XIII. MANES AND THE MANICHAEANS

XIII. MANES AND THE MANICHAEANS

It is generally said that the religion of Mithras ended and was absorbed in Manichaeism, which may thus be supposed to have inherited some, at least, of its doctrines[988]. This is one of those statements which are copied by one author from another until they acquire by mere repetition the force of an axiom; but its truth is not obvious, nor does it appear to rest upon any sound foundation. Except in the fact that both Mithraism and Manichaeism came in the first instance from Persia, there is little likeness between the two faiths, which are in all essential respects diametrically opposed to each other. A strict dualism, or the eternal antagonism of two equal principles, is the distinguishing feature of the religion of Manes, while the worship of Mithras rested, as has been said in the last chapter, on an equally uncompromising monotheism, which made the Supreme Being, whether known as Jupiter or Ormuzd, at once the creator and the governor of the universe. In this respect, it drew near to Judaism, which it may have aimed at incorporating with itself, and was not ashamed to place on its monuments scenes which can be referred to the Old Testament[989]. Manichaeism, on the other hand, looked on Judaism with horror, rejected the Old Testament entirely, and was not improbably born in an outbreak of anti-Semitic fury[990]. But the discrepancy of doctrine is as nothing compared to the wide difference in those external matters which in a new religion most strike the imagination of the crowd, and have therefore much to do with its success or failure. The Mithraist was accustomed, as we have seen, to an allegorical and symbolical ritual in which the material image of his god was for ever before him; but the Manichaean, as we shall see later, forbade the use of images and his worship consisted merely of prayers and hymns. The Mithraists made frequent use in their ceremonies of the sacrifice of animals; but the Manichaeans looked with displeasure on the taking of the life even of plants. The worshipper of Mithras not only gloried in the outward profession of his religion, but by his avoidance of the wearing of garlands forced the notice of it on those of his fellows who were not of the faith. The follower of Manes, on the contrary, concealed his religion as carefully as Basilides wished his followers to conceal theirs, and even went to the length of outwardly adopting a creed different from his own. It is not therefore to be wondered at that the rulers of the Roman Empire, whose acquaintance with the worship of Mithras was a thousand times more profound than our own, should have favoured Mithraism and have made every effort to suppress Manichaeism. The very emperors who placed their reformed State under the protection of Mithras imposed the penalty of death upon those of their subjects who should venture to teach the religion of Manes[991].

Not less different were the sanctions with which Mithraism and Manichaeism appeared in the West. The worship of Mithras came into the Roman world unobtrusively and without any claim to an exclusive revelation or special means of propaganda. But Manichaeism had at its back the personality of one of those wonderful men who appear at rare intervals in the world’s history, to leave behind them a memorial of their empire over the minds of their fellows in the shape of a new creed. Manes was indeed, as the discoveries of the last decade have taught us, an innovator in religion entirely worthy to rank with Zoroaster, Buddha, and Muhammad, and when the difficulties in the way of his missionary activity are considered, his influence upon the religious ideas of those who came after him was at least as marked as that of any of them. Manes or Mânî—the first being the Greek form of the name—was born, according to his own deliberate statement, about the year 216 A.D., in a village of Babylonia called Mardînû situate on the Kutha canal to the south of Ctesiphon[992]. According to Christian tradition, his real name was Corbicius or Kubrik and he was a slave of unknown birth[993]; according to the Mahommedan writers his father was one Patecius or Fatak, while his mother is sometimes described as the “Lady Mary,” sometimes as a Parthian princess, and is sometimes named Karossa[994]. Such legends grow up naturally round the birth of all founders of religions, and we should believe them the less in this case that they have been handed down to us by the professors of religions bitterly opposed to that of Manes. Yet the story about the Parthian princess seems confirmed by the free access that he seems to have always possessed to the court of the Persian monarchs of his time. Manes himself says, according to Al-Bîrûnî, that illumination came to him in his thirteenth year[995]; but this is contradicted by the Fihrist, which puts the age at which he received revelation as twenty-four[996]. The Acta Archelai, a Christian source obviously suspect in the state it has come down to us, would make him a priest of Mithras[997], a tradition which may have originated at a date when the Catholic Church recognized the danger to itself involved in the spread of the Mithraic religion. Another story would make him a Magus or one of the priestly caste entrusted by Ardeshîr with the propagation of the reformed religion of Zoroaster[998], which is discredited by the fact that it was the Magi who were from the outset his bitterest enemies[999]. A late Oriental writer says that he was a Christian priest having a cure of souls at Ahvâz[1000], the capital city of the province of Huzitis, which again is negatived by the fact that he seems from his writings to have had little more than a hearsay knowledge of Catholic Christianity, although they show some acquaintance with the heresies of Bardesanes and Marcion[1001]. He is said to have acquired great skill in painting which he used to illustrate his teaching[1002], and to have been a learned mathematician and astronomer. This is likely enough; but the only events of his life which seem well attested, are that he began at an early age to propagate his doctrine and that he succeeded in converting to it Peroz or Fîrûz the son of Ardeshîr, through whose means he obtained a formal hearing from Sapor or Shâpûr, the conqueror of Valerian and Ardeshîr’s successor, shortly after this king’s accession to the throne[1003]. Sapor seems to have listened to Manes with respect and, according to an Oriental writer, to have even favoured his propaganda, until the Magi, to whom the revival of the Zoroastrian religion had been committed, convinced him of his error[1004]. On this, Manes was exiled from Persia and retired, says Al-Bîrûnî, to India, China, and Thibet preaching his gospel[1005]. On Sapor’s death, he returned to Persia under Hormisdas or Ormuz, and again, it is said, succeeded in converting to his tenets the reigning monarch[1006]. On Varanes’ or Bahram’s accession to the throne the following year, however, he was seized and put to death as a heretic after a disputation with the Chief of the Magi, in which he failed to support the test of an ordeal by molten metal proposed to him[1007]. The most likely account of his death narrates that he was decapitated, and that his skin stuffed with straw was suspended at the gate of the town where the execution took place[1008]. This was followed by a great persecution of the Manichaeans throughout Persia, and it is fairly evident that this, like his own fate, was due to the hostility he had aroused in the Magi[1009]. The date of his death is fixed with some accuracy at 275 A.D., so that he would then have reached the age of sixty years[1010].

The causes underlying this sudden appearance of a new religion are doubtless to be looked for in the political and religious history of Persia at the time. Ardeshîr, as has been said above, gave new life to the feeling of Persian nationality which the Parthian Kings had kept alive during Greek supremacy in Asia, and succeeded in again founding a Persian Empire. Like Alexander, Antiochus Epiphanes, and again, Diocletian, he seems to have been thoroughly alive to the great effect that a faith common to the whole empire would have in uniting the peoples under his sway.

“Never forget,” he says in the supposed testament that he is said to have left for the guidance of his son Sapor, “that as a king you are at once the protector of religion and of your country. Consider the altar and the throne as inseparable and that they must always sustain each other. A sovereign without religion is a tyrant, and a people which have no religion may be deemed the most monstrous of all societies. Religion may exist without a State, but a State cannot exist without religion; and it is by holy laws that a political association can alone be bound[1011].”

Yet in spite of these sentiments, more pithily expressed perhaps in the “No bishop, no king” of our own James I, the task of founding a common religion for the whole of the new Persian empire must have presented some uncommon difficulties. Apart from the strong Semitic element dominant in their Babylonian province, the Parthians had always been eclectic in matters of faith, and Vonones, one of the last kings of Parthia, had shown himself to be a Philhellene of a type which must have been peculiarly offensive to a sovereign who was trying to revive the old Persian nationality[1012]. The worship of Mithras, the god most favoured by the legions with whom Ardeshîr was soon to be at death-grips, must have been equally out of the question; and the knowledge of this is probably to be seen in the low place in the celestial hierarchy assigned to the old Vedic god in the Avesta of Ardeshîr’s day[1013]. The Jewish religion in Central Asia had lately given signs of proselytizing fervour, and it was the going-over of a Parthian kinglet against the will of his people to the Jewish faith which first, according to one account, gave the excuse for the intervention of Vologeses or Valkhash and the subsequent reformation or revival of the Zoroastrian religion[1014]. At the same time, Christianity had already begun to share with Mithraism the devotion of the legions stationed on the Roman frontier, and in the Gnostic form favoured by the teaching of Marcion and Bardesanes was pushing into Persia from Armenia and Edessa[1015]. Nor can we doubt that Buddhism, already perhaps struck with decay in its native country of India[1016], but flourishing exceedingly further East, was trying to obtain a foothold in that very Bactria which was afterwards said to have been the historic scene of Zoroaster’s activity. Other small, but, as the event was to show, highly vitalized faiths, were current in Western Asia, and the power of the Magi when Ardeshîr overthrew the Parthian power had declined so greatly that the statues of the Parthian kings were placed in the temples of the gods and adored equally with those of the divinities[1017]. The Persians of Herodotus’ time, who did not believe in deities who had the same nature as men, would have blushed at such a profanation.

From this unpromising welter of creeds and cults, Ardeshîr delivered the State by restoring the worship of Ahura Mazda as the State religion. One of his first cares was to collect the fragments of the books which we now know as the Zend Avesta, in which the revelations of the national prophet Zoroaster were set down in a language not then understanded of the people. It was afterwards said that the MSS. of these books had purposely been destroyed or scattered by Alexander; but the fact seems to be that they had fallen into discredit through the turning-away of the Persians towards Hellenic and Semitic gods; and that a previous attempt to restore their authority by Valkhash or Vologeses I, the Parthian king who reigned from 50 to 75 A.D., had met with little encouragement from his subjects[1018]. Most modern scholars are now agreed that the Avesta and the literature that grew up round it contain many doctrines not to be found in the Persian religion current in Achaemenian times, and evidently brought into it from foreign sources under the Hellenistic and Parthian kings. Such as it is, however, the Avesta formed the Sacred Book of Ardeshîr’s reformation; while, in the order of the Magi, by him restored to more than their former power, the reformed Zoroastrian faith possessed an active, established, and persecuting Church, which reigned in Persia without a serious rival until the Mahommedan invasion.

Yet the first struggles of the reformation must have been sharp, and Darmesteter was doubtless justified when he saw in Manichaeism the first and possibly the strongest expression of the revulsion of Ardeshîr’s subjects against the rigid orthodoxy which he sought to impose upon them[1019]. That such a feeling persisted for some time is plain from the fact that Manes’ “heresy” is said by Al-Bîrûnî to have been followed by that of Mazdak, who seems to have preached, like the Antinomian sects of Cromwell’s time, a kind of Socialism including the community of women and of property[1020]. There arose also about the same time or a little later the sect of Zervanists referred to in the chapter on Mithras, who taught that Boundless Time was the origin of all things and was superior to Ormuzd and Ahriman, to both of whom he was said to have given birth. They seemed to have gained great power in the reign of Yezdegerd II; and, if we may trust the Armenian authors, a proclamation commanding adherence to their doctrines was put forth by Yezdegerd’s general Mihr Nerses on his invasion of Armenia in 450 A.D.[1021] But the earliest and most enduring of these heresies or rebellions against the purified and restored religion of Ahura Mazda appears to have been that of Manes.

Were now the doctrines that Manes preached to his own undoing his invention, or did he draw them from some pre-existent source? It is said, in a Christian account which has come down to us, that they were the work of one Scythianus[1022], a native, as his name implies, of “Scythia” (which here probably means Turkestan) and a contemporary of the Apostles, who married an Egyptian slave and learned from her all the wisdom of the Egyptians[1023]. With the help of this and the tincture of dualism which he extracted from “the works of Pythagoras,” the story goes on to say, Scythianus constructed a system which he taught to a disciple named Terebinthus, otherwise called Buddas or Buddha, before his own death in Judaea[1024]. This Terebinthus gave out that he was born of a virgin and had been nursed by an angel on a mountain; and he also wrote four books in which the doctrines of Scythianus were set down[1025]. These books he entrusted to an aged widow with whom he lived, and he was afterwards struck dead while performing a magical ceremony. On his death, she bought a boy of seven years old named Corbicius, whom she enfranchised, and to whom she left her property and Terebinthus’ books some five years later. Thus equipped, Corbicius took the name of Manes, which may signify “Cup” or “Vessel[1026],” and began to preach. This history has evidently been much corrupted and by no means agrees with the account before quoted from Oriental sources which bears greater marks of authenticity; but it is thought by some to be, like the 14th chapter of Genesis, a sort of allegory in which the names of peoples and systems are given as those of individual men[1027]. If this be so, we should perhaps see in Scythianus the representative of those non-Aryan tribes of Medes of whom the Magi formed part, while in the name of Buddha we might find that of one of those Judaean communities holding a mixture of Magian and Buddhist tenets who according to one tradition were for long encamped near the Dead Sea[1028]. Yet there is nothing specifically Buddhist or Egyptian about the doctrines of Manes as we know them[1029], and if there were any likeness between the mythology and observances of the cult and those of its predecessors, it was probably introduced by Manes’ followers rather than by himself[1030]. As to the doctrines of the Magi, Manes certainly had no occasion to go to Judaea to find them; for in the Persia of Ardeshîr and Sapor he must have heard quite as much of them as he wished.

Probably, therefore, the Christian account of Manes’ sources is untrue, or rather, as M. Rochat suggests, it was composed at a time and place in which Manichaeism had become a heresy or alternative creed attached, so to speak, not to Zoroastrianism but to Christianity, and had picked up from this and other faiths many accretions[1031]. The doctrine of Manes which has come down to us from other sources is extremely simple, and seems to accord better with the Puritanical simplicity of life and ritual afterwards practised by his followers. Both the Christian and the Mahommedan traditions agree that he believed that there were two gods, uncreated and eternal, and everlastingly opposed to each other[1032]. One of these is the God of Light and the other the God of Darkness; but he does not seem to have given any specific or proper name to either[1033]. It is possible that this last-named being may have been identified by him with Matter[1034], although this would seem to be a remnant of the Platonic philosophy of which there is no other trace in his teaching. But it is certain that he regarded the God of Darkness as entirely evil, that is to say, malevolent, and as a power to propitiate whom man should make no attempt. “I have considered it needful to despatch this letter to you” says an epistle which there is much reason to consider expresses the opinions, if not the actual words, of Manes himself[1035]:

“first for the salvation of your soul and then to secure you against dubious opinions, and especially against notions such as those teach who lead astray the more simple (ἁπλούστεροι), alleging that both good and evil come from the same Power, and introducing but one principle, and neither distinguishing nor separating the darkness from the light, and the good from the bad and the evil (φαῦλον), and that which is without man from that which is within him, as we have said formerly, so that they cease not to confuse and mingle one thing with another. But do not thou, O my son, like most men, unreasonably and foolishly join the two together nor ascribe them both to the God of Goodness. For these teachers attribute to God the beginning and the end, and make him the father of these ills the end of which is near a curse[1036].”

Although this epistle bears evident marks of having been worked over and amplified by some writer of a later age than that of the founder of Manichaeism, there cannot be much doubt that it contains his teaching on the Two Principles of all things. In the Christian account of Manes’ doctrine which M. Rochat thinks earlier than the epistle quoted above, Manes’ quondam follower Turbo says after recantation that his master reverences two gods “unbegotten, self-existing (αὐτοφυεῖς), eternal and set over against each other,” and that “he represents one as good, the other as wicked, giving to the one the name of Light and to the other that of Darkness[1037].” So, too, the Mahommedan writers who give what seems to be an independent account of Manes’ opinions are agreed that he deduced the origin of the world from “two Original Principles, one of which is Light and the other Darkness, and which are separated one from the other[1038].” The absolute opposition from the outset of good and evil therefore formed the pivot of Manes’ whole system, and was opposed quite as much to the Christian and Jewish creeds as to the Mithraic and other modifications of Persian religious ideas then or later in vogue, which held that evil like good was the creation of the Supreme Being, and that Ahriman or Pluto was a god having subordinate authority to, but of the same nature as, Ormuzd or Zeus. This uncompromisingly dualistic theory gives an origin to evil independent of that of good, and can only lead logically to the assertion of its eternity. Whether Manes gave utterance to it for the first time, or derived it from a theology then current in Persia, there is little evidence to show[1039]. The Zend Avesta itself in its Sassanian recension does not seem to pronounce clearly on this point, and has been thought by some high authorities to teach the subordinate origin and ultimate extinction of evil[1040], and by others exactly the reverse. It does, however, seem to be clear that unless Manes invented de novo the doctrine above quoted, it must have been from Persia that he obtained it. No other country with which he can have become acquainted has yet been shown to possess it[1041].

Exclusively Oriental, too, in its origin must be the history of the conflict between these two Principles which follows. Each of them apparently dwelt in his own domain for countless ages untroubled by the existence of the other. The Light is the uppermost and is, according to the Mahommedan version of Manes’ doctrine, without bounds in height and on each side. The Darkness lies below it, and is in like manner boundless in depth and in lateral extent[1042]. Hence there is a long frontier at which they touch, and this spot was filled from the beginning by the celestial air and the celestial earth. If we may read into the tradition something which is not expressed there, but which seems to follow logically from it, this atmosphere and this earth were the heavier parts of the Divine substance, which sinking down formed a kind of sediment or deposit[1043]. Each of these Two Principles has five “members” or components, and this partition into five seems in the Manichaean teaching to run through all things. Thus, the Mahommedan tradition tells us that the “members” of the God of Light are Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, and Discernment, those of the Air the same five, of the (celestial) earth, the Breeze or Ether, Wind, Light, Water, and Fire, and of the Darkness Smoke, Flame, Hot Wind, Poison or Pestilence, and Gloom or Fog[1044]. In this, and especially in its deification of abstract principles, we may see a reflection of Gnostic teaching which may easily have reached Manes from Valentinus by way of Bardesanes and the Oriental or Edessan School. On the other hand, the borrowing may have been the other way, and Simon Magus may have obtained these notions from the Persian Magi and have handed them on to Valentinus and his successors. This does not seem so likely as the other, but the point can hardly be settled until we know more than we do at present of the state of the Persian religion from the time of the Achaemenian kings to the Sassanian reform.

However that may be, both the Christian and Mahommedan traditions are agreed that the aggressor in the struggle between the good God and the bad was the Evil One. The Mahommedan source, here fuller than the Christian, tells us that the Darkness remained in an unorganized condition for ages, although consisting of the five members enumerated above. These parts, however, seem to have sunk down and produced another Earth called the Darker Earth, from which in course of time came forth Satan. Satan was not, like the King of the Paradise of Light, without beginning, but came into being from the union of these five members of Darkness, having the head of a lion, the body of a serpent, the wings of a bird, the tail of a fish, and four feet like those of crawling animals[1045], in which figure we may see a kind of reflection of the Mithraic Ahriman[1046]. Satan, on his emergence on the Darker Earth, perceived the rays of light from the upper world, piercing as we may suppose through the gloomy atmosphere of his own world, and conceived a hatred for them. Seeing, too, that these rays gained much in strength by their combination and mutual support, he withdrew within himself so as to unite himself more closely with his members[1047]. Then again springing upwards, he invaded the realms of Light with the intention of there spreading calamity and destruction. The aeon—or world as the Fihrist calls it—of Discernment was the first to be aware of this invasion[1048], and reported it to the aeon Knowledge, from whom it passed to the others in turn until it at last reached the ear of the Good God, here, as elsewhere in the Fihrist, called the King of the Paradise of Light. With the aid of the Spirit of his Right Hand, of his five worlds or members before mentioned, and of his twelve elements, of which we have before heard nothing[1049], he made the First Man, clothing him by way of armour with the five “species” or powers of the celestial earth, the Breeze, Wind, Light, Water and Fire as before enumerated[1050]. With these He despatched him to fight Satan, who in his turn did on his armour in the shape of his five “species,” Smoke, Flame, Poison, Hot Wind, and Gloom[1051]. The fight lasted long, but in the end Satan triumphed, and dragged the First Man down into the Realm of Darkness, where he took from him his light[1052]. During the fight, too, the elements had become mingled, so that the Ether henceforth was mixed with the Smoke, the Fire with the Flame, the Light with the Darkness, the Wind with the Hot Wind, and the Cloud with the Water. This it is which brings about the confusion or mixture seen in the present world, wherein everything which is beautiful, pure, or useful, such as gold and silver, comes from the armour of the First Man, and everything foul, impure, and gross, from that of his infernal opponent[1053]. After the fight, the King of the Paradise of Light descended with another Power called the Friend of the Lights, who overthrew Satan, and the Spirit of the Right Hand or Mother of Life recalled, either by her voice or by another power called the Living Spirit, the First Man from his prison in the lowest Darkness. The First Man, on his deliverance, in this account mounts again to the Realms of Light, but before doing so “cuts the roots” of the Five Infernal Elements so that they can no more increase[1054]. Then the King of the Paradise of Light orders an angel to draw the Confusion or Mixture of the Elements to that part of the Realm of Darkness which touches the Realm of Light, and to create out of it the present world, so as to deliver the imprisoned elements of Light from the Darkness with which they are contaminated. This is done, and a Universe having six heavens and eight earths is formed, each heaven having twelve gates, together with terraces, corridors, and places in such profusion as to point to some confusion in the translation into the Syriac which has come down to us. The only thing that concerns us in this, perhaps, is that the visible world, presumably the lowest of the eight, has a ditch dug round it in which is thrown the Matter of Darkness as it is separated from the Light, and outside this a wall so that it cannot escape. This is in view of the End of the World[1055].

So far there is no great difference—at all events, no irreconcilable difference—between the Christian and the Mahommedan accounts of Manes’ doctrines. The machinery set up for the process of the redemption of the light, however, differs somewhat conspicuously in the two traditions. The Mahommedan writers declare that in Manes’ teaching the Sun and Moon were created for the purification of the Light, the Sun drawing to itself those light-elements which had become contaminated by the demons of heat and flame and the Moon exercising a like attraction on those which had suffered from the embrace of Satan’s other powers. Both luminaries bear these elements into the Column of Praises or Glory which is perpetually mounting from the Sun to the World of Light, bearing with it the praises of men, their hymns of gratitude, and their pure words and good works[1056]. This will continue until none but a feeble fragment of the Light remains in this world, when the angels charged with its maintenance will abandon their task, and return to the World of Light. A fire will then break out, which will burn for 1468 years and will set free the remainder of the Light imprisoned in matter by consuming its envelope. Satan or Hummâma, the Spirit of Darkness, will then acknowledge his defeat, and will be driven into the tomb prepared for him, the entrance to which will be closed with a stone the size of the world[1057]. In the Christian tradition these matters are more complicated, and Manes is said to have taught that there exists a great wheel bearing twelve vases or buckets after the fashion of an Egyptian sakiyeh, which raise the redeemed portions of Light to the Sun, who gives them to the Moon, who in her turn delivers them to the Aeons of the Light, who place them in the Column of Glory here called the Perfect Air[1058]. The Christian account is also more detailed with regard to the functions of the angels charged with the conduct of the world, making out that one of them supports this earth on his shoulders and is therefore called Omophorus, great earthquakes and commotions taking place when from weariness he shifts his burthen from one shoulder to the other, while another, called Splenditenens, holds the heavens by their backs[1059]. The stars are also in the Christian tradition fashioned out of the purer part of the Light which was not captured by the Satanic powers, whereas the Mahommedan tradition says nothing about their origin[1060]. The Christian writers also make the Manichaeans tell a story about the appearance of a beautiful virgin who appears to the male and female devils who were crucified or fixed in this world on the deliverance of the First Man. She appears to the male fiends as a beautiful woman and to the female as a desirable young man; and when they covet and pursue her, she flies from them and disappears. The anger of the Great Archon or Satan on this causes the appearance of clouds in this world and thereby obscures the Sun’s light, whilst his sweat becomes rain[1061].

On the origin of terrestrial man, there is also considerable discrepancy between the two streams of tradition. The Mahommedan tells us that Adam was born from the conjunction of one of “these Archons” or Princes, and a star. Nothing is said to tell us what is meant by “these” princes, but as the phrase is used in other passages by the same writer to denote the Satanic hierarchy one can but suppose that it is one of the rulers of darkness who is here indicated[1062]. The same writer goes on to say that the conjunction was “beheld” [or aided?] by a pair of Archons, one male and the other female, and that a second similar conjunction resulted in the birth of Eve. There is evidently a reference here to some legend of which we have lost the trace[1063], and the Christian tradition assigns to Adam an entirely different origin and declares that he was made by all the “princes” or archons on the advice of one of their number, who persuaded the others to give up some of the light they had received which they knew would otherwise be taken from them and to make from it man in their own image and after the form of the “First Man” against whom they had fought with temporary success[1064]. This story is clearly the same as that which we have already seen current among the Ophites, and it now seems most probable that it here appears not—as was once thought—as an interpolation foisted into the teaching of Manes by the Christian writer, but because both Ophite and Manichaean derived the story independently of each other from legends current in Western Asia[1065].

The Mahommedan writer then plunges into a long and elaborate account of how the “Five Angels,” meaning thereby apparently the “members” Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion and Discernment, on beholding Adam and Eve, prayed to certain powers which seem to be those which descended with the King of the Paradise of Light after the defeat of the First Man properly so called. These Powers include the First Man himself and the Mother of Life[1066], and the Living Spirit[1067], and were besought by the Five to send to earth a Saviour who should give Adam and Eve Knowledge and Goodness and deliver them from the devils. Their prayer was heard, and Jesus was sent upon earth “accompanied by a god,” with whose aid the Archons were again overthrown and imprisoned, while Adam and Eve were set free[1068]. Jesus then addressed Adam and revealed to him the whole secret of the cosmogony, enlightening him upon the origin and functions of the different heavenly worlds or paradises, of the gods, of hell, of the devils, of the earth and sky, and of the sun and moon. He then showed him, continues the Mahommedan tradition, the seductive power of Eve, put him on his guard against it, and breathed into him the fear of yielding to it. Adam, it is said, listened to these commands obediently.

The result of this abstinence on Adam’s part—we are still pursuing the Mahommedan account of the Manichaean teaching—was seen in the sequel. The Archon or Demon who was practically the father of the present race of mankind became enamoured of Eve, and engendering with her begot a son “ugly and of a reddish colour,” who was named Cain. Cain in turn had relations with his mother Eve, and from this incest was born a son of white colour who was named Abel. From the further intercourse of Cain and Eve were born two daughters, one called “the Wisdom of the World,” and the other “the Daughter of Pleasure.” Cain took the last-named to wife and gave the other in marriage to Abel; but he did not know that the Wisdom of the World was filled with Light and divine wisdom, while the Daughter of Pleasure possessed nothing of the kind. In the sequel, one of the Angels had relations with the Wisdom of the World and begot two daughters, called Help (Farjâd) and Bringer of Help (Barfarjâd). Abel accused Cain of being the father of these girls, whereupon Cain killed him and took the “Wisdom of the World” as his own second wife. The Rulers of Darkness were annoyed at this, and the “Great Devil,” here called Sindîd, taught Eve magical formulas by the aid of which she again enticed Adam to intercourse. The result was a son “beautiful and of an agreeable countenance,” whom Eve wished to kill as having nothing of the Archons in him. Adam arranged to have the child fed exclusively on milk and fruits, and drew three magic circles round him bearing the names of the King of the Paradise of Light, the First Man, and the Spirit of Life respectively, to protect him against the devils. He then went to a high place and entreated God for him, whereupon one of the Three Powers last named appeared and gave him a Crown of Glory, at the sight of which Sindîd and the Archons fled away. Then a tree appeared to Adam called the Lotus, from which he drew milk with which to nourish his son whom he called first after the tree, and then Seth (Schâthîl). Eve, on the instigation of Sindîd, again persuaded Adam to intercourse, which so disgusted Seth that he took with him the Wisdom of the World, her two daughters Help and Bringer of Help, and “Siddikût,” which seems to be the community of the elect or Perfect Manichaeans, and journeyed to the East in search of the Divine Light and Wisdom. At their death all these entered into Paradise, while Eve, Cain, and the daughters of Desire went to hell[1069].

The story about the protoplasts of the Book of Genesis has been given in more detail than it perhaps deserves because of its manifest connection with the doctrines of the extant sect of Mandaites, Hemerobaptists, or Disciples of St John still to be found in certain villages near the Shât-el-Arab and even in considerable towns like Bussora. These sectaries declare themselves to have inherited the faith of John the Baptist, and have a sacred book called the Sidra Rabba, which has been known to Europeans since the XVIIth century, and contains, among other things, many stories like those given above. The Mandaites are a violently anti-Christian sect, and say that the historical Jesus was a fiend who obtained baptism from St John the Baptist by means of a trick, and they display a similar hatred of the religions of both the Jews and the Mahommedans. Nevertheless, most modern writers consider them related to, and perhaps the modern representatives of, the Mughtasilah or “Washers[1070].” This last sect is certainly very ancient, and its history can in fact be traced as far back as the beginning of the reign of Trajan[1071], while the Mahommedan author, from whom the traditional account of Manes’ doctrines has been quoted above, says that Manes was in his youth one of the Mughtasilah. From this Prof. Kessler, who perhaps devoted more attention to the Manichaean religion than any living scholar, built up the theory that the doctrines of the Mughtasilah were one of the principal sources from which Manes formed his system. He even says that the Fatak or Patecius whom tradition gives as a father to Manes must be identified with that Scythianus or Terebinthus whom the Christian tradition makes Fatak’s predecessor, was one of the Mughtasilah, and helped Manes both in the construction of his system and in its propagation[1072]. This may be so, but very little evidence is available in support of the theory; and the points which the Mandaites and the Manichaeans undoubtedly possess in common do not seem to be more than can be explained by the contact which must necessarily have taken place between two neighbouring sects both persecuted successively by Persian Shahs, Christian Emperors, and Mahommedan Caliphs. The Christian tradition of Manes’ teaching concerning the protoplasts says merely that “he who said ‘Let us make man in our own image’” was the same Prince of Darkness who thereby counselled the other Archons to give up their light in order to make man in the likeness

“of the form that we have seen, that is to say, of the First Man. And in that manner,” it continues, “he created the man. They created Eve also after the like fashion, imparting to her of their own lust, with a view to the deceiving of Adam. And by these means the construction of the world proceeded from the operations of the Prince[1073].”

The teaching of Manes with regard to Jesus is not very clear in the Christian tradition, no doubt because the writers who recorded it were careful to remove from it as much as possible everything which in their view savoured of blasphemy. Yet the Christian author before quoted makes Manes say that the God of Light whom he calls “the Good Father” sent his well-beloved son upon earth for the salvation of man’s soul and “because of Omophorus” or the world-sustaining angel. This son, by whom he can hardly mean any other than the historical Jesus, “came and transformed himself into the semblance of a man and showed himself to men as a man, although he was not a man, and men imagined that he had been begotten[1074].” It is also to Him that is attributed the construction of the wonderful wheel before alluded to as equipped with twelve vases which the sphere causes to revolve, and which thus scoops up, as it were, the souls of the dying[1075]. The Christian account also narrates that in

“the Paradise which is called the Cosmos [Qy the ‘heavenly’ earth or the Sun?], there are trees such as Desire and other deceits, whereby the minds of those men [those who reach it?] are corrupted. But the tree in Paradise, whereby they know the good, is Jesus and the knowledge of Him which is in the Cosmos. And whoso receives it, distinguishes between good and evil. Yet the Cosmos itself is not of God, but it was made from portions of matter, and therefore all things in it will disappear[1076].”

There is not really any very great difference between this and the Mahommedan tradition quoted above which makes Jesus the messenger sent from above to give knowledge to Adam, especially if we consider that Manes probably, like most of the Gnostics, placed Paradise not upon the earth but in one of the heavens intermediate between us and the abode of the Supreme Being[1077]. That Manes supposed Jesus to have descended to this earth also is plain from his own words quoted by Al Bîrûnî from the Shapurakan or book written by Manes for King Sapor:

“Wisdom and deeds have always from time to time been brought to mankind by the messenger of God. So in one age they have been brought by the messenger called Buddha to India, in another by Zaradusht [i.e. Zoroaster] to Persia, in another by Jesus to the West. Thereupon this revelation has come down, this prophecy in this last age through me, Mânî, the messenger of the God of Truth to Babylonia[1078].”

Manes’ ideas as to the salvation of man’s soul again differ little in the two streams of tradition. The Christian, here perhaps the fuller of the two, describes him as teaching that the soul of man, as also that of beasts, birds, other animals, and plants, is part of the light which was won by the demons from the First Man, while all bodies are of that matter which is the same as darkness. Man’s body, we are told, is called a cosmos by parallelism with the great Cosmos, and all men have roots here below bound to things which are above[1079]. It is the cutting of these roots by the demons which causes death. On the death of a man who has attained the knowledge of the truth during this life, his soul is taken up in the wheel to the Sun, by whom after it has been purified it is passed over to the Moon, the two luminaries being represented as ships or ferry-boats sailing to-and-fro in the upper air. When the Moon is full, she ferries the souls with which she is filled towards the East, and then delivers them to the Aeons of Light who place them in the Pillar of Glory before described. She then returns for a fresh supply greatly reduced in circumference, whereby her waxing and waning is explained[1080]. In the case of a man who has not attained the knowledge of the truth, a small portion of the soul only is purified and is then reincarnated in the body of a dog, a camel, or some other animal, according to the sins which it has committed. Thus, if he has killed a mouse, he will become a mouse, if a chicken a chicken, and so on, while those who have been employed in the reaping of corn will themselves become corn or some other kind of plant in order that they may be reaped and cut in turn. The soul of the homicide will, it is said, go to inhabit the body of a leper[1081]. There will, apparently, be five of these reincarnations[1082], and between them the soul which has not found knowledge of the truth is given over to the demons in order that they may subdue it in the “Gehennas” of fire. This, like its transference into other bodies, is for the sake of teaching it better; but if it still remains without knowledge, it is cast into the great fire until the Consummation of the World[1083].

The Mahommedan tradition as to what occurs at death goes into more details, and it is here that we catch the first glimpse of that doctrine of predestination which plays so prominent a part in the later teaching of the Manichaean Church. When a just or perfect or “true” Manichaean is on the point of death, the First Man sends to him a “shining god of light” in the form of “the Wise Guide” accompanied by three other gods and with them “the bowl of water, the garment, the fillet for the head, the circlet and the crown of light[1084].” With them comes the virgin who is like to the soul of the just one. There also appear to him the devil of greed, that of pleasure, and others with them. Directly the just one who is dying sees them, he calls to his help the goddess[1085] who has taken the form of the Wise Guide and the three gods her companions. They draw near to him, and at the sight of them the devils turn and flee. Then the gods take the just one, do on him the crowns and the garment, put in his hand the bowl of water, and mount with him to the Column of Praises in the sphere of the Moon, to the First Man and to Nahnaha the Mother of Life, until they reach the place in the Paradise of Light he occupied in the beginning[1086]. His body remains stretched (upon the earth) in order that the Sun, the Moon, and the Gods of Light may take from it its powers, i.e. the Water, the Fire, the gentle Breeze, which are then borne upwards to the Sun and become a god. The rest of the body, which is all darkness, is cast into hell[1087].

This description of the lot of the blessed after death is certainly taken from no other source than that from which the Zoroastrian books put forth by the Sassanian kings are drawn.

“At the end of the third night,” says the Hatoxt Nask[1088], one of the earliest Zoroastrian documents that have come down to us, “at the dawn of day, the soul of the faithful thinks that it is in a garden and smells its perfumes. Towards it a wind seems to blow from the region of the South perfumed, more perfumed than any other wind. Then the soul of the faithful thinks that he breathes this wind with his nostrils. ‘Whence blows this wind, the most perfumed that I have breathed with my nostrils?’ While encountering this breeze, his religion (conscience, daena, spiritual life), appears to him in the form of a beautiful young girl, shining, with white arms, robust, of fair growth, of fair aspect, tall, high-bosomed, of fair body, noble, of shining race, with the figure of one who is 15 years old, as fair in form as the fairest creatures that exist. Then the soul of the faithful speaks to her, and asks ‘What virgin art thou, thou the most beautiful in form of the virgins that I have ever seen?’ Then she who is his religion answers: ‘O youth of good mind, of good words, of good deeds, of good religion, I am thine own religion incarnate[1089].’”

So, too, the Vendidad, which may be a little later in date than the document just quoted, represents Ahura Mazda as saying in answer to Zarathustra himself:

“After a man has disappeared, after a man dies, the impious and malevolent demons make their attack. When the dawn of the third night shines forth and the day begins to lighten, the well-armed Mithra arrives at the mountains giving forth holy radiance and the Sun rises. Then, O Spitama Zarathustra ... she comes, the beautiful, the well-made, the strong, of fair growth, with her dogs, full of discernment, rich in children [i.e. fruitful], the longed-for, virtuous one. She leads the souls of the faithful above the Hara Berezaiti; she sustains them across the bridge Chinvat in the road of the spiritual divinities. Vohu Mano rises from his golden throne. Vohu Mano says, ‘O faithful one, how hast thou come hither from the perishable world to the imperishable?’ Rejoicing, the faithful pass before Ahura Mazda, before the beneficent Immortals, before golden thrones, before the house of hymns, the dwelling of Ahura Mazda, the dwelling of the beneficent Immortals, the dwelling of the other faithful ones. When the faithful is purified, the wicked and malevolent demons tremble by reason of the perfume after his departure as a sheep pursued by a wolf trembles at the [scent of the?] wolf[1090].”

To return, however, to the Mahommedan account of Manes’ doctrine. This last by no means confined his survey of the state of man’s soul after death to the single case of the justified dead.

“When death draws nigh to a man who has fought for religion and justice, [he is represented as saying,] and who has protected them by protecting the Just, the gods whom I have mentioned appear and the devils are there also. Then he calls the gods to his help and seeks to win them by showing to them his works of piety, and that which he has done to protect the religion and the Just. The gods deliver him from the devils, while leaving him in the condition of a man in this world, who sees fearful shapes in his dreams, and who is plunged in dirt and mud[1091]. He remains in this state until his Light and his Spirit are freed [evidently by transmigration] when he arrives at the meeting-place of the Just. Then, after having wandered for long, he dons their vesture. But when death appears to the sinful man, to him who has been ruled by greed and desire, the devils draw near to him, they seize him, torment him, and put fearful shapes before his eyes. The gods are there also with the vesture, so that the sinful one thinks they have come to deliver him. But they have only appeared to him to reproach him, to remind him of his actions, and to convince him of his guilt in having neglected the support of the Just. He wanders unceasingly throughout the world, and is tortured until the coming of the End of the World, when he will be thrown into hell. Thus, Manes teaches,” continues the tradition, “that there are three paths for the soul of man. One leads to Paradise, which is the path of the Just. Another leads back to the world and its terrors, which is the path of the protectors of the faith and the helpers of the Just. The third leads to hell, which is the path of the sinful man[1092].”

Yet there is nothing to show that the sins which thus doom a man to hell are within his choice to commit or to leave alone as he chooses. Rather does it appear that his freedom from sin depends on the admixture of light which enters into his composition at his birth. Of all this the Christian tradition says nothing.

It is, nevertheless, in the division here set forth of the adherents of the religion into the Just and the protectors of the Just, that the great distinction between the Manichaean religion and all its contemporaries appears. Both traditions are agreed that those who listen to the teaching of Manes are to be divided into five classes, viz. the Masters who are the sons of Gentleness; those who are enlightened by the Sun, who are the sons of Knowledge or the Priests; the Elders who are the sons of Intelligence; the Just who are the sons of Discretion; and the Hearers who are the sons of Discernment[1093]. The first three classes we may safely neglect for the present, as they evidently correspond to the three superior or directing orders of the Manichaean Church to which we shall have to return later; but the last two, the Just and the Hearers, give us the key to the organization of the sect, and explain how it was able to maintain itself for so long against its numerous enemies. He who would enter into the religion, says the Mahommedan tradition, must examine himself that he may see whether he is strong enough to conquer desire and greed, to abstain from meats, from wine, and from marriage, to avoid all that can be hurtful in (to?) water or fire, and to shun magic and hypocrisy[1094]. These abstinences are those that are demanded of the perfect Manichaeans, who have been called above the Just or the Sons of Discretion, and who with their superiors constitute the Manichaean Church. These are they whom the Christian tradition speaks of as the Elect, and for whom, as we have seen, there is reserved after death a glorious ascension and an immediate return to the Paradise of Light. So Valentinus, like many other Gnostics, divided Christians into the two classes of pneumatics and psychics, the first-named of whom were to occupy a more distinguished position in the world to come than the other. There is nothing to show, however, that Valentinus or any other Gnostic ever imposed any discipline on the pneumatics than that prescribed for the psychics, or that he thought that those who were going to take a higher rank in the next world should observe a stricter mode of life in this. The Catholics, indeed, had already adopted the view that the celibate member of the Church possessed “a higher calling” than his married brethren; but there is no reason to suppose that they therefore assigned to them a higher place in the next world, or thought that those who had not the gift of continence were to be permitted any relaxation of the moral law imposed upon celibate and married alike. It is therefore probable that it was from Buddhism, with which Manes must have made himself well acquainted during his journeys into India, that he borrowed the scheme by which those who believed in the truth of his teaching could delay subjecting themselves to the austerities necessary for salvation until their next incarnation.

However this may be, there can be little doubt that this is the meaning of the position he assigned to the Hearers.

“If,” he says according to the Mahommedan author, “he who would enter into the religion does not feel strong enough to practise the abstinences before enumerated, let him renounce the attempt. If, however, he is filled with love for the faith, yet cannot conquer desire and greed, let him seek to progress by protecting the faith and the Just, and let him fight against evil actions on the occasions when he can give himself to labour[1095], piety, vigilance, prayer and humility. This will fill him with contentment both in this ephemeral world, and in the eternal world to come, and he will put on the body of the second degree in the state which follows after death[1096].”

Unless they are greatly belied, some of his later followers looked upon this as a licence to the Hearers to commit such sins as they chose[1097] in this life, yet it is evident that this formed no part of Manes’ original teaching. He imposed upon the Hearers, says the Mahommedan tradition, ten commandments, which were: to abstain from prayers offered to idols, from lying, from avarice, from murder, from adultery, from false teaching, from magic, from double dealing, from doubt in religion and from slackness and want of energy in action. They also had to recite certain prayers which will be mentioned in their place, and to fast two days when the Moon is new as when she is full, as also when the Sun enters the sign of Sagittary. A three days’ fast was also obligatory on the first appearance of the Moon after the entry of the Sun into the signs of Capricorn and of Libra. But they were to feast on Sunday, a day which the Perfect, according to the Mahommedans, kept as a fast, their own weekly feast being held on Monday[1098].

The attitude of Manes to other religions was also without precedent or parallel. Of the Jews and of their religion he seems to have had a detestation so strong and so deeply rooted that it is difficult not to see in it some connection with political events of which we have lost the record. The war of extermination which Hadrian had been forced to wage against the Jews of Palestine must have been over nearly a century before Manes began to teach; but the Babylonian Jews can hardly have been affected by this, and the story of the king of Adiabene quoted above shows that shortly before the time of Ardeshîr they actively pursued the proselytizing policy which their countrymen in the West had been forced to abandon. In doing so, they doubtless contrived, after their manner, to offend the national prejudices of their hosts, while showing themselves greedy, as ever, of political power[1099]. This probably provoked reprisals, and it is quite possible that Manes’ teaching derived some of its strength from the revulsion felt by Ardeshîr’s Aryan subjects to the borrowings from Judaism to be found both in Mithraism and the Avestic literature. But whatever its cause, there can be no doubt about the hatred felt by Manes for the Jewish religion, which is prominent in every tradition of his teaching. The earlier Gnostics, like Marcion, had made the God of the Old Testament a harsh but just and well-meaning tyrant; but Manes would have none of this, and declared that he was a fiend.

“It is the Prince of Darkness,” the Christian tradition makes him say, “who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and their priests. Thus the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they worship this God. For he led them astray in the lusts that he taught them, since he was not the God of Truth. Whence those who put their hope in that God who spoke with Moses and the Prophets will be bound with him, because they have not put their trust in the God of Truth. For he, the God of the Jews, spoke with them according to their lusts[1100].”

In a very different spirit, however, Manes dealt with all the other religions that he knew. He acknowledged the Divine origin of the teachings of Zoroaster, of Buddha, and of Jesus alike, with the reservation that he should himself be regarded as the Paraclete, which here seems to mean nothing more than the Legate or Ambassador, sent by the Good God to complete their teaching. “Mânî, the messenger of the God of Truth to Babylonia[1101]” is the title which, as we have seen, he gives himself in the most authentic record of his teaching. He aimed, in short, at establishing a universal religion which should include within its scope the three faiths that between them commanded the allegiance of the whole civilized world, and should acknowledge him as its founder and chief. Had his plans come to fruition in his lifetime, he would have attained an empire over the minds of men far greater and wider than any ever claimed or dreamed of by the most ambitious of the Roman pontiffs.

The full details of the way in which he proposed to establish this new faith we shall probably never know; but discoveries made during the last decade have shown us that his plans were well fitted to their purpose. The successive expeditions of Drs Grünwedel and von Le Coq to Turfan have shown that up to as late as the XIth century A.D., there was still a strong body of Manichaeans probably belonging to the Ouigur nation in Chinese Turkestan, living apparently in complete amity with their Buddhist countrymen[1102]. The writings that were there discovered, to which we shall have to refer more in detail later, are mostly written in a script resembling the Estranghelo or Syriac but with an alphabet peculiar to the Manichaean religious documents, and which cannot, one would think, have been adopted by those who used it for any other purpose than that of concealment[1103]. Judging from this and the practice of the sect in Europe from the time of Diocletian onward, it seems highly probable that among Buddhists, the Manichaean hearers professed Buddhism, and among Zoroastrians, Zoroastrianism, hoping that thus they might be able to turn their fellows to their way of thinking without openly dissenting from the reigning religion. The persecution that Bahram I instituted against them immediately upon Manes’ execution was perhaps less a reason than a pretext for this.

This is certainly borne out by their proceedings when they found themselves among Christians.

“You ask me if I believe the gospel,” said the Manichaean Prefect, Faustus, in his dispute with St Augustine (himself for nine years before his conversion a Manichaean Hearer). “My obedience to its commands shows that I do. I should rather ask you if you believe it, since you give no proof of your belief. I have left my father, brother, wife and children and all else that the gospel requires; and you ask me if I believe the gospel. Perhaps you do not know what is called the gospel. The gospel is nothing else than the teaching and the precept of Christ. I have parted with all gold and silver. I have left off carrying money in my purse; content with food obtained from day to day; without anxiety for the morrow and without care as to how I shall be fed or wherewithal I shall be clothed; and you ask if I believe the gospel? You see in me the blessings of the gospel; and yet you ask if I believe the gospel. You see me poor, meek, a peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing persecutions and hatred for righteousness’ sake; and do you doubt if I believe in the gospel[1104]?”

So, too, Manes in the epistle to Marcellus which, although much altered and corrupted by its Catholic transcribers, is probably a genuine document, is careful to begin in language which seems imitated from the Epistles of St Paul:

“Manes, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son; Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you from the present evil world and from its calamities, and from the snares of the wicked one, Amen[1105].”

While in the Disputation which follows and which is certainly a later interpolation, or possibly a concoction of some later author, he is represented as saying “My brother, I am indeed a disciple of Christ, and, moreover, an apostle of Jesus.” Yet in spite of this and a few other passages of the same kind, it is plain that neither Manes, nor any of those who believed on his teaching, were Christians in any sense in which the term could not be applied to the followers of Mahommed or many another professedly anti-Christian teacher. Manes entirely rejected the account of the Incarnation given in the Gospels, alleging, as a modern critic might do, that it was not the account of eyewitnesses, but a mass of fables which had grown up after the memory of the events recorded had faded away[1106]. Jesus, he said, was not born of woman, but came forth from the Father or First Man, and descended from heaven in the form of a man about thirty years of age[1107]. But the body in which He appeared was an illusion only and was no more that of a real man than the dove which descended upon Him at the baptism in Jordan was a real dove, and it was not true to say that He was put to death by the Romans and suffered on the cross[1108]. So far from that being the case, he declared that Jesus, the mortal or suffering Jesus, was nothing but the universal soul diffused throughout Nature and thus tormented by its association with matter. Thus, he said, the Jesus patibilis may be said to be hanging from every tree[1109].

To say that such teaching was likely to alter in the course of a generation or two is merely to assert that it followed the course of evolution which can be traced in all religions, and it is possible that in what has been said in the last paragraph concerning Jesus, we have rather the opinions of the Manichaeans of the fourth century than those of Manes himself. Yet even in this we see exemplified the chameleon-like habit peculiar to the Manichaeans of modifying their tenets in outward appearance so as to make them coincide as nearly as possible with the views of those whom they wished to win over to them. Thus when the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the Three Persons and One God, began to take shape under the pressure of the Arian controversy, the Manichaeans were not long in matching it with a Trinity of their own[1110]:

“We worship,” said Faustus the Manichaean Perfect, “under the triple appellation of Almighty God, the Father and His Son Christ and the Holy Spirit. While these are one and the same, we believe also that the Father properly dwells in the highest or chief light, which Paul calls ‘light inaccessible,’ and the Son in the second or visible light. And as the Son is himself two-fold according to the apostle, who speaks of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God, so we believe that His power dwells in the Sun and His wisdom in the Moon[1111]. We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third majesty, has His seat and His home in the whole circle of the atmosphere.[1112] By His influence and inpouring of the spirit, the Earth conceives and brings forth the suffering Jesus, who, as hanging from every tree, is the life and salvation of man[1113].”

In like manner, while not denying them in terms, the Manichaeans attempted to refine away all the significance of the Crucifixion and the Atonement, by representing them as merely symbolical. In one Apocryphal book called the Wanderings of the Apostles, which seems to be of Manichaean origin, Jesus appears to St John, who is sunk in grief at the supposed sufferings of his Master, and tells him that His Crucifixion was a mere phantasmagoria or miracle-play performed to impress the plebeian crowd at Jerusalem. Then He vanishes and in His stead appears a cross of pure light, surrounded by a multitude of other forms representing the same shape and image. From this cross comes a Divine voice saying sweetly:

“The cross of light is, for your sakes, sometimes called the Word, sometimes Christ; sometimes the Door, sometimes the Way; sometimes the Bread, sometimes the Sun; sometimes the Resurrection, sometimes Jesus; sometimes the Father, sometimes the Spirit; sometimes the Life, sometimes the Truth; sometimes Faith and sometimes Grace[1114].”

As will presently be seen, now that we have under our hands the writings of Manichaean communities domiciled in Persian and Chinese territory, we find in them similar compromises with the faiths of Zoroaster and Buddha.

Yet after the Mahommedan conquest of Asia, and in regions where they were free, as it would seem, from the pressure of their Zoroastrian and Christian competitors, the Manichaeans appear to have evolved a theology as formal and as detailed as any of the Gnostic systems which we have examined. This is in the main set out by Theodore Bar Khôni, the Nestorian Bishop of Kashgar, in his Book of Scholia written in Syriac and Mandaean which has been in part translated by the scholarly care of M. Pognon, late Consul of France at Aleppo, and has lately been commentated by M. Cumont. M. Pognon at first identified Bar Khôni with the nephew of the Nestorian Patriarch Iwannis (Johannes or John), whose reign began in 893 A.D., and he quoted Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis in his support[1115]. Later, however, he withdrew this, and put him a century earlier[1116]. M. Cumont, on the other hand, thinks that Bar Khôni lived at the end of the VIth century or the beginning of the VIIth, and therefore before the Mahommedan invasion[1117]. In any event, the Scholia describe a body of Manichaean doctrine considerably later in date than any of the Christian sources hitherto referred to, and probably formed in an atmosphere where the necessity for outward conformity to either the Zoroastrian or the Christian faith was a good deal less cogent than it was further west. Its agreement with the Mahommedan tradition drawn from above is also well marked, and it derives much support from the Manichaean MSS. lately recovered from the oasis of Turfan in Turkestan, and in that of Tun-huang in China. It is possible, although no proofs are yet forthcoming, that it was this Neo-Manichaeism, as it has been called, that inspired the Manichaean sectaries who were imported in the IXth and Xth centuries into Bulgaria, whence their missionaries found their way later into Italy, France, and other countries of Southern Europe.

The system disclosed in these documents begins, as does nearly every Manichaean writing, with the assertion of the existence of two gods, that is to say, the God of Light and the God of Darkness. As the Kingdom of Darkness, whenever and wherever described, is the exact opposite and counterpart of that of the Light, we shall not return to it again, but assume that in describing the one we are mutatis mutandis describing the other. The God of Light has one substance of which all the powers of light were made, but three forms or hypostases, called in the Greek Formula of abjuration “faces” or persons, which added to his own personality make a supreme tetrad. These three hypostases are his wisdom, power, and goodness, by which is probably meant that he operates in the lower powers through these qualities, while remaining himself remote in the “inaccessible light[1118].” He possesses also five houses or dwellings, which are also called his worlds and even his members. Their names according to Bar Khôni are Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought, Reflexion, and Feeling[1119]. These seem to be ranged in this order below the dwelling of the inaccessible light, so as to cut off all approach to it by a fivefold wall. On the attack of the powers of darkness before mentioned, the God of Light, called by Bar Khôni the Father of Greatness, that is to say, the Very Great or Greatest[1120], creates by his word the Mother of Life, who in her turn evokes the First Man as already described. Thus is constituted, if M. Cumont be right, the First Triad of Father, Mother, and Son[1121]. From the Turfan documents, we know that the Father was called, in Turkestan at any rate, by the name of Azrua or Zervan, and the Son Khormizta or Ormuzd[1122]. As for the appellation of the Mother we are still in ignorance[1123].

When the First Man or Ormuzd marched against his enemy, he also evoked five elements called sometimes his sons and sometimes his members. These are the Ether, the Wind, the Light, the Water, and the Fire before mentioned, which together compose the soul of the world, and hence of man, who is in every respect its image. When he was conquered by Satan and dragged down to the lowest pit of hell, he prayed, says Bar Khôni, seven times to the Very Great Father, and he in compassion created, again by his word, the Friend of the Lights[1124], who evoked the Great Ban[1125], who evoked the Living Spirit. Here we have the second triad or “second creation,” of which, as has been said, only the last member takes any active part in what follows. As we have already seen, the Living Spirit speaks a word like a sharp sword, and the image of the First Man answers[1126] and is drawn up out of hell. These two, the sword or Appellant and the image or Respondent, together mount towards the Mother of Life and the Living Spirit, and the Mother of Life “clothes” the Image—no doubt with a form or “nature,”—while the Living Spirit does the same with the compelling word[1127]. Then they return to the earth of darkness where remains the soul of the First Man in the shape of his five sons.

In the meantime, the Living Spirit has also given birth to five sons. He, like the Very Great Father of whom he is perhaps the reflexion, has five worlds named like those of his paradigm from which he draws certain other powers. From his Intelligence, says Bar Khôni, he produces The Ornament of Splendour, who is none other than the Splenditenens we have seen drawing the heavens after him; from his Reason, the Great King of Honour, who is described as sitting in the midst of the celestial armies; from his Thought, Adamas of the Light armed with shield and spear; from his Reflexion the King of Glory whose function is to set in motion the three wheels of the fire, the water, and the wind, which apparently raise to the upper spheres the portions of those elements still left below; and finally from his Feeling the great Omophorus or Atlas who bears the earths on his shoulders[1128]. Immediately on evocation, three of these powers were set to work to kill and flay the rulers of darkness, and to carry their skins to the Mother of Life. She stretches out the skins to make the sky, thereby fashioning ten or eleven or even twelve heavens. She throws their bodies on to the Earth of Darkness, thereby forming eight earths[1129]. Thus the soul or sons of the First Man are rescued from the Powers of Darkness, and the machinery of the redemption of the Light is set on foot.

There is, however, a third act to the drama. Again, the lesser Powers of Light, this time the Mother of Life, the First Man, and the Living Spirit, cry to the Very Great Father. Satan, or, as the Mahommedan tradition calls him, Hummâma, is still in existence, although his “sons,” the Rulers of Darkness, the Hot Wind, the Smoke, and the others have been crucified or fixed in the firmament, and he is still actively working with his remaining powers against the Light. The Light-Powers feel themselves contaminated and oppressed by the contact, and perhaps even in some fear lest they should again have the worst in a renewal of the conflict. Again, the Very Great Father hears them and sends to their assistance a third creation, called this time simply the Messenger.

Who this Messenger is, is the main puzzle of the new documents. The author of the Acta knew something of him, for he speaks of a “Third Legate,” who, when the world is burning in the great conflagration which will mark the redemption of the last particles of light, will be found in the Ship of the Moon with Jesus, the Mother of Life, the Virgin of Light and the twelve other powers to be presently mentioned[1130]. M. Cumont, in his able analysis of Bar Khôni’s system, thinks that this “Third Legate” resembles the Neryôsang of the Persians, who in the later Mazdean literature is made the herald of Ormuzd, and has also features in common with Gayômort the First Man, and Mithras[1131]. But it is plain from the Tun-huang treatise lately discovered, as well as from the fragments found at Turfan, that the Third Legate corresponds most closely to the Mazdean genius or divinity Sraôsha, the angel of Obedience[1132]. Sraôsha is described in the Srôsh Yashts as the “Holy and Strong Srôsh,” “the Incarnate Word, a mighty-speared and lordly god.” He it is who is called the “fiend-smiter,” who is said to watch over the world and to defend it from the demons, especially at night, to fight for the souls of the good after death, and, in the older Mazdean traditions, to judge the dead with Mithra and Rashnu as his assessors, like Rhadamanthos, Minos, and Eacus among the Greeks[1133]. In the Turfan texts he is called the mighty, and in the Tun-huang treatise is likened to a judge, while in both sets of documents he has his proper appellation of Srôsh[1134].

This third creation was no more content than his two predecessors to enter upon the task allotted to him without further help. His first act upon arriving hither, according to Bar Khôni, was to evoke or call into existence twelve virgins with their vestures, their crowns, and their guards. The Turfan texts give us the names of these powers, four of whom seem to be attributes of sovereignty, and eight of them virtues. Their names in the order of the new texts are respectively, Dominion, Wisdom, Victory, Persuasion, Purity, Truth, Faith, Patience, Uprightness, Goodness, Justice and Light, and they are probably the twelve “pilots” whom the Acta describe as being at the Ecpyrosis in the Moon-ship with their father, with Jesus, and with the other powers[1135]. But there is much plausibility in M. Cumont’s theory that this Third Legate or Srôsh is supposed until that event to inhabit the Sun, and that his 12 “daughters” are the signs of the Zodiac among whom he moves[1136]. According to Bar Khôni, it is the same Legate who is ordered by the Great Ban to create a new earth and to set the whole celestial machinery—the Sun and Moon-ships and the three wheels of fire, air, and water—in motion[1137]. Yet we hear nothing in any other document of any addition to the number of eight earths already created, and we can only therefore suppose that Bar Khôni’s phrase refers to the gradual purification of this world of ours by Srôsh.

Bar Khôni also makes the appearance of this last Legate responsible for the appearance of man upon the earth, as to which he recites a story which seems at first sight to be an elaboration of the Gnostic and Manichaean tradition preserved by the Christians and mentioned above. The Legate, he makes Manes say, was of both sexes, and on his appearance in the Sun-ship, both the male and female rulers of Darkness became so filled with desire that they began to give up the light which they had taken from the sons of the First Man. With this was mingled their own sin, half of which fell into the sea and there gave birth to a horrible monster like the King of Darkness. This was conquered and slain by Adamas of the Light, but that which fell upon the land fructified as the five kinds of trees[1138]. Moreover, the female demons, who were pregnant at the time, miscarried and their untimely births ate of the buds of the trees. Yet these females remembered the beauty of the Legate whom they had seen, and Asaqlun or Saclas[1139], son of the King of Darkness, persuaded them to give him their sons and daughters, in order that he might make from them an image of the Legate. This they did, when he ate the male children and his wife Namraël consumed the female. In consequence Namraël gave birth to a son and a daughter who were called Adam and Eve. Jesus was sent to Adam and found him sleeping a sleep of death, but awoke him, made him stand upright, and gave him to eat of the Tree of Life, while he separated him from his too seductive companion. This story is not confirmed by any of the new documents; and in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say whether it contains an old Asiatic tradition, of which the Biblical accounts of the protoplasts and of the Sons of God making love to the daughters of men are the only remnants which have till now come down to us, or whether—as is at least as likely—the whole story is a blend by the Manichaeans of Jewish, Mandaite, and Pagan legends. The main point in it for our consideration is its introduction of a Jesus who is certainly not the same as the Jesus patibilis whom St Augustine and the other Christian Fathers make Manes describe as born of the Living Spirit and the Earth, and as hanging on every tree. This other Jesus, who came to the earth in the time of Adam, is a fourth emissary or Saviour put forth by the second and third creations according to the Fihrist and called by Bar Khôni “Jesus the shining one.” In the Turfan texts he is, as has been said, perhaps equated with the Virgin of Light, and in the Tun-huang treatise he is spoken of as “Jesus the Victorious[1140].” Evidently he is conceived as one of the Burkhans or Buddhas who fight against the Powers of Darkness, and the Jesus patibilis is but another name for the fragments of light or “armour” of the First Man left on this earth. The borrowing of the name revered among Christians is but one of the compromises by which the Manichaeans hoped to draw those of other faiths into their net.

A like plasticity is shown in the organization of the Manichaean Church. The first disciples of Manes, to whom he gave special commandments, were, according to Christian tradition, only seven in number, in which if anywhere in the system we may see a reflexion of the seven Amshaspands of the Avesta[1141]. But later there seems to have been instituted a band of twelve Apostles in manifest imitation of the Apostles of Jesus, who perhaps corresponded to the Masters or highest degree that we have seen called the Sons of Gentleness. These were presided over by a Manichaean Pope who figured as the representative and Vicegerent of Manes himself. There were also seventy-two bishops answering to the seventy-two disciples of Christ, who are perhaps to be identified with the Sons of Knowledge. Then came the Presbyters or Sons of Intelligence whose functions were chiefly those of missionaries and who were perpetually, like Faustus, travelling for the propagation of the faith[1142]. This seems to have been the organization generally adopted for Christian countries, and we meet with it there up to a very late date. Yet there is no reason to suppose that it was necessarily copied by the Manichaeans of Central Asia or India, or that the Manichaeans always obeyed some central authority. What organization they did adopt outside Europe and Africa we shall probably have to wait to discover when more of the documents coming from Turkestan have been deciphered.

The extreme simplicity of the Manichaean ritual also made easy to them all such adaptations to the ways of their neighbours. Hating images with as much energy, perhaps, as Zoroaster himself, they had neither statues nor lights nor incense in their meeting-places, which must in the West have been as bare and as unadorned as a Scottish conventicle. The whole service seems to have consisted of hymns and prayers, in the first of which the mythology of the sect doubtless found expression, while the second mainly consisted of those praises of the Powers of Light, which praises were thought, as has been said, to have an actual and objective existence and thus to fulfil a considerable part in the scheme of redemption. Up to the present we have very few examples of the hymns. The Hymn of the Soul, of which Prof. Bevan has published an English translation, is probably Manichaean in origin[1143], and St Augustine tells of a “love song” in which the Father, meaning thereby probably Srôsh, the third legate[1144], is represented as presiding at a banquet crowned with flowers and bearing a sceptre, while twelve gods, three from each quarter of the globe, are grouped round him “clothed in flowers” singing praises and laying flowers at his feet. These are said to represent the seasons[1145]; and we hear also of myths doubtless expressed in song describing the great angel Splenditenens, whose care is the portions of Light still imprisoned in matter and who is always bewailing their captivity[1146]; and of his fellow angel Omophorus who, as has been said, bears the world on his shoulders like the classical Atlas[1147]. Doubtless, too, some of these hymns described that last conflagration, which seems to have occupied so great a place in the speculations of the early Manichaeans, when the justified faithful, secure in the two great ships which sail about on the ocean of the upper air, shall behold the world in flames and the last portion of the imprisoned Light mounting in the Column of Praises, while Satan and his hosts are confined for ever in the gross and dark matter which is henceforth to be their portion[1148]. Possibly the Turfan discoveries may yet recover for us some important fragments of this lost literature.

With regard to the prayers, we are a little better informed. “Free us by thy skill, for we suffer here oppression and torture and pollution, only that thou (the First Man?) mayest mourn unmolested in thy kingdom,” is one of those which St Augustine has preserved for us[1149]. So, too, the Mahommedan tradition has handed down a series of six doxologies or hymns of praise out of a total of twelve which seem to have been obligatory, perhaps on all Manichaeans, but certainly on the Perfect. The suppliant is, we are told, to stand upright, to wash in running water or something else, in which we may perhaps see either the origin or an imitation of the ceremonial ablutions of the Mussulman, then to turn towards the Great Light, to prostrate himself and to say:

“Blessed be our guide, the Paraclete, the Messenger of the Light. Blessed be his angels, his guards, and highly praised his shining troops.”

Then he is to rise and, prostrating himself again, to say:

“Thou highly-esteemed one, O thou shining Mânî our guide, thou the root of illumination, branch of uprightness, thou the great tree, thou who art the sovereign Remedy.”

A third prostration, and the praise runs:

“I prostrate myself and praise with a pure heart and a sincere tongue, the Great God, the Father of the Lights and of their elements, the most highly praised, the glorified, thee and all thy Majesty and thy blessed worlds that thou hast called forth! To praise thee is to praise equally thy troops, thy justified ones, thy word, thy majesty, thy good pleasure. For thou art the God who is all Truth, all Life, and all Justice.”

Then comes a fourth prostration and the sentence:

“I praise all the gods, all the shining angels, all the lights, and all the troops who are from the Great God, and I prostrate myself before them.”

The speech after the fifth prostration is:

“I prostrate myself and I praise the great troops, and the shining gods who, with their Wisdom spread over the Darkness, pursue it and conquer it.”

While the sixth, and last given in full, is simply:

“I prostrate myself and I praise the Father of Majesty, the eminent one, the shining one who has come forth from the two sciences[1150].”

It seems fairly plain that these praises are addressed not so much to the “King of the Paradise of Light” or Highest God of Goodness as to the lesser Powers of Light. The recent expeditions of European scholars to Central Asia have succeeded in recovering for us almost in full the Confession-Prayer repeated ritually by the Manichaean Hearers or laymen which, besides confirming the Christian and Mahommedan accounts of Manes’ teaching summarized above, shows a greater belief in the efficacy of repentance and the enforcement of a stricter morality upon all classes of Manichaeans than we should have imagined from the accounts of their adversaries[1151]. We are fortunate in possessing more than one text of this Confession-Prayer, that found by the energy of our English emissary, Dr (now Sir Marc Aurel) Stein, in the “Cave of the Thousand Buddhas” at Tun-huang, proving almost identical with the one discovered in Turfan by the Russian Expedition and now in St Petersburg, while both can be checked and supplemented by fragments also found at Turfan by Profs. Grünwedel’s and von Le Coq’s expeditions to the same place and taken to Berlin[1152]. The title and first few lines of this prayer have been lost, owing to the fact that the Chinese plan of writing on a continuous sheet of paper many yards in length, which was then rolled up with the last lines innermost, was adopted by its transcribers. All the specimens yet found are in Turkish, the Russian MS. being in the dialect called after the nation using it, Ouigour or Uighur, and like that found by Dr Stein and the Berlin fragments, in the Manichaean modification of the Estranghelo or Syriac script. The prayer or litany is in 15 sections or classes, the number having doubtless a mystical reference[1153], and is followed in the Russian and English examples by a recapitulation which is not without value. The version which follows is a compound of all the three sources mentioned above, and has been here divided into three parts, although it is not so in the original, for convenience of commentary.

KHUASTUANIFT.

Sect. I. “[The Son of?] the God Khormuzta even the Fivefold God descended from the heavens with the purity of all the gods, to war against the Demon; he (the Fivefold God) battled against the Shimnus[1154] of evil deeds, and against the five species of the Kingdom of the Demons. God and the Devil, Light and Darkness then intermingled. The youth of the Divine Khormuzta even the Fivefold God, and our souls, joined battle with Sin and the Demon-world and became ensnared and entangled with it. All the princes of the Demons came with the insatiable and shameless Demon of Envy and a hundred and forty myriads of demons banded together in evil intent, ignorance, and folly. He himself, the Born and Created (i.e. the Fivefold God or son of Khormuzta) forgot the eternal heaven of the Gods and became separated from the Gods of Light. Hence, O my God! if the Shimnu (Great Devil) of evil intent has led astray our thoughts and inclined us to devilish deeds.—If, becoming thereby foolish and without understanding, we have sinned and erred against the foundation and root of all bright spirits, even against the pure and bright Azrua the Lord[1155].—If thereby Light and Darkness, God and the Devil have intermingled ...

here follows a lacuna of several pages which Prof. von Le Coq suggests was filled with “an explanation of the allegorical story of the combat” and its practical application.

“... If we have said ... is its foundation and root.—If we have said if anyone animates a body it is God; or that if anyone kills, it is God.—If we have said Good and Evil have alike been created by God. If we have said it is He [God] who has created the eternal Gods. If we have said the Divine Khormuzta and the Shimnu (Great Devil) are brethren[1156]. O my God, if in our sin we have spoken such awful blasphemies, having unwittingly become false to God. If we have thus committed this unpardonable sin. O my God, I N.N.[1157] now repent. To cleanse myself from sin, I pray: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (My sin remit!)”

Sect. II. “When because of the God of the Sun and Moon and of the Gods enthroned in the two resplendent Palaces, the foundation and root of the light of all the Burkhans[1158] of Earth and Water go to the heaven prepared for their assembly (foundation and root), the first gate they reach is the God of the Sun and Moon. In order to deliver the Fivefold God and to sever the Light from the Darkness he rolls along the lower part of the heavens in fulness and lights up the four corners of the earth. O my God, if in our sin we have unwittingly sinned against the God of the Sun and Moon, the Gods enthroned in the two resplendent Palaces. If, although calling him the True, Mighty, and Powerful God, we have not believed in him. If we have uttered many spoken blasphemies. If we have said the God of the Sun and Moon dies, and his rise and setting comes [?] not by [his own?] strength, and that should he [trust to his?] own strength, he will not rise [?]. If we have said, our own bodies were created before the Sun and Moon. To cleanse ourselves from this unwitting sin also, we pray: Manâstâr hîrzâ (Our sin remit).”

Sect. III. “Since, in defence of the Fivefold God, even the youth of the Divine Khormuzta, his five members, that is to say, First, the God of the Ether; Secondly, the God of the Wind; Thirdly, the God of the Light; Fourthly, the God of the Water; Fifthly, the God of the Fire, having battled against Sin and the Demon-world were ensnared and entangled[1159], and have intermingled with the Darkness. Since they were unable to go to the heaven of God and are now upon the earth. Since the ten heavens above, the eight earths beneath, exist on account of the Fivefold God. Since of everything that is upon the earth the Fivefold God is the Majesty, the Radiance [?], the Likeness, the Body, the Soul, the Strength, the Light, the Foundation and the Root. O my God, if in our sin we have unwittingly offended against or caused grief to the Fivefold God by an evil and wicked mind. If we have allowed our fourteen members to gain domination over us. If by taking animated beings with our ten snake-headed fingers and our thirty-two teeth, we have fed upon them and have thus angered and grieved the Gods [?][1160]. If we have in any way sinned against the dry and wet earth, against the five kinds of animals, and against the five kinds of herbs and trees. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. IV. “If we have unwittingly sinned against the divine Burkhans of the hosts (of the Messenger God[1161]) and against the merit-attaining pure Elect. If although we have called them the true and divine Burkhans and the well-doing and pure Elect, we have not believed on them. If although we have uttered the word of God, we have through folly acted against it and not performed it [?]. If instead of spreading the decrees and commandments, we have impeded them. O my God, we now repent and to cleanse ourselves from sin, we pray: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. V. “If we have wandered into sin against the five kinds of animated beings, that is to say, First, against two-footed man; Secondly, against the four-footed animals; Thirdly, against the flying animals; Fourthly, against the animals in the water; Fifthly, against the animals upon earth which creep on their bellies. O my God, if in our sin against these five kinds of animated and moving beings from the great to the small, we have beaten and wounded, abused, and injured, and pained, or even put them to death. If thus we have become the tormentors of so many animated and moving beings. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

It will be seen that in these first five sections or clauses of the Confession, we have a confirmation in all essential points of the version of the faith taught by Manes as it has been preserved for us by the Mahommedan authors quoted above. It is even possible that it was from this source that the author of the Fihrist and Al-Bîrûnî derived some of their information concerning the Manichaeans, and although it is impossible as yet to fix any date for the Confession except within very wide limits, it may be said that it is probably earlier than either of the Mahommedan writers. It is certainly earlier than 1035 A.D., the date at which the grotto at Tun-huang in which one of the copies was bricked up[1162]. But it seems plain that it must have long before been used in the Manichaean worship from the fact that copies differing little, if at all, from each other have been found in two different scripts. As two of these are in the Turkish language, it seems likely that they were translated for proselytizing purposes into this from the earlier Syriac version shortly after the conquest of the Tou-kiue or Turks by the Ouigours, which some authors put as far back as the VIIth century A.D.[1163] The tenets of the Manichaeans must have been well settled for this to be possible, and we have here, therefore, an account at first hand of Manichaean teaching at a date much earlier than the Mahommedan authors quoted above, and first reduced to writing between the earliest promulgation of Manes’ own teaching and the Mahommedan conquest of Persia. It is, therefore, contemporary, or nearly so, with the period of activity of the Zoroastrianism revived by the Sassanides, and it is interesting to find how much nearer in appearance to the cosmology and theology of the Avesta are those of the Khuastuanift than is the Christianized form of Manichaeism introduced into Europe and Africa and combated by St Augustine. Khormuzta, the First Man, is certainly Ahura Mazda, Oromazes, or Ormuzd, while the Fivefold God here spoken of as the “youth” is clearly to be identified with his five sons or the armour left below on his defeat[1164]. Hence it is probable that the Manichaeans in Upper Asia did not wish to appear as the worshippers of any other deities than those of the Persian nation[1165], although where Christianity was the religion of the State, they were willing to call these deities by other names[1166]. Yet the dualism which is the real characteristic of the faith of Manes here as elsewhere admits of no compromise, and the sin against which the Section II is directed is plainly that Zervanist heresy which would make Zervan akerene or Boundless Time the author of all things, and Ormuzd and Ahriman alike his sons. The part played by the Sun and Moon in the redemption of the Light is here the same as that assigned to them in both the Christian and the Mahommedan accounts of Manes’ own teaching, but nothing is here said of the wheel which appears in the former[1167]. The Divine “Burkhans” mentioned in Section III are, as we shall see later, the Divine Messengers sent from time to time into the present world to assist in the redemption of the Light. The sinfulness of feeding upon, injuring, or even angering the lower animals is here much more strongly insisted upon than in the other documents and demands repentance even in the case of the Hearers, and this points directly to a closer connection with Buddhism than hitherto has been thought possible. It is plainly opposed to the later Zoroastrian teaching, which makes the killing of certain animals belonging to the creation of Ahriman a religious duty; and may therefore have only been adopted by the Manichaeans when they found themselves in contact with a large community of professed Buddhists.

The next five sections of the Khuastuanift run thus:

Sect. VI. “If, O my God, we have wandered into sin, and have committed the ten kinds of sin in thoughts, words, and deeds. If we have made up fraudulent lies; if we have sworn false oaths; if we have borne false witness; if we have treated as guilty guiltless men; if by fetching and carrying tales we have set men at variance, and thereby have perverted their minds; if we have practised magic; if we have killed many animated and moving beings; if we have given way to wanton pleasures; if we have wasted the hard-earned gains of industrious men; if we have sinned against the God of the Sun and Moon[1168]. If in our past and present lives since we have become Manichaeans [i.e. Hearers] we have sinned and gone astray, thereby bringing confusion and discord upon so many animated beings, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now, Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. VII. “Who is he who wandering in sin comes to the entry of the two poison-laden ways, and to the road which leads astray to the Gate of Hell? The first is he who holds to false doctrines; the second is he who invokes the Demon as God and falls down before him. O my God, if wandering in sin, we have failed to recognize and understand the true God and his pure faith, and have not believed what the Burkhans and the pure Elect have preached[1169], and have instead believed on those who preach falsely, saying ‘I preach the true God, and I expound the faith rightly.’ If we have accepted the words of such a one and have unwittingly kept wrongful fasts, and have unwittingly bowed ourselves wrongfully, and wrongfully given alms; or if we have said ‘We will acquire merit’ and thereby have unwittingly committed evil deeds; or if, invoking the Demon and the Fiend as God, we have sacrificed to them animated and moving beings; or if, saying, ‘this is the precept of the Burkhan,’ we have put ourselves under a false law and have bowed ourselves, blessing it. If, thus sinning against God, we have prayed to the Demon. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. VIII. “When we came to the knowledge of the true God and the pure Law, we knew the Two Principles and the Law of the Three Ages[1170]. The Light Principle we knew to be the Paradise of God and the Dark Principle to be the Land of Hell. We knew what existed before Heaven and Earth, the Earth of God, was. We knew how God and the Demon fought with one another, and how Light and Darkness became mingled together, and how Heaven and Earth were created. We knew how the Earth of the Rulers and its Heaven will disappear, and how the Light will be freed from the Darkness, and what will then happen to all things. We believed in and put our faith in the God Azrua, in the God of the Sun and Moon, in the Mighty God[1171], and in the Burkhans, and thus we became Hearers. Four bright seals have we carved upon our hearts. One is Love which is the seal of the God Azrua[1172]; the second is Faith, which is the seal of the God of the Sun and Moon; the third is the Fear of God which is the seal of the Fivefold God; and the fourth is the wise Wisdom, which is the seal of the Burkhans. If, O my God, we have turned away our spirits and minds from these four (categories of) Gods; if we have spurned them from their rightful place, and the Divine Seals have thus been broken, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. IX. “In the Ten Commandments, we have been ordered to keep three with the mouth, three with the heart, three with the hand, and one with the whole self. If, O my God, we have wittingly or unwittingly by cleaving to the love of the body, or by listening to the words of wicked companions and friends, of associates and fellows; or by reason of our having much cattle and other possessions; or by our foolish attachment to the things of this world, we have broken these ten commandments, and have been found wanting and of no avail: O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. X. “We have been ordered to render every day, with a whole mind and a pure heart, four praises to the God Azrua, to the God of the Sun and Moon, to the Mighty God, and to the Burkhans. If from lack of the fear of God or from slackness our praises have been offered unseemly, or if in offering them we have not turned our hearts and minds towards God, so that our praises and prayers have not reached God in pure wise, but have remained in another place: O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

This second part of the Confession, perhaps, deals with errors of conduct as the first does with errors of belief. The ten sins given in the VIth Section do not agree exactly with the list given in the Fihrist which says that the Manichaean Hearers were enjoined to abstain from prayers offered to idols, from lying, from greed, from murder, adultery, theft, from false teaching, from magic, from doubt in religion, and from slackness in action[1173]; but perhaps all these prohibitions could be read into the list in the Khuastuanift. The VIIth Section seems to be directed not so much against other religions as against schisms within the Manichaean Church[1174], and it is evident that its authors knew of bloody sacrifices offered to the Powers of Darkness as described by Plutarch apart from the magic or sorcery condemned in the preceding section. In the VIIIth Section, we have also for the second time a new name for God in the word Azrua, which Prof. von Le Coq leaves unexplained; but which M. Gauthiot considers to be the same as, or rather the equivalent in Soghdian of Zervan[1175]. Zervan, however, can hardly be here the Supreme God worshipped by Yezdegerd, especially as the Khuastuanift has just, as we have seen, formally condemned as blasphemers those who say that Ormuzd and Ahriman are brethren, and therefore by implication those who give both Powers Zervan for a father. It seems more likely that the name is either a corruption of Ahura Mazda or perhaps of the Sanskrit Asura; but in any event, there can be no doubt that it denotes the King of the Paradise of Light, as the Highest Good God is called in the Fihrist. The division of the Ten Commandments of Manes into three of the mouth, three of the hand, three of the heart, and one of the whole being recalls St Augustine’s description of the three seals, the signaculum oris, signaculum manus, and signaculum sinus, observed by the Manichaeans[1176]; while the description in Section X of the four praises (or hymns) to be rendered daily bears out what is said above as to the praises of man being of importance for the actual redemption of the Light.

The remaining sections of the Khuastuanift are:

Sect. XI. “We have been ordered to give reverently seven kinds of alms for the sake of the pure Law. It has also been ordered that when the angels of the Light of the Five Gods and the two Appellant and Respondent Gods bring to us the Light of the Five Gods which is to go to the Gods to be purified, we should in all things order ourselves [or, ‘dress ourselves,’ according to Le Coq] according to the Law. If, through necessity or because of our foolishness, we have not given the seven kinds of alms according to the Law, but have bound the Light of the Five Gods, which should go to the Gods to be purified, in our houses and dwellings, or if we should have given it to evil men or to evil animals, and have thereby wasted it and sent it to the Land of Evil, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. XII. “We have been ordered to keep every year 50 days of Vusanti[1177] after the manner of the pure Elect, and thereon [?] to please God by observing pure fasts. If, by reason of the care of our houses and dwellings or of our cattle and other possessions; or by reason of our need and poverty [foolish attachments, apud Le Coq]; or because of the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy; or of our irreverent hearts, we have broken the fast, either wittingly or by foolishness; or having begun it have not fasted according to the Rite and the Law. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. XIII. “We have been ordered to pray every Full Moon [literally, every day of the Moon-God], to acknowledge before God, the Law, and the pure Elect, our sins and transgressions in prayer for the cleansing of ourselves from sin. If now wittingly, or by feebleness of mind, or from idleness of body, or because our minds were set on the cares and business of this world, we have not thus gone to prayer for the cleansing of ourselves from sin. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

Sect. XIV. “We have been ordered to keep each year seven Yimki[1178] [Days of Atonement?] and one month’s rigid fast[?]. We have also been ordered when meeting together in the House of Prayer to keep the Yimki and to observe the fast, to acknowledge in prayer with a whole mind to the Divine Burkhans the sins which we have committed during the year and which we know through our senses. O my God, if we have not kept the Yimki seemly; if we have not observed the month’s rigid fast perfectly and seemly; if we have failed to acknowledge in prayer the sins of the year which we know through our senses, and have thus failed in so many of our duties. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sins remit!)”

Sect. XV. “How many evil thoughts do we not think every day! How many deceitful and unseemly words do we not speak! How many unseemly deeds do we not do! Thus do we prepare torments for ourselves by crimes and frauds. Since we have walked body and soul in the love of the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy, and the Light of the Five Gods which we absorb in our food every day thereby goes to the Land of Evil. Wherefore, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sins remit!)”

Here follows a lacuna of four lines, after which the Confession resumes:

“O my God. We are full of defects and sins! We are thine adversaries and grieve thee by thoughts, words and deeds, for the sake of the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy. Gazing with our eyes, hearing with our ears, seizing with our hands, and trampling with our feet, we ever torture and impede the Light of the Five Gods, the dry and wet earth, the five kinds of animals, and the five kinds of plants and trees. So full are we of defects and sins! On account of the Ten Commandments, the seven kinds of Alms, the three seals, we are called Hearers; yet we cannot perform what these claim of us. If, wandering in sin, we have sinned against the Gods of Light, against the pure Law, against the Herald God[1179] and the Preacher, the Men of God [the Preachers, according to Le Coq], against the pure Elect. If we have not walked according to the letter and spirit of the spoken words of God. If we have grieved the hearts of the Gods. If we have been unable to keep the Days of Atonement, the rigid fast, to offer the Praises and the Blessings according to the Law and the Rite. If we have been found lacking and unprofitable, and have day by day and month by month committed sins and trespasses—to the Gods of Light, to the Majesty of the Law, to the pure Elect, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: Manâstâr hîrzâ! (Our sin remit!)”

These last five sections of the Khuastuanift give us a glimpse of the religious observances of the Manichaeans which alters somewhat the picture of them which we should have formed from the account of St Augustine and other Christian writers. The seven kinds of alms referred to in Section XI, are not, as might be thought, the gifts to necessitous or helpless persons prescribed alike by the Christian and the Mahommedan religions. It is apparent both from the context and from other sources of information that they are the offerings of food made by the lay or lowest members of the Manichaean community to the Elect or Perfect, who are spoken of in the subsequent sections as being already a species of Gods. This practice was certainly known to St Augustine, and was not likely to sink into oblivion in a community in contact with Buddhists, among whom monks living upon food given in alms by the faithful were a common sight. But the reason assigned by St Augustine for the practice, which was before obscure, here receives full explanation. The particles of light diffused through matter, and therefore inhabiting the bodies of animals and plants, could only, in Manichaean opinion, be set free by passing into the bodies of the semi-divine Elect. Thus says St Augustine in his treatise against the Manichaean Perfect, Faustus[1180]:

“This foolish notion of making your disciples bring you food, that your teeth and stomach may be the means of relieving Christ who is bound up in it, is a consequence of your profane fancies. You declare that Christ is liberated in this way—not, however, entirely; for you hold that some tiny particles of no value still remain in the excrement, to be mixed up and compounded again in various material forms, and to be released and purified at any rate by the fire in which the world will be burned up, if not before.”

With the substitution of the “Light of the Fivefold God” for Christ—the use of this last name being probably either the gloss of St Augustine himself, or else the concession made by the Manichaean missionaries after their manner to the religious prepossessions of those among whom they hoped to gain converts—we have here the doctrine more plainly stated in the Khuastuanift. The Hearers are to labour perpetually, idleness being one of the Manichaean deadly sins, and to present the fruits of their labour in the shape of food to the Perfect. Not only will the particles of Light imprisoned in this last thus be conveyed to the Land of the Gods; but it will be prevented from going to the Land of Evil, which it would do if it were consumed by the bodies of the Hearers or, a fortiori, of those profane persons who belonged to other faiths than the Manichaean. Thus is explained the inhumanity of which many writers accuse the Manichaean community, which led them to refuse food to their neighbours in time of famine, alleging that all that they produced must be reserved for those of the Faith[1181].

This explains also the merit assigned to the observance of the many fasts enjoined in the concluding sections of the Khuastuanift. The fifty Vusanti fasts together with the month’s rigid fast to be kept by the Hearers would all have the effect of diminishing their consumption of food in the shape of animals and plants, which hinders the liberation of the particles of Light imprisoned therein. In the choice of the days set apart for these fasts we see another instance of the Manichaean practice as assimilating the outward observances of other religions. The fifty Vusanti fasts would give an average of very nearly one a week, and were probably kept on Sunday, the distinction between the Elect and the Hearers in this respect noted by the Mahommedan writer being probably due to some misconception. The month’s rigid fast possibly accorded with the Arab Ramadan and must have been very useful in preventing the Hearers from appearing singular when among Mahommedans; and the seven Yimki or Days of Atonement seem to have been copied from the observances of the Jews. So possibly was the ritual practice alluded to in the XIVth section of meeting together at certain times to confess their sins, and as this is here said to take place in the House of Prayer, it entirely disposes of the theory set up by earlier writers that the Manichaeans had no temples, synagogues, or churches of their own[1182]. The confession and prayer enjoined in Section XIII were doubtless to be repeated privately and in whatever place the Hearer found himself at the fortnightly periods there specified, and this Litany was very probably the Khuastuanift itself[1183].

What other ritual was performed in these Manichaean meeting-places is still doubtful. The Christian writers declare that the Manichaeans celebrated a sacrament resembling the Eucharist with the horrible accompaniments before alluded to in the case of the followers of Simon Magus[1184]. The same accusation was made, as has been many times said above, by nearly all the sects of the period against each other, and we have no means of determining its truth. It is however fairly certain from the silence observed on the subject by the Khuastuanift that no sacramental feast of any kind was either celebrated by or in the presence of the Hearers or general body of Manichaeans. If the Perfect or Elect partook of any such meal among themselves, it possibly consisted of bread and water only and was probably a survival of some custom traditional in Western Asia of which we have already seen the traces in the Mysteries of Mithras[1185]. The pronounced Docetism which led the Manichaeans to regard the body of the historical Jesus as a phantom shows that they could not have attributed to this meal any sacramental efficacy like that involved in the doctrines either of the Real Presence or of the Atonement.

The case is different with regard to pictures. The Manichaeans forbade the use of statues or probably of any representations of the higher spiritual powers, no doubt in recollection of the idea current among the Persians even in Herodotus’ time, that the gods had not the nature of men. Yet the Jewish and later the Mahommedan prohibition against making likenesses of anything had evidently no weight with them, and even before the recent discoveries there was a tradition that Manes himself was in the habit of using symbolical pictures called Ertenki-Mani as a means of propaganda[1186]. The truth of this is now amply confirmed by the German discoveries at Turfan, where Prof. von Le Coq found frescoes representing possibly Manes himself, together with paintings on silk showing the souls of the faithful dead in the Moon-ship[1187]. Sir Marc Stein seems to have secured similar relics at Tun-huang, and when these are more thoroughly examined it is possible that they may throw light upon many points of Manichaean symbolism yet obscure to us. The fact that the Manichaean meeting-houses were decorated with symbolical pictures seems thereby already established.

Of their fasts, the principal ones have been already indicated in the Khuastuanift, and their feasts seem to have been few, almost the only one of which any mention has come down to us being that which was called the Festival of the Bema or pulpit, when an empty chair on five steps was placed in a conspicuous position in the meeting-house and adored by all present. This was said to have been done in commemoration of Manes as their founder and on the date preserved as the anniversary of his death[1188]. If it be really true that any Manichaeans whether Hearers or otherwise kept Sunday as a holiday, it must have been, as Neander suggests, not because it was the day of the Resurrection, in which their Docetic doctrines prevented them from believing, but as the day of the Sun. In like manner they probably observed Christmas as the birthday not of Jesus, but of the Sun-god in accordance with the traditions preserved by the worshippers of Mithras[1189]. St Augustine speaks, too, of their keeping Easter[1190]. It seems possible that this was only done in Christian countries, in accordance with their usual custom of conforming in outward matters, and we have no evidence of their doing anything of the sort in Turkestan.

Of the sacred books of the Manichaeans we hear much, although only one has survived to us in anything like completeness. Thus we hear from Al-Bîrûnî that the Manichaeans have a gospel of their own “the contents of which from the first to the last are opposed to the doctrine of the Christians,” and this he says was called “the Gospel of the Seventy[1191].” He also tells us of a book written by Manes himself called Shaburkan or Shapurakhan which was doubtless written for the edification of King Shâpûr or Sapor, the son of Ardeshîr, whose name it bears[1192]. In this Manes seems to have described his own birth and his assumption of the office of heavenly messenger or “Burkhan,” besides the saying as to the Burkhans before him, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus, as described above[1193]. We also hear from Al-Bîrûnî that he wrote a gospel arranged according to the 22 letters of the alphabet, which does not seem to be the same as the Gospel of the Seventy[1194], and we hear from other sources of a Book of the Giants, a Book of Secrets, a Book of Precepts, a Book of Lifegiving, and others, together with many letters or epistles all supposed to be by Manes’ own hand[1195]. As has been said, he and his followers rejected the Old Testament entirely, not indeed denying its inspiration, but declaring this to have come from the Evil Principle. Of the New Testament, Faustus, the Manichaean Perfect who disputed with St Augustine, puts the matter very clearly when he says:

“We receive only so much of the New Testament as says anything to the honour of the Son of Glory, either by Himself or by His apostles; and by the latter only after they had become perfect and believers. As for the rest, anything that was said by them either in their simplicity and ignorance, while they were yet inexperienced in the truth, or with malicious design was inserted by the enemy among the statements of truth, or was incautiously asserted by other writers and thus handed down to later generations—of all this we desire to know nothing. I mean all such statements as these—that He was shamefully born of a woman; that as a Jew He was circumcised; that He offered sacrifices like a heathen; that He was meanly baptized, led into the wilderness, and miserably tempted[1196].”

Thus it seems that the Manichaeans accepted only such facts of the Gospel narrative as did not conflict with their own doctrines, and although they are said to have had an especial veneration for St Paul, there is no reason to think that this extended to the writings of the Apostle to the Gentiles, or had any other motive than that of external conformity with the religion of those whom they were endeavouring to convert. As himself the Paraclete announced in the New Testament, Manes claimed for himself an authority superior to that of all apostles, and if he made use of any of the writings attributed to them, it was probably only in the shape of isolated passages divorced from their context. On the other hand, his followers seem to have made free use of apocryphal or pseudepigraphical books written in the names of the apostles and containing statements which could be explained as confirming Manes’ teaching. A great number of these had as their common authors the names of St Thomas and St Andrew, and the Fathers declare that they were for the most part the work of one Leucius, whom they assert was a Manichaean[1197]. It may be so; but, as all the copies of these works which have come down to us have been expurgated or, in the language of the time, “made orthodox,” by the removal of heretical matter, there is little proof of the fact.

More authentic, however, than these pseudepigrapha and much fuller than the extracts preserved by Christian or Mahommedan writers is a treatise found in the cave of the Thousand Buddhas at Tun-huang which has been published only last year. It seems by an extraordinary chance to have nearly escaped us, having been apparently missed by all the European expeditions because it was written in Chinese characters. Hence it was removed to Pekin by orders of the Chinese Government under the impression that it was Buddhist in its nature, and has since been published in a Chinese publication founded for the purpose of preserving the Tun-huang MSS. by Mr Lo Tchen-yu, a Chinese scholar of great philosophical and archaeological attainments[1198]. It is written on a continuous roll of paper over six metres in length, which has led unfortunately to the disappearance of the title and the first few words of the treatise. The remainder shows, however, that it purports to be a sort of allocution addressed by Manes, here as in the Khuastuanift called the “Legate of the Light,” to Adda or Addas, whom we know from the Christian documents before quoted to have been one of the three great missionaries said to have been dispatched by Manes into foreign countries to propagate his doctrine[1199]. Of these three, Thomas, Hermas, and Addas, the last-named is said to have been allotted “Scythia,” which here as elsewhere doubtless means Turkestan, and his name therefore gives a reasonable air of authenticity to the text. The whole document is written in the form of a Buddhist sutra, and has been translated with an excellent commentary by the French Sinologist, M. Edouard Chavannes, with the help of M. Paul Pelliot, the leader of the French Expedition to Turkestan which probably first discovered it[1200]. It entirely confirms the Mahommedan account of the teaching of Manes given above as well as that appearing in the Khuastuanift, and shows that St Augustine, alike in his authentic writings and in the tract de Haeresibus generally, although perhaps wrongfully, attributed to him, was drawing from well-informed sources. There are many grounds for thinking that it may originally have been written in Pahlavi, in which case it may have been contemporary with Manes himself; but it frequently makes use of Buddhist phrases often derived from the Sanskrit[1201]. If the view here taken of the date of the original treatise is well founded, these may have been introduced by Manes during the time that the tradition mentioned above says that he spent in Turkestan for the elaboration of his doctrine. At all events they show that the practice of adapting his religion, as far as might be, to accord with that previously held by those among whom he was trying to make proselytes, goes back to the very origin of the sect.

This treatise was evidently written for edification rather than for instruction, and gives us a curious idea of the imagery by which the Manichaean teachers sought to enforce their teaching. The theory of the macrocosm and the microcosm, which teaches that the body of man is in itself a copy of the great world or universe, is here carried to excess[1202], and we hear much of the “trees” which certain demons, previously sticking to the elements, says the treatise, “like a fly to honey, a bird to bird-lime, or a fish to the hook[1203],” plant in the soul to the corruption and ultimate death of the better desires there implanted by the Light. The combat waged against the diabolic vices by the virtues is also described with great minuteness, but in language in which it is sometimes difficult to discover whether the author is consciously using allegory or not. Thus he says that the Devil, to whom he attributes the formation of the body of man, “shut up the Pure Ether” (one of the five light elements)

“in the city of the bones. He established (there) the dark thought in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the Excellent Wind in the city of the nerves. He established (there) the dark feeling in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the strength of the Light in the city of the veins. He established (there) the dark reflection in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the Excellent Water in the city of the flesh. He established there the dark intellect, in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the Excellent Fire in the city of the skin. He established there the dark reasoning in which he planted a tree of death. The Demon of Envy [the name generally used in the treatise for the Devil] planted these five poisonous trees of death in the five kinds of ruined places. He made them on every occasion deceive and trouble the original luminous nature, to draw in from without the nature which is stranger to it, and to produce poisonous fruit. Thus the tree of the dark thought grows within the city of the bones; its fruit is hatred: the tree of the dark feeling grows within the city of the nerves; its fruit is irritation: the tree of the dark reflection grows within the city of the veins; its fruit is luxury [wantonness]: the tree of the dark intellect grows within the city of the flesh; its fruit is anger: the tree of the dark reasoning grows within the city of the skin; its fruit is folly. It is thus then that of the five kinds of things which are the bones, the nerves, the veins, the flesh, and the skin, he made a prison and shut up there the five divisions of the First Principle of Light....[1204]”

and so on. One might sometimes think one was reading John Bunyan and his Holy War with its defence of the town of Mansoul.

Most of the information contained in this Pekin Treatise has been dealt with in its place, but there are one or two matters concerning the cosmology of Manes which are of importance as showing the connection of his system with that of his predecessors. One regards the two great angels, here called Khrostag and Padvaktag[1205] or the Appellant and Respondent, who are mentioned in the Khuastuanift (p. 343 supra) as bringing the light to be purified[1206]. As has been said above, they show a great likeness to the two last Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism called Haurvetât and Ameretât; and like them are never mentioned separately, but always together[1207]. Another point, already referred to, is that the Zoroastrian Sraôsha, the strong archangel who guards the world at night from the demons, is here mentioned several times by name[1208]. Yet another point is that the two sexes are here said to have been formed by the devil out of jealousy and rage at beholding the sun and moon, and in imitation of the two luminaries. This is an entirely different story not only from those given above as Manichaean but from that given in the Great Announcement attributed to Simon Magus, and both differ from that told in the Pistis Sophia. It seems plain therefore that in attributing these various origins to the division of mankind into sexes, none of the three teachers was drawing upon tradition, but was merely inventing ad hoc.

There remains to be considered the history of the sect, as to which we have become better informed during the last few decades than at one time seemed possible[1209]. Prohibited in the Roman Empire from the outset, they nevertheless made their way along both shores of the Mediterranean, and all the efforts of the Imperial authorities proved powerless to suppress them. Constantine directed an enquiry into their tenets, it is said, with some idea of making them into the religion of the State, and although he found this impracticable or unsafe, he seems to have been at first inclined to extend to them toleration[1210]. His successors, however, quickly reverted to the earlier policy of Diocletian, and law after law of gradually increasing severity was passed until adherence to Manichaeism was finally punished with death and confiscation[1211]. Pagans like the Emperor Julian and his friend and teacher Libanius were able occasionally to intervene in their favour; but no sect was ever more relentlessly persecuted, and the institution of the Dominican Inquisition can be traced back to the Quaestiones set up by Justinian and Theodora for their routing out and suppression[1212]. In the case of what was practically a secret society, it would be difficult to say whether the Imperial measures would have availed to entirely destroy their propaganda, and it is possible that the Manichaean Church always maintained a sporadic existence in Europe[1213] until events to be presently mentioned led to its revival in the Xth century. Meanwhile in the East, they remained on the confines of what was, up to the Mahommedan conquest in 642 A.D., the Persian Empire, and no doubt after their manner professed outward adherence to the Zoroastrian faith, while at the same time propagating their own doctrines in secret[1214]. It was probably the Arab conquest which drove them to make their headquarters on the very borders of the civilized world as known to the ancients and in what is now Turkestan. Here a large part of the population seems to have been Buddhist, doubtless by reason of its dealings with China, and in the presence of that gentle faith—whose adherents boast that they have never yet shed blood to make a convert—the Manichaeans enjoyed complete toleration for perhaps the first time in their history[1215]. They made use of it, as always, to send out missionaries into the neighbouring countries, and certainly obtained a foothold in China, where the Chinese seem to have confused them with the Christians. Their hatred of images doubtless caused the iconoclastic Emperors of the East to enter into relation with them, and we hear that Leo the Isaurian induced many of them to enter the Imperial armies. It was possibly these last whom the Emperor John Tzimiskes settled in what is now Bulgaria, whence, under the names of Paulicians, Bogomiles, and other aliases, they promoted that movement against the Catholic Church which provoked the Albigensian Crusades and the establishment of the Dominican Inquisition in the West[1216]. To follow them there would be to travel beyond the scope of this book; and it need only be said in conclusion that they formed the bitterest and the most dangerous enemies that the Catholic Church in Europe ever had to face. It was possibly this which has led the rulers of the Church of Rome to brand nearly all later heresy with the name of Manichaean; yet it may be doubted whether some of their doctrines did not survive in Europe until the German Reformation, when they may have helped to inspire some of the wilder Protestant sects of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries. With the suppression of the Albigenses, however, the existence of Manichaeism as an organized faith comes to an end.

Footnote 988:

So Cumont, T. et M. I. pp. 45, 349, 350. He seems to rely, however, entirely on the passage in the Acta Archelai (as to which see n. 1, p. 280 infra), wherein the supposed bishop Archelaus addresses the equally imaginary Manes as “Savage priest and accomplice of Mithras!”—possibly a mere term of abuse. See Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, ed. Beeson, Leipzig, 1906, c. XL. p. 59.

Footnote 989:

Cumont, T. et M. I. p. 41. He sees in the scenes which border the Tauroctony references or parallels to the fig-leaves of Genesis, the striking of the rock by Moses, and the ascension of Elijah. In the so-called Mithraic Ritual of the Magic Papyrus of Paris, there are certain Hebrew words introduced, such as πιπι (a well-known perversion of the Tetragrammaton), σανχερωβ and σεμες ιλαμ (The “Eternal Sun”).

Footnote 990:

See the story which Josephus, Antiq. XX. cc. 2, 3, 4, tells about Izates, king of Adiabene, who wanted to turn Jew and thereby so offended his people that they called in against him Vologeses or Valkash, the first reforming Zoroastrian king and collector of the books of the Zend Avesta. Cf. Darmesteter, The Zend Avesta (Sacred Books of the East), Oxford, 1895, p. xl. Cf. Ém. de Stoop La Diffusion du Manichéisme dans l’Empire romain, Gand, 1909, p. 10.

Footnote 991:

Circa 296, A.D. See Neander, Ch. Hist. II. p. 195, where the authenticity of the decree is defended. For the provocation given to the Empire by the anti-militarism of Manes see de Stoop, op. cit. pp. 36, 37.

Footnote 992:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chronology of Ancient Nations, p. 190. The date he gives is twelve years before the accession of Ardeshîr. E. Rochat, Essai sur Mani et sa Doctrine, Genève, 1897, p. 81, examines all the different accounts and makes the date from 214 to 218 A.D.

Footnote 993:

Epiphanius, Haer. LXVI. c. 1, p. 399, Oehler; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Bk I. c. 22; Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, c. LXIV.

Footnote 994:

Muhammed ben Ishak, commonly called En-Nadîm, in the book known as the Fihrist, translated by Flügel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften, Leipzig, 1862, pp. 83, 116, 118, 119. Cf. Rochat, op. cit. p. 75.

Footnote 995:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 190.

Footnote 996:

Flügel, op. cit. p. 84; Rochat, op. cit. p. 83.

Footnote 997:

Hegemonius, Acta Arch. c. XL., p. 59, Beeson. Rochat, op. cit. pp. 9-49, discusses the authenticity of the Acta chapter by chapter. He thinks the pretended discussion between Archelaus and Manes unhistorical, and the account of it possibly modelled on that between St Augustine and Faustus the Manichaean. The remainder of the Acta he considers fairly trustworthy as an account of Manes’ own tenets. This may well be, as Epiphanius, Haer. LXVI. cc. 6-7, 25-31, transcribes the epistle to Marcellus, its answer, and the exposition of Turbo, and could scarcely have heard, as early as 375 A.D., about which time he wrote, of St Augustine’s discussion. The Acta owe much to the care of the American scholar, Mr Beeson of Chicago, who has given us the careful edition of them mentioned in n. 1, p. 277 supra. It is a pity that he did not see his way to keep the old numeration of the chapters.

Footnote 998:

Beausobre, Hist. du Manichéisme, Paris, 1734, Pt I. Bk II. cc. 1-4. Cf. Stokes in Dict. Christian Biog. s.v. Manes; Rochat, op. cit. p. 83.

Footnote 999:

Rochat, op. cit. p. 89.

Footnote 1000:

Abulfarag in Kessler, Forschungen über die Manichäische Religion, Berlin, 1889, Bd I. p. 335; Rochat, op. cit. p. 84; Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 168.

Footnote 1001:

Flügel, op. cit. p. 85. Cf. Al-Bîrûnî, India (ed. Sachau), p. 55, where Manes quotes the opinion of Bardesanes’ “partizans.” There are many words put into the mouth of Manes in the work quoted which argue acquaintance with the Pistis Sophia.

Footnote 1002:

Abulmaali in Kessler, op. cit. p. 371; Firdaûsi, ibid. p. 375; Mirkhônd, ibid. p. 379. Cf. Rochat, op. cit. p. 81. He is said to have painted his pictures in a cave in Turkestan (Stokes in Dict. Christian Biog. s.v. Manes), which would agree well enough with the late German discoveries at Turfan, for which see A. von Le Coq in J.R.A.S. 1909, pp. 299 sqq.

Footnote 1003:

Flügel, op. cit. p. 85.

Footnote 1004:

Al-Jakûbi in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 328, 329; cf. Rochat, op. cit. p. 88.

Footnote 1005:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chronology, pp. 191, 192.

Footnote 1006:

Rochat, op. cit. p. 89. Al-Bîrûnî, whom he quotes, however, says merely that the Manichaeans increased under Ormuz, and also that Ormuz “killed a number of them.” See last note.

Footnote 1007:

Al-Jakûbi in Kessler, op. cit. p. 330. But Darmesteter (see passage quoted in n. 2, p. 284 infra) puts this event as happening after Ormuz’ death and under Shapur II.

Footnote 1008:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 191. The town is called Djundi-sâbur or Gundisabur.

Footnote 1009:

Al-Jakûbi, ubi cit. supra; Eutychius quoted by Stokes, Dict. Christian Biog. s.v. Manes.

Footnote 1010:

Rochat, op. cit. p. 93, examines all the evidence for this and comes to the conclusion given in the text.

Footnote 1011:

Malcolm, History of Persia, London, 1821, Vol. I. pp. 95, 96.

Footnote 1012:

G. Rawlinson, The 6th Oriental Monarchy, 1873, p. 222; Rochat, op. cit. p. 53.

Footnote 1013:

See Chap. XII supra, p. 232.

Footnote 1014:

See n. 1, p. 278 supra.

Footnote 1015:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chron. p. 187, makes Manes the successor or continuator of Bardesanes and Marcion. This was certainly not so; but it was probably only from their followers that he derived any acquaintance with Christianity. See n. 7, p. 280 supra. So Muhammad or Mahommed, four centuries later, drew his ideas of the same faith from the heretics of his day.

Footnote 1016:

Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, 1903, p. 318, says that after 300 A.D. Buddhism was everywhere in decay in India.

Footnote 1017:

Rochat, op. cit. p. 58.

Footnote 1018:

Darmesteter, Zend Avesta, pp. xl, xli.

Footnote 1019:

Op. cit. pp. xlvii sqq.

Footnote 1020:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chron. p. 192.

Footnote 1021:

Elisaeus Vartabed in Langlois’ Collection des Hist. de l’Arménie, Paris, 1868, t. II. p. 190. The story is repeated almost word for word by Eznig of Goghp, ibid. p. 875. Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. II. p. 171.

Footnote 1022:

Rochat, op. cit., following Kessler, shows, it seems, conclusively, that this is another name for Manes’ father, Fatak or Patecius.

Footnote 1023:

She was a courtezan at Hypselis in the Thebaid according to Epiphanius, Haer. LXVI. c. 11, p. 400, Oehler. As Baur, Die Manichäische Religionssystem, Tübingen, 1831, p. 468 sqq. has pointed out, this is probably an imitation of the story told about Simon Magus and his Helena (see Chap. VI supra). It seems to have arisen as an embroidery, quite in Epiphanius’ manner, upon the story in the Acta, that Scythianus married a captive from the Upper Thebaid (Hegemonius, op. cit. c. LXII. p. 90, Beeson).

Footnote 1024:

Many guesses have been made as to the allusions concealed under these names, as to which see Rochat, op. cit. pp. 64-73. Neander (Ch. Hist. II. p. 16) quotes from Ritter the suggestion that Terebinthus may come from an epithet of Buddha, Tere-hintu “Lord of the Hindus.” One wonders whether it might not have been as fitly given to a Jewish slave sold at the Fair of the Terebinth with which Hadrian closed his war of extermination.

Footnote 1025:

These four books may have been intended for the Shapurakhan, the Treasure, the Gospel and the Capitularies, which Al-Bîrûnî, Chron. p. 171, attributes to Mani. Cf. Epiphanius, Haer. LXVI. c. 2, p. 402, Oehler, and the Scholia of Théodore bar Khôni in Pognon, Inscriptions Mandaïtes des Coupes de Khouabir, pp. 182, 183.

Footnote 1026:

Epiphanius, op. cit. c. 1, p. 398, Oehler.

Footnote 1027:

Colditz in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 15, 16. Cf. Rochat, op. cit. pp. 65, 66.

Footnote 1028:

Morrison, Jews under Romans, p. 325 for authorities. Philo, de Vit. Contempl. etc. c. III. says that similar communities existed in his time near the Mareotic lake in Egypt. But the date of the treatise and its attribution to Philo are alike uncertain. The first mention of Buddha in Greek literature is said to be that by Clem. Alex. Strom. Bk I. c. 15.

Footnote 1029:

Harnack in Encyc. Britann. 9th edition, s.v. Manichaeans, p. 48, says “There is not a single point in Manichaeism which demands for its explanation an appeal to Buddhism.” This may be, but the discoveries at Turfan and Tun-huang have made a connection between the two more probable than appeared at the time he wrote. See also Kessler as quoted by Rochat, op. cit. pp. 192, 193.

Footnote 1030:

This appears from the Chinese Treatise at Pekin mentioned later. See p. 293, n. 2.

Footnote 1031:

Rochat, op. cit. p. 194. So Socrates, Eccl. Hist. Bk I. c. 22, calls Manichaeism “a sort of heathen (Ἑλληνίζων) Christianity.”

Footnote 1032:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. VII. p. 91, Beeson; Flügel, op. cit. p. 86.

Footnote 1033:

Certainly none is recorded in the Christian accounts, where Darkness is called Hyle or Matter. En Nadîm (Flügel, op. cit. p. 86) makes Manes call the good God “the King of the Paradise of Light” and (p. 90) the Spirit of Darkness, Hummâma. Schahrastâni, as quoted in Flügel’s note (p. 240), makes this word mean “mirk” or “smoke” (Qualm). It would be curious if Hummâma had any connection with the Elamite Khumbaba, the opponent of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh, because this personage already figures in Ctesias’ story about Nannaros, which has been recognized as a myth relating to the Moon-god.

Footnote 1034:

τὸ τῆς ὕλης δημιούργημα Hegemonius, Acta, c. VIII. p. 9, Beeson. Cf. Alexander of Lycopolis, adv. Manichaeos, c. II.

Footnote 1035:

Epiph. Haer. LXVI. c. 6, p. 408, Oehler; Hegemonius, Acta, c. V. pp. 5-7, Beeson. The authenticity of the letter is defended by Kessler, op. cit. p. 166. Cf. Rochat, op. cit. p. 94 contra.

Footnote 1036:

τῶν κακῶν ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀναφέρουσιν, ὧν τὸ τέλος κατάρας ἐγγύς. It is evidently intended for a quotation from Heb. vi. 8, which however puts it rather differently as ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους ἀδόκιμος καὶ κατάρας ἐγγύς, ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσιν. “But that which beareth thorns and briers is to be rejected and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.” The Khuastuanîft or Manichaean confession mentioned later repeats this phrase about God not being the creator of evil as well as of good. See p. 335 infra.

Footnote 1037:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. VII. p. 9, Beeson.

Footnote 1038:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 386, sqq. Kessler’s translation of En Nadîm, which is given in the first Appendix to the work quoted, differs slightly from that of Flügel and depends on a somewhat better text than the last-named. It is therefore used when possible in the remaining notes to this chapter. Flügel’s book, however, has the advantage of a commentary of some 300 pages marked with great erudition, and must still be consulted by anyone wishing to be acquainted with its subject.

Footnote 1039:

Plutarch, de Is. et Os. c. XLV., says, however, that “evil must have a principle of its own,” so that it cannot be the work of a benevolent being. As he is generally supposed to have taken his account of the Persian teaching from Theopompos of Chios, who was at the Court of Ptolemy about 305 B.C., his evidence is against those who, like M. Cumont, would make the “Zervanist” opinion, which assumes a common principle for good and evil, pre-Christian. Yet the point does not yet seem capable of decision, as Plutarch may here be only giving us his own opinion.

Footnote 1040:

Casartelli, op. cit. p. 44.

Footnote 1041:

This is really the crux of the whole question. If the idea could be traced back to the philosophers of Ionia (e.g. Heraclitus of Ephesus) and their theory of eternal strife and discord being the cause of all mundane phenomena, it is difficult to say whence the Ionians themselves derived it, save from Persia. We can, of course, suppose, if we please, that the Persians did not invent it de novo, but took it over from some of their subjects. Among these, the Babylonians, for instance, from the earliest times portrayed their demons as not only attempting to invade the heaven of the gods, but as being in perpetual warfare with one another. But the very little we know of Babylonian philosophy would lead us to think that it inclined towards pantheism of a materialistic kind rather than to dualism.

Footnote 1042:

En Nadîm, in Kessler, op. cit. p. 387; Flügel, op. cit. p. 86.

Footnote 1043:

The likeness of this to the cosmogony of the Ophites and their successor Valentinus is of course marked (cf. Chaps. VIII and IX supra). Manes may have borrowed it directly from Valentinus’ follower Bardesanes, whose doctrines were powerful in Edessa and Mesopotamia in his time, or he may have taken it at first-hand from Persian or Babylonian tradition. That Manes was acquainted with Bardesanes’ doctrines, see n. 7, p. 280 supra.

Footnote 1044:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. p. 387; Flügel, op. cit. p. 86. Flügel’s text adds to these members other “souls” which he names Love, Belief, Faith, Generosity, and Wisdom. Kessler substitutes Courage for Generosity and seems to make these “souls” the members’ derivatives.

Footnote 1045:

See last note.

Footnote 1046:

See Chapter XII, p. 251 supra. Here, again, the traditional and monstrous figure of Satan may have been copied from the sculptured representations of the composite demons of Babylonia (e.g. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Frontispiece and Figs. 1 and 13). Yet if we take the Mithraic lion, as M. Cumont would have us do, as the symbol of fire and the serpent as that of the earth, we have in the five sorts of animals the five στοιχεῖα or elements of Aristotle. Cf. Aetius, de Placitis Philosophorum, ed. Didot, Bk I. c. iii. § 38 (Plutarch, Moralia, II.), p. 1069. Yet the nearest source from which Manes could have borrowed the idea is certainly Bardesanes, who, according to Bar Khôni and another Syriac author, taught that the world was made from five substances, i.e. fire, air, water, light and darkness. See Pognon, op. cit. p. 178; Cumont, La Cosmogonie Manichéenne d’après Théodore bar Khôni, Bruxelles, 1908, p. 13, n. 2.

Footnote 1047:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. p. 388; Flügel, op. cit. p. 87. As the ancients were unacquainted with the properties of gases, it is singular that they should have formed such a conception as that of the compressibility and expansibility of spirits. Yet the idea is a very old one, and the Arabian Nights story of the Genius imprisoned in a brass bottle has its parallel in the bowls with magical inscriptions left by the Jews on the site of Babylon (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 1853, pp. 509 sqq.), between pairs of which demons were thought to be imprisoned. Cf. Pognon, op. cit. p. 3. Something of the kind seems indicated in the “Little Point,” from which all material powers spring, referred to by Hippolytus and the Bruce Papyrus.

Footnote 1048:

So in the Pistis Sophia, it is the “last Parastates” or assistant world who breathes light into the Kerasmos, and thus sets on foot the scheme of redemption. Cf. Chapter X, p. 146 supra.

Footnote 1049:

Yet the Fundamental Epistle speaks of the twelve “members” of God, which seem to convey the same idea See Aug. c. Ep. Fund. c. 13.

Footnote 1050:

Thus En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 388, 389; Flügel, op. cit. p. 87. But here the Christian tradition gives more details than the Mahommedan. Hegemonius, Acta, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson, and Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 185), are in accord that the God of Light produced from himself a new Power called the Μήτηρ τῆς Ζωῆς or Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life projected the First Man, and that the First Man produced the five elements called also his “sons,” to wit, wind, light, water, fire and air, with which he clothed himself as with armour. See Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 16, n. 4, for the harmonizing of the texts [N.B. the omission of πῦρ from his quotation from the Acta is doubtless a clerical error]. The identification of the Mother of Life with the “Spirit of the Right [Hand]” is accepted by Bousset, Hauptprobleme, pp. 177, 178, and may be accounted for by the crude figure by which the Egyptians explained the coming-forth of the universe from a single male power. See Budge, Hieratic Papyri in the Brit. Mus. p. 17.

Footnote 1051:

These were also the “sons” of Darkness or Satan. See Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 186). The reason that led the God of Light to send a champion into the lists was, according to Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 185), that the five worlds of his creation were made for peace and tranquillity and could therefore not help him directly in the matter. Cf. St Augustine, de Natura Boni, c. XLII. But Manes doubtless found it necessary to work into his system the figure of the First Man which we have already seen prominent in the Ophite system. Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 16, says few conceptions were more widely spread throughout the East. It is fully examined by Bousset, Hauptprobleme, in his IVth chapter, “Der Urmensch.” The First Man is, in the Chinese treatise lately found at Tun-huang in circumstances to be presently mentioned, identified with the Persian Ormuzd and the five elements are there declared to be his sons. See Chavannes and Pelliot, Un Traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine, pt 1, Journal Asiatique, série X., t. XVIII. (1911), pp. 512, 513. The 12 elements which helped in his formation seem to be mentioned by no other author than En Nadîm. St Augustine, however, Contra Epistulam Fundamenti, c. 13, speaks of the “12 members of light.” The Tun-huang treatise also mentions “the 12 great kings of victorious form” whom it seems to liken to the 12 hours of the day. As the Pistis Sophia does the same with the “12 Aeons” who are apparently the signs of the Zodiac, it is possible that we here have a sort of super-celestial Zodiac belonging to the Paradise of Light, of which that in our sky is a copy. It should be remembered that in the Asiatic cosmogonies the fixed stars belong to the realm of good as the representatives of order, while the planets or “wanderers” are generally evil.

Footnote 1052:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. p. 389; Flügel, op. cit. pp. 87, 88. According to the Christian tradition, the Powers of Darkness devoured only the soul of the First Man which was left below when his body, as will presently be seen, returned to the upper world. See Hegemonius, Acta, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson.

Footnote 1053:

Both the Christian and the Mahommedan traditions agree as to this result of the fight, which is paralleled not only by the more or leas successful attempt of Jaldabaoth and his powers to eat the light of Pistis Sophia, but also by a similar case in orthodox Zoroastrianism. For all these see Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 18, n. 4. Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 186), goes further and describes the surrender of the First Man as a tactical effort on his part, “as a man who having an enemy puts poison in a cake and gives it to him.” Alexander of Lycopolis (adv. Manich. c. III.), on the other hand declares that God could not avenge himself upon matter (as he calls Darkness) as he wished, because he had no evil at hand to help him, “since evil does not exist in the house and abode of God”; that he therefore sent the soul into matter which will eventually permeate it and be the death of it; but that in the meantime the soul is changed for the worse and participates in the evil of matter, “as in a dirty vessel the contents suffer change.” These, however, are more likely to be the ideas of the Christian accusers than the defences of the Manichaean teachers.

Footnote 1054:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 389, 390; Flügel, op. cit. p. 87. As Kessler points out, En Nadîm gives two accounts doubtless taken from different Manichaean sources. In one, he says simply that the King of the Paradise of Light followed with other gods and delivered the First Man, the actual victor over Darkness being called “the Friend” of the Lights (like Mithras). He then goes on to say that Joy (i.e. the Mother of Life) and the Spirit of Life went to the frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and saw the First Man and his powers were held enlaced by Satan, “the Presumptuous Oppressor and the Life of Darkness”; then she called him in a loud and clear voice, and he became a god, after which he returned and “cut the roots of the Dark Powers.” For Bar Khôni’s amplification of this story see p. 302, n. 1, and p. 324 infra. The whole of this, together with the cutting of the roots, is strongly reminiscent of the Pistis Sophia.

Footnote 1055:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 391, 392; Flügel, op. cit. p. 98. The Acta (Hegemonius, op. cit. c. VIII., p. 11, Beeson) say that the “Living Spirit” before mentioned “created the Cosmos, descended clothed with three other powers, drew forth the rulers (οἱ ἄρχοντες) and crucified them in the firmament which is their body the Sphere.” “Then he created the lights (φωστῆρες) which are the remnants of the soul, caused the firmament to encompass them, and again created the earth [not the Cosmos] with its eight aspects.” The Latin version after “earth” adds “they (sic!) are eight.” which if it refers to the aspects would agree with En Nadîm. Alexander of Lycopolis (adv. Manich. c. III.), who had been a follower of Manes and was a Christian bishop some 25 years after Manes’ death, says that “God sent forth another power which we call the Demiurge or creator of all things; that this Demiurge in creating the Cosmos separated from matter as much power as was unstained, and from it made the Sun and Moon; and that the slightly stained matter became the stars and the expanse of heaven.” “The matter from which the Sun and Moon were taken,” he goes on to say, “was cast out of the Cosmos and resembles night” [Qy the Outer Darkness?], while the rest of the “elements” consists of light and matter unequally mingled. Bar Khôni (Pognon, op. cit. p. 188), as will presently be seen, says that the Living Spirit with the Mother of Life and two other powers called the Appellant and Respondent [evidently the “three other powers” of the Acta] descended to earth, caused the Rulers or Princes to be killed and flayed, and that out of their skins the Mother of Life made 11 heavens, while their bodies were cast on to the earth of darkness and made 8 earths. The Living Spirit then made the Sun, the Moon, and “thousands of Lights” (i.e. Stars) out of the light he took from the Rulers. That this last story is an elaboration of the earlier ones seems likely, and the flaying of the Rulers seems to be reminiscent of the Babylonian legend of Bel and Tiamat, an echo of which is also to be found in the later Avestic literature. See West, Pahlavi Texts (S.B.E.), pt iii. p. 243. Cf. Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 27, n. 2.

Footnote 1056:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. p. 392; Flügel, op. cit. pp. 89-90. This would agree perfectly with the system of the Pistis Sophia, where it is said that the “receivers of the Sun and Moon” give the particles of the light as it is won from matter to Melchizedek, the purifier, who purifies it before taking it into the Treasure-house (pp. 36, 37, Copt.). The idea that the Sun’s rays had a purifying effect shows shrewd observation of nature before his bactericidal power was discovered by science. So does the association of the Moon with water, which doubtless came from the phenomenon of the tides. Is the Column of Glory the Milky Way?

Footnote 1057:

The Ecpyrosis or final conflagration is always present in orthodox Mazdeism, where it inspires its Apocalypses, and is in effect the necessary conclusion to the drama which begins with the assault on the world of light by Ahriman. For references, see Söderblom, op. cit. chap. IV. From the Persians it probably passed to the Stoics and thus reached the Western world slightly in advance of Christianity. “The day when the Great Dragon shall be judged” is continually on the lips of the authors of the Pistis Sophia and the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, and the conception may therefore have reached Manes from two sources at once. The angels maintaining the world as mentioned in the text are of course the Splenditenens and Omophorus about to be described.

Footnote 1058:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. VIII. p. 12, Beeson. St Augustine (contra Faustum, Bk XX. c. 10) mentions the Wheel briefly and rather obscurely. It seems to have fallen out of the account of Bar Khôni. But see the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} partie, pp. 515, n. 2, 516, 517, n. 3). There can be little doubt that it is to be referred to the Zodiac. The Aeons of the Light seem to be the five worlds who here play the part of the Parastatae in the Pistis Sophia.

Footnote 1059:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. VIII. pp. 11, 12, Beeson, mentions Omophorus, but not Splenditenens. Splenditenens is, however, well known to St Augustine, who describes him (contra Faustum, Bk XV. c. 7) as Splenditenentem magnum, sex vultus et ora ferentem, micantemque lumine, “Great Splenditenens, bearing six faces and mouths, and glittering with light.” So later (op. cit. Bk XX. c. 9) he says, Splenditenentem, reliquias eorumdem membrorum Dei vestri in manu habentem, et cetera omnia capta, oppressa, inquinata plangentem, et Atlantem maximum subter humeris suis cum eo ferentem, ne totum ille fatigatus abjiciat. “Splenditenens, who has in his hand the remains of these members of your God [i.e. the five elements or ‘sons’ of the First Man] and who mourns the capture and oppression and defilement of all the rest; and huge Atlas, who bears everything with him on his shoulders, lest he should be wearied and cast it away.” Bar Khôni (Pognon, pp. 188, 189) describes them both, and calls Splenditenens “the Ornament of Splendour,” while he makes the pair two of the five sons of the Living Spirit, as more clearly appears in the Tunhuang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. p. 549, and notes 2 and 5). Where Manes found the figure of Splenditenens is not apparent, but the world-bearing angel is an old conception in Western Asia, as M. Cumont has shown in his before-quoted Cosmogonie Manichéenne, App. II. He appears prominently on the Mithraic monuments and was no doubt the original of the Greek Atlas.

Footnote 1060:

Alexander of Lycopolis, op. cit. c. III., says plainly that the Sun and Moon were formed out of that part of the light (here called δύναμις “power”), which, although it had been captured by the powers of matter, had not been contaminated, while that which had suffered some slight and moderate stain became the stars and sky. The Acta (Hegemonius, op. cit. c. VIII. p. 11, Beeson), as we have seen, says that the Living Spirit created the lights (φωστῆρες, luminaria), which are the remnants of the soul (i.e. the armour of the First Man) and caused the firmament to surround them. The author here evidently refers to the Sun and Moon only.

Footnote 1061:

The whole of this story, which is the reverse of edifying, is studied by M. Cumont, with the fullest references to the authorities, in his Cosmogonie Manichéenne before quoted, to which it forms Appendix I, under the heading “La Séduction des Archontes.” To this I must refer the reader, only remarking that, while I fully agree that the goddess in question is probably derived from the Mother of the Gods who under the name (inter alia) of Atargatis was worshipped throughout Asia Minor, I do not see that she had any connection with the “Virgin of Light” of the Pistis Sophia. This Virgin of Light did, indeed, pass into Manichaeism, but she had there a very different name and attributes from the Mother of the Gods. See p. 323, n. 4 infra.

Footnote 1062:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. p. 393; Flügel, op. cit. pp. 90, 91.

Footnote 1063:

Kessler, op. et pag. cit. n. 1, says it has dropped out of the text, which seems likely.

Footnote 1064:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XII. pp. 19, 20, Beeson. The story is given verbatim later, p. 306 infra.

Footnote 1065:

The Mandaeans or Disciples of St John described on p. 305 seem a likely source, as they have many traditions about the protoplasts, some of which clearly go back to before the Christian Era. None of those mentioned by Brandt, Die Mandäische Religion, Leipzig, 1889, pp. 34-39, however, seem to be exactly similar to the story in the text.

Footnote 1066:

This Mother of Life is one of the most prominent, though not one of the most active figures in the Manichaean pantheon. Her identification with the Spirit of the Right Hand or first Power created by the Supreme God of Light has been mentioned above (note 1, p. 293 supra). She doubtless has her immediate origin in the great mother goddess worshipped throughout Western Asia, whose most familiar name is Cybele, but whom we have seen (Chap. II supra) identified with Isis, Demeter, and all the goddesses of the Hellenistic pantheon. See as to this, Bousset, Hauptprobleme, pp. 58 sqq., although he, too, falls into the error of identifying with her the Virgin of Light of the Pistis Sophia. That the name “Mother of Life” at least passed to all these goddesses is certain; but it also found its way into Egyptian Christianity; for in the Coptic spell or amulet known as the Prayer of the Virgin in Bartos (i.e. Parthia), studied by Mr W. E. Crum (P.S.B.A. vol. XIX. 1897, p. 216), the Virgin Mary is represented as saying “I am Mariham (Μαριάμ), I am Maria, I am the Mother of the Life of the whole World!”, and the popularity of the “Prayer” is shown by its frequent appearance in Ethiopic and Arabic versions (op. cit. p. 211). So, too, in the evidently Christian Trattato Gnostico of F. Rossi (Memorie della Reale Accademia di Torino, ser. II. t. xliii. p. 16) the magician says “I entreat thee, O God, by the great revered Virgin (παρθένος) in whom the Father was concealed from the beginning before He had created anything.” Bar Khôni, again (Pognon, pp. 209-211), speaks of the Kukeans, who seem to have been a semi-Christian sect, and who taught that the coming of Jesus to earth had for its object the redemption of His bride, the Mother of Life, who was detained here below, like the Helena of Simon Magus. Mother of Life is mentioned in all the Mahommedan and Christian writers who have treated of Manichaeism (for the references, see Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} partie, p. 511, n. 1), in the Pahlavi MS. discovered by the Germans at Turfan (F. W. K. Muller, Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift, pp. 47, 55), and in the Chinese treatise from Tun-huang (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. p. 511 et al.). In this last, she is called Chan-mou, which is translated “the Excellent Mother,” and En Nadîm in one passage (Kessler, op. cit. p. 399; Flügel, op. cit. p. 100) calls her Nahnaha, which Flügel would translate “The Aversion of the Evil Ones.” It should be noticed, however, that her part in the cosmogony is small, and that she acts upon the world, like all these supercelestial powers, only through her descendants or “sons.” These are treated of later (see p. 323 and n. 1, p. 302 infra). Titus of Bostra as quoted by Flügel, op. cit. p. 210, speaks of her as δύναμις τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ οὐκέτι φῶς αἰσθητὸν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἂν φαίη προβολὴ τοῦ θεοῦ. “[The] Power of the Good One, no longer a perceptible light, but as if one should say, an emanation of God.” Some years ago, we could hardly have looked for her prototype or first appearance in the history of religions in any other direction than Babylonia, where the worship of Ishtar, her Babylonian counterpart, goes back as far as we can trace Babylonian religion. Now, however, it is plain that other races than the Babylonians may have been concerned in the spread of the worship of the Great Mother throughout Western Asia. In the Zoroastrian faith, she seems to appear as Spenta Armaiti, the one certainly female power among the seven Amshaspands, who in the Pahlavi texts is set over the earth, as Vohu Mano is made protector of the beasts, Asha Vahishta of the fire, and Khshathra Vairya is set over metals. But besides this, she is identified in the Gâthâs with the Wisdom of God (for references see pp. 136-137 of M. Carnoy’s article in the Muséon mentioned below), an identification which Plutarch (de Is. et Os. c. XLVII.) admits by translating her name as σοφία, and like the Sophia of the Gnostics is given as a spouse to her creator Ahura Mazda, to whom she bears the First Man Gayômort (Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta, t. I. pp. 128-129). Yet we now know that this figure may have come into the Zoroastrian pantheon neither from Semitic sources nor, as Darmesteter thought, from Plato. M. A. Carnoy in a study called Armaiti-Ârmatay (Muséon, n.s. vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146) shows the identity of the Persian Amshaspand with the Vedic goddess Aramati. We have already seen that the Vedic gods Varuna and Mitra were worshipped by Hittites in Asia Minor before the XIIth century B.C., and Prof. Garstang believes that the Earth-Mother was the great goddess of the Hittites, and was the one worshipped in Roman times at Hierapolis or Mabug as the Dea Syria or Atargatis, a name that he equates with Derceto, the mother of Semiramis in classic legend, and declares to be compounded of Ishtar or Astarte and the Aramaic “Athar or Athe.” See Strong and Garstang, The Syrian Goddess, pp. 1-8, and notes 24, 25, and 30, on pp. 52, 53 and 30 op. cit. Zoroaster and Manes may therefore have taken their mother goddess from an Aryan rather than from a Semitic original.

Footnote 1067:

This Living Spirit is the most active agent of the Light in the Manichaean system, and seems to have held his place unaltered through all the changes of Manichaean teaching. Alexander of Lycopolis (contra Manich. c. III.) speaks of him as the Δημιουργός or Architect of the Universe. The earliest part of the Acta (Hegemonius, c. VII. p. 10, Beeson) says that he was put forth from the Father (or Supreme God of Light) in consequence of the prayers of the First Man after his defeat, that he delivered this last, crucified or bound the Archons in the firmament (as Jeû is said to have done in the Pistis Sophia), made the Sun and Moon and appointed their courses, and further made the eight earths. St Augustine, contra Faustum, Bk XX. c. 1, makes the Manichaean Faustus call him the “Third Majesty whom we acknowledge to have his seat and his lodging-place in the whole circle of the atmosphere. From whose powers and spiritual inpouring also, the earth conceived and brought forth the suffering Jesus who is the life and salvation of men and is hanging on every tree.” St Augustine further speaks (op. cit. Bk XX. c. 9) of “your mighty (potentem for viventem) Spirit, who constructs the world from the captive bodies of the race of darkness or rather from the members of your God held in subjection and bondage.” St Augustine (see contra Faustum, Bk XV. c. 6) also knows that the Living Spirit has, like the First Man, five sons, to whom we shall return later. The Mahommedan writers have much less to say on the subject. En Nadîm (Kessler, op. cit. p. 390; Flügel, op. cit. p. 88) says abruptly that “Joy [i.e. the Mother of Life] and the Spirit of Life went to the frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and saw there the First Man and his angels,” whereupon the Spirit of Life called the First Man with a voice of thunder and the latter “became a god.” This story is so without connection with the context that Kessler is probably right in attributing it to another source from that from which the Fihrist has drawn up to this point. The source in question was probably a late one; for Bar Khôni (op. cit. pp. 186-188) supplies many more details which will be given in the text. Bar Khôni also amplifies the story in the Fihrist into a description of how the Living Spirit, on seeing the First Man in the Darkness, spoke “a word which took the appearance of a pointed sword” (cf. Revelation i. 16), and how this word caused to appear the image of the First Man. A dialogue then ensues between apparently the sword and the image, which appear to be here identified with the Appellant and Respondent of later Manichaeism, and the pair are drawn up out of hell. See Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 24, and note 5. Al Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 190, also knows of the Spirit of Life and says that Manes “preached” of him. In the Turfan texts there is occasional mention of the “Spirit” together with the Father and the Son (Müller, Handschriften-Reste, pp. 26, 28), and also of the “commands” of the Holy Spirit to the Hearers, which are plainly allusions to the Living Spirit or Ζῶν Πνεῦμα of the Christian Fathers. In the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. pp. 510, 556) he is repeatedly mentioned, and although nothing is said of his demiurgic or world-creating powers, the part which he and the Mother of Life play in the rescue of the First Man after his defeat is recognized, and he is spoken of as forming the third person of a Trinity of which the two other members are the Father or highest God of Light and the “Son of the Light.” Finally (op. cit. p. 557), he is said to be “a white dove,” whereby his likeness to the Holy Spirit of the Christian Trinity already noted by Faustus is emphasized (see Augustine, ubi cit. supra and Bk XX. c. 6).

Footnote 1068:

This conception of Jesus as a warrior has already been seen in the Pistis Sophia, see p. 156 supra. So we read of “Jesus the victorious” in the Tun-huang treatise, p. 566, n. 3.

Footnote 1069:

En Nadîm in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 393 sqq.; Flügel, op. cit. pp. 90 sqq. Theodore bar Khôni (Pognon, op. cit. pp. 189 sqq.), gives a much more elaborate account of the creation of man and the other animals, for which and for its explanation the reader must be referred to the elaborate analysis of M. Cumont (Cosmog. Manich. pp. 34-49, and App. II., “La Séduction des Archontes”). It should be noted, however, that some part of this story was known to St Augustine. See especially contra Faustum, Bk VI. c. 8.

Footnote 1070:

So Rochat, op. cit. pp. 157, 158.

Footnote 1071:

Kessler, op. cit. pp. 72, 80; Brandt, Mandäische Religion, p. 178.

Footnote 1072:

Rochat, op. cit. pp. 156-178, has carefully examined the resemblances between the system of Manes and that of the Mandaites and declares that it is at present impossible to say which of them has borrowed from the other.

Footnote 1073:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XII., pp. 19, 20, Beeson.

Footnote 1074:

Op. cit. c. VIII., p. 12, Beeson.

Footnote 1075:

Chavannes et Pelliot (op. cit. p. 517, n. 3) make this the work of the Living Spirit, but they are clearly wrong. The text of the Acta referred to in the last note leaves no doubt that it is that of the “Son.”

Footnote 1076:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XI., p. 18, Beeson.

Footnote 1077:

This is the tradition evidently known to the author of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος when he makes Jesus say “When I spoke with Enoch out of the Tree of Knowledge in the Paradise of Adam.” (See Chap. X, p. 173 supra.)

Footnote 1078:

Al Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 190.

Footnote 1079:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. IX., p. 14, Beeson. This idea of the macrocosm and microcosm according to which the body of man is a replica of the universe is found in nearly all later mysticism—also in the Cabala and in the later Zoroastrian treatises. In the Tun-huang treatise it forms the chief theme of the homiletic part of the work.

Footnote 1080:

Op. cit. c. VIII., pp. 12, 13, Beeson. The Latin version has vir “man” for aer “air” in its description of the Column of Glory. Probably a clerical error.

Footnote 1081:

Op. cit. c. X., pp. 15, 16, Beeson. The word used is κέλεφος; but the Latin texts all read “elephant.”

Footnote 1082:

Ἐρῶ ... πῶς μεταγγίζεται ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς πέντε σώματα, op. et cap. cit. p. 15, Beeson.

Footnote 1083:

The soul of the rich man is in the same chapter said to pass into the body of a beggar and thereafter εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον “to everlasting punishment.” Is it from this source that the Calvinists took their doctrine of eternal damnation? The reprobation of the rich as such and without regard to the use they might make of their wealth perhaps accounts for the levelling and republican politics of the mediaeval sectaries.

Footnote 1084:

The Bowl of water reminds one of the cup of soberness and reflection administered to just souls by the little Sabaoth the Good in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος. See Chap. X, p. 187 supra. The garment was probably the “heavenly nature” with which the soul had to be clothed before it could ascend to the upper spheres of light (cf. the Pistis Sophia). That the crown was designed as a protection against the spirits of evil, there are many indications in the last-mentioned document.

Footnote 1085:

Kessler would here read “gods” for “goddess.”

Footnote 1086:

That is to say, the particular world of light, whether Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, or Discernment, from which the soul descended. As the “armour” of the First Man, from which the souls of men are formed, was made with the aid of these five worlds, it is reasonable to suppose that one or other predominates in the soul of everyone. Hence probably the degree in the Manichaean hierarchy to which any hearer might attain was thought to be decided for him before his birth, and governed his destination after death. Thus it is said in the Pistis Sophia: “Those who have received exalted mysteries shall be in exalted places, and those who have received humble mysteries in humble places in the light of my kingdom.” Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} partie, p. 533, n. 1 and St Augustine as there quoted.

Footnote 1087:

The words given in the text are almost verbatim from En Nadîm. See Kessler, op. cit. pp. 398-399; Flügel, op. cit. p. 100.

Footnote 1088:

One of the 21 Nasks of the Sassanian Avesta.

Footnote 1089:

Söderblom, op. cit. p. 83.

Footnote 1090:

Op. cit. pp. 89 sqq.

Footnote 1091:

See the Orphic belief about the uninitiated being plunged in mud, Vol. I. chap. IV. p. 131 supra.

Footnote 1092:

Kessler, op. cit. pp. 399-400; Flügel, pp. 100-101.

Footnote 1093:

This is, I think, the only construction to be put on the words of the Acta: τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα, νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός. Hegemonius, Acta, c. X., p. 15, Beeson. For the Mahommedan tradition, see En Nadîm in Flügel, op. cit. p. 95. The whole question of the organization of the Manichaean Church is elaborately discussed by Flügel in n. 225 on this passage, op. cit. pp. 293-299.

Footnote 1094:

Kessler, op. cit. p. 398; Flügel, op. cit. pp. 94, 95.

Footnote 1095:

This is perhaps the first instance in antiquity of the Gospel of Work. That these virtues of the believer are made five in number, so as to accord with the five worlds of light, needs no demonstration.

Footnote 1096:

See passages from Kessler and Flügel quoted in n. 1, p. 313 supra.

Footnote 1097:

Rainerio Saccone, a Manichaean Perfect in Languedoc, who afterwards turned Inquisitor, said that he had often heard the Elect lamenting that they had not taken the opportunity of committing more sins before receiving the “Baptism of the Spirit” which was thought to wash them away. See H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition, vol. I., p. 94.

Footnote 1098:

Flügel, op. cit. pp. 95-97. See, however, n. 4, p. 349 infra.

Footnote 1099:

Josephus, Antiquities, Bk XX. cc. 2-4, breaks off his history at the critical point. The Book of Esther is, perhaps, sufficient proof of the capacity of the Oriental Jews for provoking periodical pogroms at least as freely as their co-religionists in modern Russia. Johnson (Oriental Religions), Persia, 1885, p. 410, quotes, apparently from Firdûsi, that the “old Persian nobles” were driven by Ardeshîr’s reforms into Seistan, where they were the ancestors of the present Afghan clans. As some of these clans call themselves the Beni Israel, it is possible that the Jews rather than the nobles were expelled on this occasion, as happened before under Cyrus.

Footnote 1100:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XII. pp. 20-21, Beeson; Ephraem Syrus in Kessler, op. cit. p. 302. For Mahommedan confirmation, see Schahrastâni in op. cit. p. 339.

Footnote 1101:

Al Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 190.

Footnote 1102:

See Le Coq’s Short Account in J.R.A.S. 1909, pp. 299-322. Another and more popularly written one by the same author appeared in the Conférences au Musée Guimet, Paris, 1910 (Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XXXV.).

Footnote 1103:

The Marcionites, another much hated sect, also used a secret script.

Footnote 1104:

St Augustine, contra Faustum, Bk V. c. 1.

Footnote 1105:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. V., pp. 5, 6.

Footnote 1106:

Augustine, contra Faust. Bk VII. c. 1.

Footnote 1107:

Op. cit. Bk XXIII. c. 2; ibid. Bk XXXII. c. 7.

Footnote 1108:

Op. cit. Bk XXVI. cc. 6, 8; ibid. Bk XXIX. c. 1.

Footnote 1109:

Op. cit. Bk XX. c. 2.

Footnote 1110:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 15, points out that the Manichaeans had already figured to themselves their King of the Paradise of Light as existing in the three Persons of Father, Mother, and Son in the shape of the Light, the Mother of Life and the First Man. This Trinity corresponds in every particular with that worshipped in Asia Minor under the names of Zeus (or Hadad), Cybele, and Atys, at Eleusis as Dionysos, Demeter, and Iacchos, in Greek Egypt as Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and in Persia, according to M. Cumont, as Ormuzd, Spenta Armaiti, and Gayômort. Cf. Bousset, Hauptprobleme, pp. 333-337. That its origin can be traced, as the last-named author seems to think, to the Babylonian Triad, Ea, Damkina, and Marduk, is more doubtful. The Manichaeans really acknowledged, as they were never tired of affirming, only two gods, Light and Darkness, and considered all the lesser powers of Light, including man’s soul, as formed from God’s “substance.” When, therefore, they spoke of trinities, tetrads, and so on, it was in all probability for the purpose of producing that show of outward conformity with other religions which was one of the most marked features of their system.

Footnote 1111:

This is a reversal of the position in the Pistis Sophia, where the female power or Virgin of Light is placed in the Sun and the male Iao in the Moon.

Footnote 1112:

Compare the statement of Herodotus (Bk I. c. 131) that Zeus (or Ormuzd) in the opinion of the ancient Persians was the name of “the whole circle of air.”

Footnote 1113:

Augustine, contra Faust. Bk XX. c. 2.

Footnote 1114:

This is to be found in Harduin’s Acta Consilii. The quotation in the text is taken from Matter, Hist. de Gnost. t. III. p. 89, and Neander, Ch. Hist. II. p. 187.

Footnote 1115:

Pognon, op. cit. p. 5; Assemani, Bibl. Orient. t. III. p. 198 cit.

Footnote 1116:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 106. It seems probable that the Kashgar in question is the country in Chinese Turkestan still called by that name. M. Pelliot, however, will have none of this and insists that Bar Khôni’s Kashgar was Al Wasit near Bagdad. For the controversy, see J.R.A.S. 1913, pp. 434 sqq., 696 sqq. and 1914, pp. 421-427.

Footnote 1117:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 1, n. 2, and authorities there quoted.

Footnote 1118:

Ἀναθεματίζω πάντας οὓς ὁ Μάνης ἀνέπλασε θεοὺς, ἤτοι τὸν τετραπρόσωπον Πατέρα τοῦ Μεγέθους καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον Πρῶτον Ἄνθρωπον ... καὶ τὸν ὀνομαζόμενον Παρθένον τοῦ φωτὸς κ.τ.λ. “I anathematize all those whom Manes lyingly makes gods, to wit, the Father of Greatness in four Persons, and the so-called First Man ... and the famous Virgin of Light,” etc., Kessler, op. cit. p. 403. His quotation of the Formula is from the works of the Apostolic Fathers edited by Cotelerius in 1724 (Amsterdam). It seems to have been administered to converts from Manichaeism to Catholicism down to a very late date. See Beausobre, Hist. du Manichéisme, t. I. pp. 66-67.

Footnote 1119:

Pognon, op. cit. p. 184. Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. pp. 9, 10, would substitute Reason for Knowledge and Will for Feeling. The Greek names as given in the Acta (Hegemonius, op. cit. c. X. p. 15, Beeson) are νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός which the Latin translator makes into mens, sensus, prudentia, intellectus, cogitatio. The first of these may pass as correct, since Nous appears as the first emanation of the Highest God in all the systems which preceded that of Manes and from which he is likely to have copied. Of the rest, it can only be said that they are the translations by scribes of Syriac or Mandaite words which were ill calculated to express metaphysical abstractions, and that their copyists were seldom well acquainted with the etymology of any of the three languages. Hence they generally made use of what they thought were the corresponding expressions in the works of great heresiologists like Irenaeus and Hippolytus without troubling themselves much as to their appropriateness. In the passage from the Acta above quoted, the five qualities named are said to be the “names of the soul,” which is explained by what is said later (op. cit. c. X. p. 17, Beeson) that “the air (ἀήρ) is the soul of men and beasts and birds and fish and creeping things.” En Nadîm (Kessler, op. cit. p. 387; Flügel, p. 86), as has been said on p. 291 supra, gives the “members of the air” as Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion and Discernment, which are the same as those which he has just attributed to the King of the Paradise of Light. St Augustine (c. Faust. Bk XX. c. 15) says in like manner that the Manichaeans thought their souls “members of God,” which seems to refer to the same belief. Bar Khôni (Pognon, op. cit. p. 186), as has been said, not only assigns the five dwellings of Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought, Reflexion and Feeling to the Living Spirit, but makes him draw his five sons from them, and M. Cumont (Cosmog. Manich. p. 10, n. 3) quotes the Acta Thomae as saying that the Third Legate or Srôsh is “the Legate of the five members, Nous, Ennoia, Phronesis, Enthymesis and Logismos.” From all which we may gather that the Supreme God of Light and his “Second” and “Third” creations were each alike thought to have the same five dwellings or hypostases consisting of abstract qualities, although the exact significance of the names given to them for the present escapes us.

Footnote 1120:

This is the usual Oriental and Semitic figure of speech which leads Arabs at the present day to nickname any European with a large beard “the Father of Hair,” and makes the Sphinx of Ghizeh the “Father of Terrors.” In the same way, the Mother of Life means doubtless the Very Great Life or Source of Life.

Footnote 1121:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 15.

Footnote 1122:

See the Khuastuanift, pp. 335, 342 infra, and the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. p. 513, and n. 1). Cf. also Müller, Handschriften-Reste, p. 102.

Footnote 1123:

She cannot possibly be the Virgin of Light, as in the Acta she is said to retire at the Ecpyrosis into the Moon-ship along with that personage. See Hegemonius, op. cit. c. XIII. p. 21, Beeson. The name “Virgin of Light” also appears in the Turfan texts as an epithet of Jesus, if the words are not wrongly translated. See Müller, Handschriften-Reste, pp. 75, 77. The name Nahnaha given her by En Nadîm has been referred to in n. 2, p. 300 supra.

Footnote 1124:

Probably Mithras, who is in the Vedas and elsewhere called “Mithra the Friend.” Mithras is invoked under his own name in the Turfan texts (Müller, Handschriften-Reste, p. 77), but the fragment is too mutilated to be able to deduce from it his place in the pantheon.

Footnote 1125:

This name, to be found nowhere but in Bar Khôni, cannot be explained. Pognon says it may be written the Great Laban, which gets us no nearer to its meaning.

Footnote 1126:

The image is probably his body or substance, which is of the substance of the Very Great Father. So Satan is in the Coptic Trattato gnostico of Rossi quoted in n. 2, p. 300 supra described as the ἀρχηπλάσμα, probably as being the very substance of darkness as the Very Great Father is of the Light.

Footnote 1127:

This is the conjecture of M. Cumont (Cosmog. Manich. pp. 24, 25). As he says in note 5 on the first-mentioned page, the passage as it stands is inconsistent. The Appellant and Respondent under the names of Kroshtag and Padwakhtag appear in the Khuastuanift and also in the Tun-huang treatise (pp. 521 sqq.) without the part they play in the world being immediately apparent. The former document, however (see p. 343 infra), speaks of them as being concerned in the purification of the Light. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (op. cit. p. 521, n. 1) think it possible that they may represent the portions of the “armour” of the First Man which were not sullied by contact with matter, and compare them to the last two Amshaspands, Haurvetât and Ameretât. See also their Traité Manicheen, etc. 2^{me} ptie, in the Journal Asiatique, XI série, t. I. (1913), p. 101. One might liken them to the Cautes and Cautopates appearing in the Mithraic monuments, as to which see Chapter XII, p. 246 supra.

Footnote 1128:

All these subordinate deities were known to St Augustine. Cf. id. c. Faust. Bk XV. c. 6.

Footnote 1129:

Evidently Manes accepted the dictum of Valentinus quoted above (Chap. IX, p. 104 supra), that with celestial powers it is always the female who gives the form.

Footnote 1130:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XIII, p. 21, Beeson. Αἱ δὲ προβολαὶ πᾶσαι, ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἐν τῷ μικρῷ πλοίῳ, καὶ ἡ μήτηρ τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα κυβερνῆται, καὶ ἡ παρθένος τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτης ὁ τρίτος ὁ ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ πλοίῳ, καὶ τὸ ζῶν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ τεῖχος τοῦ μεγάλου πυρὸς καὶ τὸ τεῖχος τοῦ ἀνέμου, καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος, καὶ τοῦ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῦ ἔσωθεν πυρὸς τοῦ ζῶντος πρὸς τὸν μικρὸν φωστῆρα οἰκοῦσιν, ἄχρις ἂν τὸ πῦρ κατανελώσῃ τὸν κόσμον ὅλον· ἐν ποσοῖς πότε ἔτεσιν, ὧν οὐκ ἔμαθον τὴν ποσότητα. “But all the emanations [i.e.], Jesus who is in the small ship, and the Mother of Life and the 12 pilots, and the Virgin of Light, and the Third Legate who is in the large ship, and the Living Spirit and the wall [it should be ‘guardian,’ as MM. Chavannes and Pelliot explain] of the great fire, and the guardian of the Ether, and of the air, and of the water, and of the inner living fire, abide near the lesser light until the fire has consumed the whole Cosmos. But for how many years I have not learned.” The Latin version runs: Prolationes autem omnes Jesus in modica navi, et mater vitae et duodecim gubernatores et virgo lucis et senior tertius. Unde et majori in navi vivens spiritus adhibetur, et murus ignis illius magni, et murus venti et aeris et aquae et interioris ignis vivi, quae omnia in luna habitabunt usquequo totum mundum ignis absumat; in quot autem annis numerum non didici:—which appears to be nonsense. The number of years which Turbo, who is here speaking, had not learned, is said by En Nadîm to be 1468.

Footnote 1131:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. pp. 58 sqq. and Appendix I.

Footnote 1132:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. (1^{ère} ptie), p. 522, and n. 1. For the part played by him in the Chinese treatise see op. cit. p. 536, and n. 2. He is called “Mighty Srôsh” in the Turfan texts (Müller, Handschriften-Reste, p. 75).

Footnote 1133:

J. Darmesteter, The Zend Avesta, part I. (S. B. E. vol. 4, pp. 87, 99) and part II. (S. B. E. vol. 23, pp. 159-167). All the passages in which he is referred to come from the Vendidad, but he is also mentioned in the Bundahish. See West, Pahlavi Texts, part I. (S. B. E. vol. 5, p. 128).

Footnote 1134:

See n. 2 supra. M. Cumont (Cosmog. Manich. p. 34) thinks that this Messenger was added to the two triads (of Father, Mother, and Son, and the Friend of the Lights, Great Ban, and Living Spirit, respectively) in order to make up “the sacred number of seven.” But seven is a number singularly neglected by the Manichaeans, who paid the greatest reverence to five, and preferred to seven the three and the twelve. Nor do I think that there is any real parallel in Manichaeism to the Seven Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism. The actual word amshaspand is used in the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 544), but with an entirely different signification from that of archangel or divinity. It seems there to mean simply “element.” Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 2^{me} partie, p. 101.

Footnote 1135:

I can find no parallel to these powers in any other system, save that of the Pistis Sophia, where appear twelve Saviours of the Treasure-house of Light, from whom the souls of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus were said to be drawn. If, therefore, they are not the signs of the Zodiac, they may be an invention of the Manichaeans to accord with the magistri or highest order of their Church (see p. 330 infra).

Footnote 1136:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 36.

Footnote 1137:

Pognon, op. cit. pp. 189, 190. He says it was the Messenger (or Srôsh) who ordered the Great Ban to create a new world. M. Kugener, however (Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 37, n. 4), says that the passage can be read as in the text, and this avoids the improbability of the younger power or Third Legate giving orders to one of the “second creation.” The three wheels, fire, water, and earth, may possibly have been conceived as surrounding the earth, as with the Ophites of the Diagram. Cf. Chap. VIII, n. 3, p. 74 supra.

Footnote 1138:

I read this, perhaps wrongly, thus instead of Five Trees as does Pognon (op. cit. p. 191). The five kinds of trees are often referred to in the Tun-huang treatise and in the Khuastuanift.

Footnote 1139:

This Saclas, who appears many times in Greek heresiology with his wife Nebrod, called in the text Namraël (for references, see Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 73, and notes 3, 4, and 5), was known to Hippolytus, who uses both names in his description of the tenets of the Peratae, a name which may be equivalent to that of the Medes. See Hipp. Philosoph. Bk V. c. 14, pp. 194, 195, Cruice.

Footnote 1140:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 566, and n. 3.

Footnote 1141:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XI. p. 18, Beeson.

Footnote 1142:

Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 46, p. 210, Oehler. See also Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 569, and n. 2; p. 572, and nn. 2, 3; and p. 581, and n. 4. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot discuss the question of the organization of the Manichaean Church in the second part of their memoir. See op. cit. 2^{me} ptie, pp. 193, 196 and n. 2. They also give a dissertation on the common life of the Elect. It remains to be seen whether this was anything more than a copy of the monastic institutions of the Buddhists. For obvious reasons, such an organization was not adopted in lands where they had outwardly to conform to other religions.

Footnote 1143:

So Professor Harnack and Mr Conybeare in the Encyc. Brit. (XIth ed.), vol. XVII. p. 576, s.v. Manichaeism.

Footnote 1144:

“Beatus pater” is the name given to the Tertius legatus by Evodius, de recta fide, passim.

Footnote 1145:

Augustine, c. Faust. Bk XV. c. 5.

Footnote 1146:

Op. cit. Bk XX. c. 9.

Footnote 1147:

Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. App. 2, “L’Omophore.” He shows that this belief in an angel who supports the world on his shoulders goes back to the Assyrian cylinder-seals, where is found a world-bearing divinity in exactly the same pose as that reproduced in the Mithraic bas-reliefs.

Footnote 1148:

One of the silk banners obtained by the German expedition seems to have depicted this scene. See A. von Le Coq, Chotscho: Facsimile-Wiedergaben der Wichtigerer Funde der Ersten Kgl. Preuss. Expedition nach Turfan, Berlin, 1913, Bd 1, p. 1 and Pl. IV. 6.

Footnote 1149:

Augustine, c. Faust. Bk XX. c. 17. Is the prayer addressed to the First Man or to Splenditenens, whom St Augustine represents as mourning over the pollution of the Light?

Footnote 1150:

The praises in the text are all given by En Nadîm. See Flügel, op. cit. p. 96. Are “the two sciences” the Living Spirit and his Intelligence or Reason? If so the “Father of Majesty” probably means the Beatus Pater of note 2, p. 331 supra.

Footnote 1151:

The Mediaeval Inquisitors were in especial never tired of denouncing the immorality of the Manichaean Hearers. See H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition, index.

Footnote 1152:

The original documents are described by Prof. A. von Le Coq in “Turkish Khuastuanift from Tun-huang,” J.R.A.S. 1911, pp. 277-279.

Footnote 1153:

There are many allusions in Manichaean literature to three worlds of light, which seem to be (1) the light inaccessible, or heaven of God; (2) the light intelligible, i.e. that can be comprehended by the mind only, which is inhabited by the First Man; and (3) the perceptible light, of which the Sun and Moon are the rulers. See especially Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 564 and 586, and 2^{me} ptie, p. 102, n. 2. The Manichaeans’ addiction to the number five needs no insistence. Fifteen, i.e. 3 × 5, is therefore a number which came naturally to them.

Footnote 1154:

Shimnu seems to be the Buddhist word for “devil.” Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. II. p. 181. Prof. von Le Coq (J.R.A.S. 1911, p. 300) says it is of Soghdian origin. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 523, n. 3, seek to show that it is the equivalent of Ahriman.

Footnote 1155:

On this word see p. 323 supra; cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 542, n. 2, which seems to summarize all that there is to be said about it, and p. 342 infra.

Footnote 1156:

This was of course the exact statement of Zervanism, which the Khuastuanift implicitly condemns. Cf. Mihr Nerses’ proclamation in 450 A.D. quoted on p. 285 supra.

Footnote 1157:

This was the name of the owner, which was Raimast Parzind in the Tun-huang text of Sir Marc Stein.

Footnote 1158:

This was the name given to the incarnate, as distinguished from the spiritual, messengers of the God of Light to man. Thus Zoroaster is always spoken of in Manichaean literature as a Burkhan, and doubtless the historical Buddha and Jesus were included in the same category. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 572, n. 2.

Footnote 1159:

Obviously the authors of the Khuastuanift knew nothing of the doctrine put forth by the Manichaeans in Christian lands that the First Man offered himself as a sacrifice to destroy the sons of Darkness. Cf. n. 2, p. 294 supra.

Footnote 1160:

Because by so doing the existence of the diabolic creation would be prolonged.

Footnote 1161:

The words “of the Messenger” [God] are not in Prof. von Le Coq’s version.

Footnote 1162:

Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 503, n. 1. On this being mentioned in a paper in the J.R.A.S. 1913, Dr F. Denison Ross said that he thought the date should be put 300 years later, J. cit. p. 81. He has since withdrawn this (J.R.A.S. 1913, pp. 434-436).

Footnote 1163:

See the luminous historical study by M. Henri Cordier, “Les Fouilles en Asie Centrale,” Journal des Savans., Paris, 1910, pp. 219 sqq., especially pp. 249, 250.

Footnote 1164:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 513, n. 1. Müller, Handschriften-Reste, pp. 20, 22. Von Le Coq, J.R.A.S. 1911, p. 301.

Footnote 1165:

Ormuzd, “the whole circuit of the sky,” although he calls him, more Graecorum, Zeus, “the sun and moon, the earth, fire, water and the winds,” were “the only gods whose worship had come down to the Persians from ancient times” in the days of Herodotus. Cf. Herodotus, Bk I. c. 131.

Footnote 1166:

Faustus (Aug. v. Faust. Bk II. c. 4) distinctly says “Jesus Christ is the son of the First Man.” Cf. also c. 5.

Footnote 1167:

It is very doubtful whether it is referred to or not in the Tun-huang treatise. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 515, n. 2, and p. 516, n. 3.

Footnote 1168:

The Power whom Faustus (Aug. c. Faust. Bk XX. c. 2) calls “God the Son.”

Footnote 1169:

Evidently the incarnate or human messengers, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, and Manes. The heavenly “legates” are never depicted as “preaching” to men.

Footnote 1170:

The Past, Present and Future, called the “Three Moments” in the Tun-huang treatise. See Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 11^{me} ptie, pp. 114, 116.

Footnote 1171:

Probably the strong or mighty Srôsh or Tertius Legatus.

Footnote 1172:

This may be compared to the Ophite Diagram in which Agape or Love is made the summit of the Pantheon. See Chap. VIII p. 68 supra. See also the same dogma in Valentinus, Chap. IX p. 123 supra.

Footnote 1173:

Flügel, op. cit. pp. 95, 96.

Footnote 1174:

As to these, see En Nadîm in Flügel, op. cit. pp. 97-100.

Footnote 1175:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 543, n. 2.

Footnote 1176:

Augustine, de Moribus Manichaeorum, c. X. Cf. Baur, Das Manichäische Religionssystem, pp. 248 sqq. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 547, n. 1, examine the question whether these are borrowed from Buddhism as F. W. K. Müller and Cumont assert, and incline to the view that Manes took them from Zoroastrianism.

Footnote 1177:

The word vusanti does not seem to be explained by Prof. von Le Coq. Has it any connection with the Sanskrit vasanta “spring”? In that case, the 50 days fast may have been continuous like the Christian Lent and the Mahommedan Ramadan. But it seems more likely that it refers to the weekly fast on Sunday which, the Fihrist notwithstanding, seems to have been incumbent on all the Manichaeans, Elect and Hearers alike. So Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 2^{me} ptie, p. 111, n. 2. See n. 4, p. 349 infra.

Footnote 1178:

Prof. von Le Coq says (J.R.A.S. 1911, p. 307) that this word is as yet unexplained and may belong to another language than Turkish. One is almost tempted to see in it a corruption of the Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement of the Jews. Judaism is the last religion from which the Manichaeans would have consciously borrowed; but the Jews have always taken their goods where they found them, and it may well be that both Jews and Manichaeans were here drawing from a common source.

Footnote 1179:

Is this the Tertius Legatus or another?

Footnote 1180:

Augustine, c. Faust. Bk II. c. 5. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 539, and n. 1.

Footnote 1181:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 573, n. 3.

Footnote 1182:

So Baur, op. cit. This was doubtless true in the West and in lands where they were exposed to severe persecution.

Footnote 1183:

This explains its translation from its original Pahlavi into the language of the converts and each copy bearing the name of the owner.

Footnote 1184:

See Cumont, Cosmog. Manich. p. 56, for authorities. Cf. also de Stoop, op. cit. p. 22. As has been many times said above, every religion and sect at the time accused the others of these filthy practices, without our being able to discern any proof of the justice of the accusation in one case more than in another. In any case, St Augustine, here the chief authority, could not have known of it at first hand, as he had never been more than a Hearer, and he himself says (contra Fortunatum, Bk I. App.) that while he had heard that the Elect celebrated the Eucharist, he knew nothing of the mode of celebration. Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. II. p. 193.

Footnote 1185:

All contemporary authorities are agreed that they were forbidden to drink wine.

Footnote 1186:

Neander, op. cit. II. p. 170.

Footnote 1187:

Le Coq, Chotscho, Vol. I. Pl. I. and IV.

Footnote 1188:

Aug. c. Ep. Fundamenti, c. 8.

Footnote 1189:

Augustine, c. Faust. Bk XVIII. c. 5, whom he quotes, does not say however that they kept Sunday as a festival, but merely that they then worshipped the Sun: Vos in die, quem dicunt solis, solem colitis.

Footnote 1190:

Aug. c. Ep. Fundamenti, c. 8 and de Stoop, op. cit. p. 27.

Footnote 1191:

Al-Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 27.

Footnote 1192:

Ib. pp. 121, 190.

Footnote 1193:

A few other undoubted extracts from the Shapurakhan are to be found in Müller, Handschriften-Reste, passim, and others quoted at second hand from Mahommedan writers in Kessler, op. cit., as to which see ib. pp. 180-191.

Footnote 1194:

Al-Bîrûnî, op. cit. p. 225.

Footnote 1195:

See Kessler, op. cit. p. 191 sqq.

Footnote 1196:

Aug. c. Faust. Bk XXXII. c. 7.

Footnote 1197:

See Albert Dufourcq, De Manichaeismo apud Latinos, Paris, 1900, where all these apocrypha are carefully examined. The Quo vadis story appears on p. 40.

Footnote 1198:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. p. 508, and n. 1.

Footnote 1199:

Hegemonius, Acta, c. XIII. p. 22, Beeson.

Footnote 1200:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 399, 400.

Footnote 1201:

Op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 509, n. 5, 510, n. 2, 533, nn. 2 and 4.

Footnote 1202:

Nowhere is this curious theory, which forms the base of most Mediaeval Cabala and magic, more clearly stated. Thus the Tun-huang treatise says in describing the fashioning of the body of man by the devils (as in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος), “there is not a single formation of the universe (or cosmos) which they did not imitate in the carnal body” (Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 527); and in the next page “The demon ... shut up the five natures of Light in the carnal body of which he made a little universe (microcosm).”

Footnote 1203:

Chavannes et Pelliot, op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, p. 514.

Footnote 1204:

Op. cit. pp. 528, 529.

Footnote 1205:

Their Chinese names are discussed by MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (op. cit. 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 521, n. 1, 542, n. 1, 543, nn. 1, 2, and 544, n. 1), wherein are gathered nearly all that can be said about them. The learned commentators decide that their functions still remain mysterious. But see next note infra.

Footnote 1206:

W. Radloff, Chuastuanift, das Bussgebet der Manichäer, St Petersburg, 1909, pt I. pp. 19, 20. Von Le Coq, J.R.A.S. 1911, p. 294: “when the Gods Kroshtag and Padwakhtag, the Appellant and Respondent, should have brought to us that part of the light of the Fivefold God that, going to God, is there to be purified.” One is inclined to compare this with Jeû and Melchizidek receiving and purifying the light won from this world, or with Gabriel and Michael in the Pistis Sophia bearing the heroine upward out of Chaos; but the parallel may be accidental and is easily pushed too far.

Footnote 1207:

Like the “Twin Saviours” of the Pistis Sophia, whose functions are never even alluded to in that document.

Footnote 1208:

See notes 2 and 3, p. 327 supra.

Footnote 1209:

M. de Stoop’s Essai sur la Diffusion du Manichéisme is most informing on this head. See also A. Dufourcq’s Thesis quoted in n. 2, p. 351 supra. A very brief summary of the history of the sect was given by the present writer in J.R.A.S. 1913, pp. 69-94.

Footnote 1210:

For the enquiry by Strategius, afterwards called Musonianus, and Prefect of the East under Constantius, see Ammianus Marcellinus, Bk XV. c. 13. Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. IV. 488 sqq. That the persecution instituted against them by Diocletian slackened under Constantine and Constantius, see de Stoop, op. cit. pp. 40, 41.

Footnote 1211:

See the Laws of Theodosius and Valentinian II, quoted by de Stoop, op. cit. pp. 41, 42.

Footnote 1212:

Gibbon, Decline and Fall, III. p. 153. Justinian put to death not only convicted Manichaeans, but those who being acquainted with members of the sect, did not denounce them. See de Stoop, op. cit. p. 43.

Footnote 1213:

The Manichaeans seem always to have been favoured by the better classes and high officials of the Empire who maintained for some time a secret leaning towards Paganism. See de Stoop, op. cit. p. 84. The case of Barsymès, the banker or money-changer whom Theodora made Praetorian Prefect, and who was allowed according to Procopius (Anecdota, c. XXII. 7) to profess Manichaeism openly, was doubtless only one of many. It is apparently this Barsymès who is invoked in the Turfan texts as “the Lord Bar Simus,” see Müller, Handschriften-Reste, pp. 45, 59.

Footnote 1214:

That this was the professed policy of the sect seems plain from the words they attributed to Manes himself: “I am not inhuman like Christ who said: Whoso denieth me, him will I deny. I say unto you: Whoso denieth me before man and saves himself by this falsehood, him will I receive with joy, as if he had not denied me.” Cf. de Stoop, op. cit. p. 46, quoting Cedrenus; Al Bîrûnî, Chronology, p. 191.

Footnote 1215:

Von Le Coq, Exploration Archéologique à Tourfan, Confces au Musée Guimet (Bibl. de Vulg. t. XXXV.), 1910, p. 278.

Footnote 1216:

de Stoop, op. cit. pp. 86, 144.

CONCLUSION

Constantine’s accession proved to be, like the coming of Alexander, a turning-point in the history of the world. His so-called conversion put into the hands of the Catholic Church a weapon for the suppression of all rivalry, of which she was not slow to make use. Already in his reign many of the heathen temples were torn down[1217], and under the rule of his morose and gloomy successor, Constantius, the work of demolition went on apace[1218]. The accession of the philosophic Julian gave the worshippers of other gods than Christ a short respite, and even allowed some of the temples destroyed in the former reigns to be restored by or at the expense of the Christians[1219]. Julian’s heroic death in Persia again threw the crown into the hands of a Christian emperor, whose reign of seven months gave him little time, as he perhaps had small inclination, for persecution[1220]; but under his successors Valentinian and Valens, heathen sacrifices were forbidden under severe penalties. The end came under Gratian, when the temple estates were confiscated, the priests and vestals deprived of the stipends which they had hitherto received from the public treasury, and the heathen confraternities or colleges were declared incapable of receiving legacies[1221]. Only a few rich men like the Vettius Agorius Praetextatus whom we have seen among the worshippers of Mithras, or the Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, whose learned and patriotic life has been so well described by Sir Samuel Dill[1222], could henceforth venture to practise, even with maimed rites, the faiths condemned by the Court and the Church.

As for the Gnostic sects, which since Hadrian’s time had striven with such success as we have seen to combine magic and other ancient beliefs with Christianity, they found but short shrift at the hands of the triumphant Church. By an edict issued by Constantine before his own reception into the Church, all their “houses of prayer” were confiscated for the benefit of the Catholic Church, their meeting even in private forbidden, and their books seized and burned[1223].

“Thus,” says Eusebius, “were the lurking places of the heretics broken up by the emperor’s command, and the savage beasts they have harboured (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor’s threats, disguising their real feelings, crept secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practised evil and forbidden arts were detected, and these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind[1224].”

Throughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire all but a very few Roman nobles thus professed the faith of Christ. In the words of the dying Julian, the Galilaean had conquered.

From this time until our own, Christianity has reigned in the West with no serious rival. In the VIIth century, when Mahommed’s Arabs, flushed with the enthusiasm of a new faith which owed something at least to the relics of Gnosticism, poured in upon an Empire wearied out alike by perpetual war against the barbarians and by its own civil and religious dissensions, the Church was compelled to abandon to them her conquests in Africa and the East. In Europe, however, she continued in unchecked supremacy, gathering to herself and assimilating the barbarians who at one time seemed likely to extinguish all civilization; and she thus became a bond uniting many nations and languages in one community of faith and thought. She even succeeded in keeping alive the remains of that Greek art and learning which still form our best and proudest intellectual possession, and if during her reign many of the precious monuments of antiquity perished, the fault was not entirely hers. In every respect, her rule was supreme; and such enemies as she had in Europe were those of her own household. The Manichaeans who, as has been said, once bid fair to deprive her of some of her fairest provinces, never dared to make open war upon her, and their secret defection was punished by an unsparing use of the secular arm. The German Reformation of the XVIth century has probably left her stronger than before, and the few losses that she has suffered in the Old World have been more than compensated by the number of lieges she has succeeded in attaching to herself in the New.

In the days of her infancy, and before she thus came into her inheritance, Christianity borrowed much from the rivals over which she was in the long run to reign supreme. Her outward observances, her ritual, and the organization of her hierarchy, are perhaps all due to the associations that she finally overcame. The form of her sacraments, the periods of her fasts and festivals, and institutions like monachism, cannot be explained without reference to those religions from whose rivalry she so long suffered. That, in such matters, the Church should take what was useful to her was, as said above, part of her consciously expressed policy, and doubtless had much to do with her speedy triumph. To show that her dogmas also took many things from the same source would involve an invasion into the domain of professional theology, for which I have neither authority nor desire. But if, at some future time, investigation should show that in this respect also Christianity owes something to her forerunners and rivals, the argument against her Divine origin would not thereby be necessarily strengthened. That, in the course of her development, she acquired characteristics which fitted her to her environment would be in strict conformity with the laws which appear to govern the evolution of all institutions; and if the Power ruling the universe chooses to work by law rather than by what seems to us like caprice, such a choice does not show Him to be lacking either in wisdom or benevolence.

As was said at the outset, everyone must be left to place his own interpretation on the facts here attempted to be set forth. But if, per impossibile, we could approach the study of the origins of Christianity with the same mental detachment and freedom from prejudice with which we might examine the worship of the Syrian Jupiter Dolichenus or the Scandinavian Odin, we should probably find that the Primitive Church had no need of the miraculous powers which were once assigned as the reason for her gradual and steady advance to all but universal dominion. On the contrary, it may be that Christianity would then appear as a link—although a most important and necessary link—in a regular chain of events which began more than three centuries before she emerged from her birthplace in Palestine into that Roman world which in three centuries more was to be hers of right. No sooner had Alexander’s conquests made a world-religion possible, than there sprang up, as we have seen, in his own city of Alexandria, a faith with a far higher and purer idea of Divinity than any that had until then been known in the West. Then the germs already present in small fraternities like those of the Orphics and the Essenes blossomed forth into the fantastic and unwholesome growths, as we must needs think them, of that Gnosticism which marked the transition of the ancient world from Paganism to Christianity. Lastly there came in from the countries under the influence of Rome’s secular enemy, Persia, the heresy of Marcion, the religion of Mithras, and the syncretistic policy of Manes and his continuators. Against all these in turn, Christianity had to struggle in a contest where the victory was not always on her side: and if in time she overthrew them all, it can only be because she was better fitted to the needs of the world than any of her predecessors or contemporaries.

Footnote 1217:

Neander, Ch. Hist. III. pp. 34, 35.

Footnote 1218:

Op. cit. III. p. 46.

Footnote 1219:

Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Bk V. c. 5, for instances. Cf. Neander, op. cit. III. pp. 66, 67.

Footnote 1220:

Neander, op. cit. III. p. 96.

Footnote 1221:

Op. cit. III. p. 100.

Footnote 1222:

S. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, pp. 143-166.

Footnote 1223:

Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.

Footnote 1224:

Op. cit. c. 66.

INDEX

Abel, Ophite story of, ii. 52; and Manichaean, ii. 304

Aberamenthôu, name used in Magic Papyri and Pistis Sophia, i. 102. See Jesus, Texts of Saviour

Abiuth, receiver of Ariel in Texts of Saviour, ii. 186

Abraham, named in Mag. Pap., i. 106 n. 6; ii. 34; an astrologer apud Artapanus, i. 173; inspired by Ialdabaoth, ii. 53; Bosom of, in Marcion’s system, ii. 211

Abraxas, in system of Basilides, ii. 90, 92

Abydos, gods of, i. 33 n. 1; excavations at, i. 36

Achaea, worship of Goddesses Twain in, i. 135; Cilician pirates deported to, ii. 229

Achaemenides, Persian religion under, i. 122; ii. 234

Achamoth, Sophia of Ophites, ii. 45 n. 1; called the Mother by Valentinus, ii. 112 n. 3; the Sophia Without of Valentinus, ii. 117 n. 2; baptism in name of, by Marcus, ii. 189 n. 1. See Sophia (2)

Acheron, Isis shining in, i. 60

Achilles, his horror of Hades, i. 59, 150; his flattery of Zeus, i. 95; his purification by Ulysses, i. 121 n. 4

Achrammachamari, name of Great Propator in Texts of Saviour and Mag. Pap., ii. 142 n. 2

Acropolis, sacred things of Eleusis lodged in, i. 39; Serapeum built opposite, i. 52

Acrostics, use of, in Jewish, Greek and Christian literature, i. 169 n. 1; in Valentinian epitaph, ii. 129 n. 3

Adam, the protoplast, Ophite story of, ii. 52, 58, 70; and Manichaean, ii. 299; and neo-Manichaean, ii. 329

Adam or Adamos, god of Samothrace, i. 139 n. 1; ii. 54 n. 6

Adamas, the Ophite, the First Man or Great Light, ii. 38; gives birth to Second Man or Son, ibid.; called Father-and-Son, ii. 39; androgyne, ii. 40; forms triad with Holy Spirit, ii. 41 nn. 2, 3; all things except matter contained in, ii. 44 n. 2, 64; all light returns to, ii. 65, 80; called Caulacau, ii. 94 n. 3. See First Man, Caulacau, Hades

Adamas, king of the Twelve Aeons in Pistis Sophia, his rebellion, ii. 48 n. 4, 152 n. 1; place of, ii. 137 n. 3; ruler of Zodiac, ii. 152; delays redemption of souls, ii. 153; sends demon in shape of flying arrow, ii. 156; probably Diabolos or Cosmocrator of Valentinus, ii. 163. See Sabaoth Adamas

Adamas of the Light, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325; slayer of monster, ii. 329

Adonai, epithet of Zeus in Mag. Pap., i. 106; in Coptic, ii. 46 n. 3; son of Ophite Sophia, ii. 47; ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69; meaning of name of, ii. 71 n. 1; address of soul to, ii. 72

Adonis, wailed for in Athens, temp. Alcibiades, i. 16; Dying God of Mediterranean, i. 37; Asiatic form of Dionysos, i. 47; identified with Osiris, i. 55; identified with Dionysos by Orphics, i. 137, 145; identified with Dionysos at Eleusis, i. 139 n. 1; androgyne, i. 185; Ophites attend mysteries of, ii. 21, 54; identified with Phrygian god, ii. 31; fiend in hell in Texts of Saviour, ii. 186

Advent, the. See Parusia

Aegean, islands of, birthplace of gods, i. 16, 52; early worship of Alexandrian gods in, i. 52; and of Eleusinian, ii. 135

Aeinous or Aionios (Everlasting), member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Aelius Aristides, quoted, i. 55 n. 2, 58, 60, 64 n. 3; ii. 66 n. 2

Aeon, Thirteenth, highest place of Left in P.S., ii. 143, 150; Authades would-be ruler of, ii. 151, 153; first dwelling-place of Pistis Sophia, ii. 155; place below it made for Pistis Sophia, ii. 155, 156; Pistis Sophia restored to, ii. 157

Aeons, the Twelve, described, ii. 143, 152, 153; souls made from tears of rulers of, ii. 153; Jesus takes away part of their power, ii. 154; divided into repentant and unrepentant, ii. 182; the mystery of, in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195. See Zodiac

Aerodios, power mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 191

Aeschines, son of Glaucothea, i. 22; Demosthenes’ invective against, quoted, i. 138. See Sabazius

Aeschylus, quoted, i. 48, 55, 123

Aether, offspring of Time ap. Orphics, i. 123

Afghanistan, included in Persian Empire, i. 1

Africa, political power of priesthoods in, i. 31; Mithraism in Northern, ii. 230; christianized Manichaeism of, ii. 339

Agape or Love, supreme God of Diagram, ii. 68, 123 n. 3; supreme God of Valentinus, ii. 98 n. 1; feminine member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101; supreme God of Marcion, ii. 210; seal of Azrua in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 341. See Eros

Agdistis, name of androgyne Cybele, ii. 39, 40

Ageratos or Never-ageing, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Agla, cabalistic word used in mediaeval magic, ii. 139 n. 1

Agra on the Ilissus, mysteries of, i. 41

Agrestius, a clarissimus and high priest of Mithras, ii. 239

Ahnas-el-Medineh or Heracleopolis, mentioned in magic spell, i. 98

Ahriman, Areimanios, or Arimanius, in Bundahish slayer of Gayômort, i. 126 n. 3; not entirely evil till Sassanid times, ii. 232, 253; Magi sacrifice to, ii. 234; son of Zervan Akerene (Cumont), ii. 236, 252; altars dedicated to, ii. 239; Mithras superior to, ii. 240; in Bundahish slayer of bull Goshurun, ii. 246, 254; ruler of earth in Mithraism, ii, 255, 256; modified worship of, in Mithraism, ii. 278; likeness of representation of, to Manichaean Satan, ii. 291. See Goshurun

Ahura Mazda, the Omniscient Lord, i. liii; father of Gayômort, i. lxi; Supreme Being of Yashts, ii. 231; his relations to Amshaspands, ii. 232; in Behistun inscription, ii. 233; not mentioned in Mithraic monuments, ii. 239; in Bundahish, ii. 246; replaced by Jupiter O.M. in Mithraism, ii. 246; worship of, restored by Ardeshîr, ii. 284

Ailoaios or Eloaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69, 70 n. 2, 74 n. 3; address to, ii. 73; sphere of Venus, 74 n. 1

Akae, cryptographic name in Book of Enoch, i. 169, 170

Akinetos or Immovable, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Albigenses, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357

Al-Bîrûnî, quoted, ii. 279, 280, 283, 284, 286 n. 1, 307

Alcibiades, goes to Susa, i. 7; Adonis wailed for when Sicilian expedition of, sails, i. 16

Alcmaeon of Crotona, calls stars gods, i. 186 n. 2

Aldabeim, name of sun in Mag. Pap., ii. 46 n. 3

Aletheia, member of 1st Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98

Alexander of Abonoteichos, his impostures, i. 24; comes to Rome under Marcus Aurelius, ii. 203

Alexander, King of Epirus, Asoka’s mission to, i. 20

Alexander the Great, his conquests hellenize Mediterranean Basin, i. lviii; the world before and after, i. 1 sqq.; greatest individual in history, i. 4, 12 sqq.; his aims and achievements, i. 5-8, 26-27; his deification explained, i. 18; religious associations follow conquests of, i. 22-26 sqq.; his work in Egypt, i. 29, 44; his probable plans for universal religion, i. 30; breaks down national barriers, i. 54, 107; makes world-religions possible, i. 111; his conduct towards Jews, i. 150; re-settles Samaria, i. 177; son of Zeus in serpent form, ii. 49; his effect on cosmology and ethics, ii. 86; consoled by Anaxarchus for death of Clitus, ii. 87. See India

Alexander, bishop of Lycopolis, quoted, ii. 294 n. 2, 295 n. 2.

Alexander Severus, the Emperor, gods in lararium of, i. 82; his success against Persians, ii. 226

Alexander the Valentinian, leader of Anatolic School, ii. 119

Alexandria, its foundation by Alexander, i. 5; its importance not at first recognized, i. 28; Sema of Alexander at, i. 30; a Greek city, i. 44; Serapeum of, i. 48, 51, 58 n. 1; oracle of Serapis at, i. 77; worship of Serapis at, i. 82 n. 2, 86; destruction of temples at, by Theodosius, i. 83, 84; Hadrian’s opinion of, i. 86; early Gnostics start from, i. 111; ii. 8; Orphics plentiful at, i. 156; Simon Magus’ doctrines at, i. 198; ii. 89; intellectual centre of Roman world, ii. 88; Basilides teaches at, ii. 90

Alfenius Julianus Kumenius, clarissimus and priest of Mithras, ii. 268

Allat, the goddess, Ereshkigal an epithet of, i. 100

Alleius Craeonius, author on magic, i. 105

Amazons, the story of, suggests bisexual deity, ii. 40

Ambrose of Milan, convert from Valentinianism, i. 112 n. 1; ii. 21 n. 5; his date, ii. 132 n. 2

Amélineau, E., translates Pistis Sophia, ii. 13; translates Bruce Papyrus, ii, 190; his date for Bruce Papyrus, ii. 194; quoted, ii. 178, 191, 192, 193, 195

Amen of Thebes, the god, father of Alexander, i. 18; priesthood of, i. 23, 31 sqq.; Ptolemies raise temples to, i. 52

Amenhotep IV, King of Egypt, failure of monotheistic teaching of, i. 11; priests of Amen crush heresy of, i. 31

Amens, the Three, powers mentioned in P.S., ii. 142; and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

Amens, the Seven, powers mentioned in P.S., ii. 141; and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

Amenti, the god called Lord of, i. 33; Osiris the bull of, i. 45, 102; Jesus the conqueror of, i. 102 n. 1; a hell in Texts of Saviour, ii. 182, 186; horrors of Egyptian, ii. 196. See Aberamenthôu, Jesus, Khent-Amentit

Ameretât or Immortality, one of the Amshaspands, i. 181 n. 1; ii. 324 n. 4, 355. See Appellant and Respondent

Amitrochates, son of Chandragupta, his desire for Greek learning, i. 8 n. 3

Amon. See Amen of Thebes

Amos, the Prophet, inspired by Ialdabaoth ap. Ophites, ii. 81 n. 2

Amshaspands, the Seven, and the Seven Planets, i. 117; names of, i. 181, n. 1; ii. 103 n. 3; likeness of, to “roots” of Simon Magus, ii. 103 n. 3; and to Aeons of Valentinus, ii. 103 n. 3; in Avesta, ii. 232; absent from early Manichaeism, ii. 327 n. 4; mention of, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 330, 355

Anat, the goddess, assessor of Yahweh, ii. 32 n. 4

Anatolia, its religious peculiarities temp. Christ, ii. 28 sqq., 77; its worship of double axe, 67 n. 3

Anaxarchus the Atomist philosopher, consoles Alexander after death of Clitus, ii. 87

Ancient of Days, name of Valentinian Ialdabaoth, ii. 107 n. 2

Andrew the Apostle, Saint, name of, shows predilection of Jews for Greek names, i. 173 n. 2; mentioned in Pistis Sophia, ii. 157

Anebo, letter of Porphyry to, for threats of Egyptian magicians to gods, i. 104 n. 3

Angels, Essenes sworn to preserve the names of, i. 153, 157; no names of, in O.T., until Daniel, i. 158; rulers over tribes of demons, ibid.; sinning, cast into abyss of fire (Baruch), i. 165; Ennoia produces world-making, ap. Simon M., i. 187; patterns after which worlds made (Philo), i. 187 n. 3; world to be freed from rule of, ap. Simon, i. 196; Simonians say God of Jews one of world-making (Epiphanius), i. 199; seven heavens are also, ap. Valentinians (Irenaeus), ii. 107 n. 4; are Logoi sent into soul by Jesus and Sophia, ii. 110; souls after death, brides of, ibid.; terror of angels at speech of man (Valentinus), ii. 112 n. 3; Archons of Adamas in Texts of Saviour beget, ii, 152 n. 1; Splenditenens and Atlas of Manichaeism, ii. 297, 298. See Enoch, Gabriel, Great Council, Michael, Tertullian

Annu or On, Egyptian name of Heliopolis and chief seat of worship of Râ, i. 31

Anthesteria, ceremonies of, show resurrection and marriage of Dionysos, i. 42

Anthropos, member of 3rd Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98

Antigonus Monophthalmos, King of Syria, his retort when hailed as a god, i. 19; Phrygia occupied alternately by him and Lysimachus, ii. 29

Antigonus Gonatas, King of Macedonia, mission of Asoka to, i. 20. See Tarn

Antinous, death of, fixes date of Hadrian’s letter to Servian, i. 86 n. 5

Antioch, worship of Serapis at, i. 35; birthplace of Carpocrates, i. 111; and of Saturninus, ii. 9, 89

Antiochus I Soter, King of Syria, mission of Asoka to, i. 20

Antiochus III the Great, King of Syria, seizes Palestine, i. 151; transports Jewish families to Anatolia, ii. 28

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria, attempts to hellenize Jews, i. 151, 156, 162, 163; Book of Daniel written temp., i. 158; caught between Romans and Parthians, i. 160; his mystic antagonist Taxo, i. 170; Samaritans accept reforms of, i. 177

Antitheses, the. See Marcion

Antonines, the, Isis-worship at its apogee temp., i. 54, 81

Antoninus Pius, the Emperor, Simonians in Rome temp., i. 199

Anubis, the god, son of Osiris and Nephthys, i. 35; tribal deity of jackal totem, i. 36; his seeking for Osiris in Rome, i. 70; in procession at Cenchreae, i. 72; mask of, used as disguise, i. 78. See Marcus Volusius

Apelles, the Marcionite, his tenets, ii. 218

Apep, the serpent, enemy of the sun-god Ra, ii. 78

Aphrodite, the goddess, worshipped under other names by confraternities, i. 25; and Adonis, i. 37; ii. 31; daughter of Zeus, i. 124 n. 3; identified by Orphics with Isis and others, i. 137 n. 1; Orphic hymn to, i. 142 n. 2; called Cytheraea, i. 143; the Mother of the Gods in Cyprus, ii. 40; called Mother of All Living in Asia, ii. 135 n. 3; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238. See Venus

Apis, the “life” of Osiris, i. 32, 45, 49

Apocalypse of St John, the, its date, ii. 26 n. 3; quoted, i. 145 n. 1, 158, 169, 182 n. 4; ii. 4 n. 1, 25

Apocatastasis, return of the worlds to God, an Ophite doctrine, ii. 42, 57

Apollo, the god, his birthplace, i. 16; identified with Horus, i. 48, 63; his contempt for mankind, i. 57; his place in Orphic legend, i. 125, 147; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238; distinct from Helios, i. 240; worship of, under Julian, i. 269

Apollonius of Tyana, image of, in Alexander Severus’ lararium, i. 82

Apophasis of Simon Magus, the, described, i. 179; quoted, i. 182, 188, 189, 193, 194; ii. 90 n. 5

Apostles, demand only faith from converts, i. lvii; do not borrow from earlier creeds, i. 88; their meeting with Simon Magus, i. 176, 177; in Clementines, i. 178; intolerance of, due to Jewish origin (Bouché-Leclercq), ii. 10; souls of, in P.S. drawn from Treasure-house, ii. 137, 147

Apostolical Constitutions, their date, ii. 7 n. 2; quoted, i. 87 n. 1; ii. 7 nn. 2, 3, 219 n. 2

Appellant and Respondent gods, the, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 302 n. 1, 324, 343, 354, 355

Apuat, the god, “opener of the ways,” i. 33

Apuleius of Madaura, quoted, i. 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73-74, 75, 77, 86 n. 3, 101 n. 2

Aramati, the Vedic goddess, identified with Spenta Armaiti of the Avesta, ii. 45 n. 1, 300 n. 2

Ararat or Ararad, Mt, Books of Jeû hidden in, ii. 147 n. 5

Arbela, Greek troops on Persian side at, i. 7; Alexander’s pursuit after, i. 13

Arcadia, Eleusinian triad worshipped in, i. 135

Arcadius, the Emperor, Church dedicated to, in place of Serapeum, i. 84

Archelai Acta. See Hegemonius

Archimedes, his calculation of places of stars sinful (Hippolytus), i. 112 n. 2

Architect of the Universe. See Demiurge

Archon, the Great, of Basilides, the Demiurge, ii. 91; likeness of, to Ialdabaoth, ii. 94

Archontics, the, a sect related to the Ophites, ii. 77

Arctinus of Miletus, first Greek author to mention purification, i. 121 n. 4

Arctos, the Great Bear, in Mithraism, ii. 266

Arda viraf namak, the, quoted, ii. 264 n. 5

Ardeshîr, the Shah, restorer of Persian nationality, ii. 226, 282; his son Peroz converted to Manichaeism, ii. 281; restores worship of Ahura Mazda, ii. 284

Ares, the god, identified with Roman Mars, i. 17; Homeric or Orphic hymn to, i. 141 n. 2, 142 n. 2; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238

Argolis, the, Eleusinian triad worshipped in, i. 135

Ariel, a fiend in Texts of Saviour, ii. 186

Arimaspi, the, fables concerning, i. 2 n. 1

Aristaeus, pro-Jewish writer, i. 173

Aristides. See Aelius Aristides

Aristides, Christian apologist, ii. 203, 204 n. 1

Aristion, Athenian courtezan member of religious confraternity, i. 22

Aristophanes, quoted, i. 17 n. 1, 40 n. 4, 124, 137; scholiast on, i. 17 n. 1

Aristotle, his monotheism, i. 10; says that religion follows form of government, i. 12, 15; that Orpheus did not exist, i. 121 n. 1

Armageddon, covers name of Rome, i. 170 n. 5

Armenia, Ophites in, ii. 76; kings of, claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 n. 1; Marcionites and Bardesanites in, ii. 283; invasion of, by Mihr Nerses, ii. 285

Arnobius, adv. Gentes, quoted, i. 124 n. 3; ii. 39 nn. 2, 4, 264 n. 5

Arrian, Anabasis, quoted, i. 4 n. 1

Arsaces, founder of Parthian kingdom, ii. 224

Arsinoe, wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus, i. 18

Artapanus, On the Jews, quoted, i. 173

Artemis, the goddess, the Ephesian, i. lvi, 40; birthplace of Greek, i. 16; Indian worship of, i. 17; Orthia, i. 100 n. 2; priestesses of Ephesian, called bees, i. 143 n. 4; Phrygian, ii. 67 n. 3; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238. See Diana

Aryans, their dealings with lower races, i. 3, 92

Asar-hapi, Osiris as Apis, i. 49

Asha Vashishta or Truth, the Amshaspand, i. 181 n. 1

Asia, before Alexander, i. 1; made Greek by Alexander, i. 5; rush of Greeks to, i. 7; Greek spoken throughout, i. 8; cruelty of Assyrian domination in, i. 12; returns to Persian ways, ii. 225

Asia Minor, native religions of, i. lviii, 37, 126; ii. 29, 36, 49, 67 n. 3; gods of, coalesce with Greek, i. 17; home of Dionysos worship, i. 43 n. 3; Alexandrian gods worshipped in, i. 53; Vedic gods worshipped in, i. 122 n. 3; Eleusinian gods worshipped in, i. 136; Orphics in, i. 141, 156; ii. 236; priestesses called bees in, i. 143 n. 4; Jewish atrocities in, temp. Trajan, i. 173 n. 1; Ophite heresy probably native to, ii. 26, 76; Jewish settlements in, ii. 28; Jewish magicians in, temp. Apostles, ii. 33; matriarchate in, ii. 40; Babylonian culture in, ii. 48; serpent worship in, ii. 49, 77, 78; reverts to Persian ways, ii. 225; Mithraism in, ii. 229, 232, 268

Askew, Dr, sells Pistis Sophia to British Museum, ii. 134

Asklepios or Aesculapius, the god, Alexander of Abonoteichos priest of, i. 24; Serapis statue that of, i. 48 n. 3, 78 n. 2; identified with Serapis, i. 78, 87

Aso, the Ethiopian queen, enemy of Osiris, i. 33, 37 n. 1

Asoka, his missions to Greek kings, i. 20

Assur-bani-pal, King of Assyria, his library at Kuyunjik, i. 94, 114

Assyria, penitential psalms of, i. 115; Jews tributary to, i. 160 n. 4

Assyrians, the, tyranny of, i. 3; suzerains of Hebrews, i. 150; name used for Syrians in Christian times, ii. 53 n. 4, 54 n. 6; worship of Mylitta by (Herodotus), ii. 234

Astaphaios or Astaphaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47; name derived from magic (Origen), ii. 47, 48; once called Astanpheus, ii. 47, 69 n. lord of third gate, ii. 70 n. 2, 73, 74 n. 3; address to, ii. 73

Astarte, the goddess, worship of, brought into Greece, i. 17; worshipped by Greek confraternity, i. 25; Phoenician form of earth goddess, i. 126; dove, totem-animal of, ii. 135 n. 3; Mater Viventium, ibid.

Astrampsuchos, name of Roman writer on magic, i. 107; name of celestial guard in Bruce Papyrus, i. 107 n. 1; power worshipped by the Peratae, ibid.

Astrology, origin of, in Chaldaea, i. 113; fundamental idea of, i. 114; system of correspondences results from, i. 115, 116; impulse given to, by Greek mathematics, i. 116, 117; all religions in Graeco-Roman world take note of, i. 117, 118; gives new life to Gnosticism, i. 119; Ophites mix astrological ideas with Orphic teaching, ii. 78; first prominent in Gnosticism in Excerpta Theodoti, ii. 158 n. 1; its great vogue in Rome under Severi, ibid.; reprobated in Pistis Sophia, ii. 185; part of scheme of punishments and salvation in Texts of Saviour, ii. 185 n. 2; its importance in Mithraism, ii. 235, 276. See Babylonia

Atargatis or Dea Syria, favourite deity of Nero, ii. 31; her Anatolian name and identification with other goddesses, ii. 31 n. 1; homonym of Derketo (Garstang), ii. 40 n. 1; her identity with the Mother of the Gods, ii. 299 n. 1; Manichaean Mother of Life derived from, ii. 300 n. 2

Athamas the Pythagorean, his doctrine of “roots,” i. 197

Athanasius, Saint, creed of, i. 89

Athena, the goddess, identified with Minerva, i. 17; her part in Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 39; the Homeric, i. 57, 95, 124 n. 3; statue of Helena of Tyre as, i. 198; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238. See Minerva, Pallas

Athenagoras, quoted, i. lvii n. 1, 63 n. 5, 64 n. 3; ii. 18 n. 2

Athens, foreign worships in, i. 16, 17 n. 1, 137; accepts deification of Alexander, i. 18; gathering in, for Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 38-41; Alexandrian religion in, i. 52, 76; Orphic myths brought into, by Epimenides, i, 121; Orphic gold plates in Museum at, i. 132

Athos Mt, Philosophumena discovered at, ii. 11

Atlas. See Corybas, Omophorus

Attis or Atys, the god, his worship brought into Greece, i. 17, 136; his legend, i. 37; ii. 39; identified with Sun, i. 118; and with Dionysos, Adonis and Osiris, i. 137 n. 1, 145; ii. 17; and with Sabazius, i. 138, 139; androgyne, i. 185; Gnostics attend mysteries of, ii. 21; Phrygia, home of worship of, ii. 28, 67 n. 3; to Ophites, type of world-soul, ii. 65 n. 3

Augustine of Hippo, Saint, convert from Manichaeism, i. 112 n. 1; well informed about Manichaeans, ii. 352; quoted, i. 103 n. 4; ii. 10 n. 1, 12 n. 4, 25, 261, 298 n. 1, 317, 319, 331, 332, 343, 346, 349 n. 4, 350

Augustus, the Emperor, Samaria’s capital named Sebaste in honour of, i. 177; Galatians become Roman temp., ii. 28; Parthians’ terror of (Horace), ii. 225

Aurelian, the Emperor, his worship of sun-god, i. 119 n. 1; ii. 228; position of Christianity under, ii. 23; restores Roman arms in the East, ii. 226; gives up Dacia to Goths, ii. 271

Authades, the Proud God of the Pistis Sophia, last member of Triad of the Left, ii. 151; his disobedience, ii. 152; his envy of Pistis Sophia, ii. 155; sends demon in shape of flying arrow, ii. 156; his place given to Pistis Sophia, ii. 162

Autogenes, power mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192

Autophyes or Self-produced, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Avebury, Lord, quoted, i. 91, 99 n. 1

Avesta, the Zend, Seven Amshaspands of, i. 117; emanation doctrine in, ii. 35; First Man in, ii. 38 n. 3; Supreme Being in, ii. 231; Ormuzd and Ahriman in, ii. 236; bull Goshurun in, ii. 243; denounces magic, ii. 275 n. 2; doubtful about eternity of evil, ii. 289; quoted, ii. 310, 311.

Avidius Cassius, his victories over Parthians, ii. 225.

Axe, Double. See Bacchus, Caria, Crete, Cybele, Cyranides, Labrys, Mycenae, Ramsay, Simon Magus

Axionicus the Valentinian, member of Anatolic School, ii. 119

Azrua, name of God of Light in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323, 341, 342. See Zervan

Baalzephon, name in magic spell, i. 106 n. 4

Babylon, break up of priesthoods of, i. 122; rich Jews remain in, after captivity, i. 172; Jewish families from, transported to Phrygia, ii. 28; its site marked by Hilleh, ii. 33; Jewish taste for cryptograms derived from, ii. 35

Babylonia, Zoroastrian borrowings from, i. lxi; original home of Dying God, i. 38 n. 1; relics of Sumerian beliefs in, i. 100; astral theory originates in, i. 115 n. 1, 116; and primaeval deep theory, ii. 36; and Western astrology, ii. 235

Babylonians, astronomy of, i. 114; isopsephism first used by, i. 69 n. 3; figure earth like boat, ii. 48; think sky a rocky vault, ii. 249

Bacchanals, orgies of, from Thrace, i. 136

Bacchus, concealed object in Corybantic rites of, i. 73 n. 1; Mithraic dignitary Chief Herdsman of, i. 83; Orphic initiate called, i. 128; identified with Attis, Adonis, Osiris, etc., i. 139 n. 1; Orphic hymns to, i. 142 nn. 2, 5, 143; wine called, i. 168; and worship of double axe, ii. 67 n. 3. See Dionysos

Bacchylides, quoted, i. 40 n. 1

Bactria, home of Roxana, i. 5; tale of Possessed Princess of, i. 10; Alexander’s massacres in, i. 13; its struggles against Alexander, i. 28; Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in, ii. 283

Bahram. See Varanes.

Baillet, M. Auguste, quoted, i. 65

Baluchistan, included in Persian Empire, i. 1

Ban or Laban, the Great, a power mentioned by Bar Khôni, ii. 324

Banquet, the, Valentinian wedding of souls, ii. 111; scene in Mithraic monuments, ii. 247

Baptism, used by Ophites, ii. 61; teaching of Primitive Church as to, ii. 168; subverts influence of stars (Theodotus), ii. 115 n. 3; Marcus adds Hebrew exorcisms to, ii. 129, 189 n. 1; one of the Mysteries in Pistis Sophia, ii. 169; postponed until death by married Marcionites, ii. 215, 221; Mithraists use total immersion in, ii. 260. See Oblation, Dead

Barbeliotae, Barbelitae or Borboriani, apparently an Ophite sect, ii. 27 n. 1; described by Irenaeus, ii. 77, 138 n. 1; identified with Naassenes and called Simonians (Irenaeus), ii. 138 n. 1

Barbelo, mother of Pistis Sophia, ii. 74 n. 1; names and place of, ii. 138 n. 1, 151 n. 4; Jesus in Pistis Sophia takes material body from, ii. 151, 179; in P.S. consort of Great Propator, ii. 150, 155; mentioned in Texts of Saviour as mother of Pistis Sophia, ii. 186

Barcochebas, Bar Cochba or Bar Coziba, the Jewish Messiah called Monogenes, i. 124 n. 3

Bardesanes or Bar Daisan the Valentinian, ii. 119; his life, ii. 120; protected by King of Edessa, ii. 132; borrows from Zoroaster (Al-Bîrûnî), ii. 214 n. 2; Manes knows doctrines of, ii. 280, 290 n. 4; his doctrines enter Persia, ii. 283

Barnabas, hailed as Zeus, i. 191 n. 3; ii. 42; with Paul summarizes Hebrew history for Phrygians, ii. 53 n. 2; Epistle of, quoted, ii. 166 n. 2

Barpharanges, magic word used in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192

Baruch, Apocalyptic literature attributed to, i. 163, 164; Book of, used by Ophites, ii. 79; Apocalypse of, quoted, ii. 257

Basilides, the heresiarch, a Jew (Neander), ii. 9 n. 1; says body of Jesus a phantasm, ii. 16, 17; contemporary with Carpocrates, ii. 27 n. 3; disciple of Menander, ii. 89; his teaching, ii. 89 sqq.; his doctrine, comes through Matthias, ii. 90; his borrowings from Egyptian religion, ii. 92; his followers go over to Valentinus, ii. 93; his relations with Buddhism, ii. 96; words of, repeated in Texts of Saviour, 189; quoted, ii. 172. See Buddhism

Basilidians, their relative date, ii. 25 n. 5

Baubo, the goddess, a form of Persephone, i. 100

Baur, F. C., of Tübingen, says Simon Magus is St Paul, i. 179 n. 3

Beast, Number of. See Number

Bedouins, introduce horse into Egypt, i. 36

Beelzebub, Beelzebud, or Beelzebuth, chief of demons in Valentinian system, ii. 108; his name a parody of Jabezebuth, ii. 108 n. 1; Lord of Chaos, ii. 109; his possible place in Pistis Sophia, ii. 163

Behemoth (animals), in Diagram, ii. 71

Bel, the god, his fight with Tiamat, ii. 44 n. 3; reappears in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 295 n. 2

Belisarius, his victories over Persians, ii. 226

Bellerophon, appears in procession of Isis at Cenchreae, i. 71

Bellona, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56. See Ma

Bendis, the moon-goddess of Thrace, i. 16; identified with Persephone, i. 137

Bêqâ, cryptogram for Tetragrammaton, i. 169, 170

Berossos or Berossus, legend about Zervan attributed to, i. lx; our indebtedness to, i. 9; quotes instance of isopsephism from Babylonians, i. 169 n. 3

Bes, the god, dance of, on Herculaneum fresco, i. 69 n. 1

Bethel, the god, assessor of Yahweh at Elephantine, ii. 32 n. 4

Bhils, sorcerers to higher races, i. 92

Bissing, Freiherr von, quoted, i. 68 n. 1, 69 n. 1. See Herculaneum

Bithynia, seat of Glycon worship, i. 24; inscriptions from, i. 55 n. 3; Ophite colleges in, in 5th cent. A.D., ii. 77

Boeotia, native country of Dionysos, i. 52; Orphic teaching in, i. 135; worship of Bacchus comes from Thrace to, i. 136

Boghaz-keui, Vedic gods worshipped at, i. lxii n. 2, 122 n. 3; ii. 231

Bogomiles, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357

Bologna, Mithraic group at, ii. 238 n. 2

Book of the Dead. See Dead

Borboriani. See Barbeliotae

Bosphorus, Isis-worship at Thracian, i. 53

Bouché-Leclercq, M. A., thinks Timotheos and Manetho only typical names, i. 44 n. 1; and Bryaxis’ statue that of Asklepios, i. 48 n. 3; says Apostolic and sub-Apostolic intolerance for heresy due to Jewish nationality, ii. 10; quoted, i. 14 n. 3, 27 n. 1, 28 nn. 1, 2, 29 nn. 1, 3, 30 nn. 2, 3, 44 nn. 1, 2, 48 n. 3, 52 n. 1, 55 n. 1, 78 n. 2, 80 n. 1, 87 n. 2; ii. 10 n. 2, 257 n. 5

Brimo, name given to Demeter in Mysteries, i. 124 n. 3

Bruce Papyrus, thaumaturgic sacraments in, i. 87 n. 1; ii. 63 n. 1, 172 n. 3; 183 n. 1, 193; Astrampsuchos, name of “guard” in, i. 107 n. 1; creation from indivisible point, i. 194 n. 3; ii. 90 n. 5; discovery of, by Bruce, ii. 13, 189; its god Sitheus, ii. 76 n. 4; its addiction to astrology, ii. 158 n. 1; describes higher worlds than Pistis Sophia, ii. 161 n. 2; makes matter non-existent, ii. 161 n. 3; pictures like those in, perhaps referred to in P.S., ii. 180 n. 2; author of, acquainted with story of Iabraoth, ii. 182 n. 2; variety of documents in, ii. 189, 190; links of, with Texts of Saviour, ii. 193; with Pistis Sophia, ii. 194; probable date of, ibid.; quoted, ii. 191, 195

Bryaxis, his statue of Serapis, i. 48, 49, 78 n. 2, 84

Buda-Pesth, altars to Ahriman found at, ii. 239

Buddha, Mani teaches divine mission of, i. lviii; ii. 316; Greek statues of, in India, i. 8; called Terebinthus, ii. 285; first mentioned in Greek by Clem. Alex., ii. 286

Buddhas, Cave of the Thousand, MS. found in, ii. 352. See Tun-huang

Buddhism, study of, i. li; its slow growth in India, i. 20; unknown to Onomacritos, i. 135 n. 1; its dates, i. 156 n. 1; ii. 283; Basilides’ supposed borrowings from, ii. 96; in Bactria, ii. 283; Manichaean borrowings from, ii. 313, 340, 346; its toleration of Manichaeans, ii. 357.

Budge, Dr E. A. T. Wallis, quoted, i. 31 n. 1, 32 nn. 3, 4, 33 nn. 1, 2, 35 n. 1, 38 n. 2, 61 n. 1, 88 n. 2, 126 n. 3, 182 n. 6; ii. 49 n. 3, 72 n. 3, 121 n. 3, 154 n. 3, 184 n. 3, 293 n. 1

Bulgaria, Manichaeans settled in, ii. 357

Bundahish, the, quoted, i. 126 n. 3, 134 n. 1; ii. 246, 254

Burkhans, divine messengers in Manichaeism, ii. 336, 339, 341. See Shapurakhan

Bury, Prof. J. B., quoted, i. 86

Buto, the city of Isis, i. 34

Byblus in Phoenicia, body of Osiris washed ashore at, i. 34

Bythios or Deep, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Bythos, Supreme God of Ophites, ii. 37, 39; Supreme God of Valentinus, ii. 96, 97; his consort, ibid.; identified with Ineffable of Pistis Sophia, ii. 144; resembles Ahura Mazda, ii. 232

Byzantium, birthplace of Theodotus, ii. 9

Cabala, the Jewish, system of correspondences in, i. 115; its Mystery of Chariot and Mystery of Creation, i. 157; processes of “Practical,” i. 158 n. 1, 170 nn. 2, 5; its system of Sephiroth, i. 202; Marcus uses system like that of, ii. 9 n. 1; indicated in Talmud, ii. 35; likeness of, to Gnosticism, ii. 36 n. 1; its Adam Cadmon or First Man, ii. 52 n. 1; Ophite stories of protoplasts revived in, ii. 53

Cabiri of Samothrace, Hermes in worship of, i. 99; mentioned in Hymn to Attis, ii. 54

Cabul, importance of, foreseen by Alexander, i. 5

Caecilia Secundina, name on Orphic gold plate, i. 133, 169 n. 1

Cain, Ophite story of, ii. 52; Manichaean story of, ii. 303; in neo-Manichaeism father of Wisdom and Pleasure, ibid.

Cainites, an Ophite sect, ii. 27, 77

Calabria, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131

Callias, Torchbearer at Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 76, ii. 87 n. 3

Callinicum, Valentinian conventicle at, burned by orthodox, ii. 96

Callisthenes, life of Alexander attributed to, i. 18 n. 1

Calvin, John, founder of sect, i. 54; ii. 19

Cambyses, Shah of Persia, conquers Egypt, i. 28; in Behistun inscription, ii. 233

Campus Martius, Isiac temple in, i. 53; death of Simon Magus in, i. 178

Candahar, named after Alexander, i. 5

Canidia or Gratidia, witch of Horace’s Epodes, i. 108

Canopus, decrees of, i. 52 n. 1; sanctuary of Isis at, i. 86 n. 1

Cappadocia, Kings of, claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 n. 1

Capua, inscription to Isis found at, i. 75 n. 2

Caria, worship of double axe in, ii. 67 n. 3

Carpocrates the heresiarch, magic rites attributed to, i. 111; called first of Gnostics, ii. 27

Carthage, outside Persian Empire, i. 1; Alexander’s plans concerning, i. 6; Roman conquest of, i. 15; ii. 227

Carus, the Emperor, his victories over Persians, ii. 226

Cassander, patron of Euhemerus, i. 19

Caulacau, mystic name common to Ophites and Basilidians, ii. 94

Cautes and Cautopates, torch-bearers of Mithras, ii. 245, 246, 247

Celeus, legendary King of Eleusis, i. 40, 41

Celsus the Epicurean, quoted, i. lvii, 73, 200; ii. 66, 67, 69

Cenchreae, Isiac festival at, described, i. 71

Cephisus, the, bridge over, its part in Eleusinian procession, i. 39

Cerberus, resemblance of triple monster of Serapis to, i. 49

Cerdo the heresiarch, teaches at Rome, ii. 9; his doctrines, ii. 205

Ceres, god of Nature as Earth ap. Cicero, i. lvi; identified with Isis by Apuleius, i. 56. See Demeter

Cerinthus the heresiarch, opponent of St John, ii. 9 n. 1; sent to have been pupil of Philo, ibid.

Chaeremon, says Egyptian magician threatens gods, i. 104 n. 3

Chaldaea, birthplace of astrology, i. 113; captivity of Jews in, i. 150; Jews tributaries to, i. 160 n. 4

Chaldaeans, oppressive rule of, i. 3; suzerains of Jews, i. 150; their influence on Mithraism, ii. 241

Chalmers, Thomas, founder of sect, ii. 19

Chandragupta or Sandracottus, father of Amitrochates, i. 8 n. 3; grandfather of Asoka, i. 20

Chaos, child of Orphic Chronos, i. 123; known to Aristophanes, i. 124; egg formed from, i. 123, 144; Ialdabaoth and, ii. 46 n. 3, 155; Valentinians make Beelzebub ruler of, ii. 109; Pistis Sophia raised from, ii. 156; Pistis Sophia’s descent into, ii. 156, 162; Pistis Sophia does not describe, ii. 163; described in Texts of Saviour, ii. 182, 186

Charcot, Dr, his hypnotic experiments at Salpêtrière, i. 110

Charles, Dr R. H., quoted, i. 159 n. 1, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170; ii. 60 n. 1

Charmôn, receiver of Ariel in Texts of Saviour, ii. 186

Chavannes, Ed. M., translates Traité Manichéen, ii. 352. See Pelliot, Tun-huang MS.

China, Manichaean documents discovered in, i. lix; Manichaeans in, ii. 357

Chinese, their god Thian, i. 73 n. 4

Chinvat, the Bridge, in Zoroastrianism, ii. 110 n. 2, 311

Chosroes, the Shah, his defeat by Heraclius, ii. 227

Christ, Manes tries to include religion of, in his own, i. lviii; statue of, in Alexander Severus’ lararium, i. 82; bishops of, worship Serapis ap. Hadrian, i. 86; name of, has hidden meaning (Justin Martyr), i. 170 n. 5; “heresies before the Coming of,” ii. 25; angel of Great Council, ii. 43; Ophite Sophia makes Prophets prophesy of, ii. 53, 59; descent of Ophite, through seven heavens, ii. 59; Ophite Christ raises Jesus after Crucifixion, ii. 60; Ophites turn figure of, from teacher to messenger, ii. 82; Saturninus says He was sent to destroy Judaism, ii. 89; of Basilides makes Him son of Great Archon, ii. 91; ascension of, imitated on Mithraic monuments, ii. 248. See Archon Jesus

Christianity, importance of study of its origins, i. xlix; dislike of its comparative study, i. li, liv; inspirational view of its history, i. liii; Judaism not its rival, i. liv; early competitors with, i. lv-lviii; spread of Greek language favours, i. 9; Alexander the Great’s services to, i. 27; its rise brings about decline of Alexandrian religion, i. 81; Isis-worshippers converted to, en bloc, i. 84; its cardinal tenets preserved at Reformation, i. 88; said to be mere episode in history of Gnosticism, i. 111; most bitter enemy of Gnosticism, i. 112, 120; ii. 23, 359 sqq.; system of correspondences and, i. 115; its concessions to Sun-worshippers, i. 118; Gnosticism does not compete with, until IInd cent., ii. 2; state does not at first persecute, ii. 7; lower classes in Egypt first converts to, ii. 8 n. 5, 89 n. 1; never Judaeo-Christian in Egypt, ii. 9 n. 1, 131; wars against Hellenistic culture, ii. 10; accuses sects of obscene rites, ii. 18; converts wealthy and learned Gnostics, ii. 21; persecutes Gnostics, ii. 23; Ophites earlier than, ii. 26; its relations with Ophites in post-Christian times, ii. 56, 82; history of Egyptian, obscure, ii. 200; attraction of Rome for innovators on, ii. 203; Marcion’s attempt to reform, fruitless, ii. 222; Manes’ imperfect acquaintance with, ii. 280; shares with Mithraism devotion of legions, ii. 283; compromises of Manichaeism with, ii. 317, 319, 320, 339, 350, 351; Manichaeism really opposed to, ii. 318, 357; relations of neo-Manichaeism with, ii. 339; obligations of, to rivals, ii. 360; triumph of, ii. 361

Christians, political, not religious, offenders against Roman state, i. lvi; expect catastrophes at destruction of Serapeum, i. 84; said to worship Serapis (Hadrian), i. 86; formulate doctrine of Trinity, i. 89 n. 2; accusations of immorality by and against, i. 179; considered Jews until reign of Vespasian, ii. 4; say old world passing away, ii. 5; proscribe heretical writings, ii. 12; apostolic, uneducated men, ii. 83 n. 1; obliged to recognize Greek philosophy, ii. 88; good position of, in Alexandria, ii. 94; belief of, early, as to Eucharist, ii. 171; oriental, flock into Rome under Hadrian, ii. 203; use of “Brother” and “Father” by, ii. 261; extinguish Mithraism before other heathen religions, ii. 272; condemned by Manichaeans for adherence to Old Testament, ii. 315; Manichaeans not, ii. 318, 350; Manichaeans confused with, by Chinese, ii. 357; Julian repairs heathen temples at cost of, ii. 358

Christos the Ophite, Third Man in Ophite system, ii. 42, 59; drawn up with his mother into incorruptible aeon, ii. 43; springs from right side of First Woman, ii. 46; angel or messenger of triune Deity, ii. 54, 63, 64, 65; his two visits to earth, ii. 59; descends with Sophia into Jesus, ii. 60, 61, 79; brings Mysteries to earth, ii. 65; represented by yellow circle in Diagram, ii. 68; likeness of Third Sonhood of Basilides to, ii. 94

Christos, the Valentinian, projected by Nous and Aletheia, ii. 105; draws Sophia within the Pleroma, ii. 105, 114; prayer of Sophia Without to, and its result, ii. 106; Marcus’ juggling with name of, ii. 129; consents to projection of Jesus the Great Fruit of Pleroma, ii. 159 n. 3

Chronos, First Being of Orphics, i. 123; ii. 236

Church, the Catholic, early dislike of, for science of religion, i. liv; destroys traces of religions which she supersedes, i. lix; likeness of Alexandrian festivals to those of, i. 75; Alexandrian clergy divided into seculars and regulars like that of, i. 79; preserves or revives features of Isis-worship, i. 84; worship of Virgin introduced into, at destruction of Serapeum, i. 85; celebration of Eucharist in, temp. Justin, i. 87 n. 1; Simon Magus’ aerial flight the tradition of, i. 178; resemblance of Gnostic sects to Protestant bodies outside, ii. 19; Protestant opponents of, lean to Unitarianism, ii. 20; most Gnostics eventually join, ii. 21; makes no great conquests after suppressing Gnosticism, ii. 23, 24; begins to define and enforce orthodoxy, ii. 77; Valentinus first serious competitor of, ii. 93; Valentinian houses of prayer confiscated for use of, ii. 96; accuses Valentinus of polytheism, ii. 100; Valentinus expects to become bishop of (Tertullian), ii. 117; Valentinus member of, in papacy of Eleutherus, ii. 121; Valentinus never hostile to, ii. 125; seduction scandals not unknown in, ii. 129; growing power of, before Constantine, ii. 132; Valentinianism good recruiting-ground for, ii. 133; Christology of Pistis Sophia not different from that of, ii. 144; Mysteries of the Light of P.S. probably sacraments of, ii. 173; modifies her eschatology and ritual, ii. 201; Marcion claimed as first reformer of, ii. 207; Marcion rejects most traditions of, ii. 214; Marcionite dated inscription earlier than any of, ii. 216; Apelles nearer to doctrine of, than Marcion, ii. 219; Arian controversy brings speculations about Divine Nature within, ii. 221; priests of Mithras not like those of, ii. 273; Manichaeans worst European enemies of, ii. 357; Constantine’s accession leads to forcible suppression of heathenism by, ii. 358

Church, the Manichaean, its predestinarian teaching, ii. 309; consists of Perfects and Superiors only, ii. 313; its magistri, ii. 328 n. 1; its constitution, ii. 330; its schisms, ii. 342; its suppression and revival, ii. 356, 357

Church, the Primitive, its miracles, i. li; ii. 361; its rivals, i. lvii, lxii; its germ in Greek religious confraternities, i. 21; its borrowings from Alexandrian religion, i. 84, 85; its fundamental doctrines not borrowed, i. 88; its heresies, i. 119; its belief as to martyrdom, i. 145 n. 1; ii. 127; its community of goods, i. 162; its angelology, i. 201; its proselytizing zeal, ii. 2, 8; its tradition as to early Gnostics, ii. 8, 9; its destruction of Gnostic books, ii. 12; Asiatic Celts great source of heresy in, ii. 29; acrostics and word-puzzles used by, ii. 35; Ophites attend services of, ii. 63; Ophites connect sacraments of, with heathen mysteries, ii. 82; Trinitarian views of, ii. 121; Valentinians attend services of, ii. 125; baptismal theories of, ii. 168; Eucharistic theories of, ii. 172; Gnosticism both danger and help to, ii. 202; Marcion’s relation to, ii. 204 sqq.; addiction of, to visions of prophets, ii. 219; Fathers say Mithraists copy its sacraments, ii. 247, 260; its alliance with Constantine, ii. 261, 271

Cicero, quoted, i. lvi, lvii n. 1, 129; ii. 32

Cilicia, settlement of Persians in, ii. 229

Circus Maximus, resort of vagabond magicians, temp. Tiberius, i. 108

Claudius I, the Emperor, no Christian converts of rank in reign of (Julian), ii. 8 n. 5

Claudius II, the Emperor, cannot expel Goths from Dacia, ii. 271

Cleanthes of Assos, Ophite silence as to, ii. 83

Clement of Alexandria, accused of heresy, ii. 14 n. 1; initiated into heathen mysteries, ii. 21 n. 3; his fairness to Gnostics, ii. 76 n. 2, 95 n. 2, 199; says angels dwelling in soul, Platonic, ii. 110 n. 1; first Greek author to mention Buddha, ii. 286 n. 4; quoted, i. 40 n. 1, 47 n. 3, 61 n. 1, 73 n. 1, 89 n. 2, 122 n. 2, 124 n. 3, 125 n. 1, 127 n. 1, 142 n. 4, 184 n. 3, 186 nn. 2, 3, 190 n. 1, 194 n. 1; ii. 14, 20 n. 1, 37 n. 1, 39 n. 4, 45 n. 1, 50 n. 2, 65 n. 3, 88 n. 3, 93 n. 4, 95 n. 2, 100 nn. 2-6, 101 n. 2, 106 n. 3, 110 n. 1, 112 n. 3, 113 n. 1, 118, 119, 122 n. 1, 125 n. 3, 129 n. 3, 135 n. 3, 140 n. 2, 144 n. 1, 177 n. 4, 188, 205 n. 5, 219 n. 2, 239 n. 6, 286 n. 4. See Theodoti, Excerpta

Clement of Rome, quoted, i. 8 n. 2; ii. 65 n. 3

Clementines, the, a religious romance, i. 178; Tübingen theory as to, i. 179; quoted, i. 158 n. 4, 178, 181 n. 3, 182 nn. 3, 6, 198; ii. 4 n. 1, 82 n. 2, 219 n. 2

Cleomenes, Satrap of Egypt under Alexander, i. 29

Cleopatra, last of Ptolemies, i. 30

Clitus, death of, i. 13

Coddiani, an Ophite sect, ii. 27 n. 1

Colarbasus, confusion as to name of, ii. 20 n. 1. See Marcus

Commagene, favourite recruiting-ground of legions, ii. 229

Commodus, the Emperor, appears in procession of Isis, i. 54; defiles temple of Mithras with real murder, ii. 262; initiated into Mysteries of Mithras, ii. 270

Confessors. See Martyrs

Confraternities, religious, among pre-Christian Greeks, i. 21; hymns composed by, i. 21 n. 1; frequented by courtezans, i. 22; superstitious practices of, i. 23; contrast between Persian and Egyptian priests and those of Greek, i. 25; propaganda of, i. 26; Alexandrian religion first spread by, i. 52, 77; Greek Orphics not formed into, i. 139 n. 3, 141; secret, among Jews, temp. Christ, i. 175

Conington, Prof. John, his version of Hymn of Great Mysteries, quoted, ii. 54

Constantine, the Emperor, his pact with the Church, i. lvii, lxii; ii. 9, 12, 261, 271; his edict as to heresy, i. lix n. 1; ii. 359; his conversion leaves Alexandrian religion still powerful, i. 83; many Simonians in reign of, i. 200; only baptized on his deathbed, ii. 168 n. 6; his conversion enables Christians to suppress Gnosticism, ii. 199; and puts stop to spread of Marcionism, ii. 220; his failure against Persians, ii. 226; his family religion Sun-worship, ii. 261; his enquiry into Manichaeism, ii. 355; persecution of Manichaeans slackens in reign of, ii. 356

Copernicus, i. 117

Corbicius or Kubrik, name of Manes in Christian tradition, ii. 279, 286

Corbulo, his wars with Persians, ii. 225

Cora or Kore, inseparable from Demeter, i. 127 n. 3; ii. 45 n. 1; called Mise at Pergamum, i. 143 n. 1. See Persephone, Proserpine

Correspondences, doctrine of, i. 115 sqq.; in system of Simon Magus, i. 183; in that of Ophites, ii. 75; in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 191 n. 2. See Maspero

Corybantes, the, hide pudendum of Bacchus in box, i. 73 n. 1

Corybas, identified with Attis, i. 139 n. 1

Cosmocrator, epithet of Valentinian Devil, ii. 108, 256

Courdaveaux, M. Victor, quoted, ii. 14 n. 1, 122. See Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian

Crassus, his defeat by Persians, i. 8; ii. 225

Cretans, call Isis, Diana Dictynna, i. 56

Crete, birthplace of Zeus, i. 16; and of Zagreus, i. 37; scene of Rape of Persephone, i. 40 n. 1; Orphic myths early known in, i. 121, 122; Orphic gold plates found in, i. 131; Great Goddess of Asia worshipped in, ii. 45 n. 1; double axe in, ii. 67 n. 3; Ophites in, ii. 77

Creuzer, Georg Fritz, quoted, i. 130 n. 1

Cross, the. See Stauros; Eli, Eli

Crucifixion, the, in appearance only ap. Basilides, ii. 17; and ap. Manichaeans, ii. 320; Gospel of Nicodemus confirms Gospel account of, ii. 79; Valentinian teaching on, ii. 116; Jesus teaches for 20 years after (Irenaeus), ii. 61 n. 1; for 12 (Pistis Sophia and Bruce Papyrus), ii. 194. See Simon of Cyrene

Cruice, the Abbé, quoted, i. 180 n. 4

Cryptogram. See Akae, Armageddon, Bega, Pistis Sophia, Taxo

Cumont, Prof. Franz, his work on Mithras described, ii. 236; quoted, i. 22, 119; ii. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 277, 289 n. 3, 293 nn. 1, 2, 294 n. 2, 295 n. 2, 298 n. 1, 299 n. 1, 302 n. 1, 304 n. 1, 319 n. 1, 321, 322 n. 2, 323 n. 2, 324 n. 4, 327 nn. 1, 4, 328 nn. 2, 3, 329 n. 2, 332 n. 2, 348 n. 2

Curetes, the, their connection with Orphism, i. 128, 142 n. 2; and with Attis, i. 139 n. 1

Cybele, her worship in Athenian associations, i. 17, 25; her legend in Asia Minor, i. 37; identified with Isis, i. 55, 56; and with Demeter and Rhea, i. 124, 126; the Mother of the Gods, i. 136; Sabazius her son, i. 137; feminine form of Dionysos, i. 137 n. 1; in Orphic hymns, 139 n. 1, 143; Phrygia chief seat of worship of, ii. 28; her eunuch-priests, ii. 30 n. 3; alluded to in Jeremiah, ii. 32; called Agdistis, ii. 39; identified with Ma, Artemis, Aphrodite, etc., ii. 39, 40; always an earth-goddess, ii. 45 n. 1; associated with double axe, ii. 67 n. 3; her connection with Mithras, ii. 258; adored by Julian, ii. 269; worshipped in Manichaeism as Mother of Life, ii. 300 n. 1

Cylon, Athens purified for murder of, i. 121

Cypriotes, the, call Isis, Venus, i. 56

Cyprus, Adonis worship in, i. 37; ii. 40; Alexandrian divinities in, i. 52; and Orphic, i. 143

Cyranides, Le Livre des, quoted by M. de Mély as to “Mystery of Axe,” ii. 67 n. 3

Cyrenaica, the, Jewish atrocities in, ii. 5 n. 3

Cyrene, Buddhist mission to King of, i. 20; Ptolemy Soter annexes, i. 29; Ophites in, ii. 77.

Cyril of Alexandria, replaces Isis by two medical saints, i. 86 n. 1

Cyril of Jerusalem, describes elaborate rite of baptism in IVth cent., ii. 22 n. 1

Cytheraea. See Aphrodite

Cyzicus, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53; and of Eleusinian Triad, i. 136

Dacia, its settlement by Trajan, ii. 271. See Aurelian; Claudius II

Dactyli, the Idaean, first of men, i. 106 n. 3

Damascius, the neo-Platonist, quoted, i. 55 n. 4, 135; ii. 236 n. 4, 250 n. 1, 252 n. 2

Damascus, Perdiccas attacks Egypt from, i. 30

Daniel, Book of, first gives personal names of angels, i. 158; assumes nations divided among angels, i. 199; addiction of Babylonian Jews to curious arts in, ii. 33. See Antiochus Epiphanes

Danube Provinces, the, worship of Alexandrian divinities in, i. 53

Darius, son of Hystaspes, ii. 225, 227; his inscription at Behistun quoted, ii. 233

Darkness, the Dragon of Outer, the most terrible hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 166 n. 2; its 12 torture-chambers, ii. 183; surrounds the earth, ii. 256

Darmesteter, James, quoted, ii. 232 nn. 1, 5, 237 n. 3, 241 n. 1, 248 n. 3, 278 n. 1, 284, 300 n. 2, 327 n. 3

Darwin, Charles, his doctrine of survival of the fittest, i. li sqq., 117

David, King of Israel, vassal of Philistines, i. 160 n. 4; Psalms of, in Pistis Sophia, ii. 157

Dead, Baptism for, ii. 168; Book of the, quoted, i. 31, 32, 55, 132, 134; ii. 66, 72 n. 3

Death, Valentinian theories about, ii. 107, 110, 113, 129 n. 3; in Pistis Sophia a serpent with 7 heads, ii. 156 n. 3; of initiates in Texts of Saviour, ii. 167 sqq.; in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195; of sinner in Texts of Saviour, ii. 186 sq.; of worshipper of Mithras, ii. 266; of Manichaean Perfect, ii. 309; of Manichaean Hearer, ii. 311

Decad, of Valentinus, described, ii. 101; meaning of names of, ii. 102, 103

Deisidaimon, the, of Theophrastus, quoted, i. 140

Delos, worship of Alexandrian gods, i. 53

Delphi, its oracle used to legitimize foreign deities, i. 16; oracle of Serapis at Alexandria competes with, i. 77; no public worship at temple of, i. 85; remains of Dionysos buried at, i. 125

Demeter, scene of her trials, i. 16, 40 n. 1; her wanderings shown to initiates, i. 40; her part in Anthesteria, i. 42; likeness of legend of, to that of Isis, i. 43; identified with Persephone, i. 46; Homeric hymn to, quoted, i. 59; mystic marriage with Zeus, i. 61 n. 1, 133, 142 n. 4, 144; consecrations to, in reign of Valentinian and Valens, i. 83; swine sacrificed to, i. 95; mother of Persephone ap. Orphics, i. 124; and of Iacchos, i. 125; an earth goddess with many names, i. 126; ii. 45 n. 1; Orphics in mysteries of, i. 127 n. 3; assessor of Dionysos in Pindar, i. 129 n. 3; alterations in legend of, introduced by Orphics, i. 130; her widespread worship, i. 135; in mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 n. 2; associated with god of double axe, ii. 67 n. 3; appears as Mother of Life in Manichaeism, ii. 300 n. 2. See Ceres, Rayet

Demetrius of Phalerum, takes charge of Ptolemy’s Museum, i. 44 n. 2

Demetrius Poliorcetes, his deification, i. 18 n. 4, 19; his attack on Egypt fails, i. 29 n. 2

Demiurge, the, or Architect of the Universe, in Justinus’ system, ii. 82; called the Great Archon by Basilides, ii. 91; identified with God of the Jews by Valentinus, ii. 107 n. 2, 109, 114; author of psychic or animal souls, ii. 112; in Marcion’s system, ii. 210, 211, 212, 214 n. 3; Messiah of, ii. 211, 213; identified with Mithras, ii. 248

Demophoon, Celeus’ son and nursling of Demeter, i. 40

Demosthenes, his oration against Aeschines, quoted, i. 138

Dendera, union of Osiris and Isis depicted at, i. 61 n. 1

Deo, name of Demeter in Orphic hymn, i. 142

Derenbourg, Hartwig, quoted, i. 163 n. 3

Derketo, homonym of Atargatis or Dea Syria (Garstang), ii. 40 n. 1, 300 n. 2

Despoena, epithet of Persephone, i. 133

Destiny or Heimarmene, the sphere of, in Pistis Sophia, ii. 137 n. 2, 143 n. 1, 153, 154; in Texts of Saviour, ii. 174, 184; in Mithraism, ii. 255 sq. See Moira

Diadochi, the, or Successors of Alexander, i. 14, 52

Diagram, the Ophites’, ii. 66-71; prayers to powers depicted in, ii. 71-74; place of Ophiomorphus in, ii. 77

Diana Dictynna, Cretan goddess identified with Isis, i. 56

Didache, the, source of Apostolical Constitutions (Duchesne), ii. 7 n. 2

Dieterich, Prof. Albert, quoted, i. 141, 142; ii. 255. See Mithraism, Orpheus

Dill, Sir Samuel, quoted, i. lvii, lix, 24, 54 n. 3; ii. 87, 272, 359

Dinkard, the, quoted, i. 134 n. 1

Diocletian, the Emperor, makes Mithraism state religion, i. 81, 119 n. 1, 228, 271; his persecution of Christians, ii. 12, 23; his victories over Persians, ii. 226; his adoption of Persian ways, ii. 228

Diodorus Siculus, authority for Oriental religions, i. 9; quoted, i. 31 n. 1, 43 n. 3

Diogenes, the Cynic, his saying about Patecion quoted, i. 131

Dionysia, the, peculiarly popular in Northern Greece, i. 136

Dionysion, temple of Dionysos at Athens, i. 42

Dionysius, the Areopagite, his orders of angels, i. 188 n. 1

Dionysos, a Thracian or Thessalian god, i. 17; legend of Cretan, i. 37, 46; diaspasm or tearing to pieces of, i. 37, 125; identified with Iacchos, i. 39, 40; and with Zagreus, i. 42, 125; legend of, told in Little Mysteries, i. 42; identified with Osiris, i. 43, 48; his relations with Demeter and Persephone, i. 47; ii. 39; identified with Hades, i. 47, 48, 130; with Apollo, i. 48; god of dead to Alexandrians, i. 49; Boeotian worship of, i. 52; his mystic marriage with Demeter, i. 61 n. 1; called the Vine, i. 64 n. 3; his temple at Alexandria demolished by Theophilus, i. 83; the Liberator, i. 90 n. 1; sacrifices to, i. 95; his likeness to Tammuz, i. 122 n. 3; his legend centre of Orphic teaching, i. 123; identified with Orphic Phanes, i. 124, 144; with Zeus, i. 125 n. 2; Orphics connect his death with man’s creation and rebirth, i. 126; soul of man part of, i. 127, 133; omophagy chief rite of worship of, i. 128; ii. 112; soul of man united with, i. 129, 144; called Eubuleus, i. 133; widespread worship of, i. 135; identified with Adonis, i. 137; and Sabazius, i. 138; and Attis, i. 139; Orphic hymns to, i. 142 n. 3, 143; son of Semele, i. 145; an androgyne deity, 145, 185; all Graeco-Roman gods tend to merge in, i. 146, 147; will succeed Zeus, i. 186; jealousy of, cause of diaspasm, i. 190 n. 2; spouse of Persephone and her son, ii. 39; the soul of the world, ii. 50 n. 2; called Pappas, ii. 57; and Iao, ii. 71 n. 1. See Bacchus, Iao

Diotima, gives traditional view of Platonic affinity, i. 195 n. 1

Discourse, The True, of Celsus, probable date of, ii. 66

Docetism, a mark of heresy, ii. 17; Marcion’s adherence to, ii. 210; Manichaeans profess, ii. 318, 348

Dodecad, the, of Valentinus, ii. 101 sqq.; its duplication explained, ii. 145 n. 8; Egyptian parallel to, 176

Doinel, Jules, founder of modern Valentinianism, ii. 133 n. 1

Döllinger, Dr, quoted, i. 140 nn. 2, 3; ii. 164 n. 3, 168, 169, 172

Dositheus the heresiarch, founder of sect (Eusebius), ii. 6 n. 3

Dove, in Pistis Sophia, emblem of Holy Spirit, ii. 135 n. 3; and of Great Goddess, ibid.; in Manichaeism, 302 n. 1

Drexler, Prof. Anton, quoted, i. 85

Drogheda, Cromwell’s letter after Siege of, ii. 85 n. 2

Dualism, distinguishing feature of Manichaeism, ii. 289

Duchesne, Mgr Louis, quoted, i. 89 n. 1; ii. 1 n. 5, 4, 5 n. 2, 7 n. 2, 11 n. 2, 14 n. 1, 22 n. 2, 122 n. 1, 178 n. 1, 202 n. 2

Dyaus, the god, worshipped in Vedas and by Persians, i. 73 n. 4; ii. 231 n. 1

Ebionites, the, their connection with the Church at Pella, ii. 5 n. 1; with the Clementines, ii. 82

Ecbatana, one of the four Persian capitals, i. 3

Ecclesia or Church, the incorruptible aeon or Pleroma of the Ophites, ii. 43, 60; used for assembly of souls, ii. 75; member of third Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98, 100, 102; Italic school make her mother of Dodecad, ii. 119; power breathed into man in Pistis Sophia, ii. 179

Ecclesiasticus, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Ecpyrosis or Destruction of the world by fire, doctrine common to Stoics and Persians, ii. 250; symbolized by lion-headed figure in Mithraism, ii. 251; in Manichaeism, ii. 297; in Mazdeism, Pistis Sophia, and Texts of Saviour, ii. 297 n. 1

Ectroma or Abortion. See Sophia (2)

Edessa, King of, protects Bardesanes, ii. 120; Valentinians of, persecuted by Arians, temp. Julian, ii. 132; Gnosticism comes into Persia from, ii. 283

Edfu, Horus worshipped at, i. 45; Ptolemies restore temple of, i. 52

Egypt, Greek gods derived from (Herodotus), i. 16; assigned to Ptolemy on Alexander’s death, i. 28 sqq.; priestly character of religion of, i. 31 sq.; totemistic character of early religion of, i. 37; its influence on its conquerors, i. 51; religion of, degenerates into sorcery, i. 57; inspires Alexandrian views on next world, i. 60; Osiris-worship in, temp. Pharaohs, i. 64 n. 3; daily services in temples, i. 66; early cosmogonies of, i. 73; ii. 36, 175; Ptolemy endows Alexandrian religion in, i. 76; Alexandrian religion in, temp. Julian, i. 83; pre-Christian features surviving in, i. 85 sq.; triune god worshipped in Pharaonic, i. 88; magicians of, use foreign words, i. 93; Magic Papyri found in, i. 97 sqq.; Gnosticism in, quickly decays, i. 111; earth goddess worshipped in, i. 126; Orphic hymns perhaps composed in, i. 141; suzerain of Solomon, i. 160 n. 4; lower classes in, first become Christian, ii. 8 n. 5; Ophites in, ii. 76 sqq. See Christians, Eleusis, Enoch, Jews

Egyptians, the, sacred books of, translated into Greek, i. 9; opposed to monotheism before Alexander, i. 11; priests of, oppose innovations, i. 24; theocrasia known to earliest, i. 33, 46, 54; their Osiris-worship bond with Greeks, i. 38; their worship of animals, i. 45; most superstitious and fanatic of men in Philhellenic times, i. 50; oppose Alexandrian religion, ii. 51; respect paid to, in Alexandrian religion, i. 56, 73, 74; use foreign words in magic, i. 93; think earthly Nile copy of heavenly river, i. 116 n. 1; their idea of eating gods to get powers, i. 125 n. 3; their obligation to Hebrews ap. Artapanus, i. 173; their worship of mortal gods absurd to Greeks, ii. 16; gods of, husbands of their mothers, ii. 39; their addiction to mapping-out invisible world, ii. 109; think only rich happy after death, ii. 112 n. 1; origin of their triune god, ii. 121 n. 3; their use of allegory, ii. 123; their anxiety about nature of god and future of soul, ii. 131; embrace monastic life in great numbers, ii. 175; Pistis Sophia unintelligible without knowledge of religion of Pharaonic, ii. 177; their horror of Amenti, ii. 195, 196; their enthusiasm for life of priest, ii. 200; degradation of Christianity and Gnosticism by, ii. 201; the wisdom of, taught to Manes’ predecessor, ii. 285. See First Man, Jews

Egyptians, Gospel according to, said to contain Ophite doctrine of transmigration, ii. 65, 79; possible source of passage in Pistis Sophia, ii. 161 n. 4

Eieazareie, a word used in magic, ii. 33 n. 2. See Yahweh of Israel

Elephantine, mixed religion of Jews at, ii. 32 n. 4, 43 n. 2

Eleusinia, the Festivals following Mysteries, i. 136

Eleusinion, the Athenian, sacred things deposited in, i. 39

Eleusis, scene of goddesses’ trials, i. 16; Mysteries of, described, i. 38-41; initiation at, preceded by Little Mysteries, i. 41 sq.; likeness of Legend of, to that of Osiris, i. 43; date of reformation of Mysteries of, ibid.; theocrasia result of, i. 46; Calathos or basket-crown of Serapis borrowed from, i. 49; Mysteries of, rob death of its terrors, i. 59; mystic marriage of god and goddess crowning scene at, i. 61 n. 1; formula repeated by initiates at, i. 62 n. 2; Alexandrian mysteries more popular than those of, i. 66; initiates at, carry rods, i. 68 n. 2; hereditary priesthood of, i. 76; worshippers of other gods consecrated to those of, i. 83; Baubo a personage in Mysteries of, i. 100; the God and the Goddess of, i. 126; ii. 39; entry of Dionysos into, i. 130; gods of, worshipped outside Attica, i. 135; reason for secrecy of Mysteries of, i. 139 n. 2; priestesses of, called bees, i. 143 n. 4; part of Dionysos at, after Orphic reform, i. 145; sacramental grace of Mysteries of, i. 147; baptism among Gnostics borrows features from, ii. 22; Phrygian deities identified with those of, ii. 31; Ophites borrow doctrines from, ii. 54; Ophites’ opinion of Mysteries of, i. 57

Eleutherna, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131, 132

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, called names of God in magic, ii. 33 n. 2

Elijah, the Prophet, his soul in Pistis Sophia placed in St John Baptist, ii. 137, 149, 150; in Paradise of Adam, ii. 179; ascension of, inspires Mithraic monuments, ii. 248

Elizabeth, mother of St John Baptist, her conception arranged by Sophia ap. Ophites, ii. 53; by Virgin of Light in Pistis Sophia, ii. 137

Eloaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47, 73; corresponds to Hebrew Elohe, ii. 71 n. 1. See Ailoaios

Elpis or Hope, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Emanation, defined, i. 181 n. 2; doctrine common to all post-Christian Gnostics, ii. 19 n. 1

Empedocles, derives everything from four roots or elements, i. 197

Encratites, the, sect said to be founded by Tatian, ii. 220

En-ki or Ea, the god, creator of pattern man, i. lxiii n. 1

Ennead, the Egyptian, its irregular number of gods, ii. 92

Ennoia, second of Simon Magus’ six “Roots,” i. 180; Simon Magus’ called Epinoia by Hippolytus, i. 180 n. 4; ii. 20 n. 1; in Great Announcement first female power, i. 182; her Orphic and Jewish analogues, i. 185; produces angels who make universe, i. 187, 195; seized by world-making angels and condemned to transmigration, i. 190, 196; identified with Helen of Tyre, ibid.; redeemed by Simon, i. 191; inconsistency of stories regarding, i. 193; in Ophite system, name of Second Man, ii. 38; Ophiomorphus called, ii. 49; spouse of Bythos according to some Valentinians, ii. 97

Enoch, mass of Apocrypha connected with name of, i. 159, 160, 164; dates of same, i. 162 n. 1, 163, 164 n. 1; connection of Essenes with, i. 168; in Pistis Sophia, author of books written in Paradise, ii. 147 n. 5, 194 n. 2

Enoch, Book of, fall of angels in, i. 191 n. 1; ii. 154; quoted in Pistis Sophia, ii. 155; quoted, i. 160, 161, 162 n. 2, 165, 169; ii. 155

Enoch, Book of the Secrets of, seven heavens arranged as in Mithraism, ii. 257

Epaminondas, suffers in Hades because not initiated, i. 131

Ephesus, many-breasted goddess of, i. lvi, 17; ii. 40; worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53; Nicolaitans at, ii. 25

Ephrem Syrus, finds Valentinianism in Bardesanes’ hymns, ii. 120; his date, ibid.; quoted, ii. 316 n. 1

Epicurus, his statement of the problem of evil, ii. 217

Epimenides, introduces Orphic myths into Athens, i. 121

Epinoia. See Ennoia

Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, a Nicolaitan in his youth, i. 112 n. 1; ii. 21 n. 5; his ignorance about the Essenes, i. 155; his date and work, ii. 10, 77; quoted, i. 190, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199; ii. 10, 11, 14, 27, 46 n. 3, 61, 79, 80, 81, 90 n. 1, 92 n. 3, 93 nn. 1, 2, 95, 205, 213, 215, 219, 279 n. 2

Epitaph, Valentinian, in Via Nazionale, ii. 129

Erataoth, name of power in Diagram, ii. 71

Eratosthenes, studies at Museum of Alexandria, i. 45

Ergamenes, King of Ethiopia, his massacre of priests of Amen, i. 31 n. 1

Eris-ki-gal or Ereshchigal, the goddess, Sumerian counterpart of Persephone, i. 100

Eros, Horus takes attributes of, i. 50; first-born god of Orphics, i. 123; Orphic, known to Aristophanes, i. 124; his likeness to Valentinian Agape, ii. 98 n. 1; and to Marcion’s Supreme Being, ii. 210; hymns to, sung by Lycomidae, ii. 210 n. 1

Esaldaios, variant of Ialdabaoth or El Shaddai, ii. 46 n. 3

Esculapius. See Asklepios

Essarts, M. Fabre des, head of L’Église Gnostique, ii. 133 n. 1

Essenes, the, third party among Jews, temp. Josephus, i. lv, 152; perhaps borrow from Buddhism, i. 20; a “philosophic” sect, i. 151; meaning of name, i. 152; Josephus’ account of, i. 152-154; Philo’s, i. 154, 155; girdle used by them like Parsis’ kosti, i. 153 nn. 1, 4; description of, by Pliny, Hippolytus, and Porphyry, i. 155; wild theories about, i. 155, 156; their connection with Orphics, i. 156, 168; essentially Gnostics, i. 157; use of Cabala by, i. 157, 158, 169; names of angels kept secret by, i. 158; Enochian literature due to, i. 159, 167; peculiar interpretation of Scripture, i. 168, 171; probably extinct after Hadrian, i. 170; divisions among, possible, i. 175 n. 3; Simon Magus’ teaching opposite to that of, i. 202; connection with Ebionites doubtful, ii. 5 n. 1; points in common with Christians, ii. 6. See Ritschl

Ethiopia, priests of Amen flee to, i. 31; Thueris the hippopotamus goddess called “Cat of,” i. 37 n. 1

Ethiopians, their rule in Egypt, i. 31, 51; worship Isis, i. 56; Psammetichos expels them, i. 101

Etymologicum Magnum. See Gaisford

Eubouleus or Eubuleus, a name of Dionysos, i. 133, 137 n. 1, 142, 143; identified with Adonis by Orphics, i. 137. See Zeus Chthonios

Eubulus, author of lost work on Mithras, ii. 236

Eucharist, the, rite resembling it among Serapiasts, i. 87; simple mode of celebration in Primitive Church, i. 87 n. 1; thaumaturgic accompaniments among heretics, ibid., and ii. 129, 187; obscene parody of, i. 198; magical efficacy of, among Gnostics, ii. 22, 63; in Apostolic times follows baptism immediately, ii. 22 n. 1; Ophite additions to, doubtful, ii. 61; Ophite ideas concerning, i. 63; Marcus’ profanation of, ii. 129; called a mystery, ii. 165; views of Primitive Church as to, ii. 171; Döllinger’s remarks on, ii. 172; rite described in Texts of Saviour and Bruce Papyrus probably Marcosian, ii. 187; celebrated with water among certain sects, ii. 188, 215; ceremony resembling, in Mithraism, ii. 247, 260; in Manichaeism probably confined to Elect, ii. 348. See Pistis Sophia, Bruce Papyrus, Huysmans

Eudemos of Rhodes, earliest authority for Zervanism among Magi, ii. 236 n. 4, 252 n. 2

Eudoxos of Cnidos, his use of acrostics in astronomical work, i. 169

Euhemerus of Messene, his theory that gods were deified men, i. 19

Eukles, name of god in Orphic gold plate, i. 133

Eumenides, the, said by Orphics to be children of Persephone, i. 142

Eumolpidae, exegetes attached to, i. 44 n. 1; hereditary priests of Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 76

Euphrates, the heresiarch, founder of Ophites ap. Origen, ii. 25; called the “Peratic” or Mede, ii. 26 n. 1

Euripides, Parthians act plays of, i. 8; represents Dionysos as androgyne, i. 47 n. 4; supports identification of Dionysos and Apollo, i. 48; Orphic doctrines well known to, i. 123; quoted, i. 39, 128, 149 n. 1

Europe, Alexander’s marriage of, with Asia, i. lviii; Oriental religions pass into, i. 20; after Alexander, Egypt becomes granary of, i. 28; Alexandrian religion passes into, i. 77; Phrygia invaded by celibate warriors from, ii. 40

Eusebius of Caesarea, quoted, i. 199, 200; ii. 4 n. 3, 6 n. 4, 10 n. 1, 12 n. 5, 18 n. 3, 23 n. 2, 83 n. 1, 88 n. 2, 96 n. 2, 120 n. 2, 132 n. 2, 206 nn. 2, 5, 220 n. 3, 221 n. 1, 359

Euxitheus, the Pythagoric, authority for Orphic doctrine of burial of soul in body, i. 127 n. 1. See Philolaos

Evander, bishop of Nicomedia, rabbles Ophites, ii. 77

Eve, the protoplast, confusion of name of, with Evoe, ii. 20 n. 1; Ophite legend of, ii. 52, 58, 70; and Manichaean, ii. 299, 306

Evoe, word used in Mysteries of Sabazius, i. 138; in those of Attis, i. 139 n. 1; ii. 54 n. 6; Clement of Alexandria connects it with Eve, ii. 20 n. 1

Ezekiel, the Prophet, shows hatred of Jews for Gentiles, i. 167 n. 4; quoted, i. 186 n. 2; ii. 32, 43 n. 2

Eznig of Goghp, quoted, ii. 217, 285

Ezra, the Prophet, Apocalypse attributed to, quoted, i. 163, 164, 165, 167 nn. 3, 4; ii. 81

Farrah (Seistan), probably Prophthasia of Arrian, i. 4 n. 1

Fatak. See Patecius

Father, Mithraic priests addressed as, ii. 261; name of highest Mithraic degree, ii. 262, 267

Father-and-Son, Dionysos the double of his father, i. 47; name of Ophite Supreme God, ii. 38, 39, 67; First Mystery of Pistis Sophia, ii. 144; Mithras may be, ii. 248

Fathers of the Church, their writings neglected till lately, i. 1; call all early heretics Gnostics, i. lviii, 171; say Simon Magus parent of Gnosticism, i. 176, 200; know little of many heresies, i. 200; ii. 9; agree as to Ophites, ii. 36; their account of Marcus the magician, ii. 128, 167; their hostility to Gnosticism justified, ii. 199; say devil inspires Mithraists to imitate Church, ii. 247; ascribe Apocrypha of Thomas and Andrew to Manichaean Leucius, ii. 351

Faventinus, Ulpius Egnatius, priest of Isis and other deities, i. 83

Fihrist, the, of Muhammad ben Ishak or En-Nadîm, quoted, ii. 279 n. 3, 280, 287 n. 4, 289 n. 2, 290 n. 3, 291 n. 1, 292, 293 n. 1, 294 n. 1, 295 n. 1, 296 n. 1, 299 n. 2, 300 n. 2, 302 n. 1, 304 n. 1, 309, 310, 312 nn. 1, 2, 313, 314, 322 n. 2, 332, 333, 342 nn. 1, 2

Fîrûz. See Peroz

Foakes-Jackson, Canon, quoted, ii. 215 n. 1, 216 n. 4, 223

Forefather, the Great Unseen or Propator, member of ruling Triad of Left or material powers in Pistis Sophia, ii. 142, 150, 155

Foucart, M. George. quoted, i. 91

Foucart, M. Paul, his works on Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 38 n. 3; quoted, i. 17 n. 1, 21 nn. 1, 2, 22 n. 2, 23 n. 2, 25 nn. 2, 3, 39 nn. 1-3, 40 nn. 3, 4, 41 nn. 1-3, 42 nn. 1, 2, 43, 44 n. 1, 47 n. 1, 48 n. 2, 52 n. 3, 59 n. 4, 61 n. 1, 65 n. 6, 130 n. 1, 133 n. 1, 137 n. 5, 143 n. 4

France, Isiac monuments found in, i. 53; and Mithraic, ii. 230

Fravashis, the, or Ferouers in Mazdeism, ii. 110 n. 1

Frazer, Sir James G., quoted, i. 43, 91, 96 n. 4, 158 n. 2

Freemasonry, Catholic accusation of obscene rites against, ii. 18 n. 2; Mithraism a Pagan (Renan), ii. 264

Gabinius, Proconsul of Syria, rebuilds Samaria after destruction by Jews, i. 177

Gabriel, the angel, in Book of Daniel, i. 158; named in Magic Papyri, ii. 34; name of sphere in Diagram, ii. 70; in Pistis Sophia, Jesus assumes shape of, at Annunciation, ii. 137, 138; with Michael bears Pistis Sophia out of Chaos, ii. 156, 355 n. 1

Gaea or Gê, the Orphic earth goddess, i. 123, 133, 185; ii. 45 n. 1

Gaisford, Dean, his notes to Etymologicum Magnum quoted, i. 137 n. 3

Galatae, the, their settlement in Asia Minor, ii. 28

Galerius, the Emperor, speech of Persian ambassador to, ii. 226; affects state of Persian Shah, ii. 228 n. 2

Galli, the, eunuch priests of Cybele, ii. 30 n. 3

Ganymede, burlesqued in procession of Isis, i. 71

Garôtman, abode of Infinite Light in Mazdeism, ii. 249

Gaumata, the Magian pseudo-Smerdis in Behistun inscription, ii. 233

Gayômort, the First Man in Mazdeism, i. lxi; slain by Ahriman, i. 126 n. 3; his legend in Bundahish, ii. 246

Geb, the Egyptian earth-god, father of Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys, i. 33, 133 n. 1

Gehenna, in Enochian literature, i. 165, 167; in Diagram, ii. 69

Genghiz Khan, his invasion and conquests, i. 5 n. 1, 14

Gentiles, the, their relations with Jews in earliest Christian centuries, i. lv, lvi; hostility of Jews against, partly due to Roman taxation, i. 163 n. 1; final fate of, ap. Jews, i. 164, 165, 166, 167; rebellion of Jews against, i. 172; Jewish hatred recognized by, after Titus, ii. 5; non-Jewish Christianity necessary for conversion of, ii. 21

George the Syncellus, quoted, i. 124 n. 3. See Monogenes

Gerizim, Mount, temple of, rival to that of Jerusalem, i. 177

Germany, i. 7; Isiac monuments found in, i. 53; and Mithraic, ii. 230

Gibbon, Edward, the historian, his Decline and Fall (Bury’s ed.), quoted, i. 1, 85, 86 n. 2; ii. 7 n. 1, 12 n. 5, 96 n. 3, 127 n. 4, 226 nn. 1-6, 227 n. 1, 228 n. 2, 271 n. 2

Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero, ii. 287 n. 4

Giraud, Father François, his Ophitae quoted, i. 100 n. 1; ii. 26 n. 5, 41 n. 2, 44 n. 2, 64, 68, 70, 71 n. 2, 79 n. 2

Gladstone, Mr, his controversy with Huxley, i. liii

Glaucias, the interpreter of St Peter and teacher of Basilides, ii. 90 n. 3. See Ptolemy, son of Glaucias

Glaucothea, mother of Aeschines and priestess of Sabazius, i. 22, 138

Glory, the Column of, in Manichaeism, ii. 296, 308, 309, 332

Glory, the King of, in Manichaeism, ii. 148 n. 3; in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325

Glycon, the god worshipped at Nicomedia, temp. Gordian, i. 24. See Alexander of Abonoteichos

Gnosticism, ideas at root of, opposed to religion, i. 90; the importance of knowledge of the spiritual world, i. 111; Christianity may be only episode in history of, ibid.; impulse given to, by rise of astrology, i. 119; earliest pre-Christian form of, i. 120; Simon Magus said to be parent of all later, i. 176; a hydra, i. 200; does not compete with orthodox Christianity till IInd cent., ii. 2; early converts from, ii. 21; its services to Church, ii. 21, 202; alleged necessity for forcible suppression of, ii. 23; Montanism and, only formidable heresies in early centuries, ii. 29 n. 1; likeness of, to Cabala, ii. 36 n. 1; becomes ethical after contact with philosophers, ii. 87; first form of Egyptian, unknown, ii. 89; Valentinus transforms Christian, ii. 93; degenerates into magic in Egypt, ii. 199; rotten before it was ripe (Inge), ii. 199 n. 3; bridge between Paganism and Christianity, ii. 200; its suppression by Church, ii. 359

Gnostics, generic name for many different sects, i. lviii, 171; worship of Greek confraternities resembles that of, i. 21; form of Christian sacraments borrowed from, i. 87 n. 1; Tertullian’s views on Trinity influenced by, i. 89 n. 2; their use of magic (Hippolytus), i. 109; points common to Orphics and post-Christian, i. 148; Essenes, Gnostics in larger sense, i. 157; conceal themselves during persecution, i. 200; symbolic construction of Gospels by, ii. 6; our sources of information as to, ii. 10; “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” ii. 12; writings of, ii. 13; call Jesus Monogenes, ii. 15; magical ideas of pre-Christian, ii. 18; exchange of doctrines among, ii. 20; introduce statues, incense, etc., ii. 22; term Homoousios first used by, ii. 23 n. 1; Barbeliotae etc. so called by Epiphanius, ii. 27, 77; Carpocratians first call themselves, ii. 27; the “perfect Gnostics” of the Naassenes, ii. 56 n. 1; become active after St Paul’s preaching in Asia Minor, ii. 85; Mithraists perhaps copy certain doctrines of, ii. 248; may get ideas of destiny from Babylon, ii. 256

Gonds, the, sorcerers of Aryan races, i. 92

Gordian III, the Emperor, Glycon worship in reign of, i. 24

Goshurun or Goshurvan, the Heavenly Bull of the Avesta, ii. 243; in Bundahish, slain by Ahriman, ii. 246

Gospel, the Fourth, its date, ii. 178; not quoted in Pistis Sophia, ii. 177; nor by Marcion, ii. 208 n. 1; quoted, i. 177 n. 5; ii. 117 n. 1, 123 n. 3, 161 n. 4, 177, 190

Goths, of Dacia, converted en masse, ii. 271

Gracchus, Urban Prefect of Rome, temp. Gratian, ii. 272

Graecia, Magna, overthrow of Pythagoreans in, i. 122; Orphic gold plates found in, i. 169

Granicus, the, Greek troops on Persian side at, i. 7

Gratian, the Emperor, Epiphanius’ Panarion written in his 7th year, ii. 10; spread of Marcionism in his reign, ii. 205; Mithraea wrecked with his sanction, ii. 272; financial measures against Paganism, ii. 358

Gratidia or Canidia of Horace, her sister witch a Thessalian, i. 108

Great Britain, Isiac monuments found in, i. 53; and Mithraic, ii. 230

Greece, Persians repulsed in their attack on, i. 1; Alexander in Seistan receives grapes from, i. 4 n. 1; theocrasia in, i. 15, 16; gods of, coalesce with those of Asia Minor, i. 17; its religious confraternities, i. 21; Dionysos-worship brought into, from Egypt, i. 43; Orphic teaching first appears in, i. 112; comes into, from Thrace, i. 122; Dionysos youngest of gods of, i. 123; popular theology of, i. 124; propagation of Orphic ideas in, i. 135; no regular association called Orphic in, i. 139 n. 3, 141; mysteries of Chthonian deities in, attended by Gnostics, ii. 21; great goddess worshipped in, ii. 45 n. 1; Ophites have settlements in, ii. 77; Mithraism keeps out of, ii. 230. See Hellas

Greeks, the, rush of, to Asia after Alexander’s conquests, i. 7; adopt foreign gods in IVth cent. B.C., i. 15, 16; Alexander’s deification a shock to, i. 18; rise of Euhemerism among, i. 19; ii. 28; no priestly caste among, i. 24, 76; theocrasia popular among, i. 33, 54, 56; Osiris myth common to Egyptians and, i. 38; Alexandrian religion careful of susceptibilities of, i. 44; think Demeter and Persephone one, i. 46; Apollo always a sun-god among, i. 48; mistake of, as to Harpocrates, i. 50; their fear of gods temp. Homer, i. 57; Homeric flattery of gods, i. 95; turn to magic rites Vth cent. B.C., i. 121; asceticism of Orphics foreign to, i. 127; their view of Mysteries changes after Orphic reform, i. 130; Orphism greatest religious movement among pre-Christian, i. 145; religion of, and Jews contrasted, i. 149; adoption of acrostics and word-puzzles among, i. 168, 169 n. 1; Jews forge works of well-known authors among, i. 173; Simon Magus uses religious traditions of, i. 185, 186; laugh at wailing for Dying God, ii. 16; Ophites take doctrines from Mysteries of, ii. 54; unlike Persians, think gods have nature of men, ii. 234; make astrology popular, ii. 235

Gregory the Great, Saint, his advice to assimilate heathen practices, i. 85

Grünwedel, Dr, his expedition to Turfan, ii. 316

Guards, the Nine of Treasure-house in Pistis Sophia, ii. 142, 193

Gundisabur or Djundi-sâbur, place of Mani’s execution, ii. 281 n. 7

Habakkuk, the Prophet, inspired by Jaldabaoth according to Ophites, ii. 81 n. 2

Hades, the god, his temple at Eleusis, i. 39; his Rape of Persephone shown in Mysteries, i. 40; in Homer shares universe with Zeus, i. 46; identified with Zeus Chthonios and Dionysos, i. 47, 130, 144, 147; ii. 39; his name perhaps ineffable, i. 47 n. 1; called Eubuleus, i. 47, 133, 142; identified with Osiris, i. 48; his epithet of Adamas, ii. 39 n. 1; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238; identified with Ahriman, ii. 239, 253

Hades, the place or House of, passwords through, taught in Mysteries, i. 41; happy lot of initiates in, i. 59; Amenti, the Egyptian, i. 102 n. 1, 104; in Orphic gold plate, i. 132; pains of uninitiated in, i. 140; like Jewish Sheol, i. 150

Hadrian, the Emperor, his letter to Servian, i. 86; the great Gnostics of his reign, i. 111; ii. 12; his war of extermination against the Jews, i. 163, 170, 172 n. 1; ii. 5, 203; Celsus a contemporary of, ii. 66; reign of Roman Law begins temp., ii. 86; Gnosticism enters Alexandria temp., ii. 89; gives back Trajan’s Persian conquests, ii. 225; books on Mithras worship written temp., ii. 236

Haggai, the Prophet, hatred of Jews for Gentiles shown in, i. 167 n. 4

Halicarnassus, Alexandrian worship in, i. 52

Ham, the patriarch, identified with Titan, i. lx

Harnack, Prof. Adolf, quoted, i. xlix n. 1; ii. 161 n. 4, 207, 215 n. 1, 216, 286 n. 5

Har-pa-khrat or Harpocrates, the Alexandrian Horus the Child, i. 50

Harris, Dr Rendel, his discovery of the Odes of Solomon, i. 164 n. 1; ii. 157 n. 2; and of the Apology of Aristides, ii. 204 n. 1

Hartland, Mr E. S., his theory of mana, i. 91 n. 2

Harvey, W. W., editor of Irenaeus, quoted, i. 181 n. 1; ii. 138 n. 1

Hasis-adra. See Xisuthros

Hatch, Dr Edwin, quoted, i. lvii, lviii n. 1, 47 n. 4, 87 n. 1, 168 n. 3, 174 n. 2; ii. 23 n. 1, 37 n. 1, 83 n. 1, 165 n. 3, 168 n. 6, 169 n. 1, 170, 172 n. 3, 191 n. 2, 202 n. 1, 222 nn. 2, 3

Haurvetât, the Amshaspand, i. 181 n. 1; his and Ameretât’s possible analogues in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 355

Hebdomad, the, in system of Simon Magus and Clementines, i. 181; among Ophites, ii. 64; Valentinus’ name for the Demiurge or god of the Jews, ii. 107, 109, 114 n. 3

Hebrews, the, i. 173, 185. See Jews

Hebrews, the Gospel according to the, perhaps identical with that according to the Egyptians, ii. 79

Hecataeus of Abdera, Jewish forgery in name of, i. 173

Hecate, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56; priest of Isis also hierophant of, i. 83; Orphic hymns to, i. 142 n. 2, 147 n. 1; patron saint of sorcerers till Renaissance, i. 147; ii. 186 n. 3, 276; her relation to lion-headed god of Mithraism, ii. 252

Heddernheim, revolving bas-reliefs in Mithraeum at, ii. 247; concealment of lion-headed statue in same, ii. 251

Hedone or Pleasure, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Hegemonius, his Acta Archelai, Beeson’s edition of, ii. 280 n. 3; quoted, i. 178 n. 2; ii. 277 n. 1, 279 n. 2, 280 n. 3, 287 n. 3, 288 nn. 1, 2, 3, 289 n. 1, 293 n. 1, 294 n. 1, 295 n. 2, 297 n. 2, 298 nn. 1, 2, 299 n. 4, 302 n. 1, 306 nn. 1, 2, 307 n. 1, 308 nn. 1-4, 312 n. 2, 316 n. 1, 318 n. 1, 322 n. 2, 323 n. 4, 326 n. 1, 330 n. 2, 352 n. 2

Hegesander, quoted from Athenaeus, i. 8 n. 3

Hegesippus, his date, ii. 6 n. 4; quoted, ii. 2 nn. 1, 2, 6 n. 4, 8 n. 3. See Eusebius

Heimarmene. See Destiny

Helen of Troy, Simon Magus’ mistress said to be reincarnation of, i. 178, 190, 196

Helena of Tyre, name of Simon’s mistress, i. 190; redeemed by Simon, i. 191; inconsistency of patristic story about, i. 193; typifies the soul in transmigration, i. 196; image of, as Athena, i. 198; said to have been called Sophia, ii. 45 n. 1

Heliogabalus, the Emperor, a high-priest of the sun-god, ii. 228

Heliopolis. See Annu or On

Helios, classical type of, represented on Indian coins, i. 17 n. 2; Serapis identified with, i. 56; distinguished by Greeks from Apollo, ii. 240; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 244; with Mithras at banquet, ii. 247; invoked in Mithraic liturgy, ii. 266

Hellas, i. 24, 44

Hellespont, the, limit of Persian Empire, i. 1

Hemerobaptists, the, a pre-Christian sect, ii. 6 n. 4; called Mandaites or Disciples of St John, ii. 305; their history and tenets, ibid.

Henosis or Oneness, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Hera, her contempt for man in Homer, i. 57; her jealousy cause of Diaspasm ap. Orphics, i. 125; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238. See Juno

Heracleon, the Valentinian, quoted by Origen, ii. 95 n. 2; most distinguished of Valentinus’ successors, ii. 119; his Commentaries on the Gospels not secret, ii. 131

Heracleopolis or Ahnas el-Medineh, mentioned in Magic Papyrus, i. 98, 109

Heracles, becomes immortal because of divine birth, i. 18; ii. 16; rams sacrificed to, i. 95; story of, in Herodotus used by Justinus, ii. 81; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238; his compulsion of Hades, ii. 239 n. 7. See Hercules

Heraclitus of Ephesus, identifies Dionysos with Hades, i. 47; probably unknown to Hippolytus’ Naassene, ii. 83

Heraclius, the Emperor, his overthrow of Persia, ii. 227

Herat, a foundation of Alexander, i. 5

Herculaneum, scenes of Alexandrian worship in frescoes found at, i. 66 n. 3, 67-69, 73, 87

Hercules, classical type of, on Indian coins, i. 17 n. 2

Hermas’ Pastor, Trinitarian views of, i. 89 n. 2

Hermes, the god, worship of, perhaps brought into Greece from Egypt, i. 17; Greek analogue of Anubis, i. 35; as psychopomp in Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 41; image of, used in magic, i. 98; hymn to, in Magic Papyrus, i. 98, 99; appears in Mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 n. 2; Terms of, in Athenian streets, i. 139 n. 2; St Paul hailed as, in Phrygia, i. 191 n. 3; ii. 42; leader of souls in Homer, ii. 54; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 258

Hermopolis, ogdoad of four syzygies of gods under early Pharaohs at, i. 197; ii. 175, 176

Hero of Alexandria, invents first steam-engine, i. 45

Herod the Great, rebuilds and restores Samaria, i. 177

Herodotus, quoted, i. 16, 43, 48, 60, 81, 123, 136; ii. 176, 233 n. 1, 234, 239, 320 n. 1

Hesiod, scholiast on, quoted, i. 40 n. 1; popular theology given in, i. 124; calls God and Goddess of Eleusis Zeus Chthonios and Demeter, i. 126; his successive ages of the world, i. 186

Hierapolis, called Ophiorhyma in Acta Philippi, ii. 50. See Atargatis

Hiero II, King of Syracuse, introduces Alexandrian gods into Sicily, i. 53

Hild, M. J. A., quoted, i. 134 n. 2, 149 n. 1

Hilleh, magic bowls of Jews found at, ii. 32, 33

Hinduism, i. li

Hippa, Orphic hymn to, i. 138 n. 2

Hipparchus, studies at Museum, i. 45; makes systematic astrology possible, i. 117

Hippolytus, bishop of Porta Romana, discovery of his Philosophumena, i. lix; ii. 11; Salmon’s theory about, i. lxi n. 1; ii. 11, 12; tricks of magicians described by, i. 99, 100; condemns astrology and astronomy alike, i. 112 n. 2; his “hymn of Great Mysteries,” i. 137 n. 1, 139 n. 1; ii. 54 n. 6; thinks system of Sethiani derived from Orphics, i. 175; his account of Simon Magus’ doctrines inconsistent, i. 193; doctrines of heresiarchs described by, ii. 11, 12; exaggerates diversity of Gnostic teaching, ii. 14; attributes Ophite doctrines to discourses of St James to Mariamne, ii. 26; contemporary of Origen circa 200 A.D., ii 26 n. 3; identifies Ophiomorphus with great god of Greek Mysteries, ii. 50; his Ophite psalm, ii. 61, 62, 68 n. 2; his later Ophite sacraments, ii. 63; says Naassenes have priests, ii. 66; attributes Gospel of Egyptians to Naassenes, ii. 79; gives most space to Valentinus’ doctrine, ii. 95; his views on Trinity polytheistic, ii. 123 n. 1; accuses heresiarchs of magical imposture, ii. 128; writes 50 years after Valentinus’ death, ii. 131 n. 2; quoted, i. lix, lxi n. 1, 68 n. 3, 73, 99, 100 n. 4, 107 n. 1, 109, 110, 112 n. 2, 137 n. 1, 139 n. 1, 175, 179, 187, 191, 193, 194, 196, 198; ii. 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 26, 27, 40, 41 n. 1, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66 n. 1, 73 n. 2, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 89 nn. 3, 4, 90, 91, 94 nn. 1-3, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103 n. 5, 104, 105, 106 nn. 1, 2, 107, 108 n. 1, 109, 110 n. 1, 113 n. 2, 114 nn. 2, 3, 115 n. 2, 116 n. 2, 118 n. 5, 119, 123, 124 n. 3, 128, 131, 144 n. 8, 147 n. 4, 148 n. 1, 159 n. 3, 160 n. 1, 207, 208 n. 2, 215 n. 2, 219 n. 1, 220

Hittites, the, Mithras worshipped by, 1272 B.C., i. lxii; mentioned in Sargon’s omen-tablets, i. 114; Mithras linked with Varuna among, ii. 248

Hogarth, D. G., quoted, i. 14, 18 n. 4, 27; ii. 29

Homer, reading-book of Asiatics post Alexander, i. 8 n. 1; gods of, worshipped by Graeco-Indian kings, i. 17; their indifference to mortals, i. 57; shows forth Christian doctrine of Father and Son, i. 47 n. 3; purificatory rites unknown to, i. 121; the popular theology of, i. 124; the father of gods and men in, i. 185; claimed as divinely inspired, ii. 15; writings of, used by Ophites, ii. 54; quoted, i. 57 nn. 1, 2, 59, 95, 96 n. 1; ii. 15 n. 4, 16 n. 1

Homeric Hymns, publicly recited and perhaps displaced by Orphic, i. 135; quoted, i. 16 n. 5, 40 n. 2, 59, 124 n. 3

Homoousios, word first used by Gnostics, ii. 23 n. 1, 91 n. 2

Honour, King of, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325

Horace, perhaps known to Basilides, ii. 91 n. 5; quoted, i. 108; ii. 225, 228

Horaios, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69, 70; address to, ii. 74. See Oreus

Hormisdas or Ormuz, the Shah, ii. 281

Horus, the god, king of Egypt incarnation of, i. 18, 19, 51; in Alexandrian legend of Isis and Osiris, i. 34, 35; originally totem of royal tribe, i. 36, 37, 45; analogue of Iacchos, i. 43, 189 n. 5; identified with Apollo, i. 48; child form of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 50; Ptolemies raise temples to Egyptian form of, i. 52; Athenian dandies swear by, i. 54; Egyptian sun-god, i. 63; in Alexandrian religion, Osiris reborn, i. 70 n. 3; ii. 39, 63; festival of birth of, i. 71; a triune god, i. 88, 189 n. 5; symbolizes perceptible world image of ideal, i. 198

Horus, the Limit of the Pleroma, a Valentinian Aeon, ii. 105 n. 2; in system of Pistis Sophia, ii. 140 n. 2. See Stauros

Horus-Râ, the god, composite deity who replaces Horus in Middle Empire, i. 63 n. 3

Housesteads (Northumberland), Mithraic monuments at, ii. 242

Huesemigadôn, name of Pluto in Magic Papyri, i. 99, 100

Hummâma, name of Manichaean Satan, ii. 287 n. 4

Huxley, the late Prof., his controversy about Genesis, i. liii

Huysmans, J. K., revives patristic stories of profanation of Eucharist, i. 198

Hyades, in Chaldaean astrology, i. 113

Hymn of the Soul, said to be Manichaean, ii. 331

Hymns, sung by Athenians to Demetrius Poliorcetes, i. 19; Greek confraternities compose, i. 21 n. 1; to Iacchos sung by procession of initiates, i. 39; used in Alexandrian worship, i. 66, 72, 75; to Hermes and other gods in Magic Papyri, i. 99; to Attis and others, i. 137 n. 1; ii. 54; the collection of Orphic, i. 141; to Eros sung by Lycomidae in Mysteries, i. 141 n. 2; ii. 210 n. 1; of Synesius, quoted, ii. 37 n. 1; Ophites’, addressed to First Man, ii. 61; Bardesanes’, used in Catholic Church, ii. 120; the penitential, of Pistis Sophia, ii. 156; sung by legionaries to both Christ and Mithras, ii. 261; used by Manichaeans, ii. 331

Hypsistos or the Highest, name of Yahweh in Asia Minor (Cumont), ii. 31, 85 n. 3; applied by Valentinus to Demiurge, ii. 116 n. 2

Hyrcanus, John, high-priest of Jews, invades Samaria and destroys it, i. 177

Iaccheion, the, at Athens, starting-point of procession to Eleusis, i. 39

Iacchos, the god, leader of procession to Eleusis, i. 39; his identity with Dionysos, i. 39 n. 2, 40 n. 4, 130, 145; son of Zeus and Demeter, i. 40; analogy of his birth with that of Horus, i. 43, 125; Orphics identify him with Hades, Zeus Chthonios and Zagreus, i. 130; and with Eubuleus, Cybele, Aphrodite and Isis, i. 137 n. 1, 143; and with Sabazius, i. 138 n. 2; the father, son, and spouse of Persephone, i. 189 n. 5

Ialdabaoth or Jaldabaoth, the Ophite Demiurge and a “fourth number,” i. 100 n. 4; ii. 46, 47, 70 n. 2, 71 n. 1; his name, variants, attributes, and places, ii. 46, 69; the god of the Jews, ii. 47; ruler of planetary spheres ap. Ophites, ii. 48, 64; father of Ophiomorphus, ii. 49; creator and tempter of man, ii. 51, 52; his commands disobeyed by protoplasts, ii. 52; lawgiver of Jews, ii. 53; souls of “animal” men pass through his realms between incarnations, ii. 57; his attempts to prolong his rule defeated by Sophia, ii. 58, 59; birth of Jesus arranged without knowledge of, ii. 59; contrives death of Jesus, ii. 60; his seven heavens called the holy hebdomad (Irenaeus), ii. 64; fragments of light pass into the terrestrial world without knowledge of, ibid.; creator of world of form, ii. 64 n. 3; name taken from magic ap. Origen, ii. 69; his seven worlds copied by Ophiomorphus as in Ophite Diagram, ii. 70; address to, ii. 72; uncertain place of, ii, 74 n. 3, 75 n. 1; inspires Hexateuch, Amos and Habakkuk ap. Ophites, ii. 81 n. 2; corresponds to the Great Archon of Basilides, ii. 94; and to Valentinus’ Demiurge, ii. 107 n. 2; in Pistis Sophia degraded into evil power sent into Chaos, ii. 155, 158; in Bruce Papyrus a chief of Third Aeon, ii. 155 n. 3; in Texts of Saviour a torturer in hell, ibid. and 186; Adamas helps him to torment Pistis Sophia, ii. 156; his light deceives her, ii. 162; his place given to Pistis Sophia, ii. 162 n. 3; various spellings of name of, in Texts of Saviour, ii. 183 n. 2. See Habakkuk, Irenaeus

Ialdazao, either a variant of name of Ialdabaoth or El Shaddai, ii. 46 n. 3

Iamblichus, the neo-Platonist, says Egyptian magicians threaten their gods, i. 104

Iaô, in Magic Papyri, corruption of name Jehovah, i. 105, 106; ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47, 69; a Hebrew name of God (Origen), ii. 69, 71 n. 1; name of Dionysos in late classical writers, ii. 71 n. 1; address to, ii. 72; connection with moon, ii. 72 n. 3, 74 n. 2; used as acrostic in Texts of Saviour, ii. 180 n. 4

Iao, the Good, in Pistis Sophia, the Little, supplies power for soul of St John Baptist, ii. 138, 149; the Great, a ruler of the Middle and colleague of Virgin of Light, ii. 150; his connection with moon, ii. 150 n. 5

Iapetus, brother of Saturn, identified by Christian writer with Japhet, i. lx

India, Alexander’s exploits in, i. 5, 13; sorcerers in modern, i. 92, 99 n. 1; Ophites spread to, ii. 76; Mithraic monuments in, ii. 230; Mithras worshipped in Vedic, ibid.; Manes said to have preached in, ii. 281; Manes says Buddha sent to, ii. 307; becomes acquainted with Buddhism in, ii. 313

Ineffable One, the, of the Pistis Sophia contains the First Mystery, ii. 139; his “receptacles” issue from his last limb, ii. 139 n. 2, 144 n. 3; lesser powers make up his name, ii. 140; Great Light his Legate, ii. 141; the Bythos of the Ophites and Valentinus, ii. 144, 158; First Mystery proceeds from last limb of, ii. 145; the footless God of Truth, ii. 145 n. 2; his heaven, ii. 146; perfect initiates will eventually become members of, ii. 164, 170; the Mystery or Sacrament of, ii. 166; its saving grace, 164 n. 6, 167, 169, 170, 171; confined to Pneumatics only, ii. 173; an Egyptian conception, ii. 175; fragmentary attempt to describe members of, ii. 180. See Name

Ionia, philosophic teaching in, tends to theocrasia, i. 15; probable source of Orphic legends, i. 124; tradition of, that water origin of all things, ii. 36; dualism of, probably derived from Persia, ii. 290 n. 2

Irenaeus, Saint, bishop of Lyons, his Trinitarian views unorthodox, i. 89 n. 1; explains number of beast as Nero Caesar, i. 169 n. 3; his garbled account of Simon’s teaching, i. 187-191, 193; makes Menander immediate successor of Simon, i. 199; his account of Marcus the magician, i. 202; ii. 9 n. 1, 129, 183 n. 1; makes Nicolaitans of Apocalypse Gnostics, ii. 1; his work against heresies, ii. 10; exaggerates diversity of Gnostics, ii. 14; authority for Docetism of Basilides, Saturnius and Valentinus, ii. 17; his mistake regarding “Colarbasus,” ii. 20 n. 1; his account of Ophite doctrines, ii. 26 n. 5, 40, 42, 43, 46-51, 53; identifies Sethians with Ophites, ii. 27 n. 1, 76; calls highest heaven of Ophites the true Church, ii. 43; sole authority for Jaldabaoth’s boasting, ii. 51; his interpolations in primitive Ophite doctrine, ii. 53, 57, 58, 60 n. 1, 61 n. 1; says Jesus lived on earth for 20 years after Resurrection, ii. 61 n. 1; makes Ophites source of most later heresies, ii. 76; authority for division of Ophites as to character of serpent, ii. 78; Ophites of, ascribe Old Testament to planetary powers, ii. 81 n. 2; notes connection of heresiarchs with each other, ii. 89; writes to refute Valentinians, ii. 95; his mockery of Valentinus’ system of Aeons, ii. 99; his account of Valentinian doctrines, ii. 107-112, 117, 119, 126; writes after death of Valentinus, ii. 131; with Tatian, first to quote from St John’s Gospel by name, ii. 178 n. 1; says Valentinians will not call Jesus Lord, ii. 180 n. 3, 189; says Marcion disciple of Simon Magus, ii. 207; his account of Tatian’s doctrines, ii. 220; quoted, i. 176 n. 1, 178 n. 4, 187, 190, 191, 198, 199; ii. 1 n. 4, 8 n. 3, 9 n. 1, 15 n. 2, 17, 18 n. 1, 20 n. 1, 27 n. 1, 38 n. 1, n. 2, 42 n. 5, 43 n. 1, 44, 45 n. 1, 46 nn. 1, 2, 47 nn. 2, 3, 48, 49 n. 1, 50 n. 2, 51, 52 nn. 1, 3; 53 n. 1, 58 nn. 1, 2, 59, 60, 61, 64 n. 2, 78, 81 n. 2, 89 n. 3, 90, 92 n. 3, 93 n. 1, 94 n. 1, 96, 98 nn. 3-5, 99, 107 n. 4, 108 n. 1, 109 n. 1, 110 nn. 1, 2; 111 n. 1, 112 nn. 2, 3, 116 n. 1, 117 n. 2, 118, 119 nn. 1, 3, 120, 121, 126, 127 n. 4, 128, 138 n. 1, 140 n. 1, 144 n. 1, 152 n. 1, 159 n. 3, 166 n. 2, 173 n. 3, 179 n. 7, 180 n. 3, 183 n. 1, 189 n. 1, 207, 214 n. 3, 220

Isaac, God of, invoked by magicians, ii. 34

Isaiah, the Prophet, hostility to Gentiles in post-Exilic passages of, i. 165, 167 n. 4

Isaiah, Ascension, of Sammael name of Satan in, ii. 75 n. 1 vestures used for heavenly nature in, ii. 136 n. 1; its date, ii. 154 n. 4; ecpyrosis in, ii. 163 n. 3; souls passing from one heaven to another must give password, ii. 177 n. 2; quoted, ii. 154 n. 4, 163 n. 3

Ishtar, the goddess, legend of her Descent into Hell, i. 100; analogies of her lover Tammuz with Orphic Dionysos, i. 122 n. 3; name of Atargatis derived from (Garstang), ii. 31 n. 1, 45 n. 1; personification of Earth, ibid.; identified with Ophite Sophia, ibid.; and with Manichaean Mother of Life, ii. 300 n. 1. See Cybele

Isidore, son of Basilides, his doctrine derived from Matthias the Apostle (Hippolytus), ii. 90

Isis, the goddess, worship of the Greek, an ethical religion, i. xlix n. 1; her wanderings in search of the murdered Osiris, i. 34; Nephthys, twin sister and reflection of, i. 35; in early Pharaonic Egypt only a magician, i. 38; in Phrygia and Syria, mother of all living, ibid.; analogy of her wanderings with those of Demeter, i. 40, 43; in Pharaonic Egypt wears cow’s head, i. 45; the Greek, identified with Demeter, i. 48; her breast-knot and sistrum, i. 49; Isis suckling Horus, i. 50; Marcus Volusius disguised as priest of, i. 53; oaths by, fashionable in Athens temp. Menander, i. 54; her names and titles in address to Lucius, i. 56; the haven of peace and altar of pity, i. 57; ii. 158; initiation into Mysteries of, i. 61-63; her child the Sun, i. 63; ii. 245; Osiris sometimes called her son, i. 63; both mother and father of other gods, i. 65, 143; statue of, dressed like Catholic Madonna, i. 66; silent adoration of image of, i. 67; frescoes of scenes in worship of, i. 67-69; her connection with moon, i. 68 n. 3; her seeking for Osiris acted publicly, i. 70; the festival of the ship of, i. 71-74; the great earth-goddess, i. 73, 126; ii. 45 n. 1, 300 n. 1; “one, who art all things,” i. 75; seven temples of, in Rome, i. 79; statue of, in lararium of Alexander Severus, i. 82; her last Roman worshippers, i. 83; emblems of virility used in worship of, i. 83; conversion of worshippers of, to Christianity, i. 84; entry of features of ritual of, into Catholic Church, i. 84, 85, 87; tonsure of priests, etc., derived from, i. 84; Trinitarian doctrine of, i. 88; Horus at once son and spouse of, i. 189 n. 5; ii. 39; Simon Magus may derive some of his doctrines from religion of, i. 198; Phrygian Mother of Gods identified with, ii. 31; Egyptian legend of Ra and, i. 38 n. 2; analogy of, with Ophite Sophia, ii. 45 n. 1. See Menander, Menuthis

Isium of Pompeii built 150 B.C., i. 53

Isopsephism. See Berossos, Iao, Number (of Beast)

Israel, to enslave Gentiles, i. 165, 166, 167 n. 4; her monotheism, i. 184

Issus, the battle of, i. 7

Italy, break-up of Pythagorean school in, i. 122

Izates, King of Adiabene, his Jewish proclivities, ii. 278 n. 1

Izeds, the, or Yazatas of the Avesta, Mithras made chief of, in Sassanian reform, ii. 232, 270 n. 3

Jabezebuth, name of Beelzebuth in Magic Papyri, ii. 108 n. 1

Jabraôth, ruler of the obedient Aeons in Pistis Sophia and Bruce Papyrus, ii. 152 n. 1, 182

Jackson, Prof. A. V. Williams, authority for late date of Avesta, i. lxii

Jacob, Apocrypha attributed to sons of, i. 163; contrasted with Esau, i. 164 n. 2; the seed of, oppressed, i. 166; god of, invoked by magicians, ii. 34

Jaldabaoth. See Ialdabaoth

Jaluha, “receiver” of Sabaoth Adamas in Texts of Saviour, ii. 187

James, “the brother of the Lord,” said to transmit Ophite doctrines to Mariamne, ii. 26

Janet, M. Pierre, quoted, i. 110

Japan, instance of Oriental nation Europeanized, i. 8

Japhet, the Patriarch, confused with Iapetus, i. lx

Jason of Tralles, acts Euripides’ Bacchus to Parthian audience temp. Crassus, i. 8 n. 1

Jehovah, seven vowels cover name of, i. 103 n. 2; name used in Magic Papyrus, i. 106; ii. 34; Iao perhaps represents, ii. 71 n. 1. See Tetragrammaton, Yahweh of Israel

Jéquier, M. Gustave, quoted, i. lxi n. 3

Jeremiah, the Prophet, says Jerusalem worships stars, i. 186 n. 2; says Jews sacrifice to Mother of Gods, ii. 32; quoted, ii. 32 n. 2

Jeremias, Dr Alfred, his astral theory, i. 115 n. 1

Jerome, St, Indiculus de Heresibus attributed to, ii. 25

Jerusalem, Ptolemy Soter captures, i. 151; in Enochian literature repels final assault of Gentiles, i. 161; prophecy that Gentiles shall rebuild, i. 165; rivalry between temple of, and Mt Gerizim, i. 177; destruction of same temp. Titus, ii. 4; idolatry in, ii. 32; heaven of Ophite Sophia called the Heavenly, ii. 108 n. 3, 109, 114, 124; angel spouses of human souls citizens of (Valentinus), ii. 110 n. 1

Jesuits. See Loyola, Ignatius

Jesus, said to have been Essene (Jülicher), i. 156; acrostic name of, i. 169 n. 1; Alpha and Omega name of, i. 171 n. 1; Simon Magus appears to suffer in likeness of, i. 192; ii. 16; Apocryphal sayings of, in Gospel of Egyptians, etc., i. 196 n. 2; ii. 219; His unfulfilled promise of Second Advent, ii. 3; analogy of His Passion and that of Osiris, ii. 6; tradition of revelations by, after Resurrection, ii. 13, 90 n. 3; historicity of, never doubted by Gnostics, ii. 15; Gnostics’ difficulties as to Passion of, ii. 16; Docetic view as to body of, ii. 17; Unitarian views of, among modern Nonconformists, ii. 20; called the Angel of the Great Council, ii. 43 n. 2; tradition as to prolonged earthly life of, ii. 61 n. 1; Sethians of Hippolytus do not mention, ii. 76; Gospel of Nicodemus describes visit to Hades of, ii. 90. See Christ

Jesus, the Ophite, birth of, from Virgin Mary arranged by Sophia, ii. 53, 59, 60; salvation only attainable through, ii. 56; body of, contains parts from all three worlds, ii. 59; Christos and Sophia descend into, ii. 60; teaches on earth for 18 months after Resurrection, ibid.; in Naassene psalm, brings mysteries to earth, ii. 62, 63, 65; abandons earthly body at Ascension, ii. 65; the True Gate, ii. 73 n. 3; identified with great god of Greek Mysteries, ii. 82

Jesus, the Valentinian, the Joint Fruit of Pleroma and Great High Priest, ii. 106, 159; spouse of Sophia Without, ii. 106, 113, 114; matter made through, ii. 107; transforms passions of Sophia Without, ibid.; a third deity sent for salvation of psychics, ii. 113-115; Valentinians disagree as to body of, ii. 115 n. 2, 116, 119; earthly actions of, mere symbols, ii. 124; never called Lord, ii. 136 n. 2, 180 n. 3; name of, includes Pleroma, ii. 166 n. 2

Jesus, the, of the Pistis Sophia, finds rulers of stars devouring their own matter, i. 196 n. 1; ii. 154; one with his disciples, ii. 80, 164; teaches on earth for 11 years after Crucifixion, ii. 135; his ascent into firmament and return, ii. 136; describes births of Himself, St John Baptist, and Apostles, ii. 137-139; address of powers to, ii. 139-143; the First Mystery, ii. 144, 159, 161, 171; other powers His members, ii. 145; rule of, during Millennium, ii. 146, 164, 171; body of, comes from Barbelo, ii. 151; shortens times for elect’s sake, ii. 155; defeats Pistis Sophia’s enemies and takes her from Chaos, ii. 156; words of, recorded by Philip, Thomas, and Matthew, ii. 157; brings mysteries to earth for man’s salvation, ii. 158; all worlds made through, ii. 161, 162; the victim in the Eucharist, ii. 171, 172

Jesus, the, of the Texts of the Saviour, called Aberamenthô, i. 102 n. 1; repeats words of Basilides, ii. 92 n. 3, 189; his magical invocation of his father, ii. 180; shows Middle Way and its tortures, ii. 182; celebrates thaumaturgic sacrament, ii. 183; merely a mystagogue, ii. 198; appeals to fears and cupidity of disciples, ibid.

Jesus, the, of the Bruce Papyrus, celebrates thaumaturgic sacraments, ii. 193; teaches on earth for 12 years after Crucifixion, ibid.; merely a mystagogue, ii. 198

Jesus, the, of Marcion, son of Supreme Being, but not of Mary, ii. 208, 210; Paul only real apostle of, 209, 211; slain with connivance of Demiurge, ii. 210; Docetic view as to body of, ii. 211; Marcionites differ as to body of, ii. 219; and as to His nature, ii. 220

Jesus, the, of Manichaeism, Saviour sent to Adam, ii. 303; maker of Great Wheel, ii. 306; sent for man’s salvation and relief of Omophorus, ibid.; the Tree of Knowledge in Paradise, ii. 307; messenger of God like Zoroaster, Buddha, and Mani, ii. 316; Docetic view as to body of, ii. 318; J. Patibilis is the soul diffused through nature, ii. 318; perhaps equated with Virgin of Light in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323 n. 4, 330; rôle in same of him and of the Burkhans or Buddhas, ii. 330; Son of First Man, ii. 339 n. 3

Jeû, in Pistis Sophia, the First Man and arranger of the Cosmos i. lxi; takes power from the last Purastates, ii. 146 n. 3, 164; the overseer of the Light, ii. 147; Father of Sabaoth the Good, ii. 149; in Texts of Saviour, binds rebellious aeons in sphere, ii. 152 n. 1; transfers repentant aeons to places between the Middle and Left, ii. 182; binds power from Pistis Sophia in planet Venus, ii. 186; in Bruce Papyrus appears with Melchisidek and other powers, ibid. 186; he and his followers arranged in similar order to higher powers, ii. 191 n. 2; called the Great Man, King of the Aeon, ii. 193

Jeu, the Books of, written by Enoch in Paradise, ii. 147 n. 5; seals and defences for inferior initiates said to be described in, ii. 165; mysteries of the Light described in, ii. 173; Schmidt’s theory that these are included in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 190; this theory refuted, ii. 190-194

Jevons, Dr F. B., his Hartford Lecture quoted, i. liv

Jews, the, their division into three sects, i. lv, 151; their sacred books translated into Greek, post Alexander, i. 9; their resistance to Antiochus Epiphanes, i. 51; their pronounced monotheism, i. 89, 149; the magicians of the poorer classes in Rome, i. 108; their Sabbath influenced by astrological ideas, i. 117; only clergy, paupers and fanatics among, return from Captivity, i. 149 n. 2, 172; their critical position post Alexander, i. 150; conquered by Ptolemy Soter, go over later to Antiochus the Great, i. 151; Old Testament made familiar to, by Septuagint, i. 157; their belief in power of name, i. 158; ii. 33; Messianic hopes of, and their result, i. 159-163; Apocrypha inspired by same, i. 163-167; fanaticism of Palestinian, i. 172; Jews of Dispersion inclined to compromise with Hellenism, i. 173; secret Hellenizing among, i. 175; ii. 32; their hatred of Samaritans, i. 177; astrolatry of, before Captivity, i. 186 n. 2; Simon Magus’ doctrines appeal to, i. 202; first Christians regarded as, ii. 4; unpopularity of, leads to Christian separation from, ii. 5; their influence on Gnosticism doubtful, ii. 9; accused by Church of filthy rites, ii. 18; privileges of, under Diadochi, ii. 28; their influence on Anatolian religion, ii. 31; Oriental, given to magic, ii. 33; Anatolian, bring method of exegesis from Babylon, ii. 34, 35; Egyptian, give male and female assessor to Yahweh, ii. 43 n. 2; unpopularity of, in Rome, temp. Hadrian, ii. 203, 204; Marcion’s dislike of, ii. 210, 211; Hemerobaptists’ dislike of, ii. 305; Manes’ dislike of, ii. 315. See Cabala, Demiurge, Jaldabaoth, Yahweh of Israel

Job, all apocrypha of, said to be Essene (Kohler), ii. 153 n. 4, 163

Joel, the Prophet, shows hatred of Jews for Gentiles, i. 167 n. 4

John Baptist, St, said to be Essene, i. 156; Simon Magus follower of (Clementines), i. 179; ii. 6 n. 4; birth of, ap. Ophites, ii. 53; ap. Pistis Sophia, ii. 137: body of, contains soul of Elijah (P.S.), ii. 137, 149, 150. See Elizabeth, Hemerobaptists

John the Divine, St, Cerinthus, traditional opponent of, ii. 9 n. 1; pre-eminent place of, in next world, ii. 164; speaks of repentant aeons (P.S.), ii. 182 n. 2. See Apocalypse, Gospel, the Fourth, Millennium

Jôk, Supreme Being of the Shilluks, ii. 39 n. 5

Josephus, quoted, i. lv n. 2, 151, 152 n. 2, 153, 154, 155, 163 n. 1, 168 n. 2, 170, 177; ii. 4 n. 3, 5 n. 3, 28, 85 n. 3, 278 n. 1, 315 n. 1

Jovian, the Emperor, not a persecutor, ii. 270

Judaism, never a rival of Christianity, i. lv; not a world-religion, i. lvi; entry of astrological ideas into, i. 117; Samaritans retain little of, i. 177; resemblance between it and Zoroastrianism (Cheyne), i. 181 n. 1; attempts to reconcile it with Hellenic culture, i. 200; Gentiles ignore Christianity while still a branch of, ii. 21; Saturninus’ hatred of, ii. 89; approach of Mithraism to, ii. 277

Judas Iscariot, in Pistis Sophia apparently receives super-excellent soul, ii. 137 n. 1. See Matthias

Julian, the Emperor, thinks Alexandrians worship Serapis in his time, i. 82 n. 2, 83; notes hatred of Christian sects for each other, ii. 11; authority for religion of Mithras, ii. 236; his eclecticism, ii. 269; Mithraism revives temporarily under, ii. 271; favours Manichaeism, ii. 356

Juno, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238. See Hera

Jupiter, the god, image of Simon Magus worshipped as, i. 198; Varuna his prototype, ii. 231; identified with Ormuzd, ii. 237; on Mithraic monument presides over assembly of gods, ii. 238; invoked as superior of Mithras, ibid.; Jupiter Optimus Maximus not called Ormuzd, ii. 239; but probably his Roman equivalent, ii. 240, 248, 277

Jupiter, the planet, god of good winds to Babylonians, i. 113; its place in astrology, i. 116, 118 n. 1; one of Ophites’ seven heavens, ii. 48, 73 n. 1; ruler of lesser astral powers in Texts of Saviour, ii. 182

Justin Martyr, celebration of Eucharist simple, temp., i. 87 n. 1; finds hidden meanings in Pentateuch and name of Christ, i. 170 n. 5; makes Simon the heresiarch Simon Magus of Acts, i. 179 n. 5; says Simon tells followers he will never die, i. 192 n. 2; authority for Menander’s succession to Simon Magus, i. 199 n. 7; Tatian a disciple of, ii. 8 n. 3, 220; his dictum on Real Presence, ii. 172; his date, ibid.; his Apologies, ii. 203, 204 n. 1; thinks his contemporary Marcion most formidable enemy of Church, ii. 205, 216 n. 3; says devils set on Mithraists to imitate Church’s sacraments, ii. 247; quoted, i. 170 n. 5, 192 n. 2, ii. 18 n. 2, 122 n. 1, 205, 216 n. 3, 247

Justinian I, the Emperor, makes laws against Ophites, ii. 77; and against Manichaeans, ii. 356

Justinus the heresiarch, teaches system resembling Ophites’, ii. 77; his symbolical use of story from Herodotus, ii. 81

Juvenal, satirizes Alexandrian religion, i. 20, 54; describes finding of Osiris, i. 70.

Karossa, alleged name of Manes’ mother, ii. 279

Kashgar, limit of Persian Empire, i. 1; Bar Khôni’s bishopric, ii. 321

Kenyon, Sir Frederic, gives story of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, i. 79, 80; doubts identification of Serapis and Esculapius, i. 87 n. 2; thinks relative age of Peshitto version still undecided, ii. 84 n. 2; quoted, i. 56 n. 2, 80 n. 1, 87 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 98 n. 1, 142 n. 1, 169 n. 2; ii. 34 n. 3, 84 nn. 2, 3

Kerasmos, the, or Confusion, in Pistis Sophia name given to mixture of Light and Matter, ii. 147, 164, 174, 292 n. 2. See Jeû

Kern, Prof. Otto, quoted, i. 141 n. 4

Kesbeêl, the “number” of, i. 169

Kessler, Dr Konrad, thinks Mughtasilah a source of Manes’ doctrine, ii. 305; his Mani quoted, ii. 280, 281 nn. 1, 3, 6, 282 n. 1, 285 n. 2, 286 nn. 3, 5, 288 n. 2, 289 n. 2, 290 n. 3, 291 n. 1, 292 n. 1, 294 n. 1, 295 nn. 1, 2, 296 n. 1, 299 nn. 2, 3, 302 n. 1, 304 n. 1, 305 n. 2, 310 n. 1, 312 n. 2, 313 n. 1, 314 n. 2, 316 n. 1, 322 n. 1, 350 nn. 4, 5, 6

Khasekhmui, King of Egypt, makes peace between factions of Horus and Set, i. 36

Khent-Amentit, the god, absorbed in Osiris, i. 33

Khepera, the god, mankind comes from tears of, i. 126 n. 3

Khojend, probable site of Alexandria eschata, i. 5 n. 3

Khonsu, the god, story of the Possessed Princess and, i. 10

Khorassan, Alexander’s fame preserved in, in XVIIth cent., i. 14 n. 2

Khormizta or Khormuzta. See Ormuzd

Khrostag and Padvaktag, ii. 354, 355. See Appellant and Respondent

Khshathra Vairya or Right Law, the Amshaspand, i. 181 n. 1; set over metals, ii. 301

Khuastuanift, the, confession-prayer of Manichaeans, ii. 288 n. 3; its discovery, ii. 334; quoted with commentary, 335-346

Khumbaba, King of Elam, his name perhaps reappears in Manichaeism, ii. 287 n. 4. See Hummama

King, C. W., thinks strings of vowels in Magic Papyri cover name of Jehovah, i. 103 n. 2; his translation of names of Simon’s “Roots,” i. 180 n. 4

Kios in Bithynia, inscription identifying Serapis and Zeus, i. 55 n. 3

Kohler, Dr, his views on Essene literature, i. 153 n. 4; sees Cabala in Philo, i. 157

Koran, the, plenary inspiration of, i. liii; connection of, with teaching of Simon Magus, i. 201

Kronos, the god, in Homeric myths successor of Uranos, i. 46; called in Orphic hymns Son of Earth and Heaven, i. 132 n. 1; age of, in Orphic myths, i. 186

Krotzenburg, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 245 n. 4

Kubrik or Corbicius, name given to Manes by Christians, ii. 279

Kuner Valley, the, cattle of, said to be sent by Alexander to Macedonia, i. 4 n. 1

Labrys or Double Axe, suggested explanation of its symbolism, ii. 67 n. 3

Lactantius, quoted, i. 70, 143 n. 4; ii. 157 n. 2, 228

Lafaye, M. Georges, his views on Herculaneum frescoes, i. 68, 69; and on Mithraic fragment in Magic Papyrus, ii. 255, 256; quoted, i. 48 n. 2, 49 n. 2, 50 n. 1, 52 n. 4, 53 nn. 1-6, 54 n. 2, 55 n. 3, 67 n. 3, 68, 69, 70 n. 6, 71 n. 1, 73 n. 2, 79 nn. 1-3, 88 n. 1; ii. 255, 266

Lairbenos, name of Sabazius in Phrygia, ii. 67 n. 3

Lampridius, says Commodus on initiation into Mithraism commits real murder, ii. 262

Langdon, Dr Stephen, new Creation Tablet, i. lxiii n. 1

Lecoq, Prof. A. von, his expedition to Turfan, ii. 316; quoted, ii. 316 n. 3, 332 n. 2, 334 n. 2, 335 n. 1, 339 n. 1, 342, 343 n. 2, 344 n. 1, 349 n. 2, 357 n. 1. See Grunwedel

Lenormant, François, his identification of Dionysos with Iacchos, i. 130 n. 2

Leo the Zodiacal sign, in magical ceremony, i. 98

Leo the Isaurian, the Emperor, enlists Manichaeans in Imperial armies, ii. 357

Leto, the goddess, identified with Demeter in Asia Minor, ii. 67 n. 3

Leucius, author of Manichaean apocrypha, ii. 351

Leviathan, in Diagram perhaps equivalent to Ophiomorphus, ii. 70, 77

Lévy, Isidore M., his work on Serapis, i. 48

Libanus, in Enochian literature, northern frontier of Palestine, i. 165

Light, shed by Ophite Father-and-Son on Holy Spirit, ii. 42, 44; the Primordial, of Ophites, ii. 46; taken from Ialdabaoth to make protoplasts, ii. 51; redemption of, from matter (Naassene writer), ii. 58, 59, 61, 64, 65; in Pistis Sophia years of, equal to days, ii. 164; in Pistis Sophia term equivalent to divine, ii. 143, 146, 148, 153, 154, 156, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 173, 175 n. 1, 191 n. 2; and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193; the heavenly in Persian religion, ii. 231; name of Ormuzd, ii. 234, 236 n. 4; in Manichaeism, name of god of goodness, ii. 287, 289; its realm described, ii. 290; how mixed with Darkness, ii. 294, 295, 335; redemption of, 296, 297, 336, 339; Faustus’ account of three worlds of, ii. 319; in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 321, 324; powers of, described, ii. 325-328; praises sung to, ii. 331; redeemed through food eaten by elect, ii. 343, 346. See Adamas

Light, the Great, in Pistis Sophia, Legate of the Ineffable One, ii. 141, 164

Linus, explains mysteries and is a source of doctrines of Sethians, i. 175

Lion-headed god of Mithraea, described, ii. 251-253; represents Ahriman, ii. 254; his place, ii. 255, 256

Livy, quoted, i. 6 n. 5, 41 n. 3

Lobeck, his Aglaophamus quoted, i. 121 n. 1, 127 n. 2

Loeb, Isidore, attributes Babylonian origin to Jewish Cabala, ii. 35, 36

Logos, in Philo chief and source of all powers of God, i. 174; not God, but his reflection, i. 180 n. 3; member of 2nd Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98; parent of Dodecad, ii. 101, 102; Jesus also called the, by Valentinus, ii. 110 n. 1

Loret, M. Victor, says earliest Egyptian gods totemistic, i. 37 n. 2

Love. See Agape, Eros

Loyola, Ignatius, compelling power of prayer of, i. 94

Lucian the Marcionite, Marcion’s successor at one or two removes, ii. 218 n. 2; his teaching, ii. 220

Lucian of Samosata, his story of Alexander of Abonoteichos, i. 24, 199, 202; ii. 128; quoted, i. 24, 199; ii. 30 n. 3, 31, 40 n. 1, 45 n. 1, 300 n. 2

Lucius, hero of the Golden Ass, apparition of Isis to, i. 56; his prayer to Isis, i. 57, 58; promise of Isis’ protection in next world to, i. 59, 60; his first initiation into Mysteries, i. 62, 63; his second and third, i. 64; his adoration of statue of Isis, i. 67; his monotheistic conception of her, i. 75; his complete devotion to her service, i. 83; his metamorphosis by ointment, i. 101 n. 2

Lucius, German theological writer, quoted, i. 156 n. 1

Lucius Septimius, freedman of Caesar and Mithraist Court chaplain, ii. 268

Luebbert, his work on Pindaric doctrine of transmigration, quoted, i. 127 n. 3

Luther, Martin, as reformer and founder of sect, i. 54; ii. 19, 199 n. 3

Lyall, Sir Alfred, his dictum on magic and religion, i. 94; open dealing of Indian sorcerers, i. 99 n. 1

Lycomidae, the, hereditary priests of Eleusis, i. 76; sing hymns of Orpheus in Mysteries, i. 141 n. 2; Pausanias reads their hymns to Eros, ii. 210 n. 1

Lydia, name of Mother of Gods in, ii. 40, 45 n. 1

Lysimachus, King of Thrace, his wars in Phrygia, ii. 29

Ma, the goddess, Lydian equivalent of Demeter, i. 126; Lydian name of Mother of Gods, ii. 40

Macaria or Blessedness, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Macariotes, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Macaulay, Lord, his simile as to religions borrowing from their rivals, i. 84

Macedonia, its distance from Karachi, i. 4; temples to Alexandrian gods in, i. 53

Macedonians, inhabitants of Thrace called, i. 136; term used for subjects of Syrian Empire, i. 177

Macrinus, the Emperor, buys off Persians, ii. 226

Macrobius, quoted, i. 48 n. 1, 49 n. 1, 52, 55 n. 1, 118

Macrocosm and Microcosm, possible origin of theory, ii. 51 n. 1; in Cabala, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, ii. 308 n. 1; mentioned by name in Tun-huang MS., ii. 353

Maenads, the, reproduce rites of savage Thracians, i. 136

Magas, King of Cyrene, Asoka’s mission to, i. 20

Magi, the, Simon Magus’ system said to be derived from (Franck), i. 197; Mithraism derived from religion of (Cumont), ii. 232, 275; tribe of Medes defeated by Darius Hystaspes, ii. 233, 286; priestly caste among Persians, temp. Herodotus, ii. 234; religion of, described, ibid.; called Magusaeans by Theodore of Mopsuestia, ii. 237; sacrifice to Ahriman, ii. 239; relations of Manes with, ii. 280; his most bitter opponents, ii. 280, 281, 282; power of, declines under Parthians, ii. 283; is restored by Ardeshîr, ii. 284

Magic, its practice by Greek confraternities, i. 23; words used in, generally taken from dying religions, i. 87, 92; relations between religion and, i. 91; practice of, increases as religion decays, i. 92; never entirely separated from religion, i. 93; prayer in, used to show knowledge, i. 95; leads to manufacture of theogonies, cosmogonies, etc., i. 96, 97; ceremonial magic described, i. 97; examples of spells used in, i. 98-107; spread of, in Rome and Asia Minor under Empire, i. 108; phenomena of, partly hypnotic, i. 109; diffusion of, leads to Gnosticism, i. 110; Egyptian Gnosticism reverts to, i. 111; ii. 199; astrology connected with, in practice, i. 113; effect of astrology upon, i. 117, 118; magical ideas in Orphism, i. 128; Orphics’ magical theory of initiation, i. 131-134, 139; magical practices of Orpheotelestae, i. 140, 146; Essenes probably practised, i. 158; so Simon Magus and his successors, i. 176, 198, 202; Gnostic secrecy due to magical ideas, ii. 18; Phrygian Jews much addicted to, ii. 33, 34; salvation through magical effect of Ophite initiation, ii. 56; Marcus’ magical sacraments, ii. 129; practice of, condemned in Pistis Sophia but taught in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180, 183, 185; and in Papyrus Bruce, ii. 192, 193, 195; common among Coptic monks, ii. 201; word derived from Magi, ii. 233, 275; religion of Magi apt to degenerate into, ii. 235; Ahriman of Magi compellable by, ii. 239; practice of, by Mithraists doubtful, ii. 275; expressly condemned by Mithraist Emperors, ibid.; and by Zend Avesta and Manichaeism, ii. 275 n. 2; its connection with worship of Hecate, ii. 276; its appearance in Mandaite story of protoplasts, ii. 304; condemned by Manes and his successors, ii. 313, 314, 342

Magic Papyri, in European Museums enumerated, i. 93 n. 3; ii. 34; described, i. 97; examples of spells from, i. 98-107; probably written in good faith, i. 109; names in Diagram like those in, ii. 71; name of Seth in, ii. 76 n. 4; acrostics in, ii. 84; name of Maskelli in, ii. 148 n. 3; Egyptian words in, ii. 180; mediaeval grimoires copied from, ii. 186 n. 3; Mithraic fragment in, ii. 267

Magophonia, the Persian festival of, ii. 233

Magusaeans, the, mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia, probably Magi, ii. 237

Mahaffy, Dr J. P., thinks Alexandria not the natural centre of trade between East and West, i. 28 n. 1; compares Dynasts of Asia Minor to mediaeval bishops and abbots, ii. 29; quoted, i. 6 n. 5, 28 n. 1, 44 n. 2, 45 n. 1, 49 n. 2, 52 n. 1, 150 n. 2, 173 nn. 1, 2; ii. 29 nn. 2, 3, 4

Malays, magic of, mainly taken from Arabs, i. 92

Mallet, D., quoted, i. 181 n. 2; ii. 92 n. 1, 175 n. 4

Man, the First, in Pistis Sophia, Zoroastrianism, and Manichaeism, i. lxi; legend of, possibly Sumerian in origin, i. lxiii n. 1; Ophites call their second god by this name, ii. 38; wide spread of legend of, ii. 38 n. 3; the Father of all, ii. 51; invoked by Holy Spirit to send Christos to Sophia, ii. 59; hymns to, sung by Ophites, ii. 61; name of Jeû in Texts of Saviour, ii. 147 n. 5; Pistis Sophia delivered after seven prayers like Manichaean, ii. 156 n. 1; First Mystery of Pistis Sophia compared to Ophite, ii. 158; name of Jeû in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193; in Manichaeism, ii. 292, 293 n. 1; his defeat by Satan, ii. 294; delivered by Friend of the Lights, ii. 294, 295 n. 1; his armour called the soul, ii. 298 n. 2; Adam and Eve made after image of, ii. 299; sends Saviour to Adam and Eve, ii. 300, 302, 303; son of Ahura Mazda by Spenta Armaiti, ii. 300 n. 2; Bar Khôni’s account of, ii. 302 n. 1; magic circle with name of, ii. 304; his light forms souls of man, beasts, birds, etc., ii. 307; sends Wise Guide to Manichaean Perfect at death, ii. 309; Jesus comes forth from, ap. Manes, ii. 318; Third Person of Manichaean Trinity, ii. 319 n. 1; in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323. See Gayômort, Ormuzd

Mandaites, the, or Disciples of St John, possible source of Manichaean stories of protoplasts, ii. 305; their hatred of Christians, Jews, and Mahommedans, ibid. See Hemerobaptists, Mughtasilah

Manes or Mânî, the heresiarch, aims of religion of, i. lviii; uncompromising dualism of, ii. 221, 277, 289; life and death of, ii. 279-281; his connection with Bardesanes, ii. 280 n. 7, 283; heresy of, followed by that of Mazdak, ii. 284; originality of doctrines of, discussed, ii. 285-287, 289; his two principles, ii. 287-290; said to have been one of the Mughtasilah, ii. 305; his hatred of Jews and their Law, ii. 315; his epistle to Marcellus, ii. 317, 318; his gospel and other writings, ii. 350. See Manichaeans, Manichaeism, Thibet

Manetho, writes his Egyptian history in Greek, i. 9; entrusted by Ptolemy with foundation of Alexandrian religion, i. 44; said to have taught astrology to Greeks, i. 78

Manichaeans, the, confusion with Ophites possible, i. lx; Orphic prohibitions observed by, i. 128 n. 1; heavens made from evil powers according to, ii. 44 n. 3; their King of Glory compared to Melchizidek of P.S., ii. 148 n. 3; influence of, perhaps perceptible in later documents of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 152 n. 1; divide day into 12 hours, not 24, ii. 152 n. 2; Languedoc perfects may eat only fish, ii. 153 n. 1; hearers of Languedoc put off baptism till deathbed, ii. 168 n. 6; oligarchy in Church the aim of, ii. 175 n. 2; their relations with Marcionites, ii. 221, 222; and with Mandaites, ii. 305; their division of everything into five categories, ii. 312, 323 sqq.; duties of Hearer among, ii. 314; secret script of, ii. 317; pretend Trinitarian views among Christians, ii. 319; take symbolical view of Crucifixion, ii. 320; hymns of, ii. 333; Churches of, ii. 347, 349; Apocrypha of, ii. 351; Imperial laws against, ii. 356

Manichaeism, prominence of First Man in, i. lxi; and of Sophia, ii. 45 n. 1; Virgin of Light in, ii. 137 n. 3; like Avesta, condemns magic, ii. 275 n. 2; contrasted with Mithraism, ii. 277, 278; opposed to Judaism, ii. 278; first rebellion against Ardeshîr’s religious reform, ii. 284, 285; owes little to Egypt or Buddhism, ii. 286; simplicity of teaching of, ii. 287; its quinary system, ii. 290, 291, 330; its cosmology like that of Pistis Sophia, ii. 295 n. 1, 296 n. 1; its androgyne virgin, ii. 298, 299 n. 1, 328, 329; its system of transmigration, ii. 308; teaches eternal punishment, ii. 309; its Ten Commandments, ii. 314, 341, 342; its Burkhans or Messengers, ii. 336; its fasts and alms, ii. 314, 344-347; Constantine’s enquiry into, ii. 356; favoured by Julian and the philosophers, ibid.; ends with Albigenses, ii. 357

Marathon, Iacchos-song heard before Battle of, i. 65 n. 6. See Callias

Marcion, the heresiarch, groundless accusations of immorality against, i. 179 n. 2; ii. 206; differs from other Gnostics as to aeons, i. 187 n. 2; accusation of ambition against, ii. 8 n. 3; native of Pontus, ii. 9, 204; his followers alter his doctrines (Tertullian), ii. 27, 216, 217; ignores Sophia, ii. 45 n. 1, 214; contemporary of Valentinus, ii. 134 n. 1; his life and date, ii. 204, 205; his relations with Stoics, ibid.; wide-spread and longevity of heresy of, ii. 205, 206, 216; compared to Luther, ii. 207, 208; his alterations of Scripture, ii. 208, 209; his Antitheses, ii. 209, 213, 223; his Supreme Being, ii. 210; his Docetism, ii. 210, 211; his Demiurge the God of the Jews, ii. 211; his dislike of Judaism, 211, 212; his rejection of allegory, ii. 213; original nature of his teaching, ii. 214; anticipation of Protestant doctrines and practices, ii. 215, 216; his views as to matter, ii. 217; his influence on Church slight, ii. 222; Manes acquainted with his tenets, ii. 280, 283

Marcionites, the, endure till Xth cent., ii. 206; their practices, ii. 207; golden age of, last half of IInd cent., ii. 216; their divisions, ii. 216, 217; their relations with Manichaeism, ii. 221, 222

Marcus, the heresiarch, his Cabalisms, i. 171 n. 1; ii. 9 n. 1, 129; accusations of immorality against, i. 179 n. 2; ii. 9 n. 1, 99, 128; his conjuring tricks, i. 202; ii. 129, 183 n. 1; a Jew, ii. 9 n. 1; his supposed companion Colarbasus, ii. 20 n. 1; a Valentinian (Irenaeus), ii. 99, 128; his life and practices, ii. 128, 129; possible connection of, with Texts of Saviour, ii. 187-189; and with Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, Alexander of Abonoteichos at Court of, i. 24; ii. 202; his generals’ victories over Persians, ii. 225, 226. See Avidius Cassius

Marcus Volusius, the aedile, his escape in dress of priest of Isis, i. 53

Marduk, the god, called by number 50, ii. 35 n. 4; name of, ineffable, ii. 37 n. 1. See Bel, Merodach

Mariamne, sister of Philip the Apostle, source of Ophite tradition (Hippolytus), ii. 26; mentioned in Acta Philippi, ii. 26 n. 2; a sect named after her, ibid.

Marks, the Five, the mystery of, in Pistis Sophia, ii. 141

Marriage, rejected by Orphics, i. 128; and by Essenes, i. 152; admitted by Simon Magus, i. 196, 202; rejected by Ophites, ii. 79, 80; and by Saturninus, ii. 89; admitted by Valentinus, ii. 129; rejected by Texts of Saviour, ii. 174; by Marcion, ii. 207, 215; by certain Mithraists, ii. 260; by Manichaean Elect, ii. 313

Mars, the god, why identified with Ares, i. 17; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238; devotion of Julian to, ii. 269. See Ares

Mars, the planet, presides over a seventh part of terrestrial things, i. 116; a malefic in astrology, i. 118 n. 1; one of the seven heavens of Ophites, ii. 48, 74 n. 2; a ruler of the sidereal world in Texts of Saviour, ii. 182. See Correspondences

Martha, the sister of Mary, interlocutor of Jesus in Pistis Sophia, ii. 157

Martial, the poet, quoted, i. 54, 66, 67

Martyrs, position of, in Primitive Church, i. 145 n. 1; ii. 126, 127; distinguished from confessors, ii. 117 n. 4

Mary Magdalene, St, in Pistis Sophia made after likeness of seven virgins of light, ii. 150; chief interlocutor of Jesus in P.S., ii. 157; her pre-eminent rank in next world, ii. 164. See Millennium

Mary, the Virgin, statues of Isis re-used for, i. 85; her worship like that of Isis, i. 61, 62, 84, 85, 88; birth of Jesus from, due to Sophia ap. Ophites, ii. 53, 59; Sophia descends into, ap. Valentines, ii. 115; in Pistis Sophia Jesus speaks to, in likeness of Gabriel, ii. 138; made after likeness of seven virgins of light, ii. 150; interlocutor of Jesus in, ii. 157; suggested origin of worship of, by Church, ii. 158; Gnostics call her Mother of Life, ii. 300 n. 2. See Theotokos

Mary, The Interrogations of, attempted identification of Pistis Sophia with, ii. 157

Masbotheans, early sect mentioned by Hegesippus, ii. 6 n. 4

Maskelli, a ruler of demons in Texts of Saviour, ii. 75 n. 1; and in Magic Papyri, ii. 148 n. 3

Maspero, Sir Gaston, says Alexander’s deification common form in Egypt, i. 18; thinks Apuat originally only assessor of Osiris, i. 33 n. 2; doubts existence of mysteries in Pharaonic Egypt, i. 60 n. 5; Nu originally the Celestial Ocean, i. 73 n. 4; ii. 36, 175; would identify Ostanes with Thoth, i. 108 n. 1; Egyptian belief in three worlds reflecting one another, i. 197; Egyptian Ennead varies in number, ii. 92, 176 n. 1; no Egyptian spell without amulet, ii, 168 n. 1; says Osirian beliefs reproduced in Pistis Sophia, ii. 175 n. 4; life in next world confined to privileged few in Egypt, ii. 198 n. 1; quoted, i. lxi n. 3, 2 n. 3, 3 nn. 3, 4, 10 n. 3, 18 n. 3, 32 n. 2, 35 n. 1, 57 n. 3, 60 n. 5, 63 nn. 3, 5, 65 n. 1, 73 n. 4, 95 n. 3, 104 n. 3, 108 n. 1, 125 n. 3, 134 n. 3, 160 n. 4, 197; ii. 36 n. 3, 48 n. 3, 75 n. 2, 92 n. 2, 153 n. 2, 160 n. 1, 168 n. 1, 175 nn. 4, 6, 176 n. 1, 177 n. 2, 184 n. 2, 189 n. 3, 196 nn. 1-5, 197 nn. 1-7, 198 n. 1, 201 n. 1, 233 n. 5

Matter, Jacques, his reproduction of Ophite Diagram, ii. 68, 70; says Basilides’ followers came over to Valentinus, ii. 93; dates death of Basilides 135 A.D., ii. 93 n. 3; quoted, ii. 77 n. 2, 88 n. 1, 89 n. 5, 93 n. 3, 130 n. 1, 134 n. 4, 208 n. 3, 209 n. 1, 320 n. 3

Matter, Orphic views as to, i. 128, 147, 148; Philo’s, i. 174; Simon Magus’, i. 195, 201; the Ophites’, ii. 44 n. 2, 49; the post-Christian Gnostics’, ii. 64; Valentinus’, ii. 107, 112 n. 2, 113; the Pistis Sophia’s, ii. 151, 153, 161 n. 2; The Texts of the Saviour’s, ii. 167 n. 2; Cerdo’s, ii. 205; Marcion’s, ii. 210, 217; the Mithraists’, ii. 250; the Manichaeans’, ii. 294, 346

Matthew, Saint, the Apostle, one of the three recorders of words of Jesus in Pistis Sophia, ii. 157

Matthias, the Apostle, Basilides’ doctrines said to be handed down from, ii. 90; in Pistis Sophia perhaps destined from beginning to supersede Judas, ii. 137 n. 1

Maury, L. F. Alfred, thinks Orphic cosmogony taken from Ionian philosophers, i. 124; quoted, i. 16 n. 1, 17 n. 1, 21 n. 1, 25 n. 1, 40 nn. 1, 4, 42 n. 1, 46. n. 1, 51 n. 1, 95 n. 4, 123 n. 2, 124 n. 2, 125 n. 3, 135 nn. 3, 4, 136 nn. 1, 2, 4, 147 n. 1, ii. 275 n. 2

Mazdak, antinomian heresy of, ii. 284

Mazdeism, its influence on Simon Magus, i. 197; Mithraism not derived from, ii. 232; opposed to Mithraism, ii. 270. See Zoroastrianism

Medes, angels to, stir them up against Jerusalem (Enoch), i. 161; Magi tribe of non-Aryan, ii. 286

Mediterranean, the, religions of eastern basin of, i. lviii; the Dying God of, i. 37, 43 n. 3, 123; ii. 16, 29; gods of, tend to merge in Serapis, i. 55; Orphic legends current in islands of, i. 122; religions of eastern, before Orphics, i. 126 n. 3; god of, always worshipped in mysteries, ii. 17; and often bisexual, ii. 29, 97

Megalopolis in Arcadia, statue of Dionysos with attributes of Zeus at, i. 125 n. 2

Megasthenes, his story of gold-digging ants, i. 2 n. 1

Melchizidek, purifier or receiver of the Light in Pistis Sophia, ii. 148, 153; receiver of, in Texts of Saviour, ii, 148, 186; sect of worshippers of, ii. 148 n. 1; Sun and Moon act as “receivers” of (P.S.), ii 154; placed by last Parastates according to arrangement, ii. 191 n. 2

Melissae or Bees, priestesses of Great Goddess and Demeter so called, i 143 n. 4

Memphis, religious capital of Egypt after Ethiopian conquest, i. 32; Osiris worshipped as bull Apis at, i. 45; Greek Serapeum at, divided from native, i. 51; Asklepios worshipped at, i. 78 n. 2, 87; recluse in Serapeum at, i. 79, 80

Men, the god, in Orphic hymn, i. 139 n. 1; identified with Attis in Asia Minor, ii. 67 n. 3

Menander, comic poet, notes fashion for Isis-worship in Athens, i. 54

Menander, the heresiarch, successor of Simon Magus, i. 111, 199; Basilides and Saturninus disciples of, ii. 89, 93

Menant, Mdlle D., quoted, i. lxii n. 2; ii. 232 n. 4

Mendes, Osiris worshipped as ram or goat at, i. 45

Menuthis, medical saints succeed Isis at, i. 86 n. 1

Mercury, the god, why Hermes called, i. 17; caduceus of, in procession of Isis, i. 72; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238, 258. See Hermes

Mercury, the planet, presides over category of earthly things, i. 116; one of the Ophite heavens, ii. 48; the sphere of, in Diagram, ii. 73 n. 2; ruler of stars in Texts of Saviour, ii. 182

Merodach or Marduk, absorbs all gods in himself, i. 15 n. 1

Merv, may be Alexandria Margiana, i. 5 n. 3

Mesopotamia, Mazdeism in, before Homer, i. lxiii; Antiochus the Great transports Jews from, into Anatolia, ii. 28; Ophites in, ii. 76

Messenia, worship of Eleusinian triad in, i. 135

Messiah, Jewish expectation of, i. 164, 165, 166. See Barcochebas

Metricos or Motherly, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Metropator, the word, i. 190 n. 1

Michael, the Archangel, he and Gabriel only angels named in O.T., i. 158; in Book of Enoch, i. 169; in Magic Papyri, ii. 34; name of Ophiomorphus among Ophites, ii. 52; connected with planet Saturn, ii. 75; with Gabriel delivers Pistis Sophia from Chaos, ii. 156. See Sammael

Michar and Micheu, powers set over Waters of Life in Papyrus Bruce, ii. 192

Mihr Nerses, conqueror of Armenia for Yezdegerd II, ii. 285, 336 n. 1

Milk, kid bathed in, Orphic password, i. 134

Millennium, the, in Pistis Sophia, ii. 164

Mincopies, the, of Andamans, their compulsion of spirits, i. 93

Minerva, the goddess, why Athena called, i. 17; identified with Isis, i. 56. See Athena

Minucius, Felix, naturalistic explanation of Graeco-Roman pantheon, i. lvii n. 1; makes Osiris son and not spouse of Isis, i. 63 n. 5, 70 n. 1; his Octavius quoted i. 70

Miracles, of Primitive Church and success of Christianity, i. li; ii. 361

Mise, Orphic name of androgyne Dionysos, i. 47, 137 n. 1; Orphic hymn to, i. 143; Persephone called Mise Kore, i. 143 n. 1

Mitannians, the, Mithras worshipped by, i. lxii; ii. 231; a branch of Hittites (Winckler), ii. 231 n. 2

Mithraism, its use of the number seven, i. 117; its origin, ii. 232; its connection with astrology, ii. 235; extinct before rise of Zervanism, ii. 236; Stoic influence upon, ii, 250, 274; half-way house between Paganism and Christianity (Lafaye), ii. 256 n. 3; its seven heavens or spheres, ii. 256, 257; aims at universal religion, ii. 258, 269; its ceremonies, ii. 259-262, 268, 269; its degrees of initiation, ii. 262, 263; a Pagan Freemasonry (Renan), ii. 264, 269; its mystic banquet, ii. 264, 265; ritual fragment in Magic Papyrus connected with, ii. 265-267; its priesthood, ii. 268; its relations with the State, ii. 270, 271; its connection with Mazdeism obscure, ii. 270; its decline and suppression, ii. 271-274; its survivals, ii. 274, 275; its use of magic and astrology, ii. 275, 276; its contrasts with Manichaeism, ii. 277, 278; its attitude towards Judaism, ibid.

Mithras, worship of, pre-Christian and ethical, i. xlix n. 1; most dangerous Pagan rival to Christian Church, i. lxii; worshipped by Hittites or Mitannians, i. lxii; ii. 231; small beginnings of worship of, in West, i. 24; equated with Serapis, i. 56; supplants Alexandrian religion in Imperial favour, i. 81; devotees of, worship other gods, i. 83; ii. 269; identified with Sun (Pliny and Macrobius), i. 118; Orphic and Valentinian analogies of banquet of, ii. 111 n. 1; arrival of worship of, in West, ii. 228, 229; monuments of, where found, ii. 230; who Mithras was, ii. 230, 231; his place in Zend Avesta, ii. 231, 232; in Herodotus and Plutarch, ii. 234; lost books on, ii. 235, 236; Zervanist theory of (Cumont), ii. 236, 237, 252; Jupiter O. M. his only superior in pantheon, ii. 238-240; his relations with the Sun, ii. 240-241, 243, 244; his birth from a rock, ii. 241, 242; as the bringer of rain, ii. 242, 243; scenes with Bull, ii. 243; his alliance with Sun, ii. 243, 244; “Mithras my crown” (Tertullian), ii. 245, 263; in Tauroctony, ii. 245-247; the Banquet, and creation of animals, ii. 247, 248; the Demiurge, ii. 248, 249; the μεσίτης or Mediator, ii. 249; his relations with Ahriman and Hecate, ii. 250-254; and with Cybele, ii. 258, 259, 269; Taurobolium taken into worship of, ii. 259; his relations with Alexandrian religion, ii. 259, 260; and with the Mysteries of Eleusis, ii. 260; and with Christianity, ii. 261; his chapels and rites, ii. 261, 262, 268, 269; monotheism of religion of, ii. 273; name of, reappears in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 324 n. 1. See Izeds

Mithridates, King of Pontus, his temporary power in Asia Minor, ii. 29; Sinope his capital, ii. 204; reaction towards Persian nationality during his wars with Rome, ii. 225; Magi of Asia Minor his supporters, ii. 229

Mixis or Mixture, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

Mohammed or Muhammad, receives Koran from Allah, i. liii; religion of, admittedly propagated by human means, i. liv; commanding personality of, i. 54; his Arabs aim at universal dominion, i. 160

Mohammedanism, scientific study of, and its results, i. li; to Gnostic, merely veil, ii. 18; takes its ideas of Christianity from heretics, ii. 283 n. 4

Moira, individual fate or cause of death in Texts of Saviour, ii. 184

Monceaux, M. Paul, quoted, i. 121 n. 1, 123 nn. 2, 4, 125 n. 3, 131 n. 4, 137 n. 5, 139 n. 3

Monogenes, confusion with μονογέννητος, i. 124 n. 3; ii. 15, 98 n. 2; Bar Coziba called, i. 124 n. 1; expresses Gnostic conception of nature of Jesus, ii. 15, 16; name of Nous, first offspring of Bythos in system of Valentinus, ii. 98; member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101; Christ and Holy Spirit put forth by (Irenaeus), ii. 105 n. 1

Monoimus Arabs, the heresiarch, ii. 9; uses words found in Naassene or Ophite writer, ii. 41 n. 1

Montanist heresy, the, most formidable to Church save Gnosticism, ii. 29 n. 1. See Tertullian

Moret, M. Alexandre, description of daily rites in Egyptian temples, i. 66; quoted, i. 66 n. 1; ii. 139 n. 2, 153 n. 2, 175 n. 5

Morocco, monuments of Alexandrian religion found in, i. 53

Moses, the patriarch, religion of, i. liv; Law of, broken by magicians, i. 107; pseudepigraphical books of, i. 163; devotion of Essenes to, i. 168 n. 2; writings of, not intelligible without mystic insight (Justin Martyr), i, 170 n. 5; adherence of rich Jews of Dispersion to Law of, i. 173; reverence of Essenes for, i. 168; and of Samaritans, i. 177; and of Simon Magus, i. 188; divine inspiration claimed for, ii. 15; magical book ascribed to, ii. 46 n. 3

Moses, The Assumption of, edited by Dr Charles, i. 164; comes from Essene School, i. 167 n. 6; quoted, i. 166, 168 n. 1, 170 n. 2

Moses of Chorene, mentions Zervan as equivalent of Shem, i. lx

Mother of the Gods. See Aphrodite, Atargatis, Cybele, Ishtar, Isis, Mother of Life, Ramsay, Sophia

Mother of Life, the, the Great Goddess of Western Asia, ii. 45 n. 1, 299 n. 1, 300 n. 2; Mater viventium, ii. 135 n. 3; in Manichaeism, ii. 293 n. 1, 302 n. 1;; rescues First Man, ii. 294, 295 n. 1; forms link with many systems, ii. 300 n. 2; with other powers sends Jesus to Adam, ii. 303; anonymous in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323. See Nahnaha

Moulton, Prof. Hope, his Hibbert Lectures quoted, i. lxii n. 2; ii. 110 n. 1, 231 n. 1, 258 n. 3

Mount of Olives, the, place of Ascension in Pistis Sophia, ii. 136, 139, 146, 157

Mughtasilah, the, Mandaites, Hemerobaptists or Disciples of St John described, ii. 305; an extant sect, ibid.; go back to reign of Trajan, ibid.; their hatred of Christians, Jesus, and Mahommedans, ibid.; possible source of some of Manes’ doctrines, ibid.

Murray, Prof. Gilbert, his translation of Orphic gold plates quoted, i. 132, 133

Musaeus, address to, in Orphic hymns, i. 139 n. 1, 142; associated with Orpheus, the expounder of Mysteries, i. 175

Musonius, Rufus, exercises care of souls, ii. 87

Mycenae, Double Axe in worship of, ii. 67 n. 3

Mystery, the First, the Great Power of the Pistis Sophia, ii. 135; the origin of all things, ii. 139; all other good powers his “names,” ii. 140; his “completion” to be fulfilled by Jesus, ii. 143; a Twin Mystery, ii. 144; Jesus the, looking outwards, ii. 144, 161; proceeds from last limb of Ineffable One, ii. 145; his “receptacle” or heaven, ii. 146; commands Jesus to help Pistis Sophia, ii. 156; corresponds to Father-and-Son of Ophites, ii. 158; sees to emanation of universe, ii. 161; the “mysteries” (i.e. sacraments) of, ii. 166, 167, 169, 173, 175 n. 1

Mysteries of Eleusis. See Dionysos, Demeter, Eleusis, Eumolpidae, Foucart, Iacchos, Mithras Persephone

Naassenes, the, name of early Ophites (Giraud), ii. 26, 74; borrow from Simon Magus (Salmon), ii. 41 n. 1; explanation of name as serpent worshippers, ii. 50; their triple nature of soul, ii. 53; frequent Mysteries of Great Mother, ii. 58; believe in malignity and independence of matter, ii. 64; set forth changes of soul in Gospel of Egyptians, ii. 65; their priests, ii. 66 n. 1; Philosophumena chief authority for doctrines of, ii. 68; the assembly of souls in each world of, ii. 75; Gospel of Egyptians only work attributed to (Hippolytus), ii. 79; their allegorical interpretation of all literature, ii. 81; quote Homer, Pindar etc., ii. 83; treat poets as Puritans do Scripture, ii. 85

Nabonidus, King of Chaldaea, his date for inscription of Sargon of Accad, i. 114 n. 1

Nahnaha, name of Manichaean Mother of Life, ii. 300 n. 2, 309, 323 n. 4

Name, of Alexander still famous in East, i. 14; Hawk or Horus name of Egyptian kings, i. 36; of Dionysos at Eleusis ineffable, i. 47 n. 1; of Osiris in Book of Dead, i. 55; many names of Greek Isis, i. 56; of Pluto used in magic, i. 99; the like of Persephone, i. 100; Babylonians use number instead of, i. 100; ii. 35; Typhon’s 100 lettered, i. 104; carved on scarab and used in spell, i. 106; names of angels kept secret by Essenes, i. 157; knowledge of, gives power over spirit, i. 158; one of Simon Magus’ Roots, i. 180, 183, 185; more powerful in magic if meaning forgotten, ii. 33; names of Yahweh used by Jewish sorcerers, ii. 34; name of Ophite Bythos ineffable, ii. 37; instances of ineffable names, ii. 37 n. 1; meaning of names of Valentinian aeons, ii. 99, 103; lesser powers names of First Mystery in Pistis Sophia, ii. 140, 144; of good powers copied from those of evil in Texts of Saviour, ii. 148 n. 3; of Dragon of Outer Darkness, ii. 166 n. 2; mysteries called names of light, ii. 173 n. 1; names in Jesus’ address to His Father explained, ii. 180 n. 4; Greek names of God used in mediaeval magic, ii. 186 n. 3; cryptographic names in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195; of Mithras in Vedas, ii. 230; and in Zend Avesta, ii. 231; of Supreme God in Mithraism, ii. 236-239; of lion-headed god, ii. 252, 253; of Manes, Corbicius or Kubrik, ii. 279; names of Good and Evil Principles in Manichaeism, ii. 289; names of Satan in same, ii. 297, 304; of Cross, ii. 320; of Zervan and Ormuzd in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323, 339; of Third Legate in same, ii. 327. See Adamas, Caulacau, Essenes, Saboï, Tetragrammaton

Namrael or Nebrod, wife of Saclas a Manichaean fiend, ii. 329

Nannar, the god, Babylonian moon-god and No. 30, ii. 35 n. 4, 287 n. 4

Naples Museum, copy of Bryaxis’ statue of Serapis at, i. 49 n. 2; frescoes of Isis-worship at, i. 67; Orphic gold plates at, i. 133, 134

Naville, Prof. Edouard, quoted, i. 33 n. 1, 57 n. 3; ii. 92 n. 2, 121 n. 3, 142 n. 1

Neander, J. A. W., quoted, i. lvi n. 2, 145 n. 1; ii. 9 n. 1, 124 n. 1, 125 nn. 2, 3, 205 nn. 2, 4, 206 n. 5, 207, 211 nn. 2, 4, 215 n. 1, 217 n. 1, 253 n. 2, 270 nn. 1, 2, 278 n. 2, 285 nn. 1, 4, 320 n. 3, 335 n. 1, 348 n. 2, 349 n. 1, 356 n. 1, 358 nn. 1-4

Nearchus, Alexander’s admiral, i. 6

Nectanebo, King of Egypt, last of Pharaohs, i. 32

Nemesis, Orphic hymn to, i. 142 n. 2. See Rhamnusia

Neo-Manichaeism, doctrine of Bar Khôni and Turfan MSS., ii. 321; its organization and hierarchy, ii. 330; its settlement in Turkestan, ii. 357; origin of Bogomiles, Albigenses, etc., ibid.

Neo-Platonists, mainly post Constantine, i. lvii; tendency of, to merge all gods in Dionysos, i. 146 n. 1

Neo-Pythagoreans, their influence on Valentinianism, ii. 97

Nephotes, alleged letter of, to King Psammetichus, i. 101

Nephthys, the goddess, wife of Set, sister of Isis, and mother of Anubis, i. 35

Neptune, the god, name of God of Nature as sea, i. lvii. See Poseidon

Neptune, the planet, unknown in classic times, i. 116

Nero, the Emperor, state recognition of Alexandrian gods temp., i. 53; his name and Number of the Beast, i. 105 n. 2, 169; magic and astrology most rife at Rome in reign of (Renan), i. 108; Simon Magus’ fatal flight before, i. 178, 192 n. 2; his favourite deity Dea Syria, ii. 31; legend of his return from among the Parthians, ii. 225

Nestor, his flattery of Athena in Odyssey, i. 95

Nicaea, Trinitarian doctrine formulated at, i. 89. See Athanasius

Nicocreon, King of Cyprus, answer of oracle of Serapis to, i. 55

Nicodemus, The Gospel of, used by Ophites, ii. 79

Nicolaitans, the, of Apocalypse a Gnostic sect (Irenaeus), ii. 1; Ophites derive their doctrine from (St Augustine), ii. 25; named after Nicolaus the Deacon, ii. 27 n. 1; Ialdabaoth appears in system of, ii. 46 n. 3. See Epiphanius

Nicomedia, seat of Alexander of Abonoteichos’ worship of Glycon, i. 24

Nike, the goddess, on coins of Indo-Greek kings, i. 17 n. 2; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238

Nile, Pelusiac mouth of, i. 29; body of Osiris thrown into, i. 33, 34; water of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 68; allegory of Osiris as, i. 73; water of, used in magic, i. 103

Nineveh, omen tablets from, i. 114

Nin-harsag, the goddess, makes two creatures as patterns of mankind, i. lxiii n. 1. See Man, First

Ninos, priestess of confraternity convicted of poisoning, i. 23 n. 2

Nippur, Sumerian tablet from, and legend of First Man, i. lxiii n. 1

Noah, the Patriarch, interference of the Ophite Sophia in favour of, ii. 53

Nomos, the god, Orphic hymn to, i. 142 n. 2

Nous, first of Simon Magus’ “Roots,” i. 180; name of Ophite Ophiomorphus, ii. 49; member of First Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98; in Manichaeism, ii. 322 n. 2

Nu, the god, in Egypt origin of all (Maspero), i. 73; ii. 36, 175; perhaps identifiable with Khepera the creator of man, i. 126 n. 3

Number, Ialdabaoth a “fourth,” i. 100 n. 4; used for name of gods in Babylonia, i. 100; ii. 35; of Beast in Apocalypse, i. 105 n. 3, 169; neo-Pythagorean theory of sexes of, ii. 97, 103 n. 5

Nut, the goddess, mother of Osiris and goddess of sky, i. 33, 133 n. 1

Nyakang, secondary god of Shilluks, ii. 39 n. 5

Oblation, baptism of the First, in Texts of Saviour, ii. 183, 192; its analogues in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

Odysseus, speech of the dead Achilles to, i. 59. See Ulysses

Ogdoad, the, of Valentinus, composed of Bythos, Sige and first three syzygies, ii. 98; aeons of, merely names of God, ii. 99, 100; heaven of Sophia called, ii. 107, 111 n. 1, 113 n. 2; Egyptian parallel to (Maspero), ii. 175

Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, i. 12; first meets Philip at Mysteries of Cabiri, i. 23, 136 n. 2

Olympius, the philosopher, defends Serapeum of Alexandria against Christians, temp. Theodosius, i. 84

Olympus, gods of, not rivals of Christianity, i. lvii; Gnosticism a heresy of religion of, i. lviii

Omophorus, world-supporting angel in Manichaeism, ii. 297, 325, 332; Babylonian prototype and classical Atlas, ii. 298 n. 1, 332; Jesus comes to earth for relief of, ii. 306; in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325

Onomacritos, earliest author of Orphic poems, i. 121; possibly inspired by Persian legends, i. 122 n. 3, 126 n. 3; Buddhism reaches West after death of, i. 135 n. 1

Ophiomorphus, serpent-shaped power of Ophites, and son of Ialdabaoth, ii. 49; cause of man’s soul, passions, and death (Irenaeus), ii. 50; Soul of the World, ibid.; counsels creation of man, ii. 51; cast down to earth by Ialdabaoth, ii. 52, 75; with his six sons forms seven earthly demons, ii. 52, 70; called Leviathan in Diagram, ii. 70, 77; this world under his government, ii. 75; obliteration of, among later Ophites, ii. 77, 78

Ophites, tenets of, confused with others by late writers, i. lx; First Man legend among, i. lxi; may have drawn their ideas from same source as Manichaeans, i. 128 n. 1; Origen calls them insignificant sect, ii. 21 n. 3; pre-Christian (Philastrius), ii. 25; different founders assigned to, by Fathers, ii. 25, 26; teaching of changes with time, ii. 26; many different sects of, ii. 26, 27, 28; aim at combining Anatolian religion with Hellenic and Christian, ii. 36; their Ineffable Supreme God or Bythos, ii. 37; their Second God, Light, First Man, Father-and-Son or Adamas, ii. 38, 39; their Holy Spirit or First Woman, ii. 40; their Supreme Triad of Father, Mother and Son, ii. 41; their threefold division of all things, ii. 42; accidental origin of world, ii. 44; mingling of light with matter called Sophia, ii. 45; Sophia’s Seven Heavens, ii. 46; their names and connection with Judaism, ii. 46, 47; with later Ophites the seven planetary spheres, ii. 48; their Ophiomorphus or serpent-shaped god, ii. 49-51; Adam and Eve made at suggestion of Sophia, ii. 51; Fall of Man and expulsion from Paradise to Earth, ii. 52; their teaching as to soul of man taken from heathen Mysteries, ii. 54; of Fathers essentially Christians, ii. 56; teach return of world to Deity, ii. 57; their view of Mission of Jesus, ii. 59, 60, 61; use sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, ii. 61; Ophite psalm and its meaning, ii. 62, 63; their salvation through rebirth of soul, ii. 64, 65; their Diagram and its use, ii. 66-70; defences of soul in passing from sphere to sphere, ii. 71-74; their doctrine of correspondences, ii. 75; their divisions and end, ii. 76, 77; their influence on Texts of Saviour, ii. 78; their use of Apocrypha, ii. 79; and of Canonical Books, ii. 81; mode of interpretation of all literature, ii. 82; first Ophites probably uneducated, ii. 83; anti-Jewish, and reverence for Jewish Scriptures probably due to their magical use, ii. 84, 85; analogies of their teaching with Saturninus’, ii. 89; and with Valentinus’, ii. 96, 100, 109; differences between their teaching and Valentinus’ as to soul of man and its salvation, ii. 111-115; that of Pistis Sophia resembles both Ophite system and Valentinus’, ii. 135; Ophite cosmology explains “Five Words” of P.S., ii. 143; Supreme Being of P.S. like those of Ophites, ii. 143, 144, 145; degradation of lower Ophite powers in P.S., ii. 155 n. 3, 158; cosmologies of P.S. and Ophites contrasted, ii. 160, 161; lower initiates in P.S. must exhibit seal like, ii. 165; resemblance of Eucharistic ideas in P.S. with Ophites’, ii. 171; Ophites’ ideas as to descent of soul through planetary spheres in Mithraism, ii. 256; cosmogony of Manes like that of Ophites, ii. 290 n. 4. See Evander, Naassenes

Oreus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47. See Horaios

Origen, his unorthodox views of Trinity, i. 89 n. 2; no Simonians in his time, i. 200; professes knowledge of all Ophite secrets, ii. 21 n. 3; says Euphrates “the Peratic” founder of Ophites, ii. 25; says all magicians use “God of Abraham” formula, ii. 33, 34; calls Christ Angel of Great Council, ii. 43; says names of Ialdabaoth, Horaios and Astaphaios taken from magic, ii. 47, 48; authority for Ophite use of Diagram, ii. 66; his description of Diagram, ii. 67-70; gives “defences” of soul from unmentioned source, ii. 71-74; sympathy between planet Saturn and Michael, ii. 75; he and Clement of Alexandria only patristic writers fair to Gnostics, ii. 76 n. 2; had he or Celsus read Pistis Sophia?, ii. 154 n. 2, 159, 179; says Persian theology gives mystical reasons for order of planetary spheres, ii. 256, 265; Mithraic ladder described by, ii. 257; quoted, i. 73, 199; ii. 8 n. 4, 25, 26, 34, 43, 46, 48, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 159, 256, 257

Ormuz. See Hormisdas

Ormuzd or Oromazes, antagonism of, to Ahriman not defined till Sassanid reform, ii. 232; called Light (Plutarch), ii. 234; Zervan Akerene above both him and Ahriman (Cumont), ii. 236, 252; doubtful part of, in Mithraic religion, ii. 237; Romans identify him with Zeus, ii. 237, 240; no evidence that Mithraists called Jupiter, Ormuzd, ii. 239; incursion of Ahriman into Kingdom of Ormuzd cause of all evil to man, ap. Manichaeans, ii. 253; identified with First Man in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 293 n. 2, 323; in earlier Manichaeism, Father of First Man, ii. 335

Orpheotelestae, strolling charlatans with Orphic books, i. 140; addicted to magic and poisoning, i. 146

Orpheus, Christian doctrine attributed to (Clem. Alex.), i. 47 n. 3; never existed, i. 121; religious teaching attributed to him probably Phrygian, i. 122; said to be founder of Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 123; identity of Zeus and Dionysos said to be his teaching, i. 125 n. 2; transmigration doctrine of, i. 127 n. 3; mentioned in Pindar, i. 129 n. 3; poems attributed to, i. 135, 140; said to have been a Thracian, i. 136; hymns attributed to, i. 141; Musaeus called son of, i. 142; tendency of poems of, to fuse all other gods in Dionysos, i. 146 n. 1; Jews forge writings in name of, i. 173; explains Mysteries of Eleusis and their rites (Hippolytus), i. 175; respect paid to “Orpheus and other theologists,” i. 184 n. 3; parallel between Simon’s Silence and Night of, i. 185; expression “metropator” attributed to, i. 190 n. 1; quotations from verses attributed to, i. 40 n. 1, 47 nn. 3, 4, 65 n. 5, 90 n. 1, 123 n. 4, 125 n. 1, 127 n. 3, 129, 132 n. 1, 133 n. 2, 137 nn. 1, 4, 138 n. 2, 139 n. 1, 142, 143, 144 nn. 1, 2, 146 nn. 1, 3, 147 n. 1, 157 n. 1, 168 n. 3, 169 n. 1, 185 n. 2, 186 n. 1, 190 n. 1; ii. 6 n. 1, 45 n. 1, 80 n. 1, 111 n. 1, 153 n. 2, 254 n. 2, 311 n. 2

Orphics, the, cosmogony of, taken from Ionian philosophers, i. 124; their exaltation of Dionysos, i. 124, 125 n. 2; take Dying God into their system, i. 126; take transmigration from Pythagoreans, i. 127; attribute sacramental grace to Eleusinian mysteries, i. 131; enjoin mortification of flesh, i. 133 n. 1; “kid in milk” a password among, i. 134; teach superior worth of next life, i. 136; identify Adonis and Sabazius with Eubuleus and Zagreus, i. 137; no association or brotherhood of, i. 139, 140; invocation to all gods worshipped by, i. 142; make Dionysos both male and female, i. 145; their services to religion few, i. 146, 147; all their peculiar features reproduced by Gnostics, i. 148; Essenes’ obligations to, i. 150, 156, 157, 168; egg of, reappears in Book of Enoch, i. 159; Simon Magus’ successive ages of world due to, i. 186; analogy of chain of being of Simon Magus with that of, i. 188; jealousy of Simon’s angels and of Titans of, i. 190 n. 2; escape from transmigration desired both by Simon and by, i. 194 n. 3. See Acrostics

Orphism, earliest form of pre-Christian Gnosticism, i. 120; Eleusinian Mysteries secret before, i. 130 n. 1; destroys idea of nationality of gods, i. 145; Essene views as to pre-existence of soul taken from, i. 156; abstinence for religious reasons begins with, ii. 222

Ortho, in Magic Papyri probably Artemis Orthia, i. 100 n. 2

Osiris, the First Man (Maspero), i. lxi; fusion of, with other Egyptian gods, i. 32, 33; legend of, i. 33, 34, 35; two-fold origin of Osiris legend, i. 36, 37, 38; resemblance of Osiris myth to that of Eleusis and Egyptian origin of latter (Foucart), i. 43, 44; his animal forms in Egypt, i. 45; identified with Hades in Alexandrian religion, i. 48; his Alexandrian name of Serapis, i. 49; typical statue of, by Bryaxis, ibid.; Ptolemies continue to raise temples to Egyptian, i. 52; his Egyptian title of Neb-er-tcher, i. 55; ii. 154 n. 3; Alexandrian “highest of godheads,” i. 56, 64; Eleusinian beatitude of dead borrowed from Egyptian worship of (Foucart), i. 59; scenes in earthly life of, not kept secret in Egypt, i. 60, 61; initiate in Alexandrian religion enacts Passion of, i. 62; Alexandrian Horus, Osiris re-born, i. 63; “god of the great gods,” etc., i. 64; identified with Dionysos, i. 64 n. 1, 65, 137 n. 1, 145; in Alexandrian religion, water the emblem of, i. 68, 73; in same, Passion and Resurrection of, openly celebrated, i. 69, 70; pudendum of, processionally carried in chest, i. 73 n. 1, 84; wine the blood of, i. 87; asked to grant “cooling water” to dead, i. 88; magician identifies himself with, i. 92 n. 2; distinguished from Serapis in magic ceremony, i. 103; the god-man first of those who rose from the dead (Budge), i. 126 n. 3; in Orphic gold plate dead an Osiris (Foucart), i. 133 n. 1; so in religion of Pharaonic Egypt, i. 134 n. 3; the Cosmos the “emanation and displayed image of” (Plutarch), i. 181 n. 2; Simon’s god, like Osiris, his own spouse, son, etc., i. 189 n. 5; ii. 39; Greeks say death of Osiris should not be wailed for, ii. 16; post-Christian Gnostics imitate secrecy of mysteries of, ii. 17; post-Christian Gnostics attend mysteries of, ii. 21, 54; name of, ineffable in Egypt, ii. 37 n. 1; “the holy horned moon of heaven,” ii. 72 n. 3; epithet of, applied to Jesus in Pistis Sophia, ii. 154 n. 3. See Aberamenthou

Ostanes, writer on magic identified with god Thoth (Maspero), i. 108

Osterburken, Tauroctony of, with assembly of twelve great gods, ii. 238; best example of scenes from legend of Mithras found at, ii. 241 n. 4

Ouranos, in Cretan legend first link in succession Ouranos-Kronos-Zeus-Dionysos, i. 46; compared to Egyptian god Nu (Maspero), i. 73 n. 4. See Uranus

Ovid, quoted, i. 67, 78

Oxyrhynchus Papyri, logion of Jesus quoted from, ii. 80 n. 3

Pachomius, inventor of monachism a recluse of Serapis, i. 86

Pacorus, Prince of Parthia, invades and subdues Palestine in 40 B.C., i. 161 n. 3; ii. 224 n. 3

Paganism, erroneous views as to relations of, with Christianity, i. lvi; merely veil for true Gnostic, ii. 18; Gnosticism road from, to Christianity, ii. 21; suppression of, by Gratian, ii. 358

Palestine, Pharisees small minority of population of, i. lv; return of undesirables to, after Captivity, i. 149; disappearance of its independence after Alexander, i. 151; seizure of, by Ptolemy Soter and Antiochus the Great successively, ibid.; Essenes scattered through villages of, not towns, i. 152; rapid Hellenization of, under Seleucides, i. 156; Pacorus’ raid upon, i. 161 n. 3; ii. 224 n. 3; Romans’ forced conquest of, i. 163; Essenes of, survive war of Titus, but not that of Hadrian, i. 170; Jews outside, cling to Law of Moses, i. 173; charlatanism common among lower classes of, temp. Apostles, i. 202; hatred of Gentiles shared by Jews outside, ii. 5; Ophites spread through (Giraud), ii. 76

Pallas, the goddess, classic type of, on Indo-Greek coins, i. 17 n. 2; in Orphic legend saves heart of Dionysos, i. 125. See Athena, Minerva

Pallas, writer on Mysteries of Mithras, quoted by Porphyry, ii. 236

Pamirs, the, included in Persian Empire, i. 1

Pan, the god, identified with Attis, i. 139 n. 1

Panarion, the, of Epiphanius, ii. 77

Pantaenus, founder of Christian school of Alexandria, ii. 88

Pappas, the god, identified with Attis, i. 139 n. 1; play upon name of, by Naassene author, ii. 57

Paraclete, Manes called the, ii. 316, 332, 351; means probably legate or ambassador, ii. 316

Paracletos, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Paradise, the Gates of, in Diagram, ii. 68; the Middle Space or Paradise of Sophia, ii. 75; of Adam perhaps 4th of Ophite planetary worlds, ii. 107; Books of Jeû in Pistis Sophia dictated to Enoch in P. of Adam, ii. 147 n. 5; P. of Adam set by Valentinus above the third heaven, ii. 179

Parastatae, the Five, of Pistis Sophia probably the five planets, ii. 141, 146; reappear in Manichaeism, ii. 292 n. 2, 297 n. 2

Parastates, the last, sets Jeû and other powers in their places, ii. 141 n. 4, 164; scene of Millennium in Pistis Sophia, ii. 141 n. 4, 163 n. 2, 164. See Jeû

Paris or Alexandros, wrath of goddesses with, cause of Trojan war, i. 57

Parsis, the, modern representatives of Zoroastrianism, i. lxii; their kosti or sacred girdle perhaps used by Essenes, i. 153 n. 1

Parthians, the, perform Greek plays, temp. Crassus, i. 8; struggles of Syrian Empire against, i. 160; ii. 224; Book of Enoch and raid of, upon Jerusalem, i. 161; rise of, under Arsaces, ii. 224; their age-long war against Romans, ii. 225, 226; leadership of, transferred to Persia, ii. 226; their eclectic religion, ii. 282; decline of power of Magi under, ii. 283

Parusia or Second Advent, the, immediate expectation of, among primitive Christians, i. lviii; ii. 2, 3; belief in, leads to community of goods, i. 162; fading of belief in nearness of, ii. 3; revives in Pistis Sophia, ii. 163; declines again in Texts of Saviour and Bruce Papyrus, ii. 198; all allusions to, excised from N.T. by Marcion, ii. 209

Passion, of Dying God of Mediterranean basin, i. 37; of Osiris, publicly celebrated in Imperial Rome, i. 69, 70; of Dionysos, i. 125; of Jesus, Docetic account of, ii. 17; Ophite account of, ii. 60; occurs when Jesus 30 years old (Irenaeus), ii. 61 n. 1; Valentinian account of, ii. 17, 117 n. 1; referred to in Texts of Saviour, ii. 180; Marcion’s Docetic view of, ii, 210, 211; similar view of Manes, ii. 302 n. 1, 318, 320

Pastophori, college of priests of Greek Isis established in Corinth, temp. Sulla, i. 74 n. 2

Patecion, the brigand, saved by initiation at Eleusis, i. 131

Patecius or Fatak, alleged father of Manes, ii. 279; one of the Mughtasilah, ii. 305

Pater, Walter, his view of Socrates’ monotheism quoted, i. 10

Patras, Mithraic monument at, ii. 263 n. 1

Patricos or Fatherly, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Paul, Saint, the Apostle, Simon Magus baptized before conversion of, i. 176; German theory of identity of Simon Magus with, i. 179; exclusiveness and disdainful spirit of (Duchesne), ii. 5 n. 2; Anatolian religion temp. (Ramsay), ii. 29, 30; in Phrygia treated as Barnabas’ wakil, ii. 42; O.T. history probably unknown to Phrygians in his time, ii. 53 n. 2; success of his preaching to Gentiles and its result, ii. 85; Marcion’s respect for, ii. 209; Marcion thinks him only real apostle, ii. 211; Marcion exaggerates controversy between St Peter and, ii. 212. See Hermes

Paulicians, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357

Paullina, Fabia Aeonia, initiate of Eleusis, hierophantis of Hecate and worshipper of Isis, i. 83

Pausanias, his account of the legend of Cybele quoted, ii. 39 n. 2, 40

Pella, flight of Christians to, before siege of Jerusalem, ii. 4 n. 3; Christians of, called Ebionites, ii. 5 n. 1; Synoptic Gospels first put into shape at (Renan), ii. 6 n. 3

Pelliot, M. Paul, discovers Tun-huang MS., ii. 352

Pelusium. See Nile, Perdiccas

Pentateuch, Samaritan reverence for, i. 177; Ophite or Naassene writer quotes from, ii. 55. See Moses, Old Testament

Perabsen, King of Egypt, uses totems of both Horus and Set as his cognizance, i. 36

Peratae, the, worship Power called Astrampsuchos (Hippolytus), i. 107 n. 1; an Ophite sect, ii. 76; mix Orphic with astrological teaching, ii. 79; use names which appear in Manichaeism, ii. 329 n. 2; may mean Medes, ibid.

Perdiccas, defeated by Ptolemy Soter at Pelusium and afterwards murdered, i. 30; Nicocreon of Cyprus helps Ptolemy against, i. 55 n. 1

Perfection, The Gospel of, used by Ophites and called _Gospel of Eve_, ii. 80; quoted, ibid.

Pergamum. See Persephone

Peroz or Firûz, son of Ardeshîr and patron of Manes, ii. 281

Persephone, scene of trials of, Eleusis and Asia, i. 16; mother of Zagreus by Zeus, i. 37, 42, 124, 125, 138, 145; ii. 39; her temple at Eleusis, i. 39; her Rape or capture by Hades shown in Mysteries, i. 40; ii. 39; her deliverance by Hermes, i. 41; her identification with Demeter, i. 46; and with Dionysos, i. 47, 144; worshipped with Isis and Hecate by latest Pagans, i. 83; Baubo confused with, in Magic Papyri, i. 100; Eres-ki-gal used as name of, ibid.; called the “twelfth,” ibid.; and unique, i. 124, 142 n. 3; ii. 15 n. 3; Dionysos added to Mysteries of, by Orphics, i. 130; Orphic gold plate addressed to, i. 133; worship of, with other Chthonians outside Eleusis, i. 135; in Mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 n. 2; Adonis made spouse of, i. 137; Bendis identified with, ibid.; allusion to, in Sabazian rites, i. 138; Orphic hymn to, i. 142, 143; identified with Aphrodite, Cybele, and Isis, i. 143; daughter of Zeus and Demeter, i, 144; her relations with Iacchos, i. 145, 189 n. 5; serpent present in all Asiatic legends of, ii. 49; a fiend in hell in Texts of Saviour, ii. 186; on Mithraic monument, ii. 238; Hecate perhaps equated with, by Mithraists, ii. 253

Persepolis, one of the four capitals of Persian Empire, i. 3

Persia, religions of, come westward after Alexander, i. lvii; First Man legend appears in religion of, i. lxi; obscurity of dates of religion of, i. lxii; description of, before Alexander, i. 1-4; rush of Greeks to, i. 7, 8; emigrants from, settle in Asia Minor, ii. 229; difficulty about religion of, temp. Manes, ii. 289

Persians, the, their good government of subject peoples, i. 3, 12; priests of, officers of state, i. 24; Egyptian policy under, i. 51; astrology comes westward after Asiatic conquests of, i. 113; religion of, temp. Achaemenides, still doubtful, i. 122; suzerains of Jews, i. 150; revival of nationality of, under Roman Empire, ii. 224, 225; wars between Romans and, ii. 225-227; Roman Court adopts manners and institutions of, ii. 228; worship of Mithras may have come to Asia before, ii. 231. See Magi

Peshitto, the, version, used by Ophites and Valentinians, ii. 81 n. 1, 84; oldest Syriac translation of Scriptures (Gwilliam), ii. 84 n. 2. See Kenyon

Pessinuntica, name of Cybele used by Apuleius, i. 56

Pessinus, Cybele worshipped by Greek confraternities as goddess of, i. 17; Black Stone of, transported to Rome, ii. 31

Petelia, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131, 132

Peter, St, the Apostle, his dealing with Simon Magus, i. 176; Simon follows and opposes him (Clementines), i. 178; causes death of Simon Magus by prayer, ibid.; his controversy with St Paul, i. 179; ii. 212; denies that Jesus proclaimed himself God (Clementines), ii. 82 n. 2; in Pistis Sophia, ii. 157

Peter, The Gospel of, its description of Cross in Sepulchre of Jesus, quoted, ii. 140 n. 2

Peter and Paul, Apocryphal Acts of, i. 178

Petermann, J. H., edits Pistis Sophia, ii. 13, 134

Petersen, says date of Orphic hymns Ist to IIIrd cent., i. 141

Petosiris, name of Roman writer on magic, i. 107

Peucestas, Greek satrap of Persia, adopts native customs, ii. 224

Phalerum, lustration of initiates in harbour of, i. 39

Phanes, the god, born from egg and called Eros and Protogonos, i. 123; ii. 98 n. 1, 210 n. 1; swallowed by Zeus, i. 123, 128; Father by Night of Uranos and Ge, i. 123, 185; an androgyne, i. 123, 185; identified by Orphics with Dionysos, i. 124; ruler of First Age of World, i. 186; resemblance of Basilides’ Seed of the World to, ii. 91 n. 1; and of Mithras, ii. 242

Phanodemus, puts scene of Rape of Persephone in Attica, i. 40 n. 1

Pharisees, few in number among Jews, i. lv; one of the three “philosophic” sects of Jews (Josephus), i. 151; Ecpyrosis taught by (Hippolytus), i. 155 n. 2; aim at universal supremacy for Jews, i. 162

Pherecydes of Syros, probable source of Orphic doctrines and Pythagoras’ teacher (Maury), i. 124

Phibionitae, the, sect of Gnostics derived from Nicolas the Deacon (Epiphanius), ii. 27 n. 1

Philae, temple of, built by Ptolemies to Egyptian Isis, i. 52

Philastrius or Philaster of Brescia, makes Menander successor of Simon Magus, i. 199; copies from Irenaeus and Epiphanius, ii. 10 n. 1; classes Ophites among pre-Christian sects, ii. 25

Philip, St, the Apostle, instance of Greek name borne by Jew, i. 173 n. 2; baptizes Simon Magus, i. 176; one of the three recorders of the words of Jesus in Pistis Sophia, ii. 157

Philip, The Gospel of, quotation from, ii. 79

Philip, King of Macedon, first meets Olympias at Samothrace, i. 22, 136 n. 2; banishes Alexander with Ptolemy and others, i. 30

Philistines, the, think ark of Yahweh affects place where it is, i. 10; Hebrews subject to, i. 150; Kings of, suzerains of David, i. 160 n. 4

Philo of Alexandria or Philo Judaeus, acquainted with Cicero’s mythoplasms, i. lvii n. 1; his account of Essenes, i. 154; sole authority for secret doctrine of same, i. 157, 168; gives number of same at 4000, i. 170 n. 3; his own beliefs and system, i. 174; his views on eternal punishment, i. 175 n. 1; makes lower world reflection of higher (Hatch), i. 183 n. 3; borrows less from Greek mythology than Simon Magus, i. 185; makes stars rulers of earthly things, i. 186, 187; angels the patterns after which worlds made, i. 187 n. 3; his system contrasted with Simon Magus’, i. 202; uses allegorical exegesis as propaganda of Hellenistic culture, ii. 9; Cerinthus said to have been a pupil of, ii. 9 n. 1; some Gnostic leaders make Jesus Logos of, ii. 16; distinguishes between First Man and protoplast, ii. 38 n. 3; takes Platonic view that God too high to touch matter, ii. 42; allegorical interpretation of, ii. 82; forced to harmonize Plato with Jewish traditions, ii. 88; describes coenobite communities in Egypt, ii. 286 n. 4; quoted, i. 154, 157, 174, 175, 187; ii. 38 n. 3, 42 n. 3, 286 n. 4

Philo of Byblus, makes Phoenician traditions accessible to Greeks, i. 9

Philolaos, the Pythagorean, “soul buried in body as in a charnel-house,” i. 127 n. 1

Philosophumena, the, Stähelin’s theory of imposition on author of, doubted, i. 175 n. 5; what its quotation of Great Announcement proves, i. 179 n. 5; discovery of MS. of, at Mt Athos, ii. 11; documents quoted in, not earlier than 200 A.D., ii. 12; corrupt text of Naassene psalm in, ii. 62; Matter did not and Giraud did know it, when they reconstructed Diagram, ii. 68

Philumena, prophetess believed in by Apelles the Marcionite, ii. 219

Phoenicia, body of Osiris washed ashore in, i. 34; Adonis worshipped in, i. 37; so the earth-goddess, i. 126

Photius, finds heresy in Clement of Alexandria, ii. 14 n. 1; Marcion’s Antitheses seen by, ii. 209 n. 3, 223

Phrygia, home of Ophites, i. lx; ii. 28; birthplace of most legends of Dying God, i. 38; worship of Orphic Sabazius comes from, i. 137; ii. 28; “Mysteries of the Mother” in, i. 143; Simonians scattered through (Theodoret), i. 199; meeting-place of different creeds, ii. 28; its government by priest-kings, ii. 29; worship of androgyne deity in, ii. 30, 67 n. 3; defection from Judaism of Ten Tribes in, ii. 32; prevalence of Jewish magicians in, temp. Apostles, ii. 33; is Jewish tradition responsible for Phrygian cosmogony?, ii. 34, 35; mother of gods called Cybele in, ii. 40; great goddess of, perhaps derived from Ishtar, ii. 45 n. 1; traces of pantheism in, ii. 64; double axe used by gods of (Ramsay), ii. 67 n. 3; Ophites spread southward from, ii. 74; Stoic philosophy has a seat in, ii. 83

Phrygians, the, “first-born of men” (Apuleius), i. 56; why St Paul gives them summary of O.T. history, ii. 53 n. 2; Ophite interpretation of their mysteries, ii. 54; their belief in deification of man, ii. 56 n. 2; call Dionysos or Sabazius, Pappas, ii. 57

Phryne, belongs to Greek confraternity for foreign worship, i. 22

Piankhi, King of Egypt, abandons Egypt for Ethiopia after conquest, i. 31

Pindar, knows identification of Dionysos with Apollo, i. 48; describes blessedness of initiates into Mysteries, i. 59; supporter of Orphism, i. 122; his doctrine of transmigration, i. 129; his poems recited at games, i. 135; quoted, i. 48, 59, 123 n. 1, 129 n. 3, 134 n. 2

Piraeus, the, confraternities for foreign worships cluster in, i. 21; early confraternity of Serapiasts in, i. 52; courtezans principal members of confraternities in, i. 137; Mithraic monuments at, ii. 230

Pisistratids, the, date of flight of, and reform of Mysteries, i. 43 n. 2; Onomacritos flees with them to Persia, i. 121; some Orphic elements come into Greece, temp., i. 122

Pistis or Faith, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

Pistis Sophia, probable origin of name of, ii. 151 n. 5, 160; found by Jesus alone in place below 13th Aeon, ii. 155; her history, ii. 155-157; meaning of allegory of, ii. 162; receives her adversary’s place, ibid.; sometimes called Sophia only, ii. 179; reappears in Texts of Saviour as “the daughter of Barbelo,” ii. 186; and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192

Pistis Sophia (the book), Jeû the First Man appears in, i. lxi; written in Greek, translated into Coptic, i. lxii, ii. 177; as in other apocrypha, Jesus changes his shape according to heavens he traverses, i. 191 n. 4, ii. 60 n. 1, 154; texts, translations, and summaries of, ii. 13; principal document of, Valentinian, ii. 17, 159-163; like Babylonians, makes heavens formed from powers of evil, ii. 44 n. 3; Ialdabaoth in, projection of ruler of material world, ii. 46 n. 3; features in common with Ascensio Isaiae, ii. 60 n. 1; puts stay of Jesus on earth after Resurrection at 12 years, ii. 61 n. 1; Eucharistic ceremony of, ii. 63 n. 1, 192; powers mentioned in Diagram and in, ii. 72 nn. 1, 3, 73 n. 2, 74 n. 1; “Receptacles” and Place of Truth in, ii. 103 n. 1; Valentinian document in, does not quote Fourth Gospel, ii. 117 n. 1, 177; MS. of, and its provenance, ii. 134, 135; heavens of Ineffable One and First Mystery not described in, ii. 146; Melchizidek seldom mentioned in, ii. 148 n. 1; thought by some the Interrogations of Mary, ii. 157; doctrine of interpretation in, ii. 157 n. 2; appears at first sight entirely Ophite, ii. 158; but more clearly Valentinian, ii. 159, 160, 161; Authades of, compared to Valentinus’ Demiurge, ii. 162 n. 2; Adamas of, compared to Valentinus’ Diabolos, ii. 163; nearness of Parusia dominant in part of, ibid.; description of Millennium in, ii. 164; lesser initiates must give passwords and seals, ii. 165, 169; mystery of the First Mystery is Baptism, ii. 168-170; mystery of the Ineffable One is the Eucharist, ii. 170-171; supreme revelation of book union with Jesus, ii. 171; “Mysteries of Light” not described in P.S. proper, ii. 173; open to all the world, ii. 174; Egyptian character of book (Maspero), ii. 175-177; probably by Valentinus, ii. 178; read by Fathers?, ii. 179; astrology condemned in, ii. 185; cryptogram between 1st and 2nd vols of, ii. 188 n. 2; fragment in Bruce Papyrus links P.S. with Texts of Saviour, ii. 192, 193; parent work on which all the others based, ii. 194; Apelles’ teaching as to body of Jesus from same source as, ii. 219; twelve hours theory of, like that of Tun-huang treatise, ii. 293 n. 2; quoted, i. 195 n. 1; ii, 54 n. 2, 78, 92 n. 3, 144 nn. 3, 4, 5, 8, 145 n. 1, 146 nn. 2, 3, 147 n. 5, 148 nn. 1, 2, 3, 149 nn. 1-5, 151 n. 3, 152 nn. 1, 2, 154 n. 1, 155 nn. 1, 4, 156 nn. 1, 4, 161 nn. 1, 3, 4, 162 n. 3, 163 n. 2, 164 nn. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 165 n. 1, 167, 168, 169 n. 2, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 182 n. 2, 184 nn. 1, 4, 185 nn. 1, 2, 188, 193 n. 4, 194 n. 1, 292 n. 2, 293 n. 2. See Petermann, Schwartze

Plato, alone of ancients sees Socrates’ monotheism, i. 11; says few real initiates in mysteries, i. 65; chief authority for charlatanism of Orpheotelestae, i. 140; creator of, not jealous, i. 149 n. 1; his ideas the paradigms of perceptible things, i. 198; God of, too high to touch matter, ii. 42; says souls given daemons as guides through life, ii. 110 n. 1; Marcion never alludes to Logos of, ii. 214; quoted, i. 65, 140, 149 n. 1; ii. 110 n. 1

Pleroma, the, word Church apparently used by Ophite writer for, ii. 43; Ophite Christos descends from, to Sophia, ii. 59; Ophite, consists of Father, Son, Mother, and Christos, ii. 64; the same in Diagram, ii. 68; perfect Ophites share in, ii. 76; Valentinus’, originally consists of twenty-eight members, ii. 104 n. 1; Christos and Holy Spirit added to, after Fall of Sophia (Valentinus), ii. 105; Stauros partly within and partly without (id.), ii. 105 n. 2; Ectroma called Sophia Without (id.), ii. 106; Jesus the Joint Fruit of (id.), ii. 106 n. 2, 110, 113, 117, 159 n. 3; four “places” outside (id.), ii. 108; Pneumatics to enter into (id.), ii. 110 n. 2; Christos and Holy Spirit remain within (id.), ii. 114; projects another thirty aeons (id.), ii. 144 n. 8

Pliny, solar monotheism of, i. 118; his account of Essenes, i. 155; quoted, i. 155 n. 1

Plutarch, his monotheism (Dill), i. lvii; makes Zoroaster 5000 years before Trojan War, i. lxii; a chief source of our knowledge of Eastern religions, i. 9; authority for meeting of Philip and Olympias, i. 22; his contempt for oracles of foreign gods, i. 23; legend of Osiris and his de Iside et Osiride, i. 33-35, 43, 48; does not conceal identification of Dionysos with Osiris, ii. 65 n. 4; says water the emblem of Osiris, i. 68; gives episode of Isis as swallow, i. 70 n. 1; puts festival of Birth of Horus at spring equinox, i. 71; identifies Greek Typhon with Egyptian Set, i. 105; Dionysos of, once human, but deified for merit, i. 144 n. 3; Osiris and Set neither gods nor men but great daemons, ii. 16; acquainted with Persian religion, ii. 214 n. 2; says worship of Mithras first introduced into Rome by Cilician pirates, ii. 228, 229; describes Persians as sacrificing to Hades, ii. 239; calls Mithras μεσίτης, ii. 249; equates Hades with Ahriman, ii. 255; thinks evil must have separate principle of its own, ii. 289 n. 3; quoted, i. 22, 23, 48, 70 n. 2, 144 n. 3; ii. 16, 214 n. 2, 228, 229, 249, 255, 289 n. 3. See Dionysos, Hades, Theopompos of Chios

Pluto, name of Hades, i. 40, 47, 48; ruler of Hades, called in magic Huesimigadôn, i. 99, 100; one of the gods of Samothrace, i. 136 n. 2; in Orphic hymn to Persephone, i. 142, 143. See Hades

Pneuma, name of Valentinian Sophia, ii. 109

Point, the Little or Indivisible, source of everything in universe ap. Simonians, i. 194 n. 3; and ap. Basilides, ii. 90 n. 5; referred to in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 292 n. 1

Polycleitos, his statue of Dionysos with attributes of Zeus, i. 125 n. 2

Pomoerium, Alexandrian gods expelled from, temp. Tiberius, i. 78

Pompeii, Isium at, when founded, i. 53

Pompey the Great, suppression of Cilician pirates by, ii. 229

Pontus, birthplace of Marcion, ii. 9, 204; and of Mithridates, ii. 204; Tertullian’s rhetorical exaggeration as to, ii. 204 n. 3; its kings claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 n. 1

Porphyry, the neo-Platonist, says Egyptian magicians threaten gods, i. 104 n. 3; his account of Essenes copied from Josephus, i. 155; describes books on Mithras worship, ii. 236; says Mithraic cave represents universe, ii. 247, 249; says Mithraists teach metempsychosis, 257; gives “eagles” as name of Mithraist Fathers, ii. 265 n. 2; says High Priest of Mithras may only marry once, ii. 268; quoted, i. 104 n. 3, 155; ii. 236, 249, 265 n. 2, 268

Poseidon, the god, Greek type of, on Indian coins, i. 17 n. 2; of Homer, shares empire with Zeus, i. 46; cattle and horses sacrificed to, i. 95; on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238. See Neptune

Powers, the Three Triple. See Tridynami

Praedestinatus, heresiology of, its sources, ii. 10 n. 1; describes “rabbling” of Ophites by Christian bishops and mob, ii. 77

Praetextatus, Vettius Agorius, his rank in Mithraism, ii. 268; one of the last Pagan noblemen, ii. 358. See Paullina

Praxidice, Orphic epithet or variant of Persephone, i. 142

Precept, the First, in Pistis Sophia perhaps personification of Jewish Torah, ii. 141; highest spirit in Treasure-house, ii. 147; power passed into Confusion originates in, ii. 164

Preller, says that Orpheus is a “collective” person, i. 121 n. 1

Prepon, the heresiarch, a Syrian teaching in Rome, ii. 9; follower of Marcion who thinks Jesus intermediate between good and evil, ii. 220

Priests, state officials in Persia and Egypt, i. 24; of Greek confraternities, i. 25; greed of Egyptian, i. 28; always powerful in Africa, i. 31; their disastrous rule in Egypt, i. 31, 32; hereditary, of Mysteries, i. 39; native Egyptian, keep aloof from Alexandrian, i. 51; of Isis on Herculaneum frescoes, i. 68, 69; importance of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 76, 77; secular and regular, in same, i. 79, 80; break up of Asiatic and Egyptian colleges of, spreads magic, i. 107; necessity of, among Gnostics, ii. 22; temporal power of Anatolian, ii. 29; Cybele’s eunuch, ii. 31; high priests of Magic Papyri, ii. 34 n. 4; mention of, among Naassenes, ii. 66; among other Ophites, ii. 77; Valentinians probably frequent orthodox, ii. 125; of Marcionites, ii. 205; of Persians, the Magi, ii. 233, 234; of Cybele, ally themselves with Mithraists, ii. 258; of Mithras called “Father,” ii. 261; qualifications and duties of Mithraic, ii. 267, 268; like modern churchwardens, ii. 273; Manichaean, called sons of knowledge, ii. 312; organization of neo-Manichaean, ii. 330

Proclus, the neo-Platonist, gives Isis’ assertion of eternity and virginity, i. 63; identifies Bendis with Persephone, i. 137; makes all gods contained in Dionysos, i. 146 n. 1; makes man come from tears of gods, ii. 153 n. 2, 176; quoted, i. 63, 137 n. 2; ii. 153 n. 2

Prohegumeni, the Two Forerunners of the Treasure-house in the Pistis Sophia, ii. 149

Prophthasia, Alexander at, said to receive grapes from Greece, i. 4 n. 1. See Farrah

Proserpine, Isis called Stygian P. by the Sicilians, i. 56; Lucius at initiation treads threshold of, i. 62. See Persephone

Prunicos, or the Substitute, name of Sophia among early Ophites, ii. 45, 59. See Achamoth, Sophia

Psammetichos, King of Egypt, letter of Nephotes to, on lecanomancy, i. 101

Psyche, name of Valentinus’ Demiurge, ii. 109

Ptah, the god, one of oldest gods of Egypt, i. 32; priesthood of, in early times, i. 33; Ptolemy Epiphanes called the beloved of, i. 51

Ptah-Seker-Osiris, the god, triune deity of Saitic period, i. 33; ii. 195

Ptolemy I Soter, called Saviour-god, i. 18; his wisdom in choosing and ruling Egypt, i. 28, 29; his preparationsfor its defence, i. 29, 30; decides to found syncretic religion uniting Egyptians and Greeks, i. 30; his court and capital both Greek, i. 44; his Museum and its “stuffed capons,” i. 45; his dream as to Serapis-statue, i. 48, 77; Egyptians reject his religious schemes, i. 51; success of his religion outside Egypt, i. 52, 53, 54; five centuries between him and Apuleius, i. 76; seizes Jerusalem, i. 151; colonizes Samaria with “Macedonians,” i. 177

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Asoka’s mission to, i. 20; attribution of foundation of Museum to, erroneous (Bouché-Leclercq), i. 44 n. 2

Ptolemy IV Philopator, decline of Egyptian power after, i. 151

Ptolemy V Epiphanes, his coronation at Memphis (Rosetta Stone), i. 51

Ptolemy VI Philometor, petitions to, of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, i. 79

Ptolemy IX Physcon, expels philosophers from Museum, ii. 88

Ptolemy, the son of Glaucias, recluse in Serapeum, i. 79. See Kenyon

Ptolemy, the Valentinian, his theory of the Cosmocrator as the creation of the Demiurge, ii. 108 n. 1; a leader of the Italic School, ii. 119; his letter to Flora, ii. 131

Punjab, part of, in Persian Empire, i. 1

Purser, Louis Charles, collects authorities on Orpheus, i. 121 n. 1

Puteoli, temple to Serapis at, 100 B.C., i. 53

Pythagoras, pupil of Pherecydes of Syros, i. 124; says our souls part of world-soul, i. 129; his theory of transmigration, ibid.

Pythagoreans, the, all early Orphic poems ascribed to, i. 122; Orphics take transmigration from, i. 127; find withdrawal from world necessary to salvation, i. 129; Jews take Ecpyrosis from (Hippolytus), i. 155 n. 2

Quadratus, his lost Apology for Christianity, ii. 202, 203 n. 1

Ra, the god, corporation of priests of, earliest in Egypt, i. 31; the sun-god, i. 31, 63; Osiris invoked with him in Book of Dead, i. 32; legend of, and Isis, i. 38 n. 2; ii. 37 n. 1; increase of power of, with XIIth Dynasty, i. 63 n. 1; the serpent Apep his enemy, ii. 78

Ramsay, Sir William, F.R.S., has revived Alexandrian alchemist’s dream of transmutation, i. 45

Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, says name of Christians not mentioned by classic writers, i. 1 n. 1; all gods of mysteries forms of One, i. 56 n. 4; date of Hadrian’s visit to Egypt, i. 86 n. 5; thinks Anatolian Jews coalesce with natives, ii. 28; state of Phrygia in Ist cent., ii. 29; characteristics of Anatolian religion, temp. Apostles, ii. 29, 30, 67 n. 3; importance of Mother of Gods due to matriarchate, ii. 40; many names of divine pair worshipped in Phrygia, ii. 67 n. 1; androgyne nature of same and symbol of double axe, ibid.; quoted, i. 1 n. 1, 56 n. 4, 86 n. 5; ii. 28 n. 3, 29 n. 5, 30 nn. 1, 2, 3, 31 n. 1, 40 n. 3, 67 n. 3

Raphael, the archangel, name of, in Magic Papyri and O.T. Apocrypha, ii. 34; in Diagram name of terrestrial daemon, ii. 70; planet Mars connected with, ii. 75 n. 1

Rawlinson, Canon George, on government of Persian Empire, i. 2 n. 2, 3 nn. 2, 3

Rawlinson, Sir Henry, Omen Tablets in Cuneiform Inscriptions of W.A., i. 114 n. 1

Rayet, M. Octave, shows identification of Demeter and Persephone from inscription and vases, i. 46 n. 1

Reade, Winwood, his Martyrdom of Man quoted, i. 11 n. 3, 149 n. 2; ii. 2, 3, 227 n. 1

Reformation, the German, sects of, compared to Gnostics, ii. 19; dissidents near to, strictly Christian, ii. 20; like makers of, Marcion appeals to Scripture, ii. 207; Manichaeism may have survived till, ii. 357; leaves Church stronger than before, ii. 360

Reinach, M. Salomon, Orphic password discussed by, i. 134 n. 1

Renaissance, the, Hecate still goddess of sorcerers through Middle Ages and, i. 147; sorcerers of, use words of Mass, ii. 267

Renan, Joseph Ernest, warlike characteristics of great goddesses, i. 58; describes policy of Church of Rome as to Pagan customs, i. 85; abundance of diviners and sorcerers in Rome of Nero, i. 108; says Bar Coziba called Monogenes (George the Syncellus), i. 124 n. 3; account of War of Extermination (Derenbourg), i. 163 n. 1; revolt of Jews under Trajan, i. 172 n. 1; says Gnosticism attacks infant Church like croup, ii. 21; his interpretation of Caulacau, ii. 94 n. 3; quoted, i. 83 n. 1, 85 n. 1, 124 n. 3, 163 n. 1; ii. 21 n. 1, 94 n. 3

Réville, Albert, his controversy with Gladstone on Genesis, i. liii; quoted, i. 93 n. 4

Revillout, Eugène, thinks words in Egyptian spell, adaptation of those of the Mass, i. 87; to true Gnostic all religions merely veils, ii. 18; quoted, i. 87 n. 3; ii. 18 n. 4

Rhacotis, Egyptian name of site of Alexandria, i. 44

Rhamnusia, a name of Nemesis identified with Isis, i. 56

Rhapsodists, the, their theogony, i. 123; Orphic poems recited by, at games, i. 135, 136; Ophites probably get lines of Homer and Pindar from, ii. 83

Rhea, the goddess, the earth-goddess sometimes called Cybele, Demeter etc., i. 124, 126; mother of Attis, i. 139 n. 1; ii. 54

Rhodes, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 52

Rhodo, refutes Tertullian’s slanders against Marcion, ii. 218; his quotation from Apelles the Marcionite, ii. 219; other Marcionite leaders mentioned by, ii. 220

Ritschl, his theory that both St John Baptist and Jesus were Essenes, i. 156 n. 1

Rochat, E., on dates of birth and death of Manes, ii. 279 n. 1, 282 n. 2; on authenticity of Acta Archelai, ii. 280 n. 3; on Manes’ father Fatak or Patecius, ii. 285 n. 2; on authenticity of letter to Marcellus, ii. 288 n. 2, 289; on Mandaites as descendants of Mughtasilah, ii. 305 n. 1; quoted, ii. 279 nn. 1, 3, 280 n. 2-6, 281 nn. 1, 3, 5, 282 n. 2, 283 nn. 1, 6, 285 nn. 2, 4, 286 nn. 3, 5, 287 n. 2, 289, 305 nn. 1, 3