the Gospels, and were little likely to be received except by individuals possessed of more than usual hardihood of mind. In the practice of their self-denying virtues or extravagances, they were not encouraged, as others have been, by popular admiration. On the contrary, they were objects of odium. They had no external support but from among themselves. They were rejected by the catholic Christians as heretics, and by the Heathens they were persecuted as Christians. They were very conscientious, but very erroneous, believers. Such a sect we must suppose to have been small, compared with the catholic Christians; though there is some ground for believing, that its number was nearly or quite equal to that of all the other Gnostics.

The fact, that the different sects of Gnostics insensibly melted away at so early a period, and the further fact, that their doctrines had so little influence upon the belief of subsequent Christians, likewise afford proof that they formed

From a single passage of Tertullian already referred to (Advers Marcion. p. 469); -" Marcion totum concubitum auferens fidelibus, (viderint enim catechumeni ejus)," it may indeed be inferred, that the prohibition of the marriage state was not ex tended to catechumens, that is, to those aspiring to be member of the sect, and receiving instruction. But nothing more tha this, I think, appears.

only a small part of the whole Christian body. The same inference may be drawn from the manner in which they were treated by the early fathers, who manifest no alarm at their growth, nor fear of their prevalence, but who write concerning them in a tone of undoubting superiority. It may be further observed, that the early fathers, in the passages in which they speak of the multitude of Christians, who had spread through the world, neither except nor include the Gnostics, but appear not to have had them in mind, though they certainly did not consider them as belonging to the Church, or, in other words, to the great body of proper Christians. In the passages, likewise, in which they speak of the unity of faith in the Church, their modes of expression imply that the Gnostics bore but a small proportion to the catholic Christians. "The Church," says Irenæus, "though scattered over the whole world, carefully preserves the faith derived from the apostles and their disciples, as if it were but a single family in one house. ..... It speaks as with one mouth. For, various as are the languages of the world, the essential doctrine is one and the same. No different belief has been held or taught by the churches founded in Germany, nor by those in Spain, nor in Gaul, nor in the East,

120

GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.

nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor by those founded in the middle of the world [Judea]. But as the sun, the creature of God, in every part of the world is one and the same, so the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all who are desirous of knowing the truth."* Language such as this could hardly have been used, if there had been a large body of professed Christians who rejected the doctrines of the Church.

HERE, then, we conclude what may be called the external history of the Gnostics. In the next chapter, we shall speak of their moral characteristics, in connexion with their imperfect knowledge of Christianity.

Cont. Hæres. Lib. I. c. 10. § 2. p. 49. conf. § 1. p. 48.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE MORALS OF THE GNOSTICS, AND THEIR IMPERFECT CONCEPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.

WHEN, in the second century, after an interval of obscurity, following the times of the Apostles, the catholic Christians appear distinctly in view, we find them distinguished, as a body, by their abhorrence of the vices of the heathen world, by a high and stern morality, by the strictness of the discipline which respective churches exercised over their members, by a general tendency to the virtues of the ascetic and the martyr, and by Christian faith, the conviction of the reality of the unseen and the future, controlling the sense of present pleasures and sufferings. In this character the Marcionites appear to have shared; but what was the state of morals among the theosophic Gnostics, is a question less easy to decide.

Clement of Alexandria divides the heretics into two classes. "They either teach men,"

he says, "to lead a loose life, or, with overstrained severity, they preach continence through impiety and enmity; "*- that is, as Clement meant, enmity towards the Creator. In his view, the latter class included the Marcionites, and some ascetics among the other Gnostics, to all of whom the name of Encratitest was given. They taught that it was not right to marry and bring children into this imperfect and unhappy world; and, regarding the body as evil, considered sensual pleasures as sinful. In consequence, Clement ascribes their principles to enmity to the Creator. "Through opposition to the Creator," he says, "Marcion rejected the use of the things of this world." A similar account of the self-denial of the Encratites, and of its cause, is given by Irenæus. || To the strict morals of the Marcionites, Tertullian bears indirect but decisive testimony. He is speaking of their doctrine, that while the Creator was just, and inflicted punishment, the Supreme God, their God, was good, and not to

* Stromat. III. § 5. p. 529, seqq. Conf. §§ 3, 4. p. 515

seqq.

From the Greek lyngarns, "practising self-command," "con tinent."

Stromat. III. § 4. p. 522.

Cont. Hæres. Lib. I. c. 28. § 1. pp. 106, 107.