apostle referred to them as already employed by Gnostics. The Valentinians made use of the passage in question, and accommodated it to their opinions, as they did the rest of the New Testament, as far as was in their power.

It has been especially thought, that St. John, in his first Epistle, animadverts either on the opinion existing in the second century among the theosophic Gnostics, that the man Jesus was to be distinguished from the Eon Christ, as a distinct agent; which was connected with the doctrine, that Jesus had not a proper human body of flesh and blood; or, on the opinion of the Docetæ, that the apparent body of Jesus was a mere phantom. He has been supposed to do so in the passage in which he says; "Every spirit [that is, every teacher] professing that Jesus is the Messiah [or Christ] come in the flesh, is from God; and every spirit which professes not Jesus, is not from God."* But it seems to me most probable, that the apostle merely had in view individuals, who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, and objected, that the Messiah would not have come, as Jesus had

* 1 John iv. 2, 3. I omit, with Griesbach and other critics, the words in the last clause, answering to those italicized in what follows; "And every spirit which professes not that Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God."

done, to lead a life of hardship, and die a cruel and ignominious death; that he would not have "come in the flesh," that is, exposed to all the accidents and sufferings of humanity. Perhaps, however, by the Messiah's "coming in the flesh," St. John meant nothing more, than that he had "appeared in the world," that he had "appeared among men." That the words were not essential to the main idea which he wished to express is evident from his omitting them in a corresponding passage, where he likewise refers to the false teachers to whom Christians were exposed, and where he simply describes them as "denying that Jesus is the Messiah."* In this passage, if in either, one might suppose him to have had Christian heretics in view, for he says, that those of whom he speaks had separated themselves from the body of Christians; † but it seems clear, that he did not here refer to individuals, as holding any Gnostic doctrine, but to proper apostates and unbelievers.

It may appear, therefore, that little or nothing can be inferred from any authentic source to prove the existence of Gnostic systems or

* 1 John ii. 22.

"They have gone out from us.” Ibid., ii. 19.

sects during the first century.* The accounts relating to supposed Gnostics by Irenæus and others, as we have seen in the case of Cerinthus, will not bear the test of examination; or relate, as in the case of Simon Magus and Menander, not to Christian heretics, but to antichristian impostors. But we are now about to quit the uncertain ground, over which we have hitherto made our way, and enter on a somewhat more open road. In the earlier part of the second century, light breaks in upon us, and individuals and systems distinctly apWe likewise find evidence to confirm the conclusion to which we have arrived, that the Gnostics did not before this time make their appearance.

pear.

There is no dispute that the leading sects of the Gnostics, that is to say, the Valentinians

In treating of the heretics of the first century, I, of course, make no use of the pretended Epistles of Ignatius, of the character of which I have spoken in the preceding volume. (p. cclxxviii, seqq.-Jerome (Advers. Luciferianos, Opp. IV. P. II. col. 304) in a declamatory passage, full, as I conceive, of misstatements, asserts, that "while the apostles were still living, while the blood of Christ was still recent in Judæa, it was maintained that the body of Christ was a phantom." But the authority of such a writer, at the end of the fourth century, is of no weight. Gibbon, however, twice imitates the passage of Jerome, and repeats his assertion. (History of the Roman Empire, Ch. XXI. Vol. III. p. 120, and Ch. XLVII. Vol. VIII. p. 266.)

and the Marcionites, with whom the Basilidians. may perhaps be classed,* had their origin after the close of the first century. "Subsequently to the teaching of the apostles," says Clement of Alexandria, "about the reign of Adrian [A. D. 117-138] appeared those who devised heretical opinions, and they continued to live till that of the elder Antoninus [A. D. 138-161]. Of this number was Basilides, though, as his followers boast, he claimed Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter, for his teacher; as it is likewise reported that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas, who was familiar with Paul. As for Marcion, who was their contemporary, he continued to remain as an old man with his juniors."†

Origen, when speaking generally of the Gnostics, often mentions these three sects in connexion, as representatives of their body. The Basilidians, like the Valentinians, were theosophic Gnostics, whom we shall have occasion to consider more particularly hereafter.

66

† Stromat. VII. § 17. pp. 898, 899. The rendering, continued to remain as an old man with his juniors," is founded on a conjectural emendation. The sentence now stands in Clement thus ; Μαρκίων γὰρ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αὐτοῖς ἡλικίαν γενόμενος, ὡς πρεσβύτης νεωτέροις συνεγένετο· μεθ ̓ ὃν Σίμων ἐπ' ὀλίγον κηρύσσοντος τῷ Πέτρα ὑπή. 28019. For συνεγένετο· μεθ' 3, I would read συνεγένετο μένων. Marcion, as will be immediately mentioned above, is spoken of by Justin Martyr as still living in his time, about the year 150.

The words relating to Simon, Σίμων ἐπ' ὀλίγον κηρύσσοντος τοῦ Πέτρου ὑπήκουσεν, are evidently foreign from the purpose of Cle ment. He is insisting that the heretical teachers appeared after

The account of Clement respecting Valentinus and Marcion corresponds with what is said by Irenæus; who states that Valentinus "came to Rome while Hyginus was bishop, flourished during the time of Pius, and remained till that of Anicetus. -Marcion was at his height under Anicetus."* The particular dates assigned to these three bishops of Rome are so various and uncertain as to make it not worth while to give them; but the first died some time before, and the last survived, the middle of the second century. Justin Martyr, who wrote his first Apology about the year 150, twice speaks in it of Marcion as then living; † and Tertul

the apostolic age. But, according to the words in question, Simon is represented, not as a heretic who appeared after the apostolic age, but as contemporary with St. Peter; while, if their connexion with what precedes by μ be retained, he is at the same time affirmed to have succeeded Marcion. It seems, therefore, not unlikely that the words were originally a marginal annotation, which has been introduced into the text of Clement, and which was made by some one, who, thinking Simon the author of all the Gnostic heresies, observed that Clement had omitted to mention him. But Simon is nowhere so spoken of by Clement.

That there is some corruption of the text of the sentence I have quoted is evident; and various emendations have been proposed. See the note on it in Potter's edition of Clement, and Lewald's Commentatio de Doctrinâ Gnosticâ, p. 12, seqq.

* Cont. Hæres. Lib. III. c. 4. § 3. pp. 178, 179.

I. Apolog. p. 43. p. 85.