lian refers both Marcion and Valentinus to the times of Antoninus Pius.* The Valentinians, Marcionites, and Basilidians are all mentioned in the remaining works of Justin Martyr. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he says, that the existence of men, who, though Christians in profession, teach not the doctrines of Christ, but those of the spirits of delusion, serves to confirm the faith of the true believer; because it is a fulfilment of the prophecies of Christ. He had declared that false teachers should come in his name, having the skins of sheep, but being ravening wolves within. "And accordingly," says Justin, "there are and have been many coming in the name of Jesus, who have taught men to say and do impious and blasphemous things." "Some in one way, and some in another, teach men to blaspheme the Maker of All, and the Messiah who was prophesied as coming from him; and the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." In these words Justin refers to the fundamental doctrines of the Gnostics, that the maker of the material universe, or the chief of those by whom it was made, was not the Supreme God, but a * Advers. Marcion. Lib. I. c. 19. p. 374. De Præscript. Hæret. c. 30. p. 212. being imperfect in power, wisdom, and goodness; that the same being was the god of the Jews; and that the expected Jewish Messiah, who had been foretold as coming from him, had been superseded by another, an unexpected messenger of a far higher character and office, coming from and revealing the true God. Some of the heretics mentioned, Justin proceeds to say, "are called Marcionites, some Valentinians, some Basilidians, some Saturnilians, and others by different names, after their leaders.' The Saturnilians or followers of Saturnilus, or Saturninus, as he is more commonly called, were an obscure sect which requires no particular notice. The Marcionites are twice mentioned by Justin elsewhere. "Marcion of Pontus," he says, "under the impulse of evil demons, is even now teaching men to deny the God who is the Maker of all things celestial and terrestrial, and the Messiah his Son, who was foretold by the prophets, and proclaiming a certain other God beside the Maker of all things, and likewise another Son."† Beside these notices of them in his remaining * Dial. cum Tryph. pp. 207 - 209. * works, Justin composed, as he himself informs us, a treatise against all heresies; but this is not extant. Irenæus quotes a book of Justin against Marcion, which was perhaps a portion of the work just mentioned, but which, whether it were so or not, is also lost. SUCH being the case, the most important authority respecting the history of the early heretics, except the Marcionites, is his contemporary Irenæus. The large work of Irenæus, which remains to us (principally in an ancient Latin translation) is occupied by the statement and refutation of their opinions. Though he gives accounts of other heresies, he writes with particular reference to the Valentinians, whom he regarded as the chief of the Gnostic sects.‡ "The doctrine of the Valentinians," says Irenæus, "is a summary of all heresies, and he who confutes those heretics confutes every other." He explains at length their theory as it existed in his day, not indeed in its original form, as it proceeded from Valentinus, but as it *I. Apolog. p. 44. Cont. Hæres. Lib. IV. c. 6. § 2. p. 233. Ibid. Lib. I. Præf. § 2. p. 3. § Ibid. Lib. IV. Præf. § 2. p. 227. conf. Lib. II. c. 31. § 1. p. 163. had been subsequently modified by one of his most distinguished followers, Ptolemy. * After The system of the Valentinians explained at length by Irenæus is the system as taught by Ptolemy. In the introduction to his account Irenæus says expressly; "I will according to my ability give an account of the doctrine of their present false teachers, I mean that of the Ptolemæans, — cùv gráμnv auTãV τῶν νῦν παραδιδασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον — this being a collection of the choicest flowers of the Valentinian school." Lib. I. Præf. § 2. p. 3. And he concludes his account of it with these words; "Such is the system of Ptolemy:" "Et Ptolemæus quidem ita." Lib. I. c. 8. in fine, p. 43. To this account of the Ptolemæo-Valentinian system he subjoins, as I have mentioned in the text, a short statement of the system as originally taught by Valentinus himself. Tertullian likewise, who followed Irenæus, evidently regarded the system, which is given at length by Irenæus, and which he likewise details, as that of Valentinus modified by Ptolemy. See his work "Adversus Valentinianos," particularly chapters 8, 12, 19, 33. But Mosheim (in his "Commentarii de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum ") mistakes the system of the Valentinians as modified by Ptolemy for the original doctrine of Valentinus himself, and represents Ptolemy as holding a still different system, (p. 389, seq.) He was led into this error by Epiphanius. Irenæus and Tertullian, after explaining the Ptolemæo-Valentinian system, both speak of a modification of it introduced by some disciples of Ptolemy. Comp. Irenæus, Lib. I. c. 12. p. 56, in the old Latin Version, with Tertullian, c. 33. But Epiphanius, (Hæres. XXXIII. § 1. p. 215,) in copying Irenæus, with his usual incorrectness and confusion of mind, represents this modification as introduced by Ptolemy himself, and hence has given occasion to the mistake I have mentioned, which appears in other writers beside Mosheim; as for instance, in Walch. See his "History of the Heretics" (in German), Vol. I. p. 388. But this is not the only error respecting Ptolemy into which wards he gives an account of the original scheme of Valentinus, which does not appear Mosheim has fallen. He says (ubi sup.); " Among those who are reported to have been disciples of Valentinus was Ptolemy, a subtile and eloquent man, who departed in several particulars from the common opinions of his sect, especially in naming and arranging the Æons differently from his master, and, as appears, in changing them into powers of God. Secundus, on the other hand, whom Irenæus reckons among the principal disciples of Valentinus, maintained that the Æons were substances or persons." "It is certain," says Mosheim in his note on this passage, "that Ptolemy differed from Secundus concerning the nature of the Æons, the former regarding them as attributes and powers of the divine nature, and the latter as substances or persons; while each contended that his was the true opinion of his master." Hence Mosheim concludes, that Valentinus was a man of some genius, but of weak understanding, who left most of his opinions obscurely defined. Mosheim says that Ptolemy regarded the Eons as "attributes and powers of the divine nature," not "as substances or persons." This statement is inconsistent not merely with the true system of Ptolemy, but equally with that of his followers, which Mosheim ascribes to him; and is directly contrary to the account of Tertullian, who says that "Ptolemy numbered the Eons in classes and gave them distinct names, assigning to them the character of personal existences, but external to the Deity, while Valentinus had included those existences in the totality of the Divinity, as feelings, affections, and emotions:" "Eam [i. e. Valentini viam] postmodum instravit nominibus et numeris Eonum distinctis; in personales substantias, sed extra Deum, determinatas [f. determinans], quas Valentinus in ipsâ summâ divinitatis, ut sensus et adfectus et motus, incluserat." Advers. Valentin. c. 4. p. 251. I have noticed particularly these errors of Mosheim, because from his high reputation, in many respects well deserved, and |