diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67116-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67116-0.txt | 9800 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 9800 deletions
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. |