!

!

longing; and, that the practical inferences unfavorable to morality, to be drawn from the false doctrines of the Gnostics, were represented as their common practical effects; though it is often the case, that men do not follow out in action the results of bad principles any more than of good.

In determining the truth concerning the Gnostics, we may find a concurrence of credible and contemporary testimony to what is probable in itself, and coincident or consistent with the still remaining expositions which they themselves gave of their doctrines; and consistent, also, with forms of opinions prevailing during the period when they sprung up and flourished. This testimony, so confirmed, is sufficient to establish the leading facts concerning their character and doctrines. In proceeding further, we must judge of the accounts given of them from the particular probabilities that each case may present, and especially from the consistency of those accounts with the truths concerning them, which we have found means to settle. And, throughout this whole inquiry, particular attention must be given to the very different value of those ancient writers who have treated of the Gnostics, to the period when they lived, to their

means of information, to the temper and purpose with which they wrote, and to their respective characters for correctness and truth. In this respect, as we shall hereafter see, a very wide distinction is to be made between writers, who have often been indiscriminately quoted, as of equal authority in regard to the history of the Gnostics.

THIS subject has afforded scope for an abundance of hypotheses in modern times; for few facts have been so well established, and so generally acknowledged, as to stand in their way. It has been a sort of disputed province between fiction and history. We may meet, on every side, with statements respecting the Gnostics altogether unfounded. Gibbon says, that they "were distinguished as the most learned, the most polite, and most wealthy of the Christian name; "* but the assertion is made without proof, on his own responsibility; unless, indeed, he has repeated or exaggerated the error of some preceding modern writer, of which I am not aware. The representation is such as it may readily be supposed was not

* Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. xv. Vol. II. p. 285.

derived from their ancient controversial opponents, who alone can be referred to for information concerning the subject. No one, I think, beside Gibbon has ascribed to them the worldly distinctions of superior refinement and wealth; but the zeal for paradoxes, which prevails among many of the theological writers of our age, has shown itself in other representations. The theosophic Gnostics, though their speculations are among the most vague and inconsequent that any visionaries have produced, have been transformed into penetrating and refined philosophers, or rather described as equally versed in the mysteries of Platonism, of the Cabala, of the Zendavesta, and of the New Testament; as belonging rather to the world of ideas than to that of sensations, and as manifesting the human soul in its sublime ecstasies." * This is the language of a writer, who does not separate himself from the rest of the intellectual world by his general tone of thought and expression, or by any radical changes in the use of language. But one of the followers of the latest, darkest, and most repulsive school of German metaphysicians has

66

* Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme. (1828.) Tom. II.

p. 281.

likewise thought to do honor to the Gnostics, by claiming them as its progenitors.*

To justify such eulogies as have been bestowed on them by the writer first mentioned, their systems are professedly laid open; and

* I refer to Baur, Professor of Gospel Theology in the University of Tubingen, a disciple of Hegel, and a writer of much note among his countrymen, who has published a large work relating to the Gnostics, entitled "The Christian Gnosis (or Gnosticism); or the Christian Philosophy of Religion historically Developed." (Tubingen. 8vo. 1835.) His main purpose is to represent the Gnostics as the true religious philosophers of their times, and to exhibit the resemblance of their doctrines to the latest philosophy of religion, as developed by Jacob Boehmen, Schelling, Schleiermacher, and finally by Hegel, who has brought it nearest to perfection. The fundamental doctrine, in which he regards the Gnostics as coinciding with these modern philosophers, is one which he has arbitrarily ascribed to them. According to him, they viewed God (their Supreme God) as an unconscious, impersonal, and unintelligent being. The doctrine of Hegel teaches that all individual spirits are but modifications of one universal spirit, the only positive existence in the universe. Ideas alone are things. But this universal spirit is, in itself, unconscious, and first arrives at consciousness in its developement in man. Man is the only conscious God. "The essence of religion, therefore, is the self-consciousness of God. God knows himself in a consciousness different from him, which, in itself, is the consciousness of God, but which also has reference to itself, as it knows its identity with God; an identity existing through the negation of finiteness. Thus, in one word, God is this, to distinguish one's self from one's self, to become objective to one's self, but, in this distinction, to be absolutely identical with one's self." These words, in which Baur reports the doctrine of Hegel on the most important of subjects, seem rather the language of

though the end be not obtained, though nothing wonderful appear, yet the Gnostics, could they revive, might address their expositors in words like those which Plato puts into the mouth of Theatetus, after subjecting him to

a man not of sane mind, than such as accords with the character of one reputed, by many of his countrymen, to be the wisest of philosophers. I subjoin them in the original.

“Der Inhalt der Religion ist daher das Selbstbewußtseyn Gottes. Gott weiß sich in einem von ihm verschiedenen Bewußtseyn, das an fich das Bewußtseyn Gottes ist, aber auch für sich, indem es seine Identität mit Gott weiß, eine Identitåt, die vermittelt ist, durch die Negation der Endlichkeit. Gott ist also mit Einem Worte dieß: sich von sich zu unterscheiden, sich Ge. genstand zu seyn, aber in diesem Unterschiede schlechthin mit sich identisch zu feyn." (Baur, pp. 674, 675.)

After this account of "The Christian Philosophy of Religion," which, it appears, is atheism, Baur remarks, that it is evident "how intimately this philosophy is connected with Christianity, how eagerly it transfers to itself its entire substance, nay, that, in its whole purpose, it is nothing else than a scientific explanation of the problem of historical Christianity." (pp. 709, 710.)

In the work of Baur, there is no critical examination of the history of the Gnostics, nor any information of value concerning them. He ascribes to them, not only without authority, but contrary to all evidence, the doctrine of an unconscious and impersonal God. His work, like those of many of his countrymen, exhibits an incapacity of thinking clearly and consistently, and of presenting a lucid and well-digested exposition of a subject; and is characterized by such a use of words, especially concerning the topics of religion, as would unsettle all their established meanings. It belongs to that class of speculative writings, of which Germany has been so fertile, treating of the most important subjects, and promulgating, sometimes with dogmatical