(2) There are some passages which seem not only to be designed to state the Christian position, but to be directed against errors characteristic of Gnosti- cism : (a) against Docetism ; most striking is He 214-18 . (J) against the demiurgic idea (Jn 1^ He 1^, Col l'6f-).
(3) A definite polemic against errorists who are almost certainly Gnostics is found in the following passages :
(a) Colossians. — The errorists in question claim a superior knowledge (2^*^*), j^ay great regard to angels — beings intermediate between God and man (v.i^) — teach asceticism (vv."'^i- ^s) ; and probably their demiurgic notion is refuted in P^. These are the elements of Gnosticism, and most likely the Colos- sian errorists are Judaistic Gnostics of the same type as Cerinthus.
{b) Pastoral Epistles. — The references to Gnosti- cism are so clear here that some find in them a main ground for assigning a late date to the Epistles. Gnosticism has already appropriated the name yvuiais (1 Ti 5-"). The errorists profess a superior knowledge (Tit 1'^ 2 Ti 3^). Their pro- fane and vain babblings (2 Ti 2^^), old wives' fables (1 Ti 4^), foolish questions and genealogies (Tit 3®), denial of the resurrection of the body (2 Ti 2^^), asceticism and depreciation of 'creatures' (1 Ti 4^'*), and in other cases their antinomianism (2 Ti 3«, Tit P"*)— all are tokens of Gnosticism.
(c) Peter and Jude. — The gross errorists de- nounced in 2 P 2 and Jude show close affinity with the Ophite sect, the Cainites {q.v.) (Hippol. viii. 20; Strom, vii. 17 [767]; Epiph. JScer. xxxviii.). They made Cain their first hero ; and, regarding the God of the Jews as an evil being, and the Scriptures as, in consequence, a perversion of truth, honoured all infamous characters from Cain to Iscariot, who alone of the apostles had the secret of true knowledge. Naturally, they practised the wildest antinomianism, holding it necessary for perfect knowledge to have practical experience of all sins. Tiie ' lilthy dreamers,' who ' speak evil of dignities' and 'go in tiie way of Cain,' are cer- tainly closely allied to this position.
(d) 1 John. — There is throughout a contrast be- tween true knowledge and false. Beyond reason- able doubt tlie Epistle has mainly, if not exclu- sively, Cerinthus in view. He is interesting in the history of heresy for his combination of Ebionite Christology with a Gnostic idea of the Creator (see art. CERINTHUS). It is mainly the former tiiat is in view in 1 Jolin (2^2 43f-), but 2'»- » are directed against Gnostic antinomianism.
(e) Revelation. — Here we have definite mention of a Gnostic sect, by name the Nicolaitans (2^- '^). They derived their name from Nicolas of Ac 6*. ' They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence, . . .
teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols' (Iren. Hcer. I. xxvi. 3). Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 4 [436 f.]) says that the followers of Nicolas misunderstood his saying that 'we must fight against the flesh and abuse it.' What Nicolas meant to be an ascetic principle, they took to be an antinomian one.
We have notice of another branch of antinomian Gnosticism in 2-", where the ' prophetess Jezebel ' in Tliyatira is ' teaching and seducing ' the faithful.
Gnosticism thus plays no inconsiderable part in the NT itself. It is, however, to exaggerate that, to find references to Gnosticism in verses where terms occur that afterwards became technical terms in Gnostic systems, viz. pleroma (e.g. Eph P^), ceon (e.g. Eph 2-), gyiosis (frequently). These had meaning before Gnostic systems made them pecu- liarly their own, and the passages in question may be understood Avithout any reference to Gnosticism.
6. Concluding remarks. — If it be difficult to in- dicate accurately what Gnosticism owed to Chris- tianity, it is no less difficult to determine to what extent Christianity was permanently influenced by Gnosticism. Theological prejudice Avill always affect the answer, and some will find in the Christo- logical and other definitions of OEcumenical Councils a fruit of Avhat Gnostics began. It is easy to see Avhat indirect service Gnosticism rendered Christianity. In opposition to Gnosticism the Church was compelled (a) to develop into clear system her own creed ; the true yvQais had to be opposed to the false ; (b) to determine what writings Avere to be regarded as authoritative ; against the Gnostic schools, each Avith its OAvn pretended special revelation, the Church formed a Canon of Avhat Avere generally regarded as authentic apostolic Avritings ; (c) to seek for a just vieAV of the relation of Judaism to Christianity, and of the permanent value of the OT Avhich Gnostics re- jected. This is, it may be said, an unsolved prob- lem still. In opposition to Gnosticism the Church was perhaps betrayed into the other extreme, as, to secure permanent authority for every part of the OT, a fanciful system of allegorizing was adopted.
As to direct influence, we have indicated above that Gnostics led the Avay in some dcA^elopments of Avorship Avhich found a permanent place in the Catholic Church. Probably also thej' led the way to the magical concejjtion of Sacraments Avhich became so prominent. The clearness with Avhich the false character of Gnosticism Avas perceived, and the successful struggle against it, are among the most remarkable and praiseAvorthy things in the history of the early Church. It remains to be said that the various phenomena Avhich constitute Gnosticism have appeared again and again in the history of the Church since then. Its speculative flights into regions w here revelation does not giiide and reason cannot foUoAv ; its special ncAV revela- tions ; its view of the Avorld as essentially evil in itself ; its stern asceticism or antinomian excess — aU have appeared repeatedly.