same view of the subject, when he observes, (ad 1.) that allusion may have been intended to the Sephiroth of the Cabbala. He also refers to Tertullian, as saying that these notions were taken from the Platonists, "but some names "were retained, and some were altered. Plutarch also in"forms us in his treatise upon Isis, that such genealogies "had existed long ago among the Persian Magi; and the "Platonists who have written about Principles, have men❝tioned them. Porphyry however discovered, and said "that he had proved, that the writings which were circu"lated under the name of Zoroaster, were composed by "the Gnostics, to whom St. Paul here alludes.” This is perhaps a correct statement: but I cannot help quoting the words of Langius, who has written the best Dissertation upon the subject, and with whom I entirely coincide as to the origin and growth of Gnosticism. "Fabularum et "Genealogiarum Judaicarum a Paulo damnatarum ratio"nem genuinam peto ego ex antiqua Judæorum pára "h. e. Theologia Judaica, ad Platonismi indolem jam olim "temporibus templi secundi reficta, quæ hodie inter Ju"dæos prostat sub titulo Kabbalæ, quæve tantæ antiquitatis est, ut non modo sit aperte satis Gnosticorum ab İrenæo "descriptorum deliriis prior, sed etiam adeo fundamenti "loco iisdem substrata, ut ne quidem Gnosticorum pseudo"Christianorum dogmata sine Kabbala h. e. Gnosticismo “Judaico intelligi queant. Unde infero Paulum in suis ad "Timotheum et ad Titum epistolis ex professo contra "Kabbalam Judaicam sive Judæorum Theologiam, ex Pla"tone et Pythagora olim refictam, hujusque fabulas et "genealogias vere aspávτous disputare. §. 23." Mosheim also thinks, that these passages may be referred to the Gnostics; as did Wolfius, Biblioth. Ebr. vol. II. p. 1208. and Cur. Philolog. ad X Pauli Epist. ad 1 Tim. i. 4. p. 412. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. V. 8. p. 584. and beside the excellent Dissertation of Langius, already quoted b, I would refer to Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. I. 2. p. 137, 138. IV. 9. 16. vol. III. p. 931.

66

If we may assume that this is the true interpretation of 1 Tim. i. 4-7. and Titus iii. 9, 10. there are other expressions of St. Paul, which we may also refer to the Gnostics. Thus St. Paul tells Timothy, not to give heed to fables: 1 Tim. i. 4. and these are connected in v. 7. with

a Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. part II. 1. 7. De Rebus ante Const. Cent. I. 60. Instit. Maj. p. 142. 316.

It is printed in the Thesaurus Theologico-Philolog. appended to the Critici Sacri.

teachers of the law. We may therefore refer to the same persons what he says to Titus: There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.... Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith: not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. i. 10-14. We find the same allusion to fables in 2 Tim. iv. 3. For the time will come, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables: and again in 1 Tim. iv. 7. But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness: and this expression not only connects itself with 1 Tim. i. 4. and Titus i. 14. but also with the charge against "profane and vain babblings," in 1 Tim. vi. 20. which I have quoted before, as unquestionably relating to the Gnostics. That the apostle did not merely refer to the customs of the Mosaic law, but to those customs as mixed up with Gnosticism, may be inferred from what we read in Heb. xiii. 9. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. What is here said of meats, may very probably refer to the distinctions pointed out in the laws of Moses: but a Jew writing to Jews, if he had merely intended these, would not have described them as divers and strange doctrines. I may also again refer to the passage quoted at p. 82. where St. Paul warns Timothy against questions and strifes of words, 1 Tim. vi. 4. and again, But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes, 2 Tim. ii. 23: both which passages will remind us of the "foolish questions and genealogies" mentioned in Titus iii. 9. All these passages therefore may safely be referred to the Gnostics: and we may also gather from them the historical facts, that Jewish fables were closely connected with Gnosticism; and that this false philosophy was spreading rapidly in Asia Minor and in Crete between the years 51 and 64.

66

Some persons have thought that the disputer of this world, mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 20. may refer to the same teachers of the law, and the same foolish questions, which

e

This is referred to the Gnostics by Irenæus, I. 16. 3. p. 83.

are named in the Epistle to Timothy. References to the writers who have supported this interpretation may be seen in Brucker, vol. II. p. 708: but it would be rash to conclude from this one expression that St. Paul alluded to Gnostic teachers, rather than to the ordinary disputes of Grecian philosophers.

:

NOTE 52.-See Lecture IV. p. 118.

The writers of the church of Rome have been rather perplexed by the words of St. Paul in Col. ii. 18. which condemn the worship of Angels. Thus Petavius referred the passage to Simon Magus, in his notes to Epiphanius, Hær. XXI. p. 40: but in his Theologia Dogmat. de Angelis, II. 10. vol. III. p. 81. he was inclined to apply it to heathen superstitions. Baroniusd conceived St. Paul to allude to the Cerinthians, who placed the Angels above Christ but he denied that the Cerinthians offered religious worship to Angels, or that St. Paul intended to condemn it. Baronius was answered by Natalis Alexander (sæc. I. c. 10. p. 52.) and by Garnerius, in his edition of the works of Theodoret, vol. V. p. 491. who agreed in thinking that the Cerinthians were intended by St. Paul, but charged these heretics with offering direct worship to Angels. Ittigiuse and Buddeus also agree in referring the passage to the Cerinthians, who said that the world was made by good Angels, and boasted of having received revelations from such beings: though Buddeus adds, that any heretics may have been intended who united the Oriental philosophy with Judaism. He preferred applying the passage to the Cerinthians rather than to the Simonians, because the latter ascribed the creation of the world to evil Angels, whom they would not have been likely to worship. Beveridge, however, supposed the Simonians to be intendeds: and this, as we have seen, was the opinion of Tertullian. The chief difficulty in adopting this opinion arises from the fact, that Simon believed the Angels, who created the world, to be evil and for this reason, as is said by Irenæush and Theodoret, he told his followers not to regard them. Still, however, there is reason to think, as Petavius observes, that he believed these dæmons were to be appeased by magical and superstitious rites: and he might have held the opinion

Ad An. 60. num. 18. p. 605. See also Spondanus, Annal. ad an. 60. §. 7, 8. p. 99. f Eccles. Apost. p. 460-2.

De Hæresiarchis, p. 53.

8 Pandect. Can. et Annot. ad Concil. Laod. can. 35. vol. II. p. 196.

h I. 23. 3. p. 99.

i Hær. Fab. I. 1. p. 192.

66

which, as it appears from Porphyryk, was that of the later Platonists, "that all magic (yonreía) is performed through "evil dæmons: for those who compass their wicked acts by "magic, pay the greatest honours to them and to their "leader." Theodoret indeed informs us, that there were some heretics who held the impious notion that souls "were sent into bodies, that by working in them all profligacy and iniquity, they might worship (paneσa) the "Angels who created the world, by practising these impie"ties." We find the name of the Euchitæ among these heretics: but it has been shewn that we ought to read Εὐτυχῆται οι Εὐτυχίται, and Clement of Alexandria mentions the Entychitæ as a branch of the Simonians". There is reason to think that Theodoret intended the same persons; for the other heretics, whom he mentions in this place, are Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, the Caiani, and the Antitactæ; (all of whom were Gnostics :) and where he speaks of Simon Magus, he says that from him originated the Cleobani, Dositheani, Gortheni,-Eutychetæ and Cainista. There is therefore some reason to believe, that a branch of the Simonians worshipped Angels: and if Simon himself studied in Alexandria, he might have taken this practice not only from the heathen and Jewish Platonists, but also from the Essenes or Therapeutæ, who are said by Josephus° to have observed the names of Angels; which may remind us of the remark already quoted from Epiphanius, that Simon " invented certain names for Prin"cipalities and Powers." If we are correct in attributing to him and his followers the practice of magical incantations, it seems perfectly natural that they should have offered some kind of worship to spiritual beings: and it may have been this to which St. Paul alluded in Col. ii. 18. where he appears, as I shall shew hereafter, to point to other errors of the Gnostics. It is not improbable that St. John may have intended to correct the same mistaken practice, when he twice mentions that he was forbidden to worship an Angel, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus P. St. John was writing at a time when the Gnostic errors were most alarmingly prevalent. If the fragments published by Pfaffius are justly ascribed to Irenæus, we may quote that Father as referring these words of St. Paul to the Gnostics: and we

66

can at least infer from his writings, that some of these here tics worshipped Angels, if he did not actually allude to this passage, when he says in his acknowledged works, that the true Christian "does nothing by invoking Angels, nor by "incantations, nor by any other improper curiosity. Epiphanius mentions a sect of heretics called Angelici, but professes himself unable to account for their names: he gives several conjectures, one of which is, that they sup posed the world to have been made by Angels: and in the abstract of contents, prefixed to this book, he assigns as another reason, that they invoked Angelst. Augustin also mentions the Angelici, who, as he says, "inclined to the worship of Angels":" and it is plain that he meant the same heretics, because he quotes Epiphanius as saying that they were entirely extinct. It may be mentioned also, that the 35th Canon of the Council, held at Laodicea in 367, ordered," that Christians ought not to leave the Church of "God, and go and repeat the names of Angels." All this makes it quite certain that some of the early heretics worshipped Angels: but whether St. Paul alluded particularly to the followers of Simon Magus, is more than I would undertake to decide. Those persons who make the Oriental doctrines the principal source of Gnosticism, will perhaps be struck by comparing St. Paul's words in this part of the Epistle to the Colossians with the following passage in Clement of Alexandria: "The Magi also are very strict in abstaining from wine and animal food and marriage, and they serve Angels and Dæmons*."

66

66

For the application of this text to Simon Magus, I would refer to Wolfius, Manichæismus ante Manichæos, II. 42. p. 183. who quotes several other authors. The whole passage is interpreted in a very different manner by Tittman, de Vestigiis Gnosticismi in N. T. frustra quæsitis, p. 118,

&c.

NOTE 53.-See Lecture V. p. 124.

The author of the Recognitions represents Simon Magus as explaining his notion of the Pleroma in the following terms: "There must be some place, which is beyond the "world, or without it, in which there is neither heaven, nor "earth, lest their shadow should produce darkness even "there. For this reason, since there are neither any bodies "in it, nor darkness from bodies, it must be an immensity "of light and consider what sort of light that must be,

II. 32. 5. p. 166. " Hær. XXXIX.

Hær. LX. p. 505.

t Pag. 398.

* Strom. III. 6. p. 533