B. Bereiical Gnosticism. ■ — I. General Character. — The name Gnosticism has been apjilied to a varietj' of schools which had sometimes little in common except the assumption of a knowledge higher than that of or- dinarj' believers. Most of them claimed a place in the Church, and complained bitterly when this was denied them ; and yet they generally spcike of Chris- tianity as insufficient to afford absolute truth, and not unfrequently they assumed a hostile attitude towards it. They seldom pretended to demonstrate the prin- ciples on which their sj'stems were founded b^' histor- ical evidence or logical reasonings, since they rather boasted that these were discovered by the intuitional powers of more highly endowed minds, and that the materials thus obtained, whether through faith or di- vine revelation, were then worked up into a scientific form according to each one's natural power and cul- ture. Their aim was to construct not merely a theorj' of redemption, but of the universe — a cosniogonj-. Ko subject was bej'ond their investigations. Whatever God could reveal to the finite intellect, thej' looked upon as within their range. What to others seemed only speculative ideas, were by them hj'postatized or personified into real beings or historical facts. It was in this way that thej' constructed systems of specula- tion on subjects entirely beyond the range of human knowledge, which startle us by their boldness and their apparent consciousness of reality.
II. External Griffin. — And yet we have reason to be- lieve that Gnosticism originated no speculations which were essentiall_y new. It onlj' recognised and select- ed what seemed to it true in earlier systems, and then combined these fragments in new relations — not in the way of a crude syncretism, but with mutual affinities and living power. No question, however, has more perple.xed historians than that which refers to the di- rect origin of Gnosticism. We are in possession of scarcely any authenticated documents which have come down to us from persons living at the time and
GNOSTICISM
802
GNOSTICISM
in countries in which it had its birth. "We are depend- ent for our information respecting it almost entirelj- iipon the representations of opponents, who knew al- most nothinic of Oriental S3'stems, and were acquaint- ed with it only in its maturity. Unfortunately, too, the ([ucstion of the orij^in of Gnosticism has recently' become complicated with others on which violent par- ty feelings have been exercised. Those who have de- nied the apostolic oi-igin of the epistles in which traces of Gnosticism have been discovered, have felt an in- terest in removing both the epistles and Gnosticism to as late a period as possible. From the discussion of this subject, liowever, there are some facts which may now be regarded as incontrovertible. 1. Ever since the conquests of Alexander the Great, an intense in- terest had been felt throughout Asia Minor and Eg3'pt in Hellenistic philosophy and Oriental theosophj' ; and while the old mythologic fables and professed systems of positive revelation had lost their authority, many thoughtful persons had discovered under these what they looked upon as a uniting bond of truth and the elements of a universal religion. 2. The result was that, near the time of the lirst promulgation of Chris- tianity, a number of new systems of religious philoso- phy sprung up independently in different countries, and exhibited similar characteristics. Thej' were usu- ally formed by incorporating with the national relig- ion what seemed attractive elements in foreign sys- tems, and softening down what was harsh and incred- ible in the popular faitii and worship. In this way we discover a nearly simultaneous origin of the Judaistic philosophy at Alexandria, of Essenism and Ther;,p2u- tism in Egypt and southern Palestine, of the Cabba- listic literature in Syria and the East, and of New Pla- tonism among the Hellenistic nations. These were all offshoots from the same general root, and not nec- essarily deriving anythin-; original, but unquestiona- bh' drawing much assistance from one another. Sim- ilar circumstances ever3^where called forth similar phe- nomena with no conscious interdependence. 3. We thus account for the origin of Gnosticism, and easil}' reconcile the cpnflicting views of different writers re- specting it. As the early ecclesiastical writers were themselves acquainted almost exclusively with Occi- dental literature, they were in the habit of ascribing the rise of Gnosticism to the studj' of Grecian philos- ophy, and especially of Platonism, and they appeal to the cosmogonies of Hesiod and others for the exemplars of the Gnostic speculations. Modern historians, how- ever, have found in most of the Gnostic S3'stems such a predominance of Oriental elements, that they have been led to infer a direct influence not mereh' from Alexandrian Judaism, but dualistic Parsism, and even from pantheistic Buddhism. There can, in fact, be no question regarding the influence of all these S3's- tems. The Platonic doctrines of a God, without dis- tinctions in liis nature, withdrawn entirelv within him- self, intelligible only to the initiated, and that only through tlie mediation of the Nous, a higher ideal sphere reflecting itself in a lower plienomenal world, a hyle (i'Xj/) and an undefined dualism between it and God, a fall of spiritual i)eings from the divine to the sen- suous sphere, the derivation of sin from a contact with tiie material element; the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers ; the Brahminic doctrine of emanation and hypostatizing of the divine attributes; the Parsic rep- resentation of the divine essence as light, of a dualism in which God is subject to the continual aggression of a world of matter, and of a good principle in eternal conflict with the prince of darkness; and the Buddhist notions of a God in process of development, of souls longing to be freed from the bonds of matter, and to be raised above all sensible things, and reunited with the divine source of life, are all unmistakable, and indicative of their respective sources. We need not, however, suppose that these elements were derived di- rectly from their original sources. The .Vlexandrian