notwithstanding the opposition of Tertullian, appears to have been unmolested in Rome on account of his doctrine." But

Theodotus (ó OKVTEús) who had come to Rome from Byzantium about the same time, was excluded from church-communion by Victor, when he declared Christ to be a mere man; and his disciples (Theodotus ó rрanεirns, Asclepiades, Natalius Confessor) continued to exist in Rome for some time separated from the church. By means of these Theodotians, however, the Monarchian doctrine generally became so notorious, that Artemon (Artemas) under bishop Zephyrinus, although he did not agree with the Theodotians, was included in the same class with them, and attacked in various writings." Hence this theory was rendered suspicious every where, even in Asia where it took its rise; and Noetus was excommunicated in Smyrna (about 230) on account of his doctrine, which harmonized with that of Praxeas.8 On the other hand, Origen succeeded in

5 Tertull. adv. Prax. 1. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua: et manet chirographum apud Psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est: exinde silentium. App. 1. de Praescr. 53: Post hos omnes etiam Praxeas quidam haeresin introduxit, quam Victorinus (Victor?) corroborare curavit. Cf. note 7.

• Comp. the extracts from the anonymous work against Artemon apud Euseb. v. 28, which designates Theodotus as the πρῶτον εἰπόντα ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν Χριστόν. Append. 1. de Praescr. 53: Ex Spiritu quidem Sancto natum, ex virgine, sed hominem solitarium atque nudum, nullo alio prae ceteris nisi sola justitiae auctoritate. Alter post hunc Theodotus (Trapezita) haereticus erupit, qui et ipse introduxit alteram sectam, et ipsum hominem Christum-inferiorem esse quam Melchisedech, eo quod dictum sit de Christo: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech (Hebr. vii. 21). Nam illum Melchisedech praecipuae gratiae coelestem esse virtutem: eo, quod agat Christus pro hominibus, deprecator et advocatus ipsorum factus, Melchisedech facere pro coelestibus angelis atque virtutibus. (Melchisedeciani.) According to Theodoret (Haer. fab. comp, 2, 5), even å σμɩкρòç Aаßúρivboç accused them of corrupting the Holy Scriptures.

* From the σπούδασμα κατὰ τῆς ̓Αρτέμωνος αἱρέσεως extracts are given in Euseb. v. 28, in which Artemon, without a clearer explanation of his doctrine, is compared with Theodotus. But the Artemonites asserted, 1. c., тоÙÇ μèν πρоréроvç üπаvтaç Kaì avтоús τοὺς ἀποστόλους παρειληφέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἃ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι· καὶ τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ κηρύγματος μέχρι τῶν Βίκτορος χρόνων,—ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχάραχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. According to these extracts they must have propounded a doctrine different from that of Theodotus, who was excommunicated by Victor, and such a doctrine, too, as might be reconciled with the earlier doctrine of the Roman church still indefinitely expressed. In the same work, § 5, they are reproached with their dialectic tendency (οὐ τί αἱ θεῖαι λέγουσι γραφαὶ ζητοῦντες, ἀλλ' ὁποῖον σχῆμα συλλογισμοῦ εἰς τὴν τῆς ἀθεότητος εὑρεθῇ σύστασιν, φιλοπόνως ἀσκοῦντες), and with their preference for Aristotle and Theophrastus. Theodoret (Haer. fab. comp. 2, 5) gives extracts frem the ouikpòs Aaßpúpulos, written against Theodotus and Artemon, which some falsely ascribe to Origen. When Nicephorus (Hist. eccles. iv. 21) looks upon that oroúdacua of Eusebius as identical with the Aaßúpiv0os of Theodoret, and when Photius (Cod. 48) makes Caius to be the author of both works they advance nothing but conjectures.

• Theodoret Haer. fab. comp. iii. 3, names Epigonus and Cleomenes as Noetus's prede

drawing off Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, from that view, at a council held in that place, in 244 A.D.9 Sabellius, presbyter in Ptolemais (250-260) renewed it in a form still farther developed.10 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, endeavored in vain

cessors. His doctrine: Ἕνα φασὶν εἶναι θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν· ἀφανῆ μὲν ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ἡνίκα ἂν βούληται· καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ ὁρώμε νον, καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον· ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν δὲ ὅτε ἐκ παρθένου γεννηθῆναι ἠθέλησε· ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀθάνατον, καὶ πάλιν αὖ παθητὸν καὶ θνητόν. ἀπαθὴς γὰρ ὢν, φησὶ, τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάθος ἐθελήσας ὑπέμεινε. τοῦτον καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον. He is opposed by Hippolytus contra haeresin Noëti [ed. Fabricii, t. ii. p. 5], which is transcribed by Epiphanius Haer. 57, comp. note 9.

9 Euseb. vi. 33. His doctrine was: Τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν μὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ' ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας· μηδὲ μὴν θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ' ἐμπολιτευομένην αὐτῷ μόνην τὴν πατρικήν. Comp. Origenis fragm. ex libro in epist. ad Titum (from the apology of Pamphilus, Origenis Opp. ed Lommatzsch, v. 287) : Sed et eos, qui hominem dicunt Dominum Jesum praecognitum et praedestinatum, qui ante adventum carnalem substantialiter et proprie non extiterit, sed quod homo natus Patris solam in se habuerit deitatem, ne illos quidem sine periculo est ecclesiae numero sociari: sicut et illos, qui superstitiose magis, quam religiose, uti ne videantur duos deos dicere, neque rursum negare Salvatoris deitatem, unam eandemque subsistentiam Patris ac Filii asseverant, i. e., duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientem, unam tamen ὑπόστασιν subsistere, i. e., unam personam duobus nominibus subjacentem, que latine Patripassiani appellantur. The first opinion is that of Beryllus, the second that of Noetus. C. Ullmanni de Beryllo Bostreno ejusque doctrina comm. Hamb. 1835. 4. (in Halle Christmas programm.)

10 His doctrine according to Basilius Epist. 210: Τὸν αὐτὸν θεόν ἕνα τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ [τῇ ὑποστάσει, Ep. 214] ὄντα, πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστοτε παραπιπτούσας χρείας μεταμορφούμενον (μετασχηματιζόμενον, Ep. 235 : προσωποποιούμενον, Ep. 214), νῦν μὲν ὡς πατέρα, νῦν δὲ ὡς υἱὸν, νῦν δὲ ὡς πνεῦμα ἅγιον διαλέγεσθαι. Cf. Athanas.c. Arian. Or. iv. 11 : Τὸν θεὸν σιωπῶντα μὲν ἀνενέργητον, λαλοῦντα δὲ ἰσχύειν). Theodoret. Haer. fab. comp. ii. 9, Εν μὲν τῇ παλαιᾷ ὡς πατέρα νομοθετῆσαι, ἐν δὲ τῇ καινῇ ὡς υἱὸν ἐνανθρωπῆσαι· ὡς πνεῦμα δὲ ἅγιον τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἐπιφοιτῆσαι.-(τρία πρόσωπα). Pseudo-Greg. Thaumat. ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστις (in Ang. Maji Scriptt. vett. nova collectio, vii. 1, 171) : 'Αποφεύγομεν τὸν Σαβέλλιον λέγοντα τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν· πατέρα μὲν γὰρ λέγει εἶναι τὸν λαλοῦτα, υἱὸν δὲ τὸν λόγον ἐν τῷ πατρὶ μένοντα, καὶ κατὰ καιρὸν τὴς δημιουργίας φαινόμενον, ἔπειτα μετὰ τὴν ἁπάντων πλήρωσιν τῶν πραγμάτων εἰς θεὸν ἀνατρέχοντα. Τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ περί τοῦ πνεύματος λέγει. Athanas. c. Arian. Or. iv. 12: Ἡ μονὰς πλατυνθεῖσα γέγονε τρίας. Ib. 13: Συστέλλεσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἐκτείνεσθαι τὸν θεὸν, respecting this ἔκτασις καὶ συστολή, see the Clementinen und Philo above, § 58, note 13). Ib. 25: Ωσπερ διαιρέσεις χαρισμάτων εἰσὶ, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ αὐτὸς μὲν ἐστι, πλατύνεται δὲ εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα. Arii epist. ad Alexandrum Alex. ap. Epiphan. Haeres. 69: Σαβέλλιος τὴν μονάδα διαιρῶν υἱοπάτορα εἶπεν. (Gregorius Nyss. contra Arium et Sabellium in Ang. Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. viii. ii. 1: Οἱ κατὰ Σαβέλλιονἀναιρεῖν μὲν πειρῶνται τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ υἱοῦ, αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν πατέρα ἕνα ὄντα δυσὶν ὀνόμασι γεραίροντα οἰόμενοι, υἱοπάτορα προσαγορεύουσιν). According to Epiphanius Haer. lxii. 1, he compared the Godhead to the sun, ὄντι μὲν ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει, τρεῖς δὲ ἔχοντι τὰς ἐνεργείας, namely, τὸ τῆς περιφερείας σχῆμα, οι τὸ εἶδος πάσης τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὸ φωτιστικόν, and τὸ θάλπον. The Monas is the divine essence in itself, in its concealed state, which reveals itself in the trias, by interchangeably assuming three characters (πρόσωπα) according to the nature of the revelations. These three πρόσωπα are ὁ πατήρ, ὁ υἱός, τὸ πνεῦμα. The Logos is never called a second prosopon, but it is the Logos which became man, and, as such, took the name ó viós (Athanas. c. Arian. Or. iv. 22: 'Ev ȧpxã pèv hóyov

to refute him by personal interviews and letters, and in unfolding antagonist views, went so far as to make new and objectionable assertions. Sabellians were found so late as the fourth century, in Rome and Mesopotamia. Still greater offense was given by Paul of Samosata, who, being at the same time bishop of Antioch (from 200) and holding a civil office,11 exhibited a vanity and love of display hitherto unexampled in a Christian bishop. While he maintained with strictness the unity of God, he declared Jesus to be a man begotten by the Holy Spirit, on whom the Divine wisdom descending exerted its influence in a peculiar manner. Three councils

12

ἀπλῶς· ὅτε δὲ ἐνηνθρώπησε, τότε ὠνομάσθαι υἱόν). Hence Baur's opinion (Dreieinigkeit, i. 261) is very probable that, in the sense of Sabellius, the Logos, in opposition to the Monas, is the manifested God generally, and that the thrее πооσшла are to be considered as the changing forms of the Logos. If in some accounts the divine essence is styled ó πаτηρ generally, this may have been done by Sabellius, as well as, according to the Catholic doctrine, ó πατηp may even designate the triune God ovalodās. Finally, with regard to the question whether Sabellius considered the рóσшжоν of the Son as a transitory appearance united to the earthly existence of Jesus (as Baur, 1. c. p. 266, thinks), or whether he believed that the person of Christ should cease to be only with the final consummation (according to Neander, i. ii. 1031), Gregory of Nyssa decides in favor of the former view, contra Arium et Sabellium in Ang. Maji Coll. viii. ii. 4: Οἱ δὲ κατὰ Σαβέλλιον-εἰς τὴν μεγίστην τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐκπεπτώκασι πλάνην, οἰόμενοι διὰ μὲν λειποταξίαν ἀνθρωπίνην προεληλυθέναι τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς προσκαίρως· αὖθις δὲ μετὰ τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πλημμελημάτων ἀναλελυκότα ἐνδύναι τε καὶ ἀναμεμίχθαι τῷ πατρί.

11 He was a Ducenarius, Euseb. vii. 30. We must not here think of the Ducenarii whom Augustus created as the fourth decuria of knights, so called because they must have property to the amount of ducena sestertia (Sueton. Octav. c. 32), but the ducenarii procuratores, officers of a higher rank, who had so much yearly revenue, to whom Claudius granted the ornamenta consularia (Sueton. Claud. c. 24), and who still continued under Constantine (Cod. Justin. x. 19, 1).

12 His history is given in Euseb. vii. 27-30. Here also, cap. 30, is found the historical part of the circular letter of the last council of Antioch which was held against him. Doctrinal fragments of the same are given in Leontii Byz. contra Nestor. et Eutych. lib. iii. in the Greek original from a Bodleian MS. apud J. G. Ehrlich diss. de erroribus Pauli Samos. Lips. 1745. 4, p. 23. Among other original documents put together in the collection of councils (apud Mansi, i. 1033), the Epist. Episcoporum ad Paulum is still the most trustworthy. The others are partly suspicious, partly spurious beyond a doubt; such as the epistle of Dionysius Alex. ad Paulum.-Fragments of Paul himself are found in the Contestatio ad Clerum Constantinop. in the Acts of the council of Ephesus apud Mansi v. 393, ap. Leontius, 1. c. In Greek from a Paris MS. in J. G. Feuerlini diss. de haeresi Pauli Sam. Gotting. 1741. 4, p. 10, and in Justiniani Imp. lib. contra Monophysitas in Ang. Maji Nova collect. vii. i. 299: The texts contain much that agrees word for word, and may be supplemented and improved by each other. Besides fragments of Paul ¿k Tõv πρὸς Σαβιανὸν (οι Σαβίνον) λόγων from a Clermont MS. in Feuerlini diss. p. 15, more correctly from a Vatican MS. in Ang. Maji Nova coll. vii. i. 68. The doctrine of Paul was, according to Epiphanius Haer. lxvi. 1: Εν θεῷ ἀεὶ ὄντα τὸν αὐτοῦ Λόγον, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀνθρώπου καρδίᾳ ὁ ἴδιος λόγος: μὴ εἶναι δὲ τὸν υἱὸν ἐνυπόστατον, ἀλλὰ ἐν αὐτῷ θεῷ (ἐπιστήμην ἀνυπόστατον, Epist. Episc. ad Paul)-ἐλθόντα δὲ τὸν Λόγον καὶ ἐνοικήσαντα ἐν Ἰησοῦ ἀνθρώπῳ ὄντι (Epist. synodi Antioch. apud Leontius: οὐ συγγεγεν

At the last of them

were held in Antioch on his account. (269), he was convicted of heresy, by Malchion, his opinion having been hitherto disguised under ambiguous expressions, and deposed from his office.13 But his newly elected successor, bishop Domnus, could not take possession of his office until Zenobia, the patroness of Paul, had been defeated by Aurelian (272). The party of Paul (Samosateniani, Pauliani, Paulianistae) existed till the fourth century."

14

15

ῆσθαι τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ τὴν σοφίαν, ὡς ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, οὐσιωδῶς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ποιότητα).οὐ φάσκει δὲ οὗτος κατὰ τὸν Νόητον τὸν πατέρα πεπονθέναι, ἀλλὰ φησὶ, ἐλθὼν ὁ λόγος ἐνήργησε μόνος, καὶ ἀνῆλθε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. Fragments of Paul's writings: Συνῆλθεν ὁ λόγος τῷ ἐκ Δαβὶδ γεγενημένῳ, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου· καὶ τοῦτον μὲν ἤνεγκεν ἡ παρθένος διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου, ἐκεῖνον δὲ τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν ὁ θεὸς ἄνευ παρθένου καὶ ἄνευ τινὸς οὐδενὸς ὄντος, πλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ· καὶ οὕτως ὑπέστη ὁ λόγος.-"Ανθρωπος χρίεται, λόγος οὐ χρίεται· καὶ γὰρ ὁ λόγος μείζων ἦν τοῦ Χριστοῦ· Χριστὸς γὰρ διὰ σοφίας μέγας ἐγένετο· τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς σοφίας μὴ καθέλωμεν. Λόγος μὲν γὰρ ἄνωθεν, Ἰησοῦς δὲ Χριστὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐντεῦθεν (Epist. Syn. Antioch. apud Euseb. vii. 30, I. Χρ. κάτωθεν). Μαρία τον λόγον οὐκ ἔτεκε τὸν λόγον ὑπεδέξατο ἔτεκεν ἄνθρωπον ἡμῖν ἶσον, κρείττονα δὲ κατὰ πάντα, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.-(Ἡ σοφία) ἐν προφήταις ἦν, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐν Μωσῇ· καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς κυρίοις, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ, ὡς ἐν ναῷ θεοῦ. Ex Pauli sermonibus ad Sabinum: Τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστὸς, πάσχων κατὰ φύσιν, θαυματουργῶν κατὰ χάριν· τῷ γὰρ ἀτρέπτῳ τῆς γνώμης ὁμοιωθεὶς τῷ θεῷ, καὶ μείνας καθαρὸς ἁμαρτίας ἡνώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐνηργήθη ποιεῖσθαι τὴν τῶν θαυμάτων δυναστείαν, ἐξ ὧν μίαν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πρὸς τῇ θελήσει ἐνέργειαν ἔχων δειχθεὶς, λυτρωτὴς τοῦ γένους καὶ σωτὴρ ἐχρημάτισεν.-"Άγιος καὶ δίκαιος γέγονεν ἡμῶν ὁ σωτὴρ, ἀγῶνι καὶ πόνῳ τῆς τοῦ προπάτορος ἡμῶν κρατήσας ἁμαρτίας· οἷς κατορθώσας τὴν ἀρετὴν, συνήφθη τῷ δεῷ, μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν βούλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ταῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν προκοπαῖς ἐσχηκώς· ἣν ἀδιαίρετον φυλάξας, τὸ ὄνομα κληροῦται τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, στοργῆς ἔπαθλον αὐτῷ χαρισθέν.—Μὴ θαυμάσης, ὅτι μίαν μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν εἶχεν ὁ σωτήρ· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ φύσις μίαν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπάρχουσαν φανεροῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὕτως ἡ σχέσις τῆς ἀγάπης μίαν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπάρχουσαν φανεροῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὕτως ἡ σχέσις τῆς ἀγάπης μίαν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐργάζεται θέλησιν διὰ μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φανερουμένης εὐαρεστήσεως. Τὰ κρατούμενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἔπαινον· τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατού μενα ὑπεραίνετα, μίᾳ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ κρατούμενα, διὰ μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας βεβαιούμενα, καὶ τῆς κατ' ἐπαύξησιν οὐδέποτε παυομένης κινήσεως. Καθ' ἣν τῷ θεῷ συναφθεὶς ὁ σωτὴρ οὐδέποτε δέχεται μερισμὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, μίαν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχων θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἀεὶ κινουμένην τῇ φανερώσει τῶν ἀγαθῶν.-J. B. Schwab diss. de Pauli Samos. vita atque doctrina. Herbipoli. 1839. 8. Baur, i. 293. Neander, i. ii. 1035. Meier's Lehre v. d. Trinität, i. 115.

13 It was established by the council: μὴ εἶναι ὁμοούσιον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ πατρι, first mentioned in a letter of the Semiarians about 358, allowed by Athanasius de Synod. 43. Hilarius de Synod. 86. Basilius Epist. 52. On the other side, Prudentius Maranus diss. sur les Semiariens (in Voigtii bibl. hist. haeresiologicae, t. ii. p. 159), Feuerlini diss. Dei filium patri esse ὁμοούσιον, antiqui ecclesiae doctores in Conc. Ant. utrum negarint. Goetting. 1755. 4. Döllinger's K. G. i. i. 269.-Schleiermacher, 1. c. 387, note, thinks that Sabellius first used that expression. That it certainly occurs in the Sabellian controversy is shown below, § 64, note 8.

14 A remarkable command of Aurelian, Euseb. vii. 30, 9 : Τούτοις νείμαι τὸν οἶκον, οἷς ἂν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων πόλιν ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ δόγματος ἐπιστέλλοιεν. 15 The most usual names for all those who asserted τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ

$ 61.

MANICHAEANS.

SPECIAL SOURCES-Archelai (bishop of Cascar about 278). Acta disputationis cum Manete (first in L. A. Zaccagnii collectaneis monumentor. vet. eccl. Graecae et Lat. Romae. 1698. 4; then in J. A. Fabricii ed. opp. Hippolyti vol. ii. Gallandii bibl. Patr. vol. iii. Routh Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iv. p. 119, ss.).-Titi Bostrensis (about 360) libb. iv. contra Manichaeos (in Hen. Canisii lection. antiquis, ed. Basnage, t. i.).—Augustini Hipponensis contra Fortunatum, contra Adamantum, contra Faustum libb. 33, de actis cum Felice Man. libb. 2, and other writings collected in the 8th vol. of the Benedictine edition. WORKS-IS. de Beausobre Hist. crit. de Manichée et du Manicheisme. Amst. 1734, 39. 2 Bd. 4. J. L. Moshemii comm. de rebus Christian. ante Constantin. M. p. 728, ss. Walch's Ketzerhist. Th. 1. S. 685, ff. J. S. Semler's Einleitung zu Baumgarten's Untersuch. Theologischer Streitigkeiten, Bd. 1. Halle. 1762. 4. S. 266, ff. K. A. Freih. v. Reichlin Meldegg die Theologie d. Magiers Manes und ihr Ursprung. Frankf. a. M. 1825. 8. Manichaeorum indulgentias cum brevi totius Manichaeismi adumbratione e fontibus descripsit A. F. V. de Wegnern. Lips. 1827. 8. Neander's Kirchengesch. i ii. 824 (Comp. my review of the last three works in the theol. Studien u. Kritiken, Bd i. Heft 3. S. 599, ff.). Das manich. Religionssystem nach den Quellen neu untersucht u. entwickelt von Dr. F. Chr. Baur, Tübingen. 1831. 8. (Comp. Scheckenburger's review in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1833. iii. 875).

Since the Syrian Gnosis, which had spread even to Persia,a presented so many points of union with the doctrine of Zoroaster,3 it is not surprising that the Persian Gnostics should have been led to connect their Christianity still more closely with the Zend doctrine.4 After the spiritual aspect of the religion of Zoroaster had declined under the Arsacidae, and become a rude. dualism and mere ceremonial worship, the Sassanides (from 227) did every thing in their power to restore its ancient splendor. In the assemblies of the Magi a supreme principle was acknowledged (Zeruane akerene); and, on the other hand, unqualified dualism with its adherents (Magusaeans, al thanavia) condemned. These commotions in the bosom of Parsism probἅγιον πνεῦμα were, according to Athanas. de Synodis, c. 7, Πατροπασσιανοὶ μὲν παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις, Σαβελλιανοὶ δὲ παρ' ἡμῖν.

1 Fragments of the Greek original are given by Epiphanius (Haer. 66). Respecting their spuriousness, see Beausobre, i. p. 129, ff. Yet even by Jerome they were regarded as authentic (Catal. c. 72). Cf. Fabricii bibl. Graeca ed. Harles, vol. vii. p. 275, ss.

2 Comp. § 39, note 5, § 46, Sim. de Vries de orig. et progressu Relig. Christ. in vet. Per sarum regno, in Barkey Museum Haganum, t. iii. p. 288, ss.

3 Die Theologie Zoroaster's nach dem Zend-Avesta v. A. Hölty, in Illgen's Zeitschr. £ Hist. Theol. viii. i. 1.

4 In opposition to Baur, who in the work already quoted, p. 433, assumes Buddhism as a third element, and with whom even Neander, 1. c. second edition, p. 827, agrees, see the apposite objections of Scheckenburger in the theolog. Studien u. Kritiken. 1833, iii. 890