Blastus, and many others. Perhaps the ancient Christian fathers divided one sect into several, deceived by the fact of its having several names; they may also have had incorrect information respecting some of them.

it is certain that they did not maintain all | originated at Rome under Florinus and that is attributed to them. I pass by other sects which appear to have originated from the Valentinian system; but whether all the sects which are called Valentinian actually originated from disciples and followers of Valentinus, appears very doubtful to those who consider how great mistakes the ancients have made in stating the origin of the heretics.1

18. Of the smaller and more obscure Gnostic sects, of which the ancients give us little more than the names, and perhaps one or two detached sentiments, it is unnecessary to say anything. Such were the Adamites, who are said to have wished to imitate the state of innocence; 2 the Cainites, who are represented as paying respect to the memory of Cain, Corah, Dathan, the inhabitants of Sodom, and Judas the traitor; the Abelites, whom the ancients represent as marrying wives, but raising up no children; the Sethites, who regarded Seth as the Messiah; 5 the Florinians who

1 Besides Irenæus and the other ancient writers, see, concerning these sects, Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum et cosians, Irenæus is copious, lib. i. cap. xiv. That Marcus was out of his senses is unquestionable; for he must have been deranged, if he could hold even the greater part of the strange fancies which are said to belong to his system. [Among the moderns who have treated of these sects, see Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. 1. pages 387-401; and Neander, Kircheng. vol. i. part ii. pages 731-746.-Mur.

Hæreticorum, sæcul. ii. pag. 69-82, &c. On the Mar

2 See for an account of them, Clemens Alex. Stromat. lib. i. p. 357; lib. iii. p. 525, lib. vii. p. 854; Tertullian, Scorpiace, in Opp. p. 633; and Contra Prax. cap. iii.; Epiphanius, Hares. lii. Opp. tom. i. p. 459; Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul. lib. i. cap. vi.; Augustine, p. 88; and among the moderns, Walch, Hist der Ketzer. vol. i. pages 327-335; Bayle, Dictionnaire, Art. Adamites and Prodicus; Tillemont, Mémoires, &c.

De Hares. cap. xxxi.; Jo. Damascenus, Opp. tom. i.

tome ii. p. 256; Beausobre, Diss. sur les Adamites, subjoined to Lenfant's Histoire des Hussites. The accounts of the ancients are contradictory, and several of the moderns doubt whether there ever was a sect who performed their worship in a state of nudity.-Mur.

3 All the ancient writers mentioned in the preceding note, except Damascenus, speak of the Cainites, but what they state is very brief and contradictory. The correctness of their accounts is justly doubted by Bayle (Dictionnaire, Art. Cainites), and others. Origen (Contra Celsum, lib. iii. p. 119) did not regard them as Christians. Yet they might be a sect of Gnostics, who, holding the God of the Jews for a revolter from the true God, regarded Cain, Dathan, Corah, and others who resisted him as being very praiseworthy.-Mur.

4 The Abelites are mentioned only by Augustine, De Hæres. cap. lxxxvil. and by the author of the book Predestinatus, cap. lxxxvii. It is represented that every man married a female child and every woman a little boy, with whom they lived and whom they made their heirs, hoping in this way to fulfil, literally, what Paul says, 1 Cor. vii. 29, that "they that have wives be as though they had none." The sect is treated of by Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. i. p. 607, who doubts whether it were not altogether an imaginary sect.-Mur.

19. Among the Gnostics of the Egyptian class, a chief place must be assigned to the Ophites or Serpentians, a senseless sect, of which one Euphrates is said to be the father. The sect originated among the Jews before the Christian era. A part of them became professed Christians, the rest retained their former superstition. Hence there were two sects of Ophites, a Christian sect and an anti-Christian. The Christian Ophites held nearly the same absurd notions with the other Egyptian Gnostics concerning ons, the eternity of matter, the creation of the world without the knowledge or consent of the Deity, the rulers of the seven planets who presided over the world, the tyranny of Demiurgus, the descent of Christ joined to the man Jesus into our world to overthrow the kingdom of Demiurgus, &c.; but they held this peculiarity, that they supposed the serpent which deceived our first parents was either Christ himself, or Sophia concealed under the form of a serpent; and this opinion is said to have induced them to keep some sacred serpents, and to pay them a species of honour. Into such absurdities men might easily fall, if they believed the Creator of the world to be a different being from the supreme God, and regarded as divine whatever was opposed to the pleasure of Demiurgus,7

20. The numerous evils and discords which arose from combining the oriental

As

6 Florinus and Blastus were by the ancients reckoned among the Valentinians. Both were presbyters of Rome, intimate friends, and excommunicated by the Roman bishop Eleutherius. (Euseb. H. E. vol. xv.) Florinus in early life enjoyed the instruction of Polycarp at Smyrna, and as Irenæus wrote a letter to Blastus concerning the schism at Rome about Easter-day, Walch (ubi supra, p. 404), supposes both of them, and particularly Blastus, were opposed to the views of the Romish Church respecting Easter. He also considers it most probable that Florinus was inclined towards Gnosticism; for Irenæus wrote a book against him concerning the eight ons; and he actually had some followers.- Schl. [That Florinus was a Gnostic is clear from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. lib. v. cap. xx.) That Blastus was so is not so certain.-Mur.

7 The history and doctrines of this sect, so far as they are known, I have stated in a German work printed at Helmstadt, 1746-4 [bearing the title, Erster Versuch ei ner unpartheyischen und gründlichen Ketzergeschichte. Afterwards, Schumacher published an Explanation of the obscure and difficult Doctrinal Table of the ancient Ophites, Wolfenbüttel, 1756, 4to; Schumacher main5 The Sethites are mentioned by the author of Pra-tained that the doctrine of the Ophites embraced neither destinatus, cap. xix.; and Philastrius, De Haresib. cap. metaphysics nor theology, but merely the history of the iii.; but Rhenferd (Diss. de Sethianis, in his Opp. Phi- Jewish nation couched in hieroglyphics; Walch, Hist. lolog, p. 165), and Zorn (Opuscul. Sacra, tom. i. p. 614), der Ketzer. vol. i. pages 447-481, has epitomized both consider this to be an imaginary sect. See Walch, ubi works; and we here give his leading thoughts in further supra, p. 609, &c.; and Neander, Kirchengesch. vol. 1. illustration of this sect. These people, called in Greek part ii. p. 758, &c.-Mur. Ophites, in Latin Serpentians, were by the Asiatics

and Egyptian philosophy with the Christian 21. Nearly allied to this opinion was religion, began to be increased about the that which was advanced about the same middle of this century, by those who brought time at Rome, by Theodotus, a tanner, the Grecian philosophy with them into the yet a man of learning and a philosopher; Christian Church. As the doctrines held and by one Artemas or Artemon, from by the Christians respecting the Father, whom originated the Artemonites; for, so Son, and Holy Spirit, and respecting the far as can be gathered from very indistinct twofold nature of the Saviour, were least of accounts of these men left us by the ancients, all at agreement with the precepts of this they supposed that when the man Christ philosophy, they first endeavoured so to was born, a certain divine energy or some explain these doctrines that they could be portion of the divine nature (and not the comprehended by_reason. This was at person of the Father as Praxeas imagined), tempted by one Praxeas, a very distin- united itself to him. Which of these men guished man, and a confessor, at Rome. preceded the other in time, and whether Discarding all real distinction between the they both taught the same doctrine or difFather, Son, and Holy Spirit, he taught that fered from each other, cannot at this day the whole Father of all things joined him- be decided, so few and obscure are the anself to the human nature of Christ. Hence cient accounts we have of them. But it is his followers were called Monarchians and unquestionable that the disciples of both Patripassians. Nor was the latter an un-applied philosophy and geometry to the suitable name for them, if Tertullian cor- explication of the Christian doctrine.2 rectly understood their sentiments; for they denominated the man Christ, the Son of God; and held that to this Son, the Father | of the universe, or God, so joined himself, as to be crucified and endure pangs along. with his Son. Yet Praxeas does not appear to have erected a distinct church.1

called Nahassians, or Naasians. Irenæus (lib. ii. cap. Xxxiv.) the author of the supplement to Tertullian's book, De Præscript. IIæret. (cap. xlvii.); Epiphanius (Hares. xxxvii.); Theodoret (Hæret. Fabul. lib. i. cap. xiv.); and Augustine (De Hæres. cap. xvii.), account them Christian heretics; but Origen (Contra Celsum, lib. vii. scc. 28) holds them to be not Christians. Yet he speaks of them as pretended Christians in his Comment on Matth. tom. iii. p. 851, &c. Philastrius makes them more ancient than Christianity. It is most probable they were Jewish Gnostics, and that some of them embraced Christianity, so that the sect became divided into Jewish and Christian Ophites. There are two sources of information on this part of ecclesiastical history. The first is the accounts of Ireneus, Epiphanius, and others. The second is what Origen tells us (Contra Celsum, lib. vi. sec. xxxiii. &c.) concerning the Diagram of the Ophites. This Diagram was a tablet, on which the Ophites depicted their doctrines in all sorts of figures, with words annexed. It probably contained the doctrines of the Jewish Ophites, and is dark and unintelligible, unless we may suppose this symbolical representation contained that system, the principal doctrines of which are stated by the ancients. The theological system both of the Jewish and the Christian Ophites, cannot be epitomized and must be sought for in Walch, p. 461. Their serpent-worship consisted in this, they kept a living serpent which they let out upon the dish when celebrating the Lord's supper, to crawl around and over the bread. The priest to whom the serpent belonged now camo near, brake the bread, and distributed to those present. When each had eaten his morsel he kissed the serpent, which was afterwards confined. When this solemn act, which the Ophites called their perfect sacrifice, was ended, the meeting closed with a hymn of praise to the supreme God, whom the serpent in Paradise had made known to men. But all the Ophites did not observe these rites, which were peculiar to the Christian Ophites, and confined to a small number among them. This worship must have been symbolic. The Ophites had also Talismans. Schl. [See a lucid account of the Ophites, in Neander's Kirchengesch. vol. i. part ii. pages 746-756. -Mur. [Matter gives the diagram of the Ophites in the second volume of his Hist. du Gnost.-R.

1 See Tertullian, Liber contra Praxeam; and com

pare Wesseling, Probabilia, cap. xxvi. p. 223, &c.
Tertullian (to whom we are indebted for all certain
knowledge of the views of Praxeas) was not only an
obscure writer, but also a prejudiced one in regard to
Praxeas. He not only rejected his doctrine, but hated
him, because Praxeas had alienated the Roman bishop
Victor from Montanus, whose partisan Tertullian was.

Hence Tertullian, in his censures on Praxeas, is often
extravagant and insulting. The opposition of Praxeas
to Montanus doubtless led the former into his error.
Montanus had treated of the doctrine of three persons
in the Divine essence, and had insisted on a real dis-
tinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(Tertullian, Contra Praxeam, cap. xiii. p. 426.) Praxeas,
who was hostile to Montanus, published his own doc-
From Tertullian,
trine in opposition to Montanus.
moreover, it appears clearly that Praxeas discarded the
distinction of persons in the Divine essence, and, as
Tertullian expresses it, contended for the monarchy of
God; but how he explained what the Scriptures teach
concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit is not so clear.
Of the various conceptions we might gather from Ter-
tullian, Mosheim gives a full investigation in his Com-
See also Walch,
ment. de Rebus Christ. &c. p. 426.
Hist. der Ketzer. vol. i. pages 527-546.- Schl. [See
also Neander, Kirchengesch. vol. i part iii. p. 994, &c.
-Mur.

2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxviii.; Epl
phanius, Hares. liv. p. 464; Wesseling, Probabilia,
cap. xxi. p. 172, &c. Several persons occur in the his-
tory of the heretics bearing the name of Theodotus.
(1) Theodotus of Byzantium, a tanner, of whom above.
(2) Theodotus the younger, disciple of the former, and
founder of the sect of Melchisedeckians. This sect
derived its name from its holding, agreeably to the doc-
trine of the elder Theodotus, that Melchisedec was the
power of God and superior to Christ; and that he sus-
tained the office of an intercessor for the angels in
heaven, as Christ did for us men on earth. (3) Theo-
dotus, the Valentinian. (4) Theodotus, the Montanist.
Our Theodotus had saved his life during a persecution
at Byzantium, by a denial of Christ, and thus had in-
curred general contempt. To escape from disgrace he
went to Rome. But there his offence became known.
To extenuate his fault, he gave out that he regarded
Jesus Christ as a mere man, and that it could be no
great crime to deny a mere man. He was therefore
excluded from the church by Victor the bishop. Thus
Theodotus came near to the system of the Socinians,
and held Christ for a mere man, though a virtuous and
upright one. Whether he held the birth of Christ to
have been natural or supernatural, the ancient accounts
are not agreed. He rejected the Gospel of John; and
held his own doctrine to be apostolical, and that of the
eternal divinity of Christ to be a novel doctrine.
Walch, ubi supra, pages 516, 557. Artemon has in mo-

See

22. The same attachment to philosophy | doctrines of religion, but professed to be induced Hermogenes, a painter, to depart divinely commissioned to perfect and give from the sentiments of Christians respect- efficiency to the moral discipline taught by ing the origin of the world and the nature Christ and his apostles; for he supposed of the soul, and to cause disturbance in a Christ and his apostles had conceded too part of the Christian community. Regard- much to the weakness of the people of their ing matter as the source of all evil, he could age, and thus had given only an incomplete not believe that God had brought it into and imperfect rule of life. He therefore existence by his omnipotent volition. He would have fasts multiplied and extended, therefore held that the world and what- forbade second marriages as illicit, did not ever is in the world, and also souls and allow churches to grant absolution to such spirits, were formed by the Deity out of as had fallen into the greater sins, coneternal and vicious matter. There is much demned all decoration of the body and in this doctrine very difficult to be ex-female ornaments, required polite learning plained, and not in accordance with the and philosophy to be banished from the common opinions of Christians. But neither church, ordered virgins to be veiled, and Tertullian, who wrote against him, nor maintained that Christians sin most grieothers of the ancients, inform us how he vously by rescuing their lives by flight, or explained those Christian doctrines which redeeming them with money in time of perare repugnant to his opinions.1 secution. I pass by some other of his austere and rigid precepts.

Be

23. In addition to these sects, which may be called the daughters of philosophy, there 24. A man who professed to be a holier arose in the reign of Marcus Antoninus an moralist than Christ himself, and who would illiterate sect, opposed to all learning and obtrude his severe precepts upon Christians philosophy. An obscure man of weak judg- for divine commands and oracles, could not ment, named Montanus, who lived in a poor be endured in the Christian church. village of Phrygia called Pepuza, had the sides, his dismal predictions of the speedy folly to suppose himself the Comforter pro- downfal of the Roman republic, &c. might mised by Christ to his disciples, and to pre- bring the Christian community into immitend to utter prophecies under divine in-nent danger. He was therefore first by spiration. He attempted no change in the

dern times become more famous than Theodotus; since Samuel Crell assumed the name of an Artemonite, in order to distinguish himself from the odious Socinians, whose doctrines he did not fully approve. (See his book with the title: L. M. Artemonii, Initium Evangelii Johannis cx Antiquitate Restitutum, and his other writings). The history of this Artemon is very obscure. The time when he lived cannot be definitely ascertained, and the history of his doctrine is not without difficulties. It is not doubted that he denied the divinity

of Jesus Christ, as held by orthodox Christians. But whether he swerved towards the system of the modern Socinians or to that of Praxeas is another question. Mosheim believed the latter; De Reb. Christ. &c. 491. But as this rests on the recent testimony of Gennadius of Marseilles (De Dogm. Eccles. cap. iii.) Walch (p. 564) calls it in question. See also Rappen, Diss. de Hist. Artemonis et Artemonitarum, Lips. 1737.-Schl. [See also Neander, Kirchengesch. vol. i. part iii. pages 996-1000.-Mur. [Of Theodotus and Artemon, see Burton's Lect. on Ecc. Hist. of the First Three Cent. vol. ii. p. 211, &c.

There is extant a tract of Tertullian, Liber contra Hermogenem, in which he assails the doctrine of Hermogenes concerning matter and the origin of the world. But another tract of his, De Censu Animæ, in which he confuted the opinion of Hermogenes concerning the soul, is lost. [Tertullian is exceedingly severe upon Hermogenes, who was probably his contemporary, and fellow-African. Yet he allows that he was an ingenious and eloquent man, and sound in the principal doctrines of Christianity. It seems the morals of Hermogenes gave most offence to Tertullian. He had married repeatedly, and he painted for all customers what they wished. To a Montanist these things were exceedingly criminal. There is no evidence that Hermogenes founded a sect. See Mosheim, De Reb. Christ. &c. p. 432, &c.; Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. i. p. 476, &c. and Neander, Kirchengesch. vol. i. part iii. p. 976, &c.-Mur.

They doubtless err who tell us that Montanus claimed to be the Holy Spirit. He was not so foolish.

the decisions of some councils, and afterwards by that of the whole church, excluded from all connexion with that body. But the severity of his discipline itself led many persons of no mean condition to put confidence in him. Pre-eminent among these were two opulent ladies, Priscilla and Maximilla; who themselves, with others, uttered prophecies, after the example of their master, whom they denominated the Paraclete [or

Nor do those correctly understand his views whom I have hitherto followed, and who represent him as asserting, that there was divinely imparted to him that very Holy Spirit, or Comforter, who once inspired and animated the apostles. Montanus distinguished the Paraclete promised by Christ to the apostles, from the Holy Spirit that was poured upon them; and held, that under the name of the Paraclete, Christ indicated a divine teacher, who would supply certain parts of the religious system which were omitted by the Saviour, and explain more clearly certain other parts, which for wise reasons had been less perfectly taught. Nor was Montanus alone in making this distinction. For other Christian doctors supposed the Paraclete whose coming Christ had promised, was a divine messenger to men and different from the Holy Spirit given to the apostles. In the third century, Manes interpreted the promise of Christ concerning the Paraclete in the same manner; and boasted that he himself was that Paraclete. And who does not know that Mahomet had the same views, and applied the words of Christ respecting the Paraclete to himself? Montanus therefore wished to be thought that Paraclete of Christ, and not the Holy Spirit. The more carefully and attentively we read Tertullian, the greatest of all Montanus' disciples and the best acquainted with his system, the more clearly will it appear that such were his views. [Sce Burton's Lect. on the Ecc. Hist. of First Three Cent. vol. ii. p. 155, &c.—R.

Comforter]. Hence it was easy for Montanus to found a new church which was first established at Pepuza, a little town of Phrygia, but which spread in process of time through Asia, Africa, and a part of Europe. Of all his followers the most learned and distinguished was Tertullian, a man of genius but austere and gloomy by nature; who defended the cause of his preceptor by many energetic and severe publications.'

lian denominated those of his faith the Spiritual (Spirituales), and its opposers the Carnal (Psychikoi), because the former admitted Montanus' inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which the latter rejected. The time when Montanus began to disturb the church is much debated. Those who follow Eusebius, who is most to be relied upon, place this movement in the year 171 or 172. Wernsdorf's conjecture that Montanus was the bishop of Pepuza is not improbable. See concerning Tertullian, Hamberger's account of the principal writers, vol. ii. p. 492, and Walch, Hist. Eccles. N. Test. p. 648, &c.; vol. i. p. 611, &c.-Schl. [Also Neander, Kirchengesch. and concerning the Montanists, Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. i. part iii. pages 870-893.-Mur. [In addition to the various works on these Gnostic sects referred to in I See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xvi. and esthe several preceding notes, the student ought also to pecially Tertullian in his numerous books; and then consult Matter, Hist. Crit. du Gnost. 2d edit. 3 vol. all writers, both ancient and modern, who have treated and to read especially the sections from 44 to 48, incluprofessedly of the sects of the early ages. Quite re- sive, of Gieseler, Lehrbuch, &c. Davidson's Trans. vol. cently and with attention and great erudition, the his- i. p. 134, &c. with the very valuable references and extory of the Montanists has been illustrated by Werns- tracts contained in the notes. See also Milman's Hist. dorf in his Commentatio de Montanistis Saeculi Secundi of Christ, vol. ii. chap. v. entitled, Christianity and Orivulgo creditis Hæreticis, Dantzik, 1751, 4to. The Mon- entalism; Ritter, Geschichte der Christ. Philos. vol. i. tanists were also called Phrygians or Cataphrygians, books 1 and 2. The modern Roman Catholic view of from the country where they resided and originated; these sects may be seen in Döllinger, Lehrbuch der also Pepusians, from the town where Montanus had Kirchengesch. Cox's Transl. Lond. 1840, vol. i. chap. ii. his habitation, and which he pretended was the New The English reader may also consult Bp. Kaye's TerJerusalem spoken of in the Revelation of St. John. It tullian, &c. chap. vii.; Waddington's Hist. of the Church, appears likewise, that from Priscilla they were called part. i. chap. v.; Vidal's Translation of Mosheim's ComPriscillianists; though this name, on account of its mentaries, &c. vol. ii. and Rose's Translation of Neanambiguity, has in modern times been disused. Tertulder's History of the Christian Religion, vol. ii.-R.

CENTURY THIRD.

PART I.

THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.

2. Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla, the son of Severus, came to the throne in the year 211; and during the six years of his reign he neither oppressed the Christians himself, nor suffered others to oppress them.1 Antoninus Heliogabalus [A.D. 218-222], though of a most abandoned moral charac-(De Scriptor. Illustr. cap. liv.) express themselves ter, had no hostility towards the Christians.2