truth; that this philosophy was commonly understood to have been taught by Zoroaster; and that the Christian Gnostics forged books, under the names of eastern philosophers, from which they pretended to derive their genealogies of emanations from the First Fountain of Intelligence. Hence, too, the reason appears, why Plotinus determined to spend eleven years in the East, to explore the philosophy taught among the Persians and Indians.*

That the Gnostic heresies were of eastern origin may be further concluded from a fragment of Theodotus the Valentinian, commonly annexed to the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, and also preserved by Fabricius, entitled, " An Epitome of the Writings of Theodotus," and tñs ávarodiñs Kaλovμevns didαokaλías, of the doctrine called the Eastern, in the time of Valentinian. This title evidently refers the dreams of Valentinian to an Oriental source, and therefore supposes the existence of the Oriental philosophy.

Eunapius, who was himself of the Alexandrian school, relates, that Sosipater was miraculously instructed in philosophy by two strangers, who, after being much importuned, acknowledged, that they had been initiated in the Wisdom called Chaldaic. The story, like most of those related by this writer, has a fabulous air; but, stripped of its disguise, it seems plainly to intimate, that in the Greek school of Jamblichus, which flourished in Cappadocia, the appellation of the Chaldaic, or Eastern philosophy was well known, and that the teachers of this philosophy communicated their mystical wisdom to those who were prepared to receive it, and particularly to the disciples of the Alexandrian school.

To these authorities, in proof of the existence of the Oriental philosophy, it may be added, as a consideration of great weight, that, if all the systems of philosophy distinct from the Grecian sects, which became famous in Asia or Egypt, particularly the Egyptian, Cabbalistic, Gnostic, and Eclectic, be compared, there will be found among them a wonderful agreement with the general principles of that system which we call the Oriental philosophy; whence it

• Vit. Plot.

Fabric. Bib. Gr. vol. v. p. 135. Fragm. ed. Ulm, 1704,

In Ædesio, p. 61.

seems perfectly reasonable to admit the existence of this philosophy as a common source, and to make use of it as a úíniversal key to unlock the mysteries of the rest.

Upon these grounds we conclude, that the Oriental philosophy, as a peculiar system of doctrines concerning the Divine Nature, originated in Chaldea, or Persia; whence it passed through Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt, and, mixing with other systems, formed many different sects. There seems also to be sufficient ground for referring the formation of the leading doctrines of this philosophy into a regular system to Zoroaster, whose name the followers of this doctrine prefixed to some of their spurious books, and whose system is fundamentally the same with that afterwards adopted by the Asiatic and Egyptian philosophers.

Among the branches from the Zoroastrean stock we must reckon the Gnostic heresies, which arose so early in the Christian church. This is the only source to which they can be satisfactorily traced back; for they differ materially from the Platonic doctrine, from which they have been supposed to be derived, as Plotinus has fully shewn in his treatise against the Gnostics. The mixture of Platonic notions which we find in the Asiatic philosophy, as well as of Oriental doctrines among the later Platonists, may be easily accounted for, from the intercourse which subsisted between the Alexandrian and Asiatic philosophers, after the schools of Alexandria were established. From that time, many Asiatics who were addicted to the study of philosophy, doubtless visited Alexandria,9 and became acquainted with the celebrated doctrines of Plato; and, by blending these with their own, formed an heterogeneous mass of opinions, which in its turn mixed with the systems of the Alexandrian schools.10 This union of Oriental and Grecian philosophy was further promoted by the dispersion of the philosophers of Alexandria, in the reign of Ptolemy Physcon; many of whom, to escape from tyranny, fled into Asia, and opened schools in various places.

▾ Porphyr. Vit. Plot. c. 13. 16. p. 118. ed Fabr.

Iren. l. iii. c. 4. 11. Hieron. Lat. Script. c. 21. Epiph. Hæres. 27. § 1. Ph. Castr. Hæres. 33. p. 71. ed Fabr.

• Ammian. Marc. 1. xxi. c. ult.

10 Jambi. de Myst. Egypt. Sect. viii. c. 2, 3. Marin. in Vit. Procl. c. 26.

It was, probably, at the time when the Platonic philosophers of Alexandria visited the Eastern schools, that certain professors of the Oriental philosophy, prior to the existence of the Christian heresies, borrowed from the Greeks the name of Gnostics, to express their pretensions to a more perfect knowledge of the Divine Nature than others possessed. That these philosophers assumed this vaunting appellation before their tenets were transferred to the Christians, may be concluded from this circumstance--that we find it, among the Christians, not appropriated as a distinct title to any single sect, but made use of as a general denomination of those sects, which, after the example of the Pagan philosophers, professed to have arrived at the perfect knowledge of God. The Pagan origin of this appellation seems also plainly intimated in two passages in St. Paul's Epistles; in one of which he cautions Timothy against ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, “ the opposition of false science;" and in the other, warns the Colossians not to be imposed upon by a vain and deceitful philoso phy, framed according to human tradition, and the principles of the world, and not according to the doctrine of Christ.

12

But, whatever may be thought concerning the name, after what has been advanced, there can be little room left to doubt, that the tenets, at least, of the Gnostics, existed in the Eastern schools, long before the rise of the Gnostic sects in the Christian church under Basilides, Valentine, and others. The Oriental doctrine of Emanation seems frequently alluded to in the New Testament,13 in terms which cannot so properly be applied to any other dogmas of the Jewish sects. And it appears, from the authorities to which the Gnostic heretics appeal, that this doctrine was taught in the apostolic age. These heresies seem to have arisen in Egypt, and to have passed thence into Syria, and into Asia Minor, where they infected the church so early as the reign of Nero.14

It is much to be regretted that the Greek writers, to

whom we are chiefly indebted for our knowledge of the ancient history of philosophy, took so little pains to inform posterity concerning the opinions which, during the time when the Greek sects flourished, were taught in other countries, particularly in Egypt and Asia. In this want of original documents concerning the Oriental philosophy, we can form an idea of its peculiar tenets only by comparing the ancient doctrine of the East with that of those sects which sprang from this stock.

The Gnostics were chiefly employed in supporting the system of Divine Emanation, taught by Zoroaster and his followers.15 They maintained, that all natures, both intelligible, intellectual, and material, are derived, by a succession of emanations, from the infinite fountain of Deity. From this secret and inexhaustible abyss, they conceived Substantial Powers, or Natures, of various orders, to flow; till, at the remote extremity of the emanation, evil demons, and matter, with all the natural and moral evils necessarily belonging to it, were produced. This notion was pursued in the Alexandrian philosophy, in the Jewish Cabbala, and in the Gnostic system, through a long course of fanciful conceptions. The Gnostics conceived the emanations from Deity to be divided into two classes; the one comprehending all those Substantial Powers which are contained within the Divine Essence, and which complete the infinite plenitude of the Divine Nature: the other, existing externally with respect to the Divine Essence, and including all finite and imperfect natures. Within the Divine Essence, they, with wonderful ingenuity, imagined a long series of emanative principles, to which they ascribed a real and substantial existence, connected with the First Substance as a branch with its root, or a solar ray with the sun. When they began to unfold the mysteries of this system in the Greek language, these Substantial Powers, which they conceived to be comprehended within the λpwμa, Divine Plenitude, they called aiwves, ons; and they discoursed about them with as much confidence and familiarity, as if they had been objects of sight. The notion which they entertained of these ons, like the Platonic notion of

15 Theodot. ap. Fab. I. c. Plotin. contr. Gnost..et Ennead. 2. 1. ix. c. 6.

Ideas, was that of ovoìas åvràs кať åvтàç, beings which existed distinctly and substantially. They included within this series the Demiurgus, or Maker of the World, whom they supposed to have been an on, so far removed from the First Source of Being as to be allied to matter, and capable of acting upon it. Having conceived both the spiritual and material world to have flowed from the same fountain, their system required substantial virtues, or powers, of two kinds-active and passive: hence, in their figurative and emblematical language, they speak of male and female Æons.16

If the reader should think this account of the Gnostic doctrine of Emanation obscure, we request him to lay the blame upon the mystical genius of the fabricators of this fanciful edifice. In the midst of thick darkness, it is scarcely possible that the traveller should not sometimes stumble.*

16 Plotin. contr. Gnost.

* Vidend. Moshem. Diss. de Causs. supposit. lib. Brucker. Hist. de Ideis Sect. i. § 6. Thomas Orig. Hist. Phil. et Eccl. § 25. Beausobre Hist. des Manich. t. ii. l. v. c. 2. Basnage Hist. des Juifs, 1. iii. c. 28. 13. Moshem. Hist. Christ. Sect. i. p. ii. c. 1. Burnet Arch. 1. i. c. 4 8. Moshem. in Hist. Christ. ante Car. M. §31. Walchius in Hist. Hæres. P. i. p. 235. Ernest. Bibl. nov. Theol. p. 430. Vitringa Obs. Sac. I. v. p. 146. Michaelis Intr. N. T. § 125.