« 上一頁繼續 »
nity on the contrary entered into no composition with Paganism, but absolutely condemned the whole system of idolatry, and so had stronger prejudices to contend with, and yet was triumphant.
The Manichæans gave to each man two souls, the one a good, the other a bad one. Clemens Alexandrius mentions an odd and ridiculous notion held by some heretics, that God made man down to the navel, and that the rest of him was made by another power. 'Ελεύθεν άλλοι τινές κινηθέντες μικροί και οτιδανοί τον άνθρωπον υπό διαφόρων δυνάμεων πλασθήναι λέγεσι, και τα μεν μέχρις ομφαλά θαοδετέρας τέχνης αναι: τα ένερθε δε, της ήττονος και δη χάριν, ορέγεσSarouincias. Hinc moti aliqui alii, pusilli et nullius pretü, dicunt formatum fuisse hominem a diversis potestatibus : et qure sunt quidem usqire ad umbilicum, esse artis divinioris ; quce autem subter, minoris : qua de caussa coitum quoque appetere. Strom. ii.
526. Theodoret says that the Eunomians, as well as the Marcionites, held that there were two principles, and that the lower parts of the human body came from the evil principle. He probably misrepresents the Eunomians, for what hath Arianism to do with Manichæism? Eunomius was an Arian indeed, and the father of an Arian sect ; yet as far as we can judge from his writings, some of which are still extant and have escaped burning, he was no more a Manichæan than Epiphanins, or Athanasius, or Jerom, or Theodoret.
Theodoritus L. iv. Hereticarum fabularum cap. 3. inter alia Eunomianis tribuit, quod et ipsi cum Marcione duo rerum principia, malum et bonum, statuerint, et inferiores portes a malo principio ortas, et hinc non totum baptizandum esse hominem docuerint. Cui congruit quod S. Ambrosius Eunomianos jungit Marcionistis, L. i. de
officiis c. 2. ad quem locum conferend e notae Monachor. Benedictin. Tom. ii. p. 31, Fabricius Bill, Gi. viii. 251.
Eunomius ritus baptismi immutavit, qua de re accusatum fuisse fatetur Philostorgius. Testis potentissimus mutationis est Epiphanius : Qui jam baptizati sunt, iterum baptizat Eunomius, non modo qui a Catholicis, aut ab aliis hæresibus, sed eos etiam qui ab ipsismet Arianis deficiunt. Repetiti porro illius baptismatis ea formula est, “ In nomine Dei increati, et in nomine “ Filii creati, et in nomine Spiritùs sanctificantis, et a cre“ ato Filio procreati.” Alium tamen adhibuisse formulam in Theodorito legimus : Dicit non oportere ter immergere eum qui baptizatur, nec Trinitatem invocare, sed semel baptizare in mortein Christi. Risune an lacrymis prosequenda, qure de Eunomiuni baptismi ritibus ü Veteribus sunt memoriæ mandata? Epiphanius : Sunt qui narrent, quotquot ab iis denuo baptizantur in caput demergi, pedibus in sublime porrectis, et sic jusjurandum adigi, nunquam se ab illius hæresi discessuros. Observat et Nicetas : Longissima fascià, eum in usum paratâ consecretàque, hominem a pectore, usque ad extremos pedum articulos involvebant, tum deinde superiores corporis partes aqua proluebant. Cujus ritus cuusa haec fuit, quod inferioribus corporis partibus pollui acquam arbitrabantur. Tantum superstitio potuit suadere malorum? Baptizatos ad pectus usque aqua madefaciunt, inquit Theodoritus, reliquis autem partibus corporis, tanquam abominandis, aquam adhibere prohibent. Discipulis Eunomii Ecclesias visitare moris non erat, Omnes sectatores ejus Basilicas Apostolorum et Martyrum non ingrediuntur, ut scilicet mortuum adorent Eunomium, cujus libros majoris authoritatis arbitrantur quam Evangelia. Hieronymus. Neque cas, tioris doctrini mores fuere, si vera de Etio praedicat Epiphanius : Cum quidam ob stuprum feminæ illatum accusarentur, et ab aliis damnarentur, nihil illum commotum : sed factum risu et ludibrio prosequentem dixisse, Julius hoc esse momenti: corporis enim hanc esse necessitatem. S. Basnage Ann, ii. 861.
Observe that the testimonies of Epiphanius and of Theodoret, concerning the form of Eunomian baptism, contradict each other. We may suppose that the Eunomians used only one immersion, or rather superinfusion, and that they baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as they were plainly directed to do by the Scriptures, to which they paid as much regard as the Consubstantialists.
When Epiphanius says of their baptism, sunt qui narrent, we may be sure that proofs ran very low with him.
The Eunomians seem to have been of opinion that it was not necessary for persons to be plunged all over in water, and that it was not decent for them to be stripped at the performance of this religious rite. They therefore only uncovered them to the breast, and then poured water upon their heads. This was enouglı to give their adversaries a pretext (though a poor one,) to calumniate them, and to call them Manichæans, and to charge them with holding that the lower parts of the body were made by the devil.
That they worshipped Eunomius, and placed his writings above the New Testament, and despised the martyrs, are some of Jerom's usual figures of rhetoric, and arts of controversy, to set the populace against the Eunomians: He might as well have said that they
had cloven feet, and rode upon broom-sticks in the air.
S. Basnage gives too much credit to such vague and improbable accusations. Epiphanius, a dealer in hearsays, was told by somebody, that Ætius, an Arian bishop, talked loosely about fornication, and made a jest of it. Ergo, the Eunomians and the Arians were as corrupted in their manners, as in their principles, What a weak and halting inference from precarious premises !
If the Eunomians rebaptized those who had already been baptized by Christians, they were much to be blamed for it; but the same fault was committed by Athanasius and by those Consubstantialists who rejected Arian baptism as invalid and null.
I know not whether this Manichæan conceit of a double soul suggested to the first Lord Shaftsbury an ingenious thought. “ He was wont to say, that there " was in every one two men, the wise and the foolish, and that each of them must be allowed his
If you would have the wise, the grave, " and the serious always to rule and have the sway, " the fool would grow so peevish and troublesome, that “ he would put the wise man out of order, and make “ hinn fit for nothing : He must have his times of
being let loose to follow his fancies and play his gambols, if you would have your business go on
smoothly.” Locke's Memoirs. From such a passage as this, some of the ancients would have concluded that Shaftsbury was a Manichæan.
Manes placed the Father in heaven, the Son in the sun and moon, and the Holy Ghost in the air ; and in this notion of the Son, or the Abyos, he seems to have adopted what the Persians held concerning Mithras.
By By the account of Sozomen, ii. 9, c. it appears that in the fourth century the sun was the favourite deity of the Persians, as he had been of old, and he whom they most worshipped. The learned and philosophical Persians might perhaps honour the sun only as the symbol of the divinity ; but the multitude without question, terminated their worship in the sun, and he was their god, not the supreme, but the next to him.
The Oriental theology contains some traces of a trinity: We find in the Chaldæan ar Zoroastrian oracles, which were published by Stanley, and then by Le Clerc in his philosophical works,
Πανει και εν κόσμω λάμπει Τριας, ής Μόνας άρχει.
itium est. But this oracle seems to be the forgery or interpolation of some Christian, or some Platonic philosopher, and the whole collection to be not only a stupid and senseless rhapsody, but spurious, and of no authority.
The Manichæan notion that the souls of the righteous went to the moon, agrees well enough with the Stoical doctrine, thus delivered by Lucan ix. 6.
Quodque patet terras inter, lunceque meatus,
Fecit, et «ternos animam collegit in orbes,
Manichæus, says Augustin, thought that the moon was made of pure water, and the Sun of pure fire. He would have been surprised, if he had been informed that the moon has neither water nor atmosphere.
The Manichæans held that all should terminate in gool, as far as human souls are concerned. Some of