bians regarding John, and not Christ, as the chosen minister of God. In the Recognitions, though no impeachment is thrown on John's character, it is said, that "some very considerable persons among his disciples preached their master as the Christ."*

It shows the very low state of criticism in the fourth century, that, notwithstanding such characteristics of the narrative, writers of much note at that period, as Rufinus,† and Epiphanius, ‡ ascribed its authorship to Clement, the Apostolical Father, the supposed companion and friend of St. Paul. In the next century the ecclesiastical historian, Sozomen, on the ground of this narrative, reckoned Clement as the earliest ecclesiastical historian among Christians. §

In modern times the Homilies have not been much attended to. "These books," says Lardner, speaking of the Homilies and the Recognitions, " may be both of some use, and may deserve a more particular examination than has been yet given them." The discovery of the Homilies, and their first publication (which was in 1672), are comparatively of recent date. They have been too much confounded with the Recognitions, a work of a far inferior character, and of no value to one acquainted with the Homilies; and they have been erroneously, I think, regarded as a supposititious production. At the same time, they do not possess much intrinsic interest except to one who is studying the effect of the promulgation of Christianity on the state of opinion. They are, however, the

* Lib. I. §§ 54, 60.

See the preface to his Translation of the Recognitions, and his Treatise on the Adulteration of Origen's Writings.

Hæres. XXX. § 15. Opp. I. 139. § Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. c. 1.

E

earliest example remaining of a fictitious narrative in prose of any considerable length, interwoven with events and interests of common life. No preceding work now extant has such resemblance to a modern novel; and the author, notwithstanding his historical errors, shows considerable talent in the management of the story, in the naturalness of the dialogue, and in the preservation of a consistent character in different individuals.

NOTE C.

(See p. 184.)

ON THE FALSE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THE HERETICS, PARTICULARLY BY THE LATER FATHERS.

Ir is the purpose of this Note to show with what incredulity we may regard many of the charges brought against the Gnostics (the Christian Gnostics), particularly by the later fathers. This will appear, for we may confine ourselves to a single line of argument, by showing, that similar charges were brought by them against the Montanists, and by the Heathens against the whole body of Christians; in both which cases we cannot hesitate to reject them as utterly unfounded.

THE Montanists had their origin in the latter half of the second century, though it is not probable that they were generally considered as heretics till after its close. They were distinguished by believing in the miraculous inspiration of their founder, Montanus, and of some of his followers, particularly two women, Maximilla, and Prisca or Priscilla. Montanus they regarded as having come to reform and perfect the church, and establish its discipline. They were enthusiasts, who, in asserting his inspiration, and that of other members of their sect, fell into an error, which has often been repeated by different classes of religionists from their time to our own, and which was then particularly favored by the common belief, that miraculous powers, and among them the spirit of prophecy, or of in

spired teaching, still subsisted in the Christian community. With this error, which was the main point in controversy between them and the catholic Christians, they united rigid asceticism, and peculiar severity in inflicting ecclesiastical censures for immorality. But their general views of the doctrines of Christianity did not differ from those common ly received. They were enthusiasts and reformers, who exasperated other Christians against them by charging them with laxity of principle, because they did not adop their severe modes of life and discipline. The character of the sect recommended it to the stern morality, the ex citable feelings, and the austere temper of Tertullian, who became a member, and from whose subsequent writings is to be learned most of what may be relied on as true con cerning it. There was a great difference of temperamen between Tertullian and Fenelon; but the delusion of Ter tullian may be compared with that of Fenelon in his con nexion with Madame de Guion and the Quietists. Ter tullian was accustomed, after joining the Montanists, t denominate common Christians by the same term which the Gnostics applied to them, Psychici, the implied sens of which may be given in English by the words not spirit ual; but, at the same time, in speaking of catholic Chris tians, he says; "We have communion with them in th law of peace and the name of brotherhood. One faith i common to us and them, one God, the same Christ, th same hope, the same sacrament of baptism, and, to say a in a word, we are one Church." *

Tertullian informs us, that one of the bishops of Rom (it is uncertain to whom he refers) was for a time favorabl disposed toward the Montanists, and that he acknowledged

* De Virginibus velandis, c. 2. p. 173.

or was inclined to acknowledge, the proper inspiration of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla.* Agreeing in doctrine, as the Montanists did, with other Christians, it seems to have been only by degrees that the breach was so widened, that they became a separate sect, generally considered heretical. There were, it is admitted, martyrs, they said many martyrs, from among their number. Such being the character of the Montanists, let us see how they were spoken of in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Eusebius, who is followed by later writers, says, that they regarded Montanus as the Paraclete. This is a misrepresentation, of which the source is obvious. What they really believed was, that the Holy Spirit, or Paraclete, spoke by Montanus. He then goes on to collect various angry calumnies concerning them, without interposing a word of candor or good sense. These reports it is not worth while to repeat. We may proceed at once to the more extravagant falsehoods found in subsequent writers.

Cyril of Jerusalem (about the middle of the fourth century) speaks of Montanus "as sacrificing the miserable little children of women, and cutting them up for horrible food upon the occasion of what they [the Montanists] call their mysteries." By "their mysteries" Cyril intends their celebration of the Lord's Supper. "Montanus," says Isidore of Pelusium, || "allows the use of magic, and the murder of children, and adultery, and the worship of idols." Epiphanius affirms, that Montanus declared himself to be

* Advers. Praxeam, c. 1. p. 501.

† Eusebii Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. c. 16.

§ Catachesis XVI. § 4. p. 227. Ed. Milles.

Ibid. c. 14.

|| De Interpret. Div. Scripturæ. Lib. I. Ep. 242 pp. 56, 57. Ed. Ritterhusii.