Old and New Testaments, and avowed doctrines at once so monstrous, and so inti- mately connected with Judaism and Christian- ity. Without supposing the existence of any such sect, it is not difficult to explain the origin * Cont. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 31. pp. 112, 113. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 233 of the stories concerning it, in connection with the origin of the name. We have good reason to think that the name " Nicolaitans " was derived from passages in the New Testa- ment; and especially from two in the Apoc- alypse, in which it is applied to those who, having professed themselves Christians, indulged in licentiousness.* That of " Cainites," we may suppose, was derived from a passage (for- merly quoted) in the Epistle of Jude, in which certain individuals are thus spoken of: — "Woe for them! for they have walked in the way of Cain, and given themselves up to deceive, like Balaam, for pay, and brought destruction on themselves through rebellion, like Korah." f The name was applied to those otherwise called Nicolaitans, as we are informed by Tertullian in the only passage in which he mentions it.J But there was probably still another occasion of its use. The theosophic Gnostics consid- ered Seth as the representative and head of the spiritual among men, and, in consequence, appear to have sometimes given themselves the * See Vol. II. pp. 168, 169. t Jude, ver. ll. — See Vol. II. pp. 167, 168. t Tertullian, after referring to the Nicolaitans mentioned in the Apocalypse, says : — " Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaita ; Caiana haere- sis dicitur." De Prescript. Heretic, c. 33. p. 214. VOL. III. 30 234 EVIDENCES OF THE name of Sethians.* But the assumption of this name might naturally provoke the more angry among their opponents to apply the op- posite name of Cainites to those Gnostics, at least, whom they regarded as guilty of gross vices. The name being given, a system of doctrines corresponding to it would be easily fabricated, out of exaggerations, misconcep- tions, and false reports ; and one may find little difficulty in supposing that the assertion, that those to whom it was applied were trai- tors to Christ, teaching not his gospel, but the gospel of Judas Iscariot, gave occasion to the notion that they had a book with that title. If there were no sect holding the doctrines imputed to the Cainites, there was no gos- pel in existence conformed to those doctrines. Should it, however, still be thought that there may have been such a book, it is to be rec- ollected that it must have been a book not used by Christians, of no authority, and, as appears from the little attention it received, of no notoriety. Sdch is all the information concerning Gnos- tic or apocryphal gospels afforded by the two * See Vol. II. p. 32, note ; pp. 230, 231. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 235 principal writers against the Gnostics. Ter- tullian, throughout his works, mentions no such gospel. Irenaeus gives two titles supposed bj him to belong to such books. But it is very improbable that there was any such book as " The Gospel of Judas." The existence of " The True Gospel," also, is doubtful. But if there were a book bearing that title, we cannot reasonably suppose it to have been a history of Christ's ministry at variance with the four Gospels. The Valentinians and Marcionites were the two principal sects of the Gnostics, and proba- bly comprehended far the greater part of their number. Excepting the story of Irenaeus con- cerning " The True Gospel," there is no charge against either sect, that they appealed to apoc- ryphal gospels ; unless that name be given to Marcion's defective copy of Luke's Gospel. Next to those two sects the Basilidians appear, for some reason or other, to have been regarded as the most important ; and we will now attend to what is said of their use of an apocryphal gospel. Of any work called a "gospel," different from the four Gospels, which was in use among 236 EVIDENCES OF THE the Basilidians, there is no mention in Irenaeus or in Clement of Alexandria, who are the prin- cipal sources of all the information concerning them to which any credit can be attached. Nor is such a work mentioned by Epiphanius, who in general brought together all that he could find, true or false, to the prejudice of the heretics ; nor by Eusebius, among the apoc- ryphal writings which he enumerates ; nor by Theodoret, who compiled his accounts of the heretics from many earlier authors. Such a book is first named by the Author of the Hom- ilies on Luke, which have been ascribed to Origen. That writer speaks of it in a passage in which he gives the titles, real or supposed, of various apocryphal gospels, to be hereafter noticed. He is commenting on the words with which Luke begins his Gospel, — " Since many have undertaken to arrange a narrative of the events accomplished among us." He regards the term " undertaken " as perhaps implying a censure on the works referred to by Luke. The four Evangelists, he says, did not " under- take " ; they wrote under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. But others (since their day) had " undertaken," and among them " Ba- silides," he says, " had the boldness to write GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 237 a ' Gospel according to Basilides.' " * The whole passage, with this notice of a gospel ascribed to Basilides, was imitated by Am- brose t and Jerome f toward the end of the fourth century. Such is the evidence that a gospel was writ- ten by Basilides. It consists in the assertion of an unknown writer, who must have lived more than a century after the death of Basili- des, and the repetition of this assertion by two other writers more than two centuries after that event. This evidence is of no weio-ht to counterbalance the great improbability that such a gospel should not have been taken no- tice of by the earlier opponents of Basilides, nor by any writer of a later age who has pro- fessed to give an account of his doctrines and sect. The fathers were very ready to charge the heretics with using books of no authority, apocryphal books. Why should we not have heard as much of a gospel written by Basili- des, as of the defective Gospel of Luke used by the Marcionites ? The notion that Basihdes wrote a gospel * Homil. T. in Lucam. Origen. 0pp. III. 933. t Expositio Evang. Lucae, Lib. I. 0pp. I. 1265. Ed. Benedict. t Comment, in Matth. Proera. 0pp. Tom. IV. P. I. p. 2. 238 EVIDENCES OF THE probably arose from the fact, that he wrote a commentary on the Gospels. In this he of course explained his views of Christianity ; and these views, or the book in which they were contained, might be called his gospel. Agrippa Castor, who, according to Eusebius, was a contemporary of Basilides, and whose " most able confutation " Eusebius says was extant in his time, apparently knew nothing of any " Gospel of Basilides," but did mention that he " wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel," meaning by that term the four Gospels.* From * ^ri(T\v fAyptTrTras] aiirbv els fieu to 'EiiayyeXiov reatrapa npos Toif fiKoari a-vvrd^ai j3t/3Xta. Eusebii Hist. Eccles. Lib. TV. c. 7. — "It is uncertain," says Fabricius (I. 343*, note), "whether Basilides wrote these twenty-four volumes of Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, or on some other of the four canonical Gospels, or on the whole Gospel-history, or on the Gospel accord- ing to the Egyptians, or, as Valesius suspects, on his own gos- pel," Similar doubts have been expressed by other learned men. They appear to have arisen, in part, from the erroneous prepos- session, that the Gnostics commonly used apocryphal gospels in preference to the catholic Gospels, and from inattention to a very common use of the word " gospel " [eiiayyeXiov) in ancient times, in a sense with which we are no longer familiar. The four Gos- pels, considered collectively, were called " the Gospel." Thus Origen says (Comment, in Joan. 0pp. IV. 98), — "The Gospel, though written by several, is one in effect." The title " Gos- pel," in the singular, was the appropriate title of a book contain- ing the four Gospels. There is, in fact, no ground for doubt re- specting the meaning of the words quoted. By to EvayyeXiov, the article having no reference to any book before mentioned, and GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 239 the twenty-third book of this Commentary Clement of Alexandria quotes several passa- ges in connection.* The Commentary of Ba- silides is one among the decisive proofs of the respect in which the Gospels were held by the theosophic Gnostics. If the account of the Author of the Hom- ilies on Luke were founded on the existence of any work, this Commentary, in all prob- ability, was the work, which, having heard of it and not having seen it, he called " The Gospel of Basilides." But were there anoth- er book bearing that title, it could not have been a history of Christ's ministry at variance with our present Gospels. Of such a book we should have had far other information than an incidental mention of its title first made more than a century after the death of its author. In what precedes we have seen the whole amount of information concerning apocryphal gospels the use of which is attributed to either of the three principal Gnostic sects. This in- the term being used without any explanatory epithet, notliing can here be meant but the four Gospels, or, what amounts to the same thing, the Gospel-history as contained in the four Gospels. * Stromat. IV. § 12. pp. 599, 600. 240 EVIDENCES OF THE formation consists of two stories, one concern- ing 5.'\The True Gospel," and the other con- cerning " The Gospel of Basilides." It is doubtful, as we have seen, whether any books existed bearing those titles ; but did such books exist, they must have been works of no celeb- rity, not current among the Gnostics, and not regarded by them as of authority. No writer produces an example of their drawing an argu- ment from either of them, or of their appealing to them for any purpose whatever. We have seen, likewise, that, of the two principal -^writers against the Gnostics, Tertul- lian makes no mention of apocryphal gospels, and we have considered what is the amount of evidence which Irenseus affords of their exist- ence and use. Next to Irenseus and Tertullian, their con- temporary, Clement of Alexandria, is our most important authority concerning the Gnostics. He was a man of extensive information, a wide reader, quoting from a great variety of authors, and acquainted with the writings of the princi- pal theosophic Gnostics, whose words he often cites. From him, therefore, if from any one, we should expect authentic notices of apocry- phal gospels ; and, accordingly, we do find GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 241 mention of one such book, which, there is no doubt, really existed. It was called " The Gos- pel according to the Egyptians." This book has, in modern times, been partic- ularly remarked. It has been thought by many to have been a history of Christ's ministry, used by the Gnostics ; and some have even imagined that it was one of those gospels referred to by Luke in the introduction to his own.* The facts concerning it are these. Clement, in reasoning against those heretics who denied the lawfulness of marriage, gives the following passage, as adduced by them in support of their doctrine. " When Salome asked the Lord, ' How long death should have power,' he replied, ' As long as you women bear children.'"! This, Clement asserts, is only a declaration that death is the natural conse- quence of birth. Considering the passage, therefore, as having no force to prove the point for which it was adduced, namely, our Lord's disapproval of marriage, he does not remark upon the question of its authenticity, nor men- tion in this place from what book it was taken. * The opinions of modern authors respecting it are collected by Jones, I. 201, seqq. •j- Stromal. III. § 6. p. 532. VOL. III. 31 242 EVIDENCES OF THE But a few pages after he says: — "But those who, through their specious continence, oppose them- selves to the creation of God, cite what was ut- tered to Salome, of which I have before taken notice. The words are found, as I suppose, in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. For they affirm that our Saviour himself said, 'I have come to destroy the works of the female ' ; — by 'the female' meaning lust, by 'the works' generation and corruption."* Clement explains the words ascribed to Jesus in a different sense from that in which they were understood by those against whom he wrote. It is unnecessary to give his remarks. Toward the conclusion of them he asks : — "But do not those who prefer any thing to walking by that Gospel rule which is according to the truth also allege what follows of the con- versation with Salome ? For, upon her saying, ' I have done well in not bearing children,' as if there were something improper in it, the Lord replied, 'Eat of every herb, but of that which is bitter eat not ' ; by which words he signifies that celibacy or marriage is a matter within our own choice, neither being enforced by any pro- hibition of the other." t * Stromat. III. ^ 9. pp. 539, 540. f Ibid. p. 641. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 243 I proceed to the last passage which he quotes. He is here arguing particularly against a writer named Julius Cassian. "Cassian [in defending his doctrine respect- ing celibacy] says, Upon Salome's asking when those things should be known concerning which she inquired, the Lord answered, 'When ye shall tread under foot the garment of your shame, and when the two become one, and the male with the female neither male nor fe- male.'"* By the garments of shame, that is, the gar- ments of skin, which, according to the story in Genesis, God made for Adam and Eve, Cassian, in common with other ancient allegorists, under- stood human bodies, the flesh, the seat of cor- ruption. The body was the garment of shame which he believed was to be trodden under foot.f Part of the words ascribed to Christ in the passage last quoted are likewise given as a " saying of the Lord," without reference to any book, in what has been called the "Second * Stromat. III. ^ 13. p. 553. t See the context of the passage in Clement, p. 554, and Beausobre, Histoire du Manich6isme, Tom. II. pp. 135, 136. 244 EVIDENCES OF THE Epistle of Clement," of Rome, a spurious work, which I have formerly mentioned.* The words in the passage first quoted f occur in the Doctrina Orientalis,t as follows: — "When the Saviour said to Salome, ' Death shall con- tinue as long as women bear children,' he did not mean to blame the generation of children." The Gnostic writer, who here quotes the words, rejected, like Clement of Alexandria, the use made of them by the ascetics. He supposed them to have a mystical meaning, referring to Achamoth. The title of "The Gospel according to the Egyptians" is mentioned by the Author of the Homilies on Luke in the passage before referred to, and after him by three writers who have imitated that passage, namely, Jerome, Titus Bostrensis, and Theophylact.^" Epiphanius, in his article on the Sabellians, after saying that they make use of all the writings both of the Old and of the New Tes- tament, selecting passages to their purpose, adds, — "But their whole error, and the main * See Vol. I. pp. ccxliii, ccxliv. — The words are found at the end of the fragment of this Epistle which remains, t See before, p. 241. J § 67. p. 985. ^ Fabricius, I. 335*, note. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 245 support of their error, they derive from certain apocryphal books, particularly that called 'The Egyptian Gospel,' a name which some have given it. For in that there are many things to their purpose, of an obscure, mystical character, which are ascribed to the Saviour; as if he himself had made known to his disciples that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were the same person."* An improbable story, resting solely on the testimony of Epiphanius, is not entitled to credit; and this story about the Sabellians is altogether improbable. Epiphanius does not seem to have known even the proper title of the book which he charges them with using. He says that it was called "The Egyptian Gospel " ; the other writers who mention it give it the title of "The Gospel according to the Egyptians." I HAVE quoted all the fragments, and, I believe, mentioned all the notices of this apoc- ryphal gospel which have come down to us. One unaccustomed to such studies might be surprised to see the hypotheses and assertions that have been founded upon them in modern * Haeres. LXII. § 2. 0pp. I, 513, 514. 246 EVIDENCES OF THE times. What in fact appears is, that it was an anonymous book, extant in the second century, and probably written in Egypt, in the dark and mystical style that prevailed in that country. In judging of its notoriety and importance, we must compare the few writers who recognize its existence with the far greater number to whom it was unknown, or who were not led by any circumstance to mention it. It was a book of which we should have been ignorant, but for a few incidental notices afforded by writers, none of whom give evidence of having seen it.* Neither Clement, nor any other writer, speaks of it as a Gnostic gospel. It does not appear that it had any particular credit or currency among the generality of the Gnostics. Some ascetics of their number, in maintaining the obligation of celibacy, argued from a passage found in it, as they did undoubtedly from pas- * That it had not been seen by Clement of Alexandria, from whom our principal information concerning it is derived, appears from his turns of expression in remarking on the quotations from it : — " The words are found, as I suppose (of/iai), in the Gospel according to the Egyptians " ; — " Theij affirm, that the Saviour himself said "; — and where, in appealing to a passage in the conversation with Salome, as justifying his own views, he refers to it as quoted by those whom he is opposing, and not as other- wise known to him, thus, " Do they not also allege what follows ? " See Jones, I. 206. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 247 sages found in the four Gospels ; but other Gnostics, as we have seen from the Doctrina Orientalis, rejected their interpretation. The Gnostics did not appeal to it in support of their more distinguishing and fundamental doctrines; for, had they done so, we should have been fully informed of the fact. As this is the first apocryphal gospel the former existence of which we have clearly as- certained, the question arises, Whether it were or were not a history of Christ's ministry. The only argument of any weight for believing it to have been so is, that it contained a narra- tive of a pretended conversation of Christ with Salome. But if it were not an historical, but a doctrinal book, there is no difficulty in sup- posing that the writer might find occasion to in- sert in it a traditional account of a discourse of Christ. A few such traditional accounts of sayings of our Lord are found in other writers of the first three centuries.* As regards the words ascribed to him in the conversation with Salome, it is evident that the tradition concern- ing them was false. Our Saviour never ex- pressed himself as he is reported to have done * See Vol. I. pp. 227-229. —Fabricius, I. 321*, seqq. Jones, I. 405, seqq. 248 EVIDENCES OF THE in the passages that have been quoted. The writer had an erroneous conception of his char- acter. But if the book had been an historical gospel, this conception would have pervaded it, and would have been prominent in many other particular passages. A history of Christ's min- istry, so foreign in its character from the Gos- pels as this must have been, could not have ex- isted in the last half of the second century, — whether it were a composition of an early age, or a fiction of later times, — without having been an object of far greater attention than what this book received. Especially, had it been brought forward by any sect in opposition to the Gospels, it would have been a primary subject of discussion. But we have seen that the book in question was little regarded or known. It could not, therefore, have been a history of Christ's ministry. This is the only apocryphal gospel, unless the Gospel according to the Hebrews be regarded as apocryphal, the title of which is mentioned by Clement. According to his present text, he quotes one other without giving its title. But there are good reasons for believing that his text, as it stands, is corrupt, and that there was originally no mention in it of a gospel.* * Clement (Stroinat. V. § 10. p. 684) is treating of the hidden GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 249 If this be so, then, with the exception just mentioned of the Gospel according to the He- brews, supposing that this exception should be wisdom on which he so much insists. He professes to quote a passage from a prophet, apparently intending Isaiah, though noth- ing very like it is found in his writings, or elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is this : — " Who shall understand the parable of the Lord [Jehovah], but the wise and understanding and he who loves his Lord 1 " Clement then, as his text now stands, goes on thus : — " For it is in the power of few to understand these things. For the Lord, though not unwilling to communicate, the prophet says [or, the Scripture says] , declared in a certain gospel, ' My secret is for me and the sons of my house.' " — " Oi yap (^BovSav, cfyrjal, TraprjjyeCkev 6 Kvpios eV rivi fiay-yeXico," k. t. X. I suppose the words " in a certain gospel " to be an interpolation. The passage quoted corresponds to what is found in some copies of the Septua- gint at Isaiah xxiv. 16. (See the note on the passage in Potter's edition of Clement, where in the first line " cap. 2 " is a misprint for " cap. 24.") The verb (^ijcri, says, must have for its subject either the prophet mentioned immediately before, or the Scripture (the ellipsis supposed in the last case being not uncommon). But Clement cannot be imagined to have made so incongruous an as- sertion as that " The prophet says," — or, " The Scripture says," — " that the Lord [Christ] declared in a certain gospel." That he considered himself as borrowing the words, " My secret is for me and my children," not from a certain gospel, but from Isaiah, appears also from the circumstance, that, a few lines after them, he gives a quotation from Isaiah, introducing it with the words, "The prophet says again" {jJaXiu 6 Trpocf>rirr]s). — I suppose, therefore, that the words " in a certain gospel " were originally a marginal gloss made by a transcriber, who attributed to Christ the declaration quoted by Clement, and who, knowing that it was not found in the four Gospels, thought it must be in some gospel or other. — See Jones, I. 442, seqq. VOL. III. 32 250 EVIDENCES OF THE made, the Gospel according to the Egyptians is the only apocryphal book, bearing the title of a gospel, that is mentioned by any writer dur- ing the three centuries succeeding our Lord's death, from which a single quotation is profess- edly given, or of which it is probable that a sin- gle fragment remains. As I have said, the title of no other apocry- phal gospel, used by any Gentile Christians, is mentioned by Clement. But it is desirable to give the fullest information on the subject which we are examining; for, as I have before re- marked, it is a subject that requires elucidation rather than argument. I will therefore advert to another work, which he quotes under the name of " The Traditions," and which has been imagined to be the same with an apocryphal gospel called " The Gospel according to Matthi- as." He speaks of the Traditions in the follow- ing passages : — "To attain wisdom we must begin with won- dering at things, as Plato says in his Theaetetus ; and Matthias, in the Traditions, thus concludes : — ' Wonder at present things ' ; making this the first step of our progress in knowledge." * * Stromal. 11. § 9. pp. 452, 453. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 251 In arguing against the licentiousness of the Carpocratians, he adduces another passage, thus : — " It is said,* likewise, that Matthias also thus taught : — ' We must contend against the flesh and humble it, granting it no intemper- ate pleasure, but promote the growth of the soul through faith and knowledge.' " f He again quotes a passage ascribed to Mat- thias, for the purpose, as before, of confirming his own doctrine : — "It is said in the Tradi- tions, that Matthias, the Apostle, often re- peated, ' that, if the neighbour of one of the elect sin, he himself has sinned ; for, if he had conducted himself as Reason (the Log- * Ae'yovo-i yap, that is, " They say,'''' " It is said." Different writers who have spoken of " The Traditions " (as Fabricius, II. 785, Grabe, Spicilegium, II. 118, Jones, I. 255, and Lardner, Works, I. 410, note f.) have fallen into the error of supposing the Carpocratians or Nicola'itans, against whom Clement is writ- ing, to be the subject of the verb, and consequently of making Clement represent them as quoting a passage directly opposed to the principles he ascribes to them. He himself quotes the pas- sage against them. The next quotation given above from the Traditions is introduced by him in like manner with Atyova-i be. — The error has partly arisen from the fact, that some dissolute sectaries did, as Clement mentions, pervert the ascetic maxim, " Abuse the body," perhaps quoting it ironically. See Vol. II. pp. 131, 169. t Stromat. III. § 4. p. 523. 252 EVIDENCES OF THE os) dictates, his neighbour would have so rev- erenced his course of life as not to sin.' " * The language is too unlimited, but the mo- rality is good. In what is supposed to be a Latin transla- tion of a portion of a lost work of Clement, called " Hypotjposes " or Institutions, there is another strange passage quoted from the Traditions, as agreeing with the conceptions of the writer. Clement, if he be the writer, is commenting on the first words of the First Epistle of John, which — to render as he un- derstood them — are these : — " What was from the beginning, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have heard, and our hands have touched concerning the Logos of life." He maintains (conformably to what Photius says t was a heresy affirmed by Clement in the work just mentioned), that the Logos who was from the beginning is to be distinguished from the Logos who became incarnate. The latter consisted of those powers of the for- mer which proceeded from him as " a ray from the sun " ; and " this ray, coming in the flesh, became an object of touch to the disciples." * Stromal. VII. § 13. p. 882. t Photii Bibliotheca, col. 285. Ed- Schotti. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 253 " Thus," he says, " it is related in the Tra- ditions, that ' John, touching his external body, plunged his hand in, the hardness of the flesh offering no resistance to it, but giving way to the hand of the disciple.' Hence it is that John affirms, < Our hands have touched con- cerning the Logos of life ' ; * that which came in the flesh being made an object of touch." f — As I have formerly remarked, f such traditions strikingly illustrate what would have been the state of the history of Jesus in the latter half of the second century, had it not been for the early existence and authoritative character of the Gospels. There is no reason to suppose that the book called " The Traditions " was in favor with any Gnostics. Clement does not represent it as having been cited by any heretical writer. On the contrary, he himself quotes it as con- firming his own opinions. He does not entitle it " The Traditions of Matthias," as it has been called in modern times, but simply " The Traditions." The former title has been given it, because, in the three passages quoted by * " Propter quod et infert, Et manus nostrce contrectaverunt de verbo vita.'''' f Apud Clementis Fragmenta. 0pp. p. 1009. X See before, pp. 180, 181. 254 EVIDENCES OF THE Clement in his Stromata, the name of Mat- thias occurs ; and this title having been given it, the book has been fancied by some to be the same with an apocryphal gospel called " The Gospel according to Matthias." Of this book nothing but the title remains. It is first mentioned by the Author of the Homilies on Luke ; after him, by his imitators, Ambrose and Jerome, and also by Eusebius. Possibly the notion that there was such a book may have arisen from the fact mentioned by Clement,* that the Gnostics boasted that their opinions were favored by Matthias, qr, in other words, that they taught the Gospel as it was understood by Matthias, the Gospel according to Matthias. Had they possessed a book with that title known to Clement, it seems likely that he would have spoken of it, when thus takins: notice of their claim to the counte- nance of Matthias. Considering the tendency of the fathers to charge the heretics with using books of no authority, the bare titles of sup- posed apocryphal and heretical works given by the Author of the Homilies on Luke, and by writers after the end of the third century, deserve little consideration. * See before, p. 200. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 255 Before the time of Origen, no other writer besides Irenaeus and Clement mentions any apocryphal gospel, real or supposed, except Serapion, as quoted by Eusebius. Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch about the close of the second century, wrote, concerning a gos- pel called " The Gospel according to Peter," a tract of which Eusebius gives the following account.* " Another tract was composed by Serapion concerning the Gospel according to Peter, so called, the object of which was to confute the errors contained in it, on account of some in the church at Rhossus who had been led by this book to adopt heterodox opinions. From this it may be worth while to quote a few words in which he expresses his opinion con- cerning it. ' We, brethren,' he writes, ' ac- knowledge the authority both of Peter and the other Apostles, as we do that of Christ ; but we reject, with good reason, the writings which falsely bear their names, well knowing that such have not been handed down to us. I, indeed, when I was with you, supposed that you were all going on in a right faith, and, not reading through the gospel under the name * Hist. Eccles. Lib. VL c. 12. 256 EVIDENCES OF THE of Peter which was produced bj them [those who were pleased with it], I said, If this is all that troubles you, let the book be read. But having since learnt from what has been told me, that their minds had fallen into some heresy, I hasten to be with you again, breth- ren, so that you may expect me shortly. Now we, brethren, know that a like heresy was held by Marcion, who also contradicted himself, not comprehending what he said, as you may learn from what has been written to you.* For we have been able to procure this gospel from others who use it, that is, from his followers, who are called DocetcB (for the greater part of the opinions in question belong to their sys- tem), and, having gone through it, we have found it for the most part conformable to the true doctrine of the Saviour ; but there are * As this sentence is unimportant, and as I believe the present text to be corrupt, I have ventured to render it as perhaps it should be amended. It now stands thus : — 'H/xetf Se, aSeX(^ol, KaraXa- (ioyLevoi oTvolas rjv alpffrecos 6 MapKiavos, Koi eavra rjvavTiovTO , fiTj voa>v a eXaXet, a fxaOrjaeade e^ wi/ vfiiv €ypd(pT). 'EbvPTjdrjfiev yap Trap' akXtov, k. t. X. I would read the first words as follows : — 'H/ifij Se, d8e\(f)m, KareXd^op-fv ort opoias tjv alpecreas 6 MapKicov, OS Koi eavTot rjvavriovTO , k. t. X. There is also some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the next sentence ; but, fortunately, this uncertainty does not ex- tend to any thing important in the paragraph. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 257 some things exceptionable,* which we subjoin for your information.' " We may conclude, from this account, that the Gospel of Peter was not a history of Christ's ministry. Serapion would not have regarded with such indifference as he first man- ifested a history of our Lord, ascribed to the Apostle Peter, which he had not before seen. Were it genuine, it must have been to him, as to any one else, an object of great interest. But the supposition of its genuineness is too extravagant to require discussion. — Nor can we suppose it to have been an original his- tory (that is to say, not a compilation from any one or more of the four Gospels), which, though not the work of Peter, was yet enti- tled to credit. For it is impossible that the existence of such a history should not have been notorious ; that it should not have been a frequent subject of remark ; that it should have been unknown to Serapion, himself a bishop and a controversial writer ; or, even if previously unknown, that it should not at once have excited his attention. — Nor can it have been a history founded upon one or more ra fxev nXeiova tov opdov \6yov Tov ^arrjpos, Tiva 8e irpoabie- (rrakfifi/a. VOL. III. 33 258 EVIDENCES OF THE of the four Gospels, with certain additions fa- voring the opinions of the Docetae. When we recollect the abundant notices of Marcion's gospel, which was only a mutilated copy of Luke's, it cannot be believed that there was another historical book extant among Marcion's followers, of a similar character (except that it contained some obnoxious additions), of which the notices are so scanty, and which is never mentioned as an historical book. — There is still another supposition ; that it was a his- tory undeserving of credit, a history contain- ing many fabulous accounts. But this is in- consistent with the manner in which Serapion mentions it ; for he speaks of it with but shght censure, commending the generality of its con- tents ; as no catholic writer of his time would have spoken of such a professed history of Christ's ministry as we have last imagined. The Gospel according to Peter, then, was not an historical book ; and this appears, not merely from what has been said, but from the fact, that neither Serapion nor Eusebius gives any intimation that it bore that character. Se- rapion's treatise was in the hands of Eusebius, as it probably had been in those of many be- fore him. It treated of the errors in the book ; it was written to refute them ; and, had these GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 259 errors consisted in false narratives concerning Christ, there is no reasonable doubt that ple- nary evidence of the fact would have existed, both in the writings of Serapion and Euse- bius, and in those of other fathers. It ap- pears that it was used by the Gnostics, and, had it been a professed history of Christ's min- istry used by them, we should certainly have had much more full information concerning it. The supposition that it was not an historical book, and this alone, it may be further ob- served, agrees with the manner in which Sera- pion describes it, as " for the most part con- formable to the true doctrine " (not the true history) " of the Saviour, but containing some things exceptionable." The book, it may be added, was not of any importance or notoriety. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in his time the principal see in the East, was, as we have seen, unacquainted with it, till his attention was called to it by some Christians of his diocese, as favoring heretical doctrines. We may conclude, therefore, that it was unknown to a great majority of Chris- tians, his contemporaries. Besides the notice of it by him, we find the following passage in Origen : — " Some say that the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Joseph by a wife to 260 EVIDENCES OF THE whom he was married before Mary, relying upon the tradition in the Gospel according to Peter or the book of James." * It is also re- ferred to by Eusebius and Jerome, who men- tion it as an apocryphal work falsely ascribed to Peter. Eusebius especially enumerates it among those books which were brought forward by the heretics under the names of Apostles ; such as no writer of the Church had thought worth commemorating, they being altogether devoid of good sense and piety. No fragment of it remains, and these are all the notices of it found in the first four centuries. We now come to Origen. It is doubtful whether the Homilies on Luke, which have been so often mentioned in this Chapter, are to be referred to him as their author.f If they are not, there is no passage in all Origen's works in which he speaks of an apocryphal gospel as used by any Gentile Christians, cath- olic or heretical, besides that relating to the Gospel of Peter which has just been quoted. Of the book of James, mentioned in connec- tion with it, I shall speak hereafter. * Comment, in Matth. Tom. x. 0pp. III. 462, 463. t See the Preface to the third volume of De la Rue's edition of Origen. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 261 I HAVE remarked on three titles of apocry- phal gospels mentioned by the Author of the Homilies on Luke. There is one other, " The Gospel according to Thomas," to which like- wise I shall advert hereafter. Besides those writers whom I have quoted, there is none who speaks of apocryphal gos- pels before Eusebius, in the first half of the fourth century. He enumerates among heret- ical books, " altogether absurd and irreligious," three of those already mentioned, namely, the gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias,* but gives no further information concerning them, and adds no new title to the list. I HAVE brought down the inquiry respecting apocryphal gospels to a much later period than was necessary. No one will suppose that a book of which there is no mention before the fourth century could have served the Gnostics as a basis for their doctrines. If any book appeared after the commencement of the fourth century, pretending to be an original history of Christ's ministry, — of which we have no proof, and which, in the nature of things, is alto- * Hist. Eccles. Lib. IH. c. 25. 262 EVIDENCES OF THE gether improbable, — no one will imagine that it was entitled to regard. Of any book of an early age, purporting to give an account of his ministry different from that contained in the four Gospels, it is a moral impossibility that we should not have received full and unequivocal information from writers before the time of Eusebius. There is no reason, as I conceive, to sup- pose that the apocryphal gospels which have been mentioned, or the other apocryphal books extant during the first three centuries, were commonly written with the fraudulent design of furnishing the pretended authority of Jesus or his Apostles in support of false doctrines or spurious history ; or that, when they bore the name of an Apostle, it was intended that they should be ascribed to him as his proper work. The author of such a book may have put his own opinions into the mouth of an Apostle by a common rhetorical artifice, as Plato in his dialogues introduces Socrates and Timseus as teaching his doctrines ; or as if one, at the present day, were to publish a work calling it " The Gospel as taught by {according to) St. Paul," or " The Gospel as taught by St. James." Of this mode of writing we have GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 263 a remarkable example in the Clementine Hom- ilies, the author of which could have intended no deception. But the whole account given in them of the actions of Peter is a fiction, and the discourses ascribed to him contain only the writer's own views of the character of Christianity. According, however, to the an- cient use of language, this book might have been, and possibly was, called " The Gospel according to Peter." Such books might be, or it might be fancied that they were, found- ed on some traditionary information respect- ing the teaching of an Apostle. Thus a book called " The Preaching of Peter," or " The Preaching of Peter and Paul," was regarded both by Clement of Alexandria and by Lac- tantius as a work of some authority. Lac- tantius supposed it to be a record of their preaching while together at Rome.* Clement quotes it in the same manner as he quotes " The Traditions " before mentioned, and the works of the Pagan philosophers, not in evidence of facts, but as corresponding with and confirming his own opinions. Irenaeus speaks, as we have seen, of a gos- pel by Judas Iscariot. There was reported * Institut. Lib. IV. c. 21. 264 EVIDENCES OF THE to be another under the name of Matthias, and another under the name of Thomas ; but these titles are not mentioned before the third cen- tury. Of the books or of the titles which have been enumerated, bearing the names of Apos- tles, there is besides only the Gospel of Peter, which became known to Serapion about the close of the second century. But it is alto- gether incredible that any Gentile Christian in the second century should have engaged in so hopeless and foolish an attempt, as to endeavour to pass off a composition of his own as a gospel written by an Apostle, — a gospel which had never before been heard of. Nor is it much more likely that any Gentile Chris- tian, without ascribing his work to an Apos- tle, would, after the destruction of Jerusalem, have pretended to give an original history of Christ's ministry at variance with the four Gospels. As we have already seen, there is no evidence that any such work existed. The subject of the apocryphal gospels has, as it was natural it should, attracted much at- tention. It is a subject which deserved to be thoroughly examined. But the unavoidable consequence of the manner in which it has been treated has been to produce a very false im- pression of their importance. They were ob- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 265 scure writings, very little regarded or known by any Christians, catholic or heretical. We find in Justin Martyr and Tertullian nothing con- cerning them ; in Irenaeus, two titles, one pur- porting to be that of a book, which most probably was not extant, and the other like- wise perhaps originating in mistake, but sup- posed to belong to a Valentinian gospel, which there is no evidence that the Valentinians ever appealed to. Clement gives some extracts from a gospel which he found quoted by the En- cratites or ascetics. Serapion mentions the Gospel of Peter, as in the hands of persons be- longing to a parish in his diocese, called Rhos- sus, and as used by some of the Docetae. Ori- gen once refers to the same book. And the Au- thor of the Homilies on Luke adds three other titles of books of which he gives no account.* * I have not adverted in the text to one title mentioned hy the Author of the Homilies, namely, " The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles" ; because, as we learn from Jerome (Advers. Pelagianos, Lib. HL 0pp. T. IV. P. II. col. 533), this was only a name which was sometimes given to the Gospel of the Hebrews. It may naturally have had its origin in the circumstance, that the Hebrew Christians affirmed, that the Gospel of Matthew, which alone they used, contained the Gospel as taught by the Apostles, or, in other words, was the Gospel according to the Apostles. But there is something more to be observed. The title given is not simply " The Gospel according to the Apostles," but " The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles." The Hebrew Chris- voL. III. 34 266 EVIDENCES OF THE These are all the notices of apocryphal gospels to be found in all the writers of Christian antiq- uity before the end of the third century. Had they been works of any notoriety, works possess- ing any intrinsic or accidental importance, we should have had page after page of controversy, discussion, and explanation concerning them. About the beginning of the last century, a manuscript was made known of a gospel as- cribed to Barnabas, in the Italian language, but supposed to be translated from the Arabic. It is the work of a Mahometan, or a work inter- polated by a Mahometan. Much more has been written by different authors about this book * than all that is to be found in the Christian writers of the first three centuries concerning apocryphal gospels. Yet it is a book of which, probably, few of my readers tians, generally, did not recognize the Apostleship of St. Paul, but regarded him as a false teacher. They revolted at his doc- trine of the abolition of their Law, and of their peculiar national distinctions. Hence they may have called their Gospel the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles, of whose number he was not, in order to imply that it was from the twelve Apostles, and not from him, the preacher to the Gentiles, that the true doctrines of the Gospel were to be learned. * See Fabricins, HI. 373, seqq., Jones, I. 162, seqq., Sale's Translation of the Koran (Ed. 1825), in his Preliminary Dis- course, p. 102, and in his Notes, Vol. I. pp. 01, 170; and the works referred to by the authors mentioned. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 267 have ever heard ; and of which he who has known any thing may have forgotten what he knew. It is easy to apply this fact to assist ourselves in judging of the importance to be attached to the notices of apocryphal gospels found in the fathers. It may seem as if, in reference to our present inquiry, any further discussion of the subject must be useless ; and it would be so, but for the misapprehensions which have existed concern- ing it. There are some fabulous books still extant, which, thus standing as it were in the foreground, are more likely, at first view, to be taken for true representatives of ancient apoc- ryphal gospels, than those titles and fragments, appearing in the remote distance, with which alone we are in fact concerned. These books have, in modern times, been called " Gospels of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary," and " Gospels of the Infancy," that is, of the infancy of Jesus. They have, likewise, directly or indirectly, been brought into competition with the four Gospels. But whatever tends to weaken the exclusive authority of the catholic Gospels, or to confound them in the same class with fabulous writings, opens the way for a vague conjecture that there may have been in early times other histories of 268 EVIDENCES OF THE the ministry of Christ at variance with those Gospels, and entitled to as much or more credit. We will, therefore, go on to take notice of the works referred to. In the quotation that I have given from Ori- gen,* besides the mention of the Gospel of Peter, there is mention, likewise, of a book of James. About the middle of the sixteenth century, the celebrated visionary Postel brought to the notice of European scholars a work writ- ten in Greek, a manuscript of which he found in the East. It is a book of about a quarter of the size of the Gospel of Mark. He entitled it " The Protevangelion (that is, the First-Gospel) of St. James the Less " ; f — the pretended events which it relates being supposed by him to have occurred prior to those recorded by St. Mark, to whose Gospel he fancied it intended for an introduction. But a number of manu- scripts of it are now known, and the title Pro- tevangelion is not supported by their authority. J * See before, pp. 259, 260. f The work has been republished by Fabricius, Jones, and Thilo. J Its title is given with much diversity in different manuscripts, but in all its variations expresses that the subject of the work is a History of the Nativity of Mary. In what is supposed to be the oldest manuscript it runs thus : — "A Narration and History how GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 269 The author, in the conclusion of the work, gives his name as James. It is a collection of legen- dary fables, principally concerning the nativity of the Virgin Mary, her history and that of Jo- seph, and the nativity of Jesus. The nativity of the Virgin is represented to have been mi- raculous, like that of Samuel, and to have been announced by an angel. Some things are in- terwoven from the first two chapters ascribed to Matthew, and from the account of our Saviour's birth given by Luke. There are two coinci- dences of its narrative with what is found in ancient authors, which deserve notice. The first relates to the passage of Origen just re- ferred to. Origen says, that, conformably to the book of James, the individuals called in the Gospels the brothers* of Jesus were children of Joseph by a former wife. In the Protevangelion, Mary is represented as having been dedicated by her parents as a virgin to the service of God in the the superholy Mother of God (17 Wepayla Qcotokos) was born." (Thilo, p. liii.) But the book is not confined to a mere account of the nativity of Mary ; it extends (as appears above) to the his- tory of her life. * The word in the original, aSeX^oi, should be rendered kins- mep,, according to a common use of it. It does not in the passage in question denote brothers, in the limited sense of the English word. 270 EVIDENCES OF THE Temple, but at the age of twelve years as hav- ing been removed thence by the priests, and committed in trust to Joseph, with the purpose of her becoming his wife. Before receiving her, he is represented as saying, " I am an old man and have children." * The story, that Joseph, when he married Mary, was an old man with children by a former wife, is found in many writers after the middle of the fourth century. One of the fables in this book is, that Mary after childbirth remained in all respects as a virgin. t The story is referred to and counte- nanced by Clement of Alexandria.! Tertullian, on the contrary, in contending against those Gnostics who asserted that the body of Christ was not a body of flesh and blood, and that it was in no part derived from his mother, insists on his proper birth, and incidentally represents it as in all respects like that of others.^ It is not, however, to be inferred that the Gnostics maintained the opinion just mentioned ; for, on the one hand, the Marcionites denied altogether * Protevangelion, c. 9. f Ibid. cc. 19, 20. X 'AXX', wr €oiK€v, To2s TToXXoT? Koi fifXP'- ^^^ Soicel rj Mapihfi XeX^ eivai 8ta tt]V tov Tratbiov yfvvjjaiv, ovk ovcra Xfx^w' koi yap fifTO. TO TfKelv avrrjv fiaicodelaav (ftaai nves napOtvov evpedrjvai. Stroinat. VII. ^ 16. pp. 889, 890. ^ In his tract De Carne Christi. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 271 the nativity of Christ ; and, on the other, that opinion was not necessarily connected with the doctrine of the theosophic Gnostics, who as- cribed to Christ a body, though not a human body. But, with a strange approximation to the Gnostic denial of the proper body of Christ, it has become the established faith of the Ro- man Catholic church.* It was made an article of orthodox belief by the Lateran Council, held under Pope Martin the First in the year 649. Unless Origen, under the name of the book of James, refers to some work like the Protevan- gelion, that is, to some pretended history of the mother of our Lord, which may have served for the foundation of that now extant, there is no mention of any such work before the latter half * " II convient toutefois qu'il est de la foi catholique, que Ma- rie est demeuree Vierge apr^s Tenfanteraent comme devant." Fleury, Hist. Eccles. An. 847. — In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (P. I. Art. 3. n. 13) it is said, — " Praeterea, quo nihil ad- mirabilius dici omnino, aut cogitari potest, nascitur [Christus] ex matre sine ulla maternae virginitatis diminutione, et quo modo postea ex sepulcro clauso et obsignato egressus est, atque ad discipulos clausis januis introivit : vel, ne a rebus etiam, quae a natura quotidie fieri videmus, discedatur, quo modo solis radii concretara viiri substantiam penetrant, neque frangunt tamen, aut aliqua ex parte laedunt ; simili, inquam, et altiori modo Jesus Christus ex materno alvo, sine ullo maternae virginitatis detri- mento, editus est, ipsius enim incorruptam virginitatem verissimis laudibus celebramus." 272 EVIDENCES OF THE of the fourth century. In the fourth and fifth centuries, it seems probable that there was more than one narrative of this kind in exist- ence ; but that these narratives were generally regarded as fabulous and worthless.* During the ages of darkness that followed, the legends concerning the Virgin found favor, in common with other fables which overspread ecclesiasti- cal and profane history. They have entered into the established mythology of the Roman Catholic church, and have furnished concep- tions for its great masters in the art of painting. But the particular book we are considering, the Protevangelion, never obtained such credit in the West as in the East. In the West, its existence had become unknown before it was brought to light by Postel. In the East, it seems probable that it was at one period read in some churches on certain holydays, in the same manner as the legends of Saints were read on their festivals.! The oldest manuscript of it now known is referred to the tenth cen- tury, t The fables respecting the nativity and history of Mary, like those which went to the compila- * Thilo, p. Ix, seqq. ; p. xci, seqq. Conf. Epiphanius, Hasres. XXIV. ^ 12. p. 94. ■f Thilo, pp. lix, Ix. t Ibid. p. liii. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 273 tion of other apocryphal writings, being desti- tute of all authority, were recast in different forms by different hands. They are extant, with much diversity from the Protevangelion, in a work found in two Latin manuscripts, one of the fourteenth and the other of the fifteenth century,* in which they are connected at the end with a few stories of miracles performed by our Lord in his infancy, f In Latin, also, there is another work, shorter and less extravagant than those which have been mentioned, relat- ing to the birth and history of Mary, of which the modern title is " The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary." f Of this the pretended Hebrew original was ascribed to the Apostle Matthew, and the translation to Jerome. The fiction by which Jerome is represented as its translator shows that its composition must have been later than the fourth century. We proceed to the Books of the Infancy. — As I have mentioned, the Author of the Homi- lies on Luke gives the title of a Gospel accord- ing to Thomas ; and the same title is found in * Thilo, p. cviii. f The work is published by Thilo under the title of " Historia de Nativitate Marias et de Infantia Salvatoris." I It may be found in Fabricius, Jones, and Thilo. VOL. III. 35 274 EVIDENCES OF THE subsequent writers.* We may conjecture it to have been one of those professed expositions of Christianity which were called " gospels." Nor is there any thing in the ancient writers who mention it to countenance a different sup- position. But there is now extant in Greek a collection of fables concerning the infancy and childhood of Jesus, which is not, in the manu- scripts of it, entitled " a gospel," but the writer of which announced himself as Thomas an Israelite.! This book has been thought to be essentially the same with the gospel mentioned by the Author of the Homilies, and to have been in existence in the second century. But of such books, more or less resembling one an- other, there are a number extant, which have passed in modern times under the name of " Gospels of the Infancy." One of this number (much larger than the book ascribed to Thomas in its present state) is written in Arabic. It was published with a Latin translation in the year 1697, by Henry Sike, Professor of the Oriental Languages in the University of Cambridge. J With this the * See Fabricius, I. 131, seqq. Thilo, Ixxix, seqq. + A fragment, the first part, of this book may be found in Fabricius and Jones. The whole, as now extant, is given by Thilo. t The Latin version has been republished by Fabricius and Jones, and the original with the version, by Thilo. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 273 name of Thomas is not connected. It con- sists of stories of pretended miracles, which accompanied the birth and infancy of our Sav- iour, and which he himself performed when a child. There is some fancy in these fictions. They have a tinge of Eastern invention, but are essentially of the same character as the common legends of the Middle Ages. The relater sometimes refers to facts in the Gos- pels, and connects his story with them. Thus he gives a narrative concerning two robbers, whom he represents as the same afterwards crucified with Jesus.* These and similar fa- bles became popular in the East, particularly among the followers of Mahomet. Two of them appear in the Koran,t and others have been current among Mahometan writers. f The compilation in Greek that bears the name of Thomas has a general correspondence with the last half of the preceding. Omitting those pretended miracles which accompanied * Cap. 23. f One is of Christ's speaking while in his cradle (Arabic Gos- pel of the Infancy, c. 1), which he did according to the Koran, ch. 3. Vol. I. p. 58, and ch. 19. Vol. II. p. 145. The other is of his making birds of clay to which he gave life (Arabic Gospel, capp. 36, 46), which is referred to in the Koran, ch. 3. Vol. I. p. 59, and ch. 5. Vol. I. p. 139. X See Sike's notes (republished by Thilo). 276 EVIDENCES OF THE the nativity and infancy of Jesus, it begins with those performed in his childhood. Of these, about half the stories in one work cor- respond to those in the other, though the order in which they are arranged is not the same, and they are often differently told. Both works imply a very low state of intellect and morals in those by whom and for whom they were written. In some of the fictions, Jesus, as a child, is represented as violent and cruel, so that his father, Joseph, is introduced as say- ing, — " From this time we will not suffer him to go out of the house ; for whoever makes him angry is killed." * The notions of the writer of either book seem in this respect to have been derived from the use of power by an Oriental despot. A similar collection of fables appears to be, or to have been, extant in different languages of the East.f Several manuscript collections of them are extant in Latin, more or less di- verse from one another, and from the Arabic and the Greek compilation. One only of these is known to bear the name of Thomas. The author's name is otherwise given as Matthew * Arabic Gospel, c. 49. Gospel of Thomas, c. 14. I Thilo, p. xxxii, seqq. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 277 the Evangelist, or James the son of Joseph (to whom the Protevangelion is ascribed) ; and in one copy the pretended authors are Onesimus and John the Evangelist.* In regard to these fables respecting the in- fancy and* childhood of Jesus, we find an early notice of one of them in Irenaeus. He is giving an account of a sect, before mentioned, the Marcosians, who believed, like the Jewish Cabalists, that there were profound mysteries hidden in the letters of the alphabet.! After speaking of their perversion of the Scriptures, Irenseus says : — " Moreover, they bring forward an unspeak- able number of apocryphal and spurious writ- ings, which they have fabricated, to confound the simple, and such as are ignorant of those writings which contain the truth. To this end, they also adopt that fiction concerning our Lord, that, when he was a child, and learning the alphabet, his master, as usual, told him to say Alpha (A), and that, upon his repeating Alptia, when his master next told him to say Beta (B), the Lord replied, ' Do you first tell me what Alpha is, and then I will tell you what Beta is.' And this they explain as showing that he alone * Thilo, p. cv, seqq. f See before, p. 152, seqq. 278 EVIDENCES OF THE knew the mystery, which he revealed, in the letter Alpha." * We may first incidentally remark on this passage, that the many apocryphal books fabri- cated by the Marcosians could have had but a short-lived existence, and were but of little note ; since no one of them is specified by name in any writer; nor does Irenaeus in his long article on the sect, nor any other writer, refer elsewhere to any use which the Marco- sians made of them. It may next be ob- served, that the passage is remarkable as af- fording one of the only two examples, which are reported by the writers during the three centuries succeeding the death of our Lord, of an argument for a Gnostic doctrine, founded on a narrative concerning him not related in the Gospels.f But that this narrative was already incorporated into a collection of like stories does not appear from Irenaeus. His words, on the contrary, rather imply that it was not. " In addition," he says, to their apoc- ryphal books, for this is the force of his lan- guage, " they adopt for the same purpose that * Cont. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 20. p. 91. f The other example which I refer to is the use, before men- tioned (see p. 241, seqq.), which was made by the Encratites of a passage in the Gospel of the Egyptians. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 279 fiction," a well-known fiction, as is implied, " concerning the Lord." * This fiction has become the foundation of two different stories in the Arabic compilation,! and of three in the Greek,t in the former our Saviour being represented as having had two successive schoolmasters, and in the latter, three ; and, as might be expected from its an- tiquity, none of the fables of the same class appears to have been more widely circulated.^ * " YlpoairapoKayL^avovin he. els tovto kokuvo to oa8iovpyr][ia,^^ K. T. \. t Capp. 48, 49. J Capp. 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, § " As to the life of Jesus Christ," says Chardin, " the Per- sian legends contain not only what is in the Gospels, but likewise all the tales found in the legends of the Eastern Christians, and particularly in an Armenian legend, eniiiled TEvangile Enfant,* which is nothing but a tissue of fabulous miracles ; such, for ex- ample, as that Jesus, seeing Joseph much troubled at having cut a board of cedar too short, said to him : — ' Why are you so troubled 1 Give me one end of the board and pull the other, and it will grow longer.' Another story is, that, being sent to school to learn the alphabet, his master directed him to pronounce A ; he paused and said to his master, — ' Tell me, first, why the first letter of the alphabet is formed as it is.' Upon this, his master treating him as a talkative little child, he answered, — ' I will not say A, till you tell me why the first letter is made as it is.' But his master growing angry, he said to him, — ' I will instruct you, then. The first letter of the alphabet is formed of three perpendicular lines on a horizontal line — (the Armenian * The title is so rendered by Chardin. 280 EVIDENCES OF THE During a long interval after Irenaeus, we hear nothing more of fables respecting the infancy and childhood of Christ. There is nothing necessarily miraculous in the supposed fact re- lated in the story which he quotes ; on the con- trary, none but the Marcosians, or those who en- tertained like notions with them of the myste- rious significance of the letters of the alphabet, could have inferred from it any supernatural knowledge in the infant Jesus. Epiphanius is the first writer who distinctly refers to stories of fabulous miracles performed by Jesus in his childhood ; and these stories he does not alto- gether reject. The miracle at the marriage feast at Cana, he says, was the first performed by Jesus, " except, perhaps, those which he is reported to have performed in his youth, in play as it were, according to what some say 5? * A is thus formed, very like an inverted m) — to teach us that the Beginning of all things is one Essence in three Persons.' " Voyages en Pefse, Tom. II. pp. 269, 270. Ed. 4to. 1735. The difference between the Armenian version of the story of the alphabet and that given by the Marcosians shows the changes to which fables of this sort were exposed. — Two stories dif- ferent from each other, but both corresponding essentially to the marvel of lengthening the cedar board, are found, one in the Arabic Gospel (c. 39), and the other in the Gospel of Thomas (c. 13). * Haeres. LI. § 20. 0pp. I. 442. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 281 After him, Chrjsostom expresses his opinion, that the miracle of Cana was the first performed by our Saviour, and rejects, as wholly undeserv- ing of credit, the fables concerning miracles performed by him in his childhood.* As regards the book now extant, of which the author calls himself Thomas, it could not have been that referred to by the Author of the Homilies on Luke, and subsequently by some other ancient writers, under the name of the Gospel of Thomas, for it is evidently a com- position of the Middle Ages. All, it would seem, that can be meant by those modern writers who have regarded the two books as the same, is, that the one anciently called the Gospel of Thomas served as a basis for the present compilation of fables. But the present book bears so thoroughly, in its matter and style, the character of an age far later than that in which the Gospel of Thomas is first mentioned, that, should we attempt to separate this character from it, we should find that noth- ing would be left. Besides, of those different compilations of fables that have been mentioned, only one set professes to have been written by * Homil. in Joannem, XX. col. 132. Ed. 1697. Homil. XVI. col. 108. Homil. XXII. col. 124. VOL. III. 36 282 EVIDENCES OF THE an author called Thomas ; and no copy which bears his name assumes to be called a gospel. The supposition, that the ancient Gospel of Thomas was so remarkable a book, as one con- taining a collection of stories respecting our Lord's childhood must have been regarded dur- ing the first three centuries, cannot be recon- ciled with the facts, that we are not informed of its contents by any ancient writer ; that it is not quoted under that name by any ancient writer ; that those who mention the fables do not speak of the Gospel of Thomas, and that those who mention the Gospel of Thomas do not speak of the fables.* • There is another book that has been reckoned among apoc- ryphal writings, " The Gospel of Nicodemus," so called, of which, when the first edition of this work was published, it did not seem to me that there was occasion to give an account in relation to the argument before us, or that there would be any propriety in doing so incidentally. But I have remarked that one of the most noted modern champions of infidelity, Strauss, in treating of the death of our Lord (and elsewhere), often quotes it, and compares its statements with those of the Evangelists ; as he has also quoted, in like manner, the Protevangelion of James, the History of the Nativity of Mary (see before, p. 273), and the Gospels of the Infancy. The Gospel of Nicodemus is equally fabulous with the books just mentioned. The Greek original has been published, from a collation of different copies, with elaborate notes, by Thilo. A Latin translation, which differs from it in many particulars, may be found in Fabricius and Jones. The copies of this book, GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 283 But, it may be asked, were the fables con- tained in the Protevangelion and the Books of like those of others of the same class, vary much from one another. According to the Greek text, a person who announces him- self as Ananias, a Jew, says, that, in the reign of Theodosius (his blunders in chronology are such as to leave it uncertain whether he meant the first or second emperor of that name), he had discovered this book ; that it was written originally in Hebrew by Nicodemus, and that he had translated it into Greek. The book which follows this proem consists, first, of an ac- count of the trial of our Lord before Pilate, founded on the relations of the Evangelists. It is swelled by a narrative of the appearance before Pilate of many who had been the subjects or witnesses of his miracles, — miracles recorded in the Gospels, — who are introduced as testifying in his favor. Then, after an account of his death and burial, follows a marvellous story re- specting Joseph of Arimathea, who is represented as having been persecuted by the Jews on account of the honor paid by him to the body of Jesus, and to have been delivered from confinement by Jesus immediately after his own resurrection ; and narratives of individuals supposed to have witnessed the ascension of our Lord, and to have testified to this fact before the Jewish San- hedrim. Here it seems probable that the book originally ended. But in some manuscripts a conclusion is found, which consists of an account of our Lord's descent to Hades, and of his carrying away thence the souls of the just who had died before his time. It is given in the form of a deposition before the Sanhedrim of two of the dead, who were present in Hades upon the occasion, which deposition they themselves committed to writing, and gave into the hands of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. This concluding legend appears to have been the immediate source of those conceptions respecting our Lord's descent to Hell, or the 284 EVIDENCES OF THE the Infancy ever really believed ? The ques- tion falls into the same wide class with many " Harrowing of Hell," as it was called in old English litera- ture, which were common in the latter part of the Middle Ages. Such is the Gospel of Nicodemus. It is not named by any- Greek or Latin father ; nor is there any clear proof of its ex- istence till a very late period. (See the Testimonia et CensurcB collected by Fabricius, I. 214-237, and the Prolegomena of Thilo.) There would be no greater want of good-sense in quot- ing a miracle-play of the Middle Ages for the purpose of con- fronting its representations with those of the Evangelists, than what appears in quoting for this end the Gospel of Nicodemus ; or, it may be added, in thus quoting the Protevangelion of James, the History of the Nativity, and the Gospels of the Infancy. But as this book has been mentioned, it may be well to enter into some further explanation respecting it. There has been, as I conceive, a great confusion of ideas concerning it, arising from the error of giving it the additional name of " The Acts of Pilate." This error appears to have had its origin from two passages in the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, written in the latter part of the sixth century. In the first of these passages (Lib. I. cap. 21) Gregory makes a very brief mention of the imprisonment of Joseph of Arimathea by the chief-priests (the story before referred to), which he says was related in the Acts of Pilate {Gesta Pilaii), sent by him to the Emperor Tiberius ; and in the second (Ibid. c. 24) he men- tions these Acts agaip, as containing information, given by Pilate to the Emperor, of the miracles, death, and passion of Jesus, and as being still extant. The circumstance, that in the first passage he has referred to the persecution of Joseph of Arimathea, which is related in the Gospel of Nicodemus, has led to the belief that this work is, or was originally, the same book with the Acts of Pilate. But the argument would in no case avail to prove this identity, since the author of the GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 285 Others, to all which a common answer is to be given. Were the legends with which the Gospel of Nicodemus may, equally with Gregory, have derived the story, directly or indirectly, from some book which bore that title. It may even be that Gregory himself furnished him with the germ of his fable. Here two questions arise : — What was the original meaning of that title, " The Acts of Pilate"? and how must it be under- stood in relation to the subject before us ? The accounts which the Roman provincial governors were ac- customed to send to the Emperor of their own doings and of re- markable events in their respective provinces were sometimes called Acts (Acta in Latin, or, as written in Greek letters, "A/cra) . There can be little doubt that Pilate did send home such an ac- count relating to Jesus. Rumors concerning him must have reached Rome ; and his reputed miracles and claims, and the circumstances connected with his history and death, were not mat- ters to be passed over in silence in the reports of a procurator who was under the eye of Tiberius. Accordingly, Justin and Tertullian in their Apologies refer briefly in general terms to the account of Pilate, which Justin calls his Acts, as confirming their statements respecting the mir- acles and death of Jesus. But it is not probable that either of them had seen an authentic copy of those Acts, or that such copies were ever in circulation. They either spoke from private infor- mation, direct or indirect ; or, perhaps, inferred from the nature of the case, that the account given by Pilate must tend to confirm their own. In the beginning of the fourth century, according to the rela- tion of Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. Lib. IX. c. 5. Conf. Lib. L cc. 9, 11), during the persecution under Maximin, pretended Acts of Pilate, full of calumnies against our Lord, were fabricated and zealously circulated. Afterward, as we learn from Epiphanius (Haeres. L. 0pp. I. 420), there were extant among Christians, in the fourth century, 286 EVIDENCES OF THE whole history of Christendom was swarming from the fourth century to the fifteenth really other spurious Acts of Pilate, which were appealed to by certain heretics, in proof that our Lord suffered on the eighth of the Calends of April, the anniversary of which day they commemo- rated. Epiphanius says (but whether truly or not may be a question) that he had seen copies of those Acts giving a different date. The author of a Homily ascribed to Chrysostom (Chrysos- tomi 0pp. V. 942. Ed. Savil.) says that the day of our Lord's death was known from the Acts of Pilate to be the eighth of the Calends of April. The same date is also found in the Gospel of Nicodemus. This is the sum of all the information concerning any real or pretended Acts of Pilate furnished by all the writers before Gregory of Tours. No one can be supposed to imagine that the Gospel of Nico- demus is either the authentic Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin and TertuUian, or those spurious Acts which were put into circu- lation during the persecution under Maximin. It follows, that those who believe the Gospel to be the same book with the Acts must believe it to be the Acts of which Epiphanius speaks, of the contents of which we know nothing, except that they specified a particular day as that of our Lord's death. But this belief must be entertained in opposition to the clear and decisive evidence furnished by the book itself. The Greek Gospel published by Thilo begins with a statement that the Hebrew original was found and translated into Greek in the seventeenth year of Theodosius, the first or second of that name. At the end of the Latin version edited by Fabricius, The- odosius the Great is said to have discovered it in the Prsetorium of Pilate at Jerusalem, which extraordinary story shows that the times of Theodosius must have been to the author of this version a fabulous age. No copy of the work assigns an earlier date for its discovery. But no one will credit the fable of a Hebrew original of the GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 287 believed ? How was it with the mythology and marvels of Greek and Roman Paganism, interwoven as they were with the religious sen- book. The Greek text is the original ; and this, it appears, claims for itself no higher antiquity than the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth. It is probably of much later date. But on its own showing it could not have been the book quoted, as Epiphanius reports, under the name of the Acts of Pilate, by heretics in the fourth century. The character of the Gospel of Nicodemus is such as to render the supposition utterly incredible, that any one could have put it forth under the name of the Acts of Pilate, that title being under- stood, as it undoubtedly was during the first four centuries, to de- note an ofllcial account of his doings concerning Jesus sent by Pilate to the Emperor. It has nothing of the nature or form of an official communication. It is a legendary fable. There is no inscription to Tiberius, nor any address to him throughout the book. Nor is it pretended in the book itself that Pilate was its author. According to its own statement, it was composed by Nicodemus. In the Greek copies, there is no mention of Pilate as having any thing to do with it. Nor does it appear that the title, Acts of Pilate, was given it in any manuscript, Greek or Latin. In an addition made in Latin copies (Thilo, p. 788), it is said that Pilate, having been informed by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus of all that passed in the Jewish Sanhedrim, " wrote all which had been done and said by the Jews concerning Jesus {omnia quce gesta et dicta sunt de Jesu a Judais), and put all the words in the public books of his PrEetorium." This story, and the words " omnia quae gesta,'' may perhaps have countenanced the error of calling it the Acts of Pilate, Gcsta Pilati. But the only title which could with any plausibility be derived from the passage would be " Acts of the Jews," Gesta Judceorum, meaning, in a sense of the word Gesta familiar in the Middle Ages, "Deeds (or Doings) of the Jews." — Ao^e to 2d Edi- tion, 1847. 288 EVIDENCES OF THE timents and rites and daily usages of the most enlightened nations of antiquity ? Had the Egyptians a true faith that a particular bull was their god Apis ? Did they believe in the divinity of the Crocodile and the Ibis ? What was their state of mind in respect to their other gods, — qualia demens JEgyptus portenta cole- hat, — with all the strange and disgusting his- tories attached to them ? How has it been with the Hindus, one of the few nations out of the European family which have approach- ed to European intelligence ? Have they be- lieved or not the enormous fables — that even a healthy imagination shrinks from — which are reported as true in their sacred books ? How much of the history of human opinions on all the higher subjects of thought is a his- tory of human errors, — often of errors the most repulsive to reason, yet widely prevail- ing, and obstinately maintained from century to century. Have not those errors been be- lieved ? The general answer to be given to these questions embraces the particular reply to the inquiry by which they were suggested, re- specting the fables of the Protevangelion and of the Books of the Infancy. Throughout the history of mankind, we find, as regards both ^ GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 289 facts and doctrines, the broadest exhibitions of credulity, which, if the delusion have passed away, or if we are out of the sphere of its in- fluence, we can hardly help regarding as mon- strous and unnatural, till we recollect how prevalent they have been, and consequently how consistent with our common nature. There are other avenues, more trodden than the nar- row way of reason, by which opinions enter the mind. What impresses the imagination, affects the feelings, and is blended with habit- ual associations, is received by the generality as true. Fables however absurd, conceptions however irrational, even unmeaning forms of words, which have been early presented to the mind, and with which it has been long con- versant, make as vivid an impression upon it as realities, and assume their character. No opinions inhere more strongly than those about which the reason is not exercised ; for they are unassailable by argument. It would be well to have different words to distinguish between the two different states of mind, in the one of which we receive conceptions as true with- out reasoning, while in the other our assent is given through an exercise of judgment. The term to credit is now used in one of its signifi- cations merely as synonymous with the term VOL. III. 37 290 EVIDENCES OF THE • to believe. We might confine the use of the former term to denoting the first kind of as- sent, assent without the exercise of the under- standing, and employ the latter only to signify a faith that relies on reason. Using the words in these senses, we might say that the mass of errors which have been credited bears a vast disproportion to the amount of truths which have been believed. Nor shall we find it hard to conceive, nor regard it as a very extraordi- nary fact, that the fables respecting the moth- er of our Lord and our Lord himself have been credited, as well as the doctrine of transub- stantiation. Undoubtedly the world has grown wiser; or rather, a small portion of the world has grown wiser; and we may hope that the light will become less troubled, steadier, and brighter, and spread itself more widely. Ali- ud ex alio clarescet. Res accendent lumina rebus. From what has appeared in this Chapter, it it is evident that the Gnostics did not oppose to the four Gospels any other history of Christ's ministry ; or, to state the conclusion in more general terms, it is evident, that, during the first three centuries, no history of Christ's min- istry at variance with the four Gospels was GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 291 in existence. The history of his ministry, such as it is contained in them, or in some one of them, served as a common basis for the opinions of all Christians, both catholic and heretical. If the Gospel of the Hebrews, in its uncor- rupted state, was, as we have seen reason to believe, the Gospel of Matthew, then there is no probability that any work besides those of the Evangelists, professing to be an original history of our Lord's ministry, was ever in cir- culation after the appearance of the first three Gospels, — somewhere, probably, about the year 65."^ Luke mentions imperfect accounts which preceded his own. But, after the ap- pearance of the first three Gospels, though the copies of such accounts might not be de- stroyed, they would cease to be multiplied and circulated. We accordingly find no trace of their existence subsequent to the notice of them by Luke. It may seem again as if nothing further were to be said. But, in order to exhaust the general subject we are considering, a few more remarks remain to be made concerning some supposed gospels, formerly mentioned, which * See Vol. I. pp. clxxxviii, clxxxix. 292 EVIDENCES OF THE Eichhorn maintains to have been in common use during the second century previously to the use of the catholic Gospels, or even to the ex- istence of the latter in their present state.* I have already had occasion to take notice of all the titles which he enumerates except two. These two, to which we will now at- tend, are " gospels used by Tatian in compos- ing his Diatessaron " and " The Gospel of Ce- rinthus." f Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, and the contemporary of Irenseus, became an as- cetic, and a Gnostic of the Valentinian school. Respecting his Diatessaron, Theodoret, as we have formerly remarked,! speaks of his hav- ing found two hundred copies of it among the Christians of his diocese, which he removed, and supplied their place by copies of the Gos- pels. He says, — " Tatian put together what is called ' The Gospel out of the Four ' " (that is, a gospel composed out of the four Gospels, a Diatessaron), " cutting away the genealogies, and all else which shows that the Lord was * See Vol. I. pp. 98 - 100. Comp. p. 9, seqq. f " Cerinth's Evangelium." Eichhorii's Einleit. in das N. T., I. 107. % See Vol. I. p. 53. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 293 born of the race of David according to the flesh. And this book is used, not only by those of his sect, but by those who adhere to the doctrines of the Apostles ; they not know- ing the fraud in its composition, but using it, in their simplicity, as a compendious book." * It is evident that Theodoret, with the book be- fore his eyes, regarded it as a history of Christ compiled from the four Gospels ; nor does he object any thing to it but the omissions which he specifies. Eusebius gives the same account of the composition of the book from the four Gospels ; remarking in connection, that the Encratites, of which sect, he says, Tatian was the founder, used the Gospels.f But, in oppo- sition to all testimony and probability, it was fancied by Eichhorn that Tatian did not use our present four Gospels, but four others very like them ; | — so like them, it appears, that they were mistaken for them. There is not a sufficient show of argument in support of this conjecture to admit of any particular confuta- tion. It may be worth while to discuss it, when the supposition can be rendered plau- * Haeret. Fab. Lib. L n. 20. 0pp. IV. 208. t Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. c. 29. X Einleit. in das N. T., I. 110-113. 294 EVIDENCES OF THE sible, that, in the time of Irenaeus, simulta- neously with our four Gospels, four other gos- pels existed very like them, but not the same.* The Diatessaron of Tatian, then, is one among the abundant proofs of the use which the theosophic Gnostics made of the four Gos- * " Tatian's Gospel," says Eichhorn, *' was called by many the Gospel of the Hebrews " ; and he asks, — " Whence could this name have arisen, except from the circumstance that that gospel served for its basis? " The only authority for his asser- tion is a passage of Epiphanius. Epiphanius, as his text now stands, says (Heeres. XL VI. § 1. 0pp. I. 391), — " From Tatian those who are called Encratites derive their origin, partaking of the same venom; and it is said that ' The Gospel out of the Four,' which some call ' The Gos- pel according to the Hebrews,' was made by him." But there can be no doubt that the Diatessaron of Tatian and the Gospel of the Hebrews were very different books ; and the supposition, that the Hebrew Gospel of the Jewish Christians was written in Greek by a Gnostic toward the close of the second century, is too gross an absurdity for any one to have entertained. Nor is there the least probability that the title of " The Gospel accord- ing to the Hebrews " was ever common to the book to which it properly belonged and to Tatian's Diatessaron. If the text of Epiphanius be correct, his assertion can only be reckoned as one among his numberless blunders. But it seems most probable that his text is corrupt ; and that, instead of Kara 'Efipaiovs, " ac- cording to the Hebrews," we should read Kara 'Ey Kparlras, " ac- cording to the Encratites." This will accord with his speaking of Tatian's Diatessaron in immediate connection with his men- tion of the Encratites as deriving their origin from him. They, of course, were likely to make particular use of his Diatessaron ; and this therefore might naturally be called by some " The Gos- pel according to the Encratites." GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 295 pels, and of the authority which they ascribed to them. We proceed to the supposed gospel of Ce- rinthus. Eichhorn quotes concerning this two passages from Epiphanius, who is his sole au- thority. That writer, in his account of the Cerinthi- ans, affirms that they " used the Gospel of Matthew, not complete, however, but in part only " ; * and, in his account of the Ebionites, he says that Cerinthus used the same Gospel of Matthew with the Ebionites, except that he retained the genealogy for the purpose of prov- ing from it that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary.f Regarding Epiphanius as a trustworthy writ- er, and as being alone a sufficient representa- tive of Christian antiquity, Eichhorn asserts that " it is undeniable that Christian antiquity ascribed to Cerinthus the use of Matthew's Gospel, but with a shorter text " ; % and he * Hares. XXVHI. § 5. p. 113, t Haeres. XXX. ^ 14. p. 138. X Einleit. in das N. T., I. 110. — It may be worth while here to take notice of what we might call an extraordinary oversight of Eichhorn, if such oversights did not often occur in the works of the modern theologians of Germany. Cerinthus is repre- sented, by all the ancient writers who pretend to give an account 296 EvroENCES of the infers that the Gospel of Cerinthus was an earlier gospel than that of Matthew, that is to say, the Gospel which we now call Matthew's in a jet imperfect state.* It is needless to inquire by what process this might be inferred from the words of Epi- phanius, supposing him to be a writer of good authority. As we have formerly seen,t he is entitled to no credit in his account of the Ce- rinthians. He has manufactured a sect, to which, ascribing the doctrines of the Ebionites, he has likewise ascribed the use of the Gos- pel of the Ebionites. But there is another passage of Epiphanius, of him, as teaching that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. But Eichhorn, after quoting his authority, Epiphanius, to this effect, proceeds, a few lines after (p. 108), to observe, that, as the gospel of Cerinthus had the genealogy of Jesus, so "it probably had also the whole evangelium infmiticE (gospel of the infancy) which is now contained in the first two chapters of Matthew." That is to say, Eichhorn supposes, that, though Cerinthus rejected the belief of the miraculous conception of our Lord, he received the account of it as authentic. It is by conjectures which have more or less of a like charac- ter, and by critics equally inconsiderate, that the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels have been assailed in modern times in Germany. Among those critics I know of none who is to be ranked higher than Eichhorn for theological knowledge, clearness of mind, and power of reasoning. * Einleit. in das N. T., I. 109, f Vol. II. pp. 76 - 78. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 297 which Eichhorn has omitted to notice. It is in his account of the Alogi. Luke, he says, in the first words of his Gospel, " Since many have undertaken," that is, to write gospels, " points to some undertakers, as Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others." * He had before told us that Cerinthus and his followers used the Gospel of Matthew, with some omissions. He here tells us that Cerinthus wrote a gospel be- fore Luke wrote his. Following him, there- fore, as a well-informed and credible writer, and putting his different accounts together, we must conclude that Cerinthus was the original com- poser of Matthew's Gospel. Reasoning after a fashion with which every one acquainted with modern German theology must be fa- miliar, we might go on to infer, as highly probable, that Merinthus was the author of the Gospel of Mark. But here we should be met by a difficulty, arising from what Epipha- nius elsewhere says, that he did not know whether Cerinthus and Merinthus were dif- ferent persons, or only different names of the same person. f But the existence of the very early gospel of Merinthus, which, I believe, * Hffires. LI. ^ 7. p. 428. t Haeres. XXVIH. ^ 8. p. 115. VOL. III. 38 298 EVIDENCES OF THE no one has yet undertaken to patronize, rests on as good ground as that of the gospel of Cerinthus. In pursuing the inquiry concerning the sup- posed existence of Gnostic gospels, we have enabled ourselves to form a correct judgment of the character and importance of all those books which have been called apocryphal gos- pels, and of their bearing on the genuineness and authenticity of those four books which in ancient times were universally recognized as the original histories of Christ's ministry, given by his immediate followers, or those who derived their knowledge from them. On the subject of apocryphal gospels there have been vague and incorrect notions, that have continued, in one form or other, down to our time, among those who have been disposed to invalidate the authority of the four Gospels. They cannot, perhaps, be more clearly or more briefly explained than in the words of the Jew Orobio, in his celebrated controversy with Limborch respecting the truth of Christianity. " There were," he says, " besides the four Gos- pels many others, some of which are referred I GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 299 to bj Jerome * and other fathers, which were the foundation of diiferent heresies. Such were the gospel to the Egyptians, that to the Hebrews, that of Thomas, that of Bartholo- mew,t that of the Twelve Apostles, t that of Basilides, that of Harpocras,^ and others that it would be superfluous to mention ; every one of which had its adherents, and gave occasion to dispute. All these gospels, conflicting with one another in regard to the truth of the his- tory, were in the course of time and by the authority of councils rejected ; the four only being admitted in Europe, as corresponding best with each other." || On the ground of * The imperfect and eironeous view of the subject taken by Orobio is sufficiently evident from this reference to Jerome. Books which could have come into competition with the four Gospels must have been very conspicuous books long before the time of Jerome. f This title is first mentioned by Jerome in his Proem to Matthew's Gospel. The existence of any book answering to it is doubtful. I This was another title for the Gospel of the Hebrews, See before, pp. 265, 266, note. § By Harpocras must, it would seem, be meant Carpocrates, and Orobio probably had in mind an indistinct recollection of the story of Epiphanius (Hseres. XXX. § 14. p. 138), that Carpo- crates used the Gospel of Matthew, corrupted, in common with the Ebionites. (See Vol. I. p. lii. note.) — Except this title, and that of " The Gospel of Bartholomew," the others enumerated by Orobio have been already remarked upon. II The passage is quoted by Fabricius, I. 146. 300 EVIDENCES OF THE such Statements it has been argued, in effect, that there were originally many various ac- counts of Christ's ministry, differing much from one another, so that the truth was altogether unsettled, and that our four Gospels, which had no particular claim to credit, obtained gen- eral currency, to the exclusion of other works of the same kind, in consequence only of their finding favor with the prevalent party among Christians, and hence being sanctioned by the decrees of councils. Respecting this supposi- tion, it is here unnecessary to recur to that evidence for the universal reception of the four Gospels by the great body of Christians which shows it to be altogether untenable. In the present Chapter, we have examined, or ad- verted to, every book, real or supposed, pass- ing under the name of a gospel, the title of which is mentioned by any writer before Epi- phanius. Among them are the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Marcion. The existence of neither of these books can weak- en the proof of the authority and general re- ception of the four Gospels. But it would be idle to suppose that any other of those which have been mentioned was brought into com- petition with the four Gospels as a different history of Christ's ministry ; and still more idle GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 301 to suppose this of any book, the very title of which is not mentioned till after the middle of the fourth century.* The main purpose of our inquiry respecting the Gnostics has been to determine whether they afford evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels. That they do afford such evidence has abundantly appeared. But something re- mains to be said. In the next Chapter we * A degree of confusion and - misapprehension respecting the subject of apocryphal gospels may have been produced by the fact, that Fabricius gives an account of such gospels under fifty titles, which, as the same book sometimes passed under two or more different titles, he supposes may represent about forty books (I. 335*, note). But in making this collection he has taken a very wide range. He has included writings which have no claim to the title of " gospel," either in the ancient or modem sense of the word ; and he has brought his catalogue down to the year 1600, mentioning a History of Christ in Persian, pub- lished that year by the missionary Jerome Xavier, for the benefit of his converts. Many of the titles collected by him rest on no good authority. Some evidently had their origin in ignorance and misapprehension. With the exception of those which have been remarked upon, they are to be found only in writers from Epiphanius downward. Their alphabetical arrangement, how- ever, tends, at first view, to give the impression, that one de- serves as much attention as another. But, of the works men- tioned by Fabricius, all that can with any reason be supposed to have been extant before the middle of the third century have been taken notice of in this Chapter. 302 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. shall conclude with bringing into one view the facts already adduced, in connection with others not yet adverted to, and attending to the rela- tions and bearings of the whole. CHAPTER XIII. CONCLUDING STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENU- INENESS OF THE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE GNOSTICS. The facts that have been brought forward show in what manner the Gospels were re- garded by the Gnostics. It has appeared that the theosophic Gnostics recognized the au- thority of the four Gospels in common with the catholic Christians, while the Gospel used by the Marcionites was essentially the same with the Gospel of Luke. But we will now review those facts in connection with some others which have not yet been stated, and consider more particularly what inferences may be drawn from the whole. In pursuing the subject, we will first confine our attention to the Marcionites. An unjustifiable application of a principle common to all the Gnostics * led the Mar- cionites to reject certain passages from the text of Luke, and to decline any appeal to the au- * See before, p. 206, seqq. 304 EVIDENCES OF THE thority of the three remaining Gospels. But the very principle on which they proceeded, that the Apostles and their followers were under the influence of Jewish prejudices, implies that they recognized the genuineness of the passa- ges, and of the Gospels, which they rejected. It may be further remarked, that their having recourse to the mutilation of Luke's Gospel shows that no other history of Christ's min- istry existed more favorable to their doctrines ; — that, in the first half of the second century, when Marcion lived, there was no Gnostic gos- pel in being, to which he could appeal. The fact, that Marcion's gospel was founded on that of Luke, proves the existence and au- thority of Luke's Gospel at the time when Marcion lived. We may, therefore, recur to the reasoning which has before been used, to show that the existence and authority of any one of the four Gospels at a particular period implies the contemporaneous existence and au- thority of the other three.* In proving their genuineness, if that reasoning be correct, they may be regarded as virtually one book. Had any other of the Gospels not existed together with that of Luke, at the commencement of * See Vol. I. pp. 183-190. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 305 the second century, or had it not then been re- garded as of authority, it never could afterward have attained to the high estimation in which Luke's Gospel was held. We will next attend to the broad distinction that was made between the Marcionites and the theosophic Gnostics in consequence of the fact, that the Marcionites admitted as of au- thority among the Gospels only their mutilated copy of Luke. On this ground Irenaeus, as we have seen,* declined controverting their opinions in connection with those of the other Gnostics ; and Tertullian, in confuting them, expressly limited himself to the use of their own gospel. The distinction was, that the Marcionites recognized only the authority of their own gospel ; while the other Gnostics, as is thus testified by their opponents, appealed equally with the catholic Christians to the au- thority of all the four Gospels. This is the concession of their opponents. But we will go on, and see what further evi- dence of the fact exists. I have repeatedly had occasion to refer to the letter of Ptolemy, the Valentinian, to Flora, * Vol. II. pp. 94, 95. 39 306 EVIDENCES OF THE in which he gives an account of his doctrines respecting the Supreme Being and the Crea- tor. In this letter he says, that he shall prove what he asserts " by the words of the Saviour, which only are an infallible guide to the ap- prehension of the truth " ; and he accordingly confirms his positions throughout by quotations from the Gospels. In the conclusion of the letter, he introduces the mention of those apos- tolic traditions to which the Gnostics appeal- ed, but speaks of them only as an additional and subordinate means of knowledge. He promises to give further explanations founded " on the doctrine of the Apostles received by tradition ; every thing at the same time be- ing confirmed by the teaching of the Saviour, which must be taken as the standard." Herac- leon, another Valentinian, who lived in the second century, and was highly esteemed, as we are told, by those of his own sect, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John, which is often quoted by Origen. The views of the Basilidians respecting the Gospels may be in- ferred from the fact, that Basilides himself wrote a commentary on the Gospels.* Tatian, who was a Gnostic, composed, as we have * See before^ pp. 237-239. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 307 seen, a Harmony of the Gospels.* And in the Doctrina Orientalis, the Gnostic writer appeals to the Gospels to countenance his opinions as freely as a catholic Christian might have done, and appeals to no other history of Christ. It is throughout to be kept in mind, that the theo- sophic Gnostics, while they thus used the Gos- pels, used no other books of the same class as of like authority ; that they did not, any more than the catholic Christians, bring any other history of Christ's ministry into competition with them. In treating of the doctrines of the theosophic Gnostics I have incidentally given examples of the use made by them of passages of the Gos- pels. Many more might be adduced. But a particular enumeration of passages to which they appealed is unnecessary, since their use of the Gospels is fully acknowledged by their cath- olic opponents. Irenseus begins his work by charging them with deceiving men by "corrupting the oracles of the Lord, being evil interpreters of what has been well spoken."! He often remarks on their ingenuity in perverting the Scriptures. Speak- ing particularly of the Valentinians, he says, — * See before, pp. 292-295. f Lib. L Prsefat. ^ 1. p. 2. 308 EVIDENCES OF THE " You see the method they use to deceive them- selves, wresting the Scriptures and endeavouring to find support in them for their fictions." * He gives connectedly many passages from the Gos- pels, which they applied to the proof of their doctrines, and afterwards confutes their interpre- tations.! He speaks of them as making use of every part of the Gospel of John. J I have already quoted a passage in which he says that those heretics, in putting together detached pas- sages of Scripture, resemble one who should separate the stones of a mosaic representing a king, and employ them to make the figure of a fox or a dog ; ^ and another in which he com- pares their abundant use of Scripture language to the labor of one stringing together verses of Homer to form a cento. || " There is such as- surance," he says, "concerning the Gospels, that the heretics themselves bear testimony to them, and every one of them endeavours to prove his doctrine from them As, then, those who oppose us bear testimony in our favor, and use these Gospels, it follows that what we have shown that the Gospels teach is estab- lished and true." 1[ * Lib. I. c. 9. ^ 1. p. 43. f Lib. L capp. 8, 9. pp. 35-47. X Lib. in. c. 11. ^ 7. p. 190. § Lib. I. c. 8. § 1. p. 36. II Lib. I. c. 9. ^ 4. pp. 4.'), 46. TertuUian uses the same cora- paiistKi, Dc Prescript. ITa'rctir. c. 39. p, 216. n Lib. III. c. 11. s^7. pp. lHi>, 190. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 309 " There could not be heresies," says Tertul- lian, " if the Scriptures were incapable of being misinterpreted." * " They could not venture to show themselves without some pretence from the Scriptures."! "The heretics plead their cause from the Scriptures, and draw their argu- ments from the Scriptures. Whence, indeed, could they draw their arguments concerning the subjects of faith, except from the books of the faith ? " t It appears, then, that the theosophic Gnostics abundantly appealed to the Scriptures, and par- ticularly to the Gospels, in support of their opinions. The passages I have quoted, and others of a similar character, are not to be con- sidered as mere common testimony to this fact. They are the admissions of their opponents. So far as there was any ground for it, the catholic Christians were eager to charge the Gnostics with mutilating, rejecting, and under- valuing the writings of the New Testament. In the case of the Marcionites, this accusation was strongly urged. But, as respects the theo- sophic Gnostics, we have the testimony of the earliest and most elaborate writers against them, * De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 40. p. 349. t Ibid. c. 63. p. 365. X De Praescript. Haeret. c. 14. p. 207. 310 EVIDENCES OF THE of Irenaeus and Tertullian, that they made use of the Gospels, and other writings of the New Testament, and constantly appealed to them for proof of their doctrines, as freely as the catho- lic Christians. The Marcionites made similar use of those portions of the New Testament the authority of which they admitted. This is abundantly apparent from Tertullian's whole controversy with them ; and might be inferred simply from the fact that they did acknowledge the authority of those portions which they retained. But the evidence which has been brought forward of the facts just stated, however con- clusive, is not, perhaps, the most striking that may be adduced. There is a remarkable work of Tertullian, entitled " De Praescriptione Hae- reticorum." The word prcesaiptio, used in this title, was a forensic term, denoting an exception taken by a defendant to the plaintiff's right to maintain an action. The title of Tertullian's work might be rendered " On the Plea in Bar against the Heretics." Its purpose is to show that the heretics should not be allowed to argue their cause from the Scriptures. The position which he maintains is, — That the history of the catholic doctrine and of the doctrines of the GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 311 heretics alone deteimines the former to be true and the latter false, without further inquiry. His argument proceeds as follows. Christ, whoever he was, of whatever God he was the son, whatever was the substance of his divine and of his human nature, whatever faith he taught, whatever rewards he promised, de- clared while on earth what he was, what he had been, the will of his Father, and the duty of man, either publicly to the people, or apart to his disciples. He sent forth his Apostles, who had been chosen by him for this purpose, to preach to the world the same doctrine which he had taught. They founded churches in every city where they went, from which other churches had been and were still derived. These all traced back their origin to the Apos- tles, and formed one great Apostolic church, held together in brotherhood by the reception of the same religion handed down to all. But if Christ gave authority to his Apostles to preach his religion, no other expositors of it are to be listened to. What they preached is what he revealed ; and in order to ascertain what they preached, we must recur to the churches which they founded, and instructed, orally and by their epistles. Whatever doctrine is held by those churches is true, as derived 312 EVIDENCES OF THE from the Apostles, and through them from Christ, and through Christ from God. Every other doctrine is false. But we, says Tertullian, hold communion with the Apostolic churches, there is no difference of belief between us and them ; and this is the proof of the truth of our doctrines.* The argument stated in its most concise form, it will be perceived, is this : That it was matter of history that the catholic churches had, from the days of the Apostles, held the same doc- trines as they did in the time of Tertullian ; and that these doctrines, therefore, were the original doctrines of the religion derived through the Apostles from Christ. It was equally a mat- ter of history, he continues, that the founders of the principal heretical sects, Valentinus and Mar- cion, for instance, had lived after the times of the Apostles, and had introduced new doctrines not before held by the churches. If their doc- trines were true, the churches had before been in error from the beginning. " Thousands of thousands had been baptized into a false relig- ion." " Let them show me," says Tertullian, " by what authority they have come forward. Let them prove themselves to be new Apostles ; let them affirm that Christ has again * Capp. 20, 21. pp. 208, 209. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 313 descended, has again taught, has again been crucified, has again died, and has risen again. It was thus that he formed his Apostles, giving them, moreover, the power of working the same miracles which he did. I wish them to produce their miracles." * The main scope of the reasoning of Tertul- lian is apparent. It is, he maintains, a well- known historical fact, that the catholic doctrine, as opposed to that of the Gnostics, has been held from the beginning by the churches which the Apostles founded, and by all other churches in communion with them. This fact precludes the necessity of any further argument with those heretics. They have no claim to be heard in appealing to the Scriptures in support of their opinions. Tertullian remarks at length upon the various objections which were made to his argument by different individuals, or by the same at different times. All of them, it may be observed, are founded on passages of the New Testament. With the exception of the last to be here men- tioned, they have already been spoken of. The Gnostics sometimes said that the Apostles did not know all things ; f sometimes, that the * Capp. 29, 30. pp. 212,213. t See before, pp. 206-208. VOL. HI. 40 314 EVIDENCES OF THE Apostles had a public and a private doctrine, and did not communicate all truths openly to all ; * and, finally, they contended that the catholic churches, from the earliest times, had fallen into error through not understanding what the Apos- tles taught. It is not necessary to dwell on the answers of Tertullian to these objections. His main argument, considering the early period when it was adduced, and its application as against the doctrines of the Gnostics, is, evidently, con- clusive. I have given this brief account of it for the purpose of introducing the reason which he assigns for urging it. This reason is, that in the controversy between the catholic Christians and the Gnostics, when the Gnostics were al- lowed to appeal to the Scriptures in proof of their doctrines, they argued so plausibly as to leave the victory uncertain ; to make converts of some, and to instil doubts into others. " We come then," he says, " to the subject proposed." " Our opponents put forward the Scriptures, and their boldness has an immediate effect upon some. In the first encounter, they fatigue the strong, they take captive the weak, and dismiss others with doubts. Here, then, I meet them at the onset ; they are not to be ad- mitted to argue from the Scriptures." f * See before, pp. 199-206. f Cap. 15. p. 207. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 313 " Will he for the sake of whose doubts you engage in an argument from the Scriptures be inclined in consequence more to the truth or to heresy? When he sees that you make no advance, that, the other party maintaining his ground, you both equally deny and defend, he will surely go away from this conflict more uncertain than before, and ignorant on which side the heresy lies." * " The appeal, therefore, is not to be made to the Scriptures, nor is the decision of the con- troversy to be rested on them ; for they will afford no victory, or an uncertain one, or one no better than uncertain. Even though the mu- tual appeal to Scripture should not leave each party on an equality,! yet the order of things demands that that consideration should be first brought forward which is the sole subject of the present argument, — To whom does the faith [the religion] itself belong? Whose are the Scriptures ? From whom, and through whom, and when, and to whom, was the instruction delivered, by which men are made Christians ? For, wherever it may appear that the true Christian instruction and faith are to be found. * Cap. 18. p. 208. f I adopt the reading, " ut utramque partem parem sisteret." 316 EVIDENCES OF THE there will be the true Scriptures, and their true exposition, and all true Christian traditions." * Thus it appears, that, whatever difficulties the theosophic Gnostics found in reconciling their doctrines with the New Testament, they recognized the necessity of doing so ; that they were ready to meet their opponents on this ground ; that they furnished plausible explana- tions of those difficulties, and drew from the New Testament plausible arguments in their own favor. But this is but a partial statement. The theosophic Gnostics appealed to the Gos- pels as freely and as confidently as did the cath- olic Christians ; contending, that they alone had the true key to their meaning, and that other Christians, not being spiritual, could not com- prehend their hidden and higher senses. They believed, indeed, that the Apostles and Evange- lists were not infallible ; that they were liable to human errors, and that they were affected by prejudices and false opinions, common to their countrymen, which had been implanted in their minds in childhood, had grown with their growth, and had not been wholly eradicated. But the theosophic Gnostics, who allegorized * Cap. 19. p. 208. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 317 and spiritualized the words of the Gospels, had not the same occasion to misapply this principle as the Marcionites, who were not allegorists. The Marcionites regarded the Gospels as color- ed throughout by the Jewish prejudices of their writers. But, by taking the work of him whom they considered as the most enlightened of the Evangelists, St. Luke, and rejecting from it some errors, they thought themselves able to obtain a history altogether correct ; and this was the basis of their system. Still, had any seemingly credible history of Christ's ministry existed, more favorable to the opinions of the Gnostics than the four Gospels, there can be no doubt that they would have used that history in preference. The manner, therefore, in which they appealed to the four Gospels, or to the history of Christ as contained in the Gospel of Luke, without bringing any Gnostic history into competition with them, is proof that no such history existed. All Chris- tians, the catholics, the theosophic Gnostics, the Marcionites, and, as we have before seen, the Hebrew Christians, were equally ignorant of any history of Christ's ministry different from that given by the Evangelists. No party relied on any other ; no party had any other to produce. 318 EVIDENCES OF THE But it has been suggested, or implied, that the early founders of the Gnostic sects drew their systems from their philosophy, and con- nected them only with some general belief that the coming of Christ was a manifestation of the Supreme God for the purpose of delivering men from moral evil and its consequences ; and that it was merely by way of reasoning ad hominem with the catholic Christians, that the Gnostics made use of the Gospels.* Let us try the prob- ability of this supposition by applying it to a particular case, that of the Valentinians. , We have seen that the Valentinians so fully, and in such various ways, professed their belief in the truth of the Gospels, that their opponents did not accuse them of denying it ; though this charge would unquestionably have been brought against them, had there been a foundation for it. But they made use of the Gospels, it may be said, not in good faith; they quoted them only " to satisfy those who demanded proofs from Scripture " ; f or undertook to explain them by way of answering the objections of those who regarded the Gospels as of authority. The statements already made show that these * See, for example, Walch's Historie der Ketzereien, I. 374. Matter, Histoire du Gnosticisme, II. 172, 190. f Walch, ubi supra. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 319 suppositions have no probability to recommend them ; but let us examine a little farther. Ac- cording to this hypothesis, the Valentinians did not believe the authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels ; they did not sincerely recognize their authority ; they did not believe them to fa- vor their own opinions ; and, consequently, they did not believe them to teach what they thought true Christianity. At the same time, it is evi- dent that these books were principally relied on by their opponents as a storehouse of argu- ments against them. We have, indeed, no rea- son to doubt that there was a foundation for the strong language which has been quoted from Tertullian, respecting their skilful and successful use of the Scriptures. We may believe that the Gnostics sometimes made converts from among the catholic Christians, and showed much talent, after the fashion of their times, in reconciling their doctrines with the New Testa- ment, and in persuading themselves and others that they were indicated in the parables or sup- ported by the declarations of Christ, as record- ed in the Gospels. But, after all, it is evident that the Gospels do not teach the Gnostic doc- trines, but do teach what is irreconcilable with those doctrines. It is equally certain that this fact was recognized by a great majority of early 320 EVIDENCES OF THE believers (for the catholic Christians far outnum- bered the Gnostics), and even by a very large and respectable portion of the Gnostics them- selves, the Marcionites, as appears from the ex- pedient to which they had recourse, of rejecting the use of three of the Gospels, and mutilating that which they retained. Would the Valentin- ians, then, have professed to regard those books as authentic, had there been good reasons for questioning their authenticity ? Is it credible that they would, with such a consistent show of conviction as to deceive and silence their oppo- nents, have professed their belief in the truth of the Gospels, had they not believed them true ? So far from it, they would at once have seized on the triumph, or at least the advan- tage, which was evidently in their power, could the genuineness and authority of the books relied on by their opponents have been fairly denied or fairly questioned. The course to be pursued would have been clear ; and neither an honest man, nor a controvertist of common ability, could have neglected to take it. The Valentinians, and the other theosophic Gnostics, would not have persisted in dishonestly affirm- ing or implying their belief of the authenticity of books which they did not believe to be au- thentic, and which furnished their opponents GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 321 with arguments against their doctrines, conclu- sive in themselves, and by most regarded as con- clusive. Let us view the subject under another aspect. The Gospels were either known to Valentinus himself, or they were not. If they were known to him, they were either regarded by him as genuine and authentic, or they were not. He lived at so early an age, in the first half of the second century, that no question could have existed in his time, whether they were entitled to that character. The fact must have been known, either that they were, or that they were not, entitled to it. If he regarded them as genuine and authentic, there can be no doubt that they were so regarded by his followers, and by the great body of contemporary Christians ; and our inquiry is at an end. Let us suppose, then, either that they were not known to him, that they were not in existence, — or that, being known to him, they were rejected by him as un- worthy of credit. In either case, he built his system on other foundations, and supported it by other arguments, than what those books might afford. In either case, it is evident that his fol- lowers would never have admitted or implied the truth of the Gospels. They would never have consented to receive, as genuine and authentic, VOL. HI. 41 322 EVIDENCES OF THE books not known to their master, or which he had rejected, — books which they themselves must have believed to be the fabrications of op- ponents who had excluded him and them from their community, and which furnished those op- ponents with the strongest arguments against what they regarded as true Christianity. They would not have exposed themselves to such ex- postulations as those of Tertullian : — "If they are heretics, they are not Christians, not deriv- ing their doctrine from Christ Not being Christians, they have no property in the books of Christians. It may justly be said to them. Who are you? When and whence did you come ? What are you, who do not belong to me, doing on my premises ? By what right, Marcion, do you cut down my woods ? By what license, Valentinus, do you divert the water of my springs ? By w^hat authority, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks ? How is it, that you others are sowing and pasturing here at your pleasure ? It is my possession ; I have pos- sessed it of old ; I trace back my title to its original source ; I am heir of the Apostles." * To such language it would have required neither an acute nor an angry controvertist to give the * De Praescript. Haeretic. c. 37. p. 215. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 323 answer, that this disputed possession was not worth claiming, could such an answer have been given with truth. In examining (in the Second Part of this work) the direct historical evidence of the genuineness of the Gospels, we have seen that it does not mainly consist, as in the case of other books, of assertions and implications of individual writers concerning their authorship. It rests on the fact, that they were universally received, as the works of those to whom they are ascribed, by the great body of catholic Christians, at so early a period that no mistake on the subject could have been committed ; and on another consideration of equal weight, that this general reception of the Gospels as genuine, wherever Christianity had been preached, is a phenomenon which can be accounted for only on the supposition of their genuineness. But, in turning from the catholic Christians to the Gnostics, it might not be unreasonable to apprehend, considering the opposition in which the two parties stood to each other, that something would appear to cloud the testimony of the former, and, perhaps, to shake our con- fidence in it as conclusive. Certainly, had there been, during the first ages of Christianity, any 324 EVIDENCES OF THE doubt concerning the genuineness of the Gos- pels, we should have learned it from the Gnos- tics. But, so far from any doubt being sug- gested by the examination which we have gone through, we find the Gnostics strongly confirm- ing the testimony of their catholic opponents. Valentinus and Basilides carry us back to the earlier part of the second century ; * and they, in common with the catholic Christians, re- ceived the Gospels as the authentic histories of the ministry of Christ. About the same pe- riod, Marcion affords his evidence to the general reception of one of the Gospels, and, conse- quently, as we have seen, proof of the reception of the other three. f On the Gospels, or, to in- clude the case of the Marcionites and the He- brew Christians, on a history of Christ, such as is found in one of the Gospels, every form of Christian faith rested as its foundation. No history presenting a different view of his minis- try was in existence. Here, then, we conclude our statement of the historical evidence, both direct and subsidia- ry, of the Genuineness of the Gospels. The catholic Christians bear testimony to their hav- * See Vol. II. pp. 84-87. f See before, pp. 304, 305. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 325 ing been written by the particular individuals to whom they are ascribed. The Gnostics confirm this testimony by the proofs which they afford of their general reception and authority. We have pursued this investigation carefully and at length, as if there was some intrinsic improbability in the proposition, that the Gos- pels were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, — some presumption against it, such as to require a patient removal of difficul- ties, and an accumulation of strong evidence, to establish its truth. But, on the contrary, it is apparent that the Gospels were written by early believers in our Lord ; there is not a show of evidence that they were written by any other believers than those to whom they have been ascribed ; and nothing is more probable than that some of his immediate disciples, or of their intimate companions, should have left us such narratives of his life. The founder of our religion, whether one believe or not that he was authorized by God to speak in his name, was unquestionably the most wonderful individual who ever appeared on earth. A Jew, a Galileean, in humble life, poor, without literary culture, without worldly power or influence ; teaching but for a short 326 EVIDENCES OF THE time (probably not more than two years) ; wan- dering about the shores of the lake of Galilee and of the Jordan ; scarcely entering Jerusalem but to be driven away by persecution, till at last he went thither to perish under it ; collect- ing during his lifetime only a small body of illit- erate, and often wavering, followers ; addressing men whose incapacity, prejudices, or hatred con- tinually led them to mistake or to pervert his meaning; surrounded, and apparently overpow- ered, by his unbelieving countrymen, who re- garded him as a blasphemer and caused him to suffer the death of the most un pitied of male- factors, — this person has wrought an effect, to which there is nothing parallel, on the opinions and on the condition of the most enlightened portion of our race. The moral civilization of the world, the noblest conceptions which men have entertained of religion, of their nature and of their duties, are to be traced back directly to him. They come to us, not from the groves of the Academy, not from the walks by the Ilissus which Aristotle frequented, nor from the Paint- ed Portico of Athens where Zeno taught ; but from the mountain on which Jesus delivered his first recorded discourse ; from the synagogue and the streets of the small town of Caperna- um, of which not a ruin remains to fix its site ; GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 327 from fishing-boats on the lake of Galilee ; from the less inhabited tracts — the deserts, as they have been called — of Palestine ; from the courts of the Jewish temple, where he who spoke was confronting men plotting his destruc- tion ; from the cross of one expiring in agony amid the savage triumph of his enemies. After witnessing such a death, his disciples lost all their doubts. They affirmed their master to be the Saviour of the World, the Son of God. They devoted themselves to labor and suffer, and, if need were, to die, in making him known to men. What they strove to impress upon the minds of others was what, as they asserted, he had done and taught. They "knew nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified." It was the history, real or pretended, of his ministry on earth, which was the basis of all their teaching, — the essential instruction to be first communicated to all who were summoned to put their trust in him, — to take up their cross, and follow him in the new path which he had opened from earth to heaven. Now there can be no supposition more irrational, than that the history of Christ, which was thus promulgated by all his first disciples, and receiv- ed by all their first converts, was lost before the beginning of the second century, and another history substituted in its place. But if the Gos- 328 EVIDENCES OF THE pels contain the history of Christ as it was promulgated by his Apostles, there can be no ground for doubting that they were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, by Apostles and companions of Apostles. To all the weight of evidence that the Gos- pels were written by the authors to whom they have been ascribed, what other account of their origin has been or may be opposed ? The gen- uineness of the Gospel of John has been direct- ly impugned by some modern German theolo- gians. Their hypotheses are, necessarily, only developments of one essential proposition, that this Gospel is a spurious work, fraudulently as- cribed to the Apostle by its original writer, or by some other individual or individuals. There can be no direct evidence of the truth of this supposition; and with it another must be con- nected, namely, that this imagined fraud was so successful as to impose on all Christians, catholic and heretical, from the beginning of the second century. But, if this be a moral impossibility, then there is a moral certainty that the Gospel ascribed to John was the work of that Apostle. Yet this brief statement, decisive as it may be, gives but a very imperfect view of those facts and considerations, heretofore presented, which GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 329 show that any other supposition is altogether in- credible. In respect to the other three Gospels, the attacks on their genuineness and authenticity by many of the modern German theologians have been more elaborate. But, if their genuineness be denied, there are only two fundamental sup- positions, one or the other of which must be made. One is of the same nature with that which has been advanced concerning St. John's Gospel. It may be asserted that each of them is a spurious work of some one unknown author. But this supposition has been generally felt to be too indefensible. Recourse has therefore been had to different hypotheses, which may all be resolved into one fundamental supposition, — that the first three Gospels are, respectively, ag- gregates of stories by different hands, brought together by different compilers. In the First Part of this work, we have examined this sup- position under as plausible a form as any in which it has appeared; and, if the view there taken of the subject be correct, there is some- thing like mathematical demonstration of its falsity. But so far as those hypotheses are con- nected, as they have been, with the supposi- tion that the narratives contained in the first three Gospels are distorted and discolored by VOL. III. 42 330 EVIDENCES OF THE tradition, there is a moral demonstration of their falsity. The character of Jesus Christ as ex- hibited in any one of the first three Gospels, or in all of them taken together, is equally consis- tent and wonderful. It is, at the same time, a character to which nothing in human history, before or after, presents a parallel or a resem- blance. He appears as one acting under the miraculous conviction that he was the instru- ment of God, to assure men, on His authority, of their relations to Him and to eternity ; and this conception of his character is fully sustain- ed. In the midst of men who appear, as we should expect the Jews of that age to appear, ignorant, narrow-minded, dull in their percep- tions, indocile, many of them hating him with all the hatred of bigotry; throughout trials of every sort ; under external circumstances so hu- miliating that we shrink from the thought of them, he shows always the same unalterable elevation of character, requiring no human sup- port. We feel 'that he was not to be degraded by any insult; and that no praise could have been addressed to him, had it come from the highest of men, which would not have been a strange impertinence. If our natural feelings have been unperverted, we follow him, if not with the conviction, — that conviction has been GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 331 resisted, — but certainly with a sentiment, con- tinually prompting us to say, " Truly, this was the Son of God." But it is folly to suppose that such a portraiture of character could have been the result of an aggregation of fabulous traditionary stories which had been moulded by different minds, Jewish or Gentile. The com- parison is unworthy of the subject, but it would not be more absurd to imagine that the finest works of ancient plastic art, — the display of perfect physical beauty in the Apollo Belvidere, — had been produced by putting together the labors of different artists at different times, all working without a model, this making one part or member, and that another. We may enter on the inquiry respecting the genuineness of the Gospels merely as scholars and critics, without any previous opinion re- specting their contents. To a thinking man, whatever may be his opinion, it must appear an object of great curiosity to determine the au- thorship of books so extraordinary, and which have had such vast influence. In treating the historical evidence for their genuineness, we deal with historical facts, and our reasoning is of a kind with which we are familiar, and which is fully within the cognizance of our 332 EVIDENCES OF THE judgment. But if, from the preceding exam- ination of this evidence, it appears that the Gospels are the works of those to whom they have been ascribed, then the argument we have pursued, and which we ought to pursue, merely as scholars and critics, or, I may better say, as intelligent men, capable of understanding the force of reasoning, leads to results of the deep- est moment. Upon arriving at the end of our journey, on quitting the detail of history and criticism, through which it has lain, considera- tions of another class present themselves to view ; we see rising before us objects the most solemn and sublime ; we have been brought to the contemplation of all that is of permanent and essential interest to man. Let us examine the reasoning thoroughly as logicians ; but if it will bear this examination, then the conclusion to which it leads is to be regarded with very different feelings from what may have been called forth during its process. If the Gospels were written, by the authors to whom they are ascribed, two of them by individuals who were intimate companions of Jesus, eyewitnesses of his ministry, who knew the facts, whatever they were, of his public life, and the other two, by those who received their accounts imme- diately from such eyewitnesses ; then the nar- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 333 rative of his ministry contained in the Gospels is true. The Apostles could not have been deceived respecting the facts which they pro- fess to relate. If Jesus Christ did not, by a series of miracles performed before crowds of spectators, by his doctrines, and by an exhi- bition of character altogether conformed to his claims, give full evidence of his being author- ized to speak in the name of God, then the Gospels are not a collection of legends, the growth of tradition in an ignorant and marvel- loving age, — that supposition is excluded by the proof of their genuineness, — they are throughout a tissue of monstrous and inexplica- ble falsehoods. If the Gospels be genuine, there are but two conclusions which are possi- ble. The narrative of the public life of Jesus contained in them is either essentially true, or it is essentially false ; and if false, it is so thorough- ly false, that we know nothing concerning his character and actions. His immediate followers have buried his history under a mass of prodi- gious fictions ; and these fictions they propagated, in the face of his enemies and their own, among those whom they affirmed to have witnessed the pretended events which they related. The true history of Jesus Christ, of him who really has wrought such vast changes in the condition of 334 EVIDENCES OF THE men, is unknown ; and instead of it, we have a fiction of inexpressible grandeur, the conception of some Jews of Galilee, fishermen, tax-gather- ers, and others, who were shamelessly and reck- lessly destitute of veracity. — But we have brought the argument to an absurdity so repul- sive, that it would be equally offensive and un- profitable to dwell on it longer. It follows, then, that the history of Jesus con- tained in the Gospels is true. The essential facts of religion have been expressly made known to men on the authority of God. They are facts, glorious, solemn, overwhelming, but as real as the ordinary objects of every-day life ; certain, as nothing future in life can be. In our day, the belief of these facts is openly reject- ed ; the evidence of them is continually assailed, directly and indirectly ; baseless and thoroughly irreligious speculations are confidently put forth and widely received as substitutes for Christian faith, of which, as in mockery, they assume the name ; and there are many who acquiesce in a general notion that religion may be true, and who regard this notion as a source of consola- tion and hope, without any such settled convic- tion of its truth as may essentially affect their characters. But if there be a God in whose in- finite goodness we and all things are embosom- GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 335 ed ; if there be a future life which spreads before us, and all whom we love, exhaustless scenes of attainable happiness ; if that Infinite Being, who so eludes the grasp of human thought, have really brought himself into direct communication with mankind ; if the character of Jesus Christ be not an inexplicable riddle, but a wonderful reality, these are truths of which a wise man may well desire fully to assure himself. And perhaps there is no way in which he may attain a stronger feeling of certainty, than when he approaches them, as we have done, through rea- soning conversant about ordinary subjects of thought, requiring no exercise of judgment be- yond the common capacity of every intelligent man, not taking us into the dim light of meta- physical inquiry, involving the use of no uncer- tain language, and calling forth no doubts from that region which lies on every side beyond the bounds of our knowledge and our powers. The way which we have travelled is such, that it may by contrast heighten the effect of the prospect on which it opens. It is somewhat as if, by an easy ascent, we found ourselves standing on a vast height with the unbounded ocean spreading out before us. But, however convinced we may be of the 336 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. genuineness of the Gospels, one distinct and very important branch of the evidence of that fact has not yet been treated. It is the evidence founded on the intrinsic character of the Gos- pels themselves, evidence in which the proofs of their genuineness and their truth are essentially blended together. The main proposition to be established by it is, that the Gospels are of such a character, that they could have been written only by individuals of such a character, and so circumstanced, as those to whom they are ascribed. ADDITIONAL NOTES 43 ADDITIONAL NOTES. NOTE A. (See pp. 51, 92, 116, and 134.) ON THE DISTINCTION MADE BY THE ANCIENTS BETWEEN THINGS INTELLIGIBLE AND THINGS SENSIBLE; ON THE USE OF THE TERMS SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL AS APPLIED TO THEIR SPECULATIONS; AND ON THE NATURE OF MATTER. The division of substances into material and spiritual, which is so familiar to us, was not equally familiar to the ancients. Instead of this, Plato and his followers adopted another. They divided all beings into sensible,, or those perceptible by the senses, and intelligible^ or those which are the objects of the intellect alone. To the latter class Plato assigned all general ideas, those derived from sensi- ble objects, as well as others ; not regarding these ideas, however, as mere conceptions either of the human or of the divine mind, but as proper separate existences, endued with life and divinity. They constituted his archetypal world, the intelligible world, after the model of which was formed the sensible world, the material universe. For example, goodness, beauty, unity, number, equality, roundness, white- ness, are, according to him, all of them, beings existing iv ADDITIONAL NOTES. apart in the perfect world of archetypal Ideas. But these Ideas are not merely the patterns of sensible things ; they likewise form their essences. They communicate them- selves to matter, and thus cause sensible things to be good, beautiful, one or many, equal, round, and white. But mat- ter but imperfectly receives, and renders back, the impres- sion of these archetypes, these ideal forms, which can be discerned only by the eye of the mind. They, when compared with the material things which bear their likeness, are the only real existences. Of these archetypes the objects of the senses are but shadowy and fleeting resem- blances, coming into existence and perishing, but having no proper being. Or to express what has been said in the words of Cicero, " Nihil Plato putat esse, quod oriatur et intereat, idque solum esse, quod semper tale sit, qualem ideam appellat ille, nos speciem.'''' * This is an oudine of the doctrine of Plato. But it may be well to enter into a little further explanation of it. Plato in his Tim8eus,f after maintaining that the created world is a living being, | goes on to infer, that the pattern after which it was formed, the intelligible world of Ideas, is a perfect living being, " comprehending in itself all intel- ligible living beings, in the same manner as this world con- tains us and all other visible animals." Afterwards, he speaks of this world, with express reference to its pattern, as being " an image of the eternal gods,"§ that is, of the eternal Ideas after which it was formed ; and, in the conclu- sion of the Dialogue, he calls the world " a visible living * Tusculan. Disputat. Lib. I. § 24. t P. 30. t Zwov, animal, living being. The word has been commonly trans- lated " animal " ; but it would seem that our modern associations with the latter term should be avoided. § F. 37. PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. v being comprehending the visible animals, a sensible god, the image of the intelligible." Cudworth, who wished to believe that Plato's intelligible world was merely an ideal image of the future creation, preexisting in the mind of the Deity, says, that, " Plato himself speaking obscurely of this intelligible world, and the Ideas of it, no wonder if many of his pagan followers have absurdly made so many distinct animals and gods of them." * But it seems unreasonable in the present case to bring the charge of obscurity against Plato. It is difficult to perceive how he could have expressed himself more explicitly, or how language plainer than what he has used can have been used by his followers. Cudworth afterwards says, — " It was a monstrous extrav- agancy of some of the later Platonists to suppose the Ideas, all of them, to be so many distinct substances and animals" ; and, after remarking that this doctrine has been imputed to Plato himself by Tertullian and others, he adds, — "Neither can it be denied but that there are some odd expressions in Plato, sounding that way, who therefore may not be justi- fied in this, nor I think in some other conceits of his, con- cerning these Ideas : as when he contends that they are not only the objects of science, but also the proper and physical causes of all things here below ; as, for example, that the Ideas of similitude and dissimilitude are the causes of the likeness and unlikeness of all things to one another by their participation of them. Nevertheless, it cannot be at all doubted, but that Plato himself, and most of his fol- lowers, very well understood that these Ideas were, all of them, really nothing else but the noemata, or conceptions, of that one perfect Intellect which was their second hy- postasis [the second person of their Trinity] ; and there- * Intellectual System, Ch. IV. § 32. p. 499. Original folio Ed. vi ADDITIONAL NOTES. fore they could not look upon them, in good earnest, as so many distinct substances existing severally and apart by themselves out of any mind, however they were guilty of some extravagant expressions concerning them." * Such is the view of the subject taken by Cudworth ; but he adduces no evidence in support of his assertion, that it cannot be doubted that Plato and most of his followers did not mean what they appear to mean, t * Ibid. § 36. pp. 562, 563. t Mosheitn, in his Latin translation of Cudworth ( I. 85G, 857), has a note on the passage just quoted, in which he argues for the opinion asserted by Cudworth, and held by some other modern writers, that the Ideas of Plato were only ideas in the common sense of the word, existing (primarily) in the Divine Mind. But it is difficult to deter- mine what was Mosheim's prevailing belief on the subject. He does not claim to be confident, and he certainly was not consistent, in hold- ing the opinion which in this note he undertakes to defend; and the character of the note itself is such as to excite some suspicion that his true purpose in it was to express indirectly his strong sense of the absurdity of what he recognized to be the real doctrine of Plato. He says that Cudworth " learnedly proves " his assertion; whereas Cudworth hardly makes a show of bringing any proof of it. He himself produces no passage from Plato in support of the position which he professes to maintain. He offers nothing but a general and very unsatisfactory explanation of the representations of Plato which are irreconcilable with it ; and he takes notice, without attempting to controvert it, of the all but decisive authority of Aristotle, who as- cribes to Plato the doctrine of Ideas subsisting by themselves. His sole argument, on which he is evidently not unwilling to employ much strength of language, is simply this, — That what has been rep- resented to be the Platonic doctrine of ideas is a doctrine too irrational to be ascribed to any intelligent man. "If I find," he says, "an opinion ascribed to a man not deficient in capacity or learning, which is clearly absurd and foolish, and which is not necessarily connected with his other doctrines, I shall not readily be persuaded that no injustice is done him, although some passages may be produced from hi[n which seem clearly to prove the charge But the PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. vii Plato represents his archetypal Ideas as having been opinion which Plato is said to have held is so absurd and ridiculous, that, were it explained in proper and plain words, every one not wholly destitute of understanding would perceive its inanity and folly." But the doctrine which Mosheim here represents as so irrational he expressly ascribes to Plato in another note, following at no great dis- tance. " If I am not wholly deceived," he says (p. 869), " the eter- nal gods of Plato are no other than the eternal patterns and species of all things, conformably to which Plato conceived this world to have been formed by the Supreme Divinity." "Plato so speaks of these eternal gods, that it is apparent that he meant natures apart and sep- arate from the highest God, to whom he ascribes the formation of the world.'' Farther on (p. 900), Mosheim recurs to the opinion first professed by him ; that is, he says, that, " as he has before professed, he is inclined to the opinion, that the eternal patterns of things are not to be separated from God himself, except by an act of thought." But, in the very note from which this is quoted, he also says that " nothing can be plainer " than that Plato, in his TimtEus, '' distinctly separates his eternal species or Ideas from the iVIaker of the World"; he de- nies that Plato in that work taught the doctrine held by the later Platonists, of three hypostases in the Divinity ; he maintains that Plato "knew of no other principal God except the Maker of the World," and affirms that "every one acquainted with the Platonic philosophy will agree thjit Plato did not place his eternal patterns and species of things in the principal person" of that Trinity which he has been imagined to have taught. Whether Mosheim's strong sense of the absurdit}' of Plato's doc- trine of Ideas did, in fact, lead him to vacillate in his opinion of what Plato intended, or whether he did not care to express his real senti- ments concerning that doctrine without throwing a veil over them, are questions not easy to decide. Nor is one assisted in forming a de- cision by two other notes (pp. 640-846), in which he professedly attempts to exculpate even the later Platonists from meaning what they said concerning hypostatized,or animate and deified, Ideas. " It seems to me," he observes, " that their language is to be understood in a less objectionable sense than what the words at first sight seem to require ; for these, if taken in their ordinary signification, would manifest the greatest folly." It may be made a question, however. viii ADDITIONAL NOTES. contemplated by God in the work of creation. In like whether it is less to the credit of a writer to be a mystic and to write mystically, or to have intelligible ideas, but to be unable or unwilling to put them forth without giving them the air of absurdities. Mosheini was of a higher order of intellect than the modern expos- itors of Plato among his countrymen, with whom I am acquainted. The German mind, as it has been lately exhibited, has, for the most part, shown itself unqualified for the explanation of ancient philoso- phy. For this, the power of distinguishing between sense and non- sense is an essential requisite. But in the later expositions of the Platonic philosophy, to which I refer, ancient and modern mysticism have run together, and formed strange combinations, in which, how- ever, the modern element preponderates. Tennemann, in his differ- ent works, has converted the Athenian philosopher into a German metaphysician. In his hands, Plato's Ideas become Ideas of Pure Rea- son (in the dialect of Kant), " not having their origin in experience, but in the nature of the soul " : " the Divine idea being the object of the human, the first intelligible object of the reason." (Geschichte der Philosophie, II. 252, 371.) But however uninstructive may be Tennemann's accounts of Plato's philosophy, we shall perceive that we have made a descent in the region of intellect, when we pass from them to that of the later historian of philosophy, Ritter. His exposi- tion of it has the characteristics which belong to the writings of many of his countrymen at the present day. The conceptions are so ob- scure and unformed, there is such want of skill in the use of lan- guage, the modes of expression are so imperfect, and the terms so undefined in their signification, that the show of meaning presented continually eludes us, and we proceed like travellers following a mi- rage in a desert. One may judge of his incapacity for thinking clearly by the degree in which he fancies himself to understand such writers. One of the latest German expositors of Plato, Stallbaum, in the Prolegomena to his edition of the Parmenides (p. 4), after saying that he shall " aim at the greatest perspicuity of thought and expression, and not endeavour to gain the praise of talent or learning by subtile commentaries remote from the truth," proceeds thus to give a char- acter of his fellow-laborers: — " Grassari sane hoc malum," — the evil of o-iving subtile commentaries remote from the truth — " nostra tetate ccDpit incredibiliter ; id quod ipsi facile animadvertimus in legendis iis scriptis, qucD nuper de Parmenide Platonico edila sunt. In quibus, PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. ix manner, he represents them as having been contemplated by the souls of men in their preexistent state.* As being the generic forms of things, he regarded them as the only objects of true knowledge. The acquisition of such knowl- edge consists, according to him, in awakening the remi- niscences of them lying dormant in the mind. His doc- trine, often repeated, was, that " Our learning is nothing but recollection." t This doctrine, that the true knowledge possessed by the mind is not here acquired, but only recol- lected, was his main argument for the preexistence of the soul, with which his doctrine of its immortality was inti- mately connected. \ The following is a passage from the Phasdo: — " What, then, asked Socrates, do you say concern- ing that doctrine which we advanced, that learning is recol- lection ; and that, this being so, our soul must necessarily have existed somewhere else before it was confined in the body } I was thoroughly convinced of it, said Cebes, and am not more assured of any thing. And I, said Simmias, am of the same opinion." § Conformably to the passages which I have quoted from the Timeeus, Plato uniformly describes his Ideas, or the ge- neric forms of things, as subsisting by themselves. Thus he teaches, that there " is a certain Fire [the generic Idea of Fire] subsisting by itself, || and so with regard to all other things of which we constantly speak as subsisting by them- selves."^ "There is one form of being," he says, "al- ways the same, unproduced and indestructible, neither profecto, ssepenumero ambigas, magisne mireris fingendi comminis- cendique impudentiam, an Latini et Germanici sermonis spurciticm, quae apud quosdam tanta est, ut ne unam quidem sententiam reperias, quaj non turpissimis inquinata sit balbutientis barbariae vitiis." * Phaedrus, p. 247, seqq. t Phaedo, p. 72. X Phaedo, pp, 72-77. Meno, p. 61, seqq. § Phaedo, pp. 91, 92. II *EoTt Tt TTvp avTo 60' eavTov. If Avra Ka6^ avra. VOL. III. 44 X ADDITIONAL NOTES. receiving any thing foreign into itself, nor passing to any thing without itself, not perceptible by the sight nor by any of the senses, which it belongs to the intellect to contem- plate"; — and with this he proceeds immediately to con- trast those forms of being, its similitudes, which exist in the sensible world. * As I have before said, he uniformly regards these Ideas, when compared with sensible things, as the only real existences. Thus he says, — " The Equal, the Beautiful, every thing which has a real existence,! ad- mits of no change whatever. Every one of these things possessing real existence, having a single form, subsisting by itself, continues always the same."| Besides Cudworth, other modern expositors of Plato have contended that his Ideas are ideas in the modern sense of the term, existing in the mind of God and in the human mind. But such language as has been quoted from him seems wholly irreconcilable with this supposition. Ideas which he represents as constituting the ideal world, the counterpart of the sensible, as living and divine beings, as subsisting by themselves, as real existences, he could not have conceived of as ideas either of the Divine or of the human mind in the now common sense of the word " idea." It is imputing something more than obscurity and mysticism to a writer to suppose that he commonly states a character- istic doctrine of his philosophy in words that are inconsis- tent with his real meaning. It may, indeed, be doubted, whether any passage can be produced from the writings of Plato, in which he uses the word 'l8ea, Idea, properly Image, or its equivalent, EtSo?, * Timaeus, pp. 51,52. t Aiiro iKacTTov, o icrri. to ov. Plato just before speaks of avrfi 17 ovcri'a rjs \6yov 8i8ofi(v tov ehai, — " that form of being which we define as what exists." t Pha^do, p. 78. PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xi Form, to denote what is expressed by our word " idea," namely, a subject of thought considered merely as existing in the mind. Those words he uses to denote an external object of thought ; and though the transition is easy from the latter meaning to the former, yet it was not, to say the least, familiar to Plato. We use the term " idea " to denote a subject of thought of whatever kind, general or particular. The primary sense ascribed to it by Plato in relation to his theory of Ideas was altogether different. By his Ideas or Images, he means the types of the respective classes of be- ings and qualities.* The only question is, whether he con- sidered these as simply ideal types (in our sense of the word " ideal"), existing primarily in the mind of God, and to be discerned by the human intellect ; or whether he con- sidered them as proper beings, subsisting by themselves, as he has so often described them. Plato treats of his doctrine of Ideas in the latter part of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh book of his Re- public. He introduces an allegory, in which he represents men as so confined in a cavern as to be able to see only a succession of shadows passing over the side of it opposite to them. These shadows he supposes to be produced by a train of real objects moving along the top of a wall behind those who are thus confined. The shadows, according to him, correspond to the fleeting semblances of eternal Ideas, which alone can be discerned in the sensible world. The real objects are the eternal Ideas themselves. The light which casts those shadows is the Sun.t The Sun is " the offspring of The Good," that is, of the universal Idea of * In the old logical nomenclature the term "being" is applied to qualities as well as to substances ; but it is more convenient, and more conformable to the popular use of language, to confine its application to the latter. t De Republic^, Lib. VII. p. 514, seqq. xii ADDITIONAL NOTES. Good. * " It resembles the being which produced it. In the intelligible region The Good bears the sanae relation to intellect and the objects of intellect, which the Sun bears to sight and the objects of sight in the visible world." In one of those passages which undoubtedly prepared the way for Gnosticism, Plato goes on to teach, that over the two classes of beings, the intelligible and the visible, there are two rulers, the Idea of Good over the intelligible, and the Sun over the visible.! The Idea of Good he thus identifies with the Deity. He says : — " Among things knowable, the Idea of Good is the last, and hardly to be discerned ; | but, when discerned, it evidently appears to be the cause of all things right and beautiful in the universe ; in the visible world producing light and the lord of light [the Sun], and being itself the ruler in the intelligible world, the source of truth and intellect." § There is another passage of Plato which throws a strong liaht on his doctrine of Ideas, It is in the tenth book of his Republic. |1 He is treating of the imitative arts, which it is here his purpose to degrade by representing them as giv- ing only copies of copies of what really exists. He illus- trates his meaning by the homely example of the picture of a bed, or a couch for reclining on at table. ^ " There are three beds," he says ; " one existing in nature, which, I think, we may assert to be the work of God ; one produced by the human workman ; and one that of the painter." God, he teaches, has formed but one bed alone, that which * In this discussion Plato uses indiscriminately TayaOov, " The Good," and rj iSe'a tov 'Ayadov, " the Idea of Good," as synony- mous. t De Republica, Lib. VI. pp. 508,509. t See before, p. 24. § De Republica, Lib. VII. p. 517. II Pp. 596, 597. Tf KXivt). PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xiii really exists,* the archetypal Idea of a bed. The human workman does not make the Idea, which is the real bed, but something like that which really exists,t and of his work the painter only gives a copy. J * 'O Qfos, ^ov\6fj.€vos fivai ovtws KXiinjy TroirjTrjs ovrios ovcttjs. f 'O kXivottoios 0X1 to eidos noiel o 8r] (^a^iiv elvai o eari kXivt), aXXa Kkivqv Tiva Ovk av ro ov Trotot, aXXd ti toiovtov olov TO ov, Of Se oi'. i We must understand Plato as meaning by his Ideas either Images subsisting by themselves, a representation to which his own language, and that of his opponents and of his followers, fully correspond ; or we must understand him as meaning by them nothing more than ab- stract, general ideas, in the now common sense of that term. But putting out of view what I conceive to be the impossibility of recon- ciling the latter supposition with the language of Plato, the question remains to be answered, What was it which constituted his doctrine of Ideas a distinguishing characteristic of his philosophy, if he meant by his Ideas nothing more than general ideas in the common sense of those words ? That doctrine was called by the Platonist Atticus (in the second century) " the chief and fundamental doctrine of his pe- culiar philosophy " ; — To Se Ke(j)aKaiov Koi to Kvpos ttjs HXaTavos alpeaecos, rj rrepi tSjv vorjTav fiiara^ty. ( Apud Eusebii Prteparat. Evang. Lib. XV. § 13. p. 815.) Seneca (Epist. 58) calls it "the proper household furniture" (propria supellex) of Plato. Similar language has been continued to our own day. By Stallbaum it is said to be velut arx atque caput totius ejus disciplina, " the citadel, as it were, and head of his whole doctrine." But all philosophy is conver- sant about general ideas. Without them there can be no philosophy. In recognizing their existence, therefore, there could be nothing pe- culiar in the philosophy of Plato. These are statements so obvi- ous, that, at first view, it may seem idle thus formally to announce them. It may, however, be said, that the pecuharity in Plato's philosophy consisted in his maintaining, that general ideas are not to be acquired in this world of the senses, but that the soul brings them with her from a preexistent state, and that all true knowledge consists in rec- ollecting these ideas as the soul has formerly possessed them. This doctrine may be regarded as peculiar ; but it cannot serve for the ba- xiv ADDITIONAL NOTES. To the notion of Plato, that Ideas constitute the essences of sensible things, I shall advert hereafter. In reference to what we have gone over, it may be observed, that Plato does not represent his Ideas, or archetypal Images, as exist- ing in the mind of God, but as subsisting by themselves. The Idea of Good, as we have seen, he converts into the Supreme Divinity. In analogy with this, we might suppose that he hypostatized his other Ideas, and thus made an in- definite number of inferior conscious gods. But I do not presume that any such consistency is to be looked for in his speculations. Nor, though he speaks of his Ideas as living beings and gods, do I think that he has made it manifest that he regarded them, generally, as proper persons ; for, in calling them " gods," he may have meant only to ascribe to them divine power. The transition from the conception of them as beings animate and divine to the conception of them as beings endued wiih consciousness and will is but a step ; but it is a step that involves a new plunge into mys- ticism, which it is not certain that Plato made. It was made, however, by his followers in later times. Philo con- founded the Ideas of Plato with the hypostatized powers of God, and represents the whole archetypal world as the hy- postatized Logos.* The theosophic Gnostics, in like man- sis of a system of philosophy. The fact announced by it cannot be applied to the decision of any question that admits of doubt. If there be a controversy respecting the true nature of any general idea; if individuals differ, for instance, concerning the nature of virtue, or what constitutes an action virtuous, each may appeal with equal con- fidence to the accuracy of his own recollections ; and there can be nothing to decide between them. If all true knowledge consists in the recollection of what was known to the soul in a preiixistent state, it would seem that only two important conclusions can be drawn from this fact, — one, which Plato does infer, that the soul has preexisted, and the other, that all exercise of reason is useless in the acquisition of knowledge. ' See Statement of Reasons, pp 2G1 - 266. PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xv ner, regarded them as being at once ideas belonging to the mind of God and proper persons. Throughout the writings of the later Platonists, these Ideas appear as living beings, gods, and persons, but at the same time as existing in the second hypostasis of their Trinity.* Plato's doctrine concerning Ideas had a wide influence on opinion in ancient times. Nor has its influence ceased in our own. The obvious remark, that it rests, and can rest, on no proof, may seem strange and out of place. It is bringing it into collision with modes of thinking with which it has nothing to do. It is a remark of much the same kind, as if one were to say that there is no historical au- thority for the stories of Ariosto. But, putting this want of evidence out of view, if we attempt to reduce the doc- trine of Plato to an intelligible form, we find ourselves en- countered on every side by absurdities and inconsistencies. The Ideas of Plato are images. Now there are many objects of which we may imagine an archetypal model. We may imagine, for instance, a generic, standard. Idea of man, to which living men more or less approximate. But, even in regard to this simplest mode of apprehending what was in the mind of Plato, we cannot imagine an archetypal model of a man, abstracted from the peculiarities of any particular age. In attempting to proceed in the application of his doctrine to qualities, we are immediately arrested. He often speaks of the Idea of the Beautiful, — of The Beautiful in the abstract. But we cannot conceive of an abstract image of the Beautiful, conformed to no particular beauty, but equally to the beauty of moral actions, of man, of the inferior animals, and of inanimate nature. We may personify Virtue poetically, as an object of the imagination ; but, as an object of the understanding, we can make no im- * See Cudworth's Intellectual System, Ch. 4. § 36. xvi ADDITIONAL NOTES. age of the abstract idea of virtue. All images conceived by the mind have a form ; but we can give no form to Plato's abstract Idea of Unity. The Ideas or Images of Plato exist, according to him, by themselves, out of any mind. What we can properly conceive of only as the accidents of mind are thus repre- sented by him as existing separately from mind. The absurdity will not be lessened, should we suppose that he did not regard them as existing separately from mind, but that, in common with his followers who lived centuries after his death, he converted the ideas in the mind of God into substances, living beings, and gods. Again, Plato represents his Ideas as existing apart from any thing else, always the same, admitting no change, neither receiving any thing foreign into themselves, nor passing in- to any thing without themselves ; * and yet these same Ideas he also represents as in some way acting on matter and con- stituting the essences of sensible things. In what manner he imagined this might be, he does not explain. He puts the following words into the mouih of Socrates: — "I sup- pose that there is something beautiful by itself, and some- thing good, and something great, and so with regard to all other things It appears to me that whatever is beautiful, besides The Beautiful itself, becomes so only by partaking of The Beautiful Should any one tell me that a thing is beautiful either on account of its fine color, or its form, or any thing of like sort, I dismiss all these rea- sons, for they only perplex me, and simply, directly, and perhaps foolishly, hold to this, that there is no other cause why it is beautiful except the presence of The Beautiful, or its being associated with it.f Of the mode I as yet affirm * See before, pp. ix-x. f ToO KoXov e'lre Trapovaia, e'lTt Koivoivia, ei're oirq 8tj koi ottcos TrpocryfVOfievT). As the text of the last clause is apparently cor- PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xvii nothing, but only that all beautiful things become beautiful by means of The Beautiful." * This doctrine Socrates is represented as illustrating, till all his hearers agree, " that each of the several Ideas exists, and that other things bear their names through participation of them." t This is in the Phsedo. The same doctrine is insisted upon in the Timceus ; where, in speaking of primitive matter, it is taught, that "the resemblances of those things which eter- nally exist, impressed by them in a wonderful manner, hard to be explained, enter into and depart from primitive mat- ter," constituting its sensible forms ; and that thus, " in a way very difficult to be understood, primitive matter par- takes of the intelligible." | To this account of Plato's theory respecting Ideas as con- stituting sensible qualities, it would seem as if nothing could be added to illustrate the character of his speculations under the aspect in which we are now regarding them. But the concluding argument for the immortality of the soul in his Phsedo rests on a discussion concerning the changes of sensible qualities in material things. According to what is there maintained, when a quality is changed into its opposite, as heat, for example, into cold, the Idea consti- tuting in the sensible object the quality changed, not admit- ting the Idea of its opposite, either flies off or perishes.§ This conception is plainly expressed by Plato, is dwelt upon and illustrated, and is essential to his reasoning. But with this conception are to be compared his descriptions, before quoted, of eternal, unchangeable Ideas, passing into nothing without themselves. But it may be said, that we are not to understand the rupt, and, however it may be understood, adds nothing essential to the meaning, I have not attempted to translate it. * PhtEdo, p. 100. t Ibid. p. 102. i Timceus, pp. 50. 51. § Phsedo, pp. 102-106. VOL. in. 45 xviii ADDITIONAL NOTES. words of Plato in their obvious sense. It may be contend- ed, that, in affirming that ideas in some inexplicable man- ner constitute the essences of sensible things, he meant nothing more than that God, having these ideas in his mind, impressed them upon matter, — the idea of beauty, for in- stance, on all things beautiful. It is not necessary to discuss the question, whether this supposition can be reconciled with his language. Were the supposition true, it would follow that what has been regarded as a characteristic doctrine of his philosophy consists in the enunciation, in very unsuit- able language, of the proposition, that sensible things are beautiful because God made them beautiful ; and in teach- ing that no further explanation is to be given of the matter. At the same time, according to this mode of understanding him, his machinery of ideas becomes useless. Nor will a more important doctrine be ascribed to him, if it be main- tained that his meaning was, that particular things are beau- tiful because they partake of the abstract idea of beauty, — the last words being understood in their common significa- tion. On the contrary, we shall only have introduced a new absurdity by representing sensible things as partaking of an abstract idea. Or should it be said that this expression, " partaking of an idea," is not to be understood in a literal sense, but in a looser signification, it would seem that the meaning can be only, that beautiful things are beautiful because they partake of beauty. We may not agree with the doctrine of Berkeley, that there are, properly speaking, no abstract general ideas, and that what have been regarded as such are only particular ideas, taken as representatives of the whole class to which they belong. This doctrine seems to have resulted from confounding an idea with an image existing in the mind. But if we mean by an idea merely a subject of thought, there can be no question about the existence of abstract PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xix ideas. We may reason, and consequently think, about vir- tue, or the quality which constitutes actions morally good, without having in mind the particular idea of any virtuous man. I do not say, of any virtuous action, or of any single virtue, because these are themselves abstract ideas. We may discuss Berkeley's own doctrine, that there is no ground for distinguishing between color and extension by denoting the former a secondary and the latter a primary property of matter, without having in our minds the idea of any partic- ular color, or any particular form of extension, or any par- ticular mass of matter, — not to advert to any other of the general ideas involved in that statement. But it will not be maintained, that, in discussing the doctrine, neither color, nor extension, nor matter is a subject of thought. We can- not, however, hesitate to agree with Berkeley, so far as to admit the fact, that there can be no image of an abstract idea ; and this fact shows, that, wide as has been the influ- ence of Plato's doctrine of Ideas, it is impossible to form a coherent imagination of it.* * There are two ways in which such a theory as that of Plato may be considered. It may be surveyed, as it were, from a distance, and regarded in its various relations, under the broad light of reason ; or one may confine his views to those of the writer, enter into the sphere of his conceptions, and meet him on his own ground. It is in the lat- ter mode that the theory of Plato is considered in the Dialogue called " Parmenides," from the name of the principal speaker, — a dialogue which, since about five centuries after the death of Plato, has been commonly ascribed to that philosopher himself; but which I believe to have been written by one of his contemporaries in confutation and ridicule of his doctrine of Ideas. It is, I conceive, a persevering and destructive assault upon that doctrine, though after a fashion of rea- soning altogether remote from that of the present day. The course of argument pursued in it is very narrow, so that no general truth is •illustrated. It is unnecessarily diffuse, and there is much mere verbal subtilty and sophistry. But an ironical tone runs through it; and the XX ADDITIONAL NOTES. The Ideas of Plato belonged to the class of intelligible beings; and to the same class, conformably to his use of question may often arise, whether the author be not sporting with his subject, without any other purpose than to perplex and confound an opponent. In its general character, the Parmenides is very unlike a dialogue of Plato. It has no ornaments and no digressions. The business in hand is kept steadily in view. The writer does not con- duct us through indirect approaches to his subject, and then, after affording a glimpse of it, turn off in another direction. The point against which the author first directs his attack is the doctrine of Plato, that Ideas constitute in some way the essences of things. The discussion of this doctrine is represented as having been carried on between Parmenides and Socrates. The object of the writer is to show that the theory is untenable, whatever form it may assume, or in whatever way it may be explained. One hypothesis is stated after another, and Socrates is driven to abandon them all. (pp. 130-133.) Parmenides then, by a dexterous management of words, is represented as bringing him fully to admit, that, supposing Ideas to exist apart from sensible things, we can have no knowledge of them whatever; or, as it is expressed by the writer, that only a wonderfully able person can learn or teach any thing concerning them, (pp. 133-135.) Socrates is described as being, at the time of this discussion, a young man. It may be conjectured that it was the purpose of the writer of the Parmenides to imply, that the doctrine of Ideas, which Plato^ ascribes to Socrates in his Phaedo, could have been held by Socrates only when his mind was yet unformed and his judgment immature. Parmenides, at the conclusion of this portion of the Dia- logue, is represented as complimenting Socrates on his natural capaci- ty, and on his zeal for discussion, but as admonishing him for under- taking to determine too much before he had acquired the requisite dialectical skill, — that skill, says Parmenides, which to many seems useless and trifling, (p. 135.) If I have rightly conceived the char- acter of the Dialogue, this tone of superiority and admonition was meant for Plato himself; and the praise of dialectical skill, in which the sophists regarded themselves as excelling, was intended as a retort for the attacks upon them by him, and his master, Socrates. Such is the commencement of the discussion. But Parmenides is represented as being persuaded to continue it, not with Socrates, who PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xxi language, belonged all those beings which we regard as not objects of the senses, — as spiritual beings. The latter is silenced, but with another young man whom he questions. The two problems now proposed are, What will follow upon the supposi- tion of the existence of Ideas (Platonic Ideas) ? and What will follow upon the supposition of their non-existence ? In regard to the first question, the manner in which they are considered may be thus ex- plained. These abstract Ideas, subsistent by themselves, must be simply the abstract Ideas of classes of beings and qualities. They are such Ideas and nothing more. Nothing else is predicable' of them. The abstract Idea of Beauty is nothing but the abstract Idea of Beauty. The writer illustrates the absurdities which are inherent in such an hypothesis by taking the Idea of Unity ( To "Bv, The One.) Of this nothing can be affirmed but that it is the Idea of Unity. By affirming any thing else concerning it, another Idea is connected with it. It ceases to be simply the Idea of Unity. But if nothing else can be predicated of it, every thing else may be denied concerning it. The conclusion that follows would be arrived at by a modern reasoner in a few words ; but Parmenides takes his way to it through a series of questions, somewhat amusing from their subtilty. The conclusion is, that existence cannot be predicated of the Idea of Unity. Conse- quently (on the theory of Ideas), there can be no such thing as unity. " But is it possible," asks Parmenides, " that such can be the fact re- specting Unity .' " " Not, as it seems to me," answers the young man whom he has been questioning, (pp. 137-142.) Parmenides then starts afresh, on the supposition that the Idea of Unity exists. But if Unity exist, another Idea, that of Existence, is inseparably connected with it. It remains no longer a simple, but becomes a twofold Idea. It consists of the Idea of Unity and the Idea of Existence. By the latter it is also constituted a proper being. Of the Idea of Unity, simply considered, nothing could be predicat- ed. But of the Idea of Unity, considered as connected with the Idea of Existence, many things may be predicated ; and it is the purpose of the writer, which he pursues at much length, to show that many things may be predicated of it, which are inconsistent with the Idea of Unity and contradictory to each other. Thus he arrives at last at the conclusion, that Unity, The One, is all things, and that there is no such thing as Unity. xxii ADDITIONAL NOTES. were blended with those subsistent, hving abstractions, of which we cannot even form a conception. As we have The supposition, that the Platonic Idea of Unity exists, is thus re- duced to an absurdity, or rather, in the course of the discussion, to a succession of absurdities, (pp. 142 -IGO.) From this portion of the work we pass to the concluding part (pp. IGO-IGG), which treats of " what will follow, if the Idea of Unity does not exist." The purpose of the writer, so far as it regards his argument, may be thus explained. It having been proved that the Platonic Idea of Unity does not exist, it follows, on the theory of Ideas, that there is no unity in nature, or, in other words, that there is no being of which we may affirm that it is one being and not many. The writer proceeds to unfold the absurdities involved in this con- sequence. But it may be doubted whether he did not regard his main business as finished, and whether he had much other purpose in this conclu- sion than to make a display of his adroitness in playing tricks with words. But his attempts at deception are sometimes too easily seen through. He begins with a sophism (pp. 160, 161), on which he dwells at some length, but the amount of which is, that, in denying that the Idea of Unity exists, if we use words with any meaning, we must have in our minds the very idea of unity, of which we deny the existence. But he does not advert to the fact, that this idea of unity in our own minds is not the Platonic, self-subsistent Idea of Unity. He next (p. 1G2) proceeds to a still bolder sophism. The hypothe- sis is, that " Unity does not exist." But nothing could be made of this proposition whicli would serve his purpose. He tlierefore throws it into another form, — " Unity IS non-existent." Here existence is predicated of Unity in the very act of denying its existence ; for in doino- so we say " It IS." " In order to be non-existent," he reasons, « it must partake of existence." Afterwards (p. 1G5) we find an ar- gument which is founded merely on a verbal quibble, — a pun. It is of course untranslatable, but it may be explained. It is a play on the words yiTibev and ovhkv, both which, according to their etymology, mean " not one," "no one thing," but are both commonly used in the sense of " nothing." The writer contends, that, if Unity does not exist, other things cannot exist. They can be neither one nor mamj. " There is no one thing, firjSev, among them, and therefore they all are nothing, ovhev, and cannot be many." — Yet such writing as this PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xxiii seen, God himself is represented by him as an Idea, the ab- stract Idea of Goodness. I do not think that he represents has been considered as a grave exposition of the profoundest wisdom of Plato. If we fix in our minds that representation of Plato's doctrine of Ideas which has been given above, and take the view of tiie Parmen- ides which has been now presented, I think we shall not find it, as it has been regarded, a work of very extraordinary obscurity. On the contrary, we shall be furnished with a key by whicli we can make our way throughout. The locks are not of a modern fashion, and the bolts are rusty with age, so that it may require some skill and effort to shoot them back ; but we shall find, I believe, no essential obstacle in our way. The main difficulty in understanding the work will con- sist in the difficulty of keeping our attention steadily fixed upon modes of conception to which we are wholly unaccustomed. If I may use the figure of a key in a different sense, the Parmeni- des may be compared to a writing in cipher. On the supposition of its being the work of Plato, I have met with no plausible, nor even intelligible, explanation of its purpose and meaning. But if, taking the representations that have been given of the doctrine of Plato and of the design of the Parmenides, we perceive a distinct purpose and connected meaning in the work, there can be no doubt that the key of the cipher has been found, and that those representations are essen- tially true. It may seem that in three, at least, of the Dialogues of Plato tliere are evidences of the vexation which this attack occasioned him. In the Philebus (pp. 15, IG), he turns aside, as far as I can perceive, from the proper business of the Dialogue to treat of The One and The Many, and to describe a young man, who, having got some notion of The One and The Many, thinks he has found a treasure of wisdom, is transported by the discovery, and ready for any discussion; now rolling things into one, and now unfolding them ; confounding him- self and others; and sparing no listener that comes in his way, nei- ther young nor old, nor father nor mother, nor even a barbarian, if he can get an interpreter. Such language looks very much as if it were directed against some particular individual, and is snch as, on the sup- position which has been maintained, Plato might have used in express- ing his spleen against the author of the Parmenides. Throughout the Thestetus, and the Sophist, which is a continuation of the The- xxiv ADDITIONAL NOTES. the soul as an Idea, but he expressly refers it to the same general class of beings with Ideas.* The intelligible world agtetus, Plato appears to me to have had the Parmenides in view. There are, I think, in these Dialogues, various evident references to it ; and they seem to me, particularly the Sophist, as intended for an answer to it. Gray (Matthias's Ed. of his Works, II. 412) says of the Sophist : — "That part of this dialogue which is intended to explain the nature of existence and non-existence is to me obscure beyond all comprehension." Some light, perhaps, is thrown upon it by consid- ering it as having reference to what is said in the Parmenides con- cerning the Idea of Unity, considered as existing or as non-existing. The long attack on the character of a sophist, which forms the main thiead of this Dialogue, I imagine to have been directed against the author of the Parmenides. He, I presume, was regarded by Plato as one of the number of those whom he describes, particularly in the conclusion of the work (p. 268), " as by their brief questions compel- ling a fellow-dialogist to contradict himself." But the Parmenides, having been thought to be a work of Plato, has been regarded as a book of the most recondite wisdom. " If," says Bishop Horsley, in his controversy with Dr. Priestley, " If you imagine that the absolute Unity of the divine substance is more easily to be explained than the Trinity, let me entreat you. Sir, to read the Par- menides. It is indeed in Plato's school, if anywhere, that a man's eyes are likely to be opened to his own ignorance." "I have read the Parmenides," says Dr. Priestley in reply, "and I have no scruple to declare, that I was not able to get one ray of good sense from the whole of it." Assuming the view which I have taken of the Parmenides to be correct, we may go on to observe, that the great mistake, of supposing a work written in confutation and ridicule of Plato's philosophy to be a most profound exhibition of it by Plato himself, has afforded an opportunity for rioting in mysticism, such as has been rarely enjoyed. The Parmenides has been regarded with religious reverence, and sub- jected to very extraordinary interpretations. Proclus begins his com- mentary upon it with a prayer to all the Platonic gods, that he may be enabled to understand this inspired work, and be initiated into its most high mysteries. It was explained by him as containing the whole sum of theology. Ficinus, the most eminent Platonist of mod- * Phsedo, pp. 79, 80. PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF IDEAS. xxv thus became a land of shadows and chimeras, in which the real beings that appear arc confounded with a crowd of dim and shapeless phantoms. ern times, followed in the steps of Proclus. Like him, he transformed the Idea of Unity into the Divinity, and regarded the work as an ac- count of the derivation of other beings from the Supreme. " Let him," he says, " who would come to its sacred reading, first prepare himself by sobriety of soul and freedom of mind, before daring to approach the mysteries of this celestial work." And, to descend to the less exalted language of our own times, the last commentator on the Parmenides with whom I am acquainted (Stailbaum), whose ex- position is as intelligible as the Parmenides itself, when considered as the production of Plato, calls it " a most subtile and weighty discus- sion," "a truly great and magnificent monument of ancient philoso- phy," "a divine work." The opinion which I have expressed of the Parmenides occurred to me many years ago, upon first reading that Dialogue, and has only been confirmed by subsequent examination. If this view of it be correct, Socher deserves the praise of having first presented it to the world in his work " Ueber Platon's Schriften " (On Plato's Writings). But it appears to have found no favor among his countrymen. Any explanation of Plato's doctrine of Ideas must be imperfect and unsatisfactory, unless accompanied by some account of the Parmeni- des, which, however little understood, or however differently interpret- ed, has been regarded as his great work on the subject, a storehouse of wisdom all but incomprehensible. The limits within which it has been proper for me to confine myself have precluded the possibility of entering into detail ; but perhaps the suggestions that have been made are sufficient to guide an intelligent reader in forming his own opinion concerning this Dialogue. If it be a work such as I have supposed, there is nothing more curious or more instructive, in the history of literature, than the mistake committed concerning it, and the manner in which it has consequently been estimated. There is nothing which more strongly illustrates those tendencies of the mind which we class together under the name of mysticism, — the propensity to admire the unintelligible, and to glory in absurdities, as in truths surpassing vul- gar comprehension. VOL. III. 46 xxvi ADDITIONAL NOTES. Such was the division made by Plato and his followers of beings into intelligible and sensible. We have next to con- sider what was the distinction made by the ancients between spiritual and material things. This distinction had a gen- eral resemblance to that just explained, but was far from be- ing coincident with the distinction which in modern times we denote by the use of those terms. It was a common doctrine, as we have seen, that evil is inherent in matter, and that, in matter, existing evils, physi- cal and moral, have their source. But, however widely dif- ferent were the properties which the ancients ascribed to things material and things spiritual, their notions of them ran together, and were so blended that it is impossible to separate them and fix the limits of each division. There was a general absence of clear and definite conceptions of the existence of any thing either not material, according to our use of language, or not inseparably united with matter. The distinction made between the material and the spiritual was generally only a distinction between gross, inert, and earthy matter, and matter, rare, ethereal, and sometimes luminous. It may be illustrated by the conception, enter- tained, perhaps correctly, by most Christians at the present day, of the spiritual world, which, I suppose, is not that of a world of pure disembodied spirits alone, but includes the idea of bodies of ethereal mould, having a resemblance to those on earth. As denoting such bodies, the word spiritual is used by St. Paul, when he says, " An animal body is sown, a spiritual body is raised : there is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body ";* — expressions which, though they may seem strange to us, and highly metaphorical, pre- sented to a contemporary reader only a common use of lan- guage. By a " spiritual body," such a reader would under- * 1 Corinthians, xv. 44. ON THE TERMS SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL, xxvu stand (to use the words of Chrysostom) " a body lighter and more subtile, and such as might be borne on the air." * The Greek word nvevfia, which we translate spirit, denoted in its primary meaning breath-, or air in motion, and this ma- terial sense clung to it for a long time in its derivative meanings. A very striking example of the difference be- tween that word and our word spirit is afforded by Origen, who, in arguing that God is incorporeal, undertakes to ansicer those " who think that God has a body, because it is said that God is a spirit, Tn/fv/xa." f Origen himself says, that the passage, if taken literally, would convey this meaning.} Origen believed God to be incorporeal, apparently in the proper sense of the term.§ TertuUian, on the contrary, conceived of God as having a body, but an " immaterial " body ; for TertuUian was one of the first who maintained, that matter did not exist from eternity, but was created by God. The terms " body," " corporeal," and " incorporeal " were used by the ancients as vaguely as the word " spirit- ual." "Who will deny," asks TertuUian, " that God is a body, although God is a spirit ? For a spirit is a body of its own nature in its own form." j] He says in another place: "That which constitutes any thing a being is its body. Whatever exists is a body of its own nature ; nothing which has a being is incorporeal." ^ In his treatise " Concerning the Soul " he contends that it was not formed out of matter, but breathed into man by God, and at the same time affirms it to be corporeal, and to have a visible form. * Homil. xli. in I. Ep. ad Corinth, col. 465. Ed. 1G97. t De Principiis, Lib. I. c. 1. § 2. Opp. I. 50. t Comment, in Joan. iv. 24. Opp. IV. 230. § De Principiis, Lib. I. c. I, Opp. L 49, seqq. Vid. etiam lluetii Origeniana, Lib. II. Qusest. 1. § 6. II Adversus Praxeam, c. 7. p. 504. H De Carne Christi, c. 11. p. 317. xxviii ADDITIONAL NOTES. In conceiving of God and the soul as corporeal, Tertul- lian had in his own age abundant authorities on his side. The greatest genius and the clearest thinker among the ancient philosophers, Cicero, says that the doctrine of Xe- nocrates, that the soul is incorporeal mind, is scarcely com- prehensible. * The God of the Stoics was an ethereal fire penetrating and moving the Universe. The representation of God as pure light was familiar to the Christian fathers ; and though none could make a wider distinction between the spiritual and the material world than the Gnostics and the Manichseans, yet the same conception of God was en- tertained by them.t It is expressed by the Valentinian, Ptolemy ; :|: and in the Doctrina Orientalis it is taught, that no spiritual beings, neither archangels, nor the first mani- festation of the Deity, who is identical with God, are incor- poreal or without their peculiar forms ; he, the Son, the First-born, being light inaccessible. § Such were the opin- ions of those heretics. Turning again to the catholic Chris- tians, we may observe, that, when the council of Nice de- cided that the Son " was God of God, light of light," they did not intend that the last words should be taken in a meta- phorical sense. Their meaning was, that the substance of the Son, being light, was derived from and coessential with that light which was the substance of the Father. || A met- * Academic. Qusest. Lib. IV. § 39. t In regard to the Manichasans, see Beausobre, I. 466, seqq. t Epist. ad Floram. § Doctrina Orientalis, § 10. Conf. § 8. II Milton apprehended the Deity in a similar manner, when he ad- dressed Light as being " of the Eternal coeternal beam," as " Bright effluence of bright essence, increate " ; "since God is Light." From this notion of the Deity, " arose among the Greeks in the fourteenth century a violent controversy upon a question much more curious than useful" (I quote Beausobre), "that is to say, Whether the light ON THE TERMS SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL, xxix aphor, however understood, would not be to the purpose of the Creed, which was not to declare that the Son derived any moral or intellectual property from the Father which might be denominated light., but to declare him to be, prop- erly speaking, consubstantial with the Father. The com- prehension both of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity and of the Gnostic system of jEons, so far as either could be comprehended, was facilitated without doubt by these mate- rial conceptions of the Deity. As regards most of those ancients who affirmed the Deity or the soul to be incorporeal, it may be doubted whether they differed essentially in opinion from those who regarded them as having a body ; so loose and uncertain was the meaning of the word " incorporeal," da-anaTos. The following examples of this uncertainty are given by Cudvvorth, who, with his customary fairness, adduces them in opposition to his own argument, " The word incorporeal" he says, " may be taken for a thin and subtile body." In this sense, he observes, that according to Aristotle, " fire was by some said to be fiaXia-ra rav otoix'^'kjdv daayfiarov and ao-co/iarcoraroi'," that is, " the most incorporeal of all the el- ements.'''' "Aristotle himself," he adds, " uses the word in the same manner, when he affirms that all philosophers defined the soul by three things. Motion., Sense, and Incor- poreity," whereas " several of those there mentioned by him which shone round Jesus Clirist at his transfiguration was created or uncreated light." (Histoire du Manicheisme, I. 470.) In his Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Milton proceeds much far- ther in ascribing corporeity to the Supreme Being. "If God," he asks, " habitually assigns to himself [in Scripture] the members and form of a man, why should we be afraid of attributing to him what he attributes to himself? " B. I. Ch. II. Such a question, proposed by one of the most enlightened minds of the seventeenth century, may teach us tolerance for those eminent men who erred as grossly in ancient days. XXX ADDITIONAL NOTES. understood the soul to be no otherwise incorporeal than as crw/ia XeiTTOfifpes, a thin and subtile body.'''' * It was in this meaning of the word, that the fathers denominated the an- gels incorporeal, not regarding them as without bodies, but as having ethereal bodies, free from all grosser matter. In the first book of his Tusculan Disputations, Cicero enumerates the opinions of the ancient philosophers con- cerning the soul. No one of the opinions mentioned by him can be considered as involving the belief, that the soul is a spiritual being in the modern sense of the term, capa- ble of existing separate from matter. Nor does this appear to have been the common belief of the early Christians, either catholics or heretics. In regard to the whole question, we must recollect what has been before observed, that the conceptions of the ancients generally were not conformed to our modern distinction of beings into material and spirit- ual, and that they were not familiar with the senses in which we use those terms. The loose classification of beings, to which those terms in their ancient sense were applied, has only an apparent resemblance to our own. I have already mentioned t a remarkable fact, which may serve to show the state of ancient philosophy, that neither the Greek word equivalent to " matter," vXr;, nor any other single word, was used by Plato to denote matter. The word v\r], which was afterwards employed in this significa- tion, originally denoted a wood, hence loood, and hence the relative idea of the material of a thing, in which sense it is used by Plato, and not as expressing the absolute idea of matter. Plato, however, speaks of matter without using its name ; of matter, as an object of the senses, in the forms in which it presents itself in the creation, and also of prim- * Intellectual System, Ch. V. Sect. 3. pp. 778, 779. t See before, p. 51, note. ON THE TERMS SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL, xxxi itive matter, that is, matter as it existed before the creation, coeternal with the Deity. According to one of his rep- resentations of matter as it existed in its primal state, it cor- responded to the imaginary substratum of the logicians. He conceived of it simply as the basis on which all sensible properties afterwards supervened, being in itself without properties. In other words, it was the mere recipient of his intelligible forms ; all objects of the senses being the joint product of the union of these forms, or archetypal Ideas, with primitive matter. He thus describes it as the matrix of all things sensible, as being fitted for the reception of all qualities, by being itself destitute of all ; as " without form, invisible, something very difficult to be comprehended." * The later Platonists added to the description, that it was incorporeal, — a strange doctrine according to our use of the term, but easily understood in reference to the ancient sense of the word, t But it is to be observed, that this account of primitive matter, which is given by Plato in one passage of his Timseus, is altogether inconsistent with the conceptions which he elsewhere expresses of matter as the cause of evil, as having a nature contrary to the will of the Deity, and as having been in a state of discordant and disorderly motion before it was reduced by him to its present forms. | I WILL here venture to make a few remarks, which, if correct, may serve to show the extent of the ancient error * TimiEUS, p. 51. See also what precedes and follows. t Some striking passages to this effect from Plotinus are given by Massuet in one of his notes on Irenasus, p. 22. But, long before the time of the later Platonists, Aristotle speaks of metaphysicians who regarded primitive matter as incorporeal. See the passage quoted from him by Cudworth, Ch. V. Sect. 2. p. 7C5. t See before, p. 50, seqq. xxxii ADDITIONAL NOTES. concerning the evil properties of matter, and to remove other misapprehensions of its nature. * * The doctrine to be stated above, it will be percei^yed, is essential- ly the same with that of Berkeley, but presented under a different aspect. It has been said, that it was held many centuries ago by sages of Hindostan, having been taught by Vyasa, "The immortal Berkeley of that elder age." Were this so, it would be, perhaps, the most remarkable phenomenon in tlie history of opinions. We do not, I think, perceive any thing that approaches to so acute and powerful an exercise of intellect in Grecian philosophy. But it may be doubted, whether the Indian doctrine was coincident with that of Berkeley, or arrived at by a similar process of reasoning. It was, perhaps, one form, the most comprehensive, of the doctrine of the emanation of beings from the Divine Substance. This doc- trine, which has been elsewhere so prevalent, appears to have been fundamental in the different forms of the theology of India. It ne- cessarily implies the materiality of the Divine Substance in our sense of the word materiality. There was nothing, therefore, incongruous in the supposition, that matter, as well as all finite minds, emanated from the Deity. Accordingly, matter may have been regarded as not self-subsistent ; as not a substance distinct from the Deity, but as the substance of the Deity himself; and as not what it appears to be, but as "Maya," or Delusion. There is little resemblance between this doctrine and that of Berkeley : but there is a striking coincidence between it and that of the Jewish Cabalists, according to the ac- counts which have been given of the latter. (See Basnage, Hisloire des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 7. Tome IV. p. 137, seqq. Brucker, Hist. Philosophise. T. II. p. 980, seqq.) Berkeley, in opposing popular errors, sometimes ran into contrary errors. His ardent temper led him rather to present his doctrines in opposition to what had been believed, than to show how they might be reconciled with men's previous opinions. He was not always ac- curate in defining his conceptions, and he is negligent in the use of language. His style has often more resemblance to that of an animat- ed oral discussion, in which allowance is to be made for carelessness of expression and overstatement, than to the style proper for a philo- sophical treatise. Hence something of a paradoxical character appears THE NATURE OF MATTER. xxxiii Of matter we know nothing, but that it is capable of pro- ducing in us sensations and perceptions. These we refer to something external as tlieir cause, because we are conscious that they are not produced by any thing within us. But of this external being we know nothing except through its powers, — its powers of producing in us sensa- tions and perceptions. Now these powers cannot be sup- posed intrinsic in matter considered as a substance, some- thing existing separately, essentially distinct from spirit. Every theist who considers matter as a substance must re- gard its powers of affecting mind as immediately dependent on the power and will of God. It can become perceptible by us only because it is the will of God that it should be so perceived, and the will and power of God must be in con- stant exercise to this end; for the effect produced, being the result of his will, must cease when it is no longer his will that it should exist. The effect, likewise, must be sole- ly the result of his will, as this alone would necessarily pro- throughout liis writings, and propositions are to be found, in which he evidently asserts more than he intended, or, at least, more than he would defend. But he is preeminent as an original thinker. In this respect, in moral worth as a man, and in entire honesty of purpose as a writer, he was well qualified to be a follower of the great founder of metaphysical science. He wanted, indeed, what Locke possessed, that calm comprehensiveness of mind, that capacity of viewing a subject in all its relations both to absolute truth and to the opinions existing concerning it, that consequent ability to accommodate and ally what he taught to conceptions already held, and that familiar perspicuity of language, which constitute a union of the highest excellences in a philosopher, — but which are apt to deceive an unreflecting reader, and to make him feel as if the thoughts were such as with a little effort might have occurred to himself But, after every deduction which we may be compelled to make from the praise of Berkeley, his name will remain one of the great names in the literature of the world, and one of those most deserving of honor. VOL. III. * 47 xxxiv ADDITIONAL NOTES. duce it, and consequently excludes the supposition of any other power, any power intrinsic in matter, as a partial cause of it. Our perceptions, then, are the immediate result of the will and power of God. If his will were not exerted to produce them, a spiritual being might traverse the materi- al universe without becoming acquainted with its existence. And on the other hand, supposing matter not to exist as a substance, the present perceptions and sensations of all minds would, notwithstanding, still exist, were it the will of God that they should. Our perceptions, then, are the result of the will and pow- er of God in immediate action. They are produced by his power, not by any power intrinsic in matter considered as a substance. Matter is only a mode in which the Deity dis- plays his power. Strictly speaking, power cannot be ascribed to an uncon- scious substance, a being without volition. That cannot, properly, be considered as the power of any being, which is not exercised at its volition, nor is in any degree under its control. Power, therefore, the ability to cause that to be which did not before exist, is not to be ascribed to matter considered as a substance. Our perceptions, which are the result of some external power, cannot be referred to matter, so considered, as their cause. They must be regarded as produced by the operation of the Divine Mind. The attributes of matter, that is, its powers of producing in us sensations and perceptions, are all of which our senses give us evidence. Besides them, nothing can be known, or conceived, or imagined of matter. The question, then, is, Whether these powers are to be referred to an inconceivable and unimaginable being, or to another being without us, the Deity, whom we believe to be perfectly adequate to produce all the effects which we experience. Nor, upon examina- tion, will even this appear a question; for, when we intro- THE NATURE OF MATTER. xxxv duce matter as a substance, it serves in no way to solve the phenomena presented ; it can have no intrinsic power to produce them, nor can we even conceive of any instrument- al agency which it may have in their production. To the immediate agency of the Deity in all that we feel and perceive may be objected the nature of many of our sensations and perceptions. To this it is to be answered, that their true nature is not to be estimated by the manner in which a finite being is temporarily affected by them, nor conformably to his imperfect views and partial judgments. The doctrine that God is the creator of all things, or the doctrine that he is everywhere present, is liable to the same class of objections, from the false and incongruous associations with his character to which either may accident- ally lead, as the doctrine of his agency in producing all sen- sations and perceptions. Admitting the truth of this doctrine, all material things become to us only one vast display of the power of God, in immediate action, and inexhaustibly varied in its operations. The universe consists of finite spirits embosomed in the In- finite Spirit. Matter ceases to be the veil, and becomes the manifestation of God. We are continually in his visible presence, so far as we can, in any case, speak of the visible presence of Him who is to be perceived by any finite being only through the displays of his power. In the strongest and most literal sense of the words, we are living, moving, and having our beingr in Him. And when with this belief is united a conviction of his unmingled goodness, no state of mind would seem more favorable to devotion, to habitual reference to Him, and consequently to the moral perfection of our nature. NOTE B. (See p. 151.) ON BASILIDES AND THE BASILIDIANS. Basilides and his proper followers seem to have consti- tuted a small sect of theosophic Gnostics, which owed its distinction principally to its early existence, and to the tal- ents and the writings of its founder and of his son Isidore. With their writings Clement of Alexandria was acquainted. He gives various quotations from them, and comments on the doctrines taught in them. But they do not appear to have been consulted by Irenseus, nor by any other of the ancient writers who profess to give accounts of the heretical sects. From Clement, therefore, we must gather almost all the information concerning the doctrines of the proper Basilidians, on which we can rely with any confidence. The peculiarities which they derived from their founder probably soon melted away ; and the members of the sect appear to have become either pseudo-Christians, or semi- Christians, on the one side, or to have been confounded with the great body of the Valentinians, on the other. Basilides, like the Valentinians, held the doctrine of a primitive Ogdoad, composed of the Supreme Being, and seven derivative ^ons,* which he doubtless regarded, in common with the Valentinians, as the source of all other beings. t He appears to have thought as honorably as the Valentinians of the Creator and Ruler of the material uni- * Clement. Al. Stromat. IV. § 25. p. 637. t See before, p, 124. BASILIDES AND THE BASILIDIANS. xxxvii verse.* He held the common doctrine of the theosophic Gnostics, that certain individuals are elect through their spiritual nature.f He held the Platonic doctrine of the pre- existence and transmigration of souls.l He regarded the passions as evil spirits attached to the rational soul through some original disorder and confusion ; ^ — referring, proba- bly, to that original disorder and confusion, resulting from the mingling of the spiritual with the material, which appears in the systems of the other theosophic Gnostics, as giving birth to the material universe. He believed our Lord to have had a real body, capable of suffering, H though proba- bly, like the Valentinians, he did not suppose it to have been a body of flesh and blood. Enough has been formerly said,M to show that Basilides did not teach immorality. But it may be further remarked, that he held a doctrine of extraordinary rigor. He contend- ed that even sins committed before becoming a Christian were not pardoned, with the exception of involuntary sins and sins of ignorance.** In connection with this, he fur- ther maintained that all suffering was the punishment of sin ; and that even martj'rdom was only a more honorable punishment, either for actual sin, or, at least, for a tendency to sin which had not shown itself in action.tt Clement quotes his words to this effect ; and adds, what in itself is » Stromal. II. § 3. pp. 448, 449. Stromal. IV. § 12. p. COO. t Stromal. II. § 3. p. 433. Stromal. IV. § 13. p. 603. Stromal. V. § 1. pp. G4J, 64.5. i Stromal. IV. § 12. p. 600. Origen. Comment, in Ep. ad Romanos, Lib. V. 0pp. IV. 549. § Stromal. II. § 20. pp. 487, 488. II Stromal. IV. § 12. p. 600. Conf. Stromal. I. § 21. pp. 407, 408. Doclrina Orienlalis, § 16. p. 972. TT See Vol. II. p. 130. ** Stromal. IV. § 24. p. 634. H Stromal. IV. § 12. pp. 599,600. xxxviii ADDITIONAL NOTES. not improbable, though it does not appear in the quotations which he gives, that Basilides considered sins committed in a preexistent state as causes of present suffering. Basilides supposes that it may be urged by an objector, that such or such a person suffered without being a sinner. To this he replies, — " With permission I will say, that he had not committed sin, but was like an infant who suffers," that is, on account of a tendency to sin, as he has before ex- plained himself " But if you urge the matter still farther, I will say, that whomever you may name, he is a man, but that God is just. Now, no man, as has been said, is pure from stain." " I will say any thing," he has before ob- served, "rather than speak evil of Providence."* By that God who is just, and of whose providence he will not speak evil, it would seem that Basilides intended the Creator, or the immediate god of the material universe, whom the Gnostics generally affirmed to be just. Clement considers his words in the passage I have quoted as refer- ring directly to our Lord considered as a man, and as mean- ing, " Whomever you may name, he is a man"; "now, no man," not even Jesus who suffered, "is pure from stain." The words certainly have that appearance. In common with other theosophists, Basilides distinguished, we may pre- sume, between the man Jesus and the proper Saviour, who descended into him from the Pleroma, and left him at his crucifixion ; and if so, there may seem little doubt that he is here speaking of the sufferings of Jesus. Maintaining such a doctrine, Basilides was represented, not unfairly, as detracting from the honor of the martyrs, and discouraging that bold profession of the truth which might lead to suffering. It was said, also, that his principles caused men to deny their faith, and to sacrifice to the heath- * Stromal. IV. § 12. p. GOO. BASILIDES AND THE BASILIDIANS. xxxix en gods.* They may have had this effect upon some of his followers.! Clement describes him as " deifying the Devil, while dar- ing to speak of the Lord as a sinful man." | Upon this, and some other evidence not more decisive, Basilides has been represented as holding the Persian doctrine, that the mixture of good and evil in the world is the result of the struggle between two antagonist principles, one good and the other evil, and as having thus been a precursor of Manichse- us. But I suppose that his doctrine was not essentially differ- ent from that held by the Gnostics generally, and by many of the heathen philosophers, including Plato. In common with them, Basilides believed in an evil principle resident in matter. Such, I conceive, is the amount of all the authentic infor- mation that remains concerning the leading doctrines of Bas- ilides and his proper followers. But Irenseus has a short account of him,§ which appears to have formed the basis of the accounts of the subsequent historians of heresy in ancient times. Irenaeus, however, nehher directly nor indi- rectly refers to any authority for his assertions ; and those assertions, considered as relating to Basilides or to such as might properly be called Basilidians, are intrinsically im- probable, and, at the same time, irreconcilable with the no- tices of Clement. Irena3us professedly gives the doctrines of Basilides ; but, as I have had repeated occasion to remark, sects were designated by the name of their founder ; and those doctrines, I presume, were doctrines which he sup- * Origen. Comment, in Matt. 0pp. III. 85G, 857. Conf. Irenaeus, Lib. I.e. 24 § 5. pp. 101, 102. t See Vol. II. p. 130. t Stromal. IV. § 12. p. 601. § Lib. I. c. 24. §§ 3-7. pp. 101, 102. Conf. Lib. II. c. 16. § 2. p. 137. xl ADDITIONAL NOTES. posed to be held by certain persons called Basilidians, and which, in consequence, he probably thought to have been derived from Basilides. Irenseus, instead of the Ogdoad of ^ons ascribed by Clement to Basilides, represents him as having taught that there were six primary ^ons only. From the last two of these iEons, he says, that, according to Basilides, there pro- ceeded " Powers, Princes, and Angels, whom he calls the First, and that by them the first heaven was made." From these other beings emanated, who formed a new heaven ; and others again from them, who formed a third ; and so on in succession, till three hundred and sixty-five heavens were formed, each the antitype of its predecessor. "On this account the year has three hundred and sixty-five days, corresponding to the number of the heavens." " And they distribute," says Irenseus, " the local positions of those heav- ens in like manner as the astronomers. For, receiving their theorems, they conform them to their own doctrine." It seems impossible to determine what correspondence, in the arrangement of three hundred and sixty-five heavens, Ire- nseus intended to indicate as existing between the astrono- mers and the Basilidians. But perhaps he had some mean- ing less strange than that which the words of his Latin Translator appear to present. Irenseus further says, that Basilides taught, that "the angels" who formed the last heaven were also the makers of this world. Had Basilides, held so extraordinary a doctrine as that which Irenseus reports concerning the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, it seems likely that it would have attract- ed the notice of Clement ; but Clement does not mention it nor refer to it. On the contrary, he says that Basilides affirmed that but a single wox-ld had been produced.* It is * — fjiovoyfvTJ Te Kocrfj-ov, ws (})T]cr\i> 6 BaaiXddrfs. Slromat. V. § 11. p. 090. BASILIDESAND THE BASILIDIANS. xli a doctrine that we are unable to connect with any opinions which may have suggested it or led the way to it. But, at the same time, we cannot say with confidence, that it may not have been held by certain persons, whom, for some reason or other, Irenasus considered as followers of Basili- des. IrensBus ascribes to Basilides another very strange doc- trine. He says, that, according to him, the first emanation of the Father, Intellect, descended from the Pleroma in or- der to deliver such as might believe in him from the power of the Makers of the World. He was called both Christ and Jesus. He did not suffer on the cross ; but Simon the Cyrenian, who was compelled to bear his cross, was cruci- fied in his stead. He, as an incorporeal power, took what form he would,* and upon this occasion assumed the form of Simon, — imposing, as is implied, his own form upon Simon, — and stood by laughing at his persecutors, while Simon suffered. The story of Irenseus, if credible of any individuals, is not credible of any Christians ; and in regard to Basilides is entirely set aside by the charge of Clement against him, that he believed that Jesus, like others, suffered in conse- quence of his sins, or of his tendency to sin; — a charge which, considering Clement's acquaintance with the writings of Basilides, proves that he held no such doctrine as that ascribed to him by Irenseus. What foundation for the story of Irenseus there may have been in the opinions of any pseudo-Christians or heretics, it is impossible to say ; but some foundation it probably had. For, as we are informed by Sale, in one of his notes on the Koran, " it is the constant doctrine of the Mohammedans, that it was not Jesus himself who was crucified, but somebody else in his shape and re- * See before, p. 177, seqq. VOL. III. 48 xlii ADDITIONAL NOTES. semblance. The person crucified some will have to be a spy that was sent to entrap him ; others, that it was one Titian, who, by the direction of Judas, entered in at a win- dow of the house where Jesus was, to kill him ; and others, that it was Judas himself." * This doctrine is plainly ex- pressed in the Koran. "The Jews," it is there said, " slew not Jesus, neither crucified him ; but he was represented by one in his likeness."! One other subject relating to those whom Irenaeus called Basilidians requires explanation. They gave, it is said, to " their Prince " the name of Abraxas or Abrasax. Who this " Prince" was is not defined by Irenseus or Theodoret.| The Author of the Addition to Tertullian,§ and Epiphani- us, II represent him as the Supreme Divinity. But their au- thority is of no worth. The numerical value of the Greek letters composing either name is three hundred and sixty- five, and the names are supposed to have been formed to express this value. There are to be found in different cabinets in Europe a large number of engraved stones, evidently of Egyptian • Sale's Koran, I. 60. ] Ibid. pp. 112,113. — Long after the composition of the Koran, Photius says tliat he found the story in a book mentioned before (pp. 179, 180, note) as quoted by him, called " The Circuits of the Apostles." Photii Bibliotheca, col. 292. I Irenaeus says, " Esse autem Frincipem illorum 'A^pa^a?." As he has just been speaking of the three hundred and sixly-five heavens of his supposed Basilidians, " illorum " appears at first view to refer to them. But Tlieodoret, in his account of the Basilidians, evidently copied that of Irenasus, and, in a passage unconnected with any men- tion of those heavens, he says, Elvai Be top "Apxovra avrav ^rjaiv A/3pao-af (Hasret. Fab. Lib. L n. 4. Opp. IV. 195) Here by nvTuiv he must have intended the Basilidians § De Prcescript. Haeretic. c. 40. p. 219. II Hffires. XXIV, §§7,8, pp. 73, 74. BASILIDES AND THE BASILIDIANS. xliii origin, and bearing figures and inscriptions relating to the mythology of Egypt.* A comparatively very small num- ber have upon them the name Abrasax.t This name being equivalent to Abraxas, they have hence all been denomi- nated " Abraxas gems," or " Abraxas stones " ; and there has been a popular error, which is not yet wholly extinct, though it can be held by no one who has paid any proper attention to the subject, that these stones, generally, were wrought for the use of the Basilidians. This error runs through the account given of them by Montfaucon in his " Antiquite Expliquee." But it is evident, from a mere in- spection of the great number of figures which he has pub- lished, that they are generally of heathen origin, and bear no trace of any relation to Christianity. This fact has been fully illustrated by Beausobre | and Lardner.§ As those writers, however, suppose, there may be among these stones some which were wrought for pseudo-Christians. In regard to the use of the name Abrasax, the most prob- able conjecture is, that it is found on these heathen gems as a name of the Sun, considered as ruling over the three hundred and sixty-five days of the year. From the heath- ens it may have been borrowed by some pseudo-Christian * Montfaucon has treated of these gems in the second volume of his " Antiquite Expliquee," and given numerous engravings of them. t On one of the stones published by Montfaucon (Plate 49, No. G), the name is spelt " Abrasat." (The Author of the Addition to Ter- tullian, according to the text in Le Prieur's edition, gives the name " Abraxat.") On others (as Plate 49, No. 30, Plate 51, Nos. 35, 36), it is spelt " Abrasas." According to either spelling, the numerical value of the letters would not amount to 365. I have not observed any one on which it is spelt " Abraxas." t Histoire du Manicheisme, II. 50, seqq. § History of the Heretics, Ch. II. Section IG, seqq. Works (4to. 1815), Vol. IV. p. 545, seqq. xliv ADDITIONAL NOTES. or heretical Gnostics to denote the Creator, whom they re- garded as having his residence in the Sun, or as the inform- ing genius of the Sun,* Such may have been the origin of the story respecting its use by those called Basilidians.t * See before, pp. 22, 162, 163. According to Porphyry, as quoted by Eusebius (Praeparat. Evang. Lib. III. c. 4. p. 93), the Egyptians considered the Sun as the Creator or Architect of the world. This correspondence of opinion with the Gnostics might give further occa- sion for transferring the enigmatical name of the Sun, Abrasax, to the Gnostic Creator. t We have repeatedly had occasion to see what difficulty there is in ascertaining the truth concerning the Gnostics from ancient writ- ers, and sometimes to remark the errors of modern writers concerning them. I will here give an example of the carelessness with which their history has been written in our own times. Matter (to whose work I have before referred), in concluding his account of Basilides and the Basilidians, mentions the immoralities into which he supposes the Basilidians to have fallen in the fourth and fifth centuries, and then proceeds thus (Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme, Tome II. pp. 97, 98) : — " Such was the end of a sect of theosophists, of which Clement of Alexandria had said in express words, — 'The worship of these Gnos- tics consists in continual attention to the soul, in meditations on the Divinity regarded as inexhaustible love.' [Stromat. VII. p. 829, lin. 43. Ed. Potter.] ' Their science has two parts. The first relates to divine things; considers the First Cause, by which all has been made, and without which nothing exists ; examines the essence of things which penetrate each other and are connected together ; questions the powers of nature, and demands to what end they conduct. The second part treats of human things, of the condition of man, of what he is by nature, of what he is not, of what he must do and suffer. Here they examine the vices and the virtues, the good, the evil, and the indifferent, or those things which lie between.' [lb. p. 838, lin. 8.] " Clement had added to these characteristics, — ' Basilides says that the Supreme Being should be honored, not on certain days, but tiirough the whole of life, in the whole of conduct. [lb. p. 851, lin. 17.] The Gnostic prays, because he knows that prayer may have BASILIDES AND THE BASILIDIANS. xlv place everywhere, and that he is always heard.' " [lb. p. 851, lin. 34, lin. 37, p. 852, lin. 27.] " All these passages," says Matter, " are taken from the seventh book of the Stromata." 1 have referred particularly (in brackets) to the places where they are to be found. They are translated inaccurately, but this is com- paratively a fact of small importance. In the passages adduced by Matter, Clement has no reference to Basilides or the Basilidians. On the contrary, he is speaking of the true Christian Gnostic, according to his own conception of him. Matter says, that Clement quotes certain words of Basilides, The name of Basilides does not occur in any connection with those words. The passage said to be quoted from him is composed of fragments of different sentences of Clement himself. It is difficult to imagine what may have been the origin of these errors. It is scarcely possible that any one should undertake to write a history of the Gnostics, without being acquainted with the fact that Clement familiarly uses the term " Gnostic," not to denote a Gnostic heretic, but an enlightened Christian. Even supposing this possible, the very connection of the passages quoted by Matter makes it evident at first sight that they have no reference to heretical Gnostics. And if, through some hallucination, any one might suppose them to have such a reference, still no reason appears why he should suppose Bas- ilidians to have been particularly intended. Nor is it easy to divine by what mistake certain words of Clement have been put together and ascribed to Basilides. Matter writes with a certain degree of vivacity and talent, and, considering that he is a pupil of the German school, with what may be regarded as remarkable clearness of method and meaning. But he has composed, not a history, but a romance founded on the history, of the Gnostics. His general views concerning them appear to have been rather suggested by his imagination than to have been the result of any investigation of the subject. His work is full of particular er- rors of the same class with those which have just been pointed out, though it cannot be supposed that many of them are equally extraor- dinary. Matter, however, is not the only one, among modern writers concerning the Gnostics, to whose authority if an inexperienced stu- dent defer, he may find himself following a blind gvide through the blind darkness — " Per le tenebre cieche un cieco duce," NOTE C. (See pp. 170 and 218.) ON THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. The gospel of Marcion is represented by Irenfeiis and TerhiUian as being a mutilated copy of the Gospel of Luke, from which that heretic had struck out passages which he could not reconcile with his doctrines. It was a book of much notoriety, and this representation proceeds from writ- ers who must have been fully acquainted with it. They are followed by Epiphanius, who likewise shows, by his particular remarks on the book, that he had examined it throughout, and whose testimony as to the fact in question there is no reason to distrust. The fact is also alluded to by many other early writers ; as, for example, by Origen, who, in speaking of the adulteration of one of his own writings, says, — " See how he has corrected our disputa- tion, in the same way as Marcion corrected the Gospels."* But, in the last half of the last century, there sprang up in Germany an hypothesis, which for a long time obtained wide reception among the theologians of that country, name- ly, that the gospel of Marcion was not a mutilated copy of that of Luke, but a work derived from the same written sources with Luke's Gospel, and antecedent to it in that progressive growth of gospels which finally resulted in the production of those of Luke, Matthew, and Mark. The theory of this gradual formation of the first three Gospels * Epist. ad Alexandrinos. Opp. I. C. Conf. Ex Comment, in Eze- cliiel. Opp. III. 35y, 353. THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. xlvii has been examined in the first volume of this work ; and if it be wholly untenable, as I trust it has appeared to be, then the opinion that has been maintained respecting Marcion's gospel, since it depends on its connection with that theory for any show of plausibility, must perish with it. This, perhaps, is all that it is necessary to say concerning the subject ; especially as the opinion has been confuted,* and, I believe, generally abandoned, in the country of its birth. But it may be more satisfactory, and not uninstructive, to enter into some explanation, and to state the proofs of what for fifteen centuries was the unquestioned belief respecting Marcion's gospel. The ancient testimony concerning this book is first to be attended to. Irenaeus, after a brief account of Marcion's doctrines, says, — " Moreover, he mutilated the Gospel ac- cording to Luke, taking away all that is recorded of the generation of the Lord, and many parts of his discourses in which he clearly recognizes the Creator of this universe as his Father ; so that Marcion thus gave to his disciples, not the Gospel [not the whole history and doctrine of Christ], but a fragment of the Gospel, persuading them that he was better acquainted with the truth than the Apostles who have given us the Gospel." t The reason assigned by Irenajus for not undertaking a particular confutation of the Marcionitcs in his general work against lieresies has been already quoted.| It occurs in connection with the passage just given, and well deserves attention in reference to our present subject : — " But because he alone has dared open- * Particularly by Hahn, in his work entitled " Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprilnglichen Gestalt," and by Olshausen in his " Echtheit der Evangeiien erwiesen," pp. 111-215. t Lib. I. c. 27. § 2. p. 106. t See Vol. II p. 95. xlviii ADDITIONAL NOTES. ly to mutilate the Scriptures, and has gone beyond all others in shamelessly disparaging the character of God [the Crea- tor], I shall oppose him by himself, confuting him from his own writings, and, with the help of God, effect his overthrow by means of those discourses of our Lord and his Apostle [St. Paul] which are respected by him and which he him- self uses." * TertuUian and Epiphanius, in confuting Mar- cion, proposed, as we shall see, to pursue the same course of appealing only to his mutilated Gospel and his mutilated collection of St. Paul's Epistles, and of not quoting against him any portions of Scripture but those the authority of which he admitted. There are various other passages in which Irenaeus af- firms the fact that Marcion's gospel was a mutilated copy of liuke's. Speaking of the Gnostics, he says : — " They have turned away in their doctrines from him who is God [the Creator], and think that they have discovered more than the Apostles, having found out another God. They maintain that the Apostles still thought with the Jews, when they an- nounced the Gospel, but that they themselves are more pure in their belief and wiser than the Apostles. Hence Marcion and his followers have been led to mutilate the Scriptures ; some they reject altogether ; others, as the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they shorten, and maintain that what they have thus abridged is alone of authority. But we, in another work, with the help of God, shall confute them from those "portions which they yet preserve." t TertuUian, besides composing an entire Treatise in five Books against the Marcionites, refers to them often in his * Lib. I.e. 27. § 4. p. 106. t Lib. in. c. 12. § 12. p. 198. — Besides the passages above quoted, see Lib. III. c. 11. § 7. p. 190. Ibid. § 9. p. 192. Lib. IIL c. 14. §§ 3, 4. p. 202. THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. xlix other writings. He uniformly represents the gospel of Marcion as a mutilated copy of that of Luke. This fact is so often brought into view by TertuUian, that it would be idle to produce at length the particular passages in which it is stated, referred to, or implied. "It is clear," he says, *' that the Gospel of Luke had come down entire till the sacrilege of Marcion."* In the fourth Book of his work " Against Marcion," he proposes to confute him from his own gospel, making use of no passages of Scripture but such as were found in it. Ex his revincendus es qucB recepisti ; " You are to be confuted," he says, " from what you have received." f This purpose he repeatedly avows, and accord- ingly he goes through Marcion's gospel in order, remarking on the passages which were to his purpose, and occasion- ally taking notice of its omissions. In another work (De Carne Christi J), he speaks of that book, in which, in reply- ing to Marcion, he had appealed to Marcion's own gospel.§ * Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV. c. 5. p. 416. t Ibid. c. 34. p. 449. | Cap. 7. p. 312. § As I have formerly mentioned (see before, p. 220, note), Hahn has attempted the restoration of Marcion's gospel, principally from the information afforded by TertuUian and Epiphanius, and has given it in what is probably very like its original state. In other words, the Gospel of Luke has been exhibited by him with the omissions and al- terations made by Marcion. The last writer of any note who has maintained that Marcion's gospel was not a mutilated copy of the Gospel of Luke is Eiclihorn. He contends (Einleit. in das N. T. I. 71, note), that TertuUian was not acquainted with Marcion's gospel. This supposition, as may ap- pear from the statements I have made, implies great ignorance of what is to be found in TertuUian. In connection with this, Eichhorn main- tains (Ibid, pp. 67,68; p. 72, note), that TertuUian did not confidently hold the opinion that Marcion's gospel was derived from Luke's; and that he expresses himself with uncertainty on the subject. His main argument is founded on the concluding sentence of the following pas- sage from TertuUian. (Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV, c, 2, p. 414.) " Marcion assigns no author to his gospel ; as if it were a greater VOL. III. 49 1 ADDITIONAL NOTES. Epiphanius, like Tertullian, undertook to confute Marcion from the passages which Marcion himself retained.* He accordingly first gives a long series of such passages as he proposed to use, intermingling it with notices of omissions and of supposed or real corruptions in Marcion's gospel, as it existed in his time ; and then repeats those passages, sub- joining the argument or remark which he founded upon each of them. The information which he affords is, as I have before said, of such a nature, that there is no reason to distrust its essential correctness. It is evident, upon ex- amination, that he did not copy from Tertullian, but is an independent authority ; and the coincidence of their ac- counts of Marcion's gospel proves the correctness of both writers.! crime to forge a title than to mangle the body of a work. And here I might plant my foot, and contend that a work is not to be received, which does not show its face, which affords no ground of reliance, and gives no promise of fidelity, by the fulness of its title, and the due an- nunciation of its author. But I prefer to meet him at every point, and will not conceal what may be perceived from our Gospels. For, of those historians whom we possess, it appears that Marcion selected Luke for his mutilations." " Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet." These words Eichhorn understands thus : " Marcion seems to have selected Luke for his mutilations " ; and hence concludes that Tertullian expresses himself doubtfully. The word videtur is in itself ambiguous ; but that it has not here the sense ascribed to it by Eichhorn is evident from what precedes the sentence in which it stands, and from the discus- sion that follows, in which Tertullian assumes without liesitation that Marcion did found his gospel on that of Luke, — to say nothing of all that Tertullian has elsewhere affirmed, and of all the other evi- dence which determines that this fact was notorious and undisputed. * Hferes. XLII. Opp. L 309, seqq. t Epiphanius introduces the passages which he means to use in confuting Marcion, by saying that he had " selected from Marcion's gospel and his Apostolicon [that is, his collection of St. Paul's Epis- tles] a series of those passages by which he might be confuted," — THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. li What reply, then, did the Marcionltes make to this clear, long-continued, unhesitating statenient of their opponents, " passages in which he has foohsiily retained the declarations of our Saviour and ins Apostles against himself." " Some of them," he says, " Marcion corrupted by alterations ; but there are others left un- changed by him, by which he may be confuted " ; and Epiphanius proceeds to state what he expects to prove from the passages which he is about to produce, (pp.310, 311.) His main purpose, and conse- quently the general character of the passages which he has brought together, are not only evident from the use he has made of those pas- sages, but are explained by him over and over again in the plainest manner ; so that it might seem impossible for one who has read what he has written to fall into any mistake concerning the matter. (See, in addition to what has been referred to, p. 311, C. p. 322. pp. 349, 350. p. 371. pp. 373,374.) But Epiphanius, in the collection of passages he has brought to- gether, takes notice of the omissions and changes of words made in them by Marcion, or his followers; and likewise, incidentally to his main purpose, mentions several portions of Luke's Gospel which he says Marcion had expunged. These facts, I suppose, have given oc- casion to an erroneous Latin title (to which there is nothing corre- sponding in the Greek;, prefixed to the passages in Petavius's edition of his Works. They are entitled " Pas.sages of Scripture corrupted by Marcion." They should have been called " Passages retained by Marcion, from which he may be confuted." But Eichhorn, apparently led astray by this erroneous title, and proceeding without further examination, has regarded the collection made by Epiphanius as intended for a collection of passages in which the text of Marcion varied from that of Luke, and which Epiphanius, in consequence, produced only as corruptions of Luke's text by Mar- cion. The mistake was partially pointed out in a review of his work, to which he adverts in a note to the second edition of his first volume, (pp. 65, 66.) The opinion of the reviewer was, " that that confused writer, Epiphanius, in giving the variations of Marcion 's text, intro- duced among them, altogether out of place, some passages which he thought he could use for his confutation." But this fact, if true, Eichhorn contends, would not affect his conclusions. Thus persevering in his misconception of the purpose of Epipha- nius, and of the character of his citations, Eichhorn retains in his sec- lii ADDITIONAL NOTES. that their gospel was a mutilated copy of Luke's ? From any writer of the first three centuries it does not appear that ond edition the account of Marcion's gospel, and the whole accom- panying body of extraordinary criticisms and remarks which he had founded upon that error. (See pp. 43-84. pp. G50-67.5, and many passages in that portion of his work which treats " Of the First Three Gospels generally.") His mistake was facilitated by the facts, that Epiphanius does mention omissions and changes in Marcion's gospel, that he does not quote with particular regard to accuracy, and that he often gives passages in an abridged form, citing a few words which he deemed sufficient to recall them to the recollection of the reader. Passages thus abbreviated Eiclihorn has considered as so standing in the text of Marcion. To illustrate by a single example, Epiphanius thus quotes Luke ix. 40, 41 : — "/ besought thy disci' ■pies. — They could not cast him out. — And to them, faithless race, how long shall I he with you?'' This Eichhorn conceives to have been the reading of Marcion's gospel. Thus Epiphanius's notices of Marcion's omissions and variations, his own inaccuracies, and his abridged mode of quotation, have enabled Eichhorn to give a series of comments on many of the passages adduced, which is conformed to his fundamental mistake concerning their character, but which at the same time is full of particular oversights and errors. Still he is compelled to say (p. 55), that "Epiphanius's account of the varia- tions in Marcion's gospel is often so defective, that it is uncertain in what they consisted." Eichhorn has thus founded his whole discussion concerning Mar- cion's gospel on two essential misconceptions. Tertullian and Epi- phanius are the only writers who have given particular specifications of its contents. But though Tertullian, in the fourth Book of his work " Against Marcion," professes to confute him solely from his own gospel, and goes through it for this purpose from beginning to end, commenting on a great number of passages, yet Eichhorn asserts that Tertullian had no copy of that gospel before him. He throws him- self, therefore, on Epiphanius as his sole authority ; and he has wholly mistaken the general purpose and character of the quotations given by Epiphanius. It may seem as if it were scarcely worth while thus particularly to point out the errors of an individual writer. But it is to be recollect- ed, that Eichhorn is the last able and elaborate defender of an opinion THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. lUi ihey denied the fact. With one exception, it does not ap- pear from any writer of any age. With this exception, the charge lias come down to us without an intimation that it was contradicted. The exception to which I refer is to be found in a work which I have formerly mentioned as an inaccurate compila- tion to which little credit is to be given, the Dialogue de Recta Fide* The Marcionite who is introduced in this Dialogue is represented as saying that "there is but one Gospel, which was written by Christ " ; and when it is ob- jected to him in the form of a question, "Did the Lord himself write, that he was crucified, and rose again on the third day ? " the brief answer assigned to him is : " The Apostle Paul added it."t That in the fourth century, before which time this Dia- logue was not written, a Marcionite might be found who maintained this absurd opinion is possible ; though the im- plication of the writer of the Dialogue, that such was the fact, does not go far to render it probable. But it is incred- ible, that Marcion himself, or his followers, during the sec- ond century, should have held such an opinion. The folly of the statement assigned to the Marcionite of the fourth century, whether with or without foundation, serves only to show that no plausible history of Marcion's gospel, different from that given by his opponents, was known to his follow- ers at that period. We may, then, affirm that there is no evidence, that Mar- cion or his followers, during the first three centuries, gave respecting Marcion's gospel long current in Germany, that he had the benefit of all the labors of his predecessors, and that this opinion was a main support of the theory of llie gradual formation of the first three Gospels. * See Vol. II. p. 99, seqq. t Apud Origcnis 0pp. 1.808. liv ADDITIONAL NOTES. any account of the origin of his gospel different from that given by their opponents. But, if the theory which has been formed for them in modern times were true, they un- doubtedly would have said what has been said for them. They would have gloried in possessing a more ancient gos- pel, favoring their own doctrines, of which their catholic opponents used an interpolated copy ; and their opponents could not but have given abundant attention to such a claim. We should have found not a few remarks upon it in the work of Tertullian ; nor is it possible that the fathers should for two centuries and a half, from Irenseus to Theodoret, have continued to repeat that Marcion's gospel was a muti- lated copy of Luke's, without ever attempting to prove the fact, or noticing that the Marcionites denied it, but apparent- ly regarding it as notorious and undisputed. The fact, then, is established not merely by the evidence of their catholic opponents, but by the circumstance, that it was not denied by the earlier Marcionites themselves, and that, if those of a later period did in fact deny it, the supposition which they brought forward is not of a character to deserve a moment's consideration. But so far were Marcion and his followers from denying the origin assigned to their gospel, that, as I have formerly explained,* they asserted principles the express bearing of which was to justify their omission of passages in the Gos- pel of Luke, and their rejection of the authority of the other three Gospels. They held, that the Apostles generally, when they preached the Gospel, were under the influence of their erroneous Jewish faith. On this principle, Irenoeus, as be- fore quoted,t says, " Marcion and his followers have been led to mutilate the Scriptures." But St. Paul they regarded as much more free from Jewish prejudices than the other * See before, p. 200, seqq. t See before, p. xlviii. THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. Iv Apostles, " Marcion," says Tertullian, " having got hold of the Epistle to the Galatians, in which St. Paul finds fault with the Apostles themselves for not walking steadily ac- cording to the truth of the Gospel, and in which also he accuses certain false Apostles of corrupting the Gospel of Christ,* endeavours to destroy the reputation of those Gos- pels which are truly such, and have come forth under the names of Apostles or Apostolic men, in order that he may transfer to his own the credit which he takes from them." t In representing the Apostles and first teachers of Christian- ity as having fallen into anti-Gnostic errors through their Jewish prejudices, the doctrine of Marcion was the same as that of other Gnostics. On this ground other Gnostics refused to assent throughout to the authority of their writings, and especially to defer to all their representations of the teach- ing of Christ as contained in the Gospels. | Marcion, with the boldness which appears to have belonged to his charac- ter, proceeded a step farther, and struck out the passages, the authority of which he did not admit, from the gospel which he prepared for his followers. Nor, after rejecting any appeal to the other three Gospels, was it strange that he should thus free himself from those passages in the Gos- pel of Luke which he regarded as objectionable. It is obvious, from the preceding statements, that, in the charge which the Marcionites brought against the Apostles of holding certain Jewish errors, they clearly implied their belief that those errors were to be found in the Gospels as originally written. The mutilation of Luke's Gospel, which is ascribed to * Galatians, ch. ii. t Advers. Marcionem, Lib. IV. c. 3. p. 414. Conf. De PriEscript. Hteretic. cap. 22 - 24, pp 209, 210. I See before, pp. 206-210. Ivi ADDITIONAL NOTES. Marcion, so far from being a disputable or disputed fact, was, as is stated by Tertullian, continued by his followers. It was not simply a fact which had taken place ; it was a process which was still going on. " They daily remodel their gospel," says Tertullian, " as they are daily confuted by us " ; * — that is, from passages which Marcion had suf- fered to remain. The followers of Marcion continued to practise on the principles of their master. But still more, Marcion himself not only remodelled the Gospel of Luke, he extended the same process of mutila- tion to the Epistles of Paul. As respects these Epistles, equally with Luke's Gospel, Irenseus, Tertullian, and Epi- phanius profess their design of confuting him from the pas- sages he retained. Speaking of the Epistle to the Romans, Tertullian says : — " What holes Marcion has made, partic- ularly in that Epistle, by taking away at his pleasure, will appear from comparing it with our entire copy. Those pas- sages which he did not see were to be erased — his negli- gences and oversights — will be sufficient for me " ; t that is, will afford sufficient materials for a confutation of his doctrines. It is unnecessary to quote the other passages to the same purpose, and the particular specifications of the charge, which might be produced from Tertullian and Epi- phanius. In regard to Marcion's gospel and Luke's, it has been pretended, as we have seen, that they were two differ- ent gospels ; but, as it could not be pretended that there were originally two different sets of St. Paul's Epistles, re- sort has been had to an hypothesis, that the discrepancies between those of the Marcionites and those of the catholic * Advers. Marcion. Lib. IV. c. 5, p. 41G. It may, perhaps, be worth remarking, tliat a similar charge is brought against the Mar- cionites in the Dialogue de Rectd Fide, p. 867. I Advers. Marcion. Lib. V. c. 13. p. 477. THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. Ivii Christians were only various readings. But this hypothesis is as little plausible, when applied to the difierences between these two sets of the Epistles, as it would have been, if ap- plied to the differences between the Gospel of Luke and the gospel of Marcion. The latter books might with as much likelihood have been represented as copies of the same work, differing from each other not through intentional changes, but only through accidental various readings. The solution which has been offered of the discrepancies be- tween the copies of St. Paul's Epistles used by the Mar- cionites and those used by the catholic Christians necessa- rily implies that his Epistles had been most negligently transcribed till toward the middle of the second century, and that, at this time, all the copies in which were the gross omissions resulting from this negligence happened to fall into the hands of the Marcionites ; but that the catholic Christians, having in their possession the more perfect cop- ies, ceased, at that period, to be so negligent in their tran- scription, and perpetuated them correctly, so tbat the extra- ordinary various readings which then existed have disap- peared from the copies now extant. Yet this solution is required as a prop for the modern hypothesis respecting Marcion's gospel, to prevent it from at once falling to the pround. For no one who believes that he mutilated the Epistles of St. Paul will be persuaded that he did not mu- tilate the Gospel of Luke. As I have before observed, the modern hypothesis re- specting Marcion's gospel is essentially connected with the theory of the gradual formation of the first three Gospels. There was such a correspondence between Marcion's gos- pel and Luke's, that it admits of no dispute, that Luke's must have been an enlargement of Marcion's or Marcion's a mutilation of Luke's. But the former supposition is not only exposed to all those objections which bear against the VOL. III. 50 Iviii ADDITIONAL NOTES. theory of the gradual formation of the first three Gospels, but to others which are peculiar to it. The passages, so far as we are informed concerning them, found in Luke's Gospel and not in Marcion's, are such as must have been particularly obnoxious to the Marcionites. But if the author of Luke's Gospel took that afterwards used by Marcion as the substance of his own, it is scarcely credible that all or a great majority of those passages which he added should have happened to bear this character. Nor can we readily believe, that, if he had so easily furnished himself with the principal material for his book, he would have commenced it with a false statement respecting his own diligent in- quiries, which must have been very liable to detection. There appears, then, to be no reasonable doubt, that, ac- cording to the uniform testimony of antiquity, Marcion's gospel was a mutilated copy of Luke's. To the inferences which follow from this fact we have already attended.* The contrary hypothesis is one of many, tending to shake the credit of the Gospels, which since the latter part of the last century have appeared in German theology. In this, and in some other instances, we have seen, in the course of the present work, on what foundations those hypotheses have rested. The most specious of their number, so far as they existed in his day, were embodied by Eichhorn in his writ- ings ; and no modern German theologian has excelled him in clearness of purpose and statement. So far as regards his modes of thought, reasoning, and expression, he wrote as other scholars had been accustomed to write. We have had occasion to take some notice of his oversights and neg- ligences. But there is much in German theology far more extraor- * See before, particularly pp. 303-305. THE GOSPEL OF MARCION. lis dinary than any thing to be found in the writings of Eich- horn. Even in his day, Paulus had published his " Com- mentary on the Gospels," the main design of which is to prove, that, though the accounts contained in them of the miracles of our Saviour were founded on facts, and are es- sentially true, yet those facts were natural events, having nothing of a miraculous character. This system of inter- pretation was for a long time current in Germany ; and one might have thought that common sense could not be further outraged. But the lowest degradation of intellect had not been reached. A writer of the present day, Strauss, has gained much notoriety by a work entitled " The Life of Jesus," the purpose of which is to maintain, that the ac- counts of Jesus in the Gospels are mythical., as he calls them, by which he means fabulous ; that nothing is certainly known of his true history, but that, having been mistaken for the Jewish Messiah, the fabulous accounts of him con- tained in the Gospels (which were founded principally on traditions and popular notions concerning the expected Mes- siah) had their origin, for the most part, among the Jewish people in the interval between his death and the destruction of Jerusalem, became connected with his name, and clouded over all the real events of his life. It is, of course, impos- sible that so brief an account should give the impression produced by the work itself. It is a work which to one un- acquainted with German speculation may exhibit the human mind under a new aspect, and cause a strange feeling of wonder at the entire incapacity which it exhibits of taking a comprehensive and correct view of a subject, or of estimat- ing what is probable or possible, connected with much pre- tension, a degree of superficial acuteness, and the power of writing two thick volumes. But this is not the most remark- able fact respecting it. Though, putting aside every other consideration, it might seem adapted to repel the great body Ix ADDITIONAL NOTES. of readers by its heaviness and wearisome diffuseness, yet the third edition of it is now lying before me ; and it has also been translated into French, to furnish a knowledge of Christianity to a people who are in general so mournfully ignorant of it.* But in Germany one folly has of late been continually thrusting out another ; and we may readily be- lieve what Strauss affirms, that the fashion of explaining miracles as natural events, which was so long prevalent, has fallen into disrepute ; and that he undertook his work, be- cause it appeared to him to be time to substitute a new mode of considering the Gospels, in place of the obsolete expo- sitions of the Supernaturalists and the Naturalists. * Since the present volume was first published, an English transla- tion of Strauss's work has appeared, made from the fourth German edition. — Note to 2d Edition, 1848. NOTE D. (See p. 175.) ON THE USE OF THE WORDS GEOS AND DEUS. In rendering the words 6(os and deus in this and in a former work,* I have repeatedly wished to explain my views of their signification and use ; and on the last occasion which presented itself in the present volume, I determined to make a few remarks on the subject. In order to a right apprehension of the theology either of the ancient Heathens or of the early Christians, the signifi- cation and use of those words must be understood. But I am not aware that any account has been given of them which will satisfactorily solve one very common phenome- non in the writings of the ancient heathen philosophers. I refer to the fact, that throughout their writings the words are used in the plural and in the singular number indiscrimi- nately. The solution of this fact involves the most impor- tant explanation required of their signification and use. The following passage from Cicero t is an example of what has been mentioned : — " Qui deos esse concedant, iis fatendum est, eos aliquid agere, idque prseclarum. Nihil est autem proeclarius mundi administratione ; deorum igitur consilio administratur. Quod si aliter est, aliquid profecto sit necesse est melius, et majore vi prseditum, quam deos, quale id cumque est, sive inanima natura, sive necessitas vi magna incitata, haec pulcherrima * Statement of Reasons. t De Nature Deorum, Lib. H § 30. Ixu ADDITIONAL NOTES. opera efficiens, quae videmus. Non est igitur natura deorum prsepotens, neque excellens, si quidem ea subjecta est ei vel necessitati, vel naturse, qua ccElum, maria, terrseque regan- tur. Nihil autem est prsestantlus deo ; ab eo igitur necesse est mundum regi ; nuUi igitur est naturse obediens aut sub- jectus deus ; omnem ergo regit ipse naturam. Etenim, si concedimus intelligentes esse deos, concedimus etiam provi- dentes." This passage is thus translated by Francklin : — " If we acknowledge there are gods, we must believe they are employed, and that in something excellent; nothing is so excellent as the administration of the universe; it is therefore governed by the wisdom of the gods. Otherwise we must imagine there is some cause superior to the deity, whether it be a nature inanimate, or a necessity agitated by a mighty force, that produces those beautiful works which we behold. The nature of the gods would then be neither supreme nor excellent, if you subject it to that necessity, or to that nature, by which you would make the heaven, the earth, and the seas to be governed. But there is nothing su- perior to the deity ; the world therefore must be governed by him ; consequently the deity is under no obedience or subjec- tion to any nature, but rules all nature himself. In effect, if we allow the gods have understanding, we allow also their providence." It is evident that this rendering must be erroneous. The sense which it gives is incongruous. There is an entire confusion of ideas in thus passing forwards and backwards from the gods to the Deity and from the Deity to the gods, and in ascribing to both the same characteristics. But the occurrence of passages like that quoted from Cicero is com- mon in the ancient heathen philosophers. That we may correctly understand them, two facts are to be attended to. The first is, that the signification of the terms 6(qs and USE OF THE WORDS GEOS AND DEUS. Ixiii deus, as used by heathen writers, was very different from that of our word " God." The latter is, in its primary meaning, a proper name, confined to the Supreme Being. The Greek or Latin term which we translate "god" was, on the other hand, a common name, equally applicable to a very large class of beings. The second consideration is, that common names are used in the singular number, not merely to denote an indi- vidual belonging to the class which they designate, but the whole class, or individuals of that class considered in refer- ence to qualities common to the class. In such cases the singular may be changed into the plural without any change of meaning. As, for example ; — " God made the country and man made the town." That is, " men made towns " or built cities. " Is it for thee the linnet pours his throat ? " Is it for thee that linnets sing .? " Loves of his own and raptures swell bis note (his notes)." " Who for thy table feeds the wanton fawn (fawns), For him (them) as kindly spreads the flowering lawn (lawns)." " In the same temple, the resounding v/ood, All vocal beings hymned their equal God." In temples of the same kind, the resounding woods. " Thus beast and bird (beasts and birds) their common charge attend ; The mothers nurse them, and the sires defend." Here, in the last line, the same sense might be expressed by the use of the nouns in the singular number : — The mother nurses and the sire defends. " The lion inhabits (lions inhabit) both Africa and Asia." Ixiv ADDITIONAL NOTES. I give a few short examples, such as may be easily de- tached from their connection, merely for the sake of illus- tration. Instances of this use of language are of continual occurrence. It is by this use of common names in the singular number with a plural signification, that such passages as that quoted from Cicero are to be explained. Deus, as used by him in the singular, does not mean the Deity or God. It denotes the class of beings called " gods." Where " the deity " is used in the translation I have quoted from Francklin, we shall give the true meaning of the original by substituting " the gods." The whole passage will thus become coher- ent. The most striking analogy in our own language to this use of the names 6e6s and deus in the ancient languages is found in the use of the name " man " ; because this name, like the two former, denotes a class of intelligent beings. The word " man " is very commonly used in the singular number with a plural meaning. As, for example : — " A part how small of the terraqueous globe Is tenanted by man ! " " Consider man as mortal, all is dark." " Man shall be blest as far as man permits." The singular and plural consequently may be used inter- changeably, as in the following passage : — " To faith and virtue why so backward man ? From hence : — The present strongly strikes us all ; The future faintly. Can we, then, be men ? If men, Lorenzo, the reverse is right. Reason is man's peculiar, sense the brute's. The present is the scanty realm of sense ; The future, reason's empire unconfined." As in our language, the word " man " in the singular USE OF THE WORDS eEOS AND DEUS. Ixv number is used to denote men generally, so in the Greek and Latin languages, tlie words 6fbs and deus are used in the singular with a like plural signification, to denote the gods generally, considered as a class of intelligent beings supei'ior to man.* As this use of deos and deus in the singular with a plural signification has not been commonly remarked, it may be worth while to illustrate it by a few more examples. In the conclusion of the first Book of Cicero's work " On the Na- ture of the Gods," Cotta thus reasons against the doctrines of Epicurus : — " Disinterested love and friendship are qualities of men. How much more, then, are they qualities of the gods {de- orum) ! They, though in want of nothing, love each other, and consult for the good of men. If it be not so, why do we venerate, why do we pray to the gods {deos) ? Epicurus takes away the gods {deos) in reality, and leaves them in words. If the gods are truly such that they have no favor and no love for men, let them go. For why should I say, ' May the gods be propitious ' .? {Si maxime talis est deus, ut nulla gratia, nulla hominum caritate teneatur, va- hat. Quid enim dicam, Propitius sitiy t To one of the statements of Balbus in the same work Cotta thus objects : — * There is a peculiarity of our language, in the use of the word "man," which deserves notice. In the Greek, in the English, and in other modern languages, which have the definite article, it is a general rule, that the article should be prefixed to common names, when used in the singular to denote a class of beings ; but our word " man," when thus used, always rejects it, — except some discriminat- ing epithet be connected with it which limits its application to a par- ticular class of men. In the latter case, it falls under the general rule ; as we may say, " the virtuous man," meaning " virtuous men." t Lib. I. § 44. VOL. in. .51 Ixvi ADDITIONAL NOTES. " ' The gods (rfw),' he says, ' do not take notice of all offences any more than kings.' What resemblance is there between the two cases ? For if kings knowingly pass over crimes, it is a great fault. But the gods have not the ex- cuse of iofnorance. {At deo ne excusalio quidem est insci- enticB.) You give a notable defence of them, when you say, that such is the power of the gods {Quern — i. e. quem deum — V OS pr cedar e defenditis, cum dicitis earn esse vim deorum), that if any one should escape by death the punish- ment of a crime, yet it would be required of his children, his grandchildren, his posterity. O wonderful equity of the gods {deorum) ! " * Cicero says, in his work " On Laws " : — t " The first ground of fellowship between man and the gods is reason {Prima homini cum deo rationis societas), which belongs both to man and the gods {est in homine et in deo). But as reason is common to both, so also is right reason. And as this is a law, we are to be regarded as further associated with the gods by subjection to a law {lege quoque consociali cum diis pufandi swmts).'''' In this example, we find the words homo and deus con- nected together, both with the same plural sense, as denoting the individuals of a class. I had thought of adding at length some other examples, as one from the Memorabilia of Socrates, | where Socrates is urging on Aristodemus the worship of the gods, and maintaining their existence and providence, and where, after using the name 6eol throughout the preceding part of the discourse in the plural, he passes to the use of 6f6s in the singular, and speaks of t6v tov Beov 6v oKciv. The true reading is vtto, not virep (which is a conjecture of R. Stephens). See Thirlby's note, and the Benedictine (Maran's) edition, p. 151. t Pag. 249. Ed. Thiribii. X Advers. Praxeam, c. 2. p. 501. See before, p. 175, note. § Philo, De Somniis, Lib. I. Opp. I. 655. \\ Comment, in Joan. T. IL Opp. IV. 51, 52. 11 De Consolatione, Lib. IlL Prosa 10. USE OF THE WORDS eEOS AND DEUS. Ixxvii word is here used metaphorically rather than as a common name. There is no doubt that the earUer fathers gave the name " o-od " to the Logos as a common name, using it in a sense altogether difTerent from -that in which they regarded it as the appropriate name of the Supreme Being. But they also applied it to the Logos in the latter sense by a common metonymy; the Logos being considered as the representa- tive and the instrument of God, as an hypostatized attribute of God, and as a being who was one with God in purpose and will. This figurative use of the word was blended with its use as a common name, and seemed to justify it. Of the confusion of thought and indistinctness of mean- ing produced by the use of debs and deus sometimes as proper and sometimes as common names we have an exam- ple in the charge brought by the catholic Christians against the Gnostics, that the Gnostics taught the existence of two Gods, the Supreme Being and the Creator. It was as a common name that the Gnostics applied the term " god " to the Creator, and not in the sense in which both they and the catholic Christians used it as the proper name of God. They might have retorted on the catholic Christians, that the latter, in giving the name " god " to the Logos, taught the existence of two Gods, or even, as appears from what pre- cedes, that they taught the existence of many Gods. Other remarks might be added, but they would tend, perhaps, to divert attention from the main facts that have been stated ; and, supposing those facts to be true, they are such as every intelligent scholar may make for himself. CORRECTIONS AND REMARKS. Vol. I. p. 118. I have thus rendered a passage from Strauss : — " Certainly it would be of decisive weight to establish the credibility of the Bible-history, were it proved .that it was written by eyewitnesses, or even hy contempo- raries in the neighbourhood of the events^ I have since observed, that I should have rendered the last clause thus : — " or even hy persons nearly contempo- rary with the events.'''' The words of the original are : — " oder doch [von] nahen Zeitgenossen der Begebenheiten " ; that is, literally, or hy near contemporaries of the events. This somewhat ambiguous expression I now perceive is explained by the commencement of the next paragraph, in which it is asserted, that " the pretence, that the Biblical writers were eyewitnesses of the events related by them, or lived near the time of their occurrence, is a mere assump- tion." " Doch diese angebliche Augenzeugenschaft oder Zeitnahe der biblischen Schriftsteller auf die von ihnen erzahlten Begebenheiten ist vorerst gleichfalls nur Vorur- theil." In recurring to the sentence I quoted, for the purpose of translating it, I had forgotten the explanation of it given by Strauss ; and looking only at the sentence itself, I could not, as may readily be supposed, believe that any writer meant to express by it what it appears that Strauss really intended. CORRECTIONS AND REMARKS. Ixxix According to him, when properly understood, it is alone sufficient to authenticate a history, that it was written, not by " a contemporary in the neighbourhood of the events," — that was an error of my own, — ^but by " a person nearly contemporary with the events." This is a position on which it is embarrassing to remark ; since to offer any comment on it may be mistaken as implying disrespect for the understanding of one's readers. I may, however, be excused for saying, that, if the fact, that a writer is nearly contemporary with the events which he professes to relate, be sufficient to authenticate his narrative, much more (as is said in Euclid's demonstrations) must be the fact of his being a contemporary ; whence it follows, that if any one at the present day should give an account of the British war in Afghanistan, whatever might be his character or his means of information, his history ought to be received as authentic. But the principles which Strauss lays down to guide us in judging of the credibility of histories have particular reference to the Gospels ; and these are full of accounts of miracles, that is, according to him, of supposed events which are impossible in the nature of things. It appears, therefore, that impossible events become credible, if related by a person nearly contemporary with their occurrence ; or rather we must say, to avoid too glaring an absurdity of expression, nearly contemporary with the time of their supjjosed occurrence. Vol. I. p. 125. I have quoted on this page the note of De Wette on a passage of Luke to which he refers to prove that the Gospel of Luke was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and have remarked the ambiguous use in it of the wttrds "lliose" and "these." This am- Ixxx CORRECTIONS AND REMARKS. biguity he has removed, in the third edition of his Commen- tary, pubhshed in 1846, by the insertion of a parenthesis, so that his note now stands thus : — " That Luke, in contradiction to Matthew, assigns an earlier date for the persecutions of the Christians, that is, before those wars and tumults, betrays the fact, that, at the time when he wrote, those, indeed (namely, the persecu- tions related in the seventh and eighth chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, and, perhaps, the persecution of Nero), but not these, had taken place." This insertion does not alter the essential character of his comment, but shows that it had passed anew under his inspection. If the fact were not before our eyes, it might -seem an incredible supposition, that a writer should refer to a passage in Luke, which he considers as carrying with it evidence that it was written before the wars and tumults which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, for the pur- pose of proving that Luke's Gospel was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem. Vol. I. p. 83, note, line L For ^tov' read ' Tfjv.'' Vol. II. p. 60, note t. For ' c. 7 ' read ' c. 27.' p. Ixxiii., line 17. For ' Agar' read ' Agur.' r.Nn OF vor.. iii. BS2555.4.N882V.3 The evidences of the genuineness of the Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00028 8490