ties. The morality of the Gospel, having for its object to free the individual from whatever may injure himself or others, and to teach him, that his highest good consists in acting for the common good of all, presented itself in strange contrast with the unabashed selfishness, the gross and loathsome sensuality, the rapacity, violence, and cruelty, which overspread society. This morality was, at the same time, very different from that magnificent but impracticable scheme, which, though fully developed only by the Stoics, was presented in its chief lineaments by all the higher philosophy of the age; the professed purpose of which was to aggrandize, and, as it were, deify its disciple, by raising him above all passion and suffering, to teach him, as the sum of duty, to bear and to forbear, and to place him in a state of stern, insulated quiet, unmoved by all around him. The first word which our religion addressed to men, was "Reform." It came to re-create their characters, to change them in their own view from earthly to immortal beings, to call forth new affections, to supply new principles and aims, and to teach "the new doctrine of piety," making men feel what they had

* Τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. 1 Tin. iii. 16.

not before conceived of, their relations to God. By revealing Him, it came to annihilate the superstitions of the Heathen world, blended, as they were, with all its history, philosophy, eloquence, and poetry, forming an essential part of the machinery of government, entering into the daily habits of common life, and the source of those frequent festivals, games, and shows, which, barbarous and licentious as they often were, afforded to the many their most exciting pleasures. A principle was at work, which could not have been of human origin; for it had to contend with all that existed on earth, except what might remain uncorrupted in the moral nature of man.

The strength of the errors that were to be overcome may be partially estimated by their continued operation to the present day, appearing in false doctrines, which were gradually introduced, and are now incorporated with the professed faith of most Christians; in modern systems of what is called philosophy, allied in thought and language to the mysticism of the later Platonists, and the pantheism of other ancient theologists; and in the influences of Pagan history and literature upon our taste and morals, in changing and debasing that standard of human excellence, which Christianity would lead us to form.

Such being the state of the ancient world, the conceptions of our religion entertained by its early converts were not only imperfect, but were modified and discolored by the universal prevalence of error. These converts might change their hearts and lives, but they could not renovate their minds. They could not divest themselves of the whole character of their age, so as fully to comprehend the great truths they had been taught, in their proper bearing upon the conceptions and doctrines prevailing around them. They could not break up all their previous associations of thought and feeling, originate new and rational systems of the highest philosophy, and pursue only those correct modes of reasoning, which, even at the present day, are but partially understood, and imperfectly applied to all subjects connected with our moral and intellectual nature. They could not at once do for themselves what many centuries have been slowly effecting for the wisest of modern times.

The causes which operated in common upon the Christian converts, to alloy the doctrines of our faith with the errors of the age, produced their most remarkable effects among the Gnostics. More visionary and more self-confident than the catholic Christians, they relied more

on their philosophy, and less on the written records of our religion. Many of them, also, were among the mystics of those times, and trusted for guidance to their divine inward light. Hence, the Gnostics proceeded to extravagances, from which the catholic Christians kept aloof.

But, in comparing together the opinions of the two parties, we shall find that their conceptions often approximated each other, and that, with essential differences of doctrine, there were, also, remarkable analogies and coincidences.

Thus, though the Gnostic doctrines were in stronger contrast with the truths of Christianity, than the errors and misconceptions of the catholic Christians, yet, as they had ultimately the same origin or occasion, as they are to be traced alike to the false notions which had prevailed in the world, either among Heathens or Jews, their history may serve to bring out to view more distinctly the direct and indirect operation of some of those causes of error, that enthralled the minds of the early catholic Christians; to make us apprehend more clearly, that there might be, and were, many conceptions of the wisest among them, which are not to be confounded with the doctrines of Christ; and to enable us to discern the real derivation

of opinions, that we might otherwise ascribe,

they have been ascribed, to traditionary explanations, or to mere misconceptions of our faith. It is in a great measure by such investigations, that Christianity may be relieved from that apparent responsibility for what, in fact, are but the errors of its disciples, which, at the present day, is a principal obstacle to its reception.

It is true, that in the fundamental opinions of the early catholic Christians, as they appear in the writings of the most eminent of their number during the first three centuries, there was nothing that essentially changed the character of our religion, or was adapted greatly to pervert its moral influence. But, when we compare their writings with the New Testament, and remark the operation of the world around them on their sentiments and belief, we are, if I mistake not, irresistibly led to the conclusion, that the religion of Christ, the religion taught in the Gospels, did not come into being at any period subsequent to his time. Those who became its disciples after his death did not originate what they but imperfectly and erroneously apprehended. They were not the authors of doctrines or of books, of which they were, in many respects, but poor expositors.