Serpent Worship by E. Goodrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 1, 1866

Serpent Worship.

By E. Goodrich

Notwithstanding the great amount of apparent and real dissimilarity that exists between the religion of the Scriptures and the different forms of false and superstitious worship found throughout the world, it is an interesting fact that in many of their leading features there is a marked similarity. Not that they teach the same things, but the impression that one receives from comparing them together is that at some remote time all must have had a common origin. And admitting that all originated from the same point, and are but so many varied, and to a great extent contradictory representations of the same thing, the differences that now exist are easily explained by the wasting, wearing, and obliterating influences of time and circumstances, by the imperfect means of perpetuating knowledge, and by man's natural proneness to rely upon reason, and objects of sight and sense, instead of revelation and faith. Indeed when we remember how uncertain a thing tradition is, and that a story even under favorable circumstances may not be known by its own author after it has passed through several representatives, it cannot be a matter of wonder that several thousand years should work so many changes.

These different kinds of religion, as we now see them, may be represented by a picture in different positions, and more or less defaced or mutilated. Sometimes the picture is seen in a proper position, but some parts are wanting; at other times it is inverted, or at best we can only obtain a distant side view; while at other times the picture is quite perfect, but its parts are made to change places, giving to it a ludicrous appearance, so that a person not understanding the anatomy of the different parts seen in their proper places, would never think of the object designed to be represented.

The truth of the foregoing will more readily and plainly appear by a reference to Ecclesiastical History, by which we learn that among the numerous class of Gnostics that existed both before and after the advent of our Lord, there was an Egyptian sect called Ophites or Serpentinians, from the adoration which they paid to serpents. At first sight it appears impossible that any mind could be so trained and degraded, as in any manner to venerate this most loathsome of living creatures; but if we trace this superstitious notion to its proper origin, we shall see that the picture has at least the redeeming feature of consistency. And as there is neither time nor space to copy all that the historian has said concerning Gnostic philosophy, perhaps a single section, followed by a brief comment, may suffice for the present.

"The Ophites or Serpentinians, a ridiculous sort of heretics, who had for their leader a man called Euphrates, deserve not the lowest place among the Egyptian Gnostics. This sect, which had its origin among the Jews, was of a more ancient date than the Christian religion. A part of its followers embraced the gospel, while the other retained their superstition, and from hence arose the division of the Ophites into Christian and Anti-Christian. The Christian Ophites entertained almost the same fantastic opinions that were held by the other Egyptian Gnostics, concerning the æons, the eternal matter, the creation of the world in opposition to the will of God, the rulers of the seven planets that presided over this world, the tryanny of demiurge, and also concerning Christ united to the man Jesus, in order to destroy the empire of this usurper. But besides these, they maintained the following particular tenet, from whence also they received the name of Ophites, viz., That the serpent, by which our first parents were deceived, was either Christ himself, or Sophia, concealed under the form of that animal; and in consequence of this opinion, they are said to have nourished a certain number of serpents, which they looked upon as sacred, and to which they offered a sort of worship, a subordinate kind of divine honors. It was no difficult matter for these who made a distinction between the Supreme Being, and the creator of the world, and who looked upon everything as divine, which was in opposition to demiurge, to fall into these extravagant notions."—Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Second edition, Cent. II, Part II, Chap. V, Sec. XIX.

As a brief explanation of the foregoing extract, it may be well to state, we learn by the same historian that according to the doctrines of Valentine, one of the Gnostic philosophers (an "Egyptian by birth"), there were "thirty æons," or celestial beings, who resided in the habitation of the Deity. "The one half of these were male, and the other female." To these we should add "four others," supreme æons of "neither sex, viz., Horns, Christ, the Holy Ghost, and Jesus." The younger of the æons, called Sophia (i. e. wisdom) . . . brought forth a daughter named Achamoth. Achamoth by the assistance of Jesus, produced the demiurge the lord and creator of all things. "The creator of this world, according to Valentine, arrived by degrees to that pitch of arrogance, that he either imagined himself to be God alone, or at least, was desirous that mankind should consider him as such." "To chastise this lawless arrogance of demiurge, and to illuminate the minds of rational beings with the knowledge of the true and Supreme Deity, Christ appeared upon earth, composed of an animal and spiritual substance, and clothed, moreover, with an aerial body." The reader will readily discover that the principal difference between the picture furnished us by Gnostic philosophy and the one seen in the Scriptures is, the Creator of this world, and the common enemy of man are made to change places. In the former it is our friend, a heavenly messenger in the guise of a serpent; while in the latter the serpent personifies an adversary. And touching the controversy that occurred in the garden of Eden, the main inquiry seems to be, Who was it that told the truth? Was it the person represented by the serpent, or was it the other one? And admitting that man is immortal and cannot die, would it not be more in keeping with this doctrine to adopt the Gnostic rather than the Bible view of the matter? But be this as it may, as no writer should transcend the bounds of modesty by seeing for and dictating to others, I am happy to leave the question for every one to decide according to his own convictions of truth and consistency.

E. Goodrich.