Chapter II: Danger to the Church From Pagan and Jewish (2)

§ 27.11. =Marcion and the Marcionites.=--Marcion of Sinope in
Pontus, who died about A.D. 170, was, according to Tertullian,
a rich shipmaster who, on his arrival in Rome, in his early
enthusiasm for the faith, bestowed upon the Church there a rich
present, but was afterwards excommunicated by it as a heretic.
According to the Pseudo-Tertullian and others he was the son of a
bishop who excommunicated him for incontinence with one under the
vow of virginity. The story may possibly be based upon a later
misunderstanding of the charge of corrupting the church as the
pure bride of Christ. He was a man of a fiery and energetic
character, but also rough and eccentric, of a thoroughly
practical tendency and with little speculative talent. He was
probably driven by the hard inward struggles of his spiritual
life, somewhat similar to those through which Paul had passed, to
a full and hearty conception of the free grace of God in Christ;
but conceived of the opposition between law and gospel, which the
Apostle brought into harmony by his theory of the pædogogical
office of the law, as purely hostile and irreconcileable.
At Rome in A.D. 140, the Syrian Gnostic =Cerdo=, who already
distinguished between the “good” God of Christianity and
the “just” God of Judaism, gained an influence over him.
He consequently developed for himself a Gnostic system, the
dominating idea of which was the irreconcilable opposition of
righteousness and grace, law and gospel, Judaism and Christianity.
He repudiated the whole of the Old Testament, and set forth
the opposition between the two Testaments in a special treatise
entitled _Antitheses_. He acknowledged only Paul as an Apostle,
since all the rest had fallen back into Judaism, and of the whole
New Testament he admitted only ten Pauline epistles, excluding
the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistles to the Hebrews, and
admitting the Gospel of Luke only in a mutilated form.[43]
Marcion would know nothing of a secret doctrine and tradition
and rejected the allegorical interpretation so much favoured
by the Gnostics, as well as the theory of emanation and the
subordination of Pistis under Gnosis. While other Gnostics
formed not churches but only schools of select bands of
thinkers, or at most only small gatherings, Marcion, after
vainly trying to reform the Catholic church in accordance with
his exaggerated Paulinism, set himself to establish a well
organised ecclesiastical system, the members of which were
arranged as _Perfecti_ or _Electi_ and _Catechumeni_. Of the
former he required a strict asceticism, abstinence from marriage,
and restriction in food to the simplest and least possible. He
allowed the Catechumens, however, in opposition to the Catholic
practice (§ 35, 1), to take part in all the services, which were
conducted in the simplest possible forms. The moral earnestness
and the practical tendency of his movement secured him many
adherents, of whom many congregations maintained their existence
for a much longer time than the members of other Gnostic sects,
even down to the seventh century. None of the founders of the old
Gnostic sects were more closely connected in life and doctrine
to the Catholic Church than Marcion, and yet, or perhaps just for
that reason, none of them were opposed by it so often, so eagerly
and so bitterly. Even Polycarp, on his arrival in Rome (§ 37, 2),
in reply to Marcion’s question whether he knew him, said:
Ἐπιγνώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ.--The general scope and
character of =the System of Marcion= have been variously
estimated. All older ecclesiastical controversialists, Justin,
Rhodon in Eusebius, Tertullian and Irenæus, in their description
and refutation of it seem to recognise only two principles
(ἀρχαί), which stand in opposition to one another, as θεὸς ἀγαθός
and θεὸς δίκαιος. The latter appears as creator of the world,
or Demiurge, the god of the Jews, the giver of the law, unable,
however, by his law to save the Jews and deter them from breaking
it, or to lead back the Gentiles to the observance of it. Then
of his free grace the “good” God, previously quite unknown,
determined to redeem men from the power of the Demiurge. For this
purpose he sends his Logos into the world with the semblance of a
body. By way of accommodation he gives himself out as the Messiah
of the Jewish god, proclaims the forgiveness of sins through free
grace, communicates to all who believe the powers of the divine
life, is at the instigation of the angry Demiurge nailed to the
cross to suffer death in appearance only, preaches to Gentiles
imprisoned in Hades, banishes the Demiurge to Hades, and
ordains the Apostle Paul as teacher of believers.--The later
heresiologists, however, Hippolytus, in his Elenchus, Epiphanius,
Theodoret, and especially the Armenian Esnig (§ 64, 3), are
equally agreed in saying that Marcion recognised three principles
(ἀρχαί); that besides the good God and the righteous God he
admitted an evil principle, the Hyle concentrated in Satan, so
that even the pre-Christian development of the world was viewed
from the standpoint of a dualistic conflict between divine powers.
The righteous God and the Hyle, as a _quasi_ female principle,
united with one another in creating the world, and when the
former saw how fair the earth was, he resolved to people it with
men created of his own likeness. For this purpose the Hyle at his
request afforded him dust, from which he created man, inspiring
him with his own spirit. Both divine powers rejoiced over man as
parents over a child, and shared in his worship. But the Demiurge
sought to gain undivided authority over man, and so commanded
Adam, under pain of death, to worship him alone, and the Hyle
avenged himself by producing a multitude of idols to whom the
majority of Adam’s descendants, falling away from the God of
the law, gave reverence.--The harmonizing of these two accounts
may be accomplished by assuming that the older Church Fathers,
in their conflict with Marcion had willingly restricted
themselves to the most important point in the Marcionite system,
its characteristic opposition of the Gods of the Old and New
Testaments, passing over the points in which it agreed more
or less with other Gnostic systems; or by assuming that later
Marcionites, such as Prepon (§ 27, 12), in consequence of the
palpable defectiveness and inadequacy of the original system of
two principles, were led to give it the further development that
has been described.[44]

§ 27.12. The speculative weakness and imperfection of his system
led =Marcion’s Disciples= to expand and remodel it in many ways.
Two of these, Lucanus and Marcus, are pre-eminent as remodellers
of the system, into which they imported various elements from
that of Saturninus. The Assyrian =Prepon= placed the “righteous”
Logos as third principle between the “good” God and the “evil”
Demiurge. Of all the more nameful Marcionites, =Apelles=, who
died about A.D. 180, inclined most nearly to the church doctrine.
Eusebius tells about a Disputation which took place in Rome
between him and Rhodon, a disciple of Tatian. At the head of his
essentially monistic system Apelles places the ἀγέννητος θεός
as the μία ἀρχή. This God, besides a higher heavenly world, had
created an order of angels, of whom the first and most eminent,
the so-called _Angelus inclytus_ or _gloriosus_ as Demiurge made
the earthly world after the image and to the glory of the supreme
God. But another angel, the ἄγγελος πυρετός, corrupted his
creation, which was already in itself imperfect, by bringing
forth the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, with which he clothed the souls enticed
down from the upper world. It was he, too, who spoke to Moses out
of the burning bush, and as the god of the Jews gave the law from
Sinai. The Demiurge soon repented of his ill-fated performance,
and prayed the supreme God to send his Son as redeemer. Christ
appeared, lived, wrought and suffered in a real body. It was not,
however, the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας that he assumed, but a sinless body
composed out of the four elements which he gave back to the
elements on his ascension to heaven. Towards the close of his
life Apelles seems, under the influence of the mystic revelations
of a prophetess, Philoumena, whose φανερώσεις he published, to
have more and more renounced his Gnostic views. He had already
admitted in his Disputation with Rhodon, that even on the
Catholic platform one may be saved, for the main thing is faith
in the crucified Christ and the doing of his works. He would even
have been prepared to subscribe to the Monotheism of the church,
had he not been hindered by the opposition between the Old
Testament and the New.

§ 27.13. The painter =Hermogenes= in North Africa, about A.D. 200,
whom Tertullian opposed, took offence at the Catholic doctrine of
creation as well as at the Gnostic theory of emanation, because
it made God the author of evil. He therefore assumed an eternal
chaos, from whose striving against the creative and formative
influence of God he explained the origin of everything evil and
vile.

§ 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM.[45]

The Jewish-Christianity that maintained separation from Gentile-Christianity even after the overthrow of the Holy City and its temple, assumed partly a merely separatist, partly a decidedly heretical character. Both tendencies had in common the assertion of the continued obligation to observe the whole of the Mosaic law. But while the former limited this obligation to the Christians of Jewish descent as the peculiar stem and kernel of the new Messianic community, and allowed the Gentile Christians as Proselytes of the Gate to omit those observances, the latter would tolerate no such concession and outran the Old Testament monotheism by a barren monarchianism that denied the divinity of Christ (§ 33, 1). At a later period the two parties were distinguished as Nazareans and Ebionites. On the other hand, in the Ebionites described to us by Epiphanius we have a form of Jewish Christianity permeated by Gnostic elements. These Ebionites, settling along with the Essenes (§ 8, 4) on the eastern shores of the Dead Sea, came to be known under the name of Elkesaites. In the Pseudo-Clementine scheme of doctrine, this Ebionitic Gnosis was carried out in detail and wrought up into a comprehensive and richly developed system.

§ 28.1. =Nazareans and Ebionites.=--Tertullian and with him most
of the later Church Fathers derive the name Ebionite from Ebion,
a founder of the sect. Since the time of Gieseler, however, the
name has generally been referred to the Hebrew word אֶבְיוֹן meaning
poor, in allusion partly to the actual poverty of the church of
Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 10), partly to the association of the terms
poor and pious in the Psalms and Prophets (comp. Matt. v. 3).
Minucius Felix, c. xxxvi. testifies that the Gentile Christians
were also so designated by those without: _Ceterum quod plerique
“Pauperes” dicimur, non est infamia nostra, sed gloria_. Recently,
however, Hilgenfeld has recurred to the patristic derivation of
the name.--In Irenæus the name Ebionæi makes its first appearance
in literature, and that as a designation of Jewish Christians
as heretics who admitted only a Gospel according to Matthew,
probably the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews (§ 32, 4),
branded the Apostle Paul as an apostate, insisted upon the
strict observance of the Jewish law, and taught on Christological
questions “_consimiliter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates_”
(§ 27, 1, 8), while they denied that Christ was born of a virgin,
and regarded Him as a mere man. Origen († A.D. 243) embraced all
Jewish Christians under the name Ἐβιωναῖοι but did not deny the
existence of two very different parties among them (διττοὶ and
ἀμφότεροι Ἐβιωναῖοι). Eusebius does the same. Jerome again is
the first to distinguish the more moderate party by the name
Nazareans (Acts xxiv. 5) from the more extreme who are designated
Ebionites. This too is the practice of Augustine and Theodoret.
The former party acknowledged the virgin birth of Christ and
so His divine origin, assigned to Paul his place as Apostle
to the Gentiles, and made no demand of Gentile Christians that
they should observe the ceremonial law of Moses, although they
believed that they themselves were bound thereby. The latter
again regarded it as absolutely necessary to salvation, and also
held that Christ was the Messiah, but only a man, son of Joseph
by Mary, endowed with divine powers in His baptism. His Messianic
work, according to them, consisted in His fulfilling by His
teaching the Mosaic law. His death was an offence to them, but
they took comfort from the promise of His coming again, when they
looked for the setting up of an earthly Messianic kingdom. Paul
was depreciated by them and made of little account. Ebionites
of both parties continued to exist in small numbers down to the
fifth century, especially in Palestine and Syria. Both however
had sunk by the middle of the second century into almost utter
insignificance. The scanty remains of writings issuing from the
party prove that especially the non-heretical Jewish Christianity
before the close of this century had in great part abandoned its
national Jewish character, and therewith its separate position
as a religious sect, and by adopting the views of the Pauline
Gentile Christianity (§ 30, 2) became gradually amalgamated
with it.[46]

§ 28.2. =The Elkesaites.=--Independent accounts of this sect in
substantial agreement with one another are given by Hippolytus
in his _Elenchus_, by Origen as quoted in Eusebius, and by
Epiphanius. Their designation has also led the Church Fathers
to assume a sect founder of the name of Elxai or Elchasai,
who is said to have lived in the time of Hadrian. The members
of the sect themselves derived their name from חֵיל כְּסָי, δύναμις
κεκαλυμμένη, the hidden power of God operating in them, that is,
the Holy Spirit, the δύναμις ἄσαρκος of the Clementine Homilies.
Probably it was the title of a book setting forth their esoteric
doctrine, which circulated only among those bound under oath to
secrecy. Origen says that the book was supposed to have fallen
down from heaven; Hippolytus says that it was held to have been
revealed by an angel who was the Son of God himself. Elxai
obtained it from the Serians in Parthia and communicated it to
the Sobiai, probably from שֹׁבְעַ; then the Syrian Alcibiades brought
it from Apamea to Rome in the third century. The doctrinal
system of the Elkesaites was very variable, and is represented
by the Church Fathers referred to as a confused mixture of
Christian elements with the legalism of Judaism, the asceticism
of Essenism, and the naturalism of paganism, and exhibiting a
special predilection for astrological and magical fancies. The
law was regarded as binding, especially the precepts concerning
the Sabbath and circumcision, but the sacrificial worship was
abandoned, and the portions of the Old Testament referring to
it as well as other parts. Their doctrine of baptism varied from
that of baptism once administered to that of a baptism by oft
repeated washings on days especially indicated by astrological
signs. Baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and also for the
magical cure of the sick. It was administered in the name of the
Father and the Son, and in addition there were seven witnesses
called, the five elements, together with oil and salt, the latter
as representative of the Lord’s Supper, which was celebrated
with salt and bread without wine. Eating of flesh was forbidden,
but marriage was allowed and highly esteemed. Their Christology
presented the appearance of unsettled fermentation. On the one
hand Christ was regarded as an angel, and indeed as the μέγας
βασιλεύς, of gigantic size, 96 miles high, and 24 miles broad;
but on the other hand, they taught also a repeated incarnation of
Christ as the Son of God, the final One being the Christ born of
the virgin. He represents the male principle, and by his side, as
the female principle, stands the Holy Spirit. Denial of Christ in
times of persecution seemed to them quite allowable. At the time
of Epiphanius,--who identifies them with the _Sampseans_, whose
name was derived from שֶׁמֶשׁ the sun, because in prayer they turned
to the sun, called also Ἡλιακοί,--they had for the most part
their residence round about the Dead Sea, where they got mixed
up with the Essenes of that region.--More recently the Elkesaites
have been brought into connection with the still extant sect
of the Sabeans or Mandeans (§ 25, 1). These Sabeans, from צבע
meaning טבע, βαπτίζειν, are designated by the mediæval Arabic
writers _Mogtasilah_, those who wash themselves, and _Elchasaich_
is named as their founder, and as teaching the existence of two
principles a male and a female. [47]

§ 28.3. =The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings= forms a
literature of a romantic historico-didactic description which
originated between A.D. 160 and 170.

a. The so-called =Homiliæ XX Clementis=[48] were prefaced by
two letters to the Apostle James at Jerusalem. The first
of these is from Peter enjoining secrecy in regard to the
“Kerugma” sent therewith. The second is from Clement of Rome
after the death of Peter, telling how he as the founder and
first bishop of the church of Rome had ordained Clement as
his successor, and had charged him to draw up those accounts
of his own career and of the addresses and disputations
of Peter which he had heard while the Apostle pursued and
contended with Simon Magus, and to send them to James as
head of the church, “bishop of bishops, who ruled the church
of Jerusalem and all the churches,” that they might be
certified by him. The historical framework of the book
represents a distinguished Roman of philosophical culture
and of noble birth, named Clement, as receiving his first
acquaintance with Christianity at Rome, and then as going
forth on his travels to Judea as an eager seeker after the
truth. At Alexandria (§ 16, 4) Barnabas convinces him of the
truth of Christianity, and Clement follows him to Cæsarea
where he listens to a great debate between Peter and Simon
Magus (§ 25, 2). Simon defeated betakes himself to flight,
but Peter follows him, accompanied by Clement and two who
had been disciples of the magician, Niceta and Aquila.
Though he goes after him from place to place, Peter does not
get hold of Simon, but founds churches all along his route.
On the way Clement tells him how long before his mother,
Mattidia, and his two brothers had gone on a journey to
Athens, and how his father, Faustus, had gone in search of
them, and no trace of any of them had ever been found. Soon
thereafter the mother is met with, and then it is discovered
that Niceta and Aquila are the lost brothers Faustinus and
Faustinianus. At the baptism of the mother the father also
is restored. Finally at Laodicea Peter and Simon engage a
second time in a four-days’ disputation which ends as the
first. The story concludes with Peter’s arrival at Antioch.

b. The ten books of the so-called =Recognitiones Clementis=,[49]
present us again with the Clement of the historical romance,
the historical here overshadowing the didactic, and a closer
connection with church doctrine being here maintained.
Critical examinations of the relations between the two sets
of writings have more and more established the view that
an older Jewish-Christian Gnostic work lay at the basis
of both. This original document seems to have been used
contemporaneously, but in a perfectly independent manner in
the composition of both; the Homilies using the materials
in an anti-Marcionite interest (§ 27, 11), the Recognitions
using them in such a way as to give as little offence as
possible to their Catholic readers. Still it is questionable
whether this original document, which probably bore the
title of Κηρύγματα Πέτρου, embraced in its earliest form
the domestic romance of Clement, or only treated of the
disputation of Peter with Simon at Cæsarea, and was first
enlarged by addition of the Ἀναγνωρισμοί Κλήμεντος giving
the story of Peter’s travels (Περίοδοι).

c. Finally, extracts from the Homilies, worthless and of
no independent significance, are extant in the form of
two Greek =Epitomæ= (ed. Dressel, Lps., 1859). Equally
unimportant is the Syrian Epitome, edited by Lagarde, Lps.,
1861, a compilation from the Recognitions and the Homilies.
All the three writers of the Epitomes had an interest only
in the romantic narrative.

§ 28.4. =The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System= is represented
in the most complete and most original manner in the Homilies.
In the conversations, addresses, and debates there reported the
author develops his own religious views, and by putting them
in the mouth of the Apostle Peter seeks to get them recognised
as genuine unadulterated primitive Christianity, while all the
doctrines of Catholic Paulinism which he objects to, as well
as those of heretical Gnosticism and especially of Marcionism,
are put into the mouth of Simon Magus, the primitive heretic;
and then an attempt is made at a certain reconciliation and
combination of all these views, the evil being indeed contended
against, but an element of truth being recognised in them all. He
directs his Polemics against the polytheism of vulgar paganism,
the allegorical interpretation by philosophers of pagan myths,
the doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing and
the sacrificial worship of Judaism, against the hypostatic
Trinity of Catholicism, the chiliasm of the Ebionites, the pagan
naturalistic element in Elkesaism, the dualism, the doctrine
of the Demiurge, the Docetism and Antinomianism of the Gentile
Christian Gnostics. He attempts in his Ironies to point out the
Ebionitic identity of genuine Christianity with genuine Judaism,
emphasizes the Essenic-Elkesaitic demand to abstain from eating
flesh, to observe frequent fasts, divers washings and voluntary
poverty (through a recommendation of early marriages), as well
as the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of baptism for the
forgiveness of sins, and justifies the Gnostic tendency of his
times by setting up a system of doctrine of which the central
idea is the connection of Stoical Pantheism with Jewish Theism,
and is itself thoroughly dualistic: God the eternal pure Being
was originally a unity of πνεῦμα and σῶμα, and his life consisted
in extension and contraction, ἔκτασις and συστολή, the symbol
of which the human heart was a later copy. The result of such
an ἔκτασις was the separation of πνεῦμα and σῶμα, wherewith a
beginning of the development of the world was made. The πνεῦμα is
thus represented as Υἱός, also called Σοφία or Ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος
τοῦ μέλλοντος; the Σῶμα is represented as Οὐσία or Ὕλη which four
times parts asunder in twofold opposition of the elements. Satan
springs from the mixing of these elements, and is the universal
soul of the Ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. The Σῶμα has thereby become
ἔμψυχον and ζῶον. Thus the Monas has unfolded itself into a Dyas,
as the first link of a long chain of contrasted pairs or Syzygies,
in the first series of which the large and male stands opposite
the small and female, heaven and earth, day and night, etc. The
last Syzygy of this series is Adam as the true male, and Eve as
the false female prophet. In the second series that relation had
come to be just reversed, Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, etc.
In the protoplasts this opposition of truth and falsehood, of
good and evil, was still a physical and necessary one; but in
their descendants, because both elements of their parents are
mixed up in them, it becomes an ethical one, conditioning and
requiring freedom of self-determination. Meanwhile Satan tempted
men to error and sin; but the true prophet (ὁ ἀληθὴς προφήτης) in
whom the divine Πνεῦμα dwelt as ἔμφυτον and ἀένναον, always leads
them back again into the true way of Gnosis and the fulfilment of
the law. In Adam, the original prophet, who had taught whole and
full truth, he had at first appeared, returning again after every
new obscuration and disfigurement of his doctrine under varying
names and forms, but always anew proclaiming the same truth. His
special manifestations were in Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, and finally, in Christ. Alongside of them all, however,
stand false prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, to whom even
John the Baptist belongs, and in the Old Testament many of their
doctrines and prophecies have slipped in along with the true
prophecy. The transition from the original pantheistic to the
subsequent theistic standpoint, in which God is represented as
personal creator of the world, lawgiver, and governor, seems
to have been introduced by means of the primitive partition of
the divine being into Πνεῦμα and Σῶμα. In vain, however, do we
seek an explanation of the contradiction that, on the one hand,
the end of the development of the world is represented as the
separation of the evil from the good for the eternal punishment
of the former, but on the other hand, as a return, through the
purification of the one and the destruction of the other, of all
into the divine being, the ἀνάπαυσις. Equally irreconcilable is
the assertion of the unconditional necessity of Christian baptism
with the assertion of the equality of all stages of revelation.

§ 29. MANICHÆISM.

Manichæism makes its appearance in Persia about the middle of the third century, independently of the Gentile-Christian Gnosticism of the Roman empire, which was more or less under the influence of the Greek philosophy of the second century, but bearing undoubted connection with Mandæism (§ 25, 1), and Elkesaism (§ 28, 2). In principle and tendency, it was at various points, as _e.g._ in its theory of emanation, its doceticism, etc., connected with Gnosticism, but was distinguished therefrom pre-eminently by using Christian soteriological ideas and modes of thought as a mere varnish for oriental pagan or Babylonian-Chaldaic theosophy, putting this in place of Platonic or Stoical notions which are quite foreign to it, basing the system on Persian dualism and impregnating it with elements from Buddhist ethics. Another point in which it is distinguished from Gnosticism is that it does not present itself as an esoteric form of religion meant only for the few specially gifted spirits, but distinctly endeavours to build up a community of its own with a regularly articulated constitution and a well organized ritual.

§ 29.1. =The Founder.=--What the Greek and Latin Fathers (Titus
of Bostra, Epiphanius, Augustine, etc.) say about the person and
history of the founder of this sect is derived mainly from an
account of a disputation which a bishop Archelaus of Cascar in
Mesopotamia is said to have held with Manes or Manichæus. This
document is written in Syriac and dates about A.D. 320, but it
is simply a polemical work under the guise of a debate between
men with historical names. These “Acts” have come down to us in
a very corrupt Latin version, and contain, especially in their
historical allusions, much that is incredible and legendary,
while in their representation of the doctrine of Manes they are
much more deserving of confidence. According to them the origin
of Manichæism is to be attributed to a far travelled Saracen
craftsman, named Scythianus, who lived in the age of the Apostles.
His disciple, Terebinthus, who subsequently in Babylon took
the name Buddas, and affirmed that he had been born of a
virgin, wrote at the master’s dictation four books, _Mysteria_,
_Capitula_, _Evangelium_, _Thesaurus_, which after his death
came into the possession of a freed slave, Cubricus or Corbicus.
This man made the wisdom taught therein his own, developed it
more fully, appeared in Persia as the founder of a new religion,
and called himself Manes. He was even received at court, but
his failure to heal a prince was used by the jealous magicians
to secure his overthrow. He escaped, however, from prison,
and found a safe hiding place in Arabion, an old castle in
Mesopotamia. Meanwhile he had got access to the sacred writings
of the Christians and borrowed much from them for the further
development of his system. He now gave himself out as the
Paraclete promised by Christ, and by means of letters and
messengers developed a great activity in the dissemination of his
views, especially among Christians. This led to the disputation
of Archelaus above referred to, in which Manes suffered utter
defeat. He was soon thereafter seized by order of the Persian
king, flayed alive, and his stuffed skin publicly exhibited as
a warning.

The reports in Persian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries
though later seem much more credible, and the dates derivable
from Manes’ own writings and those of his disciples quoted in
Arabic documents of the tenth and eleventh centuries, are quite
worthy of acceptance.[50] According to them Fatak the father
of Manes, called Πατέκιος in a Greek oath formula still extant,
was descended from a noble Persian family in Hamadan or Ecbatana,
married a princess of the Parthian Asarcidae, not long before
this, in A.D. 226, driven out by the Persian Sassanidæ, and
settled down with her at Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital. Here
he met with the Mogtasilah, Mandeans or Elkesaites (§ 28, 2),
then removed to Southern Chaldea, and trained his son, born in
A.D. 216, with great care in this faith. But even in his twelfth
year Manes received a divine revelation, which ordained him to
be the founder of a new religion, and in his twenty-fourth year
he was commissioned to preach this religion publicly. On his first
appearance in Persia, on the coronation day of king Sapor I.,
in A.D. 242, he met with so little support that he found it
necessary to keep away from the Persian empire for several
decades, which he spent in foreign lands developing his system
and successfully prosecuting missionary work. It was only about
the end of Sapor’s reign († A.D. 272) that he ventured again to
return. He won over to his views the king’s brother Peroz and
through him found favour temporarily with Sapor, which, however,
soon again turned into dislike. Sapor’s successor, Hormuz or
Hormisdas I., seemed inclined to be tolerant toward him. For
this very reason Bahram or Baranes I. showed himself all the more
hostile, and had him crucified in A.D. 276, his body flayed, and
the skin stuffed with straw thrown out at the gate of the city.

The two accounts may, according to Kessler, be brought into
harmony thus. The name Scythianus was given to Fatak as coming
from Parthia or Scythia. Terebinthus, a corruption of the Aramaic
_tarbitha_, sapling, was given originally as _Nomen appell._ to
the son of Fatak, and was afterwards misunderstood and regarded
as _Nomen propr._ of an additional member of the family,
intermediate between Fatak and Manes. In the Latin Cubricus,
however, we meet with a scornful rendering of his original name,
which he, on his entering independently on his work, exchanged
for the name Manes.[51] The name Buddas seems to indicate some
sort of connection with Buddhism. We also meet with the four
Terebinthus books among the seven chief works of Manes catalogued
in the Fihrist. According to a Persian document the _Evangelium_
bore the title _Ertenki Mani_, was composed by Manes in a cave
in Turkestan, in which he stayed for a long time during his
banishment, and was adorned with beautiful illustrations, and
passed for a book sent down to him direct from heaven.

§ 29.2. =The System.=--The different sets of documents give very
different accounts of the religious system of Manichæism. This is
not occasioned so much by erroneous tradition or misconception as
by the varying stages through which the doctrine of Manes passed.
In Western and Christian lands it took on a richer Christian
colouring than in Eastern and pagan countries. In all its forms,
however, we meet with a groundwork of magical dualism. As in
Parseeism, Ahriman and his Devas stand opposed to Ormuzd and
his Ameshaspentas and Izeds, so also here from all eternity a
luminous ether surrounding the realm of light, the _Terra lucida_,
of the good God, with his twelve æons and countless beings
of light, stands opposed to the realm of darkness, the _Terra
pestifera_, with Satan and his demons. Each of the two kingdoms
consists of five elements: the former of bright light, quickening
fire, clear water, hot air, soft wind; the latter of lurid flame,
scorching fire, grimy slime, dark clouds, raging tempest. In
the one, perfect concord, goodness, happiness, and splendour
prevail; in the other, wild, chaotic and destructive waves dash
confusedly about. Clothing himself in a borrowed ray of light,
Satan prepared himself for a robber campaign in the realm of
light. In order to keep him off the Father of Lights caused to
emanate from him the “Mother of Life,” and placed her as a watcher
on the borders of his realm. She brought forth the first man
(ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος), who armed with the five pure elements engaged
in battle with the demons. When he sank before their furious
onslaught, God sent a newly emanated æon for his deliverance, the
“living spirit” (ζῶον πνεῦμα), who freed him and vanquished the
demons. But a portion of the ethereal substance of the first man,
his armour of light, had been already devoured by the demoniac
Hyle, and as the _Jesus patibilis_, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐμπαθής,
remains imprisoned in it. Out of the elements of light which he
saved the living Spirit now forms the Sun and Moon, and settles
there the first man as _Jesus impatibilis_, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀπαθής,
while out of the Hyle impregnated with elements of light he
constructs the present earthly world, in order gradually to
deliver the fragments of light bound up in it, the _Jesus
patibilis_ or the soul of the world, and to fit them for
restoration to their eternal home. The first man dwelling in
the sun and the Holy Spirit enthroned in the luminous ether have
to further and direct this process of purification. The sun and
moon are the two light-ships, _lucidæ naves_, which the light
particles wrenched out of the world further increase. The zodiac
with its twelve signs operates in this direction like a revolving
wheel with twelve buckets, while the smaller ship, as new moon,
receives them, and as full moon empties them again into the sun,
which introduces them into the realm of light. In order to check
this process of purification Satan, out of the Hyle and the
imprisoned particles of light, of which he still had possession,
made Adam and Eve after his own image and that of the first man,
and incited them to fleshly lusts and carnal intercourse, so
that the light of their soul became dim and weak, and more and
more the body became its gloomy prison. His demons, moreover,
were continually busying themselves in fastening the chains of
darkness more tightly about their descendants by means of the
false religions of Judaism and paganism. Therefore at last the
_Jesus impatibilis_, clothed with the appearance of a body,
descended from the sun to the earth, to instruct men about their
souls and the means and end of their redemption. The sufferings
and death inflicted upon him by the Prince of Darkness were only
in appearance. The death of the cross and the resurrection were
only sensible representations of the overthrow and final victory
of the _Jesus patibilis_. As in the macrocosm of the earthly
world there is set forth the emancipation of this suffering
Christ from the bonds of hylic matter, so also in the microcosm
represented in each individual man, we have the dominion of the
spirit over the flesh, the redemption of the soul of light from
the prison of the body, and its return to the realm of light,
conceived of as the end and aim of all endeavour. The method
for attaining this consists in the greatest possible abstinence
from all connection and intercourse with the world of sense; the
_Signaculum oris_ in particular demands absolute abstinence from
all animal food and restriction in the use even of vegetable food,
for in the slaughtering of the animal all elements of light are
with the life withdrawn from its flesh, and only hylic elements
remain, whereas in vegetable fare the substances of light there
present contribute to the strengthening of the light in the man’s
own soul. Wine and all intoxicating drinks as “Satan’s gall”
are strictly forbidden, as well as animal food. The _Signaculum
manuum_ prohibits all injuring of animal or plant life, all
avoidable contact with or work upon matter, because the material
is thereby strengthened. The _Signaculum sinus_ forbids all
sensual pleasure and carnal intercourse. The souls of those men
who have perfectly satisfied the threefold injunction, return at
death immediately into the blessed home of light. Those who only
partially observe them must, by transmigration of the soul into
other bodies, of animals, plants or men, in proportion to the
degree of purification attained unto, that is, by metempsychosis,
have the purifying process carried to perfection. But all who
have not entered upon the way of sanctification, are finally
delivered over unreservedly to Satan and hell. The Apostles
greatly misunderstood and falsified this doctrine of Christ;
but in the person of Manes the promised Paraclete appeared, who
taught it again in its original purity. For the most part Manes
accepted the Pauline epistles in which the doctrines of the
groaning creation and the opposition of flesh and spirit must
have been peculiarly acceptable to him; all the more decidedly
did he reject the Acts of the Apostles, and vigorously did
he oppose the account which it gave of the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit as in conflict with his doctrine of the Paraclete.
According to the Fihrist, Manes distinguished from the _Jesus
impatibilis_ who as true redeemer descended to earth in the
appearance of a body, the historical Jesus as prophet of the
Devil, and the false Messiah who for the punishment of his
wickedness suffered actual death on the cross instead of the
true Jesus. The Old Testament he wholly rejected. The god of the
Jews was with him the Prince of Darkness; the prophets with Moses
at their head were the messengers of the Devil. As his own true
precursors--the precursors of the Paraclete--he named Adam, Seth,
Noah, Abraham, Buddha, and Zoroaster.

§ 29.3. =Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing.=--Manes was
still regarded after his death as the invisibly present head
(_Princeps_) of the church. At the head of the hierarchical order
as his visible representative stood an Imam or Pope, who resided
at Babylon. The first of these, appointed by Manes himself before
his death, was named Sis or Sisinius. The Manichæan ministry
was distributed under him into twelve _Magistri_ and seventy-two
_Bishops_, with presbyters and deacons in numbers as required.
The congregations consisted of Catechumens (_Auditores_) and
Elect (_Electi_, _Perfecti_). The latter were strictly bound
to observe the threefold _Signaculum_. The _Auditores_ brought
them the food necessary for the support of their life and out
of the abundance of their holiness they procured pardon to
these imperfect ones for their unavoidable violation of mineral
and vegetable life in making this provision. The _Auditores_
were also allowed to marry and even to eat animal food; but
by voluntary renunciation of this permission they could secure
entrance into the ranks of the _Electi_. The worship of the
Manichæans was simple, but orderly. They addressed their prayers
to the sun and moon. The Sunday was hallowed by absolute fasting,
and the day of common worship was dedicated to the honour of
the spirit of the sun; but on Monday the _Electi_ by themselves
celebrated a secret service. At their annual chief festival,
that of the Pulpit (βῆμα), on the day of their founder’s death,
they threw themselves down upon the ground in oriental fashion
before a beautifully adorned chair of state, the symbol of their
departed master. The five steps leading up to it represented
the five hierarchical decrees of the _Electi_, _Diaconi_,
_Presbyteri_, _Episcopi_ and _Magistri_. Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, the former with oil, the latter with bread without wine,
belonged to the secret worship of the Perfect. Oil and bread were
regarded as the most luminous bearers of the universal soul in
the vegetable world.--Notwithstanding the violent persecution
which after the execution of Manes was raised against the
adherents of his doctrine throughout the whole Persian empire,
their number increased rapidly in all quarters, especially in
the East, but also in the West, in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc.
Proconsular Africa became the centre of its Western propaganda;
and thence it spread into Italy and Spain. In A.D. 290 Diocletian
issued an edict by which the Proconsul of Africa was required to
burn the leaders of this sect, doubly dangerous as springing from
the hostile Persian empire, along with their books, to execute
with the sword its persistent adherents, or send them to work in
the quarries, and confiscate their goods.--Continuation at § 54, 1.