The fundamental point of Marcion's heresy was a supposed irreconciliable opi)ositi<)n between the Creator and the God of the Christians, or, in other words, be- tween the two religious systems, the Law and the Gos- pel. His theological system is but imperfectly known. St. Epiphanius accuses him of recognising three first princijiles, one supreme, ineffalile, and invisible, whom he calls good; secondly, the Creator, thirdly, the devil, or perhaps matter, source of evil. According to The- odoret, he admitted three, the good (iod, the Creator, matter, and evil which governs matter, i. e. the devil. It is proved that INIarcion believed in the eternity of matter, but it is uncertain whether he considered the Creator as a first principle, or as, in some degree, an ema-
nation of the good God. At any rate, he considered them as essentially antagonistic. This conclusion he arri\ ed at because he could not find in the O. T. the love and charity manifested in the Gospel of Christ. He there- fore made the Creator, the God of the O. T., the author of evil, '• malorum factorem," by which he meant suffer- ing, not moral evil. The old dispensation was, accord- ing to his views, the reign of the Creator, who chose the Jews for his own special people, and promised them a Messiah. Christ is not this Messiah, but is the Son of the invisible, good God, and appeared upon earth in hu- man form (being, perhaps, but a phantom), to free the soul and overthrow the dominion of the Creator. Mar- cion also supposed that when Christ descended into hell, he did not deliver those who in the O. T. are desig- nated as saints, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., but rather those who had disobeyed and rejected the Creator, like Cain, Esau, Korah, Da- than, and Abiram. The other doctrines of Marcion were the natural consequences of these prmciplcs. He disap- proved of marriage, and did not admit married persons to baptism, considering it wrong to propagate a race subject to the cruel dominion of the Creator. His dis- ciples, convinced that this world is a prey to evil, hailed death, even a martyr's, as freeing them from it. They denied the resurrection of the bod}', and, notwithstand- ing Epiphanius's assertion, it appears doubtful whether they believed in the transmigration of the soul. They were in the habit of being baptized several times, as if the sins of every day diminished the effect of that sacrament; but this custom, which is not mentioned by TertuUian, was probably introduced after the death of Marcion. Women were allowed to baptize persons of their sex, and the new converts were admitted to witness the mysteries. To make the Scripture agree with his views, Marcion rejected a large portion of the N. T. He looked upon the O. T. as a revelation of the Creator to the Jews, his chosen people, which not only differed from, but was entirely opposed to Christianity. He admitted but one Gospel, and that a truncated ver- sion of Luke's, the first four chapters of which he re- jected, making it to commence by the words : In the fif- teenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ca?sar, God came to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and spoke on the Sab- bath. He carefully omitted all the passages in which Christ acknowledged the Creator as his Father. Among the Epistles, he admitted those to the Romans, 1st and 2d to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Pliilippians, Colossians, 1st and 2d to the Thessalonians, I'hilemon, and some part of a supposed Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans; but all these Epistles were expurgated and interpolated to suit his views. Marcion also composed a work entitled Antithesis ; it is a collection of passages from the O. and the N. T. which he looked tijion as con- tradictory. In reality, the system of Marcion bore a close resemblance to that of Mani (q. v.) ; it was an at- tempt to explain the origin of evil. IMarcion, as after- wards Mani, thought to solve the problem by supposing two first principles ; but there is this essential difference between them, that while Marcion based his system on the Scriptures, interpreted with daring subtility, Mani derived his from Parseeism, without direct reference to Christian dogmas or traditions. See TertuUian, Con- tra Miircioi>(i}t,\i\)n v; De Prwsciiptione Ilareticorvm ; J ustin, Apologia ; Irenasus, A dversus Hares. ,• Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, iii, 3 ; St. Epiphanius, Panarinm ; Ittigiiis, De Ila-i-esiarcliis, sect, ii, c. 7 ; Cave, JJistoria Litteraria, i, 64 ; Tillemont, ]\Iemoires Eccles. ii, 266 ; Beausobre, Hist, du Manicheisme, lib. iv, c. v, viii ; Lard- ner. Hist, of Heretics, vol. ii, c. x ; Esnig, Darstellung des marcionitischen iSystenus, from the Armenian bv Neu- mann, in the Zeitschrift fur hist, theol. 1834 ; Hahn, A n- tithesis Marcionis (1823); id. De canone Mai-cionis an- tinomi (1824) ; Becker, Kxamen critique de I'erangile de Marcion (1837); \\\tsch\, Das Evangelium Marcuni's u. d. Evangel, des Lukas (184G) ; Hilgenfeld, Kiit. Unter- suchungen ii, d. Evangel, Justin's d. clement. Horn. u. Mar-
MARCIONITES
737
MARCUS
Clones (1852) ; Heim, J/amon, sa doctrine et son evangile (1862) ; Schaff, Ch. Hist, i, 245 ; Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity ; Donaldson, Literature; Werner, Gesch. d. apohget. u.jwlem. Literatur ; Hagenbach, Hist, of Doc- trines, i, 58 sq., 85, 190, 198 ; Zdtschrf.f Wissensch. tlieol. 18G0, ii, 285; Stud. u.Krit. ISbo/ii/hG; Am.Presb.Rev. 18G0 (May), p. 360 ; Neander, Ch. Hist, ii, 458 sq. ; id. Christian Dogmas (see Index) ; Baur, Dogmengesch. vol. ii (see Index) ; Bayle, Diet. Hist, and Crit. ; Diet, des Sciences jMlosophiques ; Iloefer, Nouv. Biog. Gmerale, xxxiii, 505 ; Smith, Diet. Or, and Rom. Biog. s. v. See