SECTION IV.

St. John wrote also to confute the errors of the Sabians, or the Sect which acknowledged John the Baptist for its Founder.

THE preceding section is the result of the inquiries, which had been instituted before the year 1777, when the third edition of this Introduction was published: but since that time a totally new light has been thrown on St. John's Gospel. That the Apostle had to combat with certain persons who ascribed to John the Baptist a greater authority, than to Jesus, appears from his declaration, ch. i. 8. that John the Baptist was not the Light itself, and that he only bore witness to the Light. For, unless this had been asserted of John the Baptist, it would have been unnecessary to assert the contrary. However as we knew little or nothing of the sect, which acknowledged John the Baptist for their chief, the thought did not occur that St. John the Evangelist had any such sect in view, when he wrote his Gospel. But in the year 1780, we became acquainted not only with the religion, but with the religious writings of this sect, for which we are indebted to professor Norberg. The members of this sect are called to, that is, Disciples of John, and sometimes, Disciples, alone: they have likewise the name of or Sabians, which signifies Baptists". The first account, which professor Norberg communicated, was given in a Swedish Journal, of which I published a translation in the Orientalische Bibliothek, Vol. xv. No. 245. and 248, and made an application of it, though at that time with great caution, to St. John's Gospel. But a more complete account was soon afterwards communicated by professor Norberg in a Latin Dissertation, entitled, De religione

et lingua Sabæorum, which, with a specimen of the religious writings of this sect, was printed in the Commentationes societatis regiæ scientiarum Goettingensis ad annum 1780, and of which I gave a review in the Orient. Bib. Vol. XVII. N° 261. As soon as this dissertation was published, the obscurity, in which St. John's Gospel had been involved, was at once dissipated and I made therefore no scruple to assert in the Orient. Bibl. Vol. XVIII. p. 58. that St. John's Gospel was directed against the sect, which took its name from John the Baptist; for the members of this sect, not only made use of the word Light,' &c. but contended that John the Baptist was the Light, a doctrine combated by our Evangelist. Nor am I singular at present in this opinion: for it has been adopted by Dr. Walch in his treatise on the Sabians printed in the Comment. soc. reg. scient. Goettingensis ad an. 1781, and defended by Dr. Storr, in his treatise on the Evangelical History and Epistles of St. John, published in 1786.

At the time, when St. John the Evangelist wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, it is not improbable that the Sabians or disciples of John the Baptist, had spread themselves in that city and its neighbourhood. For we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, ch. xviii. 24, 25. that when Apollos came to Ephesus, he knew only the baptism of John, till he was instructed in Christianity by Aquila and Priscilla: and ch. xix. 1-7. We find an account of twelve persons likewise at Ephesus, who had been baptized in the name of John the Baptist, but were afterwards converted to Christianity, and baptized by St. Paul in the name of Jesus Christ.

In the Epistles of St. John, the doctrines of this sect are combated still more evidently.

P Though it is not probable that the Sabians of the first century agreed in all respects with the Sabians of the present age, since every religious society must alter in some measure its opinions in a course of seventeen hundred years, yet they probably agreed in the principal and distinguishing doctrines.

If it be asked, whether the Sabians, or the sect which acknowledged John for their founder, agreed in their opinions with the Gnostics, I answer that they certainly did in many, though I cannot affirm that they did in all. The Sabians of the present age have still many terms in use, such as Light, Fire, &c. which they apply in the same manner as the Gnostics did: but it is not to be expected, after a lapse of seventeen hundred years, that the modern Sabians should retain all the terms, which were used in the first century, since many of them were mysterious, particularly the term Word.'

SECTION V.

Of the Tenets maintained by the Gnostics and the Sabians, and the manner in which they are confuted by St. John.

THE Gnostics, in order to account for the origin of evil in the world, which they supposed could not proceed from an all-wise and benevolent Being, adopted the notion that the world was created, not by the supreme Deity, but by a Being of inferior rank, which they called Demiurgus. In respect to the character of this Being they were not unanimous, for some considered him as an evil spirit, which was at perpetual enmity with the Supreme Being, while others ascribe to him, not a want of benevolence, but only a want of knowledge, which prevented him from seeing the evil consequences of the arrangement, which he adopted in the formation of the world. But they all agreed in representing the Demiurgus, as the God of the Jews. Between this Demiurgus and the supreme, invisible, incomprehensible Being, they placed an order of Æons, to which they assigned the names of Only-begotten, Word, Light, Life, &c. : but they were not unanimous

in regard to the rank, which was to be assigned to each. These Enos dwelt with God in the highest and the purest heaven, which the Gnostics called Пnpwua, a term which I will not attempt to translate, as I know not what notion the Gnostics affixed to it. One of these Ænos was Christ, who united himself with Jesus at his baptism, but departed from him before his death. The moral tenets of the Gnostics were different according to the different sects: some were of a gloomy and melancholy cast, while others are represented, but probably without reason, as favouring licentiousness. Most of the Gnostics were inimical to the law of Moses, because they believed that it was given not by the Supreme Being, but by the Demiurgus, and that Christ was sent into the world to redeem us from the God of the Jews. But Cerinthus is said to have been favourable to some parts of the Mosaic law, though we do not exactly know what they were 1.

The plan which St. John adopted to confute the tenets of the Gnostics and the Sabians, was, first to deliver a set of aphorisms, as counterpositions to these tenets, and then to relate such speeches and miracles of Christ, as confirmed the truth of what he had advanced. We must not suppose that the confutation of the Gnostic and Sabian errors is confined to the fourteen first verses of St. John's Gospel: for in the first place it is evident that many of Christ's speeches, which occur in the following part of the Gospel, were selected by the Evangelist with the view of proving the positions

Whoever wishes to have a thorough knowledge of the tenets of the Gnostics must consult Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Beausobre's Histoire de Manichée et du Manichéisme, and especially Walch's History of Heretics, in which last work the Gnostic tenets are not only fully described, but supported by the necessary authorities. A position maintained by these three writers, that the Gnostic philosophy did not derive its origin from Christianity, but that it existed in the East long before the birth of Christ, I have endeavoured to confirm in the second volume of the Syntagma commentationem, by shewing that there are allusions to it in the Septuagint.

laid down in these fourteen verses and secondly, the positions themselves are not proofs, but merely declarations made by the Evangelist. It is true, that for us Christians, who acknowledge the divine authority of St. John, his bare word is sufficient: but as the Apostle had to combat with adversaries, who made no such acknowledgement, the only method of convincing them was to support his assertion by the authority of Christ himself.

The term Aoyos, as I have already observed, was taken by St. John from the system of the Gnostics. He has used it to denote the divine nature, which was united to the man Jesus, and, according to his own expression, became Flesh. Some of the Gnostics placed the Word' above all the other Eons, and next to the Supreme Being: but Cerinthus placed the Only begotten' first, and then the Word'.' Now St. John lays down the following positions.

1. The Word, and the Only-begotten, are not different but the same person. Ch. i. 14. 'We beheld his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.' This is a strong position against the Gnostics, who usually ascribed all the divine qualities to the Onlybegotten.

The proofs of this position are, the testimony of John the Baptist, ch. i. 18. 34. iii. 35, 36. the conversation of Christ with Nicodemus, ch. iii. 16-18. in which Christ calls himself the only-begotten son, the speech delivered by Christ to the Jews, ch. v. 17-47. and other passages, in which he calls God his Father. 2. The Word was never made, but existed from the very beginning, ch. i. 1.

The Gnostics granted that the Word existed before the creation, but they did not admit that the Word existed from all eternity. The Supreme Being, ac

Initium quidem esse monogenem: Logon autem verum filium Unigeniti. Iren. adv. Hæres. Lib. III. cap. 11.