from γνώσις, “knowledge,” men of science and wisdom,
_illuminati_; men who, from blending the philosophy of the east, or of
Greece, with the doctrines of the Gospel, boasted of deeper knowledge in
the Scriptures and theology than others. It was, therefore, not so
properly a distinct sect as a generic term, comprehending all who,
forsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, pretended to be “wise above what
is written,” to explain the New Testament by the dogmas of the
philosophers, and to derive from the sacred writings mysteries which
never were contained in them. The origin of the Gnostic heresy, as it is
called, has been variously stated. The principles of this heresy were,
however, much older than Christianity; and many of the errors alluded to
in the apostolic epistles are doubtless of a character very similar to
some branches of the Gnostic system. (See _Cabbala_.) Cerinthus, against
whom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the
Revelation, and the Ebionites, (described under that article,) were all
early Gnostics, although the system was not then so completely formed as
afterward. Dr. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, has thus sketched the
Gnostic system:--In attempting to give an account of these doctrines, I
must begin with observing what we shall see more plainly when we trace
the causes of Gnosticism, that it was not by any means a new and
distinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system.
Thus we find in it the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and the notion that
every thing in this lower world has a celestial and immaterial
archetype. We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabalistic
jargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion
of the Jews; and many Gnostics adopted the oriental notion of two
independent coëternal principles, the one the author of good, the other
of evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms
which must have been taken from the Gospel; and Jesus Christ, under some
form or other, of _æon_, emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into
all their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that
knowledge which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them
to their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was
mystery: its end and object was to purify its followers from the
corruptions of matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being,
suited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge.
2. We have a key to many parts of their system, when we know that they
held matter to be intrinsically evil, of which, consequently, God could
not be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet, that the creator
of the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the
Author of good, and the Father of Christ. Their system allowed some of
them to call the creator God; but the title most usually given to him
was Demiurgus. Those who embraced the doctrine of two principles
supposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle; and, in
most systems, the creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked
upon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some,
again, believed that angels were employed in creating the world; but all
were agreed in maintaining that matter itself was not created, that it
was eternal, and remained inactive, till
_Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,
Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit._
OVID.
[Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the mass, and reduced
it, when separated, into elements.]
The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a _pleroma_ of
inaccessible light; and beside the name of first Father, or first
Principle, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable
nature of his perfections. This being, by an operation purely mental, or
by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes,
from whom, by a series of descents, more or less numerous according to
different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called
_æons_, from the periods of their existence before time was, or
_emanations_, from the mode of their production. These successive _æons_
or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and
their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might
account for the creation of the world without making God the author of
evil. These _æons_ lived through countless ages with their first father;
but the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric
circles; and they gradually deteriorated, as they approached nearer and
nearer to the extremity of the _pleroma_. Beyond this _pleroma_ was
matter, inert and powerless, though coëternal with the supreme God, and
like him without beginning. At length, one of the _æons_ passed the
limits of the _pleroma_, and, meeting with matter, created the world,
after the form and model of an ideal world which existed in the
_pleroma_ or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that
inconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the
intermediate _æons_ be as many as the wildest imagination could devise,
still God was the remote, if not the proximate, cause of creation. Added
to which, we are to suppose that the Demiurgus formed the world without
the knowledge of God; and that, having formed it, he rebelled against
him. Here, again, we find a strong resemblance to the oriental doctrine
of two principles, good and evil, or light and darkness. The two
principles were always at enmity with each other. God must have been
conceived to be more powerful than matter, or an emanation from God
could not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to
reduce matter into its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the
Demiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always
endeavouring to cure: and here it is that the Gnostics borrowed so
largely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of
their _æons_ were evidently taken from terms which they found in the
Gospel. Thus we meet with _Logos_, _Monogenes_, _Zoe_, _Ecclesia_, all
of them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in
the _pleroma_. At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two
of the last _æons_ which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world
to remedy the evil which the creative _æon_ or Demiurgus had caused. He
was to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter, or of the evil
principle; and, by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto
unknown, to fit them, by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge, to
enter the divine _pleroma_. To give this knowledge, was the end and
object of Christ’s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and
believers of the doctrine assumed to themselves the name of Gnostics. In
all their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with
the same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence
of evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real
connection with matter: yet, the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to
be the same with him who was revealed in the Gospel; and it was
notorious that he was revealed as the Son of Mary, who appeared in a
human form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the
difficulty, were principally two: they either denied that Christ had a
real body at all, and held that he was an unsubstantial phantom; or,
granting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents,
they believed that one of the _æons_, called Christ, quitted the
_pleroma_, and descended upon Jesus at his baptism.
3. We have seen that the God who was the father or progenitor of Christ,
was not considered to be the creator of the world. Neither was he the
God of the Old Testament, and the giver of the Mosaic law. This notion
was supported by the same argument which infidels have often urged, that
the God of the Jews is represented as a God of vengeance and of cruelty;
but it was also a natural consequence of their fundamental principle,
that the author of good cannot in any manner be the author of evil. In
accordance with this notion, we find all the Gnostics agreed in
rejecting the Jewish Scriptures, or, at least, in treating them with
contempt. Since they held that the supreme God was revealed for the
first time to mankind by Christ, he could not have been the God who
inspired the prophets; and yet, with that strange inconsistency which we
have already observed in them, they appealed to these very Scriptures in
support of their own doctrines. They believed the prophets to have been
inspired by the same creative _æon_, or the same principle of evil,
which acted originally upon matter; and if their writings had come down
to us, we should perhaps find them arguing, that, though the prophets
were not inspired by the supreme God, they still could not help giving
utterance to truth.
4. Their same abhorrence of matter, and their same notion concerning
that purity of knowledge which Christ came upon earth to impart, led
them to reject the Christian doctrines of a future resurrection and a
general judgment. They seem to have understood the Apostles as preaching
literally a resurrection of the body; and it is certain that the fathers
insisted upon this very strongly as an article of belief. But to imagine
that the body, a mass of created and corruptible matter, could ever
enter into heaven, into that _pleroma_ which was the dwelling of the
supreme God, was a notion which violated the fundamental principle of
the Gnostics. According to their scheme, no resurrection was necessary,
much less a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to
perfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the grossness of
matter; and, by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnostic
could comprehend, he was raised to be an inhabitant of the divine
_pleroma_. If we would know the effect which the doctrines of the
Gnostics had upon their moral conduct, we shall find that the same
principle led to two very opposite results. Though the fathers may have
exaggerated the errors of their opponents, it seems undeniable, that
many Gnostics led profligate lives, and maintained upon principle that
such conduct was not unlawful. Others, again, are represented as
practising great austerities, and endeavouring, by every means, to
mortify the body and its sensual appetites. Both parties were actuated
by the same common notion, that matter is inherently evil. The one
thought that the body, which is compounded of matter, ought to be kept
in subjection; and hence they inculcated self-denial, and the practice
of moral virtue: while others, who had persuaded themselves that
knowledge was every thing, despised the distinctions of the moral law,
which was given, as they said, not by the supreme God, but by an
inferior _æon_, or a principle of evil, who had allied himself with
matter.
5. With respect to the origin of this system the same author observes:
There is no system of philosophy which has been traced to a greater
number of sources than that which we are now discussing; and the variety
of opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the
very different aspects which Gnosticism assumed, or from wishing to
derive it from one exclusive quarter. Thus, some have deduced it from
the eastern notion of a good and evil principle, some from the Jewish
Cabbala, and others from the doctrines of the later Platonists. Each of
these systems is able to support itself by alleging very strong
resemblances; and those persons have taken the most natural and probably
the truest course, who have concluded that all these opinions
contributed to build up the monstrous system, which was known by the
name of Gnosticism.
_illuminati_; men who, from blending the philosophy of the east, or of
Greece, with the doctrines of the Gospel, boasted of deeper knowledge in
the Scriptures and theology than others. It was, therefore, not so
properly a distinct sect as a generic term, comprehending all who,
forsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, pretended to be “wise above what
is written,” to explain the New Testament by the dogmas of the
philosophers, and to derive from the sacred writings mysteries which
never were contained in them. The origin of the Gnostic heresy, as it is
called, has been variously stated. The principles of this heresy were,
however, much older than Christianity; and many of the errors alluded to
in the apostolic epistles are doubtless of a character very similar to
some branches of the Gnostic system. (See _Cabbala_.) Cerinthus, against
whom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the
Revelation, and the Ebionites, (described under that article,) were all
early Gnostics, although the system was not then so completely formed as
afterward. Dr. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, has thus sketched the
Gnostic system:--In attempting to give an account of these doctrines, I
must begin with observing what we shall see more plainly when we trace
the causes of Gnosticism, that it was not by any means a new and
distinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system.
Thus we find in it the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and the notion that
every thing in this lower world has a celestial and immaterial
archetype. We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabalistic
jargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion
of the Jews; and many Gnostics adopted the oriental notion of two
independent coëternal principles, the one the author of good, the other
of evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms
which must have been taken from the Gospel; and Jesus Christ, under some
form or other, of _æon_, emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into
all their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that
knowledge which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them
to their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was
mystery: its end and object was to purify its followers from the
corruptions of matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being,
suited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge.
2. We have a key to many parts of their system, when we know that they
held matter to be intrinsically evil, of which, consequently, God could
not be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet, that the creator
of the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the
Author of good, and the Father of Christ. Their system allowed some of
them to call the creator God; but the title most usually given to him
was Demiurgus. Those who embraced the doctrine of two principles
supposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle; and, in
most systems, the creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked
upon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some,
again, believed that angels were employed in creating the world; but all
were agreed in maintaining that matter itself was not created, that it
was eternal, and remained inactive, till
_Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,
Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit._
OVID.
[Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the mass, and reduced
it, when separated, into elements.]
The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a _pleroma_ of
inaccessible light; and beside the name of first Father, or first
Principle, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable
nature of his perfections. This being, by an operation purely mental, or
by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes,
from whom, by a series of descents, more or less numerous according to
different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called
_æons_, from the periods of their existence before time was, or
_emanations_, from the mode of their production. These successive _æons_
or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and
their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might
account for the creation of the world without making God the author of
evil. These _æons_ lived through countless ages with their first father;
but the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric
circles; and they gradually deteriorated, as they approached nearer and
nearer to the extremity of the _pleroma_. Beyond this _pleroma_ was
matter, inert and powerless, though coëternal with the supreme God, and
like him without beginning. At length, one of the _æons_ passed the
limits of the _pleroma_, and, meeting with matter, created the world,
after the form and model of an ideal world which existed in the
_pleroma_ or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that
inconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the
intermediate _æons_ be as many as the wildest imagination could devise,
still God was the remote, if not the proximate, cause of creation. Added
to which, we are to suppose that the Demiurgus formed the world without
the knowledge of God; and that, having formed it, he rebelled against
him. Here, again, we find a strong resemblance to the oriental doctrine
of two principles, good and evil, or light and darkness. The two
principles were always at enmity with each other. God must have been
conceived to be more powerful than matter, or an emanation from God
could not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to
reduce matter into its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the
Demiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always
endeavouring to cure: and here it is that the Gnostics borrowed so
largely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of
their _æons_ were evidently taken from terms which they found in the
Gospel. Thus we meet with _Logos_, _Monogenes_, _Zoe_, _Ecclesia_, all
of them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in
the _pleroma_. At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two
of the last _æons_ which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world
to remedy the evil which the creative _æon_ or Demiurgus had caused. He
was to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter, or of the evil
principle; and, by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto
unknown, to fit them, by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge, to
enter the divine _pleroma_. To give this knowledge, was the end and
object of Christ’s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and
believers of the doctrine assumed to themselves the name of Gnostics. In
all their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with
the same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence
of evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real
connection with matter: yet, the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to
be the same with him who was revealed in the Gospel; and it was
notorious that he was revealed as the Son of Mary, who appeared in a
human form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the
difficulty, were principally two: they either denied that Christ had a
real body at all, and held that he was an unsubstantial phantom; or,
granting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents,
they believed that one of the _æons_, called Christ, quitted the
_pleroma_, and descended upon Jesus at his baptism.
3. We have seen that the God who was the father or progenitor of Christ,
was not considered to be the creator of the world. Neither was he the
God of the Old Testament, and the giver of the Mosaic law. This notion
was supported by the same argument which infidels have often urged, that
the God of the Jews is represented as a God of vengeance and of cruelty;
but it was also a natural consequence of their fundamental principle,
that the author of good cannot in any manner be the author of evil. In
accordance with this notion, we find all the Gnostics agreed in
rejecting the Jewish Scriptures, or, at least, in treating them with
contempt. Since they held that the supreme God was revealed for the
first time to mankind by Christ, he could not have been the God who
inspired the prophets; and yet, with that strange inconsistency which we
have already observed in them, they appealed to these very Scriptures in
support of their own doctrines. They believed the prophets to have been
inspired by the same creative _æon_, or the same principle of evil,
which acted originally upon matter; and if their writings had come down
to us, we should perhaps find them arguing, that, though the prophets
were not inspired by the supreme God, they still could not help giving
utterance to truth.
4. Their same abhorrence of matter, and their same notion concerning
that purity of knowledge which Christ came upon earth to impart, led
them to reject the Christian doctrines of a future resurrection and a
general judgment. They seem to have understood the Apostles as preaching
literally a resurrection of the body; and it is certain that the fathers
insisted upon this very strongly as an article of belief. But to imagine
that the body, a mass of created and corruptible matter, could ever
enter into heaven, into that _pleroma_ which was the dwelling of the
supreme God, was a notion which violated the fundamental principle of
the Gnostics. According to their scheme, no resurrection was necessary,
much less a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to
perfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the grossness of
matter; and, by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnostic
could comprehend, he was raised to be an inhabitant of the divine
_pleroma_. If we would know the effect which the doctrines of the
Gnostics had upon their moral conduct, we shall find that the same
principle led to two very opposite results. Though the fathers may have
exaggerated the errors of their opponents, it seems undeniable, that
many Gnostics led profligate lives, and maintained upon principle that
such conduct was not unlawful. Others, again, are represented as
practising great austerities, and endeavouring, by every means, to
mortify the body and its sensual appetites. Both parties were actuated
by the same common notion, that matter is inherently evil. The one
thought that the body, which is compounded of matter, ought to be kept
in subjection; and hence they inculcated self-denial, and the practice
of moral virtue: while others, who had persuaded themselves that
knowledge was every thing, despised the distinctions of the moral law,
which was given, as they said, not by the supreme God, but by an
inferior _æon_, or a principle of evil, who had allied himself with
matter.
5. With respect to the origin of this system the same author observes:
There is no system of philosophy which has been traced to a greater
number of sources than that which we are now discussing; and the variety
of opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the
very different aspects which Gnosticism assumed, or from wishing to
derive it from one exclusive quarter. Thus, some have deduced it from
the eastern notion of a good and evil principle, some from the Jewish
Cabbala, and others from the doctrines of the later Platonists. Each of
these systems is able to support itself by alleging very strong
resemblances; and those persons have taken the most natural and probably
the truest course, who have concluded that all these opinions
contributed to build up the monstrous system, which was known by the
name of Gnosticism.