Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

an ethereal body, but that having, by his apostasy, fallen under the power of the material world, he was inclosed in a body of flesh (σápŝ).

The poetic beauty and charm of his hymns' drew to his side a great number of followers, and so great was their influence among the people that, in the fourth century, Ephrem of Syria was obliged to compose others of an orthodox nature to counteract it.

8. TATIAN.

Iren. I. 26. Philosophumena, VIII. 16. Epiphan. haer. 46 (T. I., p. 390). Theodoret. haereticor. fabulae I. 20. Tillemont, T. II., p. 410-418. Daniel, Tatian, Halle, 1837. Freibg. Eccl. Cycloped., Vol. X., p. 644–661.

2

Tatian was born in Syria about A. D. 130, and made long journeys in search of the true religion. Dissatisfied with Paganism, he went to Rome, where, having embraced the Christian religion, he became a disciple of Justin Martyr, and, like his master, a zealous defender of Christianity. After Justin's death, he quitted Rome, about A. D. 174, and fell into heresy. It is supposed that the cause of this defection was his ambitious desire of becoming the founder of a new philosophical system, and in this way acquiring distinction. There is no proof in his Apology that he departed from the teaching of the Christian Church concerning God, but the same can not be said of his Anthropology, if we may judge from his exposition of the relation between spirit and matter in man. All agree, however, in affirming that his later writings contain the following errors: 1. He invented invisible Eons, resembling those of Valentinus. 2. He so distorted a passage of St. Paul as to find in it a sanction for the doctrine that

3

1Hahn, Bardesanes gnosticus, Syror. primus hymnologus. comm., Lps. 1819. Against misrepresentations by Hahn, concerning Ephrem the Syrian, conf. †Zingerle (in Pletz's Theol. Periodical, year 1834). Kuehner, Bardesanis Gnostici numina astralia, Hildburghausen, 1833. According to the most recent exposition by Merx and Hilgenfeld, the importance of Bardesanes is said to lie in this, that he, although still remaining within the sphere of heretical gnosis, yet overcame the characteristic doctrines of the same, viz., Dualism and Emanationism, wherefore, so they contend, he is to be looked upon as the last in the succession of Gnostic teachers in the ancient Church.

2 See page 294.

31 Cor. vii. 5.

marriage is no better than impurity and fornication; he declared the use of certain meats and drinks, such as wine, unlawful, and enjoined and practiced a severe asceticism. 3. He denied the salvation of Adam. The last-mentioned tenet is evidently a consequence of the erroneous anthropological doctrine indicated above.

It is probable that Docetism was not first taught by Tatian, but by the encratite Julian Cassian, who lived some time later. His followers were called Encratites, Hydroparastatae, and Aquarians, and, after one of his pupils, also Severians. Like the Gnostics, they used only water at the eucharistic sacrifice. St. Ignatius1 tells us that because of their ideas of matter, they abstained from the Holy Eucharist, as it is understood by the Church, but later on adopted its celebration in such a way as to make it conform to their own system.

9. MARCION.

Iren. contr. haer. I. 27. Tertull. contr. Marcion., libb. V. Clem. Alex. strom.: diáλoyоs пερì τñs εis vεòv орvñs пíorews, ed. Wetstenius, Bas. 1674; at times falsely attributed to Origen (Orig. opp. ed. de la Rue, T. I.) Philosophumena, lib. VII. 29-31. Epiphan. haer. 42. Theodoret. haereticor. fabulae I. 24, and Esnig (an Armenian bp. of the fifth century), Marcion's System of Belief, transl. from the Armenian by Professor Neumann, in Illgen's Journal of Historical Theology, 1834. Cf. Tillemont, T. II., p. 266 sq.

The Gnostic system of Marcion, the son of a bishop of Sinope, is something quite unique in its way. Having been excommunicated by his own father for having violated a young woman, he set out for Rome, where he arrived about A. D. 150, and formed an alliance with the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo, for the purpose of inflicting a mortal blow upon the Church from whose community he had been driven. Polycarp, though remarkable for mildness and amiability, meeting him one day, said, in reply to a question, that he recognized him as "the first-born of Satan." He and Cerdo formed a system, according to which revelation was considered, without any regard to the previous history of the world, as beginning with Christianity, when it was manifested to mankind in all its completeness and perfection. Unlike the philosophers who went

1Ignat. epist. ad Smyrn., c. 7.

before him, he did not start with metaphysical speculations or with natural philosophy, but viewed everything according to its moral bearing.

Misapprehending the doctrine of St. Paul on grace, he sought in the teaching of the Apostle an argument for his Opposition, or Antithesis, between Justice and Grace, the Law and the Gospel, Judaism and Christianity, which forms the basis of his whole system.1 After his disciples had more rigorously defined and more fully developed his system, Marcion assumed three Principles2-the Good God (9ɛòs áradós), the Demiurge or Creator (povpròs dizɑws), and Matter (7). He also included an Evil One (ó πроvηpós oг diáẞoλos). These, however, did not include a system of Eons, arranged in pairs, consisting, each, of a male and female, or an active and passive principle (auguro); neither did they presuppose the Pleroma, or a suffering Sophia.

To show that his theory of revelation was correct, and that it really took place, regardless of any antecedent state of things, he drew a broad distinction between the God of the Christians and the God of the Jews, or the Creator of the world. The one is merciful, the founder of true morality, and, as a consequence, of free will; the other arbitrary and severe, and the author of the rigorous justice of the Law.3

1"Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis." Tertull. adv. Marcion. I. 19.

2 Whilst the most ancient witnesses, such as Justin M., Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the Philosophumena, relate that Marcion taught two eiernal principles (δύο ἀρχὰς τοῦ παντὸς ὑπέθετο, ἀγαθὸν τινὰ λέγων καὶ τὸ ἕτερον πονηρόν, philosoph. VII. 29), later authorities, such as Dionysius, Bp. of Rome (about 260); Cyril, of Jerusalem; Epiphanius, and Theodoret, state that he asserted three. St. Augustine, however, who knew of the existence of both opinions, gives preference to the more ancient report. The later writers probably speak of the further development of the system as it was drawn out by Syneros and Pregon, disciples of Marcion, who sharply defined, formalized, and harmonized their otherwise self-contradictory system. These latter, according to the testimony of Rhodon and the Philosophumena, establish three principles, and we, with the most recent Church historians, follow this statement. Nay, Baur, following in the track of Theodoret, for the sake of a still more definite development of Marcion's ideas, assumes that he held even four principles: the Supreme God, Matter, the Demiurge, and Christ.

3 Marcion offers reasons and further explanations for his system in his book

The Good God (deòs áradós), who as yet was entirely unknown in the world, in order to set man free from a servitude so degrading, and to release him from the cruel bondage of the God of the Jews, came forth from the depth of his existence, in the person of Christ, his consubstantial "Son," who, having assumed a visible body, descended to the earth at Capernaum. He prudently dissembled for a time his real character, pretending to be the Messiah of the Demiurge; but while feigning to be an emissary of the latter, he adroitly made known the unseen God to man, and suffered crucifixion and death at the hands of the Jews for his rashness. Angry at this treatment, he made the sun cease to give his light, spread darkness over the earth, and rent the veil of the temple. Christ, according to this singular doctrine, after his apparent death, descended into the lower regions, preached to the souls of the departed, and thus redeemed all those who were willing to believe in him; even Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians, and every Pagan people might avail themselves of the mercy of this gracious mission. Whoever had faith in Christ, and led a truly moral life, might enter into the enjoyment of God's kingdom; while the unbeliever was condemned to remain under the yoke of the God of the Jews.

A long and severe probation as catechumens was, by Marcion, exacted of all persons before being admitted to the dignity of believers, after which they were required to live strictly moral lives, to abstain from marriage, and all sorts of enjoyment and pleasure, and to use only such and so much nourishment as was absolutely necessary to sustain life. Marcion, believing that criticism was the prerogative and duty of all true Gnosis, made the freest use of his privilege. He rejected three of the Gospels, a number of the Apostolic epistles, changed the Gospel of St. Luke, garbled the Epistles of St. Paul (ó dлóotolog), and asserted that the Catholic Church had lapsed into Judaism.1

"Antitheses." Cf. Hahn, antitheses Marcion. Gnost., liber deperditus, nunc quoad ejus fieri potuit, restitutus, Regiom. 1823.

1Hahn, The Gospel of Marcion in its original form, Lps. 1824 (Thilo, codex apocryphus N. T., Lps. 1832, T. I., p. 403–486). The same, de canone Mar cionis, Ibid. 1824. The same, de gnosi Marcion. antinomi., Regiom. 1820.

Contrary to the practice of all the other Gnostics, he rejected allegorical interpretation. The Gnostics discarded all liturgy; but Marcion, conscious that some sort of ritual was necessary, made an attempt to simplify the forms of Catholic worship. He utterly disregarded the discipline of the Church in the matter of the Secret, and admitted catechumens and elect alike to the celebration of the mysteries.

It is said that at the approach of death, he desired to be again received into the bosom of the Church, a favor which he had not the happiness to receive.

Marcion's most illustrious disciples were Mark and Apelles, who supplied what was wanting to his metaphysical system by propositions extracted from other Gnostic theories. This system existed under various forms, some of which enjoyed an ecclesiastical organization, down to the sixth century.

C.—EBIONITIC GNOSTICS. (PSEUDO-CLEMENT.) SOURCES.-The Homiliae Clementinae and Recognitiones, together with numerous WORKs upon them. See above, page 218, note 2.

We have seen that in the system of Marcion, though the Eons were given up, the Demiurge was retained, and the doctrine of Dualism more explicitly set forth, and earnestly insisted upon. A still further advance was made in the unmistakably Gnostic system, contained in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. We find in these an attempt not only to remove the distinction which makes the Demiurge and the Supreme God two distinct beings, and to abolish Dualism, but also a disposition, if not to identify, at least to harmonize Judaism and Christianity.

The founders and followers of this sect, desirous of claiming for it an Apostolic origin, and anxious to be recognized by the Church of Rome, pretended that the fabrications, known as the Homilies and Recognitions, had been written by Clement of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, and contained infor

Rhode, Prolegomenor. ad quaestion. de Evangelio Apostoloque Marc. denuo instituendam caput 1-14, Vratisl. 1834, 4to. Ritschl, The Gospel of Marcion, Tübing. 1846. Harting, quaestiones de Marcione Lucae evang. adulteratore, Traject. 1849. Volkmar, The Gospel of Marcion, Lps. 1852. Hilgenfeld, Marc. Apostolicon (Periodical for Hist. Theol., 1855, No. 3).

« PoprzedniaDalej »