Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第十一章尼西亚会议以前时期的异端

§ 112. 教会内部的犹太教与异教

前面各章已经叙述了教会在道德与思想上，如何战胜公开表明立场、始终一贯的犹太教与异教；现在我们必须考察教会与这些敌人以隐蔽而更危险的形式所进行的深刻而激烈的斗争：犹太教与异教披上基督教的外衣，潜藏其中，威胁着要使教会犹太教化和异教化。若不认识教父时期的异端，就绝不能透彻理解教父神学与文献。这些异端在古代希腊与拉丁教会的神学运动中所起的作用，与各种形式的理性主义 (Rationalism) 在欧美新教教会现代神学中所起的作用同样重要。

犹太教及其宗教与圣书，希腊罗马异教及其世俗文化、科学与艺术，本应进入基督教之中，得到转化与成圣。然而，即使在使徒时期，许多犹太人和外邦人也只是受了水的洗，并未受福音的圣灵与火的洗，却将自己旧有的宗教观念与习俗偷带进教会。由此产生了《新约》、特别是保罗书信与大公书信所抨击的异端倾向。¹

在第二世纪之初，我们又遇见这些同样的异端；此后，它们以更成熟的形式、更广泛的规模，出现在基督教世界几乎所有地区。一方面，它们表明基督教在历史上的普世意义，以及它对当时一切思想较为深刻、态度较为认真的人所具有的不可抗拒的力量。基督教使他们所有的宗教观念都陷入混乱与激荡之中。这新宗教的真理、美与活力如此打动他们，使他们再也不能安然停留在犹太教或异教之中；然而，许多人又不能或不愿从内心舍弃自己旧有的宗教与哲学。于是，基督教与非基督教的成分奇异地混杂起来，处于混沌的酝酿之中。旧宗教并非不作最后的拼死挣扎便走向灭亡，而是试图借挪用基督教观念来挽救自己。另一方面，这又使基督教独有的真理面临极大的危险，迫使教会起来抵御歪曲，并防止自己倒退到犹太教或异教的水平。

基督教进入世界之时，面对另外两种宗教，一种具有相对的真实性，另一种则在本质上是虚假的；异端也同样以伊便主义 (Ebionism) 与诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 这两种主要形式出现。如前所述，它们的萌芽已经引起使徒们的注意。赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 说，教会直到哈德良 (Hadrian) 时代，在教义上仍保有童贞般的纯洁；这句话必须理解为仅着眼于第二世纪诺斯替主义的公开扩展，因此也只具有相对的真实性。这位作者本人就明确指出，从行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 的日子起，异端便已暗中运行。伊便主义是一种犹太教化、伪托彼得的基督教，或者同样可以称为基督教化的犹太教；诺斯替主义则是一种异教化、伪托保罗的基督教，或是一种伪基督教的异教。

这两大类型的异端，恰好是相对的两极。伊便主义是对基督教的特殊主义式收缩；诺斯替主义则是对它的含混扩张。前者是粗陋的实在论与字面主义；后者是幻想的唯心论与唯灵论。在前者，精神被束缚于外在形式之中；在后者，精神则沉溺于放纵的自由。伊便主义使救恩取决于遵守律法；诺斯替主义则使救恩取决于思辨的知识。在犹太教律法主义的影响下，基督教势必僵化、石化；在诺斯替主义思辨的影响下，它则势必消解为空洞的概念与幻想。伊便主义否认基督的神性，只将福音视为一种新的律法；诺斯替主义否认救赎主真实的人性，使他的位格与工作成为纯粹的幻影，一种幻影说 (Docetism) 式的幻象。

然而，两极却彼此相通；这两种倾向从相反的方向达到同一结果——否认道成肉身，否认神性与人性在基督及其国度中真实而恒久的联合；因此，按照圣约翰判断敌基督谬妄之灵的准则，两者都在其列。在这两种体系中，基督都不再是中保与使人和好的那一位，他的宗教也没有比犹太教与异教取得任何实质性的进展；后两者或者把上帝与人置于抽象的二元对立中，或者只容许二者有短暂而虚幻的联合。

因此，也有一些谬误形式，将伊便主义与诺斯替主义的成分结合起来。我们见到一种诺斯替式或神智学式的伊便主义（即伪克莱门文献中的形式），也见到一种犹太教化的诺斯替主义（见于克林妥 (Cerinthus) 等人）。在使徒时期，我们也发现这些混合形式受到抨击。事实上，甚至在基督教出现以前及其范围以外，我们便已在艾赛尼派 (Essenes)、医治派 (Therapeutae)，以及柏拉图化的犹太哲学家斐洛 (Philo) 那里，遇见类似形式的宗教混合主义。

§ 113. 拿撒勒派与伊便派（厄尔克赛派、曼达派）

I. 爱任纽 (Irenaeus)：《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，I. 26。希波吕托 (Hippolytus)：《驳斥一切异端》(Refut. omnium Haer.)，或《哲学论》(Philosophumena)，卷 IX. 13–17。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)：《异端论》(Haer.)，29、30、53。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin M.)、德尔图良 (Tertullian)、俄利根 (Origen)、赫格西普 (Hegesippus)、优西比乌 (Eusebius) 与哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的著作中，也有零散记载。另有数部伪经福音书，尤其是《希伯来人福音》。这些史料晦暗不明，且彼此矛盾。参见希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)《正典以外所接受的新约文献》(Novum Test. extra Canonem receptum) 中所收厄尔克赛 (Elxai)、《希伯来人福音》等的残篇。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1866年，

吉泽勒 (Gieseler)：《拿撒勒派与伊便派》(Nazaräer u. Ebioniten)，载施托伊德林 (Stäudlin) 与奇尔施纳 (Tzschirner) 主编的《文库》(Archiv) 第四卷，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1820年。

克雷德纳 (Credner)：《论艾赛尼派与伊便派及二者的部分关联》(Ueber Essaeer und Ebioniten und einen theitweisen Zusammenhang derselben)，载维纳 (Winer) 主编的《学术神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.)，苏尔茨巴赫 (Sulzbach)，1829年。

鲍尔 (Baur)：《论伊便派的起源与教义应溯源于艾赛尼派》(De Ebionitarum Origine et Doctrina ab Essaeis repetenda.)，图宾根 (Tüb.)，1831年。

施利曼 (Schliemann)：《伪克莱门文献与伊便主义》(Die Clementinen u. der Ebionitismus)，汉堡 (Hamb.)，1844年，第362–552页。

里奇尔 (Ritschl)：《论厄尔克赛教派》(Ueber die Secte der Elkesaiten)，载尼德纳 (Niedner) 主编的《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschr. Hist. Theol.)，1853年，第4期。

D. 赫沃尔松 (D. Chwolsohn)：《萨比人及萨比教》(Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus.)，圣彼得堡 (St. Petersburg)，1856年，·卷。

乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)：《伊便派》(Ebioniten) 与《厄尔克赛派》(Elkesaiten)，载赫尔措格 (Herzog) 编百科全书，新版，第IV卷（1879年），第13页及下页、第184页及下页。

G. 萨蒙 (G. Salmon)：《厄尔克赛、厄尔克赛派》(Elkesai, Elkesaites)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith & Wace) 编词典，第II卷（1880年），第95、98页。

M. N. 西乌菲 (M. N. Siouffi)：《苏巴人或萨比人的宗教、教义与风俗研究》(Études sur la religion des Soubbas on Sabéens, leurs dogmes, leurs möurs.)，巴黎，1880年。

K. 凯斯勒 (K. Kessler)：《曼达派》(Mandaeer)，载赫尔措格 (Herzog) 编百科全书，修订版，第IX卷（1881年），第205–222页。

AD. 希尔根费尔德 (AD. Hilgenfeld)：《原始基督教异端史》(Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums)，莱比锡 (Leip.)，1884年（第421页及下页）。

在使徒教会中由彼得与雅各所代表的犹太基督教，与保罗的外邦基督教结合，形成了一个基督教会；在其中，“受割礼不受割礼都无关紧要，要紧的就是在基督里作新造的人”。

I. 然而，一部分犹太基督徒甚至在耶路撒冷毁灭以后，仍坚守祖先的民族习俗，并以拿撒勒派 (Nazarenes) 之名，在叙利亚的一些教会中延续下来，直到第四世纪末；这个名称起初或许是犹太人对所有基督徒的蔑称，因为他们是拿撒勒人耶稣的追随者。² 他们既遵守摩西的礼仪律法，又相信耶稣的弥赛亚身份与神性；他们使用希伯来文的《马太福音》，为同胞的不信而深深哀恸，盼望他们将来全体归信，并盼望基督在地上作王一千年。但他们对使徒保罗并无反感，也从不因外邦基督徒和异端者不守律法而谴责他们。因此，他们并非异端，而是发育不全的分离主义基督徒；他们停留在狭隘而惶恐的犹太基督教这一已经过时的立场上，萎缩为一个无足轻重的教派。哲罗姆说，他们既想作犹太人，又想作基督徒，结果两者都不是。

我们必须仔细区分这些拿撒勒派与那些异端的犹太基督徒，即人数更多的伊便派 (Ebionites)。他们的名称，并非如德尔图良最先暗示的那样，³ 源于一位假定的教派创始人伊便 (Ebion)——我们对这人一无所知——而是源于希伯来词 אֶבְיוֹן^*，意为贫穷的。它最初或许像“拿撒勒人”和“加利利人”一样，是对所有基督徒的蔑称，因为他们大多生活贫困；⁴ 但后来便专用于这一教派。至于这名称究竟是贬义的，用来表示他们关于基督与律法的教义之贫乏，如俄利根那颇具巧思却不甚正确的解释；还是褒义的，则以后者更为可能，因为伊便派自视为贫穷的基督及其贫穷门徒的真正追随者，并认为对虚心之人的祝福只适用于他们自己。按照埃皮法尼乌斯的说法，伊便最初在耶路撒冷毁灭以后逃往佩拉 (Pella) 的那群基督徒中传播他的谬误；按照优西比乌所引赫格西普的记载，约在107年，耶路撒冷主教西面 (Symeon) 死后，一个名叫丢布提 (Thebutis) 的人，因自己未被选为主教，便在犹太基督徒中制造分裂，使许多人背道。

我们在巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 及其邻近地区、塞浦路斯岛 (Cyprus)、小亚细亚，甚至罗马，都能见到伊便派。虽然其成员大多是犹太人，有时也有外邦基督徒加入。它一直延续到第四世纪，但到狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 的时代，已经完全消亡。它使用一部现已失传的希伯来文福音书，很可能是《马太福音》的窜改本。

各种形式的伊便主义都有以下特征：将基督教贬低到犹太教的水平；主张摩西律法普遍而永久有效；敌视使徒保罗。不过，正如犹太教本身有不同教派一样，我们也必须至少区分伊便主义的两个支派。二者之间的关系，犹如法利赛主义 (Pharisaism) 与艾赛尼主义 (Essenism)；或者借用现代的例子来说，犹如德国较早的自然神论式理性主义与思辨的泛神论式理性主义，又如一位论 (Unitarianism) 中的实践派与思辨派。

普通伊便派的人数远为众多，他们体现了法利赛式的律法主义，正是《加拉太书》所反对的犹太教化者的真正继承人。他们的教义可以归纳为以下命题：

(a) 耶稣的确是所应许的弥赛亚、大卫的子孙和至高的立法者，但他不过是一个人，像摩西和大卫一样，由约瑟与马利亚自然生育而来。直到受约翰的洗、有一个更高的灵与他结合之时，他才开始意识到自己蒙召作弥赛亚。因此，俄利根把这一教派比作福音书中的瞎子：他看不见主，却向主呼喊：“大卫的子孙，可怜我吧！”

(b) 对所有人而言，受割礼和遵守摩西的全部礼仪律法，都是得救所必需的。

(d) 基督很快就要再来，开启弥赛亚荣耀的千年统治，以地上的耶路撒冷为其中心。

第二类伊便尼派 (Ebionites) 从爱色尼派 (Essenes) 的观念出发，给自己的犹太教染上了思辨或神智论的色彩，正如《歌罗西书》所斥责的那些谬误者一样。他们构成了通往诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 的过渡阶梯。埃尔克赛派 (Elkesaites) 就属于这一类。⁵ 据埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius) 说，他们兴起于图拉真 (Trajan) 在位时，地点在爱色尼派居住的死海周围地区。他们的名称源于其传说中的创始人埃尔克赛 (Elxai 或 Elkasai)，意为“隐藏的能力”；据吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 的推想，这指的是圣灵。⁶ 这似乎原是一部书的名称；该书如同《摩门经》一样，声称是由天使启示的，在这一教派中备受尊崇。根据俄利根 (Origen) 著作和希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 的《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 中所存的片段，这部秘密著作包含了那独特的伪克莱门体系的基础。⁷（见下一节。）它显然出于犹太教，把耶路撒冷视为宗教世界的中心，把基督视为受造者、天使及其他一切受造物的主，把圣灵视为女性；它要求人受割礼，也受洗，弃绝保罗，并为人在逼迫之时否认信仰辩护。它声称成书于图拉真在位第三年（101年）。这一点，加上它要求受割礼，便使它比克莱门《讲道集》(Homilies) 古老得多。约公元222年，一个名叫阿尔基比亚德 (Alcibiades) 的人从叙利亚将该书的一份抄本带到罗马；该书宣告一种新的赦罪方法，因而引起了注意。
与此相似的一个教派是曼达派 (Mandaeans)，名称源自 Manda，意为知识（γνῶσις^*）；他们也称萨比派 (Sabians)，即施洗者（源自 sâbi，意为施洗、洗涤），又称穆格塔西拉 (Mughtasilah)，意思相同。由于他们极其尊崇施洗约翰，故被称为“约翰的基督徒”。⁸ 他们的起源尚不确定。如今在波斯境内、底格里斯河 (Tigris) 东岸，仍有他们的余众。他们的神圣语言是一种亚兰语方言，对于比较语言学颇有价值。⁹ 目前他们说阿拉伯语和波斯语。他们的体系十分复杂，其中异教成分占据优势，最接近摩尼教 (Manichaeism)。¹⁰

§ 114. 伪克莱门文献中的伊便尼主义

I. 史料

Τὰ Κλημέντια^*，更确切地说是 Κλήμεντος τῶν Πέτρου ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων ἐπιτομή^*，最初由科特利耶 (Cotelier) 刊载于《使徒教父集》(Patres Apost.)，巴黎 (Par.)，1672年（缺第二十篇讲道及第十九篇的一部分）；克莱里库斯 (Clericus) 在其1698、1700和1724年版科特利耶著作中重刊；施韦格勒 (Schwegler) 又于斯图加特 (Stuttg.)，1847年重刊（采用克莱里库斯的文本）。后来，阿尔布. R. M. 德雷塞尔 (Alb. R. M. Dressel) 根据梵蒂冈奥托博尼图书馆 (Ottobonian Library) 的一部新抄本，首次补入缺失部分，刊行全本（附科特利耶的拉丁文译本及注释），题为《传为罗马的革利免所作的二十篇讲道，今首次完整刊行》(Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti nunc primum integrae)，哥廷根 (Gott.)，1853年；另有保罗·德·拉加德 (Paul de Lagarde) 编《希腊文克莱门文献》(Clementina Graece)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1865年。
《罗马的革利免认亲记》(Clementis Rom. Recognitiones，Ἀναγνωρισμοί^* 或 Ἁναγνώσεις^*)，共十卷，仅存鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus，卒于410年) 的拉丁文译本；初刊于巴塞尔 (Basel)，1526年；后来科特利耶 (Cotelier)、加兰迪 (Gallandi) 及格尔斯多夫 (Gersdorf) 刊行了更佳版本，后者收入其《拉丁教父丛书》(Bibl. Patr. Lat.)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1838年，第I卷。叙利亚文版由 P. 德·拉加德 (P. de Lagarde) 编辑，题为《叙利亚文罗马的革利免认亲记》(Clementis Romani Recognitiones Syriace)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1861年。托马斯·史密斯 (Thomas Smith) 博士所译《革利免认亲记》英译本，收入《尼西亚前基督教文库》(Ante-Nicene Christian Library)，爱丁堡，第III卷（1868年），第137–471页。这部著作在各抄本中题名不一，最常见的是《圣革利免行记》(Itinerarium St. Clementis)。
克莱门《彼得行实摘要》(Clementine Epitome de Gestis Petri，Κλήμ. ἐπισκ. Ῥώμης περὶ τῶν πράξεων ἐπιδημιῶν τε καὶ κηρυγμάτων Πέτρου ἐπιτομή^*)，初刊于巴黎，1555年；后由科特利耶 (Cotelier) 校勘刊行，见前引书；更完整的版本连同第二种摘要，由 A. R. M. 德雷塞尔 (A. R. M. Dressel) 编为《克莱门文献摘要二种》(Clementinorum Epitomae duae)，附弗. 维泽勒 (Fr. Wieseler) 所作有价值的校勘注释，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1859年。这两种《摘要》(Epitomes) 不过是《讲道集》(Homilies) 的梗概。

II. 论著

尼安德 (Neander) 和鲍尔 (Baur) 各自论诺斯替主义的著作（见下一节），以及各自的《教会史》。

施利曼 (Schliemann)：《克莱门文献及其相关著作与伊便尼主义》(Die Clementinen nebst den verwandten Schriften, u. der Ebionitismus)。汉堡 (Hamb.)，1844年。

阿德. 希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld)：《克莱门〈认亲记〉与〈讲道集〉的起源及内容》(Die Clementinischen Recognitionem n. Homilien nach ihrem Ursprüng n. Inhalt)。耶拿 (Jena)，1848年。同一作者发表于《神学年鉴》(Theol. Jahrbücher) 1854年（第483页及后）和1868年（第357页及后）的文章；以及《使徒教父》(Die Apost. Väter)，哈雷 (Halle)，1853年，第287–302页。

G. 乌尔霍恩 (G. Uhlhorn)：《罗马的革利免〈讲道集〉与〈认亲记〉》(Die Homilien n. Recognitionem des Clemens Romanus)。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1854年。参较同一作者在赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书第二版第III卷（1878年）所撰“克莱门文献”("Clementinen") 条，第277–286页。

里奇尔 (Ritschl)：《古代大公教会的形成》(Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche)，1857年（第二版，第206–270页）。

J. 莱曼 (J. Lehmann)：《克莱门文献，特别考察其文学关系》(Die Clementinischen Schriften mit besonderer Rücksicht auf ihr liter. Verhältniss)。哥达 (Gotha)，1869年。他在希尔根费尔德与乌尔霍恩之间采取折衷立场。（参见利普修斯 (Lipsius) 载于《新教教会报》(Protest. Kirchenztg) 1869年的书评，第477–482页；以及拉加德 (Lagarde) 载于其《杂论》(Symmicta) 第I卷，1877年，第2–4、108–112页的评论，其中指控莱曼剽窃。）

R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《罗马彼得传说史料的批判研究》(Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage kritish untersucht)。基尔 (Kiel)，1872年。利普修斯认为，全部克莱门文献的基础，是具有强烈反保罗倾向的《彼得行传》(Acta Petri)。

A. B. 卢特贝克 (A. B. Lutterbeck)：《克莱门文献及其与无误教义的关系》(Die Clementinen und ihr Verh. z. Unfehlbarkeitsdogma)。吉森 (Giessen)，1872年。

伪克莱门《讲道集》(Homilies) 的体系，同时展现了伊便尼主义在神智论上的完备形态及其内部的瓦解。它所代表的与其说是一个教派，不如说是个人的见解，但它与埃尔克赛派可能有某种尚未确切查明的联系；从《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 可知，后者甚至已在罗马发展出支派。就其一神论基础、对保罗的隐蔽敌意，以及主张基督教与犹太教在本质上相同而言，它确实属于伊便尼主义或犹太主义；但它明确拒绝诺斯替派关于造物主 (demiurge) 的基本教义。因此，不能像鲍尔那样，恰当地将它归入诺斯替各派之列。

克莱门《讲道集》二十篇，托名于著名的罗马主教革利免 (Clement)；《腓立比书》4:3提到他是保罗的同工，但在伪克莱门文献中，他显然被混同于图密善皇帝的亲属弗拉维乌斯·革利免 (Flavius Clement)。这些讲道实际上出于第二世纪后半叶一位受过哲学教育、姓名不详的作者，此人可能是一位犹太基督徒。它们是一部哲学宗教小说，以若干历史传统为基础；如今已不可能把这些传统与后来附加的伪托成分区分开来。把西门看作行邪术者的观念，来自《使徒行传》第八章的记载；殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 则曾提到他在罗马的活动。书前附有彼得致耶路撒冷主教雅各的一封信，信中彼得将自己的讲道寄给雅各，请他严守秘密；另有伪革利免致同一位雅各的信，叙述彼得如何在临终前不久任命他（革利免）为自己在罗马的继承人，并嘱咐他将一部应彼得要求而撰写的著作送交雅各，书名为《革利免所编彼得巡行讲道摘要》(Clementis Epitome praedicationum Petri in peregrinationibus)。¹¹ 这些书信的用意，显然是要把最高的使徒权威赋予这部所谓彼得巡回讲道和辩论的摘录，同时解释它们何以长期秘而不传。¹²

《讲道集》本身的内容，简述如下：革利免是一位受过教育、出身皇族的罗马人，他不满足于异教，渴慕真理，在提比略 (Tiberius) 在位时听说耶稣已在犹太地出现，便前往那里。他在凯撒利亚遇见使徒彼得，受他的教导而归信，随后陪同他在巴勒斯坦各地传道，前往推罗 (Tyre)、的黎波里 (Tripolis)、老底嘉 (Laodicea) 和安提阿 (Antioch)。他聆听彼得的讲道，以及彼得与行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 之间漫长而反复的辩论，并应使徒的要求，将其要旨写下。因此，西门·彼得才是这部小说真正的主角，自始至终代表纯正的原始基督教，与行邪术的西门相对立；后者被描绘为一个“满怀敌意的人”和“骗子”，是一切反犹太异端的创始者，尤其是马吉安派诺斯替主义 (Marcionite Gnosticism) 的创始者。作者熟悉并使用四部正典福音书，其中用《马太福音》最多，用《约翰福音》最少；此外还使用了另一部同类著作，可能带有伊便尼派色彩，但现已不知其为何书。¹³

鲍尔最先于1831年巧妙地提出一个推测，后为他的学生所采纳：伪克莱门文献中的彼得，借着行邪术者这一面具所攻击的，其实是使徒保罗（《讲道集》从未提及他的名字），把他视为败坏基督教的始作俑者和罪魁。¹⁴ 这一推测很容易与鲍尔的观点相吻合；他认为，原始教会中彼得主义与保罗主义之间，存在着广泛而不可调和的对立。书中有几处恶意影射保罗，尤其影射安提阿的冲突，也给这一推测提供了某种支持。行邪术的西门被指控声称基督曾在异象中向他显现，召他作使徒，而他却教导与基督相反的教义，憎恨基督的使徒，并谴责作为教会坚固磐石和根基的彼得，说他“自己定了自己的罪”。¹⁵ 但这一影射可能只是顺带对保罗的一句讥讽。《讲道集》的整个构思，以及其中关于西门的出身、经历和教义的叙述，都不容许将这个异教术士与这位基督徒使徒等同起来。《讲道集》¹⁶ 把行邪术的西门描绘为一个撒马利亚人，曾在亚历山大 (Alexandria) 学习希腊文，否认上帝的至高地位和死人复活，以基利心山 (Mount Gerizim) 取代耶路撒冷，并宣称自己是真正的基督。他随身带着一个女伴或情妇海伦娜 (Helena)，她从至高的诸天降下，是原初的本质和智慧。倘若作者所指的是保罗，那么这些以及其他特征，便足以将他的意图彻底掩盖，使之归于失败；因为它们在保罗的生平与教义中连最遥远的对应也找不到，反而与保罗书信及《使徒行传》的记载直接相反。

《认亲记》中的反保罗倾向有所缓和，但仍无视保罗的工作，并把彼得写成外邦人的使徒。

伪革利免借彼得之口提出、又极巧妙地穿插在叙事中的教义，是伊便尼派 (Ebionitic) 与诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 的观念和幻想、伦理与形而上学的观念和幻想的混杂。他只把基督教看作纯洁的原始宗教的恢复；¹⁷ 上帝在创造之时启示了这宗教，但由于罪的蒙蔽力量和鬼魔的诱惑影响，它必须不时得到更新。这宗教的代表人物乃是世界的柱石：亚当、以诺、挪亚、亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、摩西和基督。实际上，他们只是同一个亚当或原人的七次不同化身；这原人是上帝真正的先知，无所不知，绝无谬误。凡记载这些圣人过失的文字，如挪亚醉酒、列祖多妻、摩西杀人，尤其是那亵渎性的亚当堕落史，以及一切以不配归于上帝的人类情感来描写上帝的经文，都是魔鬼及其群魔窜入《旧约》的。因此，斐洛 (Philo) 和俄利根 (Origen) 诉诸寓意解释，以消除圣经中似乎令人反感的内容；伪革利免却采用了更为武断的假说，认为这些是魔鬼插入的文字。在上帝的真先知中，他又特别尊崇亚当、摩西和基督，并将基督置于众人之上，却未在本质上把他提升到先知和立法者以上的地位。因此，宗教史并非进步的历史，而只是回归原始启示的历史。基督教与摩西教完全相同，两者又都与亚当的宗教一致。人无论信摩西还是信基督，只要不亵渎其中任何一位，便都一样。但若认识两者，并在两者中发现相同的教义，就是在上帝里面富足，就是认出新的原来是旧的，旧的如今成了新的。基督教的进步，仅在于将福音扩展到外邦人，以及由此而具有的普世性质。

本书作者将独一上帝、即世界创造者的教义，立为这纯洁宗教的根本原则。这完全是伊便尼派的思想，直接反对诺斯替派造物主 (demiurge) 学说的二元论。但随后，他又使受造生命的整个洪流，经过一长串性别与伦理上的对立和配对 (syzygies)，从上帝流出，复又归入上帝，以他为绝对的安息；在这里，他显然触及了诺斯替主义泛神论的流溢说。上帝自身从起初就是一，却把万物分为相对的两方：右与左、天与地、昼与夜、光明与黑暗、生命与死亡。这样，一元便成为二元。较好的先来，较坏的随后；但从人开始，次序便颠倒了。照上帝形象受造的亚当是真先知；他的妻子夏娃则代表假预言。在他们之后，先有邪恶的该隐，后有公义的亚伯。同样，彼得在行邪术的西门之后出现，如同光明在黑暗之后、健康在疾病之后。因此，在末后的时候，敌基督也将先于基督降临而出现。最后，现今的整个秩序都消融于未来；虔诚者进入永生；不敬虔者则因上帝形象的败坏使灵魂成为必死的，在遭受一种被描述为炼净之火的刑罚后，便归于消灭。¹⁸ 作者说到永远的刑罚时，不过是迁就通俗的观念。按伊便尼派意义遵行律法，以及按半诺斯替派原则获得知识，乃是救恩之路的两个部分。前者包括经常禁食、洁净礼、戒食肉类和自愿贫穷；同时又吩咐人及早结婚，以防淫乱。作者宣称洗礼是罪得赦免绝对必需的条件，在这一点上接近大公教会的体系。他也接受了其中所含的大公教会原则，即只有在外在的教会中才能找到救恩。

在教会组织方面，他完全接受单一主教制的观点。主教在会众中居于基督的地位，有捆绑和释放的权柄。长老与执事则在他之下。但奇特的是，他又以典型的伊便尼派方式，将主的兄弟雅各——基督教世界中心耶路撒冷的主教——立为基督的总代理、全教会有形的元首、众主教之主教。因此，连彼得也必须向他报告自己的工作；也正因如此，按照卷首书信的说法，彼得的讲道以及革利免所作的摘要，都被送交雅各保管，同时说明，彼得已指定革利免为自己在罗马的继承人。

不难看出，《讲道集》的作者诉诸这种伪托彼得的原始基督教，是为了调和基督教世界中当时存在的一切分歧与分裂。他的这一努力当然未能成功，反倒为当时仍存于正统大公教会中的伊便尼派成分的消解铺平了道路。

除了这些《讲道集》(Homilies)——《摘要》(Epitome) 不过是它的一部拙劣节本——之外，还有几部同样托名罗马的革利免的作品，有些已经刊印，有些仍未出版。它们以相同的历史材料为基础，只有无关紧要的差异，但在教义方面，大体上没有犹太教主义和诺斯替主义的成分，与正统的界线也接近得多。

其中最重要的是革利免的《认亲记》(Recognitions)，共十卷；俄利根曾提到此书，但如今只存鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 的拉丁文译本。书名来自末后几卷的叙事，讲述革利免一家离散的成员重新团聚，最后都在基督教中相会，并由彼得施洗。

关于这两部作品孰先孰后的问题，批评学者意见不一：有人认为《认亲记》是《讲道集》的正统版本，或至少是较接近正统的版本；¹⁹ 另有人认为《讲道集》是《认亲记》受到异端篡改的版本。²⁰ 但极有可能，这两部作品都以更古老、更简单的犹太基督徒文献为基础，而那些文献则托名彼得和革利免。²¹

至于成书地点，《讲道集》可能起源于叙利亚东部，《认亲记》则起源于罗马。两者的年代被定在第二世纪后半叶。

从文学角度看，这些作品颇值得注意，因为它们是继《黑马牧人书》(Pastor Hermae) 之后最早的基督教传奇小说。无论在内容上，尤其在道德的严肃性和感情的温柔上，它们都远远超过第四或第五世纪卡里同 (Chariton) 和阿喀琉斯·塔提奥斯 (Achilles Tatios) 等人的异教传奇小说。文风虽稍显冗长，却自有引人入胜之处；其将教诲与历史、哲学与诗意的成分结合起来的手法，显出作者确是一位艺术家。

附注

拉加德 (Lagarde) 在其所编《克莱门文献》(Clementina) 的序言（第22页），以及 G. E. 施蒂茨 (G. E. Stietz) 在评论拉加德的长篇书评中（载《研究与评论》〔Studien und Kritiken〕，1867年，第III期，第556页及后），将伪克莱门文献中关于西门的虚构故事与德国关于术士浮士德 (Faust) 的故事作了比较，认为后者经由《认亲记》而源于前者；因为《认亲记》在教会中比《讲道集》更为人所知。约在公元1507年，乔治·萨贝利库斯 (George Sabellicus) 自称 Faustus junior, magus secundus，即“小浮士德，第二位术士”。革利免的父亲名叫福斯图斯 (Faustus)，他的两个兄弟法蒂斯提努斯 (Fatistinus) 和福斯提尼亚努斯 (Faustinianus)（在《认亲记》中则名为 Faustus 和 Faustinus），与术士西门一同长大，起初也与他为伍。海伦娜 (Helena) 和人造小人 (Homunculus) 这两个角色都出现在两部故事中，尽管形象大不相同。我怀疑，这些相似之处是否足以证明这两部在其他方面差异甚大的通俗虚构故事之间存在联系。

§ 115. 诺斯替主义：文献

史料：

诺斯替派文献（广义的瓦伦廷派〔Valentinian〕）：《信仰智慧书》(Pistis Sopitia)；Opus gnosticum e codice Coptico descriptum lat. vertit M. G Schwartze, ed. J. H. Petermann（据科普特文抄本录出的诺斯替派著作，M. G. 施瓦策〔M. G Schwartze〕译为拉丁文，J. H. 彼得曼〔J. H. Petermann〕编）。柏林 (Berl.)，1851年。成书于第三世纪中叶。叙述索菲娅 (Sophia) 的堕落与悔改，以及救赎的奥秘。参看克斯特林 (Köstlin) 载于《图宾根神学年鉴》(Tüb. Theol. Jahrbücher)，1854年的文章。——伪经的福音书、行传和启示录，大部分出于诺斯替派，例如多马（诺斯替派所偏爱的一位使徒）、约翰、彼得、保罗、腓力、马太、安得烈，以及保罗与特克拉 (Thecla) 的行传。其中有些经过大公教会作者的改写，并为教会的传说提供了许多材料。这些著作和修士的故事，便是早期教会的宗教小说。参看法布里修斯 (Fabricius)、蒂洛 (Thilo)、蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)、马克斯·博内 (Max Bonnet)、D. 威廉·赖特 (D. William Wright)、G. 菲利普斯 (G. Phillips)、S. C. 马兰 (S. C. Malan)、察恩 (Zahn) 所编的新约伪经文献集，尤其是利普修斯 (Lipsius) 的《伪经使徒行传与使徒传说》(Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostelligenden)（不伦瑞克〔Braunschweig〕，1883年，2卷）。参看第I卷第90页及下页、第188页及下页所引文献，以及利普修斯，第I卷，第34页及后。

教父文献（其中有许多摘自已佚诺斯替派著作的引文）：爱任纽 (Irenaeus)：《驳异端》(Adv. Hareses)。这是主要史料，尤其对于瓦伦廷派诺斯替主义而言。希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)：《驳一切异端》(Refutat. Omnium Haeresium，又名 Philosophumena)，邓克尔 (Duncker) 与施奈德温 (Schneidewin) 编。哥廷根 (Gott.)，1859年。部分依据爱任纽，部分依据作者独立阅读诺斯替派著作所得。德尔图良 (Tertullian)：《论对异端者的抗辩》(De praeescriptionibus Haereticorum)；《驳瓦伦廷派》(Adv. Valentin)；《蝎毒解药》(Scorpiace)；《驳马吉安》(Adv. Marcionem)。最后一部是研究马吉安主义的首要依据。亚历山大的革利免 (Clemens Alex.)：《杂学》(Stromata)。其中散见极有价值的记载。俄利根 (Origenes)：《约翰福音注释》(Com. in Evang. Joh)。提供许多重要资料，以及赫拉克利翁 (Heracleon) 著作的摘录。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)：《药箱》(Πανάριον^*)。资料丰富，却缺乏批判性，且狂热地坚持正统。优西比乌 (Eusebius)：《教会史》(Hist. Eccl)。狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)：《异端故事》(Fabulae Haer.)。

参看 Fr. 厄勒 (Fr. Oehler) 的《异端论著汇编》(Corpus Haereseologicum)（收集埃皮法尼乌斯、菲拉斯特鲁斯〔Philastrus〕、奥古斯丁〔Augustin〕等人的古代反异端著作）。柏林 (Berol.)，1856–1861年，5卷。

新柏拉图派文献：普罗提诺 (Plotinus)：《驳诺斯替派》(Πρὸς τοὺς γνωστικούς^*)（或《九章集》〔Ennead〕II. 9）。
批判研究：R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《埃皮法尼乌斯的史料批判》(Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epiphanios.)。维也纳 (Wien)，1865年。《最早异端史的史料》(Die Quellen der äItesten Ketzergeschichte.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1875年（258页）。

Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)：《诺斯替主义史的史料批判》(Zur Quellen-Kritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1873年。参看他发表于布里格尔 (Brieger) 主编的《教会史杂志》(Zeitschrift für K. Gesell.)，1876年，第I卷的文章。另参希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)：《异端史》(Ketzergesch.)，第1–83页。

研究著作：

马叙埃 (Massuet，罗马天主教徒)：《论诺斯替派诸事》(Dissert. de Gnosticorum rebus,)，冠于其所编爱任纽著作之前；亦见施蒂伦 (Stieren) 编爱任纽著作，第II卷，第54–180页。

莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)：《君士坦丁大帝以前的历史评注》(Comment. de rebus ante Const. M.)，第333页及后。

尼安德 (Neander)：《诺斯替诸体系的发生与发展》(Genet. Entwicktlung der gnost. Systeme.)。柏林 (Berl.)，1818年。参看其《教会史》(Ch. Hist.) 中更成熟的论述。他首先开创了对诺斯替主义冷静的哲学研究。

雅克·马特 (Jaques Matter)：《诺斯替主义及其对头六个世纪宗教与哲学派别影响的批判史》(Histoire critique du Gnosticisme et de son influence sur les sectes religieuses el philosophiques des six premiers siècles)。巴黎 (Par.)，1828年；第二版大幅增订，斯特拉斯堡 (Strasb.) 与巴黎 (Par.)，1844年，3卷。

伯顿 (Burton)：《论使徒时期异端的班普顿讲座》(Bampton Lectures on the Heresies of the Apost. Age.)。牛津 (Oxf.)，1830年。

默勒 (Möhler，罗马天主教徒)：《诺斯替主义的起源》(Der Ursprung des Gnosticismus.)。图宾根 (Tüb.)，1831年（收入其《杂著》〔Vermischte Schriften.〕，第I卷，第403页及后）。

鲍尔 (Baur)：《基督教灵知的历史发展》(Die christliche Gnosis in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung.)。图宾根 (Tüb.)，1835年。这是一部精湛的哲学分析著作，也包括雅各·波墨 (Jacob Böhme)、谢林 (Schelling)、施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher) 和黑格尔 (Hegel) 的体系。参看其《教会史》(Kirchengesch.)，第I卷，第175–234页。

诺顿 (Norton)：《诺斯替派史》(History of the Gnostics.)。波士顿 (Boston)，1845年。

H. 罗塞尔 (H. Rossel)：《诺斯替主义研究史》(Gesch. der Untersuch. ueber den Gnostic.;)，收入其《神学遗稿》(Theol. Nachlass.)，尼安德编刊。柏林 (Berl.)，1847年，第2^卷，第179页及后。

蒂尔施 (Thiersch)：《新约著作批判》(Kritik der N. Tlichen Schriften.)。埃尔朗根 (Erl.)，1845年（第5章，第231页及后、第268页及后）。

R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《诺斯替主义：其本质、起源与发展进程》(Der Gnosticismus, sein Wesen, Ursprung und Entwicklungsgang.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1860年（出自埃尔施〔Ersch〕与格鲁伯〔Gruber〕的《综合百科全书》〔Allgem. Encycl.〕，第1部，第71卷）。参看上引他论诺斯替主义史料的批判著作。

E. 威尔·默勒 (E. Wilh. Möller)：《希腊教会直至俄利根的宇宙论史，附诺斯替诸体系专题研究》(Geschirhte des, Kosmologie in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Origenes. Mit specialuntersuchungen ueber die gnostischen Systeme.)。哈雷 (Halle)，1860年（第189–473页）。

C. W. 金 (C. W. King)：《诺斯替派及其遗存》(The Gnostics and their Remains)（附诺斯替派象征符号与艺术作品插图）。伦敦 (Lond.)，1864年。

亨利·L. 曼塞尔 (Henry L. Mansel，圣保罗座堂主任牧师，卒于1871年)：《诺斯替派异端》(The Gnostic Heresies,)，J. B. 莱特福特 (J. B. Lightfoot) 编。伦敦 (London)，1875年。

J. B. 莱特福特 (J. B. Lightfoot)：《歌罗西的异端》(The Colossian Heresy,)，为其《歌罗西书与腓利门书注释》(Com. on Colossians and Philemon.) 中的附论。伦敦 (London)，187, 5年，第73–113页。这是英国人所写关于诺斯替主义的最佳论述，但仅限于使徒时期。

勒南 (Renan)：《基督教会》(L’ église chrétienne)（巴黎〔Paris〕，1879年），第IX、X章，第140–185页；第XVIII章，第350–363页。

J. L. 雅各比 (J. L. Jacobi)：《灵知》(Gnosis,)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书新版，第V卷（1879年），第204–247页；节本收入沙弗 (Schaff) 的《宗教百科全书》(Rel. Encycl.)，1882年，第I卷，第877页及后。

G. 萨蒙 (G. Salmon)，载史密斯 (Smith) 与韦斯 (Wace) 所编著作，第II卷，第678–687页。

G. 科夫马内 (G. Koffmane)：《灵知的倾向与组织》(Die Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und Organisation.)。布雷斯劳 (Breslau)，1881年。（论纲，33页）。

阿德·希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld)：《原始基督教异端史》(Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums)。莱比锡 (Liepzig)，1884年（第162页及后）。

关于各个诺斯替派人物的若干专著，见下文。

§ 116. 诺斯替主义的含义、起源与性质

犹太主义形式的异端，在使徒时期已基本被克服。在第二时期，更为重要、流传也更广的，是使基督教异教化的异端，即所谓诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism)。它是古代教会的理性主义 (Rationalism)；它弥漫于当时的思想氛围之中，并以其反对立场刺激了大公教会神学的发展。

希腊词 gnosis（灵知），可以指一切哲学或宗教知识的学派，藉以区别于肤浅的意见或盲目的信仰。《新约》明确区分真灵知与假灵知。真灵知在于深刻洞察基督教真理的本质与结构，出于信心，伴随着爱与谦卑这些首要美德，用以造就教会，并属于圣灵所赐的恩典之恩赐。²²就此意义而言，亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 与俄利根 (Origen) 所追求的便是灵知；一切力求调和理性与启示的思辨神学家，都可以称为基督教的诺斯替派。反之，假灵知²³——保罗警告提摩太要提防，并在哥林多人和歌罗西人中加以斥责的——则是一种以智慧自负的病态骄傲，是狂妄、自大、野心勃勃的知识；它使人自高自大，而不造就人，²⁴陷入空洞的玄思与争辩，并在其发展过程中证实了使徒的话：“自称为聪明，反成了愚拙。”²⁵

我们现在所论的谬误，所用的正是这个词的贬义；这种谬误至少早在保罗和约翰的时代就已开始显露。它是一种建立在异教二元论基础上的片面唯智主义 (intellectualism)。它过分高估知识，即 gnosis，而贬低信心，即 pistis。诺斯替派以此自称，将自己与信仰派 (Pistics)，即广大的信主基督徒区别开来。他们认为基督教的本质在于一种更高的知识；自以为独占一种秘传的、哲学性的宗教，这种宗教使他们成为真正属灵的人，因而鄙视那些仅仅属魂和属身体的人。他们构成了教会中的知识贵族，一个较高的阶层。此外，他们又将种种全然外来的成分掺入基督教，从而完全遮蔽了福音的真正本质。²⁶

我们可以把诺斯替主义中真与假、信与不信的两种形式，同现代理性主义和现代不可知论 (Agnosticism) 各自的两种形式相提并论。有一种基督教理性主义，认为启示的教义与理性相合，尽管它们超越理性现有的能力；也有一种反基督教的理性主义，以自然理性 (ratio) 为启示的裁判，拒绝基督教特有的教义，否认超自然之事与神迹。又有一种不可知论，源于对思想局限的自觉，并承认信心是认识超自然者与绝对者所必需的器官；²⁷而不信的不可知论则宣称，无限者与绝对者既是未知的，也是不可知的，并趋向宗教冷漠主义和无神论。²⁸

现在我们进而追溯诺斯替主义的起源。

就其实质而言，诺斯替主义主要源于异教。它以一种独特的方式，将异教哲学和宗教转译或灌注到基督教之中。教父们在当时已经察觉到这一点。尤其是希波吕托 (Hippolytus)，在其《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 中，力求将诺斯替派的各种异端追溯到希腊哲学的不同体系；例如，他认为行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 依从赫拉克利特 (Heraclitus)，瓦伦廷 (Valentine) 依从毕达哥拉斯 (Pythagoras) 与柏拉图 (Plato)，巴西利德 (Basilides) 依从亚里士多德 (Aristotle)，马吉安 (Marcion) 依从恩培多克勒 (Empedocles)；因此，他首先陈述了自泰勒斯 (Thales) 以下的希腊哲学诸学说。在所有这些体系中，柏拉图主义的影响最大，尤其对亚历山大的诺斯替派而言；不过，起作用的与其说是它原有的希腊形式，不如说是它后来东方化、折衷化和神秘化的形态；新柏拉图主义 (Neo-Platonism) 也是这种形态的另一产物。柏拉图的思辨为诺斯替派的永世者 (aeons) 学说提供了萌芽，也提供了关于物质、理念世界与现实世界的对立、灵魂在世界形成以前从理念世界堕落、罪源于物质，以及灵魂需要从身体的桎梏中得赎等观念。在诺斯替派中，我们也发现了毕达哥拉斯学派象征性运用数字的痕迹、斯多亚派的自然学与伦理学，以及某些亚里士多德的成分。

然而，马叙埃 (Massuet) 虽满足于将其渊源归于希腊哲学，这样的解释却还不够。自博索布尔 (Beausobre) 和莫斯海姆 (Mosheim) 以来，东方已被恰当地与希腊并列，视为这一异端的发源地。诺斯替派思辨所呈现的神秘、奇幻而隐晦的形式，以及其代表人物大多出自埃及和叙利亚这一事实，都可以使人得出这个结论。亚历山大 (Alexander) 的征服、希腊语言文学的传播，以及基督教的真理，在东方人的思想中引发了强烈的激荡，继而反过来影响西方。因此，人们认为诺斯替主义在不同程度上，与犹太教的各种异端形式相平行，包括爱色尼主义 (Essenism)、医治派 (Therapeutism)、斐洛 (Philo) 的哲学—宗教体系，以及起源可能远溯第一世纪的卡巴拉 (Cabbala)。诺斯替主义与琐罗亚斯德教 (Zoroastrianism) 关于光明国度与黑暗国度的二元论，也显然有亲缘关系，尤其在叙利亚的诺斯替派中更是如此。它与佛教中泛神论、幻影说和禁欲主义诸成分的联系，同样显而易见；佛教在基督时代已传入西亚。波斯与印度的影响在摩尼教 (Manichaeism) 中最为明显，而其中的希腊成分则微乎其微。

带有混合主义倾向的诺斯替主义，并不是一个孤立的现象。旧宗教的衰亡与新宗教的胜利引发了一场巨大的思想革命，它便深深扎根于其中。亚历山大的斐洛与基督同时，却对他一无所知；他企图借助寓意解释——毋宁说是强加寓意——将犹太宗教与柏拉图哲学结合起来。这一体系此后若在基督教的影响下发展，便会为亚历山大教父的思辨神学预备道路；若在异教的影响下发展，则会为异端的灵知预备道路。与诺斯替主义更为接近的是新柏拉图主义；它的兴起略晚于斐洛的体系，却不理会犹太教，其思想完全取自东西方的异教。然而，诺斯替派的混合主义与斐洛体系和新柏拉图主义都有重大的差异，因为它吸纳了基督教，而新柏拉图派则直接或间接地反对基督教。诺斯替派把基督教视为宗教发展的最高阶段，然而他们掺入外来成分，将它败坏到失去自身特性的地步。

因此，诺斯替主义是历史上已知最宏大、最包罗广泛的思辨性宗教混合主义。它由东方神秘主义、希腊哲学、亚历山大式、斐洛式与卡巴拉式的犹太教，以及基督教的救恩观念构成；这些成分不仅是机械地拼凑在一起，而且仿佛发生了化学结合。至少，在瓦伦廷体系中相当成熟的形态下，就其本身而言，它是一座由思辨思想——毋宁说是想象性思想——构成的奇妙建筑，同时也是创造性想象力的一件艺术作品，一部基督教神话史诗。旧世界在这里集结全部力量，要从其各种不同的成分中造出某种新事物，并以一种观念性的、虚幻的思辨普世主义，来对抗大公教会真实而充实的普世主义。但所有体系的这种融合，最终只加速了东西方异教的解体，而基督教的成分则从熔炉中出来，得到炼净和加强。

诺斯替派的思辨，与大多数思辨性宗教一样，未能为实践道德奠定稳固的基础。一方面，属灵的骄傲遮蔽了罪的意识，产生了一种轻浮的反律法主义 (antinomianism)，往往以纵欲和放荡告终。另一方面，过度紧张的罪感，又常使诺斯替派把自然归于魔鬼，憎恶身体，视之为邪恶的居所，并对自己施行极端的苦修；这与异教将自然神化的做法形成了鲜明对照。

罗马天主教神学家默勒 (Möhler) 特别强调这一禁欲特征。但他把诺斯替主义的整个现象直接归源于基督教，就走得太远了；他还错误地将它视为新教的先驱。他把它描述为一种过度的基督教，一种夸大了的对世界的鄙弃；²⁹这种鄙弃在为自己寻求思辨基础时，便从较早的哲学学说、神智学和神话体系中，搜集一切可以为其目的所用的材料。

诺斯替派的人数无法确定。我们发现，古代教会几乎各处都有他们；主要是在基督教与犹太教和异教密切接触的地方，如埃及、叙利亚和小亚细亚；其次是在各种真理与谬误汇聚的罗马；在高卢 (Gaul)，他们受到爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的反对；在非洲，他们受到德尔图良 (Tertullian) 的攻击，后来又受到奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 的攻击，而奥古斯丁自己曾作过数年的摩尼教徒。他们最受有教养者的青睐，甚至有将教会教师引入歧途的危险。但他们未能在民众中立足；事实上，他们既是秘传派，便与群众保持距离；他们的哲学社团，无疑也很少能达到大公教会会众的规模。

诺斯替各派的鼎盛时期是第二世纪。到第六世纪，便只留下些许痕迹；然而，某些诺斯替派的思想，尤其是摩尼教的思想，仍不断出现在中世纪的若干异端教派之中，如普里西良派 (Priscillianists)、保罗派 (Paulicians)、波格米勒派 (Bogomiles) 和清洁派 (Catharists)；甚至现代神学与哲学思辨的历史，也显出与之相近的倾向。

§ 117. 诺斯替主义的体系及其神学

诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 是一种异端的宗教哲学，确切地说，是一种神话式的神智学；它在思想上反映了那个从异教秩序转向基督教秩序的非凡过渡时代所特有的酝酿激荡状态。倘若它只是一堆不可理解的幼稚谬论和亵渎神明之言，如早期历史家所怪诞地描绘的那样，³⁰它就不至于迷住那么多才思雄健的人，也不会在古代教会中激起如此持久的波澜。它试图解决一些最深奥的形而上学和神学问题。它探讨上帝与世界、精神与物质、理念与现象这些重大的对立，并力图揭开创造的奥秘，解答世界的起源、发展与终结，以及恶的起源等问题。³¹它力图使物质世界的受造与恶的存在，同一位非物质而至善的绝对上帝的观念相协调。这个问题唯有借着基督教的救赎教义才能解决；但诺斯替主义却以错误的二元论为出发点，从而使问题无法解决。

如前所述，在形式和方法上，它的东方色彩多于希腊色彩。诺斯替派大胆地试图揭示上界的奥秘，不屑于受理性的束缚，而诉诸直接的属灵直觉。因此，他们的思辨与其说采用逻辑和辩证的方式，不如说采用想象的、半诗意的方式；他们不用简明、清晰而冷静的思考语言来表达自己的观念，却使其披上色彩斑斓、奇幻而富于神话意味的外衣，运用表象、象征和寓意。于是，荒诞不经的胡言与最离奇的奇想，便同深刻的思想和诗意的直觉杂乱地混在一起。

这种虚假的超自然主义，以非理性取代超自然，以怪异现象取代神迹，充斥于诺斯替派福音书和行传中的伪历史传奇。这些作品在想象的繁富和奇事的不可思议方面，超过了大公教会的传说。一位精通这类文献的学者说：³²“鬼附、死人复活、医治和惩罚的神迹，层出不穷地堆积起来；类似事件不断重复，使这些长篇故事带上某种单调的色彩，偶尔才有真正具有诗歌价值的对话、圣诗和祷告打破这种单调。异象、天使显现、天上的声音、会说话的动物、被击败并受辱的鬼魔，构成一整套丰富的景象，铺展在人面前；超尘世的灿烂光辉闪耀起来；来自天上的神秘兆头、地震、雷电，使不敬虔的人惊恐；火、土、风、水都听从虔诚之人的吩咐；蛇、狮子、豹、老虎和熊，因使徒的一句话就被驯服，转而攻击逼迫他们的人；临终的殉道者周围环绕着花冠、玫瑰、百合和香烟，而深渊则张开大口，吞没他们的仇敌。”

对这些异端派而言，知识的最高来源是一种秘密传承，与大公教会公开而为大众所知的传统相对立。在这一点上，他们不同于新教各宗派；后者一般完全摒弃传统，只诉诸按他们自己的理解来解释的圣经。他们也诉诸伪经文献；这类文献在第二世纪大量出现，托名于使徒时期或基督以前时代的著名人物。伊皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius) 在其论第26^种异端的篇章中，数算诺斯替派的伪经，以千计；爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 单在瓦伦廷派 (Valentinians) 中，就发现了数不胜数的这类著作。³³最后，诺斯替派在适合自己目的时，也使用圣经的个别部分，却既不能就其范围达成一致，也不能就其解释达成一致。对于旧约，他们一般予以拒绝，或像马吉安派 (Marcionites) 和摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans) 那样全盘拒绝，或至少拒绝其中的大部分；对于新约，他们偏爱某些书卷或段落，如具有深邃属灵直觉的《约翰福音》，至于其他书卷，则不是拒绝，就是加以曲解，使之符合自己的观念。例如，马吉安 (Marcion) 就这样删改了《路加福音》，除此之外，只接受保罗的十封书信，以任意选定的十一卷正典，取代大公教会的二十七卷新约。在解释上，他们采用极其任意而夸张的寓意原则，其毫无节制的程度甚至远甚于斐洛 (Philo)；他们鄙弃字义，认为它属于感官层面，又将语言和释经的法则视为思想的桎梏。例如，新约中，尤其是耶稣生平中的数字30，被用来表示瓦伦廷派诸永世者 (aeons) 的数目；比喻中迷失的羊则是阿卡摩特 (Achamoth)。他们甚至把这种方法应用于异教作家的作品，应用于荷马 (Homer)、阿拉托斯 (Aratus)、阿那克里翁 (Anacreon) 的诗篇，并从这些作品中发现最深奥的诺斯替派奥秘。³⁴他们从古代神话、天文学、物理学和巫术的整个领域中，搜集一切能以任何方式支持其幻想的材料。

几乎所有诺斯替体系都有以下共同特征：(1) 二元论 (Dualism)：假定上帝与物质之间存在永恒的对立。(2) 德米乌尔戈斯观念：将世界的创造者，即德米乌尔戈斯 (demiurgos)，与真正的上帝分开。(3) 幻影说 (Docetism)：将救赎主人格中的人性成分化为纯粹骗人的幻象。³⁵

现在，我们将力求清晰而连贯地阐述诺斯替主义的理论与实践体系，所依据的是它呈现在我们面前的较充分发展的形态，尤其是瓦伦廷学派。

诺斯替派的神学。这个体系以绝对的原初存在为出发点。上帝是深不可测的深渊，³⁶封闭于自身之内，无始、无名、不可理解；一方面，他无限地超越一切存在；另一方面，他又是原初的永世者，是一切理念和属灵力量的总和。巴西利德 (Basilides) 甚至不肯将存在归于他，因此，他像黑格尔 (Hegel) 一样，从绝对的无出发；然而，这绝对的无又与绝对的存在等同。³⁷现代不可知论 (Agnosticism) 的终点，正是他的起点。
宇宙论。深渊敞开了；上帝进入一个发展的过程，从自己怀中发出各个永世者，也就是他的本性的属性和展开的能力，是永恒灵界的理念，如心智、理性、智慧、能力、真理、生命。³⁸这些按照一定的次序从绝对者流溢出来；按照瓦伦廷 (Valentine) 的说法，它们以具有两性对极的配对形式出现。它们离那伟大的本源越远，就越贫乏、越衰弱。除了流溢的观念以外，³⁹诺斯替派还用数目从原初的一衍生出来的比喻，或声音逐渐减弱、直至成为微弱回响的比喻，来说明绝对者的自我启示。⁴⁰对于永世者发出的原因，有些人，如瓦伦廷，认为是上帝自我限制的爱；另一些人则认为是形而上学的必然性。永世者的全体构成理念世界，或光明世界，或属灵的丰盈，即普累罗玛 (Pleroma)，与克诺玛 (Kenoma)，即空虚的物质世界相对。前者是神圣能力与属性的总和，后者则是幽影和黑暗的领域。基督作为永世者之首，属于普累罗玛；德米乌尔戈斯，即创造者，则属于克诺玛。针对这一异端的萌芽形态，圣保罗教导说，耶稣基督乃是上帝本性全部的丰盛（《歌罗西书》1:19；2:9），而教会则是基督的丰盛的映照（《以弗所书》1:22）。

可见的物质世界是恶的本原所居之处。这一本原不可能出于上帝，否则上帝自己就成了恶的创始者。它必定来自一个相反的本原。这就是物质（ὕλη^*），它与上帝和理念世界永远对立。叙利亚的诺斯替派，尤其是摩尼教徒，与波斯教 (Parsism) 一致，把物质看作一种本质上邪恶的实体，是撒但狂暴的国度，与光明国度进行不可调和的战争。亚历山大的诺斯替派则更多地遵循柏拉图关于ὕλη^*的观念，把它理解为κένωμα^*，即空虚，与πλήρωμα^*，即神圣而充满生命的丰盛相对；或将其理解为μὴ ὄν^*，它与神圣存在的关系犹如影与光的关系，并构成思想无法越过的黑暗界限。这物质本身是死的，却因与普累罗玛结合而获得生命；对于这种结合，又有各种不同的描述。在摩尼教体系中，有黑暗的势力，强行夺取光明国度的某些部分。但通常，这种结合被说成是自上而下发生的。神圣永世者之链的最后一环，或因过于软弱，无法维持自己与理念世界的联系，或因被一种拥抱无限深渊的罪恶欲望所攫住，便如一点光明的火花，坠入物质的黑暗混沌之中，赋予物质一粒神圣生命的种子；然而，它在这束缚之中，痛苦地渴望救赎，而整个永世者世界都与它同感。这最软弱的永世者，被瓦伦廷称为较低的智慧，或阿卡摩特，⁴¹它标志着一个极限点：在这里，精神必须将自身交付给物质，无限必须进入有限，从而为现实世界奠定基础。阿卡摩特的神话所依据的思想是：有限者与绝对者不相容，但在某种意义上，又需要绝对者来解释自身。

至此，诺斯替派思辨的第三个本原便出现了，即世界的制造者，通常称为德米乌尔戈斯 (Demiurge)，⁴²巴西利德称之为“阿尔康 (Archon)”，即世界的统治者；蛇派 (Ophites) 则称之为“雅达巴奥特 (Jaldabaoth)”，即混沌之子。他是堕落的永世者所造的受造物，由自然质料构成，因此介于上帝与物质之间。他以物质造出可见可感的世界，并统治它。他的宝座设在行星的诸天之中，掌管时间和星辰之灵。一般认为，占星术所说的影响力出于他。他就是犹太教的上帝，即耶和华，自以为是至高而独一的上帝。但在这一观念的进一步发展上，各体系有所不同：反犹太教的诺斯替派，即马吉安和蛇派，把德米乌尔戈斯描绘成一个傲慢的存在，抗拒上帝的旨意；而倾向犹太教的诺斯替派，即巴西利德和瓦伦廷，则把他视为上帝手中一个能力有限、并无自觉的工具，为救赎预备道路。

基督论与救恩论。救赎本身就是使光明之灵从黑暗物质的锁链中得释放；这由最完美的永世者基督来成就。他是从感官所及的现象世界返回超感官的理念世界的中保，正如德米乌尔戈斯是从普累罗玛背离而堕入克诺玛的中保一样。这个施行救赎的永世者，被瓦伦廷称为σωτήρ^*或Ἰησοῦς^*，他穿过诸天的领域降下，取了一个以太般的身体外貌；按照另一种看法，他在受洗时与耶稣这个人，或犹太人的弥赛亚结合，到受难时又离开了他。无论如何，不管在其他方面怎样理解救赎者，都不容许他与有罪的物质发生实际接触。诺斯替主义仿照印度神话的方式，把他作为人的降生、受苦和死亡，都解释为一种骗人的表象、转瞬即逝的幻景、幽灵般的形体；他取这种形体，只是为了向人的感官本性显现自己。若将其归结为明确的哲学定义，诺斯替派的基督实际上无非是他自身的理念精神，正如施特劳斯 (Strauss) 的福音神话理论所说的那样。圣灵通常被理解为一个从属的永世者。基督工作的中心事实，是把灵知传给一小群入门者，激励他们，使他们能够以清醒的意识，努力追求理念世界和原初的合一。按照瓦伦廷的说法，天上的救主 (Soter) 在阿卡摩特 (Achamoth) 经历无数苦难之后，将她带入普累罗玛，并与她结合——最荣耀的永世者与最低微的永世者——结成永恒的属灵婚姻。至此，永世者天界中的一切纷扰都平息了，蒙福的和谐与不可言喻的喜乐得以恢复，一切属灵的人 (pneumatic)，即真正的诺斯替派，都得以分享。最后，从物质黑暗的怀中爆发出一场大火，将物质完全焚尽。
诺斯替派的人论与其神学相对应。人是一个由灵、身体和魂组成的小宇宙，反映出上帝、物质和德米乌尔戈斯这三个本原，不过各自在其中所占的程度大不相同。人分为三类：属灵的，⁴³其中占主导地位的是神圣的成分，即来自理念世界的一点光明火花；属物质的，⁴⁴也就是属身体、属肉体、属自然的，其中掌权的是物质，即粗陋的感官本原；以及属魂的，⁴⁵其中占优势的是德米乌尔戈斯的、准神圣的本原，介于前两者之间。

这三类人往往分别等同于三种宗教的信奉者：属灵的等同于基督徒，属肉体的等同于异教徒，属魂的等同于犹太人。但他们也在任何一种宗教的信奉者中作同样的区分，尤其是在基督徒中；他们自视为完全意义上真正属灵的人，却把绝大多数基督徒⁴⁶看作仅仅属魂的人，不能从盲目的信仰上升到真正的知识，太软弱而无力行善，又太柔弱而不敢作恶，渴慕神圣之物，却无力获得，因而徘徊于理念世界的普累罗玛与感官世界的克诺玛之间。

这种思想固然巧妙，却正是把宗教分为内传与外传这种非基督教式区分的根基，也是知识之骄傲的根基；在这一点上，诺斯替主义与基督教谦卑和仁爱的美德直接相悖。

§ 118. 诺斯替主义的伦理

所有诺斯替派异端都一致贬低上帝所创造的身体，并过分抬高理智。此外，我们还看到他们中间有两种相反的倾向：阴郁的禁欲主义与轻浮的反律法主义 (antinomianism)；两者都以二元论的原则为基础，错误地把恶归于物质，并把自然界追溯为魔鬼的产物。这两个极端常常相遇，而尼哥拉派 (Nicolaitans) 关于滥用肉体的格言⁴⁷，先被用来为禁欲主义服务，随后又为纵欲主义服务。

禁欲主义的诺斯替派，如马吉安 (Marcion)、撒 Saturninus、他提安 (Tatian) 和摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans)，都是悲观主义者。他们在这个由德米乌尔戈斯和撒但统治、属感官而必归朽坏的世界中感到不安；他们憎恶身体，因为身体由物质构成，并禁止食用某些食物和一切夫妻交合，认为这些会使自己与有罪的物质混杂；这与爱色尼派 (Essenes)，以及保罗在《歌罗西书》和教牧书信中所提到的那些谬误教导者相似。他们由此把罪与物质混为一谈，妄想只要除去物质，作为物质偶性的罪也会随之消失。他们所恨的，不只是上帝未曾创造的罪，反倒是他所创造的世界。

纵欲的诺斯替派，如尼哥拉派、蛇派 (Ophites)、卡波克拉底派 (Carpocratians) 和反抗派 (Antitactes)，骄傲自负地以为灵高居于物质之上，甚至依据一种魔鬼般的原则，认为必须放纵情欲才能克服情欲，于是公然蔑视一切道德律，纵身投入最无耻的淫乱之中。据亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 所记，他们说，抑制情欲算不得什么大事；放纵情欲而不被情欲征服，那才确实是一件大事。据伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius) 说，埃及有些诺斯替派别，以污秽的唯物主义泛神论为出发点，把基督等同于自然界的生殖力，以淫乱为敬拜方式；在他们自以为献上并收聚了自己全部力量之后，便亵渎地高呼：“我就是基督。”从这些情欲与撒但式骄傲的污池中，升起了大量文献的瘴气；不过，幸而流传到我们这里的，除了几个名称以外，别无其他。

§ 119. 崇拜与组织

在崇拜方面，诺斯替派的幻影说 (docetism) 和极端唯灵主义，顺理成章地导致一种赤裸的、纯理智的简朴形式；有时甚至拒绝一切圣礼和外在的施恩媒介；更甚者，如普罗迪科派 (Prodicians)，竟亵渎地自高，超过一切称为神的和受人敬拜的。⁴⁸

但与此相伴的，也有另一个极端，就是充满象征与神秘意味的铺张仪式，尤其见于马可派 (Marcosians)。这些马可派坚持双重洗礼：一种施于作为人的耶稣，即属魂之人的弥赛亚；另一种施于天上的基督，即属灵之人的弥赛亚。他们把洗礼堂装饰得像宴会厅一样；最早引入临终傅油礼的也是他们。早在第二世纪，巴西利德派 (Basilideans) 就已庆祝主显节。西门派 (Simonians) 和卡波克拉底派在敬拜中使用基督及其宗教英雄的画像。瓦伦廷派 (Valentinians) 和蛇派以圣诗歌唱阿卡摩特渴望从物质束缚中得蒙救赎的深切心情。巴尔德撒尼 (Bardesanes) 被誉为第一位叙利亚圣诗作者。许多诺斯替派追随其祖师西门，沉迷于魔术，并把这些方术引入崇拜；马可派举行圣餐时就是如此。

关于诺斯替派的外在组织（摩尼教徒除外，他们将另行论述），我们所能说的不多。他们的目标是把基督教化为一种宏伟的思辨；组织方面的实际事务，与他们专注于理智的倾向格格不入。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 指责他们完全没有秩序和纪律。⁴⁹他们与其说组成一个教派或党派，不如说像近代的理性主义者一样，形成了许许多多的哲学学派。许多人根本不愿脱离大公教会，却以神智论者 (theosophists) 的身份，在教会中自居于最高的属灵等级。有些人甚至担任教会职务；我们无疑必须从《使徒法规》(Apostolic Canons) 第51条或第50条作出这一推断。其中显然针对诺斯替派阴郁而乖谬的禁欲主义说：“若主教、司祭、执事或任何教会人员禁戒婚姻、肉食或酒，并非为了操练克己，而是出于厌恶，⁵⁰忘记了上帝所造的一切都甚好，也忘记了他造男造女，实际上甚至亵渎了受造界；⁵¹这样的人，若不撤回其谬误，就当被革职并逐出教会。平信徒也当同样处置。”在这里，我们看见了大公教会即使面对较好的诺斯替派，也不得不采取的论战立场。

§ 120. 诺斯替主义的学派

诺斯替派思辨中任意而失衡的主观性，自然产生了众多学派。对于这些诺斯替学派，人们作过各种不同的分类。

从地域上说，可以归为两个大家族：埃及或亚历山大一系，以及叙利亚一系；两者在内在性质上也有差别。前者（巴西利德、瓦伦廷、蛇派）以柏拉图主义和流溢说为主，后者（撒 Saturninus、巴尔德撒尼、他提安）则以波斯教 (Parsism) 和二元论为主。此外，还有在许多方面与这两者不同、较注重实践的马吉安学派。马吉安既非出自埃及，也非出自叙利亚，而是出自小亚细亚；在那里，圣保罗反对犹太教的律法主义与束缚，为他那自由的福音留下了深刻的印记。

若进一步从教义性质加以考察，诺斯替主义呈现为三种形式，分别以其混合体系中占优势的异教、犹太教和基督教成分为区别。西门派、尼哥拉派、蛇派、卡波克拉底派、普罗迪科派、反抗派和摩尼教徒，属于异教化的一类；克林妥 (Cerinthus)、巴西利德、瓦伦廷和游斯丁 (Justin)，属于犹太教化的一类（《伪克莱门讲道集》亦属此类，不过更确切地说，它属于伊便尼派）；撒 Saturninus、马吉安、他提安和禁欲派 (Encratites)，则属于基督教化的一类。但这里必须记住，这种区别只是相对的；事实上，一切诺斯替体系的性质都以异教为主，在本质上既反对《旧约》纯正的犹太教，也反对《新约》的基督教。所谓犹太教化的诺斯替派，其犹太教不过是一种伪经性质的犹太教，或带有亚历山大的色彩，或带有卡巴拉 (Cabalistic) 的色彩。⁵²

同样也可以从伦理的角度来分类，由此也会得出三个主要分支：思辨的或神智论的诺斯替派（巴西利德、瓦伦廷），实践的和禁欲的诺斯替派（马吉安、撒 Saturninus、他提安），以及反律法的和纵欲的诺斯替派（西门派、尼哥拉派、蛇派、卡波克拉底派、反抗派）。

我们既已说明诺斯替主义的一般性质，并指出其主要分支，接下来便主要按照年代次序，叙述各个学派，先从那些起源于使徒时期的学派讲起。

§ 121. 行邪术的西门与西门派

I. 《使徒行传》8:9–24的各家注释。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)：《护教篇》(Apol.) I. 26、56。《伪克莱门讲道集》与《认知录》(Homilies、Recognitions)。爱任纽 (Irenaeus)，I. 23。希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)，VI. 2–15，等等。

辛姆松 (Simson)：《行邪术的西门的生平与教导》(Leben und Lehre Simon des Magiers)，载《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für hist. Theologie)，1841年。

希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)：《行邪术的西门》(Der Magier Simon)，载《科学神学杂志》(Zeischrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie)，1868年。

利普修斯 (Lipsius)：《行邪术的西门》(Simon d. Mag.)，载申克尔 (Schenkel) 的《圣经辞典》(Bibel-Lexikon)，第V卷（1875年），第301–321页。参该处第320页所引文献。

行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 是一个历史人物，我们从《使徒行传》第八章认识他。⁵³他可能是撒马利亚 (Samaria) 的吉通 (Gitthon) 人，正如本身也是撒马利亚人的殉道者游斯丁所记；⁵⁴不过，他仍有可能就是约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 所提到、同时代的那个同名犹太术士。据约瑟夫斯说，此人生于塞浦路斯 (Cyprus)，是巡抚腓力斯 (Felix) 的朋友；腓力斯曾雇用他，使叙利亚埃梅萨 (Emesa) 王阿齐祖斯 (Azizus) 的美貌妻子土西拉 (Drusilla) 疏远丈夫，以便自己娶她。⁵⁵

西门自称是神性的一种流溢（“上帝的大能者”），⁵⁶凭借邪术，在半异教、半犹太教的撒马利亚人中大造声势；约在40年，他受了腓利的洗，却因虚伪、滥用圣物以谋卑污的私利，受到彼得严厉的斥责。⁵⁷他由此成为教会史上混杂的宗教融合主义与邪术相结合的第一个实例；就此而言，教父称他为一切异端、尤其是诺斯替派的始祖，或用爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的话说，称他为“师傅”（magister）和“鼻祖”（progenitor），是有道理的。除他以外，同时代还有另外两个撒马利亚人，多西提乌斯 (Dositheus) 和米南德 (Menander)，也被称为异端首领。早在基督以前，撒马利亚就是宗教融合主义的沃土，也自然成为那种称为诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 的混合性异端的发源地。

在第二、第三世纪，大公教会信徒和异端分子以种种虚构，修饰了西门四处游荡的生涯及其教导；尤其是后者，为了维护伊便尼主义 (Ebionism)，并出于对保罗的深切敌意，更是如此。在伪克莱门传奇中，他代表一切反犹太教的异端。行邪术的西门作为虚假的使徒，与真理的使徒西门彼得相对照；他带着海伦娜 (Helena)，从一座城到另一座城地跟随彼得，如同黑暗跟随光明（海伦娜先前是推罗的妓女，如今却被抬举到神圣理智的尊位）；他在凯撒利亚、安提阿和罗马的公开辩论中，被彼得驳倒；最后，他在尼禄皇帝面前假装复活、假装升天之后，遭彼得彻底击败，受尽羞辱；他以自杀告终，彼得则赢得殉道的冠冕。⁵⁸他或许像其他异端分子和宗派创始人一样，曾（在彼得之前）前往罗马，但这种可能性极小；至于殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 关于西门雕像的记述，则肯定是误会。⁵⁹

爱任纽、希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 和其他教父归于这位西门及其追随者的诺斯替主义，是粗陋的，属于这一异端的早期形态。这种思想体现在一部题为《大宣告》或《宣言》的著作中，⁶⁰希波吕托斯曾对其作过分析。⁶¹其主要观念是“大能”“大意念”，以及男性和女性本原。他宣称自己是具有创造力的世界之灵的化身，他的女伴海伦娜则是具有接受性的世界灵魂的化身。在这里，我们看到了诺斯替派的配偶体 (syzygy) 观念。

西门派 (Simonians) 一直延续到第三世纪；即使它并非由行邪术的西门所创，至少也是以他为名。他们把他作为施行救赎的神灵来敬拜，像该隐派 (Cainites) 一样，选取《旧约》中声名最恶劣的人物作为英雄，其原则与行为都不道德。不过，这个名称的用法十分含混，也用来指称各种诺斯替派。

§ 122. 尼哥拉党

爱任纽 (Irenaeus)：《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，I. 26, 3；亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alex.)：《杂学》(Strom.)，III. 4（亦见优西比乌 (Euseb.)《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 29）；希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)：《驳斥一切异端》(Philos.)，VII. 24；埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，I. 2, 25。

《启示录》2:6、15提到尼哥拉党 (Nicolaitans)，说他们是一个放纵情欲的宗派。他们声称其创始人是尼哥拉 (Nicolas)，他是安提阿一个归入犹太教的人，也是耶路撒冷会众七位执事之一（《使徒行传》6:5）。据说，他背弃了真信仰，教导一种危险的原则，即必须苦待肉体；⁶²这就是说，至少按其门徒的理解，人必须遍尝各种肉欲，才能成为肉欲完全的主人。

然而，教父们的看法彼此冲突。爱任纽的记述极为不利于他们，希波吕托斯基本上沿袭了他的说法。

他说：“尼哥拉党是那位尼哥拉的追随者；他是使徒最初按立担任执事的七人之一。他们过着毫无节制、纵情放荡的生活。约翰的《启示录》极其清楚地指出了这些人的品性，书中说他们教导人，行淫和吃祭偶像之物都是无关紧要的事。因此，道也曾这样论到他们：‘然而你还有一件可取的事，就是你恨恶尼哥拉一党人的行为，这也是我所恨恶的。’”

亚历山大的革利免说，尼哥拉是忠贞的丈夫，以纯洁之道养育儿女；但其门徒误解了他的一句话：“我们必须与肉体争战，苦待肉体。”革利免也把这句话归于使徒马提亚。⁶³

§ 123. 克林妥

爱任纽 (Iren.)，I. (25) 26, § 1；III. 3, § 4；III. 11, § 1；希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)，VII. 21；优西比乌 (Euseb.)，III. 28；IV. 14。参多尔纳 (Dorner)：《基督位格论》(Lehre v. der Person Christi)，I. 314及下页；“史密斯与韦斯”(Smith and Wace)，I. 447，“克林妥”条。

克林妥 (Cerinthus)⁶⁴于第一世纪末在小亚细亚出现，与年迈的使徒约翰发生冲突；爱任纽认为，约翰曾在福音书和书信中反对他的诺斯替观念。据说，约翰在公共浴室里看到这位真理的仇敌克林妥，便因担心浴室坍塌而离去；另一个类似的故事说，坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 遇见马吉安 (Marcion)，称他为“撒但的长子”。这些故事表明，当时正统教会人士对异端抱着何等强烈的憎恶。⁶⁵

据埃皮法尼乌斯所搜集的不甚可靠的传说，克林妥是埃及人，或生来就是犹太人，或后来归入犹太教；他曾在亚历山大的斐洛 (Philo) 学派求学，是那些反对保罗、要求行割礼的假使徒之一（《加拉太书》2:4；《哥林多后书》11:13）；他自称领受过天使的启示，游历过巴勒斯坦和加拉太，也曾到过以弗所。他去世的时间不详。

就我们从混乱的记述中所能确定的而言，他的观点使他介于犹太教与严格意义上的诺斯替主义之间。他拒绝一切福音书，只接受一部残缺的《马太福音》，教导摩西律法仍然有效，并宣讲千禧年国度。在这些方面，他带有强烈的犹太教倾向，可以列入伊便尼派；但他又以典型的诺斯替方式，把世界的创造者与上帝区别开来，将前者视为一种从属的能力、一个居间的存在，虽不完全与上帝敌对。在基督论上，他把属地的人耶稣——约瑟和马利亚的儿子——与属天的基督分开；⁶⁶后者在约旦河受洗时，以鸽子的形状降在人耶稣身上，将对上帝的真知识和行神迹的能力赐给他，却在他受难时离弃了他，直到弥赛亚荣耀国度来临时才再与他联合。瓦伦廷 (Valentine) 学派更明确地作了同样的区分，把耶稣的耶稣与神圣的救主，或较低的基督与较高的基督区别开来——这粗略地预示了现代（施特劳斯 (Strauss)）对历史的基督与信仰的基督所作的区分。千禧年以耶路撒冷为中心，其后将是万物的复兴。⁶⁷

阿洛吉派 (Alogi) 是第二世纪一个鲜为人知、反对三位一体和千禧年说的宗派；因约翰的《启示录》教导千禧年说，他们便认为克林妥是该书的作者。他们也把第四福音书归于他，尽管这卷福音书恰恰是从信仰中最高的亲历性灵知 (Gnosis) 出发，对一切虚假诺斯替主义所能作出的最有力的驳斥。

行邪术的西门、尼哥拉党和克林妥，都属于第一世纪后半叶。现在我们要进而考察诺斯替主义较为成熟的体系；这些体系形成于第二世纪上半叶，并一直兴盛到第三世纪中叶。

这些体系中最重要、最有影响力的，分别以巴西里得 (Basilides)、瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 和马吉安 (Marcion) 为名。因此，它们值得更详尽的考察。三人大致同时，在哈德良 (Hadrian) 和安敦宁·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 统治期间达到成熟。巴西里得于公元125年在亚历山大盛行一时；瓦伦廷于140年来到罗马；马吉安于140至150年间在罗马施教。

§ 124. 巴西里得

除爱任纽、希波吕托斯（第VII卷，20–27）、亚历山大的革利免（《杂学》(Strom.)，VII）、优西比乌（IV. 7）和埃皮法尼乌斯著作中的史料外，参下列专著：

雅科比 (Jacobi)：《根据新近发现的希波吕托斯著作阐明诺斯替哲学家巴西里得的学说》(Basilidis philosophi Gnostici Sentent. ex Hippolyti lib. nuper reperto illustr.)。柏林，1852年。参其“灵知”(Gnosis) 一文，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)，第V卷，第219–223页；另参布里格尔 (Brieger) 主编的《教会史杂志》(Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.)，1876–77年（I. 481–544）。

乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)：《巴西里得的体系》(Das Basilidianische System)。哥廷根，1855年。最好的分析。

鲍尔 (Baur)，载图宾根《神学年鉴》(Theol. Jahrbücher)，1856年，第121–162页。

霍夫斯泰德·德赫鲁特 (Hofstede de Groot)：《作为〈约翰福音〉见证人的巴西里得》(Basilides as witness for the Gospel of John)，荷兰文，另有扩充的德文版。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1868年。为第四福音书的真实性辩护。

霍特博士 (Dr. Hort)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)《基督教传记辞典》(Dictionary of Christian Biography)（伦敦，1877年），I. 268–281（参“阿布拉萨克斯”(Abrasax)，第9–10页）。极为精辟。

希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)，载其《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.)，1878年，XXI. 228–250，并参该处所列文献。

巴西里得 (Basilides；Βασιλείδης^*) 建立了第一个发展完善的灵知体系；但它过于玄奥繁复，未能广泛流行。他自称是使徒马提亚以及圣彼得的一位名叫格劳基亚斯 (Glaucias) 的传译者（ἑρμήνεύς^*）的门徒。他在哈德良统治期间（公元117–138年）于亚历山大施教。他的早年正值第二代基督徒时期，因此，他引用《新约》著作的文字，具有相当大的护教价值。据其反对者阿格里帕·卡斯托尔 (Agrippa Castor) 说，他写了“论福音的二十四卷书（βιβλία^*）”。这部著作可能是对正典福音书的注释，因为亚历山大的革利免曾引述巴西里得一部著作的“第三十三卷”，称该著作为《释义》(Exegetica)。⁶⁸

他的学说十分独特，尤其是按《驳斥一切异端》(Philosophumena) 中详尽而独到的阐述来看。希波吕托斯的说法在许多方面与爱任纽和埃皮法尼乌斯的记述不同；但他的资料可能直接取自巴西里得本人的著作，因此应当主要依据他的记载。⁶⁹这一体系建立在埃及天文学和毕达哥拉斯派的数字象征学之上。它也显露出亚里士多德的影响；但其中并未出现柏拉图主义、流溢说和二元论。

巴西里得的基本观念是有神一元论的，而非二元论的；在这一点上，他与其他诺斯替派不同，尽管后来的记述把他说成二元论者。他从最抽象的绝对者概念出发，甚至否认绝对者的存在，认为它无限超越一切可以想象和理解的事物。⁷⁰这位不可言说、不可命名的上帝，⁷¹不仅超越存在，而且是非存在的；⁷²他首先以创造之言（而非流溢）形成世界种子或世界胚胎，⁷³也就是混沌；世界从中按照数的关系，以不间断的秩序自行发展，如同树木的枝叶从芥菜种中生长出来，或色彩斑斓的孔雀从蛋中孵出。凡受造之物，都趋向上升，归于上帝；他自身不动，却使万物运动，⁷⁴并以无比美丽的魅力吸引万物归向自己。

巴西里得在世界种子中区分出三种子性 (sonship)，⁷⁵它们与非存在的上帝具有同一本质，但在层层远离他的等级中逐渐减弱；也可以说，是三类上帝的儿女，即属灵的、属魂的和属物质的。第一种子性立即从世界种子中挣脱出来，以思想般的闪电速度上升到上帝那里，留在那里成为有福的灵界，即普累罗麻 (Pleroma)。它包含七位最高的神灵，⁷⁶他们与伟大的父联合，构成第一个八元体 (ogdoad)，作为一切较低受造界圈层的原型。第二种子性产生圣灵，圣灵又像翅膀托起鸟儿一样将它托起；它借助圣灵，竭力追随第一种子性，⁷⁷却只能达到不可穿透的穹苍，⁷⁸也就是普累罗麻的边界；它无法承受更高的境域，正如鱼无法承受山上的空气。最后，第三种子性仍被固定在世界种子之中，需要洁净与救赎。

接着，巴西里得使两位执政者，即世界的统治者（造物主，demiurges），从世界种子中产生。第一位，即大执政者，其伟大、美丽和权能不可言喻，创造了以太世界，即所谓八元界 (ogdoad) 的上层天；第二位则是月亮以下较低的行星天，即七元界 (hebdomad) 的创造者和统治者。巴西里得设想，诸天或受造界的圈层共有三百六十五重，⁷⁹与一年中的日数相应，并以神秘的名称 Abrasax 或 Abraxas 称之；⁸⁰按希腊字母的数值计算，这个名称等于365。⁸¹这个名称也指统治三百六十五重天的大执政者。后来，它成为一种魔法咒语，与各式奇异的图像一同使用，形成所谓“阿布拉克萨斯宝石”(Abraxas gems)，其中许多至今尚存。

然而，两位执政者各自按照更高的安排生了一个儿子；儿子远远超越父亲，将从圣灵领受的、有关上层灵界和救赎计划的知识传给父亲，并引导他悔改。由此便开始了救赎的过程，也就是叹息中的上帝儿女，即属灵者，归回超越世界之上帝的过程。这借着基督教而实现，并以万物的终成，即复归 (apokatastasis)，为其终局。与瓦伦廷一样，巴西里得实际上也主张三重的基督——第一位执政者的儿子、第二位执政者的儿子和马利亚的儿子。但归根到底，这三者都是同一个原理，使属灵的本性从世界种子中归回原初的合一。基督的受难是必要的，为要除去他从原始的混杂与混乱（σύγχυσις ἀρχική^*）中带来的肉体和魂的成分。他的身体在死后归于无形（ἀμορφία^*）；他的魂从坟墓中上升，停留在它所属的七元界，即行星天；但他的灵则完全洁净，飞升到受造界一切圈层之上，进入有福的第一种子性（υἱότης^*），与非存在或超存在的上帝相交。

正如作为初熟果子的耶稣一样，所有其他属灵的人也必须经过洁净，上升到他们按本性所属之处，并住在那里。因为凡安居本位的，都是不朽的；凡越过自身天然界限的，都是必朽的。巴西里得引用保罗论受造之物叹息劳苦、等候上帝众子显明的经文（罗8:19）。在救赎的过程中，他赋予信心 (pistis) 的重要性，超过大多数诺斯替派；他对信心的定义，隐约取自《希伯来书》11:1。

在道德教导上，巴西里得谆谆提倡温和的禁欲主义，但他的学派很快便偏离了它。他使用保罗的某些书信和正典福音书；例如，他引用《约翰福音》1:9（“那照亮每一个人的真光，正来到世上”），把自己的世界种子观念，与约翰关于逻各斯是世界之光的教义等同起来。⁸²在第二世纪中叶以前，俄斐派 (Ophites)、佩拉泰派 (Perates) 和瓦伦廷派 (Valentinians) 也已广泛使用并注释第四福音书。诺斯替派一方面受到这卷福音书（尤其是序言）中神秘灵知的吸引，另一方面又受到其历史实在性的排斥，因而竭力加以利用。他们承认这卷书，因为他们不能不承认。巴西里得所依据的其他权威，主要是使徒马提亚的秘密传统，以及一位名叫格劳基亚斯、自称为彼得传译者之人的秘密传统。

他的儿子伊西多尔 (Isidore) 是其门徒中的首要人物，可以说也是唯一重要的人物。他撰写了一套伦理学体系及其他著作，亚历山大的革利免保存了其中少量摘录。巴西里得派，尤其在西方，似乎在理论上持二元论和幻影说，在实践上则放纵，甚至荒淫。他们败坏了创始人那高调而人为构造的体系，使之流于庸俗。在他们看来，基督的整个生平不过是一场骗局。被钉十字架的是古利奈人西门；耶稣在途中与他交换了形貌，自己则以西门的形貌隐立在对面，嘲笑那些钉他十字架的人，然后升天。他们认为，在逼迫时期否认基督教是审慎之举，把殉道者高贵的认信看作在猪面前付出高昂代价，并且施行各种魔法，阿布拉克萨斯宝石也为此派上用场。这个变质的巴西里得派在埃及一直延续到第四世纪末，但似乎并未传播到埃及以外；唯一的例外是，据苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpicius Severus) 记载，孟斐斯 (Memphis) 人马可 (Marcus) 曾把该派的某些教义带到西班牙。

§ 125. 瓦伦廷 (Valentinus)

I. 史料有：1）瓦伦廷残篇；托勒密 (Ptolomey) 的《致芙罗拉书》(Epistola ad Floram)；赫拉克利翁 (Heracleon) 的释经残篇。2）教父的记述与驳斥：爱任纽 (Irenaeus)（I. 1–21及其全书各处）；希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)（VI. 29–37）；德尔图良 (Tertullian)（《驳瓦伦廷派》，Adv. Valentinianos）；埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)（《驳异端》，Haer. XXXI；载厄勒尔 [Oehler] 版，I. 305–386）。后两位主要依据爱任纽。关于史料，参见利普修斯 (Lipsius) 和海因里奇 (Heinrici)（第5–148页）。

勒内·马絮埃 (Ren. Massuet)：《论异端者》(Dissert. de Haereticis)，第I篇《论瓦伦廷》(Art. I. De Valentino)，载其所编爱任纽著作版，亦载施蒂伦 (Stieren) 版，第II卷，第54–134页。极为博学而透彻。

乔治·海因里奇 (George Heinrici)：《瓦伦廷派的灵知与圣经》(Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift)。柏林，1871年（192页）。

比较尼安德 (Neander)（他的论述极佳，但缺少希波吕托斯所提供的补充资料）；罗塞尔 (Rossel)，《神学著作》(Theol. Schriften)（柏林，1847年），第280页及后；鲍尔 (Baur)，《教会史》(K. Gesch.)，I. 195–204；以及雅可比 (Jacobi)，载赫尔措格 (Herzog)²，第V卷，第225–229页。

瓦伦廷 (Valentinus，或 Valentine)⁸³ 创立了诺斯替派诸体系中最深奥、最繁富，同时也是影响最大、最为人知的体系。爱任纽的著作主要以此为攻击对象，我们对诺斯替主义的一般性描述也以此为基础。⁸⁴他建立了一个庞大的学派，并在西方传播其教义。他声称，这些教义得自圣保罗的门徒狄奥达斯 (Theodas，或 Theudas)。⁸⁵他又自称曾在异象中领受逻各斯的启示。希波吕托斯称他与其说是基督徒，不如说是柏拉图主义者和毕达哥拉斯主义者。他可能出身于埃及犹太人家庭，并在亚历山大受教育。⁸⁶德尔图良记载，他因未能当上主教、野心受挫而与正统教会决裂；这或许只是德尔图良自己的推测。⁸⁷瓦伦廷在许癸努斯 (Hyginus) 任罗马主教期间（137–142年）来到罗马，公开讲授，直到阿尼塞图斯 (Anicetus) 任罗马主教时（154年）仍留在那里。⁸⁸那时他已经颇负盛名；因为殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 在现已散佚的《驳一切异端汇编》(Syntagma against all Heresies) 中，已于公元140年以前，把瓦伦廷派列在他所驳斥的异端之中；游斯丁在其《第一护教辞》(First Apology，140年) 中提及了这部著作。当时罗马已成为教会的中心和各派的荟萃之地。凡希望对基督教世界施加普遍影响的教师，自然都会瞩目于这座都城。瓦伦廷是最早在罗马施教的诺斯替派人物之一，与刻尔多 (Cerdo) 和马吉安 (Marcion) 大致同时；然而，尽管他的才华和口才造成了相当大的影响，教会的正统信仰和主教权威已经根深蒂固，不容他的奇说取得多大成功。他被逐出教会，遂前往塞浦路斯 (Cyprus)，约于公元160年死在那里。

他的体系是一部构思精巧、讲述神与宇宙起源的史诗。它以三幕描述创造、堕落和救赎，先在天上，继在地上。重大事件在不同的存在层次中反复上演。他的材料取自自己丰富的想象、东方和希腊的思辨，以及基督教的观念。他大量使用《约翰福音》的序言以及《歌罗西书》和《以弗所书》；但他凭借恣意的释经，把自己的泛神论和神话幻想，塞入逻各斯 (Logos)、独生者 (Only Begotten)、真理 (Truth)、生命 (Life)、普累罗麻 (Pleroma)、教会 (Ecclesia) 等使徒用语之中。

瓦伦廷以永恒的原初存在者为出发点，意味深长地称之为比托斯 (Bythos)，即深渊。⁸⁹这是思想沉潜其中便会迷失的无底深处，是思想无法逾越的最终界限。比托斯非受生、无限、不可见、不可理解、无名，是绝对的不可知者 (agnoston)；但它又能演化和发展，是一切存在者的共同之父。他在不可计量的漫长岁月中，静默地观照自己无穷的伟大、荣耀与美丽。这“静默”或“独处”（ἡ σιγή^*）就是他的配偶，即 σύζυγος^*。这是无限者静默的自我观照、沉睡的意识。他又称之为“思想”（ἔννοια^*）和“恩典”（χαρίς^*）。⁹⁰因此，至少按该学派某些成员的看法，世界以前的比托斯既包含男性原理，也包含女性原理；因为单凭男性原理，不能产生任何事物。据希波吕托斯说，瓦伦廷从爱的本质推导出这种两性二重性，并说：“上帝全然是爱；但爱若没有所爱的对象，就不成其为爱。”⁹¹他在这里力图把握世界以前的奥秘；正统神学则试图以神圣本质中内在而永恒的三位一体教义来解释这一奥秘：上帝是爱，所以上帝是三位一体的，即施爱的主体、被爱的对象，以及二者的联合。“Ubi amor, ibi trinitas.”（哪里有爱，哪里就有三位一体。）

在这永恒的静默之后，上帝进入演化或流溢的过程，即一系列彼此对立而又互补的观念或原理的相继生成。按照两性极性的法则，三十个爱安 (aeons) 以十五对的形式从深渊流溢而出，⁹²分为三代：第一代称为八元体 (ogdoad)，第二代称为十元体 (decad)，第三代称为十二元体 (dodecad)。爱安是神性展开的能力与属性，相当于巴西里得体系中的诸能力 (dynameis)。上帝首先生出男性的、具有生殖力的心智或理性（ὁ^* νοῦς^*），⁹³以及女性的、具有接受性的真理（ἡ ἀλήθεια^*）；二者生出道（ὁ λόγος^*）和生命（ἡ ζωή^*），后二者又生出（理想的）人（ὁ ἄνθρωπος^*）和（理想的）教会（ἡ^* ἐκκλησία^*）。这里第四福音书的影响显而易见，当然，约翰的术语在此所用的意义，与作者本人的意义不同。最初的两对配偶构成神圣的四元体 (Tetraktys)，即万物之根。⁹⁴努斯 (Nous) 与阿勒忒娅 (Aletheia) 生出十个爱安（五对）；逻各斯 (Logos) 与佐厄 (Zoë) 生出十二个爱安（六对）。最后，努斯，又称独生者 (Monogenes)，与阿勒忒娅生出天上的基督（ὁ ἄνω Χριστός^*）和（女性的）圣灵（τὸ^* πνεῦμα^* ἅγιον^*），由此凑足三十之数。这些爱安共同构成普累罗麻 (Pleroma)，即神圣能力的丰满；圣保罗曾将这一用语应用于历史中的基督（西2:9）。它们在本质上都分享深渊的生命；但它们的形式受制于霍罗斯 (Horos；ὅρος^*)，即上帝的限定能力。这位界限之灵立在普累罗麻与外面的许斯忒瑞玛 (Hysterema) 之间，是宇宙的组织力量，并维系其和谐。⁹⁵任何存在者若胆敢越过既定的界限，穿透启示，探入上帝隐秘的本体，就有沉沦于虚无的危险。霍罗斯被赋予两种作用：消极的作用，是限定每一存在者，并将异质的成分从中分离；积极的作用，则是使其成形并得以确立。⁹⁶前一种作用特别称为霍罗斯，后一种则称为斯陶罗斯 (Stauros，十字架、柱)，因为他坚定不移地站立，作众爱安的守卫，使许斯忒瑞玛中的任何事物，都不能接近普累罗麻中的众爱安。

堕落与救赎的过程首先发生在普累罗麻的理念世界中，随后又在下界重演。在这一过程中，低等的智慧，即索菲娅 (Sophia)，又称阿卡摩特 (Achamoth) 或查克穆特 (Chakmuth)，扮演着重要角色。⁹⁷她是世界灵魂，是一位女性爱安，是爱安序列中最软弱、离源头最远的一员（按数目为第二十八位）；可以说，她构成了横跨上帝与现实世界之间深渊的桥梁。她感到自己孤独，与伟大的父疏远，便想不顾居间的各个环节，直接与那位宇宙的本原、唯一具有自生能力者联合。她仿佛纵身一跃，跳入永恒之父的深处，单凭自己生出一个流产之物（ἔκτρωμα^*），即无形而未成的实体；⁹⁸摩西说“地是空虚混沌”，所指的就是它。她以这一有罪的激情，把混乱与骚动带进普累罗麻。⁹⁹她在普累罗麻之外漂泊，因自己所生的流产之物而受恐惧、焦虑与绝望之苦。这就是堕落，是既自由又必然的行动。

然而，索菲娅渴望救赎；众爱安同情她的痛苦和愿望；永恒之父亲自命令发出最后一对爱安，即基督与圣灵，“为要恢复形相，毁灭流产之物，并安慰索菲娅，使她的呻吟止息”。他们安慰并振作索菲娅，使那流产之物与普累罗麻分离。最后，三十位爱安共同发出一位爱安，以尊荣父；这位爱安就是救主索特尔 (Soter)，或耶稣，是“伟大的大祭司”、“普累罗麻共同的果实”；他们“差他到普累罗麻之外，作外面的索菲娅的配偶，并消除她寻求基督时所遭受的痛苦”。索菲娅历尽苦难之后，一切激情都得了洁净，作为耶稣的新妇，与一切属灵的本性一同被带回理念世界。德穆革 (Demiurge)，即犹太人那位如烈火而忌邪的上帝，作为“新郎的朋友”，¹⁰⁰与那些属魂的基督徒一同留在普累罗麻的边界，遥遥分享这筵席的喜乐，而物质则重新沉入虚无。

在瓦伦廷的基督论中，我们必须适当地分辨三位施行救赎的存在者：（1）ἄνω Χριστός^*，即天上的基督；他在索菲娅堕落之后，从爱安 μονογενής^* 流溢而出，并与女性原理，即 πνεῦμα^* ἅγιον^* 联合。他首先向众爱安宣告救赎的计划，于是他们分为应答的诗班，唱起赞美和感恩的颂歌。（2）σωτήρ^* 或 Ἰησοῦς^*，由全体爱安共同产生，是普累罗麻的明星。他与蒙救赎的索菲娅结成最后而又最高的一对配偶。（3）κάτω Χριστός^*，即属魂的或犹太人的弥赛亚；他受德穆革差遣，穿过马利亚的身体，如水流过管子，最后被犹太人钉在十字架上；但因他只有一个幻影般的身体，所以并未真正受苦。真正的救赎者索特尔在约旦河受洗时与他联合，为要在地上用一年的时间宣告他神圣的灵知，并引导属灵的人达到完全。

附注

鲍尔 (Baur) 博士既是古代诺斯替主义伟大的批判史家，又是现代诺斯替主义的主导人物；他巧妙地用黑格尔的术语重述了瓦伦廷的体系。我从他的《教会史》(Kirchengeschichte) 第I卷，第201页及后，摘引其中的主要部分，作为他历史论述方式的一个恰当样本（参看他的《诺斯替主义》〔Gnosis〕，第124页及后）：

“精神，或作为自在精神的上帝，从自身走出；在上帝的这一自我启示中，世界产生了。世界虽与上帝有别，就其自身而言却又与上帝为一。然而，无论我们如何看待上帝与世界之间这种内在关系，把它看作上帝的自我启示，还是世界的发展，它本身都是纯粹精神性的过程，其根据在于精神的本质。精神在它使之从自身产生的众爱安中，将自己的本质呈现于自身之外，并使之与自身相对；然而，由于精神的本质本身就是思想与知识，其自我启示的过程便只能在于：精神意识到它自在地是什么。普累罗麻的众爱安，是精神存在与生命的最高概念，是普遍的思想形式；精神在这些形式中，以确定而具体的方式，把它自在所是的呈现于意识。可是，精神对于自身的认识，即那将自身与自身相区别的精神的自我意识，不仅已经确立了分化的原理，而且，由于上帝与世界本来为一，也确立了精神物质化的原理。那些作为精神意识之中介的概念，距离绝对原理越远，精神意识就越昏暗；精神使自身外化，不再对自身清楚透明；属灵者下降为属魂者，属魂者凝结为物质者，而物质者达到极端时，又与鬼魔和魔鬼的概念相联。然而，由于属魂者本身也具有属灵的本性，而且精神生命的种子仍到处留存，属灵者就必然要在属魂生命的阶段，重新冲破精神意识所受的物质蒙蔽，除去那在德穆革的世界中遮盖精神意识的帕子。整个世界的发展，是同一精神过程的连续展开；因此，必然也有一个转折点，精神在此从自我外化中回归自身，重新清楚意识到它自在地是什么。这就是诺斯替派关于基督教启示的概念。在诺斯替派意义上的知者，即属灵者，因其本身也具有真正的基督徒意识，便成为普遍精神生命的一个新环节，是上帝自我启示与世界发展的最高阶段。世界进程的这一时期始于基督的显现，最终则以基督和索菲娅使一切属灵者重新被接纳进入普累罗麻为终结。基督不仅在世界发展的每一阶段，而且早在爱安世界的最高领域中——一切都以那里为出发点，并从起初便以整体的这一结果为目的——就已作为恢复万有、使之保持与绝对者合一的原理而活动；因此，在诺斯替派的世界观中，他完全具有一种绝对的世界原理的意义。”

§ 126. 瓦伦廷学派：赫拉克利翁、托勒密、马科斯、巴尔德萨尼、哈摩尼乌斯

在诺斯替主义的一切形式中，瓦伦廷的体系最为流行，也最有影响，尤其在罗马。他有大批追随者，以不同方式修改他的体系。德尔图良说，他的异端“变幻出种种形态，犹如一个惯于每天更换、调整服饰的妓女”。

瓦伦廷学派主要分为东方派¹⁰¹和意大利派两支。希波吕托斯将一位除此以外不为人知的阿克西奥尼科斯 (Axionicos)，以及阿尔德西亚尼 (Ardesianes，Ἀρδησιάνης^*，很可能就是巴尔德萨尼)，列入前一派。这一派认为，耶稣的身体是属灵的、属天的，因为圣灵，即索菲娅和至高者的造物能力，临到了马利亚。意大利派包括赫拉克利翁 (Heracleon) 和托勒密 (Ptolemy)，他们教导说，耶稣的身体是属魂的，因此圣灵才在他受洗时降在他身上。有些瓦伦廷派信徒比他们的老师更接近正统观点。

赫拉克利翁曾亲受瓦伦廷教导，很可能于170至180年间活跃在意大利某地。作为已知最早的《约翰福音》注释者，他具有特殊的重要性。奥利金 (Origen) 在注释同一卷书时，为我们保存了他的约五十段残篇，通常是为了加以驳斥。这些残篇主要取自第一、第二、第四和第八章。¹⁰²赫拉克利翁充分承认第四福音书的正典权威，却把自己的体系读进其中。他采用与奥利金相同的寓意解经法，后者甚至指责他过于拘泥字面，没有深入属灵的意义。他在《约翰福音》中找到了瓦伦廷派所喜爱的逻各斯、生命、光、爱以及与黑暗争战等观念，又在所有数字中找出奥秘，却剥夺了那些事实的历史真实性。第四章中的撒马利亚妇人代表索菲娅的救赎；雅各井里的水就是犹太教；她的丈夫是她在普累罗麻中的属灵新郎；她从前的丈夫就是许勒 (Hyle)，即魔鬼的国。迦百农的大臣（约4:47）就是德穆革；他并无敌意，只是目光短浅、无知，却愿为自己的臣民恳求救主帮助；大臣的儿子代表属魂者，他们的无知一旦消除，就会得医治、蒙救赎。《约翰福音》受到瓦伦廷派与正统信徒同样的尊崇，这一事实有力地支持了它早在两派分离之前便已存在，并且出于使徒的观点。¹⁰³

托勒密是《致弗洛拉书》(Epistle to Flora) 的作者；弗洛拉 (Flora) 是一位富有的基督徒妇女，他试图使她转而信奉瓦伦廷的体系。¹⁰⁴他主要论述这样一种异议：世界的创造与旧约不可能出自至高的上帝。他诉诸使徒传统和基督的话；唯独基督认识万有之父，并且最先将他显明出来（约1:18）。唯有上帝是良善的（太19:17），因此，他不可能是一个充满如此多邪恶的世界的创造者。爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的许多资料，都得自与他同时代的托勒密追随者。

瓦伦廷的另一位门徒马科斯 (Marcos)，也在第二世纪后半叶施教，很可能是在小亚细亚，或许也曾在高卢。他把毕达哥拉斯派与卡巴拉 (Cabbalistic) 的数字象征主义，同他老师的观念混合起来，引入了繁复的礼仪，并企图用魔法吸引美貌而富有的妇女。他的追随者被称为马科斯派 (Marcosians)。¹⁰⁵

经常与马科斯并提的科拉尔巴苏斯 (Colarbasus) 这个名字，必须从诺斯替派人物名单中删除；因为这个名字源于把希伯来语的 Kol-Arba，即“四者之声”——也就是居于普累罗麻之首的神圣四元体——误作一个人。¹⁰⁶

最后，巴尔德撒尼斯 (Bardesanes)，又名巴尔代桑 (Bardaisan，意为戴桑之子，Βαρδησάνης^*)，也被列入瓦伦廷学派。¹⁰⁷他是一位杰出的叙利亚学者和诗人，生活于第二世纪末至第三世纪初，供职于埃德萨 (Edessa) 君主的宫廷。¹⁰⁸但除非取极宽泛的意义，否则很难把他算作诺斯替派。照埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius) 的说法，他起初信奉正统，后来因接触瓦伦廷派而受到败坏。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 却相反，说他起初是异端，后来归于正统。他还记载，巴尔德撒尼斯曾用叙利亚语著书，反对马吉安 (Marcion) 的异端。他很可能接受了基督徒共同的信仰，只作了若干修改，并在思辨性的教义上采取自由的立场；这些教义在当时的叙利亚教会尚未得到明确阐发。¹⁰⁹他的众多著作均已散佚，唯有《论命运的对话》(Dialogue on Fate) 留存，最近已全文出版。¹¹⁰不过，此书的年代未定，也不见归在他名下的诺斯替神话和二元论的痕迹。他或他的儿子哈摩尼乌斯 (Harmonius)（记载不一）是叙利亚圣诗之父，曾仿照《诗篇》编成一部一百五十首的诗集，用于节期，直到被叙利亚的圣以法莲 (St. Ephraem the Syrian) 所作的正统圣诗取代；后者仍沿用相同的格律和曲调。¹¹¹他享有极高的声誉，据说他的教派曾传至幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 南部，甚至传到中国。

他的儿子、埃德萨的哈摩尼乌斯，追随他的脚踪。据说他曾在雅典研习哲学。如前所述，他与巴尔德撒尼斯同享叙利亚圣诗之父的荣誉。

§ 127. 马吉安及其学派

I. 殉道者游斯丁 (Justin M.)：《护教辞》(Apol.)，I，第26、58章。他还曾专门著书反驳马吉安，现已散佚。爱任纽 (Irenaeus)：I. 28；IV. 33及后，以及其他数处。他也曾打算专门撰写一篇反驳马吉安的论著（III. 12）。德尔图良 (Tertullian)：《驳马吉安五卷》(Adv. Marcionem Libri V)。希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)：《哲学论》(Philos.)，VII. 29（邓克尔与施奈德温 (Duncker and Schneidewin) 编，第382–394页）。埃皮法尼乌斯：《驳异端》(Haer.)，XLII。菲拉斯特 (Philaster.)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，XLV。埃斯尼格 (Esnig) 的《摧毁异端》中的亚美尼亚语记述（第5世纪），由诺伊曼 (Neumann) 翻译，刊于《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für histor. Theologie)，莱比锡 (Leipzig)，第IV卷，1834年。埃斯尼格笔下的马吉安主义，比早期教父所描写的更具神秘和思辨色彩，但他所述的内容，没有什么是不能与早期教父的记述协调一致的。

尼安德 (Neander)（他的叙述过于宽厚）；鲍尔 (Baur)（I. 213–217）；默勒 (Möller)（《宇宙论史》Gesch. der Kosmologie，374–407）；费斯勒 (Fessler.)（载韦策尔与韦尔特 (Wetzer and Welte)，VI. 816–821）；雅科比 (Jacobi)（载赫尔措格 (Herzog)，V. 231–236）；萨蒙 (Salmon)（载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，III. 816–824）。Ad. 希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld)：《刻尔多与马吉安》(Cerdon und Marcion)，载其《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol.)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1881年，第1–37页。
关于马吉安正典的考证问题，以及他删损的《路加福音》与真正的《路加福音》之间的关系，参见论正典的著作、各部考证性导论，尤其是福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)：《马吉安的福音书：文本与考证》(Das Evangelium Marcions, Text und Kritik)（莱比锡，1852年），以及桑迪 (Sanday)：《第二世纪的福音书》(The Gospels in the Second Century)（伦敦，1876年）。后两部著作已确凿证明，正典《路加福音》在先，驳倒了鲍尔、里奇尔 (Ritschl) 以及《超自然宗教》(Supernat. Rel.) 作者先前的观点。比较第I卷，第668页。

马吉安是诺斯替派中最认真、最注重实践、也最危险的人物，充满改革的活力和热忱，却又躁动不安、粗暴而乖僻。他与近代圣经批判及正典问题有一种遥远的联系。他先于理性主义者反对旧约及教牧书信，却采取了极其武断而肆无忌惮的方式。他只能看见圣经表面的差异，却看不见其更深的和谐。他拒斥其他诺斯替派的异教神话，坚持基督教是唯一的真宗教；他的思辨色彩较淡，并且赋予信心更高的地位。但他全然缺乏历史意识，使基督教与上帝此前的一切启示处于根本冲突之中；仿佛上帝几千年来都不顾世界，直到忽然在基督里显现。他代表了一种极端反犹太、伪保罗主义的倾向，以及一种魔法式的

超自然主义；这种超自然主义出于对纯正原始基督教的狂热，抹煞一切历史，把福音变成一种突兀、不自然、如幻影般的显现。

马吉安是本都 (Pontus) 的锡诺佩 (Sinope) 一位主教的儿子，最初热忱洋溢时，曾将自己的财产捐给教会，但后来被自己的父亲逐出教会，可能是由于他的异端见解和对权威的蔑视。¹¹²约在第二世纪中叶（140–155年），他前往罗马；那里虽未产生任何诺斯替体系，却吸引了所有这些体系的代表。他在那里加入叙利亚诺斯替派刻尔多 (Cerdo) 的行列，后者为他的实践性二元论提供了一些思辨基础。他通过旅行传播自己的教义，从不同民族中招收了许多门徒。据说，他最后曾打算请求恢复与大公教会的共融，却未及实现便去世了。¹¹³他去世的时间和地点均不详。他编订了《路加福音》和保罗书信，并写了一部论新旧约矛盾的著作。殉道者游斯丁认为他是当时最可怕的异端。爱任纽的一则记载，表达了大公教会信徒对他的憎恶：士每拿 (Smyrna) 的坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 在罗马遇见马吉安，后者问他：“你认识我吗？”他回答：“我认识撒但的长子。”¹¹⁴

马吉安假定有两种或三种原始力量（ἀρχαί^*）：良善或施恩的上帝（θεὸς ἀγαθός^*），基督最先将他显明出来；由魔鬼统治的邪恶物质（ὕλη^*），异教属于这一领域；以及公义的造世者（δημιουργὸς δίκαιος^*），即犹太人那有限、不完全而易怒的耶和华。有些作者把他的本原归为两个；但他并没有把德穆革 (demiurge) 与许勒 (hyle) 视为同一。他没有对这些本原再作进一步的思辨分析；他拒斥异教的流溢说、秘密传统以及诺斯替派的寓意解经法；在他的体系中，没有普累罗麻 (Pleroma)，没有伊昂 (Aeons)，没有能力者 (Dynameis)，没有配偶对 (Syzygies)，也没有受苦的索菲娅 (Sophia)；他排除了渐进的发展和成长；一切都毫无预备，突然且突兀。

他的体系与其说是神秘主义和哲学性的，不如说是批判性和理性主义的。¹¹⁵他主要热衷于在实践中一贯贯彻他在福音与律法、基督教与犹太教、良善与公义之间所确立的不可调和的二元对立。¹¹⁶他在一部题为《对立论》(Antitheses) 的专著中，详尽阐发了这种对照。旧约的上帝如同他的律法一样，严酷、苛厉而不怜悯；他吩咐说：“爱你的邻舍，恨你的仇敌”，并且以“以眼还眼，以牙还牙”为报；新约的上帝却吩咐说：“爱你的仇敌。”前者只是公义的，后者则是良善的。马吉安拒绝旧约的全部书卷，并把基督在《马太福音》5:17的话扭曲为完全相反的宣告：“我来不是要成全律法和先知，乃是要废掉。”在他看来，基督教与过去毫无联系，无论是犹太世界还是异教世界的过去，而仿佛是突然以魔法般的方式从天而降。¹¹⁷基督也根本没有降生，而是在提比略 (Tiberius) 在位第十五年，忽然降到迦百农城，显现为差遣他的良善上帝的启示者。他与德穆革在旧约中所预告的弥赛亚毫无联系，尽管他出于迁就而自称弥赛亚。他的身体只是表象，他的死只是幻象，虽然二者具有真实的意义。¹¹⁸他把德穆革投入阴间，成就了灵魂（而非身体）的救赎，并呼召使徒保罗传扬此事。其他使徒则是使纯正基督教败坏的犹太化者，他们的著作应与大公教会的传统一并摒弃。他过分夸大保罗与其他使徒之间的差异，在这一点上，他是图宾根批判学派 (Tübingen school of critics) 一个粗陋的先驱。

马吉安自定了一套正典，仅由十一卷书组成，即一部删节而残缺的《路加福音》，以及保罗的十封书信。他把《加拉太书》列在首位，并称《以弗所书》为《致老底嘉人书》。他拒绝那些谴责诺斯替主义先驱的教牧书信，也拒绝《希伯来书》《马太福音》《马可福音》《约翰福音》《使徒行传》、大公书信和《启示录》。

尽管马吉安激烈地反对律法，他却教导并实行最严厉的禁欲自律，不仅厌弃异教的一切庆典，甚至也厌弃婚姻、肉食和酒。（他允许吃鱼。）他在自然界中，与在历史中一样，找不到真神。他只准许已婚者在起誓禁绝一切性关系后接受洗礼。¹¹⁹他对世界和教会抱着极其阴郁、悲观的看法，称一位门徒为“他患难中的伙伴，同受仇恨的受苦者”。

在敬拜中，他取消了圣餐中的酒，却保留了圣餐的饼、水洗、膏油，以及给新受洗者的乳蜜混合物。¹²⁰埃皮法尼乌斯记载，他准许妇女施洗。马吉安派有时实行代死人受洗。¹²¹教会不承认他们的洗礼。

马吉安派传布于意大利、埃及、北非、塞浦路斯 (Cyprus) 和叙利亚；但又分裂成许多支派。各国反对者人数之多，证明其传播之广。

最值得注意的马吉安派人物，是普雷波 (Prepo)、卢卡努斯 (Lucanus，一位亚述人) 和阿佩勒斯 (Apelles)。他们用其他诺斯替派的思辨，弥补老师体系的缺陷，有时也缓和了这一体系对异教和犹太教的敌意。阿佩勒斯只承认一个第一本原。奥利金 (Origen) 的朋友安布罗修斯 (Ambrosius)，归信前曾是马吉安派。这些异端因其严厉的道德规范和众多的殉道者，而成为教会的危险。他们禁绝婚姻、肉食和酒，也不像某些其他诺斯替派那样逃避逼迫。

君士坦丁 (Constantine) 禁止马吉安派公开及私下敬拜的自由，并下令将他们的聚会所交给大公教会。¹²²《狄奥多西法典》(Theodosian code) 只提到他们一次。但他们在第五世纪仍然存在，当时狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 夸称自己使这些异端中一千多人归信；692年的特鲁洛会议 (Trullan Council) 也认为，值得为马吉安派重归教会作出规定。直到第十世纪，仍可发现他们的残余。¹²³他们的某些原则，在逃往保加利亚 (Bulgaria) 的保罗派 (Paulicians) 和西方的卡塔尔派 (Cathari) 中重新出现。

§ 128. 俄斐派、塞特派、佩拉特派、该隐派

I. 希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)：《哲学论》(Philosoph.)，第V卷，第1–23章。他对异端的叙述，以拿哈斯派 (Naasseni)，即俄斐派 (Ophites)，以及佩拉特派 (Peratae) 开始（前四卷专论异教哲学体系）。爱任纽：《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，I. 30（施蒂伦 (Stieren) 编，I. 266及后）。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphan.)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，37（厄勒 (Oehler) 编，I. 495及后）。

莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)：《蛇兄弟会史》(Geschichte der Schlangenbrüder)。黑尔姆施泰特 (Helmstädt)，1746、1748年。

E. W. 默勒 (E. W. Möller)：《宇宙论史》(Geschichte der Kosmologie)。哈勒 (Halle)，1860年。“俄斐派的诺斯替主义”(Die ophitische Gnosis)，第190页及后。

巴克斯曼 (Baxmann)：《〈哲学论〉与佩拉特派》(Die Philosophumena und die Peraten)，载尼德纳 (Niedner) 的《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theol.)，1860年。利普修斯 (Lipsius)：《论俄斐派体系》(Ueber das ophitische System)，载《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie)，1863、1864年。

雅科比，载赫尔措格，新版，第V卷，第240页及下页。

乔治·萨蒙 (George Salmon)：“该隐派”("Cainites")，载史密斯与韦斯，第I卷，第380–382页。“俄斐派”("Ophites") 和“佩拉特派”("Peratae") 两篇条目，很可能刊于尚未出版的第IV卷。

俄斐派 (Ophites)¹²⁴，或按希伯来语称拿阿森派 (Naasenes)¹²⁵，即蛇弟兄会或拜蛇者，其起源不明；莫斯海姆 (Mosheim) 等人将其起源置于基督以前。无论如何，他们的体系带有纯粹异教的印记。利普修斯 (Lipsius) 已指出他们与叙利亚—迦勒底神话的联系。这个教派迟至六世纪仍然存在；因为查士丁尼 (Justinian) 在530年还颁布了针对它的法律。

诚然，有关他们拜蛇的记载所依据的材料并不可靠；但他们的名称本身，源于他们赋予蛇以特殊的意义，视之为灵知的表象，并将它与堕落的历史（《创世记》3:1）、摩西的神奇手杖（《出埃及记》4:2、3），以及旷野中铜蛇的医治能力（《民数记》21:9；比较《约翰福音》3:14）联系起来。他们在护身符上使用蛇的形象。

这种神秘而令人敬畏的爬行动物，看起来仿佛是雷霆的化身，又像一个堕落的天使，蜿蜒匍匐于尘土之中；在圣经里，它代表邪灵，它的格言 Eritis sicut Deus（你们便如上帝），是那说谎之父的第一个谎言，招致了人类的毁灭；但在虚假的宗教中，它却是神圣智慧的象征和崇拜的对象，而 Eritis sicus dii（你们便如诸神）则被视为开辟进步道路的伟大真理。蛇非但不是人类的诱惑者，反倒因教导人分辨善恶，成了人类最早的教师和文明的启蒙者。因此，俄斐派把亚当的堕落看作从无意识的奴役状态，转入有意识的判断与自由状态；所以，这是通向善的必经入口，也是人类精神的一次高贵进步。他们把蛇等同于逻各斯 (Logos)，即父与物质之间的中保，将上界的能力带到下界，又引领下界返回上界。蛇代表发展与救赎的整个曲折过程。¹²⁶摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans) 也把蛇视为基督的直接形象。¹²⁷

与这种观点相联系的，是他们对旧约的激烈反对。他们把犹太人的上帝和世界的创造者称为雅达巴俄特 (Jaldabaoth)¹²⁸，并将他描绘为一个恶毒、仇视人类的存在。在其他方面，他们的教义与瓦伦廷派 (Valentinian) 的体系极为相似，只是泛神论的色彩更浓，更不合基督教，也更不道德，而其发展则远不及后者完备。

俄斐派又分出若干支派，主要有三个。

塞特派 (Sethites) 认为亚当的第三个儿子是第一个属灵的人，也是基督的先驱。他们主张有三种本原：黑暗在下，光明在上，灵居其间。

希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 将佩拉特派 (Peratae 或 Peratics)¹²⁹（超越派）描述为采用寓意解释的占星家，以及神秘的三神论者；他们教导有三位神、三个逻各斯、三个心智、三个人。基督具有三重本性、三重身体和三重能力。他从上面降下，使一切分为三重的事物都能得救。¹³⁰

该隐派 (Cainites) 以自己出自弑弟者该隐的后裔为夸耀，并以他为领袖。¹³¹他们认为犹太人的上帝和世界的创造者是一个彻底邪恶的存在，抵挡他就是美德。因此，他们将救恩的历史颠倒过来，把旧约和新约中从该隐到犹大的一切恶名昭彰的人物，尊为属灵的人和为真理殉道的人。在众使徒中，唯有加略人犹大掌握真知识的奥秘；他出于善意，出卖了那属魂的弥赛亚，为要摧毁犹太人那邪恶之神的国度。俄利根 (Origen) 提到俄斐派的一个支派，他们像异教徒塞尔苏斯 (Celsus) 一样极端仇视耶稣；凡未先咒诅耶稣之名的人，他们一概不准加入他们的团体。但多数人似乎承认耶稣的良善，也承认犹大深谋远虑的智慧促成耶稣被钉十字架，带来了益处。他们中间流传着一部名为《犹大福音》的书。

如此亵渎地歪曲圣经历史，又如此偏爱蛇及其后裔，竟与最放纵不羁、化罪恶为美德的反律法主义相联系，也就不足为奇了。他们认为，遍尝一切罪恶，甚至包括不可名状的恶行，乃是“完全的知识”所不可缺少的一部分。

有人把俄斐派等同于《犹大书》所谴责的那些假教师，即污秽的作梦者，他们“玷污身体，轻慢主治的，毁谤在尊位的”，又“走了该隐的道路，为利往巴兰的错谬里直奔，并在可拉的顶撞中灭亡了”，如同“流荡的星，有墨黑的幽暗为他们永远存留”。两者的相似确实十分显著，那些异端分子可能就是二世纪俄斐派的先驱。

§ 129. 萨图尔尼努斯 (Saturninus，又名 Satornilos)

爱任纽 (Iren.)，I. 24，§ 1、2；第28章。希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)，VII. 3、28（依据爱任纽）。德尔图良 (Tert.)：《论异端的抗辩》(Praesc. Haer.)，46。赫格西普 (Hegesippus)，见优西比乌 (Euseb.)，IV. 22、29。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiph.)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，XXIII。狄奥多勒 (Theod.)：《异端故事》(Fab. Haer.)，I. 3。比较默勒 (Möller)，前引书 (l c.)，第367–373页。

哈德良 (Hadrian) 在位时，与巴西利德 (Basilides) 同时代的，还有安提阿 (Antioch) 的萨图尔尼努斯，又名 Satornilos90¹³²。他与巴西利德一样，也是米南德 (Menander) 的学生。他的体系以大胆主张上帝与撒但这两个宇宙对极之间的二元论，以及严厉的禁欲主义而著称。¹³³上帝是不可测度的深渊，是绝对不可知的（θεὸς ἄγνωστος^*）。光明的灵界从他逐级流出，其中有天使、天使长、权能和主治者。最低的一层是七个行星之灵（ἄγγελοι κοσμοκράτορες^*），以造物主 (Demiurge)，即犹太人的上帝为首。撒但是质料 (hyle) 的统治者，永远与光明之国对立。七个行星之灵侵入撒但的领域，用一部分质料造出物质世界和人；至高的上帝则将一点光明的火花（σπινθήρ^*）注入人里面。撒但与之对抗，创造了一族属物质的人，并用他的鬼魔和假先知不断追逼属灵的人类。犹太人的上帝及其先知无力战胜他。最后，良善的上帝差遣以幻影之身出现的永世者努斯 (Nous)，作为救主 (Soter) 来到世上；他教导属灵的人，借着灵知，并严格禁戒婚姻和肉食，使自己摆脱撒但的侵扰，也摆脱犹太人的上帝及其星辰之灵的统治，升入光明之国。

§ 130. 卡尔波克拉底 (Carpocrates)

爱任纽 (Iren.)，I. 25（24）。希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)，VII. 32（D. & Schn.，第398页及后）。亚历山大的革利免 (Clem. Alex.)：《杂学》(Strom.)，III. 511。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epihianius)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，XXV。

卡尔波克拉底也生活于哈德良在位时期，可能住在亚历山大，并创立了一个以自己名字命名的诺斯替派别。这个教派把基督与异教哲学家置于同等地位，以超越一切通俗宗教自夸，却陷入了放纵无度的败德生活。他们认为，世界是由远低于那位非受生之父的天使创造的。耶稣是约瑟的儿子，与其他人并无不同，只是他的灵魂坚定而纯洁，而且他完全记得自己在那非受生的上帝之领域中所见的一切。因此，有一种能力从父降在他身上，使他能借此逃脱世界的创造者。他穿越了他们所有的领域，在各方面始终保持自由，然后重新升到父那里。我们若同样藐视世界的创造者，也能上升到与耶稣平等的地位。

据爱任纽和希波吕托斯说，卡尔波克拉底派还行巫术、念咒语、使用催情药，并求助于交鬼的灵、托梦的鬼魔及其他可憎之物，声称自己拥有支配这世界的掌权者和创造者的能力。但他们生活淫荡，滥用基督的名来掩盖自己的邪恶。他们是已知最早使用基督画像的教派，并称这些画像源自一幅据称出于本丢·彼拉多 (Pontius Pilate) 的原像。¹³⁴

卡尔波克拉底的儿子埃皮法尼斯 (Epiphanes)，十七岁便去世，是“一元论”诺斯替主义的创始人。这种学说与二元论相反，似乎否认恶的独立存在，把恶归结为人为法律的虚构。他写过一部论“正义”的书，并将正义定义为平等。他教导说，上帝将恩惠平等地赐给所有人，供众人共享，由此推导出财产公有，甚至妇女共有。他死后，信徒在凯法利尼亚 (Cephalonia) 的萨梅 (Same) 以他为神，用献祭、奠酒、宴饮和唱颂歌来敬拜他。这里所见的，是天才崇拜与肉体解放的结合，这种现象在近代又复兴了。不过，记述此事的亚历山大的革利免，也并非不可能犯下与殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 在术士西门 (Simon Magus) 一事上类似的错误，把当地一个名为 τὰ Ἐπιφάνεια^* 或 ὁ Ἐπιφανής^* 的异教月神节，误认为纪念埃皮法尼斯的节日。¹³⁵

§ 131. 塔提安与禁欲派

I. 塔提安 (Tatian)：《致希腊人》Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*（Oratio adversus Graecos），S. 沃思 (S. Worth) 编，牛津 (Oxon.)，1700年（优秀的版本）；又收入奥托 (Otto) 的《护教士文集》(Corpus. Apol.)，第VI卷，耶拿 (Jenae)，1851年；以及米涅 (Migne) 的《希腊教父集》(Patrologia Graeca)，第VI卷，第803–888栏。普拉滕与多兹 (Pratten & Dods) 的英译本，收入《尼西亚前教父丛书》(“Ante-Nicene Library”)，第III卷（爱丁堡，1867年）。在威尼斯的亚美尼亚修道院中，发现了圣以法莲 (St. Ephraem) 对塔提安《四福音合参》(Diatessaron，Τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων^*) 的一部亚美尼亚译文注释；奥赫尔 (Aucher) 于1841年将其译成拉丁文，后由萨尔茨堡圣经学教授默辛格 (Mösinger) 编辑，以《叙利亚教会圣师圣以法莲所作福音合参释义》(Evangelii Concordantis Expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo Doctore Syro.) 为题出版，威尼斯 (Venet.)，1876年。《四福音合参》本身的阿拉伯译本于1886年被发现，由 P. 奥古斯特·恰斯卡 (P. Aug. Ciasca) 出版：《塔提安福音合参》(Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae)，阿拉伯文版 (Arabice)，罗马 (Rom.)，1888年。另有 Ed. 施瓦茨 (Ed. Schwartz) 编的《致希腊人》(Oratio ad Gr.) 新版，校勘更为精审，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1888年（105页）。

正统派关于塔提安的记载：爱任纽 (Iren.)，I. 28，1；III. 23，8及后（斯蒂伦版，I. 第259、551页及下页）。希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)：VIII. 16（极简略）。亚历山大的革利免 (Clem. Alex.)：《杂学》(Strom.)，第III卷。优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，IV. 16、28、29；VI. 13。埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，46（塔提安）及47（禁欲派）。新近发现的马卡里乌斯·马格尼斯 (Macarius Magnes) 的著作（巴黎，1876年），写于约400年，其中包含一些与埃皮法尼乌斯所述相符的禁欲派资料。

H. A. 达尼尔 (H. A. Daniel)：《护教士塔提安》(Tatian der Apologet)。哈勒，1837年。

詹姆斯·唐纳森 (James Donaldson)：《基督教文献批判史》等 (A Critical History of Christian Liter., etc.)。伦敦，第III卷（1866年），该卷专论塔提安等人，第3–62页。

Theod. 察恩 (Theod. Zahn)：《塔提安的〈四福音合参〉》(Tatian’s Diatessaron)。埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1881年。（《新约正典史研究》〔Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamntl. Kanons〕第一部分。）

Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)：《塔提安的〈四福音合参〉》(Tatian’s Diatessaron)，载布里格尔 (Brieger) 的《教会史杂志》(Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.)，1881年，第471–505页；《塔提安的〈致希腊人〉，附论这位护教士所处年代的导论》(Die Oratio des Tatian nebst einer Einleitung über die Zeit dieses Apologeten)，载《早期基督教文献史文本与研究》(Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur)，第I卷，第2号，第196–231页，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1883年；以及他撰写的“塔提安”条目，载《不列颠百科全书》(Encycl. Brit.)，第xxiii卷（1888年）。

Fr. Xav. 丰克 (Fr. Xav. Funk，罗马天主教徒)：《论塔提安的年代》(Zur Chronologie Tatian’s)，载图宾根《神学季刊》(Theol. Quartalschrift)，1883年，第219–234页。

塔提安 (Tatian) 是叙利亚的一位修辞学家，在罗马因殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 的引导而归信大公基督教，后来却误入诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism)，于公元172年去世。¹³⁶他在反犹太的倾向和阴郁的苦修方面，与马吉安 (Marcion) 相似。他曲解《哥林多前书》7:5，宣称婚姻是一种放纵，是服事魔鬼。爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 说，塔提安在游斯丁殉道以后背离教会，自负为人师，妄自尊大，仿佛超越众人，遂虚构出若干与瓦伦廷 (Valentine) 所说相似的不可见的永世者 (aeons)，并与马吉安和撒土尼努 (Saturninus) 一同断言，婚姻不过是败坏和淫乱。然而，他现存反驳外邦人的护教论著，以及他的《福音合参》（最近已重新发现），都写于153至170年间，其中并无明显的诺斯替主义痕迹，除非将《四福音合参》(Diatessaron) 删去耶稣家谱一事算在内。他与其说是反大公教会，不如说是在大公教会立场和禁欲主义上都走得过了头。我们将在最后一章再次论及他。

他的追随者使这一体系延续到第五世纪；由于其禁欲生活，他们被称为节制派 (Encratites)，或禁戒者 (Abstainers)；由于在主餐中以水代酒，又被称为献水派 (Hydroparastatae) 或水派 (Aquarians)。¹³⁷他们禁戒肉、酒和婚姻，并非像古代大公教会的苦修者那样，为了敬虔操练而暂时禁戒，也不是像许多近代完全戒绝致醉饮料的人那样，出于权宜考虑或为了树立好榜样；他们乃是出于原则，永久禁戒，因为他们认为所弃绝之物本身就是不洁的。不过，“节制派”这个名称也不加区分地用于诺斯替主义的一切禁欲派别，尤其是撒土尼努、马吉安和塞韦鲁 (Severus) 的追随者（塞韦鲁派〔Severians〕，起源不明）。摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans) 也曾藏身于这一名称之下。亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 将印度的苦修者视为节制派的先驱。

在圣餐中只用水代酒的做法，受到亚历山大的革利免、居普良 (Cyprian) 和金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 的谴责，并被狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 于382年颁布的一道敕令禁止。近代美国某一类倡导禁酒的人，因憎恶一切致醉的饮料，也采用了同样的异端做法，以水或奶代替我主明确规定使用的酒。

§ 132. 诺斯替派的游斯丁

希波吕托 (Hippolytus)：《驳斥一切异端》(Philos.)，V. 23–27（第214–233页），及X. 15（第516–519页）。

希波吕托向我们介绍了一位名叫游斯丁 (Justin) 的诺斯替派人物，其年代和来历均不确定。¹³⁸他秘密传播自己的教义，并以庄严的誓言约束门徒，令他们保守秘密。他著有多部书，其中一部名为《巴录》(Baruch)，希波吕托为此书作了摘要。他的灵知学说主要建立在对《创世记》的神秘解释之上，并略带犹太化的色彩。诚然，希波吕托将他列入拿蛇派 (Naassenes)，但游斯丁对蛇的看法恰好相反，认为蛇是历史上一切邪恶的根源。他也采用希腊神话，尤其是赫拉克勒斯 (Hercules) 十二项功业的传说。他假定有三个原初本原，两个为男性，一个为女性。第一个是善者；第二个是埃洛希姆 (Elohim)，即受造界之父；第三个称为伊甸 (Eden)，又称以色列 (Israel)，具有双重形体：上半身是女人，下半身是蛇。埃洛希姆爱上伊甸，两者交合，产生了由二十位天使组成的灵界，其中十位属父方，十位属母方，由他们充满世界。这两列天使的首领，一位是巴录 (Baruch)，他是一切善的创始者，以乐园中的生命树为表征；另一位是蛇拿阿斯 (Naas)，他是一切恶的创始者，以分别善恶树为表征。四条河流象征天使的四个分部。拿阿斯与夏娃行淫，又对亚当犯下更严重的罪；他败坏了摩西的律法和先知的神谕；他把耶稣钉在十字架上。然而，耶稣因这次被钉十字架而脱离了物质的身体，升到良善的上帝那里——他死时曾将自己的灵魂交托给这位上帝——由此成为拯救者。

§ 133. 赫尔摩根尼

德尔图良 (Tertullian)：《驳赫尔摩根尼》(Adv. Hermogenem)。约写于公元206年。他反对赫尔摩根尼 (H.) 的两篇论著中，有一篇已经失传。希波吕托 (Hippolytus)：《驳斥一切异端》(Philos.)，VIII. 17（第432页）。比较尼安德 (Neander)：《反诺斯替主义者》(Antignosticus)，第448页；凯伊 (Kaye)：《德尔图良》(Tertullian)，第532页；豪克 (Hauck)：《德尔图良》(Tertullian)，第240页；萨尔蒙德 (Salmond)：载“史密斯与韦斯”(Smith & Wace)，III. 1–3。

赫尔摩根尼 (Hermogenes) 是第二世纪末、第三世纪初迦太基 (Carthage) 的一位画家。德尔图良把他描绘为一个好生事端、喋喋不休、厚颜无耻的人，“他娶的女人比他画的还多”。¹³⁹他只是由于自己的柏拉图式二元论，以及否认从无创造，才与诺斯替主义有一些间接的联系。他认为世界，包括人的灵魂，都源于无形而永恒的物质，¹⁴⁰并以物质抗拒上帝塑造作用的方式，解释自然界的丑陋和属灵世界的邪恶。他认为，只有这样才能说明恶的起源。因为如果上帝从无中创造世界，世界就必定全然美好。他教导说，基督升天时将身体留在太阳中，然后升到父那里。¹⁴¹但除此之外，他是正统的，也不愿与教会分离。

§ 134. 其他诺斯替派别

古代教父，尤其是希波吕托和伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius)，提到了其他几个名称各异的诺斯替派别。

幻影派 (Docetae 或 Docetists) 教导说，基督的身体并非真实的血肉，不过是一个欺骗性的、转瞬即逝的幻影，因此他并未真正受苦、死亡和复活。希波吕托叙述了这一派别的体系。但这个名称同样也用于大多数诺斯替派，尤其是巴西里得 (Basilides)、撒土尼努、瓦伦廷 (Valentinus)、马吉安和摩尼教徒。幻影说 (Docetism) 是圣约翰所针对的最早一批敌基督谬误传播者的一个特征（约翰一书4:2；约翰二书7）。¹⁴²
敌抗派 (Antitactae 或 Antitactes) 这个名称，指的是放纵情欲、反对律法的诺斯替派，而非某一位可以追溯此名称来源的宗师的追随者。¹⁴³
普罗狄科派 (Prodicians) 得名于其传说中的创始人普罗狄科 (Prodicus)。他们自视为王族，¹⁴⁴怀着疯狂的自负，认为自己超乎律法、安息日和一切敬拜形式之上，甚至超乎祷告本身之上，认为祷告只适合无知的群众。他们与尼哥拉党 (Nicolaitans) 和敌抗派相似，也被称为亚当派 (Adamites)、巴贝罗派 (Barbelitae)、博尔博里派 (Borboriani)、科底派 (Coddiani)、菲比奥派 (Phibionitae)，以及其他一些难解的名称。¹⁴⁵

诺斯替主义中较为卑劣的各派，似乎在宗教的认可之下实行了几乎各种形式的不道德与不法行为；近代最恶劣的谬误和有组织的罪恶，他们早已先行实践。因此，古代教父对这种从根本上败坏和歪曲基督教的学说采取毫不妥协的反对立场，我们不必感到惊讶。

§ 135. 摩尼与摩尼教徒

史料

I. 东方史料：最为重要，尽管年代相对较晚。(a) 伊斯兰教史料（阿拉伯文）：《群书目录》(Kitâb al Fihrist)。这是一部叙述截至987年的阿拉伯文献史，作者是巴格达的一位阿拉伯人，通常称为伊本·阿比·雅库布·纳迪姆 (Ibn Abi Jakub An-Nadîm)；由弗吕格尔 (Flügel) 发现，在他去世后由勒迪格尔 (Rödiger) 和米勒 (Müller) 出版，共2卷，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1871–1872年。第IX卷第一节论摩尼教。弗吕格尔的译本见下。凯斯勒 (Kessler) 称《群书目录》为“第一流的史料宝库” (Fundstätte allerersten Ranges)。其次是伊斯兰哲学家沙赫拉斯塔尼 (Al-Shahrastanî，卒于1153年) 在其《宗教派别与哲学宗派史》(History of Religious Parties and Philosophical Sects) 中的记述，库尔顿 (Cureton) 编，伦敦 (Lond.)，1842年，2卷（I. 188–192）；哈尔布吕克尔 (Haarbrücker) 德译，哈雷 (Halle)，1851年。其他伊斯兰教史料，见凯斯勒载于赫尔措格 (Herzog) 第2版的条目，IX. 225及下页。(b) 波斯史料，涉及摩尼生平：菲尔多西 (Firdausî) 的《列王纪》(Shâhnâmeh，即“诸王之书”)，Jul. 莫尔 (Jul. Mohl) 编，巴黎，1866年（V. 472–475）。见凯斯勒，同上，第225页。(c) 基督教史料：阿拉伯文的有亚历山大牧首欧提基乌 (Eutychius，卒于916年) 的《编年史》(Annales)，波科克 (Pococke) 编，牛津 (Oxon.)，1628年；巴尔希伯来 (Barhebraeus，卒于1286年) 的《王朝史》(Historia Dynastiarum)，波科克编。叙利亚文的有叙利亚的以法莲 (Ephraem Syrus，卒于393年) 的各种著作。埃斯尼格或埃斯尼克 (Esnig 或 Esnik)，第五世纪亚美尼亚的一位主教，曾著书反对马吉安和摩尼（C. Fr. 诺伊曼〔C. Fr. Neumann〕由亚美尼亚文译成德文，载伊尔根〔Illgen〕的《历史神学杂志》〔Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theol.〕，1834年，第77–78页）。

希腊文史料：优西比乌 (Eusebius)（《教会史》〔H. E.〕VII. 31，简短记述）。伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius)（《驳异端》〔Haer.〕66）。耶路撒冷的区利罗 (Cyril Of Jerusal.)（《教理讲授》〔Catech.〕VI. 20及后）。博斯特拉的提图斯 (Titus of Bostra)（πρὸς Μανιχαίους^*，P. de Lafarde编，1859年）。佛提乌 (Photius)：《驳摩尼教徒》(Adv. Manichœos)（《文库》〔Biblioth.〕第179号抄本）。大马士革的约翰 (John Of Damascus)：《论异端》(De Haeres.) 及《对话》(Dial.)。
拉丁文史料：阿基劳 (Archelaus，美索不达米亚卡斯卡尔〔Cascar〕的主教，约卒于278年)：《与异端首领摩尼辩论实录》(Acta Disputationis cum Manete haeresiarcha)；最初以叙利亚文写成，就此而言也属于东方基督教史料（比较哲罗姆〔Jerome〕，《名人传》〔De vir. ill.〕72），但现仅存拉丁译本，似乎译自希腊文，由扎卡尼 (Zacagni)（罗马〔Rom.〕，1698年）和劳斯 (Routh)（收入《圣教遗珍》〔Reliquiae Sacrae.〕，第V卷，第3–206页）编辑出版，英译本载克拉克 (Clark) 的《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)（第XX卷，第272–419页）。这些《实录》声称记录了阿基劳与摩尼在大批会众面前的一场辩论，而会众完全同情这位正统主教；然而，正如博索布尔 (Beausobre) 首先证明的，就形式而言，它们是第四世纪最初四分之一时期（约320年）一位叙利亚教士（可能来自埃德萨〔Edessa〕）创作的虚构作品，不过以摩尼教文献为依据，包含许多有关摩尼教教义的资料。它们由各种篇章组成，是西方获取这方面知识的主要来源。其中描绘摩尼（第12章）披着彩色外衣，穿着长裤，拿着一根坚实的乌木杖，左臂下夹着一本巴比伦的书，带着古代波斯宗师的神态出场。他在辩护中大量引用《新约》。最后，他逃回波斯（第55章）。比较H. V. 齐特维茨 (H. V. Zittwitz)：《阿基劳与摩尼实录考》(Die Acta Archelai et Manetis untersucht)，载卡尼斯 (Kahnis) 的《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.)，1873年，第IV号。奥布拉辛斯基 (Oblasinski)：《阿基劳辩论实录》等 (Acta Disput. Arch., etc.)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1874年（学位论文）。Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)：《阿基劳实录与塔提安的〈四福音合参〉》(Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians)，载《早期基督教文献史文本与研究》(Texte und Untersuch. zur Gesch. der altchristl. Lit.)，第I卷，第3册（1883年），第137–153页。哈纳克试图证明，阿基劳所引的福音书经文取自塔提安的《四福音合参》。另比较他的《教义史》(Dogmengeschichte)，I.（1886年），第681–694页。

圣奥古斯丁 (St. Augustin，卒于430年；除阿基劳的译本外，他是拉丁文资料中最主要的权威)：《驳摩尼书信》(Contra Epistolam Manichaei)；《驳摩尼教徒浮士德》(Contra Faustum Manich.)，以及其他反摩尼教著作，载本笃会版其《全集》(Opera) 第8卷。英译本载沙弗 (Schaff) 的《尼西亚及后尼西亚文库》(Nicene and Post-Nicene Library)，第IV卷，纽约 (N. York)，1887年。

另比较曼西 (Mansi) 和赫费勒 (Hefele) 所收自第四世纪起反对摩尼教徒的历次会议实录。

近代著作：

伊萨克·德·博索布尔 (Isaac De Beausobre，1659年生于法国，柏林法国教会牧师，卒于1738年)：《摩尼与摩尼教批判史》(Histoire crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme*)。阿姆斯特丹 (Amst.)，1734及1739年，2卷，四开本。第一卷的一部分论历史，第二卷论教义。极为详尽，学识渊博。他原拟另写第三卷，论述后期摩尼教徒。

F. Chr. 鲍尔 (F. Chr. Baur)：《依据史料重新考察并阐述摩尼教的宗教体系》(Das Manichaeische Religionssystem nach den Quellen neu untersucht und entwickelt)。图宾根 (Tüb.)，1831年（500页）。从哲学和批判角度作了全面论述。他称摩尼教体系为一首“炽烈而瑰丽的自然与世界之诗” (glühend prächtiges Natur- und Weltgedicht*)。

特雷克塞尔 (Trechsel)：《论摩尼教徒的正典、批判与释经》(Ueber Kanon, Kritik, und Exegese der Manichäer)。伯尔尼 (Bern)，1832年。

D. 赫沃尔松 (D. Chwolson)：《萨比教徒与萨比教》(Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus)。彼得堡 (Petersb.)，1856年，2卷。

Gust. 弗吕格尔 (Gust. Flügel，卒于1870年)：《摩尼、他的教义与著作：辑自阿比·雅库布·纳迪姆的〈群书目录〉》(Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften. Aus dem Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadîm*)（987年）。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1862年。包含原文、译文和注释，440页。

Fr. 施皮格尔 (Fr. Spiegel)：《伊朗古代学》(Eranische Alterthumskunde)，第II卷，1873年，第185–232页。

Alex. 盖勒 (Alex. Geyler)：《摩尼教体系及其与佛教的关系》(Das System des Manichäisimus und sein Verh. zum Buddhismus)。耶拿 (Jena)，1875年。

K. 凯斯勒 (K. Kessler)：《摩尼教宗教体系起源研究》(Untersuchungen zur Genesis des manich. Rel. systems.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1876年。同著者：《摩尼，或闪族宗教混合研究资料》(Mânî oder Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Religionsmischung im Semitismus.)。莱比锡，1882年。另参其详尽论文《摩尼与摩尼教徒》(Mâni und die Manichäer*)，载《赫尔佐格百科全书》("Herzog")，新版，第IX卷，第223–259页（节本见沙弗的《百科全书》("Encycl.")，第II卷，第1396–1398页）。

G. T. 斯托克斯 (G. T. Stokes)：《摩尼与摩尼教徒》(Manes, and Manichaeans)，载《史密斯与韦斯百科全书》("Smith and Wace")，第III卷，第792–801页。

Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)：《摩尼教》(Manichaeism)，载《大英百科全书》(Encycl. Britannica)，第9版，第XV卷（1883年），第481–487页。

莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)、拉德纳 (Lardner)、施勒克 (Schröckh)、瓦尔希 (Walch)、尼安德 (Neander)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 的有关记述。

我们现在来到诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 最晚出现、组织最严密、最为一贯、顽强而危险的形态；基督教不得不与它进行长期斗争。摩尼教 (Manichaeism) 不像较早的诺斯替主义诸形态那样仅仅是一个学派，而是一种与基督教抗衡的宗教和教会。在这一点上，它类似于伊斯兰教 (Islam)，后者在较晚时期成为基督教更为强大的对手；两者都自称是神的启示，都把伪基督教的成分嫁接在异教的根株上，但其出发点却根本不同：摩尼教是反犹太教的、二元论的，而穆罕默德教则是伪犹太教的，并且是严厉而狂热的一神论的。

先谈其外部历史。

摩尼教的起源，见于晦暗而混乱的传统记载。它被追溯到第三世纪（215–277年）的一位波斯哲学家、天文学家兼画家¹⁴⁶摩尼 (Mani，又称 Manes、Manichaeus)¹⁴⁷；他归附基督教，或者更确切地说，把一些基督教成分引入琐罗亚斯德教 (Zoroastrian religion)，由此在同胞中激起了一场思想和道德的革命。据阿拉伯穆罕默德教的史料，他的父亲法塔克 (Fatak，Πάτεκιος^*) 是一位出身高贵的波斯人，原籍哈马丹 (Hamadan，即 Ecbatana，埃克巴坦那)，后来移居巴比伦尼亚 (Babylonia) 的泰西封 (Ctesiphon)。摩尼在这里受到精心的教育。他起初属于犹太化的诺斯替派别曼达派 (Mandaeans)，或称埃尔克赛派 (Elkesaites，即 Mogtasilah，意为施洗者)；但在他十九岁时，以及二十四岁时（238年），一种新的宗教两度由神启示给他。他三十岁时开始宣讲自己的混合信条，远行各地，并差遣门徒出去。他宣称自己是上帝最后且至高的先知，也是基督所应许的保惠师 (Paraclete)（正如六百年后穆罕默德所做的那样）。他在阐述其主要教义的《根本书信》(Epistola Fundamenti) 开篇写道：“摩尼，凭父上帝的护理，作耶稣基督的使徒。这些乃是出于永恒而活泼之源的救恩之言。”他用波斯语、叙利亚语以及自己创制的一套字母，撰写了许多书，但如今均已散佚。¹⁴⁸

起初，摩尼在波斯王沙普尔一世 (Shapur I.，又称 Sapor) 的宫廷中受到宠遇，却激起了玛吉祭司阶层 (Magians) 的仇恨。他逃往东印度和中国，并接触了佛教。事实上，佛陀之名与摩尼教体系的传说历史交织在一起。他在美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia) 与阿尔克劳斯 (Archelaus) 辩论的故事，是一种虚构，如同伪克莱门文献中术士西门 (Simon Magus) 与彼得辩论的故事一样；不过，它有较好的历史基础，而且作者怀有维护正统的目的。^.92¹⁴⁹

270年，摩尼返回波斯，以象征性（图画式）的教义解说赢得了许多追随者；他声称这些教义是上帝向他启示的。但在一次与玛吉祭司的辩论中，他被判定败坏了古老的宗教，于是在约277年，奉国王巴赫拉姆一世 (Behram I.，又称 Veranes) 之命，被钉十字架，或被活活剥皮；他的皮被填塞起来，悬挂在贡迪沙普尔城 (Djondishapur，或 Gundeshapur) 的城门上，以示威吓，此门从此被称为“摩尼之门”。¹⁵⁰他的追随者遭到国王的残酷逼迫。

摩尼惨死后不久，他的教派便传至突厥斯坦 (Turkistan)、美索不达米亚、北非、西西里、意大利和西班牙。随着向西传播，它呈现出更多的基督教色彩，北非尤其如此。它在罗马帝国各地都受到逼迫，先是戴克里先 (Diocletian，公元287年)，后来是基督教皇帝。尽管如此，它仍兴盛至第六世纪，甚至更晚。对异端的逼迫总会助长异端，除非把异端者斩尽杀绝。

其教义的神秘性、严密的组织、对可怕的恶之难题看似圆满的解答，以及禁欲圣洁的外观，有时是它吸引人的主要所在。即使像圣奥古斯丁 (St. Augustin) 这样深邃而高尚的心灵，在归信大公教会之前，也曾九年之久作这一教派的听道者。他在那里寻求更深奥的宗教哲学，并结识了才华横溢、能言善辩的努米底亚的浮士德 (Faustus of Numidia)，但终于失望，发现他不过是个浅薄的江湖骗子。对于另一位名叫费利克斯 (Felix) 的摩尼教徒，他却在希波 (Hippo) 一场为期两日的公开辩论中，成功地使其归信大公信仰。他与摩尼教的关系，使他能够在论战著作中驳斥它，并阐明知识与信仰、理性与启示之间的关系、意志的自由、恶的起源及其与上帝治理的关系等教义。因此，在这里，谬误也被驾驭而用来促进真理。

教皇利奥一世 (Leo I.) 在罗马搜查这些异端者，并在地方官的协助下使多人受罚。瓦伦提尼安三世 (Valentinian III.) 将他们放逐，查士丁尼 (Justinian) 则处他们死刑。猛烈而持久的逼迫终于摧毁了他们的组织。但其体系的影响贯穿整个中世纪，直至第十三世纪；它以各种变体重新出现在普里西利安派 (Priscillianists)、保罗派 (Paulieians)、波格米勒派 (Bogomiles)、阿尔比派 (Albigenses)、卡特里派 (Catharists) 及其他教派中，并掺入了更多的基督教成分，因此这些教派被称为“新摩尼教徒”。事实上，摩尼教的一些主要特征——把灵魂与身体作二元论的分割，将自然归于魔鬼，把道德与物质作泛神论式的混同，以虚伪的象征手法把异教观念隐藏在基督教用语之下，傲慢而神秘的姿态，以及把秘传与公开教导作贵族式的区分——甚至在现代的哲学体系和宗教派别中，仍以各种形式存续。¹⁵¹

§ 136. 摩尼教的体系

摩尼教混合了二元论、泛神论、诺斯替主义和禁欲主义的成分，又结合了一种奇幻的自然哲学；尽管它以禁欲的态度憎恶物质，这种自然哲学却使整个体系带有唯物主义的性质。其形而上学基础，是善与恶、光明与黑暗之间彻底的二元论，源自波斯的琐罗亚斯德教（即第二萨珊王朝统治下、约第二世纪中叶由玛伽赛派 (Magasaeans) 学派所复兴的形态）。其突出的伦理特征，是一种与佛教极为相似的严格禁欲主义。¹⁵²基督教成分不过是表面的一层涂饰（如同在穆罕默德教中一样）。犹太教被完全排除（而在穆罕默德教中，它却构成一个极重要的特征），《旧约》也被拒绝，被视为魔鬼及其假先知所默示的。其主要权威是伪经福音书和摩尼的著作。

摩尼教的神学始于光明之国与黑暗之国之间不可调和的对立。这种对立又被等同于善恶之间的伦理二元论。这两个国度自永恒以来便彼此对立，互不混杂。后来，撒但——他和他的群魔都由黑暗而生——开始狂暴作乱，进攻光明之国。这次侵入产生了现今的世界，显出两种成分的混合：从光明分离出来的部分，被囚禁在黑暗之中。亚当照着撒但的形象被造，却有一颗强烈的光明火花；撒但又赐给他夏娃作伴侣，夏娃代表诱惑人的感官欲望，但也有一颗光明火花，只是比亚当的更小。该隐和亚伯是撒但与夏娃的儿子，塞特却是亚当与夏娃所生，充满光明。人类便由此产生，各自分有不等的光明，男人较多，女人较少。每个人既是光明之子，也是黑暗之子，有一个善的灵魂，又有一个本质上邪恶的身体，以及与这身体相应的恶的灵魂。把光明从黑暗的束缚中救赎出来，是由基督和圣灵完成的；基督与太阳之灵是同一的，圣灵则居于以太之中。这两位存在者把光明的力量从物质世界吸引出来，而黑暗之君和被囚禁在星辰中的诸灵，则企图阻留这些力量。太阳和月亮是两艘光辉的船（lucidae naves），将被囚的光明运往永恒的光明之国。满月代表载满光明的船，新月代表卸空货物的船；黄道十二宫也在这一抽取过程中充当汲桶。

摩尼教的基督论与诺斯替派的一样，完全是幻影说 (docetic)；它对身体和物质的歪曲看法，彻底排除了上帝道成肉身的观念。基督的教训由使徒们本着犹太教的精神加以编纂和篡改。摩尼这位所应许的保惠师，已将它们恢复。历史的终点是光明与黑暗完全分离；一场猛烈的大火焚尽世界，黑暗之国陷于无能为力的境地。

这样，基督教在这里被化解为一种奇幻的、二元论而又泛神论的自然哲学；道德上的重生被等同于物质的提炼过程；救赎的全部奥秘被归结于光明，而东方一向将光明作为神性的象征加以崇拜。无疑，摩尼教体系中弥漫着一种受造之物渴望得赎的叹息，以及对自然——这一精神的象形文字——的深切共感；但一切都被歪曲、混淆了。十字架上受苦的耶稣（Jesus patibilis），在这里不过是一个幻象，象征着仍被禁锢在物质中的世界灵魂；在每一株从大地幽暗的怀抱中向上生长、趋向光明、开花结果、渴望自由的植物中，都可以看见他。因此，“完全人”这一阶层既不杀害或伤害动物，也不摘花，不折断一片草叶。这一体系并不像它所自称的那样，把光明从黑暗中释放出来，实际上却是把光明变成黑暗。

摩尼教徒的道德是严酷禁欲的，建立在物质和身体本质为恶这一根本谬误之上；它与伯拉纠派 (Pelagian) 关于人性在本质上道德纯洁的观点，恰好处于两个极端。¹⁵³其重大的道德目标，是在佛教的意义上完全超脱尘世，弃绝并消灭身体性，使善的灵魂摆脱物质的桎梏。要达到这一目标，就须以最严格、最阴郁的禁欲，戒绝一切源于黑暗领域的东西。不过，这只是对选民的要求，并不要求慕道者遵行。如同大公教会中一样，这里也区分较高与较低的道德。选民的完全在于三重印记或防护（signaculum）。¹⁵⁴

口印（signaculum oris），即言语与饮食上的纯洁，戒绝一切动物性食物和烈酒，甚至圣餐中也不例外，只限于素食，由“供养者”为完全人提供，尤其是橄榄，因为橄榄油是光明的食物。
手印（signaculum manuum）：放弃地上的财产，以及物质生产和工商业活动，甚至农业也在其内；同时，怀着神圣的敬畏，尊重弥漫整个自然界的神圣光明生命。
怀印（signaculum sinus），即独身，并戒绝对感官欲望的任何满足。婚姻，或者更确切地说，生育，就是沾染那本质为恶的身体性。

选民这种违反自然的圣洁，同时也为那些向他们致以最大敬意的慕道者，赎去日常生活中不可避免的罪。然而，与诺斯替派 (Gnostics) 一样，这种圣洁伴随着极度的知识骄傲；倘若大公教会反对者的话可信，其美好的外表之下，往往隐藏着种种精巧的恶行。

组织。摩尼教 (Manichaeism) 与所有诺斯替派学派不同，具有固定而且严格按教阶制建立的组织。这在很大程度上解释了它何以如此顽强而持久。该教派的首领是十二位使徒，或称导师 (magistri)；摩尼 (Mani) 及其继承人在他们中间居于首位，如同彼得和教皇一样。他们之下有七十二位主教，对应耶稣的七十二位（严格说是七十位）门徒；主教之下则有长老、执事和巡回传道者。¹⁵⁵会众分为两个截然不同的阶层，意在对应大公教会中的慕道者和信徒：一是“听众”；¹⁵⁶二是“完全人”，即领受秘传者、祭司阶层，¹⁵⁷代表灵从世界中分离而获得解脱这一过程的最后阶段，即从物质之国进入光明之国，或用佛教的术语来说，从轮回 (Sansara) 的世界进入涅槃 (Nirwana)。
摩尼教徒的崇拜，总的说来十分简单。他们没有献祭，但每日祈祷四次，祈祷前先行洁净礼，祈祷时俯伏在地，朝向太阳或月亮，因为它们是光明的居所。他们守星期日，以尊崇太阳；在他们看来，太阳与救赎者是同一位。但与大公教会基督徒的惯例相反，他们把这一天定为禁食日。他们每周、每月、每年都有禁食。他们拒绝教会的节期，却在三月极其隆重地庆祝他们那位受上帝委任的教师摩尼的殉道日。¹⁵⁸圣礼是选民的奥秘，就连奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 对此也所知甚少。因此，他们是否施洗，以及用水还是用油施洗，向来存在争议。他们可能实行水洗和膏油礼，并把后者看作更高的属灵洗礼；也可能像大公教会区分洗礼与坚振礼那样，将二者加以区分。¹⁵⁹他们也举行一种圣餐，有时甚至隐瞒身份，在大公教会的教堂中举行；但不用酒（因为基督没有血），并且可能依照他们泛神论的象征观，把圣餐视为纪念那在整个自然界中被钉十字架的光明之魂。他们彼此识别的记号是伸出右手，象征共同蒙太阳之灵救赎的手拯救，脱离黑暗之国。

Original Text

CHAPTER XI. THE HERESIES OF THE ANTE-NICENE AGE.

§ 112. Judaism and Heathenism within the Church.

Having described in previous chapters the moral and intellectual victory of the church over avowed and consistent Judaism and heathenism, we must now look at her deep and mighty struggle with those enemies in a hidden and more dangerous form: with Judaism and heathenism concealed in the garb of Christianity and threatening to Judaize and paganize the church. The patristic theology and literature can never be thoroughly understood without a knowledge of the heresies of the patristic age, which play as important a part in the theological movements of the ancient Greek and Latin churches as Rationalism with its various types in the modern theology of the Protestant churches of Europe and America.

Judaism, with its religion and its sacred writings, and Graeco-Roman heathenism, with its secular culture, its science, and its art, were designed to pass into Christianity to be transformed and sanctified. But even in the apostolic age many Jews and Gentiles were baptized only with water, not with the Holy Spirit and fire of the gospel, and smuggled their old religious notions and practices into the church. Hence the heretical tendencies, which are combated in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline and Catholic Epistles.(1)

The same heresies meet us at the beginning of the second century, and thenceforth in more mature form and in greater extent in almost all parts of Christendom. They evince, on the one hand, the universal import of the Christian religion in history, and its irresistible power over all the more profound and earnest minds of the age. Christianity threw all their religious ideas into confusion and agitation. They were so struck with the truth, beauty, and vigor of the new religion, that they could no longer rest either in Judaism or in heathenism; and yet many were unable or unwilling to forsake inwardly their old religion and philosophy. Hence strange medleys of Christian and unchristian elements in chaotic ferment. The old religions did not die without a last desperate effort to save themselves by appropriating Christian ideas. And this, on the other hand, exposed the specific truth of Christianity to the greatest danger, and obliged the church to defend herself against misrepresentation, and to secure herself against relapse to the Jewish or the heathen level.

As Christianity was met at its entrance into the world by two other religions, the one relatively true, and the other essentially false, heresy appeared likewise in the two leading forms of ebionism and gnosticism, the germs of which, as already observed, attracted the notice of the apostles. The remark of Hegesippus, that the church preserved a virginal purity of doctrine to the time of Hadrian, must be understood as made only in view of the open advance of Gnosticism in the second century, and therefore as only relatively true. The very same writer expressly observes, that heresy had been already secretly working from the days of Simon Magus. Ebionism is a Judaizing, pseudo-Petrine Christianity, or, as it may equally well be called, a Christianizing Judaism; Gnosticism is a paganizing or pseudo-Pauline Christianity, or a pseudo-Christian heathenism.

These two great types of heresy are properly opposite poles. Ebionism is a particularistic contraction of the Christian religion; Gnosticism, a vague expansion of it. The one is a gross realism and literalism; the other, a fantastic idealism and spiritualism. In the former the spirit is bound in outward forms; in the latter it revels in licentious freedom. Ebionism makes salvation depend on observance of the law; Gnosticism, on speculative knowledge. Under the influence of Judaistic legalism, Christianity must stiffen and petrify; under the influence of Gnostic speculation, it must dissolve into empty notions and fancies. Ebionism denies the divinity of Christ, and sees in the gospel only a new law; Gnosticism denies the true humanity of the Redeemer, and makes his person and his work a mere phantom, a docetistic illusion.

The two extremes, however, meet; both tendencies from opposite directions reach the same result—the denial of the incarnation, of the true and abiding union of the divine and the human in Christ and his kingdom; and thus they fall together under St. John’s criterion of the antichristian spirit of error. In both Christ ceases to be mediator and reconciler and his religion makes no specific advance upon the Jewish and the heathen, which place God and man in abstract dualism, or allow them none but a transient and illusory union.

Hence, there were also some forms of error, in which Ebionistic and Gnostic elements were combined. We have a Gnostic or theosophic Ebionism the pseudo-Clementine), and a Judaizing Gnosticism (in Cerinthus and others). These mixed forms also we find combated in the apostolic age. Indeed, similar forms of religious syncretism we meet with even before the time and beyond the field of Christianity, in the Essenes, the Therapeutae, and the Platonizing Jewish philosopher, Philo.

§ 113. Nazarenes and Ebionites (Elkesaites, Mandoeans).

I. Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. I. 26. Hippolytus: Refut. omnium Haer., or Philosophumena, 1. IX. 13–17. Epiphanius: Haer. 29, 30, 53. Scattered notices in Justin M., Tertullian, Origen, Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Jerome. Several of the Apocryphal Gospels, especially that of the Hebrews. The sources are obscure and conflicting. Comp. the collection of fragments from Elxai, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. in Hilgenfeld’s Novum Test. extra Canonem receptum. Lips. 1866,

Gieseler: Nazaräer u. Ebioniten (in the fourth vol. of Stäudlin’s and Tzschirner’s "Archiv." Leipz. 1820).

Credner: Ueber Essaeer und Ebioniten und einen theitweisen Zusammenhang derselben (in Winer’s "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol." Sulzbach, 1829).

Baur: De Ebionitarum Origine et Doctrina ab Essaeis repetenda. Tüb. 1831.

Schliemann: Die Clementinen u. der Ebionitismus, Hamb. 1844, p. 362–552.

Ritschl: Ueber die Secte der Elkesaiten (in Niedner’s "Zeitschr. Hist. Theol." 1853, No. 4).

D. Chwolsohn: Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus. St. Petersburg, 1856,· vols.

Uhlhorn: Ebioniten and Elkesaiten, in Herzog, new ed., vol. IV. (1879), 13 sqq. and 184 sqq.

G. Salmon: Elkesai, Elkesaites, in Smith & Wace, vol. II. (1880) p. 95 98.

M. N. Siouffi: Études sur la religion des Soubbas on Sabéens, leurs dogmes, leurs möurs. Paris, 1880.

K. Kessler: Mandaeer, in Herzog, revised ed., IX. (1881), p. 205–222.

AD. Hilgenfeld: Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums, Leip., 1884 (421 sqq.).

The Jewish Christianity, represented in the apostolic church by Peter and James, combined with the Gentile Christianity of Paul, to form a Christian church, in which "neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature in Christ."

I. A portion of the Jewish Christians, however, adhered even after the destruction of Jerusalem, to the national customs of their fathers, and propagated themselves in some churches of Syria down to the end of the fourth century, under the name of Nazarenes; a name perhaps originally given in contempt by the Jews to all Christians as followers of Jesus of Nazareth.(2) They united the observance of the Mosaic ritual law with their belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Jesus, used the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, deeply mourned the unbelief of their brethren, and hoped for their future conversion in a body and for a millennial reign of Christ on the earth. But they indulged no antipathy to the apostle Paul, and never denounced the Gentile Christians and heretics for not observing the law. They were, therefore, not heretics, but stunted separatist Christians; they stopped at the obsolete position of a narrow and anxious Jewish Christianity, and shrank to an insignificant sect. Jerome says of them, that, wishing to be Jews and Christians alike, they were neither one nor the other.

From these Nazarenes we must carefully distinguish the heretical Jewish Christians, or the ebionites, who were more numerous. Their name comes not, as Tertullian first intimated,(3) from a supposed founder of the sect, Ebion, of whom we know nothing, but from the Hebrew word, a,b]yron, poor. It may have been originally, like "Nazarene" and "Galilean," a contemptuous designation of all Christians, the majority of whom lived in needy circumstances;(4) but it was afterwards confined to this sect; whether in reproach, to denote the poverty of their doctrine of Christ and of the law, as Origen more ingeniously than correctly explains it; or, more probably, in honor, since the Ebionites regarded themselves as the genuine followers of the poor Christ and his poor disciples, and applied to themselves alone the benediction on the poor in spirit. According to Epiphanius, Ebion spread his error first in the company of Christians which fled to Pella after the destruction of Jerusalem; according to Hegesippus in Eusebius, one Thebutis, after the death of the bishop Symeon of Jerusalem, about 107, made schism among the Jewish Christians, and led many of them to apostatize, because he himself was not elected to the bishopric.

We find the sect of the Ebionites in Palestine and the surrounding regions, on the island of Cyprus, in Asia Minor, and even in Rome. Though it consisted mostly of Jews, Gentile Christians also sometimes attached themselves to it. It continued into the fourth century, but at the time of Theodoret was entirely extinct. It used a Hebrew Gospel, now lost, which was probably a corruption of the Gospel of Matthew.

The characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its forms are: degradation of Christianity to the level of Judaism; the principle of the universal and perpetual validity of the Mosaic law; and enmity to the apostle Paul. But, as there were different sects in Judaism itself, we have also to distinguish at least two branches of Ebionism, related to each other as Pharisaism and Essenism, or, to use a modern illustration, as the older deistic and the speculative pantheistic rationalism in Germany, or the practical and the speculative schools in Unitarianism.

The common Ebionites, who were by far the more numerous, embodied the Pharisaic legalism, and were the proper successors of the Judaizers opposed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Their doctrine may be reduced to the following propositions:

(a) Jesus is, indeed, the promised Messiah, the son of David, and the supreme lawgiver, yet a mere man, like Moses and David, sprung by natural generation from Joseph and Mary. The sense of his Messianic calling first arose in him at his baptism by John, when a higher spirit joined itself to him. Hence, Origen compared this sect to the blind man in the Gospel, who called to the Lord, without seeing him: "Thou son of David, have mercy on me."

(b) Circumcision and the observance of the whole ritual law of Moses are necessary to salvation for all men.

(c) Paul is an apostate and heretic, and all his epistles are to be discarded. The sect considered him a native heathen, who came over to Judaism in later life from impure motives.

(d) Christ is soon to come again, to introduce the glorious millennial reign of the Messiah, with the earthly Jerusalem for its seat.

The second class of Ebionites, starting with Essenic notions, gave their Judaism a speculative or theosophic stamp, like the errorists of the Epistle to the Colossians. They form the stepping-stone to Gnosticism. Among these belong the Elkesaites.(5) They arose, according to Epiphanius, in the reign of Trajan, in the regions around the Dead Sea, where the Essenes lived. Their name is derived from their supposed founder, Elxai or Elkasai, and is interpreted: "hidden power," which (according to Gieseler’s suggestion) signifies the Holy Spirit.(6) This seems to have been originally the title of a book, which pretended, like the book of Mormon, to be revealed by an angel, and was held in the highest esteem by the sect. This secret writing, according to the fragments in Origen, and in the "Philosophumena" of Hippolytus, contains the groundwork of the remarkable pseudo-Clementine system.(7) (See next section.) It is evidently of Jewish origin, represents Jerusalem as the centre of the religious world, Christ as a creature and the Lord of angels and all other creatures, the Holy Spirit as a female, enjoins circumcision as well as baptism, rejects St. Paul, and justifies the denial of faith in time of persecution. It claims to date from the third year of Trajan (101). This and the requirement of circumcision would make it considerably older than the Clementine Homilies. A copy of that book was brought to Rome from Syria by a certain Alcibiades about a.d. 222, and excited attention by announcing a new method of forgiveness of sins.
A similar sect are the Mandaeans, from Manda, knowledge (gnw'si")also Sabians, i.e. Baptists (fromsâbi, to baptize, to wash), and Mughtasilah, which has the same meaning. On account of their great reverence for John the Baptist, they were called "Christians of John."(8) Their origin is uncertain. A remnant of them still exists, in Persia on the eastern banks of the Tigris. Their sacred language is an Aramaic dialect of some importance for comparative philology.(9) At present they speak Arabic and Persian. Their system is very complicated with the prevalence of the heathen element, and comes nearest to Manichaeism.(10)

§ 114. The Pseudo-Clementine Ebionism.

I. Sources:

Ta; Klhmevntia, or more accurately Klhvmento" tw'n Pevtrou ejpidhmiw'n khrugmavtwn ejpitomhv first published (without the twentieth and part of the nineteenth homily) by Cotelier in "Patres Apost." Par. 1672; Clericus in his editions of Cotelier, 1698, 1700, and 1724; again by Schwegler, Stuttg. 1847 (the text of Clericus); then first entire, with the missing portion, from a new codex in the Ottobonian Library in the Vatican, by Alb. R. M. Dressel (with the Latin trans. of Cotelier and notes), under the title: Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti nunc primum integrae. Gott. 1853; and by Paul de Lagarde: Clementina Graece. Leipz. 1865.
Clementis Rom. Recognitiones ( jAnagnwrismoiv or JAnagnwvsei"), in ten books, extant only in the Latin translation of Rufinus (d. 410); first published in Basel, 1526; then better by Cotelier, Gallandi, and by Gersdorf in his "Bibl. Patr. Lat." Lips. 1838. Vol. I. In Syriac, ed. by P. de Lagarde (Clementis Romani Recognitiones Syriace). Lips. 1861. An English translation of the Recognitions of Clement by Dr. Thomas Smith, in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library," Edinburgh, vol. III. (1868), pp. 137–471. The work in the MSS. bears different titles, the most common is Itinerarium St. Clementis.
Clementine Epitome de Gestis Petri (Klhvm. ejpisk. JRwvmh" peri; tw'n pravxewn ejpidhmiw'n te kai; khrugmavtwn Pevtrou ejpitomhv), first at Paris, 1555; then critically edited by Cotelier, l.c.; and more completely with a second epitome by A. R. M. Dressel: Clementinorum Epitomae duae, with valuable critical annotations by Fr. Wieseler. Lips. 1859. The two Epitomes are only a summary of the Homilies.

II. Works.

Neander and Baur, in their works on Gnosticism (vid. the following section), and in their Church Histories.

Schliemann: Die Clementinen nebst den verwandten Schriften, u. der Ebionitismus. Hamb. 1844.

Ad. Hilgenfeld: Die Clementinischen Recognitionem n. Homilien nach ihrem Ursprüng n. Inhalt. Jena, 1848. Art. by the same in the "Theol. Jahrbücher" for 1854 (483 sqq.), and 1868 (357 sqq.); and Die Apost. Väter. Halle 1853, p. 287–302.

G. Uhlhorn: Die Homilien n. Recognitionem des Clemens Romanus. Gött. 1854. Comp. the same author’s article "Clementinen," in Herzog, second ed., vol. III. (1878), p. 277–286.

Ritschl: Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche 1857 (second ed. p. 206–270).

J. Lehmann: Die Clementinischen Schriften mit besonderer Rücksicht auf ihr liter. Verhältniss. Gotha 1869. He mediates between Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn. (See a review by Lipsius in the "Protest. Kirchenztg," 1869, 477–482, and by Lagarde in his "Symmicta," I. 1877, pp. 2–4 and 108–112, where Lehmann is charged with plagiarism).

R. A. Lipsius: Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage kritish untersucht. Kiel 1872. Lipsius finds the basis of the whole Clementine literature in the strongly anti-Pauline Acta Petri.

A. B. Lutterbeck: Die Clementinen und ihr Verh. z. Unfehlbarkeitsdogma. Giessen, 1872.

The system of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies exhibits Ebionism at once in its theosophic perfection, and in its internal dissolution. It represents rather an individual opinion, than a sect, but holds probably some connection, not definitely ascertained, with the Elkesaites, who, as appears from the "Philosophumena," branched out even to Rome. It is genuinely Ebionitic or Judaistic in its monotheistic basis, its concealed antagonism to Paul, and its assertion of the essential identity of Christianity and Judaism, while it expressly rejects the Gnostic fundamental doctrine of the demiurge. It cannot, therefore, properly be classed, as it is by Baur, among the Gnostic schools.

The twenty Clementine Homilies bear the celebrated name of the Roman bishop Clement, mentioned in Phil. 4:3, as a helper of Paul, but evidently confounded in the pseudo-Clementine literature with Flavius Clement, kinsman of the Emperor Domitian. They really come from an unknown, philosophically educated author, probably a Jewish Christian, of the second half of the second century. They are a philosophico-religious romance, based on some historical traditions, which it is now impossible to separate from apocryphal accretions. The conception of Simon as a magician was furnished by the account in the eighth chapter of Acts, and his labors in Rome were mentioned by Justin Martyr. The book is prefaced by a letter of Peter to James, bishop of Jerusalem, in which he sends him his sermons, and begs him to keep them strictly secret; and by a letter of the pseudo-Clement to the same James in which he relates how Peter, shortly before his death, appointed him (Clement) his successor in Rome, and enjoined upon him to send to James a work composed at the instance of Peter, entitled "Clementis Epitome praedicationum Petri in peregrinationibus."(11) By these epistles it was evidently designed to impart to the pretended extract from the itinerant sermons and disputations of Peter, the highest apostolical authority, and at the same time to explain the long concealment of them.(12)

The substance of the Homilies themselves is briefly this: Clement, an educated Roman, of the imperial family, not satisfied with heathenism, and thirsting for truth, goes to Judaea, having heard, under the reign of Tiberius, that Jesus had appeared there. In Caesarea he meets the apostle Peter, and being instructed and converted by him, accompanies him on his missionary journeys in Palestine, to Tyre, Tripolis, Laodicea, and Antioch. He attends upon the sermons of Peter and his long, repeated disputations with Simon Magus, and, at the request of the apostle, commits the substance of them to writing. Simon Peter is thus the proper hero of the romance, and appears throughout as the representative of pure, primitive Christianity, in opposition to Simon Magus, who is portrayed as a "man full of enmity," and a "deceiver," the author of all anti-Jewish heresies, especially of the Marcionite Gnosticism. The author was acquainted with the four canonical Gospels, and used them, Matthew most, John least; and with them another work of the same sort, probably of the Ebionitic stamp, but now unknown.(13)

It has been ingeniously conjectured by Baur (first in 1831), and adopted by his pupils, that the pseudo-Clementine Peter combats, under the mask of the Magician, the apostle Paul (nowhere named in the Homilies), as the first and chief corrupter of Christianity.(14) This conjecture, which falls in easily with Baur’s view of the wide-spread and irreconcilable antagonism of Petrinism and Paulinism in the primitive church, derives some support from several malicious allusions to Paul, especially the collision in Antioch. Simon Magus is charged with claiming that Christ appeared to him in a vision, and called him to be an apostle, and yet teaching a doctrine contrary to Christ, hating his apostles, and denouncing Peter, the firm rock and foundation of the church, as "self-condemned."(15) But this allusion is probably only an incidental sneer at Paul. The whole design of the Homilies, and the account given of the origin, history and doctrine of Simon, are inconsistent with such an identification of the heathen magician with the Christian apostle. Simon Magus is described in the Homilies(16) as a Samaritan, who studied Greek in Alexandria, and denied the supremacy of God and the resurrection of the dead, substituted Mount Gerizim for Jerusalem, and declared himself the true Christ. He carried with him a companion or mistress, Helena, who descended from the highest heavens, and was the primitive essence and wisdom. If Paul had been intended, the writer would have effectually concealed and defeated his design by such and other traits, which find not the remotest parallel in the history and doctrine of Paul, but are directly opposed to the statements in his Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles.

In the Recognitions the anti-Pauline tendency is moderated, yet Paul’s labors are ignored, and Peter is made the apostle of the Gentiles.

The doctrine which pseudo-Clement puts into the mouth of Peter, and very skillfully interweaves with his narrative, is a confused mixture of Ebionitic and Gnostic, ethical and metaphysical ideas and fancies. He sees in Christianity only the restoration of the pure primordial religion,(17) which God revealed in the creation, but which, on account of the obscuring power of sin and the seductive influence of demons, must be from time to time renewed. The representatives of this religion are the pillars of the world: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Christ. These are in reality only seven different incarnations of the same Adam or primal man, the true prophet of God, who was omniscient and infallible. What is recorded unfavorable to these holy men, the drunkenness of Noah, the polygamy of the patriarchs, the homicide of Moses, and especially the blasphemous history of the fall of Adam, as well as all unworthy anthropopathical passages concerning God, were foisted into the Old Testament by the devil and his demons. Thus, where Philo and Origen resorted to allegorical interpretation, to remove what seems offensive in Scripture, pseudo-Clement adopts the still more arbitrary hypothesis of diabolical interpolations. Among the true prophets of God, again, he gives Adam, Moses, and Christ peculiar eminence, and places Christ above all, though without raising him essentially above a prophet and lawgiver. The history of religion, therefore, is not one of progress, but only of return to the primitive revelation. Christianity and Mosaism are identical, and both coincide with the religion of Adam. Whether a man believe in Moses or in Christ, it is all the same, provided he blaspheme neither. But to know both, and find in both the same doctrine, is to be rich in God, to recognize the new as old, and the old as become new. Christianity is an advance only in its extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, and its consequent universal character.

As the fundamental principle of this pure religion, our author lays down the doctrine of one God, the creator of the world. This is thoroughly Ebionitic, and directly opposed to the dualism of the demiurgic doctrine of the Gnostics. But then he makes the whole stream of created life flow forth from God in a long succession of sexual and ethical antitheses and syzygies, and return into him as its absolute rest; here plainly touching the pantheistic emanation-theory of Gnosticism. God himself one from the beginning, has divided everything into counterparts, into right and left, heaven and earth, day and night, light and darkness, life and death. The monad thus becomes the dyad. The better came first, the worse followed; but from man onward the order was reversed. Adam, created in the image of God, is the true prophet; his wife, Eve, represents false prophecy. They were followed, first, by wicked Cain, and then by righteous Abel. So Peter appeared after Simon Magus, as light after darkness, health after sickness. So, at the last, will antichrist precede the advent of Christ. And finally, the whole present order of things loses itself in the future; the pious pass into eternal life; the ungodly, since the soul becomes mortal by the corruption of the divine image, are annihilated after suffering a punishment, which is described as a purifying fire.(18) When the author speaks of eternal punishment, he merely accommodates himself to the popular notion. The fulfilling of the law, in the Ebionitic sense, and knowledge, on a half-Gnostic principle, are the two parts of the way of salvation. The former includes frequent fasts, ablutions, abstinence from animal food, and voluntary poverty; while early marriage is enjoined, to prevent licentiousness. In declaring baptism to be absolutely necessary to the forgiveness of sin, the author approaches the catholic system. He likewise adopts the catholic principle involved, that salvation is to be found only in the external church.

As regards ecclesiastical organization, he fully embraces the monarchical episcopal view. The bishop holds the place of Christ in the congregation, and has power to bind and loose. Under him stand the presbyters and deacons. But singularly, and again in true Ebionitic style, James, the brother of the Lord, bishop of Jerusalem, which is the centre of Christendom, is made the general vicar of Christ, the visible head of the whole church, the bishop of bishops. Hence even Peter must give him an account of his labors; and hence, too, according to the introductory epistles, the sermons of Peter and Clement’s abstract of them were sent to James for safe-keeping, with the statement, that Clement had been named by Peter as his successor at Rome.

It is easy to see that this appeal to a pseudo-Petrine primitive Christianity was made by the author of the Homilies with a view to reconcile all the existing differences and divisions in Christendom. In this effort he, of course, did not succeed, but rather made way for the dissolution of the Ebionitic element still existing in the orthodox catholic church.

Besides these Homilies, of which the Epitome is only a poor abridgement, there are several other works, some printed, some still unpublished, which are likewise forged upon Clement of Rome, and based upon the same historical material, with unimportant deviations, but are in great measure free, as to doctrine, from Judaistic and Gnostic ingredients, and come considerably nearer the line of orthodoxy.

The most important of these are the Recognitions of Clement, in ten books, mentioned by Origen, but now extant only in a Latin translation by Rufinus. They take their name from the narrative, in the last books, of the reunion of the scattered members of the Clementine family, who all at last find themselves together in Christianity, and are baptized by Peter.

On the question of priority between these two works, critics are divided, some making the Recognitions an orthodox, or at least more nearly orthodox, version of the Homilies;(19) others regarding the Homilies as a heretical corruption of the Recognitions.(20) But in all probability both works are based upon older and simpler Jewish-Christian documents, under the assumed names of Peter and Clement.(21)

As to their birth-place, the Homilies probably originated in East Syria, the Recognitions in Rome. They are assigned to the second half of the second century.

In a literary point of view, these productions are remarkable, as the first specimens of Christian romance, next to the "Pastor Hermae." They far surpass, in matter, and especially in moral earnestness and tender feeling, the heathen romances of a Chariton and an Achilles Tatios, of the fourth or fifth centuries. The style, though somewhat tedious, is fascinating in its way, and betrays a real artist in its combination of the didactic and historical, the philosophic and the poetic elements.

Notes.

Lagarde (in the Preface to his edition of the Clementina, p. 22) and G. E. Stietz (in the lengthy review of Lagarde in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1867, No. III p. 556 sqq), draw a parallel between the pseudo-Clementine fiction of Simon and the German story of Faust, the magician, and derive the latter from the former through the medium of the Recognitions, which were better known in the church than the homilies. George Sabellicus , about a.d. 1507, called himself Faustus junior, magus secundus. Clement’s father is called Faustus, and his two brothers, Fatistinus and Faustinianus (in the Recognitions Faustus, and Faustinus), were brought up with Simon the magician, and at first associated with him. The characters of Helena and Homunculus appear in both stories, though very differently. I doubt whether these resemblances are sufficient to establish a connection between the two otherwise widely divergent popular fictions.

§ 115. Gnosticism. The Literature.

Sources:

Gnostic (of the Valentinian school in the wider sense): Pistis Sopitia; Opus gnosticum e codice Coptico descriptum lat. vertit M. G Schwartze, ed. J. H. Petermann. Berl. 1851. Of the middle of the third century. An account of the fall and repentance of Sophia and the mystery of redemption. Comp. the article of Köstlin in the "Tüb. Theol. Jahrbücher," 1854.—The Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypses are to a large extent of Gnostic origin, e.g. the Acts of St. Thomas (a favorite apostle of the Gnostics), John, Peter, Paul, Philip, Matthew, Andrew, Paul and Thecla. Some of them have been worked over by Catholic authors, and furnished much material to the legendary lore of the church. They and the stories of monks were the religious novels of the early church. See the collections of the apocryphal literature of the N. T. by Fabricius, Thilo, Tischendorf, Max Bonnet, D. William Wright, G. Phillips, S. C. Malan, Zahn, and especially Lipsius: Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostelligenden (Braunschweig, 1883, 2 vols.) Comp. the Lit. quoted in vol. I. 90 sq.; 188 sq., and in Lipsius, I. 34 sqq.

Patristic(with many extracts from lost Gnostic writings): Irenaeus: Adv. Hareses. The principal source, especially for the Valentinian Gnosticism. Hippolytus: Refutat. Omnium Haeresium (Philosophumena), ed. Duncker and Schneidewin. Gott. 1859. Based partly on Irenaeus, partly on independent reading of Gnostic works. Tertullian: De praeescriptionibus Haereticorum; Adv. Valentin; Scorpiace; Adv. Marcionem. The last is the chief authority for Marcionism. Clemens Alex.: Stromata. Scattered notices of great value. Origenes: Com. in Evang. Joh. Furnishes much important information and extracts from Heracleon. Epiphanius: Panavrion. Full of information, but uncritical and fanatically orthodox. Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. Theodoret: Fabulae Haer.

See Fr. Oehler’s Corpus Haereseologicum (a collection of the ancient anti-heretical works of Epiphanius, Philastrus, Augustin, etc.). Berol. 1856–1861, 5 vols.

Neo-Platonist: Plotinus: Pro;" tou;" gnwstikouv" (or Ennead. II. 9).
Critical: R. A. Lipsius: Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epiphanios. Wien 1865. Die Quellen der äItesten Ketzergeschichte. Leipz. 1875 (258 pp.)

Ad. Harnack: Zur Quellen-Kritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. Leipz. 1873. Comp. his article in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift für K. Gesell." for 1876, I. Also Hilgenfeld: Ketzergesch. p. 1–83.

Works:

Massuet (R.C.): Dissert. de Gnosticorum rebus, prefixed to his edition of Irenaeus; also in Stieren’s edition of Iren. vol. II. pp. 54–180.

Mosheim: Comment. de rebus ante Const. M. pp. 333 sqq.

Neander: Genet. Entwicktlung der gnost. Systeme. Berl. 1818. Comp. the more mature exposition in his Ch. Hist. He first opened a calm philosophical treatment of Gnosticism.

Jaques Matter.: Histoire critique du Gnosticisme et de son influence sur les sectes religieuses el philosophiques des six premiers siècles Par. 1828; second ed. much enlarged. Strasb. and Par. 1844, in 3 vols.

Burton: Bampton Lectures on the Heresies of the Apost. Age. Oxf. 1830,

Möhler (R.C.): Der Ursprung des Gnosticismus. Tüb. 1831 (in his "Vermischte Schriften." I. pp. 403 sqq.)

Baur: Die christliche Gnosis in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung. Tüb. 1835. A masterly philosophical analysis, which includes also the systems of Jacob Böhme, Schelling, Schleiermacher, and Hegel. Comp. his Kirchengesch. vol. I. 175–234.

Norton: History of the Gnostics. Boston, 1845.

H. Rossel: Gesch. der Untersuch. ueber den Gnostic.; in his "Theol. Nachlass." published by Neander. Berl. 1847, vol. 2^nd, p. 179 sqq.

Thiersch: Kritik der N. Tlichen Schriften. Erl. 1845 (chap. 5, pp. 231 sqq. and 268 sqq.)

R. A. Lipsius: Der Gnosticismus, sein Wesen, Ursprung und Entwicklungsgang. Leipz. 1860 (from Ersch and Gruber’s "Allgem. Encycl." 1. Sect. vol. 71). Comp. his critical work on the sources of Gn. quoted above.

E. Wilh. Möller: Geschirhte des, Kosmologie in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Origenes. Mit specialuntersuchungen ueber die gnostischen Systeme. Halle, 1860 (pp. 189–473).

C. W. King: The Gnostics and their Remains (with illustrations of Gnostic symbols and works of art). Lond., 1864.

Henry L. Mansel (Dean of St. Paul’s, d. 1871): The Gnostic Heresies, ed. by J. B. Lightfoot. London, 1875.

J. B. Lightfoot: The Colossian Heresy, Excursus in his Com. on Colossians and Philemon. London, 187, 5, pp. 73–113. This is the best account of Gnosticism, written by an Englishman, but confined to the apostolic ige.

Renan: L’ église chrétienne (Paris, 1879), Chap. IX. and X. p. 140–185, and XVIII. p. 350–363.

J. L. Jacobi: Gnosis, in the new ed. of Herzog, vol. V. (1879), 204–247, condensed in Schaff’s "Rel. Encycl." 1882, vol. I. 877 sqq.

G. Salmon, in Smith and Wace, II. 678–687.

G. Koffmane: Die Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und Organisation. Breslau, 1881. (Theses, 33 pages).

Ad. Hilgenfeld:Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums. Liepzig, 1884 (162 sqq.).

A number of monographs on the individual Gnostics, see below.

§ 116. Meaning, Origin and Character of Gnosticism.

The Judaistic form of heresy was substantially conquered in the apostolic age. More important and more widely spread in the second period was the paganizing heresy, known by the name of Gnosticism. It was the Rationalism of the ancient church; it pervaded the intellectual atmosphere, and stimulated the development of catholic theology by opposition.

The Greek word gnosis may denote all schools of philosophical or religious knowledge, in distinction from superficial opinion or blind belief. The New Testament makes a plain distinction between true and false gnosis. The true consists in a deep insight into the essence and structure of the Christian truth, springs from faith, is accompanied by the cardinal virtues of love and humility, serves to edify the church, and belongs among the gifts of grace wrought by the Holy Spirit.(22) In this sense, Clement of Alexandria and Origen aimed at gnosis, and all speculative theologians who endeavor to reconcile reason and revelation, may be called Christian Gnostics. The false gnosis(23) on the contrary, against which Paul warns Timothy, and which he censures in the Corinthians and Colossians is a morbid pride of wisdom, an arrogant, self-conceited, ambitious knowledge, which puffs up, instead of edifying,(24) runs into idle subtleties and disputes, and verifies in its course the apostle’s word: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."(25)

In this bad sense, the word applies to the error of which we now speak, and which began to show itself at least as early as the days of Paul and John. It is a one-sided intellectualism on a dualistic heathen basis. It rests on an over-valuation of knowledge or gnosis, and a depreciation of faith or pistis. The Gnostics contrasted themselves by this name with the Pistics, or the mass of believing Christians. They regarded Christianity as consisting essentially in a higher knowledge; fancied themselves the sole possessors of an esoteric, philosophical religion, which made them genuine, spiritual men, and looked down with contempt upon the mere men of the soul and of the body. They constituted the intellectual aristocracy, a higher caste in the church. They, moreover, adulterated Christianity with sundry elements entirely foreign, and thus quite obscured the true essence of the gospel.(26)

We may parallelize the true and false, the believing and unbelieving forms of Gnosticism with the two forms of modern Rationalism and modern Agnosticism. There is a Christian Rationalism which represents the doctrines of revelation as being in harmony with reason, though transcending reason in its present capacity; and there is an anti-Christian Rationalism which makes natural reason (ratio) the judge of revelation, rejects the specific doctrines of Christianity, and denies the supernatural and miraculous. And there is an Agnosticism which springs from the sense of the limitations of thought, and recognizes faith as the necessary organ of the supernatural and absolute;(27) while the unbelieving Agnosticism declares the infinite and absolute to be unknown and unknowable and tends to indifferentism and atheism.(28)

We now proceed to trace the origin of Gnosticism.

As to its substance, Gnosticism is chiefly of heathen descent. It is a peculiar translation or transfusion of heathen philosophy and religion into Christianity. This was perceived by the church-fathers in their day. Hippolytus particularly, in his "Philosophumena" endeavors to trace the Gnostic heresies to the various systems of Greek philosophy, making Simon Magus, for example, dependent on Heraclitus, Valentine on Pythagoras and Plato, Basilides on Aristotle, Marcion on Empedocles; and hence he first exhibits the doctrines of the Greek philosophy from Thales down. Of all these systems Platonism had the greatest influence, especially on the Alexandrian Gnostics; though not so much in its original Hellenic form, as in its later orientalized eclectic and mystic cast, of which Neo-Platonism was another fruit. The Platonic speculation yielded the germs of the Gnostic doctrine of aeons, the conceptions of matter, of the antithesis of an ideal and a real world, of all ante-mundane fall of souls from the ideal world, of the origin of sin from matter, and of the needed redemption of the soul from the fetters of the body. We find also in the Gnostics traces of the Pythagorean symbolical use of numbers, the Stoic physics and ethics, and some Aristotelian elements.

But this reference to Hellenic philosophy, with which Massuet was content, is not enough. Since Beausobre and Mosheim the East has been rightly joined with Greece, as the native home of this heresy. This may be inferred from the mystic, fantastic, enigmatic form of the Gnostic speculation, and from the fact, that most of its representatives sprang from Egypt and Syria. The conquests of Alexander, the spread of the Greek language and literature, and the truths of Christianity, produced a mighty agitation in the eastern mind, which reacted on the West. Gnosticism has accordingly been regarded as more or less parallel with the heretical forms of Judaism, with Essenism, Therapeutism, Philo’s philosophico-religious system, and with the Cabbala, the origin of which probably dates as far back as the first century. The affinity of Gnosticism also with the Zoroastrian dualism of a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness is unmistakable, especially in the Syrian Gnostics. Its alliance with the pantheistic, docetic, and ascetic elements of Buddhism, which had advanced at the time of Christ to western Asia, is equally plain. Parsic and Indian influence is most evident in Manichaeism, while the Hellenic element there amounts to very little.

Gnosticism, with its syncretistic tendency, is no isolated fact. It struck its roots deep in the mighty revolution of ideas induced by the fall of the old religions and the triumph of the new. Philo, of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Christ, but wholly ignorant of him, endeavored to combine the Jewish religion, by allegorical exposition, or rather imposition, with Platonic philosophy; and this system, according as it might be prosecuted under the Christian or the heathen influence, would prepare the way either for the speculative theology of the Alexandrian church fathers, or for the heretical Gnosis. Still more nearly akin to Gnosticism is Neo-Platonism, which arose a little later than Philo’s system, but ignored Judaism, and derived its ideas exclusively from eastern and western heathenism. The Gnostic syncretism, however, differs materially from both the Philonic and the Neo-Platonic by taking up Christianity, which the Neo-Platonists directly or indirectly opposed. This the Gnostics regarded as the highest stage of the development of religion, though they so corrupted it by the admixture of foreign matter, as to destroy its identity.

Gnosticism is, therefore, the grandest and most comprehensive form of speculative religious syncretism known to history. It consists of Oriental mysticism, Greek philosophy, Alexandrian, Philonic, and Cabbalistic Judaism, and Christian ideas of salvation, not merely mechanically compiled, but, as it were, chemically combined. At least, in its fairly developed form in the Valentinian system, it is, in its way, a wonderful structure of speculative or rather imaginative thought, and at the same time all artistic work of the creative fancy, a Christian mythological epic. The old world here rallied all its energies, to make out of its diverse elements some new thing, and to oppose to the real, substantial universalism of the catholic church an ideal, shadowy universalism of speculation. But this fusion of all systems served in the end only to hasten the dissolution of eastern and western heathenism, while the Christian element came forth purified and strengthened from the crucible.

The Gnostic speculation, like most speculative religions, failed to establish a safe basis for practical morals. On the one side, a spiritual pride obscured the sense of sin, and engendered a frivolous antinomianism, which often ended in sensuality and debaucheries. On the other side, an over-strained sense of sin often led the Gnostics, in gIaring contrast with the pagan deification of nature, to ascribe nature to the devil, to abhor the body as the seat of evil, and to practice extreme austerities upon themselves.

This ascetic feature is made prominent by Möhler, the Roman Catholic divine. But he goes quite too far, when he derives the whole phenomenon of Gnosticism (which he wrongly views as a forerunner of Protestantism) directly and immediately from Christianity. He represents it as a hyper-Christianity, an exaggerated contempt for the world,(29) which, when seeking for itself a speculative basis, gathered from older philosophemes, theosophies, and mythologies, all that it could use for its purpose.

The number of the Gnostics it is impossible to ascertain. We find them in almost all portions of the ancient church; chiefly where Christianity came into close contact with Judaism and heathenism, as in Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor; then in Rome, the rendezvous of all forms of truth and falsehood; in Gaul, where they were opposed by Irenaeus; and in Africa, where they were attacked by Tertullian, and afterwards by Augustin, who was himself a Manichaean for several years. They found most favor with the educated, and threatened to lead astray the teachers of the church. But they could gain no foothold among the people; indeed, as esoterics, they stood aloof from the masses; and their philosophical societies were, no doubt, rarely as large as the catholic congregations.

The flourishing period of the Gnostic schools was the second century. In the sixth century, only faint traces of them remained; yet some Gnostic and especially Manichaean ideas continue to appear in several heretical sects of the middle ages, such as the Priscillianists, the Paulicians, the Bogomiles, and the Catharists; and even the history of modern theological and philosophical speculation shows kindred tendencies.

§ 117. The System of Gnosticism. Its Theology.

Gnosticism is a heretical philosophy of religion, or, more exactly a mythological theosophy, which reflects intellectually the peculiar, fermenting state of that remarkable age of transition from the heathen to the Christian order of things. If it were merely an unintelligible congeries of puerile absurdities and impious blasphemies, as it is grotesquely portrayed by older historians,(30) it would not have fascinated so many vigorous intellects and produced such a long-continued agitation in the ancient church. It is an attempt to solve some of the deepest metaphysical and theological problems. It deals with the great antitheses of God and world, spirit and matter, idea and phenomenon; and endeavors to unlock the mystery of the creation; the question of the rise, development, and end of the world; and of the origin of evil.(31) It endeavors to harmonize the creation of the material world and the existence of evil with the idea of an absolute God, who is immaterial and perfectly good. This problem can only be solved by the Christian doctrine of redemption; but Gnosticism started from a false basis of dualism, which prevents a solution.

In form and method it is, as already observed, more Oriental than Grecian. The Gnostics, in their daring attempt to unfold the mysteries of an upper world, disdained the trammels of reason, and resorted to direct spiritual intuition. Hence they speculate not so much in logical and dialectic mode, as in an imaginative, semi-poetic way, and they clothe their ideas not in the simple, clear, and sober language of reflection, but in the many-colored, fantastic, mythological dress of type, symbol, and allegory. Thus monstrous nonsense and the most absurd conceits are chaotically mingIed up with profound thoughts and poetic intuitions.

This spurious supernaturalism which substitutes the irrational for the supernatural, and the prodigy for the miracle, pervades the pseudo-historical romances of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts. These surpass the Catholic traditions in luxuriant fancy and incredible marvels. "Demoniacal possessions," says one who has mastered this literature,(32) "and resurrections from the dead, miracles of healing and punishment are accumulated without end; the constant repetition of similar events gives the long stories a certain monotony, which is occasionally interrupted by colloquies, hymns and prayers of genuine poetic value. A rich apparatus of visions, angelic appearances, heavenly voices, speaking animals, defeated and humbled demons is unfolded, a superterrestrial splendor of light gleams up, mysterious signs from heaven, earthquakes, thunder and lightning frighten the impious; fire, earth, wind and water obey the pious; serpents, lions, leopards, tigers, and bears are tamed by a word of the apostles and turn upon their persecutors; the dying martyrs are surrounded by coronets, roses, lilies, incense, while the abyss opens to swallow up their enemies."

The highest source of knowledge, with these heretics was a secret tradition, in contrast with the open, popular tradition of the Catholic church. In this respect, they differ from Protestant sects, which generally discard tradition altogether and appeal to the Bible only, as understood by themselves. They appealed also to apocryphal documents, which arose in the second century in great numbers, under eminent names of apostolic or pre-Christian times. Epiphanius, in his 26^th Heresy, counts the apocrypha of the Gnostics by thousands, and Irenaeus found among the Valentinians alone a countless multitude of such writings.(33) And finally, when it suited their purpose, the Gnostics employed single portions of the Bible, without being able to agree either as to the extent or the interpretation of the same. The Old Testament they generally rejected, either entirely, as in the case of the Marcionites and the Manichaeans, or at least in great part; and in the New Testament they preferred certain books or portions, such as the Gospel of John, with its profound spiritual intuitions, and either rejected the other books, or wrested them to suit their ideas. Marcion, for example, thus mutilated the Gospel of Luke, and received in addition to it only ten of Paul’s Epistles, thus substituting an arbitrary canon of eleven books for the catholic Testament of twenty-seven. In interpretation they adopted, even with far less moderation than Philo, the most arbitrary and extravagant allegorical principles; despising the letter as sensuous, and the laws of language and exegesis as fetters of the mind. The number 30 in the New Testament, for instance, particularly in the life of Jesus, is made to denote the number of the Valentinian aeons; and the lost sheep in the parable is Achamoth. Even to heathen authors, to the poems of Homer, Aratus, Anacreon, they applied this method, and discovered in these works the deepest Gnostic mysteries.(34) They gathered from the whole field of ancient mythology, astronomy, physics, and magic, everything which could, serve in any way to support their fancies.

The common characteristics of nearly all the Gnostic systems are (1) Dualism; the assumption of an eternal antagonism between God and matter. (2) The demiurgic notion; the separation of the creator of the world or the demiurgos from the proper God. (3) Docetism; the resolution of the human element in the person of the Redeemer into mere deceptive appearance.(35)

We will endeavor now to present a clear and connected view of the theoretical and practical system of Gnosticism in as it comes before us in its more fully developed forms, especially the Valentinian school.

The Gnostic Theology. The system starts from absoIute primal being. God is the unfathomable abyss,(36) locked up within himself, without beginning, unnamable, and incomprehensible; on the one hand, infinitely exalted above every existence; yet, on the other hand, the original aeon, the sum of all ideas and spiritual powers. Basilides would not ascribe even existence to him, and thus, like Hegel, starts from absolute nonentity, which, however, is identical with absolute being.(37) He began where modern Agnosticism ends.
Kosmology. The abyss opens; God enters upon a process of development, and sends forth from his bosom the several aeons; that is, the attributes and unfolded powers of his nature, the ideas of the eternal spirit-world, such as mind, reason, wisdom, power, truth, life.(38) These emanate from the absolute in a certain order, according to Valentine in pairs with sexual polarity. The further they go from the great source, the poorer and weaker they become. Besides the notion of emanation,(39) the Gnostics employed also, to illustrate the self-revelation of the absolute, the figure of the evolution of numbers from an original unit, or of utterance in tones gradually diminishing to the faint echo.(40) The cause of the procession of the aeons is, with some, as with Valentine, the self-limiting love of God; with others, metaphysical necessity. The whole body of aeons forms the ideal world, or light-world, or spiritual foulness, the Pleroma, as opposed to the Kenoma, or the material world of emptiness. The one is the totality of the divine powers and attributes, the other the region of shadow and darkness. Christ belongs to the Pleroma, as the chief of the aeons; the Demiurge or Creator belongs to the Kenoma. In opposition to the incipient form of this heresy, St. Paul taught that Jesus Christ is the whole pleroma of the Godhead (Col. 1:19; 2:9), and the church the reflected pleroma of Christ (Eph. 1:22).

The material visible world is the abode of the principle of evil. This cannot proceed from God; else he were himself the author of evil. It must come from an opposite principle. This is Matter (u{lh), which stands in eternal opposition to God and the ideal world. The Syrian Gnostics, and still more the Manichaeans, agreed with Parsism in conceiving Matter as an intrinsically evil substance, the raging kingdom of Satan, at irreconcilable warfare with the kingdom of light. The Alexandrian Gnostics followed more the Platonic idea of the u{lh and conceived this as kevnwma, emptiness, in contrast with plhvrwma, the divine, vital fulness, or as the mh; o[n, related to the divine being as shadow to light, and forming the dark limit beyond which the mind cannot pass. This Matter is in itself dead, but becomes animated by a union with the Pleroma, which again is variously described. In the Manichaean system there are powers of darkness, which seize by force some parts of the kingdom of light. But usually the union is made to proceed from above. The last link in the chain of divine aeons, either too weak to keep its hold on the ideal world, or seized with a sinful passion for the embrace of the infinite abyss, falls as a spark of light into the dark chaos of matter, and imparts to it a germ of divine life, but in this bondage feels a painful longing after redemption, with which the whole world of aeons sympathizes. This weakest aeon is called by Valentine the lower Wisdom, or Achamoth,(41) and marks the extreme point, where spirit must surrender itself to matter, where the infinite must enter into the finite, and thus form a basis for the real world. The myth of Achamoth is grounded in the thought, that the finite is incompatible with the absolute, yet in some sense demands it to account for itself.

Here now comes in the third principle of the Gnostic speculation, namely, the world-maker, commonly called the Demiurge,(42) termed by Basilides "Archon" or world-ruler, by the Ophites. "Jaldabaoth," or son of chaos. He is a creature of the fallen aeon, formed of physical material, and thus standing between God and Matter. He makes out of Matter the visible sensible world, and rules over it. He has his throne in the planetary heavens, and presides over time and over the sidereal spirits. Astrological influences were generally ascribed to him. He is the God of Judaism, the Jehovah, who imagines himself to be the supreme and only God. But in the further development of this idea the systems differ; the anti-Jewish Gnostics, Marcion and the Ophites, represent the Demiurge as an insolent being, resisting the purposes of God; while the Judaizing Gnostics, Basilides and Valentine, make him a restricted, unconscious instrument of God to prepare the way for redemption.

Christology and Soteriology. Redemption itself is the liberation of the light-spirit from the chains of dark Matter, and is effected by Christ, the most perfect aeon, who is the mediator of return from the sensible phenomenal world to the supersensuous ideal world, just as the Demiurge is the mediator of apostacy from the Pleroma to the Kenoma. This redeeming aeon, called by Valentine swthvr or jIhsou'" descends through the sphere of heaven, and assumes the ethereal appearance of a body; according to another view, unites himself with the man Jesus, or with the Jewish Messiah, at the baptism, and forsakes him again at the passion. At all events, the redeemer, however conceived in other respects, is allowed no actual contact with sinful matter. His human birth, his sufferings and death, are explained by Gnosticism after the manner of the Indian mythology, as a deceptive appearance, a transient vision, a spectral form, which he assumed only to reveal himself to the sensuous nature of man. Reduced to a clear philosophical definition, the Gnostic Christ is really nothing more than the ideal spirit of himself, as in the mythical gospel-theory of Strauss. The Holy Ghost is commonly conceived as a subordinate aeon. The central fact in the work of Christ is the communication of the Gnosis to a small circle of the initiated, prompting and enabling them to strive with clear consciousness after the ideal world and the original unity. According to Valentine, the heavenly Soter brings Achamoth after innumerable sufferings into the Pleroma, and unites himself with her—the most glorious aeon with the Iowest—in an eternal spirit-marriage. With this, all disturbance in the heaven of aeons is allayed, and a blessed harmony and inexpressible delight are restored, in which all spiritual (pneumatic) men, or genuine Gnostics, share. Matter is at last entirely consumed by a fire breaking out from its dark bosom.
The Anthropology of the Gnostics corresponds with their theology. Man is a microcosm consisting of spirit, body, and soul reflecting the three principles, God, Matter, and Demiurge, though in very different degrees. There are three classes of men: the spiritual,(43) in whom the divine element, a spark of light from the ideal world, predominates; the material,(44) bodily, carnal, physical, in whom matter, the gross sensuous principle, rules; and the psychical,(45) in whom the demiurgic, quasi-divine rules; principle, the mean between the two preceding, prevails.

These three classes are frequently identified with the adherents of the three religions respectively; the spiritual with the Christians, the carnal with the heathens, the psychical with the Jews. But they also made the same distinction among the professors of any one religion, particularly among the Christians; and they regarded themselves as the genuine spiritual men in the full sense of the word; while they looked upon the great mass of Christians(46) as only psychical, not able to rise from blind faith to true knowledge, too weak for the good, and too tender for the evil, longing for the divine, yet unable to attain it, and thus hovering between the Pleroma of the ideal world and the Kenoma of the sensual.

Ingenious as this thought is, it is just the basis of that unchristian distinction of esoteric and exoteric religion, and that pride of knowledge, in which Gnosticism runs directly counter to the Christian virtues of humility and love.

§ 118. Ethics of Gnosticism.

All the Gnostic heretics agree in disparaging the divinely created body, and over-rating the intellect. Beyond this, we perceive among them two opposite tendencies: a gloomy asceticism, and a frivolous antinomianism; both grounded in the dualistic principle, which falsely ascribes evil to matter, and traces nature to the devil. The two extremes frequently met, and the Nicolaitan maxim in regard to the abuse of the flesh(47) was made to serve asceticism first, and then libertinism.

The ascetic Gnostics, like Marcion, Saturninus, Tatian, and the Manichaeans were pessimists. They felt uncomfortable in the sensuous and perishing world, ruled by the Demiurge, and by Satan; they abhorred the body as formed from Matter, and forbade the use of certain kinds of food and all nuptial intercourse, as an adulteration of themselves with sinful Matter; like the Essenes and the errorists noticed by Paul in the Colossians and Pastoral Epistles. They thus confounded sin with matter, and vainly imagined that, matter being dropped, sin, its accident, would fall with it. Instead of hating sin only, which God has not made, they hated the world, which he has made.

The licentious Gnostics, as the Nicolaitans, the Ophites, the Carpocratians, and the Antitactes, in a proud conceit of the exaltation of the spirit above matter, or even on the diabolical principle, that sensuality must be overcome by indulging it, bade defiance to all moral laws, and gave themselves up to the most shameless licentiousness. It is no great thing, said they, according to Clement of Alexandria, to restrain lust; but it is surely a great thing not to be conquered by Iust, when one indulges in it. According to Epiphanius there were Gnostic sects in Egypt, which, starting from a filthy, materialistic pantheism and identifying Christ with the generative powers of nature, practised debauchery as a mode of worship, and after having, as they thought, offered and collected all their strength, blasphemously exclaimed: "I am Christ." From these pools of sensuality and Satanic pride arose the malaria of a vast literature, of which, however, fortunately, nothing more than a few names has come down to us.

§ 119. Cultus and Organization.

In cultus, the Gnostic docetism and hyper-spiritualism led consistently to naked intellectual simplicity; sometimes to the rejection of all sacraments and outward means of grace; if not even, as in the Prodicians, to blasphemous self-exaltation above all that is called God and worshiped.(48)

But with this came also the opposite extreme of a symbolic and mystic pomp, especially in the sect of the Marcosians. These Marcosians held to a two-fold baptism, that applied to the human Jesus, the Messiah of the psychical, and that administered to the heavenly Christ, the Messiah of the spiritual; they decorated the baptistery like a banquet-hall; and they first introduced extreme unction. As early as the second century the Basilideans celebrated the feast of Epiphany. The Simonians and Carpocratians used images of Christ and of their religious heroes in their worship. The Valentinians and Ophites sang in hymns the deep longing of Achamoth for redemption from the bonds of Matter. Bardesanes is known as the first Syrian hymn-writer. Many Gnostics, following their patriarch, Simon, gave themselves to magic, and introduced their arts into their worship; as the Marcosians did in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Of the outward organization of the Gnostics (with the exception of the Manichaeans, who will be treated separately), we can say little. Their aim was to resolve Christianity into a magnificent speculation; the practical business of organization was foreign to their exclusively intellectual bent. Tertullian charges them with an entire want of order and discipline.(49) They formed, not so much a sect or party, as a multitude of philosophical schools, like the modern Rationalists. Many were unwilling to separate at all from the Catholic church, but assumed in it, as theosophists, the highest spiritual rank. Some were even clothed with ecclesiastical office, as we must no doubt infer from the Apostolic Canons (51 or 50), where it is said, with evident reference to the gloomy, perverse asceticism of the Gnostics: "If a bishop, a priest, or a deacon, or any ecclesiastic abstain from marriage, from flesh, or from wine, not for practice in self-denial, but from disgust,(50) forgetting that God made everything very good, that he made also the male and the female, in fact, even blaspheming the creation;(51) he shall either retract his error, or be deposed and cast out of the church. A layman also shall be treated in like manner." Here we perceive the polemical attitude which the Catholic church was compelled to assume even towards the better Gnostics.

§ 120. Schools of Gnosticism.

The arbitrary and unbalanced subjectivity of the Gnostic speculation naturally produced a multitude of schools. These Gnostic schools have been variously classified.

Geographically they may be reduced to two great families, the Egyptian or Alexandrian, and the Syrian, which are also intrinsically different. In the former (Basilides, Valentine, the Ophites), Platonism and the emanation theory prevail, in the latter (Saturninus, Bardesanes, Tatian), Parsism and dualism. Then, distinct in many respects from both these is the more practical school of Marcion, who sprang neither from Egypt nor from Syria, but from Asia Minor, where St. Paul had left the strong imprint of his free gospel in opposition to Jewish legalism and bondage.

Examined further, with reference to its doctrinal character, Gnosticism appears in three forms, distinguished by the preponderance of the heathen, the Jewish, and the Christian elements respectively in its syncretism. The Simonians, Nicolaitans, Ophites, Carpocratians, Prodicians, Antitactes, and Manichaeans belong to a paganizing class; Cerinthus, Basilides, Valentine, and Justin (as also the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, though these are more properly Ebionitic), to a Judaizing; Saturninus, Marcion, Tatian, and the Encratites, to a Christianizing division. But it must be remembered here that this distinction is only relative; all the Gnostic systems being, in fact, predominantly heathen in their character, and essentially opposed alike to the pure Judaism of the Old Testament and to the Christianity of the New. The Judaism of the so-called Judaizing Gnostics is only of an apocryphal sort, whether of the Alexandrian or the Cabalistic tinge.(52)

The ethical point of view, from which the division might as well be made, would give likewise three main branches: the speculative or theosophic Gnostics (Basilides, Valentine), the practical and ascetic (Marcion, Saturninus, Tatian), and the antinomian and libertine (Simonians, Nicolaitans, Ophites, Carpocratians, Antitactes).

Having thus presented the general character of Gnosticism, and pointed out its main branches, we shall follow chiefly the chronological order in describing the several schools, beginning with those which date from the age of the apostles.

§ 121. Simon Magus and the Simonians.

I. Commentaries on Acts 8:9–24. Justin Martyr: Apol. I. 26 and 56. The pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Irenaeus, I. 23. Hippolytus, VI. 2–15, etc.

Simson: Leben und Lehre Simon des Magiers, in the "Zeitschrift für hist. Theologie" for 1841.

Hilgenfeld: Der Magier Simon, in the "Zeischrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie" for 1868.

Lipsius: Simon d. Mag. in Schenkel’s "Bibel-Lexikon," vol. V. (1875), p. 301–321. Comp. the literature quoted there, p. 320.

Simon Magus is a historical character known to us from the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.(53) He was probably a native of Gitthon, in Samaria, as Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, reports;(54) but he may nevertheless be identical with the contemporaneous Jewish magician of the same name, whom Josephus mentions as a native of Cyprus and as a friend of Procurator Felix, who employed him to alienate Drusilla, the beautiful wife of king Azizus of Emesa, in Syria, from her husband, that he might marry her.(55)

Simon represented himself as a sort of emanation of the deity ("the Great Power of God"),(56) made a great noise among the half-pagan, half-Jewish Samaritans by his sorceries, was baptized by Philip about the year 40, but terribly rebuked by Peter for hypocrisy and abuse of holy things to sordid ends.(57) He thus affords the first instance in church history of a confused syncretism in union with magical arts; and so far as this goes, the church fathers are right in styling him the patriarch, or, in the words of Irenaeus, the "magister "and "progenitor" of all heretics, and of the Gnostics in particular. Besides him, two other contemporaneous Samaritans, Dositheus and Menander, bore the reputation of heresiarchs. Samaria was a fertile soil of religious syncretism even before Christ, and the natural birth-place of that syncretistic heresy which goes by the name of Gnosticism.

The wandering life and teaching of Simon were fabulously garnished in the second and third centuries by Catho-lics and heretics, but especially by the latter in the interest of Ebionism and with bitter hostility to Paul. In the pseudo-Clementine romances he represents all anti-Jewish heresies. Simon the Magician is contrasted, as the apostle of falsehood, with Simon Peter, the apostle of truth; he follows him, as darkness follows the light, from city to city, in company with Helena (who had previously been a prostitute at Tyre, but was now elevated to the dignity of divine intelligence); he is refuted by Peter in public disputations at Caesarea, Antioch, and Rome; at last he is ignominiously defeated by him after a mock-resurrection and mock-ascension before the Emperor Nero; he ends with suicide, while Peter gains the crown of martyrdom.(58) There is a bare possibility that, like other heretics and founders of sects, he may have repaired to Rome (before Peter); but Justin Martyr’s account of the statue of Simon is certainly a mistake.(59)

The Gnosticism which Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and other fathers ascribe to this Simon and his followers is crude, and belongs to the earlier phase of this heresy. It was embodied in a work entitled "The Great Announcement" or "Proclamation"(60) of which Hippolytus gives an analysis.(61) The chief ideas are the "great power," "the great idea," the male and female principle. He declared himself an incarnation of the creative world-spirit, and his female companion, Helena, the incarnation of the receptive world-soul. Here we have the Gnostic conception of the syzygy.

The sect of the Simonians, which continued into the third century, took its name, if not its rise, from Simon Magus, worshipped him as a redeeming genius, chose, like the Cainites, the most infamous characters of the Old Testament for its heroes, and was immoral in its principles and practices. The name, however, is used in a very indefinite sense, for various sorts of Gnostics.

§ 122. The Nicolaitans.

Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. I. 26, 3; Clement Of Alex.: Strom. III. 4 (and in Euseb. H. E. III. 29); Hippolytus: Philos. VII. 24; Epiphanius: Haer. I. 2, 25.

The Nicolaitans are mentioned as a licentious sect in the Apocalypse 2:6, 15. They claimed as their founder Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch and one of the seven deacons of the congregation of Jerusalem (Acts 6:5). He is supposed to have apostatized from the true faith, and taught the dangerous principle that the flesh must be abused,(62) that is, at least as understood by his disciples, one must make the whole round of sensuality, to become its perfect master.

But the views of the fathers are conflicting. Irenaeus (who is followed substantially by Hippolytus) gives a very unfavorable account.

"The Nicolaitanes," he says, "are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, where they are represented as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: ’But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.’ "

Clement of Alexandria says that Nicolas was a faithful husband, and brought up his children in purity, but that his disciples misunderstood his saying (which he attributes also to the Apostle Matthias), "that we must fight against the flesh and abuse it."(63)

§ 123. Cerinthus.

Iren. I. (25) 26, § 1; III. 3,§ 4; III. 11, § 1; Hippol. VII. 21; Euseb. III. 28; IV. 14. Comp. Dorner: Lehre v. der Person Christi, I. 314 sq. Art. Cerinth in "Smith and Wace," I. 447.

Cerinthus(64) appeared towards the close of the first century in Asia Minor, and came in conflict with the aged Apostle John, who is supposed by Irenaeus to have opposed his Gnostic ideas in the Gospel and Epistles. The story that John left a public bath when he saw Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, fearing that the bath might fall in, and the similar story of Polycarp meeting Marcion and calling him "the first born of Satan," reveal the intense abhorrence with which the orthodox churchmen of those days looked upon heresy.(65)

Cerinthus was (according to the uncertain traditions collected by Epiphanius) an Egyptian and a Jew either by birth or conversion, studied in the school of Philo in Alexandria, was one of the false apostles who opposed Paul and demanded circumcision (Gal. 2:4; 2 Cor. 11:13), claimed to have received angelic revelations, travelled through Palestine and Galatia, and once came to Ephesus. The time of his death is unknown.

His views, as far as they can be ascertained from confused accounts, assign him a position between Judaism and Gnosticism proper. He rejected all the Gospels except a mutilated Matthew, taught the validity of the Mosaic law and the millennial kingdom. He was so far strongly Judaistic, and may be counted among the Ebionites; but in true Gnostic style he distinguished the world-maker from God, and represented the former as a subordinate power, as an intermediate, though not exactly hostile, being. In his Christology he separates the earthly man Jesus, who was a son of Joseph and Mary, from the heavenly Christ,(66) who descended upon the man Jesus in the form of a dove at the baptism in the Jordan, imparted to him the genuine knowledge of God and the power of miracles, but forsook him in the passion, to rejoin him only at the coming of the Messianic kingdom of glory. The school of Valentine made more clearly the same distinction between the Jesus of the Jesus and the divine Saviour, or the lower and the higher Christ—a crude anticipation of the modern distinction (of Strauss) between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith. The millennium has its centre in Jerusalem, and will be followed by the restoration of all things.(67)

The Alogi, an obscure anti-trinitarian and anti-chiliastic sect of the second century, regarded Cerinthus as the author of the Apocalypse of John on account of the chiliasm taught in it. They ascribed to him also the fourth Gospel, although it is the best possible refutation of all false Gnosticism from the highest experimental Gnosis of faith.

Simon Magus, the Nicolaitans and Cerinthus belong to the second half of the first century. We now proceed to the more developed systems of Gnosticism, which belong to the first half of the second century, and continued to flourish till the middle of the third.

The most important and influential of these systems bear the names of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion. They deserve, therefore, a fuller consideration. They were nearly contemporaneous, and matured during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Basilides flourished in Alexandria a.d. 125; Valentine came to Rome in 140; Marcion taught in Rome between 140 and 150.

§ 124. Basilides.

Besides the sources in Irenaeus, Hippolytus (L. VII. 20–27), Clemens Alex. (Strom. VII.), Eusebius (IV. 7), and Epiphanius, comp. the following monographs:

Jacobi: Basilidis philosophi Gnostici Sentent. ex Hippolyti lib. nuper reperto illustr. Berlin, 1852. Comp. his article Gnosis in Herzog, vol. V. 219–223, and in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch." for 1876–77 (I. 481–544).

Uhlhorn: Das Basilidianische System. Göttingen, 1855. The best analysis.

Baur in the Tübinger "Theol. Jahrbücher" for 1856, pp. 121–162.

Hofstede de Groot: Basilides as witness for the Gospel of John, in Dutch, and in an enlarged form in German. Leipz. 1868. Apologetic for the genuineness of the fourth Gospel.

Dr. Hort in Smith and Wace, "Dictionary of Christian Biography (Lond. 1877). I. 268–281 (comp." Abrasax," p. 9–10). Very able.

Hilgenfeld, in his "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol." 1878, XXI. 228–250, and the Lit. there given.

Basilides (Basileivdh") produced the first well-developed system of Gnosis; but it was too metaphysical and intricate to be popular. He claimed to be a disciple of the apostle Matthias and of an interpreter (eJrmhvneuv") of St. Peter, named Glaucias. He taught in Alexandria during the reign of Hadrian (A. D. 117–138). His early youth fell in the second generation of Christians, and this gives his quotations from the writings of the New Testament considerable apologetic value. He wrote (according to his opponent, Agrippa Castor) "twenty-four books (bibliva) on the Gospel." This work was probably a commentary on the canonical Gospels, for Clement of Alexandria quotes from "the thirty-third book" of a work of Basilides which he calls Exegetica."(68)

His doctrine is very peculiar, especially according to the extended and original exhibition of it in the "Philosophumena." Hippolytus deviates in many respects from the statements of Irenaeus and Epiphanius, but derived his information probably from the works of Basilides himself, and he therefore must be chiefly followed.(69) The system is based on the Egyptian astronomy and the Pythagorean numerical symbolism. It betrays also the influence of Aristotle; but Platonism, the emanation-theory, and dualism do not appear.

Basilides is monotheistic rather than dualistic in his primary idea, and so far differs from the other Gnostics, though later accounts make him a dualist. He starts from the most abstract notion of the absolute, to which he denies even existence, thinking of it as infinitely above all that can be imagined and conceived.(70) This ineffable and unnamable God,(71) not only super-existent, but non-existent,(72) first forms by his creative word (not by emanation) the world-seed or world-embryo,(73) that is, chaos, from which the world develops itself according to arithmetical relations, in an unbroken order, like the branches and leaves of the tree from the mustard seed, or like the many-colored peacock from the egg. Everything created tends upwards towards God, who, himself unmoved, moves all,(74) and by the charm of surpassing beauty attracts all to himself.

In the world-seed Basilides distinguishes three kinds of sonship,(75) of the same essence with the non-existent God, but growing weaker in the more remote gradations; or three races of children of God, a pneumatic, a psychic, and a hylic. The first sonship liberates itself immediately from the world-seed, rises with the lightning-speed of thought to God, and remains there as the blessed spirit-world, the Pleroma. It embraces the seven highest genii,(76) which, in union with the great Father, form the first ogdoad, the type of all the lower circles of creation. The second sonship, with the help of the Holy Spirit, whom it produces, and who bears it up, as the wing bears the bird, strives to follow the first,(77) but can only attain the impenetrable firmament,(78) that is the limit of the Pleroma, and could endure the higher region no more than the fish the mountain air. The third sonship, finally, remains fixed in the world-seed, and in need of purification and redemption.

Next Basilides makes two archons or world-rulers (demiurges) issue from the world-seed. The first or great archon, whose greatness and beauty and power cannot be uttered, creates the ethereal world or the upper heaven, the ogdoad, as it is called; the second is the maker and ruler of the lower planetary heaven below the moon, the hebdomad. Basilides supposed in all three hundred and sixty-five heavens or circles of creation,(79) corresponding to the days of the year, and designated them by the mystic name Abrasax, or Abraxas,(80) which, according to the numerical value of the Greek letters, is equal to 365.(81) This name also denotes the great archon or ruler of the 365 heavens. It afterwards came to be used as a magical formula, with all sorts of strange figures, the "Abraxas gems," of which many are still extant.

Each of the two archons, however, according to a higher ordinance, begets a son, who towers far above his father, communicates to him the knowledge received from the Holy Spirit, concerning the upper spirit-world and the plan of redemption, and leads him to repentance. With this begins the process of the redemption or return of the sighing children of God, that is, the pneumatics, to the supra-mundane God. This is effected by Christianity, and ends with the consummation, or apokatastasis of all things. Like Valentine, Basilides also properly held a threefold Christ—the son of the first archon, the son of the second archon, and the son of Mary. But all these are at bottom the same principle, which reclaims the spiritual natures from the world-seed to the original unity. The passion of Christ was necessary to remove the corporeal and psychical elements, which he brought with him from the primitive medley and confusion (suvgcusi" ajrcikhv). His body returned, after death, into shapelessness (ajmorfiva); his soul rose from the grave, and stopped in the hebdomad, or planetary heaven, where it belongs; but his spirit soared, perfectly purified, above all the spheres of creation, to the blessed first sonship (uiJovth") and the fellowship of the non-existent or hyper-existent God.

In the same way with Jesus, the first-fruits, all other pneumatic persons must rise purified to the place where they by nature belong, and abide there. For all that continues in its place is imperishable; but all that transgresses its natural limits is perishable. Basilides quotes the passage of Paul concerning the groaning and travailing of the creation expecting the revelation of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19). In the process of redemption he conceded to faith (pistis) more importance than most of the Gnostics, and his definition of faith was vaguely derived from Hebrews 11:1.

In his moral teaching Basilides inculcated a moderate asceticism, from which, however, his school soon departed. He used some of Paul’s Epistles and the canonical Gospels; quoting for example, John 1:9 ("The true light, which enlightens every man, was coming into the world"), to identify his idea of the world seed with John’s doctrine of the Logos is the light of the world.(82) The fourth Gospel was much used and commented upon also by the Ophites, Perates, and Valentinians before the middle of the second century. The Gnostics were alternately attracted by the mystic Gnosis of that Gospel (especially the Prologue), and repelled by its historic realism, and tried to make the best use of it. They acknowledged it, because they could not help it. The other authorities of Basilides were chiefly the secret tradition of the apostle Matthias, and of a pretended interpreter of Peter, by the name of Glaucias.

His son Isidore was the chief, we may say the only important one, of his disciples. He composed a system of ethics and other books, from which Clement of Alexandria has preserved a few extracts. The Basilidians, especially in the West, seem to have been dualistic and docetic in theory, and loose, even dissolute in practice. They corrupted and vulgarized the high-pitched and artificial system of the founder. The whole life of Christ was to them a mere sham. It was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified; Jesus exchanged forms with him on the way, and, standing unseen opposite in Simon’s form, mocked those who crucified him, and then ascended to heaven. They held it prudent to repudiate Christianity in times of persecution, regarding the noble confession of martyrs as costing dearly before swine, and practiced various sorts of magic, in which the Abraxas gems did them service. The spurious Basilidian sect maintained itself in Egypt till the end of the fourth century, but does not seem to have spread beyond, except that Marcus, a native of Memphis, is reported by Sulpicius Severus to have brought some of its doctrines to Spain.

§ 125. Valentinus.

I. The sources are: 1) Fragments Of Valentinus; Ptolomey’s Epistola ad Floram; and exegetical fragments of Heracleon. 2) The patristic accounts and refutations of Irenaeus (I. 1–21 and throughout his whole work); Hippolytus (VI. 29–37); Tertullian (Adv. Valentinianos); Epiphanius, (Haer. XXXI; in Oehler’s ed. I. 305–386). The last two depend chiefly upon Irenaeus. See on the sources Lipsius and Heinrici (p. 5–148).

Ren. Massuet: Dissert. de Haereticis, Art. I. De Valentino, in his ed. of Irenaeus, and in Stieren’s ed. Tom. II. p. 54–134. Very learned and thorough.

George Heinrici: Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift. Berlin, 1871 (192 pages).

Comp. Neander (whose account is very good, but lacks the additional information furnished by Hippolytus); Rossel, Theol. Schriften (Berlin, (1847), p. 280 sqq.; Baur, K. Gesch. I. 195–204; and Jacobi, in Herzog², vol. V. 225–229.

Valentinus or Valentine(83) is the author of the most profound and luxuriant, as well as the most influential and best known of the Gnostic systems. Irenaeus directed his work chiefly against it, and we have made it the basis of our general description of Gnosticism.(84) He founded a large school, and spread his doctrines in the West. He claimed to have derived them from Theodas or Theudas, a pupil of St. Paul.(85) He also pretended to have received revelations from the Logos in a vision. Hippolytus calls him a Platonist and Pythagorean rather than a Christian. He was probably of Egyptian Jewish descent and Alexandrian education.(86) Tertullian reports, perhaps from his own conjecture, that he broke with the orthodox church from disappointed ambition, not being made a bishop.(87) Valentine came to Rome as a public teacher during the pontificate of Hyginus (137–142), and remained there till the pontificate of Anicetus (154).(88) He was then already celebrated; for Justin Martyr, in his lost "Syntagma against all Heresies," which he mentions in his "First Apology" (140), combated the Valentinians among other heretics before a.d. 140. At that time Rome had become the centre of the church and the gathering place of all sects. Every teacher who wished to exercise a general influence on Christendom naturally looked to the metropolis. Valentine was one of the first Gnostics who taught in Rome, about the same time with Cerdo and Marcion; but though he made a considerable impression by his genius and eloquence, the orthodoxy of the church and the episcopal authority were too firmly settled to allow of any great success for his vagaries. He was excommunicated, and went to Cyprus, where he died about a.d. 160.

His system is an ingenious theogonic and cosmogonic epos. It describes in three acts the creation, the fall, and the redemption; first in heaven, then on earth. Great events repeat themselves in different stages of being. He derived his material from his own fertile imagination, from Oriental and Greek speculations, and from Christian ideas. He made much use of the Prologue of John’s Gospel and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians; but by a wild exegesis he put his own pantheistic and mythological fancies into the apostolic words, such as Logos, Only Begotten, Truth, Life, Pleroma, Ecclesia.

Valentine starts from the eternal primal Being, which he significantly calls Bythos or Abyss.(89) It is the fathomless depth in which the thinking mind is lost, the ultimate boundary beyond which it cannot pass. The Bythos is unbegotten, infinite, invisible, incomprehensible, nameless, the absolute agnoston; yet capable of evolution and development, the universal Father of all beings. He continues for immeasurable ages in silent contemplation of his own boundless grandeur, glory, and beauty. This "Silence" or "Solitude" (hJ sighv) is his Spouse or suvzugo". It is the silent self-contemplation, the slumbering consciousness of the Infinite. He also calls it "Thought" (e[nnoia), and "Grace" (cariv").(90) The pre-mundane Bythos includes, therefore, at least according to some members of the school, the female as well as the male principle; for from the male principle alone nothing could spring. According to Hippolytus, Valentine derived this sexual duality from the essential nature of love, and said: "God is all love; but love is not love except there is some object of affection."(91) He grappled here with a pre-mundane mystery, which the Orthodox theology endeavors to solve by the doctrine of the immanent eternal trinity in the divine essence: God is love, therefore God is triune: a loving subject, a beloved object, and a union of the two. "Ubi amor, ibi trinitas."

After this eternal silence, God enters upon a process of evolution or emanation, i.e. a succession of generations of antithetic and yet supplementary ideas or principles. From the Abyss emanate thirty aeons in fifteen pairs,(92) according to the law of sexual polarity, in three generations, the first called the ogdoad, the second the decad, the third the dodecad. The Aeons are the unfolded powers and attributes of the divinity. They correspond to the dynameis in the system of Basilides. God begets first the masculine, productive Mind or Reason (oJ nou'"),(93) with the feminine, receptive Truth (hJ ajlhvqeia); these two produce the Word (oJ lovgo") and the Life (hJ zwhv), and these again the (ideal) Man (oJ a[nqrwpo") and the (ideal) Church (hJ ejkklhsiva). The influence of the fourth Gospel is unmistakable here, though of course the terminology of John is used in a sense different from that of its author. The first two syzygies constitute the sacred Tetraktys, the root of all things.(94) The Nous and the Aletheia produce ten aeons (five pairs); the Logos and the Zoë, twelve aeons (six pairs). At last the Nous or Monogenes and the Aletheia bring forth the heavenly Christ (oJ a[vnw Cristov") and the (female) Holy Spirit (to; pneu'ma a{gion), and therewith complete the number thirty. These aeons constitute together the Pleroma, the plenitude of divine powers, an expression which St. Paul applied to the historical Christ (Col. 2:9). They all partake in substance of the life of the Abyss; but their form is conditioned by the Horos (o{ro"), the limiting power of God. This genius of limitation stands between the Pleroma and the Hysterema outside, and is the organizing power of the universe, and secures harmony.(95) If any being dares to transcend its fixed boundaries and to penetrate beyond revelation into the hidden being of God, it is in danger of sinking into nothing. Two actions are ascribed to the Horos, a negative by which he limits every being and sunders from it foreign elements, and the positive by which he forms and establishes it.(96) The former action is emphatically called Horos, the latter is called Stauros (cross, post), because he stands firm and immovable, the guardian of the Aeons, so that nothing can come from the Hysterema into the neighborhood of the aeons in the Pleroma.

The process of the fall and redemption takes place first in the ideal world of the Pleroma, and is then repeated in the lower world. In this process the lower Wisdom or Sophia, also called Achamoth or Chakmuth plays an important part.(97) She is the mundane soul, a female aeon, the weakest and most remote member of the series of aeons (in number the twenty-eighth), and forms, so to speak, the bridge which spans the abyss between God and the real world. Feeling her loneliness and estrangement from the great Father, she wishes to unite herself immediately, without regard to the intervening links, with him who is the originating principle of the universe, and alone has the power of self-generation. She jumps, as it were by a single bound, into the depth of the eternal Father, and brings forth of herself alone an abortion (e[ktrwma),a formless and inchoate substance, (98) of which Moses speaks when he says: "The earth was without form and void." By this sinful passion she introduces confusion and disturbance into the Pleroma.(99) She wanders about outside of it, and suffers with fear, anxiety, and despair on account of her abortion. This is the fall; an act both free and necessary.

But Sophia yearns after redemption; the aeons sympathize with her sufferings and aspirations; the eternal Father himself commands the projection of the last pair of aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit, "for the restoration of Form, the destruction of the abortion, and for the consolation and cessation of the groans of Sophia." They comfort and cheer the Sophia, and separate the abortion from the Pleroma. At last, the thirty aeons together project in honor of the Father the aeon Soter or Jesus, "the great High Priest," "the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma," and "send him forth beyond the Pleroma as a Spouse for Sophia, who was outside, and as a rectifier of those sufferings which she underwent in searching after Christ." After many sufferings, Sophia is purged of all passions and brought back as the bride of Jesus, together with all pneumatic natures, into the ideal world. The demiurge, the fiery and jealous God of the Jews, as "the friend of the bridegroom,"(100) with the psychical Christians on the border of the Pleroma, remotely shares the joy of the festival, while matter sinks back into nothing.

In Valentine’s Christology, we must distinguish properly three redeeming beings: (1) The a[nw Cristov" or heavenly Christ, who, after the fall of Sophia, emanates from the aeon monogenhv", and stands in conjunction with the female principle, the pneu'ma a{gion. He makes the first announcement to the aeons of the plan of redemption, whereupon they strike up anthems of praise and thanksgiving in responsive choirs. (2) The swthvr or jIhsou'", produced by all the aeons together, the star of the Pleroma. He forms with the redeemed Sophia the last and highest syzygy. (3) The kavtw Cristov", the psychical or Jewish Messiah, who is sent by the Demiurge, passes through the body of Mary as water through a pipe, and is at last crucified by the Jews, but, as he has merely an apparent body, does not really suffer. With him Soter, the proper redeemer, united himself in the baptism in the Jordan, to announce his divine gnosis on earth for a year, and lead the pneumatic persons to perfection.

Notes.

Dr. Baur, the great critical historian of ancient Gnosticism and the master spirit of modern Gnosticism, ingeniously reproduces the Valentinian system in Hegelian terminology. I quote the chief part, as a fair specimen of his historic treatment, from his Kirchengeschichte, vol. I. 201 sqq. (comp. his Gnosis, p. 124 sqq.):

"Der Geist, oder Gott als der Geist an sich, geht aus sich heraus, in dieser Sebstoffenbarung Gottes entsteht die Welt, die in ihrem Unterschied von Gott auch wieder an sich mit Gott eins ist. Wie man aber auch dieses immanente Verhältniss von Gott und Welt betrachten mag, als Selbstoffenbarung Gottes oder als Weltentwicklung, es ist an sich ein rein geistiger, im Wesen des Geistes begründeter Process. Der Geist stellt in den Aeonen, die er aus sich hervorgehen lässt, sein eigenes Wesen aus sich heraus und sich gegenüber; da aber das Wesen des Geistes an sich das Denken und Wissen ist, so kann der Process seiner Selbstoffenbarung nur darin bestehen, dass er sich dessen bewusst ist, was er an sich ist. Die Aeonen des Pleroma sind die höchsten Begriffe des geistigen Seins und Lebens, die allgemeinen Denkformen, in welchen der Geist das, was er an sich ist, in bestimmter concreter Weise für das Bewusstsein ist. Mit dem Wissen des Geistes von sich, dem Selbstbewusstsein des sich von sich unterscheidenden Geistes, ist aber auch schon nicht blos ein Princip der Differenzirung, sondern, da Gott und Welt an sich Eins sind, auch ein Princip der Materialisirung des Geistes gesetzt. Je grösser der Abstand der das Bewusstsein des Geistes vermittelnden Begriffe von dem absolutes Princip ist, um so mehr ver dunkelt sich das geistige Bewusstsein, der Geiste, entäussert sich seiner selbst, er ist sich selbst nicht mehr klar und durchsichtig, das Pneumatische sinkt zum Prychischen herab, das Psychische verdichtet sich zum Materiellen, und mit dem Materiellen verbindet sich in seinem Extrem auch der Begriff des Dämonischen und Diabolischen. Da aber auch das psychische an sich pneumatischer Natur ist, und Keime des geistigen Lebens überall zurückgeblieben sind, so muss das Pneumatische die materielle Verdunklung des geistigen Bewusstseins auf der Stufe des psychischen Lebens wieder durchbrechen und die Decke abwerfen, die in der Welt des Demurg auf dem Bewusstsein des Geistes liegt. Die ganze Weltentwicklung ist die Continuität desselben geisigen Processes, es muss daher auch einen Wendepunkt geben, in welchem der Geist aus seiner Selbstentäuserung zu sich selbst zurückkehrt und wieder zum klaren Bewusstsein dessen, was er an sich ist, kommt. Dies ist der gnostische Begriff der christlichen Offenbarung. Die Wissenden im Sinne der Gnostiker, die Pneumatischen, die als solche auch das wahrhaft christliche Bewusstsein in, sich haben, sind ein neues Moment des allgemeinen geistigen Lebens, die höchste Stufe der Selbstoffenbarung Gottes und der Weltentwicklung. Diese Periode des Weltverlaufs beginnt mit der Erscheinung Christi und endet zuletzt damit, dass durch Christus und die Sophia alles Geistige in das Pleroma wieder aufgenommen wird. Da Christus, wie auf jeder Stufe der Weltentwicklung, so auch schon in den höchsten Regionen der Aeonenwelt, in welcher alles seinem Ausgangspunkt hat, and von Anfang an auf dieses Reultant des Ganzen angelegt ist, als das wiederherstellende, in der Einheit mit dem Absolutn erhaltende Princip thätig ist, so hat er in der Waltanschauung der Gnostiker durchaus die Bedeutung eines absolutn Weltprincips."

§ 126. The School of Valentinus. Heracleon, Ptolemy, Marcos, Bardesanes, Harmonius.

Of all the forms of Gnosticism, that of Valentinus was the most popular and influential, more particularly in Rome. He had a large number of followers, who variously modified his system. Tertullian says, his heresy "fashioned itself into as many shapes as a courtesan who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day."

The school of Valentinus divided chiefly into two branches, an Oriental,(101) and an Italian. The first, in which Hippolytus reckons one Axionicos, not otherwise known, and Ardesianes ( jArdhsiavnh", probably the, same with Bardesanes), held the body of Jesus to be pneumatic and heavenly, because the Holy Spirit, i.e. Sophia and the demiurgic power of the Highest, came upon Mary. The Italian school—embracing Heracleon and Ptolemy —taught that the body of Jesus was psychial, and that for this reason the Spirit descended upon him in the baptism. Some Valentinians came nearer the orthodox view, than their master.

Heracleon was personally instructed by Valentine, and probably flourished between 170 and 180 somewhere in Italy. He has a special interest as the earliest known commentator of the Gospel of John. Origen, in commenting on the same book, has preserved us about fifty fragments, usually contradicting them. They are chiefly taken from the first two, the fourth, and the eighth chapters.(102) Heracleon fully acknowledges the canonical authority of the fourth Gospel, but reads his own system into it. He used the same allegorical method, as Origen, who even charges him with adhering too much to the letter, and not going deep enough into the spiritual sense. He finds in John the favorite Valentinian ideas of logos, life, light, love, conflict with darkness, and mysteries in all the numbers, but deprives the facts of historical realness. The woman of Samaria, in the fourth chapter, represents the redemption of the Sophia; the water of Jacob’s well is Judaism; her husband is her spiritual bridegroom from the Pleroma; her former husbands are the Hyle or kingdom of the devil. The nobleman in Capernaum (John 4:47) is the Demiurge, who is not hostile, but short-sighted and ignorant, yet ready to implore the Saviour’s help for his subjects; the nobleman’s son represents the psychics, who will be healed and redeemed when their ignorance is removed. The fact that John’s Gospel was held in equal reverence by the Valentinians and the orthodox, strongly favors its early existence before their separation, and its apostolic origin.(103)

Ptolemy is the author of the Epistle to Flora, a wealthy Christian lady, whom he tried to convert to the Valentinian system.(104) He deals chiefly with the objection that the creation of the world and the Old Testament could not proceed from the highest God. He appeals to an apostolic tradition and to the words of Christ, who alone knows the Father of all and first revealed him (John 1:18). God is the only good (Matt. 19:17), and hence he cannot be the author of a world in which there is so much evil. Irenaeus derived much of his information from the contemporary followers of Ptolemy.

Another disciple of Valentine, Marcos, who taught likewise in the second half of the second century, probably in Asia Minor, perhaps also in Gaul, blended a Pythagorean and Cabbalistic numerical symbolism with the ideas of his master, introduced a ritual abounding in ceremonies, and sought to attract beautiful and wealthy women by magical arts. His followers were called Marcosians.(105)

The name of Colarbasus, which is often connected with Marcos, must be stricken from the list of the Gnostics; for it originated in confounding the Hebrew Kol-Arba, "the Voice of Four," i.e. the divine Tetrad at the head of the Pleroma, with a person.(106)

Finally, in the Valentinian school is counted also Bardesanes or Bardaisan (son of Daisan, Bardhsavnh").(107) He was a distinguished Syrian scholar and poet, and lived at the court of the prince of Edessa at the close of the second and in the early part of the third century.(108) But he can scarcely be numbered among the Gnostics, except in a very wide sense. He was at first orthodox, according to Epiphanius, but became corrupted by contact with Valentinians. Eusebius, on the contrary, makes him begin a heretic and end in orthodoxy. He also reports, that Bardesanes wrote against the heresy of Marcion in the Syriac language. Probably he accepted the common Christian faith with some modifications and exercised freedom on speculative doctrines, which were not yet clearly developed in the Syrian church of that period.(109) His numerous works are lost, with the exception of a "Dialogue on Fate," which has recently been published in full.(110) It is, however, of uncertain date, and shows no trace of the Gnostic mythology and dualism, ascribed to him. He or his son Harmonius (the accounts vary) is the father of Syrian hymnology, and composed a book of one hundred and fifty (after the Psalter), which were used on festivals, till they were superseded by the Orthodox hymns of St. Ephraem the Syrian, who retained the same metres and tunes.(111) He enjoyed great reputation, and his sect is said to have spread to the Southern Euphrates, and even to China.

His son Harmonius, of Edessa, followed in his steps. He is said to have studied philosophy at Athens. He shares with Bardesanes (as already remarked) the honor of being the father of Syrian hymnology.

§ 127. Marcion and his School.

I. Justin M.: Apol. I. c. 26 and 58. He wrote also a special work against Marcion, which is lost Irenaeus: I. 28. IV. 33 sqq. and several other passages. He likewise contemplated a special treatise against Marcion (III. 12) Tertullian: Adv. Marcionem Libri V. Hippol. Philos. VII. 29 (ed. Duncker and Schneidewin, pp. 382–394). Epiphanius: Haer. XLII. Philaster.: Haer. XLV. The Armenian account of Esnig in his "Destruction of Heretics" (5^th century), translated by Neumann, in the "Zeitschrift für histor. Theologie," Leipzig, vol. IV. 1834. Esnig gives Marcionism more of a mystic and speculative character than the earlier fathers, but presents nothing which may not be harmonized with them.

II Neander (whose account is too charitable), Baur (I. 213–217), Möller (Gesch. der Kosmologie, 374–407), Fessler. (in Wetzer and Welte, VI. 816–821), Jacobi (in Herzog, V. 231–236), Salmon (in Smith and Wace, III. 816–824). Ad. Hilgenfeld: Cerdon und Marcion, in his "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol." Leipz. 1881, pp. 1–37.

On the critical question of Marcion’s canon and the relation of his mutilated Gospel of Luke to the genuine Gospel of Luke, see the works on the Canon, the critical Introductions, and especially Volkmar: Das Evangelium Marcions, Text und Kritik (Leipz. 1852), and Sanday: The Gospels in the Second Century (London, 1876). The last two have conclusively proved (against the earlier view of Baur, Ritschl, and the author of "Supernat. Rel.") the priority of the canonical Luke. Comp. vol. I. 668.

Marcion was the most earnest, the most practical, and the most dangerous among the Gnostics, full of energy and zeal for reforming, but restless rough and eccentric. He has a remote connection with modern questions of biblical criticism and the canon. He anticipated the rationalistic opposition to the Old Testament and to the Pastoral Epistles, but in a very arbitrary and unscrupulous way. He could see only superficial differences in the Bible, not the deeper harmony. He rejected the heathen mythology of the other Gnostics, and adhered to Christianity as the only true religion; he was less speculative, and gave a higher place to faith. But he was utterly destitute of historical sense, and put Christianity into a radical conflict with all previous revelations of God; as if God had neglected the world for thousands of years until he suddenly appeared in Christ. He represents an extreme anti-Jewish and pseudo-Pauline tendency, and a magical

supranaturalism, which, in fanatical zeal for a pure primitive Christianity, nullifies all history, and turns the gospel into an abrupt, unnatural, phantomlike appearance.

Marcion was the son of a bishop of Sinope in Pontus, and gave in his first fervor his property to the church, but was excommunicated by his own father, probably on account of his heretical opinions and contempt of authority.(112) He betook himself, about the middle of the second century, to Rome (140–155), which originated none of the Gnostic systems, but attracted them all. There he joined the Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who gave him some speculative foundation for his practical dualism. He disseminated his doctrine by travels, and made many disciples from different nations. He is said to have intended to apply at last for restoration to the communion of the Catholic Church, when his death intervened.(113) The time and place of his death are unknown. He wrote a recension of the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline Epistles, and a work on the contradictions between the Old anad New Testaments. Justin Martyr regarded him as the most formidable heretic of his day. The abhorrence of the Catholics for him is expressed in the report of Irenaeus, that Polycarp of Smyrna, meeting with Marcion in Rome, and being asked by him: "Dost thou know me?" answered: "I know the first-born of Satan."(114)

Marcion supposed two or three primal forces (ajrcaiv): the good or gracious God (qeo;" ajgaqov"), whom Christ first made known; the evil matter (u{lh) ruled by the devil, to which heathenism belongs; and the righteous world-maker (dhmiourgo;" divkaio"), who is the finite, imperfect, angry Jehovah of the Jews. Some writers reduce his principles to two; but he did not identify the demiurge with the hyle. He did not go into any further speculative analysis of these principles; he rejected the pagan emanation theory, the secret tradition, and the allegorical interpretation of the Gnostics; in his system he has no Pleroma, no Aeons, no Dynameis, no Syzygies, no suffering Sophia; he excludes gradual development and growth; everything is unprepared, sudden and abrupt.

His system was more critical and rationalistic than mystic and philosophical.(115) He was chiefly zealous for the consistent practical enforcement of the irreconcilable dualism which he established between the gospel and the law, Christianity and Judaism, goodness and righteousness.(116) He drew out this contrast at large in a special work, entitled "Antitheses." The God of the Old Testament is harsh, severe and unmerciful as his law; he commands, "Love thy neighbor, but hate thine enemy," and returns "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;" but the God of the New Testament commands, "Love thine enemy." The one is only just, the other is good. Marcion rejected all the books of the Old Testament, and wrested Christ’s word in Matt. 5:17 into the very opposite declaration: "I am come not to fulfil the law and the prophets, but to destroy them." In his view, Christianity has no connection whatever with the past, whether of the Jewish or the heathen world, but has fallen abruptly and magically, as it were, from heaven.(117) Christ, too, was not born at all, but suddenly descended into the city of Capernaum in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, and appeared as the revealer of the good God, who sent him. He has no connection with the Messiah, announced by the Demiurge in the Old Testament; though he called himself the Messiah by way of accommodation. His body was a mere appearance, and his death an illusion, though they had a real meaning.(118) He cast the Demiurge into Hades, secured the redemption of the soul (not of the body), and called the apostle Paul to preach it. The other apostles are Judaizing corrupters of pure Christianity, and their writings are to be rejected, together with the catholic tradition. In over-straining the difference between Paul and the other apostles, he was a crude forerunner of the Tübingen school of critics.

Marcion formed a canon of his own, which consisted of only eleven books, an abridged and mutilated Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul’s epistles. He put Galatians first in order, and called Ephesians the Epistle to the Laodicaeans. He rejected the pastoral epistles, in which the forerunners of Gnosticism are condemned, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Matthew, Mark, John, the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse.

Notwithstanding his violent antinomianism, Marcion taught and practiced the strictest ascetic self-discipline, which revolted not only from all pagan festivities, but even from marriage, flesh, and wine. (He allowed fish). He could find the true God in nature no more than in history. He admitted married persons to baptism only on a vow of abstinence from all sexual intercourse.(119) He had a very gloomy, pessimistic view of the world and the church, and addressed a disciple as "his partner in tribulation, and fellow-sufferer from hatred."

In worship he excluded wine from the eucharist, but retained the sacramental bread, water-baptism, anointing with oil, and the mixture of milk and honey given to the newly baptized.(120) Epiphanius reports that he permitted females to baptize. The Marcionites practiced sometimes vicarious baptism for the dead.(121) Their baptism was not recognized by the church.

The Marcionite sect spread in Italy, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus, and Syria; but it split into many branches. Its wide diffusion is proved by the number of antagonists in the different countries.

The most noteworthy Marcionites are Prepo, Lucanus (an Assyrian), and Apelles. They supplied the defects of the master’s system by other Gnostic speculations, and in some instances softened down its antipathy to heathenism and Judaism. Apelles acknowledged only one first principle. Ambrosius, a friend of Origen, was a Marcionite before his conversion. These heretics were dangerous to the church because of their severe morality and the number of their martyrs. They abstained from marriage, flesh and wine, and did not escape from persecution, like some other Gnostics.

Constantine forbade the Marcionites freedom of worship public and private, and ordered their meeting-houses to be handed over to the Catholic Church.(122) The Theodosian code mentions them only once. But they existed in the fifth century when Theodoret boasted to have converted more than a thousand of these heretics, and the Trullan Council of 692 thought it worth while to make provision for the reconciliation of Marcionites. Remains of them are found as late as the tenth century.(123) Some of their principles revived among the Paulicians, who took refuge in Bulgaria, and the Cathari in the West.

§ 128. The Ophites. The Sethites. The Peratae. The Cainites

I. Hippolytus: Philosoph. bk. V. 1–23. He begins his account of the Heresies with the Naasseni, or Ophites, and Peratae (the first four books being devoted to the systems of heathen philosophy). Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. I. 30 (ed. Stieren, I. 266 sqq.). Epiphan. Haer. 37 (in Oehler’s ed. I. 495 sqq.).

Mosheim: Geschichte der Schlangenbrüder. Helmstädt, 1746, ’48.

E. W. Möller: Geschichte der Kosmologie. Halle, 1860. Die ophitische Gnosis, p. 190 sqq.

Baxmann: Die Philosophumena und die Peraten, in Niedner’s "Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theol." for 1860. Lipsius: Ueber das ophitische System. In "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie" for 1863 and ’64.

Jacobi in Herzog, new ed., vol. V. 240 sq.

George Salmon: "Cainites," in Smith and Wace, vol. I. 380–82. Articles "Ophites" and "Peratae," will probably appear in vol. IV., not yet published.

The origin of the Ophites,(124) or, in Hebrew, Naasenes,(125) i.e. Serpent-Brethren, or Serpent-Worshippers, is unknown, and is placed by Mosheim and others before the time of Christ. In any case, their system is of purely heathen stamp. Lipsius has shown their connection with the Syro-Chaldaic mythology. The sect still existed as late as the sixth century; for in 530 Justinian passed laws against it.

The accounts of their worship of the serpent rest, indeed, on uncertain data; but their name itself comes from their ascribing special import to the serpent as the type of gnosis, with reference to the history of the fall (Gen. 3:1), the magic rod of Moses (Ex. 4:2, 3), and the healing power of the brazen serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21:9; Comp. John 3:14). They made use of the serpent on amulets.

That mysterious, awe-inspiring reptile, which looks like the embodiment of a thunderbolt, or like a fallen angel tortuously creeping in the dust, represents in the Bible the evil spirit, and its motto, Eritis sicut Deus, is the first lie of the father of lies, which caused the ruin of man; but in the false religions it is the symbol of divine wisdom and an object of adoration; and the Eritis sicus dii appears as a great truth, which opened the path of progress. The serpent, far from being the seducer of the race, was its first schoolmaster and civilizer by teaching it the difference between good and evil. So the Ophites regarded the fall of Adam as the transition from the state of unconscious bondage to the state of conscious judgment and freedom; therefore the necessary entrance to the good, and a noble advance of the human spirit. They identified the serpent with the Logos, or the mediator between the Father and the Matter, bringing down the powers of the upper world to the lower world, and leading the return from the lower to the higher. The serpent represents the whole winding process of development and salvation.(126) The Manichaeans also regarded the serpent as the direct image of Christ.(127)

With this view is connected their violent opposition to the Old Testament. Jaldabaoth,(128) as they termed the God of the Jews and the Creator of the world, they represented as a malicious, misanthropic being. In other respects, their doctrine strongly resembles the Valentinian system, except that it is much more pantheistic, unchristian, and immoral, and far less developed.

The Ophites again branch out in several sects, especially three.

The Sethites considered the third son of Adam the first pneumatic man and the forerunner of Christ. They maintained three principles, darkness below, light above, and spirit between.

The Peratae or Peratics(129) (Transcendentalists) are described by Hippolytus as allegorizing astrologers and as mystic tritheists, who taught three Gods, three Logoi, three Minds, three Men. Christ had a three-fold nature, a three-fold body, and a three-fold power. He descended from above, that all things triply divided might be saved.(130)

The Cainites boasted of the descent from Cain the fratricide, and made him their leader.(131) They regarded the God of the Jews and Creator of the world as a positively evil being, whom to resist is virtue. Hence they turned the history of salvation upside down, and honored all the infamous characters of the Old and New Testaments from Cain to Judas as spiritual men and martyrs to truth. Judas Iscariot alone among the apostles had the secret of true knowledge, and betrayed the psychic Messiah with good intent to destroy the empire of the evil God of the Jews. Origen speaks of a branch of the Ophites, who were as great enemies of Jesus as the heathen Celsus, and who admitted none into their society who had not first cursed his name. But the majority seem to have acknowledged the goodness of Jesus and the benefit of his crucifixion brought about by the far-sighted wisdom of Judas. A book entitled "the Gospel of Judas" was circulated among them.

No wonder that such blasphemous travesty of the Bible history, and such predilection for the serpent and his seed was connected with the most unbridled antinomianism, which changed vice into virtue. They thought it a necessary part of "perfect knowledge" to have a complete experience of all sins, including even unnamable vices.

Some have identified the Ophites with the false teachers denounced in the Epistle of Jude as filthy dreamers, who "defile the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities," who "went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah," as "wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever." The resemblance is certainly very striking, and those heretics may have been the forerunners of the Ophites of the second century.

§ 129. Saturninus (Satornilos).

Iren. I. 24, § 1, 2; ch. 28. Hippol. VII. 3, 28 (depending on Iren.). Tert. Praesc. Haer. 46. Hegesippus in Euseb. IV. 22, 29. Epiph. Haer. XXIII. Theod. Fab. Haer. I. 3. Comp. Möller, l c., p. 367–373.

Contemporary with Basilides under Hadrian, was Saturninus or Satornilos90(132) in Antioch. He was, like him, a pupil of Menander. His system is distinguished for its bold dualism between God and Satan, the two antipodes of the universe, and for its ascetic severity.(133) God is the unfathomable abyss, absolutely unknown (qeo;" a[gnwsto"). From him emanates by degrees the spirit-world of light, with angels, archangels, powers, and dominions. On the lowest degree, are the seven planetary spirits (a[ggeloi kosmokravtore") with the Demiurge or God of the Jews at the head. Satan, as the ruler of the hyle, is eternally opposed to the realm of light. The seven planetary spirits invade the realm of Satan, and form out of a part of the hyle the material world with man, who is filled by the highest God with a spark of light (spinqhvr). Satan creates in opposition a hylic race of men, and incessantly pursues the spiritual race with his demons and false prophets. The Jewish God, with his prophets, is unable to overcome him. Finally the good God sends the aeon Nous in an unreal body, as Soter on earth, who teaches the spiritual men by gnosis and strict abstinence from marriage and carnal food to emancipate themselves from the vexations of Satan, and also from the dominion of the Jewish God and his star-spirits, and to rise to the realm of light.

§ 130. Carpocrates.

Iren. I. 25 (24). Hippol. VII. 32 (D. & Schn. p. 398 sqq.). Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 511. Epihianius, Haer. XXV.

Carpocrates also lived under Hadrian, probably at Alexandria, and founded a Gnostic sect, called by his own name, which put Christ on a level with heathen philosophers, prided itself on its elevation above all the popular religions, and sank into unbridled immorality. The world is created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father. Jesus was the son of Joseph, and just like other men, except that his soul was steadfast and pure, and that he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God. For this reason a power descended upon him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world. After passing through them all, and remaining in all points free, he ascended again to the Father. We may rise to an equality with Jesus by despising in like manner the creators of the world.

The Carpocratians, say Irenaeus and Hippolytus, practiced also magical arts, incantations, and love-potions, and had recourse to familiar spirits, dream-sending demons, and other abominations, declaring that they possess power to rule over the princes and framers of this world. But they led a licentious life, and abused the name of Christ as a means of hiding their wickedness. They were the first known sect that used pictures of Christ, and they derived them from a pretended original of Pontius Pilate.(134)

Epiphanes, a son of Carpocrates, who died at the age of seventeen, was the founder of "monadic "Gnosticism, which in opposition to dualism seems to have denied the independent existence of evil, and resolved it into a fiction of human laws. He wrote a book on "Justice," and defined it to be equality. He taught that God gave his benefits to all men alike and in common, and thence derived the community of goods, and even of women. He was worshipped by his adherents after his death as a god, at Same in Cephalonia, by sacrifices, libations, banquets, and singing of hymns. Here we have the worship of genius in league with the emancipation of the flesh, which has been revived in modern times. But it is not impossible that Clement of Alexandria, who relates this fact, may have made a similar mistake as Justin Martyr in the case of Simon Magus, and confounded a local heathen festival of the moon known as ta; jEpifavneia or oJ jEpifanhv" with a festival in honor of Epiphanes.(135)

§ 131. Tatian and the Encratites.

I. Tatian: Lovgo" pro;" {Ellhna" (Oratio adversus Graecos), ed. S. Worth, Oxon. 1700 (an excellent ed.); in Otto’s Corpus. Apol., vol. VI., Jenae 1851; and in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tom. VI. fol. 803–888. Eng. transl. by Pratten & Dods in the "Ante-Nicene Library," vol. III. (Edinb. 1867). A Commentary of St. Ephraem on Tatian’s Diatessaron (To; dia; tessavrwn), was found in an Armenian translation in the Armenian Convent at Venice, translated into Latin in 1841 by Aucher, and edited by Mösinger (Prof. of Biblical Learning in Salzburg) under the title "Evangelii Concordantis Expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo Doctore Syro." Venet. 1876. The Diatessaron itself was found in an Arabic translation in 1886, and published by P. Aug. Ciasca: Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae, Arabice, Rom. 1888. A new and more critical edition of the Oratio ad Gr., by Ed. Schwartz, Lips., 1888 (105 pp).

Orthodox Notices of Tatian: Iren. I. 28, 1; III. 23, 8 sqq. (in Stieren, I. 259, 551 sq.). Hippol.: VIII. 16 (very brief). Clem. Alex.: Strom. l. III. Euseb.: H. E. IV. 16, 28, 29; VI. 13. Epiphanius, Haer. 46 (Tatian) and 47 (Encratites). The recently discovered work of Macarius Magnes (Paris 1876), written about 400, contains some information about the Encratites which agrees with Epiphanius.

H. A. Daniel: Tatian der Apologet. Halle 1837.

James Donaldson: A Critical History of Christian Liter., etc. Lond. vol. III^rd. (1866), which is devoted to Tatian, etc., p. 3–62.

Theod. Zahn: Tatian’s Diatessaron. Erlangen, 1881. (The first part of Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamntl. Kanons).

Ad. Harnack: Tatian’s Diatessaron, in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch." 1881, p. 471–505; Die Oratio des Tatian nebst einer Einleitung über die Zeit dieses Apologeten, in "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur," vol. I. No. 2, p. 196–231. Leipz., 1883, and his art., "Tatian," in "Encycl. Brit." xxiii. (1888).

Fr. Xav. Funk (R.C.): Zur Chronologie Tatian’s, in the Tübing. "Theol. Quartalschrift," 1883, p. 219–234.

Tatian, a rhetorician of Syria, was converted to Catholic Christianity by Justin Martyr in Rome, but afterwards strayed into Gnosticism and died a.d. 172.(136) He resembles Marcion in his anti-Jewish turn and dismal austerity. Falsely interpreting 1 Cor. 7:5, he declared marriage to be a kind of licentiousness and a service of the devil. Irenaeus says, that Tatian, after the martyrdom of Justin, apostatised from the church, and elated with the conceit of a teacher, and vainly puffed up as if he surpassed all others, invented certain invisible aeons similar to those of Valentine, and asserted with Marcion and Saturninus that marriage was only corruption and fornication. But his extant apologetic treatise against the Gentiles, and his Gospel-Harmony (recently recovered), which were written between 153 and 170, show no clear traces of Gnosticism, unless it be the omission of the genealogies of Jesus in the "Diatessaron." He was not so much anti-catholic as hyper-catholic, and hyper-ascetic. We shall return to him again in the last chapter.

His followers, who kept the system alive till the fifth century, were called, from their ascetic life, Encratites, or Abstainers, and from their use of water for wine in the Lord’s Supper, Hydroparastatae or Aquarians.(137) They abstained from flesh, wine, and marriage, not temporarily (as the ancient catholic ascetics) for purposes of devotion, nor (as many modern total abstainers from intoxicating drink) for the sake of expediency or setting a good example, but permanently and from principle on account of the supposed intrinsic impurity of the things renounced. The title "Encratites," however, was applied indiscriminately to all ascetic sects of the Gnostics, especially the followers of Saturninus, Marcion, and Severus (Severians, of uncertain origin). The Manichaeans also sheltered themselves under this name. Clement of Alexandria refers to the Indian ascetics as the forerunners of the Encratites.

The practice of using mere water for wine in the eucharist was condemned by Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, and forbidden by Theodosius in an edict of 382. A certain class of modern abstinence men in America, in their abhorrence of all intoxicating drinks, have resorted to the same heretical practice, and substituted water or milk for the express ordinance of our Lord.

§ 132. Justin the Gnostic.

Hippolytus: Philos. V. 23–27 (p. 214–233), and X. 15 (p. 516–519).

Hippolytus makes us acquainted with a Gnostic by the name of Justin, of uncertain date and origin.(138) He propagated his doctrine secretly, and bound his disciples to silence by solemn oaths. He wrote a number of books, one called Baruch, from which Hippolytus gives an abstract. His gnosis is mostly based upon a mystical interpretation of Genesis, and has a somewhat Judaizing cast. Hippolytus, indeed, classes him with the Naassenes, but Justin took an opposite view of the serpent as the cause of all evil in history. He made use also of the Greek mythology, especially the tradition of the twelve labors of Hercules. He assumes three original principles, two male and one female. The first is the Good Being; the second Elohim, the Father of the creation; the third is called Eden and Israel, and has a double form, a woman above the middle and a snake below. Elohim falls in love with Eden, and from their intercourse springs the spirit-world of twenty angels, ten paternal and ten maternal, and these people the world. The chief of the two series of angels are Baruch, who is the author of all good, and is represented by the tree of life in Paradise, and Naas, the serpent, who is the author of all evil, and is represented by the tree of knowledge. The four rivers are symbols of the four divisions of angels. The Naas committed adultery with Eve, and a worse crime with Adam; he adulterated the laws of Moses and the oracles of the prophets; he nailed Jesus to the cross. But by this crucifixion Jesus was emancipated from his material body, rose to the good God to whom he committed his spirit in death, and thus he came to be the deliverer.

§ 133. Hermogenes.

Tertullian: Adv. Hermogenem. Written about a.d. 206. One of his two tracts against H. is lost. Hippolytus: Philos. VIII. 17 (p. 432). Comp. Neander: Antignosticus, p. 448; Kaye: Tertullian, p. 532; Hauck: Tertullian, p. 240; Salmond: in "Smith & Wace," III. 1–3.

Hermogenes was a painter in Carthage at the end of the second and beginning of the third century. Tertullian describes him as a turbulent, loquacious, and impudent man, who "married more women than he painted."(139) He is but remotely connected with Gnosticism by his Platonic dualism and denial of the creation out of nothing. He derived the world, including the soul of man, from the formless, eternal matter,(140) and explained the ugly in the natural world, as well as the evil in the spiritual, by the resistance of matter to the formative influence of God. In this way only he thought he could account for the origin of evil. For if God had made the world out of nothing, it must be all good. He taught that Christ on his ascension left his body in the sun, and then ascended to the Father.(141) But otherwise he was orthodox and did not wish to separate from the church.

§ 134. Other Gnostic Sects.

The ancient fathers, especially Hippolytus and Epiphanius, mention several other Gnostic sects under various designations.

The Docetae or Docetists taught that the body of Christ was not real flesh and blood, but merely a deceptive, transient phantom, and consequently that he did not really suffer and die and rise again. Hippolytus gives an account of the system of this sect. But the name applied as well to most Gnostics, especially to Basilides, Saturninus, Valentinus, Marcion, and the Manichaeans. Docetism was a characteristic feature of the first antichristian errorists whom St. John had in view (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7).(142)
The name Antitactae or Antitactes, denotes the licentious antinomian Gnostics, rather than the followers of any single master, to whom the term can be traced.(143)
The Prodicians, so named from their supposed founder, Prodicus, considered themselves the royal family,(144)and, in crazy self-conceit, thought themselves above the law, the sabbath, and every form of worship, even above prayer itself, which was becoming only to the ignorant mass. They resembled the Nicolaitans and Antitactae, and were also called Adamites, Barbelitae, Borboriani, Coddiani, Phibionitae, and by other unintelligible names.(145)

Almost every form of immorality and lawlessness seems to have been practiced under the sanction of religion by the baser schools of Gnosticism, and the worst errors and organized vices of modern times were anticipated by them. Hence we need not be surprised at the uncompromising opposition of the ancient fathers to this radical corruption and perversion of Christianity.

§ 135. Mani and the Manichaeans.

Sources.

I. Oriental Sources: The most important, though of comparatively late date. (a) Mohammedan (Arabic): Kitâb al Fihrist. A history of Arabic literature to 987, by an Arab of Bagdad, usually called Ibn Abi Jakub An-Nadîm; brought to light by Flügel, and published after his death by Rödiger and Müller, in 2 vols. Leipz. 1871–’72. Book IX. section first, treats of Manichaeism. Flügel’s transl. see below. Kessler calls Fihrist a "Fundstätte allerersten Ranges." Next to it comes the relation of the Mohamedan philosopher Al-Shahrastanî (d. 1153), in his History of Religious Parties and Philosophical Sects, ed. Cureton, Lond. 1842, 2 vols. (I. 188–192); German translation by Haarbrücker. Halle, 1851. On other Mohammedan sources see Kessler in Herzog², IX. 225 sq. (b) Persian sources, relating to the life of Mani; the Shâhnâmeh (the Kings’ Book) of Firdausî, ed. by Jul. Mohl. Paris, 1866 (V. 472–475). See Kessler, ibid. 225. c) Christian Sources: In Arabic, the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius (d. 916), Annales, ed. Pococke. Oxon. 1628; Barhebraeus (d. 1286), in his Historia Dynastiarum, ed. Pococke. In Syriac: Ephraem Syrus (d. 393), in various writings Esnig or Esnik, an Armenian bishop of the 5^th century, who wrote against Marcion and Mani (German translation from the Armenian by C. Fr. Neumann in Illgen’s "Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theol." 1834, p. 77–78).

Greek Sources: Eusebius (H. E. VII. 31, a brief account). Epiphanius (Haer. 66). Cyril Of Jerusal. (Catech. VI. 20 sqq.). Titus of Bostra (pro;" Manicaivou", ed. P. de Lafarde, 1859). Photius: Adv. Manichœos (Cod. 179 Biblioth.). John Of Damascus: De Haeres. and Dial.
Latin Sources: Archelaus (Bishop of Cascar in Mesopotamia, d. about 278): Acta Disputationis cum Manete haeresiarcha; first written in Syriac, and so far belonging to the Oriental Christian sources (Comp. Jerome, De vir. ill. 72), but extant only in a Latin translation, which seems to have been made from the Greek, edited by Zacagni (Rom. 1698) and Routh (in Reliquiae Sacrae., vol. V. 3–206), Engl. transl. in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library" (vol. XX. 272–419). These Acts purport to contain the report of a disputation between Archelaus and Mani before a large assembly, which was in fall sympathy with the orthodox bishop, but (as Beausobre first proved) they are in form a fiction from the first quarter of the fourth century (about 320) by a Syrian ecclesiastic (probably of Edessa), yet based upon Manichaean documents, and containing much information about Manichaean doctrines. They consist of various pieces, and were the chief source of information to the West. Mani is represented (ch. 12) as appearing in a many-colored cloak and trousers, with a sturdy staff of ebony, a Babylonian book under his left arm, and with a mien of an old Persian master. In his defense he quotes freely from the N. T. At the end he makes his escape to Persia (ch. 55). Comp. H. V. Zittwitz: Die Acta Archelai et Manetis untersucht, in Kahnis’ "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol." 1873, No. IV. Oblasinski: Acta Disput. Arch., etc. Lips. 1874 (inaugural dissert.). Ad. Harnack: Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians, in "Texte und Untersuch. zur Gesch. der altchristl. Lit." vol. I. Heft. 3 (1883), p. 137–153. Harnack tries to prove that the Gospel quotations of Archelaus are taken from Tatian’s Diatessaron. Comp. also his Dogmengeschichte, I. (1886), 681–694.

St. Augustin (d. 430, the chief Latin authority next to the translation of Archelaus): Contra Epistolam Manichaei; Contra Faustum Manich., and other anti-Manichaean writings, in the 8^th vol. of the Benedictine edition of his Opera. English translation in Schaff’s "Nicene and Post-Nicene Library," Vol. IV., N. York, 1887.

Comp. also the Acts of Councils against the Manich. from the fourth century onward, in Mansi and Hefele.

Modern Works:

Isaac De Beausobre ( b. 1659 in France, pastor of the French church in Berlin, d. 1738): Histoire crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme.* Amst. 1734 and 39. 2 vols. 4º. Part of the first vol. is historical, the second doctrinal. Very full and scholarly. He intended to write a third volume on the later Manichaeans.

F. Chr. Baur: Das Manichaeische Religionssystem nach den Quellen neu untersucht und entwickelt.* Tüb. 1831 (500 pages). A comprehensive Philosophical and critical view. He calls the Manich. system a "glühend prächtiges Natur- und Weltgedicht."

Trechsel: Ueber Kanon, Kritik, und Exegese der Manichäer. Bern, 1832.

D. Chwolson: Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus. Petersb. 1856, 2 vols.

Gust. Flügel (d. 1870): Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften. Aus dem Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadîm* (987). Leipz. 1862. Text, translation, and Commentary, 440 pages.

Fr. Spiegel: Eranische Alterthumskunde, vol.II. 1873, p. 185–232.

Alex. Geyler: Das System des Manichäisimus und sein Verh. zum Buddhismus. Jena, 1875.

K. Kessler: Untersuchungen zur Genesis des manich. Rel. systems.* Leipz. 1876. By the same: Mânî oder Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Religionsmischung im Semitismus. Leipz. 1882. See also his thorough art. Mâni und die Manichäer, in "Herzog," new ed., vol. IX. 223–259 (abridged in Schaff’s "Encycl." II. 1396–1398).

G. T. Stokes: Manes, and Manichaeans in "Smith and Wace," III. 792–801.

Ad. Harnack: Manichaeism, in the 9^th ed. of the "Encycl. Britannica, vol. XV. (1883), 481–487.

The accounts of Mosheim, Lardner, Schröckh, Walch, Neander, Gieseler.

We come now to the latest, the best organized, the most consistent, tenacious and dangerous form of Gnosticism, with which Christianity had to wage a long conflict. Manichaeism was not only a school, like the older forms of Gnosticism, but a rival religion and a rival church. In this respect it resembled Islam which at a later period became a still more formidable rival of Christianity; both claimed to be divine revelations, both engrafted pseudo-Christian elements on a heathen stock, but the starting point was radically different: Manichaeism being anti-Jewish and dualistic, Mohammedanism, pseudo-Jewish and severely and fanatically monotheistic.

First the external history.

The origin of Manichaeism is matter of obscure and confused tradition. It is traced to Mani (Manes, Manichaeus),(146) a Persian philosopher, astronomer, and painter,(147) of the third century (215–277), who came over to Christianity, or rather introduced some Christian elements into the Zoroastrian religion, and thus stirred up an intellectual and moral revolution among his countrymen. According to Arabic Mohammedan sources, he was the son of Fatak (Pavtekio"), a high-born Persian of Hamadan (Ecbatana), who emigrated to Ctesiphon in Babylonia. Here he received a careful education. He belonged originally to the Judaizing Gnostic sect of the Mandaeans or Elkesaites (the Mogtasilah, i.e. Baptists); but in his nineteenth and again in his twenty-fourth year (238) a new religion was divinely revealed to him. In his thirtieth year he began to preach his syncretistic creed, undertook long journeys and sent out disciples. He proclaimed himself to be the last and highest prophet of God and the Paraclete promised by Christ (as Mohammed did six hundred years later). He began his "Epistola Fundamenti," in which he propounded his leading doctrines, with the words: "Mani, the apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the words of salvation from the eternal and living source." He composed many books in the Persian and Syriac languages and in an alphabet of his own invention but they are all lost.(148)

At first Mani found favor at the court of the Persian king Shapur I. (Sapor), but stirred up the hatred of the priestly cast of the Magians. He fled to East India and China and became acquainted with Buddhism. Indeed, the name of Buddha is interwoven with the legendary history of the Manichaean system. His disputations with Archelaus in Mesopotamia are a fiction, like the pseudo-Clementine disputations of Simon Magus with Peter, but on a better historic foundation and with an orthodox aim of the writer^.92(149)

In the year 270 Mani returned to Persia, and won many followers by his symbolic (pictorial) illustrations of the doctrines, which he pretended had been revealed to him by God. But in a disputation with the Magians, he was convicted of corrupting the old religion, and thereupon was crucified, or flayed alive by order of king Behram I. (Veranes) about 277; his skin was stuffed and hung up for a terror at the gate of the city Djondishapur (or Gundeshapur), since called "the gate of Mani."(150) His followers were cruelly persecuted by the king.

Soon after Mani’s horrible death his sect spread in Turkistan, Mesopotamia, North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Spain. As it moved westward it assumed a more Christian character, especially in North Africa. It was everywhere persecuted in the Roman empire, first by Diocletian (A. D. 287), and afterwards by the Christian emperors. Nevertheless it flourished till the sixth century and even later. Persecution of heresy always helps heresy unless the heretics are exterminated.

The mysteriousness of its doctrine, its compact organization, the apparent solution of the terrible problem of evil, and the show of ascetic holiness sometimes were the chief points of attraction. Even such a profound and noble spirit as St. Augustin was nine years an auditor of the sect before he was converted to the Catholic church. He sought there a deeper philosophy of religion and became acquainted with the gifted and eloquent Faustus of Numidia, but was disappointed and found him a superficial charlatan. Another Manichaean, by the name of Felix, he succeeded in converting to the Catholic faith in a public disputation of two days at Hippo. His connection with Manichaeism enabled him in his polemic writings to refute it and to develop the doctrines of the relation of knowledge and faith, of reason and revelation, the freedom of will, the origin of evil and its relation to the divine government. Thus here, too, error was overruled for the promotion of truth.

Pope Leo I. searched for these heretics in Rome, and with the aid of the magistrate brought many to punishment. Valentinian III. punished them by banishment, Justinian by death. The violent and persistent persecutions at last destroyed their organization. But their system extended its influence throughout the middle ages down to the thirteenth century, reappearing, under different modifications, with a larger infusion of Christian elements, in the Priscillianists, Paulieians, Bogomiles, Albigenses, Catharists and other sects, which were therefore called "New Manichaeans." Indeed some of the leading features of Manichaeism—the dualistic separation of soul and body, the ascription of nature to the devil, the pantheistic confusion of the moral and physical, the hypocritical symbolism, concealing heathen views under Christian phrases, the haughty air of mystery, and the aristocratic distinction of esoteric and exoteric—still live in various forms even in modern systems of philosophy and sects of religion.(151)

§ 136. The Manichaean System.

Manichaeism is a compound of dualistic, pantheistic, Gnostic, and ascetic elements, combined with a fantastic philosophy of nature, which gives the whole system a materialistic character, notwithstanding its ascetic abhorrence of matter. The metaphysical foundation is a radical dualism between good and evil, light and darkness, derived from the Persian Zoroastrism (as restored by the school of the Magasaeans under the reign of the second Sassanides towards the middle of the second century). The prominent ethical feature is a rigid asceticism which strongly resembles Buddhism.(152) The Christian element is only a superficial varnish (as in Mohammedanism). The Jewish religion is excluded altogether (while in Mohammedanism it forms a very important feature), and the Old Testament is rejected, as inspired by the devil and his false prophets. The chief authorities were apocryphal Gospels and the writings of Mani.

The Manichaean theology begins with an irreconcilable antagonism between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. And this is identified with the ethical dualism between good and bad. These two kingdoms stood opposed to each other from eternity, remaining unmingled. Then Satan who with his demons was born from darkness, began to rage and made an assault upon the kingdom of light. From this incursion resulted the present world, which exhibits a mixture of the two elements detached portions of light imprisoned in darkness. Adam was created in the image of Satan, but with a strong spark of light, and was provided by Satan with Eve as his companion, who represents seductive sensuousness, but also with a spark of light, though smaller than that in Adam. Cain and Abel are sons of Satan and Eve, but Seth is the offspring of Adam by Eve, and full of light. Thus mankind came into existence with different shares of light, the men with more, the women with less. Every individual man is at once a son of light and of darkness, has a good soul, and a body substantially evil, with an evil soul corresponding to it. The redemption of the light from the bonds of the darkness is effected by Christ, who is identical with the sun spirit, and by the Holy Ghost, who has his seat in the ether. These two beings attract the lightforces out of the material world, while the prince of darkness, and the spirits imprisoned in the stars, seek to keep them back. The sun and moon are the two shining ships (lucidae naves) for conducting the imprisoned light into the eternal kingdom of light. The full moon represents the ship laden with light; the new moon, the vessel emptied of its cargo; and the twelve signs of the zodiac also serve as buckets in this pumping operation.

The Manichaean christology, like the Gnostic, is entirely docetic, and, by its perverted view of body and matter, wholly excludes the idea of an incarnation of God. The teachings of Christ were compiled and falsified by the apostles in the Spirit of Judaism. Mani, the promised Paraclete, has restored them. The goal of history is an entire separation of the light from the darkness; a tremendous conflagration consumes the world, and the kingdom of darkness sinks into impotence.

Thus Christianity is here resolved into a fantastic dualistic, and yet pantheistic philosophy of nature; moral regeneration is identified with a process of physical refinement; and the whole mystery of redemption is found in light, which was always worshipped in the East as the symbol of deity. Unquestionably there pervades the Manichaean system a kind of groaning of the creature for redemption, and a deep sympathy with nature, that hieroglyphic of spirit; but all is distorted and confused. The suffering Jesus on the cross (Jesus patibilis) is here a mere illusion, a symbol of the world-soul still enchained in matter, and is seen in every plant which works upwards from the dark bosom of the earth towards the light, towards bloom and fruit, yearning after freedom. Hence the class of the "perfect" would not kill nor wound a beast, pluck a flower, nor break a blade of grass. The system, instead of being, as it pretends, a liberation of light from darkness, is really a turning of light into darkness.

The morality of the Manichaeans was severely ascetic, based on the fundamental error of the intrinsic evil of matter and the body; the extreme opposite of the Pelagian view of the essential moral purity of human nature.(153) The great moral aim is, to become entirely unworldly in the Buddhistic sense; to renounce and destroy corporeity; to set the good soul free from the fetters of matter. This is accomplished by the most rigid and gloomy abstinence from all those elements which have their source in the sphere of darkness. It was, however, only required of the elect, not of catechumens. A distinction was made between a higher and lower morality similar to that in the catholic church. The perfection of the elect consisted in a threefold seal or preservative (signaculum).(154)

The signaculum oris, that is, purity in words and in diet, abstinence from all animal food and strong drink, even in the holy supper, and restriction to vegetable diet, which was furnished to the perfect by the "bearers," particularly olives, as their oil is the food of light.
The signaculum manuum: renunciation of earthly property, and of material and industrial pursuits, even agriculture; with a sacred reverence for the divine light-life diffused through all nature.
The signaculum sinus, or celibacy, and abstinence from any gratification of sensual desire. Marriage, or rather procreation, is a contamination with corporeity, which is essentially evil.

This unnatural holiness of the elect at the same time atoned for the unavoidable daily sins of the catechumens who paid them the greatest reverence. It was accompanied, however, as in the Gnostics, with an excessive pride of knowledge, and if we are to believe the catholic opponents, its fair show not rarely concealed refined forms of vice.

Organization. Manichaeism differed from all the Gnostic schools in having a fixed, and that a strictly hierarchical, organization. This accounts in large measure for its tenacity and endurance. At the head of the sect stood twelve apostles, or magistri, among whom Mani and his successors, like Peter and the pope, held the chief place. Under them were seventy-two bishops, answering to the seventy-two (strictly seventy) disciples of Jesus; and under these came presbyters, deacons and itinerant evangelists.(155) In the congregation there were two distinct classes, designed to correspond to the catechumens and the faithful in the catholic church: the "hearers;"(156) and the "perfect," the esoteric, the priestly caste,(157) which represents the last stage in the process of liberation of the spirit and its separation from the world, the transition from the kingdom of matter into the kingdom of light, or in Buddhistic terms, from the world of Sansara into Nirwana.
The worship of the Manichaeans was, on the whole, very simple. They had no sacrifices, but four daily prayers, preceded by ablations, and accompanied by prostrations, the worshipper turned towards the sun or moon as the seat of light. They observed Sunday, in honor of the sun, which was with them the same with the redeemer; but, contrary to the custom of the catholic Christians, they made it a day of fasting. They had weekly, monthly, and yearly fasts. They rejected the church festivals, but instead celebrated in March with great pomp the day of the martyrdom of their divinely appointed teacher, Mani.(158) The sacraments were mysteries of the elect, of which even Augustin could learn very little. Hence it has been disputed whether they used baptism or not, and whether they baptized by water, or oil. Probably they practised water baptism and anointing, and regarded the latter as a higher spiritual baptism, or distinguished both as baptism and confirmation in the catholic church.(159) They also celebrated a kind of holy supper, sometimes even under disguise in catholic churches, but without wine (because Christ had no blood), and regarding it perhaps, according to their pantheistic symbolism, as the commemoration of the light-soul crucified in all nature. Their sign of recognition was the extension of the right hand as symbol of common deliverance from the kingdom of darkness by the redeeming hand of the spirit of the sun.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 775): Comp. vol. 1. 564 sqq., and my History of the Apost. Church, § 165-169.

(2; original 776): The heathen enemies of Christianity, as Julian the Apostate, called them sometimes "Galileans." So also Epictetus in the only passage, in which he alludes to the Christians.

(3; original 777): Praescr. Haeret. c. 13.

(4; original 778): Minut. Felix, Octav. 36: "Ceterum quod plerique PAUPERES dicimur non est infamia nostra, sed gloria; animus enim ut luxu solvitur, ita frugalitate firmatur."

(5; original 779): jElkessai'oi (Epiphanius); jHlcassaiv (Hippolytus); JElkesaitaiv (Origen). Also Samyai'oi, from vm,v, , sun.

(6; original 780): Duvnami" kekallumevnh, ys'K] lyje. Comp. the duvnami" a[sarko"in the Clem. Homilies, XVII. 16. Other derivations: from Elkesi, a village in Galilee (Delitzsch); from yD'v lae; from syvij;K,l]a' = apostatae.

(7; original 781): See the fragments collected in Hilgenfeld’s Nov. Test. extra Canonem receptum, III. 153-167.

(8; original 782): Johanneschristen, Chrétiens de Saint Jean.

(9; original 783): Mandäische Grammatik, by Th. Nöldeke. Halle, 1875.

(10; original 784): For further particulars see the article of Kessler in Herzog, above quoted.

(11; original 785): Klhvmento'" tw'n Pevtrou ejpidhmiw'n khrugmavtwn ejpitomhv.

(12; original 786): The Tübingen School, under the lead of Dr. Baur, has greatly exaggerated the importance of these heretical fictions which the unknown author never intended to present as solid facts. Thus Hilgenfeld says (l. c. p. 1) There is scarcely a single writing which is of so great importance for the history of Christianity in its first age, and which has already given such brilliant disclosures [?] at the hands of the most renowned critics in regard to the earliest history of the Christian Church, as the writing ascribed to the Roman Clement, the Recognitions and Homilies."Their importance is confined to the history of heresy, which with the Tübingen school is the most interesting portion of ancient church history.

(13; original 787): The Tübingen school first denied the use of the fourth Gospel, but the discovery of the missing portion by Dressel in 1853 has settled this point, for it contains (Hom. XIX. 22) a clear quotation from John 9:1-3.

(14; original 788): The hypothesis has been most fully carried out by Lipsius in his article on Simon Magus in Schenkel’s "Bibellexicon, " vol. V. 301-321.

(15; original 789): Comp. Hom. XVII. 19 (p. 351 sq. ed. Dressel) with Gal. 2:11, where Paul uses the game word kategnwmevno" of Peter.

(16; original 790): Hom. II. 22 sqq. (p. 57 sqq.).

(17; original 791): The prwvth th'/ ajnqrwpovthri paradoqei'sa swthvrio" qrhskeiva.

(18; original 792): Pu'r kaqavrsion, ignis purgatorius.

(19; original 793): Clericus, Möhler, Schliemann, Uhlhorn, Schwegler, partly also Lehmann. Uhlhorn has since modified his view (1876).

(20; original 794): Particularly Hilgenfeld and Ritschl, find among older writers, Cave and Whiston. Salmon also assigns the priority of composition to the Recognitions.

(21; original 795): The Perivodoi Pevtrou dia; Klhvmento",and the still older Khruvgmata Pevtrou (about a.d. 140-145), the contents of which are mentioned in Recogn. III. 75, and the oldest Acta Petri, parts of which are preserved in the apocryphal Acta Petri et Pauli. See Lipsius, Quellen der röm. Petrus-Sage, 1872, pp. 14 sqq. Uhlhorn assents in his last art. in the new ed. of Herzog, III. 285. Dr. Salmon (in Smith and Wace, 1. 571) likewise assumes that both are drawn from a common original, but that the author of Homilies borrowed the biographical portions from Recognitions.

(22; original 796): Lovgo" gnwvsew" , lovgo" sofiva" , 1 Cor. 12:8; Comp. 13:2, 12; Jno. 17:3.

(23; original 797): Yeudwvnumo" gnw'si" 1 Tim. 6:20.

(24; original 798): 1 Cor. 8:1.

(25; original 799): Rom. 1:22.

(26; original 800): Baur takes too comprehensive a view of Gnosticism, and includes in it all systems of Christian philosophy of religion down to Schelling and Hegel.

(27; original 801): Sir William Hamilton and Dean Mansel.

(28; original 802): Hume, Spencer, Comte. As to Kant, he started from Hume, but checked the scepticism of the theoretical reason by the categorical imperative of the practical reason. See Calderwood’s article "Agnosticism" in Schaffs "Rel. Encycl." vol. I.

(29; original 803): He calls Gnosticism a "Verteufelung der Natur."

(30; original 804): Even some of the more recent writers, as Bishop Kaye (Eccl. History of the Second arid Third Centuries), and the translators of Irenaeus in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library" (Edinb. 1868, vol. 1st, Introductory Notice) have the same idea of the Gnostic system as an impenetrable wilderness, of absurdities. But Mansel, Lightfoot, and Salmon show a clear knowledge of the subject, and agree; substantially with Neander’s account.

(31; original 805): Povqen to; kakovn, orhJ kakiva: unde malum? (See Tertullian, De Praescript. 7; Adv. Marc. I. 2; Euseb. H. E, V. 27; Baur, Gnosis, p. 19.

(32; original 806): Dr. Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (1883), vol. 1. P. 7.

(33; original 807): Adv. Haer.l.c. 20. §1: jAmuvqhton plh'qo" ajpokruvfwn kai; novqwn grafw'n, a}}" aujtoi; e[plasan, pareisfevrousin eiv" katavplhxin tw'n ajnohvtwn kai; ta; th'" ajlhqeiva" mh; ejpistamevnwn gravmmata.

(34; original 808): Hippol. Philos. IV. 46, V. 8, 13, 20.

(35; original 809): Dovkhti", favntasma.

(36; original 810): Buqov".

(37; original 811): So in the old Hindu philosophy, absolute Being is regarded as the ground of all existence. It is itself devoid of qualities, incapable of definition, inconceivable, neither one thing nor another thing, yet containing in itself the possibilities; of all things; and out from its dark depths the universe was evolved through some mysterious impulse. The Vedas describe it thus: "It is neither Brahma, nor Vishnoo, nor Sivan, but something back of these, without passion, neither great nor small, neither male nor female, but something far beyond."

(38; original 812): Nou'", lovgo" , sofiva, duvnami", ajlhvqeia, zwhv , etc.

(39; original 813): Probolhv (from probavllw), a putting forward, a projection.

(40; original 814): Basilides and Saturninus use the former illustration; Marcos uses the latter.

(41; original 815): JH kavtw sofiva, jAcamwvq (Iren. 1. 4; in Stieren, I. 44), h'j;k]mrot or a'KiymWt the Chaldaic form of the Hebrew j;k]m;h .

(42; original 816): Dhmiourgov", a term used by Plato in a similar sense.

(43; original 817): Peumatikoiv.

(44; original 818): Swmatikoiv, fusikoiv, sarkikoiv, uJlikoiv.

(45; original 819): Yucikoiv.

(46; original 820): OiJ polloiv.

(47; original 821): Dei' katacrh'sqai th'/ sarkiv, the flesh must be abused to be conquered.

(48; original 822): Comp. 2 Thess. 2:4

(49; original 823): De Praescr. Haeret., c. 41.

(50; original 824): bdeluriva.

(51; original 825): blasfhmw'n diabavllei th;n dhmiourgivan .

(52; original 826): Gibbon, who devotes four pages (Ch. XV.) to the Gnostics, dwells exclusively on the anti-Jewish feature, and makes them express his own aversion to the Old Testament. He calls them (from very superficial knowledge, but with his masterly skill of insinuation) "the most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name," and says that, being mostly averse to the pleasures of sense, "they morosely arraigned the polygamy of the patriarchs, the gallantries of David, and the seraglio of Solomon," and were at a loss to reconcile "the conquest of Canaan, and the extirpation of the unsuspecting natives with the common notions of humanity and justice."

(53; original 827): The Tübingen school, which denies the historical character of the Acts, resolves also the story of Simon into a Jewish Christian fiction, aimed at the apostle Paul as the real heretic and magician. So Baur, Zeller, and Volkmar. Lipsius ingeniously carries out this Simon-Paul hypothesis, and declares (I. c. p. 303): "Der Kern der Sage ist niches als ein vollständig ausgeführtes Zerrbild des Heidenapostels, dessen Zäge bis in’s einzelne hinein die Person, die Lehre, und die Lebenschicksale des Paulus persifliren sollen." But the book of Acts gives the earliest record of Simon and is the production, if not of Luke, as we believe with the unanimous testimony of antiquity, at all events of a writer friendly to Paul, and therefore utterly unlikely to insert an anti-Pauline fiction which would stultify the greater part of his own book. Comp. the remarks above, §114, p. 438.

(54; original 828): Apol. I, 26 (Sivmwna mevn tina Samareva, to;n ajpo; kwvmh" legomevnh" Gittw'n); comp. Clem. Hom. I. 15; II. 22 (ajpo; Gitqw'n); Hippol. Philos. VI. 7 (oJ Gitthnov").There was such a place as Givttai, not far from Flavia Neapolis (Nablus), Justin’s birthplace. It is now called Kuryet Jît (Dschit). See Robinson’s Pal. II. 308, and Otto’s note on the passage in Justin (Opera I. 78).

(55; original 829): According to Josephus, Ant. XX. 7, 2. The identity is assumed by Neander, De Wette, Hilgenfeld. There was on the island of Cyprus a city named Kivtion (Thucyd. I. 112, 1), which Justin M. may possibly have confounded with Gitthon, in Samaria, as he confounded Simo and Semo on the statue in Rome. But it is much more likely that Josephus was mistaken on a question of Samaria than Justin, a native of Flavia Neapolis (the ancient Shechem).

(56; original 830): hJ Duvnami" tou' qeou' h{ Megavlh, Acts 8:10. According to the Clementine Homilies (II. 22) and Recognitions (II.7), Simon called himself " the Supreme Power of God"(ajnwtavth duvnami" ,Virtus Suprema).

(57; original 831): The memory of this incident is perpetuated in the name of simony for profane traffic in ecclesiastical offices.

(58; original 832): The legendary accounts, both catholic and heretical, vary considerably. Justin M. reports Simon’s visit to Rome, but assigns it to the reign of Claudius (41-54), and says nothing of an encounter with Peter. Other reports put the journey in the reign of Nero (54-68). According to Hippolytus, Simon was buried alive at his own request, being confident of rising again on the third day, as a pseudo-Christ. According to the Apostolical Constitutions, he attempted to fly, but fell and broke his thigh and ankle-bone in answer to the prayers of Peter, and died in consequence of this injury. According to Arnobius, he attempted to ascend in a fiery chariot, like Elijah, but broke his leg, and in the confusion of shame committed suicide by throwing himself from a high mountain. See Lipsius, l.c. p. 310.

(59; original 833): He reports (Apol. I26 and 56) that Simon Magus made such an impression by his magical arts upon the Roman Senate and people that they paid him divine homage, and erected a statue to him on the island of the Tiber. But he mistook Semo Sancus orSangus, a Sabine-Roman divinity unknown to him, for Simo Sanctus. For in 1574 a statue was found in the place described, with the inscription: Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum, etc. The mistake is repeated by Irenaeus Adv. Hoer. I. 23, 1, Tertullian Apol. 13, and Eusebius, but Hippolytus who resided at Rome does not mention it. See Otto’s note on Just. I. 26, Opera I. 79 sq. (ed. III).

(60; original 834): jApovfasi" megavlh.

(61; original 835): Philos. VI. 6 sqq.

(62; original 836): Dei' katacrh'sqai th'/ sarkiv.

(63; original 837): He adds the curious statement (Strom. III.c. 4) that on a certain occasion Nicolas was sharply reproved by the Apostles as a jealous husband, and repelled the charge by offering to allow his beautiful wife to become the wife of any other person. Extremely improbable.

(64; original 838): Khvrinqo".

(65; original 839): Both recorded by, Irenaeus III.c. 3, § 4 as illustrating Tit. 3:10. But the same story of John in the bath is also told of Ebion, whose very existence is doubtful.

(66; original 840): oJ a[vvnw Cristov". He also calls the Holy Spirit hJ a[vnw duvnami" , the power from on high which came down upon Jesus. Valentine called the Jewish Messiah (oJ kavtw Cristov"). The best account of Cerinth’s Christology is given by Dorner.

(67; original 841): The chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is omitted by Irenaeus, who was himself a chiliast, though of a higher spiritual order, but it is described by Caius, Dionysius (in Eusebius), Theodoret, and Augustin.

(68; original 842): Comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. 7 and Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 12. p. 599 sq. Origen (Hom. in Luc. I: 1) says that Basilides "had the audacity (ejtovlmhsen) to write a Gospel according to Basilides;" but he probably mistook the commentary for an apocryphal Gospel. Hippolytus expressly asserts that Basilides, in his account of all things concerning the Saviour after "the birth of Jesus" agreed with "the Gospels."

(69; original 843): The prevailing opinion is that Hippolytus gives the system of Basilides himself, Irenaeus that of his school. So Jacobi, Uhlhorn, Baur, Schaff (first ed.), Möller, Mansel, Hort. The opposite view is defended by Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Volkmar and Scholten. The reasoning of Hort in favor of the former view, l.c. p. 269 sq., is based on the extracts of Clement of Alex. from the ejxhghtikav of Basilides. He assumes the priority of the Valentinian system, from which Basilides proceeded to construct his own by contrast. But history puts Valentinus about a decade later.

(70; original 844): Herein, as already remarked, be resembles Hegel, who likewise begins with the idea of absolute non-entity, and reconstructs the universe ex nihilo. In both systems "nothing" must be understood in a non-natural sense, as opposed to all definite, concrete being or form of existence. It is in fact identical with the most abstract conception of pure being. Nichts ist sein, and Sein ist Nichts, but, set in motion by a dialectic process, they produce the Werden, and the werden results in Dasein. And here again the latest German philosophy meets with the oldest Hindu mythology. See the note on p. 453.

(71; original 845): ajrrhto", ajkatonovmasto" .

(72; original 846): oJ oujk w}n qeo".

(73; original 847): panspermiva-a Stoic idea.

(74; original 848): ajkivnhto" kinhthv"

(75; original 849): uiJovth" trimerhv".

(76; original 850): nou'", lovgo" , frovnhsi", sofiva, duvnami" , dikaiosuvnh, andeijrhvnh.

(77; original 851): Hence it is called mimhtikhv.

(78; original 852): sterevwma

(79; original 853): ktivsei", ajrcaiv, dunavmei" , ejxousivai.

(80; original 854): jAbrasavxorjAbraxav". Abraxas is a euphonic inversion, which seems to date from the Latin translator of Irenaeus.

(81; original 855): Thrice a = 3; b = 2; r = 100; " = 200; x = 60. Epiphanius mentions that the Basilidians referred the word to the 365 parts (mevlh) of the human body as well as to the days of the year. But modern writers are inclined to think that the engravers of the Abrasax gems and the Basilidians received the mystic name from an older common source. Dr. Hort suggests the derivation from Ab-razach, Ab-zarach, i.e. "the father of effugence," a name appropriate to a solar deity. According to Movers, Serach was a Phoenician name for Adonist, whose worship was connected with the seasons of the year. Comp. Bellermann, Ueber die Gemmen der Alten mit dem Abraxasbilde (Berlin, 1817, ’19) King, The Gnostics and their Remains (London, 1864), Hort, l.c., Matter, Abraxas,"etc. in Herzog, I. 103-107, and Kraus, in his " Real-Encykl. der christl. Alterthümer,"I. 6-10 (with illustrations).

(82; original 856): Philosoph., VII. 22. He also quoted John 2:4, "My hour is not yet come" , and Luke 1:35, "A Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and a power of the Most High shall overshadow thee." It is true that Hippolytus sometimes mixes up the opinions of the matter with those of his followers. But there is no ambiguity here where Basilides is introduced with fhsiv, "he says," while when quoting from the school he uses the formula "according to them (kat j_ aujtouv"). The joint testimony of these early heretics (to when) we must add the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and the heathen Celsus) is overwhelming against the Tübingen hypothesis of the the origin of the fourth Gospel. See vol. I. p. 707, and Abbott, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. p. 85 sqq.

(83; original 857): Oujalentivno" or Balenti'no" .

(84; original 858): "No other system," says Baur (I. 203), "affords us such a clear insight into the peculiar character of the Gnosis, the inner connection of its view of the world, and the deeper intellectual character of the whole."

(85; original 859): Clemens Alex. Strom. I. VII. p. 898 (ed. Potter). Nothing certain is known of Theudas.

(86; original 860): Epiph. Haer. XXXI. 2. The Jewish extraction may be inferred from some of his terms, as "Achamoth."

(87; original 861): De Praesc. Haer. c. 30, and Adv. Valent. c. 4. Tertullian and the orthodox polemics generally are apt to trace all heresies to impure personal motives.

(88; original 862): Iren. III. 4, 3. Comp. Euseb. H. E. IV. 10, 11 (quoting from Irenaeus). All authorities agree that he taught at Rome before the middle of the second century.

(89; original 863): buqov",alsopropavtwr, proarchv, aujtopavtwr.

(90; original 864): · Iren. I. 1, § 1; Tert. Adv. Val. c. 7.

(91; original 865): Philos. VI. 24. There seems, however, to have been a difference of opinion among the Valentinians on the companionship of the Bythos, for in ch. 25 we read: "The Father alone, without copulation, has produced an offspring ... he alone possesses the power of self-generation."

(92; original 866): suvzugoi. The same number of aeons as in Hesiod’s theogony.

(93; original 867): Also called oJ pathvr (as immediately proceeding from the propavtwr), the Father, also oJ monogenhv", the Onlv Begotten (comp. John 1:18), and the ajrchv as the Beginning of all things (Comp. ejn ajrch'/, John 1:1).

(94; original 868): The iJera; tetraktuv" of the Pythagoreans. Tert. (c. 7): " prima quadriga Valentinianae factionis, matrix et origo cunctorum."

(95; original 869): "Es ist eine tiefe Idee des Vatentinianischen Systems," says Neander (II. 722), dass, wie alles Dasein in der Selbstbeschränkung des Bythos seinen Grund hat, so das Dasein alter geschaffenen Wesen auf Beschränkung beruht."

(96; original 870): The ejnergeiva meristikh; kai; dioristikhv and theejnergeiva eJdrastikh; kai; sthristikhv.

(97; original 871): Usually identified with Chocmah, but by Lipsius and Jacobi with Chakmuth, the world-mother, which has a place in the system of Bardesanes. The idea of Sophia as the mediatrix of creation is no doubt borrowed from the Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon.

(98; original 872): oujsiva a[morfo" kai; ajkataskeuvasto" .Philos. VI. 28 (30 ed. Duncker and Schneidewin, I. 274). The Thohuvabohu of Genesis.

(99; original 873): "Ignorance having arisen within the Pleroma in consequence of Sophia, and shapelessness (ajmorfiva) in consequence of the offspring of Sophia, confusion arose in the pleroma (qovrubu" ejgevneto ejn plhrwvmati)."Philos. VI. 26 (31 in Duncker and Schneidewin).

(100; original 874): oJ fivlo" tou' numfivou, John 3. 29.

(101; original 875): Didaskaliva ajnatolikhv. Hippol. VI. 35 (p. 286).

(102; original 876): They are collected by Grabe, Spicil. II. 83-117, Stieren, in his ed. of Iren. Tom. I. 938-971. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV. 9) quotes also from a Commentary of Heracleon on Luke 12:8.

(103; original 877): Baur (I. 203) significantly ignores Heracleon’s Commentary, which is fatal to his hypothesis of the late origin of the fourth Gospel.

(104; original 878): The Epistola ad Floram is preserved by Epiphanius (Haer XXIII. § 3). Stieren, in a Latin inaugural address (1813), denied its genuineness, but Rossel in an Appendix to Neanders Church History (Germ. ed. II. 1249-1254, in Torrey’s translation I. 725-728), and Heinrici (l.c. p. 75 sqq.) defend it.

(105; original 879): Marcos and the Marcosians are known to us from Clement of Alex. and Iren. (I. 13-21). Hippolytus (VI. 39 sqq., p. 296 sqq.) and Epiphanius depend here almost entirely on Irenaeus, who speak of Marcos as still living.

(106; original 880): It is to be derived from l/q , voice (not from lKO, all), and [B'r]a', four. The confusion was first discovered by Heumann (1743), and more fully explained by Volkmar, Die Colarbasus-Gnosis, in Niedner’s "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol." 1855, p. 603-616. Comp. Baur, I. 204, note, and Hort in Smith and Wace, I. 594 sq.

(107; original 881): Comp. Aug. Hahn: Bardesanes, Gnosticus Syrorum primus hymnologus. Lips. 1819. A. Merx: Bardes. v. Edessa. Halle, 1863. Lipsius: In the "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol." 1863, p. 435 sqq. A. Hilgenfeld. Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker. Leipz. 1864. K. Macke: Syrische Lieder gnostischen Ursprungs, in the "Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift" for 1874. Dr. Hort: Bardaisan, in Smith and Wace, I. 256-260 (very thorough).

(108; original 882): Eusebius (IV. 30) and Jerome (De Vir. illutstr. 33), misled by the common confusion of the earlier and later Antonines, assign him to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), but according to the Chronicle of Edessa (Assemani, Bibl. Or. I. 389) He was born July 11, 155, and according to Barhebraeus (Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, 1872, p. 79) he died in 223, aged 68 years. Hilgenfeld, Jacobi and Hortl adopt the latter date.

(109; original 883): Dr. Hort (p. 252) thinks that "there is no reason to suppose that Bardaisan rejected the. ordinary faith of Christians, as founded on the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, except on isolated points." The varying modern constructions of his system on a Gnostic basis are all arbitrary.

(110; original 884): Peri; eiJmarmevnh".It was formerly known only from a Greek extract in Eusebius’s Proeparatio, Evang. (VI. 9, 10). The Syriac original was discovered among the Nitrian MSS of the British Museum, and published by Cureton, in Spicilegium Syriacum. London 1855, with an English translation and notes. Merx gives a German translation with notes (p. 25-55). The treatise is either identical with the Book of the Laws of Countries, or an extract from it. Dr. Hort doubts its genuineness.

(111; original 885): Ephraem the Syrian speaks of a book of 150 hymns, by which Bardesanes list had beguiled the people, and makes no mention of Harmonius; but Sozomen and Theodoret report that Harmonius was the first to adapt the Syrian language to metrical formal, and music, and that his hymns and times were used till the time of Ephraem. Dr. Hort explains this contradiction, which has not received sufficient attention, by supposing that the book of hymns was really written by Harmonius, perhaps in his father’s lifetime, and at his suggestion. But it is equally possible that Bardesanes was the author and Harmonius the editor, or that both were hymnists. The testimony Ephraem cannot be easily set aside as a pure error. Fragments of hymns of Bardesanes have been traced in the Acta Thomae by K. Macke in the article quoted above. The Syriac hymns of Ephraem are translated into German by Zingerle (1838), and into English by H. Burgess (1853).

(112; original 886): Epiphanius and others mention, as a reason, his seduction of a consecrated virgin; but this does not agree well with his asceticism, and Irenaeus and Tertullian bring no charge of youthful incontinence against him.

(113; original 887): So Tertullian: but Irenaeus tells a similar story of Cerdo. Tertullian also reports that Marcion was repeatedly (semel et iterim) excommunicated.

(114; original 888): Adv. Haer. iil.c. 3, § 4: jEpiginwvskw to;n prwtovtokon tou' Satana'.

(115; original 889): The Armenian bishop, Esnig, however, brings it nearer to the other forms of Gnosticism. According to him Marcion assumed three heavens; in the highest dwelt the good God, far away from the world, in the second the God of the Law, in the lowest his angels; beneath, on the earth, lay Hyle, or Matter, which he calls also the power (duvnami") or essence (oujsiva) of the earth. The Hyle is a female principle, and by her aid, as his spouse, the Jewish God of the Law made this world, after which he retired to his heaven, and each ruled in his own domain, he with his angels in heaven, and Hyle with her sons on earth. Möller (p. 378) is disposed to accept this account as trustworthy. Salmon thinks; it such a system as Marcion may have learned from Cerdo, but he must have made little account of the mystic element, else it would be mentioned by the earlier writers.

(116; original 890): " Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis." Tertullian, Adv. Marc I. 19.

(117; original 891): "Subito Christus, subito Joannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, que suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem." Tert. IV. 11.

(118; original 892): Renan (L’englise chrét., p. 358) says of the shadowy narrative of Christ’s which Marcion elaborated on the basis of his mutilated Luke: "Si Jesus ne nous avait été connu que par des textes de ce genre, on aurait pu douter s’il avaitvraiment existé, ous’il n’ était pas une fiction, A PRIORI, dégagée de tout lien avec le réalité. Dans un pareil système, le Christ ne naissait pas (la naissance, pour Marcion, était une souillure), ne souffrait pas, ne mourait pas."

(119; original 893): Tertullian, I. 29; IV. 10.

(120; original 894): Tert. I. 14.

(121; original 895): So they understood. 1 Cor. 15:29.

(122; original 896): Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 64.

(123; original 897): Flügel’s; Mani, p. 160, 167 (quoted by Salmon). Prof. Jacobi (in Herzog, V. 236) quotes a letter of Hasenkamp to Lavater of the year 1774, and later authorities, to prove the lingering existence of similar opinions in Bosnia and Herzegowina.

(124; original 898): JOfianoiv, from o[fi", serpent, Serpentini.

(125; original 899): From vj;nI.

(126; original 900): As Baur (K. Gesch. I. 195) expresses it: "Die Schlange ist mit EinemWort der durch die Gegensätze dialectisch sich hindurchwindende Weltentwicklungsprocess relbst."

(127; original 901): Augustin, De Haer. c. 17 and 46.

(128; original 902): tWhB; aD;l]y", product of chaos.

(129; original 903): From peravw, to pass across, to go beyond (the boundary of the material world). We know their system from the confused account of Hippolytus, Philos. I. v. 7 sqq. He says, that their blasphemy against Christ has for many years escaped notice. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius are silent about the Peratae. Clement of Alex. mentions them.

(130; original 904): The following specimen of Peratic transcendental nonsense is reported by Hippolytus (v. 12): "According to them, the universe is the Father, Son, [and] Matter; [but] each of these three has endless capacities in itself. Intermediate, then, between the Matter and the Father sits the Son, the Word, the Serpent, always being in motion towards the unmoved Father, and [towards] matter itself in motion. And at one time he is turned towards the Father, and receives the powers into his own person; but at another time takes up these powers, and is turned towards Matter. And Matter, [though] devoid of attribute, and being unfashioned, moulds [into itself] forms from the Son which the Son moulded from the Father. But the Son derives shape from the Father after a mode ineffable, and unspeakable, and unchangeable ... No one can be saved or return [into heaven] without the Son, and the Son is the Serpent. For as he brought down from above the paternal marks, so again he carries up from thence those marks, roused from a dormnant condition, and rendered paternal characteristics, substantial ones from the unsubstantial Being, transferring them hither from thence."

(131; original 905): Kai>noi (Hippol. VIII. 20), Kai>anistaiv (Clem. Alex. Strom, VII. 17), Kai>anoiv (Epiph. Haer. 38), Caiani, Cainaei.

(132; original 906): This second form, says Renan (L’égl. chrét, p. 177), is common in inscription.

(133; original 907): So Mosheim, Neander, Baur, Gieseler, Renan. But Möller (p. 371) disputes the dualism of Saturninus, and maintains that Satan and the God of the Jew, ; are alike subordinate, though antagonistic beings. But so is Ahriman in the Parsee dualism, and the Demiurge in all the Gnostic systems.

(134; original 908): Hippol. Philos. VII. 32: eijkovna" kataskeuavzousi tou' Cristou' levgonte" uJpo; Pilavtou tw'// kairw/'/ ejkeivnw// genevsqai.

(135; original 909): This was the conjecture of Mosheim, which has been worked out and modified by Volkmar in a monthly periodical of the Wissenschaftl. Verein at Zürich. He maintains that the deity worshipped at Same was the new appearing moon, oJ jEpifanhv".

(136; original 910): The chronology, is not certain. Zahn and Harnack put his birth at a.d. 110, his conversion at 150, his death at 172. Funk puts the birth and conversion about 10 years later.

(137; original 911): jEgkrati'tai, also jEgkratei'", jEgkrathtaiv, Continentes, the abstemious; or, JYdroparastavtai, Aquarii.

(138; original 912): Lipsius regards him as one of the earliest, Salmon (in "Smith & Wace," III. 587), with greater probability, as one of the latest Gnostics. The silence of Irenaeus favors the later date.

(139; original 913): This was enough to condemn him in the eyes of a Montanist.

(140; original 914): Hippol. l.c.: e[fh to;n qeo;n ejx u{lh" sugcrovnou kai; ajgennhvtou pavnta pepoihkevnai.

(141; original 915): This foolish notion be proved from Ps. 19: "He hath placed his tabernacle in the sun."

(142; original 916): For a fuller account see two good articles of Dr. Salmon on Docetae and Docetism, in "Smith & Wace," I. 865-870.

(143; original 917): See Clement of Alex., Strom. III. 526. From ajntitavssesqai, to defy, rebel against, the law.

(144; original 918): Eujgenei'".

(145; original 919): See Clem. Alex., Strom. I. f. 304; III. f. 438; VII. f. 722; and Epiphan., Haer. 26 (Oehler’s ed. I. 169 sqq.).

(146; original 920): Mavnh", Mavnto" Manicai'o",Manes (Gen. Manetis), Manichaeans (the last form always used by St. Augustin). The name is either of Persian or Semitic origin, but has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Kessler identifies it with Mânâ, Manda, i.e. knowledge, gnw'i",of the Mandaeans. According to the Acta Archelai he was originally called Cubricus, which Kessler regards as a corruption of the Arabic Shuraik.

(147; original 921): At least, according to Persian accounts; but the Arabs, who hate painting, and the church fathers are silent about his skill as a painter.

(148; original 922): Among these are mentioned the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Giants, the Book of Precepts for Hearers (Capitula orEpistola Fundamenti, from which Augustin gives large extracts), Shâhpûrakân (i.e. belonging to King Shâhpûr), the Book of Life, the Gospel or the Living Gospel. See Kessler, l. c, p. 249 sqq.

(149; original 923): Beausobre (vol. I. Pref. p. viii): "Les Actes de cette Dispute sont évidemment une fiction pareille à celle de cet imposteur, qui a pris le nom de Clément Romain, et qui a introduit S. Pierre disputant contre Simon le Magicien."

(150; original 924): The cruel death of Mani and the maltreatment of his corpse are well attested but his being skinned alive is perhaps a later Christian tradition. The Disput. Archelai (c. 55) towards the close gives this account: "He was apprehended and brought before the king, who, being inflamed with the strongest indignation against him, and fired will the desire of avenging two deaths upon him—namely, the death of his own son, and the death of the keeper of the prison—gave orders that he should be flayed alive and hung before the gate of the city and that his skin should be dipped in certain medicaments and inflated: his flesh, too, he commanded to be given as a prey to the birds." See the different accounts in Beausobre, I. 205 sq.

(151; original 925): The Mormons or Latter-Day Saints of Utah present an interesting parallel, especially in their hierarchical organization; while in their polygamy they as strongly contrast with the ascetic Manichaeans, and resemble the Mohammedans.

(152; original 926): Kessler (followed by Harnack) derives Manichaeism exclusively from Chaldaean sources, but must admit the strong affinity with Zoroastric and Buddhist ideas and customs. The Fihrist says that Mani derived his doctrine from Parsism and Christianity. On the Buddhistic element, see Baur, p. 433-44,).

(153; original 927): Schleiermacher correctly represents Manichaeism and Pelagianism as the two fundamental heresies in anthropology and soteriology the one makes man essentially evil (in body), and thus denies the possibility of redemption; the other makes man essentially good, and thus denies the necessity of redemption.

(154; original 928): The meaning of signaculum is not criterion (as Baur explains, l. c. p. 248), but seal (as is clear from the corresponding Arabic hatâm in the Fihrist). See Kessler.

(155; original 929): The organization of the Mormons is similar.

(156; original 930): Auditores, catechumeni, in Arabic sammaûn.

(157; original 931): Electi, perfecti, catharistae, e[klectoi, tevleioi, in the Fihrist siddîkûn. Faustus terms them the sacerdotale genus.

(158; original 932): The feast of "the chair," bh'ma, cathedra. The Mormons likewise celebrate the martyrdom of their founder, Joseph Smith who was killed by the mob at Carthage, Illinois (June 27, 1844).

(159; original 933): Gieseler and Neander are disposed to deny the use of water-baptism by the Manichaeans, Beausobre, Thilo, Baur, and Kessler assert it. The passages in Augustin are obscure and conflicting. See Baur, l.c. p. 273-281. The older Gnostic sects (the Marcionites and the Valentinians), and the New Manichaeans practised a baptismal rite by water. Some new light is thrown on this disputed question by the complete Greek text of the Gnostic Acts of Thomas, recently published by Max Bonnet of Montpellier (Acta Thomae, Lips. 1883). Here both baptism and anointing are repeatedly mentioned, p. 19 (in a thanksgiving to Christ: kaqarivsa" aujtou;" tw'/ sw'/ loutrw'/ kai; ajleivya" aujtou;" tw'/ sw'/ ejleivw/ ajpo; th'" periecouvsh" autou;" plavnh"), 20, 35, 68, (where, however, the pouring of oil is mentioned before water-baptism), 73, 32 (ajleivya" ... kai; ejbaptisen aujtou;" ... ajnelqovntwn de; aujtw'n ejk tw'n uJdavtwn labw;n a[rton kai; pothvrion eujlovghsen eijpwvn...). Comp. The discussion of Lipsius in Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (Braunschweig, 1883), p. 331, where he asserts: "Die Wassertaufe stand bei den Manichaeern ebenso wie bei den meisten älteren gnostichen Secten un Uebung."

脚注

Best guess 对照表

正文及中文脚注中带上标 * 的外文为 best guess，尚未逐项核实；原始字串保留如下。

原字串	Best guess	语言	出现位置	说明
a,b]yron	אֶבְיוֹן	Hebrew	正文第 25 段	据伊便派词源及贫穷义推测，原串元音编码有损。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	正文第 34 段	按旧字体编码还原，与知识义相符。
Ta; Klhmevntia	Τὰ Κλημέντια	Greek	正文第 37 段	按字母及重音编码推测还原书名。
Klhvmento" tw'n Pevtrou ejpidhmiw'n khrugmavtwn ejpitomhv	Κλήμεντος τῶν Πέτρου ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων ἐπιτομή	Greek	正文第 37 段	按旧字体编码还原，保留原题名词序。
jAnagnwrismoiv	Ἀναγνωρισμοί	Greek	正文第 38 段	按编码还原认亲记题名。
JAnagnwvsei"	Ἁναγνώσεις	Greek	正文第 38 段	J表示粗气，暂保留原串气符，不改为常见细气写法。
Klhvm. ejpisk. JRwvmh" peri; tw'n pravxewn ejpidhmiw'n te kai; khrugmavtwn Pevtrou ejpitomhv	Κλήμ. ἐπισκ. Ῥώμης περὶ τῶν πράξεων ἐπιδημιῶν τε καὶ κηρυγμάτων Πέτρου ἐπιτομή	Greek	正文第 39 段	按编码还原，保留缩写及题名词序。
Panavrion	Πανάριον	Greek	正文第 68 段	按编码还原埃皮法尼乌斯书名。
Pro;" tou;" gnwstikouv"	Πρὸς τοὺς γνωστικούς	Greek	正文第 70 段	按编码还原普罗提诺篇名。
u{lh	ὕλη	Greek	正文第 118 段	按编码还原，与物质义相符。
u{lh	ὕλη	Greek	正文第 118 段	按编码还原，同段重复术语。
kevnwma	κένωμα	Greek	正文第 118 段	按编码还原，与空虚义相符。
plhvrwma	πλήρωμα	Greek	正文第 118 段	按编码还原，与丰盛义相符。
mh; o[n	μὴ ὄν	Greek	正文第 118 段	按编码还原哲学术语，保留重音。
swthvr	σωτήρ	Greek	正文第 120 段	按编码还原救主称谓。
jIhsou'"	Ἰησοῦς	Greek	正文第 120 段	按编码还原耶稣希腊文名。
Basileivdh"	Βασιλείδης	Greek	正文第 170 段	按编码还原巴西里得人名。
eJrmhvneuv"	ἑρμήνεύς	Greek	正文第 170 段	原串有两个锐音符，暂照编码保留，不擅改重音。
bibliva	βιβλία	Greek	正文第 170 段	按编码还原书卷一词。
suvgcusi" ajrcikhv	σύγχυσις ἀρχική	Greek	正文第 175 段	按编码还原，与原始混乱之义相符。
ajmorfiva	ἀμορφία	Greek	正文第 175 段	按编码还原无形态术语。
uiJovth"	υἱότης	Greek	正文第 175 段	按编码还原子性术语。
hJ sighv	ἡ σιγή	Greek	正文第 186 段	按编码还原，保留冠词。
suvzugo"	σύζυγος	Greek	正文第 186 段	按编码还原配偶一词。
e[nnoia	ἔννοια	Greek	正文第 186 段	按编码还原思想一词。
cariv"	χαρίς	Greek	正文第 186 段	按原编码保留末音节重音，未改为常见χάρις。
nou'"	νοῦς	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原心智术语。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησία	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原教会一词。
pneu'ma	πνεῦμα	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原灵一词。
oJ	ὁ	Greek	正文第 187 段	oJ对应带粗气的阳性冠词。
hJ ajlhvqeia	ἡ ἀλήθεια	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原真理及其冠词。
oJ lovgo"	ὁ λόγος	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原道及其冠词。
hJ zwhv	ἡ ζωή	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原生命及其冠词。
oJ a[nqrwpo"	ὁ ἄνθρωπος	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原人及其冠词。
hJ	ἡ	Greek	正文第 187 段	hJ对应带粗气的阴性冠词。
oJ a[vnw Cristov"	ὁ ἄνω Χριστός	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原天上基督称谓。
to;	τὸ	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原带重音的中性冠词。
a{gion	ἅγιον	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原圣一词。
o{ro"	ὅρος	Greek	正文第 187 段	按编码还原界限术语。
e[ktrwma	ἔκτρωμα	Greek	正文第 188 段	按编码还原流产之物一词。
pneu'ma	πνεῦμα	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原灵一词。
a[nw Cristov"	ἄνω Χριστός	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原，未增添冠词。
monogenhv"	μονογενής	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原独生者称谓。
a{gion	ἅγιον	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原圣一词。
swthvr	σωτήρ	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原救主称谓。
jIhsou'"	Ἰησοῦς	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原耶稣希腊文名。
kavtw Cristov"	κάτω Χριστός	Greek	正文第 190 段	按编码还原下界基督称谓。
jArdhsiavnh"	Ἀρδησιάνης	Greek	正文第 196 段	按编码还原人名，不替换为巴尔德萨尼。
Bardhsavnh"	Βαρδησάνης	Greek	正文第 201 段	按编码还原巴尔德萨尼人名。
ajrcaiv	ἀρχαί	Greek	正文第 210 段	按编码还原诸本原一词。
qeo;" ajgaqov"	θεὸς ἀγαθός	Greek	正文第 210 段	按编码还原善神称谓。
u{lh	ὕλη	Greek	正文第 210 段	按编码还原物质术语。
dhmiourgo;" divkaio"	δημιουργὸς δίκαιος	Greek	正文第 210 段	按编码还原公义造物主称谓。
qeo;" a[gnwsto"	θεὸς ἄγνωστος	Greek	正文第 237 段	按编码还原不可知神称谓。
a[ggeloi kosmokravtore"	ἄγγελοι κοσμοκράτορες	Greek	正文第 237 段	按编码还原，保留原词形。
spinqhvr	σπινθήρ	Greek	正文第 237 段	按编码还原火花一词。
ta; jEpifavneia	τὰ Ἐπιφάνεια	Greek	正文第 242 段	按编码还原节名。
oJ jEpifanhv"	ὁ Ἐπιφανής	Greek	正文第 242 段	按编码还原月神称谓。
Lovgo" pro;" {Ellhna"	Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	正文第 244 段	按编码还原塔提安篇名。
To; dia; tessavrwn	Τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων	Greek	正文第 244 段	按编码还原四福音合参题名。
pro;" Manicaivou"	πρὸς Μανιχαίους	Greek	正文第 269 段	按编码还原驳摩尼教徒篇名。
Pavtekio"	Πάτεκιος	Greek	正文第 287 段	按编码还原摩尼父亲希腊文名。
jElkessai'oi	Ἐλκεσσαῖοι	Greek	脚注 5	按编码还原派名，保留双σ。
jHlcassaiv	Ἠλχασσαί	Greek	脚注 5	按编码还原，保留所列异读。
JElkesaitaiv	Ἑλκεσαϊταί	Greek	脚注 5	按编码保留粗气，派名中的ι推测加分音符。
Samyai'oi	Σαμψαῖοι	Greek	脚注 5	按编码还原派名，y对应ψ。
vm,v,	שֶׁמֶשׁ	Hebrew	脚注 5	据太阳义及倒序旧编码推测还原。
Duvnami" kekallumevnh	Δύναμις κεκαλλυμένη	Greek	脚注 6	按编码还原，保留原双λ而不改拼写。
ys'K] lyje	חֵיל כְּסָי	Hebrew	脚注 6	据倒序编码及隐藏之力词源推测，元音有不确定性。
duvnami" a[sarko"	δύναμις ἄσαρκος	Greek	脚注 6	按编码还原无肉身的能力。
yD'v lae	אֵל שַׁדַּי	Hebrew	脚注 6	据倒序编码推测为El Shaddai。
syvij;K,l]a'	אַלְכַּחֲשִׁים	Hebrew	脚注 6	据倒序字母及背道者词源推测，元音位置较不确定。
Klhvmento'" tw'n Pevtrou ejpidhmiw'n khrugmavtwn ejpitomhv	Κλήμεντος τῶν Πέτρου ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων ἐπιτομή	Greek	脚注 11	与正文题名相同，属格末多余扬抑符疑为转码杂入。
kategnwmevno"	κατεγνωμένος	Greek	脚注 15	按编码还原，与加2:11用词相符。
prwvth th'/ ajnqrwpovthri paradoqei'sa swthvrio" qrhskeiva	πρώτη τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι παραδοθεῖσα σωτήριος θρησκεία	Greek	脚注 17	按编码还原，原串thri疑将thti误识，推测为与格ἀνθρωπότητι。
Pu'r kaqavrsion	Πῦρ καθάρσιον	Greek	脚注 18	按编码还原炼净之火。
Perivodoi Pevtrou dia; Klhvmento"	Περίοδοι Πέτρου διὰ Κλήμεντος	Greek	脚注 21	按编码还原书名。
Khruvgmata Pevtrou	Κηρύγματα Πέτρου	Greek	脚注 21	按编码还原彼得讲道集题名。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	脚注 22	仅还原给定范围；上下文另有末尾ς编码，不并入本项。
Lovgo" gnwvsew"	Λόγος γνώσεως	Greek	脚注 22	按编码还原知识之言。
lovgo"	λόγος	Greek	脚注 22	按编码还原。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	脚注 23	按编码还原知识一词。
Yeudwvnumo"	Ψευδώνυμος	Greek	脚注 23	按编码还原冒名一词。
Povqen to; kakovn	Πόθεν τὸ κακόν	Greek	脚注 31	按编码还原恶从何来。
hJ kakiva	ἡ κακία	Greek	脚注 31	按编码还原恶及其冠词。
jAmuvqhton plh'qo" ajpokruvfwn kai; novqwn grafw'n, a}}" aujtoi; e[plasan, pareisfevrousin eiv" katavplhxin tw'n ajnohvtwn kai; ta; th'" ajlhqeiva" mh; ejpistamevnwn gravmmata	Ἀμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων γραφῶν, ἃς αὐτοὶ ἔπλασαν, παρεισφέρουσιν εἰς κατάπληξιν τῶν ἀνοήτων καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας μὴ ἐπισταμένων γράμματα	Greek	脚注 33	按编码还原引文；重复气符及eiv疑为转码讹误。
Dovkhti"	Δόκητις	Greek	脚注 35	按编码直还原，原拼写可疑但不擅改为δόκησις。
favntasma	φάντασμα	Greek	脚注 35	按编码还原幻影一词。
Buqov"	Βυθός	Greek	脚注 36	按编码还原深渊称谓。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	脚注 38	按编码还原智慧术语。
Nou'"	Νοῦς	Greek	脚注 38	按编码还原心智术语。
lovgo"	λόγος	Greek	脚注 38	按编码还原道术语。
duvnami"	δύναμις	Greek	脚注 38	按编码还原能力术语。
ajlhvqeia	ἀλήθεια	Greek	脚注 38	按编码还原真理术语。
zwhv	ζωή	Greek	脚注 38	按编码还原生命术语。
Probolhv	Προβολή	Greek	脚注 39	按编码还原流溢术语。
probavllw	προβάλλω	Greek	脚注 39	按编码还原词源动词。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	脚注 41	按编码还原智慧术语。
JH kavtw	Ἡ κάτω	Greek	脚注 41	按编码还原，保留大写冠词。
jAcamwvq	Ἀχαμώθ	Greek	脚注 41	按编码还原阿卡摩特名。
h'j;k]mrot	חָכְמוֹת	Hebrew	脚注 41	据智慧词源及Achamoth名称推测，原串字序元音损坏较重。
a'KiymWt	חָכְמוּתָא	Hebrew	脚注 41	据所称迦勒底语智慧形式推测，原编码严重混乱，未核实。
j;k]m;h	חָכְמָה	Hebrew	脚注 41	据智慧义与可辨字母推测还原，原串次序有损。
Dhmiourgov"	Δημιουργός	Greek	脚注 42	按编码还原造物主术语。
Peumatikoiv	Πνευματικοί	Greek	脚注 43	结合属灵者术语推测原串漏n，补回ν。
Swmatikoiv	Σωματικοί	Greek	脚注 44	按编码还原属身体者。
fusikoiv	φυσικοί	Greek	脚注 44	按编码还原，保留原用词。
sarkikoiv	σαρκικοί	Greek	脚注 44	按编码还原属肉体者。
uJlikoiv	ὑλικοί	Greek	脚注 44	按编码还原属物质者。
Yucikoiv	Ψυχικοί	Greek	脚注 45	按编码还原属魂者。
OiJ polloiv	Οἱ πολλοί	Greek	脚注 46	按编码还原众人。
Dei' katacrh'sqai th'/ sarkiv	Δεῖ καταχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί	Greek	脚注 47	按编码还原，保留原动词。
bdeluriva	βδελυρία	Greek	脚注 50	按编码还原。
blasfhmw'n diabavllei th;n dhmiourgivan	βλασφημῶν διαβάλλει τὴν δημιουργίαν	Greek	脚注 51	按编码还原引文。
Sivmwna mevn tina Samareva, to;n ajpo; kwvmh" legomevnh" Gittw'n	Σίμωνα μέν τινα Σαμαρέα, τὸν ἀπὸ κώμης λεγομένης Γιττῶν	Greek	脚注 54	按编码还原引文，保留地名拼写。
ajpo; Gitqw'n	ἀπὸ Γιτθῶν	Greek	脚注 54	按编码还原，保留此处τθ异读。
oJ Gitthnov"	ὁ Γιττηνός	Greek	脚注 54	按编码还原籍贯称谓。
Givttai	Γίτται	Greek	脚注 54	按编码还原地名。
Kivtion	Κίτιον	Greek	脚注 55	按编码还原塞浦路斯城名。
hJ Duvnami" tou' qeou' h{ Megavlh	ἡ Δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἥ Μεγάλη	Greek	脚注 56	按原编码保留第二冠词锐音及大写，不按经文另行校订。
ajnwtavth duvnami"	ἀνωτάτη δύναμις	Greek	脚注 56	按编码还原至高能力称谓。
jApovfasi" megavlh	Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη	Greek	脚注 60	按编码还原题名。
Dei' katacrh'sqai th'/ sarkiv	Δεῖ καταχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί	Greek	脚注 62	按编码还原，与脚注47相同。
Khvrinqo"	Κήρινθος	Greek	脚注 64	按编码还原克林妥人名。
oJ a[vvnw Cristov"	ὁ ἄνω Χριστός	Greek	脚注 66	重复v疑为重音编码叠入，结合重复称谓还原。
hJ a[vnw duvnami"	ἡ ἄνω δύναμις	Greek	脚注 66	按编码还原上方能力称谓。
oJ kavtw Cristov"	ὁ κάτω Χριστός	Greek	脚注 66	按编码还原下界基督称谓。
ejtovlmhsen	ἐτόλμησεν	Greek	脚注 68	按编码还原竟敢一词。
ejxhghtikav	ἐξηγητικά	Greek	脚注 69	按编码还原释义集题名。
ajrrhto"	ἀρρητος	Greek	脚注 71	原串未标重音，暂仅还原字母及气符，不补改为ἄρρητος。
ajkatonovmasto"	ἀκατονόμαστος	Greek	脚注 71	按编码还原不可命名一词。
oJ oujk w}n qeo"	ὁ οὐκ ὢν θεος	Greek	脚注 72	按编码还原，原串θεος无重音，暂不补改。
panspermiva	πανσπερμία	Greek	脚注 73	按编码还原世界种子术语。
ajkivnhto" kinhthv"	ἀκίνητος κινητής	Greek	脚注 74	按编码还原不动的推动者。
uiJovth" trimerhv"	υἱότης τριμερής	Greek	脚注 75	按编码还原三重子性。
nou'"	νοῦς	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原心智术语。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原智慧术语。
lovgo"	λόγος	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原道术语。
frovnhsi"	φρόνησις	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原明智术语。
duvnami"	δύναμις	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原能力术语。
dikaiosuvnh	δικαιοσύνη	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原公义术语。
eijrhvnh	εἰρήνη	Greek	脚注 76	按编码还原和平术语。
mimhtikhv	μιμητική	Greek	脚注 77	按编码还原模仿性一词。
sterevwma	στερέωμα	Greek	脚注 78	按编码还原穹苍术语。
ktivsei"	κτίσεις	Greek	脚注 79	按编码还原。
ajrcaiv	ἀρχαί	Greek	脚注 79	按编码还原。
dunavmei"	δυνάμεις	Greek	脚注 79	按编码还原。
ejxousivai	ἐξουσίαι	Greek	脚注 79	按编码还原。
jAbrasavx	Ἀβρασάξ	Greek	脚注 80	按编码还原，保留Abrasax字母次序。
jAbraxav"	Ἀβραξάς	Greek	脚注 80	按编码还原，保留Abraxas异形。
"	ς	Greek	脚注 81	双引号为旧字体末尾sigma编码，其数值为200。
mevlh	μέλη	Greek	脚注 81	按编码还原身体部分一词。
fhsiv	φησί	Greek	脚注 82	按编码还原他说。
kat j_ aujtouv"	κατ’ αὐτούς	Greek	脚注 82	杂入的j_推测为省音号转码损坏。
Oujalentivno"	Οὐαλεντίνος	Greek	脚注 83	按编码还原瓦伦廷人名异形。
Balenti'no"	Βαλεντῖνος	Greek	脚注 83	按编码保留此异形的扬抑重音。
buqov"	βυθός	Greek	脚注 89	按编码还原深渊术语。
propavtwr	προπάτωρ	Greek	脚注 89	按编码还原原父称谓。
proarchv	προαρχή	Greek	脚注 89	按编码还原原始本原称谓。
aujtopavtwr	αὐτοπάτωρ	Greek	脚注 89	按编码还原自父称谓。
suvzugoi	σύζυγοι	Greek	脚注 92	按编码还原配偶复数。
oJ pathvr	ὁ πατήρ	Greek	脚注 93	按编码还原父称谓。
propavtwr	προπάτωρ	Greek	脚注 93	按编码还原原父称谓。
oJ monogenhv"	ὁ μονογενής	Greek	脚注 93	按编码还原独生者称谓。
ajrchv	ἀρχή	Greek	脚注 93	按编码还原起初术语。
ejn ajrch'/	ἐν ἀρχῇ	Greek	脚注 93	按编码还原约1:1短语。
iJera; tetraktuv"	ἱερὰ τετρακτύς	Greek	脚注 94	按编码还原神圣四元体。
ejnergeiva meristikh; kai; dioristikhv	ἐνεργεία μεριστικὴ καὶ διοριστική	Greek	脚注 96	按编码还原，保留原词形与重音。
ejnergeiva eJdrastikh; kai; sthristikhv	ἐνεργεία ἑδραστικὴ καὶ στηριστική	Greek	脚注 96	按编码还原，保留原词形与重音。
oujsiva a[morfo" kai; ajkataskeuvasto"	οὐσία ἄμορφος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος	Greek	脚注 98	按编码还原无形未成实体。
ajmorfiva	ἀμορφία	Greek	脚注 99	按编码还原无形态术语。
qovrubu" ejgevneto ejn plhrwvmati	θόρυβος ἐγένετο ἐν πληρώματι	Greek	脚注 99	原qovrubuς疑误识为u，结合混乱发生之义推测θόρυβος。
oJ fivlo" tou' numfivou	ὁ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου	Greek	脚注 100	按编码还原新郎的朋友。
Didaskaliva ajnatolikhv	Διδασκαλία ἀνατολική	Greek	脚注 101	按编码还原东方教说。
l/q	קוֹל	Hebrew	脚注 106	据倒序编码及声音义推测还原。
lKO	כֹּל	Hebrew	脚注 106	据倒序编码及全部义推测还原。
[B'r]a'	אַרְבַּע	Hebrew	脚注 106	据倒序编码及四义推测还原。
Peri; eiJmarmevnh"	Περὶ εἱμαρμένης	Greek	脚注 110	按编码还原论命运题名。
jEpiginwvskw to;n prwtovtokon tou' Satana'	Ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ	Greek	脚注 114	按编码还原引文。
duvnami"	δύναμις	Greek	脚注 115	按编码还原能力一词。
oujsiva	οὐσία	Greek	脚注 115	按编码还原本质一词。
JOfianoiv	Ὁφιανοί	Greek	脚注 124	按原J保留粗气，不擅改派名气符。
o[fi"	ὄφις	Greek	脚注 124	按编码还原蛇一词。
vj;nI	נָחָשׁ	Hebrew	脚注 125	据蛇义及倒序字母推测；原I元音符疑有讹误。
tWhB; aD;l]y"	יַלְדָּא בַּהוּת	Hebrew	脚注 128	按倒序编码及混沌产物词源推测，保留所列拼写而不另改词源。
peravw	περάω	Greek	脚注 129	按编码还原穿越动词。
Kai>noi	Καϊνοι	Greek	脚注 131	还原分音符，原串未标重音，暂不补。
Kai>anistaiv	Καϊανισταί	Greek	脚注 131	按编码还原，保留派名异形。
Kai>anoiv	Καϊανοί	Greek	脚注 131	按编码还原，保留派名异形。
eijkovna" kataskeuavzousi tou' Cristou' levgonte" uJpo; Pilavtou tw'// kairw/'/ ejkeivnw// genevsqai	εἰκόνας κατασκευάζουσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγοντες ὑπὸ Πιλάτου τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ γενέσθαι	Greek	脚注 134	按编码还原引文，合并重复下标ι符号。
oJ jEpifanhv"	ὁ Ἐπιφανής	Greek	脚注 135	按编码还原月神称谓。
jEgkrati'tai	Ἐγκρατῖται	Greek	脚注 137	按编码还原禁欲派名。
jEgkratei'"	Ἐγκρατεῖς	Greek	脚注 137	按编码还原所列异名。
jEgkrathtaiv	Ἐγκρατηταί	Greek	脚注 137	按编码还原，保留η拼写异形。
JYdroparastavtai	Ὑδροπαραστάται	Greek	脚注 137	按编码还原用水者名称。
e[fh to;n qeo;n ejx u{lh" sugcrovnou kai; ajgennhvtou pavnta pepoihkevnai	ἔφη τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὕλης συγχρόνου καὶ ἀγεννήτου πάντα πεποιηκέναι	Greek	脚注 140	按编码还原引文，保留原双ν。
ajntitavssesqai	ἀντιτάσσεσθαι	Greek	脚注 143	按编码还原反抗动词。
Eujgenei'"	Εὐγενεῖς	Greek	脚注 144	按编码还原。
Mavnh"	Μάνης	Greek	脚注 146	按编码还原摩尼名。
Mavnto"	Μάντος	Greek	脚注 146	按编码还原，虽词形可疑，未据拉丁属格擅改。
Manicai'o"	Μανιχαῖος	Greek	脚注 146	按编码还原摩尼名异形。
gnw'i"	γνῶσις	Greek	脚注 146	结合知识义及重复用词，推测原串漏σ。
e[klectoi	ἔκλεκτοι	Greek	脚注 157	按编码还原，保留原重音而不移至词尾。
tevleioi	τέλειοι	Greek	脚注 157	按编码还原完全者。
bh'ma	βῆμα	Greek	脚注 158	按编码还原座位节名称。
kaqarivsa" aujtou;" tw'/ sw'/ loutrw'/ kai; ajleivya" aujtou;" tw'/ sw'/ ejleivw/ ajpo; th'" periecouvsh" autou;" plavnh"	καθαρίσας αὐτοὺς τῷ σῷ λουτρῷ καὶ ἀλείψας αὐτοὺς τῷ σῷ ἐλείῳ ἀπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτοὺς πλάνης	Greek	脚注 159	按编码还原引文，补末次αὐτούς气符；保留原ἐλείῳ拼写。
ajleivya" ... kai; ejbaptisen aujtou;" ... ajnelqovntwn de; aujtw'n ejk tw'n uJdavtwn labw;n a[rton kai; pothvrion eujlovghsen eijpwvn...	ἀλείψας ... καὶ ἐβαπτισεν αὐτοὺς ... ἀνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων λαβὼν ἄρτον καὶ ποτήριον εὐλόγησεν εἰπών...	Greek	脚注 159	按编码还原并保留省略号；原ἐβαπτισεν未标重音，暂不补。

参较第1卷，第564页及后，以及拙著《使徒教会史》(History of the Apost. Church)，§165–169。↩︎
基督教的异教仇敌，如背道者尤利安 (Julian the Apostate)，有时称他们为“加利利人”。爱比克泰德 (Epictetus) 在他唯一提及基督徒的那段文字中，也这样称呼他们。↩︎
《驳异端的抗辩》(Praescr. Haeret.)，第13章。↩︎
米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minut. Felix)，《奥克塔维乌斯》(Octav.) 36：“Ceterum quod plerique PAUPERES dicimur non est infamia nostra, sed gloria; animus enim ut luxu solvitur, ita frugalitate firmatur.”（然而，我们多数人被称为贫穷者，这不是我们的耻辱，而是我们的荣耀；因为心灵怎样因奢侈而涣散，也照样因节俭而坚固。）↩︎
Ἐλκεσσαῖοι^*（埃皮法尼乌斯 [Epiphanius]）；Ἠλχασσαί^*（希波吕托斯 [Hippolytus]）；Ἑλκεσαϊταί^*（俄利根 [Origen]）。又称 Σαμψαῖοι^*，源自 שֶׁמֶשׁ^*，意为太阳。↩︎
Δύναμις κεκαλλυμένη^*，חֵיל כְּסָי^*。参较伪克莱门《讲道集》(Homilies) XVII. 16 中的 δύναμις ἄσαρκος^*。其他词源说：源自加利利的村庄埃尔凯西 (Elkesi)（德里奇 [Delitzsch]）；源自 אֵל שַׁדַּי^*；源自 אַלְכַּחֲשִׁים^* = apostatae（背道者）。↩︎
见希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)《正典以外所接受的新约文献》(Nov. Test. extra Canonem receptum) III. 153–167 所辑片段。↩︎
Johanneschristen, Chrétiens de Saint Jean，即约翰派基督徒。↩︎
Th. 诺尔德克 (Th. Nöldeke) 著《曼达语语法》(Mandäische Grammatik)。哈雷 (Halle)，1875年。↩︎
更多详情，见上引凯斯勒 (Kessler) 在赫尔措格 (Herzog) 百科全书中的文章。↩︎
Κλήμεντος τῶν Πέτρου ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων ἐπιτομή^*。↩︎
以鲍尔 (Baur) 博士为首的图宾根学派 (Tübingen School)，大大夸张了这些异端虚构作品的重要性，而其佚名作者从未打算把它们当作确凿事实来呈现。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 因而说（前引书，第1页）：“几乎没有任何一部著作，像那归于罗马的革利免名下的《辨认集》(Recognitions) 和《讲道集》(Homilies) 一样，对于基督教最初时期的历史如此重要，并且在最著名的批评家手中，已经为基督教会最早期的历史提供了如此辉煌的揭示［？］。”它们的重要性仅限于异端史，而在图宾根学派看来，异端史正是古代教会史中最有趣的部分。↩︎
图宾根学派最初否认这些作品曾使用第四福音书；但德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 于1853年发现了缺失的部分，这一点便有了定论，因为其中（《讲道集》[Hom.] XIX. 22）明确引用了《约翰福音》9:1–3。↩︎
利普修斯 (Lipsius) 在申克尔 (Schenkel)《圣经辞典》(Bibellexicon) 第V卷，第301–321页所撰“术士西门”一文中，对这一假说作了最充分的发挥。↩︎
参较《讲道集》(Hom.) XVII. 19（德雷塞尔 [Dressel] 版，第351页及下页）与《加拉太书》2:11；保罗在那里用同一个词 κατεγνωμένος^* 来形容彼得。↩︎
《讲道集》(Hom.) II. 22及后（第57页及后）。↩︎
即 πρώτη τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι παραδοθεῖσα σωτήριος θρησκεία^*。↩︎
Πῦρ καθάρσιον^*，ignis purgatorius（炼净之火）。↩︎
克莱里库斯 (Clericus)、默勒 (Möhler)、施利曼 (Schliemann)、乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler)，莱曼 (Lehmann) 也部分持此看法。乌尔霍恩后来已修正其观点（1876年）。↩︎
尤其是希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和里奇尔 (Ritschl)，较早的作者中还有凯夫 (Cave) 和惠斯顿 (Whiston)。萨蒙 (Salmon) 也认为《辨认集》(Recognitions) 成书在先。↩︎
即 Περίοδοι Πέτρου διὰ Κλήμεντος^*，以及更早的 Κηρύγματα Πέτρου^*（约公元140–145年），其内容在《辨认集》(Recogn.) III. 75 中有所提及；还有最早的《彼得行传》(Acta Petri)，其部分内容保存在伪经《彼得与保罗行传》(Acta Petri et Pauli) 中。见利普修斯 (Lipsius)，《罗马彼得传说的来源》(Quellen der röm. Petrus-Sage)，1872年，第14页及后。乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn) 在赫尔措格百科全书新版第III卷，第285页所载的最新文章中表示赞同。萨蒙 (Salmon) 博士（见史密斯与韦斯 [Smith and Wace]，第1卷，第571页）同样认为，两部作品出自同一个原本，但《讲道集》(Homilies) 的作者从《辨认集》(Recognitions) 借用了传记部分。↩︎
Λόγος γνώσεως^*，λόγος^* σοφία^*"，《哥林多前书》12:8；参较13:2、12；《约翰福音》17:3。↩︎
Ψευδώνυμος^* γνῶσις^*，《提摩太前书》6:20。↩︎
《哥林多前书》8:1。↩︎
《罗马书》1:22。↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur) 对诺斯替主义的理解过于宽泛，将直至谢林 (Schelling) 和黑格尔 (Hegel) 的所有基督教宗教哲学体系都包括在内。↩︎
威廉·汉密尔顿爵士 (Sir William Hamilton) 和座堂主任牧师曼塞尔 (Dean Mansel)。↩︎
休谟 (Hume)、斯宾塞 (Spencer)、孔德 (Comte)。至于康德 (Kant)，他以休谟为出发点，却以实践理性的绝对命令遏制理论理性的怀疑主义。见考尔德伍德 (Calderwood) 在沙弗 (Schaff)《宗教百科全书》(Rel. Encycl.) 第I卷中的“不可知论”一文。↩︎
他称诺斯替主义为“Verteufelung der Natur”（将自然魔鬼化）。↩︎
甚至一些较近的作者，如凯伊主教 (Bishop Kaye)（《第二、第三世纪教会史》[Eccl. History of the Second arid Third Centuries]），以及《尼西亚前基督教文库》(Ante-Nicene Christian Library) 中爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 著作的译者（爱丁堡 [Edinb.]，1868年，第1卷，导言），也同样认为诺斯替体系是一片无法穿透、充斥荒谬观念的荒野。但曼塞尔 (Mansel)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 和萨蒙 (Salmon) 对这一主题有清晰的认识，并且大体赞同尼安德 (Neander) 的论述。↩︎
Πόθεν τὸ κακόν^*，或 ἡ κακία^*：unde malum?（恶从何来？）（见德尔图良 [Tertullian]，《驳异端的抗辩》[De Praescript.] 7；《驳马吉安》[Adv. Marc.] I. 2；优西比乌 [Euseb.]，《教会史》[H. E.] V. 27；鲍尔 [Baur]，《诺斯替》[Gnosis]，第19页。）↩︎
利普修斯 (Lipsius) 博士，《伪经使徒行传与使徒传说》(Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden)（1883年），第1卷，第7页。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，前引处，第20章，§1：Ἀμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων γραφῶν, ἃς αὐτοὶ ἔπλασαν, παρεισφέρουσιν εἰς κατάπληξιν τῶν ἀνοήτων καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας μὴ ἐπισταμένων γράμματα^*。↩︎
希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)，《哲学论》(Philos.) IV. 46，V. 8、13、20。↩︎
Δόκητις^*，φάντασμα^*。↩︎
Βυθός^*。↩︎
古印度哲学也是如此，将绝对存在视为一切存在的根基。它本身没有属性，无法定义，不可思议，既非此物，也非彼物，却在自身之内包含万物的可能性；宇宙因某种神秘的冲动，从其幽暗深处演化而出。《吠陀》(Vedas) 如此描述它：“它既非梵天 (Brahma)，也非毗湿奴 (Vishnoo)，亦非湿婆 (Sivan)，而是在这些背后的某种存在，没有情欲，非大非小，非男非女，而是远超这些的一种存在。”↩︎
Νοῦς^*，λόγος^*，σοφία^*，δύναμις^*，ἀλήθεια^*，ζωή^*，等等。↩︎
Προβολή^*（源自 προβάλλω^*），意为向前推出、投射。↩︎
巴西里德 (Basilides) 和撒土尼努 (Saturninus) 使用前一种比喻；马可 (Marcos) 使用后一种。↩︎
Ἡ κάτω^* σοφία^*，Ἀχαμώθ^*（爱任纽 [Iren.] 1. 4；斯蒂伦 [Stieren] 版，I. 44），חָכְמוֹת^* 或 חָכְמוּתָא^*，为希伯来文 חָכְמָה^* 的迦勒底语形式。↩︎
Δημιουργός^*，柏拉图 (Plato) 曾以类似意义使用这个词。↩︎
Πνευματικοί^*。↩︎
Σωματικοί^*，φυσικοί^*，σαρκικοί^*，ὑλικοί^*。↩︎
Ψυχικοί^*。↩︎
Οἱ πολλοί^*。↩︎
Δεῖ καταχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί^*，必须虐待肉体，才能征服肉体。↩︎
参较《帖撒罗尼迦后书》2:4。↩︎
《驳异端的抗辩》(De Praescr. Haeret.)，第41章。↩︎
βδελυρία^*。↩︎
βλασφημῶν διαβάλλει τὴν δημιουργίαν^*。↩︎
吉本 (Gibbon) 用四页篇幅（第XV章）论述诺斯替派，却专注于其反犹太的特征，让他们替自己表达对《旧约》的厌恶。他称他们为“基督徒中最文雅、最博学、最富有的人”（这出于极其肤浅的知识，却施展了他那高超的影射技巧），并说他们大多厌恶感官享乐，“郁郁地谴责族长们的多妻制、大卫的风流韵事和所罗门的后宫”，而且无法使“征服迦南以及灭绝毫无戒备的当地居民，与人道和正义的一般观念”相协调。↩︎
图宾根学派否认《使徒行传》的历史性，也将西门的故事化解为犹太基督徒的虚构，意在攻击使徒保罗，认定他才是真正的异端和术士。鲍尔 (Baur)、策勒 (Zeller) 和福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 都持此说。利普修斯 (Lipsius) 巧妙地发挥了这一西门—保罗假说，并宣称（前引书，第303页）：“Der Kern der Sage ist niches als ein vollständig ausgeführtes Zerrbild des Heidenapostels, dessen Zäge bis in’s einzelne hinein die Person, die Lehre, und die Lebenschicksale des Paulus persifliren sollen.”（这传说的核心，无非是对外邦人使徒的一幅充分展开的丑化画像，其中的特征，乃至每一细节，都旨在讥讽保罗其人、他的教导以及他一生的遭际。）然而，《使徒行传》提供了关于西门最早的记载；我们依据古代一致的见证，相信此书出于路加，即使不然，它无论如何也是一位亲保罗的作者所作，因而绝不可能插入一个反保罗的虚构故事，使自己书中的大部分内容归于荒谬。参较上文§114，第438页的评论。↩︎
《护教辞》(Apol.) I, 26（Σίμωνα μέν τινα Σαμαρέα, τὸν ἀπὸ κώμης λεγομένης Γιττῶν^*）；参较伪克莱门《讲道集》(Clem. Hom.) I. 15；II. 22（ἀπὸ Γιτθῶν^*）；希波吕托斯 (Hippol.)，《哲学论》(Philos.) VI. 7（ὁ Γιττηνός^*）。确有一个名为 Γίτται^* 的地方，离查士丁 (Justin) 的出生地弗拉维亚·尼亚波利斯 (Flavia Neapolis)，即纳布卢斯 (Nablus)，不远。今名 Kuryet Jît (Dschit)。见罗宾逊 (Robinson)，《巴勒斯坦》(Pal.) II. 308，以及奥托 (Otto) 对查士丁该段文字的注释（《著作集》[Opera] I. 78）。↩︎
据约瑟夫斯 (Josephus)，《犹太古史》(Ant.) XX. 7, 2。尼安德 (Neander)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 认为二者是同一人。塞浦路斯岛上曾有一座名为 Κίτιον^* 的城（修昔底德 [Thucyd.] I. 112, 1）；殉道者查士丁 (Justin M.) 或许将它与撒马利亚的基通 (Gitthon) 混淆了，正如他把罗马雕像上的 Simo 与 Semo 混淆一样。但在涉及撒马利亚的问题上，约瑟夫斯出错的可能性，远大于出生于弗拉维亚·尼亚波利斯 (Flavia Neapolis)，即古代示剑的查士丁。↩︎
ἡ Δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἥ Μεγάλη^*，《使徒行传》8:10。根据伪克莱门《讲道集》(Homilies)（II. 22）和《辨认集》(Recognitions)（II. 7），西门自称“上帝至高的能力”（ἀνωτάτη δύναμις^*，Virtus Suprema）。↩︎
这一事件的记忆，保留在 simony（买卖圣职）这个名称中，用以指亵渎性的教会职分交易。↩︎
大公教会与异端双方的传说记载，彼此出入甚大。殉道者查士丁 (Justin M.) 记述西门到访罗马，却将此事置于克劳狄 (Claudius) 在位期间（41—54年），并未提及他与彼得相遇。其他记载则将这次旅程置于尼禄在位期间（54—68年）。据希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 说，西门自请被活埋，深信自己作为一位假基督，会在第三日复活。据《使徒宪章》(Apostolical Constitutions) 记载，他试图飞翔，却因彼得的祈祷蒙应允而坠落，摔断大腿和踝骨，终于因伤而死。据阿尔诺比乌斯 (Arnobius) 说，他企图像以利亚一样乘火车升天，却摔断了腿，在羞愧慌乱中从高山上跳下自杀。见利普修斯 (Lipsius)，前引书，第310页。↩︎
他记述说（《护教辞》[Apol.] I. 26及56），术士西门以法术给罗马元老院和人民留下极深的印象，以致他们向他致以神明之礼，并在台伯河岛上为他立像。但他把自己所不认识的一位萨宾—罗马神祇 Semo Sancus 或 Sangus，误认作 Simo Sanctus。因为1574年，在他所描述的地点发现了一尊雕像，铭文为：Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum（献给神塞莫·桑库斯·菲狄乌斯），等等。爱任纽 (Irenaeus)《驳异端》(Adv. Hoer.) I. 23, 1、德尔图良《护教辞》(Apol.) 13以及优西比乌 (Eusebius) 都重复了这一错误，但住在罗马的希波吕托斯并未提及此事。见奥托 (Otto) 对查士丁 I. 26的注释，《著作集》(Opera) I. 79及下页（第III版）。↩︎
Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη^*.↩︎
《哲学论》(Philos.) VI. 6及后。↩︎
Δεῖ καταχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί^*.↩︎
他又补充了一件奇特的事（《杂学集》[Strom.] III. 第4章）：有一次，尼哥拉 (Nicolas) 因为是个嫉妒妻子的丈夫而受到使徒们的严厉责备；他为反驳这一指责，提出愿让自己美丽的妻子成为任何别人的妻子。此说极不可信。↩︎
Κήρινθος^*.↩︎
两件事均见于爱任纽 III. 第3章，§ 4，用以说明《提多书》3:10。但约翰在浴室中的同一个故事，也被用在伊便 (Ebion) 身上，而此人是否存在，本身就值得怀疑。↩︎
ὁ ἄνω Χριστός^*。他又称圣灵为 ἡ ἄνω δύναμις^*，即从高天降在耶稣身上的能力。瓦伦廷 (Valentine) 称犹太人的弥赛亚为（ὁ κάτω Χριστός^*）。关于克林妥 (Cerinth) 的基督论，最好的论述出自多尔纳 (Dorner)。↩︎
爱任纽没有提到克林妥 (Cerinthus) 的千禧年末世论；他自己也是千禧年论者，不过其见解具有较高的属灵品格。但该教说见于该犹 (Caius)、狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysius，载于优西比乌)、狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 和奥古斯丁的记述。↩︎
参较优西比乌《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.) IV. 7及亚历山大的革利免《杂学集》(Strom.) IV. 12，第599及下页。俄利根 (Origen)（《路加福音讲道》[Hom. in Luc.] I: 1）说，巴西利德 (Basilides)“竟敢（ἐτόλμησεν^*）写一部《巴西利德福音》”；但他很可能把注释误认成了一部伪经福音书。希波吕托斯明确断言，巴西利德论到“耶稣降生”以后有关救主的一切事，其叙述与“福音书”一致。↩︎
通行的意见认为，希波吕托斯所述的是巴西利德本人的体系，爱任纽所述的则是其学派的体系。雅可比 (Jacobi)、乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、鲍尔、沙弗（初版）、默勒 (Möller)、曼塞尔 (Mansel)、霍特 (Hort) 均持此说。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、利普修斯、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 和斯霍尔滕 (Scholten) 则为相反的见解辩护。霍特支持前一种见解的论证，见前引书第269及下页，其依据是亚历山大的革利免从巴西利德的 ἐξηγητικά^* 中所作的摘录。他假定瓦伦廷的体系在先，巴西利德继而以之为对照，建立了自己的体系。但历史所记瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 的年代约晚十年。↩︎
如前所述，在这一点上，他与黑格尔 (Hegel) 相似；后者也从绝对非存在的观念出发，重新从无（ex nihilo）构造宇宙。在这两种体系中，“无”都必须按非通常的意义理解，即与一切确定的、具体的存在或存在形式相对立。它实际上等同于纯粹存在这一最抽象的概念。Nichts ist sein（无就是存在），而 Sein ist Nichts（存在就是无）；但二者一经辩证过程推动，便产生 Werden（变易），而 werden 又产生 Dasein（定在）。在这里，最新的德国哲学又与最古老的印度神话相遇了。见第453页注。↩︎
ἀρρητος^*, ἀκατονόμαστος^*。↩︎
ὁ οὐκ ὢν θεος^*（不存在的神）。↩︎
πανσπερμία^*——一个斯多亚派 (Stoic) 的观念。↩︎
ἀκίνητος κινητής^*↩︎
υἱότης τριμερής^*.↩︎
νοῦς^*、λόγος^*、φρόνησις^*、σοφία^*、δύναμις^*、δικαιοσύνη^*，以及 εἰρήνη^*。↩︎
因此它被称为 μιμητική^*。↩︎
στερέωμα^*↩︎
κτίσεις^*, ἀρχαί^*, δυνάμεις^*, ἐξουσίαι^*。↩︎
Ἀβρασάξ^* 或 Ἀβραξάς^*。阿布拉克萨斯 (Abraxas) 是为求音韵和谐而作的字母倒置，似乎始于爱任纽著作的拉丁文译者。↩︎
三个 a = 3；b = 2；r = 100；ς^* = 200；x = 60。伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius) 提到，巴西利德派既把这个词联系于人体的365个部分（μέλη^*），也把它联系于一年的日数。但现代作者倾向于认为，雕刻阿布拉萨克斯 (Abrasax) 宝石的人与巴西利德派，是从一个更古老的共同源头接受这一神秘名称的。霍特博士提出，它源自 Ab-razach, Ab-zarach，即“光辉之父”，是个适合太阳神的名称。据莫韦尔斯 (Movers) 说，Serach 是腓尼基人对阿多尼斯特 (Adonist) 的称呼，其崇拜与一年的四季有关。参较贝勒曼 (Bellermann)，《论古人刻有阿布拉克萨斯像的宝石》(Ueber die Gemmen der Alten mit dem Abraxasbilde)（柏林，1817、1819年）；金 (King)，《诺斯替派及其遗存》(The Gnostics and their Remains)（伦敦，1864年）；霍特，前引书；马特 (Matter)，“阿布拉克萨斯”等条，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)，I. 103—107；以及克劳斯 (Kraus)《基督教古物实用百科全书》(Real-Encykl. der christl. Alterthümer)，I. 6—10（附插图）。↩︎
《哲学论》(Philosoph.)，VII. 22。他也引用《约翰福音》2:4：“我的时候还没有到”，以及《路加福音》1:35：“有圣灵要临到你身上，至高者的能力要荫庇你。”诚然，希波吕托斯有时把创始者的意见与其追随者的意见混在一起。但这里并无歧义，因为引述巴西利德时所用的是 φησί^*，“他说”；而引述该学派时，他使用的公式是“照他们所说（κατ’ αὐτούς^*）”。这些早期异端人物的共同见证（我们还须加上伪克莱门《讲道集》及异教徒凯尔苏斯 [Celsus]），足以压倒性地驳斥图宾根学派 (Tübingen) 关于第四福音书起源的假说。见第I卷，第707页，以及阿博特 (Abbott)《第四福音书的作者问题》(Authorship of the Fourth Gospel)，第85页及后。↩︎
Οὐαλεντίνος^* 或 Βαλεντῖνος^*。↩︎
鲍尔说（I. 203）：“没有任何别的体系，能使我们如此清楚地洞察诺斯替主义的独特性质、其世界观的内在联系，以及整个体系更深层的思想特征。”↩︎
亚历山大的革利免，《杂学集》(Strom.) I. VII. 第898页（波特 [Potter] 版）。关于丢达 (Theudas)，没有任何确实可知的事。↩︎
伊皮法纽，《驳异端》(Haer.) XXXI. 2。从他使用的某些术语，如“阿卡摩特 (Achamoth)”，可以推断他有犹太血统。↩︎
《论异端的先决抗辩》(De Praesc. Haer.) 第30章，以及《驳瓦伦廷派》(Adv. Valent.) 第4章。德尔图良及一般正统派的论战者，往往将一切异端归因于不纯正的个人动机。↩︎
爱任纽，III. 4, 3。参较优西比乌《教会史》(H. E.) IV. 10、11（引自爱任纽）。一切权威记载都一致认为，他在第二世纪中叶以前曾在罗马施教。↩︎
βυθός^*，又称 προπάτωρ^*、προαρχή^*、αὐτοπάτωρ^*。↩︎
· 爱任纽，I. 1，§ 1；德尔图良，《驳瓦伦廷派》(Adv. Val.) 第7章。↩︎
《哲学论》(Philos.) VI. 24。不过，瓦伦廷派对于毕托斯 (Bythos) 是否有配偶，似乎意见不一；因为我们在第25章读到：“父独自一位，未经交合，便生出一个后裔……惟独他拥有自生的能力。”↩︎
σύζυγοι^*。永世者的数目与赫西俄德 (Hesiod)《神谱》中的相同。↩︎
又称 ὁ πατήρ^*，即父（因他直接出自 προπάτωρ^*）；又称 ὁ μονογενής^*，即独生者（参较《约翰福音》1:18）；又称 ἀρχή^*，即万有之始（参较 ἐν ἀρχῇ^*，《约翰福音》1:1）。↩︎
毕达哥拉斯派 (Pythagoreans) 的 ἱερὰ τετρακτύς^*。德尔图良（第7章）：“prima quadriga Valentinianae factionis, matrix et origo cunctorum.”（瓦伦廷派最初的四马车，一切的母体与根源。）↩︎
尼安德说（II. 722）：“Es ist eine tiefe Idee des Vatentinianischen Systems, … dass, wie alles Dasein in der Selbstbeschränkung des Bythos seinen Grund hat, so das Dasein alter geschaffenen Wesen auf Beschränkung beruht.”（瓦伦廷体系中有一个深刻的观念：正如一切存在均以毕托斯的自我限制为根基，一切受造之物的存在也都以限制为基础。）↩︎
ἐνεργεία μεριστικὴ καὶ διοριστική^* 与 ἐνεργεία ἑδραστικὴ καὶ στηριστική^*。↩︎
通常被等同于 Chocmah，但利普修斯和雅可比则将其等同于 Chakmuth，即世界之母；她在巴尔代萨尼 (Bardesanes) 的体系中占有一席之地。以索菲娅 (Sophia) 为创造中介者的观念，无疑借自《箴言》和《所罗门智训》。↩︎
οὐσία ἄμορφος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος^*。《哲学论》(Philos.) VI. 28（邓克尔 [Duncker] 与施奈德温 [Schneidewin] 版为30，I. 274）。即《创世记》的 Thohuvabohu（空虚混沌）。↩︎
“由于索菲娅，普累罗麻 (Pleroma) 内产生了无知；由于索菲娅的后裔，又产生了无形态（ἀμορφία^*），于是普累罗麻内出现了混乱（θόρυβος ἐγένετο ἐν πληρώματι^*）。”《哲学论》(Philos.) VI. 26（邓克尔与施奈德温版为31）。↩︎
ὁ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου^*，《约翰福音》3:29。↩︎
Διδασκαλία ἀνατολική^*。希波吕托斯，VI. 35（第286页）。↩︎
这些片段由格拉贝 (Grabe) 收集于《辑遗》(Spicil.) II. 83—117，又由施蒂伦 (Stieren) 收入其所编爱任纽著作，第I卷，938—971页。亚历山大的革利免（《杂学集》[Strom.] IV. 9）还引用了赫拉克利翁 (Heracleon) 对《路加福音》12:8的注释。↩︎
鲍尔（I. 203）竟略而不提赫拉克利翁的《注释》，此事颇有意味；因为这部著作对他关于第四福音书晚出说的假设是致命的。↩︎
《致弗洛拉书》(Epistola ad Floram) 由伊皮法纽保存下来（《驳异端》[Haer] XXIII. § 3）。施蒂伦在一篇拉丁文就职演说（1813年）中否认其真实性，但罗塞尔 (Rossel) 在尼安德《教会史》附录中（德文版 II. 1249—1254；托里 [Torrey] 译本 I. 725—728），以及海因里希 (Heinrici)（前引书，第75页及后）均为其真实性辩护。↩︎
我们关于马尔科斯 (Marcos) 及马尔科斯派的知识，来自亚历山大的革利免和爱任纽（I. 13—21）。希波吕托斯（VI. 39及后，第296页及后）和伊皮法纽在此几乎完全依赖爱任纽；爱任纽谈及马尔科斯时，说他还活着。↩︎
此名应源自 קוֹל^*，即“声音”（不是源自 כֹּל^*，即“全部”），以及 אַרְבַּע^*，即“四”。这一混淆首先由霍伊曼 (Heumann) 发现（1743年），福尔克马尔在《科拉尔巴苏斯的诺斯替主义》(Die Colarbasus-Gnosis) 中作了更充分的解释，载尼德纳 (Niedner)《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.)，1855年，第603—616页。参较鲍尔，I. 204，注，以及霍特，载史密斯 (Smith) 与韦斯 (Wace)，I. 594及下页。↩︎
参较奥古斯特·哈恩 (Aug. Hahn)：《巴尔代萨尼：叙利亚诺斯替派的首位圣诗作者》(Bardesanes, Gnosticus Syrorum primus hymnologus)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1819年。A. 梅尔克斯 (A. Merx)：《埃德萨的巴尔代萨尼》(Bardes. v. Edessa)，哈勒，1863年。利普修斯：载《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol.)，1863年，第435页及后。A. 希尔根费尔德 (A. Hilgenfeld)：《巴尔代萨尼，最后的诺斯替派人物》(Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker)，莱比锡，1864年。K. 马克 (K. Macke)：《源于诺斯替主义的叙利亚歌曲》(Syrische Lieder gnostischen Ursprungs)，载《图宾根神学季刊》(Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift)，1874年。霍特博士：“巴尔代桑”(Bardaisan)，载史密斯与韦斯，I. 256—260（极为详尽）。↩︎
优西比乌（IV. 30）和哲罗姆（《名人传》[De Vir. illutstr.] 33）受常见的前后两位安敦尼混淆之误影响，将他的年代置于马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 在位期间（161—180年）；但据《埃德萨编年史》(Chronicle of Edessa)（阿塞马尼 [Assemani]，《东方文库》[Bibl. Or.] I. 389），他生于155年7月11日；又据巴尔希伯来 (Barhebraeus)（《教会编年史》[Chron. Eccl.]，阿贝洛斯 [Abbeloos] 与拉米 [Lamy] 编，1872年，第79页），他卒于223年，享年68岁。希尔根费尔德、雅可比和霍特 (Hortl) 采用后一年代。↩︎
霍特博士（第252页）认为：“没有理由假定巴尔代桑 (Bardaisan) 除了个别问题外，曾拒绝基督徒以福音书及使徒著作为根基的通常信仰。”现代人以诺斯替主义为基础，对他的体系所作的种种不同重构，都是任意的。↩︎
Περὶ εἱμαρμένης^*。从前，人们只从优西比乌《福音预备》(Proeparatio, Evang.)（VI. 9、10）中的一段希腊文摘录知道这部著作。叙利亚文原本在大英博物馆的尼特里亚 (Nitrian) 手稿中被发现，由库尔顿 (Cureton) 刊载于《叙利亚文辑遗》(Spicilegium Syriacum)，伦敦，1855年，附英文译文及注释。梅尔克斯提供了德文译文及注释（第25—55页）。这篇论著或即《各国律法书》(Book of the Laws of Countries)，或是该书的摘录。霍特博士怀疑其真实性。↩︎
叙利亚的以法莲 (Ephraem the Syrian) 提到一部含有150首圣诗的集子，说巴尔代萨尼 (Bardesanes) 曾借此迷惑民众，却丝毫没有提及哈摩尼乌 (Harmonius)；但索佐门 (Sozomen) 和狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 记载，哈摩尼乌是第一个使叙利亚语适应格律形式和音乐的人，他的圣诗和曲调一直沿用到以法莲的时代。霍特博士 (Dr. Hort) 认为，这一向来未获充分注意的矛盾，可以这样解释：这部圣诗集实际上出自哈摩尼乌之手，或许写于他父亲在世时，并受了父亲的指点。但也同样可能是巴尔代萨尼创作、哈摩尼乌编订，或两人都是圣诗作者。不能轻易把以法莲的见证当作纯粹的错误而置之不理。K. 马克 (K. Macke) 在上引文章中，从《多马行传》(Acta Thomae) 中辨认出巴尔代萨尼的圣诗残篇。以法莲的叙利亚文圣诗已有津格勒 (Zingerle) 的德译本（1838年）和H. 伯吉斯 (H. Burgess) 的英译本（1853年）。↩︎
埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 等人提及，他诱奸了一位献身的童女，以此作为一个原因；但这与他的禁欲主义颇不相符，爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 也没有指控他年轻时放纵情欲。↩︎
德尔图良如此记载；但爱任纽讲述的类似故事，主角却是克尔多 (Cerdo)。德尔图良还说，马吉安 (Marcion) 曾屡次（semel et iterim）被逐出教会。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) iil.c. 3，§ 4：Ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ^*，意为“我认得你是撒但的长子”。↩︎
然而，亚美尼亚主教埃斯尼格 (Esnig) 的叙述，使这一体系更接近诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 的其他形式。据他说，马吉安设定了三重天：至高一重住着远离世界的善神，第二重住着律法之神，最低一重住着他的天使；下方的地上则是许勒 (Hyle)，即物质，他也称之为大地的能力（δύναμις^*）或本质（οὐσία^*）。许勒是一种女性本原；犹太人的律法之神以她为配偶，借她的帮助创造了这个世界，此后便退回自己的天上。双方各治其境：他与天使在天上，许勒与她的儿子们在地上。默勒 (Möller)（第378页）倾向于接受这一记载，认为可信。萨蒙 (Salmon) 认为，这样的体系或许是马吉安从克尔多那里学来的；但他必定不大重视其中的神秘成分，否则较早的作者应当会提及。↩︎
“Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis.”（“把律法与福音分开，是马吉安特有且首要的工作。”）德尔图良，《驳马吉安》(Adv. Marc) I. 19。↩︎
“Subito Christus, subito Joannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, que suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem.”（“基督突然出现，约翰也突然出现。凡在创造主那里自有完整次序的事，在马吉安那里全是如此。”）德尔图良，IV. 11。↩︎
勒南 (Renan)（L’englise chrét., 第358页）论到马吉安根据自己删残的《路加福音》所编造的那种虚幻的基督叙事时说：“Si Jesus ne nous avait été connu que par des textes de ce genre, on aurait pu douter s’il avaitvraiment existé, ous’il n’ était pas une fiction, A PRIORI, dégagée de tout lien avec le réalité. Dans un pareil système, le Christ ne naissait pas (la naissance, pour Marcion, était une souillure), ne souffrait pas, ne mourait pas.”（“如果我们只能借这一类文本认识耶稣，人们便可能怀疑他是否真正存在过，还是一种先验的虚构，与现实毫无关联。在这样的体系中，基督没有降生〔因为在马吉安看来，出生是一种污秽〕，没有受苦，也没有死亡。”）↩︎
德尔图良，I. 29；IV. 10。↩︎
德尔图良，I. 14。↩︎
他们就是这样理解《哥林多前书》15:29的。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius)，《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.) III. 64。↩︎
弗吕格尔 (Flügel)，《摩尼》(Mani)，第160、167页（转引自萨蒙）。雅可比教授 (Prof. Jacobi)（载赫尔佐格 [Herzog]，V. 236）引用哈森坎普 (Hasenkamp) 1774年致拉瓦特 (Lavater) 的一封信及后来的权威文献，证明类似见解在波斯尼亚 (Bosnia) 和黑塞哥维那 (Herzegowina) 仍然残存。↩︎
Ὁφιανοί^*，源自ὄφις^*，意为“蛇”；拉丁文为 Serpentini。↩︎
源自נָחָשׁ^*。↩︎
用鲍尔 (Baur)（K. Gesch. I. 195）的话说：“Die Schlange ist mit EinemWort der durch die Gegensätze dialectisch sich hindurchwindende Weltentwicklungsprocess relbst.”（“一言以蔽之，蛇就是以辩证方式蜿蜒穿过各种对立的世界发展过程本身。”）↩︎
奥古斯丁 (Augustin)，《论异端》(De Haer.)，第17、46章。↩︎
יַלְדָּא בַּהוּת^*，意为“混沌的产物”。↩︎
源自περάω^*，意为穿越、超越（物质世界的界限）。我们对他们体系的了解，来自希波吕托 (Hippolytus)《哲学论》(Philos.) I. v. 7及后的混乱记述。他说，他们亵渎基督的言论多年来一直未被察觉。爱任纽、德尔图良和埃皮法尼乌都未提及佩拉派 (Peratae)，亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 则提到过他们。↩︎
希波吕托（v. 12）记载了以下一段佩拉派玄虚妄言的例子：“按照他们的说法，宇宙就是父、子〔和〕物质；〔但〕这三者各自都具有无穷的能力。于是，子、道、蛇居于物质与父之间，总是朝着不动的父，以及〔朝着〕本身处于运动中的物质运动。他有时转向父，把各种能力接纳到自己里面；有时则带着这些能力转向物质。物质〔虽然〕没有属性，也未成形，却把子从父那里塑造的形态，从子那里塑造〔到自身之中〕。但子以不可言传、不可述说、不可改变的方式，从父那里取得形态……没有人能不借着子而得救或返回〔天上〕，而子就是蛇。因为，他怎样从上面带下父的印记，也照样将这些印记从那里带上去；这些印记从沉睡状态中被唤醒，成为父的特征，是来自无实体之存在者的有实体之物，他将它们从那里转移到这里。”↩︎
Καϊνοι^*（希波吕托，VIII. 20），Καϊανισταί^*（亚历山大的革利免，《杂学》[Strom]，VII. 17），Καϊανοί^*（埃皮法尼乌，《驳异端》[Haer] 38）；拉丁文名称为 Caiani, Cainaei（该隐派）。↩︎
勒南（L’égl. chrét, 第177页）说，第二种形式常见于铭文。↩︎
莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)、尼安德 (Neander)、鲍尔、吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 和勒南都持此说。但默勒（第371页）否认萨图尼努 (Saturninus) 的二元论，主张撒但和犹太人的神虽彼此敌对，却同样是从属的存在者。然而，帕西教 (Parsee) 二元论中的阿里曼 (Ahriman)，以及所有诺斯替体系中的造物主 (Demiurge)，也都是如此。↩︎
希波吕托，《哲学论》(Philos.) VII. 32：εἰκόνας κατασκευάζουσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγοντες ὑπὸ Πιλάτου τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ γενέσθαι^*，意为“他们制作基督的像，说这像是当时彼拉多命人制作的”。↩︎
这是莫斯海姆的推测；福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 在苏黎世 (Zürich)《科学协会》(Wissenschaftl. Verein) 的一份月刊中，对此作了详细论述和修订。他主张，萨梅 (Same) 所崇拜的神祇就是新出现的月亮，ὁ Ἐπιφανής^*。↩︎
年代并不确定。察恩 (Zahn) 和哈纳克 (Harnack) 将他的出生、归信及去世分别定于公元110年、150年和172年。丰克 (Funk) 则把出生和归信的年代各推迟约10年。↩︎
Ἐγκρατῖται^*，又作Ἐγκρατεῖς^*、Ἐγκρατηταί^*，拉丁文 Continentes，即节制者；或称Ὑδροπαραστάται^*，拉丁文 Aquarii，即用水者。↩︎
利普修斯 (Lipsius) 视他为最早的诺斯替派人物之一；萨蒙（载《史密斯与韦斯》[“Smith & Wace”]，III. 587）则更为可信地视他为最晚的诺斯替派人物之一。爱任纽对此保持沉默，有利于较晚的年代说。↩︎
在一个孟他努派 (Montanist) 信徒看来，这就足以定他的罪了。↩︎
希波吕托，同上（l.c.）：ἔφη τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὕλης συγχρόνου καὶ ἀγεννήτου πάντα πεποιηκέναι^*，意为“他说，上帝以与自己同时存在、非受生的物质创造了万有”。↩︎
他以《诗篇》19篇来证明这一愚妄的观念：“他在太阳中安设了自己的帐幕。”↩︎
欲知更详尽的记述，可参看萨蒙博士在《史密斯与韦斯》I. 865—870所撰的两篇佳作：“幻影派”(Docetae) 和“幻影说”(Docetism)。↩︎
参见亚历山大的革利免，《杂学》(Strom.) III. 526。此名源自ἀντιτάσσεσθαι^*，意为蔑视、反抗律法。↩︎
Εὐγενεῖς^*。↩︎
参见亚历山大的革利免，《杂学》(Strom.) I. f. 304；III. f. 438；VII. f. 722；以及埃皮法尼乌，《驳异端》(Haer.) 26（厄勒 [Oehler] 版，I. 169及后）。↩︎
至少波斯人的记载如此；但厌恶绘画的阿拉伯人和教父们，都未提及他的绘画才能。↩︎
Μάνης^*、Μάντος^*、Μανιχαῖος^*，Manes（属格为 Manetis）、Manichaeans（奥古斯丁总是使用最后这一形式）。这个名字或出于波斯语，或出于闪米特语，但至今尚未得到令人满意的解释。凯斯勒 (Kessler) 认为，它就是曼达派 (Mandaeans) 的 Mânâ、Manda，即知识，γνῶσις^*。据《阿基劳行传》(Acta Archelai)，他原名 Cubricus；凯斯勒认为，这是阿拉伯文 Shuraik 的讹变。↩︎
其中提到的有：《奥秘书》(Book of Mysteries)、《巨人书》(Book of Giants)、《听道者诫命书》(Book of Precepts for Hearers；又名 Capitula 或 Epistola Fundamenti，奥古斯丁曾大段摘引)、《沙卜尔书》(Shâhpûrakân，即属于沙卜尔王 [Shâhpûr] 的书)、《生命书》(Book of Life)、《福音书》(Gospel)，或称《活福音书》(Living Gospel)。参见凯斯勒，前引书（l. c），第249页及后。↩︎
博索布尔 (Beausobre)（第I卷，序言，第viii页）：“Les Actes de cette Dispute sont évidemment une fiction pareille à celle de cet imposteur, qui a pris le nom de Clément Romain, et qui a introduit S. Pierre disputant contre Simon le Magicien.”（“这场辩论的记录显然是一种虚构，与那个冒用罗马的革利免之名、描写圣彼得与行邪术的西门辩论的骗子所编造的故事一样。”）↩︎
摩尼 (Mani) 惨遭杀害、尸体受到凌辱，均有充分证据；但他被活剥皮的说法，也许是后来基督徒的传统。《阿基劳辩论录》(Disput. Archelai)（第55章）接近结尾处有如下记载：“他被捕并带到王面前。王对他极为愤怒，又急欲向他报两条人命之仇——即自己的儿子和监狱看守之死——便命人将他活活剥皮，悬挂在城门前，并把他的皮浸入某些药剂中，再充气鼓起；又命人将他的肉抛给飞鸟吞食。”各项不同记载，见博索布尔，I. 205及下页。↩︎
犹他 (Utah) 的摩门教徒 (Mormons)，或称后期圣徒 (Latter-Day Saints)，提供了一个颇有意味的类比，尤其在其等级制组织方面；但他们实行多妻制，又与禁欲的摩尼教徒形成鲜明对照，而与穆罕默德教徒相似。↩︎
凯斯勒（哈纳克也追随他）认为摩尼教 (Manichaeism) 完全源于迦勒底 (Chaldaean)，但他也不得不承认，摩尼教与琐罗亚斯德教 (Zoroastric) 及佛教的观念和习俗有密切关系。《群书类述》(Fihrist) 说，摩尼的教义来自帕西教和基督教。关于其中的佛教成分，参见鲍尔，第433—44页。↩︎
施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher) 正确地把摩尼教与伯拉纠主义 (Pelagianism) 视为人论和救恩论中的两种根本异端：前者认为人（在身体上）本质是恶的，因而否认救赎的可能性；后者认为人本质是善的，因而否认救赎的必要性。↩︎
signaculum 的意思不是“准则”（criterion，鲍尔在前引书 [l. c] 第248页如此解释），而是“印记”（seal，从《群书类述》中对应的阿拉伯文 hatâm 可清楚看出）。参见凯斯勒。↩︎
摩门教徒的组织与此类似。↩︎
Auditores, catechumeni，即听道者、慕道者；阿拉伯文为 sammaûn。↩︎
Electi, perfecti, catharistae，即蒙选者、完全者、洁净者；希腊文为ἔκλεκτοι^*、τέλειοι^*，《群书类述》中作 siddîkûn。浮士德 (Faustus) 称他们为 sacerdotale genus，即祭司阶层。↩︎
“座位”节，βῆμα^*，cathedra。摩门教徒也纪念其创始人约瑟·史密斯 (Joseph Smith) 的殉道；他于1844年6月27日在伊利诺伊州迦太基 (Carthage, Illinois) 被暴民杀害。↩︎
吉泽勒和尼安德倾向于否认摩尼教徒施行水洗；博索布尔、蒂洛 (Thilo)、鲍尔和凯斯勒则肯定此事。奥古斯丁著作中的有关段落含混不清，彼此矛盾。参见鲍尔，前引书（l.c.），第273—281页。较早的诺斯替派别（马吉安派和瓦伦廷派）及新摩尼教徒，都施行水洗礼仪。蒙彼利埃 (Montpellier) 的马克斯·博内 (Max Bonnet) 最近刊行的诺斯替派《多马行传》完整希腊文本（Acta Thomae，莱比锡 [Lips.]，1883年），为这一有争议的问题提供了一些新线索。其中屡次提及洗礼和膏抹：第19页（在向基督献上的感恩中：καθαρίσας αὐτοὺς τῷ σῷ λουτρῷ καὶ ἀλείψας αὐτοὺς τῷ σῷ ἐλείῳ ἀπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτοὺς πλάνης^*，意为“你以你的洗濯洁净了他们，以你的油膏抹了他们，使他们脱离笼罩他们的迷误”）、20、35、68页（不过，这里提到浇油在水洗之前）、73、32页（ἀλείψας ... καὶ ἐβαπτισεν αὐτοὺς ... ἀνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων λαβὼν ἄρτον καὶ ποτήριον εὐλόγησεν εἰπών...^*，意为“膏抹……又给他们施洗……他们从水里上来后，他拿起饼和杯，祝谢说……”）。参较利普修斯在《伪经使徒行传与使徒传说》(Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden)（不伦瑞克 [Braunschweig]，1883年）第331页的讨论；他在那里断言：“Die Wassertaufe stand bei den Manichaeern ebenso wie bei den meisten älteren gnostichen Secten un Uebung.”（“摩尼教徒与大多数较早的诺斯替派别一样，都施行水洗。”）↩︎

第十一章 尼西亚会议以前时期的异端

目录

§ 112. 教会内部的犹太教与异教

§ 113. 拿撒勒派与伊便派（厄尔克赛派、曼达派）

§ 114. 伪克莱门文献中的伊便尼主义

I. 史料

II. 论著

附注

§ 115. 诺斯替主义：文献

史料：

研究著作：

§ 116. 诺斯替主义的含义、起源与性质

§ 117. 诺斯替主义的体系及其神学

§ 118. 诺斯替主义的伦理

§ 119. 崇拜与组织

§ 120. 诺斯替主义的学派

§ 121. 行邪术的西门与西门派

§ 122. 尼哥拉党

§ 123. 克林妥

§ 124. 巴西里得

§ 125. 瓦伦廷 (Valentinus)

附注

§ 126. 瓦伦廷学派：赫拉克利翁、托勒密、马科斯、巴尔德萨尼、哈摩尼乌斯

§ 127. 马吉安及其学派

§ 128. 俄斐派、塞特派、佩拉特派、该隐派

§ 129. 萨图尔尼努斯 (Saturninus，又名 Satornilos)

§ 130. 卡尔波克拉底 (Carpocrates)

§ 131. 塔提安与禁欲派

§ 132. 诺斯替派的游斯丁

§ 133. 赫尔摩根尼

§ 134. 其他诺斯替派别

§ 135. 摩尼与摩尼教徒

史料

§ 136. 摩尼教的体系

Original Text

CHAPTER XI. THE HERESIES OF THE ANTE-NICENE AGE.

§ 112. Judaism and Heathenism within the Church.

§ 113. Nazarenes and Ebionites (Elkesaites, Mandoeans).

§ 114. The Pseudo-Clementine Ebionism.

I. Sources:

II. Works.

Notes.

§ 115. Gnosticism. The Literature.

Sources:

Works:

§ 116. Meaning, Origin and Character of Gnosticism.

§ 117. The System of Gnosticism. Its Theology.

§ 118. Ethics of Gnosticism.

§ 119. Cultus and Organization.

§ 120. Schools of Gnosticism.

§ 121. Simon Magus and the Simonians.

§ 122. The Nicolaitans.

§ 123. Cerinthus.

§ 124. Basilides.

§ 125. Valentinus.

Notes.

§ 126. The School of Valentinus. Heracleon, Ptolemy, Marcos, Bardesanes, Harmonius.

§ 127. Marcion and his School.

§ 128. The Ophites. The Sethites. The Peratae. The Cainites

§ 129. Saturninus (Satornilos).

§ 130. Carpocrates.

§ 131. Tatian and the Encratites.

§ 132. Justin the Gnostic.

§ 133. Hermogenes.

§ 134. Other Gnostic Sects.

§ 135. Mani and the Manichaeans.

Sources.

§ 136. The Manichaean System.

Original Footnotes

脚注

Best guess 对照表

第十一章尼西亚会议以前时期的异端