Christianity has its vio'ais as well as its Tics TLS, but it is not of the sort in which these specula tists and dreamers prided themselves. By the careful and well directed exploration of the mean ing of Scripture, by the orderly classification of its doctrines, by the due development of the systcm of truth it unfolds, and by the reconciliation of this with the great moral truths which are anterior to all written revelation ; a real and legitimate Chris tian Gnosis may be evolved. But to attempt this by means of an incorporation of Scriptural trnth with mere human theories or fancies, is to pursue a sure course towards a real arwala, a state of intel lectual and religious confusion in which there can be nothing Christian but the name. Against such an attempt, presuming it to have been made in their day, we may be sure the apostles would direct their strenuous efforts. But was such an attempt made in their day? were such speculative perversions of Christian truth among, the heresies of the apostolic age ? This is the question which, in the interests of Biblical Science, we propose now to consider.
That Gnostic sects, such as we find existing in the ed century', existed in the days of the apostles, or that Gnosticism had under any form reached that point of systematic development which it exhibits in the system of Valentinus or even in that of Ba silides or Saturninus ; are positions which are now universally abandoned as untenable. Nor is the opinion that any of the N. T. books was written especially to refute Gnostic doctrines, and prevent their growth in the church, maintained by any who hold these to be the genuine productions of those whose names they bear. The question, however, still remains open, whether there may not be in the sacred writings allusions to doctrines of the same kind as those which at a later period assumed a prominent place in the Gnostic systems.
In the outset it may be remarked that the occur rence of such allusions is not an improbable thing. We are unable to trace Gnosticism to its source ; but the tendency which it represents is one which may be observed both in heathenism and in Judaism ; and in all probability speculations of this sort were rife in many quarters where Christianity was esta blished in the days of the apostles. If so, it is not improbable that they might come with their pend. cious influence across the sphere of the apostles' working, and by thereby attracting their attention call forth from them words of censure or warning. When, however, we pass from preliminary pro babilities to inquire into the actual facts of the case, it must be confessed that considerable doubt hangs over the position that the N. T. writings
contain any allusions to Gnostic speculations. On the testimony of Tremens (Cont. Her. iii. II) and Theodoret (Heret. Fab. ii. 3), we may believe that Cerinthus was a contemporary of St. John, and propagated his erroneous doctrines in Asia Minor ; and though there is some doubt as to the story of their encounter in the public bath at Ephesus (Iren. iii. 3 ; comp. Lardner, Credibility, pt. 2, Ch. VI., Works, ii. 86, ed. 1788), it is not impro bable that the apostle may have known Cerinthus, and may have encountered some that were affected by his doctrines. All this, however, will not prove that either in his Gospel or in his Epistles the apostle has directly referred to these doctrines. Nor can this be proved from the use by him of such terms as Ahoy., Os, 12ovaylvns, etc., terms of great importance in the systems of the Gnostics ; for these terms have their own proper significance in the apostle's writings ; they are repeatedly used by him in a way not only different from, but op posed to that in which the Gnostics used them— as, ex, gr., in the case of Xlryos and /..covo-yeHs, both of which terms St. John applies to Jesus (i. 18), whilst Cerinthus taught that God begot the Monogenes and the latter the Logos ; and the use of some of them by the later Gnostics in a. Johannine sense is much more probably to be traced to their having borrowed them from St. John than to his having taken them from them. The only legitimate proof of the existence of direct references to Gnostic views in the writings of the apostles is furnished by the adduction of passages I which cannot be explained without supposing such a reference, or which are better explained on that hypothesis than on any other. The former gives the conclusion a very high, the latter a very con siderable degree of probability.
Applying this test to the so-called prologue to St. John's Gospel, the only' part of that book where such allusions can be supposed to exist, and mi his Epistles, we arrive at the conclusion that no elusion to sentiments properly Gnostic, as distin guished from such as are simply Doketic, can be substantiated as occurring in the writings of that apostle. In the Epistles some utterances are of such a kind as to constrain us to believe that the apostle had in his eye some who were seeking to spread doketic views among the Christians ; comp. Ep.