{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67116/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67116","id":"gutenberg_67116","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67116","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian heresies -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600","Occultism","Philosophy, Ancient"],"text":"TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE\n\n GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.\n W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.\n\n SERIES I\n\n GREEK TEXTS\n\n PHILOSOPHUMENA\n\n OR THE\n\n REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES\n\n\n\n\n PHILOSOPHUMENA\n\n OR THE\n\n REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES\n\n FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ORIGEN, BUT\n NOW TO HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND\n MARTYR, WHO FLOURISHED\n ABOUT 220 A.D.\n\n TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF CRUICE\n\n BY\n\n F. LEGGE, F.S.A.\n\n VOL. II.\n\n\n LONDON:\n SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING\n CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE\n NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.\n 1921\n\n\n\n\n PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY\n RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,\n PARIS GARDEN, STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1,\n AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n BOOK VI: SIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS 1-57\n 1. SIMON 2\n 2. VALENTINUS 17\n 3. SECUNDUS AND EPIPHANES 38\n 4. PTOLEMY 39\n 5. MARCUS 40\n\n BOOK VII: BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS 58-97\n 1. BASILIDES 59\n 2. SATURNILUS 80\n 3. MARCION 82\n 4. CARPOCRATES 90\n 5. CERINTHUS 92\n 6. EBION\u00c6I 93\n 7. THEODOTUS THE BYZANTIAN 93\n 8. ANOTHER THEODOTUS 94\n 9. CERDO AND LUCIAN 95\n 10. APELLES 96\n\n BOOK VIII: THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS 98-116\n 1. THE DOCETAE 99\n 2. MONOIMUS 106\n 3. TATIAN 111\n 4. HERMOGENES 111\n 5. THE QUARTODECIMANS 112\n 6. THE PHRYGIANS 113\n 7. THE ENCRATITES 114\n\n BOOK IX: NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS 117-148\n 1. NOETUS 118\n 2. CALLISTUS 124\n 3. THE ELCHESAITES 132\n 4. THE JEWS 138\n\n BOOK X: SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH 149-178\n 1. THE SUMMARY OF THE PHILOSOPHERS 150\n 2. THE SUMMARY OF THE HERESIES 153\n 3. THE WORD OF TRUTH 171\n\n INDEX 179\n\n\n\n\n PHILOSOPHUMENA\n\n\n\n\n BOOK VI\n\nSIMON MAGUS, VALENTINUS, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS\n\n\n[Sidenote: p. 242 Cruice.] 1. These are the contents of the 6th (book)\nof the _Refutation of all Heresies_.\n\n2. What Simon has dared, and that his doctrine is confirmed (by\nquotations) from magicians and poets.\n\n3. What Valentinus has laid down, and that his doctrine is not framed\nfrom the Scriptures, but from those of the Platonists and Pythagorists.\n\n4. And what is thought by Secundus, Ptolemy and Heracleon, and how they\nhave used as their own, but with different words, the thoughts of those\nwhom the Greeks (think) wise.\n\n5. What has been held by Marcus and Colarbasus [and their disciples]\nand that some of them gave heed to magic arts and Pythagorean numbers.\n\n6. Now such opinions as belong to those who have taken their principles\nfrom the serpent[1] and, when the time arrived, of their own accord\nbrought their doctrines into light, we have set forth in the Book\nbefore this, being the [Sidenote: p. 243.] Vth of the _Refutation\nof all Heresies_. Here, however, I will not keep silence as to the\nopinions of those who come after (them),[2] but will leave not one\nunrefuted, if it be possible to keep them all in mind, together with\ntheir secret rites which are justly to be called orgies, inasmuch as\nthose who dare such things are not far from God\u2019s wrath[3]--to use the\nword in its etymological sense.\n\n\n 1. _About Simon._\n\n7. It seems then right now to set forth also the (doings) of Simon,[4]\nthe man of Gitto,[5] a village of Samaria, whereby we shall show that\nthose also who followed (him) taking hints from other names have\nventured upon like things. This Simon, being skilled in magic arts\nand having played upon many, sometimes by the Thrasymedean[6] process\nin the way we have set forth above, but sometimes working iniquity by\nmeans of devils, designed to deify himself, (although only) a human\nsorcerer filled with desperation whom the [Sidenote: p. 244.] Apostles\nrefuted in the _Acts_.[7] Than whom Apsethus the Libyan was much wiser\nand more modest when he ambitiously attempted to be considered a god in\nLibya. Whose story as it is not very different from the vain desire of\nSimon, it seems fitting to narrate as one worthy to have been attempted\nby Simon himself.\n\n8. Apsethus the Libyan yearned to become a god. But since, after making\nhimself very busy, he utterly failed (to accomplish) his desire, he\nwished at all events to appear to have become one, and seemed as if he\nmight really effect this in course of time. For the foolish Libyans\nsacrificed to him as to some divine power, thinking that they must\ngive faith to a voice from heaven above. For he collected and shut up\nin one and the same cage a great many of the birds called parrots;\nthere being many parrots in Libya who imitate quite clearly the human\nvoice. For some time he fed the birds and taught them to say \u201cApsethus\nis a god\u201d: and when the birds had been [Sidenote: p. 245.] trained\nfor a long time, and repeated the saying which he thought would make\nApsethus be considered a god, he opened the cage and let the parrots\nout in all directions. The noise of the flying birds went forth into\nall Libya, and their words reached as far as the land of the Greeks.[8]\nAnd thus the Libyans being wonderstruck by the voices of the birds and\nnot understanding the trick played by Apsethus, held him for a god.\nBut a certain Greek having carefully studied the clever device of the\nso-called god, not only refuted him by the (mouth of the) same parrots\nbut removed from the earth that human quack and rascal. The Greek\nshut up many of the parrots and taught them to say instead (of their\nformer speech): \u201cApsethus shut us up and forced us to say: \u2018Apsethus\nis a god.\u2019\u201d And the Libyans hearing the parrots\u2019 recantation (and) all\nassembling with one mind burned Apsethus.[9]\n\n9. This (sort of man) one must suppose Simon the magician (to be),\nso that we would far sooner liken him to the Libyan who was born a\nman than to (Him) who is really God.[10] But if the details of the\nlikeness be held accurate and the magician had some such passion as\nApsethus, we will undertake to teach Simon\u2019s parrots that Simon who\nstood, stands and will stand was not Christ, but [Sidenote: p. 246.]\na man (sprung) from seed, born of a woman[11] begotten from blood and\nfleshly desire like the rest, and that he knew this to be so, we shall\neasily show as the story goes on.[12] But Simon, stupidly and clumsily\ngarbling the Law of Moses--for when Moses has said that God was \u201ca\nburning and consuming fire,\u201d[13]--he, not having received Moses\u2019 saying\nrightly, says that fire is the principle of the universals, and not\nhaving comprehended the saying that God is not Fire, but a burning\nand consuming fire, (thereby) not only rends in twain the Law of\nMoses, but steals from Heraclitus the Obscure.[14] But Simon proclaims\nthat the principle of the universals is a boundless power, speaking\nthus:--\u201cThis is the writing of the Announcement[15] of Voice and Name\nfrom the Thought of the great power of the Boundless One. Wherefore it\nwill be sealed up, hidden, concealed and will be in the dwelling-place\nwhere the root of the universals is founded.\u201d[16] But he says that\nthe dwelling-place is the same man who has been begotten from blood\nand that the [Sidenote: p. 247.] Boundless Power dwells in him, which\n(power) he says is the root of the universals. But the Boundless Power,\nthe fire according to Simon, is not simple as the many say who think\nthat the four elements are simple and that fire is simple; but there is\na certain double nature of fire, and of this double nature he calls one\npart hidden and the other manifest. But the hidden (parts) have been\nhidden in the manifest parts of the fire, and the manifest have come\ninto being by the hidden. This it is which Aristotle calls potentiality\nand action, and Plato the comprehensible and the perceptible.[17]\n\nAnd the manifest (part) of the fire contains within itself all which\none can perceive[18] or which can escape one, but remains visible;\nbut the hidden (part) contains everything which one can perceive as\nsomething intelligible but which evades the sense or which as not\nbeing thoroughly understood one passes over. But it must be said\ngenerally that of all things which are perceptible and intelligible,\nwhich Simon calls hidden and manifest,[19] the supercelestial fire is\nthe Treasure-house,[20] like unto the great tree which was seen by\nNebuchadnezzar in a dream, from which all flesh is fed.[21] [Sidenote:\np. 248.] And he considers the trunk, the boughs, the leaves, and the\nbark on the outside of it to be the manifest part of the fire. All\nthese things which are attached to the great tree the flame of the\nall-devouring fire causes to vanish. But the fruit of the tree, if\nit be made a perfect likeness[22] and has received its own shape, is\nplaced in a storehouse and not in the fire. For the fruit, he says, has\nbeen produced that it may be put in a storehouse, but the chaff that\nit may be cast into the fire, which (chaff) is the trunk which has not\nbeen produced for its own sake, but for that of the fruit.\n\n10. And this is, he says, what is written in the Scripture: \u201cThe\nvine of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and a man of Judah\nhis beloved plant.\u201d[23] But if a man of Judah is his beloved plant,\nit proves, he says, that a tree is nothing else than a man. But of\nits secretion and dissolution, he says, the Scripture has spoken\nsufficiently, and for the instruction of those who have been made\ncompletely after (its) likeness,[24] the saying is enough that: \u201cAll\nflesh is grass and all the glory of the flesh as the flower of grass.\nThe grass withereth and the flower fadeth away: but the word [Sidenote:\np. 249.] of the Lord abideth for ever.\u201d[25] But the word, he says, is\nthe word and speech of the Lord born in the mouth, save which there is\nno other place of generation.\n\n11. But, to be brief, since the fire is such according to Simon,\nand all things are seen and unseen as they are heard and unheard,\nnumbered and unnumbered, in the _Great Announcement_ he calls a perfect\nintellectual[26] every one of those (beings) which can be boundlessly\nconceived by the mind in a boundless way[27] and can speak and think\nand act, as says Empedocles:--\n\n For earth by earth we see, and water by water\n And (divine) \u00e6ther by \u00e6ther, yet destroying fire by fire,\n And (love) by love, and strife in gloomy strife.--\n (Karsten, v. 321.)\n\n12. For, he says, he considered all the parts of the fire which\nare invisible to have sense and a share of mind.[28] [Sidenote: p.\n250.] Therefore the cosmos, he says, came into being begotten by the\nunbegotten fire. But it began to be, he says, after this fashion:--He\nwho was produced from the beginning from that fire took six roots,\nthe first ones of the principle of generation.[29] And he says that\nthe roots came from the fire in pairs, which roots he calls Mind and\nThought, Voice and Name, Reasoning and Passion,[30] but that the whole\nof the Boundless Power together is in these six roots potentially,\nbut not actively. The which Boundless Power he says is He who Stood,\nStands, and will Stand. Who if he be made into a complete image (of\nthe fire) will be in substance, power, greatness, and effect one and\nthe same with that Unbegotten and Boundless Power, and lacking nothing\npossessed by that unbegotten and unchanging and infinite power. But if\nhe remains potentially only in the six powers and is not made into a\ncomplete image (of the fire), he is done away with and is lost like as\nthe capacity for grammar or geometry in man\u2019s soul. For power taking\n[Sidenote: p. 251.] to itself skill becomes a light of the things which\nare: but if it does not take unto itself (skill) it is unskilfulness\nand darkness and as if it were not, it perishes[31] with the man at his\ndeath.\n\n13. But of these six powers and the seventh which is with the six, he\ncalls the first pair, (to wit) Nous and Epinoia, Heaven and Earth. And\n(he says) that the masculine (partner) looks down from on high upon\nand takes thought for his spouse and that the Earth below receives the\nintellectual fruits proper to her brought down from Heaven to Earth.\nWherefore, he says, the Logos beholding often the things born from Nous\nand Epinoia, that is from Heaven and Earth, says: \u201cHear, O Heaven,\nand give ear, O Earth, for the Lord has spoken. I have begotten and\nraised up sons, but they have disregarded me.\u201d[32] He who thus speaks,\nhe says, is the Seventh Power who Stood, Stands and will Stand. For\nhe is the cause of those fair things which Moses praised and said\nthat [Sidenote: p. 252.] they were very good. And Phone and Onoma are\nthe Sun and Moon, and Logismos and Enthymesis Air and Water. But with\nall these is mingled and compounded, as I have said, the great and\nBoundless Power, He who has Stood.[33]\n\n14. Since, therefore, Moses spake: \u201cIn six days God created Heaven and\nEarth and the seventh day he rested from all his works,\u201d[34] Simon\nafter re-arranging the passage, makes himself out a god. When then they\nsay that three days passed before the Sun and Moon existed,[35] they\nshadow forth Nous and Epinoia and the Seventh Power, the Boundless\nOne. For these three powers were born before all the others. When they\nsay: \u201cBefore all the Aeons He has begotten me,\u201d[36] (Simon) says that\nthis was spoken of the Seventh Power. But the same Seventh Power,\nwhich was a power existing in the Boundless Power which was begotten\nbefore all the Aeons, this is, he says, the Seventh Power of whom Moses\nsaid: \u201cAnd the Spirit of God was borne above the water,\u201d[37] that is,\nhe says, the spirit containing [Sidenote: p. 253.] all things within\nitself, an image of the Boundless Power, of whom Simon says \u201cimage of\nthe imperishable form which alone orders all things.\u201d For that power\nwhich was borne above the water having come into being, he says, from\nthe imperishable form, alone orders all things. Now when some such\nand like preparations of the cosmos had come to pass, God, he says,\nmoulded[38] man, taking dust from the earth. But he fashioned him not\nsimple but twofold[39] according to image and resemblance. But the\nspirit which was borne above the water is an image, which spirit if it\nis not made a complete likeness,[40] perishes with the world, as it\nabides only potentially and does not exist in activity. This, he says,\nis the saying, \u201cLest ye be judged with the world.\u201d[41] But if it be\nmade a complete likeness and is born from an Indivisible Point as it is\nwritten in the Announcement, the small will become great. But it will\nbe great in the Boundless and Unchanging Aeon, being born no more.\n\nHow then and in what manner, he says, did God form man in Paradise?\nFor this is his opinion. Let, he says, Paradise be the womb, and that\nthis is true the Scripture teaches when it says: \u201cI am he who fashioned\nthee in thy mother\u2019s womb.\u201d[42] For this also he wishes to be thus\n[Sidenote: p. 254.] written. Moses, he says, speaking in allegory,\ncalls Paradise the womb if we are to believe the word. But if God\nfashions man in the womb of his mother, that is, in Paradise, as I have\nsaid, let Paradise be the womb and Edem the placenta: \u201cAnd a river went\nforth from Edem and watered Paradise\u201d[43] (this is) the navel-string.\nThe navel-string, he says, separates into four heads. For on each side\nof the navel are set two arteries, conduits of breath, and two veins,\nconduits of blood. But when he says, the navel-string goes forth from\nthe placenta it takes root in the infant by the epigastrium which all\nmen commonly call the navel. And the two veins it is through which\nflows and is borne from Edem (the placenta) the blood to the so-called\ngates of the liver whence the child is fed. But the arteries as we\nhave said, are the conduits of the breath[44] which pass behind on\neither side of the bladder round the pelvis and make connection with\nthe great artery by the spine called the aorta, and thus through the\nventricles the breath flows upon the heart and causes [Sidenote: p.\n255.] movement of the embryo. For the embryo in course of formation\nin Paradise neither takes food by the mouth, nor breathes through the\nnostrils. For, as it exists amid waters, death is at its feet if it\nshould breathe. For it would then draw in the waters and die. But it\nis girt about almost wholly by the envelope called the amnion and is\nfed through the navel, and through the aorta which is by the spine, it\nreceives, as I have said[45] the substance of the breath.\n\n15. Therefore, he says, the river flowing forth from Edem separates\ninto four heads (or) four conduits, that is, into the child\u2019s four\nsenses, sight, smell, taste, and touch. For the infant while being\nformed in Paradise has these senses only. This, he says, is the Law\nwhich Moses laid down; and agreeably with that same Law each of the\nBooks is written, as their titles clearly show. The first book (is)\n_Genesis_ (and) the title of the book, he says, suffices for the\nknowledge of the universals. For, he says, this is genesis, that is\nsight into which one of the sections of the river separates; [Sidenote:\np. 256.] for the world is seen by sight. The title of the second book\nis _Exodus_. For that which is born after crossing the Red Sea comes\ninto the Desert--he calls the blood, he says, the Red Sea--and tastes\nbitter water. For bitter, he says, is the water which comes after the\nRed Sea, which (water) is the way of knowledge of life pursued through\npainful and bitter things. But when changed by Moses, that is by the\nLogos, that bitter (water) becomes sweet. And that this is so, can be\nknown by all in common in the saying of the poets:--\n\n Black was it at the root, but the flower was like milk\n The gods call it Moly, but hard it is to dig\n For mortal men, but to the gods all things are possible.--\n (HOMER, _Odyssey_, X, 304 ff.)\n\n16. What has been said by the nations, he says, suffices for the\nthorough knowledge of the universals to those who have ears to hear.\nFor not only he who has tasted this fruit is not turned into a beast\nby Circe; but those also [Sidenote: p. 257.] who have been already\nbrutified by use of the powers of such fruit, he moulds again into\ntheir first and proper form and restores them to type and recalls\ntheir (original) impress. And the faithful man and he who is beloved\nby that witch is, he says, revealed through that milk-like and divine\nfruit. Likewise _Leviticus_ the third book which is the smell or\ninspiration.[46] For this book is of sacrifices and oblations. For\nwhere there is a sacrifice there comes a certain savour of fragrance\nfrom it through the incense, of which fragrance the sense of smell\n(ought to be a test).[47] _Numbers_, the fourth book he calls taste ...[48]\nwhere speech operates. But _Deuteronomy_, he says, is written\nwith reference to the sense of touch of the child in course of\nformation. For as the touch, touching the things perceived by the other\nsenses, sums up and confirms them, teaching us whether (anything) be\nhard or hot or cold,[49] so the fifth book of the Law is the summary\nof the four books written before it. All the unbegotten things, then,\nhe says, are in potentiality not in activity, like the grammatical\nor [Sidenote: p. 258.] geometrical art. If then one should chance\nupon the fitting word and doctrine, and the bitter should be changed\ninto sweet, that is, the spears into reaping-hooks and the swords\ninto ploughshares,[50] (the child) will not be chaff and sticks for\nproducing fire, but a perfect fruit made in semblance (of), as I have\nsaid (and) equal and like to, the Unbegotten and Boundless Power.\nBut should he remain only a tree and should not make a perfect fruit\nfashioned in complete resemblance, he will be removed. For the axe is\nnear, he says, to the roots of the tree. Every tree, he says, which\nmaketh not fair fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.[51]\n\n17. There is then, according to Simon, that blessed and incorruptible\nthing hidden in everything, potentially not actively, which is He who\nStood, Stands and will Stand. It stood above in the Unbegotten Power,\nit stands below amid the rush of the waters having been begotten in\nlikeness, and it will stand on high beside the blessed Unbegotten Power\nif it be made in (his) perfect semblance. For there are, he says, three\nwho have stood, and unless there are [Sidenote: p. 259.] three Aeons\nwho have stood, then the Unbegotten One who according to them is borne\nover the water, who by resemblance has been fashioned again perfect\n(and) heavenly, who in one thought alone[52] is more lacking than the\nUnbegotten Power, is not in its proper place.[53] This is what they\nsay: \u201cI and thou, thou one before me, I after thee, am I.\u201d This, he\nsays, is one power, divided above, below, begetting itself, increasing\nitself, seeking itself, finding itself, being its own mother, its own\nfather, its own sister, its own spouse, its own daughter, its own son,\na mother-father,[54] being one root of the universals.\n\nAnd that, he says, the beginning of the generation of things begotten\nis from fire, he understands in some such fashion as this: In all\nthings whatever which have birth, the beginning of the desire of\ngeneration comes from fire. As, for instance, the desire for mutable\ngeneration[55] is called \u201cbeing inflamed\u201d [with love]. But the fire\nfrom being one, turns into two. For in the man, he says, the blood\nwhich is hot and yellow as fire is depicted, turns into seed; but in\nthe woman the selfsame blood (turns) into milk. [Sidenote: p. 260.]\nAnd from the turning in the male comes generation and from that in\nthe female the nourishment of that which is generated.[56] This, he\nsays, is the flaming sword turning about to guard the path to the Tree\nof Life. For the blood is turned to seed and milk and the same power\nbecomes father and mother of those which are born and the increase of\nthose which are nourished, itself lacking nothing and being sufficient\nunto itself. But the Tree of Life is guarded he says, through the\nturning of the flaming sword, as we have said, which (sword) is the\nSeventh Power which is from itself, which contains all things (and)\nwhich lies stored up in the six powers. For if the flaming sword did\nnot turn about, that fair tree would perish and be destroyed. But if\nthe Logos which is lying stored up potentially therein, is turned into\nseed and milk, being lord of its proper place wherein is begotten a\nLogos of souls,--then from the smallest spark it will become great and\nincrease in every sense and will be a boundless power unchangeable in\nthe aeon which changes not until it is in the Boundless Aeon.[57]\n\n18. By this argument, then, Simon avowedly became a god to those\nof no understanding, like that Apsethus the [Sidenote: p. 261.]\nLibyan, being (said to be) begotten and subject to suffering when he\nexisted potentially, but (becoming) impassible (from passible, and\nunbegotten)[58] from begotten when he was made in perfect semblance and\nbecoming perfect came forth from the first two powers, that is Heaven\nand Earth. For Simon speaks explicitly of this in the _Announcement_,\nthus:--\n\n\u201cUnto you I say what I say, and I write what I write. The writing\nis this. There are two stems[59] of all the Aeons, having neither\nbeginning nor end, from one root, which is Power-Silence[60] unseen\nand incomprehensible. One of them appears on high, who is a great\npower, the mind of the universals, who orders all things and (is) a\nmale. And the other below is a great Thought, a female giving birth to\nall things. These, then, being set over against each other[61] form a\npair and show forth the middle space, an incomprehensible air having\nneither beginning nor end. In this (space) is a Father who upholds all\nthings and nourishes those which have a beginning and end. This is\nHe who Stood, Stands, and will Stand, being a masculo-feminine power\nafter the likeness of the pre-existing Boundless Power[62] which has\nneither beginning nor end but exists in oneness. For the thought which\ncame forth from the (power) in oneness was two. And that was one. For\nhe [Sidenote: p. 262.] when he contained her within himself was alone,\nnor was he indeed first although he existed beforehand, but having\nhimself appeared from himself, a second came into being. But he was\nnot called Father until she named him Father. Just as then he, drawing\nhimself forth from himself, manifested to himself his own thought, so\nalso the thought having appeared did not create him; but beholding\nhim, hid the Father--that is Power--within herself;[63] and there is a\nmasculo-feminine Power-and-Thought when they are set over against each\nother. For Power does not differ at all from thought, they being one.\nFrom the things on high is discovered Power; from those below Thought.\nThus then it is that that which appeared from them being one is found\nto be two, a masculo-feminine having the female within it. This is Mind\nin Thought for they being one when undivided from one another are yet\nfound to be two.\u201d\n\n19. Simon then having discovered (all) this, fraudulently interprets\nas he wishes not only the (words) of Moses, but [Sidenote: p. 263.]\nalso those of the poets. For he turns into allegory the Wooden Horse\nand Helen with the Torch and other things, altering which to the\naffairs of himself and his Epinoia, he leads astray many. And he\nsays that she is that sheep which was lost, who ever dwelling in\nmany women[64] troubles the powers in the cosmos by her transcendent\nbeauty. Wherefore also the Trojan War occurred on account of her. For\nEpinoia herself dwelt in Helen at that time, and all the authorities\nsuing for her (favours), faction and war arose among the nations in\nwhich she appeared. Wherefore indeed Stesichorus having railed at her\nin his verses had his eyes blinded, but having repented and written\nthe Palinode, was restored to sight.[65] She, being changed from one\nbody to another by the angels and authorities below [Sidenote: p.\n264.] who made the world, came at last to stand in a brothel[66] in\nTyre, a city of Ph\u0153nicia, coming to which (Simon) found her. For at\nher first enquiry, he said he had come to her aid, that he might free\nher from her bonds, and when he had redeemed her she went about with\nhim pretending that she was the lost sheep, and he saying that he was\nthe Power above all things. But the rogue having fallen in love with\nthe hussy, the so-called Helen, and having bought her enjoyed her, and\nbeing ashamed (before) his disciples made up this story. But they who\nbecame (in time) the imitators of the error and of Simon Magus do like\nthings, pretending that they ought to have (promiscuous) intercourse\nlike beasts, saying: \u201cAll earth is earth and it matters not where one\nsows, so long as one sows.\u201d And they also bless this intercourse saying\nthat the same is perfect love and the \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d and that \u201cye\nshall sanctify one another.\u201d For they say that they are not overcome by\nwhat any one else would call evil, for that they have been redeemed.\nAnd that Simon having redeemed Helen has in like manner [Sidenote: p.\n265.] brought salvation to men through his own discernment.[67] For\nsince the angels misgoverned the world through love of rule, he says\nthat he came to set it straight, having changed his shape and making\nhimself like the rulers[68] and authorities and angels, and that he\nappeared as a man, though he was not a man and seemed to suffer in\nJud\u00e6a, though he did not suffer.[69] But he appeared to the Jews as\nSon, in Samaria as Father, and among the other nations as Holy Spirit.\nAnd that he submitted to be called by whatever name men wished to call\nhim. And that the Prophets were inspired by the world-making angels to\nutter their prophecies. Wherefore they who have believed on Simon and\nHelen do not heed them,[70] and to this day do what they will as being\nfree. For they claim that they have been saved by his grace. For no one\nis liable to judgment if he does anything evil; for evil exists not by\nnature, but by [Sidenote: p. 266.] law. For he says it is the angels\nwho made the world who made the Law whatever they wished, thinking to\nenslave those who hearkened to them. And again they say that (there\nwill be) a dissolution of the world for the redemption of their own\nmen.[71]\n\n20. Therefore the disciples of this (man) practise magic arts and\nincantations, and send out love-philtres and charms and the demons\ncalled dream-bringers for the troubling of whom they will. But they\nalso do reverence to the so-called Paredri.[72] And they have an image\nof Simon in the form of Zeus, and (another) of Helen in the form of\nAthena, and they bow down to them calling the one \u201cLord\u201d and the other\n\u201cLady.\u201d[73] But if any one among them seeing these images should call\nthem by the name of Simon or Helen, he is cast out as being ignorant of\ntheir mysteries. This Simon when he had led astray many in Samaria by\nmagic arts was refuted by the Apostles, and [Sidenote: p. 267.] having\nbeen laid under a curse as it is written in the _Acts_, afterwards in\ndesperation designed these things[74] until having come to Rome, he\nwithstood the Apostles. Whom Peter opposed when he was deceiving many\nby sorceries. He at length coming into t......te,[75] taught sitting\nunder a plane-tree. And finally his refutation being very near[76]\nthrough effluxion of time, he said that if buried alive he would rise\nagain the third day. And having given orders that a grave should be\ndug by his disciples, he bade them bury him. And they having done\nwhat he commanded, he remains there to this day; for he was not the\nChrist. This then is Simon\u2019s story, taking hints from which Valentinus\ncalls (the same things) by other names. For Nous and Aletheia, Logos\nand Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia are Simon\u2019s six roots, Nous-Epinoia,\nPhone-Onoma, Logismos-Enthymesis. But since we have sufficiently set\nforth Simon\u2019s fable making, let us see what Valentinus says.[77]\n\n\n 2. _Concerning Valentinus._\n\n[Sidenote: p. 268.] 21. The heresy of Valentinus,[78] then, exists,\nhaving a Pythagorean and Platonic foundation. For Plato in the\n_Tim\u00e6us_ modelled himself entirely on Pythagoras, as is seen also by\nhis \u201cPythagorean stranger\u201d being Tim\u00e6us himself. Wherefore it seems\nfitting that we should begin by recalling to mind a few (points) of the\ntheory of Pythagoras and Plato, and should then describe the (teaching)\nof Valentinus. For if the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato are also\nincluded in the (books) painfully written by us earlier, yet I shall\nnot be unreasonable in recalling[79] in epitome their most leading\ntenets[80] in order that by their closer comparison and likeness of\ncomposition, the doctrines of Valentinus may be more intelligible. For\nas (the Pythagoreans and Platonists) took their opinions of old from\nthe Egyptians and taught them anew to the Greeks, so (Valentinus) while\nfraudulently attempting to establish his own teaching by them, carved\n[Sidenote: p. 269.] their system into names and numbers, calling them\n[by names] and defining them by measures of his own. Whence he has\nconstructed a heresy Greek indeed, but not referable to Christ.\n\n22. The wisdom of the Egyptians is, then, the beginning of Plato\u2019s\ntheory in the _Tim\u00e6us_. For from this, Solon[81] taught the Greeks the\nwhole position regarding the birth and destruction of the cosmos by\nmeans of a certain prophetic statement, as Plato says, the Greeks being\nthen children and knowing no older theologic learning. In order then\nthat we may follow closely the words which Valentinus let fall, I will\nnow set out as preface what it was that Pythagoras of Samos taught as\nphilosophy after that silence praised by the Greeks. And then [I will\npoint out] those things which Valentinus takes from Pythagoras and\nPlato and with solemn words attributes to Christ, and before Christ to\nthe Father of the universals and to that Sige who is given as a spouse\nto the Father.\n\n23. Now Pythagoras declared that the unbegotten monad was the principle\nof the universals[82] and the parent of the dyad and of all the other\nnumbers. And he says that the [Sidenote: p. 270.] monad is the father\nof the dyad and the dyad the mother of all engendered things (and)\na bearer of things begotten. And Zaratas,[83] also, the teacher of\nPythagoras, calls the one father, but the two, mother. For the dyad has\ncome into being from a monad according to Pythagoras, and the monad is\nmasculine and first, but the dyad female and second. From the dyad,\nagain, as Pythagoras says, (come) the triad and the other numbers one\nafter the other up to 10. For Pythagoras knew that this 10 is the only\nperfect number.[84] For (he saw that) the 11 and 12 were an addition\nto and re-equipment of the decad, and not the generation of some\nother number. All solid bodies beget what is given to them from the\nbodiless.[85] For, he says, the Point which is indivisible is at once a\npoint and a beginning of the bodies and the bodiless together. And, he\nsays, from the point comes a line, and a superficies extended in depth\nmakes, he says, a solid figure. Whence the Pythagoreans have a certain\noath as to the harmony of the four elements. And they make oath thus:--\n\n [Sidenote: p. 271.] \u201cYea by the Tetractys handed down to our head\n A source of eternal nature containing within itself roots.\u201d[86]\n\nFor the beginning of natural and solid bodies is the Tetractys as the\nmonad is of the intelligible ones.[87] But that the Tetractys gives\nbirth to the perfect number as among the intelligibles the (monad) does\nto the 10, they teach thus. If one beginning to count, says 1, and adds\n2, and then 3 in like manner, these will make 6. (Add) yet another (_i.\ne._) 4 and there in the same way will be the total 10. For the 1, 2, 3\nand 4 become 10, the perfect number. Thus, he says, the Tetractys will\nin all things imitate the intelligible monad having been thus able to\nbring forth a perfect number.\n\n24. There are, therefore, according to Pythagoras, two worlds, one\nintelligible which has the monad as its beginning, but the other the\nperceptible. This last is the Tetractys containing Iota,[88] the one\ntittle, a perfect number. [Sidenote: p. 272.] Thus the Iota, the one\ntittle, is received by the Pythagoreans as the first and chiefest, and\nas the substance of the Intelligible both intelligibly and perceptibly.\nBelonging to which are the nine bodiless accidents which cannot exist\napart from substance, (viz.) Quantity, Quality, Wherefore, Where,\nand When, and also Being, Having, Doing and Suffering.[89] There are\ntherefore nine accidents to substance reckoned in with which they\ncomprise[90] the perfect number, the 10. Wherefore the universe being\ndivided, as we have said, into an intelligible and a perceptible world,\nwe have also reason from the intelligible in order that by it we may\nbehold the substance of the intelligible, the bodiless and the divine.\nBut we have, he says, five senses, smell, sight, hearing, taste and\ntouch. By these we arrive at a knowledge of perceptible things, and\nso, he says, the perceptible world is separated from the intelligible;\nand that we have an organ of knowledge for each of them, we learn\nfrom this. None of the intelligibles, he says, can become known to us\nthrough sense: for, he says, eye has not seen that, nor ear heard, nor\nhas it become known, he says, by any other of the senses whatever.\nNor again by reason can one come to a knowledge of the perceptible;\n[Sidenote: p. 273.] but one must see that a thing is white, and taste\nthat it is sweet, and know by hearing that it is just or unjust; and\nif any smell is fragrant or nauseous, that is the work of the sense\nof smell and not of the reason. And it is the same with the things\nrelating to touch. For that a thing is hard or soft or hot or cold\ncannot be known through the hearing, but the test of these things is\nthe touch. This being granted, the setting in order of the things that\nhave been and are is seen to come about arithmetically. For, just as\nwe, beginning by addition of monads (or dyads) or triads and of the\nother numbers strung together, make one very large compound number, and\non the other hand work by subtracting from the total strung together\nand by analysing by a fresh calculation what has been brought together\narithmetically;--so, he says, the cosmos is bound together by a certain\narithmetical and musical bond, and by its tightening and slackening,\nits addition and subtraction, is ever and everywhere preserved\nuncorrupted.\n\n25. For instance in some such fashion as this also do the Pythagoreans\ndescribe the duration of the world:--\n\n [Sidenote: p. 274.] \u201cFor it was before and will be. Never I ween\n Will the unquenchable aeon be devoid of these two.\u201d\n\nWhat are these (two)? Strife and Love.[91] But their love makes the\ncosmos incorruptible and eternal, as they think. For substance and the\ncosmos are one. But strife rends asunder and diversifies, and tries by\nevery means to make the world divide. Just as one cuts arithmetically\nthe myriad into thousands and hundreds and tens and drachmas, and\nobols, and quarters by dividing it into small parts, so Strife cuts\nthe substance of the cosmos into animals, plants, metals and such\nlike things. And Strife is according to them, the Demiurge[92] of the\ngeneration of all things coming to pass, and Love governs and provides\nfor the universe, so that it abides. And having collected into one the\nscattered and rent (things) of the universe and leading them forth from\nlife, it joins and adds them to the universe so that it may abide and\nbe one. Never therefore will Strife cease from dividing the cosmos, nor\nLove from attaching together [Sidenote: p. 275.] the separated things\nof the cosmos. Something like this it seems is the \u201cdistribution\u201d[93]\naccording to Pythagoras. But Pythagoras says that the stars are\nfragments[94] of the sun and that the souls of animals are borne (to\nus) from the stars. And that the same (souls) are mortal when they\nare in the body being buried as it were in a tomb; but that they will\nrise again and become immortal when we are separated from our bodies.\nWhence Plato being asked by some one what Philosophy is, said: \u201cIt is a\nseparation of soul from body.\u201d\n\n26. Pythagoras, then, becoming a learner of these opinions, declared\nsome of them by means of enigmas and such like phrases, (such as:)\n\u201cIf you are away from home, turn not back. Otherwise, the Furies the\nhelpers of justice will punish you.\u201d[95] (For) he calls your home the\nbody and [Sidenote: p. 276.] the passions the Furies. If then, he says,\nyou are away from home, that is: if you have come forth from the body,\ndo not seek after it; but if you return to it, the passions will again\nshut you up in a body. For they think there is a change of bodies\n(\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2); as also Empedocles, when Pythagorizing, says. For the\npleasure-loving souls, as Plato says,[96] if they do not philosophize\nwhen in man\u2019s estate, must pass through the bodies of all animals and\nplants and again return to a human body. But if (such a one) does\nphilosophize,[97] he will in the same way go on high thrice to his\nkindred star; but if he does not philosophize will return again to the\nsame things. Thus he tells us that the soul is at once mortal if it be\nruled by the Furies, that is, by the Passions, and immortal if it flees\nfrom them.\n\n27. But seeing that we have picked out for narration the things darkly\nuttered to his disciples under the veil of symbols, it seems fitting\nto recall other sayings (of his), because the heresiarchs attempt to\ndeal in symbols in the same way; and these not their own, but using the\nwords of Pythagoras. [Sidenote: p. 277.] Now Pythagoras teaches his\ndisciples saying \u201cBind up the bed-sack,\u201d since they who are setting out\non a journey make their clothing into a bundle, so as to be ready for\nthe road. Thus he wishes his disciples to be ready, as if at any moment\ndeath might come upon them, so that they may not be caught lacking\nanything. Wherefore he is obliged to enjoin the Pythagorean every\nmorning to bind up the bed-sack, that is to prepare for death. \u201cDo not\nstir the fire with a sword,\u201d meaning do not provoke angry men; for he\nlikens an angry man to a fire and speech to a sword. \u201cDo not tread on\nsweepings,\u201d that is, do not look down upon trifles. \u201cDo not grow a palm\nin a house,\u201d that is, do not make a cause of strife in it. For the palm\nis a symbol of fighting and strife. \u201cEat not from a stool\u201d (that is),\npractise no ignoble art, that you may not be a slave to the corruptible\nbody, but make your livelihood by lectures. For it is possible at\nonce to nourish the body [Sidenote: p. 278.] and to improve the soul.\n\u201cFrom a whole loaf bite off nought,\u201d (that is) diminish not that which\nbelongs to you, but live on the income and keep the capital like a\nwhole loaf. \u201cEat not beans\u201d (that is) Take not the rule of a city. For\nby beans the rulers[98] were then elected.[99]\n\n28. These and such like things, then, the Pythagoreans say, imitating\nwhom the heretics think they declare great things to certain men. The\nPythagorean doctrine says that the Great Geometrician and Reckoner[100]\nthe Sun is the Demiurge of all things that are, and is fixed in the\nwhole cosmos like the soul in bodies, as says Plato. For the Sun like\nthe soul is fire, but the earth a body. But if fire were absent,\nnothing could be seen, nor could there be any solid perceptible to\nthe touch; for there is no solid without earth. Whence God having put\nair in the midst, fashioned the body of the universe from fire and\nearth.[101] But the Sun reckons and measures the cosmos in some such\nfashion as this. The cosmos is that perceptible one of which we are now\nspeaking. But (the Sun) divides it as an arithmetician and geometrician\ninto twelve parts. And the names of these [Sidenote: p. 279.] parts\nare:--Ram, Bull, Twins, Crab, Lion, Virgin, Scales, Scorpion, Archer,\nHe-goat, Waterbearer and Fishes. Again, he divides each of the twelve\nparts into thirty which are the thirty days of the month. And again he\ndivides each of the thirty parts into sixty minutes and (each) minute\ninto yet smaller and smaller parts. And thus ever creating without\nceasing, but gathering together from these divided parts and making a\ncycle, and again dissolving it and separating that which has been put\ntogether, he perfects the great deathless cosmos.[102]\n\n29. Something like this, as I have just summarily said, is the teaching\nframed by Pythagoras and Plato. From which and not from the Gospels,\nValentinus has drawn his own heresy, as we shall show, and should\ntherefore be reckoned a Pythagorean and a Platonist, but not as a\nChristian. Accordingly he and Heracleon and Ptolemy and all their\nschool, the disciples of Pythagoras and Plato copying their teachers,\nhave framed an arithmetical doctrine of their own. [Sidenote: p. 280.]\nFor indeed an unbegotten, incorruptible, incomprehensible fruitful\nMonad is to them the beginning of all and the cause of the birth of all\nthings that are. Yet a certain wide difference is found among them. For\nsome of them, that they may keep wholly pure the Pythagorean teaching\nof Valentinus, consider the Father to be unfeminine,[103] spouseless,\nand alone: whereas the others, thinking it absolutely impossible that\nthere could be a birth of all things that have been born from any\nsingle male, are compelled to reckon Sige[104] as a spouse to the\nFather of the universals in order that he may become a father. But\nas to whether Sige is a spouse or not, let them fight it out with\neach other.[105] We, keeping steadfast at present to the Pythagorean\n(doctrine of) the beginning and remembering what others teach, say\nthat He is one, without spouse, without female, in need of nought. In\na word (Valentinus) says at the beginning nothing was begotten, but\nthe Father was alone, unbegotten, having neither place, nor time, nor\ncounsellor, nor any other thing that by any figure of speech could be\nunderstood as essence.[106] But He was alone and solitary, as they\nsay, and resting alone within Himself. And when He was filled with\nfruit, He saw fit to beget and bring forth the most [Sidenote: p.\n281.] beautiful and perfect thing He had within Himself. For He did\nnot love to be alone.[107] For He, Valentinus says, was all Love and\nlove is not love unless there be something to be loved. Then the Father\nhimself projected and engendered, as He was alone, Mind and Truth,[108]\nthat is a dyad, which became the lady and beginning and mother of all\nthe aeons reckoned by them as being within the Pleroma. But Nous and\nAletheia having been projected by the Father, a fruitful (projection)\nfrom the fruitful, imitating the Father projected also the Word and\nLife;[109] and Logos and Zoe projected Man and the Church.[110] But\nNous and Aletheia when they saw that their own special progeny had\nbecome fruitful, gave thanks to the Father of the universals and\noffered to him a perfect number, ten Aeons. For than this, he says,\nNous and Aletheia could offer to the Father no more perfect number. For\nthe Father being perfect ought to be glorified with a perfect number.\nAnd the ten is perfect because as the first of things that came into\nbeing by addition, it is complete.[111] But the Father is more perfect\nbecause he [Sidenote: p. 282.] alone is unbegotten, and by the first\nsingle syzygy of Nous and Aletheia supplied the projection of all the\nroots of the things that are.\n\n30. Then when Logos and Zoe saw that Nous and Aletheia had glorified\nthe Father of the universals in a perfect number, Logos himself with\nZoe[112] also wished to glorify his own father and mother, Nous and\nAletheia. But since Nous and Aletheia were begotten and did not possess\nthe complete paternal unbegotten nature,[113] Logos and Zoe did not\nglorify their father Nous with a perfect number, but with an imperfect\none: for Logos and Zoe offer twelve Aeons to Nous and Aletheia. For\nthe first roots of the Aeons according to Valentinus were Nous and\nAletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. But there are twelve\nAeons two of which are the children of Nous and Aletheia and ten those\nof Logos and Zoe, in all twenty-eight. And these are the names by\nwhich they call (the ten): Profound and Mixture, Who-grows-not-old\nand Oneness, Self-grown and [Sidenote: p. 283.] Pleasure, Unmoved and\nBlending, Unique and Blessedness.[114] Of these ten Aeons some say\nthat they are by Nous and Aletheia and others by Logos and Zoe; and\nthere are twelve others which some say are by Anthropos and Ecclesia\nand others by Logos and Zoe. To whom they give these names: Paraclete\nand Faith, Fatherly and Hope, Motherly and Love, Ever-thinking and\nUnion, Of the Church and Blessed, Beloved and Wisdom.[115] Of the\ntwelve the twelfth and youngest of all the twenty-four Aeons who was\na female and called Sophia,[116] perceived the multitude and power of\nthe Aeons who had been begotten and shot up into the Height of the\nFather. And she comprehended that all the other begotten Aeons existed\nand had been brought forth in pairs, but that the Father alone produced\nwithout a partner. She wished to imitate the Father and gave birth\nby herself and apart from her spouse, so that she might work no work\nlacking anything more than did the work of the Father, [Sidenote: p.\n284.] being ignorant that only the Unbegotten principle and root and\nheight and depth of the universals can possibly bring forth alone.\nFor in the Unbegotten, he says, all things exist together; but among\nthe begotten the female is the projector of substance, but the male\ngives form to the substance[117] which the female projects. Therefore\nSophia projected only that which she could, a substance shapeless\nand unformed.[118] And this, he says, is what Moses said: \u201cNow the\nearth was invisible and unformed.\u201d[118] She, he says, is the good or\nheavenly Jerusalem into which God declared he would lead the children\nof Israel, saying: \u201cI will lead you into a good land flowing with milk\nand honey.\u201d[119]\n\n31. Ignorance, then, having come about within the Pleroma by Sophia,\nand formlessness by the offspring of Sophia, confusion came to pass\nwithin it. For the Aeons (feared) that what was born from them would be\nborn [Sidenote: p. 285.] shapeless and imperfect, and that corruption\nwould before long destroy them. Then all the Aeons took refuge in\nprayers to the Father that he would give rest to the sorrowing Sophia.\nFor she was weeping and mourning over the Abortion[120] brought forth\nby her--for so they call it. Then the Father took pity on the tears\nof Sophia, and hearkened to the prayers of the Aeons and commanded a\nprojection to be made. For he himself did not project, but Nous and\nAletheia projected Christ and the Holy Spirit for the giving form to\nand the separation of the Ectroma and the relief and intermission of\nthe groans of Sophia. And thirty Aeons came into existence with Christ\nand the Holy Spirit. But some of them will have it that there is a\ntriacontad of Aeons, but others that Sige co-exists with the Father,\nand wish the Aeons to be counted in with those (two). Then, when Christ\nand the Holy Spirit had been projected[121] by Nous and Aletheia, he\nstraightway separates from the complete Aeons Ectroma, the shapeless\nand unique[122] thing which had been brought forth by Sophia apart\nfrom her [Sidenote: p. 286.] spouse, so that the perfect Aeons might\nnot be troubled by the sight of her shapelessness. Then, that the\nshapelessness of Ectroma might no way be apparent to the perfect Aeons,\nthe Father again projected one Aeon (to wit) the Cross, who having been\nborn great from the great and perfect Father and projected as a guard\nand palisade to the Aeons, becomes the limit of the Pleroma containing\nwithin him all the thirty Aeons together: for they were projected\nbefore him. And he is called Horos because he separates from the\nPleroma the Void[123] without; and Metocheus[124] because he partakes\nalso in the Hysterema; and Stauros because he is fixed unbendingly and\nunchangeably, so that nothing from the Hysterema can abide near the\nAeons who [Sidenote: p. 287.] are within the Pleroma. And when Sophia\nWithout had been transformed and it was not possible for Christ and the\nHoly Spirit, the projections of Nous and Aletheia, to remain outside\nthe Pleroma, they returned from her who had been transformed, to Nous\nand Aletheia within Horos, so that he with the other Aeons might\nglorify the Father.\n\n32. Since then there was a certain single peace and harmony of all\nthe Aeons within the Pleroma, it seemed good to them not only to have\nglorified the Father in pairs, but also to glorify him by the offering\nto him of fitting fruits. Therefore all the thirty Aeons were well\npleased to project one Aeon, the Common Fruit of the Pleroma, so that\nhe might be the (fruit) of their unity and likemindedness and peace.\nAnd as He alone was projected by all the Father\u2019s Aeons, He is called\nby them the Common Fruit of the Pleroma. Thus then were things within\nthe Pleroma. And the Common Fruit of the Pleroma was projected, (to\nwit) Jesus--for that is His name--the Great High Priest. [Sidenote:\np. 288.] But Sophia without the Pleroma seeking after Christ, who\nhad given her shape and the Holy Spirit, stood in great fear, lest\nshe might perish when separated from Him who had given her shape and\nhad established her. And she mourned and was in great perplexity\nconsidering who it was that had given her shape, who the Holy Spirit\nwas, whence she had gone forth, who had hindered them from coming near\nher, (and) who had begrudged her that fair and blessed vision. Brought\nlow by these passions, she turns to beseeching supplication of Him who\nhad left her. Then Christ who was within the Pleroma had compassion\non her beseeching, as had all the Aeons of the Pleroma, and they send\nforth outside the Pleroma its Common Fruit to be a spouse to Sophia\nWithout and the corrector of the passions which she suffered while\nseeking after Christ.[125] Then the Fruit being outside the Pleroma and\nfinding her amid the first four passions (to wit) in fear and grief and\nperplexity and supplication, corrected her passions, but did not think\nit seemly in correcting them that they should be destroyed, since they\n[Sidenote: p. 289.] were eternal and special to Sophia, nor yet that\nSophia should be among such passions as fear and grief, supplication\nand perplexity. He, therefore, being so great an Aeon and the offspring\nof the whole Pleroma, made the passions stand away from her and He made\nthem fundamental essences.[126] And He made the fear into the essence\nof the soul,[127] and the grief into that of matter, and the perplexity\ninto (that) of demons, but the conversion and entreaty and supplication\nHe made a path to repentance and (the) power of the soul\u2019s essence,\nwhich (essence) is called the Right Hand or Demiurge from fear. This,\nhe says, is the Scripture saying: \u201cThe beginning of wisdom is fear of\nthe Lord.\u201d[128] For it was the beginning of the passions of Sophia. For\nshe feared, then she grieved, then she was perplexed, and [Sidenote: p.\n290.] then she took refuge in prayer and supplication. And the essence\nof the soul, he says, is fiery and is called a (supercelestial) Place\nand Hebdomad and Ancient of Days.[129] And whatever things they say\nof him, he says, the same belong to the psychic one whom they declare\nto be the Demiurge of the Cosmos; but he is fiery. And Moses also, he\nsays, spake, \u201cThe Lord thy God is a burning and consuming fire.\u201d[130]\nAnd truly he wishes this (text) to be thus written. But the power of\nthe fire, he says, is in some sort double; for it is an all-devouring\nfire (and) cannot be quenched. And according to this, indeed, a part of\nthe soul is mortal, being a certain middle state; for it is a Hebdomad\nand Laying to Rest. For below (the soul) is of the Ogdoad where is\nSophia, a day which has been given shape, and the Common Fruit of the\nPleroma; but above it is of Matter wherein is the Demiurge.[131] If\nit makes itself completely like those who are on high in the Ogdoad,\nit becomes immortal and comes to the Ogdoad, which is, he says, the\nheavenly Jerusalem; but if it makes itself completely like matter, that\nis to the material passions, it is corruptible and is destroyed.\n\n33. As therefore the first and greatest power of the [Sidenote: p.\n291.] psychic essence becomes an image [of the only-begotten Son, so\nthe power of the material essence] is the devil, the ruler of this\nworld, and (that) of the essence of demons, which is from perplexity,\nis Beelzebud.[132] But it is Sophia on high who works from the Ogdoad\nup to the Hebdomad. They say that the Demiurge knows absolutely\nnothing, but is according to them mindless and foolish and knows not\nwhat he does or works. And for him who knows not what he makes, Sophia\ncreates all things and strengthens them. And when she had wrought it,\nhe thought that he had by himself accomplished the creation of the\ncosmos; wherefore he began to say: \u201cI am God, and beside me there is\nnone other.\u201d\n\n34. The Tetractys of Valentinus is then at once:--\n\n \u201cA certain source containing roots of eternal nature.\u201d\n (Pyth., _Carm. Aur._, l. 48.)\n\nand Sophia by whom the psychic and material creation is now framed.\nAnd Sophia is called Spirit, but the [Sidenote: p. 292.] Demiurge\nSoul, and the Devil the ruler of the world, and Beelzebud that of the\ndemons. This is what they say, and beside this, they make their whole\nteaching arithmetical; [and] as is said above, they (imagine) that\n(the) thirty Aeons within the Pleroma again projected other Aeons by\nanalogy with themselves, so that the Pleroma may be summed up in a\nperfect number. For, as it has been made clear that the Pythagoreans\ndivide (the circle) into 12 and 30 and 60 (parts) and that these have\nalso minutes of minutes, thus also do (the Valentinians) subdivide\nthe things within the Pleroma. But subdivided also are the things in\nthe Ogdoad, and there rules[133] (there) Sophia who is according to\nthem the Mother of All Living, and the Logos, the Joint Fruit of the\nPleroma, (and) there are (there) supercelestial angels, citizens of\nthe Jerusalem on [Sidenote: p. 293.] high, which is in heaven. For\nthis Jerusalem is Sophia. Without and her bridegroom the Joint Fruit\nof the Pleroma. (But) the Demiurge also projected souls; for he is the\nessence of souls. This is according to them Abraham and these are the\nchildren of Abraham. Then, from the material and devilish essence the\nDemiurge has made the bodies of the souls. This is the saying: \u201cAnd\nGod made man, taking dust from the earth, and breathed into his face a\nbreath of life, and man became a living soul.\u201d[134] This is, according\nto them, the inward psychic man who dwells in the material body which\nis material, corruptible, and formed entirely of devilish essence.\nBut this material man is (according to them) like unto an inn, or the\ndwelling-place, sometimes of the soul alone, sometimes of the soul and\ndemons, and sometimes of the soul and logoi, who are logoi sown from\nabove in this world by the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, and by Sophia,\nand who dwell in the earthly body with the soul when there are no\ndemons dwelling with it. [Sidenote: p. 294.] This, he says, is what\nwas written in Scripture: \u201cFor this cause I bow my knees to the God\nand Father and Lord of our Lord Jesus Christ, that God would grant you\nthat Christ should dwell in the inner man, that is the psychical not\nthe somatic, that you be strengthened to comprehend what is the depth\u201d\nwhich is the Father of the universals \u201cand what is the breadth,\u201d[135]\nwhich is Stauros the Limit of the Pleroma, \u201cor what the length,\u201d which\nis the Pleroma of the Aeons. Wherefore, he says, the psychic man does\nnot receive the things of God\u2019s spirit; for they are foolishness unto\nhim. But foolishness, he says, is the power of the Demiurge, for he was\nsenseless and mindless and thought that he fashioned the cosmos, being\nignorant that Sophia, the Mother, the Ogdoad, wrought all things with\nregard to the creation of the world for him who knew it not.\n\n35. All the prophets and the Law, then, spake from the (inspiration of\nthe) Demiurge, a foolish god,[136] he says, being themselves foolish\nand knowing nothing. Wherefore, he says, the Saviour declared: \u201cAll\nwho came before me are thieves and robbers.\u201d[137] The Apostle also:\n\u201cThe mystery which was not known to the first generations.\u201d[138] For\nnone [Sidenote: p. 295.] of the prophets, he says, declared anything\nconcerning the things of whereof we speak; for all (of them) were\nignored in what was said by the Demiurge alone.[139] When, therefore,\ncreation was brought to completion,[140] and the revelation of the\nsons of God, that is of the Demiurge, at length became necessary,\nwhich had before been concealed, he says, the psychic man was veiled\nand had a veil upon his heart. Then when it was time that the veil\nshould be taken away, and that these mysteries should be seen, Jesus\nwas born through Mary the Virgin[141] according to the saying: \u201c(The)\nHoly Spirit shall come upon thee\u201d--the Spirit is Sophia--\u201cand a power\nof the Highest shall overshadow thee\u201d--the Highest is the Demiurge.\n\u201cWherefore that which is born from thee shall be called holy.\u201d[142]\nFor He was born not from the Highest alone, as those created after\nthe fashion of Adam were created from the Highest, that is from the\nDemiurge. But Jesus was the new man (born) from the Holy Spirit (and\nthe Highest),[143] that is from Sophia and the Demiurge, so that the\nDemiurge supplied the mould and constitution of His body, but the Holy\nSpirit supplied [Sidenote: p. 296.] His substance,[144] and thus the\nHeavenly Logos came into being, having been begotten from the Ogdoad\nthrough Mary. Concerning this there is a great enquiry among them and a\nsource of schisms and variance. And hence their school[145] has become\ndivided and one part is called by them the Anatolic and the other the\nItaliote. Those from Italy, whereof are Heracleon and Ptolemy, say that\nthe body of Jesus was born psychic, and therefore the Spirit descended\nas a dove at the Baptism, that is the Word which is of the mother\nSophia on high and cried aloud to the psychic man[146] and raised him\nfrom the dead. This, he says, is the saying: \u201cHe who raised Christ from\nthe dead, shall quicken your mortal bodies (and your psychic).\u201d[147]\nFor earth, he says, has come under a curse. \u201cFor Earth,\u201d he says, \u201cthou\nart, and to earth thou shalt return.\u201d[148] But those from the East,\nwhereof are Axionicus and Bardesanes,[149] [Sidenote: p. 297.] say that\nthe body of the Saviour was spiritual. For (the) Holy Spirit came upon\nMary, that is Sophia and the Power of the Highest is the demiurgic\nart,[150] so that that which was given by the Spirit to Mary might be\nmoulded (into form).\n\n36. These things then let these men enquire after in their own way,\nand if they should happen to do so in any other, so let it be. But\n(Valentinus) also says that as the false steps among the Aeons had been\nput straight[151] and also those in the Ogdoad or Sophia Without, so\nalso were those in the Hebdomad. For the Demiurge was taught by Sophia\nthat he is not the only God as he thought, and that beside him there\nis none other; but he knew better after being taught by Sophia. For\nhe was schooled by her and was initiated and taught the great mystery\nof the Father and the Aeons and told it to none. This, he says, is\nwhat he spake to Moses: \u201cI am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac\nand the God of Jacob, and my name I have not announced to them,\u201d[152]\nthat is to say: \u201cI have not told the mystery nor have I explained who\nis God, but I have kept to myself the mystery which I have heard from\nSophia.\u201d It was necessary, then, that the things on high having been\nput straight, in the same sequence,[153] correction [Sidenote: p.\n298.] should come to those here. For this cause was Jesus the Saviour\nborn through Mary, that He might put straight things here, as the\nChrist, who on high was projected by Nous and Aletheia, put straight\nthe passions of Sophia Without, that is, of the Ectroma. And again the\nSaviour who was born through Mary came to set straight the passions of\nthe soul. There are, then, according to them three Christs, the one\nprojected by Nous and Aletheia along with the Holy Spirit; and the\nJoint Fruit of the Pleroma the equal yoke-fellow[154] of Sophia Without\nwho is called and is herself a Holy Spirit (but) inferior to the first;\nand third, He who was born through Mary for the restoration[155] of\nthis creation of ours.\n\n37. I consider I have now by means of many (explanations) sufficiently\nsketched the heresy of Valentinus, it being a Pythagorean one; and it\nseems to me that the refutation of these doctrines by exposition should\nstop. Plato, moreover, when setting forth mysteries concerning the\nuniverse writes to Dionysius in some such way as this:[156]\n\n\u201cI must speak to you in enigmas, so that if the tablet [Sidenote: p.\n299.] should suffer in any of its leaves on sea or land, whoso reads\nmay not understand.[157] For things are thus. As regards the king of\nall, all things are his, and all are for his sake, and he is the cause\nof all that is fair. A second (cause exists) concerning secondary\nthings and a third concerning those things which come third.[158]\nBut respecting the king himself there is nothing of this kind of\nwhich I have spoken. But after this the soul seeks to learn of what\nquality these are, since it looks towards the things which are germane\nto itself, of which it has nought sufficiently. This is, O son of\nDionysius and Doris, your question as to what is the cause of all\nevils. But it is rather that anxiety about this is inborn, and if one\ndoes not remove it, one will never hit upon the truth.[159] But what\nis wonderful about it, hear. For there are men who have heard these\nthings, able to learn and able to remember,[160] and who have yet grown\nold while straining to form a complete judgment. They say that what\n(once) appeared believable is now unbelievable, and that what was then\nunbelievable was then the opposite. Looking therefore to [Sidenote:\np. 300.] this, beware, lest you repent what has unworthily fallen\nfrom you. Wherefore I have written none of these things, nor is there\nanything (upon them) signed Plato, nor will there ever be. But the\nsayings now attributed to Socrates were (said by him)[161] when he was\nyoung and fair.\u201d[162]\n\n(Now) Valentinus having chanced upon these (lines) conceived the king\nof all, of whom Plato spoke, to be Father and Bythos and the primal\nsource of all the Aeons.[163] And when Plato spoke of the second\n(cause) concerning secondary things, Valentinus assumed that the\nsecondary things were all the Aeons being within the limit of the\nPleroma and the third (cause) concerning the third things, he assumed\nto be the whole arrangement without the limit and (outside) the\nPleroma. And this Valentinus made plain in the fewest words in a psalm,\nbeginning from below and not as Plato did from above, in these words:--\n\n [Sidenote: p. 301.] \u201cI behold all things hanging from air,\n I perceive all things upheld by spirit,\n Flesh hanging from soul,\n Soul standing forth from air,\n And air hanging from aether,\n But fruits borne away from Bythos\n But the embryo from the womb.\u201d[164]\n\nUnderstanding this thus:--Flesh is, according to them, Matter, which\ndepends from the soul of the Demiurge. But soul stands out from air,\nthat is the Demiurge from the Spirit outside the Pleroma. But air\nstands out from \u00e6ther, that is Sophia Without from that which is\nwithin (the) limit and the whole Pleroma. Fruits are borne away from\nBythos, which is the whole emanation of Aeons coming into being from\nthe Father. The opinions of Valentinus have therefore been sufficiently\ntold.[165] It remains to tell of the teachings of those who have been\nobedient to his school, another having different teaching.\n\n\n 3. _About Secundus and Epiphanes._[166]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 302.] 38. A certain Secundus, who was born at the same\ntime as Ptolemy, says that there exist a right hand and a left hand\ntetrad like light and darkness. And he says that the Power which fell\naway and is lacking[167] came into being not from the thirty Aeons,\nbut from their fruits. But there is a certain Epiphanes, a teacher\nof theirs, who says: \u201cThe First Principle[168] was incomprehensible,\nineffable and unnameable\u201d which he calls Solitude[169] and that a Power\nof this co-exists with it which he names Oneness.[170] The same Monotes\nand Henotes preceded [but] did not send forth[171] an unbegotten and\ninvisible principle over all which he calls[172] a Monad. \u201cWith this\nPower co-exists a power of the same essence with itself, which same\npower I also name the One.\u201d These four Powers themselves sent forth the\nremaining projections of the Aeons. But others of them [Sidenote: p.\n303.] again have called the first and primordial Ogdoad by these names:\nfirst, \u201cBefore the Beginning,\u201d then \u201cInconceivable,\u201d third \u201cIneffable\u201d\nand the fourth, \u201cInvisible;\u201d[173] and (they say) that from the first\nProarche was projected in the first and fifth place Beginning;\nfrom Anennoetos, in the second and sixth (place) Unrevealed, from\nArrheton in the third and seventh place, Unnameable and from Aoratos,\nUnbegotten.[174] (This is the) Pleroma of the first Ogdoad. And they\nwill have these powers to have existed before Bythos and Sige. But yet\nothers understand differently about Bythos himself, some saying that he\nis spouseless and neither male nor female, and others that Sige exists\nbeside him as his female and that this is the first syzygy.\n\n\n 4. _About Ptolemy._[175]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 304.] 39. But the adherents of Ptolemy say\nthat he [Bythos] has two partners whom they call also (his)\npredispositions[176] (_i. e._) Thought and Will. For he first had it\nin mind to project something, and then he willed (to do so). Wherefore\nfrom these two diatheses and powers, that is, from Ennoia and Thelesis\nas it were blending with one another, the projection of Monogenes and\nAletheia as a pair came to pass. The which types and images of the two\ndiatheses of the Father came forth visible from the invisible, Nous\nfrom Thelema[177] and Aletheia from Ennoia. Therefore also the male\nimage was born from the later-begotten Thelema, but the female from the\nunbegotten Ennoia, because Thelema came into being like a power from\nEnnoia. For Ennoia has ever in mind projection, but she is not able by\nherself to project what she has in mind. But when the power of Thelema\n[came into being later],[178] then she projected what she had in mind.\n\n\n 5. _About Marcus._[179]\n\n40. And a certain other teacher of theirs, Marcus, an [Sidenote: p.\n305.] expert in magic, depending now on trickery and now on demons,\nleads astray many. For he says that there is in him the greatest power\nfrom the invisible and unnameable places. And often he takes a cup,\nas if consecrating it,[180] and prolonging the words of consecration,\ncauses the mixture to appear purple and sometimes red, so as to make\nhis dupes think that a certain grace has come down, and has given a\nblood-like power[181] to the draught. But the rogue, though he formerly\nescaped the notice of many, will, now that he has been refuted,[182]\nhave to stop. For he used secretly to insert a certain drug having the\npower of giving such a colour to the mixture, and then to wait while\nuttering much gibberish, until it dissolved by absorbing moisture and,\nmixing with the draught, coloured it. And the drugs which can thus give\ncolour we have before described in our book against the Magicians,[183]\nand have set forth how leading many astray, they utterly ruin them.\nWhich (last), if they care to consider more carefully what has been\nsaid above, will know the fraud of Marcus.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 306.] 41. Which (Marcus) also, mixing a cup by another\nhand, (sometimes) gives it[184] to a woman to consecrate, while he\nstands by her side holding a larger one empty: and when the dupe has\nmade the consecration, he takes (the cup) from her, and empties it into\nthe larger one and many times pouring (the contents) from one cup to\nthe other, says these words over them: \u201cMay the Incomprehensible and\nIneffable Charis who is earlier than the universals fill thy inner\nman, and make abundant in thee the knowledge[185] of her, even as she\nscatters the mustard seed upon the good ground!\u201d And as he speaks\nsome such words over it, and (thereby) distracts the dupe and the\nbystanders, so that he is considered a miracle-worker, he fills the\nlarger cup from the smaller so that it overflows. And we have set forth\nthe trick of this in the above-named book, where we have pointed out\nmany drugs which have the power of causing increase when thus mixed\nwith watery substances,[186] especially when mingled with wine: the\ndrug compounded beforehand, being hidden in the empty cup in such a\nway that this may be exhibited as containing nothing, and being poured\nbackwards and forwards from one cup to the other, so as to dissolve the\ndrug by mixture with the water,[187] and so that [Sidenote: p. 307.]\nwhen it is inflated by air, an overflow of the water comes about, and\nit increases the more it is shaken, since such is the nature of the\ndrug. If, however, one lays aside the cup when filled, the mixture\nwill before long return to its former volume, the power of the drug\nbeing quenched by the continued moisture. Wherefore he hurriedly gives\nthe bystanders to drink; and they being at the same time scared and\nthirsting for it as something divine and mingled by a god, hasten to\ndrink.\n\n42. Such like and other things, the deceiver undertakes to do. Whence\nhe was glorified by those he duped and was thought sometimes to\nprophesy himself and sometimes to make others do so, either effecting\nthis by demons or by trickery as we have said above. Further he utterly\nruined many,[188] and led on many of them to become his disciples (by)\nteaching them to be indifferent to sin[189] as free from danger (to\nthem) through their belonging to the Perfect Power and partakers of\nthe Inconceivable Authority. To whom also after baptism they promise\nanother which they call Redemption,[190] and thereby turn again to\nevil those [Sidenote: p. 308.] who remain with them in the hope of\ndeliverance, (as if) those who had been once baptized might again\nmeet with acquittal. Through such jugglery,[191] they seem to retain\ntheir hearers, whom, when they consider that they have been (duly)\nindoctrinated and are able to keep fast the things entrusted to them,\nthey then lead to this (second baptism), not contenting themselves with\nthis alone, but promising them still something else, for the purpose\nof keeping control over them by hope, lest they should separate from\nthem. For they mutter something in an inaudible voice, laying hands\non them for the receiving of Redemption which they pretend cannot be\nspoken openly unless one were highly instructed, or when the bishop\nshould come to speak it into the ears of one departing this life.[192]\nAnd this jugglery is practised so that they may remain the bishop\u2019s\ndisciples, eagerly desirous to learn what has been said about the last\nthing[193] whereby the learner would become perfect. Of which things I\nhave kept silence for this cause, lest any should think I put the worst\nconstruction on them. For this is not what we have set before us, but\nrather the exposure of whence they have derived the hints[194] from\nwhich their doctrines have arisen.\n\n43. For the blessed elder Iren\u00e6us having come forward [Sidenote: p.\n309.] very openly for (their) refutation has set forth these baptisms\nand redemptions saying in rounder terms what those who traffic[195]\nwith them do; and if some of these deny that they have thus received\nthem (it is because) they learn to always deny.[196] Wherefore we have\nbeen careful to enquire very sedulously and to find out minutely what\nthey hand down in the first baptism as they call it, and what in the\nsecond which they call Redemption: and no unutterable doing of theirs\nhas escaped us. But let us abandon[197] these things to Valentinus\nand his school. Marcus, however, imitating his teacher himself also\nconcocts a vision, thinking thus to glorify himself. For Valentinus\nclaims that he himself saw a new-born infant, hearing whom he enquired\nwho he might be. And (the infant) answered declaring himself to be\nthe Logos. Thereupon (Valentinus) having added a certain tragic myth,\nwishes from this to construct the heresy which he had already taken in\nhand.[198] With like audacity, Marcus declares that the Tetrad came\nbefore him in feminine shape; because, he says, the cosmos could not\nbear its male form.[199] And [Sidenote: p. 310.] she disclosed to him\nwhat she was, and the coming into being of all things, which she had\nnever yet revealed to any either of gods or men (but) announced it to\nhim alone, saying thus:--when the First (Being) who has no father,[200]\nthe Inconceivable and Substanceless One, who is neither male nor\nfemale, willed the ineffable to be spoken and the invisible to take\nshape, He opened His mouth and a Logos like unto Him went forth. Who,\nstanding beside Him, showed Him what He was, Himself having appeared in\nthe shape of the Invisible One. And the utterance of the name was on\nthis wise. He spoke the first word of the name which was the beginning\nand was the syllable[201] of four letters. And He added to it the\nsecond, and it also was of four letters. And He spoke the third, which\nwas of ten letters and then the fourth, and this was of twelve. There\ncame to pass therefore, the pronunciation of the whole name of thirty\nletters, but of four syllables. But each of the elements has its own\nletters[202] and its own character,[203] and its own pronunciation\nand figures and images, nor is there any of them which perceives the\nform of another. [Sidenote: p. 311.] Nor does it see that it is an\nelement, nor know the pronunciation of its neighbour; but each sounds\nas if pronouncing the whole, and believes itself to be naming the\n[universe].[204] For while each of them is a part of the universe, it\nthinks its own sound names as it were the whole, and does not cease to\nsound until it has arrived at the last single-tongued letter of the\nlast element. Then he says that the return of the universals (to the\nDeity)[205] will come to pass when all things coming together into one\nletter shall echo one and the same sound. He supposes that the likeness\nof this sound is the Amen[206] which we speak in unison. But (he says)\nthat the vowels[207] exist to give shape to the substanceless and\nunbegotten Aeon, and that they are those forms which the Lord called\nangels, which behold without ceasing the Father\u2019s face.[208]\n\n44. But the names of the elements which are common (to all) and may be\nspoken, he calls Aeons and Logoi and Roots and Seeds[209] and Pleromas\nand Fruits. And (he says) [Sidenote: p. 312.] that every one of them\nand what is special to each is to be comprehended as comprised in the\nname of Ecclesia. Of which elements, he says, that the last letter of\nthe last element first sent forth[210] its own sound, the echo of which\ngoing forth begot its own elements as being the images of the other\nelements. Wherefrom, he says, both the things here below were set in\norder and those which were before them were brought into being.[211]\nHe says nevertheless that the very letter the sound of which followed\nimmediately upon the echo below was taken up again by its own syllable\nin order to fill full again the universe, but that the echo remained\nin the things below as if cast outside it.[212] But the element itself\nwherefrom the letter with its pronunciation came down below, he says,\nis of thirty letters, and every one of the thirty letters contains\nwithin itself other letters whereby the name of the letter is named.\nAnd again others are named by other letters and yet others by these\nothers, so that the total comes out to infinity, if the letters be\nwritten separately.[213] You will more clearly [Sidenote: p. 313.]\nunderstand what has been said (if it be put) thus:--The element Delta\ncontains in itself five letters, the Delta, the Epsilon, the Lambda,\nthe Tau and the Alpha and the same letters (are written) by other\nletters [214]. If then the whole substance[215] of the Delta comes\nout to infinity, letters constantly giving birth to other letters and\nsucceeding one another, how much greater than that one element is the\nsea of letters? And if the one letter be thus infinite, behold the\ndepth[216] of the letters of the whole name whereof the industry or\nrather the idiot labour[217] of Marcus will have the Forefather to be\ncomposed. Wherefore, (he says) the Father, knowing well His unconfined\nnature, gave to the elements which He calls Aeons, the power for each\nto send forth the pronunciation of his own name, whereby none is\ncapable of pronouncing the whole.\n\n45. And [it is said that] the Tetrad having explained these things to\nhim, said:--\u201cI desire now to show to thee Aletheia[218] herself; for\nI have brought her down from the dwellings on high in order that thou\nmayest behold her [Sidenote: p. 314.] unclothed and learn her beauty,\nand may also hear her speak and admire her wisdom. See then the head\non high the first Alpha-Omega, and the neck Beta-Psi, the shoulders\n(together with the hands) Gamma-Chi, the breast Delta-Phi, the waist\nEpsilon-Upsilon, the belly Zeta-Tau, the privy parts Eta-Sigma, the\nthighs Theta-Rho, the knees Iota-Pi, the legs Kappa-Omicron, the ankles\nLambda-Xi, the feet Mu-Nu.\u201d Such is the body of Aletheia according\nto Marcus, this the form of the element, this the impress of the\nletter. And he calls this element Anthropos[219] and says that it\nis the fountain of all speech and the principle of every sound, and\nthe utterance of everything ineffable, and the mouth of the silent\nSige.[220] \u201cAnd this is her body. But do thou raising on high the\nunderstanding of the intelligence,[221] hear the Self-Begotten and\nForefather Word from the lips of Truth.\u201d\n\n46. When (the Tetrad) had thus spoken (says Marcus), Aletheia looking\nupon him and opening her mouth spake a word. But that word was a name\nand the name was that which we know and speak (to wit) Christ Jesus,\nhaving [Sidenote: p. 315.] spoken which, she straightway became silent.\nAnd when Marcus expected her to say something more, the Tetrad again\ncoming forward said: \u201cHoldest thou simple the word which thou hast\nheard from the lips of Aletheia? Yet that which you know and seem to\nhave possessed of old is not the name. For you have its sound only,\nand know not its power. For Jesus is an illustrious name having six\nletters[222] invoked by all the Elect. But that which occurs among the\n(five)[223] Aeons of the Pleroma has many parts (and) is of another\nshape and of a different type, being known by those of (His) kindred\nwhose magnitudes[224] are ever with Him.\u201d\n\n47. \u201cKnow ye that the twenty-four letters among you are emanations\nin the likeness of the Three Powers encompassing the universe[225]\nand (the) number of the elements on [Sidenote: p. 316.] high. For\nsuppose that the nine mute letters[226] are those of the Father and of\nAletheia, because they are mute, that is, ineffable and unutterable;\nand the semi-mute which are eight,[227] those of Logos and Zoe,\nbecause they exist as it were half-way between the mute and those\nwhich sound,[228] and they receive the emanation from those above\nthem and the ascension of those below; and the vowels--and they are\nseven[229]--are those of Anthropos and Ecclesia, since it is the sound\ngoing forth from Anthropos which has given form to the universals. For\nthe echo of the sound has clothed them with shape.[230] There are then\nLogos and Zoe having the 8 and Anthropos and Ecclesia the 7 and the\nFather and Aletheia the 9. But since the reckoning was deficient,[231]\nHe who was seated in the Father came down, having been sent forth from\nthat wherefrom he had been separated for the rectification of the\nthings which had been done, so that the unity of the Pleromas which is\nin the Good One might bear as fruit one power which is in all from all.\nAnd thus the 7 recovered the power of the 8, [Sidenote: p. 317.] and\nthe three places became alike in numbers, being three ogdoads. Which\nthree added together show forth the number of 24.\u201d In fact the three\nelements (which he says exist in the syzygy of the three powers, which\nare 6, the flowing-forth of which are the 24 elements) having been\nquadrupled by the Word of the Ineffable Tetrad make the same number\nfor themselves which he says is (that) of the Unnameable One. But they\nwere clothed by the 6 powers in the likeness of the Invisible One, of\nthe images of which elements the double letters are the likeness, which\nadded to the 24 elements by analogy make potentially the number 30.[232]\n\n48. He says that the fruit of this reckoning and arrangement[233]\nappeared[234] in semblance of an image (to wit) He who after the six\ndays went up to the mountain[235] as one of four [Sidenote: p. 318.]\npersons and became one of six. Who came down and bore rule in the\nHebdomad, Himself becoming the illustrious[236] Ogdoad and containing\nwithin Himself the whole number of the elements. Which the descent\nof the dove coming upon Him at the baptism made plain, which (dove)\nis Alpha and Omega, the number being plainly 801.[237] And because\nof this Moses said that man came into being on the 6th day. But\naccording to the economy of the Passion on the 6th day, which is the\nPreparation,[238] the last man appeared for the regeneration of the\nFirst Man. Of this economy, the beginning and the end was the 6th\nhour, wherein he was nailed to the Cross. For, (he says) that the\nperfect Nous, knowing that number 6 possesses the power of creation and\nregeneration[239] made apparent to the Sons of Light the regeneration\nwhich had come through Him who appeared as Episemon. For the\nillustrious number[240] when blended with the other elements completes\nthe 30-lettered name.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 319.] 49. But He has made use as His instrument of\nthe greatness of the 7 numbers, in order that the Fruit of the\nself-inspired (Council)[241] might be made manifest. Consider, he says,\nthis Episemon here present, which has taken shape from the Illustrious\nOne who has been, as it were, cut into parts and remains without. Who,\nby His own power and forethought, by means of His own projection which\nis that of the Seven Powers, imitated the Seventh Power and gave life\nto the cosmos[242] and set it to be the soul of this visible universe.\nHe therefore uses this same work also as if it came into being by\nHim independently; but the rest being imitations of that which is\ninimitable minister to the Enthymesis[243] of the Mother. And the first\nheaven sounds the Alpha, and that following it the Epsilon, and the 3rd\nthe Eta, and the 4th and middle one of the 7 the power of the Iota,\nand the 5th the Omicron, and the 6th the Upsilon, [Sidenote: p. 320.]\nand the 7th the Omega. And all the heavens when locked together into\none, give forth a sound and glorify Him by whom they were projected.\nAnd the glory of the sounding is sent on high into the presence of the\nForefather[244]. And, he says, that the echo of this glorifying being\nborne to the earth becomes the Fashioner and begetter of those upon the\nearth. And there is a proof of this in the case of newly born children,\nwhose breath immediately they come forth from the womb, cries aloud\nlikewise the sound of each one of these elements. As then the Seven\nPowers, he says, glorify the Word, so does the complaining soul among\ninfants. Wherefore, he says, David declared:--\u201cOut of the mouth of\nbabes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.\u201d[245] And again:--\u201cThe\nheavens declare the glory of God.\u201d[246] When also the soul is in pain\nit cries aloud nothing else than the Omega in which it is grieved, so\nthat the soul on high recognizing its kindred may send it help.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 321.] 50. And so far as to this.[247] But concerning the\nbeginning of the 24 elements, she speaks thus:--Henotes existed along\nwith Monotes[248] from which (two) came into being two projections:\nMonad and the One which, as twice 2, became four. For twice 2 is 4. And\nagain the 2 and the 4 being added together the number 6 is manifested,\nbut when these 6 are quadrupled, 24. And these names of the first\nTetrad are understood to be the holiest of holy things, and cannot be\nspoken, but are known by the Son alone. The Father knows also what\nthey are. Those named by Him in silence and faith are: Arrhetos[249]\nand Sige, Pater and Aletheia. And the total number of this Tetrad is\n24 elements. For Arrhetos has 7 elements, Sige 5[250] and Pater 5 and\nAletheia[251] 7. In like manner also the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe,\nAnthropos and Ecclesia, show forth the same number of elements. And the\nspoken [Sidenote: p. 322.] name of the Saviour, that is Jesus, consists\nof 6 letters; but His unspoken (name)[252] from the number of letters\ntaken one by one, is of 24 elements, but Christ (the) Son of 12.[253]\nBut the unspoken (element) in the Chreistos is of 30 letters and is\nthat of the letters in it, counting the elements one by one. For the\n[name] Chreistos is of 8 elements: ([254] for the Chi[255] is of 3, and\nthe Rho of 2, and the Ei of 2 and the Iota of 4, the Sigma of 5 and the\nTau of 3, while the Ou is of 2 and the San of 3). Thus they imagine\nthat the unspoken element in \u201cChreistos\u201d is of 30 elements. Wherefore\nalso, say they, He said \u201cI am Alpha and Omega,\u201d thereby indicating that\nthe Dove has this number, which is eight hundred and one.[256]\n\n51. But Jesus has this ineffable generation.[257] For from the\nMother of the Universals the first Tetrad came forth, as if it were\na daughter, and the second Tetrad and an Ogdoad thus came into\nbeing, wherefrom the Decad [Sidenote: p. 323.] proceeded. Thus an\nEighteen[258] came into being. Then the Decad having united with the\nOgdoad and making it tenfold, [the number] 80 [proceeded; and the\n80][259] being again multiplied by 10, gives birth to the number 800.\nSo that the total number coming forth from the Ogdoad to the Decad is\n8 and 80 and 800, which is Jesus. For the name Jesus according to the\nnumber in the letters is 888. And the Greek Alphabet has eight monads\nand eight decads and eight hecatontads indicating the cipher of the\neight hundreds as 88, that is the (word) Jesus (made up) from all the\nconstituent numbers. Wherefore also He is named Alpha and Omega as\nsignifying the birth from them all.\n\n52. But concerning His fashioning[260] (Marcus) speaks thus: Powers\nwhich emanated from the Second Tetrad [Sidenote: p. 324.] fashioned\nthe Jesus who appeared upon earth, and the angel Gabriel filled the\nplace[261] of the Logos and the Holy Spirit that of Zoe, and the\npower of the Highest[262] (that) of Anthropos and the Virgin that of\nEcclesia. Thus by incarnation[263] a man was generated by Himself\nthrough Mary. But when He came to the water, there descended upon\nHim as a dove he who had ascended on high and had filled the 12th\nnumber,[264] in whom existed the seed of those who had been sown\ntogether[265] in Him, and had descended together and had ascended\ntogether. But this Power which descended on Him, he says, was the seed\nof the Pleroma having within it the Father and the Son, which through\nthem was known to be the unnamed power of Sige, and (to be) all the\nAeons. And that this was the Spirit which in Him spake through the\nmouth of the Son, confessed Himself to be Son of Man, and manifested\nthe Father, yet veritably descended into Jesus (and) became one with\nHim. The Saviour from the Economy,[266] destroyed death, they say,\nbut Christ Jesus made known the [Sidenote: p. 325.] Father. He says\ntherefore that Jesus was the name of the man from the Economy, but that\nit was set forth in resemblance and shape of the Anthropos who was to\ncome upon Him; and that when He had received he retained the Anthropos\nhimself and the Father himself and Arrhetos and Sige and Aletheia and\nEcclesia and Zoe.[267]\n\n53. I hope then that these things are clearly to all of sane mind\nwithout authority and far from that knowledge which is according to\nreligion, being (in fact) fragments of astrological inventions and of\nthe arithmetical art of the Pythagoreans, as you who love learning\nwill also know from those their doctrines which we have exposed in the\nforegoing books. But in order that we may exhibit them more clearly to\nthe disciples, not of Christ, but, of Pythagoras, I will also set forth\nso far as can be done in epitome, the things which they have taken from\n(this last) concerning the phenomena of the stars. For they say that\nthese universals are composed from a monad and a dyad, [Sidenote: p.\n326.] and counting from a monad up to four, they bring into being a\ndecad. And the dyad[268] again going forth up to Episemon, for example,\ntwo and four and six show forth the dodecad. And, again, if we count\nin the same way from the dyad up to the decad, the triacontad appears,\nwherein are the ogdoad and decad and dodecad. Then they say that the\ndodecad through its containing the Episemon and because the Episemon\nclosely follows it, is Passion.[269] And since through this, the lapse\nwith regard to the 12th number occurred, the sheep skipped away and was\nlost.[270] And in like manner from the decad: and on this they tell of\nthe drachma which the woman lost and lamp in hand searched for and of\nthe loss of the one sheep;[271] and having contrasted with this the\n(number) 99, they make a fable for themselves of the numbers, since of\nthe 11 multiplied by 9 they make the number 99, and thanks to this they\nsay that the Amen contains this number.[272]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 327.] And of another number they say this:--the element\nEta with the Episemon is an ogdoad, as it lies in the 8th place from\nthe Alpha. Then again counting the numbers of the same elements\ntogether without the Episemon and adding them together as far as the\nEta, they display the number 30. For if one begins the number of the\nelements with the Alpha (and continues) up to the Eta (inclusive) after\nsubtracting the Episemon, one finds the number 30.[273] Since then the\nnumber 30 is made from the uniting of the three powers, the same number\n30 occurring thrice made 90--for three times 30 are 90 [and the same\ntriad multiplied into itself brought forth 9]. Thus the ogdoad made\nthe number 99 from the first ogdoad and decad and dodecad. The number\nof which (ogdoad) they sometimes carry to completion[274] and make a\ntriacontad and sometimes deducting the 12th number they count it 11 and\nlikewise make the 10th (number) 9. And multiplying and decupling[275]\n[Sidenote: p. 328.] these (figures) they complete the number 99. And\nsince the 12th Aeon left the 11 [on high] and fell away from them and\ncame below, they imagine that these things correspond one to the other.\nFor the type of the letters is instructive. For the 11th letter is\nthe Lambda which is the number 30 and is so placed after the likeness\nof the arrangement on high,[276] since from the Alpha apart from the\nEpisemon, the number of the same letters up to Lambda when added\ntogether makes up the number 99.[277] But (they say) that the Lambda\nwhich is put in the 11th place[278] came down to seek for what is like\nunto it so that it may complete the 12th number, and having found it\ndid (so) complete it is plain from the very shape of the element.[279]\nFor the Lambda succeeding as it were in the search for what was like\nunto itself and finding, seized it, and filled up with it the place of\nthe 12th element Mu, which is composed of two Lambdas.[280] Wherefore\nthey avoid by this gnosis the place [Sidenote: p. 329.] of the 99 that\nis to say the Hysterema[281] as the type of the left hand, but follow\nthe One which added to the 99, brings them over to the right hand.\n\n54.[282] But they declare that first the four elements which they say\nare fire, water, earth (and) air, were made through the Mother and\nprojected as an image of the Tetrad on high. And reckoning in with\nthem their energies, such as heat, cold, moisture, and dryness they\nexactly reflect the Ogdoad. Next, they enumerate ten powers, thus:\nSeven circular bodies which they also call heavens, then a circle\nencompassing these which they call the Eighth Heaven and besides these,\nthe Sun and Moon.[283] And these making up the number 10, they declare\nto be the image of the invisible decad which is from Logos and Zoe.\nAnd (they say) that the dodecad is revealed through the circle called\nthe Zodiac. For they declare that the twelve most evident signs shadow\nforth the dodecad which is the daughter of Anthropos and [Sidenote: p.\n330.] Ecclesia. And since they say the highest heaven has been linked\nto the ascension of the universals, the swiftest in existence, which\n(heaven) weighs down upon the sphere itself, and counterbalances by\nits own weight the swiftness of the others, so that in thirty years\nit completes the cycle from sign to sign--this they declare to be the\nimage of Horos encircling their thirty-named Mother.[284]\n\nAgain the Moon traversing the heavens completely in 30 days, typifies\n(they say) by these days the number of the Aeons. And the Sun\ncompleting his journey and terminating his cyclical return to his\nformer place in 12 months shows forth the Dodecad. And that the days\nthemselves, since they are measured by 12 hours, are a type of the\nmighty[285] Ogdoad. And also that the perimeter of the Zodiacal circle\nhas 360 degrees and that each Zodiacal sign has 30. Thus by means of\nthe circle, they say, the [Sidenote: p. 331.] image of the connection\nof the 12 with the 30 is observed. And again also they imagine that\nthe earth is divided into 12 climates, and that each several climate\nreceives a single power from the heavens immediately above it[286] and\nproduces children of the same essence with the power sending down [this\ninfluence] by emanation [which is they say] a type of the Dodecad on\nhigh.\n\n55. And besides this, they say that the Demiurge of the Ogdoad on\nhigh,[287] wishing to imitate the Boundless and Everlasting and\nUnconfined and Timeless One and not being able to form a model of His\nstability and permanence, because he was himself the fruit of the\nHysterema, was forced to place in it for rendering it eternal, times\nand seasons and numbers, thinking that by the multitude of times he was\nimitating the Boundless One. But they declare that in this the truth\nhaving escaped him, he followed the false; and that therefore when the\ntimes are fulfilled, his work will be dissolved.[288]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 332.] 56. These things, then, those who are from the\nschool of Valentinus declare concerning Creation and the Universe,\nevery time producing something newer[289] (than the last). And they\nconsider this to be fructification, if any one similarly discovering\nsomething greater appears to work wonders. And finding in each case\nfrom the Scriptures something accordant with the aforesaid numbers,\nthey prate of Moses and the Prophets, imagining them to declare\nallegorically the dimensions of the Aeons. Which things it does not\nseem to me expedient to explain as they are senseless and inconsistent,\nand already the blessed elder Iren\u00e6us has marvellously and painfully\nrefuted their doctrines. From whom also [we have taken] their so-called\ndiscoveries and have shown that they, having appropriated these\nthings from (the) trifling[290] of the Pythagorean philosophy and the\nastrologies, accuse Christ of having handed them down. But since I\nconsider that their senseless doctrines have been sufficiently set\nforth, and that it has been already proved whose disciples Marcus and\nColarbasus[291] by becoming the successors of the school of Valentinus\n(really) are, let us see also what Basilides says.[292]\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: He of course refers to the Ophites, whence it is clear\nthat he included Justinus among them. His language may imply that all\nthese serpent-worshipping sects had been in existence some time before,\nbut did not begin to write their doctrines until they had taken on a\nveneer of Christianity. This is very probable, but there is not as yet\nany convincing proof that this was the case.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Here again it is very difficult to say whether \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd means those who follow in point of time or in the pages of\nthe book.]\n\n[Footnote 3: \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, \u201csecret rites\u201d and \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae, \u201cwrath,\u201d is the pun here.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Simon Magus, the convert of Philip the Evangelist, is\nsaid by all patristic writers to be at once the first teacher and the\nfounder of all (post-Christian) Gnosticism; but until the discovery\nof our text our knowledge of his doctrines hardly went further than\nthe statements of St. Iren\u00e6us and Epiphanius that he claimed to be the\nSupreme Being. The only other light on the subject came from Theodoret,\nwho, writing in the fifth century, discloses in a few brief words the\nassertion by Simon of a system of aeons or inferior powers emanating\nfrom the Divinity by pairs. It is plain that in this, Theodoret must\nhave either borrowed from, or used the same material as, our author,\nand it is now seen that Simon\u2019s aeons were said by him to be six in\nnumber, the sources of all subsequent being, and to be considered under\na double aspect. On the one hand, they were names or attributes of God\nlike the Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism or the Sephiroth of the Jewish\nCabala; and on the other they were identified with natural objects such\nas Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, Earth and Water, thereby forming a\nlink with the Orphic and other cosmogonies current in Greece and the\nEast. We now learn, too, for the first time that Simon taught, like the\nOphites, that the Supreme Being was of both sexes like his antitypes,\nthat the universe consisted of three worlds reflecting one another,\nand that man must achieve his salvation by coming to resemble the\nDeity--a result which was apparently to be brought about by finding\nhis twin soul and uniting himself to her. None of these ideas seem\nto have been Simon\u2019s own invention, and all are found among those of\nearlier or later Gnostics. Hence their appearance has here given rise\nto the theories, put forward in the first instance by German writers,\nbut also adopted by some English ones, that the Simon of our text was\nnot the magician of the _Acts_ but an heresiarch of the same name who\nflourished in the second century, and that the opponent of St. Peter\ncovers under the same name the personality of St. Paul. Neither theory\nseems to have any foundation.]\n\n[Footnote 5: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0393\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6. Hippolytus\u2019 usual practice is to use the\nplace-name as an adjective. The Codex has \u0393\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, Justin Martyr, \u201cof\nGitto.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 6: Probably Paramedes or Agamedes is intended. Cf.\nTheocritus, _Idyll_, II, 14. The Paramedes or Perimedes there mentioned\nwas said to have been a famous witch, child of the Sun, and mistress of\nPoseid\u00f4n.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Acts viii. 9-14.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _i.e._ Cyrene.]\n\n[Footnote 9: This story in one form or another appears in Maximus\nTyrius (_Diss._ xxxv), \u00c6lian (_Hist._, xiv. 30), Justin (xxi. 4), and\nPliny (_Nat. Hist._, viii. 16). The name seems to be Psapho.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Cruice\u2019s emendation. Schneidewin, Miller, and Macmahon\nread \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3, \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, \u201csooner than to Him who though\nmade man, was really God;\u201d but there seems no question here of the\nSecond Person of the Trinity.]\n\n[Footnote 11: \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cbirth of a woman.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 12: This is the evident meaning of the sentence. Hippolytus\nignores all rules as to the order of his words. Macmahon translates as\nif Christ were meant.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Deut. iv. 24, \u201cconsuming\u201d only in A. V.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Empedocles also. See Vol. I. pp. 40-41 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 15: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _liber revelationis_, Cr., \u201cthe\ntreatise of a revelation,\u201d Macmahon; as if it were the title of a book.\nBut the title of the book attributed to Simon is given later as \u1f29\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, and there seems no reason why the second syzygy of the\nseries should be singled out in it for special mention.]\n\n[Footnote 16: A phrase singularly like this occurs in the \u201cNaassene\u201d\nauthor. See Vol. I. pp. 140-141 _supra_, where the \u201cuniversals\u201d are\nenumerated.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Or that which can only be perceived by the mind and that\nwhich can be perceived by the senses.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3. The sense of the passage seems to require\n\u201cperceive\u201d; but the Greek can only mean \u201chave in one\u2019s mind.\u201d Probably\nsome blunder of the copyist.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Here, again, he has inverted the order. The hidden is the\nintelligible, the manifest, the perceptible.]\n\n[Footnote 20: The simile of the Treasure-house finds frequent\nexpression in the _Pistis Sophia_.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Dan. iv. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 22: \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7. Macmahon translates \u201cif it be fully grown\u201d\non the strength apparently of a passage in the LXX; but the word is\nused too frequently throughout this chapter to have that meaning here.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Isa. v. 7. The A.V. has \u201cthe men\u201d for \u201ca man\u201d and\n\u201cpleasant\u201d for \u201cbeloved.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 24: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 25: 1 Pet. i. 24, 25. The A.V. has \u201cglory of man\u201d for \u201cglory\nof flesh.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 26: \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd. It is very difficult to find in English a\nword expressing the difference between this \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cintellectual,\u201d and\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cintelligible.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 27: Reading \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd (\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) for the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 of Cruice\u2019s text.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Cruice\u2019s emendation. The Codex has \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd, \u201cequal\nopinion\u201d? Schneidewin, \u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Here we have Simon\u2019s cosmogonical ideas set out for the\nfirst time in something like his own words. He seems to postulate the\nexistence of a Logos who makes the Six Powers or Roots and who is\nhimself present in them all. This does not appear to differ from the\nview of Philo, for which see _Forerunners_, I, 174, or Sch\u00fcrer\u2019s _Hist.\nof the Jewish People_ there quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 30: \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03a6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f4c\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f18\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The last name is the only one that presents any difficulty,\nalthough every heresiologist but Hippolytus gives the female of the\nfirst syzygy as \u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1. \u1f18\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is translated _Conceptio_ by Cruice,\n\u201cReflection\u201d by Macmahon. It seems as if it here meant \u201cdesire\u201d in a\nmental, not a fleshly, sense; but as this word has a double meaning in\nEnglish, I have substituted for it \u201cPassion.\u201d Hereafter the Greek names\nwill be used.]\n\n[Footnote 31: This daring idea that the Logos, the chief intermediary\nbetween God and matter in whom all the lesser \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 and powers were\ncontained, as Philo thought, must himself either return to and be\nunited to God or else be lost in matter and perish, is met with in one\nform or another in nearly all later forms of Gnosticism. It is this\nwhich makes the redemption of Sophia after her \u201cfall\u201d so prominent\nin the mythology of Valentinus, while its converse is shown in the\nFirst Man of Manich\u00e6ism conquered by Satan and groaning in chains\nand darkness until released by the heavenly powers and placed in\nsome intermediate world to wait until the last spark of the light\nwhich he has lost is redeemed from matter. It seems to be the natural\nconsequence of Philo\u2019s ideas, for which see Sch\u00fcrer\u2019s _Hist. of the\nJewish People_ (Eng. ed.) II, ii. pp. 370-376. Whether these did not\nin turn owe something to Greek stories of mortals like Heracles and\nDionysos deified as a reward for their sufferings is open to question.\nCf. _Forerunners_, vol. I.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Justinus also used this quotation from Isaiah i. 2,\nalthough in abbreviated form. See _supra_, Vol. I. p. 179. The A.V. has\n\u201cnourished and brought up\u201d for \u201cbegotten and raised up,\u201d and \u201crebelled\nagainst\u201d for \u201cdisregarded.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 33: So Philo according to Zeller and Sch\u00fcrer, (_op. cit._, p.\n374) understands by the Logos \u201cthe power of God or the active Divine\nintelligence in general.\u201d He designates it as the \u201cidea which comprises\nall other ideas, the power which comprises all powers in itself, as the\nentirety of the supersensuous world or of the Divine powers.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 34: Gen. ii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 35: The Sethiani also quote this. See _supra_, Vol. I. p.\n165.]\n\n[Footnote 36: So Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 9, makes Wisdom or Sophia say,\n\u201cHe created me from the beginning before all the world,\u201d and Proverbs\nviii. 23, \u201cI was set up from everlasting,\u201d but neither passage is here\ndirectly quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Gen. i. 2, \u201cmoved upon the face of,\u201d A.V.]\n\n[Footnote 38: \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5, \u201cmoulded.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 39: That is, masculo-feminine.]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7 again. Like the Boundless Power or the Logos?]\n\n[Footnote 41: Quotation already used by the Perat\u00e6. See _supra_, Vol.\nI. p. 148. For the Indivisible Point which follows, see the Naassene\nchapter, Vol. I. p. 141 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Jer. i. 5. \u201cBefore I formed thee in the belly I knew\nthee,\u201d A.V.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Gen. ii. 10, \u201cto water the garden,\u201d A.V. The four\ndivisions of the river have been already referred to in different\nsenses by Justinus and the Naassene author. So far from this repetition\narguing forgery, as contended by St\u00e4helin, it seems only to show that\nall these half-Jewish sects found in the traditions recorded in Genesis\nan obstacle that they were bound to explain away if possible.]\n\n[Footnote 44: \u1f40\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Cruice and Macmahon translate \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\nby \u201cspirit,\u201d but it here evidently means \u201cbreath\u201d from what is said\nlater about the nostrils. Cruice mentions that the ancients finding the\narteries empty at death concluded that they were filled by air during\nlife.]\n\n[Footnote 45: The use of the first person shows that this is\nHippolytus\u2019 and not Simon\u2019s explanation.]\n\n[Footnote 46: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae, \u201cinbreathing.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 47: Cruice\u2019s emendation.]\n\n[Footnote 48: A hiatus to be filled evidently with some reference to\nthe mouth. The whole of this passage seems corrupt. From what is said\nabout the bitterness of the water _Exodus_ should be taste, _Leviticus_\nsmell and _Numbers_ hearing.]\n\n[Footnote 49: The simile as well as the phrase is to be found in\nAristotle. Cf. his _Organon_, c. viii.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Cf. Isa. ii. 4; Micah iv. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Matt. iii, 10; Luke iii, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 52: So the _Bruce Papyrus_ (ed. Am\u00e9lineau, p. 231) says that\nGod when he withdrew all things into Himself, did not so draw \u201ca little\nThought,\u201d and from this one Thought all the worlds were made.]\n\n[Footnote 53: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _non ordinaretur_, Cr., \u201cis not adorned,\u201d\nMacmahon.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Reading \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 for \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1. Cf. Clem. Alex.,\n_Strom._, v. 14 for this word. The other epithets seem to cover\nallusions to the Dionysiac, the Osirian and the Attis myths.]\n\n[Footnote 55: \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u201cchangeable,\u201d because those thus\nborn would have to go through many changes of bodies. The phrase is\nused by the Naassene author.]\n\n[Footnote 56: A play \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, \u201cturning,\u201d and \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74, \u201cnutriment.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 57: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1; Cr., _et erit\npotestas infinita, immutabilis in saeculo immutabili quod non amplius\nfit per infinitum s\u00e6culum_; \u201cand will become a power indefinite and\nunalterable, equal and similar to an unalterable age which no longer\npasses into the indefinite age,\u201d Macmahon.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Words in brackets Cruice\u2019s emendation.]\n\n[Footnote 59: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 60: \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae, a name compounded of two nouns like Pistis\nSophia. The practice seems peculiar to this literature.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, a term used in logic for\n\u201ccorresponding.\u201d Simon here seems to think of the Egyptian picture of\nthe air-god Shu, separating the Heaven Goddess Nut from the Earth God\nSeb, and supporting the first-named on his hands.]\n\n[Footnote 62: So that the Supreme Being is of both sexes.]\n\n[Footnote 63: This is the exact converse of what has just before been\nsaid about the Father containing Thought within himself.]\n\n[Footnote 64: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u201cdescending into\u201d (women\u2019s forms)?]\n\n[Footnote 65: This sentence is taken _verbatim_ from Iren\u00e6us, I, 16, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 66: \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, literally, \u201con the roof.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 67: \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2; _per suam agnitionem_, Cr.;\n\u201cthro\u2019 his own intelligence,\u201d Macmahon.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Reading \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 for the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af of the Codex.]\n\n[Footnote 69: This sentence also appears _verbatim_ in Iren\u00e6us, I, 16,\n1.]\n\n[Footnote 70: _i. e._ the prophets.]\n\n[Footnote 71: The whole of this from the last quotation to the end of\nthe section is also from Iren\u00e6us, I, 16, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 72: What these \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 were is hard to say; but\none of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ introduces a fiend in\nhell as the \u201cParedros Typhon.\u201d \u201cAssessor\u201d or \u201ccoadjutor,\u201d the meanings\nof the word in classical Greek, would here seem inappropriate.]\n\n[Footnote 73: From the beginning of the section to here is from\nIren\u00e6us, I, 16, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 74: That is, made up this doctrine.]\n\n[Footnote 75: C. W. King in the _Gnostics and their Remains_ (2nd ed.)\nthinks that the omitted word is Persia. There is evidently a _lacuna_\nhere, and perhaps a considerable one.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Because his age made his pretensions to divinity absurd.\nThe story given after this directly contradicts all ecclesiastical\ntradition which makes Simon perish by the fall of his demon-borne\ncar while flying in the presence of Nero and St. Peter in the Campus\nMartius.]\n\n[Footnote 77: The sources of this chapter are fairly plain. There is\nlittle reason to doubt that Hippolytus had actually seen and read a\nbook attributed to Simon Magus and called the _Great Announcement_ from\nwhich he quotes, after his manner, inaccurately and carelessly, but\nstill in good faith. Whether the work was by Simon himself is much more\ndoubtful, but it was probably in use by the sect that he founded, and\ntherefore represents with some fidelity his teaching. The style of it\nas appears from the extracts here given is a curious mixture of bombast\nand philosophical expressions, and bears a strong likeness to certain\npassages in the chapters in the fifth book on the Naassenes and the\nPerat\u00e6. The other traceable source of the chapter is the work _Against\nHeresies_ of St. Iren\u00e6us, of which the quotations here given go to\nestablish the Greek text. But intertwined with this, especially towards\nthe end of the chapter, is a third thread of tradition, quite different\nfrom that used in the _Clementines_ and other patristic accounts of\nSimon\u2019s career, which cannot at present be identified.]\n\n[Footnote 78: With Valentinus, we leave at last the tangled genealogies\nand unclean imagery, as it seems to us, of the early traditions of\nWestern Asia, to approach a form of religion which although not\nwithout fantastic features is yet much more consonant with modern\nEuropean thought. Valentinus was, indeed, with the doubtful exception\nof Marcion, the first of heretics in the present acceptation of the\nterm, and many features of his teaching were reproduced later in the\ntenets of one or other of the Christian sects. At first sight, the\nmain difference between his doctrine and that of the Catholic Church\nconsists in the extraordinary series of personified attributes of the\nDeity which he thought fit to interpose between the Supreme Being\nand the Saviour. This he probably borrowed either from the later\nZoroastrian idea of the Amshaspands or Archangels who surround Ahura\nMazda, or, more probably, from the _paut neteru_, (\u201ccompany of the\ngods\u201d) of the Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times; and it has been\nsuggested elsewhere that he probably attached less importance to\ndogmatism on the matter than the Fathers would wish to make out. But\nHippolytus\u2019 account of his other doctrines show other divergences\nfrom the Church\u2019s teaching both graver and wider than we should have\ngathered from the statements of Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, or Epiphanius.\nHis view of the ignorance and folly of the Demiurge seems to be taken\nover bodily from the Ophite teaching, and, as he identifies him by\nimplication with the God of the Jews, must logically lead to the\nrejection of the whole of the Old Testament except perhaps the Psalms,\nProverbs, and the historical portions. He is also as predestinarian as\nCalvin himself, for he assigns complete beatitude to the Pneumatics or\nSpirituals only, while relegating the Psychics to an inferior heaven\nand dooming the Hylics to complete destruction. Yet the class to which\neach of us is assigned has nothing to do with conduct, but is in the\ndiscretion of Sophia, the Mother of all Living.\n\nThe most marked novelty in Valentinus\u2019 teaching, however, is the\ncause, according to him, of the gift of this partial salvation to man.\nThis is not, as in the Catholic, the fruit of God\u2019s love towards his\ncreature, but the last stage of a great scheme for the reconstruction\nand purification of the whole universe. First, the Pleroma or Fulness\nof the Godhead is purified by the segregation from it of the Ectroma or\nabortion to which Sophia in her ignorance and ambition gave birth; then\nthe Ectroma herself is freed from her passions by the action of Christ\nand the Holy Spirit, and made the Mother of Life; and finally this\nmaterial world, the creation of the God of the Jews, is to be purged\nby the Divine Mission of Jesus from the gross and devilish elements\nintroduced into it by the ignorant clumsiness of the same God of the\nJews. But this theory was poles asunder from the geocentric ideas of\nthe universe then current among Greeks, Jews, and Christians alike, and\ncomes startlingly near the hypotheses of modern science on the very\nlow place of the earth and humanity in the scheme of things. Whence\nValentinus drew the materials from which he constructed his theory must\nbe reserved for investigation at some future date; but it is fairly\nclear that some part of it was responsible for not a few of the tenets\nof the Manich\u00e6ism which arose some hundred years later to maintain a\nstrenuous opposition to the Catholic faith for at least nine centuries.\n\nFinally, it may be said that Hippolytus also tells us for the first\ntime of the divisions among Valentinus\u2019 followers and the different\nparts played therein by Ptolemy, Heracleon and others, including that\nBardesanes or Bar Daisan whose name was great in the East as late as Al\nB\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee\u2019s day.]\n\n[Footnote 79: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 80: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 81: The Codex has \u03a3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd--evidently a copyist\u2019s mistake. Cf.\nPlato, _Tim\u00e6us_, \u00a7 7.]\n\n[Footnote 82: Not necessarily the Supreme Being. Clement of Alexandria,\n_Paedagogus_, I, 8, says, \u201cGod is one, and beyond the One, and above\nthe Monad itself.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 83: A fairly common form of Zoroaster. The quotation is\nprobably from the \u201cChaldean Oracles\u201d so-called.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Diogenes Laertius, Book VIII, c. 19 quotes from\nAlexander\u2019s _Successions of Philosophers_ that Pythagoras in his\nCommentaries put first the monad, then the undefined dyad, and said\nthat from these two numbers proceeded, from numbers signs, from signs\nlines, from lines plane figures, from planes solids, and from solids\nperceptible bodies consisting of the four elements, fire, water, earth\nand air.]\n\n[Footnote 85: Miller would substitute \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd for \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 86: These verses are said by Cruice to be in Sextus\nEmpiricus, but I have not been able to find them in any known writings\nof that author.]\n\n[Footnote 87: \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac, as opposed to \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Cf. Matt. v. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 89: These \u201caccidents\u201d are enumerated by Aristotle in his\n_Metaphysics_, Book IV, and more briefly in his _Organon_. He does not\nthere acknowledge any indebtedness to Pythagoras.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 91: \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, not \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7. Macmahon translates \u201cfriendship.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 92: _i. e._ the \u201cFashioner\u201d = one who makes things out of\npreviously existing material, but does not create them _ex nihilo_.]\n\n[Footnote 93: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae, a word peculiar apparently to the Pythagoreans.\nJowett translates it \u201cregulation.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 94: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, a word unknown in classical Greek, which\nshould by its etymology mean \u201cchinks\u201d or \u201crents.\u201d I have taken it as a\nmistake for \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, which is found in Plutarch.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Not Pythagoras, but Plutarch, _de Exilio_, \u00a7 11. He\nattributes it to Heraclitus.]\n\n[Footnote 96: The reference seems to be to the _Phaedrus_, t. 1, p. 89\n(Bekker).]\n\n[Footnote 97: Or \u201cpractise philosophy\u201d: but Hippolytus always uses the\nword with a contemptuous meaning.]\n\n[Footnote 98: \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2. Evidently a mistake for \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 99: Hippolytus in the interpretation of these sayings seems\nto have followed Diogenes Laertius.]\n\n[Footnote 100: \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 101: So Shu the Egyptian God of Air was figured _between_\nEarth (Seb) and Heaven (Nut).]\n\n[Footnote 102: Roeper would read \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u201ccompletes the Great Year of the world.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 103: \u1f0c\u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2, \u201cwithout female.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 104: \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae, \u201cSilence.\u201d Cf. the Orphic cosmogony which makes\nNight the Mother of Heaven and Earth by Phanes the First-born, who\ncontains within himself the seeds of all creatures (_Forerunners_, I,\n123).]\n\n[Footnote 105: The attribution of this monistic doctrine to Valentinus\nis found for the first time here. Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian both make him\nsay that Sige is the spouse of the Supreme Being.]\n\n[Footnote 106: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Here as elsewhere in this chapter, save where\nan obvious pun is intended, to be translated as in text, and not\n\u201csubstance,\u201d which is generally the equivalent of \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 107: \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 108: \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. Here as elsewhere with the names of\nAeons, the English equivalent of the Greek name is first given, and, in\nlater repetitions, the Greek name transliterated into English.]\n\n[Footnote 109: \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0396\u03c9\u03ae\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 110: \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 111: \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 used in its double sense of \u201cperfect\u201d and\n\u201ccomplete.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 112: \u1f41 \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0396\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2. The curious conception by which\nthe two partners in a syzygy are regarded as only one being is very\nmarked throughout this passage.]\n\n[Footnote 113: \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1; \u201cunbegottenness\u201d would be a closer\ntranslation, but is uncouth in this connection. Cf. I, p. 147 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 114: \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03af\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f08\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f1d\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f29\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae, \u1f08\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1. For the first\nname Iren\u00e6us (I, i. 1, p. 11, Harvey), has Bythios, thereby making the\nsubstantive into an adjective. So Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXI (p. 328,\nOehler). This is doubtless correct.]\n\n[Footnote 115: \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2, \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, \u1f08\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u0398\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1. The Codex is here very corrupt, and for \u1f08\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 we may, if we\nplease, read \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cEverlasting,\u201d and for \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n\u201cBlessedness.\u201d As the name of the male partner in each syzygy is an\nadjective and that of the female a substantive it is probable that the\ntwo are intended to be read together, as _e.g._ \u201cProfound Admixture,\u201d\nand the like.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Sophia, who plays a great part in the Jewish Apocrypha,\nis almost certainly a figure of the prototypal earth like Spenta\nArmaiti, her analogue in Mazdeism. Cf. the quotation from Genesis which\nfollows immediately.]\n\n[Footnote 117: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Here \u201csubstance\u201d and \u201cessence\u201d would have the\nsame meaning, and the first-named word is used only to avoid ambiguity.]\n\n[Footnote 118: Gen. i. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 119: Exod. xxxiii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 120: \u1f1c\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 121: \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Christ\nand the Holy Spirit are therefore treated as a syzygy and, as it were,\na single person.]\n\n[Footnote 122: \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 123: \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1: \u201cthe Void,\u201d the converse and opposite of\nthe Pleroma or \u201cFulness.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 124: For this Platonic theory of \u201cpartaking,\u201d see n. on I, p.\n53 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 125: So that the first work of the Mission of Jesus was the\nfreeing of the whole universe--not only our earth--from the evil which\nhad entered into it.]\n\n[Footnote 126: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; \u201cunderlying beings.\u201d Here we have the\ntwo ideas of hypostasis, or \u201csubstance\u201d in its etymological meaning,\nand \u201cessence,\u201d or \u201cbeing,\u201d side by side.]\n\n[Footnote 127: \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, _i. e._ the stuff of which the soul is\nmade.]\n\n[Footnote 128: Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7; ii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 129: That is Jehovah, the God of the Jews. Hebdomad as\nincluding the seven \u201cplanets.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 130: Deut. ix. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 131: The \u201cbelow,\u201d \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, and \u201cabove,\u201d \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9, seem to have\nbecome inverted; but as I am not sure whether this is the scribe\u2019s\nmistake or not, I have left the text as it is. If we consider (as we\nmust) that the heaven of Sophia is the highest and those of the seven\nworlds below it like steps of a ladder, we have the conception of\nSophia, her son Jaldabaoth, and his six sons, current among the Ophites\nas shown in Book V above. The figure of Sophia as a \u201cday\u201d is at once an\ninstance of the curious habit among the Gnostics of confusing time and\nspace, and an allusion to the O.T. name of \u201cAncient of Days.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 132: I have sought to show elsewhere (_P.S.B.A._, 1901, pp.\n48, 49) in opposition to the current explanations that this name,\nproperly written Beelzebuth, is at once a sort of parody of Jabezebuth\nor \u201cJehovah (Lord) of Hosts,\u201d and the name given to the \u201cruler of\ndemons\u201d by the parallelism which, as in Zoroastrianism, makes each good\nspirit have its evil counterpart of similar name.]\n\n[Footnote 133: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. So in Homer (_Iliad_, VI, 125). Cruice\ntranslates \u201cprovenerunt,\u201d Macmahon reading apparently \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u201cthere has been projected.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 134: Gen. ii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 135: 1 Cor. ii. 14. In the preceding passage taken apparently\nfrom Eph. iii. 14 either the Gnostic author or Hippolytus has taken\nsome strange liberties with the received Text, which see.]\n\n[Footnote 136: It is plain, therefore, that the Valentinians rejected\nthese parts of the O.T.]\n\n[Footnote 137: John x. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 138: The \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd of Coloss. 1. 26 seems to be what is aimed at.]\n\n[Footnote 139: \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1; \u201cinasmuch as they\ncertainly had been uttered by the Demiurge alone,\u201d Macmahon.]\n\n[Footnote 140: \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd, \u201creceived the finishing touch.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 141: \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. A manifest allusion to the\nwell-known Gnostic doctrine that Jesus took nothing from His Mother\nbut came into being through her \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cas through a pipe or\nconduit.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 142: Luke i. 35. \u1f5d\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe Highest,\u201d was according to M.\nCamont (Suppl. _Rev. instr. publ. en Belgique_, 1897) the name by which\nthe God of Israel was known throughout Asia Minor in pre-Christian\ntimes.]\n\n[Footnote 143: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f59\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. These words are not in the Codex.]\n\n[Footnote 144: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc3. Again \u201cessence\u201d would\netymologically be the better word, but \u201csubstance\u201d is used as more\nfamiliar to the English reader.]\n\n[Footnote 145: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1. It is significant of the position held by\nValentinus\u2019 teaching in the Christian community that the Valentinians\nare often spoken of by the Fathers as a school of thought rather than a\nschismatic Church like that founded by Marcion.]\n\n[Footnote 146: \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7. So in Manich\u00e6ism, the Living Spirit\ngoes towards the Land of Darkness, where the First Man is entombed\nafter his defeat by Satan, and \u201ccries in a loud voice, and this voice\nwas like a sharp sword and discovered the form of the First Man,\u201d who\nis thereupon drawn up out of the Darkness and raised to the upper\nspheres where dwells the Mother of Life. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp.\n294, 300, n. 1, and 302, n. 1, and Theodore bar Kh\u00f4ni and other authors\nthere quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 147: Rom. viii. 11; the words in brackets are not in the\nreceived text.]\n\n[Footnote 148: Gen. iii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 149: So Cruice. Miller\u2019s text has \u1f08\u03c1\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 150: \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7, \u201cthe process of fashioning.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 151: \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf. So that Valentinus was the first to advance\nthe theory which we find later among the Manich\u00e6ans that this earth\nof ours, instead of being the centre of the universe, was in fact the\nlowest and most insignificant of all the worlds, and that salvation\nonly came to it after the greater universe had been reformed--an\nextraordinary conception on the part of one who must have held, like\nhis contemporaries, geocentric views in astronomy.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Ex. vi. 2, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 153: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. Here as elsewhere in the\ntext, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 has the meaning of imitation.]\n\n[Footnote 154: \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 155: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cre-rectification\u201d!]\n\n[Footnote 156: What follows is from Plato\u2019s Second Epistle, which is\nthought to have been written after Plato\u2019s return from his third voyage\nto Syracuse, and is perhaps rather less suspect than the other Platonic\nepistles. Yet the chances of interpolation are so great that no stress\ncan be laid on the genuineness of any particular passage.]\n\n[Footnote 157: This passage alone is sufficient to make one doubtful\nas to the Platonic authorship. If Plato really wanted to keep his\ndoctrine secret, the last thing he would have done would be to call the\nattention of the chance reader to the fact.]\n\n[Footnote 158: Burges translates: \u201cBut about a second are the secondary\nthings and about a third the third.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 159: Nearly two pages are here omitted from the Epistle.]\n\n[Footnote 160: Possibly an allusion to the Platonic theory that all\nlearning is remembrance.]\n\n[Footnote 161: \u03a4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u201cSaid of him\u201d or \u201csaid by\nhim\u201d? The passage is quoted by the Emperor Julian and by Aristides.]\n\n[Footnote 162: So that Hippolytus\u2019 attempt to show that Valentinus\nplagiarized from Plato resolves itself into an imaginative\ninterpretation of a purposely obscure passage in an epistle which is\nonly doubtfully assigned to Plato. That Valentinus like every one\neducated in the Greek learning was influenced by Plato is likely\nenough, but that there was any conscious borrowing of tenets is against\nprobability.]\n\n[Footnote 163: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 164: That Valentinus is said to have written psalms, see\nTertullian, _de Carne Christi_, I, c. xvii, xx, t. ii, pp. 453, 457\n(Oehl.).]\n\n[Footnote 165: Of the sources from which the author of the\n_Philosophumena_ drew this account of Valentinus\u2019 doctrine, much has\nbeen written. Hilgenfeld in his _Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums_,\nand Lipsius in the article \u201cValentinus\u201d in Smith & Wace\u2019s _D.C.B._,\nagree that its main source is the writings of Heracleon. Cruice,\n_\u00c9tudes sur les Philosophumena_, on the other hand, thinks it largely\ncomposed of extracts from a work of Valentinus himself, entitled\n_Sophia_. Salmon (_Hermathena_, 1885, p. 391), while not committing\nhimself to a definite pronouncement as to the writer quoted, says that\nHippolytus undoubtedly quoted from a genuine Valentinian treatise,\nand that this last is above the suspicion of forgery with which he is\ninclined to view other quotations in the _Philosophumena_.]\n\n[Footnote 166: The notice of the followers, real or supposed, of\nValentinus which occupies the remainder of Book VI adds little to our\nprevious knowledge of their doctrines, being taken almost _verbatim_\nfrom the work of Hippolytus\u2019 teacher, St. Iren\u00e6us. It is noteworthy,\nhowever, that although the Table of Contents promises us an account\nof (among others) Heracleon, nothing is here said of him, although\nthat shrewd critic of the Gospels was thought worthy of refutation\nby Origen some fifty years later. Yet Hippolytus mentions Heracleon\nas being with Ptolemy a leader of the Italic School of Valentinians\nwhich seems to dispose of the theory advanced by Lipsius (Smith &\nWace\u2019s _D.C.B._, s. v. \u201cValentinus\u201d) that Heracleon was the author\nfrom whom Hippolytus took his account of Valentinus\u2019 own doctrine. Of\nSecundus nothing more is known than is set down in the text, while the\n\u201cEpiphanes\u201d here mentioned is thought by some to be not a name, but\nan adjective, so that the passage would read \u201ca certain _illustrious_\nteacher of theirs.\u201d This was certainly the reading of Iren\u00e6us\u2019 Latin\ntranslator, who renders the word by \u201c_clarus_.\u201d Is this a roundabout\nway of describing Heracleon? As to this see Salmon in _D.C.B._, s. v.\n\u201cHeracleon.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 167: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Evidently Sophia is meant.]\n\n[Footnote 168: \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae.]\n\n[Footnote 169: \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 170: \u1f19\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 171: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, _protulerunt non proferendo ex\nse_, Cr. So Iren\u00e6us, I, xi. 3, p. 104, H. In his note Harvey says that\nthe passage implies that Henotes and Monotes \u201cput forth as the original\ncause the _Beginning_, but so as that the _Beginning_ was eternally\ninseparable from their unity.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 172: Iren\u00e6us makes \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe Word,\u201d the speaker. So\nTertullian, _adv. Val._, \u201c_quod sermo vocat_.\u201d But it seems more\nnatural to refer the speech to Epiphanes or \u201cthe Illustrious Teacher.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 173: \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u1f08\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f0c\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f08\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The three\nfirst names, however, are not in the text but are restored from\nIren\u00e6us, I, v. 2, p. 105, H.]\n\n[Footnote 174: These four new names are: \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\nand \u1f08\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Of Ptolemy we know a little more than we do of Secundus,\na letter by him to his \u201cfair sister Flora\u201d being given by Epiphanius\n(_Haer._ XXXIII.) which shows a system not inconsistent with that\ndescribed in the text. Unlike Valentinus himself he gives the Father a\nspouse, or rather two.]\n\n[Footnote 176: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, perhaps \u201cstates.\u201d Cr. and Macmahon translate\n\u201cdispositions.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 177: Hippolytus here suddenly changes from Thelesis to\nThelema. But there is no discoverable difference in the meaning of the\ntwo words.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Words in [ ] from Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 179: This Marcus is practically only known to us from the\nstatements of Iren\u00e6us, from which the accounts in the text and in the\nlater work of Epiphanius are copied. Salmon\u2019s argument (_D.C.B._,\ns. v. \u201cMarcus\u201d) that Marcus taught in Asia Minor or Syria, and that\nIren\u00e6us himself only knew his doctrines from his writings and the\nconfessions of his Gaulish followers on their conversion to Catholicism\nseems irrefutable. There is no reason to doubt Iren\u00e6us\u2019 statement\nhere repeated that Marcus was a magician, nor the generally accepted\nstatement of modern writers on Gnosticism that he was a Jew. This\nlast deduction is supported by his use of Hebrew formulas, of which\nIren\u00e6us gives many examples, including one beginning \u201c\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u201d\nwhich appears to be \u201cIn the name of Achamoth,\u201d the Hebrew or Aramaic\nequivalent of the Greek Sophia. A more cogent argument is that his\nidentification of the Gnostic Aeons with the letters of the Greek\nalphabet and their numerical values is, _mutatis mutandis_, exactly\ncorrespondent to that of the so-called \u201cpractical Cabala\u201d of the Jews\nwhich was re-introduced into Europe in the tenth to twelfth centuries,\nbut which probably goes back to pre-Christian times and is ultimately\nderived from the decayed relics of the Chald\u00e6an and Egyptian religions.\nOn the other hand, Iren\u00e6us\u2019 classing of Marcus among the \u201csuccessors\u201d\nor followers of Valentinus is much more open to question. The reverence\nhe shows for the books of the Old Testament and for the Pentateuchal\naccount of the Creation, which is indeed the foundation of the greater\npart of the system of the Cabala, is inconsistent with the views of\nValentinus, who as we have seen (n. on p. 33 _supra_) must logically\nhave rejected the inspiration of the Old Testament altogether. St.\nJerome (Ep. 75, _ad Theod._, I, 449), says indeed that Marcus was a\nBasilidian, and although we have too little of Basilides\u2019 own writings\nto check this statement, it is not impossible that the nomenclature\nof the Aeons, which is the chief point in which Valentinus and Marcus\ncoincide, was common to all three heretics, and perhaps drawn from a\nsource earlier than them all. The language of the formulas given by\nIren\u00e6us but not reproduced by Hippolytus, in several instances bear a\nstrong likeness to that of the _Great Announcement_ attributed in the\nearlier part of this Book to Simon Magus.]\n\n[Footnote 180: \u03b5\u1f7a\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 181: \u03b1\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cthe potentiality of blood\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 182: \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. The word shows that by \u201crefutation\u201d the\nauthor generally means \u201cexposure.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 183: He has not done so, unless in some part which has been\nlost.]\n\n[Footnote 184: \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5.]\n\n[Footnote 185: \u0393\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 186: \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. Here \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is used in the English sense\nof \u201csubstance.\u201d No such substances are mentioned in Book IV as it has\ncome down to us.]\n\n[Footnote 187: The wine used in the Marcosian Eucharist was evidently\n_mixtum_, not _merum_. Some effervescent powder is indicated.]\n\n[Footnote 188: \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2; Cr. translates _seduxit_.]\n\n[Footnote 189: \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Cf. the doctrine of\ncertain Antinomian sects that \u201cGod sees no sin in His elect.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 190: \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, perhaps \u201cRansom.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 191: \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 192: In one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, (p.\n238, Copt) a \u201cmystery\u201d to be spoken \u201cinto the two ears\u201d of an initiate\nabout to die is described. The idea was evidently to provide him with\na password which would enable him to escape the \u201cpunishments\u201d of the\nintermediate state, and is to be traced to Egyptian beliefs.]\n\n[Footnote 193: \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, perhaps \u201cto the utmost.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 194: \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03af. In the _Philosophumena_, the word nearly always\nbears this construction.]\n\n[Footnote 195: \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 196: \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Cf. the \u201c_Geist der stets verneint_\u201d of\nGoethe.]\n\n[Footnote 197: \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9.]\n\n[Footnote 198: \u201cHis attempted heresy.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 199: Like the rest of this section and most of this chapter,\nHippolytus here follows Iren\u00e6us _verbatim_. Why the apparition of the\nTetrad should be more supportable in female than in male shape can only\nbe guessed; but the frequent personification of the Great Goddess of\nWestern Asia may have had something to do with it.]\n\n[Footnote 200: \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd, \u201cwhose father was no one\u201d--a curious\nexpression in place of the more concise \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1.]\n\n[Footnote 201: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cand taken\ntogether it was of four letters.\u201d He is punning here on the double\nsense of \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd as meaning both \u201cletter\u201d and \u201celement.\u201d In the Magic\nPapyrus of Leyden which calls itself \u201cMonas, the 8th (book?) of Moses,\u201d\nthere is a curious account of how the light and the rest of creation\nwere brought into being by the successive words or rather the laughter\nof the Creator. Cf. Leemans, _Papyri Gr\u00e6ci_, etc., Leyden, 1885, II,\npp. 83 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 202: \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 203: \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, \u201cimpress,\u201d or character as we might say Greek\ncharacters or script. The different meanings of \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, and\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 are here well marked.]\n\n[Footnote 204: So Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 205: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. This Return to the Deity was, as has\nbeen shown above, the great preoccupation of all these Gnostic sects.\nThey may have borrowed it from the Stoic philosophy. Cf. Arnold, _Roman\nStoicism_, p. 193.]\n\n[Footnote 206: The primitive Church attributed great power to the\nritual utterance of the word Amen. Thus Ignatius\u2019 second Epistle to the\nEphesians: \u201cThere was hidden from the ruler of this world the virginity\nof Mary, and the birth of our Lord, and the three mysteries of the\nshout ... and hereby ... magic began to be dissolved and all bonds to\nbe loosed and the ancient kingdom and the error of evil, is destroyed\u201d\n(Cureton\u2019s translation, London, 1845, p. 15); but Lightfoot would read\n\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, \u201cproclamation,\u201d for \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ae, \u201cshout.\u201d In the _Pistis Sophia_\nthe word Amen is used to denote a class of Powers concerned apparently\nwith the organization of the Kerasmos or semi-material world and called\nsometimes \u201cthe Three\u201d and sometimes \u201cthe Seven Amens.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 207: \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 [\u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2]. The word in brackets is not in the\nCodex, but is supplied from the corresponding passage in Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 208: \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, a word which, as Hatch noted, is used for the\ncharacter or part played by an actor in a drama. Matt. xviii. 10 is\nhere evidently alluded to.]\n\n[Footnote 209: Cf. the Stoic theory of \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af or\n\u201cseed-Powers,\u201d for which, see Arnold, _op. cit._, p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 210: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.]\n\n[Footnote 211: That is to say, before Chaos was organized and the Aeons\nbrought into existence.]\n\n[Footnote 212: A plain reference to the Ectroma or Sophia Without.]\n\n[Footnote 213: \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (Miller). The Codex has \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\nfor \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 and \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Cruice bungles the passage and\nMacmahon omits it. It is not found in Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 214: _e. g._ the \u03b4 can be written \u03b4, \u03b5, \u03bb, \u03c4, \u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 215: \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 216: A pun on the name of the Supreme Father, Bythos or the\nDeep.]\n\n[Footnote 217: \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 and \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 218: Or Truth.]\n\n[Footnote 219: _i. e._ Man.]\n\n[Footnote 220: It would seem from this that Marcus, following perhaps\nin this the Anatolic School of Valentinus, made Sige not the spouse of\nBythos but merely another name for Aletheia.]\n\n[Footnote 221: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. As if he were trying to avoid\nwriting the word Nous.]\n\n[Footnote 222: Hippolytus or Marcus here plays upon the identity of\nthe \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd or digamma, the name of the sixth letter in the Greek\nalphabet, which was used for numeration only, and the adjective\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cillustrious.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 223: The word in brackets supplied from Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 224: \u1f67\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7. The allusion seems to be again to Matt.\nxviii. 10. The angels might well be considered on the Valentinian\ntheory the greater parts or counterparts of their terrestrial spouses.\nIn Epiphanius \u03c4\u1f78 \u039c\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 seems to be used for the Supreme Being. Cf.\n_Panar. Haer._, XXXI, p. 314, Oehl. The passage is said to be suspect.]\n\n[Footnote 225: One of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks\nrepeatedly of certain \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 (both spellings are\nused) which seem to hold a very exalted rank in the scale of beings,\nalike in the spiritual and the material parts of the universe.]\n\n[Footnote 226: \u03c6, \u03c7, \u03b8, \u03b7, \u03ba, \u03c4, \u03b2, \u03b3, \u03b4.]\n\n[Footnote 227: \u03bb, \u03bc, \u03bd, \u03c1, \u03c2, \u03b6, \u03be, \u03c8.]\n\n[Footnote 228: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 229: \u03b1, \u03b5, \u03b7, \u03b9, \u03bf, \u03c5, \u03c9.]\n\n[Footnote 230: \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u201chas put shape round them.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 231: Reading \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 with Iren\u00e6us instead of the \u1f18\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 of\nHippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 232: So that the \u201cineffable\u201d name of Christ consisted of 30\nletters. So Epiphanius, _Haer._, XXXIV, p. 448, Oehl. No guess hitherto\nmade as to its transliteration into Greek letters seems entirely\nsatisfactory; but Harvey (_Iren._, I, p. 146, nn. 1, 2), shows that \u03c7\u1f76,\n\u03c1\u1f7c, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd (for which spelling Nigidius Figulus and Aulus Gellius are\nquoted), \u1f30\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c3\u1fd6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f50 (for \u1f40\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd), and, again, \u03c3\u1fd6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, can be\nmade to count 30.]\n\n[Footnote 233: The text has \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, for which Miller rightly\nrestores \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 from Iren\u00e6us. Cf. p. 318 Cr. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 234: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Iren\u00e6us has \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cgrew.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 235: See the Transfiguration according to Matt. xvii. and\nMark ix.]\n\n[Footnote 236: Or \u201cthe Episemon.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 237: \u03c0 = 80, \u03b5 5, \u03c1 100, \u03b9 10, \u03c3 200, \u03c4 300, \u03b5 5, \u03c1 100, \u03b1 1\n= 801. So \u0391 1 + \u03a9 800 = 801.]\n\n[Footnote 238: \u1f29 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae. \u201cThe Preparation\u201d (for the Passover) _i.\ne._ Friday.]\n\n[Footnote 239: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f15\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. So Iren\u00e6us\u2019\nLatin translation, \u201c_Scientem eum numerum qui est sex virtutem\nfabricationis et regenerationem habentem_.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 240: 6 + 24 = 30.]\n\n[Footnote 241: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cthe Fruit of the\nself-counselled Council,\u201d Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 242: \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f19\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cimparted\nin imitation of the seven powers animation to this world,\u201d (Macmahon);\nbut see Iren\u00e6us in _loc. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 243: As before, this probably means \u201cDesire.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 244: This seems the first time we meet with the idea of \u201cThe\nColumn of Praises\u201d of the Manich\u00e6ans which mounting from the earth and\nbearing with it the prayers and praises of mankind plays with them a\nconsiderable part in the redemption of Light from Matter.]\n\n[Footnote 245: Ps. viii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 246: Ps. xix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 247: Iren\u00e6us puts what follows into the mouth of \u201cthe\nall-wise Sige.\u201d A section dealing with the name of Aletheia is omitted\nby Hippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 248: Or perhaps \u201cUnity in Solitude.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 249: _i. e._ \u201cIneffable.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 250: Four, unless we spell the word as he apparently does,\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae.]\n\n[Footnote 251: In the section omitted (see n. 2 _supra_) the \u201cbody of\nAletheia\u201d is said to be \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or \u201cof 12 members,\u201d which points to\nsome different notation.]\n\n[Footnote 252: Cf. Rev. xix. 11-13.]\n\n[Footnote 253: As Harvey (_Iren._, I, p. 145, n. 3) points out, this\nforced isopsephism is only reached by spelling Eta \u03b7\u03b9 and the Iota in\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36. He quotes Aulus Gellius in support.]\n\n[Footnote 254: The words in brackets ( ) are not in Iren\u00e6us and are\nprobably the addition of some commentator.]\n\n[Footnote 255: The Codex has \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 256: \u03c0 = 80, \u03b5 = 5, \u03c1 = 100, \u03b9 = 10, \u03c3 = 200, \u03c4 = 300, \u03b5 =\n5, \u03c1 = 100, \u03b1 = 1: total 801. It is evident, therefore that Marcus\nconsidered Christ and the Holy Spirit to be the same Person.]\n\n[Footnote 257: \u1f04\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cunspoken derivation\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 258: \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03ce, an unusual word, unknown to classical Greek.]\n\n[Footnote 259: Words in square brackets [ ] supplied from Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 260: \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. Here, as elsewhere, the word implies\nconstruction from previously existing matter.]\n\n[Footnote 261: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 262: Cf. Luke i. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 263: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. This seems here the meaning of the\nword. See D\u00f6llinger, _First Age of Christianity_, Eng. ed., p. 170,\nn. 2, Hatch; _Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church_, p.\n131; Tollinton, _Clement of Alexandria_, II, p. 13, and n. 1, for other\nmeanings.]\n\n[Footnote 264: This seems unintelligible unless we suppose the \u201cbody of\nAletheia,\u201d said above to be the number 12, to be the heaven known as\n\u201cthe Place of Truth.\u201d Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 128, Copt.]\n\n[Footnote 265: The same expression is used in the _Pistis Sophia_ where\nJesus \u201csows\u201d a power of light in Elizabeth the mother of John the\nBaptist. Cf. p. 12, Copt.]\n\n[Footnote 266: Or \u201cArrangement.\u201d Marcus, perhaps here imitating\nValentinus, postulates several Saviours, one of whom restores order in\nthe arrangement of the Aeons before coming to this earth.]\n\n[Footnote 267: In Iren\u00e6us there follows here a lengthy \u201crefutation\u201d\nof Marcus\u2019 doctrines and a poem condemning him and his teaching which\nsome think to be the work of Pothinus, Iren\u00e6us\u2019 martyred predecessor at\nLyons.]\n\n[Footnote 268: With this sentence, Hippolytus again picks up his\nquotations from Iren\u00e6us.]\n\n[Footnote 269: \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ca passion\u201d or \u201cThe Passion\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 270: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 271: Iren\u00e6us\u2019 Latin version here makes better\nsense:--_Similiter et a duodecade abscedentum unam virtutem perisse\ndivinant et hanc esse mulierem quae perdiderit drachmam, et accenderit\nlucernam, et invenerit eam._]\n\n[Footnote 272: \u03b1 = 1, \u03bc 40, \u03b7 8, \u03bd 50, total 99. Writers of the\nsub-Apostolic age seem to have laid much stress on the miraculous power\nof the word Amen when uttered in unison. Cf. the Epistle of Ignatius to\nthe Ephesians (Cureton\u2019s translation), p. 15, as to the \u201cmysteries of\nthe shout.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 273: Thus \u03b1 = 1, \u03b2 2, \u03b3 3, \u03b4 4, \u03b5 5, \u03b6 7, \u03b7 8 = 30.]\n\n[Footnote 274: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Because the decad is a \u201cperfect\u201d number.]\n\n[Footnote 275: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 276: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The word can here mean nothing else.]\n\n[Footnote 277: \u03b1 = 1, \u03b2 2, \u03b3 3, \u03b4 4, \u03b5 5, \u03b6 7, \u03b7 8, \u03b8 9, \u03b9 10, \u03ba 20, \u03bb\n30 = 99.]\n\n[Footnote 278: Because the Episemon has no \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 279: \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd here used for \u201ccharacter.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 280: \u039b\u039b = M.]\n\n[Footnote 281: \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1; the usual Gnostic name for the Void.]\n\n[Footnote 282: This section passes over Iren\u00e6us\u2019 refutation of the\nlast, and forms the beginning of the Xth Chap. (p. 164, H.).]\n\n[Footnote 283: There must be some mistake here, as the Sun and Moon\nwere included among the seven planetary heavens.]\n\n[Footnote 284: Not of course the Egyptian god, but the Gnostic \u201cLimit\u201d\nor Cross. The passage is not very clear.]\n\n[Footnote 285: Iren\u00e6us has \u03c6\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2, \u201cradiant,\u201d and the text \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2,\n\u201cempty\u201d; Iren\u00e6us\u2019 Latin version \u201c_non apparentes_\u201d or invisible.\nProbably \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 was the original word.]\n\n[Footnote 286: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Macmahon thinks this refers to the\nposition of the sun, which is unnecessary.]\n\n[Footnote 287: Iren\u00e6us omits the words \u201cof the Ogdoad.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 288: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201creceive dissolution.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 289: \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1. The text has \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, \u201cmore inane.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 290: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cbye-work.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 291: \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. The name which is repeated by Tertullian,\nPhilaster and Theodoret can be traced back to the single passage in\nIren\u00e6us, where it appears in connection with the name \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae as \u201cthe\nSige of Colarbasus.\u201d A German commentator long since suggested that\nit was not the name of a brother heretic or follower of Marcus, but a\ncorruption of the words \u05e7\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 Qol-Arba, or the \u201cVoice of the Four,\u201d\nand this seems now generally accepted. As most if not all of Marcus\u2019\npretended revelations are said to have been dictated to him by an\napparition of the Supreme Tetrad, he may well have called the book in\nwhich they were written and which seems to have been known to Iren\u00e6us,\nby some such name.]\n\n[Footnote 292: It seems needless to point out that the whole of these\nchapters dealing with the real or supposed successors of Valentinus is\ntaken direct from Iren\u00e6us, and that they have no relation to any other\nauthor.]\n\n\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 333.] BOOK VII\n\n BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS\n\n\n1. These are the contents of the 7th (Book) of the _Refutation of All\nHeresies_.\n\n2. What is the opinion of Basilides, and that he, having been struck\nwith the doctrines of Aristotle, constructed his heresy from them.\n\n3. And what things Satornilus, who flourished at the same time as\nBasilides, says.\n\n4. How Menander set himself to declare that the world came into being\nby angels.\n\n5. What was the madness of Marcion, and that his doctrine is neither\nnew nor (taken) from the Holy Scriptures, but comes from Empedocles.\n\n6. How Carpocrates talks foolishness, and thinks existing things to\nhave been produced by angels.\n\n7. That Cerinthus in no way framed his opinion from Scripture, but out\nof the teachings of the Egyptians.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 334.] 8. What are the Ebionites\u2019 opinions, and that they\nprefer to cleave to the Jewish customs.\n\n9. How Theodotus also erred, having borrowed some things from the\nEbionites [but others from the Gnostics].\n\n10. And what was taught by Cerdo, who both declared things (taken) from\nEmpedocles and wickedly put forward Marcion.\n\n11. And how Lucian, becoming a disciple of Marcion, did not blush to\nblaspheme God.\n\n12. Of whom Apelles becoming a disciple, did not teach the same things\nas (the rest of) the school, but being moved by the doctrines of the\nphysicists, supposed an essence for the universe.\n\n\n 1. _About Basilides._[1]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 335.] 13. Seeing that the doctrines of the heretics are\nlike a sea lashed into waves by the force of the winds, their hearers\nought to sail through them in quest of the calm harbour. For such a\nsea is both wild and hard to overpass, as the Sicilian (sea) is said\nto be, wherein are fabled to be Cyclops and Charybdis and Scylla\nand ... the Sirens\u2019 rock.[2] Which sea the Greek poets make out that\nOdysseus sailed through, skilfully availing himself of the terror of\nthose fierce beasts: for their cruelty to those sailing among them\nwas notorious. But the Sirens, singing clearly and musically for the\nbeguiling of those sailing past, persuaded with their sweet voices\nthose who listened to approach them. And they say that Odysseus,\nhearing this, stopped with wax his companions\u2019 ears, but having had\nhimself bound to the mast sailed without danger past the Sirens while\nlistening to their song. Which I advise those who meet with them to\ndo, and either having on account of weakness stopped their ears with\nwax to sail through the teachings of the heretics without listening to\nwhat, like the shrill song of the Sirens, might easily persuade them to\npleasure; or else to bind themselves to the Cross of Christ, hearkening\nfaithfully (to Him) and (thus) not to be harassed, being persuaded\n(only) by Him to whom they [Sidenote: p. 336.] are bound and standing\nupright.[3]\n\n14. Since now we have set forth in the six Books before this, the\n(opinions) which have gone before, it seems now that we should not\nkeep silent about those of Basilides which are those of Aristotle the\nStagirite, and not of Christ. But although the doctrines of Aristotle\nhave been before expounded, we shall not shrink from now setting them\nforth in epitome, so that the teacher by their closer comparison may\nreadily perceive that the sophisms of Basilides are those of Aristotle.\n\n15. Aristotle, then, divides being[4] into three. For one part of\nit is genus, another, as he says, species,[5] and another something\nundivided.[6] But the atom is so called, not because [Sidenote: p.\n337.] of the smallness of its body, but because by its nature it can in\nno way be cut. But the genus is, as it were, a heap composed of many\ndifferent seeds. From which heap-resembling genus, all the species\nof existent things are severed;[7] and it is (one) genus which is\nsufficient for all things which have come into being. In order that\nthis may be clear, I will point out an example whereby the whole theory\nof the Peripatetic can be retraced.\n\n16. Let us say that there exists simply \u201canimal,\u201d[8] not any particular\nanimal. This \u201canimal\u201d is neither ox, nor horse, nor man, nor god, nor\nanything else that can anyhow be apparent, but simply \u201canimal.\u201d From\nthis \u201canimal\u201d the species of all animals have their substance.[9] And\nthe undifferentiated[10] \u201canimal\u201d is the substance of the animals who\nhave been produced in species[11] but is yet none of them. For an\nanimal is man, who takes his beginning [Sidenote: p. 338.] from that\n\u201canimal,\u201d and an animal is horse who does likewise. The horse and ox\nand dog and each of the other animals takes its beginning from the\nsimple \u201canimal\u201d which is none of them.\n\n17. But if that \u201canimal\u201d is not one of these, (then) the substance of\nthe things which have been produced has, according to Aristotle, come\ninto being from the things which are not: for the \u201canimal\u201d whence these\nhave severally received it is not one (of them). But, while being none\n(of them), it has become the one beginning of things which are. But who\nit is who has sent down this beginning[12] of the things which have\nbeen produced later, we shall see when we come to its proper place.\n\n18. Since the threefold essence is, as he says, genus, species and\natom, and we have granted[13] \u201canimal\u201d to be genus, and man to be\nspecies already differentiated from the multitude of animals, but at\nthe same time commingled with them and not yet transformed into a\nspecies of substantial being,[14]--I, when I give form to the man taken\napart from the genus, call him by the name of Socrates [Sidenote: p.\n339.] or of Diogenes or any one of the many names (there are), and\nwhen I (thus) restrict with a name the man who from genus has become\nspecies, I call such being an individual.[15] For the genus is divided\ninto species and the species into an atom; but the atom when restricted\nby a name cannot by its nature be divided into anything else, as we\nhave divided each of the things aforesaid.\n\nThis Aristotle calls essence in its first, chief, and strictest sense,\nnor is it said of any subject nor as existing in any subject.[16] But\nhe speaks of the subject as if it were genus when he said \u201canimal\u201d of\nall the animals severally ranged under it, such as an ox, a horse, and\nthe rest, describing them by a common name. For it is true to say that\nman is an animal, and a horse is an animal and an ox is an animal and\nall the rest. This is subjective, the one (name) being likewise capable\nof being said of many [Sidenote: p. 340.] and different species.[17]\nFor neither a horse nor an ox differs from man _qu\u00e2_ animal; for the\ndefinition of animal fits all the aforesaid animals alike. For what\nis an animal? If we define it, a common definition will include all\nthe animals. For an animal is a living,[18] feeling being, such as a\nman, a horse and all the rest. But, \u201cin the Subject,\u201d he says, is that\nwhich exists in anything, not as part of it, but as being incapable\nof existing apart from that wherein it is, (and is) each[19] of the\naccidents of being. The which is called Quality because by it we say\n_what_ certain things are, as, for instance, white, green, black,\njust, unjust, prudent and such like. But none of these (qualities) can\ncome into being by itself, but must needs be in[20] something. But, if\nneither the \u201canimal,\u201d which is the word I use for all living beings\ntaken severally, nor the \u201caccidents\u201d which are found to occur in all\nof them, can come into being of themselves, then from those things\nwhich do not exist, the individual things[21] are developed and the\ntriply-divided essence is not compounded[22] from other things. Hence\nBeing[23] so called in its first and chiefest and strictest sense,\n[Sidenote: p. 341.] exists according to Aristotle from those things\nwhich do not exist.[24]\n\n19. About Being[25] then enough has been said. But Being is called\nnot only genus, species and individual; but also matter, form and\nprivation. But there is no difference among these while the division\nstands. And Being being such as it is, the ordering of the cosmos\ncame about automatically in the same way. The cosmos is according to\nAristotle divided into many [and different] parts; [and] the part of\nthe cosmos which exists from the earth as far as the moon is without\nprovidence or governance and has its rise only in its own nature.\nBut that which is beyond the moon, is ordered with all order and\nprovidence and is (so) governed up to the surface of heaven. But the\n(same) surface is a certain fifth essence renewed from all the elements\nof nature wherefrom the cosmos is made up, and this is Aristotle\u2019s\n\u201cQuintessence,\u201d being as it were a hypercosmic essence. And his system\nof philosophy is [Sidenote: p. 342.] divided so as to agree with the\ndivision of the cosmos. For there is by him a treatise on physics\ncalled _Acroasis_, wherein he has treated of the doings of Nature,\nnot of Providence, from the Earth to the Moon. And there is also his\n_Metaphysics_, another special work thus entitled, concerning the\nthings which take place beyond the Moon. And there is also his work _On\nthe Quintessence_, wherein he theologizes.[26] Like this also is the\ndivision of the universals as they are defined by type in Aristotle\u2019s\nphilosophy. But his work _On the Soul_ is puzzling; for it would be\nimpossible in three whole books to say what Aristotle thinks about the\nsoul. For what he gives as the definition of the soul is easy to say;\nbut what is explained by the definition is hard to find. For, he says,\nthe soul is an entelechy of the physical organism. What this is would\nneed many words and great enquiry. But the God who is the cause of all\nthese fair beings [Sidenote: p. 343.] is one, even to one speculating\nfor a very long time, more difficult to be known than is the soul. Yet\nthe definition which Aristotle gives of God, is not hard to be known,\nbut impossible to be understood. For He, he says, is a conception\nof conception which is altogether non-existent. But the cosmos is\naccording to Aristotle imperishable and eternal; for it contains\nnothing faulty and is governed by Nature and Providence. And Aristotle\nhas not only put forth books on Nature and the Cosmos and Providence\nand God,[27] but there is also a certain treatise by him on ethics\nwhich is called _The Ethical Books_ wherein he builds up a good ethics\nfor his hearers out of a poor one. If, then, Basilides be found not\nonly potentially but in the very words and names to have transferred\nthe doctrines of Aristotle to our evangelical and soul-saving teaching,\nwhat remains but by restoring these extraneous matters to their\n(proper) authors to prove to Basilides\u2019 disciples that, as they are\nheathenish, Christ will profit them nothing?\n\n[Sidenote: p. 344.] 20. Now Basilides and Isidore, Basilides\u2019 true son\nand disciple, say that Matthias recounted to them secret[28] discourses\nwhich he had heard from the Saviour in private teaching.[29] We see\nthen how plainly Basilides together with Isidore and their whole band\nbelie not only Matthias but also the Saviour. There was, he says,\n[a time] when Nothing was, not even the nothing of existing things,\nbut baldly and unreservedly and without any sophism, nothing at all.\nBut when I say, says he, that [this] _was_, I do not say that this\nexisted, but I speak thus to signify what I wish to indicate. I say\nthen that nothing at all existed. For, says he, that which is named is\nplainly not ineffable; for at any rate we call one thing ineffable,\nbut another not ineffable. For truly that which is not even ineffable\nis not named ineffable, but is, he says, above every name which is\nnamed. For neither are there names enough for the cosmos, he says, so\ndiverse is it, but there is a lack of them. Nor do [Sidenote: p. 345.]\nI undertake, says he, to find proper names for everything; but one must\nsilently understand in the mind not their names, but the properties of\nthe things named. For identity of names has made confusion and error\nconcerning things[30] among those who hear them. And they who first\nmade this appropriation and theft from the Peripatetic lead astray the\nfolly of those who herd with them. For Aristotle who was born many\ngenerations earlier than Basilides, was the first to set forth in the\n_Categories_ a system of homonyms which these men expound as their own\nand as a novelty [derived] from the secret discourses of Matthias.\n\n21. When nothing [existed], neither matter, nor essence, nor the\nsimple nor the compound, nor [that which is conceived by the mind]\nnor that which cannot be [so] conceived, [nor that which is perceived\nby the senses][31] nor that which cannot be [so] perceived, nor\nman, nor angel, nor God, nor generally any of the things which are\nnamed or apprehended by sensation, or of things[32] which can be\n[Sidenote: p. 346.] conceived by the mind but can be thus and even\nmore minutely described by all:--(then) [the] God-who-was-Not--whom\nAristotle calls Concept of Concept, but (Basilides) Him-who-is-Not,\nwithout conception, perception, counsel, choice, passion or desire\nwilled to create a cosmos. But I say (only) for the sake of clearness,\nsays he, that He willed. I signify that he did this without will or\nconception or perception; and [the] cosmos was not that which later\nbecame established in its expanse and diversity,[33] but a Seed of a\ncosmos. And the Seed of the cosmos contained all things within itself,\nas the grain of mustard (seed) collects into the smallest space and\ncontains within itself all things at once:--the roots, stem, branches\nand the numberless leaves, with the seeds begotten by the plant, and\noften again those grown by many other plants. Thus the God-who-was-Not\nmade the cosmos from things which were not,[34] casting [Sidenote: p.\n347.] down and planting[35] a certain single seed containing within\nitself the whole seed-mass[36] of the cosmos. But in order that I\nmay make clearer what these (men) say, it was even as an egg of some\ngorgeous and parti-coloured bird such as a peacock of some other yet\nmore variegated and many-coloured, contains within it, though one, many\npatterns[37] of multiform and many-coloured and diversely-constructed\nbeings[38]--so, says he, the non-existent seed of the cosmos cast down\nby the God-who-was-Not contained (a Seed-mass) at once multiform and\n(the source) of many beings.[39]\n\n22. All things, then, which are to be described, and those which not\nhaving yet been discovered must be left out of the account, were\ndestined to be fitted for the cosmos which was to come into being\nat the proper time by the help given to it by such and so great a\nGod, whose quality[40] the creature can neither conceive nor define.\nAnd these things existed stored within the seed, as, in a new-born\n[Sidenote: p. 348.] child, we see teeth and the power of fatherhood\nand brains accrue later; and those things which belong to the man but\ndo not at first exist, evolve gradually out of the child. For it would\nbe impossible to say that any projection by the God-who-was-Not became\nsomething non-existent,--since Basilides entirely shuns and has in\nhorror [the notion of] substances of things begotten [arising] by way\nof projection.[41] For what, says he, is the need of projection or of\nany substructure of matter in order that God may fashion a cosmos as\nthe spider makes webs, or mortal man takes brass or wood or some other\nportion of matter to work with?).--But He spoke, says he, and it came\nto pass; and this is, as these [heretics] say, what Moses spake:--\u201cLet\nthere be light and there was light.\u201d[42] Whence, says he, came the\nlight? From nothing. For it is not written says he, whence it came, but\nonly that it came forth from the word of the speaker. For the speaker,\nsays he, was not, nor did that which was spoken [formerly] exist. The\nseed of the cosmos, he says, came into being from non-existent things\n[and this seed is] the word which was spoken: \u201cLet there be light.\u201d\nAnd this, says he, is the saying in the Gospels: \u201cThis is [Sidenote:\np. 349.] the true light which lighteneth every man who cometh into the\nworld.\u201d[43] It takes its beginnings[44] from that seed and gives light.\nThis is the seed which contains within itself all the Seed-Mass which\nAristotle says is the genus divided into boundless species, since we\ndivide from the non-existent animal ox, horse [and] man. Further, of\nthe underlying cosmic seed, they say, \u201cwhatever I may say came into\nbeing after this, seek not to know whence it came.\u201d For it contained\nall seeds stored and shut up within itself, as it were things which\nwere not, but which were foreordained to exist by the God-who-was-Not.\n\nLet us see then what they say came into being in the first, second\nor third place from the cosmic seed. There existed (Basilides) says\nwithin the seed itself, a Sonhood, threefold throughout, of the same\nessence[45] with the God-who-was-Not and begotten of the things that\nwere not. Of this triple divided Sonhood, one part was subtle, (one\ncoarse) and one wanting purification. Now the subtle (part) [Sidenote:\np. 350.] straightway and as it became the first emission of the seed by\nthe One-who-was-Not, escaped and ascended and went on high from below\nwith the speed described by the poet--\n\n \u201clike wing or thought,\u201d[46]\n\nand came, he says, before the One-who-was-Not. For towards him every\nnature strains on account of his exceeding beauty and bloom,[47] but\neach differently. But the coarser part still remaining in the seed,\nalthough resembling the other,[48] could not go on high, for it lacked\nthe fineness of division which the ascending Sonhood had of itself,\nand was (therefore) left behind. Then the coarser Sonhood wings itself\nwith some such wing as that wherewith Plato, Aristotle\u2019s teacher,\nequips the soul in the _Phaedrus_,[49] and Basilides calls the same\nnot a wing but Holy Spirit, clothed wherewith the Sonhood both gives\nand receives benefit. It gives it because a bird\u2019s wing taken by\nitself and severed from the bird would neither become uplifted nor\nhigh in [Sidenote: p. 351.] air, nor would the bird be uplifted and\nhigh in air if deprived of the wing. This then is the relation which\nthe Sonhood bears to the Spirit and the Spirit to the Sonhood. For\nthe Sonhood borne aloft by the Spirit as by a wing bears aloft the\nwing, (that is the Spirit) and draws nigh to the subtler Sonhood and\nto the God-who-was-Not and fashions all things from the non-existent.\nBut [the Spirit] cannot abide with the Sonhood for it is not of the\nsame essence,[50] nor has it the same nature as the Sonhood. But just\nas dry and pure air is naturally fatal to fishes, so naturally to the\nHoly Spirit was that place, more ineffable than the ineffable ones and\nhigher than all names, which is the seat at once of the God-who-was-Not\nand of the [first] Sonhood. Therefore the Sonhood left the Spirit near\nthat blessed place which cannot be conceived nor characterized[51] by\nany speech, [yet] not altogether alone nor [completely] severed from\nthe Sonhood. For just as when a sweet perfume is poured into a jar,\neven if the jar is carefully emptied a certain fragrance of the perfume\nstill remains and is left behind, and although [Sidenote: p. 352.] the\nperfume be removed from the jar, the jar retains the fragrance, but not\nthe perfume--so the Holy Spirit remained bereft of and severed from the\nSonhood. And this is the saying: \u201cAs the perfume on Aaron\u2019s head ran\ndown to his beard.\u201d[52] This is the savour carried down by the Holy\nSpirit from on high into the Formlessness[53] and Space of this world\nof ours, whence the Sonhood first went on high as on the wings of an\neagle and borne on his loins. For all things, he says, strain upward\nfrom below, from the worse to the better. But there is thus nothing of\nthose things which are among the better which is immovable, so that it\ncannot come below. But the third Sonhood, he says, which is in need of\npurification, remains in the great heap of the Seed-mass giving and\nreceiving benefits. And in what manner it does this, we shall see later\nin the fitting place.[54]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 353.] 23. Now when the first and second ascensions of the\nSonhood[55] had come to pass, and the Holy Spirit remained by itself in\nthe way described, being set midway between the hypercosmic firmaments\nand the cosmos--for Basilides divides the things that are into two\nfirst made and primary divisions, one of which is called by him an\nordered world,[56] and the other hypercosmic things--and between these\ntwo [he places] the Boundary Spirit,[57] which same is at once Holy and\nholds abiding in it the savour of the Sonhood, it being the firmament\nwhich is above the heaven.[58] [When these ascensions had taken place],\nthere escaped from and was engendered from the cosmical seed and the\nSeed-mass, the Great Ruler, the head of the cosmos, a certain beauty\nand greatness and power which cannot be spoken.[59] For he is, says\n[Basilides], more ineffable than the ineffable ones, mightier than the\nmighty, and better than all the fair ones you can describe. He, when\nengendered, burst through, soared aloft, and was borne right up on high\nas far as the firmament, but stayed there thinking that the firmament\nwas the end of all ascension [Sidenote: p. 354.] and uplifting and\nnot imagining that there was anything at all beyond this. And he\nbecame wiser, mightier, more eminent, and more luminous and everything\nwhich you can describe as excelling in beauty all the other cosmic\nthings which lay before him, save only the Sonhood left behind in the\nSeed-mass. For he knew not that [this Sonhood] was wiser and mightier\nand better than he. Therefore he deemed himself Lord and King[60] and\nwise architect, and set about the creation in detail[61] of the ordered\nworld. And in the first place he did not think it meet for him to be\nalone, but created for himself and engendered from the things which\nlay below him a Son much better and wiser than himself. For all this\nthe God-who-was-Not had foreordained when he let fall the Seed-mass.\nWhen, therefore, [the Great Ruler] beheld his Son, he wondered, and was\nfilled with love and astounded: for so [splendid] did the beauty of the\nson appear to the Great Ruler. And the Ruler seated him at his right\nhand. This is what is called by Basilides the Ogdoad where sits the\nGreat Ruler. Then the Great Wise Demiurge fashioned the whole of the\n[Sidenote: p. 355.] heavenly, that is, the aethereal creation. But the\nSon begotten by him set it working and established it, being much wiser\nthan the Demiurge himself.[62]\n\n24. This [creation] is according to Aristotle, the \u201centelechy\u201d[63]\nof the organic natural body, the soul activating the body, without\nwhich the body can effect nothing, a something greater and more\nmanifest and wiser than the body. The theory therefore which Aristotle\nfirst taught regarding the soul and the body, Basilides explained as\nreferring to the Great Ruler and his so-called son. For the Ruler\naccording to Basilides begat a son; and Aristotle says that the soul\nis an entelechy, the work and result[64] of the organic natural body.\nAs, then, the entelechy controls the body, so the son, according to\nBasilides, controls the more ineffable God of the Ineffables. All\nthings soever then which are in the aether up to the Moon are foreseen\nand controlled by the majesty[65] of the Great Ruler; for here [_i.e._\nat the Moon] the air is divided from the aether. Now when all aethereal\nthings had been set in order, yet [Sidenote: p. 356.] another Ruler\nascends from the Seed-Mass, greater than all the things which are below\nhim, save only the Sonhood which is left behind, but much inferior to\nthe first Ruler. And this one is called by them \u201cable to be named.\u201d[66]\nAnd his place is called Hebdomad, and he is the controller and Demiurge\nof all things lying below him, and he has created to himself from the\nSeed-Mass a Son who is more foreseeing and wiser than he in the same\nway as has been said about the first [Ruler]. And in this space,[67]\nhe says, are the heap and the Seed-Mass, and events naturally happen\nas they were (ordained) to be produced in advance by Him who has\ncalculated that which will come to pass and when and what and how it\nwill be.[68] And of these there is no leader nor guardian nor demiurge.\nFor that calculation which the Non-Existent One made when he created\nthem suffices for them.\n\n25. When, then, according to them, the whole cosmos and the hypercosmic\nthings were completed, and nothing [Sidenote: p. 357.] was lacking,\nthere still remained in the Seed-Mass the third Sonhood which had been\nleft behind to give and receive benefits in the Seed. And the Sonhood\nleft behind had to be revealed and again established on high above the\nBoundary Spirit in the presence of the subtler Sonhood and the one that\nresembles it and the Non-Existent One, as, says he, it is written, \u201cAll\ncreation groans and is in travail in expectation of the revelation of\nthe sons of God.\u201d[69] We spiritual men, he say, left here below for the\narrangement and perfect formation and rectification and completion of\nthe souls which by nature have to remain in this [Middle] Space, are\nthe \u201csons [of God].\u201d \u201cNow from Adam to Moses sin reigned\u201d[70] as it is\nwritten. For the Great Ruler reigned who held sway up to the firmament,\nthinking that he alone was God, and that there was nothing higher than\nhe. For all things were kept hidden in silence. This, says he, is the\nmystery which was not known to the earlier generations; but in those\ntimes the King and Lord, as it seemed to him, of the universals was\n[Sidenote: p. 358.] the Great Ruler, the Ogdoad. Yet of this [Middle]\nSpace the Hebdomad was King and Lord, and the Ogdoad is ineffable but\nthe Hebdomad may be named. This Ruler of the Hebdomad, says he, it was\nwho spoke to Moses, saying, \u201cI am the God of Abraham and Isaac and\nJacob and the name of God was not made known to them:\u201d[71] for thus\nthey will have it to have been written--that is to say [the name] of\nthe Ineffable Ogdoad, Ruler, God. All the prophets therefore who were\nbefore the Saviour, spoke from that place.[72] When then, he says, the\nsons of God had to be revealed to us, about whom, he says, creation\ngroaned and travailed in expectation of the revelation, the Gospel came\ninto the cosmos and passed through every Dominion[73] and Authority and\nLordship and every name which is named. And it came indeed, although\nnothing descended from on high, nor did the Blessed Sonhood come forth\nfrom that Incomprehensible and Blessed God-who-was-Not. But as the\nIndian naphtha, when only kindled from afar off, takes fire, so from\nthe Formlessness of the heap below do [Sidenote: p. 359.] the powers of\nthe Sonhood extend upward. For as if he were something of naphtha, the\nson of the Great Ruler of the Ogdoad catches and receives the concepts\nfrom the Blessed Sonhood which is beyond the Holy Spirit. For the\nPower in the midst of the Holy Spirit in the Boundary of the Sonhood\ndistributes the rushing and flowing concepts to the Son of the Great\nRuler.[74]\n\n26. Therefore the Gospel came first from the Sonhood, he says to the\nRuler, through his Son who sits beside him, and the Ruler learned that\nhe was not the God of the universals, but was a generated [being]\nand had above him the outstretched Treasure-house of the Ineffable\nand Unnameable God-who-was-Not and of the Sonhood.[75] And he was\nastounded and terrified when he perceived in what ignorance he had\nbeen, and this, says [Basilides] is the saying: \u201cThe fear of [the]\nLord is the beginning of wisdom.\u201d[76] For he began to be wise when\ninstructed by the Christ seated beside him, and learned what was the\nNon-Existent One, what the Sonhood, what the Holy Spirit, and what was\nthe constitution[77] of the universals and [Sidenote: p. 360.] how\nthese will be restored.[78] This is the wisdom spoken of in mystery,\nas to which, says he, the Scripture declares: \u201cNot in the words taught\nby human wisdom, but in the teachings of [the] Spirit.\u201d[79] Then, says\nhe, the Ruler when he had been instructed and made to fear, confessed\nthoroughly the sin he had committed in magnifying himself. This, says\nhe, is the saying: \u201cI acknowledge my sin and I know my transgression;\nupon this I will make full confession for ever.\u201d[80]\n\nNow when the Great Ruler had been instructed, and every creature of\nthe Ogdoad had been taught and had learned, and the mystery had been\nmade known to those above the heavens, it was still necessary that\nthe Gospel should come to the Hebdomad also, so that the Ruler of the\nHebdomad might be instructed in like manner and be evangelized.[81] The\nSon of the Great Ruler [therefore] enlightened the Son of the Ruler of\nthe Hebdomad, having caught the light which he had from the Sonhood\non high, and the Son of the Ruler of the Hebdomad was enlightened,\nand the Gospel was announced to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, and he in\nlike manner as has been said was both terrified and made confession.\nWhen then all things in the [Sidenote: p. 361.] Hebdomad had been\nenlightened, and the Gospel had been announced to them--for according\nto them, the creatures belonging to these spaces are boundless and are\nDominions and Powers and Authorities, concerning whom they have a very\nlong story told by many [authors]. [And] they imagine that there are\nthere 365 heavens, and Habrasax is their Great Ruler, because his name\ncomprises the cipher 365, wherefore the year consists of that number\nof days[82]--but when, says he, these things had come to pass, it was\nstill necessary that our Formlessness should be enlightened and that\nthe mystery unknown to the earlier generations should be revealed to\nthe Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness as if he were an abortion.\nAs, says he, it is written: \u201cBy revelation was made known to me the\nmystery;\u201d[83] and again, \u201cI heard unspeakable words which it is not\nlawful for man to utter.\u201d[84] [Thus] the light came down from the\n[Sidenote: p. 362.] Hebdomad, which had come down from the Ogdoad on\nhigh to the Son of the Hebdomad, upon Jesus the son of Mary, and He,\nhaving caught it, was enlightened by the light shining upon Him.[85]\nThis, says he, is the saying:--\u201cThe Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,\u201d\n[that is], that which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary\nSpirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary, \u201cand the Power of\nthe Highest shall overshadow thee,\u201d[86] [that is] the power of the\nunction[87] from the Height of the Demiurge on high unto the creation\nwhich is of the Son. But, he says, up till that [time] the cosmos was\nthus constituted, until [the time] when the whole Sonhood left behind\nin the Formlessness to benefit souls and [itself] to receive benefits\nshould be transformed and follow Jesus, and should go on high and\ncome forth purified, and should become most subtle as it might do by\nascension like the First [Sonhood]. For it possesses all the power of\nattaching itself naturally to the light which shines downward from on\nhigh.\n\n27. When therefore, he says, every Sonhood shall have come [forth] and\nshall be established above the Boundary [Sidenote: p. 363.] Spirit, the\ncreation shall then receive pity. For up till now, he says it wails and\nis tortured and awaits the revelation of the sons of God, so that all\nthe men of the Sonhood shall ascend from this place. When this shall\nhave come to pass, he says, God shall bring upon the whole cosmos the\nGreat Ignorance, so that all things shall remain as they are by nature,\nand none shall desire any of those things beyond [its] nature. For\nall the souls of this space which possess a nature enabling them to\nremain immortal in this [space] alone, will remain convinced that there\nis nothing different from nor better than this [space]. Nor will any\ntidings or knowledge of higher things abide in those below, so that the\nlower souls shall not be tormented by yearning after the impossible,\nas if a fish should desire to feed with the sheep on the hills. For,\nsays he, such a desire should it happen to them[88] would be [their]\ndestruction. Therefore, he says, all things which remain in their own\nplace are imperishable; but perishable if they wish to overleap and\nrise above [the limits] of their nature. Thus the Ruler of the Hebdomad\nwill know nothing of the things above him. For the Great [Sidenote:\np. 364.] Ignorance will lay hold of him, so that grief and pain and\nsighing will stand off from him, for he will neither desire anything\nimpossible nor will he grieve. And in like manner this Ignorance will\nlay hold of the Great Ruler of the Ogdoad, and similarly all the\ncreatures subject to him, so that none of them shall grieve and mourn\nfor anything outside his own nature. And this shall be the Restoration\nof all things established according to nature in the seed of the\nuniversals at the beginning, but they shall be restored [each] in their\nproper season. But [to prove] that everything has its proper season,\nit is enough to mention the saying of the Saviour:--\u201cMine hour is not\nyet come\u201d[89] and the Magi observing the star. For, says [Basilides]\nHe himself was foretold by the nativity[90] of the stars and of the\nreturn of the hours into the great heap. This is according to them, the\nspiritual inner man conceived in the natural man--which is the Sonhood\nwho leaves the soul, not to die but to remain as it is by nature, just\nas the first Sonhood[91] [Sidenote: p. 365.] left the Holy Spirit\nwhich is the Boundary in its appropriate place and then did on his own\nspecial soul.[92]\n\nIn order that we may omit nothing of their [doctrines], I will set\nforth what they say also about (a) Gospel.[93] Gospel is according\nto them the knowledge of hypercosmic things, as has been made plain,\nwhich the Great Ruler[94] did not understand. When then there was\nmanifested to him what are the Holy Spirit that is the Boundary, and\nthe Sonhood and the God-who-is-Not the cause of all these, he rejoiced\nat the words and exulted,[95] and this according to them is the Gospel.\nBut Jesus according to them was born as we have before said. And He\nhaving come into being by the Birth before explained, all those things\nlikewise came to pass with regard to the Saviour as it is written in\nthe Gospels. And these things came to pass [Basilides] says, so that\nJesus might become the first-fruits of the sorting-out of the things\nof the Confusion.[96] For when the Cosmos was divided into an Ogdoad\nwhich is the head of the whole ordered world, [the head whereof is] the\nGreat Ruler, and into a Hebdomad which is the head of the Hebdomad, the\n[Sidenote: p. 366.] Demiurge of the things below him, and into this\nspace of ours, which is the Formlessness, it was necessary that the\nthings of the Confusion should be sorted out by the discrimination of\nJesus.\n\nThat which was His bodily part[97] which was from the Formlessness,\ntherefore suffered[98] and returned to the Formlessness. And that which\nwas His psychic part which was from the Hebdomad also returned to the\nHebdomad. But that which was peculiar to the Height of the Great Ruler\nascended and remained with the Great Ruler. And He bore aloft as far\nas the Boundary Spirit that which was from the Boundary Spirit and it\nremained with the Boundary Spirit. But the third Sonhood which had\nbeen left behind to give and receive benefits was purified by Him, and\ntraversing all these places went on high to the Blessed Sonhood.[99]\nFor this is the whole theory,[100] as it were a Confusion of the\nSeed-Mass and the discrimination [into classes] and the Restoration of\nthe things confused into their proper places. Therefore Jesus became\nthe first-fruits of the discrimination, and the Passion came to pass\nfor no other reason than this discrimination.[101] For in this manner,\nhe says, all the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness to [Sidenote:\np. 367.] give and receive benefits separated into its components in the\nsame way as [the person] of Jesus was separated. This is what Basilides\nfables after having lingered in Egypt, and having learned from them [of\nEgypt] such great wisdom, he brought forth such fruits.[102]\n\n\n 2. _Satornilus._[103]\n\n28. And a certain Satornilus who flourished at the same time as\nBasilides, but passed his life in Antioch of Syria, taught the same\nthings as Menander.[104] He says that one father exists unknown to all,\nwho made Angels, Archangels, Powers [and] Authorities. And that from a\ncertain seven angels the cosmos and all things therein came into being.\nAnd that man was [the] creation of angels, there having [Sidenote:\np. 368.] appeared on high from the Absolute One[105] a shining image\nwhich they could not detain, says Saturnilus, because of its immediate\nreturn on high. [Wherefore] they exhorted one another, saying: \u201cLet\nus make man according to image and resemblance.\u201d[106] Which, he says,\nhaving come to pass, the image could not stand upright by reason of\nthe lack of power among the angels, but grovelled like a worm. Then\nthe Power on high having pity on it, because it had come into being\nin his likeness, sent forth a spark of life which raised up the man\nand made him live.[107] Therefore, says he, the spark of life returns\nat death to its own kindred and the rest of [man\u2019s] compound parts is\nresolved into its original elements.[108] And he supposed the unknown\nFather[109] to be unbegotten, bodiless, and formless. But he says that\nHe showed Himself as a phantom in human shape, and that the God of the\nJews is one of the angels. And, because the Father wished to depose\nall the angels, Christ came for the putting-down of the God of the\nJews and for the salvation of those who believe on him; and that these\n[believers] [Sidenote: p. 369.] have the spark of life within them.\nFor he says that two races of men were formed by the angels, one bad\nand one good. And that since the demons help the bad, the Saviour came\nfor the destruction of the bad men and demons, but for the salvation\nof the good. And he says that to marry and beget [children] is from\nSatan. Many of this man\u2019s adherents abstain from things that have had\nlife, through this pretended abstinence (leading astray many).[110] And\nthey say that the Prophecies were uttered, some by the world-creators,\nsome by Satan whom he supposes to be an angel who works against the\nworld-creators and especially (against) the God of the Jews.[111] Thus\nthen Satornilus.\n\n\n 3. _Concerning Marcion._[112]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 370.] 29. Marcion of Pontus, much madder than these,\npassing over many opinions of the majority and pressing on to the more\nshameless, supposed that there were two principles of the All,[113] one\ngood and the other bad. And he, thinking that he was bringing in some\nnew [doctrine], manufactured a school filled with folly and of Cynic\nlife, being himself a lewd one.[114] He thought that the multitude\nwould not notice that he chanced to be a disciple not of Christ, but of\nEmpedocles, who was very much earlier, and he laid down and taught that\nthere were two causes of the All, [_i. e._] Strife and Love.[115] For\nwhat says Empedocles on the conduct of the cosmos? If we have said it\nbefore,[116] yet I will not now keep silence, if only for the sake of\ncomparing [Sidenote: p. 371.] the heresy of this plagiarist[117] [with\nthe source]. He says that all the elements of which the cosmos was\ncompounded and consists are six, to wit:--two material, [viz.] Air and\nWater; two instruments, whereby the material elements are arranged[118]\nand changed about, [viz.] Fire and Air; and two which work with the\ninstruments and fashion matter, [viz.] Strife and Love. He says\nsomething like this:--\n\n Hear first the four roots of all things:\n Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and A\u00efdoneus.\n And Nestis who wets with tears the source of mortals.[119]\n\nZeus is fire and life-bearing Here the earth which bears fruits for\nthe support of life. But A\u00efdoneus is the air, because while beholding\nall things through it, it alone we do not see. And Nestis is water,\nsince it is the only vehicle of food, and therefore the becoming cause\nof all growing things,[120] yet cannot nourish them by itself. For\nif it could so give nourishment, he says, living things[121] could\nnever die of hunger, for there is always abundance of water in the\ncosmos.[122] Whence he calls water Nestis, because it is a becoming\ncause of nourishment, yet cannot itself nourish growing things. These\nthings then are, to sum them up in outline, those which comprise the\nfoundation[123] of the cosmos [_i. e._] water and Earth from which all\nthings come, [Sidenote: p. 372.] Fire and Spirit[124] the tools and\nagents, and Strife and Love which fashion all things with skill. And\nLove is a certain peace and even mindedness and natural affection,[125]\nwhich determines that the cosmos shall be perfect and complete; but\nStrife ever rends asunder that which is one and divides it and makes\nmany things out of one. Therefore the cause of the whole creation is\nStrife, which [cause] he calls baneful, that is deadly.[126] For it\ntakes care that through every aeon, its creation persists. And Strife\nthe deadly is the Demiurge and maker of all things which have come into\nbeing by birth; but Love, of their leading-forth from the cosmos and\ntransformation and return to unity.[127] Concerning which, Empedocles\n[says] that there are two immortal and unbegotten things which have\nnever yet had a source of existence. He speaks, however, somehow like\nthis:--\n\n For it was aforetime and will be; never, I ween,\n Will the unquenchable aeon lack these two.[128]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 373.] But what are these two? Strife and Love. For they\nhad no source of existence, but pre-existed and ever were, being\nthrough their unbegotten nature incorruptible. But Fire [and Water] and\nEarth and Air die and again come to life. For when the things which\nhave come into being through Strife die, Love takes them and leads them\nand adds and attaches them to the All,[129] so that the All may remain\n_One_, being ever marshalled by Love in one fashion and form. Yet when\nLove creates the One from many things, and arranges the things which\nhave been scattered in the One, Strife again rends them away from the\nOne, and makes them [into] many, that is, Fire, Water, Earth [and] Air,\nwhence are produced animals and plants and whatever parts of the cosmos\nwe perceive. And concerning the form[130] of the cosmos as ordered by\nLove, he speaks somehow like this:--\n\n For not from the back do two arms[131] spring\n [Sidenote: p. 374.] Nor feet nor active knees, nor hairy genitals.\n But it was a sphere and everywhere alike.[132]\n\nSuch things [does] Love, and turns out the most beautiful form of the\nworld as One from many; but Strife rends gradually from that One the\nprinciple of its arrangement, and again makes it [into] many. This is\nwhat Empedocles says of his own birth:--\n\n Of whom I also am now a fugitive and an exile from the gods.[133]\n\nThat is, he calls the One divine, and says that the unity formerly\nexisting in the One was rent asunder by Strife and came into being in\nthese many things, existing according to Strife\u2019s ordering. For, says\nhe, Strife is the furious and troublous and unresting Demiurge of this\ncosmos, whose [Sidenote: p. 375.] [fashioner] Empedocles calls it. For\nthis is the judgment and compulsion of the souls which Strife rends\naway from the One and fashions and works up, which process [Empedocles]\ndescribes somehow like this:--\n\n Who having sinned swore falsely\n And demons are allotted long-drawn out life.[134]\n\ncalling the long-lived souls \u201cdemons\u201d because they are immortal and\nlive through long ages.\n\n For three myriad seasons they wandered from the blessed,[135]\n\ncalling \u201cblessed\u201d those whom Love has made from the many into the\noneness of the intelligible[136] cosmos. Therefore, says [Empedocles]\nthey wandered\n\n Putting on in time all mortal forms[137]\n [Sidenote: p. 376.]Interchanging the hard ways of life.[138]\n\nHe says that the transmigrations and transmutations of the souls into\nbodies are \u201chard ways.\u201d This is what he says:--\n\n Interchanging the hard ways of life.\n\nFor [the souls pass from body to body] being changed about and punished\nby Strife and are not allowed to remain in the One, but are punished in\nall punishments by Strife. This is what he says:--\n\n For aetherial might drives souls seawards.\n And sea spits them upon Earth\u2019s surface; and Earth into the beams\n Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether\n Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.[139]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 377.] This is the punishment wherewith the Demiurge\npunishes, just as a smith forging iron, taking it from the fire, dips\nit in water. For Fire is the aether, whence the Demiurge casts the\nsouls into the Sea; and the Earth is the ground. Whence he says, from\nwater to Earth, from Earth to Air. This is what he says:--\n\n into the beams\n Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether\n Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.\n\nTherefore, according to Empedocles, Love gathers the hated and tortured\nand punished souls together into this world. For [Love] is good and\nhas pity on their wailing and the disorder and wickedness created by\nfurious Strife. And she hastens and toils to lead them forth quickly\nout of the world and to settle them in the One, so that all things\nbrought together by her may come to oneness. It [Sidenote: p. 378.] is\nthen by reason of this arrangement of this much-divided[140] world by\ndeadly Strife, that Empedocles exhorts his disciples to abstain from\nall things which have life. For he says that the bodies of animals\nwhich are eaten are the dwellings of punished souls, and he teaches\nthose who hear such [his] words to refrain[141] from companying with\nwomen, so that they may not cooperate and help in the deeds which\nStrife effects, ever undoing and rending asunder the work of Love.\n\nEmpedocles says that this is the greatest law of the government of the\nAll, speaking somehow thus:--\n\n There is a thing of Necessity, an ancient decree of the gods.\n Eternal and sealed with broad oaths.[142]\n\nthus calling Necessity the change by Strife of the One into many and\nthat by Love of many into the One. He says, indeed, that there are four\nmortal gods, Fire, Water, Earth and Air; and two immortal unbegotten\nand enemies one to the other for ever [viz.] Strife and Love; and that\nStrife is ever unjust and grasping and rends asunder what belongs\n[Sidenote: p. 379.] to Love and takes it to itself; and that Love is\never good and anxious for unity and calls back to herself and leads\nand makes one the things rent asunder from the All and tortured and\npunished in creation by the Demiurge. In some such way does Empedocles\nphilosophize for us on the genesis of the Cosmos and its destruction\nand its constitution established from good and evil.\n\nAnd he says that there is a certain conceivable[143] third power which\nmay be conceived[144] from these, speaking somehow like this:--\n\n For if having fixed these things with knowing mind[145]\n You behold them favourably with pure attention\n They all will be present with you throughout the age\n But many others will come forth from these. For they will increase\n Each into a habit as is the nature of each.[146]\n And if you desire such other things as are among men\n A myriad woes arise and dull the edge of care\n [Sidenote: p. 380.] Take heed lest they leave you suddenly as time rolls on.\n Yearning to join their own beloved race\n For know that all things have perception and an allotted share of mind.[147]\n\n30. When therefore Marcion or any of his dogs shall bay against the\nDemiurge, bringing forward arguments from the comparison of good and\nevil, they should be told that neither the Apostle Paul nor Mark of\nthe maimed finger[148] reported these things. For none of them is\nwritten in the Gospel [according] to Mark; [and] Marcion, having stolen\nthem from Empedocles of Agrigentum, the son of Meto, thought until\nnow to conceal the fact that he had taken the whole arrangement of\nhis heresy from Sicily, [after] having transferred the actual words\nof Empedocles to the Gospel discourses. For now, O Marcion, since you\nhave [Sidenote: p. 381.] made antithesis[149] of good and evil, I also\nto-day, following up the teachings you have secretly borrowed[150] set\nthem over against [the originals]. Thou sayest that the Demiurge of the\ncosmos is wicked.[151] Dost thou not then feel shame in teaching to the\nChurch the words of Empedocles? Thou sayest that there is a good God\nwho destroys the creations of the Demiurge. Dost thou not then clearly\npreach as good news[152] to thy hearers the good Love of Empedocles?\nThou dost forbid marriage and the begetting of children and [dost order\nthy hearers] to abstain from the meats which God has created for the\nparticipation of the faithful and of those who know the truth,[153]\nhaving purposely forgotten that thou art teaching the purifications of\nEmpedocles. For, following him as you truly do throughout, you teach\nyour own disciples[154] to avoid meats, lest they should eat some\nbody covering a soul punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages\njoined by God, [thus] following the teachings of Empedocles so that you\nmay preserve the work of Love undissevered. For marriage according to\nEmpedocles dissevers the One and creates many as we have shown.[155]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 382.] 31. The earliest and least altered[156] heresy of\nMarcion, comprising the mingling of good and evil, has been shown by us\nto be that of Empedocles. But since in our own time, a certain Prepon\nthe Assyrian,[157] a Marcionite, in a book addressed to Bardesianes the\nArmenian, has undertaken discourses on this heresy, I will not keep\nsilence about this either. Considering that there is a third principle,\njust and set between good and evil, Prepon also does not thus succeed\nin escaping the teaching of Empedocles. For Empedocles says that the\ncosmos is governed by wicked Strife, and the other conceivable [world]\nby Love, while between the two opposed[158] principles is a just Logos,\nby whom the things severed by Strife are brought together and are\nattached by Love to the One. But this same just Logos, [Sidenote: p.\n383.] who fights on the side of Love, Empedocles proclaims as a Muse\nand invokes her to fight on his side, speaking somehow thus:--\n\n If for creatures of a day, O deathless Muse,\n Thou art pleased to relieve our cares by thought,\n Be propitious once more to my prayer, Calliope!\n For I show forth a pious discourse of [the] blessed gods.[159]\n\nFollowing this up, Marcion repudiates altogether our Saviour\u2019s Birth,\nthinking it out of the question that a creature[160] of destructive\nStrife should become the Logos fighting on the side of Love, that is\nof the Good. But he said that without birth, in the 15th year of the\nreign of Tiberius C\u00e6sar, He came down from on high to teach in the\nsynagogues, being between evil and good. For if He is [Sidenote: p.\n384.] a Mediator,[161] he says, He is freed from all nature of evil,\nfor evil, as he says, is the Demiurge and all his works. But He was\nfreed also, he says, from the nature of good, so that He might be a\nMediator, as Paul says,[162] which he himself confessed [in the saying]\n\u201cWhy callest thou me good? there is one Good.\u201d\n\nThese then are Marcion\u2019s doctrines, whereby he has caused many to\nerr by making use of the words of Empedocles and transferring the\nphilosophy stolen from that person to his own teaching. [Thus] he\nhas compounded a godless heresy which I think has been sufficiently\nrefuted by us. Nor [do we think] that we have omitted anything of\nthose who, having stolen [opinions] from the Greeks, insolently\noppose the disciples of Christ, as if these last had become their\nteachers of these things. But since it seems to us that the opinions\nof this [Marcion] have been sufficiently exposed,[163] let us see what\nCarpocrates says.\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 385.] 4. _Carpocrates._[164]\n\n32. Carpocrates says that the cosmos and the things which are therein,\ncame into being by angels much below the unbegotten Father, but that\nJesus was begotten by Joseph and was born like other men, though more\njust than the rest. And that His soul having been born strong and pure\nremembered what it had seen in the sphere of the unbegotten God;[165]\nand that therefore a power was sent down to it from that [Deity], so\nthat by its means it might escape from the world-making angels. And\nthat this [soul][166] having passed through them all and having been\nfreed from them went on high to the presence of the unbegotten Father,\nand so will the souls[167] [go] who cleave to similar things. And\nthey say that the soul of Jesus, although lawfully trained in Jewish\ncustoms, disdained them and therefore received the powers whereby\nHe made of none effect[168] the passions attached to men for their\npunishment. [Sidenote: p. 386.] And that therefore the soul which like\nthat of Christ can disdain the world-making rulers, receives in the\nsame way power to do like things. Whence also they reach such [a pitch\nof] vanity as to say they are like unto Jesus, and even that they are\nmightier than man, and some of them more excellent than His disciples,\nsuch as Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles, and that they are\nin nothing behind Jesus. But that their souls having come from the\nTranscendent Authority[169] and therefore similarly disdaining the\nworld-makers, are worthy of the same power [as He] and will go to the\nsame place. But that if anyone should disdain more than He the things\nbelow, he might become more excellent than He.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 387.] They practise, then, magic arts, and incantations\nand [use] philtres and love-feasts, and familiar spirits and\ndream-senders and other evil works, thinking that they already have\nauthority to lord it over the rulers and makers of this world, nay even\nover all created in it. Who have themselves been sent forth by Satan\nfor the dishonour[170] of the divine name of the Church before the\nGentiles, so that men hearing in one way or another of their doctrines\nand thinking that we are all even as they, may turn away their ears\nfrom the preaching of the Truth, [or] beholding their deeds, may speak\nevil of us all.\n\nAnd they consider that [their] souls will change their bodies until\nthey have fulfilled all their transgressions; but that when nothing\nis left undone, they will be set free to depart to the presence of\nthe God who is above the world-making angels, and that thus all souls\nwill be saved. But if any anticipating matters should combine all\ntransgressions [Sidenote: p. 388.] in one advent,[171] they will no\nlonger change their bodies, but as having paid all penalties at once,\nwill be freed from further birth in a body. Some of them also brand\ntheir disciples in the back part of the lobe of the right ear. And they\nmake [172] images of Christ saying that they were made [in the time] of\nPilate.[173]\n\n\n 5. _Cerinthus._[174]\n\n33. But a certain Cerinthus, having been trained in the schooling of\nthe Egyptians, said that the cosmos did not come into being by the\nFirst God, but by a certain Power derived from the Authority set over\nthe universals, which is yet ignorant of the God who is over all. And\nhe supposed Jesus not to have been begotten from a virgin, but to have\nbeen born the son of Joseph and Mary like all other men, [Sidenote:\np. 389.] and to have been more wise and just than they. And that, at\nthe Baptism, the Christ in the form of a dove descended upon Him from\nthe Absolute Power[175] which is over the universals. And that then He\nannounced[176] the unknown Father and perfected His own powers; but\nthat in the end the Christ stood away from Jesus, and Jesus suffered\nand rose again;[177] but that the Christ being spiritual remained\nimpassible.\n\n\n 6. _Ebion\u00e6i._[178]\n\n34. But the Ebion\u00e6i admit that the cosmos came into being by the\nGod who is; and concerning Christ they invent[179] the same things\nas Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live according to Jewish customs,\nthinking that they will be justified by the Law and saying that Jesus\nwas justified in practising[180] the Law. Wherefore He was named by God\nChrist and Jesus, since none of them has fulfilled [Sidenote: p. 390.]\nthe Law. For if any other had practised the commandments which are in\nthe Law, he would be the Christ. And they say it is possible for them\nif they do likewise to become Christs; and that He was a man like unto\nall [men].\n\n\n 7. _Theodotus the Byzantian._[181]\n\n35. But a certain Byzantine named Theodotus brought in a new heresy,\nasserting things about the beginning of the All which partly agree with\n[the account of] the True Church, since he admits that all things came\ninto being by God. But having taken[182] his [idea of] Christ from the\nschool of the Gnostics and from Cerinthus and Ebion,[183] he considers\nHe appeared in some such fashion as this:--Jesus was a man begotten\nfrom a virgin according to the Father\u2019s will, living the common life of\nall men. And having become most pious,[184] He at length on His baptism\nin Jordan received the Christ from on high, who descended in the\n[Sidenote: p. 391.] form of a dove. Wherefore the powers within Him did\nnot become active, until the Spirit which came down was manifested in\nHim, which [Spirit] declared Him to be the Christ. But some will have\nit that He did not become God on the descent of the Spirit; and others\nthat [this took place] on His resurrection from the dead.\n\n\n 8. _Another Theodotus._\n\n36. But while different enquiries were taking place among them[185] a\ncertain man who was also called Theodotus, a money-changer by trade,\nundertook to say that a certain Melchizedek was the greatest power, and\nthat he was greater than Christ. After the image of whom they allege\nthat Christ happened [to come]. And they like the Theodotians before\nmentioned say that Jesus was a man, and in the same words [declare]\nthat the Christ descended upon Him.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 392.] But the opinions[186] of Gnostics are varied,\nand we do not deem it worth while to recount in detail their foolish\ndoctrines, composed of much absurdity and charged with blasphemy,\nthe most respectable of which those Greeks who philosophized on the\nDivine have refuted. But one cause of the great conspiracy of these\nwicked ones was Nicolaus, one of the seven appointed to the diaconate\nby the Apostles.[187] He, having fallen away from the right doctrine,\ntaught that it was indifferent how men lived and ate: whose disciples\nhaving waxed insolent, the Holy Spirit exposed in the Apocalypse as\nfornicators and eaters of things offered to idols.[188]\n\n\n 9. _Cerdo and Lucian._[189]\n\n37. But a certain Cerdo taking in like manner his starting-point from\nthese [heretics] and from Simon, says that the [Sidenote: p. 393.]\nGod announced by Moses and [the] Prophets was not the Father of Jesus\nChrist. For that this God was known, but the Father of the Christ\nunknowable; and that the first-named was [only] just, but the other,\ngood. The doctrine of this [Cerdo] Marcion confirmed when he took in\nhand the _Antitheses_[190] and everything which seemed to him to speak\nagainst the Demiurge of all things. And so did Lucian his disciple.\n\n\n 10. _Apelles._[191]\n\n38. Now Apelles who [sprang] from among these men, says thus:--There is\na certain good God as Marcion supposed; but he who created all things\nis [only] just; and there is a third [God] who spoke to Moses, and\nyet a fourth, a cause of evil. And he names these angels and speaks\nill of the Law and the Prophets, deeming the Scriptures of human\nauthorship and false. And he picks out of the Gospels and Epistles\nthe things favourable to him. Yet he clings to the discourses of a\ncertain Philumena as the manifestations[192] [Sidenote: p. 394.] of a\nprophetess. And he says that the Christ came down from the powers on\nhigh, _i. e._ from the Good One and was the son of that One, and was\nnot begotten from a virgin, nor did He appear bodiless;[193] but that\ntaking parts from every substance[194] of the All, He made a body, that\nis from hot and cold and wet and dry. And that in this body He lived\nunnoticed by the cosmic authorities during the time that He spent in\nthe cosmos. And moreover that having been crucified[195] by the Jews\nHe died, and after three days rose again and appeared to the disciples\nshowing the marks of the nails and [the wound] in his side, and thereby\nconvinced them that He existed and was not a phantom but was incarnate.\nThe flesh [Apelles] says, which He showed, He gave back to the earth\nwhence was its substance, and He desired nothing of others, but merely\nused [the flesh] for a season. He gave back to each its own, having\nloosed again the bond of the body, _i. e._ the hot to the hot, the cold\nto the cold, the wet to the wet and the dry to the dry,[196] and thus\npassed to the presence of the good Father, leaving the seed of life to\nthe world to those who believe through the disciples.[197]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 395.] 39. It seems to us that we have set forth\nsufficiently these things also. But since we have decided to leave\nunrefuted no doctrines taught by any [heretic], let us see what has\nbeen excogitated by the Docetae.\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: Of the Basilides with whose doctrines this book opens,\nlittle is known. While some would on slender grounds make him a\nSyrian, there is no doubt that he taught in Egypt and especially in\nAlexandria, where he seems to have steeped himself in Greek philosophy.\nThis must have been during the reign of Hadrian and some time before\nthe appearance of the far greater heresiarch Valentinus. If we could\nbelieve the testimony of Epiphanius, Basilides was a fellow-disciple\nwith Satornilus, to be presently mentioned, of Menander, the immediate\nsuccessor of Simon Magus; and, according to the more trustworthy\nwitness of Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, VII, 17), he himself\nclaimed to be the disciple of Glaucias, \u201cthe interpreter\u201d of St. Peter.\nHe had a son Isidore who shared his teaching, and he wrote a treatise\nin twenty-four books on the Gospels which he called _Exegetica_. The\nsect that he founded, although never popular, lingered for some time\nin Egypt; but there is much probability in Matter\u2019s conjecture (_Hist.\ncrit. du Gnost._, 2nd ed., III, 36), that most of his followers became\nthe hearers of Valentinus.\n\nOur author\u2019s account of Basilides\u2019 doctrine at first sight differs\nso widely from that given by Iren\u00e6us and his copyists that it was\nfor long supposed that the two accounts were irreconcilable. The\nlate Prof. Hort, however, in his lucid article on the subject in the\n_Dictionary of Christian Biography_ showed with much skill that this\nwas not so, and that the Basilidian doctrine contained in our text is\nin all probability that of the _Exegetica_ itself, while the teaching\nattributed to Basilides by Iren\u00e6us and others was the same doctrine\nlargely corrupted by the inconsistent and incoherent superstitions\nwhich invariably attach themselves to any faith propagated in secret.\nThe immediate source of Basilides\u2019 own teaching cannot, up to the\npresent time, be satisfactorily traced; but, although its coping-stone,\nthe non-existent Deity, shows some likeness to the Buddhistic ideas\nwhich were at any rate known in the Alexandria of his time (Clem.\nAlex., _Strom._, I, 15), it is probable that among the relics of\nthe ancient Egyptian religion, then almost extinct, something of\nthe same idea might have been found. His obligation to the Stoic\nphilosophy is well brought out by Hort; and he was doubtless versed\nin the dialectical methods of Aristotle, which, then as later, formed\nthe universal equipment of the student of philosophy. Hippolytus\u2019\ntheory that the ground-work of the Basilidian edifice is a conscious\nor unconscious borrowing from Aristotle derives no support from any\nAristotelian writings known to us. Unlike other Gnostics, Basilides\ndisplays no animus towards the Jews beyond reducing their Deity to\nthe Ruler of the Hebdomad, or lowest spiritual world, and he accepts\nas fully as possible the Divinity of Jesus and the authority of the\nNew Testament. Of the Docetism attributed to him by Iren\u00e6us and\nothers, there is here no trace, and the Bishop of Lyons\u2019 statement on\nthis point can only be explained by supposing that he here confused\nBasilides with some other heresiarch.\n\nThe distinctive features of Basilides\u2019 teaching as disclosed in our\ntext are, however, plain enough. Rejecting all idea of a pre-existing\nmatter, he derives everything from the Supreme Being, whom he considers\nto be so unspeakably and inconceivably great that he will not even\nsay of Him that He exists. He it is who from the first decreed not\nonly the foundation of the universe but also the means and agency by\nwhich this is to be brought about. Nor do the apparent defects in its\nconstitution involve in Basilides\u2019 system any thwarting of the Divine\nWill by intermediate agents, or any lapse from duty on their part. All\nthings subsequent to the Supreme Being are in effect His children, and\nfrom the Panspermia or Seed-Mass originally let fall by Him emerges the\nFirst Sonhood, or purest part of the Sonhood, which, rising from the\nheap by its own lightness and tenuity, springs upward into the presence\nof the First Cause, where it remains for the purpose of giving light\nwhen needed to the lower parts of creation. This is quickly followed\nby the Second Sonhood (or Second Part of the Sonhood), which, emerging\nin like manner, rises not from its own unaided power, but with the\nassistance of the Boundary Spirit, who must have its origin in the\nSeed-Mass, and who is left as the Boundary between the visible and the\ninvisible part of the universe when the Second Sonhood passes to the\nOgdoad or Eighth Heaven. This Eighth Heaven is under the sway of the\nGreat Ruler, a functionary emitted by the Seed-Mass for the purpose of\ngoverning this abode of perfection, from which it may be inferred that\nthe Second Sonhood like the First ultimately returns to the presence of\nthe Supreme Being. In his organization of this Eighth Heaven, the Great\nRuler is much helped by the Son whom he calls forth from the Seed-Mass,\nwho is expressly stated to be greater and wiser than his own Father.\n\nThere remains in the Seed-Mass two other world-creating powers. The\nfirst of these is the maker of the Seven Heavens or Hebdomad, which\ncan here hardly be the planets, because they are expressly said to\nbe sublunary. He, too, produces from the Seed-Mass a Son greater and\nwiser than himself, who again, it may be supposed, assists his father\nin the organization of this Hebdomad. What form this organization took\nwe are not told, although there is some talk of 365 beings who are all\n\u201cDominions and Powers and Authorities\u201d with a ruler called Habrasax.\nBelow this Hebdomad, however, comes this world of ours called the\n\u201cFormlessness,\u201d which has, it is said, \u201cno leader nor guardian nor\ndemiurge\u201d (_i.e._ architect), everything happening in it as decreed\nby the Supreme Being from the first. Yet this Formlessness contains\nwithin it the Third Sonhood (or third part of the Sonhood) whose\nmission is apparently to guide the souls of men to the place for which\nthey are predestined, which it does by imparting to them some of its\nown nature. Then, when the time came for the Coming of the Saviour,\na light shining from the highest heavens was transmitted through the\nintermediate places to the Son of the Hebdomad and fell upon \u201cJesus\nthe son of Mary,\u201d and He after the Passion ascended like the two first\nparts of the Sonhood to the Divine Presence. In due time the third part\nof the Sonhood will, it is said, follow Him. When this happens, the\nsoul predestined to the Seven Heavens will pass thither, those more\nenlightened will be admitted to the Eighth Heaven, and those entitled\nto the most glorious destiny of all will probably ascend with the third\npart of the Sonhood to the Highest. On the two inferior classes, there\nwill then fall the \u201cGreat Ignorance,\u201d a merciful oblivion which will\nprevent them from remembering or otherwise being troubled in their\nbeatitude by the knowledge of the still better things above them.\n\nHow the salvation of these souls is to be effected there is no\nindication in Hippolytus, and he leaves us in entire doubt as to\nwhether Basilides allowed any free-will to man in the matter. It is\nprobable that he taught the doctrine of transmigration as a means of\npurification from sins or faults committed in ignorance. But it is\nseveral times asserted that he looked on suffering as a cleansing\nprocess for the soul, and that he did not admit the existence of\nevil (see Hort\u2019s article on Basilides in _D.C.B._, I, pp. 274, 275\nfor references). About some of his teaching there was deliberate\nconcealment (_ibid._, p. 279), and Iren\u00e6us (I, xxiv. 6), tells us that\nhis followers were taught to declare that while they were \u201cno longer\nJews\u201d they were \u201cnot yet\u201d (or perhaps \u201cmore than\u201d) Christians. In\nthis we may perhaps see the influence of the rubrics of the Egyptian\n_Book of the Dead_, and the beginning of that secret propagation of\nreligion which was to find its ripest fruit in Manich\u00e6ism. For the\nrest, although Iren\u00e6us (I, xxiv. 5) tells us that Basilides, like\nSimon, Valentinus, and other Gnostics, taught that the body of Jesus\nwas a phantasm, and even that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified in His\nstead, there appears no trace of this in our text, and it is possible\nthat the Bishop of Lyons is here again confusing Basilides\u2019 doctrines\nwith those of his successors.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u201chill\u201d; possibly a copyist\u2019s error for \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u201cboundary\u201d or \u201cshore.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 3: This exordium was evidently intended to be spoken.]\n\n[Footnote 4: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, Cruice and others translate this by \u201csubstance.\u201d\nHere it evidently means \u201cessence\u201d in the sense of \u201cbeing.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 5: \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._ appearance = that which is seen.]\n\n[Footnote 6: \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cwhich cannot be cut or divided,\u201d = \u201catom.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 7: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, \u201creceive cutting.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 8: \u03b6\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2. See Aristotle, _Categor._, c. 3. The \u201cliving\ncreature\u201d of the A. V. would here make better sense; but I keep the\nword \u201canimal\u201d in the text out of respect for my predecessors.]\n\n[Footnote 9: \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, literally _substantia_, with no meaning as has\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of \u201cbeing.\u201d See Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 275.]\n\n[Footnote 10: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cabstract,\u201d or \u201cnon-specific\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 11: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 12: The text has \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd .... [\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd], the words in\nbrackets being rightly deleted, as Cruice notes.]\n\n[Footnote 13: \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u201cposited.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 14: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, which shows the distinction\nmade by the author between \u1f40\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 15: \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cundivided.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 16: The text is here corrupt and has to be restored from\nAristotle\u2019s, the word I have translated \u201cessence\u201d being as before\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 while subject is \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Cf. Aristotle _Cat._, c. 5, and\n_Metaphysica_, IV, c. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Or \u201cof many animals although they differ in species.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u201canimated\u201d or \u201censouled.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 19: \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd [sic]. _One_ of the accidents would make better\nsense. Cf. vol. I, p. 56 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _i.e._ \u201cinherent.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 21: \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 22: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 23: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, which here as elsewhere in the text may be\ntranslated \u201cessence.\u201d \u201cBeing,\u201d perhaps, is better here as more familiar\nto the English reader.]\n\n[Footnote 24: These definitions of \u201caccident\u201d and the like are not to\nbe found in the _Categories_ of Aristotle as we have them in the work\nknown as the _Organon_, nor in any other of his extant works. But they\ncorrespond with those given in Book VI, and are there attributed to\nPythagoras. Cf. p. 21 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 25: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 throughout.]\n\n[Footnote 26: That is, makes fables or myths about the gods.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Macmahon remarks that these must be among Aristotle\u2019s\nlost works. This is doubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 28: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Is Matthias a corruption of Glaucias? See n.\non p. 59 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Basilides and his son must therefore have been\ncontemporaries of the Apostles. Even if we treat the word \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 here\nas a copyist\u2019s interpolation, it is evident that Basilides must have\nbeen considerably anterior in time to Valentinus.]\n\n[Footnote 30: \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u201ctransactions.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 31: The words in this sentence in square brackets are\nemendations in the text made by different editors.]\n\n[Footnote 32: \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, as in last note but one.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Basilides is thus the first Gnostic to teach the doctrine\nof creation _e nihilo_.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. Cf. the legend of Cybele, Vol. I, p. 118, n. 1\n_supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 36: \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. The word is found in the fragments of\nAnaxagoras and Democritus as well as in Plato. Its use has been revived\nby Darwin and Weissmann.]\n\n[Footnote 37: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 38: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd. Nothing is here got by translating the word\n\u201csubstances.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 39: \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Galen uses it as equivalent to \u201cvery\nwealthy.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. As in Aristotle, _Cate._, c. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 41: This with Hippolytus\u2019 interpolated remark emphasizes the\ngreat difference between Basilides\u2019 doctrine with its assertion of the\ncreation _e nihilo_ and the emanation theory of all other Gnostics. It\ndoes away with the necessity for a pre-existent matter.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Gen. 1. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 43: John 1. 9. This and \u201cMine hour is not yet come\u201d are the\nonly undoubted references to the Fourth Gospel made by Basilides.]\n\n[Footnote 44: \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 45: \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The first occurrence, so far as it can be\ntraced, of this too-famous word. If I am right, the interpretation of\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 by \u201csubstance\u201d came later. The nature of the Sonhood (\u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\nLat., _filietas_, which I translate \u201cSonhood\u201d by analogy with\n_paternitas_ = Fatherhood) is peculiar to Basilides, the idea being\napparently that within the Panspermia was concealed a germ which was\nmore closely related to its Divine Parent than the rest. The same idea\n_mutatis mutandis_ reappears in Weissmann\u2019s theory of the germ-plasm.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Homer, _Odyssey_, VII, 36.]\n\n[Footnote 47: \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The longing of\nall nature for something higher is also mentioned in the Book on the\nOphites (See Book V, Vol. I, pp. 123, 140 _supra_). The phrase was\nevidently a favourite one with Hippolytus, and he therefore uses it in\nregard to several heresies, as he has done with the magnet simile.]\n\n[Footnote 48: \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1, \u201cbeing an imitative thing.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 49: Plato, _Phaedrus_, cc. 55, 56.]\n\n[Footnote 50: \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 51: \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Ps. cxxxiii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 53: \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2. The \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\ncorresponds exactly to the Chaos of the other Gnostics, as contrasted\nwith the Cosmos or ordered world which in this case is above it. In\nit, as we see later (p. 356 Cr.) there is neither \u201cleader nor guardian\nnor demiurge,\u201d and everything happens by predestination. The \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\nwe have already met with in the teaching of Simon Magus (p. 261\nCr.). Although in classical Greek it means an \u201cinterval,\u201d it is here\nevidently intended to signify something uncultivated, or, as we should\nsay, a \u201cwaste.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 54: It gives benefit by passing into the souls of certain\nchosen men and thus enabling them to obtain the highest beatitude. It\nreceives it by thus purifying itself and so working out in turn its own\nsalvation.]\n\n[Footnote 55: He evidently regards the three persons of the Sonhood as\none being.]\n\n[Footnote 56: \u201cCosmos.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 57: \u03a4\u1f78 \u039c\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 58: The likeness of this to the Egyptian Horus who was at\nonce the sky-god and the ruler of the sublunary world, whose earthly\nrepresentative was the Pharaoh, is manifest. So, too, is its connection\nwith Horos, the Limit, of the Pleroma in Book VI.]\n\n[Footnote 59: So in the _Pistis Sophia_ the great ruler of the material\nworld is only spoken of as the Great Propat\u00f4r or Forefather, but his\npersonal name is never mentioned. The word \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd here applied to this\npower is never used by later Gnostics except in a bad sense.]\n\n[Footnote 60: \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 = autocrat or ruler having unlimited power.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 62: This idea of a Power bringing into being a son greater\nthan himself seems peculiar to Basilides among Gnostic teachers. Its\norigin may, perhaps, be sought among Pagan religions like the Greek\nworship of Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 63.]\n\n[Footnote 63: This \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 or Quintessence Aristotle defines\n(_Metaphys._, X, 9, 2) as actuality or the property of a thing _in\nposse_ which lends to its motion or activity _in esse_.]\n\n[Footnote 64: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1. The word is much used in astrology.]\n\n[Footnote 65: \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The word is post-classical and used in its\nmodern sense as an epithet of the Emperor in Byzantine times. Cf. LXX,\nJer. xxxiii. 9; Luke ix. 43; Acts xix. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 66: \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 as opposed to \u1f04\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cineffable.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 67: That is to say, our world.]\n\n[Footnote 68: \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. The reading is very uncertain. Cf.\nCruice, p. 356 nn. 9, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Rom. viii. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Rom. v. 13, 14. In the Greek not \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 as in the text,\nbut \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cdeath.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 71: Cf. Exod. vi. 2, 3. Basilides has twisted the last\nsentence, \u201cBy my name Jehovah was I not known to them,\u201d as Hippolytus\nnotes.]\n\n[Footnote 72: \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, _i. e._ from the Hebdomad. Cruice will have it\nfrom the Ogdoad, but is clearly wrong.]\n\n[Footnote 73: \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u201cRule.\u201d Cf. Milton\u2019s \u201cThrones, Dominations,\nPrincedoms, Virtues, Powers.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 74: The simile of the vapour of naphtha rising and catching\nfire from a light above it is apt. As Prof. A. S. Peake points out\nin his article on \u201cBasilides\u201d in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of Religion\nand Ethics_, Basilides throughout his system asserts in opposition to\nGnostics like Valentinus that salvation comes from the uplifting of the\nlower powers rather than by the degradation of the higher.]\n\n[Footnote 75: There are many conjectural readings of this passage, for\nwhich see Cruice.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Prov. i. 7. So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II, 8, 36), who\nclearly quotes this passage from Basilides.]\n\n[Footnote 77: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae. Cf. LXX, Gen. i. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 78: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. This Apocatastasis, or return of the\nworlds to the Deity from whom they came forth, is a favourite source of\nspeculation with all Gnostics.]\n\n[Footnote 79: 1 Cor. ii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 80: A conflation of Ps. xxxii. 5, and Ps. li. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 81: \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201chave the good news announced to him\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 82: It is the words in brackets which connect the system of\nthe text with that attributed to Basilides by Iren\u00e6us and Epiphanius.\nCf. Iren., I, xxiv. 5, pp. 202, 203, and n. 6, H., and Epiph., _Haer._,\nXXIV.]\n\n[Footnote 83: Eph. iii. 3, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 84: 2 Cor. xii. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 85: As at the Baptism in Jordan where, according to the\nalmost universal tradition, the water was lighted up.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Luke i. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 87: \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Thus in Cruice. Miller would read\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and Roeper \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. Perhaps the correct reading is \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2,\naccording to the idea common to nearly all Gnostics that the Christos\nonly came upon Jesus at His Baptism.]\n\n[Footnote 88: \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 89: John iffi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cconfiguration\u201d or \u201cgeniture.\u201d The proper\nword for a theme or horoscope.]\n\n[Footnote 91: It was the Second and not the First Sonhood who left the\nHoly Spirit at the Boundary.]\n\n[Footnote 92: It is plain from this that Basilides taught that the most\nspiritual part of man\u2019s soul was part of the Sonhood and that it was\nseparated from the rest at death. This is confirmed by what is said\nlater about what happened after the Passion.]\n\n[Footnote 93: \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd = \u201cgood news\u201d? The article is omitted in both\nthese sentences.]\n\n[Footnote 94: He of the Ogdoad.]\n\n[Footnote 95: \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, a kind of pun on \u1f18\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cglad tidings.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 96: \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\nSo Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II., 8, 36), quoting from the \u201cfollowers of\nBasilides,\u201d says that the Great Ruler\u2019s fear became the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, \u201cthe origin of the wisdom which discriminates.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 97: \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 98: This flatly contradicts the story attributed to Basilides\nby Iren\u00e6us to the effect that Simon of Cyrene took His place on the\nCross. It has long been thought likely that Iren\u00e6us was here confusing\nBasilides with his contemporary Saturninus.]\n\n[Footnote 99: So in the _Pistis Sophia_, the incorporeal part of man is\nsaid to consist of four parts.]\n\n[Footnote 100: \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 101: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd [\u1f22] \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 102: As has been said, there appears no reason to doubt that\nHippolytus took his account of Basilides\u2019 doctrines directly from the\nworks of that heresiarch or of his son Isidore. The likeness of the\nquotations from Basilides or \u201cthose about Basilides\u201d in Clement of\nAlexandria--a far more accurate and critical writer than Hippolytus--to\nour text leave no doubt on this point, and it is even probable that,\nas Hort thought, most of Hippolytus\u2019 information is gathered from\nBasilides\u2019 _Exegetica_. His account of the universe and its creation\nis largely Stoic, as may be seen by a comparison of this chapter with\nthat on the Universe in Prof. E. V. Arnold\u2019s excellent _Roman Stoicism_\n(Cambridge, 1911); but he differs from all the Pagan philosophy of\nhis time by his view of matter which he makes neither pre-existent\nnor malignant. In this, and in the \u201chappy ending\u201d to his drama of\nthe universe, we may perhaps see the result of the Golden Age of the\nAntonines, and it is to this, perhaps, that he owed the influence that\nhe, without any great followers or successors, had upon the future\ntheology of orthodox and heretic alike. Many of his ideas, and even\na few of his very words, appear in documents like the later parts of\nthe _Pistis Sophia_, and in certain Manich\u00e6an writings, although the\nstrict monotheism which distinguishes them is in sharp contrast with\nthe dualism of his successors. This begets a doubt whether these last\nwere conscious borrowers of his opinion, or whether both he and they\ntook their doctrines from some common source of Eastern tradition not\nnow recognizable; but on the whole, the first-named hypothesis seems\nthe more probable.]\n\n[Footnote 103: \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. So Epiph., _Haer._ XXIII, and Theodoret,\n_Haer. Fab._, I, 3, spell the name. Iren., I, 22; Eusebius, _H.E._, IV,\n7, and later writers spell it \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. All these accounts, however,\ntogether with that in our text, are in effect copies of the chapter in\nIren., which is the earliest in time that has remained to us. Salmon\nin _D.C.B._, s.v. \u201cSaturninus,\u201d thinks that this last is itself copied\nfrom Justin Martyr, which is likely enough, but remains without proof.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII, p. 124, Oehl. adds to this\nthat Saturninus and Basilides were co-disciples, which, if true, would\nconnect their systems with Menander\u2019s teacher, Simon Magus. Nothing\nfurther is, however, known about Saturnilus or Saturninus or his\nheresy, which Epiphanius makes the third after Christ, nor is there any\nmention in any of the heresiologies of any writings by him. His story\nof a First or Pattern Man made in the image of the Supreme Being is\ncommon, as has been said, to many of the early heresies, and reappears\nin Manich\u00e6ism. It is probably to be referred to some tradition current\nin Western Asia. See Bousset\u2019s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, cap. \u201cDer\nUrmensch.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 105: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cone who holds absolute rule.\u201d _Summa\npotestas_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Cf. Gen. i. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 107: This story is also met with among the Ophites. See\nIren. (I, xxx. 5), where life is given to the grovelling figure by\nJaldabaoth, the chief of the seven powers. Epiphanius adds to it that\nthe world-makers divided the cosmos among them by lot, and that it was\na spark of his own Power that the \u201cPower on high\u201d sent down for the\nvivification of the First Man, \u201cwhich spark, he says, they fancy to be\nthe human soul.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 108: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f70 \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 109: So Miller. Theodoret has \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, \u201cSaviour,\u201d for Father.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Words in ( ) restored from Epiphanius.]\n\n[Footnote 111: No necessary mistake or confusion, as has been thought.\nThe \u201cdeposition\u201d might be merely that of an unsuccessful general, as in\nManich\u00e6ism.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Marcion of Pontus was the heresiarch most dreaded by the\nAnte-Nicene Fathers, and is said to have led away from the Primitive\nChurch a greater number of adherents than any teacher of that age,\nwith the doubtful exception of Valentinus. He also differed from all\nother heretics of the time in setting up a Church fully equipped with\nbishops, priests, and deacons over against the Catholic, and in seeing\nthat his followers openly avowed their faith in times of persecution.\nHe rejected the Old Testament entirely, and reduced the New to a\nshorter edition of the Gospel of St. Luke and ten of the Epistles of\nSt. Paul. This has led to his heresy receiving more attention than\nany other of its contemporaries at the hands of modern scholars,\nespecially in Germany. Hence it is to be regretted that the chapter in\nour text which is devoted to him adds nothing to our knowledge of his\nhistory or tenets, while its statement that Marcion called the Demiurge\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (wicked) shows either that Hippolytus was ignorant of Marcion\u2019s\nopinions, or that he misread his authority. The first is the more\nlikely theory, as his master Iren\u00e6us gives a more scanty account of\nMarcion than of any other heretic, while promising to write a special\ntreatise against him. This intention does not seem to have been carried\nout, and it is probable that while the Marcionite heresy flourished at\nan early date in the Eastern provinces of the Empire, it had too slight\na hold in the West to have given such writers as Iren\u00e6us and Hippolytus\nmuch first-hand knowledge concerning it. It is also noted that in the\nso-called \u201cepitome of heresies\u201d in Book X, Hippolytus does not, after\nhis manner with the other heresies, quote from this chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 113: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. This expression, as has been many times said\nabove, means the universe without the Void. It does not therefore,\nexclude the collateral existence of Chaos or unformed matter.]\n\n[Footnote 114: This accusation of incontinence against Marcion is\ndisproved by Tertullian, _de Pr\u00e6script_, c. 30. Cf. _Forerunners_, II,\n206, n. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 115: \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, Cr., \u201c_Amicitia_,\u201d Macm., \u201cFriendship.\u201d The\nstronger word Love seems to express better Hippolytus\u2019 meaning. It is,\nof course, distinct from the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 or \u201ccharity\u201d of the A. V.]\n\n[Footnote 116: He refers to the scanty account of Empedocles\u2019 doctrines\nin Book I, _q.v._]\n\n[Footnote 117: \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cword-stealer.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 118: \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cset in order.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 119: \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, ll. 55-57, Karsten; 33-35, Stein. Cr.\ntranslates these words _humanam scaturiginem_, and Macm., \u201cthe mortal\nfont.\u201d It is difficult to assign any meaning to them in the absence of\nthe context.]\n\n[Footnote 120: \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u201cthings in course of nurture.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 121: \u03b6\u1ff7\u03b1, \u201canimals.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 122: He appears to ignore the desert, or perhaps thinks this\nno part of the _ordered_ world.]\n\n[Footnote 123: \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, lit., \u201csubstructure.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 124: \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, a manifest slip for \u1f08\u03ae\u03c1 as before.]\n\n[Footnote 125: \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae, as in the N. T.]\n\n[Footnote 126: \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 127: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f13\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The Codex has \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1. That\nthe meaning is as given above, see p. 373 Cr., where we find \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.]\n\n[Footnote 128: ll. 110, 111, Stein. In p. 274 Cr., _supra_, these lines\nare quoted as the opinions of \u201cthe Pythagoreans.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 129: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd, not \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. See n. on I, p. 35 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 130: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1, \u201cspecies\u201d; so Cruice.]\n\n[Footnote 131: \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, lit., \u201cbranches.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 132: ll. 107, 205, Karsten.]\n\n[Footnote 133: l. 7, Karsten; 381, Stein.]\n\n[Footnote 134: ll. 4, Karsten; 372, 373, Stein.]\n\n[Footnote 135: l. 5, Karsten; 374, Stein.]\n\n[Footnote 136: \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cthat which can be understood by the mind rather\nthan by the senses.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 137: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u201cforms of mortals.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 138: ll. 6, Karsten; 375, 376, Stein.]\n\n[Footnote 139: ll. 15-19, Karsten; 377-380, Stein.]\n\n[Footnote 140: \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, _minutatim divisi_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 141: \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cto be abstainers.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 142: ll. 1, 2, Karsten; 369, 370, Stein.]\n\n[Footnote 143: \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd, as before.]\n\n[Footnote 144: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 145: Reading for \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f30\u03b4\u03c5\u03b9\u1fc4\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, as in Hom., _Il._, I, 608.]\n\n[Footnote 146: \u03a6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3, \u201cthe nature of each one\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 147: Cf. ll. 313 _sqq._, Karsten, and 222 _sqq._, Stein.\nSchneidewin has restored the very bad text in _Philologus_, VI, 166.\nBut the lines are still obscure--even for Empedocles. They seem to hint\nat a hidden meaning, to be got by study.]\n\n[Footnote 148: \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. See _Journal of Classical and Sacred\nPhilology_ (Cambridge), March 1855, p. 87. The story of St. Mark\ncutting off his thumb to make himself ineligible for the priesthood is\nquoted by Cruice from St. Jerome.]\n\n[Footnote 149: \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cthe setting over against.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 150: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. Cr. and Macm. both translate, \u201cas you\nsuppose them to be.\u201d But Marcion could have been in no doubt as to his\nown opinions.]\n\n[Footnote 151: Marcion did not say that the Demiurge, whom he probably\nidentified with the God of the Jews, was wicked. On the contrary, he\nsaid that he was just, though harsh. See _Forerunners_, II, xi.]\n\n[Footnote 152: \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u1fc3.]\n\n[Footnote 153: Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, as quoted in Book VIII, p. 422 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Reading \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 for the \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2\nof the text.]\n\n[Footnote 155: All this argument is a _petitio principii_ of the most\nflagrant kind. There is nothing in the quotations here given from\nEmpedocles to show that that philosopher made Love and Strife the two\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af of the universe, as Empedocles associates with them the four\n\u201celements\u201d of Fire, Earth, Water and Air, and \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 or Fate seems,\naccording to his teaching, to be superior to them all. The quotations\nprove, however, that Empedocles taught metempsychosis, unless\nHippolytus is here confusing him with Pythagoras. Marcion did not, and\nthe reason that he gave for abstinence from animal food is different\nfrom that attributed to Empedocles. The quotations themselves are much\ncorrupted, and Hippolytus seems to have taken them from memory only, as\nhe is careful to say that these are \u201csomething like this.\u201d All of them\nappear in Karsten\u2019s or Stein\u2019s collections, which were made before the\ndiscovery of our text, and are, therefore, an argument against Salmon\u2019s\ntheory of forgery.]\n\n[Footnote 156: \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7, \u201cpurest.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 157: This Prepon, probably a Syrian, is mentioned by no\nother writer except Theodoret, who doubtless borrowed from our text.\nThe \u201cBardesianes\u201d was probably the famous Bardaisan or Ibn Daisan who\ntaught at Edessa and was a follower of Valentinus. It is noteworthy\nthat the Armenian author, Eznig of Goghp, gives a different account of\nMarcion\u2019s teaching from any of the Western heresiologists and makes him\nadmit the independent existence of a third principle in the shape of\nmalignant matter. For this, see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 158: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cdifferentiated\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 159: ll. 338-341, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the lines\nas far as is possible.]\n\n[Footnote 160: \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u201cthat which has been moulded.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 161: \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Not intercessor, but something placed between\ntwo others.]\n\n[Footnote 162: Not St. Paul, but Luke xvii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 163: There is no indication of the source from which\nHippolytus drew the material for this chapter. It does not seem to have\nbeen the writings of Iren\u00e6us, for his remarks in I, xxv tell us even\nless about Marcion than our text. Possibly Hippolytus was here indebted\nto the work of Justin Martyr, which seems to have been extant in the\ntime of Photius. With the exception of the notice of Prepon, our text\ncontains nothing that was not known otherwise.]\n\n[Footnote 164: This Carpocrates, whom Epiphanius calls Carpocras, seems\nto have been another of \u201cthe great Gnostics of Hadrian\u2019s time,\u201d and to\nhave been learned in the Platonic philosophy. He is mentioned by all\nthe heresiologists, but there is little that is distinctive about his\ntenets as they have come down to us, and his followers were probably\nfew. They are accused by Iren\u00e6us, from whose chapter on the subject\nHippolytus\u2019 account is condensed, of a kind of Antinomianism having its\norigin in the contention that all actions are indifferent.]\n\n[Footnote 165: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7.]\n\n[Footnote 166: \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd can only apply to \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae. The return of the\nPower to the Deity could not be supposed to affect other souls.]\n\n[Footnote 167: \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 168: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.]\n\n[Footnote 169: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Cruice points out that these\nwords have slipped into the text from the margin. Iren\u00e6us has ex _eadem\ncircumlatione devenientes_, \u201cdescending from the same sphere,\u201d which is\ndoubtless correct.]\n\n[Footnote 170: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, probably a play on \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 171: \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u201cin one appearance.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 172: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u201cmould or cast.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 173: This chapter is in effect a condensation of Iren\u00e6us\nI, xx, which it follows closely. Hippolytus omits mention of the\nobscenities attributed to the sect which are hinted at by Iren\u00e6us\nand described fully by Epiphanius. Iren\u00e6us also mentions that they\nclaimed to get their doctrine from the secret teaching of Jesus to\nthe Apostles, that one Marcellina taught their heresy in Rome under\nPope Anicetus, and that the images of Christ were worshipped by them,\n_more Gentilium_, along with those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle.\nEpiphanius derives the heresy from Simon Magus. It is suggested that\nthe branding by which they knew each other was due to a \u201cbaptism by\nfire.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 174: This chapter also is practically identical with Iren\u00e6us\nI, xxi, which is extant in the Latin version. Cerinthus was one of the\nearliest of the Gnostics and tradition makes him contemporary with St.\nJohn. He was probably a member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of\nPhilo, and Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXVIII) adds to Iren\u00e6us\u2019 account that he\ntaught in Asia, and especially in Galatia.]\n\n[Footnote 175: \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, as before.]\n\n[Footnote 176: \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, perhaps \u201cpreached.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 177: Does this amount to an admission of the resurrection of\nthe body? If so it is in marked contrast to the Docetism of Marcion and\nothers.]\n\n[Footnote 178: \u1f18\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, Latin [Iren.] _qui dicuntur Ebion\u00e6i_, as\nif they were followers of a mythical leader Ebion. The existence of\nany founder of this name is now generally given up, and the word is\nmore probably a mere transliteration of the Hebrew \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05df, \u201cpoor.\u201d The\nEbionites were in all likelihood Judaizing Christians who had remained\nbehind in Palestine through the wars of Titus and Hadrian, and still\nkept to the observance of the Mosaic Law. The brief statement in our\ntext is probably derived from Hippolytus\u2019 recollection of Iren\u00e6us,\nI, c. 21, the first sentence being in nearly the same words in both\nauthors. Iren\u00e6us adds to it that they used the gospel of St. Matthew\nonly and did not consider St. Paul as an apostle, because he did not\nkeep the Law; also that they adored Jerusalem as the \u201chouse of God.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 179: \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cfable.\u201d Iren\u00e6us\u2019 Latin version here inserts\na _non_, evidently a clerical error.]\n\n[Footnote 180: \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, Cruice, _servare_, Macm., \u201cfulfilled.\u201d In\neither case a curious meaning for \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9. Cf. the \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd of\nPlato, _Phaedo_, 60. E.]\n\n[Footnote 181: In the accounts of the two Theodoti, which may here be\ntaken together, Hippolytus leaves Iren\u00e6us, from whom he has hitherto\nbeen content to copy his account of the smaller heresies, and draws\nfrom some source not yet identified, but which may be the _Little\nLabyrinth_ of Caius (see Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. \u201cTheodotus.\u201d). His\ndescription of the heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium corresponds with\nthat of Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, V, 28). The Melchizedekian theory of\nthe \u201cother\u201d Theodotus is mentioned by Philaster (c. 53, p. 54, Oehl.)\nwithout reference to Theodotus, although on the preceding page he has\ngiven the Byzantine heresy as in our text. Pseudo-Tertullian in _Adv.\nOmn. Haer._ (II, p. 764, Oehl.) gives the story of both Theodoti much\nas here, which may give support to the theory that this tract is a\nsummary of the lost _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus. Epiphanius (_Haer._\nXXXIV, XXXV) divides the Melchizedekians from the Theodotians, and says\nthe first were \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 from the second, but without naming the\nbanker. He also gives some particulars about the first Theodotus, which\nhe does not seem to have taken from Hippolytus. He quotes one Hierax as\nsaying that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, and says that \u201csome\u201d say\nthat Heracles was his father and Astaroth or Asteria his mother, while\nMelchizedek plays a great part in the earliest part of the _Pistis\nSophia_ as the \u201cReceiver of the Light.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 182: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, lit., \u201ctorn away.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 183: So that Hippolytus believed in the mythical founder of\nthe Ebionites.]\n\n[Footnote 184: \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 185: _i. e._ the heretics.]\n\n[Footnote 186: \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 187: Acts vi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 188: Rev. ii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 189: This Cerdo is only known to us as a predecessor of\nMarcion, whose teaching he appears to have influenced, although in\nwhat measure cannot now be ascertained. His date seems to be fairly\nwell settled as about the year 135 (see _D.C.B._, s.h.v.), which is\nthat of his coming to Rome, and it was doubtless here that Marcion\nmet him. According to Iren\u00e6us, his teaching was mainly in secret and\nhe was always ready to make submission to the Church and recant his\nerrors when publicly arraigned. His doctrine, so far as it has come\ndown to us, does not seem to differ from that of Marcion, Tertullian\n(_adv. Marcion_) and the tractate _Adv. Omn. Haer._ giving the best\naccount of it. Of Lucian, we know nothing, save that, while Epiphanius\n(_Haer._ XLII, p. 688, Oehl.) makes him out the immediate successor\nof Marcion and to have been succeeded by Apelles, Tertullian (_de\nResurrectione_, c. 2) speaks of him--if he be the person there referred\nto as Lucanus--as an independent teacher with no apparent connection\nwith Marcion\u2019s heresy. He adds that he taught a resurrection neither\nof the body nor of the soul, but of some part of man which he calls a\n\u201cthird nature.\u201d See _Forerunners_, II, p. 218, n. 2, and 220.]\n\n[Footnote 190: \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. See n. on p. 88 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 191: Of this Apelles, our knowledge is mainly derived from\nTertullian, for references to whom see Hort\u2019s article \u201cApelles\u201d in\n_D.C.B._ He was certainly later than Marcion, for Rhodo (see Euseb.,\n_Hist. Eccl._, V, c. 13), writing at the end of the second century,\nA.D., speaks of him as still alive, though an \u201cold man.\u201d The same\nauthor seems to consider that on Marcion\u2019s death he founded a sect\nof his own, in which he \u201ccorrected\u201d Marcion\u2019s teaching in some\nparticulars. This is doubtful, but Rhodo\u2019s statements go to show that\nhe quoted from the Old Testament and did not hold the body of Jesus to\nbe a phantasm. Tertullian also mentions several times the connection of\nApelles with the \u201cpossessed\u201d Philumene, on which he puts a construction\nnegatived by the evidence of Rhodo. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 218-220.]\n\n[Footnote 192: Hippolytus here accepts the statement of Tertullian (_de\nPr\u00e6script._, c. 30) that Apelles wrote a book called \u03a6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, or\n_Manifestations_, containing the prophecies of Philumene. He repeats\nthis with more distinctness in Book X, c. 20, _q. v._]\n\n[Footnote 193: \u1f04\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 194: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 195: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, lit., \u201cimpaled.\u201d It is, however, used\nby both Philo and Lucian as equivalent to \u201ccrucified.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 196: This \u201cgiving back\u201d of the component parts of man\u2019s being\nto the different powers from which they are derived is a frequent\ntheme among the later Gnostics, and is fully described in the _Pistis\nSophia_. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 184.]\n\n[Footnote 197: The source of this chapter is certainly the tractate\n_Adv. Omn. Haer._, formerly attributed to Tertullian and to be found\nin the second volume of that author\u2019s works in Oehler\u2019s edition. No\nother author mentions Apelles with such particularity, and all those\nsubsequent to Tertullian appear to have taken their information either\nfrom Tertullian\u2019s other works, from this tractate, or from our text.\nThis tractate has been discussed in the Introduction (see Vol. I,\npp. 12 and 23 _supra_) and perhaps all difficulties may be solved by\nsupposing it to be, not indeed the actual _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus, but\na summary of it.]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK VIII\n\n THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS\n\n\n[Sidenote: p. 396.] 1. These are the contents of the 8th [Book] of the\nRefutation of all Heresies.\n\n2. What are the opinions of the Docetae,[1] and that they teach things\nwhich they say are from the Physicist Philosophy.[2]\n\n3. How Monoimus speaks foolishly, giving heed to poets and\ngeometricians and arithmeticians.\n\n4. How Tatian\u2019s [heresy] sprang from the opinions of Valentinus and\nMarcion wherefrom he compounded his own. And that Hermogenes has made\nuse of the teachings of Socrates, not of Christ.\n\n5. How those err who contend that Easter should be celebrated on the\n14th day [of the month].\n\n6. What is the error of the Phrygians, who think Montanus and Priscilla\nand Maximilla to be prophets.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 397.] 7. What is the vain doctrine of the Encratites, and\nthat their teachings are compounded not out of the Holy Scriptures, but\nfrom their own [views] and from those of the Gymnosophists among the\nIndians.[3]\n\n\n 1. _The Docetae._\n\n8. Since the many, making no use of the Lord\u2019s counsel, while having\nthe beam[4] in their eye, yet give out that they can see, it seems to\nus that we should not be silent as to their doctrines. So that they,\nbeing brought to shame by our forthcoming refutation, shall recognize\nhow the Saviour counselled them to take away the beam from their own\neye, and then to see clearly the straw which was in their brother\u2019s\neye. Now, therefore, having set forth sufficiently and adequately\nthe opinions of most of the heretics in the seven books before this,\nwe shall not now be silent upon those which follow. Exhibiting the\nungrudging grace of the Holy Spirit, we shall also refute those\nwho seem to have [Sidenote: p. 398.] attained security, They call\nthemselves Docetae and teach thus:--The first God[5] is as it were\nthe seed of a fig, in size altogether of the smallest, but in power\nboundless, a magnitude unreckoned in quantity, lacking nothing for\nbringing forth, a refuge for the fearful, a covering for the naked, or\nveil for shame, a fruit sought for, whereto, he says, the Seeker came\nthrice and found not.[6] Wherefore, he says, He cursed the fig-tree,[7]\nso that that sweet fruit was not found on it, [_i. e._] the fruit that\nwas sought for. And [the seed] being, so to speak briefly, of such a\nnature and so old [yet] small and without magnitude, the cosmos came\ninto being from God, as they think, in some such way as this:--The\nbranches of the tree becoming tender, put forth leaves, as is seen,\nand fruit follows, wherein is preserved the innumerable [Sidenote: p.\n399.] [and] stored-up seed of the fig. We think, therefore, that three\nthings first come into being from the seed of the fig, the stem which\nis the fig-tree, leaves, and the fruit or fig, as we have before said.\nThus, says he, three Aeons came into being as principles from the\nFirst Principle of the universals.[8] And on this, he says, Moses was\nnot silent, when he said that the words of God were three: \u201cDarkness,\ncloud and whirlwind and he added no more.\u201d[9] For, he says, God added\nnothing to the Three Aeons, but they sufficed and do suffice for all\nthings which come into being. But God Himself abides by Himself and far\nremoved from all the Aeons.[10]\n\nWhen, therefore, each of these Aeons, he says, had received a principle\nof generation, as has been said, it little by little increased and\ngrew great and became perfect. Now they think that the perfect number\n[is] ten.[11] Then the Aeons having come into being equal in number\nand perfection, as they think, they were thirty Aeons in all,[12] each\nof them being complete in a decad. But they are divided and the three\nhaving equal honour among themselves, differ in position only, because\none of them is first, [Sidenote: p. 400.] another second, and another\nthird. But this position produced a difference of power. For he who\nis nearest to the First God--to the seed as it were--chances to have\na power more fruitful than the others, he who is the Immeasureable\nOne having measured himself ten times in magnitude. And the\nIncomprehensible One, who has become second in position to the first,\ncomprehended himself six times. And the third in position, becoming\nremoved to an infinite distance by reason of his brethren\u2019s dilatation,\nconceived[13] himself three times and, as it were, bound himself by a\ncertain eternal bond of unity.[14]\n\n9. And this they think is the Saviour\u2019s saying:--\u201cThe sower went\nforth to sow and that which fell upon good and fair ground made\nsome 100, some 60, and some 30.\u201d[15] And hence, says he, He said,\n\u201cHe that hath ears to hear, let him hear,\u201d because this is not what\nall understand.[16] All these Aeons [to wit] the Three and all the\nboundlessly boundless ones [who come] from them, are masculo-feminine\nones.[17] Therefore having increased and become great, and all of them\nbeing from that one first seed of their concord [Sidenote: p. 401.] and\nunity, and all becoming together one Aeon, they all begat from the one\nVirgin Mary, the begettal common to them all, a Saviour in the midst\nof them all,[18] of equal power in everything with the seed of the\nfig, save that He was begotten. But that first seed whence is born the\nfig is unbegotten. Then those three Aeons having been adorned[19] with\nall virtue and holiness, as these teachers think, all the conceivable,\nlacking-nothing, nature of that Only-Begotten[20] Son--for He alone\nwas born to the boundless Aeons by a triple generation; for three\nimmeasureable Aeons with one mind begot Him--was adorned also. But all\nthese conceivable and eternal things were Light; but the Light was not\nformless and idle, nor did it lack anything superadded to it: but it\ncontained within itself the boundless forms of the various animals here\nbelow corresponding in number to the boundlessly boundless after the\npattern of the fig-tree. And it shone from on high into [Sidenote: p.\n402.] the underlying chaos. And this [chaos], being at once illuminated\nand given form from the various forms on high, received consistence[21]\nand took all the supernal forms from the Third Aeon who had tripled\nhimself.[22] But this Third Aeon, seeing all the types[23] that were\nhis at once intercepted in the underlying darkness beneath, and not\nbeing ignorant of the power of the darkness and the simplicity and\ngenerosity[24] of the light, would not allow the shining types from on\nhigh to be drawn far down by the darkness beneath. But he subjected\n[the Firmament] to the Aeons. Then, having fixed it below, he divided\nin twain the darkness and the light.[25] \u201cAnd he called the light which\nis above the firmament, Day, and the darkness he called Night.\u201d[26]\nTherefore, as I have said, when all the boundless forms of the Third\nAeon were intercepted in this lowest darkness, and the impress[27] of\nthat same Aeon was stamped upon it along with the rest, a living fire\ncame from the light whence the Great Ruler came into being [Sidenote:\np. 403.] of whom Moses says: \u201cIn the beginning God created Heaven and\nEarth.\u201d[28] Moses says that this fiery God[29] spoke from the bush,\nthat is from the darksome air, for _batos_ [bush] is the whole air\nwhich underlies the darkness. But it is _batos_, says Moses according\nto him, because all the forms of light go from on high downwards,\nhaving the air as a passage.[30] And the word from the bush is no less\nrecognized by us. For a sound significant of speech is reverberating\nair, without which human speech could not be recognized. And not only\ndoes our word from the bush, that is from the air, make laws for and be\na fellow-citizen with us, but also odours and colours manifest their\npowers to us through the air.\n\n10. Then this fiery God--the fire born from the light--made the cosmos,\nas Moses says, in this manner, he being substanceless,[31] [and]\ndarkness having the substance and being ever silent towards the eternal\ntypes of the light which are intercepted below.[32] Therefore, until\nthe Saviour\u2019s manifestation, there was a certain great wandering of\nsouls by reason of the God of the Light, the fiery Demiurge. For the\nforms are called souls, having been cooled down[33] from the things\nabove and they continue in darkness to change about from body to\nbody under the supervision of [Sidenote: p. 404.] the Demiurge. And\nthat this is so, we may know from the words of Job: \u201cAnd I also am a\nwanderer from place to place and from house to house.\u201d[34] The Saviour\nalso says: \u201cAnd if you will receive it, this is the Elias who shall\ncome. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.\u201d[35] But by the Saviour,\nchange of bodies has been made to cease; and faith is preached for the\nputting-away of transgressions.[36] In some such way that Only-Begotten\nSon beholding from on high the forms of the Aeons changing about in\nthe darksome bodies willed to come down for their deliverance. When\nHe saw that the multitude of Aeons could not bear to behold without\nceasing the Pleroma of all the Aeons, but remained as mortals dreading\ncorruption,[37] being held by the greatness and glory of power, He drew\nHimself together as a very great flash in a very small body, or rather,\nlike the light of the eye drawn together under the eyelids, and goes\nforth to the [Sidenote: p. 405.] heaven and the shining stars. And\nthere He again withdraws Himself under the eyelids at His pleasure.\nThus does the light of the eye, and although it is everywhere present\nand is all things to us, it is invisible; but we see only the lids of\nthe eye, the white corners, a broad membrane of many folds and fibres,\na horn-like coat, and under this a berry-like pupil, both net-like and\ndisk-like, and if there are any other coats to the light of the eye, it\nis enwrapped and lies hidden within them.\n\nThus, he says, the Only-Begotten Son, eternal on high, did on Himself\n(a form) corresponding to each Aeon of the Three Aeons, and being in\nthe triacontad of Aeons, came into the world of the Decad[38] being of\nsuch age and as little as we have said, invisible, unknown, without\nglory and not believed upon. in order then, say the Docetae,[39]\nthat he might do on also the Outer Darkness which is the flesh, an\nangel came down with Him from [Sidenote: p. 406.] on high and made\nannouncement[40] to Mary as it is written, and He was born from her as\nit is written. And He who came from on high put on that which was born,\nand did all things as it is written in the Gospels; and was baptized in\nJordan. And he was baptized, receiving the type and seal in the water\nof the body born from the Virgin, in order that when the Ruler should\ncondemn the form which was his to death, to the Cross, that soul which\nhad grown up within the body should strip off that body and affix it to\nthe Tree. And thus (the soul) having triumphed by its means over the\nPrinciples and Authorities would not be found naked, but would put on\nthat body reflected in the likeness of that flesh in the water when He\nwas baptized. This he says, is the Saviour\u2019s saying: \u201cUnless a man be\nborn of water and of [the] Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom\nof the heavens; because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.\u201d[41]\n\nFrom the thirty Aeons, then, He did on thirty forms. Wherefore\nthat Eternal One was thirty years on the earth, every Aeon being\nmanifested in his own year. And souls are all the forms which have\nbeen intercepted from each of [Sidenote: p. 407.] the thirty Aeons,\nand each of them possesses a nature capable of understanding the Jesus\nwho exists according to nature which that Only-Begotten One from the\neternal places puts on. But these places are different. Therefore so\nmany heresies contending [with each other] about it, seek Jesus. And\nHe is claimed[42] by them all, but is seen differently by each from\nthe different places. Towards whom, he says, each [soul] is borne and\nhurries, thinking that she is alone. Who is indeed her kinsman and\nfellow-citizen. Whom she beholding for the first time recognizes as her\nown brother and all the rest as bastards. Those then who have their\nnature from the lower places cannot see the forms of the Saviour above\nthem. But those on high, he say, from the middle Decad and the most\nexcellent Ogdoad[43]--whence, say they, we are--know Jesus the Saviour\nnot in part but wholly, and are alone the Perfect from above, while the\nothers are only partly so.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 408.] 11. I think then that this is for right-thinking\npersons sufficient for the knowledge of the complicated and\ninconsistent heresy of the Docetae--those who attempt to make arguments\nabout inaccessible and incomprehensible matter calling themselves thus.\nCertain of whom do not only _seem_[44] to be mad; and we have proved\nthat the beam from such matter has entered their own eye, if they are\nanyhow able to see clearly; and, if not, they will be unable to blind\nothers. Whose dogma the early sophists of Greece anticipated in many\npoints of sophistry, as our readers will understand. These then are the\nteachings of the Docetae.[45] It seems right also that we should not\nkeep silence as to the [teachings] of Monoimus.\n\n\n 2. _Monoimus._\n\n12. Monoimus the Arab[46] was a long way off[47] the glory of the\ngreat-voiced poet; for he thinks that some such man as Oceanus existed,\nof whom the poet speaks somehow like this:--\n\n [Sidenote: p. 409.] Oceanus, the birth of gods and birth of man.[48]\n\nTurning this into other words, he says that a Man is the All which is\nthe source of the universals, [being] unbegotten, incorruptible, and\neternal; and that there is a Son of the aforesaid Man, who is begotten,\nand capable of suffering, being born in a timeless, unwilled, and\npreviously undefined way. For such, says he, is the Power of that Man.\nAnd when it was so, the son of the Power came into being more quickly\nthan reasoning or counsel. And this is, he says, the saying in the\nScriptures: \u201cHe was and came into being,\u201d[49] which is: Man was and\nhis son came into being, as if one were to say: Fire was and Light\ncame into being in a timeless, unwilled, and previously undefined\nway, while being at the same time fire. But this Man is a single\nmonad, uncompounded [and] undifferentiated, [and yet] compounded [and]\ndifferentiated, loving and at peace with all things, [and yet] fighting\nwith and at war with all things before him,[50] unlike and like, as\nit were a certain musical [Sidenote: p. 410.] harmony which contains\nwhatever one may say or leave unsaid, showing all things and giving\nbirth to all things. \u201cThis is Father, this is Mother, Two Immortal\nnames.\u201d[51] But for the sake of an instance, conceive, he says, as the\ngreatest image of the Perfect Man, the one tittle which is one tittle\nuncompounded, simple, a pure monad having no composition whatever from\nanything, [yet] compounded of many forms, of many parts. That undivided\nOne, he says, is the many-faced and myriad-eyed and myriad-named one\ntittle of the Iota,[52] which is an image of that Perfect and Invisible\nMan.\n\n13. The one tittle, he says, is then the monad and a decad. For by this\npower of the one tittle of the Iota [are produced] also [the] dyad\nand triad and tetrad and pentad and hexad and heptad and ogdoad and\nennead up to the ten. For these are the diversified numbers dwelling\nwithin that simple and uncompounded tittle of the [Sidenote: p. 411.]\nIota. And this is the saying:--\u201cBecause it pleased the whole Pleroma to\ndwell within the Son of Man bodily.\u201d[53] For such compounds of numbers\nfrom the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the Iota become he says\nbodily hypostases. Therefore, he says, the Son of Man was born from\nthe Perfect Man, whom none know. But, he says, every creature who is\nignorant of the Son, represents Him as the offspring of a woman. Of\nwhich Son some shadowy rays come very close to this world and secure\nand control change [of bodies and] birth. And the beauty of that Son\nof Man is till now unrevealed to all men who are misled as to the\noffspring of a woman. Nothing then of the things here come into being,\nhe says, from that Man, nor will they ever do so; but all things that\nhave come into being have done so not from the whole, but from some\npart of the Son of Man. For, says he, the Son of Man is one Iota, one\ntittle flowing from on high, full, and filling full all things, and\ncontaining within itself whatever the Man, Father of the Son of Man\npossesses.[54]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 412.] 14. Now the cosmos, as Moses says, came into being\nin six days, that is, in six powers which are in the one tittle of the\nIota.[55] [But] the seventh, a rest and a Sabbath, came into being\nfrom the Hebdomad which is over Earth and Water and Fire and Air, out\nof which the cosmos came into being by the one tittle. For the cubes\nand the octahedrons, and [the] pyramids and all the figures like these\nof which Fire, Air, Water, [and earth] consist, came into being from\nthe numbers which are comprised in that single tittle of the Iota,\nwhich is a Perfect Son of a Perfect Man. When then, says he, Moses\nsays that (the) rod was turned about in different ways for the plagues\non Egypt,[56] these [plagues], he says, are symbols allegorizing the\nCreation. [For] he does not use the rod which is one tittle of the\nIota, duplex and varied, as a figure[57] for more plagues than ten.\nThis Creation of the world, he says, is the ten plagues.[58] For\n[Sidenote: p. 413.] everything struck produces and bears fruit as, for\ninstance, vine-shoots. Man, he says, has burst forth from Man, and was\nsevered from him by a certain blow,[59] so that he might be born and\nmight declare the Law which Moses laid down after having received it\nfrom God. The Law is according to that one tittle, the Decalogue which\nallegorizes the divine mysteries of the words. For, says he, the Ten\nPlagues and the Decalogue[60] are the whole knowledge of the universals\nwhich none has known who has been misled concerning the offspring of\nthe woman. And if you say that the whole Law is a Pentateuch, it is\n[still] from the pentad which is comprised in the one tittle. But\nthe whole Law is for those who have not thoroughly crippled their\nunderstanding [a] mystery, a new feast not yet grown old, legal and\neternal, a Passover of the Lord God kept unto our generations by those\nwho can see [and] beginning on the 14th [day] which is the beginning,\nhe says, of the decad from which they reckon.[61] For the monad up\nto 14 is the sum total of the one tittle of the perfect number. And\n[Sidenote: p. 414.] one + two + three + four become ten, wherefore\nit is the one tittle. But from fourteen up to twenty-one, a hebdomad\nsubsists in the one tittle, the unleavened creature of the world in\nall these.[62] For what, says he, should the one tittle want of any\nsubstance like leaven for the Passover of the Lord, the eternal feast\nwhich is given for generations. For the whole cosmos and all the causes\nof creation are the Passover Feast of the Lord. For God rejoices in the\ntransmutation of creation which is wrought under the strokes of the one\ntittle. The which is the rod of Moses given by God, which strikes the\nEgyptians and changes the bodies, as did the hand of Moses, from water\ninto blood. And the other [plagues] are in nearly the same way [such as\nthat of the] locusts, wherefore change of the elements he calls flesh\ninto grass: \u201cfor all flesh is grass,\u201d[63] he says. [Sidenote: p. 415.]\nBut none the less do these men in some such way receive the whole Law.\nFollowing, perhaps, as it seems to me, the Greeks who say that there\nare Substance and Quality and Quantity and Relation and Position and\nAction and Possession and Passion.[64]\n\n15. So for example Monoimus himself says distinctly in his letter to\nTheophrastus:[65] \u201cLeave aside enquiry concerning God and Creation\nand the like, and enquire about Him from thyself, and learn who it is\nwho simply makes His own all that is within thee, saying \u2018My God, my\nmind, my understanding, my soul, my body.\u2019 Learn also what are grief\nand rejoicing, and love and hate, and undesired watching and sleep,\nand undesired anger and love. And if,\u201d says he, \u201cthou dost carefully\nseek out this, thou wilt find Him in thyself [as both] one and many\nthings after the likeness of that one tittle, he finding the outlet for\nHimself.\u201d[66] This then is what these [men] say, which we are under\nno necessity to compare with what has been before excogitated by the\nGreeks. Since it is plain from [Sidenote: p. 416.] their statements\nthat they have their origin from the geometrical and arithmetical art,\nwhich the disciples of Pythagoras set forth more excellently. As the\nreader may learn in the passages where we have before explained all the\nwisdom of the Greeks.\n\nBut since we have sufficiently refuted Monoimus,[67] let us see what\nothers have elaborated who wish thereby to raise for themselves an idle\nname.\n\n\n 3. _Tatian._\n\n16. But Tatian, although himself a disciple of Justin Martyr, was not\nof like mind with his master, but attempted something new. He says that\nthere were certain Aeons [about whom] he fables in the like way with\nthe Valentinians. But in the same way as Marcion he says that marriage\nis destruction. And he asserts that Adam will not be saved, through his\nbecoming a leader of rebellion. And thus Tatian.[68]\n\n\n 4. _Hermogenes._\n\n[Sidenote: p. 417.] 17. A certain Hermogenes[69] thinking also to\ndevise something new, says that God created all things from co-existent\nand ungenerated matter. For he held it impossible that God should\ncreate the things that are from those that are not. And that God is\never Lord and Maker, but Matter ever a slave and [in process of]\nbecoming. But yet not all [matter], for, as it was being borne about\nviolently and disorderly, He set it in order in this manner. Beholding\nit boiling like a pot on the fire, He divided it into parts; and that\npart which he took from the All He reclaimed, and the other He allowed\nto be borne about disorderly. And the reclaimed part, he says, is the\ncosmos; and that the other remains waste and is called acosmic[70]\nmatter. He says that this is the essence[71] of all things, as if he\nwere introducing [Sidenote: p. 418.] a new doctrine to his disciples;\nbut he does not consider that this fable happens to be Socratic, and is\nbetter worked out by Plato than by Hermogenes. But he confesses that\nChrist is the Son of the God who created all things, and that He was\nbegotten of the Virgin and of Spirit according to the [common] voice\nof the Gospels. Who after He had suffered rose again in a body and\nappeared to His disciples, and ascending to the heavens, left His body\nin the Sun, but Himself went on into the presence of the Father. And\nin witness of this,[72] he thinks he is corroborated by the word which\nDavid the Psalmist spake: \u201cIn the Sun he set up his tent, and like a\nbridegroom coming forth from his bridal chamber, he will rejoice like a\ngiant to run his course.\u201d[73] This then is what Hermogenes attempts.[74]\n\n\n 5. _About the Quartodecimans._[75]\n\n18. But certain others, lovers of strife by nature, unskilled\n[Sidenote: p. 419.] in knowledge, very quarrelsome by habit, maintain\nthat the Passover ought to be kept on the 14th day of the First Month,\naccording to the ordinance of the Law, on whatever day [of the week]\nit may fall. They have regard [merely] to that which has been written\nin the Law: [that is] that he will be accursed who does not keep it as\nit is laid down. They pay no attention to the fact that it was enacted\nfor the Jews, who were to kill the True Passover. Which [Law] has\nspread to the Gentiles and is understood by faith, not kept strictly\nin the letter. They pay attention to this one commandment, but do not\nregard the saying of the Apostle: \u201cFor I bear witness to every man who\nis circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.\u201d[76] In other\nmatters they agree concerning all things handed down to the Church by\nthe Apostles.\n\n\n 6. _Phrygians._[77]\n\n19. But there are others also very heretical by nature, Phrygians by\nrace, who have fallen away after being deceived [Sidenote: p. 420.]\nby certain women, Priscilla and Maximilla by name, whom they imagine\nto be prophetesses. Into these they say the Spirit Paraclete has\nentered and they likewise glorify [even] above these one Montanus as a\nprophet. Having endless books of their own, they are not judging what\nis said in them according to reason, nor giving heed to those capable\nof judgment; but, carried along heedlessly by the faith that they have\nin them, imagine that they learn more through them than from the Law,\nthe Prophets, and the Gospels. They glorify these wenches[78] above\nApostles and every grace,[79] since some of them dare to say that there\nare those among them who have become greater than Christ. They confess\nthat God is the Father of the universals, and the creator of all things\nin the same way as [does] the Church, and also [confess] whatever the\nGospel testifies concerning Christ. But they innovate in the matter\nof feasts and fasts and the eating of vegetable food and roots,[80]\nthinking that they have learned this from the women. And some of them,\nagreeing with the heresy of the Noetians, say that the Father is the\nSon, and that He by being born, underwent [Sidenote: p. 421.] both\nsuffering and death. Concerning these, I shall later explain more\nminutely; for to many their heresy has become the starting-point of\nevils. We judge then that what has been said is sufficient, we having\nproved briefly to all that their many absurd books and attempts are\nfeeble and not worth consideration, whereto those of sound mind need\npay no heed.[81]\n\n\n 7. _Encratites._\n\n20. But others calling themselves Encratites[82] confess the [facts]\nabout God and Christ in like manner with the Church. But with regard\nto the way of life, they having become puffed up,[83] have reverted\n[to earlier opinions]. They think themselves glorified through food\nby abstaining from things which have had life, drinking water, and\nforbidding marriage, and in the other things of life are austerely\ncareful. Such as they are judged to be rather Cynics than Christians,\nseeing that they pay no heed to what was said to them aforetime\nthrough the Apostle Paul, who prophesied the innovations that would\ncome by the folly of some, saying [Sidenote: p. 422.] thus:--\u201cThe\nSpirit says expressly: In the last times some will fall away from\nthe wholesome teaching,[84] giving heed to deceiving spirits and the\nteachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies,\nbranded in their own consciences as with a hot iron, forbidding to\nmarry and (commanding) to abstain from meats, which God created to be\nreceived with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.\nFor every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected\nwhich is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the\nwords of God and prayer....\u201d[85] This saying then of the Blessed Paul\nis sufficient for the refutation of those who live thus and honour\nthemselves as righteous men, and to show that this also is a heresy.[86]\n\nBut although some other heresies are named [to wit those] of the\nCainites, Ophites or Noachites[87] and others such as they, I do not\nthink it necessary to set forth their sayings and doings, lest they\nshould thereby think themselves somebody or worthy of argument.[88] But\nsince what [Sidenote: p. 423.] has been said about them seems to be\nsufficient, we will come to the source of all evils, the heresy of the\nNoetians, and having disclosed its root and proved plainly the poison\nlurking within it, we will hold back from such error those who have\nbeen swept away by a violent spirit as by a torrent.\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: Who these Docetae are is a puzzle. Although Cruice writes\nthe name \u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.h.n.) gives it as \u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af which\nis, he says, the spelling adopted by both Hippolytus and Clement of\nAlexandria. Their tenets as here described have nothing to do with\nthe opinion that the body of Jesus existed in appearance only which\nwe have seen current among the Simonians, Basilidians, Marcionites,\nand the followers of Saturninus and perhaps of Valentinus. Nor does\nit seem connected with any proper name such as the fictitious one of\nEbion which was invented to explain to Greek ears the appellation\nof the Ebionites. It may be thought, perhaps, that it was a kind of\nnickname derived from this chapter\u2019s opening metaphor of the \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\nor \u201cbeam,\u201d but this is too far-fetched to be insisted upon. Clement\nis the only early author who mentions them, and then does so in a\nfashion (_e. g._ _Strom._, VII, 17) which makes it fairly clear that\nit is those who held Docetic opinions generally so called, and not\nany special sect to which he is referring. He also says that Julius\nCassianus, a Valentinian, was the founder of Docetism of the Simonian\nkind and St. Jerome (_adv. Lucifer_, 23) takes this further back by the\nstatement that the opinion in question was current in the life-time\nof the Apostles. Nor is there anything novel or peculiar in the\ndoctrines set forth in our text of the Docitae or Docetae. The image\nof the fig-tree with which this chapter opens is but an amplification\nof the \u201cIndivisible Point\u201d put forward earlier in our text, and there\nis nothing here stated which is inconsistent with the teachings of\nValentinus. This will be further discussed when we come to consider the\nsource of this chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \u1f10\u03ba \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. That is, drawn from the study of\nnature and natural objects such as trees and the anatomy of the eye,\nfor which see _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: No further reference is made to the Indian Gymnosophists\nor \u201cBrachmans,\u201d and this sentence has probably slipped in from some\nother part of the roll.]\n\n[Footnote 4: \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, the \u201cbeam\u201d of the Gospels (Cf. Matt. vii. 3, 4;\nLuke vi. 41, 42). Hippolytus who here resumes his habit of punning\ntries to connect it with \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201cto seem.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 5: \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. That this construction is the right\none, see p. 400 Cr. and the summary in Book X, p. 496 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The rhetorical form of this sentence should be noted.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Cf. Matt. xii. 19, 20; Mark xi. 13-21; Luke xii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 8: As Salmon (_ubi cit._) points out, in the Valentinian\nsystem, the male heads of the first three series of Aeons, _i. e._\nNous, Logos and Anthropos occupy a position corresponding to these\nthree first \u201cprinciples\u201d or \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af. The fact that their spouses or\nsyzygies are not here mentioned is accounted for by the statement\n(on p. 101 _infra_) that they are all androgyne, or as is here said\n\u201clacking nothing for generation,\u201d _i. e._ capable of production without\nassistance.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Cf. Deut. v. 22. These words have already been quoted\nin the chapter on the Sethians (I, p. 165 _supra_). Although here\nattributed to Moses, they can hardly be taken from Deuteronomy, which\ndescribes Moses\u2019 death.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Like the Bythos or Unknowable Father of Valentinus.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Lit., \u201cthat the perfect being numbered is ten.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 12: Lit., \u201call the aeons were thirty.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 13: The words \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 here all seem to be\nequivalent to \u201cmultiplied himself,\u201d and to have been used as a play on\nthe double sense of the other words.]\n\n[Footnote 14: This may possibly be an allusion to the Valentinian Horus\nsurrounding and guarding the Pleroma.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Matt. xiii. 3, uses \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9, \u201cyield,\u201d for \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 as here.\nCf. Mark iv. 3, 8, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd, \u201cbore.\u201d Luke viii. 3-5 stops short at a\n\u201chundred-fold.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 16: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u201cnot the hearing of all.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 17: See n. on previous page.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Cruice, whom Macmahon follows, would translate \u201ca common fruit,\na mediator ... the Saviour of all those who are in meditation\u201d; but I\ncannot make the sense out of the Greek. Miller, by transferring the\nword \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 to a place after \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, would make it read \u201cthrough the\ninterposition of Mary.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 19: \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, perhaps \u201cset in order or arranged.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 20: \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2. One of the very few instances in Gnostic\nliterature, where the word can be thus translated rather than as \u201cone\nof a kind,\u201d or Unique. The explanation in parenthesis shows that it is\nso intended here, but is probably of a late date.]\n\n[Footnote 21: \u03c0\u1fc6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cfixedness.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 22: So the part of the _Pistis Sophia_ which is most plainly\nValentinian, has constant allusions to \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 or triple powers.]\n\n[Footnote 23: \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cimpresses\u201d or \u201cmarks.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 24: \u1f04\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cdevoid of envy.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 25: \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. _Firmamentum igitur quum ab imo\nconfirmasset, divisit per medium tenebras et per medium lucem._\nMacmahon follows Cruice, but ignores the repeated \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Cf. Gen. 1. 4-7.]\n\n[Footnote 27: \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Gen. i. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 29: See _supra_, Vol. I. p. 128, for this fiery God, there\ncalled the Demiurge Jaldabaoth.]\n\n[Footnote 30: A pun on \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cbush,\u201d and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cpassable.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 31: \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cnot hypostatized.\u201d Cruice has \u201c_non\nsubsistens_.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 32: This seems the only construction, unless we are to\nconsider that it is the Demiurge who _wilfully_ ill-treats the souls.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. A common pun between \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u201csoul,\u201d and\n\u03c8\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ccold.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 34: Not in the Canon. As Cruice points out, it is from some\napocryphal book which puts it into the mouth of Job\u2019s wife and adds\nit to Job ii. 9. It is also met with in St. Chrysostom\u2019s homily, _de\nStatuis_.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Matt. xi. 14, 15.]\n\n[Footnote 36: This doctrine of transmigration cannot be shown to have\nformed part of Valentinus\u2019 own teaching. It appears, however, among\nsome of his followers. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, cc. 9, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 37: A pun on \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u201cmortals,\u201d and \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, \u201ccorruption.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 38: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd (\u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. Cruice would omit the \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\nIt clearly, however, means the world of the Decad, Jesus having come\ndown from the \u201cmost excellent Ogdoad.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 39: Evidently Hippolytus has not here any book or writing of\na particular author before him, but is giving the opinion of the sect\ngenerally.]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u0395\u1f50\u03b7\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf. Cf. the \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 which follows.]\n\n[Footnote 41: John iii. 5, 6. The Greek text omits \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, \u201cbecause.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 42: \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cpeculiar to.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 43: This is markedly Valentinian. The Ogdoad is of course the\nHighest Heaven, the Decad the middle one. See n. on p. 31 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 44: He here puns again on \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201cto seem,\u201d and \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u201cbeam.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 45: The source of this chapter can hardly have been a written\nbook or MS. The style is distinctly that of Hippolytus himself; the\npassion for plays on words which he has before exhibited, but has kept\nunder restraint while quoting from serious writers like Basilides\nand Valentinus, here resumes its sway; and he adds to it a fancy for\nputting several nominatives in apposition without the \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 which he\nhas heretofore generally employed. This, and the nature of the rhetoric\nall go to show that he is here quoting not from a written, but from a\nspoken discourse. The author of this is of course unknown to us; and\nHippolytus, who may very likely have forgotten his name, gives us no\nclue to his identity; but it is fairly clear that he must have been a\nfollower of Valentinus. The Three Aeons who went forth from the first\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd correspond to the Nous, Logos and Anthropos who rule\nover the Valentinian Ogdoad, Decad and Dodecad, and the care taken\nto bring the number of Aeons up to thirty practically settles this,\nwhile the existence of Horos is hinted at, and that of the Sophia is\nbarred only by the attribution of both sexes to all the Aeons. Perhaps,\nhowever, the most striking proof of Valentinianism is the myth of all\nthe Aeons coalescing to produce the Jesus who brings salvation, a myth\nwhich is not to be found in any other system. If the theory be accepted\nthat Hippolytus\u2019 source for the chapter was a Valentinian sermon, the\nname of Julius Cassianus as its author deserves consideration. He is\ndescribed by Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, III, 13, sqq.) as the\nfounder of Docetism, and as connected with the school of Valentinus,\nwhile certain Logia quoted by him appear also in the Valentinian\n_Excerpta Theodoti_. For other particulars about him see _D.C.B._,\ns.nn. \u201cCassianus\u201d and \u201cDocetism.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 46: This \u201cMonoimus Arabs\u201d is known to no other heresiologist\nsave Theodoret who here as elsewhere probably copied from Hippolytus.\nSalmon (_D.C.B._, s.n. \u201cMonoimus\u201d) suggests that the name may cover\nthe Jewish appellation of Menahem, which is not unlikely. His system\nas here disclosed has this in common with that of the Ophites or\nNaassenes of Book V that both begin with a Divine Being called \u201cMan\u201d\nfor no other assigned reason than that his manifestation here below\nis known as the Son of Man. He is not, however, here called Adamas as\nwith the Naassenes, and the remark about his being at once father and\nmother is not necessarily connected with the Naassene hymn quoted on\np. 140 Cr. For the rest, there is, _pace_ Salmon, nothing distinctly\nChristian about Monoimus\u2019 doctrine, and although the passage from\nColossians about the Pleroma dwelling in the Son of Man is here again\nintroduced, the context makes it possible that this is the comment of\nHippolytus rather than a direct quotation. On the other hand, Monoimus\nseveral times speaks slightingly of those who believe that the Son\nof Man was born of a woman, and he shows a reverence for the Law and\nthe Passover which a Christian of the second century would hardly\nhave exhibited. His opinions seem in fact to be more pantheistic than\nChristian or Judaic, although as Macmahon truly remarks, his similes\nabout the Creation are not far removed from those of Philo. His remarks\nabout numbers have possibly been corrupted in the copy, and are\nunintelligible as they stand; but it is not unlikely that they cover\nsome early Cabalistic notions and that his \u201cPerfect Man\u201d may be the\nAdam Cadmon of the Cabala.]\n\n[Footnote 47: \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, _longe abest_, Cruice, \u201cwas far\nremoved,\u201d Macm.]\n\n[Footnote 48: This line does not occur in our editions of Homer. It is\napparently a conflation of the statement in _Il._, XIV 201 that Oceanus\nis the \u201cFather of the Gods\u201d and that in l. 246 that he is the \u201cFather\nof them all.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 49: \u1f2e\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. This has been thought a quotation from\nSt. John\u2019s opening chapter, but the parallel is not very close. As\nSalmon (_art. cit._) points out, it signifies Being and Becoming.]\n\n[Footnote 50: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 51: The Naassene hymn in Vol. I, p. 120 _supra_ runs: \u201c_From_\nthee comes father and _through_ thee mother, two immortal names,\nparents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, man of mighty name!\u201d It\nis quite possible that Hippolytus, remembering this, is merely here\nrepeating part of it as comment and without attributing the quotation\nto Monoimus.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Cruice points out that this \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 or tittle is the acute\naccent placed over a letter of the Greek alphabet which converts it\ninto a numeral. Thus, \u03b9 = Iota, \u03af = 10.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Cf. Col. i. 19, \u201cFor it pleased (the Father) that in Him\nthe whole fulness should dwell.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 54: Salmon (_art. cit._) points out that this is \u201cat first\nsight mere pantheism.\u201d It is difficult to put any other construction\nupon it.]\n\n[Footnote 55: These six powers have been compared to Simon Magus\u2019 six\n\u201cRoots,\u201d which Simon also connects with the six Days of Creation. Cf.\np. 252 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Exod. vii. 20; viii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 57: \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9. Macm. translates \u201cshape.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 58: \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Qy. \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2? The word is apparently\ndragged in for the sake of making a pun with \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae, \u201ca stroke.\u201d \u03a0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2\nis a medical term for a seizure or apoplectic stroke, and probably has\nthe same root.]\n\n[Footnote 59: \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae.]\n\n[Footnote 60: \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Salmon (_art. cit._) thinks this may have some connection\nwith the Quartodeciman heresy mentioned later in the book.]\n\n[Footnote 62: So Cruice, _in omnibus istis creaturam sine fermento\nmundi_, but I see no meaning in the words.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Isa. xl. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 64: These are the \u201caccidents\u201d of substance which Hippolytus\nhas attributed in Book VI to Pythagoras, and in Book VII to Aristotle.\nSee pp. 21 and 64 _supra_. According to Book VI (_ubi cit._) the [Neo-]\nPythagoreans also used the image of the tittle.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Probably some follower of Monoimus, but not otherwise\nknown.]\n\n[Footnote 66: So the Codex. Duncker and Cruice would both read \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7,\n\u201cfor thyself.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 67: Of the source of this chapter little can be said.\nBoth the statements in the earlier part of the text and the letter\nto Theophrastus bear internal marks of having been taken from real\ndocuments. They contain also some peculiarities of diction and\nconstruction, which would be quite consistent with their author being\nan Oriental imperfectly acquainted with Greek.]\n\n[Footnote 68: This short notice of Tatian is condensed from the almost\nequally short notice of Iren\u00e6us (I, xxviii.), who seems to connect\nTatian with the sect of Encratites. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, I, xvi.),\nwhile mentioning him as a pupil of Justin, does not speak of him as\na heretic. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XLVI) follows Iren\u00e6us, and Theodoret\n(_Haer. Fab._, I, xx.), Hippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Of this Hermogenes we know already from Tertullian\u2019s\ntract against him to be found in the second volume of Oehler\u2019s edition\nof Tertullian\u2019s works. The date of this tract is said on good authority\nto be 206 or 207 A.D., and as it speaks of Hermogenes as then living,\ngives us his approximate date also. It is further said that he was a\npainter, probably of mythological subjects, that he lived at Carthage,\nand that he was several times married. Clement of Alexandria also\nmentions him, and it is suggested that both Tertullian and Clement\ndrew from a tract against him said by Eusebius to have been written by\nTheophilus of Antioch. The heretical tenets with which he is charged\nare his contention that God could not have created the world from\nnothing and that Matter must therefore be co-existent with Him, that\nChrist on His Ascension left His body in the Sun, and that Adam was not\nsaved. The first of these Tertullian would derive from Stoic teaching,\nwhile he does not touch on the second, which is, however, recorded by\nClement, nor on the third, which Iren\u00e6us (I, xxviii) attributes to the\nEncratites. It is probable, however, that all three may be derived from\nthe Western Asian tradition, which later gave birth to Manich\u00e6ism, of\nwhich therefore Hermogenes\u2019 heresy may prove to have been a forecast.]\n\n[Footnote 70: \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cunordered matter.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 71: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u201csubstantia,\u201d Cr. and Macm.]\n\n[Footnote 72: \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Ps. xix. 4, 5, \u201cset up his tabernacle in the Sun,\u201d A. V.]\n\n[Footnote 74: The probable source of this chapter has been dealt with\nin the note on previous page.]\n\n[Footnote 75: This is, I think, the first mention of the Quartodecimans\nas heretics. Eusebius, who thinks that the schism on the point began\nin the reign of Commodus, treats them with great tenderness, and says\n(_Hist. Eccl._, cc. xxiii. and xxiv.), that \u201cthe Churches of all\nAsia\u201d held their opinions, and that Iren\u00e6us himself pleaded their\ncause before Pope Victor. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XXX) says that they\nderived their origin from a mixture of the Phrygian and Quintillian or\nPriscillianist sects, probably confusing them with the Montanists.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Gal. v. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 77: This heresy of the \u201cPhrygians\u201d is, of course, that\ngenerally called the Montanist, which seems to have broken out\nabout the year 180. For some time it was not violently opposed by\nthe orthodox, and Tertullian himself became a convert to it and\nprobably died in its confession. Later it came to be looked upon as\nan enemy only one degree less prejudicial to the Catholic Church than\nGnosticism, and therefore one to be stamped out by excommunication in\npre-Constantinian times, and by persecution afterwards. Its tenets are\nsufficiently summarised in our text for a general understanding of\nthem and their connection with later forms of Patripassianism; but any\none wishing to go further into the subject is recommended to read Dr.\nSalmon\u2019s able article on \u201cMontanus\u201d in _D.C.B._, which will give him\nall that is really known as to the sect and its tendencies. Its centre\nseems to have been always Asia Minor.]\n\n[Footnote 78: \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1. The phrase is Aristotelian. Cf. same\nword later on same page.]\n\n[Footnote 79: \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 80: \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. First phrase, \u201cdry food.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 81: There is no reason to believe that in what he says here\nHippolytus is drawing from any written document. As the Montanists on\nbeing condemned by the rest of the Church appealed first to the Gallic\nChurches in which Hippolytus\u2019 master Iren\u00e6us was a leading spirit, and\nlater to the Church of Rome, all that he says about them must have been\nfamiliar to his hearers without referring to any earlier writers.]\n\n[Footnote 82: \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, from \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u201cthe continent ones.\u201d\nMany Gnostic sects, _e. g._ those of Saturninus and Marcion seem\nto have been called Encratites, the reason given by themselves for\ntheir abstinence being the malignity of matter. But it is plain from\nHippolytus\u2019 statement as to the orthodoxy in other matters of those he\ndescribes, that these were not Gnostics, but Catholics who practised\nasceticism inordinately. This is doubtless his reason for quoting St.\nPaul against them and for ignoring Iren\u00e6us\u2019 statement that Tatian\nwas their founder, that they taught a system of Aeons and denied the\nsalvation of Adam. Bearing in mind that he thought the Docetae to be an\nindependent sect, it seems probable that in this Book he intended to\nturn his back upon the Gnostics and to describe only the other sects\nwith a closer resemblance to orthodox Judaism and Christianity. The\nwhole work would thus form a roughly graduated scale extending from\nthe undisguised heathenism of the Ophites to the purely theological\nerrors of Callistus, the description of which seems designed to form\nthe climax of the book. The fact that it was probably, as said in the\nIntroduction, begun, laid aside, and then taken up again and finished,\nis sufficient to account for discrepancies like that involved in the\nconcluding sentence of this Book.]\n\n[Footnote 83: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Cf. the \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of 2 Cor. xii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 84: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The N.T. substitutes \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2,\n\u201cfaith,\u201d for \u201cteaching,\u201d and omits the adjective.]\n\n[Footnote 85: 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, _verbatim_ save as in last note.]\n\n[Footnote 86: It follows from this that Hippolytus is indebted to no\nother writer than himself for the facts in this chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 87: \u039d\u03bf\u03b1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. The Codex has \u039d\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03ca\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 88: The Cainites are described by Iren\u00e6us (I, xxxi) as\nanterior to Valentinus. The Noachites are mentioned by no other writer.\nIt is difficult to account for the remarks of Hippolytus about the\nOphites in this passage in view of the fact that the greater part of\nBook V has been devoted to the doctrines of the \u201cNaassenes\u201d--a word\nwhich he evidently recognized as identical with \u201cOphites.\u201d Unless we\nare to believe that \u1f48\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd is here a copyist\u2019s error for the name of\nsome other sect, we are almost compelled to accept the theory given\nin the Introduction, _i. e._ that the materials for Book V only came\ninto Hippolytus\u2019 hands after the rest of the book was written, and that\ntheir heresy was then suddenly pitchforked into the place in which we\nfind it without due consideration of its accord with passages like the\npresent. In that case the \u201cseven Books before this\u201d on p. 397 Cr. must\noriginally have read \u201cfive,\u201d unless we are to suppose that their place\nwas occupied by the description of the Jewish sects later transferred\nto Book IX.]\n\n\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 424.] BOOK IX\n\n NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS\n\n\n1. These are the contents of the 9th (Book) of the Refutation of All\nHeresies.\n\n2. What is the blasphemous folly of Noetus and that he gave heed to the\ndoctrines of Heraclitus the Obscure and not to those of Christ.\n\n3. And how Callistus having mingled the heresy of Cleomenes, Noetus\u2019\ndisciple, with that of Theodotus, set up another and newer heresy, and\nwhat was his life.\n\n4. What was the fresh invasion[1] of the stranger spirit Elchesai and\nthat he covers his own transgressions by appearing to keep to the Law,\nwhile he in fact devotes himself to Gnostic opinions [entirely], or to\nastrological and magical ones in addition.\n\n5. What are the customs of the Jews and how many their differences.\n\n * * * * *\n\n6. A long fight has now been fought by us concerning all [early]\nheresies, and we have left nothing unrefuted. There still remains the\ngreatest fight of all, [to wit] to [Sidenote: p. 425.] thoroughly\ndescribe and refute the heresies risen up in our own day, by means\nwhereof certain unlearned and daring men have attempted to scatter the\nChurch to the winds, [thereby] casting the greatest confusion among\nall the faithful throughout the world. For it seems fit that we should\nattack the opinion which was the first cause of [these] evils and\nexpose its roots, so that its offshoots, being thoroughly known to all,\nmay be contemned.\n\n\n 1. _About Noetus._\n\n7. There was a certain man, Noetus[2] by name, by birth a Smyrn\u00e6an.\nHe introduced a heresy from the opinions of Heraclitus. Of which\n[Noetus], a certain man named Epigonus becomes the minister and pupil,\nand on his arrival at Rome sowed broadcast the godless doctrine.\nWhose teaching Cleomenes, by life and manners alien to the Church,\nconfirmed, when he had become his disciple.[3] [Sidenote: p. 426.] At\nthat time Zephyrinus, an ignorant and greedy man, thought that he ruled\nthe Church, and, persuaded by the gain offered, gave leave to those\ncoming to him to learn of Cleomenes.[4] And himself also being in time\nbeguiled, ran into the same errors, his fellow-counsellor and comrade\nin this wickedness being Callistus, whose life and the heresy invented\nby him, I shall shortly set forth. The school of these successive\n[teachers] continued to grow stronger and increased through the help\ngiven to it by Zephyrinus and Callistus. Yet we never yielded, but\nmany times withstood them to the face, refuted them, and compelled\nthem perforce to confess the truth. They being ashamed for a season,\nand being brought by the truth to confession, before long returned to\nwallowing in the same mire.[5]\n\n8. But since we have pointed out the genealogical succession of these\n[men], it appears left to us to set forth their evil mode of teaching\ntheir doctrines. The opinions of Heraclitus the Obscure being first\nexplained, we shall then make evident the parts of [their doctrines]\nwhich are [Sidenote: p. 427.] Heraclitan, but which, perhaps, the\npresent chiefs of the heresy do not know to be those of the Obscure,\nbut think to be those of Christ. Should they meet with these [words],\nthey might, thus being put to shame, cease from their godless\nblasphemy.[6] And although the teachings of Heraclitus have been\nbefore expounded by us in this [our] _Philosophumena_,[7] yet it seems\nexpedient to repeat them now, so that by their closer refutation, those\nwho think they are disciples of Christ may be plainly taught that they\nare not His, but are those of the Obscure.\n\n9. Now Heraclitus says that the All is (one),[8] divided [and]\nundivided, originated [and] unoriginated, mortal [and] immortal, reason\n[and] eternity,[9] Father [and] Son, a just God. \u201cIt is wise,\u201d says\nHeraclitus, \u201cthat those who listen, not to me, but to reason,[10]\nshould acknowledge all things to be one.\u201d And because all men do not\nknow nor acknowledge this, he reproves them somehow thus: \u201cThey do\nnot understand how anything that is diverse can agree [Sidenote: p.\n428.] with itself. It is an inverse harmony, like that of a bow and a\nlyre.\u201d But that the All is ever Reason[11] and exists by it, he thus\ndeclares:--\u201cThat this Reason ever exists, men do not understand either\nbefore they hear it or when they hear it first. For while all things\ncome to pass according to this Reason, they seem to be ignorant of\nit, although they seem to have attempted endlessly[12] by words and\ndeeds such a description as I now give by analysis of their nature\nand by saying how things are.\u201d But that the All is a Son and for ever\nan eternal being of the universals, he says thus: \u201cA boy playing at\ntables[13] is Eternity; the kingdom is a boy\u2019s.\u201d That he is father\nof all things that have been generated, begotten and unbegotten, the\ncreation and [its] Demiurge, we have his saying: \u201cWar is father of\n[Sidenote: p. 429.] all, but king of all; and it displays some men\nas gods, others as men; some it makes slaves, others free. Because\n[this][14] is a harmony like that of bow and lyre.\u201d But that the\nunapparent, the unseen and unknown by men is [better],[15] he says in\nthese words: \u201cAn unapparent harmony is better than an apparent.\u201d He\nthus commends and admires that which is unknown to him before that\nwhich is known, and the invisible before that which can be [seen]. And\nthat it is to be seen of men and is not undiscoverable, he says in\nthese words: \u201cWhatever sight, hearing [and] learning can receive,[16]\nI honour before all,\u201d he says, that is, [I prefer][17] the things seen\nto those unseen. From such phrases of his it is easy to comprehend his\nargument. He says that men are deceived in regard to the knowledge of\nthings apparent like Homer, who was the wisest of all the Greeks. For\nchildren when killing lice, tricked him by [Sidenote: p. 430.] saying:\n\u201cWhat we see and clutch we leave behind; but what we neither see nor\nclutch, we take away with us.\u201d\n\n10. Thus Heraclitus supposes the apparent to have an equal lot and\nhonour with the unapparent, as if the apparent and the unapparent were\nadmittedly one. \u201cFor,\u201d he says, \u201can unapparent harmony is better than\nan apparent,\u201d and \u201cWhatever sight, hearing [and] learning [these are\nthe organs] can receive, this, he says, I honour above all,\u201d thus not\nhonouring by preference the unapparent. And so Heraclitus says that\nneither darkness nor light, nor good nor evil are different,[18] but\nare one and the same. Therefore he blames Hesiod that he did not know\nDay and Night, for Day and Night, he says, are one, speaking somehow\nlike this: \u201cHesiod is the teacher of most things, and they feel sure\nthat he knew most things, who did not [however] know Day and Night. For\nthey are one.\u201d And [as to] good and evil:--\u201cNow the surgeons,\u201d says\nHeraclitus, \u201cusually cut, burn, and in every way torture the sick,\nand complain that they receive from them no fitting reward for their\nlabours, although they do these good works on [Sidenote: p. 431.] the\ndiseases.\u201d And both straight and crooked, he says, are the same. \u201cThe\nway of wool-carders, he says, is both straight and crooked, [because]\nthe revolution of the tool called _cochleus_[19] is both straight and\ncrooked; for it revolves and moves upwards at the same time. It is,\nhe says, one and the same.\u201d And upward and downward are, he says, one\nand the same: \u201cThe way up and down is one and the same.\u201d And he says\nthat the polluted and the pure are one and the same, and the drinkable\nand the undrinkable also. \u201cThe sea,\u201d he says, \u201cis at once the purest\nand the most polluted water, for to fish it is drinkable and salutary,\nbut to man undrinkable and hurtful.\u201d[20] And in the same way, he says,\nadmittedly the immortal is mortal and the mortal immortal, in such\nwords as these: \u201cDeathless are mortals, and mortals are deathless, when\nthe living take death from these, and the dead life from those.\u201d But\nhe speaks here of the resurrection of this visible flesh [Sidenote: p.\n432.] wherein we have been born. And he knows God to be the cause of\nthis resurrection, saying thus: \u201cThose here will rise again and will\nbecome the busy guardians of living and dead.\u201d And he says also that\nthe judgment of the ordered world and of all therein will be by fire,\nspeaking thus: \u201cThunder governs all things,\u201d that is, it corrects them,\nmeaning by \u201cthunder\u201d the everlasting fire. But he says also that this\nfire is discerning and the cause of the government of the universals,\nand he calls it Need[21] and Satiety. Now Need is according to him the\nOrdering [of the world],[22] but Satiety the Ecpyrosis. For \u201cFire,\u201d he\nsays, \u201ccoming suddenly will judge and seize all things.\u201d[23]\n\nIn this chapter [entitled] \u201cAll Things Together,\u201d the peculiar thought\nof Heraclitus is set forth.[24] But I have also shown briefly that\nit is that of Noetus\u2019 heresy, he being a disciple not of Christ, but\nof Heraclitus. For that the created world was its own Demiurge and\ncreator, he declares thus: \u201cGod is day and night, winter and summer,\nwar and peace, satiety and hunger.\u201d \u201cAll things are contraries.\u201d This\nis the thought \u201cbut there is a change, as when one [Sidenote: p. 433.]\nincense is mixed with others; which [incense] is named according to the\npleasure of each.\u201d\n\nBut it is plain to all that the intelligent[25] successors of Noetus\nand the chiefs of the heresy, although you may say that they were not\n[actual] hearers of Heraclitus, yet by openly choosing[26] the opinions\nof Noetus, acknowledge the same things. For they say this: One and the\nsame God is the Father and Demiurge of all, having been pleased, though\ninvisible, to appear to the righteous men of old. For when He is not\nseen He is invisible [but when seen visible].[27] And when He wishes\nto be uncontained, He is uncontainable,[28] and when He is contained,\nHe is containable. Thus by the same reasoning, He is unconquerable[29]\n[and conquerable], unbegotten [and begotten], immortal and mortal. How\ncan such as they be shown not to be disciples of Heraclitus? Did not\nthe Obscure long ago philosophize in these very words?\n\nNow that [Noetus] says the Father and Son are the same, no one is\nignorant. These are his words. When, then, the Father had not been\nborn, He was rightly proclaimed Father. And when He was pleased to\nundergo [Sidenote: p. 434.] birth, He having been begotten, became the\nSon of Himself and not of another. For thus [Noetus] seems to establish\nMonarchia[30] by asserting the Father and the Son so-called are one\nand the same, not another from another, but Himself from Himself. And\nthat He is called by the name of Father [or Son] according to the\nchange of times. But that One was He who appeared and underwent birth\nfrom a Virgin and dwelt as a man among men. And acknowledged Himself\nto those who saw Him to be a Son by reason of the birth that had taken\nplace, but did not conceal from those who could receive it that He was\nalso Father. And that He also suffered, being nailed to the Tree and\ngave up His Spirit to Himself, and died and did not die. And that He\nraised Himself again the third day after having been buried in a tomb\nand pierced with a spear and nailed with nails. This One Cleomenes and\nhis band say was God and Father of the universals, thereby drawing a\nHeraclitan darkness over many.[31]\n\n\n 2. _About Callistus._\n\n11. To this heresy Callistus[32] gave strength--a man artful in evil\nand versatile in falsehood, who was seeking after the [Sidenote: p.\n435.] bishop\u2019s throne. And he led whither he liked Zephyrinus,[33]\nan ignorant man, unlearned and unskilled in the Church\u2019s rules, whom\n[Callistus] persuaded by gifts and extravagant demands. [And as\nZephyrinus] was a receiver of bribes and a money-lover, he induced\nhim to be ever making faction between the brethren, while he himself\nby crafty words contrived that at the last both parties should be\nfriendly to himself. And sometimes he deceived those who thought truly,\nby saying that he thought for his own part like things with them; and\nagain he said likewise to those [who held] the opinions of Sabellius,\nwhom, when he might have brought him into the right way, he abandoned.\nFor Sabellius did not harden [his heart] to our[34] admonitions, but\nwhen he got alone with Callistus, he was urged by him to relapse\ntowards the doctrine of Cleomenes, alleging that he was of like\nopinions. [Sabellius] did not then understand his trickery, but knew it\nafterwards, as I will shortly explain.[35]\n\nNow [Callistus] bringing forward Zephyrinus himself, persuaded him to\nsay publicly: \u201cI know one God, Christ Jesus, [Sidenote: p. 436.] and\nbeside Him I know no other, begotten and susceptible of suffering.\u201d\nAnd at one time he said: \u201cThe Father did not die but the Son,\u201d and\nthus maintained without ceasing the faction among the people.[36]\nKnowing whose designs, we did not give way to him, but refuted and\nwithstood him for the Truth\u2019s sake. He also, advancing towards madness,\nthrough everyone concurring with him--though we did not--called us\nditheists,[37] thus violently spitting forth the concealed poison\nwithin him. It seems good to us then to set forth the lovable[38] life\nof this man since he was born at the same time as ourselves, in order\nthat by the mode of life of such a one being made apparent, the heresy\nwhich he has taken in hand may become well and quickly known to those\nwho have right mind. He bore witness[39] when Fuscianus was Prefect of\nRome;[40] and the manner of his martyrdom was on this wise.\n\n12. [Callistus] chanced to be a house-slave of a certain\nCarpophorus,[41] a man of the faith who was of C\u00e6sar\u2019s household. To\nhim as to one of the faith Carpophorus entrusted no little money on\nhis promising to bring in profit from the business of a money-dealer.\nWho taking it, set up a money-changer\u2019s stall in the place called\nthe _Piscina Publica_,[42] to whom in course of time not a few\ndeposits were entrusted by [Sidenote: p. 437.] widows and brethren\non the strength of Carpophorus\u2019 name. But he having made everything\ndisappear,[43] was in difficulties. When he had done this, one[44] was\nnot lacking to tell Carpophorus; and Carpophorus said that he required\naccounts from him. Callistus being aware of this and suspecting danger\nfrom his master,[45] took flight and made for the sea. Who finding a\nship at Portus[46] ready to sail when she should have her cargo, went\non board intending to sail. But he could not thus escape; for one was\nnot lacking to tell Carpophorus what had happened. And he having halted\nat the harbour according to the news given him, tried to hurry to the\nship. But she was lying in the middle of the harbour, and the ferryman\nbeing slow, Callistus saw his master afar off, and knew that as he was\nin the ship he would be taken. So he disregarded life and thinking\nthat his end had come, cast himself into the sea.[47] But the sailors,\njumping down into the boats, dragged him out [Sidenote: p. 438.]\nagainst his will amid a great shouting from the shore. And thus he was\nhanded over to his master and taken away to Rome, whence his master\nsentenced him to the _Pistrinum_.[48]\n\nBut time having gone on, some brethren, as generally happens, came\nforward and besought Carpophorus that he would set free the runaway\nfrom punishment, affirming that he had admitted having gold laid up\nwith certain persons.[49] And Carpophorus like a pious man said that\nhe did not care about his own [money], but that he was concerned about\nthe deposits. For many cried to him with tears that they had trusted\nto his name when confiding money to Callistus, and [Carpophorus] being\npersuaded, ordered him to be released. But he having nothing to pay\nback and not being able to run away again because he was watched,\ndevised a scheme for [obtaining] death. On a Sabbath day, pretending to\ngo forth to his debtors, he rushed into the synagogue of the assembled\nJews, and stayed there factiously opposing them.[50] But when they\nwere factiously opposed by him, they abused and rained blows upon him\nand haled him before Fuscianus, who was then Prefect of the City. And\nthis was their accusation:--\u201cThe Romans have conceded to us the right\nto read aloud publicly the laws of our fathers. But this man coming\nin forbade it, making a [Sidenote: p. 439.] faction against us, and\naffirming that he was a Christian.\u201d And as Fuscianus chanced to be on\nthe judgment-seat, and was angered by the words of the Jews against\nCallistus, one was not lacking to tell Carpophorus what was being done.\nAnd he, hastening to the judgment-seat, cried out to the Prefect, \u201cI\nbeseech you, O Lord Fuscianus, do not believe this man, for he is not a\nChristian, but seeks occasion of death, having made away[51] with much\nmoney of mine, as I will prove.\u201d[52] But the Jews thinking this to be a\nfetch, as if Carpophorus were seeking by this speech to get him set at\nliberty, cried out against him to the Prefect with increased fury. And\nhe being moved by them, had [Callistus] scourged and sent him to a mine\nin Sardinia.\n\nBut after a time, there being other martyrs there, Marcia, being a\nGod-loving woman and a concubine of Commodus [Sidenote: p. 440.] and\nhaving wished to do some good work, summoned before her the blessed\nVictor, who was Bishop of the Church at that time,[53] and enquired\nwhat martyrs there were in Sardinia. And he gave her the names of all,\nbut did not give her that of Callistus, knowing what he had dared to\ndo. Then Marcia, having succeeded in her petition to Commodus, gave\nthe liberating letter to an elder named Hyacinthus, a eunuch,[54]\nwho took it and sailed for Sardinia, and having handed it to the\nAdministrator[55] of the place for the time being, set free all the\nmartyrs with the exception of Callistus. But he, on his knees and\nweeping, besought that he also might be set free. Then Hyacinthus\nwas moved by entreaty and required the Administrator [to do this]\naffirming that he was the foster-father of Marcia and arranging to\nhold the Administrator harmless. And he being persuaded [in turn]\nset free Callistus also.[56] Upon whose coming [to Rome], Victor was\nmuch annoyed at what had befallen; but, as he was a compassionate\nman, held his peace. But to guard against the reproach of many--for\n[Sidenote: p. 441.] the audacities of Callistus were not a long way\noff--and Carpophorus was still an obstacle, he sends him to abide in\nAntium, making him a certain monthly allowance for his support.[57]\nAfter [Victor\u2019s] falling asleep, Zephyrinus having had [Callistus]\nas a coadjutor in the management of the clergy, honoured him to his\nown detriment, and sending for him from Antium, set him over the\ncemetery.[58] And Callistus being ever with [Zephyrinus], and as I have\nsaid before, serving him with guile,[59] put him in the background[60]\nas neither able to judge what was said to him nor to comprehend all\nthe counsels of Callistus when talking to him of what things pleased\nhim. Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, [Callistus] thinking that\nhe had succeeded in his pursuit,[61] put away Sabellius as one who\ndoes not hold right opinions. For [Callistus] was afraid of me and\ndeemed that he could thus wipe off the charge [against him] before the\nChurches,[62] just as if he held no different opinions from theirs.\n\nNow Callistus was a sorcerer[63] and a trickster and in time [Sidenote:\np. 442.] snatched away many. And harbouring the poison in his heart,\nand devising nothing straight, besides being ashamed to declare\nthe truth because he had reproached us in public, saying: \u201cYe are\nditheists,\u201d[64] but especially because he had often been accused by\nSabellius of having strayed from his first faith, he invented some\nsuch heresy as this:--He says that the Word is the Son and that He is\nalso the Father, being called by that name, but being one undivided\nSpirit.[65] And that the Father is not one thing and the Son another;\nbut that they subsist [as] one and the same. And that all things above\nand below are filled with the Divine Spirit, and that the Spirit which\nwas incarnate in the Virgin was not other than the Father, but one and\nthe same. And that this is the saying: \u201cDost thou not believe that I am\nin the Father and the Father in Me?\u201d[66] For that which is seen, which\nis a man, that is the Son; but the Spirit which is contained in the\nSon, that is the Father. \u201cFor I do not,\u201d [Sidenote: p. 443.] he says,\n\u201csay that there are two Gods, Father and Son, but One. For the Father\nwho existed in Him, having taken on Him the flesh, made it God by union\nwith Himself and made it one [Being] so that He is called Father and\nSon, one God. And that this [God] being one Person cannot be two.\u201d[67]\nAnd so he said that the Father had suffered _with_ the Son; for he did\nnot like to say that the Father suffered and was One Person, [so as]\nto avoid[68] blasphemy against the Father. [Thus this] senseless and\nshifty fellow, scattering blasphemies high and low, so that he may\nonly seem [not] to speak against the Truth, is not ashamed to lean now\ntowards the doctrine of Sabellius and now towards that of Theodotus.[69]\n\nThe sorcerer having dared such things, set up a school against that\nof the Church,[70] thus to teach. And first he contrived to make\nconcessions to men in respect of their pleasures, telling every one\nthat their sins were remitted by himself. For if any one who has been\nreceived[71] by another and calls himself Christian should transgress,\nhe says, the transgression of him will not be reckoned against him if\nhe hastens to the school of Callistus. And many were pleased with this\nproposition,[72] having been stricken with conscience as well as cast\nout of many heresies. And [Sidenote: p. 444.] some even after having\nbeen cast by us out of the Church by a [regular] judgment, joining with\nthese last, filled the school of Callistus. He laid it down that if\n[even] a bishop commits any sin, though it should be one unto death, he\nought not to be deposed. In his time bishops and priests and deacons\nwho had married twice and even thrice began to keep their places among\nthe clergy.[73] For if any one who was in the clerical order[74] should\nmarry, he [decided] that he should remain in the order as if he had not\nsinned, saying that what was spoken by the Apostle was said with regard\nto this [viz.:] \u201cWho art thou that judgest another man\u2019s servant?\u201d[75]\nAnd also the Parable of the Tares, he says spoke as to this: \u201cLet the\ntares grow to the harvest,\u201d[76] that is, let the sinners remain in\nthe Church. But he also said that the ark of Noah was made into an\nimage[77] of the Church, wherein were dogs and wolves and crows and all\nclean and unclean [animals]. Thus, he affirms, ought the Church to do\nlikewise; and as many things as he could bring together on this point,\nhe thus interpreted.\n\nWhose hearers being attracted by these doctrines continue [to exist],\ndeluding themselves and many others, crowds of [Sidenote: p. 445.]\nwhom flock into the school. Wherefore they are multiplied and rejoice\nin the crowds, by reason of the pleasures which Christ did not permit.\nWhom slightly regarding, they forbid no one to sin, affirming that they\nthemselves remit sins to those with whom they are well pleased. For\n[Callistus] has also permitted women, if they, being unmarried and in\nthe prime of life, turned towards some one unworthy of their station,\nor did not wish to lessen it by [marriage], to hold any bedfellow they\nmight choose as lawfully married to them, whether he was a house slave\nor free,[78] and to consider this person although not married by law as\nin the place of a husband.[79] From this the so-called faithful women\nbegan to make attempts with abortifacient drugs and to gird themselves\ntightly so that they might cast out what they had conceived, through\ntheir not wishing on account of their family or superabundant wealth to\nhave a child by a slave or some mean person. See now what impiety the\nlawless one has reached when he teaches [Sidenote: p. 446.] adultery\nand murder at the same time! And in the face of these audacities the\nshameless ones attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church, and some\nthink that they do well to join with them.\n\nUnder this [Callistus, too], a second baptism has been ventured upon by\nthem for the first time.[80] These things the most amazing Callistus\nhas set on foot, whose school still persists and preserves the customs\nand tradition [of the Church], nor does it discriminate as to whom it\nshould hold communion with, but offers communion indiscriminately to\nall. From whom also they are called by a name that they share with him,\nand, by reason of the protagonist of such works being Callistus, are\ncalled Callistians.[81]\n\n\n 3. _Concerning Elchesaites._[82]\n\n13. When the teaching of this [Callistus] had been dispersed [Sidenote:\np. 447.] over the whole world, a certain man called Alcibiades dwelling\nat Apamea in Syria, who was crafty and full of impudence, and having\nlooked into the matter, deemed himself more forcible and expert in\ntricks than Callistus, arrived in Rome bringing with him a book.[83] He\npretended that a righteous man (called) Elchasai, had received the same\nfrom the Seres[84] of Parthia and gave it to one called Sobiae,[85]\nas having been revealed by an angel. The height of which angel was 24\nschoeni,[86] which is 96 miles; but the girth was 4 schoeni, and from\nshoulder to shoulder 6 schoeni; and his footprints were 3\u00bd schoeni\nin length, which is 14 miles,[87] their width 1\u00bd schoeni, and their\ndepth half a schoenus. And that there was with him also a female whose\nmeasure, he says, accorded with those aforesaid. And that the male\nis the Son of God, and that the female is called the Holy Spirit.\nDescribing these portents, he is wont to distract the foolish by this\naddress: \u201cA new remission of sins was brought as good news to men in\nthe third year of the reign of Trajan.\u201d And he prescribes (therefore) a\nbaptism which I will explain (later). He affirms that of those wrapped\nin all licentiousness and pollution and breaches of the Law, if any\nsuch be a believer and turns again and hearkens to and believes on\nthe book, he determines [Sidenote: p. 448.] that he shall receive by\nbaptism remission of sins.\n\nThese tricks he audaciously elaborated, starting from the doctrine\nbefore described which Callistus had brought forward. For he, having\nunderstood that many rejoiced at such an announcement,[88] thought\nthat his enterprise would be timely.[89] Yet we withstood him also,\nand did not permit very many to go astray, refuting them[90] [with\nthe argument] that this was the work of a spurious[91] spirit and of\na puffed-up heart; and that the man like a wolf had risen up among\nthe many stray sheep which the false guide Callistus had scattered\nabroad. But, since we have begun, we shall not be silent regarding\nthe doctrines of this man also; and we shall bring to light the (mode\nof) life (he advocates),[92] and shall then prove that his supposed\ndiscipline is a make-believe. And then again I will explain the chief\nof his sayings, so that the reader who has studied [Sidenote: p. 449.]\nhis writings may know thoroughly what and of what quality is the heresy\non which he has ventured.\n\n14. He puts forward as a bait, conformity with the Law,[93] claiming\nthat those who have believed ought to be circumcised and to live\naccording to the Law while clutching at something from the heresies\naforesaid. And he says that Christ was a man born in the way common to\nall; and that He was not now begotten for the first time from a virgin,\nbut that both in the first instance and then many times since, He had\nbeen begotten and born, appeared and grown up, alternating births and\nchanging one body for another, wherein He makes use of the Pythagorean\nteaching.[94] But [the Elchesaites] are so vainglorious as to say\nthat they themselves foretell the future, starting evidently from the\nmeasures and numbers of the Pythagorean art before described. And\nthey give heed to mathematics and astrology and magic as if they were\ntrue, and they use these things to astonish the weak-minded, so that\nthey may think themselves partakers in a mighty matter. They give also\nincantations and spells[95] to those bitten by dogs and to possessed\nand other diseased persons concerning which we [Sidenote: p. 450.]\nshall not be silent. Having then sufficiently detailed the sources and\ncauses of their audacities, I will proceed to repeat their writings,\nwhereby the reader may know at once their folly and their godless\nendeavours.\n\n15. To his catechumens, then, [Alcibiades] administers baptism,\nspeaking such words as these to those whom he deceives: \u201cIf, therefore,\nany one has gone in unto a child, or to any kind of animal, or to a\nmale or to a brother or to a daughter, or has committed adultery or\nfornication, and wishes to receive remission of sins, immediately he\nhears this book, let him be baptized a second time in the name of the\nGreat and Highest God and in the name of His Son, the Great King.\nAnd let him be purified and be chaste and call to witness the seven\nwitnesses who are written in this book [to wit], the Heaven and the\nWater, and the Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and\nthe salt and the Earth.\u201d[96] These are the wonderful mysteries of\nElchasai, the hidden and great things which he hands [Sidenote: p.\n451.] down to the disciples who are worthy. And the lawless one is not\ncontent with these, but before two or three witnesses puts the seal on\nhis own crimes, again speaking thus: \u201cI say again, O adulterers and\nadulteresses and false prophets, if you wish to turn again so that your\nsins may be remitted unto you, peace shall be yours, and a portion with\nthe just, if immediately you hearken to this book and are baptized a\nsecond time with your garments.\u201d\n\nBut since we have said that these persons use incantations over those\nbitten by dogs and over others, we shall point out [these also].\nThus he speaks: \u201cIf a furious and mad dog in whom is the breath of\ndeath,[97] bite or tear or touch any man or woman or man-child or\nmaid-child, in the same hour let [the bitten one] run with all his\nclothing and go down to a river or a pool where there is a deep place,\nand let him be baptized there with all his clothing, and let him\npray[98] to the Great and Highest God in faith of heart, and then call\nto witness the Seven Witnesses who are written [Sidenote: p. 452.] in\nthis book, saying: \u2018Lo! I call to witness the Heaven and the Water\nand the Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and the salt\nand the Earth. I call to witness these Seven Witnesses that I will no\nmore sin, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor do injustice, nor be\ngreedy, nor cherish hatred, nor break faith, nor take pleasure in any\nevil deeds.\u2019 Then upon saying this, let him be baptized with all his\nclothing in the name of the Great and Highest God.\u201d\n\n16. But in most other matters he talks nonsense, and teaches [the\nrepetition of] the same spells over the phthisical, and the baptizing\nof them in cold water forty times a week. And in the same way with\nthose possessed of devils. O wisdom inimitable and incantations filled\nfull of powers! Who will not be struck at such and so great a power of\nwords? But since we have said that they also make use of the error of\nthe astrologers, let us prove this out of their own mouths. Thus he\nsays: \u201cThere are evil stars of impiety. This is now spoken unto you, O\nGod-fearing [Sidenote: p. 453.] men[99] and disciples. Beware of the\ndays of their authority,[100] and begin no works on these days, and\nbaptize not man nor woman in the days of their authority when the moon\ngoes forth with them and journeys with them.[101] Be ye ware from that\nday until the moon leaves them utterly and then baptize and begin in\nevery beginning of your works. Honour also the Sabbath Day for it is\none day out of these.[102] But beware of beginning ought in the third\nday from the Sabbath, because when three years of the reign of Trajan\nC\u00e6sar were fulfilled, he brought the Parthians under his sway.[103] And\nwhen three years more are completed war will rage between the angels of\nthe impiety of the North,[104] and thereby all the kingdoms of iniquity\nwill be troubled.\u201d[105]\n\n17. Since, now, he believes it would be unreasonable that these great\nand secret mysteries should be trampled [Sidenote: p. 454.] underfoot\nor delivered to many, he advises that they should be preserved as if\nthey were costly pearls,[106] saying thus: \u201cRead not these words to\nall men and keep their commandments carefully, since not all men are\nfaithful nor all women straight.\u201d But these things neither the sages of\nthe Egyptians, nor Pythagoras the sage of the Greeks withdrew within\ntheir sanctuaries. For had Elchasai chanced to live at the time, what\nneed would there have been for Pythagoras, or Thales, or Solon, or\nPlato the wise, or the rest of the Greeks to learn of the priests of\nthe Egyptians, seeing that they would have had so much and so great\nwisdom from Alcibiades, the most wonderful interpreter of the wretched\nElchasai? Now therefore it seems that enough has been said for persons\nof sound mind to have a complete knowledge of the madness of these\n[heretics], wherefore it does not seem fit to make use of any more of\ntheir sayings, which are many and laughable.\n\nBut since we have not passed over the things which have sprung up among\nourselves, and have not been silent on those which [happened] before\nour time, it seems proper, so that we may go into everything and leave\nnothing unexpounded, to say something of the [customs] of the Jews\n[Sidenote: p. 455.] also, and what are the differences among them; for\nI think that up till now this has been passed over.[107] [And] when\nI shall have spoken of these,[108] I shall proceed to the exposition\nof the Word of Truth.[109] So that after the lengthy struggle of the\ndiscourse against all heresies, we, firmly pressing forward to the\ncrown of the kingdom, and believing on the things which are true, may\nnot be confounded.[110]\n\n\n 4. _Jews._[111]\n\n18. Originally there was one nation of Jews. For one teacher had been\ngiven them by God [namely] Moses, and through him was given one Law.\nAnd there was one desert and one mountain [namely] Sinai; for one God\nwas their legislator. But after they had crossed the river Jordan\nand had divided by lot the land won by the spear, they rent asunder\nin different ways the Law of God, each understanding the precepts\ndifferently. And thus they set up teachers for themselves and found\nout heretical opinions and advanced in schism. Whose diversity I shall\nset forth; but although for a long time they have been scattered in\nmany divisions, yet I will expose [only] the chief of them, whence the\nlovers of learning[112] may easily know the rest. [Sidenote: p. 456.]\nFor three sects[113] are distinguished among them, and the adherents of\none of these are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, and the others[114]\nare Essenes. These [last] practise the more holy life [of the three],\nloving one another and observing continence. And they turn away from\nevery deed of concupiscence, holding it hateful even to listen to such\nthings. They renounce marriage, but take the children of others and\nbring them up in their customs, thus adopting[115] them and impelling\nthem to the sciences, [but] not forbidding them to marry, although they\nthemselves abstain from it. But they admit no women, even those who are\nwilling to devote themselves to the same policy, nor give heed to them,\nfor they distrust women altogether.\n\n19. And they despise wealth and do not shrink from sharing with those\nwho lack [it], although none of them is richer than another. For it\nis a law among them that any one entering the heresy must sell his\npossessions and offer [Sidenote: p. 457.] the price to the common\nstock, which the ruler receives and distributes to all for their needs.\nThus there is no want among them. And they use not oil, thinking\nanointing their bodies pollution. But there are stewards appointed by\nvote who look after all their property in common, and all of them wear\nwhite garments always.\n\n20. And there is not one city of them, but many of them dwell in every\ncity. And if one of the practisers of the heresy[116] should arrive\nfrom a strange country, they hold all things in common for him, and\nthose whom they knew not before they receive as guests and intimates.\nAnd they travel about their native land, and when they go on a journey\nthey carry nothing with them except arms. And they have in every city a\nruler who spends what is collected for the purpose of providing clothes\nand food for them. And their dress and its fashion are modest. They\ndo not possess two tunics or a double set of footgear; but when those\nin use become old, they take others. And they neither buy nor sell\nanything at all; but if one possesses ought, he gives it to him who\nlacks, and what he has not, he receives [in its stead].[117]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 458.] 21. But they lead a well-ordered and regular\nlife, and always pray at dawn, not speaking before they have praised\nGod. And thus they all go forth and do what work they will, and after\nworking until the fifth hour, leave off. Then, assembling again in\none place, they gird themselves with linen cinctures so as to conceal\ntheir privities, and thus wash in cold water. And after having thus\npurified themselves, they gather together in one dwelling--but no one\nwho thinks differently from them is with them in the house--and they\nget to breakfast. And sitting down in order, they are offered bread\nin silence, and then some one kind of food from which each has a\nsufficient portion. But none of them tastes anything till the priest\nhas blessed and prayed over it. And after breakfast, when he has again\nprayed, they offer up praises to God. Then, laying aside as holy the\ngarments with which they are clothed while indoors--and these are\nof linen--and receiving again the [Sidenote: p. 459.] others in the\nvestibule, they hasten to their favourite work until the afternoon. And\nthey take supper in all respects as before described. And none ever\nshouts, nor is any other uproarious sound heard, but each one speaks\nquietly, every one decently yielding the conversation to the other,\nso that to those without the silence of those within seems somewhat\nof a mystery. And they are at all times sober, eating and drinking\neverything by measure.[118]\n\n22. Now all give heed to the president[119] and what he commands they\nobey as law. For they are zealous to pity and help the downtrodden.\nAnd before all things they abstain from rage and anger and such-like,\njudging that these betray mankind. And none takes oath to the other,\nbut what each one says is judged stronger than an oath. And if any\none takes an oath, he is condemned as one not to be believed (without\nGod).[120] And they are diligent concerning the recital of the Law\nand the Prophets, and also if [Sidenote: p. 460.] there should be any\nsummary[121] [of these] [made by one] of the faithful, [they listen to\nit?] And they are very curious concerning plants and stones, being very\ninquisitive as to their operation, as they think that these did not\ncome into being in vain.\n\n23. But to those who wish to become disciples of the heresy, they do\nnot straightway impart the traditions, until they have first made trial\nof them. For a year they set before them the same sort of food as\n[is served] to themselves, but outside their assembly and in another\nhouse. And they give them a hatchet and the linen cincture and white\ngarments. When they have during this period given proof of continence,\nthey draw nearer to the way of living [of the others] and are purified\nmore thoroughly than at first, but they do not take their food with\nthem. For after they have shown that they can practise continence,\nfor another two years\u2019 trial is made of such a one\u2019s character, and\non his appearing worthy, he is adjudged so [to be received] by them.\nBefore, however, he can eat with them, he is sworn with fearful oaths;\nfirst, that he will show piety towards the Divine, then that he will\nobserve justice towards men, and will in no way wrong any, nor hate\nanyone who [Sidenote: p. 461.] wrongs him or who is an enemy to him,\nbut will pray for him. And that he will fight on the side of the just\nand will keep faith with all, especially with those who bear sway, nor\nbe disobedient to them. For it happens to none to rule save by God. And\nif [the aspirant] should bear rule, that he will never be arrogant in\nauthority, nor make more use than is customary of any ornament; but is\nto love the truth, [Sidenote: p. 462.] to refute the liar, and not to\nsteal, nor soil his conscience with unlawful gain, nor hide ought from\nhis fellow-heretics. And will tell nothing [of their secrets] to others\neven if he shall suffer violence unto death. Besides this, he swears to\nthem to impart none of the doctrines [of the sect] otherwise than as he\nhimself received them. By such oaths, therefore, do they bind those who\ncome unto them.[122]\n\n24. But if any should be convicted in any transgression, he is cast out\nof the order, and he that is cast out sometimes perishes by a fearful\nfate. For, being bound by the oaths and customs, he cannot take food\nwith other people. Therefore sometimes they utterly destroy the body\nby famine. Wherefore in the last extremity they sometimes take pity\non many already dying, thinking the penalty unto death sufficient for\nthem.[123]\n\n25. Concerning their judgments, they are most careful and just. They\ndeliver judgment after assembling not less [Sidenote: p. 463.] than\na hundred and what they determine is irrevocable. And they honour\nthe Lawgiver [next] after God, and if anyone blasphemes him, he is\npunished. And they are taught to give ear to the rulers and elders;\nand if ten are sitting in the same place, one will not speak unless\nthe others wish. And they are careful of spitting in front of them or\non the right side; and more than all the Jews, they arrange to abstain\nfrom work on the Sabbath. For not only do they prepare their food\none day before, so as not to light a fire, but they neither move an\nimplement nor relieve nature. And some of them will not even get out of\nbed. But on other days, when they wish to evacuate, they dig a pit a\nfoot long--with the hoe--for such is the hatchet which they give their\nadherents when first becoming disciples[124]--and covering it on all\nsides with their cloak, sit down, affirming that they must not insult\nthe rays [of the Sun]. Then they throw back the excavated earth into\nthe pit. And this they do choosing the most deserted places, [and] when\nthey have done this they straightway wash, as if the [Sidenote: p.\n464.] secretion were polluting.[125]\n\n26. But in course of time they have drawn apart and do not [all]\nobserve the discipline in the same way,[126] being divided into four\nparts. For some of them are more austere than they need be, so that\nthey will carry no coin, saying that they must not bear any image, nor\nlook upon it, nor make it. Wherefore none of them goes into a city,\nlest he shall enter in through a gate whereon are statues, as they\nthink it unlawful to pass under an image. And others, if they hear\nanyone holding forth about God and His Law, will watch such an one\nuntil he is alone in some place, and threaten to kill him if he be not\ncircumcised. Whom, if he does not consent, he does not spare, but slays\nhim. Whence from this occurrence they take their name, being called\nZealots, but by some Sicarii. And yet others of them name none Lord but\nGod, even if any should torture or slay them. And those who succeeded\nthem became so much worse than their discipline that they would not\ntouch [Sidenote: p. 465.] those who remained in the ancient customs:\n[or] if they did so [by accident] they straightway washed themselves\nas if they had touched one of another sect. And the majority are\nlong-lived, so that they live more than a hundred years. Now they say\nthat the cause of this is their consummate piety towards God, and their\ncondemning the serving [of food] without measure and to their being\ncontinent and slow to anger. And they despise death rejoicing that they\ncan make an end with a good conscience. But if any one should torture\nsuch [men] to make them speak ill of the Law or to eat food offered to\nidols, they would not do so, suffering death and supporting tortures so\nthat they may not go beyond their conscience.[127]\n\n27. But the doctrine of the Resurrection is also strong among them. For\nthey confess that the flesh rises again and will be immortal in the\nsame way that the soul is already immortal. Which soul when it departs\nfrom the body, abides in an airy and well-lighted place until judgment,\nwhich place the Greeks hearing of it called [the] Islands of the\nBlessed. But there are other opinions of them which [Sidenote: p. 466.]\nmany of the Greeks appropriated and maintained as their own teaching.\nFor the discipline among them concerning the Divine is earlier than\nall nations, as is proved by all that the Greeks have ventured to\nsay about God or the fashioning of the things that are starting from\nno other source than the Jewish Law. Wherefrom especially Pythagoras\nand those of the Porch took much, having been instructed in it by the\nEgyptians. And [the Essenes] say also that there will be a judgment\nand a conflagration of the All, and that the unjust will be punished\neverlastingly. And prophecy and the foretelling of things to come are\npractised among them.[128]\n\n28. Now there is another order of Essenes making use of their customs\nand way of life, but they differ from these [just described] in the\none [point of] marriage; saying that those who reject marriage do a\nfearful thing. And they declare that this comes to the taking-away of\nlife, and that one must not cut off the succession of children, and\nthat if everyone thought like this, the whole race of men might easily\nbe cut off. They certainly try their wives for a period of three years;\nbut when they have had three purifications, so as to prove that they\ncan bear children, they wed them. [Sidenote: p. 467.] But they do\nnot company with them when pregnant, proving [thereby] that they do\nnot marry for pleasure but from need of children. And the women wash\nthemselves in the same way and don linen garments in the same way as\nthe men with their cinctures. This, then, concerning the Essenes.[129]\n\nBut there are others also disciplined in the customs of the Jews, and\ncalled both legally and generically Pharisees. The majority of whom\nare [to be found] in every place, and all call themselves Jews, but\non account of the special opinions held by them are called besides\nby specific names.[130] Now they, while holding fast the ancient\ntradition, continue to enquire methodically into what things are clean\nand what unclean according to the Law. And they interpret the things of\nthe Law, putting forward teachers for that purpose. And they say that\nFate is, and that some things are due to free-will and some to Fate,\nso that some [come] by ourselves and some by Fate. But that God is the\ncause of all, and that nothing is arranged or happens without His will.\nAnd they confess the Resurrection of the Flesh and that the [Sidenote:\np. 468.] soul is immortal, and [admit] a judgment to come and a future\nconflagration, and that the wicked will be punished in unquenchable\nfire.\n\n29. But the Sadducees eliminate Fate, and confess that God neither\ndoes nor contemplates anything evil; but that man has the power to\nchoose the good or evil. But they deny not only the Resurrection of the\nFlesh, but also consider that the soul does not survive. But that its\n[function] is to live and that that is why man is born. And that the\ndoctrine of the Resurrection is fulfilled by leaving children on earth\nwhen we die. But that after death there will be no hope of suffering\neither evil or good. For [they say that] there will be a dissolution\nof soul and body and that man will go to that which is not in the same\nway as the other animals. And that if a man has great possessions, and\nhaving become rich is [thereby] glorified, he is so far the gainer; but\nthat God does not take care of the affairs of [Sidenote: p. 469.] any\none individual. And while the Pharisees love one another, the Sadducees\nlove [only] themselves. The same heresy was especially strong round\nabout Samaria. And they give heed to the customs of the Law, saying\nthat one ought to do so that one may live well and leave children\nbehind on earth. But they pay no attention to the Prophets, nor to any\nother wise men, but only to the Law [given] through Moses. Nor do they\ninterpret anything. This then is the heresy of the Sadducees.[131]\n\n30. Since now we have set forth the differences among the Jews, it\nseems proper not to pass over in silence the discipline of their\nservice of God. Now there is a fourfold system with regard to the\nservice of God among all Jews [to wit] Theological, Physical, Moral\nand Ceremonial.[132] And they say that there is one God, the Demiurge\nof the All and the Maker of all things that before were not,[133]\nnor did He make them from any subordinate essence, but He willed and\ncreated. And that there are angels and that they have come into being\nfor the service of creation; but that there is also a Spirit having\nauthority ever standing beside Him for the glory and praise of God.\nAnd that all things in the creation have sensation and that nothing is\nwithout soul.[134] And they pursue customs tending to a holy [Sidenote:\np. 470.] and temperate life as is to be recognized in their Law. But\nthese things were of old carefully laid down by those who originally\nreceived a God-made Law, so that the reader will be astonished at\nso much moderation and care in the customs prescribed for man. But\nthe ceremonial service offered in becoming fashion was excellently\nperformed by them as it is easy for those who wish to learn by reading\nthe Book discoursing on these matters.[135] [There they will see] how\nreverently and devoutly they offered to God the things given by Him for\nthe use and enjoyment of man, obeying Him orderly and constantly. Some\nof these [doctrines] the Sadducees reject; for they hold that neither\nangels nor spirit exist.[136]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 471.] But all alike wait for Christ, the Coming One\nforetold by the Law and the Prophets. But the time of the Coming was\nnot known of the Jews, [so that] the supposition endured that the\nsayings which appeared to concern the Coming were unfulfilled. But they\nexpect that Christ will presently come, since they did not recognize\nHis presence. And seeing the signs of the times of His having come\nalready, this troubles them, and they are ashamed to confess that He\nhas come, since with their own hands they became His murderers, through\nanger at being convicted by Him of not having hearkened to their Laws.\nAnd they say that He who was thus sent by God is not Christ. But they\nconfess that another will come who as yet is not, and will bear some of\nthe signs which the Law and the Prophets foreshowed; but some things\nthey imagine wrongly. For they say that his birth will be from the race\nof David, but not from a Virgin and [the] Holy Spirit, but from a woman\nand a man, as it is a rule for all to be begotten from seed. And they\ndeclare that he will be a king over them, a man of war and a mighty\none, who, having gathered together the whole nation of Jews, will make\nwar on all the nations and [Sidenote: p. 472.] re-establish for them\nJerusalem as the royal city. Whereunto he will gather in the whole\nnation, and again will restore the ancient customs, while [the nation]\nis king and priest[137] and dwells in security for a sufficient time.\nThen shall again spring up against them a war of [the nations] gathered\ntogether. In this war the Christ shall fall by the sword and not long\nafterwards the end and conflagration of the All shall draw near, and\nthus their conjectures about the Resurrection shall be fulfilled, and\neveryone shall be recompensed according to his works.[138]\n\n31. It seems to us that the opinions of all Greeks and Barbarians\nhave been sufficiently set forth, and that nothing has been left\nundemonstrated either of the philosophizings[139] or of the things\nimagined by the heretics. To those among them [who read this], the\nrefutation from what has been set forth is clear [viz.] that either\nplagiarizing from or laying under contribution what the Greeks have\nelaborated, they have put them forward as divine. Now, having run\nthrough all [these systems] and having declared with much labour in\nthe nine books [above] all these opinions, thereby leaving to all men\na little guide through life, and furnishing to the [Sidenote: p. 473.]\nreaders a study of no little joy and gladness, we think it reasonable\nto present as the conclusion of the whole [work] a discourse on the\nTruth.[140] And we shall write this in one book, [viz.] the Tenth. So\nthat the reader, having recognized the overthrow which the heresies of\nthese audacious men have sustained, may not only despise their follies,\nbut by also recognizing the power of the Truth, [and] by worthily\nbelieving in God, can be saved.\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1. The book Elchesai, as will presently be\nseen, is said to have been revealed \u201cin the third year of Trajan\u201d and\ntherefore long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably\nrefers here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (_Haer._, LVII) would make\na native of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against\nwhom Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called\nPatripassian, which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on\nthe Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was \u201cnot very long\u201d dead when\nHippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus\u2019 Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi,\n_Bibl. Vet. Patr._ II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to\nhave been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern\nin origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius.\nHippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and\nCallistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the\nlast-named Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon\u2019s\narticles in _D.C.B._, s.n.n. \u201cNoetus,\u201d \u201cPraxeas,\u201d \u201cEpigonus\u201d and\n\u201cCleomenes,\u201d and Mr. Hugh Pope\u2019s article on \u201cMonarchian\u201d in Hastings\u2019\n_Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Theodoret (_Haer. Fab._, III, 3) would reverse this\nposition and make Cleomenes Epigonus\u2019 teacher and not his pupil. He has\nprobably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists\nfrequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their\nsuccessors.]\n\n[Footnote 4: This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus\u2019 quarrel\nwith the Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus\u2019 predecessor in the Roman\nChair, he speaks well. Cf. p. 128 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.ff]\n\n[Footnote 6: \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 7: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. The Codex has \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\nHe evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. 41) he has given a\nfew words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous\nreference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. 154 _supra_) where\nhe calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI\n(p. 4 _supra_) where he attributes Simon\u2019s image of \u201ca fiery God\u201d\nnot to Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice\u2019s emendation holds good\nthis shows that Book I was originally published separately and called\n\u201cPhilosophizings,\u201d the rest of the work being known as the _Elenchus_\nor \u201cRefutation.\u201d Cf. Introduction _supra_. Bishop Wordsworth (St.\n_Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880), gets over the\ndifficulty by reading the passage \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201cin\nthis our Philosophumena,\u201d and this reading has been adopted in this\ntranslation.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Cf. Stobaeus, _Eclog. Phys._, I, xlii.]\n\n[Footnote 9: \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 10: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u201clisten to the argument.\u201d\nHippolytus had he written in English would doubtless have said \u201cthe\nWord,\u201d but this has a different connotation in modern language.]\n\n[Footnote 11: \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 without the article.]\n\n[Footnote 12: \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. It is very difficult\nto make sense of these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them\nuntranslated.]\n\n[Footnote 13: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd. Playing at _tessera_ or draughts. Cr.,\n_tesseras jaciens_, a game in which there was chance as well as skill\nlike backgammon. Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into\nHeraclitus\u2019 mouth.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Some word missing here.]\n\n[Footnote 15: \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd supplied from the next quoted sentence.]\n\n[Footnote 16: The Codex has \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Cruice substitutes \u1f45\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\nand translates _Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt_.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Something probably omitted here also.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 19: A screw. Also a staircase.]\n\n[Footnote 20: \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cdestructive.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 21: \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7. Cr., _Inopia_, Macm., \u201cCraving.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 22: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the\nCreation.]\n\n[Footnote 23: So Clem. Alex., _Strom._, V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict\nthe destruction of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to\nthe Stoics.]\n\n[Footnote 24: It has not been thought well to delay the reader by\nattempting to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients\nthemselves did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the\nonly likeness between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his\nsuccessors was due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel\nbetween them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by\nhis own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.]\n\n[Footnote 25: A pun on \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper\nname.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Another pun between \u1f01\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 27: The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book\nX.]\n\n[Footnote 28: \u1f08\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthat cannot be confined (in space),\u201d or what\nwe mean when we say that He is infinite.]\n\n[Footnote 29: \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthat cannot be dominated.\u201d One would have\nexpected the word \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; but as this was one of the honorific titles\nof the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Not \u201csovereignty\u201d but the doctrine of One Source and\nRuler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time,\nand the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.]\n\n[Footnote 31: There can be little doubt as to the source of this\nchapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of\nextracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the\ntaking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are\ndoubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus\nbefore \u201cthe blessed presbyters\u201d who expelled him from the Church as\ndescribed in Hippolytus\u2019 own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on\np. 118 _supra_. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made\nuse of the same passages of Scripture as \u201cTheodotus,\u201d which explains\nthe allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to\nbe found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and\nCallistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no\nreason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion\nof Noetus or his successors.]\n\n[Footnote 32: In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses\nhis chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole\nwork. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in\nthe Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are\ntherefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion\nthat the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person\nhas now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus\u2019\nadversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of\nRome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being\nquickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story\nwhich Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by\nthe frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor\nDuchesne (_Hist. ancienne de l\u2019\u00c9glise_, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman\n(_The Catholic Encyclop\u00e6dia_, New York, 1908, s.v. \u201cCallistus\u201d), of the\nview that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although\nmuch exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they\nfollow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. D\u00f6llinger at the first\nappearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to\nseriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to\nthe points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. D\u00f6llinger\u2019s opinion, garbled\nor added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more\nsatisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references,\nexcept when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of D\u00f6llinger\u2019s\n_Hippolytus and Callistus_, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus\u2019 primacy appears\nfrom several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he\nwas killed apparently in a riot.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to\n218.]\n\n[Footnote 34: \u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. It is thought that this is a\n_pluralis majestatis_ consequent on Hippolytus\u2019 claim to be himself\nBishop of Rome.]\n\n[Footnote 35: The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers\ndifficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The\nreading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not\ndoubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 36: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7, _i.e._ \u201cthe laity.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 37: \u201cWorshipper of two gods.\u201d In D\u00f6llinger\u2019s opinion (_op.\ncit._, p. 219) this accusation was well founded.]\n\n[Footnote 38: \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth,\nCruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1f76 and translate \u201cseems\ngood,\u201d for which use of the word I can find no precedent.]\n\n[Footnote 39: \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. A play on the double meaning of the word,\nwhich might be translated \u201che was martyred.\u201d But Callistus had not been\nmartyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u1f1c\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from A.D. 188\nto 193.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose\ninscription is to be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, _Bull._,\n1866, p. 3, and Duchesne, _Hist. ancienne_, I, p. 294, n. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 42: \u201cPublic Fishpool.\u201d It was one of the fourteen _Regiones_\nof the city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is\nhere not translated, but written in Greek letters.]\n\n[Footnote 43: \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his\naddress to Fuscianus later. D\u00f6llinger, _op. cit._, argues that this\ndoes not necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus\u2019 part as he may\nhave lost the money in an attempt to increase his master\u2019s profit. See\nnote on next page.]\n\n[Footnote 44: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f43\u03c2. Bunsen calls this \u201ca rank Latinism.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 45: D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p. 109) draws attention to\nCarpophorus\u2019 cruelty as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian\nto the awful punishment of the treadmill.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Portus Ostiensis or Ostia, the Port of Rome.]\n\n[Footnote 47: D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) argues that this was not\nsuicide but an attempt to escape.]\n\n[Footnote 48: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, transliterated as before. The terrible\nnature of this punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio,\n_Dict. des Antiq._, s.h.v.]\n\n[Footnote 49: D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) thinks that he had lent it\nto the Jews, and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.]\n\n[Footnote 50: See last note. In D\u00f6llinger\u2019s opinion, he only went there\nto ask for his money.]\n\n[Footnote 51: \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 52: D\u00f6llinger (_ubi cit._) points out that Carpophorus\u2019\nspeech throws further light on his character. Callistus _was_ a\nChristian, as Hippolytus admits. Carpophorus\u2019 anxiety to prevent his\nbeing sentenced is explained by the fear of losing Callistus\u2019 services,\nsentence of penal servitude acting as manumission.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Victor\u2019s exact date is uncertain, but he probably\nsucceeded Eleutherus as Pope in A.D. 189 and was himself succeeded by\nZephyrinus in 202.]\n\n[Footnote 54: \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3. Some would translate \u201cpriest\u201d;\nbut the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.]\n\n[Footnote 55: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 56: D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._) thinks there is no doubt from this\nthat Callistus was both condemned and set free as a Christian.]\n\n[Footnote 57: From this, from the intervention of the brethren with\nCarpophorus and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, D\u00f6llinger\n(_op. cit._) draws the conclusion that Callistus\u2019 conduct up to this\npoint must have seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.]\n\n[Footnote 58: The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his\nname, where many of the early Popes are buried.]\n\n[Footnote 59: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 60: \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5. See n. 3 on p. 127.]\n\n[Footnote 61: _i. e._ imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.]\n\n[Footnote 62: Evidently refers to Hippolytus\u2019 charge of Sabellianism\nagainst him.]\n\n[Footnote 63: \u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c2. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is\nunusual.]\n\n[Footnote 64: See note on p. 125 _supra_. D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p.\n219) thinks that Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests\nthat Origen may have shared the error.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Bishop Wordsworth (_St. Hippolytus and the Church of\nRome_, 1880, p. 87) would translate: \u201cThe Word is the Son and also the\nFather, being called by a different name, but that the indivisible\nSpirit is one.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 66: Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u201cBelieve\nme\u201d (imperative).]\n\n[Footnote 67: D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p. 216) says this is a correct\nstatement of the Catholic position.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Bunsen would read \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd, [\u201cthus] avoiding.\u201d Cruice\ninserts \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cthus hoping to avoid.\u201d D\u00f6llinger inserts\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 before \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 69: If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of\nByzantium mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by\nVictor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and\nhis opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus\nassumes that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that\nCallistus and the more numerous party within it are only a \u201cschool.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 71: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cgathered in,\u201d \u201ca member of any other man\u2019s\ncongregation,\u201d Wordsworth; _ab alio fuerat seductus_, Cruice, whom\nMacmahon follows.]\n\n[Footnote 72: A logical term.]\n\n[Footnote 73: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p. 140) points out\nthat Lectors, acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in\nthe phrase \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3 afterwards used, and that such persons were not\nforbidden to marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no\ndoubt that Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that\nCallistus did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more\nthan once.]\n\n[Footnote 74: \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Rom. xiv. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Matt. xiii. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 77: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 78: \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u201ca freed man\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 79: D\u00f6llinger (_op. cit._, p. 158) suggests that this is a\nreference to the _contubernium_, or concubinage known to Roman Law,\nwhich the Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case\nof Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted\nthat Hippolytus calls her \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u039a\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 only.]\n\n[Footnote 80: This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does\nnot accuse Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was\nbegun in his time, is apparently brought in here to connect this\nchapter with the next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any\nfoundation, it would certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.]\n\n[Footnote 81: No other author seems to have taken up this name, and\nthe rest of the paragraph shows that it was Callistus\u2019 party which was\nregarded as Catholic and Hippolytus\u2019 as schismatic. As Hippolytus was\nwriting of matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of\nhis readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material\nfrom any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in\nCallistus\u2019 life that he here narrates may have been obtained _viv\u00e2\nvoce_ from Carpophorus.]\n\n[Footnote 82: This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and\nprobably had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before\nChristian times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the\nmost effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression.\nProf. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the Mand\u00e6an\nreligion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on the subject\n(_Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk_, Leipzig, 1912), thinks\nthat Elchasai, a name which may mean something like \u201cPower of the Sun,\u201d\nwas a real man who flourished in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117),\nand founded in Syria an eclectic religion made up of the doctrines of\nJudaism and Christianity, mingled with the belief in the sovereign\nefficacy of baptism found among the Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or\n\u201cWashers,\u201d who still exist. Thus, according to En-Nad\u00eem (Fl\u00fcgel\u2019s\n_Mani_, p. 340), these Mughtasila in the tenth century still reverenced\nas a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who seems to be our Elchasai, along\nwith Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. It also appears that his successors\nsent out missionaries to the West, including doubtless the Alcibiades\nof our text. Origen, in his Homily on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having\nmet with one of these who may have been Alcibiades himself. They seem\nto have obtained some success among the Ebionite and Essene communities\non the shores of the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and\nEusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at\nits birth. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions\nthem in connection with the \u201cheresies\u201d of the Nazar\u00e6ans, Ebionites\nand Samps\u00e6ans respectively, but like Theodoret does little but repeat\nHippolytus\u2019 statements.]\n\n[Footnote 83: This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer\nto Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he\nprofessed to receive his revelations.]\n\n[Footnote 84: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf \u03a3\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, Chinese? Or it may be a town called Serae.]\n\n[Footnote 85: Brandt (_op. cit._, p. 42) thinks the word is Mand\u00e6an or\nAramaic, and means \u201cthe Baptized,\u201d _i.e._ the Mughtasila.]\n\n[Footnote 86: These measurements, intended to show the enormous\ndifference in size between the celestial powers and mankind, are\npeculiarly Jewish and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.]\n\n[Footnote 87: The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours.\nThe schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and\nPersians.]\n\n[Footnote 88: _i. e._ as that of Callistus.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Hippolytus\u2019 motive in thus connecting Alcibiades\u2019\nvisit with Callistus\u2019 proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing\nin common in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he\n(probably erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy\nof the ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 91: \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cbastard.\u201d Is this an allusion to the composite\nnature of the Elchesaite religion?]\n\n[Footnote 92: All these phrases are so condensed as to make the\nconjectural restoration of important words necessary. It would seem\nthat the author was here hurrying over his task.]\n\n[Footnote 93: \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. The Jewish Law is of course intended.]\n\n[Footnote 94: Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered\ninto the conceptions of the Mand\u00e6ans, Mughtasila, or any other sects\nwith which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist\nideas seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did\nAlcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the\nallusion to the Seres.]\n\n[Footnote 95: \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 96: The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in\nthe plural. Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would\nbe more than that number. Brandt (_op. cit._) thinks many mistakes in\nthis chapter are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic\ninto Greek. He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament\ncelebrated with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five\nelements of Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant\nto which Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from\nthe ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled\nfor the purpose of conjuration.]\n\n[Footnote 97: \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2. Cruice and Macmahon both translate\n\u201cspirit of destruction.\u201d It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors\nof the spell seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal\nmight produce infection.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Both Miller and Duncker read \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9, which has been\nadopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9, \u201cshow\nhimself unto.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 99: \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those\nwho observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.]\n\n[Footnote 100: _i. e._ \u201con which they bear rule\u201d--a well-known\nastrological phrase.]\n\n[Footnote 101: _i. e._ \u201crises and sets with them.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 102: This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the\nevil stars rule. Probably some words like \u201cwhich God has chosen\u201d are\nomitted.]\n\n[Footnote 103: Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan\u2019s successful\ncampaign against the Parthians a calamity?]\n\n[Footnote 104: \u1f0c\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, lit., \u201cof the Bears.\u201d Thus Cruice. But it is\nprobably another case of putting plurals for singulars.]\n\n[Footnote 105: It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which\nfixes the date of Elchasai\u2019s book. If, however, we take Trajan\u2019s\ninvasion of Parthia at A.D. 113, which seems the most likely date, the\nrebellion of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out\nwithin the three years mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by\nMarcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may\ntherefore well be later than this.]\n\n[Footnote 106: A possible allusion to Matt. vii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 107: For the reason of this omission see Introduction,\n_supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 108: \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cwhen I have not kept silence about\u201d--a\nroundabout phrase.]\n\n[Footnote 109: This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X.\nThis shows the close connection between the Summary and the first nine\nBooks, and proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself,\nwas at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.]\n\n[Footnote 110: The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai\nwere doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to\nRome by Alcibiades.]\n\n[Footnote 111: The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in\nwriting this description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth\nBook are stated in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted\nfrom Josephus, the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by\nhim, and the words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to\nsuggest that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be\na Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely,\nsince Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but\nit is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the\naccount of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some\nJewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, the\nMessianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt under\nBar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as he\nmust have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish\nnation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may\ntherefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements\nwhich Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his own\nagree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout\nthe marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except where\nhe is manifestly using the work of another as model, being slurred\nover and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two cases, he\ncontradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, making\na subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. See n. on\np. 147 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 112: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean \u201cthe\nlearned\u201d simply.]\n\n[Footnote 113: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7, \u201cspecies,\u201d or \u201ckinds.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 114: \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews\nare Essenes? Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted\nas in the title to this chapter. The rest of the section is almost\n_verbatim_ from Josephus, _de Bell Jud._, II, 8, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 115: \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cmake them their own children.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 116: \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. A Latinism here used for the first time by\nHippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 117: These two sections also are taken from Josephus, _op.\ncit._, II, 8, 3, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 118: So is this. Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 119: \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b9. The president of the feast is evidently a\ndifferent person from the official of the same name in \u00a7 20, or of the\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 or priest in \u00a7 21, _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 120: Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose\n\u00a7 6 this section is taken.]\n\n[Footnote 121: \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, _volumen ad usum fidelium_, Cruice,\n\u201ctreatise,\u201d Macmahon.]\n\n[Footnote 122: This, too, is almost _verbatim_ from Josephus, _op.\ncit._, II, 8, 7; but it is to be noted that Hippolytus omits the\nobligation to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the\nangels.]\n\n[Footnote 123: Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, \u00a7 8.]\n\n[Footnote 124: Like the Egyptian _turria_, an axe with its blade at\nright angles to instead of in a line with the shaft. Much used for\ndigging.]\n\n[Footnote 125: This section also is taken from Josephus, _op. cit._,\nII, 8, 9. Hippolytus omits to say that the blasphemers of Moses were to\nbe punished capitally. The refusal to get out of bed is not mentioned\nby Josephus.]\n\n[Footnote 126: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, lit., \u201ctraining,\u201d as for a gymnastic\ncompetition. Cf. our word \u201cascetic.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 127: Josephus, _op. cit._, \u00a7 10, says that the sect and not\ntheir teaching was fourfold. He transfers the story of pollution by\ntouch to the attitude of the seniors towards the juniors, and knows\nnothing of the gate story. The Zealots, according to him (_op. cit._,\nVII, 8, 1) grew up under the Sicarii, who defended Masada against the\nRomans in Vespasian\u2019s time. The rest of this section corresponds with\nhis Book II, 8, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 128: In this section, Hippolytus leaves Josephus, except as\nto the Islands of the Blessed and the Essene gift of prophecy, both of\nwhich are to be found in Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 11, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 129: Josephus (_op. cit._, II, 8, 13), almost _verbatim_\nthrough the whole section.]\n\n[Footnote 130: \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, properly \u201cnicknames.\u201d He seems to\nimply that while they called themselves Jews, other people knew them\nas Pharisees, Chasidim, or Puritans. The statement about Fate and the\neverlasting punishment of the wicked is to be found in Josephus (_op.\ncit._, II, 8, 14), but the reward of the good is there said to be\nmetempsychosis.]\n\n[Footnote 131: This section also appears to be expanded from Josephus,\n_op. cit._, II, 8, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 132: \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae.]\n\n[Footnote 133: He here seems to imply that in the view of the Jews, at\nany rate, the All was made from pre-existent material, as a house from\nbricks, while some things were created _e nihilo_. This is denied in\nthe next sentence.]\n\n[Footnote 134: \u1f04\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. Perhaps with Cruice and Macmahon, we should\ntranslate \u201cwithout _life_.\u201d Yet it seems hardly possible that Jews\nconsidered stones and minerals as alive.]\n\n[Footnote 135: Leviticus?]\n\n[Footnote 136: Here he, or perhaps some commentator, has to contradict\nwhat he has just said about \u201call\u201d Jews believing these doctrines.]\n\n[Footnote 137: \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cacting as kings and priests.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 138: Here again it is plain that \u201call Jews\u201d could not believe\nthis statement of Messianic hopes, and the Sadducees in particular\nwould have repudiated what he says about the Resurrection and future\nrecompense.]\n\n[Footnote 139: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, a play quite in Hippolytus\u2019 usual\nmanner on the name of the Book and its meaning. It should be noted that\nthe \u201cthings imagined by the heretics\u201d correspond to the second title,\n\u201cRefutation of all Heresies.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 140: He has already promised this in the conclusion to the\nchapter on the Elchesaites (p. 138 _supra_), which strengthens one\u2019s\nconviction that that on the Jews was an afterthought. It is plain,\nhowever, that nine Books were intended to precede the \u201cDiscourse on the\nTruth.\u201d Here again, he does not mention the Summary.]\n\n\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 474.] BOOK X\n\n SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH\n\n\n1. These are the contents of the 10th [Book] of the Refutation of all\nHeresies.\n\n2. An epitome of all the philosophers.\n\n3. An epitome of all [the] heresies.[1]\n\n4. And what is in all things the Word of Truth.\n\n5. Having broken through the labyrinth[2] of the heresies without\nviolence but rather having dissolved them by our single refutation\nin the power of Truth, we now draw near to the demonstration of the\nTruth itself. For then the manufactured sophistries of the error will\nappear inconsistent, when the definition of the Truth has shown that\nit has not taken its beginnings from the philosophy of the Greeks. Nor\n[has it taken] from [the] Egyptians [the] doctrines (and) the follies\nwhich are adored among them as worthy of faith--as [the] mysteries\nhave taught--nor has it been devised out of the inconsistent jugglery\nof [the] Chald\u00e6ans, nor been forged by the unreasoning madness of\n[the] Babylonians through the activity of demons.[3] In whatever\nshape, however, the definition subsists, it is true, unguarded, and\nunadorned,[4] and by its appearance alone will refute the [Sidenote:\np. 475.] error. Concerning which, although we have many times made\ndemonstrations, and have pointed out the Rule of Truth sufficiently\nand abundantly for those who are willing to learn, yet once again we\njudge it reasonable on the top of all the doctrines of the Greeks and\nheretics, to place as if it were [the] crown of the books [preceding],\nthis demonstration by means of the tenth book.\n\n6. Now having brought together the teachings of all the sages among\n[the] Greeks in four books,[5] and those of the heresiarchs in\nfive, we shall point out the Doctrine concerning the Truth in one,\nafter having first made a summary of what has been the opinions of\nall. For the teachers of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three\nparts, so philosophize, some preaching Physics, some Ethics and some\nDialectic.[6] And those who preached Physics thus declared, some that\nall things were born from one, others from many. And of those who\nsaid [they came] from one, some [said they came] from what had no\nQuality, and others from that which had Quality. And of those who [said\nthey came] from that which had Quality, some [said that they came]\n[Sidenote: p. 476.] from fire, others from air, others from water and\nyet others from earth. And of those who [said they came forth] from\nmany things, some [said that they came] from numerable things [others\nfrom boundless ones. And of those who said they came from numerable\nthings], some [say that they came] from two, others from four, others\nfrom five, and others from six. And of those [who say] that they came\nfrom the boundless things, some [say that they came] from things like\ngenerated things, others from those unlike. And some of them say that\nthey came from things impassible, others from things passible. The\nStoics indeed would establish the birth of the universals from that\nwhich has no Quality and one body. For according to them, matter\nunqualified and capable of change by means of the universals is their\nsource. And when it is transformed, fire, air, water and earth come\ninto being. And those who will have all things to come into being from\nthat which has Quality are the followers of Hippasus and Anaximander\nand Thales the Milesian. Hippasus the Metapontian[7] and Heraclitus\nthe Ephesian declared the genesis of things to be from fire, but\nAnaximander from air, Thales from water, and Xenophanes from earth.\n\n \u201cFor all things [came forth] from earth and all end in earth.\u201d[8]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 477.] 7. Of those who would derive the universals from\n[the] many and [the] numerable, the poet Homer declares that the\nuniversals have been composed of earth and water when he says:--\n\n \u201cOcean source of Gods and mother Tethys.\u201d[9]\n\nand again:--\n\n \u201cBut turn ye all to water and earth.\u201d[10]\n\nAnd Xenophanes the Colophonian seems to agree with him, for he says:--\n\n \u201cAll we are sprung from earth and water.\u201d[11]\n\nBut Euripides says from earth and aether, as he lets us see from his\nsaying:--\n\n \u201cI sing aether and earth, mother of all.\u201d[12]\n\nBut Empedocles from four, saying thus:--\n\n [Sidenote: p. 478.] \u201cHear first the four roots of all things;\n Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and A\u00efdoneus\n And Nestis who wets with tears the human source.\u201d\n\nBut from five, Ocellus the Lucanian[13] and Aristotle. For with the\nfour elements they include the fifth and rotating body whence, they\nsay, are all heavenly things. But from six, the followers of Empedocles\nderived the birth of all things. For in the verses where he says:--\n\n \u201cHear first the four roots of all things\u201d\n\nhe makes everything come from four. But when he adds to this:--\n\n \u201cAnd baleful Strife apart from these [and] equal everywhere,\n And Love with them equal in length and breadth,\u201d[14]\n\nhe is handing down six things as sources of the universals [_i. e._]\nfour material: earth, water, fire, [and] air and two, [Sidenote: p.\n479.] the agents Love and Strife. But the followers of Anaxagoras the\nClazomenian and Democritus and Epicurus and very many others whose\n[opinions] we have before recorded in part, taught that the genesis\nof all things was from the boundless. But Anaxagoras says they came\nfrom things like those produced; but the followers of Democritus and\nEpicurus, from those unlike and impassible, that is from the atoms;\nand those of Heraclides the Pontian[15] and Asclepiades[16] from those\nwhich are unlike, but passible, such as disconnected corpuscles.\nBut the followers of Plato say that they came from three, and that\nthese are God, Matter and Exemplar; but he divides matter into four\nprinciples: fire, water, earth, air; and says that God is the Demiurge\nof Matter, but Exemplar the Mind.\n\n8. Now, having been persuaded that the system of Natural Science[17] is\nconfessedly found unworkable by all these [philosophers], we ourselves\nshall unhesitatingly say concerning the examples of the Truth what they\nare and how we believe in them. But in addition we will first set forth\nin epitome the [opinions] of the heresiarchs, so that [Sidenote: p.\n480.] the opinions of all being thereby easy to discern, we may display\nthe Truth as clear and easy to discern also.\n\n\n 1. _Naassenes._\n\n9. But since this seems fitting, we will begin first with the\nministers of the serpent. The Naassenes call the first principle of\nthe universals a man and also Son of Man,[18] and him they divide into\nthree. For part of him, they say, is intellectual, part psychic, and\npart earthly. And they call him Adamas and think the knowledge of him\nis the beginning of the power to know God. And they say that all these\nintellectual and psychic and earthly [parts] came into Jesus, and that\nthe three substances spoke together through Him to the three races of\nthe All. Thus they declare that there are three races, [the] angelic,\npsychic [and] earthly, and that there are three Churches, angelic,\npsychic and earthly; but that their names are [the] Called, Chosen,\n[and] Captive. These are the heads of their doctrine in so far as it\ncan be briefly comprehended. They [Sidenote: p. 481.] say that they\nwere handed down by James the Brother of the Lord to Mariamne, thereby\nbelying both.[19]\n\n\n 2. _Perat\u00e6._\n\n10. But the Perat\u00e6, Ademes the Carystian and Euphrates the Peratic[20]\nsay that a certain cosmos--this is what they call it--is one divided\ninto three. But of this threefold division of theirs, there is a single\nsource, as it were a great fountain, capable of being cut by the reason\ninto boundless sections. And the first and most excellent section is\naccording to them the triad and the one part of it is called Perfect\nGood [and] Fatherly Greatness. But the second part of the Triad is, as\nit were a certain boundless multitude of powers, and the third is that\nof form. And the first [of the Triad] is unbegotten (since it is good:\nbut the second good and self-begotten and the third, begotten).[21]\nWhence they say explicitly that there are three gods, three words,\n[Sidenote: p. 482.] three minds [and] three men. For to each part of\nthe cosmos when the division was made, they assign Gods and Words and\nMen and the rest. But from on high, from the unbegotten state and from\nthe first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos had already been\nbrought to completion, there came down in the time of Herod a certain\ntriple-natured and triple-bodied and triple-powered man called Christ,\nhaving within Him all the compounds and powers from the three parts of\nthe cosmos. And this they will have to be the saying: \u201cIn Him dwells\nall the Fulness of the Godhead bodily.\u201d For [they say that] there came\ndown from the two overlying worlds, namely from the unbegotten and the\nself-begotten, to this world in which we are, all sorts of seeds of\npowers. And that Christ came down from the Unbegottenness in order that\nthrough His descent all the things triply divided may be saved. For the\nthings, he says, brought down from on high shall ascend through Him;\nbut those who take counsel together against those brought down shall be\nruthlessly rejected and having been punished shall be sent away. And\nhe says that those [worlds] which will be saved are two, the overlying\nones [Sidenote: p. 483.] released from corruption. But the third will\nbe destroyed, which is the world of form.[22] And thus the Perat\u00e6.\n\n\n 3. _The Sethiani._\n\n11. But to the Sethians it appears that there are three definite\nprinciples of the universals. And that each of these principles (has\nboundless powers ... everything which you perceive by your mind or\nwhich you pass over for lack of thought)[23] is formed by nature to\nbecome [each of the principles] as in the human soul every art is to be\nlearned. As if [they say] there should come to a boy spending some time\nwith a pipe-player, the power of pipe-playing, or with a geometrician\nthe power of measurement, or in like manner with any other art. But the\nsubstances of the principles, they say, are light and darkness. And\nbetween them is pure spirit. But the spirit which is set between the\ndarkness which is below and the light which is above is, they say, not\nspirit like a gust of wind or any small breeze which may be perceived,\nbut resembles some faint fragrance of balsam or [Sidenote: p. 484.]\nof incense artificially compounded as a power penetrating by force of\nfragrance and better than words can say. But because the light is above\nand the darkness below and the spirit between them, the light, like\na ray of the sun on high, shines on the underlying darkness, and the\nfragrance of the spirit holding the middle place is borne and spread\nabroad as the odour of incense on the fire is borne. And as the power\nof the triply divided is such, the power of the spirit and the light\ntogether are below in the darkness beneath. But, they say, the darkness\nis a fearful water into which the light is drawn down with the spirit\nand changed into a similar nature. Now the darkness is sensible, and\nknows that if the light is taken away from it, the darkness will remain\ndesolate, viewless, without light, powerless, idle and weak. In this\nway by all its wit and foresight it is forced to retain within itself\nthe brilliance and scintillation of the light along with the fragrance\nof the spirit.\n\nAnd with regard to this, they bring in this image, saying that as\nthe pupil of the eye appears dark because of the [Sidenote: p. 485.]\nwaters underneath it, but it is made light by the spirit, thus the\nlight seeks after the spirit and retains for itself all the powers\nwhich wish to withdraw and to depart. But these are ever boundless,\nwherefrom all things are modelled and become like mingled seals. For,\nas the seal coming into conjunction with the wax, makes the impress,\nwhile itself remains by itself whatever it was, so the powers coming\ninto conjunction with each other elaborate all the boundless races of\nliving things. Therefore [they say] came into being from the first\nconjunction of the three principles, the form of a great seal [_i.e._]\nof heaven and earth, which had a shape like a womb with the navel in\nthe midst. Thus also the rest of the models of all things were modelled\nresembling a womb like heaven and earth. But they say that from the\nwater came into being the first born principle, a violent and rushing\nwind the cause of all generation, which sets in action a certain heat\nand movement in the cosmos from the movement of the waters. And [they\nsay] [Sidenote: p. 486.] that this was changed into a complete form\nlike the hissing of a serpent, beholding which the cosmos is driven to\ngeneration, being excited like a womb, and therefrom they will have\nit the generation of the universals is established. And they say that\nthis wind is a spirit and that a perfect god came into being from the\nwaters and from the fragrance of the spirit and from the brilliance of\nthe light. And that there is also the begetting of a female, Mind, the\nspark from on high which is mingled with the accretions of the body and\nhastens to flee away so that it may escape and not find dissolution\nthrough being enchained in the waters. Whence it cries aloud from the\nmingling of the waters according to the Psalmist, as they say. \u201cThus\nthe whole care of the light on high is how it shall draw the spark\nbeneath from the Father who is below,\u201d [that is], from the wind which\nputs in action heat and disturbance and creates for himself Mind (a\nperfect son) who is not (peculiar) to himself, [whom] they declare,\nbeholding the [Sidenote: p. 487.] perfect Word of the light from on\nhigh, changed Himself into the form of a serpent and entered into a\nwomb, so that He might take again that mind which is a spark of the\nlight. And this, [they say] is the saying: \u201cWho, being in the form of\nGod, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself,\ntaking the form of a servant.\u201d And this the unhappy and wicked Sethians\nwill have to be the [servile] form.[24] This then is what they say.\n\n\n 4. _Simon._\n\n12. And the all-wise Simon says thus. There is a boundless power and\nthis is the root of the universals. The boundless power is, he says,\nfire. According to him, it is not simple, as the many say the four\nelements are simple and therefore think fire is simple; but [he says]\nthat the nature of the fire is double, and of this double [nature] he\ncalls one part hidden and the other manifest. And [Sidenote: p. 488.]\nthat the hidden parts are concealed within the manifest parts of the\nfire, and the manifest parts of the fire are produced by the hidden.\nBut, he says, that all the seen and unseen parts of the fire are to be\nconsidered as having sense.[25] Therefore, he says, the begotten world\ncame into being from the unbegotten fire. But it began to come into\nbeing, he says, thus. The begotten [cosmos] took from the principle\nof that fire the first six roots of the principle of generation. For\nthese six roots were born from the fire by pairs, which he calls\nNous and Epinoia, Phon\u00ea and Onoma, Logismos and Enthymesis. And [he\nsays] that in these six roots [taken] together, the Boundless Power\nexists (potentially but not actively, which Boundless Power) he says\nis the \u201cHe who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,\u201d which if it be exactly\nreflected will be within the six powers in substance, powers, greatness\nand influence, being one and the same as the Unbegotten and Boundless\nPower, and in no way inferior to that Unbegotten and Unchangeable and\nBoundless Power. But if it remains only potentially in the Six Powers\nand is not exactly [Sidenote: p. 489.] reflected, it, he says, vanishes\nand will die away like the grammatical or geometrical power in the mind\nof a man, when he does not receive technical teaching in addition. And\nSimon says that himself is the He Who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,\nbeing the Power which is above all.[26] Thus, then, Simon.\n\n\n 5. _Valentinus._\n\n13. But Valentinus and those from his school say the Source of the All\nis a Father and yet are carried into conflicting opinions [about him].\nFor some of them [think] that he is alone and capable of generation,\nwhile others hold that he is incapable of bringing forth without a\nfemale, and give him as a spouse Sig\u00ea, calling him Bythos. From whom\nand from his spouse some say that six projections came into being,\n[viz.] Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zo\u00eb, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and\nthat this is the first Ogdoad which brings forth.[27] And, again, [they\nsay] that the projections which were first born within the Limit[28]\nare called the things within the Pleroma; but those second, those\n[Sidenote: p. 490.] without the Pleroma; and those third, those without\nthe Limit, the offspring of which last exists as the Hysterema.[29]\nBut he says that there was born from that which was projected in the\nHysterema, an Aeon, and that this is the Demiurge, for he does not\nwish him to be the First God, but speaks ill both of him and of what\ncame into being by him. And [he says] that Christ came down from that\nwhich was within the Pleroma for the salvation of the Spirit that went\nastray, which dwells in our inner man, which they say will be saved for\nthe sake of the indwelling one. But [Valentinus] will not have it that\nthe flesh will be saved, calling it a \u201ccoat of skin\u201d and a corrupter\nof mankind. I have described this in epitome, as one meets with much\nmatter [concerning it] and differing opinions among them. This then is\nwhat Valentinus\u2019 school thinks.[30]\n\n\n 6. _Basilides._\n\n14. But Basilides also says that there is a God-Who-Is-Not who, being\nnon-existent [made] the created world out [Sidenote: p. 491.] of the\nthings that are not. [He says] that a certain seed, like a grain of\nmustard-seed was cast down, which contained within itself the stem,\nthe leaves, the branches [and] the fruit; or, like a peacock\u2019s egg,\ncontains within itself a varied multitude of colours, and they say\nthat this is the seed of the cosmos, from which all things were\nproduced. For [he says] the seed contained all things within itself,\ninasmuch as thus the things that were not were preordained to come\ninto being by the God-Who-Is-Not. Then there was, they say, in that\nseed a Sonhood, tripartite and in all things of the same substance\nwith the God-Who-Is-Not, being begotten from the things that were not.\nAnd of this tripartite Sonhood, one part was [itself] finely divided,\nanother coarsely so, while the other part needed purification. But the\nfinely-divided part, straightway and concurrently with the happening\nof the first casting-down of the seed by the God-Who-Is-Not, escaped\nand went on high and came into the presence of Him-Who-Is-Not. For\nevery nature yearns for Him because of His superabundance of beauty,\nbut each in a different way. But the more coarsely divided [part] abode\nin the Seed and being merely imitative could not go on high, for it\nwas much inferior [Sidenote: p. 492.] to the finer part.[31] And it\nwas given wings by the Holy Spirit, for the Sonhood putting them on,\nboth gives and receives benefit.[32] But the third Sonhood has need of\npurification. It remains in the heap of the Panspermia and it gives and\nreceives benefit. And [he says] that there is something called [the]\nCosmos and something hypercosmic for (the things that are) are divided\nby him into these two primary divisions. And what is between them, he\ncalls [the] Boundary Holy Spirit, having the fragrance of the Sonhood.\n\nFrom the Panspermia of the heap of the cosmic seed, there escaped and\nwas brought forth the Great Ruler, the chief of the Cosmos, [a being]\nof unspeakable beauty and greatness. And he, uplifting himself to\nthe firmament thought there was none other above him. And he became\nbrighter and mightier than all below him, save the Sonhood left behind\nwhom he did not know to be wiser than he. This [Ruler] having turned to\nthe fashioning of the Cosmos, first begat for himself a Son better than\nhe, and made him sit at his right hand. And this [place of the Ruler]\nthey declare the Ogdoad. He then builds the whole [Sidenote: p. 493.]\nheavenly creation. But another Ruler ascended from the Panspermia,\ngreater than all those lying beneath save the Sonhood left behind,\nbut much inferior to the first, and he is called Hebdomad. He is the\nCreator and Demiurge and Controller of all below him; and he also made\nfor himself a son more foresighted and wiser than he. But all these,\nthey say, are according to the predetermination of that One-Who-Is-Not,\nand are worlds and boundless spaces.[33] And [Basilides] says that\non Jesus who was born of Mary the power of [the] Gospel came, which\ndescended and illumined the Son of the Ogdoad and the Son of the\nHebdomad for the illumination and separation and purification of the\nSonhood left behind that he might benefit and receive benefits from\nthe souls. And they say that themselves are sons [of God], who for\nthis purpose are in the world, [viz.] that they may purify the souls\nby their teaching and go on high together with the [third] Sonhood\nto the presence of the Father above, from whom the first Sonhood\nproceeded.[34] And they declare that the cosmos shall endure until\nall the souls together with the Sonhood shall withdraw [from it]. And\nBasilides is not ashamed to narrate these portents.[35]\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 494.] 7. _Justinus._[36]\n\n15. Justinus also daring to [advance] things like these, says thus:\n\u201cThere are three unbegotten principles of the universals, two male\n[and] one female.\u201d Of the male, one is a certain principle called the\nGood, and is alone thus called, having foreknowledge of the universals.\nBut the other [male] is the Father of all begotten ones, and has no\nforeknowledge and is unknown and unseen and is called, they say,\nElohim. [But] the female is without foreknowledge, inclined to passion,\ndouble-minded, double-bodied, as in the stories about her[37] which we\nhave above related in detail, the upper parts of her down to the groin\nbeing a virgin and those [below] a viper. The same is called Edem and\nIsrael. And he declares that these are the principles of the universals\nwherefrom all things came into being. And [he says] that Elohim\ncame without foreknowledge to desire for the composite virgin, and,\ncompanying with her, begat [Sidenote: p. 495.] twelve angels. The names\nof these are....[38] And of these the paternal ones take sides with\nthe (father); but the maternal ones with the mother. The same are (the\ntrees of Paradise)[39] whereof Moses, speaking allegorically, wrote in\nthe Law. And all things were made by Elohim and Edem; and the animals\ntogether with the rest of [creation] come from the beast-like parts,\nbut man from those above the groin. And Edem deposited in [man] the\nsoul which is her power (but Elohim the spirit). But he declares that\nElohim having learned [of the light above him] ascended to the presence\nof the Good One and left Edem behind. Whereat she being angered makes\nevery plot against the spirit of Elohim which is deposited in man. And\nfor his sake, the Father sent Baruch and commanded the Prophets (to\nspeak) so that he might set free the spirit of Elohim and draw all\nmen away from Edem. But he [Sidenote: p. 496.] declares that Heracles\nbecame a prophet and that he was worsted by Omphale, that is by Babel,\nwhom they name Aphrodite. And at last in the days of Herod Jesus became\nthe son of Mary and Joseph, to Whom he declares Baruch to have spoken.\nAnd that Edem plotted against Him, but could not beguile Him, and\ntherefore made Him to be crucified. Whose spirit [Justinus] says went\non high to the Good One. And thus (the spirits) of all who believe\nthese silly and feeble stories will be saved; but the body and soul\nbelonging to Edem, whom the foolish Justinus calls the Earth,[40] will\nbe left behind.[41]\n\n\n 8. _The Docetae._\n\n16. But the Docetae say things like this: That the first God is as\nthe seed of the fig-tree from whom have come three Aeons, like the\nstem and the leaves and [Sidenote: p. 497.] the fruit. And that these\nhave projected thirty Aeons, each of them (ten). But all are linked\ntogether in tens and only differ in arrangement by some being before\nothers.[42] And they projected infinitely boundless Aeons and are all\nmasculo-feminine. And having taken counsel they all came together into\none and from this intermediate Aeon was begotten from the Virgin Mary\nthe Saviour of all, like in all things to the seed of the fig-tree,\nbut inferior to it in that He was begotten. For the seed whence the\nfig-tree [comes] is unbegotten.[43] This then was the great light of\nthe Aeons, complete, receiving no setting in order,[44] containing\nwithin itself the forms of all the animals. And [they say] that this\n[light] shining into the underlying chaos provided a cause to the\nthings which have been and are, and descending from on high impressed\n[on the] chaos below the forms of the Aeonic exemplars.[45] For the\nthird Aeon which had tripled itself, seeing that all his types were\ndrawn down into the darkness below and not being ignorant of the\nterrible nature of the darkness and the simplicity of the light,\ncreated heaven and having fixed it between, divided in twain the\ndarkness and the light.[46] Then all the forms of the third Aeon\nhaving been overcome, [Sidenote: p. 498.] they say, by the darkness,\nhis likeness[47] subsisted as a living fire coming into being by the\nlight. From which, they say, the Great Ruler came to be, of whom Moses\ntalks when he says that this God is a fiery God and a Demiurge who ever\ntransfers the forms[48] of all (Aeons) into bodies. But they declare\nthat it is these souls for whose sake the Saviour came,[49] and showed\nthe way whereby those that had been overcome may escape. And [they\nsay] that Jesus did on that unique power, wherefore He could not be\ngazed upon by any by reason of the overpowering greatness of His glory.\nAnd they say that all things happened to Him as is written in the\nGospels.[50]\n\n\n 9. _Monoimus._\n\n17. But the followers of Monoimus the Arab say that [Sidenote: p. 499.]\nthe principle of the All is a First Man[51] and Son of Man, and that\nthe things which have come to pass as Moses says, came into being not\nby the First Man but by the Son of Man, and not from the whole, but\nfrom part of him. And that the Son of Man is Iota, which is the Decad,\na dominant number wherein is the substance of all number, whereby\nevery number subsists, and is the birth of the All [viz.] Fire, Air,\nWater [and] Earth. But this being so, Iota is one and one tittle, a\nperfect thing from the Perfect, a tittle flowing from on high, having\nwithin itself whatever also has the Man the Father of the Son of Man.\nTherefore [Monoimus] says that the world of Moses came into being in\nsix days, that is, in six powers, from which the cosmos came forth from\nthe one tittle. For cubes and octahedrons and pyramids and all the\nequal-sided figures like these, whence are made up Fire, Air, Water\n[and] Earth, have came into being from the numbers left behind in that\nsimple tittle of the Iota which is the Son of Man. When therefore, he\nsays, Moses speaks of a rod turning [Sidenote: p. 500.] towards Egypt\nhe is attributing allegorically the woes[52] of the world to the Iota,\nnor does he figure more than the ten woes. But if, he says, you wish\nto understand the All, enquire within thyself who it is who says, \u201cMy\nsoul, my flesh, my mind,\u201d[53] and who within thee makes each thing his\nown as another does to him. Understand that this is a perfect thing\nfrom the Perfect who considers all the so-called non-existent and all\nthe existent as peculiar to himself.[54] This then is what Monoimus\nthinks.\n\n\n 10. _Tatian._\n\n18. But Tatian, like Valentinus and the others, says that there are\ncertain unseen Aeons, by one of whom below the cosmos and the things\nthat are, were fashioned. And he practises a very cynical mode of life,\nand hardly differs from Marcion in his blasphemies and his rules about\nmarriage.[55]\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 501.] 11. _Marcion._[56]\n\n19. Marcion the Pontian, and Cerdo his teacher, also determined that\nthere are three principles of the All, a Good One, a Just One, and\nMatter. But certain disciples of theirs add to this, saying that there\nare a Good One, a Just One, a Wicked One, and Matter. But all [agree]\nthat the Good One created nothing wholly;[57] but they say that the\nJust One, whom some name the Wicked One, but others merely the Just,\nmade all things out of the underlying Matter. For he made them not well\nbut absurdly.[58] For things must need be like their creator. Wherefore\nthey make use of the parable in the Gospels, saying, \u201cA good tree\ncannot make evil fruits,\u201d[59] and so on, declaring that in this it is\nsaid that things were devised wickedly by [the Just One]. And he says\nthat Christ is the son of the Good One and was sent for the salvation\nof souls. Whom he calls [the] inner man, saying that He appeared as a\nman, [Sidenote: p. 502.] but was not man, and as incarnate, but was\nnot incarnate, and was manifested in appearance [only], but underwent\nneither birth nor suffering, but seemed [to do so]. And [Marcion] does\nnot wish that [the] flesh shall rise again. And, saying that marriage\nis destruction, he leads his disciples to a very Cynical life, thinking\nthereby to vex the Demiurge by abstaining from the things brought into\nbeing or laid down by him.[60]\n\n\n 12. _Apelles._\n\n20. But Apelles, the disciple of [Marcion] displeased with what was\nsaid by his teacher, as we have before said, proposed by another\ntheory that there are four Gods, declaring that one is (good) whom the\nProphets knew not, but of whom Christ is the Son. And that another is\nthe Demiurge of the All, whom he does not wish to be a god, and another\na fiery one who is manifest, and yet another a wicked one: [all of]\nwhom he calls angels. And adding Christ to these, he says that He is\nthe fifth. But he gives heed to a book which he calls _Manifestations_\nof a certain Philumene whom he thinks a prophetess. And he says\n[Sidenote: p. 503.] that Christ did not receive the flesh from the\nVirgin, but from the adjacent substance of the cosmos. Thus he has\nwritten treatises[61] against the Law and the Prophets attempting to\ndiscredit them as false speakers and ignorant of God. And he says, like\nMarcion, that [all] flesh will be destroyed.[62]\n\n\n 13. _Cerinthus._\n\n21. But Cerinthus, who had been trained in Egypt, would have it that\nthe cosmos did not come into being by the First God, but by a certain\nangelic power far removed and standing apart from the Authority [set]\nover the universals and ignorant of the God over all things. And he\nsays that Jesus was not begotten from a Virgin, but was the son of\nJoseph and Mary in the same way as the rest of mankind, and that He\nexcelled all other men in righteousness, moderation and intelligence.\nAnd that at the Baptism, there descended upon Him from the Authority\nover the universals, the Christ in the form of a dove, and that He\nthen preached the unknown God and perfected his powers;[63] [Sidenote:\np. 504.] but that at the end of the passion the Christ fell away from\nJesus. And Jesus suffered, but the Christ remained passionless, being a\nspirit of [the] Lord.[64]\n\n\n 14. _Ebion\u00e6i._\n\n22. But the Ebion\u00e6i say that the cosmos came into being from the true\nGod; but speak of the Christ as does Cerinthus. And they live in\nall things according to the Law of Moses, thus declaring themselves\njustified.[65]\n\n\n 15. _Theodotus._\n\n23. Theodotus the Byzantian brought in another heresy such as this,\ndeclaring that the universals came into being by the true God. But he\nsays, like the Gnostics before described, that the Christ appeared in\nsome such fashion [as this]. He said that the Christ was a man akin to\nall, but He differed [from others] in that He by the will of God was\nborn from a Virgin who had been overshadowed by the [Sidenote: p. 505.]\nHoly Spirit. And that he was not incarnate in the Virgin, but at length\nat the Baptism the Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove,\nwhence they say He did not before then exercise powers. But he will not\nhave the Christ to be God. And so Theodotus.[66]\n\n\n 16. _Other Theodotians._\n\n24. And others of them say all things like those aforesaid, altering\none single thing only in that they accept Melchizedek as some very\ngreat power, declaring him to exist above every power. After whose\nlikeness they will have the Christ to be.[67]\n\n\n 17. _Phrygians._\n\n25. But the Phrygians take the beginnings of their heresy from one\nMontanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, thinking the wenches prophetesses\nand Montanus a prophet. But [Sidenote: p. 506.] they are considered to\nspeak rightly in what they say about the beginning and the fashioning\nof the All, and they receive not otherwise the things about the Christ.\nBut they stumble with those aforesaid to whose words they erringly give\nheed rather than to the Gospels, and they prescribe new and unusual\nfasts.\n\n26. But others of them approaching the heresy of the Noetians think\nin like manner concerning the wenches and Montanus, but blaspheme the\nFather of the universals saying that He is at once Son and Father, seen\nand unseen, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These take\ntheir starting-points from one Noetus.[68]\n\n\n 18. _Noetus._\n\n27. And in the same way Noetus, being a Smyrn\u00e6an by birth, a garrulous\nand versatile man, brought in this heresy, which from one Epigonus\nreached Cleomenes and has so remained with his successors until now.\nIt says that the [Sidenote: p. 507.] Father and God of the universals\nis one and that He made all things, and became invisible to the things\nwhich are when He willed, and then appeared when he wished. And that\nHe is invisible when He is not seen; but visible when He is seen; and\nunbegotten when He is not begotten, but begotten when He is begotten\nfrom a Virgin; and passionless and immortal when He does not suffer\nand die, but that when [the] Passion comes, He suffers and dies.\nThey think this Father is Himself called Son according to times and\ncircumstances.[69] The heresy of these persons Callistus confirmed,\nwhose life we have faithfully set forth. Who himself gave birth to a\nheresy, taking starting-points from them, while himself confessing that\nthis Fashioner the All is the Father and God; but that He is spoken\nof by name and named Son, while in substance He is (one Spirit). For\nGod, he says is a Spirit not other than the Logos nor the Logos than\nGod, and therefore this Person is divided in name indeed, but not in\nsubstance. And he names this one God, and says that He was incarnated.\nAnd he wishes the Son to be He who was seen and overcome according to\n[Sidenote: p. 508.] the flesh, but the Father to be He who dwelt within\n[Him]. He sometimes branches off to the heresy of Noetus and sometimes\nto that of Theodotus, but holds nothing steadfastly. This now Callistus.\n\n\n 19. _Hermogenes._\n\n28. But one Hermogenes having also wished to say something [new] said\nthat God made all things out of co-existent and underlying matter. For\nthat it is impossible to hold that God created existing things from\nthose which are not.[70]\n\n\n 20. _Elchasaitae._\n\n29. But certain others, as if bringing in something new [and]\ncollecting things from all heresies, prepared a foreign book bearing\nthe name of one Elchasai. These in the same way [as their predecessors]\nconfess that the principles of the All came into being by God, but do\nnot confess Christ to be one. But they say that there is one on high\n[Sidenote: p. 509.] who is often transferred[71] into [many] bodies,\nand that he is now in Jesus. Likewise that at one time, this one was\nborn from God, and at another became [the] Spirit, and sometimes was\nborn from a Virgin and sometimes not. And that thereafter he is ever\ntransferred into [many] bodies, and is manifested in many according\nto [the] times. And they use incantations and baptisms for their\nconfession of the elements.[72] And they are excited about astrology\nand mathematics and (give heed) to magic (acts). And they say they\nforeknow the future.[73]\n\n\n 21. [_Title lacking_].[74]\n\n30. (Abraham being commanded) by God, migrates from Mesopotamia and\nthe city of Harran to the part now called Palestine and Jud\u00e6a but then\nCanaanitis, concerning which we have in part but not without care\nhanded down the [Sidenote: p. 510.] account in other discourses.[75]\nThrough this occurred the beginning of [the] increase [of population]\nin Jud\u00e6a, which got the name from Judah the fourth son of Jacob, of\nwhom it was also called the kingdom, through the royal race being from\nhim. (Abraham)[76] migrates from Mesopotamia (being 75 years old) and\nbeing in his hundredth year (begat Isaac). (And Isaac being) 60 years\nold begat Jacob. And Jacob [when] 87 years old begat Levi. But Levi\nwhen 40 years old begat Kohath.[77] And Kohath [was 4] years old when\nhe went down with Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the whole time which\nAbraham and all his race by Isaac dwelt in the land then called [the]\nCanaanitis was 215 years.[78] And his (father) was Terah. This, one\u2019s\n[father] was Nahor, his Serug (his Zeu, his Peleg, his Eber) whence\n(the Jews) are [Sidenote: p. 511.] called Hebrews. There were 72 (sons\nof Abraham from whom also were 72) nations, whose names also we have\nset forth in other books.[79] Nor did we omit this in its place as we\nwished to show to the learned[80] our affection concerning the Divine\nand the accurate knowledge concerning the Truth which we have painfully\nacquired. But the father of this Eber was Shelah, and his Canaan,\nand his Arphaxad, who was born to Shem; and his father was Noah in\nwhose time the flood over the whole world came to pass, which neither\nEgyptians, nor Chald\u00e6ans, nor Greeks record. For to them the floods in\nthe time of Ogyges and Deacalion were [only] in places. Now in their\ntime[81] were 5 generations, or 435 years.[82] This [Noah] being a most\npious man and one who loved God, alone with [his] wife and children\nand their three wives escaped the coming flood, being saved in an\nark, the measurements and remains of which, as we have set forth[83]\n[elsewhere], are shown to this day in the [Sidenote: p. 512.] mountains\ncalled Ararat which are near the land of the Adiabeni. It is then to be\nobserved by those who wish to give a painstaking account how plainly\nit is shown that the God fearing race are older than all Chald\u00e6ans,\nEgyptians, [or] Greeks. But what need is there to name here those\nbefore Noah who both feared and spake with God, when to what has gone\nbefore the witness of antiquity is sufficient?\n\n31. But since it seems not unreasonable to show that those nations who\noccupy themselves with philosophy[84] are later in date than they who\nfeared God, it is right to say both where their race came from, and\nthat when they migrated to these countries, they did not take a name\nfrom them, but themselves gained [one] from those who first ruled[85]\nand dwelt [there]. The three sons of Noah were Shem, Ham and Japhet.\nFrom them the whole race of men multiplied and dwelt in every country.\nFor the word of God[86] was confirmed by them which said, \u201cIncrease\nand multiply and fill the earth.\u201d[87] So mighty was this one saying,\nthat 72 children were begotten by the 3 sons, family [Sidenote: p.\n513.] by family, of whom 25 were Shem\u2019s, 15 Japhet\u2019s, and 32 Ham\u2019s.\nAnd the sons of Ham were, as has been said 32:--his were Canaan, from\nwhom the Canaanites, Misraim, from whom the Egyptians, Cush, from\nwhom the Ethiopians, Phut, from whom the Libyans. These in their own\nspeech unto this day are called by the common name of their ancestors\nand even in the Greek are named by the names by which they have just\nbeen called. But if it were shown that there were formerly none to\ninhabit their countries, nor a beginning of [any] race[88] of men, yet\nthere are still these sons of Noah, a God-fearing man who was himself\na disciple of God-fearing men, thanks to which he escaped the great\nalthough temporary threat of [the] waters. How then can it be denied\nthat there were God-fearing men earlier than all Chald\u00e6ans, Egyptians\n[and] Greeks,[89] the father of which [last] was born to that Japhet\n[and had the] name Jovan, whence [the] Greeks and Ionians? And if the\nnations who occupy themselves with matters of philosophy are shown to\nbe altogether of much later date than the God-fearing race and the\nFlood, will not the Barbarian [Sidenote: p. 514.] and whatever races\nin the world are known and unknown, appear later than these? Wherefore\nnow, do ye Greeks, Egyptians and Chald\u00e6ans and every race of men master\nthis argument and learn what is the Divine and what His well-ordered\ncreation from us, the friends of God, who have not been trained in\ndainty phrase, but in the knowledge of Truth and the practice of\nmoderation find words for His demonstration.[90]\n\n32. One God is the First and Only One and Creator and Ruler of all. He\nhas no co\u00e6val, neither boundless chaos, nor immeasureable water, nor\nsolid earth, nor compact air, nor hot fire, nor subtle spirit, nor the\nblue canopy of great heaven.[91] But He was One, alone with Himself,\nwho when He willed created the things which are, which at first were\nnot, save that He willed to create them as knowing of what they would\nbe. For foreknowledge also is present with Him. He fashioned first the\ndifferent principles of things to come--fire and spirit,[92] water and\nearth,--from which different [principles] He made His creation. And\nsome [Sidenote: p. 515.] things He [made of] one substance and some\nhe bound together out of two, others of three and yet others of four.\nAnd those that are of one were immortal, for dissolution does not dog\nthem, for that which is one will never be dissolved. But those [made]\nfrom two or three or four [substances] are dissoluble, wherefore they\nare called mortal. For death is called this, the dissolution of what\nis bound together. We think we have now answered sufficiently those\nwho have sound perception, who, if for love of learning they will\nenquire further into these substances and the causes of the fashioning\nof all things, they will learn them by reading our book, treating of\n\u201cthe Substance of the All.\u201d[93] And I think that it is here enough\nto set forth the causes from ignorance whereof the Greeks glorified\nwith dainty phrase the parts of the creation, but ignored the Creator.\nStarting wherefrom the heresiarchs, transfiguring into like expressions\nwhat was formerly said by [the Greeks] have composed laughable heresies.\n\n33. This God, then, One and Over All having first conceived [Sidenote:\np. 516.] in His mind begat [the] Word, not a word in the sense of a\nvoice, but the indwelling Reason[94] of the All. He begot Him alone\nfrom the things which are. For the Father Himself was what is, from\nWhom was the Word, the cause of the begetting of things coming into\nbeing, bearing within Himself the will of His begetter, not ignorant\nof the thought of the Father. For from the time[95] of His coming\nforth from Him who begat Him, becoming His first-born voice, He holds\nwithin Himself the ideas conceived in His Father\u2019s mind. Whence, on the\nFather ordering the world to come into being, the Word completed it\nin detail,[96] [thus] pleasing God. And the things which multiply by\ngeneration, He formed male and female; but all those for service and\nministry he made either males who have no need of females or neither\nmale nor female. For when the first substances [Sidenote: p. 517.]\nof these came into being [namely] Fire and Spirit, Earth and Water,\nfrom the things that were not, neither male nor female things existed.\nNor could male and female have come forth from each of these, unless\nthe God who gave the command had willed that the Word should do this\nservice.[97] I confess that angels are [formed] of fire and I say that\nno females are present with them. But I consider that Sun and Moon and\nstars were in like manner [formed] of fire and spirit and are neither\nmale nor female. But I say that swimming animals were [formed] of water\nand that winged ones are male and female.[98] For thus God willed and\ncommanded that the watery substance should be fruitful. In like manner,\nserpents and wild beasts and all sorts of animals were [formed] from\nearth and are male and female; for this the nature of begotten things\nallowed. For whatever things He willed, those God created. These\nHe fashioned by the Word, for they could not have come into being\notherwise than they did. But when as He had willed He also created, He\ncalled and designated them by name. Thereafter He fashioned the ruler\nof them all, and equipped him from all substances brought together. Nor\ndid He wish to make a God and fail, nor an angel--be not deceived--but\n[Sidenote: p. 518.] a man. For had God willed to make thee a God, He\ncould: thou hast the example of the Word. But He willed a man and\ncreated thee a man. But if thou dost wish also to become a God, hearken\nto the Creator and withstand Him not now, so that being found faithful\nover a little, thou mayest be entrusted with much.[99]\n\nOnly the Word of this [God] is from Him. Wherefore He also is God,\nbeing the substance of God. But the world is from nothing. Wherefore it\nis not God and it will be dissolved[100] when the Creator wills. But\nGod who created makes nothing evil; but he creates it fair and good.\nFor He who creates is good. But man when he came into being was an\nanimal with free-will,[101] not having a ruling mind, nor dominating\nall things by reflection and authority and power, but a slave[102]\nand full of all contrary [desires].[103] Who, in that he is free to\nchoose produces evil, which when it is completed by accident is nothing\nunless thou dost make [it].[104] For it is by the thinking and willing\nsomething [Sidenote: p. 519.] evil, that it is named evil; which was\nnot from the beginning, but came into being later. [And] as man was\nfree to choose, a Law was laid down by God, not vainly. For if man were\nnot free to will or not to will, what need of a Law?[105] For the Law\nis not decreed for a dumb beast, but a bridle and a whip; but to man\nwas appointed a commandment and a penalty in respect of what he was to\ndo and not to do. And [the] Law as to this was laid down of old through\nrighteous men. Nearer to our own times, a Law full of majesty and\njustice was laid down through the Moses aforesaid, a steadfast man and\none who loved God.\n\nAll these things, the Word of God directs, the First-born Son of\n[the] Father, the light-bringing voice before dawn.[106] Thereafter\nthere came into being righteous men who loved God. These were called\nprophets from their showing beforehand the things to come.[107] To whom\nword came not at one season [only], but through all generations the\nutterances of things foretold was most clearly brought forward.[108]\n[Sidenote: p. 520.] Nor did they merely give an answer to those present\nthere at the time, but through several generations also the things to\ncome were foreshadowed. [And this] because speaking of things past\nthey recalled them to mankind; but by showing what was then happening\nthey put away carelessness, and by foretelling the future have made\nevery one of us fearful by the sight of the fulfilment of prophecies\nand the expectation of the future. Such is our faith, O all ye men who\nare not persuaded by vain speeches, nor captured by sudden movings of\nthe heart, nor enchanted by plausible and eloquent words, but have not\nbeen obdurate to words uttered by Divine power. And these things God\ncommanded [the] Word; and the Word speaking through [the prophets],\nuttered them for the turning of man from disobedience and emancipating\nhim from the force of Fate, but calling him to liberty by his free\nchoice.[109]\n\nThe Father in the last days sent forth this Word, not speaking through\na prophet, and not wishing that the Word when proclaimed should be\ndarkly guessed at, but that He should be manifested to the very eyes\nof all. He, I say, [Sidenote: p. 521.] (sent Him forth) that the\nworld when it beheld Him should be put to shame. For He did not give\ncommandment through the person of prophets, nor affright [the] soul by\nan angel, but was Himself present and spake. Him we know to have taken\nbody from a Virgin and to have moulded[110] the old man through a new\nformation. [We know] that He passed in life through every age,[111]\nso that He might become a law for every age, and that His presence\nmight show forth His manhood as an example[112] to all men; and that\nthrough Him it might be proved that God makes nothing evil, and that\nman as master of himself can will or not will [evil], being capable\nof both. We know, too, that this man came into being out of the same\nmaterial[113] as ourselves; for were He not of the same [matter] it\nwould be vain to order that the Teacher be imitated. For had that Man\nchanced to be of another substance [than ours] why should he order me\nwho am weak by nature to do things like Himself? And [in that case]\nhow is He good and just? But in order that He might not be thought\ndifferent from us, He underwent toil, and was willing to hunger, and\ndenied not thirst,[114] and was stilled in sleep, and renounced not\nsuffering, and [Sidenote: p. 522.] submitted to death, and manifested\nresurrection, sacrificing in all this His own manhood, so that thou\nwhen suffering may not be faint-hearted, but mayst confess thyself a\nman and expect also what the Father promised Him.\n\n34. Such is the true word about the Divine.[115] O all ye men, Greeks\nand Barbarians, Chald\u00e6ans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans,\nIndians and Ethiopians, Celts and ye army-leading Latins,[116] and\nall ye dwellers in Europe, Asia and Libya.[117] To you I am become a\ncounsellor, being a disciple of the Word who loves man and myself a\nlover of mankind, so that you may hasten to be taught by us who is\nthe real God and what His well-ordered creation. And that you give\nnot heed to the sophistries of artificial discourses,[118] nor to the\ncrazy promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the august simplicity\nof unboastful truth. Through the knowledge of which, you shall escape\nthe coming menace of the judgment of fire, and the unlighted vision of\ngloomy Tartarus unillumined by the voice of the Word, and [Sidenote: p.\n523.] the boiling of the Lake of the eternal Gehenna of flame, and the\never-threatening eye of the angels punished in Tartarus,[119] and the\nworm which through the filth of the body turns towards the body which\nthrew it forth as for food. And these things thou shalt escape when\nthou hast been taught the God Who Is. And thou shalt have an immortal\nbody together with an incorruptible soul. And thou shalt receive the\nkingdom of the heavens, who whilst on earth didst also recognize the\nheavenly King. But thou shall speak with God and be joint heir with\nChrist, not enslaved by desires nor sufferings nor diseases.[120] For\nthou [wilt] have become God. For whatever sufferings thou underwent as\nman, thou hast shown that thou art a man; but whatever is appurtenant\nto a God, that God has promised to bestow, because thou hast been made\ndivine, since thou hast been begotten immortal. This is the [true]\n\u201cKnow Thyself,\u201d the knowledge of the Creator God. For to him who knows\nhimself has occurred the being known to Him by whom [Sidenote: p.\n524.] he is called. Wherefore now, O men, be not your own enemies,\nnor hesitate to turn again. For Christ is the God over all, Who has\narranged to wash away iniquity from among men, and to make anew the old\nman who from the beginning was called His image, thus showing forth\nHis love towards thee. Having hearkened to Whose august precepts, and\nhaving become a good imitator of the Good One, thou wilt be like unto\nand be honoured by Him. For God asks no alms,[121] and has made thee\nGod for His own glory.\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: The promises before noted at the end of Books VIII and IX\nto declare the Doctrine of Truth says nothing of these epitomes, nor\ndo they always accord with the earlier Books which may be supposed to\nbe here epitomized. For a suggested explanation of this discrepancy\nsee Introduction, Vol. I, pp. 18, 19 _supra_. It should also be noted\nthat, while the author omits here any detailed mention of the contents\nof Books II, III, and IV, he can hardly have had Book I before his\neyes at the time of writing, or he would have referred to it directly\ninstead of quoting as he does from Sextus Empiricus. As has been\nsaid in the Introduction, the \u201cepitome of the heresies\u201d bears closer\nrelation to Books V-IX, although it omits several heresies included in\nthe epitomized books. That the writer, if not Hippolytus himself, is\nat any rate writing in his name, is plain from the wording of chap.\n5, _infra_, and we can hardly suppose a forger so reckless as not to\nhave read the earlier Books before attempting to epitomize them. On\nthe other hand, it is perfectly conceivable that Hippolytus had in his\npossession notes from which his earlier Books were written, and that\nof these only a part remained when he set to work to write Book X. It\nwould seem, therefore, that only some such hypothesis as that given in\nthe Introduction really fits the case.\n\nAs to the style of the Book it does not differ materially from that\nof the others, save in one particular. This is the frequent omission\nof the definite article, which is so frequent as to arouse suspicion\nthat the scribe may have been here translating from a Latin rather than\ncopying from a Greek original.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This is the main reason for supposing that this Book is\nthat called the _Labyrinth_ which Photius says was by the author of\nthe work _On the Universe_, attributed by the list on the chair to\nHippolytus. Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, \u201cHippolytus Romanus.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 3: All these were probably described in the missing Books II\nand III, together with Book IV, _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Book I only is concerned with the teachings of the Greek\nphilosophers; but Books II and III must, according to the promise in\nVol. I, pp. 63, 64, have contained an exposition of the mystic rites\nand astrological doctrine, and Book IV is entirely taken up with magic\nand divination. This is confirmed by the statement in Vol. I, p. 119.\nHippolytus must therefore have forgotten this when writing Book X, or\nat any rate did not have the earlier Books before him.]\n\n[Footnote 6: From here to the end of the section on p. 479 Cr., is a\ncopy from Sextus Empiricus\u2019 work, _Adversus Physicos_, c. 10. So close\nis this that we are able by its aid to correct by it the faulty text of\nSextus, and _vice vers\u00e2_. Sextus, as a sceptic, was of course as much\nopposed to the study of nature as Hippolytus, and was therefore only\ninterested in showing the discrepancies among its teachers. But how\ndoes this make the quotation from him an \u201cepitome\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 7: Not mentioned in Book I.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Karsten, VIII, p. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Il._, XIV, 201.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Il._, VII, 99.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Karsten, IX, p. 49.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Said to be a quotation from Euripides\u2019 _Hymns_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Not mentioned in Book I.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Cf. pp. 83, 84 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Not mentioned in Book I.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Not mentioned in Book I.]\n\n[Footnote 17: \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Cf. p. 371 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 19: In this chapter on the Naassenes, Hippolytus may be\nsupposed to have had before him either the whole of Book V or the\nnotes from which it was written. We may see, therefore, from this,\nwhat his idea of an epitome is. He does not try to condense his former\nstatements so as to give us a bird\u2019s-eye view of the whole heresy,\nbut picks out from them a few sentences which seem to him of special\nimportance. Hence it is only useful to us as a means of checking the\ntext, and brings us no nearer to an appreciation of the doctrines of\nthe sect.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Cf. Vol. I, p. 69 _supra_, where this Ademes is called\nAkembes and both he and Euphrates are mentioned as astrologers only. In\nVol. I, p. 149 also the order is reversed and Ademes is called Celbes.\nTheodoret, _Haer. Fab._, I, 17, quotes this chapter almost _verbatim_,\nthereby showing that it was Book X and not Book V which he copied.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Words in ( ) added from Theodoret, _ubi cit._]\n\n[Footnote 22: Cf. Vol. I, pp. 146-148 _supra_, which this chapter\nfollows closely.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Words in ( ) added from Vol. I, p. 161 _supra_. Nearly\nfour lines are wanting here which can be filled from the page quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Throughout this chapter, the summarizer copies closely\nthe former account of the Sethians, for which see Vol. I, pp. 160-169\n_supra_. I have not thought it worth while to draw attention to the\nslight differences in readings, but it is plain that the meaning in\nboth cases was as obscure to the summarizer as it is to us.]\n\n[Footnote 25: \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. This is evidently taken from the account of\nSimon\u2019s doctrine in Book VI, c. 12 (p. 6 _supra_), which says that\nthe unseen parts of the fire have \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u201cand a share of mind,\u201d\nwithout mention of the seen parts. The rest of this chapter, with the\nexception of the last sentence attributing supreme power to Simon, is\nsubstantially, but not exactly word for word, identical with c. 12 of\nBook VI. Cf. pp. 247, 250 and 259 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 26: The only ground for this assertion seems to be Simon\u2019s\nstatement to Helen of Tyre (see p. 15 _supra_), that he was the \u201cPower\nover all things,\u201d which seems to be explained by that on p. 12 _supra_,\nthat the Power which Stands, etc., is _potentially_ in all things.]\n\n[Footnote 27: \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. While in Book VI, of which these\nchapters profess to be a summary, the author describes Nous and\nAletheia with their projectors as the descendants of Bythos alone, he\nhere gives an account of the rival opinion that Bythos had a spouse\ncalled Sig\u00ea, and he reckons her in with her descendants so as to make\nup the number of eight.]\n\n[Footnote 28: This is, of course, the Horos of Book VI.]\n\n[Footnote 29: This word is also used in Book VI (see p. 286 Cr.), as\nthe exact converse of the Pleroma or Fulness.]\n\n[Footnote 30: It is curious that throughout this chapter there is no\nattempt to quote directly from Book VI, and that it is evidently the\nopinions of the Italic school of Valentinus and not the Anatolic that\nthe author is here summarizing. In the next chapter, as will be seen,\nhe resumes direct quotations.]\n\n[Footnote 31: So far, the author is transcribing almost _verbatim_ the\nstatements in Book VII, cf. pp. 346-350 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 32: This is not said of the Holy Spirit in Book VII, cf. pp.\n70, 71 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 33: This, too, is a new statement, although it may perhaps be\nimplied from what is said on pp. 72, 73 and 76 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 34: So p. 76 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Save as before noted, everything in this chapter is\nto be found in the account of Basilides given in Book VII. The few\nexceptions show that the summarizer had assimilated its contents and\nan intelligent knowledge of Basilides\u2019 teaching. He entirely omits,\nhowever, the prediction of the Great Ignorance.]\n\n[Footnote 36: The summarizer here takes Justinus from among the Ophites\nof Book V, where he is to be found in the earlier part of the text, and\nputs him after Basilides.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Reading \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7\u03c2 for \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.]\n\n[Footnote 38: These are omitted from the text, possibly because the\nsummarizer did not wish to repeat names which might be used in magic.\nCruice supplies them in his text from Book V, Vol. I, p. 173 _supra_,\nwhich see.]\n\n[Footnote 39: The words in round brackets ( ) are as elsewhere in this\nchapter supplied by Cruice from Book V.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Cf. Vol. I, p. 175 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 41: There is nothing in this chapter which is not taken from\nthe account of Justinus\u2019 doctrines in Book V, nor anything to show that\nthe summarizer had any knowledge of these except from this.]\n\n[Footnote 42: \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2!]\n\n[Footnote 43: So the Codex. Cruice has \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u201cbegotten,\u201d but I see\nno reason for the alteration.]\n\n[Footnote 44: \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Perhaps \u201cadornment.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 45: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Cf. p. 102 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 47: \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 48: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9. As before he means \u201cpatterns\u201d or \u201cexemplars.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 49: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Here again there is nothing which cannot be found in Book\nVIII (see pp. 99-105 _supra_), from which this chapter is evidently\ntaken. As has before been said, the summarizer to arrive at this has\nomitted all mention of Satornilus, Menander and Carpocrates, while the\nother systems mentioned in Book VII, he has placed after the Docetae\ninstead of before them.]\n\n[Footnote 51: The summarizer here uses for the first time in our text\nthe expression \u201cFirst Man,\u201d which plays so large a part in later\nheresies such as Manich\u00e6ism. For its early appearance in Western Asia\nand its influence see Bousset\u2019s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, c. 4, \u201cDer\nUrmensch,\u201d and _Forerunners_, I, p. lxi, and II, pp. 292, 293.]\n\n[Footnote 52: \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7. He evidently refers to the ten plagues as on p. 109\n_supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 53: He omits the \u201cMy God ... my understanding\u201d of the letter\nto Theophrastus, on p. 110 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 54: He alters the \u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (cf. p. 415 Cr.) to\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2--a fair proof of the inaccuracy of the scribe. Except\nfor the inaccuracies noted, however, there is no statement in this\nsummary which cannot be found in Book VIII, pp. 106-111 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 55: For these few lines, the summarizer has evidently not\ntaken the trouble to refer to the author\u2019s statements about Tatian in\nBook VIII, p. 111 _supra_. He now omits all reference to Justin Martyr,\nthere said to be Tatian\u2019s teacher, and to Tatian\u2019s peculiar ideas about\nthe salvation of Adam; while he introduces a special world-creating\naeon not mentioned elsewhere.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Here he omits the heresies of the Quartodecimans and\nthe Encratites, which receive notice in Book VIII, pp. 113, 115,\n116 _supra_, and passes on to Marcion, who was a contemporary of\nValentinus. It is plain, therefore, that he does not attempt in the\nsummary to keep either to order of date or to that of the earlier\nbooks.]\n\n[Footnote 57: \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. So the Codex. Some word seems to\nbe missing; but perhaps the passage should read \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cnone\nof the universals.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 58: \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03c2, \u201cunreasonably.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 59: Matt. vii. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 60: This also is certainly not taken from the chapters on\nMarcion in Book VII, pp. 82-90 _supra_, which are mainly devoted to an\nattempt to prove Marcion to have plagiarized from Empedocles. Nor is it\nfrom Iren\u00e6us or from the tractate _Adversus omnes h\u00e6reses_.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u201csummaries\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 62: The substance of this can be found in the account of\nApelles in Book VII, pp. 96-97 _supra_; but the summarizer does not use\nthe phrases of the earlier book, and he can hardly have had it before\nhim.]\n\n[Footnote 63: As before (p. 389 Cr.), Macmahon here translates \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u201che wrought miracles.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 64: This, on the other hand, is taken almost _verbatim_ from\nc. 33 of Book VII (pp. 92, 93 _supra_), the few slight differences\nbetween the two chapters being not other than a careless scribe might\nbe expected to make.]\n\n[Footnote 65: This also from Book VII, p. 93 _supra_, but slightly\ncondensed.]\n\n[Footnote 66: This also appears to be condensed from the account of\nTheodotus in Book VII, pp. 93, 94 _supra_. The summarizer adds to it\nthe alleged denial by Theodotus of Christ\u2019s divinity, which does not\nappear in Book VII.]\n\n[Footnote 67: This, too, is not inconsistent with the account of \u201cother\nTheodotians\u201d in Book VII, pp 94, 95 _supra_, but omits all reference to\nthe Nicolaitans.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Here the summarizer reverts to Book VIII, pp. 113, 114\n_supra_, from which his account of the Phrygians or Montanists appears\nto be taken. The phrases used are not identical, and while Book VIII\nmerely says that the Montanist heresy agrees with the Patripassianism\nof the Noetian, the Summary declares that the first was absolutely\nderived from the second.]\n\n[Footnote 69: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Cf. the\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd, p. 434 Cr. Otherwise this chapter seems\nto be a condensed paraphrase rather than a series of extracts from\nBook IX, the summarizer having here added together the \u201cheresies\u201d so\ncalled of Noetus and Callistus. As mentioned in the Introduction, he\nis careful not to mention that Callistus was a Pope, and in the last\nsentence but one, he omits the name of Sabellius which is mentioned in\nthe earlier book. Cf. p. 130 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 70: He now reverts to Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian\nwrote, and who must therefore in the time of Callistus have long been\ndead. The few lines given here correspond to the opening sentences of\nthe chapter on this heretic in Book VIII, p. 112 _supra_, which see.]\n\n[Footnote 71: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, lit., \u201cpoured\u201d as from one vessel into\nanother--a considerable amplification of the statement in Book IX, p.\n134 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Water and Earth are the only two \u201celements\u201d mentioned in\nthe exorcisms attributed to the Elchesaites in Book IX, p. 135 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 73: The statements in this account of the Elchesaites are all\nto be found in the description of them in Book IX, pp. 132-138 _supra_;\nbut the same words are not used, and there is nothing to show that the\nsummarizer had the earlier book before him at the time of writing.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Cruice suggests that the considerable lacuna that there\nevidently is here was filled by a summary of the chapters on the Jewish\nsects with which Book IX ends (see pp. 455-472 Cr.). This hardly seems\nto correspond with the form of what is left; but it is not impossible\nthat we have here excerpts from the book on chronology which we know\nHippolytus to have written. Another suggestion is that what follows is\nfrom his _Commentary on Genesis_, of which a few fragments survive.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Were these \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 the treatise \u201cOn the All\u201d which\nHippolytus wrote?]\n\n[Footnote 76: As throughout the words in round brackets ( ) are\nsupplied by Cruice. In this chapter they are mainly taken from Gen.\nxi., which see.]\n\n[Footnote 77: \u039a\u03b1\u1f70\u03b8. In all these names I have used the spelling of the\nA. V. as being more familiar to the general reader than that of the\nLXX.]\n\n[Footnote 78: If Abraham did not beget Isaac until he had been\ntwenty-five years in Canaan, the figures would be for Abraham\ntwenty-five, for Isaac sixty, for Jacob eighty-seven, for Levi forty,\nfor Kohath four. But this makes 216 at least.]\n\n[Footnote 79: So the fragment of the _Chronicon_ attributed to\nHippolytus in Fabricius, S. Hippolyt. _Opera_, p. 50, which perhaps\ngoes to show the authorship of the Summary.]\n\n[Footnote 80: \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 81: \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, that is reckoning from Noah to Eber.]\n\n[Footnote 82: Cruice would read 495 years.]\n\n[Footnote 83: \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. The phrase that he uses everywhere in the\nbook for statements in _this_ work. See n. on previous page.]\n\n[Footnote 84: \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1. This is in pursuance of Hippolytus\u2019 favourite\ntheory that philosophy was the source of all heresy.]\n\n[Footnote 85: \u1f00\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Macmahon translates \u201cwere born,\u201d but I think\nthe word is never used in that sense by Hippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 86: \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. An unusual phrase here.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Gen. i, 23.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Reading \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 with the Codex instead of the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of\nCruice.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Because these \u201cGod-fearing men\u201d were before the Flood,\nand the others could only have descended from Shem, Ham or Japhet.]\n\n[Footnote 90: This seems to be the author\u2019s meaning, but the reading is\nnot very well settled. Cruice translates _qui non elegantibus verbis\ndivina coluimus_, which Macmahon follows.]\n\n[Footnote 91: This is, of course, an allusion to the theories of the\n\u201cBarbarians\u201d on the Deity set out in Book IV. Cf. Vol. I, p. 104\n_supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 92: It is curious that throughout this chapter he uses\n\u201cspirit\u201d as the fourth element instead of \u201cair.\u201d So Photius, quoting\nfrom the work \u201cOn the All,\u201d which is attributed to Hippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 93: This work is known to us by the list on the chair\nmentioned in the Introduction, and by a notice by Photius, who seems\nto have read the work under the name of Josephus. Cf. Salmon in _D. C.\nB._, s.n. \u201cHippolytus Romanus.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 94: This \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 which Philo distinguishes from\nthe \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 seems to have been a phrase first adopted into\nChristian theology by Theophilus of Antioch.]\n\n[Footnote 95: \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 96: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f15\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 97: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc7.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Like most of the ancients, Hippolytus does not know that\nfish have sex.]\n\n[Footnote 99: Cf. Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xix. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 100: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201creceives dissolution.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 101: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u201chis own authority\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 102: _i. e._ to his passions. See p. 178 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 103: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 104: So Cruice. Macmahon says, \u201cwhich evil is not consummated\nexcept you actually commit some piece of wickedness,\u201d But the reading\nis very uncertain.]\n\n[Footnote 105: \u03c4\u03af \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u201cwhy was the Law enacted?\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 106: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u201cBefore the Morning Star.\u201d Cf. 2 Peter i.\n18, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 107: \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. The real derivation is from \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Cruice points out the likeness between this doctrine\nof the Word speaking through the Prophets, and that with which Origen\nbegins his treatise, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd (I, \u00a7 1), that before the Incarnation\n\u201cChrist, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets.\u201d It was\ndoubtless this, and the likeness between the theory of the origin of\nevil as given on pp. 518, 519 Cr. of our text, and that of Origen\n_in Joann_, II, 7, 8, which caused some commentator to write in the\nmargin of the Codex, \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1: \u201cOrigen and Origen\u2019s\nopinions.\u201d The words used in the two cases are too unlike to suggest\nany identity of authorship or conscious borrowing; but it is perfectly\nprobable that Origen when in Rome communicated with Hippolytus as head\nof the Greek-speaking community there, and that they had many ideas\nin common. This would account at once for the likeness between the\npassages noted and for the confusion between Hippolytus and Origen\nas the author of the _Philosophumena_, while it throws new light on\nOrigen\u2019s condemnation for heresy.]\n\n[Footnote 109: \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Reading with Cruice \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 for the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 of\nMiller. Although Miller\u2019s reading accords with the Scriptural \u201cput on\nthe old man,\u201d the allusion is evidently to the \u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1 of a few lines\nlower down.]\n\n[Footnote 111: This is evidently an allusion to the extraordinary\ntheory of Hippolytus\u2019 master, Iren\u00e6us (Book II, c. 33, \u00a7 3, p. 331,\nHarvey), that Christ having suffered at 30 years old lived and taught\nafter the Resurrection until He was \u201c40 or 50,\u201d thus \u201cpassing through\nevery age.\u201d Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 61 and note.]\n\n[Footnote 112: \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u201carm\u201d or \u201cgoal.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 113: \u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1, lit., \u201cdough\u201d or plastic substance.]\n\n[Footnote 114: An allusion to the Word on the Cross.]\n\n[Footnote 115: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 116: It is curious that he does not call them Romans.]\n\n[Footnote 117: The Greek name for the province called by the Romans\nAfrica.]\n\n[Footnote 118: He is here repeating the phrase used on p. 150, with\nwhich he begins this Book. Its repetition shows the continuity of this\nlast and that it was all written at the same time and by the same\nauthor.]\n\n[Footnote 119: \u03a4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Tartaruchian is a Coptic\nform. See Budge\u2019s _Miscellaneous Texts of Upper Egypt_, 1915, p. 590.]\n\n[Footnote 120: \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Cr. _familiaris_, Macm., \u201ccompanion of.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 121: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9. The phrase has given much concern to\ncommentators. Cruice suggests \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, \u201chas a great esteem\nfor thee.\u201d Wordsworth translates \u201chas a longing for thee.\u201d Macmahon\n\u201c(by such signal condescension) does not diminish aught of the dignity\nof His divine perfection.\u201d The phrase is probably an allusion to the\nheathen notion formally stated by Aelius Aristides and others that the\ngods _had need_ of the sacrifices of mortals.]\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n\n Adam of Cabala, i. 120 _n._ 6;\n the first man, _ap._ Chald\u00e6ans, i. 122;\n arch-man of Samothrace, i. 132;\n made by Jaldabaoth and his sons, _ap._ Ophites, i. 122 _n._ 3.\n _See_ Tatian\n\n Adamas, supreme god of Naassenes, i. 120;\n the \u201cunsubdued,\u201d epithet of Hades, Dionysos and Attis, i. 120 _n._ 6;\n called the arch-man, i. 128, 129;\n Isaiah\u2019s words attributed to, i. 134\n\n Adonis, Assyrian name of Attis, i. 124\n\n Aetius, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 5;\n his _de Placitis Philosoph._ quoted, i. 39 _n._ 3, 43 _n._ 1, 56 _n._ 1\n\n Aipolos = goatherd according to Phrygians, i. 137\n\n Akembes, the Carystian, joint founder of Peratic heresy, i. 69, 149; ii.\n 154.\n _See_ Euphrates\n\n Alcibiades, of Apamea. _See_ Elchesaites\n\n Alcinous, chief source of Hippolytus for Plato\u2019s doctrines, i. 51 _n._ 3\n\n Al\u00e9s, Adh\u00e9mar d\u2019, his _Th\u00e9ologie de St. Hippolyte_ quoted, i. 66 _n._ 1\n\n Amygdalus, Phrygian name of Attis, i. 140\n\n Anaxagoras, his teaching, i. 44-46\n\n Anaximander, his teaching, i. 42, 43\n\n Anaximenes, his teaching, i. 43, 44\n\n Andronicus the Peripatetic, quoted by Sethiani, i. 167\n\n Apelles, follower of Marcion. His tenets, ii. 96, 97;\n his prophetess Philumena, ii. 96;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 166\n\n Apocatastasis, return of worlds to Deity, ii. 75 _n._ 4\n\n Apparitions of gods, how produced by magicians, i. 97, 100\n\n Apsethus the Libyan, story of, ii. 3, 4\n\n Archelaus, his teaching, i. 46, 47\n\n Aristotle, i. 16;\n his teaching, i. 55-57;\n his _Categories_, i. 55 _n._ 5;\n his Quintessence, i. 56 _n._ 1; ii. 72 _n._ 4;\n phrase of, used by Simon M., ii. 11 _n._ 4;\n Basilides\u2019 tenets attributed to, ii. 62-66. _See_ Plato\n\n Arithmomancy, i. 83-87\n\n Armellini attributes _Philosophumena_ to Novatian, i. 6\n\n Arnold, Prof. E. V., his _Roman Stoicism_ quoted, i. 57 _n._ 3, 127\n _n._ 3, 136 _n._ 5; ii. 45 _n._ 7, 79 _n._ 6\n\n Asclepiades, i. 19; ii. 152\n\n Assyrians = Syrians, i. 123 _n._ 6;\n teach triune nature of Deity, _ib._\n\n Astrology, source of heresy, i. 34;\n the Chald\u00e6an system of, i. 67-69;\n folly of, i. 70-75, 113;\n zodiacal types of, i. 88-91\n\n Astronomers, calculations of, i. 76-83;\n Hippolytus\u2019 contempt for, i. 82\n\n Athen\u00e6us, his _Deipnosophist\u00e6_ quoted, i. 108 _n._ 3\n\n Attis, legend of, i. 118 _n._ 1;\n hymns to, sung in Mysteries of great Mother, i. 141, 142;\n names of: Adonis, Osiris, Moon, Sophia, Adamna, Corybas, Papas,\n Aipolos, Amygdalus, Syrictas, _ib._\n\n Babylonians, say god is Darkness, _ap._ Hippolytus, i. 104\n\n Baptism, in primitive Church followed by milk and honey, i. 136 _n._ 9\n\n Barbelo, the earth-goddess, of Gnostics, i. 139 _n._ 5\n\n _Baruch_, book of. _See_ Justinus\n\n Basilides, i. 13, 14, 16;\n his tenets, ii. 59-79;\n hearer of Glaucias, ii. 59 _n._ 1;\n of Matthias, ii. 66;\n his son Isidore, _ib._;\n his God-who-is-Not, ii. 67.\n The Panspermia, ii. 68;\n Ascension of First Sonhood, ii. 69;\n of Second Sonhood, ii. 70;\n the Boundary Spirit, _ib._;\n the Great Ruler and his greater Son, ii. 71, 72;\n the second ruler or Hebdomad, ii. 73;\n descent of the Gospel, ii. 75;\n the 365 heavens and Habrasax, ii. 76;\n light which shines upon Jesus and His Passion, _ib._;\n Apocatastasis of Formlessness and Mission of Jesus, ii. 77-79;\n the great ignorance, ii. 77;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 159-161.\n _See_ Simon of Cyrene, Aristotle\n\n Baubo. _See_ Hecate\n\n Baur, Chr. F., attributes _Philosophumena_ to Caius the presbyter, i. 6\n\n Beelzebuth, made from perplexity of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 31;\n name parody of Jabezebuth, ii. 31 _n._ 2\n\n Benn, Alfred W., his _Philosophy of Greece_ quoted, i. 37 _n._ 6, 43\n _n._ 1\n\n Bigourdan, G., his _L\u2019Astronomie: Evolution des Id\u00e9es_, etc., quoted,\n i. 80 _n._ 3\n\n Blastus, heretic mentioned by pseudo-Tertullian, i. 13\n\n Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, A., his _L\u2019Astrologie Grecque_ quoted, i. 67 _n._ 1, 74\n _n._ 5; 108 _n._ 2, 148 _n._ 4\n\n Bousset, Prof. Wilhelm, his _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_ quoted, i. 123\n _n._ 2; ii. 80 _n._ 2, 163 _n._ 7\n\n Brachmans, their lives and teaching, i. 60-61; ii. 99 _n._ 1\n\n Brandt, Prof. A. S. H. W. _See_ Elchesaites\n\n Brimo, name of Demeter in Mysteries, i. 138\n\n Bruce, the, Papyrus, i. 3 _n._ 1;\n quoted, ii. 12 _n._ 2\n\n Buddhism, known to Clement of Alexandria, ii. 59 _n._ 1\n\n Budge, Sir Ernest A. W. T., his _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts_ quoted, i.\n 30; ii. 178 _n._ 1\n\n Bunsen, Baron von, his _Hippolytus and his Age_, i. 5\n\n\n Cabala, the Jewish process of _gematria_, i. 131 _n._ 1;\n explanation of, ii. 40 _n._ 3;\n measurements in, ii. 133 _n._ 4\n\n Caius the presbyter, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 6\n\n Callistus, Pope (218-223 A.D.), i. 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 29;\n leans towards heresy of Noetus, ii. 118;\n his life and tenets, ii. 124-132;\n fails with Sabellius, ii. 124;\n calls Hippolytus\u2019 party ditheists, ii. 125, 129;\n formerly slave to Carpophorus, ii. 125;\n his misdeeds and flight, ii. 126;\n condemned to mill by Carpophorus, _ib._;\n makes riot in synagogue and sent to mines by Fuscianus, ii. 127;\n released by Victor and Marcia, ii. 128, 129;\n promoted to charge of cemetery by Zephyrinus, ii. 128;\n excommunicates Sabellius, ii. 129;\n his leanings towards Sabellius and Theodotus, ii. 130;\n favours laxity of morals in Church, ii. 130-132;\n and second baptism, ii. 132\n\n Carpocrates, i. 17;\n his tenets, ii. 90-92;\n assigns sinless soul to Jesus, ii. 91;\n says all men may be Christs, _ib._;\n lawlessness of followers of, ii. 91-92.\n _See_ Magic\n\n Carpophorus. _See_ Callistus\n\n Caulacau, used with Saulasau and Zeesar by Naassenes, i. 131;\n Adamas identified with, _ib._;\n name in which Saviour descended, _ib._ _n._ 6\n\n Cerdo, i. 16;\n teacher of Marcion, ii. 95, 96\n\n Cerinthus, i. 17;\n his tenets, ii. 92, 93;\n adoptionist views of, ii. 93;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 166\n\n Chald\u00e6ans, horoscopy of, described, i. 67-76\n\n Charles, R. H., his _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of O. T._ quoted, i.\n 154\n\n Cicero, quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1, 107 _n._ 2\n\n Clement of Alexandria, i. 11;\n quoted, i. 144 _n._ 2, 146 _n._ 1; ii. 12 _n._ 5, 20 _n._ 1, 78 _n._\n 8, 105 _n._ 4, 122 _n._ 3\n\n Cleomenes, preacher of Noetian heresy, ii. 118, 123\n\n Colarbasus, his arithmetical heresy, i. 83;\n name of, ii. 57 _n._ 4\n\n Constellation figures, interpretation of, i. 107-114\n\n Corybas, god of Phrygians, i. 133;\n his legend, _ib._ _n._ 5\n\n Cruice, Abb\u00e9 Patrice M., _Philosophumena_, etc., i. 4 _n._ 5;\n _\u00c9tudes sur les P._, i. 12 _n._ 2\n\n Cumont, Franz, his _Textes et Monuments de Mithra_ quoted, i. 98 _n._ 5;\n _Les Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, _ib._;\n _Recherches sur le Manich\u00e9isme_, i. 110 _n._ 2;\n _Cosmogonie Manich\u00e9enne_, i. 176 _n._ 5\n\n Cybele, or Great Mother, worship of, i. 3;\n legend of, i. 118 _n._ 1.\n _See_ Attis, Naassenes, Ophites, Rhea\n\n Cyphi, Egyptian incense used in magic, i. 92\n\n\n Demiurge, or architect of Universe;\n fiery god of Naassenes, i. 128;\n made from fear of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 30\n\n Democritus, his teaching, i. 48, 49\n\n Devil, ruler of this world made from grief of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus,\n ii. 31\n\n Didymus of Alexandria, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 5\n\n Diels, Hermann, edits Book I. of _Philosophumena_, i. 31 _n._ 1\n\n Diodorus of Eretria, mentioned by no other author, i. 38 _n._ 6\n\n Diogenes Laertius, source of Hippolytus\u2019 summary of philosophies,\n i. 64 _n._ 2;\n quoted, i. 35 _n._ 7, 36 _nn._ 2, 3; 37 _n._ 6; 40 _nn._ 2, 3; 41\n _nn._ 2, 3; 42 _n._ 1; 44 _nn._ 1, 3; 48 _nn._ 3, 4; 54 _n._ 1; 56\n _nn._ 1, 2; 58 _n._ 1; 59 _nn._ 1, 3;\n mentions Gymnosophists and Druids, 60 _n._ 1\n\n Docetae, i. 15, 17;\n their tenets, ii. 99-105;\n interpretation of story of fig-tree, ii. 99, 100.\n And of Parable of Sower, ii. 101;\n views on Annunciation and Passion of Jesus, ii. 104;\n probably Valentinian, ii. 105 _n._ 4;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 162, 163\n\n D\u00f6llinger, Dr. Ignaz, i. 6, 7;\n his Hippolytus and Callistus quoted, ii. 124 _n._ 1; 125 _n._ 3; 126\n _nn._ 4, 6; 127 _nn._ 1, 2, 4; 128 _nn._ 4, 5; 129 _n._ 4; 130\n _nn._ 1, 7; 131 _n._ 6\n\n Dositheus, a Samaritan heretic, i. 13, 14\n\n Druids, Pythagoreans, i. 61, 62.\n _See_ Diogenes Laertius\n\n Duchesne, Mgr. Louis, his _Histoire Ancienne de l\u2019\u00c9glise_ quoted, i.\n 6, 7; ii. 124 _n._ 1; 125 _n._ 7\n\n Duncker, Ludwig, _Philosophumena_, etc., i. 4\n\n\n Ebionites, their tenets, ii. 93;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 167.\n _See_ Mughtasila\n\n Ecphantus, his teaching, i. 50\n\n Edem (Eden), garden of, compared to brain, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 143;\n river of, compared to serpent, _ap._ Perat\u00e6, i. 155;\n to four senses of man, _ap._ Simon Magus, ii. 10;\n name of Israel wife of Elohim, _ap._ Justinus, i. 175\n\n Egypt = the body, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 130;\n and Perat\u00e6, i. 155\n\n Egyptians, used for Alexandrians, i. 40 _n._ 1;\n astrology of, 48 n. 4;\n \u201cWisdom\u201d of, i. 104-107;\n _Gospel accdg. to_, quoted, i. 123\n\n Elchesaites, i. 14, 17;\n Brandt\u2019s _Elchesai_, ii. 132 _n._ 3;\n Alcibiades introduces heresy of, into Rome, ii. 133;\n the _Book of Elchesai_ quoted, _ib._;\n their belief in transmigration, ii. 134;\n repeated baptisms and spells used by, ii. 135, 136;\n prophecies of, ii. 137;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 169, 170.\n _See_ Mughtasila\n\n Eleusis (Mysteries of), words used in, i. 129;\n rites of, described, i. 138, 139\n\n Empedocles, i. 9, 16;\n his teaching, i. 40, 41\n\n Encratites, their tenets, ii. 114, 115;\n their connection with Tatian, ii. 114 _n._ 5;\n extreme asceticism of, ii. 115\n\n Epicurus, his teaching, i. 58, 59\n\n Epiphanes (supposed follower of Valentinus), his tenets, ii. 38\n\n Epiphanius, quoted, i. 5, 11, 122 _n._ 3; ii. 39 _n._ 7, 48 _n._ 2,\n 49 _n._ 1, 76 _n._ 1, 80 _nn._ 2, 3; 90 _n._ 4, 92 _nn._ 3, 4; 93\n _n._ 7, 95 _n._ 4, 113 _n._ 6, 118 _n._ 1, 132 _n._ 3\n\n Essenes, Book of Job attributed to, i. 109 _n._ 2;\n Ebionites and, 110 _n._ 3.\n _See_ Jews, Mughtasila, Zealots\n\n Euphrates (the Peratic), his story of war in heaven, i. 69;\n meaning of name of, i. 146 _n._ 1;\n founder of Ophite heresy, _ib._;\n and with Akembes of Perat\u00e6, i. 149\n\n Eusebius, quoted, i. 7, 14 _n._ 1; ii. 96 _n._ 2, 111 _n._ 2, 112\n _n._ 6, 132 _n._ 3\n\n\n Fabricius, edits Book I of _Philosophumena_, i. 1\n\n Faye, Eug\u00e8ne de, his _Introduction_, etc., and _Gnostiques et\n Gnosticisme_ quoted, i. 8 _n._ 3\n\n Fessler, Prof., attributes _Philosophumena_ to Caius, i. 6\n\n Firmicus, J. Maternus, his _Matheseos_ quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1\n\n Flora. _See_ Ptolemy, follower of V.\n\n Fl\u00fcgel, Prof., his _Mani_ quoted, ii. 132 _n._ 3\n\n Fuscianus, prefect of city (188-193 A.D.), sentences Callistus to\n mines, ii. 127\n\n\n Ganschinietz, Richard, his _Hippolytus\u2019 Kapitel gegen die Magier_\n quoted, i. 92 _n._ 2\n\n Geryon, the triple-bodied, pervades everything, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 131\n\n Gnostics, Mysteries of, i. 32, 33;\n derive tenets from Greeks and barbarians, i. 119.\n _See_ Naassenes, Philo\n\n Graillot, L., his _Le Culte de Cyb\u00e8le_ quoted, i. 135 _n._ 1\n\n Greeks, Ph\u0153nician origin of, attributed to Herodotus, i. 111;\n tenets of Physicists among, taken from Sextus Empiricus, ii. 150-153\n\n Gronovius, annotates Book I of _Philosophumena_, i. 1\n\n\n Hatch, Edwin, Dr., his _Hibbert Lectures_ quoted, i. 38 _n._ 1, 123\n _n._ 4, 136 _n._ 9; ii. 45 _n._ 6, 52 _n._ 8, 62 _n._ 7.\n\n Hebrew words used by magicians, i. 92, 93.\n\n Hecate, hymn to, i. 100, 101;\n identified with Baubo, Gorgo, Mormo and Mene, i. 101;\n also with Artemis, Persephone and Eriskigal, _ib._ _n._ 1\n\n Hemerobaptists, i. 18; ii. 132 _n._ 3.\n _See_ Mughtasila\n\n Heracleon, follower of Valentinus, his tenets not described by\n Hippolytus, ii. 38 _n._ 2\n\n Heraclides of Pontus, i. 19; ii. 152\n\n Heraclitus of Ephesus, i. 10, 16, 17;\n his teaching, i. 41; ii. 119.\n _See_ Noetus\n\n Hermes, street statues of, i. 127\n\n Hermogenes, i. 16;\n his tenets, ii. 111-112;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 169\n\n Hesiod (the poet), his _Theogony_ quoted, i. 62, 63\n\n Hippasus, i. 19; ii. 151\n\n Hippo, his teaching, i. 50, 51\n\n Hippocrates, quoted, i. 126\n\n Hippolytus, schismatic Pope (218-235 A.D.), i. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,\n 16;\n denies Pauline authorship of _Hebrews_, i. 23 _n._ 1;\n calls himself guardian of the Church, i. 34;\n heterodoxy of, ii. 125 _n._ 3, 129 _n._ 4;\n _Chronicon_ of, ii. 171;\n his own doctrine stated, ii. 172 to end;\n his _Substance of the All_, ii. 173\n\n Homoousios, first used by Hippolytus, ii. 69 _n._ 1\n\n Hyacinthus. _See_ Marcia\n\n\n Iren\u00e6us, St., Hippolytus\u2019 indebtedness to, i. 11, 12, 13;\n his _Five Books Against Heresies_ quoted, i. 122 _n._ 3, 139 _n._ 5,\n 160 _n._ 1; ii. 15 _n._ 2, 17 _n._ 4, 25 _n._ 6, 27 _n._ 2, 38\n _n._ 2, 39 _nn._ 3, 4; 40 _n._ 2, 44 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 5, 48 _n._\n 1, 49 _nn._ 2, 3, 6; 50 _n._ 2, 51 _nn._ 2, 8; 53 _n._ 3, 54 _n._\n 1, 56 _n._ 2, 57 _nn._ 4, 5; 59 _n._ 1, 76 _n._ 1, 79 _n._ 2, 80\n _n._ 2, 90 _n._ 4, 91 _n._ 5, 92 _nn._ 3, 4; 93 _nn._ 4, 5; 111\n _nn._ 2, 3.\n _See_ Jesus\n\n Isidore. _See_ Basilides\n\n Isis identified with the Earth, i. 105 _n._ 4;\n Mysteries of, i. 126\n\n\n Jacobi, Prof., first to declare Hippolytus author of _Philosophumena_,\n i. 5\n\n Jaldabaoth, a fiery god, i. 128, 132 _n._ 3; ii. 102 _n._ 9;\n a \u201cfourth number,\u201d _ib._\n _See_ Adam, Sophia\n\n James, the brother of the Lord, alleged transmitter of Naassene\n doctrines, i. 121; ii. 153\n\n Jerusalem, the heavenly, mother of all living, i. 130;\n the city in Ph\u0153nicia, i. 138\n\n Jesus, His triple nature, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 121;\n the Perfect Man, i. 134;\n reason of His Incarnation, i. 145;\n His triple powers, _ap._ Perat\u00e6, i. 147;\n Intermediate between the Father and matter, i. 158;\n Son of Joseph and Mary, _ap._ Justinus and Carpocrates, i. 178; ii.\n 96;\n the great High Priest, ii. 29;\n mystic name of, _ap._ Iren\u00e6us, ii. 47;\n self-generated, _ap._ Marcus, ii. 52;\n His Illumination Mission and Passion, _ap._ Basilides, ii. 78, 79;\n the One God of Zephyrinus, ii. 123;\n so of Callistus, ii. 129.\n _See_ Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Docetae, Justinus\n\n Je\u00fb of Bruce Papyrus, called the Great Man, i. 122 _n._ 4\n\n Jews, history of, from Josephus and others, ii. 138-148;\n divided into Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, ii. 139;\n tenets of Essenes, ii. 139-145;\n the like of Pharisees, ii. 145;\n the like of Sadducees, ii. 145-147;\n all expect Messiah, ii. 147;\n chronology of history of, ii. 170-172\n\n Josephus, i. 10 _n._ 3; i. 17.\n _See_ Jews\n\n Jothor, father-in-law of Moses, i. 131\n\n Justin Martyr, says Simon Magus claimed divinity, i. 14\n\n Justinus, the Gnostic, i. 3;\n perhaps not Ophite, i. 28 _n._ 2;\n his tenets, i. 169-180;\n probably one of the later Gnostics, i. 169 _n._ 4;\n his oath of secrecy, i. 171, 179;\n his _Baruch_ quoted, i. 171;\n allegorizes Herodotus\u2019 Scythian story, i. 172;\n his Triad of the Good One, Elohim and Edem, i. 172, 173;\n the twenty-four angels of, and their names, i. 173;\n likeness of these to Bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s Ophites, _ib._ _nn._ 3, 4;\n angels of, called Trees, i. 174;\n creation of protoplasts, i. 174;\n ascent of Elohim, i. 175, 176;\n sin of Eve and Naas, i. 176;\n origin of evil, i. 177;\n Heracles a Saviour, _ib._;\n Jesus called by Baruch when twelve years old, i. 178;\n explanation of Pagan myths, i. 179;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 161, 162;\n put by summarizer after Basilides, i. 161 _n._ 2\n\n\n Kessler, Konrad, his _Mani_ quoted, i. 82 _n._ 2\n\n King, C. W., his _Gnostics and their Remains_ quoted, ii. 17 _n._ 2\n\n\n Lane, E. W., his _Modern Egyptians_ quoted, i. 97 _n._ 2\n\n Langdon, Dr. Stephen, his _Tammuz and Ishtar_ quoted, i. 105 _n._ 3\n\n Latinisms in text of _Philosophumena_, i. 23\n\n Leemans, Prof. C., his _Papyri Gr\u00e6ci_ quoted, ii. 44 _n._ 4\n\n Legge, F., his _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_ quoted, i. 2\n _n._ 2, 9 _n._ 1, 27 _n._ 1, 39 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 1, 94 _n._ 1, 105\n _nn._ 3, 4; 109 _n._ 2, 114 _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 1, 2, 3;\n 128 _n._ 2, 130 _n._ 1, 135 _n._ 4, 137 _n._ 2, 139 _n._ 5, 155\n _nn._ 2, 3; 156 n. 4, 160 _n._ 1, 162 _n._ 2, 165 _n._ 2, 169\n _n._ 5, 173 _n._ 4, 174 _n._ 2, 175 _n._ 2; ii. 7 _nn._ 1, 3; 25\n _n._ 3, 34 _n._ 5, 72 _n._ 3, 82 _n._ 3, 88 _n._ 3, 89 _n._ 2, 95\n _n._ 4, 97 _n._ 1, 103 _n._ 6, 163 _n._ 7\n\n Leucippus, his teaching, i. 48\n\n Lipsius, R. A., opposes Hippolytus\u2019 authorship, i. 6;\n his articles in _D.C.B._ quoted, ii. 38 _nn._ 1, 2\n\n Lucian of Samosata, his _Alexander_ quoted, i. 92 _n._ 2, 99 n. 4;\n follower of Cerdo, ii. 96\n\n\n Macmahon, J. H., translates _Philosophumena_, i. 5\n\n Magic, its connection with astrology, i. 91 _n._ 4;\n practised by Simon\u2019s disciples, ii. 16;\n and Carpocratians, ii. 91\n\n Magicians, tricks of, described, i. 92-103\n\n Man, Perfect, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 123, 134, 138;\n in _Pistis Sophia_, i. 123 _n._ 3;\n _ap._ Sethiani, i. 165;\n First, _ap._ Manich\u00e6ans, i. 27, 123 _n._ 2;\n expression used in Summary, ii. 163.\n _See_ Adam, Adamas, Monoimus, Pindar\n\n Manich\u00e6ism, the Atlas or Omophorus of, i. 110 _n._ 2;\n First Man of, captured by powers of darkness, i. 123 _n._ 2; ii. 7\n _n._ 3;\n hostility of, to Jews, i. 165 _n._ 3;\n Justinus\u2019s anticipation of, i. 169 _n._ 4, 176 _n._ 5;\n Valentinus\u2019s, ii. 17 _n._ 5;\n evocation of First Man in, ii. 34 _n._ 5;\n our earth worst of all worlds, ii. 35 _n._ 3;\n column of praises in, ii. 50 _n._ 5;\n secrecy of, ii. 59 _n._ 1.\n _See_ Cumont, Fl\u00fcgel, Kessler\n\n Marcia, concubine of Commodus, ii. 127;\n takes counsel with Pope Victor, _ib._;\n her foster brother Hyacinthus, _ib._\n\n Marcion, i. 10, 16, 17;\n his tenets, ii. 82-90;\n compared with those of Empedocles, ii. 82-88;\n Prepon\u2019s address to Bardesanes, ii. 89;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 165\n\n Marcus, follower of Valentinus, i. 12;\n his tenets, ii. 40-57;\n his frauds and juggling tricks, ii. 41-43;\n vision of the Tetrad, ii. 45-48;\n his cabalistic system of numbers, ii. 48-56\n\n Mariam, aunt of Moses, i. 131\n\n Mariamne, said to have received Naassene tradition from St. James,\n i. 121; ii. 153;\n known to Origen and Celsus, i. 121 _n._ 5\n\n Mark, St., story of self-mutilation to avoid orders, ii. 87\n\n Maspero, Sir Gaston Charles, his _Hist. anc^{me} de l\u2019Orient_ quoted,\n i. 47 _n._ 1\n\n Matter, Jacques, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_ quoted, ii. 59 _n._ 1\n\n Maximilla. _See_ Phrygians\n\n Melchizidek. _See_ Theodotus the Banker\n\n Menander, successor of Simon Magus, i. 17; ii. 59 _n._ 1\n\n Metoposcopy, divination by physiognomy, i. 87-92\n\n Michael, scribe of MS., i. 4\n\n Miller, B\u00e9nigne Emanuel, first editor of _Philosophumena_, i. 4, 5;\n his _M\u00e9langes de Litt. Grecque_ quoted, i. 100, _n._ 5\n\n Monarchia, doctrine of one supreme source of all things, ii. 123\n\n Monoimus Arabs, i. 17;\n his tenets, ii. 106-111;\n not Christian, ii. 106 _n._ 1;\n his heavenly man, ii. 107, 163;\n cabalistic theory of numbers, ii. 109;\n letter to Theophrastus quoted, ii. 110;\n summary of doctrines of, 163, 164\n\n Montanus. _See_ Phrygians.\n\n Mughtasila, washers or Hemerobaptists, Elchesaites derived from, ii.\n 132 _n._ 3;\n make converts among Essenes and Ebionites, _ib._\n\n Mynas, Myno\u00efdes, discoverer of MS. of _Philosophumena_, i. 2, 3, 5\n\n Mysteries of the heretics, i. 23, 33, 125, 180;\n promise to describe, i. 63;\n probably described in missing Books, i. 65;\n source of Naassene heresy, i. 121;\n M. of Assyrians, i. 123;\n of Phrygians, i. 126, 133, 135-138, 140;\n ineffable M. of Isis, i. 126;\n M. of Greeks, i. 127;\n _Hye Cye_ in Eleusinian, i. 129;\n M. of Samothrace, i. 132;\n great secret of Eleusinian, i. 138;\n Lesser and Great, i. 139;\n M. of the Great Mother, i. 141, 142;\n Phliasian, older than Eleusinian, i. 166;\n M. of Justinus, i. 171\n\n\n Naas, the serpent, i. 120, 142;\n one of Justinus\u2019 maternal angels, i. 173\n\n Naassenes, i. 3;\n their tenets, i. 118-146;\n call themselves Gnostics, i. 120, 142;\n their supreme deity Adamas, i. 120;\n all his powers in Jesus, i. 121;\n the names of the Three Churches, _ib._;\n the first man, i. 122;\n their connection with the Mysteries, i. 123;\n with the _Gospel of the Egyptians_, _ib._;\n the myth of Attis, i. 124;\n their interpretation of the mysteries of Isis, i. 126, 127;\n the demiurge Jaldabaoth, i. 128;\n their interpretation of Homer, i. 130;\n of the Cabiric mysteries, i. 132;\n the myths of Corybas and Pappas, i. 133-135;\n other names of Attis, i. 135-140;\n N. mentioned by Iren\u00e6us, i. 139 _n._ 5;\n why so called, i. 142;\n hymns of, i. 142, 144, 145;\n interpretation of anatomy of brain, i. 143, 144;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 153.\n _See_ Adamas, Eleusis, Geryon, Serpent\n\n Neologisms used by Hippolytus, i. 24\n\n Noetus, i. 3, 13, 15, 17;\n his tenets, ii. 118-123;\n his heresy, derived\n from Heraclitus, ii. 118-123;\n his followers, ii. 118;\n identifies Father and Son, ii. 123;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 168, 169.\n _See_ Cleomenes, Phrygians\n\n Novatian, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 6;\n Hippolytus said to follow, i. 7 _n._ 4.\n\n\n Oannes, the fist man, _ap._ Assyrians, i. 122\n\n Ocellus Lucanus, i. 19; ii. 152\n\n Ophites, i. 16, 17;\n heresy derived from worship of Cybele or Great Mother, i. 118 _n._ 1;\n curse Christ, _ap._ Origen, i. 121 _n._ 1;\n comparative, insignificance of, i. 20 _n._ 1; ii. 116.\n _See_ Attis, Euphrates, Naassenes\n\n Origen, _Philosophumena_ attributed\n to, i. 5, 6;\n _Contra Celsum_ quoted, i, 20 _n._ 1, 121 _nn._ 1, 5; 130 _n._ 1; 146\n _n._ 1\n\n Orpheus, a theologist, i. 103 _n._ 4;\n discloser of mysteries, i. 166;\n his _Bacchica_ quoted, but otherwise unknown, _ib._;\n Sethian heresy derived from, _ib._\n\n Osiris, his mutilation, i. 126;\n signifies water, i. 105 _n._ 4;\n his statue in the temple of Isis, i. 127\n\n\n Papas, god of Phrygians, i. 135;\n name of Attis, _ib._ _n._ 1;\n means Father, _ib._\n\n Parmenides, his teaching, i. 47, 48\n\n Parthey, Gustav, his _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_ quoted, i. 93\n _n._ 5\n\n Patripassianism, heresy of, ii. 118 _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 1\n\n Paul, St., _Acts of, and Thekla_, quoted, i. 30 _n._ 1\n\n Perat\u00e6, i. 3;\n mentioned by Clem, Alex., i. 146 _n._ 1;\n their teaching, i. 146-159;\n their triple division of the cosmos, i. 146; ii. 154;\n their Christology, i. 147;\n their astrological theories, i. 148, 149;\n their book _Proastii_ quoted, i. 50-153;\n why called Perat\u00e6, i. 154;\n their saviour Serpent, i. 155;\n Serpent is type of Christ, Joseph and Nimrod, i. 155, 156;\n the constellation Draco, i. 157;\n anatomy of brain typifies Father and Son, i. 159;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 154, 155.\n _See_ Edem, Euphrates\n\n Persephone, as lover of Adonis, i. 124.\n _See_ Hecate\n\n Persians say God is Light, i. 104\n\n Pharisees. _See_ Jews\n\n Philo, his Logos and Gnostic ideas, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 8 _n._ 2, 173\n _n._ 4\n\n Philumena. _See_ Apelles\n\n Photius, his _Bibliotheca_ quoted, i. 12, 13 _n._ 1.\n\n Phr\u00ean. _See_ R\u00e2\n\n Phrygians (Montanists), their tenets, ii. 113, 114;\n followers of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, ii. 113;\n lean towards Noetian and Patripassian heresies, ii. 114;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 167, 168.\n _See_ Mysteries, Naassenes\n\n Pindar, ode on first man assigned to, i. 122\n\n _Pistis Sophia_, The, quoted, i. 3 n. 1, 9 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 1, 3, 124\n _n._ 11, 150 _nn._ 1, 3, 152 _n._ 2, 155 _n._ 1, 162 _n._ 2, 173\n _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 5; ii. 5 _n._ 4, 16 _n._ 4, 43 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 4,\n 48 _n._ 3, 52 _n._ 9, 53 _n._ 2, 71 _n._ 6, 79 _n._ 3, 93 _n._ 7,\n 97 _n._ 1, 102 _n._ 2\n\n Plato, i. 16;\n his teaching, i, 51-55;\n passages from Aristotle ascribed by Hippolytus to, i. 53, 54;\n his _Clitopho_ quoted as _Republic_, i. 55 _n._ 7;\n analogy between his teaching and Simon M.\u2019s, ii. 5;\n and Valentinus\u2019, ii. 18, 19, 25;\n quoted, ii. 23, 36, 37.\n _See_ Alcinous\n\n Plutarch, his _de Iside et Osiride_ quoted, i. 129 _n._ 3;\n _de Exilio_, ii, 23 _n._ 1\n\n Point, indivisible, from which all things spring, i. 115, 141; ii. 9\n\n Pontianus, Pope (230-235 A.D.), i. 7\n\n Praxeas, a heretic refuted by Tertullian and mentioned by pseudo-Tert.,\n but not by Iren\u00e6us or Hippolytus, i. 13\n\n Prepon the Assyrian. _See_ Marcion\n\n Priscilla. _See_ Phrygians\n\n Proastii. _See_ Perat\u00e6\n\n Proteus, identified with Attis, i. 137\n\n Prudentius quoted, i. 7\n\n Ptolemy, Claudius, the astronomer, mentioned, i. 82;\n his _Tetrabiblos_ quoted, i. 88 _n._ 2\n\n ---- follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. 39, 40;\n his letter to his \u201cfair sister Flora,\u201d ii. 39 _n._ 7\n\n Pyrrho, wrongly called an Academic by Hippolytus, i. 32;\n his teaching, i. 59\n\n Pythagoras, i. 15, 16, 17;\n his life and followers, i. 36-39;\n his theory of numbers, i. 37, 115 _n._ 6, 116; ii. 20;\n Accidents attributed to, ii. 21;\n his theory of metempsychosis, ii. 23;\n gnomic sayings of, ii. 23, 24;\n solar theory of, ii. 24\n\n\n Quartodecimans, i. 17;\n their tenets, ii. 112, 113;\n Iren\u00e6us their advocate, ii. 112 _n._ 6\n\n\n R\u00e2, Egyptian Sun-God, invoked by magicians, i. 92 _n._ 7\n\n Rhea, an androgyne deity, i. 125;\n identified with G\u00ea and Cybele, _ib._ _n._ 1\n\n Rogers, Dr. R. W., _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ quoted, i. 151\n _n._ 2\n\n\n Sabellius. _See_ Callistus\n\n Sadducees. _See_ Jews\n\n Salmon, Dr. George, his _Cross-references in Philosophumena_ quoted,\n i. 8; ii. 38 _n._ 1.;\n his articles in _D.C.B._ i. 6 _n._ 1, 7 _n._ 4, 22 _n._ 1, 69 _n._\n 6; ii. 38 _n._ 2, 40 _n._ 3, 80 _n._ 1, 98 _n._ 1, 100 _n._ 1, 105\n _n._ 4, 108 _n._ 3, 109 _n._ 6, 113 _n._ 2, 118 _n._ 1, 149 _n._ 2,\n 173 _n._ 3\n\n Saturnilus, i. 16;\n his tenets, ii. 80, 81;\n his Unknown Father, ii. 81;\n angels make man in His image, _ib._;\n Christ sent to depose God of Jews, _ib._\n _See_ Simon of Cyrene\n\n Saulasau. _See_ Caulacau.\n\n Schneidewin, F. G., with Duncker edits part of _Philosophumena_, i. 4\n\n Sch\u00fcrer, Prof., his _History of Jewish People_ quoted, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 8\n _n._ 2\n\n Secundus, follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. 38\n\n Sephora, wife of Moses, i. 131\n\n Serpent, inspirer of Naassene doctrine, i. 120, 142;\n identified with substance of water, i. 142;\n the constellation Draco, i. 146 _n._ 1;\n the brazen, _ap._ Perat\u00e6, i. 155, 156;\n the Son and the Word, i. 157;\n wind of darkness _ap._ Sethiani, i. 164, 165;\n of Justinus wholly evil, i. 169 _n._ 5\n\n _Seth, Paraphrase of._ _See_ Sethiani.\n\n Sethiani, their tenets, i. 160-169;\n authors who mention, i. 160 _n._ 1;\n the Sitheus of Bruce Papyrus, _ib._;\n their triad of Light, Darkness and Spirit, i. 161;\n Light and Spirit caught by Darkness, i. 162;\n impregnation of Darkness, i. 163;\n analogy with other triads, i. 165, 166;\n system of, derived from Orphic, i. 166;\n Phliasian Mysteries of Great Mother, _ib._;\n simile of oil-well at Ampe, i. 168, 169;\n their _Paraphrase of Seth_, i. 169;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 155-157.\n _See_ Andronicus, Man\n\n Sextus Empiricus, Hippolytus\u2019 borrowings from, i. 10, 69 _n._ 1; ii.\n 150.\n _See_ Greek\n\n Simon of Cyrene, story of his substitution for Jesus on the Cross\n probably Saturnilian, not Basilidian, ii. 59 _n._ 1, 79 _n._ 2\n\n Simon Magus, i. 3, 13, 14;\n his system derived from art of arithmetic, i. 115, 116;\n his six roots, i. 116; ii. 7;\n his _Great Announcement_ quoted, i. 115, 140, 141; ii. 4-14;\n his life and tenets, ii. 2-17;\n his supreme God, fire, ii. 4;\n his account of the creation of Man, ii. 9;\n his Epinoia Helen of Tyre, ii. 15;\n his death, ii. 17;\n source of Valentinian heresy, ii. 17, 40 _n._ 3;\n summary of doctrines of, 157, 158.\n _See_ Edem, Justin, Magic, Menander\n\n Socrates, i. 16;\n his teaching, i. 51\n\n Sophia, name given to Helen of Tyre by Simon M., i. 13 _n._ 3;\n Sethians make her cause of Flood, _ib._;\n identified with Earth, i. 105 _n._ 3; ii. 27 _n._ 4;\n mother of Jaldabaoth, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 118 _n._ 1, 132 _n._ 3;\n in Naassene hymn, i. 145 _n._ 3;\n her name of Achamoth, i. 173 _n._ 4;\n fall of, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 27;\n decides fate of men, ii. 17 _n._ 5;\n her adventures, ii. 28-36;\n the heaven of, ii. 31 _n._ 1;\n identified with Holy Spirit, ii. 33\n\n Sotion of Alexandria, Hippolytus\u2019 borrowings from, i. 49 _n._ 3; 64\n _n._ 2\n\n St\u00e4helin, Heinrich, his _Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts_ quoted,\n i. 8 _n._ 2\n\n Stoics, their teaching, i. 57, 58;\n Hippolytus\u2019 reluctance to mention, i. 157 _n._ 2\n\n Syrictas, the pipe-player, name of Attis, i. 142\n\n\n Tatian the Gnostic, i. 17;\n his tenets, ii. 111;\n holds Adam not saved, _ib._;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 164.\n _See_ Encratites\n\n Tertullian, _Philosophumena_ assigned to, i. 6;\n quoted, ii. 82 _n._ 3, 96 _nn._ 2, 3, 111 _n._ 3.\n _See_ Praxeas\n\n Tertullian, Pseudo-, _Adversus Omnes H\u00e6reses_, i. 11-13;\n quoted, i. 160 _n._ 1; ii. 95 _n._ 4, 97 _n._ 2.\n _See_ Praxeas\n\n Thales, i. 9, his teaching, i. 35, 36;\n quoted, i. 142\n\n Theodore bar Kh\u00f4ni, his _Book of Scholia_ quoted, i. 169 _n._ 4, 173\n _n._ 3\n\n Theodoret calls Hippolytus Bishop and Martyr, i. 7, 11, 12;\n his account of Perat\u00e6, i. 146 _n._ 1;\n quotes summary and not text of _Philosophumena_, ii. 154 _n._ 1\n\n Theodotus the Banker, his tenets, ii. 94, 95;\n holds Melchizidek greater than Christ, ii. 94;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 167\n\n Theodotus of Byzantium, his tenets, ii. 93, 94;\n adoptionist views of, ii. 94;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 167\n\n Theophrastus. _See_ Monoimus\n\n Thomas, Gospel according to, quoted, i. 126\n\n\n Urbanus, Pope (223-230 A.D.), i. 7\n\n\n Valentinus, his system derived from arithmetical art, i. 15;\n from Pythagoras and Plato, ii. 17-19;\n Zoroastrian and Egyptian features of, ii. 17 _n._ 1;\n division of followers as to Supreme Being, ii. 25;\n his system of Aeons, ii. 26, 27;\n Sophia and her Ectroma, ii. 28;\n projection of Horos, ii. 29;\n Jesus the Common Friend of the Pleroma, _ib._;\n salvation of Ectroma and result of her passions, ii. 30;\n fourfold division of world, ii. 31, and of man, ii. 32;\n analogies of myths of, with Manich\u00e6ism, ii. 34 _n._ 5, 35 _n._ 3;\n Anatolic and Italiote schools of, ii. 34;\n purpose of Incarnation, _ap._ ii. 35;\n summary of doctrines of, ii. 158, 159.\n _See_ Beelzebuth, Demiurge, Devil, Pleroma and Sophia\n\n Victor, Pope (189-202 A.D.). _See_ Callistus\n\n\n Wessely, his _Griechische Zauberpapyri_ quoted, i. 93 _n._ 5\n\n Wilson, James, his _Complete Dictionary of Astrology_ quoted, i. 67\n _n._ 1\n\n Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, his _Hippolytus and the Church of\n Rome_ quoted, i. 4 _n._ 2; i. 6; i. 12 _n._ 1; ii. 119 _n._ 2,\n 129 _n._ 5\n\n\n Xenophanes, his teaching, i. 49, 50\n\n\n Zaratas (Zoroaster) quoted, i. 9, 104 _n._ 3; ii. 20;\n Amshaspands\n of, and Simon Magus\u2019 roots, ii. 2 _n._ 2;\n the like and Aeons of Valentinus, ii. 17 _n._ 5\n\n Zealots, said by Hippolytus to be a sect of Essenes, ii. 143, 144 _n._\n 1\n\n Zeesar. _See_ Caulacau\n\n Zephyrinus, Pope (202-218 A.D.), i. 3;\n said by Hippolytus to be ignorant and unskilled, ii. 118, 124;\n leans towards heresy, ii. 118\n\n\n THE END\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\nThe notes in the left and right margins, indicating page numbers in the\noriginal Greek, have been converted to e.g. [Sidenote: p. 216] in this\nversion. Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were\ncorrected. The following corrections have been made to the text:\n\n Page Original New\n -------------------------------------------\n 7 takeing taking\n 13 \u1f00 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n 26 \u03cc \u1f41\n 27 \u03a3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n 27 \u03ba\u1f70\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n 33 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\n 43 \u03b1\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76\n 44 Papypi Papyri\n 55 \u1fb6\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\n 57 \u05e3\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e7\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\n 62 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n 80 des der\n 80 firstfruits first-fruits\n 87 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n 91 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n 98 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2\n 99 \u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n 114 \u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n 114 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u0342\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n 119 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n 119 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n 139 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7\n 145 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n 150 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n 164 octohedrons octahedrons\n 178 phase phrase\n 181 Manich\u00e9isine Manich\u00e9isme\n 183 Theogomy Theogony","title":"Philosophumena; or, The refutation of all heresies, Volume II","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":83068}