Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the fulness of the truth was delivered by the Apostles. This circumstance will assist us in accounting for the great variety of forms in which error presented itself, especially if we consider the vast extent of country and the widely separated regions over which the faith was diffused. But the cause to which we should more directly ascribe the multiplicity of heresies is the philosophical subdivisions of the heathen world, and the facility of combining opinions the most incongruous. Thus, while all parties were desirous to adapt the particular tenets of Christianity to their own preconceived opinions, which again materially differed in different sects, the forms created by such associations were necessarily very numerous, and frequently very monstrous.

Again, the manner in which the differences between the Church and those at variance with it were conducted, was not entirely free from violence of feeling and invective; the contrary would have been wonderful indeed, when we consider the situation and character of the parties. For, in the first place, as we shall presently see, a very large proportion of the early heresies were divided from the doctrine of the Gospel, not by slight or partial deviations, but by delusions so extravagant and irrational as to place them almost in direct opposition to the true spirit of Christianity. But this was not all; in themselves they were pitiable and pardonable, but in their effects on the Church they were fraught with injury and danger. Because the real character of the religion was not yet generally comprehended, and the heathens formed their estimation of it according to the specimen which was presented to them; and when they observed that absurdities were professed, and perhaps immoralities practised, in the name of Christ, they extended their contempt and indignation to the whole body of his followers. The individual expression of those sentiments would naturally retard the progress of the faith; but neither was this the whole evil, for calumnies springing from that origin not only tainted the Christian name, but contributed to call down upon it, during the moments of its most perilous weakness, those visitations of popular fury and imperial injustice, which threatened to crush and exterminate it. Under such cir

cumstances we shall scarcely condemn some intemperance of expression into which the early defenders of the apostolical doctrine were occasionally betrayed. At the same time we may remark, that as the controversies of those days were at least exempt from personal infliction, so religious dissent, being unrepressed by civil penalties, was less rancorous, as well as less consistent and less permanent.

The great multitude of those heresies was not only reconcilable with the moderation of the primitive Church, but may, in some degree, have proceeded from it. For as the imperfection of human nature will not allow us to hope, under any circumstances,. for perfect unanimity in religious opinion, so the names of dissent will generally become more numerous as its expression is less discouraged. But as the differences of dissenters from each other are generally greater than their deviations from the Church, from which they branch out in all directions as from a common centre, so any lasting coalition is little to be apprehended, and least so, when no temporal authority is exerted to chastise, and by chastisement to multiply and unite them.

See Orig. Contr. Celsum, lib. iii. p. 119. 1. v. p. 271. Le Clerc, H. E., ad ann. 83. Notwithstanding, Gibbon supposes the exertions of the heretics to have promoted, upon the whole, the progress of Christianity; because (as he thinks) the heathen, to whom they communicated an imperfect knowledge of the faith, subsequently threw off their errors and melted into the body of the Church.

SITY

It would be tedious and unprofitable successively to enumerate all the heresies and dissensions of the early Christians; and it is very difficult to classify them with accuracy; for several, which were distinct in their origin,. arrived by different roads so nearly at the same conclusions, that they may there seem to be identified; while others are so obscure in their own nature, or from defects in our information, as to make it neither very certain, nor perhaps very important, to which class they most properly belong. Mosheim distinguishes three classes of early heretics: (1.) those who associated Christianity with Judaism, who were the Nazarenes and Ebionites; (2.) those who engrafted some of its doctrines on the system of the oriental philosophy, among whom are accounted, of the Asiatic school, Elxai, Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Cerdo, and Marcion; of the Alexandrian, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the perfecter of the system, Valentinus; (3.) those who endeavoured to explain certain of the Christian mysteries by the principles of the Grecian philosophy, among whom are placed Praxeas, Artemon, Theodotus, and others. It has been objected to this division, that it is not supported by the authority of the ancient fathers, who, in no instance, derive the opinions which they combat from the oriental philosophy. Tertullian, indeed, expressly calls the philosophers the parents or patriarchs of the heretics,' but it is to the Grecian school that he intends to confine that charge, and especially to the sects of Pythagoras and Plato, against which he constantly alleges it. Other writers hold the same language, and Irenæus goes so far as to derive the doctrine of the succession of ons, promulgated by Valentinus, from the Greek Theogonies, not from the speculations of the eastern sages. From this circumstance we are at liberty to infer, either that the eastern philosophy had no share in the origin of the early heresies, or that those fathers were entirely unacquainted with its existence.

A different view is taken of this subject by Dr. Burton.* He ascribes the rise of all the oldest heresies to the Gnostic philosophy. But at the same time under that comprehensive name, we understand him directly or indirectly to combine almost every form of philosophy which was professed throughout the whole extent of the eastern and western empire. The three sources which contributed to form this heterogeneous mixture, were, (1.) the eastern doctrine of the two principles; (2.) the Jewish Cabala; (3.) the Platonic philosophy: the last of these, under its various modifications, supplied the most abundant stream; and the point of their conflux and commixture is naturally supposed to have been that vast emporium of commerce and literature, Alexandria. In this city principally Gnosticism, such as it is here described, is believed to have been amalgamated into one substance, and hence distributed over the various provinces of the Roman empire not very long before the birth of Christ.

We have no space to state the learned arguments by which that opinion is supported, nor those which might reasonably be urged against it; but the fact is indisputable, that, before the period of which we are treating, the theological speculations of the eastern philosophers had been received in Europe with favour and attention, in so far that even the worship which was founded on them was in very common practice. But whether we should still continue to distinguish the Grecian from the Oriental, as peculiarly the Gnostical philosophy, or whether we should employ the term Gnosticism to designate a single system formed from their union, is a question which it is not necessary for us to discuss, since it is admitted that Gnos

See Bampt. Lect, II. and III. and note 7.

1

ticism, in its more extended sense, embraced a multitude of ill-assorted opinions, impregnated more or less deeply with the character of the soil out of which they respectively rose.

For our own part, in the concise view which we are here enabled to present of the multiform family of heretics, we shall rather be directed by their subject than by their supposed origin-by the common character which runs through them, than by the source whence that character may have been derived. And with this intent, we shall first mention those wherein some of the Christian doctrines were corrupted by association with that extended philosophical system which took its root in the vain inquiry respecting the origin of evil; secondly, we shall notice those which laid the foundation of the great controversies respecting the Trinity and Incarnation, which broke out in succeeding ages; and, lastly, we shall mention one or two of those which appear to have been excited by mere individual enthusiasm or madness. In the mean time, we readily admit the imperfection of this division in the light of an absolute distinction, since some of the opinions held by those whom we shall place in the second class, might be traced to the principles which will be treated in the first ; and there is so much wildness in the ravings* of certain in both those classes, that they might perhaps, without much error, be adjudged to the third. The mention of the Manichæans we shall entirely defer until a later period in our history.

I. The Oriental philosophy, which is commonly confounded with Gnosticism†, proceeded from the hopeless inquiry into the nature and origin of evil. Convinced that this could not possibly be ascribed to the divine agency, the speculators embraced what appeared to be the only alternative, and attributed it to matter; and matter must of consequence be eternal. And then, when they proceeded to consider the various forms of matter, senseless and animal, exhibited in the visible world, and their seeming imperfections, they found it impossible to account for so many modifications of evil, except by the supposed agency of some being, superior indeed to man, but subordinate to the Author of all good. At this point ceased the uniformity of the fanciful theory, and it branched off into inquiries like the following: What was this mighty, though inferior, being?—of what origin, power, attributes?—one and alone, or assisted or served by others, equal or inferior?

All these points were disputed; all however agreed as to the independent existence of the two principles, good and evil; and nearly all that the latter was the Creator of the world. Such were the philosophical notions of these persons; and such was their attachment to them, that even when they became persuaded of the divine mission of Christ, they were unwilling entirely to sacrifice them, but rather strove to associate them with the doctrines and engraft them on the history of the Bible. The first consequence of so perverse a misapplication of human reason was this-the monstrous conclusion that the God of the Jews was the evil principle, and that Jesus Christ was sent down by the good principle to put an end to his reign on earth; that the former was the God of the Old, and the latter that of the New Testament. At this point the philosophy of the Gnostics ended, and their heresy began; and the errors which we

See Irenæus, lib. i. c. 29, et seq. Le Clerc, H. E., ann. 76.

The word is derived from yes, signifying merely knowledge, crudition. But it later sense among Christian writers implies some acquaintance with mysterious doctrines or occult interpretations, not possessed by ordinary persons. See Le Clerc on the subject of Gnosticism, Hist. Eccl. ad ann. 76.

have mentioned; speedily led them into others: after rejecting-such was the necessary consequence of their opinions-the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament, they applied themselves to the misrepresentation of the New. They denied the humanity of Christ, asserting that he came not in the flesh; that he suffered not, that he died not; that what seemed to be material in his nature was a fantastic, incorporeal substance. The same principles obliged them also to dispute the resurrection of the body, a substance too gross for an eternal destiny. This opinion again variously affected their moral practice; for while there were undoubtedly some who mortified the sensual portion of our nature, for the greater perfection of the soul, there are also said to have been others, of more violent enthusiasm or fiery temperament, who permitted every license of impurity to that which lay so far beneath consideration and respect. It is chiefly to the Gnostic heretics of Egypt (who were distinguished from their brethren by greater wildness in their speculations) that these excesses are attributed; we cannot now determine how truly. But on the other hand it is just to mention that, in professing the Christian name, those heretics did not always shrink from the dangers which surrounded it; and we have evidence that many among them encountered persecution with the same courage which distinguished their brethren of the Church, and endured it with the same unbending constancy*.

Among the Gnostic heretics (thus we shall continue to denominate those who associated, however variously and diversely, the Eastern or Persian system with some belief in Christ) it is usual to account the followers of Simon Magus †, the first corrupter of the Christian doctrine : these are said to have been numerous, especially at Rome; and the celebrity of their master has been considerably increased by an error of Justin Martyr, repeated by several of the fathers, who mistook a statue inscribed to Semo, a Sabine deity, for a proof of the deification of that heresiarch. Nicolas, one of the seven deacons mentioned in the Acts, is asserted to have misled the sect called Nicolaitans §; Menander, the pupil of Simon, perpetuated his teacher's errors, and through him they were transmitted to Saturninus, who disseminated them in the Asiatic, and to Basilides ||, who may have introduced them into the Egyptian school. In this prolific soil, equally favourable to the growth of evil and of good, they became, among the gross disciples of Carpocrates, the

* In Diocletian's persecution, Peter and Asclepias, the former a member of the Church, the latter a Marcionite Bishop, were burnt. 'Peter,' says Tillemont, went to Heaven, and Asclepias to hell-fire.' That intemperate bigot might have taken a lesson of moderation even from the language of Eusebius: With Peter suffered Asclepias; through a zeal, as he thought, for picty, but not for that which is according to knowledge; however, they were consumed in one and the same fire.'-Jortin, Rem. Eccl. Hist., book ii. p. ii.

Simon Magus taught in Samaria that he was the Father, in Judæa that he was the Son, among the Gentiles that he was the Holy Spirit.' Iren., i. c. 20. Tertull, de Præscr. Her., c. 45. Simon Magus ausus est summam se dicere virtutem, i. e. summum Deum, post hunc Menander, discipulus ipsius, eadem dicens quæ Simon ipse. He denied that any one could be saved unless baptized in his name.

Justin asserts that a statue was erected in his honour bearing the following inscription in Latin, Simoni Deo Sancto. This was generally believed until, in the year 1574, a statue was discovered in the island of the Tiber having an inscription beginning thus:* Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum.' We cannot think Dr. Burton successful in his attempt to defend Justin.

This appears to have been the same with the heresy of Cerinthus, against which St. John is by many believed to have written his Gospel. ̧

See Le Clerc, H. E., ad ann. 78 and 118.

Iren, lib. i. c. 25. Euseb. lib. iv. c. 7. This reproach is shared with the Nicolai

taus. Burton, Bampt. Lect. V., conclusion.

*

principles of deliberate immorality, while they received from the ingenuity of Valentinus such refinement, as to call on that writer the particular attention both of Irenæus and Tertullian †. Cerdo, and after him Marcion, the most distinguished among the heretics of his day, introduced the same delusion, with certain ‡ variations, into Rome during the reign of Antoninus Pius. Here the doctrines § were immediately disclaimed by the prelates of that Church, and confuted by the ablest Christian writer, Justin Martyr. They were afterwards made the subject of a separate treatise by Tertullian. It has been inferred from the discovery of some Gnostic medals in France that the heresy was at one time generally disseminated in the western provinces. But this fact, liable as it is to some dispute, is not sufficient to counterbalance the silence of history confirmed by the certainty of the early disappearance of the sect. In the mean time we do not dispute that the philosophy of the Gnostics had some prevalence throughout that part of the empire during the first and second centuries, but it was not until the end of the second that Christianity can be said to have made any progress there.

Soon afterwards, in the year 172, Tatian, a man of some learning, and a disciple of Justin Martyr, built on the basis of Gnosticism the heresy of the Encratites. These sectarians professed the simplest principles of the monastic life, meditation and bodily austerity. It may be said, perhaps, that under the names of Essenes and Therapeutæ such enthusiasts existed in the very carliest age of Christianity, and even before its foundation; but it is certain that it was at this period, and under this designation, that they first attracted serious attention; and it is not disputed that they met with utter discouragement and condemnation from the Church. For the birth of monasticism was not destined to take place in an age of piety and sincere devotion; and when at length it was produced by fanaticism infuriated by persecution, its growth was still slow and unequal, keeping pace with the corruption of religion and the degradation of the Church.

It is a strong, but scarcely exaggerated expression of St. Jerome ||. that the body of our Lord was declared to be a phantom while the Apostles were still in the world, and the blood of Christ was still fresh in Judæa. The Phantastics, under the denomination of Docetæ, were, indeed, a sect of very early origin, and we connect their opinions with one peculiarity of the Gnostic system which we have not yet mentioned. Certain among those philosophers, in order to remove the Author of good to an immeasurable distance from the contact of matter, imagined a vast succession of created but superhuman beings, as the agents of

Le Clerc places Carpocrates at the year 120 A. D., and Valentinus in the year following-aut non multo serius.

+ Our information respecting Gnosticism is chiefly collected from the writers who opposed Valentinus, and especially from Irenæus.

Cerdo and Marcion appear to have asserted the doctrine of the two principles with more boldness than the Valentinians; but both parties agreed in teaching that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the world nor the God of the Old Testament. Tertull. c. Marc., lib. i. c. 15, 16. Iren., lib. i. c. 47. Burton, Bampt. Lect., p. 50.

§ It appears that one of the grounds on which Marcion resisted was the refusal of the Church to make any concession to the Jews, or conciliate them by any compromise of the pure faith. This appears to prove that the principal success of the Gnostic heresy had been among the Jewish converts. Probably it was most prevalent in Judæa and Egypt; but we also learn that the Church of Ephesus was early tainted by it, and probably it had gained some footing throughout Asia Minor. Marcion was a native of Pontus. The work of Justin is lost.

Advers. Lucif, xxiii., vol. ii. p. 197.

« AnteriorContinuar »