Orig. Hom. 34. The Marcionite Antitheses were probably spread among
other Gnostic sects. The Fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the
Gnostics were united against the church: Tertullian de præscr 42: "Et
hoc est, quod schismata apud hæreticos fere non sunt, quia cum sint, non
parent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa." They certainly also delight in
emphasising the contradictions of the different schools; but they cannot
point to any earnest conflict of these schools with each other. We know
definitely that Bardasanes argued against the earlier Gnostics, and
Ptolemæus against Marcion.]
[Footnote 313: See the collection, certainly not complete, of Gnostic
fragments by Grabe (Spicileg.) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte). Our
books on the history of Gnosticism take far too little notice of these
fragments as presented to us, above all, by Clement and Origen, and
prefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the Fathers about the
"Systems", (better in Heinrici: Valent. Gnosis, 1871). The vigorous
efforts of the Gnostics to understand the Pauline and Johannine ideas,
and their in part surprisingly rational and ingenious solutions of
intellectual problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. Who
would guess, for example, from what is currently known of the system of
Basilides, that, according to Clement, the following proceeds from him,
(Strom. IV. 12. 18): [Greek: hôs autos phêsin ho Basileidês, en meros ek
tou legomenou thelêmatos tou theou hupeilêphamen, to êgapêkenai hapanta.
hoti logon aposôzousi pros to pan hapanta; heteron de to mêdenos
epithumein, kai to triton misein mêde hen], and where do we find, in the
period before Clement of Alexandria, faith in Christ united with such
spiritual maturity and inner freedom as in Valentinians, Ptolemæus and
Heracleon?]
[Footnote 314: Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the
difference between the solution of Valentinus, for example, and his
disciple Ptolemæus. "Ptolemæus nomina et numeros Æonum distinxit in
personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in
ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat." It is,
moreover, important that Tertullian himself should distinguish this so
clearly.]
[Footnote 315: There is nothing here more instructive than to hear the
judgments of the cultured Greeks and Romans about Christianity, as soon
as they have given up the current gross prejudices. They shew with
admirable clearness, the way in which Gnosticism originated. Galen says
(quoted by Gieseler, Church Hist. 1. 1. 41): "Hominum plerique orationem
demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut
instituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos,
qui Christian! vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen
interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem
contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia
quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearum abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos
feminæ et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam
qui in animis regendis coërcendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio
eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus." Christians,
therefore, are philosophers without philosophy. What a challenge for
them to produce such, that is to seek out the latent philosophy! Even
Celsus could not but admit a certain relationship between Christians and
philosophers. But as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the
Christians could neither include nor endure a philosophy, he declared
that the moral doctrines of the Christians were borrowed from the
philosophers (I. 4). In course of his presentation (V. 65; VI. 12.
15-19, 42; VII. 27-35) he deduces the most decided marks of
Christianity, as well as the most important sayings of Jesus from
(misunderstood) statements of Plato and other Greek philosophers. This
is not the place to shew the contradictions in which Celsus was involved
by this. But it is of the greatest significance that even this
intelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something
precious. The whole of Christianity from its very origin appeared to
Celsus (in one respect) precisely as the Gnostic systems appear to us,
that is, these really are what Christianity as such seemed to Celsus to
be. Besides, it was constantly asserted up to the fifth century that
Christ had drawn from Plato's writings. Against those who made this
assertion, Ambrosius (according to Augustine, Ep. 31. c. 8) wrote a
treatise which unfortunately is no longer in existence.]
[Footnote 316: The Simonian system at most might be named, on the basis
of the syncretistic religion founded by Simon Magus. But we know little
about it, and that little is uncertain. Parallel attempts are
demonstrable in the third century on the basis of various "revealed"
fundamental ideas ([Greek: hê ek logíôn philosophia]).]
[Footnote 317: Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenæus (I.
29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called Ophites, Peratæ,
Sethites and the school of the Gnostic Justin (Hippol. Philosoph. V.
6-28). There is no reason for regarding them as earlier or more Oriental
than the Valentinians, as is done by Hilgenfeld against Baur, Möller,
and Gruber (the Ophites, 1864). See also Lipsius, "Ophit. Systeme", i.
d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1863. IV, 1864, I. These schools claimed for
themselves the name Gnostic (Hippol. Philosoph. V. 6). A part of them,
as is specially apparent from Orig. c. Celsum. VI., is not to be
reckoned Christian. This motley group is but badly known to us through
Epiphanius, much better through the original Gnostic writings preserved
in the Coptic language. (Pistis Sophia and the works published by Carl
Schmidt Texte u. Unters. Bd. VIII.). Yet these original writings belong,
for the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the
important statements of Porphyry in the Vita Plotini, c. 16), and shew a
Gnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild speculations, formulæ,
mysteries, and ceremonial. However, from these very monuments it becomes
plain that Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a ritual system (see
below).]
[Footnote 318: On Marcion, see the following Chapter.]
[Footnote 319: We know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might
refer even to the Epistle to the Romans) there were circles of ascetics
in the Christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law,
under the name of Christian perfection, complete abstinence from
marriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet. (Clem.
Strom. III. 6. 49: [Greek: hupo diabolou tautên paradidosthai
dogmatizousi, mimeisthai d' autous hoi megalanchoi phasi ton kurion mête
gêmanta, mête ti en tôi kosmôi ktêsamenon, mallon para allous nenoêkenai
to euangelion kauchomenoi].--Here then, already, imitation of the poor
life of Jesus, the "Evangelic" life, was the watchword. Tatian wrote a
book, [Greek: peri tou kata ton sôtêra katartismou], that is, on
perfection according to the Redeemer: in which he set forth the
irreconcilability of the worldly life with the Gospel). No doubt now
existed in the Churches that abstinence from marriage, from wine and
flesh, and from possessions, was the perfect fulfilling of the law of
Christ ([Greek: bastazein holon ton zugon tou kuriou]). But in wide
circles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all
boastfulness was forbidden, and the watchword given out: [Greek: hoson
dunasai hagneuseis], which may be understood as a compromise with the
worldly life as well as a reminiscence of a freer morality (see my notes
on Didache, c. 6; 11, 11 and Prolegg. p. 42 ff.). Still, the position
towards asceticism yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was
more and more found in distinguishing a higher and a lower though
sufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it
claimed to be the alone authoritative one. On the other hand, there were
societies of Christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to
all Christians the highest demands of Christ, and thus arose, by
secession, the communities of the Encratites and Severians. But in the
circumstances of the time even they could not but be touched by the
Hellenic mode of thought, to the effect of associating a speculative
theory with asceticism, and thus approximating to Gnosticism. This is
specially plain in Tatian, who connected himself with the Encratites,
and in consequence of the severe asceticism which he prescribed, could
no longer maintain the identity of the supreme God and the creator of
the world (see the fragments of his later writings in the Corp. Apol. ed
Otto. T. VI.). As the Pauline Epistles could furnish arguments to either
side, we see some Gnostics such as Tatian himself, making diligent use
of them, while others such as the Severians, rejected them. (Euseb. H.
E. IV. 29. 5, and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65). The Encratite controversy was,
on the one hand, swallowed up by the Gnostic, and on the other hand,
replaced by the Montanistic. The treatise written in the days of Marcus
Aurelius by a certain Musanus (where?) which contains warnings against
joining the Encratites (Euseb. H. E. IV. 28) we unfortunately no longer
possess.]
[Footnote 320: See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 12. Docetic elements are apparent
even in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter recently discovered.]
[Footnote 321: Here, above all, we have to remember Tatian, who in his
highly praised Apology, had already rejected altogether the eating of
flesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit,
matter, and the nature of man (c. 12 ff.). The fragments of the
Hypotyposes of Clem. of Alex. show how much one had to bear in some
rural Churches at the end of the second century.]
[Footnote 322: See Clem. Strom III. 2. 5; [Greek: Epiphanês, huios
Karpokratous, ezêse ta panta etê heptakaideka kai theos en Samêi tês
Kephallênias tetimêtai, entha autôi hieron rutôn lithôn, bômoi, temenê,
mouseion, ôikodomêtai te kai kathierôtai, kai suniontes eis to hieron
hoi Kaphallênes kata noumênian genethlion apotheôsin thuousin Epiphanei,
spendousi te kai euôchountai kai humnoi legontai]. Clement's quotations
from the writings of Epiphanes shew him to be a pure Platonist: the
proposition that property is theft is found in him. Epiphanes and his
father, Carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate Plato's
State with the Christian ideal of the union of men with each other.
Christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see
Irenæus I. 25. 5: "Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam
quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas
habent..... et has coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi
philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagoræ et Platonis et
Aristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter
ut gentes faciunt."]
[Footnote 323: See the "Gnostics" of Hermas, especially the false
prophet whom he portrays, Mand. XI., Lucian's Peregrinus, and the
Marcus, of whose doings Irenæus (I. 13. ff.) gives such an abominable
picture. To understand how such people were able to obtain a following
so quickly in the Churches, we must remember the respect in which the
"prophets" were held (see Didache XI.). If one had once given the
impression that he had the Spirit, he could win belief for the strangest
things, and could allow himself all things possible (see the
delineations of Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. VII. 9. 11). We hear frequently
of Gnostic prophets and prophetesses, see my notes on Herm. Mand. XI. 1
and Didache XI. 7. If an early Christian element is here preserved by
the Gnostic schools, it has undoubtedly been hellenised and secularised
as the reports shew. But that the prophets altogether were in danger of
being secularised is shewn in Didache XI. In the case of the Gnostics
the process is again only hastened.]
[Footnote 324: The name Gnostic originally attached to schools which had
so named themselves. To these belonged, above all, the so-called
Ophites, but not the Valentinians or Basilideans.]
[Footnote 325: Special attention should be given to this form, as it
became in later times of the very greatest importance for the general
development of doctrine in the Church. The sect of Carpocrates was a
school. Of Tatian Irenæus says (I. 28. 1): [Greek: Tatianos Ioustinou
acroatês gegonais ... meta de tên ekeinou marturian apostas tês
ekklêsias, oiêmati didaskalon epartheis ... idion charaktêr didaskaleiou
sunestêsato]. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite
[Greek: didaskaleion]. Other names were, "Collegium" (Tertull. ad Valen
1), "Secta", the word had not always a bad meaning, [Greek: hairesis,
ekklêsia] (Clem. Strom. VII. 16. 98, on the other hand, VII. 15. 92:
Tertull. de præscr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent), [Greek: thiasos]
(Iren. I. 13. 4, for the Marcosians). [Greek: sunagôgê, sustêma,
diatribê, hai athrôpinai sunêluseis], factiuncula, congregatio,
conciliabulum, conventiculum. The mystery-organisation most clearly
appears in the Naassenes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenæus, and
the Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as in the Coptic-Gnostic documents
that have been preserved. (See Koffmane, above work, pp. 6-22).]
[Footnote 326: The particulars here belong to church history. Overbeck
("Ueber die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur" in d. hist. Ztschr. N.
F. Bd. XII. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out
the importance, for the history of the Church, of the forms of
literature as they were gradually received in Christendom. Scientific,
theological literature has undoubtedly its origin in Gnosticism. The Old
Testament was here, for the first time, systematically and also in part,
historically criticised; a selection was here made from the primitive
Christian literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the
sacred books (Basilides and especially the Valentinians, see Heracleon's
comm. on the Gospel of John [in Origen]); the Pauline Epistles were also
technically expounded; tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic
problems (for example, [Greek: peri dikaiosunês--peri prosphuous
psuchês--êthika--peri enkrateias hê peri eunouchias]), and systematic
doctrinal systems already constructed (as the Basilidean and
Valentinian); the original form of the Gospel was here first transmuted
into the Greek form of sacred novel and biography (see, above all, the
Gospel of Thomas, which was used by the Marcosians and Naassenes, and
which contained miraculous stories from the childhood of Jesus); here,
finally, psalms, odes and hymns were first composed (see the Acts of
Lucius, the psalms of Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander the disciple
of Valentinus, the poems of Bardesanes). Irenæus, Tertullian and
Hippolytus have indeed noted, that the scientific method of
interpretation followed by the Gnostics, was the same as that of the
philosophers (e.g., of Philo). Valentinus, as is recognised even by the
Church Fathers, stands out prominent for his mental vigour and religious
imagination, Heracleon for his exegetic theological ability, Ptolemy for
his ingenious criticism of the Old Testament and his keen perception of
the stages of religious development (see his Epistle to Flora in
Epiphanius, hær. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of the language of Valentinus
one extract from a homily may suffice (in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89).
[Greek: Ap archês athanatoi este kai tekna zôês este aiônias, kai ton
thanaton êthelete merisasthai eis heautous, hina dapanêsête auton kai
analôsête, kai apothanê ho thanatos en humin kai di' humôn, hotan gar
ton men kosmon luête, autoi de mê kataluêsthe, kurieuete tês kriseôs kai
tês phthoras apasês.] Basilides falls into the background behind
Valentinus and his school. Yet the Church Fathers, when they wish to
summarise the most important Gnostics, usually mention Simon Magus,
Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion (even Apelles). On the relation of the
Gnostics to the New Testament writings, and to the New Testament, see
Zahn, Gesch. des N. T-lichen Kanons I. 2, p. 718.]
[Footnote 327: Baur's classification of the Gnostic systems, which rests
on the observation of how they severally realised the idea of
Christianity as the absolute religion, in contrast to Judaism and
Heathenism, is very ingenious, and contains a great element of truth.
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 præscr. 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 "Hellenistische 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. für
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 circumstances, 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 gods 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,
Irenæus, Hippolytus), not only have nothing improbable in them, but suit
very well the religious circumstances which we must assume for Samaria.
The main point in Simon is his endeavour to create a universal religion
of the supreme God. 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 biassed 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 assumption requires a fresh investigation.]
[Footnote 335: Justin, Apol. I. 26: [Greek: kai schedon pantes men
Samareis, oligoi de kai en allois ethnesin, hôs ton prôton theon Simôna
homologountes, 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: Megalê 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, Irenæus
(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 God of the Old Testament to be regarded as an
Angel of the supreme God, while at the same time he distinguished him
from Satan. Accordingly, he assumed that the supreme God 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
classes 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 God 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 Æon
Christ, who assumed 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 coarser. (Iren. I. 27. 1, Hippolyt. and the redactions). He
contrasted the good God and the God 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 God 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 documents, 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 hæreticos." Iren. I. 1.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35;
Orig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech. Lomm. XIV. p. 40: "Valentini robustissima
secta").]
[Footnote 341: Tertull. de præscr. 42: "De verbi autem administratione
quid dicam, cum 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 ædificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra
suffodiunt, ut sua ædificent. 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: Kerdôn eis tên ekklêsian elthôn
kai exomologoumenos, houtôs dietelete, pote men lathrodidaskalôn pote de
palin exomologoumenos, pote de eleggomenos eph hois edidaske kakôs, kai
aphistamenos tês tôn adelphôn sunodias], see, besides, the valuable
account of Tertull. de præscr. 30. The account of Irenæus (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 orthognômenes kata panta christanoi eisin] (Dial.
80).]
[Footnote 344: Very important is the description which Irenæus (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 prædicant; si tamen prædicant qui occultant.
Custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est (a comparison with the
Eleusinian mysteries follows.) Si bona fide quæras, concreto vultu,
suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per
ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire te subostendas
negant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua
cæde 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 præscr. 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 associations could only exist by finding support
in a church. Irenæus expressly remarks that the Valentinians designated
the common Christians [Greek: katholikoi] (communes) [Greek: kai
ekklêsiastikoi], 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:
pístis] to [Greek: gnôsis]). (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 God, 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 rôle. The Gnostics sought to establish or conserve
associations 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
document of revelation, and gave it a Christian interpretation, did not
at first need a new document, 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 Naassenes, Peratæ,
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 præscr. 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
præscr.) 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 assumption 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 præscr. 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 præscr. 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 Naassenes, Ophites, Basilideans and
Valentinians, etc., see, further, the close of the Epistle of Ptolemy to
Flora in Epiphan H. 33. 7 [Greek: Mathaesae exês kai tên toutou archên
te ka kennêsin, axioumenê tês apostolikês paradoseos. hê ek diadochês
kai hêmeis pareilêphamen meta kairou] [sic] [Greek: kanonisai pantas
tous logous têi tou sôtêros didaskalia], as well as the passages 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
_regulæ_ see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3, II. præf. II. 19. 8, III. II. 3,
III. 16. 1, 5, Ptolem. ap Epiph. h. 33. 7, Tertull. adv Valent. I. 4, de
præscr. 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 Irenæus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull (de carne. 20) state
that the Valentinian _regula_ contained the formula, '[Greek:
gennêthenta 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 assumption 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
Irenæus and Clement. Heinrici, l. c.). In this way, of course, all the
specialties of the systems may be found in the documents. The Church at
first condemned this method (Tertull. de præscr. 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
coarsely dualistic, the Redeemer Christ has no doubt a certain share in
the constitution of the highest class 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 God 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 _justitia
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 God, 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 (Hellenistic) 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 identity of the creator
of the world with the supreme God. 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: Exêgêtika] 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 anticipated 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
homo 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 Æons 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 Æon 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: homoousios]"; see Iren.,
I. 5. 1: [Greek: alla to men pneumatikon mê dedunêsthai autên morphôsai,
epeidê homoousion hupêrchen autêi] (said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4,
[Greek: kaì touton einai ton kat' eikona kai homoiôsin gegonota; kat'
eikona men ton hulikon huparchein, paraplêsion men, all' ouch homoousion
tôi theôi kath' homoiôsin de ton psuchikon.] I. 5. 5: [Greek: to de
kuêma tês mêtros tês "Achamôth", homoousion huparchon têi mêtri.] 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: agennêtos]), 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 passage.]
[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 passed 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 passed. 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 assumption of sinful
flesh, that is, to deduce from the sufferings that Christ has assumed
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 anticipations in the Gnostic dogmatic stand out so
plainly (see the system of Origen; many passages 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 God 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 God 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 God 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 God. 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 hê dia tou huiou
phanerôsis]). 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 homoousion tôi 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 God 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 êgkratês tên theotêta Iêsous eirgazeto. êsthien gar kai
apien idiôs ouk apodidous ta brômata, tosautê ên autôi tês egkrateias
dunamis, hôste kai mê phtharênai tên trophên en autôi 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 classes 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 assumption 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 hellenising of
Christianity, was wrecked in the Church on free will, the Old Testament
and eschatology.]
[Footnote 359: The greatest deviation of Gnosticism from tradition
appears in eschatology, along with the rejection of the Old Testament
and the separation of the creator of the world from the supreme God.
Upon the whole our sources say very little about the Gnostic
eschatology. This, however, is not astonishing; for the Gnostics had not
much to say on the matter, or what they had to say found expression in
their doctrine of the genesis of the world, and that of redemption
through Christ. We learn that the _regula_ of Apelles closed with the
words: [Greek: aneptê eis ouranon hothen kai hêke], instead of [Greek:
hothen erchetai krinai zôntas kai nekrous]. We know that Marcion, who
may already be mentioned here, referred the whole eschatological
expectations of early Christian times to the province of the god of the
Jews, and we hear that Gnostics (Valentinians) retained the words
[Greek: sarkos anastasin], but interpreted them to mean that one must
rise in this life, that is perceive the truth (thus the "resurrectio a
mortuis", that is, exaltation above the earthly, took the place of the
"resurrectio mortuorum"; See Iren. II. 31. 2: Tertull., de resurr.
carnis, 19). While the Christian tradition placed a great drama at the
close of history, the Gnostics regard the history itself as the drama,
which virtually closes with the (first) appearing of Christ. It may not
have been the opinion of all Gnostics that the resurrection has already
taken place, yet for most of them the expectations of the future seem to
have been quite faint, and above all without significance. The life is
so much included in knowledge, that we nowhere in our sources find a
strong expression of hope in a life beyond (it is different in the
earliest Gnostic documents preserved in the Coptic language), and the
introduction of the spirits into the Pleroma appears very vague and
uncertain. But it is of great significance that those Gnostics who,
according to their premises, required a real redemption from the world
as the highest good, remained finally in the same uncertainty and
religious despondency with regard to this redemption, as characterised
the Greek philosophers. A religion which is a philosophy of religion
remains at all times fixed to this life, however strongly it may
emphasise the contrast between the spirit and its surroundings, and
however ardently it may desire redemption. The desire for redemption is
unconsciously replaced by the thinker's joy in his knowledge, which
allays the desire (Iren. III. 15. 2: "Inflatus est iste [scil. the
Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in coelo, neque in terra putat se
esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum
institorio et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem habens....
Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse
jam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum"). As in
every philosophy of religion, an element of free thinking appears very
plainly here also. The eschatological hopes can only have been
maintained in vigour by the conviction that the world is of God. But we
must finally refer to the fact, that even in eschatology, Gnosticism
only drew the inferences from views which were pressing into Christendom
from all sides, and were in an increasing measure endangering its hopes
of the future. Besides, in some Valentinian circles, the future life was
viewed as a condition of education, as a progress through the series of
the (seven) heavens; i.e., purgatorial experiences in the future were
postulated. Both afterwards, from the time of Origen, forced their way
into the doctrine of the Church (purgatory, different ranks in heaven),
Clement and Origen being throughout strongly influenced by the
Valentinian eschatology.]
[Footnote 360: See the passage Clem. Strom. III. 6, 49, which is given
above, p. 238.]
[Footnote 361: Cf. the Apocryphal Acts of Apostles and diverse legends
of Apostles (e.g., in Clem. Alex.).]
[Footnote 362: More can hardly be said: the heads of schools were
themselves earnest men. No doubt statements such as that of Heracleon
seem to have led to laxity in the lower sections of the collegium:
[Greek: homologian einai tên men en têi pistei kai politeiai. tên de en
phônêi; hê mên oun en phônêi homologia kai epi tôn exousiôn ginetai, hên
monên homologian hêgountai einai hoi polloi, ouch hugiôs dunantai de
tautên tên homologian kai hoi hupokritai homologein.]]
[Footnote 363: See Epiph. h. 26, and the statements in the Coptic
Gnostic works. (Schmidt, Texte u Unters. VIII. 1. 2, p. 566 ff.).]
[Footnote 364: There arose in this way an extremely difficult
theoretical problem, but practically a convenient occasion for throwing
asceticism altogether overboard, with the Gnostic asceticism, or
restricting it to easy exercises. This is not the place for entering
into the details. Shibboleths, such as [Greek: pheugete ou tas phuseis
alla tas gnômas tôn kakôn], may have soon appeared. It may be noted
here, that the asceticism which gained the victory in Monasticism, was
not really that which sprang from early Christian, but from Greek
impulses, without, of course, being based on the same principle.
Gnosticism anticipated the future even here. That could be much more
clearly proved in the history of the worship. A few points which are of
importance for the history of dogma may be mentioned here: (1) The
Gnostics viewed the traditional sacred actions (Baptism and the Lord's
Supper) entirely as mysteries, and applied to them the terminology of
the mysteries (some Gnostics set them aside as psychic); but in doing so
they were only drawing the inferences from changes which were then in
process throughout Christendom. To what extent the later Gnosticism in
particular was interested in sacraments, may be studied especially in
the Pistis Sophia and the other Coptic works of the Gnostics, which Carl
Schmidt has edited; see, for example, Pistis Sophia, p. 233. "Dixit
Jesus ad suos [Greek: mathêtas; amên] dixi vobis, haud adduxi quidquam
in [Greek: kosmon] veniens nisi hunc ignem et hanc aquam et hoc vinum et
hunc sanguinem." (2) They increased the holy actions by the addition of
new ones, repeated baptisms (expiations), anointing with oil, sacrament
of confirmation [Greek: apolutrôsis]; see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren.
I. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336-343, and cf. the
[Greek: puknôs metanosusi] in the delineation of the Shepherd of Hermas.
Mand. XI. (3) Marcus represented the wine in the Lord's Supper as actual
blood in consequence of the act of blessing: see Iren., I. 13.2: [Greek:
potêria oinô kekramena prospoioumenos eucharistein kai epi pleon
ekteinôn ton logon tês epiklêseôs, porphurea kai eruthra anaphainesthai
poiei, hôs dokein tên apo tôn huper ta hola charin to haima to heautês
stazein en ekeinô tô potêriô dia tês epiklêseôs autou, kai
huperimeiresthai tous parontas ex ekeinou geusasthai tou pomatos, hina
kai eis autous epombrêsê hê dia tou magou toutou klêizomenê charis.]
Marcus was indeed a charlatan; but religious charlatanry afterwards
became very earnest, and was certainly taken earnestly by many adherents
of Marcus. The transubstantiation idea, in reference to the elements in
the mysteries, is also plainly expressed in the Excerpt. ex. Theodot. §
82: [Greek: kai ho artos kai to elaion agiazetai tê dunamei tou onomatos
ou ta auta onta kata to phainomenon dia elêphthê, alla du amei eis
dunamin pneumatikên metabeblêtai] (that is, not into a new
super-terrestrial material, not into the real body of Christ, but into a
spiritual power) [Greek: outôs kai to hudôr kai to exorkizomenon kai to
baptisma ginomenon ou monon chôrei to cheiron, alla kai agiasmon
proslambanei]. Irenæus possessed a liturgical handbook of the
Marcionites, and communicates many sacramental formula from it (I. c. 13
sq). In my treatise on the Pistis Sophia (Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. pp.
59-94) I think I have shewn ("The common Christian and the Catholic
elements of the Pistis Sophia") to what extent Gnosticism anticipated
Catholicism as a system of doctrine and an institute of worship. These
results have been strengthened by Carl Schmidt (Texte u. Unters. VIII.
1. 2). Even purgatory, prayers for the dead, and many other things,
raised in speculative questions and definitely answered, are found in
those Coptic Gnostic writings, and are then met with again in
Catholicism. One general remark may be permitted in conclusion. The
Gnostics were not interested in apologetics, and that is a very
significant fact. The [Greek: pneuma] in man was regarded by them as a
supernatural principle, and on that account they are free from all
rationalism and moralistic dogmatism. For that very reason they are in
earnest with the idea of revelation, and do not attempt to prove it or
convert its contents into natural truths. They did endeavour to prove
that their doctrines were Christian, but renounced all proof that
revelation is the truth (proofs from antiquity). One will not easily
find in the case of the Gnostics themselves, the revealed truth
described as philosophy, or morality as the philosophic life. If we
compare therefore, the first and fundamental system of Catholic
doctrine, that of Origen, with the system of the Gnostics, we shall find
that Origen, like Basilides and Valentinus, was a philosopher of
revelation, but that he had besides a second element which had its
origin in apologetics.]