ones or generations had a great conformity with the fephiroth of the cabaliftical doctors (1). They feem afterwards to have adopted feveral of the errors which were in vogue among the heathens, fince they acknowledged two Gods, one whereof they fuppofed to be the Supreme Being, the other they ftiled the Creator of the world. But it must be owned, that either their notions, or the reprefentations that have been given of them, are fo very confufed, that it is not poffible for us to fay any thing of them that can be depended on. What they were, may partly be gueffed at from the writings of St. Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Theodoret, Epiphanius (m), &c. It muft only be obferved, that fince there are none of the books of the gnoflicks extant at this day, we ought not in juftice to believe in every particular those ancient fathers that wrote against them, becaufe they difcover in their writings a great deal of prejudice and partiality. Perhaps the obfcure and barbarous expreffions which thefe hereticks affected to ufe, made their notions appear much more extravagant and dangerous, than they really were, as a late learned author hath plainly fhewn (n). / St. Irenæus tells us, that the gnofticks owed their rife to Simon Magus (). We read in fcripture (p) that this heretick had a mind to be thought fome mighty man, that he practifed magick, and bewitched the people of Samaria, that they all gave heed to him from the leaft to the greatest, and called him, the great power of God. It is further faid, that Simon was baptized by Philip, and that quite amazed at the wonderful works that were done by this Evangelist, he followed him every where. Finding that fuch miraculous operations tended to difcredit his forceries, he defired to be endued with the power of working miracles. As he undoubtedly used to be well paid for his impoftures, he judged of the Apoftles by himfelf, and offered them money to procure him the fame privilege (*). But for this he was feverely rebuked by the Apofties, who had been taught by their divine Mafter freely to give what they had freely received; and therefore he had no other reward for his ambition and impiety, than fhame and confufion. Terrified at the judgments of God which St. Peter denounced against him, he earneftly begged of the Apoftles, that they would The Simonians. (1) The Sephiroth of the cabala were certain numberings which were used to reprefent the attributes of God, confidered as the Creator and Governor of the world, and Protector of the church. The names of these sephiroth were erown, wisdom, understanding, magnificence, feverity, glory, victory, foundation and kingdom. Thefe numberings are fuppofed to have been the genealogies which St. Paul condemns. Vitring. Obf. Sacr. Diff. 4. 1. I. c. II. (m) See alfo our preface on the epiftle to the Coloffians, § xi. and on 1 Tim. $ xiv. The gnofticks were otherwife called borborites, upon account of the impurity of their lives: it is perhaps to them St, Paul alludes, Phil. iii. 2, 18, 19, (n) Vitringa, ubi fupra. (0) Iren. i. 20. It was undoubtedly by means of the cabala, that they pretended to exercise magick. (p) A&ts viii. 9, 10. (*) From hence giving or promifing any money or reward for holy orders, r to get a benefice, is come to be called Simony. would avert those judgments by their prayers. From that time forward we find no mention at all of Simon in holy fcripture (9). Juftin Martyr, who was cotemporary with him, tells us in his apology for the Chriftian religion, that this impoftor had divine worship paid him throughout all Samaria, as well as at Rome, and other places. He adds, that Simon carried along with him a Tyrian prostitute named Helena, which he called the first mind, and which, as he blafphemously faid, proceeded from him; thus applying to himself what is faid in the gospel, of the Father and the Son. St. Irenæus confirms Juftin's account of Simon, and moreover charges him, as doth alfo Gregory Nazianzen, with believing two principles, the one good, and the other bad; which was a prevailing notion amongst moft of the hereticks of thofe times (r). He afcribes to him feveral other opinions which are fo very ftrange and monftrous, that it can hardly be conceived, how any man could have folly or impudence enough to pretend to impofe fuch monftrous extravagancies upon the world (s); or, that there could be any perfons weak enough to believe fuch things, or fo wicked as to adhere to fuch a vile impoftor. However Origen (t) and Eufebius (2) tell us that there were still some Simonians in their time (*)., St. Irenæus gives a fhocking defcription of their morals. We may rank the Dofitheans among the Simonians. The author of them was one Dofitheus, who was cotemporary with Simon, and, as is fuppofed, his mafter (†). The Nicolaïtans are reprefented in the Revelations (x) The Nicolaïtans. as very infamous upon account of their idolatry and lewdness. It is fuppofed, and with a great deal of probability, that the followers of the doctrine of Balaam (y) were the Nicolaïtans (*), The Hebrew name Balaam fignifies the fame thing as the Greek word Nicolas, that is a conqueror of the people. St. Irenæus accuses them of being given to brutifh and fenfual pleasures. There is no manner of reafon (9) Juft. Mart. Apol. p. m. 54. Juftin fays, that there was a ftatue at Rome with this infeription, SIMONI SANCTO. But feveral learned au thors have proved that Juftin was mistaken, and that the flatue was dedicated SEMONI SANCO, which was one of the deities of the Sabines. (r) Iren. i. 28. (s) We may juttly reckon as fictitious what is related by fome authors of the fourth century, as the author, or rather the interpolator of the Apoft. Conftit. vi. 9. Arnob. contra Gent. 1. ii. p. 50. Cyril. Hierof. Catech. vi. p. 88. concerning the pretended fight of St. Peter with Simon, and the miraculous victory the Apoltle got over the magician; because they are not mentioned by more ancient authors, namely Juftin, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Eufebius. The latter fpeaks indeed of a difpute between St. Peter and Simon, but not a word of the pretended fight. Eufcb. 1. ii. c. 14. (t) Orig. contra Celf. i. 44. (u) Eufeb. Hift. Ec. l. ii. c. 13. (*) Such as were Menander, and his followers, concerning whom fee Iren. i. 21. and Tertullian de Anima. (†) Eufeb. H. E. 1. iv. c. 22. Orig. Tract. 27. in Matth. xxvii. 1. 1. (x) Rev. ii. 15. (y) 2 Pet. ii. 15. Jude ver. 11. Revel. ii. 14. (*) They were in all probability fo called, becaufe they were very great feducers. reafon for fuppofing that the deacon Nicolas, mentioned in the Acts (z), was the founder of this fect, though we find it afferted by St. Irenæus (a), and though they were wont to boast of it (t), grounding themselves upon an ambiguous expreffion, which Nicolas is faid to have ufed. But Clemens Alexandrinus hath cleared him from this imputation (b). And indeed is it likely that the Apostles, after having called upon the Holy Ghoft, would have chofen for deacon, a man of fo indifferent a character? The Nicolaïtans foon came to nothing (c). We learn from the Acts of the Apoftles (d), that all The Nazarenes. Chriftians in general were at first called Nazarenes. That name was afterwards given to thofe judaizing Chriftians, which joined the obfervance of the ceremonial law with the Christian inftitution. And for this reafon they rejected St. Paul's epiftles, as we are informed by St. Jerom, who calls them alfo Ebionites (e). Eufebius tells us, that they dwelt at Choba, a little town near Damafcus (†). It was in oppofition to them that St. Paul wrote his epiftle to the Galatians (f). There were fome alfo at Beræa a city of Syria, who, as St. Jerom tells us, gave him leave to tranfcribe the Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's gofpel. These first Nazarenes not entertaining, as far as we can find, any erroneus opinion concerning JESUS CHRIST, it is very probable that they have been confounded with the Ebionites, which did not appear till afterwards. Polycarp, as quoted by St. Irenæus (g), tell us that The Cerinthians. Cerinthus was cotemporary with St. John. St. Jerom pretends (b), that this Evangelift wrote his gofpel at the request of the bishops of Afia, in order to confute the Cerinthian herefy. We are told by fome authors of the 4th century (i), that he was the occafion of the affembling the council of Jerufalem, and the caufe of feveral perfecutions against St. Peter and St. Paul (k). The chief of his errors were as follow: 1. He maintained, that JESUS CHRIST was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Mary and Jofeph, and that he did not excel other men except in wifdom and holiness. 2. That after the baptifm of Jefus, the Chrift defcended upon him, and at his death flew up again into heaven, so that Jefus alone died, and rofe again. 3. That the world was not created by God, but by fome inferior power (1), as that of angels, whom he held in extreme veneration, and from whom he pretended to receive fome revelations (m). It is fuppofed with a great deal of probability, that St. Paul alludes to these erroneous opinions, when in his epiftle to the Galatians (») he Lays, (+) Eufeb. Hift. Ec. iii. 29. (d) Acts xxiv. 5. (2) Acts vi. 5. (a) Iren. i. 27. (i) Epiph. Hær. 28. Philaftr. de Hæref. c. 36. (g) Iren. iii. 3. (k) A&ts xii. xxi. fays, that though an angel from heaven fhould preach unto us any other doctrine than what is contained in the gofpel, we ought to look upon it as accurfed; and alfo in his epiftle to the Coloffians (0), where he condemns the worship of angels. Cerinthus was a great ftickler for the ceremonial law (p), and this was the reafon he rejected the epiftles of St. Paul (9). He was the author of those fenfual chiliafts or millenaries (r), who imagined that after the refurrection, mcn fhould live a thousand years upon earth in all manner of voluptuoufnefs and carnal pleasures. Papias and St. Irenæus believed also a` millennium, but they entertained more fpiritual ideas about it (s). This heretick must have been extremely odious, fince, according to Polycarp (t), St. John happening to be in a bath, where Cerinthus was, or had lately been, he got out of it in all hafte, as foon as he knew it, for fear it should fall upon him. This ftory, by the by, can hardly be reconciled with St. John's character. The Ebionites. St. Jerom (u) makes Ebion to have been fucceffor of Cerinthus (*). St. Irenæus feems notwithstanding to fay, that Ebion had not the fame notions concerning JESUS CHRIST 25 Cerinthus had (†). There is indeed this difference between them, that Ebion looked upon Jefus as the Meffiah, which Cerinthus did not (x); but they both agreed in this, that they thought JESUS CHRIST was no more than a mere man. Origen (*) mentions two forts of Ebionites, the first of which acknowledged that CHRIST was born of a virgin, whereas the others imagined that he was the fon of Jofeph and Mary. It was in all probability thefe two forts of Ebionites that Juftin Martyr fpoke of before Origen, without naming them, in a paffage which hath very much puzzled controverfial writers; but which, laying all controverly afide, admits of no manner of difficulty. The Ebionites were befides guilty of other errors; as for inftance, they joined the obfervance of the ceremonial law with the gospel, for which reafon they rejected the epiftles of St. Paul, whom they called an apoftate (y). Of the four Gofpels, they received only that of St. Matthew, as did also the Cerinthians and Nazarenes, which they had altered and adapted to their prejudices. They fancied, as we are told by Theodoret (z), that the Meffiah was come for the falvation of the Jews only. Some learned authors are of opinion (a) that St. John alluded to this laft (r) Eufeb. I. iii. 28. Auc. de Hæref. (u) Hieron. Dial. contra Lucif. 8. (*) Moft of the ancients fay, that one Ebion was the author of the fect of the Ebionites. But others fuppofe that this Hebrew name Ebion, which figni fies poor, was given them because they entertained but mean and poor ideas of Jefus Chrift. Both thefe opinions may be true, because proper names are often found to denote the temper of those whofe they are. (†) Iren. i. 26. Some learned authors are perfuaded that there is a mistake in St. Irenæus, and that inftead of non fimiliter, we should read confimiliter. See Dr. Grabe's Edit. (x) Iren. iv. 59. (*) Contra Celf. 1. v. p. 272. (y) Iren. i. 26. (z) Theod. Hæret. Fab. 1. (a) Orig. Philocal. 17. laft error, when he faid (b), That Jefus Chrift was the propitiation not We can get no manner of information from ecclefiafti- næus and Philetus, who faid that the refurrection was already paft. The This fame Apoftle ranks one Alexander among thofe that had made fhipwreck of their faith (b). It is, in all likelihood, the fame that is ellewhere called Alexander the copper-fmith, and who had caufed St. Paul much trouble (i). He places likewife among thofe apoftates Phygellus and Hermogenes, who are mentioned in no other place. Though St. Paul does not charge them with any error, it is notwithstanding very probable that they did not forfake him, till they had forfaken his doctrine. Tertullian, when writing against another Hermogenes (k), accufes the apoftolical Hermogenes (as he ftiles him) of herefy. (b) John ii. 2. (d) Theod. T. iii. p. 498. (f) Chap. xxxvii. Diotrephes, (c) 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. See alfo 1 Tim. i. 20. (b) 1 Tim. i. 20. (*) See our note on 2 Tim. ii. 18. (i) 2 Tim. iv, 14, |