more ungodliness. And their word will eat as does a canker, of whom is Hymenaus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have erred, faying that the refurrection is paft already, and overthrow the faith of fome. As the perfons here described were most evidently Gnoftics, it is almoft impoffible not to conclude that the prophane and vain babblings, fynonymous no doubt to the fables and endless genealogies, were fome part of the Gnoftic fyftem; and in this there is nothing to which they can be imagined to correfpond befide that of the æons. It is, no doubt, the fame thing to which the apostle alludes, 2 Tim.ii. 23. But foolish and unlearned queftions avoid, knowing that they do gender ftrife. Tit. iii. 9. But avoid foolish questions and genealogies, and contentions, and frivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic after the first and fecond admonition, reject. The Gnoftics, as will be fhewn hereafter, were the only heretics of that age; and therefore the genealogies here mentioned must have been fome part of their system. It It is probable, that the apostle Paul might allude to the great respect paid to these invisible aons, by what he fays of the worshipping of angels, and intruding into thofe things which a man has not feen, vainly puffed up in his fleshly mind, Col. ii. 18. as the last circumftance evidently marks the Gnoftics. And as they pretended to great Spirituality and dislike of the flesh, the apostle might intend a farther rebuke to them by infinuating that their minds were fleshly. Laftly, it is poffible that the apostle Peter might allude to these idle Gnoftic fables, when he said, 2 Pet. i. 16. We have not fole lowed cunningly devifed fables, &c. SECTION SECTION III. The Doctrine of the Gnoftics concerning the Soul. THERE was fomething peculiar in the doctrine of the Gnoftics, with re fpect to the foul. As it was a fundamental principle with all the ancients, that there could be no proper creation, and confequently that fouls, not being material, nor yet created out of nothing, were either parts detached from the foul of the universe, or emanations from the divine mind, this doctrine was held by the Gnoftics. And as fome men are vi cious and others virtuous, it was fuppofed that their fouls had two different origins, and were therefore good or bad by nature, the good having fprung from the divine mind, mediately, or immediately, and the bad having had fome other origin, the fame from which every thing evil was fuppofed VOL. I. M supposed to have sprung. They likewise held that the future fates of men depended upon their original nature. Saturninus, Theodoret fays, held that held that "there were two kinds of fouls, the one good, and the "other bad; and that they had this dif"ference from nature, and that as the evil "dæmon affifted the bad, fo the Saviour came to affift the good*." Origen fays, that the difciples of Bafilides and Valentinus, held that "there is a kind of "fouls that are always faved, and never perish, and others that always perish, "and are never faved +.' He also fays that Marcion introduced different kinds 66 * Δυω των ανθρωπων είναι λέγει διαφοράς, και τας μεν είναι αγα θες, τες δε πονηρες, κ) ταύλην εν φύσει την διαφοραν ειληφέναι. των δε πονηρών δαιμόνων τοις πονηροις συμπρατίονίων, ήλθε, φησιν, ο Σωλης επαμύναι τοις αγαθοις. Hær. Fab. lib. 1. cap. 3. vol. 4. p. 194. + Nefcio quomodo qui de fchola Valentina et Bafilidis veniunt, hæc ita a Paulo dicta non audientes, putent effe naturam animarum quæ femper falva fit, et nunquam pereat, et aliam quæ femper pereat et nunquam falvetur. In Rom. Opera, vol. 2. p. 596. "of fouls*. On This doctrine of the original difference of fouls, is likewise well known to have been part of the Manichean fyftem; and therefore a confiderable topic of argument with Auftin, and others who wrote against the Manicheans, is to prove that men are not wicked by nature, but from the abuse of free will. this fubject Auftin, who wrote against the Manicheans in the early part of his life, advanced many excellent things in favour of free will, and the natural power of man to do good and evil, which he contradicted when he afterwards wrote against the Pelagians. We find this doctrine of fate afcribed to Simon in the Recognitions †. As the Gnoftics were always ready to alledge the fcriptures in fupport of their doctrines, they pretended to have an authority in them even for this part of their fyftem; for Cyril of Jerufalem fays, that * Marcion tamen, et omnes qui diverfis figmentis varias introducunt animarum naturas. Ibid. p. 479. + Et Simon nefcio inquit fi vel hoc ipfum fciam. Unusquifque enim ficut ei fato decernitur vel fapit aliquid, vel intelligit, vel patitur. Lib. 3. cap. 22. p. 523.. M 2 ❝ fome |