MANICH^ISM 485 insight"). The number of the elect! must always have been small. According to Augustine the teachers were twelve, and the bishops seventy-two in number. One of the teachers appears to have occupied the position of superior at the head of the whole Manichsean Church. At least Augustine speaks of such a personage, and the Fihrist also has knowledge of a chief of all Manichseans. The constitution, therefore, had a monarchic head. The worship of the Manichseans must have been very simple, and must have essentially consisted of prayers, hymns, and ceremonies of adoration. This simple service promoted the secret dissemination of their doctrines. The Manichseans too, at least in the West, appear to have adapted themselves to the church s system of festivals. The electi celebrated special feasts ; but the principal festival with all classes was the " Bema " (ftjjfw.) the feast of the " teacher s chair," held in commemoration of the death of Mani in the month of March. The faithful prostrated themselves before an adorned but empty chair, which was raised upon a podium of five steps. Long fasts accompanied the feasts. The Christian and Mohammedan historians could learn little of the Manichaean mysteries and "sacraments," and hence the former charged them with obscene rites and abominable usages. It may be held as undoubted that the later Manichseans celebrated mysteries analogous to Christian baptism and the Lord s Supper, which may have rested upon ancient consecration rites and other ceremonies, instituted by Mani himself and having their origin in nature worship. torical From the foregoing account it will be evident, as ition indeed from modern investigation it is certain, that Vlani- Manichpeism did not originate on Christian ground. It would be more proper to speak of Mohammedanism than of Manichseism as a Christian sect ; for Mohammed stands in a far closer relation to the Jewish and Christian religions than did Mani. It is Kessler s merit to have shown that the ancient Babylonian religion, the original source of all the gnosis of western Asia, was the basis of the Manichsean system. Hence the erroneousness of the assumption, which formerly prevailed, that Manichaeism was a reform movement of Farsism, a modification of Zoroastrianism under the influence of Christianity. Manichaiism is a system which rather belongs to the Semitic group of religions. It is the Semitic religion of nature, withdrawn from national limits, modified by Christian and Persian elements, elevated into a gnosis, and transforming human life by the influence of stringent regulations. But the recognition of this fact only supplies us with a very general explanation of the origin of Manichseism. The question still remains, through what channels and to what extent Mani adopted those Persian and Christian elements, and further, in what form the ancient nature religion of Babylonia was utilized by him. As far as the latter point is concerned it is known that, two centuries before Mani, the Semitic nature-religions had already been taken up by various enthusiastic or speculative spirits, who had given them philosophic depth and moulded than into "systems," which were propagated with the aid of mysterious rites. Mani s undertaking, then, was by no means a novel one, but was rather the last in a long series of similar efforts. Again, even in the earlier of these attempts, from that of Simon Magus onward, Christian elements had been adopted to a greater or less extent ; and the sects of the Christian gnostic schools of Syria and western Asia may all be traced back to the nature-religions of ancient Semitism, transformed into a philosophy of the world and of life. It is the Babylonian sect of the Moghtasilah that seems to have fur nished Mani with the matter of his religious philosophical speculations, and the religion of this sect was purely Semitic (see MAND^ANS ; the Mandseans were related to the Moghtasilah). This was the source of the thorough going dualism which forms the basis of Mani s system ; for the ancient Persian religion was not essentially dualistic, but was at bottom monistic, since Ahriman is created by Ormuzd. At the same time Mani turned the theologu- mena of ancient Persia also to account. The fact that the two opposed elements are called " light " and " darkness " can hardly be independent of Parsism, and Manichaeism uses other termini tec/mid of the Persian religion. Whether Mani s idea of redemption is to be traced to the ancient Babylonian or to the Zoroastrian religion we do not venture to decide. The idea of " the prophet " and " the primal man" is at all events Semitic. It is very difficult to determine what was the extent of Mani s knowledge of Christianity, how much he himself borrowed from it, and through what channels it reached him. In any case it is certain that Manichseism, in those districts where it was brought much into contact with Christianity, became additionally influenced by the latter at a very early period. The Western Manichseans of the 4th and 5th centuries are much more like Christians than their Eastern brethren. In this respect Manichseism ex perienced the same kind of development as Neo-Platonism. As regards Mani himself, it is safest to assume that he held both Judaism and Catholic Christianity to be entirely false religions. It is indeed true that he not only described himself as the promised Paraclete for this designation probably originated with himself but also conceded a high place in his system to "Jesus;" we can only conclude from this, however, that he distinguished between Christi anity and Christianity. The religion which had proceeded from the historical Jesus he repudiated together with its founder, and Catholicism as well as Judaism he looked upon as a religion of the devil. But he distinguished between the Jesus of darkness and the Jesus of light who had lived and acted contemporaneously with the former. This distinction agrees with that made by the gnostic Basilides no less strikingly than the Manichaean criticism of the Old Testament does with that propounded by the Marcionites (see the Ada Archelai, in which Mani is made to utter the antitheses of Marcion). Finally the Mani- chcean doctrines exhibit points of similarity to those of the Christian Elkesaites ; but, as it is possible, and even probable, that such resemblances are to be ascribed to a common ancient Semitic source, they do not here call for further consideration. The historical relation of Mani to Christianity is then as follows. From Catholicism, which he very probably had no detailed knowledge of, he borrowed nothing, rejecting it as devilish error. On the other hand, he looked upon what he considered to be Christianity proper, that is, Christianity as it had been developed among the sects of Basilidians, Marcionites, and perhaps Bardesanites, as a comparatively valuable and sound religion. He took from it, however, as from the Persian religion, hardly anything but names, and, perhaps we may add, a criticism of the Old Testament and of Judaism so far as he required it. Indications of the influence of Marcionitism are found in the high estimation in which Mani held the apostle Paul, and in the fact that lie explicitly rejects the Book of Acts. Mani appears to have given recognition to a portion of the historical matter of the Gospels, and to have interpreted it in accordance with his own doctrine. In conclusion, it remains to be asked whether Buddhistic elements can also be detected in Manichseism. Most modern scholars since F. C. Baur have answered this question in the affirmative. According to Kessler, Mani made use of the teaching of Buddha, at least as far as ethics was concerned. It cannot be doubted
that Mani, who undertook long journeys as far as India,