Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

He was zealous for circumcision, and the rights of the Mosaic law, as Epiphanius says again and again; though no notice is taken of this by Irenæus or Theodoret. And it is somewhat strange that he should be so zealous for the law, if he taught that the world was made by angels, and that the God of the Jews, by whom the law was delivered, was not the supreme God, but an angel only. According to Jerom this was the principal error of Cerinthus, that he was for joining the law with the gospel.

a

Once more, Cerinthus is supposed to have been a Millenarian; so says Theodoret, though neither Irenæus, nor Epiphanius make any mention of it. What Theodoret says must have been taken from the works of Caius, and Dionysius, or the extracts out of them in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History: of which we gave a large account formerly. This is also mentioned by Augustine. But Philaster, and the author of the Appendix to Tertullian, are silent upon this head; and Le Clerc seems scarcely convinced that this error is rightly imputed to him.

e

[blocks in formation]

b

f

I SHOULD have had no occasion to have said any thing of Cerinthus's manners, if some learned moderns had not represented him as a vicious person; for which I can see no good ground. They build upon some expressions of Dionysius of Alexandria: but they are only words of course in the way of controversy. And the catholics, who expected a Millennium, had the same notion of it that he is said to have had. There was nothing unlawful in either, though it was low and mean. And what may satisfy us that Cerinthus was not a bad man, is this; that nothing of that kind is said of him by the writers of heresies: not by Irenæus, nor Epiphanius, nor Theodoret, nor the rest.

a Si hoc verum est, in Cerinthi et Ebionis hæresim delabimur, qui, credentes in Christo, propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cæremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt; et sic nova confessi sunt, ut vetera non amitterent. Ep. 74. al. 69. p. 623. M.

See vol. i. p. 484, and p. 634, &c. See also the quotation below.

• Mille quoque annos post resurrectionem in terreno regno Christi, secundum carnales ventris et libidinis voluptates, fue turos fabulantur. Unde etiam Chiliastæ sunt appellati. Η. 8. d Caius, qui sub finem secundi aut initio tertii seculi foruit, prodidit in dialogo, cujus locum profert Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. Cerinthum, qui per revelationes quasi a magno apostolo scriptas, portenta finxerat, velut ab angelis sibi ostensa, intromisisse hanc doctrinam ; quâ affirmat, post resurrectionem regnum Christi in terris futurum, et rursus cupiditatibus et voluptatibus carnem Jerosolymæ versantem servituram. Quin et dixisse inimicum illum scripturarum divinarum, fallere volentem, in nuptialibus festis mille annorum spatium transactum iri. Cujus erroris etiam Dionysius Alexandrinus eum incusabat, ut eodem loco docet Eusebius. • Quod si verum sit, Chiliastarum hic conditor haberi possit. Clerici. H. E. section 1. p. 493. II. See the original of this passage, p. 570, note 1.

• Non erant Cerinthi mores doctrinâ suâ sanctiores, teste Dionysio Alexandrino : hæc enim fuit illius opinio : regnum Christi terrenum futurum : et quarum rerum cupiditate ipse flagrabat, utpote voluptatibus corporis obnoxius, carnisque ad

dictus, in iis regnum dei situm fore somniavit, in ventris et earum, quæ infra ventrem sunt partium explendâ libidine ; hoc est in cibo et potu, ac nuptiis: atque ut honestiori vocabulo ejusmodi voluptates velaret, in festis, et sacrificiis, et hostiarum mactionibus. Basnag. Annales. An. 101. XI.

• Κήρινθον δε, τον και την απ' εκεινε κληθεισαν Κηρίνθιανην συζησαμενον αίρεσιν, αξιοπισον επιφημίσαι, θελησαντα τω 'εαυτ8 πλασματι ονομα. Τετο γαρ είναι της διδασκαλίας αυτό το δογμα, επίγειον εσέσθαι την τε Χρισε βασιλειαν, και ὧν αυτος ωρέγετο φιλοσώματος ων και πάνυ σαρκικός, εν τέτοις ονειροπο λειν εσεσθαι. γαςέρος και των ύπο γαςερα πλησμοναις, τέτεςι σιτίοις και ποτοις και γαμοις, και δι' ὧν ευθυμότερον ταύτα μηθη ποιείσθαι, ἑορταις και θυσίαις, και ἱερειων σφαγαις. Eus. Ecc. Hist. Lib. 7. C. 25. p. 273. A. B. Vid. Credib. Vol. i. p. 634, 635.

8 Νέπως επισκοπος- -Ιεδαϊκωτερον τας επηγέλμενας τοις άγιοις εν ταις θείαις γραφαις επαγγελιας αποδοθήσεσθαι δια δάσκων, και τινα χιλιαδα ετων τρυφης σωματικής επι της Engas Taurys Eσεodai útotideμevos. Ibid. C. 23. p. 270. D. 271. A.

Την δε το συγγράμματος τοτε διδασκαλίαν, ὡς μεγα δη τι και κεκρυμμένον μυσήριον, κατεπαγγελομένων, και τις άπλεςε gas adελpes nμш de εWYTY Vλov naι μɛyaλεlov ogоVELY ετε περι της ενδοξε και αληθως ενθες το Κυριο ήμων επιφάνειας ετε τῆς ἡμετέρας εκ νεκρών αναςάσεως, και της προς αυτόν επισυναγωγης και ὁμοιωσεις αλλα μικρα και θνητα και οία τα νυν ελπίζειν αναπείθοντων εν τη βασιλεια τα Θε8. Ibid. cap. 24. p. 271. D. Cred. Vol. i. p. 638, 639.

[blocks in formation]

SECTION VI.

What Scriptures he received.

CERINTHUS received the scriptures of the Old Testament. Of this I think there can be no doubt: for it is not denied by any; and it is plainly supposed by those writers, who speak of his zeal for the peculiarities of the law of Moses.

a

1. He received the gospel of St. Matthew, as Epiphanius says expressly in the place at first quoted from him; though not entire, as he there mentions. But he did not, as is supposed by many to be the meaning of that passage, reject the first, or the first and second chapters of St. Matthew. For it seems to me, that he does there plainly say they received the gospel, and were fond of it on account of the genealogy. Moreover in the article of the Ebionites he says, it is allowed by all that Cerinthus made use of the beginning of St. Matthew's gospel, and from thence endeavoured to prove that Jesus was descended in a natural way from Joseph and Mary. And another passage, cited not long ago from his article of the Alogians, deserves to be here taken into consideration.

с

2. If the passage of Irenæus before quoted relate to the Cerinthians, (as some think) they preferred the gospel of St. Mark to the rest; but it does not therefore follow that he received no other; for he certainly received St. Matthew's, if not all the gospels: but it is by no means clear that that passage does refer to them.

g

с

3. If there be any truth in the accounts of his being a Millenarian, it is highly probable that he respected the apostle John, if the Revelation be a work of that apostle. Several writers, who did not like the Millenarian doctrine received by many catholics, affirmed the book of the Revelation, upon which they chiefly built, to be a work not of St. John, but of Cerinthus. So did Caius, as is allowed by Grabe and Mill, in passages formerly quoted in this work. I put down here another passage of Mill. Beausobre was clearly of the same opinion. And Theodoret in the passage cited above, says, that Cerinthus forged some revelations, as seen by himself: probably meaning those in the book of the Revelation, which we have. Caius's words are, Cerinthus also, who by revelations, as written by a great apostle, imposeth upon us monstrous relations of things of his own invention, as shewn him by an angel, says that, after the resurrection, there shall be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ. This, I think, may be reckoned a strong argument for the antiquity of the Revelation. And if there be any truth in what is 'said of Cerinthus being a Millenarian, it is probable he made use of our book of Revelation, ⚫ ascribed to John, upon which all the Millenarian schemes were founded. But whether he ' wrote the book himself in the name of John, or only appealed to it in support of his opinions, it is a proof he respected that apostle. And if he did, it is probable that he received his gos'pel and the epistle generally ascribed to ' him.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

k

4. Philaster says that Cerinthus did not receive the apostle Paul, but honoured the traitor Judas. That he received only the gospel of Matthew, rejecting the other three gospels, and

• See the observation on the quotation, p. 565, note TM. 5. Ο μεν γαρ Κήρινθος και Καρποκρας τῷ αὐτῷ χρωμενοι δήθεν παρ' αυτοίς ευαγγελιῳ, από της αρχης τε κατα Ματθαιον ευαγγελιό δια της γενεαλογίας βάλονται παρισαν εκ σπέρματος Ιωσήφ και Μαρίας είναι τον Χρισον. Η. 30. n. 14. p. 138. D. c. See before note ". p. 565.

See before, p. 564. note.

e See Vol. i. p. 484, 485, 634, 641.

f Sin autem apostoli hujus haud fuerit Apocalypsis, cujus obsecro? Cerinthi. Id enim affirmabat Caius in disputatione habita coram Zephyrino, &c. Mill. Prol. n. 167.

8 On fait mention d' une Apocalypse de Cérinthe, supposée sous le nom de S. Jean: et l'on se figure deux Apocalypses, l'une et l'autre attribuées à cet Apôtre. On se fonde ur un passage de Caius, Prêtre de Rome, allégué par Eusèbe.

Mais on peut s'assurer, que Caius parle de l'Apocalypse de 9.
Jean. Hist. Manich. T. i. P: 455.

Η Αλλα και Κηρινθος, ὁ δι ̓ Αποκαλύψεων, ως απο Αποτελε
μεγαλο γεγραμμένων, τερατολογιας μιν ὡς δι' αγγελων αυτο
δεδειγμένας, ψευδόμενος, επεισάγει λεγων, μετά την ανάςασιν
επίγειον είναι το βασίλειον το Χρισε και παλιν επιθυμίαις και
ήδοναις εν Ιερεσαλήμ την σαρκα πολιτευομένην δελεύειν και
εχθρος υπαρχων ταις γραφαις τε Θεό, αριθμόν χιλιονταετίας
ἐν γάμῳ ἑορτας, θελων πλαναν, λέγει γενέσθαι. Eus. Η. Ε. L.
H. E.
3. C. 28. p. 100. A.

í Vid. Lampe Pro. in Johan.

* Apostolum Paulum non accipit. Judam traditorem honorat. Evangelium secundum Matthæum solum accipit. Tria Evangelia spernit. Actus Apostolorum abjicit. H. 36. p. 79, 80.

the Acts of the apostles.' But what Philaster says, in which he is not supported by others, I apprehend needs not to be much minded.

Epiphanius however, as before quoted, says that the Cerinthians reject Paul.' Nevertheless, there may be some reason to question the truth of this, from what Epiphanius himself says elsewhere. For he informs us there was a tradition, that when some of them had died without baptism, others were baptized for them, lest at the time when they should be hereafter raised up at the general resurrection, they should be punished for that omission. And it was supposed that St. Paul refers to it in 1 Cor. xv. 29. But he says there is another and better interpretation of that text. And he afterwards argues against them from Isaiah, and from St. Luke's and St. John's gospels, which seems to imply that they respected these parts of scripture, as well as the gospel of Matthew, some part of St. Paul's writings, and the Revelation of St. John. Upon the whole then, it appears highly probable that Cerinthus flourished in the latter end of the first, or very early in the second century. And it is certain, that the Old Testament, and several of the books of the New Testament, were received by him.

с

CHAP. V. .

OF PRODICUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS.

SECTION I.

Of the Account of him from Clemens Alexandrinus.

PRODICUS is wanting in Irenæus, the additions to Tertullian's prescriptions, Eusebius, and Philaster. He is mentioned by Tertullian and Theodoret, as we shall see distinctly hereafter. But our chief intelligence must come from Clement of Alexandria, by whom he is spoken of several times.

d

In one place he says that the followers of Prodicus boasted of having the secret books of Zoroaster. By which, as also by some other passages of Clement, we perceive that there was a sect or heresy called after Prodicus.

[ocr errors]

с

In another place, having spoken of some loose principles ascribed to the Carpocratians, or others, he says, like things to these are the doctrines taught by the followers of Prodicus, who falsely called themselves Gnostics. They say they are by nature the children of the supreme Deity; but they dishonour their high birth and freedom: for they live as they choose; and they choose to live in pleasure. They scorn to be controuled, as being lords of the sabbath, and the king's children; and kings are above laws: nevertheless they do not every thing they will, being restrained by the laws: and what they do they do not as kings, but as the 'vilest slaves: for they practise uncleanness, but privately, fearing punishment, and guarding ' against discoveries. But how is this consistent with freedom, when the apostle says, "he that 'committeth sin, is the servant of sin." And how, when they do these things, which are despised and prohibited by the Gentiles, that is, when they are covetous, unrighteous, intemperate, impure, can they say that they only know God? And if we say, as John in his epistle,

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

• Τοιαύτα και οἱ απο Προδικα, ψευδωνύμως Γνωσικες σφας αυτές αναγορεύοντες, δογματίζεσιν· υἱες μεν φύσει τα πρώτα θες λεγοντές αυτές, καταχρώμενοι δε τη ευγενεια και τη ελευ θερια, ζωσιν ὡς βελονται, βέλονται δε φιληδονώς κρατηθηναι ὑπ' εδενος νενομικότες, ως αν κυριοι το σαββατε, και ὑπερ απαντ τις γενες πεφυκοτες βασιλειοι παίδες. Λαθρα γαρ μοιχεύωσιν, και άλωναι δεδιοτες, και το καταγνωσθήναι εκκλινοντες. Πόθεν εν κρείττες εισι των κοσμικων οἱ τοιαύτα πράσσοντες, και τοις KERISHIS TWO Hooμixar quoio. Str. 3. p. 438, 439.

that "we have fellowship with him, and we walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 'but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with him; and the blood of 'Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from sin," (1 John i. 6, 7.) And how are they better than the men of the world, who do these things, and are like to the worst men in the world?'

b

SECTION II.

Of Theodoret's Account of him, in which he is far from being exact.

a6

THEODORET's article of Prodicus following that of Carpocrates is to this purpose: Prodicus • succeeding to him, instituted the sect of the Adamites. He made this addition to the doctrine of Carpocrates, that men should commit lewdness openly: for he ordained that women should be common,' and what follows. For proof of which he partly quotes, and partly refers to the aforecited, and another passage of Clement of Alexandria. Nor does it appear that Theodoret had any authority for what he says here, or elsewhere, very much to the disparagement of Prodicus and his followers, but that of Clement of Alexandria; upon whom therefore I shall make the following remark, leaving others, after all, to judge as they see good.

SECTION III.

Observations on the Account given us by Clemens Alexandrinus, which renders it probable they were not such licentious Livers as they are there said to have been.

1. It is hard to think that men should be quite so bad as there intimated, who boasted of serving God; and who made a profession of excelling Gentiles and men of the world. It does not seem to me that men could be totally abandoned to all excess, with whom Clement would think to argue so mildly, but strongly, as he does from the words of St. Paul and St. John, and likewise of our Lord, which I have in the forecited passage omitted. He seems to me to have been of opinion that these men would be affected by this argument; which is more than could be hoped of men openly or determinedly wicked and profligate.

2. It is somewhat probable, that Clement did not certainly know they allowed themselves in the practice of those things which are generally agreed to be evil. For he only says they did them in private, and endeavoured to conceal the knowledge of it from the world.

3. The case seems to me to be this. These men had some principles, and used some expressions which might be abused, or which Clement thought might be abused, and understood to countenance the practice of wickedness. But they, it is likely, did not see that consequence: nor intended that any such deductions or conclusions should be drawn from their doctrine. If there were nothing more to be alleged in favour of this than what hath been said already, this observation might be reckoned to have some degree of probability.

■ H. T. l. i. c. 6. p. 177.

b What Theodoret further says will be considered when we come to speak of the Adamians. In proof of what he here advances, he refers to Clement of Alexandria, from whom he has inserted two quotations, which however related to the conduct of some other heretics, and not at all to that of Prodicus. In the last part of what he says concerning him, he inserts the beginning of the passage which I have before transcribed at large, viz. Such things the followers of Prodicus teach, falsely calling themselves Gnostics,' &c. The whole of what he had before quoted from Clement, belongs to the Carpocratians or some others, and not to Prodicus; to whom it can be made to refer only by way of implication. What I have here taken notice of, hath been long ago observed by Bayle, whose words under the article Prodicus are these; I ought to add, that with regard to another circum

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

stance, Theodoret was not so exact as he should have been, in quoting from Clement of Alexandria. He makes him say of Prodicus what is properly and directly said of some ' others, and cannot be applied to him but in general, and by means of several indirect arguments.' In another place, * he joins Prodicus with Carpocrates, the Cainites, and some others, and says, They taught, that souls were sent into this world, to practise all manner of sensuality and iniquity, and, by such pursuits, to pay homage to the angels who had 'created the world.' It is very apparent then that the authority of Theodoret is not additional to that of Clement; for what he says concerning Prodicus, he takes from him, and doth not even quote him fairly.

[ocr errors]

* H. F. L. v. C. 9. p. 273. D. C. 20. p. 297. B. Compare C. 27. p. 311. D. 312. A.

b

But there are divers other things by which this observation may be supported. For having cited some expressions of Carpocrates, or of some of that sect, he says, if these, like the Va⚫lentinians, intended spiritual communions, possibly some might receive their opinion: but to 'make carnal communion a mean to prophecy or inspiration, must be the sentiment of those only who despair of salvation.' Then follows the passage above cited. The like things say also the followers of Prodicus. But I imagine that Clement may be here mistaken: and that the expressions which he quotes, and at which he is so much offended, may be understood in the same way, as he himself interpreted some expressions of the Valentinians. I might add, that Clement himself was not quite certain that the Carpocratians were the authors of this book, from which he took these words. Another thing leading to this apprehension is in the midst of the passage above quoted. But, says Clement, shall any one sin wilfully, and attempt to establish a doctrine for licensing and encouraging adultery, and such like offences? When any sin unwillingly, we pity them; but this is a different case; all which joined with what Clement says, of their practising lewdness in private, about which perhaps he had no certain information, makes me think that he only suspected them, without any clear proof, and that this suspicion was founded on their doctrine or expressions misunderstood, and not on their conduct. However, after all, let every one judge as the evidence appears to him.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

SECTION IV.

They are accused of believing the uselessness of Prayer.

[ocr errors]

e

d

[ocr errors]

I PROCEED to another passage. Clement is discoursing of prayer. 'Some,' says he, have ' appointed times of prayer, the third for instance, the sixth, and the ninth hour of a day. But a Gnostic prays his whole life. Here,' says he, I recollect some of another opinion, particularly the sect of Prodicus, who say we need not pray at all. This then is another opinion of these people, that prayer is needless.' Clement immediately adds, nor let them boast of this impious opinion, as if it were new, and their own invention. It was before them the opinion of the Cyrenaic philosophers.' Tillemont says, they learnt it from the Cyrenaic philosophers, but that does not appear to be Clement's meaning. What was their error does not, I think, clearly appear. Clement proceeds to argue upon the point; but he does not argue as if he thought them wicked and abandoned men. Their opinion, whatever it was, seems to have been deduced from some notions of the divine goodness, and from a misapplication of some texts of scripture; as if good men needed not to ask, but might hope for all necessary things without particular petitions, or express requests for them. Wherefore Clement argues after this manner: It is allowed on all hands, that God fully knows those who are worthy of receiving good things, and those who are not; from whence it follows, that God gives to all what is fit, there'fore he gives not to bad men though they ask often, and is ever ready to give to the good. Nevertheless prayer is not useless, though he should give good things without being asked. On which account thanksgiving and petition well become a Gnostic: and in particular he may pray for the conversion of others. Our Lord himself prayed. And even that faith whereby we believe we shall receive, is a kind of mental prayer becoming a Gnostic.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

• Ει γαρ και ετοι, καθαπερ και οἱ απο Ουαλεντίνο, πνευματικαι ετίθεντο κοινωνίας, ίσως τις αυτών την ὑπόληψιν επεδέξατο σαρκικης δε ύβρεως κοινωνίαν εις προφητειαν άγιαν αναγεινι απεγνωκότος επί την σωτηρίαν. Τοιαυτα και οἱ Προδικε. κ. λ. Str. 3. p. 438. B.

• Ερήνη δε ούτως το δόγμα εκ τινος αποκρυφα και δη παραθησομαι την λέξιν την της τετων ασελγείας μητέρα. Και είτε αυτοί της βίβλο συγγραφεις, κ. λ. Str. 3. p. 437. D. 438. Α. Εκων δε τις ἁμαρτάνειν βέλεται, και δογμα τίθησι μοιχευειν και καθηδυπαθειν, όπεγε και τις άλλες ακοντας ἁμαρ πανοντας ελευμεν. Ib. p. 438. D.

C

• Ει δι τινες και ώρας τακτας απονεμεσιν ευχή,αλλ' εν γε ὁ Γνωσικος παρα όλον ευχεται τον βιον. Str. 7. p. 722. C.

• Ενταύθα γενομενος, υπεμνήσθην των περί τε μη δειν ευω χεσθαι τότεσιν των αμφί την Προδικα αίρεσιν μαθετως σαν προειλήφθαι μεν ύπο των Κυρηναϊκων λεγόμενων φιλοσόφων. Ib. D.

Ce qu'ils avoient tiré des philosophes Cyrenaïciens. Les Carpocrat. Mem. Ecc. F. 2.

8 Καθόλυ γαρ ὁ Θεος οιδεν τες τε αξίες των αγαθων, και μη ὅθεν τα προσήκοντα έκασοις διδωσιν. Διο πολλακις μεν αιτήσασιν αναξίοις εκ αν δοιη· δοιη δε αξίοις δηλονοτι υπαρχεσιν. Ου μην παρελκει ἡ αιτησις, καν χωρίς αξιώσεως δίδοται τα αγαθα και τοι και ἡ πιςις το λήψεσθαι είδος ευχής εναπο κείμενης γνωςικως. Ib. p. 723. Α. Β.

« PreviousContinue »