[Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, l. c. art. Timothy, Titus. C. E. Scharling, die neuesten Untersuchungen über die sogenanten Pastoralbriefe. Aus dem Dänischen übersetzt, Jena, 1845.] Concerning the Nicolaitans, Rev. ii, 6, 15, and those that held the doctrine of Balaam, Rev. ii. 14 (comp. Iren. i. 26, and the erroneous derivation from Nicholas, Acts vi. 5), see the commentaries on the Book of Revelation [comp. Davidson, S., in Kitto, l. c.] Torrey's Neander, i. p. 452, ss. History of the Plant. Gieseler, i. 88. Burton, L. c. Leet. v. p. 145, ss. Lee, Schaff, p. 671. Stuart, Comm. on the Apoc. ii. p.

(Ewald, p. 110). and Train. ii. 50. R., in Kitto, 1. c. 62, ss.]

'The heresiarch Simon Magus, who is described in the New Testament (Acts viii.) as a man of an immoral character, but not as a heretic, is nevertheless represented by Clem. Al. (Strom. ii. 11, vii. 17), and Orig. (Contra Cels. i. p. 57), as the founder of a sect; by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. i. 23, 24), and Epiphanius (Hær. 21), even as the author of all heresies. Concerning his adventures and disputation with Peter, many fictitious stories were current among the earlier writers (see the Clementine Homilies, and Justin M. Apol. 1. c. 56.)—On Simon Magus and the two Samaritans Dositheus and Menander (Euseb. iii. 26), comp. Neander, i. 395, 454. [History of the Plant. and Train. i. 67–74.—Burton, 1. c. Lect. iv. p. 87-118, and note 40; by the same: Lectures on the Ecclesiast. Hist. of the First Cent. p. 77, ss. Schaff, 215, 376, 655. Gieseler, i. 56, § 18, note 8, where the literature is given. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, l. c.] (Marheineke in Daub's Studien, 1. c. p. 116). Dorner says, 1. c. p. 144: "The accounts given of Simon Magus, Menander, and Dositheus, who have become almost mythical, at least prove that in Syria Gnostic tendencies made their appearance at an early period." [Volckmar, Simon Magus, in Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, 2d Heft.] The assertion of Hegesippus (Euseb. iii. 32, iv. 22), that the church had not been stained with any heresy previous to the time of Trajan (παρθένος καθαρὰ καὶ ἀδιάφθορος kμervev η ékkληoía), is not to be understood, as if no heresies at all existed, but that, till the death of Simon (A. D. 108), the poison of heresies had not penetrated into the church. The judgment of Hegesippus, too, refers to the locality of Palestine. Comp. Vatke in Jahrb. f. wiss. Kritik, 1839, s. 9 sq. Dorner, u. s. 223. Mangold, Die Irrlehrer d. Pastoralbriefe, 1856, s. 108, ff,

$ 22.

JUDAISM AND ETHNICISM.

There were two errors which the new born Christianity had to guard against, if it was not to lose its peculiar religious features, and disappear in one of the already existing religions: against a relapse into Judaism on the one side, and against a mixture with paganism and speculations borrowed from it, and a mythologizing tendency, on the other. Accordingly the earliest heresies, of which we have any trustworthy accounts, appear either as judaizing or as ethnicizing (hellenizing) tendencies. But as Jewish and pagan elements were

blended with each other at the time of the rise of Christianity, manifold modifications, and transitions from the one to the other, would be likely to occur.

Concerning the different forms of heathenism (occidental and oriental), as well as the earlier and later periods of the Jewish dispensation, comp. Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 4. ss. [Dcan Trench, Hulsean Lectures on the Unconscious Prophecies of Heathenism, Am. ed. 1853. Maurice, The Religions of the World, 1853.]

§ 23.

EBIONITES AND CERINTHUS DOCETE AND GNOSTICS.

Gicseler, von den Nazaräern und Ebioniten, in Stäudlins und Tzschirners Archiv. vol. iv. st. 2. Credner, über Essäer und Ebioniten und einen theilweisen Zusammenhang derselben (in Winers Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1827, parts 2 and 3). Lange, Lobeg., Beiträge zur ältern Kirchengeschichte, Leipzig, 1826, 1st vol. Baur, De Ebionitarum Origine et Doctrina ab Essenis repetenda, Tüb. 1831. Schneckenburger, Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Neue Testament, Stuttg. 1832. A. Schliemann, Die Clementinen nebst den verwandten Schriften und der Ebionitismus, ein Beitrag zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte der ersten Jahrhunderte, Hamb. 1844. Schwegler, ubi supra. A. Hilgenfeld, die Clement. Recognitionen und Homilien. Jena, 1848. [Bunsen's Hippdytus, vol. 3. A. Ritschl, in Allg. Monatsschrift, Jen. 1852. Hilgenfeld, in the (Tübingen) Theol. Jahrb. 1854. Clementinorum Epiloma Duæ, ex Tischendorf. (ed. A. R. H. Dresscl. Lips. 1859. Rössel's Theologische Schriften Bd. i. Clement. Homiliæ, ed. Dressel, 1853.] Schmidt, Cerinth, ein Judaisirender Christ, in his Bibliothek für Kritik und Exegetik, vol. i. p. 181, ss. Paulus, Historia Cerinthi, in Introductio in N. Test. Capit. selectiora, Jen. 1799. Niemeyer, A. H., De Docetis, Hal. 1823. 4to. Lewald, De Doctrina Gnostica, Heidelberg, 1819. Lücke, F., in the Theologische Zeitschrift, Berlin, 1820, part 2, p. 132.. *Neander, Genet. Entwicklung der Vornehmsten Gnostischen Systeme, Berlin, 1818. Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme, Paris, 1828, ii. (2d ed. 1840. Gieseler, review of Neander, in the Hall. Lit. Zeitung, 1823, and of Matter, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830. Möhler, Ursprung d. Gnosticismus, Tüb. 1831. Lutterbeck, Neutest. Lehrbegriffe, B. ii. pp. 3-79.] *Baur, Chrisliche Gnosis, oder die Christliche Religionsphilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Tüb. 1835. [Comp. Gieseler, i. § 43, 8s. Neander, i. 344–50, 396–99, 630. Hase, § 35, 75. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 160–65. Schaff. 653. Burton, Bampton Lecture, Lect. ii. to be comp. with Potter, J., in Kitto, Cyclop. on Gnosticism. Norton, A., on the Genuineness of the Gospels, vols. ii. and iii. 1844. The articles in Herzog's Encyclopedia. Especially Niedner, Kirchengesch. s. 215-257. Ritter, Gesch. d. Christ. Phil. i. 109 sq., and Christl. Phil. i. s. 263 sq.]

3

The Judaizing tendency was chiefly represented by the Ebionites, of whom the Nazarenes were a variety more nearly approaching the orthodox faith, and with whom were connected other Judaizing sects of a more indefinite character. Cerinthus also belonged to this tendency, and makes the transition to that form of Judaism, blended with heathen Gnosis, which we find represented in the Clementine Homilies. A strict opposition to the Jewish-Ebionitic tendency manifested itself first in the Docetc, and afterward in various rami.

fications of the Gnostics. Of the latter, some were more sharply op posed to Judaism', others even returned to Ebionitish errors, while Marcion, who occupied a peculiar position, endeavored to go beyond the antagonism between Judaism and heathenism, but, despising al historical mediation, he built up a purely imaginary system of Christianity.10

1

1 On the derivation of Ebionites from 7, and their history, comp. Orig. Contra Celsum II. toward the commencement; Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 26. Tert. Præscr. Hær. 33, De Carne Christi, c. 14. Euseb. iv. 27. Epiph. Hær. 29, 30. Hieron, in Matth. viii. 9; xix. 20; (c. 66) xviii, in Jesai.; Cat. Script. Eccles. c. 3; and the works on ecclesiast. history. [Torrey's Neander, i. 344. Niedner. s. 215. Burton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 183, ss.] Different opinions as to the origin of the Ebionites; Schliemann, p. 459, ss. (according to Hegesippus in Euseb. III. 32, and IV. 22) dates it after the death of Simeon of Jerusalem, According to the school of Tübingen (Schwegler), Ebionitism is as old as Christianity. Christ himself was an Ebionite, and Paul took the first step beyond Ebionitism. The Judaizing tendency, which was firmly rooted in Ebionitism, may indeed be traced back to primitive Christianity: not all Christians were, like Paul, able to comprehend the universal character of their religion. But this Jewish-Christian tendency existed for some time, along with the Pauline, as a more imperfect form of Christianity, without being regarded as heresy. But having once been out-flanked by the freer spirit of the Pauline doctrine, it had either gradually to wear out (its adherents withering into a Jewish sect), or to grow rank, blended with other (Gnostic) elements (as was the case with the Ebionitism of the Clementine Homilies, comp. note 5). The former kind of Ebionitism has been called "vulgar Ebionitism." Its adherents were characterized by their narrow attachment to Jewish tradition, seeking to impose the yoke of the law upon Christians, and this prevented them from forming a higher idea of Christ than that involved in the Jewish conception of the Messiah. Accordingly, when they declared Jesus to be the 3on of Joseph and Mary, this opinion did not proceed (as in the case of the Artemonites, 24), from a rationalistic source, but had its root in their spiritual poverty and narrow-mindedness. With their Jewish notions concerning the law and the Messiah would accord the sensual, millennial expectations of which Jerome (1. c. but no other writer) accuses them.

Origen. (Contra Cels. v. Opp. i. p. 625) mentions two different kinds of Ebionites, of whom the one class approached the orthodox doctrine of the church more nearly than the other. These more moderate Ebionites were for a long time held to be the same, to whom Jerome and Epiphanius give the name Nazarenes, which was earlier applied to all Christians. They taught that the law (circumcision in particular) was obligatory on Jewish Christians only, and believed Jesus to be the son of the Virgin, though a mere man; of course they rejected his pre-existence. Comp. the treatise of

* "Orthodoxy, when surpassed by the culture of the age, and deserted by public opinion, becomes heresy."-Hase. And since there is no standing still, it is natural to infer that Ebionitism became retrograde, in the direction of Judaism. Dorner, ubi supra, p. 304, sq.

Gieseler, 1. c. [Burton, 1. c. p. 184]. According to the most recent researches (of Schliemann), however, the Nazarenes were never brought into the same class with the Ebionites, and Origen's distinction refers only to the difference between the common and the Gnostic Ebionites (comp. note 5). Different are the opinions of Schwegler, Nachapostolische Zeitalter, p. 179, ss., and Dorner, 1. c. 301, ss. According to Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeitalter, i. p. 179 sq.), the position of the Nazarenes was only "the earliest primitive stage of development of Ebionitism." He, as well as Hilgenfeld (1. c.) rejects the distinction made by Schliemann. It is simplest, with Dorner (ubi supra, p. 301 sq.), to assume that the Ebionites degenerated into Judaism, and thus became heretical Nazarenes (Jewish Christians). "It

'Elcesaites, Sampsæi, etc. Epiph. Hær. 19, 1–30, 3, 17 (Euseb. iv.). seems impossible accurately to distinguish these different Jewish sects, which were perhaps only different grades of the order of the Essenes, assisted, as we are, merely by the confused reminiscences of the fourth century." (Hase, 1. c. p. 7, 90.) [Ritschl on Elkesaiten in Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. 1853; and Uhlhorn in Herzog's Real Encycl. article, Elkesaiten.]

Iren. i. 26, Euseb. H. E. iii. 28 (according to Caius of Pome, and Dionysius of Alexandria), Epiph. Hær. 28, comp. Olshausen, Hist. Eccles. Veteris Monumenta Præcipua, vol. i. p. 223-225. [Burton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 174, ss.] According to Irenæus, Cerinthus is allied to Gnosticism, and remote from Ebionitism, maintaining that the world was not created by the supreme God. He denies, however, in common with the Ebionites, that Christ was born of the Virgin, but on different, viz., rationalistic grounds (impossible enim hoc ei visum est). According to the accounts given by Eusebius, his principal error consisted in gross millennarianism, i. e., in a Judaistic tendency. Comp. the treatises of Paulus and Schmid, and, on his remarkable, but not inexplicable, mixture of Judaism and Gnosticism, Baur, Gnosis, p. 404, 405. Dorner, 1. c. p. 310, claims that there was a peculiar class of Cerinthian Ebionites, who, in his opinion, form the transition to the Clementine Homilies.

• As Cerinthus blended Gnostic elements with Jewish notions, so did that section of the Ebionites represented in the Clementine Homilies (i. e., homilies of the Apostle Peter, which are said to have been written by Clement of Rome). Comp. Neander's Appendix to his work on the Gnostic systems, and Church History (Torrey), i. 353, 395. [Lardner, N., Works, ii. 376, 377. Narton, 1. c. ii. note B. p. xxiii.-xxxvii.] Baur, Gnosis, p. 403, and App. p. 760, and his programme referred to above. Schenkel, however, has broached a different opinion in his Dissert. (cited § 21, note 2), according to which the Clementine tendency would belong, not to the Judaizing, but to a rationalizing Monarchian tendency (comp. § 24) in Rome (comp. Lücke's review in the Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1838, parts 50 and 51, and Schliemann, u. s. p. 357 sq.) Dorner, 1. c. p. 324, ss., gives a striking description of this tendency, which passes over from Judaism into Paganism. The investigations upon the Clementina are by no means concluded: comp. Hilgenfeld, ubi supra, where, too, in the Introduction, is a review of what has thus far been done.

The Docetæ whom Ignatius, Ad. Eph. 7-18, Ad Smyrn. c. 1-8, already

opposed, and probably even the Apostle John (1 John i. 1-3; ii. 22; iv. 2, ss., 2 John 7; on the question whether he also alludes to them in the prologue to his gospel, comp. Lücke, 1. c.) may be considered as the rude forerunners of the Gnostics; for, although they have the general Gnostic character, yet the Docetæ are sometimes spoken of as a special Gnostic sect; Baur, in his Christ. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 207. [Burton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 158, ss.] The Docetæ form the most decided contrast with the Ebionites, so far as this, that they not only maintain (in opposition to them) the divinity of Christ, but also volatilize his human nature, to which the Ebionites were exclusively attached, into a mere phantasm (denying that he possessed a real body). Ebionitism (Nazareism) and Docetism form, according to Schleiermacher (Glaubenslehre, vol. i. p. 124), natural heresies, and complete each other, as far as this can be the case with one-sided opinions; but they quite as easily pass over the one to the other. Comp. Dorner, Geschichte der Christologie, p. 349, ss.

"What Docetism did in the doctrine concerning Christ alone, the more completely developed system of Gnosticism carried out, in its whole spiritualiz ing tendency, into the extreme most opposed to Judaizing Ebionitism. It not only contains docetic elements (comp. the Christology in the special History of Doctrines), but in its relation to the Old Test. it possesses a character more or less antinomian, and in its eschatology it is adverse to millennarianism. It opposes the spiritualistic to the literal, the idealistic to the realistic. To resolve history into myths, to dissipate positive doctrines by speculation, and thus to make an aristocratic distinction between those who only believe, and those who know, to overrate knowledge, especially that which is ideal and speculative (yvwoɩç) in religion-these are the principal features of Gnosticism. On the different usages of yvwois in a good and a bad sense (γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος), γνωστής, γνωστικός,) comp. Suicer, Thesaurus. Sources: Irenæus Adv. Hær. (i. 29, ii.) Tertullian Adv. Marcion. lib. v; Adv. Valentinianos; Scorpiace contra Gnosticos. Clem. Al. Strom. in different places, especially lib. ii. iii. vi. Euseb. iv.

• The different classifications of the Gnostics according to the degree of their opposition to Judaism (Neander); according to countries, and the preponderance of dualism, or emanation, Syrian and Egyptian Gnostics (Gieseler); or Gnostics of Asia Minor, Syrian, Roman (sporadic) and Egyptian Gnostics (Matter); or lastly, Hellenistic, Syrian, and Christian Gnostics (Hase), present, all of them, greater or less difficulties, and require additional classes (as the Eclectic sects of Neander, and the Marcionites of Gieseler). But Baur justly remarks that the mere classification according to countries, is too external (Gnosis, p. 106; comp. too Dorner, p. 355), and hence designates the position on which Neander's classification is based, as the only correct one," because it has regard not only to one subordinate element, but to a fundamental relation which pervades the whole," p. 109. The particular objections to the division of Neander, see ibidem. The three essential forms into which Gnosticism falls, according to Baur, are: 1. The Valentinian, which admits the claims of Paganism, together with Judaism and Christianity. 2 The Marcionite, which makes Christianity preponderant; and, 3, the Pseudo