nion, one of the most curious parts of his whole work, our Readers, we flatter ourselves, will not be difpleafed with out. inferting what he fays concerning the doctrines of the Gnostics.

It was from this oriental philosophy, fays he, of which the leading principles have been already mentioned, that the Chriftian Gnoftics derived their origin. If it was one of the chief tenets of this philofophy, that rational fouls were imprisoned in corrupt matter, contrary to the will of the fupreme deity; there were however, in this fame system, other doctrines which promised a deliverance, from this deplorable state of fervitude and darkness. The oriental fages expected the arrival of an extraordinary meffenger of the most high upon earth; a messenger invefted with a divine authority, endowed with the most eminent fanctity and wifdom, and peculiarly appointed to enlighten, with the knowledge of the fupreme being, the darkened minds of miferable mortals, and to deliver them from the chains of the tyrants and ufurpers of this world. When, therefore, fome of thefe philofophers perceived that Chrift and his followers wrought miracles of the most amazing kind, and alfo of the most salutary. nature to mankind, they were eafily induced to believe that he was the great meflenger expected from above, to deliver men from the power of the malignant genii, or spirits, to which, according to their doctrine, the world was fubjected, and to free their fouls from the dominion of corrupt matter. This fuppofition once admitted, they interpreted, or rather corrupted all the precepts and doctrines of Chrift and his apoftles, in fuch a manner, as to reconcile them with their own pernicious tenets. :

From the falfe principle abovementioned arofe, as it was but natural to expect, a multitude of fentiments and notions most. remote from the tenor of the gospel doctrines, and the nature of its precepts. The Gnoftic doctrine, concerning the creation of the world by one or more inferior beings of an evil, or, at least, of an imperfect nature, led that fect to deny the divine authority of the books of the Old Testament, whose accounts of the origin of things fo palpably contradicted this idle fiction. Through a frantic averfion to thefe facred books, they lavished their encomiums upon the ferpent, the first author of fin, and held in veneration fome of the moft impious and profligate perfons, of whom mention is made in facred hiftory. The pernicious in-. fluence of their fundamental principle carried them to all forts of extravagance, filled them with an abhorrence of Mofes and the religion he taught, and made them affert that in impofing fuch. a fyftem of difagreeable and fevere laws upon the Jews, he was only actuated by the malignant author of this world, who con-. fulted his own glory and authority, and not the real advantage of men. Their perfuafion that evil refided in matter, as its cen-. ter and fource, prevented their treating the body with that regard

8

gard that is due to it, rendered them unfavourable to wedlock, as the means by which corporeal beings are multiplied, and led them to reject the doctrine of the refurrection of the body, and its future reunion with the immortal spirit. Their notion that malevolent genii prefided in nature, and that from them proceeded all difeafes and calamities, wars, and defolations, induced them to apply themselves to the study of magic, to weaken the powers, or tufpend the influences of these malignant agents." I omit the mention of feveral other extravagancies in their fyl tem, the enumeration of which would be incompatible with the character of a compendious hiftory.

The notions of this fect concerning Jefus Chrift were impious and extravagant. For, though they confidered him as the fon of the fupreme God fent from the pleroma, or habitation of the everlasting father, for the happiness of miferable mortals ; yet they entertained the moft unworthy ideas both of his perfon and offices. They denied his deity, looking upon him as the fon of God, and confequently inferior to the father; and they rejected his humanity, upon the fuppofition that every thing concrete and corporeal is in itfelf eflentially and intrinfically evil. From hence the greatest part of the Gnoftics denied that Christ was cloathed with a real body, or that he suffered really, for the fake of mankind, the pains and forrows which he is faid to have fuftained, in the facred hiftory. They maintained that he came to mortals with no other view, than to deprive the tyrants of this world of their influence upon virtuous and heavenborn fouls, and, destroying the empire of these wicked spirits, to teach mankind, how they might feparate the divine mind from the impure body, and render the former worthy of being united to the father of spirits.

Their doctrine relating to morals and practice was of two kinds, and thofe extremely different from each other. The greatest part of this fect adopted rules of life that were full of aufterity, recommended a strict and rigorous abftinence, and prescribed the moft fevere, bodily mortifications, from a notion that they had a happy influence in purifying and enlarging the mind, and in difpofing it for the contemplation of celestial things. As they looked upon it to be the unhappiness of the foul to have been affociated, at all, to a malignant, terreftrial body, fo they imagined that the more that body was extenuated, the lefs it would corrupt and degrade the mind, or divert it from pursuits of a fpiritual and divine nature; all the Gnoftics, however, were not fo fevere in their moral difcipline. Some maintained that there was no moral difference in human actions; and thus, confounding right with wrong, they gave a loose rein to all the paffions, and afferted the innocence of following blindly

all their motions, and of living by their tumultuous dictates [r]. There is nothing furprizing or unaccountable in this difference between the Gnoftic moralifts. For, when we examine the matter with attention, we fhall find that the same doctrine may very naturally have given rife to thefe oppofite fentiments. As they all in general confidered the body, as the center and source of evil, those of that fect, who were of a morofe and auftere difpofition, would be hence naturally led to mortify and combat the body as the enemy of the foul; and those who were of a voluptuous turn might also confider the actions of the body, as having no relation, either of congruity or incongruity, to the ftate of a foul in communion with God.

• Such extraordinary doctrines had certainly need of an undoubted authority to fupport them; and as this authority was not to be found in the writings of the evangelifts or apoftles, recourfe was had to fables and stratagems. When the Gnoftics were challenged to produce the fources from whence they had drawn fuch ftrange tenets, and an authority proper to justify the confidence with which they taught them; fome referred to fietitious writings of Abraham, Zoroafter, Chrift and his apoftles;" others boafted of their having drawn these opinions from certain fecret doctrines of Chrift, which were not expofed to vulgar eyes; others affirmed, that they had arrived to thefe fublime. degrees of wisdom by an innate force and vigour of mind; and others afferted that they were inftructed in thefe mysterious parts of theological fcience by Theudas, a difciple of St. Paul, and by Matthias one of the friends of our Lord. As to thofe among the Gnoftics, who did not utterly reject the books of the New Teftament, it is proper to obferve, that they not only interpreted thofe facred books in the most abfurd manner, by neglecting the true fpirit of the words and the intention of the> writers, but also corrupted them, in the most perfidious manner,> by curtailing and adding, in order to remove what was unfavourable, or to produce fomething conformable to their perni! cious and extravagant system.

It has been already obferved, that the Gnoftics were divided in their opinions before they embraced Christianity. This appears from the account which has been given above of the oriental philofophy; and from hence we fhall comprehend the reafon, why they were formed into fo many different fects after their receiving the Chriftian faith. For, as every one endeavoured to force the doctrines of the gospel into a conformity with their particular fentiments and tenets, fo Chriftianity muft have appeared in different forms, among the different members

[r] See Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromatum lib. iii. cap. v. p. 539. edit. Potter.

7

of

of a fect, which paffed, however, under one general name. Another circumftance which also contributed to the diverfity of fects among this people, was, that fome being Jews by birth (as Cerinthus and others) could not fo eafily affume that contempt of Mofes, and that averfion to his hiftory, which were fo virulently indulged by those who had no attachment to the Jewish nation, nor to its religious inftitutions. We obferve, in the laft place, that the whole religious and philofophical fyftem of the Gnoftics was deftitute of any fure or folid foundation, and depended, both for its exiftence and fupport, upon the airy fuggeftions of genius and fancy. This confideration alone is a fufficient key to explain the divifions that reigned in this fect; fince uniformity can never fubfift, with affurance, but upon the bafis of evident, and substantial truth; and variety must naturally introduce itself into thofe fyftems and inftitutions, which are formed and conducted by the fole powers of invention and fancy.'

As the Chriftian religion was, in its first rise, corrupted in feveral places by the mixture of an impious and chimerical philofophy with its pure and fublime doctrines, our Author thinks it proper to mention the heads of thofe fects, who, in the first century, caft a cloud upon the luftre of the rifing church. Among thefe many give the first place to Dofitheus, a Samaritan. It is certain, the Author fays, that about the time o our Saviour, a man, fo named, lived among the Samaritans and abandoned that fect; but all the accounts we have of him tend to fhew, that he is improperly placed among those called Heretics, and fhould rather be ranked among the enemies of Christianity. For this delirious man fet himself up for the Meffiah, whom God had promised to the Jews; and difowning, of confequence, the divine miffion of Chrift, could not be faid to corrupt his doctrine.

The fame obfervation holds true, we are told, with respect to Simon Magus. This impious man is not to be ranked among the number of thofe who corrupted the purity and fimplicity of the Christian doctrine; nor is he to be confidered as the parent. and chief of the heretical tribe, in which point of light, he has been injudicioufly viewed by almoft all ancient and modern writers. He is rather to be placed in the number of those who were enemies to the progrefs and advancement of Chriftianity. For it is manifeft, the Doctor fays, from all the records we have concerning him, that, after his defection from the Chriftians, he retained not the leaft attachment to Chrift, but oppofed himself openly to the divine Saviour, and blafphemously affumed to himself the title of the Supreme Power of God.

The accounts, continues our Author, which ancient writers give us of Simon the Magician, and of his opinions, feem fo different,

different, and indeed fo inconfiftent with each other, that certain learned men have confidered them as regarding two different perfons, bearing the name of Simon, the one a magician and an apoftate from Chriftianity; the other a Gnoftic philofopher. This opinion, which fuppofes a fact without any other proof than a feeming difference in the narration of the ancient hiftorians, ought not to be too lightly adopted. To depart from the authority of ancient writers in this matter is by no means prudent, nor is it neceffary to reconcile the different accounts already mentioned, whofe inconfiftency is not real, but apparent only. Simon was, by birth, a Samaritan, or a Jew: when he had ftudied philofophy at Alexandria [u], he made a public profeffion of magic (which was nothing very uncommon at that time) and perfuaded the Samaritans, by fictitious miracles, that he had received from God the power of commanding and reftraining those evil beings by which mankind were tormented [w]. Having feen the miracles which Philip wrought, by a divine power, he joined himself to this apoftle, and embraced the doctrine of Chrift, but with no other defign than to receive the power of working miracles in order to promote a low intereft, and to preferve and encrease his impious authority over the minds of men. When St. Peter pointed out to him folemnly the impiety of his intentions, and the vanity of his hopes, in that severe difcourfe recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apoftles; then the vile impoftor, not only returned to his former ways by an entire defection from the Chriftians, but also opposed, wherever he came, the progrefs of the gospel, and even travelled into different countries with that odious defign. Many things are recorded of this impoftor, of his tragical end, and of the statue erected to him at Rome, which the greatest part of the learned reject as fabulous. They are at least uncertain, and destitute of all probability [x].

1

[u] Clementina Homil. ii. p. 633. tom. ii. PP. Apft.

[w] Acts viii. 9, 10.

5 It

[x] See Beaufobre Hiftoire de Manich. p. 203. 195. Van Dale's differtation, De Statua Simonis, fubjoined to his difcourfe concerning the ancient oracles. Deylingius Obfervat, Sacr. lib. i. Obferv. xxxvi. p. 140. Tillemont, Memoires pour fervir à l' Hiftoire de l'Eglife, tom i. p. 349. [The circumstances of Simon's tragical end, viz. His having pretended to fly by a miraculous power in order to please the emperor Nero, who was fond of magic; his falling to the ground and breaking his limbs in confequence of the prayers of St. Peter and St. Paul; and his putting himself to death, through fhame and despair, to have been thus defeated by the fuperior power of the apostles: all thefe romantic fictions have derived their credit from a fet of ecclefiaftical writers, who, on Rev. Aug. 1765. many