But it is insufficient with reference to the whole phenomenon of Gnosticism, and it has been carried out by Baur by violent abstractions.]

[Footnote 328: The question, therefore, as to the time of the origin of Gnosticism, as a complete phenomenon, cannot be answered. The remarks of Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22) refer to the Jerusalem Church, and have not even for that the value of a fixed datum. The only important question here is the point of time at which the expulsion or secession of the schools and unions took place in the different national churches.]

[Footnote 329: Justin Apol. 1. 26.]

[Footnote 330: Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. IV. 22, Iren. II. 14. 1 f., Tertull. de praescr. 7, Hippol. Philosoph. The Church Fathers have also noted the likeness of the cultus of Mithras and other deities.]

[Footnote 331: We must leave the Essenes entirely out of account here, as their teaching, in all probability, is not to be considered syncretistic in the strict sense of the word, (see Lucius, "Der Essenismus", 1881), and as we know absolutely nothing of a greater diffusion of it. But we need no names here, as a syncretistic, ascetic Judaism could and did arise everywhere in Palestine and the Diaspora.]

[Footnote 332: Freudenthal's "h.e.l.lenistische Studien" informs us as to the Samaritan syncretism; see also Hilgenfeld's "Ketzergeschichte", p.

149 ff. As to the Babylonian mythology in Gnosticism, see the statements in the elaborate article, "Manichaismus", by Kessler (Real-Encycl. fur protest. Theol., 2 Aufl.).]

[Footnote 333: Wherever traditional religions are united under the badge of philosophy a conservative syncretism is the result, because the allegoric method, that is, the criticism of all religion, veiled and unconscious of itself, is able to blast rocks and bridge over abysses.

All forms may remain here, under certain circ.u.mstances, but a new spirit enters into them. On the other hand, where philosophy is still weak, and the traditional religion is already shaken by another, there arises the critical syncretism in which either the G.o.ds of one religion are subordinated to those of another, or the elements of the traditional religion are partly eliminated and replaced by others. Here, also, the soil is prepared for new religious formations, for the appearance of religious founders.]

[Footnote 334: It was a serious mistake of the critics to regard Simon Magus as a fiction, which, moreover, has been given up by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, p. 163 ff.). and Lipsius (Apocr Apostelgesch 11.

1),--the latter, however, not decidedly. The whole figure, as well as the doctrines attributed to Simon (see Acts of the Apostles, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus), not only have nothing improbable in them, but suit very well the religious circ.u.mstances which we must a.s.sume for Samaria.

The main point in Simon is his endeavour to create a universal religion of the supreme G.o.d. This explains his success among the Samaritans and Greeks. He is really a counterpart to Jesus, whose activity can just as little have been unknown to him as that of Paul. At the same time, it cannot be denied, that the later tradition about Simon was the most confused and bia.s.sed imaginable, or that certain Jewish Christians at a later period may have attempted to endow the magician with the features of Paul in order to discredit the personality and teaching of the Apostle. But this last a.s.sumption requires a fresh investigation.]

[Footnote 335: Justin, Apol. I. 26: [Greek: kai schedon pantes men Samareis, oligoi de kai en allois ethnesin, hos ton proton theon Simona h.o.m.ologountes, ekeinon kai proskunousin] (besides the account in the Philos and Orig. c. Cels i. 57; VI. 11). The positive statement of Justin that Simon came even to Rome (under Claudius) can hardly be refuted from the account of the Apologist himself, and therefore not at all (See Renan, "Antichrist").]

[Footnote 336: We have it as such in the [Greek: Megale Apophasis] which Hippolytus (Philosoph. VI. 19. 20) made use of. This Simonianism may perhaps have been related to the original, as the doctrines of the Christian Gnostics to the Apostolic preaching.]

[Footnote 337: The Heretics opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians may belong to these. On Cerinthus, see Polycarp, in Iren. III. 3. 2, Irenaeus (I. 26. I.; III. 11. 1), Hippolytus and the redactions of the Syntagma, Cajus in Euseb. III. 28. 2, Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 411 ff. To this category belong also the Ebionites and Elkasites of Epiphanius (See Chap. 6).]

[Footnote 338: The two Syrian teachers, Saturninus and Cerdo, must in particular be mentioned here. The first (See Iren I. 24. 1. 2, Hippolyt.

and the redactions of the Syntagma) was not strictly speaking a dualist, and therefore allowed the G.o.d of the Old Testament to be regarded as an Angel of the supreme G.o.d, while at the same time he distinguished him from Satan. Accordingly, he a.s.sumed that the supreme G.o.d co-operated in the creation of man by angel powers--sending a ray of light, an image of light, that should be imitated as an example and enjoined as an ideal.

But all men have not received the ray of light. Consequently, two cla.s.ses of men stand in abrupt contrast with each other. History is the conflict of the two. Satan stands at the head of the one, the G.o.d of the Jews at the head of the other. The Old Testament is a collection of prophecies out of both camps. The truly good first appears in the aeon Christ, who a.s.sumed nothing cosmic, did not even submit to birth. He destroys the works of Satan (generation, eating of flesh), and delivers the men who have within them a spark of light The Gnosis of Cerdo was much coa.r.s.er. (Iren. I. 27. 1, Hippolyt. and the redactions). He contrasted the good G.o.d and the G.o.d of the Old Testament as two primary beings. The latter he identified with the creator of the world.

Consequently, he completely rejected the Old Testament and everything cosmic and taught that the good G.o.d was first revealed in Christ. Like Saturninus he preached a strict docetism; Christ had no body, was not born, and suffered in an unreal body. All else that the Fathers report of Cerdo's teaching has probably been transferred to him from Marcion, and is therefore very doubtful.]

[Footnote 339: This question might perhaps be answered if we had the Justinian Syntagma against all heresies; but, in the present condition of our sources, it remains wrapped in obscurity. What may be gathered from the fragments of Hegesippus, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Pastoral Epistles and other doc.u.ments, such as, for example, the Epistle of Jude, is in itself so obscure, so detached, and so ambiguous, that it is of no value for historical construction.]

[Footnote 340: There are, above all, the schools of the Basilideans, Valentinians and Ophites. To describe the systems in their full development lies, in my opinion, outside the business of the history of dogma and might easily lead to the mistake that the systems as such were controverted, and that their construction was peculiar to Christian Gnosticism. The construction, as remarked above, is rather that of the later Greek philosophy, though it cannot be mistaken that, for us, the full parallel to the Gnostic systems first appears in those of the Neoplatonists. But only particular doctrines and principles of the Gnostics were really called in question, their critique of the world, of providence, of the resurrection, etc.; these therefore are to be adduced in the next section. The fundamental features of an inner development can only be exhibited in the case of the most important, viz., the Valentinian school. But even here, we must distinguish an Eastern and a Western branch. (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: "Valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter haereticos." Iren. I. 1.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35; Orig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech. Lomm. XIV. p. 40: "Valentini robustissima secta").]

[Footnote 341: Tertull. de praescr. 42: "De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, c.u.m hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio aedificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua aedificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent." (See adv. Valent. I init.). This is hardly a malevolent accusation. The philosophic interpretation of a religion will always impress those only on whom the religion itself has already made an impression.]

[Footnote 342: Iren. III. 4. 2: [Greek: Kerdon eis ten ekklesian elthon kai exomologoumenos, houtos dietelete, pote men lathrodidaskalon pote de palin exomologoumenos, pote de eleggomenos eph hois edidaske kakos, kai aphistamenos tes ton adelphon sunodias], see, besides, the valuable account of Tertull. de praescr. 30. The account of Irenaeus (I. 13) is very instructive as to the kind of propaganda of Marcus, and the relation of the women he deluded to the Church. Against actually recognised false teachers the fixed rule was to renounce all intercourse with them (2 Joh. 10. 11, Iren. ep. ad. Florin on Polycarp's procedure, in Euseb. H. E. V. 20. 7; Iren. III. 3. 4) But how were the heretics to be surely known?]

[Footnote 343: Among those who justly bore this name he distinguishes those [Greek: Hoi orthognomenes kata panta christanoi eisin] (Dial.

80).]

[Footnote 344: Very important is the description which Irenaeus (III. 15.

2) and Tertullian have given of the conduct of the Valentinians as observed by themselves (adv. Valent. 1). "Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod praedicant; si tamen praedicant qui occultant.

Custodiae officium conscientiae officium est (a comparison with the Eleusinian mysteries follows.) Si bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire te subostendas negant quidquid agnosc.u.n.t. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua caede dispergunt. Ne discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant." At a later period Dionysius of Alex, (in Euseb. H. E. VII. 7) speaks of Christians who maintain an apparent communion with the brethren, but resort to one of the false teachers (cf. as to this Euseb. H. E. VI. 2.

13). The teaching of Bardesanes influenced by Valentinus, who, moreover, was hostile to Marcionitism, was tolerated for a long time in Edessa (by the Christian kings), nay, was recognised. The Bardesanites and the "Palutians" (catholics) were differentiated only after the beginning of the third century.]

[Footnote 345: There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organise and discipline churches, which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. The Gnostic organisation of schools and mysteries was not able to contend with the episcopal organisation of the churches; see Ignat. ad Smyr. 6.

2; Tertull de praescr. 41. Attempts at actual formations of churches were not altogether wanting in the earliest period; at a later period they were forced on some schools. We have only to read Iren. III. 15. 2 in order to see that these a.s.sociations could only exist by finding support in a church. Irenaeus expressly remarks that the Valentinians designated the common Christians [Greek: katholikoi] (communes) [Greek: kai ekklesiastikoi], but that they, on the other hand, complained that "we kept away from their fellowship without cause, as they thought like ourselves."]

[Footnote 346: The differences between the Gnostic Christianity and that of the Church, that is, the later ecclesiastical theology, were fluid, if we observe the following points. (1) That even in the main body of the Church, the element of knowledge was increasingly emphasised, and the Gospel began to be converted into a perfect knowledge of the world (increasing reception of Greek philosophy, development of [Greek: pistis] to [Greek: gnosis]). (2) That the dramatic eschatology began to fade away. (3) That room was made for docetic views, and value put upon a strict asceticism. On the other hand, we must note: (1) That all this existed only in germ or fragments within the great Church during the flourishing period of Gnosticism. (2) That the great Church held fast to the facts fixed in the baptismal formula (in the _Kerygma_), and to the eschatological expectations, further, to the creator of the world as the supreme G.o.d, to the unity of Jesus Christ, and to the Old Testament, and therefore rejected dualism. (3) That the great Church defended the unity and equality of the human race, and therefore the uniformity and universal aim of the Christian salvation. (4) That it rejected every introduction of new, especially of Oriental Mythologies, guided in this by the early Christian consciousness and a sure intelligence. A deeper, more thorough distinction between the Church and the Gnostic parties hardly dawned on the consciousness of either. The Church developed herself instinctively into an imperial Church, in which office was to play the chief role. The Gnostics sought to establish or conserve a.s.sociations in which the genius should rule, the genius in the way of the old prophets or in the sense of Plato, or in the sense of a union of prophecy and philosophy. In the Gnostic conflict, at least at its close, the judicial priest fought with the virtuoso and overcame him.]

[Footnote 347: The absolute significance of the person of Christ was very plainly expressed in Gnosticism (Christ is not only the teacher of the truth, but the manifestation of the truth), more plainly than where he was regarded as the subject of Old Testament revelation. The pre-existent Christ has significance in some Gnostic schools, but always a comparatively subordinate one. The isolating of the person of Christ, and quite as much the explaining away of his humanity, is manifestly out of harmony with the earliest tradition. But, on the other hand, it must not be denied that the Gnostics recognised redemption in the historical Christ: Christ personally procured it (see under 6. h.).]

[Footnote 348: In this thesis, which may be directly corroborated by the most important Gnostic teachers, Gnosticism shews that it desires _in thesi_ (in a way similar to Philo) to continue on the soil of Christianity as a positive religion. Conscious of being bound to tradition, it first definitely raised the question, what is Christianity? and criticised and sifted the sources for an answer to the question. The rejection of the Old Testament led it to that question and to this sifting. It may be maintained with the greatest probability, that the idea of a canonical collection of Christian writings first emerged among the Gnostics (see also Marcion). They really needed such a collection, while all those who recognised the Old Testament as a doc.u.ment of revelation, and gave it a Christian interpretation, did not at first need a new doc.u.ment, but simply joined on the new to the old, the Gospel to the Old Testament. From the numerous fragments of Gnostic commentaries on New Testament writings which have been preserved, we see that these writings there enjoyed canonical authority, while at the same period, we hear nothing of such authority, nor of commentaries in the main body of Christendom (see Heinrici, "Die Valentinianische Gnosis", u.

d. h. Schrift, 1871). Undoubtedly, sacred writings were selected according to the principle of apostolic origin. This is proved by the inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the collections of books. There is evidence of such having been made by the Naa.s.senes, Peratae, Valentinians, Marcion, Tatian, and the Gnostic Justin. The collection of the Valentinians, and the Canon of Tatian must have really coincided with the main parts of the later Ecclesiastical Canon. The later Valentinians accommodated themselves to this Canon, that is, recognised the books that had been added (Tertull. de praescr. 38). The question as to who first conceived and realised the idea of a Canon of Christian writings, Basilides or Valentinus or Marcion or whether this was done by several at the same time, will always remain obscure, though many things favour Marcion. If it should even be proved that Basilides (see Euseb.

H. E. IV. 7. 7) and Valentinus himself, regarded the Gospels only as authoritative yet the full idea of the Canon lies already in the fact of their making these the foundation and interpreting them allegorically.

The question as to the extent of the Canon afterwards became the subject of an important controversy between the Gnostics and the Catholic Church. The Catholics throughout took up the position that their Canon was the earlier, and the Gnostic collection the corrupt revision of it (they were unable to adduce proof, as is attested by Tertullian's de praescr.) But the aim of the Gnostics to establish themselves on the uncorrupted apostolic tradition gathered from writings was crossed by three tendencies, which, moreover, were all jointly operative in the Christian communities and are therefore not peculiar to Gnosticism. (1) By faith in the continuance of prophecy, in which new things are always revealed by the Holy Spirit (the Basilidean and Marcionite prophets).

(2) By the a.s.sumption of an esoteric secret tradition of the Apostles (see Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 106, 108, Hipp. Philos. VII. 20, Iren. I. 25.

5, III. 2. 1, Tertull. de praescr. 25. Cf. the Gnostic book [Greek: Pistis Sophia], which in great part is based on doctrines said to be imparted by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection). (3) By the inability to oppose the continuous production of Evangelic writings in other words by the continuance of this kind of literature and the addition of Acts of the Apostles (Gospel of the Egyptians (?), other Gospels, Acts of John, Thomas, Philip etc. We know absolutely nothing about the conditions under which these writings originated the measure of authority which they enjoyed or the way in which they gained that authority). In all these points which in Gnosticism hindered the development of Christianity to the religion of a new book the Gnostic schools shew that they stood precisely under the same conditions as the Christian communities in general (see above Chap. 3 -- 2). If all things do not deceive us, the same inner development may be observed even in the Valentinian school, as in the great Church viz. the production of sacred Evangelic and Apostolic writings, prophecy and secret gnosis, falling more and more into the background, and the completed Canon becoming the most important basis of the doctrine of religion. The later Valentinians (see Tertull. de praescr. and adv. Valent.) seem to have appealed chiefly to this Canon, and Tatian no less (about whose Canon see my Texte u Unters I. 1. 2. pp. 213-218). But finally we must refer to the fact that it was the highest concern of the Gnostics to furnish the historical proof of the Apostolic origin of their doctrine by an exact reference to the links of the tradition (see Ritschl Entstehung der altkath Kirche 2nd ed. p. 338 f.). Here again it appears that Gnosticism shared with Christendom the universal presupposition that the valuable thing is the Apostolic origin (see above p. 160 f.), but that it first created artificial chains of tradition, and that this is the first point in which it was followed by the Church (see the appeals to the Apostle Matthew, to Peter and Paul, through the mediation of "Glaukias," and "Theodas," to James and the favourite disciples of the Lord, in the case of the Naa.s.senes, Ophites, Basilideans and Valentinians, etc., see, further, the close of the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora in Epiphan H. 33. 7 [Greek: Mathaesae exes kai ten toutou archen te ka kennesin, axioumene tes apostolikes paradoseos. he ek diadoches kai hemeis pareilephamen meta kairou] [sic] [Greek: kanonisai pantas tous logous tei tou soteros didaskalia], as well as the pa.s.sages adduced above under (2)). From this it further follows that the Gnostics may have compiled their Canon solely according to the principle of Apostolic origin. Upon the whole we may see here how foolish it is to seek to dispose of Gnosticism with the phrase lawless fancies. On the contrary, the Gnostics purposely took their stand on the tradition, nay they were the first in Christendom who determined the range, contents and manner of propagating the tradition. They are thus the first Christian theologians.]

[Footnote 349: Here also we have a point of unusual historical importance. As we first find a new Canon among the Gnostics so also among them (and in Marcion) we first meet with the traditional complex of the Christian _Kerygma_ as a doctrinal confession (_regula fidei_), that is, as a confession which, because it is fundamental, needs a speculative exposition, but is set forth by this exposition as the summary of all wisdom. The hesitancy about the details of the _Kerygma_, only shews the general uncertainty which at that time prevailed. But again, we see that the later Valentinians completely accommodated themselves to the later development in the Church (Tertull. adv. Valent.

I: communem fidem adfirmant) that is attached themselves, probably even from the first, to the existing forms, while in the Marcionite Church a peculiar _regula_ was set up by a criticism of the tradition. The _regula_ as a matter of course, was regarded as Apostolic. On Gnostic _regulae_ see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3, II. praef. II. 19. 8, III. II. 3, III. 16. 1, 5, Ptolem. ap Epiph. h. 33. 7, Tertull. adv Valent. I. 4, de praescr. 42, adv Marc. I. 1, IV. 5, 17, Ep. Petri ad Jacob in Clem. Hom.

c. 1. We still possess in great part verbatim the _regula_ of Apelles, in Epiphan II. 44, 2 Irenaeus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull (de carne. 20) state that the Valentinian _regula_ contained the formula, '[Greek: gennethenta dia Marias]', see on this p. 203. In noting that the two points so decisive for Catholicism the Canon of the New Testament and the Apostolic _regula_ were first, in the strict sense, set up by the Gnostics on the basis of a definite fixing and systematising of the oldest tradition we may see that the weakness of Gnosticism here consisted in its inability to exhibit the publicity of tradition and to place its propagation in close connection with the organisation of the churches.]

[Footnote 350: We do not know the relation in which the Valentinians placed the public Apostolic _regula fidei_ to the secret doctrine derived from one Apostle. The Church in opposition to the Gnostics strongly emphasised the publicity of all tradition. Yet afterwards though with reservations, she gave a wide scope to the a.s.sumption of a secret tradition.]

[Footnote 351: The Gnostics transferred to the Evangelic writings, and demanded as simply necessary, the methods which Barnabas and others used in expounding the Old Testament (see the samples of their exposition in Irenaeus and Clement. Heinrici, l. c.). In this way, of course, all the specialties of the systems may be found in the doc.u.ments. The Church at first condemned this method (Tertull. de praescr. 17-19. 39; Iren. I. 8.

9), but applied it herself from the moment in which she had adopted a New Testament Canon of equal authority with that of the Old Testament.

However, the distinction always remained, that in the confrontation of the two Testaments with the views of getting proofs from prophecy, the history of Jesus described in the Gospels was not at first allegorised.

Yet afterwards, the Christological dogmas of the third and following centuries demanded a docetic explanation of many points in that history.]

[Footnote 352: In the Valentinian, as well as in all systems not coa.r.s.ely dualistic, the Redeemer Christ has no doubt a certain share in the const.i.tution of the highest cla.s.s of men, but only through complicated mediations. The significance which is attributed to Christ in many systems for the production or organisation of the upper world, may be mentioned. In the Valentinian system there are several mediators.

It may be noted that the abstract conception of the divine primitive Being seldom called forth a real controversy. As a rule, offence was taken only at the expression.]

[Footnote 353: The Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora is very instructive here.

If we leave out of account the peculiar Gnostic conception, we have represented in Ptolemy's criticism the later Catholic view of the Old Testament, as well as also the beginning of a historical conception of it. The Gnostics were the first critics of the Old Testament in Christendom. Their allegorical exposition of the Evangelic writings should be taken along with their attempts at interpreting the Old Testament literally and historically. It may be noted, for example, that the Gnostics were the first to call attention to the significance of the change of name for G.o.d in the Old Testament; see Iren. II. 35.. 3. The early Christian tradition led to a procedure directly the opposite.

Apelles, in particular, the disciple of Marcion, exercised an intelligent criticism on the Old Testament, see my treatise, "de Apellis gnosi." p. 71 sq., and also Texte u. Unters VI. 3. p. 111 ff. Marcion himself recognised the historical contents of the Old Testament as reliable, and the criticism of most Gnostics only called in question its religious value.]

[Footnote 354: Ecclesiastical opponents rightly put no value on the fact, that some Gnostics advanced to Pan-Satanism with regard to the conception of the world, while others beheld a certain _just.i.tia civilis_ ruling in the world. For the standpoint which the Christian tradition had marked out, this distinction is just as much a matter of indifference, as the other, whether the Old Testament proceeded from an evil, or from an intermediate being. The Gnostics attempted to correct the judgment of faith about the world and its relation to G.o.d, by an empiric view of the world. Here again they are by no means "visionaries", however fantastic the means by which they have expressed their judgment about the condition of the world, and attempted to explain that condition. Those, rather are "visionaries" who give themselves up to the belief that the world is the work of a good and omnipotent Deity, however apparently reasonable the arguments they adduce. The Gnostic (h.e.l.lenistic) philosophy of religion, at this point, comes into the sharpest opposition to the central point of the Old Testament Christian belief, and all else really depends on this.

Gnosticism is antichristian so far as it takes away from Christianity its Old Testament foundation, and belief in the ident.i.ty of the creator of the world with the supreme G.o.d. That was immediately felt and noted by its opponents.]

[Footnote 355: The ecclesiastical opposition was long uncertain on this point. It is interesting to note that Basilides portrayed the sin inherent in the child from birth, in a way that makes one feel as though he were listening to Augustine (see the fragment from the 23rd book of the [Greek: Exegetika] in Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 83). But it is of great importance to note how even very special later terminologies, dogmas, etc., of the Church, were in a certain way antic.i.p.ated by the Gnostics.

Some samples will be given below; but meanwhile we may here refer to a fragment from Apelles' Syllogisms in Ambrosius (de Parad. V. 28): "Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autcm per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: nonne videtur plus sibi h.o.m.o adquirere, quam ei deus contulit?" One seems here to be transferred into the fifth century.]

[Footnote 356: The Gnostic teaching did not meet with a vigorous resistance even on this point, and could also appeal to the oldest tradition. The arbitrariness in the number, derivation and designation of the aeons was contested. The aversion to barbarism also co-operated here, in so far as Gnosticism delighted in mysterious words borrowed from the Semites. But the Semitic element attracted as well as repelled the Greeks and Romans of the second century. The Gnostic terminologies within the aeon speculations were partly reproduced among the Catholic theologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics have already made use of the concept "[Greek: h.o.m.oousios]"; see Iren., I. 5. 1: [Greek: alla to men pneumatikon me dedunesthai auten morphosai, epeide h.o.m.oousion huperchen autei] (said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4, [Greek: ka touton einai ton kat' eikona kai h.o.m.oiosin gegonota; kat'

eikona men ton hulikon huparchein, paraplesion men, all' ouch h.o.m.oousion toi theoi kath' h.o.m.oiosin de ton psuchikon.] I. 5. 5: [Greek: to de kuema tes metros tes "Achamoth", h.o.m.oousion huparchon tei metri.] In all these cases the word means "of one substance." It is found in the same sense in Clem., Hom. 20. 7: See also Philos. VII. 22; Clem., Exc. Theod.

42. Other terms also which have acquired great significance in the Church since the days of Origen, (e.g., [Greek: agennetos]), are found among the Gnostics, see Ep. Ptol. ad Floram, 5; and Bigg. (1. c. p. 58, note 3) calls attention to the appearance [Greek: trias] in Excerpt. ex.

Theod. -- 80, perhaps the earliest pa.s.sage.]

[Footnote 357: The characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not Docetism, in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures, that is, the distinction between Jesus and Christ, or the doctrine that the Redeemer as Redeemer was not a man. The Gnostics based this view on the inherent sinfulness of human nature, and it was shared by many teachers of the age without being based on any principle (see above, p. 195 f.).

The most popular of the three Christologies briefly characterised above was undoubtedly that of the Valentinians. It is found, with great variety of details, in most of the nameless fragments of Gnostic literature that have been preserved, as well as in Apelles. This Christology might be accommodated to the accounts of the Gospels and the baptismal confession (how far is shewn by the _regula_ of Apelles, and that of the Valentinians may have run in similar terms). It was taught here that Christ had pa.s.sed through Mary as a channel; from this doctrine followed very easily the notion of the Virginity of Mary, uninjured even after the birth--it was already known to Clem. Alex.

(Strom. VII. 16. 93). The Church also, later on, accepted this view. It is very difficult to get a clear idea of the Christology of Basilides, as very diverse doctrines were afterwards set up in his school as is shewn by the accounts. Among them is the doctrine, likewise held by others, that Christ in descending from the highest heaven took to himself something from every sphere through which he pa.s.sed. Something similar is found among the Valentinians, some of whose prominent leaders made a very complicated phenomenon of Christ, and gave him also a direct relation to the demiurge. There is further found here the doctrine of the heavenly humanity, which was afterwards accepted by ecclesiastical theologians. Along with the fragments of Basilides the account of Clem.

Alex. seems to me the most reliable. According to this, Basilides taught that Christ descended on the man Jesus at the baptism. Some of the Valentinians taught something similar: the Christology of Ptolemy is characterised by the union of all conceivable Christology theories. The different early Christian conceptions may be found in him. Basilides did not admit a real union between Christ and Jesus; but it is interesting to see how the Pauline Epistles caused the theologians to view the sufferings of Christ as necessarily based on the a.s.sumption of sinful flesh, that is, to deduce from the sufferings that Christ has a.s.sumed sinful flesh. The Basilidean Christology will prove to be a peculiar preliminary stage of the later ecclesiastical Christology. The anniversary of the baptism of Christ was to the Basilideans, as the day of the [Greek: epiphaneia], a high festival day (see Clem., Strom. I.

21. 146): they fixed it for the 6th (2nd) January. And in this also the Catholic Church has followed the Gnosis. The real docetic Christology as represented by Saturninus (and Marcion) was radically opposed to the tradition, and struck out the birth of Jesus, as well as the first 30 years of his life. An accurate exposition of the Gnostic Christologies, which would carry us too far here, (see especially Tertull., de carne Christi), would shew, that a great part of the questions which occupy Church theologians till the present day, were already raised by the Gnostics; for example, what happened to the body of Christ after the resurrection? (see the doctrines of Apelles and Hermogenes); what significance the appearance of Christ had for the heavenly and Satanic powers? what meaning belongs to his sufferings, although there was no real suffering for the heavenly Christ, but only for Jesus? etc. In no other point do the antic.i.p.ations in the Gnostic dogmatic stand out so plainly (see the system of Origen; many pa.s.sages bearing on the subject will be found in the third and fourth volumes of this work, to which readers are referred). The Catholic Church has learned but little from the Gnostics, that is, from the earliest theologians in Christendom, in the doctrine of G.o.d and the world, but very much in Christology, and who can maintain that she has ever completely overcome the Gnostic doctrine of the two natures, nay, even Docetism? Redemption viewed in the historical person of Jesus, that is, in the appearance of a Divine being on the earth, but the person divided and the real history of Jesus explained away and made inoperative, is the signature of the Gnostic Christology--this, however, is also the danger of the system of Origen and those systems that are dependent on him (Docetism) as well as, in another way, the danger of the view of Tertullian and the Westerns (doctrine of two natures). Finally, it should be noted that the Gnosis always made a distinction between the supreme G.o.d and Christ, but that, from the religious position, it had no reason for emphasising that distinction. For to many Gnostics, Christ was in a certain way the manifestation of the supreme G.o.d himself, and therefore in the more popular writings of the Gnostics (see the Acta Johannis) expressions are applied to Christ which seem to identify him with G.o.d. The same thing is true of Marcion and also of Valentinus (see his Epistle in Clem., Strom.

II. 20. 114: [Greek: eis de estin agathos. ou parousia he dia tou huiou phanerosis]). This Gnostic estimate of Christ has undoubtedly had a mighty influence on the later Church development of Christology. We might say without hesitation that to most Gnostics Christ was a [Greek: pneuma h.o.m.oousion toi patri]. The details of the life, sufferings and resurrection of Jesus are found in many Gnostics, transformed, complemented and arranged in the way in which Celsus (Orig., c. Cels. I.

II.) required for an impressive and credible history. Celsus indicates how everything must have taken place if Christ had been a G.o.d in human form. The Gnostics in part actually narrate it so. What an instructive coincidence! How strongly the docetic view itself was expressed in the case of Valentinus, and how the exaltation of Jesus above the earthly was thereby to be traced back to his moral struggle, is shewn in the remarkable fragment of a letter (in Clem., Strom. III. 7. 59): [Greek: Panta hupomeinas egkrates ten theoteta Iesous eirgazeto. esthien gar kai apien idios ouk apodidous ta bromata, tosaute en autoi tes egkrateias dunamis, hoste kai me phtharenai ten trophen en autoi epei to phtheresthai autos ouk eichen]. In this notion, however, there is more sense and historical meaning than in that of the later ecclesiastical aphtharto-docetism.]

[Footnote 358: The Gnostic distinction of cla.s.ses of men was connected with the old distinction of stages in spiritual understanding, but has its basis in a law of nature. There were again empirical and psychological views--they must have been regarded as very important, had not the Gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philosophic schools--which made the universalism of the Christian preaching of salvation, appear unacceptable to the Gnostics. Moreover, the transformation of religion into a doctrine of the school, or into a mystery cult, always resulted in the distinction of the knowing from the _profanum vulgus_. But in the Valentinian a.s.sumption that the common Christians as psychical occupy an intermediate stage, and that they are saved by faith, we have a compromise which completely lowered the Gnosis to a scholastic doctrine within Christendom. Whether and in what way the Catholic Church maintained the significance of Pistis as contrasted with Gnosis, and in what way the distinction between the knowing (priests) and the laity was there reached, will be examined in its proper place.

It should be noted, however, that the Valentinian, Ptolemy, ascribes freedom of will to the psychic (which the pneumatic and hylic lack), and therefore has sketched by way of by-work a theology for the psychical beside that for the pneumatic, which exhibits striking harmonies with the exoteric system of Origen. The denial by Gnosticism of free will, and therewith of moral responsibility, called forth very decided contradiction. Gnosticism, that is, the acute h.e.l.lenising of Christianity, was wrecked in the Church on free will, the Old Testament and eschatology.]