702 more developed although hardly in a more distinct state. The second chapter (vv. 6-15) of the Apocalypse has been held to mention a sect of the Gnostics by name—the Nicolait-ans——a sect supposed to derive its name from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons, who had departed fron1 the faith and fallen into licentious doctrines and practices. Even in such a sect as this, however, we recognize rather the expression of those lax and restless tendencies which sought everywhere to corrupt the doctrines of the gospel, than any clear philosophical bias. Upon the whole, it may be concluded that what we see in the writings of the New Testament is exactly what we might expect. The Gnostical spirit is present, but Gnosticism is as yet unde- veloped. The apostolic age is an age of transition, in which the speculative and ethical spirit of the time is everywhere seen encountering the new life of Christianity, and new seeds of creative thought are everywhere springing from the encounter. There are teachers of all kinds, especially Jewish teachers, busy throughout the Roman world. But Gnosticism properly so-called, as a series of speculative systems, is not yet born. Its approach is heralded by many tendencies forecasting it ; but it is only in the Syrian and Alexandrian schools of the beginning of the 2d century that we see it coming forth into distinct shape. lien like Simon Magus and his pupil Menander, the former the opponent of St Peter, and again men like Cerinthns, the opponent of St John, may be called Gnostics. In such traditions of their teaching as survive, we see the workings of the Gnostical spirit—the spirit which sought to trans- m11te the facts of Christianity into some ideological theory. But none of these leaders elaborated systems, or at least we are no longer able to trace with precision of outline the doctrines which they taught. Properly speaking, therefore, they are the precursors of Gnosticism, rather than the founders of Gnostic schools. It is implied by Irenaeus (i. 25) that the followers of Carpocrates first called themselves Gnostics; and again by Hippolytus that this designation was first assumed by the Ophites (1. v.). But little can be gathered from writers like Irenzeus, or even Hippolytus, as to the true order of development of the Gnostic systems. With the former, for example, Saturninus and Basilides stand not only before Carpocrates, but before Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and the Nicolaitans (i. 24, 26). The last thing to seek in the early fathers is either accuracy of chronology, or a clear sequence of thought. They handle topics, for the most part, quite irrespective of either; and the student is forced back mainly, if not exclusively, on internal evidence as his only trustworthy guide in analysing and classifying the systems of thought which prevailed in the first two centuries. According to such evidence, and the bias of individual writers, the Gnostic systems have been very differently classified. Mosheim has divided them with reference to their greater or less recognition of the Dualistic principle ; Neander with reference to their relation to Judaism; F. Baur with reference to their relation both to Judaism and heathenism. Lipsius, one of the most recent and careful writers on the subject, arranges the Gnostical systems in a threefold order—-lst, in so far as they arise within the Jewish schools, and aim to distinguish between Christianity and Judaism; 2d, in so far as they appear within the broader sphere of Hellenism; and 3d, in so far as they approach the circle of Christian faith, and become more or less united with the doctrines of the church. The most intelligible principle of classification seems to be that already indicated, which recognizes first an inchoate period corresponding to the New Testament age, and repre- sented by many diverse teachers, chiefly of Jewish origin, and then fixes attention upon the great schools of Syria and of Egypt, with the addition of that of Asi.’-. Minor, repre- ('}.'OSTICISM ' scnted by "_farcion. These schools are distinguished by their internal features, and their respective relations to Judaism on the one hand and dualism on the other ; but they stand out more clearly from their geographical centres, perhaps, than from any other distinguishing features. I. The inchoate phase of Gnosticism is represented by men like Simon and Ccrinthus, both prominently associated with apostles and sects, such as the Ophites or Naasscni (from 3'03, serpent), the Peratae or FCt‘;ItlCS,tll0 Sethiani, and the followers of one Justinus, author of a book called the Book of Baruc/2, which was written probably hot earlier than the beginning of the 2d century. All these sects are elaborately described by Hippolytus in the fifth book of his It’c;futut2'on qf Ileresics. Simon Magus follows ll1t'Ill in his order of treatment (I. v.). There can belittle doubt, however, that Simon 11u1st be placed in the very front of the history of Gnosticism, in so far as he belongs to this history at all. This is the position that he occupies in the treatise of Irenzeus (Adv. Iltereses, l. i. c. 23); and his association with St Peter, as well as the account of him in the apostolic history in which he appears (Acts viii. 5, 9, 10) within seven years of the ascension of our Lord, plainly indicates that this is his true position. The clraracter of his teaching, moreover, points to the same conclusion. It is a form of anti—Christianism, rather than any mere depravation of the Cln'istia11 system. It is true that In is represented in the passage of the Acts of the Apostle»- already referred to (viii. 13) as having professed himself a believer, and having been baptized; but his whole career afterwards, and the doctrines attributed to him, prove that. whatever may have been his feelings for the moment, he neither understood Christianity, nor came under its practi- cal influence in any degree. Probably he regarded the apostles as only magicians of remarkable skill, and enrolled himself for a time in their company in order that he might learn their secrets and be able to exercise their powers. He was plainly an impostor of the first magnitude, who must be credited with a marvellous and unblushing audacity rather than with any clear philosophic. or spiritual aims. He gave himself out as “the great power of God ” (Acts viii. 10). “ Ego sum sermo Dei,” he said of hilnself, according to St Jerome (on Matt. xxiv. 5), with much blasphemous nonsense besides. He carried about with him a “ certain woman named Helena,” a prostitute whom he had purchased in the city of Tyre, and who he sai-.l “ was the first conception ("Ewota) of his mind, the mother of all things, by whom in the beginning he conceived the thought of making the angels and archangels ” (Iren., -l«lr. 1Ir_er., i. 23). He recognized Christ as Iledeemer, but only as occupying an inferior position to himself. He was the true Logos or Power of God, which had previously in an imperfect degree appeared in Jesus. He himself is “the God who is over all things, and the world was made by hi~ angels” (Ibz'd., i. 23). It is clear that a teacher of this kind had little relation to Christianity, except in so far as it came across his own designing and ambitious path. lle had knowledge and intellectual address t.o avail himself of the prevailing conceptions of the Alexandrian philosophy, so as to impart some coherency to his own insane dreams ; but he was characteristically a magician (as his character has survived in history) rather than a 1)llllO1~t)l‘rllCl' or spiritual thinker. He claims the position assigned to him in the history of Gnosticism mainly _in virtue of his pupil and successor Menander who laid the foundation at Antioch of the Syrian Gnostic school more conspicuously represented ' by Saturninus and others. For an account of Cerinthus and his system we refer our readers to the article CEP.1.'T11Us. The account of his relations with St John, as given by later C‘hristian tradi-
. tion, maybe a mythical expression of the popular Cln-isti-an