Note 364 — Chapter IV

Footnote 364:

(return)

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 φευγετε ου τας φυσεις αλλα τας γνωμας των κακων, 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 μαθητας; αμην dixi vobis, haud adduxi quidquam in κοσμον 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 απολυτρωσις; see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren. I. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336-343, and cf. the πυκνως μετανοσυσι 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: ποτηρια οινω κεκραμενα προσποιουμενος ευχαριστειν και επι πλεον εκτεινων τον λογον της επικλησεως, πορφυρεα και ερυθρα αναφαινεσθαι ποιει, 'ως δοκειν την απο των 'υπερ τα 'ολα χαριν το 'αιμα το 'εαυτης σταζειν εν εκεινω τω ποτηριω δια της επικλησεως αυτου, και 'υπεριμειρεσθαι τους παροντας εξ εκεινου γευσασθαι του ποματος, 'ινα και εις αυτους επομβρηση 'η δια του μαγου τουτου κληιζομενη χαρις. 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: και 'ο αρτος και το ελαιον αγιαζεται τη δυναμει του ονοματος ου τα αυτα οντα κατα το φαινομενον δια εληφθη, αλλα δυ αμει εις δυναμιν πνευματικην μεταβεβληται (that is, not into a new super-terrestrial material, not into the real body of Christ, but into a spiritual power) ουτως και το 'υδωρ και το εξορκιζομενον και το βαπτισμα γινομενον ου μονον χωρει το χειρον, αλλα και αγιασμον προσλαμβανει. 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 πνευμα 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.