But, with fubmiffion, I fee no reason to call Hierax, or Hieracas, a Manichean. That fuppofition depends upon the authority (z) of Photius, and Peter of Sicilie, and the Anathemaes, or Form of abjuring Manicheism, before taken notice of: where Hierax is named aniong the difciples and commentators of Mani. But they are all fo late, that their teftimonie is of no weight against other evidence. For Photius and Peter are writers of the ninth centurie. And in their writings against the Manicheans they fo agree, that it is (a) reckoned, one copyed the other : but which is the original, is hard to fay. And the Anathemaes, as given us by Cotelerius and Tollius, plainly appear not to be of an earlyer age. The compofer of that Form was acquainted with the Paulicians, and must have borrowed from Photius, or Peter, or both. In Tollius it is entitled (b) A Form of receiving those who are converted from the berefie the Manicheans and Paulicians to the true faith. Beaufobre himself has fomewhere well obferved (x). See Beauf. p. 430. not. (6.) (a) Quae dum memoro, non poffum non fignificare dubitationem, quam in notis profeffus fum, et in qua me adhuc haerere fateor, uter fcilicet horum alterum in fcribendo imitatus videatur. Wolff. Praef. ad Phot, contr. Manich. p. 6. (b) ap. Toll. Infign. Ital. p. 126. Sect. I. Hierax. A. D. 302. Sect. I. Hierax. 302. obferved upon another occafion, that things are not to be received upon the credit of pieces of fo late age. Hierax has a great character in (c) Epiphanius for learning and piety. Nevertheless he had, it seems, fome errours, which induced Epiphanius to confider him as an heBut he does not call him a follower retic. of Mani. He makes a diftinct herefie of his opinions. And in like manner (d) Augustin, (e) John Damafcen, and (f) Praedeftinatus. Nor do any of them infinuate, that he borrowed any thing from Mani. And all of them, except Auguftin, (who has entirely omitted their sentiments concerning the Scriptures,) exprefsly fay, that the Hieracites received the Old and New Teftament; particularly Epiphanius, briefly in his (g) Synopfis, and more largely in his (b) Panarium. The only ancient that I know of, who says, the Hieracites rejected the Old Testament, is the Anonymous author (i) against all herefies, (c) Haer. 67. n. I. among (ε) χρώμενοι δὲ παλαιᾷ καὶ νεᾷ διαθήκη. Dam. de Haere. n. 67. ap. Cot. Monum. Gr. T. i. p. 297. (f) Praedeft. i. n. 47. (g) Vid. Epiph. T. i. p. 605. T. ii. p. 147. (b) Haer. 67. n. I. (i) ap. Athan. T. 2. p. 235. D. Ed. Bened. Se&t. I. among the works of Athanafius. Nor are they any where charged with holding two Hierax. principles. Philafter and Theodoret have nothing about them. Hierax, it is true, is faid to have denyed the refurrection of the body, and (k) to have expected only a spiritual refurrection. But it does not appear, that he took that opinion from Mani. Epiphanius exprefsly fays, he supposeth, that Hierax learned it of Origen, or formed it out of his own (E) head. In A. D. 302. (k) πνευματικὴν δὲ τὴν ἀνάςασιν φάσκει. κ. λ. Epiph. H. 67. n. I. (E) Beaufobre is pleased to say, (T.i. p. 431.) "What "we know of his fentiments is, that he denyed the refur"rection of the body; that he did not believe, that Jesus " had a true human body; and that he admitted three prin"ciples of all things, God, Matter, and Malice." But these things are not in Epiphanius. Beaufobre here builds. upon a paffage of a writer of the feventh or eighth centurie: De Hieracitis locus infignis Joannis Carpathi epifcopi, ex MS. opere de Anachoretis, productus a Cangio in Appendice ad Gloffarium Graecum : ιτινες λέγεσι, μὴ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα ἀνειληφέναι τὸν σωτῆρα, μήτε ἐγείρεσθαι τὸ ἡμέτερον σῶμα ὁ περικές μεθα· καὶ ὅτι τρεις εισιν ἀρχαί, θεὸς καὶ ὕλη καὶ nanía. ap. Fabric. Bib. Gr. T. 8. p. 333. I need to fay no more, than that this is not an authentic account of the principles of Hierax the Egyptian, mentioned by Epiphanius, and other ancient writers. If there ever were people called Hieracites, who held thefe notions, there is no reason to think they borrowed them from him. Se&t. I. Hierax. 302. In the letter of Arius to Alexander, as we have it in (1) Epiphanius, and (m) Athanafus, in Greek, and in (n) Hilarie, in Latin, divers opinions concerning the Son are reprefented; that of Mani, Sabellius, and Hierax, all as different from each other. If Hierax had been a Manichean, it would be very flrange, that (0) great numbers of the Egyptian Monks, or Afcetics, fhould admire and follow him, as Epiphanius says they did. Finally, there is no notice taken of Hierax, as a difciple of Mani, in the Disputation of Archelaus, nor in St. Cyril of Jerufalem, no more than in Epiphanius. I conclude therefore, there is no reason to think, that Hierax, whofe opinions make a distinct herefie in Epiphanius, was a Manichean. If Photius, or Peter of Sicilie, knew any one of that name, who was a Manichean; he must have been different from him mentioned by Epiphanius, and other ancient wri (1) Haer. 69. n. 7. p. 732. D. ters. (n) nec ficut Manichaeus partem unius fubftantiae Patris natum expofuit; nec ficut Sabellius, nec ficut Hieracas, lucernam de lucerna, vel lampadem in duas partes. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 4. p. 833. Vid. et l. 6. p. 881. et. p. 885. D. E. (ο) αυτίκα πολλοὶ τῶν ἀσκητῶν τῶν ἀιγυπτίων αυτῷ συνα πήχθησαν. Haer. 67. c. i. p. 710. 1ο ters. A. D. And probably he was no very early Sect. I. or ancient follower of Mani. But I rather Hierax. think, that they knew not any fuch person; but have mistaken the character of Hierax, of whom Epiphanius writes. Let it not be thought to no purpose, that I have fayd fo much to fhew, that Hierax was not a Manichean. Beaufobre in several parts of his work has divers arguments, built upon the fuppofition, that Hierax was in the Manichean scheme. All which reasonings therefore now fall to the ground. Nor can we in any cafe judge of the Manichean fentiments by those of Hierax. For he was not of that fect, nor had he any concern with it. Hierax is placed by (p) Cave at 302, who takes his account from Epiphanius, and fays nothing of his being a Manichean. Tillemont (q) has written a hiftorie of the Hieracites. He says, that this herefie arose after that of the Manicheans, about the year 290. or 300. But he does not charge the author of it with holding the Manichean doctrine. According to Epiphanius, Hierax, notwithstanding his errours, was a very extraor VOL VI. G (p) Hift. Lit. T. i. p. 161. dinarie 302. |