pensing rewards, and inflicting punishments. He, in their view, was "Just." But the Supreme God did not punish. He was unmingled benevolence. He was "Good."

In connexion with these doctrines, neither the Valentinians nor the Marcionites supposed the Saviour to have had a proper human body of flesh and blood, in which corruption would have dwelt. The Valentinians, however, ascribed to him a real, though not a human body, while the Marcionites regarded his apparent body as a mere phantom. Those who maintained the latter opinion were called Docetæ, a name for which we may give an equivalent in the word Apparitionists. But this name was also, sometimes, if not commonly, extended to all who denied that Christ had a proper human body; and, thus used, comprehended the generality of the Gnostics.

In the systems of the Marcionites and Valentinians, the Creator appears as one. Other sects, it is said, believed the material world to have been formed by angels. But, among those angels, one was generally, perhaps universally, regarded as preeminent, and as the God of the Jews; that is, as one to whom the name Creator may be distinctively applied. The Valentinians themselves sometimes spoke of the

Creator as an angel, and associated with him, in the government of his works, other beings whom he had produced, giving them also the name of angels.

WHAT have been stated, were the common doctrines of the Gnostics. Their fundamental distinction may be regarded as consisting in the belief, that the material universe was not formed by the Supreme Being, but by some inferior being or beings; and that this being, or one of these beings, was the God of the Jews. In the writings of the earlier fathers against them, the stress of the controversy concerns this topic. It was, as we might suppose, the great point at issue between them and the catholic Christians. It is stated by Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, to be "the principal question "* between them; and the whole tenor of his arguments shows that it was so. The principal question, he says, in commencing his work, "whence the whole controversy arises, is, Whether it be allowable to introduce two gods."† The main

* Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 1. Opp. p. 366. ed. Priorii. Or, "The principal, and hence the whole controversy, is of number; Whether it be allowable to introduce two gods." The passage referred to now stands thus ;

"Principalis itaque, exinde tota congressio, de numero; An

object of his work is to prove from reason, from the Old Testament, from the Gospels, and from the Epistles, that the Supreme Being, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the same being with the Creator of the material universe, and the God of the Jews. Irenæus is our great authority concerning the theosophic Gnostics, of whom alone he treats, to the exclusion of Marcion and his followers, for a reason to be hereafter mentioned. In the introduction to his work, he assigns, as the cause of his undertaking to write against the heretics,

duos deos liceat induci, si forte poëticà, et pictoriâ licentiâ, et tertià jam hæreticâ. Sed veritas Christiana districte pronuntiavit; Deus, si non unus est, non est." Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 3. p. 366.

Perhaps it should be read thus ;

Principalis ita quæstio, et inde tota congressio, de numero, An duos deos liceat induci. Sit forte poëticâ, et pictoriâ licentiâ, et tertiâ jam hæreticâ ; sed veritas Christiana," &c.

That quæstio has been lost from the text, and that principalis was used by Tertullian as an epithet to that word, and not to congressio, may appear not only from the somewhat incoherent meaning resulting from its present connexion with congressio, but also from the last sentence of the first section. "Nam quatenus admittenda congressio est, . . . . . regulam adversarii prius prætexam, ne cui lateat in quâ principalis quæstio dimicatura est."

.....

Then follow the words, "Duos Ponticus [Marcion] deos affert ;" and after a few comments on this doctrine, Tertullian proceeds, as before quoted, "Principalis itaque, exinde tota congressio;" or "Principalis ita quæstio, et inde tota congressio."

that they "overturn the faith of many, leading them away, by a pretence of superior knowledge, from Him who framed and ordered the universe, as if they had something higher and better to show them, than the God who made heaven and earth, and all that is therein; bringing ruin upon their converts, by giving them injurious and irreligious sentiments toward the Creator."* In the first book of his work, he gives an account of the opinions of the Gnostics. In his second book, he undertakes to confute them, by showing their intrinsic incredibility, and commences by saying; "It will be proper to begin with the first and principal topic, God, the Creator, whom they blaspheme, who is God and Lord alone, sole author of all, sole Father." In concluding the book, he affirms, that what he has been maintaining is consonant to what was taught by Christ and his apostles, by the Law and the Prophets, namely, that there is one God and Father of All, and that all things were made by him, and not by angels, nor by any other Power. He then begins his third book, by

* Cont. Hæres. Lib. I. Præf. § 1. p. 2. Ed. Massuet.

+ Lib. II. c. 1. § 1. p. 116.

Lib. II. c. 35. § 4. p. 171.

proving this doctrine from the Gospels, which, he says, all teach "that there is one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, who was announced by the Prophets, and one Messiah, the Son of God."* In the last paragraph of this book, he prays that the heretics may not persevere in their errors, but that, being "converted to the church of God, Christ may be formed within them; and that they may know the Maker of this universe, the only true God and Lord of all." "Thus we pray for them," he says, "loving them better than they love. themselves." He then states, that, in his next book, he shall endeavour to induce them, by reasoning from the words of Christ, "to abstain from speaking evil of their Maker, who alone is God;" and, accordingly, in the commencement of the fourth book, he repeats similar representations of their fundamental doctrine, which, with others to the same effect, it is unnecessary to subjoin.

"I will endeavour," says Origen,† says Origen,t"to define who is a heretic. All who profess to believe in Christ, and yet affirm, that there is

+ Apud Pamphili Mart. Apolog. pro Origene; in Origen. Opp. IV. Append. p. 22.