Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/728

Rh 704 GNOS'l‘ICISll thought into the most elaborate and carefully reasoned y speculative distinction of an important character begins to system vhich they reached. year 140, and there formed a. sect which exercised con- siderable inﬂuence over the eommingling speculations of the time which met in that great centre. Bunsen vindi- eates his Christian character, and says that St Jerome speaks of him with great respect. If at any time he really belonged to the church, it seems to be admitted (Epiph., Hana, xxxi. 7) that in Cyprus, whither he returned and where he died, he ultimately proclaimed himself outside its pale. The most illustrious disciples of the Valentinian Gnosticism, which -prevailed on till the 6th century, were Ptolemzeus, Heracleon, and Marcus. It is the tenets of these teachers, especially of the ﬁrst, that are chieﬂy dis- cussed in the opening chapter of the well—known treatise of Irenzeus. (3.) In addition to these two great schools of Gnosticism there is still a third, especially represented by the famous Marcion of Pontus, whose centre may be regarded as Asia Minor. Marcion was the son of a Christian bishop, by whom he is said to have been excommunicated. Following one Cerdon, a Gnostic of Antioch, M-arcion distinguished himself by his extreme opposition to Judaism, and generally by a Gnostic attitude at variance with the Old Testament, the God of which is to him the Demiurge in conflict with the Supreme Being and the Christ whom He sent to redeem the world from the power of this Demiurge. His Christ- ology was of course docetic,—the divine power being only united to the man Jesus for a time. He accepted only ten of St Paul’s epistles, and a mutilated copy of the gospel of St Luke. The teaching of the Clementine fictions and a Jewish sect known by the name of Elkesaites, whose tenets seem to have resembled this teaching, is considered by Mansel and others to constitute a J udaizing reaction from the Pauline Gnosticism of Mareion. Our readers are referred to special articles for a detailed exposition of these several Gnostic systems. It remains for us here to give a general sketch of the questions which Gnosticism discussed, and the broader features which char- acterized its main developments. III. The fundamental questions with which Gnosticism concerned itself are the same which in all ages have agitated inquiry and baﬁied speculation, viz., the origin of life and the origin of evil,—how life sprung from the Inﬁnite Source,—how a world so imperfect as this could proceed from a supremely perfect God. The Oriental notion of matter as utterly corrupt is found to pervade all Gnostical systems, and to give so far a common character to their speculations. It may be said to be the ground-principle of Gnosticism. Setting out from this principle, all the Gnostics agree in regarding this world as not proceeding immediately from the Supreme Being. A vast gulf, on the contrary, is sup- posed to separate them. In the general mode in which they conceive this gulf to be occupied they also agree, although with considerable varieties of detail. The Supreme Being is regarded as wholly inconceivable and indescribable——as the unfathomable Abyss (Valentinus) —the Unnameable (Basilides). From this transcendent source existence springs by emanation in a series of spiritual powers (8uvd;uci;). It is only through these several powers or energies that the inﬁnite passes into life and activity, and becomes capable of representation. To this higher spiritual world is given the name of vrhﬁpmpa, and the divine powers composing it, in their ever-expanding procession from the Highest, are called ]Eons. So far a common mode of representation characterizes all the Gnostieal systems. All unite in this doctrine of a higher emanation-world. It is in the passage from this higher spiritual world to the lower material one that a He came to Home about the I characterize them. On the one hand, this passage is appre- hended as a mere continued degeneracy from the Source of Life, at length terminating in the kingdom of darkness and death——the bordering chaos surrounding the kingdom of light. On the other hand, this passage is apprehended in a more precisely dualistic form, as a positive invasion of the kingdom of light by a self-existent kingdom of darkness. According as Gnosticism adopted one or other of these modes of explaining the existence of the present world, it fell into the two great divisions which, from their places of origin, have received the respective names of the Alexandrian and Syrian Gnosis. The one, as we have seen, presents n1ore a Western, the other more an Eastern type of speculation. The dualistic element in the one case scarcely appears beneath the Pantheistie, and bears resemblance to the Platonic notion of the i’-)n7—a mere blank 11eeessity, a limit- ing void. In the other case, the dualistic element is clear and prominent, corresponding to the Zarathustrian doctrine of an active principle of evil as well as of good—of a king- dom of Ahriman (Auro-Mainyus) as well as a kingdom of Ormuzd (Ahura.-Mazdzio). In the Alexandrian Gnosis a link of subordination is preserved between the two kingdoms, separated as they are. For the {A77 only becomes a living and active power of evil through the quickening impartation of some element from the higher kingdom in its progressive descent from the Supreme Source. The stream of being in its ever-outward flow at length comes in contact with dead matter, which thus receives animation, and becomes a living source of evil. Its life and power, however, are withal only derived from the higher kingdom. But in the Syrian Gnosis the kingdom of darkness has no such dependence upon the kingdom of light. There appears from the ﬁrst a hostile principle of evil in collision with the good. Out of this main distinction other more special distinc- tions arise, still more clearly defining the one form of 'yVC;o'l9 from the other. According as the two kingdoms are recog- nized as subordinate the one to the other, or as opposed to each other, it is obvious that different views will prevail as to the character of the Avypiovpyéc, or maker of this world, whose name and functions are so prominent in all systems of Gnosticism. In the one case, his relation to the Supreme Source of life will be apprehended as more dependent——in the other, as more hostile. In the former view, the -yr-dime, while rising in its pride of speculation far above all mere earthly relations and historical religions, could yet find in these a point of contact, whereby the higher spiritual truth, penetrating this lower world, would gradually raise it to its own elevation. In the latter, no such point of Contact is left between nature, or history, and the -yvdiois. Accord- ingly, while the Alexandrian form of Gnosticism was found to embrace Judaism. as a divine institution, although very inferior and defective in its manifestation of the Divine character, the Syrian rejected it as being wholly the work of the spirit of the lower world-—the Ammo:-p-yd; warring with the supreme God. This anti-Judaical spirit is found developed to its extreme in Marcion. The Gnostic conception of Christ, in so far uniform, is also of course greatly modiﬁed by the different 1‘0la.tinns which the systems thus bore to Judaism. In all he is re- cognized as a higher x’Eon, proceeding from the kingdom of light for the redemption of this lower kingdom of darkness. But, in the one case, however superior, he is yet allied to the lower angels and the Amuuovpydc, governing this lower world. His appearance, accordingly, admits of being his- torically connected with the previous manifestations of the Divine presence upon earth. But, in the other case, he is apprehended as a being wholly distinct from the A7];uovp‘)/(59, and his appearance takes place in this lower world without