acting in direct opposition to certain leading maxims, which were considered by persons of their persuasion as indisputable truths. To various articles, therefore, propounded in the Christian code as essential points of belief, they utterly refused their assent; such, for instance, as that which attributes the creation of the world to the Supreme Being; and those respecting the divine origin of the law of Moses, the authority of the Old Testament, the character of human nature, and the like. In addition to the articles of Christian belief which they felt themselves constrained thus peremptorily to reject, there were others which they found it necessary to explain after their own manner, in order to render them compatible with the principles of the oriental discipline.

"Respecting Christ and the discharge of his official engagements, in particular, it was requisite for them, in support of their tenets, to maintain that he was to be considered as inferior to the Supreme Being, and as never having in reality assumed a material body. They also denied that Christ, in reality, either underwent what he is reported to have suffered, or that he actually died, and returned again to life, agreeably to the gospel testimony. And then, in regard to the purposes for which he came into the world, the principles of their system rendered it necessary for them to assert that it was not with a view to expiate the sins of mankind, or to placate the divine Majesty, but merely to communicate to the human race the long-lost knowledge of the Supreme Being; and that, having put an end to the usurped dominion of the arrogant founder of this world, he might point out to the souls of men the means of recovering for themselves their native liberty and happiness. Finally, these votaries of Orientalism were compelled, in support of their favourite maxim respecting the malignant nature of matter, to discountenance every idea of a future resurrection of men's bodies from the dead, and to maintain that what is said in Scripture upon subject is altogether figurative and metonymical."*

this

Such is this learned writer's account of the sect of the Gnostics, whose tenets and maxims you will at once perceive were ut

* Mosheim's Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians, before the time of Constantine translated by Vidal. Vol. I. p. 299-314.

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE GNOSTIC SECTS.

181

terly repugnant, not only to the doctrine openly delivered by Christ himself, but also to the tenor of those writings which are considered by the Christian church as the rule and standard of their religion-nor did the Gnostics atempt to deny it. They, however, took care not to be unprepared with arguments, whereby to defend and support the system of discipline to which they were devoted. By the leaders of some of their sects it was contended that the religion propounded by Christ was of two sorts; the one of easy comprehension, and adapted to the capacity of the common people, the other sublime, and to be understood only by persons of refined intellect. The former they represented as being contained in the books of the New Testament; the latter as having been unfolded by Christ to his apostles alone in private: and, for their own knowledge of the latter, they professed themselves indebted to certain disciples of the three apostles, Peter, Paul, and Matthias. Others pretended that their leading tenets and maxims were drawn from the oracles and visions of Zoroaster, and other divinely instructed sages of the east. Some took upon them to exclude from the canon of Scripture all such writings of the New Testament as appeared to militate with any degree of force against their principles, and to substitute in their place other Gospels and epistles of their own forging, and for which they claimed apostolic authority. And, finally, there were many of them who contended, like the mystics and Swedenborgians in our day, that in the words of Scripture there was enveloped a recondite meaning; and, upon this principle, they were continually labouring in the most silly and childish manner, by the squeezing and torturing of words, to wring from them that assistance and support which, without resorting to such means, they could in no wise be made to yield. The mischief which, this presumptuous sect did to the cause of primitive Christianity was very great; but its evil influence would have been still greater had their tenets been urged with a due measure of uniformity and consistence. It so happened, however, that from its very first rise the Gnostics were split into numerous parties, of which the leaders were as much at variance among themselves as with the Christians, whose doctrines they stigmatized as highly derogatory to the character of God, inasmuch as they attributed to him the creation of the world! This,

indeed, was a point on which they were unanimous; they all regarded the Great Supreme as a being altogether different from the Creator and Governor of the world. But as to the precise nature of the latter and his inferiority to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when they came to compare notes with each other, the difference of opinion that was found to prevail among these pretenders to superior knowledge was truly astonishing, and it gave rise to endless controversy among themselves. This, however, can be no matter of surprise to any well-informed mind; for truth is one and always consistent with itself; but the mazes of error are endless: when men once depart from the truth, the transition is very easy to their being turned unto fables. The very attempt to blend philosophy, under any certain or particular form, with the simple doctrines of Christianity, has never yet failed to produce such difference of opinion, among those who have made it, as to furnish abundant grounds for disunion, contention, and controversy.

The ancient fathers of the church are pretty unanimous in placing Simon Magus at the head of the heretics of the first century, and particularly of the sect of the Gnostics: but whether the individual referred to under that name be the same whose conduct was so severely reprobated by the apostle Peter at Samaria (Acts viii. 9, 10) is extremely doubtful, and is a point much controverted among the learned. Mosheim denies it and has written against it. Speaking of the latter, he says, "It is manifest beyond dispute that he cannot with the least propriety be included in the class of heretics or corrupters of the Christian religion, but is to be reckoned among the most hostile of its adversaries, inasmuch as he hesitated not to revile and calumniate the character of our blessed Saviour, and made use of every means within his power to impede the progress of Christianity : pretending at the same time that he himself and a female associate of his, of the name of Helen, were persons really commissioned from above for the purpose of enabling the souls of men once more to regain their native liberty and light.”*

Mosheim's Commentaries, &c., vol. i. p. 323, &c., where the reader will find a somewhat detailed account of the History of Simon Magus, with the learned author's reasons more largely given for thinking that he could not be the founder of the Gnostic heresy.

HERESY OF THE NICOLAITANS.

183

It yet remains to say something of the Nicolaitans, who are mentioned by our Lord, in Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, and rebuked by Him for the laxity of their morals, their continuing to partake of meats offered to idols, and their indulging in fornication, contrary to the apostolic injunction, Acts xv. 29. But, as Mosheim has remarked, "Over every thing relating to this sect there hangs a degree of obscurity which we believe it will ever be found beyond the power of human ingenuity to dispel." The generality of ancient writers consider the founder of this sect to have been Nicolas, one of the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 5); but this opinion seems to be founded rather on uncertain report and conjecture than on any credible testimony. There appears to have been in the second century a numerous sect of Nicolaitans who were devoted to the Gnostic discipline and opinions, against whom Clement of Alexandria wrote his Stromata; but whether they are the same class of persons with those spoken of in our Lord's epistle to the church at Pergamos is doubted by Mosheim, who inclines to the contrary opinion.

I have thus given you a brief account of the principal sects which rose up during the first century of the Christian era; and, as the narrative seems to lay a foundation for a few profitable remarks, I shall close the present lecture by submitting them to your consideration.

I took occasion to mention at the beginning of this lecture that the existence of heresy, and even its prevalence in succeeding ages, was so far from being unexpected by the divine founder of our religion that he apprised his disciples of it, and pointed them to its source. In a parable, recorded Matt. xiii. 24-30, he compared his church, or kingdom, to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but, while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way: but when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this."

I quote this passage for the purpose of impressing upon your minds the indisputable fact that "no lie is of the truth," and

that all heresy springs from the prince of darkness, "the god of this world," your adversary, the devil, whose unwearied object it is, while professors sleep, to obscure the saving truth-propagate pernicious error-and thereby render the doctrine of the kingdom of none effect. The apostles of Christ were evidently much impressed with this subject, as appears from all their writings, some of which I have already quoted. They inform us whence these heresies originate-they speak of their certainty, and explain to us the end which the Lord has in permitting them— they have laid down rules in their writings for detecting them, and are most explicit in stating the sovereign antidote against them. These things show the subject to be of high importance to Christians in every age of the church, and will amply justify our dwelling a little upon it in this place.

Among the various sources of heresy which the Scriptures point out, the primary one, no doubt, is ignorance, or disbelief of the saving truth, whatever profession men may have made of it in words. Persons may gain admission into Christian churches, by professing with their lips a form of sound words, while their hearts are strangers to the grace of the Gospel, as was evidently the case with Simon Magus, Acts viii. Such persons have never been duly convinced of their lost and perishing condition, so as to be shut up to the only sovereign remedy for a guilty conscience, the Divine blood of the sin-atoning lamb, the alone ground of hope revealed in the Gospel. They have never discerned the suitableness and excellency of the scheme of Salvation through Christ Jesus, so as to perceive the divine glory, centering in, or emanating from it-the glory of sovereign, rich, and free grace. The consequence is that they do not feel themselves deeply interested, or as having much at stake in the truth or falsehood of what the gospel declares, and therefore they are ready to embrace every delusion that strikes their fancy or gratifies a depraved taste. This is far from being a rare or uncommon case, and it will be found to apply to most of the heresies which have been adverted to in this Lecture.

Aversion to the saving truth is another fruitful source of heresy. It takes a great deal to reconcile the proud and selfrighteous heart of a sinner to the humbling doctrine of the