diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67116-0.txt | 9800 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67116-0.zip | bin | 196313 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67116-h.zip | bin | 470762 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67116-h/67116-h.htm | 14962 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67116-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 250979 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 24762 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..755a305 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #67116 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67116) diff --git a/old/67116-0.txt b/old/67116-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1707e31..0000000 --- a/old/67116-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,9800 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Philosophumena, Volume II, by -Hippolytus - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Philosophumena, Volume II - Refutation of all Heresies - -Author: Hippolytus - -Translator: George Francis Legge - -Release Date: January 7, 2022 [eBook #67116] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Wouter Franssen and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet - Archive/Canadian Libraries) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHUMENA, VOLUME -II *** - - - - - - TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE - - GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. - W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. - - SERIES I - - GREEK TEXTS - - PHILOSOPHUMENA - - OR THE - - REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES - - - - - PHILOSOPHUMENA - - OR THE - - REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES - - FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ORIGEN, BUT - NOW TO HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND - MARTYR, WHO FLOURISHED - ABOUT 220 A.D. - - TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF CRUICE - - BY - - F. LEGGE, F.S.A. - - VOL. II. - - - LONDON: - SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING - CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE - NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO. - 1921 - - - - - PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY - RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, - PARIS GARDEN, STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1, - AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - PAGE - BOOK VI: SIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS 1-57 - 1. SIMON 2 - 2. VALENTINUS 17 - 3. SECUNDUS AND EPIPHANES 38 - 4. PTOLEMY 39 - 5. MARCUS 40 - - BOOK VII: BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS 58-97 - 1. BASILIDES 59 - 2. SATURNILUS 80 - 3. MARCION 82 - 4. CARPOCRATES 90 - 5. CERINTHUS 92 - 6. EBIONÆI 93 - 7. THEODOTUS THE BYZANTIAN 93 - 8. ANOTHER THEODOTUS 94 - 9. CERDO AND LUCIAN 95 - 10. APELLES 96 - - BOOK VIII: THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS 98-116 - 1. THE DOCETAE 99 - 2. MONOIMUS 106 - 3. TATIAN 111 - 4. HERMOGENES 111 - 5. THE QUARTODECIMANS 112 - 6. THE PHRYGIANS 113 - 7. THE ENCRATITES 114 - - BOOK IX: NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS 117-148 - 1. NOETUS 118 - 2. CALLISTUS 124 - 3. THE ELCHESAITES 132 - 4. THE JEWS 138 - - BOOK X: SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH 149-178 - 1. THE SUMMARY OF THE PHILOSOPHERS 150 - 2. THE SUMMARY OF THE HERESIES 153 - 3. THE WORD OF TRUTH 171 - - INDEX 179 - - - - - PHILOSOPHUMENA - - - - - BOOK VI - -SIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS - - -[Sidenote: p. 242 Cruice.] 1. These are the contents of the 6th (book) -of the _Refutation of all Heresies_. - -2. What Simon has dared, and that his doctrine is confirmed (by -quotations) from magicians and poets. - -3. What Valentinus has laid down, and that his doctrine is not framed -from the Scriptures, but from those of the Platonists and Pythagorists. - -4. And what is thought by Secundus, Ptolemy and Heracleon, and how they -have used as their own, but with different words, the thoughts of those -whom the Greeks (think) wise. - -5. What has been held by Marcus and Colarbasus [and their disciples] -and that some of them gave heed to magic arts and Pythagorean numbers. - -6. Now such opinions as belong to those who have taken their principles -from the serpent[1] and, when the time arrived, of their own accord -brought their doctrines into light, we have set forth in the Book -before this, being the [Sidenote: p. 243.] Vth of the _Refutation -of all Heresies_. Here, however, I will not keep silence as to the -opinions of those who come after (them),[2] but will leave not one -unrefuted, if it be possible to keep them all in mind, together with -their secret rites which are justly to be called orgies, inasmuch as -those who dare such things are not far from God’s wrath[3]--to use the -word in its etymological sense. - - - 1. _About Simon._ - -7. It seems then right now to set forth also the (doings) of Simon,[4] -the man of Gitto,[5] a village of Samaria, whereby we shall show that -those also who followed (him) taking hints from other names have -ventured upon like things. This Simon, being skilled in magic arts -and having played upon many, sometimes by the Thrasymedean[6] process -in the way we have set forth above, but sometimes working iniquity by -means of devils, designed to deify himself, (although only) a human -sorcerer filled with desperation whom the [Sidenote: p. 244.] Apostles -refuted in the _Acts_.[7] Than whom Apsethus the Libyan was much wiser -and more modest when he ambitiously attempted to be considered a god in -Libya. Whose story as it is not very different from the vain desire of -Simon, it seems fitting to narrate as one worthy to have been attempted -by Simon himself. - -8. Apsethus the Libyan yearned to become a god. But since, after making -himself very busy, he utterly failed (to accomplish) his desire, he -wished at all events to appear to have become one, and seemed as if he -might really effect this in course of time. For the foolish Libyans -sacrificed to him as to some divine power, thinking that they must -give faith to a voice from heaven above. For he collected and shut up -in one and the same cage a great many of the birds called parrots; -there being many parrots in Libya who imitate quite clearly the human -voice. For some time he fed the birds and taught them to say “Apsethus -is a god”: and when the birds had been [Sidenote: p. 245.] trained -for a long time, and repeated the saying which he thought would make -Apsethus be considered a god, he opened the cage and let the parrots -out in all directions. The noise of the flying birds went forth into -all Libya, and their words reached as far as the land of the Greeks.[8] -And thus the Libyans being wonderstruck by the voices of the birds and -not understanding the trick played by Apsethus, held him for a god. -But a certain Greek having carefully studied the clever device of the -so-called god, not only refuted him by the (mouth of the) same parrots -but removed from the earth that human quack and rascal. The Greek -shut up many of the parrots and taught them to say instead (of their -former speech): “Apsethus shut us up and forced us to say: ‘Apsethus -is a god.’” And the Libyans hearing the parrots’ recantation (and) all -assembling with one mind burned Apsethus.[9] - -9. This (sort of man) one must suppose Simon the magician (to be), -so that we would far sooner liken him to the Libyan who was born a -man than to (Him) who is really God.[10] But if the details of the -likeness be held accurate and the magician had some such passion as -Apsethus, we will undertake to teach Simon’s parrots that Simon who -stood, stands and will stand was not Christ, but [Sidenote: p. 246.] -a man (sprung) from seed, born of a woman[11] begotten from blood and -fleshly desire like the rest, and that he knew this to be so, we shall -easily show as the story goes on.[12] But Simon, stupidly and clumsily -garbling the Law of Moses--for when Moses has said that God was “a -burning and consuming fire,”[13]--he, not having received Moses’ saying -rightly, says that fire is the principle of the universals, and not -having comprehended the saying that God is not Fire, but a burning -and consuming fire, (thereby) not only rends in twain the Law of -Moses, but steals from Heraclitus the Obscure.[14] But Simon proclaims -that the principle of the universals is a boundless power, speaking -thus:--“This is the writing of the Announcement[15] of Voice and Name -from the Thought of the great power of the Boundless One. Wherefore it -will be sealed up, hidden, concealed and will be in the dwelling-place -where the root of the universals is founded.”[16] But he says that -the dwelling-place is the same man who has been begotten from blood -and that the [Sidenote: p. 247.] Boundless Power dwells in him, which -(power) he says is the root of the universals. But the Boundless Power, -the fire according to Simon, is not simple as the many say who think -that the four elements are simple and that fire is simple; but there is -a certain double nature of fire, and of this double nature he calls one -part hidden and the other manifest. But the hidden (parts) have been -hidden in the manifest parts of the fire, and the manifest have come -into being by the hidden. This it is which Aristotle calls potentiality -and action, and Plato the comprehensible and the perceptible.[17] - -And the manifest (part) of the fire contains within itself all which -one can perceive[18] or which can escape one, but remains visible; -but the hidden (part) contains everything which one can perceive as -something intelligible but which evades the sense or which as not -being thoroughly understood one passes over. But it must be said -generally that of all things which are perceptible and intelligible, -which Simon calls hidden and manifest,[19] the supercelestial fire is -the Treasure-house,[20] like unto the great tree which was seen by -Nebuchadnezzar in a dream, from which all flesh is fed.[21] [Sidenote: -p. 248.] And he considers the trunk, the boughs, the leaves, and the -bark on the outside of it to be the manifest part of the fire. All -these things which are attached to the great tree the flame of the -all-devouring fire causes to vanish. But the fruit of the tree, if -it be made a perfect likeness[22] and has received its own shape, is -placed in a storehouse and not in the fire. For the fruit, he says, has -been produced that it may be put in a storehouse, but the chaff that -it may be cast into the fire, which (chaff) is the trunk which has not -been produced for its own sake, but for that of the fruit. - -10. And this is, he says, what is written in the Scripture: “The -vine of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and a man of Judah -his beloved plant.”[23] But if a man of Judah is his beloved plant, -it proves, he says, that a tree is nothing else than a man. But of -its secretion and dissolution, he says, the Scripture has spoken -sufficiently, and for the instruction of those who have been made -completely after (its) likeness,[24] the saying is enough that: “All -flesh is grass and all the glory of the flesh as the flower of grass. -The grass withereth and the flower fadeth away: but the word [Sidenote: -p. 249.] of the Lord abideth for ever.”[25] But the word, he says, is -the word and speech of the Lord born in the mouth, save which there is -no other place of generation. - -11. But, to be brief, since the fire is such according to Simon, -and all things are seen and unseen as they are heard and unheard, -numbered and unnumbered, in the _Great Announcement_ he calls a perfect -intellectual[26] every one of those (beings) which can be boundlessly -conceived by the mind in a boundless way[27] and can speak and think -and act, as says Empedocles:-- - - For earth by earth we see, and water by water - And (divine) æther by æther, yet destroying fire by fire, - And (love) by love, and strife in gloomy strife.-- - (Karsten, v. 321.) - -12. For, he says, he considered all the parts of the fire which -are invisible to have sense and a share of mind.[28] [Sidenote: p. -250.] Therefore the cosmos, he says, came into being begotten by the -unbegotten fire. But it began to be, he says, after this fashion:--He -who was produced from the beginning from that fire took six roots, -the first ones of the principle of generation.[29] And he says that -the roots came from the fire in pairs, which roots he calls Mind and -Thought, Voice and Name, Reasoning and Passion,[30] but that the whole -of the Boundless Power together is in these six roots potentially, -but not actively. The which Boundless Power he says is He who Stood, -Stands, and will Stand. Who if he be made into a complete image (of -the fire) will be in substance, power, greatness, and effect one and -the same with that Unbegotten and Boundless Power, and lacking nothing -possessed by that unbegotten and unchanging and infinite power. But if -he remains potentially only in the six powers and is not made into a -complete image (of the fire), he is done away with and is lost like as -the capacity for grammar or geometry in man’s soul. For power taking -[Sidenote: p. 251.] to itself skill becomes a light of the things which -are: but if it does not take unto itself (skill) it is unskilfulness -and darkness and as if it were not, it perishes[31] with the man at his -death. - -13. But of these six powers and the seventh which is with the six, he -calls the first pair, (to wit) Nous and Epinoia, Heaven and Earth. And -(he says) that the masculine (partner) looks down from on high upon -and takes thought for his spouse and that the Earth below receives the -intellectual fruits proper to her brought down from Heaven to Earth. -Wherefore, he says, the Logos beholding often the things born from Nous -and Epinoia, that is from Heaven and Earth, says: “Hear, O Heaven, -and give ear, O Earth, for the Lord has spoken. I have begotten and -raised up sons, but they have disregarded me.”[32] He who thus speaks, -he says, is the Seventh Power who Stood, Stands and will Stand. For -he is the cause of those fair things which Moses praised and said -that [Sidenote: p. 252.] they were very good. And Phone and Onoma are -the Sun and Moon, and Logismos and Enthymesis Air and Water. But with -all these is mingled and compounded, as I have said, the great and -Boundless Power, He who has Stood.[33] - -14. Since, therefore, Moses spake: “In six days God created Heaven and -Earth and the seventh day he rested from all his works,”[34] Simon -after re-arranging the passage, makes himself out a god. When then they -say that three days passed before the Sun and Moon existed,[35] they -shadow forth Nous and Epinoia and the Seventh Power, the Boundless -One. For these three powers were born before all the others. When they -say: “Before all the Aeons He has begotten me,”[36] (Simon) says that -this was spoken of the Seventh Power. But the same Seventh Power, -which was a power existing in the Boundless Power which was begotten -before all the Aeons, this is, he says, the Seventh Power of whom Moses -said: “And the Spirit of God was borne above the water,”[37] that is, -he says, the spirit containing [Sidenote: p. 253.] all things within -itself, an image of the Boundless Power, of whom Simon says “image of -the imperishable form which alone orders all things.” For that power -which was borne above the water having come into being, he says, from -the imperishable form, alone orders all things. Now when some such -and like preparations of the cosmos had come to pass, God, he says, -moulded[38] man, taking dust from the earth. But he fashioned him not -simple but twofold[39] according to image and resemblance. But the -spirit which was borne above the water is an image, which spirit if it -is not made a complete likeness,[40] perishes with the world, as it -abides only potentially and does not exist in activity. This, he says, -is the saying, “Lest ye be judged with the world.”[41] But if it be -made a complete likeness and is born from an Indivisible Point as it is -written in the Announcement, the small will become great. But it will -be great in the Boundless and Unchanging Aeon, being born no more. - -How then and in what manner, he says, did God form man in Paradise? -For this is his opinion. Let, he says, Paradise be the womb, and that -this is true the Scripture teaches when it says: “I am he who fashioned -thee in thy mother’s womb.”[42] For this also he wishes to be thus -[Sidenote: p. 254.] written. Moses, he says, speaking in allegory, -calls Paradise the womb if we are to believe the word. But if God -fashions man in the womb of his mother, that is, in Paradise, as I have -said, let Paradise be the womb and Edem the placenta: “And a river went -forth from Edem and watered Paradise”[43] (this is) the navel-string. -The navel-string, he says, separates into four heads. For on each side -of the navel are set two arteries, conduits of breath, and two veins, -conduits of blood. But when he says, the navel-string goes forth from -the placenta it takes root in the infant by the epigastrium which all -men commonly call the navel. And the two veins it is through which -flows and is borne from Edem (the placenta) the blood to the so-called -gates of the liver whence the child is fed. But the arteries as we -have said, are the conduits of the breath[44] which pass behind on -either side of the bladder round the pelvis and make connection with -the great artery by the spine called the aorta, and thus through the -ventricles the breath flows upon the heart and causes [Sidenote: p. -255.] movement of the embryo. For the embryo in course of formation -in Paradise neither takes food by the mouth, nor breathes through the -nostrils. For, as it exists amid waters, death is at its feet if it -should breathe. For it would then draw in the waters and die. But it -is girt about almost wholly by the envelope called the amnion and is -fed through the navel, and through the aorta which is by the spine, it -receives, as I have said[45] the substance of the breath. - -15. Therefore, he says, the river flowing forth from Edem separates -into four heads (or) four conduits, that is, into the child’s four -senses, sight, smell, taste, and touch. For the infant while being -formed in Paradise has these senses only. This, he says, is the Law -which Moses laid down; and agreeably with that same Law each of the -Books is written, as their titles clearly show. The first book (is) -_Genesis_ (and) the title of the book, he says, suffices for the -knowledge of the universals. For, he says, this is genesis, that is -sight into which one of the sections of the river separates; [Sidenote: -p. 256.] for the world is seen by sight. The title of the second book -is _Exodus_. For that which is born after crossing the Red Sea comes -into the Desert--he calls the blood, he says, the Red Sea--and tastes -bitter water. For bitter, he says, is the water which comes after the -Red Sea, which (water) is the way of knowledge of life pursued through -painful and bitter things. But when changed by Moses, that is by the -Logos, that bitter (water) becomes sweet. And that this is so, can be -known by all in common in the saying of the poets:-- - - Black was it at the root, but the flower was like milk - The gods call it Moly, but hard it is to dig - For mortal men, but to the gods all things are possible.-- - (HOMER, _Odyssey_, X, 304 ff.) - -16. What has been said by the nations, he says, suffices for the -thorough knowledge of the universals to those who have ears to hear. -For not only he who has tasted this fruit is not turned into a beast -by Circe; but those also [Sidenote: p. 257.] who have been already -brutified by use of the powers of such fruit, he moulds again into -their first and proper form and restores them to type and recalls -their (original) impress. And the faithful man and he who is beloved -by that witch is, he says, revealed through that milk-like and divine -fruit. Likewise _Leviticus_ the third book which is the smell or -inspiration.[46] For this book is of sacrifices and oblations. For -where there is a sacrifice there comes a certain savour of fragrance -from it through the incense, of which fragrance the sense of smell -(ought to be a test).[47] _Numbers_, the fourth book he calls taste ...[48] -where speech operates. But _Deuteronomy_, he says, is written -with reference to the sense of touch of the child in course of -formation. For as the touch, touching the things perceived by the other -senses, sums up and confirms them, teaching us whether (anything) be -hard or hot or cold,[49] so the fifth book of the Law is the summary -of the four books written before it. All the unbegotten things, then, -he says, are in potentiality not in activity, like the grammatical -or [Sidenote: p. 258.] geometrical art. If then one should chance -upon the fitting word and doctrine, and the bitter should be changed -into sweet, that is, the spears into reaping-hooks and the swords -into ploughshares,[50] (the child) will not be chaff and sticks for -producing fire, but a perfect fruit made in semblance (of), as I have -said (and) equal and like to, the Unbegotten and Boundless Power. -But should he remain only a tree and should not make a perfect fruit -fashioned in complete resemblance, he will be removed. For the axe is -near, he says, to the roots of the tree. Every tree, he says, which -maketh not fair fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.[51] - -17. There is then, according to Simon, that blessed and incorruptible -thing hidden in everything, potentially not actively, which is He who -Stood, Stands and will Stand. It stood above in the Unbegotten Power, -it stands below amid the rush of the waters having been begotten in -likeness, and it will stand on high beside the blessed Unbegotten Power -if it be made in (his) perfect semblance. For there are, he says, three -who have stood, and unless there are [Sidenote: p. 259.] three Aeons -who have stood, then the Unbegotten One who according to them is borne -over the water, who by resemblance has been fashioned again perfect -(and) heavenly, who in one thought alone[52] is more lacking than the -Unbegotten Power, is not in its proper place.[53] This is what they -say: “I and thou, thou one before me, I after thee, am I.” This, he -says, is one power, divided above, below, begetting itself, increasing -itself, seeking itself, finding itself, being its own mother, its own -father, its own sister, its own spouse, its own daughter, its own son, -a mother-father,[54] being one root of the universals. - -And that, he says, the beginning of the generation of things begotten -is from fire, he understands in some such fashion as this: In all -things whatever which have birth, the beginning of the desire of -generation comes from fire. As, for instance, the desire for mutable -generation[55] is called “being inflamed” [with love]. But the fire -from being one, turns into two. For in the man, he says, the blood -which is hot and yellow as fire is depicted, turns into seed; but in -the woman the selfsame blood (turns) into milk. [Sidenote: p. 260.] -And from the turning in the male comes generation and from that in -the female the nourishment of that which is generated.[56] This, he -says, is the flaming sword turning about to guard the path to the Tree -of Life. For the blood is turned to seed and milk and the same power -becomes father and mother of those which are born and the increase of -those which are nourished, itself lacking nothing and being sufficient -unto itself. But the Tree of Life is guarded he says, through the -turning of the flaming sword, as we have said, which (sword) is the -Seventh Power which is from itself, which contains all things (and) -which lies stored up in the six powers. For if the flaming sword did -not turn about, that fair tree would perish and be destroyed. But if -the Logos which is lying stored up potentially therein, is turned into -seed and milk, being lord of its proper place wherein is begotten a -Logos of souls,--then from the smallest spark it will become great and -increase in every sense and will be a boundless power unchangeable in -the aeon which changes not until it is in the Boundless Aeon.[57] - -18. By this argument, then, Simon avowedly became a god to those -of no understanding, like that Apsethus the [Sidenote: p. 261.] -Libyan, being (said to be) begotten and subject to suffering when he -existed potentially, but (becoming) impassible (from passible, and -unbegotten)[58] from begotten when he was made in perfect semblance and -becoming perfect came forth from the first two powers, that is Heaven -and Earth. For Simon speaks explicitly of this in the _Announcement_, -thus:-- - -“Unto you I say what I say, and I write what I write. The writing -is this. There are two stems[59] of all the Aeons, having neither -beginning nor end, from one root, which is Power-Silence[60] unseen -and incomprehensible. One of them appears on high, who is a great -power, the mind of the universals, who orders all things and (is) a -male. And the other below is a great Thought, a female giving birth to -all things. These, then, being set over against each other[61] form a -pair and show forth the middle space, an incomprehensible air having -neither beginning nor end. In this (space) is a Father who upholds all -things and nourishes those which have a beginning and end. This is -He who Stood, Stands, and will Stand, being a masculo-feminine power -after the likeness of the pre-existing Boundless Power[62] which has -neither beginning nor end but exists in oneness. For the thought which -came forth from the (power) in oneness was two. And that was one. For -he [Sidenote: p. 262.] when he contained her within himself was alone, -nor was he indeed first although he existed beforehand, but having -himself appeared from himself, a second came into being. But he was -not called Father until she named him Father. Just as then he, drawing -himself forth from himself, manifested to himself his own thought, so -also the thought having appeared did not create him; but beholding -him, hid the Father--that is Power--within herself;[63] and there is a -masculo-feminine Power-and-Thought when they are set over against each -other. For Power does not differ at all from thought, they being one. -From the things on high is discovered Power; from those below Thought. -Thus then it is that that which appeared from them being one is found -to be two, a masculo-feminine having the female within it. This is Mind -in Thought for they being one when undivided from one another are yet -found to be two.” - -19. Simon then having discovered (all) this, fraudulently interprets -as he wishes not only the (words) of Moses, but [Sidenote: p. 263.] -also those of the poets. For he turns into allegory the Wooden Horse -and Helen with the Torch and other things, altering which to the -affairs of himself and his Epinoia, he leads astray many. And he -says that she is that sheep which was lost, who ever dwelling in -many women[64] troubles the powers in the cosmos by her transcendent -beauty. Wherefore also the Trojan War occurred on account of her. For -Epinoia herself dwelt in Helen at that time, and all the authorities -suing for her (favours), faction and war arose among the nations in -which she appeared. Wherefore indeed Stesichorus having railed at her -in his verses had his eyes blinded, but having repented and written -the Palinode, was restored to sight.[65] She, being changed from one -body to another by the angels and authorities below [Sidenote: p. -264.] who made the world, came at last to stand in a brothel[66] in -Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, coming to which (Simon) found her. For at -her first enquiry, he said he had come to her aid, that he might free -her from her bonds, and when he had redeemed her she went about with -him pretending that she was the lost sheep, and he saying that he was -the Power above all things. But the rogue having fallen in love with -the hussy, the so-called Helen, and having bought her enjoyed her, and -being ashamed (before) his disciples made up this story. But they who -became (in time) the imitators of the error and of Simon Magus do like -things, pretending that they ought to have (promiscuous) intercourse -like beasts, saying: “All earth is earth and it matters not where one -sows, so long as one sows.” And they also bless this intercourse saying -that the same is perfect love and the “Holy of Holies” and that “ye -shall sanctify one another.” For they say that they are not overcome by -what any one else would call evil, for that they have been redeemed. -And that Simon having redeemed Helen has in like manner [Sidenote: p. -265.] brought salvation to men through his own discernment.[67] For -since the angels misgoverned the world through love of rule, he says -that he came to set it straight, having changed his shape and making -himself like the rulers[68] and authorities and angels, and that he -appeared as a man, though he was not a man and seemed to suffer in -Judæa, though he did not suffer.[69] But he appeared to the Jews as -Son, in Samaria as Father, and among the other nations as Holy Spirit. -And that he submitted to be called by whatever name men wished to call -him. And that the Prophets were inspired by the world-making angels to -utter their prophecies. Wherefore they who have believed on Simon and -Helen do not heed them,[70] and to this day do what they will as being -free. For they claim that they have been saved by his grace. For no one -is liable to judgment if he does anything evil; for evil exists not by -nature, but by [Sidenote: p. 266.] law. For he says it is the angels -who made the world who made the Law whatever they wished, thinking to -enslave those who hearkened to them. And again they say that (there -will be) a dissolution of the world for the redemption of their own -men.[71] - -20. Therefore the disciples of this (man) practise magic arts and -incantations, and send out love-philtres and charms and the demons -called dream-bringers for the troubling of whom they will. But they -also do reverence to the so-called Paredri.[72] And they have an image -of Simon in the form of Zeus, and (another) of Helen in the form of -Athena, and they bow down to them calling the one “Lord” and the other -“Lady.”[73] But if any one among them seeing these images should call -them by the name of Simon or Helen, he is cast out as being ignorant of -their mysteries. This Simon when he had led astray many in Samaria by -magic arts was refuted by the Apostles, and [Sidenote: p. 267.] having -been laid under a curse as it is written in the _Acts_, afterwards in -desperation designed these things[74] until having come to Rome, he -withstood the Apostles. Whom Peter opposed when he was deceiving many -by sorceries. He at length coming into t......te,[75] taught sitting -under a plane-tree. And finally his refutation being very near[76] -through effluxion of time, he said that if buried alive he would rise -again the third day. And having given orders that a grave should be -dug by his disciples, he bade them bury him. And they having done -what he commanded, he remains there to this day; for he was not the -Christ. This then is Simon’s story, taking hints from which Valentinus -calls (the same things) by other names. For Nous and Aletheia, Logos -and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia are Simon’s six roots, Nous-Epinoia, -Phone-Onoma, Logismos-Enthymesis. But since we have sufficiently set -forth Simon’s fable making, let us see what Valentinus says.[77] - - - 2. _Concerning Valentinus._ - -[Sidenote: p. 268.] 21. The heresy of Valentinus,[78] then, exists, -having a Pythagorean and Platonic foundation. For Plato in the -_Timæus_ modelled himself entirely on Pythagoras, as is seen also by -his “Pythagorean stranger” being Timæus himself. Wherefore it seems -fitting that we should begin by recalling to mind a few (points) of the -theory of Pythagoras and Plato, and should then describe the (teaching) -of Valentinus. For if the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato are also -included in the (books) painfully written by us earlier, yet I shall -not be unreasonable in recalling[79] in epitome their most leading -tenets[80] in order that by their closer comparison and likeness of -composition, the doctrines of Valentinus may be more intelligible. For -as (the Pythagoreans and Platonists) took their opinions of old from -the Egyptians and taught them anew to the Greeks, so (Valentinus) while -fraudulently attempting to establish his own teaching by them, carved -[Sidenote: p. 269.] their system into names and numbers, calling them -[by names] and defining them by measures of his own. Whence he has -constructed a heresy Greek indeed, but not referable to Christ. - -22. The wisdom of the Egyptians is, then, the beginning of Plato’s -theory in the _Timæus_. For from this, Solon[81] taught the Greeks the -whole position regarding the birth and destruction of the cosmos by -means of a certain prophetic statement, as Plato says, the Greeks being -then children and knowing no older theologic learning. In order then -that we may follow closely the words which Valentinus let fall, I will -now set out as preface what it was that Pythagoras of Samos taught as -philosophy after that silence praised by the Greeks. And then [I will -point out] those things which Valentinus takes from Pythagoras and -Plato and with solemn words attributes to Christ, and before Christ to -the Father of the universals and to that Sige who is given as a spouse -to the Father. - -23. Now Pythagoras declared that the unbegotten monad was the principle -of the universals[82] and the parent of the dyad and of all the other -numbers. And he says that the [Sidenote: p. 270.] monad is the father -of the dyad and the dyad the mother of all engendered things (and) -a bearer of things begotten. And Zaratas,[83] also, the teacher of -Pythagoras, calls the one father, but the two, mother. For the dyad has -come into being from a monad according to Pythagoras, and the monad is -masculine and first, but the dyad female and second. From the dyad, -again, as Pythagoras says, (come) the triad and the other numbers one -after the other up to 10. For Pythagoras knew that this 10 is the only -perfect number.[84] For (he saw that) the 11 and 12 were an addition -to and re-equipment of the decad, and not the generation of some -other number. All solid bodies beget what is given to them from the -bodiless.[85] For, he says, the Point which is indivisible is at once a -point and a beginning of the bodies and the bodiless together. And, he -says, from the point comes a line, and a superficies extended in depth -makes, he says, a solid figure. Whence the Pythagoreans have a certain -oath as to the harmony of the four elements. And they make oath thus:-- - - [Sidenote: p. 271.] “Yea by the Tetractys handed down to our head - A source of eternal nature containing within itself roots.”[86] - -For the beginning of natural and solid bodies is the Tetractys as the -monad is of the intelligible ones.[87] But that the Tetractys gives -birth to the perfect number as among the intelligibles the (monad) does -to the 10, they teach thus. If one beginning to count, says 1, and adds -2, and then 3 in like manner, these will make 6. (Add) yet another (_i. -e._) 4 and there in the same way will be the total 10. For the 1, 2, 3 -and 4 become 10, the perfect number. Thus, he says, the Tetractys will -in all things imitate the intelligible monad having been thus able to -bring forth a perfect number. - -24. There are, therefore, according to Pythagoras, two worlds, one -intelligible which has the monad as its beginning, but the other the -perceptible. This last is the Tetractys containing Iota,[88] the one -tittle, a perfect number. [Sidenote: p. 272.] Thus the Iota, the one -tittle, is received by the Pythagoreans as the first and chiefest, and -as the substance of the Intelligible both intelligibly and perceptibly. -Belonging to which are the nine bodiless accidents which cannot exist -apart from substance, (viz.) Quantity, Quality, Wherefore, Where, -and When, and also Being, Having, Doing and Suffering.[89] There are -therefore nine accidents to substance reckoned in with which they -comprise[90] the perfect number, the 10. Wherefore the universe being -divided, as we have said, into an intelligible and a perceptible world, -we have also reason from the intelligible in order that by it we may -behold the substance of the intelligible, the bodiless and the divine. -But we have, he says, five senses, smell, sight, hearing, taste and -touch. By these we arrive at a knowledge of perceptible things, and -so, he says, the perceptible world is separated from the intelligible; -and that we have an organ of knowledge for each of them, we learn -from this. None of the intelligibles, he says, can become known to us -through sense: for, he says, eye has not seen that, nor ear heard, nor -has it become known, he says, by any other of the senses whatever. -Nor again by reason can one come to a knowledge of the perceptible; -[Sidenote: p. 273.] but one must see that a thing is white, and taste -that it is sweet, and know by hearing that it is just or unjust; and -if any smell is fragrant or nauseous, that is the work of the sense -of smell and not of the reason. And it is the same with the things -relating to touch. For that a thing is hard or soft or hot or cold -cannot be known through the hearing, but the test of these things is -the touch. This being granted, the setting in order of the things that -have been and are is seen to come about arithmetically. For, just as -we, beginning by addition of monads (or dyads) or triads and of the -other numbers strung together, make one very large compound number, and -on the other hand work by subtracting from the total strung together -and by analysing by a fresh calculation what has been brought together -arithmetically;--so, he says, the cosmos is bound together by a certain -arithmetical and musical bond, and by its tightening and slackening, -its addition and subtraction, is ever and everywhere preserved -uncorrupted. - -25. For instance in some such fashion as this also do the Pythagoreans -describe the duration of the world:-- - - [Sidenote: p. 274.] “For it was before and will be. Never I ween - Will the unquenchable aeon be devoid of these two.” - -What are these (two)? Strife and Love.[91] But their love makes the -cosmos incorruptible and eternal, as they think. For substance and the -cosmos are one. But strife rends asunder and diversifies, and tries by -every means to make the world divide. Just as one cuts arithmetically -the myriad into thousands and hundreds and tens and drachmas, and -obols, and quarters by dividing it into small parts, so Strife cuts -the substance of the cosmos into animals, plants, metals and such -like things. And Strife is according to them, the Demiurge[92] of the -generation of all things coming to pass, and Love governs and provides -for the universe, so that it abides. And having collected into one the -scattered and rent (things) of the universe and leading them forth from -life, it joins and adds them to the universe so that it may abide and -be one. Never therefore will Strife cease from dividing the cosmos, nor -Love from attaching together [Sidenote: p. 275.] the separated things -of the cosmos. Something like this it seems is the “distribution”[93] -according to Pythagoras. But Pythagoras says that the stars are -fragments[94] of the sun and that the souls of animals are borne (to -us) from the stars. And that the same (souls) are mortal when they -are in the body being buried as it were in a tomb; but that they will -rise again and become immortal when we are separated from our bodies. -Whence Plato being asked by some one what Philosophy is, said: “It is a -separation of soul from body.” - -26. Pythagoras, then, becoming a learner of these opinions, declared -some of them by means of enigmas and such like phrases, (such as:) -“If you are away from home, turn not back. Otherwise, the Furies the -helpers of justice will punish you.”[95] (For) he calls your home the -body and [Sidenote: p. 276.] the passions the Furies. If then, he says, -you are away from home, that is: if you have come forth from the body, -do not seek after it; but if you return to it, the passions will again -shut you up in a body. For they think there is a change of bodies -(μετενσωμάτωσις); as also Empedocles, when Pythagorizing, says. For the -pleasure-loving souls, as Plato says,[96] if they do not philosophize -when in man’s estate, must pass through the bodies of all animals and -plants and again return to a human body. But if (such a one) does -philosophize,[97] he will in the same way go on high thrice to his -kindred star; but if he does not philosophize will return again to the -same things. Thus he tells us that the soul is at once mortal if it be -ruled by the Furies, that is, by the Passions, and immortal if it flees -from them. - -27. But seeing that we have picked out for narration the things darkly -uttered to his disciples under the veil of symbols, it seems fitting -to recall other sayings (of his), because the heresiarchs attempt to -deal in symbols in the same way; and these not their own, but using the -words of Pythagoras. [Sidenote: p. 277.] Now Pythagoras teaches his -disciples saying “Bind up the bed-sack,” since they who are setting out -on a journey make their clothing into a bundle, so as to be ready for -the road. Thus he wishes his disciples to be ready, as if at any moment -death might come upon them, so that they may not be caught lacking -anything. Wherefore he is obliged to enjoin the Pythagorean every -morning to bind up the bed-sack, that is to prepare for death. “Do not -stir the fire with a sword,” meaning do not provoke angry men; for he -likens an angry man to a fire and speech to a sword. “Do not tread on -sweepings,” that is, do not look down upon trifles. “Do not grow a palm -in a house,” that is, do not make a cause of strife in it. For the palm -is a symbol of fighting and strife. “Eat not from a stool” (that is), -practise no ignoble art, that you may not be a slave to the corruptible -body, but make your livelihood by lectures. For it is possible at -once to nourish the body [Sidenote: p. 278.] and to improve the soul. -“From a whole loaf bite off nought,” (that is) diminish not that which -belongs to you, but live on the income and keep the capital like a -whole loaf. “Eat not beans” (that is) Take not the rule of a city. For -by beans the rulers[98] were then elected.[99] - -28. These and such like things, then, the Pythagoreans say, imitating -whom the heretics think they declare great things to certain men. The -Pythagorean doctrine says that the Great Geometrician and Reckoner[100] -the Sun is the Demiurge of all things that are, and is fixed in the -whole cosmos like the soul in bodies, as says Plato. For the Sun like -the soul is fire, but the earth a body. But if fire were absent, -nothing could be seen, nor could there be any solid perceptible to -the touch; for there is no solid without earth. Whence God having put -air in the midst, fashioned the body of the universe from fire and -earth.[101] But the Sun reckons and measures the cosmos in some such -fashion as this. The cosmos is that perceptible one of which we are now -speaking. But (the Sun) divides it as an arithmetician and geometrician -into twelve parts. And the names of these [Sidenote: p. 279.] parts -are:--Ram, Bull, Twins, Crab, Lion, Virgin, Scales, Scorpion, Archer, -He-goat, Waterbearer and Fishes. Again, he divides each of the twelve -parts into thirty which are the thirty days of the month. And again he -divides each of the thirty parts into sixty minutes and (each) minute -into yet smaller and smaller parts. And thus ever creating without -ceasing, but gathering together from these divided parts and making a -cycle, and again dissolving it and separating that which has been put -together, he perfects the great deathless cosmos.[102] - -29. Something like this, as I have just summarily said, is the teaching -framed by Pythagoras and Plato. From which and not from the Gospels, -Valentinus has drawn his own heresy, as we shall show, and should -therefore be reckoned a Pythagorean and a Platonist, but not as a -Christian. Accordingly he and Heracleon and Ptolemy and all their -school, the disciples of Pythagoras and Plato copying their teachers, -have framed an arithmetical doctrine of their own. [Sidenote: p. 280.] -For indeed an unbegotten, incorruptible, incomprehensible fruitful -Monad is to them the beginning of all and the cause of the birth of all -things that are. Yet a certain wide difference is found among them. For -some of them, that they may keep wholly pure the Pythagorean teaching -of Valentinus, consider the Father to be unfeminine,[103] spouseless, -and alone: whereas the others, thinking it absolutely impossible that -there could be a birth of all things that have been born from any -single male, are compelled to reckon Sige[104] as a spouse to the -Father of the universals in order that he may become a father. But -as to whether Sige is a spouse or not, let them fight it out with -each other.[105] We, keeping steadfast at present to the Pythagorean -(doctrine of) the beginning and remembering what others teach, say -that He is one, without spouse, without female, in need of nought. In -a word (Valentinus) says at the beginning nothing was begotten, but -the Father was alone, unbegotten, having neither place, nor time, nor -counsellor, nor any other thing that by any figure of speech could be -understood as essence.[106] But He was alone and solitary, as they -say, and resting alone within Himself. And when He was filled with -fruit, He saw fit to beget and bring forth the most [Sidenote: p. -281.] beautiful and perfect thing He had within Himself. For He did -not love to be alone.[107] For He, Valentinus says, was all Love and -love is not love unless there be something to be loved. Then the Father -himself projected and engendered, as He was alone, Mind and Truth,[108] -that is a dyad, which became the lady and beginning and mother of all -the aeons reckoned by them as being within the Pleroma. But Nous and -Aletheia having been projected by the Father, a fruitful (projection) -from the fruitful, imitating the Father projected also the Word and -Life;[109] and Logos and Zoe projected Man and the Church.[110] But -Nous and Aletheia when they saw that their own special progeny had -become fruitful, gave thanks to the Father of the universals and -offered to him a perfect number, ten Aeons. For than this, he says, -Nous and Aletheia could offer to the Father no more perfect number. For -the Father being perfect ought to be glorified with a perfect number. -And the ten is perfect because as the first of things that came into -being by addition, it is complete.[111] But the Father is more perfect -because he [Sidenote: p. 282.] alone is unbegotten, and by the first -single syzygy of Nous and Aletheia supplied the projection of all the -roots of the things that are. - -30. Then when Logos and Zoe saw that Nous and Aletheia had glorified -the Father of the universals in a perfect number, Logos himself with -Zoe[112] also wished to glorify his own father and mother, Nous and -Aletheia. But since Nous and Aletheia were begotten and did not possess -the complete paternal unbegotten nature,[113] Logos and Zoe did not -glorify their father Nous with a perfect number, but with an imperfect -one: for Logos and Zoe offer twelve Aeons to Nous and Aletheia. For -the first roots of the Aeons according to Valentinus were Nous and -Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. But there are twelve -Aeons two of which are the children of Nous and Aletheia and ten those -of Logos and Zoe, in all twenty-eight. And these are the names by -which they call (the ten): Profound and Mixture, Who-grows-not-old -and Oneness, Self-grown and [Sidenote: p. 283.] Pleasure, Unmoved and -Blending, Unique and Blessedness.[114] Of these ten Aeons some say -that they are by Nous and Aletheia and others by Logos and Zoe; and -there are twelve others which some say are by Anthropos and Ecclesia -and others by Logos and Zoe. To whom they give these names: Paraclete -and Faith, Fatherly and Hope, Motherly and Love, Ever-thinking and -Union, Of the Church and Blessed, Beloved and Wisdom.[115] Of the -twelve the twelfth and youngest of all the twenty-four Aeons who was -a female and called Sophia,[116] perceived the multitude and power of -the Aeons who had been begotten and shot up into the Height of the -Father. And she comprehended that all the other begotten Aeons existed -and had been brought forth in pairs, but that the Father alone produced -without a partner. She wished to imitate the Father and gave birth -by herself and apart from her spouse, so that she might work no work -lacking anything more than did the work of the Father, [Sidenote: p. -284.] being ignorant that only the Unbegotten principle and root and -height and depth of the universals can possibly bring forth alone. -For in the Unbegotten, he says, all things exist together; but among -the begotten the female is the projector of substance, but the male -gives form to the substance[117] which the female projects. Therefore -Sophia projected only that which she could, a substance shapeless -and unformed.[118] And this, he says, is what Moses said: “Now the -earth was invisible and unformed.”[118] She, he says, is the good or -heavenly Jerusalem into which God declared he would lead the children -of Israel, saying: “I will lead you into a good land flowing with milk -and honey.”[119] - -31. Ignorance, then, having come about within the Pleroma by Sophia, -and formlessness by the offspring of Sophia, confusion came to pass -within it. For the Aeons (feared) that what was born from them would be -born [Sidenote: p. 285.] shapeless and imperfect, and that corruption -would before long destroy them. Then all the Aeons took refuge in -prayers to the Father that he would give rest to the sorrowing Sophia. -For she was weeping and mourning over the Abortion[120] brought forth -by her--for so they call it. Then the Father took pity on the tears -of Sophia, and hearkened to the prayers of the Aeons and commanded a -projection to be made. For he himself did not project, but Nous and -Aletheia projected Christ and the Holy Spirit for the giving form to -and the separation of the Ectroma and the relief and intermission of -the groans of Sophia. And thirty Aeons came into existence with Christ -and the Holy Spirit. But some of them will have it that there is a -triacontad of Aeons, but others that Sige co-exists with the Father, -and wish the Aeons to be counted in with those (two). Then, when Christ -and the Holy Spirit had been projected[121] by Nous and Aletheia, he -straightway separates from the complete Aeons Ectroma, the shapeless -and unique[122] thing which had been brought forth by Sophia apart -from her [Sidenote: p. 286.] spouse, so that the perfect Aeons might -not be troubled by the sight of her shapelessness. Then, that the -shapelessness of Ectroma might no way be apparent to the perfect Aeons, -the Father again projected one Aeon (to wit) the Cross, who having been -born great from the great and perfect Father and projected as a guard -and palisade to the Aeons, becomes the limit of the Pleroma containing -within him all the thirty Aeons together: for they were projected -before him. And he is called Horos because he separates from the -Pleroma the Void[123] without; and Metocheus[124] because he partakes -also in the Hysterema; and Stauros because he is fixed unbendingly and -unchangeably, so that nothing from the Hysterema can abide near the -Aeons who [Sidenote: p. 287.] are within the Pleroma. And when Sophia -Without had been transformed and it was not possible for Christ and the -Holy Spirit, the projections of Nous and Aletheia, to remain outside -the Pleroma, they returned from her who had been transformed, to Nous -and Aletheia within Horos, so that he with the other Aeons might -glorify the Father. - -32. Since then there was a certain single peace and harmony of all -the Aeons within the Pleroma, it seemed good to them not only to have -glorified the Father in pairs, but also to glorify him by the offering -to him of fitting fruits. Therefore all the thirty Aeons were well -pleased to project one Aeon, the Common Fruit of the Pleroma, so that -he might be the (fruit) of their unity and likemindedness and peace. -And as He alone was projected by all the Father’s Aeons, He is called -by them the Common Fruit of the Pleroma. Thus then were things within -the Pleroma. And the Common Fruit of the Pleroma was projected, (to -wit) Jesus--for that is His name--the Great High Priest. [Sidenote: -p. 288.] But Sophia without the Pleroma seeking after Christ, who -had given her shape and the Holy Spirit, stood in great fear, lest -she might perish when separated from Him who had given her shape and -had established her. And she mourned and was in great perplexity -considering who it was that had given her shape, who the Holy Spirit -was, whence she had gone forth, who had hindered them from coming near -her, (and) who had begrudged her that fair and blessed vision. Brought -low by these passions, she turns to beseeching supplication of Him who -had left her. Then Christ who was within the Pleroma had compassion -on her beseeching, as had all the Aeons of the Pleroma, and they send -forth outside the Pleroma its Common Fruit to be a spouse to Sophia -Without and the corrector of the passions which she suffered while -seeking after Christ.[125] Then the Fruit being outside the Pleroma and -finding her amid the first four passions (to wit) in fear and grief and -perplexity and supplication, corrected her passions, but did not think -it seemly in correcting them that they should be destroyed, since they -[Sidenote: p. 289.] were eternal and special to Sophia, nor yet that -Sophia should be among such passions as fear and grief, supplication -and perplexity. He, therefore, being so great an Aeon and the offspring -of the whole Pleroma, made the passions stand away from her and He made -them fundamental essences.[126] And He made the fear into the essence -of the soul,[127] and the grief into that of matter, and the perplexity -into (that) of demons, but the conversion and entreaty and supplication -He made a path to repentance and (the) power of the soul’s essence, -which (essence) is called the Right Hand or Demiurge from fear. This, -he says, is the Scripture saying: “The beginning of wisdom is fear of -the Lord.”[128] For it was the beginning of the passions of Sophia. For -she feared, then she grieved, then she was perplexed, and [Sidenote: p. -290.] then she took refuge in prayer and supplication. And the essence -of the soul, he says, is fiery and is called a (supercelestial) Place -and Hebdomad and Ancient of Days.[129] And whatever things they say -of him, he says, the same belong to the psychic one whom they declare -to be the Demiurge of the Cosmos; but he is fiery. And Moses also, he -says, spake, “The Lord thy God is a burning and consuming fire.”[130] -And truly he wishes this (text) to be thus written. But the power of -the fire, he says, is in some sort double; for it is an all-devouring -fire (and) cannot be quenched. And according to this, indeed, a part of -the soul is mortal, being a certain middle state; for it is a Hebdomad -and Laying to Rest. For below (the soul) is of the Ogdoad where is -Sophia, a day which has been given shape, and the Common Fruit of the -Pleroma; but above it is of Matter wherein is the Demiurge.[131] If -it makes itself completely like those who are on high in the Ogdoad, -it becomes immortal and comes to the Ogdoad, which is, he says, the -heavenly Jerusalem; but if it makes itself completely like matter, that -is to the material passions, it is corruptible and is destroyed. - -33. As therefore the first and greatest power of the [Sidenote: p. -291.] psychic essence becomes an image [of the only-begotten Son, so -the power of the material essence] is the devil, the ruler of this -world, and (that) of the essence of demons, which is from perplexity, -is Beelzebud.[132] But it is Sophia on high who works from the Ogdoad -up to the Hebdomad. They say that the Demiurge knows absolutely -nothing, but is according to them mindless and foolish and knows not -what he does or works. And for him who knows not what he makes, Sophia -creates all things and strengthens them. And when she had wrought it, -he thought that he had by himself accomplished the creation of the -cosmos; wherefore he began to say: “I am God, and beside me there is -none other.” - -34. The Tetractys of Valentinus is then at once:-- - - “A certain source containing roots of eternal nature.” - (Pyth., _Carm. Aur._, l. 48.) - -and Sophia by whom the psychic and material creation is now framed. -And Sophia is called Spirit, but the [Sidenote: p. 292.] Demiurge -Soul, and the Devil the ruler of the world, and Beelzebud that of the -demons. This is what they say, and beside this, they make their whole -teaching arithmetical; [and] as is said above, they (imagine) that -(the) thirty Aeons within the Pleroma again projected other Aeons by -analogy with themselves, so that the Pleroma may be summed up in a -perfect number. For, as it has been made clear that the Pythagoreans -divide (the circle) into 12 and 30 and 60 (parts) and that these have -also minutes of minutes, thus also do (the Valentinians) subdivide -the things within the Pleroma. But subdivided also are the things in -the Ogdoad, and there rules[133] (there) Sophia who is according to -them the Mother of All Living, and the Logos, the Joint Fruit of the -Pleroma, (and) there are (there) supercelestial angels, citizens of -the Jerusalem on [Sidenote: p. 293.] high, which is in heaven. For -this Jerusalem is Sophia. Without and her bridegroom the Joint Fruit -of the Pleroma. (But) the Demiurge also projected souls; for he is the -essence of souls. This is according to them Abraham and these are the -children of Abraham. Then, from the material and devilish essence the -Demiurge has made the bodies of the souls. This is the saying: “And -God made man, taking dust from the earth, and breathed into his face a -breath of life, and man became a living soul.”[134] This is, according -to them, the inward psychic man who dwells in the material body which -is material, corruptible, and formed entirely of devilish essence. -But this material man is (according to them) like unto an inn, or the -dwelling-place, sometimes of the soul alone, sometimes of the soul and -demons, and sometimes of the soul and logoi, who are logoi sown from -above in this world by the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, and by Sophia, -and who dwell in the earthly body with the soul when there are no -demons dwelling with it. [Sidenote: p. 294.] This, he says, is what -was written in Scripture: “For this cause I bow my knees to the God -and Father and Lord of our Lord Jesus Christ, that God would grant you -that Christ should dwell in the inner man, that is the psychical not -the somatic, that you be strengthened to comprehend what is the depth” -which is the Father of the universals “and what is the breadth,”[135] -which is Stauros the Limit of the Pleroma, “or what the length,” which -is the Pleroma of the Aeons. Wherefore, he says, the psychic man does -not receive the things of God’s spirit; for they are foolishness unto -him. But foolishness, he says, is the power of the Demiurge, for he was -senseless and mindless and thought that he fashioned the cosmos, being -ignorant that Sophia, the Mother, the Ogdoad, wrought all things with -regard to the creation of the world for him who knew it not. - -35. All the prophets and the Law, then, spake from the (inspiration of -the) Demiurge, a foolish god,[136] he says, being themselves foolish -and knowing nothing. Wherefore, he says, the Saviour declared: “All -who came before me are thieves and robbers.”[137] The Apostle also: -“The mystery which was not known to the first generations.”[138] For -none [Sidenote: p. 295.] of the prophets, he says, declared anything -concerning the things of whereof we speak; for all (of them) were -ignored in what was said by the Demiurge alone.[139] When, therefore, -creation was brought to completion,[140] and the revelation of the -sons of God, that is of the Demiurge, at length became necessary, -which had before been concealed, he says, the psychic man was veiled -and had a veil upon his heart. Then when it was time that the veil -should be taken away, and that these mysteries should be seen, Jesus -was born through Mary the Virgin[141] according to the saying: “(The) -Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”--the Spirit is Sophia--“and a power -of the Highest shall overshadow thee”--the Highest is the Demiurge. -“Wherefore that which is born from thee shall be called holy.”[142] -For He was born not from the Highest alone, as those created after -the fashion of Adam were created from the Highest, that is from the -Demiurge. But Jesus was the new man (born) from the Holy Spirit (and -the Highest),[143] that is from Sophia and the Demiurge, so that the -Demiurge supplied the mould and constitution of His body, but the Holy -Spirit supplied [Sidenote: p. 296.] His substance,[144] and thus the -Heavenly Logos came into being, having been begotten from the Ogdoad -through Mary. Concerning this there is a great enquiry among them and a -source of schisms and variance. And hence their school[145] has become -divided and one part is called by them the Anatolic and the other the -Italiote. Those from Italy, whereof are Heracleon and Ptolemy, say that -the body of Jesus was born psychic, and therefore the Spirit descended -as a dove at the Baptism, that is the Word which is of the mother -Sophia on high and cried aloud to the psychic man[146] and raised him -from the dead. This, he says, is the saying: “He who raised Christ from -the dead, shall quicken your mortal bodies (and your psychic).”[147] -For earth, he says, has come under a curse. “For Earth,” he says, “thou -art, and to earth thou shalt return.”[148] But those from the East, -whereof are Axionicus and Bardesanes,[149] [Sidenote: p. 297.] say that -the body of the Saviour was spiritual. For (the) Holy Spirit came upon -Mary, that is Sophia and the Power of the Highest is the demiurgic -art,[150] so that that which was given by the Spirit to Mary might be -moulded (into form). - -36. These things then let these men enquire after in their own way, -and if they should happen to do so in any other, so let it be. But -(Valentinus) also says that as the false steps among the Aeons had been -put straight[151] and also those in the Ogdoad or Sophia Without, so -also were those in the Hebdomad. For the Demiurge was taught by Sophia -that he is not the only God as he thought, and that beside him there -is none other; but he knew better after being taught by Sophia. For -he was schooled by her and was initiated and taught the great mystery -of the Father and the Aeons and told it to none. This, he says, is -what he spake to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac -and the God of Jacob, and my name I have not announced to them,”[152] -that is to say: “I have not told the mystery nor have I explained who -is God, but I have kept to myself the mystery which I have heard from -Sophia.” It was necessary, then, that the things on high having been -put straight, in the same sequence,[153] correction [Sidenote: p. -298.] should come to those here. For this cause was Jesus the Saviour -born through Mary, that He might put straight things here, as the -Christ, who on high was projected by Nous and Aletheia, put straight -the passions of Sophia Without, that is, of the Ectroma. And again the -Saviour who was born through Mary came to set straight the passions of -the soul. There are, then, according to them three Christs, the one -projected by Nous and Aletheia along with the Holy Spirit; and the -Joint Fruit of the Pleroma the equal yoke-fellow[154] of Sophia Without -who is called and is herself a Holy Spirit (but) inferior to the first; -and third, He who was born through Mary for the restoration[155] of -this creation of ours. - -37. I consider I have now by means of many (explanations) sufficiently -sketched the heresy of Valentinus, it being a Pythagorean one; and it -seems to me that the refutation of these doctrines by exposition should -stop. Plato, moreover, when setting forth mysteries concerning the -universe writes to Dionysius in some such way as this:[156] - -“I must speak to you in enigmas, so that if the tablet [Sidenote: p. -299.] should suffer in any of its leaves on sea or land, whoso reads -may not understand.[157] For things are thus. As regards the king of -all, all things are his, and all are for his sake, and he is the cause -of all that is fair. A second (cause exists) concerning secondary -things and a third concerning those things which come third.[158] -But respecting the king himself there is nothing of this kind of -which I have spoken. But after this the soul seeks to learn of what -quality these are, since it looks towards the things which are germane -to itself, of which it has nought sufficiently. This is, O son of -Dionysius and Doris, your question as to what is the cause of all -evils. But it is rather that anxiety about this is inborn, and if one -does not remove it, one will never hit upon the truth.[159] But what -is wonderful about it, hear. For there are men who have heard these -things, able to learn and able to remember,[160] and who have yet grown -old while straining to form a complete judgment. They say that what -(once) appeared believable is now unbelievable, and that what was then -unbelievable was then the opposite. Looking therefore to [Sidenote: -p. 300.] this, beware, lest you repent what has unworthily fallen -from you. Wherefore I have written none of these things, nor is there -anything (upon them) signed Plato, nor will there ever be. But the -sayings now attributed to Socrates were (said by him)[161] when he was -young and fair.”[162] - -(Now) Valentinus having chanced upon these (lines) conceived the king -of all, of whom Plato spoke, to be Father and Bythos and the primal -source of all the Aeons.[163] And when Plato spoke of the second -(cause) concerning secondary things, Valentinus assumed that the -secondary things were all the Aeons being within the limit of the -Pleroma and the third (cause) concerning the third things, he assumed -to be the whole arrangement without the limit and (outside) the -Pleroma. And this Valentinus made plain in the fewest words in a psalm, -beginning from below and not as Plato did from above, in these words:-- - - [Sidenote: p. 301.] “I behold all things hanging from air, - I perceive all things upheld by spirit, - Flesh hanging from soul, - Soul standing forth from air, - And air hanging from aether, - But fruits borne away from Bythos - But the embryo from the womb.”[164] - -Understanding this thus:--Flesh is, according to them, Matter, which -depends from the soul of the Demiurge. But soul stands out from air, -that is the Demiurge from the Spirit outside the Pleroma. But air -stands out from æther, that is Sophia Without from that which is -within (the) limit and the whole Pleroma. Fruits are borne away from -Bythos, which is the whole emanation of Aeons coming into being from -the Father. The opinions of Valentinus have therefore been sufficiently -told.[165] It remains to tell of the teachings of those who have been -obedient to his school, another having different teaching. - - - 3. _About Secundus and Epiphanes._[166] - -[Sidenote: p. 302.] 38. A certain Secundus, who was born at the same -time as Ptolemy, says that there exist a right hand and a left hand -tetrad like light and darkness. And he says that the Power which fell -away and is lacking[167] came into being not from the thirty Aeons, -but from their fruits. But there is a certain Epiphanes, a teacher -of theirs, who says: “The First Principle[168] was incomprehensible, -ineffable and unnameable” which he calls Solitude[169] and that a Power -of this co-exists with it which he names Oneness.[170] The same Monotes -and Henotes preceded [but] did not send forth[171] an unbegotten and -invisible principle over all which he calls[172] a Monad. “With this -Power co-exists a power of the same essence with itself, which same -power I also name the One.” These four Powers themselves sent forth the -remaining projections of the Aeons. But others of them [Sidenote: p. -303.] again have called the first and primordial Ogdoad by these names: -first, “Before the Beginning,” then “Inconceivable,” third “Ineffable” -and the fourth, “Invisible;”[173] and (they say) that from the first -Proarche was projected in the first and fifth place Beginning; -from Anennoetos, in the second and sixth (place) Unrevealed, from -Arrheton in the third and seventh place, Unnameable and from Aoratos, -Unbegotten.[174] (This is the) Pleroma of the first Ogdoad. And they -will have these powers to have existed before Bythos and Sige. But yet -others understand differently about Bythos himself, some saying that he -is spouseless and neither male nor female, and others that Sige exists -beside him as his female and that this is the first syzygy. - - - 4. _About Ptolemy._[175] - -[Sidenote: p. 304.] 39. But the adherents of Ptolemy say -that he [Bythos] has two partners whom they call also (his) -predispositions[176] (_i. e._) Thought and Will. For he first had it -in mind to project something, and then he willed (to do so). Wherefore -from these two diatheses and powers, that is, from Ennoia and Thelesis -as it were blending with one another, the projection of Monogenes and -Aletheia as a pair came to pass. The which types and images of the two -diatheses of the Father came forth visible from the invisible, Nous -from Thelema[177] and Aletheia from Ennoia. Therefore also the male -image was born from the later-begotten Thelema, but the female from the -unbegotten Ennoia, because Thelema came into being like a power from -Ennoia. For Ennoia has ever in mind projection, but she is not able by -herself to project what she has in mind. But when the power of Thelema -[came into being later],[178] then she projected what she had in mind. - - - 5. _About Marcus._[179] - -40. And a certain other teacher of theirs, Marcus, an [Sidenote: p. -305.] expert in magic, depending now on trickery and now on demons, -leads astray many. For he says that there is in him the greatest power -from the invisible and unnameable places. And often he takes a cup, -as if consecrating it,[180] and prolonging the words of consecration, -causes the mixture to appear purple and sometimes red, so as to make -his dupes think that a certain grace has come down, and has given a -blood-like power[181] to the draught. But the rogue, though he formerly -escaped the notice of many, will, now that he has been refuted,[182] -have to stop. For he used secretly to insert a certain drug having the -power of giving such a colour to the mixture, and then to wait while -uttering much gibberish, until it dissolved by absorbing moisture and, -mixing with the draught, coloured it. And the drugs which can thus give -colour we have before described in our book against the Magicians,[183] -and have set forth how leading many astray, they utterly ruin them. -Which (last), if they care to consider more carefully what has been -said above, will know the fraud of Marcus. - -[Sidenote: p. 306.] 41. Which (Marcus) also, mixing a cup by another -hand, (sometimes) gives it[184] to a woman to consecrate, while he -stands by her side holding a larger one empty: and when the dupe has -made the consecration, he takes (the cup) from her, and empties it into -the larger one and many times pouring (the contents) from one cup to -the other, says these words over them: “May the Incomprehensible and -Ineffable Charis who is earlier than the universals fill thy inner -man, and make abundant in thee the knowledge[185] of her, even as she -scatters the mustard seed upon the good ground!” And as he speaks -some such words over it, and (thereby) distracts the dupe and the -bystanders, so that he is considered a miracle-worker, he fills the -larger cup from the smaller so that it overflows. And we have set forth -the trick of this in the above-named book, where we have pointed out -many drugs which have the power of causing increase when thus mixed -with watery substances,[186] especially when mingled with wine: the -drug compounded beforehand, being hidden in the empty cup in such a -way that this may be exhibited as containing nothing, and being poured -backwards and forwards from one cup to the other, so as to dissolve the -drug by mixture with the water,[187] and so that [Sidenote: p. 307.] -when it is inflated by air, an overflow of the water comes about, and -it increases the more it is shaken, since such is the nature of the -drug. If, however, one lays aside the cup when filled, the mixture -will before long return to its former volume, the power of the drug -being quenched by the continued moisture. Wherefore he hurriedly gives -the bystanders to drink; and they being at the same time scared and -thirsting for it as something divine and mingled by a god, hasten to -drink. - -42. Such like and other things, the deceiver undertakes to do. Whence -he was glorified by those he duped and was thought sometimes to -prophesy himself and sometimes to make others do so, either effecting -this by demons or by trickery as we have said above. Further he utterly -ruined many,[188] and led on many of them to become his disciples (by) -teaching them to be indifferent to sin[189] as free from danger (to -them) through their belonging to the Perfect Power and partakers of -the Inconceivable Authority. To whom also after baptism they promise -another which they call Redemption,[190] and thereby turn again to -evil those [Sidenote: p. 308.] who remain with them in the hope of -deliverance, (as if) those who had been once baptized might again -meet with acquittal. Through such jugglery,[191] they seem to retain -their hearers, whom, when they consider that they have been (duly) -indoctrinated and are able to keep fast the things entrusted to them, -they then lead to this (second baptism), not contenting themselves with -this alone, but promising them still something else, for the purpose -of keeping control over them by hope, lest they should separate from -them. For they mutter something in an inaudible voice, laying hands -on them for the receiving of Redemption which they pretend cannot be -spoken openly unless one were highly instructed, or when the bishop -should come to speak it into the ears of one departing this life.[192] -And this jugglery is practised so that they may remain the bishop’s -disciples, eagerly desirous to learn what has been said about the last -thing[193] whereby the learner would become perfect. Of which things I -have kept silence for this cause, lest any should think I put the worst -construction on them. For this is not what we have set before us, but -rather the exposure of whence they have derived the hints[194] from -which their doctrines have arisen. - -43. For the blessed elder Irenæus having come forward [Sidenote: p. -309.] very openly for (their) refutation has set forth these baptisms -and redemptions saying in rounder terms what those who traffic[195] -with them do; and if some of these deny that they have thus received -them (it is because) they learn to always deny.[196] Wherefore we have -been careful to enquire very sedulously and to find out minutely what -they hand down in the first baptism as they call it, and what in the -second which they call Redemption: and no unutterable doing of theirs -has escaped us. But let us abandon[197] these things to Valentinus -and his school. Marcus, however, imitating his teacher himself also -concocts a vision, thinking thus to glorify himself. For Valentinus -claims that he himself saw a new-born infant, hearing whom he enquired -who he might be. And (the infant) answered declaring himself to be -the Logos. Thereupon (Valentinus) having added a certain tragic myth, -wishes from this to construct the heresy which he had already taken in -hand.[198] With like audacity, Marcus declares that the Tetrad came -before him in feminine shape; because, he says, the cosmos could not -bear its male form.[199] And [Sidenote: p. 310.] she disclosed to him -what she was, and the coming into being of all things, which she had -never yet revealed to any either of gods or men (but) announced it to -him alone, saying thus:--when the First (Being) who has no father,[200] -the Inconceivable and Substanceless One, who is neither male nor -female, willed the ineffable to be spoken and the invisible to take -shape, He opened His mouth and a Logos like unto Him went forth. Who, -standing beside Him, showed Him what He was, Himself having appeared in -the shape of the Invisible One. And the utterance of the name was on -this wise. He spoke the first word of the name which was the beginning -and was the syllable[201] of four letters. And He added to it the -second, and it also was of four letters. And He spoke the third, which -was of ten letters and then the fourth, and this was of twelve. There -came to pass therefore, the pronunciation of the whole name of thirty -letters, but of four syllables. But each of the elements has its own -letters[202] and its own character,[203] and its own pronunciation -and figures and images, nor is there any of them which perceives the -form of another. [Sidenote: p. 311.] Nor does it see that it is an -element, nor know the pronunciation of its neighbour; but each sounds -as if pronouncing the whole, and believes itself to be naming the -[universe].[204] For while each of them is a part of the universe, it -thinks its own sound names as it were the whole, and does not cease to -sound until it has arrived at the last single-tongued letter of the -last element. Then he says that the return of the universals (to the -Deity)[205] will come to pass when all things coming together into one -letter shall echo one and the same sound. He supposes that the likeness -of this sound is the Amen[206] which we speak in unison. But (he says) -that the vowels[207] exist to give shape to the substanceless and -unbegotten Aeon, and that they are those forms which the Lord called -angels, which behold without ceasing the Father’s face.[208] - -44. But the names of the elements which are common (to all) and may be -spoken, he calls Aeons and Logoi and Roots and Seeds[209] and Pleromas -and Fruits. And (he says) [Sidenote: p. 312.] that every one of them -and what is special to each is to be comprehended as comprised in the -name of Ecclesia. Of which elements, he says, that the last letter of -the last element first sent forth[210] its own sound, the echo of which -going forth begot its own elements as being the images of the other -elements. Wherefrom, he says, both the things here below were set in -order and those which were before them were brought into being.[211] -He says nevertheless that the very letter the sound of which followed -immediately upon the echo below was taken up again by its own syllable -in order to fill full again the universe, but that the echo remained -in the things below as if cast outside it.[212] But the element itself -wherefrom the letter with its pronunciation came down below, he says, -is of thirty letters, and every one of the thirty letters contains -within itself other letters whereby the name of the letter is named. -And again others are named by other letters and yet others by these -others, so that the total comes out to infinity, if the letters be -written separately.[213] You will more clearly [Sidenote: p. 313.] -understand what has been said (if it be put) thus:--The element Delta -contains in itself five letters, the Delta, the Epsilon, the Lambda, -the Tau and the Alpha and the same letters (are written) by other -letters [214]. If then the whole substance[215] of the Delta comes -out to infinity, letters constantly giving birth to other letters and -succeeding one another, how much greater than that one element is the -sea of letters? And if the one letter be thus infinite, behold the -depth[216] of the letters of the whole name whereof the industry or -rather the idiot labour[217] of Marcus will have the Forefather to be -composed. Wherefore, (he says) the Father, knowing well His unconfined -nature, gave to the elements which He calls Aeons, the power for each -to send forth the pronunciation of his own name, whereby none is -capable of pronouncing the whole. - -45. And [it is said that] the Tetrad having explained these things to -him, said:--“I desire now to show to thee Aletheia[218] herself; for -I have brought her down from the dwellings on high in order that thou -mayest behold her [Sidenote: p. 314.] unclothed and learn her beauty, -and may also hear her speak and admire her wisdom. See then the head -on high the first Alpha-Omega, and the neck Beta-Psi, the shoulders -(together with the hands) Gamma-Chi, the breast Delta-Phi, the waist -Epsilon-Upsilon, the belly Zeta-Tau, the privy parts Eta-Sigma, the -thighs Theta-Rho, the knees Iota-Pi, the legs Kappa-Omicron, the ankles -Lambda-Xi, the feet Mu-Nu.” Such is the body of Aletheia according -to Marcus, this the form of the element, this the impress of the -letter. And he calls this element Anthropos[219] and says that it -is the fountain of all speech and the principle of every sound, and -the utterance of everything ineffable, and the mouth of the silent -Sige.[220] “And this is her body. But do thou raising on high the -understanding of the intelligence,[221] hear the Self-Begotten and -Forefather Word from the lips of Truth.” - -46. When (the Tetrad) had thus spoken (says Marcus), Aletheia looking -upon him and opening her mouth spake a word. But that word was a name -and the name was that which we know and speak (to wit) Christ Jesus, -having [Sidenote: p. 315.] spoken which, she straightway became silent. -And when Marcus expected her to say something more, the Tetrad again -coming forward said: “Holdest thou simple the word which thou hast -heard from the lips of Aletheia? Yet that which you know and seem to -have possessed of old is not the name. For you have its sound only, -and know not its power. For Jesus is an illustrious name having six -letters[222] invoked by all the Elect. But that which occurs among the -(five)[223] Aeons of the Pleroma has many parts (and) is of another -shape and of a different type, being known by those of (His) kindred -whose magnitudes[224] are ever with Him.” - -47. “Know ye that the twenty-four letters among you are emanations -in the likeness of the Three Powers encompassing the universe[225] -and (the) number of the elements on [Sidenote: p. 316.] high. For -suppose that the nine mute letters[226] are those of the Father and of -Aletheia, because they are mute, that is, ineffable and unutterable; -and the semi-mute which are eight,[227] those of Logos and Zoe, -because they exist as it were half-way between the mute and those -which sound,[228] and they receive the emanation from those above -them and the ascension of those below; and the vowels--and they are -seven[229]--are those of Anthropos and Ecclesia, since it is the sound -going forth from Anthropos which has given form to the universals. For -the echo of the sound has clothed them with shape.[230] There are then -Logos and Zoe having the 8 and Anthropos and Ecclesia the 7 and the -Father and Aletheia the 9. But since the reckoning was deficient,[231] -He who was seated in the Father came down, having been sent forth from -that wherefrom he had been separated for the rectification of the -things which had been done, so that the unity of the Pleromas which is -in the Good One might bear as fruit one power which is in all from all. -And thus the 7 recovered the power of the 8, [Sidenote: p. 317.] and -the three places became alike in numbers, being three ogdoads. Which -three added together show forth the number of 24.” In fact the three -elements (which he says exist in the syzygy of the three powers, which -are 6, the flowing-forth of which are the 24 elements) having been -quadrupled by the Word of the Ineffable Tetrad make the same number -for themselves which he says is (that) of the Unnameable One. But they -were clothed by the 6 powers in the likeness of the Invisible One, of -the images of which elements the double letters are the likeness, which -added to the 24 elements by analogy make potentially the number 30.[232] - -48. He says that the fruit of this reckoning and arrangement[233] -appeared[234] in semblance of an image (to wit) He who after the six -days went up to the mountain[235] as one of four [Sidenote: p. 318.] -persons and became one of six. Who came down and bore rule in the -Hebdomad, Himself becoming the illustrious[236] Ogdoad and containing -within Himself the whole number of the elements. Which the descent -of the dove coming upon Him at the baptism made plain, which (dove) -is Alpha and Omega, the number being plainly 801.[237] And because -of this Moses said that man came into being on the 6th day. But -according to the economy of the Passion on the 6th day, which is the -Preparation,[238] the last man appeared for the regeneration of the -First Man. Of this economy, the beginning and the end was the 6th -hour, wherein he was nailed to the Cross. For, (he says) that the -perfect Nous, knowing that number 6 possesses the power of creation and -regeneration[239] made apparent to the Sons of Light the regeneration -which had come through Him who appeared as Episemon. For the -illustrious number[240] when blended with the other elements completes -the 30-lettered name. - -[Sidenote: p. 319.] 49. But He has made use as His instrument of -the greatness of the 7 numbers, in order that the Fruit of the -self-inspired (Council)[241] might be made manifest. Consider, he says, -this Episemon here present, which has taken shape from the Illustrious -One who has been, as it were, cut into parts and remains without. Who, -by His own power and forethought, by means of His own projection which -is that of the Seven Powers, imitated the Seventh Power and gave life -to the cosmos[242] and set it to be the soul of this visible universe. -He therefore uses this same work also as if it came into being by -Him independently; but the rest being imitations of that which is -inimitable minister to the Enthymesis[243] of the Mother. And the first -heaven sounds the Alpha, and that following it the Epsilon, and the 3rd -the Eta, and the 4th and middle one of the 7 the power of the Iota, -and the 5th the Omicron, and the 6th the Upsilon, [Sidenote: p. 320.] -and the 7th the Omega. And all the heavens when locked together into -one, give forth a sound and glorify Him by whom they were projected. -And the glory of the sounding is sent on high into the presence of the -Forefather[244]. And, he says, that the echo of this glorifying being -borne to the earth becomes the Fashioner and begetter of those upon the -earth. And there is a proof of this in the case of newly born children, -whose breath immediately they come forth from the womb, cries aloud -likewise the sound of each one of these elements. As then the Seven -Powers, he says, glorify the Word, so does the complaining soul among -infants. Wherefore, he says, David declared:--“Out of the mouth of -babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.”[245] And again:--“The -heavens declare the glory of God.”[246] When also the soul is in pain -it cries aloud nothing else than the Omega in which it is grieved, so -that the soul on high recognizing its kindred may send it help. - -[Sidenote: p. 321.] 50. And so far as to this.[247] But concerning the -beginning of the 24 elements, she speaks thus:--Henotes existed along -with Monotes[248] from which (two) came into being two projections: -Monad and the One which, as twice 2, became four. For twice 2 is 4. And -again the 2 and the 4 being added together the number 6 is manifested, -but when these 6 are quadrupled, 24. And these names of the first -Tetrad are understood to be the holiest of holy things, and cannot be -spoken, but are known by the Son alone. The Father knows also what -they are. Those named by Him in silence and faith are: Arrhetos[249] -and Sige, Pater and Aletheia. And the total number of this Tetrad is -24 elements. For Arrhetos has 7 elements, Sige 5[250] and Pater 5 and -Aletheia[251] 7. In like manner also the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, -Anthropos and Ecclesia, show forth the same number of elements. And the -spoken [Sidenote: p. 322.] name of the Saviour, that is Jesus, consists -of 6 letters; but His unspoken (name)[252] from the number of letters -taken one by one, is of 24 elements, but Christ (the) Son of 12.[253] -But the unspoken (element) in the Chreistos is of 30 letters and is -that of the letters in it, counting the elements one by one. For the -[name] Chreistos is of 8 elements: ([254] for the Chi[255] is of 3, and -the Rho of 2, and the Ei of 2 and the Iota of 4, the Sigma of 5 and the -Tau of 3, while the Ou is of 2 and the San of 3). Thus they imagine -that the unspoken element in “Chreistos” is of 30 elements. Wherefore -also, say they, He said “I am Alpha and Omega,” thereby indicating that -the Dove has this number, which is eight hundred and one.[256] - -51. But Jesus has this ineffable generation.[257] For from the -Mother of the Universals the first Tetrad came forth, as if it were -a daughter, and the second Tetrad and an Ogdoad thus came into -being, wherefrom the Decad [Sidenote: p. 323.] proceeded. Thus an -Eighteen[258] came into being. Then the Decad having united with the -Ogdoad and making it tenfold, [the number] 80 [proceeded; and the -80][259] being again multiplied by 10, gives birth to the number 800. -So that the total number coming forth from the Ogdoad to the Decad is -8 and 80 and 800, which is Jesus. For the name Jesus according to the -number in the letters is 888. And the Greek Alphabet has eight monads -and eight decads and eight hecatontads indicating the cipher of the -eight hundreds as 88, that is the (word) Jesus (made up) from all the -constituent numbers. Wherefore also He is named Alpha and Omega as -signifying the birth from them all. - -52. But concerning His fashioning[260] (Marcus) speaks thus: Powers -which emanated from the Second Tetrad [Sidenote: p. 324.] fashioned -the Jesus who appeared upon earth, and the angel Gabriel filled the -place[261] of the Logos and the Holy Spirit that of Zoe, and the -power of the Highest[262] (that) of Anthropos and the Virgin that of -Ecclesia. Thus by incarnation[263] a man was generated by Himself -through Mary. But when He came to the water, there descended upon -Him as a dove he who had ascended on high and had filled the 12th -number,[264] in whom existed the seed of those who had been sown -together[265] in Him, and had descended together and had ascended -together. But this Power which descended on Him, he says, was the seed -of the Pleroma having within it the Father and the Son, which through -them was known to be the unnamed power of Sige, and (to be) all the -Aeons. And that this was the Spirit which in Him spake through the -mouth of the Son, confessed Himself to be Son of Man, and manifested -the Father, yet veritably descended into Jesus (and) became one with -Him. The Saviour from the Economy,[266] destroyed death, they say, -but Christ Jesus made known the [Sidenote: p. 325.] Father. He says -therefore that Jesus was the name of the man from the Economy, but that -it was set forth in resemblance and shape of the Anthropos who was to -come upon Him; and that when He had received he retained the Anthropos -himself and the Father himself and Arrhetos and Sige and Aletheia and -Ecclesia and Zoe.[267] - -53. I hope then that these things are clearly to all of sane mind -without authority and far from that knowledge which is according to -religion, being (in fact) fragments of astrological inventions and of -the arithmetical art of the Pythagoreans, as you who love learning -will also know from those their doctrines which we have exposed in the -foregoing books. But in order that we may exhibit them more clearly to -the disciples, not of Christ, but, of Pythagoras, I will also set forth -so far as can be done in epitome, the things which they have taken from -(this last) concerning the phenomena of the stars. For they say that -these universals are composed from a monad and a dyad, [Sidenote: p. -326.] and counting from a monad up to four, they bring into being a -decad. And the dyad[268] again going forth up to Episemon, for example, -two and four and six show forth the dodecad. And, again, if we count -in the same way from the dyad up to the decad, the triacontad appears, -wherein are the ogdoad and decad and dodecad. Then they say that the -dodecad through its containing the Episemon and because the Episemon -closely follows it, is Passion.[269] And since through this, the lapse -with regard to the 12th number occurred, the sheep skipped away and was -lost.[270] And in like manner from the decad: and on this they tell of -the drachma which the woman lost and lamp in hand searched for and of -the loss of the one sheep;[271] and having contrasted with this the -(number) 99, they make a fable for themselves of the numbers, since of -the 11 multiplied by 9 they make the number 99, and thanks to this they -say that the Amen contains this number.[272] - -[Sidenote: p. 327.] And of another number they say this:--the element -Eta with the Episemon is an ogdoad, as it lies in the 8th place from -the Alpha. Then again counting the numbers of the same elements -together without the Episemon and adding them together as far as the -Eta, they display the number 30. For if one begins the number of the -elements with the Alpha (and continues) up to the Eta (inclusive) after -subtracting the Episemon, one finds the number 30.[273] Since then the -number 30 is made from the uniting of the three powers, the same number -30 occurring thrice made 90--for three times 30 are 90 [and the same -triad multiplied into itself brought forth 9]. Thus the ogdoad made -the number 99 from the first ogdoad and decad and dodecad. The number -of which (ogdoad) they sometimes carry to completion[274] and make a -triacontad and sometimes deducting the 12th number they count it 11 and -likewise make the 10th (number) 9. And multiplying and decupling[275] -[Sidenote: p. 328.] these (figures) they complete the number 99. And -since the 12th Aeon left the 11 [on high] and fell away from them and -came below, they imagine that these things correspond one to the other. -For the type of the letters is instructive. For the 11th letter is -the Lambda which is the number 30 and is so placed after the likeness -of the arrangement on high,[276] since from the Alpha apart from the -Episemon, the number of the same letters up to Lambda when added -together makes up the number 99.[277] But (they say) that the Lambda -which is put in the 11th place[278] came down to seek for what is like -unto it so that it may complete the 12th number, and having found it -did (so) complete it is plain from the very shape of the element.[279] -For the Lambda succeeding as it were in the search for what was like -unto itself and finding, seized it, and filled up with it the place of -the 12th element Mu, which is composed of two Lambdas.[280] Wherefore -they avoid by this gnosis the place [Sidenote: p. 329.] of the 99 that -is to say the Hysterema[281] as the type of the left hand, but follow -the One which added to the 99, brings them over to the right hand. - -54.[282] But they declare that first the four elements which they say -are fire, water, earth (and) air, were made through the Mother and -projected as an image of the Tetrad on high. And reckoning in with -them their energies, such as heat, cold, moisture, and dryness they -exactly reflect the Ogdoad. Next, they enumerate ten powers, thus: -Seven circular bodies which they also call heavens, then a circle -encompassing these which they call the Eighth Heaven and besides these, -the Sun and Moon.[283] And these making up the number 10, they declare -to be the image of the invisible decad which is from Logos and Zoe. -And (they say) that the dodecad is revealed through the circle called -the Zodiac. For they declare that the twelve most evident signs shadow -forth the dodecad which is the daughter of Anthropos and [Sidenote: p. -330.] Ecclesia. And since they say the highest heaven has been linked -to the ascension of the universals, the swiftest in existence, which -(heaven) weighs down upon the sphere itself, and counterbalances by -its own weight the swiftness of the others, so that in thirty years -it completes the cycle from sign to sign--this they declare to be the -image of Horos encircling their thirty-named Mother.[284] - -Again the Moon traversing the heavens completely in 30 days, typifies -(they say) by these days the number of the Aeons. And the Sun -completing his journey and terminating his cyclical return to his -former place in 12 months shows forth the Dodecad. And that the days -themselves, since they are measured by 12 hours, are a type of the -mighty[285] Ogdoad. And also that the perimeter of the Zodiacal circle -has 360 degrees and that each Zodiacal sign has 30. Thus by means of -the circle, they say, the [Sidenote: p. 331.] image of the connection -of the 12 with the 30 is observed. And again also they imagine that -the earth is divided into 12 climates, and that each several climate -receives a single power from the heavens immediately above it[286] and -produces children of the same essence with the power sending down [this -influence] by emanation [which is they say] a type of the Dodecad on -high. - -55. And besides this, they say that the Demiurge of the Ogdoad on -high,[287] wishing to imitate the Boundless and Everlasting and -Unconfined and Timeless One and not being able to form a model of His -stability and permanence, because he was himself the fruit of the -Hysterema, was forced to place in it for rendering it eternal, times -and seasons and numbers, thinking that by the multitude of times he was -imitating the Boundless One. But they declare that in this the truth -having escaped him, he followed the false; and that therefore when the -times are fulfilled, his work will be dissolved.[288] - -[Sidenote: p. 332.] 56. These things, then, those who are from the -school of Valentinus declare concerning Creation and the Universe, -every time producing something newer[289] (than the last). And they -consider this to be fructification, if any one similarly discovering -something greater appears to work wonders. And finding in each case -from the Scriptures something accordant with the aforesaid numbers, -they prate of Moses and the Prophets, imagining them to declare -allegorically the dimensions of the Aeons. Which things it does not -seem to me expedient to explain as they are senseless and inconsistent, -and already the blessed elder Irenæus has marvellously and painfully -refuted their doctrines. From whom also [we have taken] their so-called -discoveries and have shown that they, having appropriated these -things from (the) trifling[290] of the Pythagorean philosophy and the -astrologies, accuse Christ of having handed them down. But since I -consider that their senseless doctrines have been sufficiently set -forth, and that it has been already proved whose disciples Marcus and -Colarbasus[291] by becoming the successors of the school of Valentinus -(really) are, let us see also what Basilides says.[292] - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: He of course refers to the Ophites, whence it is clear -that he included Justinus among them. His language may imply that all -these serpent-worshipping sects had been in existence some time before, -but did not begin to write their doctrines until they had taken on a -veneer of Christianity. This is very probable, but there is not as yet -any convincing proof that this was the case.] - -[Footnote 2: Here again it is very difficult to say whether τῶν -ἀκολούθων means those who follow in point of time or in the pages of -the book.] - -[Footnote 3: ὄργια, “secret rites” and ὀργή, “wrath,” is the pun here.] - -[Footnote 4: Simon Magus, the convert of Philip the Evangelist, is -said by all patristic writers to be at once the first teacher and the -founder of all (post-Christian) Gnosticism; but until the discovery -of our text our knowledge of his doctrines hardly went further than -the statements of St. Irenæus and Epiphanius that he claimed to be the -Supreme Being. The only other light on the subject came from Theodoret, -who, writing in the fifth century, discloses in a few brief words the -assertion by Simon of a system of aeons or inferior powers emanating -from the Divinity by pairs. It is plain that in this, Theodoret must -have either borrowed from, or used the same material as, our author, -and it is now seen that Simon’s aeons were said by him to be six in -number, the sources of all subsequent being, and to be considered under -a double aspect. On the one hand, they were names or attributes of God -like the Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism or the Sephiroth of the Jewish -Cabala; and on the other they were identified with natural objects such -as Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, Earth and Water, thereby forming a -link with the Orphic and other cosmogonies current in Greece and the -East. We now learn, too, for the first time that Simon taught, like the -Ophites, that the Supreme Being was of both sexes like his antitypes, -that the universe consisted of three worlds reflecting one another, -and that man must achieve his salvation by coming to resemble the -Deity--a result which was apparently to be brought about by finding -his twin soul and uniting himself to her. None of these ideas seem -to have been Simon’s own invention, and all are found among those of -earlier or later Gnostics. Hence their appearance has here given rise -to the theories, put forward in the first instance by German writers, -but also adopted by some English ones, that the Simon of our text was -not the magician of the _Acts_ but an heresiarch of the same name who -flourished in the second century, and that the opponent of St. Peter -covers under the same name the personality of St. Paul. Neither theory -seems to have any foundation.] - -[Footnote 5: τοῦ Γιττηνοῦ. Hippolytus’ usual practice is to use the -place-name as an adjective. The Codex has Γειττηνοῦ, Justin Martyr, “of -Gitto.”] - -[Footnote 6: Probably Paramedes or Agamedes is intended. Cf. -Theocritus, _Idyll_, II, 14. The Paramedes or Perimedes there mentioned -was said to have been a famous witch, child of the Sun, and mistress of -Poseidôn.] - -[Footnote 7: Acts viii. 9-14.] - -[Footnote 8: _i.e._ Cyrene.] - -[Footnote 9: This story in one form or another appears in Maximus -Tyrius (_Diss._ xxxv), Ælian (_Hist._, xiv. 30), Justin (xxi. 4), and -Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, viii. 16). The name seems to be Psapho.] - -[Footnote 10: Cruice’s emendation. Schneidewin, Miller, and Macmahon -read τάχιον ἀνθρώπῳ γενομένῳ, ὄντως θεῷ, “sooner than to Him who though -made man, was really God;” but there seems no question here of the -Second Person of the Trinity.] - -[Footnote 11: γέννημα γυναικός, “birth of a woman.”] - -[Footnote 12: This is the evident meaning of the sentence. Hippolytus -ignores all rules as to the order of his words. Macmahon translates as -if Christ were meant.] - -[Footnote 13: Deut. iv. 24, “consuming” only in A. V.] - -[Footnote 14: Empedocles also. See Vol. I. pp. 40-41 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 15: τὸ γράμμα ἀποφάσεως, _liber revelationis_, Cr., “the -treatise of a revelation,” Macmahon; as if it were the title of a book. -But the title of the book attributed to Simon is given later as Ἡ -ἀποφάσις μεγάλη, and there seems no reason why the second syzygy of the -series should be singled out in it for special mention.] - -[Footnote 16: A phrase singularly like this occurs in the “Naassene” -author. See Vol. I. pp. 140-141 _supra_, where the “universals” are -enumerated.] - -[Footnote 17: Or that which can only be perceived by the mind and that -which can be perceived by the senses.] - -[Footnote 18: ἐπινοήσῃ. The sense of the passage seems to require -“perceive”; but the Greek can only mean “have in one’s mind.” Probably -some blunder of the copyist.] - -[Footnote 19: Here, again, he has inverted the order. The hidden is the -intelligible, the manifest, the perceptible.] - -[Footnote 20: The simile of the Treasure-house finds frequent -expression in the _Pistis Sophia_.] - -[Footnote 21: Dan. iv. 12.] - -[Footnote 22: ἐξεικονισθῇ. Macmahon translates “if it be fully grown” -on the strength apparently of a passage in the LXX; but the word is -used too frequently throughout this chapter to have that meaning here.] - -[Footnote 23: Isa. v. 7. The A.V. has “the men” for “a man” and -“pleasant” for “beloved.”] - -[Footnote 24: τοῖς ἐξεικονισμένοις.] - -[Footnote 25: 1 Pet. i. 24, 25. The A.V. has “glory of man” for “glory -of flesh.”] - -[Footnote 26: τέλειον νοερὸν. It is very difficult to find in English a -word expressing the difference between this νοερός, “intellectual,” and -νοητός, “intelligible.”] - -[Footnote 27: Reading ἀπειράκις ἀπείρων (ὄντων) for the ἀπειράκις -ἀπείρως of Cruice’s text.] - -[Footnote 28: Cruice’s emendation. The Codex has γνώμην ἴσην, “equal -opinion”? Schneidewin, νώματος αἶσαν.] - -[Footnote 29: Here we have Simon’s cosmogonical ideas set out for the -first time in something like his own words. He seems to postulate the -existence of a Logos who makes the Six Powers or Roots and who is -himself present in them all. This does not appear to differ from the -view of Philo, for which see _Forerunners_, I, 174, or Schürer’s _Hist. -of the Jewish People_ there quoted.] - -[Footnote 30: Νοῦς καὶ Ἐπίνοιαν, Φωνὴ καὶ Ὄνομα, Λογισμὸς καὶ -Ἐνθύμησις. The last name is the only one that presents any difficulty, -although every heresiologist but Hippolytus gives the female of the -first syzygy as Ἔννοια. Ἐνθύμησις is translated _Conceptio_ by Cruice, -“Reflection” by Macmahon. It seems as if it here meant “desire” in a -mental, not a fleshly, sense; but as this word has a double meaning in -English, I have substituted for it “Passion.” Hereafter the Greek names -will be used.] - -[Footnote 31: This daring idea that the Logos, the chief intermediary -between God and matter in whom all the lesser λόγοι and powers were -contained, as Philo thought, must himself either return to and be -united to God or else be lost in matter and perish, is met with in one -form or another in nearly all later forms of Gnosticism. It is this -which makes the redemption of Sophia after her “fall” so prominent -in the mythology of Valentinus, while its converse is shown in the -First Man of Manichæism conquered by Satan and groaning in chains -and darkness until released by the heavenly powers and placed in -some intermediate world to wait until the last spark of the light -which he has lost is redeemed from matter. It seems to be the natural -consequence of Philo’s ideas, for which see Schürer’s _Hist. of the -Jewish People_ (Eng. ed.) II, ii. pp. 370-376. Whether these did not -in turn owe something to Greek stories of mortals like Heracles and -Dionysos deified as a reward for their sufferings is open to question. -Cf. _Forerunners_, vol. I.] - -[Footnote 32: Justinus also used this quotation from Isaiah i. 2, -although in abbreviated form. See _supra_, Vol. I. p. 179. The A.V. has -“nourished and brought up” for “begotten and raised up,” and “rebelled -against” for “disregarded.”] - -[Footnote 33: So Philo according to Zeller and Schürer, (_op. cit._, p. -374) understands by the Logos “the power of God or the active Divine -intelligence in general.” He designates it as the “idea which comprises -all other ideas, the power which comprises all powers in itself, as the -entirety of the supersensuous world or of the Divine powers.”] - -[Footnote 34: Gen. ii. 2.] - -[Footnote 35: The Sethiani also quote this. See _supra_, Vol. I. p. -165.] - -[Footnote 36: So Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 9, makes Wisdom or Sophia say, -“He created me from the beginning before all the world,” and Proverbs -viii. 23, “I was set up from everlasting,” but neither passage is here -directly quoted.] - -[Footnote 37: Gen. i. 2, “moved upon the face of,” A.V.] - -[Footnote 38: ἔπλασε, “moulded.”] - -[Footnote 39: That is, masculo-feminine.] - -[Footnote 40: ἐξεικονισθῇ again. Like the Boundless Power or the Logos?] - -[Footnote 41: Quotation already used by the Peratæ. See _supra_, Vol. -I. p. 148. For the Indivisible Point which follows, see the Naassene -chapter, Vol. I. p. 141 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 42: Jer. i. 5. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew -thee,” A.V.] - -[Footnote 43: Gen. ii. 10, “to water the garden,” A.V. The four -divisions of the river have been already referred to in different -senses by Justinus and the Naassene author. So far from this repetition -arguing forgery, as contended by Stähelin, it seems only to show that -all these half-Jewish sects found in the traditions recorded in Genesis -an obstacle that they were bound to explain away if possible.] - -[Footnote 44: ὀχετοὶ πνεύματος. Cruice and Macmahon translate πνεῦμα -by “spirit,” but it here evidently means “breath” from what is said -later about the nostrils. Cruice mentions that the ancients finding the -arteries empty at death concluded that they were filled by air during -life.] - -[Footnote 45: The use of the first person shows that this is -Hippolytus’ and not Simon’s explanation.] - -[Footnote 46: ἀναπνοή, “inbreathing.”] - -[Footnote 47: Cruice’s emendation.] - -[Footnote 48: A hiatus to be filled evidently with some reference to -the mouth. The whole of this passage seems corrupt. From what is said -about the bitterness of the water _Exodus_ should be taste, _Leviticus_ -smell and _Numbers_ hearing.] - -[Footnote 49: The simile as well as the phrase is to be found in -Aristotle. Cf. his _Organon_, c. viii.] - -[Footnote 50: Cf. Isa. ii. 4; Micah iv. 3.] - -[Footnote 51: Matt. iii, 10; Luke iii, 9.] - -[Footnote 52: So the _Bruce Papyrus_ (ed. Amélineau, p. 231) says that -God when he withdrew all things into Himself, did not so draw “a little -Thought,” and from this one Thought all the worlds were made.] - -[Footnote 53: οὐ κοσμεῖται, _non ordinaretur_, Cr., “is not adorned,” -Macmahon.] - -[Footnote 54: Reading μητροπάτωρ for μήτηρ πατήρ. Cf. Clem. Alex., -_Strom._, v. 14 for this word. The other epithets seem to cover -allusions to the Dionysiac, the Osirian and the Attis myths.] - -[Footnote 55: ἡ μεταβλητὴ γένεσις, “changeable,” because those thus -born would have to go through many changes of bodies. The phrase is -used by the Naassene author.] - -[Footnote 56: A play τροπή, “turning,” and τροφὴ, “nutriment.”] - -[Footnote 57: καὶ ἔσται δύναμις ἀπέραντος, ἀπαράλλακτος αἰῶνι -ἀπαραλλάκτῳ μηκέτι γινομένῳ εἰς τὸν ἀπέραντον αἰῶνα; Cr., _et erit -potestas infinita, immutabilis in saeculo immutabili quod non amplius -fit per infinitum sæculum_; “and will become a power indefinite and -unalterable, equal and similar to an unalterable age which no longer -passes into the indefinite age,” Macmahon.] - -[Footnote 58: Words in brackets Cruice’s emendation.] - -[Footnote 59: παραφυάδες.] - -[Footnote 60: δύναμις σιγή, a name compounded of two nouns like Pistis -Sophia. The practice seems peculiar to this literature.] - -[Footnote 61: ἀντιστοιχοῦντες, a term used in logic for -“corresponding.” Simon here seems to think of the Egyptian picture of -the air-god Shu, separating the Heaven Goddess Nut from the Earth God -Seb, and supporting the first-named on his hands.] - -[Footnote 62: So that the Supreme Being is of both sexes.] - -[Footnote 63: This is the exact converse of what has just before been -said about the Father containing Thought within himself.] - -[Footnote 64: καταγινομένη, “descending into” (women’s forms)?] - -[Footnote 65: This sentence is taken _verbatim_ from Irenæus, I, 16, 2.] - -[Footnote 66: ἐπὶ τέγους, literally, “on the roof.”] - -[Footnote 67: διὰ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιγνώσεως; _per suam agnitionem_, Cr.; -“thro’ his own intelligence,” Macmahon.] - -[Footnote 68: Reading ἄρχοντες for the ἀρχαί of the Codex.] - -[Footnote 69: This sentence also appears _verbatim_ in Irenæus, I, 16, -1.] - -[Footnote 70: _i. e._ the prophets.] - -[Footnote 71: The whole of this from the last quotation to the end of -the section is also from Irenæus, I, 16, 2.] - -[Footnote 72: What these πάρεδροι οἱ λεγομένοι were is hard to say; but -one of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ introduces a fiend in -hell as the “Paredros Typhon.” “Assessor” or “coadjutor,” the meanings -of the word in classical Greek, would here seem inappropriate.] - -[Footnote 73: From the beginning of the section to here is from -Irenæus, I, 16, 3.] - -[Footnote 74: That is, made up this doctrine.] - -[Footnote 75: C. W. King in the _Gnostics and their Remains_ (2nd ed.) -thinks that the omitted word is Persia. There is evidently a _lacuna_ -here, and perhaps a considerable one.] - -[Footnote 76: Because his age made his pretensions to divinity absurd. -The story given after this directly contradicts all ecclesiastical -tradition which makes Simon perish by the fall of his demon-borne -car while flying in the presence of Nero and St. Peter in the Campus -Martius.] - -[Footnote 77: The sources of this chapter are fairly plain. There is -little reason to doubt that Hippolytus had actually seen and read a -book attributed to Simon Magus and called the _Great Announcement_ from -which he quotes, after his manner, inaccurately and carelessly, but -still in good faith. Whether the work was by Simon himself is much more -doubtful, but it was probably in use by the sect that he founded, and -therefore represents with some fidelity his teaching. The style of it -as appears from the extracts here given is a curious mixture of bombast -and philosophical expressions, and bears a strong likeness to certain -passages in the chapters in the fifth book on the Naassenes and the -Peratæ. The other traceable source of the chapter is the work _Against -Heresies_ of St. Irenæus, of which the quotations here given go to -establish the Greek text. But intertwined with this, especially towards -the end of the chapter, is a third thread of tradition, quite different -from that used in the _Clementines_ and other patristic accounts of -Simon’s career, which cannot at present be identified.] - -[Footnote 78: With Valentinus, we leave at last the tangled genealogies -and unclean imagery, as it seems to us, of the early traditions of -Western Asia, to approach a form of religion which although not -without fantastic features is yet much more consonant with modern -European thought. Valentinus was, indeed, with the doubtful exception -of Marcion, the first of heretics in the present acceptation of the -term, and many features of his teaching were reproduced later in the -tenets of one or other of the Christian sects. At first sight, the -main difference between his doctrine and that of the Catholic Church -consists in the extraordinary series of personified attributes of the -Deity which he thought fit to interpose between the Supreme Being -and the Saviour. This he probably borrowed either from the later -Zoroastrian idea of the Amshaspands or Archangels who surround Ahura -Mazda, or, more probably, from the _paut neteru_, (“company of the -gods”) of the Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times; and it has been -suggested elsewhere that he probably attached less importance to -dogmatism on the matter than the Fathers would wish to make out. But -Hippolytus’ account of his other doctrines show other divergences -from the Church’s teaching both graver and wider than we should have -gathered from the statements of Irenæus, Tertullian, or Epiphanius. -His view of the ignorance and folly of the Demiurge seems to be taken -over bodily from the Ophite teaching, and, as he identifies him by -implication with the God of the Jews, must logically lead to the -rejection of the whole of the Old Testament except perhaps the Psalms, -Proverbs, and the historical portions. He is also as predestinarian as -Calvin himself, for he assigns complete beatitude to the Pneumatics or -Spirituals only, while relegating the Psychics to an inferior heaven -and dooming the Hylics to complete destruction. Yet the class to which -each of us is assigned has nothing to do with conduct, but is in the -discretion of Sophia, the Mother of all Living. - -The most marked novelty in Valentinus’ teaching, however, is the -cause, according to him, of the gift of this partial salvation to man. -This is not, as in the Catholic, the fruit of God’s love towards his -creature, but the last stage of a great scheme for the reconstruction -and purification of the whole universe. First, the Pleroma or Fulness -of the Godhead is purified by the segregation from it of the Ectroma or -abortion to which Sophia in her ignorance and ambition gave birth; then -the Ectroma herself is freed from her passions by the action of Christ -and the Holy Spirit, and made the Mother of Life; and finally this -material world, the creation of the God of the Jews, is to be purged -by the Divine Mission of Jesus from the gross and devilish elements -introduced into it by the ignorant clumsiness of the same God of the -Jews. But this theory was poles asunder from the geocentric ideas of -the universe then current among Greeks, Jews, and Christians alike, and -comes startlingly near the hypotheses of modern science on the very -low place of the earth and humanity in the scheme of things. Whence -Valentinus drew the materials from which he constructed his theory must -be reserved for investigation at some future date; but it is fairly -clear that some part of it was responsible for not a few of the tenets -of the Manichæism which arose some hundred years later to maintain a -strenuous opposition to the Catholic faith for at least nine centuries. - -Finally, it may be said that Hippolytus also tells us for the first -time of the divisions among Valentinus’ followers and the different -parts played therein by Ptolemy, Heracleon and others, including that -Bardesanes or Bar Daisan whose name was great in the East as late as Al -Bîrûnî’s day.] - -[Footnote 79: οὐκ ἀλόγως ὑπομνησθήσομαι.] - -[Footnote 80: τὰ κορυφαιότατα τῶν αὐτοῖς ἀρεσκομένων.] - -[Footnote 81: The Codex has Σολομῶν--evidently a copyist’s mistake. Cf. -Plato, _Timæus_, § 7.] - -[Footnote 82: Not necessarily the Supreme Being. Clement of Alexandria, -_Paedagogus_, I, 8, says, “God is one, and beyond the One, and above -the Monad itself.”] - -[Footnote 83: A fairly common form of Zoroaster. The quotation is -probably from the “Chaldean Oracles” so-called.] - -[Footnote 84: Diogenes Laertius, Book VIII, c. 19 quotes from -Alexander’s _Successions of Philosophers_ that Pythagoras in his -Commentaries put first the monad, then the undefined dyad, and said -that from these two numbers proceeded, from numbers signs, from signs -lines, from lines plane figures, from planes solids, and from solids -perceptible bodies consisting of the four elements, fire, water, earth -and air.] - -[Footnote 85: Miller would substitute νομιστέον for προστιθέμενον.] - -[Footnote 86: These verses are said by Cruice to be in Sextus -Empiricus, but I have not been able to find them in any known writings -of that author.] - -[Footnote 87: νοητά, as opposed to αἰσθητά.] - -[Footnote 88: Cf. Matt. v. 18.] - -[Footnote 89: These “accidents” are enumerated by Aristotle in his -_Metaphysics_, Book IV, and more briefly in his _Organon_. He does not -there acknowledge any indebtedness to Pythagoras.] - -[Footnote 90: συνέχει.] - -[Footnote 91: φιλία, not ἀγάπη. Macmahon translates “friendship.”] - -[Footnote 92: _i. e._ the “Fashioner” = one who makes things out of -previously existing material, but does not create them _ex nihilo_.] - -[Footnote 93: διανομή, a word peculiar apparently to the Pythagoreans. -Jowett translates it “regulation.”] - -[Footnote 94: ἀπορῥαγάδας, a word unknown in classical Greek, which -should by its etymology mean “chinks” or “rents.” I have taken it as a -mistake for ἀπορῥήματα, which is found in Plutarch.] - -[Footnote 95: Not Pythagoras, but Plutarch, _de Exilio_, § 11. He -attributes it to Heraclitus.] - -[Footnote 96: The reference seems to be to the _Phaedrus_, t. 1, p. 89 -(Bekker).] - -[Footnote 97: Or “practise philosophy”: but Hippolytus always uses the -word with a contemptuous meaning.] - -[Footnote 98: τὰς ἀρχάς. Evidently a mistake for τοὺς ἄρχοντας.] - -[Footnote 99: Hippolytus in the interpretation of these sayings seems -to have followed Diogenes Laertius.] - -[Footnote 100: Ἀριθμητής.] - -[Footnote 101: So Shu the Egyptian God of Air was figured _between_ -Earth (Seb) and Heaven (Nut).] - -[Footnote 102: Roeper would read τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπεργάζεται κόσμου, -“completes the Great Year of the world.”] - -[Footnote 103: Ἄθηλυς, “without female.”] - -[Footnote 104: Σιγή, “Silence.” Cf. the Orphic cosmogony which makes -Night the Mother of Heaven and Earth by Phanes the First-born, who -contains within himself the seeds of all creatures (_Forerunners_, I, -123).] - -[Footnote 105: The attribution of this monistic doctrine to Valentinus -is found for the first time here. Irenæus and Tertullian both make him -say that Sige is the spouse of the Supreme Being.] - -[Footnote 106: οὐσία. Here as elsewhere in this chapter, save where -an obvious pun is intended, to be translated as in text, and not -“substance,” which is generally the equivalent of ὑπόστασις.] - -[Footnote 107: φιλέρημος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν.] - -[Footnote 108: Νοῦν καὶ ἀλήθειαν. Here as elsewhere with the names of -Aeons, the English equivalent of the Greek name is first given, and, in -later repetitions, the Greek name transliterated into English.] - -[Footnote 109: Λόγον καὶ Ζωήν.] - -[Footnote 110: Ἄνθρωπον καὶ Ἐκκλησίαν.] - -[Footnote 111: τέλειος used in its double sense of “perfect” and -“complete.”] - -[Footnote 112: ὁ Λογος μετὰ τῆς Ζωῆς. The curious conception by which -the two partners in a syzygy are regarded as only one being is very -marked throughout this passage.] - -[Footnote 113: ἀγεννησία; “unbegottenness” would be a closer -translation, but is uncouth in this connection. Cf. I, p. 147 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 114: Βυθὸς καὶ Μίξις, Ἀγήρατος καὶ Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς καὶ -Ἡδονή, Ἀκίνητος καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Μακαρία. For the first -name Irenæus (I, i. 1, p. 11, Harvey), has Bythios, thereby making the -substantive into an adjective. So Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXI (p. 328, -Oehler). This is doubtless correct.] - -[Footnote 115: Παράκλητος καὶ Πίστις, Πατρικὸς καὶ Ἐλπίς, Μητρικὸς καὶ -Ἀγάπη, Ἀείνους καὶ Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς καὶ Μακαριστός, Θελητὸς καὶ -Σοφία. The Codex is here very corrupt, and for Ἀείνους we may, if we -please, read Αἰώνιος, “Everlasting,” and for Μακαριστός, Μακαριότης, -“Blessedness.” As the name of the male partner in each syzygy is an -adjective and that of the female a substantive it is probable that the -two are intended to be read together, as _e.g._ “Profound Admixture,” -and the like.] - -[Footnote 116: Sophia, who plays a great part in the Jewish Apocrypha, -is almost certainly a figure of the prototypal earth like Spenta -Armaiti, her analogue in Mazdeism. Cf. the quotation from Genesis which -follows immediately.] - -[Footnote 117: οὐσία. Here “substance” and “essence” would have the -same meaning, and the first-named word is used only to avoid ambiguity.] - -[Footnote 118: Gen. i. 2.] - -[Footnote 119: Exod. xxxiii. 3.] - -[Footnote 120: Ἔκτρωμα.] - -[Footnote 121: Ἐπιπροβληθεὶς οὖν ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Christ -and the Holy Spirit are therefore treated as a syzygy and, as it were, -a single person.] - -[Footnote 122: μονογενές.] - -[Footnote 123: τὸ ὑστέρημα: “the Void,” the converse and opposite of -the Pleroma or “Fulness.”] - -[Footnote 124: For this Platonic theory of “partaking,” see n. on I, p. -53 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 125: So that the first work of the Mission of Jesus was the -freeing of the whole universe--not only our earth--from the evil which -had entered into it.] - -[Footnote 126: ὑποστάτους οὐσίας; “underlying beings.” Here we have the -two ideas of hypostasis, or “substance” in its etymological meaning, -and “essence,” or “being,” side by side.] - -[Footnote 127: ψυχικὴν οὐσίαν, _i. e._ the stuff of which the soul is -made.] - -[Footnote 128: Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7; ii. 10.] - -[Footnote 129: That is Jehovah, the God of the Jews. Hebdomad as -including the seven “planets.”] - -[Footnote 130: Deut. ix. 3.] - -[Footnote 131: The “below,” Ὑποκάτω, and “above,” ὑπεράνω, seem to have -become inverted; but as I am not sure whether this is the scribe’s -mistake or not, I have left the text as it is. If we consider (as we -must) that the heaven of Sophia is the highest and those of the seven -worlds below it like steps of a ladder, we have the conception of -Sophia, her son Jaldabaoth, and his six sons, current among the Ophites -as shown in Book V above. The figure of Sophia as a “day” is at once an -instance of the curious habit among the Gnostics of confusing time and -space, and an allusion to the O.T. name of “Ancient of Days.”] - -[Footnote 132: I have sought to show elsewhere (_P.S.B.A._, 1901, pp. -48, 49) in opposition to the current explanations that this name, -properly written Beelzebuth, is at once a sort of parody of Jabezebuth -or “Jehovah (Lord) of Hosts,” and the name given to the “ruler of -demons” by the parallelism which, as in Zoroastrianism, makes each good -spirit have its evil counterpart of similar name.] - -[Footnote 133: προβεβήκασιν. So in Homer (_Iliad_, VI, 125). Cruice -translates “provenerunt,” Macmahon reading apparently προβεβλήκασιν, -“there has been projected.”] - -[Footnote 134: Gen. ii. 7.] - -[Footnote 135: 1 Cor. ii. 14. In the preceding passage taken apparently -from Eph. iii. 14 either the Gnostic author or Hippolytus has taken -some strange liberties with the received Text, which see.] - -[Footnote 136: It is plain, therefore, that the Valentinians rejected -these parts of the O.T.] - -[Footnote 137: John x. 8.] - -[Footnote 138: The τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ -ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν of Coloss. 1. 26 seems to be what is aimed at.] - -[Footnote 139: ἅτε δὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ λελαλημένα; “inasmuch as they -certainly had been uttered by the Demiurge alone,” Macmahon.] - -[Footnote 140: τέλος ἔλαβεν, “received the finishing touch.”] - -[Footnote 141: διὰ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου. A manifest allusion to the -well-known Gnostic doctrine that Jesus took nothing from His Mother -but came into being through her ὡς διὰ σωλῆνος, “as through a pipe or -conduit.”] - -[Footnote 142: Luke i. 35. Ὕψιστος, “the Highest,” was according to M. -Camont (Suppl. _Rev. instr. publ. en Belgique_, 1897) the name by which -the God of Israel was known throughout Asia Minor in pre-Christian -times.] - -[Footnote 143: καὶ τοῦ Ὑψίστου. These words are not in the Codex.] - -[Footnote 144: τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν ... παράσχῃ. Again “essence” would -etymologically be the better word, but “substance” is used as more -familiar to the English reader.] - -[Footnote 145: διδασκαλία. It is significant of the position held by -Valentinus’ teaching in the Christian community that the Valentinians -are often spoken of by the Fathers as a school of thought rather than a -schismatic Church like that founded by Marcion.] - -[Footnote 146: γέγωνε τῷ ψυχικῷ. So in Manichæism, the Living Spirit -goes towards the Land of Darkness, where the First Man is entombed -after his defeat by Satan, and “cries in a loud voice, and this voice -was like a sharp sword and discovered the form of the First Man,” who -is thereupon drawn up out of the Darkness and raised to the upper -spheres where dwells the Mother of Life. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. -294, 300, n. 1, and 302, n. 1, and Theodore bar Khôni and other authors -there quoted.] - -[Footnote 147: Rom. viii. 11; the words in brackets are not in the -received text.] - -[Footnote 148: Gen. iii. 19.] - -[Footnote 149: So Cruice. Miller’s text has Ἀρδησιάνης.] - -[Footnote 150: ἡ δημιουργικὴ τέχνη, “the process of fashioning.”] - -[Footnote 151: διώρθωτο. So that Valentinus was the first to advance -the theory which we find later among the Manichæans that this earth -of ours, instead of being the centre of the universe, was in fact the -lowest and most insignificant of all the worlds, and that salvation -only came to it after the greater universe had been reformed--an -extraordinary conception on the part of one who must have held, like -his contemporaries, geocentric views in astronomy.] - -[Footnote 152: Ex. vi. 2, 3.] - -[Footnote 153: κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκολουθίαν. Here as elsewhere in the -text, ἀκολουθία has the meaning of imitation.] - -[Footnote 154: ἰσόζυγος.] - -[Footnote 155: ἐπανόρθωσιν, “re-rectification”!] - -[Footnote 156: What follows is from Plato’s Second Epistle, which is -thought to have been written after Plato’s return from his third voyage -to Syracuse, and is perhaps rather less suspect than the other Platonic -epistles. Yet the chances of interpolation are so great that no stress -can be laid on the genuineness of any particular passage.] - -[Footnote 157: This passage alone is sufficient to make one doubtful -as to the Platonic authorship. If Plato really wanted to keep his -doctrine secret, the last thing he would have done would be to call the -attention of the chance reader to the fact.] - -[Footnote 158: Burges translates: “But about a second are the secondary -things and about a third the third.”] - -[Footnote 159: Nearly two pages are here omitted from the Epistle.] - -[Footnote 160: Possibly an allusion to the Platonic theory that all -learning is remembrance.] - -[Footnote 161: Τὰ δὲ νῦν λεγόμενα Σωκράτους. “Said of him” or “said by -him”? The passage is quoted by the Emperor Julian and by Aristides.] - -[Footnote 162: So that Hippolytus’ attempt to show that Valentinus -plagiarized from Plato resolves itself into an imaginative -interpretation of a purposely obscure passage in an epistle which is -only doubtfully assigned to Plato. That Valentinus like every one -educated in the Greek learning was influenced by Plato is likely -enough, but that there was any conscious borrowing of tenets is against -probability.] - -[Footnote 163: προαρχή τῶν ὅλων Αἰώνων.] - -[Footnote 164: That Valentinus is said to have written psalms, see -Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_, I, c. xvii, xx, t. ii, pp. 453, 457 -(Oehl.).] - -[Footnote 165: Of the sources from which the author of the -_Philosophumena_ drew this account of Valentinus’ doctrine, much has -been written. Hilgenfeld in his _Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums_, -and Lipsius in the article “Valentinus” in Smith & Wace’s _D.C.B._, -agree that its main source is the writings of Heracleon. Cruice, -_Études sur les Philosophumena_, on the other hand, thinks it largely -composed of extracts from a work of Valentinus himself, entitled -_Sophia_. Salmon (_Hermathena_, 1885, p. 391), while not committing -himself to a definite pronouncement as to the writer quoted, says that -Hippolytus undoubtedly quoted from a genuine Valentinian treatise, -and that this last is above the suspicion of forgery with which he is -inclined to view other quotations in the _Philosophumena_.] - -[Footnote 166: The notice of the followers, real or supposed, of -Valentinus which occupies the remainder of Book VI adds little to our -previous knowledge of their doctrines, being taken almost _verbatim_ -from the work of Hippolytus’ teacher, St. Irenæus. It is noteworthy, -however, that although the Table of Contents promises us an account -of (among others) Heracleon, nothing is here said of him, although -that shrewd critic of the Gospels was thought worthy of refutation -by Origen some fifty years later. Yet Hippolytus mentions Heracleon -as being with Ptolemy a leader of the Italic School of Valentinians -which seems to dispose of the theory advanced by Lipsius (Smith & -Wace’s _D.C.B._, s. v. “Valentinus”) that Heracleon was the author -from whom Hippolytus took his account of Valentinus’ own doctrine. Of -Secundus nothing more is known than is set down in the text, while the -“Epiphanes” here mentioned is thought by some to be not a name, but -an adjective, so that the passage would read “a certain _illustrious_ -teacher of theirs.” This was certainly the reading of Irenæus’ Latin -translator, who renders the word by “_clarus_.” Is this a roundabout -way of describing Heracleon? As to this see Salmon in _D.C.B._, s. v. -“Heracleon.”] - -[Footnote 167: ἀποστᾶσαν καὶ ὑστερήσασαν. Evidently Sophia is meant.] - -[Footnote 168: ἀρχή.] - -[Footnote 169: Μονότης.] - -[Footnote 170: Ἑνότης.] - -[Footnote 171: προήκαντο μὴ προέμεναι, _protulerunt non proferendo ex -se_, Cr. So Irenæus, I, xi. 3, p. 104, H. In his note Harvey says that -the passage implies that Henotes and Monotes “put forth as the original -cause the _Beginning_, but so as that the _Beginning_ was eternally -inseparable from their unity.”] - -[Footnote 172: Irenæus makes ὁ λόγος, “the Word,” the speaker. So -Tertullian, _adv. Val._, “_quod sermo vocat_.” But it seems more -natural to refer the speech to Epiphanes or “the Illustrious Teacher.”] - -[Footnote 173: Προαρχή, Ἀνεννόητος, Ἄρῥητος and Ἀόρατος. The three -first names, however, are not in the text but are restored from -Irenæus, I, v. 2, p. 105, H.] - -[Footnote 174: These four new names are: Ἀρχή, Ἀκατάληπτος, Ἀνωνόμαστος -and Ἀγέννητος.] - -[Footnote 175: Of Ptolemy we know a little more than we do of Secundus, -a letter by him to his “fair sister Flora” being given by Epiphanius -(_Haer._ XXXIII.) which shows a system not inconsistent with that -described in the text. Unlike Valentinus himself he gives the Father a -spouse, or rather two.] - -[Footnote 176: διαθέσεις, perhaps “states.” Cr. and Macmahon translate -“dispositions.”] - -[Footnote 177: Hippolytus here suddenly changes from Thelesis to -Thelema. But there is no discoverable difference in the meaning of the -two words.] - -[Footnote 178: Words in [ ] from Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 179: This Marcus is practically only known to us from the -statements of Irenæus, from which the accounts in the text and in the -later work of Epiphanius are copied. Salmon’s argument (_D.C.B._, -s. v. “Marcus”) that Marcus taught in Asia Minor or Syria, and that -Irenæus himself only knew his doctrines from his writings and the -confessions of his Gaulish followers on their conversion to Catholicism -seems irrefutable. There is no reason to doubt Irenæus’ statement -here repeated that Marcus was a magician, nor the generally accepted -statement of modern writers on Gnosticism that he was a Jew. This -last deduction is supported by his use of Hebrew formulas, of which -Irenæus gives many examples, including one beginning “βασημαχαμοσση” -which appears to be “In the name of Achamoth,” the Hebrew or Aramaic -equivalent of the Greek Sophia. A more cogent argument is that his -identification of the Gnostic Aeons with the letters of the Greek -alphabet and their numerical values is, _mutatis mutandis_, exactly -correspondent to that of the so-called “practical Cabala” of the Jews -which was re-introduced into Europe in the tenth to twelfth centuries, -but which probably goes back to pre-Christian times and is ultimately -derived from the decayed relics of the Chaldæan and Egyptian religions. -On the other hand, Irenæus’ classing of Marcus among the “successors” -or followers of Valentinus is much more open to question. The reverence -he shows for the books of the Old Testament and for the Pentateuchal -account of the Creation, which is indeed the foundation of the greater -part of the system of the Cabala, is inconsistent with the views of -Valentinus, who as we have seen (n. on p. 33 _supra_) must logically -have rejected the inspiration of the Old Testament altogether. St. -Jerome (Ep. 75, _ad Theod._, I, 449), says indeed that Marcus was a -Basilidian, and although we have too little of Basilides’ own writings -to check this statement, it is not impossible that the nomenclature -of the Aeons, which is the chief point in which Valentinus and Marcus -coincide, was common to all three heretics, and perhaps drawn from a -source earlier than them all. The language of the formulas given by -Irenæus but not reproduced by Hippolytus, in several instances bear a -strong likeness to that of the _Great Announcement_ attributed in the -earlier part of this Book to Simon Magus.] - -[Footnote 180: εὺχαριστῶν.] - -[Footnote 181: αἱματώδη δύναμιν, “the potentiality of blood”?] - -[Footnote 182: ἐλεγχόμενος. The word shows that by “refutation” the -author generally means “exposure.”] - -[Footnote 183: He has not done so, unless in some part which has been -lost.] - -[Footnote 184: ἐδίδου.] - -[Footnote 185: Γνῶσις.] - -[Footnote 186: ὑγραῖς οὐσίαις. Here οὐσία is used in the English sense -of “substance.” No such substances are mentioned in Book IV as it has -come down to us.] - -[Footnote 187: The wine used in the Marcosian Eucharist was evidently -_mixtum_, not _merum_. Some effervescent powder is indicated.] - -[Footnote 188: ἐξαφανίσας; Cr. translates _seduxit_.] - -[Footnote 189: εὐκόλους ... πρὸς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν. Cf. the doctrine of -certain Antinomian sects that “God sees no sin in His elect.”] - -[Footnote 190: Ἀπολύτρωσις, perhaps “Ransom.”] - -[Footnote 191: πανούργημα.] - -[Footnote 192: In one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, (p. -238, Copt) a “mystery” to be spoken “into the two ears” of an initiate -about to die is described. The idea was evidently to provide him with -a password which would enable him to escape the “punishments” of the -intermediate state, and is to be traced to Egyptian beliefs.] - -[Footnote 193: ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων, perhaps “to the utmost.”] - -[Footnote 194: ἀφορμαί. In the _Philosophumena_, the word nearly always -bears this construction.] - -[Footnote 195: οἱ ἐντυχόντες.] - -[Footnote 196: ἀεὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι. Cf. the “_Geist der stets verneint_” of -Goethe.] - -[Footnote 197: συγκεχωρήσθω.] - -[Footnote 198: “His attempted heresy.”] - -[Footnote 199: Like the rest of this section and most of this chapter, -Hippolytus here follows Irenæus _verbatim_. Why the apparition of the -Tetrad should be more supportable in female than in male shape can only -be guessed; but the frequent personification of the Great Goddess of -Western Asia may have had something to do with it.] - -[Footnote 200: οὗ πατὴρ οὐδεὶς ἦν, “whose father was no one”--a curious -expression in place of the more concise ἀπάτωρ.] - -[Footnote 201: καὶ ἦν ἡ συλλαβὴ αὐτοῦ στοιχείων τεσσάρων, “and taken -together it was of four letters.” He is punning here on the double -sense of στοιχεῖον as meaning both “letter” and “element.” In the Magic -Papyrus of Leyden which calls itself “Monas, the 8th (book?) of Moses,” -there is a curious account of how the light and the rest of creation -were brought into being by the successive words or rather the laughter -of the Creator. Cf. Leemans, _Papyri Græci_, etc., Leyden, 1885, II, -pp. 83 ff.] - -[Footnote 202: γράμματα.] - -[Footnote 203: χαρακτῆρα, “impress,” or character as we might say Greek -characters or script. The different meanings of στοιχεῖα, γράμματα, and -χαρακτήρ are here well marked.] - -[Footnote 204: So Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 205: τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν. This Return to the Deity was, as has -been shown above, the great preoccupation of all these Gnostic sects. -They may have borrowed it from the Stoic philosophy. Cf. Arnold, _Roman -Stoicism_, p. 193.] - -[Footnote 206: The primitive Church attributed great power to the -ritual utterance of the word Amen. Thus Ignatius’ second Epistle to the -Ephesians: “There was hidden from the ruler of this world the virginity -of Mary, and the birth of our Lord, and the three mysteries of the -shout ... and hereby ... magic began to be dissolved and all bonds to -be loosed and the ancient kingdom and the error of evil, is destroyed” -(Cureton’s translation, London, 1845, p. 15); but Lightfoot would read -κήροξις, “proclamation,” for κραυγή, “shout.” In the _Pistis Sophia_ -the word Amen is used to denote a class of Powers concerned apparently -with the organization of the Kerasmos or semi-material world and called -sometimes “the Three” and sometimes “the Seven Amens.”] - -[Footnote 207: τοὺς [φθόγγους]. The word in brackets is not in the -Codex, but is supplied from the corresponding passage in Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 208: πρόσωπον, a word which, as Hatch noted, is used for the -character or part played by an actor in a drama. Matt. xviii. 10 is -here evidently alluded to.] - -[Footnote 209: Cf. the Stoic theory of λόγοι σπερματικοί or -“seed-Powers,” for which, see Arnold, _op. cit._, p. 161.] - -[Footnote 210: προήκατο.] - -[Footnote 211: That is to say, before Chaos was organized and the Aeons -brought into existence.] - -[Footnote 212: A plain reference to the Ectroma or Sophia Without.] - -[Footnote 213: ἰδίᾳ τῶν γραμμάτων γραφέντων (Miller). The Codex has διὰ -for ἰδίᾳ and γραφέντος for γραφέντων. Cruice bungles the passage and -Macmahon omits it. It is not found in Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 214: _e. g._ the δ can be written δ, ε, λ, τ, α.] - -[Footnote 215: ὑπόστασις.] - -[Footnote 216: A pun on the name of the Supreme Father, Bythos or the -Deep.] - -[Footnote 217: φιλοπονία and ματαιοπονία.] - -[Footnote 218: Or Truth.] - -[Footnote 219: _i. e._ Man.] - -[Footnote 220: It would seem from this that Marcus, following perhaps -in this the Anatolic School of Valentinus, made Sige not the spouse of -Bythos but merely another name for Aletheia.] - -[Footnote 221: τῆς διανοίας νόημα. As if he were trying to avoid -writing the word Nous.] - -[Footnote 222: Hippolytus or Marcus here plays upon the identity of -the ἐπίσημον or digamma, the name of the sixth letter in the Greek -alphabet, which was used for numeration only, and the adjective -ἐπίσημον, “illustrious.”] - -[Footnote 223: The word in brackets supplied from Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 224: ὧν τὰ μεγέθη. The allusion seems to be again to Matt. -xviii. 10. The angels might well be considered on the Valentinian -theory the greater parts or counterparts of their terrestrial spouses. -In Epiphanius τὸ Μέγεθος seems to be used for the Supreme Being. Cf. -_Panar. Haer._, XXXI, p. 314, Oehl. The passage is said to be suspect.] - -[Footnote 225: One of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks -repeatedly of certain τριδυναμεις or τριδυναμοι (both spellings are -used) which seem to hold a very exalted rank in the scale of beings, -alike in the spiritual and the material parts of the universe.] - -[Footnote 226: φ, χ, θ, η, κ, τ, β, γ, δ.] - -[Footnote 227: λ, μ, ν, ρ, ς, ζ, ξ, ψ.] - -[Footnote 228: τὰ φωνήεντα.] - -[Footnote 229: α, ε, η, ι, ο, υ, ω.] - -[Footnote 230: μορφὴν αὐτοῖς περιεποίησεν, “has put shape round them.”] - -[Footnote 231: Reading Ἐπειδὴ with Irenæus instead of the Ἐπὶ δὲ of -Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 232: So that the “ineffable” name of Christ consisted of 30 -letters. So Epiphanius, _Haer._, XXXIV, p. 448, Oehl. No guess hitherto -made as to its transliteration into Greek letters seems entirely -satisfactory; but Harvey (_Iren._, I, p. 146, nn. 1, 2), shows that χὶ, -ρὼ, εἴψιλον (for which spelling Nigidius Figulus and Aulus Gellius are -quoted), ἰῶτα, σῖγμα, ταῦ, οὐ (for ὀμικρόν), and, again, σῖγμα, can be -made to count 30.] - -[Footnote 233: The text has ἀναλογίας, for which Miller rightly -restores οἰκονομίας from Irenæus. Cf. p. 318 Cr. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 234: πεφηνέναι. Irenæus has πεφυκέναι, “grew.”] - -[Footnote 235: See the Transfiguration according to Matt. xvii. and -Mark ix.] - -[Footnote 236: Or “the Episemon.”] - -[Footnote 237: π = 80, ε 5, ρ 100, ι 10, σ 200, τ 300, ε 5, ρ 100, α 1 -= 801. So Α 1 + Ω 800 = 801.] - -[Footnote 238: Ἡ παρασκευή. “The Preparation” (for the Passover) _i. -e._ Friday.] - -[Footnote 239: τὸν τῶν ἕξ ἀριθμὸν, δύναμιν ποιήσεως κτλ. So Irenæus’ -Latin translation, “_Scientem eum numerum qui est sex virtutem -fabricationis et regenerationem habentem_.”] - -[Footnote 240: 6 + 24 = 30.] - -[Footnote 241: τῆς αὐτοβουλήτου βουλῆς ... ὁ καρπός, “the Fruit of the -self-counselled Council,” Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 242: μιμήσει τὴς Ἑβδομάδος δυνάμεως ἐψύχωσε κόσμον, “imparted -in imitation of the seven powers animation to this world,” (Macmahon); -but see Irenæus in _loc. cit._] - -[Footnote 243: As before, this probably means “Desire.”] - -[Footnote 244: This seems the first time we meet with the idea of “The -Column of Praises” of the Manichæans which mounting from the earth and -bearing with it the prayers and praises of mankind plays with them a -considerable part in the redemption of Light from Matter.] - -[Footnote 245: Ps. viii. 2.] - -[Footnote 246: Ps. xix. 1.] - -[Footnote 247: Irenæus puts what follows into the mouth of “the -all-wise Sige.” A section dealing with the name of Aletheia is omitted -by Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 248: Or perhaps “Unity in Solitude.”] - -[Footnote 249: _i. e._ “Ineffable.”] - -[Footnote 250: Four, unless we spell the word as he apparently does, -Σειγή.] - -[Footnote 251: In the section omitted (see n. 2 _supra_) the “body of -Aletheia” is said to be δωδεκάμελος or “of 12 members,” which points to -some different notation.] - -[Footnote 252: Cf. Rev. xix. 11-13.] - -[Footnote 253: As Harvey (_Iren._, I, p. 145, n. 3) points out, this -forced isopsephism is only reached by spelling Eta ηι and the Iota in -Χριστός εἶ. He quotes Aulus Gellius in support.] - -[Footnote 254: The words in brackets ( ) are not in Irenæus and are -probably the addition of some commentator.] - -[Footnote 255: The Codex has χρι.] - -[Footnote 256: π = 80, ε = 5, ρ = 100, ι = 10, σ = 200, τ = 300, ε = -5, ρ = 100, α = 1: total 801. It is evident, therefore that Marcus -considered Christ and the Holy Spirit to be the same Person.] - -[Footnote 257: ἄρῥητον γένεσιν, “unspoken derivation”?] - -[Footnote 258: δεκαοκτώ, an unusual word, unknown to classical Greek.] - -[Footnote 259: Words in square brackets [ ] supplied from Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 260: δημιουργία. Here, as elsewhere, the word implies -construction from previously existing matter.] - -[Footnote 261: τὸν τόπον ἀναπεπληρωκέναι.] - -[Footnote 262: Cf. Luke i. 35.] - -[Footnote 263: κατ’ οἰκονομίαν. This seems here the meaning of the -word. See Döllinger, _First Age of Christianity_, Eng. ed., p. 170, -n. 2, Hatch; _Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church_, p. -131; Tollinton, _Clement of Alexandria_, II, p. 13, and n. 1, for other -meanings.] - -[Footnote 264: This seems unintelligible unless we suppose the “body of -Aletheia,” said above to be the number 12, to be the heaven known as -“the Place of Truth.” Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 128, Copt.] - -[Footnote 265: The same expression is used in the _Pistis Sophia_ where -Jesus “sows” a power of light in Elizabeth the mother of John the -Baptist. Cf. p. 12, Copt.] - -[Footnote 266: Or “Arrangement.” Marcus, perhaps here imitating -Valentinus, postulates several Saviours, one of whom restores order in -the arrangement of the Aeons before coming to this earth.] - -[Footnote 267: In Irenæus there follows here a lengthy “refutation” -of Marcus’ doctrines and a poem condemning him and his teaching which -some think to be the work of Pothinus, Irenæus’ martyred predecessor at -Lyons.] - -[Footnote 268: With this sentence, Hippolytus again picks up his -quotations from Irenæus.] - -[Footnote 269: πάθος, “a passion” or “The Passion”?] - -[Footnote 270: πεπλανῆσθαι.] - -[Footnote 271: Irenæus’ Latin version here makes better -sense:--_Similiter et a duodecade abscedentum unam virtutem perisse -divinant et hanc esse mulierem quae perdiderit drachmam, et accenderit -lucernam, et invenerit eam._] - -[Footnote 272: α = 1, μ 40, η 8, ν 50, total 99. Writers of the -sub-Apostolic age seem to have laid much stress on the miraculous power -of the word Amen when uttered in unison. Cf. the Epistle of Ignatius to -the Ephesians (Cureton’s translation), p. 15, as to the “mysteries of -the shout.”] - -[Footnote 273: Thus α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8 = 30.] - -[Footnote 274: εἰς ὁλόκληρον. Because the decad is a “perfect” number.] - -[Footnote 275: ἐπισυμπλέκοντες καὶ δεκαπλασιάσαντες.] - -[Footnote 276: τῆς ἄνω οἰκονομίας. The word can here mean nothing else.] - -[Footnote 277: α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8, θ 9, ι 10, κ 20, λ -30 = 99.] - -[Footnote 278: Because the Episemon has no τόπος.] - -[Footnote 279: στοιχεῖον here used for “character.”] - -[Footnote 280: ΛΛ = M.] - -[Footnote 281: ὑστέρημα; the usual Gnostic name for the Void.] - -[Footnote 282: This section passes over Irenæus’ refutation of the -last, and forms the beginning of the Xth Chap. (p. 164, H.).] - -[Footnote 283: There must be some mistake here, as the Sun and Moon -were included among the seven planetary heavens.] - -[Footnote 284: Not of course the Egyptian god, but the Gnostic “Limit” -or Cross. The passage is not very clear.] - -[Footnote 285: Irenæus has φαεινῆς, “radiant,” and the text κενῆς, -“empty”; Irenæus’ Latin version “_non apparentes_” or invisible. -Probably μεγάλης was the original word.] - -[Footnote 286: κατὰ κάθετον. Macmahon thinks this refers to the -position of the sun, which is unnecessary.] - -[Footnote 287: Irenæus omits the words “of the Ogdoad.”] - -[Footnote 288: κατάλυσιν λαβεῖν, “receive dissolution.”] - -[Footnote 289: καινότερα. The text has κενώτερα, “more inane.”] - -[Footnote 290: περιεργίας, “bye-work.”] - -[Footnote 291: Κολάρβασος. The name which is repeated by Tertullian, -Philaster and Theodoret can be traced back to the single passage in -Irenæus, where it appears in connection with the name Σιγή as “the -Sige of Colarbasus.” A German commentator long since suggested that -it was not the name of a brother heretic or follower of Marcus, but a -corruption of the words קל־ארבע Qol-Arba, or the “Voice of the Four,” -and this seems now generally accepted. As most if not all of Marcus’ -pretended revelations are said to have been dictated to him by an -apparition of the Supreme Tetrad, he may well have called the book in -which they were written and which seems to have been known to Irenæus, -by some such name.] - -[Footnote 292: It seems needless to point out that the whole of these -chapters dealing with the real or supposed successors of Valentinus is -taken direct from Irenæus, and that they have no relation to any other -author.] - - - - - [Sidenote: p. 333.] BOOK VII - - BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS - - -1. These are the contents of the 7th (Book) of the _Refutation of All -Heresies_. - -2. What is the opinion of Basilides, and that he, having been struck -with the doctrines of Aristotle, constructed his heresy from them. - -3. And what things Satornilus, who flourished at the same time as -Basilides, says. - -4. How Menander set himself to declare that the world came into being -by angels. - -5. What was the madness of Marcion, and that his doctrine is neither -new nor (taken) from the Holy Scriptures, but comes from Empedocles. - -6. How Carpocrates talks foolishness, and thinks existing things to -have been produced by angels. - -7. That Cerinthus in no way framed his opinion from Scripture, but out -of the teachings of the Egyptians. - -[Sidenote: p. 334.] 8. What are the Ebionites’ opinions, and that they -prefer to cleave to the Jewish customs. - -9. How Theodotus also erred, having borrowed some things from the -Ebionites [but others from the Gnostics]. - -10. And what was taught by Cerdo, who both declared things (taken) from -Empedocles and wickedly put forward Marcion. - -11. And how Lucian, becoming a disciple of Marcion, did not blush to -blaspheme God. - -12. Of whom Apelles becoming a disciple, did not teach the same things -as (the rest of) the school, but being moved by the doctrines of the -physicists, supposed an essence for the universe. - - - 1. _About Basilides._[1] - -[Sidenote: p. 335.] 13. Seeing that the doctrines of the heretics are -like a sea lashed into waves by the force of the winds, their hearers -ought to sail through them in quest of the calm harbour. For such a -sea is both wild and hard to overpass, as the Sicilian (sea) is said -to be, wherein are fabled to be Cyclops and Charybdis and Scylla -and ... the Sirens’ rock.[2] Which sea the Greek poets make out that -Odysseus sailed through, skilfully availing himself of the terror of -those fierce beasts: for their cruelty to those sailing among them -was notorious. But the Sirens, singing clearly and musically for the -beguiling of those sailing past, persuaded with their sweet voices -those who listened to approach them. And they say that Odysseus, -hearing this, stopped with wax his companions’ ears, but having had -himself bound to the mast sailed without danger past the Sirens while -listening to their song. Which I advise those who meet with them to -do, and either having on account of weakness stopped their ears with -wax to sail through the teachings of the heretics without listening to -what, like the shrill song of the Sirens, might easily persuade them to -pleasure; or else to bind themselves to the Cross of Christ, hearkening -faithfully (to Him) and (thus) not to be harassed, being persuaded -(only) by Him to whom they [Sidenote: p. 336.] are bound and standing -upright.[3] - -14. Since now we have set forth in the six Books before this, the -(opinions) which have gone before, it seems now that we should not -keep silent about those of Basilides which are those of Aristotle the -Stagirite, and not of Christ. But although the doctrines of Aristotle -have been before expounded, we shall not shrink from now setting them -forth in epitome, so that the teacher by their closer comparison may -readily perceive that the sophisms of Basilides are those of Aristotle. - -15. Aristotle, then, divides being[4] into three. For one part of -it is genus, another, as he says, species,[5] and another something -undivided.[6] But the atom is so called, not because [Sidenote: p. -337.] of the smallness of its body, but because by its nature it can in -no way be cut. But the genus is, as it were, a heap composed of many -different seeds. From which heap-resembling genus, all the species -of existent things are severed;[7] and it is (one) genus which is -sufficient for all things which have come into being. In order that -this may be clear, I will point out an example whereby the whole theory -of the Peripatetic can be retraced. - -16. Let us say that there exists simply “animal,”[8] not any particular -animal. This “animal” is neither ox, nor horse, nor man, nor god, nor -anything else that can anyhow be apparent, but simply “animal.” From -this “animal” the species of all animals have their substance.[9] And -the undifferentiated[10] “animal” is the substance of the animals who -have been produced in species[11] but is yet none of them. For an -animal is man, who takes his beginning [Sidenote: p. 338.] from that -“animal,” and an animal is horse who does likewise. The horse and ox -and dog and each of the other animals takes its beginning from the -simple “animal” which is none of them. - -17. But if that “animal” is not one of these, (then) the substance of -the things which have been produced has, according to Aristotle, come -into being from the things which are not: for the “animal” whence these -have severally received it is not one (of them). But, while being none -(of them), it has become the one beginning of things which are. But who -it is who has sent down this beginning[12] of the things which have -been produced later, we shall see when we come to its proper place. - -18. Since the threefold essence is, as he says, genus, species and -atom, and we have granted[13] “animal” to be genus, and man to be -species already differentiated from the multitude of animals, but at -the same time commingled with them and not yet transformed into a -species of substantial being,[14]--I, when I give form to the man taken -apart from the genus, call him by the name of Socrates [Sidenote: p. -339.] or of Diogenes or any one of the many names (there are), and -when I (thus) restrict with a name the man who from genus has become -species, I call such being an individual.[15] For the genus is divided -into species and the species into an atom; but the atom when restricted -by a name cannot by its nature be divided into anything else, as we -have divided each of the things aforesaid. - -This Aristotle calls essence in its first, chief, and strictest sense, -nor is it said of any subject nor as existing in any subject.[16] But -he speaks of the subject as if it were genus when he said “animal” of -all the animals severally ranged under it, such as an ox, a horse, and -the rest, describing them by a common name. For it is true to say that -man is an animal, and a horse is an animal and an ox is an animal and -all the rest. This is subjective, the one (name) being likewise capable -of being said of many [Sidenote: p. 340.] and different species.[17] -For neither a horse nor an ox differs from man _quâ_ animal; for the -definition of animal fits all the aforesaid animals alike. For what -is an animal? If we define it, a common definition will include all -the animals. For an animal is a living,[18] feeling being, such as a -man, a horse and all the rest. But, “in the Subject,” he says, is that -which exists in anything, not as part of it, but as being incapable -of existing apart from that wherein it is, (and is) each[19] of the -accidents of being. The which is called Quality because by it we say -_what_ certain things are, as, for instance, white, green, black, -just, unjust, prudent and such like. But none of these (qualities) can -come into being by itself, but must needs be in[20] something. But, if -neither the “animal,” which is the word I use for all living beings -taken severally, nor the “accidents” which are found to occur in all -of them, can come into being of themselves, then from those things -which do not exist, the individual things[21] are developed and the -triply-divided essence is not compounded[22] from other things. Hence -Being[23] so called in its first and chiefest and strictest sense, -[Sidenote: p. 341.] exists according to Aristotle from those things -which do not exist.[24] - -19. About Being[25] then enough has been said. But Being is called -not only genus, species and individual; but also matter, form and -privation. But there is no difference among these while the division -stands. And Being being such as it is, the ordering of the cosmos -came about automatically in the same way. The cosmos is according to -Aristotle divided into many [and different] parts; [and] the part of -the cosmos which exists from the earth as far as the moon is without -providence or governance and has its rise only in its own nature. -But that which is beyond the moon, is ordered with all order and -providence and is (so) governed up to the surface of heaven. But the -(same) surface is a certain fifth essence renewed from all the elements -of nature wherefrom the cosmos is made up, and this is Aristotle’s -“Quintessence,” being as it were a hypercosmic essence. And his system -of philosophy is [Sidenote: p. 342.] divided so as to agree with the -division of the cosmos. For there is by him a treatise on physics -called _Acroasis_, wherein he has treated of the doings of Nature, -not of Providence, from the Earth to the Moon. And there is also his -_Metaphysics_, another special work thus entitled, concerning the -things which take place beyond the Moon. And there is also his work _On -the Quintessence_, wherein he theologizes.[26] Like this also is the -division of the universals as they are defined by type in Aristotle’s -philosophy. But his work _On the Soul_ is puzzling; for it would be -impossible in three whole books to say what Aristotle thinks about the -soul. For what he gives as the definition of the soul is easy to say; -but what is explained by the definition is hard to find. For, he says, -the soul is an entelechy of the physical organism. What this is would -need many words and great enquiry. But the God who is the cause of all -these fair beings [Sidenote: p. 343.] is one, even to one speculating -for a very long time, more difficult to be known than is the soul. Yet -the definition which Aristotle gives of God, is not hard to be known, -but impossible to be understood. For He, he says, is a conception -of conception which is altogether non-existent. But the cosmos is -according to Aristotle imperishable and eternal; for it contains -nothing faulty and is governed by Nature and Providence. And Aristotle -has not only put forth books on Nature and the Cosmos and Providence -and God,[27] but there is also a certain treatise by him on ethics -which is called _The Ethical Books_ wherein he builds up a good ethics -for his hearers out of a poor one. If, then, Basilides be found not -only potentially but in the very words and names to have transferred -the doctrines of Aristotle to our evangelical and soul-saving teaching, -what remains but by restoring these extraneous matters to their -(proper) authors to prove to Basilides’ disciples that, as they are -heathenish, Christ will profit them nothing? - -[Sidenote: p. 344.] 20. Now Basilides and Isidore, Basilides’ true son -and disciple, say that Matthias recounted to them secret[28] discourses -which he had heard from the Saviour in private teaching.[29] We see -then how plainly Basilides together with Isidore and their whole band -belie not only Matthias but also the Saviour. There was, he says, -[a time] when Nothing was, not even the nothing of existing things, -but baldly and unreservedly and without any sophism, nothing at all. -But when I say, says he, that [this] _was_, I do not say that this -existed, but I speak thus to signify what I wish to indicate. I say -then that nothing at all existed. For, says he, that which is named is -plainly not ineffable; for at any rate we call one thing ineffable, -but another not ineffable. For truly that which is not even ineffable -is not named ineffable, but is, he says, above every name which is -named. For neither are there names enough for the cosmos, he says, so -diverse is it, but there is a lack of them. Nor do [Sidenote: p. 345.] -I undertake, says he, to find proper names for everything; but one must -silently understand in the mind not their names, but the properties of -the things named. For identity of names has made confusion and error -concerning things[30] among those who hear them. And they who first -made this appropriation and theft from the Peripatetic lead astray the -folly of those who herd with them. For Aristotle who was born many -generations earlier than Basilides, was the first to set forth in the -_Categories_ a system of homonyms which these men expound as their own -and as a novelty [derived] from the secret discourses of Matthias. - -21. When nothing [existed], neither matter, nor essence, nor the -simple nor the compound, nor [that which is conceived by the mind] -nor that which cannot be [so] conceived, [nor that which is perceived -by the senses][31] nor that which cannot be [so] perceived, nor -man, nor angel, nor God, nor generally any of the things which are -named or apprehended by sensation, or of things[32] which can be -[Sidenote: p. 346.] conceived by the mind but can be thus and even -more minutely described by all:--(then) [the] God-who-was-Not--whom -Aristotle calls Concept of Concept, but (Basilides) Him-who-is-Not, -without conception, perception, counsel, choice, passion or desire -willed to create a cosmos. But I say (only) for the sake of clearness, -says he, that He willed. I signify that he did this without will or -conception or perception; and [the] cosmos was not that which later -became established in its expanse and diversity,[33] but a Seed of a -cosmos. And the Seed of the cosmos contained all things within itself, -as the grain of mustard (seed) collects into the smallest space and -contains within itself all things at once:--the roots, stem, branches -and the numberless leaves, with the seeds begotten by the plant, and -often again those grown by many other plants. Thus the God-who-was-Not -made the cosmos from things which were not,[34] casting [Sidenote: p. -347.] down and planting[35] a certain single seed containing within -itself the whole seed-mass[36] of the cosmos. But in order that I -may make clearer what these (men) say, it was even as an egg of some -gorgeous and parti-coloured bird such as a peacock of some other yet -more variegated and many-coloured, contains within it, though one, many -patterns[37] of multiform and many-coloured and diversely-constructed -beings[38]--so, says he, the non-existent seed of the cosmos cast down -by the God-who-was-Not contained (a Seed-mass) at once multiform and -(the source) of many beings.[39] - -22. All things, then, which are to be described, and those which not -having yet been discovered must be left out of the account, were -destined to be fitted for the cosmos which was to come into being -at the proper time by the help given to it by such and so great a -God, whose quality[40] the creature can neither conceive nor define. -And these things existed stored within the seed, as, in a new-born -[Sidenote: p. 348.] child, we see teeth and the power of fatherhood -and brains accrue later; and those things which belong to the man but -do not at first exist, evolve gradually out of the child. For it would -be impossible to say that any projection by the God-who-was-Not became -something non-existent,--since Basilides entirely shuns and has in -horror [the notion of] substances of things begotten [arising] by way -of projection.[41] For what, says he, is the need of projection or of -any substructure of matter in order that God may fashion a cosmos as -the spider makes webs, or mortal man takes brass or wood or some other -portion of matter to work with?).--But He spoke, says he, and it came -to pass; and this is, as these [heretics] say, what Moses spake:--“Let -there be light and there was light.”[42] Whence, says he, came the -light? From nothing. For it is not written says he, whence it came, but -only that it came forth from the word of the speaker. For the speaker, -says he, was not, nor did that which was spoken [formerly] exist. The -seed of the cosmos, he says, came into being from non-existent things -[and this seed is] the word which was spoken: “Let there be light.” -And this, says he, is the saying in the Gospels: “This is [Sidenote: -p. 349.] the true light which lighteneth every man who cometh into the -world.”[43] It takes its beginnings[44] from that seed and gives light. -This is the seed which contains within itself all the Seed-Mass which -Aristotle says is the genus divided into boundless species, since we -divide from the non-existent animal ox, horse [and] man. Further, of -the underlying cosmic seed, they say, “whatever I may say came into -being after this, seek not to know whence it came.” For it contained -all seeds stored and shut up within itself, as it were things which -were not, but which were foreordained to exist by the God-who-was-Not. - -Let us see then what they say came into being in the first, second -or third place from the cosmic seed. There existed (Basilides) says -within the seed itself, a Sonhood, threefold throughout, of the same -essence[45] with the God-who-was-Not and begotten of the things that -were not. Of this triple divided Sonhood, one part was subtle, (one -coarse) and one wanting purification. Now the subtle (part) [Sidenote: -p. 350.] straightway and as it became the first emission of the seed by -the One-who-was-Not, escaped and ascended and went on high from below -with the speed described by the poet-- - - “like wing or thought,”[46] - -and came, he says, before the One-who-was-Not. For towards him every -nature strains on account of his exceeding beauty and bloom,[47] but -each differently. But the coarser part still remaining in the seed, -although resembling the other,[48] could not go on high, for it lacked -the fineness of division which the ascending Sonhood had of itself, -and was (therefore) left behind. Then the coarser Sonhood wings itself -with some such wing as that wherewith Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, -equips the soul in the _Phaedrus_,[49] and Basilides calls the same -not a wing but Holy Spirit, clothed wherewith the Sonhood both gives -and receives benefit. It gives it because a bird’s wing taken by -itself and severed from the bird would neither become uplifted nor -high in [Sidenote: p. 351.] air, nor would the bird be uplifted and -high in air if deprived of the wing. This then is the relation which -the Sonhood bears to the Spirit and the Spirit to the Sonhood. For -the Sonhood borne aloft by the Spirit as by a wing bears aloft the -wing, (that is the Spirit) and draws nigh to the subtler Sonhood and -to the God-who-was-Not and fashions all things from the non-existent. -But [the Spirit] cannot abide with the Sonhood for it is not of the -same essence,[50] nor has it the same nature as the Sonhood. But just -as dry and pure air is naturally fatal to fishes, so naturally to the -Holy Spirit was that place, more ineffable than the ineffable ones and -higher than all names, which is the seat at once of the God-who-was-Not -and of the [first] Sonhood. Therefore the Sonhood left the Spirit near -that blessed place which cannot be conceived nor characterized[51] by -any speech, [yet] not altogether alone nor [completely] severed from -the Sonhood. For just as when a sweet perfume is poured into a jar, -even if the jar is carefully emptied a certain fragrance of the perfume -still remains and is left behind, and although [Sidenote: p. 352.] the -perfume be removed from the jar, the jar retains the fragrance, but not -the perfume--so the Holy Spirit remained bereft of and severed from the -Sonhood. And this is the saying: “As the perfume on Aaron’s head ran -down to his beard.”[52] This is the savour carried down by the Holy -Spirit from on high into the Formlessness[53] and Space of this world -of ours, whence the Sonhood first went on high as on the wings of an -eagle and borne on his loins. For all things, he says, strain upward -from below, from the worse to the better. But there is thus nothing of -those things which are among the better which is immovable, so that it -cannot come below. But the third Sonhood, he says, which is in need of -purification, remains in the great heap of the Seed-mass giving and -receiving benefits. And in what manner it does this, we shall see later -in the fitting place.[54] - -[Sidenote: p. 353.] 23. Now when the first and second ascensions of the -Sonhood[55] had come to pass, and the Holy Spirit remained by itself in -the way described, being set midway between the hypercosmic firmaments -and the cosmos--for Basilides divides the things that are into two -first made and primary divisions, one of which is called by him an -ordered world,[56] and the other hypercosmic things--and between these -two [he places] the Boundary Spirit,[57] which same is at once Holy and -holds abiding in it the savour of the Sonhood, it being the firmament -which is above the heaven.[58] [When these ascensions had taken place], -there escaped from and was engendered from the cosmical seed and the -Seed-mass, the Great Ruler, the head of the cosmos, a certain beauty -and greatness and power which cannot be spoken.[59] For he is, says -[Basilides], more ineffable than the ineffable ones, mightier than the -mighty, and better than all the fair ones you can describe. He, when -engendered, burst through, soared aloft, and was borne right up on high -as far as the firmament, but stayed there thinking that the firmament -was the end of all ascension [Sidenote: p. 354.] and uplifting and -not imagining that there was anything at all beyond this. And he -became wiser, mightier, more eminent, and more luminous and everything -which you can describe as excelling in beauty all the other cosmic -things which lay before him, save only the Sonhood left behind in the -Seed-mass. For he knew not that [this Sonhood] was wiser and mightier -and better than he. Therefore he deemed himself Lord and King[60] and -wise architect, and set about the creation in detail[61] of the ordered -world. And in the first place he did not think it meet for him to be -alone, but created for himself and engendered from the things which -lay below him a Son much better and wiser than himself. For all this -the God-who-was-Not had foreordained when he let fall the Seed-mass. -When, therefore, [the Great Ruler] beheld his Son, he wondered, and was -filled with love and astounded: for so [splendid] did the beauty of the -son appear to the Great Ruler. And the Ruler seated him at his right -hand. This is what is called by Basilides the Ogdoad where sits the -Great Ruler. Then the Great Wise Demiurge fashioned the whole of the -[Sidenote: p. 355.] heavenly, that is, the aethereal creation. But the -Son begotten by him set it working and established it, being much wiser -than the Demiurge himself.[62] - -24. This [creation] is according to Aristotle, the “entelechy”[63] -of the organic natural body, the soul activating the body, without -which the body can effect nothing, a something greater and more -manifest and wiser than the body. The theory therefore which Aristotle -first taught regarding the soul and the body, Basilides explained as -referring to the Great Ruler and his so-called son. For the Ruler -according to Basilides begat a son; and Aristotle says that the soul -is an entelechy, the work and result[64] of the organic natural body. -As, then, the entelechy controls the body, so the son, according to -Basilides, controls the more ineffable God of the Ineffables. All -things soever then which are in the aether up to the Moon are foreseen -and controlled by the majesty[65] of the Great Ruler; for here [_i.e._ -at the Moon] the air is divided from the aether. Now when all aethereal -things had been set in order, yet [Sidenote: p. 356.] another Ruler -ascends from the Seed-Mass, greater than all the things which are below -him, save only the Sonhood which is left behind, but much inferior to -the first Ruler. And this one is called by them “able to be named.”[66] -And his place is called Hebdomad, and he is the controller and Demiurge -of all things lying below him, and he has created to himself from the -Seed-Mass a Son who is more foreseeing and wiser than he in the same -way as has been said about the first [Ruler]. And in this space,[67] -he says, are the heap and the Seed-Mass, and events naturally happen -as they were (ordained) to be produced in advance by Him who has -calculated that which will come to pass and when and what and how it -will be.[68] And of these there is no leader nor guardian nor demiurge. -For that calculation which the Non-Existent One made when he created -them suffices for them. - -25. When, then, according to them, the whole cosmos and the hypercosmic -things were completed, and nothing [Sidenote: p. 357.] was lacking, -there still remained in the Seed-Mass the third Sonhood which had been -left behind to give and receive benefits in the Seed. And the Sonhood -left behind had to be revealed and again established on high above the -Boundary Spirit in the presence of the subtler Sonhood and the one that -resembles it and the Non-Existent One, as, says he, it is written, “All -creation groans and is in travail in expectation of the revelation of -the sons of God.”[69] We spiritual men, he say, left here below for the -arrangement and perfect formation and rectification and completion of -the souls which by nature have to remain in this [Middle] Space, are -the “sons [of God].” “Now from Adam to Moses sin reigned”[70] as it is -written. For the Great Ruler reigned who held sway up to the firmament, -thinking that he alone was God, and that there was nothing higher than -he. For all things were kept hidden in silence. This, says he, is the -mystery which was not known to the earlier generations; but in those -times the King and Lord, as it seemed to him, of the universals was -[Sidenote: p. 358.] the Great Ruler, the Ogdoad. Yet of this [Middle] -Space the Hebdomad was King and Lord, and the Ogdoad is ineffable but -the Hebdomad may be named. This Ruler of the Hebdomad, says he, it was -who spoke to Moses, saying, “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and -Jacob and the name of God was not made known to them:”[71] for thus -they will have it to have been written--that is to say [the name] of -the Ineffable Ogdoad, Ruler, God. All the prophets therefore who were -before the Saviour, spoke from that place.[72] When then, he says, the -sons of God had to be revealed to us, about whom, he says, creation -groaned and travailed in expectation of the revelation, the Gospel came -into the cosmos and passed through every Dominion[73] and Authority and -Lordship and every name which is named. And it came indeed, although -nothing descended from on high, nor did the Blessed Sonhood come forth -from that Incomprehensible and Blessed God-who-was-Not. But as the -Indian naphtha, when only kindled from afar off, takes fire, so from -the Formlessness of the heap below do [Sidenote: p. 359.] the powers of -the Sonhood extend upward. For as if he were something of naphtha, the -son of the Great Ruler of the Ogdoad catches and receives the concepts -from the Blessed Sonhood which is beyond the Holy Spirit. For the -Power in the midst of the Holy Spirit in the Boundary of the Sonhood -distributes the rushing and flowing concepts to the Son of the Great -Ruler.[74] - -26. Therefore the Gospel came first from the Sonhood, he says to the -Ruler, through his Son who sits beside him, and the Ruler learned that -he was not the God of the universals, but was a generated [being] -and had above him the outstretched Treasure-house of the Ineffable -and Unnameable God-who-was-Not and of the Sonhood.[75] And he was -astounded and terrified when he perceived in what ignorance he had -been, and this, says [Basilides] is the saying: “The fear of [the] -Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”[76] For he began to be wise when -instructed by the Christ seated beside him, and learned what was the -Non-Existent One, what the Sonhood, what the Holy Spirit, and what was -the constitution[77] of the universals and [Sidenote: p. 360.] how -these will be restored.[78] This is the wisdom spoken of in mystery, -as to which, says he, the Scripture declares: “Not in the words taught -by human wisdom, but in the teachings of [the] Spirit.”[79] Then, says -he, the Ruler when he had been instructed and made to fear, confessed -thoroughly the sin he had committed in magnifying himself. This, says -he, is the saying: “I acknowledge my sin and I know my transgression; -upon this I will make full confession for ever.”[80] - -Now when the Great Ruler had been instructed, and every creature of -the Ogdoad had been taught and had learned, and the mystery had been -made known to those above the heavens, it was still necessary that -the Gospel should come to the Hebdomad also, so that the Ruler of the -Hebdomad might be instructed in like manner and be evangelized.[81] The -Son of the Great Ruler [therefore] enlightened the Son of the Ruler of -the Hebdomad, having caught the light which he had from the Sonhood -on high, and the Son of the Ruler of the Hebdomad was enlightened, -and the Gospel was announced to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, and he in -like manner as has been said was both terrified and made confession. -When then all things in the [Sidenote: p. 361.] Hebdomad had been -enlightened, and the Gospel had been announced to them--for according -to them, the creatures belonging to these spaces are boundless and are -Dominions and Powers and Authorities, concerning whom they have a very -long story told by many [authors]. [And] they imagine that there are -there 365 heavens, and Habrasax is their Great Ruler, because his name -comprises the cipher 365, wherefore the year consists of that number -of days[82]--but when, says he, these things had come to pass, it was -still necessary that our Formlessness should be enlightened and that -the mystery unknown to the earlier generations should be revealed to -the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness as if he were an abortion. -As, says he, it is written: “By revelation was made known to me the -mystery;”[83] and again, “I heard unspeakable words which it is not -lawful for man to utter.”[84] [Thus] the light came down from the -[Sidenote: p. 362.] Hebdomad, which had come down from the Ogdoad on -high to the Son of the Hebdomad, upon Jesus the son of Mary, and He, -having caught it, was enlightened by the light shining upon Him.[85] -This, says he, is the saying:--“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” -[that is], that which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary -Spirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary, “and the Power of -the Highest shall overshadow thee,”[86] [that is] the power of the -unction[87] from the Height of the Demiurge on high unto the creation -which is of the Son. But, he says, up till that [time] the cosmos was -thus constituted, until [the time] when the whole Sonhood left behind -in the Formlessness to benefit souls and [itself] to receive benefits -should be transformed and follow Jesus, and should go on high and -come forth purified, and should become most subtle as it might do by -ascension like the First [Sonhood]. For it possesses all the power of -attaching itself naturally to the light which shines downward from on -high. - -27. When therefore, he says, every Sonhood shall have come [forth] and -shall be established above the Boundary [Sidenote: p. 363.] Spirit, the -creation shall then receive pity. For up till now, he says it wails and -is tortured and awaits the revelation of the sons of God, so that all -the men of the Sonhood shall ascend from this place. When this shall -have come to pass, he says, God shall bring upon the whole cosmos the -Great Ignorance, so that all things shall remain as they are by nature, -and none shall desire any of those things beyond [its] nature. For -all the souls of this space which possess a nature enabling them to -remain immortal in this [space] alone, will remain convinced that there -is nothing different from nor better than this [space]. Nor will any -tidings or knowledge of higher things abide in those below, so that the -lower souls shall not be tormented by yearning after the impossible, -as if a fish should desire to feed with the sheep on the hills. For, -says he, such a desire should it happen to them[88] would be [their] -destruction. Therefore, he says, all things which remain in their own -place are imperishable; but perishable if they wish to overleap and -rise above [the limits] of their nature. Thus the Ruler of the Hebdomad -will know nothing of the things above him. For the Great [Sidenote: -p. 364.] Ignorance will lay hold of him, so that grief and pain and -sighing will stand off from him, for he will neither desire anything -impossible nor will he grieve. And in like manner this Ignorance will -lay hold of the Great Ruler of the Ogdoad, and similarly all the -creatures subject to him, so that none of them shall grieve and mourn -for anything outside his own nature. And this shall be the Restoration -of all things established according to nature in the seed of the -universals at the beginning, but they shall be restored [each] in their -proper season. But [to prove] that everything has its proper season, -it is enough to mention the saying of the Saviour:--“Mine hour is not -yet come”[89] and the Magi observing the star. For, says [Basilides] -He himself was foretold by the nativity[90] of the stars and of the -return of the hours into the great heap. This is according to them, the -spiritual inner man conceived in the natural man--which is the Sonhood -who leaves the soul, not to die but to remain as it is by nature, just -as the first Sonhood[91] [Sidenote: p. 365.] left the Holy Spirit -which is the Boundary in its appropriate place and then did on his own -special soul.[92] - -In order that we may omit nothing of their [doctrines], I will set -forth what they say also about (a) Gospel.[93] Gospel is according -to them the knowledge of hypercosmic things, as has been made plain, -which the Great Ruler[94] did not understand. When then there was -manifested to him what are the Holy Spirit that is the Boundary, and -the Sonhood and the God-who-is-Not the cause of all these, he rejoiced -at the words and exulted,[95] and this according to them is the Gospel. -But Jesus according to them was born as we have before said. And He -having come into being by the Birth before explained, all those things -likewise came to pass with regard to the Saviour as it is written in -the Gospels. And these things came to pass [Basilides] says, so that -Jesus might become the first-fruits of the sorting-out of the things -of the Confusion.[96] For when the Cosmos was divided into an Ogdoad -which is the head of the whole ordered world, [the head whereof is] the -Great Ruler, and into a Hebdomad which is the head of the Hebdomad, the -[Sidenote: p. 366.] Demiurge of the things below him, and into this -space of ours, which is the Formlessness, it was necessary that the -things of the Confusion should be sorted out by the discrimination of -Jesus. - -That which was His bodily part[97] which was from the Formlessness, -therefore suffered[98] and returned to the Formlessness. And that which -was His psychic part which was from the Hebdomad also returned to the -Hebdomad. But that which was peculiar to the Height of the Great Ruler -ascended and remained with the Great Ruler. And He bore aloft as far -as the Boundary Spirit that which was from the Boundary Spirit and it -remained with the Boundary Spirit. But the third Sonhood which had -been left behind to give and receive benefits was purified by Him, and -traversing all these places went on high to the Blessed Sonhood.[99] -For this is the whole theory,[100] as it were a Confusion of the -Seed-Mass and the discrimination [into classes] and the Restoration of -the things confused into their proper places. Therefore Jesus became -the first-fruits of the discrimination, and the Passion came to pass -for no other reason than this discrimination.[101] For in this manner, -he says, all the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness to [Sidenote: -p. 367.] give and receive benefits separated into its components in the -same way as [the person] of Jesus was separated. This is what Basilides -fables after having lingered in Egypt, and having learned from them [of -Egypt] such great wisdom, he brought forth such fruits.[102] - - - 2. _Satornilus._[103] - -28. And a certain Satornilus who flourished at the same time as -Basilides, but passed his life in Antioch of Syria, taught the same -things as Menander.[104] He says that one father exists unknown to all, -who made Angels, Archangels, Powers [and] Authorities. And that from a -certain seven angels the cosmos and all things therein came into being. -And that man was [the] creation of angels, there having [Sidenote: -p. 368.] appeared on high from the Absolute One[105] a shining image -which they could not detain, says Saturnilus, because of its immediate -return on high. [Wherefore] they exhorted one another, saying: “Let -us make man according to image and resemblance.”[106] Which, he says, -having come to pass, the image could not stand upright by reason of -the lack of power among the angels, but grovelled like a worm. Then -the Power on high having pity on it, because it had come into being -in his likeness, sent forth a spark of life which raised up the man -and made him live.[107] Therefore, says he, the spark of life returns -at death to its own kindred and the rest of [man’s] compound parts is -resolved into its original elements.[108] And he supposed the unknown -Father[109] to be unbegotten, bodiless, and formless. But he says that -He showed Himself as a phantom in human shape, and that the God of the -Jews is one of the angels. And, because the Father wished to depose -all the angels, Christ came for the putting-down of the God of the -Jews and for the salvation of those who believe on him; and that these -[believers] [Sidenote: p. 369.] have the spark of life within them. -For he says that two races of men were formed by the angels, one bad -and one good. And that since the demons help the bad, the Saviour came -for the destruction of the bad men and demons, but for the salvation -of the good. And he says that to marry and beget [children] is from -Satan. Many of this man’s adherents abstain from things that have had -life, through this pretended abstinence (leading astray many).[110] And -they say that the Prophecies were uttered, some by the world-creators, -some by Satan whom he supposes to be an angel who works against the -world-creators and especially (against) the God of the Jews.[111] Thus -then Satornilus. - - - 3. _Concerning Marcion._[112] - -[Sidenote: p. 370.] 29. Marcion of Pontus, much madder than these, -passing over many opinions of the majority and pressing on to the more -shameless, supposed that there were two principles of the All,[113] one -good and the other bad. And he, thinking that he was bringing in some -new [doctrine], manufactured a school filled with folly and of Cynic -life, being himself a lewd one.[114] He thought that the multitude -would not notice that he chanced to be a disciple not of Christ, but of -Empedocles, who was very much earlier, and he laid down and taught that -there were two causes of the All, [_i. e._] Strife and Love.[115] For -what says Empedocles on the conduct of the cosmos? If we have said it -before,[116] yet I will not now keep silence, if only for the sake of -comparing [Sidenote: p. 371.] the heresy of this plagiarist[117] [with -the source]. He says that all the elements of which the cosmos was -compounded and consists are six, to wit:--two material, [viz.] Air and -Water; two instruments, whereby the material elements are arranged[118] -and changed about, [viz.] Fire and Air; and two which work with the -instruments and fashion matter, [viz.] Strife and Love. He says -something like this:-- - - Hear first the four roots of all things: - Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus. - And Nestis who wets with tears the source of mortals.[119] - -Zeus is fire and life-bearing Here the earth which bears fruits for -the support of life. But Aïdoneus is the air, because while beholding -all things through it, it alone we do not see. And Nestis is water, -since it is the only vehicle of food, and therefore the becoming cause -of all growing things,[120] yet cannot nourish them by itself. For -if it could so give nourishment, he says, living things[121] could -never die of hunger, for there is always abundance of water in the -cosmos.[122] Whence he calls water Nestis, because it is a becoming -cause of nourishment, yet cannot itself nourish growing things. These -things then are, to sum them up in outline, those which comprise the -foundation[123] of the cosmos [_i. e._] water and Earth from which all -things come, [Sidenote: p. 372.] Fire and Spirit[124] the tools and -agents, and Strife and Love which fashion all things with skill. And -Love is a certain peace and even mindedness and natural affection,[125] -which determines that the cosmos shall be perfect and complete; but -Strife ever rends asunder that which is one and divides it and makes -many things out of one. Therefore the cause of the whole creation is -Strife, which [cause] he calls baneful, that is deadly.[126] For it -takes care that through every aeon, its creation persists. And Strife -the deadly is the Demiurge and maker of all things which have come into -being by birth; but Love, of their leading-forth from the cosmos and -transformation and return to unity.[127] Concerning which, Empedocles -[says] that there are two immortal and unbegotten things which have -never yet had a source of existence. He speaks, however, somehow like -this:-- - - For it was aforetime and will be; never, I ween, - Will the unquenchable aeon lack these two.[128] - -[Sidenote: p. 373.] But what are these two? Strife and Love. For they -had no source of existence, but pre-existed and ever were, being -through their unbegotten nature incorruptible. But Fire [and Water] and -Earth and Air die and again come to life. For when the things which -have come into being through Strife die, Love takes them and leads them -and adds and attaches them to the All,[129] so that the All may remain -_One_, being ever marshalled by Love in one fashion and form. Yet when -Love creates the One from many things, and arranges the things which -have been scattered in the One, Strife again rends them away from the -One, and makes them [into] many, that is, Fire, Water, Earth [and] Air, -whence are produced animals and plants and whatever parts of the cosmos -we perceive. And concerning the form[130] of the cosmos as ordered by -Love, he speaks somehow like this:-- - - For not from the back do two arms[131] spring - [Sidenote: p. 374.] Nor feet nor active knees, nor hairy genitals. - But it was a sphere and everywhere alike.[132] - -Such things [does] Love, and turns out the most beautiful form of the -world as One from many; but Strife rends gradually from that One the -principle of its arrangement, and again makes it [into] many. This is -what Empedocles says of his own birth:-- - - Of whom I also am now a fugitive and an exile from the gods.[133] - -That is, he calls the One divine, and says that the unity formerly -existing in the One was rent asunder by Strife and came into being in -these many things, existing according to Strife’s ordering. For, says -he, Strife is the furious and troublous and unresting Demiurge of this -cosmos, whose [Sidenote: p. 375.] [fashioner] Empedocles calls it. For -this is the judgment and compulsion of the souls which Strife rends -away from the One and fashions and works up, which process [Empedocles] -describes somehow like this:-- - - Who having sinned swore falsely - And demons are allotted long-drawn out life.[134] - -calling the long-lived souls “demons” because they are immortal and -live through long ages. - - For three myriad seasons they wandered from the blessed,[135] - -calling “blessed” those whom Love has made from the many into the -oneness of the intelligible[136] cosmos. Therefore, says [Empedocles] -they wandered - - Putting on in time all mortal forms[137] - [Sidenote: p. 376.]Interchanging the hard ways of life.[138] - -He says that the transmigrations and transmutations of the souls into -bodies are “hard ways.” This is what he says:-- - - Interchanging the hard ways of life. - -For [the souls pass from body to body] being changed about and punished -by Strife and are not allowed to remain in the One, but are punished in -all punishments by Strife. This is what he says:-- - - For aetherial might drives souls seawards. - And sea spits them upon Earth’s surface; and Earth into the beams - Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether - Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.[139] - -[Sidenote: p. 377.] This is the punishment wherewith the Demiurge -punishes, just as a smith forging iron, taking it from the fire, dips -it in water. For Fire is the aether, whence the Demiurge casts the -souls into the Sea; and the Earth is the ground. Whence he says, from -water to Earth, from Earth to Air. This is what he says:-- - - into the beams - Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether - Each takes them from the other, but all hate them. - -Therefore, according to Empedocles, Love gathers the hated and tortured -and punished souls together into this world. For [Love] is good and -has pity on their wailing and the disorder and wickedness created by -furious Strife. And she hastens and toils to lead them forth quickly -out of the world and to settle them in the One, so that all things -brought together by her may come to oneness. It [Sidenote: p. 378.] is -then by reason of this arrangement of this much-divided[140] world by -deadly Strife, that Empedocles exhorts his disciples to abstain from -all things which have life. For he says that the bodies of animals -which are eaten are the dwellings of punished souls, and he teaches -those who hear such [his] words to refrain[141] from companying with -women, so that they may not cooperate and help in the deeds which -Strife effects, ever undoing and rending asunder the work of Love. - -Empedocles says that this is the greatest law of the government of the -All, speaking somehow thus:-- - - There is a thing of Necessity, an ancient decree of the gods. - Eternal and sealed with broad oaths.[142] - -thus calling Necessity the change by Strife of the One into many and -that by Love of many into the One. He says, indeed, that there are four -mortal gods, Fire, Water, Earth and Air; and two immortal unbegotten -and enemies one to the other for ever [viz.] Strife and Love; and that -Strife is ever unjust and grasping and rends asunder what belongs -[Sidenote: p. 379.] to Love and takes it to itself; and that Love is -ever good and anxious for unity and calls back to herself and leads -and makes one the things rent asunder from the All and tortured and -punished in creation by the Demiurge. In some such way does Empedocles -philosophize for us on the genesis of the Cosmos and its destruction -and its constitution established from good and evil. - -And he says that there is a certain conceivable[143] third power which -may be conceived[144] from these, speaking somehow like this:-- - - For if having fixed these things with knowing mind[145] - You behold them favourably with pure attention - They all will be present with you throughout the age - But many others will come forth from these. For they will increase - Each into a habit as is the nature of each.[146] - And if you desire such other things as are among men - A myriad woes arise and dull the edge of care - [Sidenote: p. 380.] Take heed lest they leave you suddenly as time rolls on. - Yearning to join their own beloved race - For know that all things have perception and an allotted share of mind.[147] - -30. When therefore Marcion or any of his dogs shall bay against the -Demiurge, bringing forward arguments from the comparison of good and -evil, they should be told that neither the Apostle Paul nor Mark of -the maimed finger[148] reported these things. For none of them is -written in the Gospel [according] to Mark; [and] Marcion, having stolen -them from Empedocles of Agrigentum, the son of Meto, thought until -now to conceal the fact that he had taken the whole arrangement of -his heresy from Sicily, [after] having transferred the actual words -of Empedocles to the Gospel discourses. For now, O Marcion, since you -have [Sidenote: p. 381.] made antithesis[149] of good and evil, I also -to-day, following up the teachings you have secretly borrowed[150] set -them over against [the originals]. Thou sayest that the Demiurge of the -cosmos is wicked.[151] Dost thou not then feel shame in teaching to the -Church the words of Empedocles? Thou sayest that there is a good God -who destroys the creations of the Demiurge. Dost thou not then clearly -preach as good news[152] to thy hearers the good Love of Empedocles? -Thou dost forbid marriage and the begetting of children and [dost order -thy hearers] to abstain from the meats which God has created for the -participation of the faithful and of those who know the truth,[153] -having purposely forgotten that thou art teaching the purifications of -Empedocles. For, following him as you truly do throughout, you teach -your own disciples[154] to avoid meats, lest they should eat some -body covering a soul punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages -joined by God, [thus] following the teachings of Empedocles so that you -may preserve the work of Love undissevered. For marriage according to -Empedocles dissevers the One and creates many as we have shown.[155] - -[Sidenote: p. 382.] 31. The earliest and least altered[156] heresy of -Marcion, comprising the mingling of good and evil, has been shown by us -to be that of Empedocles. But since in our own time, a certain Prepon -the Assyrian,[157] a Marcionite, in a book addressed to Bardesianes the -Armenian, has undertaken discourses on this heresy, I will not keep -silence about this either. Considering that there is a third principle, -just and set between good and evil, Prepon also does not thus succeed -in escaping the teaching of Empedocles. For Empedocles says that the -cosmos is governed by wicked Strife, and the other conceivable [world] -by Love, while between the two opposed[158] principles is a just Logos, -by whom the things severed by Strife are brought together and are -attached by Love to the One. But this same just Logos, [Sidenote: p. -383.] who fights on the side of Love, Empedocles proclaims as a Muse -and invokes her to fight on his side, speaking somehow thus:-- - - If for creatures of a day, O deathless Muse, - Thou art pleased to relieve our cares by thought, - Be propitious once more to my prayer, Calliope! - For I show forth a pious discourse of [the] blessed gods.[159] - -Following this up, Marcion repudiates altogether our Saviour’s Birth, -thinking it out of the question that a creature[160] of destructive -Strife should become the Logos fighting on the side of Love, that is -of the Good. But he said that without birth, in the 15th year of the -reign of Tiberius Cæsar, He came down from on high to teach in the -synagogues, being between evil and good. For if He is [Sidenote: p. -384.] a Mediator,[161] he says, He is freed from all nature of evil, -for evil, as he says, is the Demiurge and all his works. But He was -freed also, he says, from the nature of good, so that He might be a -Mediator, as Paul says,[162] which he himself confessed [in the saying] -“Why callest thou me good? there is one Good.” - -These then are Marcion’s doctrines, whereby he has caused many to -err by making use of the words of Empedocles and transferring the -philosophy stolen from that person to his own teaching. [Thus] he -has compounded a godless heresy which I think has been sufficiently -refuted by us. Nor [do we think] that we have omitted anything of -those who, having stolen [opinions] from the Greeks, insolently -oppose the disciples of Christ, as if these last had become their -teachers of these things. But since it seems to us that the opinions -of this [Marcion] have been sufficiently exposed,[163] let us see what -Carpocrates says. - - - [Sidenote: p. 385.] 4. _Carpocrates._[164] - -32. Carpocrates says that the cosmos and the things which are therein, -came into being by angels much below the unbegotten Father, but that -Jesus was begotten by Joseph and was born like other men, though more -just than the rest. And that His soul having been born strong and pure -remembered what it had seen in the sphere of the unbegotten God;[165] -and that therefore a power was sent down to it from that [Deity], so -that by its means it might escape from the world-making angels. And -that this [soul][166] having passed through them all and having been -freed from them went on high to the presence of the unbegotten Father, -and so will the souls[167] [go] who cleave to similar things. And -they say that the soul of Jesus, although lawfully trained in Jewish -customs, disdained them and therefore received the powers whereby -He made of none effect[168] the passions attached to men for their -punishment. [Sidenote: p. 386.] And that therefore the soul which like -that of Christ can disdain the world-making rulers, receives in the -same way power to do like things. Whence also they reach such [a pitch -of] vanity as to say they are like unto Jesus, and even that they are -mightier than man, and some of them more excellent than His disciples, -such as Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles, and that they are -in nothing behind Jesus. But that their souls having come from the -Transcendent Authority[169] and therefore similarly disdaining the -world-makers, are worthy of the same power [as He] and will go to the -same place. But that if anyone should disdain more than He the things -below, he might become more excellent than He. - -[Sidenote: p. 387.] They practise, then, magic arts, and incantations -and [use] philtres and love-feasts, and familiar spirits and -dream-senders and other evil works, thinking that they already have -authority to lord it over the rulers and makers of this world, nay even -over all created in it. Who have themselves been sent forth by Satan -for the dishonour[170] of the divine name of the Church before the -Gentiles, so that men hearing in one way or another of their doctrines -and thinking that we are all even as they, may turn away their ears -from the preaching of the Truth, [or] beholding their deeds, may speak -evil of us all. - -And they consider that [their] souls will change their bodies until -they have fulfilled all their transgressions; but that when nothing -is left undone, they will be set free to depart to the presence of -the God who is above the world-making angels, and that thus all souls -will be saved. But if any anticipating matters should combine all -transgressions [Sidenote: p. 388.] in one advent,[171] they will no -longer change their bodies, but as having paid all penalties at once, -will be freed from further birth in a body. Some of them also brand -their disciples in the back part of the lobe of the right ear. And they -make [172] images of Christ saying that they were made [in the time] of -Pilate.[173] - - - 5. _Cerinthus._[174] - -33. But a certain Cerinthus, having been trained in the schooling of -the Egyptians, said that the cosmos did not come into being by the -First God, but by a certain Power derived from the Authority set over -the universals, which is yet ignorant of the God who is over all. And -he supposed Jesus not to have been begotten from a virgin, but to have -been born the son of Joseph and Mary like all other men, [Sidenote: -p. 389.] and to have been more wise and just than they. And that, at -the Baptism, the Christ in the form of a dove descended upon Him from -the Absolute Power[175] which is over the universals. And that then He -announced[176] the unknown Father and perfected His own powers; but -that in the end the Christ stood away from Jesus, and Jesus suffered -and rose again;[177] but that the Christ being spiritual remained -impassible. - - - 6. _Ebionæi._[178] - -34. But the Ebionæi admit that the cosmos came into being by the -God who is; and concerning Christ they invent[179] the same things -as Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live according to Jewish customs, -thinking that they will be justified by the Law and saying that Jesus -was justified in practising[180] the Law. Wherefore He was named by God -Christ and Jesus, since none of them has fulfilled [Sidenote: p. 390.] -the Law. For if any other had practised the commandments which are in -the Law, he would be the Christ. And they say it is possible for them -if they do likewise to become Christs; and that He was a man like unto -all [men]. - - - 7. _Theodotus the Byzantian._[181] - -35. But a certain Byzantine named Theodotus brought in a new heresy, -asserting things about the beginning of the All which partly agree with -[the account of] the True Church, since he admits that all things came -into being by God. But having taken[182] his [idea of] Christ from the -school of the Gnostics and from Cerinthus and Ebion,[183] he considers -He appeared in some such fashion as this:--Jesus was a man begotten -from a virgin according to the Father’s will, living the common life of -all men. And having become most pious,[184] He at length on His baptism -in Jordan received the Christ from on high, who descended in the -[Sidenote: p. 391.] form of a dove. Wherefore the powers within Him did -not become active, until the Spirit which came down was manifested in -Him, which [Spirit] declared Him to be the Christ. But some will have -it that He did not become God on the descent of the Spirit; and others -that [this took place] on His resurrection from the dead. - - - 8. _Another Theodotus._ - -36. But while different enquiries were taking place among them[185] a -certain man who was also called Theodotus, a money-changer by trade, -undertook to say that a certain Melchizedek was the greatest power, and -that he was greater than Christ. After the image of whom they allege -that Christ happened [to come]. And they like the Theodotians before -mentioned say that Jesus was a man, and in the same words [declare] -that the Christ descended upon Him. - -[Sidenote: p. 392.] But the opinions[186] of Gnostics are varied, -and we do not deem it worth while to recount in detail their foolish -doctrines, composed of much absurdity and charged with blasphemy, -the most respectable of which those Greeks who philosophized on the -Divine have refuted. But one cause of the great conspiracy of these -wicked ones was Nicolaus, one of the seven appointed to the diaconate -by the Apostles.[187] He, having fallen away from the right doctrine, -taught that it was indifferent how men lived and ate: whose disciples -having waxed insolent, the Holy Spirit exposed in the Apocalypse as -fornicators and eaters of things offered to idols.[188] - - - 9. _Cerdo and Lucian._[189] - -37. But a certain Cerdo taking in like manner his starting-point from -these [heretics] and from Simon, says that the [Sidenote: p. 393.] -God announced by Moses and [the] Prophets was not the Father of Jesus -Christ. For that this God was known, but the Father of the Christ -unknowable; and that the first-named was [only] just, but the other, -good. The doctrine of this [Cerdo] Marcion confirmed when he took in -hand the _Antitheses_[190] and everything which seemed to him to speak -against the Demiurge of all things. And so did Lucian his disciple. - - - 10. _Apelles._[191] - -38. Now Apelles who [sprang] from among these men, says thus:--There is -a certain good God as Marcion supposed; but he who created all things -is [only] just; and there is a third [God] who spoke to Moses, and -yet a fourth, a cause of evil. And he names these angels and speaks -ill of the Law and the Prophets, deeming the Scriptures of human -authorship and false. And he picks out of the Gospels and Epistles -the things favourable to him. Yet he clings to the discourses of a -certain Philumena as the manifestations[192] [Sidenote: p. 394.] of a -prophetess. And he says that the Christ came down from the powers on -high, _i. e._ from the Good One and was the son of that One, and was -not begotten from a virgin, nor did He appear bodiless;[193] but that -taking parts from every substance[194] of the All, He made a body, that -is from hot and cold and wet and dry. And that in this body He lived -unnoticed by the cosmic authorities during the time that He spent in -the cosmos. And moreover that having been crucified[195] by the Jews -He died, and after three days rose again and appeared to the disciples -showing the marks of the nails and [the wound] in his side, and thereby -convinced them that He existed and was not a phantom but was incarnate. -The flesh [Apelles] says, which He showed, He gave back to the earth -whence was its substance, and He desired nothing of others, but merely -used [the flesh] for a season. He gave back to each its own, having -loosed again the bond of the body, _i. e._ the hot to the hot, the cold -to the cold, the wet to the wet and the dry to the dry,[196] and thus -passed to the presence of the good Father, leaving the seed of life to -the world to those who believe through the disciples.[197] - -[Sidenote: p. 395.] 39. It seems to us that we have set forth -sufficiently these things also. But since we have decided to leave -unrefuted no doctrines taught by any [heretic], let us see what has -been excogitated by the Docetae. - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: Of the Basilides with whose doctrines this book opens, -little is known. While some would on slender grounds make him a -Syrian, there is no doubt that he taught in Egypt and especially in -Alexandria, where he seems to have steeped himself in Greek philosophy. -This must have been during the reign of Hadrian and some time before -the appearance of the far greater heresiarch Valentinus. If we could -believe the testimony of Epiphanius, Basilides was a fellow-disciple -with Satornilus, to be presently mentioned, of Menander, the immediate -successor of Simon Magus; and, according to the more trustworthy -witness of Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, VII, 17), he himself -claimed to be the disciple of Glaucias, “the interpreter” of St. Peter. -He had a son Isidore who shared his teaching, and he wrote a treatise -in twenty-four books on the Gospels which he called _Exegetica_. The -sect that he founded, although never popular, lingered for some time -in Egypt; but there is much probability in Matter’s conjecture (_Hist. -crit. du Gnost._, 2nd ed., III, 36), that most of his followers became -the hearers of Valentinus. - -Our author’s account of Basilides’ doctrine at first sight differs -so widely from that given by Irenæus and his copyists that it was -for long supposed that the two accounts were irreconcilable. The -late Prof. Hort, however, in his lucid article on the subject in the -_Dictionary of Christian Biography_ showed with much skill that this -was not so, and that the Basilidian doctrine contained in our text is -in all probability that of the _Exegetica_ itself, while the teaching -attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and others was the same doctrine -largely corrupted by the inconsistent and incoherent superstitions -which invariably attach themselves to any faith propagated in secret. -The immediate source of Basilides’ own teaching cannot, up to the -present time, be satisfactorily traced; but, although its coping-stone, -the non-existent Deity, shows some likeness to the Buddhistic ideas -which were at any rate known in the Alexandria of his time (Clem. -Alex., _Strom._, I, 15), it is probable that among the relics of -the ancient Egyptian religion, then almost extinct, something of -the same idea might have been found. His obligation to the Stoic -philosophy is well brought out by Hort; and he was doubtless versed -in the dialectical methods of Aristotle, which, then as later, formed -the universal equipment of the student of philosophy. Hippolytus’ -theory that the ground-work of the Basilidian edifice is a conscious -or unconscious borrowing from Aristotle derives no support from any -Aristotelian writings known to us. Unlike other Gnostics, Basilides -displays no animus towards the Jews beyond reducing their Deity to -the Ruler of the Hebdomad, or lowest spiritual world, and he accepts -as fully as possible the Divinity of Jesus and the authority of the -New Testament. Of the Docetism attributed to him by Irenæus and -others, there is here no trace, and the Bishop of Lyons’ statement on -this point can only be explained by supposing that he here confused -Basilides with some other heresiarch. - -The distinctive features of Basilides’ teaching as disclosed in our -text are, however, plain enough. Rejecting all idea of a pre-existing -matter, he derives everything from the Supreme Being, whom he considers -to be so unspeakably and inconceivably great that he will not even -say of Him that He exists. He it is who from the first decreed not -only the foundation of the universe but also the means and agency by -which this is to be brought about. Nor do the apparent defects in its -constitution involve in Basilides’ system any thwarting of the Divine -Will by intermediate agents, or any lapse from duty on their part. All -things subsequent to the Supreme Being are in effect His children, and -from the Panspermia or Seed-Mass originally let fall by Him emerges the -First Sonhood, or purest part of the Sonhood, which, rising from the -heap by its own lightness and tenuity, springs upward into the presence -of the First Cause, where it remains for the purpose of giving light -when needed to the lower parts of creation. This is quickly followed -by the Second Sonhood (or Second Part of the Sonhood), which, emerging -in like manner, rises not from its own unaided power, but with the -assistance of the Boundary Spirit, who must have its origin in the -Seed-Mass, and who is left as the Boundary between the visible and the -invisible part of the universe when the Second Sonhood passes to the -Ogdoad or Eighth Heaven. This Eighth Heaven is under the sway of the -Great Ruler, a functionary emitted by the Seed-Mass for the purpose of -governing this abode of perfection, from which it may be inferred that -the Second Sonhood like the First ultimately returns to the presence of -the Supreme Being. In his organization of this Eighth Heaven, the Great -Ruler is much helped by the Son whom he calls forth from the Seed-Mass, -who is expressly stated to be greater and wiser than his own Father. - -There remains in the Seed-Mass two other world-creating powers. The -first of these is the maker of the Seven Heavens or Hebdomad, which -can here hardly be the planets, because they are expressly said to -be sublunary. He, too, produces from the Seed-Mass a Son greater and -wiser than himself, who again, it may be supposed, assists his father -in the organization of this Hebdomad. What form this organization took -we are not told, although there is some talk of 365 beings who are all -“Dominions and Powers and Authorities” with a ruler called Habrasax. -Below this Hebdomad, however, comes this world of ours called the -“Formlessness,” which has, it is said, “no leader nor guardian nor -demiurge” (_i.e._ architect), everything happening in it as decreed -by the Supreme Being from the first. Yet this Formlessness contains -within it the Third Sonhood (or third part of the Sonhood) whose -mission is apparently to guide the souls of men to the place for which -they are predestined, which it does by imparting to them some of its -own nature. Then, when the time came for the Coming of the Saviour, -a light shining from the highest heavens was transmitted through the -intermediate places to the Son of the Hebdomad and fell upon “Jesus -the son of Mary,” and He after the Passion ascended like the two first -parts of the Sonhood to the Divine Presence. In due time the third part -of the Sonhood will, it is said, follow Him. When this happens, the -soul predestined to the Seven Heavens will pass thither, those more -enlightened will be admitted to the Eighth Heaven, and those entitled -to the most glorious destiny of all will probably ascend with the third -part of the Sonhood to the Highest. On the two inferior classes, there -will then fall the “Great Ignorance,” a merciful oblivion which will -prevent them from remembering or otherwise being troubled in their -beatitude by the knowledge of the still better things above them. - -How the salvation of these souls is to be effected there is no -indication in Hippolytus, and he leaves us in entire doubt as to -whether Basilides allowed any free-will to man in the matter. It is -probable that he taught the doctrine of transmigration as a means of -purification from sins or faults committed in ignorance. But it is -several times asserted that he looked on suffering as a cleansing -process for the soul, and that he did not admit the existence of -evil (see Hort’s article on Basilides in _D.C.B._, I, pp. 274, 275 -for references). About some of his teaching there was deliberate -concealment (_ibid._, p. 279), and Irenæus (I, xxiv. 6), tells us that -his followers were taught to declare that while they were “no longer -Jews” they were “not yet” (or perhaps “more than”) Christians. In -this we may perhaps see the influence of the rubrics of the Egyptian -_Book of the Dead_, and the beginning of that secret propagation of -religion which was to find its ripest fruit in Manichæism. For the -rest, although Irenæus (I, xxiv. 5) tells us that Basilides, like -Simon, Valentinus, and other Gnostics, taught that the body of Jesus -was a phantasm, and even that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified in His -stead, there appears no trace of this in our text, and it is possible -that the Bishop of Lyons is here again confusing Basilides’ doctrines -with those of his successors.] - -[Footnote 2: ὄρος, “hill”; possibly a copyist’s error for ὅρος, -“boundary” or “shore.”] - -[Footnote 3: This exordium was evidently intended to be spoken.] - -[Footnote 4: οὐσία, Cruice and others translate this by “substance.” -Here it evidently means “essence” in the sense of “being.”] - -[Footnote 5: εἶδος, _i.e._ appearance = that which is seen.] - -[Footnote 6: ἄτομος, “which cannot be cut or divided,” = “atom.”] - -[Footnote 7: ἀναδέξασθαι τομήν, “receive cutting.”] - -[Footnote 8: ζῷον ἁπλῶς. See Aristotle, _Categor._, c. 3. The “living -creature” of the A. V. would here make better sense; but I keep the -word “animal” in the text out of respect for my predecessors.] - -[Footnote 9: ὑπόστασις, literally _substantia_, with no meaning as has -οὐσία of “being.” See Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 275.] - -[Footnote 10: ἀνείδεον, “abstract,” or “non-specific”?] - -[Footnote 11: εἴδεσιν.] - -[Footnote 12: The text has ταύτην .... [τὴν οὐσίαν], the words in -brackets being rightly deleted, as Cruice notes.] - -[Footnote 13: ἐθέμεθα, “posited.”] - -[Footnote 14: εἰς εἶδος οὐσίας ὑποστατικῆς, which shows the distinction -made by the author between ὀυσία and ὑπόστασις.] - -[Footnote 15: ἄτομον, “undivided.”] - -[Footnote 16: The text is here corrupt and has to be restored from -Aristotle’s, the word I have translated “essence” being as before -οὐσία while subject is ὑποκειμένον. Cf. Aristotle _Cat._, c. 5, and -_Metaphysica_, IV, c. 8.] - -[Footnote 17: Or “of many animals although they differ in species.”] - -[Footnote 18: ἔμψυχος, “animated” or “ensouled.”] - -[Footnote 19: ἕκαστον [sic]. _One_ of the accidents would make better -sense. Cf. vol. I, p. 56 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 20: _i.e._ “inherent.”] - -[Footnote 21: τὰ ἄτομα.] - -[Footnote 22: συμπληροῦται.] - -[Footnote 23: οὐσία, which here as elsewhere in the text may be -translated “essence.” “Being,” perhaps, is better here as more familiar -to the English reader.] - -[Footnote 24: These definitions of “accident” and the like are not to -be found in the _Categories_ of Aristotle as we have them in the work -known as the _Organon_, nor in any other of his extant works. But they -correspond with those given in Book VI, and are there attributed to -Pythagoras. Cf. p. 21 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 25: οὐσία throughout.] - -[Footnote 26: That is, makes fables or myths about the gods.] - -[Footnote 27: Macmahon remarks that these must be among Aristotle’s -lost works. This is doubtful.] - -[Footnote 28: ἀποκρύφους. Is Matthias a corruption of Glaucias? See n. -on p. 59 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 29: Basilides and his son must therefore have been -contemporaries of the Apostles. Even if we treat the word αὐτοῖς here -as a copyist’s interpolation, it is evident that Basilides must have -been considerably anterior in time to Valentinus.] - -[Footnote 30: πραγμάτων, “transactions.”] - -[Footnote 31: The words in this sentence in square brackets are -emendations in the text made by different editors.] - -[Footnote 32: πραγμάτων, as in last note but one.] - -[Footnote 33: κατὰ πλάτος καὶ διαίρεσιν.] - -[Footnote 34: Basilides is thus the first Gnostic to teach the doctrine -of creation _e nihilo_.] - -[Footnote 35: ὑποστήσας. Cf. the legend of Cybele, Vol. I, p. 118, n. 1 -_supra_.] - -[Footnote 36: πανσπερμίαν. The word is found in the fragments of -Anaxagoras and Democritus as well as in Plato. Its use has been revived -by Darwin and Weissmann.] - -[Footnote 37: ἰδέας.] - -[Footnote 38: οὐσιῶν. Nothing is here got by translating the word -“substances.”] - -[Footnote 39: πολυούσιον. Galen uses it as equivalent to “very -wealthy.”] - -[Footnote 40: ὁποῖον. As in Aristotle, _Cate._, c. 5.] - -[Footnote 41: This with Hippolytus’ interpolated remark emphasizes the -great difference between Basilides’ doctrine with its assertion of the -creation _e nihilo_ and the emanation theory of all other Gnostics. It -does away with the necessity for a pre-existent matter.] - -[Footnote 42: Gen. 1. 3.] - -[Footnote 43: John 1. 9. This and “Mine hour is not yet come” are the -only undoubted references to the Fourth Gospel made by Basilides.] - -[Footnote 44: ἀρχάς.] - -[Footnote 45: ὁμοούσιος. The first occurrence, so far as it can be -traced, of this too-famous word. If I am right, the interpretation of -οὐσία by “substance” came later. The nature of the Sonhood (Υἱότης, -Lat., _filietas_, which I translate “Sonhood” by analogy with -_paternitas_ = Fatherhood) is peculiar to Basilides, the idea being -apparently that within the Panspermia was concealed a germ which was -more closely related to its Divine Parent than the rest. The same idea -_mutatis mutandis_ reappears in Weissmann’s theory of the germ-plasm.] - -[Footnote 46: Homer, _Odyssey_, VII, 36.] - -[Footnote 47: δι’ ὑπερβολὴν κάλλους καὶ ὡραιότητος. The longing of -all nature for something higher is also mentioned in the Book on the -Ophites (See Book V, Vol. I, pp. 123, 140 _supra_). The phrase was -evidently a favourite one with Hippolytus, and he therefore uses it in -regard to several heresies, as he has done with the magnet simile.] - -[Footnote 48: μιμητική τις οὖσα, “being an imitative thing.”] - -[Footnote 49: Plato, _Phaedrus_, cc. 55, 56.] - -[Footnote 50: ὁμοούσιον.] - -[Footnote 51: χαρακτηρισθῆναι.] - -[Footnote 52: Ps. cxxxiii. 2.] - -[Footnote 53: ἀμορφίας καὶ τοῦ διαστήματος τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς. The ἀμορφία -corresponds exactly to the Chaos of the other Gnostics, as contrasted -with the Cosmos or ordered world which in this case is above it. In -it, as we see later (p. 356 Cr.) there is neither “leader nor guardian -nor demiurge,” and everything happens by predestination. The διάστημα -we have already met with in the teaching of Simon Magus (p. 261 -Cr.). Although in classical Greek it means an “interval,” it is here -evidently intended to signify something uncultivated, or, as we should -say, a “waste.”] - -[Footnote 54: It gives benefit by passing into the souls of certain -chosen men and thus enabling them to obtain the highest beatitude. It -receives it by thus purifying itself and so working out in turn its own -salvation.] - -[Footnote 55: He evidently regards the three persons of the Sonhood as -one being.] - -[Footnote 56: “Cosmos.”] - -[Footnote 57: Τὸ Μεθόριον Πνεῦμα.] - -[Footnote 58: The likeness of this to the Egyptian Horus who was at -once the sky-god and the ruler of the sublunary world, whose earthly -representative was the Pharaoh, is manifest. So, too, is its connection -with Horos, the Limit, of the Pleroma in Book VI.] - -[Footnote 59: So in the _Pistis Sophia_ the great ruler of the material -world is only spoken of as the Great Propatôr or Forefather, but his -personal name is never mentioned. The word Ἄρχων here applied to this -power is never used by later Gnostics except in a bad sense.] - -[Footnote 60: δεσπότης = autocrat or ruler having unlimited power.] - -[Footnote 61: καθ’ ἕκαστα.] - -[Footnote 62: This idea of a Power bringing into being a son greater -than himself seems peculiar to Basilides among Gnostic teachers. Its -origin may, perhaps, be sought among Pagan religions like the Greek -worship of Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 63.] - -[Footnote 63: This ἐντελεχεία or Quintessence Aristotle defines -(_Metaphys._, X, 9, 2) as actuality or the property of a thing _in -posse_ which lends to its motion or activity _in esse_.] - -[Footnote 64: ἀποτέλεσμα. The word is much used in astrology.] - -[Footnote 65: μεγαλειότητος. The word is post-classical and used in its -modern sense as an epithet of the Emperor in Byzantine times. Cf. LXX, -Jer. xxxiii. 9; Luke ix. 43; Acts xix. 27.] - -[Footnote 66: ῥητός as opposed to ἄρῥητος, “ineffable.”] - -[Footnote 67: That is to say, our world.] - -[Footnote 68: ὡς φθάσαντα τεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα γενέσθαι ὁτε δεῖ -καὶ οἷα δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου. The reading is very uncertain. Cf. -Cruice, p. 356 nn. 9, 10.] - -[Footnote 69: Rom. viii. 22.] - -[Footnote 70: Rom. v. 13, 14. In the Greek not ἁμαρτία as in the text, -but θάνατος, “death.”] - -[Footnote 71: Cf. Exod. vi. 2, 3. Basilides has twisted the last -sentence, “By my name Jehovah was I not known to them,” as Hippolytus -notes.] - -[Footnote 72: ἐκεῖθεν, _i. e._ from the Hebdomad. Cruice will have it -from the Ogdoad, but is clearly wrong.] - -[Footnote 73: Ἀρχή, “Rule.” Cf. Milton’s “Thrones, Dominations, -Princedoms, Virtues, Powers.”] - -[Footnote 74: The simile of the vapour of naphtha rising and catching -fire from a light above it is apt. As Prof. A. S. Peake points out -in his article on “Basilides” in Hastings’ _Dictionary of Religion -and Ethics_, Basilides throughout his system asserts in opposition to -Gnostics like Valentinus that salvation comes from the uplifting of the -lower powers rather than by the degradation of the higher.] - -[Footnote 75: There are many conjectural readings of this passage, for -which see Cruice.] - -[Footnote 76: Prov. i. 7. So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II, 8, 36), who -clearly quotes this passage from Basilides.] - -[Footnote 77: κατασκευή. Cf. LXX, Gen. i. 1.] - -[Footnote 78: ἀποκατασταθήσεται. This Apocatastasis, or return of the -worlds to the Deity from whom they came forth, is a favourite source of -speculation with all Gnostics.] - -[Footnote 79: 1 Cor. ii. 13.] - -[Footnote 80: A conflation of Ps. xxxii. 5, and Ps. li. 3.] - -[Footnote 81: εὐαγγελισθήσεται, “have the good news announced to him”?] - -[Footnote 82: It is the words in brackets which connect the system of -the text with that attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and Epiphanius. -Cf. Iren., I, xxiv. 5, pp. 202, 203, and n. 6, H., and Epiph., _Haer._, -XXIV.] - -[Footnote 83: Eph. iii. 3, 5.] - -[Footnote 84: 2 Cor. xii. 4.] - -[Footnote 85: As at the Baptism in Jordan where, according to the -almost universal tradition, the water was lighted up.] - -[Footnote 86: Luke i. 35.] - -[Footnote 87: δύναμις τῆς χρίσεως. Thus in Cruice. Miller would read -κρίσεως, and Roeper Ὀγδοάδος. Perhaps the correct reading is χριστός, -according to the idea common to nearly all Gnostics that the Christos -only came upon Jesus at His Baptism.] - -[Footnote 88: ἐγένετο ἄν.] - -[Footnote 89: John iffi. 5.] - -[Footnote 90: ὑπὸ γένεσιν, “configuration” or “geniture.” The proper -word for a theme or horoscope.] - -[Footnote 91: It was the Second and not the First Sonhood who left the -Holy Spirit at the Boundary.] - -[Footnote 92: It is plain from this that Basilides taught that the most -spiritual part of man’s soul was part of the Sonhood and that it was -separated from the rest at death. This is confirmed by what is said -later about what happened after the Passion.] - -[Footnote 93: Εὐαγγέλιον = “good news”? The article is omitted in both -these sentences.] - -[Footnote 94: He of the Ogdoad.] - -[Footnote 95: ἠγαλλιάσατο, a kind of pun on Ἐὐαγγέλιον, “glad tidings.”] - -[Footnote 96: ἵνα ἀπαρχὴ τῆς φυλοκρινήσεως γένηται τῶν συγκεχυμένων. -So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II., 8, 36), quoting from the “followers of -Basilides,” says that the Great Ruler’s fear became the ἀρχὴ τῆς σοφίας -φυλοκρινητικῆς, “the origin of the wisdom which discriminates.”] - -[Footnote 97: σωματικὸν μέρος.] - -[Footnote 98: This flatly contradicts the story attributed to Basilides -by Irenæus to the effect that Simon of Cyrene took His place on the -Cross. It has long been thought likely that Irenæus was here confusing -Basilides with his contemporary Saturninus.] - -[Footnote 99: So in the _Pistis Sophia_, the incorporeal part of man is -said to consist of four parts.] - -[Footnote 100: ὑπόθεσις.] - -[Footnote 101: καὶ τὸ πάθος οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς χάριν γέγονεν [ἢ] ὑπὲρ τοῦ -φυλοκρινηθῆναι τὰ συγκεχυμένα.] - -[Footnote 102: As has been said, there appears no reason to doubt that -Hippolytus took his account of Basilides’ doctrines directly from the -works of that heresiarch or of his son Isidore. The likeness of the -quotations from Basilides or “those about Basilides” in Clement of -Alexandria--a far more accurate and critical writer than Hippolytus--to -our text leave no doubt on this point, and it is even probable that, -as Hort thought, most of Hippolytus’ information is gathered from -Basilides’ _Exegetica_. His account of the universe and its creation -is largely Stoic, as may be seen by a comparison of this chapter with -that on the Universe in Prof. E. V. Arnold’s excellent _Roman Stoicism_ -(Cambridge, 1911); but he differs from all the Pagan philosophy of -his time by his view of matter which he makes neither pre-existent -nor malignant. In this, and in the “happy ending” to his drama of -the universe, we may perhaps see the result of the Golden Age of the -Antonines, and it is to this, perhaps, that he owed the influence that -he, without any great followers or successors, had upon the future -theology of orthodox and heretic alike. Many of his ideas, and even -a few of his very words, appear in documents like the later parts of -the _Pistis Sophia_, and in certain Manichæan writings, although the -strict monotheism which distinguishes them is in sharp contrast with -the dualism of his successors. This begets a doubt whether these last -were conscious borrowers of his opinion, or whether both he and they -took their doctrines from some common source of Eastern tradition not -now recognizable; but on the whole, the first-named hypothesis seems -the more probable.] - -[Footnote 103: Σατορνεῖλος. So Epiph., _Haer._ XXIII, and Theodoret, -_Haer. Fab._, I, 3, spell the name. Iren., I, 22; Eusebius, _H.E._, IV, -7, and later writers spell it Σατορνῖνος. All these accounts, however, -together with that in our text, are in effect copies of the chapter in -Iren., which is the earliest in time that has remained to us. Salmon -in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Saturninus,” thinks that this last is itself copied -from Justin Martyr, which is likely enough, but remains without proof.] - -[Footnote 104: Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII, p. 124, Oehl. adds to this -that Saturninus and Basilides were co-disciples, which, if true, would -connect their systems with Menander’s teacher, Simon Magus. Nothing -further is, however, known about Saturnilus or Saturninus or his -heresy, which Epiphanius makes the third after Christ, nor is there any -mention in any of the heresiologies of any writings by him. His story -of a First or Pattern Man made in the image of the Supreme Being is -common, as has been said, to many of the early heresies, and reappears -in Manichæism. It is probably to be referred to some tradition current -in Western Asia. See Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, cap. “Der -Urmensch.”] - -[Footnote 105: τῆς αὐθεντίας, “one who holds absolute rule.” _Summa -potestas_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 106: Cf. Gen. i. 26.] - -[Footnote 107: This story is also met with among the Ophites. See -Iren. (I, xxx. 5), where life is given to the grovelling figure by -Jaldabaoth, the chief of the seven powers. Epiphanius adds to it that -the world-makers divided the cosmos among them by lot, and that it was -a spark of his own Power that the “Power on high” sent down for the -vivification of the First Man, “which spark, he says, they fancy to be -the human soul.”] - -[Footnote 108: καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο, εἰς ἐκεῖνα ἀναλύεσθαι.] - -[Footnote 109: So Miller. Theodoret has Σωτῆρα, “Saviour,” for Father.] - -[Footnote 110: Words in ( ) restored from Epiphanius.] - -[Footnote 111: No necessary mistake or confusion, as has been thought. -The “deposition” might be merely that of an unsuccessful general, as in -Manichæism.] - -[Footnote 112: Marcion of Pontus was the heresiarch most dreaded by the -Ante-Nicene Fathers, and is said to have led away from the Primitive -Church a greater number of adherents than any teacher of that age, -with the doubtful exception of Valentinus. He also differed from all -other heretics of the time in setting up a Church fully equipped with -bishops, priests, and deacons over against the Catholic, and in seeing -that his followers openly avowed their faith in times of persecution. -He rejected the Old Testament entirely, and reduced the New to a -shorter edition of the Gospel of St. Luke and ten of the Epistles of -St. Paul. This has led to his heresy receiving more attention than -any other of its contemporaries at the hands of modern scholars, -especially in Germany. Hence it is to be regretted that the chapter in -our text which is devoted to him adds nothing to our knowledge of his -history or tenets, while its statement that Marcion called the Demiurge -πονηρός (wicked) shows either that Hippolytus was ignorant of Marcion’s -opinions, or that he misread his authority. The first is the more -likely theory, as his master Irenæus gives a more scanty account of -Marcion than of any other heretic, while promising to write a special -treatise against him. This intention does not seem to have been carried -out, and it is probable that while the Marcionite heresy flourished at -an early date in the Eastern provinces of the Empire, it had too slight -a hold in the West to have given such writers as Irenæus and Hippolytus -much first-hand knowledge concerning it. It is also noted that in the -so-called “epitome of heresies” in Book X, Hippolytus does not, after -his manner with the other heresies, quote from this chapter.] - -[Footnote 113: τοῦ παντός. This expression, as has been many times said -above, means the universe without the Void. It does not therefore, -exclude the collateral existence of Chaos or unformed matter.] - -[Footnote 114: This accusation of incontinence against Marcion is -disproved by Tertullian, _de Præscript_, c. 30. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, -206, n. 5.] - -[Footnote 115: Φιλία, Cr., “_Amicitia_,” Macm., “Friendship.” The -stronger word Love seems to express better Hippolytus’ meaning. It is, -of course, distinct from the ἀγάπη or “charity” of the A. V.] - -[Footnote 116: He refers to the scanty account of Empedocles’ doctrines -in Book I, _q.v._] - -[Footnote 117: κλεψιλόγος, “word-stealer.”] - -[Footnote 118: κοσμεῖται, “set in order.”] - -[Footnote 119: κρούνωμα βρότειον, ll. 55-57, Karsten; 33-35, Stein. Cr. -translates these words _humanam scaturiginem_, and Macm., “the mortal -font.” It is difficult to assign any meaning to them in the absence of -the context.] - -[Footnote 120: τρεφομένοις, “things in course of nurture.”] - -[Footnote 121: ζῷα, “animals.”] - -[Footnote 122: He appears to ignore the desert, or perhaps thinks this -no part of the _ordered_ world.] - -[Footnote 123: ὑπόθεσιν, lit., “substructure.”] - -[Footnote 124: πνεῦμα, a manifest slip for Ἀήρ as before.] - -[Footnote 125: στοργή, as in the N. T.] - -[Footnote 126: ὀλέθριον.] - -[Footnote 127: εἰς τὸ ἓν ἀποκαταστάσεως. The Codex has τὸν ἕνα. That -the meaning is as given above, see p. 373 Cr., where we find ἐκ πολλῶν -ποιήσῃ τὸ ἕν κ.τ.λ.] - -[Footnote 128: ll. 110, 111, Stein. In p. 274 Cr., _supra_, these lines -are quoted as the opinions of “the Pythagoreans.”] - -[Footnote 129: τὸ πᾶν, not τὸ ὅλον. See n. on I, p. 35 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 130: ἰδέα, “species”; so Cruice.] - -[Footnote 131: κλάδοι, lit., “branches.”] - -[Footnote 132: ll. 107, 205, Karsten.] - -[Footnote 133: l. 7, Karsten; 381, Stein.] - -[Footnote 134: ll. 4, Karsten; 372, 373, Stein.] - -[Footnote 135: l. 5, Karsten; 374, Stein.] - -[Footnote 136: νοητός, “that which can be understood by the mind rather -than by the senses.”] - -[Footnote 137: εἴδεα θνητῶν, “forms of mortals.”] - -[Footnote 138: ll. 6, Karsten; 375, 376, Stein.] - -[Footnote 139: ll. 15-19, Karsten; 377-380, Stein.] - -[Footnote 140: μεμερισμένου, _minutatim divisi_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 141: ἐγκρατεῖς εἶναι, “to be abstainers.”] - -[Footnote 142: ll. 1, 2, Karsten; 369, 370, Stein.] - -[Footnote 143: νοητήν, as before.] - -[Footnote 144: ἐπινοεῖσθαι.] - -[Footnote 145: Reading for ἀδινῇσιν ... πραπίδεσσιν, ἰδυιῄσι -πραπίδεσσιν, as in Hom., _Il._, I, 608.] - -[Footnote 146: Φύσις ἑκάστῳ, “the nature of each one”?] - -[Footnote 147: Cf. ll. 313 _sqq._, Karsten, and 222 _sqq._, Stein. -Schneidewin has restored the very bad text in _Philologus_, VI, 166. -But the lines are still obscure--even for Empedocles. They seem to hint -at a hidden meaning, to be got by study.] - -[Footnote 148: κολοβοδάκτυλος. See _Journal of Classical and Sacred -Philology_ (Cambridge), March 1855, p. 87. The story of St. Mark -cutting off his thumb to make himself ineligible for the priesthood is -quoted by Cruice from St. Jerome.] - -[Footnote 149: ἀντιπαράθεσιν, “the setting over against.”] - -[Footnote 150: ὑπολαμβάνεις. Cr. and Macm. both translate, “as you -suppose them to be.” But Marcion could have been in no doubt as to his -own opinions.] - -[Footnote 151: Marcion did not say that the Demiurge, whom he probably -identified with the God of the Jews, was wicked. On the contrary, he -said that he was just, though harsh. See _Forerunners_, II, xi.] - -[Footnote 152: εὐαγγελίζῃ.] - -[Footnote 153: Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, as quoted in Book VIII, p. 422 Cr.] - -[Footnote 154: Reading τοὺς σεαυτοῦ μαθητάς for the τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητάς -of the text.] - -[Footnote 155: All this argument is a _petitio principii_ of the most -flagrant kind. There is nothing in the quotations here given from -Empedocles to show that that philosopher made Love and Strife the two -ἀρχαί of the universe, as Empedocles associates with them the four -“elements” of Fire, Earth, Water and Air, and Ἀνάγκη or Fate seems, -according to his teaching, to be superior to them all. The quotations -prove, however, that Empedocles taught metempsychosis, unless -Hippolytus is here confusing him with Pythagoras. Marcion did not, and -the reason that he gave for abstinence from animal food is different -from that attributed to Empedocles. The quotations themselves are much -corrupted, and Hippolytus seems to have taken them from memory only, as -he is careful to say that these are “something like this.” All of them -appear in Karsten’s or Stein’s collections, which were made before the -discovery of our text, and are, therefore, an argument against Salmon’s -theory of forgery.] - -[Footnote 156: καθαριωτάτη, “purest.”] - -[Footnote 157: This Prepon, probably a Syrian, is mentioned by no -other writer except Theodoret, who doubtless borrowed from our text. -The “Bardesianes” was probably the famous Bardaisan or Ibn Daisan who -taught at Edessa and was a follower of Valentinus. It is noteworthy -that the Armenian author, Eznig of Goghp, gives a different account of -Marcion’s teaching from any of the Western heresiologists and makes him -admit the independent existence of a third principle in the shape of -malignant matter. For this, see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2.] - -[Footnote 158: διαφερούσας, “differentiated”?] - -[Footnote 159: ll. 338-341, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the lines -as far as is possible.] - -[Footnote 160: ὑπόπλασμα, “that which has been moulded.”] - -[Footnote 161: Μεσίτης. Not intercessor, but something placed between -two others.] - -[Footnote 162: Not St. Paul, but Luke xvii. 19.] - -[Footnote 163: There is no indication of the source from which -Hippolytus drew the material for this chapter. It does not seem to have -been the writings of Irenæus, for his remarks in I, xxv tell us even -less about Marcion than our text. Possibly Hippolytus was here indebted -to the work of Justin Martyr, which seems to have been extant in the -time of Photius. With the exception of the notice of Prepon, our text -contains nothing that was not known otherwise.] - -[Footnote 164: This Carpocrates, whom Epiphanius calls Carpocras, seems -to have been another of “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” and to -have been learned in the Platonic philosophy. He is mentioned by all -the heresiologists, but there is little that is distinctive about his -tenets as they have come down to us, and his followers were probably -few. They are accused by Irenæus, from whose chapter on the subject -Hippolytus’ account is condensed, of a kind of Antinomianism having its -origin in the contention that all actions are indifferent.] - -[Footnote 165: μετὰ τοῦ ἀγενήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ.] - -[Footnote 166: χωρήσασαν can only apply to ψυχή. The return of the -Power to the Deity could not be supposed to affect other souls.] - -[Footnote 167: ὁμοίως.] - -[Footnote 168: κατήργησε.] - -[Footnote 169: τῆς ὑπερκειμένης ἐξουσίας. Cruice points out that these -words have slipped into the text from the margin. Irenæus has ex _eadem -circumlatione devenientes_, “descending from the same sphere,” which is -doubtless correct.] - -[Footnote 170: εἰς διαβολήν, probably a play on διάβολος.] - -[Footnote 171: ἐν μιᾷ παρουσίᾳ, “in one appearance.”] - -[Footnote 172: κατασκευάζουσι, “mould or cast.”] - -[Footnote 173: This chapter is in effect a condensation of Irenæus -I, xx, which it follows closely. Hippolytus omits mention of the -obscenities attributed to the sect which are hinted at by Irenæus -and described fully by Epiphanius. Irenæus also mentions that they -claimed to get their doctrine from the secret teaching of Jesus to -the Apostles, that one Marcellina taught their heresy in Rome under -Pope Anicetus, and that the images of Christ were worshipped by them, -_more Gentilium_, along with those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. -Epiphanius derives the heresy from Simon Magus. It is suggested that -the branding by which they knew each other was due to a “baptism by -fire.”] - -[Footnote 174: This chapter also is practically identical with Irenæus -I, xxi, which is extant in the Latin version. Cerinthus was one of the -earliest of the Gnostics and tradition makes him contemporary with St. -John. He was probably a member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of -Philo, and Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXVIII) adds to Irenæus’ account that he -taught in Asia, and especially in Galatia.] - -[Footnote 175: αὐθεντίας, as before.] - -[Footnote 176: κηρύξας, perhaps “preached.”] - -[Footnote 177: Does this amount to an admission of the resurrection of -the body? If so it is in marked contrast to the Docetism of Marcion and -others.] - -[Footnote 178: Ἐβιοναῖοι, Latin [Iren.] _qui dicuntur Ebionæi_, as -if they were followers of a mythical leader Ebion. The existence of -any founder of this name is now generally given up, and the word is -more probably a mere transliteration of the Hebrew אביון, “poor.” The -Ebionites were in all likelihood Judaizing Christians who had remained -behind in Palestine through the wars of Titus and Hadrian, and still -kept to the observance of the Mosaic Law. The brief statement in our -text is probably derived from Hippolytus’ recollection of Irenæus, -I, c. 21, the first sentence being in nearly the same words in both -authors. Irenæus adds to it that they used the gospel of St. Matthew -only and did not consider St. Paul as an apostle, because he did not -keep the Law; also that they adored Jerusalem as the “house of God.”] - -[Footnote 179: μυθεύουσιν, “fable.” Irenæus’ Latin version here inserts -a _non_, evidently a clerical error.] - -[Footnote 180: ποιήσαντα, Cruice, _servare_, Macm., “fulfilled.” In -either case a curious meaning for ποιέω. Cf. the ποιέω τὴν μουσικήν of -Plato, _Phaedo_, 60. E.] - -[Footnote 181: In the accounts of the two Theodoti, which may here be -taken together, Hippolytus leaves Irenæus, from whom he has hitherto -been content to copy his account of the smaller heresies, and draws -from some source not yet identified, but which may be the _Little -Labyrinth_ of Caius (see Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Theodotus.”). His -description of the heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium corresponds with -that of Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, V, 28). The Melchizedekian theory of -the “other” Theodotus is mentioned by Philaster (c. 53, p. 54, Oehl.) -without reference to Theodotus, although on the preceding page he has -given the Byzantine heresy as in our text. Pseudo-Tertullian in _Adv. -Omn. Haer._ (II, p. 764, Oehl.) gives the story of both Theodoti much -as here, which may give support to the theory that this tract is a -summary of the lost _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus. Epiphanius (_Haer._ -XXXIV, XXXV) divides the Melchizedekians from the Theodotians, and says -the first were ἀποσπασθέντες from the second, but without naming the -banker. He also gives some particulars about the first Theodotus, which -he does not seem to have taken from Hippolytus. He quotes one Hierax as -saying that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, and says that “some” say -that Heracles was his father and Astaroth or Asteria his mother, while -Melchizedek plays a great part in the earliest part of the _Pistis -Sophia_ as the “Receiver of the Light.”] - -[Footnote 182: ἀποσπάσας, lit., “torn away.”] - -[Footnote 183: So that Hippolytus believed in the mythical founder of -the Ebionites.] - -[Footnote 184: εὐσεβέστατον.] - -[Footnote 185: _i. e._ the heretics.] - -[Footnote 186: γνῶμαι.] - -[Footnote 187: Acts vi. 5.] - -[Footnote 188: Rev. ii. 6.] - -[Footnote 189: This Cerdo is only known to us as a predecessor of -Marcion, whose teaching he appears to have influenced, although in -what measure cannot now be ascertained. His date seems to be fairly -well settled as about the year 135 (see _D.C.B._, s.h.v.), which is -that of his coming to Rome, and it was doubtless here that Marcion -met him. According to Irenæus, his teaching was mainly in secret and -he was always ready to make submission to the Church and recant his -errors when publicly arraigned. His doctrine, so far as it has come -down to us, does not seem to differ from that of Marcion, Tertullian -(_adv. Marcion_) and the tractate _Adv. Omn. Haer._ giving the best -account of it. Of Lucian, we know nothing, save that, while Epiphanius -(_Haer._ XLII, p. 688, Oehl.) makes him out the immediate successor -of Marcion and to have been succeeded by Apelles, Tertullian (_de -Resurrectione_, c. 2) speaks of him--if he be the person there referred -to as Lucanus--as an independent teacher with no apparent connection -with Marcion’s heresy. He adds that he taught a resurrection neither -of the body nor of the soul, but of some part of man which he calls a -“third nature.” See _Forerunners_, II, p. 218, n. 2, and 220.] - -[Footnote 190: Ἀντιπαραθέσεις. See n. on p. 88 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 191: Of this Apelles, our knowledge is mainly derived from -Tertullian, for references to whom see Hort’s article “Apelles” in -_D.C.B._ He was certainly later than Marcion, for Rhodo (see Euseb., -_Hist. Eccl._, V, c. 13), writing at the end of the second century, -A.D., speaks of him as still alive, though an “old man.” The same -author seems to consider that on Marcion’s death he founded a sect -of his own, in which he “corrected” Marcion’s teaching in some -particulars. This is doubtful, but Rhodo’s statements go to show that -he quoted from the Old Testament and did not hold the body of Jesus to -be a phantasm. Tertullian also mentions several times the connection of -Apelles with the “possessed” Philumene, on which he puts a construction -negatived by the evidence of Rhodo. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 218-220.] - -[Footnote 192: Hippolytus here accepts the statement of Tertullian (_de -Præscript._, c. 30) that Apelles wrote a book called Φανερώσεις, or -_Manifestations_, containing the prophecies of Philumene. He repeats -this with more distinctness in Book X, c. 20, _q. v._] - -[Footnote 193: ἄσαρκον.] - -[Footnote 194: οὐσία.] - -[Footnote 195: ἀνασκολοπισθέντα, lit., “impaled.” It is, however, used -by both Philo and Lucian as equivalent to “crucified.”] - -[Footnote 196: This “giving back” of the component parts of man’s being -to the different powers from which they are derived is a frequent -theme among the later Gnostics, and is fully described in the _Pistis -Sophia_. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 184.] - -[Footnote 197: The source of this chapter is certainly the tractate -_Adv. Omn. Haer._, formerly attributed to Tertullian and to be found -in the second volume of that author’s works in Oehler’s edition. No -other author mentions Apelles with such particularity, and all those -subsequent to Tertullian appear to have taken their information either -from Tertullian’s other works, from this tractate, or from our text. -This tractate has been discussed in the Introduction (see Vol. I, -pp. 12 and 23 _supra_) and perhaps all difficulties may be solved by -supposing it to be, not indeed the actual _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus, but -a summary of it.] - - - - - BOOK VIII - - THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS - - -[Sidenote: p. 396.] 1. These are the contents of the 8th [Book] of the -Refutation of all Heresies. - -2. What are the opinions of the Docetae,[1] and that they teach things -which they say are from the Physicist Philosophy.[2] - -3. How Monoimus speaks foolishly, giving heed to poets and -geometricians and arithmeticians. - -4. How Tatian’s [heresy] sprang from the opinions of Valentinus and -Marcion wherefrom he compounded his own. And that Hermogenes has made -use of the teachings of Socrates, not of Christ. - -5. How those err who contend that Easter should be celebrated on the -14th day [of the month]. - -6. What is the error of the Phrygians, who think Montanus and Priscilla -and Maximilla to be prophets. - -[Sidenote: p. 397.] 7. What is the vain doctrine of the Encratites, and -that their teachings are compounded not out of the Holy Scriptures, but -from their own [views] and from those of the Gymnosophists among the -Indians.[3] - - - 1. _The Docetae._ - -8. Since the many, making no use of the Lord’s counsel, while having -the beam[4] in their eye, yet give out that they can see, it seems to -us that we should not be silent as to their doctrines. So that they, -being brought to shame by our forthcoming refutation, shall recognize -how the Saviour counselled them to take away the beam from their own -eye, and then to see clearly the straw which was in their brother’s -eye. Now, therefore, having set forth sufficiently and adequately -the opinions of most of the heretics in the seven books before this, -we shall not now be silent upon those which follow. Exhibiting the -ungrudging grace of the Holy Spirit, we shall also refute those -who seem to have [Sidenote: p. 398.] attained security, They call -themselves Docetae and teach thus:--The first God[5] is as it were -the seed of a fig, in size altogether of the smallest, but in power -boundless, a magnitude unreckoned in quantity, lacking nothing for -bringing forth, a refuge for the fearful, a covering for the naked, or -veil for shame, a fruit sought for, whereto, he says, the Seeker came -thrice and found not.[6] Wherefore, he says, He cursed the fig-tree,[7] -so that that sweet fruit was not found on it, [_i. e._] the fruit that -was sought for. And [the seed] being, so to speak briefly, of such a -nature and so old [yet] small and without magnitude, the cosmos came -into being from God, as they think, in some such way as this:--The -branches of the tree becoming tender, put forth leaves, as is seen, -and fruit follows, wherein is preserved the innumerable [Sidenote: p. -399.] [and] stored-up seed of the fig. We think, therefore, that three -things first come into being from the seed of the fig, the stem which -is the fig-tree, leaves, and the fruit or fig, as we have before said. -Thus, says he, three Aeons came into being as principles from the -First Principle of the universals.[8] And on this, he says, Moses was -not silent, when he said that the words of God were three: “Darkness, -cloud and whirlwind and he added no more.”[9] For, he says, God added -nothing to the Three Aeons, but they sufficed and do suffice for all -things which come into being. But God Himself abides by Himself and far -removed from all the Aeons.[10] - -When, therefore, each of these Aeons, he says, had received a principle -of generation, as has been said, it little by little increased and -grew great and became perfect. Now they think that the perfect number -[is] ten.[11] Then the Aeons having come into being equal in number -and perfection, as they think, they were thirty Aeons in all,[12] each -of them being complete in a decad. But they are divided and the three -having equal honour among themselves, differ in position only, because -one of them is first, [Sidenote: p. 400.] another second, and another -third. But this position produced a difference of power. For he who -is nearest to the First God--to the seed as it were--chances to have -a power more fruitful than the others, he who is the Immeasureable -One having measured himself ten times in magnitude. And the -Incomprehensible One, who has become second in position to the first, -comprehended himself six times. And the third in position, becoming -removed to an infinite distance by reason of his brethren’s dilatation, -conceived[13] himself three times and, as it were, bound himself by a -certain eternal bond of unity.[14] - -9. And this they think is the Saviour’s saying:--“The sower went -forth to sow and that which fell upon good and fair ground made -some 100, some 60, and some 30.”[15] And hence, says he, He said, -“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” because this is not what -all understand.[16] All these Aeons [to wit] the Three and all the -boundlessly boundless ones [who come] from them, are masculo-feminine -ones.[17] Therefore having increased and become great, and all of them -being from that one first seed of their concord [Sidenote: p. 401.] and -unity, and all becoming together one Aeon, they all begat from the one -Virgin Mary, the begettal common to them all, a Saviour in the midst -of them all,[18] of equal power in everything with the seed of the -fig, save that He was begotten. But that first seed whence is born the -fig is unbegotten. Then those three Aeons having been adorned[19] with -all virtue and holiness, as these teachers think, all the conceivable, -lacking-nothing, nature of that Only-Begotten[20] Son--for He alone -was born to the boundless Aeons by a triple generation; for three -immeasureable Aeons with one mind begot Him--was adorned also. But all -these conceivable and eternal things were Light; but the Light was not -formless and idle, nor did it lack anything superadded to it: but it -contained within itself the boundless forms of the various animals here -below corresponding in number to the boundlessly boundless after the -pattern of the fig-tree. And it shone from on high into [Sidenote: p. -402.] the underlying chaos. And this [chaos], being at once illuminated -and given form from the various forms on high, received consistence[21] -and took all the supernal forms from the Third Aeon who had tripled -himself.[22] But this Third Aeon, seeing all the types[23] that were -his at once intercepted in the underlying darkness beneath, and not -being ignorant of the power of the darkness and the simplicity and -generosity[24] of the light, would not allow the shining types from on -high to be drawn far down by the darkness beneath. But he subjected -[the Firmament] to the Aeons. Then, having fixed it below, he divided -in twain the darkness and the light.[25] “And he called the light which -is above the firmament, Day, and the darkness he called Night.”[26] -Therefore, as I have said, when all the boundless forms of the Third -Aeon were intercepted in this lowest darkness, and the impress[27] of -that same Aeon was stamped upon it along with the rest, a living fire -came from the light whence the Great Ruler came into being [Sidenote: -p. 403.] of whom Moses says: “In the beginning God created Heaven and -Earth.”[28] Moses says that this fiery God[29] spoke from the bush, -that is from the darksome air, for _batos_ [bush] is the whole air -which underlies the darkness. But it is _batos_, says Moses according -to him, because all the forms of light go from on high downwards, -having the air as a passage.[30] And the word from the bush is no less -recognized by us. For a sound significant of speech is reverberating -air, without which human speech could not be recognized. And not only -does our word from the bush, that is from the air, make laws for and be -a fellow-citizen with us, but also odours and colours manifest their -powers to us through the air. - -10. Then this fiery God--the fire born from the light--made the cosmos, -as Moses says, in this manner, he being substanceless,[31] [and] -darkness having the substance and being ever silent towards the eternal -types of the light which are intercepted below.[32] Therefore, until -the Saviour’s manifestation, there was a certain great wandering of -souls by reason of the God of the Light, the fiery Demiurge. For the -forms are called souls, having been cooled down[33] from the things -above and they continue in darkness to change about from body to -body under the supervision of [Sidenote: p. 404.] the Demiurge. And -that this is so, we may know from the words of Job: “And I also am a -wanderer from place to place and from house to house.”[34] The Saviour -also says: “And if you will receive it, this is the Elias who shall -come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”[35] But by the Saviour, -change of bodies has been made to cease; and faith is preached for the -putting-away of transgressions.[36] In some such way that Only-Begotten -Son beholding from on high the forms of the Aeons changing about in -the darksome bodies willed to come down for their deliverance. When -He saw that the multitude of Aeons could not bear to behold without -ceasing the Pleroma of all the Aeons, but remained as mortals dreading -corruption,[37] being held by the greatness and glory of power, He drew -Himself together as a very great flash in a very small body, or rather, -like the light of the eye drawn together under the eyelids, and goes -forth to the [Sidenote: p. 405.] heaven and the shining stars. And -there He again withdraws Himself under the eyelids at His pleasure. -Thus does the light of the eye, and although it is everywhere present -and is all things to us, it is invisible; but we see only the lids of -the eye, the white corners, a broad membrane of many folds and fibres, -a horn-like coat, and under this a berry-like pupil, both net-like and -disk-like, and if there are any other coats to the light of the eye, it -is enwrapped and lies hidden within them. - -Thus, he says, the Only-Begotten Son, eternal on high, did on Himself -(a form) corresponding to each Aeon of the Three Aeons, and being in -the triacontad of Aeons, came into the world of the Decad[38] being of -such age and as little as we have said, invisible, unknown, without -glory and not believed upon. in order then, say the Docetae,[39] -that he might do on also the Outer Darkness which is the flesh, an -angel came down with Him from [Sidenote: p. 406.] on high and made -announcement[40] to Mary as it is written, and He was born from her as -it is written. And He who came from on high put on that which was born, -and did all things as it is written in the Gospels; and was baptized in -Jordan. And he was baptized, receiving the type and seal in the water -of the body born from the Virgin, in order that when the Ruler should -condemn the form which was his to death, to the Cross, that soul which -had grown up within the body should strip off that body and affix it to -the Tree. And thus (the soul) having triumphed by its means over the -Principles and Authorities would not be found naked, but would put on -that body reflected in the likeness of that flesh in the water when He -was baptized. This he says, is the Saviour’s saying: “Unless a man be -born of water and of [the] Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom -of the heavens; because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.”[41] - -From the thirty Aeons, then, He did on thirty forms. Wherefore -that Eternal One was thirty years on the earth, every Aeon being -manifested in his own year. And souls are all the forms which have -been intercepted from each of [Sidenote: p. 407.] the thirty Aeons, -and each of them possesses a nature capable of understanding the Jesus -who exists according to nature which that Only-Begotten One from the -eternal places puts on. But these places are different. Therefore so -many heresies contending [with each other] about it, seek Jesus. And -He is claimed[42] by them all, but is seen differently by each from -the different places. Towards whom, he says, each [soul] is borne and -hurries, thinking that she is alone. Who is indeed her kinsman and -fellow-citizen. Whom she beholding for the first time recognizes as her -own brother and all the rest as bastards. Those then who have their -nature from the lower places cannot see the forms of the Saviour above -them. But those on high, he say, from the middle Decad and the most -excellent Ogdoad[43]--whence, say they, we are--know Jesus the Saviour -not in part but wholly, and are alone the Perfect from above, while the -others are only partly so. - -[Sidenote: p. 408.] 11. I think then that this is for right-thinking -persons sufficient for the knowledge of the complicated and -inconsistent heresy of the Docetae--those who attempt to make arguments -about inaccessible and incomprehensible matter calling themselves thus. -Certain of whom do not only _seem_[44] to be mad; and we have proved -that the beam from such matter has entered their own eye, if they are -anyhow able to see clearly; and, if not, they will be unable to blind -others. Whose dogma the early sophists of Greece anticipated in many -points of sophistry, as our readers will understand. These then are the -teachings of the Docetae.[45] It seems right also that we should not -keep silence as to the [teachings] of Monoimus. - - - 2. _Monoimus._ - -12. Monoimus the Arab[46] was a long way off[47] the glory of the -great-voiced poet; for he thinks that some such man as Oceanus existed, -of whom the poet speaks somehow like this:-- - - [Sidenote: p. 409.] Oceanus, the birth of gods and birth of man.[48] - -Turning this into other words, he says that a Man is the All which is -the source of the universals, [being] unbegotten, incorruptible, and -eternal; and that there is a Son of the aforesaid Man, who is begotten, -and capable of suffering, being born in a timeless, unwilled, and -previously undefined way. For such, says he, is the Power of that Man. -And when it was so, the son of the Power came into being more quickly -than reasoning or counsel. And this is, he says, the saying in the -Scriptures: “He was and came into being,”[49] which is: Man was and -his son came into being, as if one were to say: Fire was and Light -came into being in a timeless, unwilled, and previously undefined -way, while being at the same time fire. But this Man is a single -monad, uncompounded [and] undifferentiated, [and yet] compounded [and] -differentiated, loving and at peace with all things, [and yet] fighting -with and at war with all things before him,[50] unlike and like, as -it were a certain musical [Sidenote: p. 410.] harmony which contains -whatever one may say or leave unsaid, showing all things and giving -birth to all things. “This is Father, this is Mother, Two Immortal -names.”[51] But for the sake of an instance, conceive, he says, as the -greatest image of the Perfect Man, the one tittle which is one tittle -uncompounded, simple, a pure monad having no composition whatever from -anything, [yet] compounded of many forms, of many parts. That undivided -One, he says, is the many-faced and myriad-eyed and myriad-named one -tittle of the Iota,[52] which is an image of that Perfect and Invisible -Man. - -13. The one tittle, he says, is then the monad and a decad. For by this -power of the one tittle of the Iota [are produced] also [the] dyad -and triad and tetrad and pentad and hexad and heptad and ogdoad and -ennead up to the ten. For these are the diversified numbers dwelling -within that simple and uncompounded tittle of the [Sidenote: p. 411.] -Iota. And this is the saying:--“Because it pleased the whole Pleroma to -dwell within the Son of Man bodily.”[53] For such compounds of numbers -from the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the Iota become he says -bodily hypostases. Therefore, he says, the Son of Man was born from -the Perfect Man, whom none know. But, he says, every creature who is -ignorant of the Son, represents Him as the offspring of a woman. Of -which Son some shadowy rays come very close to this world and secure -and control change [of bodies and] birth. And the beauty of that Son -of Man is till now unrevealed to all men who are misled as to the -offspring of a woman. Nothing then of the things here come into being, -he says, from that Man, nor will they ever do so; but all things that -have come into being have done so not from the whole, but from some -part of the Son of Man. For, says he, the Son of Man is one Iota, one -tittle flowing from on high, full, and filling full all things, and -containing within itself whatever the Man, Father of the Son of Man -possesses.[54] - -[Sidenote: p. 412.] 14. Now the cosmos, as Moses says, came into being -in six days, that is, in six powers which are in the one tittle of the -Iota.[55] [But] the seventh, a rest and a Sabbath, came into being -from the Hebdomad which is over Earth and Water and Fire and Air, out -of which the cosmos came into being by the one tittle. For the cubes -and the octahedrons, and [the] pyramids and all the figures like these -of which Fire, Air, Water, [and earth] consist, came into being from -the numbers which are comprised in that single tittle of the Iota, -which is a Perfect Son of a Perfect Man. When then, says he, Moses -says that (the) rod was turned about in different ways for the plagues -on Egypt,[56] these [plagues], he says, are symbols allegorizing the -Creation. [For] he does not use the rod which is one tittle of the -Iota, duplex and varied, as a figure[57] for more plagues than ten. -This Creation of the world, he says, is the ten plagues.[58] For -[Sidenote: p. 413.] everything struck produces and bears fruit as, for -instance, vine-shoots. Man, he says, has burst forth from Man, and was -severed from him by a certain blow,[59] so that he might be born and -might declare the Law which Moses laid down after having received it -from God. The Law is according to that one tittle, the Decalogue which -allegorizes the divine mysteries of the words. For, says he, the Ten -Plagues and the Decalogue[60] are the whole knowledge of the universals -which none has known who has been misled concerning the offspring of -the woman. And if you say that the whole Law is a Pentateuch, it is -[still] from the pentad which is comprised in the one tittle. But -the whole Law is for those who have not thoroughly crippled their -understanding [a] mystery, a new feast not yet grown old, legal and -eternal, a Passover of the Lord God kept unto our generations by those -who can see [and] beginning on the 14th [day] which is the beginning, -he says, of the decad from which they reckon.[61] For the monad up -to 14 is the sum total of the one tittle of the perfect number. And -[Sidenote: p. 414.] one + two + three + four become ten, wherefore -it is the one tittle. But from fourteen up to twenty-one, a hebdomad -subsists in the one tittle, the unleavened creature of the world in -all these.[62] For what, says he, should the one tittle want of any -substance like leaven for the Passover of the Lord, the eternal feast -which is given for generations. For the whole cosmos and all the causes -of creation are the Passover Feast of the Lord. For God rejoices in the -transmutation of creation which is wrought under the strokes of the one -tittle. The which is the rod of Moses given by God, which strikes the -Egyptians and changes the bodies, as did the hand of Moses, from water -into blood. And the other [plagues] are in nearly the same way [such as -that of the] locusts, wherefore change of the elements he calls flesh -into grass: “for all flesh is grass,”[63] he says. [Sidenote: p. 415.] -But none the less do these men in some such way receive the whole Law. -Following, perhaps, as it seems to me, the Greeks who say that there -are Substance and Quality and Quantity and Relation and Position and -Action and Possession and Passion.[64] - -15. So for example Monoimus himself says distinctly in his letter to -Theophrastus:[65] “Leave aside enquiry concerning God and Creation -and the like, and enquire about Him from thyself, and learn who it is -who simply makes His own all that is within thee, saying ‘My God, my -mind, my understanding, my soul, my body.’ Learn also what are grief -and rejoicing, and love and hate, and undesired watching and sleep, -and undesired anger and love. And if,” says he, “thou dost carefully -seek out this, thou wilt find Him in thyself [as both] one and many -things after the likeness of that one tittle, he finding the outlet for -Himself.”[66] This then is what these [men] say, which we are under -no necessity to compare with what has been before excogitated by the -Greeks. Since it is plain from [Sidenote: p. 416.] their statements -that they have their origin from the geometrical and arithmetical art, -which the disciples of Pythagoras set forth more excellently. As the -reader may learn in the passages where we have before explained all the -wisdom of the Greeks. - -But since we have sufficiently refuted Monoimus,[67] let us see what -others have elaborated who wish thereby to raise for themselves an idle -name. - - - 3. _Tatian._ - -16. But Tatian, although himself a disciple of Justin Martyr, was not -of like mind with his master, but attempted something new. He says that -there were certain Aeons [about whom] he fables in the like way with -the Valentinians. But in the same way as Marcion he says that marriage -is destruction. And he asserts that Adam will not be saved, through his -becoming a leader of rebellion. And thus Tatian.[68] - - - 4. _Hermogenes._ - -[Sidenote: p. 417.] 17. A certain Hermogenes[69] thinking also to -devise something new, says that God created all things from co-existent -and ungenerated matter. For he held it impossible that God should -create the things that are from those that are not. And that God is -ever Lord and Maker, but Matter ever a slave and [in process of] -becoming. But yet not all [matter], for, as it was being borne about -violently and disorderly, He set it in order in this manner. Beholding -it boiling like a pot on the fire, He divided it into parts; and that -part which he took from the All He reclaimed, and the other He allowed -to be borne about disorderly. And the reclaimed part, he says, is the -cosmos; and that the other remains waste and is called acosmic[70] -matter. He says that this is the essence[71] of all things, as if he -were introducing [Sidenote: p. 418.] a new doctrine to his disciples; -but he does not consider that this fable happens to be Socratic, and is -better worked out by Plato than by Hermogenes. But he confesses that -Christ is the Son of the God who created all things, and that He was -begotten of the Virgin and of Spirit according to the [common] voice -of the Gospels. Who after He had suffered rose again in a body and -appeared to His disciples, and ascending to the heavens, left His body -in the Sun, but Himself went on into the presence of the Father. And -in witness of this,[72] he thinks he is corroborated by the word which -David the Psalmist spake: “In the Sun he set up his tent, and like a -bridegroom coming forth from his bridal chamber, he will rejoice like a -giant to run his course.”[73] This then is what Hermogenes attempts.[74] - - - 5. _About the Quartodecimans._[75] - -18. But certain others, lovers of strife by nature, unskilled -[Sidenote: p. 419.] in knowledge, very quarrelsome by habit, maintain -that the Passover ought to be kept on the 14th day of the First Month, -according to the ordinance of the Law, on whatever day [of the week] -it may fall. They have regard [merely] to that which has been written -in the Law: [that is] that he will be accursed who does not keep it as -it is laid down. They pay no attention to the fact that it was enacted -for the Jews, who were to kill the True Passover. Which [Law] has -spread to the Gentiles and is understood by faith, not kept strictly -in the letter. They pay attention to this one commandment, but do not -regard the saying of the Apostle: “For I bear witness to every man who -is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.”[76] In other -matters they agree concerning all things handed down to the Church by -the Apostles. - - - 6. _Phrygians._[77] - -19. But there are others also very heretical by nature, Phrygians by -race, who have fallen away after being deceived [Sidenote: p. 420.] -by certain women, Priscilla and Maximilla by name, whom they imagine -to be prophetesses. Into these they say the Spirit Paraclete has -entered and they likewise glorify [even] above these one Montanus as a -prophet. Having endless books of their own, they are not judging what -is said in them according to reason, nor giving heed to those capable -of judgment; but, carried along heedlessly by the faith that they have -in them, imagine that they learn more through them than from the Law, -the Prophets, and the Gospels. They glorify these wenches[78] above -Apostles and every grace,[79] since some of them dare to say that there -are those among them who have become greater than Christ. They confess -that God is the Father of the universals, and the creator of all things -in the same way as [does] the Church, and also [confess] whatever the -Gospel testifies concerning Christ. But they innovate in the matter -of feasts and fasts and the eating of vegetable food and roots,[80] -thinking that they have learned this from the women. And some of them, -agreeing with the heresy of the Noetians, say that the Father is the -Son, and that He by being born, underwent [Sidenote: p. 421.] both -suffering and death. Concerning these, I shall later explain more -minutely; for to many their heresy has become the starting-point of -evils. We judge then that what has been said is sufficient, we having -proved briefly to all that their many absurd books and attempts are -feeble and not worth consideration, whereto those of sound mind need -pay no heed.[81] - - - 7. _Encratites._ - -20. But others calling themselves Encratites[82] confess the [facts] -about God and Christ in like manner with the Church. But with regard -to the way of life, they having become puffed up,[83] have reverted -[to earlier opinions]. They think themselves glorified through food -by abstaining from things which have had life, drinking water, and -forbidding marriage, and in the other things of life are austerely -careful. Such as they are judged to be rather Cynics than Christians, -seeing that they pay no heed to what was said to them aforetime -through the Apostle Paul, who prophesied the innovations that would -come by the folly of some, saying [Sidenote: p. 422.] thus:--“The -Spirit says expressly: In the last times some will fall away from -the wholesome teaching,[84] giving heed to deceiving spirits and the -teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, -branded in their own consciences as with a hot iron, forbidding to -marry and (commanding) to abstain from meats, which God created to be -received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. -For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected -which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the -words of God and prayer....”[85] This saying then of the Blessed Paul -is sufficient for the refutation of those who live thus and honour -themselves as righteous men, and to show that this also is a heresy.[86] - -But although some other heresies are named [to wit those] of the -Cainites, Ophites or Noachites[87] and others such as they, I do not -think it necessary to set forth their sayings and doings, lest they -should thereby think themselves somebody or worthy of argument.[88] But -since what [Sidenote: p. 423.] has been said about them seems to be -sufficient, we will come to the source of all evils, the heresy of the -Noetians, and having disclosed its root and proved plainly the poison -lurking within it, we will hold back from such error those who have -been swept away by a violent spirit as by a torrent. - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: Who these Docetae are is a puzzle. Although Cruice writes -the name Δοκήται, Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.h.n.) gives it as Δοκιταί which -is, he says, the spelling adopted by both Hippolytus and Clement of -Alexandria. Their tenets as here described have nothing to do with -the opinion that the body of Jesus existed in appearance only which -we have seen current among the Simonians, Basilidians, Marcionites, -and the followers of Saturninus and perhaps of Valentinus. Nor does -it seem connected with any proper name such as the fictitious one of -Ebion which was invented to explain to Greek ears the appellation -of the Ebionites. It may be thought, perhaps, that it was a kind of -nickname derived from this chapter’s opening metaphor of the δοκός -or “beam,” but this is too far-fetched to be insisted upon. Clement -is the only early author who mentions them, and then does so in a -fashion (_e. g._ _Strom._, VII, 17) which makes it fairly clear that -it is those who held Docetic opinions generally so called, and not -any special sect to which he is referring. He also says that Julius -Cassianus, a Valentinian, was the founder of Docetism of the Simonian -kind and St. Jerome (_adv. Lucifer_, 23) takes this further back by the -statement that the opinion in question was current in the life-time -of the Apostles. Nor is there anything novel or peculiar in the -doctrines set forth in our text of the Docitae or Docetae. The image -of the fig-tree with which this chapter opens is but an amplification -of the “Indivisible Point” put forward earlier in our text, and there -is nothing here stated which is inconsistent with the teachings of -Valentinus. This will be further discussed when we come to consider the -source of this chapter.] - -[Footnote 2: ἐκ φυσικῆς φιλοσοφίας. That is, drawn from the study of -nature and natural objects such as trees and the anatomy of the eye, -for which see _infra_.] - -[Footnote 3: No further reference is made to the Indian Gymnosophists -or “Brachmans,” and this sentence has probably slipped in from some -other part of the roll.] - -[Footnote 4: δοκός, the “beam” of the Gospels (Cf. Matt. vii. 3, 4; -Luke vi. 41, 42). Hippolytus who here resumes his habit of punning -tries to connect it with δοκεῖν, “to seem.”] - -[Footnote 5: Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον. That this construction is the right -one, see p. 400 Cr. and the summary in Book X, p. 496 Cr.] - -[Footnote 6: The rhetorical form of this sentence should be noted.] - -[Footnote 7: Cf. Matt. xii. 19, 20; Mark xi. 13-21; Luke xii. 7.] - -[Footnote 8: As Salmon (_ubi cit._) points out, in the Valentinian -system, the male heads of the first three series of Aeons, _i. e._ -Nous, Logos and Anthropos occupy a position corresponding to these -three first “principles” or ἀρχαί. The fact that their spouses or -syzygies are not here mentioned is accounted for by the statement -(on p. 101 _infra_) that they are all androgyne, or as is here said -“lacking nothing for generation,” _i. e._ capable of production without -assistance.] - -[Footnote 9: Cf. Deut. v. 22. These words have already been quoted -in the chapter on the Sethians (I, p. 165 _supra_). Although here -attributed to Moses, they can hardly be taken from Deuteronomy, which -describes Moses’ death.] - -[Footnote 10: Like the Bythos or Unknowable Father of Valentinus.] - -[Footnote 11: Lit., “that the perfect being numbered is ten.”] - -[Footnote 12: Lit., “all the aeons were thirty.”] - -[Footnote 13: The words μετρήσας, κατέλαβεν, νοήσας here all seem to be -equivalent to “multiplied himself,” and to have been used as a play on -the double sense of the other words.] - -[Footnote 14: This may possibly be an allusion to the Valentinian Horus -surrounding and guarding the Pleroma.] - -[Footnote 15: Matt. xiii. 3, uses δίδωμι, “yield,” for ἐποίει as here. -Cf. Mark iv. 3, 8, ἔφερεν, “bore.” Luke viii. 3-5 stops short at a -“hundred-fold.”] - -[Footnote 16: οὐκ ἔστι πάντων ἀκούσματα, “not the hearing of all.”] - -[Footnote 17: See n. on previous page.] - -[Footnote 18: τὸν μέσον αὐτῶν γέννημα κοινὸν ... τῶν ἐν μεσότητι Σωτῆρα -πάντων. Cruice, whom Macmahon follows, would translate “a common fruit, -a mediator ... the Saviour of all those who are in meditation”; but I -cannot make the sense out of the Greek. Miller, by transferring the -word Μαρίας to a place after μεσότητι, would make it read “through the -interposition of Mary.”] - -[Footnote 19: κεκοσμημένων, perhaps “set in order or arranged.”] - -[Footnote 20: Μονογενής. One of the very few instances in Gnostic -literature, where the word can be thus translated rather than as “one -of a kind,” or Unique. The explanation in parenthesis shows that it is -so intended here, but is probably of a late date.] - -[Footnote 21: πῆξιν, “fixedness.”] - -[Footnote 22: So the part of the _Pistis Sophia_ which is most plainly -Valentinian, has constant allusions to τριδυναμεις or triple powers.] - -[Footnote 23: χαρακτῆρας, “impresses” or “marks.”] - -[Footnote 24: ἄφθονον, “devoid of envy.”] - -[Footnote 25: Στερεώσας οὖν κάτωθεν, καὶ διεχώρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ -σκότους καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτός. _Firmamentum igitur quum ab imo -confirmasset, divisit per medium tenebras et per medium lucem._ -Macmahon follows Cruice, but ignores the repeated ἀνὰ μέσον.] - -[Footnote 26: Cf. Gen. 1. 4-7.] - -[Footnote 27: ἐκτύπωμα.] - -[Footnote 28: Gen. i. 1.] - -[Footnote 29: See _supra_, Vol. I. p. 128, for this fiery God, there -called the Demiurge Jaldabaoth.] - -[Footnote 30: A pun on βάτος, “bush,” and βατός, “passable.”] - -[Footnote 31: ἀνυπόστατος, “not hypostatized.” Cruice has “_non -subsistens_.”] - -[Footnote 32: This seems the only construction, unless we are to -consider that it is the Demiurge who _wilfully_ ill-treats the souls.] - -[Footnote 33: ἀποψυχεῖσαι. A common pun between ψυχή, “soul,” and -ψῦχος, “cold.”] - -[Footnote 34: Not in the Canon. As Cruice points out, it is from some -apocryphal book which puts it into the mouth of Job’s wife and adds -it to Job ii. 9. It is also met with in St. Chrysostom’s homily, _de -Statuis_.] - -[Footnote 35: Matt. xi. 14, 15.] - -[Footnote 36: This doctrine of transmigration cannot be shown to have -formed part of Valentinus’ own teaching. It appears, however, among -some of his followers. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, cc. 9, 10.] - -[Footnote 37: A pun on φθαρτοί, “mortals,” and φθορά, “corruption.”] - -[Footnote 38: εἰς τὸν (δέκατον) κόσμον. Cruice would omit the δέκατον. -It clearly, however, means the world of the Decad, Jesus having come -down from the “most excellent Ogdoad.”] - -[Footnote 39: Evidently Hippolytus has not here any book or writing of -a particular author before him, but is giving the opinion of the sect -generally.] - -[Footnote 40: Εὐηγγελίσατο. Cf. the ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις which follows.] - -[Footnote 41: John iii. 5, 6. The Greek text omits ὅτι, “because.”] - -[Footnote 42: οἰκεῖος, “peculiar to.”] - -[Footnote 43: This is markedly Valentinian. The Ogdoad is of course the -Highest Heaven, the Decad the middle one. See n. on p. 31 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 44: He here puns again on δοκεῖν, “to seem,” and δοκός, -“beam.”] - -[Footnote 45: The source of this chapter can hardly have been a written -book or MS. The style is distinctly that of Hippolytus himself; the -passion for plays on words which he has before exhibited, but has kept -under restraint while quoting from serious writers like Basilides -and Valentinus, here resumes its sway; and he adds to it a fancy for -putting several nominatives in apposition without the τουτέστι which he -has heretofore generally employed. This, and the nature of the rhetoric -all go to show that he is here quoting not from a written, but from a -spoken discourse. The author of this is of course unknown to us; and -Hippolytus, who may very likely have forgotten his name, gives us no -clue to his identity; but it is fairly clear that he must have been a -follower of Valentinus. The Three Aeons who went forth from the first -ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων correspond to the Nous, Logos and Anthropos who rule -over the Valentinian Ogdoad, Decad and Dodecad, and the care taken -to bring the number of Aeons up to thirty practically settles this, -while the existence of Horos is hinted at, and that of the Sophia is -barred only by the attribution of both sexes to all the Aeons. Perhaps, -however, the most striking proof of Valentinianism is the myth of all -the Aeons coalescing to produce the Jesus who brings salvation, a myth -which is not to be found in any other system. If the theory be accepted -that Hippolytus’ source for the chapter was a Valentinian sermon, the -name of Julius Cassianus as its author deserves consideration. He is -described by Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, III, 13, sqq.) as the -founder of Docetism, and as connected with the school of Valentinus, -while certain Logia quoted by him appear also in the Valentinian -_Excerpta Theodoti_. For other particulars about him see _D.C.B._, -s.nn. “Cassianus” and “Docetism.”] - -[Footnote 46: This “Monoimus Arabs” is known to no other heresiologist -save Theodoret who here as elsewhere probably copied from Hippolytus. -Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.n. “Monoimus”) suggests that the name may cover -the Jewish appellation of Menahem, which is not unlikely. His system -as here disclosed has this in common with that of the Ophites or -Naassenes of Book V that both begin with a Divine Being called “Man” -for no other assigned reason than that his manifestation here below -is known as the Son of Man. He is not, however, here called Adamas as -with the Naassenes, and the remark about his being at once father and -mother is not necessarily connected with the Naassene hymn quoted on -p. 140 Cr. For the rest, there is, _pace_ Salmon, nothing distinctly -Christian about Monoimus’ doctrine, and although the passage from -Colossians about the Pleroma dwelling in the Son of Man is here again -introduced, the context makes it possible that this is the comment of -Hippolytus rather than a direct quotation. On the other hand, Monoimus -several times speaks slightingly of those who believe that the Son -of Man was born of a woman, and he shows a reverence for the Law and -the Passover which a Christian of the second century would hardly -have exhibited. His opinions seem in fact to be more pantheistic than -Christian or Judaic, although as Macmahon truly remarks, his similes -about the Creation are not far removed from those of Philo. His remarks -about numbers have possibly been corrupted in the copy, and are -unintelligible as they stand; but it is not unlikely that they cover -some early Cabalistic notions and that his “Perfect Man” may be the -Adam Cadmon of the Cabala.] - -[Footnote 47: γεγένηται μακράν, _longe abest_, Cruice, “was far -removed,” Macm.] - -[Footnote 48: This line does not occur in our editions of Homer. It is -apparently a conflation of the statement in _Il._, XIV 201 that Oceanus -is the “Father of the Gods” and that in l. 246 that he is the “Father -of them all.”] - -[Footnote 49: Ἦν καὶ ἐγένετο. This has been thought a quotation from -St. John’s opening chapter, but the parallel is not very close. As -Salmon (_art. cit._) points out, it signifies Being and Becoming.] - -[Footnote 50: πρὸς ἑαυτήν.] - -[Footnote 51: The Naassene hymn in Vol. I, p. 120 _supra_ runs: “_From_ -thee comes father and _through_ thee mother, two immortal names, -parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, man of mighty name!” It -is quite possible that Hippolytus, remembering this, is merely here -repeating part of it as comment and without attributing the quotation -to Monoimus.] - -[Footnote 52: Cruice points out that this κεραία or tittle is the acute -accent placed over a letter of the Greek alphabet which converts it -into a numeral. Thus, ι = Iota, ί = 10.] - -[Footnote 53: Cf. Col. i. 19, “For it pleased (the Father) that in Him -the whole fulness should dwell.”] - -[Footnote 54: Salmon (_art. cit._) points out that this is “at first -sight mere pantheism.” It is difficult to put any other construction -upon it.] - -[Footnote 55: These six powers have been compared to Simon Magus’ six -“Roots,” which Simon also connects with the six Days of Creation. Cf. -p. 252 Cr.] - -[Footnote 56: Exod. vii. 20; viii. 16.] - -[Footnote 57: σχηματίζει. Macm. translates “shape.”] - -[Footnote 58: δεκάπληγος. Qy. δεκάπληγμος? The word is apparently -dragged in for the sake of making a pun with πληγή, “a stroke.” Πληγμός -is a medical term for a seizure or apoplectic stroke, and probably has -the same root.] - -[Footnote 59: πληγή.] - -[Footnote 60: δεκάπληγος καὶ δεκάλογος.] - -[Footnote 61: Salmon (_art. cit._) thinks this may have some connection -with the Quartodeciman heresy mentioned later in the book.] - -[Footnote 62: So Cruice, _in omnibus istis creaturam sine fermento -mundi_, but I see no meaning in the words.] - -[Footnote 63: Isa. xl. 6.] - -[Footnote 64: These are the “accidents” of substance which Hippolytus -has attributed in Book VI to Pythagoras, and in Book VII to Aristotle. -See pp. 21 and 64 _supra_. According to Book VI (_ubi cit._) the [Neo-] -Pythagoreans also used the image of the tittle.] - -[Footnote 65: Probably some follower of Monoimus, but not otherwise -known.] - -[Footnote 66: So the Codex. Duncker and Cruice would both read σεαυτῷ, -“for thyself.”] - -[Footnote 67: Of the source of this chapter little can be said. -Both the statements in the earlier part of the text and the letter -to Theophrastus bear internal marks of having been taken from real -documents. They contain also some peculiarities of diction and -construction, which would be quite consistent with their author being -an Oriental imperfectly acquainted with Greek.] - -[Footnote 68: This short notice of Tatian is condensed from the almost -equally short notice of Irenæus (I, xxviii.), who seems to connect -Tatian with the sect of Encratites. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, I, xvi.), -while mentioning him as a pupil of Justin, does not speak of him as -a heretic. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XLVI) follows Irenæus, and Theodoret -(_Haer. Fab._, I, xx.), Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 69: Of this Hermogenes we know already from Tertullian’s -tract against him to be found in the second volume of Oehler’s edition -of Tertullian’s works. The date of this tract is said on good authority -to be 206 or 207 A.D., and as it speaks of Hermogenes as then living, -gives us his approximate date also. It is further said that he was a -painter, probably of mythological subjects, that he lived at Carthage, -and that he was several times married. Clement of Alexandria also -mentions him, and it is suggested that both Tertullian and Clement -drew from a tract against him said by Eusebius to have been written by -Theophilus of Antioch. The heretical tenets with which he is charged -are his contention that God could not have created the world from -nothing and that Matter must therefore be co-existent with Him, that -Christ on His Ascension left His body in the Sun, and that Adam was not -saved. The first of these Tertullian would derive from Stoic teaching, -while he does not touch on the second, which is, however, recorded by -Clement, nor on the third, which Irenæus (I, xxviii) attributes to the -Encratites. It is probable, however, that all three may be derived from -the Western Asian tradition, which later gave birth to Manichæism, of -which therefore Hermogenes’ heresy may prove to have been a forecast.] - -[Footnote 70: ὕλην ἄκοσμον, “unordered matter.”] - -[Footnote 71: οὐσία, “substantia,” Cr. and Macm.] - -[Footnote 72: Μαρτυρίᾳ δὲ χρῆται.] - -[Footnote 73: Ps. xix. 4, 5, “set up his tabernacle in the Sun,” A. V.] - -[Footnote 74: The probable source of this chapter has been dealt with -in the note on previous page.] - -[Footnote 75: This is, I think, the first mention of the Quartodecimans -as heretics. Eusebius, who thinks that the schism on the point began -in the reign of Commodus, treats them with great tenderness, and says -(_Hist. Eccl._, cc. xxiii. and xxiv.), that “the Churches of all -Asia” held their opinions, and that Irenæus himself pleaded their -cause before Pope Victor. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XXX) says that they -derived their origin from a mixture of the Phrygian and Quintillian or -Priscillianist sects, probably confusing them with the Montanists.] - -[Footnote 76: Gal. v. 3.] - -[Footnote 77: This heresy of the “Phrygians” is, of course, that -generally called the Montanist, which seems to have broken out -about the year 180. For some time it was not violently opposed by -the orthodox, and Tertullian himself became a convert to it and -probably died in its confession. Later it came to be looked upon as -an enemy only one degree less prejudicial to the Catholic Church than -Gnosticism, and therefore one to be stamped out by excommunication in -pre-Constantinian times, and by persecution afterwards. Its tenets are -sufficiently summarised in our text for a general understanding of -them and their connection with later forms of Patripassianism; but any -one wishing to go further into the subject is recommended to read Dr. -Salmon’s able article on “Montanus” in _D.C.B._, which will give him -all that is really known as to the sect and its tendencies. Its centre -seems to have been always Asia Minor.] - -[Footnote 78: ταῦτα τὰ γύναια. The phrase is Aristotelian. Cf. same -word later on same page.] - -[Footnote 79: χάρισμα.] - -[Footnote 80: ξηροφαγίας καὶ ράφανοφαγίας. First phrase, “dry food.”] - -[Footnote 81: There is no reason to believe that in what he says here -Hippolytus is drawing from any written document. As the Montanists on -being condemned by the rest of the Church appealed first to the Gallic -Churches in which Hippolytus’ master Irenæus was a leading spirit, and -later to the Church of Rome, all that he says about them must have been -familiar to his hearers without referring to any earlier writers.] - -[Footnote 82: Ἐγκρατῖται, from ἐγκρατεῖς, “the continent ones.” -Many Gnostic sects, _e. g._ those of Saturninus and Marcion seem -to have been called Encratites, the reason given by themselves for -their abstinence being the malignity of matter. But it is plain from -Hippolytus’ statement as to the orthodoxy in other matters of those he -describes, that these were not Gnostics, but Catholics who practised -asceticism inordinately. This is doubtless his reason for quoting St. -Paul against them and for ignoring Irenæus’ statement that Tatian -was their founder, that they taught a system of Aeons and denied the -salvation of Adam. Bearing in mind that he thought the Docetae to be an -independent sect, it seems probable that in this Book he intended to -turn his back upon the Gnostics and to describe only the other sects -with a closer resemblance to orthodox Judaism and Christianity. The -whole work would thus form a roughly graduated scale extending from -the undisguised heathenism of the Ophites to the purely theological -errors of Callistus, the description of which seems designed to form -the climax of the book. The fact that it was probably, as said in the -Introduction, begun, laid aside, and then taken up again and finished, -is sufficient to account for discrepancies like that involved in the -concluding sentence of this Book.] - -[Footnote 83: πεφυσιωμένοι. Cf. the Φυσιώσεις of 2 Cor. xii. 20.] - -[Footnote 84: τῆς ὑγαινούσης διδασκαλίας. The N.T. substitutes πιστέως, -“faith,” for “teaching,” and omits the adjective.] - -[Footnote 85: 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, _verbatim_ save as in last note.] - -[Footnote 86: It follows from this that Hippolytus is indebted to no -other writer than himself for the facts in this chapter.] - -[Footnote 87: Νοαχιτῶν. The Codex has Νοχαϊτων.] - -[Footnote 88: The Cainites are described by Irenæus (I, xxxi) as -anterior to Valentinus. The Noachites are mentioned by no other writer. -It is difficult to account for the remarks of Hippolytus about the -Ophites in this passage in view of the fact that the greater part of -Book V has been devoted to the doctrines of the “Naassenes”--a word -which he evidently recognized as identical with “Ophites.” Unless we -are to believe that Ὀφιτῶν is here a copyist’s error for the name of -some other sect, we are almost compelled to accept the theory given -in the Introduction, _i. e._ that the materials for Book V only came -into Hippolytus’ hands after the rest of the book was written, and that -their heresy was then suddenly pitchforked into the place in which we -find it without due consideration of its accord with passages like the -present. In that case the “seven Books before this” on p. 397 Cr. must -originally have read “five,” unless we are to suppose that their place -was occupied by the description of the Jewish sects later transferred -to Book IX.] - - - - - [Sidenote: p. 424.] BOOK IX - - NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS - - -1. These are the contents of the 9th (Book) of the Refutation of All -Heresies. - -2. What is the blasphemous folly of Noetus and that he gave heed to the -doctrines of Heraclitus the Obscure and not to those of Christ. - -3. And how Callistus having mingled the heresy of Cleomenes, Noetus’ -disciple, with that of Theodotus, set up another and newer heresy, and -what was his life. - -4. What was the fresh invasion[1] of the stranger spirit Elchesai and -that he covers his own transgressions by appearing to keep to the Law, -while he in fact devotes himself to Gnostic opinions [entirely], or to -astrological and magical ones in addition. - -5. What are the customs of the Jews and how many their differences. - - * * * * * - -6. A long fight has now been fought by us concerning all [early] -heresies, and we have left nothing unrefuted. There still remains the -greatest fight of all, [to wit] to [Sidenote: p. 425.] thoroughly -describe and refute the heresies risen up in our own day, by means -whereof certain unlearned and daring men have attempted to scatter the -Church to the winds, [thereby] casting the greatest confusion among -all the faithful throughout the world. For it seems fit that we should -attack the opinion which was the first cause of [these] evils and -expose its roots, so that its offshoots, being thoroughly known to all, -may be contemned. - - - 1. _About Noetus._ - -7. There was a certain man, Noetus[2] by name, by birth a Smyrnæan. -He introduced a heresy from the opinions of Heraclitus. Of which -[Noetus], a certain man named Epigonus becomes the minister and pupil, -and on his arrival at Rome sowed broadcast the godless doctrine. -Whose teaching Cleomenes, by life and manners alien to the Church, -confirmed, when he had become his disciple.[3] [Sidenote: p. 426.] At -that time Zephyrinus, an ignorant and greedy man, thought that he ruled -the Church, and, persuaded by the gain offered, gave leave to those -coming to him to learn of Cleomenes.[4] And himself also being in time -beguiled, ran into the same errors, his fellow-counsellor and comrade -in this wickedness being Callistus, whose life and the heresy invented -by him, I shall shortly set forth. The school of these successive -[teachers] continued to grow stronger and increased through the help -given to it by Zephyrinus and Callistus. Yet we never yielded, but -many times withstood them to the face, refuted them, and compelled -them perforce to confess the truth. They being ashamed for a season, -and being brought by the truth to confession, before long returned to -wallowing in the same mire.[5] - -8. But since we have pointed out the genealogical succession of these -[men], it appears left to us to set forth their evil mode of teaching -their doctrines. The opinions of Heraclitus the Obscure being first -explained, we shall then make evident the parts of [their doctrines] -which are [Sidenote: p. 427.] Heraclitan, but which, perhaps, the -present chiefs of the heresy do not know to be those of the Obscure, -but think to be those of Christ. Should they meet with these [words], -they might, thus being put to shame, cease from their godless -blasphemy.[6] And although the teachings of Heraclitus have been -before expounded by us in this [our] _Philosophumena_,[7] yet it seems -expedient to repeat them now, so that by their closer refutation, those -who think they are disciples of Christ may be plainly taught that they -are not His, but are those of the Obscure. - -9. Now Heraclitus says that the All is (one),[8] divided [and] -undivided, originated [and] unoriginated, mortal [and] immortal, reason -[and] eternity,[9] Father [and] Son, a just God. “It is wise,” says -Heraclitus, “that those who listen, not to me, but to reason,[10] -should acknowledge all things to be one.” And because all men do not -know nor acknowledge this, he reproves them somehow thus: “They do -not understand how anything that is diverse can agree [Sidenote: p. -428.] with itself. It is an inverse harmony, like that of a bow and a -lyre.” But that the All is ever Reason[11] and exists by it, he thus -declares:--“That this Reason ever exists, men do not understand either -before they hear it or when they hear it first. For while all things -come to pass according to this Reason, they seem to be ignorant of -it, although they seem to have attempted endlessly[12] by words and -deeds such a description as I now give by analysis of their nature -and by saying how things are.” But that the All is a Son and for ever -an eternal being of the universals, he says thus: “A boy playing at -tables[13] is Eternity; the kingdom is a boy’s.” That he is father -of all things that have been generated, begotten and unbegotten, the -creation and [its] Demiurge, we have his saying: “War is father of -[Sidenote: p. 429.] all, but king of all; and it displays some men -as gods, others as men; some it makes slaves, others free. Because -[this][14] is a harmony like that of bow and lyre.” But that the -unapparent, the unseen and unknown by men is [better],[15] he says in -these words: “An unapparent harmony is better than an apparent.” He -thus commends and admires that which is unknown to him before that -which is known, and the invisible before that which can be [seen]. And -that it is to be seen of men and is not undiscoverable, he says in -these words: “Whatever sight, hearing [and] learning can receive,[16] -I honour before all,” he says, that is, [I prefer][17] the things seen -to those unseen. From such phrases of his it is easy to comprehend his -argument. He says that men are deceived in regard to the knowledge of -things apparent like Homer, who was the wisest of all the Greeks. For -children when killing lice, tricked him by [Sidenote: p. 430.] saying: -“What we see and clutch we leave behind; but what we neither see nor -clutch, we take away with us.” - -10. Thus Heraclitus supposes the apparent to have an equal lot and -honour with the unapparent, as if the apparent and the unapparent were -admittedly one. “For,” he says, “an unapparent harmony is better than -an apparent,” and “Whatever sight, hearing [and] learning [these are -the organs] can receive, this, he says, I honour above all,” thus not -honouring by preference the unapparent. And so Heraclitus says that -neither darkness nor light, nor good nor evil are different,[18] but -are one and the same. Therefore he blames Hesiod that he did not know -Day and Night, for Day and Night, he says, are one, speaking somehow -like this: “Hesiod is the teacher of most things, and they feel sure -that he knew most things, who did not [however] know Day and Night. For -they are one.” And [as to] good and evil:--“Now the surgeons,” says -Heraclitus, “usually cut, burn, and in every way torture the sick, -and complain that they receive from them no fitting reward for their -labours, although they do these good works on [Sidenote: p. 431.] the -diseases.” And both straight and crooked, he says, are the same. “The -way of wool-carders, he says, is both straight and crooked, [because] -the revolution of the tool called _cochleus_[19] is both straight and -crooked; for it revolves and moves upwards at the same time. It is, -he says, one and the same.” And upward and downward are, he says, one -and the same: “The way up and down is one and the same.” And he says -that the polluted and the pure are one and the same, and the drinkable -and the undrinkable also. “The sea,” he says, “is at once the purest -and the most polluted water, for to fish it is drinkable and salutary, -but to man undrinkable and hurtful.”[20] And in the same way, he says, -admittedly the immortal is mortal and the mortal immortal, in such -words as these: “Deathless are mortals, and mortals are deathless, when -the living take death from these, and the dead life from those.” But -he speaks here of the resurrection of this visible flesh [Sidenote: p. -432.] wherein we have been born. And he knows God to be the cause of -this resurrection, saying thus: “Those here will rise again and will -become the busy guardians of living and dead.” And he says also that -the judgment of the ordered world and of all therein will be by fire, -speaking thus: “Thunder governs all things,” that is, it corrects them, -meaning by “thunder” the everlasting fire. But he says also that this -fire is discerning and the cause of the government of the universals, -and he calls it Need[21] and Satiety. Now Need is according to him the -Ordering [of the world],[22] but Satiety the Ecpyrosis. For “Fire,” he -says, “coming suddenly will judge and seize all things.”[23] - -In this chapter [entitled] “All Things Together,” the peculiar thought -of Heraclitus is set forth.[24] But I have also shown briefly that -it is that of Noetus’ heresy, he being a disciple not of Christ, but -of Heraclitus. For that the created world was its own Demiurge and -creator, he declares thus: “God is day and night, winter and summer, -war and peace, satiety and hunger.” “All things are contraries.” This -is the thought “but there is a change, as when one [Sidenote: p. 433.] -incense is mixed with others; which [incense] is named according to the -pleasure of each.” - -But it is plain to all that the intelligent[25] successors of Noetus -and the chiefs of the heresy, although you may say that they were not -[actual] hearers of Heraclitus, yet by openly choosing[26] the opinions -of Noetus, acknowledge the same things. For they say this: One and the -same God is the Father and Demiurge of all, having been pleased, though -invisible, to appear to the righteous men of old. For when He is not -seen He is invisible [but when seen visible].[27] And when He wishes -to be uncontained, He is uncontainable,[28] and when He is contained, -He is containable. Thus by the same reasoning, He is unconquerable[29] -[and conquerable], unbegotten [and begotten], immortal and mortal. How -can such as they be shown not to be disciples of Heraclitus? Did not -the Obscure long ago philosophize in these very words? - -Now that [Noetus] says the Father and Son are the same, no one is -ignorant. These are his words. When, then, the Father had not been -born, He was rightly proclaimed Father. And when He was pleased to -undergo [Sidenote: p. 434.] birth, He having been begotten, became the -Son of Himself and not of another. For thus [Noetus] seems to establish -Monarchia[30] by asserting the Father and the Son so-called are one -and the same, not another from another, but Himself from Himself. And -that He is called by the name of Father [or Son] according to the -change of times. But that One was He who appeared and underwent birth -from a Virgin and dwelt as a man among men. And acknowledged Himself -to those who saw Him to be a Son by reason of the birth that had taken -place, but did not conceal from those who could receive it that He was -also Father. And that He also suffered, being nailed to the Tree and -gave up His Spirit to Himself, and died and did not die. And that He -raised Himself again the third day after having been buried in a tomb -and pierced with a spear and nailed with nails. This One Cleomenes and -his band say was God and Father of the universals, thereby drawing a -Heraclitan darkness over many.[31] - - - 2. _About Callistus._ - -11. To this heresy Callistus[32] gave strength--a man artful in evil -and versatile in falsehood, who was seeking after the [Sidenote: p. -435.] bishop’s throne. And he led whither he liked Zephyrinus,[33] -an ignorant man, unlearned and unskilled in the Church’s rules, whom -[Callistus] persuaded by gifts and extravagant demands. [And as -Zephyrinus] was a receiver of bribes and a money-lover, he induced -him to be ever making faction between the brethren, while he himself -by crafty words contrived that at the last both parties should be -friendly to himself. And sometimes he deceived those who thought truly, -by saying that he thought for his own part like things with them; and -again he said likewise to those [who held] the opinions of Sabellius, -whom, when he might have brought him into the right way, he abandoned. -For Sabellius did not harden [his heart] to our[34] admonitions, but -when he got alone with Callistus, he was urged by him to relapse -towards the doctrine of Cleomenes, alleging that he was of like -opinions. [Sabellius] did not then understand his trickery, but knew it -afterwards, as I will shortly explain.[35] - -Now [Callistus] bringing forward Zephyrinus himself, persuaded him to -say publicly: “I know one God, Christ Jesus, [Sidenote: p. 436.] and -beside Him I know no other, begotten and susceptible of suffering.” -And at one time he said: “The Father did not die but the Son,” and -thus maintained without ceasing the faction among the people.[36] -Knowing whose designs, we did not give way to him, but refuted and -withstood him for the Truth’s sake. He also, advancing towards madness, -through everyone concurring with him--though we did not--called us -ditheists,[37] thus violently spitting forth the concealed poison -within him. It seems good to us then to set forth the lovable[38] life -of this man since he was born at the same time as ourselves, in order -that by the mode of life of such a one being made apparent, the heresy -which he has taken in hand may become well and quickly known to those -who have right mind. He bore witness[39] when Fuscianus was Prefect of -Rome;[40] and the manner of his martyrdom was on this wise. - -12. [Callistus] chanced to be a house-slave of a certain -Carpophorus,[41] a man of the faith who was of Cæsar’s household. To -him as to one of the faith Carpophorus entrusted no little money on -his promising to bring in profit from the business of a money-dealer. -Who taking it, set up a money-changer’s stall in the place called -the _Piscina Publica_,[42] to whom in course of time not a few -deposits were entrusted by [Sidenote: p. 437.] widows and brethren -on the strength of Carpophorus’ name. But he having made everything -disappear,[43] was in difficulties. When he had done this, one[44] was -not lacking to tell Carpophorus; and Carpophorus said that he required -accounts from him. Callistus being aware of this and suspecting danger -from his master,[45] took flight and made for the sea. Who finding a -ship at Portus[46] ready to sail when she should have her cargo, went -on board intending to sail. But he could not thus escape; for one was -not lacking to tell Carpophorus what had happened. And he having halted -at the harbour according to the news given him, tried to hurry to the -ship. But she was lying in the middle of the harbour, and the ferryman -being slow, Callistus saw his master afar off, and knew that as he was -in the ship he would be taken. So he disregarded life and thinking -that his end had come, cast himself into the sea.[47] But the sailors, -jumping down into the boats, dragged him out [Sidenote: p. 438.] -against his will amid a great shouting from the shore. And thus he was -handed over to his master and taken away to Rome, whence his master -sentenced him to the _Pistrinum_.[48] - -But time having gone on, some brethren, as generally happens, came -forward and besought Carpophorus that he would set free the runaway -from punishment, affirming that he had admitted having gold laid up -with certain persons.[49] And Carpophorus like a pious man said that -he did not care about his own [money], but that he was concerned about -the deposits. For many cried to him with tears that they had trusted -to his name when confiding money to Callistus, and [Carpophorus] being -persuaded, ordered him to be released. But he having nothing to pay -back and not being able to run away again because he was watched, -devised a scheme for [obtaining] death. On a Sabbath day, pretending to -go forth to his debtors, he rushed into the synagogue of the assembled -Jews, and stayed there factiously opposing them.[50] But when they -were factiously opposed by him, they abused and rained blows upon him -and haled him before Fuscianus, who was then Prefect of the City. And -this was their accusation:--“The Romans have conceded to us the right -to read aloud publicly the laws of our fathers. But this man coming -in forbade it, making a [Sidenote: p. 439.] faction against us, and -affirming that he was a Christian.” And as Fuscianus chanced to be on -the judgment-seat, and was angered by the words of the Jews against -Callistus, one was not lacking to tell Carpophorus what was being done. -And he, hastening to the judgment-seat, cried out to the Prefect, “I -beseech you, O Lord Fuscianus, do not believe this man, for he is not a -Christian, but seeks occasion of death, having made away[51] with much -money of mine, as I will prove.”[52] But the Jews thinking this to be a -fetch, as if Carpophorus were seeking by this speech to get him set at -liberty, cried out against him to the Prefect with increased fury. And -he being moved by them, had [Callistus] scourged and sent him to a mine -in Sardinia. - -But after a time, there being other martyrs there, Marcia, being a -God-loving woman and a concubine of Commodus [Sidenote: p. 440.] and -having wished to do some good work, summoned before her the blessed -Victor, who was Bishop of the Church at that time,[53] and enquired -what martyrs there were in Sardinia. And he gave her the names of all, -but did not give her that of Callistus, knowing what he had dared to -do. Then Marcia, having succeeded in her petition to Commodus, gave -the liberating letter to an elder named Hyacinthus, a eunuch,[54] -who took it and sailed for Sardinia, and having handed it to the -Administrator[55] of the place for the time being, set free all the -martyrs with the exception of Callistus. But he, on his knees and -weeping, besought that he also might be set free. Then Hyacinthus -was moved by entreaty and required the Administrator [to do this] -affirming that he was the foster-father of Marcia and arranging to -hold the Administrator harmless. And he being persuaded [in turn] -set free Callistus also.[56] Upon whose coming [to Rome], Victor was -much annoyed at what had befallen; but, as he was a compassionate -man, held his peace. But to guard against the reproach of many--for -[Sidenote: p. 441.] the audacities of Callistus were not a long way -off--and Carpophorus was still an obstacle, he sends him to abide in -Antium, making him a certain monthly allowance for his support.[57] -After [Victor’s] falling asleep, Zephyrinus having had [Callistus] -as a coadjutor in the management of the clergy, honoured him to his -own detriment, and sending for him from Antium, set him over the -cemetery.[58] And Callistus being ever with [Zephyrinus], and as I have -said before, serving him with guile,[59] put him in the background[60] -as neither able to judge what was said to him nor to comprehend all -the counsels of Callistus when talking to him of what things pleased -him. Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, [Callistus] thinking that -he had succeeded in his pursuit,[61] put away Sabellius as one who -does not hold right opinions. For [Callistus] was afraid of me and -deemed that he could thus wipe off the charge [against him] before the -Churches,[62] just as if he held no different opinions from theirs. - -Now Callistus was a sorcerer[63] and a trickster and in time [Sidenote: -p. 442.] snatched away many. And harbouring the poison in his heart, -and devising nothing straight, besides being ashamed to declare -the truth because he had reproached us in public, saying: “Ye are -ditheists,”[64] but especially because he had often been accused by -Sabellius of having strayed from his first faith, he invented some -such heresy as this:--He says that the Word is the Son and that He is -also the Father, being called by that name, but being one undivided -Spirit.[65] And that the Father is not one thing and the Son another; -but that they subsist [as] one and the same. And that all things above -and below are filled with the Divine Spirit, and that the Spirit which -was incarnate in the Virgin was not other than the Father, but one and -the same. And that this is the saying: “Dost thou not believe that I am -in the Father and the Father in Me?”[66] For that which is seen, which -is a man, that is the Son; but the Spirit which is contained in the -Son, that is the Father. “For I do not,” [Sidenote: p. 443.] he says, -“say that there are two Gods, Father and Son, but One. For the Father -who existed in Him, having taken on Him the flesh, made it God by union -with Himself and made it one [Being] so that He is called Father and -Son, one God. And that this [God] being one Person cannot be two.”[67] -And so he said that the Father had suffered _with_ the Son; for he did -not like to say that the Father suffered and was One Person, [so as] -to avoid[68] blasphemy against the Father. [Thus this] senseless and -shifty fellow, scattering blasphemies high and low, so that he may -only seem [not] to speak against the Truth, is not ashamed to lean now -towards the doctrine of Sabellius and now towards that of Theodotus.[69] - -The sorcerer having dared such things, set up a school against that -of the Church,[70] thus to teach. And first he contrived to make -concessions to men in respect of their pleasures, telling every one -that their sins were remitted by himself. For if any one who has been -received[71] by another and calls himself Christian should transgress, -he says, the transgression of him will not be reckoned against him if -he hastens to the school of Callistus. And many were pleased with this -proposition,[72] having been stricken with conscience as well as cast -out of many heresies. And [Sidenote: p. 444.] some even after having -been cast by us out of the Church by a [regular] judgment, joining with -these last, filled the school of Callistus. He laid it down that if -[even] a bishop commits any sin, though it should be one unto death, he -ought not to be deposed. In his time bishops and priests and deacons -who had married twice and even thrice began to keep their places among -the clergy.[73] For if any one who was in the clerical order[74] should -marry, he [decided] that he should remain in the order as if he had not -sinned, saying that what was spoken by the Apostle was said with regard -to this [viz.:] “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”[75] -And also the Parable of the Tares, he says spoke as to this: “Let the -tares grow to the harvest,”[76] that is, let the sinners remain in -the Church. But he also said that the ark of Noah was made into an -image[77] of the Church, wherein were dogs and wolves and crows and all -clean and unclean [animals]. Thus, he affirms, ought the Church to do -likewise; and as many things as he could bring together on this point, -he thus interpreted. - -Whose hearers being attracted by these doctrines continue [to exist], -deluding themselves and many others, crowds of [Sidenote: p. 445.] -whom flock into the school. Wherefore they are multiplied and rejoice -in the crowds, by reason of the pleasures which Christ did not permit. -Whom slightly regarding, they forbid no one to sin, affirming that they -themselves remit sins to those with whom they are well pleased. For -[Callistus] has also permitted women, if they, being unmarried and in -the prime of life, turned towards some one unworthy of their station, -or did not wish to lessen it by [marriage], to hold any bedfellow they -might choose as lawfully married to them, whether he was a house slave -or free,[78] and to consider this person although not married by law as -in the place of a husband.[79] From this the so-called faithful women -began to make attempts with abortifacient drugs and to gird themselves -tightly so that they might cast out what they had conceived, through -their not wishing on account of their family or superabundant wealth to -have a child by a slave or some mean person. See now what impiety the -lawless one has reached when he teaches [Sidenote: p. 446.] adultery -and murder at the same time! And in the face of these audacities the -shameless ones attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church, and some -think that they do well to join with them. - -Under this [Callistus, too], a second baptism has been ventured upon by -them for the first time.[80] These things the most amazing Callistus -has set on foot, whose school still persists and preserves the customs -and tradition [of the Church], nor does it discriminate as to whom it -should hold communion with, but offers communion indiscriminately to -all. From whom also they are called by a name that they share with him, -and, by reason of the protagonist of such works being Callistus, are -called Callistians.[81] - - - 3. _Concerning Elchesaites._[82] - -13. When the teaching of this [Callistus] had been dispersed [Sidenote: -p. 447.] over the whole world, a certain man called Alcibiades dwelling -at Apamea in Syria, who was crafty and full of impudence, and having -looked into the matter, deemed himself more forcible and expert in -tricks than Callistus, arrived in Rome bringing with him a book.[83] He -pretended that a righteous man (called) Elchasai, had received the same -from the Seres[84] of Parthia and gave it to one called Sobiae,[85] -as having been revealed by an angel. The height of which angel was 24 -schoeni,[86] which is 96 miles; but the girth was 4 schoeni, and from -shoulder to shoulder 6 schoeni; and his footprints were 3½ schoeni -in length, which is 14 miles,[87] their width 1½ schoeni, and their -depth half a schoenus. And that there was with him also a female whose -measure, he says, accorded with those aforesaid. And that the male -is the Son of God, and that the female is called the Holy Spirit. -Describing these portents, he is wont to distract the foolish by this -address: “A new remission of sins was brought as good news to men in -the third year of the reign of Trajan.” And he prescribes (therefore) a -baptism which I will explain (later). He affirms that of those wrapped -in all licentiousness and pollution and breaches of the Law, if any -such be a believer and turns again and hearkens to and believes on -the book, he determines [Sidenote: p. 448.] that he shall receive by -baptism remission of sins. - -These tricks he audaciously elaborated, starting from the doctrine -before described which Callistus had brought forward. For he, having -understood that many rejoiced at such an announcement,[88] thought -that his enterprise would be timely.[89] Yet we withstood him also, -and did not permit very many to go astray, refuting them[90] [with -the argument] that this was the work of a spurious[91] spirit and of -a puffed-up heart; and that the man like a wolf had risen up among -the many stray sheep which the false guide Callistus had scattered -abroad. But, since we have begun, we shall not be silent regarding -the doctrines of this man also; and we shall bring to light the (mode -of) life (he advocates),[92] and shall then prove that his supposed -discipline is a make-believe. And then again I will explain the chief -of his sayings, so that the reader who has studied [Sidenote: p. 449.] -his writings may know thoroughly what and of what quality is the heresy -on which he has ventured. - -14. He puts forward as a bait, conformity with the Law,[93] claiming -that those who have believed ought to be circumcised and to live -according to the Law while clutching at something from the heresies -aforesaid. And he says that Christ was a man born in the way common to -all; and that He was not now begotten for the first time from a virgin, -but that both in the first instance and then many times since, He had -been begotten and born, appeared and grown up, alternating births and -changing one body for another, wherein He makes use of the Pythagorean -teaching.[94] But [the Elchesaites] are so vainglorious as to say -that they themselves foretell the future, starting evidently from the -measures and numbers of the Pythagorean art before described. And -they give heed to mathematics and astrology and magic as if they were -true, and they use these things to astonish the weak-minded, so that -they may think themselves partakers in a mighty matter. They give also -incantations and spells[95] to those bitten by dogs and to possessed -and other diseased persons concerning which we [Sidenote: p. 450.] -shall not be silent. Having then sufficiently detailed the sources and -causes of their audacities, I will proceed to repeat their writings, -whereby the reader may know at once their folly and their godless -endeavours. - -15. To his catechumens, then, [Alcibiades] administers baptism, -speaking such words as these to those whom he deceives: “If, therefore, -any one has gone in unto a child, or to any kind of animal, or to a -male or to a brother or to a daughter, or has committed adultery or -fornication, and wishes to receive remission of sins, immediately he -hears this book, let him be baptized a second time in the name of the -Great and Highest God and in the name of His Son, the Great King. -And let him be purified and be chaste and call to witness the seven -witnesses who are written in this book [to wit], the Heaven and the -Water, and the Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and -the salt and the Earth.”[96] These are the wonderful mysteries of -Elchasai, the hidden and great things which he hands [Sidenote: p. -451.] down to the disciples who are worthy. And the lawless one is not -content with these, but before two or three witnesses puts the seal on -his own crimes, again speaking thus: “I say again, O adulterers and -adulteresses and false prophets, if you wish to turn again so that your -sins may be remitted unto you, peace shall be yours, and a portion with -the just, if immediately you hearken to this book and are baptized a -second time with your garments.” - -But since we have said that these persons use incantations over those -bitten by dogs and over others, we shall point out [these also]. -Thus he speaks: “If a furious and mad dog in whom is the breath of -death,[97] bite or tear or touch any man or woman or man-child or -maid-child, in the same hour let [the bitten one] run with all his -clothing and go down to a river or a pool where there is a deep place, -and let him be baptized there with all his clothing, and let him -pray[98] to the Great and Highest God in faith of heart, and then call -to witness the Seven Witnesses who are written [Sidenote: p. 452.] in -this book, saying: ‘Lo! I call to witness the Heaven and the Water -and the Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and the salt -and the Earth. I call to witness these Seven Witnesses that I will no -more sin, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor do injustice, nor be -greedy, nor cherish hatred, nor break faith, nor take pleasure in any -evil deeds.’ Then upon saying this, let him be baptized with all his -clothing in the name of the Great and Highest God.” - -16. But in most other matters he talks nonsense, and teaches [the -repetition of] the same spells over the phthisical, and the baptizing -of them in cold water forty times a week. And in the same way with -those possessed of devils. O wisdom inimitable and incantations filled -full of powers! Who will not be struck at such and so great a power of -words? But since we have said that they also make use of the error of -the astrologers, let us prove this out of their own mouths. Thus he -says: “There are evil stars of impiety. This is now spoken unto you, O -God-fearing [Sidenote: p. 453.] men[99] and disciples. Beware of the -days of their authority,[100] and begin no works on these days, and -baptize not man nor woman in the days of their authority when the moon -goes forth with them and journeys with them.[101] Be ye ware from that -day until the moon leaves them utterly and then baptize and begin in -every beginning of your works. Honour also the Sabbath Day for it is -one day out of these.[102] But beware of beginning ought in the third -day from the Sabbath, because when three years of the reign of Trajan -Cæsar were fulfilled, he brought the Parthians under his sway.[103] And -when three years more are completed war will rage between the angels of -the impiety of the North,[104] and thereby all the kingdoms of iniquity -will be troubled.”[105] - -17. Since, now, he believes it would be unreasonable that these great -and secret mysteries should be trampled [Sidenote: p. 454.] underfoot -or delivered to many, he advises that they should be preserved as if -they were costly pearls,[106] saying thus: “Read not these words to -all men and keep their commandments carefully, since not all men are -faithful nor all women straight.” But these things neither the sages of -the Egyptians, nor Pythagoras the sage of the Greeks withdrew within -their sanctuaries. For had Elchasai chanced to live at the time, what -need would there have been for Pythagoras, or Thales, or Solon, or -Plato the wise, or the rest of the Greeks to learn of the priests of -the Egyptians, seeing that they would have had so much and so great -wisdom from Alcibiades, the most wonderful interpreter of the wretched -Elchasai? Now therefore it seems that enough has been said for persons -of sound mind to have a complete knowledge of the madness of these -[heretics], wherefore it does not seem fit to make use of any more of -their sayings, which are many and laughable. - -But since we have not passed over the things which have sprung up among -ourselves, and have not been silent on those which [happened] before -our time, it seems proper, so that we may go into everything and leave -nothing unexpounded, to say something of the [customs] of the Jews -[Sidenote: p. 455.] also, and what are the differences among them; for -I think that up till now this has been passed over.[107] [And] when -I shall have spoken of these,[108] I shall proceed to the exposition -of the Word of Truth.[109] So that after the lengthy struggle of the -discourse against all heresies, we, firmly pressing forward to the -crown of the kingdom, and believing on the things which are true, may -not be confounded.[110] - - - 4. _Jews._[111] - -18. Originally there was one nation of Jews. For one teacher had been -given them by God [namely] Moses, and through him was given one Law. -And there was one desert and one mountain [namely] Sinai; for one God -was their legislator. But after they had crossed the river Jordan -and had divided by lot the land won by the spear, they rent asunder -in different ways the Law of God, each understanding the precepts -differently. And thus they set up teachers for themselves and found -out heretical opinions and advanced in schism. Whose diversity I shall -set forth; but although for a long time they have been scattered in -many divisions, yet I will expose [only] the chief of them, whence the -lovers of learning[112] may easily know the rest. [Sidenote: p. 456.] -For three sects[113] are distinguished among them, and the adherents of -one of these are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, and the others[114] -are Essenes. These [last] practise the more holy life [of the three], -loving one another and observing continence. And they turn away from -every deed of concupiscence, holding it hateful even to listen to such -things. They renounce marriage, but take the children of others and -bring them up in their customs, thus adopting[115] them and impelling -them to the sciences, [but] not forbidding them to marry, although they -themselves abstain from it. But they admit no women, even those who are -willing to devote themselves to the same policy, nor give heed to them, -for they distrust women altogether. - -19. And they despise wealth and do not shrink from sharing with those -who lack [it], although none of them is richer than another. For it -is a law among them that any one entering the heresy must sell his -possessions and offer [Sidenote: p. 457.] the price to the common -stock, which the ruler receives and distributes to all for their needs. -Thus there is no want among them. And they use not oil, thinking -anointing their bodies pollution. But there are stewards appointed by -vote who look after all their property in common, and all of them wear -white garments always. - -20. And there is not one city of them, but many of them dwell in every -city. And if one of the practisers of the heresy[116] should arrive -from a strange country, they hold all things in common for him, and -those whom they knew not before they receive as guests and intimates. -And they travel about their native land, and when they go on a journey -they carry nothing with them except arms. And they have in every city a -ruler who spends what is collected for the purpose of providing clothes -and food for them. And their dress and its fashion are modest. They -do not possess two tunics or a double set of footgear; but when those -in use become old, they take others. And they neither buy nor sell -anything at all; but if one possesses ought, he gives it to him who -lacks, and what he has not, he receives [in its stead].[117] - -[Sidenote: p. 458.] 21. But they lead a well-ordered and regular -life, and always pray at dawn, not speaking before they have praised -God. And thus they all go forth and do what work they will, and after -working until the fifth hour, leave off. Then, assembling again in -one place, they gird themselves with linen cinctures so as to conceal -their privities, and thus wash in cold water. And after having thus -purified themselves, they gather together in one dwelling--but no one -who thinks differently from them is with them in the house--and they -get to breakfast. And sitting down in order, they are offered bread -in silence, and then some one kind of food from which each has a -sufficient portion. But none of them tastes anything till the priest -has blessed and prayed over it. And after breakfast, when he has again -prayed, they offer up praises to God. Then, laying aside as holy the -garments with which they are clothed while indoors--and these are -of linen--and receiving again the [Sidenote: p. 459.] others in the -vestibule, they hasten to their favourite work until the afternoon. And -they take supper in all respects as before described. And none ever -shouts, nor is any other uproarious sound heard, but each one speaks -quietly, every one decently yielding the conversation to the other, -so that to those without the silence of those within seems somewhat -of a mystery. And they are at all times sober, eating and drinking -everything by measure.[118] - -22. Now all give heed to the president[119] and what he commands they -obey as law. For they are zealous to pity and help the downtrodden. -And before all things they abstain from rage and anger and such-like, -judging that these betray mankind. And none takes oath to the other, -but what each one says is judged stronger than an oath. And if any -one takes an oath, he is condemned as one not to be believed (without -God).[120] And they are diligent concerning the recital of the Law -and the Prophets, and also if [Sidenote: p. 460.] there should be any -summary[121] [of these] [made by one] of the faithful, [they listen to -it?] And they are very curious concerning plants and stones, being very -inquisitive as to their operation, as they think that these did not -come into being in vain. - -23. But to those who wish to become disciples of the heresy, they do -not straightway impart the traditions, until they have first made trial -of them. For a year they set before them the same sort of food as -[is served] to themselves, but outside their assembly and in another -house. And they give them a hatchet and the linen cincture and white -garments. When they have during this period given proof of continence, -they draw nearer to the way of living [of the others] and are purified -more thoroughly than at first, but they do not take their food with -them. For after they have shown that they can practise continence, -for another two years’ trial is made of such a one’s character, and -on his appearing worthy, he is adjudged so [to be received] by them. -Before, however, he can eat with them, he is sworn with fearful oaths; -first, that he will show piety towards the Divine, then that he will -observe justice towards men, and will in no way wrong any, nor hate -anyone who [Sidenote: p. 461.] wrongs him or who is an enemy to him, -but will pray for him. And that he will fight on the side of the just -and will keep faith with all, especially with those who bear sway, nor -be disobedient to them. For it happens to none to rule save by God. And -if [the aspirant] should bear rule, that he will never be arrogant in -authority, nor make more use than is customary of any ornament; but is -to love the truth, [Sidenote: p. 462.] to refute the liar, and not to -steal, nor soil his conscience with unlawful gain, nor hide ought from -his fellow-heretics. And will tell nothing [of their secrets] to others -even if he shall suffer violence unto death. Besides this, he swears to -them to impart none of the doctrines [of the sect] otherwise than as he -himself received them. By such oaths, therefore, do they bind those who -come unto them.[122] - -24. But if any should be convicted in any transgression, he is cast out -of the order, and he that is cast out sometimes perishes by a fearful -fate. For, being bound by the oaths and customs, he cannot take food -with other people. Therefore sometimes they utterly destroy the body -by famine. Wherefore in the last extremity they sometimes take pity -on many already dying, thinking the penalty unto death sufficient for -them.[123] - -25. Concerning their judgments, they are most careful and just. They -deliver judgment after assembling not less [Sidenote: p. 463.] than -a hundred and what they determine is irrevocable. And they honour -the Lawgiver [next] after God, and if anyone blasphemes him, he is -punished. And they are taught to give ear to the rulers and elders; -and if ten are sitting in the same place, one will not speak unless -the others wish. And they are careful of spitting in front of them or -on the right side; and more than all the Jews, they arrange to abstain -from work on the Sabbath. For not only do they prepare their food -one day before, so as not to light a fire, but they neither move an -implement nor relieve nature. And some of them will not even get out of -bed. But on other days, when they wish to evacuate, they dig a pit a -foot long--with the hoe--for such is the hatchet which they give their -adherents when first becoming disciples[124]--and covering it on all -sides with their cloak, sit down, affirming that they must not insult -the rays [of the Sun]. Then they throw back the excavated earth into -the pit. And this they do choosing the most deserted places, [and] when -they have done this they straightway wash, as if the [Sidenote: p. -464.] secretion were polluting.[125] - -26. But in course of time they have drawn apart and do not [all] -observe the discipline in the same way,[126] being divided into four -parts. For some of them are more austere than they need be, so that -they will carry no coin, saying that they must not bear any image, nor -look upon it, nor make it. Wherefore none of them goes into a city, -lest he shall enter in through a gate whereon are statues, as they -think it unlawful to pass under an image. And others, if they hear -anyone holding forth about God and His Law, will watch such an one -until he is alone in some place, and threaten to kill him if he be not -circumcised. Whom, if he does not consent, he does not spare, but slays -him. Whence from this occurrence they take their name, being called -Zealots, but by some Sicarii. And yet others of them name none Lord but -God, even if any should torture or slay them. And those who succeeded -them became so much worse than their discipline that they would not -touch [Sidenote: p. 465.] those who remained in the ancient customs: -[or] if they did so [by accident] they straightway washed themselves -as if they had touched one of another sect. And the majority are -long-lived, so that they live more than a hundred years. Now they say -that the cause of this is their consummate piety towards God, and their -condemning the serving [of food] without measure and to their being -continent and slow to anger. And they despise death rejoicing that they -can make an end with a good conscience. But if any one should torture -such [men] to make them speak ill of the Law or to eat food offered to -idols, they would not do so, suffering death and supporting tortures so -that they may not go beyond their conscience.[127] - -27. But the doctrine of the Resurrection is also strong among them. For -they confess that the flesh rises again and will be immortal in the -same way that the soul is already immortal. Which soul when it departs -from the body, abides in an airy and well-lighted place until judgment, -which place the Greeks hearing of it called [the] Islands of the -Blessed. But there are other opinions of them which [Sidenote: p. 466.] -many of the Greeks appropriated and maintained as their own teaching. -For the discipline among them concerning the Divine is earlier than -all nations, as is proved by all that the Greeks have ventured to -say about God or the fashioning of the things that are starting from -no other source than the Jewish Law. Wherefrom especially Pythagoras -and those of the Porch took much, having been instructed in it by the -Egyptians. And [the Essenes] say also that there will be a judgment -and a conflagration of the All, and that the unjust will be punished -everlastingly. And prophecy and the foretelling of things to come are -practised among them.[128] - -28. Now there is another order of Essenes making use of their customs -and way of life, but they differ from these [just described] in the -one [point of] marriage; saying that those who reject marriage do a -fearful thing. And they declare that this comes to the taking-away of -life, and that one must not cut off the succession of children, and -that if everyone thought like this, the whole race of men might easily -be cut off. They certainly try their wives for a period of three years; -but when they have had three purifications, so as to prove that they -can bear children, they wed them. [Sidenote: p. 467.] But they do -not company with them when pregnant, proving [thereby] that they do -not marry for pleasure but from need of children. And the women wash -themselves in the same way and don linen garments in the same way as -the men with their cinctures. This, then, concerning the Essenes.[129] - -But there are others also disciplined in the customs of the Jews, and -called both legally and generically Pharisees. The majority of whom -are [to be found] in every place, and all call themselves Jews, but -on account of the special opinions held by them are called besides -by specific names.[130] Now they, while holding fast the ancient -tradition, continue to enquire methodically into what things are clean -and what unclean according to the Law. And they interpret the things of -the Law, putting forward teachers for that purpose. And they say that -Fate is, and that some things are due to free-will and some to Fate, -so that some [come] by ourselves and some by Fate. But that God is the -cause of all, and that nothing is arranged or happens without His will. -And they confess the Resurrection of the Flesh and that the [Sidenote: -p. 468.] soul is immortal, and [admit] a judgment to come and a future -conflagration, and that the wicked will be punished in unquenchable -fire. - -29. But the Sadducees eliminate Fate, and confess that God neither -does nor contemplates anything evil; but that man has the power to -choose the good or evil. But they deny not only the Resurrection of the -Flesh, but also consider that the soul does not survive. But that its -[function] is to live and that that is why man is born. And that the -doctrine of the Resurrection is fulfilled by leaving children on earth -when we die. But that after death there will be no hope of suffering -either evil or good. For [they say that] there will be a dissolution -of soul and body and that man will go to that which is not in the same -way as the other animals. And that if a man has great possessions, and -having become rich is [thereby] glorified, he is so far the gainer; but -that God does not take care of the affairs of [Sidenote: p. 469.] any -one individual. And while the Pharisees love one another, the Sadducees -love [only] themselves. The same heresy was especially strong round -about Samaria. And they give heed to the customs of the Law, saying -that one ought to do so that one may live well and leave children -behind on earth. But they pay no attention to the Prophets, nor to any -other wise men, but only to the Law [given] through Moses. Nor do they -interpret anything. This then is the heresy of the Sadducees.[131] - -30. Since now we have set forth the differences among the Jews, it -seems proper not to pass over in silence the discipline of their -service of God. Now there is a fourfold system with regard to the -service of God among all Jews [to wit] Theological, Physical, Moral -and Ceremonial.[132] And they say that there is one God, the Demiurge -of the All and the Maker of all things that before were not,[133] -nor did He make them from any subordinate essence, but He willed and -created. And that there are angels and that they have come into being -for the service of creation; but that there is also a Spirit having -authority ever standing beside Him for the glory and praise of God. -And that all things in the creation have sensation and that nothing is -without soul.[134] And they pursue customs tending to a holy [Sidenote: -p. 470.] and temperate life as is to be recognized in their Law. But -these things were of old carefully laid down by those who originally -received a God-made Law, so that the reader will be astonished at -so much moderation and care in the customs prescribed for man. But -the ceremonial service offered in becoming fashion was excellently -performed by them as it is easy for those who wish to learn by reading -the Book discoursing on these matters.[135] [There they will see] how -reverently and devoutly they offered to God the things given by Him for -the use and enjoyment of man, obeying Him orderly and constantly. Some -of these [doctrines] the Sadducees reject; for they hold that neither -angels nor spirit exist.[136] - -[Sidenote: p. 471.] But all alike wait for Christ, the Coming One -foretold by the Law and the Prophets. But the time of the Coming was -not known of the Jews, [so that] the supposition endured that the -sayings which appeared to concern the Coming were unfulfilled. But they -expect that Christ will presently come, since they did not recognize -His presence. And seeing the signs of the times of His having come -already, this troubles them, and they are ashamed to confess that He -has come, since with their own hands they became His murderers, through -anger at being convicted by Him of not having hearkened to their Laws. -And they say that He who was thus sent by God is not Christ. But they -confess that another will come who as yet is not, and will bear some of -the signs which the Law and the Prophets foreshowed; but some things -they imagine wrongly. For they say that his birth will be from the race -of David, but not from a Virgin and [the] Holy Spirit, but from a woman -and a man, as it is a rule for all to be begotten from seed. And they -declare that he will be a king over them, a man of war and a mighty -one, who, having gathered together the whole nation of Jews, will make -war on all the nations and [Sidenote: p. 472.] re-establish for them -Jerusalem as the royal city. Whereunto he will gather in the whole -nation, and again will restore the ancient customs, while [the nation] -is king and priest[137] and dwells in security for a sufficient time. -Then shall again spring up against them a war of [the nations] gathered -together. In this war the Christ shall fall by the sword and not long -afterwards the end and conflagration of the All shall draw near, and -thus their conjectures about the Resurrection shall be fulfilled, and -everyone shall be recompensed according to his works.[138] - -31. It seems to us that the opinions of all Greeks and Barbarians -have been sufficiently set forth, and that nothing has been left -undemonstrated either of the philosophizings[139] or of the things -imagined by the heretics. To those among them [who read this], the -refutation from what has been set forth is clear [viz.] that either -plagiarizing from or laying under contribution what the Greeks have -elaborated, they have put them forward as divine. Now, having run -through all [these systems] and having declared with much labour in -the nine books [above] all these opinions, thereby leaving to all men -a little guide through life, and furnishing to the [Sidenote: p. 473.] -readers a study of no little joy and gladness, we think it reasonable -to present as the conclusion of the whole [work] a discourse on the -Truth.[140] And we shall write this in one book, [viz.] the Tenth. So -that the reader, having recognized the overthrow which the heresies of -these audacious men have sustained, may not only despise their follies, -but by also recognizing the power of the Truth, [and] by worthily -believing in God, can be saved. - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: ἡ καινὴ ἐπιδημία. The book Elchesai, as will presently be -seen, is said to have been revealed “in the third year of Trajan” and -therefore long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably -refers here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.] - -[Footnote 2: This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (_Haer._, LVII) would make -a native of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against -whom Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called -Patripassian, which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on -the Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was “not very long” dead when -Hippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus’ Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi, -_Bibl. Vet. Patr._ II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to -have been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern -in origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius. -Hippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and -Callistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the -last-named Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon’s -articles in _D.C.B._, s.n.n. “Noetus,” “Praxeas,” “Epigonus” and -“Cleomenes,” and Mr. Hugh Pope’s article on “Monarchian” in Hastings’ -_Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics_.] - -[Footnote 3: Theodoret (_Haer. Fab._, III, 3) would reverse this -position and make Cleomenes Epigonus’ teacher and not his pupil. He has -probably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists -frequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their -successors.] - -[Footnote 4: This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus’ quarrel -with the Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus’ predecessor in the Roman -Chair, he speaks well. Cf. p. 128 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 5: Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.ff] - -[Footnote 6: δυσφημίας.] - -[Footnote 7: ἐν τοῖς φιλοσοφουμένοις. The Codex has Φιλοσοφουμένους. -He evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. 41) he has given a -few words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous -reference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. 154 _supra_) where -he calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI -(p. 4 _supra_) where he attributes Simon’s image of “a fiery God” -not to Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice’s emendation holds good -this shows that Book I was originally published separately and called -“Philosophizings,” the rest of the work being known as the _Elenchus_ -or “Refutation.” Cf. Introduction _supra_. Bishop Wordsworth (St. -_Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880), gets over the -difficulty by reading the passage ἐν τοὺς Φιλοσοφουμένους ἡμῖν, “in -this our Philosophumena,” and this reading has been adopted in this -translation.] - -[Footnote 8: Cf. Stobaeus, _Eclog. Phys._, I, xlii.] - -[Footnote 9: λόγον αἰῶνα.] - -[Footnote 10: τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας, “listen to the argument.” -Hippolytus had he written in English would doubtless have said “the -Word,” but this has a different connotation in modern language.] - -[Footnote 11: λόγος without the article.] - -[Footnote 12: ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι πειρεώμενοι. It is very difficult -to make sense of these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them -untranslated.] - -[Footnote 13: πεττεύων. Playing at _tessera_ or draughts. Cr., -_tesseras jaciens_, a game in which there was chance as well as skill -like backgammon. Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into -Heraclitus’ mouth.] - -[Footnote 14: Some word missing here.] - -[Footnote 15: κρείττων supplied from the next quoted sentence.] - -[Footnote 16: The Codex has ὅσον ὄψις κ.τ.λ. Cruice substitutes ὅσων -and translates _Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt_.] - -[Footnote 17: Something probably omitted here also.] - -[Footnote 18: ἕτερον.] - -[Footnote 19: A screw. Also a staircase.] - -[Footnote 20: ὀλέθριον, “destructive.”] - -[Footnote 21: χρημοσύνη. Cr., _Inopia_, Macm., “Craving.”] - -[Footnote 22: διακόσμησις. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the -Creation.] - -[Footnote 23: So Clem. Alex., _Strom._, V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict -the destruction of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to -the Stoics.] - -[Footnote 24: It has not been thought well to delay the reader by -attempting to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients -themselves did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the -only likeness between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his -successors was due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel -between them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by -his own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.] - -[Footnote 25: A pun on νοητός, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper -name.] - -[Footnote 26: Another pun between ἁιρουμένοι and αἵρεσις.] - -[Footnote 27: The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book -X.] - -[Footnote 28: Ἀχώρητος, “that cannot be confined (in space),” or what -we mean when we say that He is infinite.] - -[Footnote 29: ἀκράτητος, “that cannot be dominated.” One would have -expected the word ἀνίκητος; but as this was one of the honorific titles -of the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.] - -[Footnote 30: Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and -Ruler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time, -and the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.] - -[Footnote 31: There can be little doubt as to the source of this -chapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of -extracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the -taking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are -doubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus -before “the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as -described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on -p. 118 _supra_. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made -use of the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains -the allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to -be found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and -Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no -reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion -of Noetus or his successors.] - -[Footnote 32: In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses -his chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole -work. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in -the Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are -therefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion -that the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person -has now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’ -adversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of -Rome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being -quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story -which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by -the frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor -Duchesne (_Hist. ancienne de l’Église_, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman -(_The Catholic Encyclopædia_, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), of the -view that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although -much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they -follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at the first -appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to -seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to -the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s opinion, garbled -or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more -satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references, -except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of Döllinger’s -_Hippolytus and Callistus_, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ primacy appears -from several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he -was killed apparently in a riot.] - -[Footnote 33: Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to -218.] - -[Footnote 34: τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a -_pluralis majestatis_ consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself -Bishop of Rome.] - -[Footnote 35: The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers -difficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The -reading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not -doubtful.] - -[Footnote 36: ἐν τῷ λαῷ, _i.e._ “the laity.”] - -[Footnote 37: “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (_op. -cit._, p. 219) this accusation was well founded.] - -[Footnote 38: ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth, -Cruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems -good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.] - -[Footnote 39: ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word, -which might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been -martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.] - -[Footnote 40: Ἔπαρχος. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from A.D. 188 -to 193.] - -[Footnote 41: Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose -inscription is to be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, _Bull._, -1866, p. 3, and Duchesne, _Hist. ancienne_, I, p. 294, n. 1.] - -[Footnote 42: “Public Fishpool.” It was one of the fourteen _Regiones_ -of the city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is -here not translated, but written in Greek letters.] - -[Footnote 43: ἐξαφανίσας. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his -address to Fuscianus later. Döllinger, _op. cit._, argues that this -does not necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus’ part as he may -have lost the money in an attempt to increase his master’s profit. See -note on next page.] - -[Footnote 44: οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς. Bunsen calls this “a rank Latinism.”] - -[Footnote 45: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 109) draws attention to -Carpophorus’ cruelty as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian -to the awful punishment of the treadmill.] - -[Footnote 46: Portus Ostiensis or Ostia, the Port of Rome.] - -[Footnote 47: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) argues that this was not -suicide but an attempt to escape.] - -[Footnote 48: εἰς πίστρινον, transliterated as before. The terrible -nature of this punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio, -_Dict. des Antiq._, s.h.v.] - -[Footnote 49: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) thinks that he had lent it -to the Jews, and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.] - -[Footnote 50: See last note. In Döllinger’s opinion, he only went there -to ask for his money.] - -[Footnote 51: ἀφανίσας.] - -[Footnote 52: Döllinger (_ubi cit._) points out that Carpophorus’ -speech throws further light on his character. Callistus _was_ a -Christian, as Hippolytus admits. Carpophorus’ anxiety to prevent his -being sentenced is explained by the fear of losing Callistus’ services, -sentence of penal servitude acting as manumission.] - -[Footnote 53: Victor’s exact date is uncertain, but he probably -succeeded Eleutherus as Pope in A.D. 189 and was himself succeeded by -Zephyrinus in 202.] - -[Footnote 54: τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ. Some would translate “priest”; -but the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.] - -[Footnote 55: ἐπιτροπεύων.] - -[Footnote 56: Döllinger (_op. cit._) thinks there is no doubt from this -that Callistus was both condemned and set free as a Christian.] - -[Footnote 57: From this, from the intervention of the brethren with -Carpophorus and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, Döllinger -(_op. cit._) draws the conclusion that Callistus’ conduct up to this -point must have seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.] - -[Footnote 58: The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his -name, where many of the early Popes are buried.] - -[Footnote 59: ὑποκρίσει.] - -[Footnote 60: ἐξηφάνισε. See n. 3 on p. 127.] - -[Footnote 61: _i. e._ imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.] - -[Footnote 62: Evidently refers to Hippolytus’ charge of Sabellianism -against him.] - -[Footnote 63: γόης. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is -unusual.] - -[Footnote 64: See note on p. 125 _supra_. Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. -219) thinks that Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests -that Origen may have shared the error.] - -[Footnote 65: Bishop Wordsworth (_St. Hippolytus and the Church of -Rome_, 1880, p. 87) would translate: “The Word is the Son and also the -Father, being called by a different name, but that the indivisible -Spirit is one.”] - -[Footnote 66: Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has πιστεύετε μοι, “Believe -me” (imperative).] - -[Footnote 67: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 216) says this is a correct -statement of the Catholic position.] - -[Footnote 68: Bunsen would read ἐκφυγών, [“thus] avoiding.” Cruice -inserts οὕτω πως ἐλπίζων, “thus hoping to avoid.” Döllinger inserts -ὥστε before ἐκφυγεῖν.] - -[Footnote 69: If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of -Byzantium mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by -Victor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and -his opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.] - -[Footnote 70: Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus -assumes that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that -Callistus and the more numerous party within it are only a “school.”] - -[Footnote 71: συναγόμενος, “gathered in,” “a member of any other man’s -congregation,” Wordsworth; _ab alio fuerat seductus_, Cruice, whom -Macmahon follows.] - -[Footnote 72: A logical term.] - -[Footnote 73: εἰς κλήρους. Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 140) points out -that Lectors, acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in -the phrase ἐν κλήρῳ afterwards used, and that such persons were not -forbidden to marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no -doubt that Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that -Callistus did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more -than once.] - -[Footnote 74: ἐν κλήρῳ.] - -[Footnote 75: Rom. xiv. 4.] - -[Footnote 76: Matt. xiii. 29.] - -[Footnote 77: εἰς ὁμοίωμα.] - -[Footnote 78: ἐλεύθερον, “a freed man”?] - -[Footnote 79: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 158) suggests that this is a -reference to the _contubernium_, or concubinage known to Roman Law, -which the Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case -of Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted -that Hippolytus calls her παλλακὴ Κομόδου only.] - -[Footnote 80: This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does -not accuse Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was -begun in his time, is apparently brought in here to connect this -chapter with the next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any -foundation, it would certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.] - -[Footnote 81: No other author seems to have taken up this name, and -the rest of the paragraph shows that it was Callistus’ party which was -regarded as Catholic and Hippolytus’ as schismatic. As Hippolytus was -writing of matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of -his readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material -from any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in -Callistus’ life that he here narrates may have been obtained _vivâ -voce_ from Carpophorus.] - -[Footnote 82: This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and -probably had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before -Christian times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the -most effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression. -Prof. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the Mandæan -religion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on the subject -(_Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk_, Leipzig, 1912), thinks -that Elchasai, a name which may mean something like “Power of the Sun,” -was a real man who flourished in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), -and founded in Syria an eclectic religion made up of the doctrines of -Judaism and Christianity, mingled with the belief in the sovereign -efficacy of baptism found among the Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or -“Washers,” who still exist. Thus, according to En-Nadîm (Flügel’s -_Mani_, p. 340), these Mughtasila in the tenth century still reverenced -as a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who seems to be our Elchasai, along -with Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. It also appears that his successors -sent out missionaries to the West, including doubtless the Alcibiades -of our text. Origen, in his Homily on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having -met with one of these who may have been Alcibiades himself. They seem -to have obtained some success among the Ebionite and Essene communities -on the shores of the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and -Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at -its birth. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions -them in connection with the “heresies” of the Nazaræans, Ebionites -and Sampsæans respectively, but like Theodoret does little but repeat -Hippolytus’ statements.] - -[Footnote 83: This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer -to Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he -professed to receive his revelations.] - -[Footnote 84: ἀπο Σηρῶν, Chinese? Or it may be a town called Serae.] - -[Footnote 85: Brandt (_op. cit._, p. 42) thinks the word is Mandæan or -Aramaic, and means “the Baptized,” _i.e._ the Mughtasila.] - -[Footnote 86: These measurements, intended to show the enormous -difference in size between the celestial powers and mankind, are -peculiarly Jewish and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.] - -[Footnote 87: The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours. -The schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and -Persians.] - -[Footnote 88: _i. e._ as that of Callistus.] - -[Footnote 89: Hippolytus’ motive in thus connecting Alcibiades’ -visit with Callistus’ proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing -in common in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he -(probably erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy -of the ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.] - -[Footnote 90: ἐλέγξαντες.] - -[Footnote 91: νόθος, “bastard.” Is this an allusion to the composite -nature of the Elchesaite religion?] - -[Footnote 92: All these phrases are so condensed as to make the -conjectural restoration of important words necessary. It would seem -that the author was here hurrying over his task.] - -[Footnote 93: νόμου πολιτείαν. The Jewish Law is of course intended.] - -[Footnote 94: Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered -into the conceptions of the Mandæans, Mughtasila, or any other sects -with which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist -ideas seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did -Alcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the -allusion to the Seres.] - -[Footnote 95: ἐπίλογοι.] - -[Footnote 96: The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in -the plural. Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would -be more than that number. Brandt (_op. cit._) thinks many mistakes in -this chapter are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic -into Greek. He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament -celebrated with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five -elements of Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant -to which Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from -the ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled -for the purpose of conjuration.] - -[Footnote 97: πνεῦμα διαφθορᾶς. Cruice and Macmahon both translate -“spirit of destruction.” It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors -of the spell seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal -might produce infection.] - -[Footnote 98: Both Miller and Duncker read προσευξάσθω, which has been -adopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads προσδειξάσθω, “show -himself unto.”] - -[Footnote 99: εὐσεβεῖς. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those -who observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.] - -[Footnote 100: _i. e._ “on which they bear rule”--a well-known -astrological phrase.] - -[Footnote 101: _i. e._ “rises and sets with them.”] - -[Footnote 102: This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the -evil stars rule. Probably some words like “which God has chosen” are -omitted.] - -[Footnote 103: Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan’s successful -campaign against the Parthians a calamity?] - -[Footnote 104: Ἄρκτων, lit., “of the Bears.” Thus Cruice. But it is -probably another case of putting plurals for singulars.] - -[Footnote 105: It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which -fixes the date of Elchasai’s book. If, however, we take Trajan’s -invasion of Parthia at A.D. 113, which seems the most likely date, the -rebellion of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out -within the three years mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by -Marcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may -therefore well be later than this.] - -[Footnote 106: A possible allusion to Matt. vii. 6.] - -[Footnote 107: For the reason of this omission see Introduction, -_supra_.] - -[Footnote 108: μηδὲ σιωπήσας, “when I have not kept silence about”--a -roundabout phrase.] - -[Footnote 109: This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X. -This shows the close connection between the Summary and the first nine -Books, and proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself, -was at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.] - -[Footnote 110: The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai -were doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to -Rome by Alcibiades.] - -[Footnote 111: The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in -writing this description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth -Book are stated in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted -from Josephus, the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by -him, and the words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to -suggest that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be -a Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely, -since Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but -it is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the -account of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some -Jewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, the -Messianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt under -Bar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as he -must have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish -nation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may -therefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements -which Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his own -agree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout -the marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except where -he is manifestly using the work of another as model, being slurred -over and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two cases, he -contradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, making -a subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. See n. on -p. 147 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 112: οἱ φιλομαθεῖς. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean “the -learned” simply.] - -[Footnote 113: εἴδη, “species,” or “kinds.”] - -[Footnote 114: ἕτεροι δὲ. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews -are Essenes? Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted -as in the title to this chapter. The rest of the section is almost -_verbatim_ from Josephus, _de Bell Jud._, II, 8, 2.] - -[Footnote 115: τεκνυποιοῦνται, “make them their own children.”] - -[Footnote 116: αἱρετιστῶν. A Latinism here used for the first time by -Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 117: These two sections also are taken from Josephus, _op. -cit._, II, 8, 3, 4.] - -[Footnote 118: So is this. Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 5.] - -[Footnote 119: τῷ προεστῶτι. The president of the feast is evidently a -different person from the official of the same name in § 20, or of the -ἱερεύς or priest in § 21, _supra_.] - -[Footnote 120: Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose -§ 6 this section is taken.] - -[Footnote 121: σύνταγμα, _volumen ad usum fidelium_, Cruice, -“treatise,” Macmahon.] - -[Footnote 122: This, too, is almost _verbatim_ from Josephus, _op. -cit._, II, 8, 7; but it is to be noted that Hippolytus omits the -obligation to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the -angels.] - -[Footnote 123: Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, § 8.] - -[Footnote 124: Like the Egyptian _turria_, an axe with its blade at -right angles to instead of in a line with the shaft. Much used for -digging.] - -[Footnote 125: This section also is taken from Josephus, _op. cit._, -II, 8, 9. Hippolytus omits to say that the blasphemers of Moses were to -be punished capitally. The refusal to get out of bed is not mentioned -by Josephus.] - -[Footnote 126: τὴν ἄσκησιν, lit., “training,” as for a gymnastic -competition. Cf. our word “ascetic.”] - -[Footnote 127: Josephus, _op. cit._, § 10, says that the sect and not -their teaching was fourfold. He transfers the story of pollution by -touch to the attitude of the seniors towards the juniors, and knows -nothing of the gate story. The Zealots, according to him (_op. cit._, -VII, 8, 1) grew up under the Sicarii, who defended Masada against the -Romans in Vespasian’s time. The rest of this section corresponds with -his Book II, 8, 10.] - -[Footnote 128: In this section, Hippolytus leaves Josephus, except as -to the Islands of the Blessed and the Essene gift of prophecy, both of -which are to be found in Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 11, 12.] - -[Footnote 129: Josephus (_op. cit._, II, 8, 13), almost _verbatim_ -through the whole section.] - -[Footnote 130: ὀνόμασι κυρίοις, properly “nicknames.” He seems to -imply that while they called themselves Jews, other people knew them -as Pharisees, Chasidim, or Puritans. The statement about Fate and the -everlasting punishment of the wicked is to be found in Josephus (_op. -cit._, II, 8, 14), but the reward of the good is there said to be -metempsychosis.] - -[Footnote 131: This section also appears to be expanded from Josephus, -_op. cit._, II, 8, 14.] - -[Footnote 132: ἱερουργική.] - -[Footnote 133: He here seems to imply that in the view of the Jews, at -any rate, the All was made from pre-existent material, as a house from -bricks, while some things were created _e nihilo_. This is denied in -the next sentence.] - -[Footnote 134: ἄψυχον. Perhaps with Cruice and Macmahon, we should -translate “without _life_.” Yet it seems hardly possible that Jews -considered stones and minerals as alive.] - -[Footnote 135: Leviticus?] - -[Footnote 136: Here he, or perhaps some commentator, has to contradict -what he has just said about “all” Jews believing these doctrines.] - -[Footnote 137: βασιλεῦον καὶ ἱερατεῦον, “acting as kings and priests.”] - -[Footnote 138: Here again it is plain that “all Jews” could not believe -this statement of Messianic hopes, and the Sadducees in particular -would have repudiated what he says about the Resurrection and future -recompense.] - -[Footnote 139: τῶν φιλοσοφουμένων, a play quite in Hippolytus’ usual -manner on the name of the Book and its meaning. It should be noted that -the “things imagined by the heretics” correspond to the second title, -“Refutation of all Heresies.”] - -[Footnote 140: He has already promised this in the conclusion to the -chapter on the Elchesaites (p. 138 _supra_), which strengthens one’s -conviction that that on the Jews was an afterthought. It is plain, -however, that nine Books were intended to precede the “Discourse on the -Truth.” Here again, he does not mention the Summary.] - - - - - [Sidenote: p. 474.] BOOK X - - SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH - - -1. These are the contents of the 10th [Book] of the Refutation of all -Heresies. - -2. An epitome of all the philosophers. - -3. An epitome of all [the] heresies.[1] - -4. And what is in all things the Word of Truth. - -5. Having broken through the labyrinth[2] of the heresies without -violence but rather having dissolved them by our single refutation -in the power of Truth, we now draw near to the demonstration of the -Truth itself. For then the manufactured sophistries of the error will -appear inconsistent, when the definition of the Truth has shown that -it has not taken its beginnings from the philosophy of the Greeks. Nor -[has it taken] from [the] Egyptians [the] doctrines (and) the follies -which are adored among them as worthy of faith--as [the] mysteries -have taught--nor has it been devised out of the inconsistent jugglery -of [the] Chaldæans, nor been forged by the unreasoning madness of -[the] Babylonians through the activity of demons.[3] In whatever -shape, however, the definition subsists, it is true, unguarded, and -unadorned,[4] and by its appearance alone will refute the [Sidenote: -p. 475.] error. Concerning which, although we have many times made -demonstrations, and have pointed out the Rule of Truth sufficiently -and abundantly for those who are willing to learn, yet once again we -judge it reasonable on the top of all the doctrines of the Greeks and -heretics, to place as if it were [the] crown of the books [preceding], -this demonstration by means of the tenth book. - -6. Now having brought together the teachings of all the sages among -[the] Greeks in four books,[5] and those of the heresiarchs in -five, we shall point out the Doctrine concerning the Truth in one, -after having first made a summary of what has been the opinions of -all. For the teachers of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three -parts, so philosophize, some preaching Physics, some Ethics and some -Dialectic.[6] And those who preached Physics thus declared, some that -all things were born from one, others from many. And of those who -said [they came] from one, some [said they came] from what had no -Quality, and others from that which had Quality. And of those who [said -they came] from that which had Quality, some [said that they came] -[Sidenote: p. 476.] from fire, others from air, others from water and -yet others from earth. And of those who [said they came forth] from -many things, some [said that they came] from numerable things [others -from boundless ones. And of those who said they came from numerable -things], some [say that they came] from two, others from four, others -from five, and others from six. And of those [who say] that they came -from the boundless things, some [say that they came] from things like -generated things, others from those unlike. And some of them say that -they came from things impassible, others from things passible. The -Stoics indeed would establish the birth of the universals from that -which has no Quality and one body. For according to them, matter -unqualified and capable of change by means of the universals is their -source. And when it is transformed, fire, air, water and earth come -into being. And those who will have all things to come into being from -that which has Quality are the followers of Hippasus and Anaximander -and Thales the Milesian. Hippasus the Metapontian[7] and Heraclitus -the Ephesian declared the genesis of things to be from fire, but -Anaximander from air, Thales from water, and Xenophanes from earth. - - “For all things [came forth] from earth and all end in earth.”[8] - -[Sidenote: p. 477.] 7. Of those who would derive the universals from -[the] many and [the] numerable, the poet Homer declares that the -universals have been composed of earth and water when he says:-- - - “Ocean source of Gods and mother Tethys.”[9] - -and again:-- - - “But turn ye all to water and earth.”[10] - -And Xenophanes the Colophonian seems to agree with him, for he says:-- - - “All we are sprung from earth and water.”[11] - -But Euripides says from earth and aether, as he lets us see from his -saying:-- - - “I sing aether and earth, mother of all.”[12] - -But Empedocles from four, saying thus:-- - - [Sidenote: p. 478.] “Hear first the four roots of all things; - Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus - And Nestis who wets with tears the human source.” - -But from five, Ocellus the Lucanian[13] and Aristotle. For with the -four elements they include the fifth and rotating body whence, they -say, are all heavenly things. But from six, the followers of Empedocles -derived the birth of all things. For in the verses where he says:-- - - “Hear first the four roots of all things” - -he makes everything come from four. But when he adds to this:-- - - “And baleful Strife apart from these [and] equal everywhere, - And Love with them equal in length and breadth,”[14] - -he is handing down six things as sources of the universals [_i. e._] -four material: earth, water, fire, [and] air and two, [Sidenote: p. -479.] the agents Love and Strife. But the followers of Anaxagoras the -Clazomenian and Democritus and Epicurus and very many others whose -[opinions] we have before recorded in part, taught that the genesis -of all things was from the boundless. But Anaxagoras says they came -from things like those produced; but the followers of Democritus and -Epicurus, from those unlike and impassible, that is from the atoms; -and those of Heraclides the Pontian[15] and Asclepiades[16] from those -which are unlike, but passible, such as disconnected corpuscles. -But the followers of Plato say that they came from three, and that -these are God, Matter and Exemplar; but he divides matter into four -principles: fire, water, earth, air; and says that God is the Demiurge -of Matter, but Exemplar the Mind. - -8. Now, having been persuaded that the system of Natural Science[17] is -confessedly found unworkable by all these [philosophers], we ourselves -shall unhesitatingly say concerning the examples of the Truth what they -are and how we believe in them. But in addition we will first set forth -in epitome the [opinions] of the heresiarchs, so that [Sidenote: p. -480.] the opinions of all being thereby easy to discern, we may display -the Truth as clear and easy to discern also. - - - 1. _Naassenes._ - -9. But since this seems fitting, we will begin first with the -ministers of the serpent. The Naassenes call the first principle of -the universals a man and also Son of Man,[18] and him they divide into -three. For part of him, they say, is intellectual, part psychic, and -part earthly. And they call him Adamas and think the knowledge of him -is the beginning of the power to know God. And they say that all these -intellectual and psychic and earthly [parts] came into Jesus, and that -the three substances spoke together through Him to the three races of -the All. Thus they declare that there are three races, [the] angelic, -psychic [and] earthly, and that there are three Churches, angelic, -psychic and earthly; but that their names are [the] Called, Chosen, -[and] Captive. These are the heads of their doctrine in so far as it -can be briefly comprehended. They [Sidenote: p. 481.] say that they -were handed down by James the Brother of the Lord to Mariamne, thereby -belying both.[19] - - - 2. _Peratæ._ - -10. But the Peratæ, Ademes the Carystian and Euphrates the Peratic[20] -say that a certain cosmos--this is what they call it--is one divided -into three. But of this threefold division of theirs, there is a single -source, as it were a great fountain, capable of being cut by the reason -into boundless sections. And the first and most excellent section is -according to them the triad and the one part of it is called Perfect -Good [and] Fatherly Greatness. But the second part of the Triad is, as -it were a certain boundless multitude of powers, and the third is that -of form. And the first [of the Triad] is unbegotten (since it is good: -but the second good and self-begotten and the third, begotten).[21] -Whence they say explicitly that there are three gods, three words, -[Sidenote: p. 482.] three minds [and] three men. For to each part of -the cosmos when the division was made, they assign Gods and Words and -Men and the rest. But from on high, from the unbegotten state and from -the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos had already been -brought to completion, there came down in the time of Herod a certain -triple-natured and triple-bodied and triple-powered man called Christ, -having within Him all the compounds and powers from the three parts of -the cosmos. And this they will have to be the saying: “In Him dwells -all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily.” For [they say that] there came -down from the two overlying worlds, namely from the unbegotten and the -self-begotten, to this world in which we are, all sorts of seeds of -powers. And that Christ came down from the Unbegottenness in order that -through His descent all the things triply divided may be saved. For the -things, he says, brought down from on high shall ascend through Him; -but those who take counsel together against those brought down shall be -ruthlessly rejected and having been punished shall be sent away. And -he says that those [worlds] which will be saved are two, the overlying -ones [Sidenote: p. 483.] released from corruption. But the third will -be destroyed, which is the world of form.[22] And thus the Peratæ. - - - 3. _The Sethiani._ - -11. But to the Sethians it appears that there are three definite -principles of the universals. And that each of these principles (has -boundless powers ... everything which you perceive by your mind or -which you pass over for lack of thought)[23] is formed by nature to -become [each of the principles] as in the human soul every art is to be -learned. As if [they say] there should come to a boy spending some time -with a pipe-player, the power of pipe-playing, or with a geometrician -the power of measurement, or in like manner with any other art. But the -substances of the principles, they say, are light and darkness. And -between them is pure spirit. But the spirit which is set between the -darkness which is below and the light which is above is, they say, not -spirit like a gust of wind or any small breeze which may be perceived, -but resembles some faint fragrance of balsam or [Sidenote: p. 484.] -of incense artificially compounded as a power penetrating by force of -fragrance and better than words can say. But because the light is above -and the darkness below and the spirit between them, the light, like -a ray of the sun on high, shines on the underlying darkness, and the -fragrance of the spirit holding the middle place is borne and spread -abroad as the odour of incense on the fire is borne. And as the power -of the triply divided is such, the power of the spirit and the light -together are below in the darkness beneath. But, they say, the darkness -is a fearful water into which the light is drawn down with the spirit -and changed into a similar nature. Now the darkness is sensible, and -knows that if the light is taken away from it, the darkness will remain -desolate, viewless, without light, powerless, idle and weak. In this -way by all its wit and foresight it is forced to retain within itself -the brilliance and scintillation of the light along with the fragrance -of the spirit. - -And with regard to this, they bring in this image, saying that as -the pupil of the eye appears dark because of the [Sidenote: p. 485.] -waters underneath it, but it is made light by the spirit, thus the -light seeks after the spirit and retains for itself all the powers -which wish to withdraw and to depart. But these are ever boundless, -wherefrom all things are modelled and become like mingled seals. For, -as the seal coming into conjunction with the wax, makes the impress, -while itself remains by itself whatever it was, so the powers coming -into conjunction with each other elaborate all the boundless races of -living things. Therefore [they say] came into being from the first -conjunction of the three principles, the form of a great seal [_i.e._] -of heaven and earth, which had a shape like a womb with the navel in -the midst. Thus also the rest of the models of all things were modelled -resembling a womb like heaven and earth. But they say that from the -water came into being the first born principle, a violent and rushing -wind the cause of all generation, which sets in action a certain heat -and movement in the cosmos from the movement of the waters. And [they -say] [Sidenote: p. 486.] that this was changed into a complete form -like the hissing of a serpent, beholding which the cosmos is driven to -generation, being excited like a womb, and therefrom they will have -it the generation of the universals is established. And they say that -this wind is a spirit and that a perfect god came into being from the -waters and from the fragrance of the spirit and from the brilliance of -the light. And that there is also the begetting of a female, Mind, the -spark from on high which is mingled with the accretions of the body and -hastens to flee away so that it may escape and not find dissolution -through being enchained in the waters. Whence it cries aloud from the -mingling of the waters according to the Psalmist, as they say. “Thus -the whole care of the light on high is how it shall draw the spark -beneath from the Father who is below,” [that is], from the wind which -puts in action heat and disturbance and creates for himself Mind (a -perfect son) who is not (peculiar) to himself, [whom] they declare, -beholding the [Sidenote: p. 487.] perfect Word of the light from on -high, changed Himself into the form of a serpent and entered into a -womb, so that He might take again that mind which is a spark of the -light. And this, [they say] is the saying: “Who, being in the form of -God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, -taking the form of a servant.” And this the unhappy and wicked Sethians -will have to be the [servile] form.[24] This then is what they say. - - - 4. _Simon._ - -12. And the all-wise Simon says thus. There is a boundless power and -this is the root of the universals. The boundless power is, he says, -fire. According to him, it is not simple, as the many say the four -elements are simple and therefore think fire is simple; but [he says] -that the nature of the fire is double, and of this double [nature] he -calls one part hidden and the other manifest. And [Sidenote: p. 488.] -that the hidden parts are concealed within the manifest parts of the -fire, and the manifest parts of the fire are produced by the hidden. -But, he says, that all the seen and unseen parts of the fire are to be -considered as having sense.[25] Therefore, he says, the begotten world -came into being from the unbegotten fire. But it began to come into -being, he says, thus. The begotten [cosmos] took from the principle -of that fire the first six roots of the principle of generation. For -these six roots were born from the fire by pairs, which he calls -Nous and Epinoia, Phonê and Onoma, Logismos and Enthymesis. And [he -says] that in these six roots [taken] together, the Boundless Power -exists (potentially but not actively, which Boundless Power) he says -is the “He who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,” which if it be exactly -reflected will be within the six powers in substance, powers, greatness -and influence, being one and the same as the Unbegotten and Boundless -Power, and in no way inferior to that Unbegotten and Unchangeable and -Boundless Power. But if it remains only potentially in the Six Powers -and is not exactly [Sidenote: p. 489.] reflected, it, he says, vanishes -and will die away like the grammatical or geometrical power in the mind -of a man, when he does not receive technical teaching in addition. And -Simon says that himself is the He Who Stands, Stood, and will Stand, -being the Power which is above all.[26] Thus, then, Simon. - - - 5. _Valentinus._ - -13. But Valentinus and those from his school say the Source of the All -is a Father and yet are carried into conflicting opinions [about him]. -For some of them [think] that he is alone and capable of generation, -while others hold that he is incapable of bringing forth without a -female, and give him as a spouse Sigê, calling him Bythos. From whom -and from his spouse some say that six projections came into being, -[viz.] Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoë, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and -that this is the first Ogdoad which brings forth.[27] And, again, [they -say] that the projections which were first born within the Limit[28] -are called the things within the Pleroma; but those second, those -[Sidenote: p. 490.] without the Pleroma; and those third, those without -the Limit, the offspring of which last exists as the Hysterema.[29] -But he says that there was born from that which was projected in the -Hysterema, an Aeon, and that this is the Demiurge, for he does not -wish him to be the First God, but speaks ill both of him and of what -came into being by him. And [he says] that Christ came down from that -which was within the Pleroma for the salvation of the Spirit that went -astray, which dwells in our inner man, which they say will be saved for -the sake of the indwelling one. But [Valentinus] will not have it that -the flesh will be saved, calling it a “coat of skin” and a corrupter -of mankind. I have described this in epitome, as one meets with much -matter [concerning it] and differing opinions among them. This then is -what Valentinus’ school thinks.[30] - - - 6. _Basilides._ - -14. But Basilides also says that there is a God-Who-Is-Not who, being -non-existent [made] the created world out [Sidenote: p. 491.] of the -things that are not. [He says] that a certain seed, like a grain of -mustard-seed was cast down, which contained within itself the stem, -the leaves, the branches [and] the fruit; or, like a peacock’s egg, -contains within itself a varied multitude of colours, and they say -that this is the seed of the cosmos, from which all things were -produced. For [he says] the seed contained all things within itself, -inasmuch as thus the things that were not were preordained to come -into being by the God-Who-Is-Not. Then there was, they say, in that -seed a Sonhood, tripartite and in all things of the same substance -with the God-Who-Is-Not, being begotten from the things that were not. -And of this tripartite Sonhood, one part was [itself] finely divided, -another coarsely so, while the other part needed purification. But the -finely-divided part, straightway and concurrently with the happening -of the first casting-down of the seed by the God-Who-Is-Not, escaped -and went on high and came into the presence of Him-Who-Is-Not. For -every nature yearns for Him because of His superabundance of beauty, -but each in a different way. But the more coarsely divided [part] abode -in the Seed and being merely imitative could not go on high, for it -was much inferior [Sidenote: p. 492.] to the finer part.[31] And it -was given wings by the Holy Spirit, for the Sonhood putting them on, -both gives and receives benefit.[32] But the third Sonhood has need of -purification. It remains in the heap of the Panspermia and it gives and -receives benefit. And [he says] that there is something called [the] -Cosmos and something hypercosmic for (the things that are) are divided -by him into these two primary divisions. And what is between them, he -calls [the] Boundary Holy Spirit, having the fragrance of the Sonhood. - -From the Panspermia of the heap of the cosmic seed, there escaped and -was brought forth the Great Ruler, the chief of the Cosmos, [a being] -of unspeakable beauty and greatness. And he, uplifting himself to -the firmament thought there was none other above him. And he became -brighter and mightier than all below him, save the Sonhood left behind -whom he did not know to be wiser than he. This [Ruler] having turned to -the fashioning of the Cosmos, first begat for himself a Son better than -he, and made him sit at his right hand. And this [place of the Ruler] -they declare the Ogdoad. He then builds the whole [Sidenote: p. 493.] -heavenly creation. But another Ruler ascended from the Panspermia, -greater than all those lying beneath save the Sonhood left behind, -but much inferior to the first, and he is called Hebdomad. He is the -Creator and Demiurge and Controller of all below him; and he also made -for himself a son more foresighted and wiser than he. But all these, -they say, are according to the predetermination of that One-Who-Is-Not, -and are worlds and boundless spaces.[33] And [Basilides] says that -on Jesus who was born of Mary the power of [the] Gospel came, which -descended and illumined the Son of the Ogdoad and the Son of the -Hebdomad for the illumination and separation and purification of the -Sonhood left behind that he might benefit and receive benefits from -the souls. And they say that themselves are sons [of God], who for -this purpose are in the world, [viz.] that they may purify the souls -by their teaching and go on high together with the [third] Sonhood -to the presence of the Father above, from whom the first Sonhood -proceeded.[34] And they declare that the cosmos shall endure until -all the souls together with the Sonhood shall withdraw [from it]. And -Basilides is not ashamed to narrate these portents.[35] - - - [Sidenote: p. 494.] 7. _Justinus._[36] - -15. Justinus also daring to [advance] things like these, says thus: -“There are three unbegotten principles of the universals, two male -[and] one female.” Of the male, one is a certain principle called the -Good, and is alone thus called, having foreknowledge of the universals. -But the other [male] is the Father of all begotten ones, and has no -foreknowledge and is unknown and unseen and is called, they say, -Elohim. [But] the female is without foreknowledge, inclined to passion, -double-minded, double-bodied, as in the stories about her[37] which we -have above related in detail, the upper parts of her down to the groin -being a virgin and those [below] a viper. The same is called Edem and -Israel. And he declares that these are the principles of the universals -wherefrom all things came into being. And [he says] that Elohim -came without foreknowledge to desire for the composite virgin, and, -companying with her, begat [Sidenote: p. 495.] twelve angels. The names -of these are....[38] And of these the paternal ones take sides with -the (father); but the maternal ones with the mother. The same are (the -trees of Paradise)[39] whereof Moses, speaking allegorically, wrote in -the Law. And all things were made by Elohim and Edem; and the animals -together with the rest of [creation] come from the beast-like parts, -but man from those above the groin. And Edem deposited in [man] the -soul which is her power (but Elohim the spirit). But he declares that -Elohim having learned [of the light above him] ascended to the presence -of the Good One and left Edem behind. Whereat she being angered makes -every plot against the spirit of Elohim which is deposited in man. And -for his sake, the Father sent Baruch and commanded the Prophets (to -speak) so that he might set free the spirit of Elohim and draw all -men away from Edem. But he [Sidenote: p. 496.] declares that Heracles -became a prophet and that he was worsted by Omphale, that is by Babel, -whom they name Aphrodite. And at last in the days of Herod Jesus became -the son of Mary and Joseph, to Whom he declares Baruch to have spoken. -And that Edem plotted against Him, but could not beguile Him, and -therefore made Him to be crucified. Whose spirit [Justinus] says went -on high to the Good One. And thus (the spirits) of all who believe -these silly and feeble stories will be saved; but the body and soul -belonging to Edem, whom the foolish Justinus calls the Earth,[40] will -be left behind.[41] - - - 8. _The Docetae._ - -16. But the Docetae say things like this: That the first God is as -the seed of the fig-tree from whom have come three Aeons, like the -stem and the leaves and [Sidenote: p. 497.] the fruit. And that these -have projected thirty Aeons, each of them (ten). But all are linked -together in tens and only differ in arrangement by some being before -others.[42] And they projected infinitely boundless Aeons and are all -masculo-feminine. And having taken counsel they all came together into -one and from this intermediate Aeon was begotten from the Virgin Mary -the Saviour of all, like in all things to the seed of the fig-tree, -but inferior to it in that He was begotten. For the seed whence the -fig-tree [comes] is unbegotten.[43] This then was the great light of -the Aeons, complete, receiving no setting in order,[44] containing -within itself the forms of all the animals. And [they say] that this -[light] shining into the underlying chaos provided a cause to the -things which have been and are, and descending from on high impressed -[on the] chaos below the forms of the Aeonic exemplars.[45] For the -third Aeon which had tripled itself, seeing that all his types were -drawn down into the darkness below and not being ignorant of the -terrible nature of the darkness and the simplicity of the light, -created heaven and having fixed it between, divided in twain the -darkness and the light.[46] Then all the forms of the third Aeon -having been overcome, [Sidenote: p. 498.] they say, by the darkness, -his likeness[47] subsisted as a living fire coming into being by the -light. From which, they say, the Great Ruler came to be, of whom Moses -talks when he says that this God is a fiery God and a Demiurge who ever -transfers the forms[48] of all (Aeons) into bodies. But they declare -that it is these souls for whose sake the Saviour came,[49] and showed -the way whereby those that had been overcome may escape. And [they -say] that Jesus did on that unique power, wherefore He could not be -gazed upon by any by reason of the overpowering greatness of His glory. -And they say that all things happened to Him as is written in the -Gospels.[50] - - - 9. _Monoimus._ - -17. But the followers of Monoimus the Arab say that [Sidenote: p. 499.] -the principle of the All is a First Man[51] and Son of Man, and that -the things which have come to pass as Moses says, came into being not -by the First Man but by the Son of Man, and not from the whole, but -from part of him. And that the Son of Man is Iota, which is the Decad, -a dominant number wherein is the substance of all number, whereby -every number subsists, and is the birth of the All [viz.] Fire, Air, -Water [and] Earth. But this being so, Iota is one and one tittle, a -perfect thing from the Perfect, a tittle flowing from on high, having -within itself whatever also has the Man the Father of the Son of Man. -Therefore [Monoimus] says that the world of Moses came into being in -six days, that is, in six powers, from which the cosmos came forth from -the one tittle. For cubes and octahedrons and pyramids and all the -equal-sided figures like these, whence are made up Fire, Air, Water -[and] Earth, have came into being from the numbers left behind in that -simple tittle of the Iota which is the Son of Man. When therefore, he -says, Moses speaks of a rod turning [Sidenote: p. 500.] towards Egypt -he is attributing allegorically the woes[52] of the world to the Iota, -nor does he figure more than the ten woes. But if, he says, you wish -to understand the All, enquire within thyself who it is who says, “My -soul, my flesh, my mind,”[53] and who within thee makes each thing his -own as another does to him. Understand that this is a perfect thing -from the Perfect who considers all the so-called non-existent and all -the existent as peculiar to himself.[54] This then is what Monoimus -thinks. - - - 10. _Tatian._ - -18. But Tatian, like Valentinus and the others, says that there are -certain unseen Aeons, by one of whom below the cosmos and the things -that are, were fashioned. And he practises a very cynical mode of life, -and hardly differs from Marcion in his blasphemies and his rules about -marriage.[55] - - - [Sidenote: p. 501.] 11. _Marcion._[56] - -19. Marcion the Pontian, and Cerdo his teacher, also determined that -there are three principles of the All, a Good One, a Just One, and -Matter. But certain disciples of theirs add to this, saying that there -are a Good One, a Just One, a Wicked One, and Matter. But all [agree] -that the Good One created nothing wholly;[57] but they say that the -Just One, whom some name the Wicked One, but others merely the Just, -made all things out of the underlying Matter. For he made them not well -but absurdly.[58] For things must need be like their creator. Wherefore -they make use of the parable in the Gospels, saying, “A good tree -cannot make evil fruits,”[59] and so on, declaring that in this it is -said that things were devised wickedly by [the Just One]. And he says -that Christ is the son of the Good One and was sent for the salvation -of souls. Whom he calls [the] inner man, saying that He appeared as a -man, [Sidenote: p. 502.] but was not man, and as incarnate, but was -not incarnate, and was manifested in appearance [only], but underwent -neither birth nor suffering, but seemed [to do so]. And [Marcion] does -not wish that [the] flesh shall rise again. And, saying that marriage -is destruction, he leads his disciples to a very Cynical life, thinking -thereby to vex the Demiurge by abstaining from the things brought into -being or laid down by him.[60] - - - 12. _Apelles._ - -20. But Apelles, the disciple of [Marcion] displeased with what was -said by his teacher, as we have before said, proposed by another -theory that there are four Gods, declaring that one is (good) whom the -Prophets knew not, but of whom Christ is the Son. And that another is -the Demiurge of the All, whom he does not wish to be a god, and another -a fiery one who is manifest, and yet another a wicked one: [all of] -whom he calls angels. And adding Christ to these, he says that He is -the fifth. But he gives heed to a book which he calls _Manifestations_ -of a certain Philumene whom he thinks a prophetess. And he says -[Sidenote: p. 503.] that Christ did not receive the flesh from the -Virgin, but from the adjacent substance of the cosmos. Thus he has -written treatises[61] against the Law and the Prophets attempting to -discredit them as false speakers and ignorant of God. And he says, like -Marcion, that [all] flesh will be destroyed.[62] - - - 13. _Cerinthus._ - -21. But Cerinthus, who had been trained in Egypt, would have it that -the cosmos did not come into being by the First God, but by a certain -angelic power far removed and standing apart from the Authority [set] -over the universals and ignorant of the God over all things. And he -says that Jesus was not begotten from a Virgin, but was the son of -Joseph and Mary in the same way as the rest of mankind, and that He -excelled all other men in righteousness, moderation and intelligence. -And that at the Baptism, there descended upon Him from the Authority -over the universals, the Christ in the form of a dove, and that He -then preached the unknown God and perfected his powers;[63] [Sidenote: -p. 504.] but that at the end of the passion the Christ fell away from -Jesus. And Jesus suffered, but the Christ remained passionless, being a -spirit of [the] Lord.[64] - - - 14. _Ebionæi._ - -22. But the Ebionæi say that the cosmos came into being from the true -God; but speak of the Christ as does Cerinthus. And they live in -all things according to the Law of Moses, thus declaring themselves -justified.[65] - - - 15. _Theodotus._ - -23. Theodotus the Byzantian brought in another heresy such as this, -declaring that the universals came into being by the true God. But he -says, like the Gnostics before described, that the Christ appeared in -some such fashion [as this]. He said that the Christ was a man akin to -all, but He differed [from others] in that He by the will of God was -born from a Virgin who had been overshadowed by the [Sidenote: p. 505.] -Holy Spirit. And that he was not incarnate in the Virgin, but at length -at the Baptism the Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, -whence they say He did not before then exercise powers. But he will not -have the Christ to be God. And so Theodotus.[66] - - - 16. _Other Theodotians._ - -24. And others of them say all things like those aforesaid, altering -one single thing only in that they accept Melchizedek as some very -great power, declaring him to exist above every power. After whose -likeness they will have the Christ to be.[67] - - - 17. _Phrygians._ - -25. But the Phrygians take the beginnings of their heresy from one -Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, thinking the wenches prophetesses -and Montanus a prophet. But [Sidenote: p. 506.] they are considered to -speak rightly in what they say about the beginning and the fashioning -of the All, and they receive not otherwise the things about the Christ. -But they stumble with those aforesaid to whose words they erringly give -heed rather than to the Gospels, and they prescribe new and unusual -fasts. - -26. But others of them approaching the heresy of the Noetians think -in like manner concerning the wenches and Montanus, but blaspheme the -Father of the universals saying that He is at once Son and Father, seen -and unseen, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These take -their starting-points from one Noetus.[68] - - - 18. _Noetus._ - -27. And in the same way Noetus, being a Smyrnæan by birth, a garrulous -and versatile man, brought in this heresy, which from one Epigonus -reached Cleomenes and has so remained with his successors until now. -It says that the [Sidenote: p. 507.] Father and God of the universals -is one and that He made all things, and became invisible to the things -which are when He willed, and then appeared when he wished. And that -He is invisible when He is not seen; but visible when He is seen; and -unbegotten when He is not begotten, but begotten when He is begotten -from a Virgin; and passionless and immortal when He does not suffer -and die, but that when [the] Passion comes, He suffers and dies. -They think this Father is Himself called Son according to times and -circumstances.[69] The heresy of these persons Callistus confirmed, -whose life we have faithfully set forth. Who himself gave birth to a -heresy, taking starting-points from them, while himself confessing that -this Fashioner the All is the Father and God; but that He is spoken -of by name and named Son, while in substance He is (one Spirit). For -God, he says is a Spirit not other than the Logos nor the Logos than -God, and therefore this Person is divided in name indeed, but not in -substance. And he names this one God, and says that He was incarnated. -And he wishes the Son to be He who was seen and overcome according to -[Sidenote: p. 508.] the flesh, but the Father to be He who dwelt within -[Him]. He sometimes branches off to the heresy of Noetus and sometimes -to that of Theodotus, but holds nothing steadfastly. This now Callistus. - - - 19. _Hermogenes._ - -28. But one Hermogenes having also wished to say something [new] said -that God made all things out of co-existent and underlying matter. For -that it is impossible to hold that God created existing things from -those which are not.[70] - - - 20. _Elchasaitae._ - -29. But certain others, as if bringing in something new [and] -collecting things from all heresies, prepared a foreign book bearing -the name of one Elchasai. These in the same way [as their predecessors] -confess that the principles of the All came into being by God, but do -not confess Christ to be one. But they say that there is one on high -[Sidenote: p. 509.] who is often transferred[71] into [many] bodies, -and that he is now in Jesus. Likewise that at one time, this one was -born from God, and at another became [the] Spirit, and sometimes was -born from a Virgin and sometimes not. And that thereafter he is ever -transferred into [many] bodies, and is manifested in many according -to [the] times. And they use incantations and baptisms for their -confession of the elements.[72] And they are excited about astrology -and mathematics and (give heed) to magic (acts). And they say they -foreknow the future.[73] - - - 21. [_Title lacking_].[74] - -30. (Abraham being commanded) by God, migrates from Mesopotamia and -the city of Harran to the part now called Palestine and Judæa but then -Canaanitis, concerning which we have in part but not without care -handed down the [Sidenote: p. 510.] account in other discourses.[75] -Through this occurred the beginning of [the] increase [of population] -in Judæa, which got the name from Judah the fourth son of Jacob, of -whom it was also called the kingdom, through the royal race being from -him. (Abraham)[76] migrates from Mesopotamia (being 75 years old) and -being in his hundredth year (begat Isaac). (And Isaac being) 60 years -old begat Jacob. And Jacob [when] 87 years old begat Levi. But Levi -when 40 years old begat Kohath.[77] And Kohath [was 4] years old when -he went down with Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the whole time which -Abraham and all his race by Isaac dwelt in the land then called [the] -Canaanitis was 215 years.[78] And his (father) was Terah. This, one’s -[father] was Nahor, his Serug (his Zeu, his Peleg, his Eber) whence -(the Jews) are [Sidenote: p. 511.] called Hebrews. There were 72 (sons -of Abraham from whom also were 72) nations, whose names also we have -set forth in other books.[79] Nor did we omit this in its place as we -wished to show to the learned[80] our affection concerning the Divine -and the accurate knowledge concerning the Truth which we have painfully -acquired. But the father of this Eber was Shelah, and his Canaan, -and his Arphaxad, who was born to Shem; and his father was Noah in -whose time the flood over the whole world came to pass, which neither -Egyptians, nor Chaldæans, nor Greeks record. For to them the floods in -the time of Ogyges and Deacalion were [only] in places. Now in their -time[81] were 5 generations, or 435 years.[82] This [Noah] being a most -pious man and one who loved God, alone with [his] wife and children -and their three wives escaped the coming flood, being saved in an -ark, the measurements and remains of which, as we have set forth[83] -[elsewhere], are shown to this day in the [Sidenote: p. 512.] mountains -called Ararat which are near the land of the Adiabeni. It is then to be -observed by those who wish to give a painstaking account how plainly -it is shown that the God fearing race are older than all Chaldæans, -Egyptians, [or] Greeks. But what need is there to name here those -before Noah who both feared and spake with God, when to what has gone -before the witness of antiquity is sufficient? - -31. But since it seems not unreasonable to show that those nations who -occupy themselves with philosophy[84] are later in date than they who -feared God, it is right to say both where their race came from, and -that when they migrated to these countries, they did not take a name -from them, but themselves gained [one] from those who first ruled[85] -and dwelt [there]. The three sons of Noah were Shem, Ham and Japhet. -From them the whole race of men multiplied and dwelt in every country. -For the word of God[86] was confirmed by them which said, “Increase -and multiply and fill the earth.”[87] So mighty was this one saying, -that 72 children were begotten by the 3 sons, family [Sidenote: p. -513.] by family, of whom 25 were Shem’s, 15 Japhet’s, and 32 Ham’s. -And the sons of Ham were, as has been said 32:--his were Canaan, from -whom the Canaanites, Misraim, from whom the Egyptians, Cush, from -whom the Ethiopians, Phut, from whom the Libyans. These in their own -speech unto this day are called by the common name of their ancestors -and even in the Greek are named by the names by which they have just -been called. But if it were shown that there were formerly none to -inhabit their countries, nor a beginning of [any] race[88] of men, yet -there are still these sons of Noah, a God-fearing man who was himself -a disciple of God-fearing men, thanks to which he escaped the great -although temporary threat of [the] waters. How then can it be denied -that there were God-fearing men earlier than all Chaldæans, Egyptians -[and] Greeks,[89] the father of which [last] was born to that Japhet -[and had the] name Jovan, whence [the] Greeks and Ionians? And if the -nations who occupy themselves with matters of philosophy are shown to -be altogether of much later date than the God-fearing race and the -Flood, will not the Barbarian [Sidenote: p. 514.] and whatever races -in the world are known and unknown, appear later than these? Wherefore -now, do ye Greeks, Egyptians and Chaldæans and every race of men master -this argument and learn what is the Divine and what His well-ordered -creation from us, the friends of God, who have not been trained in -dainty phrase, but in the knowledge of Truth and the practice of -moderation find words for His demonstration.[90] - -32. One God is the First and Only One and Creator and Ruler of all. He -has no coæval, neither boundless chaos, nor immeasureable water, nor -solid earth, nor compact air, nor hot fire, nor subtle spirit, nor the -blue canopy of great heaven.[91] But He was One, alone with Himself, -who when He willed created the things which are, which at first were -not, save that He willed to create them as knowing of what they would -be. For foreknowledge also is present with Him. He fashioned first the -different principles of things to come--fire and spirit,[92] water and -earth,--from which different [principles] He made His creation. And -some [Sidenote: p. 515.] things He [made of] one substance and some -he bound together out of two, others of three and yet others of four. -And those that are of one were immortal, for dissolution does not dog -them, for that which is one will never be dissolved. But those [made] -from two or three or four [substances] are dissoluble, wherefore they -are called mortal. For death is called this, the dissolution of what -is bound together. We think we have now answered sufficiently those -who have sound perception, who, if for love of learning they will -enquire further into these substances and the causes of the fashioning -of all things, they will learn them by reading our book, treating of -“the Substance of the All.”[93] And I think that it is here enough -to set forth the causes from ignorance whereof the Greeks glorified -with dainty phrase the parts of the creation, but ignored the Creator. -Starting wherefrom the heresiarchs, transfiguring into like expressions -what was formerly said by [the Greeks] have composed laughable heresies. - -33. This God, then, One and Over All having first conceived [Sidenote: -p. 516.] in His mind begat [the] Word, not a word in the sense of a -voice, but the indwelling Reason[94] of the All. He begot Him alone -from the things which are. For the Father Himself was what is, from -Whom was the Word, the cause of the begetting of things coming into -being, bearing within Himself the will of His begetter, not ignorant -of the thought of the Father. For from the time[95] of His coming -forth from Him who begat Him, becoming His first-born voice, He holds -within Himself the ideas conceived in His Father’s mind. Whence, on the -Father ordering the world to come into being, the Word completed it -in detail,[96] [thus] pleasing God. And the things which multiply by -generation, He formed male and female; but all those for service and -ministry he made either males who have no need of females or neither -male nor female. For when the first substances [Sidenote: p. 517.] -of these came into being [namely] Fire and Spirit, Earth and Water, -from the things that were not, neither male nor female things existed. -Nor could male and female have come forth from each of these, unless -the God who gave the command had willed that the Word should do this -service.[97] I confess that angels are [formed] of fire and I say that -no females are present with them. But I consider that Sun and Moon and -stars were in like manner [formed] of fire and spirit and are neither -male nor female. But I say that swimming animals were [formed] of water -and that winged ones are male and female.[98] For thus God willed and -commanded that the watery substance should be fruitful. In like manner, -serpents and wild beasts and all sorts of animals were [formed] from -earth and are male and female; for this the nature of begotten things -allowed. For whatever things He willed, those God created. These -He fashioned by the Word, for they could not have come into being -otherwise than they did. But when as He had willed He also created, He -called and designated them by name. Thereafter He fashioned the ruler -of them all, and equipped him from all substances brought together. Nor -did He wish to make a God and fail, nor an angel--be not deceived--but -[Sidenote: p. 518.] a man. For had God willed to make thee a God, He -could: thou hast the example of the Word. But He willed a man and -created thee a man. But if thou dost wish also to become a God, hearken -to the Creator and withstand Him not now, so that being found faithful -over a little, thou mayest be entrusted with much.[99] - -Only the Word of this [God] is from Him. Wherefore He also is God, -being the substance of God. But the world is from nothing. Wherefore it -is not God and it will be dissolved[100] when the Creator wills. But -God who created makes nothing evil; but he creates it fair and good. -For He who creates is good. But man when he came into being was an -animal with free-will,[101] not having a ruling mind, nor dominating -all things by reflection and authority and power, but a slave[102] -and full of all contrary [desires].[103] Who, in that he is free to -choose produces evil, which when it is completed by accident is nothing -unless thou dost make [it].[104] For it is by the thinking and willing -something [Sidenote: p. 519.] evil, that it is named evil; which was -not from the beginning, but came into being later. [And] as man was -free to choose, a Law was laid down by God, not vainly. For if man were -not free to will or not to will, what need of a Law?[105] For the Law -is not decreed for a dumb beast, but a bridle and a whip; but to man -was appointed a commandment and a penalty in respect of what he was to -do and not to do. And [the] Law as to this was laid down of old through -righteous men. Nearer to our own times, a Law full of majesty and -justice was laid down through the Moses aforesaid, a steadfast man and -one who loved God. - -All these things, the Word of God directs, the First-born Son of -[the] Father, the light-bringing voice before dawn.[106] Thereafter -there came into being righteous men who loved God. These were called -prophets from their showing beforehand the things to come.[107] To whom -word came not at one season [only], but through all generations the -utterances of things foretold was most clearly brought forward.[108] -[Sidenote: p. 520.] Nor did they merely give an answer to those present -there at the time, but through several generations also the things to -come were foreshadowed. [And this] because speaking of things past -they recalled them to mankind; but by showing what was then happening -they put away carelessness, and by foretelling the future have made -every one of us fearful by the sight of the fulfilment of prophecies -and the expectation of the future. Such is our faith, O all ye men who -are not persuaded by vain speeches, nor captured by sudden movings of -the heart, nor enchanted by plausible and eloquent words, but have not -been obdurate to words uttered by Divine power. And these things God -commanded [the] Word; and the Word speaking through [the prophets], -uttered them for the turning of man from disobedience and emancipating -him from the force of Fate, but calling him to liberty by his free -choice.[109] - -The Father in the last days sent forth this Word, not speaking through -a prophet, and not wishing that the Word when proclaimed should be -darkly guessed at, but that He should be manifested to the very eyes -of all. He, I say, [Sidenote: p. 521.] (sent Him forth) that the -world when it beheld Him should be put to shame. For He did not give -commandment through the person of prophets, nor affright [the] soul by -an angel, but was Himself present and spake. Him we know to have taken -body from a Virgin and to have moulded[110] the old man through a new -formation. [We know] that He passed in life through every age,[111] -so that He might become a law for every age, and that His presence -might show forth His manhood as an example[112] to all men; and that -through Him it might be proved that God makes nothing evil, and that -man as master of himself can will or not will [evil], being capable -of both. We know, too, that this man came into being out of the same -material[113] as ourselves; for were He not of the same [matter] it -would be vain to order that the Teacher be imitated. For had that Man -chanced to be of another substance [than ours] why should he order me -who am weak by nature to do things like Himself? And [in that case] -how is He good and just? But in order that He might not be thought -different from us, He underwent toil, and was willing to hunger, and -denied not thirst,[114] and was stilled in sleep, and renounced not -suffering, and [Sidenote: p. 522.] submitted to death, and manifested -resurrection, sacrificing in all this His own manhood, so that thou -when suffering may not be faint-hearted, but mayst confess thyself a -man and expect also what the Father promised Him. - -34. Such is the true word about the Divine.[115] O all ye men, Greeks -and Barbarians, Chaldæans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, -Indians and Ethiopians, Celts and ye army-leading Latins,[116] and -all ye dwellers in Europe, Asia and Libya.[117] To you I am become a -counsellor, being a disciple of the Word who loves man and myself a -lover of mankind, so that you may hasten to be taught by us who is -the real God and what His well-ordered creation. And that you give -not heed to the sophistries of artificial discourses,[118] nor to the -crazy promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the august simplicity -of unboastful truth. Through the knowledge of which, you shall escape -the coming menace of the judgment of fire, and the unlighted vision of -gloomy Tartarus unillumined by the voice of the Word, and [Sidenote: p. -523.] the boiling of the Lake of the eternal Gehenna of flame, and the -ever-threatening eye of the angels punished in Tartarus,[119] and the -worm which through the filth of the body turns towards the body which -threw it forth as for food. And these things thou shalt escape when -thou hast been taught the God Who Is. And thou shalt have an immortal -body together with an incorruptible soul. And thou shalt receive the -kingdom of the heavens, who whilst on earth didst also recognize the -heavenly King. But thou shall speak with God and be joint heir with -Christ, not enslaved by desires nor sufferings nor diseases.[120] For -thou [wilt] have become God. For whatever sufferings thou underwent as -man, thou hast shown that thou art a man; but whatever is appurtenant -to a God, that God has promised to bestow, because thou hast been made -divine, since thou hast been begotten immortal. This is the [true] -“Know Thyself,” the knowledge of the Creator God. For to him who knows -himself has occurred the being known to Him by whom [Sidenote: p. -524.] he is called. Wherefore now, O men, be not your own enemies, -nor hesitate to turn again. For Christ is the God over all, Who has -arranged to wash away iniquity from among men, and to make anew the old -man who from the beginning was called His image, thus showing forth -His love towards thee. Having hearkened to Whose august precepts, and -having become a good imitator of the Good One, thou wilt be like unto -and be honoured by Him. For God asks no alms,[121] and has made thee -God for His own glory. - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: The promises before noted at the end of Books VIII and IX -to declare the Doctrine of Truth says nothing of these epitomes, nor -do they always accord with the earlier Books which may be supposed to -be here epitomized. For a suggested explanation of this discrepancy -see Introduction, Vol. I, pp. 18, 19 _supra_. It should also be noted -that, while the author omits here any detailed mention of the contents -of Books II, III, and IV, he can hardly have had Book I before his -eyes at the time of writing, or he would have referred to it directly -instead of quoting as he does from Sextus Empiricus. As has been -said in the Introduction, the “epitome of the heresies” bears closer -relation to Books V-IX, although it omits several heresies included in -the epitomized books. That the writer, if not Hippolytus himself, is -at any rate writing in his name, is plain from the wording of chap. -5, _infra_, and we can hardly suppose a forger so reckless as not to -have read the earlier Books before attempting to epitomize them. On -the other hand, it is perfectly conceivable that Hippolytus had in his -possession notes from which his earlier Books were written, and that -of these only a part remained when he set to work to write Book X. It -would seem, therefore, that only some such hypothesis as that given in -the Introduction really fits the case. - -As to the style of the Book it does not differ materially from that -of the others, save in one particular. This is the frequent omission -of the definite article, which is so frequent as to arouse suspicion -that the scribe may have been here translating from a Latin rather than -copying from a Greek original.] - -[Footnote 2: This is the main reason for supposing that this Book is -that called the _Labyrinth_ which Photius says was by the author of -the work _On the Universe_, attributed by the list on the chair to -Hippolytus. Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, “Hippolytus Romanus.”] - -[Footnote 3: All these were probably described in the missing Books II -and III, together with Book IV, _supra_.] - -[Footnote 4: ἀκαλλώπιστος.] - -[Footnote 5: Book I only is concerned with the teachings of the Greek -philosophers; but Books II and III must, according to the promise in -Vol. I, pp. 63, 64, have contained an exposition of the mystic rites -and astrological doctrine, and Book IV is entirely taken up with magic -and divination. This is confirmed by the statement in Vol. I, p. 119. -Hippolytus must therefore have forgotten this when writing Book X, or -at any rate did not have the earlier Books before him.] - -[Footnote 6: From here to the end of the section on p. 479 Cr., is a -copy from Sextus Empiricus’ work, _Adversus Physicos_, c. 10. So close -is this that we are able by its aid to correct by it the faulty text of -Sextus, and _vice versâ_. Sextus, as a sceptic, was of course as much -opposed to the study of nature as Hippolytus, and was therefore only -interested in showing the discrepancies among its teachers. But how -does this make the quotation from him an “epitome”?] - -[Footnote 7: Not mentioned in Book I.] - -[Footnote 8: Karsten, VIII, p. 45.] - -[Footnote 9: _Il._, XIV, 201.] - -[Footnote 10: _Il._, VII, 99.] - -[Footnote 11: Karsten, IX, p. 49.] - -[Footnote 12: Said to be a quotation from Euripides’ _Hymns_.] - -[Footnote 13: Not mentioned in Book I.] - -[Footnote 14: Cf. pp. 83, 84 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 15: Not mentioned in Book I.] - -[Footnote 16: Not mentioned in Book I.] - -[Footnote 17: φυσιολογία.] - -[Footnote 18: Cf. p. 371 Cr.] - -[Footnote 19: In this chapter on the Naassenes, Hippolytus may be -supposed to have had before him either the whole of Book V or the -notes from which it was written. We may see, therefore, from this, -what his idea of an epitome is. He does not try to condense his former -statements so as to give us a bird’s-eye view of the whole heresy, -but picks out from them a few sentences which seem to him of special -importance. Hence it is only useful to us as a means of checking the -text, and brings us no nearer to an appreciation of the doctrines of -the sect.] - -[Footnote 20: Cf. Vol. I, p. 69 _supra_, where this Ademes is called -Akembes and both he and Euphrates are mentioned as astrologers only. In -Vol. I, p. 149 also the order is reversed and Ademes is called Celbes. -Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._, I, 17, quotes this chapter almost _verbatim_, -thereby showing that it was Book X and not Book V which he copied.] - -[Footnote 21: Words in ( ) added from Theodoret, _ubi cit._] - -[Footnote 22: Cf. Vol. I, pp. 146-148 _supra_, which this chapter -follows closely.] - -[Footnote 23: Words in ( ) added from Vol. I, p. 161 _supra_. Nearly -four lines are wanting here which can be filled from the page quoted.] - -[Footnote 24: Throughout this chapter, the summarizer copies closely -the former account of the Sethians, for which see Vol. I, pp. 160-169 -_supra_. I have not thought it worth while to draw attention to the -slight differences in readings, but it is plain that the meaning in -both cases was as obscure to the summarizer as it is to us.] - -[Footnote 25: φρόνησις. This is evidently taken from the account of -Simon’s doctrine in Book VI, c. 12 (p. 6 _supra_), which says that -the unseen parts of the fire have φρόνησις “and a share of mind,” -without mention of the seen parts. The rest of this chapter, with the -exception of the last sentence attributing supreme power to Simon, is -substantially, but not exactly word for word, identical with c. 12 of -Book VI. Cf. pp. 247, 250 and 259 Cr.] - -[Footnote 26: The only ground for this assertion seems to be Simon’s -statement to Helen of Tyre (see p. 15 _supra_), that he was the “Power -over all things,” which seems to be explained by that on p. 12 _supra_, -that the Power which Stands, etc., is _potentially_ in all things.] - -[Footnote 27: πρωτογενέτειραν. While in Book VI, of which these -chapters profess to be a summary, the author describes Nous and -Aletheia with their projectors as the descendants of Bythos alone, he -here gives an account of the rival opinion that Bythos had a spouse -called Sigê, and he reckons her in with her descendants so as to make -up the number of eight.] - -[Footnote 28: This is, of course, the Horos of Book VI.] - -[Footnote 29: This word is also used in Book VI (see p. 286 Cr.), as -the exact converse of the Pleroma or Fulness.] - -[Footnote 30: It is curious that throughout this chapter there is no -attempt to quote directly from Book VI, and that it is evidently the -opinions of the Italic school of Valentinus and not the Anatolic that -the author is here summarizing. In the next chapter, as will be seen, -he resumes direct quotations.] - -[Footnote 31: So far, the author is transcribing almost _verbatim_ the -statements in Book VII, cf. pp. 346-350 Cr.] - -[Footnote 32: This is not said of the Holy Spirit in Book VII, cf. pp. -70, 71 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 33: This, too, is a new statement, although it may perhaps be -implied from what is said on pp. 72, 73 and 76 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 34: So p. 76 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 35: Save as before noted, everything in this chapter is -to be found in the account of Basilides given in Book VII. The few -exceptions show that the summarizer had assimilated its contents and -an intelligent knowledge of Basilides’ teaching. He entirely omits, -however, the prediction of the Great Ignorance.] - -[Footnote 36: The summarizer here takes Justinus from among the Ophites -of Book V, where he is to be found in the earlier part of the text, and -puts him after Basilides.] - -[Footnote 37: Reading αὐτῇς for αὐτοῦ.] - -[Footnote 38: These are omitted from the text, possibly because the -summarizer did not wish to repeat names which might be used in magic. -Cruice supplies them in his text from Book V, Vol. I, p. 173 _supra_, -which see.] - -[Footnote 39: The words in round brackets ( ) are as elsewhere in this -chapter supplied by Cruice from Book V.] - -[Footnote 40: Cf. Vol. I, p. 175 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 41: There is nothing in this chapter which is not taken from -the account of Justinus’ doctrines in Book V, nor anything to show that -the summarizer had any knowledge of these except from this.] - -[Footnote 42: τινὰς τινῶν πρώτους!] - -[Footnote 43: So the Codex. Cruice has γεννητόν, “begotten,” but I see -no reason for the alteration.] - -[Footnote 44: κόσμησιν. Perhaps “adornment.”] - -[Footnote 45: ἰδέαι.] - -[Footnote 46: Cf. p. 102 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 47: ἐκτύπωμα.] - -[Footnote 48: ἰδέαι. As before he means “patterns” or “exemplars.”] - -[Footnote 49: παραγεννηθῆναι.] - -[Footnote 50: Here again there is nothing which cannot be found in Book -VIII (see pp. 99-105 _supra_), from which this chapter is evidently -taken. As has before been said, the summarizer to arrive at this has -omitted all mention of Satornilus, Menander and Carpocrates, while the -other systems mentioned in Book VII, he has placed after the Docetae -instead of before them.] - -[Footnote 51: The summarizer here uses for the first time in our text -the expression “First Man,” which plays so large a part in later -heresies such as Manichæism. For its early appearance in Western Asia -and its influence see Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, c. 4, “Der -Urmensch,” and _Forerunners_, I, p. lxi, and II, pp. 292, 293.] - -[Footnote 52: πάθη. He evidently refers to the ten plagues as on p. 109 -_supra_.] - -[Footnote 53: He omits the “My God ... my understanding” of the letter -to Theophrastus, on p. 110 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 54: He alters the ἐξιδιοποιούμενος (cf. p. 415 Cr.) to -κατιδιοποιούμενος--a fair proof of the inaccuracy of the scribe. Except -for the inaccuracies noted, however, there is no statement in this -summary which cannot be found in Book VIII, pp. 106-111 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 55: For these few lines, the summarizer has evidently not -taken the trouble to refer to the author’s statements about Tatian in -Book VIII, p. 111 _supra_. He now omits all reference to Justin Martyr, -there said to be Tatian’s teacher, and to Tatian’s peculiar ideas about -the salvation of Adam; while he introduces a special world-creating -aeon not mentioned elsewhere.] - -[Footnote 56: Here he omits the heresies of the Quartodecimans and -the Encratites, which receive notice in Book VIII, pp. 113, 115, -116 _supra_, and passes on to Marcion, who was a contemporary of -Valentinus. It is plain, therefore, that he does not attempt in the -summary to keep either to order of date or to that of the earlier -books.] - -[Footnote 57: οὐδὲν ὅλως πεποιηκέναι. So the Codex. Some word seems to -be missing; but perhaps the passage should read οὐδὲν τῶν ὅλων, “none -of the universals.”] - -[Footnote 58: ἀλόγως, “unreasonably.”] - -[Footnote 59: Matt. vii. 18.] - -[Footnote 60: This also is certainly not taken from the chapters on -Marcion in Book VII, pp. 82-90 _supra_, which are mainly devoted to an -attempt to prove Marcion to have plagiarized from Empedocles. Nor is it -from Irenæus or from the tractate _Adversus omnes hæreses_.] - -[Footnote 61: συντάγματα, “summaries”?] - -[Footnote 62: The substance of this can be found in the account of -Apelles in Book VII, pp. 96-97 _supra_; but the summarizer does not use -the phrases of the earlier book, and he can hardly have had it before -him.] - -[Footnote 63: As before (p. 389 Cr.), Macmahon here translates καὶ -δυνάμεις ἐπιτελέσαι, “he wrought miracles.”] - -[Footnote 64: This, on the other hand, is taken almost _verbatim_ from -c. 33 of Book VII (pp. 92, 93 _supra_), the few slight differences -between the two chapters being not other than a careless scribe might -be expected to make.] - -[Footnote 65: This also from Book VII, p. 93 _supra_, but slightly -condensed.] - -[Footnote 66: This also appears to be condensed from the account of -Theodotus in Book VII, pp. 93, 94 _supra_. The summarizer adds to it -the alleged denial by Theodotus of Christ’s divinity, which does not -appear in Book VII.] - -[Footnote 67: This, too, is not inconsistent with the account of “other -Theodotians” in Book VII, pp 94, 95 _supra_, but omits all reference to -the Nicolaitans.] - -[Footnote 68: Here the summarizer reverts to Book VIII, pp. 113, 114 -_supra_, from which his account of the Phrygians or Montanists appears -to be taken. The phrases used are not identical, and while Book VIII -merely says that the Montanist heresy agrees with the Patripassianism -of the Noetian, the Summary declares that the first was absolutely -derived from the second.] - -[Footnote 69: κατὰ καιροὺς καλούμενον πρὸς τὰ συμβαίνοντα. Cf. the -καλούμενον κατὰ χρόνων τροπήν, p. 434 Cr. Otherwise this chapter seems -to be a condensed paraphrase rather than a series of extracts from -Book IX, the summarizer having here added together the “heresies” so -called of Noetus and Callistus. As mentioned in the Introduction, he -is careful not to mention that Callistus was a Pope, and in the last -sentence but one, he omits the name of Sabellius which is mentioned in -the earlier book. Cf. p. 130 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 70: He now reverts to Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian -wrote, and who must therefore in the time of Callistus have long been -dead. The few lines given here correspond to the opening sentences of -the chapter on this heretic in Book VIII, p. 112 _supra_, which see.] - -[Footnote 71: μεταγγιζόμενον, lit., “poured” as from one vessel into -another--a considerable amplification of the statement in Book IX, p. -134 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 72: Water and Earth are the only two “elements” mentioned in -the exorcisms attributed to the Elchesaites in Book IX, p. 135 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 73: The statements in this account of the Elchesaites are all -to be found in the description of them in Book IX, pp. 132-138 _supra_; -but the same words are not used, and there is nothing to show that the -summarizer had the earlier book before him at the time of writing.] - -[Footnote 74: Cruice suggests that the considerable lacuna that there -evidently is here was filled by a summary of the chapters on the Jewish -sects with which Book IX ends (see pp. 455-472 Cr.). This hardly seems -to correspond with the form of what is left; but it is not impossible -that we have here excerpts from the book on chronology which we know -Hippolytus to have written. Another suggestion is that what follows is -from his _Commentary on Genesis_, of which a few fragments survive.] - -[Footnote 75: Were these ἑτέροι λόγοι the treatise “On the All” which -Hippolytus wrote?] - -[Footnote 76: As throughout the words in round brackets ( ) are -supplied by Cruice. In this chapter they are mainly taken from Gen. -xi., which see.] - -[Footnote 77: Καὰθ. In all these names I have used the spelling of the -A. V. as being more familiar to the general reader than that of the -LXX.] - -[Footnote 78: If Abraham did not beget Isaac until he had been -twenty-five years in Canaan, the figures would be for Abraham -twenty-five, for Isaac sixty, for Jacob eighty-seven, for Levi forty, -for Kohath four. But this makes 216 at least.] - -[Footnote 79: So the fragment of the _Chronicon_ attributed to -Hippolytus in Fabricius, S. Hippolyt. _Opera_, p. 50, which perhaps -goes to show the authorship of the Summary.] - -[Footnote 80: φιλομαθέσιν.] - -[Footnote 81: ἐπὶ τούτων, that is reckoning from Noah to Eber.] - -[Footnote 82: Cruice would read 495 years.] - -[Footnote 83: ἐκτεθείμεθα. The phrase that he uses everywhere in the -book for statements in _this_ work. See n. on previous page.] - -[Footnote 84: σοφία. This is in pursuance of Hippolytus’ favourite -theory that philosophy was the source of all heresy.] - -[Footnote 85: ἀρξάντων. Macmahon translates “were born,” but I think -the word is never used in that sense by Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 86: ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. An unusual phrase here.] - -[Footnote 87: Gen. i, 23.] - -[Footnote 88: Reading γένους with the Codex instead of the γένος of -Cruice.] - -[Footnote 89: Because these “God-fearing men” were before the Flood, -and the others could only have descended from Shem, Ham or Japhet.] - -[Footnote 90: This seems to be the author’s meaning, but the reading is -not very well settled. Cruice translates _qui non elegantibus verbis -divina coluimus_, which Macmahon follows.] - -[Footnote 91: This is, of course, an allusion to the theories of the -“Barbarians” on the Deity set out in Book IV. Cf. Vol. I, p. 104 -_supra_.] - -[Footnote 92: It is curious that throughout this chapter he uses -“spirit” as the fourth element instead of “air.” So Photius, quoting -from the work “On the All,” which is attributed to Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 93: This work is known to us by the list on the chair -mentioned in the Introduction, and by a notice by Photius, who seems -to have read the work under the name of Josephus. Cf. Salmon in _D. C. -B._, s.n. “Hippolytus Romanus.”] - -[Footnote 94: This Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος which Philo distinguishes from -the Λόγος προφορικός seems to have been a phrase first adopted into -Christian theology by Theophilus of Antioch.] - -[Footnote 95: ἅμα.] - -[Footnote 96: τὸ κατὰ ἕν.] - -[Footnote 97: ὑπουργῇ.] - -[Footnote 98: Like most of the ancients, Hippolytus does not know that -fish have sex.] - -[Footnote 99: Cf. Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xix. 17.] - -[Footnote 100: ἐπιδέχεται λύσιν, “receives dissolution.”] - -[Footnote 101: αὐτεξούσιον, “his own authority”?] - -[Footnote 102: _i. e._ to his passions. See p. 178 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 103: πάντα ἔχον τὰ ἐναντία.] - -[Footnote 104: So Cruice. Macmahon says, “which evil is not consummated -except you actually commit some piece of wickedness,” But the reading -is very uncertain.] - -[Footnote 105: τί καὶ νόμος ὡρίζετο, “why was the Law enacted?”] - -[Footnote 106: πρὸ ἑωσφόρου, “Before the Morning Star.” Cf. 2 Peter i. -18, 19.] - -[Footnote 107: διὰ τὸ προφαίνειν. The real derivation is from πρόφημι.] - -[Footnote 108: Cruice points out the likeness between this doctrine -of the Word speaking through the Prophets, and that with which Origen -begins his treatise, Περὶ Ἀρχῶν (I, § 1), that before the Incarnation -“Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets.” It was -doubtless this, and the likeness between the theory of the origin of -evil as given on pp. 518, 519 Cr. of our text, and that of Origen -_in Joann_, II, 7, 8, which caused some commentator to write in the -margin of the Codex, Ὠριγένης καὶ Ὠριγένους δόξα: “Origen and Origen’s -opinions.” The words used in the two cases are too unlike to suggest -any identity of authorship or conscious borrowing; but it is perfectly -probable that Origen when in Rome communicated with Hippolytus as head -of the Greek-speaking community there, and that they had many ideas -in common. This would account at once for the likeness between the -passages noted and for the confusion between Hippolytus and Origen -as the author of the _Philosophumena_, while it throws new light on -Origen’s condemnation for heresy.] - -[Footnote 109: ἑκουσίῳ προαιρέσει.] - -[Footnote 110: Reading with Cruice πεφυρακότα for the πεφορηκότα of -Miller. Although Miller’s reading accords with the Scriptural “put on -the old man,” the allusion is evidently to the φυράμα of a few lines -lower down.] - -[Footnote 111: This is evidently an allusion to the extraordinary -theory of Hippolytus’ master, Irenæus (Book II, c. 33, § 3, p. 331, -Harvey), that Christ having suffered at 30 years old lived and taught -after the Resurrection until He was “40 or 50,” thus “passing through -every age.” Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 61 and note.] - -[Footnote 112: σκόπον, “arm” or “goal.”] - -[Footnote 113: φυράμα, lit., “dough” or plastic substance.] - -[Footnote 114: An allusion to the Word on the Cross.] - -[Footnote 115: περὶ τὸν Θεῖον.] - -[Footnote 116: It is curious that he does not call them Romans.] - -[Footnote 117: The Greek name for the province called by the Romans -Africa.] - -[Footnote 118: He is here repeating the phrase used on p. 150, with -which he begins this Book. Its repetition shows the continuity of this -last and that it was all written at the same time and by the same -author.] - -[Footnote 119: Ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων κολαστῶν. Tartaruchian is a Coptic -form. See Budge’s _Miscellaneous Texts of Upper Egypt_, 1915, p. 590.] - -[Footnote 120: ὁμιλητης Θεοῦ, Cr. _familiaris_, Macm., “companion of.”] - -[Footnote 121: οὐ πτωχεύει. The phrase has given much concern to -commentators. Cruice suggests δὲ γὰρ πολυωρεῖ, “has a great esteem -for thee.” Wordsworth translates “has a longing for thee.” Macmahon -“(by such signal condescension) does not diminish aught of the dignity -of His divine perfection.” The phrase is probably an allusion to the -heathen notion formally stated by Aelius Aristides and others that the -gods _had need_ of the sacrifices of mortals.] - - - - - INDEX - - - Adam of Cabala, i. 120 _n._ 6; - the first man, _ap._ Chaldæans, i. 122; - arch-man of Samothrace, i. 132; - made by Jaldabaoth and his sons, _ap._ Ophites, i. 122 _n._ 3. - _See_ Tatian - - Adamas, supreme god of Naassenes, i. 120; - the “unsubdued,” epithet of Hades, Dionysos and Attis, i. 120 _n._ 6; - called the arch-man, i. 128, 129; - Isaiah’s words attributed to, i. 134 - - Adonis, Assyrian name of Attis, i. 124 - - Aetius, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 5; - his _de Placitis Philosoph._ quoted, i. 39 _n._ 3, 43 _n._ 1, 56 _n._ 1 - - Aipolos = goatherd according to Phrygians, i. 137 - - Akembes, the Carystian, joint founder of Peratic heresy, i. 69, 149; ii. - 154. - _See_ Euphrates - - Alcibiades, of Apamea. _See_ Elchesaites - - Alcinous, chief source of Hippolytus for Plato’s doctrines, i. 51 _n._ 3 - - Alés, Adhémar d’, his _Théologie de St. Hippolyte_ quoted, i. 66 _n._ 1 - - Amygdalus, Phrygian name of Attis, i. 140 - - Anaxagoras, his teaching, i. 44-46 - - Anaximander, his teaching, i. 42, 43 - - Anaximenes, his teaching, i. 43, 44 - - Andronicus the Peripatetic, quoted by Sethiani, i. 167 - - Apelles, follower of Marcion. His tenets, ii. 96, 97; - his prophetess Philumena, ii. 96; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 166 - - Apocatastasis, return of worlds to Deity, ii. 75 _n._ 4 - - Apparitions of gods, how produced by magicians, i. 97, 100 - - Apsethus the Libyan, story of, ii. 3, 4 - - Archelaus, his teaching, i. 46, 47 - - Aristotle, i. 16; - his teaching, i. 55-57; - his _Categories_, i. 55 _n._ 5; - his Quintessence, i. 56 _n._ 1; ii. 72 _n._ 4; - phrase of, used by Simon M., ii. 11 _n._ 4; - Basilides’ tenets attributed to, ii. 62-66. _See_ Plato - - Arithmomancy, i. 83-87 - - Armellini attributes _Philosophumena_ to Novatian, i. 6 - - Arnold, Prof. E. V., his _Roman Stoicism_ quoted, i. 57 _n._ 3, 127 - _n._ 3, 136 _n._ 5; ii. 45 _n._ 7, 79 _n._ 6 - - Asclepiades, i. 19; ii. 152 - - Assyrians = Syrians, i. 123 _n._ 6; - teach triune nature of Deity, _ib._ - - Astrology, source of heresy, i. 34; - the Chaldæan system of, i. 67-69; - folly of, i. 70-75, 113; - zodiacal types of, i. 88-91 - - Astronomers, calculations of, i. 76-83; - Hippolytus’ contempt for, i. 82 - - Athenæus, his _Deipnosophistæ_ quoted, i. 108 _n._ 3 - - Attis, legend of, i. 118 _n._ 1; - hymns to, sung in Mysteries of great Mother, i. 141, 142; - names of: Adonis, Osiris, Moon, Sophia, Adamna, Corybas, Papas, - Aipolos, Amygdalus, Syrictas, _ib._ - - Babylonians, say god is Darkness, _ap._ Hippolytus, i. 104 - - Baptism, in primitive Church followed by milk and honey, i. 136 _n._ 9 - - Barbelo, the earth-goddess, of Gnostics, i. 139 _n._ 5 - - _Baruch_, book of. _See_ Justinus - - Basilides, i. 13, 14, 16; - his tenets, ii. 59-79; - hearer of Glaucias, ii. 59 _n._ 1; - of Matthias, ii. 66; - his son Isidore, _ib._; - his God-who-is-Not, ii. 67. - The Panspermia, ii. 68; - Ascension of First Sonhood, ii. 69; - of Second Sonhood, ii. 70; - the Boundary Spirit, _ib._; - the Great Ruler and his greater Son, ii. 71, 72; - the second ruler or Hebdomad, ii. 73; - descent of the Gospel, ii. 75; - the 365 heavens and Habrasax, ii. 76; - light which shines upon Jesus and His Passion, _ib._; - Apocatastasis of Formlessness and Mission of Jesus, ii. 77-79; - the great ignorance, ii. 77; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 159-161. - _See_ Simon of Cyrene, Aristotle - - Baubo. _See_ Hecate - - Baur, Chr. F., attributes _Philosophumena_ to Caius the presbyter, i. 6 - - Beelzebuth, made from perplexity of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 31; - name parody of Jabezebuth, ii. 31 _n._ 2 - - Benn, Alfred W., his _Philosophy of Greece_ quoted, i. 37 _n._ 6, 43 - _n._ 1 - - Bigourdan, G., his _L’Astronomie: Evolution des Idées_, etc., quoted, - i. 80 _n._ 3 - - Blastus, heretic mentioned by pseudo-Tertullian, i. 13 - - Bouché-Leclercq, A., his _L’Astrologie Grecque_ quoted, i. 67 _n._ 1, 74 - _n._ 5; 108 _n._ 2, 148 _n._ 4 - - Bousset, Prof. Wilhelm, his _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_ quoted, i. 123 - _n._ 2; ii. 80 _n._ 2, 163 _n._ 7 - - Brachmans, their lives and teaching, i. 60-61; ii. 99 _n._ 1 - - Brandt, Prof. A. S. H. W. _See_ Elchesaites - - Brimo, name of Demeter in Mysteries, i. 138 - - Bruce, the, Papyrus, i. 3 _n._ 1; - quoted, ii. 12 _n._ 2 - - Buddhism, known to Clement of Alexandria, ii. 59 _n._ 1 - - Budge, Sir Ernest A. W. T., his _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts_ quoted, i. - 30; ii. 178 _n._ 1 - - Bunsen, Baron von, his _Hippolytus and his Age_, i. 5 - - - Cabala, the Jewish process of _gematria_, i. 131 _n._ 1; - explanation of, ii. 40 _n._ 3; - measurements in, ii. 133 _n._ 4 - - Caius the presbyter, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 6 - - Callistus, Pope (218-223 A.D.), i. 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 29; - leans towards heresy of Noetus, ii. 118; - his life and tenets, ii. 124-132; - fails with Sabellius, ii. 124; - calls Hippolytus’ party ditheists, ii. 125, 129; - formerly slave to Carpophorus, ii. 125; - his misdeeds and flight, ii. 126; - condemned to mill by Carpophorus, _ib._; - makes riot in synagogue and sent to mines by Fuscianus, ii. 127; - released by Victor and Marcia, ii. 128, 129; - promoted to charge of cemetery by Zephyrinus, ii. 128; - excommunicates Sabellius, ii. 129; - his leanings towards Sabellius and Theodotus, ii. 130; - favours laxity of morals in Church, ii. 130-132; - and second baptism, ii. 132 - - Carpocrates, i. 17; - his tenets, ii. 90-92; - assigns sinless soul to Jesus, ii. 91; - says all men may be Christs, _ib._; - lawlessness of followers of, ii. 91-92. - _See_ Magic - - Carpophorus. _See_ Callistus - - Caulacau, used with Saulasau and Zeesar by Naassenes, i. 131; - Adamas identified with, _ib._; - name in which Saviour descended, _ib._ _n._ 6 - - Cerdo, i. 16; - teacher of Marcion, ii. 95, 96 - - Cerinthus, i. 17; - his tenets, ii. 92, 93; - adoptionist views of, ii. 93; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 166 - - Chaldæans, horoscopy of, described, i. 67-76 - - Charles, R. H., his _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of O. T._ quoted, i. - 154 - - Cicero, quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1, 107 _n._ 2 - - Clement of Alexandria, i. 11; - quoted, i. 144 _n._ 2, 146 _n._ 1; ii. 12 _n._ 5, 20 _n._ 1, 78 _n._ - 8, 105 _n._ 4, 122 _n._ 3 - - Cleomenes, preacher of Noetian heresy, ii. 118, 123 - - Colarbasus, his arithmetical heresy, i. 83; - name of, ii. 57 _n._ 4 - - Constellation figures, interpretation of, i. 107-114 - - Corybas, god of Phrygians, i. 133; - his legend, _ib._ _n._ 5 - - Cruice, Abbé Patrice M., _Philosophumena_, etc., i. 4 _n._ 5; - _Études sur les P._, i. 12 _n._ 2 - - Cumont, Franz, his _Textes et Monuments de Mithra_ quoted, i. 98 _n._ 5; - _Les Mystères de Mithra_, _ib._; - _Recherches sur le Manichéisme_, i. 110 _n._ 2; - _Cosmogonie Manichéenne_, i. 176 _n._ 5 - - Cybele, or Great Mother, worship of, i. 3; - legend of, i. 118 _n._ 1. - _See_ Attis, Naassenes, Ophites, Rhea - - Cyphi, Egyptian incense used in magic, i. 92 - - - Demiurge, or architect of Universe; - fiery god of Naassenes, i. 128; - made from fear of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 30 - - Democritus, his teaching, i. 48, 49 - - Devil, ruler of this world made from grief of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, - ii. 31 - - Didymus of Alexandria, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 5 - - Diels, Hermann, edits Book I. of _Philosophumena_, i. 31 _n._ 1 - - Diodorus of Eretria, mentioned by no other author, i. 38 _n._ 6 - - Diogenes Laertius, source of Hippolytus’ summary of philosophies, - i. 64 _n._ 2; - quoted, i. 35 _n._ 7, 36 _nn._ 2, 3; 37 _n._ 6; 40 _nn._ 2, 3; 41 - _nn._ 2, 3; 42 _n._ 1; 44 _nn._ 1, 3; 48 _nn._ 3, 4; 54 _n._ 1; 56 - _nn._ 1, 2; 58 _n._ 1; 59 _nn._ 1, 3; - mentions Gymnosophists and Druids, 60 _n._ 1 - - Docetae, i. 15, 17; - their tenets, ii. 99-105; - interpretation of story of fig-tree, ii. 99, 100. - And of Parable of Sower, ii. 101; - views on Annunciation and Passion of Jesus, ii. 104; - probably Valentinian, ii. 105 _n._ 4; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 162, 163 - - Döllinger, Dr. Ignaz, i. 6, 7; - his Hippolytus and Callistus quoted, ii. 124 _n._ 1; 125 _n._ 3; 126 - _nn._ 4, 6; 127 _nn._ 1, 2, 4; 128 _nn._ 4, 5; 129 _n._ 4; 130 - _nn._ 1, 7; 131 _n._ 6 - - Dositheus, a Samaritan heretic, i. 13, 14 - - Druids, Pythagoreans, i. 61, 62. - _See_ Diogenes Laertius - - Duchesne, Mgr. Louis, his _Histoire Ancienne de l’Église_ quoted, i. - 6, 7; ii. 124 _n._ 1; 125 _n._ 7 - - Duncker, Ludwig, _Philosophumena_, etc., i. 4 - - - Ebionites, their tenets, ii. 93; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 167. - _See_ Mughtasila - - Ecphantus, his teaching, i. 50 - - Edem (Eden), garden of, compared to brain, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 143; - river of, compared to serpent, _ap._ Peratæ, i. 155; - to four senses of man, _ap._ Simon Magus, ii. 10; - name of Israel wife of Elohim, _ap._ Justinus, i. 175 - - Egypt = the body, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 130; - and Peratæ, i. 155 - - Egyptians, used for Alexandrians, i. 40 _n._ 1; - astrology of, 48 n. 4; - “Wisdom” of, i. 104-107; - _Gospel accdg. to_, quoted, i. 123 - - Elchesaites, i. 14, 17; - Brandt’s _Elchesai_, ii. 132 _n._ 3; - Alcibiades introduces heresy of, into Rome, ii. 133; - the _Book of Elchesai_ quoted, _ib._; - their belief in transmigration, ii. 134; - repeated baptisms and spells used by, ii. 135, 136; - prophecies of, ii. 137; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 169, 170. - _See_ Mughtasila - - Eleusis (Mysteries of), words used in, i. 129; - rites of, described, i. 138, 139 - - Empedocles, i. 9, 16; - his teaching, i. 40, 41 - - Encratites, their tenets, ii. 114, 115; - their connection with Tatian, ii. 114 _n._ 5; - extreme asceticism of, ii. 115 - - Epicurus, his teaching, i. 58, 59 - - Epiphanes (supposed follower of Valentinus), his tenets, ii. 38 - - Epiphanius, quoted, i. 5, 11, 122 _n._ 3; ii. 39 _n._ 7, 48 _n._ 2, - 49 _n._ 1, 76 _n._ 1, 80 _nn._ 2, 3; 90 _n._ 4, 92 _nn._ 3, 4; 93 - _n._ 7, 95 _n._ 4, 113 _n._ 6, 118 _n._ 1, 132 _n._ 3 - - Essenes, Book of Job attributed to, i. 109 _n._ 2; - Ebionites and, 110 _n._ 3. - _See_ Jews, Mughtasila, Zealots - - Euphrates (the Peratic), his story of war in heaven, i. 69; - meaning of name of, i. 146 _n._ 1; - founder of Ophite heresy, _ib._; - and with Akembes of Peratæ, i. 149 - - Eusebius, quoted, i. 7, 14 _n._ 1; ii. 96 _n._ 2, 111 _n._ 2, 112 - _n._ 6, 132 _n._ 3 - - - Fabricius, edits Book I of _Philosophumena_, i. 1 - - Faye, Eugène de, his _Introduction_, etc., and _Gnostiques et - Gnosticisme_ quoted, i. 8 _n._ 3 - - Fessler, Prof., attributes _Philosophumena_ to Caius, i. 6 - - Firmicus, J. Maternus, his _Matheseos_ quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1 - - Flora. _See_ Ptolemy, follower of V. - - Flügel, Prof., his _Mani_ quoted, ii. 132 _n._ 3 - - Fuscianus, prefect of city (188-193 A.D.), sentences Callistus to - mines, ii. 127 - - - Ganschinietz, Richard, his _Hippolytus’ Kapitel gegen die Magier_ - quoted, i. 92 _n._ 2 - - Geryon, the triple-bodied, pervades everything, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 131 - - Gnostics, Mysteries of, i. 32, 33; - derive tenets from Greeks and barbarians, i. 119. - _See_ Naassenes, Philo - - Graillot, L., his _Le Culte de Cybèle_ quoted, i. 135 _n._ 1 - - Greeks, Phœnician origin of, attributed to Herodotus, i. 111; - tenets of Physicists among, taken from Sextus Empiricus, ii. 150-153 - - Gronovius, annotates Book I of _Philosophumena_, i. 1 - - - Hatch, Edwin, Dr., his _Hibbert Lectures_ quoted, i. 38 _n._ 1, 123 - _n._ 4, 136 _n._ 9; ii. 45 _n._ 6, 52 _n._ 8, 62 _n._ 7. - - Hebrew words used by magicians, i. 92, 93. - - Hecate, hymn to, i. 100, 101; - identified with Baubo, Gorgo, Mormo and Mene, i. 101; - also with Artemis, Persephone and Eriskigal, _ib._ _n._ 1 - - Hemerobaptists, i. 18; ii. 132 _n._ 3. - _See_ Mughtasila - - Heracleon, follower of Valentinus, his tenets not described by - Hippolytus, ii. 38 _n._ 2 - - Heraclides of Pontus, i. 19; ii. 152 - - Heraclitus of Ephesus, i. 10, 16, 17; - his teaching, i. 41; ii. 119. - _See_ Noetus - - Hermes, street statues of, i. 127 - - Hermogenes, i. 16; - his tenets, ii. 111-112; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 169 - - Hesiod (the poet), his _Theogony_ quoted, i. 62, 63 - - Hippasus, i. 19; ii. 151 - - Hippo, his teaching, i. 50, 51 - - Hippocrates, quoted, i. 126 - - Hippolytus, schismatic Pope (218-235 A.D.), i. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, - 16; - denies Pauline authorship of _Hebrews_, i. 23 _n._ 1; - calls himself guardian of the Church, i. 34; - heterodoxy of, ii. 125 _n._ 3, 129 _n._ 4; - _Chronicon_ of, ii. 171; - his own doctrine stated, ii. 172 to end; - his _Substance of the All_, ii. 173 - - Homoousios, first used by Hippolytus, ii. 69 _n._ 1 - - Hyacinthus. _See_ Marcia - - - Irenæus, St., Hippolytus’ indebtedness to, i. 11, 12, 13; - his _Five Books Against Heresies_ quoted, i. 122 _n._ 3, 139 _n._ 5, - 160 _n._ 1; ii. 15 _n._ 2, 17 _n._ 4, 25 _n._ 6, 27 _n._ 2, 38 - _n._ 2, 39 _nn._ 3, 4; 40 _n._ 2, 44 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 5, 48 _n._ - 1, 49 _nn._ 2, 3, 6; 50 _n._ 2, 51 _nn._ 2, 8; 53 _n._ 3, 54 _n._ - 1, 56 _n._ 2, 57 _nn._ 4, 5; 59 _n._ 1, 76 _n._ 1, 79 _n._ 2, 80 - _n._ 2, 90 _n._ 4, 91 _n._ 5, 92 _nn._ 3, 4; 93 _nn._ 4, 5; 111 - _nn._ 2, 3. - _See_ Jesus - - Isidore. _See_ Basilides - - Isis identified with the Earth, i. 105 _n._ 4; - Mysteries of, i. 126 - - - Jacobi, Prof., first to declare Hippolytus author of _Philosophumena_, - i. 5 - - Jaldabaoth, a fiery god, i. 128, 132 _n._ 3; ii. 102 _n._ 9; - a “fourth number,” _ib._ - _See_ Adam, Sophia - - James, the brother of the Lord, alleged transmitter of Naassene - doctrines, i. 121; ii. 153 - - Jerusalem, the heavenly, mother of all living, i. 130; - the city in Phœnicia, i. 138 - - Jesus, His triple nature, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 121; - the Perfect Man, i. 134; - reason of His Incarnation, i. 145; - His triple powers, _ap._ Peratæ, i. 147; - Intermediate between the Father and matter, i. 158; - Son of Joseph and Mary, _ap._ Justinus and Carpocrates, i. 178; ii. - 96; - the great High Priest, ii. 29; - mystic name of, _ap._ Irenæus, ii. 47; - self-generated, _ap._ Marcus, ii. 52; - His Illumination Mission and Passion, _ap._ Basilides, ii. 78, 79; - the One God of Zephyrinus, ii. 123; - so of Callistus, ii. 129. - _See_ Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Docetae, Justinus - - Jeû of Bruce Papyrus, called the Great Man, i. 122 _n._ 4 - - Jews, history of, from Josephus and others, ii. 138-148; - divided into Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, ii. 139; - tenets of Essenes, ii. 139-145; - the like of Pharisees, ii. 145; - the like of Sadducees, ii. 145-147; - all expect Messiah, ii. 147; - chronology of history of, ii. 170-172 - - Josephus, i. 10 _n._ 3; i. 17. - _See_ Jews - - Jothor, father-in-law of Moses, i. 131 - - Justin Martyr, says Simon Magus claimed divinity, i. 14 - - Justinus, the Gnostic, i. 3; - perhaps not Ophite, i. 28 _n._ 2; - his tenets, i. 169-180; - probably one of the later Gnostics, i. 169 _n._ 4; - his oath of secrecy, i. 171, 179; - his _Baruch_ quoted, i. 171; - allegorizes Herodotus’ Scythian story, i. 172; - his Triad of the Good One, Elohim and Edem, i. 172, 173; - the twenty-four angels of, and their names, i. 173; - likeness of these to Bar Khôni’s Ophites, _ib._ _nn._ 3, 4; - angels of, called Trees, i. 174; - creation of protoplasts, i. 174; - ascent of Elohim, i. 175, 176; - sin of Eve and Naas, i. 176; - origin of evil, i. 177; - Heracles a Saviour, _ib._; - Jesus called by Baruch when twelve years old, i. 178; - explanation of Pagan myths, i. 179; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 161, 162; - put by summarizer after Basilides, i. 161 _n._ 2 - - - Kessler, Konrad, his _Mani_ quoted, i. 82 _n._ 2 - - King, C. W., his _Gnostics and their Remains_ quoted, ii. 17 _n._ 2 - - - Lane, E. W., his _Modern Egyptians_ quoted, i. 97 _n._ 2 - - Langdon, Dr. Stephen, his _Tammuz and Ishtar_ quoted, i. 105 _n._ 3 - - Latinisms in text of _Philosophumena_, i. 23 - - Leemans, Prof. C., his _Papyri Græci_ quoted, ii. 44 _n._ 4 - - Legge, F., his _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_ quoted, i. 2 - _n._ 2, 9 _n._ 1, 27 _n._ 1, 39 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 1, 94 _n._ 1, 105 - _nn._ 3, 4; 109 _n._ 2, 114 _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 1, 2, 3; - 128 _n._ 2, 130 _n._ 1, 135 _n._ 4, 137 _n._ 2, 139 _n._ 5, 155 - _nn._ 2, 3; 156 n. 4, 160 _n._ 1, 162 _n._ 2, 165 _n._ 2, 169 - _n._ 5, 173 _n._ 4, 174 _n._ 2, 175 _n._ 2; ii. 7 _nn._ 1, 3; 25 - _n._ 3, 34 _n._ 5, 72 _n._ 3, 82 _n._ 3, 88 _n._ 3, 89 _n._ 2, 95 - _n._ 4, 97 _n._ 1, 103 _n._ 6, 163 _n._ 7 - - Leucippus, his teaching, i. 48 - - Lipsius, R. A., opposes Hippolytus’ authorship, i. 6; - his articles in _D.C.B._ quoted, ii. 38 _nn._ 1, 2 - - Lucian of Samosata, his _Alexander_ quoted, i. 92 _n._ 2, 99 n. 4; - follower of Cerdo, ii. 96 - - - Macmahon, J. H., translates _Philosophumena_, i. 5 - - Magic, its connection with astrology, i. 91 _n._ 4; - practised by Simon’s disciples, ii. 16; - and Carpocratians, ii. 91 - - Magicians, tricks of, described, i. 92-103 - - Man, Perfect, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 123, 134, 138; - in _Pistis Sophia_, i. 123 _n._ 3; - _ap._ Sethiani, i. 165; - First, _ap._ Manichæans, i. 27, 123 _n._ 2; - expression used in Summary, ii. 163. - _See_ Adam, Adamas, Monoimus, Pindar - - Manichæism, the Atlas or Omophorus of, i. 110 _n._ 2; - First Man of, captured by powers of darkness, i. 123 _n._ 2; ii. 7 - _n._ 3; - hostility of, to Jews, i. 165 _n._ 3; - Justinus’s anticipation of, i. 169 _n._ 4, 176 _n._ 5; - Valentinus’s, ii. 17 _n._ 5; - evocation of First Man in, ii. 34 _n._ 5; - our earth worst of all worlds, ii. 35 _n._ 3; - column of praises in, ii. 50 _n._ 5; - secrecy of, ii. 59 _n._ 1. - _See_ Cumont, Flügel, Kessler - - Marcia, concubine of Commodus, ii. 127; - takes counsel with Pope Victor, _ib._; - her foster brother Hyacinthus, _ib._ - - Marcion, i. 10, 16, 17; - his tenets, ii. 82-90; - compared with those of Empedocles, ii. 82-88; - Prepon’s address to Bardesanes, ii. 89; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 165 - - Marcus, follower of Valentinus, i. 12; - his tenets, ii. 40-57; - his frauds and juggling tricks, ii. 41-43; - vision of the Tetrad, ii. 45-48; - his cabalistic system of numbers, ii. 48-56 - - Mariam, aunt of Moses, i. 131 - - Mariamne, said to have received Naassene tradition from St. James, - i. 121; ii. 153; - known to Origen and Celsus, i. 121 _n._ 5 - - Mark, St., story of self-mutilation to avoid orders, ii. 87 - - Maspero, Sir Gaston Charles, his _Hist. anc^{me} de l’Orient_ quoted, - i. 47 _n._ 1 - - Matter, Jacques, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_ quoted, ii. 59 _n._ 1 - - Maximilla. _See_ Phrygians - - Melchizidek. _See_ Theodotus the Banker - - Menander, successor of Simon Magus, i. 17; ii. 59 _n._ 1 - - Metoposcopy, divination by physiognomy, i. 87-92 - - Michael, scribe of MS., i. 4 - - Miller, Bénigne Emanuel, first editor of _Philosophumena_, i. 4, 5; - his _Mélanges de Litt. Grecque_ quoted, i. 100, _n._ 5 - - Monarchia, doctrine of one supreme source of all things, ii. 123 - - Monoimus Arabs, i. 17; - his tenets, ii. 106-111; - not Christian, ii. 106 _n._ 1; - his heavenly man, ii. 107, 163; - cabalistic theory of numbers, ii. 109; - letter to Theophrastus quoted, ii. 110; - summary of doctrines of, 163, 164 - - Montanus. _See_ Phrygians. - - Mughtasila, washers or Hemerobaptists, Elchesaites derived from, ii. - 132 _n._ 3; - make converts among Essenes and Ebionites, _ib._ - - Mynas, Mynoïdes, discoverer of MS. of _Philosophumena_, i. 2, 3, 5 - - Mysteries of the heretics, i. 23, 33, 125, 180; - promise to describe, i. 63; - probably described in missing Books, i. 65; - source of Naassene heresy, i. 121; - M. of Assyrians, i. 123; - of Phrygians, i. 126, 133, 135-138, 140; - ineffable M. of Isis, i. 126; - M. of Greeks, i. 127; - _Hye Cye_ in Eleusinian, i. 129; - M. of Samothrace, i. 132; - great secret of Eleusinian, i. 138; - Lesser and Great, i. 139; - M. of the Great Mother, i. 141, 142; - Phliasian, older than Eleusinian, i. 166; - M. of Justinus, i. 171 - - - Naas, the serpent, i. 120, 142; - one of Justinus’ maternal angels, i. 173 - - Naassenes, i. 3; - their tenets, i. 118-146; - call themselves Gnostics, i. 120, 142; - their supreme deity Adamas, i. 120; - all his powers in Jesus, i. 121; - the names of the Three Churches, _ib._; - the first man, i. 122; - their connection with the Mysteries, i. 123; - with the _Gospel of the Egyptians_, _ib._; - the myth of Attis, i. 124; - their interpretation of the mysteries of Isis, i. 126, 127; - the demiurge Jaldabaoth, i. 128; - their interpretation of Homer, i. 130; - of the Cabiric mysteries, i. 132; - the myths of Corybas and Pappas, i. 133-135; - other names of Attis, i. 135-140; - N. mentioned by Irenæus, i. 139 _n._ 5; - why so called, i. 142; - hymns of, i. 142, 144, 145; - interpretation of anatomy of brain, i. 143, 144; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 153. - _See_ Adamas, Eleusis, Geryon, Serpent - - Neologisms used by Hippolytus, i. 24 - - Noetus, i. 3, 13, 15, 17; - his tenets, ii. 118-123; - his heresy, derived - from Heraclitus, ii. 118-123; - his followers, ii. 118; - identifies Father and Son, ii. 123; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 168, 169. - _See_ Cleomenes, Phrygians - - Novatian, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 6; - Hippolytus said to follow, i. 7 _n._ 4. - - - Oannes, the fist man, _ap._ Assyrians, i. 122 - - Ocellus Lucanus, i. 19; ii. 152 - - Ophites, i. 16, 17; - heresy derived from worship of Cybele or Great Mother, i. 118 _n._ 1; - curse Christ, _ap._ Origen, i. 121 _n._ 1; - comparative, insignificance of, i. 20 _n._ 1; ii. 116. - _See_ Attis, Euphrates, Naassenes - - Origen, _Philosophumena_ attributed - to, i. 5, 6; - _Contra Celsum_ quoted, i, 20 _n._ 1, 121 _nn._ 1, 5; 130 _n._ 1; 146 - _n._ 1 - - Orpheus, a theologist, i. 103 _n._ 4; - discloser of mysteries, i. 166; - his _Bacchica_ quoted, but otherwise unknown, _ib._; - Sethian heresy derived from, _ib._ - - Osiris, his mutilation, i. 126; - signifies water, i. 105 _n._ 4; - his statue in the temple of Isis, i. 127 - - - Papas, god of Phrygians, i. 135; - name of Attis, _ib._ _n._ 1; - means Father, _ib._ - - Parmenides, his teaching, i. 47, 48 - - Parthey, Gustav, his _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_ quoted, i. 93 - _n._ 5 - - Patripassianism, heresy of, ii. 118 _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 1 - - Paul, St., _Acts of, and Thekla_, quoted, i. 30 _n._ 1 - - Peratæ, i. 3; - mentioned by Clem, Alex., i. 146 _n._ 1; - their teaching, i. 146-159; - their triple division of the cosmos, i. 146; ii. 154; - their Christology, i. 147; - their astrological theories, i. 148, 149; - their book _Proastii_ quoted, i. 50-153; - why called Peratæ, i. 154; - their saviour Serpent, i. 155; - Serpent is type of Christ, Joseph and Nimrod, i. 155, 156; - the constellation Draco, i. 157; - anatomy of brain typifies Father and Son, i. 159; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 154, 155. - _See_ Edem, Euphrates - - Persephone, as lover of Adonis, i. 124. - _See_ Hecate - - Persians say God is Light, i. 104 - - Pharisees. _See_ Jews - - Philo, his Logos and Gnostic ideas, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 8 _n._ 2, 173 - _n._ 4 - - Philumena. _See_ Apelles - - Photius, his _Bibliotheca_ quoted, i. 12, 13 _n._ 1. - - Phrên. _See_ Râ - - Phrygians (Montanists), their tenets, ii. 113, 114; - followers of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, ii. 113; - lean towards Noetian and Patripassian heresies, ii. 114; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 167, 168. - _See_ Mysteries, Naassenes - - Pindar, ode on first man assigned to, i. 122 - - _Pistis Sophia_, The, quoted, i. 3 n. 1, 9 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 1, 3, 124 - _n._ 11, 150 _nn._ 1, 3, 152 _n._ 2, 155 _n._ 1, 162 _n._ 2, 173 - _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 5; ii. 5 _n._ 4, 16 _n._ 4, 43 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 4, - 48 _n._ 3, 52 _n._ 9, 53 _n._ 2, 71 _n._ 6, 79 _n._ 3, 93 _n._ 7, - 97 _n._ 1, 102 _n._ 2 - - Plato, i. 16; - his teaching, i, 51-55; - passages from Aristotle ascribed by Hippolytus to, i. 53, 54; - his _Clitopho_ quoted as _Republic_, i. 55 _n._ 7; - analogy between his teaching and Simon M.’s, ii. 5; - and Valentinus’, ii. 18, 19, 25; - quoted, ii. 23, 36, 37. - _See_ Alcinous - - Plutarch, his _de Iside et Osiride_ quoted, i. 129 _n._ 3; - _de Exilio_, ii, 23 _n._ 1 - - Point, indivisible, from which all things spring, i. 115, 141; ii. 9 - - Pontianus, Pope (230-235 A.D.), i. 7 - - Praxeas, a heretic refuted by Tertullian and mentioned by pseudo-Tert., - but not by Irenæus or Hippolytus, i. 13 - - Prepon the Assyrian. _See_ Marcion - - Priscilla. _See_ Phrygians - - Proastii. _See_ Peratæ - - Proteus, identified with Attis, i. 137 - - Prudentius quoted, i. 7 - - Ptolemy, Claudius, the astronomer, mentioned, i. 82; - his _Tetrabiblos_ quoted, i. 88 _n._ 2 - - ---- follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. 39, 40; - his letter to his “fair sister Flora,” ii. 39 _n._ 7 - - Pyrrho, wrongly called an Academic by Hippolytus, i. 32; - his teaching, i. 59 - - Pythagoras, i. 15, 16, 17; - his life and followers, i. 36-39; - his theory of numbers, i. 37, 115 _n._ 6, 116; ii. 20; - Accidents attributed to, ii. 21; - his theory of metempsychosis, ii. 23; - gnomic sayings of, ii. 23, 24; - solar theory of, ii. 24 - - - Quartodecimans, i. 17; - their tenets, ii. 112, 113; - Irenæus their advocate, ii. 112 _n._ 6 - - - Râ, Egyptian Sun-God, invoked by magicians, i. 92 _n._ 7 - - Rhea, an androgyne deity, i. 125; - identified with Gê and Cybele, _ib._ _n._ 1 - - Rogers, Dr. R. W., _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ quoted, i. 151 - _n._ 2 - - - Sabellius. _See_ Callistus - - Sadducees. _See_ Jews - - Salmon, Dr. George, his _Cross-references in Philosophumena_ quoted, - i. 8; ii. 38 _n._ 1.; - his articles in _D.C.B._ i. 6 _n._ 1, 7 _n._ 4, 22 _n._ 1, 69 _n._ - 6; ii. 38 _n._ 2, 40 _n._ 3, 80 _n._ 1, 98 _n._ 1, 100 _n._ 1, 105 - _n._ 4, 108 _n._ 3, 109 _n._ 6, 113 _n._ 2, 118 _n._ 1, 149 _n._ 2, - 173 _n._ 3 - - Saturnilus, i. 16; - his tenets, ii. 80, 81; - his Unknown Father, ii. 81; - angels make man in His image, _ib._; - Christ sent to depose God of Jews, _ib._ - _See_ Simon of Cyrene - - Saulasau. _See_ Caulacau. - - Schneidewin, F. G., with Duncker edits part of _Philosophumena_, i. 4 - - Schürer, Prof., his _History of Jewish People_ quoted, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 8 - _n._ 2 - - Secundus, follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. 38 - - Sephora, wife of Moses, i. 131 - - Serpent, inspirer of Naassene doctrine, i. 120, 142; - identified with substance of water, i. 142; - the constellation Draco, i. 146 _n._ 1; - the brazen, _ap._ Peratæ, i. 155, 156; - the Son and the Word, i. 157; - wind of darkness _ap._ Sethiani, i. 164, 165; - of Justinus wholly evil, i. 169 _n._ 5 - - _Seth, Paraphrase of._ _See_ Sethiani. - - Sethiani, their tenets, i. 160-169; - authors who mention, i. 160 _n._ 1; - the Sitheus of Bruce Papyrus, _ib._; - their triad of Light, Darkness and Spirit, i. 161; - Light and Spirit caught by Darkness, i. 162; - impregnation of Darkness, i. 163; - analogy with other triads, i. 165, 166; - system of, derived from Orphic, i. 166; - Phliasian Mysteries of Great Mother, _ib._; - simile of oil-well at Ampe, i. 168, 169; - their _Paraphrase of Seth_, i. 169; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 155-157. - _See_ Andronicus, Man - - Sextus Empiricus, Hippolytus’ borrowings from, i. 10, 69 _n._ 1; ii. - 150. - _See_ Greek - - Simon of Cyrene, story of his substitution for Jesus on the Cross - probably Saturnilian, not Basilidian, ii. 59 _n._ 1, 79 _n._ 2 - - Simon Magus, i. 3, 13, 14; - his system derived from art of arithmetic, i. 115, 116; - his six roots, i. 116; ii. 7; - his _Great Announcement_ quoted, i. 115, 140, 141; ii. 4-14; - his life and tenets, ii. 2-17; - his supreme God, fire, ii. 4; - his account of the creation of Man, ii. 9; - his Epinoia Helen of Tyre, ii. 15; - his death, ii. 17; - source of Valentinian heresy, ii. 17, 40 _n._ 3; - summary of doctrines of, 157, 158. - _See_ Edem, Justin, Magic, Menander - - Socrates, i. 16; - his teaching, i. 51 - - Sophia, name given to Helen of Tyre by Simon M., i. 13 _n._ 3; - Sethians make her cause of Flood, _ib._; - identified with Earth, i. 105 _n._ 3; ii. 27 _n._ 4; - mother of Jaldabaoth, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 118 _n._ 1, 132 _n._ 3; - in Naassene hymn, i. 145 _n._ 3; - her name of Achamoth, i. 173 _n._ 4; - fall of, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 27; - decides fate of men, ii. 17 _n._ 5; - her adventures, ii. 28-36; - the heaven of, ii. 31 _n._ 1; - identified with Holy Spirit, ii. 33 - - Sotion of Alexandria, Hippolytus’ borrowings from, i. 49 _n._ 3; 64 - _n._ 2 - - Stähelin, Heinrich, his _Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts_ quoted, - i. 8 _n._ 2 - - Stoics, their teaching, i. 57, 58; - Hippolytus’ reluctance to mention, i. 157 _n._ 2 - - Syrictas, the pipe-player, name of Attis, i. 142 - - - Tatian the Gnostic, i. 17; - his tenets, ii. 111; - holds Adam not saved, _ib._; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 164. - _See_ Encratites - - Tertullian, _Philosophumena_ assigned to, i. 6; - quoted, ii. 82 _n._ 3, 96 _nn._ 2, 3, 111 _n._ 3. - _See_ Praxeas - - Tertullian, Pseudo-, _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_, i. 11-13; - quoted, i. 160 _n._ 1; ii. 95 _n._ 4, 97 _n._ 2. - _See_ Praxeas - - Thales, i. 9, his teaching, i. 35, 36; - quoted, i. 142 - - Theodore bar Khôni, his _Book of Scholia_ quoted, i. 169 _n._ 4, 173 - _n._ 3 - - Theodoret calls Hippolytus Bishop and Martyr, i. 7, 11, 12; - his account of Peratæ, i. 146 _n._ 1; - quotes summary and not text of _Philosophumena_, ii. 154 _n._ 1 - - Theodotus the Banker, his tenets, ii. 94, 95; - holds Melchizidek greater than Christ, ii. 94; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 167 - - Theodotus of Byzantium, his tenets, ii. 93, 94; - adoptionist views of, ii. 94; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 167 - - Theophrastus. _See_ Monoimus - - Thomas, Gospel according to, quoted, i. 126 - - - Urbanus, Pope (223-230 A.D.), i. 7 - - - Valentinus, his system derived from arithmetical art, i. 15; - from Pythagoras and Plato, ii. 17-19; - Zoroastrian and Egyptian features of, ii. 17 _n._ 1; - division of followers as to Supreme Being, ii. 25; - his system of Aeons, ii. 26, 27; - Sophia and her Ectroma, ii. 28; - projection of Horos, ii. 29; - Jesus the Common Friend of the Pleroma, _ib._; - salvation of Ectroma and result of her passions, ii. 30; - fourfold division of world, ii. 31, and of man, ii. 32; - analogies of myths of, with Manichæism, ii. 34 _n._ 5, 35 _n._ 3; - Anatolic and Italiote schools of, ii. 34; - purpose of Incarnation, _ap._ ii. 35; - summary of doctrines of, ii. 158, 159. - _See_ Beelzebuth, Demiurge, Devil, Pleroma and Sophia - - Victor, Pope (189-202 A.D.). _See_ Callistus - - - Wessely, his _Griechische Zauberpapyri_ quoted, i. 93 _n._ 5 - - Wilson, James, his _Complete Dictionary of Astrology_ quoted, i. 67 - _n._ 1 - - Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, his _Hippolytus and the Church of - Rome_ quoted, i. 4 _n._ 2; i. 6; i. 12 _n._ 1; ii. 119 _n._ 2, - 129 _n._ 5 - - - Xenophanes, his teaching, i. 49, 50 - - - Zaratas (Zoroaster) quoted, i. 9, 104 _n._ 3; ii. 20; - Amshaspands - of, and Simon Magus’ roots, ii. 2 _n._ 2; - the like and Aeons of Valentinus, ii. 17 _n._ 5 - - Zealots, said by Hippolytus to be a sect of Essenes, ii. 143, 144 _n._ - 1 - - Zeesar. _See_ Caulacau - - Zephyrinus, Pope (202-218 A.D.), i. 3; - said by Hippolytus to be ignorant and unskilled, ii. 118, 124; - leans towards heresy, ii. 118 - - - THE END - - - Transcriber’s Notes - -The notes in the left and right margins, indicating page numbers in the -original Greek, have been converted to e.g. [Sidenote: p. 216] in this -version. Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were -corrected. The following corrections have been made to the text: - - Page Original New - ------------------------------------------- - 7 takeing taking - 13 ἀ πέραντον ἀπέραντον - 26 ό ὁ - 27 Σύγκοασις Σύγκρασις - 27 κὰι καὶ - 33 λελαλημέαν λελαλημένα - 43 αεὶ ἀεὶ - 44 Papypi Papyri - 55 ᾶνω ἄνω - 57 ףל־ארבע קל־ארבע - 62 εἰδεσιν εἴδεσιν - 80 des der - 80 firstfruits first-fruits - 87 κολοδάκτυλος κολοβοδάκτυλος - 91 χωρησάσαν χωρήσασαν - 98 φυσικὴς φυσικῆς - 99 εῖναι εἶναι - 114 ράφανοφαγίας ῥάφανοφαγίας - 114 ἐγκρατε͂ις ἐγκρατεῖς - 119 φιλοσοφυμένοις φιλοσοφουμένοις - 119 Φιλοσοφυμένους Φιλοσοφουμένους - 139 εἰδη εἴδη - 145 κυριόις κυρίοις - 150 ἀκαλώπιστος ἀκαλλώπιστος - 164 octohedrons octahedrons - 178 phase phrase - 181 Manichéisine Manichéisme - 183 Theogomy Theogony - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHUMENA, VOLUME II *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/67116-0.zip b/old/67116-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4b3f163..0000000 --- a/old/67116-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67116-h.zip b/old/67116-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 261de86..0000000 --- a/old/67116-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67116-h/67116-h.htm b/old/67116-h/67116-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 64440a3..0000000 --- a/old/67116-h/67116-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14962 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - Philosophumena; or The Refutation of All Heresies (Vol. 2 of 2), by Hippolytus—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -h3 { - font-weight: normal; -} - -p.noin{text-indent:0em;} - -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} - -.b1 {margin-bottom: 1em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.tb {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;} -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} - - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - text-indent: 0em; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - color: silver -} /* page numbers */ - - -.sidenote { - position: absolute; - text-indent: 0em; - left: 2%; - font-size: smaller; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} - -@media handheld{ .sidenote { - text-indent: 0; - text-align: left; - font-size: smaller; - float: left; - clear: left; - /* width: 4em; - max-width: 4em; - min-width: 4em;*/ - margin: .0em .2em .0em .0em; - padding: .0em .2em .0em .2em; - - background-color: #eeeeee; - border: thin dotted gray; - } -} - -ul { - list-style-type: none; -} - -li.indx { - margin-top: .5em; - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -li.ifrst { - margin-top: 2em; - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -li.isub1 { - padding-left: 4em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - -.xlarge {font-size: 200%} - -.large {font-size: 150%} - -.mlarge {font-size: 130%} - -.medium {font-size: 85%} - -.small {font-size: 60%} - -.vsmall {font-size: 40%} - -.indexin {text-indent: 3em} - -.nrmlweight {font-weight: normal;} - - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -/* Footnotes */ - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -/* Poetry */ -.poetry-container {text-align: center;} -.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;font-size: 85%} -/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry in browsers */ -/* .poetry {display: inline-block;} */ -.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} -.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} -/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ -@media handheld, print { .poetry {display: block;} } - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -/* Poetry indents */ -.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;} -.poetry .indent30 {text-indent: 12em;} - - - </style> - </head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Philosophumena, Volume II, by Hippolytus</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Philosophumena, Volume II</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em;'>Refutation of all Heresies</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Hippolytus</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Translator: George Francis Legge</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: January 7, 2022 [eBook #67116]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Wouter Franssen and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHUMENA, VOLUME II ***</div> - -<div class="center"><img alt='Cover' class="figcenter" style="max-width:30em" src='images/cover.jpg' /></div> - - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_i"></a>[i]</span></div> -<div class="center">TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE</div> - -<div class="center p1"> -<table summary="General Editors"> -<tr> -<td><span class="smcap">General Editors</span>:</td> -<td>W. J. SPARROW-SIMPSON, D.D.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td></td> -<td>W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="center p1">SERIES I<br /> -GREEK TEXTS</div> - -<div class="center p4 large"><b>PHILOSOPHUMENA</b></div> -<div class="center p1"><span class="small">OR THE</span></div> -<div class="center p1">REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<div><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_iii"></a>[iii]</span></div> - - - -<h1 class="p2" title="PHILOSOPHUMENA; OR THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES">PHILOSOPHUMENA<br /> -<span class="p1 b1 vsmall nrmlweight">OR THE</span><br /> -<span class="small nrmlweight">REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES</span></h1> - -<div class="center p4">FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ORIGEN, BUT<br /> -NOW TO HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND<br /> -MARTYR, WHO FLOURISHED<br /> -ABOUT 220 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span></div> - -<div class="center p4 medium">TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF CRUICE</div> -<div class="center small p1 b1" >BY</div> -<div class="center mlarge" >F. LEGGE, F.S.A.</div> - -<div class="center p4 medium">VOL. II.</div> - -<div class="center p4">LONDON:<br /> -SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING<br /> -CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE<br /> -<span class="medium">NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.<br /> -1921</span> -</div> - - - -<hr class="chap p4" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_iv"></a>[iv]</span></p> - -<div class="center"><span class="smcap">Printed in Great Britain by<br /> -Richard Clay & Sons, Limited,<br /> -paris garden, stamford st., s.e. 1,<br /> -and bungay, suffolk.</span> -</div> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_v"></a>[v]</span></p> -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<div> -<table summary="Table of Contents"> -<tr> -<td></td> -<td class="right">PAGE</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td>BOOK VI: SIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#BOOK_VI">1</a>-<a href="#Page_57">57</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">1. SIMON</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VI_1">2</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">2. VALENTINUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VI_2">17</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">3. SECUNDUS AND EPIPHANES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VI_3">38</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">4. PTOLEMY</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VI_4">39</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">5. MARCUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VI_5">40</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td>BOOK VII: BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#Book_VII">58</a>-<a href="#Page_97">97</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">1. BASILIDES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_1">59</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">2. SATURNILUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_2">80</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">3. MARCION</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_3">82</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">4. CARPOCRATES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_4">90</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">5. CERINTHUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_5">92</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">6. EBIONÆI</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_6">93</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">7. THEODOTUS THE BYZANTIAN</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_7">93</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">8. ANOTHER THEODOTUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_8">94</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">9. CERDO AND LUCIAN</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_9">95</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">10. APELLES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VII_10">96</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td>BOOK VIII: THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#BOOK_VIII">98</a>-<a href="#Page_116">116</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">1. THE DOCETAE</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_1">99</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">2. MONOIMUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_2">106</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">3. TATIAN</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_3">111</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">4. HERMOGENES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_4">111</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">5. THE QUARTODECIMANS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_5">112</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">6. THE PHRYGIANS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_6">113</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">7. THE ENCRATITES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#VIII_7">114</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td>BOOK IX: NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vi"></a>[vi]</span></td> -<td class="right"><a href="#BOOK_IX">117</a>-<a href="#Page_148">148</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">1. NOETUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#IX_1">118</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">2. CALLISTUS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#IX_2">124</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">3. THE ELCHESAITES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#IX_3">132</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">4. THE JEWS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#IX_4">138</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td>BOOK X: SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#Book_X">149</a>-<a href="#Page_178">178</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">1. THE SUMMARY OF THE PHILOSOPHERS</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#Page_150">150</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">2. THE SUMMARY OF THE HERESIES</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#Page_153">153</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="indexin medium">3. THE WORD OF TRUTH</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td>INDEX</td> -<td class="right"><a href="#INDEX">179</a></td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1"></a>[1]</span></p> - -<div class="center xlarge"><b>PHILOSOPHUMENA</b></div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="BOOK_VI" title="BOOK VI SIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS">BOOK VI<br /> -SIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS</h2> -</div> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 242<br /> -Cruice.</span> -1. <span class="smcap">These</span> are the contents of the 6th (book) of the -<i>Refutation of all Heresies</i>.</p> - -<p>2. What Simon has dared, and that his doctrine is -confirmed (by quotations) from magicians and poets.</p> - -<p>3. What Valentinus has laid down, and that his doctrine -is not framed from the Scriptures, but from those of the -Platonists and Pythagorists.</p> - -<p>4. And what is thought by Secundus, Ptolemy and -Heracleon, and how they have used as their own, but with -different words, the thoughts of those whom the Greeks -(think) wise.</p> - -<p>5. What has been held by Marcus and Colarbasus [and -their disciples] and that some of them gave heed to magic -arts and Pythagorean numbers.</p> - -<p>6. Now such opinions as belong to those who have taken -their principles from the serpent<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> and, when the time -arrived, of their own accord brought their doctrines into -light, we have set forth in the Book before this, being the -<span class="sidenote">p. 243.</span> -Vth of the <i>Refutation of all Heresies</i>. Here, however, I will -not keep silence as to the opinions of those who come after -(them),<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> but will leave not one unrefuted, if it be possible -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_2"></a>[2]</span> -to keep them all in mind, together with their secret rites -which are justly to be called orgies, inasmuch as those who -dare such things are not far from God’s wrath<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>—to use the -word in its etymological sense.</p> - - -<h3 id="VI_1">1. <i>About Simon.</i></h3> - -<p>7. It seems then right now to set forth also the (doings) -of Simon,<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> the man of Gitto,<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> a village of Samaria, whereby -we shall show that those also who followed (him) taking -hints from other names have ventured upon like things. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3"></a>[3]</span> -This Simon, being skilled in magic arts and having played -upon many, sometimes by the Thrasymedean<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> process in the -way we have set forth above, but sometimes working iniquity -by means of devils, designed to deify himself, (although -only) a human sorcerer filled with desperation whom the -<span class="sidenote">p. 244.</span> -Apostles refuted in the <i>Acts</i>.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> Than whom Apsethus -the Libyan was much wiser and more modest when he -ambitiously attempted to be considered a god in Libya. -Whose story as it is not very different from the vain desire -of Simon, it seems fitting to narrate as one worthy to have -been attempted by Simon himself.</p> - -<p>8. Apsethus the Libyan yearned to become a god. -But since, after making himself very busy, he utterly failed -(to accomplish) his desire, he wished at all events to -appear to have become one, and seemed as if he might -really effect this in course of time. For the foolish Libyans -sacrificed to him as to some divine power, thinking that -they must give faith to a voice from heaven above. For he -collected and shut up in one and the same cage a great -many of the birds called parrots; there being many parrots -in Libya who imitate quite clearly the human voice. For -some time he fed the birds and taught them to say -“Apsethus is a god”: and when the birds had been -<span class="sidenote">p. 245.</span> -trained for a long time, and repeated the saying which he -thought would make Apsethus be considered a god, he -opened the cage and let the parrots out in all directions. -The noise of the flying birds went forth into all Libya, -and their words reached as far as the land of the Greeks.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> -And thus the Libyans being wonderstruck by the voices of -the birds and not understanding the trick played by -Apsethus, held him for a god. But a certain Greek having -carefully studied the clever device of the so-called god, not -only refuted him by the (mouth of the) same parrots but -removed from the earth that human quack and rascal. -The Greek shut up many of the parrots and taught them to -say instead (of their former speech): “Apsethus shut us up -and forced us to say: ‘Apsethus is a god.’” And the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4"></a>[4]</span> -Libyans hearing the parrots’ recantation (and) all assembling -with one mind burned Apsethus.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> - -<p>9. This (sort of man) one must suppose Simon the -magician (to be), so that we would far sooner liken him to -the Libyan who was born a man than to (Him) who is -really God.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> But if the details of the likeness be held -accurate and the magician had some such passion as -Apsethus, we will undertake to teach Simon’s parrots that -Simon who stood, stands and will stand was not Christ, but -<span class="sidenote">p. 246.</span> -a man (sprung) from seed, born of a woman<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> begotten from -blood and fleshly desire like the rest, and that he knew this -to be so, we shall easily show as the story goes on.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> But -Simon, stupidly and clumsily garbling the Law of Moses—for -when Moses has said that God was “a burning and -consuming fire,”<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a>—he, not having received Moses’ saying -rightly, says that fire is the principle of the universals, and -not having comprehended the saying that God is not Fire, -but a burning and consuming fire, (thereby) not only rends -in twain the Law of Moses, but steals from Heraclitus -the Obscure.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> But Simon proclaims that the principle of -the universals is a boundless power, speaking thus:—“This -is the writing of the Announcement<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> of Voice and Name -from the Thought of the great power of the Boundless One. -Wherefore it will be sealed up, hidden, concealed and will -be in the dwelling-place where the root of the universals is -founded.”<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> But he says that the dwelling-place is the same -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5"></a>[5]</span> -man who has been begotten from blood and that the -<span class="sidenote">p. 247.</span> -Boundless Power dwells in him, which (power) he says is -the root of the universals. But the Boundless Power, the -fire according to Simon, is not simple as the many say -who think that the four elements are simple and that fire -is simple; but there is a certain double nature of fire, and -of this double nature he calls one part hidden and the -other manifest. But the hidden (parts) have been hidden -in the manifest parts of the fire, and the manifest have come -into being by the hidden. This it is which Aristotle calls -potentiality and action, and Plato the comprehensible and -the perceptible.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> - -<p>And the manifest (part) of the fire contains within itself -all which one can perceive<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> or which can escape one, but -remains visible; but the hidden (part) contains everything -which one can perceive as something intelligible but which -evades the sense or which as not being thoroughly understood -one passes over. But it must be said generally that -of all things which are perceptible and intelligible, which -Simon calls hidden and manifest,<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> the supercelestial fire is -the Treasure-house,<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> like unto the great tree which was seen -by Nebuchadnezzar in a dream, from which all flesh is fed.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 248.</span> -And he considers the trunk, the boughs, the leaves, and the -bark on the outside of it to be the manifest part of the fire. -All these things which are attached to the great tree the -flame of the all-devouring fire causes to vanish. But the -fruit of the tree, if it be made a perfect likeness<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> and has -received its own shape, is placed in a storehouse and not in -the fire. For the fruit, he says, has been produced that it -may be put in a storehouse, but the chaff that it may be -cast into the fire, which (chaff) is the trunk which has -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6"></a>[6]</span> -not been produced for its own sake, but for that of the -fruit.</p> - -<p>10. And this is, he says, what is written in the Scripture: -“The vine of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and a -man of Judah his beloved plant.”<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> But if a man of Judah -is his beloved plant, it proves, he says, that a tree is nothing -else than a man. But of its secretion and dissolution, he -says, the Scripture has spoken sufficiently, and for the -instruction of those who have been made completely after -(its) likeness,<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> the saying is enough that: “All flesh is grass -and all the glory of the flesh as the flower of grass. The -grass withereth and the flower fadeth away: but the word -<span class="sidenote">p. 249.</span> -of the Lord abideth for ever.”<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> But the word, he says, is -the word and speech of the Lord born in the mouth, save -which there is no other place of generation.</p> - -<p>11. But, to be brief, since the fire is such according to -Simon, and all things are seen and unseen as they are -heard and unheard, numbered and unnumbered, in the -<i>Great Announcement</i> he calls a perfect intellectual<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> every -one of those (beings) which can be boundlessly conceived -by the mind in a boundless way<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> and can speak and think -and act, as says Empedocles:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">For earth by earth we see, and water by water</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And (divine) æther by æther, yet destroying fire by fire,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And (love) by love, and strife in gloomy strife.—</div> - <div class="right">(Karsten, v. 321.)</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>12. For, he says, he considered all the parts of the fire -which are invisible to have sense and a share of mind.<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 250.</span> -Therefore the cosmos, he says, came into being begotten -by the unbegotten fire. But it began to be, he says, after -this fashion:—He who was produced from the beginning -from that fire took six roots, the first ones of the principle -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7"></a>[7]</span> -of generation.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> And he says that the roots came from the -fire in pairs, which roots he calls Mind and Thought, -Voice and Name, Reasoning and Passion,<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> but that the -whole of the Boundless Power together is in these six roots -potentially, but not actively. The which Boundless Power -he says is He who Stood, Stands, and will Stand. Who -if he be made into a complete image (of the fire) will be -in substance, power, greatness, and effect one and the same -with that Unbegotten and Boundless Power, and lacking -nothing possessed by that unbegotten and unchanging and -infinite power. But if he remains potentially only in the -six powers and is not made into a complete image (of the -fire), he is done away with and is lost like as the capacity -for grammar or geometry in man’s soul. For power taking -<span class="sidenote">p. 251.</span> -to itself skill becomes a light of the things which are: -but if it does not take unto itself (skill) it is unskilfulness -and darkness and as if it were not, it perishes<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> with the -man at his death.</p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8"></a>[8]</span> -13. But of these six powers and the seventh which is -with the six, he calls the first pair, (to wit) Nous and -Epinoia, Heaven and Earth. And (he says) that the -masculine (partner) looks down from on high upon and -takes thought for his spouse and that the Earth below -receives the intellectual fruits proper to her brought down -from Heaven to Earth. Wherefore, he says, the Logos -beholding often the things born from Nous and Epinoia, -that is from Heaven and Earth, says: “Hear, O Heaven, -and give ear, O Earth, for the Lord has spoken. I have -begotten and raised up sons, but they have disregarded -me.”<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> He who thus speaks, he says, is the Seventh Power -who Stood, Stands and will Stand. For he is the cause -of those fair things which Moses praised and said that -<span class="sidenote">p. 252.</span> -they were very good. And Phone and Onoma are the -Sun and Moon, and Logismos and Enthymesis Air and -Water. But with all these is mingled and compounded, -as I have said, the great and Boundless Power, He who -has Stood.<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p> - -<p>14. Since, therefore, Moses spake: “In six days God -created Heaven and Earth and the seventh day he rested -from all his works,”<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> Simon after re-arranging the passage, -makes himself out a god. When then they say that three -days passed before the Sun and Moon existed,<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> they -shadow forth Nous and Epinoia and the Seventh Power, -the Boundless One. For these three powers were born -before all the others. When they say: “Before all the Aeons -He has begotten me,”<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> (Simon) says that this was spoken of -the Seventh Power. But the same Seventh Power, which -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9"></a>[9]</span> -was a power existing in the Boundless Power which was -begotten before all the Aeons, this is, he says, the Seventh -Power of whom Moses said: “And the Spirit of God was -borne above the water,”<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> that is, he says, the spirit containing -<span class="sidenote">p. 253.</span> -all things within itself, an image of the Boundless Power, -of whom Simon says “image of the imperishable form -which alone orders all things.” For that power which was -borne above the water having come into being, he says, -from the imperishable form, alone orders all things. Now -when some such and like preparations of the cosmos had come -to pass, God, he says, moulded<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> man, taking dust from the -earth. But he fashioned him not simple but twofold<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> according -to image and resemblance. But the spirit which was -borne above the water is an image, which spirit if it is not -made a complete likeness,<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> perishes with the world, as it -abides only potentially and does not exist in activity. -This, he says, is the saying, “Lest ye be judged with the -world.”<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> But if it be made a complete likeness and is -born from an Indivisible Point as it is written in the -Announcement, the small will become great. But it will -be great in the Boundless and Unchanging Aeon, being -born no more.</p> - -<p>How then and in what manner, he says, did God form -man in Paradise? For this is his opinion. Let, he says, -Paradise be the womb, and that this is true the Scripture -teaches when it says: “I am he who fashioned thee in thy -mother’s womb.”<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> For this also he wishes to be thus -<span class="sidenote">p. 254.</span> -written. Moses, he says, speaking in allegory, calls -Paradise the womb if we are to believe the word. But if -God fashions man in the womb of his mother, that is, in -Paradise, as I have said, let Paradise be the womb and -Edem the placenta: “And a river went forth from Edem -and watered Paradise”<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> (this is) the navel-string. The -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10"></a>[10]</span> -navel-string, he says, separates into four heads. For on -each side of the navel are set two arteries, conduits of -breath, and two veins, conduits of blood. But when he -says, the navel-string goes forth from the placenta it takes -root in the infant by the epigastrium which all men -commonly call the navel. And the two veins it is through -which flows and is borne from Edem (the placenta) the -blood to the so-called gates of the liver whence the child -is fed. But the arteries as we have said, are the conduits -of the breath<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> which pass behind on either side of the -bladder round the pelvis and make connection with the -great artery by the spine called the aorta, and thus through -the ventricles the breath flows upon the heart and causes -<span class="sidenote">p. 255.</span> -movement of the embryo. For the embryo in course of -formation in Paradise neither takes food by the mouth, -nor breathes through the nostrils. For, as it exists amid -waters, death is at its feet if it should breathe. For it -would then draw in the waters and die. But it is girt about -almost wholly by the envelope called the amnion and is -fed through the navel, and through the aorta which is by -the spine, it receives, as I have said<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> the substance of the -breath.</p> - -<p>15. Therefore, he says, the river flowing forth from Edem -separates into four heads (or) four conduits, that is, into the -child’s four senses, sight, smell, taste, and touch. For the -infant while being formed in Paradise has these senses only. -This, he says, is the Law which Moses laid down; and -agreeably with that same Law each of the Books is written, -as their titles clearly show. The first book (is) <i>Genesis</i> -(and) the title of the book, he says, suffices for the knowledge -of the universals. For, he says, this is genesis, that -is sight into which one of the sections of the river separates; -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11"></a>[11]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 256.</span> -for the world is seen by sight. The title of the second -book is <i>Exodus</i>. For that which is born after crossing the -Red Sea comes into the Desert—he calls the blood, he -says, the Red Sea—and tastes bitter water. For bitter, he -says, is the water which comes after the Red Sea, which -(water) is the way of knowledge of life pursued through -painful and bitter things. But when changed by Moses, -that is by the Logos, that bitter (water) becomes sweet. -And that this is so, can be known by all in common in the -saying of the poets:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Black was it at the root, but the flower was like milk</div> - <div class="verse indent0">The gods call it Moly, but hard it is to dig</div> - <div class="verse indent0">For mortal men, but to the gods all things are possible.—</div> - <div class="right">(<span class="smcap">Homer</span>, <i>Odyssey</i>, X, 304 ff.)</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>16. What has been said by the nations, he says, suffices -for the thorough knowledge of the universals to those who -have ears to hear. For not only he who has tasted this -fruit is not turned into a beast by Circe; but those also -<span class="sidenote">p. 257.</span> -who have been already brutified by use of the powers of -such fruit, he moulds again into their first and proper form -and restores them to type and recalls their (original) impress. -And the faithful man and he who is beloved by -that witch is, he says, revealed through that milk-like and -divine fruit. Likewise <i>Leviticus</i> the third book which is the -smell or inspiration.<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> For this book is of sacrifices and -oblations. For where there is a sacrifice there comes a -certain savour of fragrance from it through the incense, -of which fragrance the sense of smell (ought to be -a test).<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> <i>Numbers</i>, the fourth book he calls taste ...<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> -where speech operates. But <i>Deuteronomy</i>, he says, is -written with reference to the sense of touch of the child in -course of formation. For as the touch, touching the things -perceived by the other senses, sums up and confirms them, -teaching us whether (anything) be hard or hot or cold,<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> so -the fifth book of the Law is the summary of the four books -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12"></a>[12]</span> -written before it. All the unbegotten things, then, he says, -are in potentiality not in activity, like the grammatical or -<span class="sidenote">p. 258.</span> -geometrical art. If then one should chance upon the -fitting word and doctrine, and the bitter should be changed -into sweet, that is, the spears into reaping-hooks and the -swords into ploughshares,<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> (the child) will not be chaff and -sticks for producing fire, but a perfect fruit made in semblance -(of), as I have said (and) equal and like to, the Unbegotten -and Boundless Power. But should he remain only a tree -and should not make a perfect fruit fashioned in complete -resemblance, he will be removed. For the axe is near, he -says, to the roots of the tree. Every tree, he says, which -maketh not fair fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p> - -<p>17. There is then, according to Simon, that blessed and -incorruptible thing hidden in everything, potentially not -actively, which is He who Stood, Stands and will Stand. It -stood above in the Unbegotten Power, it stands below amid -the rush of the waters having been begotten in likeness, and -it will stand on high beside the blessed Unbegotten Power -if it be made in (his) perfect semblance. For there are, -he says, three who have stood, and unless there are -<span class="sidenote">p. 259.</span> -three Aeons who have stood, then the Unbegotten One who -according to them is borne over the water, who by resemblance -has been fashioned again perfect (and) heavenly, -who in one thought alone<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> is more lacking than the -Unbegotten Power, is not in its proper place.<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> This is -what they say: “I and thou, thou one before me, I after -thee, am I.” This, he says, is one power, divided above, -below, begetting itself, increasing itself, seeking itself, -finding itself, being its own mother, its own father, its own -sister, its own spouse, its own daughter, its own son, a -mother-father,<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> being one root of the universals.</p> - -<p>And that, he says, the beginning of the generation of -things begotten is from fire, he understands in some such -fashion as this: In all things whatever which have birth, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13"></a>[13]</span> -the beginning of the desire of generation comes from fire. -As, for instance, the desire for mutable generation<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> is called -“being inflamed” [with love]. But the fire from being -one, turns into two. For in the man, he says, the blood -which is hot and yellow as fire is depicted, turns into seed; -but in the woman the selfsame blood (turns) into milk. -<span class="sidenote">p. 260.</span> -And from the turning in the male comes generation and -from that in the female the nourishment of that which is -generated.<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> This, he says, is the flaming sword turning -about to guard the path to the Tree of Life. For the blood -is turned to seed and milk and the same power becomes -father and mother of those which are born and the increase -of those which are nourished, itself lacking nothing and -being sufficient unto itself. But the Tree of Life is -guarded he says, through the turning of the flaming sword, -as we have said, which (sword) is the Seventh Power which -is from itself, which contains all things (and) which lies -stored up in the six powers. For if the flaming sword -did not turn about, that fair tree would perish and be -destroyed. But if the Logos which is lying stored up -potentially therein, is turned into seed and milk, being lord -of its proper place wherein is begotten a Logos of souls,—then -from the smallest spark it will become great and -increase in every sense and will be a boundless power -unchangeable in the aeon which changes not until it is -in the Boundless Aeon.<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p> - -<p>18. By this argument, then, Simon avowedly became a -god to those of no understanding, like that Apsethus the -<span class="sidenote">p. 261.</span> -Libyan, being (said to be) begotten and subject to suffering -when he existed potentially, but (becoming) impassible -(from passible, and unbegotten)<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> from begotten when he -was made in perfect semblance and becoming perfect came -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14"></a>[14]</span> -forth from the first two powers, that is Heaven and Earth. -For Simon speaks explicitly of this in the <i>Announcement</i>, -thus:—</p> - -<p>“Unto you I say what I say, and I write what I write. -The writing is this. There are two stems<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> of all the Aeons, -having neither beginning nor end, from one root, which is -Power-Silence<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> unseen and incomprehensible. One of -them appears on high, who is a great power, the mind of -the universals, who orders all things and (is) a male. And -the other below is a great Thought, a female giving birth to -all things. These, then, being set over against each other<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> -form a pair and show forth the middle space, an incomprehensible -air having neither beginning nor end. In this -(space) is a Father who upholds all things and nourishes -those which have a beginning and end. This is He who -Stood, Stands, and will Stand, being a masculo-feminine -power after the likeness of the pre-existing Boundless -Power<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> which has neither beginning nor end but exists in -oneness. For the thought which came forth from the -(power) in oneness was two. And that was one. For he -<span class="sidenote">p. 262.</span> -when he contained her within himself was alone, nor was -he indeed first although he existed beforehand, but having -himself appeared from himself, a second came into being. -But he was not called Father until she named him Father. -Just as then he, drawing himself forth from himself, manifested -to himself his own thought, so also the thought -having appeared did not create him; but beholding him, -hid the Father—that is Power—within herself;<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> and there is -a masculo-feminine Power-and-Thought when they are set -over against each other. For Power does not differ at all -from thought, they being one. From the things on high -is discovered Power; from those below Thought. Thus -then it is that that which appeared from them being one -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15"></a>[15]</span> -is found to be two, a masculo-feminine having the female -within it. This is Mind in Thought for they being one -when undivided from one another are yet found to be -two.”</p> - -<p>19. Simon then having discovered (all) this, fraudulently -interprets as he wishes not only the (words) of Moses, but -<span class="sidenote">p. 263.</span> -also those of the poets. For he turns into allegory the -Wooden Horse and Helen with the Torch and other things, -altering which to the affairs of himself and his Epinoia, he -leads astray many. And he says that she is that sheep -which was lost, who ever dwelling in many women<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> troubles -the powers in the cosmos by her transcendent beauty. -Wherefore also the Trojan War occurred on account of her. -For Epinoia herself dwelt in Helen at that time, and -all the authorities suing for her (favours), faction and war -arose among the nations in which she appeared. Wherefore -indeed Stesichorus having railed at her in his verses -had his eyes blinded, but having repented and written the -Palinode, was restored to sight.<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> She, being changed from -one body to another by the angels and authorities below -<span class="sidenote">p. 264.</span> -who made the world, came at last to stand in a brothel<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> in -Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, coming to which (Simon) found -her. For at her first enquiry, he said he had come to her -aid, that he might free her from her bonds, and when he -had redeemed her she went about with him pretending that -she was the lost sheep, and he saying that he was the Power -above all things. But the rogue having fallen in love with -the hussy, the so-called Helen, and having bought her -enjoyed her, and being ashamed (before) his disciples made -up this story. But they who became (in time) the imitators -of the error and of Simon Magus do like things, pretending -that they ought to have (promiscuous) intercourse like -beasts, saying: “All earth is earth and it matters not where -one sows, so long as one sows.” And they also bless this -intercourse saying that the same is perfect love and the -“Holy of Holies” and that “ye shall sanctify one another.” -For they say that they are not overcome by what any one -else would call evil, for that they have been redeemed. -And that Simon having redeemed Helen has in like manner -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16"></a>[16]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 265.</span> -brought salvation to men through his own discernment.<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> -For since the angels misgoverned the world through love of -rule, he says that he came to set it straight, having changed -his shape and making himself like the rulers<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> and -authorities and angels, and that he appeared as a man, -though he was not a man and seemed to suffer in Judæa, -though he did not suffer.<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> But he appeared to the Jews as -Son, in Samaria as Father, and among the other nations as -Holy Spirit. And that he submitted to be called by whatever -name men wished to call him. And that the Prophets -were inspired by the world-making angels to utter their -prophecies. Wherefore they who have believed on Simon -and Helen do not heed them,<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> and to this day do what -they will as being free. For they claim that they have been -saved by his grace. For no one is liable to judgment if he -does anything evil; for evil exists not by nature, but by -<span class="sidenote">p. 266.</span> -law. For he says it is the angels who made the world who -made the Law whatever they wished, thinking to enslave -those who hearkened to them. And again they say that -(there will be) a dissolution of the world for the redemption -of their own men.<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p> - -<p>20. Therefore the disciples of this (man) practise magic -arts and incantations, and send out love-philtres and -charms and the demons called dream-bringers for the -troubling of whom they will. But they also do reverence to -the so-called Paredri.<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> And they have an image of Simon -in the form of Zeus, and (another) of Helen in the form -of Athena, and they bow down to them calling the one -“Lord” and the other “Lady.”<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> But if any one among -them seeing these images should call them by the name -of Simon or Helen, he is cast out as being ignorant of their -mysteries. This Simon when he had led astray many -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17"></a>[17]</span> -in Samaria by magic arts was refuted by the Apostles, and -<span class="sidenote">p. 267.</span> -having been laid under a curse as it is written in the <i>Acts</i>, -afterwards in desperation designed these things<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> until -having come to Rome, he withstood the Apostles. Whom -Peter opposed when he was deceiving many by sorceries. -He at length coming into t......te,<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> taught sitting -under a plane-tree. And finally his refutation being very -near<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> through effluxion of time, he said that if buried alive -he would rise again the third day. And having given orders -that a grave should be dug by his disciples, he bade them -bury him. And they having done what he commanded, he -remains there to this day; for he was not the Christ. This -then is Simon’s story, taking hints from which Valentinus -calls (the same things) by other names. For Nous and -Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia are -Simon’s six roots, Nous-Epinoia, Phone-Onoma, Logismos-Enthymesis. -But since we have sufficiently set forth Simon’s -fable making, let us see what Valentinus says.<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VI_2">2. <i>Concerning Valentinus.</i></h3> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 268.</span> -21. The heresy of Valentinus,<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> then, exists, having a -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18"></a>[18]</span> -Pythagorean and Platonic foundation. For Plato in the -<i>Timæus</i> modelled himself entirely on Pythagoras, as is seen -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span> -also by his “Pythagorean stranger” being Timæus himself. -Wherefore it seems fitting that we should begin by recalling -to mind a few (points) of the theory of Pythagoras and -Plato, and should then describe the (teaching) of Valentinus. -For if the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato are also included -in the (books) painfully written by us earlier, yet I shall not -be unreasonable in recalling<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> in epitome their most leading -tenets<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> in order that by their closer comparison and likeness -of composition, the doctrines of Valentinus may be more -intelligible. For as (the Pythagoreans and Platonists) took -their opinions of old from the Egyptians and taught them -anew to the Greeks, so (Valentinus) while fraudulently -attempting to establish his own teaching by them, carved -<span class="sidenote">p. 269.</span> -their system into names and numbers, calling them [by -names] and defining them by measures of his own. Whence -he has constructed a heresy Greek indeed, but not referable -to Christ.</p> - -<p>22. The wisdom of the Egyptians is, then, the beginning -of Plato’s theory in the <i>Timæus</i>. For from this, Solon<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> -taught the Greeks the whole position regarding the birth -and destruction of the cosmos by means of a certain prophetic -statement, as Plato says, the Greeks being then -children and knowing no older theologic learning. In -order then that we may follow closely the words which -Valentinus let fall, I will now set out as preface what it was -that Pythagoras of Samos taught as philosophy after that -silence praised by the Greeks. And then [I will point out] -those things which Valentinus takes from Pythagoras and -Plato and with solemn words attributes to Christ, and -before Christ to the Father of the universals and to that -Sige who is given as a spouse to the Father.</p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20"></a>[20]</span> -23. Now Pythagoras declared that the unbegotten monad -was the principle of the universals<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> and the parent of the -dyad and of all the other numbers. And he says that the -<span class="sidenote">p. 270.</span> -monad is the father of the dyad and the dyad the mother -of all engendered things (and) a bearer of things begotten. -And Zaratas,<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> also, the teacher of Pythagoras, calls the one -father, but the two, mother. For the dyad has come into -being from a monad according to Pythagoras, and the -monad is masculine and first, but the dyad female and -second. From the dyad, again, as Pythagoras says, (come) -the triad and the other numbers one after the other up to -10. For Pythagoras knew that this 10 is the only perfect -number.<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> For (he saw that) the 11 and 12 were an addition -to and re-equipment of the decad, and not the generation -of some other number. All solid bodies beget what is -given to them from the bodiless.<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> For, he says, the Point -which is indivisible is at once a point and a beginning of -the bodies and the bodiless together. And, he says, from -the point comes a line, and a superficies extended in -depth makes, he says, a solid figure. Whence the Pythagoreans -have a certain oath as to the harmony of the four -elements. And they make oath thus:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 271.</span><span class="verse">“Yea by the Tetractys handed down to our head</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0">A source of eternal nature containing within itself roots.”<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">For the beginning of natural and solid bodies is the -Tetractys as the monad is of the intelligible ones.<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> But -that the Tetractys gives birth to the perfect number as -among the intelligibles the (monad) does to the 10, they -teach thus. If one beginning to count, says 1, and adds 2, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21"></a>[21]</span> -and then 3 in like manner, these will make 6. (Add) yet -another (<i>i. e.</i>) 4 and there in the same way will be the total -10. For the 1, 2, 3 and 4 become 10, the perfect number. -Thus, he says, the Tetractys will in all things imitate the -intelligible monad having been thus able to bring forth a -perfect number.</p> - -<p>24. There are, therefore, according to Pythagoras, two -worlds, one intelligible which has the monad as its beginning, -but the other the perceptible. This last is the -Tetractys containing Iota,<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> the one tittle, a perfect number. -<span class="sidenote">p. 272.</span> -Thus the Iota, the one tittle, is received by the Pythagoreans -as the first and chiefest, and as the substance of -the Intelligible both intelligibly and perceptibly. Belonging -to which are the nine bodiless accidents which cannot -exist apart from substance, (viz.) Quantity, Quality, Wherefore, -Where, and When, and also Being, Having, Doing -and Suffering.<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> There are therefore nine accidents to -substance reckoned in with which they comprise<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> the -perfect number, the 10. Wherefore the universe being -divided, as we have said, into an intelligible and a perceptible -world, we have also reason from the intelligible in -order that by it we may behold the substance of the intelligible, -the bodiless and the divine. But we have, he says, -five senses, smell, sight, hearing, taste and touch. By these -we arrive at a knowledge of perceptible things, and so, he -says, the perceptible world is separated from the intelligible; -and that we have an organ of knowledge for each of them, -we learn from this. None of the intelligibles, he says, can -become known to us through sense: for, he says, eye has -not seen that, nor ear heard, nor has it become known, he -says, by any other of the senses whatever. Nor again by -reason can one come to a knowledge of the perceptible; -<span class="sidenote">p. 273.</span> -but one must see that a thing is white, and taste that it is -sweet, and know by hearing that it is just or unjust; and if -any smell is fragrant or nauseous, that is the work of the -sense of smell and not of the reason. And it is the same -with the things relating to touch. For that a thing is hard -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22"></a>[22]</span> -or soft or hot or cold cannot be known through the hearing, -but the test of these things is the touch. This being -granted, the setting in order of the things that have been -and are is seen to come about arithmetically. For, just as -we, beginning by addition of monads (or dyads) or triads -and of the other numbers strung together, make one very -large compound number, and on the other hand work by -subtracting from the total strung together and by analysing -by a fresh calculation what has been brought together -arithmetically;—so, he says, the cosmos is bound together -by a certain arithmetical and musical bond, and by its -tightening and slackening, its addition and subtraction, is -ever and everywhere preserved uncorrupted.</p> - -<p>25. For instance in some such fashion as this also do -the Pythagoreans describe the duration of the world:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 274.</span><span class="verse">“For it was before and will be. Never I ween</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0">Will the unquenchable aeon be devoid of these two.”</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>What are these (two)? Strife and Love.<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> But their love -makes the cosmos incorruptible and eternal, as they think. -For substance and the cosmos are one. But strife rends -asunder and diversifies, and tries by every means to make -the world divide. Just as one cuts arithmetically the myriad -into thousands and hundreds and tens and drachmas, and -obols, and quarters by dividing it into small parts, so Strife -cuts the substance of the cosmos into animals, plants, -metals and such like things. And Strife is according to -them, the Demiurge<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> of the generation of all things coming -to pass, and Love governs and provides for the universe, so -that it abides. And having collected into one the scattered -and rent (things) of the universe and leading them forth -from life, it joins and adds them to the universe so that it -may abide and be one. Never therefore will Strife cease -from dividing the cosmos, nor Love from attaching together -<span class="sidenote">p. 275.</span> -the separated things of the cosmos. Something like this it -seems is the “distribution”<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> according to Pythagoras. But -Pythagoras says that the stars are fragments<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> of the sun and -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23"></a>[23]</span> -that the souls of animals are borne (to us) from the stars. -And that the same (souls) are mortal when they are in the -body being buried as it were in a tomb; but that they will -rise again and become immortal when we are separated from -our bodies. Whence Plato being asked by some one what -Philosophy is, said: “It is a separation of soul from body.”</p> - -<p>26. Pythagoras, then, becoming a learner of these -opinions, declared some of them by means of enigmas and -such like phrases, (such as:) “If you are away from home, -turn not back. Otherwise, the Furies the helpers of justice -will punish you.”<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> (For) he calls your home the body and -<span class="sidenote">p. 276.</span> -the passions the Furies. If then, he says, you are away -from home, that is: if you have come forth from the body, -do not seek after it; but if you return to it, the passions -will again shut you up in a body. For they think there is -a change of bodies (μετενσωμάτωσις); as also Empedocles, -when Pythagorizing, says. For the pleasure-loving souls, -as Plato says,<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> if they do not philosophize when in man’s -estate, must pass through the bodies of all animals and -plants and again return to a human body. But if (such a -one) does philosophize,<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> he will in the same way go on high -thrice to his kindred star; but if he does not philosophize -will return again to the same things. Thus he tells us that -the soul is at once mortal if it be ruled by the Furies, that -is, by the Passions, and immortal if it flees from them.</p> - -<p>27. But seeing that we have picked out for narration the -things darkly uttered to his disciples under the veil of symbols, -it seems fitting to recall other sayings (of his), because -the heresiarchs attempt to deal in symbols in the same way; -and these not their own, but using the words of Pythagoras. -<span class="sidenote">p. 277.</span> -Now Pythagoras teaches his disciples saying “Bind up the -bed-sack,” since they who are setting out on a journey make -their clothing into a bundle, so as to be ready for the road. -Thus he wishes his disciples to be ready, as if at any -moment death might come upon them, so that they may -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24"></a>[24]</span> -not be caught lacking anything. Wherefore he is obliged -to enjoin the Pythagorean every morning to bind up the -bed-sack, that is to prepare for death. “Do not stir the -fire with a sword,” meaning do not provoke angry men; for -he likens an angry man to a fire and speech to a sword. -“Do not tread on sweepings,” that is, do not look down -upon trifles. “Do not grow a palm in a house,” that is, -do not make a cause of strife in it. For the palm is a -symbol of fighting and strife. “Eat not from a stool” -(that is), practise no ignoble art, that you may not be a -slave to the corruptible body, but make your livelihood -by lectures. For it is possible at once to nourish the body -<span class="sidenote">p. 278.</span> -and to improve the soul. “From a whole loaf bite off -nought,” (that is) diminish not that which belongs to you, -but live on the income and keep the capital like a whole -loaf. “Eat not beans” (that is) Take not the rule of a -city. For by beans the rulers<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> were then elected.<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></p> - -<p>28. These and such like things, then, the Pythagoreans say, -imitating whom the heretics think they declare great things to -certain men. The Pythagorean doctrine says that the Great -Geometrician and Reckoner<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> the Sun is the Demiurge of -all things that are, and is fixed in the whole cosmos like the -soul in bodies, as says Plato. For the Sun like the soul is -fire, but the earth a body. But if fire were absent, nothing -could be seen, nor could there be any solid perceptible to -the touch; for there is no solid without earth. Whence -God having put air in the midst, fashioned the body of the -universe from fire and earth.<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> But the Sun reckons and -measures the cosmos in some such fashion as this. The -cosmos is that perceptible one of which we are now speaking. -But (the Sun) divides it as an arithmetician and -geometrician into twelve parts. And the names of these -<span class="sidenote">p. 279.</span> -parts are:—Ram, Bull, Twins, Crab, Lion, Virgin, Scales, -Scorpion, Archer, He-goat, Waterbearer and Fishes. -Again, he divides each of the twelve parts into thirty which -are the thirty days of the month. And again he divides each -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25"></a>[25]</span> -of the thirty parts into sixty minutes and (each) minute into -yet smaller and smaller parts. And thus ever creating -without ceasing, but gathering together from these divided -parts and making a cycle, and again dissolving it and -separating that which has been put together, he perfects -the great deathless cosmos.<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a></p> - -<p>29. Something like this, as I have just summarily said, is -the teaching framed by Pythagoras and Plato. From which -and not from the Gospels, Valentinus has drawn his own -heresy, as we shall show, and should therefore be reckoned -a Pythagorean and a Platonist, but not as a Christian. -Accordingly he and Heracleon and Ptolemy and all their -school, the disciples of Pythagoras and Plato copying their -teachers, have framed an arithmetical doctrine of their own. -<span class="sidenote">p. 280.</span> -For indeed an unbegotten, incorruptible, incomprehensible -fruitful Monad is to them the beginning of all and the cause -of the birth of all things that are. Yet a certain wide -difference is found among them. For some of them, that -they may keep wholly pure the Pythagorean teaching of -Valentinus, consider the Father to be unfeminine,<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> spouseless, -and alone: whereas the others, thinking it absolutely -impossible that there could be a birth of all things that have -been born from any single male, are compelled to reckon -Sige<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> as a spouse to the Father of the universals in order -that he may become a father. But as to whether Sige is a -spouse or not, let them fight it out with each other.<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> We, -keeping steadfast at present to the Pythagorean (doctrine -of) the beginning and remembering what others teach, say -that He is one, without spouse, without female, in need of -nought. In a word (Valentinus) says at the beginning nothing -was begotten, but the Father was alone, unbegotten, -having neither place, nor time, nor counsellor, nor any -other thing that by any figure of speech could be understood -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_26"></a>[26]</span> -as essence.<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> But He was alone and solitary, as they say, -and resting alone within Himself. And when He was filled -with fruit, He saw fit to beget and bring forth the most -<span class="sidenote">p. 281.</span> -beautiful and perfect thing He had within Himself. For He -did not love to be alone.<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> For He, Valentinus says, was all -Love and love is not love unless there be something to be -loved. Then the Father himself projected and engendered, -as He was alone, Mind and Truth,<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> that is a dyad, which -became the lady and beginning and mother of all the aeons -reckoned by them as being within the Pleroma. But Nous -and Aletheia having been projected by the Father, a fruitful -(projection) from the fruitful, imitating the Father projected -also the Word and Life;<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> and Logos and Zoe projected Man -and the Church.<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> But Nous and Aletheia when they saw -that their own special progeny had become fruitful, gave -thanks to the Father of the universals and offered to him a -perfect number, ten Aeons. For than this, he says, Nous -and Aletheia could offer to the Father no more perfect -number. For the Father being perfect ought to be glorified -with a perfect number. And the ten is perfect because as -the first of things that came into being by addition, it is -complete.<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> But the Father is more perfect because he -<span class="sidenote">p. 282.</span> -alone is unbegotten, and by the first single syzygy of Nous -and Aletheia supplied the projection of all the roots of the -things that are.</p> - -<p>30. Then when Logos and Zoe saw that Nous and -Aletheia had glorified the Father of the universals in a -perfect number, Logos himself with Zoe<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> also wished to -glorify his own father and mother, Nous and Aletheia. But -since Nous and Aletheia were begotten and did not possess -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_27"></a>[27]</span> -the complete paternal unbegotten nature,<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> Logos and Zoe -did not glorify their father Nous with a perfect number, but -with an imperfect one: for Logos and Zoe offer twelve -Aeons to Nous and Aletheia. For the first roots of the Aeons -according to Valentinus were Nous and Aletheia, Logos and -Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. But there are twelve Aeons -two of which are the children of Nous and Aletheia and -ten those of Logos and Zoe, in all twenty-eight. And these -are the names by which they call (the ten): Profound and -Mixture, Who-grows-not-old and Oneness, Self-grown and -<span class="sidenote">p. 283.</span> -Pleasure, Unmoved and Blending, Unique and Blessedness.<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> -Of these ten Aeons some say that they are by Nous and -Aletheia and others by Logos and Zoe; and there are twelve -others which some say are by Anthropos and Ecclesia and -others by Logos and Zoe. To whom they give these names: -Paraclete and Faith, Fatherly and Hope, Motherly and Love, -Ever-thinking and Union, Of the Church and Blessed, -Beloved and Wisdom.<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> Of the twelve the twelfth and -youngest of all the twenty-four Aeons who was a female and -called Sophia,<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> perceived the multitude and power of the -Aeons who had been begotten and shot up into the Height -of the Father. And she comprehended that all the other -begotten Aeons existed and had been brought forth in pairs, -but that the Father alone produced without a partner. She -wished to imitate the Father and gave birth by herself -and apart from her spouse, so that she might work no work -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_28"></a>[28]</span> -lacking anything more than did the work of the Father, -<span class="sidenote">p. 284.</span> -being ignorant that only the Unbegotten principle and -root and height and depth of the universals can possibly -bring forth alone. For in the Unbegotten, he says, all -things exist together; but among the begotten the female is -the projector of substance, but the male gives form to the -substance<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> which the female projects. Therefore Sophia -projected only that which she could, a substance shapeless -and unformed.[118] And this, he says, is what Moses said: -“Now the earth was invisible and unformed.”<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> She, he says, -is the good or heavenly Jerusalem into which God declared -he would lead the children of Israel, saying: “I will lead -you into a good land flowing with milk and honey.”<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p> - -<p>31. Ignorance, then, having come about within the -Pleroma by Sophia, and formlessness by the offspring of -Sophia, confusion came to pass within it. For the Aeons -(feared) that what was born from them would be born -<span class="sidenote">p. 285.</span> -shapeless and imperfect, and that corruption would before -long destroy them. Then all the Aeons took refuge in -prayers to the Father that he would give rest to the sorrowing -Sophia. For she was weeping and mourning over the -Abortion<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> brought forth by her—for so they call it. Then -the Father took pity on the tears of Sophia, and hearkened -to the prayers of the Aeons and commanded a projection -to be made. For he himself did not project, but Nous and -Aletheia projected Christ and the Holy Spirit for the giving -form to and the separation of the Ectroma and the relief -and intermission of the groans of Sophia. And thirty -Aeons came into existence with Christ and the Holy Spirit. -But some of them will have it that there is a triacontad of -Aeons, but others that Sige co-exists with the Father, and -wish the Aeons to be counted in with those (two). Then, -when Christ and the Holy Spirit had been projected<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> by -Nous and Aletheia, he straightway separates from the complete -Aeons Ectroma, the shapeless and unique<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> thing -which had been brought forth by Sophia apart from her -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_29"></a>[29]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 286.</span> -spouse, so that the perfect Aeons might not be troubled by -the sight of her shapelessness. Then, that the shapelessness -of Ectroma might no way be apparent to the perfect -Aeons, the Father again projected one Aeon (to wit) the -Cross, who having been born great from the great and perfect -Father and projected as a guard and palisade to the -Aeons, becomes the limit of the Pleroma containing within -him all the thirty Aeons together: for they were projected -before him. And he is called Horos because he separates -from the Pleroma the Void<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> without; and Metocheus<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> -because he partakes also in the Hysterema; and Stauros -because he is fixed unbendingly and unchangeably, so that -nothing from the Hysterema can abide near the Aeons who -<span class="sidenote">p. 287.</span> -are within the Pleroma. And when Sophia Without had -been transformed and it was not possible for Christ and the -Holy Spirit, the projections of Nous and Aletheia, to remain -outside the Pleroma, they returned from her who had been -transformed, to Nous and Aletheia within Horos, so that -he with the other Aeons might glorify the Father.</p> - -<p>32. Since then there was a certain single peace and harmony -of all the Aeons within the Pleroma, it seemed good -to them not only to have glorified the Father in pairs, but -also to glorify him by the offering to him of fitting fruits. -Therefore all the thirty Aeons were well pleased to project -one Aeon, the Common Fruit of the Pleroma, so that -he might be the (fruit) of their unity and likemindedness -and peace. And as He alone was projected by all the -Father’s Aeons, He is called by them the Common Fruit of -the Pleroma. Thus then were things within the Pleroma. -And the Common Fruit of the Pleroma was projected, (to -wit) Jesus—for that is His name—the Great High Priest. -<span class="sidenote">p. 288.</span> -But Sophia without the Pleroma seeking after Christ, who -had given her shape and the Holy Spirit, stood in great fear, -lest she might perish when separated from Him who had -given her shape and had established her. And she mourned -and was in great perplexity considering who it was that had -given her shape, who the Holy Spirit was, whence she had -gone forth, who had hindered them from coming near her, -(and) who had begrudged her that fair and blessed vision. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_30"></a>[30]</span> -Brought low by these passions, she turns to beseeching -supplication of Him who had left her. Then Christ who -was within the Pleroma had compassion on her beseeching, -as had all the Aeons of the Pleroma, and they send forth -outside the Pleroma its Common Fruit to be a spouse to -Sophia Without and the corrector of the passions which she -suffered while seeking after Christ.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> Then the Fruit being -outside the Pleroma and finding her amid the first four passions -(to wit) in fear and grief and perplexity and supplication, -corrected her passions, but did not think it seemly -in correcting them that they should be destroyed, since they -<span class="sidenote">p. 289.</span> -were eternal and special to Sophia, nor yet that Sophia -should be among such passions as fear and grief, supplication -and perplexity. He, therefore, being so great an Aeon -and the offspring of the whole Pleroma, made the passions -stand away from her and He made them fundamental -essences.<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> And He made the fear into the essence of the -soul,<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> and the grief into that of matter, and the perplexity -into (that) of demons, but the conversion and entreaty and -supplication He made a path to repentance and (the) power -of the soul’s essence, which (essence) is called the Right -Hand or Demiurge from fear. This, he says, is the Scripture -saying: “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.”<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> -For it was the beginning of the passions of Sophia. For -she feared, then she grieved, then she was perplexed, and -<span class="sidenote">p. 290.</span> -then she took refuge in prayer and supplication. And the -essence of the soul, he says, is fiery and is called a (supercelestial) -Place and Hebdomad and Ancient of Days.<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> And -whatever things they say of him, he says, the same belong -to the psychic one whom they declare to be the Demiurge -of the Cosmos; but he is fiery. And Moses also, he says, -spake, “The Lord thy God is a burning and consuming -fire.”<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> And truly he wishes this (text) to be thus written. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_31"></a>[31]</span> -But the power of the fire, he says, is in some sort double; -for it is an all-devouring fire (and) cannot be quenched. -And according to this, indeed, a part of the soul is mortal, -being a certain middle state; for it is a Hebdomad and -Laying to Rest. For below (the soul) is of the Ogdoad -where is Sophia, a day which has been given shape, and the -Common Fruit of the Pleroma; but above it is of Matter -wherein is the Demiurge.<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> If it makes itself completely -like those who are on high in the Ogdoad, it becomes immortal -and comes to the Ogdoad, which is, he says, the -heavenly Jerusalem; but if it makes itself completely like -matter, that is to the material passions, it is corruptible and -is destroyed.</p> - -<p>33. As therefore the first and greatest power of the -<span class="sidenote">p. 291.</span> -psychic essence becomes an image [of the only-begotten -Son, so the power of the material essence] is the devil, the -ruler of this world, and (that) of the essence of demons, -which is from perplexity, is Beelzebud.<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> But it is Sophia -on high who works from the Ogdoad up to the Hebdomad. -They say that the Demiurge knows absolutely nothing, but -is according to them mindless and foolish and knows not -what he does or works. And for him who knows not what he -makes, Sophia creates all things and strengthens them. And -when she had wrought it, he thought that he had by himself -accomplished the creation of the cosmos; wherefore he -began to say: “I am God, and beside me there is none other.”</p> - -<p>34. The Tetractys of Valentinus is then at once:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“A certain source containing roots of eternal nature.”</div> - <div class="right">(Pyth., <i>Carm. Aur.</i>, l. 48.)</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> -<p class="noin"> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_32"></a>[32]</span> -and Sophia by whom the psychic and material creation -is now framed. And Sophia is called Spirit, but the -<span class="sidenote">p. 292.</span> -Demiurge Soul, and the Devil the ruler of the world, and -Beelzebud that of the demons. This is what they say, and -beside this, they make their whole teaching arithmetical; -[and] as is said above, they (imagine) that (the) thirty -Aeons within the Pleroma again projected other Aeons by -analogy with themselves, so that the Pleroma may be -summed up in a perfect number. For, as it has been made -clear that the Pythagoreans divide (the circle) into 12 -and 30 and 60 (parts) and that these have also minutes -of minutes, thus also do (the Valentinians) subdivide -the things within the Pleroma. But subdivided also are -the things in the Ogdoad, and there rules<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> (there) Sophia who -is according to them the Mother of All Living, and the -Logos, the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, (and) there are -(there) supercelestial angels, citizens of the Jerusalem on -<span class="sidenote">p. 293.</span> -high, which is in heaven. For this Jerusalem is Sophia. -Without and her bridegroom the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma. -(But) the Demiurge also projected souls; for he is the -essence of souls. This is according to them Abraham and -these are the children of Abraham. Then, from the -material and devilish essence the Demiurge has made the -bodies of the souls. This is the saying: “And God made -man, taking dust from the earth, and breathed into his face -a breath of life, and man became a living soul.”<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> This is, -according to them, the inward psychic man who dwells in -the material body which is material, corruptible, and formed -entirely of devilish essence. But this material man is -(according to them) like unto an inn, or the dwelling-place, -sometimes of the soul alone, sometimes of the soul and -demons, and sometimes of the soul and logoi, who are logoi -sown from above in this world by the Joint Fruit of the -Pleroma, and by Sophia, and who dwell in the earthly body -with the soul when there are no demons dwelling with it. -<span class="sidenote">p. 294.</span> -This, he says, is what was written in Scripture: “For this -cause I bow my knees to the God and Father and Lord of -our Lord Jesus Christ, that God would grant you that Christ -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_33"></a>[33]</span> -should dwell in the inner man, that is the psychical not -the somatic, that you be strengthened to comprehend what -is the depth” which is the Father of the universals “and -what is the breadth,”<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> which is Stauros the Limit of the -Pleroma, “or what the length,” which is the Pleroma of the -Aeons. Wherefore, he says, the psychic man does not receive -the things of God’s spirit; for they are foolishness unto him. -But foolishness, he says, is the power of the Demiurge, for -he was senseless and mindless and thought that he fashioned -the cosmos, being ignorant that Sophia, the Mother, the -Ogdoad, wrought all things with regard to the creation of the -world for him who knew it not.</p> - -<p>35. All the prophets and the Law, then, spake from the -(inspiration of the) Demiurge, a foolish god,<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> he says, being -themselves foolish and knowing nothing. Wherefore, he -says, the Saviour declared: “All who came before me are -thieves and robbers.”<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> The Apostle also: “The mystery -which was not known to the first generations.”<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> For none -<span class="sidenote">p. 295.</span> -of the prophets, he says, declared anything concerning the -things of whereof we speak; for all (of them) were ignored -in what was said by the Demiurge alone.<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> When, therefore, -creation was brought to completion,<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> and the revelation of -the sons of God, that is of the Demiurge, at length became -necessary, which had before been concealed, he says, the -psychic man was veiled and had a veil upon his heart. -Then when it was time that the veil should be taken away, -and that these mysteries should be seen, Jesus was born -through Mary the Virgin<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> according to the saying: “(The) -Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”—the Spirit is Sophia—“and -a power of the Highest shall overshadow thee”—the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_34"></a>[34]</span> -Highest is the Demiurge. “Wherefore that which is born -from thee shall be called holy.”<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> For He was born not -from the Highest alone, as those created after the fashion -of Adam were created from the Highest, that is from the -Demiurge. But Jesus was the new man (born) from the -Holy Spirit (and the Highest),<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> that is from Sophia and -the Demiurge, so that the Demiurge supplied the mould -and constitution of His body, but the Holy Spirit supplied -<span class="sidenote">p. 296.</span> -His substance,<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> and thus the Heavenly Logos came into -being, having been begotten from the Ogdoad through -Mary. Concerning this there is a great enquiry among -them and a source of schisms and variance. And hence -their school<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> has become divided and one part is called by -them the Anatolic and the other the Italiote. Those from -Italy, whereof are Heracleon and Ptolemy, say that the -body of Jesus was born psychic, and therefore the Spirit -descended as a dove at the Baptism, that is the Word -which is of the mother Sophia on high and cried aloud -to the psychic man<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> and raised him from the dead. This, -he says, is the saying: “He who raised Christ from the -dead, shall quicken your mortal bodies (and your psychic).”<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> -For earth, he says, has come under a curse. “For Earth,” -he says, “thou art, and to earth thou shalt return.”<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> But -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_35"></a>[35]</span> -those from the East, whereof are Axionicus and Bardesanes,<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 297.</span> -say that the body of the Saviour was spiritual. For -(the) Holy Spirit came upon Mary, that is Sophia and the -Power of the Highest is the demiurgic art,<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> so that that -which was given by the Spirit to Mary might be moulded -(into form).</p> - -<p>36. These things then let these men enquire after in -their own way, and if they should happen to do so in any -other, so let it be. But (Valentinus) also says that as the -false steps among the Aeons had been put straight<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> and -also those in the Ogdoad or Sophia Without, so also were -those in the Hebdomad. For the Demiurge was taught by -Sophia that he is not the only God as he thought, and that -beside him there is none other; but he knew better after -being taught by Sophia. For he was schooled by her and -was initiated and taught the great mystery of the Father -and the Aeons and told it to none. This, he says, is what -he spake to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham and the -God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and my name I have -not announced to them,”<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> that is to say: “I have not told -the mystery nor have I explained who is God, but I have -kept to myself the mystery which I have heard from -Sophia.” It was necessary, then, that the things on high -having been put straight, in the same sequence,<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> correction -<span class="sidenote">p. 298.</span> -should come to those here. For this cause was Jesus the -Saviour born through Mary, that He might put straight -things here, as the Christ, who on high was projected by -Nous and Aletheia, put straight the passions of Sophia -Without, that is, of the Ectroma. And again the Saviour -who was born through Mary came to set straight the -passions of the soul. There are, then, according to them -three Christs, the one projected by Nous and Aletheia along -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_36"></a>[36]</span> -with the Holy Spirit; and the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma the -equal yoke-fellow<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> of Sophia Without who is called and is -herself a Holy Spirit (but) inferior to the first; and third, -He who was born through Mary for the restoration<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> of this -creation of ours.</p> - -<p>37. I consider I have now by means of many (explanations) -sufficiently sketched the heresy of Valentinus, it -being a Pythagorean one; and it seems to me that the -refutation of these doctrines by exposition should stop. -Plato, moreover, when setting forth mysteries concerning -the universe writes to Dionysius in some such way as this:<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a></p> - -<p>“I must speak to you in enigmas, so that if the tablet -<span class="sidenote">p. 299.</span> -should suffer in any of its leaves on sea or land, whoso -reads may not understand.<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> For things are thus. As -regards the king of all, all things are his, and all are for -his sake, and he is the cause of all that is fair. A second -(cause exists) concerning secondary things and a third concerning -those things which come third.<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> But respecting -the king himself there is nothing of this kind of which I -have spoken. But after this the soul seeks to learn of -what quality these are, since it looks towards the things -which are germane to itself, of which it has nought sufficiently. -This is, O son of Dionysius and Doris, your -question as to what is the cause of all evils. But it is -rather that anxiety about this is inborn, and if one does -not remove it, one will never hit upon the truth.<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> But -what is wonderful about it, hear. For there are men who -have heard these things, able to learn and able to remember,<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> -and who have yet grown old while straining to form -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_37"></a>[37]</span> -a complete judgment. They say that what (once) appeared -believable is now unbelievable, and that what was then -unbelievable was then the opposite. Looking therefore to -<span class="sidenote">p. 300.</span> -this, beware, lest you repent what has unworthily fallen -from you. Wherefore I have written none of these things, -nor is there anything (upon them) signed Plato, nor will -there ever be. But the sayings now attributed to Socrates -were (said by him)<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> when he was young and fair.”<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a></p> - -<p>(Now) Valentinus having chanced upon these (lines) conceived -the king of all, of whom Plato spoke, to be Father -and Bythos and the primal source of all the Aeons.<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> And -when Plato spoke of the second (cause) concerning secondary -things, Valentinus assumed that the secondary things -were all the Aeons being within the limit of the Pleroma -and the third (cause) concerning the third things, he -assumed to be the whole arrangement without the limit -and (outside) the Pleroma. And this Valentinus made -plain in the fewest words in a psalm, beginning from below -and not as Plato did from above, in these words:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 301.</span><span class="verse">“I behold all things hanging from air,</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0">I perceive all things upheld by spirit,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Flesh hanging from soul,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Soul standing forth from air,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And air hanging from aether,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">But fruits borne away from Bythos</div> - <div class="verse indent0">But the embryo from the womb.”<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Understanding this thus:—Flesh is, according to them, -Matter, which depends from the soul of the Demiurge. -But soul stands out from air, that is the Demiurge from -the Spirit outside the Pleroma. But air stands out from -æther, that is Sophia Without from that which is within -(the) limit and the whole Pleroma. Fruits are borne away -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_38"></a>[38]</span> -from Bythos, which is the whole emanation of Aeons -coming into being from the Father. The opinions of -Valentinus have therefore been sufficiently told.<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> It remains -to tell of the teachings of those who have been obedient -to his school, another having different teaching.</p> - - -<h3 id="VI_3" title="3. About Secundus and Epiphanes.">3. <i>About Secundus and Epiphanes.</i><a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></h3> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 302.</span> -38. A certain Secundus, who was born at the same time -as Ptolemy, says that there exist a right hand and a left -hand tetrad like light and darkness. And he says that the -Power which fell away and is lacking<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> came into being not -from the thirty Aeons, but from their fruits. But there -is a certain Epiphanes, a teacher of theirs, who says: -“The First Principle<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> was incomprehensible, ineffable and -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_39"></a>[39]</span> -unnameable” which he calls Solitude<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> and that a Power of -this co-exists with it which he names Oneness.<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> The same -Monotes and Henotes preceded [but] did not send forth<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> -an unbegotten and invisible principle over all which he -calls<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> a Monad. “With this Power co-exists a power of -the same essence with itself, which same power I also name -the One.” These four Powers themselves sent forth the -remaining projections of the Aeons. But others of them -<span class="sidenote">p. 303.</span> -again have called the first and primordial Ogdoad by these -names: first, “Before the Beginning,” then “Inconceivable,” -third “Ineffable” and the fourth, “Invisible;”<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> and (they -say) that from the first Proarche was projected in the first -and fifth place Beginning; from Anennoetos, in the second -and sixth (place) Unrevealed, from Arrheton in the third -and seventh place, Unnameable and from Aoratos, Unbegotten.<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> -(This is the) Pleroma of the first Ogdoad. And -they will have these powers to have existed before Bythos -and Sige. But yet others understand differently about -Bythos himself, some saying that he is spouseless and neither -male nor female, and others that Sige exists beside him as -his female and that this is the first syzygy.</p> - - -<h3 id="VI_4" title="4. About Ptolemy.">4. <i>About Ptolemy.</i><a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a></h3> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 304.</span> -39. But the adherents of Ptolemy say that he [Bythos] -has two partners whom they call also (his) predispositions<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_40"></a>[40]</span> -(<i>i. e.</i>) Thought and Will. For he first had it in mind to -project something, and then he willed (to do so). Wherefore -from these two diatheses and powers, that is, from -Ennoia and Thelesis as it were blending with one another, -the projection of Monogenes and Aletheia as a pair came -to pass. The which types and images of the two diatheses -of the Father came forth visible from the invisible, Nous -from Thelema<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> and Aletheia from Ennoia. Therefore also -the male image was born from the later-begotten Thelema, -but the female from the unbegotten Ennoia, because -Thelema came into being like a power from Ennoia. For -Ennoia has ever in mind projection, but she is not able by -herself to project what she has in mind. But when the -power of Thelema [came into being later],<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> then she -projected what she had in mind.</p> - - -<h3 id="VI_5" title="5. About Marcus.">5. <i>About Marcus.</i><a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a></h3> - -<p>40. And a certain other teacher of theirs, Marcus, an -<span class="sidenote">p. 305.</span> -expert in magic, depending now on trickery and now on -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_41"></a>[41]</span> -demons, leads astray many. For he says that there is in -him the greatest power from the invisible and unnameable -places. And often he takes a cup, as if consecrating it,<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> -and prolonging the words of consecration, causes the -mixture to appear purple and sometimes red, so as to make -his dupes think that a certain grace has come down, and -has given a blood-like power<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> to the draught. But the -rogue, though he formerly escaped the notice of many, -will, now that he has been refuted,<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> have to stop. For he -used secretly to insert a certain drug having the power of -giving such a colour to the mixture, and then to wait while -uttering much gibberish, until it dissolved by absorbing -moisture and, mixing with the draught, coloured it. And -the drugs which can thus give colour we have before -described in our book against the Magicians,<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> and have set -forth how leading many astray, they utterly ruin them. -Which (last), if they care to consider more carefully what -has been said above, will know the fraud of Marcus.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 306.</span> -41. Which (Marcus) also, mixing a cup by another hand, -(sometimes) gives it<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> to a woman to consecrate, while he -stands by her side holding a larger one empty: and when -the dupe has made the consecration, he takes (the cup) -from her, and empties it into the larger one and many times -pouring (the contents) from one cup to the other, says -these words over them: “May the Incomprehensible and -Ineffable Charis who is earlier than the universals fill thy -inner man, and make abundant in thee the knowledge<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> of -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_42"></a>[42]</span> -her, even as she scatters the mustard seed upon the good -ground!” And as he speaks some such words over it, and -(thereby) distracts the dupe and the bystanders, so that he -is considered a miracle-worker, he fills the larger cup from -the smaller so that it overflows. And we have set forth -the trick of this in the above-named book, where we have -pointed out many drugs which have the power of causing -increase when thus mixed with watery substances,<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> especially -when mingled with wine: the drug compounded beforehand, -being hidden in the empty cup in such a way that this -may be exhibited as containing nothing, and being poured -backwards and forwards from one cup to the other, so as to -dissolve the drug by mixture with the water,<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> and so that -<span class="sidenote">p. 307.</span> -when it is inflated by air, an overflow of the water comes -about, and it increases the more it is shaken, since such is -the nature of the drug. If, however, one lays aside the cup -when filled, the mixture will before long return to its former -volume, the power of the drug being quenched by the -continued moisture. Wherefore he hurriedly gives the -bystanders to drink; and they being at the same time -scared and thirsting for it as something divine and mingled -by a god, hasten to drink.</p> - -<p>42. Such like and other things, the deceiver undertakes -to do. Whence he was glorified by those he duped and -was thought sometimes to prophesy himself and sometimes -to make others do so, either effecting this by demons or -by trickery as we have said above. Further he utterly -ruined many,<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> and led on many of them to become his -disciples (by) teaching them to be indifferent to sin<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> as -free from danger (to them) through their belonging to the -Perfect Power and partakers of the Inconceivable Authority. -To whom also after baptism they promise another which -they call Redemption,<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> and thereby turn again to evil those -<span class="sidenote">p. 308.</span> -who remain with them in the hope of deliverance, (as if) -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_43"></a>[43]</span> -those who had been once baptized might again meet with -acquittal. Through such jugglery,<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> they seem to retain -their hearers, whom, when they consider that they have -been (duly) indoctrinated and are able to keep fast the -things entrusted to them, they then lead to this (second -baptism), not contenting themselves with this alone, but -promising them still something else, for the purpose of keeping -control over them by hope, lest they should separate -from them. For they mutter something in an inaudible -voice, laying hands on them for the receiving of Redemption -which they pretend cannot be spoken openly unless -one were highly instructed, or when the bishop should come -to speak it into the ears of one departing this life.<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> And -this jugglery is practised so that they may remain the -bishop’s disciples, eagerly desirous to learn what has been -said about the last thing<a id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> whereby the learner would become -perfect. Of which things I have kept silence for this -cause, lest any should think I put the worst construction -on them. For this is not what we have set before us, but -rather the exposure of whence they have derived the hints<a id="FNanchor_194" href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> -from which their doctrines have arisen.</p> - -<p>43. For the blessed elder Irenæus having come forward -<span class="sidenote">p. 309.</span> -very openly for (their) refutation has set forth these baptisms -and redemptions saying in rounder terms what those -who traffic<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> with them do; and if some of these deny that -they have thus received them (it is because) they learn to -always deny.<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> Wherefore we have been careful to enquire -very sedulously and to find out minutely what they hand -down in the first baptism as they call it, and what in the -second which they call Redemption: and no unutterable -doing of theirs has escaped us. But let us abandon<a id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> these -things to Valentinus and his school.</p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_44"></a>[44]</span> -Marcus, however, imitating his teacher himself also concocts -a vision, thinking thus to glorify himself. For Valentinus -claims that he himself saw a new-born infant, hearing -whom he enquired who he might be. And (the infant) -answered declaring himself to be the Logos. Thereupon -(Valentinus) having added a certain tragic myth, wishes -from this to construct the heresy which he had already -taken in hand.<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> With like audacity, Marcus declares that -the Tetrad came before him in feminine shape; because, -he says, the cosmos could not bear its male form.<a id="FNanchor_199" href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> And -<span class="sidenote">p. 310.</span> -she disclosed to him what she was, and the coming into -being of all things, which she had never yet revealed to -any either of gods or men (but) announced it to him alone, -saying thus:—when the First (Being) who has no father,<a id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> -the Inconceivable and Substanceless One, who is neither -male nor female, willed the ineffable to be spoken and the -invisible to take shape, He opened His mouth and a Logos -like unto Him went forth. Who, standing beside Him, -showed Him what He was, Himself having appeared in -the shape of the Invisible One. And the utterance of the -name was on this wise. He spoke the first word of the -name which was the beginning and was the syllable<a id="FNanchor_201" href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> of four -letters. And He added to it the second, and it also was -of four letters. And He spoke the third, which was of ten -letters and then the fourth, and this was of twelve. There -came to pass therefore, the pronunciation of the whole -name of thirty letters, but of four syllables. But each -of the elements has its own letters<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> and its own character,<a id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_45"></a>[45]</span> -and its own pronunciation and figures and images, nor -is there any of them which perceives the form of another. -<span class="sidenote">p. 311.</span> -Nor does it see that it is an element, nor know the pronunciation -of its neighbour; but each sounds as if pronouncing -the whole, and believes itself to be naming the [universe].<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> -For while each of them is a part of the universe, it thinks -its own sound names as it were the whole, and does not -cease to sound until it has arrived at the last single-tongued -letter of the last element. Then he says that the return of -the universals (to the Deity)<a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> will come to pass when all -things coming together into one letter shall echo one and -the same sound. He supposes that the likeness of this -sound is the Amen<a id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> which we speak in unison. But (he -says) that the vowels<a id="FNanchor_207" href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> exist to give shape to the substanceless -and unbegotten Aeon, and that they are those forms -which the Lord called angels, which behold without -ceasing the Father’s face.<a id="FNanchor_208" href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a></p> - -<p>44. But the names of the elements which are common -(to all) and may be spoken, he calls Aeons and Logoi and -Roots and Seeds<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> and Pleromas and Fruits. And (he says) -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_46"></a>[46]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 312.</span> -that every one of them and what is special to each is to -be comprehended as comprised in the name of Ecclesia. -Of which elements, he says, that the last letter of the last -element first sent forth<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> its own sound, the echo of which -going forth begot its own elements as being the images of -the other elements. Wherefrom, he says, both the things -here below were set in order and those which were before -them were brought into being.<a id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> He says nevertheless that -the very letter the sound of which followed immediately -upon the echo below was taken up again by its own syllable -in order to fill full again the universe, but that the echo -remained in the things below as if cast outside it.<a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> But -the element itself wherefrom the letter with its pronunciation -came down below, he says, is of thirty letters, and -every one of the thirty letters contains within itself other -letters whereby the name of the letter is named. And -again others are named by other letters and yet others -by these others, so that the total comes out to infinity, if -the letters be written separately.<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> You will more clearly -<span class="sidenote">p. 313.</span> -understand what has been said (if it be put) thus:—The -element Delta contains in itself five letters, the Delta, the -Epsilon, the Lambda, the Tau and the Alpha and the same -letters (are written) by other letters <a id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a>. If then the whole -substance<a id="FNanchor_215" href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> of the Delta comes out to infinity, letters constantly -giving birth to other letters and succeeding one -another, how much greater than that one element is the -sea of letters? And if the one letter be thus infinite, behold -the depth<a id="FNanchor_216" href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> of the letters of the whole name whereof the -industry or rather the idiot labour<a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> of Marcus will have -the Forefather to be composed. Wherefore, (he says) the -Father, knowing well His unconfined nature, gave to the -elements which He calls Aeons, the power for each to send -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_47"></a>[47]</span> -forth the pronunciation of his own name, whereby none is -capable of pronouncing the whole.</p> - -<p>45. And [it is said that] the Tetrad having explained -these things to him, said:—“I desire now to show to thee -Aletheia<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> herself; for I have brought her down from the -dwellings on high in order that thou mayest behold her -<span class="sidenote">p. 314.</span> -unclothed and learn her beauty, and may also hear her -speak and admire her wisdom. See then the head on high -the first Alpha-Omega, and the neck Beta-Psi, the shoulders -(together with the hands) Gamma-Chi, the breast Delta-Phi, -the waist Epsilon-Upsilon, the belly Zeta-Tau, the privy -parts Eta-Sigma, the thighs Theta-Rho, the knees Iota-Pi, -the legs Kappa-Omicron, the ankles Lambda-Xi, the feet -Mu-Nu.” Such is the body of Aletheia according to Marcus, -this the form of the element, this the impress of the -letter. And he calls this element Anthropos<a id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> and says that -it is the fountain of all speech and the principle of every -sound, and the utterance of everything ineffable, and the -mouth of the silent Sige.<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> “And this is her body. But -do thou raising on high the understanding of the intelligence,<a id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> -hear the Self-Begotten and Forefather Word from -the lips of Truth.”</p> - -<p>46. When (the Tetrad) had thus spoken (says Marcus), -Aletheia looking upon him and opening her mouth spake a -word. But that word was a name and the name was that -which we know and speak (to wit) Christ Jesus, having -<span class="sidenote">p. 315.</span> -spoken which, she straightway became silent. And when -Marcus expected her to say something more, the Tetrad -again coming forward said: “Holdest thou simple the word -which thou hast heard from the lips of Aletheia? Yet that -which you know and seem to have possessed of old is not -the name. For you have its sound only, and know not its -power. For Jesus is an illustrious name having six letters<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> -invoked by all the Elect. But that which occurs among the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_48"></a>[48]</span> -(five)<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> Aeons of the Pleroma has many parts (and) is of -another shape and of a different type, being known by -those of (His) kindred whose magnitudes<a id="FNanchor_224" href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> are ever with -Him.”</p> - -<p>47. “Know ye that the twenty-four letters among you -are emanations in the likeness of the Three Powers encompassing -the universe<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> and (the) number of the elements on -<span class="sidenote">p. 316.</span> -high. For suppose that the nine mute letters<a id="FNanchor_226" href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> are those -of the Father and of Aletheia, because they are mute, that -is, ineffable and unutterable; and the semi-mute which are -eight,<a id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> those of Logos and Zoe, because they exist as it -were half-way between the mute and those which sound,<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> -and they receive the emanation from those above them and -the ascension of those below; and the vowels—and they -are seven<a id="FNanchor_229" href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a>—are those of Anthropos and Ecclesia, since it -is the sound going forth from Anthropos which has given -form to the universals. For the echo of the sound has -clothed them with shape.<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> There are then Logos and Zoe -having the 8 and Anthropos and Ecclesia the 7 and the -Father and Aletheia the 9. But since the reckoning was -deficient,<a id="FNanchor_231" href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> He who was seated in the Father came down, -having been sent forth from that wherefrom he had been -separated for the rectification of the things which had been -done, so that the unity of the Pleromas which is in the -Good One might bear as fruit one power which is in all -from all. And thus the 7 recovered the power of the 8, -<span class="sidenote">p. 317.</span> -and the three places became alike in numbers, being three -ogdoads. Which three added together show forth the -number of 24.” In fact the three elements (which he says -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_49"></a>[49]</span> -exist in the syzygy of the three powers, which are 6, the -flowing-forth of which are the 24 elements) having been -quadrupled by the Word of the Ineffable Tetrad make -the same number for themselves which he says is (that) -of the Unnameable One. But they were clothed by the 6 -powers in the likeness of the Invisible One, of the images -of which elements the double letters are the likeness, which -added to the 24 elements by analogy make potentially the -number 30.<a id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a></p> - -<p>48. He says that the fruit of this reckoning and arrangement<a id="FNanchor_233" href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> -appeared<a id="FNanchor_234" href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> in semblance of an image (to wit) He who -after the six days went up to the mountain<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> as one of four -<span class="sidenote">p. 318.</span> -persons and became one of six. Who came down and bore -rule in the Hebdomad, Himself becoming the illustrious<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> -Ogdoad and containing within Himself the whole number -of the elements. Which the descent of the dove coming -upon Him at the baptism made plain, which (dove) is -Alpha and Omega, the number being plainly 801.<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> And -because of this Moses said that man came into being on -the 6th day. But according to the economy of the Passion -on the 6th day, which is the Preparation,<a id="FNanchor_238" href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> the last man appeared -for the regeneration of the First Man. Of this -economy, the beginning and the end was the 6th hour, -wherein he was nailed to the Cross. For, (he says) that -the perfect Nous, knowing that number 6 possesses the -power of creation and regeneration<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> made apparent to the -Sons of Light the regeneration which had come through -Him who appeared as Episemon. For the illustrious -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_50"></a>[50]</span> -number<a id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> when blended with the other elements completes -the 30-lettered name.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 319.</span> -49. But He has made use as His instrument of the greatness -of the 7 numbers, in order that the Fruit of the -self-inspired (Council)<a id="FNanchor_241" href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> might be made manifest. Consider, -he says, this Episemon here present, which has taken shape -from the Illustrious One who has been, as it were, cut into -parts and remains without. Who, by His own power and -forethought, by means of His own projection which is that -of the Seven Powers, imitated the Seventh Power and gave -life to the cosmos<a id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> and set it to be the soul of this visible -universe. He therefore uses this same work also as if it -came into being by Him independently; but the rest being -imitations of that which is inimitable minister to the Enthymesis<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> -of the Mother. And the first heaven sounds the -Alpha, and that following it the Epsilon, and the 3rd the -Eta, and the 4th and middle one of the 7 the power of -the Iota, and the 5th the Omicron, and the 6th the Upsilon, -<span class="sidenote">p. 320.</span> -and the 7th the Omega. And all the heavens when locked -together into one, give forth a sound and glorify Him by -whom they were projected. And the glory of the sounding -is sent on high into the presence of the Forefather<a id="FNanchor_244" href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a>. -And, he says, that the echo of this glorifying being borne -to the earth becomes the Fashioner and begetter of those -upon the earth. And there is a proof of this in the case of -newly born children, whose breath immediately they come -forth from the womb, cries aloud likewise the sound of each -one of these elements. As then the Seven Powers, he says, -glorify the Word, so does the complaining soul among -infants. Wherefore, he says, David declared:—“Out of -the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected -praise.”<a id="FNanchor_245" href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> And again:—“The heavens declare the glory -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_51"></a>[51]</span> -of God.”<a id="FNanchor_246" href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> When also the soul is in pain it cries aloud -nothing else than the Omega in which it is grieved, so that -the soul on high recognizing its kindred may send it help.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 321.</span> -50. And so far as to this.<a id="FNanchor_247" href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> But concerning the beginning -of the 24 elements, she speaks thus:—Henotes -existed along with Monotes<a id="FNanchor_248" href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> from which (two) came into -being two projections: Monad and the One which, as twice -2, became four. For twice 2 is 4. And again the 2 and -the 4 being added together the number 6 is manifested, -but when these 6 are quadrupled, 24. And these names -of the first Tetrad are understood to be the holiest of holy -things, and cannot be spoken, but are known by the Son -alone. The Father knows also what they are. Those -named by Him in silence and faith are: Arrhetos<a id="FNanchor_249" href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> and -Sige, Pater and Aletheia. And the total number of this -Tetrad is 24 elements. For Arrhetos has 7 elements, Sige -5<a id="FNanchor_250" href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> and Pater 5 and Aletheia<a id="FNanchor_251" href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> 7. In like manner also the -second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, -show forth the same number of elements. And the spoken -<span class="sidenote">p. 322.</span> -name of the Saviour, that is Jesus, consists of 6 letters; but -His unspoken (name)<a id="FNanchor_252" href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> from the number of letters taken one -by one, is of 24 elements, but Christ (the) Son of 12.<a id="FNanchor_253" href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> But -the unspoken (element) in the Chreistos is of 30 letters -and is that of the letters in it, counting the elements one -by one. For the [name] Chreistos is of 8 elements: (<a id="FNanchor_254" href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> for -the Chi<a id="FNanchor_255" href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> is of 3, and the Rho of 2, and the Ei of 2 and the -Iota of 4, the Sigma of 5 and the Tau of 3, while the Ou is -of 2 and the San of 3). Thus they imagine that the unspoken -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_52"></a>[52]</span> -element in “Chreistos” is of 30 elements. Wherefore also, -say they, He said “I am Alpha and Omega,” thereby indicating -that the Dove has this number, which is eight hundred -and one.<a id="FNanchor_256" href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a></p> - -<p>51. But Jesus has this ineffable generation.<a id="FNanchor_257" href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> For from -the Mother of the Universals the first Tetrad came forth, -as if it were a daughter, and the second Tetrad and an -Ogdoad thus came into being, wherefrom the Decad -<span class="sidenote">p. 323.</span> -proceeded. Thus an Eighteen<a id="FNanchor_258" href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> came into being. Then the -Decad having united with the Ogdoad and making it tenfold, -[the number] 80 [proceeded; and the 80]<a id="FNanchor_259" href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> being again -multiplied by 10, gives birth to the number 800. So that -the total number coming forth from the Ogdoad to the -Decad is 8 and 80 and 800, which is Jesus. For the name -Jesus according to the number in the letters is 888. And -the Greek Alphabet has eight monads and eight decads -and eight hecatontads indicating the cipher of the eight -hundreds as 88, that is the (word) Jesus (made up) from -all the constituent numbers. Wherefore also He is named -Alpha and Omega as signifying the birth from them all.</p> - -<p>52. But concerning His fashioning<a id="FNanchor_260" href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> (Marcus) speaks -thus: Powers which emanated from the Second Tetrad -<span class="sidenote">p. 324.</span> -fashioned the Jesus who appeared upon earth, and the -angel Gabriel filled the place<a id="FNanchor_261" href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> of the Logos and the Holy -Spirit that of Zoe, and the power of the Highest<a id="FNanchor_262" href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> (that) of -Anthropos and the Virgin that of Ecclesia. Thus by -incarnation<a id="FNanchor_263" href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> a man was generated by Himself through -Mary. But when He came to the water, there descended -upon Him as a dove he who had ascended on high and had -filled the 12th number,<a id="FNanchor_264" href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> in whom existed the seed of those -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_53"></a>[53]</span> -who had been sown together<a id="FNanchor_265" href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> in Him, and had descended -together and had ascended together. But this Power -which descended on Him, he says, was the seed of the -Pleroma having within it the Father and the Son, which -through them was known to be the unnamed power of -Sige, and (to be) all the Aeons. And that this was the -Spirit which in Him spake through the mouth of the Son, -confessed Himself to be Son of Man, and manifested the -Father, yet veritably descended into Jesus (and) became -one with Him. The Saviour from the Economy,<a id="FNanchor_266" href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> destroyed -death, they say, but Christ Jesus made known the -<span class="sidenote">p. 325.</span> -Father. He says therefore that Jesus was the name of the -man from the Economy, but that it was set forth in resemblance -and shape of the Anthropos who was to come upon -Him; and that when He had received he retained the Anthropos -himself and the Father himself and Arrhetos and -Sige and Aletheia and Ecclesia and Zoe.<a id="FNanchor_267" href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a></p> - -<p>53. I hope then that these things are clearly to all of -sane mind without authority and far from that knowledge -which is according to religion, being (in fact) fragments -of astrological inventions and of the arithmetical art -of the Pythagoreans, as you who love learning will also -know from those their doctrines which we have exposed in -the foregoing books. But in order that we may exhibit -them more clearly to the disciples, not of Christ, but, of -Pythagoras, I will also set forth so far as can be done in -epitome, the things which they have taken from (this last) -concerning the phenomena of the stars. For they say that -these universals are composed from a monad and a dyad, -<span class="sidenote">p. 326.</span> -and counting from a monad up to four, they bring into -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_54"></a>[54]</span> -being a decad. And the dyad<a id="FNanchor_268" href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> again going forth up to -Episemon, for example, two and four and six show forth -the dodecad. And, again, if we count in the same way -from the dyad up to the decad, the triacontad appears, -wherein are the ogdoad and decad and dodecad. Then -they say that the dodecad through its containing the Episemon -and because the Episemon closely follows it, is -Passion.<a id="FNanchor_269" href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> And since through this, the lapse with regard to -the 12th number occurred, the sheep skipped away and -was lost.<a id="FNanchor_270" href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> And in like manner from the decad: and on -this they tell of the drachma which the woman lost and -lamp in hand searched for and of the loss of the one -sheep;<a id="FNanchor_271" href="#Footnote_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> and having contrasted with this the (number) 99, -they make a fable for themselves of the numbers, since of -the 11 multiplied by 9 they make the number 99, and -thanks to this they say that the Amen contains this -number.<a id="FNanchor_272" href="#Footnote_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 327.</span> -And of another number they say this:—the element Eta -with the Episemon is an ogdoad, as it lies in the 8th place -from the Alpha. Then again counting the numbers of the -same elements together without the Episemon and adding -them together as far as the Eta, they display the number 30. -For if one begins the number of the elements with the -Alpha (and continues) up to the Eta (inclusive) after subtracting -the Episemon, one finds the number 30.<a id="FNanchor_273" href="#Footnote_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> Since -then the number 30 is made from the uniting of the three -powers, the same number 30 occurring thrice made 90—for -three times 30 are 90 [and the same triad multiplied -into itself brought forth 9]. Thus the ogdoad made the -number 99 from the first ogdoad and decad and dodecad. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_55"></a>[55]</span> -The number of which (ogdoad) they sometimes carry to -completion<a id="FNanchor_274" href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> and make a triacontad and sometimes deducting -the 12th number they count it 11 and likewise make -the 10th (number) 9. And multiplying and decupling<a id="FNanchor_275" href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 328.</span> -these (figures) they complete the number 99. And since -the 12th Aeon left the 11 [on high] and fell away from -them and came below, they imagine that these things -correspond one to the other. For the type of the letters is -instructive. For the 11th letter is the Lambda which is the -number 30 and is so placed after the likeness of the arrangement -on high,<a id="FNanchor_276" href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> since from the Alpha apart from the Episemon, -the number of the same letters up to Lambda when added -together makes up the number 99.<a id="FNanchor_277" href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> But (they say) that -the Lambda which is put in the 11th place<a id="FNanchor_278" href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> came down to -seek for what is like unto it so that it may complete the -12th number, and having found it did (so) complete it is -plain from the very shape of the element.<a id="FNanchor_279" href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> For the Lambda -succeeding as it were in the search for what was like unto -itself and finding, seized it, and filled up with it the place -of the 12th element Mu, which is composed of two -Lambdas.<a id="FNanchor_280" href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> Wherefore they avoid by this gnosis the place -<span class="sidenote">p. 329.</span> -of the 99 that is to say the Hysterema<a id="FNanchor_281" href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> as the type of the -left hand, but follow the One which added to the 99, brings -them over to the right hand.</p> - -<p>54.<a id="FNanchor_282" href="#Footnote_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> But they declare that first the four elements which -they say are fire, water, earth (and) air, were made through -the Mother and projected as an image of the Tetrad on -high. And reckoning in with them their energies, such -as heat, cold, moisture, and dryness they exactly reflect the -Ogdoad. Next, they enumerate ten powers, thus: Seven -circular bodies which they also call heavens, then a circle -encompassing these which they call the Eighth Heaven and -besides these, the Sun and Moon.<a id="FNanchor_283" href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> And these making up -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_56"></a>[56]</span> -the number 10, they declare to be the image of the invisible -decad which is from Logos and Zoe. And (they say) that -the dodecad is revealed through the circle called the Zodiac. -For they declare that the twelve most evident signs shadow -forth the dodecad which is the daughter of Anthropos and -<span class="sidenote">p. 330.</span> -Ecclesia. And since they say the highest heaven has been -linked to the ascension of the universals, the swiftest in -existence, which (heaven) weighs down upon the sphere -itself, and counterbalances by its own weight the swiftness -of the others, so that in thirty years it completes the cycle -from sign to sign—this they declare to be the image of -Horos encircling their thirty-named Mother.<a id="FNanchor_284" href="#Footnote_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a></p> - -<p>Again the Moon traversing the heavens completely in -30 days, typifies (they say) by these days the number of -the Aeons. And the Sun completing his journey and -terminating his cyclical return to his former place in 12 -months shows forth the Dodecad. And that the days -themselves, since they are measured by 12 hours, are a -type of the mighty<a id="FNanchor_285" href="#Footnote_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> Ogdoad. And also that the perimeter -of the Zodiacal circle has 360 degrees and that each Zodiacal -sign has 30. Thus by means of the circle, they say, the -<span class="sidenote">p. 331.</span> -image of the connection of the 12 with the 30 is observed. -And again also they imagine that the earth is divided into -12 climates, and that each several climate receives a single -power from the heavens immediately above it<a id="FNanchor_286" href="#Footnote_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> and produces -children of the same essence with the power sending -down [this influence] by emanation [which is they say] a -type of the Dodecad on high.</p> - -<p>55. And besides this, they say that the Demiurge of the -Ogdoad on high,<a id="FNanchor_287" href="#Footnote_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> wishing to imitate the Boundless and -Everlasting and Unconfined and Timeless One and not -being able to form a model of His stability and permanence, -because he was himself the fruit of the Hysterema, was -forced to place in it for rendering it eternal, times and -seasons and numbers, thinking that by the multitude of -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_57"></a>[57]</span> -times he was imitating the Boundless One. But they -declare that in this the truth having escaped him, he followed -the false; and that therefore when the times are fulfilled, -his work will be dissolved.<a id="FNanchor_288" href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 332.</span> -56. These things, then, those who are from the school -of Valentinus declare concerning Creation and the Universe, -every time producing something newer<a id="FNanchor_289" href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> (than the last). -And they consider this to be fructification, if any one -similarly discovering something greater appears to work -wonders. And finding in each case from the Scriptures -something accordant with the aforesaid numbers, they prate -of Moses and the Prophets, imagining them to declare allegorically -the dimensions of the Aeons. Which things it -does not seem to me expedient to explain as they are senseless -and inconsistent, and already the blessed elder Irenæus -has marvellously and painfully refuted their doctrines. -From whom also [we have taken] their so-called discoveries -and have shown that they, having appropriated these things -from (the) trifling<a id="FNanchor_290" href="#Footnote_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> of the Pythagorean philosophy and -the astrologies, accuse Christ of having handed them -down. But since I consider that their senseless doctrines -have been sufficiently set forth, and that it has been already -proved whose disciples Marcus and Colarbasus<a id="FNanchor_291" href="#Footnote_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> by becoming -the successors of the school of Valentinus (really) -are, let us see also what Basilides says.<a id="FNanchor_292" href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a></p> - - -<h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> He of course refers to the Ophites, whence it is clear that he -included Justinus among them. His language may imply that all these -serpent-worshipping sects had been in existence some time before, but -did not begin to write their doctrines until they had taken on a veneer -of Christianity. This is very probable, but there is not as yet any -convincing proof that this was the case.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> Here again it is very difficult to say whether τῶν ἀκολούθων means -those who follow in point of time or in the pages of the book.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> ὄργια, “secret rites” and ὀργή, “wrath,” is the pun here.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Simon Magus, the convert of Philip the Evangelist, is said by all -patristic writers to be at once the first teacher and the founder of all -(post-Christian) Gnosticism; but until the discovery of our text our -knowledge of his doctrines hardly went further than the statements of -St. Irenæus and Epiphanius that he claimed to be the Supreme Being. -The only other light on the subject came from Theodoret, who, writing -in the fifth century, discloses in a few brief words the assertion by -Simon of a system of aeons or inferior powers emanating from the -Divinity by pairs. It is plain that in this, Theodoret must have either -borrowed from, or used the same material as, our author, and it is now -seen that Simon’s aeons were said by him to be six in number, the sources -of all subsequent being, and to be considered under a double aspect. -On the one hand, they were names or attributes of God like the -Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism or the Sephiroth of the Jewish -Cabala; and on the other they were identified with natural objects -such as Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, Earth and Water, thereby -forming a link with the Orphic and other cosmogonies current in Greece -and the East. We now learn, too, for the first time that Simon taught, -like the Ophites, that the Supreme Being was of both sexes like his antitypes, -that the universe consisted of three worlds reflecting one -another, and that man must achieve his salvation by coming to resemble -the Deity—a result which was apparently to be brought about by -finding his twin soul and uniting himself to her. None of these ideas -seem to have been Simon’s own invention, and all are found among -those of earlier or later Gnostics. Hence their appearance has here -given rise to the theories, put forward in the first instance by German -writers, but also adopted by some English ones, that the Simon of our -text was not the magician of the <i>Acts</i> but an heresiarch of the same name -who flourished in the second century, and that the opponent of St. Peter -covers under the same name the personality of St. Paul. Neither -theory seems to have any foundation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> τοῦ Γιττηνοῦ. Hippolytus’ usual practice is to use the place-name -as an adjective. The Codex has Γειττηνοῦ, Justin Martyr, “of -Gitto.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> Probably Paramedes or Agamedes is intended. Cf. Theocritus, -<i>Idyll</i>, II, 14. The Paramedes or Perimedes there mentioned was said -to have been a famous witch, child of the Sun, and mistress of -Poseidôn.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> Acts viii. 9-14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> <i>i. e.</i> Cyrene.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> This story in one form or another appears in Maximus Tyrius -(<i>Diss.</i> xxxv), Ælian (<i>Hist.</i>, xiv. 30), Justin (xxi. 4), and Pliny (<i>Nat. -Hist.</i>, viii. 16). The name seems to be Psapho.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> Cruice’s emendation. Schneidewin, Miller, and Macmahon read -τάχιον ἀνθρώπῳ γενομένῳ, ὄντως θεῷ, “sooner than to Him who though -made man, was really God;” but there seems no question here of the -Second Person of the Trinity.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> γέννημα γυναικός, “birth of a woman.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> This is the evident meaning of the sentence. Hippolytus ignores -all rules as to the order of his words. Macmahon translates as if Christ -were meant.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> Deut. iv. 24, “consuming” only in A. V.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> Empedocles also. See Vol. I. pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_40">40</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_41">41</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> τὸ γράμμα ἀποφάσεως, <i>liber revelationis</i>, Cr., “the treatise of a -revelation,” Macmahon; as if it were the title of a book. But the title -of the book attributed to Simon is given later as Ἡ ἀποφάσις μεγάλη, and -there seems no reason why the second syzygy of the series should be -singled out in it for special mention.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> A phrase singularly like this occurs in the “Naassene” author. -See Vol. I. pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_141">141</a> <i>supra</i>, where the “universals” are enumerated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> Or that which can only be perceived by the mind and that which -can be perceived by the senses.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> ἐπινοήσῃ. The sense of the passage seems to require “perceive”; -but the Greek can only mean “have in one’s mind.” Probably some -blunder of the copyist.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> Here, again, he has inverted the order. The hidden is the -intelligible, the manifest, the perceptible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> The simile of the Treasure-house finds frequent expression in the -<i>Pistis Sophia</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> Dan. iv. 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> ἐξεικονισθῇ. Macmahon translates “if it be fully grown” on the -strength apparently of a passage in the LXX; but the word is used -too frequently throughout this chapter to have that meaning here.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> Isa. v. 7. The A.V. has “the men” for “a man” and “pleasant” -for “beloved.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> τοῖς ἐξεικονισμένοις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> 1 Pet. i. 24, 25. The A.V. has “glory of man” for “glory of flesh.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> τέλειον νοερὸν. It is very difficult to find in English a word -expressing the difference between this νοερός, “intellectual,” and νοητός, -“intelligible.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> Reading ἀπειράκις ἀπείρων (ὄντων) for the ἀπειράκις ἀπείρως of -Cruice’s text.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> Cruice’s emendation. The Codex has γνώμην ἴσην, “equal -opinion”? Schneidewin, νώματος αἶσαν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a> Here we have Simon’s cosmogonical ideas set out for the first time -in something like his own words. He seems to postulate the existence -of a Logos who makes the Six Powers or Roots and who is himself -present in them all. This does not appear to differ from the view of -Philo, for which see <i>Forerunners</i>, I, 174, or Schürer’s <i>Hist. of the Jewish -People</i> there quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> Νοῦς καὶ Ἐπίνοιαν, Φωνὴ καὶ Ὄνομα, Λογισμὸς καὶ Ἐνθύμησις. The -last name is the only one that presents any difficulty, although every -heresiologist but Hippolytus gives the female of the first syzygy as -Ἔννοια. Ἐνθύμησις is translated <i>Conceptio</i> by Cruice, “Reflection” by -Macmahon. It seems as if it here meant “desire” in a mental, not a -fleshly, sense; but as this word has a double meaning in English, I -have substituted for it “Passion.” Hereafter the Greek names will be -used.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> This daring idea that the Logos, the chief intermediary between -God and matter in whom all the lesser λόγοι and powers were contained, -as Philo thought, must himself either return to and be united -to God or else be lost in matter and perish, is met with in one form -or another in nearly all later forms of Gnosticism. It is this which -makes the redemption of Sophia after her “fall” so prominent in the -mythology of Valentinus, while its converse is shown in the First Man -of Manichæism conquered by Satan and groaning in chains and -darkness until released by the heavenly powers and placed in some -intermediate world to wait until the last spark of the light which -he has lost is redeemed from matter. It seems to be the natural -consequence of Philo’s ideas, for which see Schürer’s <i>Hist. of the Jewish -People</i> (Eng. ed.) II, ii. pp. 370-376. Whether these did not in turn -owe something to Greek stories of mortals like Heracles and Dionysos -deified as a reward for their sufferings is open to question. Cf. -<i>Forerunners</i>, vol. I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> Justinus also used this quotation from Isaiah i. 2, although in -abbreviated form. See <i>supra</i>, Vol. I. p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>. The A.V. has “nourished -and brought up” for “begotten and raised up,” and “rebelled against” -for “disregarded.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> So Philo according to Zeller and Schürer, (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 374) understands -by the Logos “the power of God or the active Divine intelligence in -general.” He designates it as the “idea which comprises all other -ideas, the power which comprises all powers in itself, as the entirety -of the supersensuous world or of the Divine powers.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> Gen. ii. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> The Sethiani also quote this. See <i>supra</i>, Vol. I. p. 165.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> So Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 9, makes Wisdom or Sophia say, “He -created me from the beginning before all the world,” and Proverbs viii. -23, “I was set up from everlasting,” but neither passage is here directly -quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> Gen. i. 2, “moved upon the face of,” A.V.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> ἔπλασε, “moulded.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> That is, masculo-feminine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> ἐξεικονισθῇ again. Like the Boundless Power or the Logos?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> Quotation already used by the Peratæ. See <i>supra</i>, Vol. I. p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_148">148</a>. -For the Indivisible Point which follows, see the Naassene chapter, Vol. -I. p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_141">141</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> Jer. i. 5. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee,” A.V.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> Gen. ii. 10, “to water the garden,” A.V. The four divisions of the -river have been already referred to in different senses by Justinus and -the Naassene author. So far from this repetition arguing forgery, as -contended by Stähelin, it seems only to show that all these half-Jewish -sects found in the traditions recorded in Genesis an obstacle that they -were bound to explain away if possible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> ὀχετοὶ πνεύματος. Cruice and Macmahon translate πνεῦμα by -“spirit,” but it here evidently means “breath” from what is said later -about the nostrils. Cruice mentions that the ancients finding the -arteries empty at death concluded that they were filled by air during -life.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> The use of the first person shows that this is Hippolytus’ and not -Simon’s explanation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> ἀναπνοή, “inbreathing.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> Cruice’s emendation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> A hiatus to be filled evidently with some reference to the mouth. -The whole of this passage seems corrupt. From what is said about -the bitterness of the water <i>Exodus</i> should be taste, <i>Leviticus</i> smell and -<i>Numbers</i> hearing.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> The simile as well as the phrase is to be found in Aristotle. Cf. -his <i>Organon</i>, c. viii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> Cf. Isa. ii. 4; Micah iv. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> Matt. iii, 10; Luke iii, 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> So the <i>Bruce Papyrus</i> (ed. Amélineau, p. 231) says that God -when he withdrew all things into Himself, did not so draw “a little -Thought,” and from this one Thought all the worlds were made.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> οὐ κοσμεῖται, <i>non ordinaretur</i>, Cr., “is not adorned,” Macmahon.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> Reading μητροπάτωρ for μήτηρ πατήρ. Cf. Clem. Alex., <i>Strom.</i>, -v. 14 for this word. The other epithets seem to cover allusions to the -Dionysiac, the Osirian and the Attis myths.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> ἡ μεταβλητὴ γένεσις, “changeable,” because those thus born -would have to go through many changes of bodies. The phrase is -used by the Naassene author.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> A play τροπή, “turning,” and τροφὴ, “nutriment.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> καὶ ἔσται δύναμις ἀπέραντος, ἀπαράλλακτος αἰῶνι ἀπαραλλάκτῳ -μηκέτι γινομένῳ εἰς τὸν ἀπέραντον αἰῶνα; Cr., <i>et erit potestas infinita, -immutabilis in saeculo immutabili quod non amplius fit per infinitum -sæculum</i>; “and will become a power indefinite and unalterable, equal -and similar to an unalterable age which no longer passes into the -indefinite age,” Macmahon.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> Words in brackets Cruice’s emendation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> παραφυάδες.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> δύναμις σιγή, a name compounded of two nouns like Pistis Sophia. -The practice seems peculiar to this literature.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> ἀντιστοιχοῦντες, a term used in logic for “corresponding.” Simon -here seems to think of the Egyptian picture of the air-god Shu, -separating the Heaven Goddess Nut from the Earth God Seb, and -supporting the first-named on his hands.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> So that the Supreme Being is of both sexes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> This is the exact converse of what has just before been said about -the Father containing Thought within himself.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> καταγινομένη, “descending into” (women’s forms)?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a> This sentence is taken <i>verbatim</i> from Irenæus, I, 16, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a> ἐπὶ τέγους, literally, “on the roof.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a> διὰ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιγνώσεως; <i>per suam agnitionem</i>, Cr.; “thro’ his -own intelligence,” Macmahon.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a> Reading ἄρχοντες for the ἀρχαί of the Codex.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a> This sentence also appears <i>verbatim</i> in Irenæus, I, 16, 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a> <i>i. e.</i> the prophets.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a> The whole of this from the last quotation to the end of the section is -also from Irenæus, I, 16, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a> What these πάρεδροι οἱ λεγομένοι were is hard to say; but one of -the later documents of the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> introduces a fiend in hell as -the “Paredros Typhon.” “Assessor” or “coadjutor,” the meanings -of the word in classical Greek, would here seem inappropriate.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a> From the beginning of the section to here is from Irenæus, I, 16, 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a> That is, made up this doctrine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a> C. W. King in the <i>Gnostics and their Remains</i> (2nd ed.) thinks that -the omitted word is Persia. There is evidently a <i>lacuna</i> here, and -perhaps a considerable one.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a> Because his age made his pretensions to divinity absurd. The -story given after this directly contradicts all ecclesiastical tradition -which makes Simon perish by the fall of his demon-borne car while -flying in the presence of Nero and St. Peter in the Campus Martius.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a> The sources of this chapter are fairly plain. There is little reason -to doubt that Hippolytus had actually seen and read a book attributed -to Simon Magus and called the <i>Great Announcement</i> from which he -quotes, after his manner, inaccurately and carelessly, but still in good -faith. Whether the work was by Simon himself is much more doubtful, -but it was probably in use by the sect that he founded, and therefore -represents with some fidelity his teaching. The style of it as appears -from the extracts here given is a curious mixture of bombast and -philosophical expressions, and bears a strong likeness to certain -passages in the chapters in the fifth book on the Naassenes and the -Peratæ. The other traceable source of the chapter is the work -<i>Against Heresies</i> of St. Irenæus, of which the quotations here given -go to establish the Greek text. But intertwined with this, especially -towards the end of the chapter, is a third thread of tradition, quite -different from that used in the <i>Clementines</i> and other patristic accounts -of Simon’s career, which cannot at present be identified.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a> With Valentinus, we leave at last the tangled genealogies and -unclean imagery, as it seems to us, of the early traditions of Western -Asia, to approach a form of religion which although not without fantastic -features is yet much more consonant with modern European -thought. Valentinus was, indeed, with the doubtful exception of -Marcion, the first of heretics in the present acceptation of the term, -and many features of his teaching were reproduced later in the tenets -of one or other of the Christian sects. At first sight, the main difference -between his doctrine and that of the Catholic Church consists in the -extraordinary series of personified attributes of the Deity which he -thought fit to interpose between the Supreme Being and the Saviour. -This he probably borrowed either from the later Zoroastrian idea of -the Amshaspands or Archangels who surround Ahura Mazda, or, more -probably, from the <i>paut neteru</i>, (“company of the gods”) of the -Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times; and it has been suggested -elsewhere that he probably attached less importance to dogmatism on -the matter than the Fathers would wish to make out. But Hippolytus’ -account of his other doctrines show other divergences from the Church’s -teaching both graver and wider than we should have gathered from the -statements of Irenæus, Tertullian, or Epiphanius. His view of the -ignorance and folly of the Demiurge seems to be taken over bodily -from the Ophite teaching, and, as he identifies him by implication -with the God of the Jews, must logically lead to the rejection of the -whole of the Old Testament except perhaps the Psalms, Proverbs, and -the historical portions. He is also as predestinarian as Calvin himself, -for he assigns complete beatitude to the Pneumatics or Spirituals only, -while relegating the Psychics to an inferior heaven and dooming the -Hylics to complete destruction. Yet the class to which each of us is -assigned has nothing to do with conduct, but is in the discretion of -Sophia, the Mother of all Living.</p> - -<p>The most marked novelty in Valentinus’ teaching, however, is the -cause, according to him, of the gift of this partial salvation to man. -This is not, as in the Catholic, the fruit of God’s love towards his -creature, but the last stage of a great scheme for the reconstruction -and purification of the whole universe. First, the Pleroma or Fulness -of the Godhead is purified by the segregation from it of the Ectroma -or abortion to which Sophia in her ignorance and ambition gave -birth; then the Ectroma herself is freed from her passions by the -action of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and made the Mother of Life; -and finally this material world, the creation of the God of the Jews, -is to be purged by the Divine Mission of Jesus from the gross and -devilish elements introduced into it by the ignorant clumsiness of the -same God of the Jews. But this theory was poles asunder from the -geocentric ideas of the universe then current among Greeks, Jews, and -Christians alike, and comes startlingly near the hypotheses of modern -science on the very low place of the earth and humanity in the scheme -of things. Whence Valentinus drew the materials from which he constructed -his theory must be reserved for investigation at some future -date; but it is fairly clear that some part of it was responsible for not -a few of the tenets of the Manichæism which arose some hundred years -later to maintain a strenuous opposition to the Catholic faith for at -least nine centuries.</p> - -<p>Finally, it may be said that Hippolytus also tells us for the first time -of the divisions among Valentinus’ followers and the different parts -played therein by Ptolemy, Heracleon and others, including that -Bardesanes or Bar Daisan whose name was great in the East as late -as Al Bîrûnî’s day.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a> οὐκ ἀλόγως ὑπομνησθήσομαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a> τὰ κορυφαιότατα τῶν αὐτοῖς ἀρεσκομένων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a> The Codex has Σολομῶν—evidently a copyist’s mistake. Cf. Plato, -<i>Timæus</i>, § 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a> Not necessarily the Supreme Being. Clement of Alexandria, -<i>Paedagogus</i>, I, 8, says, “God is one, and beyond the One, and above -the Monad itself.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a> A fairly common form of Zoroaster. The quotation is probably -from the “Chaldean Oracles” so-called.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a> Diogenes Laertius, Book VIII, c. 19 quotes from Alexander’s -<i>Successions of Philosophers</i> that Pythagoras in his Commentaries put -first the monad, then the undefined dyad, and said that from these two -numbers proceeded, from numbers signs, from signs lines, from lines -plane figures, from planes solids, and from solids perceptible bodies -consisting of the four elements, fire, water, earth and air.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a> Miller would substitute νομιστέον for προστιθέμενον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a> These verses are said by Cruice to be in Sextus Empiricus, but I -have not been able to find them in any known writings of that author.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a> νοητά, as opposed to αἰσθητά.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a> Cf. Matt. v. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a> These “accidents” are enumerated by Aristotle in his <i>Metaphysics</i>, -Book IV, and more briefly in his <i>Organon</i>. He does not there -acknowledge any indebtedness to Pythagoras.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a> συνέχει.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a> φιλία, not ἀγάπη. Macmahon translates “friendship.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a> <i>i. e.</i> the “Fashioner” = one who makes things out of previously -existing material, but does not create them <i>ex nihilo</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a> διανομή, a word peculiar apparently to the Pythagoreans. Jowett -translates it “regulation.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a> ἀπορῥαγάδας, a word unknown in classical Greek, which should -by its etymology mean “chinks” or “rents.” I have taken it as a -mistake for ἀπορῥήματα, which is found in Plutarch.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a> Not Pythagoras, but Plutarch, <i>de Exilio</i>, § 11. He attributes it -to Heraclitus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a> The reference seems to be to the <i>Phaedrus</i>, t. 1, p. 89 (Bekker).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a> Or “practise philosophy”: but Hippolytus always uses the word -with a contemptuous meaning.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a> τὰς ἀρχάς. Evidently a mistake for τοὺς ἄρχοντας.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a> Hippolytus in the interpretation of these sayings seems to have -followed Diogenes Laertius.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a> Ἀριθμητής.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a> So Shu the Egyptian God of Air was figured <i>between</i> Earth (Seb) -and Heaven (Nut).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a> Roeper would read τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπεργάζεται κόσμου, “completes -the Great Year of the world.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a> Ἄθηλυς, “without female.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a> Σιγή, “Silence.” Cf. the Orphic cosmogony which makes Night -the Mother of Heaven and Earth by Phanes the First-born, who -contains within himself the seeds of all creatures (<i>Forerunners</i>, I, -123).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a> The attribution of this monistic doctrine to Valentinus is found -for the first time here. Irenæus and Tertullian both make him say -that Sige is the spouse of the Supreme Being.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a> οὐσία. Here as elsewhere in this chapter, save where an obvious -pun is intended, to be translated as in text, and not “substance,” which -is generally the equivalent of ὑπόστασις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a> φιλέρημος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a> Νοῦν καὶ ἀλήθειαν. Here as elsewhere with the names of Aeons, -the English equivalent of the Greek name is first given, and, in later -repetitions, the Greek name transliterated into English.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a> Λόγον καὶ Ζωήν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a> Ἄνθρωπον καὶ Ἐκκλησίαν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a> τέλειος used in its double sense of “perfect” and “complete.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a> ὁ Λογος μετὰ τῆς Ζωῆς. The curious conception by which the two -partners in a syzygy are regarded as only one being is very marked -throughout this passage.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a> ἀγεννησία; “unbegottenness” would be a closer translation, but -is uncouth in this connection. Cf. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_147">147</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a> Βυθὸς καὶ Μίξις, Ἀγήρατος καὶ Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς καὶ Ἡδονή, -Ἀκίνητος καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Μακαρία. For the first name -Irenæus (I, i. 1, p. 11, Harvey), has Bythios, thereby making the substantive -into an adjective. So Epiphanius, <i>Haer.</i> XXXI (p. 328, -Oehler). This is doubtless correct.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a> Παράκλητος καὶ Πίστις, Πατρικὸς καὶ Ἐλπίς, Μητρικὸς καὶ Ἀγάπη, -Ἀείνους καὶ Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς καὶ Μακαριστός, Θελητὸς καὶ Σοφία. -The Codex is here very corrupt, and for Ἀείνους we may, if we please, -read Αἰώνιος, “Everlasting,” and for Μακαριστός, Μακαριότης, “Blessedness.” -As the name of the male partner in each syzygy is an adjective -and that of the female a substantive it is probable that the two are -intended to be read together, as <i>e. g.</i> “Profound Admixture,” and the -like.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a> Sophia, who plays a great part in the Jewish Apocrypha, is almost -certainly a figure of the prototypal earth like Spenta Armaiti, her -analogue in Mazdeism. Cf. the quotation from Genesis which follows -immediately.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a> οὐσία. Here “substance” and “essence” would have the same -meaning, and the first-named word is used only to avoid ambiguity.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a> Gen. i. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a> Exod. xxxiii. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a> Ἔκτρωμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a> Ἐπιπροβληθεὶς οὖν ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Christ and the -Holy Spirit are therefore treated as a syzygy and, as it were, a single -person.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a> μονογενές.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a> τὸ ὑστέρημα: “the Void,” the converse and opposite of the -Pleroma or “Fulness.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a> For this Platonic theory of “partaking,” see n. on I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_53">53</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a> So that the first work of the Mission of Jesus was the freeing of -the whole universe—not only our earth—from the evil which had -entered into it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a> ὑποστάτους οὐσίας; “underlying beings.” Here we have the -two ideas of hypostasis, or “substance” in its etymological meaning, -and “essence,” or “being,” side by side.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a> ψυχικὴν οὐσίαν, <i>i. e.</i> the stuff of which the soul is made.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a> Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7; ii. 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a> That is Jehovah, the God of the Jews. Hebdomad as including -the seven “planets.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a> Deut. ix. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a> The “below,” Ὑποκάτω, and “above,” ὑπεράνω, seem to have become -inverted; but as I am not sure whether this is the scribe’s mistake or -not, I have left the text as it is. If we consider (as we must) that the -heaven of Sophia is the highest and those of the seven worlds below it -like steps of a ladder, we have the conception of Sophia, her son -Jaldabaoth, and his six sons, current among the Ophites as shown in -Book V above. The figure of Sophia as a “day” is at once an instance -of the curious habit among the Gnostics of confusing time and space, -and an allusion to the O.T. name of “Ancient of Days.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a> I have sought to show elsewhere (<i>P.S.B.A.</i>, 1901, pp. 48, 49) -in opposition to the current explanations that this name, properly -written Beelzebuth, is at once a sort of parody of Jabezebuth or “Jehovah -(Lord) of Hosts,” and the name given to the “ruler of demons” by the -parallelism which, as in Zoroastrianism, makes each good spirit have its -evil counterpart of similar name.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a> προβεβήκασιν. So in Homer (<i>Iliad</i>, VI, 125). Cruice translates -“provenerunt,” Macmahon reading apparently προβεβλήκασιν, “there -has been projected.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a> Gen. ii. 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a> 1 Cor. ii. 14. In the preceding passage taken apparently from -Eph. iii. 14 either the Gnostic author or Hippolytus has taken some -strange liberties with the received Text, which see.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a> It is plain, therefore, that the Valentinians rejected these parts of -the O.T.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a> John x. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a> The τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν -γενεῶν of Coloss. 1. 26 seems to be what is aimed at.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a> ἅτε δὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ λελαλημένα; “inasmuch as they certainly -had been uttered by the Demiurge alone,” Macmahon.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a> τέλος ἔλαβεν, “received the finishing touch.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a> διὰ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου. A manifest allusion to the well-known -Gnostic doctrine that Jesus took nothing from His Mother but came -into being through her ὡς διὰ σωλῆνος, “as through a pipe or conduit.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a> Luke i. 35. Ὕψιστος, “the Highest,” was according to M. Camont -(Suppl. <i>Rev. instr. publ. en Belgique</i>, 1897) the name by which -the God of Israel was known throughout Asia Minor in pre-Christian -times.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a> καὶ τοῦ Ὑψίστου. These words are not in the Codex.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a> τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν ... παράσχῃ. Again “essence” would etymologically -be the better word, but “substance” is used as more familiar to -the English reader.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a> διδασκαλία. It is significant of the position held by Valentinus’ -teaching in the Christian community that the Valentinians are often -spoken of by the Fathers as a school of thought rather than a schismatic -Church like that founded by Marcion.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a> γέγωνε τῷ ψυχικῷ. So in Manichæism, the Living Spirit goes -towards the Land of Darkness, where the First Man is entombed after -his defeat by Satan, and “cries in a loud voice, and this voice was like -a sharp sword and discovered the form of the First Man,” who is -thereupon drawn up out of the Darkness and raised to the upper -spheres where dwells the Mother of Life. Cf. <i>Forerunners</i>, II, pp. 294, -300, n. 1, and 302, n. 1, and Theodore bar Khôni and other authors -there quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a> Rom. viii. 11; the words in brackets are not in the received text.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a> Gen. iii. 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a> So Cruice. Miller’s text has Ἀρδησιάνης.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a> ἡ δημιουργικὴ τέχνη, “the process of fashioning.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a> διώρθωτο. So that Valentinus was the first to advance the theory -which we find later among the Manichæans that this earth of ours, -instead of being the centre of the universe, was in fact the lowest and -most insignificant of all the worlds, and that salvation only came to it -after the greater universe had been reformed—an extraordinary conception -on the part of one who must have held, like his contemporaries, -geocentric views in astronomy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a> Ex. vi. 2, 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">[153]</a> κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκολουθίαν. Here as elsewhere in the text, ἀκολουθία -has the meaning of imitation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">[154]</a> ἰσόζυγος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">[155]</a> ἐπανόρθωσιν, “re-rectification”!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">[156]</a> What follows is from Plato’s Second Epistle, which is thought to -have been written after Plato’s return from his third voyage to Syracuse, -and is perhaps rather less suspect than the other Platonic epistles. Yet -the chances of interpolation are so great that no stress can be laid on -the genuineness of any particular passage.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">[157]</a> This passage alone is sufficient to make one doubtful as to the -Platonic authorship. If Plato really wanted to keep his doctrine secret, -the last thing he would have done would be to call the attention of the -chance reader to the fact.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">[158]</a> Burges translates: “But about a second are the secondary things -and about a third the third.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">[159]</a> Nearly two pages are here omitted from the Epistle.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">[160]</a> Possibly an allusion to the Platonic theory that all learning is -remembrance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">[161]</a> Τὰ δὲ νῦν λεγόμενα Σωκράτους. “Said of him” or “said by him”? -The passage is quoted by the Emperor Julian and by Aristides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">[162]</a> So that Hippolytus’ attempt to show that Valentinus plagiarized -from Plato resolves itself into an imaginative interpretation of a purposely -obscure passage in an epistle which is only doubtfully assigned -to Plato. That Valentinus like every one educated in the Greek -learning was influenced by Plato is likely enough, but that there was -any conscious borrowing of tenets is against probability.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">[163]</a> προαρχή τῶν ὅλων Αἰώνων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">[164]</a> That Valentinus is said to have written psalms, see Tertullian, <i>de -Carne Christi</i>, I, c. xvii, xx, t. ii, pp. 453, 457 (Oehl.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">[165]</a> Of the sources from which the author of the <i>Philosophumena</i> drew -this account of Valentinus’ doctrine, much has been written. Hilgenfeld -in his <i>Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums</i>, and Lipsius in the -article “Valentinus” in Smith & Wace’s <i>D.C.B.</i>, agree that its main -source is the writings of Heracleon. Cruice, <i>Études sur les Philosophumena</i>, -on the other hand, thinks it largely composed of extracts -from a work of Valentinus himself, entitled <i>Sophia</i>. Salmon (<i>Hermathena</i>, -1885, p. 391), while not committing himself to a definite pronouncement -as to the writer quoted, says that Hippolytus undoubtedly -quoted from a genuine Valentinian treatise, and that this last is above -the suspicion of forgery with which he is inclined to view other -quotations in the <i>Philosophumena</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">[166]</a> The notice of the followers, real or supposed, of Valentinus which -occupies the remainder of Book VI adds little to our previous knowledge -of their doctrines, being taken almost <i>verbatim</i> from the work of -Hippolytus’ teacher, St. Irenæus. It is noteworthy, however, that -although the Table of Contents promises us an account of (among -others) Heracleon, nothing is here said of him, although that shrewd -critic of the Gospels was thought worthy of refutation by Origen some -fifty years later. Yet Hippolytus mentions Heracleon as being with -Ptolemy a leader of the Italic School of Valentinians which seems to -dispose of the theory advanced by Lipsius (Smith & Wace’s <i>D.C.B.</i>, -s. v. “Valentinus”) that Heracleon was the author from whom Hippolytus -took his account of Valentinus’ own doctrine. Of Secundus -nothing more is known than is set down in the text, while the -“Epiphanes” here mentioned is thought by some to be not a name, -but an adjective, so that the passage would read “a certain <i>illustrious</i> -teacher of theirs.” This was certainly the reading of Irenæus’ Latin -translator, who renders the word by “<i>clarus</i>.” Is this a roundabout -way of describing Heracleon? As to this see Salmon in <i>D.C.B.</i>, s. v. -“Heracleon.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">[167]</a> ἀποστᾶσαν καὶ ὑστερήσασαν. Evidently Sophia is meant.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">[168]</a> ἀρχή.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">[169]</a> Μονότης.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">[170]</a> Ἑνότης.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">[171]</a> προήκαντο μὴ προέμεναι, <i>protulerunt non proferendo ex se</i>, Cr. -So Irenæus, I, xi. 3, p. 104, H. In his note Harvey says that the -passage implies that Henotes and Monotes “put forth as the original -cause the <i>Beginning</i>, but so as that the <i>Beginning</i> was eternally -inseparable from their unity.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">[172]</a> Irenæus makes ὁ λόγος, “the Word,” the speaker. So Tertullian, -<i>adv. Val.</i>, “<i>quod sermo vocat</i>.” But it seems more natural to refer -the speech to Epiphanes or “the Illustrious Teacher.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">[173]</a> Προαρχή, Ἀνεννόητος, Ἄρῥητος and Ἀόρατος. The three first -names, however, are not in the text but are restored from Irenæus, -I, v. 2, p. 105, H.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">[174]</a> These four new names are: Ἀρχή, Ἀκατάληπτος, Ἀνωνόμαστος -and Ἀγέννητος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">[175]</a> Of Ptolemy we know a little more than we do of Secundus, a letter -by him to his “fair sister Flora” being given by Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i> -XXXIII.) which shows a system not inconsistent with that described -in the text. Unlike Valentinus himself he gives the Father a spouse, -or rather two.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">[176]</a> διαθέσεις, perhaps “states.” Cr. and Macmahon translate “dispositions.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">[177]</a> Hippolytus here suddenly changes from Thelesis to Thelema. But -there is no discoverable difference in the meaning of the two words.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">[178]</a> Words in [ ] from Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">[179]</a> This Marcus is practically only known to us from the statements -of Irenæus, from which the accounts in the text and in the later work -of Epiphanius are copied. Salmon’s argument (<i>D.C.B.</i>, s. v. “Marcus”) -that Marcus taught in Asia Minor or Syria, and that Irenæus himself -only knew his doctrines from his writings and the confessions of his -Gaulish followers on their conversion to Catholicism seems irrefutable. -There is no reason to doubt Irenæus’ statement here repeated that -Marcus was a magician, nor the generally accepted statement of -modern writers on Gnosticism that he was a Jew. This last deduction -is supported by his use of Hebrew formulas, of which Irenæus gives -many examples, including one beginning “βασημαχαμοσση” which -appears to be “In the name of Achamoth,” the Hebrew or Aramaic -equivalent of the Greek Sophia. A more cogent argument is that his -identification of the Gnostic Aeons with the letters of the Greek -alphabet and their numerical values is, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, exactly correspondent -to that of the so-called “practical Cabala” of the Jews which -was re-introduced into Europe in the tenth to twelfth centuries, but which -probably goes back to pre-Christian times and is ultimately derived from -the decayed relics of the Chaldæan and Egyptian religions. On the other -hand, Irenæus’ classing of Marcus among the “successors” or followers -of Valentinus is much more open to question. The reverence he shows -for the books of the Old Testament and for the Pentateuchal account -of the Creation, which is indeed the foundation of the greater part of -the system of the Cabala, is inconsistent with the views of Valentinus, -who as we have seen (n. on p. <a href="#Page_33">33</a> <i>supra</i>) must logically have rejected -the inspiration of the Old Testament altogether. St. Jerome (Ep. 75, <i>ad -Theod.</i>, I, 449), says indeed that Marcus was a Basilidian, and although -we have too little of Basilides’ own writings to check this statement, -it is not impossible that the nomenclature of the Aeons, which is the -chief point in which Valentinus and Marcus coincide, was common to -all three heretics, and perhaps drawn from a source earlier than them -all. The language of the formulas given by Irenæus but not reproduced -by Hippolytus, in several instances bear a strong likeness to that of the -<i>Great Announcement</i> attributed in the earlier part of this Book to -Simon Magus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">[180]</a> εὺχαριστῶν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">[181]</a> αἱματώδη δύναμιν, “the potentiality of blood”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">[182]</a> ἐλεγχόμενος. The word shows that by “refutation” the author -generally means “exposure.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">[183]</a> He has not done so, unless in some part which has been lost.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">[184]</a> ἐδίδου.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">[185]</a> Γνῶσις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">[186]</a> ὑγραῖς οὐσίαις. Here οὐσία is used in the English sense of -“substance.” No such substances are mentioned in Book IV as it has -come down to us.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">[187]</a> The wine used in the Marcosian Eucharist was evidently <i>mixtum</i>, -not <i>merum</i>. Some effervescent powder is indicated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">[188]</a> ἐξαφανίσας; Cr. translates <i>seduxit</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">[189]</a> εὐκόλους ... πρὸς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν. Cf. the doctrine of certain -Antinomian sects that “God sees no sin in His elect.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">[190]</a> Ἀπολύτρωσις, perhaps “Ransom.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">[191]</a> πανούργημα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">[192]</a> In one of the documents of the <i>Pistis Sophia</i>, (p. 238, Copt) a -“mystery” to be spoken “into the two ears” of an initiate about to -die is described. The idea was evidently to provide him with a password -which would enable him to escape the “punishments” of the -intermediate state, and is to be traced to Egyptian beliefs.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_193" href="#FNanchor_193" class="label">[193]</a> ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων, perhaps “to the utmost.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_194" href="#FNanchor_194" class="label">[194]</a> ἀφορμαί. In the <i>Philosophumena</i>, the word nearly always bears -this construction.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_195" href="#FNanchor_195" class="label">[195]</a> οἱ ἐντυχόντες.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_196" href="#FNanchor_196" class="label">[196]</a> ἀεὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι. Cf. the “<i>Geist der stets verneint</i>” of Goethe.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_197" href="#FNanchor_197" class="label">[197]</a> συγκεχωρήσθω.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_198" href="#FNanchor_198" class="label">[198]</a> “His attempted heresy.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_199" href="#FNanchor_199" class="label">[199]</a> Like the rest of this section and most of this chapter, Hippolytus -here follows Irenæus <i>verbatim</i>. Why the apparition of the Tetrad -should be more supportable in female than in male shape can only be -guessed; but the frequent personification of the Great Goddess of -Western Asia may have had something to do with it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_200" href="#FNanchor_200" class="label">[200]</a> οὗ πατὴρ οὐδεὶς ἦν, “whose father was no one”—a curious expression -in place of the more concise ἀπάτωρ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_201" href="#FNanchor_201" class="label">[201]</a> καὶ ἦν ἡ συλλαβὴ αὐτοῦ στοιχείων τεσσάρων, “and taken together -it was of four letters.” He is punning here on the double sense of -στοιχεῖον as meaning both “letter” and “element.” In the Magic -Papyrus of Leyden which calls itself “Monas, the 8th (book?) of -Moses,” there is a curious account of how the light and the rest of -creation were brought into being by the successive words or rather the -laughter of the Creator. Cf. Leemans, <i>Papyri Græci</i>, etc., Leyden, -1885, II, pp. 83 ff.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_202" href="#FNanchor_202" class="label">[202]</a> γράμματα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_203" href="#FNanchor_203" class="label">[203]</a> χαρακτῆρα, “impress,” or character as we might say Greek characters -or script. The different meanings of στοιχεῖα, γράμματα, and -χαρακτήρ are here well marked.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_204" href="#FNanchor_204" class="label">[204]</a> So Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_205" href="#FNanchor_205" class="label">[205]</a> τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν. This Return to the Deity was, as has been -shown above, the great preoccupation of all these Gnostic sects. They -may have borrowed it from the Stoic philosophy. Cf. Arnold, <i>Roman -Stoicism</i>, p. 193.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_206" href="#FNanchor_206" class="label">[206]</a> The primitive Church attributed great power to the ritual utterance -of the word Amen. Thus Ignatius’ second Epistle to the Ephesians: -“There was hidden from the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary, -and the birth of our Lord, and the three mysteries of the shout ... and -hereby ... magic began to be dissolved and all bonds to be loosed -and the ancient kingdom and the error of evil, is destroyed” (Cureton’s -translation, London, 1845, p. 15); but Lightfoot would read κήροξις, -“proclamation,” for κραυγή, “shout.” In the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> the word -Amen is used to denote a class of Powers concerned apparently with -the organization of the Kerasmos or semi-material world and called -sometimes “the Three” and sometimes “the Seven Amens.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_207" href="#FNanchor_207" class="label">[207]</a> τοὺς [φθόγγους]. The word in brackets is not in the Codex, but is -supplied from the corresponding passage in Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_208" href="#FNanchor_208" class="label">[208]</a> πρόσωπον, a word which, as Hatch noted, is used for the character -or part played by an actor in a drama. Matt. xviii. 10 is here -evidently alluded to.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_209" href="#FNanchor_209" class="label">[209]</a> Cf. the Stoic theory of λόγοι σπερματικοί or “seed-Powers,” for -which, see Arnold, <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 161.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_210" href="#FNanchor_210" class="label">[210]</a> προήκατο.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_211" href="#FNanchor_211" class="label">[211]</a> That is to say, before Chaos was organized and the Aeons brought -into existence.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_212" href="#FNanchor_212" class="label">[212]</a> A plain reference to the Ectroma or Sophia Without.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_213" href="#FNanchor_213" class="label">[213]</a> ἰδίᾳ τῶν γραμμάτων γραφέντων (Miller). The Codex has διὰ for ἰδίᾳ -and γραφέντος for γραφέντων. Cruice bungles the passage and Macmahon -omits it. It is not found in Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_214" href="#FNanchor_214" class="label">[214]</a> <i>e. g.</i> the δ can be written δ, ε, λ, τ, α.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_215" href="#FNanchor_215" class="label">[215]</a> ὑπόστασις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_216" href="#FNanchor_216" class="label">[216]</a> A pun on the name of the Supreme Father, Bythos or the Deep.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_217" href="#FNanchor_217" class="label">[217]</a> φιλοπονία and ματαιοπονία.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_218" href="#FNanchor_218" class="label">[218]</a> Or Truth.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_219" href="#FNanchor_219" class="label">[219]</a> <i>i. e.</i> Man.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_220" href="#FNanchor_220" class="label">[220]</a> It would seem from this that Marcus, following perhaps in this -the Anatolic School of Valentinus, made Sige not the spouse of Bythos -but merely another name for Aletheia.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_221" href="#FNanchor_221" class="label">[221]</a> τῆς διανοίας νόημα. As if he were trying to avoid writing the -word Nous.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_222" href="#FNanchor_222" class="label">[222]</a> Hippolytus or Marcus here plays upon the identity of the ἐπίσημον -or digamma, the name of the sixth letter in the Greek alphabet, which -was used for numeration only, and the adjective ἐπίσημον, “illustrious.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_223" href="#FNanchor_223" class="label">[223]</a> The word in brackets supplied from Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_224" href="#FNanchor_224" class="label">[224]</a> ὧν τὰ μεγέθη. The allusion seems to be again to Matt. xviii. 10. -The angels might well be considered on the Valentinian theory the -greater parts or counterparts of their terrestrial spouses. In -Epiphanius τὸ Μέγεθος seems to be used for the Supreme Being. Cf. -<i>Panar. Haer.</i>, XXXI, p. 314, Oehl. The passage is said to be -suspect.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_225" href="#FNanchor_225" class="label">[225]</a> One of the later documents of the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> speaks repeatedly -of certain τριδυναμεις or τριδυναμοι (both spellings are used) which -seem to hold a very exalted rank in the scale of beings, alike in the -spiritual and the material parts of the universe.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_226" href="#FNanchor_226" class="label">[226]</a> φ, χ, θ, η, κ, τ, β, γ, δ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_227" href="#FNanchor_227" class="label">[227]</a> λ, μ, ν, ρ, ς, ζ, ξ, ψ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_228" href="#FNanchor_228" class="label">[228]</a> τὰ φωνήεντα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_229" href="#FNanchor_229" class="label">[229]</a> α, ε, η, ι, ο, υ, ω.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_230" href="#FNanchor_230" class="label">[230]</a> μορφὴν αὐτοῖς περιεποίησεν, “has put shape round them.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_231" href="#FNanchor_231" class="label">[231]</a> Reading Ἐπειδὴ with Irenæus instead of the Ἐπὶ δὲ of Hippolytus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_232" href="#FNanchor_232" class="label">[232]</a> So that the “ineffable” name of Christ consisted of 30 letters. -So Epiphanius, <i>Haer.</i>, XXXIV, p. 448, Oehl. No guess hitherto made -as to its transliteration into Greek letters seems entirely satisfactory; but -Harvey (<i>Iren.</i>, I, p. 146, nn. 1, 2), shows that χὶ, ρὼ, εἴψιλον (for -which spelling Nigidius Figulus and Aulus Gellius are quoted), ἰῶτα, -σῖγμα, ταῦ, οὐ (for ὀμικρόν), and, again, σῖγμα, can be made to count 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_233" href="#FNanchor_233" class="label">[233]</a> The text has ἀναλογίας, for which Miller rightly restores οἰκονομίας -from Irenæus. Cf. p. 318 Cr. <i>infra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_234" href="#FNanchor_234" class="label">[234]</a> πεφηνέναι. Irenæus has πεφυκέναι, “grew.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_235" href="#FNanchor_235" class="label">[235]</a> See the Transfiguration according to Matt. xvii. and Mark ix.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_236" href="#FNanchor_236" class="label">[236]</a> Or “the Episemon.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_237" href="#FNanchor_237" class="label">[237]</a> π = 80, ε 5, ρ 100, ι 10, σ 200, τ 300, ε 5, ρ 100, α 1 = 801. So -Α 1 + Ω 800 = 801.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_238" href="#FNanchor_238" class="label">[238]</a> Ἡ παρασκευή. “The Preparation” (for the Passover) <i>i. e.</i> Friday.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_239" href="#FNanchor_239" class="label">[239]</a> τὸν τῶν ἕξ ἀριθμὸν, δύναμιν ποιήσεως κτλ. So Irenæus’ Latin -translation, “<i>Scientem eum numerum qui est sex virtutem fabricationis -et regenerationem habentem</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_240" href="#FNanchor_240" class="label">[240]</a> 6 + 24 = 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_241" href="#FNanchor_241" class="label">[241]</a> τῆς αὐτοβουλήτου βουλῆς ... ὁ καρπός, “the Fruit of the self-counselled -Council,” Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_242" href="#FNanchor_242" class="label">[242]</a> μιμήσει τὴς Ἑβδομάδος δυνάμεως ἐψύχωσε κόσμον, “imparted in -imitation of the seven powers animation to this world,” (Macmahon); -but see Irenæus in <i>loc. cit.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_243" href="#FNanchor_243" class="label">[243]</a> As before, this probably means “Desire.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_244" href="#FNanchor_244" class="label">[244]</a> This seems the first time we meet with the idea of “The Column -of Praises” of the Manichæans which mounting from the earth and -bearing with it the prayers and praises of mankind plays with them a -considerable part in the redemption of Light from Matter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_245" href="#FNanchor_245" class="label">[245]</a> Ps. viii. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_246" href="#FNanchor_246" class="label">[246]</a> Ps. xix. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_247" href="#FNanchor_247" class="label">[247]</a> Irenæus puts what follows into the mouth of “the all-wise Sige.” -A section dealing with the name of Aletheia is omitted by Hippolytus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_248" href="#FNanchor_248" class="label">[248]</a> Or perhaps “Unity in Solitude.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_249" href="#FNanchor_249" class="label">[249]</a> <i>i. e.</i> “Ineffable.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_250" href="#FNanchor_250" class="label">[250]</a> Four, unless we spell the word as he apparently does, Σειγή.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_251" href="#FNanchor_251" class="label">[251]</a> In the section omitted (see n. 2 <i>supra</i>) the “body of Aletheia” is -said to be δωδεκάμελος or “of 12 members,” which points to some -different notation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_252" href="#FNanchor_252" class="label">[252]</a> Cf. Rev. xix. 11-13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_253" href="#FNanchor_253" class="label">[253]</a> As Harvey (<i>Iren.</i>, I, p. 145, n. 3) points out, this forced isopsephism -is only reached by spelling Eta ηι and the Iota in Χριστός εἶ. He quotes -Aulus Gellius in support.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_254" href="#FNanchor_254" class="label">[254]</a> The words in brackets ( ) are not in Irenæus and are probably -the addition of some commentator.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_255" href="#FNanchor_255" class="label">[255]</a> The Codex has χρι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_256" href="#FNanchor_256" class="label">[256]</a> π = 80, ε = 5, ρ = 100, ι = 10, σ = 200, τ = 300, ε = 5, ρ = 100, -α = 1: total 801. It is evident, therefore that Marcus considered -Christ and the Holy Spirit to be the same Person.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_257" href="#FNanchor_257" class="label">[257]</a> ἄρῥητον γένεσιν, “unspoken derivation”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_258" href="#FNanchor_258" class="label">[258]</a> δεκαοκτώ, an unusual word, unknown to classical Greek.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_259" href="#FNanchor_259" class="label">[259]</a> Words in square brackets [ ] supplied from Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_260" href="#FNanchor_260" class="label">[260]</a> δημιουργία. Here, as elsewhere, the word implies construction -from previously existing matter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_261" href="#FNanchor_261" class="label">[261]</a> τὸν τόπον ἀναπεπληρωκέναι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_262" href="#FNanchor_262" class="label">[262]</a> Cf. Luke i. 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_263" href="#FNanchor_263" class="label">[263]</a> κατ’ οἰκονομίαν. This seems here the meaning of the word. See -Döllinger, <i>First Age of Christianity</i>, Eng. ed., p. 170, n. 2, Hatch; -<i>Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church</i>, p. 131; Tollinton, -<i>Clement of Alexandria</i>, II, p. 13, and n. 1, for other meanings.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_264" href="#FNanchor_264" class="label">[264]</a> This seems unintelligible unless we suppose the “body of -Aletheia,” said above to be the number 12, to be the heaven known as -“the Place of Truth.” Cf. <i>Pistis Sophia</i>, p. 128, Copt.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_265" href="#FNanchor_265" class="label">[265]</a> The same expression is used in the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> where Jesus -“sows” a power of light in Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist. -Cf. p. 12, Copt.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_266" href="#FNanchor_266" class="label">[266]</a> Or “Arrangement.” Marcus, perhaps here imitating Valentinus, -postulates several Saviours, one of whom restores order in the arrangement -of the Aeons before coming to this earth.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_267" href="#FNanchor_267" class="label">[267]</a> In Irenæus there follows here a lengthy “refutation” of Marcus’ -doctrines and a poem condemning him and his teaching which some -think to be the work of Pothinus, Irenæus’ martyred predecessor -at Lyons.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_268" href="#FNanchor_268" class="label">[268]</a> With this sentence, Hippolytus again picks up his quotations -from Irenæus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_269" href="#FNanchor_269" class="label">[269]</a> πάθος, “a passion” or “The Passion”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_270" href="#FNanchor_270" class="label">[270]</a> πεπλανῆσθαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_271" href="#FNanchor_271" class="label">[271]</a> Irenæus’ Latin version here makes better sense:—<i>Similiter et a -duodecade abscedentum unam virtutem perisse divinant et hanc esse -mulierem quae perdiderit drachmam, et accenderit lucernam, et -invenerit eam.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_272" href="#FNanchor_272" class="label">[272]</a> α = 1, μ 40, η 8, ν 50, total 99. Writers of the sub-Apostolic age -seem to have laid much stress on the miraculous power of the word -Amen when uttered in unison. Cf. the Epistle of Ignatius to the -Ephesians (Cureton’s translation), p. 15, as to the “mysteries of the -shout.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_273" href="#FNanchor_273" class="label">[273]</a> Thus α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8 = 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_274" href="#FNanchor_274" class="label">[274]</a> εἰς ὁλόκληρον. Because the decad is a “perfect” number.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_275" href="#FNanchor_275" class="label">[275]</a> ἐπισυμπλέκοντες καὶ δεκαπλασιάσαντες.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_276" href="#FNanchor_276" class="label">[276]</a> τῆς ἄνω οἰκονομίας. The word can here mean nothing else.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_277" href="#FNanchor_277" class="label">[277]</a> α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8, θ 9, ι 10, κ 20, λ 30 = 99.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_278" href="#FNanchor_278" class="label">[278]</a> Because the Episemon has no τόπος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_279" href="#FNanchor_279" class="label">[279]</a> στοιχεῖον here used for “character.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_280" href="#FNanchor_280" class="label">[280]</a> ΛΛ = M.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_281" href="#FNanchor_281" class="label">[281]</a> ὑστέρημα; the usual Gnostic name for the Void.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_282" href="#FNanchor_282" class="label">[282]</a> This section passes over Irenæus’ refutation of the last, and forms -the beginning of the Xth Chap. (p. 164, H.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_283" href="#FNanchor_283" class="label">[283]</a> There must be some mistake here, as the Sun and Moon were -included among the seven planetary heavens.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_284" href="#FNanchor_284" class="label">[284]</a> Not of course the Egyptian god, but the Gnostic “Limit” or -Cross. The passage is not very clear.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_285" href="#FNanchor_285" class="label">[285]</a> Irenæus has φαεινῆς, “radiant,” and the text κενῆς, “empty”; -Irenæus’ Latin version “<i>non apparentes</i>” or invisible. Probably -μεγάλης was the original word.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_286" href="#FNanchor_286" class="label">[286]</a> κατὰ κάθετον. Macmahon thinks this refers to the position of the -sun, which is unnecessary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_287" href="#FNanchor_287" class="label">[287]</a> Irenæus omits the words “of the Ogdoad.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_288" href="#FNanchor_288" class="label">[288]</a> κατάλυσιν λαβεῖν, “receive dissolution.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_289" href="#FNanchor_289" class="label">[289]</a> καινότερα. The text has κενώτερα, “more inane.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_290" href="#FNanchor_290" class="label">[290]</a> περιεργίας, “bye-work.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_291" href="#FNanchor_291" class="label">[291]</a> Κολάρβασος. The name which is repeated by Tertullian, Philaster -and Theodoret can be traced back to the single passage in Irenæus, -where it appears in connection with the name Σιγή as “the Sige of -Colarbasus.” A German commentator long since suggested that it -was not the name of a brother heretic or follower of Marcus, but a -corruption of the words קל־ארבע Qol-Arba, or the “Voice of the Four,” -and this seems now generally accepted. As most if not all of -Marcus’ pretended revelations are said to have been dictated to him by -an apparition of the Supreme Tetrad, he may well have called the book -in which they were written and which seems to have been known to -Irenæus, by some such name.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_292" href="#FNanchor_292" class="label">[292]</a> It seems needless to point out that the whole of these chapters -dealing with the real or supposed successors of Valentinus is taken -direct from Irenæus, and that they have no relation to any other -author.</p> - -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="sidenote">p. 333.</div> -<div class="chapter"> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_58"></a>[58]</span> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="Book_VII" title="BOOK VII BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS"> -BOOK VII<br /> -BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS</h2> -</div> - - -<p>1. <span class="smcap">These</span> are the contents of the 7th (Book) of the -<i>Refutation of All Heresies</i>.</p> - -<p>2. What is the opinion of Basilides, and that he, having -been struck with the doctrines of Aristotle, constructed his -heresy from them.</p> - -<p>3. And what things Satornilus, who flourished at the same -time as Basilides, says.</p> - -<p>4. How Menander set himself to declare that the world -came into being by angels.</p> - -<p>5. What was the madness of Marcion, and that his -doctrine is neither new nor (taken) from the Holy Scriptures, -but comes from Empedocles.</p> - -<p>6. How Carpocrates talks foolishness, and thinks existing -things to have been produced by angels.</p> - -<p>7. That Cerinthus in no way framed his opinion from -Scripture, but out of the teachings of the Egyptians.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 334.</span> -8. What are the Ebionites’ opinions, and that they prefer -to cleave to the Jewish customs.</p> - -<p>9. How Theodotus also erred, having borrowed some -things from the Ebionites [but others from the Gnostics].</p> - -<p>10. And what was taught by Cerdo, who both declared -things (taken) from Empedocles and wickedly put forward -Marcion.</p> - -<p>11. And how Lucian, becoming a disciple of Marcion, -did not blush to blaspheme God.</p> - -<p>12. Of whom Apelles becoming a disciple, did not -teach the same things as (the rest of) the school, but -being moved by the doctrines of the physicists, supposed -an essence for the universe.</p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_59"></a>[59]</div> -<h3 id="VII_1" title="1. About Basilides.">1. <i>About Basilides.</i><a id="FNanchor_293" href="#Footnote_293" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></h3> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 335.</span> -13. Seeing that the doctrines of the heretics are like a -sea lashed into waves by the force of the winds, their -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_60"></a>[60]</span> -hearers ought to sail through them in quest of the calm -harbour. For such a sea is both wild and hard to overpass, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_61"></a>[61]</span> -as the Sicilian (sea) is said to be, wherein are fabled -to be Cyclops and Charybdis and Scylla and ... the -Sirens’ rock.<a id="FNanchor_294" href="#Footnote_294" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> Which sea the Greek poets make out that -Odysseus sailed through, skilfully availing himself of the -terror of those fierce beasts: for their cruelty to those -sailing among them was notorious. But the Sirens, singing -clearly and musically for the beguiling of those sailing past, -persuaded with their sweet voices those who listened to -approach them. And they say that Odysseus, hearing this, -stopped with wax his companions’ ears, but having had -himself bound to the mast sailed without danger past the -Sirens while listening to their song. Which I advise those -who meet with them to do, and either having on account -of weakness stopped their ears with wax to sail through the -teachings of the heretics without listening to what, like the -shrill song of the Sirens, might easily persuade them to -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_62"></a>[62]</span> -pleasure; or else to bind themselves to the Cross of Christ, -hearkening faithfully (to Him) and (thus) not to be -harassed, being persuaded (only) by Him to whom they -<span class="sidenote">p. 336.</span> -are bound and standing upright.<a id="FNanchor_295" href="#Footnote_295" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> - -<p>14. Since now we have set forth in the six Books before -this, the (opinions) which have gone before, it seems now -that we should not keep silent about those of Basilides -which are those of Aristotle the Stagirite, and not of Christ. -But although the doctrines of Aristotle have been before -expounded, we shall not shrink from now setting them -forth in epitome, so that the teacher by their closer comparison -may readily perceive that the sophisms of Basilides -are those of Aristotle.</p> - -<p>15. Aristotle, then, divides being<a id="FNanchor_296" href="#Footnote_296" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> into three. For one -part of it is genus, another, as he says, species,<a id="FNanchor_297" href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> and another -something undivided.<a id="FNanchor_298" href="#Footnote_298" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> But the atom is so called, not because -<span class="sidenote">p. 337.</span> -of the smallness of its body, but because by its nature -it can in no way be cut. But the genus is, as it were, a -heap composed of many different seeds. From which -heap-resembling genus, all the species of existent things are -severed;<a id="FNanchor_299" href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> and it is (one) genus which is sufficient for all -things which have come into being. In order that this -may be clear, I will point out an example whereby the -whole theory of the Peripatetic can be retraced.</p> - -<p>16. Let us say that there exists simply “animal,”<a id="FNanchor_300" href="#Footnote_300" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> not any -particular animal. This “animal” is neither ox, nor horse, -nor man, nor god, nor anything else that can anyhow be -apparent, but simply “animal.” From this “animal” the -species of all animals have their substance.<a id="FNanchor_301" href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> And the -undifferentiated<a id="FNanchor_302" href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> “animal” is the substance of the animals -who have been produced in species<a id="FNanchor_303" href="#Footnote_303" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> but is yet none of -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_63"></a>[63]</span> -them. For an animal is man, who takes his beginning -<span class="sidenote">p. 338.</span> -from that “animal,” and an animal is horse who does likewise. -The horse and ox and dog and each of the other -animals takes its beginning from the simple “animal” -which is none of them.</p> - -<p>17. But if that “animal” is not one of these, (then) the -substance of the things which have been produced has, -according to Aristotle, come into being from the things -which are not: for the “animal” whence these have -severally received it is not one (of them). But, while being -none (of them), it has become the one beginning of things -which are. But who it is who has sent down this beginning<a id="FNanchor_304" href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> -of the things which have been produced later, we -shall see when we come to its proper place.</p> - -<p>18. Since the threefold essence is, as he says, genus, species -and atom, and we have granted<a id="FNanchor_305" href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> “animal” to be genus, -and man to be species already differentiated from the -multitude of animals, but at the same time commingled -with them and not yet transformed into a species of substantial -being,<a id="FNanchor_306" href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>—I, when I give form to the man taken -apart from the genus, call him by the name of Socrates -<span class="sidenote">p. 339.</span> -or of Diogenes or any one of the many names (there are), -and when I (thus) restrict with a name the man who from -genus has become species, I call such being an individual.<a id="FNanchor_307" href="#Footnote_307" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> -For the genus is divided into species and the species into -an atom; but the atom when restricted by a name cannot -by its nature be divided into anything else, as we have -divided each of the things aforesaid.</p> - -<p>This Aristotle calls essence in its first, chief, and -strictest sense, nor is it said of any subject nor as -existing in any subject.<a id="FNanchor_308" href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> But he speaks of the subject as -if it were genus when he said “animal” of all the animals -severally ranged under it, such as an ox, a horse, and the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_64"></a>[64]</span> -rest, describing them by a common name. For it is true -to say that man is an animal, and a horse is an animal and -an ox is an animal and all the rest. This is subjective, the -one (name) being likewise capable of being said of many -<span class="sidenote">p. 340.</span> -and different species.<a id="FNanchor_309" href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> For neither a horse nor an ox differs -from man <i>quâ</i> animal; for the definition of animal fits all -the aforesaid animals alike. For what is an animal? If we -define it, a common definition will include all the animals. -For an animal is a living,<a id="FNanchor_310" href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> feeling being, such as a man, a -horse and all the rest. But, “in the Subject,” he says, is -that which exists in anything, not as part of it, but as being -incapable of existing apart from that wherein it is, (and is) -each<a id="FNanchor_311" href="#Footnote_311" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> of the accidents of being. The which is called -Quality because by it we say <i>what</i> certain things are, as, -for instance, white, green, black, just, unjust, prudent and -such like. But none of these (qualities) can come into -being by itself, but must needs be in<a id="FNanchor_312" href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> something. But, -if neither the “animal,” which is the word I use for all -living beings taken severally, nor the “accidents” which -are found to occur in all of them, can come into being of -themselves, then from those things which do not exist, -the individual things<a id="FNanchor_313" href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> are developed and the triply-divided -essence is not compounded<a id="FNanchor_314" href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> from other things. Hence -Being<a id="FNanchor_315" href="#Footnote_315" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> so called in its first and chiefest and strictest sense, -<span class="sidenote">p. 341.</span> -exists according to Aristotle from those things which do not -exist.<a id="FNanchor_316" href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> - -<p>19. About Being<a id="FNanchor_317" href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> then enough has been said. But -Being is called not only genus, species and individual; but -also matter, form and privation. But there is no difference -among these while the division stands. And Being being -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_65"></a>[65]</span> -such as it is, the ordering of the cosmos came about -automatically in the same way. The cosmos is according -to Aristotle divided into many [and different] parts; -[and] the part of the cosmos which exists from the earth as -far as the moon is without providence or governance and -has its rise only in its own nature. But that which is -beyond the moon, is ordered with all order and providence -and is (so) governed up to the surface of heaven. But the -(same) surface is a certain fifth essence renewed from all -the elements of nature wherefrom the cosmos is made up, -and this is Aristotle’s “Quintessence,” being as it were a -hypercosmic essence. And his system of philosophy is -<span class="sidenote">p. 342.</span> -divided so as to agree with the division of the cosmos. For -there is by him a treatise on physics called <i>Acroasis</i>, wherein -he has treated of the doings of Nature, not of Providence, -from the Earth to the Moon. And there is also his <i>Metaphysics</i>, -another special work thus entitled, concerning the -things which take place beyond the Moon. And there is -also his work <i>On the Quintessence</i>, wherein he theologizes.<a id="FNanchor_318" href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> -Like this also is the division of the universals as they are -defined by type in Aristotle’s philosophy. But his work -<i>On the Soul</i> is puzzling; for it would be impossible in three -whole books to say what Aristotle thinks about the soul. -For what he gives as the definition of the soul is easy to -say; but what is explained by the definition is hard to find. -For, he says, the soul is an entelechy of the physical -organism. What this is would need many words and great -enquiry. But the God who is the cause of all these fair beings -<span class="sidenote">p. 343.</span> -is one, even to one speculating for a very long time, more -difficult to be known than is the soul. Yet the definition -which Aristotle gives of God, is not hard to be known, but -impossible to be understood. For He, he says, is a conception -of conception which is altogether non-existent. -But the cosmos is according to Aristotle imperishable and -eternal; for it contains nothing faulty and is governed by -Nature and Providence. And Aristotle has not only put -forth books on Nature and the Cosmos and Providence -and God,<a id="FNanchor_319" href="#Footnote_319" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> but there is also a certain treatise by him on -ethics which is called <i>The Ethical Books</i> wherein he builds -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_66"></a>[66]</span> -up a good ethics for his hearers out of a poor one. If, -then, Basilides be found not only potentially but in the -very words and names to have transferred the doctrines of -Aristotle to our evangelical and soul-saving teaching, what -remains but by restoring these extraneous matters to their -(proper) authors to prove to Basilides’ disciples that, as -they are heathenish, Christ will profit them nothing?</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 344.</span> -20. Now Basilides and Isidore, Basilides’ true son and -disciple, say that Matthias recounted to them secret<a id="FNanchor_320" href="#Footnote_320" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> discourses -which he had heard from the Saviour in private -teaching.<a id="FNanchor_321" href="#Footnote_321" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> We see then how plainly Basilides together -with Isidore and their whole band belie not only Matthias -but also the Saviour. There was, he says, [a time] when -Nothing was, not even the nothing of existing things, but -baldly and unreservedly and without any sophism, nothing -at all. But when I say, says he, that [this] <i>was</i>, I do not -say that this existed, but I speak thus to signify what I -wish to indicate. I say then that nothing at all existed. -For, says he, that which is named is plainly not ineffable; -for at any rate we call one thing ineffable, but another not -ineffable. For truly that which is not even ineffable is not -named ineffable, but is, he says, above every name which is -named. For neither are there names enough for the cosmos, -he says, so diverse is it, but there is a lack of them. Nor do -<span class="sidenote">p. 345.</span> -I undertake, says he, to find proper names for everything; -but one must silently understand in the mind not their -names, but the properties of the things named. For identity -of names has made confusion and error concerning things<a id="FNanchor_322" href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> -among those who hear them. And they who first made -this appropriation and theft from the Peripatetic lead astray -the folly of those who herd with them. For Aristotle who -was born many generations earlier than Basilides, was the -first to set forth in the <i>Categories</i> a system of homonyms -which these men expound as their own and as a novelty -[derived] from the secret discourses of Matthias.</p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_67"></a>[67]</span> -21. When nothing [existed], neither matter, nor essence, -nor the simple nor the compound, nor [that which is -conceived by the mind] nor that which cannot be [so] -conceived, [nor that which is perceived by the senses]<a id="FNanchor_323" href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> nor -that which cannot be [so] perceived, nor man, nor angel, -nor God, nor generally any of the things which are named -or apprehended by sensation, or of things<a id="FNanchor_324" href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> which can be -<span class="sidenote">p. 346.</span> -conceived by the mind but can be thus and even more -minutely described by all:—(then) [the] God-who-was-Not—whom -Aristotle calls Concept of Concept, but (Basilides) -Him-who-is-Not, without conception, perception, counsel, -choice, passion or desire willed to create a cosmos. But -I say (only) for the sake of clearness, says he, that He willed. -I signify that he did this without will or conception or perception; -and [the] cosmos was not that which later became -established in its expanse and diversity,<a id="FNanchor_325" href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> but a Seed of a -cosmos. And the Seed of the cosmos contained all things -within itself, as the grain of mustard (seed) collects into the -smallest space and contains within itself all things at once:—the -roots, stem, branches and the numberless leaves, with -the seeds begotten by the plant, and often again those -grown by many other plants. Thus the God-who-was-Not -made the cosmos from things which were not,<a id="FNanchor_326" href="#Footnote_326" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> casting -<span class="sidenote">p. 347.</span> -down and planting<a id="FNanchor_327" href="#Footnote_327" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> a certain single seed containing within -itself the whole seed-mass<a id="FNanchor_328" href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> of the cosmos. But in order -that I may make clearer what these (men) say, it was even -as an egg of some gorgeous and parti-coloured bird such as -a peacock of some other yet more variegated and many-coloured, -contains within it, though one, many patterns<a id="FNanchor_329" href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> of -multiform and many-coloured and diversely-constructed -beings<a id="FNanchor_330" href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>—so, says he, the non-existent seed of the cosmos -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_68"></a>[68]</span> -cast down by the God-who-was-Not contained (a Seed-mass) -at once multiform and (the source) of many beings.<a id="FNanchor_331" href="#Footnote_331" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p> - -<p>22. All things, then, which are to be described, and -those which not having yet been discovered must be left out -of the account, were destined to be fitted for the cosmos -which was to come into being at the proper time by the -help given to it by such and so great a God, whose quality<a id="FNanchor_332" href="#Footnote_332" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> -the creature can neither conceive nor define. And these -things existed stored within the seed, as, in a new-born -<span class="sidenote">p. 348.</span> -child, we see teeth and the power of fatherhood and brains -accrue later; and those things which belong to the man -but do not at first exist, evolve gradually out of the child. -For it would be impossible to say that any projection by the -God-who-was-Not became something non-existent,—since -Basilides entirely shuns and has in horror [the notion of] -substances of things begotten [arising] by way of projection.<a id="FNanchor_333" href="#Footnote_333" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> -For what, says he, is the need of projection or of any substructure -of matter in order that God may fashion a cosmos -as the spider makes webs, or mortal man takes brass or -wood or some other portion of matter to work with?).—But -He spoke, says he, and it came to pass; and this is, as these -[heretics] say, what Moses spake:—“Let there be light -and there was light.”<a id="FNanchor_334" href="#Footnote_334" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> Whence, says he, came the light? -From nothing. For it is not written says he, whence it -came, but only that it came forth from the word of the -speaker. For the speaker, says he, was not, nor did that -which was spoken [formerly] exist. The seed of the cosmos, -he says, came into being from non-existent things [and this -seed is] the word which was spoken: “Let there be light.” -And this, says he, is the saying in the Gospels: “This is -<span class="sidenote">p. 349.</span> -the true light which lighteneth every man who cometh into -the world.”<a id="FNanchor_335" href="#Footnote_335" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> It takes its beginnings<a id="FNanchor_336" href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> from that seed and -gives light. This is the seed which contains within itself all -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_69"></a>[69]</span> -the Seed-Mass which Aristotle says is the genus divided -into boundless species, since we divide from the non-existent -animal ox, horse [and] man. Further, of the -underlying cosmic seed, they say, “whatever I may say -came into being after this, seek not to know whence it -came.” For it contained all seeds stored and shut up -within itself, as it were things which were not, but which -were foreordained to exist by the God-who-was-Not.</p> - -<p>Let us see then what they say came into being in the -first, second or third place from the cosmic seed. There -existed (Basilides) says within the seed itself, a Sonhood, -threefold throughout, of the same essence<a id="FNanchor_337" href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> with the God-who-was-Not -and begotten of the things that were not. Of -this triple divided Sonhood, one part was subtle, (one -coarse) and one wanting purification. Now the subtle (part) -<span class="sidenote">p. 350.</span> -straightway and as it became the first emission of the seed -by the One-who-was-Not, escaped and ascended and went -on high from below with the speed described by the poet—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“like wing or thought,”<a id="FNanchor_338" href="#Footnote_338" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">and came, he says, before the One-who-was-Not. For -towards him every nature strains on account of his exceeding -beauty and bloom,<a id="FNanchor_339" href="#Footnote_339" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> but each differently. But the coarser -part still remaining in the seed, although resembling the -other,<a id="FNanchor_340" href="#Footnote_340" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> could not go on high, for it lacked the fineness of -division which the ascending Sonhood had of itself, and -was (therefore) left behind. Then the coarser Sonhood -wings itself with some such wing as that wherewith Plato, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_70"></a>[70]</span> -Aristotle’s teacher, equips the soul in the <i>Phaedrus</i>,<a id="FNanchor_341" href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> and -Basilides calls the same not a wing but Holy Spirit, clothed -wherewith the Sonhood both gives and receives benefit. -It gives it because a bird’s wing taken by itself and severed -from the bird would neither become uplifted nor high in -<span class="sidenote">p. 351.</span> -air, nor would the bird be uplifted and high in air if deprived -of the wing. This then is the relation which the Sonhood -bears to the Spirit and the Spirit to the Sonhood. For the -Sonhood borne aloft by the Spirit as by a wing bears aloft -the wing, (that is the Spirit) and draws nigh to the subtler -Sonhood and to the God-who-was-Not and fashions all -things from the non-existent. But [the Spirit] cannot abide -with the Sonhood for it is not of the same essence,<a id="FNanchor_342" href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> nor has -it the same nature as the Sonhood. But just as dry and -pure air is naturally fatal to fishes, so naturally to the Holy -Spirit was that place, more ineffable than the ineffable ones -and higher than all names, which is the seat at once of the -God-who-was-Not and of the [first] Sonhood. Therefore -the Sonhood left the Spirit near that blessed place which -cannot be conceived nor characterized<a id="FNanchor_343" href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> by any speech, -[yet] not altogether alone nor [completely] severed from the -Sonhood. For just as when a sweet perfume is poured into -a jar, even if the jar is carefully emptied a certain fragrance -of the perfume still remains and is left behind, and although -<span class="sidenote">p. 352.</span> -the perfume be removed from the jar, the jar retains the -fragrance, but not the perfume—so the Holy Spirit remained -bereft of and severed from the Sonhood. And this is the -saying: “As the perfume on Aaron’s head ran down to his -beard.”<a id="FNanchor_344" href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> This is the savour carried down by the Holy -Spirit from on high into the Formlessness<a id="FNanchor_345" href="#Footnote_345" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> and Space of -this world of ours, whence the Sonhood first went on high -as on the wings of an eagle and borne on his loins. For -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_71"></a>[71]</span> -all things, he says, strain upward from below, from the -worse to the better. But there is thus nothing of those -things which are among the better which is immovable, so -that it cannot come below. But the third Sonhood, he -says, which is in need of purification, remains in the great -heap of the Seed-mass giving and receiving benefits. And -in what manner it does this, we shall see later in the fitting -place.<a id="FNanchor_346" href="#Footnote_346" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 353.</span> -23. Now when the first and second ascensions of the -Sonhood<a id="FNanchor_347" href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> had come to pass, and the Holy Spirit remained -by itself in the way described, being set midway between -the hypercosmic firmaments and the cosmos—for Basilides -divides the things that are into two first made and -primary divisions, one of which is called by him an ordered -world,<a id="FNanchor_348" href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> and the other hypercosmic things—and between -these two [he places] the Boundary Spirit,<a id="FNanchor_349" href="#Footnote_349" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> which same -is at once Holy and holds abiding in it the savour of the -Sonhood, it being the firmament which is above the heaven.<a id="FNanchor_350" href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> -[When these ascensions had taken place], there escaped -from and was engendered from the cosmical seed and the -Seed-mass, the Great Ruler, the head of the cosmos, a -certain beauty and greatness and power which cannot -be spoken.<a id="FNanchor_351" href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> For he is, says [Basilides], more ineffable -than the ineffable ones, mightier than the mighty, and -better than all the fair ones you can describe. He, when -engendered, burst through, soared aloft, and was borne -right up on high as far as the firmament, but stayed there -thinking that the firmament was the end of all ascension -<span class="sidenote">p. 354.</span> -and uplifting and not imagining that there was anything -at all beyond this. And he became wiser, mightier, more -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_72"></a>[72]</span> -eminent, and more luminous and everything which you can -describe as excelling in beauty all the other cosmic things -which lay before him, save only the Sonhood left behind -in the Seed-mass. For he knew not that [this Sonhood] was -wiser and mightier and better than he. Therefore he deemed -himself Lord and King<a id="FNanchor_352" href="#Footnote_352" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> and wise architect, and set about -the creation in detail<a id="FNanchor_353" href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> of the ordered world. And in the -first place he did not think it meet for him to be alone, -but created for himself and engendered from the things -which lay below him a Son much better and wiser than -himself. For all this the God-who-was-Not had foreordained -when he let fall the Seed-mass. When, therefore, -[the Great Ruler] beheld his Son, he wondered, and was -filled with love and astounded: for so [splendid] did the -beauty of the son appear to the Great Ruler. And the -Ruler seated him at his right hand. This is what is called -by Basilides the Ogdoad where sits the Great Ruler. Then -the Great Wise Demiurge fashioned the whole of the -<span class="sidenote">p. 355.</span> -heavenly, that is, the aethereal creation. But the Son begotten -by him set it working and established it, being much -wiser than the Demiurge himself.<a id="FNanchor_354" href="#Footnote_354" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p> - -<p>24. This [creation] is according to Aristotle, the “entelechy”<a id="FNanchor_355" href="#Footnote_355" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> -of the organic natural body, the soul activating -the body, without which the body can effect nothing, a -something greater and more manifest and wiser than the -body. The theory therefore which Aristotle first taught -regarding the soul and the body, Basilides explained as -referring to the Great Ruler and his so-called son. For -the Ruler according to Basilides begat a son; and Aristotle -says that the soul is an entelechy, the work and result<a id="FNanchor_356" href="#Footnote_356" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> of -the organic natural body. As, then, the entelechy controls -the body, so the son, according to Basilides, controls the -more ineffable God of the Ineffables. All things soever -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_73"></a>[73]</span> -then which are in the aether up to the Moon are foreseen -and controlled by the majesty<a id="FNanchor_357" href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> of the Great Ruler; for -here [<i>i. e.</i> at the Moon] the air is divided from the aether. -Now when all aethereal things had been set in order, yet -<span class="sidenote">p. 356.</span> -another Ruler ascends from the Seed-Mass, greater than all -the things which are below him, save only the Sonhood -which is left behind, but much inferior to the first Ruler. -And this one is called by them “able to be named.”<a id="FNanchor_358" href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> And -his place is called Hebdomad, and he is the controller -and Demiurge of all things lying below him, and he has -created to himself from the Seed-Mass a Son who is more -foreseeing and wiser than he in the same way as has been -said about the first [Ruler]. And in this space,<a id="FNanchor_359" href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> he says, -are the heap and the Seed-Mass, and events naturally happen -as they were (ordained) to be produced in advance by Him -who has calculated that which will come to pass and when -and what and how it will be.<a id="FNanchor_360" href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> And of these there is no -leader nor guardian nor demiurge. For that calculation -which the Non-Existent One made when he created them -suffices for them.</p> - -<p>25. When, then, according to them, the whole cosmos -and the hypercosmic things were completed, and nothing -<span class="sidenote">p. 357.</span> -was lacking, there still remained in the Seed-Mass the -third Sonhood which had been left behind to give and -receive benefits in the Seed. And the Sonhood left behind -had to be revealed and again established on high above -the Boundary Spirit in the presence of the subtler Sonhood -and the one that resembles it and the Non-Existent -One, as, says he, it is written, “All creation groans and is -in travail in expectation of the revelation of the sons of -God.”<a id="FNanchor_361" href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> We spiritual men, he say, left here below for the -arrangement and perfect formation and rectification and -completion of the souls which by nature have to remain -in this [Middle] Space, are the “sons [of God].” “Now -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_74"></a>[74]</span> -from Adam to Moses sin reigned”<a id="FNanchor_362" href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> as it is written. For -the Great Ruler reigned who held sway up to the firmament, -thinking that he alone was God, and that there was -nothing higher than he. For all things were kept hidden -in silence. This, says he, is the mystery which was not -known to the earlier generations; but in those times the -King and Lord, as it seemed to him, of the universals was -<span class="sidenote">p. 358.</span> -the Great Ruler, the Ogdoad. Yet of this [Middle] Space -the Hebdomad was King and Lord, and the Ogdoad is -ineffable but the Hebdomad may be named. This Ruler -of the Hebdomad, says he, it was who spoke to Moses, -saying, “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob -and the name of God was not made known to them:”<a id="FNanchor_363" href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> for -thus they will have it to have been written—that is to say -[the name] of the Ineffable Ogdoad, Ruler, God. All the -prophets therefore who were before the Saviour, spoke from -that place.<a id="FNanchor_364" href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> When then, he says, the sons of God had to -be revealed to us, about whom, he says, creation groaned -and travailed in expectation of the revelation, the Gospel -came into the cosmos and passed through every Dominion<a id="FNanchor_365" href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> -and Authority and Lordship and every name which is -named. And it came indeed, although nothing descended -from on high, nor did the Blessed Sonhood come forth -from that Incomprehensible and Blessed God-who-was-Not. -But as the Indian naphtha, when only kindled from afar off, -takes fire, so from the Formlessness of the heap below do -<span class="sidenote">p. 359.</span> -the powers of the Sonhood extend upward. For as if he -were something of naphtha, the son of the Great Ruler of -the Ogdoad catches and receives the concepts from the -Blessed Sonhood which is beyond the Holy Spirit. For -the Power in the midst of the Holy Spirit in the Boundary -of the Sonhood distributes the rushing and flowing concepts -to the Son of the Great Ruler.<a id="FNanchor_366" href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_75"></a>[75]</span> -26. Therefore the Gospel came first from the Sonhood, -he says to the Ruler, through his Son who sits beside him, -and the Ruler learned that he was not the God of the -universals, but was a generated [being] and had above him -the outstretched Treasure-house of the Ineffable and Unnameable -God-who-was-Not and of the Sonhood.<a id="FNanchor_367" href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> And he -was astounded and terrified when he perceived in what -ignorance he had been, and this, says [Basilides] is the -saying: “The fear of [the] Lord is the beginning of -wisdom.”<a id="FNanchor_368" href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> For he began to be wise when instructed by -the Christ seated beside him, and learned what was the -Non-Existent One, what the Sonhood, what the Holy -Spirit, and what was the constitution<a id="FNanchor_369" href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> of the universals and -<span class="sidenote">p. 360.</span> -how these will be restored.<a id="FNanchor_370" href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> This is the wisdom spoken of -in mystery, as to which, says he, the Scripture declares: -“Not in the words taught by human wisdom, but in the -teachings of [the] Spirit.”<a id="FNanchor_371" href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> Then, says he, the Ruler when -he had been instructed and made to fear, confessed -thoroughly the sin he had committed in magnifying himself. -This, says he, is the saying: “I acknowledge my sin -and I know my transgression; upon this I will make full -confession for ever.”<a id="FNanchor_372" href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">[80]</a></p> - -<p>Now when the Great Ruler had been instructed, and -every creature of the Ogdoad had been taught and had -learned, and the mystery had been made known to those -above the heavens, it was still necessary that the Gospel -should come to the Hebdomad also, so that the Ruler of -the Hebdomad might be instructed in like manner and be -evangelized.<a id="FNanchor_373" href="#Footnote_373" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> The Son of the Great Ruler [therefore] -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76"></a>[76]</span> -enlightened the Son of the Ruler of the Hebdomad, having -caught the light which he had from the Sonhood on high, -and the Son of the Ruler of the Hebdomad was enlightened, -and the Gospel was announced to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, -and he in like manner as has been said was both -terrified and made confession. When then all things in the -<span class="sidenote">p. 361.</span> -Hebdomad had been enlightened, and the Gospel had been -announced to them—for according to them, the creatures -belonging to these spaces are boundless and are Dominions -and Powers and Authorities, concerning whom they have -a very long story told by many [authors]. [And] they -imagine that there are there 365 heavens, and Habrasax is -their Great Ruler, because his name comprises the cipher -365, wherefore the year consists of that number of days<a id="FNanchor_374" href="#Footnote_374" class="fnanchor">[82]</a>—but -when, says he, these things had come to pass, it was -still necessary that our Formlessness should be enlightened -and that the mystery unknown to the earlier generations -should be revealed to the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness -as if he were an abortion. As, says he, it is written: -“By revelation was made known to me the mystery;”<a id="FNanchor_375" href="#Footnote_375" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> and -again, “I heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful -for man to utter.”<a id="FNanchor_376" href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> [Thus] the light came down from the -<span class="sidenote">p. 362.</span> -Hebdomad, which had come down from the Ogdoad on -high to the Son of the Hebdomad, upon Jesus the son of -Mary, and He, having caught it, was enlightened by the -light shining upon Him.<a id="FNanchor_377" href="#Footnote_377" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> This, says he, is the saying:—“The -Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” [that is], that -which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary -Spirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary, “and -the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,”<a id="FNanchor_378" href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> [that is] -the power of the unction<a id="FNanchor_379" href="#Footnote_379" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> from the Height of the Demiurge -on high unto the creation which is of the Son. But, he -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_77"></a>[77]</span> -says, up till that [time] the cosmos was thus constituted, -until [the time] when the whole Sonhood left behind in the -Formlessness to benefit souls and [itself] to receive benefits -should be transformed and follow Jesus, and should go on -high and come forth purified, and should become most -subtle as it might do by ascension like the First [Sonhood]. -For it possesses all the power of attaching itself naturally to -the light which shines downward from on high.</p> - -<p>27. When therefore, he says, every Sonhood shall have -come [forth] and shall be established above the Boundary -<span class="sidenote">p. 363.</span> -Spirit, the creation shall then receive pity. For up till now, -he says it wails and is tortured and awaits the revelation of -the sons of God, so that all the men of the Sonhood shall -ascend from this place. When this shall have come to pass, -he says, God shall bring upon the whole cosmos the Great -Ignorance, so that all things shall remain as they are by -nature, and none shall desire any of those things beyond -[its] nature. For all the souls of this space which possess -a nature enabling them to remain immortal in this [space] -alone, will remain convinced that there is nothing different -from nor better than this [space]. Nor will any tidings or -knowledge of higher things abide in those below, so that -the lower souls shall not be tormented by yearning after the -impossible, as if a fish should desire to feed with the sheep -on the hills. For, says he, such a desire should it happen -to them<a id="FNanchor_380" href="#Footnote_380" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> would be [their] destruction. Therefore, he says, -all things which remain in their own place are imperishable; -but perishable if they wish to overleap and rise above [the -limits] of their nature. Thus the Ruler of the Hebdomad -will know nothing of the things above him. For the Great -<span class="sidenote">p. 364.</span> -Ignorance will lay hold of him, so that grief and pain and -sighing will stand off from him, for he will neither desire -anything impossible nor will he grieve. And in like manner -this Ignorance will lay hold of the Great Ruler of the -Ogdoad, and similarly all the creatures subject to him, so -that none of them shall grieve and mourn for anything -outside his own nature. And this shall be the Restoration -of all things established according to nature in the seed of -the universals at the beginning, but they shall be restored -[each] in their proper season. But [to prove] that everything -has its proper season, it is enough to mention the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_78"></a>[78]</span> -saying of the Saviour:—“Mine hour is not yet come”<a id="FNanchor_381" href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> and -the Magi observing the star. For, says [Basilides] He -himself was foretold by the nativity<a id="FNanchor_382" href="#Footnote_382" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> of the stars and of the -return of the hours into the great heap. This is according -to them, the spiritual inner man conceived in the natural -man—which is the Sonhood who leaves the soul, not to die -but to remain as it is by nature, just as the first Sonhood<a id="FNanchor_383" href="#Footnote_383" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 365.</span> -left the Holy Spirit which is the Boundary in its appropriate -place and then did on his own special soul.<a id="FNanchor_384" href="#Footnote_384" class="fnanchor">[92]</a></p> - -<p>In order that we may omit nothing of their [doctrines], I -will set forth what they say also about (a) Gospel.<a id="FNanchor_385" href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> Gospel -is according to them the knowledge of hypercosmic things, -as has been made plain, which the Great Ruler<a id="FNanchor_386" href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> did not -understand. When then there was manifested to him what -are the Holy Spirit that is the Boundary, and the Sonhood -and the God-who-is-Not the cause of all these, he rejoiced -at the words and exulted,<a id="FNanchor_387" href="#Footnote_387" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> and this according to them is -the Gospel. But Jesus according to them was born as we -have before said. And He having come into being by the -Birth before explained, all those things likewise came to -pass with regard to the Saviour as it is written in the -Gospels. And these things came to pass [Basilides] says, -so that Jesus might become the first-fruits of the sorting-out -of the things of the Confusion.<a id="FNanchor_388" href="#Footnote_388" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> For when the Cosmos was -divided into an Ogdoad which is the head of the whole -ordered world, [the head whereof is] the Great Ruler, and -into a Hebdomad which is the head of the Hebdomad, the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_79"></a>[79]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 366.</span> -Demiurge of the things below him, and into this space of -ours, which is the Formlessness, it was necessary that the -things of the Confusion should be sorted out by the -discrimination of Jesus.</p> - -<p>That which was His bodily part<a id="FNanchor_389" href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> which was from the -Formlessness, therefore suffered<a id="FNanchor_390" href="#Footnote_390" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> and returned to the Formlessness. -And that which was His psychic part which was -from the Hebdomad also returned to the Hebdomad. But -that which was peculiar to the Height of the Great Ruler -ascended and remained with the Great Ruler. And He -bore aloft as far as the Boundary Spirit that which was from -the Boundary Spirit and it remained with the Boundary -Spirit. But the third Sonhood which had been left behind -to give and receive benefits was purified by Him, and -traversing all these places went on high to the Blessed -Sonhood.<a id="FNanchor_391" href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> For this is the whole theory,<a id="FNanchor_392" href="#Footnote_392" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> as it were a Confusion -of the Seed-Mass and the discrimination [into classes] -and the Restoration of the things confused into their proper -places. Therefore Jesus became the first-fruits of the discrimination, -and the Passion came to pass for no other -reason than this discrimination.<a id="FNanchor_393" href="#Footnote_393" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> For in this manner, he -says, all the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness to -<span class="sidenote">p. 367.</span> -give and receive benefits separated into its components in -the same way as [the person] of Jesus was separated. This -is what Basilides fables after having lingered in Egypt, and -having learned from them [of Egypt] such great wisdom, he -brought forth such fruits.<a id="FNanchor_394" href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">[102]</a></p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_80"></a>[80]</div> -<h3 id="VII_2" title="2. Satornilus.">2. <i>Satornilus.</i><a id="FNanchor_395" href="#Footnote_395" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></h3> - -<p>28. And a certain Satornilus who flourished at the same -time as Basilides, but passed his life in Antioch of Syria, -taught the same things as Menander.<a id="FNanchor_396" href="#Footnote_396" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> He says that one -father exists unknown to all, who made Angels, Archangels, -Powers [and] Authorities. And that from a certain seven -angels the cosmos and all things therein came into being. -And that man was [the] creation of angels, there having -<span class="sidenote">p. 368.</span> -appeared on high from the Absolute One<a id="FNanchor_397" href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> a shining image -which they could not detain, says Saturnilus, because of its -immediate return on high. [Wherefore] they exhorted one -another, saying: “Let us make man according to image -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_81"></a>[81]</span> -and resemblance.”<a id="FNanchor_398" href="#Footnote_398" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> Which, he says, having come to pass, -the image could not stand upright by reason of the lack of -power among the angels, but grovelled like a worm. Then -the Power on high having pity on it, because it had come -into being in his likeness, sent forth a spark of life which -raised up the man and made him live.<a id="FNanchor_399" href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> Therefore, says he, -the spark of life returns at death to its own kindred and the -rest of [man’s] compound parts is resolved into its original -elements.<a id="FNanchor_400" href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> And he supposed the unknown Father<a id="FNanchor_401" href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> to be -unbegotten, bodiless, and formless. But he says that He -showed Himself as a phantom in human shape, and that -the God of the Jews is one of the angels. And, because -the Father wished to depose all the angels, Christ came for -the putting-down of the God of the Jews and for the salvation -of those who believe on him; and that these [believers] -<span class="sidenote">p. 369.</span> -have the spark of life within them. For he says that two -races of men were formed by the angels, one bad and one -good. And that since the demons help the bad, the Saviour -came for the destruction of the bad men and demons, but -for the salvation of the good. And he says that to marry -and beget [children] is from Satan. Many of this man’s -adherents abstain from things that have had life, through -this pretended abstinence (leading astray many).<a id="FNanchor_402" href="#Footnote_402" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> And -they say that the Prophecies were uttered, some by the -world-creators, some by Satan whom he supposes to be an -angel who works against the world-creators and especially -(against) the God of the Jews.<a id="FNanchor_403" href="#Footnote_403" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> Thus then Satornilus.</p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_82"></a>[82]</div> -<h3 id="VII_3" title="3. Concerning Marcion.">3. <i>Concerning Marcion.</i><a id="FNanchor_404" href="#Footnote_404" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></h3> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 370.</span> -29. Marcion of Pontus, much madder than these, passing -over many opinions of the majority and pressing on to the -more shameless, supposed that there were two principles of -the All,<a id="FNanchor_405" href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> one good and the other bad. And he, thinking -that he was bringing in some new [doctrine], manufactured -a school filled with folly and of Cynic life, being himself -a lewd one.<a id="FNanchor_406" href="#Footnote_406" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> He thought that the multitude would not -notice that he chanced to be a disciple not of Christ, but -of Empedocles, who was very much earlier, and he laid -down and taught that there were two causes of the All, -[<i>i. e.</i>] Strife and Love.<a id="FNanchor_407" href="#Footnote_407" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> For what says Empedocles on the -conduct of the cosmos? If we have said it before,<a id="FNanchor_408" href="#Footnote_408" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> yet I -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_83"></a>[83]</span> -will not now keep silence, if only for the sake of comparing -<span class="sidenote">p. 371.</span> -the heresy of this plagiarist<a id="FNanchor_409" href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> [with the source]. He says -that all the elements of which the cosmos was compounded -and consists are six, to wit:—two material, [viz.] Air and -Water; two instruments, whereby the material elements -are arranged<a id="FNanchor_410" href="#Footnote_410" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> and changed about, [viz.] Fire and Air; and -two which work with the instruments and fashion matter, -[viz.] Strife and Love. He says something like this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Hear first the four roots of all things:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And Nestis who wets with tears the source of mortals.<a id="FNanchor_411" href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">Zeus is fire and life-bearing Here the earth which bears -fruits for the support of life. But Aïdoneus is the air, -because while beholding all things through it, it alone we -do not see. And Nestis is water, since it is the only vehicle -of food, and therefore the becoming cause of all growing -things,<a id="FNanchor_412" href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> yet cannot nourish them by itself. For if it could -so give nourishment, he says, living things<a id="FNanchor_413" href="#Footnote_413" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> could never -die of hunger, for there is always abundance of water in -the cosmos.<a id="FNanchor_414" href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> Whence he calls water Nestis, because it is -a becoming cause of nourishment, yet cannot itself nourish -growing things. These things then are, to sum them up -in outline, those which comprise the foundation<a id="FNanchor_415" href="#Footnote_415" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> of the -cosmos [<i>i. e.</i>] water and Earth from which all things come, -<span class="sidenote">p. 372.</span> -Fire and Spirit<a id="FNanchor_416" href="#Footnote_416" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> the tools and agents, and Strife and Love -which fashion all things with skill. And Love is a certain -peace and even mindedness and natural affection,<a id="FNanchor_417" href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> which -determines that the cosmos shall be perfect and complete; -but Strife ever rends asunder that which is one and divides -it and makes many things out of one. Therefore the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_84"></a>[84]</span> -cause of the whole creation is Strife, which [cause] he calls -baneful, that is deadly.<a id="FNanchor_418" href="#Footnote_418" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> For it takes care that through -every aeon, its creation persists. And Strife the deadly is -the Demiurge and maker of all things which have come -into being by birth; but Love, of their leading-forth from -the cosmos and transformation and return to unity.<a id="FNanchor_419" href="#Footnote_419" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> Concerning -which, Empedocles [says] that there are two immortal -and unbegotten things which have never yet had -a source of existence. He speaks, however, somehow like -this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">For it was aforetime and will be; never, I ween,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Will the unquenchable aeon lack these two.<a id="FNanchor_420" href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">[128]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin"> -<span class="sidenote">p. 373.</span> -But what are these two? Strife and Love. For they had -no source of existence, but pre-existed and ever were, being -through their unbegotten nature incorruptible. But Fire -[and Water] and Earth and Air die and again come to life. -For when the things which have come into being through -Strife die, Love takes them and leads them and adds and -attaches them to the All,<a id="FNanchor_421" href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> so that the All may remain <i>One</i>, -being ever marshalled by Love in one fashion and form. -Yet when Love creates the One from many things, and -arranges the things which have been scattered in the One, -Strife again rends them away from the One, and makes -them [into] many, that is, Fire, Water, Earth [and] Air, -whence are produced animals and plants and whatever -parts of the cosmos we perceive. And concerning the -form<a id="FNanchor_422" href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> of the cosmos as ordered by Love, he speaks somehow -like this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">For not from the back do two arms<a id="FNanchor_423" href="#Footnote_423" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> spring</div> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 374.</span><span class="verse">Nor feet nor active knees, nor hairy genitals.</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0">But it was a sphere and everywhere alike.<a id="FNanchor_424" href="#Footnote_424" class="fnanchor">[132]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">Such things [does] Love, and turns out the most beautiful -form of the world as One from many; but Strife rends -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_85"></a>[85]</span> -gradually from that One the principle of its arrangement, -and again makes it [into] many. This is what Empedocles -says of his own birth:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Of whom I also am now a fugitive and an exile from the gods.<a id="FNanchor_425" href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">That is, he calls the One divine, and says that the unity -formerly existing in the One was rent asunder by Strife and -came into being in these many things, existing according to -Strife’s ordering. For, says he, Strife is the furious and -troublous and unresting Demiurge of this cosmos, whose -<span class="sidenote">p. 375.</span> -[fashioner] Empedocles calls it. For this is the judgment -and compulsion of the souls which Strife rends away from -the One and fashions and works up, which process [Empedocles] -describes somehow like this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Who having sinned swore falsely</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And demons are allotted long-drawn out life.<a id="FNanchor_426" href="#Footnote_426" class="fnanchor">[134]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">calling the long-lived souls “demons” because they are -immortal and live through long ages.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">For three myriad seasons they wandered from the blessed,<a id="FNanchor_427" href="#Footnote_427" class="fnanchor">[135]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">calling “blessed” those whom Love has made from the -many into the oneness of the intelligible<a id="FNanchor_428" href="#Footnote_428" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> cosmos. Therefore, -says [Empedocles] they wandered</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Putting on in time all mortal forms<a id="FNanchor_429" href="#Footnote_429" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></div> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 376.</span><span class="verse">Interchanging the hard ways of life.<a id="FNanchor_430" href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></span></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">He says that the transmigrations and transmutations of -the souls into bodies are “hard ways.” This is what he -says:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Interchanging the hard ways of life.</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">For [the souls pass from body to body] being changed about -and punished by Strife and are not allowed to remain in -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_86"></a>[86]</span> -the One, but are punished in all punishments by Strife. -This is what he says:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">For aetherial might drives souls seawards.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And sea spits them upon Earth’s surface; and Earth into the beams</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.<a id="FNanchor_431" href="#Footnote_431" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin"> -<span class="sidenote">p. 377.</span> -This is the punishment wherewith the Demiurge punishes, -just as a smith forging iron, taking it from the fire, dips it -in water. For Fire is the aether, whence the Demiurge -casts the souls into the Sea; and the Earth is the ground. -Whence he says, from water to Earth, from Earth to Air. -This is what he says:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent30">into the beams</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Therefore, according to Empedocles, Love gathers the -hated and tortured and punished souls together into this -world. For [Love] is good and has pity on their wailing -and the disorder and wickedness created by furious Strife. -And she hastens and toils to lead them forth quickly out -of the world and to settle them in the One, so that all -things brought together by her may come to oneness. It -<span class="sidenote">p. 378.</span> -is then by reason of this arrangement of this much-divided<a id="FNanchor_432" href="#Footnote_432" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> -world by deadly Strife, that Empedocles exhorts his disciples -to abstain from all things which have life. For he says -that the bodies of animals which are eaten are the dwellings -of punished souls, and he teaches those who hear such [his] -words to refrain<a id="FNanchor_433" href="#Footnote_433" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> from companying with women, so that -they may not cooperate and help in the deeds which Strife -effects, ever undoing and rending asunder the work of -Love.</p> - -<p>Empedocles says that this is the greatest law of the -government of the All, speaking somehow thus:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">There is a thing of Necessity, an ancient decree of the gods.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Eternal and sealed with broad oaths.<a id="FNanchor_434" href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">[142]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin"> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_87"></a>[87]</span> -thus calling Necessity the change by Strife of the One into -many and that by Love of many into the One. He says, -indeed, that there are four mortal gods, Fire, Water, Earth -and Air; and two immortal unbegotten and enemies one -to the other for ever [viz.] Strife and Love; and that Strife -is ever unjust and grasping and rends asunder what belongs -<span class="sidenote">p. 379.</span> -to Love and takes it to itself; and that Love is ever -good and anxious for unity and calls back to herself and -leads and makes one the things rent asunder from the All -and tortured and punished in creation by the Demiurge. -In some such way does Empedocles philosophize for us on -the genesis of the Cosmos and its destruction and its -constitution established from good and evil.</p> - -<p>And he says that there is a certain conceivable<a id="FNanchor_435" href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> third -power which may be conceived<a id="FNanchor_436" href="#Footnote_436" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> from these, speaking -somehow like this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">For if having fixed these things with knowing mind<a id="FNanchor_437" href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">[145]</a></div> - <div class="verse indent0">You behold them favourably with pure attention</div> - <div class="verse indent0">They all will be present with you throughout the age</div> - <div class="verse indent0">But many others will come forth from these. For they will increase</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Each into a habit as is the nature of each.<a id="FNanchor_438" href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></div> - <div class="verse indent0">And if you desire such other things as are among men</div> - <div class="verse indent0">A myriad woes arise and dull the edge of care</div> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 380.</span><span class="verse">Take heed lest they leave you suddenly as time rolls on.</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0">Yearning to join their own beloved race</div> - <div class="verse indent0">For know that all things have perception and an allotted share of mind.<a id="FNanchor_439" href="#Footnote_439" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>30. When therefore Marcion or any of his dogs shall -bay against the Demiurge, bringing forward arguments from -the comparison of good and evil, they should be told that -neither the Apostle Paul nor Mark of the maimed finger<a id="FNanchor_440" href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> -reported these things. For none of them is written in the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_88"></a>[88]</span> -Gospel [according] to Mark; [and] Marcion, having stolen -them from Empedocles of Agrigentum, the son of Meto, -thought until now to conceal the fact that he had taken -the whole arrangement of his heresy from Sicily, [after] -having transferred the actual words of Empedocles to the -Gospel discourses. For now, O Marcion, since you have -<span class="sidenote">p. 381.</span> -made antithesis<a id="FNanchor_441" href="#Footnote_441" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> of good and evil, I also to-day, following -up the teachings you have secretly borrowed<a id="FNanchor_442" href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> set them -over against [the originals]. Thou sayest that the Demiurge -of the cosmos is wicked.<a id="FNanchor_443" href="#Footnote_443" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> Dost thou not then feel shame -in teaching to the Church the words of Empedocles? Thou -sayest that there is a good God who destroys the creations -of the Demiurge. Dost thou not then clearly preach as -good news<a id="FNanchor_444" href="#Footnote_444" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> to thy hearers the good Love of Empedocles? -Thou dost forbid marriage and the begetting of children -and [dost order thy hearers] to abstain from the meats -which God has created for the participation of the faithful -and of those who know the truth,<a id="FNanchor_445" href="#Footnote_445" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> having purposely forgotten -that thou art teaching the purifications of Empedocles. -For, following him as you truly do throughout, -you teach your own disciples<a id="FNanchor_446" href="#Footnote_446" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> to avoid meats, lest they -should eat some body covering a soul punished by the -Demiurge. You dissolve marriages joined by God, [thus] -following the teachings of Empedocles so that you may -preserve the work of Love undissevered. For marriage -according to Empedocles dissevers the One and creates -many as we have shown.<a id="FNanchor_447" href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_89"></a>[89]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 382.</span> -31. The earliest and least altered<a id="FNanchor_448" href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> heresy of Marcion, -comprising the mingling of good and evil, has been shown -by us to be that of Empedocles. But since in our own time, -a certain Prepon the Assyrian,<a id="FNanchor_449" href="#Footnote_449" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> a Marcionite, in a book -addressed to Bardesianes the Armenian, has undertaken -discourses on this heresy, I will not keep silence about -this either. Considering that there is a third principle, just -and set between good and evil, Prepon also does not thus -succeed in escaping the teaching of Empedocles. For -Empedocles says that the cosmos is governed by wicked -Strife, and the other conceivable [world] by Love, while -between the two opposed<a id="FNanchor_450" href="#Footnote_450" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> principles is a just Logos, by -whom the things severed by Strife are brought together and -are attached by Love to the One. But this same just Logos, -<span class="sidenote">p. 383.</span> -who fights on the side of Love, Empedocles proclaims as -a Muse and invokes her to fight on his side, speaking -somehow thus:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">If for creatures of a day, O deathless Muse,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Thou art pleased to relieve our cares by thought,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Be propitious once more to my prayer, Calliope!</div> - <div class="verse indent0">For I show forth a pious discourse of [the] blessed gods.<a id="FNanchor_451" href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">[159]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">Following this up, Marcion repudiates altogether our -Saviour’s Birth, thinking it out of the question that a -creature<a id="FNanchor_452" href="#Footnote_452" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> of destructive Strife should become the Logos -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_90"></a>[90]</span> -fighting on the side of Love, that is of the Good. But he -said that without birth, in the 15th year of the reign of -Tiberius Cæsar, He came down from on high to teach in -the synagogues, being between evil and good. For if He is -<span class="sidenote">p. 384.</span> -a Mediator,<a id="FNanchor_453" href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> he says, He is freed from all nature of evil, -for evil, as he says, is the Demiurge and all his works. But -He was freed also, he says, from the nature of good, so that -He might be a Mediator, as Paul says,<a id="FNanchor_454" href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> which he himself -confessed [in the saying] “Why callest thou me good? -there is one Good.”</p> - -<p>These then are Marcion’s doctrines, whereby he has -caused many to err by making use of the words of -Empedocles and transferring the philosophy stolen from -that person to his own teaching. [Thus] he has compounded -a godless heresy which I think has been sufficiently -refuted by us. Nor [do we think] that we have omitted -anything of those who, having stolen [opinions] from the -Greeks, insolently oppose the disciples of Christ, as if these -last had become their teachers of these things. But since -it seems to us that the opinions of this [Marcion] have been -sufficiently exposed,<a id="FNanchor_455" href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> let us see what Carpocrates says.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">p. 385.</div> -<h3 id="VII_4" title="4. Carpocrates."> -4. <i>Carpocrates.</i><a id="FNanchor_456" href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">[164]</a></h3> - -<p>32. Carpocrates says that the cosmos and the things -which are therein, came into being by angels much below -the unbegotten Father, but that Jesus was begotten by -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_91"></a>[91]</span> -Joseph and was born like other men, though more just than -the rest. And that His soul having been born strong and -pure remembered what it had seen in the sphere of the -unbegotten God;<a id="FNanchor_457" href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> and that therefore a power was sent -down to it from that [Deity], so that by its means it might -escape from the world-making angels. And that this [soul]<a id="FNanchor_458" href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> -having passed through them all and having been freed from -them went on high to the presence of the unbegotten -Father, and so will the souls<a id="FNanchor_459" href="#Footnote_459" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> [go] who cleave to similar -things. And they say that the soul of Jesus, although -lawfully trained in Jewish customs, disdained them and -therefore received the powers whereby He made of none -effect<a id="FNanchor_460" href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> the passions attached to men for their punishment. -<span class="sidenote">p. 386.</span> -And that therefore the soul which like that of Christ can -disdain the world-making rulers, receives in the same way -power to do like things. Whence also they reach such [a -pitch of] vanity as to say they are like unto Jesus, and even -that they are mightier than man, and some of them more -excellent than His disciples, such as Peter and Paul and the -rest of the Apostles, and that they are in nothing behind -Jesus. But that their souls having come from the Transcendent -Authority<a id="FNanchor_461" href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> and therefore similarly disdaining the -world-makers, are worthy of the same power [as He] and -will go to the same place. But that if anyone should -disdain more than He the things below, he might become -more excellent than He.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 387.</span> -They practise, then, magic arts, and incantations and [use] -philtres and love-feasts, and familiar spirits and dream-senders -and other evil works, thinking that they already -have authority to lord it over the rulers and makers of this -world, nay even over all created in it. Who have themselves -been sent forth by Satan for the dishonour<a id="FNanchor_462" href="#Footnote_462" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> of the divine -name of the Church before the Gentiles, so that men -hearing in one way or another of their doctrines and -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_92"></a>[92]</span> -thinking that we are all even as they, may turn away their -ears from the preaching of the Truth, [or] beholding their -deeds, may speak evil of us all.</p> - -<p>And they consider that [their] souls will change their -bodies until they have fulfilled all their transgressions; but -that when nothing is left undone, they will be set free to -depart to the presence of the God who is above the world-making -angels, and that thus all souls will be saved. But -if any anticipating matters should combine all transgressions -<span class="sidenote">p. 388.</span> -in one advent,<a id="FNanchor_463" href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> they will no longer change their bodies, -but as having paid all penalties at once, will be freed from -further birth in a body. Some of them also brand their -disciples in the back part of the lobe of the right ear. And -they make <a id="FNanchor_464" href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> images of Christ saying that they were made -[in the time] of Pilate.<a id="FNanchor_465" href="#Footnote_465" class="fnanchor">[173]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VII_5" title="5. Cerinthus.">5. <i>Cerinthus.</i><a id="FNanchor_466" href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">[174]</a></h3> - -<p>33. But a certain Cerinthus, having been trained in the -schooling of the Egyptians, said that the cosmos did not -come into being by the First God, but by a certain Power -derived from the Authority set over the universals, which is -yet ignorant of the God who is over all. And he supposed -Jesus not to have been begotten from a virgin, but to have -been born the son of Joseph and Mary like all other men, -<span class="sidenote">p. 389.</span> -and to have been more wise and just than they. And that, -at the Baptism, the Christ in the form of a dove descended -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_93"></a>[93]</span> -upon Him from the Absolute Power<a id="FNanchor_467" href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> which is over the -universals. And that then He announced<a id="FNanchor_468" href="#Footnote_468" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> the unknown -Father and perfected His own powers; but that in the end -the Christ stood away from Jesus, and Jesus suffered and -rose again;<a id="FNanchor_469" href="#Footnote_469" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> but that the Christ being spiritual remained -impassible.</p> - - -<h3 id="VII_6" title="6. Ebionæi.">6. <i>Ebionæi.</i><a id="FNanchor_470" href="#Footnote_470" class="fnanchor">[178]</a></h3> - -<p>34. But the Ebionæi admit that the cosmos came into -being by the God who is; and concerning Christ they -invent<a id="FNanchor_471" href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> the same things as Cerinthus and Carpocrates. -They live according to Jewish customs, thinking that they -will be justified by the Law and saying that Jesus was -justified in practising<a id="FNanchor_472" href="#Footnote_472" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> the Law. Wherefore He was named -by God Christ and Jesus, since none of them has fulfilled -<span class="sidenote">p. 390.</span> -the Law. For if any other had practised the commandments -which are in the Law, he would be the Christ. And -they say it is possible for them if they do likewise to become -Christs; and that He was a man like unto all [men].</p> - - -<h3 id="VII_7" title="7. Theodotus the Byzantian.">7. <i>Theodotus the Byzantian.</i><a id="FNanchor_473" href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">[181]</a></h3> - -<p>35. But a certain Byzantine named Theodotus brought -in a new heresy, asserting things about the beginning of the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_94"></a>[94]</span> -All which partly agree with [the account of] the True -Church, since he admits that all things came into being by -God. But having taken<a id="FNanchor_474" href="#Footnote_474" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> his [idea of] Christ from the -school of the Gnostics and from Cerinthus and Ebion,<a id="FNanchor_475" href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> he -considers He appeared in some such fashion as this:—Jesus -was a man begotten from a virgin according to the Father’s -will, living the common life of all men. And having become -most pious,<a id="FNanchor_476" href="#Footnote_476" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> He at length on His baptism in Jordan -received the Christ from on high, who descended in the -<span class="sidenote">p. 391.</span> -form of a dove. Wherefore the powers within Him did not -become active, until the Spirit which came down was -manifested in Him, which [Spirit] declared Him to be the -Christ. But some will have it that He did not become God -on the descent of the Spirit; and others that [this took -place] on His resurrection from the dead.</p> - - -<h3 id="VII_8">8. <i>Another Theodotus.</i></h3> - -<p>36. But while different enquiries were taking place among -them<a id="FNanchor_477" href="#Footnote_477" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> a certain man who was also called Theodotus, a -money-changer by trade, undertook to say that a certain -Melchizedek was the greatest power, and that he was greater -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_95"></a>[95]</span> -than Christ. After the image of whom they allege that -Christ happened [to come]. And they like the Theodotians -before mentioned say that Jesus was a man, and in the same -words [declare] that the Christ descended upon Him.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 392.</span> -But the opinions<a id="FNanchor_478" href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> of Gnostics are varied, and we do not -deem it worth while to recount in detail their foolish -doctrines, composed of much absurdity and charged with -blasphemy, the most respectable of which those Greeks who -philosophized on the Divine have refuted. But one cause -of the great conspiracy of these wicked ones was Nicolaus, -one of the seven appointed to the diaconate by the Apostles.<a id="FNanchor_479" href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> -He, having fallen away from the right doctrine, taught that -it was indifferent how men lived and ate: whose disciples -having waxed insolent, the Holy Spirit exposed in the -Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered to -idols.<a id="FNanchor_480" href="#Footnote_480" class="fnanchor">[188]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VII_9" title="9. Cerdo and Lucian.">9. <i>Cerdo and Lucian.</i><a id="FNanchor_481" href="#Footnote_481" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></h3> - -<p>37. But a certain Cerdo taking in like manner his starting-point -from these [heretics] and from Simon, says that the -<span class="sidenote">p. 393.</span> -God announced by Moses and [the] Prophets was not the -Father of Jesus Christ. For that this God was known, but -the Father of the Christ unknowable; and that the first-named -was [only] just, but the other, good. The doctrine -of this [Cerdo] Marcion confirmed when he took in hand -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_96"></a>[96]</span> -the <i>Antitheses</i><a id="FNanchor_482" href="#Footnote_482" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> and everything which seemed to him to -speak against the Demiurge of all things. And so did -Lucian his disciple.</p> - - -<h3 id="VII_10" title="10. Apelles.">10. <i>Apelles.</i><a id="FNanchor_483" href="#Footnote_483" class="fnanchor">[191]</a></h3> - -<p>38. Now Apelles who [sprang] from among these men, -says thus:—There is a certain good God as Marcion supposed; -but he who created all things is [only] just; and -there is a third [God] who spoke to Moses, and yet a fourth, -a cause of evil. And he names these angels and speaks ill of -the Law and the Prophets, deeming the Scriptures of human -authorship and false. And he picks out of the Gospels -and Epistles the things favourable to him. Yet he clings -to the discourses of a certain Philumena as the manifestations<a id="FNanchor_484" href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 394.</span> -of a prophetess. And he says that the Christ came -down from the powers on high, <i>i. e.</i> from the Good One and -was the son of that One, and was not begotten from a virgin, -nor did He appear bodiless;<a id="FNanchor_485" href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> but that taking parts from -every substance<a id="FNanchor_486" href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> of the All, He made a body, that is from -hot and cold and wet and dry. And that in this body He -lived unnoticed by the cosmic authorities during the time -that He spent in the cosmos. And moreover that having -been crucified<a id="FNanchor_487" href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> by the Jews He died, and after three days -rose again and appeared to the disciples showing the marks -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_97"></a>[97]</span> -of the nails and [the wound] in his side, and thereby convinced -them that He existed and was not a phantom but -was incarnate. The flesh [Apelles] says, which He showed, -He gave back to the earth whence was its substance, and -He desired nothing of others, but merely used [the flesh] -for a season. He gave back to each its own, having loosed -again the bond of the body, <i>i. e.</i> the hot to the hot, the cold -to the cold, the wet to the wet and the dry to the dry,<a id="FNanchor_488" href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> and -thus passed to the presence of the good Father, leaving the -seed of life to the world to those who believe through the -disciples.<a id="FNanchor_489" href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">[197]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 395.</span> -39. It seems to us that we have set forth sufficiently these -things also. But since we have decided to leave unrefuted -no doctrines taught by any [heretic], let us see what has -been excogitated by the Docetae.</p> - - -<h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_293" href="#FNanchor_293" class="label">[1]</a> Of the Basilides with whose doctrines this book opens, little is -known. While some would on slender grounds make him a Syrian, -there is no doubt that he taught in Egypt and especially in Alexandria, -where he seems to have steeped himself in Greek philosophy. This -must have been during the reign of Hadrian and some time before the -appearance of the far greater heresiarch Valentinus. If we could -believe the testimony of Epiphanius, Basilides was a fellow-disciple with -Satornilus, to be presently mentioned, of Menander, the immediate -successor of Simon Magus; and, according to the more trustworthy -witness of Clement of Alexandria (<i>Strom.</i>, VII, 17), he himself claimed -to be the disciple of Glaucias, “the interpreter” of St. Peter. He had -a son Isidore who shared his teaching, and he wrote a treatise in -twenty-four books on the Gospels which he called <i>Exegetica</i>. The -sect that he founded, although never popular, lingered for some time -in Egypt; but there is much probability in Matter’s conjecture (<i>Hist. -crit. du Gnost.</i>, 2nd ed., III, 36), that most of his followers became -the hearers of Valentinus.</p> - -<p>Our author’s account of Basilides’ doctrine at first sight differs so -widely from that given by Irenæus and his copyists that it was for long -supposed that the two accounts were irreconcilable. The late Prof. -Hort, however, in his lucid article on the subject in the <i>Dictionary -of Christian Biography</i> showed with much skill that this was not so, -and that the Basilidian doctrine contained in our text is in all probability -that of the <i>Exegetica</i> itself, while the teaching attributed to -Basilides by Irenæus and others was the same doctrine largely corrupted -by the inconsistent and incoherent superstitions which invariably -attach themselves to any faith propagated in secret. The immediate -source of Basilides’ own teaching cannot, up to the present time, be -satisfactorily traced; but, although its coping-stone, the non-existent -Deity, shows some likeness to the Buddhistic ideas which were at -any rate known in the Alexandria of his time (Clem. Alex., <i>Strom.</i>, I, -15), it is probable that among the relics of the ancient Egyptian -religion, then almost extinct, something of the same idea might have -been found. His obligation to the Stoic philosophy is well brought -out by Hort; and he was doubtless versed in the dialectical methods -of Aristotle, which, then as later, formed the universal equipment of -the student of philosophy. Hippolytus’ theory that the ground-work -of the Basilidian edifice is a conscious or unconscious borrowing from -Aristotle derives no support from any Aristotelian writings known to -us. Unlike other Gnostics, Basilides displays no animus towards the -Jews beyond reducing their Deity to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, or -lowest spiritual world, and he accepts as fully as possible the Divinity -of Jesus and the authority of the New Testament. Of the Docetism -attributed to him by Irenæus and others, there is here no trace, and -the Bishop of Lyons’ statement on this point can only be explained by -supposing that he here confused Basilides with some other heresiarch.</p> - -<p>The distinctive features of Basilides’ teaching as disclosed in our -text are, however, plain enough. Rejecting all idea of a pre-existing -matter, he derives everything from the Supreme Being, whom he considers -to be so unspeakably and inconceivably great that he will not -even say of Him that He exists. He it is who from the first decreed -not only the foundation of the universe but also the means and agency -by which this is to be brought about. Nor do the apparent defects in -its constitution involve in Basilides’ system any thwarting of the Divine -Will by intermediate agents, or any lapse from duty on their part. All -things subsequent to the Supreme Being are in effect His children, and -from the Panspermia or Seed-Mass originally let fall by Him emerges -the First Sonhood, or purest part of the Sonhood, which, rising from -the heap by its own lightness and tenuity, springs upward into the -presence of the First Cause, where it remains for the purpose of giving -light when needed to the lower parts of creation. This is quickly -followed by the Second Sonhood (or Second Part of the Sonhood), -which, emerging in like manner, rises not from its own unaided power, -but with the assistance of the Boundary Spirit, who must have its -origin in the Seed-Mass, and who is left as the Boundary between the -visible and the invisible part of the universe when the Second Sonhood -passes to the Ogdoad or Eighth Heaven. This Eighth Heaven is under -the sway of the Great Ruler, a functionary emitted by the Seed-Mass -for the purpose of governing this abode of perfection, from which it -may be inferred that the Second Sonhood like the First ultimately -returns to the presence of the Supreme Being. In his organization of -this Eighth Heaven, the Great Ruler is much helped by the Son whom -he calls forth from the Seed-Mass, who is expressly stated to be greater -and wiser than his own Father.</p> - -<p>There remains in the Seed-Mass two other world-creating powers. -The first of these is the maker of the Seven Heavens or Hebdomad, which -can here hardly be the planets, because they are expressly said to be -sublunary. He, too, produces from the Seed-Mass a Son greater and -wiser than himself, who again, it may be supposed, assists his father in -the organization of this Hebdomad. What form this organization -took we are not told, although there is some talk of 365 beings who -are all “Dominions and Powers and Authorities” with a ruler called -Habrasax. Below this Hebdomad, however, comes this world of ours -called the “Formlessness,” which has, it is said, “no leader nor -guardian nor demiurge” (<i>i. e.</i> architect), everything happening in it as -decreed by the Supreme Being from the first. Yet this Formlessness -contains within it the Third Sonhood (or third part of the Sonhood) -whose mission is apparently to guide the souls of men to the place for -which they are predestined, which it does by imparting to them some -of its own nature. Then, when the time came for the Coming of the -Saviour, a light shining from the highest heavens was transmitted -through the intermediate places to the Son of the Hebdomad and fell -upon “Jesus the son of Mary,” and He after the Passion ascended like -the two first parts of the Sonhood to the Divine Presence. In due time -the third part of the Sonhood will, it is said, follow Him. When this -happens, the soul predestined to the Seven Heavens will pass thither, -those more enlightened will be admitted to the Eighth Heaven, and -those entitled to the most glorious destiny of all will probably ascend -with the third part of the Sonhood to the Highest. On the two -inferior classes, there will then fall the “Great Ignorance,” a merciful -oblivion which will prevent them from remembering or otherwise being -troubled in their beatitude by the knowledge of the still better things -above them.</p> - -<p>How the salvation of these souls is to be effected there is no indication -in Hippolytus, and he leaves us in entire doubt as to whether -Basilides allowed any free-will to man in the matter. It is probable -that he taught the doctrine of transmigration as a means of purification -from sins or faults committed in ignorance. But it is several times -asserted that he looked on suffering as a cleansing process for the soul, -and that he did not admit the existence of evil (see Hort’s article on -Basilides in <i>D.C.B.</i>, I, pp. 274, 275 for references). About some of -his teaching there was deliberate concealment (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 279), and -Irenæus (I, xxiv. 6), tells us that his followers were taught to declare -that while they were “no longer Jews” they were “not yet” (or -perhaps “more than”) Christians. In this we may perhaps see the -influence of the rubrics of the Egyptian <i>Book of the Dead</i>, and the -beginning of that secret propagation of religion which was to find -its ripest fruit in Manichæism. For the rest, although Irenæus -(I, xxiv. 5) tells us that Basilides, like Simon, Valentinus, and other -Gnostics, taught that the body of Jesus was a phantasm, and even that -Simon of Cyrene had been crucified in His stead, there appears no -trace of this in our text, and it is possible that the Bishop of Lyons is -here again confusing Basilides’ doctrines with those of his successors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_294" href="#FNanchor_294" class="label">[2]</a> ὄρος, “hill”; possibly a copyist’s error for ὅρος, “boundary” or -“shore.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_295" href="#FNanchor_295" class="label">[3]</a> This exordium was evidently intended to be spoken.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_296" href="#FNanchor_296" class="label">[4]</a> οὐσία, Cruice and others translate this by “substance.” Here it -evidently means “essence” in the sense of “being.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_297" href="#FNanchor_297" class="label">[5]</a> εἶδος, <i>i. e.</i> appearance = that which is seen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_298" href="#FNanchor_298" class="label">[6]</a> ἄτομος, “which cannot be cut or divided,” = “atom.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_299" href="#FNanchor_299" class="label">[7]</a> ἀναδέξασθαι τομήν, “receive cutting.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_300" href="#FNanchor_300" class="label">[8]</a> ζῷον ἁπλῶς. See Aristotle, <i>Categor.</i>, c. 3. The “living creature” -of the A. V. would here make better sense; but I keep the word -“animal” in the text out of respect for my predecessors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_301" href="#FNanchor_301" class="label">[9]</a> ὑπόστασις, literally <i>substantia</i>, with no meaning as has οὐσία of -“being.” See Hatch, <i>Hibbert Lectures</i>, p. 275.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_302" href="#FNanchor_302" class="label">[10]</a> ἀνείδεον, “abstract,” or “non-specific”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_303" href="#FNanchor_303" class="label">[11]</a> εἴδεσιν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_304" href="#FNanchor_304" class="label">[12]</a> The text has ταύτην .... [τὴν οὐσίαν], the words in brackets -being rightly deleted, as Cruice notes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_305" href="#FNanchor_305" class="label">[13]</a> ἐθέμεθα, “posited.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_306" href="#FNanchor_306" class="label">[14]</a> εἰς εἶδος οὐσίας ὑποστατικῆς, which shows the distinction made by -the author between ὀυσία and ὑπόστασις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_307" href="#FNanchor_307" class="label">[15]</a> ἄτομον, “undivided.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_308" href="#FNanchor_308" class="label">[16]</a> The text is here corrupt and has to be restored from Aristotle’s, -the word I have translated “essence” being as before οὐσία while -subject is ὑποκειμένον. Cf. Aristotle <i>Cat.</i>, c. 5, and <i>Metaphysica</i>, IV, -c. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_309" href="#FNanchor_309" class="label">[17]</a> Or “of many animals although they differ in species.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_310" href="#FNanchor_310" class="label">[18]</a> ἔμψυχος, “animated” or “ensouled.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_311" href="#FNanchor_311" class="label">[19]</a> ἕκαστον [sic]. <i>One</i> of the accidents would make better sense. -Cf. vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_56">56</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_312" href="#FNanchor_312" class="label">[20]</a> <i>i. e.</i> “inherent.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_313" href="#FNanchor_313" class="label">[21]</a> τὰ ἄτομα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_314" href="#FNanchor_314" class="label">[22]</a> συμπληροῦται.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_315" href="#FNanchor_315" class="label">[23]</a> οὐσία, which here as elsewhere in the text may be translated -“essence.” “Being,” perhaps, is better here as more familiar to the -English reader.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_316" href="#FNanchor_316" class="label">[24]</a> These definitions of “accident” and the like are not to be found -in the <i>Categories</i> of Aristotle as we have them in the work known as -the <i>Organon</i>, nor in any other of his extant works. But they correspond -with those given in Book VI, and are there attributed to -Pythagoras. Cf. p. <a href="#Page_21">21</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_317" href="#FNanchor_317" class="label">[25]</a> οὐσία throughout.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_318" href="#FNanchor_318" class="label">[26]</a> That is, makes fables or myths about the gods.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_319" href="#FNanchor_319" class="label">[27]</a> Macmahon remarks that these must be among Aristotle’s lost -works. This is doubtful.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_320" href="#FNanchor_320" class="label">[28]</a> ἀποκρύφους. Is Matthias a corruption of Glaucias? See n. on -p. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_321" href="#FNanchor_321" class="label">[29]</a> Basilides and his son must therefore have been contemporaries of -the Apostles. Even if we treat the word αὐτοῖς here as a copyist’s -interpolation, it is evident that Basilides must have been considerably -anterior in time to Valentinus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_322" href="#FNanchor_322" class="label">[30]</a> πραγμάτων, “transactions.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_323" href="#FNanchor_323" class="label">[31]</a> The words in this sentence in square brackets are emendations in -the text made by different editors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_324" href="#FNanchor_324" class="label">[32]</a> πραγμάτων, as in last note but one.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_325" href="#FNanchor_325" class="label">[33]</a> κατὰ πλάτος καὶ διαίρεσιν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_326" href="#FNanchor_326" class="label">[34]</a> Basilides is thus the first Gnostic to teach the doctrine of creation -<i>e nihilo</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_327" href="#FNanchor_327" class="label">[35]</a> ὑποστήσας. Cf. the legend of Cybele, Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_118">118</a>, n. 1 -<i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_328" href="#FNanchor_328" class="label">[36]</a> πανσπερμίαν. The word is found in the fragments of Anaxagoras -and Democritus as well as in Plato. Its use has been revived by -Darwin and Weissmann.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_329" href="#FNanchor_329" class="label">[37]</a> ἰδέας.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_330" href="#FNanchor_330" class="label">[38]</a> οὐσιῶν. Nothing is here got by translating the word “substances.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_331" href="#FNanchor_331" class="label">[39]</a> πολυούσιον. Galen uses it as equivalent to “very wealthy.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_332" href="#FNanchor_332" class="label">[40]</a> ὁποῖον. As in Aristotle, <i>Cate.</i>, c. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_333" href="#FNanchor_333" class="label">[41]</a> This with Hippolytus’ interpolated remark emphasizes the great -difference between Basilides’ doctrine with its assertion of the creation -<i>e nihilo</i> and the emanation theory of all other Gnostics. It does away -with the necessity for a pre-existent matter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_334" href="#FNanchor_334" class="label">[42]</a> Gen. 1. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_335" href="#FNanchor_335" class="label">[43]</a> John 1. 9. This and “Mine hour is not yet come” are the only -undoubted references to the Fourth Gospel made by Basilides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_336" href="#FNanchor_336" class="label">[44]</a> ἀρχάς.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_337" href="#FNanchor_337" class="label">[45]</a> ὁμοούσιος. The first occurrence, so far as it can be traced, of this -too-famous word. If I am right, the interpretation of οὐσία by -“substance” came later. The nature of the Sonhood (Υἱότης, -Lat., <i>filietas</i>, which I translate “Sonhood” by analogy with <i>paternitas</i> = -Fatherhood) is peculiar to Basilides, the idea being apparently that -within the Panspermia was concealed a germ which was more closely -related to its Divine Parent than the rest. The same idea <i>mutatis -mutandis</i> reappears in Weissmann’s theory of the germ-plasm.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_338" href="#FNanchor_338" class="label">[46]</a> Homer, <i>Odyssey</i>, VII, 36.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_339" href="#FNanchor_339" class="label">[47]</a> δι’ ὑπερβολὴν κάλλους καὶ ὡραιότητος. The longing of all nature -for something higher is also mentioned in the Book on the Ophites -(See Book V, Vol. I, pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_140">140</a> <i>supra</i>). The phrase was evidently -a favourite one with Hippolytus, and he therefore uses it in regard -to several heresies, as he has done with the magnet simile.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_340" href="#FNanchor_340" class="label">[48]</a> μιμητική τις οὖσα, “being an imitative thing.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_341" href="#FNanchor_341" class="label">[49]</a> Plato, <i>Phaedrus</i>, cc. 55, 56.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_342" href="#FNanchor_342" class="label">[50]</a> ὁμοούσιον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_343" href="#FNanchor_343" class="label">[51]</a> χαρακτηρισθῆναι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_344" href="#FNanchor_344" class="label">[52]</a> Ps. cxxxiii. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_345" href="#FNanchor_345" class="label">[53]</a> ἀμορφίας καὶ τοῦ διαστήματος τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς. The ἀμορφία corresponds -exactly to the Chaos of the other Gnostics, as contrasted with the -Cosmos or ordered world which in this case is above it. In it, as we -see later (p. 356 Cr.) there is neither “leader nor guardian nor demiurge,” -and everything happens by predestination. The διάστημα we -have already met with in the teaching of Simon Magus (p. 261 Cr.). -Although in classical Greek it means an “interval,” it is here evidently -intended to signify something uncultivated, or, as we should say, a -“waste.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_346" href="#FNanchor_346" class="label">[54]</a> It gives benefit by passing into the souls of certain chosen men and -thus enabling them to obtain the highest beatitude. It receives it by -thus purifying itself and so working out in turn its own salvation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_347" href="#FNanchor_347" class="label">[55]</a> He evidently regards the three persons of the Sonhood as one -being.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_348" href="#FNanchor_348" class="label">[56]</a> “Cosmos.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_349" href="#FNanchor_349" class="label">[57]</a> Τὸ Μεθόριον Πνεῦμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_350" href="#FNanchor_350" class="label">[58]</a> The likeness of this to the Egyptian Horus who was at once the -sky-god and the ruler of the sublunary world, whose earthly representative -was the Pharaoh, is manifest. So, too, is its connection with -Horos, the Limit, of the Pleroma in Book VI.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_351" href="#FNanchor_351" class="label">[59]</a> So in the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> the great ruler of the material world is only -spoken of as the Great Propatôr or Forefather, but his personal name -is never mentioned. The word Ἄρχων here applied to this power is -never used by later Gnostics except in a bad sense.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_352" href="#FNanchor_352" class="label">[60]</a> δεσπότης = autocrat or ruler having unlimited power.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_353" href="#FNanchor_353" class="label">[61]</a> καθ’ ἕκαστα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_354" href="#FNanchor_354" class="label">[62]</a> This idea of a Power bringing into being a son greater than himself -seems peculiar to Basilides among Gnostic teachers. Its origin may, -perhaps, be sought among Pagan religions like the Greek worship of -Isis. See <i>Forerunners</i>, I, p. 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_355" href="#FNanchor_355" class="label">[63]</a> This ἐντελεχεία or Quintessence Aristotle defines (<i>Metaphys.</i>, X, 9, 2) -as actuality or the property of a thing <i>in posse</i> which lends to its motion -or activity <i>in esse</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_356" href="#FNanchor_356" class="label">[64]</a> ἀποτέλεσμα. The word is much used in astrology.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_357" href="#FNanchor_357" class="label">[65]</a> μεγαλειότητος. The word is post-classical and used in its modern -sense as an epithet of the Emperor in Byzantine times. Cf. LXX, -Jer. xxxiii. 9; Luke ix. 43; Acts xix. 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_358" href="#FNanchor_358" class="label">[66]</a> ῥητός as opposed to ἄρῥητος, “ineffable.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_359" href="#FNanchor_359" class="label">[67]</a> That is to say, our world.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_360" href="#FNanchor_360" class="label">[68]</a> ὡς φθάσαντα τεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα γενέσθαι ὁτε δεῖ καὶ οἷα -δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου. The reading is very uncertain. Cf. Cruice, -p. 356 nn. 9, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_361" href="#FNanchor_361" class="label">[69]</a> Rom. viii. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_362" href="#FNanchor_362" class="label">[70]</a> Rom. v. 13, 14. In the Greek not ἁμαρτία as in the text, but -θάνατος, “death.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_363" href="#FNanchor_363" class="label">[71]</a> Cf. Exod. vi. 2, 3. Basilides has twisted the last sentence, “By my -name Jehovah was I not known to them,” as Hippolytus notes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_364" href="#FNanchor_364" class="label">[72]</a> ἐκεῖθεν, <i>i. e.</i> from the Hebdomad. Cruice will have it from the -Ogdoad, but is clearly wrong.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_365" href="#FNanchor_365" class="label">[73]</a> Ἀρχή, “Rule.” Cf. Milton’s “Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, -Virtues, Powers.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_366" href="#FNanchor_366" class="label">[74]</a> The simile of the vapour of naphtha rising and catching fire from -a light above it is apt. As Prof. A. S. Peake points out in his article -on “Basilides” in Hastings’ <i>Dictionary of Religion and Ethics</i>, Basilides -throughout his system asserts in opposition to Gnostics like Valentinus -that salvation comes from the uplifting of the lower powers rather -than by the degradation of the higher.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_367" href="#FNanchor_367" class="label">[75]</a> There are many conjectural readings of this passage, for which see -Cruice.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_368" href="#FNanchor_368" class="label">[76]</a> Prov. i. 7. So Clem. Alex. (<i>Strom.</i>, II, 8, 36), who clearly quotes -this passage from Basilides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_369" href="#FNanchor_369" class="label">[77]</a> κατασκευή. Cf. LXX, Gen. i. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_370" href="#FNanchor_370" class="label">[78]</a> ἀποκατασταθήσεται. This Apocatastasis, or return of the worlds to -the Deity from whom they came forth, is a favourite source of speculation -with all Gnostics.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_371" href="#FNanchor_371" class="label">[79]</a> 1 Cor. ii. 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_372" href="#FNanchor_372" class="label">[80]</a> A conflation of Ps. xxxii. 5, and Ps. li. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_373" href="#FNanchor_373" class="label">[81]</a> εὐαγγελισθήσεται, “have the good news announced to him”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_374" href="#FNanchor_374" class="label">[82]</a> It is the words in brackets which connect the system of the -text with that attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and Epiphanius. Cf. -Iren., I, xxiv. 5, pp. 202, 203, and n. 6, H., and Epiph., <i>Haer.</i>, XXIV.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_375" href="#FNanchor_375" class="label">[83]</a> Eph. iii. 3, 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_376" href="#FNanchor_376" class="label">[84]</a> 2 Cor. xii. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_377" href="#FNanchor_377" class="label">[85]</a> As at the Baptism in Jordan where, according to the almost -universal tradition, the water was lighted up.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_378" href="#FNanchor_378" class="label">[86]</a> Luke i. 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_379" href="#FNanchor_379" class="label">[87]</a> δύναμις τῆς χρίσεως. Thus in Cruice. Miller would read κρίσεως, -and Roeper Ὀγδοάδος. Perhaps the correct reading is χριστός, according -to the idea common to nearly all Gnostics that the Christos only -came upon Jesus at His Baptism.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_380" href="#FNanchor_380" class="label">[88]</a> ἐγένετο ἄν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_381" href="#FNanchor_381" class="label">[89]</a> John iffi. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_382" href="#FNanchor_382" class="label">[90]</a> ὑπὸ γένεσιν, “configuration” or “geniture.” The proper word -for a theme or horoscope.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_383" href="#FNanchor_383" class="label">[91]</a> It was the Second and not the First Sonhood who left the Holy -Spirit at the Boundary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_384" href="#FNanchor_384" class="label">[92]</a> It is plain from this that Basilides taught that the most spiritual -part of man’s soul was part of the Sonhood and that it was separated -from the rest at death. This is confirmed by what is said later about -what happened after the Passion.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_385" href="#FNanchor_385" class="label">[93]</a> Εὐαγγέλιον = “good news”? The article is omitted in both these -sentences.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_386" href="#FNanchor_386" class="label">[94]</a> He of the Ogdoad.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_387" href="#FNanchor_387" class="label">[95]</a> ἠγαλλιάσατο, a kind of pun on Ἐὐαγγέλιον, “glad tidings.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_388" href="#FNanchor_388" class="label">[96]</a> ἵνα ἀπαρχὴ τῆς φυλοκρινήσεως γένηται τῶν συγκεχυμένων. So Clem. -Alex. (<i>Strom.</i>, II., 8, 36), quoting from the “followers of Basilides,” -says that the Great Ruler’s fear became the ἀρχὴ τῆς σοφίας -φυλοκρινητικῆς, “the origin of the wisdom which discriminates.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_389" href="#FNanchor_389" class="label">[97]</a> σωματικὸν μέρος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_390" href="#FNanchor_390" class="label">[98]</a> This flatly contradicts the story attributed to Basilides by Irenæus -to the effect that Simon of Cyrene took His place on the Cross. It has -long been thought likely that Irenæus was here confusing Basilides with -his contemporary Saturninus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_391" href="#FNanchor_391" class="label">[99]</a> So in the <i>Pistis Sophia</i>, the incorporeal part of man is said to -consist of four parts.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_392" href="#FNanchor_392" class="label">[100]</a> ὑπόθεσις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_393" href="#FNanchor_393" class="label">[101]</a> καὶ τὸ πάθος οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς χάριν γέγονεν [ἢ] ὑπὲρ τοῦ -φυλοκρινηθῆναι τὰ συγκεχυμένα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_394" href="#FNanchor_394" class="label">[102]</a> As has been said, there appears no reason to doubt that Hippolytus -took his account of Basilides’ doctrines directly from the works of that -heresiarch or of his son Isidore. The likeness of the quotations from -Basilides or “those about Basilides” in Clement of Alexandria—a far -more accurate and critical writer than Hippolytus—to our text leave no -doubt on this point, and it is even probable that, as Hort thought, most -of Hippolytus’ information is gathered from Basilides’ <i>Exegetica</i>. His -account of the universe and its creation is largely Stoic, as may be seen -by a comparison of this chapter with that on the Universe in Prof. -E. V. Arnold’s excellent <i>Roman Stoicism</i> (Cambridge, 1911); but he -differs from all the Pagan philosophy of his time by his view of matter -which he makes neither pre-existent nor malignant. In this, and in -the “happy ending” to his drama of the universe, we may perhaps -see the result of the Golden Age of the Antonines, and it is to this, -perhaps, that he owed the influence that he, without any great followers -or successors, had upon the future theology of orthodox and heretic -alike. Many of his ideas, and even a few of his very words, appear in -documents like the later parts of the <i>Pistis Sophia</i>, and in certain -Manichæan writings, although the strict monotheism which distinguishes -them is in sharp contrast with the dualism of his successors. This -begets a doubt whether these last were conscious borrowers of his -opinion, or whether both he and they took their doctrines from some -common source of Eastern tradition not now recognizable; but on the -whole, the first-named hypothesis seems the more probable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_395" href="#FNanchor_395" class="label">[103]</a> Σατορνεῖλος. So Epiph., <i>Haer.</i> XXIII, and Theodoret, <i>Haer. Fab.</i>, -I, 3, spell the name. Iren., I, 22; Eusebius, <i>H.E.</i>, IV, 7, and later -writers spell it Σατορνῖνος. All these accounts, however, together with -that in our text, are in effect copies of the chapter in Iren., which is -the earliest in time that has remained to us. Salmon in <i>D.C.B.</i>, s.v. -“Saturninus,” thinks that this last is itself copied from Justin Martyr, -which is likely enough, but remains without proof.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_396" href="#FNanchor_396" class="label">[104]</a> Epiphanius, <i>Haer.</i> XXIII, p. 124, Oehl. adds to this that Saturninus -and Basilides were co-disciples, which, if true, would connect their -systems with Menander’s teacher, Simon Magus. Nothing further -is, however, known about Saturnilus or Saturninus or his heresy, which -Epiphanius makes the third after Christ, nor is there any mention in -any of the heresiologies of any writings by him. His story of a First -or Pattern Man made in the image of the Supreme Being is common, -as has been said, to many of the early heresies, and reappears in -Manichæism. It is probably to be referred to some tradition current in -Western Asia. See Bousset’s <i>Hauptprobleme der Gnosis</i>, cap. “Der -Urmensch.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_397" href="#FNanchor_397" class="label">[105]</a> τῆς αὐθεντίας, “one who holds absolute rule.” <i>Summa potestas</i>, Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_398" href="#FNanchor_398" class="label">[106]</a> Cf. Gen. i. 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_399" href="#FNanchor_399" class="label">[107]</a> This story is also met with among the Ophites. See Iren. (I, -xxx. 5), where life is given to the grovelling figure by Jaldabaoth, the -chief of the seven powers. Epiphanius adds to it that the world-makers -divided the cosmos among them by lot, and that it was a spark of his -own Power that the “Power on high” sent down for the vivification of -the First Man, “which spark, he says, they fancy to be the human -soul.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_400" href="#FNanchor_400" class="label">[108]</a> καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο, εἰς ἐκεῖνα ἀναλύεσθαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_401" href="#FNanchor_401" class="label">[109]</a> So Miller. Theodoret has Σωτῆρα, “Saviour,” for Father.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_402" href="#FNanchor_402" class="label">[110]</a> Words in ( ) restored from Epiphanius.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_403" href="#FNanchor_403" class="label">[111]</a> No necessary mistake or confusion, as has been thought. The -“deposition” might be merely that of an unsuccessful general, as in -Manichæism.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_404" href="#FNanchor_404" class="label">[112]</a> Marcion of Pontus was the heresiarch most dreaded by the Ante-Nicene -Fathers, and is said to have led away from the Primitive Church -a greater number of adherents than any teacher of that age, with the -doubtful exception of Valentinus. He also differed from all other -heretics of the time in setting up a Church fully equipped with bishops, -priests, and deacons over against the Catholic, and in seeing that his -followers openly avowed their faith in times of persecution. He rejected -the Old Testament entirely, and reduced the New to a shorter edition -of the Gospel of St. Luke and ten of the Epistles of St. Paul. This -has led to his heresy receiving more attention than any other of its contemporaries -at the hands of modern scholars, especially in Germany. -Hence it is to be regretted that the chapter in our text which is devoted -to him adds nothing to our knowledge of his history or tenets, while -its statement that Marcion called the Demiurge πονηρός (wicked) shows -either that Hippolytus was ignorant of Marcion’s opinions, or that he -misread his authority. The first is the more likely theory, as his master -Irenæus gives a more scanty account of Marcion than of any other -heretic, while promising to write a special treatise against him. This -intention does not seem to have been carried out, and it is probable -that while the Marcionite heresy flourished at an early date in the -Eastern provinces of the Empire, it had too slight a hold in the West -to have given such writers as Irenæus and Hippolytus much first-hand -knowledge concerning it. It is also noted that in the so-called -“epitome of heresies” in Book X, Hippolytus does not, after his -manner with the other heresies, quote from this chapter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_405" href="#FNanchor_405" class="label">[113]</a> τοῦ παντός. This expression, as has been many times said above, -means the universe without the Void. It does not therefore, exclude -the collateral existence of Chaos or unformed matter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_406" href="#FNanchor_406" class="label">[114]</a> This accusation of incontinence against Marcion is disproved by -Tertullian, <i>de Præscript</i>, c. 30. Cf. <i>Forerunners</i>, II, 206, n. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_407" href="#FNanchor_407" class="label">[115]</a> Φιλία, Cr., “<i>Amicitia</i>,” Macm., “Friendship.” The stronger -word Love seems to express better Hippolytus’ meaning. It is, of -course, distinct from the ἀγάπη or “charity” of the A. V.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_408" href="#FNanchor_408" class="label">[116]</a> He refers to the scanty account of Empedocles’ doctrines in -<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#BOOK_I">Book I</a>, <i>q.v.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_409" href="#FNanchor_409" class="label">[117]</a> κλεψιλόγος, “word-stealer.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_410" href="#FNanchor_410" class="label">[118]</a> κοσμεῖται, “set in order.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_411" href="#FNanchor_411" class="label">[119]</a> κρούνωμα βρότειον, ll. 55-57, Karsten; 33-35, Stein. Cr. translates -these words <i>humanam scaturiginem</i>, and Macm., “the mortal -font.” It is difficult to assign any meaning to them in the absence of -the context.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_412" href="#FNanchor_412" class="label">[120]</a> τρεφομένοις, “things in course of nurture.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_413" href="#FNanchor_413" class="label">[121]</a> ζῷα, “animals.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_414" href="#FNanchor_414" class="label">[122]</a> He appears to ignore the desert, or perhaps thinks this no part of -the <i>ordered</i> world.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_415" href="#FNanchor_415" class="label">[123]</a> ὑπόθεσιν, lit., “substructure.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_416" href="#FNanchor_416" class="label">[124]</a> πνεῦμα, a manifest slip for Ἀήρ as before.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_417" href="#FNanchor_417" class="label">[125]</a> στοργή, as in the N. T.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_418" href="#FNanchor_418" class="label">[126]</a> ὀλέθριον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_419" href="#FNanchor_419" class="label">[127]</a> εἰς τὸ ἓν ἀποκαταστάσεως. The Codex has τὸν ἕνα. That the -meaning is as given above, see p. 373 Cr., where we find ἐκ πολλῶν -ποιήσῃ τὸ ἕν κ.τ.λ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_420" href="#FNanchor_420" class="label">[128]</a> ll. 110, 111, Stein. In p. 274 Cr., <i>supra</i>, these lines are quoted -as the opinions of “the Pythagoreans.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_421" href="#FNanchor_421" class="label">[129]</a> τὸ πᾶν, not τὸ ὅλον. See n. on I, p. 35 <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_422" href="#FNanchor_422" class="label">[130]</a> ἰδέα, “species”; so Cruice.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_423" href="#FNanchor_423" class="label">[131]</a> κλάδοι, lit., “branches.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_424" href="#FNanchor_424" class="label">[132]</a> ll. 107, 205, Karsten.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_425" href="#FNanchor_425" class="label">[133]</a> l. 7, Karsten; 381, Stein.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_426" href="#FNanchor_426" class="label">[134]</a> ll. 4, Karsten; 372, 373, Stein.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_427" href="#FNanchor_427" class="label">[135]</a> l. 5, Karsten; 374, Stein.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_428" href="#FNanchor_428" class="label">[136]</a> νοητός, “that which can be understood by the mind rather than -by the senses.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_429" href="#FNanchor_429" class="label">[137]</a> εἴδεα θνητῶν, “forms of mortals.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_430" href="#FNanchor_430" class="label">[138]</a> ll. 6, Karsten; 375, 376, Stein.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_431" href="#FNanchor_431" class="label">[139]</a> ll. 15-19, Karsten; 377-380, Stein.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_432" href="#FNanchor_432" class="label">[140]</a> μεμερισμένου, <i>minutatim divisi</i>, Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_433" href="#FNanchor_433" class="label">[141]</a> ἐγκρατεῖς εἶναι, “to be abstainers.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_434" href="#FNanchor_434" class="label">[142]</a> ll. 1, 2, Karsten; 369, 370, Stein.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_435" href="#FNanchor_435" class="label">[143]</a> νοητήν, as before.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_436" href="#FNanchor_436" class="label">[144]</a> ἐπινοεῖσθαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_437" href="#FNanchor_437" class="label">[145]</a> Reading for ἀδινῇσιν ... πραπίδεσσιν, ἰδυιῄσι πραπίδεσσιν, as in -Hom., <i>Il.</i>, I, 608.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_438" href="#FNanchor_438" class="label">[146]</a> Φύσις ἑκάστῳ, “the nature of each one”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_439" href="#FNanchor_439" class="label">[147]</a> Cf. ll. 313 <i>sqq.</i>, Karsten, and 222 <i>sqq.</i>, Stein. Schneidewin has -restored the very bad text in <i>Philologus</i>, VI, 166. But the lines are -still obscure—even for Empedocles. They seem to hint at a hidden -meaning, to be got by study.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_440" href="#FNanchor_440" class="label">[148]</a> κολοβοδάκτυλος. See <i>Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology</i> -(Cambridge), March 1855, p. 87. The story of St. Mark cutting off -his thumb to make himself ineligible for the priesthood is quoted by -Cruice from St. Jerome.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_441" href="#FNanchor_441" class="label">[149]</a> ἀντιπαράθεσιν, “the setting over against.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_442" href="#FNanchor_442" class="label">[150]</a> ὑπολαμβάνεις. Cr. and Macm. both translate, “as you suppose -them to be.” But Marcion could have been in no doubt as to his own -opinions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_443" href="#FNanchor_443" class="label">[151]</a> Marcion did not say that the Demiurge, whom he probably -identified with the God of the Jews, was wicked. On the contrary, he -said that he was just, though harsh. See <i>Forerunners</i>, II, xi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_444" href="#FNanchor_444" class="label">[152]</a> εὐαγγελίζῃ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_445" href="#FNanchor_445" class="label">[153]</a> Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, as quoted in Book VIII, p. 422 Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_446" href="#FNanchor_446" class="label">[154]</a> Reading τοὺς σεαυτοῦ μαθητάς for the τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητάς of the -text.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_447" href="#FNanchor_447" class="label">[155]</a> All this argument is a <i>petitio principii</i> of the most flagrant kind. -There is nothing in the quotations here given from Empedocles to show -that that philosopher made Love and Strife the two ἀρχαί of the -universe, as Empedocles associates with them the four “elements” of -Fire, Earth, Water and Air, and Ἀνάγκη or Fate seems, according to -his teaching, to be superior to them all. The quotations prove, however, -that Empedocles taught metempsychosis, unless Hippolytus is here confusing -him with Pythagoras. Marcion did not, and the reason that he -gave for abstinence from animal food is different from that attributed -to Empedocles. The quotations themselves are much corrupted, and -Hippolytus seems to have taken them from memory only, as he is -careful to say that these are “something like this.” All of them -appear in Karsten’s or Stein’s collections, which were made before -the discovery of our text, and are, therefore, an argument against -Salmon’s theory of forgery.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_448" href="#FNanchor_448" class="label">[156]</a> καθαριωτάτη, “purest.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_449" href="#FNanchor_449" class="label">[157]</a> This Prepon, probably a Syrian, is mentioned by no other writer -except Theodoret, who doubtless borrowed from our text. The -“Bardesianes” was probably the famous Bardaisan or Ibn Daisan who -taught at Edessa and was a follower of Valentinus. It is noteworthy -that the Armenian author, Eznig of Goghp, gives a different account of -Marcion’s teaching from any of the Western heresiologists and makes -him admit the independent existence of a third principle in the shape -of malignant matter. For this, see <i>Forerunners</i>, II, p. 217, n. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_450" href="#FNanchor_450" class="label">[158]</a> διαφερούσας, “differentiated”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_451" href="#FNanchor_451" class="label">[159]</a> ll. 338-341, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the lines as far as is -possible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_452" href="#FNanchor_452" class="label">[160]</a> ὑπόπλασμα, “that which has been moulded.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_453" href="#FNanchor_453" class="label">[161]</a> Μεσίτης. Not intercessor, but something placed between two -others.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_454" href="#FNanchor_454" class="label">[162]</a> Not St. Paul, but Luke xvii. 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_455" href="#FNanchor_455" class="label">[163]</a> There is no indication of the source from which Hippolytus drew -the material for this chapter. It does not seem to have been the -writings of Irenæus, for his remarks in I, xxv tell us even less about -Marcion than our text. Possibly Hippolytus was here indebted to the -work of Justin Martyr, which seems to have been extant in the time of -Photius. With the exception of the notice of Prepon, our text contains -nothing that was not known otherwise.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_456" href="#FNanchor_456" class="label">[164]</a> This Carpocrates, whom Epiphanius calls Carpocras, seems to have -been another of “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” and to have -been learned in the Platonic philosophy. He is mentioned by all the -heresiologists, but there is little that is distinctive about his tenets as -they have come down to us, and his followers were probably few. They -are accused by Irenæus, from whose chapter on the subject Hippolytus’ -account is condensed, of a kind of Antinomianism having its origin in -the contention that all actions are indifferent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_457" href="#FNanchor_457" class="label">[165]</a> μετὰ τοῦ ἀγενήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_458" href="#FNanchor_458" class="label">[166]</a> χωρήσασαν can only apply to ψυχή. The return of the Power to -the Deity could not be supposed to affect other souls.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_459" href="#FNanchor_459" class="label">[167]</a> ὁμοίως.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_460" href="#FNanchor_460" class="label">[168]</a> κατήργησε.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_461" href="#FNanchor_461" class="label">[169]</a> τῆς ὑπερκειμένης ἐξουσίας. Cruice points out that these words have -slipped into the text from the margin. Irenæus has ex <i>eadem circumlatione -devenientes</i>, “descending from the same sphere,” which is -doubtless correct.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_462" href="#FNanchor_462" class="label">[170]</a> εἰς διαβολήν, probably a play on διάβολος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_463" href="#FNanchor_463" class="label">[171]</a> ἐν μιᾷ παρουσίᾳ, “in one appearance.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_464" href="#FNanchor_464" class="label">[172]</a> κατασκευάζουσι, “mould or cast.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_465" href="#FNanchor_465" class="label">[173]</a> This chapter is in effect a condensation of Irenæus I, xx, which it -follows closely. Hippolytus omits mention of the obscenities attributed -to the sect which are hinted at by Irenæus and described fully by -Epiphanius. Irenæus also mentions that they claimed to get their -doctrine from the secret teaching of Jesus to the Apostles, that one -Marcellina taught their heresy in Rome under Pope Anicetus, and that -the images of Christ were worshipped by them, <i>more Gentilium</i>, along -with those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. Epiphanius derives -the heresy from Simon Magus. It is suggested that the branding by -which they knew each other was due to a “baptism by fire.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_466" href="#FNanchor_466" class="label">[174]</a> This chapter also is practically identical with Irenæus I, xxi, which -is extant in the Latin version. Cerinthus was one of the earliest of the -Gnostics and tradition makes him contemporary with St. John. He -was probably a member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of Philo, and -Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i> XXVIII) adds to Irenæus’ account that he taught in -Asia, and especially in Galatia.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_467" href="#FNanchor_467" class="label">[175]</a> αὐθεντίας, as before.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_468" href="#FNanchor_468" class="label">[176]</a> κηρύξας, perhaps “preached.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_469" href="#FNanchor_469" class="label">[177]</a> Does this amount to an admission of the resurrection of the body? -If so it is in marked contrast to the Docetism of Marcion and others.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_470" href="#FNanchor_470" class="label">[178]</a> Ἐβιοναῖοι, Latin [Iren.] <i>qui dicuntur Ebionæi</i>, as if they were -followers of a mythical leader Ebion. The existence of any founder of -this name is now generally given up, and the word is more probably a -mere transliteration of the Hebrew אביון, “poor.” The Ebionites -were in all likelihood Judaizing Christians who had remained behind in -Palestine through the wars of Titus and Hadrian, and still kept to the -observance of the Mosaic Law. The brief statement in our text is -probably derived from Hippolytus’ recollection of Irenæus, I, c. 21, -the first sentence being in nearly the same words in both authors. -Irenæus adds to it that they used the gospel of St. Matthew only and -did not consider St. Paul as an apostle, because he did not keep the -Law; also that they adored Jerusalem as the “house of God.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_471" href="#FNanchor_471" class="label">[179]</a> μυθεύουσιν, “fable.” Irenæus’ Latin version here inserts a <i>non</i>, -evidently a clerical error.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_472" href="#FNanchor_472" class="label">[180]</a> ποιήσαντα, Cruice, <i>servare</i>, Macm., “fulfilled.” In either case -a curious meaning for ποιέω. Cf. the ποιέω τὴν μουσικήν of Plato, -<i>Phaedo</i>, 60. E.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_473" href="#FNanchor_473" class="label">[181]</a> In the accounts of the two Theodoti, which may here be taken -together, Hippolytus leaves Irenæus, from whom he has hitherto been -content to copy his account of the smaller heresies, and draws from some -source not yet identified, but which may be the <i>Little Labyrinth</i> of Caius -(see Salmon in <i>D.C.B.</i>, s.v. “Theodotus.”). His description of the -heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium corresponds with that of Eusebius -(<i>Eccl. Hist.</i>, V, 28). The Melchizedekian theory of the “other” -Theodotus is mentioned by Philaster (c. 53, p. 54, Oehl.) without -reference to Theodotus, although on the preceding page he has given -the Byzantine heresy as in our text. Pseudo-Tertullian in <i>Adv. Omn. -Haer.</i> (II, p. 764, Oehl.) gives the story of both Theodoti much as here, -which may give support to the theory that this tract is a summary -of the lost <i>Syntagma</i> of Hippolytus. Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i> XXXIV, -XXXV) divides the Melchizedekians from the Theodotians, and says -the first were ἀποσπασθέντες from the second, but without naming the -banker. He also gives some particulars about the first Theodotus, -which he does not seem to have taken from Hippolytus. He quotes -one Hierax as saying that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, and -says that “some” say that Heracles was his father and Astaroth or -Asteria his mother, while Melchizedek plays a great part in the earliest -part of the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> as the “Receiver of the Light.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_474" href="#FNanchor_474" class="label">[182]</a> ἀποσπάσας, lit., “torn away.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_475" href="#FNanchor_475" class="label">[183]</a> So that Hippolytus believed in the mythical founder of the -Ebionites.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_476" href="#FNanchor_476" class="label">[184]</a> εὐσεβέστατον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_477" href="#FNanchor_477" class="label">[185]</a> <i>i. e.</i> the heretics.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_478" href="#FNanchor_478" class="label">[186]</a> γνῶμαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_479" href="#FNanchor_479" class="label">[187]</a> Acts vi. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_480" href="#FNanchor_480" class="label">[188]</a> Rev. ii. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_481" href="#FNanchor_481" class="label">[189]</a> This Cerdo is only known to us as a predecessor of Marcion, whose -teaching he appears to have influenced, although in what measure -cannot now be ascertained. His date seems to be fairly well settled as -about the year 135 (see <i>D.C.B.</i>, s.h.v.), which is that of his coming -to Rome, and it was doubtless here that Marcion met him. According -to Irenæus, his teaching was mainly in secret and he was always ready -to make submission to the Church and recant his errors when publicly -arraigned. His doctrine, so far as it has come down to us, does not -seem to differ from that of Marcion, Tertullian (<i>adv. Marcion</i>) and the -tractate <i>Adv. Omn. Haer.</i> giving the best account of it. Of Lucian, -we know nothing, save that, while Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i> XLII, p. 688, -Oehl.) makes him out the immediate successor of Marcion and to have -been succeeded by Apelles, Tertullian (<i>de Resurrectione</i>, c. 2) speaks -of him—if he be the person there referred to as Lucanus—as an independent -teacher with no apparent connection with Marcion’s heresy. -He adds that he taught a resurrection neither of the body nor of the -soul, but of some part of man which he calls a “third nature.” See -<i>Forerunners</i>, II, p. 218, n. 2, and 220.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_482" href="#FNanchor_482" class="label">[190]</a> Ἀντιπαραθέσεις. See n. on p. <a href="#Page_88">88</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_483" href="#FNanchor_483" class="label">[191]</a> Of this Apelles, our knowledge is mainly derived from Tertullian, -for references to whom see Hort’s article “Apelles” in <i>D.C.B.</i> He -was certainly later than Marcion, for Rhodo (see Euseb., <i>Hist. Eccl.</i>, V, -c. 13), writing at the end of the second century, A.D., speaks of him as -still alive, though an “old man.” The same author seems to consider -that on Marcion’s death he founded a sect of his own, in which he -“corrected” Marcion’s teaching in some particulars. This is doubtful, -but Rhodo’s statements go to show that he quoted from the Old -Testament and did not hold the body of Jesus to be a phantasm. -Tertullian also mentions several times the connection of Apelles with -the “possessed” Philumene, on which he puts a construction negatived -by the evidence of Rhodo. Cf. <i>Forerunners</i>, II, pp. 218-220.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_484" href="#FNanchor_484" class="label">[192]</a> Hippolytus here accepts the statement of Tertullian (<i>de Præscript.</i>, -c. 30) that Apelles wrote a book called Φανερώσεις, or <i>Manifestations</i>, -containing the prophecies of Philumene. He repeats this with more -distinctness in <a href="#Book_X">Book X</a>, c. 20, <i>q. v.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_485" href="#FNanchor_485" class="label">[193]</a> ἄσαρκον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_486" href="#FNanchor_486" class="label">[194]</a> οὐσία.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_487" href="#FNanchor_487" class="label">[195]</a> ἀνασκολοπισθέντα, lit., “impaled.” It is, however, used by both -Philo and Lucian as equivalent to “crucified.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_488" href="#FNanchor_488" class="label">[196]</a> This “giving back” of the component parts of man’s being to the -different powers from which they are derived is a frequent theme among -the later Gnostics, and is fully described in the <i>Pistis Sophia</i>. Cf. -<i>Forerunners</i>, II, p. 184.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_489" href="#FNanchor_489" class="label">[197]</a> The source of this chapter is certainly the tractate <i>Adv. Omn. Haer.</i>, -formerly attributed to Tertullian and to be found in the second volume -of that author’s works in Oehler’s edition. No other author mentions -Apelles with such particularity, and all those subsequent to Tertullian -appear to have taken their information either from Tertullian’s other -works, from this tractate, or from our text. This tractate has been -discussed in the Introduction (see Vol. I, pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a> and <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_23">23</a> <i>supra</i>) and -perhaps all difficulties may be solved by supposing it to be, not indeed -the actual <i>Syntagma</i> of Hippolytus, but a summary of it.</p> - -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_98"></a>[98]</div> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="BOOK_VIII" title="BOOK VIII THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS">BOOK VIII<br /> -THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS</h2> -</div> - - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 396.</span> -1. <span class="smcap">These</span> are the contents of the 8th [Book] of the -Refutation of all Heresies.</p> - -<p>2. What are the opinions of the Docetae,<a id="FNanchor_490" href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> and that they -teach things which they say are from the Physicist Philosophy.<a id="FNanchor_491" href="#Footnote_491" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -<p>3. How Monoimus speaks foolishly, giving heed to poets -and geometricians and arithmeticians.</p> - -<p>4. How Tatian’s [heresy] sprang from the opinions of -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_99"></a>[99]</span> -Valentinus and Marcion wherefrom he compounded his -own. And that Hermogenes has made use of the teachings -of Socrates, not of Christ.</p> - -<p>5. How those err who contend that Easter should be -celebrated on the 14th day [of the month].</p> - -<p>6. What is the error of the Phrygians, who think -Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla to be prophets.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 397.</span> -7. What is the vain doctrine of the Encratites, and that -their teachings are compounded not out of the Holy -Scriptures, but from their own [views] and from those of -the Gymnosophists among the Indians.<a id="FNanchor_492" href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_1">1. <i>The Docetae.</i></h3> - -<p>8. Since the many, making no use of the Lord’s counsel, -while having the beam<a id="FNanchor_493" href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> in their eye, yet give out that they -can see, it seems to us that we should not be silent as to -their doctrines. So that they, being brought to shame by -our forthcoming refutation, shall recognize how the Saviour -counselled them to take away the beam from their own eye, -and then to see clearly the straw which was in their brother’s -eye. Now, therefore, having set forth sufficiently and -adequately the opinions of most of the heretics in the seven -books before this, we shall not now be silent upon those -which follow. Exhibiting the ungrudging grace of the -Holy Spirit, we shall also refute those who seem to have -<span class="sidenote">p. 398.</span> -attained security, They call themselves Docetae and teach -thus:—The first God<a id="FNanchor_494" href="#Footnote_494" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> is as it were the seed of a fig, in size -altogether of the smallest, but in power boundless, a magnitude -unreckoned in quantity, lacking nothing for bringing -forth, a refuge for the fearful, a covering for the naked, or -veil for shame, a fruit sought for, whereto, he says, the -Seeker came thrice and found not.<a id="FNanchor_495" href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> Wherefore, he says, -He cursed the fig-tree,<a id="FNanchor_496" href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> so that that sweet fruit was not found -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_100"></a>[100]</span> -on it, [<i>i. e.</i>] the fruit that was sought for. And [the seed] -being, so to speak briefly, of such a nature and so old [yet] -small and without magnitude, the cosmos came into being -from God, as they think, in some such way as this:—The -branches of the tree becoming tender, put forth leaves, as -is seen, and fruit follows, wherein is preserved the innumerable -<span class="sidenote">p. 399.</span> -[and] stored-up seed of the fig. We think, therefore, -that three things first come into being from the seed of the -fig, the stem which is the fig-tree, leaves, and the fruit or -fig, as we have before said. Thus, says he, three Aeons -came into being as principles from the First Principle of the -universals.<a id="FNanchor_497" href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> And on this, he says, Moses was not silent, -when he said that the words of God were three: “Darkness, -cloud and whirlwind and he added no more.”<a id="FNanchor_498" href="#Footnote_498" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> For, he -says, God added nothing to the Three Aeons, but they -sufficed and do suffice for all things which come into being. -But God Himself abides by Himself and far removed from -all the Aeons.<a id="FNanchor_499" href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> - -<p>When, therefore, each of these Aeons, he says, had -received a principle of generation, as has been said, it -little by little increased and grew great and became -perfect. Now they think that the perfect number [is] ten.<a id="FNanchor_500" href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> -Then the Aeons having come into being equal in number -and perfection, as they think, they were thirty Aeons in -all,<a id="FNanchor_501" href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> each of them being complete in a decad. But they -are divided and the three having equal honour among themselves, -differ in position only, because one of them is first, -<span class="sidenote">p. 400.</span> -another second, and another third. But this position -produced a difference of power. For he who is nearest to -the First God—to the seed as it were—chances to have -a power more fruitful than the others, he who is the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_101"></a>[101]</span> -Immeasureable One having measured himself ten times -in magnitude. And the Incomprehensible One, who has -become second in position to the first, comprehended -himself six times. And the third in position, becoming -removed to an infinite distance by reason of his brethren’s -dilatation, conceived<a id="FNanchor_502" href="#Footnote_502" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> himself three times and, as it were, -bound himself by a certain eternal bond of unity.<a id="FNanchor_503" href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> - -<p>9. And this they think is the Saviour’s saying:—“The -sower went forth to sow and that which fell upon good -and fair ground made some 100, some 60, and some 30.”<a id="FNanchor_504" href="#Footnote_504" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> -And hence, says he, He said, “He that hath ears to hear, -let him hear,” because this is not what all understand.<a id="FNanchor_505" href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> -All these Aeons [to wit] the Three and all the boundlessly -boundless ones [who come] from them, are masculo-feminine -ones.<a id="FNanchor_506" href="#Footnote_506" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> Therefore having increased and become great, and -all of them being from that one first seed of their concord -<span class="sidenote">p. 401.</span> -and unity, and all becoming together one Aeon, they all -begat from the one Virgin Mary, the begettal common to -them all, a Saviour in the midst of them all,<a id="FNanchor_507" href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> of equal -power in everything with the seed of the fig, save that He -was begotten. But that first seed whence is born the fig -is unbegotten. Then those three Aeons having been -adorned<a id="FNanchor_508" href="#Footnote_508" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> with all virtue and holiness, as these teachers -think, all the conceivable, lacking-nothing, nature of that -Only-Begotten<a id="FNanchor_509" href="#Footnote_509" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> Son—for He alone was born to the boundless -Aeons by a triple generation; for three immeasureable -Aeons with one mind begot Him—was adorned also. But -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_102"></a>[102]</span> -all these conceivable and eternal things were Light; but -the Light was not formless and idle, nor did it lack anything -superadded to it: but it contained within itself the -boundless forms of the various animals here below corresponding -in number to the boundlessly boundless after the -pattern of the fig-tree. And it shone from on high into -<span class="sidenote">p. 402.</span> -the underlying chaos. And this [chaos], being at once -illuminated and given form from the various forms on -high, received consistence<a id="FNanchor_510" href="#Footnote_510" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> and took all the supernal forms -from the Third Aeon who had tripled himself.<a id="FNanchor_511" href="#Footnote_511" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> But this -Third Aeon, seeing all the types<a id="FNanchor_512" href="#Footnote_512" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> that were his at once -intercepted in the underlying darkness beneath, and not -being ignorant of the power of the darkness and the simplicity -and generosity<a id="FNanchor_513" href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> of the light, would not allow the -shining types from on high to be drawn far down by the -darkness beneath. But he subjected [the Firmament] to -the Aeons. Then, having fixed it below, he divided in -twain the darkness and the light.<a id="FNanchor_514" href="#Footnote_514" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> “And he called the -light which is above the firmament, Day, and the darkness -he called Night.”<a id="FNanchor_515" href="#Footnote_515" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> Therefore, as I have said, when all the -boundless forms of the Third Aeon were intercepted in this -lowest darkness, and the impress<a id="FNanchor_516" href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> of that same Aeon was -stamped upon it along with the rest, a living fire came -from the light whence the Great Ruler came into being -<span class="sidenote">p. 403.</span> -of whom Moses says: “In the beginning God created -Heaven and Earth.”<a id="FNanchor_517" href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> Moses says that this fiery God<a id="FNanchor_518" href="#Footnote_518" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> -spoke from the bush, that is from the darksome air, for -<i>batos</i> [bush] is the whole air which underlies the darkness. -But it is <i>batos</i>, says Moses according to him, because all -the forms of light go from on high downwards, having the -air as a passage.<a id="FNanchor_519" href="#Footnote_519" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> And the word from the bush is no less -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_103"></a>[103]</span> -recognized by us. For a sound significant of speech is -reverberating air, without which human speech could not -be recognized. And not only does our word from the -bush, that is from the air, make laws for and be a fellow-citizen -with us, but also odours and colours manifest their -powers to us through the air.</p> - -<p>10. Then this fiery God—the fire born from the light—made -the cosmos, as Moses says, in this manner, he being -substanceless,<a id="FNanchor_520" href="#Footnote_520" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> [and] darkness having the substance and -being ever silent towards the eternal types of the light -which are intercepted below.<a id="FNanchor_521" href="#Footnote_521" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> Therefore, until the Saviour’s -manifestation, there was a certain great wandering of souls -by reason of the God of the Light, the fiery Demiurge. -For the forms are called souls, having been cooled down<a id="FNanchor_522" href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> -from the things above and they continue in darkness to -change about from body to body under the supervision of -<span class="sidenote">p. 404.</span> -the Demiurge. And that this is so, we may know from -the words of Job: “And I also am a wanderer from place -to place and from house to house.”<a id="FNanchor_523" href="#Footnote_523" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> The Saviour also -says: “And if you will receive it, this is the Elias who -shall come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”<a id="FNanchor_524" href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> -But by the Saviour, change of bodies has been made to -cease; and faith is preached for the putting-away of transgressions.<a id="FNanchor_525" href="#Footnote_525" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> -In some such way that Only-Begotten Son -beholding from on high the forms of the Aeons changing -about in the darksome bodies willed to come down for -their deliverance. When He saw that the multitude of -Aeons could not bear to behold without ceasing the -Pleroma of all the Aeons, but remained as mortals dreading -corruption,<a id="FNanchor_526" href="#Footnote_526" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> being held by the greatness and glory of -power, He drew Himself together as a very great flash in -a very small body, or rather, like the light of the eye -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_104"></a>[104]</span> -drawn together under the eyelids, and goes forth to the -<span class="sidenote">p. 405.</span> -heaven and the shining stars. And there He again withdraws -Himself under the eyelids at His pleasure. Thus -does the light of the eye, and although it is everywhere -present and is all things to us, it is invisible; but we see -only the lids of the eye, the white corners, a broad membrane -of many folds and fibres, a horn-like coat, and under -this a berry-like pupil, both net-like and disk-like, and if -there are any other coats to the light of the eye, it is -enwrapped and lies hidden within them.</p> - -<p>Thus, he says, the Only-Begotten Son, eternal on high, -did on Himself (a form) corresponding to each Aeon of -the Three Aeons, and being in the triacontad of Aeons, -came into the world of the Decad<a id="FNanchor_527" href="#Footnote_527" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> being of such age -and as little as we have said, invisible, unknown, without -glory and not believed upon. in order then, say the -Docetae,<a id="FNanchor_528" href="#Footnote_528" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> that he might do on also the Outer Darkness -which is the flesh, an angel came down with Him from -<span class="sidenote">p. 406.</span> -on high and made announcement<a id="FNanchor_529" href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> to Mary as it is written, -and He was born from her as it is written. And He who -came from on high put on that which was born, and did -all things as it is written in the Gospels; and was baptized -in Jordan. And he was baptized, receiving the type and -seal in the water of the body born from the Virgin, in -order that when the Ruler should condemn the form which -was his to death, to the Cross, that soul which had grown -up within the body should strip off that body and affix it -to the Tree. And thus (the soul) having triumphed by its -means over the Principles and Authorities would not be -found naked, but would put on that body reflected in the -likeness of that flesh in the water when He was baptized. -This he says, is the Saviour’s saying: “Unless a man be -born of water and of [the] Spirit, he shall not enter into -the kingdom of the heavens; because that which is born -of the flesh is flesh.”<a id="FNanchor_530" href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> - -<p>From the thirty Aeons, then, He did on thirty forms. -Wherefore that Eternal One was thirty years on the earth, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_105"></a>[105]</span> -every Aeon being manifested in his own year. And souls -are all the forms which have been intercepted from each of -<span class="sidenote">p. 407.</span> -the thirty Aeons, and each of them possesses a nature -capable of understanding the Jesus who exists according to -nature which that Only-Begotten One from the eternal -places puts on. But these places are different. Therefore -so many heresies contending [with each other] about it, -seek Jesus. And He is claimed<a id="FNanchor_531" href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> by them all, but is seen -differently by each from the different places. Towards -whom, he says, each [soul] is borne and hurries, thinking -that she is alone. Who is indeed her kinsman and fellow-citizen. -Whom she beholding for the first time recognizes -as her own brother and all the rest as bastards. Those then -who have their nature from the lower places cannot see -the forms of the Saviour above them. But those on high, -he say, from the middle Decad and the most excellent -Ogdoad<a id="FNanchor_532" href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>—whence, say they, we are—know Jesus the -Saviour not in part but wholly, and are alone the Perfect -from above, while the others are only partly so.</p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 408.</span> -11. I think then that this is for right-thinking persons -sufficient for the knowledge of the complicated and inconsistent -heresy of the Docetae—those who attempt to make -arguments about inaccessible and incomprehensible matter -calling themselves thus. Certain of whom do not only <i>seem</i><a id="FNanchor_533" href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> -to be mad; and we have proved that the beam from such -matter has entered their own eye, if they are anyhow able -to see clearly; and, if not, they will be unable to blind -others. Whose dogma the early sophists of Greece anticipated -in many points of sophistry, as our readers will understand. -These then are the teachings of the Docetae.<a id="FNanchor_534" href="#Footnote_534" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> It seems -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_106"></a>[106]</span> -right also that we should not keep silence as to the -[teachings] of Monoimus.</p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_2">2. <i>Monoimus.</i></h3> - -<p>12. Monoimus the Arab<a id="FNanchor_535" href="#Footnote_535" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> was a long way off<a id="FNanchor_536" href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> the glory -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_107"></a>[107]</span> -of the great-voiced poet; for he thinks that some such man -as Oceanus existed, of whom the poet speaks somehow like -this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 409.</span><span class="verse">Oceanus, the birth of gods and birth of man.<a id="FNanchor_537" href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></span></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Turning this into other words, he says that a Man is the -All which is the source of the universals, [being] unbegotten, -incorruptible, and eternal; and that there is a Son of the -aforesaid Man, who is begotten, and capable of suffering, -being born in a timeless, unwilled, and previously undefined -way. For such, says he, is the Power of that Man. And -when it was so, the son of the Power came into being more -quickly than reasoning or counsel. And this is, he says, -the saying in the Scriptures: “He was and came into -being,”<a id="FNanchor_538" href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> which is: Man was and his son came into being, -as if one were to say: Fire was and Light came into being -in a timeless, unwilled, and previously undefined way, while -being at the same time fire. But this Man is a single -monad, uncompounded [and] undifferentiated, [and yet] -compounded [and] differentiated, loving and at peace with -all things, [and yet] fighting with and at war with all things -before him,<a id="FNanchor_539" href="#Footnote_539" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> unlike and like, as it were a certain musical -<span class="sidenote">p. 410.</span> -harmony which contains whatever one may say or leave -unsaid, showing all things and giving birth to all things. -“This is Father, this is Mother, Two Immortal names.”<a id="FNanchor_540" href="#Footnote_540" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> -But for the sake of an instance, conceive, he says, as the -greatest image of the Perfect Man, the one tittle which is -one tittle uncompounded, simple, a pure monad having no -composition whatever from anything, [yet] compounded of -many forms, of many parts. That undivided One, he says, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_108"></a>[108]</span> -is the many-faced and myriad-eyed and myriad-named one -tittle of the Iota,<a id="FNanchor_541" href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> which is an image of that Perfect and -Invisible Man.</p> - -<p>13. The one tittle, he says, is then the monad and a -decad. For by this power of the one tittle of the Iota -[are produced] also [the] dyad and triad and tetrad and -pentad and hexad and heptad and ogdoad and ennead -up to the ten. For these are the diversified numbers -dwelling within that simple and uncompounded tittle of the -<span class="sidenote">p. 411.</span> -Iota. And this is the saying:—“Because it pleased the -whole Pleroma to dwell within the Son of Man bodily.”<a id="FNanchor_542" href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> -For such compounds of numbers from the simple and uncompounded -one tittle of the Iota become he says bodily -hypostases. Therefore, he says, the Son of Man was born -from the Perfect Man, whom none know. But, he says, -every creature who is ignorant of the Son, represents Him -as the offspring of a woman. Of which Son some shadowy -rays come very close to this world and secure and control -change [of bodies and] birth. And the beauty of that Son -of Man is till now unrevealed to all men who are misled as -to the offspring of a woman. Nothing then of the things -here come into being, he says, from that Man, nor will they -ever do so; but all things that have come into being have -done so not from the whole, but from some part of the Son -of Man. For, says he, the Son of Man is one Iota, one -tittle flowing from on high, full, and filling full all things, -and containing within itself whatever the Man, Father of -the Son of Man possesses.<a id="FNanchor_543" href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 412.</span> -14. Now the cosmos, as Moses says, came into being in -six days, that is, in six powers which are in the one tittle of -the Iota.<a id="FNanchor_544" href="#Footnote_544" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> [But] the seventh, a rest and a Sabbath, came -into being from the Hebdomad which is over Earth and -Water and Fire and Air, out of which the cosmos came -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_109"></a>[109]</span> -into being by the one tittle. For the cubes and the octahedrons, -and [the] pyramids and all the figures like these of -which Fire, Air, Water, [and earth] consist, came into being -from the numbers which are comprised in that single tittle -of the Iota, which is a Perfect Son of a Perfect Man. When -then, says he, Moses says that (the) rod was turned about in -different ways for the plagues on Egypt,<a id="FNanchor_545" href="#Footnote_545" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> these [plagues], he -says, are symbols allegorizing the Creation. [For] he does -not use the rod which is one tittle of the Iota, duplex and -varied, as a figure<a id="FNanchor_546" href="#Footnote_546" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> for more plagues than ten. This -Creation of the world, he says, is the ten plagues.<a id="FNanchor_547" href="#Footnote_547" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> For -<span class="sidenote">p. 413.</span> -everything struck produces and bears fruit as, for instance, -vine-shoots. Man, he says, has burst forth from Man, and -was severed from him by a certain blow,<a id="FNanchor_548" href="#Footnote_548" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> so that he might -be born and might declare the Law which Moses laid down -after having received it from God. The Law is according -to that one tittle, the Decalogue which allegorizes the divine -mysteries of the words. For, says he, the Ten Plagues and -the Decalogue<a id="FNanchor_549" href="#Footnote_549" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> are the whole knowledge of the universals -which none has known who has been misled concerning -the offspring of the woman. And if you say that the whole -Law is a Pentateuch, it is [still] from the pentad which is -comprised in the one tittle. But the whole Law is for -those who have not thoroughly crippled their understanding -[a] mystery, a new feast not yet grown old, legal -and eternal, a Passover of the Lord God kept unto our -generations by those who can see [and] beginning on the -14th [day] which is the beginning, he says, of the decad -from which they reckon.<a id="FNanchor_550" href="#Footnote_550" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> For the monad up to 14 is the -sum total of the one tittle of the perfect number. And -<span class="sidenote">p. 414.</span> -one + two + three + four become ten, wherefore it is the -one tittle. But from fourteen up to twenty-one, a hebdomad -subsists in the one tittle, the unleavened creature of the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_110"></a>[110]</span> -world in all these.<a id="FNanchor_551" href="#Footnote_551" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> For what, says he, should the one -tittle want of any substance like leaven for the Passover of -the Lord, the eternal feast which is given for generations. -For the whole cosmos and all the causes of creation are the -Passover Feast of the Lord. For God rejoices in the -transmutation of creation which is wrought under the -strokes of the one tittle. The which is the rod of Moses -given by God, which strikes the Egyptians and changes the -bodies, as did the hand of Moses, from water into blood. -And the other [plagues] are in nearly the same way [such -as that of the] locusts, wherefore change of the elements he -calls flesh into grass: “for all flesh is grass,”<a id="FNanchor_552" href="#Footnote_552" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> he says. -<span class="sidenote">p. 415.</span> -But none the less do these men in some such way receive -the whole Law. Following, perhaps, as it seems to me, the -Greeks who say that there are Substance and Quality and -Quantity and Relation and Position and Action and Possession -and Passion.<a id="FNanchor_553" href="#Footnote_553" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> - -<p>15. So for example Monoimus himself says distinctly in -his letter to Theophrastus:<a id="FNanchor_554" href="#Footnote_554" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> “Leave aside enquiry concerning -God and Creation and the like, and enquire about -Him from thyself, and learn who it is who simply makes -His own all that is within thee, saying ‘My God, my mind, -my understanding, my soul, my body.’ Learn also what -are grief and rejoicing, and love and hate, and undesired -watching and sleep, and undesired anger and love. And -if,” says he, “thou dost carefully seek out this, thou wilt -find Him in thyself [as both] one and many things after -the likeness of that one tittle, he finding the outlet for -Himself.”<a id="FNanchor_555" href="#Footnote_555" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> This then is what these [men] say, which we -are under no necessity to compare with what has been -before excogitated by the Greeks. Since it is plain from -<span class="sidenote">p. 416.</span> -their statements that they have their origin from the -geometrical and arithmetical art, which the disciples of -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_111"></a>[111]</span> -Pythagoras set forth more excellently. As the reader may -learn in the passages where we have before explained all -the wisdom of the Greeks.</p> - -<p>But since we have sufficiently refuted Monoimus,<a id="FNanchor_556" href="#Footnote_556" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> let us -see what others have elaborated who wish thereby to raise -for themselves an idle name.</p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_3">3. <i>Tatian.</i></h3> - -<p>16. But Tatian, although himself a disciple of Justin -Martyr, was not of like mind with his master, but attempted -something new. He says that there were certain Aeons -[about whom] he fables in the like way with the Valentinians. -But in the same way as Marcion he says that -marriage is destruction. And he asserts that Adam will -not be saved, through his becoming a leader of rebellion. -And thus Tatian.<a id="FNanchor_557" href="#Footnote_557" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_4">4. <i>Hermogenes.</i></h3> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 417.</span> -17. A certain Hermogenes<a id="FNanchor_558" href="#Footnote_558" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> thinking also to devise something -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_112"></a>[112]</span> -new, says that God created all things from co-existent -and ungenerated matter. For he held it impossible that -God should create the things that are from those that are not. -And that God is ever Lord and Maker, but Matter ever a -slave and [in process of] becoming. But yet not all -[matter], for, as it was being borne about violently and -disorderly, He set it in order in this manner. Beholding -it boiling like a pot on the fire, He divided it into parts; -and that part which he took from the All He reclaimed, -and the other He allowed to be borne about disorderly. -And the reclaimed part, he says, is the cosmos; and that the -other remains waste and is called acosmic<a id="FNanchor_559" href="#Footnote_559" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> matter. He says -that this is the essence<a id="FNanchor_560" href="#Footnote_560" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> of all things, as if he were introducing -<span class="sidenote">p. 418.</span> -a new doctrine to his disciples; but he does not -consider that this fable happens to be Socratic, and is -better worked out by Plato than by Hermogenes. But he -confesses that Christ is the Son of the God who created all -things, and that He was begotten of the Virgin and of -Spirit according to the [common] voice of the Gospels. -Who after He had suffered rose again in a body and -appeared to His disciples, and ascending to the heavens, -left His body in the Sun, but Himself went on into the -presence of the Father. And in witness of this,<a id="FNanchor_561" href="#Footnote_561" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> he thinks -he is corroborated by the word which David the Psalmist -spake: “In the Sun he set up his tent, and like a bridegroom -coming forth from his bridal chamber, he will rejoice -like a giant to run his course.”<a id="FNanchor_562" href="#Footnote_562" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> This then is what -Hermogenes attempts.<a id="FNanchor_563" href="#Footnote_563" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_5" title="5. About the Quartodecimans.">5. <i>About the Quartodecimans.</i><a id="FNanchor_564" href="#Footnote_564" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></h3> - -<p>18. But certain others, lovers of strife by nature, unskilled -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_113"></a>[113]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 419.</span> -in knowledge, very quarrelsome by habit, maintain -that the Passover ought to be kept on the 14th day of the -First Month, according to the ordinance of the Law, on -whatever day [of the week] it may fall. They have regard -[merely] to that which has been written in the Law: [that -is] that he will be accursed who does not keep it as it is -laid down. They pay no attention to the fact that it was -enacted for the Jews, who were to kill the True Passover. -Which [Law] has spread to the Gentiles and is understood -by faith, not kept strictly in the letter. They pay attention -to this one commandment, but do not regard the saying -of the Apostle: “For I bear witness to every man who -is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.”<a id="FNanchor_565" href="#Footnote_565" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> -In other matters they agree concerning all things handed -down to the Church by the Apostles.</p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_6" title="6. Phrygians.">6. <i>Phrygians.</i><a id="FNanchor_566" href="#Footnote_566" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></h3> - -<p>19. But there are others also very heretical by nature, -Phrygians by race, who have fallen away after being deceived -<span class="sidenote">p. 420.</span> -by certain women, Priscilla and Maximilla by name, whom -they imagine to be prophetesses. Into these they say the -Spirit Paraclete has entered and they likewise glorify [even] -above these one Montanus as a prophet. Having endless -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_114"></a>[114]</span> -books of their own, they are not judging what is said in -them according to reason, nor giving heed to those capable -of judgment; but, carried along heedlessly by the faith that -they have in them, imagine that they learn more through -them than from the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels. -They glorify these wenches<a id="FNanchor_567" href="#Footnote_567" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> above Apostles and every -grace,<a id="FNanchor_568" href="#Footnote_568" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> since some of them dare to say that there are those -among them who have become greater than Christ. They -confess that God is the Father of the universals, and the -creator of all things in the same way as [does] the Church, -and also [confess] whatever the Gospel testifies concerning -Christ. But they innovate in the matter of feasts and fasts -and the eating of vegetable food and roots,<a id="FNanchor_569" href="#Footnote_569" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> thinking that -they have learned this from the women. And some of -them, agreeing with the heresy of the Noetians, say that -the Father is the Son, and that He by being born, underwent -<span class="sidenote">p. 421.</span> -both suffering and death. Concerning these, I shall -later explain more minutely; for to many their heresy has -become the starting-point of evils. We judge then that -what has been said is sufficient, we having proved briefly to -all that their many absurd books and attempts are feeble -and not worth consideration, whereto those of sound mind -need pay no heed.<a id="FNanchor_570" href="#Footnote_570" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="VIII_7">7. <i>Encratites.</i></h3> - -<p>20. But others calling themselves Encratites<a id="FNanchor_571" href="#Footnote_571" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> confess the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_115"></a>[115]</span> -[facts] about God and Christ in like manner with the -Church. But with regard to the way of life, they having -become puffed up,<a id="FNanchor_572" href="#Footnote_572" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> have reverted [to earlier opinions]. -They think themselves glorified through food by abstaining -from things which have had life, drinking water, and forbidding -marriage, and in the other things of life are austerely -careful. Such as they are judged to be rather Cynics than -Christians, seeing that they pay no heed to what was said to -them aforetime through the Apostle Paul, who prophesied -the innovations that would come by the folly of some, saying -<span class="sidenote">p. 422.</span> -thus:—“The Spirit says expressly: In the last times -some will fall away from the wholesome teaching,<a id="FNanchor_573" href="#Footnote_573" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> giving -heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, -through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in -their own consciences as with a hot iron, forbidding to marry -and (commanding) to abstain from meats, which God -created to be received with thanksgiving by those who -believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is -good, and nothing is to be rejected which is received with -thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the words of God -and prayer....”<a id="FNanchor_574" href="#Footnote_574" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> This saying then of the Blessed Paul -is sufficient for the refutation of those who live thus and -honour themselves as righteous men, and to show that this -also is a heresy.<a id="FNanchor_575" href="#Footnote_575" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p> - -<p>But although some other heresies are named [to wit -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_116"></a>[116]</span> -those] of the Cainites, Ophites or Noachites<a id="FNanchor_576" href="#Footnote_576" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> and others -such as they, I do not think it necessary to set forth their -sayings and doings, lest they should thereby think themselves -somebody or worthy of argument.<a id="FNanchor_577" href="#Footnote_577" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> But since what -<span class="sidenote">p. 423.</span> -has been said about them seems to be sufficient, we will -come to the source of all evils, the heresy of the Noetians, -and having disclosed its root and proved plainly the poison -lurking within it, we will hold back from such error those -who have been swept away by a violent spirit as by a -torrent.</p> - - -<h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_490" href="#FNanchor_490" class="label">[1]</a> Who these Docetae are is a puzzle. Although Cruice writes the -name Δοκήται, Salmon (<i>D.C.B.</i>, s.h.n.) gives it as Δοκιταί which is, -he says, the spelling adopted by both Hippolytus and Clement of -Alexandria. Their tenets as here described have nothing to do with the -opinion that the body of Jesus existed in appearance only which we have -seen current among the Simonians, Basilidians, Marcionites, and the -followers of Saturninus and perhaps of Valentinus. Nor does it seem -connected with any proper name such as the fictitious one of Ebion -which was invented to explain to Greek ears the appellation of the -Ebionites. It may be thought, perhaps, that it was a kind of nickname -derived from this chapter’s opening metaphor of the δοκός or -“beam,” but this is too far-fetched to be insisted upon. Clement is the -only early author who mentions them, and then does so in a fashion (<i>e. g.</i> -<i>Strom.</i>, VII, 17) which makes it fairly clear that it is those who held -Docetic opinions generally so called, and not any special sect to which -he is referring. He also says that Julius Cassianus, a Valentinian, was -the founder of Docetism of the Simonian kind and St. Jerome -(<i>adv. Lucifer</i>, 23) takes this further back by the statement that the -opinion in question was current in the life-time of the Apostles. Nor -is there anything novel or peculiar in the doctrines set forth in our text -of the Docitae or Docetae. The image of the fig-tree with which this -chapter opens is but an amplification of the “Indivisible Point” put -forward earlier in our text, and there is nothing here stated which is -inconsistent with the teachings of Valentinus. This will be further -discussed when we come to consider the source of this chapter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_491" href="#FNanchor_491" class="label">[2]</a> ἐκ φυσικῆς φιλοσοφίας. That is, drawn from the study of nature -and natural objects such as trees and the anatomy of the eye, for which -see <i>infra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_492" href="#FNanchor_492" class="label">[3]</a> No further reference is made to the Indian Gymnosophists or -“Brachmans,” and this sentence has probably slipped in from some -other part of the roll.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_493" href="#FNanchor_493" class="label">[4]</a> δοκός, the “beam” of the Gospels (Cf. Matt. vii. 3, 4; Luke vi. -41, 42). Hippolytus who here resumes his habit of punning tries to -connect it with δοκεῖν, “to seem.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_494" href="#FNanchor_494" class="label">[5]</a> Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον. That this construction is the right one, see -p. 400 Cr. and the summary in Book X, p. 496 Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_495" href="#FNanchor_495" class="label">[6]</a> The rhetorical form of this sentence should be noted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_496" href="#FNanchor_496" class="label">[7]</a> Cf. Matt. xii. 19, 20; Mark xi. 13-21; Luke xii. 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_497" href="#FNanchor_497" class="label">[8]</a> As Salmon (<i>ubi cit.</i>) points out, in the Valentinian system, the -male heads of the first three series of Aeons, <i>i. e.</i> Nous, Logos and -Anthropos occupy a position corresponding to these three first -“principles” or ἀρχαί. The fact that their spouses or syzygies are not -here mentioned is accounted for by the statement (on p. 101 <i>infra</i>) -that they are all androgyne, or as is here said “lacking nothing for -generation,” <i>i. e.</i> capable of production without assistance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_498" href="#FNanchor_498" class="label">[9]</a> Cf. Deut. v. 22. These words have already been quoted in the -chapter on the Sethians (I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_165">165</a> <i>supra</i>). Although here attributed to -Moses, they can hardly be taken from Deuteronomy, which describes -Moses’ death.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_499" href="#FNanchor_499" class="label">[10]</a> Like the Bythos or Unknowable Father of Valentinus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_500" href="#FNanchor_500" class="label">[11]</a> Lit., “that the perfect being numbered is ten.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_501" href="#FNanchor_501" class="label">[12]</a> Lit., “all the aeons were thirty.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_502" href="#FNanchor_502" class="label">[13]</a> The words μετρήσας, κατέλαβεν, νοήσας here all seem to be equivalent -to “multiplied himself,” and to have been used as a play on the -double sense of the other words.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_503" href="#FNanchor_503" class="label">[14]</a> This may possibly be an allusion to the Valentinian Horus -surrounding and guarding the Pleroma.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_504" href="#FNanchor_504" class="label">[15]</a> Matt. xiii. 3, uses δίδωμι, “yield,” for ἐποίει as here. Cf. Mark iv. -3, 8, ἔφερεν, “bore.” Luke viii. 3-5 stops short at a “hundred-fold.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_505" href="#FNanchor_505" class="label">[16]</a> οὐκ ἔστι πάντων ἀκούσματα, “not the hearing of all.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_506" href="#FNanchor_506" class="label">[17]</a> See n. on previous page.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_507" href="#FNanchor_507" class="label">[18]</a> τὸν μέσον αὐτῶν γέννημα κοινὸν ... τῶν ἐν μεσότητι Σωτῆρα πάντων. -Cruice, whom Macmahon follows, would translate “a common -fruit, a mediator ... the Saviour of all those who are in meditation”; -but I cannot make the sense out of the Greek. Miller, by transferring -the word Μαρίας to a place after μεσότητι, would make it read -“through the interposition of Mary.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_508" href="#FNanchor_508" class="label">[19]</a> κεκοσμημένων, perhaps “set in order or arranged.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_509" href="#FNanchor_509" class="label">[20]</a> Μονογενής. One of the very few instances in Gnostic literature, -where the word can be thus translated rather than as “one of a kind,” -or Unique. The explanation in parenthesis shows that it is so intended -here, but is probably of a late date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_510" href="#FNanchor_510" class="label">[21]</a> πῆξιν, “fixedness.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_511" href="#FNanchor_511" class="label">[22]</a> So the part of the <i>Pistis Sophia</i> which is most plainly Valentinian, -has constant allusions to τριδυναμεις or triple powers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_512" href="#FNanchor_512" class="label">[23]</a> χαρακτῆρας, “impresses” or “marks.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_513" href="#FNanchor_513" class="label">[24]</a> ἄφθονον, “devoid of envy.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_514" href="#FNanchor_514" class="label">[25]</a> Στερεώσας οὖν κάτωθεν, καὶ διεχώρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους καὶ -ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτός. <i>Firmamentum igitur quum ab imo confirmasset, -divisit per medium tenebras et per medium lucem.</i> Macmahon follows -Cruice, but ignores the repeated ἀνὰ μέσον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_515" href="#FNanchor_515" class="label">[26]</a> Cf. Gen. 1. 4-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_516" href="#FNanchor_516" class="label">[27]</a> ἐκτύπωμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_517" href="#FNanchor_517" class="label">[28]</a> Gen. i. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_518" href="#FNanchor_518" class="label">[29]</a> See <i>supra</i>, Vol. I. p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, for this fiery God, there called the -Demiurge Jaldabaoth.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_519" href="#FNanchor_519" class="label">[30]</a> A pun on βάτος, “bush,” and βατός, “passable.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_520" href="#FNanchor_520" class="label">[31]</a> ἀνυπόστατος, “not hypostatized.” Cruice has “<i>non subsistens</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_521" href="#FNanchor_521" class="label">[32]</a> This seems the only construction, unless we are to consider that -it is the Demiurge who <i>wilfully</i> ill-treats the souls.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_522" href="#FNanchor_522" class="label">[33]</a> ἀποψυχεῖσαι. A common pun between ψυχή, “soul,” and ψῦχος, -“cold.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_523" href="#FNanchor_523" class="label">[34]</a> Not in the Canon. As Cruice points out, it is from some apocryphal -book which puts it into the mouth of Job’s wife and adds it to -Job ii. 9. It is also met with in St. Chrysostom’s homily, <i>de Statuis</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_524" href="#FNanchor_524" class="label">[35]</a> Matt. xi. 14, 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_525" href="#FNanchor_525" class="label">[36]</a> This doctrine of transmigration cannot be shown to have formed -part of Valentinus’ own teaching. It appears, however, among some -of his followers. Cf. <i>Forerunners</i>, II, cc. 9, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_526" href="#FNanchor_526" class="label">[37]</a> A pun on φθαρτοί, “mortals,” and φθορά, “corruption.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_527" href="#FNanchor_527" class="label">[38]</a> εἰς τὸν (δέκατον) κόσμον. Cruice would omit the δέκατον. It -clearly, however, means the world of the Decad, Jesus having come -down from the “most excellent Ogdoad.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_528" href="#FNanchor_528" class="label">[39]</a> Evidently Hippolytus has not here any book or writing of a particular -author before him, but is giving the opinion of the sect generally.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_529" href="#FNanchor_529" class="label">[40]</a> Εὐηγγελίσατο. Cf. the ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις which follows.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_530" href="#FNanchor_530" class="label">[41]</a> John iii. 5, 6. The Greek text omits ὅτι, “because.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_531" href="#FNanchor_531" class="label">[42]</a> οἰκεῖος, “peculiar to.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_532" href="#FNanchor_532" class="label">[43]</a> This is markedly Valentinian. The Ogdoad is of course the -Highest Heaven, the Decad the middle one. See n. on p. 31 <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_533" href="#FNanchor_533" class="label">[44]</a> He here puns again on δοκεῖν, “to seem,” and δοκός, “beam.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_534" href="#FNanchor_534" class="label">[45]</a> The source of this chapter can hardly have been a written book or -MS. The style is distinctly that of Hippolytus himself; the passion -for plays on words which he has before exhibited, but has kept under -restraint while quoting from serious writers like Basilides and -Valentinus, here resumes its sway; and he adds to it a fancy for -putting several nominatives in apposition without the τουτέστι which he -has heretofore generally employed. This, and the nature of the rhetoric -all go to show that he is here quoting not from a written, but from a -spoken discourse. The author of this is of course unknown to us; and -Hippolytus, who may very likely have forgotten his name, gives us no -clue to his identity; but it is fairly clear that he must have been a -follower of Valentinus. The Three Aeons who went forth from the -first ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων correspond to the Nous, Logos and Anthropos -who rule over the Valentinian Ogdoad, Decad and Dodecad, and the -care taken to bring the number of Aeons up to thirty practically settles -this, while the existence of Horos is hinted at, and that of the Sophia -is barred only by the attribution of both sexes to all the Aeons. -Perhaps, however, the most striking proof of Valentinianism is the -myth of all the Aeons coalescing to produce the Jesus who brings -salvation, a myth which is not to be found in any other system. If the -theory be accepted that Hippolytus’ source for the chapter was a -Valentinian sermon, the name of Julius Cassianus as its author deserves -consideration. He is described by Clement of Alexandria (<i>Strom.</i>, III, -13, sqq.) as the founder of Docetism, and as connected with the school -of Valentinus, while certain Logia quoted by him appear also in the -Valentinian <i>Excerpta Theodoti</i>. For other particulars about him see -<i>D.C.B.</i>, s.nn. “Cassianus” and “Docetism.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_535" href="#FNanchor_535" class="label">[46]</a> This “Monoimus Arabs” is known to no other heresiologist save -Theodoret who here as elsewhere probably copied from Hippolytus. -Salmon (<i>D.C.B.</i>, s.n. “Monoimus”) suggests that the name may -cover the Jewish appellation of Menahem, which is not unlikely. His -system as here disclosed has this in common with that of the Ophites -or Naassenes of Book V that both begin with a Divine Being called -“Man” for no other assigned reason than that his manifestation here -below is known as the Son of Man. He is not, however, here called -Adamas as with the Naassenes, and the remark about his being at -once father and mother is not necessarily connected with the Naassene -hymn quoted on p. 140 Cr. For the rest, there is, <i>pace</i> Salmon, -nothing distinctly Christian about Monoimus’ doctrine, and although -the passage from Colossians about the Pleroma dwelling in the Son of -Man is here again introduced, the context makes it possible that this -is the comment of Hippolytus rather than a direct quotation. On the -other hand, Monoimus several times speaks slightingly of those who -believe that the Son of Man was born of a woman, and he shows a -reverence for the Law and the Passover which a Christian of the -second century would hardly have exhibited. His opinions seem in -fact to be more pantheistic than Christian or Judaic, although -as Macmahon truly remarks, his similes about the Creation are not far -removed from those of Philo. His remarks about numbers have -possibly been corrupted in the copy, and are unintelligible as they -stand; but it is not unlikely that they cover some early Cabalistic -notions and that his “Perfect Man” may be the Adam Cadmon of the -Cabala.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_536" href="#FNanchor_536" class="label">[47]</a> γεγένηται μακράν, <i>longe abest</i>, Cruice, “was far removed,” Macm.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_537" href="#FNanchor_537" class="label">[48]</a> This line does not occur in our editions of Homer. It is apparently -a conflation of the statement in <i>Il.</i>, XIV 201 that Oceanus is the -“Father of the Gods” and that in l. 246 that he is the “Father of -them all.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_538" href="#FNanchor_538" class="label">[49]</a> Ἦν καὶ ἐγένετο. This has been thought a quotation from St. John’s -opening chapter, but the parallel is not very close. As Salmon (<i>art. -cit.</i>) points out, it signifies Being and Becoming.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_539" href="#FNanchor_539" class="label">[50]</a> πρὸς ἑαυτήν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_540" href="#FNanchor_540" class="label">[51]</a> The Naassene hymn in Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a> <i>supra</i> runs: “<i>From</i> thee -comes father and <i>through</i> thee mother, two immortal names, parents of -Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, man of mighty name!” It is quite -possible that Hippolytus, remembering this, is merely here repeating -part of it as comment and without attributing the quotation to -Monoimus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_541" href="#FNanchor_541" class="label">[52]</a> Cruice points out that this κεραία or tittle is the acute accent placed -over a letter of the Greek alphabet which converts it into a numeral. -Thus, ι = Iota, ί = 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_542" href="#FNanchor_542" class="label">[53]</a> Cf. Col. i. 19, “For it pleased (the Father) that in Him the whole -fulness should dwell.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_543" href="#FNanchor_543" class="label">[54]</a> Salmon (<i>art. cit.</i>) points out that this is “at first sight mere -pantheism.” It is difficult to put any other construction upon it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_544" href="#FNanchor_544" class="label">[55]</a> These six powers have been compared to Simon Magus’ six -“Roots,” which Simon also connects with the six Days of Creation. -Cf. p. 252 Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_545" href="#FNanchor_545" class="label">[56]</a> Exod. vii. 20; viii. 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_546" href="#FNanchor_546" class="label">[57]</a> σχηματίζει. Macm. translates “shape.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_547" href="#FNanchor_547" class="label">[58]</a> δεκάπληγος. Qy. δεκάπληγμος? The word is apparently dragged -in for the sake of making a pun with πληγή, “a stroke.” Πληγμός is a -medical term for a seizure or apoplectic stroke, and probably has the -same root.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_548" href="#FNanchor_548" class="label">[59]</a> πληγή.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_549" href="#FNanchor_549" class="label">[60]</a> δεκάπληγος καὶ δεκάλογος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_550" href="#FNanchor_550" class="label">[61]</a> Salmon (<i>art. cit.</i>) thinks this may have some connection with the -Quartodeciman heresy mentioned later in the book.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_551" href="#FNanchor_551" class="label">[62]</a> So Cruice, <i>in omnibus istis creaturam sine fermento mundi</i>, but -I see no meaning in the words.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_552" href="#FNanchor_552" class="label">[63]</a> Isa. xl. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_553" href="#FNanchor_553" class="label">[64]</a> These are the “accidents” of substance which Hippolytus has -attributed in Book VI to Pythagoras, and in Book VII to Aristotle. -See pp. <a href="#Page_21">21</a> and <a href="#Page_64">64</a> <i>supra</i>. According to Book VI (<i>ubi cit.</i>) the [Neo-] -Pythagoreans also used the image of the tittle.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_554" href="#FNanchor_554" class="label">[65]</a> Probably some follower of Monoimus, but not otherwise known.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_555" href="#FNanchor_555" class="label">[66]</a> So the Codex. Duncker and Cruice would both read σεαυτῷ, “for -thyself.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_556" href="#FNanchor_556" class="label">[67]</a> Of the source of this chapter little can be said. Both the statements -in the earlier part of the text and the letter to Theophrastus -bear internal marks of having been taken from real documents. They -contain also some peculiarities of diction and construction, which would -be quite consistent with their author being an Oriental imperfectly -acquainted with Greek.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_557" href="#FNanchor_557" class="label">[68]</a> This short notice of Tatian is condensed from the almost equally -short notice of Irenæus (I, xxviii.), who seems to connect Tatian with -the sect of Encratites. Eusebius (<i>Hist. Eccl.</i>, I, xvi.), while mentioning -him as a pupil of Justin, does not speak of him as a heretic. Epiphanius -(<i>Haer.</i>, XLVI) follows Irenæus, and Theodoret (<i>Haer. Fab.</i>, I, -xx.), Hippolytus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_558" href="#FNanchor_558" class="label">[69]</a> Of this Hermogenes we know already from Tertullian’s tract -against him to be found in the second volume of Oehler’s edition -of Tertullian’s works. The date of this tract is said on good authority -to be 206 or 207 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>, and as it speaks of Hermogenes as then -living, gives us his approximate date also. It is further said that -he was a painter, probably of mythological subjects, that he lived -at Carthage, and that he was several times married. Clement of -Alexandria also mentions him, and it is suggested that both Tertullian -and Clement drew from a tract against him said by Eusebius -to have been written by Theophilus of Antioch. The heretical tenets -with which he is charged are his contention that God could not have -created the world from nothing and that Matter must therefore be co-existent -with Him, that Christ on His Ascension left His body in the -Sun, and that Adam was not saved. The first of these Tertullian -would derive from Stoic teaching, while he does not touch on the -second, which is, however, recorded by Clement, nor on the third, -which Irenæus (I, xxviii) attributes to the Encratites. It is probable, -however, that all three may be derived from the Western Asian -tradition, which later gave birth to Manichæism, of which therefore -Hermogenes’ heresy may prove to have been a forecast.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_559" href="#FNanchor_559" class="label">[70]</a> ὕλην ἄκοσμον, “unordered matter.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_560" href="#FNanchor_560" class="label">[71]</a> οὐσία, “substantia,” Cr. and Macm.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_561" href="#FNanchor_561" class="label">[72]</a>Μαρτυρίᾳ δὲ χρῆται.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_562" href="#FNanchor_562" class="label">[73]</a> Ps. xix. 4, 5, “set up his tabernacle in the Sun,” A. V.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_563" href="#FNanchor_563" class="label">[74]</a> The probable source of this chapter has been dealt with in the -note on previous page.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_564" href="#FNanchor_564" class="label">[75]</a> This is, I think, the first mention of the Quartodecimans as -heretics. Eusebius, who thinks that the schism on the point began in -the reign of Commodus, treats them with great tenderness, and says -(<i>Hist. Eccl.</i>, cc. xxiii. and xxiv.), that “the Churches of all Asia” held -their opinions, and that Irenæus himself pleaded their cause before -Pope Victor. Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i>, XXX) says that they derived their -origin from a mixture of the Phrygian and Quintillian or Priscillianist -sects, probably confusing them with the Montanists.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_565" href="#FNanchor_565" class="label">[76]</a> Gal. v. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_566" href="#FNanchor_566" class="label">[77]</a> This heresy of the “Phrygians” is, of course, that generally -called the Montanist, which seems to have broken out about the year -180. For some time it was not violently opposed by the orthodox, and -Tertullian himself became a convert to it and probably died in its confession. -Later it came to be looked upon as an enemy only one -degree less prejudicial to the Catholic Church than Gnosticism, and -therefore one to be stamped out by excommunication in pre-Constantinian -times, and by persecution afterwards. Its tenets are sufficiently -summarised in our text for a general understanding of them and their -connection with later forms of Patripassianism; but any one wishing to -go further into the subject is recommended to read Dr. Salmon’s able -article on “Montanus” in <i>D.C.B.</i>, which will give him all that is really -known as to the sect and its tendencies. Its centre seems to have been -always Asia Minor.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_567" href="#FNanchor_567" class="label">[78]</a> ταῦτα τὰ γύναια. The phrase is Aristotelian. Cf. same word -later on same page.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_568" href="#FNanchor_568" class="label">[79]</a> χάρισμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_569" href="#FNanchor_569" class="label">[80]</a> ξηροφαγίας καὶ ράφανοφαγίας. First phrase, “dry food.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_570" href="#FNanchor_570" class="label">[81]</a> There is no reason to believe that in what he says here Hippolytus -is drawing from any written document. As the Montanists on being -condemned by the rest of the Church appealed first to the Gallic -Churches in which Hippolytus’ master Irenæus was a leading spirit, -and later to the Church of Rome, all that he says about them -must have been familiar to his hearers without referring to any earlier -writers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_571" href="#FNanchor_571" class="label">[82]</a> Ἐγκρατῖται, from ἐγκρατεῖς, “the continent ones.” Many Gnostic -sects, <i>e. g.</i> those of Saturninus and Marcion seem to have been called -Encratites, the reason given by themselves for their abstinence being -the malignity of matter. But it is plain from Hippolytus’ statement as -to the orthodoxy in other matters of those he describes, that these -were not Gnostics, but Catholics who practised asceticism inordinately. -This is doubtless his reason for quoting St. Paul against them and for -ignoring Irenæus’ statement that Tatian was their founder, that they -taught a system of Aeons and denied the salvation of Adam. Bearing -in mind that he thought the Docetae to be an independent sect, it -seems probable that in this Book he intended to turn his back upon -the Gnostics and to describe only the other sects with a closer resemblance -to orthodox Judaism and Christianity. The whole work would -thus form a roughly graduated scale extending from the undisguised -heathenism of the Ophites to the purely theological errors of Callistus, -the description of which seems designed to form the climax of the book. -The fact that it was probably, as said in the Introduction, begun, laid -aside, and then taken up again and finished, is sufficient to account for -discrepancies like that involved in the concluding sentence of this -Book.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_572" href="#FNanchor_572" class="label">[83]</a> πεφυσιωμένοι. Cf. the Φυσιώσεις of 2 Cor. xii. 20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_573" href="#FNanchor_573" class="label">[84]</a> τῆς ὑγαινούσης διδασκαλίας. The N.T. substitutes πιστέως, -“faith,” for “teaching,” and omits the adjective.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_574" href="#FNanchor_574" class="label">[85]</a> 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, <i>verbatim</i> save as in last note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_575" href="#FNanchor_575" class="label">[86]</a> It follows from this that Hippolytus is indebted to no other writer -than himself for the facts in this chapter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_576" href="#FNanchor_576" class="label">[87]</a> Νοαχιτῶν. The Codex has Νοχαϊτων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_577" href="#FNanchor_577" class="label">[88]</a> The Cainites are described by Irenæus (I, xxxi) as anterior to -Valentinus. The Noachites are mentioned by no other writer. It is -difficult to account for the remarks of Hippolytus about the Ophites in -this passage in view of the fact that the greater part of Book V has -been devoted to the doctrines of the “Naassenes”—a word which he -evidently recognized as identical with “Ophites.” Unless we are to -believe that Ὀφιτῶν is here a copyist’s error for the name of some other -sect, we are almost compelled to accept the theory given in the Introduction, -<i>i. e.</i> that the materials for Book V only came into Hippolytus’ -hands after the rest of the book was written, and that their heresy was -then suddenly pitchforked into the place in which we find it without -due consideration of its accord with passages like the present. In that -case the “seven Books before this” on p. 397 Cr. must originally have -read “five,” unless we are to suppose that their place was occupied by -the description of the Jewish sects later transferred to Book IX.</p> - -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="sidenote">p. 424.</div> -<div class="chapter"> -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_117"></a>[117]</div> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="BOOK_IX" title="BOOK IX NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS"> -BOOK IX<br /> -NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS</h2> -</div> - - -<p>1. <span class="smcap">These</span> are the contents of the 9th (Book) of the -Refutation of All Heresies.</p> - -<p>2. What is the blasphemous folly of Noetus and that he -gave heed to the doctrines of Heraclitus the Obscure and -not to those of Christ.</p> - -<p>3. And how Callistus having mingled the heresy of -Cleomenes, Noetus’ disciple, with that of Theodotus, set up -another and newer heresy, and what was his life.</p> - -<p>4. What was the fresh invasion<a id="FNanchor_578" href="#Footnote_578" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> of the stranger spirit -Elchesai and that he covers his own transgressions by -appearing to keep to the Law, while he in fact devotes -himself to Gnostic opinions [entirely], or to astrological -and magical ones in addition.</p> - -<p>5. What are the customs of the Jews and how many -their differences.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>6. A long fight has now been fought by us concerning -all [early] heresies, and we have left nothing unrefuted. -There still remains the greatest fight of all, [to wit] to -<span class="sidenote">p. 425.</span> -thoroughly describe and refute the heresies risen up in our -own day, by means whereof certain unlearned and daring -men have attempted to scatter the Church to the winds, -[thereby] casting the greatest confusion among all the -faithful throughout the world. For it seems fit that we -should attack the opinion which was the first cause of -[these] evils and expose its roots, so that its offshoots, being -thoroughly known to all, may be contemned.</p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_118"></a>[118]</div> -<h3 id="IX_1">1. <i>About Noetus.</i></h3> - -<p>7. There was a certain man, Noetus<a id="FNanchor_579" href="#Footnote_579" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> by name, by birth -a Smyrnæan. He introduced a heresy from the opinions -of Heraclitus. Of which [Noetus], a certain man named -Epigonus becomes the minister and pupil, and on his -arrival at Rome sowed broadcast the godless doctrine. -Whose teaching Cleomenes, by life and manners alien to -the Church, confirmed, when he had become his disciple.<a id="FNanchor_580" href="#Footnote_580" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 426.</span> -At that time Zephyrinus, an ignorant and greedy man, -thought that he ruled the Church, and, persuaded by the -gain offered, gave leave to those coming to him to learn of -Cleomenes.<a id="FNanchor_581" href="#Footnote_581" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> And himself also being in time beguiled, -ran into the same errors, his fellow-counsellor and comrade -in this wickedness being Callistus, whose life and the heresy -invented by him, I shall shortly set forth. The school of -these successive [teachers] continued to grow stronger and -increased through the help given to it by Zephyrinus and -Callistus. Yet we never yielded, but many times withstood -them to the face, refuted them, and compelled them perforce -to confess the truth. They being ashamed for a season, -and being brought by the truth to confession, before long -returned to wallowing in the same mire.<a id="FNanchor_582" href="#Footnote_582" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_119"></a>[119]</span> -8. But since we have pointed out the genealogical -succession of these [men], it appears left to us to set forth -their evil mode of teaching their doctrines. The opinions -of Heraclitus the Obscure being first explained, we shall -then make evident the parts of [their doctrines] which are -<span class="sidenote">p. 427.</span> -Heraclitan, but which, perhaps, the present chiefs of the -heresy do not know to be those of the Obscure, but think -to be those of Christ. Should they meet with these [words], -they might, thus being put to shame, cease from their -godless blasphemy.<a id="FNanchor_583" href="#Footnote_583" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> And although the teachings of Heraclitus -have been before expounded by us in this [our] -<i>Philosophumena</i>,<a id="FNanchor_584" href="#Footnote_584" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> yet it seems expedient to repeat them -now, so that by their closer refutation, those who think they -are disciples of Christ may be plainly taught that they are -not His, but are those of the Obscure.</p> - -<p>9. Now Heraclitus says that the All is (one),<a id="FNanchor_585" href="#Footnote_585" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> divided -[and] undivided, originated [and] unoriginated, mortal [and] -immortal, reason [and] eternity,<a id="FNanchor_586" href="#Footnote_586" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> Father [and] Son, a just -God. “It is wise,” says Heraclitus, “that those who -listen, not to me, but to reason,<a id="FNanchor_587" href="#Footnote_587" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> should acknowledge all -things to be one.” And because all men do not know nor -acknowledge this, he reproves them somehow thus: “They -do not understand how anything that is diverse can agree -<span class="sidenote">p. 428.</span> -with itself. It is an inverse harmony, like that of a bow -and a lyre.” But that the All is ever Reason<a id="FNanchor_588" href="#Footnote_588" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> and exists by -it, he thus declares:—“That this Reason ever exists, men -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_120"></a>[120]</span> -do not understand either before they hear it or when they -hear it first. For while all things come to pass according -to this Reason, they seem to be ignorant of it, although -they seem to have attempted endlessly<a id="FNanchor_589" href="#Footnote_589" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> by words and -deeds such a description as I now give by analysis of their -nature and by saying how things are.” But that the All is -a Son and for ever an eternal being of the universals, he -says thus: “A boy playing at tables<a id="FNanchor_590" href="#Footnote_590" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> is Eternity; the -kingdom is a boy’s.” That he is father of all things that -have been generated, begotten and unbegotten, the creation -and [its] Demiurge, we have his saying: “War is father of -<span class="sidenote">p. 429.</span> -all, but king of all; and it displays some men as gods, -others as men; some it makes slaves, others free. Because -[this]<a id="FNanchor_591" href="#Footnote_591" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> is a harmony like that of bow and lyre.” But that -the unapparent, the unseen and unknown by men is [better],<a id="FNanchor_592" href="#Footnote_592" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> -he says in these words: “An unapparent harmony is better -than an apparent.” He thus commends and admires -that which is unknown to him before that which is known, -and the invisible before that which can be [seen]. And -that it is to be seen of men and is not undiscoverable, he -says in these words: “Whatever sight, hearing [and] -learning can receive,<a id="FNanchor_593" href="#Footnote_593" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> I honour before all,” he says, that is, -[I prefer]<a id="FNanchor_594" href="#Footnote_594" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> the things seen to those unseen. From such -phrases of his it is easy to comprehend his argument. He -says that men are deceived in regard to the knowledge of -things apparent like Homer, who was the wisest of all the -Greeks. For children when killing lice, tricked him by -<span class="sidenote">p. 430.</span> -saying: “What we see and clutch we leave behind; but -what we neither see nor clutch, we take away with us.”</p> - -<p>10. Thus Heraclitus supposes the apparent to have an -equal lot and honour with the unapparent, as if the -apparent and the unapparent were admittedly one. “For,” -he says, “an unapparent harmony is better than an apparent,” -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_121"></a>[121]</span> -and “Whatever sight, hearing [and] learning [these are the -organs] can receive, this, he says, I honour above all,” -thus not honouring by preference the unapparent. And so -Heraclitus says that neither darkness nor light, nor good -nor evil are different,<a id="FNanchor_595" href="#Footnote_595" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> but are one and the same. Therefore -he blames Hesiod that he did not know Day and -Night, for Day and Night, he says, are one, speaking -somehow like this: “Hesiod is the teacher of most things, -and they feel sure that he knew most things, who did not -[however] know Day and Night. For they are one.” And -[as to] good and evil:—“Now the surgeons,” says Heraclitus, -“usually cut, burn, and in every way torture the sick, -and complain that they receive from them no fitting reward -for their labours, although they do these good works on -<span class="sidenote">p. 431.</span> -the diseases.” And both straight and crooked, he says, are -the same. “The way of wool-carders, he says, is both -straight and crooked, [because] the revolution of the tool -called <i>cochleus</i><a id="FNanchor_596" href="#Footnote_596" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> is both straight and crooked; for it revolves -and moves upwards at the same time. It is, he says, one -and the same.” And upward and downward are, he says, -one and the same: “The way up and down is one and -the same.” And he says that the polluted and the pure -are one and the same, and the drinkable and the undrinkable -also. “The sea,” he says, “is at once the purest and -the most polluted water, for to fish it is drinkable and -salutary, but to man undrinkable and hurtful.”<a id="FNanchor_597" href="#Footnote_597" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> And in -the same way, he says, admittedly the immortal is mortal -and the mortal immortal, in such words as these: “Deathless -are mortals, and mortals are deathless, when the living -take death from these, and the dead life from those.” But -he speaks here of the resurrection of this visible flesh -<span class="sidenote">p. 432.</span> -wherein we have been born. And he knows God to be -the cause of this resurrection, saying thus: “Those here -will rise again and will become the busy guardians of living -and dead.” And he says also that the judgment of the -ordered world and of all therein will be by fire, speaking -thus: “Thunder governs all things,” that is, it corrects -them, meaning by “thunder” the everlasting fire. But he -says also that this fire is discerning and the cause of the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_122"></a>[122]</span> -government of the universals, and he calls it Need<a id="FNanchor_598" href="#Footnote_598" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> and -Satiety. Now Need is according to him the Ordering [of -the world],<a id="FNanchor_599" href="#Footnote_599" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> but Satiety the Ecpyrosis. For “Fire,” he -says, “coming suddenly will judge and seize all things.”<a id="FNanchor_600" href="#Footnote_600" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p> - -<p>In this chapter [entitled] “All Things Together,” the -peculiar thought of Heraclitus is set forth.<a id="FNanchor_601" href="#Footnote_601" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> But I have -also shown briefly that it is that of Noetus’ heresy, he being -a disciple not of Christ, but of Heraclitus. For that the -created world was its own Demiurge and creator, he declares -thus: “God is day and night, winter and summer, war and -peace, satiety and hunger.” “All things are contraries.” -This is the thought “but there is a change, as when one -<span class="sidenote">p. 433.</span> -incense is mixed with others; which [incense] is named -according to the pleasure of each.”</p> - -<p>But it is plain to all that the intelligent<a id="FNanchor_602" href="#Footnote_602" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> successors of -Noetus and the chiefs of the heresy, although you may -say that they were not [actual] hearers of Heraclitus, yet -by openly choosing<a id="FNanchor_603" href="#Footnote_603" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> the opinions of Noetus, acknowledge -the same things. For they say this: One and the same -God is the Father and Demiurge of all, having been -pleased, though invisible, to appear to the righteous men -of old. For when He is not seen He is invisible [but -when seen visible].<a id="FNanchor_604" href="#Footnote_604" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> And when He wishes to be uncontained, -He is uncontainable,<a id="FNanchor_605" href="#Footnote_605" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> and when He is contained, -He is containable. Thus by the same reasoning, He is -unconquerable<a id="FNanchor_606" href="#Footnote_606" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> [and conquerable], unbegotten [and begotten], -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_123"></a>[123]</span> -immortal and mortal. How can such as they be -shown not to be disciples of Heraclitus? Did not the -Obscure long ago philosophize in these very words?</p> - -<p>Now that [Noetus] says the Father and Son are the -same, no one is ignorant. These are his words. When, -then, the Father had not been born, He was rightly proclaimed -Father. And when He was pleased to undergo -<span class="sidenote">p. 434.</span> -birth, He having been begotten, became the Son of Himself -and not of another. For thus [Noetus] seems to -establish Monarchia<a id="FNanchor_607" href="#Footnote_607" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> by asserting the Father and the Son -so-called are one and the same, not another from another, -but Himself from Himself. And that He is called by the -name of Father [or Son] according to the change of times. -But that One was He who appeared and underwent birth -from a Virgin and dwelt as a man among men. And -acknowledged Himself to those who saw Him to be a Son -by reason of the birth that had taken place, but did not -conceal from those who could receive it that He was also -Father. And that He also suffered, being nailed to the -Tree and gave up His Spirit to Himself, and died and -did not die. And that He raised Himself again the third -day after having been buried in a tomb and pierced with -a spear and nailed with nails. This One Cleomenes and -his band say was God and Father of the universals, thereby -drawing a Heraclitan darkness over many.<a id="FNanchor_608" href="#Footnote_608" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_124"></a>[124]</div> -<h3 id="IX_2">2. <i>About Callistus.</i></h3> - -<p>11. To this heresy Callistus<a id="FNanchor_609" href="#Footnote_609" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> gave strength—a man artful -in evil and versatile in falsehood, who was seeking after the -<span class="sidenote">p. 435.</span> -bishop’s throne. And he led whither he liked Zephyrinus,<a id="FNanchor_610" href="#Footnote_610" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> -an ignorant man, unlearned and unskilled in the Church’s -rules, whom [Callistus] persuaded by gifts and extravagant -demands. [And as Zephyrinus] was a receiver of bribes -and a money-lover, he induced him to be ever making -faction between the brethren, while he himself by crafty -words contrived that at the last both parties should be -friendly to himself. And sometimes he deceived those who -thought truly, by saying that he thought for his own part -like things with them; and again he said likewise to those -[who held] the opinions of Sabellius, whom, when he might -have brought him into the right way, he abandoned. For -Sabellius did not harden [his heart] to our<a id="FNanchor_611" href="#Footnote_611" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> admonitions, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_125"></a>[125]</span> -but when he got alone with Callistus, he was urged by him -to relapse towards the doctrine of Cleomenes, alleging that -he was of like opinions. [Sabellius] did not then understand -his trickery, but knew it afterwards, as I will shortly -explain.<a id="FNanchor_612" href="#Footnote_612" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> - -<p>Now [Callistus] bringing forward Zephyrinus himself, persuaded -him to say publicly: “I know one God, Christ Jesus, -<span class="sidenote">p. 436.</span> -and beside Him I know no other, begotten and susceptible -of suffering.” And at one time he said: “The Father did -not die but the Son,” and thus maintained without ceasing -the faction among the people.<a id="FNanchor_613" href="#Footnote_613" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> Knowing whose designs, -we did not give way to him, but refuted and withstood him -for the Truth’s sake. He also, advancing towards madness, -through everyone concurring with him—though we did not—called -us ditheists,<a id="FNanchor_614" href="#Footnote_614" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> thus violently spitting forth the concealed -poison within him. It seems good to us then to set -forth the lovable<a id="FNanchor_615" href="#Footnote_615" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> life of this man since he was born at the -same time as ourselves, in order that by the mode of life of -such a one being made apparent, the heresy which he has -taken in hand may become well and quickly known to those -who have right mind. He bore witness<a id="FNanchor_616" href="#Footnote_616" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> when Fuscianus -was Prefect of Rome;<a id="FNanchor_617" href="#Footnote_617" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> and the manner of his martyrdom -was on this wise.</p> - -<p>12. [Callistus] chanced to be a house-slave of a certain -Carpophorus,<a id="FNanchor_618" href="#Footnote_618" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> a man of the faith who was of Cæsar’s household. -To him as to one of the faith Carpophorus entrusted -no little money on his promising to bring in profit from the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_126"></a>[126]</span> -business of a money-dealer. Who taking it, set up a money-changer’s -stall in the place called the <i>Piscina Publica</i>,<a id="FNanchor_619" href="#Footnote_619" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> to -whom in course of time not a few deposits were entrusted by -<span class="sidenote">p. 437.</span> -widows and brethren on the strength of Carpophorus’ name. -But he having made everything disappear,<a id="FNanchor_620" href="#Footnote_620" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> was in difficulties. -When he had done this, one<a id="FNanchor_621" href="#Footnote_621" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> was not lacking to tell -Carpophorus; and Carpophorus said that he required -accounts from him. Callistus being aware of this and suspecting -danger from his master,<a id="FNanchor_622" href="#Footnote_622" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> took flight and made for -the sea. Who finding a ship at Portus<a id="FNanchor_623" href="#Footnote_623" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> ready to sail when -she should have her cargo, went on board intending to sail. -But he could not thus escape; for one was not lacking to -tell Carpophorus what had happened. And he having -halted at the harbour according to the news given him, -tried to hurry to the ship. But she was lying in the middle -of the harbour, and the ferryman being slow, Callistus saw -his master afar off, and knew that as he was in the ship he -would be taken. So he disregarded life and thinking that -his end had come, cast himself into the sea.<a id="FNanchor_624" href="#Footnote_624" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> But the -sailors, jumping down into the boats, dragged him out -<span class="sidenote">p. 438.</span> -against his will amid a great shouting from the shore. And -thus he was handed over to his master and taken -away to Rome, whence his master sentenced him to the -<i>Pistrinum</i>.<a id="FNanchor_625" href="#Footnote_625" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p> - -<p>But time having gone on, some brethren, as generally -happens, came forward and besought Carpophorus that he -would set free the runaway from punishment, affirming that -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_127"></a>[127]</span> -he had admitted having gold laid up with certain persons.<a id="FNanchor_626" href="#Footnote_626" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> -And Carpophorus like a pious man said that he did not -care about his own [money], but that he was concerned -about the deposits. For many cried to him with tears that -they had trusted to his name when confiding money to -Callistus, and [Carpophorus] being persuaded, ordered him -to be released. But he having nothing to pay back and not -being able to run away again because he was watched, -devised a scheme for [obtaining] death. On a Sabbath day, -pretending to go forth to his debtors, he rushed into the -synagogue of the assembled Jews, and stayed there factiously -opposing them.<a id="FNanchor_627" href="#Footnote_627" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> But when they were factiously opposed by -him, they abused and rained blows upon him and haled him -before Fuscianus, who was then Prefect of the City. And -this was their accusation:—“The Romans have conceded -to us the right to read aloud publicly the laws of our -fathers. But this man coming in forbade it, making a -<span class="sidenote">p. 439.</span> -faction against us, and affirming that he was a Christian.” -And as Fuscianus chanced to be on the judgment-seat, and -was angered by the words of the Jews against Callistus, one -was not lacking to tell Carpophorus what was being done. -And he, hastening to the judgment-seat, cried out to the -Prefect, “I beseech you, O Lord Fuscianus, do not believe -this man, for he is not a Christian, but seeks occasion of -death, having made away<a id="FNanchor_628" href="#Footnote_628" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> with much money of mine, as I -will prove.”<a id="FNanchor_629" href="#Footnote_629" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> But the Jews thinking this to be a fetch, as -if Carpophorus were seeking by this speech to get him set -at liberty, cried out against him to the Prefect with increased -fury. And he being moved by them, had [Callistus] -scourged and sent him to a mine in Sardinia.</p> - -<p>But after a time, there being other martyrs there, Marcia, -being a God-loving woman and a concubine of Commodus -<span class="sidenote">p. 440.</span> -and having wished to do some good work, summoned -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_128"></a>[128]</span> -before her the blessed Victor, who was Bishop of the -Church at that time,<a id="FNanchor_630" href="#Footnote_630" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> and enquired what martyrs there were -in Sardinia. And he gave her the names of all, but did not -give her that of Callistus, knowing what he had dared to -do. Then Marcia, having succeeded in her petition to -Commodus, gave the liberating letter to an elder named -Hyacinthus, a eunuch,<a id="FNanchor_631" href="#Footnote_631" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> who took it and sailed for Sardinia, -and having handed it to the Administrator<a id="FNanchor_632" href="#Footnote_632" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> of the place -for the time being, set free all the martyrs with the exception -of Callistus. But he, on his knees and weeping, besought -that he also might be set free. Then Hyacinthus was -moved by entreaty and required the Administrator [to do -this] affirming that he was the foster-father of Marcia and -arranging to hold the Administrator harmless. And he -being persuaded [in turn] set free Callistus also.<a id="FNanchor_633" href="#Footnote_633" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> Upon -whose coming [to Rome], Victor was much annoyed at -what had befallen; but, as he was a compassionate man, -held his peace. But to guard against the reproach of many—for -<span class="sidenote">p. 441.</span> -the audacities of Callistus were not a long way off—and -Carpophorus was still an obstacle, he sends him to -abide in Antium, making him a certain monthly allowance -for his support.<a id="FNanchor_634" href="#Footnote_634" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> After [Victor’s] falling asleep, Zephyrinus -having had [Callistus] as a coadjutor in the management of -the clergy, honoured him to his own detriment, and sending -for him from Antium, set him over the cemetery.<a id="FNanchor_635" href="#Footnote_635" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> And -Callistus being ever with [Zephyrinus], and as I have said -before, serving him with guile,<a id="FNanchor_636" href="#Footnote_636" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> put him in the background<a id="FNanchor_637" href="#Footnote_637" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> -as neither able to judge what was said to him nor to comprehend -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_129"></a>[129]</span> -all the counsels of Callistus when talking to him of -what things pleased him. Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, -[Callistus] thinking that he had succeeded in his -pursuit,<a id="FNanchor_638" href="#Footnote_638" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> put away Sabellius as one who does not hold right -opinions. For [Callistus] was afraid of me and deemed -that he could thus wipe off the charge [against him] before -the Churches,<a id="FNanchor_639" href="#Footnote_639" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> just as if he held no different opinions from -theirs.</p> - -<p>Now Callistus was a sorcerer<a id="FNanchor_640" href="#Footnote_640" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> and a trickster and in time -<span class="sidenote">p. 442.</span> -snatched away many. And harbouring the poison in his -heart, and devising nothing straight, besides being ashamed -to declare the truth because he had reproached us in public, -saying: “Ye are ditheists,”<a id="FNanchor_641" href="#Footnote_641" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> but especially because he had -often been accused by Sabellius of having strayed from his -first faith, he invented some such heresy as this:—He says -that the Word is the Son and that He is also the Father, -being called by that name, but being one undivided Spirit.<a id="FNanchor_642" href="#Footnote_642" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> -And that the Father is not one thing and the Son another; -but that they subsist [as] one and the same. And that all -things above and below are filled with the Divine Spirit, and -that the Spirit which was incarnate in the Virgin was not -other than the Father, but one and the same. And that -this is the saying: “Dost thou not believe that I am in the -Father and the Father in Me?”<a id="FNanchor_643" href="#Footnote_643" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> For that which is seen, -which is a man, that is the Son; but the Spirit which is -contained in the Son, that is the Father. “For I do not,” -<span class="sidenote">p. 443.</span> -he says, “say that there are two Gods, Father and Son, but -One. For the Father who existed in Him, having taken on -Him the flesh, made it God by union with Himself and -made it one [Being] so that He is called Father and Son, -one God. And that this [God] being one Person cannot be -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_130"></a>[130]</span> -two.”<a id="FNanchor_644" href="#Footnote_644" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> And so he said that the Father had suffered <i>with</i> -the Son; for he did not like to say that the Father suffered -and was One Person, [so as] to avoid<a id="FNanchor_645" href="#Footnote_645" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> blasphemy against -the Father. [Thus this] senseless and shifty fellow, scattering -blasphemies high and low, so that he may only seem -[not] to speak against the Truth, is not ashamed to lean -now towards the doctrine of Sabellius and now towards that -of Theodotus.<a id="FNanchor_646" href="#Footnote_646" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p> - -<p>The sorcerer having dared such things, set up a school -against that of the Church,<a id="FNanchor_647" href="#Footnote_647" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> thus to teach. And first he -contrived to make concessions to men in respect of their -pleasures, telling every one that their sins were remitted -by himself. For if any one who has been received<a id="FNanchor_648" href="#Footnote_648" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> by -another and calls himself Christian should transgress, he -says, the transgression of him will not be reckoned against -him if he hastens to the school of Callistus. And many -were pleased with this proposition,<a id="FNanchor_649" href="#Footnote_649" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> having been stricken -with conscience as well as cast out of many heresies. And -<span class="sidenote">p. 444.</span> -some even after having been cast by us out of the Church -by a [regular] judgment, joining with these last, filled the -school of Callistus. He laid it down that if [even] a bishop -commits any sin, though it should be one unto death, he -ought not to be deposed. In his time bishops and priests -and deacons who had married twice and even thrice began -to keep their places among the clergy.<a id="FNanchor_650" href="#Footnote_650" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> For if any one who -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_131"></a>[131]</span> -was in the clerical order<a id="FNanchor_651" href="#Footnote_651" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> should marry, he [decided] that -he should remain in the order as if he had not sinned, -saying that what was spoken by the Apostle was said with -regard to this [viz.:] “Who art thou that judgest another -man’s servant?”<a id="FNanchor_652" href="#Footnote_652" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> And also the Parable of the Tares, he -says spoke as to this: “Let the tares grow to the harvest,”<a id="FNanchor_653" href="#Footnote_653" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> -that is, let the sinners remain in the Church. But he also -said that the ark of Noah was made into an image<a id="FNanchor_654" href="#Footnote_654" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> of the -Church, wherein were dogs and wolves and crows and all -clean and unclean [animals]. Thus, he affirms, ought the -Church to do likewise; and as many things as he could -bring together on this point, he thus interpreted.</p> - -<p>Whose hearers being attracted by these doctrines continue -[to exist], deluding themselves and many others, crowds of -<span class="sidenote">p. 445.</span> -whom flock into the school. Wherefore they are multiplied -and rejoice in the crowds, by reason of the pleasures which -Christ did not permit. Whom slightly regarding, they forbid -no one to sin, affirming that they themselves remit sins to -those with whom they are well pleased. For [Callistus] has -also permitted women, if they, being unmarried and in the -prime of life, turned towards some one unworthy of their -station, or did not wish to lessen it by [marriage], to hold -any bedfellow they might choose as lawfully married to -them, whether he was a house slave or free,<a id="FNanchor_655" href="#Footnote_655" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> and to consider -this person although not married by law as in the -place of a husband.<a id="FNanchor_656" href="#Footnote_656" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> From this the so-called faithful -women began to make attempts with abortifacient drugs -and to gird themselves tightly so that they might cast out -what they had conceived, through their not wishing on -account of their family or superabundant wealth to have -a child by a slave or some mean person. See now what -impiety the lawless one has reached when he teaches -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_132"></a>[132]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 446.</span> -adultery and murder at the same time! And in the face of -these audacities the shameless ones attempt to call themselves -a Catholic Church, and some think that they do well -to join with them.</p> - -<p>Under this [Callistus, too], a second baptism has been -ventured upon by them for the first time.<a id="FNanchor_657" href="#Footnote_657" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> These things -the most amazing Callistus has set on foot, whose school -still persists and preserves the customs and tradition [of the -Church], nor does it discriminate as to whom it should hold -communion with, but offers communion indiscriminately to -all. From whom also they are called by a name that they -share with him, and, by reason of the protagonist of such -works being Callistus, are called Callistians.<a id="FNanchor_658" href="#Footnote_658" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="IX_3" title="3. Concerning Elchesaites.">3. <i>Concerning Elchesaites.</i><a id="FNanchor_659" href="#Footnote_659" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></h3> - -<p>13. When the teaching of this [Callistus] had been dispersed -<span class="sidenote">p. 447.</span> -over the whole world, a certain man called Alcibiades -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_133"></a>[133]</span> -dwelling at Apamea in Syria, who was crafty and full of -impudence, and having looked into the matter, deemed -himself more forcible and expert in tricks than Callistus, -arrived in Rome bringing with him a book.<a id="FNanchor_660" href="#Footnote_660" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> He pretended -that a righteous man (called) Elchasai, had received the -same from the Seres<a id="FNanchor_661" href="#Footnote_661" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> of Parthia and gave it to one called -Sobiae,<a id="FNanchor_662" href="#Footnote_662" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> as having been revealed by an angel. The height -of which angel was 24 schoeni,<a id="FNanchor_663" href="#Footnote_663" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> which is 96 miles; but -the girth was 4 schoeni, and from shoulder to shoulder -6 schoeni; and his footprints were 3½ schoeni in length, -which is 14 miles,<a id="FNanchor_664" href="#Footnote_664" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> their width 1½ schoeni, and their depth -half a schoenus. And that there was with him also a female -whose measure, he says, accorded with those aforesaid. -And that the male is the Son of God, and that the female -is called the Holy Spirit. Describing these portents, he is -wont to distract the foolish by this address: “A new -remission of sins was brought as good news to men in the -third year of the reign of Trajan.” And he prescribes -(therefore) a baptism which I will explain (later). He affirms -that of those wrapped in all licentiousness and pollution -and breaches of the Law, if any such be a believer and turns -again and hearkens to and believes on the book, he determines -<span class="sidenote">p. 448.</span> -that he shall receive by baptism remission of sins.</p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_134"></a>[134]</span> -These tricks he audaciously elaborated, starting from -the doctrine before described which Callistus had brought -forward. For he, having understood that many rejoiced at -such an announcement,<a id="FNanchor_665" href="#Footnote_665" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> thought that his enterprise would -be timely.<a id="FNanchor_666" href="#Footnote_666" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> Yet we withstood him also, and did not permit -very many to go astray, refuting them<a id="FNanchor_667" href="#Footnote_667" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> [with the argument] -that this was the work of a spurious<a id="FNanchor_668" href="#Footnote_668" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> spirit and of a -puffed-up heart; and that the man like a wolf had risen -up among the many stray sheep which the false guide -Callistus had scattered abroad. But, since we have begun, -we shall not be silent regarding the doctrines of this man -also; and we shall bring to light the (mode of) life (he -advocates),<a id="FNanchor_669" href="#Footnote_669" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> and shall then prove that his supposed discipline -is a make-believe. And then again I will explain -the chief of his sayings, so that the reader who has studied -<span class="sidenote">p. 449.</span> -his writings may know thoroughly what and of what quality -is the heresy on which he has ventured.</p> - -<p>14. He puts forward as a bait, conformity with the -Law,<a id="FNanchor_670" href="#Footnote_670" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> claiming that those who have believed ought to be -circumcised and to live according to the Law while clutching -at something from the heresies aforesaid. And he says -that Christ was a man born in the way common to all; -and that He was not now begotten for the first time from -a virgin, but that both in the first instance and then many -times since, He had been begotten and born, appeared and -grown up, alternating births and changing one body for -another, wherein He makes use of the Pythagorean teaching.<a id="FNanchor_671" href="#Footnote_671" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> -But [the Elchesaites] are so vainglorious as to say -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_135"></a>[135]</span> -that they themselves foretell the future, starting evidently -from the measures and numbers of the Pythagorean art -before described. And they give heed to mathematics and -astrology and magic as if they were true, and they use these -things to astonish the weak-minded, so that they may think -themselves partakers in a mighty matter. They give also -incantations and spells<a id="FNanchor_672" href="#Footnote_672" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> to those bitten by dogs and to possessed -and other diseased persons concerning which we -<span class="sidenote">p. 450.</span> -shall not be silent. Having then sufficiently detailed the -sources and causes of their audacities, I will proceed to -repeat their writings, whereby the reader may know at once -their folly and their godless endeavours.</p> - -<p>15. To his catechumens, then, [Alcibiades] administers -baptism, speaking such words as these to those whom he -deceives: “If, therefore, any one has gone in unto a child, -or to any kind of animal, or to a male or to a brother or -to a daughter, or has committed adultery or fornication, and -wishes to receive remission of sins, immediately he hears -this book, let him be baptized a second time in the name -of the Great and Highest God and in the name of His Son, -the Great King. And let him be purified and be chaste -and call to witness the seven witnesses who are written in -this book [to wit], the Heaven and the Water, and the -Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and the -salt and the Earth.”<a id="FNanchor_673" href="#Footnote_673" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> These are the wonderful mysteries -of Elchasai, the hidden and great things which he hands -<span class="sidenote">p. 451.</span> -down to the disciples who are worthy. And the lawless one -is not content with these, but before two or three witnesses -puts the seal on his own crimes, again speaking thus: “I -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_136"></a>[136]</span> -say again, O adulterers and adulteresses and false prophets, -if you wish to turn again so that your sins may be remitted -unto you, peace shall be yours, and a portion with -the just, if immediately you hearken to this book and are -baptized a second time with your garments.”</p> - -<p>But since we have said that these persons use incantations -over those bitten by dogs and over others, we shall point out -[these also]. Thus he speaks: “If a furious and mad dog -in whom is the breath of death,<a id="FNanchor_674" href="#Footnote_674" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> bite or tear or touch any -man or woman or man-child or maid-child, in the same -hour let [the bitten one] run with all his clothing and go -down to a river or a pool where there is a deep place, and -let him be baptized there with all his clothing, and let him -pray<a id="FNanchor_675" href="#Footnote_675" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> to the Great and Highest God in faith of heart, and -then call to witness the Seven Witnesses who are written -<span class="sidenote">p. 452.</span> -in this book, saying: ‘Lo! I call to witness the Heaven -and the Water and the Holy Spirit and the Angel of -Prayer and the oil and the salt and the Earth. I call to -witness these Seven Witnesses that I will no more sin, nor -commit adultery, nor steal, nor do injustice, nor be greedy, -nor cherish hatred, nor break faith, nor take pleasure in any -evil deeds.’ Then upon saying this, let him be baptized with -all his clothing in the name of the Great and Highest God.”</p> - -<p>16. But in most other matters he talks nonsense, and -teaches [the repetition of] the same spells over the phthisical, -and the baptizing of them in cold water forty times a week. -And in the same way with those possessed of devils. O -wisdom inimitable and incantations filled full of powers! -Who will not be struck at such and so great a power of -words? But since we have said that they also make use -of the error of the astrologers, let us prove this out of their -own mouths. Thus he says: “There are evil stars of -impiety. This is now spoken unto you, O God-fearing -<span class="sidenote">p. 453.</span> -men<a id="FNanchor_676" href="#Footnote_676" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> and disciples. Beware of the days of their authority,<a id="FNanchor_677" href="#Footnote_677" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_137"></a>[137]</span> -and begin no works on these days, and baptize not man nor -woman in the days of their authority when the moon goes -forth with them and journeys with them.<a id="FNanchor_678" href="#Footnote_678" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> Be ye ware from -that day until the moon leaves them utterly and then -baptize and begin in every beginning of your works. -Honour also the Sabbath Day for it is one day out of -these.<a id="FNanchor_679" href="#Footnote_679" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> But beware of beginning ought in the third day -from the Sabbath, because when three years of the reign -of Trajan Cæsar were fulfilled, he brought the Parthians -under his sway.<a id="FNanchor_680" href="#Footnote_680" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> And when three years more are completed -war will rage between the angels of the impiety of -the North,<a id="FNanchor_681" href="#Footnote_681" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> and thereby all the kingdoms of iniquity will -be troubled.”<a id="FNanchor_682" href="#Footnote_682" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p> - -<p>17. Since, now, he believes it would be unreasonable -that these great and secret mysteries should be trampled -<span class="sidenote">p. 454.</span> -underfoot or delivered to many, he advises that they should -be preserved as if they were costly pearls,<a id="FNanchor_683" href="#Footnote_683" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> saying thus: -“Read not these words to all men and keep their commandments -carefully, since not all men are faithful nor all -women straight.” But these things neither the sages of the -Egyptians, nor Pythagoras the sage of the Greeks withdrew -within their sanctuaries. For had Elchasai chanced -to live at the time, what need would there have been for -Pythagoras, or Thales, or Solon, or Plato the wise, or the -rest of the Greeks to learn of the priests of the Egyptians, -seeing that they would have had so much and so great -wisdom from Alcibiades, the most wonderful interpreter -of the wretched Elchasai? Now therefore it seems that -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_138"></a>[138]</span> -enough has been said for persons of sound mind to have -a complete knowledge of the madness of these [heretics], -wherefore it does not seem fit to make use of any more -of their sayings, which are many and laughable.</p> - -<p>But since we have not passed over the things which have -sprung up among ourselves, and have not been silent on -those which [happened] before our time, it seems proper, -so that we may go into everything and leave nothing unexpounded, -to say something of the [customs] of the Jews -<span class="sidenote">p. 455.</span> -also, and what are the differences among them; for I think -that up till now this has been passed over.<a id="FNanchor_684" href="#Footnote_684" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> [And] when I -shall have spoken of these,<a id="FNanchor_685" href="#Footnote_685" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> I shall proceed to the exposition -of the Word of Truth.<a id="FNanchor_686" href="#Footnote_686" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> So that after the lengthy -struggle of the discourse against all heresies, we, firmly -pressing forward to the crown of the kingdom, and believing -on the things which are true, may not be confounded.<a id="FNanchor_687" href="#Footnote_687" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="IX_4" title="4. Jews.">4. <i>Jews.</i><a id="FNanchor_688" href="#Footnote_688" class="fnanchor">[111]</a></h3> - -<p>18. Originally there was one nation of Jews. For one -teacher had been given them by God [namely] Moses, and -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_139"></a>[139]</span> -through him was given one Law. And there was one -desert and one mountain [namely] Sinai; for one God was -their legislator. But after they had crossed the river -Jordan and had divided by lot the land won by the spear, -they rent asunder in different ways the Law of God, each -understanding the precepts differently. And thus they set -up teachers for themselves and found out heretical opinions -and advanced in schism. Whose diversity I shall set forth; -but although for a long time they have been scattered in -many divisions, yet I will expose [only] the chief of them, -whence the lovers of learning<a id="FNanchor_689" href="#Footnote_689" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> may easily know the rest. -<span class="sidenote">p. 456.</span> -For three sects<a id="FNanchor_690" href="#Footnote_690" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> are distinguished among them, and the -adherents of one of these are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, -and the others<a id="FNanchor_691" href="#Footnote_691" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> are Essenes. These [last] practise -the more holy life [of the three], loving one another and -observing continence. And they turn away from every -deed of concupiscence, holding it hateful even to listen to -such things. They renounce marriage, but take the -children of others and bring them up in their customs, -thus adopting<a id="FNanchor_692" href="#Footnote_692" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> them and impelling them to the sciences, -[but] not forbidding them to marry, although they themselves -abstain from it. But they admit no women, even -those who are willing to devote themselves to the same -policy, nor give heed to them, for they distrust women -altogether.</p> - -<p>19. And they despise wealth and do not shrink from -sharing with those who lack [it], although none of them is -richer than another. For it is a law among them that any -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_140"></a>[140]</span> -one entering the heresy must sell his possessions and offer -<span class="sidenote">p. 457.</span> -the price to the common stock, which the ruler receives -and distributes to all for their needs. Thus there is no -want among them. And they use not oil, thinking anointing -their bodies pollution. But there are stewards appointed -by vote who look after all their property in common, and -all of them wear white garments always.</p> - -<p>20. And there is not one city of them, but many of them -dwell in every city. And if one of the practisers of the -heresy<a id="FNanchor_693" href="#Footnote_693" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> should arrive from a strange country, they hold all -things in common for him, and those whom they knew not -before they receive as guests and intimates. And they -travel about their native land, and when they go on a -journey they carry nothing with them except arms. And -they have in every city a ruler who spends what is collected -for the purpose of providing clothes and food for them. -And their dress and its fashion are modest. They do not -possess two tunics or a double set of footgear; but when -those in use become old, they take others. And they -neither buy nor sell anything at all; but if one possesses -ought, he gives it to him who lacks, and what he has not, -he receives [in its stead].<a id="FNanchor_694" href="#Footnote_694" class="fnanchor">[117]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 458.</span> -21. But they lead a well-ordered and regular life, and -always pray at dawn, not speaking before they have praised -God. And thus they all go forth and do what work -they will, and after working until the fifth hour, leave off. -Then, assembling again in one place, they gird themselves -with linen cinctures so as to conceal their privities, and -thus wash in cold water. And after having thus purified -themselves, they gather together in one dwelling—but no -one who thinks differently from them is with them in the -house—and they get to breakfast. And sitting down in -order, they are offered bread in silence, and then some one -kind of food from which each has a sufficient portion. But -none of them tastes anything till the priest has blessed and -prayed over it. And after breakfast, when he has again -prayed, they offer up praises to God. Then, laying aside -as holy the garments with which they are clothed while -indoors—and these are of linen—and receiving again the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_141"></a>[141]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 459.</span> -others in the vestibule, they hasten to their favourite work -until the afternoon. And they take supper in all respects as -before described. And none ever shouts, nor is any other -uproarious sound heard, but each one speaks quietly, every -one decently yielding the conversation to the other, so that -to those without the silence of those within seems somewhat -of a mystery. And they are at all times sober, eating and -drinking everything by measure.<a id="FNanchor_695" href="#Footnote_695" class="fnanchor">[118]</a></p> - -<p>22. Now all give heed to the president<a id="FNanchor_696" href="#Footnote_696" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> and what he -commands they obey as law. For they are zealous to pity -and help the downtrodden. And before all things they -abstain from rage and anger and such-like, judging that -these betray mankind. And none takes oath to the other, -but what each one says is judged stronger than an oath. -And if any one takes an oath, he is condemned as one not -to be believed (without God).<a id="FNanchor_697" href="#Footnote_697" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> And they are diligent concerning -the recital of the Law and the Prophets, and also if -<span class="sidenote">p. 460.</span> -there should be any summary<a id="FNanchor_698" href="#Footnote_698" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> [of these] [made by one] of -the faithful, [they listen to it?] And they are very curious -concerning plants and stones, being very inquisitive as to -their operation, as they think that these did not come into -being in vain.</p> - -<p>23. But to those who wish to become disciples of the -heresy, they do not straightway impart the traditions, until -they have first made trial of them. For a year they set -before them the same sort of food as [is served] to themselves, -but outside their assembly and in another house. -And they give them a hatchet and the linen cincture -and white garments. When they have during this period -given proof of continence, they draw nearer to the way of -living [of the others] and are purified more thoroughly than -at first, but they do not take their food with them. For -after they have shown that they can practise continence, for -another two years’ trial is made of such a one’s character, -and on his appearing worthy, he is adjudged so [to be -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_142"></a>[142]</span> -received] by them. Before, however, he can eat with them, -he is sworn with fearful oaths; first, that he will show piety -towards the Divine, then that he will observe justice towards -men, and will in no way wrong any, nor hate anyone who -<span class="sidenote">p. 461.</span> -wrongs him or who is an enemy to him, but will pray for him. -And that he will fight on the side of the just and will keep -faith with all, especially with those who bear sway, nor be -disobedient to them. For it happens to none to rule save -by God. And if [the aspirant] should bear rule, that he -will never be arrogant in authority, nor make more use -than is customary of any ornament; but is to love the truth, -<span class="sidenote">p. 462.</span> -to refute the liar, and not to steal, nor soil his conscience -with unlawful gain, nor hide ought from his fellow-heretics. -And will tell nothing [of their secrets] to others even if he -shall suffer violence unto death. Besides this, he swears to -them to impart none of the doctrines [of the sect] otherwise -than as he himself received them. By such oaths, -therefore, do they bind those who come unto them.<a id="FNanchor_699" href="#Footnote_699" class="fnanchor">[122]</a></p> - -<p>24. But if any should be convicted in any transgression, -he is cast out of the order, and he that is cast out sometimes -perishes by a fearful fate. For, being bound by the oaths -and customs, he cannot take food with other people. -Therefore sometimes they utterly destroy the body by -famine. Wherefore in the last extremity they sometimes -take pity on many already dying, thinking the penalty unto -death sufficient for them.<a id="FNanchor_700" href="#Footnote_700" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p> - -<p>25. Concerning their judgments, they are most careful -and just. They deliver judgment after assembling not less -<span class="sidenote">p. 463.</span> -than a hundred and what they determine is irrevocable. -And they honour the Lawgiver [next] after God, and if anyone -blasphemes him, he is punished. And they are taught -to give ear to the rulers and elders; and if ten are sitting in -the same place, one will not speak unless the others wish. -And they are careful of spitting in front of them or on the -right side; and more than all the Jews, they arrange to -abstain from work on the Sabbath. For not only do they -prepare their food one day before, so as not to light a fire, -but they neither move an implement nor relieve nature. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_143"></a>[143]</span> -And some of them will not even get out of bed. But on -other days, when they wish to evacuate, they dig a pit a -foot long—with the hoe—for such is the hatchet which -they give their adherents when first becoming disciples<a id="FNanchor_701" href="#Footnote_701" class="fnanchor">[124]</a>—and -covering it on all sides with their cloak, sit down, -affirming that they must not insult the rays [of the Sun]. -Then they throw back the excavated earth into the pit. -And this they do choosing the most deserted places, [and] -when they have done this they straightway wash, as if the -<span class="sidenote">p. 464.</span> -secretion were polluting.<a id="FNanchor_702" href="#Footnote_702" class="fnanchor">[125]</a></p> - -<p>26. But in course of time they have drawn apart and do -not [all] observe the discipline in the same way,<a id="FNanchor_703" href="#Footnote_703" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> being -divided into four parts. For some of them are more austere -than they need be, so that they will carry no coin, saying -that they must not bear any image, nor look upon it, nor -make it. Wherefore none of them goes into a city, lest he -shall enter in through a gate whereon are statues, as they -think it unlawful to pass under an image. And others, if -they hear anyone holding forth about God and His Law, -will watch such an one until he is alone in some place, and -threaten to kill him if he be not circumcised. Whom, if -he does not consent, he does not spare, but slays him. -Whence from this occurrence they take their name, being -called Zealots, but by some Sicarii. And yet others of -them name none Lord but God, even if any should torture -or slay them. And those who succeeded them became so -much worse than their discipline that they would not touch -<span class="sidenote">p. 465.</span> -those who remained in the ancient customs: [or] if they -did so [by accident] they straightway washed themselves as -if they had touched one of another sect. And the majority -are long-lived, so that they live more than a hundred years. -Now they say that the cause of this is their consummate -piety towards God, and their condemning the serving [of -food] without measure and to their being continent and -slow to anger. And they despise death rejoicing that they -can make an end with a good conscience. But if any one -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_144"></a>[144]</span> -should torture such [men] to make them speak ill of the -Law or to eat food offered to idols, they would not do so, -suffering death and supporting tortures so that they may -not go beyond their conscience.<a id="FNanchor_704" href="#Footnote_704" class="fnanchor">[127]</a></p> - -<p>27. But the doctrine of the Resurrection is also strong -among them. For they confess that the flesh rises again -and will be immortal in the same way that the soul is -already immortal. Which soul when it departs from the -body, abides in an airy and well-lighted place until judgment, -which place the Greeks hearing of it called [the] Islands of -the Blessed. But there are other opinions of them which -<span class="sidenote">p. 466.</span> -many of the Greeks appropriated and maintained as their -own teaching. For the discipline among them concerning -the Divine is earlier than all nations, as is proved by all -that the Greeks have ventured to say about God or the -fashioning of the things that are starting from no other -source than the Jewish Law. Wherefrom especially Pythagoras -and those of the Porch took much, having been -instructed in it by the Egyptians. And [the Essenes] say -also that there will be a judgment and a conflagration of -the All, and that the unjust will be punished everlastingly. -And prophecy and the foretelling of things to come are -practised among them.<a id="FNanchor_705" href="#Footnote_705" class="fnanchor">[128]</a></p> - -<p>28. Now there is another order of Essenes making use -of their customs and way of life, but they differ from these -[just described] in the one [point of] marriage; saying that -those who reject marriage do a fearful thing. And they -declare that this comes to the taking-away of life, and that -one must not cut off the succession of children, and that -if everyone thought like this, the whole race of men might -easily be cut off. They certainly try their wives for a period -of three years; but when they have had three purifications, -so as to prove that they can bear children, they wed them. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_145"></a>[145]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 467.</span> -But they do not company with them when pregnant, proving -[thereby] that they do not marry for pleasure but from need -of children. And the women wash themselves in the -same way and don linen garments in the same way as -the men with their cinctures. This, then, concerning the -Essenes.<a id="FNanchor_706" href="#Footnote_706" class="fnanchor">[129]</a></p> - -<p>But there are others also disciplined in the customs of -the Jews, and called both legally and generically Pharisees. -The majority of whom are [to be found] in every place, -and all call themselves Jews, but on account of the special -opinions held by them are called besides by specific names.<a id="FNanchor_707" href="#Footnote_707" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> -Now they, while holding fast the ancient tradition, continue -to enquire methodically into what things are clean and what -unclean according to the Law. And they interpret the -things of the Law, putting forward teachers for that purpose. -And they say that Fate is, and that some things are due to -free-will and some to Fate, so that some [come] by ourselves -and some by Fate. But that God is the cause of all, and -that nothing is arranged or happens without His will. And -they confess the Resurrection of the Flesh and that the -<span class="sidenote">p. 468.</span> -soul is immortal, and [admit] a judgment to come and a -future conflagration, and that the wicked will be punished -in unquenchable fire.</p> - -<p>29. But the Sadducees eliminate Fate, and confess that -God neither does nor contemplates anything evil; but that -man has the power to choose the good or evil. But they -deny not only the Resurrection of the Flesh, but also consider -that the soul does not survive. But that its [function] -is to live and that that is why man is born. And that the -doctrine of the Resurrection is fulfilled by leaving children -on earth when we die. But that after death there will be -no hope of suffering either evil or good. For [they say that] -there will be a dissolution of soul and body and that man -will go to that which is not in the same way as the other -animals. And that if a man has great possessions, and -having become rich is [thereby] glorified, he is so far the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_146"></a>[146]</span> -gainer; but that God does not take care of the affairs of -<span class="sidenote">p. 469.</span> -any one individual. And while the Pharisees love one -another, the Sadducees love [only] themselves. The same -heresy was especially strong round about Samaria. And -they give heed to the customs of the Law, saying that one -ought to do so that one may live well and leave children -behind on earth. But they pay no attention to the Prophets, -nor to any other wise men, but only to the Law [given] -through Moses. Nor do they interpret anything. This -then is the heresy of the Sadducees.<a id="FNanchor_708" href="#Footnote_708" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p> - -<p>30. Since now we have set forth the differences among -the Jews, it seems proper not to pass over in silence the -discipline of their service of God. Now there is a fourfold -system with regard to the service of God among all Jews -[to wit] Theological, Physical, Moral and Ceremonial.<a id="FNanchor_709" href="#Footnote_709" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> -And they say that there is one God, the Demiurge of the -All and the Maker of all things that before were not,<a id="FNanchor_710" href="#Footnote_710" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> nor -did He make them from any subordinate essence, but He -willed and created. And that there are angels and that -they have come into being for the service of creation; but -that there is also a Spirit having authority ever standing -beside Him for the glory and praise of God. And that all -things in the creation have sensation and that nothing is -without soul.<a id="FNanchor_711" href="#Footnote_711" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> And they pursue customs tending to a holy -<span class="sidenote">p. 470.</span> -and temperate life as is to be recognized in their Law. But -these things were of old carefully laid down by those who -originally received a God-made Law, so that the reader will -be astonished at so much moderation and care in the -customs prescribed for man. But the ceremonial service -offered in becoming fashion was excellently performed by -them as it is easy for those who wish to learn by reading -the Book discoursing on these matters.<a id="FNanchor_712" href="#Footnote_712" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> [There they will -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_147"></a>[147]</span> -see] how reverently and devoutly they offered to God the -things given by Him for the use and enjoyment of man, -obeying Him orderly and constantly. Some of these -[doctrines] the Sadducees reject; for they hold that neither -angels nor spirit exist.<a id="FNanchor_713" href="#Footnote_713" class="fnanchor">[136]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 471.</span> -But all alike wait for Christ, the Coming One foretold by -the Law and the Prophets. But the time of the Coming -was not known of the Jews, [so that] the supposition endured -that the sayings which appeared to concern the Coming -were unfulfilled. But they expect that Christ will presently -come, since they did not recognize His presence. And -seeing the signs of the times of His having come already, -this troubles them, and they are ashamed to confess that He -has come, since with their own hands they became His -murderers, through anger at being convicted by Him of -not having hearkened to their Laws. And they say that -He who was thus sent by God is not Christ. But they -confess that another will come who as yet is not, and will -bear some of the signs which the Law and the Prophets -foreshowed; but some things they imagine wrongly. For -they say that his birth will be from the race of David, but -not from a Virgin and [the] Holy Spirit, but from a woman -and a man, as it is a rule for all to be begotten from seed. -And they declare that he will be a king over them, a man -of war and a mighty one, who, having gathered together the -whole nation of Jews, will make war on all the nations and -<span class="sidenote">p. 472.</span> -re-establish for them Jerusalem as the royal city. Whereunto -he will gather in the whole nation, and again will -restore the ancient customs, while [the nation] is king and -priest<a id="FNanchor_714" href="#Footnote_714" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> and dwells in security for a sufficient time. Then -shall again spring up against them a war of [the nations] -gathered together. In this war the Christ shall fall by the -sword and not long afterwards the end and conflagration -of the All shall draw near, and thus their conjectures about -the Resurrection shall be fulfilled, and everyone shall be -recompensed according to his works.<a id="FNanchor_715" href="#Footnote_715" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_148"></a>[148]</span> -31. It seems to us that the opinions of all Greeks and -Barbarians have been sufficiently set forth, and that nothing -has been left undemonstrated either of the philosophizings<a id="FNanchor_716" href="#Footnote_716" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> -or of the things imagined by the heretics. To those among -them [who read this], the refutation from what has been set -forth is clear [viz.] that either plagiarizing from or laying -under contribution what the Greeks have elaborated, they -have put them forward as divine. Now, having run through -all [these systems] and having declared with much labour -in the nine books [above] all these opinions, thereby leaving -to all men a little guide through life, and furnishing to the -<span class="sidenote">p. 473.</span> -readers a study of no little joy and gladness, we think it -reasonable to present as the conclusion of the whole [work] -a discourse on the Truth.<a id="FNanchor_717" href="#Footnote_717" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> And we shall write this in one -book, [viz.] the Tenth. So that the reader, having recognized -the overthrow which the heresies of these audacious -men have sustained, may not only despise their follies, but -by also recognizing the power of the Truth, [and] by -worthily believing in God, can be saved.</p> - - -<h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_578" href="#FNanchor_578" class="label">[1]</a> ἡ καινὴ ἐπιδημία. The book Elchesai, as will presently be seen, -is said to have been revealed “in the third year of Trajan” and therefore -long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably refers -here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_579" href="#FNanchor_579" class="label">[2]</a> This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i>, LVII) would make a native -of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against whom -Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called Patripassian, -which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on the -Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was “not very long” dead when -Hippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus’ Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi, -<i>Bibl. Vet. Patr.</i> II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to have -been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern -in origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius. -Hippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and -Callistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the last-named -Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon’s -articles in <i>D.C.B.</i>, s.n.n. “Noetus,” “Praxeas,” “Epigonus” and -“Cleomenes,” and Mr. Hugh Pope’s article on “Monarchian” in -Hastings’ <i>Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_580" href="#FNanchor_580" class="label">[3]</a> Theodoret (<i>Haer. Fab.</i>, III, 3) would reverse this position and -make Cleomenes Epigonus’ teacher and not his pupil. He has -probably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists -frequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their -successors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_581" href="#FNanchor_581" class="label">[4]</a> This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus’ quarrel with the -Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus’ predecessor in the Roman Chair, he -speaks well. Cf. p. <a href="#Page_128">128</a> <i>infra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_582" href="#FNanchor_582" class="label">[5]</a> Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_583" href="#FNanchor_583" class="label">[6]</a> δυσφημίας.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_584" href="#FNanchor_584" class="label">[7]</a> ἐν τοῖς φιλοσοφουμένοις. The Codex has Φιλοσοφουμένους. He -evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>) he has given a few -words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous -reference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_154">154</a> <i>supra</i>) where -he calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI -(p. <a href="#Page_4">4</a> <i>supra</i>) where he attributes Simon’s image of “a fiery God” not to -Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice’s emendation holds good this shows -that Book I was originally published separately and called “Philosophizings,” -the rest of the work being known as the <i>Elenchus</i> or -“Refutation.” Cf. Introduction <i>supra</i>. Bishop Wordsworth (St. -<i>Hippolytus and the Church of Rome</i>, London, 1880), gets over the -difficulty by reading the passage ἐν τοὺς Φιλοσοφουμένους ἡμῖν, “in this -our Philosophumena,” and this reading has been adopted in this -translation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_585" href="#FNanchor_585" class="label">[8]</a> Cf. Stobaeus, <i>Eclog. Phys.</i>, I, xlii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_586" href="#FNanchor_586" class="label">[9]</a> λόγον αἰῶνα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_587" href="#FNanchor_587" class="label">[10]</a> τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας, “listen to the argument.” Hippolytus had -he written in English would doubtless have said “the Word,” but this -has a different connotation in modern language.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_588" href="#FNanchor_588" class="label">[11]</a> λόγος without the article.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_589" href="#FNanchor_589" class="label">[12]</a> ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι πειρεώμενοι. It is very difficult to make sense of -these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them untranslated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_590" href="#FNanchor_590" class="label">[13]</a> πεττεύων. Playing at <i>tessera</i> or draughts. Cr., <i>tesseras jaciens</i>, -a game in which there was chance as well as skill like backgammon. -Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into Heraclitus’ mouth.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_591" href="#FNanchor_591" class="label">[14]</a> Some word missing here.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_592" href="#FNanchor_592" class="label">[15]</a> κρείττων supplied from the next quoted sentence.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_593" href="#FNanchor_593" class="label">[16]</a> The Codex has ὅσον ὄψις κ.τ.λ. Cruice substitutes ὅσων and -translates <i>Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_594" href="#FNanchor_594" class="label">[17]</a> Something probably omitted here also.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_595" href="#FNanchor_595" class="label">[18]</a> ἕτερον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_596" href="#FNanchor_596" class="label">[19]</a> A screw. Also a staircase.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_597" href="#FNanchor_597" class="label">[20]</a> ὀλέθριον, “destructive.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_598" href="#FNanchor_598" class="label">[21]</a> χρημοσύνη. Cr., <i>Inopia</i>, Macm., “Craving.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_599" href="#FNanchor_599" class="label">[22]</a> διακόσμησις. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the Creation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_600" href="#FNanchor_600" class="label">[23]</a> So Clem. Alex., <i>Strom.</i>, V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict the destruction -of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to the Stoics.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_601" href="#FNanchor_601" class="label">[24]</a> It has not been thought well to delay the reader by attempting -to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients themselves -did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the only likeness -between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his successors was -due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel between -them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by his -own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_602" href="#FNanchor_602" class="label">[25]</a> A pun on νοητός, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper name.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_603" href="#FNanchor_603" class="label">[26]</a> Another pun between ἁιρουμένοι and αἵρεσις.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_604" href="#FNanchor_604" class="label">[27]</a> The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book X.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_605" href="#FNanchor_605" class="label">[28]</a> Ἀχώρητος, “that cannot be confined (in space),” or what we mean -when we say that He is infinite.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_606" href="#FNanchor_606" class="label">[29]</a> ἀκράτητος, “that cannot be dominated.” One would have -expected the word ἀνίκητος; but as this was one of the honorific -titles of the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_607" href="#FNanchor_607" class="label">[30]</a> Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and Ruler of All. -The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time, and the word -Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_608" href="#FNanchor_608" class="label">[31]</a> There can be little doubt as to the source of this chapter. The -quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of extracts, like -the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the taking: -the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are doubtless -taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus before -“the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as -described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on p. -<a href="#Page_118">118</a> <i>supra</i>. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made use of -the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains the -allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to be -found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and -Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no -reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion -of Noetus or his successors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_609" href="#FNanchor_609" class="label">[32]</a> In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses his chief -reason for the publication or republication of the whole work. The -controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in the Primitive -Church which it affords has now died down, and we are therefore able -to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion that the -Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person has -now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’ adversary -was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of Rome -between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being -quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story -which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by the -frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor -Duchesne (<i>Hist. ancienne de l’Église</i>, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. -Chapman (<i>The Catholic Encyclopædia</i>, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), -of the view that the calumnies against Callistus here put -forward, although much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. -In this, they follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at -the first appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been -found to seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw -attention to the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s -opinion, garbled or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has -seemed more satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The -references, except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition -of Döllinger’s <i>Hippolytus and Callistus</i>, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ -primacy appears from several testimonies to have lasted from <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 218 -to 223, when he was killed apparently in a riot.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_610" href="#FNanchor_610" class="label">[33]</a> Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 202 to 218.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_611" href="#FNanchor_611" class="label">[34]</a> τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a <i>pluralis -majestatis</i> consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself Bishop of -Rome.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_612" href="#FNanchor_612" class="label">[35]</a> The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers difficulty, -and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The reading -of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not -doubtful.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_613" href="#FNanchor_613" class="label">[36]</a> ἐν τῷ λαῷ, <i>i. e.</i> “the laity.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_614" href="#FNanchor_614" class="label">[37]</a> “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. -219) this accusation was well founded.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_615" href="#FNanchor_615" class="label">[38]</a> ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth, Cruice -and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems -good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_616" href="#FNanchor_616" class="label">[39]</a> ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word, which -might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been -martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_617" href="#FNanchor_617" class="label">[40]</a> Ἔπαρχος. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 188 to 193.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_618" href="#FNanchor_618" class="label">[41]</a> Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose inscription is to -be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, <i>Bull.</i>, 1866, p. 3, and -Duchesne, <i>Hist. ancienne</i>, I, p. 294, n. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_619" href="#FNanchor_619" class="label">[42]</a> “Public Fishpool.” It was one of the fourteen <i>Regiones</i> of the -city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is here -not translated, but written in Greek letters.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_620" href="#FNanchor_620" class="label">[43]</a> ἐξαφανίσας. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his address -to Fuscianus later. Döllinger, <i>op. cit.</i>, argues that this does not -necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus’ part as he may have lost -the money in an attempt to increase his master’s profit. See note on -next page.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_621" href="#FNanchor_621" class="label">[44]</a> οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς. Bunsen calls this “a rank Latinism.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_622" href="#FNanchor_622" class="label">[45]</a> Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 109) draws attention to Carpophorus’ cruelty -as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian to the awful -punishment of the treadmill.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_623" href="#FNanchor_623" class="label">[46]</a> Portus Ostiensis or Ostia, the Port of Rome.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_624" href="#FNanchor_624" class="label">[47]</a> Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 110) argues that this was not suicide but an -attempt to escape.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_625" href="#FNanchor_625" class="label">[48]</a> εἰς πίστρινον, transliterated as before. The terrible nature of this -punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio, <i>Dict. des Antiq.</i>, -s.h.v.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_626" href="#FNanchor_626" class="label">[49]</a> Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 110) thinks that he had lent it to the Jews, -and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_627" href="#FNanchor_627" class="label">[50]</a> See last note. In Döllinger’s opinion, he only went there to ask -for his money.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_628" href="#FNanchor_628" class="label">[51]</a> ἀφανίσας.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_629" href="#FNanchor_629" class="label">[52]</a> Döllinger (<i>ubi cit.</i>) points out that Carpophorus’ speech throws -further light on his character. Callistus <i>was</i> a Christian, as Hippolytus -admits. Carpophorus’ anxiety to prevent his being sentenced is explained -by the fear of losing Callistus’ services, sentence of penal -servitude acting as manumission.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_630" href="#FNanchor_630" class="label">[53]</a> Victor’s exact date is uncertain, but he probably succeeded -Eleutherus as Pope in <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 189 and was himself succeeded by -Zephyrinus in 202.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_631" href="#FNanchor_631" class="label">[54]</a> τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ. Some would translate “priest”; but -the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_632" href="#FNanchor_632" class="label">[55]</a> ἐπιτροπεύων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_633" href="#FNanchor_633" class="label">[56]</a> Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>) thinks there is no doubt from this that Callistus -was both condemned and set free as a Christian.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_634" href="#FNanchor_634" class="label">[57]</a> From this, from the intervention of the brethren with Carpophorus -and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>) -draws the conclusion that Callistus’ conduct up to this point must have -seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_635" href="#FNanchor_635" class="label">[58]</a> The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his name, -where many of the early Popes are buried.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_636" href="#FNanchor_636" class="label">[59]</a> ὑποκρίσει.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_637" href="#FNanchor_637" class="label">[60]</a> ἐξηφάνισε. See n. 3 on p. <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_638" href="#FNanchor_638" class="label">[61]</a> <i>i. e.</i> imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_639" href="#FNanchor_639" class="label">[62]</a> Evidently refers to Hippolytus’ charge of Sabellianism against -him.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_640" href="#FNanchor_640" class="label">[63]</a> γόης. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is unusual.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_641" href="#FNanchor_641" class="label">[64]</a> See note on p. <a href="#Page_125">125</a> <i>supra</i>. Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 219) thinks that -Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests that Origen -may have shared the error.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_642" href="#FNanchor_642" class="label">[65]</a> Bishop Wordsworth (<i>St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome</i>, 1880, -p. 87) would translate: “The Word is the Son and also the Father, -being called by a different name, but that the indivisible Spirit is one.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_643" href="#FNanchor_643" class="label">[66]</a> Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has πιστεύετε μοι, “Believe me” -(imperative).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_644" href="#FNanchor_644" class="label">[67]</a> Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 216) says this is a correct statement of the -Catholic position.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_645" href="#FNanchor_645" class="label">[68]</a> Bunsen would read ἐκφυγών, [“thus] avoiding.” Cruice inserts -οὕτω πως ἐλπίζων, “thus hoping to avoid.” Döllinger inserts ὥστε -before ἐκφυγεῖν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_646" href="#FNanchor_646" class="label">[69]</a> If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of Byzantium -mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by -Victor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and -his opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_647" href="#FNanchor_647" class="label">[70]</a> Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus assumes -that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that Callistus -and the more numerous party within it are only a “school.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_648" href="#FNanchor_648" class="label">[71]</a> συναγόμενος, “gathered in,” “a member of any other man’s -congregation,” Wordsworth; <i>ab alio fuerat seductus</i>, Cruice, whom -Macmahon follows.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_649" href="#FNanchor_649" class="label">[72]</a> A logical term.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_650" href="#FNanchor_650" class="label">[73]</a> εἰς κλήρους. Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 140) points out that Lectors, -acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in the phrase ἐν -κλήρῳ afterwards used, and that such persons were not forbidden to -marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no doubt that -Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that Callistus -did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more than -once.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_651" href="#FNanchor_651" class="label">[74]</a> ἐν κλήρῳ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_652" href="#FNanchor_652" class="label">[75]</a> Rom. xiv. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_653" href="#FNanchor_653" class="label">[76]</a> Matt. xiii. 29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_654" href="#FNanchor_654" class="label">[77]</a> εἰς ὁμοίωμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_655" href="#FNanchor_655" class="label">[78]</a> ἐλεύθερον, “a freed man”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_656" href="#FNanchor_656" class="label">[79]</a> Döllinger (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 158) suggests that this is a reference to the -<i>contubernium</i>, or concubinage known to Roman Law, which the -Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case of -Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted -that Hippolytus calls her παλλακὴ Κομόδου only.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_657" href="#FNanchor_657" class="label">[80]</a> This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does not accuse -Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was begun in his -time, is apparently brought in here to connect this chapter with the -next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any foundation, it would -certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_658" href="#FNanchor_658" class="label">[81]</a> No other author seems to have taken up this name, and the rest of -the paragraph shows that it was Callistus’ party which was regarded as -Catholic and Hippolytus’ as schismatic. As Hippolytus was writing of -matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of his -readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material from -any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in Callistus’ -life that he here narrates may have been obtained <i>vivâ voce</i> from -Carpophorus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_659" href="#FNanchor_659" class="label">[82]</a> This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and probably -had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before Christian -times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the -most effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression. -Prof. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the -Mandæan religion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on -the subject (<i>Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk</i>, Leipzig, -1912), thinks that Elchasai, a name which may mean something like -“Power of the Sun,” was a real man who flourished in the reign of -Trajan (<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 98-117), and founded in Syria an eclectic religion -made up of the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity, mingled with -the belief in the sovereign efficacy of baptism found among the -Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or “Washers,” who still exist. Thus, -according to En-Nadîm (Flügel’s <i>Mani</i>, p. 340), these Mughtasila in -the tenth century still reverenced as a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who -seems to be our Elchasai, along with Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. -It also appears that his successors sent out missionaries to the West, -including doubtless the Alcibiades of our text. Origen, in his Homily -on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having met with one of these who may -have been Alcibiades himself. They seem to have obtained some -success among the Ebionite and Essene communities on the shores of -the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and Eusebius (<i>Hist. Eccl.</i>, -VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at its birth. Epiphanius (<i>Haer.</i>, -XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions them in connection with the -“heresies” of the Nazaræans, Ebionites and Sampsæans respectively, -but like Theodoret does little but repeat Hippolytus’ statements.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_660" href="#FNanchor_660" class="label">[83]</a> This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer to -Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he -professed to receive his revelations.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_661" href="#FNanchor_661" class="label">[84]</a> ἀπο Σηρῶν, Chinese? Or it may be a town called Serae.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_662" href="#FNanchor_662" class="label">[85]</a> Brandt (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 42) thinks the word is Mandæan or Aramaic, -and means “the Baptized,” <i>i. e.</i> the Mughtasila.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_663" href="#FNanchor_663" class="label">[86]</a> These measurements, intended to show the enormous difference in -size between the celestial powers and mankind, are peculiarly Jewish -and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_664" href="#FNanchor_664" class="label">[87]</a> The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours. The -schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and -Persians.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_665" href="#FNanchor_665" class="label">[88]</a> <i>i. e.</i> as that of Callistus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_666" href="#FNanchor_666" class="label">[89]</a> Hippolytus’ motive in thus connecting Alcibiades’ visit with -Callistus’ proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing in common -in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he (probably -erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy of the -ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_667" href="#FNanchor_667" class="label">[90]</a> ἐλέγξαντες.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_668" href="#FNanchor_668" class="label">[91]</a> νόθος, “bastard.” Is this an allusion to the composite nature of -the Elchesaite religion?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_669" href="#FNanchor_669" class="label">[92]</a> All these phrases are so condensed as to make the conjectural -restoration of important words necessary. It would seem that the -author was here hurrying over his task.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_670" href="#FNanchor_670" class="label">[93]</a> νόμου πολιτείαν. The Jewish Law is of course intended.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_671" href="#FNanchor_671" class="label">[94]</a> Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered into the -conceptions of the Mandæans, Mughtasila, or any other sects with -which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist ideas -seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did -Alcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the -allusion to the Seres.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_672" href="#FNanchor_672" class="label">[95]</a> ἐπίλογοι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_673" href="#FNanchor_673" class="label">[96]</a> The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in the plural. -Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would be more than -that number. Brandt (<i>op. cit.</i>) thinks many mistakes in this chapter -are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic into Greek. -He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament celebrated -with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five elements of -Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant to which -Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from the -ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled -for the purpose of conjuration.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_674" href="#FNanchor_674" class="label">[97]</a> πνεῦμα διαφθορᾶς. Cruice and Macmahon both translate “spirit of -destruction.” It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors of the spell -seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal might -produce infection.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_675" href="#FNanchor_675" class="label">[98]</a> Both Miller and Duncker read προσευξάσθω, which has been -adopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads προσδειξάσθω, -“show himself unto.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_676" href="#FNanchor_676" class="label">[99]</a> εὐσεβεῖς. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those who -observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_677" href="#FNanchor_677" class="label">[100]</a> <i>i. e.</i> “on which they bear rule”—a well-known astrological phrase.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_678" href="#FNanchor_678" class="label">[101]</a> <i>i. e.</i> “rises and sets with them.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_679" href="#FNanchor_679" class="label">[102]</a> This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the evil stars -rule. Probably some words like “which God has chosen” are -omitted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_680" href="#FNanchor_680" class="label">[103]</a> Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan’s successful campaign -against the Parthians a calamity?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_681" href="#FNanchor_681" class="label">[104]</a> Ἄρκτων, lit., “of the Bears.” Thus Cruice. But it is probably -another case of putting plurals for singulars.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_682" href="#FNanchor_682" class="label">[105]</a> It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which fixes the date of -Elchasai’s book. If, however, we take Trajan’s invasion of Parthia at -<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 113, which seems the most likely date, the rebellion of the Jews -in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out within the three years -mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by Marcius Turbo and -Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may therefore well -be later than this.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_683" href="#FNanchor_683" class="label">[106]</a> A possible allusion to Matt. vii. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_684" href="#FNanchor_684" class="label">[107]</a> For the reason of this omission see Introduction, <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_685" href="#FNanchor_685" class="label">[108]</a> μηδὲ σιωπήσας, “when I have not kept silence about”—a roundabout -phrase.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_686" href="#FNanchor_686" class="label">[109]</a> This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X. This shows -the close connection between the Summary and the first nine Books, and -proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself, was -at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_687" href="#FNanchor_687" class="label">[110]</a> The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai were -doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to -Rome by Alcibiades.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_688" href="#FNanchor_688" class="label">[111]</a> The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in writing this -description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth Book are stated -in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted from Josephus, -the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by him, and the -words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to suggest -that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be a -Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely, since -Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but it -is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the account -of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some -Jewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, -the Messianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt -under Bar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as -he must have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish -nation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may -therefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements -which Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his -own agree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout -the marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except -where he is manifestly using the work of another as model, being -slurred over and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two -cases, he contradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, -making a subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. -See n. on p. <a href="#Page_147">147</a> <i>infra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_689" href="#FNanchor_689" class="label">[112]</a> οἱ φιλομαθεῖς. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean “the -learned” simply.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_690" href="#FNanchor_690" class="label">[113]</a> εἴδη, “species,” or “kinds.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_691" href="#FNanchor_691" class="label">[114]</a> ἕτεροι δὲ. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews are Essenes? -Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted as in the title to -this chapter. The rest of the section is almost <i>verbatim</i> from Josephus, -<i>de Bell Jud.</i>, II, 8, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_692" href="#FNanchor_692" class="label">[115]</a> τεκνυποιοῦνται, “make them their own children.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_693" href="#FNanchor_693" class="label">[116]</a> αἱρετιστῶν. A Latinism here used for the first time by Hippolytus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_694" href="#FNanchor_694" class="label">[117]</a> These two sections also are taken from Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, -3, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_695" href="#FNanchor_695" class="label">[118]</a> So is this. Cf. Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_696" href="#FNanchor_696" class="label">[119]</a> τῷ προεστῶτι. The president of the feast is evidently a different -person from the official of the same name in § 20, or of the ἱερεύς or -priest in § 21, <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_697" href="#FNanchor_697" class="label">[120]</a> Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose § 6 this -section is taken.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_698" href="#FNanchor_698" class="label">[121]</a> σύνταγμα, <i>volumen ad usum fidelium</i>, Cruice, “treatise,” -Macmahon.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_699" href="#FNanchor_699" class="label">[122]</a> This, too, is almost <i>verbatim</i> from Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, 7; but -it is to be noted that Hippolytus omits the obligation to preserve the -books of the sect and the names of the angels.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_700" href="#FNanchor_700" class="label">[123]</a> Cf. Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, § 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_701" href="#FNanchor_701" class="label">[124]</a> Like the Egyptian <i>turria</i>, an axe with its blade at right angles to -instead of in a line with the shaft. Much used for digging.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_702" href="#FNanchor_702" class="label">[125]</a> This section also is taken from Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, 9. Hippolytus -omits to say that the blasphemers of Moses were to be punished -capitally. The refusal to get out of bed is not mentioned by Josephus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_703" href="#FNanchor_703" class="label">[126]</a> τὴν ἄσκησιν, lit., “training,” as for a gymnastic competition. -Cf. our word “ascetic.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_704" href="#FNanchor_704" class="label">[127]</a> Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, § 10, says that the sect and not their teaching -was fourfold. He transfers the story of pollution by touch to the -attitude of the seniors towards the juniors, and knows nothing of the -gate story. The Zealots, according to him (<i>op. cit.</i>, VII, 8, 1) grew up -under the Sicarii, who defended Masada against the Romans in -Vespasian’s time. The rest of this section corresponds with his -Book II, 8, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_705" href="#FNanchor_705" class="label">[128]</a> In this section, Hippolytus leaves Josephus, except as to the -Islands of the Blessed and the Essene gift of prophecy, both of which -are to be found in Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, 11, 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_706" href="#FNanchor_706" class="label">[129]</a> Josephus (<i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, 13), almost <i>verbatim</i> through the whole -section.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_707" href="#FNanchor_707" class="label">[130]</a> ὀνόμασι κυρίοις, properly “nicknames.” He seems to imply that -while they called themselves Jews, other people knew them as Pharisees, -Chasidim, or Puritans. The statement about Fate and the everlasting -punishment of the wicked is to be found in Josephus (<i>op. cit.</i>, II, 8, 14), -but the reward of the good is there said to be metempsychosis.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_708" href="#FNanchor_708" class="label">[131]</a> This section also appears to be expanded from Josephus, <i>op. cit.</i>, -II, 8, 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_709" href="#FNanchor_709" class="label">[132]</a> ἱερουργική.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_710" href="#FNanchor_710" class="label">[133]</a> He here seems to imply that in the view of the Jews, at any rate, -the All was made from pre-existent material, as a house from bricks, -while some things were created <i>e nihilo</i>. This is denied in the next -sentence.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_711" href="#FNanchor_711" class="label">[134]</a> ἄψυχον. Perhaps with Cruice and Macmahon, we should translate -“without <i>life</i>.” Yet it seems hardly possible that Jews considered -stones and minerals as alive.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_712" href="#FNanchor_712" class="label">[135]</a> Leviticus?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_713" href="#FNanchor_713" class="label">[136]</a> Here he, or perhaps some commentator, has to contradict what he -has just said about “all” Jews believing these doctrines.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_714" href="#FNanchor_714" class="label">[137]</a> βασιλεῦον καὶ ἱερατεῦον, “acting as kings and priests.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_715" href="#FNanchor_715" class="label">[138]</a> Here again it is plain that “all Jews” could not believe this -statement of Messianic hopes, and the Sadducees in particular would -have repudiated what he says about the Resurrection and future -recompense.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_716" href="#FNanchor_716" class="label">[139]</a> τῶν φιλοσοφουμένων, a play quite in Hippolytus’ usual manner on -the name of the Book and its meaning. It should be noted that the -“things imagined by the heretics” correspond to the second title, -“Refutation of all Heresies.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_717" href="#FNanchor_717" class="label">[140]</a> He has already promised this in the conclusion to the chapter on the -Elchesaites (p. <a href="#Page_138">138</a> <i>supra</i>), which strengthens one’s conviction that that -on the Jews was an afterthought. It is plain, however, that nine Books -were intended to precede the “Discourse on the Truth.” Here again, -he does not mention the Summary.</p> - -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="sidenote">p. 474.</div> -<div class="chapter"> -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_149"></a>[149]</div> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="Book_X" title="BOOK X SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH"> -BOOK X<br /> -SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH</h2> -</div> - - -<p>1. <span class="smcap">These</span> are the contents of the 10th [Book] of the -Refutation of all Heresies.</p> - -<p>2. An epitome of all the philosophers.</p> - -<p>3. An epitome of all [the] heresies.<a id="FNanchor_718" href="#Footnote_718" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> - -<p>4. And what is in all things the Word of Truth.</p> - -<p>5. Having broken through the labyrinth<a id="FNanchor_719" href="#Footnote_719" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> of the heresies -without violence but rather having dissolved them by our -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_150"></a>[150]</span> -single refutation in the power of Truth, we now draw near -to the demonstration of the Truth itself. For then the -manufactured sophistries of the error will appear inconsistent, -when the definition of the Truth has shown that it has not -taken its beginnings from the philosophy of the Greeks. -Nor [has it taken] from [the] Egyptians [the] doctrines (and) -the follies which are adored among them as worthy of -faith—as [the] mysteries have taught—nor has it been -devised out of the inconsistent jugglery of [the] Chaldæans, -nor been forged by the unreasoning madness of [the] -Babylonians through the activity of demons.<a id="FNanchor_720" href="#Footnote_720" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> In whatever -shape, however, the definition subsists, it is true, unguarded, -and unadorned,<a id="FNanchor_721" href="#Footnote_721" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> and by its appearance alone will refute the -<span class="sidenote">p. 475.</span> -error. Concerning which, although we have many times -made demonstrations, and have pointed out the Rule of -Truth sufficiently and abundantly for those who are willing -to learn, yet once again we judge it reasonable on the top of -all the doctrines of the Greeks and heretics, to place as if it -were [the] crown of the books [preceding], this demonstration -by means of the tenth book.</p> - -<p>6. Now having brought together the teachings of all the -sages among [the] Greeks in four books,<a id="FNanchor_722" href="#Footnote_722" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> and those of the -heresiarchs in five, we shall point out the Doctrine concerning -the Truth in one, after having first made a summary -of what has been the opinions of all. For the teachers of -the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three parts, so philosophize, -some preaching Physics, some Ethics and some -Dialectic.<a id="FNanchor_723" href="#Footnote_723" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> And those who preached Physics thus declared, -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_151"></a>[151]</span> -some that all things were born from one, others from many. -And of those who said [they came] from one, some [said -they came] from what had no Quality, and others from that -which had Quality. And of those who [said they came] -from that which had Quality, some [said that they came] -<span class="sidenote">p. 476.</span> -from fire, others from air, others from water and yet others -from earth. And of those who [said they came forth] from -many things, some [said that they came] from numerable -things [others from boundless ones. And of those who said -they came from numerable things], some [say that they came] -from two, others from four, others from five, and others -from six. And of those [who say] that they came from the -boundless things, some [say that they came] from things -like generated things, others from those unlike. And some of -them say that they came from things impassible, others from -things passible. The Stoics indeed would establish the -birth of the universals from that which has no Quality and -one body. For according to them, matter unqualified and -capable of change by means of the universals is their source. -And when it is transformed, fire, air, water and earth come -into being. And those who will have all things to come -into being from that which has Quality are the followers -of Hippasus and Anaximander and Thales the Milesian. -Hippasus the Metapontian<a id="FNanchor_724" href="#Footnote_724" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> and Heraclitus the Ephesian -declared the genesis of things to be from fire, but Anaximander -from air, Thales from water, and Xenophanes from -earth.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“For all things [came forth] from earth and all end in earth.”<a id="FNanchor_725" href="#Footnote_725" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p> -<span class="sidenote">p. 477.</span> -7. Of those who would derive the universals from [the] -many and [the] numerable, the poet Homer declares that -the universals have been composed of earth and water when -he says:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Ocean source of Gods and mother Tethys.”<a id="FNanchor_726" href="#Footnote_726" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">and again:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“But turn ye all to water and earth.”<a id="FNanchor_727" href="#Footnote_727" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin"> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_152"></a>[152]</span> -And Xenophanes the Colophonian seems to agree with him, -for he says:— -</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“All we are sprung from earth and water.”<a id="FNanchor_728" href="#Footnote_728" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">But Euripides says from earth and aether, as he lets us -see from his saying:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“I sing aether and earth, mother of all.”<a id="FNanchor_729" href="#Footnote_729" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">But Empedocles from four, saying thus:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="indent0"><span class="sidenote">p. 478.</span><span class="verse">“Hear first the four roots of all things;</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0">Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And Nestis who wets with tears the human source.”</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">But from five, Ocellus the Lucanian<a id="FNanchor_730" href="#Footnote_730" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> and Aristotle. For -with the four elements they include the fifth and rotating -body whence, they say, are all heavenly things. But from -six, the followers of Empedocles derived the birth of all -things. For in the verses where he says:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Hear first the four roots of all things”</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">he makes everything come from four. But when he adds -to this:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“And baleful Strife apart from these [and] equal everywhere,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And Love with them equal in length and breadth,”<a id="FNanchor_731" href="#Footnote_731" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noin">he is handing down six things as sources of the universals -[<i>i. e.</i>] four material: earth, water, fire, [and] air and two, -<span class="sidenote">p. 479.</span> -the agents Love and Strife. But the followers of Anaxagoras -the Clazomenian and Democritus and Epicurus and -very many others whose [opinions] we have before recorded -in part, taught that the genesis of all things was from the -boundless. But Anaxagoras says they came from things -like those produced; but the followers of Democritus and -Epicurus, from those unlike and impassible, that is from -the atoms; and those of Heraclides the Pontian<a id="FNanchor_732" href="#Footnote_732" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> and -Asclepiades<a id="FNanchor_733" href="#Footnote_733" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> from those which are unlike, but passible, such -as disconnected corpuscles. But the followers of Plato say -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_153"></a>[153]</span> -that they came from three, and that these are God, Matter -and Exemplar; but he divides matter into four principles: -fire, water, earth, air; and says that God is the Demiurge -of Matter, but Exemplar the Mind.</p> - -<p>8. Now, having been persuaded that the system of -Natural Science<a id="FNanchor_734" href="#Footnote_734" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> is confessedly found unworkable by all -these [philosophers], we ourselves shall unhesitatingly say -concerning the examples of the Truth what they are and -how we believe in them. But in addition we will first set -forth in epitome the [opinions] of the heresiarchs, so that -<span class="sidenote">p. 480.</span> -the opinions of all being thereby easy to discern, we may -display the Truth as clear and easy to discern also.</p> - - -<h3 id="X_1">1. <i>Naassenes.</i></h3> - -<p>9. But since this seems fitting, we will begin first with -the ministers of the serpent. The Naassenes call the first -principle of the universals a man and also Son of Man,<a id="FNanchor_735" href="#Footnote_735" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> -and him they divide into three. For part of him, they say, -is intellectual, part psychic, and part earthly. And they -call him Adamas and think the knowledge of him is the -beginning of the power to know God. And they say that -all these intellectual and psychic and earthly [parts] came -into Jesus, and that the three substances spoke together -through Him to the three races of the All. Thus they -declare that there are three races, [the] angelic, psychic -[and] earthly, and that there are three Churches, angelic, -psychic and earthly; but that their names are [the] Called, -Chosen, [and] Captive. These are the heads of their -doctrine in so far as it can be briefly comprehended. They -<span class="sidenote">p. 481.</span> -say that they were handed down by James the Brother of -the Lord to Mariamne, thereby belying both.<a id="FNanchor_736" href="#Footnote_736" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_154"></a>[154]</div> -<h3 id="X_2">2. <i>Peratæ.</i></h3> - -<p>10. But the Peratæ, Ademes the Carystian and Euphrates -the Peratic<a id="FNanchor_737" href="#Footnote_737" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> say that a certain cosmos—this is what they -call it—is one divided into three. But of this threefold -division of theirs, there is a single source, as it were a great -fountain, capable of being cut by the reason into boundless -sections. And the first and most excellent section is -according to them the triad and the one part of it is called -Perfect Good [and] Fatherly Greatness. But the second -part of the Triad is, as it were a certain boundless multitude -of powers, and the third is that of form. And the first [of -the Triad] is unbegotten (since it is good: but the second -good and self-begotten and the third, begotten).<a id="FNanchor_738" href="#Footnote_738" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Whence -they say explicitly that there are three gods, three words, -<span class="sidenote">p. 482.</span> -three minds [and] three men. For to each part of the -cosmos when the division was made, they assign Gods and -Words and Men and the rest. But from on high, from the -unbegotten state and from the first section of the cosmos, -when the cosmos had already been brought to completion, -there came down in the time of Herod a certain triple-natured -and triple-bodied and triple-powered man called -Christ, having within Him all the compounds and powers -from the three parts of the cosmos. And this they will -have to be the saying: “In Him dwells all the Fulness of -the Godhead bodily.” For [they say that] there came down -from the two overlying worlds, namely from the unbegotten -and the self-begotten, to this world in which we are, all sorts -of seeds of powers. And that Christ came down from the -Unbegottenness in order that through His descent all the -things triply divided may be saved. For the things, he -says, brought down from on high shall ascend through -Him; but those who take counsel together against those -brought down shall be ruthlessly rejected and having been -punished shall be sent away. And he says that those -[worlds] which will be saved are two, the overlying ones -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_155"></a>[155]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 483.</span> -released from corruption. But the third will be destroyed, -which is the world of form.<a id="FNanchor_739" href="#Footnote_739" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> And thus the Peratæ.</p> - - -<h3 id="X_3">3. <i>The Sethiani.</i></h3> - -<p>11. But to the Sethians it appears that there are three -definite principles of the universals. And that each of -these principles (has boundless powers ... everything -which you perceive by your mind or which you pass over -for lack of thought)<a id="FNanchor_740" href="#Footnote_740" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> is formed by nature to become [each of -the principles] as in the human soul every art is to be learned. -As if [they say] there should come to a boy spending some -time with a pipe-player, the power of pipe-playing, or with a -geometrician the power of measurement, or in like manner -with any other art. But the substances of the principles, -they say, are light and darkness. And between them is -pure spirit. But the spirit which is set between the darkness -which is below and the light which is above is, they say, not -spirit like a gust of wind or any small breeze which may be -perceived, but resembles some faint fragrance of balsam or -<span class="sidenote">p. 484.</span> -of incense artificially compounded as a power penetrating -by force of fragrance and better than words can say. But -because the light is above and the darkness below and the -spirit between them, the light, like a ray of the sun on high, -shines on the underlying darkness, and the fragrance of the -spirit holding the middle place is borne and spread abroad -as the odour of incense on the fire is borne. And as the -power of the triply divided is such, the power of the spirit -and the light together are below in the darkness beneath. -But, they say, the darkness is a fearful water into which the -light is drawn down with the spirit and changed into a -similar nature. Now the darkness is sensible, and knows -that if the light is taken away from it, the darkness will -remain desolate, viewless, without light, powerless, idle and -weak. In this way by all its wit and foresight it is forced -to retain within itself the brilliance and scintillation of the -light along with the fragrance of the spirit.</p> - -<p>And with regard to this, they bring in this image, saying -that as the pupil of the eye appears dark because of the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_156"></a>[156]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 485.</span> -waters underneath it, but it is made light by the spirit, thus -the light seeks after the spirit and retains for itself all the -powers which wish to withdraw and to depart. But these -are ever boundless, wherefrom all things are modelled and -become like mingled seals. For, as the seal coming into -conjunction with the wax, makes the impress, while itself -remains by itself whatever it was, so the powers coming -into conjunction with each other elaborate all the boundless -races of living things. Therefore [they say] came into -being from the first conjunction of the three principles, the -form of a great seal [<i>i. e.</i>] of heaven and earth, which had -a shape like a womb with the navel in the midst. Thus -also the rest of the models of all things were modelled -resembling a womb like heaven and earth. But they say -that from the water came into being the first born principle, -a violent and rushing wind the cause of all generation, -which sets in action a certain heat and movement in the -cosmos from the movement of the waters. And [they say] -<span class="sidenote">p. 486.</span> -that this was changed into a complete form like the hissing -of a serpent, beholding which the cosmos is driven to -generation, being excited like a womb, and therefrom they -will have it the generation of the universals is established. -And they say that this wind is a spirit and that a perfect -god came into being from the waters and from the fragrance -of the spirit and from the brilliance of the light. -And that there is also the begetting of a female, Mind, the -spark from on high which is mingled with the accretions -of the body and hastens to flee away so that it may escape -and not find dissolution through being enchained in the -waters. Whence it cries aloud from the mingling of the -waters according to the Psalmist, as they say. “Thus -the whole care of the light on high is how it shall draw -the spark beneath from the Father who is below,” [that is], -from the wind which puts in action heat and disturbance -and creates for himself Mind (a perfect son) who is not -(peculiar) to himself, [whom] they declare, beholding the -<span class="sidenote">p. 487.</span> -perfect Word of the light from on high, changed Himself -into the form of a serpent and entered into a womb, so -that He might take again that mind which is a spark of -the light. And this, [they say] is the saying: “Who, being -in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with -God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_157"></a>[157]</span> -And this the unhappy and wicked Sethians will have to be -the [servile] form.<a id="FNanchor_741" href="#Footnote_741" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> This then is what they say.</p> - - -<h3 id="X_4">4. <i>Simon.</i></h3> - -<p>12. And the all-wise Simon says thus. There is a -boundless power and this is the root of the universals. -The boundless power is, he says, fire. According to him, -it is not simple, as the many say the four elements are -simple and therefore think fire is simple; but [he says] that -the nature of the fire is double, and of this double [nature] -he calls one part hidden and the other manifest. And -<span class="sidenote">p. 488.</span> -that the hidden parts are concealed within the manifest -parts of the fire, and the manifest parts of the fire are produced -by the hidden. But, he says, that all the seen and -unseen parts of the fire are to be considered as having -sense.<a id="FNanchor_742" href="#Footnote_742" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> Therefore, he says, the begotten world came into -being from the unbegotten fire. But it began to come -into being, he says, thus. The begotten [cosmos] took -from the principle of that fire the first six roots of the -principle of generation. For these six roots were born -from the fire by pairs, which he calls Nous and Epinoia, -Phonê and Onoma, Logismos and Enthymesis. And [he -says] that in these six roots [taken] together, the Boundless -Power exists (potentially but not actively, which Boundless -Power) he says is the “He who Stands, Stood, and -will Stand,” which if it be exactly reflected will be within -the six powers in substance, powers, greatness and influence, -being one and the same as the Unbegotten and Boundless -Power, and in no way inferior to that Unbegotten and -Unchangeable and Boundless Power. But if it remains -only potentially in the Six Powers and is not exactly -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_158"></a>[158]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 489.</span> -reflected, it, he says, vanishes and will die away like the -grammatical or geometrical power in the mind of a man, -when he does not receive technical teaching in addition. -And Simon says that himself is the He Who Stands, Stood, -and will Stand, being the Power which is above all.<a id="FNanchor_743" href="#Footnote_743" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> Thus, -then, Simon.</p> - - -<h3 id="X_5">5. <i>Valentinus.</i></h3> - -<p>13. But Valentinus and those from his school say the -Source of the All is a Father and yet are carried into conflicting -opinions [about him]. For some of them [think] -that he is alone and capable of generation, while others -hold that he is incapable of bringing forth without a female, -and give him as a spouse Sigê, calling him Bythos. From -whom and from his spouse some say that six projections -came into being, [viz.] Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoë, -Anthropos and Ecclesia, and that this is the first Ogdoad -which brings forth.<a id="FNanchor_744" href="#Footnote_744" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> And, again, [they say] that the projections -which were first born within the Limit<a id="FNanchor_745" href="#Footnote_745" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> are called -the things within the Pleroma; but those second, those -<span class="sidenote">p. 490.</span> -without the Pleroma; and those third, those without the -Limit, the offspring of which last exists as the Hysterema.<a id="FNanchor_746" href="#Footnote_746" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> -But he says that there was born from that which -was projected in the Hysterema, an Aeon, and that this -is the Demiurge, for he does not wish him to be the First -God, but speaks ill both of him and of what came into -being by him. And [he says] that Christ came down -from that which was within the Pleroma for the salvation -of the Spirit that went astray, which dwells in our inner -man, which they say will be saved for the sake of the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_159"></a>[159]</span> -indwelling one. But [Valentinus] will not have it that -the flesh will be saved, calling it a “coat of skin” and a -corrupter of mankind. I have described this in epitome, -as one meets with much matter [concerning it] and differing -opinions among them. This then is what Valentinus’ -school thinks.<a id="FNanchor_747" href="#Footnote_747" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_6">6. <i>Basilides.</i></h3> - -<p>14. But Basilides also says that there is a God-Who-Is-Not -who, being non-existent [made] the created world out -<span class="sidenote">p. 491.</span> -of the things that are not. [He says] that a certain seed, -like a grain of mustard-seed was cast down, which contained -within itself the stem, the leaves, the branches [and] -the fruit; or, like a peacock’s egg, contains within itself -a varied multitude of colours, and they say that this is -the seed of the cosmos, from which all things were produced. -For [he says] the seed contained all things within -itself, inasmuch as thus the things that were not were preordained -to come into being by the God-Who-Is-Not. -Then there was, they say, in that seed a Sonhood, tripartite -and in all things of the same substance with the God-Who-Is-Not, -being begotten from the things that were not. -And of this tripartite Sonhood, one part was [itself] finely -divided, another coarsely so, while the other part needed -purification. But the finely-divided part, straightway and -concurrently with the happening of the first casting-down -of the seed by the God-Who-Is-Not, escaped and went on -high and came into the presence of Him-Who-Is-Not. For -every nature yearns for Him because of His superabundance -of beauty, but each in a different way. But the more -coarsely divided [part] abode in the Seed and being merely -imitative could not go on high, for it was much inferior -<span class="sidenote">p. 492.</span> -to the finer part.<a id="FNanchor_748" href="#Footnote_748" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> And it was given wings by the Holy -Spirit, for the Sonhood putting them on, both gives and -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_160"></a>[160]</span> -receives benefit.<a id="FNanchor_749" href="#Footnote_749" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> But the third Sonhood has need of -purification. It remains in the heap of the Panspermia -and it gives and receives benefit. And [he says] that there -is something called [the] Cosmos and something hypercosmic -for (the things that are) are divided by him into these two -primary divisions. And what is between them, he calls [the] -Boundary Holy Spirit, having the fragrance of the Sonhood.</p> - -<p>From the Panspermia of the heap of the cosmic seed, -there escaped and was brought forth the Great Ruler, the -chief of the Cosmos, [a being] of unspeakable beauty and -greatness. And he, uplifting himself to the firmament -thought there was none other above him. And he became -brighter and mightier than all below him, save the Sonhood -left behind whom he did not know to be wiser than -he. This [Ruler] having turned to the fashioning of the -Cosmos, first begat for himself a Son better than he, and -made him sit at his right hand. And this [place of the -Ruler] they declare the Ogdoad. He then builds the whole -<span class="sidenote">p. 493.</span> -heavenly creation. But another Ruler ascended from the -Panspermia, greater than all those lying beneath save the -Sonhood left behind, but much inferior to the first, and he -is called Hebdomad. He is the Creator and Demiurge -and Controller of all below him; and he also made for -himself a son more foresighted and wiser than he. But all -these, they say, are according to the predetermination of -that One-Who-Is-Not, and are worlds and boundless spaces.<a id="FNanchor_750" href="#Footnote_750" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> -And [Basilides] says that on Jesus who was born of Mary -the power of [the] Gospel came, which descended and -illumined the Son of the Ogdoad and the Son of the -Hebdomad for the illumination and separation and purification -of the Sonhood left behind that he might benefit -and receive benefits from the souls. And they say that -themselves are sons [of God], who for this purpose are in -the world, [viz.] that they may purify the souls by their -teaching and go on high together with the [third] Sonhood -to the presence of the Father above, from whom the first -Sonhood proceeded.<a id="FNanchor_751" href="#Footnote_751" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> And they declare that the cosmos -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_161"></a>[161]</span> -shall endure until all the souls together with the Sonhood -shall withdraw [from it]. And Basilides is not ashamed to -narrate these portents.<a id="FNanchor_752" href="#Footnote_752" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">p. 494.</div> -<h3 id="X_7" title="7. Justinus."> -7. <i>Justinus.</i><a id="FNanchor_753" href="#Footnote_753" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></h3> - -<p>15. Justinus also daring to [advance] things like these, -says thus: “There are three unbegotten principles of the -universals, two male [and] one female.” Of the male, one -is a certain principle called the Good, and is alone thus -called, having foreknowledge of the universals. But the -other [male] is the Father of all begotten ones, and has no -foreknowledge and is unknown and unseen and is called, -they say, Elohim. [But] the female is without foreknowledge, -inclined to passion, double-minded, double-bodied, -as in the stories about her<a id="FNanchor_754" href="#Footnote_754" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> which we have above related in -detail, the upper parts of her down to the groin being a virgin -and those [below] a viper. The same is called Edem and -Israel. And he declares that these are the principles of the -universals wherefrom all things came into being. And -[he says] that Elohim came without foreknowledge to desire -for the composite virgin, and, companying with her, begat -<span class="sidenote">p. 495.</span> -twelve angels. The names of these are....<a id="FNanchor_755" href="#Footnote_755" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> And of -these the paternal ones take sides with the (father); but -the maternal ones with the mother. The same are (the -trees of Paradise)<a id="FNanchor_756" href="#Footnote_756" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> whereof Moses, speaking allegorically, -wrote in the Law. And all things were made by Elohim -and Edem; and the animals together with the rest of -[creation] come from the beast-like parts, but man from -those above the groin. And Edem deposited in [man] the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_162"></a>[162]</span> -soul which is her power (but Elohim the spirit). But he -declares that Elohim having learned [of the light above -him] ascended to the presence of the Good One and left -Edem behind. Whereat she being angered makes every plot -against the spirit of Elohim which is deposited in man. -And for his sake, the Father sent Baruch and commanded -the Prophets (to speak) so that he might set free the spirit -of Elohim and draw all men away from Edem. But he -<span class="sidenote">p. 496.</span> -declares that Heracles became a prophet and that he was -worsted by Omphale, that is by Babel, whom they name -Aphrodite. And at last in the days of Herod Jesus -became the son of Mary and Joseph, to Whom he declares -Baruch to have spoken. And that Edem plotted against -Him, but could not beguile Him, and therefore made Him -to be crucified. Whose spirit [Justinus] says went on -high to the Good One. And thus (the spirits) of all -who believe these silly and feeble stories will be saved; -but the body and soul belonging to Edem, whom the -foolish Justinus calls the Earth,<a id="FNanchor_757" href="#Footnote_757" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> will be left behind.<a id="FNanchor_758" href="#Footnote_758" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_8">8. <i>The Docetae.</i></h3> - -<p>16. But the Docetae say things like this: That the -first God is as the seed of the fig-tree from whom have -come three Aeons, like the stem and the leaves and -<span class="sidenote">p. 497.</span> -the fruit. And that these have projected thirty Aeons, -each of them (ten). But all are linked together in tens -and only differ in arrangement by some being before -others.<a id="FNanchor_759" href="#Footnote_759" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> And they projected infinitely boundless Aeons -and are all masculo-feminine. And having taken counsel -they all came together into one and from this intermediate -Aeon was begotten from the Virgin Mary the Saviour of -all, like in all things to the seed of the fig-tree, but inferior -to it in that He was begotten. For the seed whence the -fig-tree [comes] is unbegotten.<a id="FNanchor_760" href="#Footnote_760" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> This then was the great -light of the Aeons, complete, receiving no setting in order,<a id="FNanchor_761" href="#Footnote_761" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_163"></a>[163]</span> -containing within itself the forms of all the animals. And -[they say] that this [light] shining into the underlying chaos -provided a cause to the things which have been and are, -and descending from on high impressed [on the] chaos -below the forms of the Aeonic exemplars.<a id="FNanchor_762" href="#Footnote_762" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> For the third -Aeon which had tripled itself, seeing that all his types were -drawn down into the darkness below and not being -ignorant of the terrible nature of the darkness and the -simplicity of the light, created heaven and having fixed it -between, divided in twain the darkness and the light.<a id="FNanchor_763" href="#Footnote_763" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> -Then all the forms of the third Aeon having been overcome, -<span class="sidenote">p. 498.</span> -they say, by the darkness, his likeness<a id="FNanchor_764" href="#Footnote_764" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> subsisted -as a living fire coming into being by the light. From -which, they say, the Great Ruler came to be, of whom -Moses talks when he says that this God is a fiery God and -a Demiurge who ever transfers the forms<a id="FNanchor_765" href="#Footnote_765" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> of all (Aeons) -into bodies. But they declare that it is these souls for -whose sake the Saviour came,<a id="FNanchor_766" href="#Footnote_766" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> and showed the way whereby -those that had been overcome may escape. And [they -say] that Jesus did on that unique power, wherefore He -could not be gazed upon by any by reason of the overpowering -greatness of His glory. And they say that all -things happened to Him as is written in the Gospels.<a id="FNanchor_767" href="#Footnote_767" class="fnanchor">[50]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_9">9. <i>Monoimus.</i></h3> - -<p>17. But the followers of Monoimus the Arab say that -<span class="sidenote">p. 499.</span> -the principle of the All is a First Man<a id="FNanchor_768" href="#Footnote_768" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> and Son of Man, -and that the things which have come to pass as Moses -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_164"></a>[164]</span> -says, came into being not by the First Man but by the -Son of Man, and not from the whole, but from part of -him. And that the Son of Man is Iota, which is the -Decad, a dominant number wherein is the substance of all -number, whereby every number subsists, and is the birth -of the All [viz.] Fire, Air, Water [and] Earth. But this -being so, Iota is one and one tittle, a perfect thing from -the Perfect, a tittle flowing from on high, having within -itself whatever also has the Man the Father of the Son of -Man. Therefore [Monoimus] says that the world of Moses -came into being in six days, that is, in six powers, from -which the cosmos came forth from the one tittle. For -cubes and octahedrons and pyramids and all the equal-sided -figures like these, whence are made up Fire, Air, Water [and] -Earth, have came into being from the numbers left behind -in that simple tittle of the Iota which is the Son of Man. -When therefore, he says, Moses speaks of a rod turning -<span class="sidenote">p. 500.</span> -towards Egypt he is attributing allegorically the woes<a id="FNanchor_769" href="#Footnote_769" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> -of the world to the Iota, nor does he figure more than the -ten woes. But if, he says, you wish to understand the -All, enquire within thyself who it is who says, “My soul, -my flesh, my mind,”<a id="FNanchor_770" href="#Footnote_770" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> and who within thee makes each -thing his own as another does to him. Understand that -this is a perfect thing from the Perfect who considers all -the so-called non-existent and all the existent as peculiar to -himself.<a id="FNanchor_771" href="#Footnote_771" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> This then is what Monoimus thinks.</p> - - -<h3 id="X_10">10. <i>Tatian.</i></h3> - -<p>18. But Tatian, like Valentinus and the others, says that -there are certain unseen Aeons, by one of whom below the -cosmos and the things that are, were fashioned. And he -practises a very cynical mode of life, and hardly differs -from Marcion in his blasphemies and his rules about -marriage.<a id="FNanchor_772" href="#Footnote_772" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">p. 501.</div> -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_165"></a>[165]</div> -<h3 id="X_11" title="11. Marcion."> -11. <i>Marcion.</i><a id="FNanchor_773" href="#Footnote_773" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></h3> - -<p>19. Marcion the Pontian, and Cerdo his teacher, also -determined that there are three principles of the All, a -Good One, a Just One, and Matter. But certain disciples of -theirs add to this, saying that there are a Good One, a Just -One, a Wicked One, and Matter. But all [agree] that the -Good One created nothing wholly;<a id="FNanchor_774" href="#Footnote_774" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> but they say that the -Just One, whom some name the Wicked One, but others -merely the Just, made all things out of the underlying -Matter. For he made them not well but absurdly.<a id="FNanchor_775" href="#Footnote_775" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> For -things must need be like their creator. Wherefore they -make use of the parable in the Gospels, saying, “A good -tree cannot make evil fruits,”<a id="FNanchor_776" href="#Footnote_776" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> and so on, declaring that in -this it is said that things were devised wickedly by [the -Just One]. And he says that Christ is the son of the Good -One and was sent for the salvation of souls. Whom he -calls [the] inner man, saying that He appeared as a man, -<span class="sidenote">p. 502.</span> -but was not man, and as incarnate, but was not incarnate, -and was manifested in appearance [only], but underwent -neither birth nor suffering, but seemed [to do so]. And -[Marcion] does not wish that [the] flesh shall rise again. -And, saying that marriage is destruction, he leads his -disciples to a very Cynical life, thinking thereby to vex the -Demiurge by abstaining from the things brought into being -or laid down by him.<a id="FNanchor_777" href="#Footnote_777" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_166"></a>[166]</div> -<h3 id="X_12">12. <i>Apelles.</i></h3> - -<p>20. But Apelles, the disciple of [Marcion] displeased -with what was said by his teacher, as we have before said, -proposed by another theory that there are four Gods, -declaring that one is (good) whom the Prophets knew not, -but of whom Christ is the Son. And that another is the -Demiurge of the All, whom he does not wish to be a god, -and another a fiery one who is manifest, and yet another a -wicked one: [all of] whom he calls angels. And adding -Christ to these, he says that He is the fifth. But he gives -heed to a book which he calls <i>Manifestations</i> of a certain -Philumene whom he thinks a prophetess. And he says -<span class="sidenote">p. 503.</span> -that Christ did not receive the flesh from the Virgin, but -from the adjacent substance of the cosmos. Thus he has -written treatises<a id="FNanchor_778" href="#Footnote_778" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> against the Law and the Prophets -attempting to discredit them as false speakers and ignorant -of God. And he says, like Marcion, that [all] flesh will be -destroyed.<a id="FNanchor_779" href="#Footnote_779" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_13">13. <i>Cerinthus.</i></h3> - -<p>21. But Cerinthus, who had been trained in Egypt, -would have it that the cosmos did not come into being by -the First God, but by a certain angelic power far removed -and standing apart from the Authority [set] over the -universals and ignorant of the God over all things. And -he says that Jesus was not begotten from a Virgin, but was -the son of Joseph and Mary in the same way as the rest of -mankind, and that He excelled all other men in righteousness, -moderation and intelligence. And that at the Baptism, -there descended upon Him from the Authority over the -universals, the Christ in the form of a dove, and that He -then preached the unknown God and perfected his powers;<a id="FNanchor_780" href="#Footnote_780" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> -<span class="sidenote">p. 504.</span> -but that at the end of the passion the Christ fell away -from Jesus. And Jesus suffered, but the Christ remained -passionless, being a spirit of [the] Lord.<a id="FNanchor_781" href="#Footnote_781" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> - - -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_167"></a>[167]</div> -<h3 id="X_14">14. <i>Ebionæi.</i></h3> - -<p>22. But the Ebionæi say that the cosmos came into -being from the true God; but speak of the Christ as does -Cerinthus. And they live in all things according to the -Law of Moses, thus declaring themselves justified.<a id="FNanchor_782" href="#Footnote_782" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_15">15. <i>Theodotus.</i></h3> - -<p>23. Theodotus the Byzantian brought in another heresy -such as this, declaring that the universals came into being -by the true God. But he says, like the Gnostics before -described, that the Christ appeared in some such fashion -[as this]. He said that the Christ was a man akin to all, -but He differed [from others] in that He by the will of God -was born from a Virgin who had been overshadowed by the -<span class="sidenote">p. 505.</span> -Holy Spirit. And that he was not incarnate in the Virgin, -but at length at the Baptism the Christ descended upon -Jesus in the form of a dove, whence they say He did not -before then exercise powers. But he will not have the -Christ to be God. And so Theodotus.<a id="FNanchor_783" href="#Footnote_783" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_16">16. <i>Other Theodotians.</i></h3> - -<p>24. And others of them say all things like those aforesaid, -altering one single thing only in that they accept -Melchizedek as some very great power, declaring him to -exist above every power. After whose likeness they will -have the Christ to be.<a id="FNanchor_784" href="#Footnote_784" class="fnanchor">[67]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_17">17. <i>Phrygians.</i></h3> - -<p>25. But the Phrygians take the beginnings of their heresy -from one Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, thinking -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_168"></a>[168]</span> -the wenches prophetesses and Montanus a prophet. But -<span class="sidenote">p. 506.</span> -they are considered to speak rightly in what they say about -the beginning and the fashioning of the All, and they -receive not otherwise the things about the Christ. But -they stumble with those aforesaid to whose words they -erringly give heed rather than to the Gospels, and they -prescribe new and unusual fasts.</p> - -<p>26. But others of them approaching the heresy of the -Noetians think in like manner concerning the wenches and -Montanus, but blaspheme the Father of the universals -saying that He is at once Son and Father, seen and unseen, -begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These -take their starting-points from one Noetus.<a id="FNanchor_785" href="#Footnote_785" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_18">18. <i>Noetus.</i></h3> - -<p>27. And in the same way Noetus, being a Smyrnæan by -birth, a garrulous and versatile man, brought in this heresy, -which from one Epigonus reached Cleomenes and has so -remained with his successors until now. It says that the -<span class="sidenote">p. 507.</span> -Father and God of the universals is one and that He made -all things, and became invisible to the things which are -when He willed, and then appeared when he wished. And -that He is invisible when He is not seen; but visible when -He is seen; and unbegotten when He is not begotten, -but begotten when He is begotten from a Virgin; and -passionless and immortal when He does not suffer and die, -but that when [the] Passion comes, He suffers and dies. -They think this Father is Himself called Son according to -times and circumstances.<a id="FNanchor_786" href="#Footnote_786" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> The heresy of these persons -Callistus confirmed, whose life we have faithfully set forth. -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_169"></a>[169]</span> -Who himself gave birth to a heresy, taking starting-points -from them, while himself confessing that this Fashioner -the All is the Father and God; but that He is spoken of by -name and named Son, while in substance He is (one Spirit). -For God, he says is a Spirit not other than the Logos nor -the Logos than God, and therefore this Person is divided -in name indeed, but not in substance. And he names this -one God, and says that He was incarnated. And he wishes -the Son to be He who was seen and overcome according to -<span class="sidenote">p. 508.</span> -the flesh, but the Father to be He who dwelt within [Him]. -He sometimes branches off to the heresy of Noetus and -sometimes to that of Theodotus, but holds nothing steadfastly. -This now Callistus.</p> - - -<h3 id="X_19">19. <i>Hermogenes.</i></h3> - -<p>28. But one Hermogenes having also wished to say -something [new] said that God made all things out of -co-existent and underlying matter. For that it is impossible -to hold that God created existing things from those which -are not.<a id="FNanchor_787" href="#Footnote_787" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_20">20. <i>Elchasaitae.</i></h3> - -<p>29. But certain others, as if bringing in something new -[and] collecting things from all heresies, prepared a foreign -book bearing the name of one Elchasai. These in the -same way [as their predecessors] confess that the principles -of the All came into being by God, but do not confess -Christ to be one. But they say that there is one on high -<span class="sidenote">p. 509.</span> -who is often transferred<a id="FNanchor_788" href="#Footnote_788" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> into [many] bodies, and that he -is now in Jesus. Likewise that at one time, this one was -born from God, and at another became [the] Spirit, and -sometimes was born from a Virgin and sometimes not. -And that thereafter he is ever transferred into [many] -bodies, and is manifested in many according to [the] times. -And they use incantations and baptisms for their confession -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_170"></a>[170]</span> -of the elements.<a id="FNanchor_789" href="#Footnote_789" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> And they are excited about astrology -and mathematics and (give heed) to magic (acts). And -they say they foreknow the future.<a id="FNanchor_790" href="#Footnote_790" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p> - - -<h3 id="X_21" title="21. [Title lacking].">21. [<i>Title lacking</i>].<a id="FNanchor_791" href="#Footnote_791" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></h3> - -<p>30. (Abraham being commanded) by God, migrates from -Mesopotamia and the city of Harran to the part now called -Palestine and Judæa but then Canaanitis, concerning which -we have in part but not without care handed down the -<span class="sidenote">p. 510.</span> -account in other discourses.<a id="FNanchor_792" href="#Footnote_792" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> Through this occurred the -beginning of [the] increase [of population] in Judæa, which -got the name from Judah the fourth son of Jacob, of whom -it was also called the kingdom, through the royal race being -from him. (Abraham)<a id="FNanchor_793" href="#Footnote_793" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> migrates from Mesopotamia (being -75 years old) and being in his hundredth year (begat Isaac). -(And Isaac being) 60 years old begat Jacob. And Jacob -[when] 87 years old begat Levi. But Levi when 40 years -old begat Kohath.<a id="FNanchor_794" href="#Footnote_794" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> And Kohath [was 4] years old when -he went down with Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the whole -time which Abraham and all his race by Isaac dwelt in the -land then called [the] Canaanitis was 215 years.<a id="FNanchor_795" href="#Footnote_795" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> And his -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_171"></a>[171]</span> -(father) was Terah. This, one’s [father] was Nahor, his -Serug (his Zeu, his Peleg, his Eber) whence (the Jews) are -<span class="sidenote">p. 511.</span> -called Hebrews. There were 72 (sons of Abraham from -whom also were 72) nations, whose names also we have set -forth in other books.<a id="FNanchor_796" href="#Footnote_796" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> Nor did we omit this in its place as -we wished to show to the learned<a id="FNanchor_797" href="#Footnote_797" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> our affection concerning -the Divine and the accurate knowledge concerning the -Truth which we have painfully acquired. But the father of -this Eber was Shelah, and his Canaan, and his Arphaxad, -who was born to Shem; and his father was Noah in whose -time the flood over the whole world came to pass, which -neither Egyptians, nor Chaldæans, nor Greeks record. For -to them the floods in the time of Ogyges and Deacalion -were [only] in places. Now in their time<a id="FNanchor_798" href="#Footnote_798" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> were 5 generations, -or 435 years.<a id="FNanchor_799" href="#Footnote_799" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> This [Noah] being a most pious man -and one who loved God, alone with [his] wife and children -and their three wives escaped the coming flood, being saved -in an ark, the measurements and remains of which, as we -have set forth<a id="FNanchor_800" href="#Footnote_800" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> [elsewhere], are shown to this day in the -<span class="sidenote">p. 512.</span> -mountains called Ararat which are near the land of the -Adiabeni. It is then to be observed by those who wish -to give a painstaking account how plainly it is shown that -the God fearing race are older than all Chaldæans, Egyptians, -[or] Greeks. But what need is there to name here those -before Noah who both feared and spake with God, when -to what has gone before the witness of antiquity is -sufficient?</p> - -<p>31. But since it seems not unreasonable to show that -those nations who occupy themselves with philosophy<a id="FNanchor_801" href="#Footnote_801" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> are -later in date than they who feared God, it is right to say -both where their race came from, and that when they -migrated to these countries, they did not take a name from -them, but themselves gained [one] from those who first -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_172"></a>[172]</span> -ruled<a id="FNanchor_802" href="#Footnote_802" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> and dwelt [there]. The three sons of Noah were -Shem, Ham and Japhet. From them the whole race of -men multiplied and dwelt in every country. For the word -of God<a id="FNanchor_803" href="#Footnote_803" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> was confirmed by them which said, “Increase and -multiply and fill the earth.”<a id="FNanchor_804" href="#Footnote_804" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> So mighty was this one -saying, that 72 children were begotten by the 3 sons, family -<span class="sidenote">p. 513.</span> -by family, of whom 25 were Shem’s, 15 Japhet’s, and 32 -Ham’s. And the sons of Ham were, as has been said 32:—his -were Canaan, from whom the Canaanites, Misraim, from -whom the Egyptians, Cush, from whom the Ethiopians, -Phut, from whom the Libyans. These in their own speech -unto this day are called by the common name of their -ancestors and even in the Greek are named by the names -by which they have just been called. But if it were shown -that there were formerly none to inhabit their countries, -nor a beginning of [any] race<a id="FNanchor_805" href="#Footnote_805" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> of men, yet there are still -these sons of Noah, a God-fearing man who was himself a -disciple of God-fearing men, thanks to which he escaped -the great although temporary threat of [the] waters. How -then can it be denied that there were God-fearing men -earlier than all Chaldæans, Egyptians [and] Greeks,<a id="FNanchor_806" href="#Footnote_806" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> the -father of which [last] was born to that Japhet [and had the] -name Jovan, whence [the] Greeks and Ionians? And if -the nations who occupy themselves with matters of philosophy -are shown to be altogether of much later date than -the God-fearing race and the Flood, will not the Barbarian -<span class="sidenote">p. 514.</span> -and whatever races in the world are known and unknown, -appear later than these? Wherefore now, do ye Greeks, -Egyptians and Chaldæans and every race of men master this -argument and learn what is the Divine and what His well-ordered -creation from us, the friends of God, who have not -been trained in dainty phrase, but in the knowledge of -Truth and the practice of moderation find words for His -demonstration.<a id="FNanchor_807" href="#Footnote_807" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -<p>32. One God is the First and Only One and Creator and -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_173"></a>[173]</span> -Ruler of all. He has no coæval, neither boundless chaos, -nor immeasureable water, nor solid earth, nor compact air, -nor hot fire, nor subtle spirit, nor the blue canopy of great -heaven.<a id="FNanchor_808" href="#Footnote_808" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> But He was One, alone with Himself, who when -He willed created the things which are, which at first were -not, save that He willed to create them as knowing of what -they would be. For foreknowledge also is present with -Him. He fashioned first the different principles of things -to come—fire and spirit,<a id="FNanchor_809" href="#Footnote_809" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> water and earth,—from which -different [principles] He made His creation. And some -<span class="sidenote">p. 515.</span> -things He [made of] one substance and some he bound -together out of two, others of three and yet others of four. -And those that are of one were immortal, for dissolution -does not dog them, for that which is one will never be -dissolved. But those [made] from two or three or four -[substances] are dissoluble, wherefore they are called -mortal. For death is called this, the dissolution of what -is bound together. We think we have now answered -sufficiently those who have sound perception, who, if for -love of learning they will enquire further into these substances -and the causes of the fashioning of all things, they -will learn them by reading our book, treating of “the -Substance of the All.”<a id="FNanchor_810" href="#Footnote_810" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> And I think that it is here enough -to set forth the causes from ignorance whereof the Greeks -glorified with dainty phrase the parts of the creation, but -ignored the Creator. Starting wherefrom the heresiarchs, -transfiguring into like expressions what was formerly said -by [the Greeks] have composed laughable heresies.</p> - -<p>33. This God, then, One and Over All having first conceived -<span class="sidenote">p. 516.</span> -in His mind begat [the] Word, not a word in the -sense of a voice, but the indwelling Reason<a id="FNanchor_811" href="#Footnote_811" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> of the All. -He begot Him alone from the things which are. For the -Father Himself was what is, from Whom was the Word, the -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_174"></a>[174]</span> -cause of the begetting of things coming into being, bearing -within Himself the will of His begetter, not ignorant of the -thought of the Father. For from the time<a id="FNanchor_812" href="#Footnote_812" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> of His coming -forth from Him who begat Him, becoming His first-born -voice, He holds within Himself the ideas conceived in His -Father’s mind. Whence, on the Father ordering the world -to come into being, the Word completed it in detail,<a id="FNanchor_813" href="#Footnote_813" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> [thus] -pleasing God. And the things which multiply by generation, -He formed male and female; but all those for service and -ministry he made either males who have no need of females -or neither male nor female. For when the first substances -<span class="sidenote">p. 517.</span> -of these came into being [namely] Fire and Spirit, Earth -and Water, from the things that were not, neither male nor -female things existed. Nor could male and female have -come forth from each of these, unless the God who gave the -command had willed that the Word should do this service.<a id="FNanchor_814" href="#Footnote_814" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> -I confess that angels are [formed] of fire and I say that no -females are present with them. But I consider that Sun -and Moon and stars were in like manner [formed] of fire -and spirit and are neither male nor female. But I say that -swimming animals were [formed] of water and that winged -ones are male and female.<a id="FNanchor_815" href="#Footnote_815" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> For thus God willed and commanded -that the watery substance should be fruitful. In -like manner, serpents and wild beasts and all sorts of -animals were [formed] from earth and are male and female; -for this the nature of begotten things allowed. For whatever -things He willed, those God created. These He -fashioned by the Word, for they could not have come into -being otherwise than they did. But when as He had willed -He also created, He called and designated them by name. -Thereafter He fashioned the ruler of them all, and equipped -him from all substances brought together. Nor did He wish -to make a God and fail, nor an angel—be not deceived—but -<span class="sidenote">p. 518.</span> -a man. For had God willed to make thee a God, He -could: thou hast the example of the Word. But He willed -a man and created thee a man. But if thou dost wish also -to become a God, hearken to the Creator and withstand -Him not now, so that being found faithful over a little, -thou mayest be entrusted with much.<a id="FNanchor_816" href="#Footnote_816" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></p> - -<p> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_175"></a>[175]</span> -Only the Word of this [God] is from Him. Wherefore -He also is God, being the substance of God. But the -world is from nothing. Wherefore it is not God and it will -be dissolved<a id="FNanchor_817" href="#Footnote_817" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> when the Creator wills. But God who -created makes nothing evil; but he creates it fair and good. -For He who creates is good. But man when he came into -being was an animal with free-will,<a id="FNanchor_818" href="#Footnote_818" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> not having a ruling -mind, nor dominating all things by reflection and authority -and power, but a slave<a id="FNanchor_819" href="#Footnote_819" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> and full of all contrary [desires].<a id="FNanchor_820" href="#Footnote_820" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> -Who, in that he is free to choose produces evil, which when -it is completed by accident is nothing unless thou dost -make [it].<a id="FNanchor_821" href="#Footnote_821" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> For it is by the thinking and willing something -<span class="sidenote">p. 519.</span> -evil, that it is named evil; which was not from the beginning, -but came into being later. [And] as man was free to -choose, a Law was laid down by God, not vainly. For if -man were not free to will or not to will, what need of a -Law?<a id="FNanchor_822" href="#Footnote_822" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> For the Law is not decreed for a dumb beast, but -a bridle and a whip; but to man was appointed a commandment -and a penalty in respect of what he was to do -and not to do. And [the] Law as to this was laid down of -old through righteous men. Nearer to our own times, a -Law full of majesty and justice was laid down through the -Moses aforesaid, a steadfast man and one who loved God.</p> - -<p>All these things, the Word of God directs, the First-born -Son of [the] Father, the light-bringing voice before dawn.<a id="FNanchor_823" href="#Footnote_823" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> -Thereafter there came into being righteous men who loved -God. These were called prophets from their showing -beforehand the things to come.<a id="FNanchor_824" href="#Footnote_824" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> To whom word came not -at one season [only], but through all generations the utterances -of things foretold was most clearly brought forward.<a id="FNanchor_825" href="#Footnote_825" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_176"></a>[176]</span> -<span class="sidenote">p. 520.</span> -Nor did they merely give an answer to those present there -at the time, but through several generations also the things -to come were foreshadowed. [And this] because speaking -of things past they recalled them to mankind; but by -showing what was then happening they put away carelessness, -and by foretelling the future have made every one of us -fearful by the sight of the fulfilment of prophecies and the -expectation of the future. Such is our faith, O all ye men -who are not persuaded by vain speeches, nor captured by -sudden movings of the heart, nor enchanted by plausible -and eloquent words, but have not been obdurate to words -uttered by Divine power. And these things God commanded -[the] Word; and the Word speaking through [the -prophets], uttered them for the turning of man from disobedience -and emancipating him from the force of Fate, but -calling him to liberty by his free choice.<a id="FNanchor_826" href="#Footnote_826" class="fnanchor">[109]</a></p> - -<p>The Father in the last days sent forth this Word, not -speaking through a prophet, and not wishing that the Word -when proclaimed should be darkly guessed at, but that He -should be manifested to the very eyes of all. He, I say, -<span class="sidenote">p. 521.</span> -(sent Him forth) that the world when it beheld Him should -be put to shame. For He did not give commandment -through the person of prophets, nor affright [the] soul by an -angel, but was Himself present and spake. Him we know -to have taken body from a Virgin and to have moulded<a id="FNanchor_827" href="#Footnote_827" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> -the old man through a new formation. [We know] that He -passed in life through every age,<a id="FNanchor_828" href="#Footnote_828" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> so that He might become -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_177"></a>[177]</span> -a law for every age, and that His presence might show forth -His manhood as an example<a id="FNanchor_829" href="#Footnote_829" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> to all men; and that through -Him it might be proved that God makes nothing evil, and -that man as master of himself can will or not will [evil], -being capable of both. We know, too, that this man came -into being out of the same material<a id="FNanchor_830" href="#Footnote_830" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> as ourselves; for were -He not of the same [matter] it would be vain to order that -the Teacher be imitated. For had that Man chanced to be -of another substance [than ours] why should he order -me who am weak by nature to do things like Himself? -And [in that case] how is He good and just? But in order -that He might not be thought different from us, He underwent -toil, and was willing to hunger, and denied not thirst,<a id="FNanchor_831" href="#Footnote_831" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> -and was stilled in sleep, and renounced not suffering, and -<span class="sidenote">p. 522.</span> -submitted to death, and manifested resurrection, sacrificing -in all this His own manhood, so that thou when suffering -may not be faint-hearted, but mayst confess thyself a man -and expect also what the Father promised Him.</p> - -<p>34. Such is the true word about the Divine.<a id="FNanchor_832" href="#Footnote_832" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> O all ye -men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldæans and Assyrians, -Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts and -ye army-leading Latins,<a id="FNanchor_833" href="#Footnote_833" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> and all ye dwellers in Europe, -Asia and Libya.<a id="FNanchor_834" href="#Footnote_834" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> To you I am become a counsellor, being -a disciple of the Word who loves man and myself a lover of -mankind, so that you may hasten to be taught by us who is -the real God and what His well-ordered creation. And -that you give not heed to the sophistries of artificial discourses,<a id="FNanchor_835" href="#Footnote_835" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> -nor to the crazy promises of plagiarizing heretics, -but to the august simplicity of unboastful truth. Through -the knowledge of which, you shall escape the coming -menace of the judgment of fire, and the unlighted vision of -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_178"></a>[178]</span> -gloomy Tartarus unillumined by the voice of the Word, and -<span class="sidenote">p. 523.</span> -the boiling of the Lake of the eternal Gehenna of flame, and -the ever-threatening eye of the angels punished in Tartarus,<a id="FNanchor_836" href="#Footnote_836" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> -and the worm which through the filth of the body turns -towards the body which threw it forth as for food. And -these things thou shalt escape when thou hast been taught -the God Who Is. And thou shalt have an immortal body -together with an incorruptible soul. And thou shalt receive -the kingdom of the heavens, who whilst on earth didst also -recognize the heavenly King. But thou shall speak with -God and be joint heir with Christ, not enslaved by desires -nor sufferings nor diseases.<a id="FNanchor_837" href="#Footnote_837" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> For thou [wilt] have become -God. For whatever sufferings thou underwent as man, -thou hast shown that thou art a man; but whatever is -appurtenant to a God, that God has promised to bestow, -because thou hast been made divine, since thou hast been -begotten immortal. This is the [true] “Know Thyself,” -the knowledge of the Creator God. For to him who knows -himself has occurred the being known to Him by whom -<span class="sidenote">p. 524.</span> -he is called. Wherefore now, O men, be not your own -enemies, nor hesitate to turn again. For Christ is the God -over all, Who has arranged to wash away iniquity from -among men, and to make anew the old man who from the -beginning was called His image, thus showing forth His -love towards thee. Having hearkened to Whose august -precepts, and having become a good imitator of the Good -One, thou wilt be like unto and be honoured by Him. -For God asks no alms,<a id="FNanchor_838" href="#Footnote_838" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> and has made thee God for His -own glory.</p> - - -<h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_718" href="#FNanchor_718" class="label">[1]</a> The promises before noted at the end of Books VIII and IX to -declare the Doctrine of Truth says nothing of these epitomes, nor do -they always accord with the earlier Books which may be supposed to -be here epitomized. For a suggested explanation of this discrepancy -see Introduction, Vol. I, pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_19">19</a> <i>supra</i>. It should also be noted that, -while the author omits here any detailed mention of the contents of Books -II, III, and IV, he can hardly have had Book I before his eyes at the time -of writing, or he would have referred to it directly instead of quoting as -he does from Sextus Empiricus. As has been said in the Introduction, -the “epitome of the heresies” bears closer relation to Books V-IX, -although it omits several heresies included in the epitomized books. -That the writer, if not Hippolytus himself, is at any rate writing in his -name, is plain from the wording of chap. 5, <i>infra</i>, and we can hardly -suppose a forger so reckless as not to have read the earlier Books before -attempting to epitomize them. On the other hand, it is perfectly conceivable -that Hippolytus had in his possession notes from which his -earlier Books were written, and that of these only a part remained when -he set to work to write Book X. It would seem, therefore, that only -some such hypothesis as that given in the Introduction really fits the -case.</p> - -<p>As to the style of the Book it does not differ materially from that of -the others, save in one particular. This is the frequent omission of the -definite article, which is so frequent as to arouse suspicion that the -scribe may have been here translating from a Latin rather than -copying from a Greek original.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_719" href="#FNanchor_719" class="label">[2]</a> This is the main reason for supposing that this Book is that called -the <i>Labyrinth</i> which Photius says was by the author of the work -<i>On the Universe</i>, attributed by the list on the chair to Hippolytus. -Cf. Salmon in <i>D.C.B.</i>, “Hippolytus Romanus.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_720" href="#FNanchor_720" class="label">[3]</a> All these were probably described in the missing Books II and III, -together with Book IV, <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_721" href="#FNanchor_721" class="label">[4]</a> ἀκαλλώπιστος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_722" href="#FNanchor_722" class="label">[5]</a> Book I only is concerned with the teachings of the Greek philosophers; -but Books II and III must, according to the promise in Vol. I, pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_64">64</a>, -have contained an exposition of the mystic rites and astrological doctrine, -and Book IV is entirely taken up with magic and divination. This is -confirmed by the statement in Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>. Hippolytus must therefore -have forgotten this when writing Book X, or at any rate did not have -the earlier Books before him.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_723" href="#FNanchor_723" class="label">[6]</a> From here to the end of the section on p. 479 Cr., is a copy from -Sextus Empiricus’ work, <i>Adversus Physicos</i>, c. 10. So close is this -that we are able by its aid to correct by it the faulty text of Sextus, and -<i>vice versâ</i>. Sextus, as a sceptic, was of course as much opposed to the -study of nature as Hippolytus, and was therefore only interested in -showing the discrepancies among its teachers. But how does this make -the quotation from him an “epitome”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_724" href="#FNanchor_724" class="label">[7]</a> Not mentioned in Book I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_725" href="#FNanchor_725" class="label">[8]</a> Karsten, VIII, p. 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_726" href="#FNanchor_726" class="label">[9]</a> <i>Il.</i>, XIV, 201.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_727" href="#FNanchor_727" class="label">[10]</a> <i>Il.</i>, VII, 99.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_728" href="#FNanchor_728" class="label">[11]</a> Karsten, IX, p. 49.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_729" href="#FNanchor_729" class="label">[12]</a> Said to be a quotation from Euripides’ <i>Hymns</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_730" href="#FNanchor_730" class="label">[13]</a> Not mentioned in Book I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_731" href="#FNanchor_731" class="label">[14]</a> Cf. pp. <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_732" href="#FNanchor_732" class="label">[15]</a> Not mentioned in Book I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_733" href="#FNanchor_733" class="label">[16]</a> Not mentioned in Book I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_734" href="#FNanchor_734" class="label">[17]</a> φυσιολογία.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_735" href="#FNanchor_735" class="label">[18]</a> Cf. p. 371 Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_736" href="#FNanchor_736" class="label">[19]</a> In this chapter on the Naassenes, Hippolytus may be supposed to -have had before him either the whole of Book V or the notes from -which it was written. We may see, therefore, from this, what his idea -of an epitome is. He does not try to condense his former statements -so as to give us a bird’s-eye view of the whole heresy, but picks out -from them a few sentences which seem to him of special importance. -Hence it is only useful to us as a means of checking the text, and brings -us no nearer to an appreciation of the doctrines of the sect.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_737" href="#FNanchor_737" class="label">[20]</a> Cf. Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_69">69</a> <i>supra</i>, where this Ademes is called Akembes and -both he and Euphrates are mentioned as astrologers only. In Vol. I, -p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_149">149</a> also the order is reversed and Ademes is called Celbes. -Theodoret, <i>Haer. Fab.</i>, I, 17, quotes this chapter almost <i>verbatim</i>, -thereby showing that it was Book X and not Book V which he copied.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_738" href="#FNanchor_738" class="label">[21]</a> Words in ( ) added from Theodoret, <i>ubi cit.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_739" href="#FNanchor_739" class="label">[22]</a> Cf. Vol. I, pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_148">148</a> <i>supra</i>, which this chapter follows closely.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_740" href="#FNanchor_740" class="label">[23]</a> Words in ( ) added from Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_161">161</a> <i>supra</i>. Nearly four lines -are wanting here which can be filled from the page quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_741" href="#FNanchor_741" class="label">[24]</a> Throughout this chapter, the summarizer copies closely the former -account of the Sethians, for which see Vol. I, pp. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a> <i>supra</i>. I have -not thought it worth while to draw attention to the slight differences in -readings, but it is plain that the meaning in both cases was as obscure -to the summarizer as it is to us.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_742" href="#FNanchor_742" class="label">[25]</a> φρόνησις. This is evidently taken from the account of Simon’s -doctrine in Book VI, c. 12 (p. <a href="#Page_6">6</a> <i>supra</i>), which says that the unseen -parts of the fire have φρόνησις “and a share of mind,” without mention -of the seen parts. The rest of this chapter, with the exception of the -last sentence attributing supreme power to Simon, is substantially, but -not exactly word for word, identical with c. 12 of Book VI. Cf. pp. -247, 250 and 259 Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_743" href="#FNanchor_743" class="label">[26]</a> The only ground for this assertion seems to be Simon’s statement -to Helen of Tyre (see p. <a href="#Page_15">15</a> <i>supra</i>), that he was the “Power over all -things,” which seems to be explained by that on p. <a href="#Page_12">12</a> <i>supra</i>, that the -Power which Stands, etc., is <i>potentially</i> in all things.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_744" href="#FNanchor_744" class="label">[27]</a> πρωτογενέτειραν. While in Book VI, of which these chapters profess -to be a summary, the author describes Nous and Aletheia with their -projectors as the descendants of Bythos alone, he here gives an account -of the rival opinion that Bythos had a spouse called Sigê, and he -reckons her in with her descendants so as to make up the number of -eight.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_745" href="#FNanchor_745" class="label">[28]</a> This is, of course, the Horos of Book VI.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_746" href="#FNanchor_746" class="label">[29]</a> This word is also used in Book VI (see p. 286 Cr.), as the exact -converse of the Pleroma or Fulness.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_747" href="#FNanchor_747" class="label">[30]</a> It is curious that throughout this chapter there is no attempt to -quote directly from Book VI, and that it is evidently the opinions of -the Italic school of Valentinus and not the Anatolic that the author -is here summarizing. In the next chapter, as will be seen, he resumes -direct quotations.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_748" href="#FNanchor_748" class="label">[31]</a> So far, the author is transcribing almost <i>verbatim</i> the statements -in Book VII, cf. pp. 346-350 Cr.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_749" href="#FNanchor_749" class="label">[32]</a> This is not said of the Holy Spirit in Book VII, cf. pp. <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a> -<i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_750" href="#FNanchor_750" class="label">[33]</a> This, too, is a new statement, although it may perhaps be implied -from what is said on pp. <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a> and <a href="#Page_76">76</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_751" href="#FNanchor_751" class="label">[34]</a> So p. <a href="#Page_76">76</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_752" href="#FNanchor_752" class="label">[35]</a> Save as before noted, everything in this chapter is to be found in -the account of Basilides given in Book VII. The few exceptions -show that the summarizer had assimilated its contents and an intelligent -knowledge of Basilides’ teaching. He entirely omits, however, the -prediction of the Great Ignorance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_753" href="#FNanchor_753" class="label">[36]</a> The summarizer here takes Justinus from among the Ophites of -Book V, where he is to be found in the earlier part of the text, and -puts him after Basilides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_754" href="#FNanchor_754" class="label">[37]</a> Reading αὐτῇς for αὐτοῦ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_755" href="#FNanchor_755" class="label">[38]</a> These are omitted from the text, possibly because the summarizer -did not wish to repeat names which might be used in magic. Cruice -supplies them in his text from Book V, Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a> <i>supra</i>, which see.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_756" href="#FNanchor_756" class="label">[39]</a> The words in round brackets ( ) are as elsewhere in this chapter -supplied by Cruice from Book V.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_757" href="#FNanchor_757" class="label">[40]</a> Cf. Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_175">175</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_758" href="#FNanchor_758" class="label">[41]</a> There is nothing in this chapter which is not taken from the -account of Justinus’ doctrines in Book V, nor anything to show that -the summarizer had any knowledge of these except from this.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_759" href="#FNanchor_759" class="label">[42]</a> τινὰς τινῶν πρώτους!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_760" href="#FNanchor_760" class="label">[43]</a> So the Codex. Cruice has γεννητόν, “begotten,” but I see no -reason for the alteration.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_761" href="#FNanchor_761" class="label">[44]</a> κόσμησιν. Perhaps “adornment.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_762" href="#FNanchor_762" class="label">[45]</a> ἰδέαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_763" href="#FNanchor_763" class="label">[46]</a> Cf. p. <a href="#Page_102">102</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_764" href="#FNanchor_764" class="label">[47]</a> ἐκτύπωμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_765" href="#FNanchor_765" class="label">[48]</a> ἰδέαι. As before he means “patterns” or “exemplars.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_766" href="#FNanchor_766" class="label">[49]</a> παραγεννηθῆναι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_767" href="#FNanchor_767" class="label">[50]</a> Here again there is nothing which cannot be found in Book VIII -(see pp. <a href="#Page_99">99</a>-<a href="#Page_105">105</a> <i>supra</i>), from which this chapter is evidently taken. As -has before been said, the summarizer to arrive at this has omitted all -mention of Satornilus, Menander and Carpocrates, while the other -systems mentioned in Book VII, he has placed after the Docetae -instead of before them.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_768" href="#FNanchor_768" class="label">[51]</a> The summarizer here uses for the first time in our text the -expression “First Man,” which plays so large a part in later -heresies such as Manichæism. For its early appearance in Western -Asia and its influence see Bousset’s <i>Hauptprobleme der Gnosis</i>, c. -4, “Der Urmensch,” and <i>Forerunners</i>, I, p. lxi, and II, pp. 292, -293.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_769" href="#FNanchor_769" class="label">[52]</a> πάθη. He evidently refers to the ten plagues as on p. <a href="#Page_109">109</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_770" href="#FNanchor_770" class="label">[53]</a> He omits the “My God ... my understanding” of the letter to -Theophrastus, on p. <a href="#Page_110">110</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_771" href="#FNanchor_771" class="label">[54]</a> He alters the ἐξιδιοποιούμενος (cf. p. 415 Cr.) to κατιδιοποιούμενος—a -fair proof of the inaccuracy of the scribe. Except for the inaccuracies -noted, however, there is no statement in this summary which cannot -be found in Book VIII, pp. <a href="#Page_106">106</a>-<a href="#Page_111">111</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_772" href="#FNanchor_772" class="label">[55]</a> For these few lines, the summarizer has evidently not taken the -trouble to refer to the author’s statements about Tatian in Book VIII, -p. <a href="#Page_111">111</a> <i>supra</i>. He now omits all reference to Justin Martyr, there said to -be Tatian’s teacher, and to Tatian’s peculiar ideas about the salvation -of Adam; while he introduces a special world-creating aeon not -mentioned elsewhere.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_773" href="#FNanchor_773" class="label">[56]</a> Here he omits the heresies of the Quartodecimans and the Encratites, -which receive notice in Book VIII, pp. <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a> <i>supra</i>, and -passes on to Marcion, who was a contemporary of Valentinus. It is plain, -therefore, that he does not attempt in the summary to keep either to -order of date or to that of the earlier books.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_774" href="#FNanchor_774" class="label">[57]</a> οὐδὲν ὅλως πεποιηκέναι. So the Codex. Some word seems to be -missing; but perhaps the passage should read οὐδὲν τῶν ὅλων, “none -of the universals.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_775" href="#FNanchor_775" class="label">[58]</a> ἀλόγως, “unreasonably.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_776" href="#FNanchor_776" class="label">[59]</a> Matt. vii. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_777" href="#FNanchor_777" class="label">[60]</a> This also is certainly not taken from the chapters on Marcion in -Book VII, pp. <a href="#Page_82">82</a>-<a href="#Page_90">90</a> <i>supra</i>, which are mainly devoted to an attempt to -prove Marcion to have plagiarized from Empedocles. Nor is it from -Irenæus or from the tractate <i>Adversus omnes hæreses</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_778" href="#FNanchor_778" class="label">[61]</a> συντάγματα, “summaries”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_779" href="#FNanchor_779" class="label">[62]</a> The substance of this can be found in the account of Apelles in -Book VII, pp. <a href="#Page_96">96</a>-<a href="#Page_97">97</a> <i>supra</i>; but the summarizer does not use the phrases -of the earlier book, and he can hardly have had it before him.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_780" href="#FNanchor_780" class="label">[63]</a> As before (p. 389 Cr.), Macmahon here translates καὶ δυνάμεις -ἐπιτελέσαι, “he wrought miracles.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_781" href="#FNanchor_781" class="label">[64]</a> This, on the other hand, is taken almost <i>verbatim</i> from c. 33 of -Book VII (pp. <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a> <i>supra</i>), the few slight differences between the -two chapters being not other than a careless scribe might be expected -to make.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_782" href="#FNanchor_782" class="label">[65]</a> This also from Book VII, p. <a href="#Page_93">93</a> <i>supra</i>, but slightly condensed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_783" href="#FNanchor_783" class="label">[66]</a> This also appears to be condensed from the account of Theodotus -in Book VII, pp. <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a> <i>supra</i>. The summarizer adds to it the alleged -denial by Theodotus of Christ’s divinity, which does not appear in -Book VII.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_784" href="#FNanchor_784" class="label">[67]</a> This, too, is not inconsistent with the account of “other Theodotians” -in Book VII, pp <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> <i>supra</i>, but omits all reference to the -Nicolaitans.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_785" href="#FNanchor_785" class="label">[68]</a> Here the summarizer reverts to Book VIII, pp. <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a> <i>supra</i>, from -which his account of the Phrygians or Montanists appears to be taken. -The phrases used are not identical, and while Book VIII merely says -that the Montanist heresy agrees with the Patripassianism of the -Noetian, the Summary declares that the first was absolutely derived -from the second.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_786" href="#FNanchor_786" class="label">[69]</a> κατὰ καιροὺς καλούμενον πρὸς τὰ συμβαίνοντα. Cf. the καλούμενον -κατὰ χρόνων τροπήν, p. 434 Cr. Otherwise this chapter seems to be -a condensed paraphrase rather than a series of extracts from Book IX, -the summarizer having here added together the “heresies” so called -of Noetus and Callistus. As mentioned in the Introduction, he is -careful not to mention that Callistus was a Pope, and in the last -sentence but one, he omits the name of Sabellius which is mentioned -in the earlier book. Cf. p. <a href="#Page_130">130</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_787" href="#FNanchor_787" class="label">[70]</a> He now reverts to Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian wrote, -and who must therefore in the time of Callistus have long been dead. -The few lines given here correspond to the opening sentences of the -chapter on this heretic in Book VIII, p. <a href="#Page_112">112</a> <i>supra</i>, which see.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_788" href="#FNanchor_788" class="label">[71]</a> μεταγγιζόμενον, lit., “poured” as from one vessel into another—a -considerable amplification of the statement in Book IX, p. <a href="#Page_134">134</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_789" href="#FNanchor_789" class="label">[72]</a> Water and Earth are the only two “elements” mentioned in the -exorcisms attributed to the Elchesaites in Book IX, p. <a href="#Page_135">135</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_790" href="#FNanchor_790" class="label">[73]</a> The statements in this account of the Elchesaites are all to be -found in the description of them in Book IX, pp. <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-<a href="#Page_138">138</a> <i>supra</i>; but -the same words are not used, and there is nothing to show that the -summarizer had the earlier book before him at the time of writing.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_791" href="#FNanchor_791" class="label">[74]</a> Cruice suggests that the considerable lacuna that there evidently -is here was filled by a summary of the chapters on the Jewish sects -with which Book IX ends (see pp. 455-472 Cr.). This hardly seems -to correspond with the form of what is left; but it is not impossible -that we have here excerpts from the book on chronology which we -know Hippolytus to have written. Another suggestion is that what -follows is from his <i>Commentary on Genesis</i>, of which a few fragments -survive.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_792" href="#FNanchor_792" class="label">[75]</a> Were these ἑτέροι λόγοι the treatise “On the All” which Hippolytus -wrote?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_793" href="#FNanchor_793" class="label">[76]</a> As throughout the words in round brackets ( ) are supplied by -Cruice. In this chapter they are mainly taken from Gen. xi., which -see.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_794" href="#FNanchor_794" class="label">[77]</a> Καὰθ. In all these names I have used the spelling of the A. V. as -being more familiar to the general reader than that of the LXX.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_795" href="#FNanchor_795" class="label">[78]</a> If Abraham did not beget Isaac until he had been twenty-five years -in Canaan, the figures would be for Abraham twenty-five, for Isaac -sixty, for Jacob eighty-seven, for Levi forty, for Kohath four. But -this makes 216 at least.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_796" href="#FNanchor_796" class="label">[79]</a> So the fragment of the <i>Chronicon</i> attributed to Hippolytus in -Fabricius, S. Hippolyt. <i>Opera</i>, p. 50, which perhaps goes to show the -authorship of the Summary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_797" href="#FNanchor_797" class="label">[80]</a> φιλομαθέσιν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_798" href="#FNanchor_798" class="label">[81]</a> ἐπὶ τούτων, that is reckoning from Noah to Eber.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_799" href="#FNanchor_799" class="label">[82]</a> Cruice would read 495 years.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_800" href="#FNanchor_800" class="label">[83]</a> ἐκτεθείμεθα. The phrase that he uses everywhere in the book for -statements in <i>this</i> work. See n. on previous page.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_801" href="#FNanchor_801" class="label">[84]</a> σοφία. This is in pursuance of Hippolytus’ favourite theory that -philosophy was the source of all heresy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_802" href="#FNanchor_802" class="label">[85]</a> ἀρξάντων. Macmahon translates “were born,” but I think the -word is never used in that sense by Hippolytus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_803" href="#FNanchor_803" class="label">[86]</a> ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. An unusual phrase here.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_804" href="#FNanchor_804" class="label">[87]</a> Gen. i, 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_805" href="#FNanchor_805" class="label">[88]</a> Reading γένους with the Codex instead of the γένος of Cruice.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_806" href="#FNanchor_806" class="label">[89]</a> Because these “God-fearing men” were before the Flood, and -the others could only have descended from Shem, Ham or Japhet.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_807" href="#FNanchor_807" class="label">[90]</a> This seems to be the author’s meaning, but the reading is not very -well settled. Cruice translates <i>qui non elegantibus verbis divina coluimus</i>, -which Macmahon follows.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_808" href="#FNanchor_808" class="label">[91]</a> This is, of course, an allusion to the theories of the “Barbarians” -on the Deity set out in Book IV. Cf. Vol. I, p. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_104">104</a> <i>supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_809" href="#FNanchor_809" class="label">[92]</a> It is curious that throughout this chapter he uses “spirit” as the -fourth element instead of “air.” So Photius, quoting from the work -“On the All,” which is attributed to Hippolytus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_810" href="#FNanchor_810" class="label">[93]</a> This work is known to us by the list on the chair mentioned in the -Introduction, and by a notice by Photius, who seems to have read -the work under the name of Josephus. Cf. Salmon in <i>D. C. B.</i>, s.n. -“Hippolytus Romanus.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_811" href="#FNanchor_811" class="label">[94]</a> This Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος which Philo distinguishes from the Λόγος -προφορικός seems to have been a phrase first adopted into Christian -theology by Theophilus of Antioch.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_812" href="#FNanchor_812" class="label">[95]</a> ἅμα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_813" href="#FNanchor_813" class="label">[96]</a> τὸ κατὰ ἕν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_814" href="#FNanchor_814" class="label">[97]</a> ὑπουργῇ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_815" href="#FNanchor_815" class="label">[98]</a> Like most of the ancients, Hippolytus does not know that fish -have sex.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_816" href="#FNanchor_816" class="label">[99]</a> Cf. Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xix. 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_817" href="#FNanchor_817" class="label">[100]</a> ἐπιδέχεται λύσιν, “receives dissolution.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_818" href="#FNanchor_818" class="label">[101]</a> αὐτεξούσιον, “his own authority”?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_819" href="#FNanchor_819" class="label">[102]</a> <i>i. e.</i> to his passions. See p. <a href="#Page_178">178</a> <i>infra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_820" href="#FNanchor_820" class="label">[103]</a> πάντα ἔχον τὰ ἐναντία.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_821" href="#FNanchor_821" class="label">[104]</a> So Cruice. Macmahon says, “which evil is not consummated -except you actually commit some piece of wickedness,” But the -reading is very uncertain.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_822" href="#FNanchor_822" class="label">[105]</a> τί καὶ νόμος ὡρίζετο, “why was the Law enacted?”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_823" href="#FNanchor_823" class="label">[106]</a> πρὸ ἑωσφόρου, “Before the Morning Star.” Cf. 2 Peter i. 18, 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_824" href="#FNanchor_824" class="label">[107]</a> διὰ τὸ προφαίνειν. The real derivation is from πρόφημι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_825" href="#FNanchor_825" class="label">[108]</a> Cruice points out the likeness between this doctrine of the Word -speaking through the Prophets, and that with which Origen begins his -treatise, Περὶ Ἀρχῶν (I, § 1), that before the Incarnation “Christ, the -Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets.” It was doubtless this, -and the likeness between the theory of the origin of evil as given on -pp. 518, 519 Cr. of our text, and that of Origen <i>in Joann</i>, II, 7, 8, -which caused some commentator to write in the margin of the Codex, -Ὠριγένης καὶ Ὠριγένους δόξα: “Origen and Origen’s opinions.” The -words used in the two cases are too unlike to suggest any identity of -authorship or conscious borrowing; but it is perfectly probable that -Origen when in Rome communicated with Hippolytus as head of the -Greek-speaking community there, and that they had many ideas in -common. This would account at once for the likeness between the -passages noted and for the confusion between Hippolytus and Origen as -the author of the <i>Philosophumena</i>, while it throws new light on Origen’s -condemnation for heresy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_826" href="#FNanchor_826" class="label">[109]</a> ἑκουσίῳ προαιρέσει.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_827" href="#FNanchor_827" class="label">[110]</a> Reading with Cruice πεφυρακότα for the πεφορηκότα of Miller. -Although Miller’s reading accords with the Scriptural “put on the old -man,” the allusion is evidently to the φυράμα of a few lines lower down.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_828" href="#FNanchor_828" class="label">[111]</a> This is evidently an allusion to the extraordinary theory of -Hippolytus’ master, Irenæus (Book II, c. 33, § 3, p. 331, Harvey), that -Christ having suffered at 30 years old lived and taught after the -Resurrection until He was “40 or 50,” thus “passing through every -age.” Cf. <i>Forerunners</i>, II, p. 61 and note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_829" href="#FNanchor_829" class="label">[112]</a> σκόπον, “arm” or “goal.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_830" href="#FNanchor_830" class="label">[113]</a> φυράμα, lit., “dough” or plastic substance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_831" href="#FNanchor_831" class="label">[114]</a> An allusion to the Word on the Cross.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_832" href="#FNanchor_832" class="label">[115]</a> περὶ τὸν Θεῖον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_833" href="#FNanchor_833" class="label">[116]</a> It is curious that he does not call them Romans.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_834" href="#FNanchor_834" class="label">[117]</a> The Greek name for the province called by the Romans Africa.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_835" href="#FNanchor_835" class="label">[118]</a> He is here repeating the phrase used on p. <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, with which he -begins this Book. Its repetition shows the continuity of this last and -that it was all written at the same time and by the same author.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_836" href="#FNanchor_836" class="label">[119]</a> Ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων κολαστῶν. Tartaruchian is a Coptic form. -See Budge’s <i>Miscellaneous Texts of Upper Egypt</i>, 1915, p. 590.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_837" href="#FNanchor_837" class="label">[120]</a> ὁμιλητης Θεοῦ, Cr. <i>familiaris</i>, Macm., “companion of.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_838" href="#FNanchor_838" class="label">[121]</a> οὐ πτωχεύει. The phrase has given much concern to commentators. -Cruice suggests δὲ γὰρ πολυωρεῖ, “has a great esteem for thee.” -Wordsworth translates “has a longing for thee.” Macmahon “(by -such signal condescension) does not diminish aught of the dignity of -His divine perfection.” The phrase is probably an allusion to the -heathen notion formally stated by Aelius Aristides and others that the -gods <i>had need</i> of the sacrifices of mortals.</p> - -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<div class="pagenum"><a id="Page_179"></a>[179]</div> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX">INDEX</h2> -</div> - - -<ul> -<li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Adam</span> of Cabala, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a> <i>n.</i> 6;</li> -<li class="isub1">the first man, <i>ap.</i> Chaldæans, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">arch-man of Samothrace, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">made by Jaldabaoth and his sons, <i>ap.</i> Ophites, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a> <i>n.</i> 3.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Tatian</li> - -<li class="indx">Adamas, supreme god of Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the “unsubdued,” epithet of Hades, Dionysos and Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a> <i>n.</i> 6;</li> -<li class="isub1">called the arch-man, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Isaiah’s words attributed to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_134">134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Adonis, Assyrian name of Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aetius, <i>Philosophumena</i> attributed to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>de Placitis Philosoph.</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_39">39</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_43">43</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_56">56</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Aipolos = goatherd according to Phrygians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_137">137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Akembes, the Carystian, joint founder of Peratic heresy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_149">149</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Euphrates</li> - -<li class="indx">Alcibiades, of Apamea. <i>See</i> Elchesaites</li> - -<li class="indx">Alcinous, chief source of Hippolytus for Plato’s doctrines, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_51">51</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Alés, Adhémar d’, his <i>Théologie de St. Hippolyte</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_66">66</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Amygdalus, Phrygian name of Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anaxagoras, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_44">44</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_46">46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anaximander, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_43">43</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anaximenes, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Andronicus the Peripatetic, quoted by Sethiani, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apelles, follower of Marcion. His tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his prophetess Philumena, ii. <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apocatastasis, return of worlds to Deity, ii. <a href="#Page_75">75</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Apparitions of gods, how produced by magicians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_100">100</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apsethus the Libyan, story of, ii. <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Archelaus, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_47">47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aristotle, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_55">55</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Categories</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_55">55</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Quintessence, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_56">56</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_72">72</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">phrase of, used by Simon M., ii. <a href="#Page_11">11</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">Basilides’ tenets attributed to, ii. <a href="#Page_62">62</a>-<a href="#Page_66">66</a>. <i>See</i> Plato</li> - -<li class="indx">Arithmomancy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_87">87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Armellini attributes <i>Philosophumena</i> to Novatian, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arnold, Prof. E. V., his <i>Roman Stoicism</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_57">57</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_127">127</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_136">136</a> <i>n.</i> 5; ii. <a href="#Page_45">45</a> <i>n.</i> 7, <a href="#Page_79">79</a> <i>n.</i> 6</li> - -<li class="indx">Asclepiades, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Assyrians = Syrians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>n.</i> 6;</li> -<li class="isub1">teach triune nature of Deity, <i>ib.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Astrology, source of heresy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Chaldæan system of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">folly of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_70">70</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_113">113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">zodiacal types of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Astronomers, calculations of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Hippolytus’ contempt for, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_82">82</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Athenæus, his <i>Deipnosophistæ</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_108">108</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Attis, legend of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_118">118</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">hymns to, sung in Mysteries of great Mother, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">names of: Adonis, Osiris, Moon, Sophia, Adamna, Corybas, Papas, Aipolos, Amygdalus, Syrictas, <i>ib.</i></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_180"></a>[180]</span>Babylonians, say god is Darkness, <i>ap.</i> Hippolytus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_104">104</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baptism, in primitive Church followed by milk and honey, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_136">136</a> <i>n.</i> 9</li> - -<li class="indx">Barbelo, the earth-goddess, of Gnostics, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_139">139</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Baruch</i>, book of. <i>See</i> Justinus</li> - -<li class="indx">Basilides, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-<a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hearer of Glaucias, ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Matthias, ii. <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his son Isidore, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his God-who-is-Not, ii. <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">The Panspermia, ii. <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Ascension of First Sonhood, ii. <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Second Sonhood, ii. <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Boundary Spirit, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Great Ruler and his greater Son, ii. <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the second ruler or Hebdomad, ii. <a href="#Page_73">73</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">descent of the Gospel, ii. <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the 365 heavens and Habrasax, ii. <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">light which shines upon Jesus and His Passion, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Apocatastasis of Formlessness and Mission of Jesus, ii. <a href="#Page_77">77</a>-<a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the great ignorance, ii. <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_159">159</a>-<a href="#Page_161">161</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Simon of Cyrene, Aristotle</li> - -<li class="indx">Baubo. <i>See</i> Hecate</li> - -<li class="indx">Baur, Chr. F., attributes <i>Philosophumena</i> to Caius the presbyter, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beelzebuth, made from perplexity of Sophia, <i>ap.</i> Valentinus, ii. <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">name parody of Jabezebuth, ii. <a href="#Page_31">31</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Benn, Alfred W., his <i>Philosophy of Greece</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_37">37</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_43">43</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Bigourdan, G., his <i>L’Astronomie: Evolution des Idées</i>, etc., quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_80">80</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Blastus, heretic mentioned by pseudo-Tertullian, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bouché-Leclercq, A., his <i>L’Astrologie Grecque</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_67">67</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_74">74</a> <i>n.</i> 5; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_108">108</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_148">148</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Bousset, Prof. Wilhelm, his <i>Hauptprobleme der Gnosis</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>n.</i> 2; ii. <a href="#Page_80">80</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_163">163</a> <i>n.</i> 7</li> - -<li class="indx">Brachmans, their lives and teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_61">61</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_99">99</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Brandt, Prof. A. S. H. W. <i>See</i> Elchesaites</li> - -<li class="indx">Brimo, name of Demeter in Mysteries, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_138">138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bruce, the, Papyrus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_12">12</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Buddhism, known to Clement of Alexandria, ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Budge, Sir Ernest A. W. T., his <i>Miscellaneous Coptic Texts</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_178">178</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Bunsen, Baron von, his <i>Hippolytus and his Age</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Cabala, the Jewish process of <i>gematria</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_131">131</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">explanation of, ii. <a href="#Page_40">40</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">measurements in, ii. <a href="#Page_133">133</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Caius the presbyter, <i>Philosophumena</i> attributed to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Callistus, Pope (218-223 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>), i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">leans towards heresy of Noetus, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his life and tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_124">124</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fails with Sabellius, ii. <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">calls Hippolytus’ party ditheists, ii. <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">formerly slave to Carpophorus, ii. <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his misdeeds and flight, ii. <a href="#Page_126">126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">condemned to mill by Carpophorus, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">makes riot in synagogue and sent to mines by Fuscianus, ii. <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">released by Victor and Marcia, ii. <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">promoted to charge of cemetery by Zephyrinus, ii. <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">excommunicates Sabellius, ii. <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his leanings towards Sabellius and Theodotus, ii. <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">favours laxity of morals in Church, ii. <a href="#Page_130">130</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and second baptism, ii. <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carpocrates, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_90">90</a>-<a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">assigns sinless soul to Jesus, ii. <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">says all men may be Christs, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lawlessness of followers of, ii. <a href="#Page_91">91</a>-<a href="#Page_92">92</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Magic</li> - -<li class="indx">Carpophorus. <i>See</i> Callistus</li> - -<li class="indx">Caulacau, used with Saulasau and Zeesar by Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_131">131</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Adamas identified with, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">name in which Saviour descended, <i>ib.</i> <i>n.</i> 6</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_181"></a>[181]</span>Cerdo, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">teacher of Marcion, ii. <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cerinthus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">adoptionist views of, ii. <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chaldæans, horoscopy of, described, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_76">76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Charles, R. H., his <i>Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of O. T.</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_154">154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cicero, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_68">68</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_107">107</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Clement of Alexandria, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_144">144</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_12">12</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="#Page_20">20</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_78">78</a> <i>n.</i> 8, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_122">122</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Cleomenes, preacher of Noetian heresy, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colarbasus, his arithmetical heresy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">name of, ii. <a href="#Page_57">57</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Constellation figures, interpretation of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_114">114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Corybas, god of Phrygians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his legend, <i>ib.</i> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Cruice, Abbé Patrice M., <i>Philosophumena</i>, etc., i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_4">4</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Études sur les P.</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="isub1">Cumont, Franz, his <i>Textes et Monuments de Mithra</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_98">98</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Les Mystères de Mithra</i>, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Recherches sur le Manichéisme</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_110">110</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Cosmogonie Manichéenne</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_176">176</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Cybele, or Great Mother, worship of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">legend of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_118">118</a> <i>n.</i> 1.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Attis, Naassenes, Ophites, Rhea</li> - -<li class="indx">Cyphi, Egyptian incense used in magic, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Demiurge, or architect of Universe;</li> -<li class="isub1">fiery god of Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">made from fear of Sophia, <i>ap.</i> Valentinus, ii. <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Democritus, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_49">49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Devil, ruler of this world made from grief of Sophia, <i>ap.</i> Valentinus, ii. <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Didymus of Alexandria, <i>Philosophumena</i> attributed to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diels, Hermann, edits Book I. of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_31">31</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Diodorus of Eretria, mentioned by no other author, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_38">38</a> <i>n.</i> 6</li> - -<li class="indx">Diogenes Laertius, source of Hippolytus’ summary of philosophies, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_64">64</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_35">35</a> <i>n.</i> 7, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_36">36</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_37">37</a> <i>n.</i> 6; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_40">40</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_41">41</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_42">42</a> <i>n.</i> 1; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_44">44</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_48">48</a> <i>nn.</i> 3, 4; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_54">54</a> <i>n.</i> 1; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_56">56</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 2; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_58">58</a> <i>n.</i> 1; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_59">59</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">mentions Gymnosophists and Druids, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_60">60</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Docetae, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_99">99</a>-<a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">interpretation of story of fig-tree, ii. <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">And of Parable of Sower, ii. <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">views on Annunciation and Passion of Jesus, ii. <a href="#Page_104">104</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">probably Valentinian, ii. <a href="#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Döllinger, Dr. Ignaz, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Hippolytus and Callistus quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_124">124</a> <i>n.</i> 1; <a href="#Page_125">125</a> <i>n.</i> 3; <a href="#Page_126">126</a> <i>nn.</i> 4, 6; <a href="#Page_127">127</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 2, 4; <a href="#Page_128">128</a> <i>nn.</i> 4, 5; <a href="#Page_129">129</a> <i>n.</i> 4; <a href="#Page_130">130</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 7; <a href="#Page_131">131</a> <i>n.</i> 6</li> - -<li class="indx">Dositheus, a Samaritan heretic, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_14">14</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Druids, Pythagoreans, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_62">62</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Diogenes Laertius</li> - -<li class="indx">Duchesne, Mgr. Louis, his <i>Histoire Ancienne de l’Église</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_124">124</a> <i>n.</i> 1; <a href="#Page_125">125</a> <i>n.</i> 7</li> - -<li class="indx">Duncker, Ludwig, <i>Philosophumena</i>, etc., i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_4">4</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ebionites, their tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Mughtasila</li> - -<li class="indx">Ecphantus, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Edem (Eden), garden of, compared to brain, <i>ap.</i> Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_143">143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">river of, compared to serpent, <i>ap.</i> Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">to four senses of man, <i>ap.</i> Simon Magus, ii. <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">name of Israel wife of Elohim, <i>ap.</i> Justinus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Egypt = the body, <i>ap.</i> Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_182"></a>[182]</span>Egyptians, used for Alexandrians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_40">40</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">astrology of, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_48">48</a> n. 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Wisdom” of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_104">104</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Gospel accdg. to</i>, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elchesaites, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Brandt’s <i>Elchesai</i>, ii. <a href="#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">Alcibiades introduces heresy of, into Rome, ii. <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the <i>Book of Elchesai</i> quoted, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their belief in transmigration, ii. <a href="#Page_134">134</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">repeated baptisms and spells used by, ii. <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prophecies of, ii. <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Mughtasila</li> - -<li class="indx">Eleusis (Mysteries of), words used in, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rites of, described, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_139">139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Empedocles, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_41">41</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Encratites, their tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their connection with Tatian, ii. <a href="#Page_114">114</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">extreme asceticism of, ii. <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epicurus, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_59">59</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epiphanes (supposed follower of Valentinus), his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epiphanius, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a> <i>n.</i> 3; ii. <a href="#Page_39">39</a> <i>n.</i> 7, <a href="#Page_48">48</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_49">49</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_76">76</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_80">80</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3; <a href="#Page_90">90</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_92">92</a> <i>nn.</i> 3, 4; <a href="#Page_93">93</a> <i>n.</i> 7, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_113">113</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Essenes, Book of Job attributed to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_109">109</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1">Ebionites and, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_110">110</a> <i>n.</i> 3.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Jews, Mughtasila, Zealots</li> - -<li class="indx">Euphrates (the Peratic), his story of war in heaven, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">meaning of name of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">founder of Ophite heresy, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and with Akembes of Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eusebius, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_14">14</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_96">96</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_111">111</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_112">112</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Fabricius, edits Book I of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_1">1</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Faye, Eugène de, his <i>Introduction</i>, etc., and <i>Gnostiques et Gnosticisme</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_8">8</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Fessler, Prof., attributes <i>Philosophumena</i> to Caius, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Firmicus, J. Maternus, his <i>Matheseos</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_68">68</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Flora. <i>See</i> Ptolemy, follower of V.</li> - -<li class="indx">Flügel, Prof., his <i>Mani</i> quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Fuscianus, prefect of city (188-193 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>), sentences Callistus to mines, ii. <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ganschinietz, Richard, his <i>Hippolytus’ Kapitel gegen die Magier</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Geryon, the triple-bodied, pervades everything, <i>ap.</i> Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gnostics, Mysteries of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">derive tenets from Greeks and barbarians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Naassenes, Philo</li> - -<li class="indx">Graillot, L., his <i>Le Culte de Cybèle</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_135">135</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Greeks, Phœnician origin of, attributed to Herodotus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tenets of Physicists among, taken from Sextus Empiricus, ii. <a href="#Page_150">150</a>-<a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gronovius, annotates Book I of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_1">1</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Hatch, Edwin, Dr., his <i>Hibbert Lectures</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_38">38</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_136">136</a> <i>n.</i> 9; ii. <a href="#Page_45">45</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> <i>n.</i> 8, <a href="#Page_62">62</a> <i>n.</i> 7.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hebrew words used by magicians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_93">93</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hecate, hymn to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">identified with Baubo, Gorgo, Mormo and Mene, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">also with Artemis, Persephone and Eriskigal, <i>ib.</i> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Hemerobaptists, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Mughtasila</li> - -<li class="indx">Heracleon, follower of Valentinus, his tenets not described by Hippolytus, ii. <a href="#Page_38">38</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Heraclides of Pontus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Heraclitus of Ephesus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Noetus</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_183"></a>[183]</span>Hermes, street statues of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_127">127</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hermogenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_111">111</a>-<a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hesiod (the poet), his <i>Theogony</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_63">63</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hippasus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hippo, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hippocrates, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hippolytus, schismatic Pope (218-235 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>), i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">denies Pauline authorship of <i>Hebrews</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_23">23</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">calls himself guardian of the Church, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heterodoxy of, ii. <a href="#Page_125">125</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Chronicon</i> of, ii. <a href="#Page_171">171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his own doctrine stated, ii. <a href="#Page_172">172</a> to end;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Substance of the All</i>, ii. <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homoousios, first used by Hippolytus, ii. <a href="#Page_69">69</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Hyacinthus. <i>See</i> Marcia</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Irenæus, St., Hippolytus’ indebtedness to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Five Books Against Heresies</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_139">139</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_160">160</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_15">15</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_17">17</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_25">25</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_27">27</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_38">38</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_39">39</a> <i>nn.</i> 3, 4; <a href="#Page_40">40</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_44">44</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="#Page_48">48</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_49">49</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3, 6; <a href="#Page_50">50</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_51">51</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 8; <a href="#Page_53">53</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_54">54</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_56">56</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_57">57</a> <i>nn.</i> 4, 5; <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_76">76</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_79">79</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_80">80</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_90">90</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_91">91</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="#Page_92">92</a> <i>nn.</i> 3, 4; <a href="#Page_93">93</a> <i>nn.</i> 4, 5; <a href="#Page_111">111</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Jesus</li> - -<li class="indx">Isidore. <i>See</i> Basilides</li> - -<li class="indx">Isis identified with the Earth, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">Mysteries of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Jacobi, Prof., first to declare Hippolytus author of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jaldabaoth, a fiery god, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3; ii. <a href="#Page_102">102</a> <i>n.</i> 9;</li> -<li class="isub1">a “fourth number,” <i>ib.</i></li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Adam, Sophia</li> - -<li class="indx">James, the brother of the Lord, alleged transmitter of Naassene doctrines, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jerusalem, the heavenly, mother of all living, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the city in Phœnicia, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_138">138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jesus, His triple nature, <i>ap.</i> Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Perfect Man, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reason of His Incarnation, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">His triple powers, <i>ap.</i> Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_147">147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Intermediate between the Father and matter, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_158">158</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Son of Joseph and Mary, <i>ap.</i> Justinus and Carpocrates, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the great High Priest, ii. <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mystic name of, <i>ap.</i> Irenæus, ii. <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">self-generated, <i>ap.</i> Marcus, ii. <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">His Illumination Mission and Passion, <i>ap.</i> Basilides, ii. <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the One God of Zephyrinus, ii. <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">so of Callistus, ii. <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Docetae, Justinus</li> - -<li class="indx">Jeû of Bruce Papyrus, called the Great Man, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Jews, history of, from Josephus and others, ii. <a href="#Page_138">138</a>-<a href="#Page_148">148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">divided into Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, ii. <a href="#Page_139">139</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tenets of Essenes, ii. <a href="#Page_139">139</a>-<a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the like of Pharisees, ii. <a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the like of Sadducees, ii. <a href="#Page_145">145</a>-<a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">all expect Messiah, ii. <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chronology of history of, ii. <a href="#Page_170">170</a>-<a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Josephus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_10">10</a> <i>n.</i> 3; i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Jews</li> - -<li class="indx">Jothor, father-in-law of Moses, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Justin Martyr, says Simon Magus claimed divinity, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_14">14</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Justinus, the Gnostic, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">perhaps not Ophite, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_28">28</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">probably one of the later Gnostics, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">his oath of secrecy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Baruch</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">allegorizes Herodotus’ Scythian story, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Triad of the Good One, Elohim and Edem, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the twenty-four angels of, and their names, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">likeness of these to Bar Khôni’s Ophites, <i>ib.</i> <i>nn.</i> 3, 4;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_184"></a>[184]</span>angels of, called Trees, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_174">174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">creation of protoplasts, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_174">174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ascent of Elohim, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sin of Eve and Naas, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of evil, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Heracles a Saviour, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Jesus called by Baruch when twelve years old, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">explanation of Pagan myths, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">put by summarizer after Basilides, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_161">161</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Kessler, Konrad, his <i>Mani</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_82">82</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">King, C. W., his <i>Gnostics and their Remains</i> quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Lane, E. W., his <i>Modern Egyptians</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_97">97</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Langdon, Dr. Stephen, his <i>Tammuz and Ishtar</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Latinisms in text of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_23">23</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leemans, Prof. C., his <i>Papyri Græci</i> quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_44">44</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Legge, F., his <i>Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_2">2</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_9">9</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_27">27</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_39">39</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_40">40</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_94">94</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_105">105</a> <i>nn.</i> 3, 4; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_109">109</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_114">114</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 2, 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_128">128</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_130">130</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_135">135</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_137">137</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_139">139</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_156">156</a> n. 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_160">160</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_162">162</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_165">165</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_174">174</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_175">175</a> <i>n.</i> 2; ii. <a href="#Page_7">7</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 3; <a href="#Page_25">25</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_34">34</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="#Page_72">72</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_82">82</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_89">89</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_97">97</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_103">103</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_163">163</a> <i>n.</i> 7</li> - -<li class="indx">Leucippus, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lipsius, R. A., opposes Hippolytus’ authorship, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his articles in <i>D.C.B.</i> quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_38">38</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Lucian of Samosata, his <i>Alexander</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_99">99</a> n. 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">follower of Cerdo, ii. <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Macmahon, J. H., translates <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Magic, its connection with astrology, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_91">91</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">practised by Simon’s disciples, ii. <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Carpocratians, ii. <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Magicians, tricks of, described, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_103">103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Man, Perfect, <i>ap.</i> Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in <i>Pistis Sophia</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>ap.</i> Sethiani, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_165">165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">First, <i>ap.</i> Manichæans, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1">expression used in Summary, ii. <a href="#Page_163">163</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Adam, Adamas, Monoimus, Pindar</li> - -<li class="indx">Manichæism, the Atlas or Omophorus of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_110">110</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1">First Man of, captured by powers of darkness, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>n.</i> 2; ii. <a href="#Page_7">7</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">hostility of, to Jews, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_165">165</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">Justinus’s anticipation of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_176">176</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">Valentinus’s, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">evocation of First Man in, ii. <a href="#Page_34">34</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">our earth worst of all worlds, ii. <a href="#Page_35">35</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">column of praises in, ii. <a href="#Page_50">50</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">secrecy of, ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Cumont, Flügel, Kessler</li> - -<li class="indx">Marcia, concubine of Commodus, ii. <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">takes counsel with Pope Victor, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">her foster brother Hyacinthus, <i>ib.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Marcion, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_82">82</a>-<a href="#Page_90">90</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">compared with those of Empedocles, ii. <a href="#Page_82">82</a>-<a href="#Page_88">88</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Prepon’s address to Bardesanes, ii. <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marcus, follower of Valentinus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_40">40</a>-<a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his frauds and juggling tricks, ii. <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-<a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vision of the Tetrad, ii. <a href="#Page_45">45</a>-<a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his cabalistic system of numbers, ii. <a href="#Page_48">48</a>-<a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mariam, aunt of Moses, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mariamne, said to have received Naassene tradition from St. James, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">known to Origen and Celsus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Mark, St., story of self-mutilation to avoid orders, ii. <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maspero, Sir Gaston Charles, his <i>Hist. anc<sup>me</sup> de l’Orient</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_47">47</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_185"></a>[185]</span>Matter, Jacques, <i>Hist. du Gnosticisme</i> quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Maximilla. <i>See</i> Phrygians</li> - -<li class="indx">Melchizidek. <i>See</i> Theodotus the Banker</li> - -<li class="indx">Menander, successor of Simon Magus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Metoposcopy, divination by physiognomy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_87">87</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Michael, scribe of MS., i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Miller, Bénigne Emanuel, first editor of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Mélanges de Litt. Grecque</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_100">100</a>, <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Monarchia, doctrine of one supreme source of all things, ii. <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monoimus Arabs, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_106">106</a>-<a href="#Page_111">111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not Christian, ii. <a href="#Page_106">106</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">his heavenly man, ii. <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cabalistic theory of numbers, ii. <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">letter to Theophrastus quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Montanus. <i>See</i> Phrygians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mughtasila, washers or Hemerobaptists, Elchesaites derived from, ii. <a href="#Page_132">132</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">make converts among Essenes and Ebionites, <i>ib.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Mynas, Mynoïdes, discoverer of MS. of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mysteries of the heretics, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">promise to describe, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_63">63</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">probably described in missing Books, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">source of Naassene heresy, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">M. of Assyrians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Phrygians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ineffable M. of Isis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">M. of Greeks, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_127">127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Hye Cye</i> in Eleusinian, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">M. of Samothrace, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">great secret of Eleusinian, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lesser and Great, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_139">139</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">M. of the Great Mother, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Phliasian, older than Eleusinian, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_166">166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">M. of Justinus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_171">171</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Naas, the serpent, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">one of Justinus’ maternal angels, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Naassenes, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their tenets, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_118">118</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">call themselves Gnostics, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their supreme deity Adamas, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">all his powers in Jesus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the names of the Three Churches, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the first man, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their connection with the Mysteries, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">with the <i>Gospel of the Egyptians</i>, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the myth of Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_124">124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their interpretation of the mysteries of Isis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_127">127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the demiurge Jaldabaoth, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their interpretation of Homer, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of the Cabiric mysteries, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the myths of Corybas and Pappas, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">other names of Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">N. mentioned by Irenæus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_139">139</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">why so called, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hymns of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">interpretation of anatomy of brain, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_144">144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Adamas, Eleusis, Geryon, Serpent</li> - -<li class="indx">Neologisms used by Hippolytus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_24">24</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Noetus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-<a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his heresy, derived</li> -<li class="isub1">from Heraclitus, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-<a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his followers, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">identifies Father and Son, ii. <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Cleomenes, Phrygians</li> - -<li class="indx">Novatian, <i>Philosophumena</i> attributed to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Hippolytus said to follow, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a> <i>n.</i> 4.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Oannes, the fist man, <i>ap.</i> Assyrians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ocellus Lucanus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ophites, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heresy derived from worship of Cybele or Great Mother, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_118">118</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">curse Christ, <i>ap.</i> Origen, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">comparative, insignificance of, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_20">20</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Attis, Euphrates, Naassenes</li> - -<li class="indx">Origen, <i>Philosophumena</i> attributed -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_186"></a>[186]</span>to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>Contra Celsum</i> quoted, i, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_20">20</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_121">121</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 5; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_130">130</a> <i>n.</i> 1; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Orpheus, a theologist, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_103">103</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">discloser of mysteries, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_166">166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Bacchica</i> quoted, but otherwise unknown, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Sethian heresy derived from, <i>ib.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Osiris, his mutilation, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">signifies water, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">his statue in the temple of Isis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_127">127</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Papas, god of Phrygians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">name of Attis, <i>ib.</i> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">means Father, <i>ib.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Parmenides, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parthey, Gustav, his <i>Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_93">93</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Patripassianism, heresy of, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_168">168</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Paul, St., <i>Acts of, and Thekla</i>, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_30">30</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mentioned by Clem, Alex., i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">their teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their triple division of the cosmos, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their Christology, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_147">147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their astrological theories, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_149">149</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their book <i>Proastii</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_50">50</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_153">153</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">why called Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their saviour Serpent, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Serpent is type of Christ, Joseph and Nimrod, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_156">156</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the constellation Draco, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_157">157</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">anatomy of brain typifies Father and Son, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Edem, Euphrates</li> - -<li class="indx">Persephone, as lover of Adonis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_124">124</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Hecate</li> - -<li class="indx">Persians say God is Light, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_104">104</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pharisees. <i>See</i> Jews</li> - -<li class="indx">Philo, his Logos and Gnostic ideas, ii. <a href="#Page_7">7</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_8">8</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_173">173</a> <i>n.</i> 4</li> - -<li class="indx">Philumena. <i>See</i> Apelles</li> - -<li class="indx">Photius, his <i>Bibliotheca</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a> <i>n.</i> 1.</li> - -<li class="indx">Phrên. <i>See</i> Râ</li> - -<li class="indx">Phrygians (Montanists), their tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">followers of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, ii. <a href="#Page_113">113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lean towards Noetian and Patripassian heresies, ii. <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Mysteries, Naassenes</li> - -<li class="indx">Pindar, ode on first man assigned to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Pistis Sophia</i>, The, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a> n. 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_9">9</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_123">123</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 3, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_124">124</a> <i>n.</i> 11, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_150">150</a> <i>nn.</i> 1, 3, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_152">152</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_162">162</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_177">177</a> <i>n.</i> 5; ii. <a href="#Page_5">5</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_16">16</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_43">43</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_48">48</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> <i>n.</i> 9, <a href="#Page_53">53</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_71">71</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_79">79</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_93">93</a> <i>n.</i> 7, <a href="#Page_97">97</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_102">102</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Plato, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his teaching, i, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_51">51</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_55">55</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">passages from Aristotle ascribed by Hippolytus to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_54">54</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Clitopho</i> quoted as <i>Republic</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_55">55</a> <i>n.</i> 7;</li> -<li class="isub1">analogy between his teaching and Simon M.’s, ii. <a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Valentinus’, ii. <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Alcinous</li> - -<li class="indx">Plutarch, his <i>de Iside et Osiride</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_129">129</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>de Exilio</i>, ii, <a href="#Page_23">23</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Point, indivisible, from which all things spring, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pontianus, Pope (230-235 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>), i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Praxeas, a heretic refuted by Tertullian and mentioned by pseudo-Tert., but not by Irenæus or Hippolytus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prepon the Assyrian. <i>See</i> Marcion</li> - -<li class="indx">Priscilla. <i>See</i> Phrygians</li> - -<li class="indx">Proastii. <i>See</i> Peratæ</li> - -<li class="indx">Proteus, identified with Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_137">137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prudentius quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ptolemy, Claudius, the astronomer, mentioned, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_82">82</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Tetrabiblos</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_88">88</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">—— follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his letter to his “fair sister Flora,” ii. <a href="#Page_39">39</a> <i>n.</i> 7</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_187"></a>[187]</span>Pyrrho, wrongly called an Academic by Hippolytus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_59">59</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pythagoras, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his life and followers, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_39">39</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his theory of numbers, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_115">115</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Accidents attributed to, ii. <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his theory of metempsychosis, ii. <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gnomic sayings of, ii. <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">solar theory of, ii. <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Quartodecimans, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Irenæus their advocate, ii. <a href="#Page_112">112</a> <i>n.</i> 6</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Râ, Egyptian Sun-God, invoked by magicians, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_92">92</a> <i>n.</i> 7</li> - -<li class="indx">Rhea, an androgyne deity, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">identified with Gê and Cybele, <i>ib.</i> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Rogers, Dr. R. W., <i>Religion of Babylonia and Assyria</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_151">151</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Sabellius. <i>See</i> Callistus</li> - -<li class="indx">Sadducees. <i>See</i> Jews</li> - -<li class="indx">Salmon, Dr. George, his <i>Cross-references in Philosophumena</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_38">38</a> <i>n.</i> 1.;</li> -<li class="isub1">his articles in <i>D.C.B.</i> i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_22">22</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_69">69</a> <i>n.</i> 6; ii. <a href="#Page_38">38</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_40">40</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_80">80</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_98">98</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_100">100</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_108">108</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_109">109</a> <i>n.</i> 6, <a href="#Page_113">113</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_173">173</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Saturnilus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Unknown Father, ii. <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">angels make man in His image, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Christ sent to depose God of Jews, <i>ib.</i></li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Simon of Cyrene</li> - -<li class="indx">Saulasau. <i>See</i> Caulacau.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schneidewin, F. G., with Duncker edits part of <i>Philosophumena</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Schürer, Prof., his <i>History of Jewish People</i> quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_7">7</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_8">8</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Secundus, follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sephora, wife of Moses, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Serpent, inspirer of Naassene doctrine, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">identified with substance of water, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the constellation Draco, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">the brazen, <i>ap.</i> Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_156">156</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Son and the Word, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_157">157</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">wind of darkness <i>ap.</i> Sethiani, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_165">165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Justinus wholly evil, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Seth, Paraphrase of.</i> <i>See</i> Sethiani.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sethiani, their tenets, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">authors who mention, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_160">160</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Sitheus of Bruce Papyrus, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their triad of Light, Darkness and Spirit, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Light and Spirit caught by Darkness, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">impregnation of Darkness, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">analogy with other triads, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_166">166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">system of, derived from Orphic, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_166">166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Phliasian Mysteries of Great Mother, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simile of oil-well at Ampe, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their <i>Paraphrase of Seth</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-<a href="#Page_157">157</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Andronicus, Man</li> - -<li class="indx">Sextus Empiricus, Hippolytus’ borrowings from, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_69">69</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Greek</li> - -<li class="indx">Simon of Cyrene, story of his substitution for Jesus on the Cross probably Saturnilian, not Basilidian, ii. <a href="#Page_59">59</a> <i>n.</i> 1, <a href="#Page_79">79</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Simon Magus, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his system derived from art of arithmetic, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his six roots, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_7">7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his <i>Great Announcement</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>; ii. <a href="#Page_4">4</a>-<a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his life and tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_2">2</a>-<a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his supreme God, fire, ii. <a href="#Page_4">4</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his account of the creation of Man, ii. <a href="#Page_9">9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Epinoia Helen of Tyre, ii. <a href="#Page_15">15</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his death, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">source of Valentinian heresy, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Edem, Justin, Magic, Menander</li> - -<li class="indx">Socrates, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sophia, name given to Helen of Tyre by Simon M., i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_188"></a>[188]</span>Sethians make her cause of Flood, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">identified with Earth, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_105">105</a> <i>n.</i> 3; ii. <a href="#Page_27">27</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">mother of Jaldabaoth, <i>ap.</i> Naassenes, i. 118 <i>n.</i> 1, 132 <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Naassene hymn, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_145">145</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">her name of Achamoth, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a> <i>n.</i> 4;</li> -<li class="isub1">fall of, <i>ap.</i> Valentinus, ii. <a href="#Page_7">7</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">decides fate of men, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a> <i>n.</i> 5;</li> -<li class="isub1">her adventures, ii. <a href="#Page_28">28</a>-<a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the heaven of, ii. <a href="#Page_31">31</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">identified with Holy Spirit, ii. <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sotion of Alexandria, Hippolytus’ borrowings from, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_49">49</a> <i>n.</i> 3; <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_64">64</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Stähelin, Heinrich, his <i>Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_8">8</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Stoics, their teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_58">58</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Hippolytus’ reluctance to mention, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_157">157</a> <i>n.</i> 2</li> - -<li class="indx">Syrictas, the pipe-player, name of Attis, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Tatian the Gnostic, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">holds Adam not saved, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Encratites</li> - -<li class="indx">Tertullian, <i>Philosophumena</i> assigned to, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, ii. <a href="#Page_82">82</a> <i>n.</i> 3, <a href="#Page_96">96</a> <i>nn.</i> 2, 3, <a href="#Page_111">111</a> <i>n.</i> 3.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Praxeas</li> - -<li class="indx">Tertullian, Pseudo-, <i>Adversus Omnes Hæreses</i>, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>-<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_160">160</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_95">95</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="#Page_97">97</a> <i>n.</i> 2.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Praxeas</li> - -<li class="indx">Thales, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_142">142</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Theodore bar Khôni, his <i>Book of Scholia</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_169">169</a> <i>n.</i> 4, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_173">173</a> <i>n.</i> 3</li> - -<li class="indx">Theodoret calls Hippolytus Bishop and Martyr, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his account of Peratæ, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_146">146</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">quotes summary and not text of <i>Philosophumena</i>, ii. <a href="#Page_154">154</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Theodotus the Banker, his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">holds Melchizidek greater than Christ, ii. <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Theodotus of Byzantium, his tenets, ii. <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">adoptionist views of, ii. <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Theophrastus. <i>See</i> Monoimus</li> - -<li class="indx">Thomas, Gospel according to, quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_126">126</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Urbanus, Pope (223-230 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>), i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_7">7</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Valentinus, his system derived from arithmetical art, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">from Pythagoras and Plato, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a>-<a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Zoroastrian and Egyptian features of, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a> <i>n.</i> 1;</li> -<li class="isub1">division of followers as to Supreme Being, ii. <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his system of Aeons, ii. <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Sophia and her Ectroma, ii. <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">projection of Horos, ii. 29;</li> -<li class="isub1">Jesus the Common Friend of the Pleroma, <i>ib.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">salvation of Ectroma and result of her passions, ii. <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fourfold division of world, ii. 31, and of man, ii. <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">analogies of myths of, with Manichæism, ii. <a href="#Page_34">34</a> <i>n.</i> 5, <a href="#Page_35">35</a> <i>n.</i> 3;</li> -<li class="isub1">Anatolic and Italiote schools of, ii. <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">purpose of Incarnation, <i>ap.</i> ii. <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summary of doctrines of, ii. <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Beelzebuth, Demiurge, Devil, Pleroma and Sophia</li> - -<li class="indx">Victor, Pope (189-202 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>). <i>See</i> Callistus</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Wessely, his <i>Griechische Zauberpapyri</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_93">93</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Wilson, James, his <i>Complete Dictionary of Astrology</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_67">67</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, his <i>Hippolytus and the Church of Rome</i> quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_4">4</a> <i>n.</i> 2; i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>; i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_12">12</a> <i>n.</i> 1; ii. <a href="#Page_119">119</a> <i>n.</i> 2, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Xenophanes, his teaching, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_50">50</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Zaratas (Zoroaster) quoted, i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_104">104</a> <i>n.</i> 3; ii. <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Amshaspands</li> -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_189"></a>[189]</span>of, and Simon Magus’ roots, ii. <a href="#Page_2">2</a> <i>n.</i> 2;</li> -<li class="isub1">the like and Aeons of Valentinus, ii. <a href="#Page_17">17</a> <i>n.</i> 5</li> - -<li class="indx">Zealots, said by Hippolytus to be a sect of Essenes, ii. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_144">144</a> <i>n.</i> 1</li> - -<li class="indx">Zeesar. <i>See</i> Caulacau</li> - -<li class="indx">Zephyrinus, Pope (202-218 <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span>), i. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/65478-h/65478-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">said by Hippolytus to be ignorant and unskilled, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">leans towards heresy, ii. <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li> -</ul> - - -<p class="noin center">THE END</p> - -<div class="transnote p2"> -<div class="center large">Transcriber’s Notes</div> -<div class="p1">Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were corrected. The following corrections -have been made to the text: <br /> -<br /> -<table style="width:75%" summary="Transcriber edits"> -<tr style="text-align:left"> -<th>Page</th> -<th>Original</th> -<th>New</th> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td> -<td>takeing</td> -<td>taking </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_13">13</a></td> -<td>ἀ πέραντον</td> -<td>ἀπέραντον</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_26">26</a></td> -<td>ό</td> -<td>ὁ</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td> -<td>Σύγκοασις</td> -<td>Σύγκρασις</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td> -<td>κὰι</td> -<td>καὶ</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td> -<td>λελαλημέαν</td> -<td>λελαλημένα</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_43">43</a></td> -<td>αεὶ</td> -<td>ἀεὶ</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_44">44</a></td> -<td>Papypi</td> -<td>Papyri</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_55">55</a></td> -<td>ᾶνω</td> -<td>ἄνω</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_57">57</a></td> -<td>ףל־ארבע</td> -<td>קל־ארבע</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_62">62</a></td> -<td>εἰδεσιν</td> -<td>εἴδεσιν</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td> -<td>des</td> -<td>der</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td> -<td>firstfruits</td> -<td>first-fruits</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td> -<td>κολοδάκτυλος</td> -<td>κολοβοδάκτυλος</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td> -<td>χωρησάσαν</td> -<td>χωρήσασαν</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_98">98</a></td> -<td>φυσικὴς</td> -<td>φυσικῆς</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td> -<td>εῖναι</td> -<td>εἶναι</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td> -<td>ράφανοφαγίας</td> -<td>ῥάφανοφαγίας</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td> -<td>ἐγκρατε͂ις</td> -<td>ἐγκρατεῖς</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_119">119</a></td> -<td>φιλοσοφυμένοις</td> -<td>φιλοσοφουμένοις</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_119">119</a></td> -<td>Φιλοσοφυμένους</td> -<td>Φιλοσοφουμένους</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_139">139</a></td> -<td>εἰδη</td> -<td>εἴδη</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_145">145</a></td> -<td>κυριόις</td> -<td>κυρίοις</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_150">150</a></td> -<td>ἀκαλώπιστος</td> -<td>ἀκαλλώπιστος</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_164">164</a></td> -<td>octohedrons</td> -<td>octahedrons</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td> -<td>phase</td> -<td>phrase</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_181">181</a></td> -<td>Manichéisine</td> -<td>Manichéisme</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td><a href="#Page_183">183</a></td> -<td>Theogomy</td> -<td>Theogony</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> -</div> - - - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHUMENA, VOLUME II ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/67116-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/67116-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8d4da3b..0000000 --- a/old/67116-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
