1. Intellectual exclusiveness of Gnosticism.
1. As the name attests[230], Gnosticism implies the possession of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes a distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, and the vulgar many who are without it. Faith, blind faith, suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated by the exclusive aristocratic spirit[231], which distinguishes the ancient religions, and from which it was a main function of Christianity to deliver mankind.
Speculative tenets of Gnosticism.
2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of creation be explained? and, How are we to account for the existence of evil[232]? To reconcile the creation of the world and |Creation of the world, and existence of evil.| the existence of evil with the conception of God as the absolute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions cannot be treated independently but have a very close and intimate connexion with each other.
Existence of evil, how to be explained?
The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God being perfectly good and creation having resulted from His sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil would have been impossible; for otherwise we are driven to the conclusion that God created evil.
Matter the abode of evil.
This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift, the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible world. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends in a dualism.
Creation, how to be explained?
This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises: How then is creation possible? How can the Infinite communicate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can God act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incomprehensible.
This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution, some effluence, of Deity. |Doctrine of emanations.| Thus the Divine Being germinates, as it were; and the first germination again evolves a second from itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of successive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution the Divine element is feebler. They sink gradually lower and lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and creation ensues. These are the emanations, æons, spirits, or angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and personal according to the different aspects in which they are regarded in different systems.
3. Practical errors of Gnosticism.
3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnosticism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, and thus they would involve important practical consequences. If matter is the principle of evil, it is of infinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.
Two opposite ethical rules.
To this practical question two directly opposite answers were given[233]:
(i) Rigid asceticism.
(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The material part of man would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated; and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a strict asceticism.
(ii) Unrestrained license.
(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence ourselves about by prohibitive ordinances, as for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more comprehensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference,’ they said, ‘to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic principle assigns a certain importance to matter. The ascetic fails in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards which you have no duties or obligations and which you can use or leave unused as you like[234].’ In this way the reaction from rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained licentiousness, both alike springing from the same false conception of matter as the principle of evil.
Original independence of Gnosticism and its subsequent connexion with Christianity.
Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity[235]. Christianity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by leading men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the theological questions which had already arrested attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been prior in time. The probabilities of the case, and the scanty traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the two[236]. If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after contact with Christianity; for we are concerned only with the growth and direction of thought which the name represents[237].
Its alliance with Judaism before Christianity.
If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, but a direction of religious speculation which existed independently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether it did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously with or prior to its alliance with Christianity. There is at least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the outset. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.
The three sects of the Jews.
Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have compared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive.
Sadduceeism, purely negative.
With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever respect may be due to their attitude in the earlier stages of their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly negative. They take their stand on denials—the denial of the existence of angels, the denial